Yesterday, Vinaire wrote that we should look closely at Vedic truths.

I wrote,

---

Quote:

As a non-Indian and non-Hindu (I have not been through a conversion ceremony and I'm sorry that I didn't have a Hindu wedding), I confess that I find the Vedas a mystery. I have read English translations of Rig Veda verses, which are invocations to God, meditations on his essence, and prayers for blessings

---

To understand the Vedic truths one must first understand the concept of Brahmam.

This discussion has already been started at

BRAHMA, GOD, ALLAH, and STATIC

I find the concept of BRAHMA in Vedas to be identical with the concept of STATIC in Scientology.

I do need somebody to compare the concept of BRAHMA with the concept of GOD in Christianity. Here, I believe, Sri Sivadasa, with his background in Christianity may be of invaluable help.

srimati julie... namaste..
i'm sorry i didn't get the chance to reply yesterday..
you are right that the vedas need to be 'demystified'... during the long dark years of muslim oppression, and before that, the selfish domination of the priest class in bharat, the vedas were texts that people heard about and respected, but never really heard or recited themselves...

maybe this is because of the fact that the only place they were taught were the gurukuls and maths, and then the story of satyakama jabal was forgotten... only boys of the designated castes were taught the veda and kept it a mystically guarded secret...
corrupted individuals introduced new commandments into the dharmashastras - like 'never should women and shudras study (the ved)'.. or even more harsh ones - 'let the shudra who hears the vedas recited have molten lead poured down his ears, and let the shudras that dares recite the veda have his tongue split'

considering that the bulk of the population consisted of the so-called lower varna, it isn't surprising that a whole culture of mystery and esoteric belief surrounded the once open veda... but today we have the privilege of having bhashyas and recordings of the vedas... once again, the commandment of the almighty that all should read and appreciate the vedas can be fulfilled (om yathemam vaacham...)

i think as mortals stuck between a physical (bhautik) and a spiritual (adhyatmik) world, or perhaps living in both, we need enlightenment on both levels... that is what the vedas give us, leading us from intellectual/emotional/spiritual tamas, into the jyot of true knowledge...
it is said in arya circles that the subject matter of the four vedas is jnan, karma, upaasnaa (devotion) and vijyan (science).. of course all contain elements of the others, but the subjects are in themselves hugely varied and provide upliftment on every level of human existence...

scholars say everything pertaining to our lives, material and spiritual, has been refered to in the vedas...
as regards jnan, the ved is a storehouse of knowledge secular and beyond... the origins of astronomy, mathematics, medicine, science, physics, botany, zoology are said to be found therein...
karma or action (all activities, physical and mental, performed with or without desire for reward) is also dealt with, through celibacy, education, marraige, morality, politics, administration, discipline, governance and charity...
upasana (communion with god) is stressed upon through worship and heartfelt devotion...
and vijyan (science), the knowledge of the inanimate and animate worlds, also is claimed to be contained in the holy word...

from that description, i guess you can say that some hindus (notably arya samaj) believe the vedas to be the seed of all human knowledge.. others might disagree, saying that things like science cannot be found in holy books, or that devotion is what it focuses on... opinions vary...

the vedic truths you wish to know about cannot be merely transmitted through the written word as conversation... i suggest you read a veda bhashya that has been translated using the vedic interpretation method (using the roots to determine the sum meaning of certain words) with due reference to the vedic textbooks (sort of like a glossary/dictionary), the nirukta and the nighantu... be careful of colonial translations by western scholars like williams, griffiths etc. as the words are often confounded in meaning and much of the true message is lost... the arya bhashyas do not contain sectarian bias so be free to read them... and see for yourself whether the praise hindus have for the vedas is merited...

Vinaire,
To compare Brahmam to the Christian God is a difficult thing to do. Of course, there are many different sects of christianity, and therefore many different views of the nature of God. By far the largest majority of Christian sects see God in much the same way as the various Bhakti movements begun in medieval bharat. Most Christians have a dwaitin (dualist) view of God, seeing humans and god being forever separate. In a small majority of christian sects, one can find a pantheistic or panentheistic view of God, similar to the vedantic view of Brahmam. But being based on the self-admittedly jealous and angry Jehova (more properly Yahveh) of the hebrew Old Testament, we find the nature of God changes drastically from the Old Testament to the New.

Regardless of sect, however, most Christians would call their God a God of Love, who's supreme act of sacrifice for the sake of humankind was to incarnate and allow himself to be crucified. The salvation, which is central to Christian theology, like the ancient hebrew/canaanite religion, demands a blood sacrifice, which since the time of Christ is re-enacted symbolically through the eucharist (communion). And finally, the most obvious feature of the Christian concept of God is that he passes eternal judgement on all people based on the acceptance of the "true" religion. Simply put, if you do not accept Christ as your personal Savior and God the Father as the only true God, then upon your death you will be condemned to eternal torture and damnation.

Thank you, Sivadasa,

I think that your following statement is most telling: Most Christians have a dwaitin (dualist) view of God, seeing humans and god being forever separate.

This is where the Vedic Truth differs from Bhakti (Christian style). The Vedic truth considers that a soul "starts out" with all the properties of Brahma before it gets wrapped up in maya. Thus, a soul has brahma as its essence. A soul can create as brahma does. A soul is not a created thing.

A created "soul" is essentially the soul wrapped in maya. Thus, nobody creates the "soul." The "soul" creates itself.

Whereas, in Semitic religions, the soul is considered to be "created" by God. Which if you look at very carefully is a self-contradictory statement. How come that which creates can be created? If so, then we are talking about a machine that can never be self-determined. Is the "soul" a sophisticated machine?

That statement, forever, separates the soul from God, as you very correctly pointed out. In Christianity, the soul can never unite with God.

The other thing appears to be that Christianity mixes the Theory of Karma with the concept of God.

Ashegan,

That was an interesting summary of the suppression of Vedic knowledge in “medieval” India. Looks like we are still not out of the woods though. Unlike Sri Sureshji, I think that we urgently need a Vedic renaissance.

Instructions, such as, '”never should women and shudras study (the Veda)”... Or “let the shudra who hears the Vedas recited have molten lead poured down his ears, and let the shudras that dares recite the Veda have his tongue split” speak volume about the suppression that must have existed at one time and which nearly destroyed the Vedic knowledge. How could Hinduism survive without that bedrock of Vedic knowledge? I shudder to imagine what kind of vested interests could have prompted the practice (or threat) of that utter evil. No wonder Hinduism slowly declined and ultimately got subjugated.

Do such vested interests and suppression still exist today? I believe it does, and that source should be discovered and rooted out of the lives of the Hindus.

I have made some comments about the degeneration of the practice of Bhakti in a couple of recent posts. That degeneration is quite evident in the practice of Bhakti in Christianity which, fortunately, not many Christians follow dedicatedly.

However, many Hindus, unknowingly, do seem to follow that style of Bhakti. And you do not see many of them realizing God, because they can never conceive of uniting with God. They think, like Christians do, that God creates the “soul”, and so, there would always be a separation between God and the soul.

I see such a fixed idea being defended on this very forum though quite cleverly hidden behind words such as “love,” “devotion,” etc. etc.

The Vedic truth is that the individual is “self-determined” in the absolute sense. This fact is more or less unacceptable to the degenerated Bhaktas of this age. Not all Bhaktas are that way. But the majority of them seem to be that way.

Please do not take this as an attack. Just look if you accept the idea of total “self-determinism” or not, or if you reject it as ‘ego’ and ‘ahamkar.’ There are such things as ‘ego’ and ‘ahamkar’ but I find the precise understanding of these terms missing among those who use it most freely on this forum.

What are vedic truths?

Very briefly, these are a way of life that leads to immortality and bliss. I would strongly recommend reading a 42 page introduction to Rig Veda, available online at

Introductory Essays on Rig Veda

You may also order the Rig Veda Samhita there. The essay also cautions against well known western translations and explains the reasons. Sri Aurobindo's Secrets of Veda and prof. Raimon Pannikar's Vedic Experience are also very good. I think it is important that one tries to read the Vedas first hand, after getting some idea from introductory literature. It is important that one tries to see what Vedas have to teach, rather than using Vedas to teach ideas dear to oneself. In my understanding, Sri Vinaire is doing the latter ( I hope he doesn't take it as an attack).

Can the Vedas be demystified?

Vedic seers were mystics, seeking by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain union with Truth. That is the only way to apprehend, to realize the truth that is beyond understanding. Taken in this sense, Vedas cannot be demystified without loosing much of its essence. One should, through incessant yogic efforts, try to develop an intuitive way of looking at things, which would enable one to see things as Vedic seers saw them. Only then we can reach the heights from where Vedic seers had the clear vision of what appears to be a complete mystery ordinarily.

However, if the question means whether the secrecy created around Vedas can be destroyed, whether Vedas can be explained to and understood by all, the answer is yes. Certainly, it is nobody's business to claim exclusive ownership or access to Vedas.

Vinaire:
Yes, you grasped the essence of what I was trying to say. But the wonderful thing about our sanatana dharma is that we are free to see that true devotion can never be static. As Adi Sankaracarya so eloquently pointed out, the bhakta must first approach Brahmam through dwaita, then through vidya and jnana, one then progresses eventually to advaita. Devotion, by it's very nature (at least for humans) must begin in a dualist mode. True bhakta which progresses transcends that provisional dwaitin paradigm, and reaches it's goal when adwaita is realized. At that point, the servant and the master become one, and no other relationship can begin to approach this pinnacle of bhakti.

Some comments on Sri Ashegan's post.

It is true that the interpolations and distortions in the dharmashashtras denied shudra and women the right to study and uphold Vedas. It should also be noted that even among rest of the people only very few continued to study, preach and practice Vedas. In fact, the distortions in dharmashashtras must have resulted due to this since the people who truly knew Vedas could never make provisions that contradicted Vedas themselves.

Most often we seem to think that there are only two levels of consciousness, only two level of existence; physical (bhautik) and spiritual (adhyatmik). In my understanding, there are many levels of consciousness/existence although a jnana yogi concentrates only on the two. This is because, as Sri Aurobindo points out, consideration of many levels of consciousness/existence complicates the understanding, rather than simplifying it in the jnana yogi's scheme of things. For Vedas, all life is Yoga, one doesn't have to risk loosing God for winning life or risk loosing life for winning God. One doesn't necessarily have to abandon life for that one mother of all desire called heaven. Vedas teach overcoming life, not by abandoning them but by fulfilling them in line with Rta and in harmony with devas. The levels of consciousness/existence are all fuzzy and any distinct demarcation is entirely for ease in understanding.

Please note that the link Jha cited for Raimon Pannikar's Vedic Experience doesn't work...at least not for me. You may find the online book at http://www.himalayanacademy.com/books/vedic_experience/VEIndex.html

Dear Hariharan,

Thanks for the beautiful message.

Sivadasa:

I agree completely with what you have written. But when one holds an idea of God as in Christianity, it serves to retard the progress.

I guess as the aspirant progresses he would realize the folly of such an idea, and at that point he would make a big leap forward.

After re-reading this thread, I find that we have wandered off in various directions, and avoiding the topic itself. What are Vedic Truths? The Vedas themselves are historically and culturally so far removed from us, even those born today of the soil of bharatvarsha, that a direct reading of them is almost completely useless to the average person today. Fortunately, there are a few good expositions of the Vedas, like Prof. Pannikar's.

My understanding from many Sri Vaishnavs is that they generally consider the complete essence of the Vedas to be sung by Bhagavan Krsna in Bhagavad Gita, and so do not familiarize themselves with our most ancient scriptures, which truly form the foundation of sanatana dharma, no matter the sect. And despite the severe criticisms of the Puraans on this forum, if read with an understanding of their historical context, one can easily see the Vedic Truths, which we are seeking here to discover, contained in diverse allegory.

Equally, the Agamas and Tantras, too often either ignored or misunderstood, teach what to me seems the greatest cooperation of jnana and bhakti.

These few examples are, of course, are but the tip of the iceburg that is the spiritual literary heritage of bharat.

Although my own studies of the vedas are meager, spanning only less than 20 years, I feel that the the greatest and most basic truths of the vedas - demystifyed, as you put it - can be found by a reading of the major upanishads. These are, after all, the most ancient explanation of the even more ancient (to some of us, eternal) vedas.

I would like to add that, from personal experience, I have found that an intellectual knowledge of the vedas can never equal the practical application of vedic principles in one's own life. This, I believe, is one of the reasons that the guru/shishya relationship is so important. Many times, the guru rarely speaks to his disciple at all. We hear of spiritual progression through the "grace" of the guru. This is not blind faith or disease that is called fundamentalism. These are things that are difficult to explain in words, especially in a "logical, scientific" way. But the practice of "silent learning" from a bona fide guru leads one to the same silent learning from God. I have often referred to the guru as the spiritual training wheel of the devotee. This kind of learning, this kind of understanding is what is taught in the vedas.

To read, to memorize, even to intellectually understand certainly furthers one's progression on the way to moksha tremendously. But the journey that stops outside the gates of the destination is for naught. The final goal, liberation itself, can never be achieved unless one puts that knowledge and understanding into practice through personal experience.

Vinaire:
Yes, the typical christian idea of god does retard spiritual progression, which is why I left the priesthood some 16 years ago. There are notable exceptions among the christian community, such as Tielhard de Chardin, a french priest and paleontologist who has written some of the most beautifully poetic theology I have ever read. His view of the Cosmic Christ and the generation of the universe and it's cyclic destruction and rebirth is just one example of how in line with Vedanta his revolutionary theology was. But of course, de Chardin and the likes of him were always censured by their respective church hierarchies.
I think I am a living example of an aspirant seeing the folly. I feel fortunate that I never felt I had to reject Holy Mother Church (as I still think of her), although she is not the authority she once was. It was through mystics like Teresa de Avila, John of the Cross and St. Francis of Assissi; through theologians like Augustine, Origen, Boethius and Aquinas; and through revolutionaries like Meister Eckhart, Swedenbourg and Tielhard de Chardin that I discovered the Vedic Truths, as distorted and buried as they had become under the weight of centuries of patriarchal, intolerant, and exclusivist semitic mythology. It is amazing that any hint at all has survived of the Vedic Truths that once spread through europe and the middle east out of bharat.

It is perhaps more ironic that the teachings of Rabbi Yeshua ben Youssef (Jesus) themselves attempt to transform the old semitic religion into something completely different. All of the recorded teachings of the Christ are consistent with the vedas. Unfortunately, politics and religion were wedded throughout most of chistendom's history, and the Old Testament values (an eye for an eye), supposedly overturned by the Dispensation of Salvation (the coming of Jesus), was retained. And the bickering and mutilation of the message of Christ found in the Epistles are what made the church what it is today. Not much attention is paid to the Gospels, the words of Christ himself. The focus is always on the teachings of Paul (or his major opposition Peter, who was Jesus' choice as "successor"). But I digress...

I do think that if one searches diligently, one can find examples of christian mysticism (bhakti) as well as progressive christian theology (jnana). And I personally know many christians whose beliefs are so liberal and progressive (compared to typical christians) that I would consider them to be unknowing vedantists. Unfortunately, the truth is that even though such shining examples do exist within christianity, overall the religion makes it difficult for one to progress very far spiritually.

Fortunately, in my opinion, since I believe in reincarnation, all those poor christians who don't manage to find the diamond under all that dirt will have plenty of other lifetimes to find it. And even if they are fundamentalists and intolerant. If they are sincere in their devotion, they will progress. We all will... we have all the time in the world... and beyond.

Shree Rama
Actually Sri Hariharan, the sri vaishnavites place utmost importanct on the vedas and the ancient scripture, we cling to the shruti and smriti rule. For example the works of bhaskarabatta, he writes a detail commentary on the upanshids through the visistadvaita perspective. Sri Ramanuja the re-establisher of sri vaishnavism and visistadvaita heavily relied on the vedas for his expostion of the sampradaya. Of course we believe that the Gita is the cream of the upanshids and we study it but in terms of authority it falls after the vedas and in conjuction with the brahma sutras. We also have a agama base in which we place importance on the agamas almost to the level of vedas but not quite.
Shree Rama
-Mukunda

Are the vedic truths not the same as the truth of Self Realization? Is the vedic truth not the same as the truth of one's own very "I" or "aham" meaning the aham spurana and not the ahamkar?

Sivadasa:

Your analysis of Christian thought is wonderful. I could not have done a better job. Christ was very close to being a Vedantist (or, he may have been one, I don't know). He did try to change the existing Semitic thought. It is unfortunate that he did not quite succeed.

Vinaire's loyalty is to Scientology first, he is his founder Hubbard's clone. As he has his foot, oar and dirty finger in every single topic that comes up in this Hindu forum, lets please remember that.

His umpteen exits/comebacks to/from this forum is a tribute to Scientology's ability to re-re-program its prize clone. His learning curve about Hindu dharma is still zero but he has to put his spin on everything Hindu. Who cares whether Hubbard Vinaire Scientologist is a static, allah or whatever, go and form your own forum. This forum is for devotees and seekers after truth, not spin-doctors.

The relentless bombardment by Hubbard Vinaire propaganda-machine upon us is the same stuff and nonsense that, over the ages, has been inflicted on us by the scheming, opinionated and corrosive pretend-Hindu fifth-columinsts.

The most basic Vedic Truth is BRAHMAM. The uniqueness of this truth can be fully appreciated only when contrasted against the idea of God.

The idea of God includes FORM. The Vedic truth of Brahmam differentiates between the FORM and the CREATOR of that form. It declares Brahmam to be formless.

The idea of God includes JUDGEMENT. The truth of Brahmam differentiates between JUDGEMENT (thoughts, opinions, etc.) and the CREATOR of that judgement. It declares Brahmam to be beyond thought.

The theory of God's judgement is not as practical as the Principles of the Veda's underlying the Theory of Karma. And that is the beauty of Vedic truths - they are practical and they can be demonstrated.

not to appear out on a limb here, but arya samajists believe that the vedas teach a traita philosophy ie. that god (brahma), the soul (jivatma) and the primordial matter that god uses to create the physical universe (prakriti) are mutually co-existent for eternity.. but only god and the soul are really conscious...
we believe that though the soul can never actually 'become' god, it can advance to the stage where it breaks free from the limits of ordinary existence and lives 'in' the almighty...
traita, dvaita and advaita are the three cosmological models that are most prevalent in hindu dharma...

sri vinaire, there are few nowadays that would dare to preach or, god forbid, practise the nasty entries in the dharmashastras... but the legacy it left behind is still very much with us - overwhelming ignorance regarding the veda itself... many shakhas and oral traditions have died out because the ved jnan was limited to a select few... the vedic renaissance will when the veda is taught and made available on a much larger scale to a much larger audience...

all hindus should make an effort to be acquainted with them, at least reading extracts before going to bed, or teaching them to their children... in this way, the once-faraway mysticism of the ved is brought back into the home-atmosphere.. as people make ved-swadhyaay a part of their daily lives, they begin to notice rta working around them.. in the natural world, in interpersonal relationships, in moral choices... it creates what the muslims call 'taqwah' or acute awareness of the almighty and his law at all times..

i feel bharat, which is practically a hindu holy land coast to coast, should introduce vedic studies as an option at state schools, or at least erect functional maths near all schools, from primary to secondary and tertiary levels... the study of the vedas must become once more a living force, not a part-time hobby or interest.. muslim children are encouraged and praised for memorising the quran.. this keeps its vigour and strength in their society.. everyone from the maulvi in the madressa to a 7 year old boy can quote from them... we must, for the survival of our scriptures also encourage and stimulate the learning of devbhasha and the vedika shastras...

Muraliji:
Certainly Self Realization is the GOAL that is set forth in Vedic Truths. I think these "Truths" that we are discussing here are the teachings, the means themselves for attaining the goal of self-realization and liberation. The concept that WE EACH CAN BE SELF-REALIZAED is the nectar of vedas themselves.

Sri Vinaire,

I was a swayam sevak for many years when I was a student.I have travelled to many many remote places in Karnataka and many places in Himalayas with my like minded friends, upholding the greatness of Vedas and other holy scriptures of hindus.Personally I have taught lot of slokas and mantras to people without any caste,creed,sex barrior.I have converted so many of my friends into hardcore vegetarians and devotees.My Guru is my inspiration.Deep in my heart I want every Hindu to be vibrant with Vedic wisdom.Of course I do defend, depend and get inspiraton from Itihasas like Ramayana and Mahabharata and also Puranas.
But In one of your posts in this thread you have written
"That was an interesting summary of the suppression of Vedic knowledge in ?medieval? India. Looks like we are still not out of the woods though. Unlike Sri Sureshji, I think that we urgently need a Vedic renaissance."
For moment I felt bad.But Thanks a lot.I learnt a lesson -Harihi Om.

Dear Suresh ji,

I think we all are in it together. I didn't mean to hurt you or make you feel bad in any way.

We simply have to face the reality and not ignore it. We have to AS-IS the reality, and not NOT-IS it.

I know the terminology I use is foreign to you but your Sanskrit terminology is foreign to me the same way. I think the Sanskrit vocabulary that deals with spiritual matters is foreign to most Hindus.

But the incessant longing to know the truth shall help us both overcome these barriers.

There are no bad intentions at all on my part when writing on this forum, though many do feel upset when I challenge their fixed viewpoints.

But I hope we can get over those upsets and get on with the business of discovering the truths together.

sri suresh, what you said about teaching slokas to all irrespective of caste background reminds me of the story i heard about ramanujacharya when i was a child...

i was told that his guru imparted to him a mantra that was said to guarantee going to paradise after death... sri ramanuja was told not to repeat the mantra to anyone else.. but afterwards, he climbed to the temple platform and loudly announced it to the crowds of people that walked by... his guru was furious and cursed him to go to hell... and he replied that he would rather face the tortures of hell if by giving to the world this mantra, he would save so many...
truly an inspirational story for us to look beyond colour, caste and creed to help and uplift our fellow man...

om yathemaam vaacham kalyaaniimaavadaani janebhyah,
brahmaraajanyaabhyaam shuudraaya charyyaaya cha swaaya chaarayanaaya,
priyo devaanaam dakshinaayai daaturiha bhuuyaasamayam
me kaamah samrdhyataamupamaa do namatu

the almighty advises- oh learned ones... i have for the welfare of all given you the knowledge of the vedas. you must disseminate this wisdom to the brahman, the kshatriya, the vaishya, the shudra and all others, so that the people may be learned, benevolent and charitable.
may all live by this wise counsel and lead virtuous lives. may my desire be thus fulfilled.

-yajurved

Master Ashegan said, not to appear out on a limb here, but arya samajists believe that the vedas teach a traita philosophy ie. that god (brahma), the soul (jivatma) and the primordial matter that god uses to create the physical universe (prakriti) are mutually co-existent for eternity.. but only god and the soul are really conscious...
we believe that though the soul can never actually 'become' god, it can advance to the stage where it breaks free from the limits of ordinary existence and lives 'in' the almighty...
traita, dvaita and advaita are the three cosmological models that are most prevalent in hindu dharma...

What does it matter if this itself is the limit for the Soul. Is this itself not living in Paradise? What more is there for the Soul to ask for? Is this itelf not equal to freedom, joy, bliss, love and an eternal life. Personally I would not wish for anything more.

I confess I did not understand what Vinaire meant by AS-IS and NOT-Is the reality.

I confess I did not understand what Vinaire meant by AS-IS and NOT-Is the reality.

IS-NESS is what is there. It is the reality that is persisting.

AS-ISNESS is what happens when you look at that IS-NESS and recognize it exactly for what it is.

NOT-ISNESS is when you don't like what is there and try to force it out of existence. A protest is NOT-ISNESS.

"The considerations resulting in conditions of existence are fourfold:

a. AS–ISNESS is the condition of immediate creation without persistence, and is the condition of existence which exists at the moment of creation and the moment of destruction, and is different from other considerations in that it does not contain survival.

b. ALTER–ISNESS is the consideration which introduces change, and therefore time and persistence, into an AS–ISNESS to obtain persistency.

c. ISNESS is an apparency of existence brought about by the continuous alteration of an AS–ISNESS. This is called, when agreed upon, reality.

d. NOT–ISNESS is the effort to handle isness by reducing its condition through the use of force. It is an apparency and cannot entirely vanquish an ISNESS."

Ms Juliem,

I would try to answer your quest.

The Hindus trace the original source of their cultural life to the Vedas which we hold to be divine truths revealed from time to time to the rishis (seers) in their super conciousness. Our religion, philosophy, ritualistic practices, civil conduct and even social relations are guided by certain codes which are known as Smirtis, but all of them are based upon the sacred sanction of Vedic authority. Even the Itihasas and Puranas are to be read as commentaries on the sacred Vedas. It is a recognized rule of procedure that whenever there seems to be a difference between the Sruti and the Smirti, the Sruti has to be upheld as the supreme authority and the Smirti has to be interpreted in accordance with the Sruti. The whole life of a Hindu, from conception up to the last funeral rites, has to be sanctified by the recitation of Vedic mantras. From these facts it may easily be conceived how profound has been the influence of the Vedas upon this great and most ancient of the civilized nations of the world.

The word 'veda' literally means knowledge and supreme knowledge too. But secondarily it is applied to the Vedic literature, comprising Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanisads, books which are considered to be direct revelations from God, embodying the supreme Truth that could not be gained by any effort of the human mind. So they are regarded as not of human origin. The Vedas are called Sruti, either because they were directly heard from God, or because the traditional method of studying and getting them by heart is by hearing them recited by the preceptor.

Thandabani

The term "direct revelations from God" always reminds me of the limited definition of God in Christianity.

What does this phrase mean in the context of the Vedas?

There is no mystery in Vedic truths. If there is any mystery it has been created by those who are willing to experience them.

For example, to understand Brahmam and the process of creation, one can do this simple exercise.

In meditation, focus NOT on the thoughts, but on how those thoughts are appearing.

(1) Observe how those thoughts are being created.
(2) Are you creating those thoughts? Or, something else is creating those thoughts for you?
(3) Try to understand where those thoughts are coming from. Where was a thought before it was created?

The process of creation is the same, whether Brahmam is creating, or YOU are creating. Only difference is in the constraints that YOU have set up for yourself, within which to create.

"Self-surrender" means giving oneself in for such experience.

Correction:

"There is no mystery in Vedic truths. If there is any mystery it has been created by those who are NOT willing to experience them.

And:

"Self-surrender" means giving oneself to such experience.

sri vinaire, i must admit that like sri murali, i didn't understand the is-ising and not-ising and the other stuff.. the words themselves are confusing tongue-twisters.. could you perhaps come up with some other more intelligible words for each of these concepts... many of the people here are probably not following the line of argument...

christianity claims it's holy book is a revelation, but most of its followers tacitly accept that it is not... it is basically a spicy history book, with the jews as proverbial good guys battling the darkness of the other locals... it is not a revelation, simply because 'revelation' is something made known that was not known before...
history (prophets' lives etc.) is already known, so when it comes in a story book form like the bible, that doesn't make it god's revelation... and consider that the bible was presumably revealed so late in the history of man.. millions of people missed out on it, and the christians don't believe in reincarnation, so i guess all of them from abraham's dad back will go to hell (in the case of the jews.. in the christians case it'll be everybody born before jesus)...

the vedas on the other hand were revealed at the dawn of time for every generation till the dissolution, coz god is fair... some hindus believe the rishis that recieved the vedas did so while in a trance and the words were their own, but inspired from god...
arya samajists believe the vedas were revealed to four holy sages who were the purest in hearts and minds among all the people on earth (not many in the beginning), and that the words of the veda are those of god almighty himself, without human intercession... we believe that after recieving each of the vedas the rishis taught them to the sage brahma, who became the first man to be endowed with the complete vedic lore...

'asya mahato bhutasya nishvasitam etad yad rigvedo yajurveda saamavedo atharvangirasa'
from the breath of god came the four vedas...

either way hindus accept that the chaturved is apaurusheya (a= not + purush= human) or not of human origin... on his own man can learn nothing.. it is stimulus from an outside source that presses inquiry and intelligent thought..
and it's god's mercy and goodwill toward mankind that the veda was revealed unto us...

sri murali, i didn't say it was some major limitation.. and i didn't say it wasn't paradise in itself... i was only giving the arya samajist philosophy regarding the nature of the universe and emancipation.. that's all... i didn't want to start a slinging match on how 'mine's right and your's is wrong'... i think i'll pass right now...
to live in brahma is the greatest freedom, and the most unparalleled bliss the soul can ever experience..
the taittiriya upanishad describes one unit of the bliss of being with brahma to be 100 to the power of ten times greater than the bliss of a man who has everything in this world...

Ashegan,

I am sorry that some of these terms that I am using are confusing. I shall try to clarify it further.

Almost all of us know about the story of the rope lying on the road that appeared as a snake in the dark.

Here the reality (IS-NESS) was that it was a rope.

The ALTER-IS-NESS was that it was a "snake."

When the person looked more closely at the "snake" and discovered that it was a rope, then this would be AS-IS-NESS.

But, if the person panicked and ran away, or if he started to beat the rope with a lathi thinking it was a snake, then it would be NOT-IS-NESS.

We are fighting certain amount of ignorance on this forum. This may be looked upon as NOT-IS-NESS on the part of some. We are trying to bring AS-IS-NESS to some of those areas by appealing to people that they LOOK.

No amount of logical arguments can bring about AS-IS-NESS. AS-IS-NESS requires actual, willing examination by the person.

I hope this is clear now. But please do ask questions if you are still uncertain about any point that I have made above.

The key line of argument is as folows:

"No amount of logical arguments can bring about AS-IS-NESS. AS-IS-NESS requires actual, willing examination by the person."

We are going around in circles on this forum trying to prove everything logically. Well, there is a limitation to that. Logic cannot substitute actual LOOKING, or willing examination. That is why the Vedic Truths appear so mysterious.

What is meditation? It is the process of LOOKING inwards, and not messing around with thoughts and memories. Please look at the following discussion.

The Basics of Meditation.

Dear Ashegan,

You said, "the vedas on the other hand were revealed at the dawn of time for every generation till the dissolution, coz god is fair... some hindus believe the rishis that recieved the vedas did so while in a trance and the words were their own, but inspired from god..."

Here "God" is used as a Christian idea of God and not as the Vedic Truth of Brahma. This shows how insidious some of this mental conditioning is.

Let me repeat what I said earlier:

The most basic Vedic Truth is BRAHMAM. The uniqueness of this truth can be fully appreciated only when contrasted against the idea of God.

The idea of God includes FORM. The Vedic truth of Brahmam differentiates between the FORM and the CREATOR of that form. It declares Brahmam to be formless.

The idea of God includes JUDGEMENT. The truth of Brahmam differentiates between JUDGEMENT (thoughts, opinions, etc.) and the CREATOR of that judgement. It declares Brahmam to be beyond thought.

The theory of God's judgement is not as practical as the Principles of the Veda's underlying the Theory of Karma. And that is the beauty of Vedic truths - they are practical and they can be demonstrated.

Ashegan, If you think "God" is something other than you, then how do you define this separation?

Then there would be no limit to the number of such Gods, would there?

Vinaire: Brahman has four aspects: (1) the individual soul (2) the impersonal, all-pervasive aspect of the Supreme (3) the Supreme Personality of Godhead (4) the mahat-tattva, or total material substance. When you speak of Brahman, which aspect are you refering to?

I posted this message at Free Thinkers and I felt it could be useful in the present context.

Dear Spayne,

Your messages are appreciated and makes sense. When you said God is a person, I would relate that to the Hindu concept of God also being the Supreme Person known as Iswara, Narayana and so on. I have asked the following questions to Vinaire before but I have not had the response from him as yet.

Is the personality called Vinaire God?

Is the personality of Vinaire that considers itself seperate from others, God?

In the oneness of God and God alone is there a place for the personality of Vinaire or any other personality? If so is that pure meditation?

Because when one is experiencing the direct perception of God one does not operate from the field of duality. In pure meditation there is no sense of the other or oneself as a mere personality.... but one experiences oneself as breathing and living through Infinity but not the personality. So what happens to the personality of Vinaire and others... did they ever exist at all?

Of course they exist in the waking and dream states, but how real are they?........

In this sense God almighty alone is truly real and eternal. The jivas are God's creations and are not eternal. So the personalities (jivas) can never become God nor were they ever a part of God.

I did make corrections which I could not edit at Free Thinkers.

MRA01: The jivas are eteral. The portion of God within us makes us eternal. God is the fire and the jivas are the sparks. God is the sun and the jivas are the suns rays. The rays of the sun have the same quality as the sun, but not the quantity of heat or light. If the jivas did not come from God, where did they come from? Death is not an end to the jiva, only a changing of bodies.

Murali, I have answered your questions where you first posted them. Click here:

KRISHNA AND CHRIST

Suzy, I find that the same Hindu terms have been used in many different ways in the past. This causes confusion. I shall, therefore, use the Hindu terminology with an equivalent new one so I can communicate with you more precisely. Precision is very important at this level of discussion.

Your question was: Brahman has four aspects: (1) the individual soul (2) the impersonal, all-pervasive aspect of the Supreme (3) the Supreme Personality of Godhead (4) the mahat-tattva, or total material substance. When you speak of Brahman, which aspect are you refering to?

Brahma, in its ultimate essence is a STATIC that has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.

To create, Brahma must BE. This beingness is manifested only when it is creating. This is the individuality (BEING, soul).

The creation is the result of postulates made by the BEING. The components of any creation are Matter, Energy, Space, and Time.

The BEING may project an IDENTITY to be identified by. This includes a personality, name, body, title, etc.

The IDENTITY may perish but the BEING never perishes.

So, there, you have it. I am leery of using your terminology because it is not defined precisely. If you can define your terminology precisely may be I can present my terms in terms of your terms.

Vinaire told me as follows at Free Thinkers:

The essence of Vinaire is Brahmam, which is "the ability to postulate, consider, and have opinions."

The individuality of Vinaire is what HE is creating at any moment. It is not somebody or something else creating for him.

The identity of Vinaire is the personality, name, body, etc. It is how he projects himself to be identified.

I shall get back to Sri Vinaire and Miss Suzy. Thanks for responding.

Vinaire: If Brahma is static (meaning fixed, stationary), has no mass, motion, wavelength, or location in space or in time, how can Brahma postulate or perceive? Where did this static Brahma originate from? I notice the different spelling of the words Brahma and Brahman. Are you speaking of Lord Brahma the co-creator of the universes or are you speaking of the Brahman feature in its four aspects?

Madam Suzy,

I said personalities or jivas are not eternal. If one uses the word jivatma then the atma alone is eternal but not the jiva or the personality. The atma as you have rightly said is a spark of God. When I die the atma persists and takes hold of another form in accordance with my karma but the personalty as Murali dies forever. Here we are using the word Brahma not as the creator of the Universe.

Dear Viniare,

I respect your views and also others'. I guess we differ in the following:

You do not like to use the word God. It would be senseless to call myself God. To me that is insanity and foolishness. I believe in the Supreme Personal God Iswara, Vishnu, Narayana and so on. You do not. I believe that the personality called Murali is temporary and transient. I believe my atma just as others is eternal. If and when I attain moksha by the Grace of Narayana my atma merges with Brahmam without a distinct "I" because Brahmam dwells in Unity and not duality and so does not allow for parts and differences. Brahmam is eternal. Brahmam cannot be grasped by thought.

Madam Suzy,

In my message to you the sentence should have been " When my present body dies the atma persists
and the jiva takes hold of another body in accordance with its karma but the personality called Murali dies forever".

Dear Murali,

I have nothing against the word "God." GOD is a concept based entirely on faith. I respect other people's faith and it is OK with me if others have a belief in GOD.

However, to me, the concept of BRAHMAM is much more precise and scientific than the concept of GOD. I do not invalidate other people's belief in God, because that belief is on the route to the understanding of BRAHMAM.

Vinaire

The motionless Brahman possesses all that is movable and immovable without any effort. It is by nature calm, conscious, and all-prevading like space.

- Avadhuta Gita of Dattatreya - Chapter 2 verse 3 (translator - Swami Chetanananda)

I am using the term STATIC for BRAHMAM to avoid confusions with other uses of BRAHMAM (or BRAHMA, or BRAHMAN).

BRAHMAM as STATIC means, very precisely, the following:

"An actuality of no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. This is a true static. Formerly, a static was defined only as a motionless object. This definition is not adequate, since a state of rest for an object is attained only by an equilibrium of forces; and all objects have in themselves, if only at a molecular level, motion, and exist in space, which is itself an integral portion of motion. Hence here we are dealing with a higher-level static, a life static, with the ability to postulate and perceive, to make conclusions, decisions and resolutions."

Suzy,

How can Brahmam originate from somewhere when there is no "somewhere" and no "time" apart from Brahmam?

The concept of BRAHMAM is parallel to the concept of ZERO. Both these concepts have originated from India.

The concept of ZERO revolutionized the whole field of mathematics.

When properly understood, the concept of BRAHMAM is going to revolutionize the whole field of spirituality.

Vinaire as an individual (BEING, soul) does not exist (is not manifested) when it is not creating. It comes into being only when it is creating.

Vinaire as an identity on Internet is what Vinaire is projecting on a steady basis. This projection (identity) is perishable.

The INDIVIDUALITY and IDENTITY of Vinaire are possible and exist only because there is this actuality of BRAHMAM (STATIC).

This same applies to you, Suzy, and to everybody else.

vinaire, your idea of god is that he or rather 'it' is an impersonal force or metaphysical truth that does not interact with creation but just 'exists' out there...

i take the arya samajist belief that god almighty is a conscious being, with infinite wisdom and love for humanity... i am the jivatma, the soul, tarnished with ignorance and finite emotions.. i am not the almighty... the seperation is that god is all-pervading, the soul isn't... god is all-knowing, the soul isn't... it is a fundamental seperation between a being that is not perfect, from one that is...

the scientific view you hold is that god isn't really god at all, it's some grounding principle that just 'is'... that's what i'm hearing anyway.. read the vedas and see what they have to say about this mysterious brahmam... and also i'd suggest reading this section of satyarth prakash to see where i am coming from...

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3440/chapterseven.html

vinaire, this scientology idea is quite foreign to me and i always figured it was some new age movement in the west... i'm sorry if my posts betray an ignorance of your teaching..

I respect the opinions of others but what Vinaire has said about Brahmam in the above messages conform to the Hindu view. Personally I could care less where Vinaire draws his examples from, whether sage Dattatreya, Mr.Hubbard, Meister Eckhart, Arya Samaj Guru or himself. After all it is Truth that is of the utmost importance. And Truth should be appreciated, nay loved, no matter what the source is. I personally would not favor prejudice for Truth.

ASHEGAN: "vinaire, your idea of god is that he or rather 'it' is an impersonal force or metaphysical truth that does not interact with creation but just 'exists' out there...

"Not true. Please read my posts again. Can't you recognize the vedic concept of BRAHMAM (STATIC)?"

ASHEGAN: i take the arya samajist belief that god almighty is a conscious being, with infinite wisdom and love for humanity... i am the jivatma, the soul, tarnished with ignorance and finite emotions.. i am not the almighty... the seperation is that god is all-pervading, the soul isn't... god is all-knowing, the soul isn't... it is a fundamental seperation between a being that is not perfect, from one that is...

Do you think BRAHMAM (STATIC) is not conscious? Then how can he postulate, consider, and have opinion? Please read what I have written before you make your uninformed comments. Do you really understand the terms "jivatma" etc., or do you have just a poetic conception of them?

ASHEGAN: the scientific view you hold is that god isn't really god at all, it's some grounding principle that just 'is'... that's what i'm hearing anyway.. read the vedas and see what they have to say about this mysterious brahmam... and also i'd suggest reading this section of satyarth prakash to see where i am coming from...

Looks like your understanding of BRAHMAM (STATIC) is also corrupted by the Bhakti idea of God. You are trying to "define" what cannot be defined. Please read CAREFULLY the following to see where I am coming from.

CAN GOD BE DEFINED?

Well Ashegan, I just thought I'll be an Arya Samaji to an Arya Samaji for a change. Just LOOK and understand your own Satyartha Prakash and you will find that what I am saying is the way it is, regardless of beliefs to the contrary.

A belief is not the Truth. It is just a temporary assumption with which to LOOK for the truth.

Suzy: Brahman has four aspects: (1) the individual soul (2) the impersonal, all-pervasive aspect of the Supreme (3) the Supreme Personality of Godhead (4) the mahat-tattva, or total material substance. When you speak of Brahman, which aspect are you refering to?
__________________________________________________

Only 2 of 4 aspects you(Madam Suzy) have enlisted are discussed in Vedhaanta(commentaries-Gloss on Brahma(m) Sutram of sri Vyasa deva.(1) One is Iha Brahmam(One can say Brahmam or Brahman-because the last letter is pronounced in between "m" and "n". But Brahma is not correct. Brahma is one of the "Trinity"-the Creator or "Karthru")-this what you (Suzy) say the individual Soul-enlisted as First aspect and our friend sri.Murali says"Jiva" (Aathma). This is also refered to as "Kshetragjnan" in Bhagavad Gita/Mahabharata (2)Second one is Para Brahmam. {(the all pervasive Supreme Reality(Sat)- This is also referred to as "Akshara(Indestructible) Brahmam" in Bhagavad gita. According to Advaita(Non-dualism) the Iha Brahmam (Jiva)-"appear" to be present in each "individual" and "apparently" appear to have a separate identity-from the Para Brahmam -at Vyaavakaarika level(general perception level) But in reality "Jiva"does NOT have a separate identity -at Paaramaarthika level-(spiritual perception level.).This "Separate Identities" of "Jiva" and "Parama"-is an "Illusion"-Maaya(-"Ya Maa Sa Maaya) due to the limitations of Human Comprehension. The "Jiva" is Verily the "Parama" only. The Maha Vaakyas (Great Sentences) of Vedic Upanishads- like "Aham Brahma(m) Asmi"- -"Tat Tvam Asi"- -"Sarvam Kalvitham Brahma(m)"- -"Hamsa Soham-Soham Hamsaha" and a few more are taken as supportive evidences to establish Advaitham(Non-dualism)."Mukthi"/"Moksham" (Liberation-equivalent to Salvation)is an "Experience"(Anubhavam)and "Realisation"(Brahma Sparzam) of the "Oneness" of the "Jiva Athma" with "the Parama Athma". According to Advaita the Brahmam is Nir-Guna (attributeless) and Nis-chalanam (Still) and "Suddha Gjnaanam"(Pure Intelligence-Pure Conscience-Pure "Programme" per se like) without any "Body" like a "Person"(with nose/eyes/qualities etc). This is why Advaita is derisively dubbed as "Impersonal". Sri.Sankara insists that initially one should start with some "Form"/or Format(a Spear/Trident/ or even a Cross) or Symbol(OM etc) to worship and very ,very gradually ("Urvaarugamiva")when one goes to the level of "Realisation"(Jivan-Mukthi) one may "DROP"(give-up) all Forms/Formats/Symbols etc. You (Suzy) have enlisted this as the second aspect. The Advaita concept was elaborately expanded by Acharya sri.Sankara-though initiated by sri.Gaudapaadha and nurtured by sri.Govindha Bhagavad Paadha. What you enlist as the third aspect is not a separate aspect of Brahmam. It is a different "Interpretation"of the second aspect. Two Schools hold this view.(a) ViziSTa Advaita(qualified non-dualism) of Acharya sri.Ramanuja which our friend sri Mukunda Ragavan is discussing in a seperate thread and (b)and Dwaitha(Dualism) of Acharya sri.Madwa .It appears our friend sri.Murali follows the teachings of Acharya sri.Madwa. .(I may be right or wrong!) According to whom the "Jiva" is EVER and ALWAYS a separate entity and NEVER either it can "Realise" the "Oneness"(because it is impossible) nor merge with the Supreme "Person" the GOD. The "Jiva" in any number of births(Re-incarnations) should do "Ananya Bhakthi"(Doctrine of Total Surrender)to Parama (GOD in "Person").This (sri.Madwa's) concept was elaborated and spread in later years by Sarva sri.Vallabha/Jayadeva/Krishna Chaitanya and his disciples upto Sri. Prabhupaadha (the founder of ISKCON-sri.Krishna Coscience) all over the world. These are the 3 primary schools. There are other 3 schools -of Sarva Sri.Nimbarka-Vishnuswami-and Baladeva.--somewhat in between these 3 Primary schools. ----The fourth aspect You (Suzy) have mentioned the "Mahat Tattva" or the "Chaturvimsathi Taatva" -the "Material Aspect" none of the Acharyas gave any importance, since "Material" is Ksharam (destrutible)-Anithyam(Non-Eternal) and Avivekam(Non-intelligence source).It is discussed elaborately only In Saankya. Secondly it comes out of Brahmam and goes back into "It"(Tat) during Nitya -Naimittika and Mahaa Pralayam(Prakrthi Layam)

namaste vinaire...
i'm sorry if i've misunderstood your conception of god.. i read your article and found your ideas quite sound when expounded so thoroughly.. it's just that when i read things like brahma is like the zero, i felt you were implying an impersonal inactive being.. like sunya, the nothingness...
i agree with you, though, that all our beliefs are just postulates that give us a template to work from in the realisation of truth... god is an abstract and the vedas have given us somewhat of a 'definition' - dare i call it that - of him...
they say what he is not - akaayam (without body/form), asnaaviram (devoid of nerves), aja (unborn), amritam (never dying)..
and what he is - maghavaa (full of majesty), soma (giver of solace), krshaanu (comfort of the poor), rudra (destroyer of evil), sajoshaa (the friend of all), paayuh (the saviour), indra (almighty), saraswati (all-knowing), maniishii (the wise), purandhi (support of the universe)...

these are in the vedas, that you say supports this idea of the static brahma... aren't they something of a definition? i know that for us it remains a belief until we have directly experienced him ourselves... but to me, the veda is the revealed word of god and what it says as regards what he is and what he isn't, i have come to accept... yes, they remain assumptions... but assumptions that are grounded in the textbooks of life..
are the vedas wrong to define what cannot be defined? is my conception of god then non-vedic?

maybe some of my notions of god are similar to the bhakta, but not everything the bhakta believes in is 'corrupted'..
and regarding the comparison of bhakti in india to christianity, i feel bhaktas are in some respects similar... but the concept of god is not as exclusivist or glorifying in its own 'uniqueness' as is the christian.. the bhakta is so devoted to his god that the god of every other people is the same as his own...

there is a similar philosophy in the vedas... rig veda declares that 'lord god is he to whom both arya (believer) and dasa (unbeliever) belong'
atharva veda also says that the god of the foreigner (videsha) is no different from our own god, and there is a prayer of repentance for sins committed against the foreigner...
could you find such an open-minded view in the insular, imperialist works of the christians?

i agree though, that bhakti today in some of its forms differs from the vedic armaiti, that included bhakti, but not to the exclusion of vivek, jnan and a reasoning buddhi etc... the problem with bhakti today lies more with putting blind faith before self-questioning and intelligent enquiry...
this leads to a static intellect that the minds gets adapted to and comfortable in.. resulting in indolence and lack of rational thinking...

'The motionless Brahman possesses all that is movable and immovable without any effort. It is by nature calm, conscious, and all-prevading like space.'

i am in agreement with this, vinaire... arya samajists also believe that god is eternally stationary, and 'jagatas tasthushaspatim' lord of the moving and non-moving worlds... our understanding of brahma is essentially the same in this regard... brahma is without form and all-pervasive (vishnu) so there is no need for movement... arya samaj does not believe in a 'god of form'... hence to us the concept of a personal 'god' does not include an image, mental or not...


i don't understand what you mean when you say god has to 'postulate' and 'consider'...
isn't he all-knowing anyway? where is the need for him who already knows everything and is infinitely wise to 'consider' or think over something before acting?

ummm... vinaire, i've always believed that the jivatma is the individual soul.. what is it to you? i said before that arya samajist follows the traita line of thinking wherein brahma, the jivatma and the primordial prakriti co-exist eternally... we believe there is a basic differentiation between the soul or the jivatma and the supreme soul or paramatma.. the jivatma can draw near to the paramatma in realisation and purity, but it can never actually become the paramatma...

and i was wondering about all these 'hubbard' allegations... what are they about?

Here is the Vedic Truth of BRAHMAM demystified:

BRAHMAM is the Creator and not something created.
BRAHMAM is the Perceiver and not something perceived.
Only that which is created may be perceived.
How can the Perceiver perceive itself?
To do so it would have to “create” itself.
But, then the “itself” created cannot be the Creator…

You the Perceiver who is perceiving this
Do you think something else perceives for you?
YOU perceive and that is BRAHMAM.
And not the “via” through which you may perceive.
Come out of hiding and face yourself.
A mystery is nothing but an unwillingness to confront
That IS.

Ashegan,

Vedas are the most profound GUIDE that one can have.

USE IT! Don't just "believe" in it.
APPLY IT! Don't just "quote" from it.
Move forward in your thinking. Don't just sit there.

What are you afraid of?
BRAHMAM being afraid? What a joke!

ASHEGAN: vinaire, i've always believed that the jivatma is the individual soul.. what is it to you? i said before that arya samajist follows the traita line of thinking wherein brahma, the jivatma and the primordial prakriti co-exist eternally... we believe there is a basic differentiation between the soul or the jivatma and the supreme soul or paramatma.. the jivatma can draw near to the paramatma in realisation and purity, but it can never actually become the paramatma...

Please see my posts above explaining INDIVIDUALITY and IDENTITY. “Parmatma” is nothing other than BRAHMAM (STATIC). Sometimes I wonder why are there so many different terms for the same concept.

ATMAM (individuality) = PARMATMAM (brahmam, static) + decision to BE

Before PARMATMAM can create, “It” has to BE. Thus, there is ATMAM. So the difference between PATMATMAM and ATMAM is one of beingness and nothing else. JIVATMAM is a lower aspect of ATMAM. You may get a glimpse of all this in the following summation:

THE FACTORS

There are no short cuts to knowledge. You have to apply yourself. So, please study the references I give you very carefully with the intention to understand them and not just to gloss over them. The characteristics of “Parmatmam” that you were talking about are the result of considerations generated from ATMAM.


ASHEGAN: and i was wondering about all these 'hubbard' allegations... what are they about?

I thought you were interested in truth and not gossip. If you really want to know Hubbard, study his investigations into the field of mind and spirituality. The entire diatribe against him is from those who cannot understand his investigations. A parallel, you may say, would be Pat Robertson’s diatribe against Hinduism.

Here is what Hubbard wrote about his philosophy:

MY PHILOSOPHY

A small quote from MY PHILOSOPHY is as follows:

So my own philosophy is that one should share what wisdom he has, one should help others to help themselves, and one should keep going despite heavy weather for there is always a calm ahead. One should also ignore catcalls from the selfish intellectual who cries: "Don’t expose the mystery. Keep it all for ourselves. The people cannot understand."

vinaire, you believe that atman and brahma are essentially the same, but that atman is brahma with the notion of 'beingness', so it can create etc... am i right?... hence the atman was originally brahmam before assuming this idea of 'beingness' - acquisition of atahkaran, notions of ahamkar etc...

well, that is a belief that you've reasoned out for yourself... there are many, including myself, that feel otherwise...

and something i don't understand is that brahma is asur medha - the wise lord... never is he prey to falsely thinking anything, because his knowledge is eternally perfect..
if he can assume a feeling of 'being', and thereby lose his own nature of all-pervasive, all-knowing bliss, can we say he is almighty or of infinite power and knowledge?

where is the impulse to create at all if he himself is the atman in potential?
why suffer dukha and klesha in the material world when his nature is truly svah - ever-blissful?

how can a being infinitely wise and forever vigilant, lapse into a state wherein he feels he is seperate or 'is'.. creating the form, as you say...? is that in the nature of the all-perfect god?

is it that he 'forgets' his true nature? if not, why would he, as the atman, submit himself to the pains and pleasures of life as the soul?

does the soul (atman) when seperate from its original state as brahma, lose its attributes of omniscience etc. (ie. have limitations that do not affect brahma)?

if there is some limitation (eg. atahkaran) imposed on the soul as opposed to brahma, is brahma then subject to division or seperation or even limitations for that matter?
and how can it (atman-soul) 'seperate' from brahma, for the almighty brahma is indivisible (advait) and ekam evaditiyam?
can brahma who is unchangeable, eternal, infallible and infinite become subject to change (assuming individuality/identity thereby becoming atman), creation and ignorance (as the soul)?

and if brahma is pure and uniform everywhere in its all-pervasiveness, how can one part (atman) be in ignorance or in false knowledge of its true nature, while the other part has all the attributes of brahma (omniscience etc.)? does that not show division in a really indivisible being?

is it not the atman (soul) that percieves through the pranas and angas and manas, as the atman is conscious and capable of perception?... why do you say it is only brahma that percieves?
you make the statement of atman being brahma veiled with the idea of 'beingness' but that is on the presumption that brahma and atma are essentially one... it is with that model in mind that the later assumptions are made...

are not the essence and nature of the atman and brahma similar (conscious, pure, immortal), while creation, dissolution, maintainance of rta and karmik law are the eternal actions and omnipotence, eternal knowledge etc., the attributes of brahma; and reaping the fruits of action, desire for acquisition of things, repulsion, discernment, individuality etc. are the attributes of the soul?
are god and the soul not known by their seperate attributes?

i remember yajnavalkya rshi in the brhadaranyaka upanishad says to his wife:
tadaatmakastadantaryaamii tdamasi
ya aatmani tishthatraatmanontaroyamaatmaa na veda yasyaatmaa shariiram
aatmanontaroyamayati sa ta aatmaantaryaabhyamatah...

'oh maitreyi, the almighty resides within the soul and is yet distinct from it. the ignorant soul does not know that the supreme spirit pervades it. just as the soul resides in the body, so does god reside within the soul, and yet he is distinct from it. he witnesses the deeds (good and evil) of the soul and gives it just consequence, thereby keeping it under control..
know, oh maitreyi, that the very same immortal, omniscient being resides within thy soul'

and then vedant shastra (1.i.16) comes up again and tells me that: 'the soul which is distinct from god could not be the author (creator) of the universe, for being possessed of finite knowledge and energy, it has not the power to build up the cosmos.. hence the soul is distinct from god (brahma)'

and the following verse goes on to say: 'the soul (atman) and god (brahma) are distinct from one another, as it has been declared in the upanishads that they are different.. had it not been so, it would not be true that the soul (atman) attains bliss through communion with the god (brahma) who is all-pervading and that god is the object of realisation, whilst the soul seeks realisation'...

the vedas and the shastras assure us that god is within us and the ever-present saakshin of all our actions.. so i don't know how the 'vedic' truth is that atman is brahma under the impression of beingness...
aren't they in the respective positions of pervader (brahma) and pervaded (atman)? that's what the vedic texts say anyway...

vinaire, i don't want to bug you, but i wanted to know what you thought about my questions to you on the last post:

"they [vedas] say what he is not - akaayam (without body/form), asnaaviram (devoid of nerves), aja (unborn), amritam (never dying)..
and what he is - maghavaa (full of majesty), soma (giver of solace), krshaanu (comfort of the poor), rudra (destroyer of evil), sajoshaa (the friend of all), paayuh (the saviour), indra (almighty), saraswati (all-knowing), maniishii (the wise), purandhi (support of the universe)...

these are in the vedas, that you say supports this idea of the static brahma that... aren't they something of a definition?"
"are the vedas wrong to define what cannot be defined?"
(are these characteristics the result of 'atmik' consideration'?
is the veda not generated from brahma?
is it rather the work of the atman (soul)?)

"i don't understand what you mean when you say god has to 'postulate' and 'consider'...
isn't he all-knowing anyway? where is the need for him who already knows everything and is infinitely wise to 'consider' or think over something before acting or to even make postulates for that matter? "

the definition of postulate (v.) is either
1) (often foll. by that + clause) assume as a necessary condition, esp. as a basis for reasoning; take for granted
2)claim
3) (in ecclesiastical law) nominate or elect to a higher rank

then i ask myself, why does brahma who is eternally omniscient and the very source of wisdom and knowledge need to postulate or assume anything? is that not in the ken of the finite soul rather than the almighty god?

(btw. didn't you say that brahma is the creator.. if in order to create brahma must assume identity thus becoming atman, is it then not atman that really creates? why then say 'brahma is the creator, not the created', when really it is the atman (brahma + beingness)?)

vinaire, you are a real authority on this scientology philosophy... but does that necessarily mean on the vedic philosophy as well? have you read any of the actual vedas that you say support these theories?

to answer your later questions, yes i do read them, rather than merely 'believ[ing]' in them...
reading the veda bhashyas and reciting the sukts (rig, yajur and sama) + learning their meanings are part of ved swadhyaay and i try to start and end every day with this... and yes, i do see its application in every little aspect of my life, so i guess those allegations don't stick...
and i think you were the only one praising me in the past for my 'forward thinking' and desire for reform... do i lose that when i disagree with you?

i don't want to point fingers, vinaire, but when your post read "Here is the Vedic Truth of BRAHMAM demystified:", it sounded like you were making a claim to knowing the vedic truth... i thought you told me earlier that you weren't au fait with the vedas and scriptural authority...
are you qualified to 'demystify' anything without the backup of the texts you say support your ideas?
can you make this statement on the real vedic truth and substantiate it from the ved itself?
it's easy to make such a postulate on the nature of brahma assuming identity and morphing into the atma, but until this is verified by the chaandas you claim as authority, it is a personal view and not the 'vedic truth'...

please don't take this as some challenge or mockery.. it isn't... your progressive and vigorous ideas have been a refreshing additive to these threads.. the ideas of this mr hubbard are also quite interesting... i was really reminded of brahmin orthodoxy and suppression of learning, by his attacks on the intelligentsia of the west... selfishness and the adharmik clench on knowledge must indeed be removed from our society...

Dear Julie,
In his book" The Arctic Home in the Vedas",Lokmanya
Tilak,a social reformer and a philosopher in the British
era,has at lentgh discussed and analysed the various hymns in the Rigveda through a geographical point of view.
The book is a master piece in itself and is worth reading to understand the mystics of vedic hymns of the Rigved.

Dear Ashegan,

I find that you often make incorrect assumptions and then argue using those incorrect assumptions. Therefore, much of what you said in your last post has little to do with the argument I presented.

Here are my responses to portions (in italics) quoted from your last post.

“vinaire, you believe that atman and brahma are essentially the same, but that atman is brahma with the notion of 'beingness', so it can create etc... am i right?... hence the atman was originally brahmam before assuming this idea of 'beingness' - acquisition of atahkaran, notions of ahamkar etc...”
How can one BE and have no beingness? If someone is being then obviously that someone has beingness. God is being, isn’t he? So, God has beingness, doesn’t he? There is nothing mysterious here. You seem to be having some weird idea of ‘beingness.’

“well, that is a belief that you've reasoned out for yourself... there are many, including myself, that feel otherwise... “
You seem to be arguing against your own misconception of ‘beingness.’

“and something i don't understand is that brahma is asur medha - the wise lord... never is he prey to falsely thinking anything, because his knowledge is eternally perfect.. if he can assume a feeling of 'being', and thereby lose his own nature of all-pervasive, all-knowing bliss, can we say he is almighty or of infinite power and knowledge?”
You are assuming BRAHMAM to be a BEING. This is an incorrect assumption. Let’s look at the following sequence that leads to Knowledge. Knowledge requires awareness. Without awareness there can be no knowledge. Awareness requires something to be aware of. Without something to be aware of, there can be no awareness. To have something to be aware of, that something has to be created at the first place. And before something can be created there must BE a creator. And that creator must be BRAHMAM because there is nothing else. So, BRAHMAM must BE a creator before creation can occur, and knowledge can come about. Do you understand this sequence?

“where is the impulse to create at all if he himself is the atman in potential?”
There is nothing else beside BRAHMAM. So, the impulse to create comes from BRAHMAM itself.

“why suffer dukha and klesha in the material world when his nature is truly svah - ever-blissful?”
“Dukha,” “klesha,” “suffering,” “material world,” etc. are simply the result of postulates. In Hinduism you call it Maya. Maya does not define the intrinsic nature of BRAHMAM. The intrinsic nature of BRAHMAM is simply that it has the ability to postulate. And that is all.

“how can a being infinitely wise and forever vigilant, lapse into a state wherein he feels he is seperate or 'is'.. creating the form, as you say...? is that in the nature of the all-perfect god?”
Are you putting a limitation on what BRAHMAM can or cannot do? Look around yourself. What do you see? Is there some other source beside BRAHMAM for all this?

“is it that he 'forgets' his true nature? if not, why would he, as the atman, submit himself to the pains and pleasures of life as the soul?”
Is there a limitation to the number of beingnesses that BRAHMAM can be? Does that limit BRAHMAM in any way? Why can’t some of those beingnesses forget their true nature? What prevents them from submitting themselves to pains and pleasures of life? Are you dictating what BRAHMAM can or cannot do?

“does the soul (atman) when seperate from its original state as brahma, lose its attributes of omniscience etc. (ie. have limitations that do not affect brahma)?”
Each soul is simply a beingness originating from BRAHMAM. A soul limits itself by its own postulates. Yes, you may say that “a portion” of BRAHMAM limits itself. But that does not reduce BRAHMAM’s intrinsic nature in any way.

“if there is some limitation (eg. atahkaran) imposed on the soul as opposed to brahma, is brahma then subject to division or seperation or even limitations for that matter?”
BRAHMAM is not something material that can be divided. But BRAHMAM can certainly postulate parts of itself to be limited. Look at the play around you.

“and how can it (atman-soul) 'seperate' from brahma, for the almighty brahma is indivisible (advait) and ekam evaditiyam? can brahma who is unchangeable, eternal, infallible and infinite become subject to change (assuming individuality/identity thereby becoming atman), creation and ignorance (as the soul)?”
BRAHMAM postulates (creates). That is its intrinsic nature. What it postulates can change. That does not mean that BRAHMAM itself is changing.

“and if brahma is pure and uniform everywhere in its all-pervasiveness, how can one part (atman) be in ignorance or in false knowledge of its true nature, while the other part has all the attributes of brahma (omniscience etc.)? does that not show division in a really indivisible being?”
Is there a limitation on the kinds of postulates BRAHMAM can make? Are you trying to define BRAHMAM? Think again. Are you what you create? If you create a thought, are you that thought?

“is it not the atman (soul) that percieves through the pranas and angas and manas, as the atman is conscious and capable of perception?... why do you say it is only brahma that percieves?”
Where does atman come from? How is it different from BRAHMAM? Where do pranas, angas and manas come from? What makes atman conscious and capable of perception? Are you saying that there are other things independent of BRAHMAM? Then you haven’t really understood BRAHMAM.

“you make the statement of atman being brahma veiled with the idea of 'beingness' but that is on the presumption that brahma and atma are essentially one... it is with that model in mind that the later assumptions are made...”
All creation has come from BRAHMAM. There is no other source of creation. To create, BRAHMAM must BE a creator. That beingness is ATMAM. There is no limitation on the number of such beingnesses. This is how it IS in this universe. If it is any different, please do let me know how.

“are not the essence and nature of the atman and brahma similar (conscious, pure, immortal), while creation, dissolution, maintainance of rta and karmik law are the eternal actions and omnipotence, eternal knowledge etc., the attributes of brahma; and reaping the fruits of action, desire for acquisition of things, repulsion, discernment, individuality etc. are the attributes of the soul? are god and the soul not known by their seperate attributes?”
The intrinsic nature of BRAHMAM is that it has the ability to POSTULATE. When BRAHMAM is postulating, it is also being, and that is ATMAM. ‘Conscious’ means aware of what is there. ATMAM perceives what it creates. That is consciousness. ‘Pure’ simply refers to the intrinsic nature of ATMAM. This nature is ‘the ability to postulate.’ Immortal means ‘BRAHMAM/ATMAM has neither a beginning nor an end, which is truly the case. The idea of ‘beginning’ and ‘end’ applies solely to the postulates and NOT to the creator of the postulates.

The only intrinsic attribute of BRAHMAM is the ‘ability to postulate.’ The laws of Existence, the Karmik laws, the ideas of eternity, omnipotence, eternal knowledge, etc., etc. are nothing but postulates and/or results of the postulates made. They are NOT the intrinsic attributes of BRAHMAM. Similarly, the reaping the fruits of action, desire for acquisition of things, repulsion, discernment, individuality etc. are all postulates and/or results of the postulates made. They are NOT the attributes of the soul.

“ 'oh maitreyi, the almighty resides within the soul and is yet distinct from it. the ignorant soul does not know that the supreme spirit pervades it. just as the soul resides in the body, so does god reside within the soul, and yet he is distinct from it. he witnesses the deeds (good and evil) of the soul and gives it just consequence, thereby keeping it under control.. know, oh maitreyi, that the very same immortal, omniscient being resides within thy soul' “
PARMATMAM (God) is that state of ATMAM that is creating knowingly and without attachment. JIVATMAM (Soul) is that state of ATMAM that is increasingly identifying itself with what it is creating, and forgetting even that it is creating its own identity.

“and then vedant shastra (1.i.16) comes up again and tells me that: 'the soul which is distinct from god could not be the author (creator) of the universe, for being possessed of finite knowledge and energy, it has not the power to build up the cosmos.. hence the soul is distinct from god (brahma)'”
You can perceive only what you believe to be there. That belief is being created by you, isn’t it? One can create a reality and then reduce one’s ability to convince others that one is incapable of having created it. That does not mean that one didn’t create that reality at the first place.

“and the following verse goes on to say: 'the soul (atman) and god (brahma) are distinct from one another, as it has been declared in the upanishads that they are different.. had it not been so, it would not be true that the soul (atman) attains bliss through communion with the god (brahma) who is all-pervading and that god is the object of realisation, whilst the soul seeks realisation'...”
The separation between the soul (atmam) and god (paramatmam) is simply due to ignorance accumulated by the soul. In truth, both are beingnesses of BRAHMAM.

“the vedas and the shastras assure us that god is within us and the ever-present saakshin of all our actions.. so i don't know how the 'vedic' truth is that atman is brahma under the impression of beingness... aren't they in the respective positions of pervader (brahma) and pervaded (atman)? that's what the vedic texts say anyway... “
You are interpreting the Vedic texts incorrectly. ATMAM is what BRAHMAM is being. ATMAM has loaded itself with postulates that are now binding it. They are binding simply because ATMAM has chosen to forget that it can undo them. This is so that it can have a game. ATMAM has now forgotten too much and is getting tired of the game. The game of Kaliyuga is to reverse this course of forgetting. The ATMAM is now trying to recover its postulates so it can return to its original state of PARAMATMAM and then BRAHMAM.

“vinaire, i don't want to bug you, but i wanted to know what you thought about my questions to you on the last post: "they [vedas] say what he is not - akaayam (without body/form), asnaaviram (devoid of nerves), aja (unborn), amritam (never dying).. and what he is - maghavaa (full of majesty), soma (giver of solace), krshaanu (comfort of the poor), rudra (destroyer of evil), sajoshaa (the friend of all), paayuh (the saviour), indra (almighty), saraswati (all-knowing), maniishii (the wise), purandhi (support of the universe)... ”
The “attributes” associated with BRAHMAM above is really what happens as the illusions are destroyed (the attribute of KALIYUGA), and ATMAM regains gradually its original ability to postulate without attachments or identification.

“these are in the vedas, that you say supports this idea of the static brahma that... aren't they something of a definition?" "are the vedas wrong to define what cannot be defined?" (are these characteristics the result of 'atmik' consideration'? is the veda not generated from brahma? is it rather the work of the atman (soul)?) “
Ashegan, you need to integrate your understanding of the Vedas. Understanding in bits and pieces won’t do.

"i don't understand what you mean when you say god has to 'postulate' and 'consider'... isn't he all-knowing anyway? where is the need for him who already knows everything and is infinitely wise to 'consider' or think over something before acting or to even make postulates for that matter? "
You can know only what has been postulated. What else is there?

“the definition of postulate (v.) is either
1) (often foll. by that + clause) assume as a necessary condition, esp. as a basis for reasoning; take for granted
2)claim
3) (in ecclesiastical law) nominate or elect to a higher rank”
Looks like you haven’t been paying attention to how I have repeatedly defined the word POSTULATE.

I am using the word POSTULATE in the sense of a self-created truth. The individual POSTS something. He puts something up and that's what a postulate is. A POSTULATE would be simply the consideration generated by self.

A POSTULATE is, of course, that thing which is a directed desire or order, or inhibition, or enforcement, on the part of the individual in the form of an idea.

The act of POSTULATION may be referred to as CAUSATIVE THINKINGNESS put up to conclude, decide or resolve a problem, or to set the pattern for the future, or to nullify a pattern of the past. It has a dynamic connotation.

“then i ask myself, why does brahma who is eternally omniscient and the very source of wisdom and knowledge need to postulate or assume anything? is that not in the ken of the finite soul rather than the almighty god?”
If there is nothing postulated (created) then there is nothing to know about. The very idea of omniscient, wisdom, knowledge, etc. means that there are things that one can be aware of. How did those things come about at the first place? Through postulation, of course.

“(btw. didn't you say that brahma is the creator.. if in order to create brahma must assume identity thus becoming atman, is it then not atman that really creates? why then say 'brahma is the creator, not the created', when really it is the atman (brahma + beingness)?)”
You are confusing ‘identity’ and ‘becoming’ with ‘being.” Please read more carefully what I am saying.

“vinaire, you are a real authority on this scientology philosophy... but does that necessarily mean on the vedic philosophy as well? have you read any of the actual vedas that you say support these theories?”
My authority is neither the Scientology or the Vedic texts. These texts are simply the guides. The real authority is this universe. How well can you observe it? That is the only real authority that I accept. The texts can be misinterpreted in a thousand different ways.

“to answer your later questions, yes i do read them, rather than merely 'believ[ing]' in them... reading the veda bhashyas and reciting the sukts (rig, yajur and sama) + learning their meanings are part of ved swadhyaay and i try to start and end every day with this... and yes, i do see its application in every little aspect of my life, so i guess those allegations don't stick... and i think you were the only one praising me in the past for my 'forward thinking' and desire for reform... do i lose that when i disagree with you?”
Your thinking is far in advance with the conservative thinking that I find afflicting many on this board. However, you are grossly misinterpreting what I am writing. I seem to be getting hoarse repeating myself. You are failing to examine the key Vedic concepts closely enough, and not able to see the contradictions in your interpretation of the Vedic text. Please read carefully what I have commented above, and clearly write down your disagreements. So far you haven’t given me your disagreements with what I have written, because you haven’t understood what I have written in the first place.

“i don't want to point fingers, vinaire, but when your post read "Here is the Vedic Truth of BRAHMAM demystified:", it sounded like you were making a claim to knowing the vedic truth... i thought you told me earlier that you weren't au fait with the vedas and scriptural authority... are you qualified to 'demystify' anything without the backup of the texts you say support your ideas? can you make this statement on the real vedic truth and substantiate it from the ved itself? it's easy to make such a postulate on the nature of brahma assuming identity and morphing into the atma, but until this is verified by the chaandas you claim as authority, it is a personal view and not the 'vedic truth'... “
Having read Vedas is no guarantee that one has understood them. Also, there are other ways to get to the Vedic truths besides reading the Vedic texts. The ultimate proof is in the application of the understanding of the Vedic truths to the physical universe. In that I have satisfied myself completely. Have you done so? Your way of proof seem to be like the Christians who prove the truth of the Bible by the authority of the Bible.

“please don't take this as some challenge or mockery.. it isn't... your progressive and vigorous ideas have been a refreshing additive to these threads.. the ideas of this mr hubbard are also quite interesting... i was really reminded of brahmin orthodoxy and suppression of learning, by his attacks on the intelligentsia of the west... selfishness and the adharmik clench on knowledge must indeed be removed from our society... “
What disappoints me the most here is that you, Ashegan, have not understood much of what I wrote but distorted it completely. Please look over my comments above to your post once again VERY CAREFULLY. You have to first understand them before you can agree or disagree with them.

BRAHMAM, PARMATMAM, & GOD

Here is my integrated understanding of the Vedic Truths underlying these concepts:

BRAHMAM is a STATIC that has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. This is a true static. Formerly, a static was defined only as a motionless object. This definition is not adequate, since a state of rest for an object is attained only by an equilibrium of forces; and all objects have in themselves, if only at a molecular level, motion, and exist in space, which is itself an integral portion of motion. Hence here we are dealing with a higher-level static, a life static, with the ability to postulate and perceive, to make conclusions, decisions and resolutions.

The basis of all creation are the postulates generated by Self (Brahmam). By POSTULATE is meant "a self-created truth." The Self POSTS something. It puts something up and that's what a postulate is. A POSTULATE would be simply the consideration generated by Self.

In order to postulate (create), BRAHMAM must manifest itself. A manifestation of brahmam is called ATMAM. There is no limit to how many atmam may be manifested. The INDIVIDUALITY of an atmam is determined by its capability to postulate and create. An atmam ceases to be (and returns to the state of unmanifested brahmam) when it is not creating.

PARMATMAM is that state of atmam in which it has infinite capability to create and uncreate. There are no limitations to this capability. Earlier postulates naturally act as limits to the later postulates. Therefore, unlimited creation requires unlimited uncreation of what was created earlier. This is possible only when there is total detachment. Thus, TOTAL DETACHMENT characterizes the state of Parmatmam.

As atmam attaches itself to its earlier postulates, it cannot uncreate them. The earlier postulates then persist and limit atmam's subsequent ability to postulate. Thus, as atmam attaches itself more and more to its postulates, it descends from the free state of Parmatmam to the limited state of JIVATMAM. From PARMATMAM to JIVATMAM there are many gradients of states. Each lower state is more attached and less free than the state just above it.

Now, GOD is a general term. When this term is used to mean unmanifested BRAHMAM, Hinduism appears to us as monotheistic. But when the term GOD is used to mean the varied manifestations of brahmam as PARMATMAM, Hinduism appears as polytheistic.

The trouble in defining Hinduism only comes from using general terms, such as, God. But when we analyze "God" more precisely as BRAHMAM and PARMATMAM, with the acompanying understanding of ATMAM and JIVATMAM, that trouble soon vanishes.

Vinaire

namaste vinaire... thanks for replying...
you said [ “Parmatma” is nothing other than BRAHMAM (STATIC).
ATMAM (individuality) = PARMATMAM (brahmam, static) + decision to BE
Before PARMATMAM can create, “It” has to BE. Thus, there is ATMAM. So the difference between PATMATMAM and ATMAM is one of beingness and nothing else. JIVATMAM is a lower aspect of ATMAM.]

in my opening statements i merely repeated the above in summary... i cannot understand how you see your own words, when paraphrased, as being an 'incorrect assumptions'... and with that, my post is dismissed lightly as having 'little to do' with your argument...
i will attempt to readdress some of these issues...

you believe that 'ATMAM (individuality) = PARMATMAM (brahmam, static) + decision to BE'... hence parmatmam is bereft of this quality of 'beingness' or in other words - he 'is not', brahmam is not a being... and in order to postulate or create he must 'be', thereby assuming an identity whereupon he 'is', giving him the faculty to postulate and be 'aware' of that which he creates... hence brahmam ('static') is not god, but rather 'becomes' god...

no offence, vinaire, but it's your understanding of beingness that seems wierd... if brahmam is not a being, then how can he make the conscious decision to become atman and create using that identity...
a very sacred name for the absolute in the vedas is 'asura', a word that was degraded in later days to mean 'demon'... but it's actually derived from the root 'as' meaning 'to be'... hence god almighty is described as 'he who is'...
it is mentioned nowhere in the vedas or the shastras that there is an impersonal reality that lacks identity, and by an internal impulse to create, assumes individuality, becoming 'atman'... this is your scientological theory mixed with a little neo-vedanta, and is not the 'vedic truth' you make such bold claims to...

let us begin with the notion that knowledge requires awareness and without things to be aware of there can be no knowledge, hence brahmam must 'become' in order to be aware and have knowledge... vinaire, you make the statement repeatedly that ' that creator must be BRAHMAM because there is nothing else' and 'There is nothing else beside BRAHMAM'... that is an assumption you have made with your incomplete knowledge of the vedas and their teachings, coupled with the pseudo-philosophy of scientology...

brahmam is not the only 'thing' or reality that exists... if you had read up on this hypothesis you have come across the words of the sankhya shastra (v.8):
'if the all pervading spirit (brahma) were the material cause of the universe, he would be transformed into various material objects just as the primordial matter by the combination of invisible and minute atoms becomes metamorphosed into visible and tangible objects (physical creation). he (brahma) is therefore not the material cause of the universe but the efficient'
this leaves the question of the material cause... or 'prakriti'..

vinaire, you believe that nothing originally exists, and all that 'is' is just the result of postulates made by the brahmam... this is an interesting concept, but it is certainly NOT the 'vedic truth'...

the rig ved (1.164.20) declares unequivocally:
'dvaa suparnaa sayujaa sakhaayaa samaanam vrksham parishasvajaate
tayorantyah pippalam svaadvatyanashnannanyo abhi jaakashiiti'
'both god and the soul are *ETERNAL*, alike in consciousness and other such attributes. they are associated together - god pervading the soul - and are mutual companions. the prakriti (likened to the trunk of a tree whose branches are the multiform universe which is resolved into its elementary condition at the time of dissolution) is also ETERNAL (ie not created or 'postulated'). the natures, attributes and characteristics of these three are ETERNAL.'
of the two, god (brahma) and the soul (atman) (which you assume to be one and the same), 'the latter alone reaps the fruit of this tree (universe) - good or evil - whilst the former does not... god (brahma), the soul (atman) and the prakriti, all these are distinct from one another being different in their natures, but they are all ETERNAL'

anybody can see that by this beautiful analogy, that prakriti, the material cause of the universe is uncreated and seperate from brahma, existing eternally through the course of creation and dissolution, the matter that forms the physical world, which the immortal soul becomes embodied in...
the soul is eternal also, not just a 'phase' brahma goes through when he feels he must create or postulate... yajurved exclaims: shaashvatimyah samaabhayah - the human soul is the ETERNAL subject of the great god... not a transitory moment of 'beingness'...

again svetasvatar upanishad (iv.5) emphasizes:
aajaamekaam lohitashuvalakrshnaam bahviih prajaah suujamaanaam svaruupaah
aajo hyeko jashamaano'nushete jahaatyenaam bhunkabhogaamajo'nya'

'the prakriti, the soul (atman) and god (brahma), all of them are UNCREATED. they are the cause of the whole universe. they themselves have no cause and have been existing ETERNALLY.
the ETERNAL soul enjoys the ETERNAL matter and is wrapped up in it whilst god neither enjoys it, nor is he wrapped up in it'

don't you remember the words of your own beloved gita : 'something can never be nothing, and nothing can never be something'... do you believe in the judeao-christian concept that god just created the vast universe from thin air by 'postulating', without a material cause which the vedas and the shastras stress upon?
and come to think of it, brahmam 'is not', therefore is 'non-being', while it is transformed into atman or 'being'... this goes against the words of chandogya upanishad as well: 'how can being be brought forth from non-being? know that it was BEING that existed in the beginning'...
thus brahma has always been 'being', and atma too.. never was he non-being... your 'vedic truth' is thus nothing more than scientological theories dressed up in hindu garb...

you ask "Are you putting a limitation on what BRAHMAM can or cannot do?" no, i am not, but you mistake the notion of god's omnipotence to assume he can breach his own immutable, and divine laws... the all-powerful nature of god is that he accomplishes all his works by his own infinite power and requires no assistance, like creation, sustenance and dissolution, and the administration of his divine justice... ask yourself vinaire, if brahma can do whatever he likes - can he kill himself? can he make another brahma like himself? can he become ignorant and commit sins? can he be unhappy?
all these things are opposed to the very nature and attributes of brahma... hence to become seperate, to become ignorant of his true nature and become finite as the atman, is opposed to the very concept of brahma...
saying that the almighty cannot be divided or seperated or made ignorant is NOT placing limitations on him or dictating what he can do; it is merely following the basic nature and attributes of brahma, which is indivisible, formless, all-pervading like ether, and forever wise...

you even make the statement that the atman is a 'portion' of the indivisible, advait, eka eva brahma... this anti-vedic idea alone is enough to show your idea is definately not the 'vedic' truth... brahma is uniform and all-perfect throughout... one part cannot be in ignorance, bound by its postulates, and the other part forever blissful... that goes against the vedic injunction and the unified, undivided nature of brahma..
does "BRAHMAM can certainly postulate parts of itself to be limited"... why would brahmam do that??
that is something you don't seem to get to... why would the all-blissful, all-wise brahma want to subject 'parts' of itself to be limited? what is the point in doing that?
what is the reason for making ever-changing, ephemeral postulates (souls) from itself?
why is one part devoid of the omniscience and omnipotence of the rest? can brahma make himself ignorant and bind himself by earthly postulates to a cycle of life and death?

i would like to elaborate on this idea of change... you say clearly "Before PARMATMAM can create, “It” has to BE. Thus, there is ATMAM"... now i ask myself, if brahma parmatma has to 'be' in order to create as the atmam, is it not clearly undergoing a change?? you say - 'before' - what 'before'?? is brahma subject to the three periods of time, that there is a period when he is and a period when he 'is not'? is there any knowledge which ceases to exist with god (when there is nothing else to be 'aware' of) or that he doesn't have now but will possess in the future - through future postulates to be aware of?
the knowledge of brahma is uninterrupted and forever uniform... he does not undergo these metamorphoses you presume he does.. brahma always exists in the present... past events (non-being), present (being), and future relate only to the soul and not the eternal unchanging brahma... it is knowledge of these three periods of time that exist in brahma but he is not affected by them..

change is not a quality of brahma and the equation you use to arrive at the atman is obviously implying change from a state of non-being (non-existence?) and 'being', and then you go ahead with assumption that nothing exists except brahmam, so therefore the universe is just a result of his postulation... i have know idea how, without using the actual vedas themselves to investigate this fanciful theory, you are so quick to declare to the world - 'here is the VEDIC TRUTH demystified!'...
here's what the rshi kapil had to say about your theory:
'matter being subject to change is transformable, whereas god (brahma), being unchangeable is not metamorphosed into any shape or form (as the 'atman')... he is unchangeable and resides in the interior of the heart'


so what if brahma can postulate? i postulate all the time, and as the veda has shown, the eternal soul is of a conscious nature like the everlasting brahma...
is 'postulating' his 'intrinsic nature'?? what makes him brahma? creation is a faculty possessed by god and the soul, while the soul is of finite ability and power, and this is the logic you use to assume - because the soul postulates, the soul must be brahma??
does brahma create the soul which is ANAADI - without beginning, as a postulate to be wrapped up in material existence?

and you ask: 'Where does atman come from? - it is eternal, anaadi, without beginning and without end, existing forever.. you are making the wrong assumption that atman has to 'come' from somewhere and cannot accept the idea that maybe it just 'is', an everlasting conscious entity..
How is it different from BRAHMAM? - does the atman shape, maintain and dissolve the universe? is it all-knowing, all-powerful, of infinite ability? does it mete out divine justice according to its omniscience? is it unembodied, all-pervasive?
if you really want a good answer to your question, vinaire, i'd suggest you read the nyaaya and vaisheshika shastras, which go rather deeply into this issue...
they say attributes of the soul are distinguishable from brahma by desire for acquisition of things, repulsion, activity, feelings of pleasure, feelings of pain, sorrow, displeasure, consciouness (these six attributes common to nyaaya and vaisheshika, while vaisheshika also includes others such as individuality and memory, discernment etc.)... these attributes are manifest in the embodied soul, and cease when the soul leaves the body.. these can be determined by negation - absence of the soul, absence of attributes of the soul...


Where do pranas, angas and manas come from? What makes atman conscious and capable of perception?
the body and the organs of the body are created from the eternal prakriti by the almighty god, and are under the control of the soul, and thus, it is the soul that reaps the fruit of its deeds... the atman is conscious and capable of perception by its own eternal nature... you have the doggedly held belief that brahma is the only conscious reality, so everything that is conscious or able to percieve must be brahma... thus the pranas, angas and manas are created from the primordial prakriti... it is written in the saamkhya shastra (1.61) that:

satvarajastamasaam saamyaavasthaa prakritih prakritermahaan mahato'hankaaro'hahkaaraat
papanchatanmaatraanyubhayamindriyam panchatanmaatrebhyah sthuulabhuutaanipurusha

'the condition of matter in which the three gunas (satva, rajas, tamas) are found combined in equal proportion is called prakriti.. from prakriti emanates the principle of wisdom (mahaatatva), from which proceeds the principle of individuality (ahankaara) from which emanates the five subtle entities and the ten principles of sensation and action, and the manas (principle of attention). from the five subtle entities issue forth the five gross entities (solids, liguids etc.). these 24 entities and the purush (the spirit) form the group of 25 noumena'
thus the attributes of the embodied soul are from the eternal uncreated prakriti and the not the result of your 'postulates'...
in the time of dissolution, the universe does not exist in its gross, physical form, but it exists in essence in its elementary form as the eternal prakriti...
have you ever heard the vedic hymns of creation recited (rtam cha satyam chaabhdidaat tapaso'dhyajaayata)? they all centre around the evolution of the primordial prakriti by the eternal brahma to form the material universe..

'Are you saying that there are other things independent of BRAHMAM?' - yes

'Then you haven’t really understood BRAHMAM' - think again... you imagine a brahmam that conforms to your own little philosophy of scientology, and then switch a few words like brahmam for 'static' and claim it is vedic truth, without having even neared the texts you claim support your ideas... is your understanding of brahmam the true one? i wonder how you can make that claim and even attach a vedic tag to it... i have only adduced a fraction of the vedic injunctions that your theory breaches, so by all means, if you feel confident in it, more power to you, but don't go around preaching it is the vedic truth, for obviously it is not...

and then you say 'The laws of Existence, the Karmik laws, the ideas of eternity, omnipotence, eternal knowledge, etc., etc. are nothing but postulates and/or results of the postulates made'. if eternal knowledge etc, are the results of postulates then they are not eternal, for the postulate has to precede it.. your statement is non-sensical... something 'eternal' has no beginning, while if it is a postulate it does have a beginning and postulation comes before it... omnipotence, omniscience etc. are the attributes of brahma, for by his own intrinsic power he creates, sustains and dissolves this manifold universe into its elementary state... can one postulate without knowledge? is not knowing what the postulate is, knowledge itself? there are many holes in this leaky philosophy...



you say that 'PARMATMAM (God) is that state of ATMAM that is creating knowingly and without attachment'.. so parmatman is now a 'state' of the atman... this contradicts your earlier statement that 'Parmatma” is nothing other than BRAHMAM (STATIC)' ... is brahmam then a state of atmam, rather than the other way around?...
for you first claim that atmam is the state of parmatmam when it chooses to 'be', but then say that parmatmam is a state of atmam... another example of patchy philosophy.


you go on to say that we can only percieve what we believe to be there, and the belief is our creation even though we 'reduce' our ability to convince others that we're incapable of having created it... what do you mean by reduce our ability.. if we are the creator why would we possibly choose to be ignorant of the origin of our creation? you are assuming that the material world and our perception of it is nothing more than the results of the souls postulation.. you believe the universe is unreal, we have created it and we're just suffering from some spiritual amnesia... this is totally inconsistent with vedic teaching... brahma is all-blissful and perfectly uniform, without blemish and seperation.. he cannot be divided up into a portion that is aware of its creation and a portion that is unaware, based on the faulty logic that only he is conscious so whatever else is conscious and capable of perception must be a form of him... when you say 'In truth, both are beingnesses of BRAHMAM' you are basically saying he is divided into two, one distinguished by ignorance (the soul)... this blatent contradiction of the nature of brahma (indivisible ) displays how far this theory is from the vedic truth...


it is amusing that you point fingers at me saying i am 'interpreting the Vedic texts incorrectly'... this from one who has neither read the vedas nor heard them read, or studied the shastras that he claims supports his theories... is anything that disagrees with your scientological theories a misinterpretation of the vedas?? what makes you think that this scientology is consistent with the vedas at all? because you have whittled it down into word riddles about being and non-being, and justified it for yourself?

[The “attributes” associated with BRAHMAM above is really what happens as the illusions are destroyed (the attribute of KALIYUGA), and ATMAM regains gradually its original ability to postulate without attachments or identification.]

the attributes of brahma are eternal for he is eternal... they are not transitory or ephemeral, 'happen[ing] as the illusions are destroyed' and not-happening (??) when the illusions are created....
you are assuming that atmam forgets its nature as the ever-blissful brahma and becomes too attached to its postulates, thereby entering the state of jivatma, and that it will regain the attributes of brahma as the illusions fall away... so while the ignorant portion of brahma toils in the material world, the other portion controls and maintains the universe and metes out justice...
but the knowledge of the soul will always be finite and its powers will always be limted, even if it were to go on improving for eternity... it could never equal the everlasting and eternal powers of god which are infinite and manifold.. the human soul can NEVER become god..


and then you criticise my understanding of the vedas by saying i 'need to integrate [my] understanding of the Vedas. Understanding in bits and pieces won’t do'... even that is better than not having read or understood the vedas at all, and making claims to knowing what they teach... the vedas and the shastras harmonise... never do they conflict... so one part is in harmony with the others.. if i quote a sukta that praises god, and distinguishes between him and the eternal soul, and the uncreated prakrti.. will there be another sukta in contradiction to it, perhaps one custom-made to suit this scientology 'philosophy'?

you ask ' The very idea of omniscient, wisdom, knowledge, etc. means that there are things that one can be aware of. How did those things come about at the first place?' and then answer -' Through postulation, of course.'... i've just explained the eternal and uncreated soul and prakriti, which go through the eternal cycles of creation and dissolution... that is what there is to be aware of... god's knowledge is not finite and limited as is the soul... god knows.. we, the souls and this eternal prakriti that brings forth the universe is what there is to be aware of...

“(btw. didn't you say that brahma is the creator.. if in order to create brahma must assume identity thus becoming atman, is it then not atman that really creates? why then say 'brahma is the creator, not the created', when really it is the atman (brahma + beingness)?)”
you say i am ' confusing ‘identity’ and ‘becoming’ with ‘being.”' was it not you, vinaire that wrote: 'ATMAM (individuality) = PARMATMAM (brahmam, static) + decision to BE'... am i really confusing what you're saying? if individuality or identity is the result of 'being' as you clearly imply in your equation, the i see no contradiction in my argument...

“vinaire, you are a real authority on this scientology philosophy... but does that necessarily mean on the vedic philosophy as well? have you read any of the actual vedas that you say support these theories?”
vinaire, when you tell me that your 'authority is neither the Scientology or the Vedic texts' i begin to wonder why you label an entire post to the 'vedic truth 'demystified'... when you take neither way as authoritative, call your philosophy 'vinaire's truth' or the 'universe-as-observed-by-vinaire's truth'.. do not make false claims to the vedic truth...
you say the universe is the only real authority and that the ved is just a 'guide'... vinaire, if you feel the physical universe is unreal and just the result of postulates made by an imperfect jivatma bound to physical creation by its ignorance, how much of a good authority can it be? and how can you possibly understand it without touching what you say are the 'guides' (vedas) to understand it ?

.

i am accused of 'failing to examine the key Vedic concepts closely enough, and not [being] able to see the contradictions in [my] interpretation of the Vedic text'.. if there are contradictions, by all means, vinaire, point them out.. i know i have pointed out some of yours... for someone who has not laid eyes on the vedic concepts themselves as enshrined in the chaturved, you seem to be quick to lecture on who does and does not understanding them... is your interpretation justified by the lexicon and the philology of the vedas, the yaska nirukt, the nighantu and supported by the other shastras (brahmanas etc.) and the darshanas? how can you possibly say my interpretation of the vedas is faulty when you do not how to interpret them?

you say 'Having read Vedas is no guarantee that one has understood them' .. how about not having read them at all, and professing to know them anyway? the vedic truths you espouse through other means has to be coherent with the vedas themselves or they are not vedic.. i have shown these notions to be unsupported by vedic injunction.. so they are inconsistent with the veda and thus, not the vedic truth... you can only apply what you know... so without really knowing the ved, good luck applying their teachings..
if you have satisfied yourself completely you wouldn't be here trying to prove them with tongue-twisting terminology so others might agree with you... has vinaire really satisfied the well of human knowledge and understanding... you should be a rshi by now in that case...

vinaire, i have to leave now.. i will be back in three weeks time... i will then be able to make a response to you... before rushing in expected me to have misunderstood your great philosophy, read your posts over, put yourself in my position and then see whether i have really misunderstood you at all....

Ashegan,

I was incorrect in identifying PARMATMAM with BRAHMAM. PARMATMAM is the purest state of ATMAM. I corrected that in my subsequent post. The relationship is,

BRAHMAM (Static) + decision to BE = ATMAM

Thus, unmanifested, IT is BRAHMAM.

And, manifested, IT is ATMAM.

"BEING" simply means "being manifested" ... changing from potential to actual.

"BEING" does not mean "becoming some identity." There is no identity to BECOME at this point.

Now, when BRAHMAM is manifested as ATMAM we are talking about a whole dimension from PARMATMAM to JIVATMAM. It is a scale of ATMAM:

You cannot be aware of THAT which is unmanifested.

A thought is manifested the moment you become aware of it. Where is that thought before you become aware of it?

An identity, by definition, has FORM.

BRAHMAM is beyond all forms. Thus, BRAHMAM cannot be defined in terms of any identity.

The Vedas declare it to be so.

And, that is how it IS, irrespective of any theory or philosophy.

When you create a thought, you haven't broken yourself down into that thought, have you? That would happen only if you were material. Are you material?

What is Prakriti? Is it independent of Brahmam?

I don't think so. There is no good reason for it to be so, no matter how Vedas are interpreted.

Vinaire the postulant is the only begotten clone of his founder Ron Hubbard the STATIC Scientologist God, deceased. He knows not a word of our Vedas yet he claims to demystify them, indeed offers Vedic Truths in his numerous posts, the while introducing new terms like STATIC and equations to make everything plain and transparent as - mud.

Vinaire is trying to shoe-horn all our divine teachings into a strait-jacket, designed by his late master Hubbard. ( He is still being controlled from the other side of the static void, no?) He has the tenacity and bluster of a con-merchant, after all he is an MSS (Master Schmuk of Scientos) and the stickability, despite his many goings/comings from/to this forum, the stickability of a human variant of a leech.

I postulate that Vinaire Hubbard deserves a web BEING, web site of his own. I can help build it.

Vinaire + Hubbard + STATIC = Nonsense + STATIC
= Zilch

Does anyone know of his full name, his place of work and the name of his boss; also his attorney's name and address? They will all receive a missive from me, couched in my usual courtly language and dulcet tones, enjoining them to make Vinaire the pope of Scientologists. Or give him more real work to do.

This post will be repeated ad nauseum and ad randomium (if you will pardon my French), for I cannot waste more time for such an unpalatable NON-Beingness. (Why does he write a word in caps and a little later the same word is in lowercase, oh, NEVER mind, otherwise I might need a bath in the Ganges. However, I will be willing to perform Shuddi on him should he divest himself of all that Scientologist garb.) For, as is decreed, go forth naked in the world, Vinaire; the Vedic reference for it will be given later, remind me.

Welcome to Hindunet, Narad (Jiten). I knew you will show up sooner or later. But there could be more than one person posing as Narad. I do not exclude that possibility.

One of the biggest barriers against learning is the idea that you already know it all.

I am afraid to say this Narad (Jiten), but if you claim to know it all then why are you sticking around here?

If you can only give up your prejudice against Scientology you might actually learn something for a change, and improve your miserable existence.

Dear Narad (Jiten), You cannot learn anything from Scientology because you have misunderstood Vedas in the first place.

The basic error in Ashegan's thinking is that he is looking at BRAHMAM as an individual being, and thus giving BRAHMAM a form and an identity. That is why he cannot visualize ATMAM merging back into BRAHMAM. He thinks of ATMAM as something other than, and independent of, BRAHMAM.

This is the same error that Christianity makes. This is the very point that I had discussed with Sivadasa earlier in this discussion. There I wrote,

"I think that your following statement is most telling: 'Most Christians have a dwaitin (dualist) view of God, seeing humans and god being forever separate.' This is where the Vedic Truth differs from Bhakti (Christian style). The Vedic truth considers that a soul "starts out" with all the properties of Brahmam before it gets wrapped up in maya. Thus, a soul has Brahmam as its essence. A soul can create as Brahmam does. A soul is not a created thing. "

Thus, Ashegan's viewpoint is closer to the Judeo-Christian notion of God than to the Vedic concept of Brahmam. His interpretation is literal without deep understanding. That is why he is being too critical of Puraans, much beyond what is necessary. It is good that Ashegan is trying to defend the Vedas, but I am afraid to say that he is defending an interpretation of the Vedas, which is not accurate enough.

Atmam is a manifestation of Brahmam, and NOT a creation of Brahmam. Therefore, atmam is not something created. Atmam is eternal simply because Brahmam is eternal. Similarly, Prakriti is another aspect of the manifestation of Brahmam. Prakriti is that which is common to the actions of all the individual manifestations of Brahmam. It is the common denominator of all that is expressed through atmam's creations.

Brahmam is NOT nothing. It is "nothing" only relative to the physical universe. Brahmam is absolute potential. Ashegan has failed to understand this fine point. He talks about some "material cause" that is independent of Brahmam. How can that be?

The mind is so conditioned to the idea of TIME and LOGIC that it is very hard to understand what goes on in the beginning. The Vedas only hint at it. Thus, when I say, "The unmanifested Brahmam manifests itself as atmam and then creates," you may get the idea that there is CHANGE and SEQUENCE involved here. But the fact is that TIME and LOGIC are not yet postulated into existence. So, what I stated earlier could be something totally simultaneous like in an explosion. One must be aware of this conditioning of the mind, and the limitation of the language, to be really able to appreciate knowledge at this level of understanding.

Divine laws are created. Therefore, they can be changed or destroyed. The divine laws are immutable only with respect to this universe. They are not immutable in the absolute sense. They can be destroyed just as this universe can be destroyed. The only reality that is immutable in the absolute sense is Brahmam and Brahmam only. Ashegan seems to think otherwise.

Yes, Ashegan is eloquent. A lot of what he has expressed regarding the corruption of Hinduism is correct. And there I have agreed with him. But where I disagree with him is where he has departed from the truth in the Vedas. He should counter my arguments with proper arguments like a worthy opponent. He should not hide behind, "Oh! It is just this new age religion Scientology…" What kind of argument is that? People resort to that kind of sneakiness when they do not have any valid arguments left.

Just the ability to spout some Sanskrit vocabulary does not guarantee an understanding of the Vedas. The test of understanding is, "Can you apply it?" To get an experience of what I am trying to get across using a limited language, try the following honestly:

THINK A THOUGHT. OBSERVE YOUR AWARENESS OF THAT THOUGHT. CONTEMPLATE WHERE THAT THOUGHT COULD HAVE BEEN BEFORE YOU BECAME AWARE OF IT. CONTEMPLATE YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THAT THOUGHT. CONTEMPLATE IF CREATING THAT THOUGHT REDUCED YOU IN ANYWAY. …

These are just some pointers. Understanding will come from your own efforts. May God bless you!

Ashegan's interpretation of the Vedas goes against the following wisdom from Upanishads, which was posted earlier by Dr. SSR,

OM----Poornamadhaha----Poornamidham----Poornaat----Poornamudhachyate---Poornasya----Poornamaadhaaya ----Poornameva----Vazishyate<<
__________________________________________________
Om=(salutations to God)----Idham =this is---- Poornam =whole(Brahmam-the Supreme Spirit)---Adaha =that is----Poornam =Whole(Brahmam-the Supreme
Spirit) ----Poornaath =from whole---- Poornamudhacchayate =emanates Whole----Poornasya =from whole----Poornamadhaaya = if whole is taken
out----Poornameva =whole alone----Vazishyate =remains------------------------------------------
To Sum Up:-The whole Universe is the manifestation of the Supreme Spirit(BRAHMAM).Every bit of the Universe is BRAHMAM(GOD) only.

I think,Mr.Azhagan Pillai has gone vacationto Egypt etc for about 2-3 weeks,.So to be fair to Mr.Pillai,this question should be raised only when he comes back from vacation-not in his absence.

Sri Vinaire,

If the Jiva is Brahman(God) then how did it entangle with maya? - Hari Om.

I hope you read my post of Saturday, January 1, 2000 - 08:23 am, and also the post of Wednesday, January 5, 2000 - 11:48 am. The answer to your question is there.

Is something there you disagree with?

If we can move up and merge with Brahmam, then we are simply traversing the same route back that we came down on.

If you haven't guessed the answer yet, it is, ATTACHMENT!

it seems i have wasted my time mounting such a long and detailed argument against you, vinaire... i have read through all your little posts that chop and change at slivers of my post, answering a little here.. posing a question there...

you have attempted 0.1% of my questions to you, but hasten to pose new ones without responding to the old... i am not going to bother reposting all my questions again, to which you will probably reply to by saying all the answers are actually in your masterful little summary of scientology and i haven't read it properly... at this point, i doubt any member of this forum will ever respond adequately to your scientology argument for it is ever shifting and changing like your ephemeral un-vedic brahmam...

you never actually face the question posed to you or the challenge of your narrow beliefs but rather resort to name-calling and pointing fingers at those foolish enough to enter into one of the gordian knots you call discussions...
i am sorry that i wasted so much time and energy researching and invalidating your theories with the texts of the vedas, when you simply tip-toe over them to the other side and shout victory...

i fully agree with jiten bhai in his rather harsh description of you... if any other forum memebers were to read through my arguments and then your scanty, elusive responses, they would understand how frustrating it is goading the dead horse of this thread... i can go on quoting from the first letter of the veda to the last, and you still maintain that your scientological-pseudo-vedantic-hubbardism is the vedic truth, which seems escaped the rshis who were the pioneers of the vedic mind...

this thread is going nowhere.. all you do is regurgitate the same tired points that i have refuted with scriptural proof again and again... this scientology nonsense is a rusty bucket with many holes but you still vainly pour in water claiming its the truth and hoping others will be stupid enough to accept it also, confused by the skein of foreign terminology and riddles and kindergarten exercises ('think a thought..')...

you plan to teach the vedic truth without studying or reading or hearing the vedas, and even though the vedic pointer is in the opposite direction to you, you carry on hankering at the crossroads of faith, a vedantist now, a scientologist later, then neither... a bat belonging to neither the fliers or the walkers as per the old african tale...
and to add the proverbial cherry to the top, you lambaste those who have taken the time and effort to study the vedas as having misunderstood them, far from the perfect realisation of maharshi vinaire...

hence instead of going on typing pages and pages of refutation and solid argument and quoting extensively to disprove your arrogant claims to knowing the one and only truth, i end this post here, and see it as neither cowardice nor inability to respond - but i let the facts speak for themselves... this correspondence is weary and i'm bored with the psychological vomit i have to face in your all too frequent posts...
i wish you luck on your rocky crevicy path to brahma-knows-where..

signing off...

ashegan