Brahmn, the ultimate reality - Revision history

Jyoti: /* Self-realisation: Hurdles in the path */

2024-03-16T22:22:36Z

‎Self-realisation: Hurdles in the path

Jyoti at 20:00, 16 February 2022

2022-02-16T20:00:52Z

Jyoti: /* The Unknowable Phenomenon */

2019-01-28T15:09:36Z

‎The Unknowable Phenomenon

Pdewan: /* Brahmn, The Unknowable Phenomenon */

2019-01-21T19:50:48Z

‎Brahmn, The Unknowable Phenomenon

Jyoti at 06:52, 9 June 2018

2018-06-09T06:52:33Z

Jyoti: /* Sankara vs. Ramanujacharya */

2018-05-01T22:36:29Z

‎Sankara vs. Ramanujacharya

Jyoti: /* Sankara vs. Ramanujacharya */

2017-07-30T21:13:30Z

‎Sankara vs. Ramanujacharya

Jyoti at 15:01, 26 July 2017

2017-07-26T15:01:23Z

Pdewan at 08:39, 16 December 2015

2015-12-16T08:39:35Z

Pdewan at 16:13, 15 March 2014

2014-03-15T16:13:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:22, 16 March 2024
Line 140:		Line 140:

	When the dog inside the house barks at a street dog and the latter retorts, the master does not get involved. The wise align with the atma within which stands aloof as a mere witness.		When the dog inside the house barks at a street dog and the latter retorts, the master does not get involved. The wise align with the atma within which stands aloof as a mere witness.
		+
		+	=The Upanishads=
		+	==Uma, the deity, guides Devas to know Brahmn==
		+	[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=08_03_2024_026_002_cap_TOI Pranav Khullar, March 8, 2024: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	When asked by a disciple, “Kenesitam patati presitam manah” – by whom and whose will is the mind directed towards objects – in the opening lines of the Kena Upanishad, the teacher narrates a parable of three gods and the goddess. Placing it in the context of war, the story narrates how the righteous forces, devas, have prevailed over the violators, the asuras.
		+
		+	Now having won, devas are congratulating themselves and gloating over their victory and the special powers that enabled it. The story goes, therein appears a brilliant Yaksha-form. Gods are taken aback at this luminous form and feel challenged by the radiance of this Being. They ask Agni to come forward and find out who this Being is. Agni introduces himself as a god with the special power to burn and turn to ashes everything in the Universe. The Yaksha places a blade of grass in front of Agni and tells him to burn it, or else shed this vanity of strength. With all his skills, Agni is unable to burn the blade of grass and withdraws, his spirits deflated.
		+
		+	Gods then call upon Vayu to challenge and get to know this enigmatic Yaksha figure. Vayu too is called upon by the Yaksha to show his special powers. But with all his powers to blow away everything in his path, Vayu is unable to move the blade of grass, and retreats in despondency, his ego shattered.
		+
		+	Finally, Indra, the king of the gods, is exhorted to find out who this Being is, but even as he approaches the Yaksha, the Being disappears before his eyes. Indra is bewildered at not even being asked by the Yaksha to show his powers.
		+
		+	In his Bhasya on the Kena Upanishad, Adi Shankara alludes to the cause behind the sudden disappearance of the Yaksha figure, stating that Indra was the most vain of the gods, and the greater this vanity and self-absorption, the farther the divine grace drifts away from that person.
		+
		+	But as Indra stands rooted, perplexed at the turn of events, his jignasa, his desire to know this Being intensifies. This seeking of the truth puts him in a reflective state of mind and gets the better of his self-absorption. And as his vanity gets subsumed in his seeking, Uma, the great Goddess, appears in front of him in a splendiferous form, shobhavati uma haimavati – the omniscient consciousness of creation. And tells Indra that the Being that had vanished was indeed Brahmn. In revealing the existence of Brahmn to him and devas, she guides them to the realisation that it is Brahmn alone which drove gods to victory over the Asuras and they are but instruments.  The power of Brahmn, the Kenopanishad states, is to be intuited in every state of mind, Pratibodha-viditammatam, as it is witness to all states of consciousness, and thereby Tadvanam, that which is most adorable. The teacher closes with two similes of the way Brahmn is realisable, like, as in a flash of lightning, or like in the flapping of an eyelid. And Uma as the creative Prakriti impulse, guides us to understand the spiritual essence of this flash of Brahmn by removing the ‘i-syndrome’.
		+
		+	March 8 is International Women’s Day
		+
		+	[[Category:India\|BBRAHMN, THE ULTIMATE REALITY
		+	BRAHMN, THE ULTIMATE REALITY]]
		+	[[Category:Name\|ALPHABETBRAHMN, THE ULTIMATE REALITY
		+	BRAHMN, THE ULTIMATE REALITY]]
		+	[[Category:Pages with broken file links\|BRAHMN, THE ULTIMATE REALITY
		+	BRAHMN, THE ULTIMATE REALITY]]
		+	[[Category:Philosophy\|BBRAHMN, THE ULTIMATE REALITY
		+	BRAHMN, THE ULTIMATE REALITY]]
		+	[[Category:Religion\|BBRAHMN, THE ULTIMATE REALITY
		+	BRAHMN, THE ULTIMATE REALITY]]

	=See also=		=See also=

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 See [[examples]] and a tutorial.</div>
 |}
-[[File:Image name.extension||frame|500px]]
-[[Category:India|B]]
-[[Category: Religion|B]]
-[[Category: Philosophy|B]]
-[[Category:Name|Alphabet]]
 = The Fundamental Principle Of All Existence=
@@ Line 144: / Line 143: @@
 =See also=
 [[Brahmn, the ultimate reality]]
 [[Sañkar(a) (ancient philosopher)]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:09, 28 January 2019
Line 43:		Line 43:

	As an example, think of a person who keeps throwing a ball. The ball follows a trajectory and lands in a particular spot that may be different every time. Scientists then try and identify certain parameters like the force applied to the ball at the time it is thrown through the hole, the angle at which the force is applied, wind resistance and work out a formula. Scientists keep checking their formula and refine it as necessary to take care of all the cases observed and measured thus far. Now, the person throwing the ball is acting randomly and yet scientists find some pattern in it! Likewise, creation is a random dream-like phenomenon and yet, we have found laws governing it!		As an example, think of a person who keeps throwing a ball. The ball follows a trajectory and lands in a particular spot that may be different every time. Scientists then try and identify certain parameters like the force applied to the ball at the time it is thrown through the hole, the angle at which the force is applied, wind resistance and work out a formula. Scientists keep checking their formula and refine it as necessary to take care of all the cases observed and measured thus far. Now, the person throwing the ball is acting randomly and yet scientists find some pattern in it! Likewise, creation is a random dream-like phenomenon and yet, we have found laws governing it!
		+
		+	==Understanding Brahmn Through Devotion==
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2019%2F01%2F21&entity=Ar01804&sk=BC3D01D5&mode=text Pranav Khullar, Deconstructing Brahmn Through Devotion, January 21, 2019: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	Ramanuja’s position in Vedantic metaphysics is unique in its attempt to resolve the nature of reality, the ontological paradox of reality as ‘one and many’ by seeing the two not as opposites, but as being complementary to each other. His Vishishtadvaita philosophy presents a world in which the ‘one’ unity expresses itself in and through a multiplicity of forms, the ‘many’. Both are held together in an organic whole, the Absolute expressing itself through multiple finite beings, immanent in them, yet transcending them. Both the Absolute and the plural world are real, and both realise their value in and through the other.
		+
		+	Having addressed the core metaphysical issue, Ramanuja then applies this principle to map out and define Brahmn as Parama Purusha, not an abstract principle, but as “God qualified by individual selves and matter”. The philosophical concept of Brahmn, the Absolute, gets merged with the religious concept of Ishwara, God, and reality is now realisable through devotional experience. The earlier Vaishnava mystic devotional tradition of the Alwars gets merged in the metaphysics of Vishishtadvaita, where the empirical world is controlled and supported by a Saguna, personal god, and the relation between God and the plural world is described as the sarira-sariri-bhava, that is, the connect between body and soul.
		+
		+	Ramanuja’s ‘Sri Bhasya’, a commentary on the Brahma Sutras, presents a theological framework to metaphysics by establishing Supreme Brahmn as Vishnu, Narayana or Srinivasa. He states that liberation for human beings consists in surrendering to Him, in the spirit of saranagati, seeking refuge in Him. This philosophy was later elaborated upon by Vallabha and Chaitanya.
		+
		+	Shankara’s Advaita philosophy that the world is unreal, that the individual soul and Brahmn are one, that only Brahmn is knowledge-bliss and not the one who possesses these attributes, are all countered by Ramanuja in the Sri Bhasya. Vedanta Desika was to later define Ramanuja. His position as reflected in Vishishtadvaita, qualified monism, as opposed to Shankara’s Advaita, absolute monism, says he comes closer to the original intent of the Brahma Sutras than Shankara does.
		+
		+	This metaphysical position of holding the phenomenal world and the Absolute as both being real worlds, also acted as the trigger for major social reform which Ramanuja pioneered in his time. His philosophy of synthesis allowed him to view the world with a very large heart, and gave him the conviction that there can be no caste, community or gender restrictions in the eyes of God. All are equal in the opportunity to serve and realise God.
		+
		+	Ramanuja threw open temple entry to the so-called untouchables of his day. He personally supervised their entry into the temple of Lord Thirunarayana at Melkote, in Karnataka, giving them a new, ennobling name, Thiru-Kulattar, as belonging to the family of Lakshmi, the Divine Mother.
		+
		+	Ramanuja publicly shared the Ashtakshari Mantra – Aum Namo Narayana – with one and all, to the dismay of his guru. Later, seeing his compassion for people, his guru exclaimed that Ramanuja had truly imbibed the spirit of the mantra.
		+
		+	As one stands before the figure of Ramanuja inside the sanctum complex of the Srirangam temple, his real nature as a bhakta strikes on, a devotee who deconstructed the abstract notion of Brahmn and turned it into a vision of a personal God who can be reached and realised through devotion.

	=Sankara vs. Ramanujacharya=		=Sankara vs. Ramanujacharya=

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 At one place, the Bhagwad Gita says that creation has neither beginning nor end, but there is just this temporary illusion in between as if it exists. What it means is that creation itself does not exist. So something that does not exist cannot have any beginning or end! A similar situation is described in the scriptures by way of a story that starts as follows: A woman who was not biologically able to conceive, gave birth to two children! The story is based on something that is unreal, impossible in reality because a woman who cannot conceive cannot give birth to children! But then, a story can be built on something that can have anything in it because the whole thing is to be taken with a bucket full of salt!
-=Brahmn, The Unknowable Phenomenon=
+=Brahmn, defining=
 [https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2018%2F05%2F31&entity=Ar01603&sk=99A6FD32&mode=text  Kishor Kulkarni, May 31, 2018: ''The Times of India'']

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:52, 9 June 2018
Line 26:		Line 26:

	At one place, the Bhagwad Gita says that creation has neither beginning nor end, but there is just this temporary illusion in between as if it exists. What it means is that creation itself does not exist. So something that does not exist cannot have any beginning or end! A similar situation is described in the scriptures by way of a story that starts as follows: A woman who was not biologically able to conceive, gave birth to two children! The story is based on something that is unreal, impossible in reality because a woman who cannot conceive cannot give birth to children! But then, a story can be built on something that can have anything in it because the whole thing is to be taken with a bucket full of salt!		At one place, the Bhagwad Gita says that creation has neither beginning nor end, but there is just this temporary illusion in between as if it exists. What it means is that creation itself does not exist. So something that does not exist cannot have any beginning or end! A similar situation is described in the scriptures by way of a story that starts as follows: A woman who was not biologically able to conceive, gave birth to two children! The story is based on something that is unreal, impossible in reality because a woman who cannot conceive cannot give birth to children! But then, a story can be built on something that can have anything in it because the whole thing is to be taken with a bucket full of salt!
		+
		+	=Brahmn, The Unknowable Phenomenon=
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2018%2F05%2F31&entity=Ar01603&sk=99A6FD32&mode=text Kishor Kulkarni, May 31, 2018: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	What is this physical creation? There are two broad ways of looking at it. First, creation with a creator behind it who may have designed and programmed it, possibly with some degree of freedom of choice to us. Second possibility is creation may be like a dream, totally “unreal” and illusory. The perceivable universe is perceived by us as a physical phenomenon with a materiality to everything.
		+
		+	Now, can this material universe have a materiality that is absolute, independent of our perception? If yes, then that materiality must come out of a bigger materiality, or at least equal materiality. And where does the materiality come from in the first place?
		+
		+	Materiality cannot come from “nothing”. It has to come from materiality or, if we go by Einstein’s theory of relativity (E=mc2), materiality will have to come from energy. Where does the energy come from? This will amount to chasing our own tail! Of course, theists argue that the “source” (god) of creation is beginning less and hence the question, “Who created the Creator?” is not in order. But that doesn’t convince rationalists.
		+
		+	So, it seems more likely that this universe is a dream, perhaps dream-like. In the dream, we do perceive materiality without really having material. It is all the play of dream consciousness. So, in some sense, a dream comes out of nothing. Likewise, even the so-called real material universe that we perceive in our waking state may still be non-material, just a play of our consciousness, an ephemeral illusion. Of course, this line of argument also leaves us with the question – “Whose dream? Who created that dreamer?” So, it may be better to say that this universe is “dream-like”, dream being just a metaphor to illustrate the phenomenon. It may not necessarily mean a Creator similar to a human being who sleeps and dreams! A better argument then could be that the source is simply something that is unlike anything known to us, a completely unknowable phenomenon whose nature it is to “dream up” a creation. That unknowable phenomenon is given a name – Brahmn.
		+
		+	Now one question still remains. If creation is dreamlike, it is not pre-designed and pre-programmed. But then, we do see all things happening in accordance with universal physical laws (laws of nature). How can that be? I have a crazy answer to that! We have an intellect that is basically designed to find patterns in repeatedly observed phenomena. So, in that sense, what we call as physical laws are retrofitted to the observed phenomena. For all we know, the phenomena themselves were not pre-designed!
		+
		+	As an example, think of a person who keeps throwing a ball. The ball follows a trajectory and lands in a particular spot that may be different every time. Scientists then try and identify certain parameters like the force applied to the ball at the time it is thrown through the hole, the angle at which the force is applied, wind resistance and work out a formula. Scientists keep checking their formula and refine it as necessary to take care of all the cases observed and measured thus far. Now, the person throwing the ball is acting randomly and yet scientists find some pattern in it! Likewise, creation is a random dream-like phenomenon and yet, we have found laws governing it!

	=Sankara vs. Ramanujacharya=		=Sankara vs. Ramanujacharya=

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:36, 1 May 2018
Line 55:		Line 55:

	(The writer is head, department of philosophy, Delhi University.)		(The writer is head, department of philosophy, Delhi University.)
		+
		+	==Shankara’s Concept Of Formless Brahmn==
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2018%2F05%2F01&entity=Ar01605&sk=E333F607&mode=text Pavan K Varma, Adi Shankara’s Concept Of Formless Brahmn, May 1, 2018: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	Vedanta as propounded by Shankaracharya makes him the most important thinker in the exceptional philosophical lineage of Hinduism. In the centuries that followed his elucidation of an absolute monism based on insights of the Upanishads, there was, as can be expected, both an acceptance of his basic tenets, and an understandable reaction to the uncompromising ‘intellectualism’ of his vision. As a consequence, Hinduism has ever since, never denied the existence of Brahmn, as a supreme, attribute-less and omnipresent reality pervading the universe, or rejected the fact that our finite world, in relation to that supreme reality, is of subordinate value.
		+
		+	However, there has been a concerted effort to somehow unite the relenting non-dualism of Shankaracharya with a theism that is more appealing to ordinary people craving for the grace of a personal god in their search for solace and assurance.
		+
		+	This effort does not negate the logic or cerebral strength of Shankara’s philosophy. It merely seeks to ‘reduce’ it to a level that could accommodate religious practice and devotion at the altar of a more comprehensible and less remote divinity. It is to the lasting – but not uncharacteristic – credit of Hinduism, that this effort was made not arbitrarily, nor by fiat or simplistic denial, but through the use of logic and reasoning moored in a philosophical context.
		+
		+	On many occasions, the philosophical arguments put by later Hindu thinkers against his philosophical tenets, appear to be contrived, or wanting in varying degrees from the point of logical consistency. But, the human need to move away from the notion of a persistently transcendent and aloof Brahmn, to a theism more responsive to our daily lives, was so great that, gradually, on the hard rock of Shankara’s philosophical structure, there sprouted a lush undergrowth of what is, in emotional terms, possibly a more fulfilling theism, where, essentially the focus moves from Brahmn to Ishwara, and from logic to devotion… The aftermath of Shankara’s austere but rigorously logical explication of the universe was, at one level, a derogation of his thought structure, but at another, its validation. The progressive dilution of his attribute-less notion of Brahmn towards a more accessible personal theism, was, quite clearly, a rebellion from the remoteness of his unyielding, yet relentlessly consistent logic. But the fact that this happened was, i suspect, not something that would have surprised him. It was precisely for this reason that he segmented the jnana marga at two levels: para vidya, or higher knowledge, where the primary concern was the metaphysical comprehension of the absolute; and apara vidya, lower knowledge, where bhakti, worship, yoga, prayer, surrender, ritual and devotion were given legitimacy, as part of the preparatory steps to move from apara to para vidya.
		+
		+	What followed him was, therefore, something to which he had himself given sanction. Indeed, going beyond, he himself practised a deeply moving theism that led him to write some of the most evocative stotras to the principal deities of the Hindu pantheon. However, the significant point is that this theism that he himself practised, did not deflect him, even for a moment, from the basic tenets of the Advaitic vision, and the concept of Brahmn that was central to it… Shankara’s greatness lay in understanding the human need for religious practice, but not allowing this to impede his exploration of the mysteries of the universe. (Abridged from the Epilogue in ‘Adi Shankaracharya’, by Pavan K Varma, Westland Publications)

	=Brahmn vis-à-vis worldly duties =		=Brahmn vis-à-vis worldly duties =

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 [[Category:Name|Alphabet]]
-==Sankara vs. Ramanujacharya==
+=Sankara vs. Ramanujacharya=
 Contrarian Views On Reality
@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 Whatever be the consequence of your past deeds, your uplift is guaranteed, if you have unflagging zeal to attain Brahmn. Do not look back, look forward. Never take any limited material object for your worship. Accept only the loftiest entity for your contemplation. If your love for Him is genuine, you will ever remain in an Elysian exuberance.Pain will then mean nothing to you, nor will happiness. When one's movement is towards the Great One, when one's ardour is only for the Great One, it is called Prema or Divine Love.
 =See also=