Reality: What is it?

[godnotgod]

Brahman is such, always changing. Why we call it unchanging is because it never stops changing.

Brahman is Perfection, which is Perfect Joy. Change only occurs when something needs to be made Perfect, to realize Joy; so why would Brahman, which is already Perfect Joy, have any need for any change whatsoever? We call it unchanging because all 'change' is an illusion, a maya as the result of leela or divine playfulness.

That 'Brahman never changes' is a static view. 'Brahman is always changing' is a dynamic view.

So now you have created moving mind. You have returned to the view of maya. Patanjali, in the Yoga Sutras, has said that 'yoga is the cessation of all of the activities of the mind'. What did he mean by that?

That is 'Quantum Mechanics', that is Heidelberg's theory of uncertainty, etc. It is happening with every atom in the whole universe, every moment of time, since the beginning (?) till the end (?), even in all the atoms that constitute our body. This is Aupmanyav's "Higher (Truer) Advaita".

ha ha ha...this is Aupmanyav's ultimate entanglement in maya, thinking it to represent Ultimate Reality. You still dwell in Plato's Cave, entranced by the dancing cave walll shadows you call 'Science', thinking them to represent Reality.

The old materialist paradigm told us that this 'material' world is real. The new Quantum physics paradigm is telling is that what we thought to be a 'material' world of atoms and particles, is in reality 'a superposition of possibilities'. Possibilities exist in the world of consciousness, which become actualized as 'the material world'. Cutting edge Quantum physics is showing that there are no particles in the world; that what the world is 'made of', is energy fields, and that such energy fields emerge from the Quantum Vacuum, which is 'absolutely nothing'.

IOW, all is maya. But that is not a bad thing; just don't mistake if for reality, or suffering will ensue. Let's all get off the wheel of endless births and deaths, shall we?

 

[godnotgod]

Brahman has attributes. Being conscious is one
Brahman is not 'consciousness itself'.
Brahman is not 'maya'. 'Maya' is the result of existence of Brahman. If Brahman is hiding then it is surely different from 'maya'.
.

Is the whirlpool different than or apart from the whirling water? Is there an agent of whirling water called 'whirlpool', or is there simply whirling water, an action we call 'whirlpool', as if it were a thing?

Is 'river' different or apart from 'flowing water'? 'River' is merely one form of flowing water.

Is a tree made of wood, or is it simply wood itself?

We say: 'It is raining'. Is there an 'It' apart from raining? Or is there simply rain itself?

Brahman is Everything; The Absolute. So how can consciousness be apart from Brahman? How can consciousness be a 'part' of Brahman, when undivided Brahman has no such 'parts'?

 

[Aupmanyav]

- 'constant, never-ending change' is maya.
- Brahman is manifesting itself AS 'The World'.
- Existence and non-existence are a duality. .. Brahman is non-dual in nature, and is Pure Consciousness or Pure Being beyond the duality of existence/non-existence.
- When you are dreaming, it is consciousness that is creating the dream-forms, is it not?
- You cannot 'get out of maya', since maya is illusion, so there is nothing to get out of; nothing to 'get'; nothing to grasp. The only way to overcome the mental entanglement that is maya is to be still and (Insert by Aup - contradiction here) to just see what is. Seeing into the true nature of maya is to realize it's illusory nature, and to realize oneness with the true nature of Reality.
- Brahman is not 'maya'. 'Maya' is the result of existence of Brahman.
- If Brahman is hiding then it is surely different from 'maya'. (Insert by Aup - again a contradiction) Brahman is hiding within all forms that it manifests in the Universe, ..
- So what do you suppose the true nature of the material world to be? Is it a serious effort on the part of Brahman?

- Well, that is what I believe. My belief stems from the action of elementary particles, Quarks, Leptons, Bosons and perhaps gravitons. This is the fundamental play of Brahman. This results into the apparent changes that we percieve in the outer world. Had it not been there, 'maya' would not have existed. You believe a static model of Brahman, I believe in a dynamic model. In my model, nothing ever is static, nothing ever is determinate.
- Brahman is doing nothing that it does not inherently does. The world is only our perception. As I have always said, I do not believe in the 'consciousness' jargon. I consider Brahman to be more than just 'consciousness' - i.e., 'what is conscious', 'which is conscious'.
- Existence and non-existence are not duality. Carbon and diamond are not a duality. Brahman is neither 'pure consciousness' nor a 'being'.
- No. Actually, it is unconsciousness that creates a dream. If you were conscious, there would not be any dreams.
- So, you agree that something has to be done to get out of 'maya'.
- Yeah, 'maya' is untruth, whereas Brahman is truth. 'Maya' cannot be taken as existing. It is what the word literally means, an illusion.
- point does not require an answer because what you wrote itself is contradictory.
- I will repeat 'Brahman is doing nothing that it does not inherently does.' The world is an illusion. I am not a Christian and I do not believe Abrhamic religions to contain any truth.

 

[Sunstone]

Is what we call 'reality' the world as we perceive it, or the consciousness with which we perceive it?

The world as we perceive it is the world we are conscious of.

 

[godnotgod]

The world as we perceive it is the world we are conscious of.

Can that be shortened to: 'The world as we perceive it is the world'?

 

[Aupmanyav]

- Brahman is Perfection, which is Perfect Joy. Change only occurs when something needs to be made Perfect, to realize Joy; so why would Brahman, which is already Perfect Joy, have any need for any change whatsoever?
- So now you have created moving mind. You have returned to the view of maya. Patanjali, in the Yoga Sutras, has said that 'yoga is the cessation of all of the activities of the mind'. What did he mean by that?
- ha ha ha...this is Aupmanyav's ultimate entanglement in maya, thinking it to represent Ultimate Reality. You still dwell in Plato's Cave, entranced by the dancing cave walll shadows you call 'Science', thinking them to represent Reality.
- Cutting edge Quantum physics is showing that there are no particles in the world; that what the world is 'made of', is energy fields, and that such energy fields emerge from the Quantum Vacuum, which is 'absolutely nothing'.
- IOW, all is maya. But that is not a bad thing; just don't mistake if for reality, or suffering will ensue. Let's all get off the wheel of endless births and deaths, shall we?

- This is the language of mystics. They are trapped in words. Joy. sorrow. I do not go by that. Brahman is none of it. Brahman does not change because it needs to, it is its inherent property.
- I have not created anything, nor any mind (I do not agree that Brahman is 'mind', 'consciousness'). It is just the way Brahman is. What Patanjali may have said is his view. I am under no compulsion to agree to it. I see that you are heavy on quotes. Reminds me of what Buddha advised against in Kalama Sutta - ('samaṇo no garū' - I believe because the guru said so). That is no reason to believe in something.
- This is not Aupmanyav's entanglement, it is the best science tells us today. You are welcome to believe whether Brahman is perfect or not perfect, whether it is joy or sorrow. I believe these things do not have any meaning wrt Brahman which is a non-duality; therefore the question of being perfect or non-perfect, or joyful or sorrowful, does not even arise. I do not talk in the language of mystics.
- I agree. But to term it is 'absolutely nothing' is going beyond science.
- Yes, creation, birth and death are all 'maya'. I have already passed that stage. I have no sorrow.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is the whirlpool .. simply rain itself?
Brahman is Everything; The Absolute. So how can consciousness be apart from Brahman? How can consciousness be a 'part' of Brahman, when undivided Brahman has no such 'parts'?

It is not good to use too many similes. That leads to 'word traps', 'shabda-jaala'. Sure, Brahman is every thing. The effect of the existence of Brahman is 'maya'. Because of 'maya' we perceive the world the way we do and do not see the reality. We ourselves are part of that faulty perception. Brahman has its own consciousness. The consciousness of humans is because of the brain. The two things are completely different, and as I said earlier, cannot be spoken in one sentence. So, be clear when you talk about 'consciousness'. Are you talking of Brahman's consciousness, the interaction of fundamental forces; or human consciousness, the consciousness of an illusion?

 

[godnotgod]

- Well, that is what I believe. My belief stems from the action of elementary particles, Quarks, Leptons, Bosons and perhaps gravitons. This is the fundamental play of Brahman. This results into the apparent changes that we percieve in the outer world. Had it not been there, 'maya' would not have existed. You believe a static model of Brahman, I believe in a dynamic model. In my model, nothing ever is static, nothing ever is determinate.

The experience of Brahman is not a belief. Why do you cultivate beliefs which only clutter the mind? And why are you attempting to understand Brahman, the ground of all being, via of science? Brahman is eternal; science is still wet behind the ears, and will NEVER know Brahman. You are wasting your time. The mystics of 4000 years old have already pointed the way, but you think science can tell us more than they. You are mistaken. Why do I say that? Because the very methodology of science is dissection, and you cannot know the true nature of the butterfly by tearing it apart. All you can do with science is to scratch the surface, but science will think it has special knowledge. Science is the accumulation of data and facts to form a hypothesis and then a theory about characteristics and behavior of material and physical phenomena in order to make predictions. That is science. The mystical view, OTOH, gets to the heart of the matter not via accumulation, but by subtraction, over and over again, until the mind is completely empty of all preconceived notions about Reality. Only then will you be in a position to see things as they are. Until then, you are only howling at the moon.

The Heart Sutra states that 'all phenomena is empty of inherent self-nature', and that would include bosons, quarks, leptons and all other so-called 'particles'. This is in perfect accord with the idea that all phenomena is maya, ie 'illusion'. In realtiy, there are no such 'particles', and now cutting edge Quantum physics says that what we thought to be solid material particles are actually 'bundles of energy' appearing in the Quantum, Higgs, Gravity, and other fields. 'Particles' are an illusion, the play of Brahman. I agree with you on that point. But you are still in the throes of maya when you give credence to the dynamic model of Brahman. You firmly believe things are changing, and so are being unwittingly taken in by maya. It happens even to the most intellectual amongst us. In the Zen temples, we find Phd's breaking down into a sobbing mass on their meditation mats because they can't 'figure it out', when there is nothing to 'figure out'.

You say I believe in a static model of Brahman to suggest that my view is a dead view of Brahman. Quite the contrary. The problem is that you see action as a sign of reality, while I see perfect stillness and changelessness as a sign of true Reality. The rest is pure maya, but you cannot see that yet. The true nature of Brahman is Unchanging, Unborn, Unconditioned. The Absolute is another word for Brahman. It is The Absolute because it is beyond all relative dualities. It is The Universe because The Universe has no relative 'other' to which it can be compared, and that is because The Universe is Everything. The Universe is Brahman, playing itself as 'The Universe'; playing itself as the boson, the quark, the lepton, the star, the planet, and Everything that exists as phenomena.

- Brahman is doing nothing that it does not inherently does. The world is only our perception. As I have always said, I do not believe in the 'consciousness' jargon. I consider Brahman to be more than just 'consciousness' - i.e., 'what is conscious', 'which is conscious'.

I am afraid you are confusing human consciousness of the limited conditioned mind with the Pure Consciousness that is Brahman. If the world is only our perception, it is obvious that such perception requires consciousness to be in place before perception can even take place. Consciousness is the fundamental reality. Show me that you recall when your consciousness had a beginning. You can't because it is beginingless, in place before your birth, and will be in place after your death, because what you think to be 'your' consciousness is not yours at all; it belongs to The Universe; to Brahman.

- Existence and non-existence are not duality. Carbon and diamond are not a duality. Brahman is neither 'pure consciousness' nor a 'being'.

Your 'logic' is inconsistent. existence and non-existence are a duality because they are relative but polar opposites. Carbon and diamond are not; they are different states of the same basic material. Pure consciousness and being are not a duality either, as they are not polar opposites. In fact, in this example, pure consciousness IS Being, because both are not in Time and Space, as Existence is. Brahman cannot be a duality because it is Everything, and as such, has no relative opposite to which it can be compared. IOW, it is not just absolute, it is The Absolute.

- No. Actually, it is unconsciousness that creates a dream. If you were conscious, there would not be any dreams.

Sorry, but the dreamscape cannot exist without consciousness. In fact, the First Level of Consciousness, that of Sleep without Dreams, is a state of consciousness, though it is not awake. The Second Level of Consciousnes is Sleep with Dreams, and the Third is Waking Sleep, or Identification, which is the state most of us call 'wakefulness'. The dream world is conscious, but we are not aware of it in the waking state.

- So, you agree that something has to be done to get out of 'maya'.

No. Realization is not 'doing something' to get out of maya. You cannot get out of something that is not real; that is illusory. All you can do is to prepare for that moment of Awakening, which is spontaneous and unwilled, like the moment when the fruit drops from the tree.

- Yeah, 'maya' is untruth, whereas Brahman is truth. 'Maya' cannot be taken as existing. It is what the word literally means, an illusion.

Brahman is beyond all dualities, beyond 'truth' and 'untruth'.

"Do not seek the truth; only cease to cherish opinion"
3rd Zen Patriarch

On the level of maya, it is real to those under its spell. On the level of transcendence, it is not real.

- point does not require an answer because what you wrote itself is contradictory.

No contradiction. Think again: To pretend that you are something other than your true nature is to create an illusion. That is Brahman both hiding within all forms while pretending to actually BE those very forms. Do you understand, or no? Here:

"What do the Vedantins mean by maya? First, we know from the Upanishads that it is made of three gunas: tamas, rajas, and sattva. Tamas has its veiling power, avarana shakti in Sanskrit. Rajas has its projecting power, vikshepa shakti in Sanskrit, and sattva has its revealing power, prakasha shakti in Sanskrit. Now this language, "veiling" and "revealing," is the language of perception, not the language of manufacture. You can't make anything out of a guna as the Sankhyans wanted to do. These three gunas, of which maya is said to be made, are just three aspects of a misperception. They are not substances, like wood, stone, or gold, out of which objects could be made. They are simply three aspects of an apparition. In order to mistake a rope for a snake, you must fail to see the rope rightly; that's the veiling power of tamas. Then you must jump to the wrong conclusion; that's the projecting power of rajas. You yourself project the snake. But the length and diameter of the rope are seen as the length and diameter of the snake; that's the revealing power of sattva. If you hadn't seen the rope, you might have jumped to some other wrong conclusion."

The Equations of Maya

Brahman's power of maya to hide within all forms is the veiling power called tamas, while the forms which Brahman manifest itself as is rajas, the projecting power of maya. But this facade can be detected, and that is sattva, the revealing power.

- I will repeat 'Brahman is doing nothing that it does not inherently does.' The world is an illusion.

Pardon me, but if it is an illusion, then what you see as a changing world is an illusion, because seeming change is what the world actually is. All this world is in flux. That the world is effervescent is what the Buddha noticed, and so sought higher ground to find the Ultimate Reality beyond all such illusory change. What he found was the background against which all change is seen, and that background is Perfection, which does not change. Can you see that?

I am not a Christian and I do not believe Abrhamic religions to contain any truth.

Then you are just ignorant. What the Abrahamic religions contain is the psychological mind of the believer, and that is one of the most compelling things in the world to try to understand. But I did not say you were a Christian, did I? The question, which you failed to address, was what do you think the nature of the material world to be in terms of whether it is a serious effort on the part of Brahman or not? I merely made a reference to Christianity because their view IS that it is very much a serious matter, one upon which one's soul hangs in the balance.

 

[godnotgod]

It is not good to use too many similes. That leads to 'word traps', 'shabda-jaala'. Sure, Brahman is every thing. The effect of the existence of Brahman is 'maya'. Because of 'maya' we perceive the world the way we do and do not see the reality. We ourselves are part of that faulty perception. Brahman has its own consciousness. The consciousness of humans is because of the brain. The two things are completely different, and as I said earlier, cannot be spoken in one sentence. So, be clear when you talk about 'consciousness'. Are you talking of Brahman's consciousness, the interaction of fundamental forces; or human consciousness, the consciousness of an illusion?

Once again, the consciousness of man is exactly the same consciousness of Brahman, because man is in reality, Brahman itself. The difference is that while Brahman's consciousness is unconditioned and pure (ie 'clear'), that of man is conditioned. But both are the same consciousness. The Hindus have a saying: 'The saltiness of the sea is the same everywhere' However, in some places the sea may be calm, while in others it may be in turmoil. Same sea, different conditions. Tat tvam asi

 

[Aupmanyav]

Once again, the consciousness of man is exactly the same consciousness of Brahman, because man is in reality, Brahman itself. The difference is that while Brahman's consciousness is unconditioned and pure (ie 'clear'), that of man is conditioned. But both are the same consciousness. Tat tvam asi

I will answer this first because the other one is too long. A suggestion - pick out the point that you want to answer and reply. I do it that way. That shortens the message, makes it more understandable.

We simply differ. Bandying this around is not going to change the situation. For me, human consciousness is not the same as the consciousness of Brahman. There is a class difference and not just a quality difference.
'Tat twam asi' is true when a person understands its full import.

 

[godnotgod]

- This is the language of mystics. They are trapped in words.

No sir! The language of the mystic is Silence.

Joy. sorrow. I do not go by that. Brahman is none of it.

I see that you are mistaken in your understanding and/or comprehension. There is relative joy and relative sorrow. That is what the world is immersed in for the most part. But Brahman is Absolute Joy, for which there is no relative opposite. It is transcendent of relative joy and relative sorrow, but contains both as a single reality existing in perfect harmony, ie 'Yin/Yang'. Perhaps you have not had the spiritual experience of Absolute Joy, or even a hint of it? It is beyond anything you can comprehend with the rational mind, as it is not accessed via the thinking mind. Do you really think Brahman to be just unconscious sterile and mechanical processes that create the phenomenal world, and that human consciousness is nothing more than so many electro-chemical reactions in the brain? If that is what you think, then show me how the material brain creates non-material consciousness? Emergent Theory is totally ridiculous, a poor hypothesis created by scientists who know nothing, pretending to possess special knowledge. Hogwash!

Brahman does not change because it needs to, it is its inherent property.

But what's the point?

- I have not created anything, nor any mind (I do not agree that Brahman is 'mind', 'consciousness'). It is just the way Brahman is.

Come now. Can't you see that you are mistaken? You are also Brahman, using consciousness to tell me that Brahman is not consciousness! Yes! Pure Consciousness is 'just the way Brahman IS! Pure Consciousness is the true nature of Brahman, and nothing else. All else is maya.

What Patanjali may have said is his view. I am under no compulsion to agree to it.

No, what Patanjali says is not his PERSONAL view; it is a view understood via transcending all personal views. Are you listening? See what he says. He says that 'yoga' (divine union) is the cessation of all of the activities of the mind'. What does that mean? It means that because the mind is totally stilled, there can be no personal view. No one is asking you to agree with anything. This is not about doctrinal beliefs. I am merely pointing to something for you to see the validity of for yourself via your own direct experience, but not via your personal view. The yogic view is the view of The Universe, of Brahman, not of the self in Identification.

I see that you are heavy on quotes. Reminds me of what Buddha advised against in Kalama Sutta - ('samaṇo no garū' - I believe because the guru said so). That is no reason to believe in something.

I am not posting quotes from others because I believe their doctrines, but because I see the same reality they are pointing to. The Buddha was right. We should not believe in the teachings of others based solely upon their authority. Yes, that was one of the lessons of the Kalama Sutta. I post these quotes so that you might study them and see their authenticity for yourself.

- This is not Aupmanyav's entanglement, it is the best science tells us today. You are welcome to believe whether Brahman is perfect or not perfect, whether it is joy or sorrow. I believe these things do not have any meaning wrt Brahman which is a non-duality; therefore the question of being perfect or non-perfect, or joyful or sorrowful, does not even arise. I do not talk in the language of mystics.

Absolute Perfection has no opposite, and Brahman is The Absolute. There is no relative 'other' to which Brahman the Peerless can be compared. Brahman is All. There is no other. The best of science today is still nibbling around the edges of Reality, compared to Reality itself. Why do you go to science, when you can go directly the Supreme Source that is Brahman. I don't understand why you put science on a pedestal as a means of understanding Brahman. You should be understanding science in terms of Brahman, and not the other way around. You have things backwards, with the cart ahead of the horse. Put your knowledge aside and attain your realization first, so that with the correct view, you can have perfect understanding of how the discoveries of science are seen in the context of Reality itself. The language of the mystic is wordless. Try to enter into the world of Silence as often as you can so that you might make some progress in your understanding. Science just won't get this for you. It is not the correct tool to apply to union with Brahman. The closest it can get is the concept of The Unified Field, but this view is still mechanical, what some call 'Billiard Ball' physics. It has no depth, and is purely sterile and reductionist.

- I agree. But to term it is 'absolutely nothing' is going beyond science.

Sorry, but David Tong, one of the leading theoretical physicists of our time, has stated that the Quantum Vacuum is exactly that: 'absolutely nothing'. But you are correct: True Reality is exactly to go beyond science, because True Reality is beyond Reason, Logic, and Analysis. It cannot be encapsulated by the thinking limited and conditioned mind. As Osho said: 'Nature is bigger than Reason'. Do you truly believe that the nature of Reality can be fathomed via the conceptual frameworks of science and the rational mind? That is to return to Plato's Cave to be entranced by the dancing cave wall shadows called 'Thienthe'. We are fooling ourselves.

- Yes, creation, birth and death are all 'maya'. I have already passed that stage. I have no sorrow.

You admit it yourself: 'creation, birth, and death are all maya', all of which are change. Therefore, all change is maya. It only appears to be changing to the mind caught in maya.

 

[godnotgod]

I will answer this first because the other one is too long. A suggestion - pick out the point that you want to answer and reply. I do it that way. That shortens the message, makes it more understandable.

We simply differ. Bandying this around is not going to change the situation. For me, human consciousness is not the same as the consciousness of Brahman. There is a class difference and not just a quality difference.
'Tat twam asi' is true when a person understands its full import.

If what you say is true, then there is a point at which a discernment can be made between
human consciousness and that of Brahman. Show me where human consciousness ends and that of Brahman begins. Remember now: your true nature is that of Brahman itself. You are Brahman under the spell of maya until you awaken.

The problem here is that you are mistaking consciousness for the state that consciousness is in.

 

[Desert Snake]

Kindly provide the right question, correctly worded, for the benefit of all concerned.

You're asking different questions. Which question are you trying to ask.

 

[Desert Snake]

The question withe the 'we' in it, is incorrect, it's a wrong question, hence the noting that there is no 'we', in that question.

 

[godnotgod]

The question withe the 'we' in it, is incorrect, it's a wrong question, hence the noting that there is no 'we', in that question.

You're confused.

 

[Desert Snake]

You're confused.

Wrong.

 

[godnotgod]

Wrong.

Sorry, your posts are gibberish to me. I can't make them out.

 

[ajay0]

Brahman is pure consciousness. (Aitareya Upanishad 3.3 of the Rig Veda)



It is very unfortunate that some pseudoscholars on Advaita here is stating that Brahman is not pure consciousness , while adhering to the label of 'Advaitist', when ancient Hindu and Advaitan scriptures clearly state that Brahman is pure consciousness, as shown by the above scriptural statement. This is a fundamental of Jnana Yoga or Yoga of the intellect in Advaitan philosophy in Hinduism.

Critical examination is highly valued in Hinduism, and facts are given importance over personal opinions.

Hope the readers will exercise their faculty for critical examination over here when it comes to understanding of Brahman based on scriptural facts, and not be misled by personal opinions.

 

[Aupmanyav]

- Do you really think Brahman to be just unconscious sterile and mechanical processes that create the phenomenal world, and that human consciousness is nothing more than so many electro-chemical reactions in the brain? If that is what you think, then show me how the material brain creates non-material consciousness? Emergent Theory is totally ridiculous, a poor hypothesis created by scientists who know nothing, pretending to possess special knowledge. Hogwash!
- But what's the point?
- No, what Patanjali says is not his PERSONAL view; it is a view understood via transcending all personal views. (underline mine)
- Absolute Perfection has no opposite, and Brahman is The Absolute.
- Sorry, but David Tong, one of the leading theoretical physicists of our time, has stated that the Quantum Vacuum is exactly that: 'absolutely nothing'. But you are correct: True Reality is exactly to go beyond science, because True Reality is beyond Reason, Logic, and Analysis.
- You admit it yourself: 'creation, birth, and death are all maya', all of which are change. Therefore, all change is maya. It only appears to be changing to the mind caught in maya.

- Where did I say that Brahman is unconscous and sterile. I accept the consciousness of Brahman. I also consider it to be dynamic and not static. As we have discussed many times in the topic, advaita does not accept that the universe was created by Brahman. The universe is only an illusion. Brahman does not and has no need to create a universe.
- Human consciousness is electrical and chemical. I go with science. You are welcome not to believe it.
- There is no question of there being a point. That is how it is and we have to live with it.
- No. I am not listening. In Hinduism, personal views are sacrosanct. Even Gods cannot over-ride them, what to talk of Patanjali or any other person. My personal views are my domain.
- As I have said perfection, joy are words in human languages. Brahman does not understand this.
- That is Tong's view. True reality might be known in future and and we are not prophets to say what we will know or not know in future. I leave it to future generations. At the moment I will say that it is yet unknown. That is as far as I will go.
- All change is not 'maya'. There is an original pattern of change, that of ever-changing dynamic Brahman. Then there are changes brought about by 'maya' - creation, birth, death, etc. The two changes are of different class, just as the two types of 'consciousness' too are different, one to Brahman, the other to living beings.

 

[ajay0]

Godse had the personal opinion that Mahatma Gandhi was evil and to kill him would be a good thing. He went on to execute his personal opinion on the practical level, leading to Mahatma Gandhi's assassination. The apostle of nonviolence died by violence.

So before we entertain a personal opinion or view, we should study and inquire whether it is in tune with dharma or morality and the facts. If not, one is bound to commit a major blunder by acting on one's personal opinion.

"A person who employs the force of logic and reasoning in the light of the wisdom presented in genuine scriptures attains the highest truth. " - Sage Dattatreya ( Jnanakhanda of Tripura Rahasya)

Hinduism thus teaches us to go by the standards of wisdom combined with reasoning, rather than by one's personal opinions.

If everyone went by their personal opinions , it will only result in anarchy and chaos.