-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Vedanta and science
- Thread starter Aupmanyav
- Start date
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
And that is none other than you (Jeevo Brahmaiva Na Parah).
Sage Yajnavalkya in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad:
'Idam brahma, idam kshatram, ime lokah, ime devah, imani bhutani, idam sarvam yad ayam atma.'
(This Source of knowledge, this source of power, all these worlds, all these gods, all these beings, all this is just the Self.'
http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/disc/disc_24.html
Could there be anything clearer than this?
Yes there could, but not according to you as you have your eyes closed to Absolute knowledge. Funny how you don’t comment about some of the Gita verses I have referenced and quoted. Why? Do you have no answer for them?
The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is not intended for everybody because people make anarth out of arths such people being yourself.
When Yagnavalkya Rishi states such, what he is stating is that Bhagwan Purushottam is everywhere. As He lives in the Soul as Sakshi, the Atma here is said to be the all. Also if you notice for yourself, the Atma is mentioned here. Now if the atma is mentioned there is also a Sakshi for it.
For example if you read the Yagnavalhya Smruti also written by Yagnavalkya Rishi, he states about Ishwar-Pranidhan or meditation on the Divine. He talks about Parbrahman and how we should meditate upon Bhagwan.
So if what you state is correct then why does he contradict himself? Truth is that he doesn’t. It’s just that people misinterpret his works however it may befit them.
God bless you.
JAy Shri krishna
JAy Swaminarayan
The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is not intended for everybody because people make anarth out of arths such people being yourself.
When Yagnavalkya Rishi states such, what he is stating is that Bhagwan Purushottam is everywhere. As He lives in the Soul as Sakshi, the Atma here is said to be the all. Also if you notice for yourself, the Atma is mentioned here. Now if the atma is mentioned there is also a Sakshi for it.
For example if you read the Yagnavalhya Smruti also written by Yagnavalkya Rishi, he states about Ishwar-Pranidhan or meditation on the Divine. He talks about Parbrahman and how we should meditate upon Bhagwan.
So if what you state is correct then why does he contradict himself? Truth is that he doesn’t. It’s just that people misinterpret his works however it may befit them.
God bless you.
JAy Shri krishna
JAy Swaminarayan
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
I am sorry, Mahesh, you have not read the link that I had pasted. Here is a quote from the article.
"'The Pranas depart', we generally say. 'Oh, the Prana has departed.' But in the case of this person who is totally desireless, who desires only the Self that is everywhere, who is 100% satisfied, such a person's Prana will not depart. Where will it go, because his Self is everywhere? And therefore the question of departing does not arise. There is no particular part of the world where the Prana will go. It will melt down here. A drop of water floating on the surface of the ocean wants to enter the ocean. What distance does it have to travel? It has to sink down there itself. So, it has not to depart anywhere, crawling distances; it melts down, the bubble bursts into the ocean.'
You would perhaps not be able to understand this. Your vision is too clouded. Still, try to read the article.
"'The Pranas depart', we generally say. 'Oh, the Prana has departed.' But in the case of this person who is totally desireless, who desires only the Self that is everywhere, who is 100% satisfied, such a person's Prana will not depart. Where will it go, because his Self is everywhere? And therefore the question of departing does not arise. There is no particular part of the world where the Prana will go. It will melt down here. A drop of water floating on the surface of the ocean wants to enter the ocean. What distance does it have to travel? It has to sink down there itself. So, it has not to depart anywhere, crawling distances; it melts down, the bubble bursts into the ocean.'
You would perhaps not be able to understand this. Your vision is too clouded. Still, try to read the article.
i have read the link i also understand what it means, but i do not agree with what your guru or your teacher Krushnanand has to say. Also why is He worshipping Laksmhi on Diwali? Surely He beliefs He and Laksmi are one and the same.
The Atma or Jeev is indestructable therefore it can be said that it doesnt die nor is born.
14:26
8:15
Translation:
8:16
The Atma or Jeev is indestructable therefore it can be said that it doesnt die nor is born.
14:26
8:15
Translation:
8:16
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
There is no soul. BhagwadGeeta is talking about illusory beings that we are. when we understand the truth perfectly, we come to know that we are none other than Brahman. We also come to understand that birth and death also are Maya, really no one is born and no one dies.
BhagwadGeeta is explaining some very deep philosophy and for the purpose of explanation it has pegged the knowledge on someone like Krishna. Krishna is anthromorphised Indian wisdom. It is not correct to take a literal meaning and think that Krishna is a human or an avatara.
If you take a literal meaning then it will say that Vasudeva's sperm and Devaki's ovum merged to form the cell which developed into Lord Krishna. Would you like your Purushottam Parabrahman to be born like that? Understand that these are only stories carrying some message for the welfare of the society.
BhagwadGeeta is explaining some very deep philosophy and for the purpose of explanation it has pegged the knowledge on someone like Krishna. Krishna is anthromorphised Indian wisdom. It is not correct to take a literal meaning and think that Krishna is a human or an avatara.
If you take a literal meaning then it will say that Vasudeva's sperm and Devaki's ovum merged to form the cell which developed into Lord Krishna. Would you like your Purushottam Parabrahman to be born like that? Understand that these are only stories carrying some message for the welfare of the society.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Would anyone mind if I copied the OP to a general discussion area? This is a very interesting topic, but I don't want to infringe on the DIR.
This is very fooloish of you to suggest such. As BHagwans leelas cannot be questioned. he may be born from a pillar or through natural birth. He is Nirgun so without gun of Maya. hence it doesnt affect Him whether born via natural cuuses or just appeared like Nar Narayan Bhagwan.
Secondly you twist all the scriptures and state "this is not to be taken literally". I mean how foolish. Your philosophy can also be said to not be taken literally. LOL. Same with everything if you dont want ti believe it. Truth is thats how it is. Shri Bhagwan says take refuge unto me and you iwll become Nirgun. Worship me.
Translation:
8:16
He also mentions the cycle of births and deaths (8.4 million lives).
Vasudevam Sarvam iti, Sah Mahatmya Durlabha.
Pariah
Let go
But what if he was a human?
I would actually prefer Lord Krishna to be born like that. To me, to say that Krishna was human and still did all that he did proves much more valuable to me than to say simply that he was born with whatever talent he had. It means he had to strive and struggle and eventually succeeded, which seems more triumphant than having his powers handed to him, right?
Don Penguinoini
Modi.
Has anyone realised how Buddhism is the keyword for this thread?
the teaching of the 'snake in the rope' is a demonstration of how we are only deluded by imagination. Everything is a delusion. All we have to do is to see this clearly and thus the delusion vanishes, the snake never existed except in our imagination, the same with everyting we experience with all our senses, including our mind.
Good clarification, Michaelm.
There are different types, or levels of "reality." At the time you perceive the rope as a snake the rope is, in fact, a snake to you, and the prudent and proper response would be to treat it as such. When, with enlightenment, the snake is revealed to be a rope, only then would it be prudent to treat it as such.
We must live in the reality we perceive, even whilst knowing that our perception is entirely subjective and, ultimately, illusory.
There are different types, or levels of "reality." At the time you perceive the rope as a snake the rope is, in fact, a snake to you, and the prudent and proper response would be to treat it as such. When, with enlightenment, the snake is revealed to be a rope, only then would it be prudent to treat it as such.
We must live in the reality we perceive, even whilst knowing that our perception is entirely subjective and, ultimately, illusory.
How can you see the infinite? If 'God' allows him/herself to be seen by taking a form, that does not mean God is with form, merely able to do so to give us something to worship.
form means limitations. The infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent cannot have limits.
Creation is an illusion.
form means limitations. The infinite, omnipotent, omnipresent cannot have limits.
Creation is an illusion.
Don Penguinoini
Modi.
Maya.
Don Penguinoini
Modi.
If he can change his form at will, then that is unlimited, and not confined to one form.
Also, welcome to the forums Laksmi! Great to see you on the forums, very pleasing to see more hindus
Also, welcome to the forums Laksmi! Great to see you on the forums, very pleasing to see more hindus