What is Prakriti and its 3 gunas?

[Martin]

They don't, because it is not correct to consider Brahman as 'Ishwara'. 'Ishwara' exists only in 'Maya', 'Vyavaharika', and not in "Paramarthika'.
'The differences in naming are distortions as a matter of speaking, the soil alone is the truth', that is what 'Chandogya' said -
'vācārambhaṇaṃ vikāro nāmadheyaṃ, mṛttikā iti eva satyam'.
If you become one with it, then the thought of 'Ishwara' would not enter your mind. .. Pretty cool huh.
Jagat, Samsara, surely is Brahman, no doubt about it. The problem is the way you perceive it. That is 'maya'. You see men and monkeys. You see it 'us' and 'they'. If you see atoms, quarks, points of energy dancing all around. Then, that is Brahman.

But we don't see atoms and quarks, we see trees and people. And there was no conception of quantum mechanics in Iron-age India, so that clearly wasn't how the rishis thought about Brahman.

Again, I don't understand the use of religious terminology to describe your secular, scientific point of view, it's incongruous.

I don't know, maybe there is something in the atheist interpretation of the scriptures that you present here. The problem is that you're not an objective or impartial observer, and clearly you have a need to make the texts fit your personal view.

 

[ajay0]

Yes. You are right. Perception of Bliss is perception itself, but it is same as much as the Physical Perception.

Which sensory organ perceives bliss ? The eyes or ears or nose or tongue !

 

[Viswa]

Jagat, Samsara, surely is Brahman, no doubt about it. The problem is the way you perceive it. That is 'maya'. You see men and monkeys. You see it 'us' and 'they'. If you see atoms, quarks, points of energy dancing all around. Then, that is Brahman.

Sorry, I don't see it as 'us' and 'they'. I feel you misunderstood something. I won't ignore others comments about me, like saying "wrong assumptions". I will clarify you 'n' number of times if it is needed.

Okay. I don't see as 'us' and 'they'. Only One. I don't differentiate 'Vyavaharika' and 'Paramarthika', but you create the duality. I didn't differentiate Relativity and Quantum, but you differentiate them. I didn't said anything about 'Maya' first, but you created duality of Brahman and Maya.

Let there be Truth or Illusions, Let there be Vyavaharika or Paramarthika, Let there be Relativity or Quantum, Let there be Absolute Reality or Apparent Reality,

Everything is Brahman, why to negate one as Snake and perceive the Rope, if both Rope and Snake is Brahman? Why Raga to Rope and Dvesha to Snake?

 

[Viswa]

Which sensory organ perceives bliss ? The eyes or ears or nose or tongue !

The Whole Body and if expands the Whole Universe. You can feel the bliss right from the right heart to the whole body, and also can share it to another one if other is serious and willing to, like Ramakrishna shared to Vivekhananda

 

[ajay0]

The Whole Body and if expands the Whole Universe. You can feel the bliss right from the right heart to the whole body, and also can share it to another one if other is serious and willing to, like Ramakrishna shared to Vivekhananda

Where is it felt most strongly or tangibly !

 

[Aupmanyav]

And there was no conception of quantum mechanics in Iron-age India, so that clearly wasn't how the rishis thought about Brahman.

Again, I don't understand the use of religious terminology to describe your secular, scientific point of view, it's incongruous.

I don't know, maybe there is something in the atheist interpretation of the scriptures that you present here. The problem is that you're not an objective or impartial observer, and clearly you have a need to make the texts fit your personal view.

That is your view, but rishis saw it exactly that way, even as early as 1000 BCE when Nasadiya Sukta mentioned the relationship between existent and non-existent.

They were also conducting thought experiments as the scientists of today do (Einstein, Schrodinger). Sure Quantum Mechanics did not exist in their time, but the problem of 'Where from it all sprang up?' was there with them too as it is with us today.

The only word which is not in science books is Brahman (blame me for being a Hindu), but I have made in very clear in all my posts that Brahman is none other than 'physical energy'. Yeah, Advaita, if strictly followed by its meaning of the name (non-duality), it does not leave any space for a God. And I am not the first Hindu atheist, Samkhya atheists (nireeshwaravada - Samkhya - Wikipedia) and Vaisheshika followers were there. Hindu atheism - Wikipedia

I didn't say anything about 'Maya' first, but you created duality of Brahman and Maya.
Everything is Brahman, why to negate one as Snake and perceive the Rope, if both Rope and Snake is Brahman? Why Raga to Rope and Dvesha to Snake?

'Maya' is a fact of existence. How can we ignore it? Everything in the universe is constituted of Brahman. I always mention in the forum that Hitler, Stalin, Caliph Ibrahim and Osama bin Laden, Pol Pot and Idi Amin, Saddam and Gadafi, too were none other than Brahman. Even a street dog or a stone in Himalays is Brahman, as nothing other than that exists. To see them as that is 'maya'. In reality it is the dance of Shiva as Fritjof Capra would say.

 

[Viswa]

'Maya' is a fact of existence. How can we ignore it? Everything in the universe is constituted of Brahman. I always mention in the forum that Hitler, Stalin, Caliph Ibrahim and Osama bin Laden, Pol Pot and Idi Amin, Saddam and Gadafi, too were none other than Brahman. Even a street dog or a stone in Himalays is Brahman, as nothing other than that exists. To see them as that is 'maya'. In reality it is the dance of Shiva as Fritjof Capra would say.

Aup. You are right. I don't deny it.

But, why keep on making differentiation of Maya and Reality, if everything is Brahman?

Let it be Maya or Let it be Reality, why to differentiate Brahman as 'Vyavaharika' and 'Paramarthika', 'Maya' and 'Reality'?

Even Shankara sees the stone as stone, Aup as Aup, Viswa as Viswa - the thing is nothing affects them in seeing them as duality too. Can you understand?

They see 'Maya' as 'Brahman', 'Reality' as 'Brahman' and remain free from all forms and Names though perceiving it in duality. It does not mean they see the stone as Quantum Waves. They too see stone as stone, this as this, Hitler as Hitler, etc.,

Why you are very much interested in creating duality of 'Maya' and 'Reality' in Brahman, like Sankhya does for 'Purusha' and 'Prakriti'?

What's your intention in differentiating 'Illusion' and 'Truth', if both illusion and truth is Brahman? Even for enlightened beings, Illusion remains to be perceived as Illusion but they remain free from it, and they free from everything as they perceive all the Illusion and Truth as 'Brahman- One'. Right??

They do continue to perceive the dream/illusion/Maya as Maya itself - but not the perception of Maya changed into Advaita (said in Mandukya verse 7), like you are expecting that "if we achieve enlightenment we can see quantum waves and emptiness beyond it in waking/dreaming/deep-sleep state, and that is Reality." No, not at all. Maya is Maya and Advaita is Advaita, and the laws cannot be broked for senses/mind/intellect, but one just remain free from it even while perceiving it as the same. The eyes don't get a magnification power to see the quantum and beyond, just the Himalayas as Himalayas, Hitler as Hitler, etc.

But, after death, one don't be born back in Illusion and go to that "Shantam Shivam Advaitam", Pure peace and Silence, the Nirguna Brahman outside the Bubble in my profile pic. Until death even after enlightenment, bubbles and Relativity still be perceived as such but not as Quantum or etc..

But, if you want the power to see the Quantum things, you can attain siddhi power by sadhana of going to cave/Himalayas, keep on contemplating about the God/Brahma for many lifes by closing your eyes and remain without food, and God will appear before you and you may ask your wish for Magnifying eyes and the boon will be granted for sure.

 

[Viswa]

Where is it felt most strongly or tangibly !

More strongly for me, it is felt in one or two inches to the right of Heart Chakra said in Kundalini.

From there it first perceived strongly and if I remain in it, it goes to the top head first, the Heart/seat of Prana, and then spreads to whole body.

The Bliss is first felt in Intellect/Mind - in the space of the right heart, from there it goes up to connect to Prana's abode (Sahasrara Chakra), from there connects to the whole body.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But, why keep on making differentiation of Maya and Reality, ..
.. why to differentiate Brahman as 'Vyavaharika' and 'Paramarthika', 'Maya' and 'Reality'?
They see 'Maya' as 'Brahman', 'Reality' as 'Brahman' and remain free from all forms and Names though perceiving it in duality. It does not mean they see the stone as Quantum Waves. They too see stone as stone, this as this, Hitler as Hitler, etc.,
Why you are very much interested in creating duality of 'Maya' and 'Reality' in Brahman, like Sankhya does for 'Purusha' and 'Prakriti'?
What's your intention in differentiating 'Illusion' and 'Truth', ..

Because people take the perceived as The Reality.
'Vyavaharika' is certainly different, you have your needs and desires, you have conflicts of belief, of national interest, of money matters, etc. That i why Sankara said neither of them, 'Paramarthika' or 'Vyavaharika' can be ignored. Both are realities in their own right.
If they don't see that, they are not seeing, 'yah pashyat sa pashyati'. They will not see the difference and keep on with their conflicts.
I have not created the duality, it is evolution that has created duality by giving us very limited perceptive powers.
If people can differentiate between the two, there will be no conflicts. The enlightened understand both, The reality and the perception.

 

[Viswa]

If they don't see that, they are not seeing, 'yah pashyat sa pashyati'. They will not see the difference and keep on with their conflicts.
I have not created the duality, it is evolution that has created duality by giving us very limited perceptive powers.
If people can differentiate between the two, there will be no conflicts. The enlightened understand both, The reality and the perception.

No, it is not evolution created the duality, but God. God created Duality from thought of "I Am" for the sake of creation.

Had you thought how come the first organism in this world can be created? From sand? What science says about it? Humans came from Monkeys, Monkeys from etc., and one goes to the root, how come the first organism came into existence, if there is no parent for it? How come the Asexual first organism might have born?

And, differentiating it is itself conflict Aup. Don't you see? You don't want Relativity Perception and seeking the Reality/Quantum Perception(or dance of Shiva), Dvesha to Relativity/Maya and Raga to Reality?

"if it is not seen, it is not seeing" - is misunderstood.

In BG Chapter 13 verse 28, it is said as "to see soul in all living beings". Not, to see soul only but not the living beings. Understood?

To see One in Two, to see Oneness in Duality, but not the elimination of Duality and see the One. Clear Now?

 

[Aupmanyav]

No, it is not evolution created the duality, but God. God created Duality from thought of "I Am" for the sake of creation.
Had you thought how come the first organism in this world can be created?
In BG Chapter 13 verse 28, it is said as "to see soul in all living beings". Not, to see soul only but not the living beings. Understood?
To see One in Two, to see Oneness in Duality, but not the elimination of Duality and see the One. Clear Now?

You are talking like those from Abrahamic religions. Give your proof for existence of God.
Oh sure, that is well defined - Self-replicating molecules - RNA - DNA.
Fist thing, according to Buddha's advice, I don't take an ancient book to be any God's own word. As everyone will accept Gita was written in modern Sanskrit around the beginning of Christian era and is likely to have been interpolated in its early years. In you replace 'Parmashwara' with the 'stuff of the universe, Brahman', then I will have no problem with it. I think that may have happened with the verse.
To see oneness in duality or multiplicity is denial / elimination of duality and multiplicity, otherwise one would not see the oneness.
Viswa, no use trying to change my views. I am firmly set on my Advaita views.

 

[Viswa]

You are talking like those from Abrahamic religions. Give your proof for existence of God.
Oh sure, that is well defined - Self-replicating molecules - RNA - DNA.
Fist thing, according to Buddha's advice, I don't take an ancient book to be any God's own word. As everyone will accept Gita was written in modern Sanskrit around the beginning of Christian era and is likely to have been interpolated in its early years. In you replace 'Parmashwara' with the 'stuff of the universe, Brahman', then I will have no problem with it. I think that may have happened with the verse.
To see oneness in duality or multiplicity is denial / elimination of duality and multiplicity, otherwise one would not see the oneness.
Viswa, no use trying to change my views. I am firmly set on my Advaita views.

You are firmly set on misunderstood Advaita views. Shankara himself said about the world remains as it is and perceived as it is, even after Jivan Mukti.

No it is not denial of duality, but free from duality.

I'm not speaking from any ancient books, I can clearly see it.

Then how come the RNA-DNA cells came about?

 

[Aupmanyav]

You are firmly set on misunderstood Advaita views. Shankara himself said about the world remains as it is and perceived as it is, even after Jivan Mukti.
Then how come the RNA-DNA cells came about?

I do not consider even Sankara's words as 'God's own truth', though I take him as one of my two gurus (the other one is Buddha). I have problems with his 'Chidananda rupah". What bliss, there is none of it in 'Paramarthika'.
You miss the first item - 'Self replicating molecules' (Self-replication - Wikipedia)

 

[Viswa]

I do not consider even Sankara's words as 'God's own truth', though I take him as one of my two gurus (the other one is Buddha). I have problems with his 'Chidananda rupah". What bliss, there is none of it in 'Paramarthika'.
You miss the first item - 'Self replicating molecules' (Self-replication - Wikipedia)

Yeah I missed it. So how come the construction of similar copy happens? How come the first Biological cell came into existence?

As Martin says, you don't take anything in entirity, part Buddhism part Advaita part/full Science - which suits your wish/thoughts, and made a loop/prison and caught in your own theory.

Even in Buddhism, it is said about Brahma Loka and Siddhi/Tantric powers. Right?

E=mc2, where energy transforms into Mass. That Energy is Nature, that Energy is Consciousness, that Energy is God, transforms itself into Mass - from space to Land, and conducts the Cosmic Play. That Energy has knowledge.

 

[Martin]

That is your view, but rishis saw it exactly that way, even as early as 1000 BCE when Nasadiya Sukta mentioned the relationship between existent and non-existent.

They were also conducting thought experiments as the scientists of today do (Einstein, Schrodinger). Sure Quantum Mechanics did not exist in their time, but the problem of 'Where from it all sprang up?' was there with them too as it is with us today.

The only word which is not in science books is Brahman (blame me for being a Hindu), but I have made in very clear in all my posts that Brahman is none other than 'physical energy'. Yeah, Advaita, if strictly followed by its meaning of the name (non-duality), it does not leave any space for a God. And I am not the first Hindu atheist, Samkhya atheists (nireeshwaravada - Samkhya - Wikipedia) and Vaisheshika followers were there. Hindu atheism - Wikipedia
'Maya' is a fact of existence. How can we ignore it? Everything in the universe is constituted of Brahman. I always mention in the forum that Hitler, Stalin, Caliph Ibrahim and Osama bin Laden, Pol Pot and Idi Amin, Saddam and Gadafi, too were none other than Brahman. Even a street dog or a stone in Himalays is Brahman, as nothing other than that exists. To see them as that is 'maya'. In reality it is the dance of Shiva as Fritjof Capra would say.

Do the scriptures support your idea of Brahman as "physical energy"?

 

[shivsomashekhar]

You deny BG 2.13. Don't go by Prabhupada's translation, the original does not mention 'soul'. It just says what is embedded in that form and that is Brahman. And, that is Advaita, true for all things in the universe. That Krishna is mentioning 'soul' is your prejudice.

@Aupmanyav I do not know if you are mixing up conversations. When I mention the Gita, I am not referring to any translation.

Gita 2.13 simply talks about transmigration. Those lines are true for all Darshanas and also Buddhism. There is no mention of Brahman and there is nothing that is specific to Advaita.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

As Martin says, you don't take anything in entirity, part Buddhism part Advaita part/full Science - which suits your wish/thoughts, and made a loop/prison and caught in your own theory.

That is correct @Aupmanyav has his own hypothesis - a version of Neo Vedanta.

But he is honest about it. He calls it Advaita - not because he aligns with Shankara's doctrine, but by the literal meaning of the word. His usage of the word Advaita in a different sense has caused confusion, but by now most people here are familiar with his ideas.

 

[Viswa]

That is correct @Aupmanyav has his own hypothesis - a version of Neo Vedanta.

But he is honest about it. He calls it Advaita - not because he aligns with Shankara's doctrine, but by the literal meaning of the word. His usage of the word Advaita in a different sense has caused confusion, but by now most people here are familiar with his ideas.

Then it seems world is awaiting for a new school of Advaita from it's founder Aupmanyav.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah I missed it. So how come the construction of similar copy happens? How come the first Biological cell came into existence?
As Martin says, you don't take anything in entirity, part Buddhism part Advaita part/full Science - which suits your wish/thoughts, and made a loop/prison and caught in your own theory.
Even in Buddhism, it is said about Brahma Loka and Siddhi/Tantric powers. Right?
That Energy is Nature, that Energy is Consciousness, that Energy is God, transforms itself into Mass - from space to Land, and conducts the Cosmic Play. That Energy has knowledge.

You have not gone through the link that I offered on 'Self-replication'.

"An autotroph or primary producer is an organism that produces complex organic compounds (such as carbohydrates, fats, and proteins) using carbon from simple substances such as carbon dioxide, generally using energy from light (photosynthesis) or inorganic chemical reactions (chemosynthesis)." - Autotroph - Wikipedia

It is not a jail. It is what I have consciously chosen after detailed analysis of current information.

Buddha was instructing people who hardly understood and used Brahma and Indra in allegorical way. I am sure Buddha did not believe in hocus-pocus.

There is consciousness in energy, but that is vastly different from human consciousness. Energy is not God. Energy has no receptacles/reservoirs/neurons for storing knowledge. It changes and reacts in a Quantum way, with uncertainties and probabilities. As Lawrence Krauss said "Nothing is unstable'.

“In quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing. Such universes need not be empty, but can have matter and radiation in them, as long as the total energy, including the negative energy associated with gravity [balancing the positive energy of matter], is zero.” Furthermore, “for the closed universes that might be created through such mechanisms to last for longer than infinitesimal times, something like inflation is necessary.” - Much Ado about Nothing (Scientific American)

 

[Aupmanyav]

Do the scriptures support your idea of Brahman as "physical energy"?

Why should that be important? They were written for their times. In a way, they do, even in the Nasadiya Sukta (I date it to around 1,000 BCE, late Vedic age, after Indo-Aryans had settled in Northern India), though their vision was much less clear than what we now have.

"tuchye nabhava api ihitaṃ yad āsīt tapah stana mahinā ajāyat aikam ll" (I think my Sanskrit parsing is correct)

All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation., Verse 3 (Second half, translation by Ralph Griffith)

Tuchya - Empty, nabhava - not born, api - also, ihitam - effort, yad - which, āsīt - existed, tapah - heat, stana - udder, mahinā - great, ajāyat - was born, aikam - one.