The difference between a king and a commoner is (a king does not expect returns)
Replies to Shizuka’s article:
Either you are deliberately trying to sabotage my religion, or you don’t know, which I’m afraid, is worse.
(1) Static Monism and Dynamic Monism (2) No. The Veda-s do not care about managing Vyavahaarika Sathya, except to ensure that people can be led to Brahma Jnaana. That is what the Shaasthra-s do.
Which infidel said that? Let me know, so that I may slay him. Ardha-Naari-Eeshvar
No, that’s not in our religion. No, that’s not how it works.
Remember how I once told you that Malayalam would soon be replaced by English, considering the way of progress? At the time, I didn’t see the relevance of the languages. But now, even if no one else does it, I will single handedly preserve and make relevant all Dravidian and Devanagari scripts and languages.
Caste is Jaathi, not Varna. Jaathi is part of the Samskrithi (culture), while Varna is one’s inclination as per the constitution of their Guna-s. Now, there are people who argue that the Guna-s in one’s body is inherited through their parents’ genes. However this theory falls flat on its head when using either (1) verses from the Shruthi, or (2) empirical data, which is usually part of common sense.
Firstly, the theory argues that a person (Sookshma Shareera) with ‘so and so’ Vaasana-s (mental impressions by accumulated Guna-s) will only take birth (i.e. acquire a Sthoola Shareera) in the household of a family who has the same Vaasana-s. But then, that would refute how a carpenter’s son would be inclined to be a musician.
Secondly, it defies how (1) the Shruthi-s such as Bhagavad Geetha quotes how Varna-s are based on one’s Guna-s and secondly, that the proportion of Guna-s in the mind arise through one’s Karma-s and that in the body arises through the food they consume.
The fourth Prapaathaka of Chaandogya Upanishad (4.4.3 - 4.4.5) deal with the case of Sathyakaama Jaabaala, who wanted to learn the Veda-s, whose mother Jaabaala was a prostitute, and his father was unknown. When he told this to sage Gauthama, he understood that he was a Braahmana simply because he was truthful, and proceeded to initiate him.
Now, I was arguing this example with a proponent of birth-based Varna-s, who based his claims on the Manu Smrithi (the common one, and not Aarya Samaaj’s Vishuddha Manu Smrithi) who unsurprisingly was extremely bigoted as well. I told him how the son of a Shoodra was initiated as a Braahmana. He replied that Gauthama recognizing him to be a Braahmana meant that his father was a Braahmana. But then I pointed out to him the analogy of the carpenter’s son wanting to be something else, as well as how the Manu Smrithi shows that the son of a Braahmana man and a Shoodra woman would be a Nishaada.
When I pointed out to him that as per the Manu Smrithi, the
Braahmana whore (I think he should be given an award for cooking up such bullshit)
There are other instances, where Karna was able to withstand the pain of being bitten by a scorpion, and seeing this Parashurama was able to infer that he was a Kshathriya.
It is not implied in the Purusha Sooktha either. Neither do you know what Purusha is, neither do you know what God is. By the term God, what is implied?
In Hindu-ism, we do not have a ‘good and bad’ dichotomy, we have a tri-stimulus of the three Guna-s: Satthva (Brightness), Thamas (Inertia / Darkness) and Rajas (Excitement / Action) - that is, in nature (Prakrithi). However, the ultimate reality is beyond this material nature of three Guna-s, and is called Brahman (not Braahmana - so that you won’t insinuate).
Now, why are
<> Explain Pramaana-s.
I have a long reply to make to this article. But since I do not have the time for it right now, I’ll just stick to this one point.
I don’t like the concept of Pathi-Parameshvar, and I’d never expect it from my girl. I’m not telling this because I like you, because I like another girl, and I’d never want her to treat me that way. I don’t mean I don’t like you, I like you, but not in that way.
On that note, I’d like to point out that religion is not always about power, it is not always made up, and it is not always about morality. Replace “religion” with a “system of belief” and you’ll get closer to it; and in addition, this particular system of belief deals with “ontology,” or “how things come into being.” Now, there are more nuances, which as you learn about it, you will realize that not all belief systems “get in your way” of living your life. I’ll explain one additional example which will be helpful.
In Indian religion and culture, we have something called Pramaana-s. It is what’s known in Western Philosophy as “epistemological sources,” or simply, “valid sources of acquiring knowledge.” Broadly, the Pramaana-s can be grouped into three: Prathyaksha / Drishta (what is seen), Anumaana (logically inferred) and Shabda (testimony). The different schools of religions, or Darshana-s differ on what is acceptable. Now, the Advaita Vedaanta Darshana for example, considers the three Pramaana-s as valid. Their order of priority for Vyavahaarika Sathya (day to day reality) is first Prathyaksha, then Anumaana and then Shabda. But when it comes to Param-Aarthika Sathya (ultimate reality), or Brahma-Jnaana (knowledge of the ultimate reality), the Shabda of the Veda-s is the only Pramaana.
What this means is that, in Jagat, or the world of duality under Maaya, which is Vyavahaarika Sathya, or Mithya (a misapprehension of true reality), which in other words, is the “natural world” (considered to be made up of three Guna-s), the three Pramaana-s alone hold validity. And only when it comes to knowledge about the super-natural, does the Veda-s hold authority. By the same principle, the idea that Purusha is “split” into many different entities does not mean the same thing as in your interpretation.
(To be more precise, in Avaccheda Vaada (theory of limitation) and Aabhaasa Vaada (theory of resemblance), the Swaroopa (true form) of a Jeeva (living being) is Brahma Chaithanya (ultimate nature) Avachinna (delimited) on Kaarana Shareera (causal body), which is a part of Maaya (illusion). And in Prathibimba Vaada, Maaya itself is a Prathibimba (reflection) of Brahma Chaithanya. By this analogy, the material world is non-different from its source.
What does “delimited” mean here? In order to understand that, you need to understand analogies like the Ghata-Aakaasha-Nyaaya (Pot-Space Analogy), Urna-Naabhi-Nyaaya (Spider-Web Analogy) and so on. The shortest analogy I can make is, consider multiple objects displayed on a screen. Now one can reason that behind each object, there should be a screen. But, are there multiple screens? No, there is only one, although one feels that there should be many.
Now, the screen’s power to project the image is called Shakthi, and the screen is called Shiva. There’s also the aphoristic saying that “without Shakthi, Shiva is Shava.” Why are those two entities separately described if they are ultimately non-separate? It’s because Shiva is the “static” aspect, and Shakthi is the “dynamic” aspect. Hence why the Ardha-Naari-Eeshvara analogy - which I state further below. Also, Purusha is the same thing as Shiva here, i.e. the static aspect.)
If I say “you are the head of the group,” it doesn’t mean that “the group” is a “being” with a “head.” Also, if I say “I’m the fire, the sword and the gun,” it doesn’t mean I’m not human.
In order to understand any field of study, you have to understand its foundation. I also like to phrase it in Malayalam to tell elders, that in order to understand any Shaasthra, you have to understand its Adhishtaana. You can’t just use someone else’s theology to criticize someone else’s religion. To even make the point that all religions do the same thing is moot, as per the point I raised earlier.
For example, I come from the Shaaktha Sampradaaya, and our Godhead, Bhadra Kaali, is feminine, and her ultimate form is as Ardha-Naari-Eeshvar (Half-Female). This iconography represents some metaphysical concepts, but I’m not trying to write a book here. For example, it’s easier to teach moral concepts using Pancha-Tantra tales than to use mathematical logic. There’s also the recent example of CNCF’s “The Illustrated Children’s Guide to Kubernetes,” which is an official guide for beginners to get started with Kubernetes, an “OCI container orchestration system.”
You can say all you want about how “Captain Kube” is not real. But that was never the point. Another analogy is how schools teach simplified models earlier on, with the intention of teaching the real thing later. But schools are not misinforming children by teaching them the Bohr model. Yet many people who skipped the portions or don’t pursue higher education (in the US) think that the solar system model of the atom is accurate. But that is not the problem of the school, but simply, a problem of reality. We can only organize information into large blocks that need to be nommed up “nom nom nom”. That’s literally why we go to school.
<<
Now I’ll also like to add that the feminine and masculine here are referring to the “divine feminine” and “divine masculine”, which have no connection to the human feminine and masculine aspects. Shakthi is the whole Prakrthi, including all animals. Shiva is the Aatma. Explaining this is hard, but this is necessary to invalidate the Pathi-Parameshvara argument.
Going back to the monitor analogy: the part of the screen that underlies an object (Jeeva) would be it’s Aatma or Jeev-Aatma. And the whole screen is called Param-Aatma. As you see, Jeev-Aatma is a part of Param-Aatma, but Param-Aatma is part-less. So this “part” only comes into being when the “image,” or Maaya appears. And Maaya appears due to Aavidya.
(Moola-Aavidya is Shuddha-Sattva-Pradhaana-Prakrthi, while Toola-Avidya is Malina-Sattva-Pradhaana-Prakrthi.)
Then, in Avachheda-Vaada, the Brahma Chaithanya delimited by the Kaarana Shareera is also called Kootashtha Chainthanya (anvil-like nature). This is, because the Kootastha Chaithanya or screen area does not change, while the image covering it will change. While the Aatma or Jeev-Aatma is taken to be the Kootastha Chaithanya, the term Jeeva or Jeeva Chaithanya (life-form nature) also refers to both the Kaarana Shareera and the Brahma Chaithanya reflected on the Kaarana Shareera. And since this is (1) a reflection on a medium, and (2) a reflection is not the original, this reflection is also called Chit-Aabhaasa, or a resemblance of consciousness (Chit). The idea of reflection here is as per Aabhaasa-Vaada, to differentiate sentient beings from insentient beings.
Since that was a lot, to understand this better: as Maaya (image) is created, which includes Kaarana Shareera-s (objects), because of the presence of the object, there also comes into being (1) the screen-area delimited by the object, and (2) the Brahma Chaithanya reflected on the Kaarana Shareera (like screen’s brightness filtered through the image). So, (1) Kaarana Shareera, (2) Kootastha Chaithanya and (3) Brahma Chaithanya reflected on the Kaarana Shareera define the Jeeva.
Of these, only Kootastha Chaithanya is ultimately real as Brahma Chaithanya, while the others only exist in relation to the illusion. To give the analogy, Kootastha Chaithanya is the brightness of the monitor, Kaarana Shareera is like an image file, which is not “seen” by itself, but when the brightness of the monitor is conditioned by the image, then the image seems real. For another analogy, Kaarana Shareera is like a mirror, which cannot show an image without light.
Also, just as Brahma Chaithanya Avachinna by Kaarana Shareera is Jeeva-Aatma, Brahma Chaithanya Avachinna by the entire Maaya is Eeshvara. And just as Jeeva Chaithanya also included the reflecting medium and the reflection, Eeshvara Chaithanya also refers to Maaya, and Brahma Chaithanya reflected on Maaya. This reflected Brahma Chaithanya is Chit-Aabhaasa too, but since it is reflected on a larger area, it is still greater than the Chit-Aabhaasa of Jeeva.
Then Prathibimba Vaada points out that Avidya or Maaya itself is the reflection of Brahma Chaithanya on itself. In that sense, we need not consider Brahma Chaithanya reflected on Maaya or Kaarana Shareera as stated earlier, because they themselves are Chit-Aabhaasa.
Vidya Vox: “Remember, the meaning. The old folk song we’ll be singing. Pallivaalu Bhadra-Vattakam, Kayyilenthum Thamburaatti..” (LOL).
Mudiyettu is a play that enacts the story of Daarika Vadha. Padayani is a play that enacts the cosplay performed by Subramanya to calm down Kaali.
When Indians say “God is all-present”, or that “the individual soul and God are one”, we are referring to the screen-areas, not to the images. The purpose of Veda-s is then, to point out “this is Jeeva,” “this is Eeshvara,” “these are the differences,” “this is why,” and “this is the reality.”
On secularism (post to r/Hinduism):
Respect
To Mozbir Ullah:
What I meant by the word machine - if you throw an apple - the same is true for humans - no need to think even about wheels and spokes - “Brahma Sathya; Jagan Mithya; Jeevo Brahmaiva Na-Paraha” (the ultimate self is real, the word is a misapprehension, living beings and the ultimate self are not different) - Shankara Aachaarya’s Brahma Jnaanavali Maala, Verse 20.
What the above verse says is that Brahman (Ultimate Reality) is True, World is apparent (Mithya, i.e. not unreal), Jeeva (Living Beings) and Brahman are not unlike. By living beings, we are referring to their Aatman, or Jeeva-Aatman, not their bodies or their minds - which are all considered to be part of the material world.
Now, schools of Hindu-ism describe the differences between Aatman, Param-Aatman and Brahman. Aatman is Jeeva, Param-Aatman is Eeshvara, and Brahman
Advaitha Vedaantha describes that Aatman is Brahman. But this is only qualitatively true, not quantitatively. But Advaitha Vedaantha holds that Maaya is only an illusion that disappears upon Brahma Jnaana, while other schools hold that Maaya is sustained by Param-Aatman.
So to those schools, Brahman is Eeshvara, and is Saguna, since Eeshvara is Saguna.
Krishna is Param Aatman (BG). Saankhya Yoga
Chariot Analogy. Katha (two birds)
The knowledge acquired in the material world is, just like modern science, limited in its scope, and cannot make any claims about what is beyond the material world. Because of this, the Veda-s are the only sources for Brahma Jnaana (as per the Veda-s). But Thanthra-s do the same thing, so the more general term is Shruthi (what is heard, through meditation).
A common analogy that describes this is the Ghata-Aakasha (pot-space) analogy. However, I’ll use a shorter analogy. Consider a monitor of an infinite resolution and DPI to be projecting an image on to its screen. There, each entity in the image is covering a part of the monitor. Now, the part of the monitor that covers a living being is called the Jeeva-Aatma, while the entire monitor, i.e. what underlies the whole image, is called the Param Aatma, or Eeshvara (God).
- In terms of levels of existence, there are 3 Shareera-s (bodies): Sthoola Shareera (gross body), Sookshma Shareera (subtle body), Kaarana Shareera (causal body)
- In terms of states of consciousness, there are 3 + 1 Avastha-s (states): Jaagratha (waking), Nidra (dreaming), Sushupthi (deep sleep) - as well as Turiya (the trascendental, or ultimate state)
- In terms of coverings, there are 5 Kosha-s (sheaths): Aananda-Maya Kosha (blissful sheath), Vijnaana-Maya Kosha (intelligent sheath), Mano-Maya Kosha (mental sheath), Praaana-Maya Sheath (life-rich sheath) and Anna-Maya Kosha (food-rich sheath, i.e. material body)
Analogies:
- As the spider weaves (this is in reference to the )
Note: Learn Saankhya Yoga
Soothra: Give the analogy of one who wants to climb an obstacle course.
(Regarding the apparent contradiction between the analogies, and the notion that Brahman is unchanging. Consider the analogy of a person who wants to complete an obstacle course. He will have a plan. But when he executes it, there will be differences. This is because we are imperfect beings. But when it comes to God, he says “let it be done” and so it will be done. In that sense, our imperfections too are part of the perfect will of God.)
(But Advaita Vedaanta is different. In it, Brahman is too complete to even have a will. The world of duality is therefore only due to Maaya or Aavidya, and one’s existence is due the resemblance of Brahman on the Kaarana Shareera, or causal body, an aspect of Maaya. A Jeeva is the resemblance of Brahman on the Kaarana Shareera when Prakrithi is unmanifest (i.e. during deep sleep), while it is the resemblance of Brahman on the Antah Karana or Sookshma Shareera when Prakrithi is manifest (when awake or dreaming)).
(It can be assumed that Vikshepa Shakthi and Avarna Shakthi of Maaya are like crests and troughs imposed on Brahman, while Brahman is the unaltered plane surface that provides relative existence to the crests and troughs).