Why in Eastern Philosophy is desire considered bad?

The Buddha says craving causes suffering, not desire, and The Buddha himself had many desires like spreading his own Gospel.

In Eastern Philosophy craving, desperation, needing, attachment, clinging, etc...causes suffering....but not desire...so whats wrong with desire? Why is desire frowned upon?

In the Srimad Bhagavatam, Lord Krishna states:
"One who fixes his pure mind on Me in My manifestation as the impersonal Brahman obtains the greatest happiness, wherein all his desires are completely fulfilled" (SB 11.15.17)

Here is saying that the ultimate happiness comes from desires being fulfilled

So whats wrong with desire?

Desire is attachment. If you fulfill your desires, you will become attached. If you suppress your desires, you will become weak, and when you are weak, the desires come back.

The ultimate happiness is to have all desires fulfilled, but they can't be fulfilled with the material transient things of the world. We must learn to sublimate desires. That's the only way to get them fulfilled without getting attached.

But we can't learn to control and transform desires if we don't know them. The only way to know them is to be with them. So live your life as you want, because there is nothing that has to be done.

Desire is attachment. If you fulfill your desires, you will become attached. If you suppress your desires, you will become weak, and when you are weak, the desires come back.

The ultimate happiness is to have all desires fulfilled, but they can't be fulfilled with the material transient things of the world. We must learn to sublimate desires. That's the only way to get them fulfilled without getting attached.

But we can't learn to control and transform desires if we don't know them. The only way to know them is to be with them. So live your life as you want, because there is nothing that has to be done.

You can choose to neither fulfil nor suppress your desires, but overcome them.

Freedom from desire frees the mind to greater rationality and tolerance.

You can choose to neither fulfil nor suppress your desires, but overcome them.

Freedom from desire frees the mind to greater rationality and tolerance.

Exactly. Siddarthar had the right idea, but he didn't take it far enough. He was so terrified of the attachments he saw to material things that he tried to control the material things, instead of controlling the desires. If he had gone one step further in his mental development, he would have realized that you can have both.

There is much pleasure and fulfillment to be had with the love of material things. The way to keep this from becoming a dangerous attachment is to be able to let go of the need at the drop of a hat. For instance, I love my computer and get much joy from it. Recently, when my computer bit the dust and a hard-drive crashed, I bought a new hard drive without worrying about the lost data or feeling the need to have that data back. It was something that happened, and the cost to get the data back (thousands of dollars) is too much for me. So I choose to not feel bad about the loss.

In this way, I can have the joys of "having" things, without ever feeling the pain of them being taken away. Similarly, I was able to sell my old sailboat, that I lived on for many years, to a friend for a dollar. He needed a home, and I had one. I had much attachment and joy associated with that vessel, many years and miles that we shared together, and once it was not mine again, there is no pain of loss.

Likewise, I do not envy other people for the things that they own which I can not have. And these two stances, the ability to not want what you can't have, plus the ability to get over losing what you once had, give you a power stronger than Siddartar's resolve to not want to own anything. It gives you another source of joy and fulfillment without adding another source of pain and dissapointment.

And the people that rail against consumerism and capitalism make the same mistake Siddarthar made, they blame the objects that people desire, instead of learning to both harnass and control the desire itself. They are the ones missing out on many joys, not the other way around. Especially since the joy of ownership does not preclude the other joys that they like to say are superior.

Exactly. Siddarthar had the right idea, but he didn't take it far enough. He was so terrified of the attachments he saw to material things that he tried to control the material things, instead of controlling the desires. If he had gone one step further in his mental development, he would have realized that you can have both.

There is much pleasure and fulfillment to be had with the love of material things. The way to keep this from becoming a dangerous attachment is to be able to let go of the need at the drop of a hat. For instance, I love my computer and get much joy from it. Recently, when my computer bit the dust and a hard-drive crashed, I bought a new hard drive without worrying about the lost data or feeling the need to have that data back. It was something that happened, and the cost to get the data back (thousands of dollars) is too much for me. So I choose to not feel bad about the loss.

In this way, I can have the joys of "having" things, without ever feeling the pain of them being taken away. Similarly, I was able to sell my old sailboat, that I lived on for many years, to a friend for a dollar. He needed a home, and I had one. I had much attachment and joy associated with that vessel, many years and miles that we shared together, and once it was not mine again, there is no pain of loss.

Likewise, I do not envy other people for the things that they own which I can not have. And these two stances, the ability to not want what you can't have, plus the ability to get over losing what you once had, give you a power stronger than Siddartar's resolve to not want to own anything. It gives you another source of joy and fulfillment without adding another source of pain and dissapointment.

And the people that rail against consumerism and capitalism make the same mistake Siddarthar made, they blame the objects that people desire, instead of learning to both harnass and control the desire itself. They are the ones missing out on many joys, not the other way around. Especially since the joy of ownership does not preclude the other joys that they like to say are superior.


Since I share your attitude, I totally agree with it. :p

Exactly. Siddarthar had the right idea, but he didn't take it far enough. He was so terrified of the attachments he saw to material things that he tried to control the material things, instead of controlling the desires. If he had gone one step further in his mental development, he would have realized that you can have both.

There is much pleasure and fulfillment to be had with the love of material things. The way to keep this from becoming a dangerous attachment is to be able to let go of the need at the drop of a hat. For instance, I love my computer and get much joy from it. Recently, when my computer bit the dust and a hard-drive crashed, I bought a new hard drive without worrying about the lost data or feeling the need to have that data back. It was something that happened, and the cost to get the data back (thousands of dollars) is too much for me. So I choose to not feel bad about the loss.

In this way, I can have the joys of "having" things, without ever feeling the pain of them being taken away. Similarly, I was able to sell my old sailboat, that I lived on for many years, to a friend for a dollar. He needed a home, and I had one. I had much attachment and joy associated with that vessel, many years and miles that we shared together, and once it was not mine again, there is no pain of loss.

Likewise, I do not envy other people for the things that they own which I can not have. And these two stances, the ability to not want what you can't have, plus the ability to get over losing what you once had, give you a power stronger than Siddartar's resolve to not want to own anything. It gives you another source of joy and fulfillment without adding another source of pain and dissapointment.

And the people that rail against consumerism and capitalism make the same mistake Siddarthar made, they blame the objects that people desire, instead of learning to both harnass and control the desire itself. They are the ones missing out on many joys, not the other way around. Especially since the joy of ownership does not preclude the other joys that they like to say are superior.

So you are saying attachment causes suffering, but not desire.

You guys aren't really answering my question.

The question isn't why is clinging, craving, attachment, desperation, etc...bad the question is why is desire itself bad

There's no doubt that attachment and craving causes suffering

You guys aren't really answering my question.

The question isn't why is clinging, craving, attachment, desperation, etc...bad the question is why is desire itself bad

There's no doubt that attachment and craving causes suffering

I think you are missing the point.

The Buddha taught that the nature of reality was impermanent and interconnected. We suffer in life because of our desire to transient things. Liberation from suffering may come by training the mind and acting according to the laws of karma (cause and effect) i.e. with right action, good things will come to you.

This teaching is known as the Four Noble Truths

Dukkha: Suffering is everywhere

Samudaya: There is a cause of suffering, which is attachment or misplaced desire (tanha) rooted in ignorance.

Nirodha: There is an end of suffering, which is Nirvana (the possibility of liberation exists for everyone).

Maggo: There is a path that leads out of suffering, known as the Noble Eightfold Path (right view, right thought, right speech, right conduct, right vocation, right effort, right attention and right concentration).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha


In essence, desire is the root of craving; per se it is not bad.

I think you are missing the point.

The Buddha taught that the nature of reality was impermanent and interconnected. We suffer in life because of our desire to transient things. Liberation from suffering may come by training the mind and acting according to the laws of karma (cause and effect) i.e. with right action, good things will come to you.

This teaching is known as the Four Noble Truths

Dukkha: Suffering is everywhere

Samudaya: There is a cause of suffering, which is attachment or misplaced desire (tanha) rooted in ignorance.

Nirodha: There is an end of suffering, which is Nirvana (the possibility of liberation exists for everyone).

Maggo: There is a path that leads out of suffering, known as the Noble Eightfold Path (right view, right thought, right speech, right conduct, right vocation, right effort, right attention and right concentration).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha


In essence, desire is the root of craving; per se it is not bad.

Ok, I agree attachment and craving causes suffering like The Buddha says and that desire is often associated them.

But what does The Buddha mean by this:
"Hard is it to realize the essential,
The truth is not easily preceived,
Desire is mastered by him who knows',
To him who sees (aright) all things are naught." - (Udana, 8.2)

Here he is talking about not the removal of desire, but the mastery of desire in association with realizing the truth

Ok, I agree attachment and craving causes suffering like The Buddha says and that desire is often associated them.

But what does The Buddha mean by this:
"Hard is it to realize the essential,
The truth is not easily preceived,
Desire is mastered by him who knows',
To him who sees (aright) all things are naught." - (Udana, 8.2)

Here he is talking about not the removal of desire, but the mastery of desire in association with realizing the truth

Yes, that was what I was talking about, the mastery of desire (overcome it) not the removal of it. One cannot avoid desire unless we are dead.

As for the Udana, it indicates how ignorance and craving causes suffering.

One looks at external attributes and is attracted. This leads to craving which in turn leads to grasping. The attainment of such craving is the cause of suffering, because it creates a greed for the object of desire. There is a nice analogy with fire.

Ajahn Sumedho, in 'Teachings of a Buddhist Monk':

"Desire can be compared to fire. If we grasp fire, what happens? Does it lead to happiness?
If we say: "Oh, look at that beautiful fire! Look at the beautiful colors! I love red and orange; they're my favorite colors," and then grasp it, we would find a certain amount of suffering entering the body. And then if we were to contemplate the cause of that suffering we would discover it was the result of having grasped that fire. On that information, we would hopefully, then let the fire go. Once we let fire go then we know that it is something not to be attached to.
This does not mean we have to hate it, or put it out. We can enjoy fire, can't we? It's nice having a fire, it keeps the room warm, but we do not have to burn ourselves in it."


Hence knowledge can help to alleviate ignorance and lead us to the truth of the matter. At this point, we can appreciate our desires and acknowledge them without becoming slaves to them.

Well-said Samcdkey.

Do you try to master your emotions and thoughts? It sounds like you and I share some philosophical bents.

Well-said Samcdkey.

Do you try to master your emotions and thoughts? It sounds like you and I share some philosophical bents.

Yes, its a daily uphill climb, since I tend to react and then think.

But hopefully, I'll get there someday.

"right view, right thought, right speech, right conduct, right vocation, right effort, right attention and right concentration"

I would say that this is the finger that points at the moon, not the moon - if you are familiar with that old saw.

I think the eightfold path could never exclude suffering from a person's life - it can only lead a person to a place where they think clearly enough to see things as they are, without the trappings of mentally created distinction. In that place desire can neither be good nor bad, and so i don't understand how siddartha could be afraid of "attachment to material things", unless he was just talking smack, and wasn't really all that. My statement here applies if you are talking about guatama buddha, and not the character from herman hesse's book (which I only read for fun and never seriously studied, so I have no comment on THAT sidhartha.

How can "Tathagata" be afraid of attachments?

Please don't think this is an argument - just a wedge to split the old wood with, maybe.

A thought about the thread's opening question - I would imagine that a buddha that "desired" to see all beings saved before allowing him or herself to quit this material plane, doesn't "want" to see this happen, per se - they act in a way which furthers that cause. And talking about this I am leaving out the whole non-egoic aspect which must apply to the words of guatama buddha.
I think there are so many conflicting packets of information in the universe that there is no way for a person to rationally have desires, in the multiplicities with which humans normally have them, and also be one-pointed or single-minded at the same time.
So they are "bad" in mitigating quotes, not bad.

Why in Eastern Philosophy is desire considered bad?

The Buddha says craving causes suffering, not desire, and The Buddha himself had many desires like spreading his own Gospel.

In Eastern Philosophy craving, desperation, needing, attachment, clinging, etc...causes suffering....but not desire...so whats wrong with desire? Why is desire frowned upon?

In the Srimad Bhagavatam, Lord Krishna states:
"One who fixes his pure mind on Me in My manifestation as the impersonal Brahman obtains the greatest happiness, wherein all his desires are completely fulfilled" (SB 11.15.17)

Here is saying that the ultimate happiness comes from desires being fulfilled

So whats wrong with desire?It's nothing generally wrong with desire.

Desire for material things can make someone steal things, then it's wrong for him to have that desire. Bodily desire can cause people to cheat on their husband or wife, or make them jelous. There are so many bad things that can come from desire, therefor desire is at risk at being seen as generally bad. While some bodily desires can be good for you, like the desire to eat, or the sudden desire to move your hand from a hot plate, or just simply taking care of the body so you can live.

I get what you guys are saying, I like that fire analogy,
Mastery over desire is the way to go then

Desire is good. It gives people interests. Who the hell wants to sit around staring into his navel?

Navel staring is a poor sport.

Did you ever actually attempt to stare at nothing whatsoever, to completely clear your mind, to be absolutely empty, free from every precondition imposed upon you?

There's an interest to keep you going for a while, if you will.

Whenever my desires get ahead of me some fat whore wants to use it to pull my chain, and that tends to put me off.

--- Ron.
On the contrary the belly button represents the futility of ego and striving
:p

I see:

You think that a futile ego is always good for a few rounds and a bruise or two.

I get fed up with it.

--- Ron.

Obviously you have not yet unlocked the mysteries of your belly button
:p

samcdkey,
I am impressed with your knowledge of Buddhism! :cool:

I don't think the Buddha considered desire "bad" in the typical sense of the word. He was describing a method for transcending suffering, and desire is the root of it. It is also the root of many pleasurable things, but this is what makes it problematic. If you desire to follow the Buddha's path, then desire is something you must confront within yourself. In the end, even the desire for enlightenment must be overcome. This may seem paradoxical, but Buddhism is above all an experience, not a logical philosophical construction.

samcdkey,
I am impressed with your knowledge of Buddhism! :cool:

I don't think the Buddha considered desire "bad" in the typical sense of the word. He was describing a method for transcending suffering, and desire is the root of it. It is also the root of many pleasurable things, but this is what makes it problematic. If you desire to follow the Buddha's path, then desire is something you must confront within yourself. In the end, even the desire for enlightenment must be overcome. This may seem paradoxical, but Buddhism is above all an experience, not a logical philosophical construction.
Actually The Buddha never states that desire is the root of suffering....rather the correct translation is "craving"

samcdkey,
I am impressed with your knowledge of Buddhism! :cool:



It all began with the Jataka tales. :)
http://www.amazon.com/Jataka-Stories-Buddha-Former-Birth/dp/1884997996/sr=8-1/qid=1158141550/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-4489870-7496860?ie=UTF8&s=books

Interesting, I've never heard of that.

VitalOne, to reiterate perplexity, is there really any difference between desire and craving?

Interesting, I've never heard of that.

VitalOne, to reiterate perplexity, is there really any difference between desire and craving?
Yeah. Craving is needing, desperation, etc....desire is different I can desire something without craving it, or feeling any desperation to have it...you can desire something with no attachment at all to it

Desire is Need focusing of its object.
It is suffering projected.

Hello,

Let me try and answer this from what i was reading in upanishads (Brihad. Up.).

Essentially, you desire for a woman/man because of the self you see in her/him (self=brahaman=absolute truth)
you desire for x,y,z things or objects because of the self you see in that
your desires cummulate to form brahman, so it is essential to devote all your desires in realizing the ultimate truth.

desires are bound by senses, in gita as well as in upnishads(and some parts of vedas) it is mentioned (quite often infact) that senses are infererior than mind, and mind is inferior to intelligence and intelligence is inferior to soul or brahman, if your mind is swayed away by senses (often five horses tied to a chariot analogy is taken), you cannot look beyond what your senses or physical self percieves.

I know my writing sucks; if i find time, i might propound more to put in my point more clearly.
Rick

You can choose to neither fulfil nor suppress your desires, but overcome them.

Freedom from desire frees the mind to greater rationality and tolerance.
But life without desire seems robotic, inhuman. It is our desires that drive us, that give life its zest. Remove that, and why get out of bed?

But life without desire seems robotic, inhuman. It is our desires that drive us, that give life its zest. Remove that, and why get out of bed?

To go beyond desire does not eliminate it, it just eliminates the control that desire has over your senses and your will.

When Buddha first saw the "four signs" (disease, old age, death and ascetism), he thought that the way to overcome disease, ageing and death was through ascetism. It was only after several years of self-mortification, that he realised that even self-mortification should be overcome. There is a path between giving up control to the senses and giving up desire, the path where the desire can be enjoyed without becoming slave to it.

But life without desire seems robotic, inhuman. It is our desires that drive us, that give life its zest. Remove that, and why get out of bed?
thats why I say give up attachment, craving, while keeping your inner desires, this way you can have desires without becoming entangled into material nature....your inner true desires and your inherent nature are who you are....remember achieving the absolute happiness is the real goal in life....

Do you have any idea, VitalOne, of how completely confusing and contradictory that appears to be?

--- Ron.
nope...it in fact its Karma Yoga...meant for people with many pending desires.....

believe it or not you can easily give up attachment and craving and still have desires

and if you read the ACTUAL translations of Hindu and Buddhists text you'll find that spiritual masters say to give up attachment, craving, NOT desire (though mistranslations may say so)....the actual source of suffering (not desire)

If I may I shall therefore ask again, was your original question put honestly "So whats wrong with desire?" to solicit information, or did it rather desire to contest an issue?

If you think you know it all already, it might be better to leave you to it.

--- Ron.
That was my question, there's nothing wrong with desire, so why does everyone always make it seem like its bad in Eastern Philosophy?

I already stated that I thought there was nothing wrong with desire just wondering why its frowned upon like its sooo bad,

being detached, fulfilling desires, and enjoying every infinitismal moment is a lot better than repressing desires, being empty inside, left unfulfilled

I have a naive impression that Buddhist practice offers a methodology for attaining Samadhi to reveal enlightenment. That Samadhi manifests when one achieves a state of utter desirelessness. Orthodox Buddhism employs meditation to burn away desire. Left-hand Tantric Buddhism says instead- satisfy desire via sexual ecstasy. Meditation is long, arduous and uncertain but once mastered is accessible for integrating throughout one's lifetime. The "Tantric-like" experience in contrast can be a single ecstatic episode- in fact spontaneous and devoid of any religious structure whatsoever that results in a brief moment of absolute desirelessness. The Samadhi experiences are equivalent but when derived from a tantric-like ecstatic experience- requires study to integrate the enlightenment for meaning in ones lifetime. An account of a spontaneous tantric-like samahdi is online at>

http://geocities.com/maya-gaia/mysticalexp.html

Achieving a psychological/perceptional state of desirelessness is simply the trigger for releasing the flood of insight (Samadhi) that is said to reside dormant and undiscovered in each of us. Thus desire is not judged as a moral issue but simply an obstacle to self enlightenment.

did anyone read the comment i made?

**sigh**

(it was a definite answer)

did anyone read the comment i made?

**sigh**

(it was a definite answer)

I read it but frankly I couldn't figure out head nor tail of it.

ok, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

thats what i was referring to as self.

if you get some time try and read some hindu texts, to get a sense of what they say about desires ... i could elaborate more, but i am t3h little lazy after sunday shopping

:(

Rick

did anyone read the comment i made?

**sigh**

(it was a definite answer)

wait so from what i read you're saying if you realized the absolute brahman that no undesirable situation could possibly come upon you, because it would feel like all your desires were completely fulfilled at every infinitesmal moment?

Essentially, you desire for a woman/man because of the self you see in her/him
Um. I desire a woman because she has a hot body. I might fall in love for some of the reasons you mention, but desire is a simple stimulous/response situation. I see a hot chick, I desire her. I smell a juicy steak, I desire it. It's as simple as that.

Um. I desire a woman because she has a hot body. I might fall in love for some of the reasons you mention, but desire is a simple stimulous/response situation. I see a hot chick, I desire her. I smell a juicy steak, I desire it. It's as simple as that.

so you desire a woman or a steak for one thing - happiness

It is not a matter of what I believe, more a matter of the usual meaning of the word.

"Desire" infers on object not immediately or automatically attainable, i.e. craved:

- verb
1. to wish or long for; crave; want.
2. to express a wish to obtain; ask for; request: The mayor desires your presence at the next meeting.
–noun
3. a longing or craving, as for something that brings satisfaction or enjoyment: a desire for fame.
4. an expressed wish; request.
5. something desired.
6. sexual appetite or a sexual urge.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=desire&x=62&y=28

--- Ron.

one of those definitions is "wish" or "request" which is completely different from craving....

craving:
1. to long for; want greatly; desire eagerly: to crave sweets; to crave affection.
2. to require; need: a problem craving prompt attention.
3. to ask earnestly for (something); beg for.
4. to ask (a person) earnestly for something or to do something.

That is not what I'd call completely different.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=completely&x=0&y=0

Nevertheless how do you hope to determine such a complete distinction, like where and how is your dividing line to be drawn?

--- Ron.

well thats a problem with language...I just think "craving" matches more than "desire"...I mean The Buddha technically had many desires he desired to have disciples and teachings and to convert others to Buddhism...he taught his disciples the virtue of debating to convert others to Buddhism...seems like he really had a desire to convert others to Buddhism

vital one;

yes superficially you are following the point, brahm (i hate it when they write in wrongfully in english as brahman, its pronounced as Brahm-u (u as in 'bus'))
is the ultimate and absolute truth, you like a hot girl or an object, or any thing you see, hear or any thing which changes, because of the brahm you see or percieve in it, so culmination of all desires is brahm.
god, i would need to explain this in a complete thread, but a simple analogy to explain brahm is :
consider a gold ring, you melt the gold change it into something else, some other shape, but at the very core it is still gold, only forms/shape/size are changing, but it is gold, similiarly brahm is the absolute truth, all you see around is only what your senses tell your mind.

Gita ellaborates on this saying that senses are lesser than the mind which can control it like five horses on a chariot, and that mind can be controlled by intelligence (past know how experience etc.) and that soul/brahm is greater than the intelligence itself.

brahm as in a subject requires more discussion;
Rick

vital one;
brahm is the ultimate and absolute truth ..similiarly brahm is the absolute truth, all you see around is only what your senses tell your mind.

This sounds a lot like Plato's idea of absolute forms.
According to Plato's view, there is a form for every corresponding type of object in reality: forms of dogs, human beings, mountains, colors, courage, love, and goodness. Indeed, for Plato, God is identical to the Form of the Good. Forms exist in a "Platonic heaven," and when people die, their souls achieve reunion with the forms. Plato makes it clear that souls originate in this "Platonic heaven" and have recollection of it even in life.
These Forms represent the essence of various objects: they are that without which, a thing would not be the kind of thing it is. For example, there are countless tables in the world but the Form of tableness is at the core, it is the essence, of all of them. Plato held that the World of Forms was separate from our own world and also the true basis of reality. Forms are, in this way, the most pure of all things. Furthermore, Plato believed that true knowledge/intelligence was the ability for a person to grasp the world of Forms with their mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forms

These Forms represent the essence of various objects: they are that without which, a thing would not be the kind of thing it is. For example, there are countless tables in the world but the Form of tableness is at the core, it is the essence, of all of them. Plato held that the World of Forms was separate from our own world and also the true basis of reality. Forms are, in this way, the most pure of all things. Furthermore, Plato believed that true knowledge/intelligence was the ability for a person to grasp the world of Forms with their mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Forms
So what is the form in heaven of a chair I am using as a table? A chair that is a table, or a table that looks like a chair?
hahaha

vital one;

yes superficially you are following the point, brahm (i hate it when they write in wrongfully in english as brahman, its pronounced as Brahm-u (u as in 'bus'))
is the ultimate and absolute truth, you like a hot girl or an object, or any thing you see, hear or any thing which changes, because of the brahm you see or percieve in it, so culmination of all desires is brahm.
god, i would need to explain this in a complete thread, but a simple analogy to explain brahm is :
consider a gold ring, you melt the gold change it into something else, some other shape, but at the very core it is still gold, only forms/shape/size are changing, but it is gold, similiarly brahm is the absolute truth, all you see around is only what your senses tell your mind.

Gita ellaborates on this saying that senses are lesser than the mind which can control it like five horses on a chariot, and that mind can be controlled by intelligence (past know how experience etc.) and that soul/brahm is greater than the intelligence itself.

brahm as in a subject requires more discussion;
Rick
thats the analogy Krishna uses in the Bhagavata Purana

anyway they say that Brahman is the absolute bliss itself, it is the absolute truth, it is atman, the way, not this, not this, the uncreate, the basis of reality

so you're saying we desire things to experience absolute bliss itself (brahman)...so technically if I really did achieve brahman it should feel like all my desires were fulfilled...right? because I would achieved what i truly desired behind all my desires.....

vital one;

yes superficially you are following the point, brahm (i hate it when they write in wrongfully in english as brahman, its pronounced as Brahm-u (u as in 'bus'))
is the ultimate and absolute truth, you like a hot girl or an object, or any thing you see, hear or any thing which changes, because of the brahm you see or percieve in it, so culmination of all desires is brahm.
god, i would need to explain this in a complete thread, but a simple analogy to explain brahm is :
consider a gold ring, you melt the gold change it into something else, some other shape, but at the very core it is still gold, only forms/shape/size are changing, but it is gold, similiarly brahm is the absolute truth, all you see around is only what your senses tell your mind.

Gita ellaborates on this saying that senses are lesser than the mind which can control it like five horses on a chariot, and that mind can be controlled by intelligence (past know how experience etc.) and that soul/brahm is greater than the intelligence itself.

brahm as in a subject requires more discussion;
Rick

If you are talking about brahman in the sense of

BG 18.54: One who is thus transcendentally situated at once realizes the Supreme Brahman and becomes fully joyful. He never laments or desires to have anything. He is equally disposed toward every living entity. In that state he attains pure devotional service unto Me.


then seeing a "hot girl" is not brahman


BG 18.38: That happiness which is derived from contact of the senses with their objects and which appears like nectar at first but poison at the end is said to be of the nature of passion.

BG 18.39: And that happiness which is blind to self-realization, which is delusion from beginning to end and which arises from sleep, laziness and illusion is said to be of the nature of ignorance.

If sattva is not brahman what to speak of rajas and tamas

Desire created everything. It's the best thing in the world. It keeps everything alive. If one follows it.

If you are talking about brahman in the sense of

BG 18.54: One who is thus transcendentally situated at once realizes the Supreme Brahman and becomes fully joyful. He never laments or desires to have anything. He is equally disposed toward every living entity. In that state he attains pure devotional service unto Me.


then seeing a "hot girl" is not brahman


BG 18.38: That happiness which is derived from contact of the senses with their objects and which appears like nectar at first but poison at the end is said to be of the nature of passion.

BG 18.39: And that happiness which is blind to self-realization, which is delusion from beginning to end and which arises from sleep, laziness and illusion is said to be of the nature of ignorance.

If sattva is not brahman what to speak of rajas and tamas

but Brahman is the basis of all...there is brahman in everything, everything is brahman itself, the source of reality

Madanthon,

Read the Wiki article ; oh and i have been reading western philosophy for years now...so thanks for that enlightening refresher... but the ideas are different and are very very different.

Rick

but Brahman is the basis of all...there is brahman in everything, everything is brahman itself, the source of reality

One of the problems of accepting the view of undifferentiated brahman as the final word in the absolute is that there is no room for explaining the nature of illusion - in other words an alcholic street bum is just as brahman realized as a fully perfected mystic

One of the problems of accepting the view of undifferentiated brahman as the final word in the absolute is that there is no room for explaining the nature of illusion - in other words an alcholic street bum is just as brahman realized as a fully perfected mystic

an alcoholic on the street has sprung from brahman, the origin of existence, the absolute truth, the basis of reality, the ultimate happiness

where as the perfected mystic is situated within brahman and has become brahman itself, alpha and omega, the way, the truth, the ultimate happiness, though his senses and consciousness act, he himself does nothing at all

an alcoholic on the street has sprung from brahman, the origin of existence, the absolute truth, the basis of reality, the ultimate happiness

where as the perfected mystic is situated within brahman and has become brahman itself, alpha and omega, the way, the truth, the ultimate happiness, though his senses and consciousness act, he himself does nothing at all

but even booze came from brahman too - so every time the street bum boozes up he is connecting to brahman, the ultimate happiness, through his senses .....

In otherwords what you are failing to address is how can brahman come under th e influence of illusion if there is nothing but brahman - it becomes impossible to distinguish between liberated and conditioned life, what to speak of the direction one must take to move towards liberation (since brahman composes up everything)

but even booze came from brahman too - so every time the street bum boozes up he is connecting to brahman, the ultimate happiness, through his senses .....

In otherwords what you are failing to address is how can brahman come under th e influence of illusion if there is nothing but brahman - it becomes impossible to distinguish between liberated and conditioned life, what to speak of the direction one must take to move towards liberation (since brahman composes up everything)

BG 9.5: And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer of all living entities and although I am everywhere, I am not a part of this cosmic manifestation, for My Self is the very source of creation.

Brahman is the source of reality. Like in a dream, the source of the dream makes up the objects in your dream but they arent the source of the dream itself

Or like the Gold analogy, gold can be shaped in various different forms but the essential gold is the same...although a necklace is gold...gold is not a necklace

Or like the ink and words analogy...although the words can change they are still essentially ink...so you can say words are formed from ink...but the ink isn't formed from words

QUOTE=VitalOne

BG 9.5: And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer of all living entities and although I am everywhere, I am not a part of this cosmic manifestation, for My Self is the very source of creation.

Krsna is saying that he exists independant of brahman - its more clear in the previous verse

BG 9.4: By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them.

and if it wasn't clear enough he says later

BG 14.27: And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal, imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness.

and remember this is krsna speaking, not the living entity - that is already cleared up earlier about the distinction between bhagavan and jiva

BG 2.12: Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.

and also

BG 7.5: Besides these, O mighty-armed Arjuna, there is another, superior energy of Mine, which comprises the living entities who are exploiting the resources of this material, inferior nature.

Actually brahman is only the beginning of the absolute, because there are two other factors that give the complete picture

SB 1.2.11: Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramātmā or Bhagavān.

The Absolute Truth is both subject and object, and there is no qualitative difference there. Therefore, Brahman, Paramātmā and Bhagavān are qualitatively one and the same. The same substance is realized as impersonal Brahman by the students of the Upaniṣads, as localized Paramātmā by the Hiraṇyagarbhas or the yogīs, and as Bhagavān by the devotees. In other words, Bhagavān, or the Personality of Godhead, is the last word of the Absolute Truth. Paramātmā is the partial representation of the Personality of Godhead, and impersonal Brahman is the glowing effulgence of the Personality of Godhead, as the sun rays are to the sun-god. Less intelligent students of either of the above schools sometimes argue in favor of their own respective realization, but those who are perfect seers of the Absolute Truth know well that the above three features of the one Absolute Truth are different perspective views seen from different angles of vision.

Krsna explains how this brahman feature is subservient to him here also

BG 14.26: One who engages in full devotional service, unfailing in all circumstances, at once transcends the modes of material nature and thus comes to the level of Brahman.

This particular q regarding brahman is even raised by arjuna

BG 12.1: Arjuna inquired: Which are considered to be more perfect, those who are always properly engaged in Your devotional service or those who worship the impersonal Brahman, the unmanifested?

to which Krsna replies

BG 12.2: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Those who fix their minds on My personal form and are always engaged in worshiping Me with great and transcendental faith are considered by Me to be most perfect.

the reason being

BG 12.3-4: But those who fully worship the unmanifested, that which lies beyond the perception of the senses, the all-pervading, inconceivable, unchanging, fixed and immovable — the impersonal conception of the Absolute Truth — by controlling the various senses and being equally disposed to everyone, such persons, engaged in the welfare of all, at last achieve Me.

BG 12.5: For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.

Brahman is the source of reality. Like in a dream, the source of the dream makes up the objects in your dream but they arent the source of the dream itself

Or like the Gold analogy, gold can be shaped in various different forms but the essential gold is the same...although a necklace is gold...gold is not a necklace

Or like the ink and words analogy...although the words can change they are still essentially ink...so you can say words are formed from ink...but the ink isn't formed from words

all these analogies are fine but they don't address the nature of illusion - by these analogies an alcholic street bum is just as brahman realized as a perfected mystic since the booze is ultimately brahman as well

QUOTE=VitalOne



Krsna is saying that he exists independant of brahman - its more clear in the previous verse

BG 9.4: By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them.

and if it wasn't clear enough he says later

BG 14.27: And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal, imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness.

and remember this is krsna speaking, not the living entity - that is already cleared up earlier about the distinction between bhagavan and jiva

BG 2.12: Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.

and also

BG 7.5: Besides these, O mighty-armed Arjuna, there is another, superior energy of Mine, which comprises the living entities who are exploiting the resources of this material, inferior nature.

Actually brahman is only the beginning of the absolute, because there are two other factors that give the complete picture

SB 1.2.11: Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramātmā or Bhagavān.


Krsna explains how this brahman feature is subservient to him here also

BG 14.26: One who engages in full devotional service, unfailing in all circumstances, at once transcends the modes of material nature and thus comes to the level of Brahman.

This particular q regarding brahman is even raised by arjuna

BG 12.1: Arjuna inquired: Which are considered to be more perfect, those who are always properly engaged in Your devotional service or those who worship the impersonal Brahman, the unmanifested?

to which Krsna replies

BG 12.2: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Those who fix their minds on My personal form and are always engaged in worshiping Me with great and transcendental faith are considered by Me to be most perfect.

the reason being

BG 12.3-4: But those who fully worship the unmanifested, that which lies beyond the perception of the senses, the all-pervading, inconceivable, unchanging, fixed and immovable — the impersonal conception of the Absolute Truth — by controlling the various senses and being equally disposed to everyone, such persons, engaged in the welfare of all, at last achieve Me.

BG 12.5: For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.



all these analogies are fine but they don't address the nature of illusion - by these analogies an alcholic street bum is just as brahman realized as a perfected mystic since the booze is ultimately brahman as well

you don't get it...although an alcoholic on the street is brahman...brahman is not an alcoholic on the street....athough a gold necklace is gold...gold is not a necklace...all things come from brahman, are made of brahman, and therefore are brahman

also in SB Krishna said that he is equal to Brahman in all respects, Brahman is beginningless, it has no origin, it is the origin itself, some schools say that Ishvara himself (the first cause) must have came from Brahman others say that when man tries to know Brahman the result is Ishvara

Everyone is brahman. Some Brahman are more equal than others.

Everyone is brahman. Some Brahman are more equal than others.

That doesn't make sense if all one is advocating is the view of undifferentiated brahman - if everything is brahman what scope is there for anything to be less like brahman or more like brahman?

That is why according to the vedas there are three aspects of the absolute - brahman (eternity), paramatma (eternity and knowledge - ie distinction between the jivatma and paramatma) and bhagavan (eternity knowledge and bliss)

hence the reason for vedic statements such as

SB 1.2.11: Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramātmā or Bhagavān.

“ The Absolute Truth is both subject and object, and there is no qualitative difference there. Therefore, Brahman, Paramātmā and Bhagavān are qualitatively one and the same. The same substance is realized as impersonal Brahman by the students of the Upaniṣads, as localized Paramātmā by the Hiraṇyagarbhas or the yogīs, and as Bhagavān by the devotees. In other words, Bhagavān, or the Personality of Godhead, is the last word of the Absolute Truth. Paramātmā is the partial representation of the Personality of Godhead, and impersonal Brahman is the glowing effulgence of the Personality of Godhead, as the sun rays are to the sun-god. Less intelligent students of either of the above schools sometimes argue in favor of their own respective realization, but those who are perfect seers of the Absolute Truth know well that the above three features of the one Absolute Truth are different perspective views seen from different angles of vision.

and

Iso 15: O my Lord, sustainer of all that lives, Your real face is covered by Your dazzling effulgence. Kindly remove that covering and exhibit Yourself to Your pure devotee.

VitalOne

you don't get it...although an alcoholic on the street is brahman...brahman is not an alcoholic on the street....athough a gold necklace is gold...gold is not a necklace...all things come from brahman, are made of brahman, and therefore are brahman

But a 500 g gold necklace still has the value of 500g gold, similarly the booze and the boozer ultimately comes form brahman just as much as the ascetic and his austerities - in other words the lack of variety in brahman, holding it to be the last word in the absolute, gives for a very strange picture of reality as we know it

also in SB Krishna said that he is equal to Brahman in all respects,
really - where?
In the gita he says

BG 14.27: And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal, imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness.

the translation of the word "pratistha" not being anything like "equal in all respects"


Brahman is beginningless, it has no origin, it is the origin itself, some schools say that Ishvara himself (the first cause) must have came from Brahman others say that when man tries to know Brahman the result is Ishvara

Brahman is accepted as being eternity, but because it does not have the properties of paramatma and bhagavan realization it is very diffcult to understand on what basis such schools of thought make their claims.

really - where?
In the gita he says

BG 14.27: And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal, imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness.

the translation of the word "pratistha" not being anything like "equal in all respects"




Brahman is accepted as being eternity, but because it does not have the properties of paramatma and bhagavan realization it is very diffcult to understand on what basis such schools of thought make their claims.

Well this should explain it:
"Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramātmā or Bhagavān." (SB 1.2.11)

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead alone is complete transcendental knowledge, but according to the different processes of understanding He appears differently, either as impersonal Brahman, as Paramatma, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead or as the purusa-avatara" - (SB 3.32.26)

"My dear Lord, all actually learned persons know You as the Supreme Brahman and the Supersoul." (SB 4.24.68)

"The Supreme Brahman, Krsna, is the ultimate resting place and source of everything. Everything is done by Him, everything belongs to Him, and everything is offered to Him. He is the ultimate objective, and whether acting or causing others to act, He is the ultimate doer. There are many causes, high and low, but since He is the cause of all causes, He is well known as the Supreme Brahman who existed before all activities. He is one without a second and has no other cause. I therefore offer my respects unto Him." (SB 6.4.30)

Anyway, how could Brahman, which is beginningless not be equal to Paramatma? They're both supposed to be causeless, beginningless, imperishable, etc.....so they have to be equal

VitalOne
But a 500 g gold necklace still has the value of 500g gold, similarly the booze and the boozer ultimately comes form brahman just as much as the ascetic and his austerities - in other words the lack of variety in brahman, holding it to be the last word in the absolute, gives for a very strange picture of reality as we know it


well thats probably why Krishna suggests worshipping his personal form instead of nirguna brahman....

it seems like Brahman is simply an impersonal conception of the absolute truth and Paramatma is the personal conception of the absolute truth....

VitalOne

Well this should explain it:
"Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramātmā or Bhagavān." (SB 1.2.11)

In the purport to this verse the analogy of the sun planet , the sun disc perceivable in the firmament and the sunshine are given - in otherwords there are three phenomena in relation to the sun but one of them is seen to be the complete source - the parrallel is drawn with the three aspects of the absolute


"The Supreme Personality of Godhead alone is complete transcendental knowledge, but according to the different processes of understanding He appears differently, either as impersonal Brahman, as Paramatma, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead or as the purusa-avatara" - (SB 3.32.26)

An excerpt from the purport ....

Impersonal Brahman, being formless, is described as adṛśya because the impersonal effulgence of brahmajyoti covers the face of the Supreme Lord. Some yogīs see the four-handed Viṣṇu sitting within the heart, and therefore in their case also the Supreme Lord is invisible. Only for the devotees is the Lord visible. Here the statement dṛśy-ādibhiḥ is significant. Since the Supreme Personality of Godhead is both invisible and visible, there are different features of the Lord. The Paramātmā feature and Brahman feature are invisible, but the Bhagavān feature is visible. In the Viṣṇu Purāṇa this fact is very nicely explained. The universal form of the Lord and the formless Brahman effulgence of the Lord, being invisible, are inferior features. The concept of the universal form is material, and the concept of impersonal Brahman is spiritual, but the highest spiritual understanding is the Personality of Godhead. The Viṣṇu Purāṇa states, viṣṇur brahma-svarūpeṇa svayam eva vyavasthitaḥ: Brahman's real feature is Viṣṇu, or the Supreme Brahman is Viṣṇu. Svayam eva: that is His personal feature. The supreme spiritual conception is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. It is also confirmed in Bhagavad-gītā: yad gatvā na nivartante tad dhāma paramaḿ mama [Bg. 15.6]. That specific abode called paramaḿ mama is the place from which, once one attains it, one does not return to this miserable, conditional life. Every place, every space and everything belongs to Viṣṇu, but where He personally lives is tad dhāma paramam, His supreme abode. One has to make one's destination the supreme abode of the Lord.

In other words the distinction between brahman and bhagavan is that brahman is not param dhama, even though it is part of the absolute

"My dear Lord, all actually learned persons know You as the Supreme Brahman and the Supersoul." (SB 4.24.68)

Once again - same as the sunshine indicates the sun - both of them are inseperable (ie the energetic from the energy are inseperable) - however we recognize a distinction between the energy (sunshine/brahman) and the energetic (sun planet/bhagavan)

"The Supreme Brahman, Krsna, is the ultimate resting place and source of everything. Everything is done by Him, everything belongs to Him, and everything is offered to Him. He is the ultimate objective, and whether acting or causing others to act, He is the ultimate doer. There are many causes, high and low, but since He is the cause of all causes, He is well known as the Supreme Brahman who existed before all activities. He is one without a second and has no other cause. I therefore offer my respects unto Him." (SB 6.4.30)

you will never find a vedic statement that says krsna is subservient to brahman but you can find many that say brahman is subservient (pratistha) to krsna - why?

Anyway, how could Brahman, which is beginningless not be equal to Paramatma? They're both supposed to be causeless, beginningless, imperishable, etc.....so they have to be equal

What brahman lacks is the distinction between energies since everything is uniform - in other words there is no distinction between god and the living entity, what to speak of distinctions between the lords internal, external and marginal energies (which is why I am badgering you about the alcholic)

In Paramatma realization there is the concept of knowledge - in other words there is a distinction between the lord (situated in the heart of all living entities - isvara - and the living entities themselves - jiva) - what is lacking is the activity on the platform of this knowledge (ie how the jiva should reciprocate with the isvara)

IN Bhagavan realization there is the concept of spiritual bliss (distinct from the impersonal concept of bliss, which is merely the cessation of material suffering) which accounts for the further advancement even an impersonalist can make when they come in contact with bhagavan

SB 1.7.10: All different varieties of ātmārāmas [those who take pleasure in ātmā, or spirit self], especially those established on the path of self-realization, though freed from all kinds of material bondage, desire to render unalloyed devotional service unto the Personality of Godhead. This means that the Lord possesses transcendental qualities and therefore can attract everyone, including liberated souls.

That doesn't make sense if all one is advocating is the view of undifferentiated brahman - if everything is brahman what scope is there for anything to be less like brahman or more like brahman?

That's my point. The original is "All animals are created equal" and "But some animals are more equal than others." It doesn't make sense linguistically. It is just the way that authoritarians work.

i dont think desire is bad because humen's are selfish and trying to "fill" a need or want.i dont think it's bad

VitalOne
An excerpt from the purport ....

Impersonal Brahman, being formless, is described as adṛśya because the impersonal effulgence of brahmajyoti covers the face of the Supreme Lord. Some yogīs see the four-handed Viṣṇu sitting within the heart, and therefore in their case also the Supreme Lord is invisible. Only for the devotees is the Lord visible. Here the statement dṛśy-ādibhiḥ is significant. Since the Supreme Personality of Godhead is both invisible and visible, there are different features of the Lord. The Paramātmā feature and Brahman feature are invisible, but the Bhagavān feature is visible. In the Viṣṇu Purāṇa this fact is very nicely explained. The universal form of the Lord and the formless Brahman effulgence of the Lord, being invisible, are inferior features. The concept of the universal form is material, and the concept of impersonal Brahman is spiritual, but the highest spiritual understanding is the Personality of Godhead. The Viṣṇu Purāṇa states, viṣṇur brahma-svarūpeṇa svayam eva vyavasthitaḥ: Brahman's real feature is Viṣṇu, or the Supreme Brahman is Viṣṇu. Svayam eva: that is His personal feature. The supreme spiritual conception is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. It is also confirmed in Bhagavad-gītā: yad gatvā na nivartante tad dhāma paramaḿ mama [Bg. 15.6]. That specific abode called paramaḿ mama is the place from which, once one attains it, one does not return to this miserable, conditional life. Every place, every space and everything belongs to Viṣṇu, but where He personally lives is tad dhāma paramam, His supreme abode. One has to make one's destination the supreme abode of the Lord.

The Visnu purana is meant to show the supremacy of Visnu, ofcourse its going to say that, just like the Shiva purana, etc.... But obviously anyone can see that the forms are equal, not inferior.


What brahman lacks is the distinction between energies since everything is uniform - in other words there is no distinction between god and the living entity, what to speak of distinctions between the lords internal, external and marginal energies (which is why I am badgering you about the alcholic)

Again, an alcoholic is brahman, but brahman is not an alcoholic, just as a necklace may be gold, but gold is not a necklace.

Brahman is the essential, the ultimate, the absolute, the difference is that brahman is basis of all, where as an alcholic is not the basis of all, an alcoholic is maya, an illusion, having no real existence, Brahman is the only thing that has factual existence.


In Paramatma realization there is the concept of knowledge - in other words there is a distinction between the lord (situated in the heart of all living entities - isvara - and the living entities themselves - jiva) - what is lacking is the activity on the platform of this knowledge (ie how the jiva should reciprocate with the isvara)

IN Bhagavan realization there is the concept of spiritual bliss (distinct from the impersonal concept of bliss, which is merely the cessation of material suffering) which accounts for the further advancement even an impersonalist can make when they come in contact with bhagavan

SB 1.7.10: All different varieties of ātmārāmas [those who take pleasure in ātmā, or spirit self], especially those established on the path of self-realization, though freed from all kinds of material bondage, desire to render unalloyed devotional service unto the Personality of Godhead. This means that the Lord possesses transcendental qualities and therefore can attract everyone, including liberated souls.
This does not really seem different from impersonal concepts....

VitalOne

The Visnu purana is meant to show the supremacy of Visnu, ofcourse its going to say that, just like the Shiva purana, etc.... But obviously anyone can see that the forms are equal, not inferior.

There are quotes in the shiva purana where it is clear that he is subservient to visnu - classic is the discussion between him and parvati that is over heard by the parrot suka


Again, an alcoholic is brahman, but brahman is not an alcoholic, just as a necklace may be gold, but gold is not a necklace.

Brahman is the essential, the ultimate, the absolute, the difference is that brahman is basis of all, where as an alcholic is not the basis of all, an alcoholic is maya, an illusion, having no real existence, Brahman is the only thing that has factual existence.

The problem is that in a world view that only includes brahman there is nothing for it to react or interact with for variety - like for instance gold has to interact with a gold smith to become a gold necklace (bhagavan and paramatma realization doesn't suffer from this inadequacy) - in brahman you just have brahman, which is by definition undifferentiated - so then it becomes difficult to see how something non brahman can manifest from brahman

That's my point. The original is "All animals are created equal" and "But some animals are more equal than others." It doesn't make sense linguistically. It is just the way that authoritarians work.

all animals are created equal means thatthey are all equally alive (as opposed to dead, like say dull matter which is not conscious) - its not clear how such things carry through to your definitions however

VitalOne



There are quotes in the shiva purana where it is clear that he is subservient to visnu - classic is the discussion between him and parvati that is over heard by the parrot suka

True, but there are also some parts that state that Visnu himself worships Shiva, also Shiva states that Ishvara is the supreme one, even beyond all three of them (Brahma, Shiva, Visnu)


The problem is that in a world view that only includes brahman there is nothing for it to react or interact with for variety - like for instance gold has to interact with a gold smith to become a gold necklace (bhagavan and paramatma realization doesn't suffer from this inadequacy) - in brahman you just have brahman, which is by definition undifferentiated - so then it becomes difficult to see how something non brahman can manifest from brahman
Those differences between atman, brahman, paramatma,etc...are only exist by our material intellect...not differences in reality.

Also Krishna states that there is really no difference between a spiritual master (one situated in brahman) and himself, they too are alpha and omega, the way, the truth, etc.......

The appearance of things being separate from brahman is an illusion, which itself is brahman. All is brahman, there cannot be anything contrary to brahman, because brahman is the all-that-exists. Who can really oppose God's will? God is situated within everyone, acting through everyone, as everyone.

VitalOne



There are quotes in the shiva purana where it is clear that he is subservient to visnu - classic is the discussion between him and parvati that is over heard by the parrot suka
”


True, but there are also some parts that state that Visnu himself worships Shiva, also Shiva states that Ishvara is the supreme one, even beyond all three of them (Brahma, Shiva, Visnu)
seems like the idea that isvara is beyond visnu as a vedic conclusion is false according tot he gita

BG 15.15: I am seated in everyone's heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness. By all the Vedas, I am to be known. Indeed, I am the compiler of Vedānta, and I am the knower of the Vedas.

and

BG 18.61: The Supreme Lord is situated in everyone's heart, O Arjuna, and is directing the wanderings of all living entities, who are seated as on a machine, made of the material energy.

....what to speak of the SB, which is the last work of Vyasadev, being a commentary on the vedanta sutra

SB 1.3.28: All of the above-mentioned incarnations are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the original Personality of Godhead. All of them appear on planets whenever there is a disturbance created by the atheists. The Lord incarnates to protect the theists.

“ The problem is that in a world view that only includes brahman there is nothing for it to react or interact with for variety - like for instance gold has to interact with a gold smith to become a gold necklace (bhagavan and paramatma realization doesn't suffer from this inadequacy) - in brahman you just have brahman, which is by definition undifferentiated - so then it becomes difficult to see how something non brahman can manifest from brahman ”


Those differences between atman, brahman, paramatma,etc...are only exist by our material intellect...not differences in reality.
Once again, the idea that brahman and paramatama are material distinctions is not an idea proposed by SB

"Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramātmā or Bhagavān." (SB 1.2.11)

As for atma - there are distinctions between atma (jiva) and paramatma (supreme controller) - SB begins on this premise

SB 1.1.1: O my Lord, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, son of Vasudeva, O all-pervading Personality of Godhead, I offer my respectful obeisances unto You. I meditate upon Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa because He is the Absolute Truth and the primeval cause of all causes of the creation, sustenance and destruction of the manifested universes. He is directly and indirectly conscious of all manifestations, and He is independent because there is no other cause beyond Him. It is He only who first imparted the Vedic knowledge unto the heart of Brahmājī, the original living being. By Him even the great sages and demigods are placed into illusion, as one is bewildered by the illusory representations of water seen in fire, or land seen on water. Only because of Him do the material universes, temporarily manifested by the reactions of the three modes of nature, appear factual, although they are unreal. I therefore meditate upon Him, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, who is eternally existent in the transcendental abode, which is forever free from the illusory representations of the material world. I meditate upon Him, for He is the Absolute Truth.

- By no stretch of the imagination does that describe the jiva - especially when it is clearly explained in the gita

BG 7.5: Besides these, O mighty-armed Arjuna, there is another, superior energy of Mine, which comprises the living entities who are exploiting the resources of this material, inferior nature.

Also Krishna states that there is really no difference between a spiritual master (one situated in brahman) and himself, they too are alpha and omega, the way, the truth, etc.......
Really? Does Krishna say that the qualification for guru is to be situated in brahman, or does it require more than merely be situated in brahman to be guru?
Perhaps you could offer the scriptural reference

The appearance of things being separate from brahman is an illusion, which itself is brahman. All is brahman, there cannot be anything contrary to brahman, because brahman is the all-that-exists. Who can really oppose God's will? God is situated within everyone, acting through everyone, as everyone.
the problem with this idea is that it doesn't actually address how illusion developed from brahman, if there is nothing but brahman to begin with and there is no variety in brahman - at the very least you must recognise the distinction between the living entity and god - statements like "God is everyone" are absurd because it is practically seen that virtually 100% of people are subject to illusion and experience frustration in the pursuit of their desires - kind of makes for very pathetic gods - at least SB and BG give clear symptoms of what god is

Exactly. Siddarthar had the right idea, but he didn't take it far enough. He was so terrified of the attachments he saw to material things that he tried to control the material things, instead of controlling the desires. If he had gone one step further in his mental development, he would have realized that you can have both..

Is this the same buddha that taught a doctirne of "mind only" ? and expounded all types of materialism as false views? (see Lankavatara sutra)

Why do you define siddartha as a materialist??

if everything is brahman what scope is there for anything to be less like brahman or more like brahman?


(since brahman composes up everything)

But Brahman is held to be IN everything not to BE everything - "The shining self in all".

The drunk and the guru both have the shining self that is the same as Brahman. The difference is that the guru identifies with Brahman through self realisation and the drunk does not.

Transcendent Brahman goes out in immanent form and then returns - so the universe expands and contracts.

What is real is the unchanging - all else is illusion. Brahman is the unchanging; the atma in all. All else is illusion and therefore maya not Brahman.

Light Travelling

But Brahman is held to be IN everything not to BE everything - "The shining self in all".

The drunk and the guru both have the shining self that is the same as Brahman. The difference is that the guru identifies with Brahman through self realisation and the drunk does not.
The drunk is identifying with booze -booze is brahman - this is the specific problem with advocating brahmna as the final last word in the absolute, namely that there is no accounting for how variety manifests from something that is uniform

Transcendent Brahman goes out in immanent form and then returns - so the universe expands and contracts.

If something is uniformly immanent how does it become less immanent when it "goes forth"?

What is real is the unchanging - all else is illusion. Brahman is the unchanging; the atma in all. All else is illusion and therefore maya not Brahman.

The problem is that there is no scope for change in brahman - since it is uniformly eternal - so it becomes very difficult to determine what is the exact difference between a drunk and a perfected mystic since they are bothe (technically by this definition anyway) completely situated in brahman

The drunk is identifying with booze -booze is brahman - this is the specific problem with advocating brahmna as the final last word in the absolute, namely that there is no accounting for how variety manifests from something that is uniform

The problem is that there is no scope for change in brahman - since it is uniformly eternal - so it becomes very difficult to determine what is the exact difference between a drunk and a perfected mystic since they are bothe (technically by this definition anyway) completely situated in brahman

The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says this;

“This Self has entered into these bodies up to the very tips of the nails, as a razor lies hidden in its case, or as fire, which sustains the world, lies hidden in its source. People do not see the Self, for when viewed in parts It is incomplete: when breathing, It is called the vital breath (prana); when speaking, the organ of speech; when seeing, the eye; when hearing, the ear; when thinking, the mind. These are merely Its names according to Its functions. He who meditates on one or another of Its aspects does not know, for It is then incomplete: the Self is separated from Its totality by being associated with a single characteristic.”

Do not confuse un-changeable with uniform. The un-changeable is the essence not the outer form which we perceive. Take salt as an approximate analogy; however I hold it, store it or throw it, it remains salty. Its essence is saltiness although its outer form may change. Brahman is like this.

Why is desire considered bad?
Desire is the result of a mind that sees the world in dualities and distinctions, i.e., not the whole Universe as one and you as the manifestation of that one.
When you achieve nirvanic bliss there is no more desire because everything is you and there can be nothing else that is not you, therefore to desire something means to desire an illusion.
That is my understanding anyway.

And while reading the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad I also found this, which is of more relevance to the thread subject i.e. desire

"Because of attachment, the transmigrating self, together with its work, attains that result to which its subtle body or mind clings. Having exhausted in the other world the results of whatever work it did in this life, it returns from that world to this world for fresh work.’
"Thus does the man who desires transmigrate. But as to the man who does not desire—who is without desire, who is freed from desire, whose desire is satisfied, whose only object of desire is the Self—his organs do not depart. Being Brahman, he merges in Brahman.”

And this

”When all the desires that dwell in his heart are got rid of, then does the mortal man become immortal and attain Brahman in this very body.”

So basically all desires bind us to the cycle of life and death apart from the desire for Brahman.

That from the Hindu viewpoint anyway. Buddhists would simply say all desires must be got rid of. I believe Buddha said “even the desire for liberation is an obstacle” because as avatar says, you can only desire something you do not have or is not you, so as long as you desire liberation you cannot be liberated.

Avatar
Desire is the result of a mind that sees the world in dualities and distinctions, i.e., not the whole Universe as one and you as the manifestation of that one.
When you achieve nirvanic bliss there is no more desire because everything is you and there can be nothing else that is not you, therefore to desire something means to desire an illusion.
That is my understanding anyway.

I guess motivation also comes from within right? Wow thats deep. I am quite spiritual so I am not being sarcastic.

The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says this;

“This Self has entered into these bodies up to the very tips of the nails, as a razor lies hidden in its case, or as fire, which sustains the world, lies hidden in its source. People do not see the Self, for when viewed in parts It is incomplete: when breathing, It is called the vital breath (prana); when speaking, the organ of speech; when seeing, the eye; when hearing, the ear; when thinking, the mind. These are merely Its names according to Its functions. He who meditates on one or another of Its aspects does not know, for It is then incomplete: the Self is separated from Its totality by being associated with a single characteristic.”

Do not confuse un-changeable with uniform. The un-changeable is the essence not the outer form which we perceive. Take salt as an approximate analogy; however I hold it, store it or throw it, it remains salty. Its essence is saltiness although its outer form may change. Brahman is like this.

Brahman is described as uniform and unchangeable - but to get back to the issue- if all you have is salt, how do you explain the phenomena of perceiving saltiness - in other words explaining how variety emmantes from something that has no variety is quite perplexing - it is agreed that the living entity and god are comprised of the same substance, ie brahman, but there is contention over not the quality but the quantity of brahman - just like for instance a drop of the ocean has the same quality as the ocean (saltiness) but you cannot expect to find all the variety of ocean life in the drop

^again, a drunk is brahman, but brahman itself is not a drunk, just as a gold necklace is gold, but gold itself is not a necklace, gold is the essential, where as the necklace is a false appearance

where as a drunk is brahman, but brahman itself is not a drunk, a true spiritual master is brahman itself

Brahman is said to be the only reality because its unchanging and objective, where as everything else is transient and temporary. In Vedantic Philosophy, something that is temporary and transient is said to be false, a mirage of something else. Brahman is eternal, unchanging, objective, so it is known to be the only thing really existing in reality, the only real truth.

As Brahman we pretend that we are not, that we are separate, thereby intentionally causing our own suffering.

VitalOne

^again, a drunk is brahman, but brahman itself is not a drunk, just as a gold necklace is gold, but gold itself is not a necklace, gold is the essential, where as the necklace is a false appearance

Why would the necklace be false? wouldn't it be more correct to term it a transformation - after all its not like the necklace doesn't actually exist - and as this relates to brahman, there is no indication how brahman can transform anything since it is uniform and unchangeable and has nothing to interact with (for instance gold requires the work of a gold smith to interact with in order to become a necklace - ie the analogy indicates variety)

where as a drunk is brahman, but brahman itself is not a drunk, a true spiritual master is brahman itself
So how does brahman become a drunk or a spiritual master ? What potency is greater than brahman that enabled one to become a drunk?

Brahman is said to be the only reality because its unchanging and objective, where as everything else is transient and temporary. In Vedantic Philosophy, something that is temporary and transient is said to be false, a mirage of something else. Brahman is eternal, unchanging, objective, so it is known to be the only thing really existing in reality, the only real truth.

There is another view, backed up by vedic statements that material things are not false, merely temporary - it is illusion when the living entity values them as eternal (like for instance one identifies one's self with one's material designation) - its not like material things don't exist - what doesn't exist is the notion of our relationship with matter since we are eternal by nature

As Brahman we pretend that we are not, that we are separate, thereby intentionally causing our own suffering.

Yes I agree - but i would add further that the only way to overcome a false identification is to have a real identification - and that real identification is most apparent with the view that we are an eternal servant of bhagavan, rather than labouring under the material concept of illusion that we are bhagavan - in other words if you want to call everyone brahman it doesn't ressolve the complexities that arise from the varieties of desires in this world (like for instance if one "brahman"disagrees with another where does that leave brahman?)

It's said that the more spiritually evolved want to merge with the Great Everything (ie Brahman, the Big E, God, the Source, Oversoul etc etc)... but that desire keeps one alive. Or 'replicating', with added permutations, if the sci-fi analogy works.

It's said that the more spiritually evolved want to merge with the Great Everything (ie Brahman, the Big E, God, the Source, Oversoul etc etc)... but that desire keeps one alive. Or 'replicating', with added permutations, if the sci-fi analogy works.

The problem with understanding this is that there is the tendency to use one's material existence as a barometer for determining the validity of spiritual existence - so we tend to think that existence is synonomous with misery, frustrated desire etc - actually the real issue of existence in the pursuit of perfection is determining how things relate - if you position yourself in relation to anything without properly understanding how things function
you line yourself up for misery , frustration etc - the idea of merging in to god/brahman etc is an example of this because there are examples of perfected saints who outright reject such an endeavour - instead they advocate a merging of desire rather than a merging of personality

VitalOne
Why would the necklace be false? wouldn't it be more correct to term it a transformation - after all its not like the necklace doesn't actually exist - and as this relates to brahman, there is no indication how brahman can transform anything since it is uniform and unchangeable and has nothing to interact with (for instance gold requires the work of a gold smith to interact with in order to become a necklace - ie the analogy indicates variety)

Well its not really a transformation, the necklace is really just gold appearing to be something separate from gold, when in reality its just gold and only gold, as all there is just gold.

Similarly the drunk is really just brahman, appearing to be something separate from brahman, when in reality its just brahman and only brahman, as all there is is just brahman.


So how does brahman become a drunk or a spiritual master ? What potency is greater than brahman that enabled one to become a drunk?

Brahman does not become anything, rather Brahman is unchanging, eternal, beginningless. The false appearance or maya causes things to appear separate from brahman.


There is another view, backed up by vedic statements that material things are not false, merely temporary - it is illusion when the living entity values them as eternal (like for instance one identifies one's self with one's material designation) - its not like material things don't exist - what doesn't exist is the notion of our relationship with matter since we are eternal by nature

But material things, along with the entire material universe is false, not that its unreal, but that its illusionary. It appears to exist indepedantly, having an independant reality. Just as dream objects and experiences are false, they do exist in that they are something, but the way they appear to exist is illusionary, so they are false.

In a dream all that exists is you, and nothing besides you, there is nothing separate from yourself nor is it possible for there be anything separate from you, for you all are all-that-exists in the dream world. Similarly it is this way with Bhagavan.


Yes I agree - but i would add further that the only way to overcome a false identification is to have a real identification - and that real identification is most apparent with the view that we are an eternal servant of bhagavan, rather than labouring under the material concept of illusion that we are bhagavan - in other words if you want to call everyone brahman it doesn't ressolve the complexities that arise from the varieties of desires in this world (like for instance if one "brahman"disagrees with another where does that leave brahman?)
We are not really an eternal servant of Bhagavan, rather we are Bhagavan, pretending that we are not, acting as a fool.

I can call everyone Brahman, just as I can call a gold necklace, gold bowl, gold bracelet, etc...gold.

Brahman can't disagree, brahman is unchanging, eternal, imperishable, the basis of all, the absolute. When people disagree with each other they're simply acting according to their material nature.

"When a sensible man ceases to see different identities due to different material bodies and he sees how beings are expanded everywhere, he attains to the Brahman conception" (BG 13.31)

VitalOne

Well its not really a transformation, the necklace is really just gold appearing to be something separate from gold, when in reality its just gold and only gold, as all there is just gold.
It is really a transformation. Like for instance if a person goes out to purchase a gold necklace and they get handed a 200g bar of gold why don't they buy it?


Similarly the drunk is really just brahman, appearing to be something separate from brahman, when in reality its just brahman and only brahman, as all there is is just brahman.
Then whats the difference betwen a drunk and an ascetic? In other words how do you account for the transformation while advocating something formless, uniform etc as the final word of the absolute


Brahman does not become anything, rather Brahman is unchanging, eternal, beginningless. The false appearance or maya causes things to appear separate from brahman.
Where did maya come from if all that exists is brahman? How is it possible for brahman to be anything but brahman, since by definition it has nothing to interact with?


But material things, along with the entire material universe is false, not that its unreal, but that its illusionary. It appears to exist indepedantly, having an independant reality. Just as dream objects and experiences are false, they do exist in that they are something, but the way they appear to exist is illusionary, so they are false.
dreams are real, but they are temporary - same with matter

In a dream all that exists is you, and nothing besides you, there is nothing separate from yourself nor is it possible for there be anything separate from you, for you all are all-that-exists in the dream world. Similarly it is this way with Bhagavan.
The problem is that in this material world we see numerous living entities interacting in an objective medium (usually in contention too). In the material world it is not just you - it is you, and everyone else in 8 400 000 species of life and god.


We are not really an eternal servant of Bhagavan, rather we are Bhagavan, pretending that we are not, acting as a fool.
Now you are getting further into hot water - how is it possible for god to come under the influence of maya? Wouldn't that make illusion stronger than god? What sort of bhagavans could we possibly be?
Also there are countless statements where this is clearly demonstarted

CC Madhya 18.113: "A living entity and the Absolute Personality of Godhead are never to be considered equal, just as a fragmental spark can never be considered the original flame.

CC Madhya 18.114: "'The Supreme Personality of Godhead, the supreme controller, is always full of transcendental bliss and is accompanied by the potencies known as hlādinī and saḿvit. The conditioned soul, however, is always covered by ignorance and embarrassed by the threefold miseries of life. Thus he is a treasure-house of all kinds of tribulations.'

CC Madhya 18.115: "A foolish person who says that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the same as the living entity is an atheist, and he becomes subject to punishment by the superintendent of death, Yamarāja.


I can call everyone Brahman, just as I can call a gold necklace, gold bowl, gold bracelet, etc...gold.

you can also call a drop of sea water salty but at the same time you cannot call it the ocean

Brahman can't disagree, brahman is unchanging, eternal, imperishable, the basis of all, the absolute. When people disagree with each other they're simply acting according to their material nature.
If we are bhagavan shouldn't bhagavan's will be infallible?

"When a sensible man ceases to see different identities due to different material bodies and he sees how beings are expanded everywhere, he attains to the Brahman conception" (BG 13.31)

This verse is talking about the many bodies the jiva accepts through samsara - it is clearly explained in the next text and purport (13.32)

TRANSLATION

Those with the vision of eternity can see that the imperishable soul is transcendental, eternal, and beyond the modes of nature. Despite contact with the material body, O Arjuna, the soul neither does anything nor is entangled.

PURPORT

A living entity appears to be born because of the birth of the material body, but actually the living entity is eternal; he is not born, and in spite of his being situated in a material body, he is transcendental and eternal. Thus he cannot be destroyed. By nature he is full of bliss. He does not engage himself in any material activities; therefore the activities performed due to his contact with material bodies do not entangle him.

Its established that the living entity has an eternal identity seperate from the lord's eternal identity

BG 15.7: The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal fragmental parts. Due to conditioned life, they are struggling very hard with the six senses, which include the mind.

BG 2.12: Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.

BG 2.20: For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.

BG 2.24: This individual soul is unbreakable and insoluble, and can be neither burned nor dried. He is everlasting, present everywhere, unchangeable, immovable and eternally the same.

VitalOne
It is really a transformation. Like for instance if a person goes out to purchase a gold necklace and they get handed a 200g bar of gold why don't they buy it?

its not really a transformation, its still gold...the bar of gold and the necklace are both gold appearing different from one another.


Then whats the difference betwen a drunk and an ascetic? In other words how do you account for the transformation while advocating something formless, uniform etc as the final word of the absolute

The difference is that an ascetic situated in Brahman, is Brahman itself, where as a drunk is illusionary...like an ascetic is gold itself, the essential, where as a drunk is a necklace, a bowl, a bar, another illusionary appearance


Where did maya come from if all that exists is brahman? How is it possible for brahman to be anything but brahman, since by definition it has nothing to interact with?

Well technically, maya came from chaos, in the beginning, before there was any matter, any energy, all was an eternal void thought, all was God.

All that exists cannot be anything but the absolute - brahman, everything in reality is that absolute, appearing differently. They say this is extremely difficiult to comprehend because we have no sense of Brahman, it would be like a born blind man trying to describe and comprehend what we term color.


The problem is that in this material world we see numerous living entities interacting in an objective medium (usually in contention too). In the material world it is not just you - it is you, and everyone else in 8 400 000 species of life and god.

Things aren't as objective as they appear, at least on a subatomic level. What we term 'reality' is really just a denser form of a dream, a super-dream as the Upanishinads say. Things appear objective and independant because everything is so dense, like a concentrated dream or vivid dream where everything appears almost real.


Now you are getting further into hot water - how is it possible for god to come under the influence of maya? Wouldn't that make illusion stronger than god? What sort of bhagavans could we possibly be?
Also there are countless statements where this is clearly demonstarted

CC Madhya 18.113: "A living entity and the Absolute Personality of Godhead are never to be considered equal, just as a fragmental spark can never be considered the original flame.

CC Madhya 18.114: "'The Supreme Personality of Godhead, the supreme controller, is always full of transcendental bliss and is accompanied by the potencies known as hlādinī and saḿvit. The conditioned soul, however, is always covered by ignorance and embarrassed by the threefold miseries of life. Thus he is a treasure-house of all kinds of tribulations.'

CC Madhya 18.115: "A foolish person who says that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the same as the living entity is an atheist, and he becomes subject to punishment by the superintendent of death, Yamarāja.

God doesn't come into the influence of maya, he is the origin of maya, the origin of existence, unborn, uncreated, the absolute truth, etc....however he is the supersoul, all things happen through him and him only, he is the all-that-exists, indeed even the demons and atheists are within him. Just as within a dream, I am the only thing truly existing, though many seemingly different things happen, but they have all happened through me and me only, they are acting through me and me only.

However, infinite realities emanate from God, its you and I.


If we are bhagavan shouldn't bhagavan's will be infallible?

We're not Bhagavan, but Bhagavan is the supersoul within us, with true knowledge we can enter Brahman conception.

It is akin to me dreaming I am a different person. In reality, I'm still me, but in the dream I'm someone else, but Me is all that exists.


"When a sensible man ceases to see different identities due to different material bodies and he sees how beings are expanded everywhere, he attains to the Brahman conception" (BG 13.31)

This verse is talking about the many bodies the jiva accepts through samsara - it is clearly explained in the next text and purport (13.32)

TRANSLATION

Those with the vision of eternity can see that the imperishable soul is transcendental, eternal, and beyond the modes of nature. Despite contact with the material body, O Arjuna, the soul neither does anything nor is entangled.

PURPORT

A living entity appears to be born because of the birth of the material body, but actually the living entity is eternal; he is not born, and in spite of his being situated in a material body, he is transcendental and eternal. Thus he cannot be destroyed. By nature he is full of bliss. He does not engage himself in any material activities; therefore the activities performed due to his contact with material bodies do not entangle him.

Its established that the living entity has an eternal identity seperate from the lord's eternal identity

BG 15.7: The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal fragmental parts. Due to conditioned life, they are struggling very hard with the six senses, which include the mind.

BG 2.12: Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.

BG 2.20: For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain.

BG 2.24: This individual soul is unbreakable and insoluble, and can be neither burned nor dried. He is everlasting, present everywhere, unchangeable, immovable and eternally the same.
Hmm...present everywhere, unchangeable, immovable, eternally the same...these all seem like descriptions of Bhagavan.

When you realize that you are dreaming that you're in a body of your own and that people are separate from you, then you'll realize that you're not your body and all people are acting as you through you, you realize your identity with Brahman.

all animals are created equal means thatthey are all equally alive (as opposed to dead, like say dull matter which is not conscious) - its not clear how such things carry through to your definitions however

Haven't read Orwell, have you?

Haven't read Orwell, have you?

I have but it doesn't explain how an animal can be a little bit dead

Which is not what my comment was about.

"Everyone is Brahman, but some are more Brahman than others" is a statement that pretty well sums up the Indian caste system.

Which is not what my comment was about.

"Everyone is Brahman, but some are more Brahman than others" is a statement that pretty well sums up the Indian caste system.
you are confusing brahman with brahmana

BG 5.18: The humble sages, by virtue of true knowledge, see with equal vision a learned and gentle brāhmaṇa, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater [outcaste].

BG 5.19: Those whose minds are established in sameness and equanimity have already conquered the conditions of birth and death. They are flawless like Brahman, and thus they are already situated in Brahman.

Which is not what my comment was about.

"Everyone is Brahman, but some are more Brahman than others" is a statement that pretty well sums up the Indian caste system.

I was thinking more of "Everyone is Brahman, but some realize they are Brahman more than others"

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
VitalOne
It is really a transformation. Like for instance if a person goes out to purchase a gold necklace and they get handed a 200g bar of gold why don't they buy it? ”

its not really a transformation, its still gold...the bar of gold and the necklace are both gold appearing different from one another.

If it is not really a transformation why doesn't a person who is out to purchase a gold necklace settle with a block of gold?


“ Then whats the difference betwen a drunk and an ascetic? In other words how do you account for the transformation while advocating something formless, uniform etc as the final word of the absolute ”

The difference is that an ascetic situated in Brahman, is Brahman itself, where as a drunk is illusionary...like an ascetic is gold itself, the essential, where as a drunk is a necklace, a bowl, a bar, another illusionary appearance

But a gold necklace is still gold - its not like because it is in the form of a necklace that it is not gold


“ Where did maya come from if all that exists is brahman? How is it possible for brahman to be anything but brahman, since by definition it has nothing to interact with? ”

Well technically, maya came from chaos, in the beginning,
technically it comes from chaos? no need to speculate because BG is a complete sastra ... actually it comes from the krsna

BG 7.14
This divine energy of Mine, consisting of the three modes of material nature, is difficult to overcome. But those who have surrendered unto Me can easily cross beyond it.

(the sanskrit words are mama maya - my maya)



before there was any matter, any energy, all was an eternal void thought, all was God.
how could the void be eternal if you say that matter and energy develop in the void sometime later?
If a void was eternal you would expect it to remain a void for eternity since there is nothing there to happen or interact with anything


All that exists cannot be anything but the absolute - brahman, everything in reality is that absolute, appearing differently.
the problem is that brahman cannot accomodate the variety we perceive - hence vedic statements like
SB 1.2.11 "The Absolute Truth is realized in three phases of understanding by the knower of the Absolute Truth, and all of them are identical. Such phases of the Absolute Truth are expressed as Brahman, Paramätmä, and Bhagavän."


They say this is extremely difficiult to comprehend because we have no sense of Brahman, it would be like a born blind man trying to describe and comprehend what we term color.
thats because there is no sense activity in brahman and it defined in sanskrit as adrsya

its what the supreme lord uses to hide his personal form behind like a curtain

that's why the isopanisad says

- Iso 15: O my Lord, sustainer of all that lives, Your real face is covered by Your dazzling effulgence. Kindly remove that covering and exhibit Yourself to Your pure devotee.

and the visnu purana says

visnur brahma-svarupena svayam eva vyavasthitah: Brahman's real feature is Visnu, or the Supreme Brahman is Visnu.


“ The problem is that in this material world we see numerous living entities interacting in an objective medium (usually in contention too). In the material world it is not just you - it is you, and everyone else in 8 400 000 species of life and god. ”

Things aren't as objective as they appear, at least on a subatomic level. What we term 'reality' is really just a denser form of a dream, a super-dream as the Upanishinads say. Things appear objective and independant because everything is so dense, like a concentrated dream or vivid dream where everything appears almost real.

Actually the material world is described as anityam (temporary)

BG 9.33: How much more this is so of the righteous brāhmaṇas, the devotees and the saintly kings. Therefore, having come to this temporary, miserable world, engage in loving service unto Me.

not mithya (false) - the reason is because the material world actually exists but its existence is temporary - to say something is false is to say that something doesn't exist - the material world however comes and goes

BG 9.8: The whole cosmic order is under Me. Under My will it is automatically manifested again and again, and under My will it is annihilated at the end.

what is actually mithya is the living entities engagement lording it over material nature

SB 3.29.5 My dear Lord, You are just like the sun, for You illuminate the darkness of the conditional life of the living entities. Because their eyes of knowledge are not open, they are sleeping eternally in that darkness without Your shelter, and therefore they are falsely engaged by the actions and reactions of their material activities, and they appear to be very fatigued.

the living entity never attains a position of lordship over matter - if they think they do they are in illusion.


“ Now you are getting further into hot water - how is it possible for god to come under the influence of maya? Wouldn't that make illusion stronger than god? What sort of bhagavans could we possibly be?
Also there are countless statements where this is clearly demonstarted

CC Madhya 18.113: "A living entity and the Absolute Personality of Godhead are never to be considered equal, just as a fragmental spark can never be considered the original flame.

CC Madhya 18.114: "'The Supreme Personality of Godhead, the supreme controller, is always full of transcendental bliss and is accompanied by the potencies known as hlādinī and saḿvit. The conditioned soul, however, is always covered by ignorance and embarrassed by the threefold miseries of life. Thus he is a treasure-house of all kinds of tribulations.'

CC Madhya 18.115: "A foolish person who says that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the same as the living entity is an atheist, and he becomes subject to punishment by the superintendent of death, Yamarāja. ”

God doesn't come into the influence of maya, he is the origin of maya,

earlier you said that maya came from chaos - anyway - if we are all god and if we are under the influence of maya it seems strange ... even stranger is how you would apply krsna's instruction to surrender to him as a means of overcoming maya

BG 7.14
This divine energy of Mine, consisting of the three modes of material nature, is difficult to overcome. But those who have surrendered unto Me can easily cross beyond it.


the origin of existence, unborn, uncreated, the absolute truth, etc....however he is the supersoul, all things happen through him and him only, he is the all-that-exists, indeed even the