Advaita Vedanta: Qualified Non-Dualism

[Qu'otar]

Q,

You may be interested in equivalent terms for Brahman, Parabrahman, etc., between the major religions.

http://users.ez2.net/nick29/theosophy/tabulation.htm

But if you think that Parabrahman does not mean beyond Brahman, this chart may not be of interest to you.

Please note that the term Atman does not appear in this chart and refers to something else.

Reflecting off some of the other columns (especially Kabbalah re: Sephiroth) and what I know of (Neo-) Vedanta Hinduism (per Vivekananda), here is my guess:

• Absolute: Brahman
• 1st Logos: Ishvara
• 2nd Logos: Vidya-Maya (the illusion of separation)
• 3rd Logos: Avidya-Maya (the perception of separation)
• 7 Dhyani-Chohans: The 7 chakras

Mmm, perhaps the result of the 2nd and 3rd Logos are the Mayas, but the name of God as those Logos are unnamed. Brahma? Shiva?

 

[Qu'otar]

Some writings from Sri Ramakrishna:

Have you any idea of God with form and God without form? They are like ice and water. When water freezes into ice, it has a form; when the same ice is melted into water, all form is lost.

God with form and God without form are not two different Beings. He who is with form is also without form. To a devotee God manifests Himself in various forms. Just think of a shoreless ocean - an infinite expanse of water - no land visible in any direction only here and there are visible blocks of ice formed by intense cold. Similarly, under the cooling influence, so to say, of the deep devotion of His worshipper, the Infinite reduces Himself into the Finite and appears before him as a Being with form. Again, as on the appearance of the sun, the ice melts away, so, on the appearance of the sun of knowledge, God with form melts away into the formless.

The snake has poison in its fangs, but it is none the worse for it. The poison does not affect it or cause its death. It is poison in relation to other creatures whom it may chance to bite. Similarly, although the phenomenal universe exists in God, He is above and beyond it. The universe of phenomena exists as such only for us.

Maya is of two kinds - one leading towards God (Vidya-Maya), and the other leading away from God (Avidya-Maya). Vidya-Maya again is of two kinds - discrimination and non-attachment. With the help of these, individual souls surrender themselves to the mercy of God. Avidya-Maya is of six kinds - lust, anger, avarice, inordinate attachment, pride and envy. This kind of Maya gives rise to the sense of 'I and mine' and serves to keep men chained to the world. But as soon as Vidya-Maya manifests itself, all Avidya-Maya is totally destroyed.

The sun or the moon cannot be properly reflected in turbid water. Likewise the Universal Soul cannot be properly realized so long as the veil of Maya is not removed, i.e., so long as the sense of 'I and mine' is not gone.

I ain't preachin', just thought a few of you may not have read some of his words and may find them interesting...

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Q,
　


You have asked about

1. Absolute
2. 1st Logos
3. 2nd Logos
4. 3rd Logos
5. 7 Dhyani-Chohans (the seven Rishis of Hinduism, the seven gods of Genesis 1:26 and Revelations 4:5)

It takes an entire textbook to describe these concepts, so I can only do a short and incomplete description here.
　
First is the Absolute. We know nothing about the Absolute, we cannot describe it or any of its aspects, nor is the human mind capable of conceptualizing it in any way. This is exactly what the Jews mean when they refuse to talk about it or call it by any name, because it cannot not be named or described.

The Absolute is the one life, the one Reality, with all other aspects of the universe merely being an illusion.

[The Absolute is] " ... the ONE LIFE, eternal, invisible, yet Omnipresent, without beginning or end, yet periodical in its regular manifestations, between which periods reigns the dark mystery of non-Being; unconscious, yet absolute Consciousness; unrealisable, yet the one self-existing reality; truly, ‘a chaos to the sense, a Kosmos to the reason.’ Its one absolute attribute, which is ITSELF, eternal, ceaseless Motion, is called in esoteric parlance the ‘Great Breath,’ which is the perpetual motion of the universe, in the sense of limitless, ever-present SPACE." (Secret Doctrine vol 1 p 2)
​

Before any of the events occurred at the beginning of the universe, there was only the Absolute.

" ... there is one absolute Reality which antecedes all manifested, conditioned, being. This Infinite and Eternal Cause — dimly formulated in the ‘Unconscious’ and ‘Unknowable’ of current European philosophy — is the rootless root of ‘all that was, is, or ever shall be.’ It is of course devoid of all attributes and is essentially without any relation to manifested, finite Being. It is ‘Be-ness’ rather than Being (in Sanskrit, Sat), and is beyond all thought or speculation." (Secret Doctrine vol 1 p 14)
​

One more point must be mentioned. Genesis talks about the Darkness, and the Light which comes from out of the Darkness. The Darkness mentioned in Genesis 1:2 is the Absolute, from which Brahma, Brahmā, etc., emerge, and are the Light which emerges from the Absolute/Darkness. (Technically, only Brahmā is the Light, but we’ll get to that later.)
　
How does this sound so far?

 

[Qu'otar]

Q,
　


You have asked about

1. Absolute
2. 1st Logos
3. 2nd Logos
4. 3rd Logos
5. 7 Dhyani-Chohans (the seven Rishis of Hinduism, the seven gods of Genesis 1:26 and Revelations 4:5)

It takes an entire textbook to describe these concepts, so I can only do a short and incomplete description here.
　
First is the Absolute. We know nothing about the Absolute, we cannot describe it or any of its aspects, nor is the human mind capable of conceptualizing it in any way. This is exactly what the Jews mean when they refuse to talk about it or call it by any name, because it cannot not be named or described.

The Absolute is the one life, the one Reality, with all other aspects of the universe merely being an illusion.

[The Absolute is] " ... the ONE LIFE, eternal, invisible, yet Omnipresent, without beginning or end, yet periodical in its regular manifestations, between which periods reigns the dark mystery of non-Being; unconscious, yet absolute Consciousness; unrealisable, yet the one self-existing reality; truly, ‘a chaos to the sense, a Kosmos to the reason.’ Its one absolute attribute, which is ITSELF, eternal, ceaseless Motion, is called in esoteric parlance the ‘Great Breath,’ which is the perpetual motion of the universe, in the sense of limitless, ever-present SPACE." (Secret Doctrine vol 1 p 2)
​

Before any of the events occurred at the beginning of the universe, there was only the Absolute.

" ... there is one absolute Reality which antecedes all manifested, conditioned, being. This Infinite and Eternal Cause — dimly formulated in the ‘Unconscious’ and ‘Unknowable’ of current European philosophy — is the rootless root of ‘all that was, is, or ever shall be.’ It is of course devoid of all attributes and is essentially without any relation to manifested, finite Being. It is ‘Be-ness’ rather than Being (in Sanskrit, Sat), and is beyond all thought or speculation." (Secret Doctrine vol 1 p 14)
​

One more point must be mentioned. Genesis talks about the Darkness, and the Light which comes from out of the Darkness. The Darkness mentioned in Genesis 1:2 is the Absolute, from which Brahma, Brahmā, etc., emerge, and are the Light which emerges from the Absolute/Darkness. (Technically, only Brahmā is the Light, but we’ll get to that later.)
　
How does this sound so far?

Wonderful. It perfectly matches what I have read about Brahman, which Vivekananda also calls the Absolute. It also matches my limited understanding of Allaah. It is new to me that it is the "darkness" of Genesis, although I say it on your chart.

Please continue to the Secret Doctrine's explanation of the Logos and the 7!

 

[Nick the Pilot]

We now come to the first moment of our new universe. Before the beginning of the universe, it can be said that there is only one ‘substance’ that ‘exists’. But at the first moment of a new universe, this ‘single substance’ differentiates into two ‘substances’, one being spirit and the other being matter. It is from this basic duality that the entire new universe arises. But this duality is only a temporary ‘manifestation’ from the one ‘eternal’ non-duality. This is why Vedanta is said to be a non-duality belief system.

Let's take a look at Genesis 1:2.

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

The darkness mentioned here is the Absolute. The Spirit of God mentioned here is spirit, the one half of the duality I have described. The waters/deep is the other half, matter (although it is matter that is nothing like the physical matter we have here on earth.) In this way, Genesis corroborates the idea that the first moment of our new universe was this fundamental differentiation into the two aspects of spirit and matter.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

I once posted this
[Hindu Dharma Forums - View Single Post - Can Brahman ever be experienced?]

Orthodox hindu Vedas state:

As stated in the Taittiriya Upanisad (2.9): ". . . brahma puccham pratistha . . ."

1] There is God’s energy known as anna-maya, dependence upon food for existence.
This is a materialistic realization of the Supreme.

2] Then, in prana-maya {after realizing the Supreme Absolute Truth in food, one can realize the Absolute Truth in the living symptoms or life forms.]

3] Then, there is jnana-maya [realization extended beyond the living symptoms to the point of thinking, feeling and willing]

4] Then there is vijnana-maya (Brahman realization) [in which the living entity’s mind and life symptoms are distinguished from the living entity himself.]

5] the next and supreme stage is ananda-maya [realization of the all-blissful nature]

Thus there are five stages of Brahman realization, which are called brahma puccham.

The first three—anna-maya, prana-maya and jnana-maya—involve the fields of activities of the living entities.

Transcendental to all these fields of activities is the Supreme Lord, who is called ananda-maya.

The Vedanta-sutra also describes the Supreme by saying, ananda-mayo ’bhyasat: the Supreme Personality of Godhead is by nature full of joy.

To enjoy His transcendental bliss, He expands into vijnana-maya, prana-maya, jnana-maya and anna-maya.

In the field of activities the living entity is considered to be the enjoyer, and different from him is the ananda-maya.

That means that if the living entity decides to enjoy in dovetailing himself with the ananda-maya, then he becomes perfect.

This is the real picture of the Supreme Lord as the supreme knower of the field, the living entity as the subordinate knower, and the nature of the field of activities.

One has to search for this truth in the Vedanta-sutra, or Brahma-sutra.

It is mentioned here that the codes of the Brahma-sutra are very nicely arranged according to cause and effect, ie:

A] na viyad ashruteh (2.3.2) — the field of activities,
B] natma shruteh (2.3.18) — the living entity, and
C] parat tu tac-chruteh (2.3.40) — the Supreme Lord, the summum bonum of all various entities.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
When, by simply quite sitting mantra-meditation one stops paying attention to thoughts and thus withdraws the senses inward toward its center point of origin ---No further stimulai distracts the mind's attention ---that is when the meditator preceives bliss. This Bliss is there from the beginning ---yet the meditator is fully conditioned to be distracted by life's stimulai.

It would seem that intimate moments in bed are comprised with activities that ask the performers to focus there attention to only a single minded goal ---it is an Irony that of all daily activities are not appreciated with the same level of 'delighting in the mercy' of all the facilities because the senses are so dulled by material living.

on the subject of "brahma puccham pratistha" I just found this on the web:

The taithreeya upanishad says about the stages of consciousness in a persons life.

The human and an animal differs in the conscious level, that is the human being has a higher conscious level and the animal has a lesser conscious level. But the human being who has a higher conscious level should not be satisfied with the higher conscious level, because the human being has still higher level of conscious level the BRAHMA BHUTA stage.

The upanishad says it is five kosas or the sheaths which covers the soul, which is called the brahma puccham. The stages are ANNA MAYA, PRANA MAYA,JANANA MAYA,VIJANA MAYA, ANANDA MAYA.Let us analyse the different stages one by one.

The lowest stage is the anna maya.Because the person in this stage is concerned only about the food aspect of life(anna maya).The best examples are the babies, who drink the mother's milk and sleep.

The next higher stage is calledna pramaya. In this stage the person is concerned only about his survival (prana-life).The example is our survival in this material world.We go to office, factories, do work etc etc.If a person is concerned only about his survival and earning riches which will not give any tangible solution to the spiritual dimension of life.

The next higher stage of life is janana maya (seeking knowledge). At this the person is religious and believes in God and thinks that the God helps him in his walk of life and tries to gather information about God. But gathering information about God is not the solution unless or otherwise it is dovetailed with the self, Or in other words the relation ship about the living entity.

I couldn't help but add this to the stew,
Bhaktajan

 

[Qu'otar]

We now come to the first moment of our new universe. Before the beginning of the universe, it can be said that there is only one ‘substance’ that ‘exists’. But at the first moment of a new universe, this ‘single substance’ differentiates into two ‘substances’, one being spirit and the other being matter. It is from this basic duality that the entire new universe arises. But this duality is only a temporary ‘manifestation’ from the one ‘eternal’ non-duality. This is why Vedanta is said to be a non-duality belief system.

Let's take a look at Genesis 1:2.

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

The darkness mentioned here is the Absolute. The Spirit of God mentioned here is spirit, the one half of the duality I have described. The waters/deep is the other half, matter (although it is matter that is nothing like the physical matter we have here on earth.) In this way, Genesis corroborates the idea that the first moment of our new universe was this fundamental differentiation into the two aspects of spirit and matter.

Ok, I am down with this. It is the introduction of Purusha and Prakriti. It is the introduction of separation, Vidya-Maya. It seems that the Godhead at this level stays Ishvara, but that this changes my alignment to:

Absolute: Brahman
1st Logos: Ishvara (introduces Vidya-Maya: the illusion of separation, through Purusha and Prakriti)
2nd Logos: ...
3rd Logos: Avidya-Maya (the perception of separation)
7 Dhyani-Chohans: The 7 chakras

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Q,

I would go with:

Absolute: Parabrahman (a Sanskrit word literally meaning, "beyond Brahma")
1st Logos: Purusha (Brahma)
2nd Logos: Prakriti
3rd Logos: Brahmā (Ishvara, Avidya-Maya)
7 Dhyani-Chohans

How does that sound?

 

[Qu'otar]

Q,

I would go with:

Absolute: Parabrahman (a Sanskrit word literally meaning, "beyond Brahma")
1st Logos: Purusha (Brahma)
2nd Logos: Prakriti
3rd Logos: Brahmā (Ishvara, Avidya-Maya)
7 Dhyani-Chohans

How does that sound?

Well, discussion of Parabrahman v Brahman withstanding, and I am coming solely from Vivekananda's "neo-vedanta" tradition on this, I see it slightly differently, as I mentioned. Here's why.

You mentioned that the 1st Logos was a division of the Absolute into 2 "substances". In Sankhya, one of the Hindu dualistic philosophies (and "below" (neo-) Vedanta in the sense that non-dualistic Vedanta "decays" (like radioactive decay) into Sankhya dualism), brings the ideas of Purusha and Prakriti. These are the 2 "substances", consciousness and the realm of matter. So this is why I left both at the level of the 1st Logos. Do you see where I am coming from, related to your words on the 1st Logos?

Not sure where or how Ishvara or Krishna fits. I think of Ishvara as Lord (Christ - Isha - Issa). However, Krishna = Christ? Do we need a different name for the personal Godhead (Purusha prior to separation of Purusha into separation of Prakriti? broken glass...)? Your 3rd Logos for the NT has the Word. Is not the Word, Christ?

Hinduism is so immense and even Vedanta alone (1 of 6) has a couple of three schools of thought.

I look forward to hearing about the 2nd and 3rd Logos from you and perhaps we can see how some of Vedanta may fit better.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

some of Vedanta . . .

As I see it there is NO SUCH THING as "Advaita Vedanta".

It is a composite hyphenated descriptive word, that is NOT found in the Vedas proper.

The principle idea(s) behind "Advaita" may be found in the Vedic writ ---but the formal Title "Advaita Vedanta" is NOT to be found.

I wager that the term "Advaita Vedanta" can NOT br found to be spoken of by Shankaracarya ---[except maybe inregards to debating Buddhists of his time ---Maybe!]. Corrections welcomed.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

IMO, Advaita is NOT a religion --it is a Subject matter ---it is a chapter title ---it is a catch-phrase quasi-name for the Conclusion of Study.

IE: It is like saying "Writting** is a Religion" ---whereas, these are part and parcel constituants of the Curriculum. The term "Religion" in this metaphor applies to the Idealistic Concept called Education.

Yoga is the religion.
Advaita is a required course-subject.

[**as in the 3-R's ---reading/writting/Arithmatics]

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

OTOH, This link below at wiki details wonderfully . . . what IMO . . . is classical Hindu Ashram Curriculum(s) entoto ---irregardless of what the particular Disciplic succession the local ashram Abbot belongs to.

It's a Great primer for a novice to review and be informed of before further descriminating investigations of the "Various Sects of Classical Hindu Schools of thought.

Advaita Vedanta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shankara's Advaita . . . just another form of Vedantism.

Shankara defended himself against these accusations:

between Buddhism and his own Vedantic philosophy.

BTW: this is my schooling that I have learnt over the years:

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

According to the Padma Purana, one of the eighteen main Puranas. The verse says:

sampradayavihina ye mantraste nisphala matah
atah kalau bhavisyanti catvarah sampradayinah
Shri-brahma-rudra-sanaka vaisnava ksitipavanah
catvaraste kalau bhavya hyutkale purusottamat
ramanujam sri svicakre madhvacaryam caturmukhah
srivisnusvaminam rudro nimbadityam catuhsanah

Translation :

All mantras which have been given (to disciples) not in an authorised Sampradaya are fruitless.

Therefore, in Kali Yuga, there will be four bona-fide Sampradayas.

Each of them were ignaugurated by Shri Devi and known as the Shri Sampradaya,
Lord Brahma and known as the Brahma Sampradaya,
Lord Rudra and known as the Rudra Sampradaya; and
the Four Kumaras and known as Sanakadi Sampradaya or Nimbarka Sampradaya.

Shri Devi made Ramanujacharya the head of that lineage.
So too Lord Brahma appointed Madhvacharya,
Lord Rudra appointed Visnusvami and the
four Kumaras chose Nimbarka (an epithet for Shri Nimbarkacarya).

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

BTW, M. Quoter, can you explain your opinion on:
JESUS
and
Isha Upanishad

What relationship(s) is it that you have alluded to earlier?

 

[Thomas]

In this way, Genesis corroborates the idea that the first moment of our new universe was this fundamental differentiation into the two aspects of spirit and matter.

Sorry, Nick, but it corroborates no such thing, for no other reason than it's founded on a metaphysical error.

If God is Absolute, and God is Infinite, then the Absolute and the Infinite cannot be qualified, modified, differentiated or aspected — God cannot become two.

I would suggest there is a reason why verse two: "And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters" comes after verse one: "In the beginning God created heaven, and earth"

V1 then indicates we're 'this side' of the creation event, and 'heaven and earth' signifies the primary distinction between the universal (heaven) and individual (earth).

Metaphysically, subsequent to universal/particular come Formless (universal) and Formal (particular) Manifestation. Thus we have "And the earth (particular) was void and empty" because the universal is prior to the individual, and we're still talking in principle (Hb: beresith 'beginning') here, the actual cosmos is the work of the second day.

Formless comprises the as yet unmanifested, but also all modes of supraformal manifestation: "and darkness (unmanifested which will in time, God willing, become manifest and thus illuminated) was upon the face of the deep (supraformal)"

Formal Manifestation comprises 'a gross state' and 'a subtle state', the latter being, for example, the extra-corporeal modalities of the human being.

Thus I suggest a more accurate reading of Genesis talks of the modes of manifestation, rather than the modality of God, for in the Christian and the Western Philosophical Tradition, God is One and Simple, not composite, therefore does not manifest in modal fashion.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Qu'otar]

As I see it there is NO SUCH THING as "Advaita Vedanta".

Whatever. Advaita is a subschool (Dvaita and Advaita) of Vedanta, one of 6 primary schools of philosophy in Hinduism, derived from various texts including the Vedas.

Shankara started 4 monasteries still operating. They speak of Vedanta.

BTW, M. Quoter, can you explain your opinion on:
JESUS
and
Isha Upanishad

What relationship(s) is it that you have alluded to earlier?

Jesus in Arabic is Issa. Isha is Ishvara, the Lord. Isha Upanishad is talking about Jesus and the path of knowledge through renunciation and the path of action and finally the Fire to transcend the individual ego to Atman.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Whatever. Advaita is a subschool (Dvaita and Advaita) of Vedanta, one of 6 primary schools of philosophy in Hinduism, derived from various texts including the Vedas.

Shankara started 4 monasteries still operating. They speak of Vedanta.

School of Vedanta???

6 primary schools of philosophy in Hinduism???

Where is this stated as fact ---in the Vedic Scriptures?

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

Is "reading/writting/Arithmatics" seperate schools of Education?

To speak of "Advaita" is my point.

I know Vedanta has sub-topics that include "Advait-isms" and "Advaita rooted concepts"

Vedanta does not "Conclude" with "Advaita".

"Advaita" is a topic not a final goal.

"Advaita" is NOT a path it is a stepping stone to the goal of Vedanta.

Vedanta = "conclusion of the Vedas"

Jesus in Arabic is Issa. Isha is Ishvara, the Lord. Isha Upanishad is talking about Jesus and the path of knowledge through renunciation and the path of action and finally the Fire to transcend the individual ego to Atman.

Yes. That is all easily obvious to me.

But what is you observations and sentiments about it?

You are the one and only ever to say such a thing, in my experience.

Tell me more. It sounds very provacative.

How does Isopanisad relate to Arabic metaphysics?

Do you read Arabic?

In Latin Jesus is Gesu [je-zu].
In spain Jesus is Jesus [he-zus].

The name changes but the deity remains the same.

 

[Qu'otar]

School of Vedanta???

6 primary schools of philosophy in Hinduism???

Where is this stated as fact ---in the Vedic Scriptures?

Hindu philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is "reading/writting/Arithmatics" seperate schools of Education?

To speak of "Advaita" is my point.

I know Vedanta has sub-topics that include "Advait-isms" and "Advaita rooted concepts"

Vedanta does not "Conclude" with "Advaita".

"Advaita" is a topic not a final goal.

"Advaita" is NOT a path it is a stepping stone to the goal of Vedanta.

Vedanta = "conclusion of the Vedas"

I fail to see your point, as it is very garbled. Advaita is the strict non-dual subschool of Vedanta, the choice of Sri Ramakrishna, although Vivekananda talks of Qualiified Non-Dualism. It is a school of Hindu philosophy from the Vedas.

Yes. That is all easily obvious to me.

But what is you observations and sentiments about it?

You are the one and only ever to say such a thing, in my experience.

Tell me more. It sounds very provacative.

How does Isopanisad relate to Arabic metaphysics?

Do you read Arabic?

In Latin Jesus is Gesu [je-zu].
In spain Jesus is Jesus [he-zus].

The name changes but the deity remains the same.

I know some conversational arabic, phonetically.

I think the Qu'ran can be used to validate the Isha Upanishad and lend it an interpretation that would direct the Isha Upanishad to lend some understanding of the mysteries of the Bible, also validated by the Qu'ran.

The Qu'ran is the cryptographic key.

 

[Qu'otar]

How does Isopanisad relate to Arabic metaphysics?

There is some VERY INTERESTING metaphysics in the Qu'ran, but that is the answer to my question in the Al-Mursalat thread....

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Advaita is the strict non-dual subschool

How can there be any such thing as a School of Advaita?

Is that analgous to saying there is a School of Left-Wing Communists Professors?

There are Universities and there are professors. How is it that there is such a thing as Advaita Schools?

How could the curriculum be composed?

Wouldn't the whole curriculum be covered in 5 minutes of Instruction before straying into subjects . . . of 'other' schools?

Where else in life do we find such segregated schools-of-thought?

Yes, I can see it in the field of Business ---each company does a specific thing that the other doesn't do. Yet all of them dovetail eachother on the open market.

Pencil-lead companies work in concert with tree-wood & rubber companies.
Businesses do not work in vaccums & isolation from the next company down the road. They work in communion with eachother.

And re: "Strict-ness" of a school ---in re: "One-ness of all Fields" ... yet... how can the idea of philosophical "Strict-ness" be ascribed to Hindu schools???

By Strictness do you refer to Eternal Dharma of the Soul and the discipline required to escape sin?

I gave you the Wiki link. Where did you see "Advaita" as a School?

Now OTOH:

I know some conversational arabic, phonetically.

I think the Qu'ran can be used to validate the Isha Upanishad and lend it an interpretation that would direct the Isha Upanishad to lend some understanding of the mysteries of the Bible, also validated by the Qu'ran.

The Qu'ran is the cryptographic key.

Open a thread and write away. I'd read it with relish!

 

[Qu'otar]

Open a thread and write away. I'd read it with relish!

Here we go...Using the Qu'ran to validate and integrate the Isha Upanishad and the NT

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Q,
　
Let’s take a look at the second logos as portrayed in Christianity and Buddhism. Here is a picture of Mary.

　

　

Next is a picture of Guan Yin, one of the most important deities in Buddhism. (There are thousands of temples built in her honor, and millions of Buddhists pray to Guan Yin everyday, in much the same way Catholics pray to Mary.)
　

　
Guan Yin is usually portrayed pouring water from a small vase.
　
Both Mary and Guan Yin symbolize the same thing — the second logos, the ‘material’ from which universes are made (including our present universe and a seemingly infinite number of past and future universes.)
　
Mary is holding the Baby Jesus and Guan Yin is pouring water from a small vase. Both Jesus and the water symbolize our present universe. Jesus has had many ‘brothers and sisters,’ which is symbolic talk for the idea that there have been many past universes created from the 'pre-cosmic material' called Mulaprakriti (the second logos).

Both pictures are very similar in that they symbolize the exact same cosmic priniciple -- the second logos.

Which brings us to Hinduism. How is the second logos portrayed in Hinduism?

 

[Qu'otar]

Q,
　
Let’s take a look at the second logos as portrayed in Christianity and Buddhism. Here is a picture of Mary.

　

　

Next is a picture of Guan Yin, one of the most important deities in Buddhism. (There are thousands of temples built in her honor, and millions of Buddhists pray to Guan Yin everyday, in much the same way Catholics pray to Mary.)
　

　
Guan Yin is usually portrayed pouring water from a small vase.
　
Both Mary and Guan Yin symbolize the same thing — the second logos, the ‘material’ from which universes are made (including our present universe and a seemingly infinite number of past and future universes.)
　
Mary is holding the Baby Jesus and Guan Yin is pouring water from a small vase. Both Jesus and the water symbolize our present universe. Jesus has had many ‘brothers and sisters,’ which is symbolic talk for the idea that there have been many past universes created from the 'pre-cosmic material' called Mulaprakriti (the second logos).

Both pictures are very similar in that they symbolize the exact same cosmic priniciple -- the second logos.

Which brings us to Hinduism. How is the second logos portrayed in Hinduism?

Ok, so the first Logos is the splitting of the Non-Dual Absolute into matter and the other spirit.

The second Logos is matter, represented by Mary or Guan Yin, through the designs of the spirit, produce the universe.

So, as I see it, the Absolute is One. The 1st Logos creates Two from One. The 2nd Logos intermingles the Two from the 1st Logos and creates the Universe, Mulaprakriti. Do I have that right?

I feel like there should be Two at the level of the 2nd Logos to mix for the 3rd Logos, but I will await your next post on the 3rd Logos to see.

Thanks!

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Q,
　
You are pretty close. But the Non-dual Absolute (or part of it, anyway) splits into two parts at the first moment of a new universe. The first part is the first Logos (spirit) and the second part is the second Logos (cosmic matter or Prakriti).
　
The word Mulaprakriti does not refer to the universe (the third Logos), it refers to the ‘substance’ of the Absolute before it splits into spirit and matter. (Mulaprakriti refers to undifferentiated spirit-matter before the split, and Prakriti refers to the ‘matter’ which emerges after the splitting of Mulaprakriti into spirit and matter.) The Sanskrit term for the third Logos (our universe) is Mahat, not Mulaprakriti.
　
This brings up an important point: Mulaprakriti itself is not affected by any of this. It remains the same, as universe after universe emerges from it and then merges back into it. This is where the idea of the virgin birth comes from. Mary symbolizes Mulaprakriti and Jesus symbolizes our manifested, temporary universe. Mary is said to be a virgin, just as Mulaprakriti is not affected by the universes which emerge from (and later merge back into) it. It is this idea which has been ‘borrowed’ by Christians and made into the idea that Mary gave virgin birth.
　
One small side note. Mulaprakriti has always been symbolized by water, as it is in Genesis 1:2. Both the words Mulaprakriti and water (along with the name Mary) begin with wavy-line characters (M and W) and a single wavy-line character was the original hieroglyphic character for both Mulaprakriti and water, and the origin of both the letters M and W.

Note how, in the above pictures, Mary is holding Baby Jesus whereas Guan Yin is pouring water. Both Jesus and water symbolize the same thing (our universe) and the symbols of Mary and Guan Yin (the unchanging, virgin material from which universes are made) are essentially identical.