Advaita Vedanta: Qualified Non-Dualism

[Qu'otar]

Nick,

This matches my idea of a double triangle for creation, perfectly. Imagine two triangles, one on top with a vertex up, and one underneath with a vertex down, with the bases connected.

.....*
..../|\
.../.|.\
../..|..\
./...|...\
*_____*
.\...|.../
..\..|../
...\.|./
....\|/
.....*

Which can be imagined to be super-imposed on a cross. It is actually Allah, the Son, and the Father and the Mother, in my book.

It can also describe the Ankh, with the circle of the totality, coming down with the 3 Logos.

Thanks for explaining these things. What about the 7 things?

Qu'otar

 

[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?

I totally see this now. I would add Vidya-Maya to the 2nd Logos and change the 3rd Logos:

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

So what are the 7? Chakras?

(I am still stuck that Prabrahman is the personal God, whereas Brahman is the infinite Brahman, so my Absolute would be Brahman and the Purusha would be Parabrahman. Nonetheless, I can go with your definition of it.)

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Q,

The seven Dhyani-Chohans are the seven gods who created the earth and the human race. They are the gods (plural) of Genesis 1:2 ("Let us make man."). They are also the seven spirits of God mentioned in Revelation 4:5.

Chakras are not gods, they are energy fields within each human body.

"I am still stuck that Prabrahman is the personal God, whereas Brahman is the infinite Brahman..."

--> I think it would be fascinating for you to search through Hindu texts to find the text(s) that makes you think this way. You may also want to look at the Sanskrit language and find the meaning of "para".

 

[Qu'otar]

Q,

The seven Dhyani-Chohans are the seven gods who created the earth and the human race. They are the gods (plural) of Genesis 1:2 ("Let us make man.").

This part that confuses me about this is that there is no mention of seven gods. Furthermore, it seems that it is Genesis 1:26-27 you speak of:

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

As an aside, this is very interesting that, like my post on the Al-Mursalat thread, God is referred to in both the singular and plural. Interesting, no?

They are also the seven spirits of God mentioned in Revelation 4:5.

5 From the throne came flashes of lightning, rumblings and peals of thunder. In front of the throne, seven lamps were blazing. These are the seven spirits[a] of God.

I think these are the chakras, or the lights of the Spirit of God within the Chakras.

Chakras are not gods, they are energy fields within each human body.

Fed by the Spirit of God.

I have some thoughts about the Chakras, along the lines that they are manifestations of Purusha and Prakriti meeting in the middle at the Heart Chakra, Anahata, the fulcrum, the meeting of consciousness and matter in the incarnation.

"I am still stuck that Prabrahman is the personal God, whereas Brahman is the infinite Brahman..."

--> I think it would be fascinating for you to search through Hindu texts to find the text(s) that makes you think this way. You may also want to look at the Sanskrit language and find the meaning of "para".

From the wiki, with references:

Para Brahman (IAST para-brahmaṇ) or Param Brahman (the Highest Brahman; not to be confused with brahmin, an Indic social class designation) - is a term often used by Vedantic philosophers as to the "attainment of the ultimate goal".[1] Adi Shankara has said that there is only one Supreme Para-Brahman and all the other deities are the forms and expansions of this Para-Brahman. It is believed that all Vaishnava and other schools attribute Personhood to this concept, as in Svayam bhagavan.[2] Under terms of some schools of Vedanta, It has three modal aspects with a highest as Para Brahman or Lord Vishnu.[3] This term is often quoted often used in relation to Vishnu as the ultimate goal of Vedanta. Even Shankara in his commentaries on Yoga Sutras stated, "Through AUM the Lord is met face to face", and "AUM is the Name of the Supreme Lord", thus attributing qualities to Supreme Brahman as a Person. One of the most prominent of recent Hindu philosophers, Dr. Radhakrishnan, after his alleged conversion to Gaudiya Vaishnavism in early 1960s, confirmed that this term meant Supreme God as a Person, the Absolute Truth.[4]

So, as you can see there is broad support for viewing Parabrahman as the personification of the infinite, impersonal Brahman, as described in the pages on Brahman referenced in this post.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Q,

You are right, I had a typo, the seven gods who created the earth are mentioned in Genesis 1:26.

Ah, now I see where you are getting the idea of chakras from. The "seven spirits of God" in Revelation 4:5 may mean the chakras, the seven gods who created the earth, etc.

"...there is broad support for viewing Parabrahman as the personification of the infinite..."

--> Just because a million people believe something does not automatically mean I will believe it too. But I can see the logic behind believing that Parabrahman is the personification of the infinite. I believe mistaken teachings have crept into Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., it is a dirty job pointing them out, but I am more than happy to provide this 'service'. It is a natural aspect of human nature that all religions become corrupt as the centuries go by.

 

[Qu'otar]

Q,

You are right, I had a typo, the seven gods who created the earth are mentioned in Genesis 1:26.

Ah, now I see where you are getting the idea of chakras from. The "seven spirits of God" in Revelation 4:5 may mean the chakras, the seven gods who created the earth, etc.

It also works when the idea of each person being a universe, in its own right, or being all people is recalled (the Qu'ran says when you kill someone you kill everyone and when you save someone you save everyone).

I am totally psyched that you see what I was saying and so I am not in left field.

"...there is broad support for viewing Parabrahman as the personification of the infinite..."

--> Just because a million people believe something does not automatically mean I will believe it too. But I can see the logic behind believing that Parabrahman is the personification of the infinite. I believe mistaken teachings have crept into Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., it is a dirty job pointing them out, but I am more than happy to provide this 'service'.

Fair enough. The 80 pages on Brahman, I referenced earlier, is where I am coming from.

It is a natural aspect of human nature that all religions become corrupt as the centuries go by.

True. The only thing we know for sure is how long Scripture has been around. Of Scripture, only the Qu'ran is known to be the direct recording of Revelation, without changes. As such, it is the cryptographic key to unlock other Scriptures.

However, even Islam has misinterpretations. The concept that it is justified to kill non-violent disbelievers or believers in other traditions is outrageous. Does God want that? The Day coming will take care of them, if only by leaving them behind.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

"...the Qu'ran is known to be the direct recording of Revelation, without changes. As such, it is the cryptographic key to unlock other Scriptures."

"...it is justified to kill non-violent disbelievers or believers in other traditions..."

--> The two statements, taken together, create an oxymoron. If the Qu'ran makes the second claim, it has no right claiming the authority to make the first claim.

 

[Qu'otar]

"...it is the cryptographic key to unlock other Scriptures."

"...it is justified to kill non-violent disbelievers or believers in other traditions..."

--> The two statements, taken together, create an oxymoron. If the Qu'ran makes the second claim, it has no right claiming the authority to make the first claim.

Exactly. Islamists don't see it that way. They are lost in their own misinterpretations. Of course, both are not explicitly said by the Qu'ran, only that the first is my interpretation and the second is their interpretation, so I have created the oxymoron to object to their conclusion.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Good for you!

 

[Qu'otar]

To be clear, the Qu'ran does say that it is the undistorted word of God and that there is other Scripture...I interpolate from there.

It also says that to kill a person is to kill all people, so it actually talks against their conclusion, without other Scripture. I cannot take credit for this idea.

The Sunnah (actions of the Prophet not in the Qu'ran) show him fighting people who try to fight him and the followers. Ok, self-defense. Here is the problem...the Islamists have distorted this idea. Instead of claiming it is self-defense against an aggressor, they claim it is Jihad against non-Muslim believers and disbelievers. Assholes.

 

[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.

Here is an Amar-chitra-Katha comic book with the traditional opinion on Shankara's historical status:
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/god-came-as-shankara-to-7918-2.html#post270190

Yes, they speak of Vedanta.

Advaita is a 'descriptive' word. It must by hyphenated-to-another word inorder to have any meaning.

Advaita is a word for a 'concept'.

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.

I have come to consider references and use of the word "brahman" by all the schools of Advaitic scriptures is actually a cover-word for "renunciation".

IOW, to attain, or merge into, or becoming 'One with', or just realising "brahman" . . . is a secret code-word for: "renunciation".

So, "COME TO BRAHMAN . . . it is the Dharma!!!"

Actually means "BECOME RENOUNCED . . . for your own sake!!!"

 

[Thomas]

Hi bhaktajan —

I have come to consider references and use of the word "brahman" by all the schools of Advaitic scriptures is actually a cover-word for "renunciation".

That's really interesting ...

God bless

Thomas

 

[Aupmanyav]

The Sunnah (actions of the Prophet not in the Qu'ran) show him fighting people who try to fight him and the followers. Ok, self-defense. Here is the problem...the Islamists have distorted this idea. Instead of claiming it is self-defense against an aggressor, they claim it is Jihad against non-Muslim believers and disbelievers. Assholes.

With due respect, it is difficult to say if those were attacks or self-defense, when none of the men, women, and children of the defeated party remained to tell their story (killed, converted or enslaved) and we have to go only by the victor's version of the wars.

 

[Aupmanyav]

IOW, to attain, or merge into, or becoming 'One with', or just realising "brahman" .. is a secret code-word for: "renunciation".

What would you renunciate, if you yourself are Brahman? Sankara said:

"Brahma satyam, jagan-mithya, jeevo Brahmaiva na parah."
(Brahman is the truth, the observed is illusion, a living form is none other than Brahman.)

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Q.What would you renunciate, if you yourself are Brahman?

A. "you yourself"

Sankara said:
"Brahma satyam, jagan-mithya, jeevo Brahmaiva na parah."
(Brahman is the truth,
the observed [material matter & Energy] is [temporal/transcient] illusion,
a living form [aka, a 'soul in material body']
is none other than Brahman [aka, a 'soul in material body'].)

What I have postulated above is:
When ever "Brahman" is spoken of in the teachings of Advaita Cannon equates to being a Heralds' Call to "Renounce" ---implying either/or "Selfless-service to others" or, "abstinence from worldly pursuits".

It is a "implied ramification" that would not be lost upon an ancient climate of South Asia where there had been Monasteries built upon Monasteries for retired Ronins and especially 'children of Brahmanas' ---to house upright "Putra(s)" [sons] & even "Putri(s)" [daughters]--- long before boarding school were fashionable; yet, still un-affordable for most parents; and most un-appealing to most retired sailors.

Originally Posted by bhaktajan
"brahman" .. is the Watch-Word secret code-word for: "renunciation".

 

[Aupmanyav]

Q. What would you renunciate, if you yourself are Brahman?

A. "you yourself"

Nice reply, but what is important is to understand.

"Jneyaḥ sa nitya-sannyāsī, yo na dveṣhṭi na kānkshati'
nirdvandvo hi mahā-bāho, sukham bandhāt pramucyate."

One who neither hates nor desires, know him to be always renounced. Free from all dualities, (the person) easily overcomes material bondage and is completely liberated, O Mighty-Armed (Arjuna).

I did not say that, Krishna said that. Be a 'nitya-sanyasi'.

 

[donnann]

Hi Thomas,

I am not precisely sure what you mean about the second being relative to the first. Could you explain further? I do think that the first is true, from God's perspective. I am more concerned with my perspective.

I found the book you refer too, but I cannot afford it at this time. That is a real shame, as I started my religious journey in Vedanta and would like to resovle it in Christianity. I have trouble with the Trinity, so I am Unitarian.

I am a panentheist. I also think God is both impersonal (Brahman) and personal (Ishvara)

Nameste.

There are 4 beings. The spirit, the soul, the body and the sexual spirit. All are one being. However each 4 is really half of the one. The one is two : one male and one female that even though are two are also one as well , even being three.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Surely, some higher Math.

 

[donnann]

Surely, some higher Math.

Definitely some higher math. The spirit is a white light that is pure consciousness. The soul is multicolored light that is a pattern that forms the soul body and is an essence that cannot be felt in the current separated condtion. It can only be felt on the level of the senses of the body because it is separated from it. The sexual spirit is a black light that is sexual consciousness. All 4 as one would be immortality, along with ones own opposite.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why does pure consciousness has white light? Why not blue? That is a nice color. And is black so bad? White is just a mixture of colors. Black is real pure.

Krishna