Significance of the Maasi Maham-Siva & Sakthi Valipaadu

[virarajendra]

Author - Virarajendra

Significance of the Maasi Maham - Siva & Sakthi Valipaadu

Among the many Valipaaduhal to the - "God as Siva'' - coming in each month of a year, and observed by the Tamil Saivites in Tamil Nadu and elsewhere, the one which falls in the Tamil month of Maasi (13th of February to 14th of March) is the "Maasi Maham", which is sacred to God Siva.

Maham is the tenth star (natchaththiram = constellation) among the twenty seven stars in the Hindu astrological system. The Maham natchaththiram which falls in the month of Maasi very often in conjunction with the full moon day (Mulu Nilaa = Paurnami), is taken as the “Maasi Maham” Valipaadu day.

The “Maasi Maham” is essentially a day of Siva Valipaadu as confirmed by the Koyil Puranam - a Tamil treatise (dating thirteenth century) on Chidambaram the holiest Siva Shrine in Tamil Nadu.

It describes a mythical legend attributed to this celebrations as follows:

“Thesi polipothu nirai atputhan oliser nat Kadal ethir thikalvuttru paasam thalaiara arula Salapathi paravi thinam ithu padivu uttror aasu attru uyar kathi adaiya, kadavulum anuka pera, vara mathu petraan, "Maasi thiru Maham" ena mattrathu thaha mali potr kodiyathu poliviththaan.”

Koyilpuranam - Thiruvilaa charukkam by Umapathi Sivachariyar (In Tamil)

The mythological story behind same is that when "God Siva appeared opposite the sea in the vicinity" where Varunan (Salapathi) remained submerged for his sins, blessed him and freed him from his desires. Varunan in turn worshipped him and requested a varam that anyone who bathes in the sea fronts will be freed from desires and attain high mukthi, and for God Siva to be in presence there on this occasion of Maasi thiru Maham being the tenth day of the month of Masi to bless them.

Hence the "Maasi Maham" festival is essentially a day of "Siva Worship" with sacred Sea Baths at the Sea Fronts and worship of God Siva at the temples adjoing them. This is confirmed by a reference in the 2nd Thirumurai of Tamil Saiva Saint Thirugnanasampanthar dating to mid seventh century (around A.D.650) which is as follows.

“madal arnththa thengin Myilaiyaar "Maasi Kadalaattu" kandaan Kabaleechcharam amarnththaan adalaane earurum adihal adi paravi nadamaadal kaanaathe pothiyo poompaavai”

2nd Thirumurai - Pathikam 47, paadal 6 by Saint Thirugnanasampantha Nayanar (In Tamil)

The army commander of the Chola king Vikrama Chola (A.D.1118-1135) Mavitkooththan Kalingarayan among his religiuos works at the Chidambaram temple, also built a special Mantapam for Maasi Maham Kadaladuthal festival.

"Maasi Kadalaadi" veetrirukka Mandapamum pesa attra avatrai peruvaliyum Eesatkku then Puliyoorke amaiththaan Koothan thisai anaiththu man puliyanai nadakka vaiththu”

South Indian Inscriptions – Vol 4, Page 8 (Chidambaram Kalvettukal in Tamil)

During the rule of Chola and Pandiya kings in TamilNadu donations have been made to temples to assist them in conducting this Maasi Maham festival, and details of two such donations are as follows.

"In the 27th year (A.D.1045) of the Chola Emperor Rajadhirajadeva - 1 (A.D.1018-1054), a gift of money was made by members of the (village) assembly of Manali alias Singavishnu Chathurvedimanagalam. The money was deposited for conducting the festival of "Maasi Maham" at Thiruvottriyur Adhipurisvara Siva temple

Inscriptions of the Madras Presidency – by V.Rangacharya, Vol 1, page 441

"In the 6th year (A.D. 1256) of Jatavarman Sundara Pandiyan (A.D.1251-1264) on the Maham Natchatiram day gifted 350 panams for meeting the expenses of the festival called "Maasi Thirunaal" in the temple Thiru Maanikkamalai Udaiyar Siva temple in Kurunagainadu" at the present Ratnagiri in Thirutchi district.

Inscriptions of the Madras Presidency - by V.Rangacharya, Vol 3, page 1521

Maasi Maham thus has been an annual festival in the Tamil month of Masi. But once in every twelve years - in addition to the full moon being in conjunction with the Maham natchaththiram in the month of Maasi, the moving of the planet Jupiter into the Singa Rasi too takes place simultaneously.

The Maasi Maham which comes with this astronomical combination is called the "Mahaa Maham" and celebrated especially in Kumbakonam at Adi Kumbeswaran temple in a very big way. There are two theerththams (tanks) at this temple. One tank is called Mahaa Maham tank while the other is called as Pottramarai tank, where the worshippers on the Mahaa maham day had their Sacred Baths, in addition to the practice of having Sacred Baths at the Sea Fronts, and the worship of God Siva in the adjoining Siva Temples.

http://blessingsonthenet.com/img/uploads/aim_bn_1306471761.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_I6hx9I-Gk=player_detailpage Courtesy: G.Muniswamy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdiUn1SM9Vw=player_detailpage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luGxZuRlvOw=player_detailpage

The Tamil Saiva Saint Thirugnanasambanthar on his pilgrimage to the holy shrines in Tamil Nadu went to this temple - known as Kudanthai Kaaronam temple during his time - (Kumbeswaran Siva Temple) in Kumbakonam.

"......காவார்பொழில்சூழ்ந் தழகார் குடந்தைக் காரோணத்தாரே...."
".....குழகர் குடமூக்கில்
தீர்ப்பாருடலில் அடுநோயவலம் வினைகள் நலியாமைக்
காப்பார் காலன் அடையாவண்ணங் காரோணத்தாரே".

Second Thirumurai - Thirugnasambandar's Thevaara Thirupathikam on Thirunagai Kaaronam

In describing his vist to this temple Sage Poet Seikkeelar in his Tamil religious treatise on 63 Tamil Saiva Saints - namely the "Periyapuranam" praises the big theerththam therein, and mentions having a sacred bath or dip in same is held as sacred as having a bath in the holy river Gangai on this Mahaa Maham day which is as follows:

“Poomaruvum Gangai muthat punithamaam perun theerththam "Maa Maham" thaan aaduthatku vanthu vali padum Koil”

Periyapuranam by Seikkeelar (In Tamil) – Thirugnanasampantha Swamihal Puranam, Verse 409

Even the Tamil Saiva Saint Thirunavukkarasar refers to the holy theertha Tanks at Kumbakonam in the vicinity of Kudanthai Keelkottam Siva temple as follows.

“....thavi muthat kaviri nal yamunai, gangai, saraswathi, pottramarai, putkarani, then neer koviyodu, kumari varu theerththam soolnththa kudanthai keel koattatthu eng Kooththanaare....”

6th Thirumurai (In Tamil) - pathikam 75 - paadal 10

This is further confirmed by the Tamil Saint Thirunavukkarasar who has made the following reference in his pathikam on the sacred shrine Thiru Kudamuukku also in Kumbakonam as follows:

“Gangai yal aval kanni enappadum
kongaiyal uraiyum Kudamuukkile”

“Godavari uraiyum Kudamuukkile"

“Samiyodu Saraschuwathi aval
Komiyum uraiyum Kudamuukkile”

5th Thirumurai (In Tamil) – pathkam 22 – paadals 3,4,8

"In the year Saka 1445 (A.D.1523) the Vijayanagara king Krisna Devaraya (A.D.1509-29) paid a vist to Kumbakonam for the "Mahaa Maham" festival immediately after his return from his war expedition in the north"

Inscriptions of the Madras Presidency – by V.Rangacharya, Vol 1, page 399

In the present day we see the statues of the deities namely Siva and Parvathi and Vishnu, are brought to the Mahaa Maham tank from the Siva and Vishnu Temples within Kumbakonam district adjacent to Kaveri River, and at the auspicious time devotees both men and women have a holy bath or a dip either in the Mahaa Maham tank or in the river Kaveri.

It is believed that a bath or a dip in the waters of Mahaa Maham tank at the auspicious time provides the same results of having all sins washed away, by taking a bath in all the nine holy rivers of India. After the bath the devotees offer their holy prayers to the Lord and seek his salvation and blessings.

This "Mahaa Maham" Festival takes place once in 12 years on the day of the aforesaid planetary combination, and the festival is celebrated where devotees from far distance places from India throng to Kumbakonam in many "hundred thousands", and take bath or dip in the Holy theertham - the Mahaa Maham tank.

The Video URL of the "Maha Maham Festival" celebrated at Kumbakonam in Tamil Nadu every twelve years is as follows:

The Mahaa Maham day festival was last celeberated on 22/2/2004, and this year (2016) the Maasi Maham Siva Valipaadu falls on the 22nd of February, being the day the Maham Natchaththiram in conjunction with the full moon as per Vaakkiya & Thirukkanitha Panchankams)

This Mahaa Maham festival which falls every twelve years under the above planetary combination, and for the same auspicious reasons, is also celebrated as Mahaa Kumbh (as Kumba Mela) Festival in the north of India especially in at Haridwar, Varanaasi, and in many other places in North India, and the sacred bath or dip is undertaken in the other holy rivers in those regions.

Further according to the mythical legend Maasi Makam is said to be the birth natchaththiram on which Daakshayini (the Goddess Parvathi) was born as daughter to Daksha. Hence Maasi Makam is also celebrated in Sakthi Temples in Tamil Nadu and elsewhere with Pusai Valipaaduhal conducted in a big way having this significance.

[Idiappam]

Tamil Saivism

Yes - we can see that!

From humble origins in Sangam Literature, to Devotional Songs in Thevaram and Thiruvasagam, to bare-to-bone concepts in Thirumantiram, to a little bit of 'miracles' in Tiruvilaiyadal puranam, to biographies of those saints in Periya puranam, to 'knowing the truth' in Gnanabotham and GnanaSidhiyar, to a mixture of 'this and that' in the Thiripugazh and the Arutpaa and eventually to .........

Decay, I hope not!

[viggop]

Idiappam Sir
Why do you say decay? Is not religion still going strong in India? Or do you see a decline in religious values of Tamils?Why do you say so?

[Idiappam]

Tamil Saivism is just that! It was there long before the Sangam Period - extending up to even the Indus Valley. But the first description of it we can see in the Sangam Litearture. The religion was at its height during the bhatki period - say from Thirumoolar up to Sekizhar.

We can see that even during the Bhakti period, the Vedic rituals were conducted side by side with individualistic and congregational methods of Saivism. The Vedic rituals, even today, in all temples were conducted as a seperate 'performance' in all ceremonies.

Simple ceremonies were extended to add some 'substance' by the inclusion of Vedic homa! It was all 'worth the money spent' by the devotee.

The religion of the Temples have gone more into a 'ritual performance' to please the Gods. There are no more social enhancement programmes by the Temples.

All kinds of poojas are invented to collect funds. 'Good husband getting' pooja, for girls. 'Good buisiness/employment prospect pooja' for the men!

'New house pooja', 'new car pooja', 'new lorry pooja', ...

'108 sanku abishega pooja', '1008 kuda abishega pooja' ....

"All for the benifit of the devotees for the fulfilment of desirable expectations.", the notice on the temple board reads. Participant have to pay $25 each, of which about $6 remains as profit for the temple, after paying for the pooja items, incuding the stainless steel kudam (pot), payment for the Brahmins conductors of the pooja, incense ghee and champor. The participating devotees can take the empty kudam home and place it at their pooja altar to revere it lifelong.

The $6 (per devotee) profit will be kept in temple kitty till an amount, large enough to pay Nippon Paint to give the temple a fresh coat of colour every 12 years, is accumulated. - It is the Maha Kumbabishegam time!

The cycle is repeated every 12 years with variations. I will talk about the variations....

[viggop]

Idiappam Sir
I agree that such ritualistic worship has become the mainstay now.people think God is only for asking promotions,better jobs,curing sickness etc.i was brought up in this manner only.i was advised by elders to pray to God to get more marks in school!!! nobody thought me the philosophy of religion till i came to the internet world.

[Raghu]

Idiappam Sir
I agree that such ritualistic worship has become the mainstay now.people think God is only for asking promotions,better jobs,curing sickness etc.i was brought up in this manner only.i was advised by elders to pray to God to get more marks in school!!! nobody thought me the philosophy of religion till i came to the internet world.

Dear Viggop

So true Majority of the people's conception of GOD is just like what you have mentioned, I think PHILOSOPHY should to taught to kids at secondary level, because the PHILOSOPHY of GOD is not taught at an early stage, we have such religious Fanatism leading to bloodshed in this kali yuga

:cry: :cry:

[Idiappam]

No matter how many lights you show him, he can't see it!

[pradheep]

religious Fanatism

Dear Raghu
A fanatic is one who says only his God is the rigth one and rest is all wrong (evil, satan).

A religious one is one sticks on to his form of God but respects accomodate) other forms of God.

A spiritual is one who sees no difference in any forms of God, all the same.

Tamsic, rajasic, satvic!

[Idiappam]

And what about the one who sees everything before him with kindness and love, but sees no god???

Nastic, Nastic, Nastic?

[pradheep]

And what about the one who sees everything before him with kindness and love, but sees no god???

How can one see love and not God and that is the meaning of Anbe-shivam. God is love and not a form.

Gnani Gnani Gnani

[Badri]

And what about the one who sees everything before him with kindness and love, but sees no god???

How can one see love and not God and that is the meaning of Anbe-shivam. God is love and not a form.

Gnani Gnani Gnani

Good one, that!

Is God a person? Or is God a concept?

Sivame Anbu is the former creed.
Anbe Sivam is the latter ideation.

To those who cannot go beyond themselves, who cannot perceive the abstractness of the whole thing, God is a person. To all such people are prescribed a whole plethora of names and forms and rituals and chants. Because they may find it difficult to think of Love in itself, they are shown a God with a form who is love.

But, to those who can think beyond their limited self, who can understand that there is more to the world than just their limited bodily, existence, who can actually practice such values as love and kindness, as Idiappam has said, God is only a concept. God is only another name for those very values they live their life by. The names and the forms and the rituals and the chants which are mere implements are no longer needed, for they are able to visualize a much higher form of Love and Truth. They are not limited to the "person", and hence have no need for a God with a name and form.

It is as Pradeep has said, the sign of a Gnani!

[pradheep]

Dear badri
Very well written and clear. Thanks

[r_kk]

[tscii:0de8a05df3]


Is God a person? Or is God a concept?

Sivame Anbu is the former creed.
Anbe Sivam is the latter ideation.

... for they are able to visualize a much higher form of Love and Truth. They are not limited to the "person", and hence have no need for a God with a name and form!

Bold marking was done by me...

In my opinion the above sentence is complete if it would have been "hence have no need for a God."

Anbe Sivam… or God is love…

The above sentence in various forms has been discussed many times in this thread. Let me talk more practical and look from different perspective.

“Anbe Sivam”. Is it correct or has any meaning in real sense? Is human type God or an abstract concept, nothing but a way of expressing Love and humanity?

If you watch food habit of animal kingdom, we can note that how meat eating animals are ruthless… There are many animals and insects are born to kill… Even grass eating animal are also ruthless if grass is considered as life form. Pain and sufferings are common… so-called God or Nature doesn’t bother to stop any of these natural cycle or process of life.

If you see any natural (ex.. Tsunami) and man made tragedies (ex. Kumbakonam school tragedy, Rwanda killings, or any wars) you can note that how innocents human (even children) had suffered lot and perished painfully… No God ever saved any of these beings from sufferings.

The real and painful truth is that the so-called God or Nature neither bother to protect/ taking care with Love nor to destroy/ throw away with hatred.

The people who escaped some tragedies call those incidents as miracles, ignoring the facts that so many other fellow beings had suffered miserably in the same/similar incidences. There is no miracle in real life… only possibilities of escapes or probability of positive occurrence. The miracle for one may be suffering to another (In Semitic religions the so called God helps particular sect of people to win over enemies. The winners claim those as miracles and even claim their God as universal including for their enemies)

Actually we attribute positive aspects and good things in our view point to God and call those aspects as good, holy, beautiful and heaven. The opposites are called as Satan, Sin, Ugly and hell. A good thing for one might be a bad thing for another. Some great Cultural practice of some human segment might be totally wrong for some another segment.

Good and bad, love and hatred, divine and sin and all opposites are just two sides of a same coin. We judge every thing based on our own perspective, the way we brought up and the way our thinking process is molded. So, we can’t generalize and call our own culture as the great ones or superior. It may be great for us in our view point and might be totally bullshit for others.

The so-called God is neither love nor hatred. Our natural eagerness in expecting positive aspects of life creates our own God. We create our own God on our own shape (or the shape we know based on limitation of our thinking process) as result of harshness of reality or lack of understanding the nature. We are happy with the God that we had created out of this process and with the concepts that meet our selfish demands. That’s why we human have so many religions and so many types of Gods. Any religious conversion or cultural change is nothing but search of more suitable God or a practice which can meet the individual/group’s need and expectations.

[/tscii:0de8a05df3]

[Badri]

r_kk: Really appreciate your level-headedness. Only one thing is puzzling and quite out of character about you. You seem unable to get out of this common man's perception of God.

On the one hand you denounce it as an imaginary concept, and you have explained it so beautifully!! Yet, on the other hand, you seem to be unable to come out of the same imaginary personification yourself!!

It is man's natural and irrestistible urge to classify and name everything he observes. I remember studying this as the opening statement of by Biology course on Taxonomy (Science of Classification).

Based on that, as you have said, man's given names to the so-called "good", "bad", "ugly" etc etc

Some he called God, some people personified it, imagined and worshipped a form with attributes. Others said it is formless, it is nameless, that we can't even say its name. Still others said there is no such entity as these groups were claiming!

Big dea!!

But, it is a big deal! Why is it a big deal? Because that is how the majority of human beings are viewing it! They see something good, they immediately call it Divine. Can you stop it? Can I stop it? Can all of the participants in this Hub stop people from doing that? The answer is a plain and simple NO.

This is the reality. We have to face this reality. Let us say the word GOD is totally banned from usage, abolished. Guess what will happen? Man will invent a new word, "ASFSDF" and then claim, "All that is good, that is pure, that is nice, love, kindness, charity, courage, valour, might, etc etc is all ASFSDF!"

Centuries have rolled past since the civilizations began, and it has been the same story. Nothing you can say can change that inexorable flow of man's thought.

This being the case, what is the best we can do?

a) Rave and rant against it, as some people do

b) Accept it, and become attached to the concept as the others are

c) Reject it in personal life, but understand that one's own personal rejection of the existence of God will make no differnce whatsoever to the faith/life of all the others who do accept its existence

d) Dismiss all this as worthless and live a life that is as best as is possible within one's own strength.

I think (d) is the best bet, at least if I did not believe in God. I strongly believe in God, yet I still subscribe to (d).

Your sleeping child finds security in the teddy bear it cuddles up to. The teddy bear is not going to keep the child safe. There is nothing it can do at all, yet to the child, holding the teddy tightly brings relief. What would you, the rationalist father, do? Try and explain to the child the absurdity of its idea? Take away the teddy bear by force? No, you will smile, and pull the covers a little closer to keep the child warm and make a mental note to buy a softer teddy bear for her next birthday.

God, my dear r_kk, is the teddy bear for many people.


TOO MUCH DIGRESSION FROM TOPIC!! AS USUAL!!! :lol:

[rajraj]

God, my dear r_kk, is the teddy bear for many people.


TOO MUCH DIGRESSION FROM TOPIC!! AS USUAL!!! :lol:

Badri,
I generally stay away from discussions related to religion and politics. Your teddy bear analogy reminded me of an after dinner discussion we had long time back. It was about Bertrand Russell, a Nobel laureate. He was an atheist. Somebody wondered how a nobel laureate could be an atheist. Another friend quipped: ' God is crutch for many. If they need it let them have it. If you are strong enough not to need it so be it.' Russell was an intellectual, philosopher and mathematician.

[pradheep]

[tscii:d60f73a876]
If you watch food habit of animal kingdom, we can note that how meat eating ,,,,,,,,,,,, Nature doesn’t bother to stop any of these natural cycle or process of life.

If you see any natural (ex.. Tsunami) and man made tragedies (ex. Kumbakonam school tragedy,,,,,,,,, No God ever saved any of these beings from sufferings.

Man created this feeling thought " God is love and compassionate". Well that is a concept. We make that statement and when life incidents does not fit that statement we accuse God. What an Irony.

So we create concepts and suffer from it.

The truth is, God (Brahmam) is formless and eternal without attributes.

Now you will surely point me that I am contradicting what I wrote here and about God is love in Anbe-shivam. This is because we do not know what love is. The love we think is of expectations, a bussiness. I will do this and you do that in return....I will scratch your back and you have to scratch my back ...otherwise you have no love for me.

Anbe-shivam giving my the great saint MV doesnot mean to this type of love. In sorrow of life, like any mortal he had cried out of pain and asked for help. Buthe realized the Truth finally that heand shivam is one and the same. This one-ness is Love. and that "love" is shivam. "Love" crosses barriers of Ego and whatis Ego? Ego means separation (duality). A mother's love is equated to God's love because she does not feel herself and her baby as two different entity.

Mother is God because the creator, the creation and the created are one. It is her own body (raw material) that is used for creation and who creates the child,it is her body and what comes out of it, her own body...so she and her child is the same...no difference. This is love ...anbu (Anbe-shivam).

This shivam is not a shiva with a jada mudi and a snake around his neck and ganga and crescent moon on his head.

So you create a concept of God as merciful, compassionate and loving and take you to heaven....then you have to suffer from the story you make.

Idiappam asked me whether I know God. I know what I am writing about. Anyone can know ...but needs a preparation for that and that is what is explained in sanskrit or tamil vedas. I dont see any difference in both and I see the same God through both.[/tscii:d60f73a876]

[Idiappam]

Sir Pradheep said:

Idiappam asked me whether I know God. I know what I am writing about. Anyone can know ...but needs a preparation for that and that is what is explained in sanskrit or tamil vedas. I dont see any difference in both and I see the same God through both.

That is not very clear! YOu did not say weather you know god! Anyone can know what? What is explained in 'Tamil Vedas?

Tamils, even greatest of all Saivite Saints have declared 'No one have seen Him, no one knows him!'

Do the Sanskrit Vedas say otherwise? That you can see Him?

[r_kk]

[tscii:ae7c2f7b97]

TOO MUCH DIGRESSION FROM TOPIC!! AS USUAL!!! :lol:

Very correct. Too much out of subject. If it is possible, please move the irrelevant posts to "Does God Exist" thread.

I also would like to explain the other aspects of teddy bear analogy. Actually I don’t want my kids to fight over on Teddy bear. More over I hope that they will understand one day that the fights they were made, on teddy bear is really nonsense and it not the real issue for life. If they still continue their fight on teddy bear even after their childhood, I will explain with all my best efforts to make them to understand that teddy bear will not help in real life.



So we create concepts and suffer from it.
The truth is, God (Brahmam) is formless and eternal without attributes. …Now you will surely point me that I am contradicting what I wrote here and about God is love in Anbe-shivam. This is because we do not know what love is.

Dear Pradheep,
Your concept of God can be discussed in different approach using
* Existence sub atomic level particles
* uncertainty in existence of particles
* particles in the form of energy
* anti-particles
* Consideration of thought as form of energy and unification of energy
* human psychological/emotional need for God
* human neurological wirings in brain

If we discuss the God in the above aspect also, we may end up in a simple/complex natural process which do not have any wishes to create or destroy or performing miracle. The God concept, evolved through such process of thinking, will be really no use for all our practical needs.

In all my analogy, I use the word God just to make believers to understand things. I can try to explain in detail, from my perspective, in a relevant thread and when situation demands. But the major hurdle to start this kind of discussion with believers is that believers do not believe even our thinking process as real. If we keep our base limit of discussion as God is beyond all virtual/real comprehension, and thinking/the subject we think/the object which permits us to think all as nothing but same one (oneness or advida), then we will end of no where. All our efforts become useless and just waste of time. I remember that you and Rohit made endless argument on this issues already...
[/tscii:ae7c2f7b97]

[pradheep]

God is beyond all virtual/real comprehension,

It is possible and that is the purpose of spiritual practice. I argued in God exists thread but it had to end up because there was no discussion but only vidanta vada. In discussion one can argue that the other person's perception is wrong and give evidence for proving the point. But it is open so that one either finds wrong and corrects himself (both sides). But in vidanta vada one's is of the belief that the other is wrong and no intention of correction and is only in every way to slander the other person is wrong.

I understand all your aprticles, energy, psycological needs of God. But I am not talking about it. I am taking that everything is the expression of the "one".

[pradheep]

Tamils, even greatest of all Saivite Saints have declared 'No one have seen Him, no one knows him!'

Do the Sanskrit Vedas say otherwise? That you can see Him?

Dear idiappam
This is how secret -guhya-rahasyam is interpretted. People think it is secret means it should not be told to others. No...it means that it cannot be told ....kandavar vindilar....vindavar kandilar......it is a catch-20 statment. When Isay I saw with my physical eyes then I really did not see God....but when I say...I saw....I cannot explain because it is my self that I see (know). Words cannot do the job....that is the secret. This is the secret....one can point the direction but only one can know it...and cannot show it others as one would show an object...becauseGodis not an object.

The above said aspect is very clear both in tamil and sanskrit scriptures.

well Put in other words....I am God (pradheep) chatting with God(Idiappam). The illusion is that there are Two Gods...infact it is the same one God.

This illusion is Maya.....beautifully given in Thirumandiram....

"marathil marainthathu maa-madam yanai...."


This is the one of the chants I love to recite...I am teaching that to my son because he as a kid loves elephants and toys and through this thirumandiram song I am helping him to grasp the Truth.

I would bodly say..ifsoemone got the secret ofthis fourlinesof thirumandiram one can see God....I could not resist to so to quotes these lines in my book on matrix. Itis such powerful lines.

The same we see in sanskrit literature which I mean that not a translation of the song, but the same intendeddmeaning as different sloka.

Also anlayse the verse 488 . how like ... the cuckoo bird dropping its egg in the nest of the crow ....so is maya.

Many friends dislike me explaining with examples and symbols. Well they dont understand infact everything is only symbols. Even in science when we say light is like a wave we draw a wave....but really is light wavein that form...well generally people think that way... in reality it is not that way.

Same with atom ....we draw a center nucleus and then another circle (orbit) with electron going around. it is only a symbol. In reality the electron doesnot go that way....it is only a model.... but such a figure is given only to drive the thought to understand the concept.

This is the secret....of the self.....this secret is revealed only in the enquiring mind which also has quiten the noise of the mind ...can only know the Self. This fact is universal and found in all cultures. But Vedic |(tamil and sanskrit) culture is a good means to know because of the clarity ofthe methodology. The method to enquire the mind and purify it is vividly given (only) In indian culture.


All other spiritual traditions talk about the signs seen while we travel through the road to thedestination. Vedic |(tamil and sanskrit) culture not only gives the signs but also gives the route in detail. This makes a seeker to reach the destination without getting lost. This s why this Vedic culture has been alive all these centuries and now it is growly rapidly too.

[pradheep]

Dear Idippam
The song of tirumoolar I forgot to mention is Kuyir-kunju Muttayyai Kaakkayin Koodititaal......(488).

This is complete song in tself about the creation of this universe......

[Idiappam]

Pradheep Said:

Many friends dislike me explaining with examples and symbols. Well they dont understand infact everything is only symbols.
I didn't know you have such good friends. Listen to them will you! The 'I know all you know nought' feeling is no good!

It is nice to see you give a few quotes from Tamil books! But you misinterpretation of the Verses of Appar and Thirumoolar - that is not nice.

YOu have also tried to mix up Tamil and Sanskrit works - trying to show paralles but have come up with nothing in those Sanskrit works.


This s why this Vedic culture has been alive all these centuries and now it is growly rapidly too.
Then why are people in rural India converting to other faiths, village by village, all at once???

Don't be blinded by Sanskritists. Vedic culture is not Tamil culture. Vedic culture is NOT a good culture either.


I am God (pradheep) chatting with God(Idiappam). The illusion is that there are Two Gods...infact it is the same one God.
Don't tell that to Tamils - who are Siddhantins. "YOu cannot be god and I cannot be god. "He is too Great'," they will say!


This illusion is Maya.....beautifully given in Thirumandiram....
"marathil marainthathu maa-madam yanai...."
That's is not what Moolar meant. He was just illustrating one may not see what another is seeing - 'One man's god is another man's devil'.

Tamil saints say things that don't have any hidden or alternate meanings!

And your Kaakkai, Kuyil verse is from the Chapter of 'simple embryology (spell). Nothing more!

Appar's 'Kandavar vindilar, vindavar kandilar', - means -
'Those who have 'seen' can't say - they may not have seen,
those who say I have seen - they have not seen - they are lying."

No one has seen Him! Thirumoolar admits:

[tscii:2e0d1bc8c4]¬ÃÈ¢ Å¡÷ ±í¸û «ñ½ø ¦ÀÕ¨Á¨Â
¡ÃÈ¢ Å¡÷þó¾ «¸ÄÓõ ¿£ÇÓõ
§ÀÃÈ¢ ¡¾ ¦ÀÕïͼ÷ ´ýȾ¢ý
§ÅÃÈ¢ ¡¨Á Å¢ÇõÒ¸¢ý §È§É.

À¡¼Åø Ä¡÷¦¿È¢ À¡¼ «È¢¸¢§Äý
¬¼Åø Ä¡÷¦¿È¢ ¬¼ «È¢¸¢§Äý
¿¡¼Åø Ä¡÷¦¿È¢ ¿¡¼ «È¢¸¢§Äý
§¾¼Åø Ä¡÷¦¿È¢ §¾¼¸¢ø §Ä§É. [/tscii:2e0d1bc8c4]
Thirumanthiram - Tantra 1 - 6.1-2

[pradheep]

Dear Idiappam

The 'I know all you know nought' feeling is no good!
I dont have the above feeling but "what I know, I like to share and if they feel that changes there awareness well and good". Is this a wrong attitude?


Then why are people in rural India converting to other faiths, village by village, all at once???
Several reasons, one of them is a false promise of heaven after death.


Vedic culture is not Tamil culture. Vedic culture is NOT a good culture either.
it is your belief.


"YOu cannot be god and I cannot be god. "He is too Great'," they will say!

It is all how to take the reality.


That's is not what Moolar meant. He was just illustrating one may not see what another is seeing - 'One man's god is another man's devil'.

Tamil saints say things that don't have any hidden or alternate meanings!

Now we can discuss on this. Hope you dont call me schizophrenic. Again it is a sam-vada. I request you to write what you understand by the above verse. I am not a tamil pandit. I would appreciate if you can explain each word in the four stanza with the appropriate context of it.


And your Kaakkai, Kuyil verse is from the Chapter of 'simple embryology (spell). Nothing more!

I would appreciate if you can explain each word in the four stanza with the appropriate context of it, of the above also.


Appar's 'Kandavar vindilar, vindavar kandilar', - means -

This we will keep for the next discussion. My dear Idiappam sir, please go ahead and give me the correct understanding of Thirumandiram. I am ready like sankara-acharya to give up vedic thoughts if you convince me of your views and would you at the same time accept vedic thoughts if i convince you with my thoughts?

If our dear friends are ready to be judge for our debate, let us welcome their rules and regulations before we start this. With your permission can I call upon two friends who would volunteer to be judge(s)? I propose Badri sir , because he is the moderator and another person is Gandhi-sir because he is good at tamil language. Do you agree with these two people?.

[Idiappam]

Sir Pradheep!

Let's sort out one thing at a time!

You said:

This s why this Vedic culture has been alive all these centuries and now it is growly rapidly too.

Then I asked:
Then why are people in rural India converting to other faiths, village by village, all at once???

Then you said:

Several reasons, one of them is a false promise of heaven after death.

So you agree now that there is a mass conversion to other Faiths!Then what was your intention when you lied that the 'Vedic cutlure is growing rapidly'???

I don't think you are clear in your thoughts that I really hesitate getting into any discussion with you. You are fond of telling stories that you make up to 'illustrate you point'. We are not children here! Even when you tell these to your 4 year old, he will certainly respond 'Pa, will you stop boring'. Yes!

Tell him the same when your kid is 14, he will tell you Pa, will you shut up." YOu have also admitted that your friends dislike you resorting to such methods....


Many friends dislike me explaining with examples and symbols.

You have also written 'strings' of words like "Vedic |(tamil and sanskrit) culture" - I don't know what your are trying to imply. YOu quoted some lines from Tamil Verses in support of your "Vedic |(tamil and sanskrit) culture" --- but you did not quote anything from any sanskrit source.

To simple questions to put to you, - you give lengthy lectures. I expect quick and clear answers! I don't have the patience to read tons of irrelavance and argue on them.

As for the Thirumantiram verses, they are in simple Tamil - - any reader is free to read it and derive a meaning, as literal as possible or complicate it that it becomes a nightmare to himself.

Anyway, Sir Pradheep keep boring, you may strike oil somewhere, who knows!

[viggop]

Dear Friends
why should there be a fight in the first place in our modern world? Let people follow the philosophy they like and which gives them mental peace and happiness.
If a person is happy saying that everything is "One" and that is Brahmnan,let him be happy with that thought.If another person says that everything is Siddhantam and everything is Shivam,let him be happy with that.Both of these people need not fight and lose mental happiness.let them be hapy with their own thoughts.

there is no need to fight and try to say "i'm right and u r wrong".this attitude should be given up.

[pradheep]

Dear Idiappam
You got scared and felt you are not sure about your own belief systems, that is fine.

[pradheep]

Dear viggop
This is not a fight. Debates are part of life. If one take it sportive then it is fun.

[Idiappam]

Dear Idiappam
You got scared and felt you are not sure about your own belief systems, that is fine.

Don't go for 'believes' --- Though I may talk of 'beliefs' of another as they have been seen in History and those texts they wrote.

[pradheep]

||>>>>any reader is free to read it and derive a meaning||||||||||||||>>>

Dear idiappam
Then why dont you give that samefreedom to others for interpretting and derive meanings. Dont criticize, like you let them have theirown belief's. why dont you write in threads that are like minded like you.

[Idiappam]

I don't object to anyone's beliefs! I just voice my views, raise questions and leave it if there is no response.

If you go see my posts anywhere that's my style, ever since I started my 'foruming' in the mid nineties.

[viggop]

This is the best attitude.Leave people to interpret things in thier own ways which makes them happy.As long as no one does anything against the law,havinbg different views is perfectly acceptable.

[pradheep]

I don't object to anyone's beliefs! I just voice my views, raise questions and leave it if there is no response.

Dearidiappam
and what if soemone like respond?. You will then accept only those you ring the same bell as you?. Wont you use your brain and analyze ifthe opposing views make sense?

what is the use in raising questions?. Is it for just time pass or to understand or to offend others. If I explain your questions why are you adamant for not giving a thought? The marathil song from maamatha yanai is not my interpretation. I look at the context at which the song appears. Look at 2288 to 2290. You will understand that it talks about giving up the Ego-awareness to understand the self. As long as one is in the Ego-awareness state one cannot understand spiritual wisdom. One's Ego will then busy seeing only the difference among spiritual traditions and never the one-ness.

[pradheep]

Love is seeing God in the person next to us, and meditation is seeing God within us - Sri Sri Ravi Sankar

[Uthappam]

What a wonderful thing by Sir Sir Ravi! I can see, I can see.

[pradheep]

[tscii:f236eafee9]
Explain this Advaitham,Duvaitham and Vishshtathvaitham through Paramathma & Geevathma cocept. Then You will come to know the difference.

Non-duality is advaitam.....which means there is no difference in Jiva-Atma and Parama- Atma. Whatever we see as difference is only an illusion (maya). Now illusion cannot be literally be taken. Illusion does not means that nothing exist , but there is an error in the understanding. Like the thirumandiram song… the illusion of the form blocked the understanding about the real wood.

In vishit advaitam…….qualified non-dualism….the Jiva and Param are same , but not one, but will merge when the Jiva gets moksha and merges with the Param.

In Dwaita- the Jiva and param are totally different and are like master and slave and will merge to one-ness in Moksha.

So in all the three, the Jiva and Parama-atma merge to one-ness. Here they are all have no contradiction. But the last two differ from Advaita in one aspect. Advaita says moksha is here and now and not in a place called heaven or vaikunda. Advaita says you are looking at the form and creating an error, like looking at the wood and forgetting the true nature you talk about the forms. The forms are maya (dependant upon some-thing else, has no independent existence). Advaita says we need only an Error-correction in our understanding.
[/tscii:f236eafee9]

[Badri]

Pradeep: A small correction to what you have posted.

But before that, a quick background - I am not too familiar with the Dwaita philosophy, so I wil not comment on that. I am very familiar with Adwaita, it being the school I personally subscribe to, and what you've said is what Adwaita is. However, I belong to the Vishitadwaita school by birth and lineage and therefore have more than a passing acquaintance with its concepts.

The vishistadwaita (VA) concept is not merger. Yes, Sayjuya Mukti is part of the Vishistadwaita creed, but ultimately, it is believed the Jiva continues to exist seperately from the Param, serving the Lord eternally in His Sri Vaikuntham. As Nithyasooris, the Jiva that has attained Moksha lives in the same world as him (Salokyam), close to him, (Sameepyam), of the same resplendent form as him (Sarupyam). In fact, it is said Nityasooris even have the Sankha-Chakra-Gadha-Padma of the Lord and resemble Him in every respect, but are still servitors.

Besides, VA declares that the Jiva is the body of the Paramathma. Just as Jivas have bodies, so too does the Paramathma have the Jivas as bodies. The bodies do not merge into the soul!! Hence, according to VA, neither does the Jiva merge into the Paramathma. The Jiva continues its seperate existence, but forever enjoying the bliss of His Company!

[pradheep]

Dear Badri

Vibeeshan asks Hanuman in Ramayan, what is his connection to Rama. He said at body level he is a slave to Lord rama and at mind level he is part of him (Jiva) and at the Atma level both are atma, no-duality.

So advaita identifies us to paramatma at atma level. VA talks at mind level and so is a part. Dwaitam talks at level of the body, then both are different.

Hope you got the understanding of the three.

[r_kk]

[tscii:fc885b8078]Hi Badri,
You are more correct. Pradeep is trying his best to unite all the concepts of Hinduism under advaitham. The adviatham concept is somewhat similar to scientifically discarded concept of “luminiferous aether”, which was assumed to be the basic constitutes of every thing.

Advaitham teaches every thing (matter, energy, thinking process, paramathma, jeevathama etc etc) is nothing but one and our wrong understanding makes us to believe each one as different. Such concept is not practical. There are so many real life difficulties with Advaitha concept. I hope you might have heard the story of “Advaithi” jumped in to well to escape from a chasing tiger. I personally faced a situation (similar to early sankara story) when I was coming from the opposite direction of the present Kanchi Sankaracharya on the banks of Haridwar (when I was a believer). I had been asked to stand away from his way. This is the real painful truth. The fictitious “advaitha” is just an imaginative human assumption to create comfortable continuity of life after the death and/or live in detached life by neglecting the real life issues. The experience of one ness through meditation (thoughtless state) can be compared with experience with drugs (I had seen many sanyasis using Hashish to feel the oneness).

Such God concept (oneness) has no real practical values. Such god does not hear prayers!!! Such God neither need any followers nor guide any one with Vedas. Such God neither has any wish or hatred. Such God neither provide heaven nor push any one to hell. Leave aside atheists, even, conventional believer won’t accept such oneness as God. Can any one explain why we need such God? Why we need prayers? Why we need so-called holy books? How such understandings of oneness help in the real life?

Then as usual, we are deviating much from the original subject. Why can’t we discuss this in “Does God Exist” thread?


[/tscii:fc885b8078]

[Badri]

Dear Badri

Vibeeshan asks Hanuman in Ramayan, what is his connection to Rama. He said at body level he is a slave to Lord rama and at mind level he is part of him (Jiva) and at the Atma level both are atma, no-duality.

So advaita identifies us to paramatma at atma level. VA talks at mind level and so is a part. Dwaitam talks at level of the body, then both are different.

Hope you got the understanding of the three.


Does he say that in answer to Vibheeshana? Or does he tell it to Rama?

Deham udyaarthey daasoham
Jivam udyaarthey twamaamshakam
Atmama udyaarthey twaimaivaham

Yes, but even there, VA says I am a part of you, not the whole. How can the part become the whole? That is the contention of VA. In that sense it is aligned with Saiva Siddhanta as well...I am but a slave of the Lord! How can I, who is next to nothing when compared to Him ever become Him?

Refer to Adi Sankara's Vishnu Shadpathi Stotram, where he says, I am a part of you...after all, the waves are a part of the ocean, can the ocean ever belong to the wave?

And this coming from Adi Sankara, the foremost proponent of Adwaita!

[Uthappam]

Ha! Maybe I should try Pradheep.

Marathai maraithathu :poke: maamatha yaanai
marathin marainthathu :poke: maamatha yaanai
parathai maraithathu :poke: parmuthal pootham
parathil marainthathu :poke: parmuthal pootham

The mad elephant hid the wood!
The mad elephant hid in the wood!
The earthly demon hid the god!
The earthly demon hid in the god

How is it??

[pradheep]

The earthly demon hid the god!
The earthly demon hid in the god

Dear Uthappam
Very Good. Excellent. Infact you brought out the core understanding. The demon of senses hides us from knowing the God. This is why ten heads of ravana represent. Though he was a learned pundit, he fell to the senses and so he failed to see God. So spiritual practice is to get out of the Demon (Dwaita) in us and realize God (Advaita).

[pradheep]

after all, the waves are a part of the ocean, can the ocean ever belong to the wave?
Dear Badri
Yes as long as you look at the waves, they are not ocean , they are wave. Sankara does not call the wave as ocean. But if you look where the wave comes (Creation- Brahma)and goes (Destroyed - shiva) and maintained (Preserved -Vishnu)...it is only ocean. So in time-space relation the wave is seen, then , merges in ocean. Once it is merged there is no difference between wave and ocean, no duality. As ramakrishna says , like a salt doll falling into ocean. Till it falls it is separate.

we look at the ever changing body and comment, and so we quetion about advaita.

[pradheep]

[tscii:d26b336a42]
Such concept is not practical. There are so many real life difficulties with Advaitha concept.

Dear friend
When you understand advaita you wont have problems. When you misunderstand you will have problems.


“Advaithi” jumped in to well to escape from a chasing tiger.

Shivaji's advaitic-guru Ramadas had an advaitic disciple. One day while he was waling a wild elephant appeared. The soldiers in the back asked the diciple to move away from the way of the elephant. But the disciple said, oh, it is brahman in the form of elephant walking to me, who is also Brahman.

The elephant smashed him to the ground. The moaning disciple was taken to the Guru, who complained about the futility of advaita philosophy. The smiling guru said, but you ignored the voice of the brahman who cautioned in the form of soldiers behind you.

This is how one acts when they dont understand what advaita is.


The fictitious “advaitha” is just an imaginative human assumption to create comfortable continuity of life after the death and/or live in detached life by neglecting the real life issues.

There is no life after death, heaven promised in advaita. Moksha , is here , instant right now while you are living. There is no renunciation "of" action , but renunciation "in" action.



The experience of one ness through meditation (thoughtless state) can be compared with experience with drugs (I had seen many sanyasis using Hashish to feel the oneness).

There is no thoughtless state....it is only transcending thoughts.


Such God concept (oneness) has no real practical values.

Yes, I agree it has no practical value in encouraging fighting wars.


Such god does not hear prayers!!! Such God neither need any followers nor guide any one with Vedas.

A god listening to our prayers is indeed finctionary. In Advaita tradition a teacher is needeed because a diciple has an error in his understanding. After the understandign happens, the Guru or book is not needed.

[quote] How such understandings of oneness help in the real life?[/quote

Every moment we are looking for one-ness non-duality. That is what happiness is also. For any happiness to take place there should be a subject and an object. Advaita says the subject is more important than an object to enjoyt that object. Modern life we learn more on objects than subject. In Advaita we learn more on the subject then the objects. This brings completeness in the subject and hence is the practical way of life.[/tscii:d26b336a42]

[Rohit]

When you understand advaita you wont have problems. When you misunderstand you will have problems.
Having discussed this issue with Pradheep and proved the utter falsity of advaita premise countless times, I can say; only the reverse is true.

That is,

When you misunderstand advaita, you won't have problems.

Pradheep repeatedly demonstrates this trapped situation by continuing with his misunderstanding on advaita.

When you understand advaita you will have problems.

To prove this, let us see what Pradheep has to say in response to my former statement and see if I immediately encounter problems of Logically Explosive contradictions from him or not.

[pradheep]

Dear Rohit
I left answering your questions in Evolution thread because when you are cornered you call "names" and that is what you do over and over again. Again you do the same here. So how should we go from here?

[Rohit]

Well Pradheep, in the evolution thread, at the end, I simply analysed your definition of Brahman thoroughly, which obviously made you quit. Is that what you call name-calling? That means, I must take this as your usual way of demonstrating your continual misunderstanding again and again as expected. Well, you have proved both of my statements absolutely true while falsifying yours.

I shall leave it to you to continue with your misunderstanding, and like I said, you shall have no problems in doing so. :)

[pradheep]

Dear Rohit,

schizophrenic, Psycotic, halucinating...these are some of the words that I can recollect , that you use. And above all ,you keep writing...

Well, you have proved both of my statements absolutely true while falsifying yours.

You alwaysclaim you proved?. what did you prove?.You kept writing your formula RRR/RUR etc again and again. In thelast postyou simply argued that Buddha refuted vedic ideas, but your back bone collpased when you could not explain why Buddha used vedic mantra and vedic meditation. when that rock foundation was blasted...go back to the thread and read how you rolled down , andmiserbaly had onlymone optionto use this symbol :lol: . You dont like symbolism but you use the maximum symbols.

[Rohit]

Dear Pradheep,

Schizophrenia, Psychotic, hallucinations, delusions, phantasm etc. are the technical terms to describe mental states of people who unwarily or helplessly detach themselves from reality and engage themselves in distortions of perceptions, thought, language and emotions along with false perceptions of an entity that doesn't exist. Distortion of thinking process, such as violations of logic, incoherent statements and inappropriate shifts in expressions is common in their spoken and/or written communications. Through dissociative reactions, they continue to maintain their false beliefs despite of the clear evidence and proofs to the contrary.

Over the entire period of all our debates, you have continually demonstrated such behaviours along with impertinent gestures of spitting in people's mouths and comparing them with your four-year son when faced with unanswerable questions and arguments. I have reproduced clear evidences of all theses and they are still there in the relevant threads. Please go and read your own subterfuge behaviours along with your drifting and irreconcilable posts.

Looks like URU, URR, RRU, RRR are the main stumbling blocks in your way. Graspng the argument of physical phenomenon of sound waves (mantras) still remains a major challenge to you. The rest that follows in your abive post evidently support my both statements, which quite understandably, you wouldn't like to refer to them as proved. However, the more you continue with such false, baseless and futile arguments the more you will prove my statements, and that fact, you yourself will prove by continuing with your vain arguments. :)

[pradheep]

Schizophrenia, Psychotic, hallucinations, delusions, phantasm etc. are the technical terms to describe mental states of people who unwarily or helplessly detach themselves from reality and engage themselves in distortions of perceptions, thought, language and emotions along with false perceptions of an entity that doesn't exist.

This does not apply to a person like me, because I dont think of an entity that does not exist. I am talking about "me" the "being", but which is not the body and the mind. But this "being" is not generated by nervous impulses in the brain.

Now comming to your side, what is real?. Should I quote for you scientific papers that come to the conclusion that what we perceive through the senses are not real?



Distortion of thinking process, such as violations of logic, incoherent statements and inappropriate shifts in expressions is common in their spoken and/or written communications. Through dissociative reactions, they continue to maintain their false beliefs despite of the clear evidence and proofs to the contrary.

How are you different from the people who believe what they see is real?. It took years in western world to comprehned the idea that the world is round and earth is revolving around the sun and not other way. Because they beleive the sense organ perception to be real. So you think what I say voliates logic because your core understanding is based on sensual perception only.



Over the entire period of all our debates, you have continually demonstrated such behaviours along with impertinent gestures of spitting in people's mouths and comparing them with your four-year son when faced with unanswerable questions and arguments. I have reproduced clear evidences of all theses and they are still there in the relevant threads. Please go and read your own subterfuge behaviours along with your drifting and irreconcilable posts.

Comparing with my four year old son is not to belittle people. I use that to explain how our perception changes as our ability to have holistic view, instead of fragmented analysis.



Looks like URU, URR, RRU, RRR are the main stumbling blocks in your way.

There is no stumbling. I am clear what i am talking and also understand what you are talking.



Graspng the argument of physical phenomenon of sound waves (mantras) still remains a major challenge to you.

Again , the point is not about sound waves. My question is staright forward why did Buddha use vedic sounds, if he rejected Vedic knowledge. I have an explaination which you refuse to accept because of your pre-conceived notions.


I am quoting your own quote of dalai lama "No Nirvana without purification of the mind". [/quote]

[Uthappam]

pradheep wrote:


My question is staright forward why did Buddha use vedic sounds, if he rejected Vedic knowledge.

The same reason I use English sounds, but I reject the English 'knowledge' and I use the English sound to reject it.

BTW, what the hell is vedic sound all about???

[pradheep]

Dear Uthappam

Buddha Did not use vedic sounds (Mantra) - Aum or OM to reject vedic knowledge, but he used to help the mind transcend from the "Ego" centric nature to the Nirvana state. I do not do vedic rituals now, because I only needed in my begining state. But when I did them (or do them for my growing son), I have understanding what it drives me to. You would have written my earlier posts how my cousin wrote imposition 100 times (ENGLISH) and did not get it because, he did the activity and acheived the end , but there was no result because the intention was not clear.
The same with vedic rituals, or spiritual rituals. Just because my cousin misused the process, I cannot ban the process of writing imposition. Instead I made him understand what it is meant for.

There are many teachers like Buddha who said do not do rituals. They said this because they understand how people mis-understand rituals and reach no were.

But there are teachers who instead of banning a process would correct it.

Sanakara's challenge was with mimamsa's rather than with the Buddhists. it was easy to refute Buddhists. But for him the challenge was with mimaamsa's who considered doing rituals would give them Moksha.

I am telling Rohit , that Buddha was against one of the ritualistic approach of vedic tradition. He cannot be against vedic knolwedge because what he realized is not different from Advaita, which is same as what Sufi's understand, or christ understood or zorastrian understood or manickavasagar or thirumoolar understood. it is all the one and the same. Truth is smae. if truth is different then it is not truth.


I will give an example recently happended. I read in a site this fact.

'
"And such was the heart of Sankara that he burnt to
> > death lots of the Buddhist monks by defeating them
> > in argument. What can you call such an action on
> > Sankara's part except fanaticism." (Complete works
> > of Swami Vivekananda, Vol.VII. p. 118, Calcutta,
> > 1997).
> >

Now I referred to swami-vivekananda's book, same page 118. You know what i found?. He says once a advaitin fanatic who could not bear any criticism on sankara, came to meet him. Vivekananda wanted to break the fanaticism in him and said" Sanakara was a debater but a proud brahminic and the fanatic buddhist monks who could not bear failure of debate would burn themselves."

Now look at the way the guy presented the above fact in telling even vivekananda was against Sankara. He hid the circumstance in which vivekananda criticized sankara. Also the suicide of buddhist monk was interpretted as Sankara setting their bodies on fire.

Summary:. We look at bits and pieces of facts, like blind men describing elephant. With this approach we can make all cock-and-bull stories. The truth is perceived only when we look holistically.

[Idiappam]

Dear Uthappam
Buddha Did not use vedic sounds (Mantra) - Aum or OM to reject vedic knowledge,

Pradheep you say Aum or OM is Vedic sound - Can you give me the verse(s) from any of the four Vedas that says these are 'vedic sounds'. Else people might thing you are lying!

[pradheep]

Dear Idiappam
When I say Vedic, I mean the knowledge that is of Ancient India (North ,east, west and South) and includes Dravida also. That is why I see no difference in Rig veda or Thirumandiram. You can have difference of opinion about sanskrit or Tamil , which came first, the mother , father. I am not for debate based on Time.

[Idiappam]

That gives you a lot of room for lying! Doesn't it, pradheep.

You don't see the difference between all eh?? Now you can easily lie.. 'No i meant this' then 'no I meant that'.

Typical vedic style of debating you have. YOu won't go far.

Pay more attention to bringing up your four year old, properly. YOu can leave the world alone.

[Ilavenil]

That gives you a lot of room for lying! Doesn't it, pradheep.

You don't see the difference between all eh?? Now you can easily lie.. 'No i meant this' then 'no I meant that'.

Typical vedic style of debating you have. YOu won't go far.

Pay more attention to bringing up your four year old, properly. YOu can leave the world alone.

Idiappam Sir,

Omkaaram yenna Tamilae vedha nolil irrunthu than thondriyathu yendru silar sonaalum acharyam illai.

[viggop]

One upanishad called MaaNDuukyopanishhad deal exclusively with explanation of the "OM".I think a sage explains OM to his disciple.
I tried to go through the upanishad but could not understand it fully.I'll reread it with simpler english translations and hopefully might be able to comprehend meaning of "OM"

[Idiappam]

Omkaaram yenna Tamilae vedha nolil irrunthu than thondriyathu yendru silar sonaalum acharyam illai.

The 'Om' is a sound used for chanting by the Tamil. 'Omkaram' that is the name the Tamils gave for that syllable. Sanskritist called that 'pranava'.

The 'Om' did not occur at all in any of the four Vedas - Rig, Sama, Yajur and Atharvan. As viggop pointed out, it occured in one of the Upanishads. The Upanishads were written well after the Vedas up to the 12 or 13th century AD. By then many Dravidic methods of worship were included in Vedic worship.

[viggop]

Idiappam Sir
Who actually wrote these upanishads? It has lot of philosophical content in them but no body takes claim of writing it.people who wrote these upanishads must have been great philosophers but it has been written usually as discussion between some mythological rishi and his students etc and hence real people lose credit for putting up such brilliant philosophical works.

Om is known as "pranava" manthram.Gayatri manthram is said to have been created by Rishi Vishwamitra and that manthram has "OM" in it.Unfortunately,rishi vishwamitra will not be accepted by scholars as historical figure.he is part of hindu mythology and only Hindus believe he existed. :-)

[viggop]

Idiappam Sir
Which is the oldest Tamil literature having the word "OM" in it? Does it occur in purananuru and agananuru songs.These are dated by western scholars as the oldest Tamil works

[viggop]

Ilavenil

Adi Sankara's guru's guru Gaudapada is famous for his MANDUkya kArikAs i.e. exposition on the Mandukya upanishad.Adi sankara later wrote a karika on the Gaudapada's karika(exposition on an exposition!).Adi sankara's date is 788AD-820AD given by western scholars.
So, we can assume that gaudapada wrote his karika sometime during the 7th century AD and hence mandukya upanishad which explains OMkaram must have spread from Tamil Nadu to North India before 7th century AD.So, Tamil works before 7th century AD must have the explanation of Omkaram.

[viggop]

Pradeep
Was it Buddha who used this "Om mani padme hum"? or was it used by his disciples later? Buddha's date is 6th century BC rt? that means "OM" has been known in N.India during Gautama Buddha's times itself and that is a long long time ago.

[pradheep]

You don't see the difference between all eh??

Dear Idiappam
I dont see any difference. Can you please quote some differences.

[Rohit]

Dear Pradheep,

I will come back to your post addressed to me in due course. Meanwhile I am listing below a few words, concepts, terms, and ideas or whatever one prefers to call them. Some of them are taken from your own post.

2005, 9:05 Pm, Activity, Adi Sankara, Advaita, Advaitin, Ago, Analysis, Ancient India, Atharvan, Badri, Being, Body, Brahminic, Brain, Buddha, Buddhists, Bull Stories, Century AD, Century BC, Changes, Chanting, Christ , Cousin , Dalai Lama, Dear, Delusions, Different , Disciple , Dravida, Earth, East, Ego, Elephant , English, English Sounds, Entity, Exist, Fanatic, Father, Four Year, Fragmented, Fri, Gaudapada, Gautama, Gayatri, Growing Son, Gurus, Hallucinations, Holistic, Holistic View, Idiappam, Ilavenil, Impulses, India, Is, July, Karikas, Knowledge, Krishna, Logic, Long, Look, Lying, Mandukya, Manickavasagar, Manthram, Me, Mimamsa, Mind, Moksha , Monks, Mother, Nervous, Nirvana , Nirvana State, North, Notions, Oct 2004, Old, OM, Omkaram, Papers, People, Perception, Person, Phantasm, Pradheep, Psychotic, Purification, Raghu, Real, Revolving, Rig, Rishi, R_KK, Rohit, Room, Round, Sama, Same, Sanskrit, Sat, Schizophrenia, Scientific, Sense Organ, Senses, Singapore, Son, Sound, Sound Waves, South, Space, Spiritual Rituals, Sufi, Suicide, Sun, Swami-Vivekananda, Tamil, Think, Thirumandiram, Thirumoolar, Time, Transcend, Truth, Truth Is Perceived, Understanding, Upanishad, USA, Uthappam, Vedas, Vedic Rituals, Vedic Sounds, Verse, Viggop, Vishwamitra, West, Western, World, Yajur, Zoroastrian.

For the benefit of all readers, may I request you to read and grasp them carefully and then identify which ones are, directly or indirectly, dependent and/or related to human perceptions and which are not. If you are not sure what I am requesting you to do here, please don't hesitate, but say so.


Truth is same. If truth is different then it is not truth.
Please provide a universally accepted definition of Truth; and then provide the antonym of Truth and provide a universally accepted definition of the antonym of Truth

Also, please provide universally accepted definitions of the following that you have used in your posts.

1. Advaita
2. Being
3. Existence
4. Perception
5. Real
6. Thought
7. Transcend
8. Transcendent

Also, please provide the antonyms of the above expressions and then provide universally accepted definitions for each of them.

Note:

Pradheep, please don’t just use English dictionary, I want precise definitions from you that are accepted universally and not just by a selective few people. :)

[Raghu]

guys, are all ur posts relavent to the title? :x

[Rohit]

Though, the discussion on Advaita was already underway here on this thread before I posted, I would agree with Raghu that this might not be the right place to discuss and debate on it here.

I would request the moderator(s) to publicly allow Pradheep to start a more relevant thread on Advaita; and transfer all relevant posts from here to the new thread where people with different views could truly debate on Advaita dispassionately.

Thanks!

[pradheep]

Dear Rohit
I agree to answer all questions. I will not quote (copy paste from a dictionary,only is needed) and usemy own words.

My dear rohit, I request you to have certain rules and regulations before we start, otherwise this will be never ending.

1. I request your active particapation instead of just questioning. This means we will both define based on our understanding and discuss-argue (sam-vaada) on that definition.

2. Either we both arrive at a same definition, which is good. But if we do not arrive at same defintion, then what do we do?. If the other side has more vlaid points, then the person should admit that the explanation is corect. This will occur only when the intension is to understand the logic of one's reasoning of the subject and not to prove the other person is wrong. Understanding the other person's logic should be the fundamental aim of the discussion. Right or wrong is different matter. The discussion would be on the logic of reasoning.

Do you agree Rohit. You are free to change therules and conditions.

With your acceptance, I will start to define one of the eight questions. I will define the term and you also should define it in your understanding. Bothof us should exercise the freedom to express or support understanding of the term. Are you ready, my dear Rohit?

[Rohit]

Dear Pradheep,


I agree to answer all questions. I will not quote (copy paste from a dictionary, only is needed) and use my own words.
Excellent! Please start with sorting the short list I have produced, in two categories, the ones that are directly or indirectly dependent and/or related to human perceptions and the ones that are not.


I request your active participation instead of just questioning.
Unless and otherwise absolutely necessary, questioning will be the initial mode of my participation. I am sure this will clearly involve expressing my understanding on the subject.


This means we will both define based on our understanding and discuss-argue (sam-vaada) on that definition.
I am not sure about the sam-vaada. Since, I have requested you to provide the specific definitions based on your previous post, surely my initial participation will be limited to an extent to ask you relevant questions regarding your definitions. I honestly believe, this is the best way for you to proceed with your definitions, and I point out if there are flaws in your definitions if necessary.


Either we both arrive at a same definition, which is good. But if we do not arrive at same definition, then what do we do?
Since, I have asked you to provide universally acceptable definitions; which clearly means your definitions must be acceptable without exceptions. In that case, I don’t see the reason why you should be so hesitant and uncertain about providing the definitions. However, with all due respect, I may not agree to some of your definitions if they do not satisfy the stated criteria, which I will try to point out to you.

I hope, I have clearly stated the position I intend to take during the debate, which, I believe is quite appropriate since, you are the claimant and proponent of the Advaitic worldview, you must attempt your best to testify your worldview.


If the other side has more valid points, then the person should admit that the explanation is correct.
I must stress here that all valid points are not necessarily true if the premise or the other aspect of the argument is shown to be invalid or false. If you accept that modified rule of debate I have stated, I am more than happy to go with the overall, combined rule.


Understanding the other person's logic should be the fundamental aim of the discussion.
Agreed.


Right or wrong is different matter.
I would not agree with that. Why don't right and/or wrong matter? It does, and it does very much so, that is the whole point of having such debates, to show the imbedded fallacy in the arguments. Wouldn't you agree with that?


The discussion would be on the logic of reasoning.
I am bit surprised by this. Until now you have been very reluctant to accept logic and reasoning.

Anyway, be careful with that, like I said, producing reasoning without formal examination may amount to committing a contradiction, fallacy, foul or all three simultaneously.

Except a few variations at places, I have refrained from changing the rules and conditions you have laid down. Therefore, I hope you would agree with your own rules and regulations, and obey them as laid down.

I am ready as ever, my friend. Please go ahead with sorting the list first and then fire away your definitions.

I must take this opportunity to clarify one thing that I would not have enough time to participate here on a daily basis. I shall respond to your posts or express my views as and when I get the opportunity to do so. I hope this would not pose any restriction on you to continue with your usual discussion on the subject with others.

Good luck! :)

[pradheep]

Dear rohit
Instead of writing too much about the rules, let me start defining the terms.

1. Advaita
5. Real

To begin with, let me define these two above, because if these two is understood , all the others might be easy to define.

Advaita is a very simple school of thought, that teaches that there is only Brahman. Brahma Satya, Jagan Mithya. This means all the there is only Brahman and that Brahman does not depend any other thing for it's existance, while all the shapes and forms (world) are only mithya, which means that they do not have an independant existance. The shapes and forms are dependant on Brahman. Seeing only the forms and not Brahman is "Maya".

The classical example is the snake and rope, but here I would like to use the tamil classic example from tirumandiram...a child playing with a lot of different toys made of wood..

Here the wood is the Satya (Truth or Brahman) in all the different toys. All the toys are mithya, which means they do not have existence without the wood. Now seeing only the forms and not the wood is maya or illusion.


So advaita is very very very simple..just looking at the forms only has deluded us from knowing the Truth (wood) which is the only reality. So if you look at forms you do not see the wood and ifyou see the wood you do not see the forms.


Definition of Real: That which does have an independant existence and not depended on any other is real.

Dear Rohit
Any thing illogical in this school of thought, that now you can think of now? You are welcome to comment the irrationality of this school of thought, if any?.

[Rohit]

Dear Pradheep,

You must know by now that you cannot and must not define a term using undefined terms. You must also know that you cannot and must not use circular definitions i.e. an undefined term used to define a second term and the second undefined term used to define the undefined first term and vice-versa. If you care to notice, you have used the very terms i.e. Thought, Truth and Existence etc. in your definitions that are undefined.

Nonetheless, a very good start indeed, Pradheep. Please keep going.

As I have requested to you earlier, please sort the LIST first according to the two clearly specified categories and then go onto your definitions. Then provide the antonyms for each and every term you define, followed by the definitions of each antonyms.

I hope you will get my request message through this time.

Therefore, I would not want to comment on your definitions yet until you have responded fully, as requested. Am I clear, my friend? So, please go ahead.

Good luck :)

[pradheep]

Dear Rohit
Thank you very much for keeping me on track to explain without using undefined words. I hope I have justified the rules and ready to make changes if still I dont abide by the rules. Here is what I have rewritten.

Advaita teaches that there is only one real (Brahman) and all the objects in the universe are un-real (mithya). Mistaking the real for unreal is called Maya. The classical example is the snake and rope, but here I would like to use the tamil classic example from tirumandiram...a child playing with a lot of different toys made of wood (wooden elephant, wooden car, wooden spoon, wooden man, wooden house etc). Here the wood alone is real (Brahman) in all the different toys and all the toys (objects) are un-real (mithya). The ignorance of wood which occurs by focussing only on the objects is Maya.

Another example of tirumandiram is gold ornaments. The gold (brahman) alone is real , while rings , chain, bracelot, ear-ring, toe-ring are only forms. The forms are inter-convertible, but Gold remains the same. A child values not the gold but only the forms (objects), but a gold-smith values the Gold and not the forms it assumes. The value of Gold is gold and not the form it assumes.

So advaita is very very very simple..just looking at the forms (objects) only has deluded us from knowing the real (wood or gold). So if one looks at the objects (forms) only, one does not see the real (wood or gold) and if one sees the real (wood or gold), one does not see the forms (objects). All the sufferings /problems is due to this ignorance.

Dear Rohit,
I have not gone to the list because , if the above fundamental principle is understood, there wont be any need for defining things in the list. But I will do if needed for further clarification. Please comment if you think anything illogical in what I wrote about Advaita.

[Raghu]

Dear Rohit

What is ur understanding of Bhraman and Shivam?

[Rohit]

I have not gone to the list because..........
Dear Pradheep,

You have used tamil, tirumandiram, elephant and probably more terms from the LIST in your definition of Advaita without categorising them, so I cannot comment on your definition until you have done so, as I said earlier.


Definition of Real: That which does have an independant existence and not depended on any other is real.
Also you have again used the term "real" six or more times, the definition of which again contains an undefined term "existence", forming a circular definition, which, as I said earlier, is not acceptable. Also you have used an undefined term "un-real" that contains the term "real".

Also there are several flaws in your definitions. For example, your definitions use certain suppositions that themselves will need proving before we can agree on your definitions.

The places where these undefined "Real/Unreal" terms occure in your definition are listed below.

Real (Brahman)
Un-real (mithya).
Real (Brahman)
Un-real (mithya).
Gold (brahman) alone is real
Real (wood or gold)
Real (wood or gold)
Real (wood or gold)

Pradheep, unfortunately I haven't got indefinite time to keep correcting your definitions and therefore I would suggest you to go and get yourself some understanding of how to define. Otherwise you will remain stuck at correcting your definitions, which will only prove your lack of understanding, I am afraid.

Until you respond fully, I would not comment on your definitions.

I do not quite understand, why you are so hesitant, reluctant and uncertain about that. So, please respond fully.

Good luck again :)

[pradheep]

Real : That which is Real is always present, not subjected to any change or modifications in time and space.
Unreal: That which is unreal is subject to change in time and space.

Advaita teaches that there is only one real and all the objects in the universe are un-real. Mistaking the real for unreal is illusion in Advaita. The classical example is the snake and rope, but here I would like to use the tamil classic example from tirumandiram, about gold ornaments. The gold alone is real , while rings , chain, bracelot, ear-ring, toe-ring are only forms. The forms are inter-convertible and so subjected to change, but Gold remains the same irrespective of forms. A child values not the gold but only the forms (objects), but a gold-smith values the Gold and not the forms it assumes. The value of Gold is gold and not the form it assumes.

So advaita is very very very simple..just looking at the forms (objects) only has deluded us from knowing the real ( gold). So if one looks at the objects (forms) only, one does not see the real (gold) and if one sees the real (gold), one does not see the forms (objects). All the sufferings /problems is due to this ignorance.

Dear Rohit
Hope the above is clear from any undefined terms.

I have no hesitation, reluctant or uncertain to answer all the questions. I simply feel if the fundamental is understood, all that you ask will be clear instantly. Is that is okay with you?

[Raghu]

Dear Rohit

Let me repeat the question again, what is ur understanding of Shivam or Iswar? :roll:

[Rohit]

Let me repeat the question againDear Dear Raghu,

You might have repeated your question, but I am not going to repeat my answer, which I may do if you still repeat. :)

[Rohit]

Real : That which is Real is always present, not subjected to any change or modifications in time and space.
Dear Pradheep,

There are several meanings of "present" and "Pertaining to existence"; "Existing", "Existent", "Being" etc. are among them. Hence, your definition of "real" clearly contains the undefined term "Existence" imbedded in it; and therefore your definitions of "real" keep on violating the rules of definition, I am afraid.

Also, in your definition of "real" stating …..(real is ) not subjected to any change or modifications in time and space, is incorrect in the context of gold when you state gold is real in you definition of advaita.

You also have used “time” and “space” that are in my list for you to sort.

If you don’t know, gold is one among over 108 elements in the Periodic Table and gold is subject to changes in space and time under very high temperatures and under chemical and nuclear reactions.

Gold does dissolve in aqueous cyanide solutions in the presence of air.

Gold also reacts with Chlorine, Cl2, Bromine, Br2, Iodine, I2 etc. and changes.

It is a well-established scientific fact that at very high temperatures, no element can remain as they are at colder temperatures and gold is no exception. Thus, at very high temperatures gold no longer remains gold, but it disintegrates into fundamental matter particles.

Also, under nuclear reactions gold changes into different elements with by-products. Such reactions are called "transmutation of the elements". It is a scientific fact that gold can be transmuted into other elements and vice-versa.

Formation of iron from gold and palladium cathodes under cold-fusion without the source of any external contamination have already been demonstrated.

– In nutshell, gold is an object and it is subject to fundamental changes.

So, your definition of real and its use in other definition is clearly shown to be flawed.

Clearly, this is the third time now I am refuting your definitions of both Advaita and Real, which unequivocally proves your utter lack of understanding in the subject.

I am really sorry to say this, but the way you are miserably failing in formulating your definitions, clearly proves that you have only misunderstanding on the subject and nothing else, as I have stated earlier.


Is that is okay with you?
I am afraid, it was not okay before and it is not okay now.

Anyway, when you cannot testify even your definitions on the subject, I don’t see any value in you continuing with even more futile attempts? I am really extremely sorry for you Pradheep that every attempt you have made so far are clearly shown to be absolutely flawed and wrong; and thus you and your calims remain completely fefuted. :D

[pradheep]

[tscii:1cfdd84880]

There are several meanings of "present" and "Pertaining to existence"; "Existing", "Existent", "Being" etc. are among them. Hence, your definition of "real" clearly contains the undefined term "Existence" imbedded in it; and therefore your definitions of "real" keep on violating the rules of definition, I am afraid.


Okay, can you define “Real” according to your understanding?. Then we can proceed.



Also, in your definition of "real" stating …..(real is ) not subjected to any change or modifications in time and space, is incorrect in the context of gold when you state gold is real in your definition of advaita.

Gold is not real according to Advaita. Understand that I used it as an example. If you can understand directly I don’t need an example to explain. But instead of taking an example as an example you have taken it as the one that is explained. A sufi proverb goes “ An Idiot looks at the finger when pointed towards the moon”.

Don’t be angry on me because I used the proverb which contains the word Idiot (blame it on the Sufi). The Sufi was showing the moon and the person instead was analyzing the finger when the sufi had pointed towards the moon. (Rohit , frankly speaking, my intention is not to hurt you by calling you an idiot).

So let me again explain…….Though the forms (objects) keep on changing to other forms, the nature of the gold (provided in a temperature and environmental conditions where gold does not degrade or decompose or react with other minerals and change its nature) does not change. The forms in this universe keep changing and but there is an unchanging aspect in it.

Thank you for helping me write the simplest explaination for advaita, which says, there is an unchanging aspect in all the changing forms of the universe. Hope this definition is understandable to you Rohit.


Let me repeat the definition of Advaita (without the example).

Advaita teaches that there is an unchanging aspect in all the changing forms (objects) of this universe.

[/tscii:1cfdd84880]

[Rohit]

Dear Pradheep,

“there is” clearly conveys “Pertaining to existence", "Existing", "Existent", "Being" etc. Thus, your definitions get refuted for the fourth time.

The use of gold as real in that context was wrong; and the argument ends there irrespective of your positive fidelity towards the words of Sufi. If your definitions keep failing and repeatedly refuted, it is not due to Sufi’s words but purely due to the idiotic context and nature in which you have quoted those words. :D

[pradheep]

[tscii:14377ff98b]
Okay, can you define “Real” according to your understanding?. Then we can proceed.

Dear Rohit
can you now define then "Real" in your understanding?.
thank you.[/tscii:14377ff98b]

[Rohit]

Okay, can you define “Real” according to your understanding?. Then we can proceed.
Why are you quoting your own words, Pradheep? !!!!!!!!!

[Rohit]

As I have clearly stated at the very beginning that as, it was me who asked you to provide definitions of all the terms I have listed and you must define them after sorting the list. So far, you have done none of that and miserably failed in every aspect of that and every attempt you have made in constructing the definitions. For me, that is more than sufficient to prove what I said earlier, that you yourself will prove it to be true; and you have brilliantly done that for me.

When you misunderstand Avaita, you won't have problems.

Clearly you did not see any problems with any of your definitions on Advaita and other until I repeatedly pointed them out to you.

When you understand Advaita you will have problems.

It is so obviously clear that I am facing some serious problems in making you realise your utter misunderstanding of the whole subject.

Thank you :D

[pradheep]

Dear Rohit
So far, you have done nothing of that and miserably failed in every aspect of that and every attempt you have made in constructing the definitions.

As usual you have the same words of "miserably failed". Keep going.

[Rohit]

Dear Pradheep,

You yourself have proved my point and beyond. There is nothing more to keep going on about, thank you.

Anyway, nice to know and show your (mis)understanding of everything.

Good luck. :wave:

[aravindhan]

In thelast postyou simply argued that Buddha refuted vedic ideas, but your back bone collpased when you could not explain why Buddha used vedic mantra and vedic meditation. when that rock foundation was blasted.

A recent article by Professor Toshifumi Goto published in the Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies may be of interest. Professor Goto does not directly address the issue of meditation or use of mantras, but analyses the core beliefs. He examines the origin of the four types of suffering in Buddhism and argues that Buddhism has "inherited the reflections on birth and death found in the old Upanishads, and further explicated them" but, because Buddhism sought to "deliver the ordinary people from their concrete suffering", it adopts a more "realistic" worldview which "endeavors to elucidate the causality of existence in Samsara without admitting the existence of... Atman".

http://users.primushost.com/~india/ejvs/ejvs1202/ejvs1202article.pdf

[pradheep]

You yourself have proved my point and beyond. There is nothing more to keep going on about, thank you.

Dear Rohit
You remember our first discussion where I said "One cannot even define "sweet", which is the experience most of us experience every day. Then how can one define any thing else. Nothing can be defined only pointed out.

You know this fact and that is why you hide from defining anything. Yes continue your hiding. But thanks to you for giving me a chance to point out things that would help others.

[pradheep]

dear aravindhan
thanks for the post. I will read it by this week end and get back to you.

[Rohit]

Nothing can be defined only pointed out.
Yes Pardheep, "nothing" can be defined, only if you know how.

But sadly, you have clearly demonstrated to everyone and now you are confirming that too, that you have nothing to define.

Unfortunately, you only have appeal to ignorance, behind which you desperately wish to hide your excruciating experience of utter bafflement without any success whatsoever for which I am extremely sorry to point that factual reality out to you.

Please do carry on with such fallacies.

Perhaps someday, like others, you may too succeed in defining something.

Until then, Good luck :D :wave:

[pradheep]

Perhaps someday, like others, you may too succeed in defining something.


if you think so, it applies to you too.

[Rohit]

My dear Pradheep, please observe and control your thoughts.

Like someone said elsewhere in the forum that thoughts give rise to desires and wishes, and if those desires and wishes are not fulfilled, they give rise to sorrow that leads to anger and eventually to the loss of memory, delusions, hallucinations and then to a total destruction.

Fortunately, each and every outcome from every discussion we had between us, has given me nothing more or nothing less than a pure satisfaction; there is no jealousy in me whatsoever by observing your wobbling thoughts. :wink: :lol:

[pradheep]

someone said elsewhere


look ! who has loss of memory (and of course delusions....hallucinations and destruction).

[Rohit]

Yes Pradheep, you are absolutely right about that someone, I was referring to. Please keep us posted on his conditions. Thanks!

[viggop]

Dear Pradheep and Rohit
I would request you to PM each other till you come to an agreement as your posts do not relate to this topic.

[Uthappam]

Dear Pradheep and Rohit
I would request you to PM each other till you come to an agreement as your posts do not relate to this topic.

No Viggop, let them do it here! I want to watch!

[pradheep]

Dear Aravindhan
Thanks for the link.

You are right aravindhan, the difference in understanding vedanta and buddhism comes from the usage of "Atman". Vedanta is like solving a mathematical problem using "x" for unknown and finally one get's the value of X and the problem is solved.

Buddhism tries to arrive at an answer refuting the very "X" factor and therefore the whole teaching collapases in the end. Buddhism deines atman but talks about rebirth and so unanswered question is, what is reborn?. Since gross body perishes, therefore something that is subtle should be there to be re-born. Buddhist rejects that 'something" and equally suffers in answering that which is re-born.

Vedanta on the other hand uses atman (individual atma as jiva, which in reality none) in the equation like the unknown X factor and finally when one enquires, understands there is no jiva-atma (separate) but only one, which due to an error appears as many. The X =1 and that 1 appears as many.

For sankara it was a piece of cake to defeat buddhists, but it was a challenge with mimamsa's. It is easy to teach some one who is ignorant of a subject, but is very difficult to correct someone who has understand the concept wrongly. Mimasa's were in the second state. Infact, whole life is only an error to be corrected.

[Rohit]

Buddhism denies Atman........Buddhist rejects that 'something".
At last Pradheep has finally managed to understand Buddha's original teachings in the right context, that there is absolutely no place for "Atman/Brahman/God" in Buddhism. By accepting that fact about Buddhism, Pradheep has now accepted and confirmed my mutually exclusive principle, which operates between [Atman/Brahman/God] and [Buddha's Sunyata].

[Atman/Brahman/God](XOR)[Buddha's Sunyata :arrow: Nirvana = Complete negation of "Atman/Brahman/God"]

When I unequivocally proved, what Pradheep calls "X or something", was, in fact, absolutely nothing in the evolution thread, Pradheep mendaciously kept distorting the very teachings of Buddha in desperation and ended-up taking refuge in Buddhism. Undoubtedly, when my proofs rendered him completely defenceless at the end, Pradheep had no choice but to quit in utter disgrace, carrying yet another washed-up defeat. :notworthy:

[Rohit]

Buddhism denies atman but talks about rebirth and so unanswered question is, what is reborn?
Having said that Pradheep; for the benefit of all readers, could you please now elaborate on exactly what is reborn in "Advaita" or else, who is that, which does think that "one" will be reborn in "Advaitic worldview"?

[pradheep]

Dear Rohit
Great to know that you are an ardent fan of an insane, schizophrenic guy. Thank you.

[Rohit]

Great to know that you are an ardent fan of an insane, schizophrenic guy. Thank you.
No Pradheep, not an ardent fan, but a concerned sympathiser!

However, I do like the way you keep distorting your perceptions every now and then; and then watch you go under the deep spell. :wink: :D

[pradheep]

Dear Rohit
Thank you

[Rohit]

Aravindhan, thanks for posting the link to that article. :)

[Rohit]

Dear Rohit
Thank you
You are welcome Pradheep.

Please, do take care of yourself and be careful with your perceptions. Don't let them lead you into the vicious spiral of never-ending regress.

Good luck! :wave:

[hehehewalrus]

which of course reminds us of the promised bike.
:mrgreen:

[Rohit]

which of course reminds us of the promised bike. :mrgreen:
3HW,

As my so-referred penpal has lost his non-existent horse once again, obviously you too have lost your chance to borrow the horse as your wish target, which once again, haplessly leaves you with your non-existent bike.

As the situation stands as it is, I am sure you wouldn’t fail to figure out why I am facing the same conflicting situation as before and why you may loose your hard-earned reputation this time. Therefore, it is entirely up to you whether to disappoint yourself or not. :wink: :)

[pradheep]

Dear hehehewalrus
Be positive in life,..... you have the "Soonya" Bike and Soonya-horse to ride on. Enjoy.

[Rohit]

3HW,

If you are still flabbergasted, allow me to furnish you with the four clear choices from which to choose the bike or the horse.

1. As mental images – Neither created nor produced
2. As wishful targets for conversion – The process of self-deception
3. Created – Extravagant chain of constructions
4. Corporeal – Evolution and human exertions

Good luck! :wink:

[hehehewalrus]

Rohit and pradheep, thanks for your eager inputs to help me :)

What is a bike if not a mere horse with some "Special Effect Sounds"?
Hence I will choose to go with the horse itself :mrgreen:

[pradheep]

[tscii:755f66f64f]
1. As mental images – Neither created nor produced
2. As wishful targets for conversion – The process of self-deception
3. Created – Extravagant chain of constructions
4. Corporeal – Evolution and human exertions

dear hehe
our friend proves everything is only "soonya' and remember that means our friend's head too. Atleast from my-side, I am atleast "real". What about you ? Hehehe[/tscii:755f66f64f]

[hehehewalrus]

dear pradheep,
i have absolutely no idea about what either of you are talking. I am merely sponsoring a bike to the winner but dont know who is winning :D

[pradheep]

dear hehe
there is no winner and loser,only the ego-mind thinks of winning and losing.

[hehehewalrus]

Then why did u guys have such a 50 page battle in the Evolution v God thread?

Too bad the contest is over, I have to find an alternate place to advertise the bike :cry:

[pradheep]

Dear Hehehe
I dont want to comment on others, but let me make myself clear. I am fighting with my own Ego which is manifested everywhere in different forms and through that I am seeing my 'Self" which is everywhere.

[Rohit]

Well done Pradheep for reconfirming your"Self" as absolutely nothing/non-existent. If you don't remember how and where, please click here:
http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewtopic.php?t=4467&start=75
:thumbsup: :D

[pradheep]

for reconfirming your"Self" as absolutely nothing/non-existent

Dear Rohit
I feel sorry for you that you are now sufferring from memory loss too. You are the soonya vadi and say everything is nothingness. Any way sinceyou donthave a brainhow can i expect you tohave memory and sensetoo.it is all soonya....nothingness.

[Rohit]

One more normalised reaction, in a "goagabooo" way. :thumbsup:

2N+172 :notworthy:

You are forgetting again, "goagabooos" and "zoossanoooos" don't use brains; simply because they don't have one. There is an obvious difference between energy and "goagabooo" or "zoossanoooo" Brahman. The neural energy in the brain must remain active to remember that precise difference. Of course, how would you or could you ever know the difference when "The one "goagabooo" Without a Second" is inspiring you. :thumbsup: :D :)

[virarajendra]

Today the 13th of March 2006, is the day of "Masi Maham'' as per Vaakkiya Panchangam. While today's ruling natchaththiram is ''Maham'', the full moon falls on the 14th of March 2006.

[virarajendra]

Brought forward for the benefit of new Readers

[sundararaj]

Thank you virarajendra for bringing it back.

[virarajendra]

Brought forward for the benefit of the New Readers

[virarajendra]

Brought forward for the benefit of New Readers

[Raghu]

All Please listen to this mantra

truely AWSOME

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iRdzHQqrC4&feature=related

[virarajendra]

Brought forward

[virarajendra]

brought forward

[virarajendra]

brought forward

[virarajendra]

brought forward

[virarajendra]

brought forward

[virarajendra]

brought forward

[virarajendra]

brought forward

[virarajendra]

brought forward

[virarajendra]

brought forward

[virarajendra]

brought forward

[virarajendra]

brought forward

[virarajendra]

brought forward