SAadmin Posted March 29, 2005 Report Share Posted March 29, 2005 Condition of Bhagats in the Darbar of Vaheguru >> http://www.tapoban.org/phorum/read.php?f=1...600&t=30600 <<<< 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 29, 2005 Report Share Posted March 29, 2005 Previous thread related to this topic: http://www.tapoban.org/phorum/read.php?f=1...270&t=30270 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guv Posted March 30, 2005 Report Share Posted March 30, 2005 really interesting discussion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pheena Posted March 30, 2005 Report Share Posted March 30, 2005 i think the word they are looking for is Astral World in the esoteric realm of bliss and more Bhagti. As stated in the The Autobiography of a Yogi. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 7, 2005 Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 Ok i m going to put main argument and points raise to counter that argument from these two threads posted above. Please completely absorb yourself in main argument and points raise to counter that argument before posting..this is very complex for me as well .. Argument/Focus of debate: When soul gets merge with Nirankar after leaving the phsyical body. It's not destroyed. It still has consciousness because there are gurbani tuks in siri guroo granth sahib mentioning terms like- begumpura sehar, paramand, anand which proves that soul has consciousness of it's own existence.. so naturally even though soul gets merge with nirankar..soul has it own indentity. Soul does not get destroyed. Point raised to counter that argument: Soul merges with Nirankar and become one with Nirankar. No diffference between nirankar and that soul...just like drop merges with the ocean and no one can tell difference. Soul loses it's consciousness (antish karam/man chit budd) and surat and after merging with nirankar...reason why there is mention of terms "parmanand" "anand" in the gurbani is because nirankar itself is in parmanand, anand ..once soul merges with nirankar (according to different interperation used in argument) ..it's ok to say - it's is anand and parmanand and this does not mean soul have consciousness because nirankar itself parmanand, anand...soul does not get destroyed but get merged with Nirankar...example used- ray belongs to sun..source and destination of that ray is sun after all !!!!!!!!!!!! Please discuss your thoughts. Again i humbly invite all members- especially tsingh, lalleshvari, challenge-everything, hari, hwd, drawof, pheena, guv and amrit pal singh ji veer ji to do bachan bilas in this topic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tSingh Posted April 7, 2005 Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 One is a modified non-dualism; akin to the toenail and the person - the toenail is a part of you, but not your entirety...but then this leads to the suggestion that there are lesser essential parts of Brhman. The toenail on being reunited to the foot abides at the feet in bliss..this is a dualistic-non-dualism. The other is that nothing gets destroyed because the concept of an individual soul is illusory in the first place! That sat chit anand is you, therefore you are ever abiding in bliss, ever conscious, ever truth (brahmgyani aap nirankar). This would make gurbani at times as didactic as 'tat tvam asi' (you are that) - as it is virtually impossible to discuss non-dualism without using dualist language. These are simply positions to be held by people. For example, most Nirmalay such as Baba Isher Singh Rarewale, Kavi Santokh Singh hold firmly to the latter view. Yet others hold to the first. I would argue that the strictest advait of Adi Sankaracharya is not akin to gurmat, and if anything it is the modified forms such as Ramanuj's and Vallabacharya which show the closest similarity. Vallabhacharya holds that Adi Sankaracharya has misunderstood and created a further dualism between vidya (truth) and maya (although he is not thought to have used the words in the texts most likely written by him), as maya although being unreal in its nature, exists in one level of understanding (ours). Therefore, Vallabhacharya states that actually everything is brham and if brham wills it (akin to nadari) then we shall be awoken to our true nature, hence accepting both bhagti marg and jnanmarg. It is at the end of the day a useless debate to a degree as they are positions to be held by individuals based on their own understanding. I have heard and accepted arguments with quotes for the Advait view, and heard and accepted arguement for the qualified view. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pheena Posted April 7, 2005 Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 Aside from the enlightening explanation veer tsingh has provided. here are few random thoughts after contemplating your post neo. This illusionary identity of being dualistic is necessary for the only purpose of expressing in word the non-dualistic truth. Words are a hinderence in themselves in knowing the Truth. example: I cannot come to you and say I am God without you raising and eyebrow and condeming me to being an egoist. Yet at the same time There is no greater truth than that. To know that I am God and yet at the same time speaking about God as something not me. I am God, yet i speak about God as if he is not me, an oxymoron? The purpose of thinking of God as not yourself wihtout this realization that you are him has much to do with our ego. There has to be someone for us to surrender this ego to before this realization can come to exist that we ourselves are god. That is the role of the God in the form of a Guru. He accepts the burdon of your ego. Whos identity is being saved when being merged with God? So the Identity of God realized soul is being saved by god himself. God is saving his own identity...if all is he then so is this saved identity...for the memories of this god-soul being merged with god are none but the memories of God himself. For is it not he himself who is a Brahmgiani? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drawrof Posted April 7, 2005 Report Share Posted April 7, 2005 good point pheena! many don't want to realise god, they just want the buzz! some sufi's consider any image or concept of god as being an illusory obstacle in the day..(ie. jaalaal vs. jamaal) Even with guru sahib's words, god's attributes are metaphorically brought down to us because the experience is greater than our conception. ps. I'd write more, but I don't have the knowledge or conception to add to what you 2 have already (tsingh, and pheena) have enlightened us with. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 8, 2005 Report Share Posted April 8, 2005 tsingh, pheena, drawof man you guys are just amazing..great posts..please keep them coming..vah ji vah..anand agaya amritpal sean tusi bhi vichar dasuo apna..lagda holla-mohalla di contoversy is getting to your bhakti marg..don't let that happen bro 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.