Why is desire considered bad?

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

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

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

This does not really seem different from impersonal concepts....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

VitalOne

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

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

 

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

 

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

Those differences between atman, brahman, paramatma,etc...are only exist by our material intellect...not differences in reality.

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

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

 

VitalOne

seems like the idea that isvara is beyond visnu as a vedic conclusion is false according tot he gita

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

and

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

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

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

Once again, the idea that brahman and paramatama are material distinctions is not an idea proposed by SB

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

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

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

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

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

Really? Does Krishna say that the qualification for guru is to be situated in brahman, or does it require more than merely be situated in brahman to be guru?
Perhaps you could offer the scriptural reference

the problem with this idea is that it doesn't actually address how illusion developed from brahman, if there is nothing but brahman to begin with and there is no variety in brahman - at the very least you must recognise the distinction between the living entity and god - statements like "God is everyone" are absurd because it is practically seen that virtually 100% of people are subject to illusion and experience frustration in the pursuit of their desires - kind of makes for very pathetic gods - at least SB and BG give clear symptoms of what god is

 

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

Why do you define siddartha as a materialist??

 

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

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

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

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

 

Light Travelling

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

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

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

 

The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says this;

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

And this

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

VitalOne

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

We are not really an eternal servant of Bhagavan, rather we are Bhagavan, pretending that we are not, acting as a fool.

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

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

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