These Gamblers are Brahman

Can't get far without Brahman can you. Bhakti's like their
'individuality' but
as per below, Brahman is extoled. And then the 2'nd reference below
(The first one I could not get) have great big long explanations - which
makes
them highly suspect right off the bat. Only ego-mind fears losing its
individuality.
And, this is quite logical as any mind would agree.....

The explanatory nature of it tells me more than anything. As in - an
explanation
is necessary to start with - as in - all branches of religious thought
in India
feel the necessity of justifying their perspective in terms of Brahman.
I would say (as everyone knows and no one will admit) all forms of
religion
in India today attempt to associate their own path with Brahman/Advaita
(non-dualness). Some (Tantra) even attempt to say that the Vedas are
based
on Tantra!

So where does this put the Shiva/Shakti bunch? Simple, Shiva is Brahman.
Subramunia does not talk about 'Merging with Shiva for nothing...'

Where does this put Christianity? Simple, Ishvara (God) is Brahman. (of
course Christianity like the Bhakti's and dual yoga have the soul and
God and universe as 3 forever distinct entities. But since there is no
greater
Power in the Universe than God, that makes God Brahman.)

It is not important/only ego-minds with futile endeavor attempt to hype
these distinctions (and throw rocks and start wars). Monotheism vs
Monism. Lets have a war.... Either that or we can debate which side of
your head you should part your hair. (fighting words if I ever heard
them:)

Purva Mimamsa is ritualistic/dogmatic/culturally bound --

'Mimamsa [Purva] deals mainly with Vedic ritual (Karma Kanda). It
narrates in detail various sacrificial rituals and clarifies the
liturgical side
of the Vedas.'

'Vedanta address's Vedic knowledge (Jananakanda). It is the
contemplative
part of the philosophy, dealing with the theoretical aspect of the
Vedas. The
word "Vedanta" literally means the ultimate truth or "end" (anta) of the
Vedas. The Vedantic system is based on the Upanishads, which were
composed
"at the end of" the Vedas. Vedanta deals with the Ultimate Reality of
Brahman--'

My interest in Mimamsa is in --

'Mimamsa deals with the Word or Cosmic Sound, called Shabda Brahman,
which is endowed with the names and forms projected in Vedic
revelations,
acting as the essence of all the mystical hymns, Mantras, prayers, etc.
contained therein.' [Shabdabrahman - the Doctrine of Sound and
mantra/yantra vibration - nama-rupa (name and form)]

The above from Awakening the Life Force by Rajarshi Muni comparing
Mimamsa (Purva) and Vedanta p33. This book is now retitled as
'Yoga the Ultimate Spiritual Path' and is in-print. It has a very
precise
wording of relationships of the 6 major schools of thought in India
today as well as a lot more - the very best clean/clear distinctions
between Yoga and Samkhya/Vedanta/Mimamsa. The metaphysics of
these schools of thought are covered very precisely in only a few pages.
Once Muni establishes the foundation of the categories (tattvas) for
Samkhya, the distinctions between them become elementary.

In Vedanta the raindrop merges with the ocean of Brahman. (monism/
Advita) Not so from a Bhakti or Christian perspective (techincally -
monotheism) God/Soul/Universe are 3 forever distinct things. It is
blasphemy in Christianity to think of yourself as God per Catholic
Church. That's why St. Augustine looked inward - and then Upward.
Should you be so lucky to discover which is true (monism or
monotheism) first hand.....

I think that most people intuitively know anyway that
Reality is a single un-divided whole and not broken up into parts.
Parts make logical sense to a mind but that is all. It also justify's
a particular person or cult as the seat of power and authority. Like
Islam and Christianity. Each is 'special.'

When I say Bhati's above I mean Krishna worshipers in general.
For the best treatment of the relationship between Vedanta and
Bhakti yoga, Sivananda's Bhakti Yoga book is best.

Mike Dubbeld


"SITARAM" <sitaram@aol.com.net.com> wrote in message
news:20030627064531.09237.00001828@mb-m29.aol.com...
> http://www.sulekha.com/chpost.asp?fo...ow=0&cid=64953
>
> http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe48/sbe48037.htm
>
> The individual soul (gîva) is not absolutely different from Brahman,
but stands
> to it in the bhedâbheda-relation in so far as it is a part (amsa) of
Brahman.
> Its non-difference from Brahman is essential (svâbhâvika); its
difference is
> due to limiting adjuncts (aupâdhika). This we know, in the first
place, from
> those scriptural texts which declare non-difference--such as 'Thou art
that'
> (Kh. Up. VI); 'There is no other seer but he' (Bri. Up. III, 7, 23);
'This Self
> is Brahman' (Bri. Up. II, 5, 19); and the passage from the Brahmasûkta
in the
> Samhitopanishad of the Âtharvanas which, after having said that
Brahman is
> Heaven and Earth, continues, 'The fishermen are Brahman, the slaves
are
> Brahman, Brahman are these gamblers; man and woman are born from
Brahman; women
> are Brahman and so are men.' And, in the second place, from those
texts which
> declare difference: 'He who, one, eternal, intelligent, fulfils the
desires of
> many non-eternal intelligent beings' (Ka. Up. II, 5, 13); 'There are
two
> unborn, one knowing, the other not-knowing; one strong, the other
weak' (Svet.
> Up. I, 9); 'Being the cause of their connexion with him, through the
qualities
> of action and the qualities of the Self, he is seen as another' (Svet.
Up. V,
> 12); 'The Lord of nature and the souls, the ruler of the qualities,
the cause
> of the bondage, the existence and the release of the samsâra' (Svet.
Up. VI,
> 16); 'He is the cause, the lord of the lords of the organs' (Svet. Up.
VI, 9);
> 'One of the two eats the sweet fruit, without eating the other looks
on' (Svet.
> Up. IV, 6); 'He who dwelling in the Self (Bri. Up. III, 7, 22);

Can't get far without Brahman can you. Bhakti's like their
'individuality' but
as per below, Brahman is extoled. And then the 2'nd reference below
(The first one I could not get) have great big long explanations - which
makes
them highly suspect right off the bat. Only ego-mind fears losing its
individuality.
And, this is quite logical as any mind would agree.....

The explanatory nature of it tells me more than anything. As in - an
explanation
is necessary to start with - as in - all branches of religious thought
in India
feel the necessity of justifying their perspective in terms of Brahman.
I would say (as everyone knows and no one will admit) all forms of
religion
in India today attempt to associate their own path with Brahman/Advaita
(non-dualness). Some (Tantra) even attempt to say that the Vedas are
based
on Tantra!

So where does this put the Shiva/Shakti bunch? Simple, Shiva is Brahman.
Subramunia does not talk about 'Merging with Shiva for nothing...'

Where does this put Christianity? Simple, Ishvara (God) is Brahman. (of
course Christianity like the Bhakti's and dual yoga have the soul and
God and universe as 3 forever distinct entities. But since there is no
greater
Power in the Universe than God, that makes God Brahman.)

It is not important/only ego-minds with futile endeavor attempt to hype
these distinctions (and throw rocks and start wars). Monotheism vs
Monism. Lets have a war.... Either that or we can debate which side of
your head you should part your hair. (fighting words if I ever heard
them:)

Purva Mimamsa is ritualistic/dogmatic/culturally bound --

'Mimamsa [Purva] deals mainly with Vedic ritual (Karma Kanda). It
narrates in detail various sacrificial rituals and clarifies the
liturgical side
of the Vedas.'

'Vedanta address's Vedic knowledge (Jananakanda). It is the
contemplative
part of the philosophy, dealing with the theoretical aspect of the
Vedas. The
word "Vedanta" literally means the ultimate truth or "end" (anta) of the
Vedas. The Vedantic system is based on the Upanishads, which were
composed
"at the end of" the Vedas. Vedanta deals with the Ultimate Reality of
Brahman--'

My interest in Mimamsa is in --

'Mimamsa deals with the Word or Cosmic Sound, called Shabda Brahman,
which is endowed with the names and forms projected in Vedic
revelations,
acting as the essence of all the mystical hymns, Mantras, prayers, etc.
contained therein.' [Shabdabrahman - the Doctrine of Sound and
mantra/yantra vibration - nama-rupa (name and form)]

The above from Awakening the Life Force by Rajarshi Muni comparing
Mimamsa (Purva) and Vedanta p33. This book is now retitled as
'Yoga the Ultimate Spiritual Path' and is in-print. It has a very
precise
wording of relationships of the 6 major schools of thought in India
today as well as a lot more - the very best clean/clear distinctions
between Yoga and Samkhya/Vedanta/Mimamsa. The metaphysics of
these schools of thought are covered very precisely in only a few pages.
Once Muni establishes the foundation of the categories (tattvas) for
Samkhya, the distinctions between them become elementary.

In Vedanta the raindrop merges with the ocean of Brahman. (monism/
Advita) Not so from a Bhakti or Christian perspective (techincally -
monotheism) God/Soul/Universe are 3 forever distinct things. It is
blasphemy in Christianity to think of yourself as God per Catholic
Church. That's why St. Augustine looked inward - and then Upward.
Should you be so lucky to discover which is true (monism or
monotheism) first hand.....

I think that most people intuitively know anyway that
Reality is a single un-divided whole and not broken up into parts.
Parts make logical sense to a mind but that is all. It also justify's
a particular person or cult as the seat of power and authority. Like
Islam and Christianity. Each is 'special.'

When I say Bhati's above I mean Krishna worshipers in general.
For the best treatment of the relationship between Vedanta and
Bhakti yoga, Sivananda's Bhakti Yoga book is best.

Mike Dubbeld


"SITARAM" <sitaram@aol.com.net.com> wrote in message
news:20030627064531.09237.00001828@mb-m29.aol.com...
> http://www.sulekha.com/chpost.asp?fo...ow=0&cid=64953
>
> http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe48/sbe48037.htm
>
> The individual soul (gîva) is not absolutely different from Brahman,
but stands
> to it in the bhedâbheda-relation in so far as it is a part (amsa) of
Brahman.
> Its non-difference from Brahman is essential (svâbhâvika); its
difference is
> due to limiting adjuncts (aupâdhika). This we know, in the first
place, from
> those scriptural texts which declare non-difference--such as 'Thou art
that'
> (Kh. Up. VI); 'There is no other seer but he' (Bri. Up. III, 7, 23);
'This Self
> is Brahman' (Bri. Up. II, 5, 19); and the passage from the Brahmasûkta
in the
> Samhitopanishad of the Âtharvanas which, after having said that
Brahman is
> Heaven and Earth, continues, 'The fishermen are Brahman, the slaves
are
> Brahman, Brahman are these gamblers; man and woman are born from
Brahman; women
> are Brahman and so are men.' And, in the second place, from those
texts which
> declare difference: 'He who, one, eternal, intelligent, fulfils the
desires of
> many non-eternal intelligent beings' (Ka. Up. II, 5, 13); 'There are
two
> unborn, one knowing, the other not-knowing; one strong, the other
weak' (Svet.
> Up. I, 9); 'Being the cause of their connexion with him, through the
qualities
> of action and the qualities of the Self, he is seen as another' (Svet.
Up. V,
> 12); 'The Lord of nature and the souls, the ruler of the qualities,
the cause
> of the bondage, the existence and the release of the samsâra' (Svet.
Up. VI,
> 16); 'He is the cause, the lord of the lords of the organs' (Svet. Up.
VI, 9);
> 'One of the two eats the sweet fruit, without eating the other looks
on' (Svet.
> Up. IV, 6); 'He who dwelling in the Self (Bri. Up. III, 7, 22);