How does a being, become?

Originally Posted by O K Viswanath

But, If I was speaking, what would I say to a
serious inquirer (but not to a Advaitin follower - because it will hurt them) is

Not really. Maya (Prakriti) is a power of Saguna Brahman (Isvara) and Saguna Brahman is an appearance of Nirguna Brahman.

The other thing you have to ask yourself is if you are concerned about hurting Advaitans why post this in the non-duality sub-form and point out it will hurt them and your remedy is a disclaimer you're not speaking about it in scriptural (spiritual) terms? At least be honest and especially with yourself. Stick to your guns.

[hazada guess]

We all have differing faiths, not all of them Eastern.

I am true to myself.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

Not really. Maya (Prakriti) is a power of Saguna Brahman (Isvara) and Saguna Brahman is an appearance of Nirguna Brahman.

.

Oh..... Okay sir. Great answer. I didn't know it before.

I'm sorry, I won't post it in non-dual forum. I edited and removed it.

All my words are ignorant, those are to be thrown to trash. Please forget my misunderstandings.

Yes sir, I am not honest to myself, have you been as a fool/idiot/stupid?

You know sir, If one stick to their guns, it is the ultimate hurt I ever seen to others. So, I am very flexible. Just share my foolish thoughts, and if people feel I am hurting them, I buy it back and end smoothly. I want only people to be happy, but not concerned about me/my guns/my honesty. I am ready to hurt myself and sometimes slap myself too, if people don't feel happy. I leave them then, after sometime comeback to share if I feel I changed/to share something new. If they finally-truly fixed me as a bad person, then I leave them. I only value peeps happiness, not me (Hell Viswa). That's why I am a fool.

As I said I am not speaking scriptures anymore, I sometimes foolishly think "Maybe they are asking this question seriously and not to pass time here praising Non-duality,etc.?", and so I replied to iamthat my foolish thoughts. I feel, even if someone asks questions, I won't open my mouth sharing my foolishness. A new learning to me now to add to my ignorance/stupidity. Two days back, I thought to answer only to those who question me. I thought, maybe my stupidity might be helpful to their questions. But now, I change that too, never open my mouth even if someone asks questions to me, and share my idiocy. I will test it out tomorrow in a zoom meet, then I feel that's the end for me in forums and meets, and dwell in my foolishness, and let peeps be happy without involving in their life as I hurt. This I feel very deep in my heart.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Originally Posted by O K Viswanath

You know sir, If one stick to their guns, it is the ultimate hurt I ever seen to others.

The meaning in this context is if you post something you believe to be hurtful don't pretend you're not intending to be hurtful by using a disclaimer. Either you believe it's hurtful so you don't post it or you don't believe it's hurtful so you wouldn't think you need a disclaimer.

I'm just pointing out the obvious. Again, first be honest with yourself and then you can be honest with others.

You can post in any sub-forum you want, however ask yourself why post in the negative in a sub-forum dedicated to a philosophy you do not subscribe to. What is the actual purpose, to convince others or to convince yourself?

[Geeta]

How does a being, become?

A play of Mayā maybe?
When the being gets seperated from its true form, it becomes?

ॐ

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

I'm just pointing out the obvious. Again, first be honest with yourself and then you can be honest with others.

You can post in any sub-forum you want, however ask yourself why post in the negative in a sub-forum dedicated to a philosophy you do not subscribe to. What is the actual purpose, to convince others or to convince yourself?

See, I gave disclaimer because, if someone wants not to get hurt, then that post is better not to be read by them.

I said you that I thought if a question is asked, then one is free to share their thoughts here. But, one should share which is only on-line with Non-duality, I'm sorry, I forget this many time.

See, my answer which I made, is relevant to Shankara's view. The modern so-called non-dual gurus don't see that way. But, Shankara accepted in BG chapter 13 verse 19, that Prakriti is Eternal. You may read it. Only as Prakriti/forms are eternal, forms appear and disappear. In my view, Shankara didn't said "all are appearance of Atman/Brahman". Instead, he says "Maya is Beginningless and only Maya bringsforth everything into experience/being". Below is the verse from Vivekachudamani,

"avyaktanāmnī parameśaśaktiḥ
anādyavidyā triguṇātmikā parā |
kāryānumeyā sudhiyaiva māyā
yayā jagatsarvamidaṃ prasūyate || 108 ||

108. Avidya (Nescience) or Māyā, called also the Undifferentiated, is the power of the Lord. She is without beginning, is made up of the three Guṇas and is superior to the effects (as their cause). She is to be inferred by one of clear intellect only from the effects She produces. It is She who brings forth this whole universe."

Like this, Shankara says many times about the heart/cave too. Not just that, in whole Vivekachudamani, he speaks about the discrimination of the Self (Atman) and Not-Self (Body,mind - Prakriti).
I cn quote all those I said, not just from Upanishads, but from Shankara's words itself. Do you want me to do so?

If they were not said by Shankara, why would I play around here in Non-Duality forums?

If I can't post here about Shankara, but only about so-called 'highly intelligent' Swami's/Philosopher's lectures/words, then please change the forum title as "Modern Non-duality".

Never I said anything negative to Shankara (except Na sat na asat - beyond). But, that doesn't matter to the questions asked. In this thread, the questions asked, I spoke only from words of Shankara and BG (accepted by Shankara).
If you feel it is negative, then problem is yours sticking to a false notion of "Advaita" which was not said by Shankara (but the Intelligent Swami's make you believe those).

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by O K Viswanath

All my words are ignorant, those are to be thrown to trash. Please forget my misunderstandings.

I suspect that any real sage would regard all our words as ignorant, of little consequence, to be consigned to the trash.

But never mind. We are where we are, and we have to work with our current level of understanding. The beginning of wisdom is realising how little we know.

Peace

Originally Posted by O K Viswanath

108. Avidya (Nescience) or Māyā, called also the Undifferentiated, is the power of the Lord. She is without beginning, is made up of the three Guṇas and is superior to the effects (as their cause). She is to be inferred by one of clear intellect only from the effects She produces.

Notes regarding 108:

https://shlokam.org/texts/vivekachudamani-108-110/

The Undifferentiated—the perfectly balanced state of the three Gunas, where there is no manifested universe.
Power of the Lord—This distinguishes the Vedantic conception of Maya from the Sankhya view of Prakriti which they call insentient and at the same time independent.

It seems to me you're looking at it from the Sankhya perspective where Prakriti is eternal and independent and not the Advaita Vedanta perspective where Maya is a power of Saguna Brahman (Isvara) and Saguna Brahman is an appearance of Nirguna Brahman.

My understanding is Isvara is no different than us in that It has a gross body (the universe), subtle body (cosmic mind) and causal body (seed state of potentiality AKA perfectly balanced state of the three Gunas). We are microcosms of Isvara in that we also have a gross, subtle and causal body. Isvara is the Ultimate appearance and we are (much!) lesser appearances of Nirguna Brahman.

Non-dual means exactly that - without a second. You are trying to smuggle something other than Advaita Vedanta into Advaita Vedanta. You simply don't have the bona fides for that.

Originally Posted by JustASimpleGuy

It seems to me you're looking at it from the Sankhya perspective where Prakriti is eternal and independent and not the Advaita Vedanta perspective where Maya is a power of Saguna Brahman (Isvara) and Saguna Brahman is an appearance of Nirguna Brahman.

Are you true to yourself sir? What is your actual purpose here?

I am here posting because, I see a misunderstood notion of Advaita (which was not said by Shankara), and it's because of 'Intelligent' Swami's teachings.

But, I see, you are not here to learn Advaita, only to convince yourself and others, that 'this is advaita' which present Swami's misunderstood.

Here, I quoted the BG chapter 13 verse 2p which I mentioned before.
"
प्रकृतिं पुरुषं चैव विद्ध्यनादी उभावपि।
विकारांश्च गुणांश्चैव विद्धि प्रकृतिसंभवान्।।13.20।।

English Translation - Swami Sivananda
13.20 Know thou that Nature (matter) and the Spirit are both beginningless; and know also that all modifications and alities are born of Nature.

English Translation of Sanskrit Commentary By Sri Shankaracharya's
13.20 Viddhi, know; ubhau, both; prakrtim Nature; and also the purusam, individual soul;-these two; Nature and the soul. the aspects of God-to be api, verily; anadi, without beginning. Those two that have no beginning (adi), are anadi. Since the godhood of God is eternal, therefore it is logical that even His aspects also should have eternality. For Gods god-hood consists verily in having the two aspects. Those two aspects through which God becomes the cause of creation, continuance and dissolution of the Universe, and which are beginningless, are the sources of mundane existence. Some interpret the phrase anadi in the tatpurusa [Tatpurusa: Name of a class of compounds in which the first member determines the sense of the other members, or in which the last member is defined or alified by the first, without losing its original independence.-V.S.A.] sense of na adi, not primeval (not cause). (According to them) thery indeed is established the causality of God. Again, if Nature and soul themselves be eternal, the mundane existence would surely be their creation, and the causality of the mundane existence would not be Gods. That is wrong because, there being nothing to rule over before the emergence of Nature and soul, there will arise the contingency of God ceasing to be God! And if the mundane state be uncaused [Uncaused, i.e. not caused by Nature and soul, but by God independently of those two aspects.] there arises the contingency of the absence of Liberation, [If God were. Himself the sole cause of mundane existence, independently of His two aspects, then it would be endless because there would be nothing to prevent liberated souls from being put under bondage again.] the scriptures becoming useless, and the absence of bondage and freedom. On the other hand, all these become justifiable if God and the two aspects be eternal. How? Viddhi, know; the vikaran, modifications that will be spoken of-the intellect etc., the body and the organs; ca eva, as also; gunan, the alities (sattva etc.)-manifest in the form of the mental states of happiness, sorrow and attachment; as prakriti-sambhavan, born of Nature. Nature, Maya, is the power of God, which is the cause of the modifications and which consists of the three alities. Those modifications and alities, which have that Nature as their source,-know those modifications and alities as born of Nature, as transformations of Nature. Which again, are those modifications and alities born of Nature?
"

Do you want me to quote more??

Originally Posted by O K Viswanath

But, I see, you are not here to learn Advaita, only to convince yourself and others, that 'this is advaita' which present Swami's misunderstood.

Here, I quoted the BG chapter 13 verse 2p which I mentioned before.

The Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita are source documents for all of Vedanta. Dvaita, Advaita, Vishishtadvaita and they each have their own interpretation that supports their tradition. If you want to make a point than do so on its own merit and according to whatever tradition you subscribe to without dragging other traditions, because either they are all right or all wrong. See, for me it's more nuanced as they are all right in that they all point at the same goal and all wrong in that the interpretations (models) that are constructed in mind cannot fully comprehend That.

As Tradition A can use the source texts to invalidate Tradition B so can Tradition B use the source texts to invalidate Tradition A, and that would be a mistake by either tradition. All the traditions can lead to Realization so what's the point? Ego?