God is self created. As he is shapeless whatever form that we assume is within our scope of brain. If you see happen to see and beleive it to be God meet a psychologist.
- Liked by
adiyen Ramanuja dasan
Namaskaram Swami
“GOD is hallucination and delusion”
“GOD is self created”
“Within the scope of brain”
Very interesting and important question can be raised
Who is the SUBJECT having the Hallucination and self creating?
It is not only the GOD but also the entire universe and its contents including one’s own body , even the body called as vikraminside are actually fantastically realistic 3 dimensional hallucinations of a SUBJECT
But who is the SUBJECT?
And how many SUBJECTS are possible if everything else other than the SUBJECT are hallucinations?
And wow this hallucinated reality is incredibly unerringly realistic , so realistic that it almost impossible to decode it
These questions are very interesting to discuss and crack
adiyen
Srimathe Rangaramanuja Mahadesikaya Namaha
This is what Jaggi Vasudev keeps telling and confusing masses
If God is Hallucination or self created and he himself as no shape
DESCRIBE LAKSHMI NARASIMHAN
Our Sriman Narayanan assumes any form he wishes.
We don’t create him, he creates us DOT.
Dasanudasan
adiyen Ramanuja dasan
Swami adiyen believe it was devareer who made the statement earlier
God is self created. As he is shapeless whatever form that we assume is within our scope of brain. If you see happen to see and beleive it to be God meet a psychologist.
Now devareer is telling
If God is Hallucination or self created and he himself as no shape
DESCRIBE LAKSHMI NARASIMHAN
Our Sriman Narayanan assumes any form he wishes.
We don’t create him, he creates us DOT.
couldn get what devareer is trying to tell
adiyen
Srimathe Rangaramanuja Mahadesikaya Namaha
Srimathe Sri Varaha Mahadesikaya Namaha
Sri Velukkudi Krishnan Swamy Thiruvadigaley Sharanam
Sri Velukkudi Ranganathan Swamy Thiruvadigaley Sharanam
Sri:
Long story cut short. These posts were created during a debate where God’s primary form was Shapeless or Shapeful?
“Sath Eva Aaseeth”
Does Shapeless have a name?
Raised by one parama BhAgavathA towards whom adiyen comitted apachAram & Sri Velukkudi Swamy released an audio.
Adiyen’s argument was Sriman Narayanan whether name him Brahmam or SaguNan or NirguNan , being Nithyam is always Shapeful.
Meaning, “cannot be seen” is an altered form of “seen”..
Not vice versa.
Shapeless does NOT become Shape.
My point was Shapeless & attributeless is as good as saying NOTHING
Sri Velukkudi Swamy already told to refute Buddhism
“SOMETHING CANNOT COME FROM NOTHING”
Please refer “Aruvam KAtiya Uruvam” EnPaNi audio to which adiyen refuted only the “title”
Aruvam uruvam kaattadhu.
Coming to this point, people like Jaggi started saying “we create God” as he emanates from our “thought process” .
Adiyen’s point, that which is created even in our thoughts is because of God
Swamy Desikan says “Whatever I write is because of thAyAr”
Those who say “self” are “agnyAnis”
For the same Shiva which they point out NAyanmArs have sung “Avan AruLAL Avan ThAL Panindhu” it comes even for lord Murugan adiyen understand.
“Aham smarAmi math Bhakthan nayAmi paramAngathim”
What Sri VarAhar says “SmArayAmi” I will inject my form into his chitham during Prapannan’s death bed!!!
Where does self created God come from?
Sri Ramanujar says there is TRUTH” even if you are confused!
You think rope 🪢 as snake 🐍 from distance.
There is TRUTH in that thought process.
Wherever there is TRUTH there is BRAHMAM
As Brahmam is SATHYAM.
Even if we think foolishly,it is an act of God leading us towards him.Nothing is a lie here even
LIE IS NOT A LIE for that matter.
Dasanudasan
Swami
adiyen have two questions
“Shapeless does NOT become Shape”
From where did devareer form or shape came?
“Adiyen’s point, that which is created even in our thoughts is because of God”
So it is obvious devareer is not the doer of Devareer’s thoughts and so even the actions because only thoughts precede the actions so whatever devareer has thought and done all these days was actually done by God – this is the unavoidable sequel of the above statement
Finally
“I will inject my form into his chitham during Prapannan’s death bed!!!”
If “I” is God and he injects his form into WHOSE chitham
It is obvious from the above statement that prapannan has his own chitham – so the question is from did the prapannan got his chitham from?
so devareer has to answer
From where did prapannan’s form or shape and his chitham came from and if he or she is not the doer then who is he?
Or the question can be asked directly like this
Or you body or atma ?
There are no other possibilities
If your the body you cannot explain the thought and action proces
as body is a device controlled by the thoughts because of God – then it will be obvious that there is only God who is operating many different kinds of bodies by his own wish
If your Atman you cannot explain the limitations one has because Atman is full of knowledge it doesn’t require anything ,
You cannot tell that your Atman who has taken up a body as you have told all the thoughts and actions are because of God, there is no role for Atman
Now who are you?
And finally this statement
Shapeless does NOT become Shape” is obviously wrong.
You cannot explain your Deep sleep state
In the Deep sleep state (unconcious Deep sleep) or in nirvikalpa samadhi ( concious Deep sleep) there is state of formlessness – once your awake you get your form
even these questions are the thoughts from God executed by this body to be answered by God himself
Srimathe Rangaramanuja Mahadesikaya Namaha
“even these questions are the thoughts from God executed by this body to be answered by God himself”
– Agreed
Sthavya SthavaPriya Sthothram Sthuthi SthothA RaNaPriya:
But God doesn’t have doubts on himself
Velukkudi asked
“Brahmathukkey BrahmaiyA?”
Also to your question whose chitham?
This question was asked by Swamy Desikan to Adi Shankaracharya in Thathparya Chandrika
“To whom did Krishna did Upadesham of Srimad Bhagavad Gita?”
Therefore we are different from Krishna
Bedhamey SiddhAntham
To your question who are we if not him?
We are waves on the sea shore. Waves are different from sea but they are inseparable.
This is VishistAdvaitam
Dasanudasan
- Liked by
Srimathe Rangaramanuja Mahadesikaya Namaha
For question what came first “word” or “meaning”
Sri Velukkudi Krishnan Swamy told,
“Both word & meaning were together always”
From Swamy’s own statement, Sriman Narayanan the Brahmam has the name & shape together bound eternally.
As the name could not have been without the object/subject.
So,
He showed, he hid, he showed again – in NammAzhWAr pAsuram
Swamy conveniently took
The hid – Showed
The previous state of Shown is ultra important to our SampradhAyam.
Primary is formful with AkAram
Dasanudasan
Swami
“Both word & meaning were together always”
This perfectly matches everything
Subject or object are inseparable
They don’t have beginning or end so no question of which came first
But one cannot tell which is ultra important
Both are ultra important
So all the philosophies Advaita vishita Advaita dvaita
All are the same expressions of Brahmam
Nothing is inferior or superior
Srimathe Rangaramanuja Mahadesikaya Namaha
Advaitis state shapeful Brahmam is lower and attribute Brahmam is higher.
Dasanudasan
Srimathe Rangaramanuja Mahadesikaya Namaha
Advaitis state shapeful Brahmam as lower and shapeless Brahmam as higher.
We comprehend shape because we cannot focus on shapeless. Once we grasp shapeful Brahmam we elevate to shapeless Brahmam.
Krishna’s aham & our Aham are never one & the same according to VishistAdvaitam.
His Swa Swaroopam is Divya Mangala AkAram.
Being invisible is with respect to focal point. If you use electronic microscope he might be visible.
Hanuman became invisible by becoming smaller in search of sitamma. It means he reduced his shape and was not devoid of shape.
If he is devoid of shape or attribute completely why would Ramanuja state “He doesn’t have I’ll attributes”?
Kanchi Perumal confirmed “Bedham SiddAntham”
Please delete my previous post. My child interrupted while typing.
Dasanudasan
Swamy,
“So it is obvious devareer is not the doer of Devareer’s thoughts and so even the actions because only thoughts precede the actions so whatever devareer has thought and done all these days was actually done by God – this is the unavoidable sequel of the above statement”
– Upanishad says this
“VishNO KarmANi Pashyatha”
VISHNU IS DOING SEE
If SharanAgathi itself is provoked by him where is my action in first place? I wrongly assume it was me. This is the SiddhAntham.
Dasanudasan
Srimathe Rangaramanuja Mahadesikaya Namaha
If “I” is God and he injects his form into WHOSE chitham –
Bedhamey SiddhAntham
That’s where VishistAdvaitam steps in.
We are part of him but we don’t become him.
Dasanudasan
Srimathe Rangaramanuja Mahadesikaya Namaha
“It is obvious from the above statement that prapannan has his own chitham – so the question is from did the prapannan got his chitham from?”
Yasya AthmA Shareeram
Yasya Prithvi Shareeram
Like Body to our Soul
Like Earth & Soul to HIM
(Achith & Chith)
Dasanudasan
Srimathe Rangaramanuja Mahadesikaya Namaha
“You cannot explain your Deep sleep state
In the Deep sleep state (unconcious Deep sleep) or in nirvikalpa samadhi ( concious Deep sleep) there is state of formlessness – once your awake you get your form
even these questions are the thoughts from God executed by this body to be answered by God himself”
Turiya or SamAdhi sthithi unexplicable does mean non-existence.
If it is formless or shapeless why Veda even trying to give Brahmam a name?
Unexplicable simply means “Cannot be bound to my words”
Infinite cannot be subject to boundary.
He is so Huge does not mean he is shapeless but he is simply “in describable”
By the way,
“nirvikalpa samadhi” does not mean conscious deep sleep it actually mean
The beyond state of Vikalpic mind.
Technically our human logical comprehension via Mind.
Shareeram -> Indriyam -> Manas -> Buddhi -> jeevAthmA -> ParamAthmA
Dasanudasan
Srimathe Rangaramanuja Mahadesikaya Namaha
Swamy,
Even Velukkudi Swamy does not agree to Moksham during lifetime he has questioned Sri Adi Shankaracharya in his old audios
So nirvikalpa samAdhi does not equate to Moksham.
My simple question,
If that state is formless and inexplicable
AthmA in your own words is full of gyAnam correct? Why that AthmA cannot explain a state with its infinite knowledge?
Yes Deep Sleep state we get one with Brahmam according to Velukkudi Swamy’s upanyasam but never he said that state was formless.
Dasanudasan
Swami
It is interesting to see that the answers are not appropriate for the question raised
Let’s take this statement
“We are part of him but we don’t become him”
If we are part of him why should even the question whether we don’t become or we become him should be raised
How can a part of a thing even think about whether it can or cannot become the thing
It is obvious only the thing made of the parts can be there and there cannot be any other thing
Now tell who are we then
Swami sorry if adiyen questions are irritating devareer
Just loving these kind of discussions
Just ignore if not interested
adiyen
Srimathe Rangaramanuja Mahadesikaya Namaha
“So all the philosophies Advaita vishita Advaita dvaita
All are the same expressions of Brahmam
Nothing is inferior or superior”
Correct that’s our point “Nothing is inferior or superior”.
” Stating Shapeless Brahmam as inferior will lead to Duality Dosham” – Says Swamy Desikan
Please tell these to Advaitis.
While my argument still prevails shapeless is not devoid of shape but out of sight.
Anima -This particular ability is that of the yogi being able to reduce their size until they become tiny, to the point of being as small as an atom.
If you cannot see atom that is your problem not the problem of atom. An atom has shape.
I am not saying Perumal as Atom but just giving dishtAntham for comparison. He is beyond moola prakruthi.
He is aprAkrutham.
Also Nothing is nothing & Perumal is not Nothing.
Perumal is everything.
Don’t equate him to attributeless he can be attribute-less not attributeless.
Attribute-less = No non-kalyANa GuNa
Attributeful – Full KalyANa GuNa
Here KallyANa GuNa should include Shape Divya Mangala Swaroopam & not just behavioral attributes
What are those GuNAs ?
Please check Dharma Sandeha One Swamy explained beautifully
I will search & share
Dasanudasan
- Liked by
Shapeless Krishna Showed Shape?
Was Krishna ever Shapeless?
Doesn’t Krishna have the Shape of Krishna before he was born?
Krishna thirumeni is aprAkrutham. Where does the question of time come from?
Is NammAzhWAr an advaiti?
Why are we portraying him like that?
Dasanudasan
Swami
Shapeless Krishna Showed Shape?
Krishna was Shapeless and showed shape simultaneously
Was Krishna ever Shapeless?
Krishna appeared as a shape before his manifestation but Krishna knows himself as Shapeless
As Krishna has always used the word AHAM in The Bhagavad Gita to call himself, he has never used the word Krishna to call himself , and AHAM is formless
Is NammAzhWAr an advaiti?
Nammalwar is Brahmam you can call him whatever you want
No matter, as what or who you think your self either an advaiti or vishishta advaiti or dvaiti or vaishnavaite or saivaite or Buddhist or athiest – Brahmam is always there eternally everywhere as it is it is everything no matter what is going to happen it will be there
Do know why, Swami is the form Brahmam has taken in this experience of life happening now.
And don’t know why these discussions are happening now , May be it is play of Brahmam and this should be enjoyed with love .
- Liked by
Srimathe Rangaramanuja Mahadesikaya Namaha
Excellent point-
“As Krishna has always used the word AHAM in The Bhagavad Gita to call himself, he has never used the word Krishna to call himself , and AHAM is formless”
–
Adiyen was thinking how to answer
Lord Narasimha came to my rescue.
Firstly, when devareer is speaking to adiyen will you say
“I am saying” or “Madan is saying”?
Aham
Krishna called himself VAsudEva in Gita
(Sri Krishna Premi Swami Thiruvadigaley Sharanam)
VAsudEva Sarvam Ithi sa mahAthmA su Dhurlabha:
Speaking of Aham
It has negative identification
Narasimha was referred as
“Na Mrigam Na MAnusham”
Not animal Not Human
Therefore it means you cannot pinpoint this is “Krishnan” it will mean ” else not him” . As there is nothing else to Krishnan.
Dasanudasan
Swami
See what you have told
“Lord Narasimha came to my rescue”
It was Lord Narasimha who expressed the above said thought through the agency of a body labelled as vikraminside
This has what happened
Now what do you mean by
“MY RESCUE”
“AND FROM WHOM YOU ARE RESCUED”
if you tell it was vikraminside rescued from madan then it is ridiculous and not correct because the thought was not vikraminside’s thought it was LORD Narasimha’ thought and the consequent action of the body labelled as vikraminside and the action of this reply is once again the thought of Lord Narasimha executed through the agency of a body labelled as madan
Only this could have happened
Now who are these labelled as vikraminside and madan
just try to answer this question alone
And also see this
“Firstly, when devareer is speaking to adiyen will you say
“I am saying” or “Madan is saying”?”
Definitely the answer is ” I AM ” saying
Not only for me , for everyone, even for the animals plants if they can communicate with humans
See how spontaneous and natural the answer is
Do you know why, it is because it is only the I AM that can answer
Even if a person is in total Amnesia he or she asks who I AM
I AM never goes and it the only thing there only thing doing and only thing experiencing
Don’t you think it is your experience
- Liked by
Srimathe Rangaramanuja Mahadesikaya Namaha
.
“Is NammAzhWAr an advaiti?
Nammalwar is Brahmam you can call him whatever you want” –
Nammazhwar is “Krishna trishnA tattvam” . Swamy Nammazhwar pasuram “Naan Periya nee Periya enbadhai yaar arivar”?
Well, NammAzhWAr is VishistAdvaiti because “There is a differentiation of Naan & Nee ”
NammAzhWAr greater than Krishnan no doubt but he accepted the differentiation of jeevAthmA & ParamAthmA
Where did NammAzhWAr say “I am Krishna”?
Dasanudasan
- Liked by
Srimathe Rangaramanuja Mahadesikaya Namaha
For two questions:
“Shapeless does NOT become Shape”
1. From where did devareer form or shape came?
Ans:
If Perumal is AvikAran why does world keep changing?
If world keeps changing its shape, then Perumal is VikAran (Not avikAran)
As Perumal is all inclusive including the creation.
” AvikArAya ShuddhAya NithyAya ParamAthmanEy” –
Is referring to Parama-Athman
Now, for ParamAthma, jeevAthmA is also part of Shareeram
JeevAthmA is never created as it is anAdi.
JeevAthmA having a form is not from formless. I am born because of transformation not from non-existence or shapeless.
Sperm was a shape. I was sperm.
Egg was a shape, I was inside that egg.
Same way we are in the Womb of Krishna.
So what shape Devareer talking about? 😁
2. “Are you body or AthmA”?
Adiyen is “ShareerAthman” in this state.
Again Swamy RamanujA coming to rescue
The meaning is attributed to “Body-soul” relationship not just body or soul. There also Differentiation is associated
ShareerAthma Bandham
Just like Madan is the name attribute
Madan’a body is the body attribute
Madan is identified as Madan in this body
Madan is never Madan in his soul form/state.
Soul form/state adiyen referring to Sookshma Shareeram not this prAkrutha Shareeram
Finally,
Sri Velukkudi Krishnan Swamy has told me,
In SriVaikuntam you are distinguished and uniquely identified by Sriman Narayanan
Like the Calf is identified by cow
Cow is identified in cow herd
For us everything will look the same
Narayanan mother can identify us.
Please search for EnPaNi audio
Bedhamey SiddhAntham
Dasanudasan
Swami
See what you have told
Sperm was a shape. I was sperm.
Egg was a shape, I was inside that egg.
Yes but you are not formed by the sperm or ovum if you think so it implies that you think your self as the body
Only the body is formed from the union of sperm And ovum not you
What about you, think about that
You are not your body
Srimathe Rangaramanuja Mahadesikaya Namaha
I was a sperm should be referred as
” I was as a sperm”
Naan pona janmathil yaanaiyaaga irundhen doesn’t mean I was elephant 🐘 it means I was “as elephant”
Dasanudasan
Srimathe Rangaramanuja Mahadesikaya Namaha
“Only the body is formed from the union of sperm And ovum not you
What about you, think about that
You are not your body”
Swamy,
Sperm itself is a shape isn’t it? Why don’t you even recognise that?
From beginning you are talking about birth body.
Dasanudasan
- Liked by
Srimathe Rangaramanuja Mahadesikaya Namaha
Only one doubt
VAsudEva Sarvam
Does Para VAsudEvA has shape or not?
Is VAsudEvan Nithyam or not?
VAsudEvA in Vaikuntham sitting posture or not?
Nithyam+ Sitting posture = Shapeless to Shape?
I will leave it to you to decide which is sensible.
Dasanudasan
Swami
VAsudEva Sarvam
Does Para VAsudEvA has shape or not?
Both simultaneously
Is VAsudEvan Nithyam or not?
Definitely nithyam as there is no time in vaikuntha
Even the word Nithyam is wrong
VAsudEvA in Vaikuntham sitting posture or not?
Sitting posture behind the background of formless conciousness both happening simultaneously
Nithyam+ Sitting posture = Shapeless to Shape?
It is not Shapeless to shape
It is shape within the Shapeless or Shapeless within the shape
Swami for adiyen it is a true pleasure to discuss because devareer is very honest, innocent and spontaneous in replying that is really Brahmamness
Always want devareer asirvatham and love
Sorry if adiyen was wrong
adiyen
Srimathe Rangaramanuja Mahadesikaya Namaha
Deha AthmA Vivega gyAnam is to understand
“I am not the body”
Vivekam is to know break down that’s VishistAdvaita principle.
Don’t Madan Swamy knows he holds his body for time being in his lifetime?
That’s is Vivega gyAnam. Was body completely ruled out from the picture? Are you not with body right now?
Dasanudasan
- Liked by
Srimathe Rangaramanuja Mahadesikaya Namaha
Advaiti tried to prove
Lower -> Higher
Bedham -> Abedham
It is wrong. Everybody in this forum insisting to prove me wrong not the interpretation of the philosophy
Dasanudasan
- Liked by
“Shapeless does NOT become Shape” is obviously wrong.”
Is it so?
Please ask Sri Velukkudi Krishnan Swamy,
Is samAdhi Sthithi a formless state?
Did Dhruva see the photo of Sriman Narayanan before starting meditation?
Dasanudasan
- Liked by
Krishna gave saree to Draupathi
In video the saree coming from nowhere
So it was not coming from Krishna?
Dasanudasan
Srimathe Rangaramanuja Mahadesikaya Namaha
Swamy,
Again you are getting it wrong.
Why formless is to be considered Krishnan?
It could be me also correct?
I am telling , I only gave saree not Krishna.
In Srimad BhAgavatham
Why Sukhar asked Parikshit to realise Vishnu as 14 lokAs?
While failing to comprehend , Parikshit was asked to look at little Krishna
Why didin’t Sukhar ask for “formless dhyAnam”?
Please show me one statement where formless dhyAnam was recommended?
Adiyen is interested to know.
Also why Sriman Narayanan took pain in bringing Garuda while saving Gajendran?
Formless means Shiva will claim. In fact Shiva stepped aside in Gajendra Moksham.
Why Akhila kAraNan came in a specific form?
Dasanudasan
Got it Swami
adiyen respect devareer belief
But see what you have told
I am telling , I only gave saree not Krishna.
“I” only gave saree not Krishna
what about
I in the form of Krishna gave the saree
That is what all about
I and KRISHNA are inseparable
Advaita and Vishita Advaita are inseparable
It is matter of choice made by Brahmam for different perspective of manifestation
There is no need tell that one is true and other false
Or superior or inferior
Correct or wrong
Won or defeated
etc
There cannot be anything called as formless dhyanam
As dhyanam is itself formless manifestation of form
Again adiyen respect devareer belief its all part of the game Swami
Srimathe Rangaramanuja Mahadesikaya Namaha
“I” only gave saree not Krishna
what about
I in the form of Krishna gave the saree
I am never Krishna.
Krishna is I.
Adiyen not telling , Thathparya Chandrika says that.
Even in Moksham I can never become Krishna. Govindan gives equal status.
Krishna Premi Anna says:
Don’t think everything as Krishna
Think Krishna as everything
So perception matters.
Dasanudasan
Srimathe Rangaramanuja Mahadesikaya Namaha
NammAzhWAr can think
” Unnum.shoru
Parugum neer
Thinnum vetrilai
EllAm KaNNaNEy”
That is why he is AzhwAr. He is engrossed into Krishna & able to see everything as Krishna.
For starters, Krishna as everything will be good lesson because we might get that “I” ahambAvam when thinking “I” as Krishna
VAsudEva Sarvam
Not
Sarvam VAsuDEvan (it’s difficult to grasp when Bedha is in place)
I am never God
Adiyen respect Devareer’s opinion too
Shubhamasthu
Dasanudasan
- Liked by
YOUR PREVIEW
0
0