Alexey

maya makes you to sence in all the perspectives I visited the site to answer thread starter about Lord Shiva. Milk and youghurt cannot be used in the same manner. What did you find advaitian here? Milk is the substrate for youghurt. But not vice a versa. Mahadev is the Lord of Prakriti which is the operative cause of material world. He is God's Personality for material nature. Only God is able to control tamoguna (avidya) that forces all jivas to suffer by contacts with it. But the supreme nature of God's Personality is shuddha sattva. That is Narayana, Krishna, Vishnu etc. Please, remind the example according reach man and the house. Krishna has nothing to do with material nature at all. He just enjoys.

Would you please tell me what are Brahman an Maya actually? How do you distinguish them with Advaita vedanta?(see my post above). When we talk about illusion we assume some prior experience that recalls a form in the mind. Otherwise term is nothing. At least some experience needed to make consciousness operating images. Also experience needed to recognize tthe images. Even to fall into illusion you need to fail comparing the rope (real) with something other you directly or not contacted before. Moreover operating such objects in your analogies you deal with other illusionary forms of this world. So how is it possible to describe anything of another nature? Brahman is attributless but you call it a "rope" that could be looked like a snake because they both have something similar (e.g. flexy thin form and color),. If they have nothing similar we are not able to fall into illusion. If you assume that this similarity is Brahman substrate I would ask you why do you not look like me?

And whom do you consider to be a "real" vaisnava? Was Heliodorus (from yavana lands) or not? )I'm sure you well know whom Gautama (son of Haridrumata) considerd as brahmana (Chandogya Up., IV.4.1.4.). Best regards.

The rope that he sees is real and if he thinks it's a snake he is just in ignorance. Restricted sensor system leads such person to invalid conclusion. Does that mean that neither snakes exist nor ropes?! Moreover if the pain and the fear are the same mind experience why do we distinguish them?!

Dreams are effected by conditions of material body and mind. But not vise a versa. If someone really wants you to belive something, that is manifested forms of material world are illusion because they are asat (appeard once they dissapear then). But the are not illusion because someone calls them a product of individual consciousness influenced by avidya.

You still live in material world. )) I'm not an academic advaita resarcher but it is not the case to call me dropout. It is not very ethical. )) I respect Shankara for his monism doctrine. It is quite systematic. But some essential problems are: 1) Maya/avidya prevents us to realize the nature of of Brahman. But there's nothing beside pure Brahman. What is the source of maya? Brahman includes everything, there's nothing except it. Advaita is strong monism. 2) It is known that Brahman is homogeneous and atomic.Where does the avidya/maya comes from? It cannot be neither a part of Brahman nor something external to it. 3) When we are told that avidya is illusion, the question appears: why this so called "illisiuon" is so sensible for us? We have to feel the Brahman only, satam shanti. 4)karya-karana-abheda-vada The cause is not different from its effect. If it is true Brahman is avidya/maya. Because the material world is avidya/maya. And there's no other cause (primal and operative) of this material world except Brahman. I doubt that any advaitin will accept that Brahman and avydia is the same entity. 5) Hypothesis of identity of Brahman and avidya/maya is confirmed with the fact that Brahman is not sat nor asat, and avidya is nor sat nor asat also. However some abstract entity (or nothing) and other abstract entity (or nothing) can not be distinguished. Continuing such logical steps drive us to the derivation that we have no chances to find any differences between Brhaman and avidya/maya. Shankara had no audacity to define Brahman as total void (ultimate nothing) because in such case advaita vedanta would be the same as madhyama/shunyavada.

sad eva saumyedam agra AsId ekam evAdvitIyaM tad aikShata bahu syAm prajAyeya ["in the beginning was the Supreme, who was one without a second. He thought: Let me become many. Let me become the father of many"] (Chandogya Up. 6.2.1) And as stated above Krishna and Shiva ARE NOT the same. The topic is about Shiva tattva. The ultimate true is that God has personal and impersonal aspects at the same time! Otherwise He's not a God, the Whole being. Gaudia vaisnavas accept it as achintya bhedabheda tattva. And if you want to merge with Him He is not against your descision. He will let you to do it, because He is Ishwara. Vishnu, Krishna, Narayana is the Supreme Personality, param brahma purusha. And the taste of cooperation with Supreme Personality and devotion to Him is sacred and is the most attractive to the jiva that felt it once. p.s. Hmm. Advaita... Have you see anywhere smth. formless ? Illusion... I would to ask some advaitin to put his hand in a fire. Hope the pain will be illusionary, the game of the consciousness.

[ We do not speak about Brahma. He is a part of jiva tattva. So. If Shambhu is the supreme why did he lost his mind in desire when ran after Sri Mohini Murti? Why did Shiva run to Lord Vishnu being persecuted by Bhasmasura? Lord Vishnu is shuddha sattvic form of God's Personality.

Namaste all, As far as we can see such speculations on shruti oftenly drives us to the position we were before: each party holds on its own opinion. )) But who is Param Brahma Purusham, the Supreme Delighter? Let us consider a rich man who wants to build a large house according his delight. Will he build the house himself? Will this man destroy it himself on his delight when he wants to have a new one? Surely NO. But according his delight HE ENTERS the house HIMSELF to live in it. vishnu vishateh A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada states: "Similarly, by expanding Himself as Lord Shiva, the Supreme Lord is engaged when there is a need to annihilate the universe. Lord Shiva, in association with maya, has many forms, which are generally numbered at eleven. Lord Shiva is not one of the living entities; he is, more or less, Krishna Himself. The example of milk and yogurt is often given in this regard -- yogurt is a preparation of milk, but still yogurt cannot be used as milk. Similarly, Lord Shiva is an expansion of Krishna, but he cannot act as Krishna… The essential difference is that Lord Siva has a connection with material nature, but Vishnu or Lord Krishna has nothing to do with material nature." Regarding the incorectness of term demigod. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad used this greek-european word for devata/deva when he preached in the western countries. Hari Om Tat Sat