vrajavasi Posted May 29, 2006 Report Share Posted May 29, 2006 Radhe Krishna, Radhe Krishna, No way - that conclusion of three philosophies is voidism - see even within the quote at #23 above, it is clearly written that all the three basic philosophies teach that God is one and only one although there are differences as to its form. The one thing that I do which may be of common interest is that I recite Shrimad Bhagawatham and try to inculcate aatmagunaas filled in the life of the six goswami sishyaas of chaitanya mahaprabhu and great saints like kabir, rahim, raskaan, latif, eknaath, thukaraam, raidas. Radhe Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhava dasa Posted May 29, 2006 Report Share Posted May 29, 2006 ...all the three basic philosophies teach that God is one and only one although there are differences as to its form. I've been trying to follow what you mean through your various posts, but it's still unclear to me. Are you saying that God is "oneness" appearing differently like clay pots ("its form") containing air, or are are you saying that God (the Supreme Person) is the same in each case appearing differently for His various pastimes, or...what? I may be wrong, but is sounds like Mayavada philosophy to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vrajavasi Posted May 29, 2006 Report Share Posted May 29, 2006 Radhe Krishna, I was referring to Advaita, visishtadvaita and dvaita as they were preached by the siddhantha pravarthakas. However let me explain the things in detail in a next post Radhe Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vrajavasi Posted May 29, 2006 Report Share Posted May 29, 2006 Radhe Krishna, Bhava dasa, Radhe Krishna, You are not getting clarity since you are mixing two different issues. One issue is oneness of brahmam. Another issue is differences in the way brahmam is perceived by different schools of philosophy. If you see the issues without tainted glasses in a way as the philosophies were propagated by the achaaryaas of the respectve philosophies rather than from the view points of interpretation of philosophers from a counter school, you can better appreciate the facts as they are. Since I am basically preoccupied in the study of Shrimad Bhagawatham, I can not and do not wish to go to the depth of different philosophies. But basic understanding of the philosophies would surely reveal the fact that god is one and only one. Advaita, visishtadvaita and davita agree in one aspect that brahmam is one and only one and it is sath, chith and ananda. Then what is the difference. It is in its form. Advaita says it is nirguna and niraakara Visishtadvaita and dvaita says Shri Vishnu is the brahmam and he is an emobiment of anantha kalyaana gunaas. Visishtadvaita is explained also as visesha advaita. Meaning here also they agree to oneness of brahmam but define it with anantha kalyaana gunaas. The jeeva would attain saalokya, saameepya, saaroopya and saayujya according to his maturity of bhakthi. It is said that a shrivaishnava would get the same roopa of Mahavishnu with all his prabhava with a difference of two things. Lakshmipathithvam and srushti karthruthvam. In dvaita the difference between brahmam and jeeva is very much pronounced. Even Mahalakshmi is placed one among the jeevakotis. From the above, you can appreciate that the tatva which is defined and referred as brahmam is supreme and it is one and only one in all the three basic schools of philosophy. God in English language refers to the one who is supreme. He is singular and can not be plural. So whenever God has to be referred in Sanaathana Dharma it should be in singular if it is according to scriptures. The one aspect which was propagated in advaita whch irates the people belonging to Visishtadvaita and dvaita is about the position of Lord Vishnu. In Advaita Lord Vishnu is also counted one among the devatha ganam. It means he is also included in the circle of perishability. This view point was put forth by shankaraacharya not as a general argument but with shroutha smartha pramaanas - This would be appreciated by people who go through the shankara bhashya on prasthaanathraya although from the same shroutha smartha pramaanas the issue has been countered by acharyaas and vidwans dispassionately. Advaita is what is propagated and understood by his followers in the same way visishtdvaita is what is propagated and understood by the followers of Raamanujacharya. A person who does not like these philosophies fall in two categories. One who does not agree with the philosophy and put forth counter arguments from shruthis and smruthis in a dispassionate way keeping both the philosophies as it is as they were propogated by the achaaryas. Another category is of those people whose dislike of philosophy motivates them in such a manner to altogether change the contents of the philosophy itself according to their perceptions and altogether give a different name to the philosophy according to their perceptions. The first category of person is a vidwan who study both the philosophies thoroughly and have his strong conviction in one of the philosophies. The second category of person is half educated personality whose prime concern is to remain in limelight and in his heart of hearts he has conviction for none of the philosophies. This category of people would be found in every spectrum. Those who do not like advaita rather than putting putting forth shroutha smartha pramaanaas name it mayaavaada or atheist. Similar nature of people are there in the spectrum of advaita also. These people refer bhakthi as “Emotional weakness”, This misinterpretation is also one which emanates from dislike and without any basis. Because Bhakthi is a phenomenon which is beyond emotions. Bhakthi starts from a point where emotions end and it is a phenomenon which is not perceived through paancha bhoutika sharira. But the beauty of nature is people who are sincerely adhering to their own philosophies would continue to do so and progress in their respective spectrums and people who make baseless arguments would also continue to do so. Then what a sincere person should do. To understand and appreciate any philosophy go to its source and understand the things impassionately. Above, whatever I have said about advaita almost everybody would agree with that. But if whatever I have said about visishtadvaita or dvaita is wrong I need correction to my knowledge and I always welcome that if I get that correction if it is from those who are followers of these achaaryas . Radhe Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhava dasa Posted May 29, 2006 Report Share Posted May 29, 2006 Hare Krsna vrajavasi, Thank you for your reply (#29). If I understand correctly, you are not necessarily promoting any one of the philosophies in particular, but rather, from an academic perspective, stating their similarities. I'm curious...which do you maintain? Also, who do you accept as the topmost Supreme Person--Visnu, Krsna, or? Or, do you accept the impersonal Brahman as the highest truth from which the incarnations spring? Hare Krsna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhava dasa Posted May 29, 2006 Report Share Posted May 29, 2006 ...to its form. Hare Krsna, I addressed this reference of yours in post #27. I'm curious as to why you use it? Usually a personalist doesn't refer to his worshipful Lord as "it". In the case of one who is in "awe and reverence", or vaidhi, this reference would not have been used for fear of disrespect. And in the case of one who has developed a more intimate relationship, he also would most likely not have used it, out of a sense of "objectifying" the subject of his emotional repose. If it is not one of the two above mentioned cases, then we're left with the impression that either you don't accept the Absolute as a person, or it was simply an oversight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2006 Report Share Posted May 30, 2006 Hare Krishna! I have noticed that no one as far as I know worships brahma. Why is that? Anyone able to shed light on this? Dear Mohankrishna, I went over 10-15 of replies and found no answer to this :-) So, I decided to answer this. One of the explanations is as below: (I hope you read it among 100s of Hare Krishna replies :-) ) Once Vishnu and Brahma had a quarrel on who was the greatest. As they quarreled they forgot about Shiva, who transcends them (brahma vishnu rudram bhagavantam shivam). As they quarrelled, a big pillar of fire, red in color appeared. A divine voice told them that one who sees the feet of the pillar or the top is the greatest. Sri Vishnu took the form of the boar (varaha) and started digging while Brahma took off on his swan to the top. Vishnu tried very hard but could not reach the bottom and finally gave up. Meanwhile He realized that He was not the greatest since He was trounced by the red pillar. But, on the ascent, Brahma saw a flower falling (called thaazham poo in tamil). He asked the flower where it came from - The flower replied that it came from the top. Brahma asked the flower to lie that He himself had picked it up from the top. So, Brahma met Vishnu and told Vishnu that He was the greatest. That time Shiva appeared from the pillar and was furious with Brahma. He banished that no one worship Brahma anywhere and banished the flower from Shiva puja since it was an accomplice. He embraced Sri Vishnu. Both Vishnu and Brahma realized who was the greatest. This is the tale behind why there is no Brahma worship anywhere in India. ISKCON guys would say Brahma was the son of Vishnu, and Shiva was the son of Brahma and someone else is the granddaughter of someone else (lol). Sri Arunachala, is the place where the pillar of light condensed. This is considered one of the holiest places in the universe. Sri Ramana Maharshi stayed there from the age of 13. This place is a spiritual magnet even for Sri Vaishnavas (or anyone who is spiritually inclined). (Mohan Krishna, you'll have to thank me for this answer :-) .. you'd never have got a reply if I hadnt chanced upon this website yesterday.. you always get the same answer for any question here.. and everyone seems to be happy with the same answer. If you dont believe me try asking any question, may be in a different name ... ) I am off before I get terms like 'rascal' and 'mayavadi' (since I am a follower of teachings of Sri Sankaracharya) are huled at me by Holy Dwaitins :-) Sriram Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vrajavasi Posted May 30, 2006 Report Share Posted May 30, 2006 Radhe Krishna, Bhavadasa, Radhe Krishna, From whatever philosophy you look at brahmam, it is omnpresent. Never ever think that to refer brahmam by "it" indicates disrespect. never think that people while referrng brahmam by "it" mean any disrespect for brahmam. Poornamidaha poornamidam poornath poornamudachyate By referring it in any way you can not add reverence to it or reduce any reverence to it. Yes I was telling that it is omnipresent. As per visishtadvaita siddhantha every shabdha in amarakosha ultimately refers to Lord vishnu. That includes the word "IT" also. There can not be a word which could be away from the supreme. No philosophy for that matter needs any promotion. These philosophies were not as such propogated by any ordinary person but by liberated souls. Not only the three basic philosophy but any well established philosophy for that matter was enunciated by well intended noble souls which do not require any promotion. I am from a smartha family which adhers to the philosophy of advaita. I think you were very particular about the source of my knowledge. This is my source. ok. well. to be an advaitin does not necessarily mean that one can not be a bhaktha. There are shiva bhakthas, vishnu bhakthas, devi bhakthas, skanda bhakthas, ganesha bhakthas in this tradition. And in the same family there can be people doing different upaasana with indepth dedication by sharing each others experience. Me an ardent devotee of Radha krishna yugalam. Don't know how many times I have passionately recited Shrimad Bhagawatham and how many times I have heard kaalakshepam of Shrimad Bhagawatham from noble souls belonging to all the three sampradaayaas. I have read chaitanya charitaavali of prabhudatta brahmachaari many times and gone through many of the works of all the six goswamy sishyaas of chaitanya mahaprabhu. And to be an advaitin necessarily mean that we accept the formless brahmam. But this does not come in the way of my krishna bhakthi. While reciting Shrimad Bhagawatham or engaging in krishna nama sankeerthanam, we never think of the adviteeya vasthu which is formless. There are adhikaari for each and every thing. Everybody can not become Shri Ramana maharishi or Seshadri Swami or Shukaacharya or Jadabharatha by a fraction of a second. It is a process. While in Krishna Bhakthi, we never ever think of anything else. Only Radhakrishna yugalam. Even we do not have sampradaayaa or language barriers in pursuit of our krishna bhakthi. we read and sing compositions of Nivruthi, namadeva, sopana, mukthabai, Gnyana deva, eknath, thukaram, sena nai of Vaarakari sampradaaya, The ashtadaasa of Maadhva sampradaaya, Divya prabandha of Shri vaishnava sampradaaya, Thyagaraja, annamaacharya, bhadhraachala ramadaasa in telugu all belonging to different sampradaayas, Naarayana bhattadhri, poondaanam, bilvamangala, manjula and many other bhakthas who were devoted to Guruvayoorappan the baby krishna of guruvayoor in kerala, the char sampradaaya of vraja and compositions of ashtachaap kavi of vraja, kabir, kamal, rahim, raskan, latif - above all the Geetha govinda of Jayadeva, Laghu Bhagavatha kathamrtham, Brhad Bhagawatha Kathamrutham, Bhakthi rasaamrutha sindhu, Radha rasa sudhanidhi, Hari Bhakthi vilaasam, Gopala Champu and many granthaas of the six goswami sishyaas of chaitany mahaprabhu - everything is nectar to us. By going through all these compositions we never think that we would be away from advaita or while engaging in the bhakthi we never think of adviteeya brahma vasthu. From all the above mentioned personalities what we try to inculcate is their aatmagunaas. By philosophy you can become knowledgeable. that may help you to participate in debates and win them but that would not help you to dwell in radha krishna bhakthi. I am not meaning you or x or y or z. At every spectrum there are people who are very much interested in philosophy rather than practice. This too I am not mentioning as a dosha. It is a ruchi which is again god given. Those who have ruchi for philosophy would have ruchi for that irrespective of the philosophy they adher to. Those who have ruchi for radha krishna bhakthi have ruchi for that. The former would search for his ruchi and the latter his. As far as worship of brahma is concerned, Smartha, Shrivaishnava and maadhva sampradaayis worship brahma - or you can say pay obeisances to brahma in the performance of their nithya naimithika karmas. ok Radhe krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamalasana Das Posted June 10, 2006 Report Share Posted June 10, 2006 i think that the source is that One that most be seen and burn in Him. (The theme inhere is Brahma's Worship.) how goes that quote, ----filosofy without religion is mental speculation, and religion without filosofy is sentiemtalism.---. Yeah. Thank you, passsing by. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2006 Report Share Posted June 10, 2006 Hare Krsna mahakala, Before I reply to your questions above, it would be helpful to know if you are a member of ISKCON, or another branch of the Gaudiya tree? It is question regarding the authority of guru and his statements. As for myself, I am a member of ISKCON. I am not a member of any religious organisation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2006 Report Share Posted June 10, 2006 wow, I did not know that Saraswati was Lord Brahma's daughter. Who was his main consort before Saraswati? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhava dasa Posted June 10, 2006 Report Share Posted June 10, 2006 Hare Krsna mahakala, Before I reply to your questions above, it would be helpful to know if you are a member of ISKCON, or another branch of the Gaudiya tree? It is question regarding the authority of guru and his statements. As for myself, I am a member of ISKCON. I am not a member of any religious organisation. Someone has signed in as mahakala ("Maha_kala"), and has misquoted me, by adding the last sentence, "I am not a member of any religious organisation". I find this offensive to ISKCON, and have reported it the board Admin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin5 Posted June 10, 2006 Report Share Posted June 10, 2006 To Bhava dasa regarding your post #37. In your post (#21) you asked him (Maha_kala) if he was a member of Iskcon. Hare Krsna mahakala, Before I reply to your questions above, it would be helpful to know if you are a member of ISKCON, or another branch of the Gaudiya tree? It is question regarding the authority of guru and his statements. As for myself, I am a member of ISKCON. Possibly he (Maha_kala) does not know how to insert your quote into his post (#35), in which he was replying to you, that HE "was not a member of any spiritual orginization", and as such it looks as if his reply ( "I am not a member of any spiritual organization") was part you your original post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhava dasa Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 To Bhava dasa regarding your post #37. In your post (#21) you asked him (Maha_kala) if he was a member of Iskcon. Possibly he (Maha_kala) does not know how to insert your quote into his post (#35), in which he was replying to you, that HE "was not a member of any spiritual orginization", and as such it looks as if his reply ( "I am not a member of any spiritual organization") was part you your original post. I can accept that. Thank you for taking the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bhava dasa Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 I am not a member of any religious organisation. Then whose authority do you accept? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mahakala Posted June 11, 2006 Report Share Posted June 11, 2006 bhava dasa wrote Then whose authority do you accept? I am just asking for clarifation on what I have read from various web sites i.e a) Lord Brahma being a guna avatara b) Lord Brahma is the head of th Brahma Gaudiya sampradaya and c) The illusion of Lord Brahma as narrated in Srimad Bhagavatam My queries a) why Lord Brahma is not properly accorded the status befitting that of a Sampradaya founder? b) Why Lord Brahma (but Radha is) isn't the mediatrix in the Brahma Gaudiya sampradaya ? b) Can a Guru who is subject to illusion be fit to be a founder of a sampradaya ? The issue is not on whose authority I accept, as long as I get a logical reply to my queries Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.