Guest guest Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 Do all other (non Vaishnava) sects of Hinduism claim that God's personal form (as Shiva, Shakti, Surya, Ganesh or Skanda) is only a Mayic illusion, which veils 'His' formless reality as the impersonal Brahman? Are they therefore atheists? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 Do all other (non Vaishnava) sects of Hinduism claim that God's personal form (as Shiva, Shakti, Surya, Ganesh or Skanda) is only a Mayic illusion, which veils 'His' formless reality as the impersonal Brahman?Are they therefore atheists? They're not atheists. Fools like to call them atheists, but really they're not. After all, they still recognize God, Brahman to be the source of intelligence, that the universe itself came out of something, that there's a purpose for everything. Just because God supposedly has no qualities (I actually think of it as this way, which makes much more sense: God has EVERY quality, and thus is undefinable because He is the repository of every quality), doesn't mean believing in this is considered atheism. Atheism is belief in NO God, no superior intelligence, etc. That is not what impersonalists believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 Exactly how can they be atheists? Impersonalists believe in God but a formless impersonal God. Atheists do not believe in God at all in any way or form. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 They are not atheists, they are monists! There is a big difference. Atheists do not believe in any supernal intelligience, or Supreme Self. Atheists believe that everything rises and exists because of chemical reactions and natural forces, apart from any supernatural entity or Divine Mind that exists beyond the material universe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renuka Posted July 14, 2006 Report Share Posted July 14, 2006 Nevertheless, in the end the impersonalist concludes that he is that impersonal God. If this is not atheism, what else is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaea Posted July 14, 2006 Report Share Posted July 14, 2006 Nevertheless, in the end the impersonalist concludes that he is that impersonal God. If this is not atheism, what else is it? errr. It's theism. Believing in Brahman and mergence is a bona fide path. It might not be like honey for you, but accroding to spiritual level and karmic consequence, people are brought up in this discipline. When they get as "high" as Personalists, they will see the Dvaitya path. It's natural progression. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2006 Report Share Posted July 14, 2006 I think the personalists have a prejudice against impersonalists. They believe you can only believe that God is personal and has form and to them any other view of God cannot be true. Maybe they just can't grasp the idea of God the impersonalists have. Funnily enough as Dvaitists believe advaitists have to come up to their level and become dvaitists, the Advaitists believe the Dvaitists have still to progress to the higher level of Advaita before they merge with Brahman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2006 Report Share Posted July 14, 2006 I think the personalists have a prejudice against impersonalists. They believe you can only believe that God is personal and has form and to them any other view of God cannot be true. Maybe they just can't grasp the idea of God the impersonalists have. Funnily enough as Dvaitists believe advaitists have to come up to their level and become dvaitists, the Advaitists believe the Dvaitists have still to progress to the higher level of Advaita before they merge with Brahman. And the funny thing is the people who claim to have all these idols to be their gods and ridicule people who question their existence havent seen or havent been able to show any meaningful,scientific proof that they exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2006 Report Share Posted July 14, 2006 I think the personalists have a prejudice against impersonalists. They believe you can only believe that God is personal and has form and to them any other view of God cannot be true. Maybe they just can't grasp the idea of God the impersonalists have. Funnily enough as Dvaitists believe advaitists have to come up to their level and become dvaitists, the Advaitists believe the Dvaitists have still to progress to the higher level of Advaita before they merge with Brahman. Advaitists do not believe they merge with Brahman, they believe they Realize they are That. Merging implies duality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2006 Report Share Posted July 15, 2006 Advaitists do not believe they merge with Brahman, they believe they Realize they are That. Merging implies duality. noe necessarily. Some i not all Advaitists believe their duality is temorary. And some believe that you are simulataneously one and different at all times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renuka Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 Advaitists do not believe they merge with Brahman, they believe they Realize they are That. Merging implies duality. Well said. Believing that God has an impersonal feature also is good. But to think that that impersonal is feature is ultimtely 'I' is not impersonalism but atheism. Obvoiusly you are negating the existance of God here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renuka Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 noe necessarily. Some i not all Advaitists believe their duality is temorary. And some believe that you are simulataneously one and different at all times. This simultaneously one and different philosophy is called acintya bheda abheda tattva. Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu taught his school of philosophy and Sri Chaitanya is neither an impersonalist nor an atheist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 Well said. Believing that God has an impersonal feature also is good. But to think that that impersonal is feature is ultimtely 'I' is not impersonalism but atheism. Obvoiusly you are negating the existance of God here. Atheism means that there is no Higher Power or spiritual Being. Atheists do not follow or practice any spiritual teachings like Advaita. Atheists believe in the natural world only. Advaitins teach that God is Real, and is the Supreme Self of all. They do not teach the natural world is all that is, rather they teach it is Illusion and the Unmanifest Spiritual world (which atheists deny exist). To Call Advaita atheists is insulting. To disagree with them is fine, but to throw false labels on them is offensive and does nothing for real dialogue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 The onus is on those to prove its existance who say something exist in this case Krsna or Aswathama(who they claim still lives) and not those who say it doesnt exist.So Aethist can never be defeated because Theism can never win with fantasies that carry no proof whatsoever.Forget about defeating Aethist when all u got is story after story glorifying each others gods and living in fantasy world and imaging places like GOLOKA,Swarga(with Ramba and Urvasi dancing for u once u get there),Kailasa,Heaven,Hell etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renuka Posted July 19, 2006 Report Share Posted July 19, 2006 Atheism means that there is no Higher Power or spiritual Being. Atheists do not follow or practice any spiritual teachings like Advaita. Atheists believe in the natural world only. Advaitins teach that God is Real, and is the Supreme Self of all. They do not teach the natural world is all that is, rather they teach it is Illusion and the Unmanifest Spiritual world (which atheists deny exist). To Call Advaita atheists is insulting. To disagree with them is fine, but to throw false labels on them is offensive and does nothing for real dialogue. Ok. Let us take your definition of atheism. 'atheism means that there is no Higher Power or spiritual Being.' An impersonalist in the initial stages recognises 'that God is Real, and is the Supreme Self of all'. BUt in their so called advanced stages they conclude that the Supreme and you are the same. you are merged. so you have become God. No difference between you and God. so you are God. No one above you. This is covered atheism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaea Posted July 19, 2006 Report Share Posted July 19, 2006 This is covered atheism. How? They are saying all that there is is God and ONLY God - no second, no jivas. There is only a High Power (not Higher, because there is nothing to be higher against) - or just a Power. This covers Theism, not atheism. It is not even veiled atheism because in atheism there is no Power whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renuka Posted July 20, 2006 Report Share Posted July 20, 2006 How? They are saying all that there is is God and ONLY God - no second, no jivas. There is only a High Power (not Higher, because there is nothing to be higher against) - or just a Power. This covers Theism, not atheism. It is not even veiled atheism because in atheism there is no Power whatsoever. 'Transference of the atomic individual soul to another body is made possible by the grace of the Supersoul. The Supersoul fulfills the desire of the atomic soul as one friend fulfills the desire of another. The Vedas, like the Mundaka Upanishad, as well as the Shvetasvatara Upanishad, compare the soul and the Supersoul to two friendly birds sitting on the same tree. One of the birds (the individual atomic soul) is eating the fruit of the tree, and the other bird (Krishna) is simply watching His friend. Of these two birds—although they are the same in quality—one is captivated by the fruits of the material tree, while the other is simply witnessing the activities of His friend. Krishna is the witnessing bird, and Arjuna is the eating bird. Although they are friends, one is still the master and the other is the servant. Forgetfulness of this relationship by the atomic soul is the cause of one’s changing his position from one tree to another, or from one body to another. The jiva soul is struggling very hard on the tree of the material body, but as soon as he agrees to accept the other bird as the supreme spiritual master—as Arjuna agreed to do by voluntary surrender unto Krishna for instruction—the subordinate bird immediately becomes free from all lamentations. Both the Mundaka Upanishad (3.1.2) and Shvetasvatara Upanishad (4.7) confirm this: samane vrkse purusho nimagno ’nisaya socati muhyamanah justam yada pasyaty anyam isam asya mahimanam iti vita-sokah “Although the two birds are in the same tree, the eating bird is fully engrossed with anxiety and moroseness as the enjoyer of the fruits of the tree. But if in some way or other he turns his face to his friend who is the Lord and knows His glories—at once the suffering bird becomes free from all anxieties.” Arjuna has now turned his face towards his eternal friend, Krishna, and is understanding the Bhagavad-gita from Him. And thus, hearing from Krishna, he can understand the supreme glories of the Lord and be free from lamentation.' BG Ch 2 Text 22 Purport by Srila Prabhupada. So there is a Supreme and a subordinate. THis is theism. Dictonary defines theism as 'Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world'. When you think I am a JIva created by Supreme, you will be called theistic, for you believe in God as a person who is the controler. But if you think there is Supreme and that is I, then this is in turn 'I am everything'. Obvoiusly there is no God according to you. You are He. So an entity called God is a non entity to you. Its just you all over. Ok if we consider your case for argument sake, tell me which Supreme power has put you into your present illusion in this material world? Right now all are suffering under Maya. So logically speaking Maya is more powerful than God(That is you). What God are you if Maya can put you in illusion? 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.