Sankaracharya Vs. Ramanuj

[Guest guest]

' Ishwar is a manifestation of Brahman (the ultimate reality)'

 

Hey guys, coming from a Ramanuj acharaya 's sampradaya, i have always believed that there is Naryan from whom EVERYTHING comes. There is nothing beyond this personal GOD, who has divine attributes with a divine body resifding in a divine dham. Sankaracharya proposes that this pesonal GOD comes from a divine conciousness, which i find difficult to comprehend.

 

I am British (of Indian origin) and can not read/write sanskrit and therfore can not actually go and read what is written in the Upnishads. But there are lot of fellow devotees on this forum who have read these Upanishads. What are your views on this matter?

 

Can there really be nothing beyond just divine conciousness?

 

regards,

Praveen

[Puru Das, das anudas]

One of the most comprehensive books about Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu in the English language, is found here:

http://bvml.org/contemporary/TCATOTSLSKC/index.html

 

Sri Narayan Das Bhakti Sadhukar

[Professor Nishi Kanta Sanyal, M. A.] published this work in 1932

The forward was written By

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarsavti Thakura,

 

http://bvml.org/contemporary/TCATOTSLSKC/00_for.html

 

SREE KRISHNA-CHAITANYA MATH,

BRINDABAN, ffice:smarttags" /><?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comMUTTRA</st1:place>.

CAMP:OFFICE OF' THE CIRCUMAMBULATION SIDDHANTA SARASWATI

OF THE CIRCLE OF BRAJA, <st1:place>MUTTRA</st1:place> (U.P.) <st1:date Year="1932" Day="24" Month="11">24th Nov., 1932</st1:date>

 

 

Chapter VII of the introductory sections

 

http://bvml.org/contemporary/TCATOTSLSKC/00intro7.html

 

has the clearest and most concise explanation of the four Sampradaya Acaryas and their philosophies that I have ever come upon. Here is a short excerpt:

 

"The four communities (sampradayas) of the Iron Age are connected with the ancient times by their recognition of the ulterior authority of the eternal ancient teachers, viz, Lakshmi, Brahma, Rudra and the four Sanas (chatuhsanah), respectively. The four Founder-Acharyas of the Iron Age professed to preach the views of those original teachers of the religion. Sree Rudra is the source of the teaching of Sree Vishnuswami; Sanaka, Sanatana, Sananda, Sanat Kumara, that of Sree Nimbarka Swami, Sree Lakshmidevi that of Sree Ramanuja Swami and the four-faced Brahma that of Madhva Swami, in the Iron Age. The original pre-historic teachers, who are the ultimate source of the four communities, in the chronological order of their appearance, are (1) Lakshmi, the eternal and inseparable Consort of Vishnu, (2 Brahma sprung from the navel-lotus of Garbhodasayi Vishnu, (3) Rudra sprung from the second Purusha, and (4) the four Sanas who are the sons of Brahma born from the mind. The chronological order of the Acharyas of the Iron Age is (1) Sree Vishnuswami, (2) Sree Nimbaditya, (3) Sree Ramanuja, and (4) Sree Madhva. . ."

 

Regarding Ramanujacarya;

 

"Sree Ramanuja

 

Sree Ramanuja made his appearance in the year 938 of the Saka era in the village of Sriparambattur or Sree Mahabhutapuri about twenty-six miles to the west of Madras, in the family of a Dravida Brahmana. His name, before he became an ascetic of the triple staff (tridandi sannyasin), as Lakshmana. Lakshmana Desika accepted renunciation (sannyasa) on the bank of Anantasar at Conjeeveram invoking grace of Sree Yamunacharya. He soon became the head of the Sree community (sampradaya) , which had its headquarters at Sree Rangam. He travelled all over India visiting Kashmir, Benares, Puri, etc., and established the pancharatrika view(the system of fivefold knowledge) at all the important centers of religion. We do not intend to enter further into the details of his wonderful career at this place.

Sree Ramanuja is the author of numerous works, the chief of which are Vedanta-sara, Vedanta-dipa, Vedartha -samgraha, Geeta Bhashya, Sree Bhashya, etc.

In the Ramanuja community every one is required to undergo purification by the method of the fivefold purificatory process (pancha-samskara). Even a high-born Brahmana, according to the Ramanujis, who has not gone through the above purificatory process, is as much an untouchable as the lowest of the Chandalas, and a Chandala sopurified is held to possess the highest sanctity. In the Ramanuja community Vishnu is exclusively worshipped and the worship of all other gods is absolutely forbidden. In this community there is also the institution of renunciation of the triple staff (tridanda sannyasa).

Sree Ramanuja is the propounder of the view which is known as Distinctive Monotheism (Vishishtadvaitavada). This view is formally established scripturally in his commentary on the Brahma sutra known as Sree Bhashya. The system of Sree Ramanuja may be set forth as follows: The Nature of the Supreme Brahman is unitary. Brahman who is without a second is, however, possessed of quality. The cognitive principle (chit) and the principle of nescience (achit) are His quality and body. The cognitive principle (chit) and nescience (achit) are each of them of two kinds according as they happen to be either gross or subtle. The subtle cognitive (chit) and non-cognitive principle (achit), in the causal state, are transformed into the gross cognition and non-cognition as effect. Brahman Who is non-bifurcial knowledge being the sole Cause, both efficient and material, there exist in Him qualities corresponding to such activities. The qualities must be considered as qualifying the possessor of them. Therefore, self-consciousness (chit) and unconsciousness (achit) are the qualities corresponding to the activities of Brahman asthe Cause. The body is dependent on, is enjoyed and regulated by, its possessor and is also that by which the latter is known. Self-consciousness and unconsciousness depend upon, are enjoyed and regulated by, non-bifurcial Brahman, and, as effect, are the manifestations of Brahman as Cause. There is no such difference in the individual (jiva) soul as deva, man, etc. It is the soul obtaining enjoyable bodies, as the appropriate result of his own activities, that makes the effect known in terms of such bodies. Therefore, devas, men, etc., are only indications of different activities of the soul. The bodies such as those of devas, men, etc., are thus modifications or qualities of the soul. The relation in which the body stands to the individual (jiva) soul is also that in which the individual (jiva) soul stands to the Supreme Soul. In Distinctive Non-dualism three categories are admitted, viz., ( 1 ) the self-conscious principle (chit) which means the individual (jiva), (2) the non-conscious principle (achit) or matter, and (3) Godhead (Iswara), the Regulator of spirit (chit) and matter (achit), Who is the highest Personality of Narayana. This view categorically denies the following: Absolute dualism (kevala-dvaita-vada), absolute non-dualism (kevala-advaita-vada) and attributive dualistic non-dualism (vishista-dvaita-advaita-vada) .

The self-conscious principle (chit) orindividual (jiva) soul is infinitesimal (anu) asopposed to the greatness of Brahman and is an integral part (amsa) of the Integer (amsi) or Possessor of the part, viz., the Brahman. This littleness of the individual (jiva) soul is directly and explicitly stated in the Scriptures as his specific characteristic. It is an integral part of Brahman, just as his body is an integral part of the individual soul or as His glow is an integral part or quality of the fire or the Sun; or as the quality is an integral part of the substance. The individual soul is of three kinds, viz., (1) bound (baddha), (2) emancipated (mukta), and (3) eternal (nitya). His proper nature is existence and bliss and he is cognisable to himself.

As regards the non-conscious (achit), according to Ramanuja it is devoid of cognition and liable to transformation. It is of three kinds, viz., (1) pure, e.g., objects in Vaikuntha, (2) mixed, i.e., constituted of the triple mundane qualities, and (3) insubstantial or time.

Sree Narayana is Godhead. He is distinct from the principle of consciousness (chit) and non-consciousness (achit) as substance from quality. He is the only cause of the origin, continuance and destruction of the spiritual (chit) and material (achit) worlds and of cessation of the cycle of births. He is free from every imperfection, full of infinite beneficent qualities, the soul of all, the transcendental Brahman, the transcendental Light, the transcendental Entity, the Supreme Soul, the only Subject of all Scriptures and the Guide of all hearts. The nature of Godhead is fivefold, ,viz., (1) the ultimate Reality (para tattva), (2) the principle of expansion (byuha tattva) for creation, maintenance, destruction, for protecting the bound jivas and showing His mercy to worshippers, as Samkarsana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha, (3) the principle of the origination of any state (bibhava tattva),viz, Avataras like Rama, Nrisinha, etc., (4) the inner Guide (antaryami tattva) as (a) the Supreme Soul Who dwells in the hearts of His servants, and as (b) Narayana with Lakshmi residing in the hearts of enlightened persons, (5) the principle of symbolic manifestation (archa avatara) as Conglomerate Embodiment (Sree Vigraha), Name, Form, etc., worshipped by His servants in accordance with their respective aptitudes. He seems as if ignorant although All-knowing, as if powerless although All-powerful, as if needing help although His wish is ever fully realized, as if needing protection although the Protector, and as if serving His devotees although their Master.

Devotion is the proper method of worshipping Godhead, is extremely pleasing, the only thing needful and is of the nature of a particular kind of knowledge which produces a distaste for every other thing. Godhead is attainable by the soul imbued with devotion. . . ."

[theist]

 

Can there really be nothing beyond just divine conciousness?

 

Nothing beyond Divine Consciousness sounds good but I like the Vaisnava angle on this, which is, as I understand it; There is nothing beyond the Divinely Conscious One.

 

Afterall what is the meaning of divine consciousness apart from the one whose consciousness that is?

 

The mayavadi's assertion and vision of mukti is one of UNconsciousness and not divine consciousness at all.

 

They are not much different than the Buddhist's really. One says you are nothing and the other says you are everything which amounts to nothing because there is nothing to be conscious of if you are everything.

 

That means both groups totally ignore Narayana, Who Himself is everything and yet simulataneously always independent, and one step beyond being everything. Just being everything is a limitation the mayavadi's try to impose on Narayana.

 

The Lord is more than everything, He is Krsna. The Supreme Object of Love as well as the Supreme Lover.

 

Vaisnavas consider the impersonal conclusions of the Buddhists and Sankarites as morbid and another form of hell. They both are actually driven by a death wish as a way to escape samsara.

 

I am sticking with hearing from the Vaisnavas no matter how many births it takes me to reach love for God. I want to live eternally and not be eternally dead. I want that eternal life to be filled with knowledge and bliss and ever new and expanding realizations of the Divinely Conscious One. I want to know love and be loved. Not just as a salve to temporarily ease the pain of samsara but as a transcendental experience that stands on it's own merit.

 

Only Vaisnavism offers this and I see no reason not to try for the highest no matter how long it takes. Who could ever be satisfied with nonbeing.

 

Please don't be seduced by the mayabadi word juggelry. Stick with Ramanujacarya. He will see you safely to your highest destination.

[brajeshwara das]

Who would ever consider the suicidal sane?

[theist]

 

Who would ever consider the suicidal sane?

Indeed. Only other death-wishers would follow their path. We are life-wishers and thereore must follow the ways of Life as our path, illuminated by the Living through their transcendental teachings.

[Guest guest]

Theist,

 

I agree with you exactly. For eternity i want to meditate on the divine feet of the lord, look at the divine smile of the lord and have this etense love for the Lord. If this state is inferior to the 'only concious state', then i'm afraid the mayavadi's philosophy does not lead to supreme bliss.

[theist]

:D:D

 

I hear you brother soul. Perhaps one day we will meet on the eternal side dancing playing and worshipping the Lord together.

 

Our other brothers and sisters who are presently caught up in the mukti bhukti cycle will also one day join us when they become dissatisfied with the loneliness of sayuja-mukti and turn to Krsna. The necessity for an eternal loving relationship with the Lord as the only position that can satisfy the soul is there inherent in every living being. IT MUST COME FORTH eventually.

 

I am sure most of us went through similar illusions in this life or past ones so we can empathize with the mayavadi's and wish them well but now that we are past that stage we cannot look back or linger with that philosophy for a moment more. We must press forward in bhakti.

[bija]

 

I agree with you exactly. For eternity i want to meditate on the divine feet of the lord, look at the divine smile of the lord and have this intense love for the Lord.... quote by Kishan R

 

I feel similar to you.

 

Here are some nice verses I read today.

 

Govindastakam

By Adi Sankaracarya

1

Please bow down to Govinda, supreme bliss personified. He is the Absolute Truth, as well as unlimited and eternal knowledge. Though different from the sky, He Himself is the supreme sky. Though it was with effortless ease that He rolled and frolicked in the courtyards of Vraja, He appeared to become tired. Though formless, He manifests in various forms fashioned by Maya, including the form of the universe. Though He shelters all the universes, He appears to need shelter.

2

Please bow down to Govinda, supreme bliss personified. Though He is the supreme master of the universe, He seemed to become frightened like an ordinary infant when Mother Yasoda chastised Him. When she asked, Are You eating mud? He opened His mouth to prove He had not-and showed her the fourteen planetary systems, including Lokaloka Mountain. He is the supporting pillar for this citylike universe of three worlds. Though He is beyond all vision, He is the source of everyone's vision.

3

Please bow down to Govinda, supreme bliss personified. He relieves the earth of its burden by killing the demigods' enemies, the demons, and He grants liberation by curing the disease of materialism. Though He never needs to eat, still He eats butter, and He also devours the whole universe at the time of annihilation. Though distinct from all the shadow manifestations of this world, He manifests in the sanctified desires of a pure heart. He is most auspicious and peaceful.

4

Please bow down to Govinda, supreme bliss personified. That protector of cows appeared in the form of a cowherd among the cowherds to perform His pastimes on earth, such as lifting Govardhana Hill to protect the cowherds and dallying with the cowherd damsels. Even the cows called Him by the name Govinda. He has unlimited names, is distinct among the cowherd boys, and is beyond the reach of the gopis' senses [when He goes to the forest during the day, or when He resides in Mathura or Dvaraka].

5

Please bow down to Govinda, supreme bliss personified. He enters the assembly of cowherd damsels and divides them into groups for His pastimes. He is simultaneously different from and one with everything. He considers it His good fortune to be always smeared with the dust raised by the cows' hooves. He is pleased by faith and devotion. Though He is inconceivable, His pastimes are the object of meditation. He is like a transcendental touchstone.

6

Please bow down to Govinda, supreme bliss personified. He stole the bathing damsels' clothes and climbed a tree with them, and when the naked maidens asked for their clothes back, He told them to come closer. He dispels lamentation and delusion. He is knowledge personified, realized by intelligence, and is also the personification of pure existence.

7

Please bow down to Govinda, supreme bliss personified. He is most beautiful. He is the original cause of all causes, and He has no cause. He is free from all superimpositions of illusion. He danced wonderfully on the hoods of the Kaliya serpent in the Yamuna. Though He is time, He is beyond all divisions of time. He knows everything, He destroys the defects of Kali-yuga, and He is the source of past, present, and future.

8

Please bow down to Govinda, supreme bliss personified. He is the reservoir of all worshipable qualities. All worshipable saintly persons worship His blissful lotus feet within their hearts. He is my worshipful Lord. All the demigods, and Shrimati Vrndadevi as well, worship Him in the land of Vrndavana. His pure and beautiful smile emanates bliss like a kunda flower pouring forth nectar. He gives transcendental ecstasy to His cowherd friends.

9

Anyone who who recites this Govindastaka, who fixes his mind on Govinda, and who sweetly chants, `O Govinda, Acyuta, Madhava, Vishnu, Gokula-nayaka, Krishna,' thus cleansing away all his sins with the ambrosial water of meditation on the lotus feet of Lord Govinda-such a soul will certainly attain Lord Govinda, the supreme, everlasting bliss of the heart.

[Guest guest]

 

Theist,

 

I agree with you exactly. For eternity i want to meditate on the divine feet of the lord, look at the divine smile of the lord and have this etense love for the Lord. If this state is inferior to the 'only concious state', then i'm afraid the mayavadi's philosophy does not lead to supreme bliss.

 

Touching, but it's only a relative truth. Eventually, you'll have to go beyond all this, and realize oneness with Brahman. That's the Absolute Reality, not names and forms, even if they be names and forms of whom you call Lord.

[Guest guest]

 

Touching, but it's only a relative truth. Eventually, you'll have to go beyond all this, and realize oneness with Brahman. That's the Absolute Reality, not names and forms, even if they be names and forms of whom you call Lord.

 

 

Hi Mayavadi

 

Thanks for your comments. I have a few questions for you. If the ultimate state is 'oneness with Brahman', then at some point we must have started off like this, i.e. we were one with Brahaman. In this state, i guess there is no distinction between atma and Paramatma, that is it is just one cosmic conciousness, right? If so, how did the individual conciousnesses come to be, i.e. seperate from the equivalent of our personal GOD? If we started off as one, how and why would we seperate? How would you seperate this 'merged' conciousness into the super conciousness and the normal conciousness? Once its merged, you cannot seperate, right? E.g. if a glass of water from the Northa Atlantic ocean was mixed with a glass of water from the pacific ocean, can you draw the line between the two when mixed?

 

This line of thinking cannot be ultimate bliss, for my soul is different yet part of my Naryan, like the rays of light to the sun. I can never be the Lord. By thinking along these lines makes me sick. Just as i can never be at the same status as my father, regardless of how rich or spiritual advanced i have become , similarly i will always be inferior to my creater, not an equal. This line of thought makes me feel warm inside.

[theist]

Good question Kishan. I have asked this question of mayavadi's many times and never received even an attempted response. The reason is obvious. You know this very well hence your asking the question. Let's see if our current mayavadi can respond.

[Guest guest]

I am not the above mayavadi. Your argument is the first, basic argument that was ever created against Advaita and has been adequately answered over a thousand years ago. If you are really interested in knowing the Advaita response you have to go an Advaita forum. Challenging Advaita on a Vaishnava forum and then concluding your arguments are spectacular because you received no response? You may as well challenge the Bahai faith and concude your arguments were excellent as no will respond to your challenge here.

 

 

Hi Mayavadi

 

Thanks for your comments. I have a few questions for you. If the ultimate state is 'oneness with Brahman', then at some point we must have started off like this, i.e. we were one with Brahaman.

 

No. There is no separation from Brahman and therefore there is no grand reunion. This kind of logic is found in iskcon philosphy where the jiva was part and parcel of the Lord and then suddenly, somehow it fell for unknown reasons and now it is struggling to get back there again. If it gets back there, it could fall again...Adviata does not take such an illogical position.

 

 

...always be inferior to my creater, not an equal. This line of thought makes me feel warm inside.

 

In vedanta, the soul is not created (no creator in that sense). De novo creation is a christian concept and is rejected by Vedanta.

 

The question is, are you really interested enough to find correct answers to your arguments which would mean posting these questions on an advaita forum? Or are you just trying to find a set of people who support your views?

 

Om

[Guest guest]

 

Hi Mayavadi

 

Thanks for your comments. I have a few questions for you. If the ultimate state is 'oneness with Brahman', then at some point we must have started off like this, i.e. we were one with Brahaman.

 

Jivas exist as pratibimbas of Brahman, and in that state, they're not aware of their true nature on account of the limiting adjunct. Once this limiting adjunct, namely avidya, is removed, jiva/brahman identity is established. And there's no cause for this, because even according to other schools of thought, it's accepted that bondage has no beginning.

 

Hence, to posit a creator or cause and THEN pose questions on this, makes little sense. Therefore, other questions of yours are all answered once this point is understood.

[theist]

 

I am not the above mayavadi. Your argument is the first, basic argument that was ever created against Advaita and has been adequately answered over a thousand years ago. If you are really interested in knowing the Advaita response you have to go an Advaita forum. Challenging Advaita on a Vaishnava forum and then concluding your arguments are spectacular because you received no response? You may as well challenge the Bahai faith and concude your arguments were excellent as no will respond to your challenge here.

 

I have no interest in the nature of the mayavadi response actually. I do not seek them out for anything and generally try to avoid them so no need for me to visit their forums.

 

"Challenging Advaita on a Vaisnava forum...", This is the wrong perspective jiva. mayavadi challenged us on a Vaisnava forum.

 

Over the years I have had many encounters with impersonalists (Advaitn's) although in the US where I live it is rare to meet someone who has actually studied Sankaracaya's teaching in depth. On the internet I have encountered those with much more depth in his teaching, such as yourself no doubt.

 

But it doesn't matter because the question in question is so basic. What was the cause of the one impersonal Brahman fragmenting itself into innumerable jivas in the first place?

That happening indicates initiative and desire in the Brahman, attributes that could never exist if there was no Supreme Personality involved.

 

Please give your explanation. I have heard the response before but await your contribution. I would also like to say right off that I have no interest personally in a debate but we can exchange viewpoints if you like.

 

Hare Krsna

[theist]

 

Jivas exist as pratibimbas of Brahman, and in that state, they're not aware of their true nature on account of the limiting adjunct. Once this limiting adjunct, namely avidya, is removed, jiva/brahman identity is established. And there's no cause for this, because even according to other schools of thought, it's accepted that bondage has no beginning.

 

Hence, to posit a creator or cause and THEN pose questions on this, makes little sense. Therefore, other questions of yours are all answered once this point is understood.

 

Why the plurality in the first place? It is not enopugh to just say "jiva's exist as..." First explain why they exist at all.

[Guest guest]

 

But it doesn't matter because the question in question is so basic. What was the cause of the one impersonal Brahman fragmenting itself into innumerable jivas in the first place?

Mayavada doesn't say Brahman fragments into innumerable jivas. That's your misunderstanding, so you can't blame mayavada for that. Second, according to all schools of thought in Sanatana Dharma, including your own, bondage has no beginning. So to ask for its cause is self-contradictory.

[Guest guest]

 

Why the plurality in the first place? It is not enopugh to just say "jiva's exist as..." First explain why they exist at all.

 

**One can also ask: It's not enough to say Krishna exists as.... First explain why He exists at all.**

 

Hope you can see the self-contradiction in your question. Positing a cause for a beginningless Entity makes little sense.

[theist]

That is not an answer to the question, it is just a typical dodge. How is such explained according to Advaita?

[Guest guest]

 

 

No. There is no separation from Brahman and therefore there is no grand reunion. This kind of logic is found in iskcon philosphy where the jiva was part and parcel of the Lord and then suddenly, somehow it fell for unknown reasons and now it is struggling to get back there again. If it gets back there, it could fall again...Adviata does not take such an illogical position.

 

I am not part of Iskon and follow Ramanuj acharya's philosophy, but this is irrelevant. This 'logic' stems back a millenia.

 

Ok, so here is what i understand about advaita. There is one absolute, formless reality. That includes me and every other concious being and the concious equivalent of our personal GOD. We are just one. OK. How come if i am the same as the next person, i don't feel connected to that person. I don't feel what He/She feels. After all, i am Him/Her. Please don't mention Avidya as this seems to be the answer to all advaita questions.

 

Secondly, how did we jivas end up in the state we are in now. In particular, how does avidya affect some energy/conciousness floating around, i don't get it. What is the mechanism through which this 'avidya' enters this conciousness. We aquire knowledge via gnan indriyas. If we are just energy with no senses, how does this external influence affect us if we have no faculties through which to perceive anything outside this conciousness. We need a form, some kind of body for this to happen.

 

Thirdly, if there are no seperate jivas and just one superconcious entity and i am this superconcious entity, then who are the rest of the people i see? If i am this superconcious entity then it was me who was Lord Krishna and Lord Ram with a form. This means i am the all powerful Brahman. IF i am the all powerful Brahman, then things such as avidya cannot cloud me. Except it has, so what am i? It has clouded me so i can't be this single superconcious entity. Yet i believe in an all powerful, so He must be different from me. So i am different to this all mighty being, i.e. i am an atma, the sparks from the all mightly fire.

 

 

[

 

The question is, are you really interested enough to find correct answers to your arguments which would mean posting these questions on an advaita forum? Or are you just trying to find a set of people who support your views?

 

I am geniuinely interested in finding some answers to my queries. To me, it just does not seem right. Where can i find a good advaita forum? Google revealed a few, but i would appreciate some pointers.

 

Jay shree Hari

[Guest guest]

 

I am not part of Iskon and follow Ramanuj acharya's philosophy, but this is irrelevant. This 'logic' stems back a millenia.

 

Ok, so here is what i understand about advaita. There is one absolute, formless reality. That includes me and every other concious being and the concious equivalent of our personal GOD. We are just one. OK. How come if i am the same as the next person, i don't feel connected to that person. I don't feel what He/She feels. After all, i am Him/Her. Please don't mention Avidya as this seems to be the answer to all advaita questions.

 

You are not the same as the next person. If you have seen any Advaita texts which says you are the same as the next person, please let me know. Thinking that Advaita makes such a claim is one common example of Avidya  (I know you told me not to mention it, but…)

 

 

Secondly, how did we jivas end up in the state we are in now?

 

This would be the same as in your own tradition. What does Ramanuja have to say about it? Why are you what you are according to your tradition and how?

 

Vedanta says souls are beginning less. Since Karma is tied to the soul and since it is impossible to fix a logical start point for Karma, Karma is believed to beginning less too. So the soul has been embroiled in Karma always. This part is accepted by all schools of Vedanta and arguments like the above “when did it happen?” display an ignorance of the basics of Vedanta. Advaita says Avidya (ignorance of one’s true nature) leads one from death to death. When the truth of one’s real nature is seen, the soul is liberated from this cycle of birth and death.

 

 

Thirdly, if there are no seperate jivas and just one superconcious entity and i am this superconcious entity, then who are the rest of the people i see?

 

Already answered as part of question #1

 

 

I am genuinely interested in finding some answers to my queries. To me, it just does not seem right. Where can I find a good advaita forum? Google revealed a few, but i would appreciate some pointers.

 

Good. You are welcome to reject Advaita as incorrect, but I would say make sure that you have read enough about it. Of course, this holds true for anything in general. For detailed answers, post questions in Vidyasankar Sundaresan’s mailing list. Google it up. You can also read some Advaita works of Shankara such as the Viveka Chudamani.

 

Om

[Guest guest]

 

That is not an answer to the question, it is just a typical dodge. How is such explained according to Advaita?

 

It is explained exactly the same way as in Madhvacharya's and Ramanujacharya's philosophies. Since gaudiya vaishavism attempts to ride piggy back on Madhva's tradition to claim authenticity, you can check back with your own scholars on why they dodge the question.

 

Om

[brajeshwara das]

 

It is explained exactly the same way as in Madhvacharya's and Ramanujacharya's philosophies. Since gaudiya vaishavism attempts to ride piggy back on Madhva's tradition to claim authenticity, you can check back with your own scholars on why they dodge the question.

 

Om

So, can you post references from sastra? That is what theist was asking for I believe.

[brajeshwara das]

So am I God and you are all just a figment of my imagination? Then I want a Ferrari. D'oh, that didn't work. Guess I'm not God after all. (Sorry God).

[theist]

 

It is explained exactly the same way as in Madhvacharya's and Ramanujacharya's philosophies. Since gaudiya vaishavism attempts to ride piggy back on Madhva's tradition to claim authenticity, you can check back with your own scholars on why they dodge the question.

 

Om

 

LOLOLOL!! AS EXPECTED. NO ANSWER. WHAT A JOKE.

 

You could have given me a direct answer in as much time as it took you to write the last two dodges but because you know you have no adequate answer you have to dance around while juggeling words. That is OK for the carnival but it won't help in the process of self AND God realization.

 

Thanks for the chat anyway.

[Guest guest]

 

So, can you post references from sastra? That is what theist was asking for I believe.

 

No, theist is not *asking* for anything. Theist has already concluded that Advaitins have no answer to his question and is only trying to establish it here. What he is not understanding is his question has nothing to do with Advaita in particular. It is a question to be answered by all traditions (of vedanta) and the answer provided by all traditions is one - Karma is beginning less.

 

If someone disagrees with this, they can come forth. That is why I asked him to check back with his scholars about the origin of Karma. If one is unwilling to accept that Karma is beginning less, then they have to provide the Vedanta equivalent of Adam's apple or else a date for when Karma was officially lauched.

 

Om