Sankaracharya Vs. Ramanuj

[brajeshwara das]

 

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

 

If God doesn't exist, if you don't exist, if the scholars don't exist, if we are not all really here, what is your point in posting? Why bother?

 

Funny how when asked directly for scriptural backing you just say the answer is provided by all traditions. You have no clue, your answer doesn't exist. I guess that's appropriate.

[theist]

Who was talking about karma? Not me. That has nothing to do with question Kishan posted and I echoed.

[Guest guest]

Ok, here let me help you. My question has nothing to do with karma. we'll discuss it later. Question is- Are all of us God?

 

According to Vaisnavism- No, we are servants of God.

 

What is the view point of Advaita? If the answer is the same, then we are in agreement and we'll just move on.

 

 

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

[Guest guest]

 

Ok, here let me help you. My question has nothing to do with karma. we'll discuss it later. Question is- Are all of us God?

 

According to Vaisnavism- No, we are servants of God.

 

What is the view point of Advaita? If the answer is the same, then we are in agreement and we'll just move on.

 

The short answer is no. As per Advaita, you are not God, I am not God, theist is not God and neither is the other good soul on this thread who just attempted to create a Ferrari de novo.

 

I assume that will keep you moving on. There is a lot of idiotic blather out there from non-Advaitins about what Advaita is ( I am God, for example) - originating from self-styled dimwits. You may want to stay clear of them.

 

Om

[brajeshwara das]

So what position does God play? Does God exist from your point of view? What does exist? Who are we, here having this discussion? Are we 'one'? Why do we have the illusion of multiple identities if we are? So far you haven't said anything of any substance.

[Guest guest]

 

So what position does God play? Does God exist from your point of view? What does exist? Who are we, here having this discussion? Are we 'one'? Why do we have the illusion of multiple identities if we are? So far you haven't said anything of any substance.

 

As a Vaishnava, you will not see anything of substance in Advaita – it is too early for that.

 

Like mayavadi said in his/her first post on this thread, Advaita kicks-in at a further point of spiritual evolution. You begin with chanting, fasting, pilgrimages, homas, etc., and do this for several births and then when you have spiritually evolved to a certain level, Krishna will lead you into the world of Advaita. At that time you will find substance in the pure teachings of Shankara and can consider yourself close to release from bondage.

 

The beauty of Advaita is it does not indulge in idle threats of hell for non-adherents as other traditions do. We are perfectly alright with people rejecting Advaita as we understand that they are not yet ready – just like a third grade kid cannot comprehend the intricacies of organic chemistry and is not meant to. It will naturally happen when you are ready.

 

Om

[brajeshwara das]

 

As a Vaishnava, you will not see anything of substance in Advaita – it is too early for that.

 

Like mayavadi said in his/her first post on this thread, Advaita kicks-in at a further point of spiritual evolution. You begin with chanting, fasting, pilgrimages, homas, etc., and do this for several births and then when you have spiritually evolved to a certain level, Krishna will lead you into the world of Advaita. At that time you will find substance in the pure teachings of Shankara and can consider yourself close to release from bondage.

 

The beauty of Advaita is it does not indulge in idle threats of hell for non-adherents as other traditions do. We are perfectly alright with people rejecting Advaita as we understand that they are not yet ready – just like a third grade kid cannot comprehend the intricacies of organic chemistry and is not meant to. It will naturally happen when you are ready.

 

Om

 

Of course, that's what I thought. You can't explain it because we are not ready, or because your conception is bankrupt and can't hold up under scrutiny? It is very convenient for you, I guess. Whatever. Nonsense.

[brajeshwara das]

Sorry, I should be more tolerant.

[Guest guest]

Hey , Vaishanavites. You ppl can't go to Krsna loka, cause in shastra its clearly states that if you attachment you can't see me(Krsna). Attachment is anything you are attached to - People, money, caste(vaishanava, shaivite), your spiritual path anything. Krsna wants someone who sees him in anything and everything. Krsna wants ADAM who is not tainted by anything that pure person who sees everything equal.

 

Advaita is right in their own way and Vaishanava are right in ther own way. Who are you to say the others are wrong. Have you seen Krsna or the God by following your path - Big NO! PPl like Brajeswara Das is so into shastra Vedas proof and arguing with everyone and he forget to think and chant Krsna name. Before you answer - instead of fighting who is great, do your sadana, my friend. That is the only way back to God.

[Guest guest]

 

Of course, that's what I thought. You can't explain it because we are not ready, or because your conception is bankrupt and can't hold up under scrutiny? It is very convenient for you, I guess. Whatever. Nonsense.

 

He said over and over that all schools, INCLUDING YOURS, have accepted bondage to be without beginning and therefore without cause, yet you're asking the same question. Naturally, people get annoyed.

[Guest guest]

 

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).

 

I think you're confusing neo-Vedanta with Advaita, or more precisely, mayavada. Neo-Vedanta of Vivekananda/RK etc. is political in nature with little spiritual substance. Only neo-Vedantins have such queer views that everybody is god and so on.

 

In advaita, the world is mithya, so how can the world or the objects of this world be Brahman, which is satya?

 

Don't you at least recognize the contradictions in your question?

[Guest guest]

Adi Shankaracharya Bhagavatpada, Nrsimha-tapani Upanishad commmentary 2.4:

 

mukta api lilaya vigraham kritva bhagavantam bhajanti

 

Liberated beings (mukta) engage in pastimes of love (lilaya), manifesting a form (vigraham) in order to engage in the activity (kritva) of worship of Bhagavan (bhagavantam bhajanti).

 

Adi Shankaracharya Bhagavatpada, Bhaja Govinda verse:

 

bhajagovindam bhajagovindam govindam bhajamuudhamate sampraapte sannihite kaale nahi nahi rakshati dukrijnkarane

Serve (worship) Govinda, Serve Govinda, Serve Govinda. Oh fool! Rules of Grammar and Logic will not save you at the time of your death.

[brajeshwara das]

 

I think you're confusing neo-Vedanta with Advaita, or more precisely, mayavada. Neo-Vedanta of Vivekananda/RK etc. is political in nature with little spiritual substance. Only neo-Vedantins have such queer views that everybody is god and so on.

 

In advaita, the world is mithya, so how can the world or the objects of this world be Brahman, which is satya?

 

Don't you at least recognize the contradictions in your question?

Yes, but if I am God (ok, so you don't believe in God, fine) and if everything in the world is false, couldn't I just control the illusion since I (we) are all one consciousness? Why don't I have that ability, if I am Brahman? Why am I under illusion if I am Reality? If I'm Brahman, why am I so limited?

 

Of course we also believe this world is false in a sense, but a reflection of the truth. Srila Sridhar Maharaj:

 

We should understand that we are living in the plane of

misconception. The whole thing is false. It is all a part of

illusion. Within the world of illusion, some thing may

have its place, but when we deal with the real truth,

however, we will conclude that everything here is like a

dream. This whole world is like a dream, a misconception.

Any part of this world will therefore also be misconception.

What is real, what is truth, will become apparent

when a thing is judged in connection with the real world.

The association of saints who have a genuine connection

with spiritual reality promotes this transaction.

What is real and what is unreal? Whatever has a connection

with the real self, with the soul, is real. Soul is

consciousness in the world of pure consciousness. Whatever

is connected with the mind in the mental world of false-ego is all false. A part of the false is also false, extremely false. But

it has got its negative utility.

Everything is true only by having connection with the

Absolute Truth. Everything is there in the absolute. So

the finite cannot produce anything which is not in the

infinite. The finite world, therefore, is rather a shadow or

a perverted reflection of the whole truth.

The foundation of my argument is as follows: Caitanya

Mahaprabhu explained that while Shankaracharya has denied

the existence of this perverted reflection, we cannot dismiss

it. If it does not exist, then why has Shankara come to preach

Vedanta? Illusion means “this is not that.” One thing may

appear to be some thing else. An illusion is not what it

appears to be, but it is not nonexistent. In that way it is real.

It has its existence.

Within the real world which is created by the help of the

Lord’s internal energy, svarupa-shakti, this world of misconception

has no place. But in a relative way, the conditioned

world has an indirect relationship with the

unconditioned world. So maya is existing. In that sense it

is true. But it is false in that it cannot give you the desired

result you are searching after. In that sense it is all false.

[brajeshwara das]

Continuing:

 

This material world is only a reflection

of complete reality; it is a conception we find exciting

to us. Compelled by local interest of enjoyment, we have

embraced this creation of the Lord. With our spiritual

vision covered by the spectacles of prejudice, we are seeing

things in a distorted way. The Lord is not to be blamed; our

spectacles should be blamed. Everything is meant for Him;

the only difference in our vision of reality is that our vision

is tainted with the colors of our different kinds of selfish

interests. And the different planetary systems in the material

world are different sub-planes in the plane of enjoyment

or exploitation. Our distorted consciousness is the source

of the different colors of the things that surround us.

And when these illusory conceptions are fully removed,

we will find that everywhere it is Krishna and Krishna

only. And when the conception of Godhead as Lord and

Master is removed, then receiving his impetus of activity

from Krishna consciousness, the soul will find himself in

Vrindavana. But in order to attain that stage, we must have

no consciousness of this body, or the mind, or the country

conception, the nation conception, or the globe conception.

All planes of limited conception must be crossed. From

soul to Supersoul, the soul must enter deeper and deeper

into reality. You will find everything there. There you will

find that Radharani and Krishna in Vrindavana is not false.

It is neither poetry nor imagination.

[Guest guest]

 

Yes, but if I am God (ok, so you don't believe in God, fine) and if everything in the world is false, couldn't I just control the illusion since I (we) are all one consciousness? Why don't I have that ability, if I am Brahman? Why am I under illusion if I am Reality? If I'm Brahman, why am I so limited?

 

Saw this thread on Advaita and theist getting involved and I thought I might add something here of interest to everyone.

 

Theist - at least in the past - has been a strong advocate of "simultaenous oneness and difference". Now I have no clue what that would mean, but theist seems to be clear on the meaning. As theist understands 50% of oneness, he should be able to answer 50% of your questions on advaita - specifically in relation to oneness. Theist should defend half of Advaita....and reject the other half!

 

What do you think?

 

Cheers

[brajeshwara das]

More:

 

Proper knowledge is not possible under the philosophical systems of Buddha and Shankaracarya. If what they say is true – the world is false – then we must ask, “Why do you speak? And to whom? If everything is false, is your philosophy also imagination?” We will have to ask Shankaracarya, “Does your coming to this world and your endeavor to refute Buddhism and establish oneness as the ultimate truth have no meaning? Who have you come to preach to? Why have you come to preach if this world has no reality? If this world is false, then why are you taking so much trouble to explain your philosophy? For what? Is your mission also imagination?” The first great opponent of Shankaracarya was Ramanuja. Ramanuja’s refutation was very strong and based on a sound foundation. Ramanuja argued: “What is the necessity for Shankaracarya to endeavor with so much energy to establish his philosophy if it is all fictitious? To say, the world is false, is a suicidal position. Has he come here to do nothing? He has come to correct us and free us from error, but there must be errors. Error or misconception has reality, otherwise, what is the necessity of spending so much energy refuting so many propositions? Maya exists. Maya is eternal. The individual soul is eternal, and maya is also eternal.”

[Guest guest]

 

Yes, but if I am God (ok, so you don't believe in God, fine) and if everything in the world is false, couldn't I just control the illusion since I (we) are all one consciousness? Why don't I have that ability, if I am Brahman? Why am I under illusion if I am Reality? If I'm Brahman, why am I so limited?

 

Unless and until you wake up from this dream world, you're not Brahman, but just a conditioned jiva. And as a conditioned jiva, you're wondering about the ability you'll have in the awakened state. See how contradictory your question is?

[brajeshwara das]

 

Saw this thread on Advaita and theist getting involved and I thought I might add something here of interest to everyone.

 

Theist - at least in the past - has been a strong advocate of "simultaenous oneness and difference". Now I have no clue what that would mean, but theist seems to be clear on the meaning. As theist understands 50% of oneness, he should be able to answer 50% of your questions on advaita - specifically in relation to oneness. Theist should defend half of Advaita....and reject the other half!

 

What do you think?

 

Cheers

 

We don't dispute the oneness, but the 'difference' part is essential, and the 'inconceivable' part maybe moreso. We are marginal, and have an eternal relationship as part and parcel of the Lord but individuality. So we are one but different. Srila Swami MAharaj Prabhupada "Practically speaking, there is no conflict between personalism and impersonalism. One who knows God knows that the impersonal conception and personal conception are simultaneously present in everything and that there is no contradiction. Therefore Lord Caitanya established His sublime doctrine: acintyabheda-and-abheda-tattva -- simultaneous oneness and difference."

[brajeshwara das]

 

Unless and until you wake up from this dream world, you're not Brahman, but just a conditioned jiva. And as a conditioned jiva, you're wondering about the ability you'll have in the awakened state. See how contradictory your question is?

 

No, because that requires a 'me' which simple 'oneness' denies. There must be a difference or we wouldn't be discussing this.

[brajeshwara das]

It's absurd to deny we are individuals. If you disagree you prove my point.

[Guest guest]

 

More:

 

Proper knowledge is not possible under the philosophical systems of Buddha and Shankaracarya. If what they say is true – the world is false – then we must ask, “Why do you speak? And to whom? If everything is false, is your philosophy also imagination?” We will have to ask Shankaracarya, “Does your coming to this world and your endeavor to refute Buddhism and establish oneness as the ultimate truth have no meaning? Who have you come to preach to? Why have you come to preach if this world has no reality? If this world is false, then why are you taking so much trouble to explain your philosophy? For what? Is your mission also imagination?” The first great opponent of Shankaracarya was Ramanuja. Ramanuja’s refutation was very strong and based on a sound foundation. Ramanuja argued: “What is the necessity for Shankaracarya to endeavor with so much energy to establish his philosophy if it is all fictitious? To say, the world is false, is a suicidal position. Has he come here to do nothing? He has come to correct us and free us from error, but there must be errors. Error or misconception has reality, otherwise, what is the necessity of spending so much energy refuting so many propositions? Maya exists. Maya is eternal. The individual soul is eternal, and maya is also eternal.”

 

Typical misunderstanding of Vaishnavas. Sankara (or any advaitin, for that matter) never said the world was false or asat. He said it was mithya, akin to a dream, which appears real to the dreamer, and unreal to the awakened one. Because it's real to the dreamer, it cannot be called asat. And because it's unreal to the awakened one, it cannot be called sat. Hence, the third state, mithya.

 

Only if the world were asat, these questions to Sankara (such as why is he preaching to an unreal world etc.) would be relevant. But since the world is mithya, the questions make no sense.

[Guest guest]

 

It's absurd to deny we are individuals. If you disagree you prove my point.

 

That we are indiviudal jivas is neither sat nor asat, but mithya. Once this mithya is destroyed through jnaana, there's oneness between jiva and Brahman. This oneness is satya, and the apparent distinction is mithya, so where's the q of denying or affirming?

[brajeshwara das]

 

That we are indiviudal jivas is neither sat nor asat, but mithya. Once this mithya is destroyed through jnaana, there's oneness between jiva and Brahman. This oneness is satya, and the apparent distinction is mithya, so where's the q of denying or affirming?

 

I don't buy it. The very fact that there is even a moment that that you are under illusion shows you are not omnipotent and one whole, you are sepparate. You can deny your individuality and mine and the Lord's and say Oneness is Satya, but I truly believe 'It all' is inconceivably, simultaneously one and different. Sraddha is essential for either position, and I respect your sincerity in your belief, but I'm not you and you are not me. We are we. We are both covered by illusion now and I wish you well in your search for liberation, but I search for the land of dedication where there is a dynamic relationship between myself, others and the Lord. Again, this is all a matter of faith.

[Guest guest]

brajeshwara das, Sorry to tell you are stupid. How dare you speak about Shankaracharya. He talked and lived with God. But you only philosopical Blabberings. I keep on telling you- go and do your sadhana. The path to God is not only one, there are different paths. Even you reach him, its up to you whether you want to be the servant .

Please you like an donkey with blinkers, stating that only your right and the rest of Gurus are wrong. This is absurd. Please don't be stupid

[Guest guest]

 

I don't buy it. The very fact that there is even a moment that that you are under illusion shows you are not omnipotent and one whole, you are sepparate.

 

As conditioned jivas, we're separate and we're not omnipotent. No advaitin would say otherwise, and neither did I. When the conditioning is destroyed, we'll realize our identity with Brahman. That's the whole point, what happens when you wake up, NOT our respective positions in the dream state.

 

 

You can deny your individuality and mine

 

Dream is real for the dreamer, and hence, as long as one's caught in illusion, there's no point in denying individuality. But when the illusion is destroyed, there's no individuality but jiva/Brahman identity.

 

 

I truly believe 'It all' is inconceivably, simultaneously one and different.

 

Having accused the advaitin of contradiction, you're now assuming a contradictory position yourself!

 

 

We are both covered by illusion now and I wish you well in your search for liberation, but I search for the land of dedication where there is a dynamic relationship between myself, others and the Lord. Again, this is all a matter of faith.

 

You seem to have the wrong notion that Bhakti has no place in advaita. To cross this sea of maya and attain oneness with Brahman, we need Vishnu's grace, and that's not possible without bhakti. So in addition to jnana, an advaitin also needs bhakti and vairagya. This, I suppose, is common to all schools.