brajeshwara das Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 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 I'll admit to being stupid, sure I'm a donkey But when did I ever say my Guru is the only one, or even Gaudiya Vaishnavas are the only path? Where do you get this from? I accept the Lord in whatever way He choses to decend, but I believe in Him. I am not Him. That is one distinction I won't deny for the sake of civility or acceptance by you. Simultaneously one and different. If you don't accept that then you don't accept Caitanya Mahaprabhu and you should stop saying you do. To do so would be dishonest. Others here are espousing beliefs that exclude my path and I don't see you singling them out saying they have 'blinkers on'. Maybe you are the one with a bias, some grudge against Gaudiya Vaisnavas? They didn't show you some respect you are sure you deserve? I have no idea, but just as it is unfair for me to speculate on the internal working of your heart you should be careful in your dealings with others here. But it is always easy to find fault outside of ourselves and being honest with ourselves is the hardest of all. You repeatedly tell me to work on my sadhana, I'll take that advice like I would take all good advice even when coming from fools. I'll give that same advice back to you, if you are wise you will accept it even from a fool such as me. Namaste, Hari Bol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brajeshwara das Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 Having accused the advaitin of contradiction, you're now assuming a contradictory position yourself! That is not contradictory, that is the truth as revealed by Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Again, a matter of faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brajeshwara das Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 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. Is Lord Visnu under illusion and needs to come to the realization He is Brahman too? Who is He and what is His position then? I don't deny you have Bhakti in your tradition, but as you say it is a tool to reach the goal, for us it is the goal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 Hey, Mr . brajeshwara das, do you know something, even Chaitanya Mahaprabhuhave been initiated by ShankaraCharya's Lineage. Don't tell it was a trend at that time. Lord knows what is true that is why he choose that Guru. Because he wants someone highest caliber to initiate him. Even though I'm a fool, but loved by others cause I bowed down to their belief and God. People have spoken Mother Mary. Ppl have seen God. You----- read few books and blaberring aloud. Pity on men. Don't be attached to your Gaudiya Vaishanavite sect. Krsna don't want you to do that!!!! Love ALL, Serve All and you can see Krsna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 Long time. Hope you have been well. 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 Basically you are correct. As I understand Lord Caitanya's philosophy of inconceiveable simultaneous oneness and difference the first principle is that it is inconceivable by the mind. Oneness is Absolute Truth. So Is Duality. Both at the same time. Neither alone. Dualism without oneness is an incomplete realization. Oneness without dualism is also incomplete. I accept the oneness of Advaita. We have come from Krsna therefore in that sense we are Krsna. Yet we are infitesimal parts whereas He is the Unlimited Supreme Whole.That is the eternal difference.This is not some preliberation mind set that is finally given up at liberation. This is the liberation realization itself. I reject the notion of Advaita that perfect enlightenment involves losing the sense of individualness and personality. Quite the opposite. It means to regain our true personality in relation to Krsna the Supreme personality. This where real bhakti begins. Bhakti is the very active nature of the self in the liberated state. Be well Shiv Hare Krsna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 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 So far this is a nice discuusion/debate. Your ad hominum attacks have no place here. Speak philosophically or don't speak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 I reject the notion of Advaita that perfect enlightenment involves losing the sense of individualness and personality. You didn't have any to lose it at a later time. It's maya that makes you think so, and once that maya disappears, you're restored to your original state-BRAHMAN. Which is why we say, "Aham Brahmasmi." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 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? Where did the mithya come from? Srimad Bhagavatam (10.2.32): ye 'nye 'ravinda-ksa vimukta-maninas tvayy asta-bhavad avis'uddha-buddhayah aruhya krcchrena parampadamtatah patanty adho 'nadrta-yusmad-an'ghrayah The conscious Self can fall from sayujya mukti and become an animal. Pasa baddha bhavet jiva pasa mukta sada shiva A person may attain liberation in brahman, attaining param-padam, or in other words sayujya mukti. In that state of liberation a soul has no karma, no material bondage. However, "patanty adho 'nadrta-yusmad-an'ghrayah", the liberated souls absorbed in brahman can fall down into the material world and become caught in the networks of karma again and again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 No one is budging from their positions. Fair enough, each to their understanding believe they are correct and this is unlikely to change. The reason i put this post up is because scholars in our sampradaya tell us never to make the mistake of considering the eternal from of GOD being formless, and those who do are commiting a grave sin that even GOD cannot forgive. Our Shastras say He has divine attributes. They say His form is ever radiant, of 'kishore avastha' a youthful age of around 16 and that His divine body emenates tej (light?) on par with crores and crores of suns, residing in His divine Dham where the vedas in murti form are at is eternally service. So are Radha and Lakshmi. This is what i have heard from listening to Purans from scholars. Do Advaitas reject these scriptures, Vyas bhagvan being the author. ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 Chapter 8. Attaining the Supreme Gita, 8. 16 abrahma-bhuvanal lokah punar avartino 'rjuna mam upetya tu kaunteya punar janma na vidyate Krishna said : From brahma-loka down to the lowest state of existence, all are places of misery wherein repeated birth and death take place. But one who attains to My abode, O son of Kunti, never takes birth again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 Is Lord Visnu under illusion and needs to come to the realization He is Brahman too? Who is He and what is His position then? I don't deny you have Bhakti in your tradition, but as you say it is a tool to reach the goal, for us it is the goal. In your dream, you see various objects, each having a certain value. In this dream world, likewise, there are various entities and gradations amongst them. Vishnu, being supreme, never comes under illusion, and always has this knowledge of identity with Brahman, so worthy of worship in order to cross maya. But in absolute terms, He too is nirguna and nirakara, as we will be in the awakened state. In that sense, there is identity. So both positions #1 Vishnu is Supreme and worthy of worship #2 The world is mithya and therefore jiva-Brahman identity is satya are reconciled in advaita. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 The Self absorbed in sayujya mukti can realize a higher knowledge - One can realize Bhagavan and follow the bhakti marga. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 Assuming we are God or can become God is a serious deviation from the actual position of the Jiva and offensive as well, for we are not God and can never become God. Therefore, I'm happy to see your answer below. We are in agreement. 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 No one is budging from their positions. Fair enough, each to their understanding believe they are correct and this is unlikely to change. The reason i put this post up is because scholars in our sampradaya tell us never to make the mistake of considering the eternal from of GOD being formless, and those who do are commiting a grave sin that even GOD cannot forgive. Our Shastras say He has divine attributes. They say His form is ever radiant, of 'kishore avastha' a youthful age of around 16 and that His divine body emenates tej (light?) on par with crores and crores of suns, residing in His divine Dham where the vedas in murti form are at is eternally service. So are Radha and Lakshmi. This is what i have heard from listening to Purans from scholars. Do Advaitas reject these scriptures, Vyas bhagvan being the author. ?? Advaita says forms are within in the realm of Maya. Ultimately when truth is perceived, which ends Maya, forms cease to exist too. If you do not know this already, Shankara defined the basis for Vedanta as it is known today. His commentaries are the oldest on the Gita and the Brahma Sutras. His writings are so powerful that they eclipsed all works before his time and became popular all over the country very quickly and more importantly have stayed the most popular till today. Subsequent writers had to make their mark by differing from Shankara which meant rejecting Advaita concepts such as oneness, Maya, formless conscious among others. Of these, Ramanuja and Madhva have been considerably successful although neither of them matched the stupendous success of Shankara. The grave sin you talk about does not exist in Advaita. Advaita is spiritually very mature and does not threaten people with petty threats of hell and aparadha like others do. You are free to do as you wish as everyone ultimately will see the same truth as truth is one and is available to all. Om Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 The grave sin you talk about does not exist in Advaita. Advaita is spiritually very mature and does not threaten people with petty threats of hell and aparadha like others do. You are free to do as you wish as everyone ultimately will see the same truth as truth is one and is available to all. So you are free to kill, rape, torture without the fear of going to hell? Hmmmm...... Lets agree to disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brajeshwara das Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 In your dream, you see various objects, each having a certain value. In this dream world, likewise, there are various entities and gradations amongst them. Vishnu, being supreme, never comes under illusion, and always has this knowledge of identity with Brahman, so worthy of worship in order to cross maya. But in absolute terms, He too is nirguna and nirakara, as we will be in the awakened state. In that sense, there is identity. So both positions #1 Vishnu is Supreme and worthy of worship #2 The world is mithya and therefore jiva-Brahman identity is satya are reconciled in advaita. But you say Lord Visnu is Supreme but you also say in absolute terms he is devoid of form and qualities. He is supreme how then? It appears you are saying He doesn't exist independent of illusion, although He is aware of the illusion? So he is not one with us 'One' then, because although He is eternally aware of the Oneness He is different still? Why does he hold this sort of position? Who else holds this sort of position? I have to admit your reasoning is beyond me, and I don't think that is because I have an inferior conception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brajeshwara das Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 Advaita says forms are within in the realm of Maya. Ultimately when truth is perceived, which ends Maya, forms cease to exist too. But Maya exists, so forms do exist. You can say they cease, but if something is there then gone, you can't deny it was there. If you do not know this already, Shankara defined the basis for Vedanta as it is known today. His commentaries are the oldest on the Gita and the Brahma Sutras. His writings are so powerful that they eclipsed all works before his time and became popular all over the country very quickly and more importantly have stayed the most popular till today. He defined the basis for the misunderstanding you call Vedanta. Just because something is popular does not mean it is true. Look at all the jiva souls in this world that believe material aquisition, ie. getting a big screen TV is the ultimate goal of life. That currently is the most popular belief, far outstripping either of our positions. Please don't use that as a basis for faith in your conception. The grave sin you talk about does not exist in Advaita. Advaita is spiritually very mature and does not threaten people with petty threats of hell and aparadha like others do. You are free to do as you wish as everyone ultimately will see the same truth as truth is one and is available to all. All responsibility ends then, nothing you do matters because eventually you will get to the goal. Ten billion lifetimes to the power of infinity, but you will get there someday. And you are the boss, no one else is above you. I can see why it is so popular. Srila Sridhar Maharaj said the truth that the jiva is an eternal servant of the Lord can be a hard pill to swallow. I think this is the reason the Mayavadi conception exists at all, to give you an easy way out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 So you are free to kill, rape, torture without the fear of going to hell? Hmmmm...... Lets agree to disagree. Evidently you are more christian than hindu with your ideas of creator and hell. I suggest you stop mixing up the two. Murder, rape and such other negative activities sow bad Karma and the effects will be reaped according to all schools of Vedanta. I was saying your threats of accruing sin by not adhering to your beliefs has no equivalent in Advaita. You will try to grab every chance you get to condemn Advaita. It basically arises out of frustration due to the inability to beat Advaita logic. Advaita wiped out Mimamsa - the dominant system of its time through logic. No one has been able to repeat that feat since then and that can be frustrating to those who tried like the Ramanujas and the Madhvas. Om Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 Are you familiar with the story of Narada discussing Maya with Krishna? Narada says he can never be entangled in Maya. He then takes a dip in a lake and when he comes out he is a lady who marries a king and has a family . Some things happen and then this lady jumps into the lake to die and out comes Narada again. He realizes he is not above Maya. What about the king and the children? Are they real or are they not? If you dream of driving a Ferrari , is the Ferrari real or not? The answers to these questions will answer your questions Om Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brajeshwara das Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 Also, we believe the jiva can do as it pleases, just the result could be an existance far from the sat-chit-ananda that is the natural position of the soul. So if you want to rape, murder, plunder etc. that is your constitutional right to do with your free will. Just you will suffer the consequences, you will reap what you sow. You will remain under illusion and suffer the bondage of this material world. We also believe that you will get there someday, the odds are with you when you are dealing with infinity, but how many lifetimes do you want to spend fulfilling those desires? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brajeshwara das Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 Are you familiar with the story of Narada discussing Maya with Krishna? Narada says he can never be entangled in Maya. He then takes a dip in a lake and when he comes out he is a lady who marries a king and has a family . Some things happen and then this lady jumps into the lake to die and out comes Narada again. He realizes he is not above Maya. What about the king and the children? Are they real or are they not? If you dream of driving a Ferrari , is the Ferrari real or not? The answers to these questions will answer your questions Om Do you see the discussion between Narada and Krishna as another dream? This is the distinction. We have faith that Krishna and Narada are real. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 The material world is certainly a dream. A dream has it's own reality as a dream however. Illusion does exist as illusion. That is not the main controversy. It is your complete inability to describe the dreamer that is most unsatifisfactory. Please explain the nature of the dreamer as espoused by Sankaracarya. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 Murder, rape and such other negative activities sow bad Karma and the effects will be reaped according to all schools of Vedanta. Bad Karma agreed. In addition to this, does that mean you do not got to Yampuri as described in the Shrimad Bhagavatam? From what i understand, Yes, you suffer bad karma but you have to suffer for these paaps in Yampuri as well. Remeber the stroy of the Yamanadutas who came for Ajamail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krishnadasa Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 First of all never write Shankara Vs Ramanuja.. by doing so you are commiting offense on both the acharyas. They came on a particular time at particular place and to the particula sect of people to preach by Lord's wish.. There is nothing to compare.. they are transcendetal and eternal devotees of the Lord... Hari hari bol ' 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 But you say Lord Visnu is Supreme but you also say in absolute terms he is devoid of form and qualities. He is supreme how then? He is Supreme, because He is Brahman. What's the confusion in this? It appears you are saying He doesn't exist independent of illusion, although He is aware of the illusion? As Brahman, He's ever free of illusion, so why do you have the wrong idea that He is not independent of illusion? Even according to your gaudiya tradition, would you say Krishna is not supreme and has material connection, just because He appears in the material world? So he is not one with us 'One' then, because although He is eternally aware of the Oneness He is different still? Because we're conditioned jivas and He is Brahman, we're not one with Him. But in the unconditioned state, there is jiva/Brahman identity. Why does he hold this sort of position? Who else holds this sort of position? It's not about holding position, it's about degree of awareness. We're conditioned and He's not, which is why we worship Him as Saguna Brahman. I have to admit your reasoning is beyond me That's on account of your dualistic thinking. 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.