Is Mayavada the ultimate truth?

[Guest guest]

Is it true that devotion to God and all the rest is meant for people who aren't mature enough to acquire brahma-jnana? It's been clearly mentioned in the scriptures that the world is maya, so it's fairly obvious that mayavada is the ultimate truth.

 

Would it then be fair to assume that other systems merely lead to mayavada?

[Guest guest]

You are correct. Only a mature soul can comprehend the oneness of all. To get there, there are several paths and worshiping symbolic forms is one approach.

 

In the Gita, it is said clearly that worship of a formless Power is very difficult for most people and therefore worship of forms is recommended for such novices.

[Guest guest]

No, Mayavada is the lowest of all philosophies. It's a nonsensical philosophy, meant for fools and rascals.

 

 

Is it true that devotion to God and all the rest is meant for people who aren't mature enough to acquire brahma-jnana? It's been clearly mentioned in the scriptures that the world is maya, so it's fairly obvious that mayavada is the ultimate truth.

 

Would it then be fair to assume that other systems merely lead to mayavada?

[Guest guest]

 

No, Mayavada is the lowest of all philosophies. It's a nonsensical philosophy, meant for fools and rascals.

 

Can you tell us why?

[Guest guest]

Because it rejects the personal conception of GOD but the fact is that God is a person.

 

Also to all those Mayavadis ... if everything is illusion and one, why not just give all your wealth to your neighbor because you both are one!

 

 

Can you tell us why?

[Guest guest]

 

Because it rejects the personal conception of GOD but the fact is that God is a person.

 

Also to all those Mayavadis ... if everything is illusion and one, why not just give all your wealth to your neighbor because you both are one!

 

Clearly you have no idea what Mayavada is. Yet another brainwashed Hare Krishna who has been misdirected.

[Guest guest]

 

Also to all those Mayavadis ... if everything is illusion and one, why not just give all your wealth to your neighbor because you both are one!

 

Very uninformed argument that you see from those who haven't a clue what advaita is, it doesn't get much dumber.

[Guest guest]

 

Very uninformed argument that you see from those who haven't a clue what advaita is, it doesn't get much dumber.

 

In that case, can you refute guest's arguments in simple words for our benefit?

[Guest guest]

 

In that case, can you refute guest's arguments in simple words for our benefit?

 

Here it is in simple words.

 

 

Because it rejects the personal conception of GOD but the fact is that God is a person.

 

God is not a person. He does not need eyes, ears and a nose like we do (Why would he have them if he does not need them?). He is described very clearly as one without attributes and form in countless scriptures including the Gita. Hence, his forms are temporary and transient, to serve a purpose. This is why Advaita's logic is unbeatable and has unviersal appeal unlike Vaishnava and Shaiva philosophies which attempt to show Brahman as having a South Asian body.

 

 

Also to all those Mayavadis ... if everything is illusion and one, why not just give all your wealth to your neighbor because you both are one!

 

According to Mayavadis, everything is not all illusion. The argument is moot. Go read a book and do not get fooled by propoganda who know nothing.

[Guest guest]

If He does not need any of those, why does he need them when He has "to serve a purpose"?

 

 

Here it is in simple words.

 

God is not a person. He does not need eyes, ears and a nose like we do (Why would he have them if he does not need them?). He is described very clearly as one without attributes and form in countless scriptures including the Gita. Hence, his forms are temporary and transient, to serve a purpose. This is why Advaita's logic is unbeatable and has unviersal appeal unlike Vaishnava and Shaiva philosophies which attempt to show Brahman as having a South Asian body.

 

 

 

According to Mayavadis, everything is not all illusion. The argument is moot. Go read a book and do not get fooled by propoganda who know nothing.

[Guest guest]

If the argument is moot, please show how.

 

You guys always skip questions, don't provide any reference (verse number, scripture like others do) and yet you expect your lame ass arguments to be believed.

 

 

According to Mayavadis, everything is not all illusion. The argument is moot. Go read a book and do not get fooled by propoganda who know nothing.

[Guest guest]

 

If the argument is moot, please show how.

 

You guys always skip questions, don't provide any reference (verse number, scripture like others do) and yet you expect your lame ass arguments to be believed.

 

The whole funda of Hare Krsna about mayavad and defeating mayavad is a bit too hyped up. God is attributeless and can have attributes too. What the Hare Krsnas love to believe is that the ultimate God is the one who is making merry with Radha playing flute and our aim is to carry flowers and fruits to the venue. This may not be the ultimate reality, though of course this can be part of the picture. If a devotee has an attachment to this particular form, then so be it. Nothing wrong. BUT - rejecting and putting down every other form of worship in comparison to this is not the right approach. It absolutely is not! If I find the rasa in Radha Krsna prem and pas time observation, then its my own intimate thing. But I can't apply to the rest of the world this scenario! Another person is finding the Tandav dance of Lord Shiva more appealing and the ultimate ecstatic feeling and the ultimate truth! And this is the truth for him.

Now, I've often heard the hare Krsna argument, that experience cannot be relied upon since one person can have one experience - Anubhooti and another person another. But there are certain parameters how to find out. And the sidha purush can do that. There is hardly any in this community, so all they rely upon is books. For example in chakra and kundali jagrana, different people have different experience according to their prarabdha and prakriti. This does not mean that they are not experiencing the activation of kundalini and are not rising their spiritual potential and state.

Hari om Nama Shivaya!

[Guest guest]

 

If He does not need any of those, why does he need them when He has "to serve a purpose"?

 

He does not need them. You do.

 

Go read the Gita before you begin to shoot ignorant schoolboy questions. In schoolboy terms it is spelt out clearly that a formless Supreme power is hard to fathom for most people and hence they can take the easier approach of worshipping a form. That is the purpose.

[Guest guest]

 

If the argument is moot, please show how.

 

You guys always skip questions, don't provide any reference (verse number, scripture like others do) and yet you expect your lame ass arguments to be believed.

 

Nonsense as usual.

 

You raised this silly argument without providing references, but all responses are required to come with proper references.

 

You can play your pathetic games with other Hare Krishnas who are on the same plane as you. You have a long way to go before you can beven understand the first few lines of Mayavada.

[Guruvani]

Shankar says:

 

 

"Oh, Mudha ! Oh, ignoramus ! Grammer rules (in fact all your secular learning) will not come to your rescue when death knocks to snatch you away. Instead of wasting away the precious span of your life in a futile manner, turn to and seek Govinda, who alone can save you from the jaws of life and death".

 

[krsna]

 

Shankar says:

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Mayavadis Think Krishna Is... Maya"

 

Srimad-Bhagavatam 5.6.07

Vrndavana, November 29, 1976

"So Mayavadis are attractive. They are very educated. They can put things in jugglery of words. That capacity they have got. So people become amazed, and almost everyone... So therefore they are not very much pleased with this movement, that "Krsna is God." We are preaching, and all full of Mayavadis, they are thinking, "What this nonsense is doing? Krsna..." They think Krsna is maya. Visnu-kalevara maya. Krsna says, mattah parataram nanyat kincid asti dhananjaya [bg. 7.7]. Avajananti mam mudha manusim tanum asritah [bg. 9.11]. Aham sarvasya prabhavo mattah sarvam pravartate [bg. 10.8]. Repeatedly He is saying what He is, and He is personally present and all the acaryas confirming. Even Sankaracarya, he also says sa bhagavan svayam krsna. Narayanah parah avyaktat. Don't bring Narayana in this material world. So...

 

Bhaja govindam bhaja govindam bhaja govindam mudha mate.

"You rascal, you have studied so much grammar. Now give up all this. Bhaja govindam, govinda bhaja."

 

Nahi nahi raksati dukrn-karane: "Your grammatical knowledge, du-pratyaya, krn-pratyaya, lin-pratyaya, din-pratyaya, oh, this will not do." Bhaja govindam mudha-mate, prapte sannihite karana, hita kala-marane: "This is... Jugglery of words will not save you. This is my final instruction." Mayavadam asac-chastram pracchanam bauddham ucyate. Kalau brahma-murtina. He has some business to do that, but actually, we should not hear about..., especially Srimad-Bhagavatam. Therefore Sripada Sankaracarya avoided to write any comments on Srimad-Bhagavatam. He has written comments on Bhagavad-gita, but he has completely avoided to write any comment on Bhagavata because he knew that "I am doing the wrong thing. How can I touch Srimad-Bhagavatam?" Srimad-bhagavatam amalam puranam yad vaisnavanam priyam. He has purposefully avoided. And the acarya, other acaryas like Sri Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, Visnu Svami and up to Caitanya Mahaprabhu, everyone has accepted, Srimad-bhagavatamamalam puranam.":pray: :pray: :pray:

 

[Guest guest]

So tell us all you Hare Krishna experts on Advaita when did Adi-Shankara make this 'final instruction' statement?

[Guest guest]

Tridandisvami Sri Srimad Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja

There was a certain disciple of Sripada Sankaracarya who was illiterate. Sankaracarya used to give class on the bank of the Ganges, on the Bhagirathi River in Badarikasrama, and there was such a strong current in that part of the river that even an elephant could not cross. Sankaracarya used to give class daily, and all his disciples in attendance were very learned and eager to hear his teachings. He especially had four very scholarly, renounced and famous disciples.

That illiterate disciple used to engage in many menial services, like washing his Guru’s clothes and cooking his meals. He was once washing clothes on the opposite side of the Ganges from Sankaracarya’s class. Class-time came, and except for him all disciples were present. Sankaracarya was waiting, not speaking, and all the scholarly disciples asked him, “Gurudeva, why are you waiting?” He replied, “I am waiting for that disciple.” They said, “He is not literate. He will not understand what you say anyway. Please begin class. We do not want to waste our time.” Still, Sankaracarya continued to wait.

Soon that illiterate disciple came, very quickly running, and bowed down to the lotus feet of Sankaracarya. At once, he began to pray to him with very elevated philosophical stava and stuti (hymns and verses). His prayers were so scholarly, in fact, that the four highly qualified disciples could not understand what he was saying.

They now realized the glories of their Gurudeva. Sri Guru is not a simple thing. By the mercy of the bona fide gurudeva, an illiterate person can become a very high-class, learned devotee, knowing all siddhanta (established philosophical conclusions).

You should have strong faith in this truth. Don’t be bewildered.

[Guest guest]

 

Shankar says:

 

 

Yes. Adi Shankaracharya told you Mudhas as you can't do any other sadhna so at least chant! He said o Mudhas at least chant Govinda's name if you can't do any sadhna. And you interpreted it like - Govinda's name is only to be chanted.

[Guest guest]

 

Tridandisvami Sri Srimad Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja

There was a certain disciple of Sripada Sankaracarya who was illiterate. Sankaracarya used to give class on the bank of the Ganges, on the Bhagirathi River in Badarikasrama, and there was such a strong current in that part of the river that even an elephant could not cross. Sankaracarya used to give class daily, and all his disciples in attendance were very learned and eager to hear his teachings. He especially had four very scholarly, renounced and famous disciples.

That illiterate disciple used to engage in many menial services, like washing his Guru’s clothes and cooking his meals. He was once washing clothes on the opposite side of the Ganges from Sankaracarya’s class. Class-time came, and except for him all disciples were present. Sankaracarya was waiting, not speaking, and all the scholarly disciples asked him, “Gurudeva, why are you waiting?” He replied, “I am waiting for that disciple.” They said, “He is not literate. He will not understand what you say anyway. Please begin class. We do not want to waste our time.” Still, Sankaracarya continued to wait.

Soon that illiterate disciple came, very quickly running, and bowed down to the lotus feet of Sankaracarya. At once, he began to pray to him with very elevated philosophical stava and stuti (hymns and verses). His prayers were so scholarly, in fact, that the four highly qualified disciples could not understand what he was saying.

They now realized the glories of their Gurudeva. Sri Guru is not a simple thing. By the mercy of the bona fide gurudeva, an illiterate person can become a very high-class, learned devotee, knowing all siddhanta (established philosophical conclusions).

You should have strong faith in this truth. Don’t be bewildered.

 

Very nice story to emphasize the importance of Guru.

But one thing is not clear. Talking of double standards, why do Hare Krsnas quote Adi Shankaracharya if they don't even accept him? Just to defeat others or what? Why quote someone you don't accept? The common story thrown up by HKs about Adi Shankaracharya is that he is an avatara of Lord Shiva who came to spread wrong knowledge to people to confuse them.

lol! And then they quote him!!

[Guruvani]

 

Very nice story to emphasize the importance of Guru.

But one thing is not clear. Talking of double standards, why do Hare Krsnas quote Adi Shankaracharya if they don't even accept him? Just to defeat others or what? Why quote someone you don't accept? The common story thrown up by HKs about Adi Shankaracharya is that he is an avatara of Lord Shiva who came to spread wrong knowledge to people to confuse them.

lol! And then they quote him!!

Because that is how our acharyas have done.

We didn't make it up all by our itty-bitty selves.

 

The Vaishnava acharyas have appreciated Shankaracharya because be brought India back to the Vedic authority after Lord Buddha has led India away from the Vedic authority with his rejection of the Vedas.

 

They acharyas appreciate all the important religious figures even Jesus and Mohammed, but as they have made it clear they don't always accept their philosophy.

 

So, our acharyas have appreciated Jesus too, but rejected his philosophy.

They have appreciated Buddha but rejected his nihilism.

 

Similarly, Shankaracharya has been appreciated but his philosophy has been rejected as shown by Ramanuja because it is a misinterpretation of the Vedic siddhanta.

 

After all Shankaracharya is an incarnation of Lord Siva who is the topmost Vaishnava. He came to re-establish the Vedic authority with a philosophy that could defeat Buddhism.

[Guest guest]

 

After all Shankaracharya is an incarnation of Lord Siva who is the topmost Vaishnava. He came to re-establish the Vedic authority with a philosophy that could defeat Buddhism.

 

And in which works of Shankaras did he directly 'defeat' Buddhism, can you reference that? Have you taken the time to know for your self if Shankara gave that much of his time 'defeating buddhism' as you all like to say?

[Guruvani]

 

And in which works of Shankaras did he directly 'defeat' Buddhism, can you reference that? Have you taken the time to know for your self if Shankara gave that much of his time 'defeating buddhism' as you all like to say?

 

Shankaracharya preached his philosophy off of the basis of Vedanta.

As such, he restored the authority of the Vedas which had become greatly damaged by the power of Buddha and his sunyavada philosophy.

 

I didn't say that Shankar mentioned anything about defeating Buddhism.

 

I said that he restored the authority of the Vedas by preaching his philosophy off of the Vedanta.

 

Buddhism was prominent when Shankar delivered his nirivisheshavada doctrine.

Shankar turned the tide and brought India back to the Vedic authority.

 

Then Ramanuja took that to the next level and established the bhakti siddhanta off of the Vedic authority.

[Guest guest]

'So you have Heard so you Repeat'

 

LOL

[Guruvani]

 

'So you have Heard so you Repeat'

 

LOL

 

not everybody can be as smart as you and make up their own philosophy.

 

Duh........

that is what they call PARAMPARA.....

 

knowledge descends from authority.

 

We don't manufacture knowledge in our minds.

 

(well, maybe you do)