listening to the holy name from the lips of mayavadis

[Amlesh]

 

And who taught these students about the "impersonal form" of God as you put it? Can you suppose something on this?

 

While you are at it, try & understand that "impersonal form" is an oxymoron. That would be a good way to start exercising the brain - something that is going into serious disuse in your affiliation.

 

Cheers

 

Personal Form of God is a step above the impersonal form, that's why Adi Sankaracharya wrote hymns of Bhakti to arouse devotion in the heart of man in his later years.

[ranjeetmore]

radhey radhey, when you quote such a verse, it is appropriate when i cal it out of context....Arjuna was talking about bhagwan Shankar ALONE.There is no independence of Mahadeva without Godhead Himself,Krsna.

Why is it so tough to digest that Godhead can take of a couple of material qualities and transform Himself into Rudra ?? Or that Godhead's glance is the selfsame as the state of Shambhu ??

There have been so many incarnations of Hari hara...

So,i think debating on who is Supreme is pointless becoz Advait jnana tattva is svagat bheda shunya.Sri krsna has ABSOLUTELY NO CONFLICTS WITH HIS INCARNATIONS,EXPANSIONS AND TRANSFORMATIONS.It is all harmonised by His acintya shakti.

[ranjeetmore]

baobab,upanishads are way beyond the grasp of you me or darkwarrior.

Refer to upanishads only when you have backup of a KSOTRIYA BRAHM NISHTA guru..who is God realised...otherwise,we wil just be like christians.Jesus said,''i am Going now to a place where none of you hav the right to come.''

They cudnt make head or toe of it.Is he going to hell,heaven.Is he gona die ? Is he crack ?

They didnt understand such a simple statement.He meant kingdom of God,vaikuntha....now lets go to the vedas,

''surya aatma jagatastasthushach:''

Sun is the super soul.

''mano brahmopaseet''

Mind is brahm.

 

How can you even propose to understand the vedas with your intelect ? Are all of you liberated ? Or you must surely be better than saraswati,brahma,etc. That you are all declaring,All are brahm,I am brahm,..such nonsense..none of you can ever understand the veda.Stick to puranas.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Personal Form of God is a step above the impersonal form, that's why Adi Sankaracharya wrote hymns of Bhakti to arouse devotion in the heart of man in his later years.

 

You mean Sankaracharya became a Gaudiya Vaishnava?

 

No, those hymns are simply reflective of his devotion to Saguna Brahman. Everything is real, including duality at the Vyavaharika. Hence, Brahman with attributes and personal form exists at the illusory level.

 

In his Gita Bhashya, Sankaracharya translates 'Akshara' as Nirguna Brahman. Hence, according to him, meditating on Nirguna Brahman is a pretty tough ask, so, one can first devote himself to Isvara, Saguna Brahman. That is the basis of so many devotional hymns. He even advocates worship of archa avatara, the deity in temples, for this purpose.

 

He certainly did not change his mind, trust me. Advaita is a crazy philosophy.

 

 

The difference in philosophical belief in dvaita and advaita was also present among the rishis. Kasyapa and Shandilya held different opinions on vedanta. It's naive to think we forum members with our limited knowledge will solve this problem for once and for all. We can still argue, debate and discuss, but with respect for each other.

 

Of course. I have great respect for Adi Sankaracharya, and certainly for his followers. Sri Krishna Premi is a great advaitin scholar and a Krishna bhakta who has become quite popular here.

 

However, In my opinion, it is a long stretch to call the philosophy of Vedanta as Advaitic. One look at the core scriptures can tell you that they don't talk of advaita at all. The Mahavakyas, as Advaitins call them, along with the concept of Avidya, are the supporting pillars of Advaita. And they can be easily refuted.

 

Advaita is an intellectual error.

[Amlesh]

 

You mean Sankaracharya became a Gaudiya Vaishnava?

 

No, those hymns are simply reflective of his devotion to Saguna Brahman. Everything is real, including duality at the Vyavaharika. Hence, Brahman with attributes and personal form exists at the illusory level.

 

In his Gita Bhashya, Sankaracharya translates 'Akshara' as Nirguna Brahman. Hence, according to him, meditating on Nirguna Brahman is a pretty tough ask, so, one can first devote himself to Isvara, Saguna Brahman. That is the basis of so many devotional hymns. He even advocates worship of archa avatara, the deity in temples, for this purpose.

 

He certainly did not change his mind, trust me. Advaita is a crazy philosophy.

 

 

 

Of course. I have great respect for Adi Sankaracharya, and certainly for his followers. Sri Krishna Premi is a great advaitin scholar and a Krishna bhakta who has become quite popular here.

 

However, In my opinion, it is a long stretch to call the philosophy of Vedanta as Advaitic. One look at the core scriptures can tell you that they don't talk of advaita at all. The Mahavakyas, as Advaitins call them, along with the concept of Avidya, are the supporting pillars of Advaita. And they can be easily refuted.

 

Advaita is an intellectual error.

 

I know that Advaita is pure ignorance coated with supposedly highly intellectual talks....

 

And the Sariraka Bhasya when seen in depth does not depict at all bhakti...

 

But in my opinion even though Adi Shankara didn't show any sign of Bhakti in his Bhasya, still he knew the Highest Truth, that is Bhakti to Hari.

 

God take care of even the less intelligent class, that's why the great Acharya came to save the Vedic Culture from any kind of conversion by teaching the basic principle of Brahman [whose Basis is Krishna].

 

The Bhasya is as inert as what the doctrine teaches.

[Amlesh]

Bhaje Govindam is the substance of all vedic wisdom.

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

radhey radhey, when you quote such a verse, it is appropriate when i cal it out of context....Arjuna was talking about bhagwan Shankar ALONE.There is no independence of Mahadeva without Godhead Himself,Krsna.

Why is it so tough to digest that Godhead can take of a couple of material qualities and transform Himself into Rudra ?? Or that Godhead's glance is the selfsame as the state of Shambhu ??

There have been so many incarnations of Hari hara...

So,i think debating on who is Supreme is pointless becoz Advait jnana tattva is svagat bheda shunya.Sri krsna has ABSOLUTELY NO CONFLICTS WITH HIS INCARNATIONS,EXPANSIONS AND TRANSFORMATIONS.It is all harmonised by His acintya shakti.

Your response is rather garbled. I'm going with the assumption that you were under the impression that I was saying that Shiva is supreme? Well, going off of this assumption, I wasn't arguing that one was supreme over the other. I was showing that They are equal.

[Dark Warrior]

I suggest, people stop taking the subject of this thread away.

 

Mahabharata is an interpolated text and is not pramana. In Santi Parva, Krishna tells Arjuna that Narayana resides within the atman of Shiva, therby labelling Shiva as a Jivatma. In another place, Shiva is equated to Vishnu. Both cannot be the opinion of Vyasa. Hence, it is safe to conclude that Shiva Sahasranama and other parts are interpolations.

 

Brahman has one specific rupa and is present in one specific location (despite being all pervading) according to the Veda. This rupa is described to have two eyes that are as beautiful as lotuses blossomed by the Sun. The Jitante Stotram says that Brahman manifests His divine form with weapons, etc. for the sake of His devotees. Hence, Shiva=Vishnu is not tenable, unless you use the Advaitin equation of Atman=Brahman. Either Vishnu > Shiva, or Shiva > Vishnu. And the former view carries more weight.

 

Now, stick to the topic of the thread.

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

I suggest, people stop taking the subject of this thread away.

 

Mahabharata is an interpolated text and is not pramana. In Santi Parva, Krishna tells Arjuna that Narayana resides within the atman of Shiva, therby labelling Shiva as a Jivatma. In another place, Shiva is equated to Vishnu. Both cannot be the opinion of Vyasa. Hence, it is safe to conclude that Shiva Sahasranama and other parts are interpolations.

 

Brahman has one specific rupa and is present in one specific location (despite being all pervading) according to the Veda. This rupa is described to have two eyes that are as beautiful as lotuses blossomed by the Sun. The Jitante Stotram says that Brahman manifests His divine form with weapons, etc. for the sake of His devotees. Hence, Shiva=Vishnu is not tenable, unless you use the Advaitin equation of Atman=Brahman. Either Vishnu > Shiva, or Shiva > Vishnu. And the former view carries more weight.

 

Now, stick to the topic of the thread.

So, in other words, you think the Mahabharata is just a made up story? Or, just the parts you don't like? What is your evidence for an interpolation?

[Dark Warrior]

No, I believe that the Mahabharata is a historical tale that has been interpolated many, many times.

 

If Shiva Sahasranama was an integral part of the Mahabharata, it is very striking that no scholar has even referred to it. 10 Commentaries on Vishnu Sahasranama exist, but none on Shiva Sahasranama. And indeed, if it had existed earlier, it would be a text of great importance, because it proposes a completely different view of Brahman.

 

One text cannot contain diametrically opposed views, viz., Shiva is Brahman and Shiva is Jiva unless it is interpolated. Hence, it is unsuitable as a valid pramana.

 

There were a dozen different versions of the Mahabharata during Madhva's times. Speaks for itself, doesn't it?

 

I suggest you stop acting belligerently and follow your beliefs. This thread is about Advaita, not Shaivism.

 

EDIT: Same goes for Ranjeetmore's irrelevant posts.

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

that Lakshmi was not in the Rasa Lila?

 

They actually do have reason to believe that:

When Lord Sri Krishna was dancing with the gopīs in the rasa-lila, the gopīs were embraced by the arms of the Lord. This transcendental favor was never bestowed upon the goddess of fortune or other consorts in the spiritual world. Indeed, never was such a thing even imagined by the most beautiful girls in the heavenly planets, whose bodily luster and aroma resemble the lotus flower. And what to speak of worldly women who are very beautiful according to material estimation?

--Srimad Bhagavata Purana 10.47.60

 

I, personally, think that all of the Gopis and Radharani were incarnations of Lakshmi Devi, and, therefore, admit that I do not understand the verse in the slightest. Do you have an explanation?

[Dark Warrior]

Exactly how is this relevant to the topic?

 

In any case, That's Srila Prabhupada's commentary.

 

First of all, Lakshmi resides on the chest of Narayana at all times. Even when Sita was abducted, in reality, Lakshmi was always there on the chest of Lord Rama. Hence, Lakshmi resides on the chest of Sri Krishna as well. The name 'Madhava' itself indicates that. She was also there during the rasa lila.

 

The Gopis, Radha, etc. are not avatars of Lakshmi. They are Jivas who earned that position and attained moksha. There are differing opinions on who they were. Sri Vaishnavas believe that they were Vanaras in their previous birth, those who served Lord Rama. Tattvavadis believe the gopis to be apsaras.

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

No, I believe that the Mahabharata is a historical tale that has been interpolated many, many times.

How do you know what is true and what is false in it? Do you think Gita is true? If so, why? If what you say is true, then how can you possibly tell the fact from the fiction?

 

If Shiva Sahasranama was an integral part of the Mahabharata, it is very striking that no scholar has even referred to it. 10 Commentaries on Vishnu Sahasranama exist, but none on Shiva Sahasranama.

I'm sure that there are Shaiva gurus who have commented on Shiva Sahasranam, since most Shaivas recite it.

 

And indeed, if it had existed earlier, it would be a text of great importance, because it proposes a completely different view of Brahman.

There are many schools of Hinduism... there's a reason for that. Each views Brahman differently.

 

One text cannot contain diametrically opposed views, viz., Shiva is Brahman and Shiva is Jiva unless it is interpolated. Hence, it is unsuitable as a valid pramana.

The only verse that you indirectly cited says is that Vishnu is in the Atman of Shiva. Is Vishnu not in the Atman of Krishna and Rama as well, since He is Their atman? I don't see how that necessarily classifies one as a jivatma.

Also, since you think it's been tampered with, how do you know that Shiva being a jiva wasn't a later addition (if He is truly called a jivatma).

 

There were a dozen different versions of the Mahabharata during Madhva's times. Speaks for itself, doesn't it?

Well, which one do you think was the right one?

 

I suggest you stop acting belligerently and follow your beliefs. This thread is about Advaita, not Shaivism.

Jeez... testy, aren't we?

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

Exactly how is this relevant to the topic?

I was looking back and saw it?

 

In any case, That's Srila Prabhupada's commentary.

No, it's not. It's his translation of this verse:

 

http://srimadbhagavatam.com/10/47/60/en

 

Do you have a different translation you'd like to share with us?

[Dark Warrior]

 

How do you know what is true and what is false in it? Do you think Gita is true? If so, why? If what you say is true, then how can you possibly tell the fact from the fiction?

 

Whatever Shruti says is authority. Whatever follows Shruti is authority.

 

A basic rule in Vedanta. Hence, those parts not contradictory to Shruti are accepted.

 

Vaishnavas are undefeated as far as Shruti is concerned.

 

 

I'm sure that there are Shaiva gurus who have commented on Shiva Sahasranam, since most Shaivas recite it.

 

It is a historical fact that Shiva Sahasranama was not mentioned by anyone before the 16th century atleast. Not even Devout Shaivites. Otherwise, people would have questioned why Adi Sankara and others chose Vishnu Sahasranama exclusively and not Shiva Sahasranama.

 

 

There are many schools of Hinduism... there's a reason for that. Each views Brahman differently.

 

Every School of Vedanta is Vaishnavite. You can check that yourself. Even Advaita was originally a Vaishnavite school.

 

Shaivism is a diverse faith. Majority of them reject the Vedas fully. And most of the sects of Shaivas are always monistic. Unless you use Atman=Brahman Logic, you cannot prove Shaivism.

 

Dualistic Shaivism is quite a rarity. Srikantha tried such a thing, but Appaya Dikshitar absorbed that into his Shiva Advaita as well.

 

On the contrary, there is no school of Vaishnavism that is unvedic. Every sect of Vaishnavism has its own, organised commentaries on the prasthna trayam. Most Shaivas do not even have a single commentary to their credit.

 

 

 

All the verse you indirectly cited says is that Vishnu is in the Atman of Shiva. Is Vishnu not in the Atman of Krishna and Rama as well? That doesn't classify one as a Jivatma.

 

Ignorance. Rama and Krishna are Brahman, ie, Vishnu. Shiva is a Jivatman who has Vishnu as His indweller. Rama or Krishna don't have indwellers.

 

 

Well, which one do you think was the right one?

 

Jeez... testy, aren't we?

 

It is pretty clear that you do not have a working knowledge of sastra. So, I suggest, stick to the topic, or just open another thread to announce your beliefs.

[Amlesh]

 

Whatever Shruti says is authority. Whatever follows Shruti is authority.

 

A basic rule in Vedanta. Hence, those parts not contradictory to Shruti are accepted.

 

Vaishnavas are undefeated as far as Shruti is concerned.

 

 

 

It is a historical fact that Shiva Sahasranama was not mentioned by anyone before the 16th century atleast. Not even Devout Shaivites. Otherwise, people would have questioned why Adi Sankara and others chose Vishnu Sahasranama exclusively and not Shiva Sahasranama.

 

 

 

Every School of Vedanta is Vaishnavite. You can check that yourself. Even Advaita was originally a Vaishnavite school.

 

Shaivism is a diverse faith. Majority of them reject the Vedas fully. And most of the sects of Shaivas are always monistic. Unless you use Atman=Brahman Logic, you cannot prove Shaivism.

 

Dualistic Shaivism is quite a rarity. Srikantha tried such a thing, but Appaya Dikshitar absorbed that into his Shiva Advaita as well.

 

On the contrary, there is no school of Vaishnavism that is unvedic. Every sect of Vaishnavism has its own, organised commentaries on the prasthna trayam. Most Shaivas do not even have a single commentary to their credit.

 

 

 

 

Ignorance. Rama and Krishna are Brahman, ie, Vishnu. Shiva is a Jivatman who has Vishnu as His indweller. Rama or Krishna don't have indwellers.

 

 

 

It is pretty clear that you do not have a working knowledge of sastra. So, I suggest, stick to the topic, or just open another thread to announce your beliefs.

I suppose Radhey Radhey Doctrine would be composed of only questions and speculations, that too of the most foolish kind.

 

At least others do have something to Follow even if it is not as good as Vaishnavism.

 

Radhey Radhey is like a leaf dancing here and there according to the tune of the waves or like a monkey jumping from 1 branch to another for a banana.

[Dark Warrior]

Dude, I don't insult or attack anyone for their beliefs, though I follow Vedanta. For that matter, I myself have great respect for the tradition of Shaivism, as it has a colorful and vibrant history of poets and mystics.

 

I only want people to stick to the topic. For the last time, whether you are a Shaiva, Shakta, Vaishnava, etc., it is irrelevant to this thread.

[Amlesh]

Good..

 

For me, I've got a better realisation...

 

I prefer now to be silent, it is wiser to be so.

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

Whatever Shruti says is authority. Whatever follows Shruti is authority.

 

A basic rule in Vedanta. Hence, those parts not contradictory to Shruti are accepted.

 

Vaishnavas are undefeated as far as Shruti is concerned.

Mahabharata still crumbles if you say that some parts are made up and some parts aren't. If we don't accept all of it, we might as well accept none of it, since we can never be sure what is true and what is false. You can't be sure that the 'Shiva is a Jivatma' verse that you [indirectly] cited isn't an interpolation and the verse that I quoted that says that Vishnu is Shiva and Shiva is Vishnu isn't an interpolation.

 

It is a historical fact that Shiva Sahasranama was not mentioned by anyone before the 16th century atleast. Not even Devout Shaivites. Otherwise, people would have questioned why Adi Sankara and others chose Vishnu Sahasranama exclusively and not Shiva Sahasranama.

Reference?

 

Every School of Vedanta is Vaishnavite. You can check that yourself. Even Advaita was originally a Vaishnavite school.

I haven't seen strong enough evidence provided by you to prove that Advaita was originally solely Vaishnava.

 

Shaivism is a diverse faith. Majority of them reject the Vedas fully. And most of the sects of Shaivas are always monistic. Unless you use Atman=Brahman Logic, you cannot prove Shaivism.

What are your acharya's interpretation of verses such as this one?:

To Rudra bring these songs, whose bow is firm and strong, the self-dependent God with swiftly-flying shafts.

--Rig Veda 7.45.1

 

Dualistic Shaivism is quite a rarity. Srikantha tried such a thing, but Appaya Dikshitar absorbed that into his Shiva Advaita as well.

 

On the contrary, there is no school of Vaishnavism that is unvedic. Every sect of Vaishnavism has its own, organised commentaries on the prasthna trayam. Most Shaivas do not even have a single commentary to their credit.

I haven't studied the schools of Shaivism in-depth, so I'll take your word for it.

 

Ignorance. Rama and Krishna are Brahman, ie, Vishnu. Shiva is a Jivatman who has Vishnu as His indweller. Rama or Krishna don't have indwellers.

Does Vishnu not contain Himself?

[Dark Warrior]

*Sigh* Back again.

 

 

Mahabharata still crumbles if you say that some parts are made up and some parts aren't. If we don't accept all of it, we might as well accept none of it, since we can never be sure what is true and what is false. You can't be sure that the 'Shiva is a Jivatma' verse that you [indirectly] cited isn't an interpolation and the verse that I quoted that says that Vishnu is Shiva and Shiva is Vishnu isn't an interpolation.

the only parts that are interpolated pertain to the supremacy of a God. Incidents such as the Kurukshetra war are intact. When Shruti says Vishnu is Supreme, when Bhagavad Gita says Vishnu is Supreme, When Ramayana says Rama is Supreme, then there is little doubt that Mahabharata is interpolated.

 

We cannot go to Ithihasas or Purana without clarifying the Vedas first. Vedas say Vishnu is Supreme. Hence, the portions of Smriti that agree with this are accepted.

 

If Puranas do not agree with vedas, they are rejected.

 

Besides, Sri Madhva and Sri Desikar have quoted the 'Shiva is a Jivatma' verse.

 

Understand the rules - Shruti is apaurusheya. Hence, whatever it says is correct. Smriti can be accepted only if it agrees with Shruti. Otherwise, discard it wholesale.

 

Furthermore, Vaishnavas had provided many proofs from the Mahabharata itself in ancient times to prove the Supremacy of Vishnu. If Shiva Sahasranama had existed, don't you think people would have come forward to refute them, or to question their selective usage of verses glorifying Vishnu alone?

 

Lastly, I do not need to quote it 'indirectly'. Go refer it yourself.

 

 

Reference?

You are a nutjob. It is your duty to provide me with a reference. Show me a commentary on Shiva Gita or Sahasranama dating to 12-13th century.

 

 

I haven't seen strong enough evidence provided by you to prove that Advaita was originally solely Vaishnava.

Read Sankara Bhashya. Should be enough. For that matter, I do not think anyone who thinks Radha Sahasranama is a pramana can actually be qualified for that.

 

Sri Puttur Swami and Sri PBA Swami presented the same evidence to Sri Chandrashekar Saraswati of Kanchi Mutt. When Sankara clearly discourages worship of Rudra in his Gita Bhashya, rejects Shaivism and Shaktism in his Brahma Sutra Bhashya, accepts the Bhagavata doctrine of Narayana being Supreme, there is little doubt about what his inclination was.

 

 

What are your acharya's interpretation of verses such as this one?:

To Rudra bring these songs, whose bow is firm and strong, the self-dependent God with swiftly-flying shafts.

--Rig Veda 7.45.1

I have explained all this many times. Read my earlier posts. Ignoramuses like you unfortunately, never get the gist of what I am saying, so I am not going to repeat it.

 

Or, get a copy of Ramanuja bhashya to understand. Or, go to a Vaishnava website for the basics.

 

Its clear that you know nothing. Anyone who takes one isolated verse of Veda, without a knowledge of systems like Chaga Pasu Nyaaya or Sarva Shabdha Vachyatva is sorely lacking. Ever heard of these systems? Obviously not.

 

Simply quoting a dozen verses of 'Agni is Supreme', 'Vayu is Supreme', or Krishna saying 'I am Brahma, I am Shiva' without a knowledge of philosophy and metaphysics is useless.

 

 

I haven't studied the schools of Shaivism in-depth, so I'll take your word for it.

 

Does Vishnu not contain Himself?

Vishnu is Paramatma. How can He have an indweller? His svarupa pervades, and at the same time, He exists in a beautiful form localised.

 

Again, RadheyRadhey108, I advise you to open another thread. Quite frankly, you have not produced one sensible post.

[srikanthdk71]

 

You mean Sankaracharya became a Gaudiya Vaishnava?

 

No, those hymns are simply reflective of his devotion to Saguna Brahman. Everything is real, including duality at the Vyavaharika. Hence, Brahman with attributes and personal form exists at the illusory level.

 

In his Gita Bhashya, Sankaracharya translates 'Akshara' as Nirguna Brahman. Hence, according to him, meditating on Nirguna Brahman is a pretty tough ask, so, one can first devote himself to Isvara, Saguna Brahman. That is the basis of so many devotional hymns. He even advocates worship of archa avatara, the deity in temples, for this purpose.

 

He certainly did not change his mind, trust me. Advaita is a crazy philosophy.

 

 

 

Of course. I have great respect for Adi Sankaracharya, and certainly for his followers. Sri Krishna Premi is a great advaitin scholar and a Krishna bhakta who has become quite popular here.

 

However, In my opinion, it is a long stretch to call the philosophy of Vedanta as Advaitic. One look at the core scriptures can tell you that they don't talk of advaita at all. The Mahavakyas, as Advaitins call them, along with the concept of Avidya, are the supporting pillars of Advaita. And they can be easily refuted.

 

Advaita is an intellectual error.

 

Mahoday, Advaita is not an error at all. It is the ultimate and most scientific philosophy ever available. You say, the ultimate has a beautiful form of Pundarika. If there is a form, it is a limitation. So, obviously the unlimited is still there outside his form. Any form is not ultimate. It is a limited entity. The imperceivable is the truth or the Nirakara. Saguna Brahman is the Kriya aspect of Brahman and Nirguna is the constant regulation of the Saguna. Even in our human body, the Nirguna is regulating the Saguna aspect. Sri Shankara focused both on Saakara and Nirakara or else in the bid to save Dharma, he would have killed the fabric of Hindu beliefs and Buddhism would have killed everything. He did not preach strong Advaita philosophy and stuck to the sampradaaya of Shruti, Smriti and Puranas. It was for the others to grasp what he had to say. Some grasped it as Maayavaada where the constantly changing was refered to mind and told as Asat and the Nitya and satya was called Sat. The Asat was called Maaya and the Sat was the Atma. Please give me an answer as Dark Warrior-not affiliated to a sampradaaya, affiliated with oneself what you feel from deep within you and not quote from the books. I am asking for experiences of the present and not Pramaans of the past. Is it not YATHAA PINDE, TATHAA BRAHMAANDE? Is realization a Myth? If you think so? Think again.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Mahoday, Advaita is not an error at all. It is the ultimate and most scientific philosophy ever available. You say, the ultimate has a beautiful form of Pundarika. If there is a form, it is a limitation. So, obviously the unlimited is still there outside his form. Any form is not ultimate. It is a limited entity.

 

No. Understand this. The Svarupa of Brahman is formless. However, it possesses the attributes of Satyam, Jnanam and Anantam. And, according to Brihadaranyaka, this Svarupa has the entire Universe and Jivas as its body.

 

At the same time, this Svarupa also exists inside a beautiful body. By His own will and power, Bhagavan exists inside of His own body (which includes Universe and Vaikuntha) as a beautiful God.

 

Both Rupa and Svarupa are eternal. The Svarupa pervades and at the sametime, exists inside a beautiful Rupa, just like we exist in our body. However, Vishnu's body is not material, but Shudha Sattva.

 

 

 

The imperceivable is the truth or the Nirakara. Saguna Brahman is the Kriya aspect of Brahman and Nirguna is the constant regulation of the Saguna. Even in our human body, the Nirguna is regulating the Saguna aspect. Sri Shankara focused both on Saakara and Nirakara or else in the bid to save Dharma, he would have killed the fabric of Hindu beliefs and Buddhism would have killed everything.

 

There is no pramana for Nirguna or Saguna Brahman. 'Nirguna' means, beyond all sattva, rajas and tamas. The Upanishads speak gloriously of Brahman with attributes.

 

Brahman covered by maya is not tenable. Advaita says Brahman has no attributes. So, Maya is not an attribute of Brahman. Advaita does not accept anything other than Brahman as real, so Maya cannot be distinct from Brahman.

 

So, that would mean, Brahman IS Maya, which is contradictory to many vakyas talking about the flawlessness of Brahman.

 

If Maya is unreal, then we have an unreal Jiva suffering in illusion due to an unreal maya, and realisation of avidya, which is also unreal, results in Identity. This isn't logical.

 

 

He did not preach strong Advaita philosophy and stuck to the sampradaaya of Shruti, Smriti and Puranas. It was for the others to grasp what he had to say. Some grasped it as Maayavaada where the constantly changing was refered to mind and told as Asat and the Nitya and satya was called Sat. The Asat was called Maaya and the Sat was the Atma. Please give me an answer as Dark Warrior-not affiliated to a sampradaaya, affiliated with oneself what you feel from deep within you and not quote from the books. I am asking for experiences of the present and not Pramaans of the past. Is it not YATHAA PINDE, TATHAA BRAHMAANDE? Is realization a Myth? If you think so? Think again.

 

Sankaracharya was a staunch Advaitin. No sense saying otherwise.

 

I accept the Veda. Hence, I will argue only based on Veda. If you think Advaita is the ultimate reality despite lack of pramanas, that's your belief.

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

the only parts that are interpolated pertain to the supremacy of a God. Incidents such as the Kurukshetra war are intact. When Shruti says Vishnu is Supreme, when Bhagavad Gita says Vishnu is Supreme, When Ramayana says Rama is Supreme, then there is little doubt that Mahabharata is interpolated.

When Rama worships Shiva, how do you know that Rama being supreme wasn’t interpolated? Where does Bhagavad Gita specifically say that Vishnu is supreme?

 

We cannot go to Ithihasas or Purana without clarifying the Vedas first. Vedas say Vishnu is Supreme. Hence, the portions of Smriti that agree with this are accepted.

Well, who knows which parts of the Vedas have been interpolated?

 

If Puranas do not agree with vedas, they are rejected.

How do you know sections of the Vedas haven’t been interpolated?

 

Besides, Sri Madhva and Sri Desikar have quoted the 'Shiva is a Jivatma' verse.

Understand the rules - Shruti is apaurusheya. Hence, whatever it says is correct. Smriti can be accepted only if it agrees with Shruti. Otherwise, discard it wholesale.

Oh, but how can we be sure as to what has been interpolated and what hasn’t?

 

Furthermore, Vaishnavas had provided many proofs from the Mahabharata itself in ancient times to prove the Supremacy of Vishnu. If Shiva Sahasranama had existed, don't you think people would have come forward to refute them, or to question their selective usage of verses glorifying Vishnu alone?

Shaivas clearly did, since they aren’t Vaishnavas.

 

Lastly, I do not need to quote it 'indirectly'. Go refer it yourself.

So, you’re just going to cite something and not give a reference?

 

You are a nutjob. It is your duty to provide me with a reference. Show me a commentary on Shiva Gita or Sahasranama dating to 12-13th century.

The earliest copy we have of the Srimad Bhagavata Purana and any succeeding commentaries are from the 10^th century onward. Does that mean it didn’t exist before-hand?

 

Read Sankara Bhashya. Should be enough. For that matter, I do not think anyone who thinks Radha Sahasranama is a pramana can actually be qualified for that.

I was talking to a Gaudiya Vaishnava. They consider the Radha Sahasranam to be pranama.

 

Sri Puttur Swami and Sri PBA Swami presented the same evidence to Sri Chandrashekar Saraswati of Kanchi Mutt. When Sankara clearly discourages worship of Rudra in his Gita Bhashya, rejects Shaivism and Shaktism in his Brahma Sutra Bhashya, accepts the Bhagavata doctrine of Narayana being Supreme, there is little doubt about what his inclination was.

If he truly taught this, then why do his followers worship all deities?

 

I have explained all this many times. Read my earlier posts. Ignoramuses like you unfortunately, never get the gist of what I am saying, so I am not going to repeat it.

Or, get a copy of Ramanuja bhashya to understand. Or, go to a Vaishnava website for the basics.

Its clear that you know nothing. Anyone who takes one isolated verse of Veda, without a knowledge of systems like Chaga Pasu Nyaaya or Sarva Shabdha Vachyatva is sorely lacking. Ever heard of these systems? Obviously not.

Simply quoting a dozen verses of 'Agni is Supreme', 'Vayu is Supreme', or Krishna saying 'I am Brahma, I am Shiva' without a knowledge of philosophy and metaphysics is useless.

Idiotic. Vishnu is Paramatma. How can He have an indweller? His svarupa pervades, and at the same time, He exists in a beautiful form localised.

Again, RadheyRadhey108, I advise you to open another thread. Quite frankly, you have not produced one sensible post.

Since you are so smart, please explain this verse to me:

To Rudra bring these songs, whose bow is firm and strong, the self-dependent God with swiftly-flying shafts.

--Rig Veda 7.45.1

[Dark Warrior]

 

When Rama worships Shiva, how do you know that Rama being supreme wasn’t interpolated? Where does Bhagavad Gita specifically say that Vishnu is supreme?

Krishna is Vishnu

 

Secondly, Rama never worshipped Shiva. Valmiki Ramayana says Rama worshipped Himself, ie, Narayana.

 

Stop relying on Tulasidas Ramayana. It isn't authentic. Valmiki says Rama broke Shiva's bow. There is no reference of Rama consecrating a Shiva Linga, as mordern day hindus believe.

 

And nice logic. Rama being supreme is interpolated? That means the entire Ramayana is an interpolation!!

 

The Ramayana is in pristine form. The only identified interpolation is Aditya Hridayam.

 

 

Well, who knows which parts of the Vedas have been interpolated?

 

How do you know sections of the Vedas haven’t been interpolated?

 

Oh, but how can we be sure as to what has been interpolated and what hasn’t?

..The very fact that you ask if the Vedas are interpolated shows your complete ignorance of Vedanta.

 

The Veda cannot be interpolated because an interpolation will cause the metre of the hymn to fall. This way, a couple of interpolations have been identified.

 

Therefore, Vedas are apaurusheya and authority. Whatever they say is ultimate. So, only those parts that agree with Shruti are accepted. This is the first and most important rule of Vedanta.

 

Quite simple. You, being an ignoramus, lack a complete knowledge of Veda.

 

 

Shaivas clearly did, since they aren’t Vaishnavas.

 

So, you’re just going to cite something and not give a reference?

If you want a reference to Santi Parva, I suggest you search these forums. Not just me, many people have quoted it here. Not hard to find in the old Shiva/Vishnu threads.

 

it is your duty to show me a reference. Give me a Shaivite commentary of Shiva Gita or Shiva Sahasranama dating to the 13th century.

 

 

The earliest copy we have of the Srimad Bhagavata Purana and any succeeding commentaries are from the 10^th century onward. Does that mean it didn’t exist before-hand?

Srimad Bhagavatam agrees with Shruti. It is also quoted by Sri Madhva. Since Madhva was able to identify spurious versions of many texts, I believe his scholarship.

 

 

I was talking to a Gaudiya Vaishnava. They consider the Radha Sahasranam to be pranama.

 

If he truly taught this, then why do his followers worship all deities?

Happened with Appaya Dikshitar's works.

 

The deterioration of Advaita came about the 16th century. Advaitins naturally will not be able to understand why they should worship one god alone, naturally, it has resulted in this.

 

Sankara and his disciples were Vaishnavas and that cannot be denied. Although in a sense, it seems useless to restrict worship to one god if you are an advaitin, Sri Sankara apparently still advocated only Vishnu bhakti because he, being a Vedantin, knew that Vishnu was praised as Supreme throughout the Veda.

 

 

Since you are so smart, please explain this verse to me:

To Rudra bring these songs, whose bow is firm and strong, the self-dependent God with swiftly-flying shafts.

--Rig Veda 7.45.1

This will be the last time I explain this. If anyone else comes again asking for it, I won't.

 

In one portion, Shruti says Rudra is supreme. In another portion, it says Rudra was created.

 

Brihadaranyaka says, everything, Prakrti, Jivas, etc. are the body of Brahman.

 

When I call you 'Radhey', I refer to your body and soul together as one entity. Since Brahman resides in the soul of Shiva, to say 'Shiva is Supreme' addresses Brahman within Shiva.

 

Purusha Suktam identifies Brahman as Lakshmi Pathi.

 

In an analogy, if I address a woman saying 'hair is beautiful', the praise goes to the woman and not just to the hair. Hence, all devas are parts/limbs of Vishnu, and praise of any deva goes to Vishnu. Anganyanya Devata, meaning, all these devas are His limbs. Confirmed by Vishnu Sahasranama as well.

 

That Vishnu is Brahman is substantiated everywhere in Veda.

 

If you do not interpret Veda his way, you have contradictions everywhere because in some portions one deity is called supreme, and elsewhere this same deity also has faults.

 

There are 3 ways of interpretation:

 

1) Vishnu is the referrant of all names. 'Shiva' simply means 'Auspicious'. 'Rudra' means 'Destroyer of Evil'. Hence, 'Brahman is Shiva' can mean 'Brahman is Auspicious' and not Mahadeva.

 

2) If however, the Vedas say something like 'Mahadeva with 3 eyes is Supreme', the body/soul concept I explained can be applied. Because in Mahanarayana Upanishad, Shiva is mentioned to be a part of creation.

 

3) Thirdly, each deva is endowed with an attribute of Brahman. However, Brahman, being Vishnu, has all their attributes. Praise of any deva is equivalent to praising one attribute of Brahman.

 

Hence, do not aimlessly post 'Agni is Supreme', 'Indra is Supreme', 'Rudra is Supreme', etc. There is a systematic way to understand who is Supreme. Just because Krishna says 'I am Brahma, I am Vayu' it does not mean these devas are identical to Him. Rather, He is the soul of Brahma's soul (as per Brihadaranyaka) and hence, just like your body and soul are together called by one name, Vishnu alone is the referrent of hymns like 'Indra/Rudra/Agni is Supreme'.

 

You might ask, why can't we say, 'All praise goes to Shiva and not Vishnu? Simple. Because, the birth of Mahadeva is given in S.Brahmana, Yajur Veda, Rig Veda and Mahanarayana Upanishad. He is mentioned to vanish during pralaya along with stars, sun, moon and Brahma. A created and flawed entity cannot be supreme.

 

 

 

Vishnu, however, is praised as unborn and the Lord of Devas. Purusha Suktam and Narayana Suktam further elaborate the supremacy of Vishnu.

 

Now, I suggest you read up on systems of interpretation. An ignorant Radha cult follower is one of the worst to argue with. Too lazy to look up my earlier posts, where I have explained everything so thoroughly and yet, keeps pushing irrelevant topics in this thread.

 

I have explained this many times, and yet people are unwilling to accept the facts. Well, I can't be bothered explaining it to every Tom, Dick and Harry who asks for it.

[ranjeetmore]

i personaly believe that Dark warrior is the Supreme personality of Godhead.Who else has the audacity to dismiss Radharani as a mere jeevatma ? ?

Wait...he can also be a big fool.

 

Dude,ur knowledge is useless.You are frm the Ramanujite school.Stick to subjects pertaining to Aishwarya rasa and the vaikuntha...dont tread near madhurya rasa.Your dry understanding cannot fathom it.

Hladini-saar-bhuta tattva is the origin of Bhagvati Laxmi Herself.Its not open to debate.Its fact.