Why Advaita appeals to the Modern Mind

[jinglebells]

Though a Vaishnava, I feel advaita appeals to the modern mind, because it doesn't depend much on fairy tales, superstition, faith etc.

 

The modern mind refuses to believe in a creator, so if Vaishnavas tell him God is a blue-skinned person (and yes, he's got a name!), they're not gonna take it seriously. OTOH, comparing the world to a dream appeals to the modern mind, so much so several movies have been made on this fascinating theme.

 

As to pramana, it's virutally impossible to convince people of the reality of, say varaha avatar that lifted the earth. But to prove that the "I" exists as undifferentiated consciousness (which is what advaita is about) is easy because it's self-evident.

 

For these and many other reasons, advaita seems to tower over vaishnava and other schools of thought, despite Prabhupada and others doing so much to spread vaishnava dharma and krishna bhakti. The modern mind just can't accept these things, when the pull of advaita is so strong.

 

This is my observation, and I feel it will remain this way for some time to come.

[bija]

Yes it is more popular in the west still (it seems). An agnostic can accept impersonal more easily is one example. And if faith is small...it is easier to accept impersonal. Consciousness is felt easily by the human...so an all-expansive consciousness is understood much quicker. That is my experience anyhow. Brahman realization came after some goodness for me. It is enticing, amazing, and wonderful for oneness. I still relish it.

 

But my faith (since a child) is I accept God as a person. But still my realization as a middle age man, of that Person is still small. That is how great He is. Diversity on a spiritual plane centred on bhakti is not so easily realized. But it has great flavor...even a tiny realization of it.

 

Sudarlaba is the term used by Sri Rupa I think. Very rare to accept bhakti to a Supreme Person (and experience the rasa).

[indulekhadasi]

Not everybody has the intelligence or money to buy a diamond.

This proves that Advaita is for people who are too cheap and too dumb to recieve the diamond of Krishna bhakti. They are pleasing themselves by trying to merge into Brahman. They are satisfied with glass, and do not wish to recieve the diamond.

What can I say. Most of them will fall down from the brahmajyoti back into the material pool.

Enlightened jnanis are another matter. If they have firm determination they will not fall from the brahmajyoti. Still, they will have no seperate existence. They will not get a chance to show love for Krishna. I think that is a great misfortune in itself. But then again, to each his own. Some people rather remain void then have a personal loving relationship with the Lord.

[cbrahma]

 

Though a Vaishnava, I feel advaita appeals to the modern mind, because it doesn't depend much on fairy tales, superstition, faith etc.

 

The modern mind refuses to believe in a creator, so if Vaishnavas tell him God is a blue-skinned person (and yes, he's got a name!), they're not gonna take it seriously. OTOH, comparing the world to a dream appeals to the modern mind, so much so several movies have been made on this fascinating theme.

 

As to pramana, it's virutally impossible to convince people of the reality of, say varaha avatar that lifted the earth. But to prove that the "I" exists as undifferentiated consciousness (which is what advaita is about) is easy because it's self-evident.

 

For these and many other reasons, advaita seems to tower over vaishnava and other schools of thought, despite Prabhupada and others doing so much to spread vaishnava dharma and krishna bhakti. The modern mind just can't accept these things, when the pull of advaita is so strong.

 

This is my observation, and I feel it will remain this way for some time to come.

 

Are you saying that Krsna is a fairy tale? I have a 'modern mind' and I have no problem believing God is a person, because personhood is synonomous with consciousness. Somebody is conscious. There is no such thing as disembodied consciousness. There can be unconsciousness of one's individuality as in a dream state, or insanity, and that is a form of consciousness. But pure consciousness is active and personal. The static state of impersonal awareness is the endpoint of the ascending process or of jnana yoga, the sayuja-mukti. But it is not stable and subject to fall down. To say it is appealing is a contradiction in terms , because there can be no bliss no ananda in an impersonal state.

[jinglebells]

 

Yes it is more popular in the west still (it seems). An agnostic can accept impersonal more easily is one example. And if faith is small...it is easier to accept impersonal. Consciousness is felt easily by the human...so an all-expansive consciousness is understood much quicker. That is my experience anyhow. Brahman realization came after some goodness for me. It is enticing, amazing, and wonderful for oneness. I still relish it.

 

By my faith (since a child) is I accept God as a person. But still my realization as a middle age man, of that Person is still small. That is how great He is. Diversity on a spiritual plane centred on bhakti is not so easily realized.

 

Sudarlaba is the term used by Sri Rupa I think. Very rare to accept bhakti to a Supreme Person.

 

Bija, you seem to be experienced in this sort of thing. Can you tell me more on your experiences of the Brahman Consciousness? It will help me understand better.

[bija]

Oh jingle....by Gods grace....we awaken in due course. I am a beginner in the mystery of God. I love jnana and realizing portions. I am not liberated fully. Just happy....lol (except on a bad day). Seeking love of God (and all) (and yearning).

 

What I meant to say was, until I read Hidden Treasure Gita - download here (by Srila BR Sridhara Goswami)..I had no idea of the all-prevasiveness of God. I only had a vague idea of spirit and was in total bodily consciosuness. That was 5 years ago. Jaya Gurudeva! It opened me...something I will never forget.

 

 

I have no problem believing God is a person, because personhood is synonomous with consciousness. by cbrahma

Awesome realization.

[jinglebells]

 

Not everybody has the intelligence or money to buy a diamond.

This proves that Advaita is for people who are too cheap and too dumb to recieve the diamond of Krishna bhakti. They are pleasing themselves by trying to merge into Brahman. They are satisfied with glass, and do not wish to recieve the diamond.

What can I say. Most of them will fall down from the brahmajyoti back into the material pool.

Enlightened jnanis are another matter. If they have firm determination they will not fall from the brahmajyoti. Still, they will have no seperate existence. They will not get a chance to show love for Krishna. I think that is a great misfortune in itself. But then again, to each his own. Some people rather remain void then have a personal loving relationship with the Lord.

 

I admire your enthusiasm in following vaishnavism, but it's not polite to speak ill of such a sacred tradition. Advaitins are great Krishna Bhaktas.

[Bishadi]

 

Though a Vaishnava, I feel advaita appeals to the modern mind, because it doesn't depend much on fairy tales, superstition, faith etc.

Makes sense

 

 

The modern mind refuses to believe in a creator,

As a separate life outside of the existence we experience, sure makes sense.

 

As it appears having a Zeus on a thrown with big feet doesn't work.

 

 

so if Vaishnavas tell him God is a blue-skinned person

'dark skinned' ( a nice tan) as the 'blue' is based from art (blue was a highly valued color) and not literature

 

 

they're not gonna take it seriously. OTOH, comparing the world to a dream appeals to the modern mind,

such as a guy sitting on a thrown appeals to mind rather than reality.

 

 

As to pramana, it's virutally impossible to convince people of the reality of, say varaha avatar that lifted the earth. But to prove that the "I" exists as undifferentiated consciousness (which is what advaita is about) is easy because it's self-evident.

such as Advaita vedanta paramana establishes; basically use common sense.

 

 

For these and many other reasons, advaita seems to tower over vaishnava and other schools of thought, despite Prabhupada and others doing so much to spread vaishnava dharma and krishna bhakti. The modern mind just can't accept these things, when the pull of advaita is so strong.

So for english speaking; that means word in writing offer grounds to think on but remember 'common sense' or personal experience within consciousness... the inner spiritual recognition based in unequivocal truth must be held honestly; before the words taught in literature.

[jinglebells]

 

Are you saying that Krsna is a fairy tale? I have a 'modern mind' and I have no problem believing God is a person, because personhood is synonomous with consciousness. Somebody is conscious. There is no such thing as disembodied consciousness. There can be unconsciousness of one's individuality as in a dream state, or insanity, and that is a form of consciousness. But pure consciousness is active and personal. The static state of impersonal awareness is the endpoint of the ascending process or of jnana yoga, the sayuja-mukti. But it is not stable and subject to fall down. To say it is appealing is a contradiction in terms , because there can be no bliss no ananda in an impersonal state.

I meant to say it's not easy for educated people to believe in a blue-skinned peron playing the flute. As to 'somebody' is conscious, the advaitin will argue that 'somebody' is just an illusion. As proof, he'll ask you to search for this 'somebody' either within or without. In doing so, you will realize that what you call "I" is never restricted to a certain individual, and therefore this consciousness must be impersonal. Hence the conclusion of advaita: Brahman Satya, Jagat Mithya.

 

All this isn't my view, because I am vaishnava. I am just giving a good idea of what advaita is about, and why it appeals to the modern mind. And it's no coincidence that vaishnavism in the west always attracts hippies/dropouts more than it does intellectuals. Isn't that odd?

[bija]

 

....you will realize that what you call "I" is never restricted to a certain individual, and therefore this consciousness must be impersonal. Hence the conclusion of advaita: Brahman Satya, Jagat Mithya. by jingle

You already know. Where you been sarcastic by asking me:rolleyes:. Or did you want to feel my day to day perception. (no answer necessary).

[cbrahma]

 

I meant to say it's not easy for educated people to believe in a blue-skinned peron playing the flute. As to 'somebody' is conscious, the advaitin will argue that 'somebody' is just an illusion. As proof, he'll ask you to search for this 'somebody' either within or without. In doing so, you will realize that what you call "I" is never restricted to a certain individual, and therefore this consciousness must be impersonal. Hence the conclusion of advaita: Brahman Satya, Jagat Mithya.

 

All this isn't my view, because I am vaishnava. I am just giving a good idea of what advaita is about, and why it appeals to the modern mind. And it's no coincidence that vaishnavism in the west always attracts hippies/dropouts more than it does intellectuals. Isn't that odd?

 

Nobody is arguing that nobody is conscious. This is realization? Of what may I ask? And whose realization? The non-self is under illusion? How can a non-entity be in any state whatsoever - the non-existent has no attributes.

Pure nonsense.

[Bishadi]

 

I meant to say it's not easy for educated people to believe in a blue-skinned peron playing the flute.

Same guy as the Kokopeli for the N American Indians. They suggest the same thing a flute..... sorry.... he smokes and most just don't realize what the whole flute and incense thing is all about

 

 

As to 'somebody' is conscious, the advaitin will argue that 'somebody' is just an illusion.

isn't 'person' consciousness itself for the 'i' to exist upon mass?

 

 

As proof, he'll ask you to search for this 'somebody' either within or without. In doing so, you will realize that what you call "I" is never restricted to a certain individual,

ah ... prehaps you already know this...

 

 

All this isn't my view,

or is it

because I am vaishnava. I am just giving a good idea of what advaita is about, and why it appeals to the modern mind. And it's no coincidence that vaishnavism in the west always attracts hippies/dropouts more than it does intellectuals. Isn't that odd?

Prehaps many of them smoke too?

[bija]

 

Prehaps many of them smoke too? by bishadi

I would suggest for smoking herbs:)...the shamanic path (not vaisnavism)...initiation to manhood. Tobacco etc. And healing. Most westerners....just want to party or buzz! And not enter death (hell) to live! Shamanism is an interest for me...my mothers family was Indian (the feather type).

 

(Hymn in praise

of Santa Maria)

Quem não conhece <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Santa Maria</st1:place></st1:city>

Faz uso todo dia

E vive sempre em agonia

Mas agora chegou <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">como</st1:city></st1:place> eu queria

Meu senhor São João Batista

Jesus Cristo e São José

Agora chegou <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">como</st1:city></st1:place> eu queria

Agora chegou <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">como</st1:city></st1:place> Deus quer

Chegando <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">como</st1:city></st1:place> Deus quer

Daí tudo fica bem

Chegando <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">como</st1:city></st1:place> meu pai quer

Chegou <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">como</st1:city></st1:place> eu quero

Na vontade da Virgem Maria

Ela agora vai vigorar

Ela é do meu comando

E manda eu comandar

Eu comando aquele que crê

Em Jesus Cristo e São João

Que esta é verdade

Que temos em nossa união

Holy Mary

Whoever does not know <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Santa Maria</st1:city></st1:place>

Uses her every day

And always lives in agony

But now she came as I wanted

My lord <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">St. John</st1:place></st1:city> the Baptist

Jesus Christ and <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">St. Joseph</st1:place></st1:city>

Now she came as I wanted

Now she came as God wills

Coming as God wills

Therefore all is well

Coming as my father wills

She came as I want

In the will of the Virgin Mary

She's going to be in effect now

She's under my command

And orders me to command

I command those who believe

In Jesus Christ and <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">St. John</st1:place></st1:city>

That this is true

That we have our union

[cbrahma]

 

But to prove that the "I" exists as undifferentiated consciousness (which is what advaita is about) is easy because it's self-evident.

 

Self evident? Hardly. Not to me it isn't. An impersonal "I" is a contradiction in terms.

It is a Subject without subjectivity. And individual without individuality.

A philosophical freak.

[shvu]

 

Though a Vaishnava, I feel advaita appeals to the modern mind, because it doesn't depend much on fairy tales, superstition, faith etc.

 

The modern mind refuses to believe in a creator, so if Vaishnavas tell him God is a blue-skinned person (and yes, he's got a name!), they're not gonna take it seriously. OTOH, comparing the world to a dream appeals to the modern mind, so much so several movies have been made on this fascinating theme.

 

As to pramana, it's virutally impossible to convince people of the reality of, say varaha avatar that lifted the earth. But to prove that the "I" exists as undifferentiated consciousness (which is what advaita is about) is easy because it's self-evident.

 

For these and many other reasons, advaita seems to tower over vaishnava and other schools of thought, despite Prabhupada and others doing so much to spread vaishnava dharma and krishna bhakti. The modern mind just can't accept these things, when the pull of advaita is so strong.

 

This is my observation, and I feel it will remain this way for some time to come.

 

Actually Advaita has been the most appealing since the time of its inception. It quickly rose to prominence and has stayed on top since the last 1300 years. So it is not just the modern mind, even medieval minds found Advaita to be the most rational.

 

A point I have raised on this forum in the past - how is it possible for a God to have a human form? We have our eyes and nose for server specific bodily functions. A transcendental God does not require sense organs and would look nothing like a human.

 

Cheers

[cbrahma]

 

Actually Advaita has been the most appealing since the time of its inception. It quickly rose to prominence and has stayed on top since the last 1300 years. So it is not just the modern mind, even medieval minds found Advaita to be the most rational.

 

A point I have raised on this forum in the past - how is it possible for a God to have a human form? We have our eyes and nose for server specific bodily functions. A transcendental God does not require sense organs and would look nothing like a human.

 

Cheers

[cbrahma]

 

 

<CENTER>Chapter 9. The Most Confidential Knowledge</CENTER>

 

TEXT 11

 

avajananti mam mudha

manusim tanum asritam

param bhavam ajananto

mama bhuta-mahesvaram

SYNONYMS

 

avajananti--deride; mam--Me; mudhah--foolish men; manusim--in human form; tanum--body; asritam--assuming; param--transcendental; bhavam--nature; ajanantah--not knowing; mama--Mine; bhuta--everything that be; maha-isvaram--the supreme proprietor.

 

 

TRANSLATION

 

Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature and My supreme dominion over all that be.

 

 

PURPORT

 

From the other explanations of the previous verses in this chapter, it is clear that the Supreme Personality of Godhead, although appearing like a human being, is not a common man. The Personality of Godhead, who conducts the creation, maintenance and annihilation of the complete cosmic manifestation, cannot be a human being. Yet there are many foolish men who consider Krsna to be merely a powerful man and nothing more. Actually, He is the original Supreme Personality, as is confirmed in the Brahma-samhita (isvarah paramah krsnah); He is the Supreme Lord.

There are many isvaras, controllers, and one appears greater than another. In the ordinary management of affairs in the material world, we find some official or director, and above him there is a secretary, and above him a minister, and above him a president. Each of them is a controller, but one is controlled by another. In the Brahma-samhita it is said that Krsna is the supreme controller; there are many controllers undoubtedly, both in the material and spiritual world, but Krsna is the supreme controller (isvarah paramah krsnah) and His body is sac-cid-ananda, nonmaterial.

Material bodies cannot perform the wonderful acts described in previous verses. His body is eternal, blissful and full of knowledge. Although He is not a common man, the foolish deride Him and consider Him to be a man. His body is called here manusim because He is acting just like a man, a friend of Arjuna's, a politician involved in the Battle of Kuruksetra. In so many ways He is acting just like an ordinary man, but actually His body is sac-cid-ananda-vigraha--eternal bliss and knowledge absolute. This is confirmed in the Vedic language also (sac-cid-ananda-rupaya krsnaya): "I offer my obeisances unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna, who is the eternal blissful form of knowledge." There are other descriptions in the Vedic language also. Tam ekam govindam: "You are Govinda, the pleasure of the senses and the cows." Sac-cid-ananda-vigraham: "And Your form is transcendental, full of knowledge, bliss and eternality."

Despite the transcendental qualities of Lord Krsna's body, its full bliss and knowledge, there are many so-called scholars and commentators of Bhagavad-gita who deride Krsna as an ordinary man. The scholar may be born an extraordinary man due to his previous good work, but this conception of Sri Krsna is due to a poor fund of knowledge. Therefore he is called mudha, for only foolish persons consider Krsna to be an ordinary human being because they do not know the confidential activities of the Supreme Lord and His different energies. They do not know that Krsna's body is a symbol of complete knowledge and bliss, that He is the proprietor of everything that be and that He can award liberation to anyone. Because they do not know that Krsna has so many transcendental qualifications, they deride Him.

Nor do they know that the appearance of the Supreme Personality of Godhead in this material world is a manifestation of His internal energy. He is the master of the material energy. As has been explained in several places (mama maya duratyaya), He claims that the material energy, although very powerful, is under His control, and whoever surrenders unto Him can get out of the control of this material energy. If a soul surrendered to Krsna can get out of the influence of material energy, then how can the Supreme Lord, who conducts the creation, maintenance and annihilation of the whole cosmic nature, have a material body like us? So this conception of Krsna is complete foolishness. Foolish persons, however, cannot conceive that the Personality of Godhead, Krsna, appearing just like an ordinary man, can be the controller of all the atoms and of the gigantic manifestation of the universal form. The biggest and the minutest are beyond their conception, so they cannot imagine that a form like that of a human being can simultaneously control the infinite and the minute. Actually although He is controlling the infinite and the finite, He is apart from all this manifestation. It is clearly stated concerning His yogam aisvaram, His inconceivable transcendental energy, that He can control the infinite and the finite simultaneously and that He can remain aloof from them. Although the foolish cannot imagine how Krsna, who appears just like a human being, can control the infinite and the finite, those who are pure devotees accept this, for they know that Krsna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore they completely surrender unto Him and engage in Krsna consciousness, devotional service of the Lord.

There are many controversies amongst the impersonalists and the personalists about the Lord's appearance as a human being. But if we consult Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam, the authoritative texts for understanding the science of Krsna, then we can understand that Krsna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He is not an ordinary man, although He appeared on this earth as an ordinary human. In the Srimad-Bhagavatam, First Canto, First Chapter, when the sages inquire about the activities of Krsna, it is stated that His appearance as a man bewilders the foolish. No human being could perform the wonderful acts that Krsna performed while He was present on this earth. When Krsna appeared before His father and mother, Vasudeva and Devaki, He appeared with four hands, but after the prayers of the parents, He transformed Himself into an ordinary child. His appearance as an ordinary human being is one of the features of His transcendental body. In the Eleventh Chapter of the Gita also it is stated, tenaiva rupena etc. Arjuna prayed to see again that form of four hands, and when Krsna was thus petitioned by Arjuna, He again assumed His original form. All these different features of the Supreme Lord are certainly not those of an ordinary human being.

Some of those who deride Krsna, who are infected with the Mayavadi philosophy, quote the following verse from the Srimad-Bhagavatam to prove that Krsna is just an ordinary man. Aham sarvesu bhutesu bhutatmavasthitah sada: "The Supreme is present in every living entity." (Bhag. 3.29.21) We should better take note of this particular verse from the Vaisnava acaryas like Jiva Gosvami instead of following the interpretation of unauthorized persons who deride Krsna. Jiva Gosvami, commenting on this verse, says that Krsna, in His plenary expansion as Paramatma, is situated in the moving and the nonmoving entities as the Supersoul, so any neophyte devotee who simply gives his attention to the arca-murti, the form of the Supreme Lord in the temple, and does not respect other living entities is uselessly worshiping the form of the Lord in the temple. There are three kinds of devotees of the Lord, and the neophyte is in the lowest stage. The neophyte devotee gives more attention to the Deity in the temple than to other devotees, so Jiva Gosvami warns that this sort of mentality should be corrected. A devotee should see that Krsna is present in everyone's heart as Paramatma; therefore every body is the embodiment or the temple of the Supreme Lord, and as such, as one offers respect to the temple of the Lord, he should similarly properly respect each and every body in whom the Paramatma dwells. Everyone should therefore be given proper respect and should not be neglected.

There are also many impersonalists who deride temple worship. They say that since God is everywhere, why should one restrict himself to temple worship? But if God is everywhere, is He not in the temple or in the Deity? Although the personalist and the impersonalist will fight with one another perpetually, a perfect devotee in Krsna consciousness knows that although Krsna is the Supreme Personality, He is all-pervading, as is confirmed in the Brahma-samhita. Although His personal abode is Goloka Vrndavana and He is always staying there, still, by His different manifestations of energy and by His plenary expansion, He is present everywhere in all parts of the material and spiritual creations.

[bija]

 

Actually Advaita has been the most appealing since the time of its inception. It quickly rose to prominence and has stayed on top since the last 1300 years. So it is not just the modern mind, even medieval minds found Advaita to be the most rational.by shvu

Yes shvu, even convincing many buddhists over the course of history. I can fully appreciate your point here.

[cbrahma]

Absolute monism is tantamount to atheism.

[shvu]

 

Self evident? Hardly. Not to me it isn't. An impersonal "I" is a contradiction in terms.

It is a Subject without subjectivity. And individual without individuality.

A philosophical freak.

 

I agree. It sounds stupid.

 

But is that not what the soul is - esssentially? As any attributes you assign to your soul now are actually part of your earthly personality. Your likes/dislikes, memories, plans, etc.

 

Wihout memory of the past, we are nothing. Since memory is an atrribute of the physical body, the nature of a soul would be impersonal.

 

Cheers

[theist]

 

I admire your enthusiasm in following vaishnavism, but it's not polite to speak ill of such a sacred tradition. Advaitins are great Krishna Bhaktas.

 

You are so completely misguided on what constitutes either Vaisnavism or Advaita or possibly both.

[cbrahma]

 

I agree. It sounds stupid.

 

But is that not what the soul is - esssentially? As any attributes you assign to your soul now are actually part of your earthly personality. Your likes/dislikes, memories, plans, etc.

 

Wihout memory of the past, we are nothing. Since memory is an atrribute of the physical body, the nature of a soul would be impersonal.

 

Cheers

Our forgetting does not cancel out our core personality - our existence. Every time we sleep we would cease to exist.

[bija]

Certainly if a soul was deeply realized in personality, both spiritual/and mundane, she would grasp how great and central personality is to complete beauty. Just a glimpse of that reality would be seen as unlimitedly manifold in beauty.

 

We cannot fully understand that greatness by comparing it to a bag of bones and blood. But we can utilize such things as a pointer.

 

Krsna surely would be much greater than a mundane image or projection, but such an image can direct the heart to see...and the realization may be so profound that only those with great skill could put into words what they have seen.

 

Let me be the devils advocate for a second. If God is a person (unlike bones and blood)...such would be the greatest phenomenon that could be imagined. Wow! Or is it simply a longing of man....shvu?

 

*a remarkable development.

 

 

The Worship of Shri Murti

By Seventh Goswami Shrila Sacchidananda Bhaktivinoda Thakura

There are some who startle at the theory of worshiping Shrimurti “Oh”, they say, “it is idolatry to worship Shrimurti! Shrimurti is an idol framed by an artist and introduced by no other than Beelzebub himself. Worshiping such an object would rouse the jealousy of God and limit His omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence!”

 

We would tell them, “Brethren, candidly understand the question and do not allow yourself to be misled by sectarian dogmas. God is not jealous, as he is without a second. Beelzebub or Satan is no other than an object of imagination or the subject of an allegory. An allegorical or imaginary being should not be allowed to act as an obstacle to Bhakti. Those who believe God to

be impersonal, simply identify Him with some power or attribute in Nature, though in fact He is above Nature, her laws and rules. His holy wish is law and it will be sacrilege to confine His unlimited excellence by identifying Him with such attributes as omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience - attributes which may exist in created objects such as time and space, etc. His excellence consists in having in Him mutually contradicting powers and attributes ruled by His supernatural Self. He is identical with His all-beautiful person having such powers as omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence, the like of which cannot be found elsewhere. His holy and perfect person exists eternally in the spiritual world and is at the same time existing in every created object and place in all its fullness. This idea excels all other ideas of the Deity.

Mahaprabhu rejects idolatry as well, but considers Shrimurti worship to be the only unexceptional means of spiritual culture. It has been shown that God is personal and all-beautiful. Sages like Vyasa and others have seen that beauty in their soul’s eye. They have left us descriptions. Of course word carries grossness of matter. But Truth still is perceivable in those descriptions. According to those descriptions one delineates a Shrimurti and sees the great God of our heart there with intense pleasure! Brethren, is that wrong or sinful ? Those who say that God has no form either material or spiritual and again imagine a false form of worship are certainly idolatrous. But those who, seeing the spiritual form of the Deity in their soul’s eyes, carry that impression as far as possible to the mind and then frame an emblem for the satisfaction of the material eye all meant for continual study of the higher feeling, are by no means idolatrous. While seeing a Shrimurti do not even see the image itself but see the spiritual model of the image and you are a pure theist. Idolatry and Shrimurti worship are two different things, but my brethren, you simply confound one with the other out of hastiness. To tell you the truth, Shrimurti worship is the only true form of worship of the Deity, without which you cannot sufficiently cultivate your religious feelings. The world attracts you through your senses and as long as you do not see God in the objects of your senses, you live in an awkward position which scarcely helps you in securing your spiritual elevation. Place a Shrimurti in your house.

Think that God almighty is the guardian of the house, the food that you take is His prasad, and the flowers and scents

are also His prasad. The eye, the ear, the nose, the touch and the tongue all have a spiritual culture. You do it with a holy heart and God will know it and judge you by your sincerity. Satan and Beelzebub will have nothing to do with you in that matter! All sorts of worship are based on the principle of Shrimurti. Look into the history of religion and you will come to this noble truth. The Semitic idea of a patriarchal God both in the pre-Christian period of Judaism and the post-Christian period of Mohamedanism is nothing but a limited idea of Shrimurti. The monarchic idea of a Jove amongst the Greeks and of an lndra amongst the Aryan karmakandis is also a distinct view of the same principle. The idea of a force and Jyotirmaya brahma of the meditators and a formless energy of the shaktas is also a very faint view of the Shrimurti. In fact the principle of Shrimurti is the Truth itself differently exhibited in different people according to their different phases of thought. Even Jaimini and Comte who are not prepared to accept a creating God, have prescribed certain phases of the Shrimurti, simply because they have been impelled by some inward action from the soul! Then again we meet with people who have adopted the cross, the shaligram shila, the lingam and such like emblems as indicators of the inward ideas of Shrimurti. Furthermore, if the Divine compassion, love and justice could be portrayed by the pencil and expressed by the chisel, why should not the personal beauty of the Deity embracing all other attributes be portrayed in poetry or in picture expressed by the chisel for the benefit of man? If words could impress thoughts, the watch could indicate time and sign could tell us a history, why should not the picture or figure bring associations of higher thoughts and feelings with regard to the transcendental beauty of the divine Personage?

Sri Murti is not mundane. But appears so for those who cannot see.

 

To get a glimpse of divine personality we should question what Thakura means by higher feeling.

[theist]

 

What is the appeal of advaita to the modern mind?

And it's no coincidence that vaishnavism in the west always attracts hippies/dropouts more than it does intellectuals. Isn't that odd?

I believe it also appeals to the so-called intellectuals. First we have to look at the materially conditioned mind for advaita never appeals to an enlightened person.

 

Advaita is a reaction to the reality that we jivas are all the eternal subordinates of one Supreme Person and He is the Prime Enjoyer. Every soul that enters material consciousness is bothered by this fact.

 

After becoming sufficently frustrated with countless attempts at enjoying life from one end of the universe to the other from grossest point to the most subtle the jiva is forced to admit there is no satisfaction to be found in matter.

 

This frustration now is co-existing with his original material desire to be the Prime Enjoyer with no one above Him. So he isforced to be open to an adjustment in his plans. No longer will he try to dominate and exploit matter in an attempt to enjoy. He now will try to forget the whole thing, including himself, and instead of madly chasing one desire after another like a dog perpetualy chasing it's tail, he will attempt to purge himself of all desires and just stop running in circles and instead remain motionless using the reasoning that chasing desires causes misery and therefore not desiring must equal bliss. And further to remain in a desireless state he must also forget the himself eternally as an individual being because individual beings are what exhibit individual desires.

 

 

 

Materialist scientists are coming to be Advaita and Buddhism as the esoteric philosophical component to their already established no-self philsophies.

 

The drgies and drop outs don't need to understand it phiosophicaslly beyond a few slogans propogated by their so-called gurus like Ram Das and others. "Iam you and you are me.....I am God You are God" etc. These ideas are an adjunct to their drug trips (LSD types) or feed into their already established suicidal tendencies such as alcohol, heroin types and other burned materialists.

 

To put it very simply Advaita and it's poorer cousin Buddhism are both highly sophisticated suicide cults which appeal to both the so-called intellectuals and hippy drop outs.

 

Beyond this combination of accepting and renouncing material life there exists Bhakti and one who enters this transcendental realm of dedication to the Supreme Lord is known as a Vaisnava or devotee of Krishna.

[cbrahma]

Brahmä boldly accepts the form of the Lord as transcendental and non-different from the Lord, and denounces those who do not. Therefore those people who follow in the footsteps of Lord Brahmä are really intelligent and learned. They are qualified to understand the Lord and His form as non different and transcendental.