Why Advaita appeals to the Modern Mind

[bija]

 

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

And the hippies abhorrence of the body, after realizing his disrespect for such a great gift. Thus such disgust he then chooses to negate.

 

Whereas the body for the bhakti yogin becomes a living temple, made in the image of God. Living by descending mercy, rather than ascending self will (with desire to escape the shame of the body, both subtle and gross).

 

When in fact the personalist (bhakti yogin) is fully sensual, exercising spiritual senses.

 

Hence the hippie of poor intelligence, once again missing the goal, and the initial reason why he turned to unregulated gratification (so-called freedom). Bound by the subtle body and its affliction he strongly desires liberation above all.

 

Just some thoughts.

 

 

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

 

Don't believe the propoganda jingle. They always say bhakti is for the less intelligent and lower class. Once we allow that lie into our brains its a hard one to shake.

[Bishadi]

 

A point I have raised on this forum in the past - how is it possible for a God to have a human form?

Because God is not a person, place or thing but existence in its entirity; the trinity of mass, energy time..... which is what we live 'within'

 

 

 

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

:)

 

God is quite personal in that consciousness is the window that all existence can be experienced within 'soul'. We can literally experience all of existence....ie..... see elightenment as defined in buddhism

 

Mind is simply for defining what we experience and as you shared perfectly, mind is bound to the body but the consciousness upon that body, is the life eternal and in all parts;............... of God........

 

the phenomenon or property of energy (light) that reveals the application of this truth, is entanglement. Shared energy between mass is entangled.

 

All mass is entangled to existence in time; there is no separation of God from Mankind/existence.

 

so in a sense each is of God, within God.... incarnate so to speak....

 

the differences are found or observed by the choices of the individual; what they impose to existence...... that is how to identify Godhead!

[GODSEED]

 

 

SHREERÄDHÄKRSHNACHAITANYAY NAMAH

SHREECHAITANYA MAHÄRAPBHAE NAMAH

SHREENITYÄNANDA PRABHAVE NAMAH

SHREESHIVÄSHIVÄYA NAMAH

JAY JAY SHREEBHAKTA VRINDA.......

 

 

 

perhas u dont know the pure definition of a Bhakta....

 

 

Advaitins are great Krishna Bhaktas.

 

Bhaktas are those who selflessly and unmotivatedly serve with their souls to the Divine Couple. they never give up their serventhood even on constant request of the Divine Couple to accept any of the five types of salvations!

 

whereas, advaitins first of all dont accept the Säkära Svarüpa (Personal and Physical Form of the Supreme Brahm)

 

this selfish lot has only a single goal of merging into the mystrerious Remaineder, whom they refer to as Brahm!

 

they have no concepts like Love, Surrrender, Gratitude etc., towards that Supremely Graceful and The boundless Ocean of Prema, Bhagavän ShreeKrshna.

 

they are dry hearted souls. on the contraty they misinterpret the four mahäväkyas ...

 

"Äham Brahmäsmi", which means that i am Brahm, is paritally correct, 'cos. a jeev in its purest state gets to that state but its not for the sense and mind to claim so...

 

"Ayamätmänam Brahm",

 

"Prajnänam Brahma", Knowledge is Bahm,

 

"Tattvam Asi", which means you are That (Brahm)... here address is made to our Brahmahood, our actual untainted state not present or current state where mind in any of its four states has any symptom of existence

these rascals use bhakti sädhanä merely as a means to purify their core and nothing further...

 

the pure devotees dont accept anything accept selfless service to the ParaBrahm Bhagavän ShreeKrshna! They, as a matter of fact, request their Beloved to kindly keep them in the Mäyä so that they can serve HIM by redeeming HIS fallen frankenstiens.

 

the present jagadguru ShreeKripälujee states that, instead of getting angry with advaitees, a sincere bhakta should pity such souls for their weak intelegence...as they err on simple logic that there can only be one Bhagavän and not many, moreover, Brahm can never be deluded by mäyä which is of a lower level then itself!

 

>>some of the the reasons for the modern success of advaita philosophy...

 

Shreepäda Shankarächäryajee Mahäräja carried out His Beloved Lord ShreeKrishna's order and propagated this doctrine of Advaita väda (Shiva Puräna).

 

its natural for the baddha jeevas to rebel against the Nature and His masters. thats the only reason for such baddha jeevas to be bound in any of 8.4 million species of life. but in kaliyuga the creme-de-la-creme of the rebellious spirit is incorporated on material planet, else for other three yugas such souls dont have enough balance of good karmas to live a less strugglefraught life.

 

main reason for a soul's bondage is its false ego as the enjoyer, whereas its real status is of being an eternal servant of the Supreme. this relation is Natural not forced. advaitis and other such bogus souls such as baudhs and the soul-less jains (who are main offenders of Bhagavän ShreeKrhishna after muslims and followed by svaminarayana sect) have hard time accepting these deep truths as their false ego would raise guns!

 

Advaita väda gives a good opportunity for them to avoid their painful world and live a life of illusion in the name of doctine of illusion. otherwise even a five year old kid can logically understand that it is not god. and that there can be no cration unless there is a Creator.

Shreel Prabupädajee often quoted a nice analogy for such advaitis...

 

that when a rabit seens a tiger or a lion, it would close its eyes and make believes that the tiger/lion also cannot see it...but they have to face the unexpected. advaitis similarly, foolishly consider, under their imaginery interpretations of the Shästras, that they can be god and walk the path of utter rebel and non cooperation to ShreeKrishna and have to face a very painful end.

 

 

 

 

JAY JAY SHREERÄDHE

 

[bija]

 

Quote:

<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> Originally Posted by shvu

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

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

:)

 

God is quite personal in that consciousness is the window that all existence can be experienced within 'soul'. We can literally experience all of existence....ie..... see elightenment as defined in buddhism

 

Mind is simply for defining what we experience and as you shared perfectly, mind is bound to the body but the consciousness upon that body, is the life eternal and in all parts;............... of God........

by bishadi

This is common thinking amongst the thoughtful. And in a sense this oneness is factual. Even though personally I do not perceive myself as 'God'...but a part of God...with a limited field of consciousness.

 

That limited field of consciousness, in contact with mind, can travel and perceive vast area...but not all area (at once). And is tainted with a subjective experience (until we expand further). But ofcourse expanding further, higher intellect presses down (buddhi)...to 'see' objectively...and partially the experience of 'super'subjectivity'. Infact such vision is possibly the saving grace of man 'personality'. And this seeing becomes union. We become spiritual man. The potential for an organic whole on planet earth. Some forward thinking, excellent, non-sectarian christians call this 'the christ' and can see a fulfillment of earth gradually unfolding. The omega!

 

I can understand your point bishadi.

 

But...if there is a two sided coin (and it is possible). Maybe such a presentation is half the coin. Look at it this way....you and me have seen how great...how wonderful....how joyous...how magnificent...how much a blast...is this god 'personality experience'. By applying good intelligence...could we be limiting ourself by limiting the possibility of more of God. The other side to the coin. A positive spiritual existence of pure form....

 

Personally I think if we deny the existence of such a realm...and Divine Personage with associates, spiritual planets etc...we are limiting the unlimited possibility and greatness of God.

 

The argument of the person who denies such....would be....'we have not seen such'. My argument would be...how do you know others haven't? And then I would say....go deeper...use full the faculty of man and your personality....to discover more of your true self...which is truly exquisite!

 

Some may say...we have not seen...therefore we do not accept. Well, have we seen all in the material nature. I have seen a brown raindow at night, while living in Guatemala. People do not belive me;). Yesterday I saw a huge colored cloud...shining from a reflection of the sun...two other people saw it too. The rest would think we were mad:crazy:. Why do people not see...because they limit themselves. God has no limit. They choose not to see...to slow and look!

 

And as you have said bishadi....personality is a blast! I would say God is fantastic....and Personality is the core of excellence!

[bija]

The author penned Vedic scripture which points to such personality as described above (by giving a picture of such)....The Srimad Bhagavatam shows the apex (personality)...(the commentators) who were brave enough to go deeper and being full of compassion, wrote for the neophyte.

 

Those who are not neophyte...can utilize that text...to go deeper also. The neophyte can accept the text by face value and advance.

 

The topmost devotee...never limits God in any regard. And is forever free. And sees text 'as it is' with his divine vision.

 

 

 

The expert topmost persons have no direct need for this book other than to strengthen their own conclusions. Still, they should discuss this book with due respect in order to benefit the madhyama-adhikaris. Therefore it is the madhyama-adhikaris who are the proper candidates for studying this book. All the above-mentioned three categories of people are qualified to study Shrimad Bhagavatam, yet most of the commentaries on this matchless book are composed for the benefit of the neophytes. The commentators were all swanlike persons, and they have exhibited more compassion towards the neophytes than towards the madhyamas. Whenever they discuss jnana, they are referring to brahma-jnana, or the impersonal understanding of the Absolute Truth. Therefore modern speculators are not benefited. Nowadays many people of our country discuss foreign literature and science with a desire to scrutinize its significance. They quickly become faithless after observing the indirect presentations by the writers of the scripture and the scriptural commentaries that are appropriate for the above-mentioned neophytes. They then either adopt a different religion or become famous by introducing a new one. The danger with this is that such people uselessly waste their time inventing a new level of understanding while leaving aside the previous mahajanas' perfect path, which automatically uplifts one from a lower qualification to a higher one. If there were some literatures appropriate for the madhyama-adhikaris to discuss, then no anarthas, or unwanted things, in the form of sub-religion, cheating religion, or irreligion would have entered India. The principal purpose of this book is to fulfill the above-mentioned requirement. Actually this book will directly and indirectly benefit all three types of persons—the uttama, madhyama, and kanishtha. Therefore they should all respect this book. BVT from intro to Sri Krsna Samhita (the essence of Srimad Bhagavatam - for full book click here

[jinglebells]

I don't think people have properly understood what they're trying to refute. Let me give another instance.

 

Consider the bhagavat gita verse 2.13. You exist as a baby, then as a youth, then as an old person, and so on. The forms of existence (such as youth, old age) may vary and can be subsequently negated, but the fact of existence remains a constant.

 

Which is why we're forced to conclude that existence must be formless, or we should make the blunder of negating existence itself along with youth, old age etc.

 

Hence, the advaitins argue that existence with names/forms are illusory, and formless existence is the one truth.

[jinglebells]

 

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).

 

I only know this theoritically, having spoken to advaitins. I just wanted to know about your experience, hence the q. But it seems like you're offended, so sorry, I won't bother you anymore.

[jinglebells]

 

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 think you're rushing to conclusions. Consider this. If you have a headache, the "I" identifies itself with the head. If disturbed, the "I" identifies with thoughts, and so on. If there's no identification at all, there is no personal "I." Yet, there is consciousness.

 

In short, there's consciousness without an "I." Because there's no "I," we can't call it personal. We have to call it impersonal.

 

And because this consciousness isn't restricted by attributes and forms such as body, mind etc., we call it nameless/formless/attributeless.

[Dark Warrior]

 

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.

 

That's true. In fact, Advaita is such a pliable philosophy. In the case of Vishishtadvaita or Dvaita Vedanta, there is a need to prove the superiority of Hari and establish His worship. However, Advaita does not need to prove any god's supremacy because all differences are constrained to the Vyavaharika level.

 

Adi Sankara, being a Vedantin, recognised that the Vedas did not say all gods were equal. Now, to an Advaitin, these differences in divinity should be redundant. But since the Vedas cannot be ignored, Sri Sankara compromised and came up with an explanation for Vishnu Sarvottama - that meditating on Hari is more efficient for obtaining Jnana rather than meditation on other deities.

 

This pliability has been stretched further by Neovedantins, who, despite claiming to be following Sankara's philosophy, advocate that all paths are the same. This appeals to more people.

 

A traditional Advaitin, however, is quite within the Vedantic tradition.

 

 

there's consciousness without an "I." Because there's no "I," we can't call it personal. We have to call it impersonal.

 

And because this consciousness isn't restricted by attributes and forms such as body, mind etc., we call it nameless/formless/attributeless

 

Not trying to start an Advaita-Vishishtadvaita debate here, but I just found this interesting enough to reply.

 

Vishishtadvaita avers that the Self is like a flame, and the consciousness is like a light that radiates from the flame. Just as the light cannot exist independent of the flame, and just as the flame is self-luminous and does not require any extraneous source, the Self pervades the body by its very consciousness. Furthermore, the light is also inherent to the form of the flame, making consciousness the form of the Self.

 

This makes Consciousness an attribute of the Self and also makes Consciousness as a form of the Self (just like light radiating from the flame is the same as the luminosity of the flame itself), thus negating the need to call the Self as 'undifferentiated, pure consciousness'. An attribute is non-different from the owner. So, whenever the Upanishads refer to the Self as 'consciousness' , it is simply identifying atman with its attribute, just like a flame is inseparable from its light.

 

So, a localised soul can still pervade the body, as its inherent consciousness becomes an attribute, just like the light radiating from the flame is an attribute of the flame, allowing the flame to spread its influence everywhere.

 

A substance with attributes is personal. A similar explanation for 'Satyam Jnanam Anantam Brahma', ie, Brahman is endowed with the attributes of Truth/Consciousness, Knowledge and Bliss. Atman, thus, expresses itself through its consciousness.

 

 

. If you have a headache, the "I" identifies itself with the head. If disturbed, the "I" identifies with thoughts, and so on. If there's no identification at all, there is no personal "I." Yet, there is consciousness.

 

No, we say, 'I HAVE a headache/stomachache', etc. It isn't identity, but rather, a description of 'I's attributes, IMO. If we remove the headache, stomachache, 'I' still exists, but then, some attributes are changeable, and others permanent.

 

In the case when we say 'I am happy' or 'I am sad', there appears to be identity. But consider this - when you call me 'Dark Warrior', by default, you refer to my body as well as my soul. These two are different entities, but by virtue of the dependence factor, they get colored as one entity. Similarly, 'Happiness' or 'sadness' is a non-essential attribute, subject to change, of the 'I', which has some permanent attributes like 'consciousness'.

 

 

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.

 

Scripture says, 'His form is not assumed for His sake, but for the sake of His devotees'.

 

His form is eternal and completely shuddha sattva. His ears are not like our ears, His feet are not like our feet. He can eat through His eyes, listen through His mouth, and yet, He does not need any of these organs. Simply for the sake of looking attractive to devotees, He assumes that form.

 

And when we say 'assume', once again, we take the AnAdi factor into view. There never was a time when He didn't assume this form.

 

Chandogya Upanishad cleary calls Brahman as Pundarikaksha, Lotus Eyed. Lord Rama was especially praised for His beautiful eyes (for some reason, it appears as though Vishnu's eyes are the most attractive for everyone). The same Upanishad describes His 'form' as effulgence, I believe.

[cbrahma]

 

I think you're rushing to conclusions. Consider this. If you have a headache, the "I" identifies itself with the head. If disturbed, the "I" identifies with thoughts, and so on. If there's no identification at all, there is no personal "I." Yet, there is consciousness.

 

In short, there's consciousness without an "I." Because there's no "I," we can't call it personal. We have to call it impersonal.

 

And because this consciousness isn't restricted by attributes and forms such as body, mind etc., we call it nameless/formless/attributeless.

The many ways the I can identify itself shows that it exists seperately from them but not that it is impersonal.

'Without bodily identification' does not equal impersonal.

[bija]

 

I only know this theoritically, having spoken to advaitins. I just wanted to know about your experience, hence the q. But it seems like you're offended, so sorry, I won't bother you anymore. jingle

thx jingle...no offence taken. You seemed to have some realization similar to me. We will leave it as a common knowing, without explanation:). Maybe I will share more of my heart later. I am happy your question was sincere. Hari!

 

I am of the opinion if you 'accept' brahman realization theoretically, it means you have jnana. And if you have this jnana let it unfold. But of course we are bhakti yogins (or aspiring)...so here is todays reading (for me) from my tradition about this ( I thought of you while reading it). Sorry for any offence:cool:. This is the ideal of Sri Caitanya and Sri Rupa.

 

 

Sri Bhajan Rahasya by Srila Bhaktivinoda Chapter two Text three - click here

 

Bhajana-rahasya vrtti (commentary-SBNM)

 

"....The main result given by Nama Prabhu is the qualification to relish Bhagavan's sweetness, or the nectar of prema, through pure prema-bhakti. Pure devotees do not pray to obtain the secondary results* of bhakti. Moreover, if these results are involuntarily obtained, they do not accept them; rather, paying respect from a distance; they disregard them. the lives of Srila Rupa Goswami and Srila Raghunatha dasa Goswami are exempleray in this regard".

 

 

I do not have such pure devotion, but am presently charmed by the brahman and its possibilty for love. Maybe in due course aspiration for pure bhakti may awaken more. That is my heart thus far. That would be real relationship....with Personality.

 

*liberation is one of the secondary results.

[bija]

 

That's true. In fact, Advaita is such a pliable philosophy. In the case of Vishishtadvaita or Dvaita Vedanta, there is a need to prove the superiority of Hari and establish His worship. However, Advaita does not need to prove any god's supremacy because all differences are constrained to the Vyavaharika level.

 

Adi Sankara, being a Vedantin, recognised that the Vedas did not say all gods were equal. Now, to an Advaitin, these differences in divinity should be redundant. But since the Vedas cannot be ignored, Sri Sankara compromised and came up with an explanation for Vishnu Sarvottama - that meditating on Hari is more efficient for obtaining Jnana rather than meditation on other deities.

 

This pliability has been stretched further by Neovedantins, who, despite claiming to be following Sankara's philosophy, advocate that all paths are the same. This appeals to more people.

 

A traditional Advaitin, however, is quite within the Vedantic tradition. by dark

 

Good stuff...thx.

[cbrahma]

 

I do not have such pure devotion, but am presently charmed by the brahman and its possibilty for love. Maybe in due course aspiration for pure bhakti may awaken more. That is my heart thus far. That would be real relationship....with Personality.

 

 

How can there be love without persons?

[bija]

In this world human love is possible because of persons. We can see the impersonal presence in others (christ). Notice I left the Jesus (person out). And we can taste some bliss on the relationship through jnana. Maybe we can advance to super-soul realization and experience flavor there, in our dealings with other people. God consciousness. Surely there is flavor while being emodied (but not the body).

 

But if we do not have these bodies...yes cbrahma...how can love be dynamic.

 

That leaves room for the philosophy of love (Personalism). And love of the Supreme Person. And an eternal spiritual body. As I have said in my previous posts in this thread (indirectly).

[cbrahma]

 

In this world human love is possible because of persons. We can see the impersonal presence in others (christ). Notice I left the Jesus (person out). And we can taste some bliss on the relationship through jnana. Maybe we can advance to super-soul realization and experience flavor there, in our dealings with other people. God consciousness. Surely there is flavor while being emodied (but not the body).

 

 

 

But if we do not have these bodies...yes cbrahma...how can love be dynamic.

 

That leaves room for the philosophy of love (Personalism). And love of the Supreme Person. And an eternal spiritual body. As I have said in my previous posts in this thread (indirectly).

You have personal mis-identified with embodied. Our individuality is not reduceable to bodily existence.

[bija]

what are you asking me cbrahma...for instructions:).

 

 

Our individuality is not reduceable to bodily existence. by cbrahma

I would hope so. Thats my faith bro:(.

 

The conversation in this thread is why advaita appeals to the modern mind. Thus discussion about it (ofcourse bringing in acintya-bheda-bheda -tattva gently)

 

I dont know what your argument is.

 

Maybe your confusion is because I am speaking from the perspective of a conditioned being.

[cbrahma]

 

what are you asking me cbrahma...for instructions:).

 

 

I would hope so. Thats my faith bro:(.

No I'm asking where you got these instructions. I don't think it needs faith so much as intelligent realization. A dead body without spirit is just a lump of matter. No personality. Clearly whatever constitued that personality was

not identical with that lump of matter. I'm somewhat amazed that you melt into agreement with DW who uses Sankara to prove adwaita is 'flexible' (whatever that means).

According to Prabhupada, and yes I will quote him since he is the most reliable source, Sankaracarya is a 'covered' personalist since he accepts that Krsna is bhagavan.

[bija]

What instructions. Just living life cbrahma...life experience. I will end this entry to some argumentation here:). lol

 

Can't be bothered tonight. You are a full on dude sometimes.

[cbrahma]

 

What instructions. Just living life cbrahma...life experience. I will end this entry to some argumentation here:). lol

 

Can't be bothered tonight.

It's 4:00 am here.

[bija]

lol:) good night.

[bija]

 

You have personal mis-identified with embodied. by cbrahma

No. Unless we have realization of our siddha deha, all is theoretical about our identity as personal spirit. I do not know that person, form, qualities and pastimes....yet:). If I did I would not tell you anyhow....lol!

 

So in the flow of this conversation with jingle, shvu, bishadi, and dark...I am explaining how the partially realized jnani can relish both god and life. And at the same time discussing my faith in Personalism. Using jnana...as you say intellect and other faculty. jnana-mishra-bhakti.

 

If I was to negate everything as a jnani...I might as well sit in a cave solitary. I would not see much purpose in the world if I negated everything. Thus sense enjoyment still exists.

 

But we gradually begin to see human dealings as more spiritual as we develop.....hey. The aspiring vaisnava does not need to negate that. See my 'man is not an island thread'. That would be ridiculous lifestyle.

 

I hope this answers your question ok. It is my life presently.

 

I see little point in arguing theoretically all the time...and find forums as place to occasionaly share about where we are at spiritually. And that would mean that I would have to speak from the perspective of not being fully realized. I hope you have some appreciation of personal dealings on a forum...where those typed black letters have a person behind them lol:).

 

But hey, its good to know where we are on the path. And onward we go..............>>

[cbrahma]

 

No. Unless we have realization of our siddha deha, all is theoretical about our identity as personal spirit. I do not know that person, form, qualities and pastimes....yet:). If I did I would not tell you anyhow....lol!

 

So in the flow of this conversation with jingle, shvu, bishadi, and dark...I am explaining how the partially realized jnani can relish both god and life. And at the same time discussing my faith in Personalism. Using jnana...as you say intellect and other faculty. jnana-mishra-bhakti.

 

If I was to negate everything as a jnani...I might as well sit in a cave solitary. I would not see much purpose in the world if I negated everything. Thus sense enjoyment still exists.

 

But we gradually begin to see human dealings as more spiritual as we develop.....hey. The aspiring vaisnava does not need to negate that. See my 'man is not an island thread'. That would be ridiculous lifestyle.

 

I hope this answers your question ok. It is my life presently.

 

I see little point in arguing theoretically all the time...and find forums as place to occasionaly share about where we are at spiritually. And that would mean that I would have to speak from the perspective of not being fully realized. I hope you have some appreciation of personal dealings on a forum...where those typed black letters have a person behind them lol:).

 

But hey, its good to know where we are on the path. And onward we go..............>>

This is a discussion forum about spiritual topics. If somebody makes a philosophical point like adwaita is attractive, I will debate it since it is misleading and fallacious. If you're not about the truth how can you be spiritual? To trivialize the whole thing as being argumentative is a cheap evasion in my opinion. You are searching obviously, which is the speculative path - the jnana yoga. But honestly I don't know where you're coming from. But then it doesn't really matter.

[jinglebells]

 

According to Prabhupada, and yes I will quote him since he is the most reliable source, Sankaracarya is a 'covered' personalist since he accepts that Krsna is bhagavan.

 

If you can't fight them, join them, eh? SP was smart enough to co-opt Sankara, thanks to the latter's immense popularity.

[bija]

Do you think I am an advaitin? I am nothing...but bija lol

 

krsna krsna krsna gaurakrsna nitaai-gaura...beautiful persons.

[bija]

 

You are searching obviously, which is the speculative path - the jnana yoga. But honestly I don't know where you're coming from. by cbrahma

 

I am coming from the point of jnana-mishra-bhakti yogin.

 

I am happy to share my life online. My body will become dust...maybe the internet will last longer. I am using this forum as my spiritual diary while enjoying the company here.

 

Oneday I will write my journal from my daily thoughts maybe. I have nothing to defend...the body will be dust in due course. (but dont cross me )