Why Advaita appeals to the Modern Mind

[theist]

 

I forgot to mention another thing as to why advaita is popular amongst the modern, sophisticated class. It's tolerant and liberal. We've had vaishnavas calling non-vaishnavas as demons, fools etc. Even Prabhupada used to call people as rascals.

 

But most of the time, advaitins come across as extremely gentle people, hardly ever attacking other schools. We've heard of the label 'vaishnava fanatics,' but has anyone ever heard of 'advaita fanatic?' Impossible.

 

So I believe this is also a reason for advaita's popularity, the exemplary behavior of most advaitins, which is sadly missing in our vaishnava community, where people toss around words like demons, rascals, as if there's no tomorrow.

 

Yes I AM God(ism) and Buddhism are popular because they don't challenge anyone to become humble before the Supreme Being by claiming everyone is the same supreme being or their are no beings either supreme or subordinate.

 

Many people like these ideas. But not the vaisnavas.

[jinglebells]

 

Yes I AM God(ism) and Buddhism are popular because they don't challenge anyone to become humble before the Supreme Being by claiming everyone is the same supreme being or their are no beings either supreme or subordinate.

 

Many people like these ideas. But not the vaisnavas.

 

Maybe, it's got to do with the way both parties present their arguments. I've listened to advaitins, and never once have they attacked other schools. They just speak on advaita, and that's that.

 

And I've also listened to vaishnavas, and more often than not, their 'lectures' revolve around attacking others, calling them names. Their lectures usually have little to do with vaishnavism, Krishna etc.

 

Perhaps, this is why people are moving away from vaishnavism, due to the bad behavior of most vaishnavas, especially their foul language which sometimes becomes intolerable to hear.

[jinglebells]

Another problem with Vaishnavism is that many people find it impossible to accept a benevolent god, and also reconcile it with the evil that they see around them. No matter what we do, we can't make sense of these terrible things (just see the picture of the sudanese boy and vulture in the "tragedy" thread). But since advaita claims this world is a dream (and bizarre things happen in dreams), it sort of explains why such terrible, crazy things happen, without resorting to karma, past life, benevolent god, and all that.

[Amlesh]

 

Another problem with Vaishnavism is that many people find it impossible to accept a benevolent god, and also reconcile it with the evil that they see around them. No matter what we do, we can't make sense of these terrible things (just see the picture of the sudanese boy and vulture in the "tragedy" thread). But since advaita claims this world is a dream (and bizarre things happen in dreams), it sort of explains why such terrible, crazy things happen, without resorting to karma, past life, benevolent god, and all that.

 

Not problem with Vaishnavism, but aspirant Vaishnava.

 

It makes a big difference.

[bija]

It is winter here jingle...I do not have a car...and the ocean is magnificent. I met one very enlightened buddhist practicioner today (a new friend). Over the last twelve months we have chatted and slowly become friends.

 

Twelve months ago...he was cautious of me (I felt) because of my enthusiasm for the Hare Krsna movement. I am growing slowly. I listened to what my heart said...and chose to do an inner work.

 

Today we communed as we walked the beach...as fully conscious beings. We found much in common...and he appreciated deeply my faith.

 

Infact I have been going through growth in relationship with my spiritual master...and this buddhist friend imparted wisdom (in what I need to do to find my peace) last week. Guru spoke through him...and the next level of love for my teacher has opened. Inner peace. He thanked me for the gift of talking without shouting (and smiled)...I took that as a compliment. This is how I wish to share and teach...about the glory of Vaisnavism, as I am growing.

 

It is possible to differ (and sometimes not mix ideas), and it is possible to have utmost appreciation for all. If we are realized enough.

 

If we still lack that quality of inner peace, of not knowing ourself, then maybe the buddhist and vaisnava will have no discourse.

 

Ofcourse some will disagree.

 

The vaisnava is not awful, the conditioning is the problem. Sometimes we need to speak in the language of this world, to touch on the profound. Maybe our problem is in the lack of skill to use words of the world to explain truth.

 

Rascal may not hold such connotation as our cultural understanding today...in the west. In a way rascal brings image of cuteness for me. Me and my dog are rascals...we are learning to love each other (with spiritual vision).

[Dark Warrior]

 

Another problem with Vaishnavism is that many people find it impossible to accept a benevolent god, and also reconcile it with the evil that they see around them. No matter what we do, we can't make sense of these terrible things (just see the picture of the sudanese boy and vulture in the "tragedy" thread). But since advaita claims this world is a dream (and bizarre things happen in dreams), it sort of explains why such terrible, crazy things happen, without resorting to karma, past life, benevolent god, and all that.

 

Vishnu is benevolent, but still looks out for His interests.

 

Sri Vaishnavas, particularly the Alvars, regard Lord Narayana as an immature child. While He does love us all, His love of mischief is far greater. Furthermore, He does not care about the sufferings of people in samsara, because from His point of view, all these jivas are destined for Vaikuntha.

 

So, a bhakta of Narayana, will get moksha. In order to extinguish the bhakta's karmas, the Lord makes Him suffer pretty badly.

 

Furthermore, His lilas are all due to His desire to have fun.

 

Take the Mahabharata. An exercept from Sri Velukkudi Swami's discourse:

 

 

Uddhava- why did the war happen?

 

Krishna - To destroy adharma.

 

Uddhava - Was Duryodhana adharmic? After all, he was simply acting out of frustration that he had been denied the throne just because his father is blind (Duryodhana would have been the rightful heir).

 

Was the disrobing of Draupadi really so heinous and unforgivable? Although it was a great crime, Duryodhana was once again acting out of frustration because Draupadi had earlier insulted him by calling him as the 'blind son of a blind father'. A great offense, but once again, not entirely in control.

 

Was the war really the fault of Shakuni, who schemed with Duryodhana? After all, Shakuni was simply upset that his sister, Gandhari, was married to a blind man. Like every good brother, he did not desire his sister to be condemned to a life of blindness. Once again, frustration was the reason.

 

Was it really Karna's fault that he sided with Duryodhana, that he had to die like that? Karna was betrayed by his own mother at birth. Everyone insulted him on basis of caste. He had incurred Parasurama's wrath, and lost his power to Indra. Karna only found solace in Duryodhana.

 

Was it Bhishma's fault? He could have become King and prevented the war. However, he was only fulfilling his father's wishes in taking the oath.

 

Was it Shantanu's fault, that his lust for another woman led to Bhishma's vow? Not really, because he had the unique misfortune of having to live away from his wife, Ganga.

 

Krishna replied, 'The Kauravas were punished because their main offence was acting against My wishes. I am the Supreme Lord, hence no-one should go against Me.'

 

Uddhava - Why did they act against you?

 

Krishna - Because of their past karmas.

 

Uddhava - So they were predestined to act against you and die?

 

Krishna then realised that the shrewd Rishi was trying to pin the blame on Himself. Uddhava knew Krishna was Brahman, and just wanted to show that all this was the Lord's lila.

 

Krishna simply said, 'I must go' and left the place.

 

There you go. This incident proves that the Lord is really looking for fun. To some, killing 18 million people in 18 days for 'fun' may sound cruel, but to a Sri Vaishnava, Vishnu is just like a playful child. To Him, Samsara does not matter. Only Moksha matters.

 

Brahman knows everything that can be known, making Him omniscient. But there are things that have no limits, and cannot be knowable. His omniscience is not compromised when we say He doesn't know some things that are unknowable. For instance, there is no limit to His greatness. Hence, He cannot know something for which there is no limit.

 

 

That is why role of acharya is important.

[theist]

 

Maybe, it's got to do with the way both parties present their arguments. I've listened to advaitins, and never once have they attacked other schools. They just speak on advaita, and that's that.

Or perhaps it's the way you are hearing the presentations. For instance you note advaitins don't attack other schools, well you haven't been here very long. They drop in to criticize Vaisnavas quite often.

 

But by taking this position you reveal to me that you have not yet processed the information presented as you ae more concerned with how it's delivered.

 

You need to really concentrate and understand why such a statement you made recently that "Advaitins are the best Krishna bhaktas" is so ridiculous." It reveals you really don't understand either one.

 

 

And I've also listened to vaishnavas, and more often than not, their 'lectures' revolve around attacking others, calling them names. Their lectures usually have little to do with vaishnavism, Krishna etc.

Here is the flaw in this statement. You say you've listen to vaisnavas whose lectures more often than not don't talk about krishna or vaisnavism. That only means you have never heard a Vaisnava speak because a real Vaisnava has no other interest apart from Krishna and the moods of serving Him.

 

 

Perhaps, this is why people are moving away from vaishnavism, due to the bad behavior of most vaishnavas, especially their foul language which sometimes becomes intolerable to hear.

 

Seriously if street language makes you cry one can only wonder how you get through the day in a world like the present earth. Foul language is the least of the problems facing us including birth death old age and disease.

 

Vaisnavas are beyond bad behavior. I can tell you think anyone with a shaved head and sikha or wearing dhoti and tilaka is a vaisnava but that is your folly to be so easily fooled.

 

I know you equate what I call lotus flower speak with spirtual talk and the truth spoken plainly and directly as crude materialism all negative and everything. Krishna uses the term "flowery language of the vedas" and speaks of reality beyond those words.

 

I will take the liberty to suggest something. Figure out first if you are God or not. If you think you are and are convinced of it then take to advaita.

However if you know you are not God but want to know what is your eternal relationship to Him then seek out some authenic vaisnava teaching.

 

But please stop thinking they are the same thing, they are not.

[theist]

 

Another problem with Vaishnavism is that many people find it impossible to accept a benevolent god, and also reconcile it with the evil that they see around them. No matter what we do, we can't make sense of these terrible things (just see the picture of the sudanese boy and vulture in the "tragedy" thread). But since advaita claims this world is a dream (and bizarre things happen in dreams), it sort of explains why such terrible, crazy things happen, without resorting to karma, past life, benevolent god, and all that.

 

Yeah it's a big problem for people to understand, until they learn about karma and reincarnation that is.

[shvu]

 

Vishnu is benevolent, but still looks out for His interests.

 

Sri Vaishnavas, particularly the Alvars, regard Lord Narayana as an immature child. While He does love us all, His love of mischief is far greater. Furthermore, He does not care about the sufferings of people in samsara, because from His point of view, all these jivas are destined for Vaikuntha.

 

So, a bhakta of Narayana, will get moksha. In order to extinguish the bhakta's karmas, the Lord makes Him suffer pretty badly.

 

Furthermore, His lilas are all due to His desire to have fun.

 

Take the Mahabharata. An exercept from Sri Velukkudi Swami's discourse:

 

 

 

There you go. This incident proves that the Lord is really looking for fun. To some, killing 18 million people in 18 days for 'fun' may sound cruel, but to a Sri Vaishnava, Vishnu is just like a playful child. To Him, Samsara does not matter. Only Moksha matters.

 

Brahman knows everything that can be known, making Him omniscient. But there are things that have no limits, and cannot be knowable. His omniscience is not compromised when we say He doesn't know some things that are unknowable. For instance, there is no limit to His greatness. Hence, He cannot know something for which there is no limit.

 

 

That is why role of acharya is important.

 

I love that passage from the Mahabharata. It gives a rare glimpse into the logic - or lack thereof - in the Karma doctrine vs. a Controlling God.

 

On a very superficial level, the concept of Karma appears to answer important questions on pain and pleasure. But on closer scrutiny, it fails to hold up any better than other religious positions which believe pain is a just a way of life and happens without reason.

 

Do you have the exact reference of this passage in the MB?

 

Thanks

[shvu]

 

Another problem with Vaishnavism is that many people find it impossible to accept a benevolent god, and also reconcile it with the evil that they see around them. No matter what we do, we can't make sense of these terrible things (just see the picture of the sudanese boy and vulture in the "tragedy" thread). But since advaita claims this world is a dream (and bizarre things happen in dreams), it sort of explains why such terrible, crazy things happen, without resorting to karma, past life, benevolent god, and all that.

 

Just to be clear, Advaita does not say the world is a dream. It says the world and our role in it is ultimately unreal *like* in a dream.

 

But until that becomes a realization, the world is real, our role in it is real and the pain of the starving boy is as real as it is to anyone else. So it is not the case that Advaitins are not moved by the plight of these sufferings just as it is not true that Advaitins think they are God, as one ignoramus (not you, of course) has been posting on this thread.

 

Cheers

[Dark Warrior]

 

I love that passage from the Mahabharata. It gives a rare glimpse into the logic - or lack thereof - in the Karma doctrine vs. a Controlling God.

 

On a very superficial level, the concept of Karma appears to answer important questions on pain and pleasure. But on closer scrutiny, it fails to hold up any better than other religious positions which believe pain is a just a way of life and happens without reason.

 

Do you have the exact reference of this passage in the MB?

 

Thanks

 

Actually, I heard this in a discourse, so I am not really sure where I can find the passage. As far as the Mahabharata is concerned, I have never bothered to read any translations, because it is a highly interpolated text, and merely stick to discourses and bhashyas of my acharyas. Only Ramayana is available in a pristine form nowadays.

 

According to Vishishtadvaita/Sri Vaishnavism, the Lord is simply neutral. Since karma is anAdi, He doesn't interfere and give moksha to everyone. At the same time, He endeavours to make the jiva realise Him. Surrendering to the Lord gives Him 'legal' power (for want of a better word) to extinguish the Jiva's Karmas.

 

Suffering is also anAdi, since the jivas have been under the influence of bad Karma eternally. Krishna did not start this, so He does not interfere with it unduly.

 

Sort of like a biased teacher. Someone who grades exam papers neutrally, but at the same time does all he can to help the students pass.

 

Gita says atman is not the doer. Some Upanishadic statements convey that Jiva has some power of action, ie, to decide. To integrate them, it is believed that the Lord, residing as the antaryami in the Jiva, provides the power to the Jiva once the latter decides on a course of action. This doesn't compromise the Lord's omnipotence, nor does it make the Jiva as the 'doer', since the Lord provides the power to execute the action.

 

Of course, some people argue that the power to decide on the part of the Jiva is itself an action. I believe Sri Vedanta Desikar has written an entire grantha on this subject.

[sambya]

pure advaitism does not belive in gods personal nature but the kind of advaitism we find today actually does.there can be no end to gods attributes.he is formless as well as with form.if you attempt to accept any one of this(say god with form) and reject the other then you are disreguarding one vital features of cosmos,i.e the idea of formlessness.surely god cannot lack in a feature that even his creation has? if he does lack in a characteristic that even his created things have then he cannot be absolute(absolute means in every possible way,whether we can think of it or not),which in turn would make him imperfect , and hence not god.secondly you iskcon guys speak a lot about falldown of mayavadis.but in practical field i see that advaitist organisations like ramakrishna mission hardly has any falldown or scandals,while you people with your "superior doctrines"are infested with such problems.why is that?

[bhaktajan]

Sambya: ... you iskcon guys speak a lot about falldown of mayavadis.but in practical field i see that advaitist organisations like ramakrishna mission hardly has any falldown or scandals,while you people with your "superior doctrines"are infested with such problems.why is that?

[india has the advantage of living in caves --(so to speak). You too would fall from grace while in the jungle of lust from from any tirtha. ]

 

 

PS: I love what you said: "...if he [God] does lack in a characteristic that even his created things have then he cannot be absolute ..."

[You have heard correctly from a Vaishnava about this maxim? Now you are in danger of lossing your faith in the Void?]

[IamNotHeeHee]

 

Actually, I heard this in a discourse, so I am not really sure where I can find the passage. As far as the Mahabharata is concerned, I have never bothered to read any translations, because it is a highly interpolated text, and merely stick to discourses and bhashyas of my acharyas. Only Ramayana is available in a pristine form nowadays.

 

According to Vishishtadvaita/Sri Vaishnavism, the Lord is simply neutral. Since karma is anAdi, He doesn't interfere and give moksha to everyone. At the same time, He endeavours to make the jiva realise Him. Surrendering to the Lord gives Him 'legal' power (for want of a better word) to extinguish the Jiva's Karmas.

 

Suffering is also anAdi, since the jivas have been under the influence of bad Karma eternally. Krishna did not start this, so He does not interfere with it unduly.

 

Sort of like a biased teacher. Someone who grades exam papers neutrally, but at the same time does all he can to help the students pass.

 

Gita says atman is not the doer. Some Upanishadic statements convey that Jiva has some power of action, ie, to decide. To integrate them, it is believed that the Lord, residing as the antaryami in the Jiva, provides the power to the Jiva once the latter decides on a course of action. This doesn't compromise the Lord's omnipotence, nor does it make the Jiva as the 'doer', since the Lord provides the power to execute the action.

 

Of course, some people argue that the power to decide on the part of the Jiva is itself an action. I believe Sri Vedanta Desikar has written an entire grantha on this subject.

 

I think the above is confused between tattvavAda and sri vaishnavism. The above is true in tattvavAda. In sri vaishnavism or vishishtadavaita, it is argued that souls are created by Vishnu. They are not beginingless. Once created, in the initial birth, they are given a chance by Vishnu to do good or bad. If the soul does good in its first steps, it starts collecting good karma. If the soul chooses to do a bad deed, it starts collecting bad karma. The soul loses its independence after its first birth. Sri Vaishnavism or vishishtadvaita does not have the concept of independence/dependence as explained in tattvavAda or dvaita.

[RamanaDasi]

 

In sri vaishnavism or vishishtadavaita, it is argued that souls are created by Vishnu. They are not beginingless.

You misrepresent Visistadvaita

 

Souls are not created by Vishnu. It never happened! Where has any Srivaishnava Acharya said souls are not beginningless? This idea "souls are created" is directly contradicted by so many statements in Sri Gita, Upanishad, Brahmasutra and so forth.

 

You say, "it is argued". Who said that? No Srivaishnava Acharya ever said like that. Do any present Srivaishnava Acharyas such as Sri Varadayatirajajeer or Sri Chinnajeeyar say like that? They never would!

[janardana1234]

Hare Krishna ,

My Friends , I returned from my trip to India recently . What a trip it was at the feet of my Lord at Mathura in Vrindavan ! This time had chance to Pick up Sacred Shaligram Silas from Haridwar . Then to identify them I was glancing through information on web . I discovered various shocking facts . There are now couple of websites selling these Silas at sky rocketing prices . But is more surprising is that there is absolutely no limit as to how these suppliers have stretched imagination to the naming the Lord . There are Shaligrams called the names below which is incorrect naming seemingly to give them a big names attributing several properties and thus to charge high amounts

Sacred Adwaitya Shweta Netradhari Laxmi Vishvaksena Maha Ganesha

Sacred Adwaitya Shweta Laxmi hayagriva Kalki Maha Vishnu

Sacred Adwaitya Shweta Shashidhara Chandramauli Kalp Laxmi Vishvaksena Ganesha

Sarvottam Golden Laxmi Shesha Golden Kamal Chaturbhuj Chakradhari Maha Vishnu

Sarvottam Jenyudhari Shweta Hayagriva Varaha Dev

Adwaitya Golden Kamal Chaturbhuj Chakradhari Mahavishnu Kalki Mahadev

Sacred double Golden Kamal Santan Gopal Matsya Chaturbhuj Chakradhari Bhur Bhuvas

. According to the Prapanchasaara (quoted in Praanatoshanitantra page 373.) Lord Vishnu has his fifty different form each of which may be worsipped in a Shalagram Stone. His forms are given below: Keshav , Narayana, Maahava, Govinda, Madhusudana, Trivikrama, Vamana, Shridhar, Hrishikesha, Padmanabha, Damodara, Vaasudeva, Sankarshana, Pradyumna, Aniruddha ,Chakrin, Gadin, Sharngin, khadgin, Shankin, Halin, Musalin, Soolin, Paashin, Ankushin, Mukunda, Nandaja, Nandin, Nara, Narakajit, Hari, Krishna, Satya, Saatvata, Shauri, Shuri, Janaradana, Bhudhaarin, Vishvamurthi, Vaikuntha, Purushottama, Balin, Balaanuja, Bala, Vrishagnha, Vrisha, Hamsa, Varaha, Vimala, Nrisimha.

We learn from different puranas that in former days Shalagrams were divided into 24 varieties, their names according to the Skandapurana being as follows: Keshava, Madhusudana, Shankarshan , Daamodara, Vaasudeva, Pradyumna, Vishnu, Maadhava, Ananta, Purushottama, Adhokshaja, Janaardan , Govinda, Trivikrama, Shridhar, Hrishikesha, Nrisimha, Vishvayoni, Vaamana, Naaraayana, Pundarikaaksh, Upendra, Hari, Krishna. (Skanda Purana, Nagarckhanda, 244. 3-9)

In the Brahmavaivarattapurana (Prakrtikhanda, chapter21.) we get the following description of the different varieties of Shaligrams:

1) Lakshminarayana : In colour he resembles a new cloud and has a single opening marked with four circular prints. A linear mark resembling a vanamala (a particular kind of garland held by Lord Vishnu, or series of forests) is also printed on his body.

2) Lakshmijanaardan: The above type without the mark of vanamala.

3) Raghunatha: He has two openings with any mark of vanamala. his body also is marked with the footprint of a cow, but not with any mark of vanamala.

4) Dadhivamana: Very small in size with two circular marks, and having the colour of a new cloud.

5) Shridhar : The above type with an additional mark of vanamala.

6) Daamodara : Big in size with a round shape and two circular marks, but not having the mark of vanamala.

7) Ranarama : round and middle in shape with prints of arrows all over hid body. He must have two circular marks and prints of a quiver with arrows on his body.

8) Rajarajeshwara : Middle in size, having seven circular marks and also the marks of an umbrella and grass (or quiver) on his body.

9) Ananta : Big in size with the colour of a new cloud and having 14 circular marks on his body.

10) Madhusudhan : Round in shape, middle in size and charming to look at. He has two circular marks and a footprint of a cow on his body.

11) Sudarshan : With single circular mark.

12) Gadadhara: With a hidden circular mark.

13) Hayagriva : with two circular marks and having the shape of the face of a horse.

14) Narsimha : having a large opening with two circular marks, and glittering to look at.

15) Laxminarsimha : Having a big opening with two circular marks, and also marked with a vanamala.

16) Vaasudeva : Evenly shaped and charming to look at, having two circular marks at the front of his opening.

17) Pradyumna : with the colour of a new cloud, and having a small circular mark and several small holes on his body.

18) Shankarshan : He has two circular marks joined with each other on the top side o his body.

19) Aniriddha: Round in shape, glaced and charming to look at, and having the yellowish or black colour.

 

There are more forms of Lord including the Dasavatara form in the other texts , which I cannot mention due to space constraint and you may read in salagram.net . However these commercial websites are using their own nomenclature which is quite against the information in these scriptures . Now Bhur Bhuvas Gayatri cannot be a form of the Lord .. Similarly Sacred Adwaitya Shweta Netradhari Laxmi Vishvaksena Maha Ganesha , or Sacred Adwaitya Shweta Laxmi hayagriva Kalki Maha Vishnu, or Sacred Adwaitya Shweta Shashidhara Chandramauli Kalp Laxmi Vishvaksena Ganesha or Sacred double Golden Kamal Santan Gopal Matsya Chaturbhuj Chakradhari Bhur Bhuvas cannot be one single form of a Sila . The buyers need to Wake up and not trust the words of the suppliers blindly . Also there is absolutely no relation with the description of the Shaligram Sila as noted in the Scriptures with what these suppliers are selling . For eg:- please see the description of Silas above and match with the pictures they are selling . Sila Ananta needs to be “Big in size with the colour of a new cloud and having 14 circular marks on his body, “ , Pradyumna : with the colour of a new cloud, and having a small circular mark and several small holes on his body, Daamodara : Big in size with a round shape and two circular marks, but not having the mark of vanamala. The Silas are identified by these suppliers in any random way , befooling the people . So dear Friends , wake up . Do not merely read the website words and follow blindly . Do not pay such sky rocketing prices . You cannot “Buy” the Lord . Worship the Lord with Sheer devotion and pure love . He is everywhere . Take any Shaligram Sila and see Him in that . He is formless , the absolute .