Is Mukti A Myth?

[srikanthdk71]

 

Maya and Parambrahma are one and the same? Then why strive to escape Maya? This is a childish view of Vedanta. You should find someone to teach you the real conclusions of the Veda before you go off spouting your big ideas in forums such as this.

 

How do you know what you have learnt is the real conclusions of Vedanta. I think you have just read loads of books with an Institutional Tag with no real experience. This debate can go on and on with no end. Generally most of them think what they know is only the truth. If I just remove all stories from your bookshelf you will be left with yourself to ponder with. Perhaps only then you can understand what I am trying to say. I have told you that I need no certificate of yours whether my beliefs are childish etc. etc. You people are busy decorating the Lord/Krishna/Shiva whatever with your hymns,bhajans etc., the original Lord can be visible only if you try and remove those decorations. Cheers.

 

 

You remind me of the toy steam train that goes from Sealdah to Darjeeling. On your way to Darjeeling you can enjoy a nice cup of tea and a jolly conversation with your fellow travellers but all the things you are saying are just hot air coming out of your chimney.

 

Hahahaha.. So nice.

[RamanaDasi]

Om shanti shanti shanti Om

[srikanthdk71]

Shivam, Shantam, Advaitam,

Chaturtamanyante Sa Atma Sabigyeyah

 

Om Shanti Shanti Shantih

[RamanaDasi]

Satyam, Shivam, Sundaram!

[bhaktajan]

 

How do you know what you have learnt is the real conclusions of Vedanta.

[We learnt from those who embodied the Knowledge.

Just like a Bread maker knows the recipe to make an absolutely perfect specimen of 'Bread'--where the proff would be said pudding.]

 

I think you have just read loads of books with an Institutional Tag with no real experience.

[That is what is important for you Srikantdk-ji: You know all you do only from having the your ideas imported from an external source --now would you claim that "your knowledge" is self-generated from you good self?]

 

This debate can go on and on with no end.

[Well then, you should take the opportunity to express the depth of your knowledge to us too.

 

But at least, we readers of Srikantdk-ji's anti-matter//besides-the-matter-statements about the topic of this thread --

 

we can all be rest assured that Srikantdk-ji know entoto Brahma's-Madhva's-Gaudiya-Vaishnava's Sampradaya's Vedanta & Siddhanta.]

 

Generally most of them think what they know is only the truth.

[We also know all about ''bogus-Yogis" and "Darkness/Ignorance" and "Avidya" and "Bad-karma" and "reincarnating into lower stratum of spicies of life" --Please Srikantdk-ji add to our knowledge so that we can preach the "Absolute Truth" also to you future descendents, too].

 

If I just remove all stories from your bookshelf you will be left with yourself to ponder with.

[Did you plagerize this from Bishadi?]

 

Perhaps only then you can understand what I am trying to say.

["Prehaps"?

Isn't that our presumptiousness to think that you do not know what A Vaishnava knows to be the "Absolute Truth"?

Or am I being presumptious to think that you have not yet recognized that A Vaishnava knows the "Absolute Truth"?

Or am I being presumptious to think that you know all that we Vaishnavas know and you are just having sport with us?]

 

I have told you that I need no certificate of yours whether my beliefs are childish etc. etc.

[yours beliefs are childish? etc. etc. ?]

 

You people are busy decorating the Lord/Krishna/Shiva whatever with your hymns,bhajans etc.,

[Yes, that is correct! Well done ol'Boy! Just see how the compassion of the Vaishnavas causes all to remember Krishna's name, fame, form, extended family, his Vaishnavas, his internet forum posters?

Jai Srikantdk-ji!

Indeed, Slowly the Turtle wins the race--to meet up with the Hare at a latter date.]

 

the original Lord can be visible only if you try and remove those decorations.

["Decorations"? As for example, "Flowery Words?" --Oh, yeah, likje in the Gita, where Krishna says . . . ]

 

Cheers.

["Cheers?" As in to drink "Ambrosial Nectar" or what? What ya got? Ok, Ok. I'll tap you tap water. But we should check for parasites or atleast strain it through a filter after we boil it --Oh so many precautions! If only we could just remove those imperfections with ease.]

 

PS: The "Three Gunas" ["Rajas, Sattva & Tamas"] are defined as:

the "Creative, Maintaining, & Destructive Principles"

that put the elements into flux.

 

But the proper nomenclature for the "Three Gunas" is:

the "Passionate, Goodness & Ignorance Principles"

that put the elements into flux.

 

The difference in nomenclature is that a person is required to state such things as per their function.

 

So best regards in mastering your recipe for "Absolute Truth".

quote]

[Justin]

Dearest Bart,

 

I don't know why you ask me to argue with you each time. As I said earlier I stopped arguing against your posts long time ago and it does not matter anymore. After reading and refuting your posts on quantum entanglement, it is quite clear that you are not a quantum scientist. There is no point in continuing discussion with someone who has a bit of knowledge of quantum physics and scriptures and does not know what is the difference between the two fields.

 

Please do yourself a favor. The next time if you get frustrated with my posts, do not spend time criticizing my behavior.

 

Since you were so concerned at one point in time about off-topic posts, the best you can do to contribute is to ignore my posts, turn a blind eye, and refrain from making condescending remarks.

 

Love and kind regards,

 

Justin.

[Bart Happel]

 

Dearest Bart,

 

I don't know why you ask me to argue with you each time. As I said earlier I stopped arguing against your posts long time ago and it does not matter anymore. After reading and refuting your posts on quantum entanglement, it is quite clear that you are not a quantum scientist. There is no point in continuing discussion with someone who has a bit of knowledge of quantum physics and scriptures and does not know what is the difference between the two fields.

 

Please do yourself a favor. The next time if you get frustrated with my posts, do not spend time criticizing my behavior.

 

Since you were so concerned at one point in time about off-topic posts, the best you can do to contribute is to ignore my posts, turn a blind eye, and refrain from making condescending remarks.

 

Love and kind regards,

 

Justin.

 

Dear Justin,

 

I’m not a quantum-scientist, I’m a neuro-scientist. So you may be right that I made a mistake somewhere in my discussion of the concept of quantum-entanglement. But where? Don’t keep me in suspense Justin. Which post in which thread was incorrect, and why?

 

Kind regards,

 

Bart

[Justin]

Dearest Bart,

 

I see you really were lying when you said I wasted your time

 

Love and kind regards,

 

Justin.

[IamNotHeeHee]

 

There are many verses in Bhagavatam saying the God is "All" and that the supreme being is non-dual. Indeed it is true that god is non-dual Oneness but the tiny atoms called "jiva" are not God. They are just tiny atoms of light shining from the Supreme Light called Param-Brahma.

 

RamanaDasi, there are many verses also in the Vedas that say God is non-dual. That is correct. God cannot be made up of parts and each part cannot be non-different from him. He cannot be differentiated between His hair and His leg. But the shAstras also state clearly that a jIva is different from God. Each jIva has its own identity carrying experiences from one birth to another. There is no other way you can explain Karma if jIva does not have its own identity.

[bhaktajan]

Yes. Thus, the question, 'Which came first, karma or the desire of a Jiva?'

 

Karma (action) is proof that the purpose of 'Actions' is to stir 'consciousness' into play.

 

Karma proves the laws of physics are mathematical, precise and determinable.

 

Karma equates to the principle that "2+2=4".

 

Karma is all that exists within the void (brahman).

 

Even if all jivas and consciousness is false/temporary/dream-like -- we can still agree that we see that the field of Karma continues to act and transpire/tranmute through time in a Non-material field/void (brahman).

 

Thus the proof of absolute-zero is there; along with, the proof of absolute Matter/Energy is seen in the movements of Karma & Mathematics & Physics.

 

Ahhh such predictable-ness --like an expert pizza makers prized recipe.

[RamanaDasi]

 

God cannot be made up of parts and each part cannot be non-different from him. He cannot be differentiated between His hair and His leg.

Rg Veda tells in the Purusha Sukta how God (Purusha) has many parts. Purusha sukta says Purusha has hands, legs, eyes. From different parts of this Being Purusha come different things such as sun, earth, brahmins, devas, princes etc.

 

 

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2.1.20:

As a spider brings forth a web from within itself, so also it is with this world created by Brahman.

Svetasvatara Upanishad 6.10:

The Supreme Being surrounds Himself with the products of nature, just as when a spider builds a web and walks on threads spun from its own body. May that Supreme Being grant us liberation in Brahman!

 

Uddhava said to Nanda (Krishna's father):

Anything which is seen or heard of, which has gone by or is existing now or is yet to happen, anything which is mobile or immobile, big or small, is not apart from Acyuta (Sri Krishna). He alone is everything. He is the supreme soul (paramatma). Bhag 10.46.43

[IamNotHeeHee]

 

Rg Veda tells in the Purusha Sukta how God (Purusha) has many parts. Purusha sukta says Purusha has hands, legs, eyes. From different parts of this Being Purusha come different things such as sun, earth, brahmins, devas, princes etc.

 

 

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2.1.20:

As a spider brings forth a web from within itself, so also it is with this world created by Brahman.

Svetasvatara Upanishad 6.10:

The Supreme Being surrounds Himself with the products of nature, just as when a spider builds a web and walks on threads spun from its own body. May that Supreme Being grant us liberation in Brahman!

You are correct. Purusha sooktha tells us of the grand form of God. But his form and attributes being beyond material ones like ourselves, they are not different within Him i.e. He is non-dual or has the same auspiciousness and properties of his hair to the toes. Advaita and Dvaita (or tattvavAda) both assert that God is unchanging and non-different.

 

Although the web came from within the spider and the baby from the mother, they are not the identical anymore to the eye. So this analogy does not justify itself and is not appropriate. Once the web is woven out, the web and the spider are not only entirely different but the web is totally independent of the spider. That is not the case with God and jIvas. He is the Controller and the jIvas are the puppets. We know he pervades inside each and every thing in this universe making it function the way it is.

[jeffster]

Hello again Srikanth,

Since this thread is continuing, I felt obligated to refute some of your statements. In your post # 345, you state, "Let me also tell you that without speculation, truth cannot be perceived." Do you actually believe that truth cannot reveal itself to us if it so chooses ? Is truth puny and impotent, as you suggest, or is truth able to reveal itself either directly, if it so chooses, or through acharyas who have direct perception of truth, or through scriptures such as Gita ?

You also state in several posts that only experience can reveal the truth. Again, in post # 345, you state, "I believe in experience and then tally it with the scriptures." This is quite reasonable. We don't accept blind faith; faith should be reasoned and proven. If that is the case, then why not also go to your local Krishna mandir and get some experience there ? Then tally it with the scriptures. Why reject that experience ?

Finally, regarding Sankaracarya's statement, "Bhaja Govindam," which Ramana dasi has also quoted, you ask "Which idiot told you this story ?" I have been looking everywhere here for my book by Sankaracharya, to attempt to verify his statement, but unfortunately I have been unable to find the book as yet. But I believe that his statement is in this book. He must have told me himself through the book, which incidentally is not a Vaishnava publication. So then, are you indirectly calling Sankaracarya a fool ? He must have had many disciples like you - brilliant men of keen mind, excellent speculative ability and tremendously eloquent and convincing in debate. The only lack they had was lack of inclination to devotion to the Personality of Godhead. He couldn't directly preach Vaishnavism to them, as they would never accept it, just as you cannot accept it now. So he preached monism, until on his deathbed he grew tired of the charade, then said "Bhaja Govindam."

All the best.

Regards, jeffster/AMdas

[RamanaDasi]

 

Although the web came from within the spider and the baby from the mother, they are not the identical anymore to the eye. So this analogy does not justify itself and is not appropriate. Once the web is woven out, the web and the spider are not only entirely different but the web is totally independent of the spider. The spider has nothing to do with the web soon after it is out. That is not the case with God and jIvas. He is the Controller and the jIvas are the puppets.

 

A person in full realization sees everthing within Narayana and Narayana within everything. Prahlad, Catuhsana then so many others such as Gajendra in Bhagavatam say they see Vishnu everywhere within every thing.

 

The analogy about how the spider creates the world from himself which I quote is from the Upanishads it is not my own idea. This is what the Veda teaches.

 

You say when the web comes from the spider then the web is totally independent of the spider and it is something which is not identical to the spider to our eye. But our big problem is we have this EYE which sees things in the wrong way. With pure knowledge we will see only Narayana everywhere.

 

Gita says, a sage sees Narayana in the heart of dog-eaters, elephant, brahmin. Even in the stones, Naarayana is present there. This is what Prahlad told Hiranya Kashyap. Pralad said Vishnu is in that pillar then Vaikunthanatha came out from within the pillar.

[srikanthdk71]

 

Hello again Srikanth,

Since this thread is continuing, I felt obligated to refute some of your statements. In your post # 345, you state, "Let me also tell you that without speculation, truth cannot be perceived." Do you actually believe that truth cannot reveal itself to us if it so chooses ? Is truth puny and impotent, as you suggest, or is truth able to reveal itself either directly, if it so chooses, or through acharyas who have direct perception of truth, or through scriptures such as Gita ?

 

Truth is truth. Nothing to reveal itself. It is to us who experience differently refute, believe and argue that truth is only that which we have perceived with our experience.

 

 

 

You also state in several posts that only experience can reveal the truth. Again, in post # 345, you state, "I believe in experience and then tally it with the scriptures." This is quite reasonable. We don't accept blind faith; faith should be reasoned and proven. If that is the case, then why not also go to your local Krishna mandir and get some experience there ? Then tally it with the scriptures. Why reject that experience ?

 

Infact I have tried all ways even to the extent of a parivrajaka who begs and eats, lived in himalayas with loads of interesting things to carry with. Coming to the point of the Krishna Mandir, I agree that when we sing Bhajans, hear the glories of Lord, recite a mantra or a hymn, the vibrations give tremendous impetus and feeling to the mind. We repeat it again and again to gain the same experience. Imagine that if your very favorite Bhajan is made heard to you again and again, the tendency of the mind to enjoy will not grow more and more. Infact it becomes less and less. That is where the meditation comes to our help. Infact, Meditation takes you up and up every more you practice it. You will discover new energies, new way of thinking and realize the true potential of yourself. Why reject this experience? Try.

 

 

Finally, regarding Sankaracarya's statement, "Bhaja Govindam," which Ramana dasi has also quoted, you ask "Which idiot told you this story ?" I have been looking everywhere here for my book by Sankaracharya, to attempt to verify his statement, but unfortunately I have been unable to find the book as yet. But I believe that his statement is in this book. He must have told me himself through the book, which incidentally is not a Vaishnava publication. So then, are you indirectly calling Sankaracarya a fool ? He must have had many disciples like you - brilliant men of keen mind, excellent speculative ability and tremendously eloquent and convincing in debate. The only lack they had was lack of inclination to devotion to the Personality of Godhead. He couldn't directly preach Vaishnavism to them, as they would never accept it, just as you cannot accept it now. So he preached monism, until on his deathbed he grew tired of the charade, then said "Bhaja Govindam."

All the best.

Regards, jeffster/AMdas

 

To know about about Shankaracharya, read 'Sri Shankara Digvijayam' which is believed to hold the most authentic information about his time. Coming to the composition of Bhaja Govindam, the master once passed by a sanskrit scholar in Varanasi who was busy memorizing the rules of sanskrit grammar. Seeing the tension writ all over the scholar's face, Shankaracharya spontaneously composed a beautiful poem "Bhaja Govindam". If you are talking about 'Samprapte Sannihite Kaale, Nahi Nahi Rakshati Dukrinkarane..', Dukrinkarane is a part of Sanskrit Grammer. So, he said, when your end comes, these rules will not help you. I think that you have mistaken and are of the opinion that Shankaracharya himself realized on his deathbed that he had wasted all his time in writing Bhashyas in Sanskrit and had forgotton Govinda and now it was the time for him to remember Govinda atleast on his deathbed. That was not the case. Give me one instance where it say Sri Adi Shankara met his death or died in the age of 32.

[Amlesh]

gurucaraïámbuja-nirbhara-bhaktaç

samsárád-acirád-bhava muktaç

sendriya-mánasa-niyamád-evam

drakúyasi nijahødayasthqam devam.

Being devoted completely to the lotus-feet of the Master, become released soon from the transmigratory process. Thus, through the discipline of sense and mind-control, you will behold the Deity that resides in your heart.

From which school of thought it is said that the Heart is the Temple of the Lord?

bhagavadgètá kiòcid-adhitá

gañgáialalavakaïiká pètá,

sakûød-api yena murári-samarcá

kriyate tasya yamena na carcá.(20)

For him, who has studied the Bhagavadgitá even a little, who has drunk a drop of the Gañgá-water, and who has performed the worship of the Destroyer of the demon Mura (viz. Murari) at least once, there is no tiff with Yama (the lord of death).

 

[srikanthdk71]

 

From which school of thought it is said that the Heart is the Temple of the Lord?

 

Heart of all activities. Spiritual Heart. Not Adi Bhautika, it is Aadhyatmika.

 

 

For him, who has studied the Bhagavadgitá even a little, who has drunk a drop of the Gañgá-water, and who has performed the worship of the Destroyer of the demon Mura (viz. Murari) at least once, there is no tiff with Yama (the lord of death).

 

Oh yes. This was not a Tattva Bodah or Atma Bodah. Just an other Stotram. There are many more like Bhavani Ashtakam, Kanakadhara.., Shiva Manasa.. If you try to find Advaita Tattava in every work of Shankaracharya and start debating, you are mistaken.

[Amlesh]

 

Heart of all activities. Spiritual Heart. Not Adi Bhautika, it is Aadhyatmika.

 

 

A more direct meaning with no interpretation. Adi Shankara meant Krishna.

 

When it concerns spirit, there is no part of the body.

Our body carries the Spirit.. more precisely the Heart. And it is There that the Lord makes his Temple and act as the Witness.

 

 

Oh yes. This was not a Tattva Bodah or Atma Bodah. Just an other Stotram. There are many more like Bhavani Ashtakam, Kanakadhara.., Shiva Manasa.. If you try to find Advaita Tattava in every work of Shankaracharya and start debating, you are mistaken.

 

If we want to extrapolate we can go even to the moon and come back and with a mind as swift as yours.. the journey might be even longer.

 

Had it been the case, Shankara would not have come to square zero.

 

Bhaja Govindam, he composed it in his later years. He knew the conclusions as other great saint did.

[srikanthdk71]

 

A more direct meaning with no interpretation. Adi Shankara meant Krishna.

 

Whatever you mean, is right for you.

 

 

If we want to extrapolate we can go even to the moon and come back and with a mind as swift as yours.. the journey might be even longer.

 

All the best.

 

 

...Shankara would not have come to square zero.

 

Whatever you mean, is right for you.

[kaisersose]

 

Finally, regarding Sankaracarya's statement, "Bhaja Govindam," which Ramana dasi has also quoted, you ask "Which idiot told you this story ?" I have been looking everywhere here for my book by Sankaracharya, to attempt to verify his statement, but unfortunately I have been unable to find the book as yet....

 

You will not find it, as there never was such a book by Shankara. You most likely heard it from iskcon sources or perhaps read it in an iskcon book.

 

 

But I believe that his statement is in this book. He must have told me himself through the book, which incidentally is not a Vaishnava publication. So then, are you indirectly calling Sankaracarya a fool?

 

No, as that whole piece of a "change of heart on his deathbed" is trash cooked up by some Vaishnavas.

 

 

He must have had many disciples like you - brilliant men of keen mind, excellent speculative ability and tremendously eloquent and convincing in debate. The only lack they had was lack of inclination to devotion to the Personality of Godhead.

 

And where did you read this? You do not know the first thing about Advaita.

 

A change of heart on the deathbed implies Bhaja Govindam is not Advaita. Please explain where Bhaja Govindam contradicts Advaita, if you can. Without that you are simply quoting incorrect statements delivered by iskcon Gurus - a waste of time for everyone.

 

Or you can always admit that your knowledge of Advaita is strictly second-hand based on hearsay from unreliable sources and be silent on the topic. The honest approach as I call it.

 

Cheers

[suchandra]

 

You will not find it, as there never was such a book by Shankara. You most likely heard it from iskcon sources or perhaps read it in an iskcon book.

 

 

 

No, as that whole piece of a "change of heart on his deathbed" is trash cooked up by some Vaishnavas.

 

 

 

And where did you read this? You do not know the first thing about Advaita.

 

A change of heart on the deathbed implies Bhaja Govindam is not Advaita. Please explain where Bhaja Govindam contradicts Advaita, if you can. Without that you are simply quoting incorrect statements delivered by iskcon Gurus - a waste of time for everyone.

 

Or you can always admit that your knowledge of Advaita is strictly second-hand based on hearsay from unreliable sources and be silent on the topic. The honest approach as I call it.

 

Cheers

 

Shankara surely didn't highlight to worship an illusion, a temporary material object. The word "bhajan" has been derived from the Sanskrit root "bhaj" which means to render service, what requires at least two individuals, servant and served.

Why Shankara would have said for the time being, because you're in maya, worship another maya, Govinda?

[primate]

 

Shankara surely didn't highlight to worship an illusion, a temporary material object. The word "bhajan" has been derived from the Sanskrit root "bhaj" which means to render service, what requires at least two individuals, servant and served.

Why Shankara would have said for the time being, because you're in maya, worship another maya, Govinda?

You are a dualist suchandra, and you do not know (did not experience) Advaita.

 

Regards

[kaisersose]

 

Shankara surely didn't highlight to worship an illusion, a temporary material object. The word "bhajan" has been derived from the Sanskrit root "bhaj" which means to render service, what requires at least two individuals, servant and served.

Why Shankara would have said for the time being, because you're in maya, worship another maya, Govinda?

 

Now we are asking questions...finally. Instead of assuming we know everything there is to know about Advaita. That is progress.

 

And while you are in the questioning frame of mind, here is a simple question.

 

If Shankara changed his mind about Advaita on his deathbed, then why do we still have Advaita 1300 years later? Why is it that only Hare Krishnas know about this change of heart and not Advaitins or anyone else?

 

Cheers

[Justin]

 

If Shankara changed his mind about Advaita on his deathbed, then why do we still have Advaita 1300 years later? Why is it that only Hare Krishnas know about this change of heart and not Advaitins or anyone else?

 

Cheers

He exclaimed "I got it, finally, yoohoo!" and then kicked the bucket

[RamanaDasi]

 

Shankara surely didn't highlight to worship an illusion, a temporary material object. The word "bhajan" has been derived from the Sanskrit root "bhaj" which means to render service, what requires at least two individuals, servant and served.

Why Shankara would have said for the time being, because you're in maya, worship another maya, Govinda?

Iskcon people should understand Shankara before they start telling what Shankara's philosophy is. People look silly when they talk about things they don't understand. Shankara gives praise to Shiva, Durga, Vishnu, Govinda, Ganapati in so many prayers. He was seeing how the Supreme Being comes into this world in many forms to release the suffering of living beings.