isopanishad's first sloka indicates advaita philosophy

[bija]

Sambhya, I am thinking mostly over the last years from the viewpoint of Sri Caitanya, who spoke of simultaneous oneness and difference. For me this key philisophical statement has been a vehicle of understanding, as well as the goal.

 

So therefore, if diversity is an essential element of my faith/practice toward knowing...how to harmonize that diversity that exists in the world? let alone when my consciousness broadens deeper than the body (bag of skin).

 

Each world tradition has given keys to harmonize. The Gaudiya path has proclaimed Sri Krsna as the source of truth, and from that fountainhead a spiritual cosmology and personology where all things have room...even to the extreme limits of divided bodily consciousness (ignorance).

 

Personally I think those who have not experienced within their being the deeper potential (a spiritualized mind - soul/psyche), will always speak from the standpoint of dogma. Then those who do not follow their ultimate persona/impersona dogmatic truths, are considered deviants. Then they (the dogmatic) begin to persecute such (even using sastra). When infact they (the dogmatic) have very little hope, with such offensive mentality, of attaining a spiritual body. Because they fail to recognize (the key and door) that the cultivation of a spiritual body first arises from cultivation within the mind. This is the process in all ancient tradition including Gaudiya Vaisnavism.

 

Western mindsets and now the world have moved away from the ancient wisdom, to an exaggerated sense of individuization. Thus the degradation of nature treated as an object and the spreading of kali yuga. But the tradition also says that now the time is ripe for a golden age. The individuization process then begins to move toward that harmony centre (Krsna).

 

The dogmatic always persecutes, even their own kind. For they have not yet realized what they are (a part of non-dual absolute truth). And they do not realize that by the grace of the tradition that they exist in, that all things have place. Even the unnatural or apparent irreconciable paradoxes become harmonized, because in due course in deeper realization, the fruit of the faith tradition manifests in the heart.

 

So therefore those who are moving early (which is really not the case), back toward the unity, finishing the deeper individuization, must be very tolerant. For them the individual remains, after realization, in the spiritual existence. So infact from that vision, the dogmatic are also perfected. Infact the whole environment becomes spiritualized.

 

Harmonization - symphony, Unity in diversity. Waiting, humble as a blade of grass and as tolerant as a tree.

[Amlesh]

 

saying that personal god is a better understanding of the supreme than impersonal understanding . although it was bad according to my individual opinion.

 

I never said bad.. but incomplete.

 

 

 

i dont think so !!!! because if it would have depended exclusively on him to chose to reveal his 'superior' personal aspect to some and 'inferior' impersonal aspect to some , then he would be stained with the vice of partiality. that would make him imperfect ,and hence not god.

 

Not exactly.

If it would have been the other way round, then it would have derived His other speciality.. that of BEING PERFECTLY INDEPENDENT.

 

 

how can someone who is perfect and causelessly mercifull show 'superior' form to some and his inferior form to some ?!!! it rather depends on what we desire to see from him. a pure devotee would never care for his impersonal aspect but would rather go with his lovable personal side.

 

The idea of superiority its again you who is seeing that.

The impersonal aspect is part of his personal aspect.

Just like the sun and the rays of sun.

 

 

i guess i got what you are trying to suggest. maybe you are trying to say that seeing him( god realisation) is absolutely dependent on his mercy, thats perfectly true. untill he wills no one can achieve any amount of realizations. but question arises why does he bestow this mercy to some individuals , leaving the rest . this mercy is of prime importance but it blesses only those who sincirely search for him through unfaltering steps . our purushakaar(zeal) and enthusiam about sadhana helps to determine on whom this divine mercy would show up.

 

Because of our unwillingness to serve him.

But the wise knows, even though one is unwilling to serve, even him becomes part of his play.

No one is really independent of him.

Just like Duryodhana who was against His will but still he was part of His act.

 

 

a similar discussion is there in the beutifull book of bhakti--- madhurya kadambini by srila vishwanath chakrabary thakur ( a saint of gaudiya vaishnavism) . he speculated what could be the cause of bhakti? is it due to punyakarma ? is it due to good associations? is it due to mercy of vaishnavas? is ti due to grace of god? the question is indeed a real tough one.in the end he suggested that bhakti itself is its cause.

True...

Narada told it perfectly.

When the eyes of Hari sees someone then for him it is activated.

 

Mahatma Gandhi said it again perfectly in his My experiment with Truth.

Who becomes the seer of God and who is the object of circumstance is the eternal of mystery and RAM only knows.

[Amlesh]

 

as truth is infinite each religion seems to have got a certain aspect of truth. each of these faiths have something unique in its teachings that is seperate from other faiths.thats what makes these faiths exist. every religion has something to contribute to the world.the day its contibution finishes the religion fades away instantly.

 

yes.

However, there should be at least one doctrine which englobes all the Sub Truth and that occurs when the Absolute Truth Himself reveal this to that fortunate.

THE GITAM Is the that TREATIES and KRISHNA IS THAT ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

That's why it is said in the Gita... only 1 perfect rare soul gets to hear that TRUTH in all its glory.

 

 

so all religions and beliefs are showing a part of the truth thats absolute and without a second. thats why i say dont limit god.

 

I'll certainly concur in that point.

But the Gita proclaims.. the Supreme Truth and can only be perceived in its completeness in His Manusrim Form [Human Form].

Hari does not come in HIS FULL Supreme FORM in the Kaliyuga.

That's why He is known as TriYuga.

 

 

surely gita is the highest philosophical treatise of hinduism. they are the supreme divine revelations and cannot be bounded by material definations( exactly the thing that iskcon wants to do by providing monopoly translations of gita)

 

Gita is not part of Hinduism.

Iskcon has a version that I like that of Bhakti but there are certain details that has been neglected by the devotees.

[bija]

I must say this Sambya. Since November 2007 up till now I have read two pages of Gita As It Is everyday...should be finished the book after christmas.

 

Man, its a great book, the realizations pour out from that very special soul. Ofcourse as we know, that version is not the only one - but gee its a good one.

[sambya]

 

Harmonization - symphony, Unity in diversity. Waiting, humble as a blade of grass and as tolerant as a tree.

 

jay

[sambya]

 

Not exactly.

If it would have been the other way round, then it would have derived His other speciality.. that of BEING PERFECTLY INDEPENDENT.

 

oh com'on !! relationship of god with a devotee doesnt affect his independence.

 

what does it mean when it is said that when you shall take 1 step towards him he shall take 10 steps towards you ?

what dose it mean when he says that my devotee is higher than me ?

why does he always listens to our sincere prayers?

 

is it due to lack of independence? no !!!!!! he is perfectly independent.this apparent dependence is what is called lila . in many instances god appeared before sadhaks and asked for food . why ? is he dependent on food ?? that would also amount to dependence. but actually that is all part of his divine play. and theres no one who can understand his play completely, not even the highest saints.

 

" when bhisma was lying in deathbed with arrows peirced all through his body he desired to see lord sri krishna. when krishna came he started crying. everyone was curious. a great mahatma like bhisma crying on his deathbed and that too after seeing krishna !!! when asked he replied . "o krishna !! today i realized something looking at pandavas. inspite of always remaining under your shelter there is no end to their miseries. that made me realize that even after so many years i couldnt understand god's lila even by a small fraction. o krishna ,hardly any one can understand you. it is this thought that makes me shed these tears. "

 

......................SRI RAMAKRISHNA

 

 

The idea of superiority its again you who is seeing that.

 

How ? just now you said ' I never said bad.. but incomplete. ' .

advaita=impersonalism=incomplete

dvaita=personalism=complete

obviously that which is 'complete' becomes superior to that which is 'incomplete' . that dosent need explaining !!!

[chandu_69]

 

is that all that you can think of -------defeat , winning, arguing, defending , blasphemising ?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

i wonder , whats going wrong with hare krishna devotees !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

U wonder about yourself, Munafiq sambya.

[sambya]

 

I'll certainly concur in that point.

But the Gita proclaims.. the Supreme Truth and can only be perceived in its completeness in His Manusrim Form [Human Form].

Hari does not come in HIS FULL Supreme FORM in the Kaliyuga.

That's why He is known as TriYuga.

 

wanna know why gita says this ? it not because anthromorphic conception of god is the highest . its not that other perceptions of god are lower than this anthromorphic conception.

 

gita as we all know is the most philosophical yet the most practical scripture. it is a limitation of us humans that no matter how hard we try we can never think beyond material terms

 

say for example when we try to percieve niraakar , what can we think ? an ocean , a ever expansive meadow , a desert or the sky perhaps ? maybe modern television have made it possible for us to visualise the milky way and space .but here it ends . nothing more than that !! but is this visualization a niraakar visuslization ? no !! its absolutely within the material realms. so a form automatically comes in.

 

that is why the muslims hang a picture of kaaba ,christians kiss the cross etc. all these points to the necessity of personal worship. now we all know all religions has its base in emotions.all spiritual activities are emotional activities. and this emotions are brought out most effectively if we can relate to another human. that is why percieving god as human is of utmost importance.

 

god's potencies manifest directly in an avatar . and avatars live among us to behave exactly like a material human. thats the closest an average man can get to god. thats why worship of avatars or human god or god men are so stressed in gita. its the easiest and quickest way to him.

 

avatars are gateways to realization.

 

 

Gita is not part of Hinduism.

 

thats when you view it from a spiritual perspective. historically it has always been a essential document of hinduism , not even vaishnavs. no denying that.

 

 

Hari does not come in HIS FULL Supreme FORM in the Kaliyuga.

That's why He is known as TriYuga.

 

i would like to know the source.im not aware of this.

[sambya]

 

I must say this Sambya. Since November 2007 up till now I have read two pages of Gita As It Is everyday...should be finished the book after christmas.

 

Man, its a great book, the realizations pour out from that very special soul. Ofcourse as we know, that version is not the only one - but gee its a good one.

 

actually i dont condemm AS IT IS .it is indeed a good book. it has done a beautiful job of preaching gita in the west. but whenever a typical iskcon follower catches you with any other version of gita(whosever it may be) he immideately shuns it saying only AS IT IS is true explanation of gita. all the rest (right up to the ancient times ,i guess) are twisted and misinterpreted.

 

now isnt this a bit irrational to claim that only one person has ever had the true conception of gita.it also amounts to limiting gita.

 

but really sorry if ive hurt you. once again , im not condemming AS IT IS.

[bija]

You have not hurt me, I have several versions of the Gita and like them all. I agree with you on several points. Some devotees who are zealous for that book only, may subtly condemn others (authors). Mature Iskcon devotees have tried to leave this offensive nature in the gloom of the 80's. Ofcourse things sometimes linger in group think.

 

Saying that, I have read other Gita's outside the Gaudiya fold and would tend to agree with Srila Prabhupada when he says, these other commentaries miss the point. Such a statement ofcourse is spoken from a philisophical stand-point. For example I read some Yogananda (not his Gita) a few years ago, it was so complex and far out that I could not envision how to implement.Totally abstract writing. I know one lady who is still reading it with no headway on the subject. At least Gita As It Is is a practical Gita.

[ranjeetmore]

Chandu...Are you raj thackeray ?

 

70% hindus eat meat...Even they are muslims then...What will you say to them?

[ranjeetmore]

" when bhisma was lying in deathbed with arrows peirced all through his body he desired to see lord sri krishna. when krishna came he started crying. everyone was curious. a great mahatma like bhisma crying on his deathbed and that too after seeing krishna !!! when asked he replied . "o krishna !! today i realized something looking at pandavas. inspite of always remaining under your shelter there is no end to their miseries. that made me realize that even after so many years i couldnt understand god's lila even by a small fraction. o krishna ,hardly any one can understand you. it is this thought that makes me shed these tears. "

 

......................SRI RAMAKRISHNA

 

quote by sambya:

but actually that is all part of his divine play. and theres no one who can understand his play completely, not even the highest saints.

 

 

Hey,that's not true.

 

Hanumanji must be chuckling in his mind when Laxmana was "shot down" by the arrow.Sri Ramacandra was CRYING.

Aisa nahi hai....God reveals Himself fully to His prema Bhaktas.

Exception: The Leelas going on in Nikunj and Nibhrt Nikunj....These abodes are beyond the league of Vibhinna amsas.

[Amlesh]

 

wanna know why gita says this ? it not because anthromorphic conception of god is the highest . its not that other perceptions of god are lower than this anthromorphic conception.

 

Because as you said earlier.. each religion holds a portion of Truth.

AND Truth is one without a second.

Each component of Truth is revealed in the Gita as the lesson goes more profound.

Till lastly shown in totality.

Remember, when the lesson started, Krishna was a mere Charioteer... then Friend.. then Guru.. and lastly Arjuna recognized Him as God.

The Brahma Jyoty, Universal light was shown in the course of Time to Arjuna by Krishna Himself.

 

 

gita as we all know is the most philosophical yet the most practical scripture. it is a limitation of us humans that no matter how hard we try we can never think beyond material terms

 

No, it is what where we get it wrong.

True, however it is that none can understand Gita completely.. but Krishna says, I'll give you the necessary understanding for you to come to Me.

 

The material elements is to be used inorder to understand Truth as a whole and not neglected.

The author of the Gita draws no line of demarcation between Spiritual and Material Quest.

 

Even though you hold properties still you are propertyless.. such a thinking is called real renunciation.

In fact, material resources will evolve round that Mahatma.. and he will create actions for the benefit of the world without really thinking he is the proprietor of them.

 

 

say for example when we try to percieve niraakar , what can we think ? an ocean , a ever expansive meadow , a desert or the sky perhaps ? maybe modern television have made it possible for us to visualise the milky way and space .but here it ends . nothing more than that !! but is this visualization a niraakar visuslization ? no !! its absolutely within the material realms. so a form automatically comes in.

 

that is why the muslims hang a picture of kaaba ,christians kiss the cross etc. all these points to the necessity of personal worship. now we all know all religions has its base in emotions.all spiritual activities are emotional activities. and this emotions are brought out most effectively if we can relate to another human. that is why percieving god as human is of utmost importance.

 

god's potencies manifest directly in an avatar . and avatars live among us to behave exactly like a material human. thats the closest an average man can get to god. thats why worship of avatars or human god or god men are so stressed in gita. its the easiest and quickest way to him.

 

avatars are gateways to realization.

 

 

 

thats when you view it from a spiritual perspective. historically it has always been a essential document of hinduism , not even vaishnavs. no denying that.

 

The perception will certainly depend on the qualification that we behold.

The more the Lord sees a person fit for His mission, the more he reveal Himself in the appropriate Form and the much degree of his secret Work plan is revealed.

 

Our willingness to serve and His Vision whether we are pure enough determines the closeness between Him and US.

 

Well, Sun Rays can be perceived without necessary perceiving the Sun.

But when the sun is perceived, the rays are automatically perceived.

 

With Proper Vision.. while really Viewing Krishna.. everything is seen.

 

The very few who were able to see him in that way was Yashomati Maya, Bheesma, Sanjaya, Arjuna, Vyasa, Drona.

 

 

i would like to know the source.im not aware of this.

From the lips of SukaDeva Goswami.

[Amlesh]

And yes Avtaar is not the Gateway to realisation.

 

After entering the Gate of Freedom, it is they that we finally see, according to the desired Service Type.

[ranjeetmore]

There is no question of inferiority between Bhrahm and Bhagavan.That's offensive.

Both are the same Tattva.

ALL ENERGIES ARE PRESENT IN BRAHMN THAT ARE PRESENT IN BHAGAVAN.

 

BUT...

Only Sri Bhagvan-this feature-manifests all these superexcellent energies in FULL

[Amlesh]

 

Hey,that's not true.

 

Hanumanji must be chuckling in his mind when Laxmana was "shot down" by the arrow.Sri Ramacandra was CRYING.

Aisa nahi hai....God reveals Himself fully to His prema Bhaktas.

Exception: The Leelas going on in Nikunj and Nibhrt Nikunj....These abodes are beyond the league of Vibhinna amsas.

 

You are terrific Ranjeet.

True... That is why Garuda went to see Bushundi when doubt tormented Him while seeing His Lord (Sri Rama) entangled in the snake coil in the Battlefield.

He thought, how can I (Garuda) the very source of Fear for snakes, see my own Lord be at the mercy of Snakes.

That doubt was dissipated by Bushundi. While reading that I was thrilled with Ecstasy...

If the Lord does not create all that.. how will we be able to serve Him, gain such lovely moments.. and hear such lovely moments between Greats like Bushundi and Garuda.

How would you express the joy that Hanumatha derived when carrying the Mountain just for the sake of His Beloved Rama.

 

Krishna only creates some really perfectly planned nice actions for his devotees for the betterment of this world else others are idle selfish fools or unorganised whimsical, thinking-oneself to be the doer [no concept of soul never does and everything depends on God] fools.

[Amlesh]

thats when you view it from a spiritual perspective. historically it has always been a essential document of hinduism , not even vaishnavs. no denying that.... by Sambya

 

Historically, the word Hinduism, is a recent addition in the Data Dictionary.

 

The thing that existed was the Vedas that followers read and practice.

 

The Gita even at that time was something really inconceivable by the mass even at the Time.

 

Its words are eternally True. When He says.. HARDLY ONE KNOWS ME IN TRUTH in this material world.... it is eternally so.

 

Gita upholds from the Buddist to all kind of philosophies.. the WORD NIRVANA which is the final stuff of the buddist is infact found in the middle of the Gita.

So why only tag Hinduism with that.

The maxim of the Bible... "Dieu creea l'homme a son propre image" meaning.. God created man with its own image... sorry dude for this ugly translation but I guess who've understood.

THE MUSLIM And advaitim thinking of "Brahmajyoti.. Impersonal feature".. that also has been accepted and shown by Krishna Himself in the Gita.

 

WHY TAG ONLY HINDUISM?

[chandu_69]

 

Chandu...Are you raj thackeray ?

No,

I am south indian and nonbrahmin.

 

 

70% hindus eat meat...Even they are muslims then...What will you say to them?

No, i respect people's right to beleive what they want to beleive as long as it doesn't encroach on other people'slife significantly.

 

Btw how on earth this question popped out here???

[sambyahere]

 

Hey,that's not true.

 

Hanumanji must be chuckling in his mind when Laxmana was "shot down" by the arrow.Sri Ramacandra was CRYING.

Aisa nahi hai....God reveals Himself fully to His prema Bhaktas.

Exception: The Leelas going on in Nikunj and Nibhrt Nikunj....These abodes are beyond the league of Vibhinna amsas.

 

thats impossible . how? think carefully..........

 

god as we all know is the supreme and infinite and no one can come equal to him(from a dualistic point of veiw of course). so , if someone would have actually understood him totally that would mean understanding him as infinite. remember 'infinite' here is a very broad word .it does not merely mean unending or ever expansive. and its also acepted that all individuals are imperfect by senses. so if a person claims to have understood god completely it would be equivalent of understanding that which is infinite.

 

and its obvious only infinite can understand infinite completely. being 'finite' means being limited. how can finite grasp the infinite. it is absurd.and if only infinite garsps infinite then it would assertain advaita .for there can be no two infinite.

 

so if you suggest that there are indeed some souls who can grasp him totally that would mean that those persons are infinite. that wouldnt conform to you dualistic philosophy.

 

no one can know him completely.ask this out to your guru and see what answer you get.

 

sambya

[sambyahere]

im sorry to say amalesh that i find no difference between your understanding and that of those orthodox iskconites. you seem to hold on those very concepts that they preach----that personal god is superior to impersonal god, mayavadis are on incomplete track,mixing with mayavadis would ruin your spiritual lives, everyone else are demigods(even devi and shiva) etc etc.

 

i would like to know in which points do you differ with iskcon as you suggested in other threads.

[sambyahere]

 

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 sambya

i would like to know the source.im not aware of this.

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

From the lips of SukaDeva Goswami.

 

the book and the text i mean.

[sambyahere]

 

Historically, the word Hinduism, is a recent addition in the Data Dictionary.

 

The thing that existed was the Vedas that followers read and practice.

 

The Gita even at that time was something really inconceivable by the mass even at the Time.....................................................................................................

.................................WHY TAG ONLY HINDUISM?

 

everyone knows that hinduism is a recent word . strictly speaking it is not a recent word but a later word.

 

i tagged only hinduism because historically there is no indications as yet to show that it was followed by any cultures outside the subcontinent.say greeks , china , middleast etc.

 

and by 'hinduism' i meant those numerous sects and religions that shared some common things like , belief in vedas , gods and goddeses, similar rituals , guruparampara etc.

 

even the ancient yavanas (greeks) collectively meant these religions while coining the term 'hindu'

 

funny thing with gaudiyas ( not meaning you of course) is that they accept history selectively whenever it suits to thier purpose. for example , they would readily accept this 'origin of hindu ' theory but deny that puranas were written in later hindu ages and continued till 18th century.

[sambyahere]

 

No, i respect people's right to beleive what they want to beleive as long as it doesn't encroach on other people'slife significantly.

 

really !!!!!!!!!!!! even after showering anandamayi maa with abusive words ? how did she 'encroach' on your life ?!!!!!!!!!

[Amlesh]

 

im sorry to say amalesh that i find no difference between your understanding and that of those orthodox iskconites. you seem to hold on those very concepts that they preach----that personal god is superior to impersonal god, mayavadis are on incomplete track,mixing with mayavadis would ruin your spiritual lives, everyone else are demigods(even devi and shiva) etc etc.

 

i would like to know in which points do you differ with iskcon as you suggested in other threads.

 

My intial influence was Iskcon Bangalore.

I've made a lot of visit down there.

 

I accept the Supremacy of Hari. But it is wrong to say that I don't believe in the sun rays when I know the sun.

 

But again I say... with no fire.. no light.

with no sun.. then no sunrays.

With no Krishna... then no Brahmajyoti.

 

I'm saying it again... The sunrays is dependent on the sun but the sun is independent of the rays.

 

That's where the maxim of Gita helps, "Where I live there is no electricity or any other source of light... it is self illuminating.. GUESS HOW?"

 

The difference between my thought and their Group thinking is:

 

1. THE CONCEPT OF SWADHARMA

2. YOU'll FIND ME WORSHIPING MANY OTHER DEITIES.

3. THERE ARE SOME OTHER REASONS WHICH IS REALLY SUBTLE, I'll PREFER NOT TO DISCLOSE.

 

Sorry Dude.. I said it before and I'll said it again.. I'm on the spiritual path to be able to LOVE the meanest of CRAP as well.. Mayavadis are on a very different level.. they hold one of the best Doctrine in this world.. and I know many who did great job for this world.. for e.g. Sri RadhaKrishnan, Swami Vivekananda, Sri Shankara. I have equal profound respect as much I behold for the Vaishnava acharyas.

 

But of course, my heart turns emotional for the Mahatmas.

 

To be true.. I don't mind stay with meanest of crap so far I've Krishna in my mind. Little by little, I'm giving dropping the different types of fear.

BY HIS GRACE.

 

You are still in a school.

I left mine long time back.........

[sambya]

 

My intial influence was Iskcon Bangalore.

I've made a lot of visit down there.

 

i guess that's much better than the other branches.

 

 

 

But of course, my heart turns emotional for the Mahatmas.

 

but obvious !! thats the path you follow !! everyone would love their own path. thats very good.

 

 

 

To be true.. I don't mind stay with meanest of crap so far I've Krishna in my mind. Little by little, I'm giving dropping the different types of fear.

BY HIS GRACE.

 

nice

 

 

You are still in a school.

I left mine long time back.........

 

 

 

i see !!!!!! as for me , my schooling would end the day i meet him face to face. theres no end to knowledge , you know.