theist Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 By "reconciling" Advaita and Dvaita Mahaprabhu showed what was lacking in each. Not that He accepted Avaita on the terms of the Advaitins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 You cannot accept all Jagadgurus at the same time, as they have conflicting views. Pick one and avoid confusion. You are saying Chaitanya claimed reconciliation between Advaita and Dvaita. Do you have evidence? If yes, then he accepted Advaita and Dvaita as true at the same time. If yes, why did Prabhupada write a piece titled "Mayavada is false" and how Shiva came as Shankara to fool people? You have to take a stance and be consistent. Cheers I was talking about other 4 jagad gurus who have said advait as wrong. but does it mean it is completely wrong? If yes, why did Prabhupada write a piece titled "Mayavada is false" and how Shiva came as Shankara to fool people? Maybe because it is mentioned in the padm puraan. I dont know about the article thanks for telling me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raghu Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 By "reconciling" Advaita and Dvaita Mahaprabhu showed what was lacking in each. Not that He accepted Avaita on the terms of the Advaitins. That is not reconciling. Look up the word in a standard dictionary. To "reconcile" two points of view means to bring them into accord. He did not show how Advaita and Dvaita were actually compatible. They are not. Saying that "qualitiative oneness" is compatible with "quantitiative difference" is not the same as saying that Advaita and Dvaita are reconciled. Of course, since you have previously redefined words like "brahmin,Hindu,servant," etc, I suppose that it's to be expected that you will similarly redefine "reconcile." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 That is not reconciling. Look up the word in a standard dictionary. To "reconcile" two points of view means to bring them into accord. He did not show how Advaita and Dvaita were actually compatible. They are not. Saying that "qualitiative oneness" is compatible with "quantitiative difference" is not the same as saying that Advaita and Dvaita are reconciled. Of course, since you have previously redefined words like "brahmin,Hindu,servant," etc, I suppose that it's to be expected that you will similarly redefine "reconcile." By the way, we have yet to see any attempt on your part to reconcile your chauvinistic remarks about Hinduism with "pure Vaishnavism, free of all mundane designations." Nor have you been able to reconcile your views on the use of the term "Hinduism" with the fact that your own guru used the term repeatedly according to its standard meaning in his writings. Nor have we seen you reconcile your callous remarks about Rajan Zed, the victim of Christian bigotry, with the generally civilized attitude that haters are to be decried, not those that they hate. Any chance we will be seeing you acknowledge your double standards, your bigotry against Hindu culture, and your general philosophy of blaming the victim of a hate crime so long as he is a Hindu? If not, then don't bother showing your virtual face here and pretending as if nothing happened. aha good way to run away raghu tell me once again where is samadhi in your dvait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 reconciling. Look up the word in a standard dictionary. To "reconcile" two points of view means to bring them into accord. He did not show how Advaita and Dvaita were actually compatible. They are not. Saying that "qualitiative oneness" is compatible with "quantitiative difference" is not the same as saying that Advaita and Dvaita are reconciled. Why not. Ofcourse it is. By the way, we have yet to see any attempt on your part to reconcile your chauvinistic remarks about Hinduism with "pure Vaishnavism, free of all mundane designations Which one.And i thought chauvinastic means being against women /to think of them as lower. Nor have you been able to reconcile your views on the use of the term "Hinduism" with the fact that your own guru used the term repeatedly according to its standard meaning in his writings Again where?tell me one place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 I was talking about other 4 jagad gurus who have said advait as wrong.but does it mean it is completely wrong? No it is not completely wrong. Nor by any stretch is it completely right. So we should accept what they say is right and reject the rest. I noticed from your quote that raghu's hatred for what he thinks is me is still intact. This is why he is on my ignore list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raghu Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 Sant, please learn English before trying to get into a discussion on philosophy using the English medium. No one here has time to teach you basic reading comprehension, and your "Yes it is/No it isn't" style of argument is just decreasing the signal to noise ratio on this thread. thanks, Raghu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 Sant, please learn English before trying to get into a discussion on philosophy using the English medium. No one here has time to teach you basic reading comprehension, and your "Yes it is/No it isn't" style of argument is just decreasing the signal to noise ratio on this thread Stop your excuses my post is quite clear.I used punctuation marks also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 No it is not completely wrong. Nor by any stretch is it completely right. by what authority do you claim this ? give us examples from anywhere you please .......... even prabhupada would do !!! also , if it is neither completely right nor completely wrong , which parts of it are right and which parts of it are wrong ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raghu Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 No it is not completely wrong. Nor by any stretch is it completely right. So we should accept what they say is right and reject the rest. I have just reconciled Atheism and Theism using Theist-Sant logic: Both ideologies consider the world to be real. I have ignored all other points of difference, but since I found that similarity, I have by expert use of Theist-Sant reasoning reconciled these two ideologies. My new philosophy is called "achintya atheism-theism vada." My parampara goes back to Sri Caitanya himself, who is simultaneously God and not God. Don't disagree with me lest you be deemed Offensive. Worse, you may end up in my ignore list, a fact which I will constantly remind you when I respond to the postings of yours which I am ignoring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 I have just reconciled Atheism and Theism using Theist-Sant logic: Both ideologies consider the world to be real. I have ignored all other points of difference, but since I found that similarity, I have by expert use of Theist-Sant reasoning reconciled these two ideologies. My new philosophy is called "achintya atheism-theism vada." My parampara goes back to Sri Caitanya himself, who is simultaneously God and not God. Don't disagree with me lest you be deemed Offensive. Worse, you may end up in my ignore list, a fact which I will constantly remind you when I respond to the postings of yours which I am ignoring. Ha ha ha.you made me laugh. You can slyly change the topic. Anyway tell me more of this new philosophy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaisersose Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 Mohamed acknowledged both Judaism and Christianity in his Quran. That would mean, Islam reconciles the two religions. Madhva accepts some common factors in Advaita and Sri-Vaishnavism as true (unauthored vedas, prashtana trayi, etc). That would mean, Tattvavada reconciles Advaita and Vishishtadvaita. Since reconciliation appears to be favored by the HKs, it is time for someone to come along and reconcile the Hare Krishna philosophy with the Sai Babas and the Oshos. By the above logic, they should have no objections to this. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaisersose Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 by what authority do you claim this ? give us examples from anywhere you please .......... even prabhupada would do !!! also , if it is neither completely right nor completely wrong , which parts of it are right and which parts of it are wrong ? Theist and everyone of his peers here have proven that they have not read a single word of the Advaita doctrine. Of course, to their way of thinking, that is not a reason to stop pontificating on the topic. You will find that anything he says about Advaita will be incorrect and cannot be corroborated by any work on Advaita. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raghu Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 Mohamed acknowledged both Judaism and Christianity in his Quran. That would mean, Islam reconciles the two religions. Madhva accepts some common factors in Advaita and Sri-Vaishnavism as true (unauthored vedas, prashtana trayi, etc). That would mean, Tattvavada reconciles Advaita and Vishishtadvaita. Since reconciliation appears to be favored by the HKs, it is time for someone to come along and reconcile the Hare Krishna philosophy with the Sai Babas and the Oshos. By the above logic, they should have no objections to this. Cheers Well, both Sai Babas and Hare Krishnas agree that Krishna is God. So, there's your reconciliation. Just ignore all points of difference like Theist said. And as far as Osho is concerned, he is a womanizing swami with female disciples. And there are many HK swamis who ran off with female disciples, which prompted their peers to quote BG 9.30 to explain how they are gurus and yet no longer gurus. So there's your reconciliation. Again, using Theist-Sant logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 by what authority do you claim this ? give us examples from anywhere you please .......... even prabhupada would do !!! also , if it is neither completely right nor completely wrong , which parts of it are right and which parts of it are wrong ? You can't see some truth in Advaita? How about this world is illusion and reality (the true self) is Brahman. We may then disagree on finer points as to the nature of illusion and self. An advaitain may say "I am" God. We can agree but still the relationship to Krishna is we are the servator Godhead and He is the served Godhead. Why do you think shaktya-vesa avatars like Lord Buddha & Maharaja Prithu are worshipped as incarnations of God? Because they are! Certain dualists may say they are only jivas and not God but Caitanyaites say they are both. God as servantor God. "Learned transcendentalists described this non-dual substance as Brahman, Paramatma and the Supreme Personality of Godhead." even (?) prabhupada would do !!! Oh you are so generous to Prabhupada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raghu Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 You can't see some truth in Advaita? How about this world is illusion and reality (the true self) is Brahman. We may then disagree on finer points as to the nature of illusion and self. An advaitain may say "I am" God. We can agree but still the relationship to Krishna is we are the servator Godhead and He is the served Godhead. Sambya, what is the matter with you? Can you not see how someone can be God and yet not be God at the same time? "Learned transcendentalists described this non-dual substance as Brahman, Paramatma and the Supreme Personality of Godhead." This quote has nothing to do with the issue of being and not being God. Or maybe it does. Actually it inconceivably is relevant and not relevant at the same time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaisersose Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 There is Advaita and then there is "HK Advaita", which of course, has nothing in common with Advaita. Actually there are at least 3 different versions of "HK Advaita", all different from each other and also different from the Advaita doctrine. They are, 1) Advaitins think they are God 2) Advaitins merge in an impersonal Brahman 3) Advaita is bogus - that is, Advaitins are neither God nor will they merge in Brahman.* I wonder which of these three versions was reconciled by Chaitanya in his new doctrine? * This is a paradox because when they say Advaita is bogus, they mean Advaita as they know it is bogus, which is actually true! Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haridasdasdas Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 If you do not know basics, then you should go do your homework first. Discussion forums are not really well suited to learn fundamentals. Cheers If I thought there was a problem in Caitanya's theology I would not follow it. I have already asked you to stop saying 'cheers', are you an alcoholic as well as a flesh eater? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haridasdasdas Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 Theist and everyone of his peers here have proven that they have not read a single word of the Advaita doctrine. Of course, to their way of thinking, that is not a reason to stop pontificating on the topic. You will find that anything he says about Advaita will be incorrect and cannot be corroborated by any work on Advaita. Cheers Caitanya says not to hear from the advaitins, so what kind of Gaudiya would he be if he were an expert in Advaita? If he knew it all, you would no doubt criticise him for not following his path properly. So what's the value of your judgement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haridasdasdas Posted June 12, 2009 Report Share Posted June 12, 2009 You can't see some truth in Advaita? How about this world is illusion and reality (the true self) is Brahman. We may then disagree on finer points as to the nature of illusion and self. An advaitain may say "I am" God. We can agree but still the relationship to Krishna is we are the servator Godhead and He is the served Godhead. Why do you think shaktya-vesa avatars like Lord Buddha & Maharaja Prithu are worshipped as incarnations of God? Because they are! Certain dualists may say they are only jivas and not God but Caitanyaites say they are both. God as servantor God. "Learned transcendentalists described this non-dual substance as Brahman, Paramatma and the Supreme Personality of Godhead." Oh you are so generous to Prabhupada. Perhaps you should consider the word 'acintya', which basically nullifies most debate on the matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arjun2826 Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Are we hindu or not whether we were born hindu or not. That is the question, but don't you think to answer this question, we should first wonder what hinduism is ? Somebody said it is a way of life. Someone else said it is rituals. Once answer to this qustion will be found, I am sure you all will be able to answer the second one of this thread. But I am sure that on this fundamental and basic question, there will still be discreapancies. Some people will give answer accordingly to their scriptural readings. Other people may answer accordingly to their sense and feelings. To be honnest with you, I don't have any knowledge on scriptural writtens. In my opinion, hinduism like other religion is a way to love, help each other and make people become and feel better, bring them faith and hope when needed. Bring them good habbits to remain in good health... But people are unfortunately not able to understand it and want to make sure that God will be happy of their acts. Actually, you don't do good things for God... You do it for you, for your family, your neibourgh, your society for your satisfaction of good making. You, your society get benefits of it. But it seems people cannot understand or see this. So maybe they need to be affraid (by the reaction of God) to do good thinks. I don't know ? Anyway, being hindu or not, this is not the matter. Well acting with people, helping them, loving each other, giving, sharing... These are universal values shared by all whatever your religion is, and this make of you a good hindu, catholic, buddist or whatever you want.. This will make you satisfied and happy. And I am sure that God will be happy his children react like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Perhaps you should consider the word 'acintya', which basically nullifies most debate on the matter. Good advice. I do consider acintya. We can only get a very small idea of the reality through words and thoughts, but that is a start. At least for the simple hearted and sincere of which there are some who post here and I suspect a lot more who read here and never post. The real truth of the matter comes by the grace of Lord Caitanya. As far as Heckle and Jeckle go they will still be spinning themselves in circles with their words till the end of kali-yuga. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Hinduism can be defined as 'Vedic religion' or Vedanta. If the scriptures of your personal religion are considered Vedic, then you are a Hindu. Thus, everyone can be a Hindu. The most fundamental controversy in different Hindu philosophies, is the Advaita-Dvaita dichotomy. Logically, Advaita and Dvaita are mutually exclusive philosophies. Either everything is Brahman, or everything is not Brahman. Both philosophies can not conceivably be simultaneously true. Hence, the concept of 'inconceivable truth' was introduced by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. According to 'acintya-bheda-abheda-tattva', everything is inconceivably Brahman and not Brahman, simultaneously. Why is this inconceivable? Because it doesn’t comply with any known form of reasoning or logic. In itself, this is not a reason to reject any proposal of simultaneous oneness and difference. Indeed, by some unknown (inconceivable) logic, it just might be correct. In any contemporary science, however, it would be considered 100% pure speculation. Nevertheless, I believe acintya-bheda-abheda is true. Why? Because it’s a scientific (known) fact that 'causality' doesn’t exist at the most fundamental (quantum) level of reality. This ultimately implies that our (contemporary) scientific logic is at least incomplete and possibly even invalid. God might be simultaneously believable and unknowable.. Edit: Theist, I hope I'm not on your ignore list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambya Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Why do you think shaktya-vesa avatars like Lord Buddha buddha a shaktyavesa avatar ?????!! that means buddha is on the same level with bhaktivinoda thakur ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sant Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 There is Advaita and then there is "HK Advaita", which of course, has nothing in common with Advaita. Actually there are at least 3 different versions of "HK Advaita", all different from each other and also different from the Advaita doctrine. They are, 1) Advaitins think they are God 2) Advaitins merge in an impersonal Brahman 3) Advaita is bogus - that is, Advaitins are neither God nor will they merge in Brahman.* I wonder which of these three versions was reconciled by Chaitanya in his new doctrine? * This is a paradox because when they say Advaita is bogus, they mean Advaita as they know it is bogus, which is actually true! Kaiserose for you advait is an easy way to say that there is no god and still not be called a fool, atheist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.