Advaita Vedanta

[Guest guest]

are delutions..........

[Guest guest]

The same way you feel about about the geeta and the Vedas others feel about the bible, the Quran the Torah etc...

 

Who are the Karmis? and what does your IQ have to do with any of this?? Some of the greatest minds in the world...

Einstein, Tesla, Oppenheimer etc.. have read and found solace in the geeta.

 

 

[Guest guest]

That is really sad.

[Guest guest]

some make the claim that the gita is for the less advanced, i ment that the so-called genius people seem to think very highly of it as a few have said after my post.

someone said it was sad, sad about what that i find other socalled holy books disinteresting?

 

the bible and koran are not much they are a history of primative peoples not religious books, oh ya they havea a few moral dictums but what are they beyond that. violent tales of karmic men that are not to bright.

[Guest guest]

the bulk of biblical religion are books of vengefull gods and genocide. nothing holy about the biblical peoples mainly just revenge and lust, the book of ruth is quite explicit.

what i find is supposedly in ww2 a holocaust happened and the hebrews bible is filled with god sanctioned genocide.

karma perhaps for all the evils of the hebrew people commited in the past? i find the idea of holocaust far fetched but hey i was not there so i would not say it actually happened. ww2 is almost a religion if you dont believe in it your evil of some thing worse. a government sanctioned history and religion? especially the way people go on and on about it.

[Guest guest]

karma for actions of past lives is an explaination, if it is they were some very bad people in their past lives.

[Guest guest]

religion is the invention of man, not god. so it is sad; that man creates non-sense religions.

[Guest guest]

Religion is the invention of God.. Dogma is the invention of man

[Guest guest]

The geeta is for all. the less advanced the more advanced everyone. Wherever you are on the path to God the geeta will shed light on it.

[Guest guest]

Regarding the Bible and the Quran you should check out the Gospel of the Holy 12. This is thought to be the original gospel from which the present 4 are derived. In it Christ talks about vegetarianism and reincarnation.

 

Since mainstream islam has more or less divorced themselves from the Sufis they are basically a karma yoga religion (besides the meat eating), remember these religions are largely smriti and we have to interprett the SPIRIT of the teachings based on the time and place that they came into existence

 

[Guest guest]

Did you mean Isopanisad 16?

 

You said:

The person had taken the form of the Sun, the golden disc, for their worship and meditation, now after offering everything unto that deity they are saying this deity is my last conception ( in the next verse the sun is called the solitary traveller), the only thing in my mind, and praying now that even that may be removed so that they may be free conceptions and see the truth.

 

This is one way to translate and explain the verse, but the personalistic translation and purport are quite somathing else.

 

Prabhupada translation and part of the purport:

 

Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Śrī Īśopaniṣad 16

 

pūṣann ekarṣe yama sūrya prājāpatya

 

vyūha raśmīn samūha tejo

 

yat te rūpaḿ kalyāṇa-tamaḿ tat te paśyāmi

 

yo 'sāv asau puruṣaḥ so 'ham asmi

 

SYNONYMS

 

pūṣan — O maintainer; eka-ṛṣe — the primeval philosopher; yama — the regulating principle; sūrya — the destination of the sūris (great devotees); prājāpatya — the well-wisher of the prajāpatis (progenitors of mankind); vyūha — kindly remove; raśmīn — the rays; samūha — kindly withdraw; tejaḥ — effulgence; yat — so that; te — Your; rūpam — form; kalyāṇa-tamam — most auspicious; tat — that; te — Your; paśyāmi — I may see; yaḥ — one who is; asau — like the sun; asau — that; puruṣaḥ — Personality of Godhead; saḥ — myself; aham — I; asmi — am.

 

TRANSLATION

 

O my Lord, O primeval philosopher, maintainer of the universe, O regulating principle, destination of the pure devotees, well-wisher of the progenitors of mankind, please remove the effulgence of Your transcendental rays so that I can see Your form of bliss. You are the eternal Supreme Personality of Godhead, like unto the sun, as am I.

 

PURPORT

 

The sun and its rays are one and the same qualitatively. Similarly, the Lord and the living entities are one and the same in quality. The sun is one, but the molecules of the sun's rays are innumerable. The sun's rays constitute part of the sun, and the sun and its rays conjointly constitute the complete sun. Within the sun itself resides the sun-god, and similarly within the supreme spiritual planet, Goloka Vṛndāvana, from which the brahmajyoti effulgence is emanating, the Lord enjoys His eternal pastimes, as verified in the Brahma-saḿhitā (5.29):

 

cintāmaṇi-prakara-sadmasu kalpa-vṛkṣa-

 

lakṣāvṛteṣu surabhīr abhipālayantam

 

lakṣmī-sahasra-śata-sambhrama-sevyamānaḿ

 

govindam ādi-puruṣaḿ tam ahaḿ bhajāmi

 

"I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, the first progenitor, who is tending the cows fulfilling all desires in abodes filled with spiritual gems and surrounded by millions of wish-fulfilling trees. He is always served with great reverence and affection by hundreds of thousands of Lakṣmīs, or goddesses of fortune."

 

The brahmajyoti is described in the Brahma-saḿhitā as the rays emanating from that supreme spiritual planet, Goloka Vṛndāvana, just as the sun's rays emanate from the sun globe. Until one surpasses the glare of the brahmajyoti, one cannot receive information of the land of the Lord. The impersonalist philosophers, blinded as they are by the dazzling brahmajyoti, can realize neither the factual abode of the Lord nor His transcendental form. Limited by their poor fund of knowledge, such impersonalist thinkers cannot understand the all-blissful transcendental form of Lord Kṛṣṇa. In this prayer, therefore, Śrī Īśopaniṣad petitions the Lord to remove the effulgent rays of the brahmajyoti so that the pure devotee can see His all-blissful transcendental form.

 

For the rest of the purport: http://www.vedabase.org/iso/16/en

[Guest guest]

pusann ekarse yama surya prajapatya

vyuha rasmin samuha tejo

yat te rupam kalyana-tamam tat te pasyami

yo 'sav asau purusah so 'ham asmi

[Guest guest]

VAISNAVA

SIDDHANTA-MALA

BY

SRILA SACCIDINANDA

BHAKTIVINODA THAKURA

 

Q. What is impersonal consciousness?

 

A. First, the principle in the material world which separates all things is called visesa (distinction based upon material quality). By merely renouncing material thinking, one only gives up the conception of material distinction, and thereby one's consciousness falls into the realm of nirvisesa (non-distinction). In this condition, one is unable to perceive the differences between material objects, since the self is situated in nirvana or merging with the impersonal abode of Brahman. This state is not a happy one at all; being bereft of the natural bliss of the eternally conscious soul, the prema or ecstatic love for the Lord remains concealed. The eternal pastimes of Sri Krsna are certainly beyond matter; indeed, they are endowed with cin-maya-visesa, or divinely conscious distinction.

 

Q&A by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur Maharaj himself !!!

http://www.dina.on.to/

[Guest guest]

15. The face of truth is covered with a

golden disc. Unveil it, O Pushan, so that I

who love the truth may see it.

 

 

[Guest guest]

When the "personalists" describe the "impersonalist" views or vice versa in such a manner you shouldnt take it too seriously. They do so without following through properly with the other's teaching. So how can they know? The trouble is too often we ascribe our meanings so someone elses words and then say they don't know what they are talking about. Both talk of bliss, happiness etc. Yogananda called it ever increasing ever new joy. How can anyone make a judgement on someone elses experience? That is just idle speculation.

 

[Guest guest]

Just to see the difference with the personalistic translation

 

Isopanisad 15

 

hiranmayena patreṇa

 

satyasyapihitaḿ mukham

 

tat tvam pusann apavrnu

 

satya-dharmaya drstaye

 

SYNONYMS

 

hiranmayena — by a golden effulgence; patrena — by a dazzling covering; satyasya — of the Supreme Truth; apihitam — covered; mukham — the face; tat — that covering; tvam — Yourself; pusan — O sustainer; apavrnu — kindly remove; satya — pure; dharmaya — unto the devotee; drstaye — for exhibiting.

 

TRANSLATION

 

O my Lord, sustainer of all that lives, Your real face is covered by Your dazzling effulgence. Kindly remove that covering and exhibit Yourself to Your pure devotee.

 

 

Here again the golden disc is described as the Brahman effulgence radiating from the body of Bhagavan. The difference in the purport that you follow with the pesonalistic purport is; 'the last thing that keeps me from seeing the absolute truth (Brahman) is a deity (the Sungod)(in my mind or ego)'; opposed to the last thing that keeps me from seeing the absolute (Bhagavan) is the Brahman effulgence radiating from your true form (real face).

 

If Brahman has no differentiation then how does it take on certain qualities like having personality (Bhagavan)? Isn't it logical that there must be some personality behind it?

And if Brahman hasn't got qualities how can it be unmanifest? Isn't that a quality in it self, to be capable of manifesting?

 

The purport on the verse B.G.14.27 brahmano hi pratistha 'ham (I am the basis of Brahman)

Shankaracharya says that the supreme lord is Brahman in that sense that He is the manifestation of Brahman. Brahman shows grace to His devotees through Isvarasakti and He is that power in manifestation and therefor Brahman Himself.

 

When Shankaracharya says 'Brahman shows His grace to His devotees', doesn't this imply a personality? Isn't it all jugglery of words then?

Brahman is the geat void (nothingness) of absolute bliss wich excists and doesn't excist at the same time and has no personality, yet it shows grace to His devotees at the same time.

It sounds nice though it though it doesn't allure me. Everyone his own path.

For the bhakta the highest goal is described in B.G.18.54 after becoming one with the Supreme, to attain supreme devotion to the Supreme Lord Bhagavan.

[Guest guest]

What does a personality consist of? What characterizes it?

What do you mean by unmanifest? These things must be clearly defined if we can move further in the discussion because these are the terms that generally have different meanings for different people so people may be using the same words but have entirely different meanings to them, or disagree about what something means when each of them really think the same thing!

 

 

From a material standpoint there can be no differentiation.. Difference implies createdness, uncreated therefore must be undifferentiated.

 

When they say the great void, nothingness they mean No- thingness. Thing->material quality ->no material quality.

 

You can look at it both ways..

 

full inside, full outside pots broken in water.......

empty inside, empty outside pots broken in space......

 

the supreme reality is beyond personalism and impersonalism, beyond manifest and unmanifest all these are just different approaches. in Bhairava Tantra Lord Shiva tells Parvati that all these teachings are just to spur people to ethical behaviour etc etc I believe you have seen where I wrote it on another thread

 

 

If you say that the brahman is radiating from his body then you are bring material conceptions in such as dimensions. Then can you say I am here and Krsna is not here? Because he has a body and that body is radiating some effulgence so he is one place and his effulgence is somewhere else???? Then he is not all pervasive.

 

The purport I give is consistent with the meditation techniques that Krsna teaches to Uddhava:

 

"44. Being established in meditation on the Lord’s face, one should then withdraw the consciousness and fix it in the sky. Then giving up such meditation, one should become established in Me and give up the process of meditation altogether.

"

 

Also see the teachings of Sri Kapila to his mother Devahuti for his description of Divine love.

[Guest guest]

The understanding shouldn't be Krishna has a body and so His radiation is in another place. It is to be understood that Bhagavan, Paramatma and Brahman are one and the same, yet different aspects of the one Lord. Neither are they in a different place, nor are they separated. They are one and the same. You can't say where there is Bhagavan there is no Brahman or Paramatma, or where there is Brahman there is no Paramatma or Bhagavan, or where there is Paramatma there is no Brahman or Bhagavan. It is to be understood they were all eternally there. So you can't say Brahman came from Bhagavan or Bhagavan from Bhagavan. They are but different aspects of Bhagavan Sri Krishna.

 

I'd like to discuss my understanding of this and give my views about personality and unmanifest and spiritual variety a bit later; I have to go somewhere right now.

[Guest guest]

I would be very interested in learning more about how exactly this is viewed. If they are one and the same then how can their be higher and lower types of realization? What is the sense in saying that impersonalists are blinded by the effulgence coming from the body?? Also what is the nature of this "spiritual body"?

 

Also Krsna says that the realization of Brahman is "the constitutional position of ultimate happiness" how is it that some of the Vaishnava masters say that there is no bliss in brahman realization that it is just nothingness??? Doesn't this contradict?

[Guest guest]

A person is defined as; that which has the potency of experiencing pure (transcendental) love wich is to give pure love and receive pure love (spirit soul, and Oversoul (Paramatma)).

 

A personality according to the dictionary; whole nature or character of a particular person.

 

Love given by a person which doesn't expect anything back (not even love itself) and is known by this particular person to come straight from God should be accepted as love free from material qualities of which false ego is the foremost. This is called transcendental or pure love.

 

The receiving of this love can be performed in ignorence. The person receiving it doesn't have to be free from false ego, because this act is a transaction between God and spirit souls. Either from God through a soul to another soul, or from God to a soul directly, or God's love from a soul back to God. If you love God purely you automatically will love every part and parcel (the spirit souls) of God purely as well.

 

The personality of Bhagavan is inconceivable and can't be known fully. It is said however that the Lord is always partial to His devotee. So if you give God His love back you will receive His endless love in unlimited amounts from Him, because Bhagavan feels Himself endlessly in debt to such a person. This is also said to be the reason why He doesn't like to give Himself to easily to anyone, because He will always feel Himself in debt with this person. This the nature of Bhagavan's endless love.

 

It is said that the realization of the Bhagavan feature (His personality) of the Lord is the highest because the Bhagavan realization always follows the Paramatma realization which follows in turn after the Brahman realization. The reason it is called higher than just the Brahman realizition is because the Brahman realization is incomplete on it's own and so is the following Paramatma realization, because the realization of the Personality of the Lord is not automatically included. So only the Bhagavan realization is considered the highest, because it includes the Brahman and Paramatma realization automatically.

 

Within the Brahman feature of the Lord there is no differentiation. All is percieved as being one and the same. Therefore there is no activity going on within the Brahman effulgence. Hence there is no ecstatic bliss coming from interaction (transaction of pure love, which is of unlimited variety) between the particilar spirit soul situated within the Brahmajyoti and the Lord. So there is a form of bliss within the Brahmajyoti but there is no ecstatic love experienced. Hence the Vaishnavas experience no bliss thinking of impersonal liberation while they can experience ecstatic love transactions eternally with the Lord they Love.

 

The body of the Lord is sac-cid-ananda everlasting knowledge and bliss.

 

Rupa madhurya (the sweetness of Krishna's body): Krishna Karnamrta by Lila Suka states that the sweetness of Krishna's body is indescribable. Radha describes Krishna as an ocean of beauty. Even Radha's mind which is as unshakeble as a mountain, is easily swept away and submerged by its powerfull waves. The special feature of the sweetness of Krishna's beauty is that it increases in proportion to the sweetness of the love of His devotee. Since the prema of Srimati Radhika is the greatest, Krishna's beauty reaches a climax in Radha's company. And at this time Krishna is shown as Madan-mohan, the attractor of Cupid. (appreciating Sri Vrindavana Dhama)

[Guest guest]

"The person receiving it doesn't have to be free from false ego, because this act is a transaction between God and spirit souls"

 

Comment: This kind of transaction is a recipe of pain & happiness in the relationship with god. Perhaps more pain for sure in this path. This transaction is not the advice of krishna in B.G. where the reference is to dissassoiate from attachtment & bodily pleasures & pain engaging in nishkama karma (this is the only means of surrender)

 

 

"This is also said to be the reason why He doesn't like to give Himself to easily to anyone, because He will always feel Himself in debt with this person. This the nature of Bhagavan's endless love."

 

Comment: Krishna's nature is sat-chit-ananda. The portrayal of krishna having the feeling of indebtedness, or in expectation, or avoiding such indulgences with an aspiring devotees, is a mean understanding of Krishna.

[Guest guest]

Pure love as described above is spiritual in nature, therefore it is non-dualistic. It has no opposite. There doesn't excist a thing as pure hate.

Material love on the other hand is considered dualistic. Material love is love that is directed towards a material idea created by the ego. The opposite of this love is hate. One can hate only something or somebody when he identifies it with material nature of which the foremost and highest element is false ego. So hate is projected towards a temporary (or material) idea that someone has got of reality due to identification with false ego. In the same way material love is projected towards a temporary conception of reality due to identification with material nature. Once one realises that everything is a part and parcel of God, he won't hate anything for it is not the nature of God to hate (or love materially).

 

So if one projects his love directly back towards God knowing it comes from God, this is seen as an act above false ego and therefore spiritual in nature. Thus it has no opposite.

[Guest guest]

You said

"This kind of transaction is a recipe of pain & happiness in the relationship with god."

 

I say

The only transaction between souls and God is pure transcendental love. Hence there is no material pain or happiness in it. It might appear to an outstander (you) that a devotee like Krishna Chaitanya, when He is lying on the floor all day mourning seemingly in pain chanting Krishna's name repeatedly that He really is experiencing material pain, but the truth is in fact that He is only experiencing transcendental love.

 

It can be compared to a lamp of 5 volts. If you suddenly put a 10 million volt energy to it, the lamp will not be able to hold it, it will blow.

Similarly, our body's are like a 5 volt lamp that can only take the amount of 5 volt energy, but Krishna's love is the 10 million volt energy, so our body's can't hold that much power. A material body is not made to be capable of holding Krishna's unlimited capacity of love, therefore it starts acting in a strange way, it shows the signs of transcendental ecstacy, like shaking heavily, weeping, fainting or many other signs. The devotee experiencing this becomes unaware of his body.

 

So it might look like pain for a materialist from the outside, but it is nothing but inner transcendental love ecstacy.

[Guest guest]

S.B.10.32.20

But the reason I do not immediately reciprocate the affection of living beings even when they worship Me, O gopīs, is that I want to intensify their loving devotion. They then become like a poor man who has gained some wealth and then lost it, and who thus becomes so anxious about it that he can think of nothing else.

 

S.B.10.32.22

I am not able to repay My debt for your spotless service, even within a lifetime of Brahmā. Your connection with Me is beyond reproach. You have worshiped Me, cutting off all domestic ties, which are difficult to break. Therefore please let your own glorious deeds be your compensation.

 

C.C.Antya 7.43

"The conjugal love of the gopis is the most exalted devotional service, surpassing all other methods of bhakti. Therefore Lord Krishna is obliged to say, 'My dear gopis, I cannot repay you. Indeed, I am always indebted to you.'

[Guest guest]

Love is divine & it's non-dualistic. This is true.

 

"So it might look like pain for a materialist from the outside, but it is nothing but inner transcendental love ecstacy. "

 

I understand that as onlookers of people beating themselves in the name of god or poking or hiting upon head, the onlookers remain as onlookers as they consider that it's transcedental love and not pain of injuries. These happen across the world & in all religions, Moslems, christians (that miracle healing after the demonstration of pain) & in india as well.

 

In india these might have tribal origins and then absorbed into budhism, who made most of these things as street/public demonstration. Today these demonstrations continue in india although budhism might have subsided. These continue in other budhist countries as well.

 

This celebration of pain for transcedental love continues dangerously. I suggest you ponder on two questions:

 

How do you view religious and pious hardliners taking to terrorism in their love of god and their faith. Terrorism is pain in the material sense. How does the set of onlookers referred above who standby assuming that all that pain was transcendatal love, differentiate that the terrorism/suicide is not love. How do these onlookers assert against this act with their religious imams.

 

I consider this celebration & reverance of the material pain for transcedental love as anti-krishna.

 

Krishna only tells that your physical body's nature is service, and the bondage the body assumes in the world causes pain which should be realised by one as seperate from ones own spiritual existence.