Advaita Vedanta

[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.

 

 

[Guest guest]

I don't think you quite understand. These pure devotees experience nothing but transcendental love. From the outside it might look like sorrow, but that's just what you can see on the outside as an onlooker. The love experienced is of such great quantity that the body can't handle it and it is then expressed in many different ways from jumping in joy and laughing like a madman to crying as if you were in pain. Missing God makes the love even more intens. You can't understand this by just observing. You have to become a devotee and give Krishna's love that you receive from Him back to Him and then you will experience even greater love back from. If you keep this interaction going it ever increases into eternality. Don't try to understand with reason, but open up to the love of God wich he ever showers upon everyone. You can't lock God or His devotees inside your head. You can lock them in your heart.

[Guest guest]

"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."

 

I don't know much about these acts, but as a guess I would classify it as mystic power (so subtle material acts). This is just speculation though, but nowhere in the Vaishnava scriptures it says you should cause pain to yourself or exhibit your mystical or spiritual prowess.

 

[Guest guest]

I listen to these words which are actionless & pretentious in this maya ambience.

 

-Missing God

-jumping in joy

-laughing like a madman

-crying as if you were in pain

 

I believe in service without entanglements such as doership & expectation of fruits. I believe in satchitananda.

[Guest guest]

"I believe in service without entanglements such as doership & expectation of fruits. I believe in satchitananda."

 

Very good, very nice as well. I'm glad to here that. Please continue your selfless service unto God. In this way you will surely get there. I have no doubt about this. I wish you all well in your pursuit.

[Guest guest]

Wow one day and so much posted..

 

Anyway further to the discussions on the definitions, this was the definition you gave:

 

"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))."

 

Now I must ask by what faculties is this pure love experienced?

 

From the dictionary version the personality (material) is the nature or character of a particular person. this is a wholly materialistic conception. The personality in this case is something physical that can be altered and changed, it is not something everlasting. The questions do not arise for the material conception, those can be readily understood through science, I want to find out exactly about the nature of the "experiencing" how it is possible in the spiritual domain, and what exactly is meant by spiritual in this sense?

 

My question still remains about the Vaishnava thoughts that there is no greater happiness in a personal relationship when Krsna says that realization of Brahman is the Ultimate happiness. There can't be anything greater than Ultimate happiness (otherwise it wouldnt be ultimate), so how can they say that anything else is greater, regardless of how they classify it as personal transaction of love etc. The teachings of Bhagavan Kapila emphasize this. From what he says it seems that the Vaishnava view is Sattvic love and that must be transcended to reach the state of Brahman. His teachings also place what you describe as transcendental love as sattvic love.

 

Sri Kapila teaches Devahuti:

"There are people who still have hatred,jealousy, anger and pride in their hearts. To such, God is above, beyond and apart. They also may love God but their love is selfish. That love is Tamasika.

 

That,too, is a low form of love by which people love and worship God as a separate being, and pray to him for the fullfilment of their material desires. Such love is known as Rajasika love.

 

But the love which seeks God for the sake of love alone, and by means of which we offer ourselves wholeheartedly to him-This love we call Sattvika love.

 

BUT when the love, the lover and the beloved have become one, when we see God and love him as the innermost self in all beings and when there is a continuous current of love flowing in the hart, then is it that we realize divine love. When such divine love fills the heart we transcend the three Gunas and become united with Brahman"

 

 

[Guest guest]

"Now I must ask by what faculties is this pure love experienced?"

 

Who can concieve the unlimited abilities of the Lord.

 

God can be as many beings as He wants and still the same One at the same time (unlimitedness).

 

Who says Parabrahman hasn't got unlimited abilities? Why couldn't He have a personality of transcendental, inconceivable eternal nature. Why doesn't He have the ability to manifest different eternal personalities and remain that same one eternal person and keep His original personality at the same time. Why doesn't He have the ability to separate entities eternally from Him yet remain one with them at the same time? Why hasn't God have the ability to have unlimited eternal variety and remain one at the same time? Why hasn't God have the ability to have eternal difference at the same time as eternal one-ness? Why isn't the Brahman you speak about ultimate in it's unlimitedness regarding potency.

 

How is it that we (Spirit soul, Brahman) have come in contact with material nature and identify ourselves with it (ego).

Is it the will of God?

How is this possible to have a will if He is not a person?

 

Why does the realization of God end at the Brahman, all is one? Why isn't there a unlimited eternal personality of God that you can unlimitedly find new aspects in? Why can't one share unlimited love eternally with Him? Why can't one interact eternally with Him without dying and without sense of ego? Why is God not capable of creating eternal spiritual bodies with transcendental senses excisting out of pure love, free of material qualities?

Why is there no personality?

Is God not unlimited or omnipotent?

Please answer my questions?

[Guest guest]

How can the happiness in Brahman be ultimate? Doesn't this indicate there is a maximum capacity of it? If Brahman is unlimited shouldn't the nature of it be that is ever increasing? So there is always more? It is strange that the amount of it that excists seems to be limited in the statement of ultimate happiness.

 

Further, I can't answer your question about this contradiction. You'll have to ask a Vaishnava who is qualified to answer this question. A liberated devotee of Vishnu, if you ever meet one.

 

If you believe Brahman is ultimate please follow your believes. It was foolish of me to try to convince you of the Personality of Godhead since I haven't got all the facts myself. I have got no further arguments that might convince you. Thank you for breaking my pride.

I know I have experienced transcendental love myself, including ecstatic symptons like crying profusely and shaking. I know this is caused by pure love coming from Krishna and His devotees and it can be shared eternally. When I give it to God I receive it back in a greater amount allways. It has got nothing to do with ego and there is no pain involved in it either. I can assure you that.

I consider myself defeated by your arguments and won't put any more arguments forward to try to convince you. Maybe you might still answer a couple of my questions. If this topic continues I will be following it passively, but I might still ask a few more questions depending on the answers given to me by you.

I humbly bow before you and ask for forgiveness if I might have offended you. You are intelligent in your questioning have a nice mentality towards service (ref. to a few posts ago). May you be blessed by Parabrahman and reach your goal. I salute you.

Please love God and so love everyone. Thank you for the debate.

[Guest guest]

Sir everything you have put forward here pertain to impersonalism (which I believe has been misunderstood in general by a lot people), I never was bringing forward an impersonal point of view. I just find it strange that Krsna says that the realization of Brahman is the position of ultimate happiness and the Vaishnava masters say otherwise. My intent was not to promote impersonalism or Brahman realization as the highest or anything like that. ( I will talk about that more in the next post when I reply to your second post)Anyway let me see if I can respond to some of these.

 

" Why couldn't He have a personality of transcendental, inconceivable eternal nature. Why doesn't He have the ability to manifest different eternal personalities and remain that same one eternal person and keep His original personality at the same time. "

 

I have no problem with this. This is EXACTLY what is happening when we dream, out one consciousness expands to the entire universe we know, how many people are there when we dream, yet we ourselves remain there the original personality. Amazing how the lord hides the greatest mysteries in everyday life!

 

My questions about what exactly things mean, both here and on one of the other threads are really beacuse I find that a lot of times people are thinking the same thing but disagreeing because they dont mean the same thing when they say the same word. I find too that a lot of people explain things in the same way as the material phenomena (eg, planet) and just stick spiritual in front it. and ideas such as spirituality don't have very concrete meanings so I like to make sure I know exactly what the person is talking about so that we can carry on a beneficial discussion.

 

The very fact that we have variety, differences, differentiatedness to me implies that there is an intelligent creator. Generally however what I personally understand a personality as a set of likes and dislikes, views etc that has arisen due to experience and conditioning. In this sense we can't say the Lord has a personality (since he is not conditioned being the basis of action and experience rather than a product of them). I however would also not say that he is impersonal since the very fact that there is a creation with a definite order to me implies that there is an intelligence behind it.

But you can see how the word itself can cause confusion if we don't properly define it.

 

 

"Why can't one interact eternally with Him without dying and without sense of ego? Why is God not capable of creating eternal spiritual bodies with transcendental senses excisting out of pure love, free of material qualities?"

 

Again I can't answer these things unless I know exactly what you mean when you say spiritual bodies, transcendental senses etc...

 

What I will say though is that ego is generally understood not to mean arrogance or selfish interest but the idea of "I" and "mine" and at one time Bhagavan tells Uddhava something like this ( cant remember word for word):

 

Two ideas are responsible for man's complete bondage and his complete liberation. The ideas of "I" and "mine" completely bind a man and the absence of these are his complete liberation.

 

Also you can see from Lord Kapila's teachings that this is the case too. Vashishta explains it to Rama a little more saying that the liberated man "Though possessing an ego, completely devoid of egoity" It is like ripping the engine out of a car, the car seems to be there but there is no functionality. Similarly although the ego seems to be there are no thoughts of "proprietorship" ( "One who does not think himself a proprietor.." BG12 I think)

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I don't think that saying ultimate happiness means that there is a maximum capacity to it. I think it means quite the opposite, the ultimate happiness is the one to which there is no "Limit". An interesting thing to look at is some of the mystic perfections that Bhagavan describes in Uddhava geeta:

 

"15. One who places his consciousness on Visnu, the Supersoul, the prime mover and Supreme Lord of the external energy consisting of three modes, obtains the mystic perfection of controlling other conditioned souls, their material bodies and their bodily designations.

 

16. The yogi who places his mind in My form of Narayana, known as the fourth factor, full of all opulences, becomes endowed with My nature and thus obtains the mystic perfection called vasita.

 

17. One who fixes his pure mind on Me in My manifestation as the impersonal Brahman obtains the greatest happiness, wherein all his desires are completely fulfilled.

 

18. A human being who concentrates on Me as the upholder of religious principles, the personification of purity and the Lord of Svetadvipa obtains the pure existence in which he is freed from the six waves of material disturbance, namely hunger, thirst, decay, death, grief and illusion.

"

 

Anyway that was just some by the way info I also found was interesting. A lot of advaitin gurus describe "ever new, ever fresh, ever increasing joy". I remember Paramhansa Yogananda saying "When I sat and practiced kriya yoga I found a joy that I couldnt find eating ice cream or taking an automobile ride or playing. When I sat and practised I found the proof of the presence of God" and "The true happiness of meditation, the ever increasing happiness of meditation is the proof of his existence" He was also a teacher of Advaita.

 

I am also sure (well I hope) you know about Swami Sivananda, another modern exponent of Advaita, he instituted the nonstop chanting of the Hare Krsna Mahamantra during one of the world wars for the benefit of the world. I believe (not sure) that it continues even till today. Does it sound like what they normally teach about "impersonalists"?

 

"I know I have experienced transcendental love myself, including ecstatic symptons like crying profusely and shaking"

 

Are familiar with Ramana Maharishi? If you read about his life you would know he was one of the modern saints (advaitin again), when he first left home to take up his new life and he got to a temple, seeing all the murtis he broke down in tears and began crying profusely, even Shankara would go ecstatic, in the temples and you can see all the hymns he wrote yet he is called the father of impersonalism.

 

In uddhava geeta we find:

"23. If one’s hairs do not stand on end, how can the heart melt? And if the heart does not melt, how can tears of love flow from the eyes? If one does not cry in spiritual happiness, how can one render loving service to the Lord? And without such service, how can the consciousness be purified?

 

All of the advaita masters that I have read about Ramakrishna, Ramana, Yogananda all of them say this as well. It is not something particular to the Vaishnavas alone and the "personal conception". I have even seen one of Swami Sivananda's disciples (an old man at the time) face light up while giving a lecture. He was talking about the hotel he was in and thought it was the holiday Inn. Someone then told him it was the Ramada. His eyes opened wide and his face lit up and he said "RAMA da, this must be a great hotel." So the same kind of thing that the "personalists" talk about is there.

 

"I consider myself defeated by your arguments "

 

I never put forward any arguments!! I was just trying to understand exactly what you were saying.

 

I never felt offended or that you were attacking or anything like that ( and I hope I have not seemed that way either).

 

I have learned that beliefs are not to be dogmatized, I am always open to the possibilty that I could have been thinking the wrong thing all along, and that there may be alternate explanations to things, and things that may have been dismissed in the past may only have been dismissed due to incomplete knowledge or wrong knowledge.

 

So anyway I hope my answers have been of some help

[Guest guest]

"Generally however what I personally understand a personality as a set of likes and dislikes, views etc that has arisen due to experience and conditioning. In this sense we can't say the Lord has a personality (since he is not conditioned being the basis of action and experience rather than a product of them). I however would also not say that he is impersonal since the very fact that there is a creation with a definite order to me implies that there is an intelligence behind it.

But you can see how the word itself can cause confusion if we don't properly define it."

 

So could agree then with a transcendental personality?

Or doesn't the Lord any (transcendental) likes and dislikes? For instance associating with material nature, or Lila, or do these not excist on an eternal basis?

Wouldn't you say transcendental (or spiritual in nature) intelligence, because intelligence itself is caused by ego?

 

To answer your question by spiritual is meant by the Acharya's free of material qualities, but transcendental (going beyond reason) in nature. For instance mystical powers are not considered to be spiritual. Just everything that rises above ego.

 

"What I will say though is that ego is generally understood not to mean arrogance or selfish interest but the idea of "I" and "mine" and at one time Bhagavan tells Uddhava something like this ( cant remember word for word):"

 

What about I, the eternal servant of God and Mine, my Lord?

Does this contain any form of ego, or illusion?

 

"Similarly although the ego seems to be there are no thoughts of "proprietorship

 

Can there remain I, but not belonging to myself but the Lord by refering to the soul (spirit, particle of Parabrahman) and not to the ego (matter)? Or does this remain a sense of propietorship?

 

Thanks for your explanations.

[Guest guest]

I think this discussion was allready all the time, but is becoming an even greater show of ego, atleast from my side. So I take back all my statements since I don't really know anything about God. Please don't ask me any more to explain anything from the Vaishnava point of view since I haven't got the knowledge. Just follow what you feel is right and try to love one and other.

 

I have behaved like a big fool to think I knew anything about the Lord. Hereby I retreat from the forum.

[Guest guest]

I was lost for a while in impersonal philosophies and mental speculation. Now my whole family has taken shelter at Lord Krishna's lotus feet, and we are in bliss. Bhakti has to be experienced, is joyfully performed. Lord Krishna is the supreme personality of Godhead. This is confirmed by bona-fide scriptures, great sages etc. Read Bhagwad Gita As It Is, Srimad Bhagwatam, Chaitanya Charitamrita by Srila Prabhupada and you will see the difference.

[Guest guest]

Once again I would have to ask what do you mean by a transcendental personality? See when people say spiritual and transcendental and I try to get an answer about what it really means they always say it is free from material qualities. That is telling me what it is NOT. I want to know what it IS. IT is like asking what is a square and someone says well its not a circle. Saying that transcendental is going beyond reason, something where you know it is right but you cant explain it via logic is actually a physical phenomena, it has to do with how the brain works. When people say that if you cannot explain a feeling or how you know something is right then it doesn't make sense is due to partial knowledge. You can KNOW something is right but cant explain why, it has to do with how the brain works (neural networks). So even these kinds of higher intuitive feelings can be material.

 

I don't know about Krsna's likes dislikes etc, I remember him saying that he is equal to all.

 

The "I" the eternal servant of God IS the ego, at one time Bhagavan Rama and Hanuman had a discussion that went something like this (again can't remember the word's exactly"

 

Rama: Why are you so devoted to me?

 

Hanuman: Oh lord, this is my firm conviction... When I am steeped in Body consciousness, You are the master and I am the slave. From the standpoint of the jiva, oh lord, you are the whole I am a part. But from the standpoint of the absolute, oh lord, you and I are indeed one and the same.

 

With regard to if there can remain an "I" that is not an egoistic "I", I think a good question to ask is if there ever was one to remain. I think this is why Krsna says HE is the only doer, and why the ego is called false, apparent, seen as long as it is seen. I think people sometimes get the wrong impression of what is meant by no ego. We have to look at what the false ego is composed of. It is composed of the past impressions that lead to certain modes of thinking, the attachment of other thoughts ideas etc to those that may come up with perception. For instance, people have friends and "enemies" (people they don't really like or care for) this is because of past impressions. If when you see them you see them as they are without bringing up past thoughts (which were what was constructed in the mind and your outlook in anycase) then these things do not exist, you would be equal to friend and foe, because you see them as they are. If you do not think yourself the owner of anything then who can cheat you?? how can you be wronged? nothing is yours in the first place. I believe this is said in the this is the ego arising from the sense of mineness. THen there is the sense of "I"ness when that goes, then what is there, is Krsna in love with Krsna it is he acting the part of the devotee and of the Lord, seemingly two separate entities. Then people might say you this is like painting yourself as God on earth, if they get that meaning they have not understood, how can YOU do something if YOU are not there. Consequently, I think this is the inner meaning of the relationship between Lord Krsna and Lord Shiva the ultimate relationship is between the Lord and himself.

 

I don't think intelligence is a product of ego either. intelligence and creativity, both of them, I think that is why they separate the faculties as manas buddhi ahankara to show that they are separate faculties.

 

I don't think we should think in terms of particle of brahman either, if you say particle then it brings in a material conception. Some people think of Brahman like a sea or a mist or a fog or some great blanket of something just sitting there..

[Guest guest]

http://www.vedabase.org/bs/5/en

 

click on the green numbers for purport by bhaktisiddhanta thakur

[Guest guest]

I have this book already, and just reading it again, it doesn't particularly answer any of my questions.. Was there a particular verse that you had in mind?

[Guest guest]

29-42, 56 see it is full of personality and relationships (rasa) and activity. Further read S.B. canto 10. Try Life of chaitanya (Caitanya Caritamrta). www.vedabase.org

[Guest guest]

Yes I am not doubting that it is. I am trying to find out about the nature of the place itself. Full of variety is fine, I am wondering about the nature of this variety, for instance we can understand material nature by understanding its constituents atoms, molecules etc and their combinations, since these things do not exist there what builds up these spiritual worlds. What exactly does spiritual mean then?

[Guest guest]

It cannot be percieved by the mind. The nature of it is (it is built up out of) I suppose pure Love. Can only be percieved by pure love. Not by reason or intelligence.

[Guest guest]

So where does this pure love manifest?? not in the mind?

 

Do you mean it is percieved BY pure love or AS pure love?

Becuase love is not a receptacle for perception, it is an experience. The experience has to be experienced by something, what is that something that percieves the experience?

[Guest guest]

what does it matter? no one can understand it anyway not even the greatest of devotees.

One who says he knows something about God actually knows nothing, but one who knows he knows nothing about God knows something.

[Guest guest]

who can understand God and His love??

[Guest guest]

So what you are saying is that one who knows he knows nothing does know something but he does not know what he knows otherwise he does not know anything.

 

It does matter that we know the meaning of what we say othwerwise it makes no sense to even speak because no one knows what they are talking about.

[Guest guest]

That's why we just talk about the Lord's pastimes and don't try to understand His ways.

[Guest guest]

you shouldn't be to attached to mental speculation and logic atleast if you want to find out about the nature of the personality of Godhead. you should here about Him from a pure devotee of Him. understanding the lord doesn't take place within the mind but in the heart and only by the mercy of His devotee. just surrender completely to Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and his devotees and then you'll be able to capture the lord in your heart.