Advaitam is a idiotic concept

[Guest guest]

Lord Narayana ordered Shiva to go to earth & preach a idiotic concept so that some idiotic people who doesnt want to pray vishnu will accept it.

 

So Lord Shiva took form of "Adishankara" and preached advitam. To his amazement lot of idioitic people came & accepted his teachings.

 

But some small group of enlightened people rejected his teachings & waited for god to come & preach.

 

To rewarard them, God came in form of Lord Ramanuja, Lord Madhwacharya, Lord Chaitanya, Lord Vallabhacharya and taught good philosophies so that they can reach God.

 

But all idotic people abused the good people for clinging to a stupid belief & telling the good people as "just" fans of their gurus.

 

Hearing this, God in vanikunda laughs by hearing words of ignorant people.

 

thats what still happening now.

[Guest guest]

You dont have the nerves to put an arguement against, and just call it IDIOTIC?

 

You are trying to tarnish the image of hinduism, by rejecting the rich philosophies.

 

Please abstain from doing something that hurts peoples's feelings.

 

It does not mean you have to agree with everything, but there are better ways of not accepting certain things and this is not the right way at all.

 

 

[Guest guest]

This idea is just a made up excuse of the Vaishnavas to try and claim superiority. Lord Visnu sent siva to preach advaita, I don't accept this. Profounding this narrow minded fantasy simply cause more religious strife in the world. This kind of philosophy proves that that Vaishnavism is a disrespectful sectarian group from it's formations. They are just jelous of other's success so they make up myths about Adishankar. Bogus! If you sau Advaita is "idiotic" than prove it with logic and reason, otherwise who will accept your mythological stories?

[Guest guest]

They try to do this with all other religions. They say The Buddha was incarnation of Visnu, and that Jesus and Mohammed are incarnations or sent by visnu, they say adishankar is Siva sent for a special mission...etc etc. This is how they try to appear inclusive and open minded but in reality is nothing but sectarianism. They go around and tell people they don't understand thier own religions and that really other people's religions are part of Vaishnavism just twisted versions. But many people can see through this fundmentalist exclusivist superiority complex.

 

Actually Hinduism teaches tolerance and peace, but the Vaishnavas (especially the so-called "Gaudiya" vasihnavas) advocate sectarianism and argumenttetivness. To me, when someone is this defensive all the time it means they are insecure. Vaishnavism is always on the attack of other religions, so I think it is an insecure philosophy .

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

 

No need for abuse. Rational and logical argument is good enough. As for Advaitam, it is simply Buddhism and incompatible with Vedas.

 

So Advaita is wrong as per the Vedas. Besides it has just too many flaws.

[Guest guest]

as a practising vaishnava i do not at all approve your language... look at what you have done...

 

you do not represent vaishnavas, you are a fanatic

[Guest guest]

can the Lord be amazed? what could happen in the infinitesimaly small realm of human perception that could amaze the all knowing all mighty>?

[Guest guest]

 

Hare Krishna,

 

I am a Vaishnav - and so by definition, I don;t believe in Advaitism - but it is a legitimate path to God. It is just we do not believe it to be the ultimate path.

 

Basically, I am Krishna conscious, and my beliefs go like this:

 

Atheism was preached by Buddha, an incarnation of Krishna. If Buddha's authority comes from him being an incarnation of Krishna, then how come he rejects God? In one of the vedic scriptures (i forget which) Krishna instructs Shiva to send down Buddha to preach no God - because the will of people in that age was not to believe in God - and to misuse Vedic sacrifice. In this way, Buddhism sacrifices the ultimate relation with God, to be replaced by greater dscipline in terms of vegetarianism, and indirect worship of God (Buddhists pray to Buddha (as a Guru) who is an incarnation of God. You may disagree - this is just our Vaishnav perspective.

 

As for Advaitism, the impersonalist theories are described in the Vedanta Sutras. They are meant for a certain type of people who do not wish to have a personal relationship with God - either because they believe in the bliss of being energy, or the idea of God being personified is hard for them to accept. Again, this is just the Vaishnav perspective. The Vedanta Sutra is legitimate scripture without a doubt, but it says in these scriptures that the Srimad Bhagavatam should be consulted in order to interpret these scriptures - and in the Srimad Bhagavatam it clearly states that God is a Person, u can have affectionate and loving relationship with Him. The difficulty for Vaishnavs, is that we don;t understand why impersonalists strictly follow Vedic injunctions when they believe God is energy - surely if God was energy there would be no need for the discipline of the Vedic injunctions. So if impersonalists do follow the Vedas, should they not follow the overall message not just the Vedanta Sutras.

 

Also how can life be created by pure enrgy - surely the ability for life to exist comes from one Ultimate LIVING source.

 

All of this is irrelevant anyway, because even the Vaishnavs believe that the impersonalists will acheive some form of temporary liberation in the effulgence of the Supreme Lord - just not ultimate.

 

I do not mean to offend - this is just clearing up the Vaishnav perspective, and i respect impersonalist views.

 

Please give me your views - I am interested in them.

 

Nimesh

[Guest guest]

my view is that calling other uselessly "idiots" you are making them offend the gaudya vaishnavism, like you have done in this thread, so you are responsible of their aparadhas..

 

we are in this world because we have refused to respect god, because we wanted to forget god, to be without god, atheists... so we have not the right to insult who maybe has better realization than us that we speak only in theory

 

so it is legitimate and necessary to have a different opinion from advaitins, but you have not to insult, and, if you challenge you have to do it bringing ample demonstrations and citations from scriptures.. otherwise they will call you, and they have already done, dogmatic and fanatic.. offending also our sampradaya

 

this is the result of your bad imitation of great acharyas, no one has changed his idea, but many have insulted you and your spiritual masters and acharyas..

 

so what's the use?

[maadhav]

in the gita ch. 12 first verse arjun asks krishna wht is better advaita or dvaita, essentialy.

 

krishna relpies in the next verse - bhamti- dvaita.

 

advaitis are known as gyan yogis.

krishna says:

 

bahUnAm janmanAn ante gyAnavAn mAm prapadyate

 

so, after knowing this,

a vedic person would never say advaita is wrong.

 

actually, prabhupada has said that the vedas talk mostly about advaita, but to some lest extent they talk about dvaita- bhakti. he said that the world should know that there is a bhakti-vedanta interpretation of the vedas also.

the westerners did not know this becaue, the first hindu monk that came to USA was swami vivekananda, an advaiti.

 

in simpe terms, if you have a lot of brainpower like a phd, then you may like advaita. if you are a person of heart/feelings, then dvaita - bhakti is best for you.

 

the hindus have this debate between advaitis and dvaitis since the beginning of creation. it will not go away entirely. however, in this time of terrorism, we should not debate this because more we fight within the happier the islamists get. time to focus on the asurc ideology that cannot tolerate dvaiti or advaiti. expose that barbaric ideology, please.

 

sometimes some muslims or xians come in disguise of a hindu and try to ignite this internal debate. do not fall in such a trap.

 

[Guest guest]

"in simpe terms, if you have a lot of brainpower like a phd, then you may like advaita. if you are a person of heart/feelings, then dvaita - bhakti is best for you"

 

maadhav do not say imprecise things, this definition of bhakti and advaita is not exact, you will find very scholarly preparated bhakta and sentimental advaitins or the opposite

 

(remember that all sai baba/osho/new age followers are inspired by advaita conception... people with not great culture and very sentimental)

 

and bhaktivedanta prabhupada is not a dvaita.. he's "acynthia beda abeda"

 

the two position are non easily conciliable, vaishnavas consider an offence to say that krsna/vishnu is an illusion and brahman is the ultimate reality... so let us remain different, let us even discuss peacefully... but not calling idiots or other insults

[Guest guest]

These Saibaba followers came to my house & irrated me by telling that "Dvaitam" is a idiotic concept.

 

So i am a ardent devotee of "Lord Raghavendra", i cant able to tolerate that.

 

so in anger i posted this thread.

 

I actually respect "Lord Adi shankara".

 

But i dunno wat these saibaba & his followers thinking of themself.

 

Till now, dvaitam & vishistadvaitha scholars proved "Advaitham" false. But instead of accepting their defeat they simply come before vaishnvas & irratate us by telling baba is bhagwan & advaitam is superior.

 

of course, i debated with the saibaba followers & proved "advaitham" is wrong and "dvaitham" is right.

 

this saibaba calls himself asa bhagwan & insults dwaitham, visishtadwaitham. i dunno whats his thinking of himself ?

 

[Guest guest]

hey first prove that "advaitham" is supported by vedas.

 

without proving dont tell advaitham is supported by vedas.

[Guest guest]

only these so called "baba" followers come ofen to my house & irriatate with their advaita speeches. they also say that dvaitam is unfinished&flaws.

 

so i only got irritated . out of anger i put this post.

 

now i realise what i have done.

 

forgive me if had insulted vaishnavam. im not a fanatic.

 

i an just a ardent devotee of "Lord Raghavendra".

 

 

[Guest guest]

only these so called "baba" followers come ofen to my house & irriatate with their advaita speeches. they also say that dvaitam is unfinished&flaws.

 

so i only got irritated . out of anger i put this post.

 

now i realise what i have done.

 

forgive me if had insulted gaudiya vaishnavam. im not a fanatic.

 

i an just a ardent devotee of "Lord Raghavendra".

 

(i dont come under "Gaudiya faith". i come under "dwaitham,vishistadvaitham&vallabham".)

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Hare Krishna,

 

I remember that quote from the Gita about the gyaan yogis being advaitas - but there are three froms 'karmis' 'gyanis' and 'bhaktis'. The bhakti is defined as the way to reach permanent liberation in Gita. That is why Krishna says that 'of the daitya demons I am Prahlad'...because Prahlad converted from Daitya to being an Aditya - a devotee.

 

As you say, the advaitism is for a certain type of people and we respect that.

 

Who is Lord Raghuvendra, what are his beliefs, where is he predicted in Vedas - is it a Swaminarayan thing?

 

Haribol,

 

Nimesh

[Guest guest]

first try to correctly spell.

 

"Lord Raghavendra" is correctly spelling.

 

Lord Raghavendra is incarnation of Prahalada. Lord prahlada is mentioned in Gita.

 

Just like you people Adi shankara believe is a incarnation of shankara.we believe that Lord Raghavendra is incanrnation of Lord prahlada.

 

Devotees of "Lord Raghavendra" are still experiencing his divine grace & miracles.

 

i myself experienced Lord Raghavendras miracle & grace.

 

Lord Raghavendra can be compared to Lord Jesus, as Lord Raghavendra had told everything that Jesus did.

 

Jesus never proclaimed himself as god, so did Lord Raghavendra.

 

oly thing is evil jewish priests hated Jesus & crucified him, but Lord Raghavendra was loved by all.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Nimesh said:"Atheism was preached by Buddha, an incarnation of Krishna. If Buddha's authority comes from him being an incarnation of Krishna, then how come he rejects God?"

 

Guest: The Buddha is not an incarnation of Krishna. The Buddha did not preach atheism. He simply preached that The Ultimate Reality is beyond the understanding of the limited mind and senses. Swami Praphupada and the previous Vaishnava teachers in his line have misrepresented the teachings of Buddhism. If you would read some Buddhist philosophy you would see how they have done this. The Buddha rejected blind following of the Vedic writtings of his time because people were apt to follow them only out of tradition not out of realization. People were constantly declaring truths but with out actually having realized them. This is clearly explained and illustrated in the Buddhist scriptures known as "The Pali Cannon". Books are written by men, one should realize The Absolute for themselves before they claim some philosophy to be the "Truth".

 

Nimesh said:"In one of the vedic scriptures (i forget which) Krishna instructs Shiva to send down Buddha to preach no God - because the will of people in that age was not to believe in God - and to misuse Vedic sacrifice."

 

Guest: All these stories are written by Hindu Brahmins after the Buddha's time, not before. They are an attempt to explain why Buddhism became so popular and why the Brahmins lost power. All these puranas (including the so-called Bhagavat Purana) are later inventions and even show much infulence of Buddhist philosophy and ideas, (The Bhagavad Gita is a good example of this).

 

Nimesh:"In this way, Buddhism sacrifices the ultimate relation with God, to be replaced by greater dscipline in terms of vegetarianism, and indirect worship of God (Buddhists pray to Buddha (as a Guru) who is an incarnation of God. You may disagree - this is just our Vaishnav perspective."

 

Guest: Well yes I do I disagree, this is a Vaisnava perspective for sure. Buddhists do see the Buddha as an incarnation of anyone, but a normal person who achieved Enlightenment by his own practice over many life times. This idea of The Buddha being and incarnation of Visnu is an idea that was started by Hindus after the Buddha's time in an attempt to minimize Buddhism and try to win back India to thier own sects. It was a kind of politics really. Allthough Vaishnavism these days is bent on criticising other religions (thanks to Swami prabhupada who was a sectarian), Buddhism maintains the same mood of genuine tolerance and acceptence of other paths that they have preached before the so-called "bhakti" movement was invented in the 9th century.

 

Nimesh said:"As for Advaitism, the impersonalist theories are described in the Vedanta Sutras. They are meant for a certain type of people who do not wish to have a personal relationship with God - either because they believe in the bliss of being energy, or the idea of God being personified is hard for them to accept. Again, this is just the Vaishnav perspective."

 

Guest: This is partially correct. The concept of there existing the Supreme all prevading Brahman existed for many centuries before Adishankar. This so-called "impresonal" conception of God was well know in the East before the popular "bhakti" movement happened in the 9th century by over-enthusiastic emotionalists. But these bhakti advocates try to change history by claiming that it is all "Krsna's arrangement". But this is all a later invention. The so-called Advaita idea is much more ancient than the popularist-emotionalist-so-called-bhakti-cult. I'm really not trying to offend you Vaisnava people, but you have been criticizing other paths for so long that I think you are grown up enough to take a little of your own medicine.

 

Nimesh said:"The Vedanta Sutra is legitimate scripture without a doubt, but it says in these scriptures that the Srimad Bhagavatam should be consulted in order to interpret these scriptures - and in the Srimad Bhagavatam it clearly states that God is a Person, u can have affectionate and loving relationship with Him."

 

Guest: The Bhagavat purana (and the Mahabharata) were written much later than the upanishads and 4 vedas. They were written to try and justify thier emotionalism and to discredit other sects. Shankar was trying to return to more ancient ideas. This ultra-personalization of Brahman happened after Shankar's time.

 

 

Nimesh said:"All of this is irrelevant anyway, because even the Vaishnavs believe that the impersonalists will acheive some form of temporary liberation in the effulgence of the Supreme Lord - just not ultimate."

 

Guest: Thank you so much for granting them that liberation... That is so psuedo-accepting of you. Really its a form of trying to negate other people's paths and try to discredit other religions. You are telling people that what they believe is wrong and then you presume to interperet things for them.

 

Nimesh said:"I do not mean to offend - this is just clearing up the Vaishnav perspective, and i respect impersonalist views."

 

Guest: ok, but it is not real respect because of the presumtion of assuming you know more than those people on other paths. It is a kind of half respect, because you are saying in essence "We accept you are on a path, but you do not really understand what that path is. So we, who do not even follow your path, are presuming to interperet it for you.". Its a kind of patronization. You talk to other religions as if they were just little children and that you are the big adult who has all the answers. I don't mean to offend really, I'm just saying you should not be so presumtuous and try to practice genuine tolerance.

 

Thanks for the discussion. Guestananda

[Guest guest]

JUst because irritated by baba people, in some mood of anger i started the anger hastily.

 

after posting i realised that whai have done.

 

i also regretted for it in my prev posts.

 

because i am a vaishnava. A vaishnava if rarely commits a mistake, he immediately accepts it & regrets it in front of all.

 

But other sects always from find fault with vaishnavas whatever they do ...

 

they forget that when a finger is pointed to others, other four fingers point to you.

 

Some people just criticize Swami prabhupada without understanding him. It is Swami Prabhupada asked vaishnavas to respect Jesus, Buddha & all religious letters.

 

Till now, no vaishnavas had committed Jihad or crusade or torture or violence on others.

 

So Vaishnavam is a religion of tolerance.

 

If people find fault with vaishnavas, let them as we vaishnavas are least bothered. They should not forgot that God is watching.

[Guest guest]

See, you should not loose your cool and offend people.

If you have the habit of getting angry, try to avoid arguements.

When I was in the college, we had a christain fanatic, who always talked ill of hindoos. We used to laugh with our A**.

Only when you resist something, it becomes formidable, just let it pass. So we used to listen carefully ( or act like that) when this guy speaks of HIS great religion, and finally whan he says " Okay guys how was it. Do you wish to let HIM in?", We say " Sorry there is already someone IN" and this guy gets pissed off.

My professor does the same thing. In India, people distribute christian leaflets in the train. SOme guys, they simply tear it and throw them, but my prof, says "Gee, I like this, Can I have more of it?" He collects a bunch of them, and takes them home and burns it off.

Try this with a sales man and see the disappintment in his face.

 

The idea is, Just Let it pass, and not to resist.

You have to make the other guys angry and you shoud not get angry.

 

" Never argue with an Idiot. He pulls you down to his level and beats you with his experience".

 

Well personally, there are lot of ways that can lead you to Ultimate. Even great souls like Ramana, Tirumoolar, the great tamil siddhas saw the one ness. That includes Vivekananda, so calling advaitins idiots, do you realise that you are offending the great souls? It is beyond question the amount of service that Shakara has done to hinduism. Otherwise you and I will not be hindoos, we will be either Jains or Buddhists.

 

So I request you to read a lot of books on hinduis, that will open your mind and make you less angry.

[Guest guest]

Gokul,

 

I will tell you the problems some Hindus have with Vaishnavas...Hare Krishnas in particular.

 

Srila Prabupadha did not have much regard for other sects of Hinduism calling them "useless branches of the vedic tree". Most Hindus in the world are not HK's so they are offended by this. The HK's were turned into another 'us and them' religion and claimed they are the full truth from God and Prabupadha didn't like Advaita at all. The other forms of God worshipped by Hindus were reduced to the level of 'demigods'. It's not just HK's who are disliked by other Hindus, some sects of Tantra as well as the Arya Samaj, who also claim to follow the 'original' Hinduism are sometimes thought as 'exclusive' sects. This narrow-mindedness and superiority comples is more a result of Abrahamic influence than anything Hindu. What is more strange is how Prabhupada said Jahova and Allah are the same God as Krishna, but Shiva and Shakti are nothing but demigods!

 

Advaita Vedanta is held high by many scientisits including Einstein...it shows a way of how science and Hinduism can co-exist and complement each other. Both Sankaracharya and Vivekananda did so much for Hinduism and were both great Advaitists so you should recognise the positive influence it has had on many likeminded Hindus. You may not like to hear this, but the world, either knowingly or unknowingly is moving towards Advaita, mainly because of it's rationalism, wisdom and applicability towards science.

[Guest guest]

Just Because we vaishnavas dont agree Advaitham you should brands us & fault us.

 

ok i think it will be applicable to other sects also.

 

Do other sects respect vaishnavam ? no. more often, they humiliate our philosophies. i myself have felt many. if i can discuss that, it will become an essay.

 

Just because you dont like vaishnavam dont just find fault with us tlling that we dont accept "khuran, advaitam, shaivam etc.."

 

do they accept us? more than accepting they only humilate us.

 

Before blaming a vaishnava, ask your conscience. Anyway, God is there watching.

 

if u still wanna blame u can blame. Remember Lord Krishna is watching.

 

i think u will respect atleast Lord krishna.

I am not a iskcon member. i am just a ordinary vaishnava.

 

i have enough historical proof to show that how all sects have tortured vaishnavam & humiliated us. But in turn, we always remain tolerant.

 

You may blame us for not accepting advaitham. because you many find none other fault on us.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

do u know what is god & religion ?

 

do u have experienced god ?

 

of course people only who have no god consciousness will consider einstein as judge.

 

einstein is just a materialistic person. just because hes a scientist, he cant be taken as a judge. he is a atheist.

 

of course, atheist only like advaitham.

 

advaitam is for set of people who dont like to worship lord vishnu.

 

i am sure you are just a materialistic person who have no god consciousness, otherwise you wont speak shameless reasons such as "einstein".

 

Just chant "hare krishna" and feel the nectar.

 

then you talk.

 

[Guest guest]

Gokul,

 

You didn't seem to understand much from my post. Difference of opinions are perfectly fine, but HK's take it to the next level saying the other sects are 'rascals' as Prabhpada liked to put it.

 

Do not assume I'm an Advaitist as I am not, I'm more of a non-sectarian Hindu than anything else, I don't limit myself to a sect. Bu I read widely on Hinduism and while I appreciate the work HK's do to spread their knowledge, I'm dissapointed by prabupadha's negative critism of other sects as he attempts to reduce them to nothing, even putting other religions higher. HK's would be much better if they learn to work with other sects and find common ground. They should agree to disagree.

[Guest guest]

it is natural that a vaishnava considers blasphemy who says that krsna is only an illusione created by brahman for the worship of ignorant people

 

and is is natural that a christian or a muslim who believes in a personal god could be judged more close to vaishnavas than an advaitin who is more similar to an atheist

 

and this is the reason why vaishnavas do not like too much to be called hindus

 

but everything remains in the simple and peaceful philosophic exchange, except for some passionate fanatics (i am sorry for them) who imitate the impetus of great acharyas full of mercy for the mankind.. what is the problem if there's differences?

 

..hinduism is an illusion... it does not exist... externally we have similar rites, temples, images.. but the substance is many times opposite

 

ultimately it is not a religion

 

this is a phenomenon you can find also in christianism for example.. you ask to 100 christians "who is god?"

 

and you will hear dvaitin, advaitin, atheist, patheist answers.... but without a real common ground they call themselves with one only name...