Fundamental problem in advaita

[Guest guest]

I believe that would be his eternal amshas

 

gita 15.7

 

mamaivamso jiva-loke jiva-bhutah sanatanah...

[Raguraman]

Hare Krishna,

 

 

My comment: Karma is only negated for Jnani but even then not fully. Karma with respect to other Jivas (who are not Jnani) remains. So, if a Jnani has a family to maintain, he has to maintain it.

 

 

After I finished explaining Ramayana, one of the guys like you got up and asked me who is Lord Ram. Read my post fully and understand what I say.

 

The objective TRUTH or FACT according to advaita is that there is no creation or Karma or Jiva ultimately. You guys do not understand your own philosophy and do not understand what you write also.

 

 

My comment: If there are real distinctly different individuals that serve Lord as Dasa, then they really do the serving and not the Lord. There is contradiction.

 

 

Here you there is no Jiva and in the above quote you say there is Karma with respect to Jivas.

 

So does Jiva exist or not ? Make a decision first.

 

As per Dvaita and existential TRUTH, Jiva is a reality apart from Brahman. This however does not contradict the sayings of Lord Krishna. Why ?

 

Think about this. Lord is the only independent entity. It means that our mere existence is sustained by Lord moment after moment. Jivas are eternal as Lord HIMSELF has said in Gita.

 

Neither these host of kings etc...... in Gita.

 

When our mere existence is maintained moment after moment, our actions are also possible bacause of Lord. So is the case with our free will etc. It does not imply that we do not exist.

 

 

Advaita only says that the nounmenon and the phenomenon are one and the same. Vedas exist otherwise there would be no knowledge of Vedas. All things exist in Brahman and not outside. That is how an Advaitin can say that yes the Lord does everything.

 

An eternal servant serving the Lord contradicts Gita, wherein the Lord states that He alone is the doer.

 

 

 

All things exist within Brahman. This is the stand of Dvaita.

 

What advaita says is that there are no entities other than Brahman period.

[Guest guest]

"So does Jiva exist or not ? Make a decision first."

 

 

Yes, Jiva exists because of ignorance. When 5 sheaths of ignorance are cleared the Self shines. Gurus have told me this but I have not realised the Self, so I am a Jiva.

 

 

"As per Dvaita and existential TRUTH, Jiva is a reality apart from Brahman. This however does not contradict the sayings of Lord Krishna. Why ?

Think about this. Lord is the only independent entity. It means that our mere existence is sustained by Lord moment after moment. Jivas are eternal as Lord HIMSELF has said in Gita. "

Neither these host of kings etc...... in Gita.

When our mere existence is maintained moment after moment, our actions are also possible bacause of Lord. So is the case with our free will etc. It does not imply that we do not exist."

 

 

You do not have control over 95% of your own body and you say that our actions -------. Do you know yourself? Do you know the entity that is conrolling the automatic functions of your body. I cannot easily say: our actions. I really do not whether saying "my action" is appropriate or not? When my small "I" seems to act, behind that there there are so many unconcsious acts. So, who is acting?

 

 

 

 

"All things exist within Brahman. This is the stand of Dvaita.

 

What advaita says is that there are no entities other than Brahman period."

 

 

Yes, may be both are correct -- for different Jivas. The difference relates to time scale and state of Jiva. Advaita states that only The Brahman is eternal. Parts within Brahman are transient and so it cosiders Brahman as one absolute.

 

 

 

Actually, for me at least the differences do not matter. Advaita never says that bhakti does not lead to liberation. Shankara himself worshipped saguna God -- Vishnu. So, did all others about whom I know.

 

These Advaitins do not claim that they are Gods. They say that Bhakti finally leads to Jnana that all doership vests with one Lord only. Advaita says that till one has vestiges of Ego (sense of doership), one's bhakti will not be complete.

 

 

Atanu

 

[Raguraman]

Hare Krishna,

 

 

Yes, Jiva exists because of ignorance. When 5 sheaths of ignorance are cleared the Self shines. Gurus have told me this but I have not realised the Self, so I am a Jiva.

 

 

So here you are saying that SELF(Brahman) comes under the control of MAYA. SELF or Brahman overcome with MAYA is Jiva. In other words Brahman is not perfect according to advaita.

 

Advaita seems to contradict the Sruti, Om purnamadah purnamidam.....

 

 

You do not have control over 95% of your own body and you say that our actions -------. Do you know yourself? Do you know the entity that is conrolling the automatic functions of your body. I cannot easily say: our actions. I really do not whether saying "my action" is appropriate or not? When my small "I" seems to act, behind that there there are so many unconcsious acts. So, who is acting?

 

 

The individual-will or wish to act in some way determines the individual's action although he may use different agents and Lord may be using all JIVAS as agents. Definitely JIVAS are eternal entities even after MUKTI.

 

Lord Krishna clearly says that

 

Neither these kings nor you will ever cease to exist. Here the words I, you and these kings clearly point to individuals and also the eternal existence is confirmed by Lord Krishna. Why do advaitists deny this ?

 

 

Yes, may be both are correct -- for different Jivas. The difference relates to time scale and state of Jiva. Advaita states that only The Brahman is eternal. Parts within Brahman are transient and so it cosiders Brahman as one absolute.

 

 

 

I have stated again and again that according to pAramArtika view, the mere existence of creation is denied. This is taken as the absolute truth. This is how one who is realized knows reality. If you say that if a JIVA under maya sees other things as reality it is a subjective tainted perception according to advaita. It implies that what realized one sees as reality is the TRUTH according to advaita. So in reality there is no creation or karma or maya and so no mukti as well.

 

Please answer if Brahman is the only reality and that if parts of Brahman are transient(under maya) then does maya exist apart from Brahman.

 

You must know the Sruti "Purnamidam....". This says that Brahman is perfect, part of Brahman is also perfect. If that is the case then how come part of Brahman come under the influence of Maya. Anything that can be bound with maya cannot be called perfect. That being the case advaita seems to go against the SRUTI.

[Raguraman]

Hare Krishna,

 

 

Yes, may be both are correct -- for different Jivas. The difference relates to time scale and state of Jiva. Advaita states that only The Brahman is eternal. Parts within Brahman are transient and so it cosiders Brahman as one absolute.

 

 

 

The Sruti from Brihadaranyaka Upanishad clearly and explicitly states that Jivaatma exists apart from Brahman. If anybody reads the verse below one can know that the verse states that the Brahman is the antaryami of Jivaathma and that Jivaathma does not know the Brahman.

 

Advaita clearly contradicts this sruti.

 

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad:(Madyandina Recension)

 

3:7:30

 

"Ya: Aatmani tishtan aatmano antharo yam aatmaa na veda yasya aatmaa sareeram"

 

Brahman is in the Jeevaatman, entered inside it, who is not known by the Jeevaatman and has the Jeevaatman as his body/mode and controls the Jeevaatman as Antaryaami.

[atanu]

Raghuramanji,

 

Regards but you are defeated.

 

You and your supporters have said the followings

 

“I believe that would be his eternal amshas

 

gita 15.7

 

 

All things exist within Brahman. This is the stand of Dvaita.”

 

Then you have also said (quoted shruti) as below:

 

 

“You must know the Sruti "Purnamidam....". This says that Brahman is perfect, part of Brahman is also perfect. “

 

 

So, you as eternal amsha of Brahman are perfect. I as eternal amsha of Brahman is perfect. That is what Advaita says.

 

 

Regards,

 

Atanu

[Guest guest]

"I as eternal amsha of Brahman is perfect. That is what Advaita says."

 

 

Where does shankar say that? Jiva is eternal amsha of brahman? Doesn't shankar recognize brahman as 'nishkala' w/o any parts?

 

In Varaha purana Jiva is classified as Vibhinnamsha (separated parts) and Vishnu murtis as Svamsha (Self parts). Vishnu murtis are 1 and the same with Krishna while Jivas are one and different. See also Brahma sutra 2.3.43 on this.

 

also "om purnamidam..." defeats the keval advaita theory about the pancaratras

 

 

[Raguraman]

Hare Krishna,

 

 

Raghuramanji,

 

Regards but you are defeated.

 

You and your supporters have said the followings

 

“I believe that would be his eternal amshas

 

 

 

Dvaita or Vaishnavas do not to this kind of view. Gaudiyas only say this with the idea that we are dependent on Lord and does not mean that we are part of svarupa of Lord. This is a misinterpretation of some people who do not learn from Gaudiya acharyas properly. Even Sri Vaishnavas say that we are part of Rupa of Lord, but Sri Vaishnavas also say that svarupa of Lord is UNIQUE.

 

This is because of Sri Vaishnavas cosidering the Lord as material cause of this universe. Lord is considered as material cause because this univerese is considered as body(rupa) of Lord. Lord's svarupa is the soul. I think you now understand the Gaudiya philosopy of amsha also.

 

This can be proven and demonstrated from Bhagavad Gita itself. Read the verses below and please read Gita fully.

 

Chapter 15:

 

Verse 7:

 

mamaivamso jiva-loke

jiva-bhutah sanatanah

manah-sasthanindriyani

prakrti-sthani karsati

 

mama--My; eva--certainly; amsah--fragmental particles; jiva-loke--world of conditional life; jiva-bhutah--the conditioned living entity; sanatanah--eternal; manah--mind; sasthani--six; indriyani--senses; prakrti--material nature; sthani--situated; karsati--struggling hard.

 

Jiva in the body is My eternal indivisible fragment indeed. Jiva gets bound (or attached, and is called Jeevaatma) due to association with the six sensory faculties, including the mind, of perception.

 

Verse 16:

 

dvav imau purusau loke

ksaras caksara eva ca

ksarah sarvani bhutani

kuta-stho 'ksara ucyate

 

SYNONYMS

 

dvau--two; imau--in this (world); purusau--living entities; loke--in the world; ksarah--mutable; ca--and; aksarah--immutable; eva--certainly; ca--and; ksarah--perishable; sarvani--all; bhutani--living entities(bodies); kuta-sthah--in oneness; aksarah--imperishable; ucyate--is said.

 

There are two entities in this world: the perishable and the imperishable. (The bodies of) all beings are perishable, and the Jiva is imperishable.

 

uttamah purusas tv anyah

paramatmety udahrtah

yo loka-trayam avisya

bibharty avyaya isvarah

 

SYNONYMS

 

uttamah--the best; purusah--personality; tu--but; anyah--another; parama--the supreme; atma--self; iti--thus; udahrtah--is said; yah--one who; loka--of the universe; trayam--the three divisions; avisya--entering; bibharti--maintaining; avyayah--inexhaustible; isvarah--the Lord.

 

There is another supreme spirit called Ishvara or Paramaatma, the indestructible Lord who pervades the three worlds and sustains them.

 

From verse 7, 16 and 17 it is clear that Brahman or Isvarah or Paramatma is different from Jiva(it is called aksarah in verse 16). It is better for you to read and understand fully before you make comments based on half knowledge.

 

This is further supported by the verse from Brihadarnayaka Upanishad(3:7:30), Madyandina Shaka.

 

This verse explicitly states that Lord or Brahman is the indweller of Jivathma(called Atma in this upanishad) just as HE(Brahman) is the indweller of earth, AkAsA, prana etc. and that Jivathma does not know him. This means that Jiva is different from Brahman just as earth, akasa etc. are different from Brahman.

 

 

All things exist within Brahman. This is the stand of Dvaita.”

 

Then you have also said (quoted shruti) as below:

 

 

“You must know the Sruti "Purnamidam....". This says that Brahman is perfect, part of Brahman is also perfect. “

 

 

So, you as eternal amsha of Brahman are perfect. I as eternal amsha of Brahman is perfect. That is what Advaita says.

 

 

 

The meaning of word Amsah is sufficiently described and demonstrated above from Bhagavad Gita and Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. It does not mean that we are part of SVARUPA of Isvara or Lord. Rather it means we are dependent on Lord.

 

As for Om Purnamadah.... it refers to SVARUPA of Lord and not to Jivas. Again read chapter 15 fully from Gita and also read the verse from Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.

 

So calling Jivas ie us as part of Svarupa of Brahman is wrong period as pr Sruti and Gita and so Advaita contradicts Vedas.

[rageshwari75]

Dear Members:

 

Please forgive me for my ignorance - but what is Advaita? How is it different than the vedic religion?

 

Namaste.

 

Rageshwari.

[Guest guest]

keval advaita is an anti vedik school in the guise of a vedik school. Real vedik schools (astika) believe in a transcendental world, antivedik schools (nastika) like keval advaita and vodist buddhism dont. This is one definition of astika and nastika given by Panini.

[Guest guest]

-- "keval advaita is an anti vedik school in the guise of a vedik school. Real vedik schools (astika) believe in a transcendental world, antivedik schools (nastika) like keval advaita and vodist buddhism dont." --

 

Is this ture? So is Sankaracharya not a true Hindu? Was he just pretending to be? So doesn't this mean that Swami Vivekananda is not really a Hindu? He was just pretending to be when he visited the Chicago parliment of religions? If this was the case where were all the REAL Hindus? Were they all cowards because they didn't represent Hinduism at the parliment of religions before him?, where every other faith (including even jainism) was represented.

 

 

[maadhav]

rageshwari75,

 

vedic dharma or sanatana dharma or hinduism of gita

gives all possible ways to realize god and provides different views of what god is and how his cretion is and what we are. these views are different but to orogress one has to pick one way - only one yoga - that is suitabel to one and live by it.

 

advaita philosophy or view is that we all and god aee same.

we just have forgotten that we are god, and the process of gyana yoga makes us realise we are god.

 

dvaita vada or the vaishnav view is that we are souls and god is supersoul. we are not gods, and we can never become god. we just have to serve god.

 

this debate between avaita and dvaita is with us hindu since the time of creation. but teh interesting thing is that we do not force the other or kill other. we respect the other and live with each other. we even debate this pi public, we always have, just as it is happening here.

 

my point however at this time is that we should not, becaue we bhto these groups are kafirs to islam and are under the cross hari of their ak-47's.

 

unite and kill the asuric ideologies.

 

you are free to follow dvaita or advaita.

i am dvaiti - vaishnav.

 

[Raguraman]

Hare Krishna,

 

 

Is this ture? So is Sankaracharya not a true Hindu? Was he just pretending to be? So doesn't this mean that Swami Vivekananda is not really a Hindu? He was just pretending to be when he visited the Chicago parliment of religions? If this was the case where were all the REAL Hindus? Were they all cowards because they didn't represent Hinduism at the parliment of religions before him?, where every other faith (including even jainism) was represented.

 

 

Irrational or perhaps emotional statement. Where is the question of cowardice here. It is simply a question of priority and Vaishnavas did not consider the religious parliment of any worth to present the message of Vedas and Lord like a product sold in market.

 

We Vaishnavas feel that message of Lord should not be presented before an unwilling and unbelieving audience. Knowledge of vedas are always available for a sincere seeker.

 

All this ridiculous show and marketing of religious ideas is of no interest to real Gurus.

[Guest guest]

Cowardice was probably too strong a word to use, but as vaishnavas think they have all the answers to everything and that they are the only true representatives of the Vedic religion, where were they for an opportunity like this?

 

The reason I chose the example of the parliment of religions is because all the other religions were represented there except Hinduism, which was only represented after Vivekananda's visit. It just goes to show how either unaware of lazy Hindus were back then (and to an extent still are). Now another point I'm making is if you think Kevala Advaita is anti-vedic, then why don't you come out publicly and say so rather than hiding on a msg board? And if you believe Dvaitic Vaishnavism is the only true vedic religion why do you allow "those advaistists" to misrepresent the Vedic religion? Come out publicly and let everyone know your stance and you can debate those advaitists down to the ground...if you even have the confidence, is another matter. I think you're afraid of redicule, more than anything.

 

"We Vaishnavas feel that message of Lord should not be presented before an unwilling and unbelieving audience."

 

Well that is simply untrue what you just spoke there, otherwise why do Vaishnavas try to get others to their way of thinking? Isn't that presenting the message of the lord to an unwilling audience? As many are happy in the sampradaya or denomination they belong to. You can see that sort of behaviour on this msg board.

 

Hare Krishnas, who are Vaishnavas try to sell their books to whoever they meet on the streets, even if the person is not interested, they tell the person to take it and give it to somebody else. While it is good to give it to someone else (if not interested) this is not always the case and the person ends up buying the book just to get the HK off his/her back.

 

The Gita itself says not to give this knowledge to those who are unwilling, so maybe the Hare Krishnas are not living up to this point?

[Guest guest]

The reason I chose the example of the parliment of religions is because all the other religions were represented there except Hinduism, which was only represented after Vivekananda's visit.

...and vivekananda did not represented all the hinduism, or the schools that someone reunites under hinduism.. vivekananda represented some sort of advaitin nichilism.. that is not representative at all of the "indian" religions

 

Now another point I'm making is if you think Kevala Advaita is anti-vedic, then why don't you come out publicly and say so rather than hiding on a msg board?

...vaishnavas say it from immemorable time, they say it publicly all over the world, in person and by books... and this forum is a public place, also with a good number of readers

 

The Gita itself says not to give this knowledge to those who are unwilling, so maybe the Hare Krishnas are not living up to this point?

..you are simply envious.. if you believe that speaking, discussing and proposing an idea is automatically plagiarism and anti hindu... why are you speaking? i have no problem with the fact that you give your opinion... but it is not possible to speak and not influence others

 

 

[Guest guest]

"..you are simply envious.. if you believe that speaking, discussing and proposing an idea is automatically plagiarism and anti hindu... why are you speaking?"

 

Envious you say? How is it plagiarism? I didn't say that. I said that HK's spread their message among anyone even those who do not wish to know and try to sell their books to them - which is against Gita. This was in response to whom earlier said they don't discuss it with an unwilling audience...I'm saying they do! You can see this in any town centre HK's congregate. This is a reason why they are disliked by a section of the public. I think it's good to spread the knowledge, but not amongst people who dislike it who will scoff at it and do not appreciate it. HK's should learn when they come across people, clearly not interested, they should just leave them and move on.

[Guest guest]

I said that HK's spread their message among anyone even those who do not wish to know and try to sell their books to them - which is against Gita.

...wich verse?

 

You can see this in any town centre HK's congregate.

...are you against Hari Nama?

 

This is a reason why they are disliked by a section of the public.

... a section... and other sections like it

 

I think it's good to spread the knowledge, but not amongst people who dislike it

...if you do not propose, you will not know if they like or dislike... there's no harm in chanting harinama or proposing krsna consciousness. Bhagavad gita is a book totally devoted to someone (=krsna) proposing krsna consciousness to some one else (=arjuna.... and us)

 

HK's should learn when they come across people, clearly not interested, they should just leave them and move on.

...i think that you have nothing to teach to gaudya vaishnavas

[Guest guest]

To Shri Raghuramji

 

"The meaning of word Amsah is sufficiently described and demonstrated above from Bhagavad Gita and Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. It does not mean that we are part of SVARUPA of Isvara or Lord. Rather it means we are dependent on Lord."

 

 

Imagination cannot be be streched to translate "amsha" as solely dependent.

 

 

To Madhavji

 

 

You have said in this thread that advaita holds that we are Gods but we do not know it till the advent of Jnana.

 

Well, it is incorrect in a very essential way. Advaita holds that there is only one.

 

Atanu

 

[Guest guest]

Most people think that their body and brain (so called mind) are them.

 

In that case, body and brain should be able to shout at the time of death for more life.

 

Obviously, I am someting more that body and brain and so are you Zero-Zero.

 

You maintain that you are an individual soul. I maintain that there is only one Soul.

 

Well, Have you seen you soul? Has anyone seen one? God is seen in various manifestations, but then why individual soul is never seen?

 

Individual soul is Bhandasur( the shameless illusory demon who assumes ownership of body-mind). Bhandasur is nothing but ego. A shameless one. Durga kills bhandasur.

 

 

Enquire, silently, "Who Am I?" If you succeed to still your mind by concentrationg on the search for self, you will find no I.

 

The small i will take flight and then the big I will shine.

 

It, is not done to term Jnana as non-Vedik.

 

Atanu

[Guest guest]

"Imagination cannot be be streched to translate "amsha" as solely dependent"

 

 

You don't know Vedik philosophy. See in Brahma sutra 2.3 what Vyas says about the jiva being amsha and its dependency on god.

 

'advaitins' stretch the meaning of amsha to mean only in appearance as brahman is indivisable, their definition of 'nishkala'.

 

 

"It, is not done to term Jnana as non-Vedik"

 

 

Jnan Yog is Vedik. Mayavada (keval advaita) isn't as it demonstrates in its non-vedik philosophy and as mentioned in padma and garuda purana.

[Guest guest]

"You don't know Vedik philosophy. See in Brahma sutra 2.3 what Vyas says about the jiva being amsha and its dependency on god."

 

These below the belt attacks will not work double zero.

 

No one needs Brahma Sutra to translate "Amsha".

 

Moreover, no one also disputes that the amsha is dependent on the whole.

 

 

Why do you not answer the query about whether anyone has seen the individual soul? What is its form? and size?

 

Atanu

 

[Guest guest]

"below the belt attacks"

 

 

How did you come up with that?

 

 

"No one needs Brahma Sutra to translate "Amsha".

 

Moreover, no one also disputes that the amsha is dependent on the whole"

 

 

To understand what amsha means in vedas the Vedik meaning must be taken. This is common sense.

 

You claim 'advaita' recognizes soul as eternal amsha of god? any references for that?

 

 

"Well, Have you seen you soul? Has anyone seen one? God is seen in various manifestations, but then why individual soul is never seen?"

 

"Why do you not answer the query about whether anyone has seen the individual soul? What is its form? and size?"

 

 

You claim the 'individual soul is never seen' then call this claim a query. What are you trying to say? The individual soul doesn't exist? If so, that isn't vedik philosophy.

[Guest guest]

raghu: "Please answer if Brahman is the only reality and that if parts of Brahman are transient(under maya) then does maya exist apart from Brahman.

 

You must know the Sruti "Purnamidam....". This says that Brahman is perfect, part of Brahman is also perfect. If that is the case then how come part of Brahman come under the influence of Maya. Anything that can be bound with maya cannot be called perfect. That being the case advaita seems to go against the SRUTI"

 

 

Any 'advaitin' can answer?

[Guest guest]

"You claim the 'individual soul is never seen' then call this claim a query. What are you trying to say? The individual soul doesn't exist? If so, that isn't vedik philosophy."

 

 

I will use your language. Do not just claim but give evidence. demonstrate with logic etc. etc.

 

Let a single person claim personal evidence of individual soul.

 

 

Atanu

[Guest guest]

No, there's just too many references from sastra about jivas. Some already cited in this thread, but you didn't pick up on them. Why's that? Have you taken an unbiased look at Vedas?

 

If it's your personal belief that there's no individual soul thats fine. It's not Vedik though.

 

How about answering Raguraman's question?