the jivan mukta in advaita

[Guest guest]

..........his/her power(brahman),therefore brahman is subservient to the mind(personality) of God.

Just like your body is subservient to your mind.

 

The controlling aspect of God,is God's mind,or personality,

the energy of God is secondary to the mind of God.

 

They are not the same,yet intertwined.

 

 

yes i know that sankara accepted isvara,but the understanding of advaita is still delusional.

 

It is simply speculation to believe that the world

has no substance,and it is erroneous.

 

What does having no substance mean ?

Clearly it does have substance,he who feels it knows it.

The illusion that the world is unreal, is the illusion, it is very real.

 

you can touch it.

 

What is an illusion is the preconception of what liberated consciousness is by those who are not.

 

The liberated consciousness doesn't dissappear,

who would want to be liberated ?

 

That is a delusion, the idea of the recognition of the world as maya,means something else.

 

the world is not unreal,the perception of it as

independent of God's control is the illusion.

 

when you say the jivas are maya,that is a misunderstanding.

 

You are real,not an illusion.

 

You will still be real upon enlightenment.

 

What will be missing is ignorance.

[karthik_v]

 

Have you come across any statement where Prabhupada says Shankara is a rascall? The fact is he has never said it.

 

 

No, but I have come across statements where he talks of his audacity. But, there was a specific instance, during a cell programme, when a reading from SP's purport, made my father walk out. I need to check with my father which one it is, but there SP is supposed to have indulged in some blanket attacks on Sankara.

 

 

Prabhupada's criticism is to those who deny the spiritual position of Krishna and who consider Him to have a mundane form.

 

 

Those who claim so, do have some validity atleast. Did we not go through the discussion on Anu Gita, where Krishna had forgotten the message of Gita and couldn't invoke the power that the Brahman had vested upon Him earlier? That is again from Mahabharata, of which BG is part. If someone argues that Krishna is the Supreme and Brahman is subservient to Him, then he should convincingly explain Anu Gita. One cannot ignore that and then launch an attack on those who say otherwise.

[karthik_v]

Dear Shiva prabhuji,

 

 

Ramani,etc who cares if some people with no realization of their own ,elevate in their minds another with the same

level of non realization ?

 

 

The way you have spelt Ramana suggests that you know nothing about him. Yet, it didn't stop you from denouncing him. Let us pretend that no Advaitin ever became realized. Could you please list the names of 3 non-Advatins [please include 1 from the 20th century], who attained realization and also kindly state the attributes for identifying a realized soul.

[Guest guest]

Sankara Himself does not cosnider Krishna to be false. no acharya has written bhashyam on anu gita to my knowledge. so i would like you establish that it is bonafide before offering it as an evidence.

[shvu]

 

Shankara quotes the Anu-Gita in his BG Bhaashya. Will that do?

 

Cheers

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

the self realized soul,is self realized.

 

I cannot say for certain who is self realized,as I am not them.

 

But what I do know is that those who are self realized

know the truth.

 

And that truth is that you will never lose your self identity,it may change ,but not be lost.

 

The truth is that the world is real,not an illusion,

but part of an illusion,like the props in a magicians trick.

 

The self realized soul doesn't misunderstand reality,

he experiences the truth ,constantly,always aware

that everything is part of God,controlled by god,

at that stage he is eligible to communicate with God.

 

Why ?

 

Because once you see through the illusion,all that is left is the controller and you.

 

Not that the world is unreal,just the perception of it by the uninitiated.

[karthik_v]

Dear Ram Prabhu,

 

 

Sankara Himself does not cosnider Krishna to be false. no acharya has written bhashyam on anu gita to my knowledge. so i would like you establish that it is bonafide before offering it as an evidence.

 

 

Nor does Anu Gita consider Krishna to be false. All it implies is that the Brahman is Supreme and that Krishna is only the Sadguna Brahman - hence relevant only in the temporal mode and not eternal.

 

Before Sankara did, no acarya had written a bhasya on BG. Academics are still not certain that Sankara wrote that bhasya either. On the other hand, by logical analysis, academics are in agreement that Anu Gita was originally part and parcel of Mahabharata, while parts of BG are later day interpolations. We have gone over this before. Have you ever come across an acarya who ever denounced Anu Gita as bogus?

 

Ignoring Anu Gita doesn't help.

[karthik_v]

Shvu,

 

 

Shankara quotes the Anu-Gita in his BG Bhaashya. Will that do?

 

 

Thanks for the information. Which verse?

[karthik_v]

Dear Shiva prabhuji,

 

 

I cannot say for certain who is self realized,as I am not them.

 

 

Fine. I hope you don't denounce someone without knowing about him.

 

 

And that truth is that you will never lose your self identity,it may change ,but not be lost.

 

 

You never lost it in the first place either. Such a perception of loss is only due to avidya. Since, as per Advaita, there is no duality, there is no loss of identity either.

[theist]

 

Nor does Anu Gita consider Krishna to be false. All it implies is that the Brahman is Supreme and that Krishna is only the Sadguna Brahman - hence relevant only in the temporal mode and not eternal.

 

 

Herein lays the problem.This is like putting a stake in a vaisnavas heart.

 

[Guest guest]

The point is you expect to lose your identity,

once enlightened.

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Did we not go through the discussion on Anu Gita, where Krishna had forgotten the message of Gita and couldn't invoke the power that the Brahman had vested upon Him earlier?

 

 

Has a single stalwart acharya commented on the text of the anu-gita? Why hasn't it been commented on?

 

Shankara and Vijnana Bhikshu both quote a couple verses found within the Anu-Gita, but they cite the source as "from a Purana" (not from the Mahabharata, nor from the "Anu-Gita"). Though in other places they have identified sources as being from the Anu-Gita. This shows that the present day Anu-gita was a latter compilation taken from various Puranas. If the Anu-Gita had existed in full at that time, Shankara would have clearly labeled the verses as "from the Anu-Gita". Thus it is impossible to know what verses compossed the original Anu-Gita, and which were compiled later.

 

Other quotations from Shankara, which are cited as coming from the Anu-Gita do not exist in the present texts of the Anu-Gita. Thus the sensible conclusion is that there once was an Anu-Gita, but the text was lost. This is the case for countless Vedic scriptures; they are quoted by past acharyas, but the manuscripts don't exist.

 

The fact that no acharya has commented on this text, which itself claims to be on an equal status with the Bhagavad Gita, shows that it isn't taken that seriously.

 

In addition to this, the Anu-Gita is full of misdirected vocative statements. For example someone calling to Arjuna, but talking to someone else.

 

There is more, but I think this is enough.

[Guest guest]

 

Simply more foolishness.

Brahman is controlled,not the controller.

 

Energy is being controlled and directed

by intellect, and judgement.

 

Energy is not controlling intellect and judgement.

 

personality is the quality of self identification,

therfore brahman is not supreme,personality

or the identification of oneself ,is superior

to the energy it controls.

 

Krishna is the supreme male personality,Krishna is the

self identification,higher is Radha,the supreme self identification.

 

The supreme controller and ultimate manifestation

of God is Radha,she controls all of her

energies,they are all submissive to her will.

 

Her self identification is the ultimate truth

about god.

 

Brahman is the energy of her personality.

[sha]

Why have you deleted my post on 'Shikshastaka-3'?

Don't you all follow Lord Caitanya's teachings?

[Guest guest]

uh ..he moved it,see the thread that follows this one.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

It hasn't been deleted. It has been moved to its own thread. Continue discussions on that topic there.

[karthik_v]

 

Other quotations from Shankara, which are cited as coming from the Anu-Gita do not exist in the present texts of the Anu-Gita. Thus the sensible conclusion is that there once was an Anu-Gita, but the text was lost.

 

 

That is a valid point. Could you please point to a couple of such verses and also where Sankara quotes them, so that we can discuss on that? Thanks.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

I don't have access to our library right now, so I won't be able to provide references for another month or so.

[karthik_v]

No problem. We can wait on that. I will see if I can have access in the meantime.

[muralidhar]

Shvu said:

If a liberated soul feels attractions, he is not liberated...not according to Advaita at least.

 

Perhaps such an idea is possible in a school of thought where a liberated soul can still perceive Vishnu et al. and is also capable of emotions such as attraction and repulsion. But according to Advaita, there in no more duality after liberation, which rules out the possibility of preceiving Vishnu or anything else. For this reason, Shukha getting 'attracted' to

stories of Krishna although he was liberated, is not Advaitic.

 

<hr>

 

Perhaps this is your understanding. But Adi Sankara himself said "Bhaja Govinda"

 

That was his instruction to his disciples.

<hr>

 

 

Bhaja Govindam of Adi Shankara*

 

Verse 1: ~~~~~~

BHAJA GOVINDAM, BHAJA GOVINDAM, GOVINDAM BHAJA MUDHAMATE

SAMPRAAPTE SANNIHITE KALE NA HI NA HI RAKSHATI DUKRINKARANE

 

Worship Govinda! Worship Govinda! Worship Govinda! Oh fool, at the time of death the rules of grammer, which you are trying to cram and master, will not be able to rescue you at all.

 

Verse 19: ~~~~~~~

YOGARATO VAA BHOGARATO VAA SANGARATO VAA SANGAVIHEENAH

YASYA BRAHMANI RAMATE CHITHAM NANDATI NANDATI NANDATYEVA

 

 

Whether one is immersed in yoga or is revelling in bhoga (i.e, outward enjoyment), whether he is enjoying himself in social company or has retired into solitude, true happiness certainly cannot be his; but who alone is revelling inwardly in Brahman, (wherever he be), he alone will be truly happy and will verily enjoy.

 

Verse 20: ~~~~~~~

BHAGAVADGEETA KINCHIDADHEETAA GANGAAJALALAVAKANIKAA PEETAA

SAKRIDAPI YENA MURARISAMARCHAA KRIYATE TASYA YAMENA NA CHARCHA

Even a little study and understanding of the Bhagawad Gita, or sipping of even a tiny drop of the waters of the holy Ganges or even a little worship of Murari -- these will surely save one from confrontation with death!

 

Verse 21: ~~~~~~~

PUNARAPI JANANAM PUNARAPI MARANAM PUNARAPI JANANEE JATARE SAYANAM

IHA SAMSAARE BAHUDUSTAARE KRIPAYAA(A)PAARE PAAHI MURARE

Undergoing the pangs of birth again and again, passing through the throes of death again and again, lying in the mother's womb over and over again, this process of samsara is hard to cross over. Save me from it, Oh merciful Lord !

 

[karthik_v]

Dear Muralidhar,

 

Even most Advaitins agree that only 10 of those verses were compiled by Adi Sankara. Academics don't even agree to that. It is not as if Adi Sankara gave Bhaja Govindam as the final message to his disciples, though that is the standard line of ISKCON's arguments. Has it not ever surprised you that none in ISKCON would ever debate Advaita quoting his philosophical works, which every one agrees were authored by him, but only this song?

[muralidhar]

Only ten verses are accepted as really having been written by Adi Sankara?

 

BTW, it is not just ISKCON devotees who think that Sankara wrote all the Bhaja Govinda verses.

 

I copied the quote from and picture from a site related to Satguru Siva Subramuniyaswami.

 

[karthik_v]

 

BTW, it is not just ISKCON devotees who think that Sankara wrote all the Bhaja Govinda verses.

 

 

I didn't say that ISKCON devotees alone think so. Most people will never go beyond the surface. But in ISKCON, you can often hear such arguments as, Sankara came to delude the Buddhists and re-establish Sanatana dharma through mayavada, which is rehashed Buddhism. Being Siva [who ias actually the topmost of Krishna's male servants /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif ] himself, before he breathed his last, he instructed his disciples about the true philosophy [in contravention to the silly Advaita he taught all along], which is Bhaja Govindam

 

 

I copied the quote from and picture from a site related to Satguru Siva Subramuniyaswami.

 

 

I like some of his translations of Thirumoolar, but I never delude myself into believing that he represents Sankara's Advaita.

[shvu]

 

Murali,

 

 

Perhaps this is your understanding. But Adi Sankara himself said "Bhaja Govinda"

 

 

Wrong. This says nothing to refute my position. I was talking about post-Mukti, while you are talking about Pre-mukti.

 

Cheers

[muralidhar]

I have not read all of Sankara's writings. I cannot speak with authority about what he said or didn't say.

 

But Sankara taught, "brahma satyam jagan mithya", or in English, "The Eternal is true, the world is false".

 

If people really believe this teaching of Adi Sankara then why do they want to engage in debate with other people? Entering into a debate implies entering into a duality, or entering into a situation where "I" am opposing "Not I". It is all a battle of egos, isn't it?. So why bother with this battle taking place in the world? The false world that doesn't really exist anyway. Why debate against illusion? Isn't it "I" who is lost in illusion anyway? Better that "I" simply say nothing.

 

Murali