mayavadis who teach "I am God"

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

[The other thread was going into a different topic, so I thought I would bring this over to it's own thread.]

 

According to Shvu, Prabhupada was wrong for saying that Mayavadis claim "I am God". In response I provided quotes from dozens of prominent mayavadis who all directly taught, "I am God, you are God."

 

Shvu's first stance was that the quotes provided did not contain anyone saying "I am God":

 

Perhaps you need a course in rudimentary english? Show me one quote in your series of quotes where one proclaimed that he or she is God. Just one will do.

 

 

Later he back tracked on this position and said that they may have said "I am God", but that they weren't mayavadis. Lets have a look at these quotes and who are the people making them to see if they are mayavadis.

 

Here is the list of names, a virtual who's who of prominent mayavadis. All of them declare themselves as followers of Shankara's advaita-vada:

 

Swami Omkarananda Saraswati, Swami Rama Tirtha, Swami Shivananda, Swami Chinmayananda, Amritanandamayi, Swami Muktananda, Swami Dayananda Saraswati, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Swami Vivekananda, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Ramana Maharshi, Satguru Sivaya Subrahmanya, Sai Baba, Subramanya Bharati, Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, Sri Chinmoy, Shri Shri Ananda Murti, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Swami Vishnudevananda.

 

Now some of these people are stalwarts among the advaitins, who no one would deny follow Shankara. Take for example Swami Shivananda-ji of Rishikesh. He is one of the most prominent advaitins of the last 100 years, who in his time was unanimously regarded as the leader among the Sadhus in Rishikesh.

 

All of the people cited here claim to be followers of Shankara's advaita-vada. It is Shvu's contention that these people don't have a clue about Shankara's teachings. In reality, their interpretation of Shankara's teachings just differ from that of Shvu. On what grounds does Shvu's interpretation of Shankara's teaching become correct and the interpretation of all these saints and sadhus becomes wrong? Shvu understands advaita better than Swami Shivananda-ji, who spent his life in Rishikesh studying the original works of Shankara, even translating many into other languages? Sure, believe whatever you want. The fact is Mayavada has many interpretations and variations. Shvu wants to claim only his interpretation is valid, and all others, such as Swami Shivanada-ji, don't have a clue as to what Shankara taught. In his own words, their knowledge of advaita can be written on the head of a pin.

 

Who to believe? On one side we have a list of virtually every prominent mayavadi of recent times stating the same thing, "I am God, you are God", on the other side we have Shvu who says (based on his own interpretation of Shankara's teachings) that no mayavadi will say "I am God". Who is correct? The list of prominent saints and sadhus? Or Shvu? That's for you to decide.

 

Shvu stated his position as follows:

 

Shvu said:

To summarize, an Advaitin/Maayaavaadin will not declare "I am God". Hypothetically, If someone does, he is not an advaitin/Maayaavaadin at all, for he has not understood the doctrine.

 

 

Thus according to Shvu we must conclude these prominent mayavadis did not actually understand advaita, at least not as well as Shvu. Swami Shivananda-ji, who spent his life studying the original works of Shankara and writing translations of them didn't understand advaita as well as Shvu.

 

Shvu again states his view of these people who say advaita teaches, "I am God":

 

No Advaitin says "I am god". If someone has led you to believe so, you can be sure that their knowledge of Advaita can safely and effortlessly be written on the head of a pin.

 

 

According to Shvu, Swami Shivananda-ji's knowledge of advaita can safely be written on the head of a pin. Maybe, just maybe Shvu's interpretation of advaita isn't the only valid interpretation of advaita existing. Maybe they just have a different understanding of Shankara's advaita. Nope, not according to Shvu, there knowledge of advaita can safely be written on the head of a pin. In contrast Shvu's knowledge of advaita could be safely written into a book, or at least a bunch of forum messages.

 

The following is a small list of prominent mayavadi's who have taught, "I am God":

 

Swami Shivananda: If you are humble, you are divine, you are God.

 

Swami Rama Tirtha: "I am God, as you are".

 

Swami Omkarananda Saraswati: "Where there us no mind, finished - the man becomes God Himself, he becomes one with the Divine, and like the sages of the Upanishads, he says: "I am God.""

 

Swami Omkarananda Saraswati: "Man without mind is God."

 

Muktananda: He experiences the true bliss of Consciousness. He knows without

any doubt, `I am God, and God is me.' Such a yogi lives in constant awareness of the Self, in the state of perfect fearlessness and freedom. This is liberation.

 

Sai Baba on advaita: Always think like that. “I am God. I am God. I am atma. I am everything.”

 

Satguru Sivaya Subrahmanya (Hinduism Today): Again and again in the Vedas and from satgurus we hear "Aham Brahmasmi,I am God,"

 

Ramana Maharshi: Be still and know that I am God.

 

Ramakrishna Paramahamsa: One should not say, 'I am God,' until one has transcended body-consciousness.

 

Swami Vivekananda: If you are a monist, you know that you are God

 

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi: Be still and know that you are God. When you know that you are God, you will begin to live Godhood.

 

Swami Muktananda: If you understand your own true nature you will know that you are God.

 

Amritanandamayi (Ammachi): It was always my hope to say to a student "You are God," and recognizing the truth of that, she or he became That I Am, God.

 

Swami Chinmayananda: Pure existence beyond Time, Space and Causality - where the experience is "I am God". This knowledge is the last and final stage in the evolution of man.

 

Muktananda: "Your God dwells within you as you.".

 

Satya Sai Baba: "I am God and you are God, except you don't know it".

 

Satya Sai Baba: "I am not man at all. I am God." Have firm faith in that Truth. When you are God, keep Divine feelings within you.

 

Ramana Maharshi: ‘Know I am God’, it is said, and not ‘Think I am God’.

 

Subramanya Bharati: "Deivam Nee Enrunar.'' (Realise that you are God.)

 

Swami Dayananda Saraswati: Self-realization, as I said, is the discovery that "the Self is the whole"that you are the Lord; in fact, you are God, the cause of everything.

 

Satya Sai Baba: Recite daily, "I am God. I am God. I am no different from God. I am the supreme reality."

 

Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj: You yourself are God, the Supreme Reality.

 

Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj:You are God, but you do not know it.

 

Sri Chinmoy: You need God. You have God. You are God. You want God and you need God.

 

Shri Shri Ananda Murti: “Be constantly in the thought of God and you too will become God”

 

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar: I am God, so are You! There is nothing that exists beyond and other than God. God in Hindi is Bhagwan.

 

Swami Vishnudevananda: "The aim of all yoga practice is to achieve truth wherein the individual soul identifies itself with the supreme soul of God.”

 

What is clear is that all of these people are monists who claim to follower Shankara's advaita-vada. What is also clear is that each of them have stated, "I am God, you are God." How they choose to interpret this statement is irrelevant for this discussion. Every philosopher will define God in their own unique way.

 

Again, we can conclude that Prabhupada is precisely acurate when he says that mayavadis declare "I am God":

 

Prabhupada: These Mayavadi philosophers, they are declaring that "I am God."

 

Shvu criticized Prabhupada for making this statement, but when it was shown that the statement was accurate, he did the usual: he changed his stance (via the Shvu slide).

[Guest guest]

 

very accurate.

the problem with the mayavadi is they do

not understand that God has an individual identity.

 

they want to believe that god is devoid of attributes,

which is contradicted by all of our experience of this world.

 

this world has been designed,this is obvious.

To design something you must possess self awareness,

with self awareness automatically that cancels out

the idea of God having no attribute.

god is self aware,that is the first attribute,god

possess's the ability to design,another attribute,God can bring his design into reality,another attribute,

God then ,manipulates hsi creation to follow his will,

will,being another attribute.

 

so just by glancing at this world immediatelly one can see many attributes of God.

 

the mayavadis reject commonsense,in favor of mental speculation and absurd statements with no validity

on even the most basic level.

 

when they cannot explain away these inconsistencies,

they revert to saying that you don't understand,

a guise for hiding the uselessnes of their own

position.

[karthik_v]

Is this becoming some kind of personal attack on Shvu because he effectively showed that Srila Prabhupad's understanding of Advaita was inaccurate? You have listed Ramana Maharishi as one of the seers who claimed that he is God. I subsequently produced the url where Ramana Maharishi himself explains what he means by that. He clearly defines Aham and Brahman and then establishes the upanishadic principle. He does not say "I am God", as you have misunderstood.

 

Could you kindly post those points I had raised so that the context is evident?

 

Ramana Maharishi never spoke in English. He spoke in Tamil alone. He quotes the Sanskrit verse Aham Brahmasmi. Which word in this can be translated as God - I mean sadguna brahman like Krishna?

[Guest guest]

 

sorry that was me.

 

the truth is that they cannot understand the tru nature of reality without the mercy of the devotee.

Due to their puffed up nature,and their desire

to be worshipped as God's,they refuse to humble

themselves to the representative of Godhead,

effectivelly keeping them trapped in the delusion

of supremacy.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Ramana Maharishi never spoke in English. He spoke in Tamil alone. He quotes the Sanskrit verse Aham Brahmasmi. Which word in this can be translated as God - I mean sadguna brahman like Krishna?

 

 

As mentioned in the last thread, the source for the quote of Ramana is the following book publishbed by the Ramanashrama in Thiruvanamalai:

 

"SRI RAMANA REMINISCENCES, BY G. V. SUBBARAMAYYA. Published by the Sri

Ramanasramam, Tiruvannamalai, South India, 1979"

 

According to this book, Ramana spoke in English, citing a single verse from the Bible, to a Dutchman who was visiting. Then he said, "It says know you are God, not think you are God."

 

However you interpret Ramana's statement, the fact is he said it. That is all that matters, as it proves Srila Prabhupada's statement as accurate. Mayavadi's do state "I am God, You are God".

 

You want to give a two page purport to Ramana's statement, and then you expect Prabhupada should have also given a two page purport to his passing comment that "Mayavadis claim 'I am God'."

[karthik_v]

 

they want to believe that god is devoid of attributes,

which is contradicted by all of our experience of this world.

 

 

I can understand if a rationalist makes this statement because, he is only interested in consistently reproduceable experiences. On the other hand, a theologian depends on scriptural authority. If the Advaitins believe that the nirguna brahman is without attributes, they have the support of the scriptures - that is the shruti. What is your basis for rejecting that claim? And, more importantly, since the entire corpus of shruti, of which BG is not a part, states that nirguna brahman is without attributes, could you please explain what is your basis for disagreeing?

 

My experiences in this world discount the possibilty of myself being with 16,008 wives simultaneously. It discounts the possibility of lifting a hillock on my little finger. It discounts the possiblity that an elephant could speak Sanskrit. Is it your argument that since these are all contradicted by our experiences of this world, they should be rejected?

 

 

the mayavadis reject commonsense,in favor of mental speculation and absurd statements with no validity on even the most basic level.

 

 

Could you please list 10 of them? No, let me prune down the list - 3 would do. Please list 3 of the arguments of Sankara, with refernece to his original works, his words and if possible the translation; and then please build your argument as to why they are absurd. Thanks in advance for a stimulating discussion and ending my post with the observation that this is not a misplaced hope. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[shvu]

 

And the desperate attempt to defend Prabhupada's slander, continues...

 

Most of your conclusions are incorrect. Instead of nitpicking, which would mostly be a waste of time as you are just as ignorant about the basics of Advaita, let me just save myself some typing. You will have to remove the tinted glasses, step back for a moment and look at this from a neutral, unbiased perspective, if you can. Unless you do that, you will continue with such ridiculous views of Advaita.

 

I stick by my earlier stance of iskcon's knowledge of Advaita fitting on the head of a you_know_what. I believe I've provided sufficient reasons to support my position. Based on who is looking at them, they will either make sense or they won't.

 

Cheers

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Ramana Maharishi never spoke in English. He spoke in Tamil alone. He quotes the Sanskrit verse Aham Brahmasmi. Which word in this can be translated as God - I mean sadguna brahman like Krishna?

 

 

Your knowledge of Ramana is wrong. Ramana could read and speak english, and did so on many occassions.

 

From the Ramanashrama journal on Ramana's English knowledge:

 

Bhagavan was familiar with, and had respect for, the classical English works. He had read many English books and would daily read an English newspaper. W. Y. Evans-Wentz had given Bhagavan copies of his published books, and of these books Bhagavan liked best Tibet's Great Yogi, Melarepa. He once requested me to read it.

 

Although he read and understood English quite well, he rarely spoke it. If people spoke English to him with clear diction and pronunciation he would not have much trouble understanding them.

 

Bhagavan was once walking to Palakothu when the American engineer Guy Haig was standing directly in his path, apparently waiting to ask something. I was at the moment approaching from behind, but before I reached there, Haig had asked, "Can I help others after the attainment of Self-realization?"

 

To this Bhagavan replied in concise English, "After the realization of the Self there will be no others to help."

 

 

Karthik wrote:

 

Which word in this can be translated as God - I mean sadguna brahman like Krishna?

 

 

You have mis-read my statement in the previous thread. There I said you had the misconception that Prabhupada was refering to a personal form such as Krishna when the mayavadi's said "I am God". Prabhupada was never thinking mayavadis claim to be a blue skinned personal divinity.

 

[karthik_v]

I posted this before - in fact twice. I am posting it again so that every neutral reader can easily understand what Ramana Maharishi meant when he said "I am God". Of course, you may still not agree, because doing so would mean that you accept that SP was wrong in the first place. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

http://www.nonduality.com/ramana1.htm

 

 

Ramana Maharishi says:

 

Who am I?

 

The gross body which is composed of the seven humours (dhatus), I am not; the five cognitive sense organs, viz. the senses of hearing, touch, sight, taste, and smell, which apprehend their respective objects, viz. sound, touch, colour, taste, and odour, I am not; the five cognitive sense-organs, viz. the organs of speech, locomotion, grasping, excretion, and procreation, which have as their respective functions speaking, moving, grasping, excreting, and enjoying, I am not; the five vital airs, prana, etc., which perform respectively the five functions of in-breathing, etc., I am not; even the mind which thinks, I am not; the nescience too, which is endowed only with the residual impressions of objects, and in which there are no objects and no functioning's, I am not.

 

 

So, if SP or any ISKCONite still argues that Ramana Maharishi wanted others to worship him as God, he can feel free to claim so. After all, SP wrote volumes bashing Sankara, without quoting his original works.

 

What do you think the upanishadic verse Aham brahmasmi mean? Does it mean the seer who said so, who as per SP was Vyasa himself, was a rascal?

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

So, if SP or any ISKCONite still argues that Ramana Maharishi wanted others to worship him as God, he can feel free to claim so.

 

 

You aren't comprehending this discussion at all. No where did anyone claim Ramana wanted others to worship him as God.

[karthik_v]

 

Your knowledge of Ramana is wrong. Ramana could read and speak english, and did so on many occassions.

 

 

If I am wrong on it, I stand corrected. Even your source says:

 

Although he read and understood English quite well, he rarely spoke it. If people spoke English to him with clear diction and pronunciation he would not have much trouble understanding them.

 

I have also read that he dropped out of school very early and couldn't speak English. In fact, most of the time he was silent. In any case, this is a minor issue as he certainly didn't write in English and all his words were translated by Brunton and others and as you are yet to answer my pertinent questions.

[shvu]

 

Shiva,

 

Please visit the temple and have some halva, Prabhu. It will make you feel better.

 

Karthik, Jndas,

 

I believe everyone here has said what they wanted to and no party is in a postition to accept the other's position. Instead of making this even worse, let us just let go and move on. Anyway, I don't think anyone here has anything new to add, other than repeat what was already posted or to criticize one another.

 

As a measure of goodwill, I will even apologize for I don't what. That should hopefuly clear up the air.

 

Cheers

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

But this isn't a translation. Ramana directly spoke this in English, and it is confirmed in several books published by Ramanashrama.

[karthik_v]

 

Prabhupada was never thinking mayavadis claim to be a blue skinned personal divinity.

 

 

Raga produced enough quotes, I thought.

[theist]

Looks like karthik knows he is wrong,but is so attached to criticizing SP that he can't admit it.What else can he do but now try to rearrange SP's words.

 

"Slippin"and a slidin'

creepin'and a hidin'

.................

 

Damn can't remember the last line.Where's Tarun?

 

[karthik_v]

 

I believe everyone here has said what they wanted to and no party is in a postition to accept the other's position. Instead of making this even worse, let us just let go and move on. Anyway, I don't think anyone here has anything new to add, other than repeat what was already posted or to criticize one another.

 

 

Yeah. Let us move on.

[shvu]

 

Ramana's english was very limited. He dropped out of school when he was 16 and later on mostly read tamil and perhaps sanskrit. I am guesing he studied in tamil medium as his family was not exactly well off, financially.

 

Although it has been while, I will try and recollect what I have read. When foreigners approached him, a translator would translate back and forth. According to Brunton's "A search in secret india", once Ramana started replying to one of Brunton's questions in faltering english. But he soon reached his limit and switched back to tamil.

 

Cheers

 

[karthik_v]

 

Looks like karthik knows he is wrong,but is so attached to criticizing SP that he can't admit it.What else can he do but now try to rearrange SP's words.

 

 

Some smart mind reading prabhuji. BTW, which sentence of SP did I re-arrange to render that a skewed meaning? Oh...oh...oh...may be I did and never even realized. Prabhu, can you please help put this sentence spoken by SP so that the world understands its true spiritual meaning?

 

"It is not that women don't enjoy being raped. They do. Even though they express some dislike outwardly, inwardly they enjoy it. Women seek men who are expert rapists."

 

Thanks prabhuji, in advance.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Ramana's english was very limited. He dropped out of school when he was 16 and later on mostly read tamil and perhaps sanskrit. I am guesing he studied in tamil medium as his family was not exactly well off, financially.

 

 

Ramana's english at the age of 16 was very limited. But after much interaction with westerners for decades, he was able to read and speak english, though it obviously wasnt his mother tongue. The fact that Ramanashrama has published the account of this statement being made in several books is enough evidence that it indeed occurred.

 

The argument that Ramana never spoke english, and therefore couldn't have made this statement was wrong.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

BTW, which sentence of SP did I re-arrange to render that a skewed meaning?

 

 

I think he is refering to Prabhupada's very direct and clear statement: "These Mayavadi philosophers, they are declaring that 'I am God.'"

 

Your skewed interpretation is evident here:

 

 

Which word in this can be translated as God - I mean sadguna brahman like Krishna?

 

 

 

 

 

Prabhu, can you please help put this sentence spoken by SP so that the world understands its true spiritual meaning?

 

"It is not that women don't enjoy being raped. They do. Even though they express some dislike outwardly, inwardly they enjoy it. Women seek men who are expert rapists."

 

 

This is just off topic and childish. Start another thread if you are really interested in learning about this, otherwise try to stick to the topic.

 

This just makes it appear that you have no solid rebuttal.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Does anyone have a comment on Swami Shivananda-ji? Do you want to say that he isn't a mayavadi, or that he hasn't studied Shankara's writings enough?

 

[karthik_v]

 

I think he is refering to Prabhupada's very direct and clear statement: "These Mayavadi philosophers, they are declaring that 'I am God.'"

 

Your skewed interpretation is evident here:

 

Which word in this can be translated as God - I mean sadguna brahman like Krishna?

 

 

SP accepted only Krishna as God. He was categorical that Brahman was only subservient to Him. So, when SP uses the word God and gets agitated about its supposed misuse by Advaitins, he can only be referring to Krishna. Any objection?

 

Okay, I stop with this. If Theist answers [quite unlikely though], and if he expects an answer from me, then I will respond to that.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

SP accepted only Krishna as God. He was categorical that Brahman was only subservient to Him. So, when SP uses the word God and gets agitated about its supposed misuse by Advaitins, he can only be referring to Krishna. Any objection?

 

 

Prabhupada also says the mayavadi's consider God to be impersonal and nondual. Thus when he says the mayavadis say "I am God", the definition of God is that definition he attributes to the mayavadis. This is common logic.

 

If I am saying that the mayavadis say XYZ, why would I assume they define their words according to my philosophy. Rather they will define their words according to their own philosophy, or from the speakers perspective, words attributed to them will hold the corresponding definitions attributed to them by the same source.

[shvu]

 

Out of curiosity,

 

 

Prabhupada also says the mayavadi's consider God to be impersonal and nondual. Thus when he says the mayavadis say "I am God", the definition of God is that definition he attributes to the mayavadis. This is common logic.

 

 

How can I [of attributes] say I am an impersonal God [of no attributes]? The statement is contradictory. How could Prabhupada have meant that?

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

How can I [of attributes] say I am an impersonal God [of no attributes]? The statement is contradictory. How could Prabhupada have meant that?

 

 

I, the conscious self is saying, "I am the nondual absolute". What is confusing about that?

 

To understand what they mean we would have to ask one of the Swami's cited above, who all say exactly that.