mayavadis who teach "I am God"

[theist]

The point is they clearly claim to be God the Supreme Truth,the One and Only.

 

The fact is they ARE claiming Krsna's position as their own.There is a Person Who is the source of the Brahman.For a firefly to claim to be the Sun is laughable.That is unless they qualify that statement as bhedabheda.

 

I will agree that we who are neophytes or even lower, tend to emphasize the difference to the point of missing the oneness.But this is necessary in the beginning.But still,even in the final analysis,the difference remains simultaneous with the oneness.

[shvu]

 

Thanks.

 

 

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.

 

 

You are accepting that when Prabhupada says God, he is referring to the Maayaavaada version of God, which is not the same as Prabhupada's otherwise usage of God which happens to mean Krishna. The difference is noted. Is it also correct to say in "I am God", Prabhupaada acccepts that Maayaaavadins use I not in the sense of the personal, physical I, but I as in the atman [as in tattvamasi and in ayamaatma brahma] ?

 

If he did accept that "I" and "God" as used by Maayavaadins is different from how Iskcon uses it, he knew exactly what Advaita was and I apologize for misunderstanding his position. All my criticism about his lacking knowledge of Advaita was wrong. And it also follows that Maayavaadins saying "I am God", is not the same as Maayaavadins saying they are Krishna. The meaning is implicit and the prima facie view is incorrect.

[vsdprasad]

SP says:

"Religion without philosophy is sentiment, or sometimes fanaticism, while philosophy without religion is mental speculation."

purport in BG ch3txt3.

So when mayavadi's say "Iam God" or something like this based on their limited senses & experiences, then it is a mental speculation.

But he also says that when their speculation is correct as per sankhya-yoga then ultimately they all come to krishna consciousness. So when they claim that they've found the absolute truth in themselves then they are wrong as per this verse.

So it appears that philosophy by current mayavadi's who teach "Iam God" is a mental speculation.

 

 

-Prasad

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Mayavada is established by Dattatreya, the incarnation of Lord Vishnu, and great rishis such as Ashtavakra. It is an eternal philosophy, just as personalism (bhakti marga) is an eternal philosophy.

 

Krishna says in the Gita the result of both is ultimately the same, though the monistic path is troublesome and difficult for the embodied.

[sha]

 

He clearly defines Aham and Brahman and then establishes the upanishadic principle.

 

 

The original well known 'Mahaa Vaakya' from Upanishads are not manufactured by neo-advaitins nor neo-gaudiyas.

 

 

What is a 'mahAvAkya'? Here is an excerpt:

 

Acaya Shankara Bhagavatpada revealed the wisdom of the Vedas, as lived and experienced by him in his direct insight. He fashioned the verses in the dye of the four great commandments 'mahAvAkya' declared in our four Vedas:

 

1. In the Rig Veda (Aitreya Upanishad 3.3) is the mahAvAkya that defines Absolute Reality : 'Absolute Consciousness is Brahman' - "prajnAnaM brahma".

 

2. Enshrined in YajurVeda (Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 1.1.10) we have the roar of Realization, "ahaM brahmAsmi", 'I am Brahman'.

 

3. Set along the songful mantras of the Sama Veda (Chandogya Upanishad 6.14.3, 6.8.7) we have the commandment that represent the advise of the masters, "tat tvaM asi", 'That Thou art'.

 

4. And roaring from the Atharvana Veda (Mandukyopanishad 1.2), we have the deafening silent experience of the student at his meditation seat, couched in the commandment, "Ayam AtmA brahma", "This Consciousness-in-me, the Self, is Brahman".

 

(source- Sri Chinmayananda's Commentery on 'Maneesha Panchakam' of Adi Sankaracarya)

[karthik_v]

 

If he did accept that "I" and "God" as used by Maayavaadins is different from how Iskcon uses it, he knew exactly what Advaita was and I apologize for misunderstanding his position. All my criticism about his lacking knowledge of Advaita was wrong. And it also follows that Maayavaadins saying "I am God", is not the same as Maayaavadins saying they are Krishna. The meaning is implicit and the prima facie view is incorrect.

 

 

Shvu,

 

Here are some of the words as spoken by SP:

 

 

Quoted by Raga in another thread:

 

Srila Prabhupad says [Lecture on Bhagavad-gita 13.3 -- Bombay, September 26, 1973]: Just like the Mayavadi philosophers, they are thinking themselves that they are Krsna. "I am God."

 

Srila Prabhupad says [Lecture on Bhagavad-gita 4.20 -- Bombay, April 9, 1974]: So even those who are trying for that, because that original disease is there, therefore even one who has advanced spiritually, he also says, "I am God. I am God." The same spirit, to make competition with Krsna. The maya is there. "Why you are going to worship Krsna? You are God." "Oh, yes, I am God." This is the last snare of maya. Therefore they are Mayavadis. Nobody can become Krsna.

 

Srila Prabhupad says [Lecture on Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.10.13 -- Mayapura, June 26, 1973]: So these Mayavadis, karmi, jnani, yogi, they are not krsna-bhaktas. They'll say, "Krsna is not God. I am God. I am also God. Krsna is not God. I am God. But Krsna is not God." This is their version. Therefore they're rascals. "I am God." They'll declare, "I am God. You are God." But Krsna is not God. Except Krsna, everyone is God." This is their version.

 

Srila Prabhupad says [Lecture on Srimad-Bhagavatam 2.9.7 -- Tokyo, April 24, 1972]: Then Mayavadi will say, "Then I am God. Because I am carrying the message of Krsna, therefore I am Krsna."

 

Srila Prabhupad says [Lecture on Srimad-Bhagavatam 3.26.15 -- Bombay, December 24, 1974]: The Mayavadi theory is like that, that "I am Krsna. I am God. Now I am overpowered by maya, and as soon as I become free from maya, again I become Krsna."

 

 

[karthik_v]

 

He clearly defines Aham and Brahman and then establishes the upanishadic principle.

 

 

Shiva,

 

The above statement should have read: He clearly defines Aham and Brahman and then establishes Advaita based on the upanishadic principle.

[Guest guest]

 

He clearly defines Aham and Brahman and then establishes Advaita based on the upanishadic principle.

 

 

 

bhidyate hRdaya granthiz

chidyante sarva saMzayAH

kSIyante cAsya karmANi

tasmin dRSTe parAvare.

 

(Mundaka Upanshad 1.2.8)

 

When the Self Which is both High and Low, is realized,

the material knot (body, mind, intellect, ego etc.,)

of his heart breaks into pieces, all his doubts of avidya,

ignorance are solved, and all the accumulated karmas of the

past as well as the future are dessipated.

 

yathA nadyaH syandamAnAH samudre 'staM

gacchanti nAmarUpe vihAya,

tathA vidvAn nAmarUpAd vimuktaH

parAtparaM puruSam upaiti divyam

 

(Mundaka Upanishad 3.2.8)

 

'As rivers, flowing down, become indistinguishable

on reaching the sea by giving up their names, forms,

so also the illumined soul, having become freed from name and form,

reaches the Self-effulgent Divine Purusha, that is higher than the high (Maya).

 

Similar verse is found in Srimad Bhagavatham:

 

"With their minds fixed on Me

through divine love, they knew

neither their kinsmen, nor their bodies,

nor things far or near -

(as Their ONE THOUGHT was Krishna)

as SAGES in the SUPERCONSCIOUS STATE

know NOT name and form -

like unto RIVERS MERGING in

the waters of the OCEAN.

(Bhagavatam 11.12.12)

 

sa yo ha vai tat paramaM brahma veda

brahmaiva bhavati nAsyA brahma vitkule bhavati,

tarati zokaM tarati pApmAnaM

guhAgranthibhyo vimukto 'mRto bhavati

 

(Mundaka Upanishad 3.2.9)

 

'Anyone who realizes that Supreme Brahman

becomes Brahman indeed.

Anyone who does not realize Brahman

does not exist in His spiritual Line.

He overcomes grief, and raises above aberrations ;

and becoming freed from the deep knots of the heart

(created by Avidya, ignorance),

he attains immortality.'

 

********

 

When the knot of the heart is severed,

so all doubts are cut away;

and karmas, actions, and intentions

- past, present and future -

are destroyed when one sees

the Supreme Self from within.

 

- The Kularnava Tantra

 

Hope this helps in understanding Advaita doctrine.

[sha]

sorry /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif for the hurry! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Somesh Kumar]

Shvu,

 

 

Shiva,

 

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

 

 

You'll surely feel better Prabhu Shvu because it is eaten by Krishna's nectarean lips:

 

patram pushpam ,

phalam toyam,

yo me bhakta prayachchati,

tad aham bhakti upahrtam,

asnami pryatatmanah

 

This is the concept behind it Shvu prabhu ji. By the way How did Shankaracharya explain this verse???

[shvu]

 

He interprets the verse exactly as is.

 

Cheers

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

attribute-inherent characteristic

 

To say that God has no attribute is silly.

 

All pervasivness is an attribute.

Self awareness is an attribute

Intellect is an attribute

Mind is an attribute

 

Are you saying god has none of these things ?

[raga]

 

JNDas writes:

 

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.

 

 

Given that we agree on JNDasji's idea of what Swami intended to express, there is another question we must face: "Where is the rascaldom in that?" If indeed they faithfully repeated a phrase from Brihad Aranyaka, why should they be called rascals? Thus the use of the word "rascal" appears very unjustified, whereas the anger would to be well justified if the Swami would consider the Mayavadis to declare themselves as the Supreme Brahman, the Supreme Enjoyer, Personality of Godhead.

 

We find that Swami himself quoted the stanza "ahaM brahmAsmi" on several occasions in his writings:

 

<hr>

<font color="red">Aham brahmasmi: I am spirit. It is said that one should understand that he is Brahman, spirit soul.

 

Bg 7.29

 

<hr>

In the Vedic literature (Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad 1.4.10) it is said, aham brahmasmi: I am Brahman, I am spirit.

 

Bg 13.8-12

 

<hr>

The word brahma-siddhaye means to understand oneself to be different from matter, to understand oneself to be Brahman. The Vedic words are aham brahmasmi. Brahma-siddhi means that one should know that he is not matter; he is pure soul.

 

SB 3.25.19

 

<hr>

Aham brahmasmi: “I am not this body.”

 

SB 3.29.14

 

<hr>

Aham brahmasmi means “I am in full knowledge.” The Vedic assertion is that one should think that he is Brahman, for actually he is Brahman. If brahma, or the Vedic spiritual science, is condemned, and the masters of the spiritual science, the brahmanas, are condemned, then where does human civilization stand?

 

SB 4.2.30

 

<hr>

Aham brahmasmi: “I am Brahman.”

 

SB 4.4.14

 

<hr>

The Vedas therefore enjoin that one should factually understand that he is not material but is actually Brahman (aham brahmasmi).

 

SB 4.29.35

</font color>

<hr>

 

There is a question we must now consider: Having said this, is the Swami then, by his own definition, a rascal?

 

The answer is "no", for Swami has elsewhere presented the misconception of the Mayavadis:

 

<hr><font color="red">

 

There is a class of men akin to Mayavadi philosophers who misinterpret the aham brahmasmi and so’ham Vedic mantras to mean, “I am the Supreme Brahman” and “I am identical with the Lord.” This kind of false conception, in which one thinks himself the supreme enjoyer, is a kind of illusion.

 

SB 5.25.1

 

<hr>

Here the statement of self-realization aham brahmasmi, which is interpreted by the Mayavada philosophy to mean “I am the Supreme Lord,” is explained.

 

SB 7.9.35</font color>

 

<hr>

Interestingly, Swami states: "There is a class of men akin to Mayavadi philosophers..." Go figure. At any rate, you'll find more in the following post on Mayavadis and ahaM brahmAsmi.

 

 

[raga]

Some more words from Swami in regards to "ahaM brahmAsmi":

 

<hr>

 

<font color="blue">Aham brahmasmi. “I have become now Brahman — stop work. Eat and make your belly…” You see how Mayavadi sannyasi… Ah. (Prabhupada gestures; devotees laugh) They think that “Now I have become Brahman, I have nothing to do. (Prabhupada laughs) I have become Narayana.” “If you’ve got nothing to do, then why you are eating?” And for one capati you’ll find there are many Mayavadis. They’re busy simply collecting capatis. (devotees laugh)

 

Vrindavana, March 14, 1974

 

<hr>

Aham brahmasmi, “I am spirit soul.” That is real identification. And when the spirit soul is active, sometimes the Mayavadi philosophers, they think, “Now I’ve realized that I am not this body, I am not matter, I am spirit soul, so now I have become Narayana. I have become the Supreme.” But no, that is also mistake. When you realize that “Supreme is the Supreme Brahman, Parabrahman, I am part and parcel of the Supreme, I am also Brahman, but I am not the Supreme Brahman, therefore my business is to serve Parabrahman.”

 

Lecture on Bhagavad-gita 4.9 -- Bombay, March 29, 1974

 

<hr>

Our, the Vedic injunction is just try to understand yourself, aham brahmasmi. That is a fact.

But if I simply try to become aham brahmasmi without knowing the full philosophy, then I shall be fallen again, that “I am equal to God.” Aham brahmasmi means “I am the Supreme God,” as the Mayavadis, they think that liberation means “I become one with God.” No. That is not your position. You cannot become... That is another maya. That is the last dictation of maya: “Why you shall become the servant of gopi-bhartuh? You become God.”

 

Lecture on Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.7.41-42 -- Vrndavana, October 2, 1976

 

<hr>

So I, as aham brahmasmi, because Krsna is absolute, in that sense, I, the energy of Krsna, and Krsna, we are one. Aham brahmasmi means that, or “I belong to Krsna.” The Mayavadi thinks that “I have become Krsna.” No. The Vaisnava philosophy is that “I am Krsna’s property, not that I become Krsna.” Just like the part and parcel of my body, this finger. The finger can claim that “I am part and parcel of the body,” but the finger cannot claim that “I am the whole body.” That is not possible.

 

Lecture on Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.8.48 -- Mayapura, October 28, 1974

 

<hr>

This Mayavadi philosophy, they are thinking of Brahman, aham brahmasmi, aham brahmasmi, “I have become Narayana.” So how long they will think like that? Therefore they fall down. Artificially he is Brahman.

 

Lecture on Srimad-Bhagavatam 2.9.2 -- Melbourne, April 5, 1972

 

<hr>

The Mayavadi philosophy, they are also trying to do that, but they’re another false ego: aham brahmasmi. Aham brahmasmi—“I am Brahman”—that is a fact, but I am not Supreme Brahman, Parabrahman. The Mayavadi, they take it: “Because I am Brahman, I am Supreme Brahman.”

 

Lecture on Srimad-Bhagavatam 7.9.33 -- Mayapur, March 11, 1976

 

<hr>

And when one realizes aham brahmasmi, “I am Brahman…” But unfortunately Mayavadi philosophers, they take it aham brahmasmi means “I am the Supreme Brahman.” No. Brahmasmi means “I am spirit soul.” Spirit soul is Brahman, and the Supreme Brahman is different. Supreme Brahman, param brahma param dhama pavitram paramam bhavan [bg. 10.12], that is Krsna, Visnu-tattva. So unfortunately these Mayavadi philosophers, they accept brahmasmi means “I am the Supreme.” We are not the Supreme.

 

Lecture on Srimad-Bhagavatam 7th Canto -- Calcutta, March 7, 1972, (new98)

 

<hr>

The Mayavadi philosophers, as soon as they realize that aham brahmasmi, they think that they are liberated. But no. That liberation is theoretical. That is not practical. Practical liberation is when you are situated in devotional service. Then there is no chance of falling down. If you simply think that “I have become Narayana,” or Narayana position, that is falldown. There are innumerable examples.

 

Lecture on Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya-lila 6.151-154 -- Gorakhpur, February 14, 1971

 

<hr>

The Mayavadis, they say, “We are the same.” So ’ham: “I am the same.” Aham brahmasmi: “I am the Supreme Brahman.” But the Vedic literature says, aham brahmasmi, but Krsna, or God, is Param Brahman. In the Vedas there is no such thing as aham param brahmasmi. No. They are misusing.

 

Lecture on Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya-lila 20.108-109 -- New York, July 15, 1976

</font color>

<hr>

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

You see how Mayavadi sannyasi… Ah. (Prabhupada gestures; devotees laugh) They think that “Now I have become Brahman, I have nothing to do. (Prabhupada laughs) I have become Narayana.” “If you’ve got nothing to do, then why you are eating?” And for one capati you’ll find there are many Mayavadis. They’re busy simply collecting capatis. (devotees laugh)

 

 

Swami is describing Rishikesh, where the mayavadi sannyasis address each other as Narayana, "namo narayana", but every day at noon they are waiting in queue to receive the free hand outs of food at the dharamshalas.

 

To understand this requires understanding the culture there.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Got you... I didn't say "Swami says".

[karthik_v]

 

Swami is describing Rishikesh, where the mayavadi sannyasis address each other as Narayana, "namo narayana", but every day at noon they are waiting in queue to receive the free hand outs of food at the dharamshalas.

 

 

If SP referred to that bogus crowd alone, not everyone though, which hangs around in Rshikesh, then this is a justifiable criticism. I have seen so many of those characters smoking ganja, fleecing money from unsuspecting pilgrims, running an ayurveda mafia etc.. The same would be the case with several sadhus of Varanasi. Having said this, I must add that this applies to Vrindavan too, just that they come in the shape of Pandas and Babas [not everyone though].

[Somesh Kumar]

 

If SP referred to that bogus crowd alone, not everyone though, which hangs around in Rshikesh, then this is a justifiable criticism.

 

 

Good to see an agreement over some issue here! After all

 

mama vartamanuvartante,

manushya partha sarvasha

 

So at some point we all will surely understand Krishna, as we did for this topic!!!

 

[raga]

 

If SP referred to that bogus crowd alone, not everyone though, which hangs around in Rshikesh, then this is a justifiable criticism. I have seen so many of those characters smoking ganja, fleecing money from unsuspecting pilgrims, running an ayurveda mafia etc.. The same would be the case with several sadhus of Varanasi. Having said this, I must add that this applies to Vrindavan too, just that they come in the shape of Pandas and Babas [not everyone though].

 

 

I believe the rest of the comments were not exclusively targeted to this group, though, speaking of mayavadis.

[Guest guest]

Dear Krishna Conscious People,

 

God is both formless and has form, God is all of us and can be experienced in any concievable way. The mind full of scriptures and arguments is not the mind engrossed in god consciousness..in fact reading of scriptures and arguing about them is a really coming from a low level. Fundamentalists of any stripe, those whose critical minds are always active cannot imbibe Gods divine love fully..God herself/himself will always suprise, delight and eventual dissolve your small mind.

[Guest guest]

yes... but FORM is superior (or contains) FORM - LESS

 

(less means minus)

 

bhakti means love... love means LOVER and LOVED

[Guest guest]

"those whose critical minds are always active cannot imbibe Gods divine love fully..God herself/himself will always suprise, delight and eventual dissolve your small mind. "

 

That is very true!, you have brightened my day by saying that. However, these sweet words of yours would have had no meaning if I did not experience what you say.

 

You made me very happy. God does dissolve the poor wretched mind that seems to go into this world to exploit it. The exploitation is its disease and suffering is its symptom.

 

The people who say they have realized from their hearts say it only after much suffering. If they experience no suffering, no pain and no misery then such sweet words which you wrote them here have no meaning what so ever.

 

They can never open their eyes, unless they experience the misery of this world and beauty of love from krishna.

 

Poor ignorant wretched souls... once they realize how much they have suffered from childhood they will realize that this world is the abode of suffering and the whole lifetime is only but a moment away from krishna.

 

Once this mere piece of a moment is gone, there you are with krishna.

thank you again, you made me so happy

 

Anonymous

[Guest guest]

 

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

 

 

 

So now this is the line, is it? Maayaavaadiis don't really believe they are God, and Srila Prabhupada saying that they do is just slander? This is rich...

 

 

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.

 

 

 

How about looking at Shankaraachaarya and his knowledge of Advaita?

 

In his _vivekachuuDaamaNi_ he writes:

 

niyamitamanasaamu.m tva.m svamaatmaanamaatmanyayamahamiti saakShaadviddhi buddhiprasaadaat |

janimaraNatara.ngaapaarasa.msaarasindhu.m pratara bhava kR^itaartho brahmaruupeNa sa.msthaH || 136 ||

 

"I am He." Know this by the purification of your heart: By the controlled mind, know thine own Self, Birth and death are the waves of that shoreless ocean. Cross it safely, dwell in your real state as Brahman. (vivekaachuuDaamaNi 136)

 

vinivR^ittirbhavettasya samyagj~naanena naanyathaa |

brahmaatmaikatvavij~naana.m shrutermatam || 202 ||

 

Real knowledge is the cause of its destruction. Real knowledge is that: Brahman and Aatman are one and the same. This is the sure decision of the scripture. (vivekaachuuDaamaNi 202)

 

Let us see what else Shankaraachaarya has to say about the Self:

 

yaH pashyati svaya.m sarva.m ya.m na pasyati kashchana |

yashchetayati buddhyaadi na tadya.m chetayatyayam || 127 ||

 

Who sees everything, but whom none sees; who enlightens the intellect, but whom nothing can enlighten. (vivekachuuDaamaNi 127)

 

yena vishvamida.m vyaapta.m ya.m na vyaapnoti ki~nchana |

aabhaaruupamida.m sarva.m ya.m bhaantamanubhaatyayam || 128 ||

 

Who permeates the whole universe, but whom nothing can permeate; who shining, everything shines after Him. (vivekachuuDaamani 128)

 

Sounds rather damning, doesn't it? But to be fair, perhaps Shankaraachaarya was referring to the Paramaatmaa in the above and not jiivaatmaa. But then earlier he said:

 

aj~naanayogaatparamaatmanastava hyanaatmabandhastata eva sa.msR^itiH |

tayorvivekoditabodhavahnirj~naanaka arya.m pradahetsamuulam || 47 ||

 

Because you are associated with ignorance, the supreme Aatman within you appears to be in bondage to the non-Aatman. This is the sole cause of the cycle of births and deaths. The flame of illumination, which is kindled by discrimination between Aatman and non-Aatman, will burn away the effects of ignorance, down to their very roots. (vivekachuuDaamaNi 47)

 

It appears that Shankaraachaarya also equates the living entity with Brahman, called by contemporary Advaitins as God. Perhaps some of the staunch Advaita supporters need to correct the good Shankaraachaarya before he continues this slander and reveals that his knowledge of Advaita (to borrow a phrase from Shvu) can fit safely on the head of a pin?

 

yours,

 

- K