Brahma kumaris

yasodanandana · November 26, 2003

"Some people just cannot bear to imagine that God can be formless and formless 'Niraakaar' Bhakti is possible."

--- no, it is wrong, the existence of a formless and omnipervasive absolute, it is not only possible, it is necessary.. because it is not possible that god does not pervades and permeates everything.

The problem is when an "advaitist" say that this is the only true manifestation of the absolute and the "personal" ones are only produced by maya to give a worshipable idol to the ignorant people.

so, impersonal god (brahman) exist and he's necessary, we cannot imagine that god is not "everything", if anything is missing, even a micron (like the christians who say that there's a god's reign and a satan's reign), brahman is not brahman, god is not god etc..

but, if we conditioned and created souls are persons, god has to have also the personal aspect, and there's no logic in believing that this aspect is illusory..

so god as brahman is real

god as paramatma is real

god as bhagavan is real

so god can be formless, but he can be also with a form as krishna, vamana, narasimha etc.

the problem comes out if we believe that form means only human form, but there's also a divine form (sat cit ananda vigraha)... or, if we have form in the relative world, why the absolute one is missing?

and another problem: if there's not the individuality, if brahman and merging are the ultimate and only reality, how can we love (bhakti) if you take away the loved and the lovers?

please, if you want, discuss.. do not spend your time saying "ohhh, how they are ignorant and intolerant!!".. if your idea is right and strong, surely you will help many people, me included.. India is very famous for big philosophers, debates, eloquency... the dogmatic and "faith" approach is more western

REASWARAN · November 27, 2003

Yes- I too was greatly surprised at the aggressive response to my posts. As I have tried to explain, if the divine is to prevade the entire universe , by that definition that divine has to be formless. Another thing I have noticed- in the Indian tradition one is encouraged to think matters out for oneself and go through as many commentators as possible , but ultimately to form your own view on the subject- even the guru cannot substitute for this. However, that seems to be missing in this forum with almost all arguements taking the form of quotations.

November 27, 2003

Yashodanandana, you said, "The problem is when an "advaitist" say that this is the only true manifestation of the absolute and the "personal" ones are only produced by maya to give a worshipable idol to the ignorant people."

I would not be exaggerating if I were to tell you that on numerous occasions I have seen many posters here mocking at the views of Advaita Vedanta. Many have even went on to the extent of saying it is athestic in nature.

In India, there is rivalry between the Shaivites and the Vaishanavities. Do you think that this was the chosen path by the Gods themselves? As times changed, people began to concentrate more on to religion than 'spiritualism' and they began bickering among themselves about who was following the right path. There seems to be a constant strife among them as to who will 'merge with the Supreme' FIRST. They seem to be at loggerheads forever arguing over who is following the right path.

I am amazed and disturbed at the same time when I see this conflict. I find it much more easier to believe that God as in Brahman is everywhere...be trees, animals, stone, water, birds, my teacher, my parents, my friends, stars, moon...everything. I am least interested in focussing only on one name or one idol.

To me, everything is divine...pure...Sat-Chit-Ananda.

I don't need to worry about my previous life or my future. I believe in living in the present and enjoying this gift called 'life.'

If take care of my present, my future is automatically taken care of. The past is something which is gone and I have no control over it.

I am afraid this post has travelled through different views of mine but I am assured that you get the picture.

I shal leave you with a buddhist prayer that my guru always used to write.

May all beings be happy. May all beings be peaceful.

Namaste

yasodanandana · November 27, 2003

"I would not be exaggerating if I were to tell you that on numerous occasions I have seen many posters here mocking at the views of Advaita Vedanta. Many have even went on to the extent of saying it is athestic in nature"

>>>>> in a sense i also think that impersonalism is very close to atheism.. to say that one has not personality, is very close to say that he does not exist. But i see a positive impersonalism: i do not know nothing of religion, i see that in this world "variety" and "personality" are the source of wars and conflicts, automatically i think that if there's perfection, this perfection has to be not various, without quality, without personality. And that, from a material point of view is right. But, when the masters, krsna, the avatars, come saying that beyond the (obvious) negation of the material world, there's a perfect, trascendental world, complete world, full of spiritual variety and personality.. it is worth to listen and learn

"In India, there is rivalry between the Shaivites and the Vaishanavities. Do you think that this was the chosen path by the Gods themselves?"

>>>>>>to peacefully discuss about the absolute is a very positive thing, when there's fanaticism the first symptom is that the discussions and opinions end

"As times changed, people began to concentrate more on to religion than 'spiritualism' and they began bickering among themselves about who was following the right path"

>>>>>>as i have said, the bad thing is when the discussion ends... and, if i care, if i think for example that the person i love e the most, krsna, is insulted when one says that he is not real, it is not a fanatical thing to answer decisely with philosophy and logic. It is a very important subject, it is for the life not a hobby.. if you say that a food, a movie, a dress, a song that i like is not good, it is not a very important subject, i do not even start to discuss... but krsna is important

"I am amazed and disturbed at the same time when I see this conflict"

>>>>>>>there's good discussions, and traditionally advaitins are the masters in logic, eloquency, discussion and shastra quoting.... actually, in the story, vaishnava are called sentimentals and ignorants... impersonalism or advaitism as avoiding discussions and putting everything on feelings and "love" is a new age (american) thing, not traditional. more Sai Baba than ShakaraAcharya!!

"I find it much more easier to believe that God as in Brahman is everywhere..."

>>>>>> and you're right, my suggestion is to add not to change or negate what you are now feeling........ god is impersonal.. and personal, like you and me

"To me, everything is divine...pure...Sat-Chit-Ananda."

>>>>>>> to me also.... but divine, pure, sat(eternal), cit(conscious), ananda(blissful) are qualities.. and the qualities say that there's a personality, the impersonal has not definitions and no qualities

"I don't need to worry about my previous life or my future. I believe in living in the present and enjoying this gift called 'life.'"

>>>>>>>> but if you make plans in your practical life, travels, job, holidays, money etc. you can make plans also in more higher things.. and to gain consciousness is not a negation of happiness.. as we know, happines (ananda) comes together with cit(consciousness).... so be more happy and be aware of the spiritual reality

"May all beings be happy. May all beings be peaceful."

>>>>>>>many thanks, until we are absorbed in discussing about spiritual reality, happiness and peace are granted... the problem is when there's only silence, and IGNORANCE

November 27, 2003

Yashodaanadana, I shall share with you a little jewel of wisdom which I have come in understanding with. Posted below is a very moving example of how our perception of this world narrows the broad picture of reality.

Sense Perception, This and That

"All that belongs to the realm of senses, including thought, constitutes This. What is beyond the reach of our senses and mind is That," said the Guru.

The young, no-nonsense pupil shook his head, unwilling to accept an abstract point. "But, Sir," he queried, "Why should we at all confuse our minds with what is not real?" The Guru smiled. "Can you show me here something that you consider real?" he asked the pupil. "Of course!" replied the pupil and, pointing to a bell that was dangling from the ceiling, said: "This bell, for instance. I say this is real. But if you want me to believe in a second bell which is not here, well, I find it hard to take that."

The Guru smiled again. He asked: "What makes you call this bell real?"

Pupil: "Why, I see it clearly before me with my eyes!"

Guru: "Suppose you are blind, will not this bell become unreal?"

Pupil: "Not at all. Because even though blind, I can hear the bell ringing which is evidence of its reality."

Guru: "Suppose you are deaf?"

Pupil: "Well, I can still feel the bell with my hands. The bell remains real."

Guru: "Suppose your sense of touch is benumbed... what if you neither feel nor see nor hear nor taste? What happens to the bell?"

The pupil began to see a point. "And, now," said the Guru, ''let's reverse the situation. You are like a corpse which can perceive nothing. I invest you with just one sense, the sense of touch. You feel the bell; it becomes real for you. I give you back another sense: you can now hear the sound of the bell. Does it therefore become 'more' real? I give you back your eyes. Does the bell become still more real? I give back to you all the five senses: the bell for you is 'totally' real! Do you agree?"

The pupil tentatively nodded 'yes'.

"How absurd and vain!" exclaimed the Guru. ''How can you assume that there are only five senses of perception? Suppose I give you a sixth sense, does it not add an entirely new dimension of reality to the bell? Suppose I give you a seventh...a tenth... a thousandth sense of perception? What does the bell transform into? Equipped with a thousand different senses of perception, will you be able to recognise what you presently recognise as this bell? Even then, your perception of the reality of the bell cannot be called total."

The pupil surrendered in silent understanding. "My boy," said the Guru, "what belongs to the realm of senses, including thought, is 'This' (idam). What is beyond the reach of senses is 'That' (adah). Vedanta is all about This and That... The prelude to the Upanishads says: This is a Whole. That is a Whole. This Whole has issued from That Whole. When This Whole issued from That, That Whole remained a Whole."

The Guru proceeded to instruct the pupil in the basics of faith in God. You should not reject God because you cannot perceive Him with your limited senses. God is That. He is also This. Intellectual humility is born of understanding the limitations of your understanding. Faith is founded on this wisdom born of humility. What we perceive with our limited sensory equipment is a minute fraction of what is real. The That is beyond the reach of even your imagination, because your imagination is rooted in what you perceive.

To imagine how imagination fails in the realm of That, God cannot be defined because all definitions belong to the realm of This, and God is That. Little wonder then, that our sages described God (Brahman) negatively as neti, neti — not-this, not-this. Every devotee can feel God, but only to a worthy devotee does He reveal Himself completely.

******************************************************

I don't understand what difference having an impersonal or personal god is. If I were to assume that 'impersonal' amounts to devoid of personality then I would also have to believe that a 'personal god' is capable of all the human qualities like envy, anger, lust etc. So is it possible to worship such a entity?

My views may become the object of wrath for many but if you can believe that since an 'impersonal god' is equivalent to atheism then others can also say that a personal god can commit all the errors that a human can.

May be I am wrong...may be I am right.

Anyways I did not wish to hurt your sentiments. Hope you get my viewpoint.

May all beings be happy! May all beings be peaceful!

yasodanandana · November 27, 2003

"I would also have to believe that a 'personal god' is capable of all the human qualities like envy, anger, lust etc. So is it possible to worship such a entity? "

–––oh, here we are, let us open the mind... personality does not means "human personality"... there's necessarily a "divine personality", "trascendental personality".... so, if we have envy, anger, lust etc. in the material world, we necessarily must have these behaviours in the "spiritual" world (who is necessarily the source of everything)

in this way krsna shows anger like nrsmhadeva or he behaves as a stealer as makhan chora... but all these thing are satcitananda.. they produce ultimately consciousness, bliss and eternity..

when these features come, perverted, in the human world, they take a negative value... but if we think about, in this world everything has a negative or not completely positive value.. love, peace, happiness, friendship, brotherhood.. so everything perfect in the spiritual realm, is corrupted when it comes in the "human" version.

slightly difficult to understand, speaking of openness it requires a more open approach than to say "personality means lust, anger, greediness, hate etc., so there's not absolute personality"... so let us be more open

"if you can believe that since an 'impersonal god' is equivalent to atheism then others can also say that a personal god can commit all the errors that a human can"

––––it is a legitimate question and doubt... impersonalism takes out features from god, and god cannot be featureless.. wich kind of god is if he misses something?... then.. god is not subjected to make errors, all the things we call errors in the material world, in the spiritual world are not errors or defects as we have already said..

to learn these things rquires open mind, well translated and commented scriptures, and an authentic spiritual master not envious of god, not wanting to annihilate Him taking out His personality

peace..peace..peace..HARIBOL!!

November 28, 2003

On one hand you ask me to keep an open mind and believe that there is a 'divine', 'transcendental' personalities but you refuse to believe that impersonal does not mean 'featureless.'

Since Advaitins believe that whatever we see around is the Absolute Truth in different forms from gross to subtle. I agree it is a very difficult concept to understand but I am more happy in seeing everything around me as 'divine' rather than believing in just one God and praying to Him.

May all beings be happy!! May all beings be peaceful!!

REASWARAN · November 28, 2003

Well said my friend ! You have just quoted from the Upanishads and for that alone I salute you. People who refuse to believe in any other than a personal God are slaves to their senses. As I have stated in an earlier post it is only the human who can have the massive arrogance to believe that if there is a God it- he has to be in the same mould as a human. I have tried several times to explain that the very diffused nature of the supreme makes it impossible for him to be restricted by form or substance or time for that matter, for how can he be restricted by his own creations ?

November 28, 2003

Reaswaran, my humble pranaams to you too. The problem is today's time is that people are arguing among themselves as to they are right and others are wrong. I wish they would just give up and look at the whole picture instead of the incomplete one.

Saying that Krishna alone can help us attain salvation is discriminating against the other religions who will never agree to this. Instead saying that finally all that is nothing but the Absolute Truth and all roads finally meet and end there is far better.

Much of today's hatred, violence would simply vanish if people start understanding this.

May all beings be happy!! May all beings be peaceful!!

yasodanandana · November 28, 2003

"On one hand you ask me to keep an open mind and believe that there is a 'divine', 'transcendental' personalities but you refuse to believe that impersonal does not mean 'featureless"

–––it is ok... if you want to explain please do it... but my point is that all 3 tattvas are real: personal (bhagavan), localized(paramatma), impersonal(brahman).... maybe "impersonal", "diffused", "all pervading" can be called qualities... not a big problem.. but please go on explaining

"the Absolute Truth in different forms from gross to subtle. I agree it is a very difficult concept to understand"

___no, it is not difficult to understand, why? it is quite easy to see that an energy is moving universe, planets, the nature, the life and so on.. it is only "illogic" that the absolute has only this aspect

"I am more happy in seeing everything around me as 'divine' rather than believing in just one God and praying to Him. "

–––and surely you are a good person and a spiritualist... but what if you want to geometry school and you say "i am more happy to study triangles, i do not like circles.."?........ i am not here to preach, but seeing that you are animated by the will to research and study, i hope only that you want to consider, not a change of beliefs, but only adding some "news"

hari bol.. chant the name of the lord

yasodanandana · November 28, 2003

"it is only the human who can have the massive arrogance to believe that if there is a God it- he has to be in the same mould as a human"

–––no, you are simply not reading my answers and not seriously considering the personalist's position..

we do not believe that god is human or has human form, we believe that there's SATCITANANDA forms and personalities..

there's material forms and spiritual forms

or material mould and spiritual mould if you like

and god is not restricted to be only impersonal, he wants also to be personal...

a restriction is ONLY IMPERSONAL, and this comes from because we see that human forms are limited

yes human forms are limited.. but god is not human, he has not a human form, he has a divine form.. why are we so limited to think that form can be only human and limited?...

do we thing that god cannot have an unlimited form and personality? nooo, he has!!

yasodanandana · November 28, 2003

"Saying that Krishna alone can help us attain salvation is discriminating against the other religions who will never agree to this."

––––no, you are discriminating saying that god can be only in your way... only impersonal and not personal..

and it is also an imposition to say that all the paths are the same

tolerance and brotherhood is not in creating an artificial equality, it is to believe that discussion and dialogue are the best way to relationate.... if ypu say that everything is the same, you are not respecting the ones who have carefully choosen a path..

there's no need to be all equal to behave as brothers

November 28, 2003

Yas, you intrigue me. On one hand you tell me that if we tell others that all paths lead to The One, I am not respecting. So are you suggesting that one path is better than the another? That tantamounts to favoritism which in turn leads to fanaticism; the root cause of all the suffering in the world today.

I like your geometry class analogy. The only fault with your analogy was I am looking at the whole geometry class and not just focussing on the circle and the triangle. Your post instead suggests that you are concentrating hard on the circle and moving away from the triangle.

I said it was difficult to accept Brahman as the Absolute Truth in different forms from gross to subtle because many ardent followers of particular discipline find it extremely uncomfortable to see 'divinity' in inanimate objects or trees, etc.

You said ,'why are we so limited to think that form can be only human and limited?...do we thing that god cannot have an unlimited form and personality? nooo, he has!!'

So are you not agreeing to what I said earlier that there is no difference in having an impersonal or personal god. It is not the object that matters; it is the subject that is in question.

You said, "there's no need to be all equal to behave as brothers."

I ask you why not!! Why should there be any discrimination? Do you think that a Muslim after he dies goes to some other place than a Hindu or a Christian?

All of us are made of the same structure, blood type, tissue type, born from mothers, raised by parents, marry, give birth, live, and eventually die.

Do you think that there is any difference at all among us except for the man-made boundaries and narrow-mindedness.

You seem to be a nice person with an open outlook for life. I appreciate that but I would be much more comfortable in believing that all roads finally lead to one destination. Some may take time; some may not, but it all ends in the same place.

May all beings be happy!! May all beings be peaceful!!

Jahnava Nitai Das · November 28, 2003

Saying that Krishna alone can help us attain salvation is discriminating against the other religions who will never agree to this.

Unfortunately it is what the Vedic scriptures teach, and is what Lord Krishna states in the Gita.

Instead saying that finally all that is nothing but the Absolute Truth and all roads finally meet and end there is far better.

It may sound better to you, but the fact is it isn't true. Krishna says in the Gita that those who worship Him receive a different destination, and those who worship other devas receive a different destination:

yanti deva-vrata devan

pitrn yanti pitr-vratah

bhutani yanti bhutejya

yanti mad-yajino 'pi mam

"Those who worship the demigods will take birth among the demigods; those who worship ghosts and spirits will take birth among such beings; those who worship ancestors go to the ancestors; and those who worship Me will live with Me."

This is the teaching of Lord Krishna, though it may not be palatable to some. What you propose is your own teaching, and if you think it is better than Krishna's, I would suggest you start another religion.

Why should anyone foolishly believe all paths lead to the same destination? Our religion teaches us that cows are sacred, must be protected and worshipped, and if one kills a cow he is destined to thousands of lives in hell. Another religion teaches that cows should be slaughtered in the name of their God and by doing this one attains heaven. Both religions cannot be correct, as they contain opposite teachings.

November 28, 2003

Wow, jndas...you being the administrator of this forum displaying such hostility. You are setting a very poor example I must say.

You are an administrator no doubt but insulting me by saying "What you propose is your own teaching, and if you think it is better than Krishna's, I would suggest you start another religion" was totally uncalled for.

Hinduism or rather 'Sanaatan Dharma' is one of the oldest and most tolerant religions of all time. It has been know to be receptive and accommodative to all ideas, views. The most beautiful aspect of Hinduism is that every individual is free to follow his or her own path and yet feel at ease. For the first time, I have noticed such rude comment from a person who actively believes in the Bhakti Vedanta movement or ISKCON.

It disturbs me to read that there is so much of narrowness in here that people don't want to hear to anything other than praise of Krishna. I never once wrote anything against Krishna.

I am surprised and most unhappy. I shall post later as I am tied with some prior commitment.

May all beings be happy!! May all beings be peaceful!!

Jahnava Nitai Das · November 28, 2003

Wow, jndas...you being the administrator of this forum displaying such hostility. You are setting a very poor example I must say.

You believe in tolerance for all views... except those that disagree with you. Please display your universal tolerance and allow us to disagree with you. Thank you for considering this.

Since according to your belief all paths are true and lead to the same result, you must admit that my path (of not accepting all religions as equal) is also true and leads to the same goal.

Thus if you really believe what you say you do, you should have no problem with narrow-minded people like us who accept the statements of the Vedas as authoritative (and reject those paths that are against the Vedas). We should also be accepted in your all-inclusive view of world religions, and you should display your universal open-mindedness by not disagreeing with us.

Unfortunately it appears your philosophy is good on paper, but is impossible to apply.

You should restate your beliefs, so that it is clear you accept all paths as good only as long as they agree with your views.

Is it fair for you to expect us to blindly accept the killing of cows as dharma in the name of tolerance and open-mindedness, yet you cannot even accept us disagreeing with your view.

yasodanandana · November 28, 2003

" So are you suggesting that one path is better than the another?"

––yes, as in the averyday life, you cannot take the airplane for paris to go to new york,

but another thing is the follower... i can be in a path that i think it is better than your path, but obviously you can be much more advanced than me beeing more peaceful, tolerant, loving and so on... so spiritual progress is personal not collective

"That tantamounts to favoritism which in turn leads to fanaticism; the root cause of all the suffering in the world today"

--yes, but if you examine carefully, the first thing taken away by fanatics (so called "integralists") is discussion, opinion difference and variety of paths and theories... so the danger is not the difference, but the imposition of an artificial equality..... so i have a different theory, but i think that the variety is so beautiful and i respect you as my brother. A very nice brother because you're stimulating me to put in doubt my beliefs and to see them fron another point of view and to check if they are good or not, and how much i have realized or if i am only a fanatic (=blind faith).. so there's nothing bad in difference in itself

"Your post instead suggests that you are concentrating hard on the circle and moving away from the triangle"

__no, the main thing that i wanted to explain was that religion or spirituality is a faith and a science together.. we can believe, but we have also to use the observation and rationality to see how it is the real thing

"So are you not agreeing to what I said earlier that there is no difference in having an impersonal or personal god. It is not the object that matters; it is the subject that is in question"

_god is personal and impersonal, like you... i can know you personally or from your "energy".. your house, the furniture, your city, your biblioteque, your CDs, your videotapes.. so these positions are both good.. both realizations are real no one can say that god is impersonal and the personal is maya, or that he's only personal and the impersonal is maya.. He has to be a person, because his creatures are persons.. and an omnipervadent energy, because god has to be the ALL, the EVERYTHING.

Brahman and Bhagavan are transcendental, not that one is material and another spiritual.

But, in my opinion, love is possible for a person, not for an energy... realizing brahman i can be conscious of the reality, amazed, peaceful, fearless, but where's the other subject to be loved if i give more attention to the ONENESS? if i am ONE without others, how can i love? so ok for the oneness but the oneness of two lovers, who have an ever increasing pleasure from discovering ethernally new things, new nuances, new features about the loved. But it can be realized.. speaking for myself i can hardly realize that everything is spirit (brahman) and the matter is illusory.. i am not fearless of pain and death, so i am speaking with a logic that satisfies me so much, but logically, not that i see krsna and radha.

And we come back to the "path" business.. i can accept a "more advanced" path, but i have humbly to admit that someone out of my path can be more personally advanced than me..

"You said, "there's no need to be all equal to behave as brothers.""

–––no there's no need, i am speaking with you from some days and i am sure that if we were phisically close we would meet together, talk, take prasadam together, be friends.... if the discussion had never started, i had not the fortune to know you, even with the filter of a computer keyboard and a monitor. So difference can be the mother of love and brotherhood. A perfect Muslim goes to Allah (or god as perceived in the quran), a perfect christian goes to jesus etc. some goals are eternal, some others need to make another step to reach eternity.. I cannot ask all my life for jesus and have buddha at the end, god is supremely loyal and respectiful when he distributes prizes, he gives us exactly what we were asking for

"You seem to be a nice person with an open outlook for life"

––yes, you are very kind, my main handicap is that my english is very bad.. my only practice is when i go once in a year in vrindaban.. but to say "wich hour darshan?", "please.. one rasagulla!!", "riksawalla.. how much for banke bihari temple?" is not exactly english practice. So i have a very limitad vocabulary and style and, knowing not so much subtleties in the language, i appear more harsh and hard than i really am

"You seem to be a nice person with an open outlook for life. I appreciate that but I would be much more comfortable in believing that all roads finally lead to one destination. Some may take time; some may not, but it all ends in the same place"

–– so this is a very good answer.. same place, different time.. my position is only that even the personal aspect of god is real and transcendental, not that it is the only aspect. I am only suggesting you to see it under a new light, not to say that brahman is maya

haribol... i hope our little "web brotherhood" will continue and increase..... !!

REASWARAN · November 28, 2003

When krishna says only those who worship him will achieve salvation, it is the supreme being (yes the formless impersonal which you get so worked up about) and not Krishna the human manifestation. I thought this would be obvious even to a lay reader of the Geeta - but no even the administrator has jumped in to prove me right when I stated that all u guys spend most of yr time running others down.

November 28, 2003

RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNA RADHA KRISHNARADHA KRISHNARADHA KRISHNA

You know them reaswaran, then everything will be fine.

JAI SRI KRISHNA!

-lover soul-

November 28, 2003

Someone disagrees with you and clearly shows that the Gita does not accept this view that all paths are the same. Your response is very intolerant because all you say is "You're being intolerant." In fact, JNDas made a great point with specific reference to scripture and not simply generalized words claiming to be sanatana-dharma.

November 28, 2003

Mayavadi Philosophy: Analysis and Refutation

http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/

By Suhotra Swami

I. Introduction: This outline will deal with 4 topics

A. What is Mayavada philosophy?

B. How to defeat it with their own arguments.

C. How to defeat it with Bhagavata arguments.

D. The historical background of the rise of Sankara's Mayavadi Vedanta in India.

II. Mayavada philosophy is very old.

A. Even the 4 Kumaras were impersonalists.

B. Any person in Maya is naturally a Mayavadi.

1. If you want to defeat someone you should know his philosophy.

2. We should know Mayavadi philosophy

a. for preaching.

b. for our own benefit as well, because we also are contaminated by it.

c. jnanam-karmani-anavrtam:

i. jnana is of 3 kinds: knowledge of self, God and oneness.

ii. the knowledge of oneness is being rejected. Knowledge of self and God explains everything nicely, including the oneness too. No need of such a separate department of knowledge.

III. Structure of Mayavada philosophy:

A. It is also called vivartavada (lit. "superimpositionism").

1. arthadhyasa - superimposition of one object on another.

2. jnanadhyasa - imposition of illusion upon oneself.

3. For this superimposition to happen, there must be:

a. Senses.

b. An abnormal situation (e.g. darkness).

c. Experience.

d. An example of above three components: seeing a rope as a snake in the darkness.

B. Philosophical proofs, and which philosophers accept them:

1. Direct perception (accepted by Carvakas).

2. Inference (anumana) + 1 is accepted by Buddhists.

a. Hypothesis = There is fire on the mountain.

b. Cause (hetu) = Because there is smoke there.

c. Example = Where there is smoke, there is fire.

d. Review of cause = The mountain has smoke...

e. Conclusion = ...therefore the mountain has fire.

3. Sabda (spiritual sound) + 1 & 2 is accepted by Vaisnavas.

4. Arthavati (similarity) + 1-3 is accepted by logicians.

a. "Have you seen a blue cow?"

b. "No, but I would know one if I did" (cow + blue).

5. Arthapatti: "This fat man does not eat in the day -> he must eat at night." (logicians)

6. Abhava (nonexistence) + 1-5 is accepted by Mayavadis.

a. Nonexistence means: "There is no cow here."

b. It is a kind of knowledge based on the absence of knowledge or perception of something.

C. Four categories within M.P.:

1. Sat = existence (Brahman).

2. Asat = nonexistence (horns on rabbit).

3. Sat-asat = something that exists for a time,

then ceases to exist.

4. Anirvacaniya = neither 1-3, i.e. Maya (which makes one think a rope is a snake. Inexplicable, illusory).

D. Levels of perception according to Sankaracarya:

1. Paramarthika - transcendental (Brahman).

2. Vyavaharika - "practical".

3. Pratibhasika - apparent, but illusory (like dreaming).

a. One must go from this stage to next higher.

b. When coming to second stage,

individuality remains.

c. But at highest stage, individuality is erased.

E. Maya:

1. Maya is inexplicable; example - a dumb person cannot describe the taste of rasgulla, but still there is taste. Brahman is covered by Maya, but don't ask why.

2. Two stages of Maya:

a. Covering with illusion;

that's simply Maya.

b. Distorting with ignorance (avidya).

3. When Maya covers Brahman with illusion, Isvara consciousness appears. He is conditioned to be the Lord.

4. When Brahman is further distorted by avidya, jiva consciousness appears. Avidya makes the subtle body.

5. There is no transformation in this process, only imposition (of a false conception).

6. When illusion and ignorance are dispelled, no state of any describable existence remains.

7. Mayavadi story: Vyasadeva sent Sukadeva to learn from Janaka. Janaka said to Sukadeva, "Give me my dakshina before I teach you anything, because after you learn this teaching, you will reject everything, including me (the Guru)."

F. Example of Mayavadi logic:

1. Brahman "reflects" into Maya.

Q. But how? If it reflects

(e.g. moon on water) it must have a form.

2. A. First understand that Brahman is not a substance, so rules like that don't apply to it.

3. And apart from that, consider an object or a substance that has qualities. Form is one such quality. But does form have form?

4. Q. What are you saying, `Does form have form?'

5. A. When you see a shadow or reflection, what is being reflected - form or substance?

6. Q. Well - the form.

7. So the form is not the substance. Form is what is reflected, but that form is different from the substance.

G. Jayatirtha Muni gives this example of Mayavadi process: Just as when a person has a bad dream, the dream wakes him up; similarly, though the Mayavadi philosophy is still "maya", it can wake one up out of illusion.

H. Two schools of Mayavadi philosophy.

1. One accepts only Upanisads, Vedanta and Bhagavad-gita (prasthan-traya).

2. But the so-called Bhagavat-sampradaya (with acaryas like Citsukhacarya and Madhusudan Sarasvati) accept Puranas, Ramayana, etc. Just as Mayavadis in general are more dangerous than Buddhists, the Bhagavat-sampradaya is most dangerous of all. They even accept Krishna's form is spiritual, but say that when He returns to the Paramvyoma, His form "dissolves" into Brahman. First school would argue Krishna's for

I. Bhag Tyag Laksana:

1. Bhag (person).

2. Tyag (give up)

3. I.e. Now you have this designation; give it up.

a. On wall of Vaishnava temple, a Mayavadi wrote "So'ham" (I am Him).

b. A devotee came later and added Da, "DaSo'ham" (I am His servant).

c. Mayavadi returned, added Sa for "SaDaSo'ham" (I am eternally Him).

d. Devotee returned again and added Da for "DaSaDaSo'ham" (I am the servant of His servant).

IV. Weaknesses of Mayavadi Philosophy.

A. Their "Brahman" and Vyasadeva's Brahman are not the same.

1. Their Brahman is the Brahmajyoti.

2. Vyasadeva's Brahman is Krishna, the Purusottama.

3. Because they have no interest in Krishna, their Brahman categorically has no reality (it is wrongly defined from the outset).

a. Vyasa used the word Brahman as we use the word "God."

b. It is a general term, used to create interest among as many people as possible (even those who are averse to Krishna).

B. They speak of "Savikalpa jnana" and "Nirvikalpa jnana", but these are actually the same thing.

1. Example of approaching a mountain from a distance - at each stage, the same entity is being viewed.

2. But Mayavadis say the far-off vision of a great shape on the horizon is of a different thing than the close-up view of the mountain.

C. They interpret Sanskrit words inaccurately to fit their own ideas.

1. Lord is "asarira." They say this means He has no sarira or body; but the root of the word sarira means "decay", so the word really refers to a body that decays, not simply a body.

2. Lord is "akarana." They say this means He has no senses; but this word really means that His senses are not energized by something else (e.g. as our material senses are energized by life energy) because He is without a source.

D. They interpret "He desired to become many" as meaning the progression from Brahman-Isvara-Jiva; but it is the Isvara who has the desire to become many. How the desireless Brahman desired to become the Isvara they do not explain.

E. If Brahman is all-pervading, where is Maya?

F. How is the Brahman cut into individual parcels of consciousness?

G. Mayavadis say, "By knowledge (jnana), one becomes Brahman."

1. But they also say that jnana and ajnana are Maya.

2. So you may remove your ajnana with jnana, but then with what will you remove the jnana?

3. To this they answer, "It is by the mercy of Brahman." (!)

H. They say Brahman is without energy (sakti). Then how does it exist? (No answer).

I. Snake and Rope:

1. In order for this example to have validity, the person must have prior knowledge of both "what is a rope" and "what is a snake." How can an undifferentiated Brahman have prior knowledge of Maya, which it then mistakes itself to be?

2. Besides that, in this example, the rope and snake are both real things, and that's why the illusion is effective. And since the illusion is effective, it is also true, i.e. the consequences of that illusion are no less effective than if the rope was really a snake (I'm scared, I scream, run away, etc.).

J. They say Maya is like a dream, but there's no continuity in our dreams from one night to the next. In the waking state we find day-to-day continuity. So to compare this life to a mere dream is facile.

K. Why is this illusion so consistent, if it is just hallucination? Why doesn't illusion come to us in other ways, e.g. instead of Brahman is the world (rope is a snake), why not the world is Brahman (snake is rope)?

L. Mayavadis say one can only achieve liberation after death. Then his individuality ceases forever.

1. But how does this relate to their favorite rope/snake analogy? One man lights a lamp and sees that the snake is really just a rope; another man runs off, frightened, never knowing it was an illusion. How are these two men different in their essential existence?

M. Who suffers in hell - soul or body?

1. Mayavadi may answer, "The body suffers only."

2. But the body is matter, is it not?

3. Yes.

4. How can dead matter suffer?

5. Then it must be the soul that suffers.

6. Then you are saying Brahman suffers? But your philosophy says there's no suffering in Brahman.

N. Sankara writes of the "vyavaharika" platform of existence, but nowhere is this word found in any scripture. Yet it is a fundamental component of his philosophy.

O. Upanisads say that nothing can attach itself to Brahman and it cannot be described in words. Sankara says these statements form the complete description of Brahman.

1. Sankara says - Take these descriptions literally.

2. How? By hearing these words, don't the Mayavadis become attached to Brahman?

P. Katha Upanisad 3.11: Above the jagat is avyakta, above avyakta is Purusa, and beyond Him is nothing else.

V. A look at Jiva Gosvami's refutations of Mayavadi Philosophy:

A. He established the Srimad Bhagavatam as the sastric reference par excellence.

1. Brhad Aranyaka Upanisad 2.41 - 4 Vedas, Itihasa and Puranas have come from the breath of Narayana.

2. Chandogya Upanisad 3.15.7 - 4 Vedas, Itihasas and Puranas are 5th Veda.

a. 4 cows and 1 buffalo are never grouped as a herd of 5 cows, because a buffalo is not a cow.

b. 5 cows means 5 cows.

3. Mahabharata says "Puranas make Vedas complete."

4. Sankaracarya's guru's guru wrote a commentary on a book that cited slokas from the Srimad Bhagavatam.

5. Garuda Purana says "artho 'yam brahma sutranam": Bhagavat Purana gives meaning of Vedanta-sutra, Gayatri and the 4 Vedas.

6. Srimad Bhagavatam is the ripened fruit of the tree of the Vedic scriptures.

7. Srimad Bhagavatam is Veda: "It is compiled by the Lord Himself."

8. Sukadeva Goswami was a Brahmajnani who became a devotee. Vyasadeva compiled the Bhagavatam only for Sukadeva, because only he could understand it (his other disciples were not qualified).

a. Sukadeva ran away as soon as he was born. Vyasa told his other disciples to chant 3 verses from the Srimad Bhagavatam in order to attract him back to the ashram (they were to chant these verses out loud when entering the forest to gather firewood or fetch water).

b. Thus Sukadeva was attracted and returned to learn Srimad Bhagavatam at the feet of his father. He cannot be attracted by anything material. Therefore S.B. has something higher than even Brahman realization (atmarama verse).

B. Srimad Bhagavatam establishes Krishna as the Param Brahman.

1. Hiranyakasipu used the "neti neti" process to negate any possible chance of his being killed by an enemy when he requested a boon from Lord Brahma.

a. He left no chance that any type of entity within the material world could harm him.

b. Practically he left only the Brahman. And that Brahman came as Narasingha and destroyed him; thus Lord Narsinghadeva is the Supreme Brahman.

2. Even Sridhar Swami has commented on "krishna 'stu bhagavan svayam".

3. In the wrestling arena, everyone saw Krishna differently. The yogis saw Him as the Tattva Paramam

(Supreme Truth).

4. The pastime of Lord Damodar shows how the Supreme is unlimited, yet has a body.

5. Devaki said, "That Brahman, jyoti...etc. that all the impersonalists (jnanis and yogis) are seeking is You."

VI. Vadiraja's Refutations of Key Tenets of Mayavadi Philosophy.

A. Vadiraja comes in the line of Madhvacarya. He lived in the 16th century. He is said to have lived for 120 years.

B. How Vadiraja exposed Mayavadi misinterpretations:

1. Vadiraja showed how Mayavadis have taken the "neti-neti" statement out of context.

a. They say "not this, not this" means "not jiva, not jada" (Brahman is neither the individual soul, nor matter - therefore, since only Brahman exists, jiva and jada must be unreal).

b. But they've derived "neti-neti" from Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad 4.4.22, which states: "For the desire for sons is the desire for wealth and the desire for wealth the desire for worlds; both these are, indeed, desires only. This Self is not this, not this."

c. This verse is stating that the Self (atman) is not to be had by desiring wealth or worlds. The direct meaning is sufficient; the "jada-jiva" interpretation is without foundation.

2. The meaning of "advaita":

a. Mayavadis take "advaita" (not dual) to mean that Brahman has no difference. Therefore undifferentiated oneness is the only truth.

b. But the context is found in Chandogya Upanisad 6.2.1-2: "In the beginning, my dear, this was Being, one only, without a second."

c. Vadiraja showed that "one without a second" means, according to grammar and logic, "one Being without a second Being", or "He has no second", i.e. there is only one God. But this does not mean that some thing or things below God can't be distinguished from Him.

i. If the word "advitiyam" as it appears in this verse actually means that nothing except undifferentiated Brahman exists, then the very text from which the word comes would be unreal, as it is a feature of the realm of difference.

ii. Thus the validity of the text would be destroyed by the very philosophy the Mayavadis ascribe to it.

iii. He proved his point further with this example - if one says "The lotus is blue", he does not mean to say that "lotus" and "blue" are exact synonyms. He means that blueness is a quality of the lotus. Similarly, when sastra says "Brahman is everything", "everything" and "Brahman" are not exact synonyms from Brahman (but as Brahman has qualities we don't have, still there is distinction in this inseparability).

3. Vadiraja points out that Mayavadis say that both practical life and the scriptures are on the vyavaharika platform - which means both are ultimately unreal. Yet they honor the scriptures and honor sattvik life as dispellers of illusion.

a. In practical life, what is "true" is what works, i.e. what brings good results. What is "untrue" breeds bad results. But a Mayavadi cannot distinguish between these two categories of action. Thus even on their so-called vyavaharika platform, they have no ultimate reference for deciding what is auspicious and what is inauspicious.

b. For example, using a Mayavadi analogy, the Mayavadis are not able to explain the difference between a man who sees that there is no silver in a silvery shell and the man who thinks that silver is there.

i. They will say the man who discovered his error is conventionally correct (vyavaharika), and the man who did not is under pratibhasika illusion.

ii. But the main thing is, both are in ultimate illusion. Now, the silvery shell analogy is used by them to illustrate how one comes out of ULTIMATE illusion and attains the truth (paramarthika). Yet, using their own doctrine as the test, this example proves itself invalid. So what are we left with?

4. Vadiraja compares the Mayavadis with Paundraka. He asks, "If Mayavadi philosophy is so pregnant with Truth, why did Krishna and His associates in Dvaraka laugh derisively when they heard Paundraka's letter, which simply made the same claims as the Mayavadi philosophers? Why did Sukadeva Goswami, when reciting this event to Maharaja Pariksit before the learned assembly of great saints and sages, did not come to the rescue of this doctrine?" Especially since the Mayavadis would hold that Krishna, His court, Sukadeva, Pariksit, the assembly of sages and Vyasa were actually all Mayavadis too.

5. How Mayavadis explain the perception of this world:

a. Brahman is the only reality.

b. When we see an object (e.g. a silvery shell), it is nothing other than the Brahman-consciousness itself appearing in that way.

c. But Brahman appears like a shell because of upadhi (designation) that is superimposed upon it.

d. Still, Pure Consciousness shines through the upadhi, making the object perceivable to our minds and senses.

e. This phenomenon of appearance is happening because Brahman is obscured by avidya.

f. Before avidya can be removed, a vritti (modification) of the viewer's mind must destroy the avidya surrounding the silvery shell when the senses make contact with it. This vritti is compared to a canal through which pure consciousness flows to envelop the object in right understanding.

g. When that happens, Brahman is mirrored in the vritti which then lights up the object, revealing its true identity with Brahman. Note: in this philosophy, the senses do not perceive the object. Nor even the mind. Nor the vritti, for the vritti is but a key that unlocks the door behind which is the floodlight of Brahman, which is the only reality.

i. Who perceives the object? The Mayavadi answers that the jiva (individual soul) does.

ii. But the jiva is verily Brahman, who thinks himself an individual due to avidya.

iii. By seeing the object in its true light, the jiva knows its oneness with Brahman.

6. Vadiraja probes the Mayavadi explanation of perception:

a. If in the example of the silvery shell, only the Brahman-consciousness is perceiving, then how can the shell be seen in two ways?

i. If the origin of the phenomenon "silvery shell" is one and only one, why is it sometimes seen as a shell, and sometimes as silver?

ii. The only "real" mechanism available to explain this (since shell, avidya, jiva, senses, mind, and even vritti are illusory) is that Brahman is "shining forth." For this, Sankara has quoted a verse that appears in three Upanisads (Katha 2.2.15, Mundaka 2.2.15, Svetasvatara 6.14): "The shell? is lighted."

b. Still, there is no reason for the silver shell illusion in the statement, "Brahman shines forth", nor in the quotes given to support the statement.

c. Mayavadis say maya has two powers - veiling and projecting. When it obscures Brahman, it exercises the first potency, and when it projects an object (the shell) onto consciousness, the second potency is exercised. But what about the illusion of silver in the shell? That is not explained.

d. Vadiraja asks another question: Mayavadis say out of the avidya came the covering of the whole. So how does the one "part" get transferred to the other (the object to the perceiving consciousness)? Because, in Mayavadi philosophy, these two "parts" are dealt with as being two separate manifestations of Brahman, i.e. Mayavadis do not say the object and perceiver are identical with each other, but that both are separate.

e. Mayavadis have an answer: the object is imposed upon the perceiver by means of the vritti (mental adjustment). But then Vadiraja is quick to point out that the vritti was first postulated as the means of illumination. Now it is being used as the cause for an illusory perception of an object as well. So what is the need of saying the object...

f. The Mayavadis give material objects too much reality by identifying them with Brahman; on the other hand, they give them too little reality by saying they are illusions.

g. Mayavadis say there is a sakti of avidya called jadatmika avidyasaktih, and this potency transforms itself into the visible material manifestations of objects. But this avidya is said to be destroyed upon enlightenment (i.e. when the vritti illuminates the object). So, when ignorance is destroyed, then the jadatmika sakti must also be destroyed, the object itself would be destroyed.

i. One Mayavadi commentator, Bharatitirtha, has an answer of sorts to this penetration of their philosophy. He says there are two kinds of ignorance: one which is covering the jiva and another which covers the Lord. The jiva-ignorance (pratibhasika) is removable when an object shines forth, but the Lord-ignorance (vyavaharika) is removed only at the time of liberation (or death).

ii. But Bharatitirtha says this distinction between illusions is vyavaharika (or illusory).

h. Since ignorance is destroyed, but the object remains even after enlightenment, then it follows that the object is the supreme Brahman; in other words, Brahman is maya. There is no need for Mayavadis to postulate their elaborate theories of how Brahman is covered by ignorance, etc. The bottom line is: Brahman is maya - which runs directly against all sastra.

i. Another evidence of this is - the vritti is the cause of enlightenment as well as ignorance. This vritti is also maya. So maya gives both illusion and knowledge.

j. The Mayavadis have two theories regarding world-appearance: 1) superimposition and 2) the material causality of ignorance (the aforementioned jadatmika avidyasaktih). These theories are mutually exclusive: one demands that ignorance be destroyed (by the vritti) for objects to appear; the other demands that ignorance be present for objects to exist.

k. Vadiraja says, "unintelligibility is not only the trademark of your ignorance, it is also the trademark of your methodology." He's spoofing the Mayavadi Vimuktatman (13th century) who wrote: "Unintelligibility is the trademark of ignorance, not an objection to it"; i.e., you can't hold our philosophy accountable for being unintelligible because it is describing unintelligible.

7. Other arguments:

a. The Mayavadis attribute no qualities or powers to Brahman. Avidya creates an illusion of separate identity from Brahman; their example is that Brahman is like space, and avidya is like a pot. Vadiraja asks, "Then from where do activities arise? Does the space in a pot exhibit activities?"

b. Since Mayavadis have no answer for this, it would appear that they are postulating a completely different consciousness for each embodied being, consciousnesses which in turn are different from the impersonal Brahman. Then what good for is their adherence to oneness of consciousness of all beings?

VII. A historical comparison of Vaisnava-vedanta, Mayavadi-vedanta and Buddhism.

A. Many uninformed people think "Vedanta" is synonymous with Sankaracarya's Mayavadi Advaita-Vedanta. But originally Vedanta meant Vaisnava-vedanta. The Vedanta-sutras were compiled by Vyasadeva, a Vaisnava. The Srimad Bhagavatam is the natural commentary on the Vedanta-sutra, written by Vyasadeva himself 5000 years ago.

1. The philosophy of Sankaracarya (born about 600 AD), is really just Buddhism in disguise, as explained by Padma Purana (mayavada-asac-chastram pracchanam bauddham ucyate).

2. This can be demonstrated by the chronology of key Mayavadi philosophical explanations, which appear first in Buddhist scriptures and later show up in the philosophy of Sankara and his followers.

B. With the advent of the Age of Quarrel (Kali-yuga), the six systems of Vedic philosophy (i.e. Nyaya, Vaisesika, Sankhya, Yoga, Karma Mimamsa and Brahma Mimamsa) which were originally the different departments of Vedic study like the departments of study at a university, began to compete with one another.

C. By the time of the Buddha (500 BC), philosophical disputation between the six schools had become rampant all over India. The philosophy of the Buddha spin-offs of the quarrels of the six systems.

1. Both Buddhism and Jainism combine different aspects of the six systems, and both reject the authority of the Vedic scriptures, because the constant bickering of the Vedic philosophers had already undermined the force of Vedic authority among the people.

2. Buddha descended to lead people away from Vedic scholarship and ritualism, which atheistic-minded brahmanas had turned into dry mental speculation and animal slaughter. In reaction against these brahmanas, the Buddhist philosophical conclusion is Sunyavada (voidism), and the ritualistic conclusion is Ahimsa (nonviolence).

D. Vedanta according to early Buddhist records.

1. It is clear from Buddhist scriptures that "Vedanta" was originally synonymous with Vaishnava-vedanta.

a. Certain pre-Sankara Buddhist scriptures contain descriptions of the teachings of philosophers who used to argue against the Buddhists. These scriptures were originally in Sanskrit, but now only exist in Chinese and Tibetan translations.

b. The Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra (written around 150 A.D.) and the Satyasiddhisastra (250 A.D.) say that the followers of the Vedas and Upanisads believe in the Mahapurusa, who existed before the world began and exists within the heart of all creatures with a form of the size of a thumb. The Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra says that the followers of the Vedas believe that, "All that exists is nothing but Purusa. All that happens is caused by the transformation of the self-existent Isvara."

c. In a work called Sastra by Aryadeva, Vedantists are portrayed as those who believe that the world was created by Brahma, who appeared from the navel of Vishnu.

d. In the Tattvasamgraha, the Buddhist writer Kamalasila equates "Vedavadin" with "Purusavadin."

e. The Buddhist writer Bhavya in the Madhyamika-hrdaya-karika describes the Vedanta philosophy as "Bhedabheda" ("one-and-different") philosophy [Gaudiya Vaisnavas call their own philosophy Acintya Bhedabheda-tattva].

f. Conclusion: Pre-Sankara Vedantism was personal (aimed at knowing Vishnu) and did not hold to a doctrine of "all-is-illusion-only".

2. In Buddhist scriptures like the Mahaparinirvana-sutra and the Lankavatara sutra the seeds of Sankara's Mayavadi philosophy are found.

a. There are four main schools of Buddhist philosophical thought, which appeared one after the other before Sankara's Mayavadi philosophy.

i. Vaibhasika, or direct realism.

ii. Sautrantika, or representationalism.

iii. Vijnanavada, or subjective idealism.

iv. Sunyavada, or voidism.

b. Sri Yamunacarya, writing in Siddhitraya, and Ramanujacarya in his Sribhasya, have both pointed out the similarities between Sankara's Mayavada and Vijnanavada. Vallabhacarya also mentioned the same point.

c. The Sunyavada philosophy teaches that sunya (void) is an inexpressible and transcendent truth (a concept echoed in Sankara's explanation of Brahman). The Vijnanavada school teaches that consciousness is the only truth and that the world we perceive is illusion. Mayavada says the same.

i. Moreover, in the Lankavatara-sutra, Sunyavada is expressed in terms that resemble Upanisadic language: nisthabhava param brahma ("the Supreme Brahman is the ultimate state of existence"). This work also asserts that the words Brahman, Vishnu and Isvara are other names for the Buddha-consciousness.

ii. Sunyavada had an influence on the members of the Brahminical community who were atheistic at heart. Gradually this began to influence Vedanta scholarship. Mayavada began to appear in Vedanta commentaries even before Sankaracarya; for example, in the writings of Gaudapada.

3. That Mayavada had stolen the salient features of sunyavada was not unnoticed by the Buddhists themselves.

a. In a Chinese version of the Mahaparinirvana-sutra, written after Buddhism was driven out of India, we find the following note regarding the state of affairs of Buddhist philosophy in India of that time: "Nowadays there are some remaining teachings of Buddha that were stolen by Brahmins and written into their own commentaries."

b. A Buddhist writer by the name of Bhartrhari, who lived about the same time as Sankaracarya, wrote that Sankara had similar ideas as did he and other Buddhist philosophers of that time.

4. Furthermore, we find in the writings of early Mayavadis a self-conscious defense against the charge that their philosophy is simply Buddhism in new dress.

a. One, Sriharsa, in a work called Khandanakhan dakhadya, says that while Buddhism says the world of multiplicity is false, we Mayavadis say the world of multiplicity is non-dual, or advaita.

b. But that's a poor defense, because Mayavadis also say Brahma satya, jagan mithya ("Brahman is truth, the world is illusion"). And Buddhists say enlightenment means understanding pratitya-samutpada, or "conditioned co-production", which is a monistic theory of the world.

November 28, 2003

http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/

Questions about attitude toward impersonalism

Q: I want to hold all beings in a spirit of love and acceptance. I want to accept others' decisions about their spiritual path and continue to be open to associating and not always try to convert anyone away from their chosen path. That is a major concern to me. What do you and ISKCON think about this?

A: As Vaisnavas we would say that there is no truth beyond Krishna. This is confirmed by Krishna in the BG 7.7, where He states, "There is no truth superior to Me". ISKCON is dedicated to spreading the glories of the Personality of God, not His impersonality. Lord Krishna in His form as Chaitanya Mahaprabhu has said that the Mayavadis are offenders at His lotus feet, since they maintain that the personal aspect of God is ultimately an illusion and that the impersonal aspect, or the oneness is the final state of transcendence.

Actually this debate between the personalists and the impersonalists, the Vaisnavas and the Mayavadis, has been going on for thousands of years in India. The disciplic succession that ISKCON descends from has been very active in this debate. If you study our history you will find that all the great acaryas of our line of teachers have been very adamant in their refutations of the Mayavadi philosophy. Madhvacarya traveled all over India to refute the Buddhist and Mayavada philosophies. Lately Srila Bhaktisiddhanta and Srila Prabhupada have been very heavily on the case of impersonalistic philosophies. Why? Because impersonalism ruins the chance of the individual soul to engage in loving service to Krishna. Therefore the Mayavadis have been described as offenders by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. It is the duty of the disciple to faithfully render the teachings of his spiritual master, without adding or subtracting anything. Therefore it is the duty of everyone in ISKCON to strongly speak out against Mayavada philosophy.

Of course we would never, ever suggest that someone should not be free to choose whatever spiritual path he feels comfortable with. Even Krishna does not interfere with the living entity's free will. But it is also the mission of ISKCON to disseminate proper spiritual knowledge into society, and to preach the glories of the Personality of Godhead.

There is no need to disturb anyone's mind. But if the question arises or there is a public debate, it is the duty of the Vaisnava preacher to present the philosophical conclusions of the disciplic succession. And the Vaisnava conclusion is in direct opposition to the Mayavadi conclusion. There is simply no way around this clash of ideas.

Q: People of differing spiritual views, I believe, should be accepted and respected.

A: That is true. One should respect all living entities, no matter what their beliefs are. But it is not that we have to respect a philosophy if it is wrong or speculative. Then it is our duty to point this out. We will of course respect - not necessarily agree to - anyone's belief. What else can we do? None can be forced to think in a certain way. But we have to provide the our alternative so that people can choose for themselves. Just like your kids. It is not that you respect and condone everything they do. Sometimes you simply have to get on their case and tell them what they are doing or thinking is plain wrong, isn't it?

Q: Sometimes I perceive a bit fanatic approach among Vaisnava devotees. This attitude is one of my fears about giving the Vaisnava path a try, honestly.

A: Krishna says in BG that His devotee should take care to respect all living entities and not give them any trouble. But He also says that one should preach the conclusions of Bhagavad-gita. Usually a Vaisnava will not preach to those who are not receptive or who do not want to hear, but sometimes - like in a public debate - it has to be done for the sake of those who listen in on the debate.

I think you should not fear giving the Vaisnava path a try. In whatever path you choose in life you are bound to meet opposition as well as neophytes within the process itself who will turn you off by their immaturity. This is after all Kali-yuga - the age of quarrel and hypocrisy. What can be done? If you choose a Mayavada path you will also find that they hate the conclusions of Krishna consciousness.

Discussion about advaita and God

Q: You ask, "Do you understand how insignificant we are on this planet?" I do not relate to the word "insignificant". As part of consciousness, I feel neither significant nor insignificant.

A: Depends on our angle of vision. If "we" denotes human and other beings (living organisms) on this Earth which is just a tiny speck in the universe then we are surely insignificant.

Being more precisely defined as parts of consciousness as you say, then we can be considered significant as eternal, knowledgeable and blissful entities, parts and parcels of the Supreme Whole.

Now follows the important question - what is the nature of that Supreme Whole/Consciousness/Brahman etc.? This question is as old as the history of human philosophy itself. There are two general opinions, expressed as two main schools of philosophy - impersonalistic and personalistic.

Mainstream Judaism, Advaitism (followers of Sankara), Taoism etc. fall into impersonalistic category whereas personalism is promulgated by Christianity and Vaisnava sampradayas (schools). ISKCON is a branch of one of them, Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya sampradaya, and presents the acintya-bhedabheda-tattva, "doctrine of inconceivable oneness and difference", the ultimate synthesis of all personal-impersonal approaches. This philosophy is based on a deep understanding of Vedic literature, which is considered a supreme evidence in all Indian philosophies.

The Supreme Reality is understood to have both impersonal (lower) and personal (higher) aspect and this seeming paradox is "inconceivable". Still, we offer explanations enabling to partially understand it, so we are not agnostics.

Q: I have trouble with the various older writings which phrase reality in terms of a feudal society. While I realize that these teachings do lead to knowledge, I also suspect that we are transitioning to a higher level of consciousness where the individual will relate directly to higher consciousness.

Of course, I also recognize that my "suspicion" may merely be a reflection of my Jewish orientation to the cosmos. We do not believe in intermediaries. That is one reason we do not understand Catholics who have Mary and various saints for intervention. Thus, if there is a single GOD, like a FATHER, we would related directly without asking mother to intercede.

However, to me the idea of a GOD, the Father, is a limited notion which segments the totality of consciousness. People who are accustomed to families with someone telling other people what to do can understand a cosmos which is set up in the same fashion. Likewise, people can understand a cosmos which basically reflects the familial pattern on a larger scale with Lords taking the place of the father.

A: As I explained, the Vedas hold a contrary view - the totality of consciousness or Brahman is a subordinate aspect of personal God, Bhagavan. This can be understood by a simple logic - the superior must include the inferior. Brahman, being an effulgence of Bhagavan, is dependent on Him, not the other way around. One can approach God either directly through meditation or through intermediaries like spiritual masters and saints through prayer and devotional service. However, He prefers the second way and to its followers He reveals His full, personal aspect, whereas to others He reveals Himself only partially, as "Light" or "Total Consciousness".

These universal hierarchies are not superimposed from the earthly reality by humans but just the opposite is true - our earthly social structures are reflections of a higher, universal structure.

Q: Consciousness invests itself into certain forms, which depending upon the state of their nervous systems, can or cannot perceive that they are not little children or servants, but merely facets of the totality. The fact that certain organisms happen to have nervous systems which allow them to more readily perceive the totality of the universe does not make them superior - just fortunate.

A: Nice example of the relation between our nervous system and us (particles of consciousness) is that of relation between a computer and its user. If you have just an old 486 you are pretty limited and disadvantaged in comparison with a Pentium user, although as persons, living entities, you are both on the same level.

However, we, living entities, _are_ children of God and also His servants. Only because we did not like it we were sent to this material world full of suffering. Being servant of God does not mean to suffer (as we have experienced in the position of servants in this world) but to be happy in His company.

The word "fortunate" suggests a random occurrence but in reality our present hardware (bodies) depends on our previous actions. This is called a law of karma, a physical law of action/reaction on a subtle level.

Q: I recognize that on this level there are lots of individualized aspects of consciousness and that they see themselves as separate and distinct from each other. I imagine that on higher levels of consciousness, there may be other particularized manifestations that think that they are separate and distinct from each other.

A: This separation is experienced only on the bodily level which unfortunately prevails more or less in the whole material world.

Q: I do not see any reason to think that just because some entity is on another level that it is necessarily all-knowing. There may be a different set of errors for different levels of consciousness.

A: Yes. Only really all-knowing and supremely blissful entity is the Supreme One. Others possess different grades of perception/reasoning abilities, knowledge and happiness. They - consciously or unconsciously - look for the higher expressions of these features as their ideals and models because they inwardly understand their own imperfections and want to compensate them.

Q: To the extent the Lord-master, Father-child approach reinforces the idea of distinct entities, it leads people away from an understanding of the totality of Oneness.

A: Totality of Oneness, however, does not fulfill their expectations, at least not forever, because on the stage of being immersed in oneness there is a lack of impressions and activities which are inherent to us, even on the purely transcendental level.

Q: The value of believing in the hierarchical approach is that it imposes order on society. Chaos is not good. Unfortunately, order imposed from the top-down also leads to oppression.

A: This is our experience in this material world. But it is not natural for us to be here. Therefore we suffer all kinds of tribulations, oppression being just one of them. Our home is in the spiritual world, where everything shares the same nature as God - eternity, knowledge and bliss - and hierarchy there is qualitatively completely different than here.

Q: The visionary sees the totality of the universe and his "light" often brings coherence to society. After his passing, his followers establish institutions. At first they usually want to teach, but when other people do not follow, the become angry and demand obedience to "God's Will". Soon there is oppression in the name of God, which may lead to some outward coherence, but oppression breeds hostility, resentment, anger and rage... which always result in incoherence.

A: Fanaticism has many varieties, religious is just one of them. Often a nationalistic fanaticism is disguised as a religious one. Srila Prabhupada used to say, "Religion without philosophy is sentimentalism or fanaticism, and philosophy without religion is dry speculation". History shows ample cases. Vaisnava philosophy has both heart (transcendental devotion) and head (transcendental knowledge) and therefore Vaisnavism in general never fell into the above mentioned traps, what to speak of oppression and hostilities.

Q: Thus, I like to think that we, as an entire species, are moving to a higher level where we can dispense with the hierarchical approach with its inevitable oppression. Eventually direct perception will result in coherence without oppression. Maybe not. Maybe biological organisms are inherently incoherent. But this leads me to speculate how the totality of the universe can have incoherence as one of its attributes.

A: We are inherently incoherent with matter, our present bodies and this material world which is "programmed" to be incoherent with us for our rectification.

Q: Maybe I will get out my copy of the Bhagavad-gita and pursue it for a while.

A: Very good! And get also Isopanisad, to fully understand the personal vs. impersonal nature of Absolute Truth, Krishna, from the foremost of Upanisads.

To summarize your text: You are basically rejecting the materialistic religious ideas in favor of impersonalism. But you have to go further, to the perfect stage of transcendental eternal religion, sanatana-dharma. That is also our goal. We are endeavoring and it works.

November 28, 2003

Isvara - The Supreme Lord

A. Brahman : Worship of

Chapter 7 - Knowledge of the Absolute - 24, 25,

Chapter 12 - Devotional Service - 1, 3-4, 5

--

A. Brahman : Worship of

7.24, 25, 12.1, 3-4, 5

Chapter 7 - Knowledge of the Absolute

TEXT 24

TRANSLATION

Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna, was impersonal before and have now assumed this personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is imperishable and supreme.

PURPORT

Those who are worshipers of demigods have been described as less intelligent persons, and here the impersonalists are similarly described. Lord Krsna in His personal form is here speaking before Arjuna, and still, due to ignorance, impersonalists argue that the Supreme Lord ultimately has no form. Yamunacarya, a great devotee of the Lord in the disciplic succession of Ramanujacarya, has written two very appropriate verses in this connection. He says,

tvam sila-rupa-caritaih parama-prakrstaih

sattvena sattvikataya prabalais ca sastraih

prakhyata-daiva-paramartha-vidam matais ca

naivasura-prakrtayah prabhavanti boddhum

"My dear Lord, devotees like Vyasadeva and Narada know You to be the Personality of Godhead. By understanding different Vedic literatures, one can come to know Your characteristics, Your form and Your activities, and one can thus understand that You are the Supreme Personality of Godhead. But those who are in the modes of passion and ignorance, the demons, the nondevotees, cannot understand You. They are unable to understand You. However expert such nondevotees may be in discussing Vedanta and the Upanisads and other Vedic literatures, it is not possible for them to understand the Personality of Godhead." (Stotra-ratna 12)

In the Brahma-samhita it is stated that the Personality of Godhead cannot be understood simply by study of the Vedanta literature. Only by the mercy of the Supreme Lord can the Personality of the Supreme be known. Therefore in this verse it is clearly stated that not only are the worshipers of the demigods less intelligent, but those nondevotees who are engaged in Vedanta and speculation on Vedic literature without any tinge of true Krsna consciousness are also less intelligent, and for them it is not possible to understand God's personal nature. Persons who are under the impression that the Absolute Truth is impersonal are described as abuddhayah, which means those who do not know the ultimate feature of the Absolute Truth. In the Srimad-Bhagavatam it is stated that supreme realization begins from the impersonal Brahman and then rises to the localized Supersoul--but the ultimate word in the Absolute Truth is the Personality of Godhead. Modern impersonalists are still less intelligent, for they do not even follow their great predecessor Saìkaracarya, who has specifically stated that Krsna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Impersonalists, therefore, not knowing the Supreme Truth, think Krsna to be only the son of Devaki and Vasudeva, or a prince, or a powerful living entity. This is also condemned in the Bhagavad-gita (9.11). Avajananti mam mudha manusim tanum asritam: "Only the fools regard Me as an ordinary person."...

... the monistic contention that ultimate truth is formless and that form is imposed does not hold true. It is clearly stated here that it is not imposed. From the Bhagavad-gita we can clearly understand that the forms of the demigods and the form of the Supreme Lord are simultaneously existing and that Lord Krsna is sac-cid-ananda, eternal blissful knowledge. The Vedas also confirm that the Supreme Absolute Truth is ananda-mayo 'bhyasat, or by nature full of blissful pleasure, and that He is the reservoir of unlimited auspicious qualities. And in the Gita the Lord says that although He is aja (unborn), He still appears. These are the facts that we should understand from the Bhagavad-gita. We cannot understand how the Supreme Personality of Godhead can be impersonal; the imposition theory of the impersonalist monist is false as far as the statements of the Gita are concerned. It is clear herein that the Supreme Absolute Truth, Lord Krsna, has both form and personality.

--

A. Brahman : Worship of

7.24, 25, 12.1, 3-4, 5

Chapter 7 - Knowledge of the Absolute

TEXT 25

TRANSLATION

I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am covered by My internal potency, and therefore they do not know that I am unborn and infallible.

PURPORT

... In the prayers of Kunti in the Srimad-Bhagavatam (1.8.19) it is said that the Lord is covered by the curtain of yoga-maya and thus ordinary people cannot understand Him. This yoga-maya curtain is also confirmed in the Isopanisad (mantra 15), in which the devotee prays:

hiranmayena patrena

satyasyapihitam mukham

tat tvam pusann apavrnu

satya-dharmaya drstaye

"O my Lord, You are the maintainer of the entire universe, and devotional service to You is the highest religious principle. Therefore, I pray that You will also maintain me. Your transcendental form is covered by the yoga-maya. The brahmajyoti is the covering of the internal potency. May You kindly remove this glowing effulgence that impedes my seeing Your sac-cid-ananda-vigraha, Your eternal form of bliss and knowledge." The Supreme Personality of Godhead in His transcendental form of bliss and knowledge is covered by the internal potency of the brahmajyoti, and the less intelligent impersonalists cannot see the Supreme on this account.

Also in the Srimad-Bhagavatam (10.14.7) there is this prayer by Brahma: "O Supreme Personality of Godhead, O Supersoul, O master of all mystery, who can calculate Your potency and pastimes in this world? You are always expanding Your internal potency, and therefore no one can understand You. Learned scientists and learned scholars can examine the atomic constitution of the material world or even the planets, but still they are unable to calculate Your energy and potency, although You are present before them." The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Krsna, is not only unborn but also avyaya, inexhaustible. His eternal form is bliss and knowledge, and His energies are all inexhaustible.

--

A. Brahman : Worship of

7.24, 25, 12.1, 3-4, 5

Chapter 12 - Devotional Service

TEXT 1

TRANSLATION

Arjuna inquired: Which are considered to be more perfect, those who are always properly engaged in Your devotional service or those who worship the impersonal Brahman, the unmanifested?

PURPORT

Krsna has now explained about the personal, the impersonal and the universal and has described all kinds of devotees and yogis. Generally, the transcendentalists can be divided into two classes. One is the impersonalist, and the other is the personalist. The personalist devotee engages himself with all energy in the service of the Supreme Lord. The impersonalist also engages himself, not directly in the service of Krsna but in meditation on the impersonal Brahman, the unmanifested.

... Those who worship the Supreme Lord directly by devotional service are called personalists. Those who engage themselves in meditation on the impersonal Brahman are called impersonalists. Arjuna is here questioning which position is better. There are different ways to realize the Absolute Truth, but Krsna indicates in this chapter that bhakti-yoga, or devotional service to Him, is the highest of all. It is the most direct, and it is the easiest means for association with the Godhead.

... there are those who are not attached to the personal form of Krsna. They are so firmly detached that even in the preparation of commentaries to Bhagavad-gita they want to distract other people from Krsna and transfer all devotion to the impersonal brahmajyoti. They prefer to meditate on the impersonal form of the Absolute Truth, which is beyond the reach of the senses and is not manifest.

And so, factually, there are two classes of transcendentalists. Now Arjuna is trying to settle the question of which process is easier and which of the classes is most perfect. In other words, he is clarifying his own position because he is attached to the personal form of Krsna. He is not attached to the impersonal Brahman. He wants to know whether his position is secure. The impersonal manifestation, either in this material world or in the spiritual world of the Supreme Lord, is a problem for meditation. Actually, one cannot perfectly conceive of the impersonal feature of the Absolute Truth. Therefore Arjuna wants to say, "What is the use of such a waste of time?" Arjuna experienced in the Eleventh Chapter that to be attached to the personal form of Krsna is best because he could thus understand all other forms at the same time and there was no disturbance to his love for Krsna. This important question asked of Krsna by Arjuna will clarify the distinction between the impersonal and personal conceptions of the Absolute Truth.

--

A. Brahman : Worship of

7.24, 25, 12.1, 3-4, 5

Chapter 12 - Devotional Service

TEXT 3-4

TRANSLATION

But those who fully worship the unmanifested, that which lies beyond the perception of the senses, the all-pervading, inconceivable, unchanging, fixed and immovable--the impersonal conception of the Absolute Truth--by controlling the various senses and being equally disposed to everyone, such persons, engaged in the welfare of all, at last achieve Me.

PURPORT

Those who do not directly worship the Supreme Godhead, Krsna, but who attempt to achieve the same goal by an indirect process, also ultimately achieve the same goal, Sri Krsna. "After many births the man of wisdom seeks refuge in Me, knowing that Vasudeva is all." When a person comes to full knowledge after many births, he surrenders unto Lord Krsna. If one approaches the Godhead by the method mentioned in this verse, he has to control the senses, render service to everyone and engage in the welfare of all beings. It is inferred that one has to approach Lord Krsna, otherwise there is no perfect realization. Often there is much penance involved before one fully surrenders unto Him.

In order to perceive the Supersoul within the individual soul, one has to cease the sensual activities of seeing, hearing, tasting, working, etc. Then one comes to understand that the Supreme Soul is present everywhere. Realizing this, one envies no living entity--he sees no difference between man and animal because he sees soul only, not the outer covering. But for the common man, this method of impersonal realization is very difficult.

--

A. Brahman : Worship of

7.24, 25, 12.1, 3-4, 5

Chapter 12 - Devotional Service

TEXT 5

TRANSLATION

For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.

PURPORT

The group of transcendentalists who follow the path of the inconceivable, unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme Lord are called jnana-yogis, and persons who are in full Krsna consciousness, engaged in devotional service to the Lord, are called bhakti-yogis. Now, here the difference between jnana-yoga and bhakti-yoga is definitely expressed. The process of jnana-yoga, although ultimately bringing one to the same goal, is very troublesome, whereas the path of bhakti-yoga, the process of being in direct service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is easier and is natural for the embodied soul. ...

So for a devotee there is no difficulty in approaching the Supreme immediately and directly, but for those who are following the impersonal way to spiritual realization the path is difficult. They have to understand the unmanifested representation of the Supreme through such Vedic literatures as the Upanisads, and they have to learn the language, understand the nonperceptual feelings, and realize all these processes. This is not very easy for a common man. A person in Krsna consciousness, engaged in devotional service, simply by the guidance of the bona fide spiritual master, simply by offering regulative obeisances unto the Deity, simply by hearing the glories of the Lord, and simply by eating the remnants of foodstuffs offered to the Lord, realizes the Supreme Personality of Godhead very easily. There is no doubt that the impersonalists are unnecessarily taking a troublesome path with the risk of not realizing the Absolute Truth at the ultimate end. But the personalist, without any risk, trouble or difficulty, approaches the Supreme Personality directly. A similar passage appears in Srimad-Bhagavatam. It is stated there that if one ultimately has to surrender unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead (this surrendering process is called bhakti), but instead takes the trouble to understand what is Brahman and what is not Brahman and spends his whole life in that way, the result is simply troublesome. Therefore it is advised here that one should not take up this troublesome path of self-realization, because there is uncertainty in the ultimate result.

A living entity is eternally an individual soul, and if he wants to merge into the spiritual whole, he may accomplish the realization of the eternal and knowledgeable aspects of his original nature, but the blissful portion is not realized. By the grace of some devotee, such a transcendentalist, highly learned in the process of jnana-yoga, may come to the point of bhakti-yoga, or devotional service. At that time, long practice in impersonalism also becomes a source of trouble, because he cannot give up the idea. Therefore an embodied soul is always in difficulty with the unmanifest, both at the time of practice and at the time of realization. Every living soul is partially independent, and one should know for certain that this unmanifested realization is against the nature of his spiritual blissful self. One should not take up this process. For every individual living entity the process of Krsna consciousness, which entails full engagement in devotional service, is the best way. If one wants to ignore this devotional service, there is the danger of turning to atheism. Thus the process of centering attention on the unmanifested, the inconceivable, which is beyond the approach of the senses, as already expressed in this verse, should never be encouraged at any time, especially in this age. It is not advised by Lord Krsna.

November 28, 2003

from http://www.hare-krishna.org/srila-prabhupada-books.htm

yasodanandana · November 28, 2003

"When krishna says only those who worship him will achieve salvation, it is the supreme being (yes the formless impersonal which you get so worked up about) and not Krishna the human manifestation"

_krsna is not human and he has not a human manifestation.. we have a form resembling vaguely the ones of the spiritual world, not the opposite..

the problem of who is the one speaking in the gita... i do not understand why if we read "President Bush said", "the song of Stevie Wonder", we understand George bush and Stevie Wonder.. If we read "Bhagavan uvacha" and "Bhagavad Gita(the song of bhagavan)" we understand : "the impersonal formless nirguna" and so on...

stevie means stevie

george means george

krsna means krsna

"when I stated that all u guys spend most of yr time running others down. "

_maybe there's fanatics or ineducate persons (even if it is not my responsability), but you have also to consider that a personalist, one who believes that god is impersonal, but also a complete individual ... one who loves krishna or who is developing love for krishna, cannot take easily your dogmatic assertion that krsna is , practically speaking, another product of maya

you are not speaking of little details, i cannot stay silent if one tells me that brahman is the only reality and the person krsna is illusion

Brahma kumaris

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Support the Ashram

Join Groups

Top Downloads