PDA

View Full Version : Is it Advaita philosophy thats the underlying deeper message of vishvarupa darshanas



charitra
14 January 2013, 03:00 PM
This is my proposal to the absolute vaishnava dvaitin/dualist. Two different and somewhat esoteric revelations in the form of vishwarupa darshanas are to be considered in explaining my theory here. Long before Arjuna was privileged to do so, vishva rupa (universal or cosmic form) was already witnessed by none other than Krishna’s beloved mother Yashoda herself. Albeit a different version of it though. Back when Krishna was a small child and was accused of invading the homes of gopikas looking for butter, exasperated mom on one such longday demanded that he opened his mouth to verify if it was full of butter. When Krishna dutifully obligedand and opened his mouth wide, to her utter dismay yashoda saw in it something celestial in makeup. Innumerable planets, stars and whole galaxies were revolving in his mouth. She, then andthere, realized that he was no ordinary child. Now a legitimate question arises here. Why did the compilers of Bhagavatam took pains and endowed humble mother (meaning, not a yogi or scholar or seeker) with such vision that even great sages and kings were not gifted with?

In fact on further analysis, when collectively viewed, the two mega forms witnessed by Yashoda and Arjuna appear somewhat different, however they both agree on the larger message of advaita encoded in them for all humanity to decipher and appreciate. It is notable that the two different forms are not identical. The sumtotal of the two visions at two different stages of krishna’s life cements the idea of core advaita philosophy beyond any doubts IMO. The first one draws in the cosmos and Brahman, whereas the second one highlights karma and atma and its transmigration. Arjuna saw the life cycles of scores of humans ending in Krishna’s vishvarupa along with large galactic fires and all. I was trying to convince the vaishnava dvaitins and other dualists to look at advaita favorably, all because Krishna was asserting the same through his episodic and transient celestial transformations. I must say this is not a academic work from me, since there are no references other than bringing in two highly significant events in krishna’s earthly life, one from Bhagavatam the other from Bagavad gita (Mahabharata). The underlying message is that Krishna was there to enlighten everyone about ADVAITA philosophy, weaning them away from adoration of his human avatar.

Prastana Traya ( Upanishads, Gita and Brahma sutras) are the core texts of Vedanta and as we all know vedanta overwhelmingly preaches advaita doctrine although it doesn’t altogether dismiss dvaita. When two texts (Upanishads and Brahmasutra) are unequivocally advaitic in substance then how is it possible that a 3rd one viewed as supportive of pure dualism, it is clearly debatable. By inference BG also strongly advocates advaita in MY bold opinion. I know there are some holes in my theory, so therefore please criticize without hesitation. I summoned lot of courage to post it in Vaishnava forum, dont be offended. We hindus are argumentative as I understand it, even Adi Shankara had to face very vocal oponents rants with all humility.. Namaste.

grames
15 January 2013, 05:33 AM
Dear

Everyone is entitled to have their opinion and you have your opinion. Thing is, some people spend time and life to understand before they make opinion and also ask tons of questions and give enough time to digest the meanings, put things together with out loosing the meanings!

Such great works are done by our beloved acharyas and we follow the foot steps of them accepting our limitations and also what we are attracted and convinced to. Two people belief does not have to be same and so why we have multiple vedanta schools and philosophies.

Vaishnava's do not see any validity of Advaita philosophy (in any form or format) as Vedas, Upanishads and Gita, purana etc. are not conveying any other message other than the Lord and His sentients and insentient. It is not just Dualism ( not just Two but at least Three viz. Ishwara, Jiva and Jada) and there is no possibility of single vastu alone.

So what are your questions and what are your answers for having Advaita as the Truth! Would you like to elaborate?

Hare Krshna!

charitra
15 January 2013, 07:47 AM
So what are your questions and what are your answers for having Advaita as the Truth! Would you like to elaborate?Hare Krshna!


What seems to be the underlying metaphysical explanation forKrishna showing His cosmic form to Yashoda, what kind of message humans should receive from it.

How does one compare and contrast this enlightening chapter with the chapter 11 of BG.

Merging both darshanas, to me it appears, that through these vishva appearances the larger meaning for humans is that He is the saguna Brahman, no? Only names are different but that conceptually both are similar. If humans enter and exit from his physical entity (transmigration)as in BG Ch11 rupa then it all designed to be just ONE ‘thing’ only and not two or as you highlighted three. How am I wrong. Namaste.

Jainarayan
15 January 2013, 11:05 AM
Namaste.


Vaishnava's do not see any validity of Advaita philosophy (in any form or format) as Vedas, Upanishads and Gita, purana etc. are not conveying any other message other than the Lord and His sentients and insentient. It is not just Dualism ( not just Two but at least Three viz. Ishwara, Jiva and Jada) and there is no possibility of single vastu alone.

Forgive my ignorance, but am I to infer from this that Vaishnavas cannot be and/or are not Advaitin; that Vaishnavism is dualist? If my inference is correct, that's a pretty broad statement, yes? As a Vaishnava the closest I come to dualism is Vishistadvaita, and even that I'm not sure about. If my inference is wrong and my ignorance is shining through, please ignore this. :)

grames
15 January 2013, 01:08 PM
VishistaAdvaita is not dualism and it also has three Vastu!
Dualism is just used as an antonym for "Advaitam" but anything that is not "Advaita" is generally called "Dvaitam"!

Jainarayan
15 January 2013, 02:07 PM
Thanks, I think I may have misinterpreted your post. I know Vaishnavism has its duality adherents.

Viraja
15 January 2013, 05:17 PM
I tried to follow this question with great curiosity - honestly, I did not understand too much of it, but it seemed to touch on 'Aham Brahmasmi' principle - upon seeing the Vishwaroopa, Yashoda and Arjuna would have realized that they are part and particle of the same truth - that they are one with the Brahman.

philosoraptor
15 January 2013, 06:23 PM
In fact on further analysis, when collectively viewed, the two mega forms witnessed by Yashoda and Arjuna appear somewhat different, however they both agree on the larger message of advaita encoded in them for all humanity to decipher and appreciate. It is notable that the two different forms are not identical. The sumtotal of the two visions at two different stages of krishna’s life cements the idea of core advaita philosophy beyond any doubts IMO. The first one draws in the cosmos and Brahman, whereas the second one highlights karma and atma and its transmigration. Arjuna saw the life cycles of scores of humans ending in Krishna’s vishvarupa along with large galactic fires and all.

Pranams,

The above statements do not make any credible argument to the effect that the vishva-rUpa darshanas somehow teach advaita. Bear in mind that in advaita, nothing else is real except brahman. Now, some advaitins will qualify this by saying that the non-real phenomenal existence is only "differently real," and yet others will say that it is neither real nor unreal. However, if by advaita you are meaning the pure advaita of Adi shankara in which brahman only exists and world is mAyA, then you have a problem: What is that "universe" which kRiShNa is showing to yashoda? It is not real, so what is the point of displaying it in His baby mouth? It is just mAyA, right?

Moreover, in most versions of advaita, brahman is formless and undifferentiated. But is this consistent with the vishva-rUpa that was shown to arjuna? It is not. Because that which was displayed to arjuna was not a formless entity - it was a form of the Lord having countless heads, arms, legs, and divine qualities. So subtle and overwhelming an experience was that vishva-rUpa that kRiShNa had to give arjuna divine eyes to see it. Having infinite limbs and qualities is the opposite of having no form and qualities.

In summary, there is nothing about these experiences that teach advaita. What they do teach, is that the universe has the Lord as its sustainer, that the universe is pervaded by Him, and its glories and attributes are at best a minute fraction of His countless glories. It is implicitly understood from this that the universe is real, and at the same time not independent of Him.

I don't know if the OP is using the term "dualist" in the sense of tattvavAdis following shrI madhvAchArya or in the neo-Hindu sense of "anyone who isn't an advaitin." However, I don't see any real problem here with the idea of Lord who supports and pervades the creation, yet transcends it - these are core teachings of the upaniShads and have nothing to do with advaita.


The underlying message is that Krishna was there to enlighten everyone about ADVAITA philosophy, weaning them away from adoration of his human avatar.

This is an illogical position to take, for reasons already stated above, as well as for one more obvious one: where in the gItA does kRiShNa explain that ultimate realization means recognition of the complete lack of difference between them? Where does arjuna supposedly realize that he is the same as kRiShNa? The gItA is the distilled wisdom of the upaniShads, a sort of Cliff's Notes of the upaniShads, so to speak, so those kinds of important teachings would have been spelled out, if they are indeed valid understanding of the shruti. But they are not mentioned, and so the advaitin understanding rests on indirect and very oblique interpretations of the gItA, just as it does on indirect and oblique interpretations of the upaniShads.


Prastana Traya ( Upanishads, Gita and Brahma sutras) are the core texts of Vedanta and as we all know vedanta overwhelmingly preaches advaita doctrine although it doesn’t altogether dismiss dvaita.

This is again, an illogical statement. The upaniShads cannot preach both advaita and dvaita because these two systems are fundamentally opposed to each other. Perhaps what you meant to say is that they teach difference and non-difference, in which case any understanding that fails to reconcile both concepts cannot be a valid explanation of the shAstra.


When two texts (Upanishads and Brahmasutra) are unequivocally advaitic in substance then how is it possible that

Who said that upaniShads and brahma-sUtra are "unequivocally advaitic?"

regards

Omkara
15 January 2013, 08:51 PM
Prastana Traya ( Upanishads, Gita and Brahma sutras) are the core texts of Vedanta and as we all know vedanta overwhelmingly preaches advaita doctrine although it doesn’t altogether dismiss dvaita. When two texts (Upanishads and Brahmasutra) are unequivocally advaitic in substance then how is it possible that a 3rd one viewed as supportive of pure dualism, it is clearly debatable.



While a case might be built that the upanishads teach advaita vedanta, the same cannot be said for the brahma sutras and bhagavad gita.

Any neutral scholar will tell you that Shankara's commentary on the Brahma Sutra is a forced and oblique interpretation which breaks traditional rules of interpretation of sutras.
See for example George Thibaut's comparison of Sankara's commentary to Ramanuja's.
Infact the Brahma Sutras say-

anupapattestu na shArIraH- Brahman is not the same as the embodied individual, because such identity s impossible

bhedavyapadeshAt.h - the difference [of Brahman and individual] is taught

Twilightdance
16 January 2013, 06:22 AM
Let's say later Monism (which doesn't take world and attributes of supreme to be unreal) is not contradictory to Bhagvat Gita, but Sankara's Advaita Vendanta and some of its conclusions are in direct contradiction to teachings of Gita, IMHO. But I can't say Vaishnavism has done any more justice to Gita than Sankara Advaita.

Amrut
16 January 2013, 10:08 AM
This is my proposal to the absolute vaishnava dvaitin/dualist. Two different and somewhat esoteric revelations in the form of vishwarupa darshanas are to be considered in explaining my theory here. Long before Arjuna was privileged to do so, vishva rupa (universal or cosmic form) was already witnessed by none other than Krishna’s beloved mother Yashoda herself. Albeit a different version of it though. Back when Krishna was a small child and was accused of invading the homes of gopikas looking for butter, exasperated mom on one such longday demanded that he opened his mouth to verify if it was full of butter. When Krishna dutifully obligedand and opened his mouth wide, to her utter dismay yashoda saw in it something celestial in makeup. Innumerable planets, stars and whole galaxies were revolving in his mouth. She, then andthere, realized that he was no ordinary child. Now a legitimate question arises here. Why did the compilers of Bhagavatam took pains and endowed humble mother (meaning, not a yogi or scholar or seeker) with such vision that even great sages and kings were not gifted with?

In fact on further analysis, when collectively viewed, the two mega forms witnessed by Yashoda and Arjuna appear somewhat different, however they both agree on the larger message of advaita encoded in them for all humanity to decipher and appreciate. It is notable that the two different forms are not identical. The sumtotal of the two visions at two different stages of krishna’s life cements the idea of core advaita philosophy beyond any doubts IMO. The first one draws in the cosmos and Brahman, whereas the second one highlights karma and atma and its transmigration. Arjuna saw the life cycles of scores of humans ending in Krishna’s vishvarupa along with large galactic fires and all. I was trying to convince the vaishnava dvaitins and other dualists to look at advaita favorably, all because Krishna was asserting the same through his episodic and transient celestial transformations. I must say this is not a academic work from me, since there are no references other than bringing in two highly significant events in krishna’s earthly life, one from Bhagavatam the other from Bagavad gita (Mahabharata). The underlying message is that Krishna was there to enlighten everyone about ADVAITA philosophy, weaning them away from adoration of his human avatar.

Prastana Traya ( Upanishads, Gita and Brahma sutras) are the core texts of Vedanta and as we all know vedanta overwhelmingly preaches advaita doctrine although it doesn’t altogether dismiss dvaita. When two texts (Upanishads and Brahmasutra) are unequivocally advaitic in substance then how is it possible that a 3rd one viewed as supportive of pure dualism, it is clearly debatable. By inference BG also strongly advocates advaita in MY bold opinion. I know there are some holes in my theory, so therefore please criticize without hesitation. I summoned lot of courage to post it in Vaishnava forum, dont be offended. We hindus are argumentative as I understand it, even Adi Shankara had to face very vocal oponents rants with all humility.. Namaste.

To put in simple words,

Jnana is also a kind of bhakti. Bhakti of Nirakara God is Jnana.

In Gita there are two types of upasana.

1. Pratik
2. Ahamgraha.

(Please do not make me search for references. Refer my signature)

Pratik means symbol. Just like national flag represents entire nation, so does a small idol represent the entire cosmos. So you begin worshipping to an idol by thinking that there is God inside this Idol. So you are different than God and then end up merging into God losing your own existence. Though many will say that I will like to be with God and have his constant darshan. As I understand, Darshan means not 'to see' but 'to know'. Thats why in Gita it is said by Shri Krushna that Those who 'Know' my birth and divine karma are not different than me.

In Ahamgrah Upasana, from the beginning, you worship God as not different from you.

In advaita sadhana, from the beginning you will have to renounce worldly desires and pull back 5 senses, while in Dvaita, you enjoy both world and God and later on your love for God fades all other external objects in your mind.

Krushna when showing the Virat Svarupa would mean that entire cosmos is inside Krushna. GOD is called Maya Pati meaning Lord of Maya.

In Advaita it's formless aspect is worshipped i.e. Brahman which does not create, preserve or dissolve.

In Gita, Jnana Karg starts from chapter 13 and ends with chapter 18. Chapter 15 is the last chapter for updesha. After that there are no new updeshas. 16 and 17 are barometers of your spiritual progress and the last one 18 is Moksha Sanyas Yog.

What Advaita will interpret when he will read 'Shri Bhagavan Uvacha' meaning God speaks that Krushna is saying from Substratum of entire universe or Atma Sthiti while a Vaishnav will say it is the Krushna (Person) who is saying.

One has to achieve or experience both states in any order, be it whatever path you follow

1. Nirvikalp samadhi
2. SArvam Khalu-idam Brahman - Eventhing else is brahman or simply this world is not dfferent from brahman.

Advaitin will experience Nirvikalp samadhi first, because thats that nature of sadhana and then are the meditation is over, he will experience that this world is not different from brahman.

A dvaita sadhaka will first have divine vision of God and will see God in everything and later on same God will take him to Advaita State.

Until one has experienced both states, one does not attain Moksha.

Narsimh Mehta is an eg of Jnani bhakta who started as Bhakta and later on became Jnani.

Shri Ramakrishna and Sri Ramana Maharshi experienced both dvaita and advaita sthitis, but one stressed on bhakti and other on Jnana. Ramana Manarshi also wrote about Arunachala Pancharatna and in 'Who am I', he has said that when one works with detachment, one can see Jagdamba in his wife too.

In case of Sri Ramakrishna's Advaita Guru, Shri Totapuri, he even made fun of Sri Ramakrishna when he saw his disciple clapping and singing bhajans. To him Maa Kali is nothing but Maya and is just a thought and has to be avoided or neglected. He experienced Nirvikalp samadhi, but after meditation was over, he used ot again live in Dvaita. Thats why he had to meditate daily. Later on, one day he experienced Maa Kali and accepted that his sadhana is not over and for the first time, he went to went to temple and did 'shastang pranam'. Sri Ramakrishna said that even though you do not give important to Maya, you are still in her clutches. So without her grace, you would not go beyond it.

Cosmic form is different than Atma Sthiti. In Atma Sthiti / Nirvikalp Sthiti only you are present and nothing else. You do not see anything.

God has ability and freedom to enter into advaita at anytime any place and again at will go beyond names and forms beyond Maya. God is not bound by Maya, but is Mayapati.

In Advaita, when you withdraw 5 senses then suddenly you will feel that all joy, ananda has faded away. So many people and mostly Vaishnavas will say that Advaita is dry philosophy and they will say that you will loose your bhakti bhava if you even interact with Advaitins.

There is an insecurity. When you will jump into insecurity, you will realize taht you are most secured. You will realize that it was you who was holding to worldly things are not that opposite which you had always thought. You will experience deep peace which is extremely long lasting as it is coming out of vairagya. Vairagya means 'absence of desires in mind' or 'objects of desires in mind'. Peace and bliss will flow uninterrupted as it does not depend upon any external factor or any person. Destruction of desires is nothing but Liberation says Vivek Chudamani. Mind has to be strong since you will to drop desires from beginning and not attain 5 senses and even worry about your family, as compared to dvaita sadhana in which these things will fade away when bhakti reaches it's peak. So the transition is smooth and gradual, while in advaita, if one clings to Atman and stays detached by neglecting the impulses and thoughts, very quickly will one experience peace and bliss. There is bhava but it's not like bhakti, It is santa bhava. Shanta is also a bhava. Unlike bhakta who bhava will swing form small to big like that of waves, there is no change in peace and is uninterrupted. There is no high tide and low tide in peace. But being clinged to Atman or being detached though day is difficult. Hence initially things are very difficult.

This is basic difference between dvaita and advaita.

Shri Ramakrishna says that Dvaita, Viisthadvaita and Advaita are not opposite but are steps, but advaita is the final word is spirituality.

Aum

philosoraptor
16 January 2013, 10:53 AM
Let's say later Monism (which doesn't take world and attributes of supreme to be unreal) is not contradictory to Bhagvat Gita, but Sankara's Advaita Vendanta and some of its conclusions are in direct contradiction to teachings of Gita, IMHO. But I can't say Vaishnavism has done any more justice to Gita than Sankara Advaita.

We can say that, but that isn't really consistent either. Any form of unqualified monism will not be a convincing explanation of what is found in the upaniShads and the gItA. Repeatedly in both texts, we see references to brahman as the Lord of all entities, as the one from which all else originates, as the one because of whom others do their duties (like agni, vAyu, indra), and so on. These statements are all predicated on the notion that other entities are *different* and *dependent* on brahman - hardly a conclusion consistent with unqualified monism.

Now, if you apply a qualified monism or bedha/abedha type of paradigm, that's a different story. But Advaita? Not if you want to be convincing.

philosoraptor
16 January 2013, 10:56 AM
Shri Ramakrishna says that Dvaita, Viisthadvaita and Advaita are not opposite but are steps, but advaita is the final word is spirituality.


Pranams,

This illogical view is of course, the cardinal teaching of Neo-Vedanta. Dvaita and Vishishtaadvaita as "steps" to understanding Advaita is simply not a credible theory, as the former systems disagree with Advaita on many basic points and are simply not compatible with the latter.

regards,

Twilightdance
16 January 2013, 11:27 AM
Repeatedly in both texts, we see references to brahman as the Lord of all entities, as the one from which all else originates, as the one because of whom others do their duties (like agni, vAyu, indra), and so on.

But why do you think these statement contradict or inconsistent with monism? Kashmir shaivism repeatedly calls Shiva the Lord, creator of all beings in much more direct personal theistic terms than most Upanishads and Gita, and the God grants a most direct real experience of grace [not an after death conceptual moksha of vedanta] - yet is strictly monist. There is no inconsistency being both a teacher and a student, a father and a son so on, so forth. Exacting philosophical grounding of this concept will need a concept of vimasha or self-reflection, not found in vedanta. Doesn't mean it goes against vedanta.

If there was no abheda sruti in the vedantic corpus [which is not the case] we may say we can't conclude monism based on the vedanta alone. But there is no inconsistency unless one brings in an inert brahman an undefinable maya etc. Inert brahman is a generalization of inert samkhya purushas so is not vedantic.

But one must ask why does the shruti invokes the supreme qualities of Godhead and divine qualities of devas so innumerable times? Is it because one may argue on bheda-abheda and supreme form of God in business hours and dance with raised arms during leisure? Advaita vedanta may be inconsistent with shruti but Vaishnavism is no less a subversion of these scriptures which has made them useless in real life except for fruitless debates and overloading tear glands, IMHO - ofcourse. ;)

PS: Not recognizing one or any of the 8th-16th century acharyas of vedanta as anything less than superhuman avatars of one or the other deva, admitting their dialectical prowess and special skill at religious hermeneutics not withstanding, makes one untouchable outcast here and else where - but still.

philosoraptor
16 January 2013, 06:50 PM
But why do you think these statement contradict or inconsistent with monism? Kashmir shaivism repeatedly calls Shiva the Lord, creator of all beings in much more direct personal theistic terms than most Upanishads and Gita, and the God grants a most direct real experience of grace [not an after death conceptual moksha of vedanta] - yet is strictly monist. There is no inconsistency being both a teacher and a student, a father and a son so on, so forth. Exacting philosophical grounding of this concept will need a concept of vimasha or self-reflection, not found in vedanta. Doesn't mean it goes against vedanta.

Because monism by definition denies the existence of more than one entity, and the existence of more than one entity is implicit in statements that describe Him(1) as the creator of the world(2), as the Lord(1) of the living entities(2+), etc. By contrast, a qualified monism in which entities are related in a part-to-the-whole relationship offers a more believable paradigm that takes into account both the bedha and abedha shrutis.



If there was no abheda sruti in the vedantic corpus [which is not the case] we may say we can't conclude monism based on the vedanta alone.

If only abedha shrutis existed, then you would have a case for claiming absolute monism. But the fact is that bedha and abedha shrutis exist, so the paradigm that explains them must reconcile both, and this would not be consistent with absolute monism.



But one must ask why does the shruti invokes the supreme qualities of Godhead and divine qualities of devas so innumerable times? Is it because one may argue on bheda-abheda and supreme form of God in business hours and dance with raised arms during leisure? Advaita vedanta may be inconsistent with shruti but Vaishnavism is no less a subversion of these scriptures which has made them useless in real life except for fruitless debates and overloading tear glands, IMHO - ofcourse. ;)

Well first of all, there is no such thing as a homogeneous "Vaishnava" approach to the shruti, and unless you have studied all of the Vaishnava commentaries on the Vedaanta, your comments are unfounded. Second, it surely cannot be the case that the correctness of one philosophy must be asserted on the claimed lack of correctness of other philosophical systems - they must all be evaluated on their own merits. Finally, you don't really answer your own question above, nor do you seem to understand the irreducible nature of the question as stated. Why does the shruti describe the supreme qualities of God? Why not? How *else* would shruti describe God without describing His qualities? Have you ever described a thing without describing or alluding to its properties?



PS: Not recognizing one or any of the 8th-16th century acharyas of vedanta as anything less than superhuman avatars of one or the other deva, admitting their dialectical prowess and special skill at religious hermeneutics not withstanding, makes one untouchable outcast here and else where - but still.

I have no idea what is being suggested by the above. If you, like a certain tantric admirer on this forum, feel that there are more merits in Google searches of translations of non-Hindu, European scholars than in the traditional insider's approach, then feel free to indulge yourself, but don't expect fawning appreciation from me. If I can question the interpretations of traditional acharyas, then I reserve the right to question the understandings of those who've not even studied the shruti in the traditional way, as well as those whose whole conception of Hinduism is what they found via google pramaana.

regards,

wundermonk
16 January 2013, 11:16 PM
While a case might be built that the upanishads teach advaita vedanta, the same cannot be said for the brahma sutras and bhagavad gita.

Let us see. The Brahmasutras [BS] are supposed to be authored by Badarayana and they summarize the Upanishads. Many of the sruthi support for the sutras come from the Upanishads themselves.

If Shankara gave the most consistent commentary on the Upanishads AND the Upanishads form the majority of the sruthi support of the sutras in the BS, how can Shankara's commentary on the sutras be held to be oblique?


anupapattestu na shArIraH- Brahman is not the same as the embodied individual, because such identity s impossible

bhedavyapadeshAt.h - the difference [of Brahman and individual] is taught

The sutras being extremely cryptic, it would be useful if you provide the sutra number and the general context in which these sutras appear.

Amrut
16 January 2013, 11:48 PM
Pranams,

This illogical view is of course, the cardinal teaching of Neo-Vedanta. Dvaita and Vishishtaadvaita as "steps" to understanding Advaita is simply not a credible theory, as the former systems disagree with Advaita on many basic points and are simply not compatible with the latter.

regards,

Pranams,

No offenses either. Sri Ramakrishna has great influence upon me, but I understand that it is not necessary that others will have same feeling for him.

I just hope that you have read Sri Ramakrishna Jivan Charitra (biography), as without reading it would not make sense to comment.

I have read Jivan Charitra of Sri Ramakrishna many times, in my native language, but have never encountered the word 'Neo-Vedanta'. To add to it, I have not even read Swami Vivekananda's writings or Sri Sarada Maa's writings, as I was told they were not given to me.

So if this is something that is coined by the devotees, I would not comment on it. Also I am not keen to study new things.

I would also like to point out that Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda had different philosophies. While Swami Vivekananda stressed more on Karma (social service), Sri Ramakrishna did not encouraged it. Sri Ramakrishna once said, 'if you have a divine vision of Lord, would you ask him to build schools, hospitals, etc. A devotee will only pray to him that he should stay at the lotus feet of Lord. Devotee does not want anything more. Our job is to love God'

So please if this is for Swami Vivekananda, please do not mix both of them.

I have visited Sri Ramakrishna ashram and most saints idolize Vivekananda and few Sri Ramakrishna and still few Sarada Maa, though both Sarada Maa and Vivekananda had being trained under Sri Ramakrishna. All 3 have done their part of work, which was then necessary.

One more question: Do you meditate?

I do not consider puja etc karma kand as meditation. What I means is that do you do Japa and have ever experienced Bhava. If you would not mind to share, please can you tell how many hours can you sit constantly. I respect your privacy so I would understand if I do not get a reply.

Only in deep meditation you will get insights. This will help you to judge a statement.

Ofcourse no one will accept schools to accept the statement that Dvaita-Vishistadvaita and Advaita are steps. I do not say that schools and acharyas do not meditate. Just want know and tell you that meditation is important part to understand scriptures and statement of saints.

just to make a quick intro, Sri Ramakrishna had worshiped Vaishnava style with das, vatsalya, prem (highest form of bhakti), advaita, Tattra, and even crossed Hinduism to worship and realize the truth through Islam, christianity. Sri Ramakrishna held high respect of Buddha, 10 Sikh Gurus and other dharmacharyas. Before him, I o not know any other saint who has experienced God in this way. He had come to earth for purpose and so he passed through all these phases. Generally realization of just one deity is enough.

The more you meditate, more you will understand that it is almost impossible for average human being to meditate and pass through states he has passed.

This is also the reason why I asked you if you meditate.

All is being said with right spirit and with respect and no intention to hurt any person or any faith.

Aum

Omkara
17 January 2013, 12:37 AM
Let us see. The Brahmasutras [BS] are supposed to be authored by Badarayana and they summarize the Upanishads. Many of the sruthi support for the sutras come from the Upanishads themselves.

If Shankara gave the most consistent commentary on the Upanishads AND the Upanishads form the majority of the sruthi support of the sutras in the BS, how can Shankara's commentary on the sutras be held to be oblique?



I don't think Shankara gave the most consistent interpretation of the upanishads.




The sutras being extremely cryptic, it would be useful if you provide the sutra number and the general context in which these sutras appear.



bhedavyapadeshAchchAnyaH (1.1.21)

netaro.anapapatteH anupapattestu na shArIraH (1.1.16)

anavasthiterasaMbhavAchchAnyaH ( 1.2.17)

shArIrashchobhaye.apihi. bhedenainamadhIyate (1.2.20)

philosoraptor
17 January 2013, 11:29 AM
Pranams,

No offenses either. Sri Ramakrishna has great influence upon me, but I understand that it is not necessary that others will have same feeling for him.

I just hope that you have read Sri Ramakrishna Jivan Charitra (biography), as without reading it would not make sense to comment.

Namaste,

After asserting that "Dvaita, Viisthadvaita and Advaita are not opposite but are steps, but advaita is the final word is spirituality," [sic] it is evasive of you to request that one read a biography to substantiate that. What you should be reading are the commentaries of the scholars in each of these traditions. May I ask you what texts you have studied in order to understand advaita, vishiShtAdvaita, and tattvavAda?

I understand that you follow Ramakrishna, and that you have bought in to the mystique and the mythology that have developed around him. That's fine. What I'm trying to explain to you is that no amount of guru-worship or faith-acceptance is going to change the reality that the vedAnta systems you mentioned are irreconcilable, and certainly not steps in progressive understanding towards advaita. It is no more the case that you can reconcile irreconcilable philosophical systems through faith-acceptance than you can redefine the laws of physics.

The term "Neo-Vedanta" is based on Swami Vivekananda's correspondence in which he wrote of his goal of inaugurating a "new Hinduism." Yes, his "philosophy" is different from Ramakrishna's. Noticeably, it is more materialistic, more nationalistic, and more karma-oriented, by which I mean action in a general sense as opposed to prescribed action. However, in spite of the differences, Vivekananda has clearly borrowed some cardinal neo-Hindu ideas from Ramakrishna, most noticeably his belief in the alleged compatibility of different religions, an idea which flies in the face of established facts. Another idea he borrowed is his bias against bhakti, which reflects in your own words and your portrayal of Ramakrishna's thinking. In particular, your attempt to distinguish between meditation and puja reveals a misunderstanding of both. Similarly, your attempt to associate Ramakrishna's perceived spiritual superiority (e.g. meditation, "insights," "bhava") and so on with authoritativeness reveals a misunderstanding of vedAntic standards of epistemology. As an aside, your invoking of "bhAva" as a plea for accepting Ramakrishna's spiritual credentials, is not in keeping with its usage in the source from which it is borrowed, namely the 16th century bhakti-rasAmRita-sindhu of shrI rUpa gosvAmI. Therein, bhAva is described as the penultimate stage of bhakti which leads to prema-bhakti. However, the state of bhAva is held in such high regard and it is inappropriate and unheard of in that tradition to point to someone's alleged bhAva as evidence that his opinions must be accepted as true and correct.

regards,

wundermonk
17 January 2013, 11:54 AM
I don't think Shankara gave the most consistent interpretation of the upanishads.

It is quite unanimously held that Shankara's commentary on the main Upanishads are quite beautifully resonant. Can provide sources, time permitting.




bhedavyapadeshAchchAnyaH (1.1.21)

netaro.anapapatteH anupapattestu na shArIraH (1.1.16)

anavasthiterasaMbhavAchchAnyaH ( 1.2.17)

shArIrashchobhaye.apihi. bhedenainamadhIyate (1.2.20)

The purvapakshin view in all of these sutras EVEN ACCORDING TO RAMANUJA COMMENTARY is that some individual soul (Ramanuja is a pluralist in that he believes in multiplicity of jivas) is within the eye, in the sun, etc. after attaining an elevated status. Even according to him (someone who holds the plurality of jivas) all the subject matter of these sutras (and the underlying Upanishadic verses brought in support as sruthi) is Brahman. So, these sutras do NOT go against the oneness of Brahman.

What is being denied by the sutrakara in these sutras is that there is no elevated jiva that is within the eye, in the sun, etc. Advaitins will gladly accept such an interpretation, EVEN THOUGH IT IS FROM RAMANUJA.

Amrut
17 January 2013, 01:15 PM
Namaste,

After asserting that "Dvaita, Viisthadvaita and Advaita are not opposite but are steps, but advaita is the final word is spirituality," [sic] it is evasive of you to request that one read a biography to substantiate that. What you should be reading are the commentaries of the scholars in each of these traditions. May I ask you what texts you have studied in order to understand advaita, vishiShtAdvaita, and tattvavAda?

I understand that you follow Ramakrishna, and that you have bought in to the mystique and the mythology that have developed around him. That's fine. What I'm trying to explain to you is that no amount of guru-worship or faith-acceptance is going to change the reality that the vedAnta systems you mentioned are irreconcilable, and certainly not steps in progressive understanding towards advaita. It is no more the case that you can reconcile irreconcilable philosophical systems through faith-acceptance than you can redefine the laws of physics.

The term "Neo-Vedanta" is based on Swami Vivekananda's correspondence in which he wrote of his goal of inaugurating a "new Hinduism." Yes, his "philosophy" is different from Ramakrishna's. Noticeably, it is more materialistic, more nationalistic, and more karma-oriented, by which I mean action in a general sense as opposed to prescribed action. However, in spite of the differences, Vivekananda has clearly borrowed some cardinal neo-Hindu ideas from Ramakrishna, most noticeably his belief in the alleged compatibility of different religions, an idea which flies in the face of established facts. Another idea he borrowed is his bias against bhakti, which reflects in your own words and your portrayal of Ramakrishna's thinking. In particular, your attempt to distinguish between meditation and puja reveals a misunderstanding of both. Similarly, your attempt to associate Ramakrishna's perceived spiritual superiority (e.g. meditation, "insights," "bhava") and so on with authoritativeness reveals a misunderstanding of vedAntic standards of epistemology. As an aside, your invoking of "bhAva" as a plea for accepting Ramakrishna's spiritual credentials, is not in keeping with its usage in the source from which it is borrowed, namely the 16th century bhakti-rasAmRita-sindhu of shrI rUpa gosvAmI. Therein, bhAva is described as the penultimate stage of bhakti which leads to prema-bhakti. However, the state of bhAva is held in such high regard and it is inappropriate and unheard of in that tradition to point to someone's alleged bhAva as evidence that his opinions must be accepted as true and correct.

regards,

Namaste,

Please do not misunderstand me. I am just quoting words of a Saint. I have not studied other faiths as I do not need to. I have listened to some discourses and just recollect from them. I have no intention to prove superiority of Advaita. (I am not contradicting myself- these are words of saints and not mine) I have not told to read Sri Ramakrishna's biography for proving myself true. This was not my intention. Please take it positively. I am not associated with any ashram or foundation, not even Sri Ramakrishna Ashram.

Yes, Bhava is the state which brings prem-bhakti, which Sri Ramakrishna experienced. Sri Ramakrishna has said that bhakti is that best that suits today. Sri Ramakrishna also gave importance to Narada Bhakti Sutras. He did not say that all other paths are useless. Generally a saint will focus on one path like Adi Shankaracharya focused on Advaita and other acharyas like Vallabhacharya, et al focused on other paths. Sri Ramana Maharshi focused on Advaita and mostly taught in maun. So it's not biasing bhakti, but focusing bhakti. To neglect and to reject are different things. While first is neutral, later is negative.

Why I have said to read Sri Ramakrishna's biography is because he has experienced highest form of bhakti - prem-bhakti and also attained God by other paths and concluded that all paths lead to same destination. You can say that Sri Ramakrishna meant was harmony of all paths and religions. So the statement that dvaita, visishtadvaita and advaita are steps and 'puraka' was after all these realizations. Harmony of religions will bring peace among us and not the contradictions. I at no time tried to defame or challenge any faith or path. I have already mentioned it. If you do not have faith in the one who has realized truth then whom will you believe. It is ok if you disagree with Sri Ramakrishna.

Shastras are experiences of innumerable saints since time immemorial. So if you do not give importance to meditation and the insights, when what importance will you give. This is the reason why I asked you, whether you meditate or not. Reading merely does not help. Realization is necessary. Realization comes from meditation

Puja is more of a karma kand. It is easier than japa. You can chant mantras and ring bells for one hour, but you may not be able to chant a single mantra of one hour. e.g. You will find it difficult to chant Om Namah Shivaya for 1 hour than reading Shiv Sahasranama. This is another reason why I asked you whether you meditate or not.

Staunch devotees will always say their path is superior and sadly some say other paths are inferior or meaningless. Our path is superior may be necessary for one-pointedness. What do you think, all paths were created to contradict each other (leading to religious fights) or to compliment each other or fill in the gaps?

I have not tried to to make Sri Ramakrishna superior or trying to plea for the same. You are getting it all wrong. It is possible that I may have not conveyed it properly, due to my bad translation skills. I will again red it tomorrow, if if needed will come back again.

After talking face to face with Maa Kali, Sri Ramakrishna did not wanted anything else, but it was Sri Maa Kali who made arrangements to study other paths and also gave permission to study Advaita. God takes decision are one talks to God and has his divine vision.

I understand that we both may not agree. Lets just put it to an end peacefully. After all realizing truth (reaching your destination) is more important.

Namaste

Aum

Omkara
17 January 2013, 04:33 PM
The purvapakshin view in all of these sutras EVEN ACCORDING TO RAMANUJA COMMENTARY is that some individual soul (Ramanuja is a pluralist in that he believes in multiplicity of jivas) is within the eye, in the sun, etc. after attaining an elevated status. Even according to him (someone who holds the plurality of jivas) all the subject matter of these sutras (and the underlying Upanishadic verses brought in support as sruthi) is Brahman. So, these sutras do NOT go against the oneness of Brahman.

What is being denied by the sutrakara in these sutras is that there is no elevated jiva that is within the eye, in the sun, etc. Advaitins will gladly accept such an interpretation, EVEN THOUGH IT IS FROM RAMANUJA.



Whatever be the subject matter of the passage as a whole, those particular sutras do teach difference of Brahman and the individual soul.

Let's go through Shankara's commentary on these line by line.

http://www.bharatadesam.com/spiritual/brahma_sutra/brahma_sutra_sankara_34027.php

Clearly says Brahman is different from the individual soul even acc. to Shankara's commentary. Shankara has taken this in a vyavharika perspective. Since the Brahma Sutras are the decisive text on the interpretation of vedanta, surely such an important principle of interpretation would have beenentioned and defended by Badrayana. Has he done so? No. Also, even acc. to Shankara's interpretation, how many sutras talk of Nirguna Brahman? Why are the sutras silent on what is the central subject of vedanta according to advaitins? Why do the Brahma Sutras talk only about Saguna Brahman?

http://www.bharatadesam.com/spiritual/brahma_sutra/brahma_sutra_sankara_34054.php

Same as above.

http://www.bharatadesam.com/spiritual/brahma_sutra/brahma_sutra_sankara_34057.php

Same as above.

http://www.bharatadesam.com/spiritual/brahma_sutra/brahma_sutra_sankara_34023.php

Shankara takes this Anandamaya as a kosha. Everyone else takes Anandamaya as a name referring to Brahman. This view is supported by the preveding verses. Even according to Shankara this verse differentiates between Brahman and Anandamaya.

philosoraptor
17 January 2013, 05:24 PM
Please do not misunderstand me. I am just quoting words of a Saint. I have not studied other faiths as I do not need to.

Pranams,

This is my point. If you claim that vishiShtAdvaita and dvaita are steps to understanding advaita, yet have no understaning of any of these systems of thinking from their respective scholars, then you are making a false and misleading statement. That you are merely repeating verbatim the words of a prophet whose views you accept on faith, does not change this.



Yes, Bhava is the state which brings prem-bhakti, which Sri Ramakrishna experienced.

And you know this, because?



Sri Ramakrishna has said that bhakti is that best that suits today.


By contrast, other scholars in the bhakti schools stress the primacy of bhakti at all times, not just today.


Why I have said to read Sri Ramakrishna's biography is because he has experienced highest form of bhakti - prem-bhakti and also attained God by other paths and concluded that all paths lead to same destination.

And how do you know that he experienced the "highest form of bhakti?" You are just indiscriminately accepting the mythology spoken about him by his followers, and then treating his words as a shruti unto themselves.

This is why I stressed that this kind of confused thinking / faith-acceptance has nothing to do with traditional Hinduism.

regards,

Amrut
18 January 2013, 12:03 AM
Pranams,

This is my point. If you claim that vishiShtAdvaita and dvaita are steps to understanding advaita, yet have no understaning of any of these systems of thinking from their respective scholars, then you are making a false and misleading statement. That you are merely repeating verbatim the words of a prophet whose views you accept on faith, does not change this.

I have limited understanding for them. I have not exclusively read the scriptures, but basic concepts are said in some discourses, that I have heard in brief.




And you know this, because?

I have had some experience with bhakti too when I sponteanously begin to chant Hanuman's name, I have never visited any temple, as I did not find any surge to visit temple. I will not open my experience in public, but if you sincerely want to know in right spirit, please PM me. I will share my experience.



By contrast, other scholars in the bhakti schools stress the primacy of bhakti at all times, not just today.

This is not contrast. It is just that Sri Ramakrishna has also said the same, after experiencing all paths. But you do not believe that Sri Ramakrishna had ever achieved this state.


You seem to be well versed. But I have noticed one thing from many spiritual people I interact. Most of them are all well versed than me, but when I ask one question, 'Do you meditate', they will gulp down the question.

Meditation will bring insight, will remove superstition, remove rigidity and make on open minded. It is the core of any spiritual practices, though you will have some exceptions who have experienced spontaneous awakening without meditating. But for majority people, it is the core thing. People talk so much about scriptures, but they do not stay with God. Shastras are nothing but recording or expression of direct experience of saints.

More discussion would mean that OP's question would be sidetracked.

Nice talking to you.

Namaste

Aum

Twilightdance
18 January 2013, 03:03 AM
Because monism by definition denies the existence of more than one entity, and the existence of more than one entity is implicit in statements that describe Him(1) as the creator of the world(2), as the Lord(1) of the living entities(2+), etc. By contrast, a qualified monism in which entities are related in a part-to-the-whole relationship offers a more believable paradigm that takes into account both the bedha and abedha shrutis.

Yes, but this one "entity" has the power to appear as many to itself.


If only abedha shrutis existed, then you would have a case for claiming absolute monism. But the fact is that bedha and abedha shrutis exist, so the paradigm that explains them must reconcile both, and this would not be consistent with absolute monism. I am not claiming absolute monism from vedanta, but only saying it does not contradict vedanta - a much weaker [i.e is necessary but not sufficient condition]. How many arise from the one and collapses back into them is analyzed, demonstrated in many ways in the siddhanta scriptures. Only kevaladvaita is supposedly strictly based on vedanta, and I don't understand or defend that position. Siddhanta goes beyond vedanta without contradicting it [at least notionally].

Only criticism against this monism is it is not completely based on vedantic shruti, but then nothing is.

Twilightdance
18 January 2013, 03:14 AM
Well first of all, there is no such thing as a homogeneous "Vaishnava" approach to the shruti, and unless you have studied all of the Vaishnava commentaries on the Vedaanta, your comments are unfounded. Second, it surely cannot be the case that the correctness of one philosophy must be asserted on the claimed lack of correctness of other philosophical systems - they must all be evaluated on their own merits. Finally, you don't really answer your own question above, nor do you seem to understand the irreducible nature of the question as stated.

The point was not about philosophical accuracy but practical reality. If after thorough philosophical analysis of Gita in a consistent manner which doesn't contradict the Gita, one gets inclined to believe that becoming more humble than a blade of grass is the goal of life to obtain Krishna's grace - something has gone wrong in the process of this analysis. Not all vaishnava's hold this exact view, but they are quite close to each other in asserting the importance of being worthless in real life in so many words.

Hinduism is not just speculating on God and Creation consistently with shruti [that was a past time which became the only vocation in middle ages], but live life as per ideals of Shruti [this is only thing about being an astika]. If former contradicts the later, there is need for re-evaluation.


Why does the shruti describe the supreme qualities of God? Why not? How *else* would shruti describe God without describing His qualities? Have you ever described a thing without describing or alluding to its properties? Have you described anything if didn't mean anything to you personally? Have you been motivated to describe the beauty of sunrise without feeling the joy of it, or felt the need to defend India in war with Pakistan without feeling patriotic? Does anything make any sense when devoid of personal meaning and feeling?

Attributes are not so much to argue about whether God has attributes or not, but rather pay some actual attention to these attributes? When rishis took pain to jot down specific qualities did they do it without feeling and knowing each of them? So must it not serve better purpose than just be merry with the fact that God has qualities and then behave in complete contradiction to these qualities?

philosoraptor
18 January 2013, 09:30 AM
I have limited understanding for them. I have not exclusively read the scriptures, but basic concepts are said in some discourses, that I have heard in brief.

Pranams,

In that case please refrain from making misleading statements to the effect that dvaita and vishiShtAdvaita are steps to understanding advaita.



I have had some experience with bhakti too when I sponteanously begin to chant Hanuman's name, I have never visited any temple, as I did not find any surge to visit temple. I will not open my experience in public, but if you sincerely want to know in right spirit, please PM me. I will share my experience.

You think you have had experience with something you call "bhakti," granted. But because you place a greater premium on your subject insights than you do on shAstric knowledge, you don't have an objective frame of reference by which to judge the legitimacy of your "experience."


This is not contrast. It is just that Sri Ramakrishna has also said the same, after experiencing all paths. But you do not believe that Sri Ramakrishna had ever achieved this state.

Whether I believe it or not is besides the point. That's what you aren't understanding. Traditional, Vedaantic Hinduism is not based on faith-acceptance of the authority of charismatic leaders, but rather on the apaurusheyatva of the shruti.

The standard of thinking exhibited by you has more in common with prophet-based religions like Christianity than it does with Vedaanta.



You seem to be well versed. But I have noticed one thing from many spiritual people I interact. Most of them are all well versed than me, but when I ask one question, 'Do you meditate', they will gulp down the question.

Then you will be disappointed, because I do meditate regularly. I just don't have any interest in comparing sadhana standards with someone who thinks his own so-called meditation grants him insights which supersede the authority of shAstra.

regards,

shiv.somashekhar
18 January 2013, 10:29 AM
Traditional, Vedaantic Hinduism is not based on faith-acceptance of the authority of charismatic leaders, but rather on the apaurusheyatva of the shruti.
That is correct, but to be fair, perhaps we should rephrase this statement as -

Traditional, Vedaantic Hinduism is not based on faith-acceptance of the authority of charismatic leaders, but rather on the *faith-acceptance* of the apaurusheyatva of the shruti.

Now one may argue that apaurusheyatva is a universally provable concept (purva-mimamsa), but I believe that is not relevant here. It should also be pointed out that a number of concepts accepted by Vedantic Hindus (Vaikunta, ocean of milk, etc) are not from Shruti.

shiv.somashekhar
18 January 2013, 10:40 AM
This is not contrast. It is just that Sri Ramakrishna has also said the same, after experiencing all paths. But you do not believe that Sri Ramakrishna had ever achieved this state.

With all due respect, you have *no* way of knowing what Ramakrishna experienced (or did not experience). Not to offend anyone, but there are multiple possiblities here - he was a poor eater and may have hallucinated in a state of malnutrition, he may have deluded himself, etc. This being the case, how do we know which one of these possiblities is the truth?

Even if he did experience something, there is absolutely no way for you to have another experience and prove that your experience = his experience.

Or, to put it differently, it is impossible for you to follow a certain formula (meditation in this case) and arrive at the same state as he did. You may or you may not, but you just do not have any way of knowing for sure.

Twilightdance
18 January 2013, 11:19 AM
That is correct, but to be fair, perhaps we should rephrase this statement as -

Traditional, Vedaantic Hinduism is not based on faith-acceptance of the authority of charismatic leaders, but rather on the *faith-acceptance* of the apaurusheyatva of the shruti.

Now one may argue that apaurusheyatva is a universally provable concept (purva-mimamsa), but I believe that is not relevant here. It should also be pointed out that a number of concepts accepted by Vedantic Hindus (Vaikunta, ocean of milk, etc) are not from Shruti.

Excellent points as always.

philosoraptor
18 January 2013, 11:39 AM
Pranams,


Yes, but this one "entity" has the power to appear as many to itself.

That is your misunderstanding. Where in the shruti does it say it has the power to appear as many *to itself,* suggesting somehow that the appearance of multiplicity is merely subjective? I have yet to come across any such explicit reference, and the burden of proof is on you to provide it. On the contrary, I have seen references attesting to the reality of multiple different entities. Some examples:

As a spider moves along the thread (it produces), and as from a fire tiny sparks fly in all directions, so from this Self emanate all organs, all worlds, all gods and all beings. Its secret name (Upanishad) is 'the Truth of Truth'. The vital force is truth, and It is the Truth of that. (bRhadAraNyakopaniShad 2.1.20)

VIII-vii-1: The Atman which is free from evil, free from old age, free from death, free from sorrow, free from hunger and thirst, whose desire is of the truth, whose resolve is of the truth, he should be sought, him one should desire to understand. He who has found out and who understands that Atman attains all the worlds and all the desires. Thus spoke Prajapati.

VIII-vii-2: Both the gods and the demons heard this and said, 'Well, let us seek that Atman by seeking which one attains all the worlds and all the desires.' Then Indra alone from among the gods went out and so did Virochana from among the demons. Then without communicating with each other, they both came into the presence of Prajapati, fuel in hand.

VIII-vii-3: For thirty-two years they lived there the disciplined life of a celibate student of sacred knowledge. Then Prajapati asked them, 'Desiring what have you been living?' They replied, 'The Atman which is free from evil, free from old age, free from death, free from sorrow, free from hunger and thirst, whose desire is of the truth, whose resolve is of the truth, he should be sought, him one should desire to understand. He who has found out and who understands that Atman attain all the worlds and all the desires - these are known to be the words of your revered self. Desiring that Atman we have been living.'

VIII-vii-4: Prajapati said to them, 'The person which is seen in the eye is the Atman'. He added, 'This is the immortal, the fearless. This is Brahman'. 'But, revered sir, he who is perceived in water and he who in a mirror, which of these is the Atman?' It is he himself that is perceived in all these', replied Prajapati. (chAndogyopaniShad 8.7.1-4)

nityo nityaanaaM chetanashchetanaanaam
eko bahuunaaM yo vidadhaati kaamaan.h | kaTha 2.2.13 |

One eternal among many eternals, both conscious.... (kaThopaniShad 2.2.13)

na tv evāhaṁ jātu nāsaṁ na tvaṁ neme janādhipāḥ |
na caiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥ sarve vayam ataḥ param || gItA 2.12 ||

Never was there a time when you did not exist, nor I, nor all of these kings, nor in the future shall any of us cease to be (gItA 2.12).


Once again, the theme is clearly one of acknowledging the reality of multiple different entities, in spite of the the recognition that one all-pervading reality (Brahman) supports it all.



I am not claiming absolute monism from vedanta, but only saying it does not contradict vedanta - a much weaker [i.e is necessary but not sufficient condition].

Absolute monism denies the existence of anything other that brahman, so it most certainly does contradict the straightforward statements of the shruti, which speaks quite liberally about the existence of entities other than Brahman. Whenever it speaks of the need to know Him, of things created by Him, etc, it is clearly acknowledging multiplicity. Now, to get around this objection, the kevalAdvaitin has to argue that the statements showing multiplicity are referring to an illusory level of perception. However, that's just another way of saying that they are false, which thus gets back to the original objection - the shrutis themselves make no such statement. Now, if the kevalAdvaitin claims that the diversity and multiplicity is real, then I have no problem with that - but then it's not absolute monism anymore.



How many arise from the one and collapses back into them is analyzed, demonstrated in many ways in the siddhanta scriptures. Only kevaladvaita is supposedly strictly based on vedanta, and I don't understand or defend that position. Siddhanta goes beyond vedanta without contradicting it [at least notionally].

I don't know what you mean by "siddhanta scriptures." It sounds like you are saying that vedAnta has no definitive conclusion, except for those that are assigned to it by commentators. This, along with your next comment:


Only criticism against this monism is it is not completely based on vedantic shruti, but then nothing is.

... seems to reveal an attitude which considers shruti to be inherently inconsistent. That's fine if that is really your view, but I think it somewhat arbitrary a conclusion for someone who hasn't actually studied all of the available commentaries for consistency. Are you really going to take the position that because you can't see the consistency, it must not exist? The assumption of their consistency is inherent in the axiom of their apaurusheyatva. But, you need to accept that assumption to accept the principle that you ought not judge a book by its cover.


The point was not about philosophical accuracy but practical reality. If after thorough philosophical analysis of Gita in a consistent manner which doesn't contradict the Gita, one gets inclined to believe that becoming more humble than a blade of grass is the goal of life to obtain Krishna's grace - something has gone wrong in the process of this analysis. Not all vaishnava's hold this exact view, but they are quite close to each other in asserting the importance of being worthless in real life in so many words.

The gItA 13.8-12 beginning with the shloka "amānitvam adambhitvam..." says that humlity (among other virtues) is declared to be j~nAna (knowledge) aside from which everything else is ignorance. There is no contesting the point that j~nAna in its multiple usages refer to a means of attaining brahman. Furthermore, the same gItA 10.10-11 states that Krishna gives them the means by which they to come to Him:

teṣāṁ satata-yuktānāṁ bhajatāṁ prīti-pūrvakam |
dadāmi buddhi-yogaṁ taṁ yena mām upayānti te ||

teṣām evānukampārtham aham ajñāna-jaṁ tamaḥ |
nāśayāmy ātma-bhāva-stho jñāna-dīpena bhāsvatā ||

So there you have it. You have to be humble, and you have to get the Lord's grace. Where is the inconsistency? Where is the contradiction?

Isn't your real objection more personal rather than scriptural?



Hinduism is not just speculating on God and Creation consistently with shruti [that was a past time which became the only vocation in middle ages], but live life as per ideals of Shruti [this is only thing about being an astika]. If former contradicts the later, there is need for re-evaluation.

"Hinduism" is a modern construct which means many things to many people. The religion of the upaniShads is one that stresses constant worship, meditation, and knowing of that parama puruSha who is the indwelling controller of all conscious and non-conscious entities, and who supports and pervades them all.



Have you described anything if didn't mean anything to you personally? Have you been motivated to describe the beauty of sunrise without feeling the joy of it, or felt the need to defend India in war with Pakistan without feeling patriotic? Does anything make any sense when devoid of personal meaning and feeling?

Non-sequitur. We were discussing the fact that the upaniShads describe a brahman with attributes, because there is no way to describe a thing that has no attributes. Whether a thing can be described without referencing its properties is quite a different discussion from whether a thing can be described without sincerity of feeling.



Attributes are not so much to argue about whether God has attributes or not, but rather pay some actual attention to these attributes? When rishis took pain to jot down specific qualities did they do it without feeling and knowing each of them? So must it not serve better purpose than just be merry with the fact that God has qualities and then behave in complete contradiction to these qualities?

Again, you are just going off on a tangent. Let us restate your question:


But one must ask why does the shruti invokes the supreme qualities of Godhead and divine qualities of devas so innumerable times? Is it because one may argue on bheda-abheda and supreme form of God in business hours and dance with raised arms during leisure? Advaita vedanta may be inconsistent with shruti but Vaishnavism is no less a subversion of these scriptures which has made them useless in real life except for fruitless debates and overloading tear glands, IMHO - ofcourse.

The answer is simple - you can't describe something without describing its properties. You can say it is "not this, not this," but that still does not tell you what it is. Now, the rest of your question seems to be nothing more than a sectarian jibe against Vaishnavism, for whatever reason I cannot say. But suffice it to say that you don't need to be a narrow-minded, sectarian Vaishnava to assert that the parama puruSha of the upaniShads is indeed the brahman having countless attributes.

As an aside, I am highly gratified to note that you have evolved beyond the need for "fruitless debates." Keep up the good work!

philosoraptor
18 January 2013, 11:47 AM
That is correct, but to be fair, perhaps we should rephrase this statement as -

Traditional, Vedaantic Hinduism is not based on faith-acceptance of the authority of charismatic leaders, but rather on the *faith-acceptance* of the apaurusheyatva of the shruti.

That's a little trite, considering the long history in multiple diverse traditions of the shrutis being treated as unauthored. What to speak of the fact that the shrutis do not themselves name an author, rather a glaring omission one would think for such a voluminous work. But I agree with the principle that the apaurusheyatva of the shruti is only thing accepted as a given in vedAnta.



Now one may argue that apaurusheyatva is a universally provable concept (purva-mimamsa), but I believe that is not relevant here.

Traditionalists would point out that it is authorship which has to be proven, not apaurusheyatva. Meanwhile, some forum members would Google Max Muller and copy his opinions verbatim as "proof" of their authorship....


It should also be pointed out that a number of concepts accepted by Vedantic Hindus (Vaikunta, ocean of milk, etc) are not from Shruti.

There are many references to the abode of brahman, His supreme abode, etc. from shruti. There are also explicit references to brahman being named as nArAyaNa. I really don't see a controversy here....

shiv.somashekhar
18 January 2013, 12:46 PM
That's a little trite, considering the long history in multiple diverse traditions of the shrutis being treated as unauthored. What to speak of the fact that the shrutis do not themselves name an author, rather a glaring omission one would think for such a voluminous work.

Voluminous works such as the Bible, etc., are not of a single author. Besides, similar claims of divinity (word of God, etc.) are found in other religious texts too.


But I agree with the principle that the apaurusheyatva of the shruti is only thing accepted as a given in vedAnta.

One "given" is all we need :-) for any set of religious beliefs - based on which everything else falls into place. If one accepts the authenticity of Ramakrishna's experiences as a given, then all his words become true. Credibility cannot possibly be more for an entity just because it is older and/or has wider acceptance.


Traditionalists would point out that it is authorship which has to be proven, not apaurusheyatva.

Which can and will be argued by everyone else. Will the traditionalist stipulate that similar weight can be lent to the Christian claim that the bible is the word of God and hence, indisputably true? On similar lines, one may claim that it is Ramakrishna's lack of authenticity to be proved by critics than the other way around.


There are many references to the abode of brahman, His supreme abode, etc. from shruti. There are also explicit references to brahman being named as nArAyaNa. I really don't see a controversy here....

I mean all the beliefs that do not originate from Shruti such as avatars, Vaikunta, etc - which form a significant portion of the belief set. A rigorous "based on Shruti only" claim holds good when debating Buddhists and the like, in which case Puranic, Panchartara material is not used.

philosoraptor
18 January 2013, 06:47 PM
Voluminous works such as the Bible, etc., are not of a single author. Besides, similar claims of divinity (word of God, etc.) are found in other religious texts too.

However, the Bible is well known to be authored by insiders of that tradition, as is the Koran and the Old Testament.



One "given" is all we need :-) for any set of religious beliefs - based on which everything else falls into place. If one accepts the authenticity of Ramakrishna's experiences as a given, then all his words become true. Credibility cannot possibly be more for an entity just because it is older and/or has wider acceptance.

I disagree. It takes additional assumptions about an authored source to accept it as authoritative, namely that the author is qualified and that his intentions are educational as opposed to deceitful.

By contrast, if apaurusheyatva is accepted as a given, then nothing else needs to be assumed.



Which can and will be argued by everyone else. Will the traditionalist stipulate that similar weight can be lent to the Christian claim that the bible is the word of God and hence, indisputably true? On similar lines, one may claim that it is Ramakrishna's lack of authenticity to be proved by critics than the other way around.

Not correct, for reasons already mentioned above. Apaurusheyatva in vedaanta also extends to unauthoredness by God also. This has to be, since a God Who can only be known as such through His authored work, which is authoritative only because it is composed by God, amounts to circular reasoning. Thus, "being authored by God" does not equate being "indisputably true" in vedAnta.

Meanwhile, the premise that an individual human being is somehow gifted enough to provide divine revelation, runs counter to our general experience of the limitations of human cognition and perception. Thus, it takes extra assumptions about that human's qualifications which run counter to known observations about humans. If I cannot see suprasensory entities, why should I believe that this human over there can? The default view therefore is that human origin, actually, any personal origin, implies the possibility of certain limitations, which would not hold to something that is without beginning.



I mean all the beliefs that do not originate from Shruti such as avatars, Vaikunta, etc - which form a significant portion of the belief set. A rigorous "based on Shruti only" claim holds good when debating Buddhists and the like, in which case Puranic, Panchartara material is not used.

Couple of points:

1) The concept is clearly there of a "supreme abode." Examples include "OM tad viShNoH paramaM padaM sadA pashyanti sUrayaH" (RV 1.22.20) among others. It's splitting hairs to say you can't call it Vaikuntha, just Vishnu's supreme abode....

2) I have in fact come across several references to avatAras in mainstream shrutis. But, that's neither here nor there. You don't need avatAra theology for most polemics, and I agree that a lot of material in the smRiti does not have a known equal in the shruti, nor does it need to be necessarily.

3) The shrutis themselves speak of the itihAsa and purANa as the fifth veda - you are just as familiar with the chAndogya and bRihadAraNyaka upaniShad references as I am. Nevertheless, I agree that you don't need these sources to establish the basics. They are more useful to supplement what is known from the shruti.

Amrut
20 January 2013, 04:28 AM
With all due respect, you have *no* way of knowing what Ramakrishna experienced (or did not experience). Not to offend anyone, but there are multiple possiblities here - he was a poor eater and may have hallucinated in a state of malnutrition, he may have deluded himself, etc. This being the case, how do we know which one of these possiblities is the truth?

Even if he did experience something, there is absolutely no way for you to have another experience and prove that your experience = his experience.

Or, to put it differently, it is impossible for you to follow a certain formula (meditation in this case) and arrive at the same state as he did. You may or you may not, but you just do not have any way of knowing for sure.

Namaste,

I understand what you say. Before talking any further, lets we assume that whatever in Sri Ramakrishna jivan Charitra is written is true and his experiences match with that of shastras, though Sri Ramakrishna did not read any scriptures. Initially, people would think of him as 'Pagal Pujari', mad priest, but after the the arrival of his Tantrik Guru, Bhairavi Brahmani, who was also a vaishnav and was well versed with vaishnav scriptures, listened to Sri Ramakrishna's experiences and concluded that they were matching with that of vaishnav scriptures. His states of Bhava and Mahabhava etc are mentioned in shastras.

I also agree that just faith acceptance or insights, intuitions in meditation can only be accounted if your experiences matches with those mentioned in shastras, since Shastras are an authority. Shastras are not mere words or dry philosophy, but they are the collection of direct experiences of innumerable Realized saints since time immemorial. Since I strongly believe that Sri Ramakrishna's Jivan charitra is true and written in right spirit, so I also accept his experiences and his statements.

I also agree that I may not may not experience what Sri Ramakrishna had experienced, as different people have different experiences and feeling. All depend upon the 'dhyeya' (goal), intensity of desires for liberation, type of sadhana, prakruti (nature), study of scriptures and their interpretation, etc among other factors. But if they match with those given in shastras, then you know that you are going on right path.

I have personally observed that if you strongly surrender to God, then God will show you the way in meditation. After some months of meditation on OM, I was given Vivek Chudamani, and when I read Shat-Sampattis (six qualities / attributes), many qualities were already being developed within me. I do not say fully developed, but I noticed that my frequency of anger decreased (when someone pointed out this fact), I already had developed dispassion, as as any point of time, you always have two choice. When you compare anything or value anything with God (with for or formless), and your mind agrees that God is important, vairagya is automatically developed. Faith ws obviously there.

Another way around, I learned from Shastras that I am not the body. You have faith in the Guru and shastras, but 100 % faith comes only when you experience detachment.

When you read that there are 5 koshas, and after some months or years, suddently (achanaka) you experience other subtle bodies, you are prepared in a way that you have already know that this bodies do exists and also that in Advaita, all you have to do is to neglect them as you are none of them. Find the source and when the mind merges in source, you are in samadhi.

This is the reason why I was trying to say. At no point, I have said that I disregard shastras or consider Sri Ramakrishna as supreme and above shastras.

I was only trying to say that meditation is a critical factor and the core of spiritual practice. When you fully surrender to God with full force, not wanting anything else, with burning desire of liberation, God will show you the correct path, by making you experience higher spiritual states and are not contradictory to shastras. I do not say that there is no need to study shastras. All I was trying to say that Sri Ramakrisha's experience in meditation were matching as that described in shastras, though he had not studied shastras. I was just stressing on meditation, not out of arrogance, but to make the above point. Since I was not arrogant, I am happy when I here that fellow members are also meditating.

I have not picked up any book that is not given my by Guru. My father has collected and read many shastras like Upanishads, puranas, maya-kavyas and even brahma sutras. Till date I have not touched these books. There are countless commentaries written on Gita alone. Some stress on karma, some on bhakti, some on Jnana and some on Yog. When you are given a particular book by particular author Saint, the one that suits you and is necessary for your spiritual progress, than why would I go for another interpretation. So there was no need to study Gita as interpreted by other revered acharyas like Vallabhacharya, madhavacharya, to name few. This does not mean dis-respect. I would have ended up being more confused. So I read and listened to Gita commented by only one author follwing advaita vedanta. He soke about other faiths and paths briefly.

But here my statements are misinterpreted and taken in wrong context, may be because I express myself poorly. I never said, that Dvaita, vishistadvaita are 'Steps in understanding' Advaita Practice (or advaita approach) and advaita sthiti are different. Though you say 'I am not body and none of that is inside Maya', still you are influenced by Maya. So you are actually in dvaita. Without being in state of advaita, if you speak advaita Statement like ' I am brahman', then it would be like seeing snake and saying that you see rope. (snake-rope analogy)

Similarly one cannot remain idle without work and just be merged in God.

When you experience a blissful state that the same ananda which is in you is also in others, both living and non living beings and that everything is made up of ananda and is as perfect as you are, and that everything is made or composed of same matter, just like a wax garden in which all things, trees, fruits, benches, etc are made of wax, you are experiencing oneness in a sense that you and this world are made of same energy / substance, but still you are 'experiencing' i.e You are the one who experiences and there is something to be experienced. Only in advaita sthiti, one does above duality and goes beyond experiences. All experiences happen inside and bacause of mind.

These statements, mahavakyas, are ultimate truth and represent supreme spiritual state and not a way of life or any process. It is a 'manasik dasha' (mental state) and not 'disha' (process or direction). Mind of Jnani is brahman itself. So initially you are in dvaita, even when you see maya as Brahman, or you are experienced peace or bliss, you are still not in advaita, as 'You Are Experiencing'.

It is only in advaita sthiti, you are beyond maya, in which there is not even a trace of ego. It's just you and the observer, object of observation and the process of observation are merged and only 'I' remain. This 'I' is not ego, but purna vastu.

It is said that without jnana, there is no mukti. In Gita, Sri Krushna says that the one who knows my birth and karma, which are divine, or one who know the purpose of my birth and karma is not different than me. Please note that, Bhagavan Krushna says 'those who knows' and not 'those who sees'.

Why in Gita jnana kand is after bhakti?

Why is bhakti before Jnana? Is bhakti necessary before Jnana? Is bhakti the foundation upon which jnana rests? Can you take any verse or any chapter randomly and read it?

Why does not Gita end with 11th or 12th Chapter.

Why there is need of chapter 13, which describes of 'kshetra' and 'kshetragnya' and of Atman and an-atman. Why is the last chapter (adhyaya) is titled Moksha-Sanyas-Yog?

Why does Gita inaugurate at the hands of a blind (Mohandha: moha-andha) (maamkaa evem ...) and why Arjun in his last verse say,

'Nashto Moha, Shutir Labdha ... karishye vachanam tava'

Meaning that my moha (which implies desires, attachments and ego i.e. aham-bhava and mama-bhava) is destroyed and I will do what ever you say, i.e. fight, no fight, whatever you say with neutral mind.

Why Arjun has not said that, Now I have your vision, let me stay at lotus feet. I do not want anything else'

What is the meaning of Darshan?

Is it 'to see' or 'to know'. What will you say about 'Darshan Shastra'. To See Shastra or to 'Know shastra'. Not to mention that knowledge means direct experience and not information.

Faith and Authenticity:

Regarding the authenticity of Sri Ramakrishna Jivan charitra, I would say that it is possible that over years it may be tampered. But that is true for commentaries on Gita and shastras by other revered Gurus and acharyas too.

Shastras are authentic. Even I believe so. But in Gita, Bhagavan Krushna says that 'Yogo Nashtha Parantapa' meaning the Yog or the knowledge of Self Realization is almost destroyed. This was before around 5000 years. What does it mean, there is no Self Realized saint?

Now if you look from practical standpoint, keeping aside faith, then like Sri Ramakrishna commentary is bogus or just a fairy tale created to earn profit, so can other commentaries be tampered. We do not have 1000 year old book or even a 500 years old book. An saint who is commenting, will add his / her thoughts and so the interpretation will change from author to author. Logically speaking, there is a definite chance that even the verses are tempered. Are original verses and authentic way of chanting them long lost?

Due to effect of Yuga, purity is decreasing. It is said that only 1 % of Vedas with authentic chanting remain. I have read it on a website dedicated to Shankaracharya.

Nobody living today has ever seen any of the ancient rishis and acharyas like vallabhacharya, shankaracharya or rishis mentioned in vedas. So if you insist that it is only by seeing them personally and staying with them for long time you will know the truth, then today, you will not have 100 % faith in any teachings, as you are very skeptical. Not all can stay with a saint. Few people will stay and dedicate their lives to a saint and then publish their teachings and biographies. Others will have to believe that the satin, his teachings and experiences are genuine and that there is no intention to earn high profit in the name of religion and faith.

anyways, due to decrease in purity and effect of Kali-yuga (kalyug), and since shastras are transferred orally and later on written down with commentaries, they pass from many generations, there is greater chance of it being adulterated and the original teachings might be long lost.

See, you have to read some book, written by somebody. You will have to accept the teachings and commentaries given by a saint. What is it that makes you believe that these teachings are true and the commentary / interpretation is authentic? It is faith. If you keep reading books by multiple author and that too by saints following different tradition or path, then there is every *chance* that you may read it intellectually and begin to analyze and so compare teachings of two saints. In that case, there is chance that 'Ego will rise and Devotion and surrender will decrease'. 'Rise of Ego is Death of Devotee'

It is established and an accepted fact that Krushna was Bhagavan. If you study his life from logical and practical standpoint and remove 'Bhagavan' from Krushna, then you will not even accept Krushna. You will accept Yudhisthira and revere more than krushna and blame krushna that due to him Yudhisthira had to speak one lie in this entire life. There are many places in Mahabharata where one can get a chance to blame Krushna. In that case, will you trust the words of Krushna in Gita? But what if you add the word Bhagavan before him and try to understand everything positively, then the entire situation changes. Right? Has anyone of us seen Krushna face to face. Still dont we believe that Krushna was there in ancient times and his teachings are still relevant today.

Practically, our entire life is based on faith. Faith is an integral part of human life.

A worker works like a donkey for 30 days because he wants money for himself and to run a family. Worker or employee has faith in employer / Boss

Do you ever think that the food that your wife gives has poison in it? You simply eat it.

Do we ever question, when your mummy says, son this is your papa?

Do we daily feel that my wife is betraying me?

Under general circumstances, NO.

In business, we give material on credit, upon goodwill of customer, though we know that nobody can say that they will live to see Sun tomorrow.

Similarly you will have to believe that the Life of Sri Ramakrishna as portrayed in his Biography is true. Those who believe, no proof is needed, for those who doubt, no proof can be given. This is a subjective matter and so i leave it to individual. All I have observed is that in entire book, the author, 'M' or 'Mahendranath Gupta' is completely hidden. 'M' has recorded Sri Ramakrishna's teachings that happened in his presence. So while in biography, even he is present, at no point, the word 'I' appears. 'M' is completely hidden. He always refers to him as 'Master' as he was a school teacher.

In the same way, it is left to you to believe that the experiences of Sri Ramakrishna are spiritual or not or they are a result of poor food intake or hallucination. It is upto an individual to believe that he had experienced bhava samadhi and nirvikalp samadhi many times just while discussing on spiritual topics.

I do not say have blind faith. I say you will have to have faith in someone. I do not challenge the authenticity of shastras and i revere them and have high respect for all saints of all paths. I do not even say, accept Ramakrishna. I just say you should have faith. Too much skepticism will corrode your mind. It is a poison.

In today's world, nothing is 100 % pure. saint writing commentary will add his own thought. When it goes for printing, you would not expect paper supplier, print / book setter, worker doing printing job, distributors and book sellers are doing everything for the sake of God and are 100 % pure. Wherever there is money involved, there is no 100 % purity. Not 100 % money receive in donation is utilized in a fair way, as the people running foundation are just human beings and all have some expectations, ambitions and want recognition. Sometimes they are even forced to bribe Govt officers.

Please take everything positively and in right context. I am closing this 'Prakaran' with a calm and smiling face. I did not wanted to be impulsive and so waited for a day or two and came back after recovering from headache.

Aum

philosoraptor
20 January 2013, 10:57 AM
Namaste,

Please try to avoid sentimental and hazy reasoning.

regards,

charitra
20 January 2013, 03:20 PM
Namaste all,

Interesting debate by the esteemed members and some valuable info got churned out of it all. If I may revisit my post #1, I was researching the deeper meaning of what yashoda saw on that blessed day, and how we can read it alongside with what Arjuna witnessed on the first day of kurukshetra war. As we can deduce the two together more or less cover the manifest creation out there. It appears we are getting a wonderful message from the sages raising some questions.

Is Krishna a form of/ or a representation of Brahman that Upanishads talk about. That he is the personification of cosmos as well as all beings, both human and divine? Or, as Dvaita says, is He separate from the creation that was expressed and witnessed in those Rupas. Do these rupas portend him a SEPARATE creator from what he expressed on those two illustrious days. Or are these rupas a PART of Krishna? For record, our family Ishta Devatais Sri Venkateshwara (Vishnu) and my religion is advaita matham of hinduism

Amrut
21 January 2013, 12:45 AM
Namaste all,

Interesting debate by the esteemed members and some valuable info got churned out of it all. If I may revisit my post #1, I was researching the deeper meaning of what yashoda saw on that blessed day, and how we can read it alongside with what Arjuna witnessed on the first day of kurukshetra war. As we can deduce the two together more or less cover the manifest creation out there. It appears we are getting a wonderful message from the sages raising some questions.

Is Krishna a form of/ or a representation of Brahman that Upanishads talk about. That he is the personification of cosmos as well as all beings, both human and divine? Or, as Dvaita says, is He separate from the creation that was expressed and witnessed in those Rupas. Do these rupas portend him a SEPARATE creator from what he expressed on those two illustrious days. Or are these rupas a PART of Krishna? For record, our family Ishta Devatais Sri Venkateshwara (Vishnu) and my religion is advaita matham of hinduism



Namaste,

First of all, please accept my apologies for hijacking your thread, as the controversy started by my statement.

Shastras are very authentic. They have deeper meaning. Like in last post, you have to ask 'WHY' many times to find an answer.

Today, after meditation, an interesting thing struck in my mind.

Lets check the name, Bhagavad Gita

Gita means song or divine song. We will concentrate more on the word Bhagavad Gita. I will recall from the discource that I have listened, so these are not my thoughts, but swamiji thoughts, who is from Advaita background.

Gita has 700 verses.

1 verse is said by dhrutrastha
41 verses by Sanjay
84 by Arjun
574 (rest verses) are said by Bhagavan.

Since most verses are said and importantly updeshas are given by Bhagavan, the title is 'bhagavad Gita'.

Now if you notice, It is not Krushna Gita or Narayana Gita, but it is Bhagavad Gita. Nowhere in Gita it is said, 'Shri Krushna uvacha', but it is said 'Shri Bhagavanuvacha' - Bhagavan-uvacha (Bhagavan said)

In all other upanishads and other gita like Ram Gita or Guru Gita or Shiva Gita, the names of deities are given.

e.g. In Guru Gita, it says, 'Mahadevovacha' - Mahadev-uvacha (Lord Shiva Said) ad Parvatyovacha Parvati-uvacha (Parvati says)

Gita is the only scripture where it is said, Bhagavan-uvacha.

EDIT: The last verse says:

yatra yoga-īśvaraḥ kṛṣṇaḥ

this implies that Krushna is both Guru and God. Since it is in Jnana kand, He is also Representing Brahman.

Different schools of thoughts will interpret this differently. No offenses to them. From my standpoint and advaita standpoint,

Krushna is simply representing Brahman and all Gods. That is why when Bhagavan says, 'mama ekam sharanam vraja', meaning, 'come to my refuge' or some translate as 'go to me - vraja means to go according to Swamiji, you can say that go inside or come to bhagavan - form or formless aspect.

Bhagavan in Gita says that now I am going to give you 'Knowledge' which will give you 'Moksha'. He does not say, I will show myself to you, as a person Krushna, which is affectionately called by many names including, Pitambardhari, Murlidhar (one who is having Flute).

Also in the last verse of Arjun, He says, 'Nasto Moha, Smuti Labdha ...'

Why he says Nasto Moha and why not I have your divine vision and I only want to be at lotus feet and am willing to take infinite birth to enjoy your company?

Moha implies as Mama-bhava and Aham-bhava (I and Mine) which is destroyed (Naasha). Vivek Chudamani says the same that Destruction of desires is nothing but liberation. Moha leads to attachment and a person who like Dhutrastra is Moha-andha - full of I and mine, full of desires is representing everyone of us.

Again since this is authentic, each word has significance and the order of chapters and verses too and even the order of words in one verse.

Lets again come back to that Verse,

'Nasto Moha, Smrutir Labdha'

Why is Smrutir Labdha (memory or knowledge) after Nasto Moha.

Smruti here means knowledge. Smrutir Labdha mens regaining of Knowledge. What doe this implies. That the knowledge of Atma Jnana is regained.

Now let us connect both words and study it's order

Nasto Moha Smutir Labdha

It can be translated and interpretated as, My moha (desires and so attachment and ego) is destroyed and I got my memory back or know who I am

since first comes Nasto Moha and then Smutir Labdha, it can be said that After the destruction of Moha, you will know who you are (Atman or Brahman).

Again, Bhagavan in Gita says that there are four kinds of Bhakta - Artho,Artharthi, Jigyasu and Jnani. Out of which Jnani is my Atman.

Let us again contemplate on this verse.

Artho bhakta:

The one who only remembers God at the time of difficulty. An e.g. is Draupadi. She only remembered Krushna (as brother and God) only after his husbands and all those present in the Sabhaa failed to Stop Dushasana and Duryodhana to undress her. It was a total surrender from a helpless lady and Krushna as God respponded to her by providing her sari

Artharthu bhakta:

This bhakta only worships God for Money,financial gain. Artha means money.

Jigyasu Bhakta:

This type of Bhakta is the one who only wants God. Most of sadhaka, who are not realized or have talked face to face wtih personal deity fall in this class.

Jnani Bhakta:

This bhakta is free from the bondage of birth and death. As the name implies he is Jnani, he abides in SELF (Atman / Brahman). Again, since Bhagavan says that there are 4 types of Bhaktas, which includes Jnani, indicates that even Jnani is a Bhakta. As Bhagavan says, he is the most dear to me (he is my atman).

You can interpret Bhagavan has a personal deity Krushna or you have also interpret Bhagavan as a representation of Brahman.

Coming to you question that What Yashoda saw and what Arjun experienced one fist day of war, may indicate that God is both with form and without form.

God is not bound by time and space and that it exists within him and the miracle means that God himself is not bound b laws of nature, but controls them, can remove them and can replace older law with new law. Why? because he is God. God is not bound by Maya but is Mayapati - Swami of Maya and can go beyond Maya at will and can again manifest within maya at any place at will/

Brahman and Maya are both inseparable, like Fire and it's heat. It is not possible that you only want to experience one and not other part. Can you say that I want Fire but not it's heat? Are they separable.

Only for Kalyan of this world, Brahman appears from time to time in human form. This purpose and reason of birth is not as same as that of Jiva, which takes birth to fulfill desires. Avatar takes birth for a divine purpose and does karma (lila) for our kalyan. Avatar is never bound my Maya, but lives within Human limits, like Rama did, but is not bound by it. It is self imposed limit which he can break at any time. Krushna cannot be caged in any limit, which is evident from his life.

Krushna is both a personal deity and Brahman.

If you study the life of Krushna, you can see both renunciation, absence of ego, being neutral and acting as God and as an ideal king.

After birth, Krushna was moved to Gokul, after living Gokul, he went to Vrindavan, After leaving Vrindavan, he moved to Mathura, later, he moved to Hastinapur, and then to Dwarka. He did not even returned to Vrindavan for Radha.

Krushna even made floor of cow dung, used to feed cow and take them to forest, he chose to being neutral by not himself fighting in final war (only jnani like vidura and Krushna can do it), and he is only one king who gave his entire army to enemy side. Nowhere will you see that king is on one side and his army on another side.


He is also called Yogeshwar. A Yogi is not bhogi.

So Krushna is a person, a son, a friend, lover, Guru, Jnani, Yogi, ideal disciple, and God. He also represents Brahman, like that one is represented in Upanishads. Krushna and Rama are only Avatars who have never meditated like Parashurama or other avatars and from day one they have showed from time to time that they are Gods. They did go to study shastras and other arts like warefare, etc and mastered them in quick time and became dear to their Gurus.

Karma, Bhakti, Jnana and Yog are all covered by Bhagavan Krushna.

That is why Krushna is called as Jagad Guru. Krushnam Vende Jagad Guru.

Who can understand all forms of Bhagavan.

This is my personal opinion. Others may or may not agree.

Aum.

Amrut
21 January 2013, 01:06 AM
i would further like to add some more

Krushna also followed Guru-shishya Parampara and only gave updesha when disciple bend in front of him. Till then he remained silent. He did not gave instruction to Yudhisthira.

If you notice, when Krushna took cows in forest for food, he did not use force on them. He did not used stick or hunter to take them and call back them

Simply simply played his flute. It was the sheer attraction that even animals where attracted to his divine music. Cows came back to him from forests upon listening this divine flute. Instead of force, he used love, unconditional love.

Krushna is akarshana (Attraction). Prem Lahiri, Ananda Lahiri and Saundarya Lahiri. Lahar means 'wave' according to Swami Sukhbodhananda.

Nothing can cage unconditional love. Love knows no bounds, no rules, no sabhyata (Gopis left their husbands for Krushna prem), no discipline. It is just unconditional Love, where a devotee cannot stay separate from his beloved God and always thinks of him and will do anything to please him, like a lover. Krushna covers entire cosmic and as God resides inside every thing, living or non living, as everything is made up of Maya, which is Krushna's Shakti and not different from him.

Krushna also received Jnana from Rishi Sandipani and gave the essence of Vedanta -veda-anta meaning end part of Vedas, meaning, the essence of Vedas in just 700 verses covering all paths Karma, Bhakti, Jnana. Yogis say it also covers Yog. There are commentaries available from Yoga Standpoint.

I hope these two replies help you in clearing your doubts.

Also let me know if i have side-tracked your question and I will delete my replies.

Aum

philosoraptor
21 January 2013, 11:37 AM
Namaste all,

Interesting debate by the esteemed members and some valuable info got churned out of it all. If I may revisit my post #1, I was researching the deeper meaning of what yashoda saw on that blessed day, and how we can read it alongside with what Arjuna witnessed on the first day of kurukshetra war. As we can deduce the two together more or less cover the manifest creation out there. It appears we are getting a wonderful message from the sages raising some questions.

Is Krishna a form of/ or a representation of Brahman that Upanishads talk about. That he is the personification of cosmos as well as all beings, both human and divine? Or, as Dvaita says, is He separate from the creation that was expressed and witnessed in those Rupas. Do these rupas portend him a SEPARATE creator from what he expressed on those two illustrious days. Or are these rupas a PART of Krishna? For record, our family Ishta Devatais Sri Venkateshwara (Vishnu) and my religion is advaita matham of hinduism



Pranams,

The message of the shruti is on the importance of meditating on Brahman, who is described as the Supreme Person with countless limbs, who is identified with nArAyaNa, who created the world out of Himself, who supports it and pervades it, and into whom the world returns (that is, after pralaya).

Now, how can we understand these separate instances of the Lord revealing these visions of His supremacy? In the bhAgavatam, when Yashoda asks Krishna to open His mouth, she beholds the whole universe within as well as Earth, Vrindaavana, and even sees herself there looking inside Krishna's mouth. Without going into sectarian interpretations and simply taking the verses as they are, it is clear from the bhAgavatam that Sri Krishna is the supporter of the universe, that it is all contained with Him, and thus He is the Supreme Lord, the brahman of the upaniShads. It is not that His supremacy was something he attained by some process - He is always the Supreme Lord, even when He appears to be nothing more than a child who plays in the dirt.

Now what about the vishva-rUpa-darshana in bhagavad-gItA? Lord Krishna specifically showed this form upon Arjuna's request. It is clearly mentioned therein that Arjuna had to be given divine eyes to see it. The sense of this appears to be that the form was always there but can only be seen with the right qualification, or in other words, this is His form pervading the entire universe and already in existence - it was not merely some illusion or magic show that Sri Krishna put on. That this form has countless limbs identifies it with the puruSha of the puruSha-sukta and of the upaniShads. This means that Sri Krishna is that very puruSha - it is not that Krishna is in some way less than the brahman of the upaniShads. Furthermore, it is clearly mentioned therein in that Arjuna saw all the devas including brahmA and (arguably) shiva also, as well as the whole world within that form. Yet, it is also mentioned that the glories of the whole universe are just an infinitesmal spark of the total glory radiated by that vishva-rUpa. What does this mean? It means that the Lord transcends this universe but supports it. It is not that the universe in its totality equals the Lord. Rather, the Lord is the universe only in the sense that He is its indwelling controller, but in fact He is much, much more than just this visible universe, which consists of only a tiny spark of His total glories, which are immeasurable.

It has to be understood here that the vishva-rUpa darshana was not a vision of a formless entity, but rather an entity with countless glories, all seen at once - a transcendental, sensory-overload experience. No one can see that form of the Lord without bhakti as mentioned by Sri Krishna near the end of the chapter. Thus, bhakti is not merely one among many, equally valid paths. It *is* the means by which one has the vision of the Lord as He is understood in the shruti.