PDA

View Full Version : Vishnu talks with her Mother Devhuti [Bhagavata Purana]



hinduism♥krishna
28 June 2014, 11:14 AM
Pranam..

This thread includes conversation of Bhagavan Kapila, Avatara of Vishnu with his mother Devhuti. It is mentioned in 26th chapter of 3rd canto of Bhagavata Purana. He teaches the perfect supreme knowledge of Advaita. He also asserted that knowledge alone is the cause of Moksha.

श्रीभगवानुवाच ।
अथ ते सम्प्रवक्ष्यामि तत्त्वानां लक्षणं पृथक् ।
यद्विदित्वा विमुच्येत पुरुषः प्राकृतैर्गुणैः ॥ १ ॥

" Now I'll explain about realities indications, knowing which person gets rid of Prakruti. "

ज्ञानं निःश्रेयसार्थाय पुरुषस्यात्मदर्शनम् ।
यदाहुर्वर्णये तत्ते हृदयग्रन्थिभेदनम् ॥ २ ॥

" Only knowledge about Atma is the cause of Moksha and it is said that that alone is the destroyer of his Ahankara. "

अनादिरात्मा पुरुषो निर्गुणः प्रकृतेः परः ।
प्रत्यग्धामा स्वयंज्योतिः विश्वं येन समन्वितम् ॥ ३ ॥

" By which this world is illuminating is this beginning less Atma. He's Purusha, Nirguna and beyond prakruti, self-illuminating, internally illuminated in the hearts. "

स एष प्रकृतिं सूक्ष्मां दैवीं गुणमयीं विभुः ।
यदृच्छयैवोपगतां अभ्यपद्यत लीलया ॥ ४ ॥

" By his own will, he himself undergone to Prakruti by his own Maya. He came into Prakruti by his own sport. "


गुणैर्विचित्राः सृजतीं सरूपाः प्रकृतिं प्रजाः ।
विलोक्य मुमुहे सद्यः स इह ज्ञानगूहया ॥ ५ ॥

" By seeing Prakruti is making similar lokas ( persons ) , he, by her concealing of knowledge, immediately got deluded. "

एवं पराभिध्यानेन कर्तृत्वं प्रकृतेः पुमान् ।
कर्मसु क्रियमाणेषु गुणैरात्मनि मन्यते ॥ ६ ॥

" Thus by thinking his self as Prakruti, he thought all effects of Prakruti like Karma and acts as his self. "

तदस्य संसृतिर्बन्धः पारतन्त्र्यं च तत्कृतम् ।
भवति अकर्तुरीशस्य साक्षिणो निर्वृतात्मनः ॥ ७ ॥

" This pride created bondage and separatness for him, though he's inactive, Sakshi and Joyfull. "

कार्यकारणकर्तृत्वे कारणं प्रकृतिं विदुः ।
भोक्तृत्वे सुखदुःखानां पुरुषं प्रकृतेः परम् ॥ ८ ॥

" The cause of Karya, Karana and Karta is Prakuti alone. Intelligent persons think that Purusha (Brahman) himself which is beyond prakruti experiences joy and sorrow ( as a Jiva )"

Thus Ends...

devotee
29 June 2014, 02:58 AM
Namaste HLK,

Great ! You have become an expert on Bhagwata Purana. I hope your efforts reduces/eliminates uncalled for feeling of animosity that some Vaishnavas carry towards Advaita VedAnta.

OM

hinduism♥krishna
29 June 2014, 04:55 AM
Namaste HLK,

Great ! You have become an expert on Bhagwata Purana. I hope your efforts reduces/eliminates uncalled for feeling of animosity that some Vaishnavas carry towards Advaita VedAnta.

OM

Pranam Devotee,

It's a long conversation between Kapila and Devhuti. I've just posted a part. I'll post some more verses which clearly posit advaita or oneness of Atma and Brahman. This is highly advanced Brahma-Vidya where you'll see the verses of Brahman getting deluded. The truth is that shri vishnu himself appears to be deluded due his own maya. He experiences himself as something different from. Ishwara himself is this Jiva. It's out of the scope of our mind to know how Ishwara doesn't even touch maya though he accepts Maya.

Vaishnawas think that Krishna isn't originally formless. But this is completely false as far as shastra Praman is concerned. One of them is from Padma purana / BP.

"अत: सत्सु दयां कृत्वा मा व्रज
भक्तार्थं सगुणो जातो निराकारोऽपि चिन्मय: (भागवत महात्म्य पद्म पुराण तथा उद्धव गीता)

Uddhava to Krishna: Meaning: " Dear shrikrushna, Do mercy on sages and don't leave us. Though you're originally only formless and consciousness, for devotees only you become a saguna Rupa ( Ishwara ).

There's nothing like Dvaitian Vaishnawa. Advaita may or may not be a Vaishnawa. But every real vaishnawa is always Advaitian. Because peak of devotion is none other than Advaita Knowledge. Without knowledge Moksha is not possible. This is supported by Shruti & Smruti. For me, Tulsi das, eknatha, Dyaneshwar, Tukaram, Namdev, Adi Shankara are real Vaishnawa. Shastra insults those who see difference between Atma and Brahman.

One of my favorite quotes from Vishnu Purana:

विभेदजनकेऽज्ञाने नाशमात्यन्तिकं गते
आत्मनो ब्रम्हणो भेदमसन्तं क: करिष्यति ।। विष्णु पुराण 6.7.96 ।।

Meaning: After the complete annihilation of dualistic ignorance, who'll think the difference between Atma and Brahman, which is completely false....



See my Signature which is the Mahavakya of Bhagavata Purana, rather of all Puranas.

Amrut
29 June 2014, 05:59 AM
Thank you HLK for sharing these verses. Indeed you are an expert on BP.


Logically advaita sthiti is as far as one can go. It ends in completeness. Attaining this state is the max one can think.

Hari OM

hinduism♥krishna
29 June 2014, 08:47 AM
Thank you HLK for sharing these verses. Indeed you are an expert on BP.

Pranam,

No one can become expert in Bhagavata Purana unless he has a supreme devotion to Vishnu and so obviously I am not an expert :) Day by day I'm learning new things from Bhagavata. The only thing I can say this Bhagavata Purana is my soul, a manifestation of Vishnu. There's no any scripture higher than it. Even Upanishads can't trace the greatness of Bhagavata and importance of Nama-Jiva. In Upanishads there's only knowledge but this purana is a nectar of both knowledge and Bhakti. So this is more supreme. One should not get amazed when I say this bhagavata alone is enough for attaining supreme abode of Vishnu. There's no need to read any purana or Upanishads when one reads this purana. It's complete in itself.



Logically advaita sthiti is as far as one can go. It ends in completeness. Attaining this state is the max one can think.

Hari OMAdvaita goes even beyond Advaita and that state is supreme abode of Vishnu :)

markandeya 108 dasa
05 July 2014, 04:12 AM
Pranams Devotee


Namaste HLK,

Great ! You have become an expert on Bhagwata Purana. I hope your efforts reduces/eliminates uncalled for feeling of animosity that some Vaishnavas carry towards Advaita VedAnta.

OM

Firstly to become an expert one has to know shastra in full, not just take parts to fit into ones own view. Also one has to learn shastra from a bona fide spiritual master, as explained in Gita.

Secondly, as you say some vaishnvasa carry a certain negative attitude towards some advaitists. The key word here being some.

A true vaishnava accepts advaita without any doubt, the absolute truth is non dual, duality meaning an expression of phenomena.

Some vaishnavas explain that impersonalism is anything that denies that the supreme absolute truth can have form, form is in 2 aspects, one form is the form and shape of phenoneman, the material energy. Of course the liberated state of moksha is free from any trace of the dual nature of phenomena.

Some advaitist falsely analyse that because matter has form and is impermanent then surely moksha means to escape form, that's true but only up to a certain point, Brahman can also have form, but its not material, its very simple if we accept that the Brahman is unlimited in ever respect.

Srimad Bhagavatam states Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this non-dual substance Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavan.

So we have to accept that transcendnce also has form, but that form has no trace of duality.

To say a devotee has a personal relationship with the supreme Brahman is part of duality is not correct and is not supported anywhere in siddhanta of pure bhakti. For us this is a total misinterpretation of our siddhanta, that is where the disagreement with advaita begins, or to put it in a more exact context the interpretations of some advaitists.

So its no that there is any problem with pure adviata, we have no objection to the siddhanta of brahmavada.

Rather uneducated, or perhaps personal bias based on mitigating material affliction and condition's come out with comments that have no actual factual basis in their interpretation of true vaishnava siddhanta.

They say that we have no identification of self atma with brahman. I do find this rather confusing

"Aham brahmasmi: I am spirit. It is said that one should understand that he is Brahman, spirit soul. This Brahman conception of life is also in devotional service, as described in this verse. The pure devotees are transcendentally situated on the Brahman platform, and they know everything about transcendental activities."
Bg 7.29, Purport by Srila Prabhupada

In fact there are to many to mention that i feel it insults my intelligence to post to many quotes, as the problem lie in the uneducated biased estimation of unfounded propaganda.

A true Vaishnava is one who fully understands and accepts advaita, we have no problem with accepting the fact that Brahman is the supreme absolute truth, its non dual, its also self, also the atma, it has no material form or shape, no trace of phenomena, no birth and death, and is supreme consciousness.

But the good thing about Viashnava siddhanta is that Brahman is more than just self atma, it also includes vishnnu tattva which is param Brahman and has spiritual form, which is the original adi of the unborn transcendent form of Sri Bhagavan.

anadi adi govindam

Until one comes to the state of Brahman realization he cannot apply material logic to shastra, this is described and stated countless times in vedic literature. But sadly in this age of kaili yuga, both advaitist and all other forms of religion have made dogma more important than actual practice of the introspective values of the holy life.

Ys

Md

Amrut
05 July 2014, 05:37 AM
Namaste MD ji,

Compliment of 'expert' was said from lighter standpoint, as an encouragement.

Advaita also accepts both saguNa brahman and nirguNa brahman and advaita is not just theory, it is practically applicable.

nirguNa does not mean free from durguNa from advaita POV. It means above 3 guNa-s. Nothing is above 3 guNa-s including vaikunTha and spiritual body of viShNu. Rising beyond mAya means to rise above names and forms and experience oneself as completeness, peace, bliss, but not separately. Here Isvara exists as pure consciousness, Brahman.

We accept ISvara and he is unlimited, but with name and form. In nirvikalp samAdhi, one does not experience anything, but himself, as non-dual atman / brahman.

For any kind of experience, mind is necessary, but for mind does not reach brhaman, hence brahman is indescribable (eyes doe snot see him). Sure all acharyas have interpreted the verses in different way so that they comply their siddhanta. I am just talking about advaita vedanta only.

VA, dvaita, etc do not accept formless aspect of ISvara.

Brahman is not opulence of the lord. Srila Prabhupada has twisted words of Adi Sankara in his purports. We have nothing to say against great saint Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu or his bhakti.

In case of aham brahmasmi, it is I am Brahman. Here Brahman is not soul, it is Brahman :)

Since this thread is in advaita forum, so I think we can freely discuss shastras from advaita POV.

Understanding other siddhanta specially when we have done some amount of self study in our siddhanta is not that easy :)

Philosophical disagreements may be there, but we fight with none. Advaitin is at peace with all, fights none.

There can be mata-bheda but not mana-bheda :)


OM

hinduism♥krishna
05 July 2014, 06:13 AM
Advaita also accepts both saguNa brahman and nirguNa brahman and advaita is not just theory, it is practically applicable. Namaste Amrut,


I think, there's a fine line between believing in Saguna Brahman and accepting Saguna Brahman. Advaita of Adi Shankara believes in Saguna Brahman but doesn't accept Saguna Brahman.

There's no creation whatsoever. The true is that Brahman remains as it is in all three states, before creation, as world and after the creation. There is no any reason to come something out of Changeless Brahman. In Bhagavad Gita 7.24 Bhagavan himself says " Unintelligents think me, who is unmanifested(Nirguna), as having a form ( Saguna ) " Here Bhagavan refused to call himself Saguna. Saguna Brahman is seen only through Maya however knowers of Brahamn always see saguna Brahman as a Nirguna Brahman. This is what I call ' non-acceptance of Saguna Brahman ' and there's no such duality of Saguna and Nirguna in supreme Brahman. The difference between Saguna and Nirguna is like a difference between Moon and its Disc :) Paramatma who is formless hold a form but its formless nature doesn't get tainted. So how can you say saguna Brahman really exists in real sense? Advaita believes in Saguna but accepts only Nirguna. This is what I've learned from Adi Shankara's Upanishada Bhashya.

Amrut
05 July 2014, 06:19 AM
Namaste Amrut,


I think, there's a fine line between believing in Saguna Brahman and accepting Saguna Brahman. Advaita of Adi Shankara believes in Saguna Brahman but doesn't accept Saguna Brahman.

There's no creation whatsoever. The true is that Brahman remains as it is in all three states, before creation, as world and after the creation. There is no any reason to come something out of Changeless Brahman. Saguna Brahman is seen only through Maya however knowers of Brahamn always see saguna Brahman as a Nirguna Brahman. This is what I call ' non-acceptance of Saguna Brahman ' and there's no such duality of Saguna and Nirguna in supreme Brahman. The difference between Saguna and Nirguna is like a difference between Moon and its Disc :) Paramatma who is formless hold a form but its formless nature doesn't get tainted. So how can you say saguna Brahman really exists in real sense?


Sar ji, I think you are flying high in non-dual plane while I am a poor seeker trapped in duality ;)

vyavahArika satya (Amrut), prAtibhAsika satya, pArmArthika satya (HLK :D )

hinduism♥krishna
05 July 2014, 06:24 AM
Sar ji, I think you are flying high in non-dual plane while I am a poor seeker trapped in duality ;)

vyavahArika satya (Amrut), prAtibhAsika satya, pArmarthika satya (HLK :D )

Pranam,

Why should advaitian talk with Vyavaharika Satya? Yes, you can talk through it but at the same time you should also mention what's Paramarthika Satya. Because Paramarthata is the soul of Advaitian.

markandeya 108 dasa
05 July 2014, 06:43 AM
Pranams Amrut,


Advaita also accepts both saguNa brahman and nirguNa brahman and advaita is not just theory, it is practically applicable

I agree, so why would there be a bias at some point to over emphasize the nirguna, this is not in line with shastra. Both are existing, so advaita is also an absolute truth.


In case of aham brahmasmi, it is I am Brahman. Here Brahman is not soul, it is Brahman


The word soul being used and spiritual in the English translation of sanskrit is only to be understood in conventional language. Soul we can mean by essence, everything has the essence of Brahman, jiva essence is brahman, so it is just the same way that the word soul is used in this context. Some say original nature, its not worth getting to tied up over linguistics, a little bit of common sense in language solves it. So when soul is being mentioned it just simple means Brahman, but expressed in English, the meaning is the same, it should not be complicated.


Since this thread is in advaita forum, so I think we can freely discuss shastras from advaita POV

I agree and if my comments seem confrontational thats is not my intent, if i say things out of place please excuse me, but part of the thread does mention, and more specifically directed towards gaudiya vaishnava siddhanta that prem bhakti is somehow lesser than Brahman.

If we take away denomination and sectarianism then surely bias is not at factor in our search for absolute truth, unless sectarianism is the true purport of Veda and Vedanta.

Dvaita is progressive philosophy that ultimately leads to the perfect balance of dvaita and advaita, this is the philosophy of Sri Chaitanya, no extremes....


Understanding other siddhanta specially when we have done some amount of self study in our siddhanta is not that easy

Very important point, and i am so happy that you have mentioned this. This is why the reaction of some vaishnavas are not so favourable to the conclusion given to our siddhanta when in fact they dont know the actual meaning.

I would like to learn more real advaita, but the problem is some advaitists are not rue brahmavadis, they comment according their understanding of the context of advaita and send that view to another sampradaya, this to me is total lack of integrity. But its Kali Yuga, what to do.....



Philosophical disagreements may be there, but we fight with none. Advaitin is at peace with all, fights none

I agree and have experienced personal insult on this forum in both public and private messages. So I agree that a true advaitist does not insult a person. So that narrows things better.


Rising beyond mAya means to rise above names and forms and experience oneself as completeness, peace, bliss, but not separately. Here Isvara exists as pure consciousness, Brahman.

Could not agree more, but in shastra form is also understood to have absolute attributes, so form of conditioned phenomena is one thing and svarupa is also above maya, in what i can gather the word form guna is one thing and the form of the svarupa is something entirely different, vishnu tattva is known as the sat cit ananda vigraha.

We are now in the state of duality as it says in Gita that phenomena or material energy has influenced to the jiva under the energy of maya to divide.

If I read advaita and it goes deeply into veda to describe the wonders of Brahman as the non dual, I feel I can learn so much about a different aspect and teaching of the great vedas. When another tradition projects its purports onto another tradition obviously the context is lost, I say that about Advaitists, gaudiya and any other branch of studying the absolute.


Brahman is not opulence of the lord. Srila Prabhupada has twisted words of Adi Sankara in his purports.


Could you explain that some more please, just so I know what you are referring to.


We accept ISvara and he is unlimited, but with name and form. In nirvikalp samAdhi, one does not experience anything, but himself, as non-dual atman / brahman.

In many places in Veda it is described like this, but in other parts Brahman all inclusiveness can also incorporate rasa, this requires more than one, but at the same time that one is not divided, its only our material conception that says one cannot be divided. The absolute oneness can have variety.

I know my guru deva wanted to start a university in India for the complete non biased study of sanskrit, science, philosophy, veda to be built. Something similiar to nalanda monastery.

I would like a more deeper insight in advaita, but its polluted with anti personalism, and in the same light I am not so enthused about the anti advaita argument by some personalists vaishanvas.

But in the age of kali this is almost impossible because people prefer bias to truth.

Ys

Md

.

hinduism♥krishna
05 July 2014, 09:27 AM
Namaste Amrut ji..

I think In our life, we should ignore those persons who see Brahman as form or who see duality in Brahman. Because if we discuss with them we'll get down to their lower level. Everything with them is futile as they can't understand even a bit of Brahman. They don't know what's BrahmaVidya. They have not only divided jiva and Ishwara but also Krishna from vishnu. Dividing Vishnu is a great sin. I can't tolerate such insultations to Vishnu. What can we say about them?

markandeya 108 dasa
05 July 2014, 09:32 AM
Firstly Hindu

You have some problems in reading because you have filters of bias covering your eyes



who see Brahman as form or who see duality in Brahmann

Whose see's duality Brahman, I have never heard such a thing, first time for everything.

Duality is Phenomena, but the energy of phenomena is acintya bed abeda.

I could go on but your bias is very boring and lacks integrity....


they have not only divided jiva and Ishwara but also Krishna from vishnu.

Never once have I said anything remotely close to that.

Again proves your bias, now I can understand why you cant follow the siddhanta of Veda and Vedanta. All you have revealed is your lack of comprehension skills, so by this evidence of poor comprehension you have ruled out any validity in being an authority on shastra.

Is this really the standard of HDF ?





Ys

Md

hinduism♥krishna
05 July 2014, 09:47 AM
Markandeya ji..
Would you please stop trolling my thread? I've started this thread to discuss advaita philosophy of Bhagavata. If you still wanna say here something, you can post explanations of the verses mentioned in thread. According to you, I'm immature and have a biased philosophy. You also said that my thread has no standard. Okay, go on. Explain those verses. If you don't, I know what should I assume. :)

ganeshamylord
05 July 2014, 10:00 AM
Dear hinduismkrishna
I am amazed by the vast amount of real knowledge that you have. Please try to preach this real dharma about the real vishnu and i am sure Lord vishnu will bless you. It is another thing whenever you try to preach reality you will encounter evil trying to brainwash you into irreligious philosophy. Calling vishnu seperate or dividing Him was the sin Hiranyakashipu did. He thought Visnu stayed in vaikunta and not in the pillar and ended up destroying himself. Likewise all the devils with their scant knowledge of the self would try to brainwash you as their goal is not enlightenment but to win an argument and that too with the least amount of intelligence,. Despite telling a frog that the ocean is higher it would end up thinking its well is the highest,
You should never argue with a brainwashed person as he will also try to pull you down to his level and intelligent talk is the last of the priorities for him. Goodluck stay strong

Ganeshprasad
05 July 2014, 10:01 AM
Pranam MD


Pranams

Firstly to become an expert one has to know shastra in full, not just take parts to fit into ones own view.

Md


Sadly this is true for just about most off us to prove a point at the expense of true study of shastra to gain knowledge of supreme truth.

[Quote]
Also one has to learn shastra from a bona fide spiritual master, as explained in Gita. [\Quote]

How does one know a bona fide spiritual master, where in Bagvat Gita this is explained?

Perhaps you be kind enough to answer this in a separate new thread, so as not to pollute this one, preferably in a Hindu forum so that everyone can take part.

Jai Shree Krishna

hinduism♥krishna
05 July 2014, 10:25 AM
Namaste, Advaitian Vaishnawas..

Here's something truth about Bhakti of Vishnu. Upanishads prescribes worship of Bhagavan in Advaita way only.

Now we'll see some verses from Shruti & Smruti to know what exactly is the nature of real Bhakti of Vishnu .

"That is my Atma. In this way one should worship God" ( B. U. 2.5.19)

Dvaitians are insulted here in these verses.

" Those who worship God thinking I'm another, he's another, doesn't know. He's like an animal " ( B.U. 1.4.10 )

" All insults those who see the self different from everything " (B.U. 2.4.6)

" Samata (Oneness) alone is the true worship of Vishnu" ( Vishnu Purana 1.17.90)

" This world is the manifestation of SarvaBhuta Vishnu. So Dnyani should see this world or Vishnu indifferent from the self" ( Vishnu Purana 1.17.84 )


Such are the verses establishing real Vaishnawism which is Advatian Vaishnawism.

markandeya 108 dasa
05 July 2014, 10:41 AM
Pranams Ganeshprasad


Perhaps you be kind enough to answer this in a separate new thread, so as not to pollute this one, preferably in a Hindu forum so that everyone can take part.

I don't see the point really. I thought true Hinduism was more open minded, it seems that if one cannot accept advaita Vedanta as the sole truth of everything then he is in maya.

Strange that most fundamental scriptural fanatics of every religion is the same.

I find it all so boring in comparison to true practice of sadhana. I dont care for any version of sectarianism, and the more i live the i see that Kali Yuga is not the time for discussion of Dharma, unless in the private association of good sangha, which is rare to find.


Its time for personal bhajan, with peace and leave the scraps to crows.

Ys

Md

Amrut
05 July 2014, 11:35 AM
Pranams Amrut,


I agree, so why would there be a bias at some point to over emphasize the nirguna, this is not in line with shastra. Both are existing, so advaita is also an absolute truth.

Pranams MD,

See, in philosophical debates or say polemical debates, vidvAn-s are more concerned about the final state i.e. the final position of jIva w.r.t to ISvara or brahman. Advaita by it's very nature negates duality. Advaita accepts duality, infact it presumes duality. All 4 mahAvAkya-s and the famous brahma-satya-jagat-mithyA also contains dvaita as vAcyArtha.

One needs to say - jIva and Brahman (see there are two identities) are same because one naturally experiences duality. Hence in debates, everything is negated except brahman and so we get an impression that advaitins consider this world as an illusion from day one. This world and everything is projected as negative and not as reality. However, the path of meditation is different than these debates. Here we accept the duality, we accept the jIva bhAva (thats why Adi Sankara says jIva is brahman). But very next moment we question our presumption. Are you jIva? who am I? what you think you are not. This jIva is not jIva but brahman, this is the laxyArtha of advaita statements. It is a search, inner exploration of our true self and throughout our sAdhanA, we remain unchanged as consciousness. A am a practising advaitin. I can tell from my own experience that after ISvara gives you experience of detachment, i.e. you see your own body like a camera kept on top-behind, the whole perception is changed. Once, I was riding my bike and something happen for a second, all went blank and the next moment, I saw (from top) that I myself was riding my bike, that too in a rash way, always in a hurry to over take ;), those were college days. I used to accelerate, and if some vehicle was approaching from front, I would apply brakes, and come behind the presiding vehicle. All this kept happening and I kept seeing. So that question is - if I am riding than who is observing me? So I am something different from BMI complex. Like this when you have experiences, you realize that everytime the observer is the same, it does not change until the object of observation completely vanishes and everything dissolves into oneness. After you return, you are soaked in deep peace, and bliss that you have never experienced. This bliss and peace is a fruit of vairAGYa.

Ok, I may have drifted too much, lets get on track.

The path of meditation and practical application including applying 'mithyA' and side-by-side living a practical life cannot be explained here. You need to sit at the feet of a Guru.



The word soul being used and spiritual in the English translation of sanskrit is only to be understood in conventional language. Soul we can mean by essence, everything has the essence of Brahman, jiva essence is brahman, so it is just the same way that the word soul is used in this context. Some say original nature, its not worth getting to tied up over linguistics, a little bit of common sense in language solves it. So when soul is being mentioned it just simple means Brahman, but expressed in English, the meaning is the same, it should not be complicated.

I understand. All I say is that part and whole concept is not accepted by advaitins. Again, ISvara is different from brahman. We do not say, I am ISvara, we realize, I am brahman. We DO NOT become Brahman.



I agree and if my comments seem confrontational thats is not my intent, if i say things out of place please excuse me, but part of the thread does mention, and more specifically directed towards gaudiya vaishnava siddhanta that prem bhakti is somehow lesser than Brahman.

Whatever one says, it is according to his/her understanding. We will always keep our path as supreme. The point being that it is said only and only with intention to rise a ready disciple above it.

When you do not give importance to anything ,mind will not accept it. This is the nature of mind. So if I say, saguNa upAsanA is inferior, but still you do it, you wont do it, but if I say, saguNa upAsanA is the best, it is recomended for kali yuga, then mind will accept it and you will be mentally prepared to do bhakti. In the same way, if I say, 'worshipping idols, does not help, names and forms are illusion, etc', it is an instruction only and only for very advanced seeker and said with the intention of rising him above mAyA, as nirvikalp samAdhi is the final goal. The problem comes when immature disciples or devotees will pick up this words and then blow them out of context. Thats why SAstra-s should not be tossed in the wild, on net.


Dvaita is progressive philosophy that ultimately leads to the perfect balance of dvaita and advaita, this is the philosophy of Sri Chaitanya, no extremes....

Even in advaita, there is no extreme. There is conscious step-by-step uplifting of disciple. Updesha-s are not brahma-vAkya. they are not lines carved on stone. They are only applicable to a particular devotee, that too taking into consideration his present mental status, his nature, circumstances, etc. After 6 months, same guru will say something totally contradictory to the earlier updesha. Both are true, but not at a same time for same person.

Like all paths, advaita is totally dependent upon grace. We chant OM and after some practice and attaining certain inner purity, this primordial sound continues upon itself. I do not need to chant it. All I have to do is to keep listening it and try to find it's source. Like we reach to ocean by moving in the direction of sound of waves, one can merge in brahman by going to source of mantra. But not all can do this, as there are too many thoughts.

No one says, I did this all alone. Wise will always say, by direct experience, that all I did was surrendered and rest was done by someone else and I as an individual have no role in it. The Real Self is waiting for us and it is this Self that establishes mind in heart and we are not capable to do anything.



I would like to learn more real advaita, but the problem is some advaitists are not rue brahmavadis, they comment according their understanding of the context of advaita and send that view to another sampradaya, this to me is total lack of integrity. But its Kali Yuga, what to do.....

While I am not an expert, I have tried to explain advaita here (http://www.advaita-vedanta.in/)



I agree and have experienced personal insult on this forum in both public and private messages. So I agree that a true advaitist does not insult a person. So that narrows things better.

The very nature of sAdhanA is to neutralize emotions, likes and dislikes. WE stay neutral to them. Hence if we keep watering negative emotions, they will hinder our own progress, as Lord buddha says, 'Anger is like holding red hot coal with the intent of throwing at others'


Could not agree more, but in shastra form is also understood to have absolute attributes, so form of conditioned phenomena is one thing and svarupa is also above maya, in what i can gather the word form guna is one thing and the form of the svarupa is something entirely different, vishnu tattva is known as the sat cit ananda vigraha.

This is sampradAya specific. Better stick to our own path.


If I read advaita and it goes deeply into veda to describe the wonders of Brahman as the non dual, I feel I can learn so much about a different aspect and teaching of the great vedas. When another tradition projects its purports onto another tradition obviously the context is lost, I say that about Advaitists, gaudiya and any other branch of studying the absolute.

True. For curiosity, you can try to understand advaita to an extend that it may remove negative feelings or simply surrender all negative feelings ot krishna. Let Krishna take care of you, pray to him to show you correct way and give what is best for you and be open. After that I do not think you will have to make conscious effort to learn advaita.

Better be engaged in krishna bhakti.



Could you explain that some more please, just so I know what you are referring to.

Brahman is something that is beyond attributes. We take nirguna literally and not as something that is free of durguNa. Please visit my website and you can get a clear picture.



I know my guru deva wanted to start a university in India for the complete non biased study of sanskrit, science, philosophy, veda to be built. Something similiar to nalanda monastery.

If God wishes it will happen.

Hari OM

Ganeshprasad
05 July 2014, 02:39 PM
I don't see the point really. I thought true Hinduism was more open minded,

Off course it is, what makes you think otherwise, is it because people here have views that defers from yours?



it seems that if one cannot accept advaita Vedanta as the sole truth of everything then he is in maya.

I my self do not follow advaita, I have never been made to feel that I am in maya, although I am not immune from it, it is the place we choose to live in.




Strange that most fundamental scriptural fanatics of every religion is the same.

I think you are being very unkind to people here, is it because you are being challenged here and not having your way!!
Besides there is no need to equate other so called religion with the way of life that is Hindu Dharma. It is not important that what darsan one have in mind the emphasis is will always be Dharma Acharan.



I find it all so boring in comparison to true practice of sadhana. I dont care for any version of sectarianism, and the more i live the i see that Kali Yuga is not the time for discussion of Dharma, unless in the private association of good sangha, which is rare to find.

I see a cope out, we should also learn to look in the mirror, Kali Yuga is an excuse not worth hiding behind, Dharma should always be discussed and above all followed.




Its time for personal bhajan, with peace and leave the scraps to crows.

Ys

Md

This does not befit an aspiring devotee

Jai Shree Krishna