PDA

View Full Version : Aren't alcohol,coffee,tea forbidden for a vaishnava?



orlando
05 May 2006, 04:34 PM
Namaste all.
This topic isn't about only ISKCON.It is about all Vaishnavism.So I will not post this in the ISKCON forum.
First please read http://www.harekrsna.com/practice/4regs/intoxication.htm
My question is:is true that drugs like coffee,tea,alcohol are forbidden only in ISKCON and not in all vaishnava tradition?
What about Sri Vaishnavism?

I never drink coffee,tea,alcohol ecc because as far as I know a vaishnava is not allowed to drink these things.Are there references in the scriptures?

Regards,
Orlando.

Ram
05 May 2006, 04:47 PM
I take tea and I dont think it is mentioned in Srivaishnavam about this.

If you are a strict Srivaishnavite, you have to cook your own food, are not supposed to eat in hotels, not consume many food items like onion, garlic etc. I dont attach too much importance to the hotel thing, but I do not take eggs, meat, onions and garlic under any circumstances. Alcohol, cigars, tobacco etc are considered "bigger" sins and never even go near them!!

Tea and Coffee are quite OK in my opinion (in moderation).

Arjuna
05 May 2006, 04:50 PM
Namaste,

I do not have any scriptural proofs, but as i know alcohol is prohibited for all Vaishnavas while tea and coffee aren't.

One of my deshikas was a Shrivaishnava brahmana closely related to Shri Venkateshvara cult, and a disciple of Shri Ranganatha (a friend and co-disciple of Shri Krishnamacharya). He never took any alcohol or meat (though he was a Shakta as well), but drank tea and coffee and ate onion.

ramkish42
05 May 2006, 04:52 PM
Coffee and Tea are relatively new, hence has no place in scriptures.

I can say Coffee and Tea is not banned in scriptures for such material came up later. Insisting Coffee and tea usage is void on the basis of scriptures is same as trying to establish usage of computer and cellular phones as void on the basis of scriptures.

However, perceptors to whom coffee and tea was introduced gave different opinions. I remember Ramana Maharishi (not a vaishnav) was fond of Coffee. Many other perceptors avoided it for these two things has addictive effect.

Every intake that can lead to addictiveness should be avoided, hence many perceptors avoid. We falling in line with perceptors should not take coffee and tea.

Alcohol, there is no question, it is fully banned. We have texts that declares, buying selling and taking alcohol should be avoided. Of course, few people still advice alcohol, but seeing their practise one can know, it is not meant for Vaishnavs

As the question directly pertains to Srivaishnavism, I answered it within its scope

On practical point of view, comparison of coffee and tea with alcohol does not match as alcohol has direct explicit and immediate damage where in science is still debating on the ill and good effects of coffee and tea.

Taking a moderate stand point, I can say, alcohol should be avoided based on scripture and as far as coffee and tea is concerned, it is left to you to decide, taking or abstaining both are not against scriptures

Jai shree krishna

Bhakti Yoga Seeker
05 May 2006, 04:57 PM
I would assume that it would depend on the particular Vaishnava tradition. I do know that ISKCON recommends to abstain from caffeine, tobacco, alcohol, and other mind-altering drugs and they require it for those living in the temples. I don't know about other Vaishnava traditions. I brought this subject up to one Vaishnava pujari I know and he stated that he was unable to find anywhere in the scriptures where it said not to take intoxicants. He did say that marijuana shouldn't be used but was unable to provide a reference.

Good luck finding the answer. I would recommend simply using your own judgment if you don't find it in the scriptures or relevant readings. On the other hand, if you are going to take intoxicants (regardless of tradition), it is only common sense to keep it in moderation and not become an addict.

Namaskaar. ~BYS~

Bhakti Yoga Seeker
05 May 2006, 05:09 PM
On practical point of view, comparison of coffee and tea with alcohol does not match as alcohol has direct explicit and immediate damage where in science is still debating on the ill and good effects of coffee and tea.

Taking a moderate stand point, I can say, alcohol should be avoided based on scripture and as far as coffee and tea is concerned, it is left to you to decide, taking or abstaining both are not against scriptures

Jai shree krishna

First off, I would like to see where alcohol is prohibited in scriptures. Many people from many different traditions frown on the consumption of alcohol but I have yet to see a reference from a shastra stating that alcohol is prohibited. I would like someone to please provide such reference if at all possible since so many people claim that there is a reference there.

Second, I am curious to know how alcohol "has direct explicit and immediate damage." Everyone knows that a moderate amount of alcohol causes mind-altering effects but in a mild way and everyone knows that excessive consumption of alcohol can lead to health problems as well as addiction. However, it sounds to me that you are saying that from the first sip of alcohol, it is damaging your health. I'd like to see some evidence of that because that is quite new to me. ~BYS~

Arjuna
05 May 2006, 05:11 PM
On practical point of view, comparison of coffee and tea with alcohol does not match as alcohol has direct explicit and immediate damage where in science is still debating on the ill and good effects of coffee and tea.
Taking a moderate stand point, I can say, alcohol should be avoided based on scripture and as far as coffee and tea is concerned, it is left to you to decide, taking or abstaining both are not against scriptures

As per medical science, alcohol in small amounts is good for health, especially red dry wines taken with food. Of course, any excess in alcohol is damageful for health.

It should be avoided by Vaishnavas on the basis of their scriptures. There is no need to twist facts and put alcohol as a poison which has "immediate danage" :)

orlando
05 May 2006, 11:34 PM
Namaste all.
Please read Srimad Bhagavad-Gita,Chapter 17:
7.Even the food each person prefers is of three kinds, according to the three modes of material nature. The same is true of sacrifices, austerities and charity. Now hear of the distinctions between them.
8.Foods dear to those in the mode of goodness increase the duration of life, purify one's existence and give strength, health, happiness and satisfaction. Such foods are juicy, fatty, wholesome, and pleasing to the heart.
9.Foods that are too bitter, too sour, salty, hot, pungent, dry and burning are dear to those in the mode of passion. Such foods cause distress, misery and disease.
10.Food prepared more than three hours before being eaten, food that is tasteless, decomposed and putrid, and food consisting of remnants and untouchable things is dear to those in the mode of darkness.


Of course coffee,tea,wine etc are rajasic or tamasic things.These things have the capacity to stimulate rajasa-taamasa attributes. A person who aspires for sattvik nature must reject these things.

Regards,
Orlando.

Ram
06 May 2006, 01:16 AM
Ramayana:

anaarya iti maamaaryaaH putravikraayikam dhruvam || 2-12-78
dhikkarishhyanti rathyaasu suraapam braahmaNam yathaa |


Venerable people gathered in the streets will reproach me who has sold away my son, saying that I am as bad as a brahmana who drinks wine .It is certain.

This is Dasharata's lamenting to Kaikeyi when she asked for the boons.

For a Brahmana, alcoholism is considered one of the five major sins in Dharmashastra. For the rest, it is amongst the lesser sins, and is not very significant for a shudra. Since these classes of castes are only spiritual stages, one can be certain that spirituality and alcoholism are incompatible.

Can any devotee of Krishna dare to get himself intoxicated? Never! Alcohol, per se is not bad, if used as medcine or something useful. Any consumption of alcohol for deriving pleasure(the so called pleasure which kills the body over a long time) will destroy spirituality. When you cannot even teach your senses to behave properly, how would you teach yourself to attain God?

Arjuna
06 May 2006, 03:16 AM
For a Brahmana, alcoholism is considered one of the five major sins in Dharmashastra. For the rest, it is amongst the lesser sins, and is not very significant for a shudra. Since these classes of castes are only spiritual stages, one can be certain that spirituality and alcoholism are incompatible.

Definitely U are right, alcoholism is incompatible with spirituality (this doesn't mean that an alcoholic cannot become a devotee or a jnani, but that a devotee and jnani will never become an alcoholic).

What is alcoholism? As per dictionary, "an addiction to the consumption of alcoholic liquor or the mental illness and compulsive behavior resulting from alcohol dependency."

This is NOT identic or even similar to usage of alcohol (even for pleasure), since alcoholism clearly is addiction or dependance (psycological and especially physical).

Alcoholism is verily condemned and cannot be accepted as anything good, since it is a clear limitation of one's own freedom and thus is a sign of degradation of consciousness.

Spiritual person if he takes alcohol (he may or may not take) never gets dependant upon it. And the very thing whether one is allowed to take alcohol in spiritual path is judged by Scriptures of his sampradaya. Thus, for Vaishnavas it is prohibited, while for Shaktas — prescribed (i mean its use in upasana and not for entertainment, which is allowed but not obligatory).

In is said in Shruti: "Verily for the one who knows This, there is nothing which is not a food." (Chandogyopanishad, V.2.1).

Any kind of dependance is spiritually harmful unless it is dependance upon the Highest Being (Paramadevata). As Agamas say, usage of alcohol for the sake of God is a punya, while for the sake of ego is a sin (and this is true for ANY action).


Can any devotee of Krishna dare to get himself intoxicated? Never! Alcohol, per se is not bad, if used as medcine or something useful. Any consumption of alcohol for deriving pleasure (the so called pleasure which kills the body over a long time) will destroy spirituality. When you cannot even teach your senses to behave properly, how would you teach yourself to attain God?

The proper reason for a Vaishnava to abstain from alcohol is not this arguement (which is logically inaccurate) but the prescriptions of Vaishnava Agamas and the teaching of Masters.

But, one who controls his senses can easly drink alcohol without any "destruction of spirituality". What is the value of a "spirituality" which can be that easily destroyed!? When a Yogi drinks, it is amrita-pana. When a pashu drinks, that is visha-pana. Difference is in bhAva and not in a substance which is consumed.

Arjuna
06 May 2006, 03:18 AM
Namaste all.
Please read Srimad Bhagavad-Gita,Chapter 17:
7.Even the food each person prefers is of three kinds, according to the three modes of material nature. The same is true of sacrifices, austerities and charity. Now hear of the distinctions between them.
8.Foods dear to those in the mode of goodness increase the duration of life, purify one's existence and give strength, health, happiness and satisfaction. Such foods are juicy, fatty, wholesome, and pleasing to the heart.
9.Foods that are too bitter, too sour, salty, hot, pungent, dry and burning are dear to those in the mode of passion. Such foods cause distress, misery and disease.
10.Food prepared more than three hours before being eaten, food that is tasteless, decomposed and putrid, and food consisting of remnants and untouchable things is dear to those in the mode of darkness.

Of course coffee,tea,wine etc are rajasic or tamasic things.These things have the capacity to stimulate rajasa-taamasa attributes. A person who aspires for sattvik nature must reject these things.


From given verses of Gita how it comes that coffee, tea and alcohol are rajasic or tamasic?
When used with proper balance, they bring "strength, health, happiness and satisfaction" and fall into sattvic group.

ramkish42
06 May 2006, 05:31 AM
As per medical science, alcohol in small amounts is good for health, especially red dry wines taken with food. Of course, any excess in alcohol is damageful for health.

It should be avoided by Vaishnavas on the basis of their scriptures. There is no need to twist facts and put alcohol as a poison which has "immediate danage" :)
Immediate and explicit damage pertains to intoxication effect. Medical Science even prescribes intoxication to mentally retarded patients but it cannot be dealt as medicine to all.

Medical Science also tells us that one peg of properly diluted alcohol taken in, leaves a man with 15 mins of intoxication.

Whether medicine or not, intoxication is not adviced - even it is red wine, hence alcohol is fully avoided. There is no twist of facts herein.

Arjuna
06 May 2006, 08:47 AM
Immediate and explicit damage pertains to intoxication effect. Medical Science even prescribes intoxication to mentally retarded patients but it cannot be dealt as medicine to all.
Medical Science also tells us that one peg of properly diluted alcohol taken in, leaves a man with 15 mins of intoxication.
Whether medicine or not, intoxication is not adviced - even it is red wine, hence alcohol is fully avoided. There is no twist of facts herein.

This is correct according to Vaishnava doctrine, but this is not a rule for everyone.

Seemingly U do not understand the exact meaning of "intoxication". Dictionary says:
intoxicate |in?täksik?t| verb [ trans. ] [usu. as adj. ] ( intoxicated) (of alcoholic drink or a drug) cause (someone) to lose control of their faculties or behavior. • poison.
There are two basic meanings, one of loosing control and another of poisoning.

Then, alcohol becomes a poison only is large amounts, and in moderate amounts it is healthy. Again, if taken properly it doesn't cause any loss of control or awareness.

Vedas and Tantras clearly condemn drinking which results in loss of control over oneself. Tantras call such drinking "pashupana." But there is no problem to drink alcohol in such a way that neither damage to psycic nor damage to body occurs.

In this case the only reason to intentfully abstain is prescription of particular sampradaya or one's Guru.
What i want to tell by there is no need to twist facts — alcohol if one drinks it properly doesn't cause intoxication in both sense of the word. And that is why general Scriptures allow it and some prescribe its ritual and yogic usage.

Ram
06 May 2006, 09:50 AM
Immediate and explicit damage pertains to intoxication effect. Medical Science even prescribes intoxication to mentally retarded patients but it cannot be dealt as medicine to all.

Medical Science also tells us that one peg of properly diluted alcohol taken in, leaves a man with 15 mins of intoxication.

Whether medicine or not, intoxication is not adviced - even it is red wine, hence alcohol is fully avoided. There is no twist of facts herein.

Ramkish,

Dont waste your time arguing with people who are outside the vedanta. That will be like talking to a Buddhist and convincing him of your position.

If somebody does not accept the authroity of the vedanta, Brahma sutras, the main Itihasas like Ramayana, Mahabaratha, and Gita, and puranas like Vishnu Purana it is nearly pointless.

These people will come with obscure quote from some xx smriti or even bogus texts and upanishads which have absolutely no authority before Bhagavatam or Ramayana. It is strange to see that such positions are passed on as Hinduism these days, to support the view that Hindusim supports everything. Hinduism is being ridiculed because some people like these are still promoting that Hinduism supports alcohol consumption, meat eating, and all unorthodox forms of Yoga.

I understand why Sri Ramanuja was so strict in his philosophy. If you give people some room for being deviant, they wil go to any level and interpret scripture to their convencience, and justify their actions.

I would like Hindus to actually move forward (instead of backward), and provide sane interpretations for even those scriptural passages that are immoral, ridiculous or unorthodox. It appears that people still want to eat meat, get intoxicated, be licentious and just looking for an excuse in the scripture.

I remember a temple where alcohol is served as the prasadam, because the diety there is Shiva in the form of the hunter as he appeared to Arjuna.

There was also a temple in my place where they used to make obscene dances in public during the annual temple festival and citing that the Goddess there had commanded them to do so in their dreams. The king at that time put an end to this practice by overriding the commands in the dream.

So much people will do to justify their own actions. Have you ever seen this in a positive way? That is Hindus acting against scripture, to justify morality and goodness? If Bhagavad Gita ordered me to kill "infidels", I would refuse to do that, because we know God cannot do that!(it must be an interpolation or misinterpretation)


Hinduism teaches you to place God above everything, and not to bow to your personal pleasures and temptations. If you read scripture with this in mind, its meanings will be clear.

Arjuna
06 May 2006, 01:38 PM
Dont waste your time arguing with people who are outside the vedanta. That will be like talking to a Buddhist and convincing him of your position.
If somebody does not accept the authroity of the vedanta, Brahma sutras, the main Itihasas like Ramayana, Mahabaratha, and Gita, and puranas like Vishnu Purana it is nearly pointless.

I accept the authority of given scriptures, though of course these are not the main authority since ALL these aren't Shruti per se. Only Gita, though in fact Smriti, is considered to be equal to Shruti in authority.

Regarding Puranas, for Shaivas and Shaktas other Puranas are primary, which include Shiva-purana, Vayu-purana, Brahmanda-purana, Markandeya-purana, Skanda-purana, Agni-purana, Kurma-purana, Devibhagavata-purana, Kalika-purana. However Puranas are just additional scriptures and never essential ones.

Shaktism and Shaivism are based on twofold Shruti: Agamas and Nigamas (Vedas and Upanishads).

Very wrongly U put Shaivism and Shaktism in a same line with Buddhism, which is anti-Vedic. The whole of Shakta and Shaiva traditions are in accordance with Vedas and essentially are rooted in an independent Agamic revelation.


These people will come with obscure quote from some xx smriti or even bogus texts and upanishads which have absolutely no authority before Bhagavatam or Ramayana.

Baseless insult. Which text that i have cited U claim to be bogus?

Bhagavatam is probably a later fabrication (or at least considerably changed from original one) and Ramayana is an Itihasa — both cannot be equal in authority to Upanishads (i speak of orthodox Muktika canon), Vedas and Agamas!


It is strange to see that such positions are passed on as Hinduism these days, to support the view that Hindusim supports everything. Hinduism is being ridiculed because some people like these are still promoting that Hinduism supports alcohol consumption, meat eating, and all unorthodox forms of Yoga.

Hinduism is NOT only Vaishnavism. It started from Vedic religion, which in fact does accept all mantioned things!


Hinduism teaches you to place God above everything, and not to bow to your personal pleasures and temptations. If you read scripture with this in mind, its meanings will be clear.

God is indeed above everything.
Why do U limit Him to Ur tradition only? Who gave U a monopoly to judge what can be Hinduism and what cannot? Very sectarian position. "My path is the only path"...
But Vedas say, Ekam Sad Vipra Bahudha Vadanti.

Bhakti Yoga Seeker
06 May 2006, 05:01 PM
For a Brahmana, alcoholism is considered......one can be certain that spirituality and alcoholism are incompatible.


I see how the term "alcoholism" is frequently tossed around in society yet few people even use it for the proper definition of the word. Your pargraphs thus did not make sense as "alcoholism" isn't suitable for anyone and not just Brahmins. Alcoholism refers to those that become addicted to alcohol and become mentally and physically dependent on having more and more of the substance. Such people will have physical withdrawl symptoms when they try to kick the habit. Similar to drug addicts, their entire day-to-day life revolves around the next drink. Alcoholism can also refer to "dry drunks" that have to go binge drink every once in a while just to feel normal and drink to a dangerous level unable to count how many drinks they had.

Social drinking is not alcoholism. Becoming drunk once in a while but in safe and controlled environment is not alcoholism. Drinking when it doesn't negatively impact required life responsibilities is not alcoholism. Even drinking in excess is not alcoholism, it just means abuse. Alcholism refers to alcohol addicts. It is important to clarify these issues so people can be properly educated. Some one told me the other day that drinking wine out of the bottle is "alcoholism." That is ridiculous. All it means is that they preferred not to pour it into a glass. ~BYS~

Bhakti Yoga Seeker
06 May 2006, 05:19 PM
Interesting enough, nobody answered my request to actually post ONE line from a Hindu scripture saying alcohol is prohibited. I am not asking for indirect references that merely hint that alcohol may be bad for you. I want to see just ONE reference saying "alcohol is prohibited." I'm waiting but not holding my breath. As usual, a number of Vaishnavas here accuse everyone who disagrees with them as being un-Hindu yet these same people cannot even prove their point with quoted references. Ridiculous. :( ~BYS~

Ram
06 May 2006, 11:31 PM
Interesting enough, nobody answered my request to actually post ONE line from a Hindu scripture saying alcohol is prohibited. I am not asking for indirect references that merely hint that alcohol may be bad for you. I want to see just ONE reference saying "alcohol is prohibited."

Vedas are not moral guidelines. They do not provide any instructions to live, except giving spiritual instruction.

You have to look for references in smriti which may not be acceptable to all. Again, they have classifed the rules differently for Brahmins, and other castes. If something is forbidden for a Brahmin , it is safe to assume that doing of the forbidden act is spiritually inconducive. Unlike other religion, Hinduism does not dictate terms like Christianity to get it right the first time. Unless you really beleive the caste system to be hereditary, there is no reason to assume that one should try to borrow rules for other castes and dilute the shastras. One should strive to be a Brahmin - that is the goal of Hinduism, atleast that is Vaishnava point of view. (unlless you want to believe in hereditary classifications)

Apastamba Dharmashastras have clearly condemned consumption of liquor, though it can be interpreted in many ways to "allow" certain types of alcohols to pass through.

From Apastamba Dharmasutras:

1.7.21
8. (These are) stealing (gold), crimes whereby one becomes an Abhisasta, homicide, neglect of the Vedas, causing abortion, incestuous connection with relations born from the same womb as one's mother or father, and with the offspring of such persons, drinking spirituous liquor, and intercourse with persons the intercourse with whom is forbidden.

1.9.25:
3. A drinker of spirituous liquor shall drink exceedingly hot liquor so that he dies.

10. Those who have committed a theft (of gold), drunk spirituous liquor, or had connection with a Guru's wife, but not those who have slain a Brâhmana, shall eat every fourth meal-time a little food, bathe at the times of the three libations (morning, noon, and evening), passing the day standing and the night sitting. After the lapse of three years they throw off their guilt.



I'm waiting but not holding my breath. As usual, a number of Vaishnavas here accuse everyone who disagrees with them as being un-Hindu yet these same people cannot even prove their point with quoted references. Ridiculous. :( ~BYS


That is your prejudice. Vaishnavism frames its moral and spiritual values taking into account the best provided by all Dharma Shastras, and does not train anyone to be delinquents. Not many other sects do that, and have tried to promote it in the past - which have been vigorously opposed for the sake of preserving the essence of the religion.( which are called sectarianism). Multiple interpretations are certainly possible, but the Vaishnava interpretation will always revolve round the better side with the welfare of humanity in mind. If the scripture says different things in different places, Vaishnavas will always take the better one.

There is no problem with any interpretation, but if we agree on that the highest goal of Hinduism is God realization, why not lean on those interpretations that are more spiritual in nature? The ideal moral guidelines for everyone is provided by Patanjali's Yama Niyama which can be practised by all with some dilutions.

Yama:

Ahimsa, or non violence
Satya - Truthfulness
Asteya - Non stealing
Brahmacharya - chastity, and striving to be have the Brahminical qualities.
Aparigraha - non possesion, or contentment

Niyama:

Shoucha - inner and external purity
Santosha - cheerfulness and contentment
Tapas - The thirst for God realization, or penance
svadhyaya - study of scripture and daily prayers
Isvara Pranidhana - Dedication to God.

Some of the rules can be reframed so that it is practicable for everyone. If you do whatever you want, you are a materialist Doing so will have to be branded as un-Hinduic whatever others think of it.

Whatever you want want to think of it, all of Shankara's, Ramanuja's or Madhva's and similar traditions have taken the most conducive spiritual code, and have not provided any exceptions. Traditional Hindu systems revolve on Yama and Niyama which are not just Hindu code of life, but a universal spiritual way of life.

Leave alone Vaishnavas. Do you think consumption of liquor, or killing animals, or eating meet sanctioned for the smartas? They are NOT.

Ram
07 May 2006, 12:59 AM
Shaktism and Shaivism are based on twofold Shruti: Agamas and Nigamas (Vedas and Upanishads).


Which school of Shakatism is founded on vedanta? Where is a commentary for the Brahma sutras based on Shaktaism?




Very wrongly U put Shaivism and Shaktism in a same line with Buddhism, which is anti-Vedic. The whole of Shakta and Shaiva traditions are in accordance with Vedas and essentially are rooted in an independent Agamic revelation.


What do you mean by vedic? Shaktaism states that the trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva have Devi as the source. Can you substantiate this with vedic pramANas? Agamas are not proofs. There is considerable evidence to show that the term nArAyaNA is equated to Brahman uniformly in the shruti, and that every being has its source in this being. On the other hand, there is considerable evidence to show that rudra and Devi are created by nArAyaNa. At the best, you can argue that they are avatars or amsas of nArAyaNa. Bhagavad Gita has put everything in favour of this position. If at all, you can establish anything from the shruti, you can prove that Shiva and Devi are avatar of Vishnu. However, both Shaivism and Shaktaism do not hold this position, and hence not in accordance with shruti.


We are not talking about revelations or even the truth. We are talking about vedic authority. If Christianity is the ultimate truth in the way they state it, we are all bound for hell. So that is not the issue.







Baseless insult. Which text that i have cited U claim to be bogus?


Quotes grom Gandharva etc.




Bhagavatam is probably a later fabrication (or at least considerably changed from original one) and Ramayana is an Itihasa — both cannot be equal in authority to Upanishads (i speak of orthodox Muktika canon), Vedas and Agamas!


Muktika itself is a fabricated Upanishad. Show that Muktika was quoted by any early vedantin. Infact, when early advatins compiled a list of Upanishads, they never used Muktika.

If you claim that Bhagavatam is a later fabrication, you have to prove it, and also show evidence that such opinion was held by an ancient authority. At any rate, any person trying to prove that Bhagavatam was a later fabrication, can be convieniently ignored in a discussion like this, where people are expected to have fundamental Hindu beleifs, atleast on the authority of scriptures.




Hinduism is NOT only Vaishnavism. It started from Vedic religion, which in fact does accept all mantioned things!


I have never stated that anywhere. Vedas do not accept all things, however, that is your imagination.

I would probably be willing to concede that all religions rooted in the fundamentals of Yoga, whether it be Vaishnavism, Shaktaism, or Shaivism. But is is certainly not the kind of Yoga that you are promoting, where alcoholism, meat eating etc are allowed.




God is indeed above everything.
Why do U limit Him to Ur tradition only? Who gave U a monopoly to judge what can be Hinduism and what cannot? Very sectarian position. "My path is the only path"...
But Vedas say, Ekam Sad Vipra Bahudha Vadanti.

I have never said that. It is your own imagination. I have repeatedly stated that Durga Ma is my family diety. For non advatins, there is a limit in equating everything. I do not equate myself to God, and nor equate anybody else. For you, you think that you are God, and assume that anybody who thinks otherwise is sectarian.

I would have say this - For Vaishnavas, people are only following their Acharyas even if they appear sectarian. I have even provided reasons on the need for this apparent sectarianim - it is a need to enforce some discipline on people. If you think they are wrong, you have to prove it. If you call people as sectarian, you are directly accusing their Acharyas without realizing that these Acharyas have composed great works and establishing their credentials.( to which you cannot even give a counter)

For smartas or advaitins, this entire discussion is moot, and of no signifiance. Yet you waste a lot of time in such discussions, occasionally trying to disprove Vaishnavism, when you could simply ignore it. You are not even following your Acharyas. And even against Adi Shankara's own beleifs - it must be noted that even though Adi Shankara was an advaitin, most of his quotes in Brahma sutras, Gita Bhaashya and even in his commentaries on Upanishads are taken from Vaishnava Puranas, which must speak for itself.

I am not interested in any further debate on this matter. Please wind up. And please follow the words of advaita Acharayas and treat Vaishnavism and Shaivism with equanimity. (which you dont seem to )

As a Vaishnaviate, I am not obliged to do so, even if I have to follow my Acharya, so there is no fault you can find with me. It would however be an Acharya ninda for me to speak against what has been ordained by Sri Ramanuja in public. I would perhaps be the nicest Vaishnava you could come across because I would be willing to concede that Shiva and Devi are possibly avatars of Sriman Narayana, while most of other Vaishnavas would probably disagree with me, and you can see I had to pick up a "fight " on another thread on this issue. If you cannot compromise with me, you cannot do so with any other Vaishnava on this planet.

However, you must note my reasons for rejecting the philosophy of Shaivism. It has nothing to do with Shiva, but with its advaitic teaching, which is against Bhagavad Gita, Brahma Sutras and the vedas as a whole. Shiva is as dear to me as Vishnu, but I have to reject Shaivisim because it teaches equality of this suffering soul and God.

Arjuna
07 May 2006, 03:46 AM
Which school of Shaktism is founded on vedanta? Where is a commentary for the Brahma sutras based on Shaktaism?

Vedanta is NOT Shruti, Shruti is ONLY Vedas (including Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads) and Agamas.

Brahma-sutra, Mahabharata, Ramayana, Yoga-vasishtha, Harivamsha, Puranas (including Bhagavatam), Grihya-sutras, Dharma-sutras etc are not Shruti, but Smriti.

I have said that Shaivism and Shaktism are based upon Shruti — which mean Agamas (28 Shaivagamas, 64 Bhairavagamas, Kaulagamas, Shiva-sutras). It verily needn't be based on Brahma-sutras, which are a foundation of Vedanta-darshana only, and were written by Badarayana.

However there is a Shakta commentary, which i already mentioned: Shakti-bhashya on Brahma-sutras.


What do you mean by vedic? Shaktaism states that the trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva have Devi as the source. Can you substantiate this with vedic pramANas? Agamas are not proofs. There is considerable evidence to show that the term nArAyaNA is equated to Brahman uniformly in the shruti, and that every being has its source in this being. On the other hand, there is considerable evidence to show that rudra and Devi are created by nArAyaNa.

Utterly false.
Rudra is the supreme Lord in Yajur- and Atharvana-vedas, in several Upanishads including one of 11 great Upanishads, namely Shvetashvatara. None of these Upanishads are Vaishnava. In Kenopanishad it is Uma (Devi) who reveals the knowledge of Brahman to gods.

Shaktism is based upon Vedic Shruti, which includes several orthodox Upanishads. Right in the beginning of Devyupanishad (it is one of the Muktika canon) it is said that Devi is Brahman, the Sourse of the world and gods like Indra, Soma, Vishnu, Brahma etc.


At the best, you can argue that they are avatars or amsas of nArAyaNa. Bhagavad Gita has put everything in favour of this position. If at all, you can establish anything from the shruti, you can prove that Shiva and Devi are avatar of Vishnu. However, both Shaivism and Shaktaism do not hold this position, and hence not in accordance with shruti.

The very concept of avatara is not present in the whole of Vedic Shruti.
Vishnu is Vedas is called Upendra, "little Indra", far from being the Supreme One!
There are enough orthodox Upanishads and Vedic passages establishing Rudra and Devi as Supreme Deity.


Quotes grom Gandharva etc.

It is Sarabhanga who quoted Gandharva from Shivamahimna-stotra — well accepted orthodox text.
If U mean Gandharva-tantra, it is one of orthodox Shrividya Agamas.

What is bogus, again?


Muktika itself is a fabricated Upanishad. Show that Muktika was quoted by any early vedantin. Infact, when early advatins compiled a list of Upanishads, they never used Muktika.

Now U start denying parts of Shruti simply because it isn't in Ur favor!
All Vaishnava Upanishads are also later and sectarian, while at least one Shaiva Upanishad, Shvetashvatara, is indeed ancient and all-accepted.


If you claim that Bhagavatam is a later fabrication, you have to prove it, and also show evidence that such opinion was held by an ancient authority. At any rate, any person trying to prove that Bhagavatam was a later fabrication, can be convieniently ignored in a discussion like this, where people are expected to have fundamental Hindu beleifs, atleast on the authority of scriptures.

Another Mahapuranas give lakshanas of Bhagavata, which Vaishnava Bhagavata doesn't meet. For instance, it has to explain Gayatri — which is explained in Devibhagavata and not in Vaishnava one.
The details of this issue can be seen from scholarly works, for example "The Triumph of the Goddess".


I have never stated that anywhere. Vedas do not accept all things, however, that is your imagination.

However there are many evidences that Vedas and great Upanishads DO have meat eating and sexual rituals in the cult, whether U like it or not.


I would probably be willing to concede that all religions rooted in the fundamentals of Yoga, whether it be Vaishnavism, Shaktaism, or Shaivism. But is is certainly not the kind of Yoga that you are promoting, where alcoholism, meat eating etc are allowed.

Alcoholism is rejected by all, while drinking of alcohol is accepted in Vedas, Smriti and Shaiva/Shakta Agamas.


I have never said that. It is your own imagination. I have repeatedly stated that Durga Ma is my family diety. For non advatins, there is a limit in equating everything. I do not equate myself to God, and nor equate anybody else. For you, you think that you are God, and assume that anybody who thinks otherwise is sectarian.
However, you must note my reasons for rejecting the philosophy of Shaivism. It has nothing to do with Shiva, but with its advaitic teaching, which is against Bhagavad Gita, Brahma Sutras and the vedas as a whole. Shiva is as dear to me as Vishnu, but I have to reject Shaivisim because it teaches equality of this suffering soul and God, which is the most illogical beleif in the world.

The problem is that U impose Vaishnava beliefs upon the whole of Hinduism and deny other sampradayas which are not less valid.
I do not argue that Vaishnavism rejects alcohol and meat, but i argue that Vedic and Agamic cult verily has a place for these! Smriti permits these as well. Evidences were provided, and one has to divert and twist the whole of Shruti to try to prove this wrong.

Advaita-darshana is never restricted to Shaivism and Shaktism. There are at least two schools of Vaishnavism which are monistic: Shuddhadvaita of Vallabha and Kashmirian monistic Vaishnavism.

Advaita (which is not necessarily Shankara's) is firmly based on Vedas, Upanishads, Agamas and is in total accordance with Gita and Brahma-sutras.

Ram
07 May 2006, 05:43 AM
Arjuna,

No hard feelings please. I have not rejected any of your beleifs. I have only mentioned that they are not compatible with vedanta. Your views on non vegetarianism have been rejected even by Adi Shankara, so I dont see any reason to withdraw that. You are free to beleive what you want - but Hinduism is essentially defined by Adi Shankara, Ramanuja etc, who have composed elaborate commentaries. Try even arguing your position on the advaita mailing list - you will not get any favourable response.




Brahma-sutra, Mahabharata, Ramayana, Yoga-vasishtha, Harivamsha, Puranas (including Bhagavatam), Grihya-sutras, Dharma-sutras etc are not Shruti, but Smriti.


Brahma sutras are not smriti, but the exposition of the vedas.

Rest of the stuff are quite irrelavant, as it is very unlikely that you have read any of the polemical literature. Blanket statements like "Rudra is the supreme Lord in Yajur- and Atharvana-vedas, in several Upanishads including one of 11 great Upanishads, namely Shvetashvatara" dont cut it.
Hope you realize that Rudra is just a common name not necessarily applicable to Shiva, esepcially when Rudra is mentioned to be created from nArAyaNa. All these things cannot be discussed in a small post like this. Vedas cannot claim that Rudra was created from the forehead of Narayana at one place, and then say Rudra is the first cause of all - you need to reconcile these carefully. There is not a single pramANa to show Narayana's origin from anything in the vedas.


Svetavastara Upanishad will not help you. Because it talks of multiple eternal entities, talks of eternal gross and subtle nature of Brahman and all that, and naturally contradicting your beleifs. Advaita never even seeks to explain these, just pushing them away as half-truths.




Advaita-darshana is never restricted to Shaivism and Shaktism. There are at least two schools of Vaishnavism which are monistic: Shuddhadvaita of Vallabha and Kashmirian monistic Vaishnavism.

Advaita (which is not necessarily Shankara's) is firmly based on Vedas, Upanishads, Agamas and is in total accordance with Gita and Brahma-sutras.


Gita and Brahma sutras have not given advaita any room. It will follow readily since the soul has been denied the power of creation, destruction etc, and for most people, that is enough to conclude there is multipicity in mukti. Except for those who think creation is an illusion and these verses have no real value. Is creation an illusion? Krishna has heavily condemned such notions repeatedly, see 16.8. Morover, BG says that jiva is a part of Brahman (15.7). Too many verses in Gita 2.12, 15.18 etc have indicated that multiplicity exists in mukti beyond any doubt. Also BG indicates that the soul attains a similar nature to Krishna in mukti, not compatible with advaita. It was quite inteligent of Adi Shankara to work around these verses, but that does not cut it. In his very own words and indirectly, he has conceded that Gita does not teach advaita, but that he was trying to impose advaita on it. Same thing with Brahma sutras. Read these commentaries with an open mind - many advaitins agree with non advaitin commentaries because they cant find any way to reject their reasoning.


I personally think advaita may never be talking of absolute monism, in which case it can be renconciled with VA. These Vishnu, Shiva stuff are not very relevant, except for creating a solid monotheistic religion and from an academic perspective. There are too many places in Brahma Sutras and Gita where Adi Shankara has to actually confess a form of Vishsitadvaita, due to the strong bias of the scripture.

Arjuna
07 May 2006, 01:03 PM
No hard feelings please. I have not rejected any of your beleifs. I have only mentioned that they are not compatible with vedanta.

Vedanta is a darshana founded by Shri Badarayana and based upon Prasthana-traya: Upanishads, Gita and Brahma-sutras.
Shakta-darshana is "compatible" with all these, not less than Vaishnavism or Shaivism.
However, Vedanta is not the only standard of Truth, since there is equally authorative tradition of Siddhanta — doctrine exposed in Tantras.


Your views on non vegetarianism have been rejected even by Adi Shankara, so I dont see any reason to withdraw that. You are free to beleive what you want - but Hinduism is essentially defined by Adi Shankara, Ramanuja etc, who have composed elaborate commentaries.

No, this is wrong. Hinduism is "essentially defined" ONLY by Shruti, which consists of Vedas (Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanishads) and Agamas (which are Shaivagamas, Shaktagamas and Vaishnavagamas with corresponding subdivisions).

All other writings, including 18 Mahapuranas, Upapuranas, 4 Itihasas, Vedanta-sutra, Grihya-sutras, Dharma-sutras, writings of Acharyas and Gurus etc. are not Shruti, and are relative authorities (for Hinduism as a whole) which may be or may not be accepted. Hinduism is not essentially defined by these secondary sources.


Brahma sutras are not smriti, but the exposition of the vedas.

They aren't Shruti, but Smriti (in a broad sense of a word). Brahma-sutra is a mula-grantha of Vedanta in a same way like Yoga-sutra is a mula-grantha of Patanjali's Yoga.
For Tantric tradition similar role is played by Shiva-sutras, which are a part of Agamic Shruti, revealed to Shri Vasugupta in Kashmir.


Rest of the stuff are quite irrelavant, as it is very unlikely that you have read any of the polemical literature. Blanket statements like "Rudra is the supreme Lord in Yajur- and Atharvana-vedas, in several Upanishads including one of 11 great Upanishads, namely Shvetashvatara" dont cut it.
Hope you realize that Rudra is just a common name not necessarily applicable to Shiva, esepcially when Rudra is mentioned to be created from nArAyaNa. All these things cannot be discussed in a small post like this. Vedas cannot claim that Rudra was created from the forehead of Narayana at one place, and then say Rudra is the first cause of all - you need to reconcile these carefully. There is not a single pramANa to show Narayana's origin from anything in the vedas.

Shvetashvatara IV.21 call Rudra "unborn"; III.4 and IV.12 call Him "the Lord and creator of gods, the Lord of everything." IV.16 says that by knowledge of this One Gos man becomes liberated.
In Taittiriya-samhita of Krishnayajurveda it it is said:
OM namo bhagavate rudrAya, namaste astu bhagavAn vishveshvarAya tryambakAya tripurAntakAya trikAgnikAlAya kAlAgnirudrAya nIlakaNThAya mR^ityu~njayAya sarveshvarAya sadAshivAya shrIman mahAdevAya namaH..


Svetavastara Upanishad will not help you. Because it talks of multiple eternal entities, talks of eternal gross and subtle nature of Brahman and all that, and naturally contradicting your beleifs. Advaita never even seeks to explain these, just pushing them away as half-truths.

U have some strange ideas of Advaita :p

Tantrism holds the doctrine of Paradvaita (Pratyakshadvaita), which is in total accordance with the Shruti. Unlike Shankara's Advaita, which considers the world to be illusory (jaganmithyA), in Paradvaita it is seen as a manifestation of One Consciousness — which corresponds to Mahavakya, "sarvaM khalvidaM brahma."


Gita and Brahma sutras have not given advaita any room.

Before saying such baseless statements, study first the Advaita texts (if interested).
I am not an exponent or follower of Adi Shankara's advaita, thus won't defend it. There are people who can do this :). I accept Paradvaita of Tantras, which is OK with Gita and Brahma-sutras.
If U want to know explanations of mentioned verses in Paradvaita view, please read Gitartha-sangraha and other works of Shri Abhinavagupta.


I personally think advaita may never be talking of absolute monism, in which case it can be renconciled with VA. These Vishnu, Shiva stuff are not very relevant, except for creating a solid monotheistic religion and from an academic perspective. There are too many places in Brahma Sutras and Gita where Adi Shankara has to actually confess a form of Vishsitadvaita, due to the strong bias of the scripture.

IMO the only truely absolute monism is Paradvaita of Bhairava-tantras. In Shankara's advaita there is a problem of Maya, which is not there in Tantric monism (theistic absolutism).

Bhakti Yoga Seeker
07 May 2006, 04:20 PM
Vedas are not moral guidelines. They do not provide any instructions to live, except giving spiritual instruction.


Well there you have it. You contradicted yourself within the same sentence. Your sentence didn't have anything to do with anything I said either.



From Apastamba Dharmasutras:

1.7.21
8. (These are) stealing (gold), crimes whereby one becomes an Abhisasta, homicide, neglect of the Vedas, causing abortion, incestuous connection with relations born from the same womb as one's mother or father, and with the offspring of such persons, drinking spirituous liquor, and intercourse with persons the intercourse with whom is forbidden.

1.9.25:
3. A drinker of spirituous liquor shall drink exceedingly hot liquor so that he dies.

10. Those who have committed a theft (of gold), drunk spirituous liquor, or had connection with a Guru's wife, but not those who have slain a Brâhmana, shall eat every fourth meal-time a little food, bathe at the times of the three libations (morning, noon, and evening), passing the day standing and the night sitting. After the lapse of three years they throw off their guilt.


Well at least someone took the time to post a quote from the scripture answering my claim. It is too bad though that you completely tossed the Vedas in the trash--the foundation scriptures of Sanatana Dharma and then came up with a scripture that is rarely used if ever used. Then you couldn't even post the surrounding context so that we could be sure what this was referring to. Seems quite biased to me to trash the primary Hindu texts and then come up with something that is third-rate to prove your point.



Doing so will have to be branded as un-Hinduic whatever others think of it.


There is no such word as "un-Hinduic." It is hard to take what you say seriously when using terms that not only don't exist but don't make any sense. I've seen this a lot lately on this forum. People just decide to invent words instead of using the words that actually exist. Someone not too long ago apparently decided to now change the name "Buddha" to "Baauddha." It is a real credibility killer.



Leave alone Vaishnavas. Do you think consumption of liquor, or killing animals, or eating meet sanctioned for the smartas? They are NOT.

Normal bogus hand-waving as usual. Anyone can follow this thread and see that as usual it was the Vaishnavas that started the trouble. A common trait appears to be that Vaishnavas seem to take whatever they believe and apply it to everyone including non-Vaishnavas. Then they wonder why non-Vaishnavas become upset when Vaishnavas are essentially saying that all of Hinduism revolves around their personal tradition. Now you just did it again. You insinuated that I was a Smarta and then included drinking alcohol or "liquor" as you put it in the same category as eating meat and killing animals. More nonsense talk. ~BYS~

Bhakti Yoga Seeker
07 May 2006, 04:42 PM
Moderator Note:

This thread is going off-topic. Further posts that contain unreasonable preaching and attacking of other traditions (regardless of who is doing it against who) will be removed. The topic is whether or not alcohol, etc. is or is not acceptable for a Vaishnava. That means that non-Vaishnavas have no place to be preaching against Vaishnavism here or demanding that alcohol, etc. are ok for everyone. This also means that Vaishnavas have no place to be preaching against non-Vaishnavas saying that alcohol, etc. are banned for everyone. The topic here is about alcohol consumption for Vaishnavas. Irrelevant preaching and making blanket statements that go out of scope of this topic will be removed. ~BYS~

Do you have any questions or comments about moderation policy? If so, please send a private message to Bhakti Yoga Seeker or contact one of the other administrators of this website.

satay
07 May 2006, 05:33 PM
Normal bogus hand-waving as usual. Anyone can follow this thread and see that as usual it was the Vaishnavas that started the trouble. A common trait appears to be that Vaishnavas seem to take whatever they believe and apply it to everyone including non-Vaishnavas. Then they wonder why non-Vaishnavas become upset when Vaishnavas are essentially saying that all of Hinduism revolves around their personal tradition. Now you just did it again. You insinuated that I was a Smarta and then included drinking alcohol or "liquor" as you put it in the same category as eating meat and killing animals. More nonsense talk. ~BYS~

(bold effect added for emphasis)

This behaviour of some vaishnava is not only upsetting to others who are not vaishnava but also to vaishnavas. I am one of those vaishnavas!

I know vaishnavas have to follow no alcohol thing but how many are really following it? I don't know.

Anyway, isn't there some mention of a liquid called 'Soma' somewhere in our scriptures? What the heck is 'soma'? Why devas drink this 'soma'? Why indra is talked about having dancing girls around in swarga?

So devas can have girls, pleasure, sex drink soma but mere mortals can not eh? What the heck kind of logic is that?

Hypocrisy as usual...:rolleyes:

sarabhanga
08 May 2006, 08:12 PM
Namaste BYS,

I think everyone should calm down a little, and then more constructive discussion can proceed.
The Dharmashastras are good evidence.
The invented term "unhinduic" is incorrect (perhaps "un-Hindu" or "non-Hindu" or "anti-Hindu", depending on the desired emphasis), but the intended meaning is clear. And Bauddha is merely an adjectival form of Buddha ~ thus "Bauddha Dharma" is Sanskritic, while "Buddhism" is English.

TruthSeeker
11 May 2006, 02:24 PM
Normal bogus hand-waving as usual. Anyone can follow this thread and see that as usual it was the Vaishnavas that started the trouble. A common trait appears to be that Vaishnavas seem to take whatever they believe and apply it to everyone including non-Vaishnavas. Then they wonder why non-Vaishnavas become upset when Vaishnavas are essentially saying that all of Hinduism revolves around their personal tradition. Now you just did it again. You insinuated that I was a Smarta and then included drinking alcohol or "liquor" as you put it in the same category as eating meat and killing animals. More nonsense talk. ~BYS~

Namaste BYS, this is an empty boast of Vaishnavas, claiming some sort of superiority over others in matters of spirituality. I am as good as a Vaishnava in these matters. I know plenty of Smartas who are as good as orthodox Vaishnavas( perhaps even more), who follow all these to the core - non violence, non smoking, non liquor etc, as laid out by Sri Shankaracharya.( add to that, they are less sectarian if they are true disciples of Sri Shankara)

TruthSeeker
11 May 2006, 03:10 PM
(bold effect added for emphasis)

This behaviour of some vaishnava is not only upsetting to others who are not vaishnava but also to vaishnavas. I am one of those vaishnavas!

I know vaishnavas have to follow no alcohol thing but how many are really following it? I don't know.

Anyway, isn't there some mention of a liquid called 'Soma' somewhere in our scriptures? What the heck is 'soma'? Why devas drink this 'soma'? Why indra is talked about having dancing girls around in swarga?

So devas can have girls, pleasure, sex drink soma but mere mortals can not eh? What the heck kind of logic is that?

Hypocrisy as usual...:rolleyes:

Indra is a technical term Satay. Indra is not a deva somwhere in the sky above, Indra is the Yogi who has controlled his "indriyas" and has a pure mind. Indra is hence also called the abimani devata for the mind.

Indra is not a demigod or something somewhere in the sky. A Yogi who has conquered his mind and senses is called Indra. His apsaras and the soma are the great siddhis that can be enjoyed by the Yogi(optionally). A perfected Karma Yogi is called Indra. Can you now guess what Draupadi is and why she was shared by five husbands? Clue: Arjuna is Indra.


Literally reading the vedas, people have polluted it of the vital meaning.

TruthSeeker
11 May 2006, 04:05 PM
IMO the only truely absolute monism is Paradvaita of Bhairava-tantras. In Shankara's advaita there is a problem of Maya, which is not there in Tantric monism (theistic absolutism).

What is the problem of Maya? I dont think any system of advaita can withstand logical scrutinity as well as the Shankaraite advaita( it may have some holes as it is very complex).

Please note that Shankara advaita is a robust polemical system in addition to being a system of vedanta. Only the best non advaitin philosophers have been able to find issues with it, and most of them have been suitably answered.

I dont think non Shankara advaita ( based on realism) can withstand a philosophical debate. Those who tried have been very unsucessful, and that is why advaita is almost synonymous with Mayavada - the only system that can face the rival challenges head on.


With advaita based on realism, it will turn out that Brahman himself is in bondage(compromising omnipotency), while those based on Maya this is a non issue as the bondage is unreal.

Arjuna
11 May 2006, 04:49 PM
What is the problem of Maya? I dont think any system of advaita can withstand logical scrutinity as well as the Shankaraite advaita( it may have some holes as it is very complex).

Please note that Shankara advaita is a robust polemical system in addition to being a system of vedanta. Only the best non advaitin philosophers have been able to find issues with it, and most of them have been suitably answered.

I dont think non Shankara advaita ( based on realism) can withstand a philosophical debate. Those who tried have been very unsucessful, and that is why advaita is almost synonymous with Mayavada - the only system that can face the rival challenges head on.

With advaita based on realism, it will turn out that Brahman himself is in bondage(compromising omnipotency), while those based on Maya this is a non issue as the bondage is unreal.

This is not a proper thread for such discussion.

If U are interested to KNOW, please read the basic texts of Kashmiri Shaivism, which represent the view of supreme Advaita (Paradvaita). Writings of some scholars also may be useful, for example of B.N.Pandit and Mark Dyczkowsky. The basic philosophy stuff is existing as Pratyabhijna and Spanda systems, in addition to these U may see Krama, Kula and Trika.

Shaiva Monism is perfectly based on Agamic Shruti and tarka (logic).
It is not a "realism" as such, for it recognizes everything as a manifestation of One Consciousness, non-separate from It. Only Consciousness is REAL, but the world is not an "illusion" in a manner of Shankara's advaita. It is God Himself who is acting by 5 powers in his own delight, and not some kind of outer entity like Maya or Prakriti which is thought of as separate from Brahman or Purusha. Paradvaita is the only actual Monism!

Arjuna
11 May 2006, 04:52 PM
Indra is a technical term Satay. Indra is not a deva somwhere in the sky above, Indra is the Yogi who has controlled his "indriyas" and has a pure mind. Indra is hence also called the abimani devata for the mind.
Indra is not a demigod or something somewhere in the sky. A Yogi who has conquered his mind and senses is called Indra. His apsaras and the soma are the great siddhis that can be enjoyed by the Yogi(optionally). A perfected Karma Yogi is called Indra. Can you now guess what Draupadi is and why she was shared by five husbands? Clue: Arjuna is Indra.
Literally reading the vedas, people have polluted it of the vital meaning.

This becomes a description of Kaula-yogi, who perceives the world as Divine and enjoys Shakti-tattva through women and wine :)

TruthSeeker
11 May 2006, 05:59 PM
This is not a proper thread for such discussion.

If U are interested to KNOW, please read the basic texts of Kashmiri Shaivism, which represent the view of supreme Advaita (Paradvaita). Writings of some scholars also may be useful, for example of B.N.Pandit and Mark Dyczkowsky. The basic philosophy stuff is existing as Pratyabhijna and Spanda systems, in addition to these U may see Krama, Kula and Trika.

Shaiva Monism is perfectly based on Agamic Shruti and tarka (logic).
It is not a "realism" as such, for it recognizes everything as a manifestation of One Consciousness, non-separate from It. Only Consciousness is REAL, but the world is not an "illusion" in a manner of Shankara's advaita. It is God Himself who is acting by 5 powers in his own delight, and not some kind of outer entity like Maya or Prakriti which is thought of as separate from Brahman or Purusha. Paradvaita is the only actual Monism!

The "delight" is the very reason classical advaita does not favour creation theory because Brahman is always self satisfied and as Mandukya states - Brahman is AptakAma, who has no desires. What desires can the blissful Brahman have, and ever have a need to create anything?

I have no problems with "non illusion" forms of advaita, however. But you must realize the polemical strength of Shankaran advaita with a never ending stream of great vedantins who have been able to answer many criticisms, especially against Dvaita.

With such high credentials in its favour, I dont see any point in debating with not so well established forms of advaita. I am not the right person for a debate either. If you think yours is the actual monism, you can try defending it it some advaita forum like

http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

In all probability, you can't defend a case against Mayavada, which has the genius of the likes of Shankara, Madhusudhana and Appayya in it. Advaita has dozens of commentaries and elaborations of all major upanishads, the Brahma sutras and the Gita.

Arjuna
11 May 2006, 06:20 PM
Namaste,

I have no wish for useless debates and arguements for their own sake :)
If U bring some people here and start a meaningful discussion, then we can examine which Advaita is real Monism. However, i am afraid this will result in another tremendous discussion thread, which i am not interested in.

In any case, before discussing about Paradvaita U have to get a basic idea of it. Believe me, it has no less geniuses!

sarabhanga
11 May 2006, 06:26 PM
Namaste Arjuna,

Despite the recent popularity of Kashmiri Shaivism in western academic research, Kashmiri Shaivism is not the only valid interpretation of Shaiva Monism.

Ajativada is firmly based on Shruti (the Upanishads) and logic.

Ajativada does not consider “reality” or “unreality” ~ only eternity and non-eternity.

Advaita cannot consider that Maya is “some kind of outer entity thought of as separate from Brahman”. And you mention the separation of Purusha and Prakriti, which comes from Samkhya and NOT from Ajativada or Advaita.

It is provocative (and false) to claim that “Paradvaita” is the only true Monism.

Arjuna
11 May 2006, 06:38 PM
Namaste Arjuna,
Despite the recent popularity of Kashmiri Shaivism in western academic research, Kashmiri Shaivism is not the only valid interpretation of Shaiva Monism.
Ajativada is firmly based on Shruti (the Upanishads) and logic.
Ajativada does not consider “reality” or “unreality” ~ only eternity and non-eternity.
Advaita cannot consider that Maya is “some kind of outer entity thought of as separate from Brahman”. And you mention the separation of Purusha and Prakriti, which comes from Samkhya and NOT from Ajativada or Advaita.
It is provocative (and false) to claim that “Paradvaita” is the only true Monism.

Namaste Sarabhanga,

Could U please tell more on Ajati-vada?

My expression about Maya was figurative; is it considered to be different from Brahman (Sat), but not Asat either — consequently Shankara's Advaita describe her as "inconceivable". I really see no logic in this. If U follow Shankara's darshana, i would be glad to hear its explanation from U.

kimtadbrahma
12 May 2006, 04:53 AM
The Shvetashvatara Upanishad can be cited as an example of Shaiva monism, though its teachings do not appear to be entirely in accordance with the Advaita Vada. The Veera Shaivas of Karnataka manage to combine Advaitic doctrines with an emphasis on bhakti as to some extent does Tamil Shaivism. I think one can say that Shaiva ideas are closer to Advaita than those of the Vaishnavas, though they are never identical.

Arjuna
12 May 2006, 05:15 AM
The Veera Shaivas of Karnataka manage to combine Advaitic doctrines with an emphasis on bhakti as to some extent does Tamil Shaivism. I think one can say that Shaiva ideas are closer to Advaita than those of the Vaishnavas, though they are never identical.

Virashaivas have a ShaktivishishtAdvaita-vada and not a pure Monism.

While there are at least two monistic Vaishnava traditions: Kashmiri one (perhaps lost, only texts like Samvit-prakasha survived) and Vallabha's (not 100% sure about this one, since never studied it, but it claims to be ShuddhAdvaita).

TruthSeeker
12 May 2006, 05:21 AM
The Shvetashvatara Upanishad can be cited as an example of Shaiva monism, though its teachings do not appear to be entirely in accordance with the Advaita Vada. The Veera Shaivas of Karnataka manage to combine Advaitic doctrines with an emphasis on bhakti as to some extent does Tamil Shaivism. I think one can say that Shaiva ideas are closer to Advaita than those of the Vaishnavas, though they are never identical.

That depends on the kind of Vaishnavism you are looking at. There are monistic Vaishnavas with beleifs close to Shaivas, except for names and terminologies. Again, it also depends on what aspect the philosophy is trying to project itself as. Take for instance Vishsitadvaita-

If you are viewing jiva to be part of the Brahman, and enjoying equal bliss to God, it cannot be called very far away from monism. (deha-dehi)

If you are viewing jiva to be dependent on Brahman in the above relation as master-servant, it is closer to dvaita.(shesha -seshi)

But they have chosen to give more importance to the second one for practical reasons( perhaps historical or perhaps to emphasise bhakti and saranagati over jnana). Taken in the first way, I dont see it very different from most Shaivas or even monists, though they will claim significant difference to protect thier unique identity.