PDA

View Full Version : Why



Ganeshprasad
12 May 2008, 04:43 PM
Pranam

Why is there so much antagonism between Vaishnav and Sheiva?

Vaishnava says because Brahman is faultless, which we all agree, but they allege Shiva is mere jiva and they quote Sathpath bramana that Shiva is jiva and had sins there fore can not be supreme.

They also contend that where ever Rudra is extolled in srutis it actually refers to Vishnu because he has those names. Even smrities are categorise as satvic , rajsic and tamsic. Such evidence is given in purans so they say , shiv puran is tamsic because it denigrate Vishnu at places.
I am sure shaiva also says things that is unpalatable.

Why does this happen in land of such great culture, what brought this about, please don’t tell me it is the effect of kali youga.

Jai Shree Krishna

atanu
13 May 2008, 01:11 AM
Pranam

Why is there so much antagonism between Vaishnav and Sheiva?

Vaishnava says because Brahman is faultless, which we all agree, but they allege Shiva is mere jiva and they quote Sathpath bramana that Shiva is jiva and had sins there fore can not be supreme.

They also contend that where ever Rudra is extolled in srutis it actually refers to Vishnu because he has those names. Even smrities are categorise as satvic , rajsic and tamsic. Such evidence is given in purans so they say , shiv puran is tamsic because it denigrate Vishnu at places.
I am sure shaiva also says things that is unpalatable.

Why does this happen in land of such great culture, what brought this about, please don’t tell me it is the effect of kali youga.

Jai Shree Krishna

Namaste Ganeshprasad Ji,

Thank you for these fundamental questions. In my opinion, human ego attachment to names and forms lead to such altercations and the more egoistic are more voluble and aggressive. Similar is the ego of Christians who teach Hindu Self-Realised sages. Similar is the dirty outbursts of Prabhupada towards other sages of India.

However, as additional information, I would like to point as below:

Satapatha, in fact tells of death of Vishnu

Rig Veda tells of Vishnu's birth from Soma.

In Rudra Gita, Rudra says that each form worship the other form and He says that I am Narayana.

Maha Upanishad says that Narayana was not happy (I simply cannot imagine Brahman being unhappy). Maha Upanishad later adds that Shiva alone is support less and needs no support, being all bliss.

When sages look to Param Padam -- the eye in the sky, it indicates of something visible. Whereas we know that eyes cannot see Him because He is the Seer behind the eye.

Yoga Vashista says that Vaisnava dharma is creation of God to pull in the materially minded.

Through out Bhagavatam, the worshippable form of God is called Bhagawati, which is Krishna.

In Gita, Shri Krishna says that "One who knows me as unborn Mahesvara, knows truly".

-------------------

Fortunately for an Advaitin these comparisons are not needed since there is "No Second". What is the un-nameble, un-speakable, un-seeable, un-thinkable, un-graspable, without a second pure GOOD Lord, alone grasps, thinks, sees etc etc. (but IT actually does nothing).

Regards

Om

Ganeshprasad
13 May 2008, 05:43 AM
Pranam Atanu ji

Thank you for your response, believe me I have no desires for controversy nor am I seeking retributions.

I wish harmony prevails between all religions what to speak of various Vedic practices.

What pains me with no ends is the denigrating of Lord Shiva, for me to do the same to Vishnu would be to cut the nose to spite the face.

Now Satapatha Brahmana speaks of kumar feeling evil because he has no name, is this an ordinary jiva who request to be known as different than the name given because he says he is greater then that?

Is this episode off Lord Shiva taking birth? In the previous chapter prajapati has already through his mind manifested 8 vasus 11 rudras and twelve adityas.

This Kumar is none other then Agni that is how I read it, am I wrong in assuming this, please note I am not trying to lower the position of Agni either.

:1:3:11. Verily, Pragâpati alone was here in the beginning. He desired, 'May I exist, may I reproduce myself!' He toiled, he practised austerity (or, became heated). From him, worn out and heated, the waters were created: from that heated Person the waters are born.
6:1:3:22. The waters said, 'What is to become of us?'--'Ye shall be heated,' he said. They were heated; they created foam: hence foam is produced in heated water.
6:1:3:33. The foam (m.) said, 'What is to become of me?'--'Thou shalt be heated!' he said. It was heated, and produced clay; for indeed the foam is heated, when it floats on the water, covering it; and when one beats upon it, it indeed becomes clay.
6:1:3:44. The clay (f.) said, 'What is to become of me?'--'Thou shalt be heated!' he said. It was heated,
p. 158
and produced sand; for this clay becomes indeed heated when they plough it; and if only they plough very fine then it becomes, as it were, sandy. So much, then, as to that 'What is to become of me? what is to become of me 1 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/%20fn_320)?'
6:1:3:55. From the sated he created the pebble: whence sand finally indeed becomes a pebble;--from the pebble the stone: whence the pebble finally indeed becomes a stone;--from the stone metal ore: whence from stone they smelt ore;--from ore gold: whence ore much smelted comes, as it were, to have the appearance of gold.
6:1:3:66. Now that which was created was flowing; and inasmuch as it was flowing (aksharat), a syllable (akshara) resulted therefrom; and inasmuch as it flowed eight times, that octosyllabic Gâyatrî was produced.
6:1:3:77. 'This has indeed become (bhű) a foundation (resting-place),' so he thought: whence it became the earth (bhűmi). He spread it out (prath): it became the broad (earth, prithivî). On this earth, as on a foundation, the beings, and the lord of beings, consecrated themselves for a year: the lord of beings was the master of the house 2 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/%20fn_321), and Ushas (the Dawn) was the mistress.
6:1:3:88. Now, those beings are the seasons; and that lord of beings is the year; and that Ushas, the mistress, is the Dawn. And these same creatures, as well as the lord of beings, the year, laid seed
p. 159
into Ushas 1 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/%20fn_322). There a boy (kumâra) was born in a year: he cried.
6:1:3:99. Pragâpati said to him, 'My boy, why criest thou, when thou art born out of labour and trouble?' He said, 'Nay, but I am not freed from (guarded against) evil; I have no name given me: give me a name!' Hence one should give a name to the boy that is born, for thereby one frees him from evil;--even a second, even a third (name), for thereby one frees him from evil time after time.
6:1:3:1010. He said to him, 'Thou art Rudra 2 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/%20fn_323).' And because he gave him that name, Agni became suchlike (or, that form), for Rudra is Agni: because he cried (rud) therefore he is Rudra. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'
6:1:3:1111. He said to him, 'Thou art Sarva.' And because he gave the him that name, the waters became suchlike, for Sarva is the waters, inasmuch as from the water everything (sarva) here is produced. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'
6:1:3:1212. He said to him, 'Thou art Pasupati.' And because he gave him that name, the plants became suchlike, for Pasupati is the plants: hence when cattle (pasu) get plants, then they play the master 3 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/%20fn_324) (patîy). He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'
6:1:3:1313. He said to him, 'Thou art Ugra.' And
p. 160
because he gave him that name, Vâyu (the wind) became suchlike, for Ugra is Vâyu: hence when it blows strongly, they say 'Ugra is blowing.' He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'
6:1:3:1414. He said to him, 'Thou art Asani.' And because he gave him that name, the lightning became suchlike, for Asani is the lightning: hence they say of him whom the lightning strikes, 'Asani has smitten him.' He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'
6:1:3:1515. He said to him, 'Thou art Bhava.' And because he gave him that name, Parganya (the rain-god) became suchlike; for Bhava is Parganya, since everything here comes (bhavati) from the rain-cloud. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'
6:1:3:1616. He said to him, 'Thou art Mahân Devah (the Great God).' And because he gave him that name, the moon became suchlike, for the moon is Pragâpati, and Pragâpati is the Great God. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'
6:1:3:1717. He said to him, 'Thou art Îsâna (the Ruler).' And because he gave him that name, the Sun became suchlike, for Îsâna is the Sun, since the Sun rules over this All. He said, 'So great indeed I am: give me no other name after that!'
6:1:3:1818. These then are the eight forms of Agni. Kumâra (the boy) is the ninth: that is Agni's threefold state 1 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/%20fn_325).
6:1:3:1919. And because there are eight forms of Agni--
p. 161
the Gâyatrî consisting of eight syllables--therefore they say, 'Agni is Gâyatra.' That boy entered into the forms one after another; for one never sees him as a mere boy (kumâra), but one sees those forms of his 1 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/%20fn_326), for he assumed those forms one after another.
6:1:3:2020. One ought to build him (Agni, the fire-altar) up in (the space of) a year, and recite for a year. 'For two (years),' however, say some; 'for in one year they laid the seed, and in one year that boy was born, therefore let him build for two (years), and recite for two (years).' Let him, however, build for a year only, and recite for a year; for the same seed which is laid is brought forth; it then lies changing and growing: hence let him build for a year only, and recite for a year. To him (Agni) when built up (kita) he gives a name: whereby he keeps away evil from him. He calls him by a bright (kitra) name 2 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/%20fn_327), saying, 'Thou art bright;' for Agni is all bright things.

Am I reading this wrong, how can Vasihnava get away quoting this or am I looking at something other then them, but I am no scholar. please comment

Jai Shree Krishna

Arjuna
13 May 2008, 06:06 AM
Satapatha, in fact tells of death of Vishnu
Rig Veda tells of Vishnu's birth from Soma.

Interesting. In fact it is quite reasonable to see Rudra as the highest deity of the Vedas, since at least two of 4 samhitas are clearly Shaiva (Yajus and Atharvana). Rigveda also in several places puts Rudra above all other gods, though normally it speaks of Indra. However acc to opinion of some scholars, they are identical (for example, Ganapati Muni, disciple of Ramana Maharshi).
At the same time Vishnu in Vedas has a name Upendra, "a small Indra".

atanu
13 May 2008, 06:26 AM
Pranam Atanu ji

Thank you for your response, believe me I have no desires for controversy nor am I seeking retributions.

I wish harmony prevails between all religions what to speak of various Vedic practices.

What pains me with no ends is the denigrating of Lord Shiva, for me to do the same to Vishnu would be to cut the nose to spite the face.

Now Satapatha Brahmana speaks of kumar feeling evil because he has no name, is this an ordinary jiva who request to be known as different than the name given because he says he is greater then that?

Is this episode off Lord Shiva taking birth? In the previous chapter prajapati has already through his mind manifested 8 vasus 11 rudras and twelve adityas.

This Kumar is none other then Agni that is how I read it, am I wrong in assuming this, please note I am not trying to lower the position of Agni either.

:1:3:11. Verily, Pragâpati alone was here in the beginning. He desired, 'May I exist, may I reproduce myself!' He toiled, he practised austerity (or, became heated). From him, worn out and heated, the waters were created: from that heated Person the waters are born.
6:1:3:22. The waters said, 'What is to become of us?'--'Ye shall be heated,' he said. They were heated; they created foam: hence foam is produced in heated water.
6:1:3:33. The foam (m.) said, 'What is to become of me?'--'Thou shalt be heated!' he said. It was heated, and produced clay; for indeed the foam is heated, when it floats on the water, covering it; and when one beats upon it, it indeed becomes clay.
6:1:3:44. The clay (f.) said, 'What is to become of me?'--'Thou shalt be heated!' he said. It was heated,
p. 158
and produced sand; for this clay becomes indeed heated when they plough it; and if only they plough very fine then it becomes, as it were, sandy. So much, then, as to that 'What is to become of me? what is to become of me 1 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/%20fn_320)?'
6:1:3:55. From the sated he created the pebble: whence sand finally indeed becomes a pebble;--from the pebble the stone: whence the pebble finally indeed becomes a stone;--from the stone metal ore: whence from stone they smelt ore;--from ore gold: whence ore much smelted comes, as it were, to have the appearance of gold.
6:1:3:66. Now that which was created was flowing; and inasmuch as it was flowing (aksharat), a syllable (akshara) resulted therefrom; and inasmuch as it flowed eight times, that octosyllabic Gâyatrî was produced.
6:1:3:77. 'This has indeed become (bhû) a foundation (resting-place),' so he thought: whence it became the earth (bhûmi). He spread it out (prath): it became the broad (earth, prithivî). On this earth, as on a foundation, the beings, and the lord of beings, consecrated themselves for a year: the lord of beings was the master of the house 2 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/%20fn_321), and Ushas (the Dawn) was the mistress.
6:1:3:88. Now, those beings are the seasons; and that lord of beings is the year; and that Ushas, the mistress, is the Dawn. And these same creatures, as well as the lord of beings, the year, laid seed
p. 159
into Ushas 1 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/%20fn_322). There a boy (kumâra) was born in a year: he cried.
6:1:3:99. Pragâpati said to him, 'My boy, why criest thou, when thou art born out of labour and trouble?' He said, 'Nay, but I am not freed from (guarded against) evil; I have no name given me: give me a name!' Hence one should give a name to the boy that is born, for thereby one frees him from evil;--even a second, even a third (name), for thereby one frees him from evil time after time.
6:1:3:1010. He said to him, 'Thou art Rudra 2 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/%20fn_323).' And because he gave him that name, Agni became suchlike (or, that form), for Rudra is Agni: because he cried (rud) therefore he is Rudra. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'
6:1:3:1111. He said to him, 'Thou art Sarva.' And because he gave the him that name, the waters became suchlike, for Sarva is the waters, inasmuch as from the water everything (sarva) here is produced. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'
6:1:3:1212. He said to him, 'Thou art Pasupati.' And because he gave him that name, the plants became suchlike, for Pasupati is the plants: hence when cattle (pasu) get plants, then they play the master 3 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/%20fn_324) (patîy). He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'
6:1:3:1313. He said to him, 'Thou art Ugra.' And
p. 160
because he gave him that name, Vâyu (the wind) became suchlike, for Ugra is Vâyu: hence when it blows strongly, they say 'Ugra is blowing.' He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'
6:1:3:1414. He said to him, 'Thou art Asani.' And because he gave him that name, the lightning became suchlike, for Asani is the lightning: hence they say of him whom the lightning strikes, 'Asani has smitten him.' He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'
6:1:3:1515. He said to him, 'Thou art Bhava.' And because he gave him that name, Parganya (the rain-god) became suchlike; for Bhava is Parganya, since everything here comes (bhavati) from the rain-cloud. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'
6:1:3:1616. He said to him, 'Thou art Mahân Devah (the Great God).' And because he gave him that name, the moon became suchlike, for the moon is Pragâpati, and Pragâpati is the Great God. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'
6:1:3:1717. He said to him, 'Thou art Îsâna (the Ruler).' And because he gave him that name, the Sun became suchlike, for Îsâna is the Sun, since the Sun rules over this All. He said, 'So great indeed I am: give me no other name after that!'
6:1:3:1818. These then are the eight forms of Agni. Kumâra (the boy) is the ninth: that is Agni's threefold state 1 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/%20fn_325).
6:1:3:1919. And because there are eight forms of Agni--
p. 161
the Gâyatrî consisting of eight syllables--therefore they say, 'Agni is Gâyatra.' That boy entered into the forms one after another; for one never sees him as a mere boy (kumâra), but one sees those forms of his 1 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/%20fn_326), for he assumed those forms one after another.
6:1:3:2020. One ought to build him (Agni, the fire-altar) up in (the space of) a year, and recite for a year. 'For two (years),' however, say some; 'for in one year they laid the seed, and in one year that boy was born, therefore let him build for two (years), and recite for two (years).' Let him, however, build for a year only, and recite for a year; for the same seed which is laid is brought forth; it then lies changing and growing: hence let him build for a year only, and recite for a year. To him (Agni) when built up (kita) he gives a name: whereby he keeps away evil from him. He calls him by a bright (kitra) name 2 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/%20fn_327), saying, 'Thou art bright;' for Agni is all bright things.

Am I reading this wrong, how can Vasihnava get away quoting this or am I looking at something other then them, but I am no scholar. please comment

Jai Shree Krishna

Namaste Ganeshprasad Ji,

Thank you for sharing this verse. This is Narayana -- the Kala Prajapati. For Brahman there is no beginning and no end, how can there be "In the Beginning"? The vaisnava way is only one way to look at things. Their logic turns against their own premises when the full verses and the contexts are checked.

Yes, whatever is manifested is manifested through Kala Prajapati (Narayana). Svet. Upanishad succinctly says: the man with bent back, the blue throated bird ------ all are you. In fact Kumara is not different from Shiva and Agni.

Similarly they will say that "Narayana alone was there". But they will fail to see why Narayana was not happy?

Vishnu is not different from ever blissful Shiva, yet Vishnu has a beginning and an end ( only conceptually since Atman is never missing). For ONE WITHOUT A SECOND, what is pervading? What else is there to pervade? Pervading can only start once a conception of many has begun. For Brahman who is ever indivisible, the pervading is only a concept from our perspective.

The following verses may be interpreted spitefully against vaisnavas like common vaisnavas pick up a few isolated verses to give vent to their frustration against Shiva bhaktas. These altercations have no value and IMO it is better to stick to one's deity steadfast with the belief that God shows his particular form as appropriate for a devotee. There cannot be any division of Atman which is source of pure dense knowledge called Pragnya - the Sarvesvara.

Satapatha Brahmana

THE PRAVARGYA.

14:1:1:1. The gods Agni, Indra, Soma, Makha, Vishnu, and the Visve Devâh, except the two Asvins, performed a sacrificial session.

14:1:1:2. Their place of divine worship was Kurukshetra.. Therefore people say that Kurukshetra is the gods’ place of divine worship: hence wherever in Kurukshetra one settles there one thinks, 'This is a place for divine worship;' for it was the gods’ place of divine worship.

14:1:1:3. They entered upon the session thinking, 'May we attain excellence! may we become glorious! may we become eaters of food!' And in like manner do these (men) now enter upon the sacrificial session thinking, 'May we attain excellence! may we become glorious! may we become eaters of food!'

14:1:1:4. They spake, 'Whoever of us, through austerity, fervour, faith, sacrifice, and oblations, shall first compass the end of the sacrifice, he shall be the most excellent of us, and shall then be in common to us all.' 'So be it,' they said.

14:1:1:5. Vishnu first attained it, and he became the most excellent of the gods; whence people say, 'Vishnu is the most excellent of the gods.'

14:1:1:6. Now he who is this Vishnu is the sacrifice; and he who is this sacrifice is yonder Âditya (the sun). But, indeed, Vishnu was unable to control that (love of) glory of his; and so even now not every one can control that (love of) glory of his.

14:1:1:7. Taking his bow, together with three arrows, he stepped forth. He stood, resting his head on the end of the bow. Not daring to attack him, the gods sat themselves down all around him.

14:1:1:8. Then the ants said--these ants (vamrî), doubtless, were that (kind called) 'upadîkâ '--'What would ye give to him who should gnaw the bowstring?'--'We would give him the (constant) enjoyment of food, and he would find water even in the desert: so we would give him every enjoyment of food.'--'So be it,' they said.

14:1:1:9. Having gone nigh unto him, they gnawed his bowstring. When it was cut, the ends of the bow, springing asunder, cut off Vishnu's head.

14:1:1:100. It fell with (the sound) 'ghriṅ'; and on falling it became yonder sun. And the rest (of the body) lay stretched out (with the top part) towards the east. And inasmuch as it fell with (the sound) 'ghriṅ,' therefrom the Gharma (was called); and inasmuch as he was stretched out (pra-vrig,), therefrom the Pravargya (took its name).

14:1:1:11. The gods spake, 'Verily, our great hero (mahân virah) has fallen:' therefrom the Mahâvîra pot (was named). And the vital sap which flowed from him they wiped up (sam-mrig) with their hands, whence the Samrâg.


------------

Regards

Om

Ganeshprasad
13 May 2008, 08:49 AM
Pranam Atanu ji



Namaste Ganeshprasad Ji,
Yes, whatever is manifested is manifested through Kala Prajapati (Narayana). Svet. Upanishad succinctly says: the man with bent back, the blue throated bird ------ all are you. In fact Kumara is not different from Shiva and Agni.


can you please expand on this.




Thank you for sharing this verse. This is Narayana -- the Kala Prajapati. For Brahman there is no beginning and no end, how can there be "In the Beginning"? The vaisnava way is only one way to look at things. Their logic turns against their own premises when the full verses and the contexts are checked.
Similarly they will say that "Narayana alone was there". But they will fail to see why Narayana was not happy?

Vishnu is not different from ever blissful Shiva, yet Vishnu has a beginning and an end ( only conceptually since Atman is never missing). For ONE WITHOUT A SECOND, what is pervading? What else is there to pervade? Pervading can only start once a conception of many has begun. For Brahman who is ever indivisible, the pervading is only a concept from our perspective.

The following verses may be interpreted spitefully against vaisnavas like common vaisnavas pick up a few isolated verses to give vent to their frustration against Shiva bhaktas. These altercations have no value and IMO it is better to stick to one's deity steadfast with the belief that God shows his particular form as appropriate for a devotee. There cannot be any division of Atman which is source of pure dense knowledge called Pragnya - the Sarvesvara.

Satapatha Brahmana

THE PRAVARGYA.

14:1:1:1. The gods Agni, Indra, Soma, Makha, Vishnu, and the Visve Devâh, except the two Asvins, performed a sacrificial session.

14:1:1:2. Their place of divine worship was Kurukshetra.. Therefore people say that Kurukshetra is the gods’ place of divine worship: hence wherever in Kurukshetra one settles there one thinks, 'This is a place for divine worship;' for it was the gods’ place of divine worship.

14:1:1:3. They entered upon the session thinking, 'May we attain excellence! may we become glorious! may we become eaters of food!' And in like manner do these (men) now enter upon the sacrificial session thinking, 'May we attain excellence! may we become glorious! may we become eaters of food!'

14:1:1:4. They spake, 'Whoever of us, through austerity, fervour, faith, sacrifice, and oblations, shall first compass the end of the sacrifice, he shall be the most excellent of us, and shall then be in common to us all.' 'So be it,' they said.

14:1:1:5. Vishnu first attained it, and he became the most excellent of the gods; whence people say, 'Vishnu is the most excellent of the gods.'

14:1:1:6. Now he who is this Vishnu is the sacrifice; and he who is this sacrifice is yonder Âditya (the sun). But, indeed, Vishnu was unable to control that (love of) glory of his; and so even now not every one can control that (love of) glory of his.

14:1:1:7. Taking his bow, together with three arrows, he stepped forth. He stood, resting his head on the end of the bow. Not daring to attack him, the gods sat themselves down all around him.

14:1:1:8. Then the ants said--these ants (vamrî), doubtless, were that (kind called) 'upadîkâ '--'What would ye give to him who should gnaw the bowstring?'--'We would give him the (constant) enjoyment of food, and he would find water even in the desert: so we would give him every enjoyment of food.'--'So be it,' they said.

14:1:1:9. Having gone nigh unto him, they gnawed his bowstring. When it was cut, the ends of the bow, springing asunder, cut off Vishnu's head.

14:1:1:100. It fell with (the sound) 'ghriṅ'; and on falling it became yonder sun. And the rest (of the body) lay stretched out (with the top part) towards the east. And inasmuch as it fell with (the sound) 'ghriṅ,' therefrom the Gharma (was called); and inasmuch as he was stretched out (pra-vrig,), therefrom the Pravargya (took its name).

14:1:1:11. The gods spake, 'Verily, our great hero (mahân virah) has fallen:' therefrom the Mahâvîra pot (was named). And the vital sap which flowed from him they wiped up (sam-mrig) with their hands, whence the Samrâg.


------------

Regards

Om


If this is case why are they so naive?

Jai Shree Krishna

atanu
13 May 2008, 10:30 AM
Om


Pranam Atanu ji

can you please expand on this.

Namaskar Ganesh Prasad Ji

I will give it a try but it is a difficult task. In advance, YMMV.

You will see crucial verses which say: All this is Vasudeva (Gita) or all this is Rudra (Mahanarayana) or all this is Aditi (Rig Veda) or more generally, all this is Brahman.

If all this is Brahman then who am I? Am I a different seer or knower, different from Brahman? That also is impossible since Brihadaraynaka teaches: There is no seer but Brahman.

Thus, there being a sole seer, Vasudeva cannot be different from Aditi or Rudra, except in terms of conceptualization of different states. While the Atman Brahman has never changed but it conceived 'many' as scripture says: "Let me be many". The conception is through Pra gnya -- the revealed consciousness who is Sarvesvara and whose thoughts are his many faces.

But the revealer of the consciousness (Turiya) is advaita and unchanging. Some say that Turiyatita is further beyond but Self Realised sages say that Turiya is when Atman is seen as the fourth state and Turiyatita is when Turiya-Atman is known as the sole truth devoid of any state. It is only for a comparative basis with the three experiential states of waking, dreaming, and sleeping that Turiya is held as the fourth state. But in reality it is the sole truth.

For different grades of sadhakas (with different degrees of involvement in ignorance) the story of conceptualization is told to different degrees. It will be a shock for many to hear that the body that one takes as 'me' is not much different from an empty balloon similar to all other objects in view -- but the real Seer/knower/life is saharsashira purusha (Pragnya-Sarvesvara-Narayana) whose substratum is unborn ekpada Rudra Shiva. There is no second being.

There being only a single being, all this is that.

As I had discussed with you earlier, it was while seeing my father die on my arms that two questions arose. Where did the life force go? And why, even if all body parts were existing, feeding of glucose would not inject life force in the body? On a little bit contemplation, it was clear that wherever I see life, in my daughter or in my wife or in me, it is God alone -- in form of one of his sahasra heads (infinite) head. But saharsa heads is of the form of concept "Let me be many else I am not happy".

In truth shivo advaita atman ALONE IS. It is unnameable since it only names. It is unthinkable since it only thinks. It is unsee able since it only sees.

And the greatest shock is that the real you cannot be a different being from that shivo advaita atman, else you are just a life less form just as a radio is.

YMMV




If this is case why are they so naive?Possibly because of the following:

14:1:1:6. Now he who is this Vishnu is the sacrifice; and he who is this sacrifice is yonder Âditya (the sun). But, indeed, Vishnu was unable to control that (love of) glory of his; and so even now not every one can control that (love of) glory of his.

For me Vishnu is none but Shiva seen from the perspective of many. Similarly, Shiva is none but all this - Vishnu, known as ONE, devoid of partitions and anadimat (beginningless) unborn.


Regards.

Om

Ganeshprasad
13 May 2008, 12:26 PM
Pranam Atanu ji


Om



Namaskar Ganesh Prasad Ji

I will give it a try but it is a difficult task. In advance, YMMV.

You will see crucial verses which say: All this is Vasudeva (Gita) or all this is Rudra (Mahanarayana) or all this is Aditi (Rig Veda) or more generally, all this is Brahman.

If all this is Brahman then who am I? Am I a different seer or knower, different from Brahman? That also is impossible since Brihadaraynaka teaches: There is no seer but Brahman.

Thus, there being a sole seer, Vasudeva cannot be different from Aditi or Rudra, except in terms of conceptualization of different states. While the Atman Brahman has never changed but it conceived 'many' as scripture says: "Let me be many". The conception is through Pra gnya -- the revealed consciousness who is Sarvesvara and whose thoughts are his many faces.

But the revealer of the consciousness (Turiya) is advaita and unchanging. Some say that Turiyatita is further beyond but Self Realised sages say that Turiya is when Atman is seen as the fourth state and Turiyatita is when Turiya-Atman is known as the sole truth devoid of any state. It is only for a comparative basis with the three experiential states of waking, dreaming, and sleeping that Turiya is held as the fourth state. But in reality it is the sole truth.

For different grades of sadhakas (with different degrees of involvement in ignorance) the story of conceptualization is told to different degrees. It will be a shock for many to hear that the body that one takes as 'me' is not much different from an empty balloon similar to all other objects in view -- but the real Seer/knower/life is saharsashira purusha (Pragnya-Sarvesvara-Narayana) whose substratum is unborn ekpada Rudra Shiva. There is no second being.

There being only a single being, all this is that.

As I had discussed with you earlier, it was while seeing my father die on my arms that two questions arose. Where did the life force go? And why, even if all body parts were existing, feeding of glucose would not inject life force in the body? On a little bit contemplation, it was clear that wherever I see life, in my daughter or in my wife or in me, it is God alone -- in form of one of his sahasra heads (infinite) head. But saharsa heads is of the form of concept "Let me be many else I am not happy".

In truth shivo advaita atman ALONE IS. It is unnameable since it only names. It is unthinkable since it only thinks. It is unsee able since it only sees.

And the greatest shock is that the real you cannot be a different being from that shivo advaita atman, else you are just a life less form just as a radio is.

YMMV

Thank you for your wonderful answers and from advaita perspective it sounds great, but how would a Shiva Bhakta make of all this?



Possibly because of the following:

14:1:1:6. Now he who is this Vishnu is the sacrifice; and he who is this sacrifice is yonder Âditya (the sun). But, indeed, Vishnu was unable to control that (love of) glory of his; and so even now not every one can control that (love of) glory of his.

For me Vishnu is none but Shiva seen from the perspective of many. Similarly, Shiva is none but all this - Vishnu, known as ONE, devoid of partitions and anadimat (beginningless) unborn.
Regards.
Om

I can understand this and i dare say most Hindus will see no difference in this two, but why are Sri Vaishnava in particular so adamant in their belief?

when i quote they have all ready have answers.
Mahanarayana Upanishad
ekavi.nsho.anuvaakaH .

iishaanaH sarvavidyaanaamiishvaraH sarvabhuutaanaaMbrahmaadhipatirbrahmaNo.adhipatirb rahmaa shivo me astu sadaashivom.h

XXI-1: May the Supreme Lord who is the ruler of all knowledge, controller of all created beings, the preserver of the Vedas and the one overlord of Hiranyagarbha, be auspicious to me. I am the Sadasiva described thus and denoted by Pranava.

Vaishnva contend as follows,

There are 2 versions of Mahanarayana Upanishad available currently. The advaitins follow a version that mentions consecration of Shiva Linga, and has an interpolation in the Narayana Suktam, 'Sa Hari'.

How can we say that your version is spurious? Simple. 1) If you add 'Sa Hari' to the Narayana Suktam, the metre becomes incorrect and rhythm of the hymn falls, 2) Mantras for consecration on Shiva Lingam itself is bogus, as Veda NEVER talks about consecrating deities. Only Agamas are authorities on that.

The other version does not contain any verses glorifying Shiva. This version is the one which has been commentated by authoritative scholars like Sayana. Even Adi Sankara was following this version. Only after the 17th century, have Advaitins started to follow the spurious version.


Vaishnavas have researched everything, so they say Only Neovedantins follow such bogus versions of Upanishads, therby misleading everyone.
Dravida pata in earlier days('paramam prabhum'). the Andhra pata is comparatively very new and has not been quoted/cited by ancient Advaitins.

Jai Shree Krishna

atanu
13 May 2008, 01:15 PM
Pranam Atanu ji

Thank you for your wonderful answers and from advaita perspective it sounds great, but how would a Shiva Bhakta make of all this?


Namaste Ganeshprasad Ji,

With knowledge a Shiva or Vishnu bhakta will find God very close. And will see nothing but God.





I can understand this and i dare say most Hindus will see no difference in this two, but why are Sri Vaishnava in particular so adamant in their belief?

when i quote they have all ready have answers.

Mahanarayana Upanishad
ekavi.nsho.anuvaakaH .

iishaanaH sarvavidyaanaamiishvaraH sarvabhuutaanaaMbrahmaadhipatirbrahmaNo.adhipatirb rahmaa shivo me astu sadaashivom.h

XXI-1: May the Supreme Lord who is the ruler of all knowledge, controller of all created beings, the preserver of the Vedas and the one overlord of Hiranyagarbha, be auspicious to me. I am the Sadasiva described thus and denoted by Pranava.

Vaishnva contend as follows,

There are 2 versions of Mahanarayana Upanishad available currently. The advaitins follow a version that mentions consecration of Shiva Linga, and has an interpolation in the Narayana Suktam, 'Sa Hari'.

How can we say that your version is spurious? Simple. 1) If you add 'Sa Hari' to the Narayana Suktam, the metre becomes incorrect and rhythm of the hymn falls, 2) Mantras for consecration on Shiva Lingam itself is bogus, as Veda NEVER talks about consecrating deities. Only Agamas are authorities on that.

The other version does not contain any verses glorifying Shiva. This version is the one which has been commentated by authoritative scholars like Sayana. Even Adi Sankara was following this version. Only after the 17th century, have Advaitins started to follow the spurious version.


Vaishnavas have researched everything, so they say Only Neovedantins follow such bogus versions of Upanishads, therby misleading everyone.
Dravida pata in earlier days('paramam prabhum'). the Andhra pata is comparatively very new and has not been quoted/cited by ancient Advaitins.

Jai Shree Krishna

Do they object to the following cited verse also? Or will they say that the Satapatha Chapter on Pravargya is interpolation?

Mahanarayana Upanishad
ekavi.nsho.anuvaakaH .

iishaanaH sarvavidyaanaamiishvaraH sarvabhuutaanaaMbrahmaadhipatirbrahmaNo.adhipatirbrahmaa shivo me astu sadaashivom.h

----------

It is somewhat like my daughter. When she was 1 year old, she used to call milk as 'anga'. How does it matter what one calls the Supreme reality as? Another time she had a great fight with a boy of her age. My daughter kept repeating that the sun was yellow and the boy countered "no it is peela". She won the verbal war after the boy got tired.

In my opinion, common Vaisnavas are in arambha avastha as are christians, both sects being dominated by dvaitic ideas. They have taken the golden bearded man in the sun literally.

Regards

Om

Ganeshprasad
13 May 2008, 04:08 PM
Pranam Atanu ji


Namaste Ganeshprasad Ji,

With knowledge a Shiva or Vishnu bhakta will find God very close. And will see nothing but God.

So true or as Lord Krishna says

One who neither rejoices nor grieves, neither likes nor dislikes, who has renounced both the good and the evil, and who is full of devotion, such a person is dear to Me. (12.17)

bhakta is para dukhe dukhi




Do they object to the following cited verse also? Or will they say that the Satapatha Chapter on Pravargya is interpolation?

I dont think we need to find out, why lower to their standard.



Mahanarayana Upanishad
ekavi.nsho.anuvaakaH .

iishaanaH sarvavidyaanaamiishvaraH sarvabhuutaanaaMbrahmaadhipatirbrahmaNo.adhipatirbrahmaa shivo me astu sadaashivom.h

I have no doubt they find a way to reject it, i think they have become expert at it.




It is somewhat like my daughter. When she was 1 year old, she used to call milk as 'anga'. How does it matter what one calls the Supreme reality as?

None what so ever, Sage Valmiki chanted mara mara or Atri Rishi approched the supreme without knowing who he was.



Another time she had a great fight with a boy of her age. My daughter kept repeating that the sun was yellow and the boy countered "no it is peela". She won the verbal war after the boy got tired.

lol

Jai Shree Krishna

atanu
13 May 2008, 10:44 PM
Pranam Atanu ji

Vaishnva contend as follows,

There are 2 versions of Mahanarayana Upanishad available currently. The advaitins follow a version that mentions consecration of Shiva Linga, and has an interpolation in the Narayana Suktam, 'Sa Hari'.

How can we say that your version is spurious? Simple. 1) If you add 'Sa Hari' to the Narayana Suktam, the metre becomes incorrect and rhythm of the hymn falls, 2) Mantras for consecration on Shiva Lingam itself is bogus, as Veda NEVER talks about consecrating deities. Only Agamas are authorities on that.

The other version does not contain any verses glorifying Shiva. This version is the one which has been commentated by authoritative scholars like Sayana. Even Adi Sankara was following this version. Only after the 17th century, have Advaitins started to follow the spurious version.


Vaishnavas have researched everything, so they say Only Neovedantins follow such bogus versions of Upanishads, therby misleading everyone.
Dravida pata in earlier days('paramam prabhum'). the Andhra pata is comparatively very new and has not been quoted/cited by ancient Advaitins.

Jai Shree Krishna

Namaste Ganeshprasad Ji,

We may refer this matter to an expert (but again I fear that experts are themselves of many kinds, driven by their predilections.) That is why some gurus teach there is no need to know anything extraneous. The point is very clearly explained in Brihadaraynaka: "What did Brahman know that it became all?" Resolution of such debates is never possible. Ending of questions is never possible -- new doubts will be ever cropping up. Complete solution to ills of society is never possible (because ills are in the egos).

But sages say that knowledge of Atman-Brahman is possible.


I have no doubt they find a way to reject it, i think they have become expert at it.

Yes. Mind is always able to present something or the other. Moreover, if someone wants to be of closed mind let them be.

Om

atanu
20 May 2008, 01:06 PM
Pranam Atanu ji

Thank you for your response, believe me I have no desires for controversy nor am I seeking retributions.

I wish harmony prevails between all religions what to speak of various Vedic practices.

What pains me with no ends is the denigrating of Lord Shiva, for me to do the same to Vishnu would be to cut the nose to spite the face.

Now Satapatha Brahmana speaks of kumar feeling evil because he has no name, is this an ordinary jiva who request to be known as different than the name given because he says he is greater then that?

Is this episode off Lord Shiva taking birth? In the previous chapter prajapati has already through his mind manifested 8 vasus 11 rudras and twelve adityas.

This Kumar is none other then Agni that is how I read it, am I wrong in assuming this, please note I am not trying to lower the position of Agni either.

:1:3:11. Verily, Pragâpati alone was here in the beginning. He desired, 'May I exist, may I reproduce myself!' He toiled, he practised austerity (or, became heated). From him, worn out and heated, the waters were created: from that heated Person the waters are born.
6:1:3:22. The waters said, 'What is to become of us?'--'Ye shall be heated,' he said. They were heated; they created foam: hence foam is produced in heated water.
6:1:3:33. The foam (m.) said, 'What is to become of me?'--'Thou shalt be heated!' he said. It was heated, and produced clay; for indeed the foam is heated, when it floats on the water, covering it; and when one beats upon it, it indeed becomes clay.
6:1:3:44. The clay (f.) said, 'What is to become of me?'--'Thou shalt be heated!' he said. It was heated,
p. 158
and produced sand; for this clay becomes indeed heated when they plough it; and if only they plough very fine then it becomes, as it were, sandy. So much, then, as to that 'What is to become of me? what is to become of me 1 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/%20fn_320)?'
6:1:3:55. From the sated he created the pebble: whence sand finally indeed becomes a pebble;--from the pebble the stone: whence the pebble finally indeed becomes a stone;--from the stone metal ore: whence from stone they smelt ore;--from ore gold: whence ore much smelted comes, as it were, to have the appearance of gold.
6:1:3:66. Now that which was created was flowing; and inasmuch as it was flowing (aksharat), a syllable (akshara) resulted therefrom; and inasmuch as it flowed eight times, that octosyllabic Gâyatrî was produced.
6:1:3:77. 'This has indeed become (bhű) a foundation (resting-place),' so he thought: whence it became the earth (bhűmi). He spread it out (prath): it became the broad (earth, prithivî). On this earth, as on a foundation, the beings, and the lord of beings, consecrated themselves for a year: the lord of beings was the master of the house 2 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/%20fn_321), and Ushas (the Dawn) was the mistress.
6:1:3:88. Now, those beings are the seasons; and that lord of beings is the year; and that Ushas, the mistress, is the Dawn. And these same creatures, as well as the lord of beings, the year, laid seed
p. 159
into Ushas 1 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/%20fn_322). There a boy (kumâra) was born in a year: he cried.
6:1:3:99. Pragâpati said to him, 'My boy, why criest thou, when thou art born out of labour and trouble?' He said, 'Nay, but I am not freed from (guarded against) evil; I have no name given me: give me a name!' Hence one should give a name to the boy that is born, for thereby one frees him from evil;--even a second, even a third (name), for thereby one frees him from evil time after time.
6:1:3:1010. He said to him, 'Thou art Rudra 2 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/%20fn_323).' And because he gave him that name, Agni became suchlike (or, that form), for Rudra is Agni: because he cried (rud) therefore he is Rudra. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'
6:1:3:1111. He said to him, 'Thou art Sarva.' And because he gave the him that name, the waters became suchlike, for Sarva is the waters, inasmuch as from the water everything (sarva) here is produced. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'
6:1:3:1212. He said to him, 'Thou art Pasupati.' And because he gave him that name, the plants became suchlike, for Pasupati is the plants: hence when cattle (pasu) get plants, then they play the master 3 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/%20fn_324) (patîy). He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'
6:1:3:1313. He said to him, 'Thou art Ugra.' And
p. 160
because he gave him that name, Vâyu (the wind) became suchlike, for Ugra is Vâyu: hence when it blows strongly, they say 'Ugra is blowing.' He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'
6:1:3:1414. He said to him, 'Thou art Asani.' And because he gave him that name, the lightning became suchlike, for Asani is the lightning: hence they say of him whom the lightning strikes, 'Asani has smitten him.' He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'
6:1:3:1515. He said to him, 'Thou art Bhava.' And because he gave him that name, Parganya (the rain-god) became suchlike; for Bhava is Parganya, since everything here comes (bhavati) from the rain-cloud. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'
6:1:3:1616. He said to him, 'Thou art Mahân Devah (the Great God).' And because he gave him that name, the moon became suchlike, for the moon is Pragâpati, and Pragâpati is the Great God. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'
6:1:3:1717. He said to him, 'Thou art Îsâna (the Ruler).' And because he gave him that name, the Sun became suchlike, for Îsâna is the Sun, since the Sun rules over this All. He said, 'So great indeed I am: give me no other name after that!'
6:1:3:1818. These then are the eight forms of Agni. Kumâra (the boy) is the ninth: that is Agni's threefold state 1 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/%20fn_325).
6:1:3:1919. And because there are eight forms of Agni--
p. 161
the Gâyatrî consisting of eight syllables--therefore they say, 'Agni is Gâyatra.' That boy entered into the forms one after another; for one never sees him as a mere boy (kumâra), but one sees those forms of his 1 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/%20fn_326), for he assumed those forms one after another.
6:1:3:2020. One ought to build him (Agni, the fire-altar) up in (the space of) a year, and recite for a year. 'For two (years),' however, say some; 'for in one year they laid the seed, and in one year that boy was born, therefore let him build for two (years), and recite for two (years).' Let him, however, build for a year only, and recite for a year; for the same seed which is laid is brought forth; it then lies changing and growing: hence let him build for a year only, and recite for a year. To him (Agni) when built up (kita) he gives a name: whereby he keeps away evil from him. He calls him by a bright (kitra) name 2 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/%20fn_327), saying, 'Thou art bright;' for Agni is all bright things.

Am I reading this wrong, how can Vasihnava get away quoting this or am I looking at something other then them, but I am no scholar. please comment

Jai Shree Krishna

Namaste Ganeshprasad ji,

This story is formidable. Truly, how can anyone but a naive use this to prove that Shiva is an ordinary Jiva?

Actually there is no ordinary Jiva -- only God. He has extracted by his own volition, all possible forms and names (including Sarva and Isana) from the Creator. Of course, assuming these forms must involve invoking His maya.

Regards

Om

Ganeshprasad
21 May 2008, 05:33 AM
Namaste Ganeshprasad ji,

This story is formidable. Truly, how can anyone but a naive use this to prove that Shiva is an ordinary Jiva?

Om


Pranam Atanu ji
Story gets interesting even more, prajapati is said to be taking a form of boar, so it can be argued that that prajapati is Vishu, not so our learned friends would tell us that they are two prajapati one that takes birth and the one that took form of boar is another, because all name belongs to Vishnu.


Vishnu is unambiguously identified as unborn. The gods sprouted from the navel of the unborn...Om tad Visnoh Paramapadam. Narayana Para Brahman, that Narayana created Brahma, Rudras, Prajapatis, Adityas, etc.

Hence, in one portion, birth of Prajapati is indicated. In another portion, Prajapati is called supreme.

Now, to resolve this contradiction - The prajapati who was born is literally taken to be a deva.

Since he was born, he cannot be the one referred to as 'Prajapati' in another verse which says Prajapati is supreme.

Logically, it follows that this Supreme Prajapati is not the same Prajapati who was born.

Hence, Prajapati is a name of Brahman. Brahman is Vishnu. Thus, confusion of Veda is cleared. You need to find out when to apply etymology and when to apply the literal meaning. This requires proper study of Shruti.
The study of Vedas is to resolve contradiction, seems to me their sole objective.
Where else I think the sole objectives of our rishi were for self realisation.

When Satapatha Brahmana says Kumar who is born is Agani, we must make etymology consideration and the consideration here is according to them is that Agni is lowest and Vishnu is highest therefore he can not be Mahadeva. Fair enough I might think, but if I reflect a bit more I can argue that since the comparison is made, it must be made of the likes and if Agni is a Jiva then Vishnu must also be a Jiva. Vedas can not possibly be making a comparison of brahman and jiva, either they are both Jiva or Brahman, all being with different functions.

Just as I don’t accept Lord Shiva being born with sins I do not accept Lord Vishnu as being killed, the very foundation of calling them supreme brahman in various places in Vedas is brought in to question.

(http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/c/ca)

I also find below statement as much unacceptable. We would not make such statements, although I can understand from academic point of view may be correct, but it does hurt the sentiments of millions



About 36 years later (c. 1361 BC, in the reign of Pharaoh Amenhotep III), the pAshupata lord of saurASTra (and beyond), the best of the yAdavas, shrI kRSNa was killed ~ and the kaliyugam truly began.

Only if one understands what Lord Krishna says


janma karma ca me divyam
evaḿ yo vetti tattvataḥ
tyaktvā dehaḿ punar janma
naiti mām eti so 'rjuna

Shri Krishna says that "One who knows me as unborn Mahesvara, knows truly".





Actually there is no ordinary Jiva -- only God. He has extracted by his own volition, all possible forms and names (including Sarva and Isana) from the Creator. Of course, assuming these forms must involve invoking His maya.

yes maya indeed,
maya che dukhda denari Mohan tari maya che dukhda denari.


Regards


Jai Shree Krishna

atanu
23 May 2008, 07:53 AM
Pranam Atanu ji
The study of Vedas is to resolve contradiction, seems to me their sole objective.
Where else I think the sole objectives of our rishi were for self realisation.


Namaste Ganeshprasad Ji,

Nicely said.


-- according to them is that Agni is lowest and Vishnu is highest

There is also a verse which says: Agni tvam Vishnu. Agni you are Indra. You are Rudra. Vishnu and Agni Vaisvanara cannot be different.



Just as I don’t accept Lord Shiva being born with sins I do not accept Lord Vishnu as being killed, the very foundation of calling them supreme brahman in various places in Vedas is brought in to question.

Death of Vishnu, as in Satapatha verses I cited, I think, indicates that the pride in one being different (superior) from the truth (which is samaan) gives rise to ignorance. The Universe, which is divine Purusha is not recognised as such but as a conglomerate of different unconnected objects.

But Rig Veda says of Sumajjaya Vishnu -- one who has divine origin. Rig Veda also says that Vishnu has birth from Soma. And Satapatha surely mentions of His dismemberment.

Every man has divine origin and Vishnu is the pinnacle and He is the knower of the highest also (Rig Veda). As I repeat again and again, a knower of the highest cannot be different from the highest, as the highest is said to be pure knowledge.

When we see from the top view of one single Atman, everything originating and dissolving in ONE without a Second, the perspective is clear and clean.

The world dissolves in Him.

And in reverse:

Thou art woman, Thou art man; Thou art youth and maiden too. Thou as an old man totterest along on a staff; it is Thou alone who, when born, assumest diverse forms.

Also:


XXIV-1: All this verily is Rudra. To Rudra who is such we offer our salutation. We salute again and again that Being, Rudra, who alone is the light and the Soul of creatures. The material universe the created beings and whatever there is manifoldly and profusely created in the past and in the present in the form of the world, all that is indeed this Rudra. Salutations be to Rudra who is such.



XXV-1: We sing a hymn that confers on us happiness in the highest degree to Rudra who is worthy of praise, who is endowed with the highest knowledge, who rains objects to the worshippers most excellently, who is more powerful and who is dwelling in the heart. Indeed all this is Rudra. Salutations be to Rudra who is such.

------------------

But when one sees Vishnu as a body and not as the spirit that pervades then the interpretation gets skewed and then the efforts to preserve that skewed idea gains importance. Then one invents new meanings and discovers difference in objects as indicative of permanent difference in parts of Atman (LOL).

Regards,

Om

atanu
23 May 2008, 09:30 PM
Namaskar Ganeshprasad Ji,

It is indeed true that Vishnu is the highest and Rudra is the first (one understands Purva Bhadrapada this way). Yes Rudra begins the journey. He paves the way by burning the Mala and in the beginning it is smokey.

Namah Rudrayya.

One who has read Satapatha will know that Rudra is the Agni with smokes (with jealousy, anger etc.). Then when a bit purified, the same is called Varuna and further at its full glory it is Indra. When less cruel, it is Mitra and finally when it only glows without burning, it is Brahman.

All through these states, the auspicious being, Shiva -- the advaita is unchanged and unborn. Satapatha also says that the only auspicious name is Shiva.

Satapatha mentions of death of creator, death of Vishnu, and near death of Indra. But the immortality is established again and again with the knowledge of Dadhichi. And they find that Agni blazing high, unlimited. And Shatarudriya is born.

I think that India suffers because of imposition of Christian and Muslim dvaitic influences, in the form of various denominations of lovers of 'Supreme Personality of Godhead' -- but that also must be His will.

It is very unfortunate that these guys do not want Vedic Shatarudriya. The dvaitic articles and philosophical expositions, especially of those writers who are from Shri Prabhupada lineage, gives a feeling that they are joking.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
23 May 2008, 09:44 PM
A bit of contemplation may also reveal that what is Generic Rudra as Yama is particularized Krishna. And possibly Yami (Yamuna), sister of Yama is Draupadi. These two together cause the destruction of the evil. It was Draupadi who began the destruction.

And what is unborn reality of born Krishna is unborn Mahesvara -- the generic GOOD one. Mahesvara Shiva.

We have seen lovers of Chaitanya claim that he is an incarnation -- there is no problem in that. The problem will begin, when some overzealous devotee will begin to say that Chatainya prabhu surpasses Krishna -- the generic highest born being -- who knows his own reality to be unborn Mahesvara. And similarly some Krishna bhaktas go over board and claim that Krishna is superior to his unborn reality.


Om Namah Shivaya

Ganeshprasad
24 May 2008, 05:41 AM
Pranam Atanu ji

Thank you for some excellent insight and points made from advaita point of views. I think it is over simplistic to blame dualistic concept on Muslims or Christians although they have a lot to answer for the wows of the present predicament of Hindus.

Bhakti sutra of Naraad and Pasupat are great exponent of supreme and (us) jivas relation.

Devotion of Sri Chetanya Mahaprabhu, Surdas, Tulsidas, Mira, Narsinghmehta to name a few can not be influenced by muslims in their bhakti.

I find to dwell in to the apparent janma mrityu of Gods is naive to say the least
Let us see what Lord himself says

avyaktaḿ (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/a/avyaktam) vyaktim (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/v/vyaktim) āpannaḿ (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/a/apannam)
manyante (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/m/manyante) mām (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/m/mam) abuddhayaḥ (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/a/abuddhayah)
paraḿ (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/p/param) bhāvam (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/b/bhavam) ajānanto
mamāvyayam anuttamam (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/a/anuttamam)

The ignorant think of Me, the Para-Brahman, as having no form or personality and I can take (any physical) form; because (these) people are not being able to comprehend My supreme imperishable and incomparable existence. (7.24)
( The word 'Avyakta' has been used in verses 2.25, 2.28, 7.24, 8.18, 8.20, 8.21, 9.04, 12.01, 12.03, 12.05, and 13.05. It takes different meaning according to the context. Avyakta does not mean formless; it means unmanifest or a transcendental form that is invisible to our physical eyes. It is used in the sense of unmanifest Prakriti, and also in the sense of Para-Brahman. The Para-Brahman or absolute consciousness is higher than both Brahman and the unmanifest Prakriti. Para-Brahman (or Krishna) is imperishable, without any origin and end. Para-Brahman is not formless. It has Divya Roopa, a transcendental form and Supreme Personality. The ignorant think of the Lord as formless because He is not visible.Because)

Veiled by My divine Maya, I am not known by all. Therefore, the ignorant one does not know Me as the unborn and eternal Brahman. (7.25)

avajānanti (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/a/avajananti) māḿ (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/m/mam) mūḍhā (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/m/mudha)
mānuṣīḿ (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/m/manusim) tanum (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/t/tanum) āśritam (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/a/asritam)
paraḿ (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/p/param) bhāvam (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/b/bhavam) ajānanto
mama (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/m/mama) bhūta (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/b/bhuta)-maheśvaram

BG 9.11 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/11/en): Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature as the Supreme Lord of all that be.

To think God is separate, from his different (forms) swarup, is not my idea of God. Srimad Bhagvat describes his appearance and disappearance, is all transcendental, beyond the realm of our mundane understandings.
Tulsidas writes those who understand the janma of Ram as transcendental will easily cross over the samsara.


93B Chhanda: Brahmaandda-nikaa-yaa nirmita maa-yaa roma roma prati bayda kahay: (http://javascript<b></b>:Hindi('93B'))
Mama ura so baasee yaha upahaasee sunata dheera-mati thira na rahay:: (http://javascript<b></b>:Hindi('93B'))
Upajaa jaba jnaanaa Prabhu musukaanaa charita bahuta bidhi keenha chahai: (http://javascript<b></b>:Hindi('93B'))
Kahi kathaa suhaa-yee maatu bujhaa-yee jayhi prakaara suta prayma lahai:: (http://javascript<b></b>:Hindi('93B')) Bk192

Kaushalyaa continued, "The Vedas declare that the multitudes of universes reflected as reality by maya are embedded in each hair on your body. O Lord! The intriguing fact that the same Lord stayed in my heart (womb) will create a storm of excitement and wonder even in the minds of men of steady wisdom." When Kaushalyaa showed her Knowledge of Shree Raama being Brahman, He smiled. He told her that He wanted to perform a variety of deeds. He narrated stories of the past to make Kaushalyaa enjoy her role and the bliss of being His mother.


94 Dohaa: Bipra-dhaynu-sura-santa-hita, leenha manuja avataara: (http://javascript<b></b>:Hindi('94'))
Nija-ich-chhaa-nirmita-tanu, maa-yaa-guna go-paara:: (http://javascript<b></b>:Hindi('94')) Bk192
94. God is beyond maya, its satvaguna, rajoguna and tamoguna modes and the reach of the senses. By His own choice He manifested Himself in a human body for the good of the Brahmin, the cow, gods and spiritually advanced persons


Jai Shree Krishna

atanu
24 May 2008, 09:03 AM
Pranam Atanu ji
To think God is separate, from his different (forms) swarup, is not my idea of God.

Namaste Ganeshprasad ji,

Thank you for your bhaavana, which is pure good and which makes you a balanced person. To have above knowledge entrained is to have reached the acme of devotion and Jnana. Some sages, submerged fully in the faith that God is not separate from His forms and that 'all this is Brahman', are known to have taken poison or lovingly stayed with wild animals without fear and without doubt.



"The Vedas declare that the multitudes of universes reflected as reality by maya are embedded in each hair on your body. O Lord! The intriguing fact that the same Lord stayed in my heart (womb) will create a storm of excitement and wonder even in the minds of men of steady wisdom."

With respect to above, I will remind you:


XXV-1: We sing a hymn that confers on us happiness in the highest degree to Rudra who is worthy of praise, who is endowed with the highest knowledge, who rains objects to the worshippers most excellently, who is more powerful and who is dwelling in the heart. Indeed all this is Rudra. Salutations be to Rudra who is such.


I do not believe that the highest does not dwell in every heart. To forget the spiritual heart, wherein I takes birth and I dissolves, in favour of a memory is Dvaita. But one who knows the spiritual heart knows the teaching in correct perspective. IMO. YMMV.

Om

atanu
30 May 2008, 06:27 AM
The original Sanskrit of a portion of Svet. Upanishad is given below followed by three translations.

-------------------------------
tR^itiiyo.adhyaayaH .

ya eko jaalavaaniishata iishaniibhiH sarvaa.nllokaaniishata iishaniibhiH .ya evaika udbhave sambhave cha ya etad.h viduramR^itaaste bhavanti .. 1.

. eko hi RUDRO na dvitiiyaaya tasthu\- rya imaa.nllokaaniishata iishaniibhiH .pratyaN^ janaastishhThati saJNchukochaantakaale sa.nsR^ijya vishvaa bhuvanaani gopaaH .. 2..

vishvatashchaxuruta vishvatomukho vishvatobaahuruta vishvataspaat.h .saM baahubhyaa.n dhamati saMpatatrai\- rdyaavaabhuumii janayan.h deva ekaH .. 3..

yo devaanaaM prabhavashchodbhavashcha vishvaadhipo RUDRO maharshhiH .hiraNyagarbha.n janayaamaasa puurva.n sa no buddhyaa shubhayaa sa.nyunaktu .. 4..
-------------------------------------------

Now read the HK version of the translation.


HK Version
Chapter 3

TEXT 1 They who understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the master of the network of maya, who alone, with His potencies, rules the all the worlds in their creation and maintenance, becomes immortal.

TEXT 2 The Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is one without a second, with His potencies rules the worlds. He stays within the living entities. He protects the worlds. He created the worlds and at the last moment He withdraws them.

TEXT 3 His eyes are everywhere. His faces are everywhere. His arms are everywhere. His feet are everywhere. He, the one Supreme Personality of Godhead, breathed life into they who have two arms on the land and they who have wings in the sky.

TEXT 4 May the omniscient Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is the creator and protector of the demigods, and who in the beginning fathered the demigod Brahma, give us good intelligence.


And so it goes. Wherever, Rudra or Siva appears, the translation says “The Supreme Personality of God Head”. This would be fine except that HK gurus/followers introduce Lord Siva as a demi god. There is another Gaudiya version also, where Rudro word is replaced by maha prabhu or Chaitanya.

Below is Ramakrishna Math version, where Rudra is replaced by the word heaven. This is correct, since Dauyus (heaven) and Rudra are both said to be the father of Rudras and Maruts in Rig Veda and Rudra and Dauyus are used interchangeably in some verses.

Ramakrishna Ashrama Version

III-1: It is the self-same One who exists alone at the time of creation and dissolution of the universe that assumes manifold powers and appears as the Divine Lord by virtue of His inscrutable power of Maya. He it is that protects all the worlds and controls all the various forces working therein. Those who realize this Being becomes immortal.
III-2: He who protects and controls the worlds by His own powers, He – Rudra – is indeed one only. There is no one beside Him who can make Him the second. O men, He is present inside the hearts of all beings. After projecting and maintaining all the worlds, He finally withdraws them into Himself.
III-3: Though God, the creator of heaven and earth, is one only, yet Heaven is the real owner of all the eyes, faces, hands and feet in this universe. It is Heaven who inspires them all to do their respective duties in accordance with the knowledge, past actions and tendencies of the various beings (with whom they appear to be associated).
III-4: May Heaven, who created the gods and supports them; who is the origin also of the cosmic soul; who confers bliss and wisdom on the devotes, destroying their sins and sorrows, and punishing all breaches of law – may Heaven, the great seer and the lord of all, endow us with good thoughts.


Below is a translation, which retains the words as it is.


Chapter III

1 The non—dual Ensnarer rules by His powers. Remaining one and the same, He rules by His powers all the worlds during their manifestation and continued existence. They who know this become immortal.
2 Rudra is truly one; for the knowers of Brahman do not admit the existence of a second, He alone rules all the worlds by His powers. He dwells as the inner Self of every living being. After having created all the worlds, He, their Protector, takes them back into Himself at the end of time.
3 His eyes are everywhere, His faces everywhere, His arms everywhere, everywhere His feet. He it is who endows men with arms, birds with feet and wings and men likewise with feet. Having produced heaven and earth, He remains as their non—dual manifester.
4 He, the omniscient Rudra, the creator of the gods and the bestower of their powers, the support of the universe, He who, in the beginning, gave birth to Hiranyagarbha—may He endow us with clear intellect!

-----

Shri Prabhu translates bhagavati (usually commonly understood as Noun for Devi and used to describe Lord Krishna in Bhagavatam) as 'Unto Supreme Personality of Godhead'. Of course, he may be unwittingly correct, since a personality is not the person. But then he makes the Lord of Bhagavati, Bhagawan, a demi god and that is unacceptable. Rishi Dirghatma says in Asiya Vamiya Sukta that the Adityas are males but actually females, indicating the nature of Aditya -- as the highest form of Shakti.


But since when Bhagavati became the Supreme Godhead and Her Lord, Bhagawan, a demi-god? There is a wish arising that a neutral translated work should be available.

Om

atanu
30 May 2008, 06:47 AM
This fire was called Agni, meaning the inner guide (agra-ni). Agni is the Divine child, seed or embryo (kumara, putra, sunu, sishu, garbha, napat), the spiritual consciousness that enters into creation and builds it up from within.

Rishi Bharadvaja states,
"The eternal light is placed within us for the vision, the swiftest consciousness among the moving senses. All the Divine powers of common mind and common perception follow perfectly that single Will.


Wide moves my ears and wide my eyes facing this light that is placed within the heart. Wide moves my mind in a deep understanding. What can I say, indeed what could I think?

All the Gods surrendered to you in awe, Oh Fire, as your enduring throughout the Darkness. May the universal soul (Vaishvanara) protect us with his grace. May the immortal one protect us with his grace."


RV VI.9.7
Whatever we see on Earth is a form of Agni. All human beings are forms of Agni. The Sun, Moon and stars in the sky above are also forms of Agni. The highest form of Agni is the Brahmagni (Agni or Brahman or the Absolute). This is the Agni of pure being (sat). This is Shiva, the fire that creates, preserves, destroys and transcends the entire universe.


"May we abide in the favor of the universal Fire, for he is the ruler resplendent over all the worlds. Manifesting from us he perceives the entire universe. The universal Fire spreads himself through the Sun.

Present in Heaven, Agni is present on Earth. Present here he has entered into all the plants. The universal Fire by his sudden power is present everywhere. May he protect us by day and by night."


Rishi Kutsa, RV I.98.1-2

Om Namah Shivaya

nirotu
27 June 2008, 04:26 PM
Pranam

Why is there so much antagonism between Vaishnav and Sheiva?

Interesting topic!
It is difficult from Vedanta of Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhwa charya and Vallabha to ascertain what the true nature and purport of the original scripture is. Within the Upanishads we can see difficulties. It is not very clear what Upanishads purport. It speaks in volumes but with a double voice in describing the nature of reality. On one hand, the Upanishad regards the absolute as pure being and makes the world an accidental appearance (Vivatra) of it (Shankara), and on the other hand, looks at the absolute as a concrete person and the world as his necessary expression (Ramanuja). There is a duality of standpoints stemming from interpretations from Shankara and Ramanuja. It is difficult to decide which the final teaching of the parent Gospel is.

I think that divisions you see today are based strictly on doctrines. This is true in Hinduism or in Christianity. If you are a follower of Vishnu then you are not in this camp or if you are a Shiva follower then you are not in that camp or vice-versa. Such exclusivities stem from the doctrinal differences and possibly from a narrow interpretation and may not represent the truth of the entire Gospel. Thus, when we dispute over dogmas, we are divided.

On the other hand, when we consider Upanishads by including all schools of thoughts, while Advaita is the beginning and the ultimate destination but, in the context of creation, Dvaita has come into play that cannot simply be ignored or wished away. While it may be justifiable to assume that man’s highest spiritual aspiration is to recognize his identity in someway and to some degree with the Absolute, his ethical conduct in the empirical world cannot be bypassed at all. While man is essentially spiritual he is also a creature of this world as well.

Therefore, I do believe, a man with a perfectly balanced view that recognizes the need of both Dvaita and Advaita is clearly ahead in his pursuit, who will undoubtedly progress faster towards that goal. A person without such a balance is like a bird flying with one wing. A bird with one wing will fly but only in circles. Oh, yes, there is movement in that bird but there is no forward progress. Such a circular movement is what we come to know as “Sansara” (endless wheel of ignorance and suffering) with no end or liberation in sight, neither now in this life nor in many returns!

Blessings,

P.S. I know we have re-entered the classic debate between Advaita and Dvaita, but I guess this will go on recurring because it is at the very heart of all religious and spiritual topics of discussions and debates.

atanu
28 June 2008, 10:07 PM
Interesting topic!
It is difficult from Vedanta of Shankara, Ramanuja, Madhwa charya and Vallabha to ascertain what the true nature and purport of the original scripture is. Within the Upanishads we can see difficulties. It is not very clear what Upanishads purport. It speaks in volumes but with a double voice in describing the nature of reality. On one hand, the Upanishad regards the absolute as pure being and makes the world an accidental appearance (Vivatra) of it (Shankara), and on the other hand, looks at the absolute as a concrete person and the world as his necessary expression (Ramanuja). There is a duality of standpoints stemming from interpretations from Shankara and Ramanuja. It is difficult to decide which the final teaching of the parent Gospel is.

I think that divisions you see today are based strictly on doctrines. This is true in Hinduism or in Christianity. If you are a follower of Vishnu then you are not in this camp or if you are a Shiva follower then you are not in that camp or vice-versa. Such exclusivities stem from the doctrinal differences and possibly from a narrow interpretation and may not represent the truth of the entire Gospel. Thus, when we dispute over dogmas, we are divided.

On the other hand, when we consider Upanishads by including all schools of thoughts, while Advaita is the beginning and the ultimate destination but, in the context of creation, Dvaita has come into play that cannot simply be ignored or wished away. While it may be justifiable to assume that man’s highest spiritual aspiration is to recognize his identity in someway and to some degree with the Absolute, his ethical conduct in the empirical world cannot be bypassed at all. While man is essentially spiritual he is also a creature of this world as well.

Therefore, I do believe, a man with a perfectly balanced view that recognizes the need of both Dvaita and Advaita is clearly ahead in his pursuit, who will undoubtedly progress faster towards that goal. A person without such a balance is like a bird flying with one wing. A bird with one wing will fly but only in circles. Oh, yes, there is movement in that bird but there is no forward progress. Such a circular movement is what we come to know as “Sansara” (endless wheel of ignorance and suffering) with no end or liberation in sight, neither now in this life nor in many returns!

Blessings,

P.S. I know we have re-entered the classic debate between Advaita and Dvaita, but I guess this will go on recurring because it is at the very heart of all religious and spiritual topics of discussions and debates.

Namaste Nirotu,

Yes, we better avoid the intellectualism and try with utmost sincereity to find for self what the Self is. Otherwise it is all never ending speculation.

In the meanwhile we can ponder on your statement: "in the context of creation, Dvaita has come into play that cannot simply be ignored or wished away" and try to find out whether in the context of creation, the original advaita Self (which you agree to) has got broken into pieces or not?

Several times it has been repeated that advaita vada does not throw away dvaita vada, since most practices of advaita teachers are rooted in dvaita. The point is that your own thinking/perceiving/seeing apparatus is based on and is in constant touch with the Advaita Self, which is uncuttable and never fragmented.


Om

PS:
The difference between Vishnu and Shiva lovers is nothing compared to murderous differences that exist in christianity and islam. Moreover, Vishnu and Shiva unite in OM, which is one word of Sanatana dharma.

Om

saidevo
30 June 2008, 07:48 AM
Namaste Nirotu.

Welcome back! If it is a post from Nirotu, it elicits, even provokes a reply: this time it elicits; and I am glad to see you present your view with such responsibility, nicety and knowledge, although I can see some of your own, usual 'subtleties' behind it.

Atanu has presented in his own inimitable style, the crux of Advaita: that it appreciates and then swallows up dvaita. His postscript is an important observation and truth.

For my part, I would like to share my observations on some of the points raised by you.



It is not very clear what Upanishads purport. It speaks in volumes but with a double voice in describing the nature of reality.


Is the 'purport' of the Upanishads unclear? Is there a 'double voice' in the sayings of the Upanishads about the Absolute Truth and its nature? Or is it really a 'double choice' offered to the people with different propensities, 'in the context of creation'?

Let us take, for instance, one of the most quoted statements of the Rig Veda:

ekam sad viprA bahudhA vadanti -- RV i.164.46

What is the 'purport' of this statement? Is it Ontological, as it outlines the nature of the Absolute ('ekam sad')? Or is it Epistemological, because it also says that the One Truth can be known through many names? Or is it Soteriological, in that it hints that there are many paths to liberation, and that the ultimate goal of all those paths is the One Truth?

Do you think, Nirotu, that Rig Veda talks in 'double voice' here, or does it offer a 'double choice'? If someone talks in a 'double voice', it means that his is a 'double talk' which is ambiguous, deceptive, and deliberately confusing. Is it so here in this statement of Rig Veda?

Dr.Frank Morales, a popular Western Sanatana Dharmic Guru, in his essay 'Does Hinduism Teach That All Religions Are The Same? A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism' has given a detailed analysis of this statement. He takes the view that the statement is absolutely--not just predominantly--ontological in its purport: it talks only about the Unity of the Abosolute Truth and not about the multiplicity of Its names; and that its other and more popular--epistemological and soteriological--interpretations are incorrect and can only be speculative.

Thus the actual meaning and purport of the statement, according to Dr.Morales is this:

"Truth/God (sad) One (ekam), [despite] seers (vipra) call (vadanti) [it] variously (bahudha)."

The implied condition 'despite' makes this statement purely ontological; whereas in the popular interpretations, the condition is taken to be 'but then' which gives rise to the speculations.

Rig Veda could have just stated '[i]ekam sat' without the qualification, but this would be understood only by the highest spiritual souls like the seers of the Vedas. Therefore, Rig Veda 'contrasts' this statement with the addition 'viprA bahudhA vadanti'. Truth shines by contrast!

In the same way, many of the mahAvAkhyas (grest statements) of the Upanishads appear prima facie dualistic, but always have an unequivocal pointer to the Advaitic Truth. As examples,

tat tvaM asi
"That thou art"
-- Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7, of Sama Veda, Kaivalya Upanishad

This statement talks about Advaita if you take 'tat' as its subject; about Dvaita if you take 'tvaM' as the subject.

aham brahmAsmi
"I am Brahman"
-- Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10, of Yajur Veda, Mahanarayana Upanishad

ayam Atma brahma
"This Self is Brahman."
-- Mandukya Upanishad 1.2, of Atharva Veda

sarvaM khalvidaM brahma
"All of this is brahman."
-- Chandogya Upanishad 3.14.1 of the Sama Veda

All such statements combine two views: idealism and pantheism. Idealism maintains that Atman alone is real and nothing else exists besides it. Pantheism holds that the world does exist and yet it does not affect the principle of the sole reality of the Atman; since it itself is nothing different from the Atman; both are identical, one with the other. The sole Reality of Brahman is always maintained.

The seeming duality of the statements is

• because creation has come into being and therefore the empirical minds have to be satisfied;

• with creation, vAch-speech comes into play as the primary means of thought, talk and action. And speech corrupts the Truth.

It is therefore, the Upanishads exhort the persistent seeker towards Advaita with such statements as

prajnanam brahma
"Consciousness is Brahman."
-- Aitareya Upanishad 3.3, of Rig Veda

"Knowing him alone let the wise Brahmana form his 'prajnA' (understanding), let him not meditate on many words, for that is simply the fatigue of 'vAc' (speech)." -- Brhad-AraNyaka Upanishad iv.4.21.

The prima facie duality of the above and other such statements of Vedas and Upanishads answer your other points that

• "Advaita is the beginning and the ultimate destination."

• "in the context of creation, Dvaita has come into play that cannot simply be ignored or wished away." (The statements do not 'wish away' the Dvaita of the world!)

• "a perfectly balanced view that recognizes the need of both Dvaita and Advaita..."

Thus the Advaita that 'lurks' behind the mahAvAkhyas of the Upanishads does not provide just 'one wing' for the bird that is the soul to fly in circles; it actually provides 'two wings', but exhorts the 'bird' to use 'its consciousness' rather than its senses in seeking the Truth.

For further reading:
1. Does Hinduism Teach That All Religions Are The Same?
A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism
http://www.dharmacentral.com/universalism.htm

2. The Doctrine of Maya' by Prabhu Dutt Shastri: A Compilation
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2261

atanu
30 June 2008, 10:45 AM
Interesting topic!
---- while Advaita is the beginning and the ultimate destination but, in the context of creation, Dvaita has come into play that cannot simply be ignored or wished away. -

Namaste Nirotu,

I wanted to remind that what is in the beginning and what is in the end, is in the middle also.

Do you, by any chance, imply that the Advaita is absent or broken in the middle? Advaita vada as opposed to Advaita Self, is there since we all are confused in the middle. Only exception being Ishwara, the Supreme Being, whom all worship as Supreme Being in Dvaita mode.

No Advaitin will wish to ignore away the middle. OTOH, it takes very persistent effort to experience the singular "I am" (OM) in the midst of settled perception of "I am this" and "Those are others in the world".

There are two valid approaches.


Satapatha Brahmana

11:2:6:13. As to this they ask, 'Who is the better one, the self-offerer, or the god-offerer?' Let him say, 'The self-offerer;' for a self-offerer, doubtless, is he who knows, 'This my (new) body is formed by that (body of Yag&#241;a, the sacrifice), this my (new) body is procured thereby.' And even as a snake frees itself from its skin, so does he free himself from his mortal body, from sin; and made up of the Rik, the Yagus, the S&#226;man, and of offerings, does he pass on to the heavenly world.

11:2:6:14. And a god-offerer, doubtless, is he who knows, 'I am now offering sacrifice to the gods, I am serving the gods,'--such a one is like an inferior who brings tribute to his superior, or like a man of the people who brings tribute to the king: verily, he does not win such a place as the other.
--------------------

When God (Ishwara) and Self (Shivo Advaita Atman) are known as the same, both approaches mean the same. Yet we must recognise the differences. Dvaita worship keeps God separate from the self whereas Advaita method graduates to seeking Self as God within the self. One cannot deny that God is the innermost self, the true Seer, of every being.

Some consider Advaita goal to be a dumb goal, as it amounts to giving up the individuality, which is dearest to everyone. But a simple perusal of above two verses will indicate that following 'the path of seeking the Self (God as one's own Self)' opposed to 'worship of God as another' is a bit more difficult. It is difficult, since, it means assuming full responsibilty for one's environment (knowing that the environment is product of one's consciousness -- modified for good or for bad by one's own karma). It is not easy to accept that one's environment is one's own karma (here one is not ONE but here one is 'I am this one').

Similarly, there are also some complaints that discussing Advaita is a boring and useless past time, since it ought to be very personal. OTOH, they also tend to berate Advaita discussions on the ground that such discussions will not solve world problems, such as Christian mission-neering or Muslim fanatism. This view, in fact, makes light of the knowledge of Sataptha 'This my (new) body is formed by that (body of Yag&#241;a, the sacrifice), this my (new) body is procured thereby.'

Chitta Suddhi (purification of mind) can not come without selfless karma, constant remembrance of Advaita OM, meditation, satsang, and love of Self (which incidentally includes all categories of this apparently vicious world). Citta Suddhi certainly will not happen through categorization of 'us and them', since 'us and them' is nothing but the Yagna-Vishnu.

During this state of Chitta Suddhi, constant remembrance of God is essential. Your worship and my worship modes are not different, since Guru Ramana teaches "Do not apply Advaita to Guru". Yet, He teaches further. "I am This" begins to worship God/Guru. Yet 'I am this' must dissolve in 'I am' (OM).


To me, discussion of Advaita, howsoever boring, is a valid alternative aid to help me remember the ever present OM.

Om

nirotu
06 July 2008, 08:26 PM
Dear Saidevo:

First of all, thank you for your kind introductory remarks. When it comes to respect and admiration, our feelings are mutual.


the 'purport' of the Upanishads unclear? Is there a 'double voice' in the sayings of the Upanishads about the Absolute Truth and its nature? Or is it really a 'double choice' offered to the people with different propensities, 'in the context of creation'?
Well, while you may be correct in your assessment but the fact remains that there is a great theological divide between Shankara and Ramanuja, Madhwa. If Shankara was correct all along, do you think there would have been any dispute among Ramanuja, Madhwa, Chaitanya and people of generations after? Would Ramanuja and Madhwa go to an extent to dispute and negate some of Shankara’s thinking? The fundamental difference lies in how the relationship of atman with the Param-atman is defined.

If the clarity was there in Upanishads, then why such a varied interpretation? On one side, VA elaborates the element of self-surrender immensely and to the point of making it a means independent of Bhakti itself and whereas, Shankara negates the Bhakti and brings out Jnana. The Advaita considers the prime source of “Sansara” is beginning less ignorance (avidya), but Dvaita considers it as real. For sage Ramanuja, the world and the Shakti, which produces it, are both real whereas, Shankara makes clear distinction between that which is real and that, which is illusion caused by ignorance. While according to Sage Shankara, the knowledge means an intuitive experience of identity of the soul with all existence requiring rigorous self-control, the observance of all Niyamas and at the same time, keeping mental detachment from all objects of experience, Ramanuja believes such knowledge is insufficient for attaining liberation (moksha). Given such a great divide, how can we come to conclusion as to who is right or whose interpretation to go by?


you think, Nirotu, that Rig Veda talks in 'double voice' here, or does it offer a 'double choice'? If someone talks in a 'double voice', it means that his is a 'double talk' which is ambiguous, deceptive, and deliberately confusing. Is it so here in this statement of Rig Veda?
In a way, for the sake of argument, I would say yes! There is some degree of ambiguity as to what Vedas purport. For example, the first half of Veda emphasizes “Karmakanda”, the appeasement by rituals only, whereas the latter half dwells completely on “Jnanakanda”. In Vedanta (jnanakanda), we learn that the Lord teaches us in the Gita and in it he lashes out against the karmakanda. At one place in the Gita he says to Arjuna :"The Vedas are associated with the three qualities of sattva, rajas and tamas. You must transcend these three qualities. Full of desire, they (the practitioners of Vedic rituals) long for paradise and keep thinking of pleasures and material prosperity. They are born again and again and their minds are never fixed in samadhi, these men clinging to Vedic rituals”. Both “Karmakanda” and “jnanakanda” belong to the same Veda, yet you see Jnanakanda negating and lashing out karmakanda. I do have difficulty here, or perhaps, may be in my understanding.


the Advaita that 'lurks' behind the mahAvAkhyas of the Upanishads does not provide just 'one wing' for the bird that is the soul to fly in circles; it actually provides 'two wings', but exhorts the 'bird' to use 'its consciousness' rather than its senses in seeking the Truth.
Absolutely! I agree with you on this. In many truly realized souls, we do you find such a potent combination of both realities existing as singular awareness. A good example I find is in Jesus Christ; While Jesus knew Himself to be of the same nature as Brahman (Advaita), yet, He was aware of the Father (Brahman), and therefore, aware of Himself as the Son (atman), purely Dvaita. This is an outstanding example to mankind that in the manifest creation, the singular awareness of both the unity (Advaita) and the duality (Dvaita) co-exist and is needed. Because, Advaita has sprung up Dvaita in the manifest creation and, therefore, it is implicit that now Dvaita needs recognition of the Adviata to complete the journey. Therefore, Advaita and Dvaita co-exist which is what Jesus portrayed and also demonstrated through His life on earth.

Coming back to OP, “why is there antagonism between followers of Advaita and Dvaita? ”, I view that, any attempt to restrict Brahman to any particular attribute or quality will not only fail to give us the real Brahman but will also falsify and negate it. If sages like Shankara and Ramanuja, Madhwacharya have expounded the philosophy of Upanishads for the benefit of humanity, how can one ignore either one for the other? Would you agree that within Sanatana Dharma, a soul that realizes both realities will not fight to demonstrate the supremacy of his/her taste!!

Blessings,

nirotu
06 July 2008, 08:32 PM
Dear Atanu:

Thank you! I appreciate your input.


you, by any chance, imply that the Advaita is absent or broken in the middle?
What exactly do you mean by “broken”? I do not see it that way and I hope neither do you as well. When you see the presence of a wave in the ocean, does it imply ocean was broken to form many waves? While Ocean and waves have the same nature, do we not refer to them by two different names? When we see a “spark” of a fire and the “fire”, are we not using two different names in spite of their identical nature? Obviously, the “two ness” is required to perceive and experience.

Similarly, when we refer to “atma” and “param-atma” as two entities, does it mean “param-atma” is broken into multiple atamans? I believe, something has happened in creation that has caused dual entities “atma” and “param-atma” to co-exist. Thus, duality underpins every thing that exists in nature through the process of creation.

One needs to stop looking into “either” “or” logic that is: either the pure one-ness of Adviata or that of oneness being broken or shattered in creation. Somewhere between these two extremes lies the reality in which the “one-ness” is transformed. I would not say Advaita has vanished in creation. Please refer to my previous posts where I have clearly said, “Advaita has sprung up its own seed called Dvaita”. It is the desire of the tree that the seed grow and become like its own. It is also the goal of that seed to become like the tree it came from. Therefore, both of these co-exist for our journey to be fruitful.

The way I understand is that Sri Ramana Maharishi in his ultimate state when he uttered, “I am that”, it could possibly have been said in reference to “Dvaita”. If everything is one or united already into one, there would not be any need for him to utter “I (Jivatma)” and “that (Paramatma)” as separate from each other.

Brahman is uncreated. Thus, if creation has to have any meaning at all, the creator has to stand apart from His creation. Secondly, for Him to pervade His creation, He must co-exist with His own creation. I believe, it is for this reason why Ramanuja and others alike never equated themselves to the Brahman. They knew that the power behind the creative movements of this universe belonged exclusively to the Brahman and nobody else. At the same time, they all realized the need for recognizing their true nature in relation to Brahman, which they considered as nothing short of Advaita. If one realizes this, in the context of creation, there won’t be any problem in understanding the role of Advaita as the destination while our existence in this creation that is purely dualistic.

Let me reiterate that I have never negated “Advaita” itself. I have only tried to place it in proper perspective. As for me, while Advaita finds in the mystery of Christ its fullest realization, the Advaita experience also helps to discover new depths in the same mystery. It is in this sense that Swami Abhishiktananda could truly say that the reading of the Upanishads helps us to penetrate more deeply into the mystery of the Lord as revealed in St. John’s Gospel. [“Abhishiktananda Seminar, Shantivanam Ashram, in southern India in 1977”]

Finally,

Moreover, Vishnu and Shiva unite in OM, which is one word of Sanatana dharma.”
If it were so, the OP by Ganeshprasad would not have raised the age-old question” Why is there so much antagonism between Vaishnav and Sheiva?“ Perhaps, you may want to take it up with him. This discussion is centered purely on that OP. Historically, there has been antagonism between the “Shaiva” and “Vaishnava” followers and it still goes on. Those familiar with Vaisnava thought will instantly understand that the claim to be God is as serious an offense to many Vaisnavas as it would be to many in the Abrahamic traditions. There exists a great theological divide which for centuries has separated those seeking to love, and those seeking to become, the Absolute Truth.

You may have been the one who recognizes both realities and I do respect that immensely, but I do believe that Advaita followers, in general, claim somehow that the experience they have is very “objective”, whereas, the experiences related by others as very “subjective” and prone to error. This happens when one places God in a theological box of personal liking. I am of the view that the origin of reality is both “subjective” and “objective” beginning with God. The wise ones, like yourself and those alike, who realize this, are truly happy leading a life knowing just that.

Blessings,

atanu
07 July 2008, 11:44 PM
Dear Saidevo:

-- Both “Karmakanda” and “jnanakanda” belong to the same Veda, yet you see Jnanakanda negating and lashing out karmakanda. I do have difficulty here, or perhaps, may be in my understanding.


Namaste Nirotu,

You have all the answers there. First, Shri Krishna does not lash out against Vedic Rituals but points out that meditation is better than mere rituals performed with some goal. You must read Gita where Lord says that Vedas must be followed/practiced.


Well, while you may be correct in your assessment but the fact remains that there is a great theological divide between Shankara and Ramanuja, Madhwa. If Shankara was correct all along, do you think there would have been any dispute among Ramanuja, Madhwa, Chaitanya and people of generations after?

Your statement "I do have difficulty here, or perhaps, may be in my understanding." answers all questions. It is true of all minds, not yours alone. Difficulties are of the questioning mind alone and to minds of varying ripeness, different doctrines appeal and apply.

There is no doubt whatsoever that Brahman is ONE and also ALL (without ever leaving the ONE status).

OM

atanu
07 July 2008, 11:54 PM
Dear Atanu:
What exactly do you mean by “broken”? I do not see it that way and I hope neither do you as well. When you see the presence of a wave in the ocean, does it imply ocean was broken to form many waves? While Ocean and waves have the same nature, do we not refer to them by two different names? When we see a “spark” of a fire and the “fire”, are we not using two different names in spite of their identical nature? Obviously, the “two ness” is required to perceive and experience.

Similarly, when we refer to “atma” and “param-atma” as two entities, does it mean “param-atma” is broken into multiple atamans? -

Namaste Nirotu,

A wave did not create itself. A wave has no independent existence. A wave will go next moment. A wave is nothing but swelling ocean and not a separate entity. The problem is identifying a wave as something comparable to the ocean, similar to identifying Ego as Atma. Param Atma never was broken. And there are not two entities of same denomination. Shruti says Atma was alone.

In isolation to the intelligent Seer, Ego is not Atma. Will is not Atma. Intellect is not Atma. Mind is not Atma. The Body is not Atma. Without knowing the ever awake Seer, we identify one of these things as Atma and say that there are two beings or that there are infinite beings.

Advaita recognizes (as taught in the Veda) that The SEER is EKO who is Rudra also.

Om

atanu
08 July 2008, 12:24 AM
Dear Nirotu,

I have pointed out several times that believing and following Advaita Vada is not an emotional decision. On every earlier occassion, the discussions degraded (and a lady poster aptly enumerated the reasons in an earlier post). I simply attribute the differences to emotional reasons (adhering to one faith without opening up).

Advaita Vada directly stems from the necessity of knowing the Advaita Self. It is a logical necessity as below (repeated for the nth time):

The Fourth is thought of as that which is not conscious of the internal world, nor conscious of the external world, nor conscious of both the worlds, nor dense with consciousness, nor simple consciousness, nor unconsciousness, which is unseen, actionless, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable, indescribable, whose proof consists in the identity of the Self (in all states), in which all phenomena come to a cessation, and which is unchanging, auspicious, and non-dual. That is the Self; that is to be known.
That is the Self; that is to be known" (Mandukya).
It is unchanging, it is known as One, all phenomena come to cessation, it is the Self -- not another one.
Self cannot be another one. It is unchanging, so number of other souls joining it as different entities is ruled out.
It is Advaita. Number of other souls joining it yet remaining separate entities is ruled out.
It is actionless. So, thoughts of serving it or actual tasks undertaken to serve it are not possible.
It is not conscious of the inner or the outer. So, the consciousness of me and another is impossible.
It is not unconsciousness either. So, it is aware of itself without inner or outer perceptions.
It is the Self which is Brahman. So nothing exceeds it.Om

PS: That does not invalidate the necessity of the mind and ego to bow down in pure Dvaita mode to God/Brahman/Advaita Atman. We simply do not call the ego, or the mind or the body as another Atma, who is the sole knower/seer and who has the sole will.

Om

TatTvamAsi
08 July 2008, 01:15 AM
Namaste,

The answer to the original question of why there is so much antagonism between Advaitins & Dvaitins is this:

There isn't "so much antagonism" between the two.

The Dvaitins constant need to emphasize the superiority of Vishnu is, IMHO, the start of all the 'trouble' between the two sects.

The fact is that the message of the Scriptures is only as good as the vessel that receives it. Therefore, for varying (evolutionary) levels of beings, different messages are perceived through the study of the Vedas.

Having said that, those who have had a spontaneous experience of unity consciousness usually always talk about the unity of all things; animate & inanimate; validating Advaita.

People like Ramana Maharishi who have experienced the Self are strict Advaitins. The issues only arise when 'scholars' interpret the Scriptures. When the mind (manas) steps in and plays an active role (study of Scriptures), it does not and cannot perceive the Truth. Ultimately the mind, and all that is 'learned' through study as Ramana Maharishi stated, has to be transcended!

Those who have broken through the barrier and realized the Self constantly talk about the ineffable, immanent, yet transcendant nature of Brahman; confirming what the Vedas/Upanishads say.

Furthermore, Truth cannot be subjective as that would make it untruthful! So there is no such thing as "highest" or "lowest" Truth. If Truth is experienced, it has to be uniform among all.

Also, Dvaita seems to be a method where Bhakti is stressed as the supremacy of Vishnu is repeated. For jIvAs that are at a 'later/higher' evolutionary state, methods other than Bhakti such as Raja & Jnana Yoga are recommended.

Subham.

atanu
08 July 2008, 04:21 AM
Dear Atanu:

Thank you! I appreciate your input.
-
One needs to stop looking into “either” “or” logic that is: either the pure one-ness of Adviata or that of oneness being broken or shattered in creation. Somewhere between these two extremes lies the reality in which the “one-ness” is transformed. -

Namaste Nirotu,

The last point.

Yes, what you say is the VA theory and which is not same as your original premise of Advaita in the beginning and Advaita in the End. VA considers the jivas eternally as parts of Brahman as opposed to your premise of Advaita in the beginning and Advaita in the end. You are somehow mixing concepts.

Part of spirit is not tenable and Advaita Atma is Absolute unchangeable -- transformation is impossible. It is Samaan. Dvaitins (similar as Advaitins) point out that any difference in Brahman is untenable since that will contradict the shruti.

The transformation theory is a mental attempt to reconcile what is not amenable to mental re-conciliation. But it is easy to appreciate the UNITY CONSCIOUSNESS, if you reconsider the equivalence (for example purpose) of a wave form and an ego form, which (as discussed earlier) changes from being a sperm to an old shriveled form in cycle of awareness.

A wave form will vanish next moment and I am sure that you do not know your ego forms of your last births. Wave forms change continuously and Ego forms also change continuously. A wave form is made of salty water as an ocean is also made of, though the forms are not comparable at all. A small bound ego is a form of consciousness. OTOH, Ishwara is infinite consciousness -- not different from Brahman. Consciousness is the common and samaan.

Advaita teachers and Gurus such as Ramana teach us to transcend the delineating limits of the forms and become yuktatma with the underlying consciousness. But with any 'karma attachment' that requires participation of a body in activities, it is well nigh impossible to transcend the form and name. Attachment may be towards sensual gratification or for educating others.

We are not saying that we have transcended the attachments. We are only saying that the Atman is known to the Atman alone (in unity) and not to a separate mind, which is a form and incomplete since it is separate from Atman.

Om

atanu
08 July 2008, 09:32 AM
Dear Atanu:

Thank you! I appreciate your input.

The way I understand is that Sri Ramana Maharishi in his ultimate state when he uttered, “I am that”, it could possibly have been said in reference to “Dvaita”.

Namaste Nirotu,

A question now. I am surprised. Can you show us where Shri Ramana uttered "I am that"? As far as I know, he never said such a partial mahavakya. You must give the full reference.

Om

ohmshivaya
09 July 2008, 06:18 AM
The way I understand is that Sri Ramana Maharishi in his ultimate state when he uttered, “I am that”, it could possibly have been said in reference to “Dvaita”. If everything is one or united already into one, there would not be any need for him to utter “I (Jivatma)” and “that (Paramatma)” as separate from each other.



Namaste:

Just wanted to clarify this particular point of yours. I have NEVER heard, or read, of Sage Ramana Maharishi declaring "I am that!" I certainly would be interested in knowing from where (the source) you have taken this information. A citation from you would certainly be most welcome.

Sri Ramana is most famously known for propounding the self-inquiry process to understanding the true self, through "Who am I?"

According to some of his followers' later writings on Sri Ramana's discourses, his teachings on true self can be summed up in the phrase " I am that I am," which is NOT to be read, or understood, as "I am THAT."

In fact, Sri Ramana's emphasis has always been on not limiting oneself to the notion of " I am this, or I am that, or I am so and so..."

saidevo
09 July 2008, 07:57 AM
Nameste Nirotu.

In your view

• The Vedas and Upanishads speak in "double voice" and "It is difficult to decide which the final teaching of the parent Gospel is." (post #21)

• In the Vedas, "Both 'Karmakanda' and 'jnanakanda' belong to the same Veda, yet you see Jnanakanda negating and lashing out karmakanda. I do have difficulty here, or perhaps, may be in my understanding." (post #25)

• Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva, the three great Acharyas of Hinduism, dispute each other's view of the Absolute Truth and create "a great divide" among the their followers. (post #25)

• This "great theological divide" created by the three great Acharyas has resulted in an eternal infighting between the Shaivas and Vaishnavites, as to who is the superior of the gods, Shiva or Vishnu. (post #26, with a reference to the OP)

• "I do believe, a man with a perfectly balanced view that recognizes the need of both Dvaita and Advaita is clearly ahead in his pursuit, who will undoubtedly progress faster towards that goal." (post #21)

• "A good example", (of "a man with a perfectly balanced view",) I find (is) in Jesus Christ; While Jesus knew Himself to be of the same nature as Brahman (Advaita), yet, He was aware of the Father (Brahman), and therefore, aware of Himself as the Son (atman), purely Dvaita. This is an outstanding example to mankind that in the manifest creation, the singular awareness of both the unity (Advaita) and the duality (Dvaita) co-exist and is needed." (post #25)

• "Because, Advaita has sprung up Dvaita in the manifest creation and, therefore, it is implicit that now Dvaita needs recognition of the Adviata to complete the journey. Therefore, Advaita and Dvaita co-exist which is what Jesus portrayed and also demonstrated through His life on earth." (post #25)

Alright, Nirotu, with these points of yours, what are you driving at? Is it right to say that your points have the following implications?

• Because Hinduism recognizes countless personal gods, the One God Brahman is forgotton in practice, and therefore, the paths to liberation that Hinduism provides are confusing and inadequate, if not invalid.

• Even the three great Acharyas of Hinduism have not just contradicting views but also negate each other's view, and this speaks of the extent and quality of their realization; where Jesus Christ is a better realized teacher who realized and recognized both Advaita and Dvaita in his life.

• The rishis as seers of the Vedas had no unified vision as evident from the different points of views presented in the Vedas and Upanishads, and this speaks of the lack of unity of approach that the Bible provides.

• In conclusion, therefore, Christianity is a better and superior religion for the common people to practice, than the different sects of Hinduism.

HDF members know you to be a devout Christian who follows the teachings of Jesus in letter and spirit. So there is nothing wrong to present your views of the Christian religious concepts vis-a-vis the Hindu concepts, though you might need to extrapolate the Christian teachings here and there and try to find the Hindu concepts of Advaita and Dvaita in them.

The only thing is that if you agree on the above implications I have derived from your points, we can continue it here in HDF as a debate on the supremacy and shortcomings of the Hindu and Christian religions, instead of camouflaging our views and points.

atanu
10 July 2008, 03:45 AM
Dear Saidevo:
The Advaita considers the prime source of “Sansara” is beginning less ignorance (avidya), but Dvaita considers it as real. For sage Ramanuja, the world and the Shakti, which produces it, are both real whereas, Shankara makes clear distinction between that which is real and that, which is illusion caused by ignorance.

Namaste,




Om ! That (Brahman) is infinite, and this (universe) is infinite
The infinite proceeds from the infinite.
(Then) taking the infinitude of the infinite (universe),
It remains as the infinite (Brahman) alone.
Om ! Peace ! Peace ! Peace !
One must understand what is meant by illusion in Shankara's terminology. Maya, when merely translated as 'illusion' is inadequate. Maya is a mistake -- a wrong identification of something as something else due to sensual superimposition.


For example, a dead body cannot say "I", yet most of us identify "I" with "I am this'. Something animates a body (an object) and makes it conscious and to this consciousness all other objects and the Universe are known. It is surprising yet this mistake is without beginning and very deep rooted so as to cause pain to body and mind and as if the pained body and grieving mind are 'Me'.

The most apt example that elucidates the above upanishadic passage is the modern day example of pictures playing on a cinema screen. Pictures keep playing and the seer may cry or laugh and sometime may associate with a character also. But the Seer is the screen, which is unchanging and support for the pictures that ever change.

Advaita teaching is about the way of AUM to the silence of the OM -- To dissociate from a character of the pictures (preferably before a particular picture show changes to another show) and find out the Seer as the screen, which appears to change with the pictures but which actually never transforms. :)


(Then) taking the infinitude of the infinite (universe),

It remains as the infinite (Brahman) alone.


Om

atanu
10 July 2008, 04:45 AM
The most apt example that elucidates the above upanishadic passage is the modern day example of pictures playing on a cinema screen. Pictures keep playing and the seer may cry or laugh and sometime may associate with a character also. But the Seer is the screen, which is unchanging and support for the pictures that ever change.

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad [1]
Translated by Swami Madhavananda
Published by Advaita Ashram, Kolkatta


Om ! That (Brahman) is infinite, and this (universe) is infinite.

The infinite proceeds from the infinite.

(Then) taking the infinitude of the infinite (universe),

It remains as the infinite (Brahman) alone.

Om ! Peace ! Peace ! Peace !


I-i-1: Om. The head of the sacrificial horse is the dawn, its eye the sun, its vital force the air, its open mouth the fire called Vaisvanara, and the body of the sacrificial horse is the year. Its back is heaven, its belly the sky, its hoof the earth, its sides the four quarters, its ribs the intermediate quarters, its members the seasons, its joints the months and fortnights, its feet the days and nights, its bones the stars and its flesh the clouds. Its half-digested food is the sand, its blood-vessels the rivers, its liver and spleen the mountains, its hairs the herbs and trees. Its forepart is the ascending sun, its hind part the descending sun, its yawning is lightning, its shaking the body is thundering, its making water is raining, and its neighing is voice.

I-i-2: The (gold) vessel called Mahiman in front of the horse, which appeared about it (i.e. pointing it out), is the day. Its source is the eastern sea. The (silver) vessel Mahiman behind the horse, which appeared about it, is the night. Its source is the western sea. These two vessels called Mahiman appeared on either side of the horse. As a Haya it carried the gods, as a Vajin the celestial minstrels, as an Arvan the Asuras, and as an Asva men. The Supreme Self is its stable and the Supreme Self (or the sea) its source.
----------


The sacrifice, the yajna is All. The Yajna's stable and source is the unchangeable Supreme Self -- the highest shivo abode of fast moving vishnu who is the yajna.


Om

sarabhanga
10 July 2008, 07:30 AM
I am surprised. Can you show us where Shri Ramana uttered "I am that"?
As far as I know, he never said such a partial mahavakya.



I have NEVER heard, or read, of Sage Ramana Maharishi declaring "I am that!"
Sri Ramana is most famously known for propounding the self-inquiry process to understanding the true self, through "Who am I?"

Namaste,

“Partial mahavakya” ??? Only with a partial understanding !! And I am quite sure that every Dashanami Sannyasin would disagree !

“I am That” assumes “I am that 'I am'”. And the Chandogyopanishad makes this quite clear. “I am That!” is the answer to the question “Who am I?”

If Ramana Rishi never explained the Chandogyopanishad to anyone, and never recited its words to himself, that omission has no bearing on the greatness of the saying, which is essential to the Vidya of Sharada Math (Dvaraka) and especially to the Tirtha Sannyasins (whose title presumes immersion in this very Mahavakya).


Chandogyopanishad, 6th Prapathaka, 1st Khanda.

1. There lived once Svetaketu Aruneya. To him his father (Uddalaka, the son of Aruna) said: “Svetaketu, go to school; for there is none belonging to our race, darling, who, not having studied (the Veda), is, as it were, a Brahmana by birth only.”

2. Having begun his apprenticeship (with a teacher) when he was twelve years of age, Svetaketu returned to his father, when he was twenty-four, having then studied all the Vedas ~ conceited, considering himself well-read, and stern.

3. His father said to him: “Svetaketu, as you are so conceited, considering yourself so well-read, and so stern, my dear, have you ever asked for that instruction by which we hear what cannot be heard, by which we perceive what cannot be perceived, by which we know what cannot be known?”

4. “What is that instruction, Sir?” he asked.
That final instruction to Svetaketau is the Upadesha Vakya of the Sama Veda ~ the completion of the Veda, and the very essence of Vedanta. And the Upadesha is repeated nine times by Uddalaka, the son of Aruna.

Thou, O Svetaketu, art That which is the subtle essence, in which all that exists has its self, that which is the True, that which is the Self. [8.7, 9.4, 10.3, 11.3, 12.3, 13.3, 14.3, 15.3]

Thou, O Svetaketu, art That in which all that exists has its self, that which is the True, that which is the Self.
He understood what he said, yea, he understood it. [16.3]
Svetaketu finally understood, but it would seem that some followers of Ramana Rishi have missed the point.

atanu
10 July 2008, 08:01 AM
Namaste,
“Partial mahavakya” ??? Only with a partial understanding !! And I am quite sure that every Dashanami Sannyasin would disagree !
“I am That” assumes “I am that 'I am'”. And the Chandogyopanishad makes this quite clear. “I am That!” is the answer to the question “Who am I?”


Namaste,

Yes, “I am That” assumes “I am that 'I am'”. So, without understanding the 'assumption' it can be very incomplete. Shankara devotes a lot of explanation to show that. And without understanding the complementary "You are that", "I am that" may not be complete Upadesha in itself.

The upansihad you have cited indeed says: Thou, O Svetaketu, art That. (And it is repeated nine times).


Svetaketu finally understood, but it would seem that some followers of Ramana Rishi have missed the point.---

If Ramana Rishi never explained the Chandogyopanishad to anyone, and never recited its words to himself, that omission has no bearing on the greatness of the saying,

Omission?

The point was simply that Shri Ramana never said "I am that" as Shri Nirotu claimed. He said "Find out who you are?" And that leads not only to "I am that" but also to "You art that". Since, Ramana knew Chandogya not intellectually but as living experience, so he taught "Find out who you are?"

Most Dvaitins (and Shri Nirotu herein) imply that "I am that" could mean "This I (the body-mind) is that". Shankara has devoted considerable explanation towards this and that should be clarified. The inquiry surely brings out "The true I is that" and "The true you are that". The grudge has no place in it.:)


Om

sarabhanga
10 July 2008, 10:25 AM
Namaste Atanu,

“Thou art That” is received from the Guru ~ as j&#241;Ana. But once known by personal experience and “taken to heart”, the vij&#241;Ana becomes “I am That” ~ i.e. this jIvAtman is truly identified with that paramAtman. And “I am That” could only be expressed with absolute veracity from the perspective of samAdhi, which absolutely denies the possibility of dvaitam.

If the words uttered by Shri Ramana “in his ultimate state” (which I assume refers to his being in, or on the verge of, samAdhi) were not “I am That”, what where they? It could not have been “You are That”, for You refers to a second person, and in samAdhi no other is distinguished. [Not that any particular words need have been actually spoken or overheard at this extremity.]

tad = tattvam = brahman

tat-tvam (“thou [art] that”) is a mahAvAkyam, and ahaM brahmAsmi (“I am brahman”) openly declares “I am that”.

atanu
10 July 2008, 11:14 AM
Namaste Atanu,

-If the words uttered by Shri Ramana “in his ultimate state” (which I assume refers to his being in, ---samAdhi)

Namaste sarabhanga,

In ultimate state Shri Ramana was just silent. As far As I know, he never uttered "I am That", except when explaining "I am that I am" of The Bible.

Om

atanu
10 July 2008, 11:27 AM
Namaste Nirotu,

A question now. I am surprised. Can you show us where Shri Ramana uttered "I am that"? As far as I know, he never said such a partial mahavakya. You must give the full reference.

Om

Thanks to Sarabhanga that the potential trouble hidden above has been pointed out.

The sentence was not intended to indicate:

That sage Vamadeva's realisation was partial.
That as Vedic Mahavakya "I am Brahman" is partial
That those who are fit to receive this upadesha as "Soham" meditation, or equivalent, received a partial upadesha.The sentence, written in a bit of hurry, itself is partial. The sentence was intended to convey:

Ramana possibly never uttered "I am That", because Ramana repeatedly taught that the Self-Brahman is beyond the reach of speech.
Ramana possibly could not have uttered such a great sentence incompletely.If unknowingly any one has been hurt, I apologise profusely.

Om

sarabhanga
10 July 2008, 12:08 PM
Namaste Atanu,

I have not been following this thread, and perhaps my own words were hasty, but the term "partial mahavakya" seemed quite inappropriate.

atanu
10 July 2008, 01:14 PM
Namaste Atanu,

I have not been following this thread, and perhaps my own words were hasty, but the term "partial mahavakya" seemed quite inappropriate.

Namaste sarabhanga,

:) I understand and it has been clarified. Though one must also follow a thread completely before making a harsh judgement.

When we see the context of sage Vamadeva's "I became the moon, I became the sun ---", we realise the creative context of "I" in "I am Brahman". OTOH, realisation of the vedic mahavakyas taken together lead to "I am" and one who is a living experience of pure unlimited conciousness, has no agency or motivation to keep on uttering/muttering "I am That", just as a man called Rama has no need to chant "I am Rama" to remind himself.

Thus I said what I said, in the context of someone attributing certain utterances to Shri Ramana. I do believe that such faulty referencing, especially pertaining to upholders of sanatana dharma, must be verified.

This is my POV. YMMV. Let us proceed.

Om

nirotu
11 July 2008, 04:06 PM
In conclusion, therefore, Christianity is a better and superior religion for the common people to practice, than the different sects of Hinduism.

Dear Saidevo:

With all due respect, I was hoping that your interaction with my posts would be likewise more constructive than the 'sad' assessment you've made of me. Instead of clarifying objections I have raised and explaining what the true interpretation of the Vedas in relation to two Vedantic expositions is, you have resorted to conclude that I am demeaning the entire religion by negating its truth with camouflaged statements like Christianity is superior! While I respect your views in many of our discussions immensely, sometimes I get this sick feeling that you perceive any sort of disagreement with you as an attack on the religion.

I say this because right from the start you seem to make certain assumptions that is completely contrary and unproductive to a fruitful discussion. The entire discussion here is hoisted upon an OP “why is there antagonism between the followers of Shiva and Vishnu?” I presented my understanding as to why it is so. Along those lines, I also expressed to you the ambiguity within Vedas the way I saw it. I have also clarified with a statement that perhaps it is in my understanding that may or may not be right. You must realize that for when someone expresses disagreement, it means precisely that they want to take what you say seriously as a student of scripture.

Trying to explain Advaita experience with an example of Jesus does not in anyway negate Sages and Jnanis experiences at all. You should feel happy to know that Jesus’ thinking likewise is also rooted in Dvaita/Advaita experience. To validate others, I have also added a statement preceding this to say, many sages who have realized this also have led a peaceful life.

Alright, Nirotu, with these points of yours, what are you driving at? Is it right to say that your points have the following implications?
Which I respectfully disagree…


The only thing is that if you agree on the above implications I have derived from your points, we can continue it here in HDF as a debate on the supremacy and shortcomings of the Hindu and Christian religions, instead of camouflaging our views and points.I thank you for your efforts in putting together all points and deriving your conclusion, albeit, not exactly what I had hoped for. There was no intention here to discuss supremacy of one religion over the other, rather to discuss within SD how one can reconcile both “Dvaita and Advaita” with the views of Veda. To that end, the questions I raised were fairly straightforward and well known to many. Perhaps, it needs rephrasing:

Sage Shankara, places all his emphasis on “pure knowledge” devoid of any imperfections as the sole way leading to the experience of liberation. “He denies completely in the efforts placed in other modes. This knowledge is not just conceptual understanding of the self, which can give us only appearances, never reality. Thus by knowledge Shankara means an intuitive experience of identity of the soul with all existence requiring rigorous self-control, the observance of Yama and Niyama prescribed by Yoga and a mental detachment from all objects of experience. . . . . .
. . . .Sage Ramanuja thinks knowledge alone is not sufficient. What is needed is complete surrender (prapatti) and pure, unqualified devotion to God” [Indian Thought Ed: Donald Bishop, Section Metaphysics by G.N. Joshi, 1975]

The Vedas, on the other hand, do not show any favoritism but show a sudden transition from “karmakanda” to “Jnanakanda” without rejecting either mode, nonetheless, gives us the impression that “jnanakanda” seems to ridicule and reject “Karmakanda” as I referred to Lord Krishna’s saying in BG. Thus, if Vedas do not discriminate and Upanishad speaks either/or language (wrt Advaita and Dvaita), it is easy to mislead anyone into thinking Upanishad speaks in double voice!!

“Ramana Maharishi affirms both paths to be equally valid; The path of self-inquiry, that is the “true knowledge” of oneself obtained through the path of knowledge and the second is of surrendering oneself (ego) completely to God through the path of devotion [The Path of Sri Ramana Part 1: Sri Sadhu OM, Page 22]”.

In light of these, I hope you do not consider me wrong for presenting a balanced view that accepts both modes. I would welcome the correct interpretation in Upanishad that does justice to both Dvaita vada and Advaita vada without violating views upheld by Vedas. Furthermore, if Shankara was correct all along, it is not clear why Ramanuja and Madhwacharya spent significant portion of their life refuting Shankara?

With all due respect, if you want to stand by your assessment about me and my post, it seems we have little further to discuss, but perhaps we could leave these issues in peace without any hard feelings.

Blessings,

nirotu
11 July 2008, 04:10 PM
Dear Atanu:

Thank you for your excellent explanation. Forgive me, I still have questions as to why is that you do not refer “atma” to “param-atma”? Why do you distinguish them in your language? If you want to think wave is nothing but a swelling of the ocean, why is that it requires its own identity (Wave as opposed to ocean)? In that instant of creation, do you see something finite that came from the infinite? Even though, it is momentary in its existence, it has unique identification just like each ataman when enters a soul has a unique identifier.

I do believe, great sages like Ramakrishna, Mother Teresa, Ramana Maharishi all have said the same thing: In his ultimate state Ramakrishna said, “I see my mother”. Mother Teresa said,” I am only an instrument (pen) in the hands of my Father.” Even though, they all have identified with the higher-self, they have displayed the union of two.

Refer to Sri Ramana: At the time of his uncle’s death, Ramana (a young lad) mimicked the corps of his uncle and stiffened. In that moment of imitating death, it flashed to him, “I am not that”. From that moment on, he always refers to “I –I” as opposed to “I”. Thus you can see union of two I’s in Ramana’s messages. I see, therefore, it is rhetorical question to ask,” if Ramana ever said that”.

Atanu, I accept everything you say but somehow, the creation is by-passed in your view. The one quality that differentiates “Atma” from “Param-atma” is manifestation. One (Param-atma) is the “unmanifest” with Potential energy and the other(atma) is “manifest” with creative energy. The reality is: it has occurred because of creation. It is like a tree and the seed. Seed can never become tree until it grows to its fullest. If “param-atma” is echoing everywhere, is there any need to refer to him as “atma” at all?

Blessings,

saidevo
11 July 2008, 11:05 PM
Ramana Maharshi's Self-Realization

Arthur Osborne's Ramana Maharshi and the Path of Self-Knowledge, published by Ramanasramam, Tiruvannamalai, is one of the most authentic works on the biography of the Rishi. This book does not speak of Ramana 'mimicking the corpse of his uncle and stiffening' which made him realize 'I am not That'. Nor does it quote Bhagavan Ramana as saying 'I am That' as his last words--as Nirotu says.

Here is how Self-Realization came to Ramana:

"When Venkataraman (Ramana's family name) was twelve, Sundaram Ayyar died and the family was broken up. The children went to live with their paternal uncle, Subbier, who had a house1 in the nearby city of Madura." (p.3)

Ramana's Self-Realization that came to him as a flash flood is described in his own words and is well documented (pp.7-8). In that description, he says (underling by me):



"It was about six weeks before I left Madura for good that the great change in my life took place. It was quite sudden. I was sitting alone in a room on the first floor of my uncle’s house. I seldom had any sickness, and on that day there was nothing wrong with my health, but a sudden violent fear of death overtook me. There was nothing in my state of health to account for it, and I did not try to account for it or to find out whether there was any reason for the fear. I just felt 'I am going to die' and began thinking what to do about it. It did not occur to me to consult a doctor or my elders or friends; I felt that I had to solve the problem myself, there and then.

"The shock of the fear of death drove my mind inwards and I said to myself mentally, without actually framing the words: 'Now death has come; what does it mean? What is it that is dying? This body dies.' And I at once dramatised the occurrence of death. I lay with my limbs stretched out stiff as though rigor mortis had set in and imitated a corpse so as to give greater reality to the enquiry. I held my breath and kept my lips tightly closed so that no sound could escape, so that neither the word 'I' nor any other word could be uttered. 'Well then,' I said to myself, 'this body is dead. It will be carried stiff to the burning ground and there burnt and reduced to ashes. But with the death of this body am I dead? Is the body 'I'? It is silent and inert but I feel the full force of my personality and even the voice of the 'I' within me, apart from it. So I am Spirit transcending the body. The body dies but the Spirit that transcends it cannot be touched by death. That means I am the deathless Spirit.'

"All this was not dull thought; it flashed through me vividly as living truth which I perceived directly, almost without thought-process. 'I' was something very real, the only real thing about my present state, and all the conscious activity connected with my body was centred on that 'I'. From that moment onwards the 'I' or Self focused attention on itself by a powerful fascination. Fear of death had vanished once and for all. Absorption in the Self continued unbroken from that time on. Other thoughts might come and go like the various notes of music, but the 'I' continued like the fundamental sruti note that underlies and blends with all the other notes. Whether the body was engaged in talking, reading or anything else, I was still centred on 'I'. Previous to that crisis I had no clear perception of my Self and was not consciously attracted to it. I felt no perceptible or direct interest in it, much less any inclination to dwell permanently in it."


Any other account of Ramana's Self-Realization that runs contrary to what he has himself documented above, is a travesty of truth.

Ramana Maharshi's Mahasamadhi

Here is a brief of what Ramana said on his 'last day' as documented by Arthur Osborne (ch.17).

Ramana's health started deteriorating since 1947 (he was born in 1879), but he refused to do anything about it, nor take a more nutritious diet. Ever since "a small nodule appeared below the elbow of his left arm" in the year 1949, operated upon and it returned, "there was an air of tragedy and inevitability
about the march of events."

• Sri Bhagavan submitted to surgery but refused the amputation of the affected part saying, "There is no cause for alarm. The body itself is a disease; let it have its natural end. Why mutilate it? Simple dressing of the part is enough."

• He also gave rise to hope by saying, "Everything will come right in due course."

• About this time he translated into Tamil verse a stanza from the Bhagavatam (Skanda XI, ch. 13, sloka 36), "Let the body, the result of fructifying karma, remain still or move about, live or die, the Sage who has realized the Self is not aware of it, just as one in a drunken stupor is not aware of his clothing."

• Some time later he expounded a verse from the Yoga Vasishtam: "The Jnani who has found himself as formless pure Awareness is unaffected though the body be cleft with a sword. Sugarcandy does not lose its sweetness though broken or crushed."

• Did Sri Bhagavan really suffer? He said to one devotee: "They take this body for Bhagavan and attribute suffering to him. What a pity!"

• And to one of the attendants he said, "Where is pain if there is no mind?" And yet he showed normal physical reactions and normal sensitivity to heat and cold,--for he had on an earlier occassion said to S.S.Cohen, "If the hand of the Jnani were cut with a knife there would be pain as with anyone else but because his mind is in bliss he does not feel the pain as acutely as others do."

• ... he said more than once to devotees, "I am only ill if you think I am; if you think I am well I shall be well."

• The arm was heavy and inflamed and the tumour growing. Occasionally he would admit "there is pain" but he would never say "I have pain."

• In Jan.1950 when there was no hope for recovery and asked about what further treatment should be given to him, he said: "Have I ever asked for any treatment? It is you who want this and that for me, so it is for you to agree about it among yourselves. If I were asked I should always say, as I have said from the beginning, that no treatment is necessary. Let things take their course."

• A group of devotees daily chanted prayers and devotional songs for his recovery. He was asked about their efficacy and replied, smiling, "It is certainly desirable to be engaged in good activities; let them continue."

• Speaking to the attendants and to T.N. Krishnaswami, doctor and devotee, he explained: "The body is like a bananaleaf on which all kinds of delicious food have been served. After we have eaten the food from it do we take the leaf and preserve it? Do we not throw it away now that it has served its purpose?"

• On another occasion he said to the attendants: "Who is to carry this load of a body even after it needs assistance in everything? Do you expect me to carry this load that it would take four men to carry?"

• And to some of the devotees: "Suppose you go to a firewood depot and buy a bundle of firewood and engage a coolie to carry it to your house. As you walk along with him he will be anxiously looking forward to his destination so that he can throw off his burden and get relief. In the same way the Jnani is anxious to throw off his mortal body." And then he corrected the explanation: "This exposition is all right as far as it goes, but strictly speaking even this is not quite accurate. The Jnani is not even anxious to shed his body; he is indifferent alike to the existence or non existence of the body, being almost unaware of it."

• Once, unasked, he defined Moksha (Liberation) to one of the attendants. "Do you know what Moksha is? Getting rid of non-existent misery and attaining the Bliss which is always there, that is Moksha."

• A devotee begged him to give but a single thought to the desirability of getting well, as this would have been enough, but he replied, almost scornfully, "Who could have such a thought!"

• And to others who asked him simply to will his recovery he said, "Who is there to will this?" The 'other', the individual that could oppose the course of destiny, no longer existed in him; it was the 'non-existent misery' that he had got rid of.

• Some of the devotees made it a plea for their own welfare. "What is to become of us without Bhagavan? We are too weak to look after ourselves; we depend on his Grace for everything." And he replied, "You attach too much importance to the body," clearly implying that the end of his body would not interrupt the Grace and guidance.

• In the same vein he said: "They say that I am dying but I am not going away. Where could I go? I am here."

• Mrs.Taleyarkhan, a Parsi devotee, besought him: "Bhagavan! Give this sickness to me instead. Let me bear it!" And he replied, "And who gave it to me?"

• On Thursday, April 13th (1950), a doctor brought Sri Bhagavan a palliative to relieve the congestion in the lungs but he refused it. "It is not necessary; everything will come right within two days." That night he bade his attendants go and sleep or meditate and leave him alone.

• On Friday the doctors and attendants knew it was the last day. In the morning he again bade them go and meditate. About noon, when liquid food was brought for him, he asked the time, punctual as ever, but then added, "But henceforth time doesn’t matter."

• Delicately expressing recognition of their long years of service, he said to the attendants, "The English have a word 'thanks' but we only say santosham (I am pleased)."

• At about sunset Sri Bhagavan told the attendants to sit him up. They knew already that every movement, every touch was painful, but he told them not to worry about that. He sat with one of the attendants supporting his head. A doctor began to give him oxygen but with a wave of his right hand he motioned him away. There were about a dozen persons in the small room, doctors and attendants.

• Unexpectedly, a group of devotees sitting on the veranda outside the hall began singing 'Arunachala-Siva' (Aksharanamanamalai). On hearing it, Sri Bhagavan’s eyes opened and shone. He gave a brief smile of indescribable tenderness. From the outer edges of his eyes tears of bliss rolled down. One more deep breath, and no more. There was no struggle, no spasm, no other sign of death: only that the next breath did not come. (The time he passed away was precisely 8:47 pm).

Putting words in Ramana's mouth as his 'last words', is not only cruel and a travesty of truth, but adds greatly to the doer's karma.

atanu
12 July 2008, 12:52 AM
Dear Atanu:

Thank you for your excellent explanation. Forgive me, I still have questions as to why is that you do not refer “atma” to “param-atma”? -,

Just forget that atma and param atma are two. Which is trick played by your mind which sees many bodies/objects and thinks that discreteness is the truth. No. Continuum is always the truth.

Now about the trick. Param Atma simply means that Atma is Param.

:)

Since Atma is the beginning, when there was no question of another, and from then on the sole Atma could not be cut into many pieces. Mind creates the discrete pieces from the continuum and enjoys and suffers.

Om

atanu
12 July 2008, 01:15 AM
Dear Atanu:

Refer to Sri Ramana: At the time of his uncle’s death, Ramana (a young lad) mimicked the corps of his uncle and stiffened. In that moment of imitating death, it flashed to him, “I am not that”. From that moment on, he always refers to “I –I” as opposed to “I”. Thus you can see union of two I’s in Ramana’s messages. I see, therefore, it is rhetorical question to ask,” if Ramana ever said that”.


Nirotu,

Should I call you untruthful (using the softer option here) or just naive who does not understand anything or hell bent on proving some of your own faith?

I think the last one is correct.



If “param-atma” is echoing everywhere, is there any need to refer to him as “atma” at all?

Blessings,

As explained. There was one Atma. There is one Atma. There will be one Atma. That Atma only is Param among all categories of life and mind. But actually it is beyond such comparison.

And why do you want to hide that you are just inert by denying atma?

Om

sarabhanga
12 July 2008, 02:07 AM
Namaste,

If “I am that” is taken (out of context) as “I am a particular that, which is distinguished from the whole”, then dvaitavAda is at work.

But vedAnta considers the upaniSadas as having only one purport (i.e. brahman), and the various mahAvAkyAni are pearls wisely selected from that corpus.

tat = tattvam = brahman

tattvamasi (“thou art that”) very easily becomes tattvamasmi (“I am that being”) and thus ahaM brahmAsmi (“I am [that] brahman”).

tat-tvam (“that [art] thou”) is a mahAvAkyam; and ahaM brahmAsmi (“I am brahman”), the mahAvAkyam of shR&#209;geri maTha, openly declares “I am that”.

haMsa refers to the RSabha (vRSabha) or ashvinau, as the vehicle of brahmA; and haMsa indicates the Atman. The haMsau unites jIvAtman and paramAtman; and haMsa resolves into ahaMsa (“I am that”). And sa denotes the puruSa, with so’ham indicating “I that very person”.



I am surprised. Can you show us where Shri Ramana uttered “I am that”?
As far as I know, he never said such a partial mahavakya.
You must give the full reference.

I have NEVER heard, or read, of Sage Ramana Maharishi declaring “I am that!”
I certainly would be interested in knowing from where (the source) you have taken this information.

According to some of his followers’ later writings on Sri Ramana’s discourses, his teachings on true self can be summed up in the phrase “I am that I am”, which is NOT to be read, or understood, as “I am THAT”.

Shri Ramana never said “I am that”

He never uttered “I am That”, except when explaining “I am that I am” of The Bible.

It seems strange that the idea of rAmaNa RSi saying the particular words (translated as) “I am That”, could cause such surprise. And it still seems that (somewhere between AruNi and HDF) there has been some omission.

Did the sage never say ahaMsa or so’ham?

And was “I am that” used in explanation of the “I am” sayings of Jesus, but not in explanation of the chAndogya’s tattvamasi or the bRhadAraNyaka’s ahaMbrahmAsmi?

What then did that Brahman know?

Verily in the beginning this was Brahman, that Brahman knew (its) Self only, saying, “I am Brahman”. From it all this sprang. Thus, whatever Deva was awakened (so as to know Brahman), he indeed became that (Brahman); and the same with Rishis and men. The Rishi Vamadeva saw and understood it, singing, “I was the moon, I was the sun”. Therefore now also, he who thus knows that he is Brahman, becomes all this, and even the Devas cannot prevent it, for he himself is their Self.

Now if a man worships another deity, thinking the deity is one and he another, he does not know. He is like a beast for the Devas. For verily, as many beasts nourish a man, thus does every man nourish the Devas. If only one beast is taken away, it is not pleasant; how much more when many are taken! Therefore it is not pleasant to the Devas that men should know this.

And did shrI rAmaNa never sing the avadhUta gItA?

vedAntasArasarasvaM j&#241;AnaM vij&#241;Anameva ca |
ahamAtmA nirAkAraH sarvyApi svabhAvataH || 1.5 ||

The essence and the whole of vedAnta is this j&#241;Ana, this vij&#241;Ana:
aham AtmA ~ I am by nature the formless, all-pervasive Self.

yo vai sarvAtmako devo niSkalo gaganopamaH |
svabhAvanirmalaH shuddhaH sa evAhaM na saMshayaH || 1.6 ||

There is no doubt that I am that God who is the Self of all,
Pure, indivisible, like the sky, naturally stainless.

ahamekamidaM sarvaM vyomAtItaM nirantaram |
pashyAmi kathamAtmAnaM pratyakshaM vA tirohitam || 1.10 ||

ahaM ekam ~ I, the One only, am all this, beyond space and continuous.
How can I see the Self as visible or hidden?

tvamevamekaM hi kathaM na buddhyase samaM hi sarveSu vimRSTamavayam |
sadodito’si tvamakshanditaH prabho diva ca kathaM hi manyase || 1.11 ||

tvam evam ekaM ~ thus (likewise, assuredly) you are One.
Why then do you not understand that you are the unchangeable One, equally perceived in all?
O mighty One, how can you, who are ever-shining, unrestricted, think of day and night?

tattvamasyAdivAkyena svAtmA hi pratipAditaH |
neti neti shrutirbrUyAtanRtaM pA&#241;cabhautkam || 1.25 ||

By tattvamasi (“That thou art”) your own Self is affirmed.
Of that which is untrue and composed of the five elements the shrUti says neti neti (“not this, not this”).

tattvaM tvaM na hi sandehaH kiM jAnAmi athavA punaH |
asaMvedyaM svasaMvedyamAtmAnaM manyase katham || 1.42 ||

tattvaM tvaM ~ you are verily the Truth.
There is no doubt about it ~ otherwise, what do I know?
Why do you consider the Self, which is perceptible to Itself, as imperceptible?

jAnAmi sarvathA sarvamahameko nirantaram |
nirAlambamashUnyaM ca shUnyaM vyomAdipa&#241;cakam || 1.46 ||

I know that all, in every way, is the one indivisible “I” ~ sarvam aham eko
That is self-sustained and full, while the five elements, beginning with ether, are empty.

vishuddho’sya sharIro’si na te cittaM parAtparam |
ahaM cAtmA paraM tattvamiti vaktuM na lajjase || 1.55 ||

You are pure, you are without a body, your mind is not higher than the highest.
You need not be ashamed to say ahaM AtmA paraM tattvam
I am the Self, the supreme Truth (i.e. “I am That”).

rAgAdidoSarahitaM tvahameva tattvaM
daivAdidoSarahitaM tvahameva tattvam |
saMsArashokarahitaM tvahameva tattvaM
j&#241;AnAmRtaM samarasaM gaganopamo’ham || 3.19 ||

aham eva tattvam ~ I am verily the Reality, free of such blemishes as attachment.
aham eva tattvam ~ I am verily the Reality, free of such blemishes as destiny.
aham eva tattvam ~ I am verily the Reality, free of the grief caused by transmigratory existence.
I am the nectar of Knowledge, homogeneous Existence, like the sky.

tvamahaM na hi hanta kadAcidapi kulajAtivicAramasatyamiti |
ahameva shivaH paramArtha iti abhivAdanamatra karomi katham || 6.22 ||

There are never any ‘you’ and ‘I’.
The discrimination of family and race is false.
aham eva shivaH ~ I am indeed the Absolute and the supreme Truth.
In that case, how can I make any salutation?

atanu
12 July 2008, 02:23 AM
Dear Saidevo:
-
Furthermore, if Shankara was correct all along, it is not clear why Ramanuja and Madhwacharya spent significant portion of their life refuting Shankara?


Namaste nirotu,

That Ramanuja and Madhwacharya were refuting Shankara, is an interpretation of those who understand none of these three teachers.

Ramanuja and Madhwacharya refuted the notions of those who misunderstood Shankara and not Shankara. A jiva with firm idea of discreteness as the truth and no knowledge of all pervasive atma can never be Brahman (This is Dvaita and this Advaita does not contradict). A Jiva who dwells in manifest Pragnya (but does not see the source of all pervasive Pragnya as himself) is a part of the all pervasive Pragnya (This is VA that Advaita does not contradict).

Shankara's teachings are understood/misunderstood from many levels of ripeness. Many followers of Dvaita/VA (who likewise understand Guru Vakya as per their level) claim that Shankara's teachings can take one to the dumb state of not knowing anything at best.

This is pure foolishness.

In that case Advaita Atma, Shiva is Dumb. Did Ramanuja and Madhwacharya ever say so? One can read the commentary of Madhavacharya on Mandukya and find that he agrees that Advaita Atma is Param Atma.

Shankara says that the ULTIMATE knowledge is the knowledge of the SELF, which exists eternally but can be experienced only in identity. Identity with a Saguna form cannot be infinite and complete.

The difference of emphasis on Nirguna/Saguna aspects, is based on the need and state of the devotees. And this also is only a difference of emphasis and not of content.


Om

atanu
12 July 2008, 02:58 AM
Namaste,
If “I am that” is taken (out of context) as “I am a particular that, which is distinguished from the whole”, then dvaitavAda is at work.


Namaste,

That much only was my objection, in addition to the fact that I have not read Ramana uttering "I am That", which Nirotu claimed.


Did the sage never say ahaMsa or so’ham?

As far as I know, He taught so by silence mostly and also through words in the role of the teacher. Yet, He never uttered such for himself. There was no need -- especially when silence is more powerful a language.


As said earlier different teachers may employ different modes and there is nothing wrong in that. The surprise was at the wrong way words were attributed to Masters and further "I am That" was given a Dvaita color. We all asked merely for the references.


And it still seems that (somewhere between AruNi and HDF) there has been some ommission.

Yes, there can be omissions at many places and at many levels. Which mortal is above mistake? Why not be direct and point out the omission?

Did Ramana say "I am that" for himself (not in a teaching role) and if He said so did He mean "I" and "That" are different? That was the main question and let us please stick to these.

Om

sarabhanga
12 July 2008, 08:28 AM
Why not be direct and point out the omission?

The omission of the significant possibility of Ramana Rishi uttering the words “I am That” (or equivalent words in saMskRtam) in a context other than the explanation of Jesus’ sayings, has been well noted.

atanu
12 July 2008, 10:46 AM
Namaste sarabhanga,


The omission of the significant possibility of Ramana Rishi uttering the words "I am That" (or equivalent words in saMskRtam) in a context other than the explanation of Jesus’ sayings, has been well noted.


It is well that it is omission now. It is well that you have noted the omission despite you being settled into "I am that", which is the highest realisation of Advaita Self, and which should be taintless.

I have not said that equivalent meanings of "I am That" have not been conveyed by Shri Ramana as absolute Advaitic knowledge and thus I asked full reference from Shri Nirotu on his dvaitic interpretation.

When Ramana finds nothing but "I-I" in His death experience, it is 'aham brahmasmi (I-I)' and also 'All this is Brahman' (Chandogya 3.14 1, 3). When, in the role of a teacher Shri Ramana asks "Find out Who You are?", the implication is not different from "You art That" (again Chandogya), which leads to silent realisation of "I am That" (Brihadarayanaka) in the student. The 'I' thought is the first to arise in the mind. When the enquiry 'Who am I?' is persistently pursued, finally the 'I' thought itself vanishes leaving the supreme non-dual Self alone.

"Find out Who You Are?", reflects the Chandogya as below:

8.7.1
The Self which is free from sin, free from old age, from death and from grief, from hunger and thirst, which desires nothing but what it ought to desire, and imagines nothing but what it ought to imagine, that it is which we must search out, that it is which we must try to understand. He who has searched out that Self and understands it, obtains all worlds and all desires.



"It is by ceaseless enquiry that the thoughts are destroyed and the Self realized - the plenary Reality in which there is not even the 'I' thought, the experience which is referred to as "Silence"" (shri Ramana).

So, frankly speaking, I see no omission. I see a living experience of Vedantic knowledge and Mahavakyas all together. :) Who can utter "I am That" while in Turya, in which the Universe disappears?



Om


PS: "The Universe disappears in Him", says Mandukya of the Turya. Who will utter "I am That" there?

atanu
12 July 2008, 03:11 PM
Dear Nirotu,

Namaste,

You said that "I-I" of Ramana's experience and teaching means presence of two I's. Please read below to see what the Master himself says:


"If the inquiry "Who am I?" were a mere mental questioning, it would not be of much value. The very purpose of Self-inquiry is to focus the entire mind at its Source. It is not, therefore, a case of one 'I' searching for another 'I'. Much less is Self-inquiry an empty formula, for it involves an intense activity of the entire mind to keep it steadily poised in pure Self-awareness.

Self-inquiry is the one infallible means; the only direct one, to realize the unconditioned, absolute Being that you really are."

-----------------
Please do not spread any mis-information that Shri Ramana believed anything other than purest Advaita. But I agree that he was very favourable to Bhakti aspect.

Om

ohmshivaya
12 July 2008, 03:54 PM
There appears to be two different arguments overlapping here. One is on what Nirotu claims that Sri Ramana actually uttered. And the other is about what Sri Ramana’s answers might have been to the self-inquiry ""Who am I.”


The debate in the last few posts was about whether or not Ramana actually uttered “I am THAT” at any stage in his life. The clarification was simple – he did not. To put words into someone’s mouth that were never uttered is wrong, and is taking undue liberties with the person and his works.


My rejoinder to Nirotu was to ask where Sri Ramana had actually uttered “I am THAT.’’ If Sri Ramana had ever said it explicitly, we would not be having this conversation at all, would we? Because then, everything would have been straightforward. I still stand to be corrected, of course, by asking Nirotu to submit a citation from where he has drawn this assertion about Sri Ramana stating emphatically “I am that.”


I’d also like to address another point while I am at it, even though it detracts from the main issue discussed here: Nirotu states emphatically and confidently (and in this, there is absolutely no question or doubt in his mind whatsoever) that Jesus understood and embodied perfectly the duality and non-duality nature of existence. This assertion I’d like to call into question. Firstly, I have never read in the new testament and the various gospels, Jesus clearly stating something along the lines of I am THAT, thus conveying his understanding of non-duality of nature. As far as I know, in the various gospels, the concept of non-duality was never clearly conveyed by Jesus; nor his “I am..,” as understood by Christian theologians, scholars, and laymen, implied non-duality. There has been numerous debates about what Jesus might have meant when he, according to the gospels, allegedly uttered “I am this...and I am that..” in various places throughout the bible– some of the scholars go on to even point out that “I am” itself is an erroneous English translation of the original Hebrew word which Jesus allegedly used. Yet despite the tremendous ambiguity in the “I am..” statement by Jesus in various places in the bible, Nirotu is convinced, without any doubt whatsoever in his mind, that Jesus is affirming his non-dual nature.


The bible which has produced more controversies because of its ambiguity, than any other religious text in the world, is very clear to Nirotu, but not the Vedas or any of the other Hindu philosophers’ discourses. That puzzles me greatly. Moreover, Nirotu goes on to talk about Mother Theresa’s statement “I am the instrument in the hands of God..” as an example of her imbibing the non-duality of existence. That again, astonishes me, as it would, I am sure, astonish her, were she alive today. Yet Jesus and mother Theresa are now suddenly relegated to good examples of enligthened beings that understood, acknowledged and affirmed their non-dual and dual states. This is not only blatantly stretching the truth on Christianity and its principal characters, but might come as a big shock to most Christian theologians in the west.


This new theory, on “Jesus’s” awareness , acknowledgement, and declaration of non-duality of nature, is being put forth by a selective, but growing, group of Christians, particularly in the west, who have had exposure to Vedanta and Advaita philosophies of the Sanatana Dharma. This group has started extrapolating the bible to enrich the text philosophically, and make it more attractive to the intellectuals in the west, by drawing inspiration from the Indian philosophies and incorporating some of these thoughts/views into christianity.



Nirotu: A good example I find is in Jesus Christ; While Jesus knew Himself to be of the same nature as Brahman (Advaita), yet, He was aware of the Father (Brahman), and therefore, aware of Himself as the Son (atman), purely Dvaita. This is an outstanding example to mankind that in the manifest creation, the singular awareness of both the unity (Advaita) and the duality (Dvaita) co-exist and is needed,


Noritu considers Jesus as a GOOD example of someone who understood both non-duality and duality nature of existence. This is surprising, first of all, because there is so much debate among historians over whether or not someone like Jesus actually even existed. And second, Jesus never wrote anything down and everything that we have of Jesus’s life and his utterances, was penned much after his time. And none of these writings suggest, remotely or otherwise, that Jesus had clear and explicit awareness of both the non-dual and dual states of existence. Oddly enough, while Nirotu is ever so sure about the existence of Jesus (even if scholars and historians believe otherwise) and his non-advaita leanings, as well as about mother Theresa's understandings (who most saw as a staunch dualist till her dying days, though no one quite knew what she privately believed and thought, although some say she even began to doubt the existence of God towards the end of her life, which might be construed as the dawning realization for her that perhaps there is NOTHING beyond THIS), he believes that many of Indian philosophers were contradictory, ambiguous, and the Gurus possibly faulty in their reasoning.

When we are discussing Sanatana Dharma philosophies and philosophers (some of them who, unlike Jesus, lived in the 20th century and whose works were documented in this life-time - OUR lifetime), why bring in a figure (who might or might not be real) from 2000 years ago, and who never wrote anything down, to the discussion, and refer to him as the "good example." If that isn’t blind faith, what is? Is this blind faith supposed to contribute to a rationale debate in some way? On the contrary, it is, in my opinion, a detraction from the otherwise meaningful discussion we are having on the commentaries of Hindu philosophers, Adi Sankara, Sri Ramana, Sri Ramanuja, Sri Ramakrishna etc.


One can only surmise that this constant reference to “Jesus’ when discussing any subject pertaining to Hindu philosophies and philosophers is intended to expound the Christian faith and promote “Jesus,” and nothing more. Drawing constant reference to Jesus is akin to a scientist A telling scientist B that B’s findings are unacceptable because his scientific methods are “flawed” (OK, there is no problem with that assertion as long as it is backed up by legitimate points), but insists that everyone accept, without question, his own findings even though they are based entirely on anecdotal evidences. After all, when discussing the works of Socrates, Plato, or Kant one would hardly think it fit to bring in "Jesus' and his views into the picture.


I accept (though not entirely comprehend) that practicing christians and some former Christians, despite having left christianity and sought spiritual refuge in other religions/philosophies, still have the overwhelming need to defend christianity and turn it into the religion that they want it to be – something that closely resembles Sanatana Dharma. It may be that 2000 years of conditioning refuses to allow someone to let go.

atanu
12 July 2008, 10:47 PM
:) Namaste ohmshivaya,


I debated within, as to whether the following matter should be put in a different thread or not? It appears here, since it fits here, in this subject. Why? Why Shiva and Vishnu followers fight? Why people fight?

A Guru assumed two names and taught two groups of devotees. The devotees fought and butchered people of the other group, swearing to the respective name of the Guru known to them, although the Guru was one. God, the Guru, has such predicament.

Some discontentment and cynicism expressed in some of the posts whenever Shri Ramana's name appears is understandable, attributable simply to difference of opinions, also known as Da-Da-Da phenomenon. But why this happens at the cost of supporting a false assertion of Shri Nirotu, is not very clear?

The discontentment wrt to the opinion part, IMO, is due to the following reason.

Because self-enquiry often starts with the question ‘Who am I?’, many of the traditional followers of Advaita (who were yet to grasp the import of the indescribable and imperceptible) assumed that the answer to the question was ‘I am Brahman’. Sri Maharshi in response to a visitor's question about using the affirmation, "I am Brahman" as a method of meditation said:

Brahman is here taken as a word-symbol of Ultimate Reality or God. "'I am Brahman' is only a thought. Who says it? Brahman itself does not say so. What need is there for it to say it? Nor can the real 'I' say so. For 'I' always abides as Brahman. To be saying it is only a thought. Whose thought is it? All thoughts are from the unreal 'I.' Remain without thinking. So long as there is thought there will be fear. . . . 'I am Brahman' is an aid to concentration. It keeps off other thoughts, then one thought alone persists. See whose is that thought. It will be found to be from 'I.' Wherefrom is the 'I'-thought? Probe into it. The 'I'-thought will vanish. The Supreme Self will shine forth of itself. No further effort is needed."

Some perceive this as insult of their method, where actually it is a beautiful clarification as to what the meditating devotee has to do once the consciousness is stable in Pragnya (as highlighted with red fonts above. It is also a warner that beware of mental concepts of Brahman. In Sri Ramana Maharshi’s opinion, the solution to the question ‘Who am I?’ is not to be found in or by the mind or speech since the only real answer is the experience of the absence of mind and speech, in utter silence.

We may further study whether Maharshi was true to Advaita Vedanta or not?

Brihadarayanaka
I-iv-10: This (self) was indeed Brahman in the beginning. It knew only Itself as, ‘I am Brahman’. Therefore It became all. And whoever among the gods knew It also became That; and the same with sages and men. The sage Vamadeva, while realising this (self) as That, knew, ‘I was Manu, and the sun’. And to this day whoever in like manner knows It as, ‘I am Brahman’, becomes all this (universe). Even the gods cannot prevail against him, for he becomes their self. While he who worships another god thinking, ‘He is one, and I am another’, does not know. He is like an animal to the gods. As many animals serve a man, so does each man serve the gods. Even if one animal is taken away, it causes anguish, what should one say of many animals ? Therefore it is not liked by them that men should know this.

Does the above verse, which is of Vishista Advaita mode, wherein the world exists within the 'I' as Brahman consciousness, same as the verse below?

Mandukya
7. The Fourth is thought of as that which is not conscious of the internal world, nor conscious of the external world, nor conscious of both the worlds, nor dense with consciousness, nor simple consciousness, nor unconsciousness, which is unseen, actionless, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable, indescribable, whose proof consists in the identity of the Self (in all states), in which all phenomena come to a cessation, and which is unchanging, auspicious, and non-dual. That is the Self; that is to be known.
-----------------

The Self that is to be known is unchanging and advaita in which the Universe comes to cessation. The two verses talk of two different levels. No doubt that the first verse has to be experienced, to be able to attain the goal of the seond verse.

Shri Ramana has taught both the levels:

The universe was neither born, nor maintained, nor
dissolved; this is the plain truth. The basic screen of pure
Being-Awareness-Stillness devoid of all the moving shadow
pictures of name and form of the universe is the sole, eternal
Existence.

and yet...

In me, the pure Awareness-Self, the universe is
born, maintained and dissolved as the mind. Therefore, there
are no mind and thought forms of objects apart from me-
the Self. In this firm experience one should ever abide.

Since, the creative phase of Brahman (as arising from oneself) must be comprehended as arising in one's mind and then only the involution is possible to know the Self as the absolute unchanging and non-creative. The equivalent of the Mandukya verse in Brihadaranyaka is:

III-ix-26: On what do the body and the heart rest ?’ ‘On the Prana’. ‘On what does the Prana rest ?’ ‘On the Apana.’ ‘On what does the Apana rest ?’ ‘On the Vyana.’ ‘On what does the Vyana rest ?’ ‘On the Udana’. ‘On what does the Udana rest ?’ ‘On the Samana’. This self is That which has been described as ‘Not this, not this’. It is imperceptible, for it is never perceived; undecaying, for It never decays; unattached, for It is never attached; unfettered – It never feels pain, and never suffers injury.

It is true that "I am (Aham) Brahman" and thus Vishnu is the one who says: I am cipivista. OTOH, the Self, which is the goal, is never perceived and is indescribable. Thus Mahadeva is ever silent Seer. Both represent the same truth of shivo advaita atma.


Upamanyu said: (Mahadeva) Thou art he who imparts
instruction in utter silence. Thou art he that observes
the vow of taciturny (for Thou instructest in silence).

The excellent practice of Dvaita teachings can only ripen one to appreciate the silence of absolute Advaita.

Om

saidevo
12 July 2008, 11:35 PM
Namaste ohmshivaya.

An excellent post with solid points that places in perspective, the neo-apologetics who seek to extrapolate Jesus, Christianity and its Bible, by borrowing Hindu concepts.

Some of us here know Nirotu to be a neo-Christian apologetic, though he has not explicitly stated his religion in his HDF profile, but he has not denied that he is a Christian. (I think Satay should make the Religion entry compulsory because that would help us know who are the non-Hindus in this Hindu Forum).

Nirotu is also active in (at least one) Christian Forum(s) where he gets clarifications. Let me add that there is nothing wrong for a Christian or a Hindu to be an active member of a Christian or Muslim or any other religious Forum. I also appreciate that Nirotu carries key Hindu concepts for discussion in the Christian Forums, though they have little support from the staunch Christians there. But his 'agenda'--I am constrained to use this word--, is clear from the following quote of a recent post of his (underlining by me):



Is Jesus the Christ?
by nirotu on Wed Mar 26, 2008 9:30 pm

Many times I come across folks of other faith to whom when I try my apologetic approach regarding Jesus Christ, I get same response and that is: "you believe because the Bible says so". Is there a way to prove Jesus is the Christ outside the Bible?

http://forum.bible.org/viewtopic.php?f=207&t=9281&p=88601#p88601


When such things are pointed out, Nirotu conveniently goes into his shell, saying that he would rather sit in meditation for God's grace, instead of wasting further time trying to convince us with his arguments.

A Hindu or a member of another faith who appreciates Hinduism would try to understand the mind-set behind the vociferous differences between the followers of Shiva and Vishnu. In his OP, Ganeshprasad asks the question about this 'antagonism' in agony, not derisively. He is 'pained' by the denigration of Shiva.

He does not deride it as a 'great divide', 'great theological divide' and say (by implication) that where the three great Hindu Acharyas have failed to establish the Absolute Truth in perspective, 'a good example' of one who does is Jesus Christ (and Mother Teresa). I can understand even a Hindu atheist using such words, but I cannot help thinking that a Christian apologetic would only use them for his own agenda. This is the reason I said that I could see his usual 'subtleties' behind Nirotu's post (#21); and pointed out the implications of Nirotu's points and he has, not unexpectedly, tried to circumvent them.

In the manifest world of creation, there is a "poor man's equivalent" of everything. No one can deny the spiritual, metaphysical and philosophical richness of Hinduism vis-a-vis the other religions, mainly Christianity. In this context I can understand Nirotu placing Jesus Christ, Mother Teresa and other Christian religious personalities in juxtaposition with the Hindu rishis and sages, but when he seeks to extrapolate them, we need to take exception.

For example, he has equated Ramakrishna, Mother Teresa and Ramana Maharshi as having equally identified themselves with the higher-self, but this evokes only laughter in me. Ramakrishna and Mother Teresa have nothing in common except that they both lived in Calcutta. The comparision evokes laughter because Ramakrishna was never conscious of money! In a Hindu's view, Mother Teresa is nothing more than a Christian missionary and whatever charitable deeds she accomplished were only to that end; stories of her 'money mindedness' have also cropped up.

Nirotu has also persisted with his misquote of Ramana Maharshi. This shows that he either does not understand the sage and his teachings or has scarce respect for the sage.

I have nothing personal against Nirotu. I hope I have not made any personal remarks about him in this post. I have talked only about his forum activities. I find nothing wrong in Nirotu being a devout Christian or even a neo-apologetic. I would welcome any sort of debate from him, inter- or intra-religious, but as "a student of scripture" or a student of study of comparative religions, I expect Nirotu to present his views with understanding and appreciation, and where he has genuine differences or disgreements, to present them with dignity.

If Nirotu wants to discuss 'the place of Advaita in the manifest creation of Dvaita' that is a good topic, certainly involves discussions about the three great Hindu Acharyas, but not with the attitude Nirotu takes about them, about Ramana Maharshi and about our Vedas and Upanishads, specially when he is not a Hindu.

If Nirotu approaches Hindu concepts with an attitude of skepticism, derision and stark disapproval, then whatever beautiful expositions Atanu has given in this thread can hardly convince him to any extent.

As a Hindu, I view the vociferous differences in the teachings of the three great Hindu Acharyas as Ishvara's LIlA. When Shiva as Shambhu took birth as Sankara, he arranged with the devas to be born as characters (such as Mandana Misra) whose teachings would be starkly opposed to Advaita. Even Skanda was born as Kumarila Bhatta and debated with Sankara. In the same way, Ishvara intended Ramanuja and Madhva to play their roles scripted by Him, with a view to bring most Hindus under the banner of one of the sects of Hinduism, rather than stay as atheists and skeptics, who have the least spiritual progress in any Yuga.

In the ancient six system of Hindu Philosophy, the rishis who gave them had starkly opposing teachings. Does it mean one or more of them was less Self-Realized than the others? I don't think so. Gods and Rishis always have the welfare and spiritual progress of mankind as their aim, and play opposing roles in the great drama of manifest creation.

atanu
13 July 2008, 02:50 AM
-
Nirotu has also persisted with his misquote of Ramana Maharshi. This shows that he either does not understand the sage and his teachings or has scarce respect for the sage.

Namaste saidevoji,

I am surprised with Shri Nirotu's mis-representations. In an earlier post, He ascribed to Shri Radhakrishnan certain VA concepts making it appear as if VA was his belief. Actually Nirotu was quoting an academic prose of Radhakrishnan where he factually states the positions of three philosophies. This has happened a few times. And this time, I expressed surprise since Shri Nirotu appeared heading for the same technique again.

I was surprised that someone could have missed the stark advaita teachings of Ramana, though surely in this case, similar as with Shri Ramakrishna, the dvaita, the VA, the bhakti, the karma, the jnana -- nothing was neglected. Yet, how can one miss the finality of Advaita teaching of these masters?

To say that these masters did not teach Advaita and that their experiences were less than complete union (as taught by Advaita and as taught by these masters to the devotees), is to point them as fakes. This is of concern. Shri Nirotu may please note this if he is genuine.


As a Hindu, I view the vociferous differences in the teachings of the three great Hindu Acharyas as Ishvara's LIlA. When Shiva as Shambhu took birth as Sankara, he arranged with the devas to be born as characters (such as Mandana Misra) whose teachings would be starkly opposed to Advaita. Even Skanda was born as Kumarila Bhatta and debated with Sankara. In the same way, Ishvara intended Ramanuja and Madhva to play their roles scripted by Him, with a view to bring most Hindus under the banner of one of the sects of Hinduism, rather than stay as atheists and skeptics, who have the least spiritual progress in any Yuga.

Very nicely said. Pranam.

Om

TatTvamAsi
13 July 2008, 03:16 AM
Namaste Ohmshivaya,

A most splendid post!

Subham.

sarabhanga
13 July 2008, 08:20 AM
Omission? I see no omission.

The point was simply that Shri Ramana never said “I am that”

As far As I know, he never uttered “I am That”, except when explaining “I am that I am” of The Bible.

The sentence was intended to convey: Ramana possibly never uttered “I am That”.

I have not read Ramana uttering “I am That”, which Nirotu claimed.

He never uttered so'ham for himself.



aham AtmA

aham ekam

aham AtmA paraM tattvam

aham eva tattvam

aham eva shivaH

so’haMso’ham

You need not be ashamed to say “I am the Self, the supreme Truth”

“I am That”.



The haMsau (“the individual jIva and the universal AtmA”) is ahaMsa (aham sa) or so’ham (saH aham), declaring “I am That”.

dakshiNAmUrti instructs in silence, but the expression of shrI dakshiNAmUrti may be heard in the three-fold communion of shiSya (nAra), guru (nArAyaNa), and shiva (nara).

And the inner teaching of dakshiNAmUrti whispers:

so’hamiti yAvadAsthitiH saniSThA bhavati

Devotion consists in firmly dwelling in the constant thought so’ham (“I am That”).

shrI ramaNa considered the tripurarahasya as one of the greatest expositions on advaita philosophy, and he often quoted from it, prompting svAmI rAmaNAnanda sarasvatI (shrI muNagala veNkATaramaya) to begin his english translation of the text, which was fully published in 1940. And the shrI ramaNAshramam has republished the translation numerous times since the samAdhi of shrI ramaNa in 1950.

There can be no doubt that shrI ramaNa agreed with translation, and those who knew him claim that he often quoted from the tripurarahasya, which was one of his favorite texts.

And thus, there can be no doubt that shrI ramaNa spoke the following words:

I will tell you the secret. The cycle of births and deaths is from time immemorial caused by ignorance which displays itself as pleasure and pain and yet is only a dream and unreal. Being so, the wise say that it can be ended by knowledge. By what kind of knowledge? Wisdom born of realisation: viz. “I am That”. [17: 24-26]

The inner self is realised in advanced contemplation and that state of realisation is called nirvikalpa samAdhi. Memory of that realisation enables one to identify the inner self with the universal Self (as “I am That”). [17: 69]

When the mind has completely resolved into the Self, that state is called nirvikalpa samAdhi. After waking up from it, the person is overpowered by the memory of his experience as the one, undivided, infinite, pure Self, and he knows “I am That”, as opposed to the puerile I-thought of the ignorant. That is the vijńAna (supreme Knowledge). [20: 56]

guru mahArAja shrI dattAtreya makes no omission.

shrI dakshiNAmUrti makes no omission.

shrI ramaNAshramam makes no omission.

But those who claim that shrI ramaNa never said “I am That” have omitted all of the above.

sarabhanga
13 July 2008, 10:58 AM
Sri Ramana Maharishi in his ultimate state when he uttered, “I am that” …




As far as I know, he never said such a partial mahavakya.




“I am That” is NOT a “partial mahavakya”.

It seems strange that the idea of ramaNa RSi saying the particular words (translated as) “I am That”, could cause such surprise. And it seems that (somewhere between AruNi and HDF) there has been some omission.

Did shrI rAmaNa never sing the avadhUta gItA or the vidyA gItA?




Arthur Osborne … does not quote Bhagavan Ramana as saying ‘I am That’ as his last words ~ as Nirotu says.

Putting words in Ramana’s mouth as his ‘last words’, is not only cruel and a travesty of truth, but adds greatly to the doer’s karma.

Has Nirotu actually said that “I am That” was spoken by shrI ramaNa as his “last words”? Or have words been forced into Nirotu’s mouth?




If Sri Ramana had ever said it explicitly, we would not be having this conversation at all, would we? Because then, everything would have been straightforward. I still stand to be corrected, of course.

If Ohmshivaya and Atanu had digested the tripurarahasya, as recommended and often quoted by shrI ramaNa, then everything would have been much more straightforward.




As far as I know, in the various gospels, the concept of non-duality was never clearly conveyed by Jesus; nor his “I am …” as understood by Christian theologians, scholars, and laymen, implied non-duality.

Some of the scholars go on to even point out that “I am” itself is an erroneous English translation of the original Hebrew word which Jesus allegedly used. Yet despite the tremendous ambiguity in the “I am …” statement by Jesus …

It is true that “I am” is an insufficient translation of the Hebrew ehyeh asher ehyeh, Greek ego eimi ho on, Latin ego sum qui sum, English I am that I am. And the perfect ambiguity of the original saying has become only confusion through translation of the original texts into English and transmission via such translated texts rather than by the living word of a continuous guru paramparA.

atanu
13 July 2008, 11:17 AM
There can be no doubt that shrI ramaNa agreed with translation, and those who knew him claim that he often quoted from the tripurarahasya, which was one of his favorite texts.


And thus, there can be no doubt that shrI ramaNa spoke the following words:

I will tell you the secret. The cycle of births and deaths is from time immemorial caused by ignorance which displays itself as pleasure and pain and yet is only a dream and unreal. Being so, the wise say that it can be ended by knowledge. By what kind of knowledge? Wisdom born of realisation: viz. “I am That”. [17: 24-26]
The inner self is realised in advanced contemplation and that state of realisation is called nirvikalpa samAdhi. Memory of that realisation enables one to identify the inner self with the universal Self (as “I am That”). [17: 69]


When the mind has completely resolved into the Self, that state is called nirvikalpa samAdhi. After waking up from it, the person is overpowered by the memory of his experience as the one, undivided, infinite, pure Self, and he knows “I am That”, as opposed to the puerile I-thought of the ignorant. That is the vij&#241;Ana (supreme Knowledge). [20: 56]

.

Namaste,

:D

Great and Thank you. If Tripura Rahasya translation is the utterance of Shri Ramana, I agree that Ramana indeed uttered "I am That". No one has said that Ramana is not That. And no one has denied that Ramana not only quoted but He taught Soham from all sources.


shrI ramaNAshramam makes no omission.

But those who claim that shrI ramaNa never said “I am That” have omitted all of the above.


That is excellent. 'shrI ramaNAshramam makes no omission', is sufficient grace from you.

The point was whether Ramana uttered "I am That" or not? If He uttered so for himself, then OK. If not then again OK. We would request Nirotu to explain how he read Dvaita in Ramana's assumed "I am That". It would have been simple.


Om

atanu
13 July 2008, 11:33 AM
If Ohmshivaya and Atanu had digested the tripurarahasya, as recommended and often quoted by shrI ramaNa, then everything would have been much more straightforward.


Namaste sarabhanga,

I agree. If I had digested Tripura Rahasya then I would have agreed with Nirotu and said: "Yes, Nirotu, Ramana uttered "I am That" and he definitely implied Dvaita."And after that agreement everything would have been much more straightforward.

I agree that there is a digestion problem.

Om

TatTvamAsi
13 July 2008, 01:34 PM
...Ramana uttered "I am That" and he definitely implied Dvaita."...

Namaste Atanu,

Can you please explain how "I am THAT", as stated by an Advaitin like Ramana Maharishi even remotely implies Dvaita? Perhaps I'm missing the point of your statement above.

Subham.

nirotu
13 July 2008, 04:41 PM
My rejoinder to Nirotu was to ask where Sri Ramana had actually uttered “I am THAT.’’ If Sri Ramana had ever said it explicitly, we would not be having this conversation at all, would we? Because then, everything would have been straightforward. I still stand to be corrected, of course, by asking Nirotu to submit a citation from where he has drawn this assertion about Sri Ramana stating emphatically “I am that.”

Dear Omshivaya:

As I said before, Advaita and the Mahavakya “I am Brahman” go hand in hand. There is no meaning to the statement “I am Brahman” unless he is an Advaitin. Therefore, it should be intuitive to you what Sage Ramana said and meant. Perhaps, the following should clarify the point.

These are compilation of actual talks of Sage Ramana given over many years. “Thus Spake Ramana” 
Compiled by Lucy Cornelssen
 in Hunting the 'I', 1979. I have taken the liberty of selecting few quotes from Raman’s talks compiled by Lucy. Perhaps, it will shed some light on to what Ramana says regarding “I am that”. I may not have complete transcript on each talk but any avid Ramana followers will be able to provide you.

Please, pay attention to #3 (Talks 92) and let me know what you think. I stand corrected if it implies anything other!

1. Only the annihilation of ‘I’ is Liberation. But it can be gained only by keeping the ‘I...I’ always in view. So the need for the investigation of the 'I’-thought. There is only one ‘I’ all along; but what rises up from time to time is the mistaken ‘I’-thought; whereas the intuitive ‘I’ always remains Self-shining, i.e. even before it becomes manifest. (Talks 139).

2. Your duty is to be; and not to be this or that. ‘I AM THAT I AM’ sums up the whole truth. The method is, summed up in ‘BE STILL’. What does stillness mean? It means ‘destroy yourself’. (Talks 363)


3. The one infinite Unbroken Whole (plenum) becomes aware of Itself as ‘I’. This is the original name. All other names e.g. OM, are later growths. Liberation is only to remain aware of the Self. The Mahavakya ‘I am Brahman’ is its authority. Though the 'I' is always experienced, yet one’s attention has to be drawn to it. Then only knowledge dawns. Thus the need for the instruction of the Upanishads and of wise sages. (Talks 92) (underline/bold my emphasis)

4. Dvaita and Advaita are relative terms. They are based on the sense of duality. The Self is at It is. There is neither dvaita nor advaita. I AM THAT I AM. Simple Being is the Self. (Talks 433)

I have selected these in the hope that my points are taken in that context. Please, explain how you view each of these statements in light of our discussion. I would certainly welcome other interpretations of these to refute the sayings of Sage Ramana, “I am Brahman”.

Sarabhanga raised a very important point: “I am That” assumes “I am that 'I am' (post #38), to which, Atanu replied, "without understanding the 'assumption' it can be very incomplete". Perhaps, Atanu can shed some light on this “assumption”.

Secondly, why do I bring Bible quotes every now and then? Let us see what Sage Ramana has to say about it:

5. The Self is known to everyone but not clearly. You always exist. The Being is the Self. ‘I am’ is the name of God. Of all the definitions of God, none is indeed so well put as the Biblical statement ‘I am that I am’ in Exodus 3, Verse 14. None is so direct as the name JEHOVAH.. .I AM.. The Absolute Being is what is.. .It is the Self. It is God. Knowing the Self, God is known. In fact God is none other than the Self. (Talks 106)

6. The Bible says ‘Be still and know that I am God’. Stillness is the sole requisite for the realization of the Self as God. (Talks 338)


7. This is the Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom of Heaven mentioned in the Bible and this world are not two different regions. ‘The Kingdom is within you, says the Bible. So it is. The realized being sees this as the Kingdom of Heaven whereas others see it as ‘this world’. The difference lies only in the angle of vision. (Talks 609)

There is more but this should give you a glimpse of sage Ramana and his thoughts. What you have failed to see in one of my response was that the Sage Ramana’s affirmation of both modes as written by Sri Sadhu OM in “The Path of Ramana part 1” (post # 44) where he places emphasis on both "Jnana" as well as "devotion".

I have respected Atanu’s views and believed that he also affirms both views with a balance.


Firstly, I have never read in the new-testament and the various gospels, Jesus clearly stating something along the lines of I am THAT, thus conveying his understanding of non-duality of nature.

Obviously, you have not paid attention!

John 10:30, “I and My Father are one.”

What could possibly mean by this statement of Jesus? I would like for you to tell me when Jesus refers to Himself with “I”, does it reflect his lower “I” or the higher “I“ from Ramana’s “I –I”?

There are many verses that clearly show the consciousness in Jesus is in union with the supreme Consciousness.

Equally valid, are the statements by Jesus that reflect duality in the way He operated on earth.

For example,

John 15:1, “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.”

John 16:28, “I came forth from the Father and have come into the world. Again, I leave the world and go to the Father.”

My intention was not to be sidetracked by the question you raised but to see if there is a good explanation for the OP.

Blessings,

satay
13 July 2008, 06:14 PM
Admin Note

This thread is mixing up a lot of different issues.

I request the members to start a separate thread on each issue so that clear, civil, respectful and most of all high quality discussions can happen.

The three or four separate issues seem to be:

- Did Rsi Ramana utter the words "I am that" or Not
- "I am That" is an incomplete mahavakya or Not
- Jesus was following Vedic mahavakyas and Bible is a testimony to that
- Mother Teresa was a sage

This thread is under review and as usual all site rules apply to all members so any statements that break the rules of the HDF will be deleted.

Thanks,