More Pointless debate here

[Sudarshan]

This is only one translation of the passages. For one thing, these devas are not considered to be muktas, even in Sri Shankara's commentary on Vedantasutras, leave alone others. In Kena Upanaishad and many other sources, Agni, Vayu and Indra are all clearly shown to be prone to errors, so how could they be considered as divine manifestations?

On the other hand, these devas are considered divine manifestations because the supreme being is the indweller of them, and they owe their divinity and powers to him.

[satay]

This is only one translation of the passages.


and? :) I suppose it is not the translation that agrees with the copy you have?



For one thing, these devas are not considered to be muktas, even in Sri Shankara's commentary on Vedantasutras, leave alone others. In Kena Upanaishad and many other sources, Agni, Vayu and Indra are all clearly shown to be prone to errors, so how could they be considered as divine manifestations?

Is this relevant to what the commentary I posted? I fail to see the relevance. :naughty:



On the other hand, these devas are considered divine manifestations because the supreme being is the indweller of them, and they owe their divinity and powers to him.

I, too am a divine manifestation! :naughty:

Jai Bajrang bali!

[Sudarshan]

Is this relevant to what the commentary I posted? I fail to see the relevance. :naughty:


Yes, what exactly did you mean by divine manifestation? If you thought that these 33 devas were like Rama or Krishna, then such a view has been snubbed even in Shankara's commentary.( read his Bhasya on Gita 6.47 , 7.17, 9.23 for eg). Not to speak for non advaitin commentaries.;)



I, too am a divine manifestation! :naughty:

Jai Bajrang bali!

Righto - you are one when you know it. Else it is not quite correct. A liar or a materialist imagining himself to a divine manifestation is the biggest hypo...

Jai Bajrang bali:)

The 33 devas are named so because they exhibit one of the qualities of the supreme being primarirly, and hence named so. The supreme being is called by these names in certain contexts based on the guNa, for eg, as Indra due to Aishvarya, as Brahma because of perfection etc. But Brahma or Indra themselves are not Brahman because the possibility is explicitly denied in Gita, for eg:

From the highest world of Brahma down to the lowest, all are places of misery
wherein repeated birth and death take place. But one who attains to My abode, O son of
Kunti, never takes birth again.(Gita 8.16)

If Brahma Loka itself is a place of return, it stands out that these devas(including Brahma) are not muktas themselves.

[satay]

Yes, what exactly did you mean by divine manifestation?


Can you please point me to the word 'divine' in my first post on this thread? I can not find this word.



Righto - you are one when you know it. Else it is not quite correct. A liar or a materialist imagining himself to a divine manifestation is the biggest hypo...


What? :) Either hinduism believes in 'soul' is divine or it doesn't so which is it? Don't you think what you are writing here confuses the reader that may not have any idea of hinduism!



The 33 devas are named so because they exhibit one of the qualities of the supreme being primarirly, and hence named so. The supreme being is called by these names in certain contexts based on the guNa, for eg, as Indra due to Aishvarya, as Brahma because of perfection etc. But Brahma or Indra themselves are not Brahman because the possibility is explicitly denied in Gita, for eg:

From the highest world of Brahma down to the lowest, all are places of misery
wherein repeated birth and death take place. But one who attains to My abode, O son of
Kunti, never takes birth again.(Gita 8.16)

If Brahma Loka itself is a place of return, it stands out that these devas(including Brahma) are not muktas themselves.

This has nothing to do with what I posted! At this point what gita says is not relevant at all. I posted what Brihadaranyaka says, I didn't post anything about gita. If we must twist every hindu scripture to fit one translation of gita then we should throw away all of "holy books" including the vedas. What do you think we should?

You are just derailing the thread. I should report your posts... :)

[Sudarshan]

Can you please point me to the word 'divine' in my first post on this thread? I can not find this word.


The very thread title is suggestive isn't it?;)
God(s)



What? :) Either hinduism believes in 'soul' is divine or it doesn't so which is it? Don't you think what you are writing here confuses the reader that may not have any idea of hinduism!


You are right to some extent. Ideally, dont identify yourself with the divine without direct knolwedge of it. Such a person has been called even by Shankara as an atheist. ( One who says "I am Brahman" without knowing it is worse than an atheist!)



This has nothing to do with what I posted! At this point what gita says is not relevant at all. I posted what Brihadaranyaka says, I didn't post anything about gita. If we must twist every hindu scripture to fit one translation of gita then we should throw away all of "holy books" including the vedas. What do you think we should?


All translations of Gita are upto the point. Why, you can check even with Shankara's translation if you have a doubt. Your throwing away of books is quite a valid comment for some people who take 3-4 verses of pieces of scripture out of context and frame a philosophy over these verses.

[satay]

The very thread title is suggestive isn't it?;)
God(s)

No, I don't think so.




You are right to some extent. Ideally, dont identify yourself with the divine without direct knolwedge of it. Such a person has been called even by Shankara as an atheist. ( One who says "I am Brahman" without knowing it is worse than an atheist!)

There is no 'extent'. Either our soul is divine or not...there is no middle ground here.

I have no idea of what you are saying about "I am Brahman". I never said "I am Brahman". I said that our souls are either divine or they aren't. If they are then it follows that I am a manifestation of the divine. I never said anything about me being brahman.



All translations of Gita are upto the point. Why, you can check even with Shankara's translation if you have a doubt. Your throwing away of books is quite a valid comment for some people who take 3-4 verses of pieces of scripture out of context and frame a philosophy over these verses.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Why do you insist and quote Shankara when there is no need and relevance of it?

So, you agree that we should throw away our vedas and burn all the upanishads and puranas, including ramayana, hanuman chalisa etc. just throw them in the garbage pile and light a match. Is that what we should do? If something we can not twist to match gita then we should throw away that scripture or better yet burn it. Is that what you propose we do?
:naughty:

[Sudarshan]

No, I don't think so.


But I think so. The title says God(s), so one would naturally suppose that you are talking of various God(s). When you mention about 33 God(s) in the same context, it is natural to suppose that you were talking about these as divine manifestations. If that is not what you supposed, then let us leave it here.:)



There is no 'extent'. Either our soul is divine or not...there is no middle ground here.


Something can be either real or not - correct? But Advaita talks of entities that are simultaneously real and unreal.(sadasadvilaxaNa) So we can call soul as divine and non divine simultaneously. Advaitns would have no problems with this theory.



I have no idea of what you are saying about "I am Brahman". I never said "I am Brahman". I said that our souls are either divine or they aren't. If they are then it follows that I am a manifestation of the divine. I never said anything about me being brahman.


No, I just gave an example. First of all, not all Hindus accept that everything is divine. The usefulness of such a doctrine is related to the qualification of the disciple. There is a story:

A guru taught his disciple that everything is divine. The disciple beleived it sincerely. Once he travelled through a thick forest, and chanced upon a tiger. He thought that the tiger was divine and ignored it. That is the end of that story and you can guess what happened in the end.

The problem here is with the guru, who taught him wrongly that everything is divine, thus misleading the disciple to assume that the divine tiger would not harm him. Such teachings are reserved for a select few people in the world, who can grasp the significance correctly.

In Hinduism, Advaita says that everything is divine.
All forms of Vishsitadvaita say that everything is divine though the meaning is different from that of Advaita. In Advaita, Brahman being everything is actually illogical because the world is only an illusion, so you can say that everything being divine is actually taught correctly( in full essence) only by VA.

Majority of the people in the world are content with separating the creator from creation, and they are quite happy with it. In some respects this is a practical philosophy because it does not leave us in no man's land when trying to explain the phenomenon of ignorant jivas.( which is quite absurd if you consider that all is divine, thus attributing ignorance to the divinity as well). One could flip his collars and claim that he is divine, but why is that divinity does not know itself - no really logical answers are possible, except trying to escape the question with answers like this is an illusion(whose illusion?) or divinity willed so etc.

What does Hinduism teach in this regard? We have all kinds of opinions in this regard, and whom should we take as authoritative? Most people thought that everything is real and also divine, so we could take this as the standard version of Hindusm.




So, you agree that we should throw away our vedas and burn all the upanishads and puranas, including ramayana, hanuman chalisa etc. just throw them in the garbage pile and light a match. Is that what we should do? If something we can not twist to match gita then we should throw away that scripture or better yet burn it. Is that what you propose we do?
:naughty:

Yes, that is what Advaita seems to think. Because based on a few verses they call as Mahavakyas, the rest of the scripture is dubbed as an illusion or of inferior nature.;) :naughty:

[Singhi Kaya]

Yes, that is what Advaita seems to think. Because based on a few verses they call as Mahavakyas, the rest of the scripture is dubbed as an illusion or of inferior nature.;) :naughty:

"Based on the few mahavakyas the rest of the scripture can be better understood. Finally it's our expereince which can verify the scriptures, there is no other way.":doh:

Anyways a thread started with the purpose of pure inspiration (that what it seemed to me) need not be dragged into another pointless debate of dvaita and advaita.

Regarding your tiger example the problem is with the mental conception of divine the deciple had and not with the teaching of everything is divine. You see mind is the place of bondage and whole point is to get beyond mind or the way we see through mind where pure sensory perceptions are convoluted by our chitta ~ the key of monism as I understand it. And in these arguments we are just doing that.

[Sudarshan]

So, you agree that we should throw away our vedas and burn all the upanishads and puranas, including ramayana, hanuman chalisa etc. just throw them in the garbage pile and light a match. Is that what we should do? If something we can not twist to match gita then we should throw away that scripture or better yet burn it. Is that what you propose we do?


Did not understand the significance of Hanuman Chalisa here, it is not scripture - but a hymn. It is not recognized by some Vaishnavas because it says Hanuman is "Shankar suvan". (descendent or incarnation of Shiva).

Except for Madhvas who equate the word prANa in scripture to Vayu and consequently Hanuman, rest of the Hindus have no definite conclusions regarding Hanuman. For some, he is an incarnation of Rudra( for some as Ajaikapad and for some as the Rudra named Bhagavan), for others as son of Vayu etc. Shruti has no references regarding the position or nature of Hanuman( except for Madhvas), so we have to trace it entirely to purANas and itihasas. Ramayana is perhaps the most authentic account of Hanuman, which describes him as the highest form of Vishnu(Rama) Bhakti and as a son of Vayu. There is no explicit reference to Hanuman as "Shankara Suvan" in Ramayana, and hence some dont accept it.

However, Hanuman being Rudra is quite possible given that there are exactly 11 major vAnara categories in Ramayana, each capable of jumping from 10-100 Yojanas in multiples of 10( the ten lower Rudras), and Hanuman being able to jump both sides.( the "senior" Rudra named Shankara). Atleast this is my personal view.

[Sudarshan]

Regarding your tiger example the problem is with the mental conception of divine the deciple had and not with the teaching of everything is divine. You see mind is the place of bondage and whole point is to get beyond mind or the way we see through mind where pure sensory perceptions are convoluted by our chitta ~ the key of monism as I understand it. And in these arguments we are just doing that.

But this is the exact problem. If the disciple had a problem of mental conception of the divine, it was better to teach him something different to bring him to the level, a point thoroughly missed by all monists. The guru need not repeat the same monotonous teaching to everybody. The first standard student and the post graduate student are never taught the same lessons, and that does not mean the first standard student is ever cheated by his teacher.

You are probably unaware that VA is much closer to monism than dualism in essence. But it rarely ever teaches its part of monism in a big way because most people are not prepared to even bear this, and certain questions can be answered satisfactorily only by dualism. With practical considerations in mind, Vishsitadvaita emphasis only the seSha-seShi bhava, or that which teaches that jiva is a dependent(servant) of God. It makes a person quickly loose his ego, if he considers himself a servant of God. Of course, I understand that jIva is much more than a servant in mukti. But the dAsya bhAva is a very powerful means of God realization.

The fact that most religions preach only pure dualism must stand in proof that most people are qualified only for that. They have to be afraid of God, fight, kill and be divisive in order to reach the higher flights of philsophical truth where there is an organic unity of existance. That is the play of God, or so it seems.;)

[Singhi Kaya]

But this is the exact problem. If the disciple had a problem of mental conception of the divine, it was better to teach him something different to bring him to the level, a point thoroughly missed by all monists. The guru need not repeat the same monotonous teaching to everybody. The first standard student and the post graduate student are never taught the same lessons, and that does not mean the first standard student is ever cheated by his teacher.

You are probably unaware that VA is much closer to monism than dualism in essence. But it rarely ever teaches its part of monism in a big way because most people are not prepared to even bear this, and certain questions can be answered satisfactorily only by dualism. With practical considerations in mind, Vishsitadvaita emphasis only the seSha-seShi bhava, or that which teaches that jiva is a dependent(servant) of God. It makes a person quickly loose his ego, if he considers himself a servant of God. Of course, I understand that jIva is much more than a servant in mukti. But the dAsya bhAva is a very powerful means of God realization.

The fact that most religions preach only pure dualism must stand in proof that most people are qualified only for that. They have to be afraid of God, fight, kill and be divisive in order to reach the higher flights of philsophical truth where there is an organic unity of existance. That is the play of God, or so it seems.;)

I have read about an interesting encounter between Sri Shankaracharya and his param Guru Gaudapada.

Sri Shankaracharya had triumphantly won a debate somewhere and was on his way to Utkal (modern orrisa) when he met gaudapada. He prostrated before the venerable old man and told him that with gaudapada's blessing he has been able to defeat bouddha vada in north india and made advaita triumphant. He said that he desires to seek his blessings and spend some time discussing advaita with him, before continuing on the journey to establish advaita throughout India. Sri Gaudapada smiled at this and said that Sri Shankara may still have some thing to learn about advaita. Hearing these words from his venerable param guru Shankara realized that he was perhaves a little to arrogant in front of his own param guru on advaita. He humbly asked for Gaudapada's openion on the matter. gaudapada said that if Shankara had indeed realized the advaita then he wouldn't have to speak to gaudapada as you for the both of them were one. That he regarded gaudapada as a seperate entity from himslef suggest his own realization was still in the realm of dvaita. This made shankaracharya reflect deeply. He took gadapada's blessings and proceeded to Utkal.

The crux of this story as explained is, that advaita is the final aim of the spirtual journey and throught the whole path dvaita can only be the mental conception of God which a sadhak can follow. Otherwise advaitins cannot even do upasana. W/o upasana and work nothing can happen. The entire science of Upasana (whether pure devotional or Yogic) is based on dvaita. One cannot worship thinking himself to be God. Gaudapada gently reminded Shankara that his own philosphy is the final goal which Shankara himself had not yet attained.

My little knowledge tells be that most monist leanages understand this. Otherwise shaktas won't worship shakti and hold devotion to Goddess so high and Monist Shaiva's wouldn't pray to Shiva!!!
The intellectual advaita vedantin is perhaves a modern concept and a mordern phenominan. Shankara didn't do that ~ on contrary he established worship of various Gods and goddesses in his mathas and he united many theistic sects under one umbrella. He himself is known to be Tara upasak like Buddha.

Modern intellectual vedantin started only a century or so ago if I'm not wrong.

[satay]

I have moved the pointless my dad can beat up your dad kind of debate here. Please continue...I have other better things to worry about...

Sudarshan, I have no idea what you are talking about...shiva, brahman, advaita, VA...I have no clue where you are coming from and why you started talking about this. I have no time to continue with this. sorry...

:6804382843:

thanks,

[Znanna]

Deva-ine does not equal benign, particularly to the rational mind.


ZN

________________

Just a girl :)