PDA

View Full Version : The Bickerings/Complaints



sm78
12 November 2009, 06:15 AM
There is no point in desiring to live less or living without involved in action (not just agni hotra, though it used to be a nitya karma for a certain set of people). This is simple meaning of the verse, the same being reflected from in the whole of gita.

Till I picked up and read sankara bhasya of gita, I regarded him as the person who saved sanatana dharma. After reading his gymnastics with gita to prove supremacy of sannyasa and jnana - I now know he is one of the person's who destroyed sanatana dharma. Historically the begining of the decline of sanatana dharma, the dominance of emotional bhavavada and destruction of kshatriya thought can be traced back to his time.

It is indeed better to be a bauddha than this strange doctrine he proposed to explain few verses of some upanisads - destroying an entire religion in the process.

Good thing is that we had the agamic and tantric religion to save the day, though hypocritically his followers picked even tantra up as something propagated by sankara and changing it to suit their limited ideas.

Most people will pee their pants to admit this, unless he is a hater of vedic religion or a vaishnava fanatic.

devotee
12 November 2009, 11:10 AM
Namaste Sm78,



Till I picked up and read sankara bhasya of gita, I regarded him as the person who saved sanatana dharma. After reading his gymnastics with gita to prove supremacy of sannyasa and jnana - I now know he is one of the person's who destroyed sanatana dharma. Historically the begining of the decline of sanatana dharma, the dominance of emotional bhavavada and destruction of kshatriya thought can be traced back to his time.

Can you prove this through History, sm78 ? The Hindus became weaker not because of Sankara's philosophy. Absolutely not ! You must understand that not even 0.001 % of Hindus are even aware of Sankara's bhasya of Gita, let alone read it & be affected by what it says. It was actually Sankara who saved Hinduism from the onslaught of Buddhism.

I myself have tried to see how India, which once had the strongest & richest empire in India since Chandragupta Maurya & in whole of Gupta dynasty, deteriorated & became so weak. My finding is that the strong dynasty set up by Chandragupta Maurya became after Kalinga war in the time of Ashok. After Kalinga war, Ashok became a hardcore Buddhist. He spent a very huge amount of money to spread the teachings of Buddha .... not only in India but also outside India. The revenue which was to be used to maintain a strong army, improve economy & scientific research was spent for spreading Buddhism. You may like to do some research & get some idea on how much he spent on this madness.

Due to this policy of Ashok, the needed inputs to strengthen army (which was considered more of a liability by Ashok after Kalinga war) & research required to maintain edge in warfare stopped. This gradually led to collapse of the empire & also weakening of India as a country as it disintegrated into many small states. They had lost their power to defend themselves as they lost their unity & that led to defeat of India as a nation first at the hands of the aggressors from the Islamic world & then by the British. The Islamic aggressors who settled here, tried to accept India as their country but then it was a very difficult task for them to be readily accepted by the Hindu Kings ruling in various states. Akbar tried to bring a new face of secular & strong united India but his all efforts were brought to a naught by a hardcore Muslim successor Aurangjeb. He lost sympathy of all Hindu Kings & the Hindu masses. That led to disintegration of this nation again into many states who were very weak economically & also militarily. On the top of it, whatever strength they had, they used that in fighting among each others. How could such a nation save itself from the onslaught of a united, disciplined force of the west who had a very strong scientifically advanced stockpile of arms with them ?

You are doing the same mistake unknowingly what our forefathers did. Your thoughts will only help dividing the Hindus ( now as Advaitins & non-advaitins) again & weakening us ( may be only a little but why should we allow that ?). It is time we learn from our history.

No, you are not at all helping the Hindu society. I hope you understand.

OM

chandu_69
12 November 2009, 11:36 AM
There is no point in desiring to live less or living without involved in action (not just agni hotra, though it used to be a nitya karma for a certain set of people). This is simple meaning of the verse, the same being reflected from in the whole of gita.

Well, that is a straight forward and sensible interpretation.


Till I picked up and read sankara bhasya of gita, I regarded him as the person who saved sanatana dharma. After reading his gymnastics with gita to prove supremacy of sannyasa and jnana

This obsession with being a useless sanyasi perhaps contributed to the decay of Indic civilization.But as i understand sankaracharya was a man of action.There appears to be a dichotomy between what he preached and what he did.


Historically the begining of the decline of sanatana dharma, the dominance of emotional bhavavada and destruction of kshatriya thought can be traced back to his time.

The rot, it appears was set much earlier.

devotee
12 November 2009, 10:11 PM
Namaste Atanu,


Nothing can be simpler. If one fails to understand this simple thing then only one sees evils all around -- starting with Muslims, then Christians, then Gandhi, and then Shankaracharya. Finally, Hinduism itself may be abandoned?

The Reality is "Asti, Bhaati & Preeti". There is one reality which actually exists, which appears as the multitude within this creation & which is nothing but Love. So, that gives me an instrument to check if I am on the right path or I am treading a wrong path. How ?

The Reality is Preeti & if my path teaches me hatred & not Preeti/love for all around me, I am certainly not on the right path. This is a simple test for me.

However, here, I have been witnessing hatred even on non-issues :

a) Supreme God is only Vishnu. I am a Vaishnavite & only I am on the right path ! I hate Shavites & Shaktas who think that Shiva or the mother goddess are as Supreme as Vishnu.
b) I hate homosexuals because their sexual orientation is different from what is "natural".
c) I simply hate Advaitin because I don't understand what their philosophy is !
d) I hate Mahatma Gandhi because he doesn't subscribe to my idea of the correct path. I would never give him any credit for his efforts towards our independence. Actually, he did all this because somewhere inside, he was a non-Hindu !
e) I actually hate everyone who preach Ahimsa/non-violence.
f) I hate eating meat & so I hate any idea which supports meat eating. To tell you frankly, I really hate those people.
g ) I hate Sankaracharya because my idea of Truth doesn't match what he said !

The last one is certainly the highest peak among all hate peaks to climb !

I must make it clear that everything whatever is written above has been taken from the discussions on this forum only.

OM

Harjas Kaur
13 November 2009, 05:32 AM
I'm seeing what you're seeing, but I had a slightly different perception:

a) Supreme God is only Vishnu. I am a Vaishnavite & only I am on the right path ! Who are influenced by Abrahamics and therefore want to intolerantly missionize everybody into knowing the only TRUE and PROPER path...Theirs! I'm afraid of Shavites & Shaktas who think Shiva or the mother goddess (this causes greatest unease) are as Supreme as Vishnu.

b) I am disapproving of homosexuals who do not think to change a promiscuous lifestyle and want to encroach western moral liberalism into traditional values such as bramacharya and marriage... And yes, because their sexual orientation is different from what is "natural". (I'm not saying this is right but can't deny)

c) I simply get annoyed hearing Advaitin justifications because they often sound like gobbydegook (who would admit not understanding! :doh:) because it's easy to fly into higher dimension off the chessboard to avoid checkmate.)

d)I am grieved by and reject Mohandas Gandhi as Mahatma because he left legacy which condemned the Dharma of Kshattriya as "immoral" and "unspiritual" and interpreted from strict Jain(not Hindu) principles which alienated Sikhs from central government causing morchas since the foundation of independence; did nothing as a public political leader to bolster national defense during partition of Punjab andpreached suicide in face of declared Muslim jihad as a National public policy, which caused incalculable misery. Yet tried to soothe only Muslim communities while guilting Hindu/Sikh communities who suffered far worse; Left legacy of Congress Party in power riding coattails of his fame who promote extreme and idiotic secularism defending terrorists while demonizing Nationalists under delusion of respected non-violent principles who were later responsible for hypocritical massacre of Sikhs.

I cannot help legacy of Gandhi name and Congress Party is so tarnished as to put kalunk on own face with Sajjan Kumar and Jagdish Tytler on election tickets. I would never give him any credit for his efforts towards our independence because his policies nearly destroyed Sikh community in partition. And because he aggressively propagated (non-Hindu) strict JAIN ahimsa as National policy while criticizing as "unspiritual" and "ignoble" the holiness of Kshatriya Dharm. Gandhi rejected Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj the Father of Sikhs and also Chatrapatti Shivaji Maharaj as"misguided patriots" while promoting own strict Jain ahimsa as superior moral and spiritual path, even as those following it were dying in millions.

And for Nehru-Gandhi power party suppressing true value of Netaji Subash Chandra Bose and Azad Hind sacrifices and contribution to Indian independence only to enlarge their own glory.

e) I actually am grieved by those who belittle suffering of Sikhs and Hindu's to blindly promote Gandhi's policies of Muslim appeasement, self-righteousness of Jain Ahimsa, and hypocritical secularism (which murders Sikhs, condemns Nationalists and defends Communist and Muslim terrorists and Christian missionaries in media) because they think strict Jain ahimsa will solve nuclear and terror crisis.:eek: Anyone who naively believes strict suicidal Jain ahimsa is a proper response to National security is a crazy person.

(Police without bulletproof jackets and WWII era rifles responding to sophisticated equipment of professionally trained Mumbai terrorists and dying due to government neglect from lack of proper equipment is a national disgrace!) And such is the cost of blindly elevating Gandhi suicidal Ahimsa principles so high into the stratosphere that common sense is lost.

Having pro-Communist and Pro-Muslim news media who manipulate sympathies of the public AGAINST Nationalists and the National security interest, OPEN DOORS to aggressive elements creating acts of terrorism. It's just more Gandhian suicidal illogic based on Jain-Buddhi heresy in the guise of spiritual Hinduism while trampling the noble ideal of Hindutva.

f) I strongly disagree with people who condemn eating meat although I practice vegetarianism simply because strict vegetarianism is a Jain concept negating validity and holiness of Kshatriya Dharm. Guru Gobind Singh did hunt animals, regardless of whether anyone can prove Lord Ram did, and Akali Nihangs still practice a form of Kali jhatka puja and place blood tilak on shastars. So those who strictly condemn meat eating and animal sacrifice are still condemning Kshatriya Dharm in violation of Sruti of varna system against all Hindu heritage, while calling the same as spiritual heretics. Never in history of Hinduism did DHARMA survive without Kshatriyas.

g ) I don't appreciate Sankaracharya Ji name dragged into debates to misinterpret him giving support for extreme Jain-Buddhi Dharm so it can unwisely be misapplied to political situations! There, fixed it. Was colorful no?

devotee
13 November 2009, 06:20 AM
HK ji,

I send my strongest love for you. :)

May be that helps !

OM

Ganeshprasad
13 November 2009, 06:23 AM
Pranam all




a) Supreme God is only Vishnu. I am a Vaishnavite & only I am on the right path ! I hate Shavites & Shaktas who think that Shiva or the mother goddess are as Supreme as Vishnu.
b) I hate homosexuals because their sexual orientation is different from what is "natural".
c) I simply hate Advaitin because I don't understand what their philosophy is !
d) I hate Mahatma Gandhi because he doesn't subscribe to my idea of the correct path. I would never give him any credit for his efforts towards our independence. Actually, he did all this because somewhere inside, he was a non-Hindu !
e) I actually hate everyone who preach Ahimsa/non-violence.
f) I hate eating meat & so I hate any idea which supports meat eating. To tell you frankly, I really hate those people.
g ) I hate Sankaracharya because my idea of Truth doesn't match what he said !

The last one is certainly the highest peak among all hate peaks to climb !

I must make it clear that everything whatever is written above has been taken from the discussions on this forum only.

OM

And all this has now become your irk, you see there is no escaping this hate.
You may claim this is just an observation and that is true, that is call vivek which borders on both side of hate and love.



To tell you frankly, I really hate those people.

just a polite question is this your observation or your real hate?
if it is just an observation, i have yet to come across anyone on this forum who has expressed this opinion, i may be wrong though.



Jai Shree Krishna

Harjas Kaur
13 November 2009, 07:48 AM
I had to change neon colors in the above post because my eyes were spinning! I don't believe anybody on this forum is hating anybody. I understand every human being has emotional feelings and is pained over politics which so often fail our noblest aspirations. Everybody has some error of perception.

I did not intend, while engaging in these debates to drag Gandhi down to level of nindya of a saint. Because that is always regrettable and wrong. To hurt another person's spiritual sentiments who is admiring a saint's good qualities only to magnify the bad is wrong. And I'm sorry for this. On the other hand, it should be recognized that not everyone thinks so highly of Gandhi. It should be respected that there are legitimate grievances with Gandhi's political policies. Gandhi's political policies also are not the same as his qualities as a saint. To criticize political policies is not criticizing a saint, even if it hurts his overly magnified reputation. And people shouldn't defend a saint by blindly whitewashing political policies that were ineffective or detrimental to the National interest.

We should have the maturity and insight (vivek) to not blindly defend and cling to mistakes of the past and be able to learn from wise katha of spiritual minded people, even who disagree with us. There is no wisdom in silencing any legitimate voice. If we eliminate either side of the equation, there will be imbalance and grave harm to the Nation.

We are all talking about Dharma, and we are all bound to abide by it, each according to their own varna. We can't negate that our priests and Vedic scholars and truly spiritual people will promote peace and kindness and justice heroically against injustice. Nor can we negate that our military, police and kshatriya communities will support destruction of the Nation's enemies. Vaishyas will promote negotiations and economic advantage. Shudras are bearing the unjust burden of poverty and hard work without advantages of social justice and safety net of protection and respectful gratitude and basic dignity and thus have become the Nation's weakest link in National vulnerability to the forces of Communism, Atheism, Christian missionaries, and Islamic jihadis. And in truth, no varna should be so unprotected, neglected, marginalized or defamed. Without the proper functioning of all the varnas the Dharma is doomed.

A discussion should never go to the extreme where people speak in angry voices, and I am guilty here. Because this is what leads to unnecessary nindya of a respected saint and Father of the Nation hurting sentiments of good-hearted Indian people who I love. Gandhi cannot be denied his good qualities and contribution. And I'm sorry where I did so.But equally people shouldn't be unfairly demonizing Kshatriya dharm and politics of Nationalist opposition party or denying legitimate grievances with Gandhi policies either. This is what politics does. It paints with so broad a brush that truth is lost on both sides. Without a truthful foundation, the politics are guaranteed to fail.

devotee
13 November 2009, 08:16 AM
And all this has now become your irk, you see there is no escaping this hate.

No. You are not getting it right.


just a polite question is this your observation or your real hate?

I send my love to you too ! :)

OM

satay
13 November 2009, 09:47 AM
Admin Note

This thread has been created so that most bickerings and complaints can be posted here. I shall move all such posts to this thread.

Thanks,

Harjas Kaur
13 November 2009, 10:01 AM
7. When a man realises that all beings are but the Self, what delusion is there, what grief, to that perceiver of oneness?

Nothing can be simpler. If one fails to understand this simple thing then only one sees evils all around -- starting with Muslims, then Christians, then Gandhi, and then Shankaracharya. Finally, Hinduism itself may be abandoned?
Until we achieve that state of Turiya consciousness, and not merely the parroting of descriptions of it in the face of the clear reality of this world and our present existence. Someone may chant the world is illusion until they turn purple. And on one level of reality, this is truth. But on this level of material reality, if someone pops a gun in his face, he will blow his head off and such with real bullets. And the man who skull is thus shattered may never speak or live again. Is it not "real?"

So this is the problem of misapplying depth spiritual principles naively to practical situations of the material world. A truly enlightened person, can he die? Yes! IF he is in the physical body. That physicality may die. Yet that which is indestructible within him, his core essence, his atma, his consciousness can never die.

Like the subatomic particle which is the apparent building block of all mater is essentially empty at it's core, there remains a fundamental shunya at the core of material existence. Yet, if I slam my hand through a wall, I will break it. Why? Isn't everything illusion and fundamental emptiness and Turiya undifferentiated Oneness? Or are we misapplying these spiritual teachings? The wall is real IN THIS PERCEIVABLE DIMENSION despite the equally true reality and perhaps greater truth that at it's core essence the wall is really empty.

A subatomic particle is both an object limited in time and space. Just as it legitimately is a wave of energy infinite in all directions. THIS IS THE NATURE OF DUALITY IN SANSAAR. Or shall we say, duality doesn't exist, even as you are embodied and required to poop in the pot! And don't anyone here deny that he doesn't. I'm not impressed with that pretense of enlightenment which can't distinguish fundamental realities of the Earth plane. As long as you are HERE, you are in duality sansaar with the rest of us regardless of where your consciousness might fly off to.

Turiya is that degree of consciousness which has transcended the bondage of the three gunas. It does not become ignorance which denies the obvious. Did or Did not the sansaar originate from the Pranava? And if it did, then sansaar is existing in time and space in full materiality until such time as the Lord sees fit to liberate us all. And because we are HERE, with hopefully feet on the ground and not in the nether dimension, we have to confront the limitations of our embodied state. What is the Buddhist saying, "After enlightenment you still have to take out the laundry?" BELIEVE ME, if you don't take out the laundry I'm going to get you! The Christians also have a similar saying, "People can be so heavenly they're no earthly good."

When a man realises that all beings are but the Self, what delusion is there, what grief, to that perceiver of oneness?
Do people on this forum feel grief at criticisms of Gandhi? Then don't pretend to have a level of realization which has transcended grief. In true Turiya, a brahmgyan would not even have a thought to respond to these discussions, let alone annoy people with a counter opinion because he would be freed of need for them. Since none of us are on that high plane, we still have to contend with real world problems, and real world delusions and continued cyclic existence. So don't blame ordinary people for "misperceiving" Shankaracharya's high level of Turiya brahmgyan who are trying to correct logical misapplications of these teachings to IGNORING sansaaric reality. Is duality a part of the sansaar? Then duality exists as real in the sansaar. As long as we exist in the sansaar things like male-female, hot-cold, pleasure-pain, evil-good, Hindu-Muslim jihadi ARE ALSO REAL HERE. We aren't misperceiving the (unreal existence of Muslims) because Muslims exist on this level of perceivable reality. We aren't hating Muslims simply to perceive their existence(in this duality sansaar). NOR are we hating Muslims in general to oppose Muslim jihadis with real explosives which can kill us, and opposing their (yes it is real) hateful AGENDA.

Don't make sweeping ridiculous generalizations about how terrorists don't exist, aren't the true reality, and are part of the Oneness of the Divine. Or blame we who oppose terrorism as somehow the hateful terrorists ourselves. Because that brings shame to the brahmgyan of Shankaracharya's teachings. Ultimately, yes, beyond and outside of the time-space dimension of sansaaric reality, it is true, everything is Oneness. But in this dimension people with guns kill, and people who die don't get up and keep living. So this is a lower level of reality we have to contend with and having to have this conversation at all is ludicrous in the extreme. I feel sorry for Shankaracharya.

devotee
13 November 2009, 10:12 AM
That is really a good post, Harjas Kaur ji (though I used a mild filter to separate some unnecessary words/terms) !

I agree with you. I don't think anyone will disagree. :)

OM

satay
13 November 2009, 10:25 AM
Amen.


But in this dimension people with guns kill, and people who die don't get up and keep living. So this is a lower level of reality we have to contend with and having to have this conversation at all is ludicrous in the extreme. I feel sorry for Shankaracharya.

atanu
15 November 2009, 12:03 AM
Deleted.

chandu_69
15 November 2009, 02:37 AM
So when an incarnation of Shiva teaches

It is strange that the supposedly Lord shiva's incarnation didnt establish Shaiva peetham.

Sankaracharya established two Sharadamba peethams but not one exclusive shaiva peetham.

Harjas Kaur
15 November 2009, 08:39 AM
Karma cannot make the Self change into a Self Realised person. The Self is always realised. Pure Karma helps to remove dross from the mind, which then automatically sees its own source.The Self is not the jeev. The karma and dharma help cleanse the obscurations of consciousness (karamas, vasanas, disturbed vrittis, skandas, kaleshas, haumai) under the guidance of a Satguru. With sehaja/gracefully, unfolding naturally like fruit ripens, the transformation of consciousness occurs. The ideas propounded regarding non-existence of jihadi Muslims in the material world with capacity to do harm and the deliberate blaming of nationalists who oppose their terrorism as being terrorists themselves reflect anything BUT enlightenment. I feel sorry that Sankaracharya's wise teachings on discrimination have been relegated to violations of common sense and political attacks on Nationalism. It's an utter misapplication of wise teachings of Sankaracharya Ji. He is not in "your" hip pocket. Neither are his teachings for or against Nationalist political policies.

Why condemn viewpoints of people in the material world if you are so far above it? That only provokes a response. And that is called karma. You are just hiding your resentment for certain political views in quotes from scriptures that don't even conclude what you do. Take responsibility for your political views and just come out and state them. Then accept there will be those who agree and those who disagree. But pretended spiritual condemnations as if you could hide your politics under color of authority of Sruti is ridiculous. Your political opinions are just as bound by karma as anyone's. And it's really bad form to quote scriptures to criticize other people's viewpoints as if you stand in the place of God.

So when an incarnation of Shiva teaches and equates Karma with Avidya, we need not be sarcastic for our own good. We need to do contemplation for our own good.You need to get some common sense for your own good. Avidya is a 2-way street. And "you" are not Sankaracharya correcting "our" avidya. Contemplate that. Now don't get me wrong. I actually do appreciate your insights, you're intelligent and well read, and I make a point to read your posts. But in the matter of politics we disagree. And you are not standing in any self-righteous Supreme position of Divine Abrahamic authority to condemn anyone else's political views. Thanks.

Eastern Mind
15 November 2009, 09:01 AM
Until we achieve that state of Turiya consciousness, and not merely the parroting of descriptions of it in the face of the clear reality of this world and our present existence. Someone may chant the world is illusion until they turn purple. And on one level of reality, this is truth. But on this level of material reality, if someone pops a gun in his face, he will blow his head off and such with real bullets. And the man who skull is thus shattered may never speak or live again. Is it not "real?"

So this is the problem of misapplying depth spiritual principles naively to practical situations of the material world.

Excellent. Exactly why I find Advaita and simplistic Vedanta totally impractical.

I find it also used as an excuse for not practising values, no different than the ridiculous, "I can do what I want because Jesus will forgive me." attitude of self-righteous Christians.

"Because I am actually the Self, all this 'stuff' doesn't matter."

Go read the Tirukkural. Certainly Tiruvalluvar realised this many centuries ago. That's where most of us are at, and I venture to say 95% or higher of anyone on here.

Aum Namasivaya

atanu
15 November 2009, 12:53 PM
Excellent. Exactly why I find Advaita and simplistic Vedanta totally impractical.

I find it also used as an excuse for not practising values, no different than the ridiculous, "I can do what I want because Jesus will forgive me." attitude of self-righteous Christians.

"Because I am actually the Self, all this 'stuff' doesn't matter."

Go read the Tirukkural. Certainly Tiruvalluvar realised this many centuries ago. That's where most of us are at, and I venture to say 95% or higher of anyone on here.

Aum Namasivaya

Namaste EM,

Can you show any of your assertions to be valid for Advaita darshana from teachings of Advaita teachers? Have they taught anything of what you allege? Or can you show such opinion from Gurudeva's writings?

Om Namah Shivaya

Eastern Mind
15 November 2009, 02:18 PM
Atanu: I don't understand what you mean by assertions. I was merely agreeing with part of HK's post that struck me. Sorry of you feel I am asserting anything. I didn't post just to start an intellectual argument so I will stop now. Forgive me for my ingorance.

Aum Namasivaya

atanu
16 November 2009, 12:21 AM
Atanu: I don't understand what you mean by assertions.

Namaste EM,

OK.


I didn't post just to start an intellectual argument so I will stop now. Forgive me for my ingorance.
Aum Namasivaya

Om

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

chandu_69
22 November 2009, 06:59 PM
Shankaracharya was a great sanatani, who was beyond the realms of shaiva,vaishnava,shakta. I find it sad that few people advocate the great acharya according to their own liking.Its improper to take few of his quotes and try to justify one's stance. The same achrya also wrote these lines -

प्रजेशं रमेशं महेशं सुरेशं
दिनेशं निशीथेश्वरं वा कदाचित् ।
न जानामि चान्यत् सदाहं शरण्ये
गतिस्त्वं गतिस्त्वं त्वमेका भवानि (bhavani ashtakam)
Prajesam, Ramesam, Mahesam, Suresam,
Dhinesam, Nisidheswaram vaa kadachit,
Na janami chanyath sadaham saranye,
Gathisthwam, Gathisthwam thwam ekaa Bhavani

Neither Do I know the creator,
Nor the Lord of Lakshmi,
Neither do I know the lord of all,
Nor do I know the lord of devas,
Neither do I know the God who makes the day,
Nor the God who rules at night,
Neither do I know any other Gods,
Oh, Goddess to whom I bow always,
So you are my refuge and my only refuge, Bhavani

Bhavani Asthakam (http://www.astrojyoti.com/bhavaniasthakam.htm) composed by Shankaracharya ji shows his humility which is sadly lacking in the Modern advaitans who don't mind quoting bogus translations of Upanishads to shove their views down the throats of people.





what if shakta quotes these lines to prove acharya believed only in meenakshi devi ?

They would be justified in doing that since Shankaracharya ji established Saradamba peethams.

The only thing i will say love the god you like, but not at cost giving pains to others.


Now, that is what i call a sane voice.

isavasya
22 November 2009, 11:08 PM
[/b]Bhavani Asthakam (http://www.astrojyoti.com/bhavaniasthakam.htm) composed by Shankaracharya ji shows his humility which is sadly lacking in the Modern advaitans who don't mind quoting bogus translations of Upanishads to shove their views down the throats of people.


Namaste chandu ji,

I was born in one of the holiest and sacred vaishnava town of Gaya in a vaishnava family,though as a tradition in this part of world there is no difference in bhakti of shiva,rama or durga maa.

sir,what makes you believe advaitins shove their (BOGUS) views on others, and followers of madhva,ramanuja dont ? You are already convinced that advaitins are living in darkness and you have taken a vow to illuminate them with the only right view of upanishad.


When I was in my hometown or even 4 years in delhi, I found no body rejecting any bhakta's god as being a demi god or semi god, but only on social networking I have seen this. My dear sir, advaitins might discuss their views, just as others do. In discussing philosophy yes there can be overlap in views of different acharyas, but most of the time the ego comes when discussing about Ishwara. Certainly when it comes to god some people even show views like those of abrahamic cults.


This country has different philosophical views,forever had and will forever have,but we have been respectful towards other, which shows the greatness of veda dharma, but why lose this mutual respect. Is it because of influence of Islam or xianity ?In india for us, even our mother, father and guru are god.

Om namo narayana

chandu_69
22 November 2009, 11:53 PM
Namste isavasya ji,


Namaste chandu ji,

I was born in one of the holiest and sacred vaishnava town of Gaya in a vaishnava family,though as a tradition in this part of world there is no difference in bhakti of shiva,rama or durga maa.

That there is not much difference among hindus regarding bhakthi irrespective of the diety they worship is pretty much the same throughout india.


sir,what makes you believe advaitins shove their (BOGUS) views on others,I said Modern advaitans use bogus translations to bolster their modern advaitan ideas.There is abundtant proof on hdf forums.Pls take a look.


and followers of madhva,ramanuja dont ?Sure, some do.


You are already convinced that advaitins are living in darkness and you have taken a vow to illuminate them with the only right view of upanishad.I have no intention to show them(the modern advaitans) the right way, since i am not qualified to do that.what i am pointing out is the posting of outright bogus translations.



When I was in my hometown or even 4 years in delhi, I found no body rejecting any bhakta's god as being a demi god or semi god, but only on social networking I have seen this.

That is true in general, throughout India.The bogus god stuff exists only on internet.


My dear sir, advaitins might discuss their views, just as others do. In discussing philosophy yes there can be overlap in views of different acharyas, but most of the time the ego comes when discussing about Ishwara. Certainly when it comes to god some people even show views like those of abrahamic cults.

If you notice the threads, most of them are hijacked with some freak MODERN advaitan ideas to the extent that even shankaracharya was misquoted.a couple of posters see advaitan ideas in islam and christianity and hence go to the extent of defending the missionaries and jihadis.


but most of the time the ego comes when discussing about Ishwara

Just take a look at who creates most of the controversies.if you notice i always try to put an end to the supremacy discussions.



This country has different philosophical views,forever had and will forever have,but we have been respectful towards other, which shows the greatness of veda dharma, but why lose this mutual respect.I dont beleive this is a networking site to make friends.My concern is that few individuals with their own ideas of Advaita are flooding the threads with incorrect information with the zeal of christian missionaries.You hardly see any Bhakthi in these forums nowadays.

ranjeetmore
23 November 2009, 02:02 AM
Namaste chandu ji,

I was born in one of the holiest and sacred vaishnava town of Gaya in a vaishnava family,though as a tradition in this part of world there is no difference in bhakti of shiva,rama or durga maa.

sir,what makes you believe advaitins shove their (BOGUS) views on others, and followers of madhva,ramanuja dont ? You are already convinced that advaitins are living in darkness and you have taken a vow to illuminate them with the only right view of upanishad.


When I was in my hometown or even 4 years in delhi, I found no body rejecting any bhakta's god as being a demi god or semi god, but only on social networking I have seen this. My dear sir, advaitins might discuss their views, just as others do. In discussing philosophy yes there can be overlap in views of different acharyas, but most of the time the ego comes when discussing about Ishwara. Certainly when it comes to god some people even show views like those of abrahamic cults.


This country has different philosophical views,forever had and will forever have,but we have been respectful towards other, which shows the greatness of veda dharma, but why lose this mutual respect. Is it because of influence of Islam or xianity ?In india for us, even our mother, father and guru are god.

Om namo narayana


Uddhava paramhamsa asked Sri Krsna once,"Why are there soooo many pjilosophies,whereas in the veda,You(As vedavyasa) have revealed only one ?"

Sri Krsna says,"My dear Uddhava,this sansara is FILLED with people of different modes.According to their modes of intellegence,they project respective views after reading the Vedas.They do not understand the vedas,which are My form and are beyond the three modes.Thus they come up with many philosophies."

But remember,Uddhava,

Bhaktaya mama ekaya grahya.

I am attainable ONLY by bhakti.

There is no issue of Who is more Superior.The issue at hand is the validity of the siddhanta itself.

isavasya
24 November 2009, 01:17 AM
Namste chandu ji,
Thank you for your response but I beg to differ with you.




I said Modern advaitans use bogus translations to bolster their modern advaitan ideas.There is abundtant proof on hdf forums.Pls take a look.




I have been a reader of this forum, I haven't found bogus translation, most of the members are learned and also wise enough.




Sure, some do.

.

Thanks that you accept some do.


.






If you notice the threads, most of them are hijacked with some freak MODERN advaitan ideas to the extent that even shankaracharya was misquoted.a couple of posters see advaitan ideas in islam and christianity and hence go to the extent of defending the missionaries and jihadis.

Justifying Islam and xianity is common with secular brigade of this country, I dont find advaitins doing it above others.




Just take a look at who creates most of the controversies.if you notice i always try to put an end to the supremacy discussions.

Nice if you do, in fact its great that you do that , but I had spent 2 years of my life in another forum and I had terrible experience with followers of dviata and vishist-advaita,almost all the problems were initiated by them, to the point of declaring Shankara a demon called manimanta who is eternal enemy of lord vishnu.



I dont beleive this is a networking site to make friends.My concern is that few individuals with their own ideas of Advaita are flooding the threads with incorrect information with the zeal of christian missionaries.

Missionary zeal is in those people who are totally convinced that there God is only God, Advaita is much to esoteric to be propagated with that zeal.


You hardly see any Bhakthi in these forums nowadays.

This is shocking for me. There is a ganesh prasad ji, who would quote geeta always and end his message with jai shri krishna, there is devotee ji who would also give message of scriptures, there is atanu ji, who ends it with om namah shivvay (I have personally learnt a lot from reading his posts). so on there are so many bhakts here, I just love this forum, if you still think there is no bhakti here, then either I am ignorant or blind or your form of bhakti is only constituted by hari sarvotmma ,vayu jeevotmma method.Advaitins see god in every soul and godliness every where, even in jnana and karma.



This was my last post on this topic, I wrote what i felt, I respect your last post where you said, you always try to put an end to the supremacy discussions, but I couldnt agree on all counts. thanks and bye from this forum.:)

chandu_69
24 November 2009, 11:02 AM
Namste chandu ji,
Thank you for your response but I beg to differ with you.


I have been a reader of this forum, I haven't found bogus translation, most of the members are learned and also wise enough.


I can give you a latest example:
Atanu quoted an interpretation of Svet. Upanishad
1,9 at http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=35308&postcount=49
you can check the actual upanishad at.

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/sveta.asp




Justifying Islam and xianity is common with secular brigade of this country, I dont find advaitins doing it above others.
Please refer to the abrahamic section.Atanu even says Allah of Quran is lord Siva.






Advaita is much to esoteric to be propagated with that zeal.
Take a look at abrahamic sections you will find a couple of people finding advaita in those religons.




This is shocking for me.There is a ... who would quote geeta always and end his message with jai shri krishna, there is devotee ji who would also give message of scriptures,



there is ...(I have personally learnt a lot from reading his posts). so on there are so many bhakts here, I just love this forum, if you still think there is no bhakti here,


There was.. take a look at the recent posts.


[qoute]then either I am ignorant or blind or your form of bhakti is only constituted by hari sarvotmma ,vayu jeevotmma method.[/quote]
You have not actually read too many posts recently.



Advaitins see god in every soul and godliness every where, even in jnana and karma.
Some advaitans also see god in mumbai attackers.And one advaitan on this forum was calling some uf as who wants strong measures as terrorists.

grames
03 February 2010, 06:22 AM
Oh yeah! Luckily i was reading one of the works of our beloved ex president of India and a real thunder bolt strikes me at his idea of "vedanta" and the idea he is advancing as real conclusion of "Vedanta" which is not sectarian.

Wonderfully he is branding himself under the umbrella of "Advaita" as well as Neo_vedanta where the total philosophy do not have any 'truthful' representation of any of the Vedantic school's philosophy in whole but promote an idea that all these schools are in fact expressing the same Truth with different view. Astonishing and amazed at the usage of big names like "Shri Shankara", Shri Ramanuja, Shri Madhva etc. to justify their universalism.

I often encounter people here with the same mindset and i have criticized and even used the terms like "neo-advaitins" etc. who do not know Advaita of Shri Shankara but claim that they are following Advaita etc. where their belief, concepts or faith has no real roots in the "classical" advaita but they propogate the "Neo" concepts under the label of "Advaita". A critical study of Shri Shankaran will expose the face of all these Neo's who have no idea about what "Advaita" is. It is shame and unethical to label their philosophy or belief as Advaita and they have no guts to admit their universalism with a separate new label or name, but abuse the glorious Advaita of Shri Shankara and his followers.

It is a real problem conversing with these people and there will not be any real benefit for the people involved in conversation with these people as they

1) Do not know what exactly Advaita is... but confidently and very proudly advocate what they learnt from few translations which are again not by any of great Advaitic traditional scholars but mostly by some "xxxxAnanda" of neonism but certainly label their belief as Advaita.

2) Since it is not Advaita, they have liberty of introducing new concepts with out any proper Advaita bashya or any real Vedantins that belongs to the Advaita tradition. Such concepts, which scrutinized will be answered with a infamous phrase that "Advaita is very difficult to understand and it can be only experienced and cannot be talked about". If that is the case, why are we or what are we reading here under such philosophy? No answer.

3) They showcase their proficiency in "Prasthana Traya" with the help of the Modern Neo-Scholars but will never attempt to get hold of at least one of the real Advaitic scholars and strongly believe, this is what Advaita is.

4) Though they pose like they are peaceful people who practice "real" Advaita, but any questioning on such faith will trigger a flood of anger filled responses and deviate the conversation from the actual topic to "you know nothing about Advaita" so you are disqualified to debate. Truly in most cases it is the reverse! :)

5) All these Neo relay on some sort of Yoga and also prefix or suffix their names with "Yogi" or "Rishi" though they do not even know how impossible it is for an ordinary man to perform or follow Patanjali's system of Yoga. ( Though, i do personally admit that they are few exceptions but those exceptions are not ordinary human like me. Do not want to completely generalize here). Such Yogis, Rishis in due course promote themselves as the infamous Advaitic "JivanMukta" and bless the whole world of "Brahman" with their advanced Yogic tapasya palas with out even knowing any bit of what "Shri Shankara's" EkaJiva Vada is. They become God for unfortunate people who wants their personal problems to be solved by grace of such self promoted Yogis/Rshis. The entire western world is filled with such spritual ambassadors who are (fake and filthy) representative of our spritual dharmic life system where even an ant, cow and every jiva is respected with high values and never been exploited for personal benefits.

6) These self promoted people do not believe in systematic study or austerity of "learning" and they promote the idea of meat eating and justify it all filthy misinterpretation of life of Rama etc.

7) They will become more scientific and all their life is spent on giving a modern scientific explanation of our Vedic system. Why so? Isn't to please the irrational rationalist? or just to pacify the powerful denominations though not intellectual in the arena of spiritual realm but to please them in their "way".

8) The very special the self contradiction of Neos. Since, their subject knowledge on philosophy itself is weak, they tend to accept all as "truth" and then deduct that "Truth" as One and Only one and that One is with out a second. So, they are universal ambassadors for all vedantic schools and everything is inclusive in their faith system and nothing left. Bhedabeda, Dvaita, Vishitadvaita, suddadvaita, dvitaadvaita etc etc.. all are inclusive in this faith system as it has no originality or any real "spiritual" benefit other than giving information about what is existing in its full and glorious form of extraordinary seekers who gets frustrated with this kind of "universalism".

9) But, since this is very pleasing politically it is very popular and you can see hundred refusing to the original philosophy even if it is advaita or disagreeing with you and brand you as "ignorant".


Oh dear, if Advaitic acumen is the Truth, there won't be any "Tax" why alone same number.?

devotee
03 February 2010, 06:56 AM
Dear Satay and all friends on this forum,

It is really surprising and also very unfortunate that some people here who have never cared to read even one Upanishad (this reflects from what they post here) keep attacking those who post here on Advaita. When we start asking them for scriptural proof, they just indulge in belittling the followers of Advaita of this forum. These people with their posts have proved time and again that they have no idea of what they are saying.

This all leads to a situation where no one gains but which results in sheer waste of time & acrimonious debate. It is highly distressing.

I don't understand what compels them to jump into such discussions which is not going to benefit them anyway as it is certainly not their path. Is it because there is some organisation in the background which is compelling them to behave in this manner ? I can't say. The Advaitins on this forum don't go & disturb the on-going discussions in their sections or try to use disparaging remarks in this way. If someone doesn't understand Advaita & he has never read Upanishads why is it necessary for him to attack those who want to tread on this path and genuinely understand this philosophy ? Do they think we are doomed by treading this path as the Christians & Muslims think & they are trying to "save" us ?

They are followers of Dvaita philosophy and converted Hindus but claim to know everything on this earth about Hinduism and also Advaita philosophy. Anyone who doesn't subscribe to their understanding is a fit target to be attacked by them. Sometimes I feel that I should have become their disciple instead of choosing an Advaita Guru from Shankara's order.

Is it good for this forum ? I invite all members,especially the senior members, to express their views on this matter.

OM

Eastern Mind
03 February 2010, 07:53 AM
Vannakkam all:

Devotee, I totally agree with you. There is an underlying tone of "I'm right, you're wrong'. and it does get frustrating. One feels that if someone posts in a section, that it will be logical, and perhaps contain some knowledge of the thread it is in. So you read it, and then discover it is just some continuation of an endless round of pointless argument. My personal rule of thumb is five posts. If, after that many, I see nothing of value to me, I stop bothering to read. That's how I personally deal with it. So right now I'm not bothering to read posts from about 5 names. It is just as we eventually learn to shut the door on Christians in real life, especially if its the same guy knocking on our door.

Although it is common (maybe 95%) for Hindus to be open-minded and at least agreeing to disagree, there will always be the 5% who aren't. One person even came on the other day with stated intention that his purpose on the profile was to propulgate the glory of you-know-who. Not to learn, not to share insights, not to share culture, not to listen, perhaps not even to read. In a way, I was happy for this, At least it was direct, and I didn't have to read at least five posts. Still I put in my 'welcome to the site' post because I'm a polite guy, I guess.

We can always use the 'ignore' button.

Aum Namasivaya

Ganeshprasad
03 February 2010, 10:18 AM
Pranam all
Isn’t it great Grames ji is struck by a thunder bolt (Indra deva is kind to him) reading our beloved ex president, the revelation dawn on him and thus he has made a sweeping generalisation and attack everyone here of being in ignorance of real vedanta. Come on lets have it AS IT IS.

You have been very poetic in your statements, reeks full of hatred for those who follow the doctrine of respect and tolerance which is very dear to most Hindus , it is very clear this universalism is an anathema for what you follow, what ever that is.

You come across as if you know classical advaita and yet I have not heard one word of advaita from you. Perhaps mayavad is your expertise please enlighten us.

Jai Shree Krishna

grames
03 February 2010, 01:07 PM
Dear fellow HDF members,

I am really surprised at at least three responses to a subject matter i have posted wherein i directed some of the dissatisfaction i see going on in our real world. Not sure how my comments affected you or even triggered you to post a response unless you personally took it or you realized you are one of them. If any points that i have shared here has hatred rather than sincerity to seek authentic information and original idea of respective purvacharyas, i believe my message didn't reach you properly for which i take no regrets.

I do have great respect for all the preceptors and as the greatest saints and individuals and my message has nothing against them. Tolerance is a very tricky thing and why you were not able to tolerate my message here? Something wrong?? Same feeling is what i got and i expressed it with out holding. Call a spade a spade!

No offense intended!

satay
03 February 2010, 01:40 PM
namaskar,

Here is my 2 cents.

Granted that advaitic teaching is for the 'adhikari' and I am certainly not the adhikari for such teachings, I am interested in learning classical advaita and have been trying personally for a couple of years now. Using my simple engineering mind, I feel that there is a gap between teachings of contemporary gurus and sri shankaracarya's compilation of advaitic world view.

I don't know if that gap is real or is just my feeling only. However, it would nice to see someone tie today's advaitic teachings of 'universalism' to the acarya's original compilation.

If you know, could you please point me in the right direction of a guru/teacher that teaches classic advaita? I have been trying to understand it purely from academic point of view by reading books, listening to lectures (oxford university online lectures) etc.

Also, I don't think 'neo' is a derogotary word so not sure why people feel offended when this word is used. Is 'neo' a derogotary word?

smaranam
03 February 2010, 01:58 PM
namaskar,

Here is my 2 cents.

I am interested in learning classical advaita and have been trying personally for a couple of years now. I feel that there is a gap between teachings of contemporary gurus and sri shankaracarya's compilation of advaitic world view.


NamaskAr Satayji

Post pointing to a 'Classical Advaita' WebSite moved here - in Advaita Section http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=5235

Ganeshprasad
03 February 2010, 05:33 PM
Pranam Satay and all


namaskar,

Here is my 2 cents.

Granted that advaitic teaching is for the 'adhikari' and I am certainly not the adhikari for such teachings, I am interested in learning classical advaita and have been trying personally for a couple of years now. Using my simple engineering mind, I feel that there is a gap between teachings of contemporary gurus and sri shankaracarya's compilation of advaitic world view.

I don't know if that gap is real or is just my feeling only. However, it would nice to see someone tie today's advaitic teachings of 'universalism' to the acarya's original compilation.



Like you I do not claim to know or understand advaita but I sure do respect the preceptor Sankracharya, now it would be a hard act to follow by contemporary gurus to emulate the great teacher or remain true to his teachings in totality because everyone else would have their own enlightenment to add to the central theme of advaita. If there is a gap its very hard to judge. I certainly subscribe to the universal teaching of Vedas, within the various paths of Hindu dharma I place the utmost important to the four pillars of dharma upon which Hindu way of life has withstood various calamity, without which all the different concept is spurious. Lord Krishna speaks of different path that leads to him directly or indirectly in Bhagvat Gita there are many slokas but this one sums it up

jnana-yajnena capy anye
yajanto mam upasate
ekatvena prthaktvena
bahudha visvato-mukham

Some worship Me by knowledge sacrifice. Others worship the infinite as the one in all (or non-dual), as the master of all (or dual), and in various other ways. (9.15)

If you are referring to universalism message of all world religion are same, there I have a problem, not of tolerance or respect, to each their own, but off dharma, it is not Vedic.

As for Grames question on intolerance, he has a point why not tolerate his message?

well my dear friend it is difficult to tolerate intolerance and that is how you came across in your message, I could be wrong in my assessment for that I do apologise.

 


Also, I don't think 'neo' is a derogotary word so not sure why people feel offended when this word is used. Is 'neo' a derogotary word?

It will depend on context with which this word is applied.

Jai Shree Krishna

satay
03 February 2010, 06:22 PM
namaste GP, smar,
Thanks!
GP, I agree with your point of view. I just wish that I had access to classical advaitic literature and teachers. Wouldn't that be execellent? I am not saying that contemporary gurus must become carbon copies of the great acarya but wouldn't it be excellent if they tied their teachings and experience to the classical? However, I know that I am speaking out of place here and based on a feeling so I will stop judging the contemporary gurus now...




Pranam Satay and all



Like you I do not claim to know or understand advaita but I sure do respect the preceptor Sankracharya, now it would be a hard act to follow by contemporary gurus to emulate the great teacher or remain true to his teachings in totality because everyone else would have their own enlightenment to add to the central theme of advaita. If there is a gap its very hard to judge. I certainly subscribe to the universal teaching of Vedas, within the various paths of Hindu dharma I place the utmost important to the four pillars of dharma upon which Hindu way of life has withstood various calamity, without which all the different concept is spurious. Lord Krishna speaks of different path that leads to him directly or indirectly in Bhagvat Gita there are many slokas but this one sums it up

jnana-yajnena capy anye
yajanto mam upasate
ekatvena prthaktvena
bahudha visvato-mukham

Some worship Me by knowledge sacrifice. Others worship the infinite as the one in all (or non-dual), as the master of all (or dual), and in various other ways. (9.15)

If you are referring to universalism message of all world religion are same, there I have a problem, not of tolerance or respect, to each their own, but off dharma, it is not Vedic.

As for Grames question on intolerance, he has a point why not tolerate his message?

well my dear friend it is difficult to tolerate intolerance and that is how you came across in your message, I could be wrong in my assessment for that I do apologise.

 


It will depend on context with which this word is applied.

Jai Shree Krishna

Mohini Shakti Devi
03 February 2010, 07:55 PM
There have been replys to Grames, but no responses to the enumerated points. Grames has touched on all the weak links in a proper & ideally, definitive definition of Advaita.

This is a blessedly empassioned plea for Orthodoxy.
Grames is sounding the call for a concerted effort to present Advaita in an orderly manner that reveals the Absolute goal of the Souls journey out of samsara.


Oh yeah! Luckily i was reading one of the works of our beloved ex president of India and a real thunder bolt strikes me at his idea of "vedanta" and the idea he is advancing as real conclusion of "Vedanta" which is not sectarian.

Wonderfully he is branding himself under the umbrella of "Advaita" as well as Neo_vedanta where the total philosophy do not have any 'truthful' representation of any of the Vedantic school's philosophy in whole but promote an idea that all these schools are in fact expressing the same Truth with different view. Astonishing and amazed at the usage of big names like "Shri Shankara", Shri Ramanuja, Shri Madhva etc. to justify their universalism.

I often encounter people here with the same mindset and i have criticized and even used the terms like "neo-advaitins" etc. who do not know Advaita of Shri Shankara but claim that they are following Advaita etc. where their belief, concepts or faith has no real roots in the "classical" advaita but they propogate the "Neo" concepts under the label of "Advaita". A critical study of Shri Shankaran will expose the face of all these Neo's who have no idea about what "Advaita" is. It is shame and unethical to label their philosophy or belief as Advaita and they have no guts to admit their universalism with a separate new label or name, but abuse the glorious Advaita of Shri Shankara and his followers.

It is a real problem conversing with these people and there will not be any real benefit for the people involved in conversation with these people as they

1) Do not know what exactly Advaita is... but confidently and very proudly advocate what they learnt from few translations which are again not by any of great Advaitic traditional scholars but mostly by some "xxxxAnanda" of neonism but certainly label their belief as Advaita.

2) Since it is not Advaita, they have liberty of introducing new concepts with out any proper Advaita bashya or any real Vedantins that belongs to the Advaita tradition. Such concepts, which scrutinized will be answered with a infamous phrase that "Advaita is very difficult to understand and it can be only experienced and cannot be talked about". If that is the case, why are we or what are we reading here under such philosophy? No answer.

3) They showcase their proficiency in "Prasthana Traya" with the help of the Modern Neo-Scholars but will never attempt to get hold of at least one of the real Advaitic scholars and strongly believe, this is what Advaita is.

4) Though they pose like they are peaceful people who practice "real" Advaita, but any questioning on such faith will trigger a flood of anger filled responses and deviate the conversation from the actual topic to "you know nothing about Advaita" so you are disqualified to debate. Truly in most cases it is the reverse! :)

5) All these Neo relay on some sort of Yoga and also prefix or suffix their names with "Yogi" or "Rishi" though they do not even know how impossible it is for an ordinary man to perform or follow Patanjali's system of Yoga. ( Though, i do personally admit that they are few exceptions but those exceptions are not ordinary human like me. Do not want to completely generalize here). Such Yogis, Rishis in due course promote themselves as the infamous Advaitic "JivanMukta" and bless the whole world of "Brahman" with their advanced Yogic tapasya palas with out even knowing any bit of what "Shri Shankara's" EkaJiva Vada is. They become God for unfortunate people who wants their personal problems to be solved by grace of such self promoted Yogis/Rshis. The entire western world is filled with such spritual ambassadors who are (fake and filthy) representative of our spritual dharmic life system where even an ant, cow and every jiva is respected with high values and never been exploited for personal benefits.

6) These self promoted people do not believe in systematic study or austerity of "learning" and they promote the idea of meat eating and justify it all filthy misinterpretation of life of Rama etc.

7) They will become more scientific and all their life is spent on giving a modern scientific explanation of our Vedic system. Why so? Isn't to please the irrational rationalist? or just to pacify the powerful denominations though not intellectual in the arena of spiritual realm but to please them in their "way".

8) The very special the self contradiction of Neos. Since, their subject knowledge on philosophy itself is weak, they tend to accept all as "truth" and then deduct that "Truth" as One and Only one and that One is with out a second. So, they are universal ambassadors for all vedantic schools and everything is inclusive in their faith system and nothing left. Bhedabeda, Dvaita, Vishitadvaita, suddadvaita, dvitaadvaita etc etc.. all are inclusive in this faith system as it has no originality or any real "spiritual" benefit other than giving information about what is existing in its full and glorious form of extraordinary seekers who gets frustrated with this kind of "universalism".

9) But, since this is very pleasing politically it is very popular and you can see hundred refusing to the original philosophy even if it is advaita or disagreeing with you and brand you as "ignorant".


Oh dear, if Advaitic acumen is the Truth, there won't be any "Tax" why alone same number.?

devotee
03 February 2010, 08:47 PM
Namaste Satay,


I am interested in learning classical advaita and have been trying personally for a couple of years now. I feel that there is a gap between teachings of contemporary gurus and Sri shankaracarya's compilation of advaitic world view.

I don't know if that gap is real or is just my feeling only. However, it would nice to see someone tie today's advaitic teachings of 'universalism' to the acarya's original compilation.

If you know, could you please point me in the right direction of a guru/teacher that teaches classic advaita?

You are looking for a teacher on "Classical Advaita" ? Who can be better than my great teacher of all teachers, Sri Grames ji & Bhaktajan ji ? I request both of them to explain the "Classical Advaita" that all dumb neo-advaitins, including me, have missed.

There can be only two things. Either they are very well versed in Classical Advaita or they are not. If they were not, then they would not have been posting, "This is not Classical Advaita is" against any post in Advaita section. Right ?

I really don't know what "Classical Advaita" is, which is different from what is stated in Upanishads. All members who have been writing here on Advaita, quote Upanishads as the authority or the Bhagwad Gita or the Brahma Sutras. Those who oppose the Adavaitic posts here & claim to understand "Classical" Advaita never ever quote any Upanishadic text to prove their point or refute whatever is stated. Can anyone show me how many times these people have ever quoted Upanishads ?

0000000000000000000000000

Satay, you say that there is a gap in what Neo-Advaitins say & what is compiled by Sankaracharya. Can you tell me, where they differ & how they are against Upanishadic teachings ? May be I change my path & join ISKCON.

In fact, I would like to ask anyone who feels that Adavitic teachings or understandings posted here is against Upanishads ... please quote the verses from the Upanishads & refute whatever is stated in any of the posts. However, this is not done in the way Grames does it here. Let's see this post of his :


All these Neo relay on some sort of Yoga and also prefix or suffix their names with "Yogi" or "Rishi" though they do not even know how impossible it is for an ordinary man to perform or follow Patanjali's system of Yoga. ( Though, i do personally admit that they are few exceptions but those exceptions are not ordinary human like me. Do not want to completely generalize here). Such Yogis, Rishis in due course promote themselves as the infamous Advaitic "JivanMukta" and bless the whole world of "Brahman" with their advanced Yogic tapasya palas with out even knowing any bit of what "Shri Shankara's" EkaJiva Vada is. They become God for unfortunate people who wants their personal problems to be solved by grace of such self promoted Yogis/Rshis. The entire western world is filled with such spritual ambassadors who are (fake and filthy) representative of our spritual dharmic life system where even an ant, cow and every jiva is respected with high values and never been exploited for personal benefits.

Which are the Gurus Grames wants us to beware of ? Is it Ramana Maharishi, Nisarga Datta Maharaj, Vivekananda, Ramkrishna Paramhansa, Paramhansa Yogananda, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi or Sri Sri Ravishankar ?

Why this generalisation ? Please come out with specifics. Please quote their sayings vis-a-vis the Upanishadic verses & refute their teachings. What is the basis of the above post of Grames ? Why doesn't he cite the Upanishadic verses & proves his point ?


6) These self promoted people do not believe in systematic study or austerity of "learning" and they promote the idea of meat eating and justify it all filthy misinterpretation of life of Rama etc.

Come on, how was it related to the thread where you posted this ? And which neo-advaita teacher is advocating meat eating or whatever ? If you had any issue with any of such teacher why didn't you open a separate thread quoting him & proving what you want to say ?


8) The very special the self contradiction of Neos. Since, their subject knowledge on philosophy itself is weak, they tend to accept all as "truth" and then deduct that "Truth" as One and Only one and that One is with out a second. So, they are universal ambassadors for all vedantic schools and everything is inclusive in their faith system and nothing left. Bhedabeda, Dvaita, Vishitadvaita, suddadvaita, dvitaadvaita etc etc.. all are inclusive in this faith system as it has no originality or any real "spiritual" benefit other than giving information about what is existing in its full and glorious form of extraordinary seekers who gets frustrated with this kind of "universalism".

Why don't you refute by quoting Upanishadic teachings ? The whole of your post is what you think .... not what the Upanishads say.

Tell me Grames, do you have anything to contribute from Upanishads to throw light on "why Classical Advaita is so different from the Neo-Advaita" by refuting some of the quotes of "neo-Advaita" Vs the Upainshadic verses ?

"Neo" or "Classical" ... they both must conform to Upanishads. Whenever I say something, I have always relied on Upanishads. How many times have I taken refuge under what any of the teachers that Grames has in his mind, have said at any point of time & which is Un-Upanishadic ? I would like to see how my understanding of Upanishads is so poor. Shall we start with Isavasya Upanishad or Katha Upanishad or Maandukya Upanishad or Svetasvatara Upanishad or Brihdaranyaka Upanishad or Mundak Upanishad ? As we are discussing Advaita why not start with Maandukya Upanishad which have been relied upon heavily by Shankara & Gaudapad ?

So, Grames, let's start a discussion on Maandukya Upanishad & let me see where I am at fault.

OM

atanu
04 February 2010, 12:15 AM
namaskar,

Also, I don't think 'neo' is a derogotary word so not sure why people feel offended when this word is used. Is 'neo' a derogotary word?

Namaste

Surely neo is not derogatory in itself but generalising and clubbing anything that differs from Sh. Grames idea of advaita as neo is false superiority complex, which at best is intoleration.

Let Grames point out a person or a guru as NEO (assumed meaning: one who does not adhere or know the classical advaita texts but claims to be an advaitin), instead of sweeping generalisations, and then we can examine.

On this definition, many realised souls can be called Neos, but why that bothers Grames? Because they have realised and Grames has not, despite his superior knowledge of classical advaita texts?

Further, Sh. Grames has been threatening to teach us the tenets for long. I wonder why he does not do so?

Advaita as re-taught by Gaudapada and Shankara is not a cement cast. It says that Dvaita is a product of Advaita. Variety is expected in discussions. However, no advaitin will deny that the Advaita Self is the eternal truth beneath the apparent Dvaita of the phenomena.

Even when we all strive and meditate or fail to meditate; feel good or feel bad; or enjoy or suffer; -- the Advaita substratum remains as the blissful Self and self of so-called All. This must be realised by stripping away the layers of thoughts and getting in touch with the silent blissful Self.

This is the only goal of existence in Mrityuloka (for me at least). But we all forget.

Om Namah Shivaya

grames
04 February 2010, 05:18 AM
Dear Ganeshprasad ji,

Very nice message and thanks for acknowledging certain things in your message. The point is, i am not against someone following "universal" teaching of vedanta if there is one such and i also have my deep down background in Ramakrishna schools and that makes me little aware of the "universalism" approach that they have.

Same time, why it irks people when me or anyone point out the misleading things sold under this universalism umbrella as either Advaita etc. This exactly like how you have problem with "all religion are" same i do have certain philosophical issues when it is not presented from the doctrine but from a universal neo-advaita but as Advaita. The dissatisfaction is not personal rather sincere quest to actually expand the thoughts in its original authentic manner rather than confusing the original and loosing the real great philosophical gems. You may ask, with what you are saying it is not real advaita? I am sure there are fortunate people who have still access to various works of Shri Shankara bashyas, Shri MadhuSudana Sarswati, Shri Harsha, Appaya Dishitha etc. just to name a few. If and only if you 'study' them and understand them, then you can know what i am foul mouthing here about what "classical" Advaita means. Also, they expect that i will be teaching or showcasing my "classical" advaita knowledge here to prove myself. Why would i ever do that? I can raise only objection or point out the idea/translations do not ascribe it to "classical Advaita" as such meanings,idea can lead to destruction of the core Advaita philosophy itself. Why are you so worried about my knowledge of Advaita here rather raise question to yourself whether it can be applicable, it can lead to truth as i am told, experiencing etc. If you are convinced, why bother about my mumble or grumble? IGNORE me as your experience is much more worthy and fruitful.

Now you see it as intolerance of me but from my innermost Self, no i do not see it as intolerance and only a positive person with real sincerity and respect for truth alone can raise such expectations for higher standards. Its just my point. So no need to apologize and it is just that we bleed on our emotions the moment we rush concluding something and its natural human thing.

grames
04 February 2010, 05:28 AM
Dear Atanu,

Its incorrect to say or assume "Advaita" as Neo which i didn't say but i said the reverse of it as falsity and there is no question of intolerance here when expressing one's concern.

So you asked me to prove any Neo not being "classical Advaitin". Let me take just one of your translation on other thread where i strongly believe that such translation came from Shri Nikhilananda for Svt.U 5.1. Correct me if i am wrong before i present why it cannot be "Classical" Advaita's stand but a Neo concept.

Nothing bothers me if a Neo consider himself/herself as Neo instead of making others believe that "bring back all points listed above" once again.

I appreciate your Goal and why don't you just concentrate on that rather being part of unpleasant discussion with definitely not worthy person in ur opinion like me?

devotee
04 February 2010, 07:06 AM
A says, "It is X".
B says, "You are wrong. It is not X. It is Y."

What does it mean ? That means B must know both X & Y much better than A. If asked to explain why A thinks that "It is Y and not X", he should come forward to explain this.

But now B says that he won't do it !

So, you can't make out whether B knows even abc of what X is or what Y is.

But then by declining to do so, he still reserves his rights to say, "Hey A, you are wrong !"

OM

atanu
04 February 2010, 07:10 AM
Dear Atanu,
So you asked me to prove any Neo not being "classical Advaitin". Let me take just one of your translation on other thread where i strongly believe that such translation came from Shri Nikhilananda for Svt.U 5.1. -

Namaste grames,

Exactly what I was expecting. I have no desire for any argument but wish to point out two things. You may differ with Nikhilananda but that does make you correct and Nikhilanada incorrect. Moreover, to me Swami Nikhilananda is accomplished. You on the other hand, are assuming that Nikhilananda is saying something contradictory to Shankara's teachings without demonstrating so. This has been your style throughout -- to generalise without any specifics.


I appreciate your Goal and why don't you just concentrate on that rather being part of unpleasant discussion with definitely not worthy person in ur opinion like me?

Thank you for the appreciation. Answer to your question was included in my previous reply. It is sufficient if each of us seek perfection for oneself. I do not claim that I do not forget this motto.

I do not wish to say anymore on this. Best Wishes.

Om Namah Shivaya

satay
04 February 2010, 09:07 AM
namaste Devotee,

With all due respect, I don't think you understood my message. FYI, I am not against advaita. That much I think you should and do know but a reminder never hurts anyway so writing here once again.

Nor am I saying that you should personally take any action weather that be leaving your current path, joining other guru, joining other organization etc. In fact, the whole thing has nothing personally to do with anyone. It was just my 2 cents.

Like I said, my quest to learn advaita is more of a academic study. Like I said before, I read the volumes of S.N.Dasgupta and/or listen to lectures on advaita by professors from universities in madras (mp3s available on oxford university download list).

One gap as you can probably guess already is that I don't think classical advaita teaches all religions are true. This is a neo or contemporary idea and a very political one. It is good politically to say such things but this concept is no where to be found in acarya sankara's compliations of the vedantic world view. At least, I haven't found such a thing from his compilations but I am no expert and only a molecule in the internet space with a mind and intelligence of ant. So that could be the my problem...

Thanks,


Namaste Satay,



You are looking for a teacher on "Classical Advaita" ? Who can be better than my great teacher of all teachers, Sri Grames ji & Bhaktajan ji ? I request both of them to explain the "Classical Advaita" that all dumb neo-advaitins, including me, have missed.

There can be only two things. Either they are very well versed in Classical Advaita or they are not. If they were not, then they would not have been posting, "This is not Classical Advaita is" against any post in Advaita section. Right ?

I really don't know what "Classical Advaita" is, which is different from what is stated in Upanishads. All members who have been writing here on Advaita, quote Upanishads as the authority or the Bhagwad Gita or the Brahma Sutras. Those who oppose the Adavaitic posts here & claim to understand "Classical" Advaita never ever quote any Upanishadic text to prove their point or refute whatever is stated. Can anyone show me how many times these people have ever quoted Upanishads ?

0000000000000000000000000

Satay, you say that there is a gap in what Neo-Advaitins say & what is compiled by Sankaracharya. Can you tell me, where they differ & how they are against Upanishadic teachings ? May be I change my path & join ISKCON.

In fact, I would like to ask anyone who feels that Adavitic teachings or understandings posted here is against Upanishads ... please quote the verses from the Upanishads & refute whatever is stated in any of the posts. However, this is not done in the way Grames does it here. Let's see this post of his :



Which are the Gurus Grames wants us to beware of ? Is it Ramana Maharishi, Nisarga Datta Maharaj, Vivekananda, Ramkrishna Paramhansa, Paramhansa Yogananda, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi or Sri Sri Ravishankar ?

Why this generalisation ? Please come out with specifics. Please quote their sayings vis-a-vis the Upanishadic verses & refute their teachings. What is the basis of the above post of Grames ? Why doesn't he cite the Upanishadic verses & proves his point ?



Come on, how was it related to the thread where you posted this ? And which neo-advaita teacher is advocating meat eating or whatever ? If you had any issue with any of such teacher why didn't you open a separate thread quoting him & proving what you want to say ?



Why don't you refute by quoting Upanishadic teachings ? The whole of your post is what you think .... not what the Upanishads say.

Tell me Grames, do you have anything to contribute from Upanishads to throw light on "why Classical Advaita is so different from the Neo-Advaita" by refuting some of the quotes of "neo-Advaita" Vs the Upainshadic verses ?

"Neo" or "Classical" ... they both must conform to Upanishads. Whenever I say something, I have always relied on Upanishads. How many times have I taken refuge under what any of the teachers that Grames has in his mind, have said at any point of time & which is Un-Upanishadic ? I would like to see how my understanding of Upanishads is so poor. Shall we start with Isavasya Upanishad or Katha Upanishad or Maandukya Upanishad or Svetasvatara Upanishad or Brihdaranyaka Upanishad or Mundak Upanishad ? As we are discussing Advaita why not start with Maandukya Upanishad which have been relied upon heavily by Shankara & Gaudapad ?

So, Grames, let's start a discussion on Maandukya Upanishad & let me see where I am at fault.

OM

satay
04 February 2010, 09:13 AM
pranam atanu,

This concept of intoleration is something I can't comprehend. Since Brahman is the only reality, there is no grames, there is no satay and there is no atanu and we are all the SELF. Whatever you read here from me or grames or others about neo or not neo or classical or not classical or iskcon or not iskcon is all an illusion. Because in reality there is no we and there is only one SELF appearing to be making such comments. isn't it? so actually ultimately in reality there is no problem of intoleration. and thus there should be no objection. right?



Namaste

Surely neo is not derogatory in itself but generalising and clubbing anything that differs from Sh. Grames idea of advaita as neo is false superiority complex, which at best is intoleration.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
04 February 2010, 09:44 AM
pranam atanu,

This concept of intoleration is something I can't comprehend. Since Brahman is the only reality, there is no grames, there is no satay and there is no atanu and we are all the SELF. Whatever you read here from me or grames or others about neo or not neo or classical or not classical or iskcon or not iskcon is all an illusion. Because in reality there is no we and there is only one SELF appearing to be making such comments. isn't it? so actually ultimately in reality there is no problem of intoleration. and thus there should be no objection. right?

Namaste Satay,

You are perhaps correct about the highlighted part above. Who said there was any objection? Stating "Grames is intolerant of other darshanas" is akin to stating a fact such as "My stomach is aching" or "I am sitting on a chair".

Advaita does not teach that a chair and a table are same. Advaita does not teach that you should attempt to use a table as a lamp.

Om Namah Shivaya

satay
04 February 2010, 10:02 AM
namaskar,

There is no chair and there is no table thus there is no question of using the table as a lamp since there is no lamp either.

There can't be an objection that my stomach is aching since there is no stomach is my point.


Namaste Satay,

You are perhaps correct about the highlighted part above. Who said there was any objection? Stating "Grames is intolerant of other darshanas" is akin to stating a fact such as "My stomach is aching" or "I am sitting on a chair".

Advaita does not teach that a chair and a table are same. Advaita does not teach that you should attempt to use a table as a lamp.

Om Namah Shivaya

devotee
04 February 2010, 10:07 AM
Namaste Satay,

I know you well on this account. I never have doubts that you are not against Advaita. Please don't take my post otherwise.

Regarding "universalism" propagated by neo-Advaitin ... your doubts are valid ... as Upanishads don't say anything about that. So, that statement may be coloured with one's perception. I can't say who is right or who is wrong ... there are valid reasons from both the sides.

However, you must see my post in the light of Grames's habit of suddenly appearing in a serious discussion on Advaita & declaring that, "It is not what Classical Advaita is". That takes the discussion completely off the rails. You may not agree with me, but it is really irritating when someone does this again and again without giving any proof for what he is saying.

You remember, once you had advised that one should not go and refute what the ISKCONites write in the ISKCON section because it disrupted the discussion between people of similar faiths. We have sincerely adhered to that advice & that has helped this forum in a constructive way. Now, why can't we apply similar rules here to help a meaningful & undisrupted discussion in Advaita section ? I am not saying that doubts should not be raised ... I am not saying that whatever is posted should not be questioned .... what I am saying that intruding in a discussion for just parroting a one liner that, "This is not what Classical Advaita is" without giving any proof does create irritation & disruption in a healthy & meaningful discussion which can be avoided.

OM

Ganeshprasad
04 February 2010, 10:11 AM
Pranam Grames ji

It is perfectly ok to have philosophical issues but it will make no sense if you refuse to expand them. If you refuse to elaborate your classical view of advaita then I am afraid you have post no 41 by Devotee ji to deal with. I have no such worry, onus is yours.
I question your motives here, if on one hand if you consider ‘Shri Shankara bashyas, Shri MadhuSudana Sarswati, Shri Harsha, Appaya Dishitha etc. just to name a few.' As real great philosophical gems, then why would you believe Padma puran verse calling it mayavad and the purpose of it, I did not see you objecting to it. You cant have it both ways if it is Gem then one has to question the other. So tell us which one do you subscribe to?

Jai Shree Krishna

satay
04 February 2010, 10:26 AM
namaste Devotee,
Thanks for the post. I agree with you.
I will ensure that the same rules are followed in the advaitin section as well.
Thanks!




You remember, once you had advised that one should not go and refute what the ISKCONites write in the ISKCON section because it disrupted the discussion between people of similar faiths. We have sincerely adhered to that advice & that has helped this forum in a constructive way. Now, why can't we apply similar rules here to help a meaningful & undisrupted discussion in Advaita section ? I am not saying that doubts should not be raised ... I am not saying that whatever is posted should not be questioned .... what I am saying that intruding in a discussion for just parroting a one liner that, "This is not what Classical Advaita is" without giving any proof does create irritation & disruption in a healthy & meaningful discussion which can be avoided.

OM

atanu
04 February 2010, 11:26 AM
namaskar,

There is no chair and there is no table thus there is no question of using the table as a lamp since there is no lamp either.

There can't be an objection that my stomach is aching since there is no stomach is my point.

Namaskar satay,

Who told you this? Is then advaita experience same as that of being under chloroform? Just the reverse. You have asked very precise questions of me. I welcome them. Let me also ask a question. You started the longest running thread of this forum with:

Fear or death, I have none,
Nor any distincton of caste.
Neither father nor mother,
Not even a birth, have I.
Neither friend, nor comrade.
Neither disciple, nor Guru.
I am eternal bliss and awareness -
I am Shiva! I am Shiva!


I have no form or fancy.
The All-pervading am I.
Everywhere I exist,
Yet I am beyond the senses.
Neither salvation am I,
Nor anything to be known.
I am eternal bliss and awareness -
I am Shiva! I am Shiva!


Now, although being beyond all senses and without form, you are administering the forum. Although you are beyond caste distinctions, you seem to see all distinctions. Many such anomalies can be pointed out. How is it possible? Your answer, if true and correct, will be the answer here also.


Om Namah Shivaya

satay
04 February 2010, 11:33 AM
hello atanu,

brahman is the only reality is the thesis of advaita, at least that's my understanding.

Please correct me if that's not the correct understanding. However, please start a new thread in the appropriate section as this thread is only for bickerings and complaints.

A quick quote though wikipedia is not always reliable...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta
bolding mine...



According to Adi Shankara, God, the Supreme Cosmic Spirit or Brahman (pronounced [ˈbrəh.mən] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA); nominative singular Brahma, [ˈbrəh.mə]) is the One, the whole and the only reality. Other than Brahman, everything else, including the universe, material objects and individuals, are false.



Thanks!


Namaskar satay,

Who told you this? Is then advaita experience same as that of being under chloroform? Just the reverse.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
04 February 2010, 11:54 AM
hello atanu,

brahman is the only reality is the thesis of advaita, at least that's my understanding.

Please correct me if that's not the correct understanding. However, please start a new thread in the appropriate section as this thread is only for bickerings and complaints.

Thanks!

Dear satay,

I had asked you two questions as below:



Namaskar satay,

Who told you this? Is then advaita experience same as that of being under chloroform? Just the reverse. You have asked very precise questions of me. I welcome them. Let me also ask a question. You started the longest running thread of this forum with:

Fear or death, I have none,
Nor any distincton of caste.
Neither father nor mother,
Not even a birth, have I.
Neither friend, nor comrade.
Neither disciple, nor Guru.
I am eternal bliss and awareness -
I am Shiva! I am Shiva!


I have no form or fancy.
The All-pervading am I.
Everywhere I exist,
Yet I am beyond the senses.
Neither salvation am I,
Nor anything to be known.
I am eternal bliss and awareness -
I am Shiva! I am Shiva!

Now, although being beyond all senses and without form, you are administering the forum. Although you are beyond caste distinctions, you seem to see all distinctions. Many such anomalies can be pointed out. How is it possible? Your answer, if true and correct, will be the answer here also.

Om Namah Shivaya

The answers are there. Please ask yourself and your intuitive/meditative answer will the answer here. Without knowing your answer, your locus standii will not be clear to me and i will err.

Om Namah Shivaya

grames
04 February 2010, 03:26 PM
Pranam Ganeshprasad ji,

Thanks for such a nice message where prejudices are kept aside and doors are opened to know what the real intention is.

few things..

1) I do consider Advaita, the philosophy and also the practices preached by Shri Shankara and followers are real Gems for seekers of certain inherent quest. Unfortunately, my nature is not satisfied with what i learnt as "Advaita" when i was in my schools where such "Advaita" came from RK math swamijis who are with high respect great scholars and very knowledgeable people. Having close proximity to Thiruvannamalai, i still do have privilege of meeting Swamjis who do real Yoga,tapas in the himalayan mountains. Advaita has four very well established maths (the authentic Shankara Maths established by Shri Shankara) and they produced so many classical works and you can go find them if you are interested and buy a copy of them. Some believe that Kanchi Math is also an authentic math and they also have very big following with lot of literature work done on Advaita. I do have my personal collection from these maths publications.

2) For me, i am much more satisfied with Vaishnava philosophies and the learning of Vaishnava philosophies in fact was an opportunity to get to know the answers that was not answered by my quest on digesting "classical Advaita". Philosophically, advaita did not fit to my inherent nature for its major inexplicable idea like doctorine of Avidya, the introduced concept of Adysaaya etc. Since, i do not subscribe to it, i do not like to propagate a lot on something where i am not 100% in to.

3) My faith is in the vaishnava schools and i do believe that, there exist different class of :soul: and each other has inherent taste or bhava to enjoy and adhere to. So why different choices are existing and it does not make follower of one superior or inferior to any other. ( This is the only kind of tolerance i believe SD can have at max unlike pure ultra Universaliam). All the purvacharyas are against the idea of calling other acharyas or designating them with derogatory remarks and i have seen great respect shown to :Shri Shankara: by all the Vaishnava acharyas though with utmost vigor they refute(d) the philosophy given by him. They are two different things and people who are interested on "personalities" of such purvacharyas require YOGYATA to pass any comments or judgements about such great perceptors. I never believe i have such Yogyatha and i do follow the way how the Vaishnava acharyas designate Shri Shankara as Shri Shankara or Sripada Shankara or Shankaracharya etc. This padma purana thing is beyond my capacity to either accept or deny its authenticity so i have nothing for it or against it. ( The delusion aspect of Advaita is not derived from this Purana Vakya so do not assume i am making myself politically correct here.) Passing the refuation marks on philosophies of vedantic schools are not for disrespecting or even to discredit them but to put the practitioner in to different Darshana where his own faith gets strengthened. I remember long time ago once i had to respond to Shri Atanu ji on hindunet.com and i had to go back and read and understand a lot before posting a response to one of our conversation. It was beneficial to me and i am not sure whether Atanu have same kind of opinion. If it is wrong, it is your individual perception and it is not going to stop anyone from responding or refuting your writings here unless our dear Satay wants to keep a real sword chopping off all such responses along with the writer's head.

3) Why i refuse to expand them? I can and it is not that i cannot as i haven't read even one Upanishad in my life time but i have no belief in that darshana so how can i give 100% of it? I also believe people who are subscribed to Neo are very much satisfied with their new philosophy and practice also believe it in total as it is what Advaita is and do not really show much interest in knowing the classical Advaita (read my listing one more time). Some people think that, it is my head weight, superior Ego or complex etc when i mention about it. Are you sincere about "learning" and if that sincerity is there with in you what in the world makes you wait for me to teach that "classical advaita". I am asking you or accusing you of something as not :classical advaita: and it is not my burden to prove that it is not classical but when you refuse to accept or even get irritated, as a subscriber of such philosophy, it should become your serious interest to find out what exactly i am talking/accusing about rather than judging me of this or that etc. Find the knowledge in the proper place, know the reasons why these new ideas are dangerous to the doctrine of Advaita itself etc. then come back and give back proper points and refute the contention then the conversation can become more interesting where such contenders can bring in more from their experience and knowledge of "classical advaita". What is the use of making me an object of contention when i am just asking for reference from authentic philosophy? Am i going to benefit or who is going to be beneficial if shown good interest and sincerity? Why such positive attitude is not there and why it should be all "negative"?? and taken so personal?

Oh, Devotee Ji's post #41 will get a response after he cools down and learn to begin writing responses with out emotional out bursts.

As you say, IT IS PERFECT to have philosophical issues and also it should be perfectly ok to have discussion over it with "subject" knowledge and with high clarity. It should be clearly understood that, there is no one here who is your guru or disciple or your in laws to disrespect you or discredit you as a person or writer. It is all about what is written and what is understood of your writing.

devotee
04 February 2010, 10:10 PM
Namaste Satay,

I fail to understand why you should have any confusion on Neo and Classical as being propagated here by Grames who has candidly admitted that he has not read even one Upanishad & that he doesn't believe in that doctrine.

I have Sanskrit version of all major Upanishads which I rely on. Why not read directly from the source what it says ?

Grames in a discussion in the thread, "A few questions on Advaita ...." raised an number of objections which had no support .... I shall not mention those here. What I will like to mention here is this :

During that discussion he tried to explain, "Prjnaanam Brahma" as this :


It is just ilfate for many that, "Prajnaanaam Brahma" is translated to suite the philosophy where the context and spirit of that Shruti vakya advocates only one meaning which is, "Brahman the Knower, possess consciousness as His KalyanaGuna or auspicious attribute. . The Sanskrit word Prajna occurs several times in verses 56 to 68 of Chapter 2 of the Gita. The Lord refers in these verses to the Sthitha Prajna or the knower with steady wisdom and not to mere consciousness.

Let's see this translation :

a) First of all, this understanding belongs to Dwaita philosophy & not Advaita. However, Grames passes it on to us in disguise of Classical Advaita.

b) That translation is certainly wrong if we follow the meaning of the Sanskrit. The vaakya simply is "Prajnaanam Brahma". There are two nouns in the sentence, one is Prajnaanam & the other is Brahman. The missing verb cannot be anything except "asti" as per usage of terms in a similar sentence in sanskrit (.... as "Krishna sarveshwarah" ). So, the only translation possible of this Mahavaakya is, "Consciousness is Brahman".

If we try to translate it as, "There is Consciousness in Brahman" .... there should have been use of Saptam Vibhakti in the noun Brahma ... but Brahma is used in the first vibhakti in the sentence.

So, when we can all directly go to the source & verify why rely on many bhaasyas & confuse with "Classical vs Neo" ? Yes, we may have some problems in some places like in Isavasya Upanishad which uses very old Sanskrit .... then I look for translations done by various scholars matching with the part of the verse whose meaning is known & thus arrive at a conclusion.


00000000000000000000000

Dear Grames,

That is very clever of you to wiggle out of this situation by branding me being emotional. Forget about my getting emotional ( I am not but when you pass a judgement how can I, an emotional weakling, oppose that ?). Regarding learning ... yes, I have a lot to learn from you like "how to talk without knowledge with so much of cock confidence".

I shall wait for the day when you will quote three things :

a) Literal Translation of Upanishads
b) Translation by Classical Advaitins
c) Translation by Neo-Advaitins

.... And tell me the difference between all the three. I am also eagerly waiting to understand how, "This is a dog" can be translated as, "This is an elephant" or "This is a cow" whether it is translated by Grames, devotee or Shakespear.

If the translations can be manipulated to such an extent I will lose faith in my own scriptures.

You may take as much time as you need. I am in no hurry.

With love ...

Devotee

brahman
04 February 2010, 11:08 PM
Dear Grames,

That is very clever of you to wiggle out of this situation by branding me being emotional. Forget about my getting emotional ( I am not but when you pass a judgement how can I, an emotional weakling, oppose that ?). Regarding learning ... yes, I have a lot to learn from you like "how to talk without knowledge with so much of cock confidence".

I shall wait for the day when you will quote three things :

a) Literal Translation of Upanishads
b) Translation by Classical Advaitins
c) Translation by Neo-Advaitins

.... And tell me the difference between all the three. I am also eagerly waiting to understand how, "This is a dog" can be translated as, "This is an elephant" or "This is a cow" whether it is translated by Grames, devotee or Shakespear.

If the translations can be manipulated to such an extent I will lose faith in my own scriptures.

You may take as much time as you need. I am in no hurry.

With love ...

Devotee










||ॐ श्री परमात्मने नमः ||


श्रीभगवानुवाच
न बुद्धिभेदं जनयेदज्ञानां कर्मसङ्गिनाम् |
जोषयेत्सर्वकर्माणि विद्वान्युक्तः समाचरन् || श्रीमद्भगवद्गीता ३-२६|| Shrimad. Gita 3:26


कृतेर्गुणसम्मूढाः सज्जन्ते गुणकर्मसु |
तानकृत्स्नविदो मन्दान्कृत्स्नविन्न विचालयेत् ||श्रीमद्भगवद्गीता ३-२९|| Shrimad. Gita 3:29





.

grames
05 February 2010, 02:49 AM
Dear Brahman,

Very good ones and correct. Thanks for reminding...

grames
05 February 2010, 03:32 AM
Dear Devotee,

First of all, i request you to cool off again and with a relaxed peaceful mind after your Yoga/Meditation come back to this thread and read what i have written one more time.

To clarify to you for the last time in very direct words...
1. I do not believe in Advaita.
2. I do not believe Neo-Vedanta being branded as Advaita.
3. I am a Vaishnava
4. My Responses to the "Few Answers" thread is not about teaching you "classical Advaita" but to bring you on to the Vak based conversation with respect to the VADA's against Advaita, which you never attempted even after i asked for it as the total thread is off shoot of Mr Amith's.

If you have the power to understand 108 upanishad with your sanskirt dictionaries with out any help of any of the Bhasyakara's, i bow down to your feet and same time, i do not have any interest with even debating with someone with such super powers. I am just a dust in the lotus feet of my acharyas.

San moolah somya sarvah prajaha

take care

atanu
05 February 2010, 04:23 AM
Pranam Ganeshprasad ji,

---- I remember long time ago once i had to respond to Shri Atanu ji on hindunet.com and i had to go back and read and understand a lot before posting a response to one of our conversation. It was beneficial to me and i am not sure whether Atanu have same kind of opinion. ----

Namaste grames,

I have not told you earlier, but from the very first interaction at Hindunet, you came across as sensitive and a worthy friend. And that is the reason I have kept on waiting.

I had very turbulent discussions with another friend and eventually, learning from each other, we could see the difference between belief and the truth. One says "I believe this to be true" but truth requires no such assertion.

I have been waiting my dear friend.


------I also believe people who are subscribed to Neo are very much satisfied with their new philosophy and practice also believe it in total as it is what Advaita is and do not really show much interest in knowing the classical Advaita (read my listing one more time).

This is the correct way, IMO -- to say that "I believe this to be so ---" etc.. But often you have placed belief as truth. Or so myself and possibly some others perceived.

I know that I do this mistake more often than you since my posts are more numerous.

But finally, I think, that in "om tat sat" merge all darshanas. You may say that that is Neo.

Namaste and best wishes and regards. If you teach us the finer points of Dvaita darshana in appropriate threads we all will benefit.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
05 February 2010, 04:58 AM
Pranam Ganeshprasad ji,

3) My faith is in the vaishnava schools and i do believe that, there exist different class of :soul: and each other has inherent taste or bhava to enjoy and adhere to.

Namaste grames

I assume that by 'soul' you mean 'jiva'.

Funny thing. Today morning it flashed to me that Shri Madhava is the greatest Advaita teacher. Grames, you do not have to agree but just give a thought.

Om tat sat. Om is that sat. Om is Self that is Brahman and it is advaita. Whereas souls are many and are distinctly not Brahman (dvaita). Souls are eternally different from Brahman.

But since 'om tat sat', what the souls are?

--------------
Using a metaphor. Gold tat sat. Shapes are many -- bangles, rings, chains, anklets, etc. etc. These shapes are distinct from the gold tat sat, which is advaita sat. What then are these shapes?

Just a plaything -- a very very neo thing.

Om Namah Shivaya

devotee
05 February 2010, 05:05 AM
Dear Grames,

Believe me, I have no issues against you unless you decide to attack again without giving any proof of what you say. I don't understand your obsession with Advaita when it is not your path & you have not read the Upanishads yourself.

If I adhere to Advaita philosophy, it is a well reasoned choice made by me in this life. Do you think that the followers of path of Advaita are all fools ? If you have strong reasons to deny this path ... they have stronger reasons to follow this path. You certainly don't think that 'you are the savior who is on a mission to save all Advaitins' ... do you ? Hinduism has many paths & Advaita is one of those. All these paths are sacred for Hindus. Why should we have so strong bias against any path ?

I already knew what you said in your last post :



1. I do not believe in Advaita.
2. I do not believe Neo-Vedanta being branded as Advaita.
3. I am a Vaishnava

So, why don't you try to share your deep understanding of Vaishnavism with all of us which will benefit us all instead of attacking Advaita threads ?

Atanu has said it excellently :


If you teach us the finer points of Dvaita darshana in appropriate threads we all will benefit.


OM

Ganeshprasad
05 February 2010, 05:23 AM
Pranam Grames ji

My message was short which did not merit such a long response but thanks all the same for clarifying your position.
Your insistence on classical advaita does not make sense since by your own admittance you do not follow it. How can you judge classical from neo if you do not even read upanisad which forms a major part of advaita understanding?

As a vaishnav should you not be concerned about the neo vaishnav who claims to be following madhva line yet differ so much with the tradition or does it not matter since the theme is vaishnavism?



So why different choices are existing and it does not make follower of one superior or inferior to any other. ( This is the only kind of tolerance i believe SD can have at max unlike pure ultra Universaliam).

This is good to know, in dvaita the differences will persists while advaita will in final analysis see no differences, as a Hindu I can live with that.

Jai Shree Krishna

grames
05 February 2010, 05:26 AM
Dear Devotee and Atanu Ji,

Good advice and eye opener too :)
I will sincerely shift my gears and energy on doing exactly what you two have said here.

Thanks again and i hope we are not personally rivaled here.

grames
05 February 2010, 05:29 AM
Pranam Ji,

Not sure how my message conveyed like i haven't read even single Upanishad? In fact, i said, NOT THAT I CANNOT ! Is it problem of my wordings ??

If everyone who subscribe to "Advaita" here that there is no difference between Neo and Classical, wooof....i have no issues at all. Be it the Truth that you seek!

atanu
05 February 2010, 05:37 AM
Pranam Ganeshprasad ji,

2) For me, i am much more satisfied with Vaishnava philosophies and the learning of Vaishnava philosophies in fact was an opportunity to get to know the answers that was not answered by my quest on digesting "classical Advaita". Philosophically, advaita did not fit to my inherent nature for its major inexplicable idea like doctorine of Avidya, the introduced concept of Adysaaya etc. Since, i do not subscribe to it, i do not like to propagate a lot on something where i am not 100% in to.



Namaste grames,

My last opinion on this. You have hit the nail -- we all do that which satisfies us best. And, eventually, through tribulations and joys, mind comes to learn what satisfies forever. Shri Ramana teaches that moksha is just a name for this -- to be happy always.

You are correct that you are satified more with vaishnava philosophy.

Some of us have read in the upanishads that there is no happiness in the limited. We have also read that there is fear when there is another. We have read that one who sees any difference here goes from death to death.

And, at least personally from experiences, i have learned to value these as truth and only ways/pointers to everlasting satifaction.

So, just as i cannot have any complain that you are satisfied with vaishnava philosophy, you also cannot have complain that atanu seeks satisfaction through advaita darshana. Ultimately we all are seeking that everlasting satisfaction.
------------------------------

But I know that this path is difficult and painful. Following this path, if one cannot renounce the ego, then one is forced to do so.

Om Namah Shivaya

devotee
05 February 2010, 05:50 AM
Namaste Grames,



as i haven't read even one Upanishad in my life time

Perhaps this created confusion. :)

OM

Ganeshprasad
05 February 2010, 05:58 AM
Pranam Grames ji


Pranam Ji,

Not sure how my message conveyed like i haven't read even single Upanishad? In fact, i said, NOT THAT I CANNOT ! Is it problem of my wordings ??

well when you put it like this and i quote


I can and it is not that i cannot as i haven't read even one Upanishad in my life time but i have no belief in that darshana so how can i give 100% of it?

enough for simple mind like me to read as stated, vak is really playing tricks.






If everyone who subscribe to "Advaita" here that there is no difference between Neo and Classical, wooof....i have no issues at all. Be it the Truth that you seek!

May the force be with you,
why should you have any issues, you do not follow advaita

but you certainly can between traditional and neo Vaishnavism or is it you rather not talk about it?

Jai Shree Krishna

satay
05 February 2010, 11:42 AM
pranam atanu,

Your first question:


Who told you this?

I answered "Brahman is the only reality is the thesis of Advaita". Since no one actually 'told' me this because I have only read about it, I pointed a source on the Interenet.


I honestly don't know what your objection is to the answer?

Your second question:


Is then advaita experience same as that of being under chloroform?


I ignored this question but since you insist on my answer. Here it is:
I don't know what the advaita experience is as I haven't experienced advaita. I don't know what the experience of being under chloroform is either because I have never been under chloroform. Thus I can't tell you if the advaita experience is the same as that of being under chloroform. Maybe it is maybe it is not. I would have to wait until I experience both advaita and chloroform to tell you the difference.

But please don't hold your breath...




Just the reverse. You have asked very precise questions of me. I welcome them. Let me also ask a question. You started the longest running thread of this forum with:

Fear or death, I have none,
Nor any distincton of caste.
Neither father nor mother,
Not even a birth, have I.
Neither friend, nor comrade.
Neither disciple, nor Guru.
I am eternal bliss and awareness -
I am Shiva! I am Shiva!


I have no form or fancy.
The All-pervading am I.
Everywhere I exist,
Yet I am beyond the senses.
Neither salvation am I,
Nor anything to be known.
I am eternal bliss and awareness -
I am Shiva! I am Shiva!

Now, although being beyond all senses and without form, you are administering the forum. Although you are beyond caste distinctions, you seem to see all distinctions. Many such anomalies can be pointed out. How is it possible? Your answer, if true and correct, will be the answer here also.

Om Namah Shivaya


My understanding is that since Brahman only exists and nothing else there is no 'me' and there is no 'forum' thus there is 'no' one administering the forum. This forum, this conversation is not real.

Since you, me, grames are not real, and there is only one entity called Brahman there are no 'real' differences thus the complaints and objections are not real. It is all Brahman.

You can correct my understanding but please start a new thread.

Thanks,

atanu
05 February 2010, 09:29 PM
pranam atanu,

Maybe it is maybe it is not. I would have to wait until I experience both advaita and chloroform to tell you the difference.



Namaste satay,

That, I think, is the problem. Without experience, how can I then say the forum does not exist, the stomach does not exist? I exist is the truth yet my stomach may ache, since I have a mind to experience pain and pleasure (remember these are just metaphors).


My understanding is that since Brahman only exists and nothing else there is no 'me' and there is no 'forum' thus there is 'no' one administering the forum. This forum, this conversation is not real.

Since you, me, grames are not real, and there is only one entity called Brahman there are no 'real' differences thus the complaints and objections are not real. It is all Brahman.

You can correct my understanding but please start a new thread.

In that case you should also not react to me. Part answer to your conundrum is given above and I will add:

Can you say in dream that this bread that I am eating is a dream bread? Only after waking that can be said.

While in dream, whatever needs be done will be done. But one who has waken up even for a moment will not fear the nightmares any more.

Om Namah Shivaya

PS: Satay, I request you to move the posts suitably as it will be easier for you. If any further questions remain then we can discuss in the new thread.

PS2: (When advaita darshana says Brahman is reality, it is to gain absolute peace, also called moksha. It is to free the mind from the fear of nighmare; else, what practicality it has?)

satay
06 February 2010, 12:07 PM
pranam atanu,


[/font]

Namaste satay,

That, I think, is the problem. Without experience, how can I then say the forum does not exist, the stomach does not exist? I exist is the truth yet my stomach may ache, since I have a mind to experience pain and pleasure (remember these are just metaphors).


Are you saying that shruti has no value or role to play?




While in dream, whatever needs be done will be done. But one who has waken up even for a moment will not fear the nightmares any more.



hahaha..."While in dream, whatever needs to be done will be done."

Very funny and very convienient.

I wish not to pursue further since I am still in a dream.
One question comes to mind since I am in a dream and this prescription is also given in a dream, how do I know that it will work after I wake up? You need not answer...it's a question for self.

atanu
07 February 2010, 11:25 PM
pranam atanu,
Are you saying that shruti has no value or role to play?

Namaste satay.

Shruti only teaches of the dream states. How else would anyone know and practice?


hahaha..."While in dream, whatever needs to be done will be done."
Very funny and very convienient.
I wish not to pursue further since I am still in a dream.

Very funny indeed that you forget. Does not Shri Krishna teach that what is day for a yogi is night for the ignorant?
---------------

I have not got the answer as to how the below is true when you are yet to distinguish the Universe (as modification of Mind, which you are not) and the "I"?

Fear or death, I have none,
Nor any distincton of caste.
Neither father nor mother,
Not even a birth, have I.

My discussions with grames are similar to your seeing caste and other divisions, though you claim that you are birthless.

But I have stated before that the embodied existence is better lived by constantly remembering:

18.20. That by which one sees the one indestructible Reality in all beings, not separate in all the separate beings—know thou that knowledge to be Sattwic (pure).

Om Namah Shivaya

Krsna Das
08 February 2010, 02:34 AM
Maya-sakti has 3 modes or gunas - sattvik, rajasik and tamasik.

The knowledge of self is sattvik.

When we say "sattvik" - we should automatically understand the process itself to be under the jurisdiction of maya-sakti, and not free from it (nirguna).

Geeta 18:20
That knowledge by which one undivided spiritual nature is seen in all living entities, though they are divided into innumerable forms, you should understand to be in the mode of goodness (sattvik).

So which process itself leads the living entity to transcend the three modes of maya-Sakti? - Devotion to Krsna.

Geeta, 7:14:
This divine energy of Mine, consisting of the three modes of material nature, is difficult to overcome. But those who have surrendered unto Me can easily cross beyond it.

grames
08 February 2010, 08:58 AM
Dear Atanu,



Namaste grames,
So, just as i cannot have any complain that you are satisfied with vaishnava philosophy, you also cannot have complain that atanu seeks satisfaction through advaita darshana. Ultimately we all are seeking that everlasting satisfaction.
Om Namah Shivaya

I will just give an analogy... a bucket which can hold 5 ltrs will be "fully" full if you fill it with 5 lts of "Pleasure". Does that mean there won't be a 50 ltr bucket?

Differences sometimes misunderstood as insufficiency! Though that is not the idea of "divine" differences. Can you meditate on these lines for sometime and let me know really what you can think of?

The whole point is not about someone following "Advaita" but i do not want to explain anything more than this single statement :)

satay
08 February 2010, 09:51 AM
pranam atanu,


[/font]

Namaste satay.

Shruti only teaches of the dream states. How else would anyone know and practice?



If shruti only teaches of the dream states, then how are you giving the prescription of what happens in the waking state?



Very funny indeed that you forget. Does not Shri Krishna teach that what is day for a yogi is night for the ignorant?
---------------


What I meant was that your statement was very funny and convienent. It's an easy out to say 'While in dream, whatever needs be done will be done'




I have not got the answer as to how the below is true when you are yet to distinguish the Universe (as modification of Mind, which you are not) and the "I"?

Fear or death, I have none,
Nor any distincton of caste.
Neither father nor mother,
Not even a birth, have I.

My discussions with grames are similar to your seeing caste and other divisions, though you claim that you are birthless.


Honestly, you don't think that I wrote that. Please revisit that post and find the name of the original author at the end of that post. hint: adi sankara.



I still don't know what your objection is to the thesis of advaita that 'brhaman is the only reality' and you, me, grames don't actually exist.

What's your objection?

atanu
10 February 2010, 11:36 PM
Dear Atanu,

I will just give an analogy... a bucket which can hold 5 ltrs will be "fully" full if you fill it with 5 lts of "Pleasure". Does that mean there won't be a 50 ltr bucket?

Differences sometimes misunderstood as insufficiency! Though that is not the idea of "divine" differences. Can you meditate on these lines for sometime and let me know really what you can think of?

The whole point is not about someone following "Advaita" but i do not want to explain anything more than this single statement :)

Namaste grames,

I think that the meaning of ghana is not clear. When it is ghana there is no scope for 5 L or 50 L. That concept of 'metering out' the 5L or 50 L is for the knower whose substratum is the un-meterable.

On the other hand, in the mode of metering, discussions in the mode of sat sangh can be and is useful. Isn't that true?

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
10 February 2010, 11:58 PM
pranam atanu,

If shruti only teaches of the dream states, then how are you giving the prescription of what happens in the waking state?

Namaste Satay,

At the outset, i hope that you will move these series of posts elsewhere.

Shruti/Gita is known as the roar of a Lion from within the dream. One goes through bouts of snoozing and waking during the transition of waking and sleeping.

Satsangh means efforts to remember the roar and not to fall back fully asleep. May God allow the grace that the discussions here, no matter with whom, remain satsangh -- the effort to keep the truth of 'All this is Shiva' in mind.

OTOH, there will be natural pulls to go back to sleep, in many disguises. Satsangh is to counter those natural pulls.



Honestly, you don't think that I wrote that. Please revisit that post and find the name of the original author at the end of that post. hint: adi sankara.

So you cited Shankara without believing it?

The true goal is always to seek that freedom which Shankara prescribes -- to remember that I am is not the caste divisions and I am is not even born. Shankara's poem, similar as Gita, is a roar that breaks the dream. We must abide and believe. Shri Krishna also teaches "I am the Self" and "I am unborn".



I still don't know what your objection is to the thesis of advaita that 'brhaman is the only reality' and you, me, grames don't actually exist.

What's your objection?

I think there is some mis-understanding.

Gita says: Vasudeva is All.
Rig says: Aditi is All
Upanishad says: Rudra is All
Vedanta says: Brahman is All.
Vedanta also says: I am Brahman.
Vedata also says: You are That.

By personalizing Vasudeva as different from Rudra or from Aditi, the mind first destroys the un-meterable nature of " Vasudeva is All".

All these discussions happen as satsangh -- to remember and remind.

I actually do not understand the objection to the shruti that "Brahman is All". I do not understand the objection with the shruti "Om Tat Sat". I do not understand the objection with the shruti "The sat is Eko". (Note: When one replaces Sat by the english word 'Truth', the meaning may appear to be different. Because in english 'truth' is synonymous with 'Speaking the truth'. In Sanatana Dharma sat is silence -- beyond Mind and Speech).

It is not wrong to say that all designs that are made with Gold have Gold as the Substratun and the Gold is the TRUTH. This does not deny the various designs.

Om Namah Shivaya

Ps: Again, I hope that you will kindly move these to another post.

atanu
11 February 2010, 05:09 AM
pranam atanu,
I still don't know what your objection is to the thesis of advaita that 'brhaman is the only reality' and you, me, grames don't actually exist.

What's your objection?

Namaste,

I wanted to expand on the above a bit and I thank you for the opportunity.

I do see grames, satay and atanu and everything else that others also see, just as I see a table and a chair both of wood and a bangle and a ring both of Gold.

I, based on Guru's teaching, do not see many purusha however. I see eko purusha with saharsa shira, sahasra pada and sahasra bahu. grames is there on the same purusha as atanu is here. Meditating and contemplating on the teaching of Upanishads, I also transcend the realm of Mind, temporarily, and abide as pure Pragnya - while the meditation lasts. I see no division, and correlating with the knowledge that what I am is same in deep sleep and in the waking state, i believe that the waking state objects are not separate from the divisionless Pragnya, wherein I am in deep sleep.

In deep sleep, atanu has no problem. In fact I exist in deep sleep also as I am, without the tag of atanu. But the same me appears to face many problems in waking. Has the person changed on waking? I understand that associating the pure me (made of knowledge) with atanu (made of koshas) may be the problem.

With above understanding and experience of mediation, at working level, I again re-enter the realm of mind and see everything situated as beads on a single garland. This existence is now about repaying the debts of karma. The divisions of designs and names do exist in the realm of Mind (not mine but of that promordial purusha). Who denies that?

But there is a big difference in the premise of 'us and them' and of 'eko purusha'. In the latter, grames, satay and atanu are not opposed, though apparently it appears so. Every bead on the garland is tied to the garland and exists as per the auspiciuos will of the Lord.

Om Namah Shivaya

kd gupta
11 February 2010, 05:39 AM
But Atanuji , if you dont exist then how shall you come to know about Krsns sattwik gyan ?

Sarvabhooteshu yenaikam bhaavamavyayameekshate;
Avibhaktam vibhakteshu tajjnaanam viddhi saattwikam.

That by which one sees the one indestructible Reality in all beings, not separate in all the
separate beings—know thou that knowledge to be Sattwic (pure).

atanu
11 February 2010, 05:55 AM
But Atanuji , if you dont exist then how shall you come to know about Krsns sattwik gyan ?

Sarvabhooteshu yenaikam bhaavamavyayameekshate;
Avibhaktam vibhakteshu tajjnaanam viddhi saattwikam.
That by which one sees the one indestructible Reality in all beings, not separate in all the
separate beings—know thou that knowledge to be Sattwic (pure).


Namaste Guptaji,

My reality, as of every other, is existence-knowledge bliss. As the knowledge is the substratum, how will i not know? Even not knowing is knowing. Here the seeing/knowing is through the eyes and ears of atanu and so colored as per atanu. But Upanishads do teach: There is no other knower but Him.

And the knowing we are talking about is transcendental to mind's sensual knowing, where, scripture says: "---there is no one seeking moksha" and also "When the ignorance goes, only that auspicious being remains----".

I thought that I had covered this in the previous post.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

bhaktajan
11 February 2010, 10:19 AM
I found this question written by Madan shakti dev:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=39365&postcount=14





Re: Panchkosha - five layers of existence
Is Brahman Conscious? Yes it is.

All the superlative descriptions of Sri Brahman found in sastra are actually describing in what manner "Brahman is Conscious".

Would a person declare that Sri Brahman's Consciousness is limited to arising only those bound in samsara births?

We are conscious. We search for the Absolute Truth.
Absolute Truth is Conscious, a Consciousness all its own.

Brahman is Self-Conscious, of Himself.

Opulences of Brahman are actually the Glories of His (God's) consciousness.

What say mantri?

Sahasranama
08 January 2011, 05:39 AM
namaskar,

Here is my 2 cents.

Granted that advaitic teaching is for the 'adhikari' and I am certainly not the adhikari for such teachings, I am interested in learning classical advaita and have been trying personally for a couple of years now. Using my simple engineering mind, I feel that there is a gap between teachings of contemporary gurus and sri shankaracarya's compilation of advaitic world view.

I don't know if that gap is real or is just my feeling only. However, it would nice to see someone tie today's advaitic teachings of 'universalism' to the acarya's original compilation.

If you know, could you please point me in the right direction of a guru/teacher that teaches classic advaita? I have been trying to understand it purely from academic point of view by reading books, listening to lectures (oxford university online lectures) etc.

Also, I don't think 'neo' is a derogotary word so not sure why people feel offended when this word is used. Is 'neo' a derogotary word?

Do you have a link to the oxford audio lectures?

satay
08 January 2011, 12:13 PM
Namaskar,

yes, here it is.
http://ochs.org.uk/lectures/previous-lectures


Do you have a link to the oxford audio lectures?