myths and facts about advaita

[amith vikram]

grames,hope we both be honest to the core and biased to satya,rather than madhva or shankara.

myth - advaita preaches atheism.it is buddhism in disguise.

fact - this is not true.shankaracharya was foremost among bhaktas and i am not talking out of my hat.if you simply browse th' his works,you will get to know.devotion cant be 'taught'.no where in history was devotion taught,in that case it cant be devotion.the study of brahman is taught,or is suggested to those who have first realised that happiness or contentment cant be acieved even by becoming the sole emperor of the earth,by enjoying the various delights of the world(like yayati realises).like maitreyi asks yajnavalkya-'what am i to do with all these properties which in the long run dies.tell me of that which has no death,which u have found'.even the stars,the sun and moon the gods,the worlds will be destroyed one day and cease to exist.this birth and death has no beginning or end(refer scriptures)this is samsara.
however there is one,inexplicable by words(refer scriptures),which cant be grasped by the mind and the intellect.(gita-above the mind is intellect,i am above intellect)this unborn(refer sc.),from where all this world starts is verily the only thing that exists all the time.this brahman cant be seen by eyes,cant be heard by ears or by any other means as this brahman is beyond everything.however this brahman can be experienced.the mind,antahkarana is the place of experience.since the mind follows the intellect,knowledge of brahman leads the way for the manas and everything is comprehended by intellect.
found any flaw in this?

[grames]

Dear Amith,

I will be very honest in my curiosity and i asked the questions in fact to know more about how "advaita" is understood by different followers. In fact, i am reading and 'trying' to understand various works of Shankara compiled by Rama Krishna Math.

So, along with being honest, can we also "think" and share our understanding with respect to

1) The philosophy itself with out hand waving...
2) Inter relation of different aspects of what Shri Shankara's advaita is all abt
3) What is that we can take and what is that is taken by you after "knowing" and understanding

I am emphasizing on the point 3 as faith with out rationale is mere sentiment.

So, in your response you said,

myth - advaita preaches atheism.it is buddhism in disguise.

fact - this is not true.

Your further explanation is not actually justifying this statement of "Myth" how about sharing your understanding which justifies the "Myth" as not right.?

I sincerely acknowledge that Shri Shankara is a greatest Devotee and also Top most. So, there is no question of His devotion and knowledge etc.


Also, i do agree to most of what you said about "nature" of Brahman. :). So, my curiosity is not even in the line of "How" and to what extend Brahman is described or hinted by scriptures etc. My curiosity is all about "why" this Brahman is nirguna and by addressing that Supreme entity as "nirguna" what is that you have understood? and how different it is from the concept of Nirvana?

Do you mind talking with this pattern?

Hari Bol!


grames,hope we both be honest to the core and biased to satya,rather than madhva or shankara.

myth - advaita preaches atheism.it is buddhism in disguise.

fact - this is not true.shankaracharya was foremost among bhaktas and i am not talking out of my hat.if you simply browse th' his works,you will get to know.devotion cant be 'taught'.no where in history was devotion taught,in that case it cant be devotion.the study of brahman is taught,or is suggested to those who have first realised that happiness or contentment cant be acieved even by becoming the sole emperor of the earth,by enjoying the various delights of the world(like yayati realises).like maitreyi asks yajnavalkya-'what am i to do with all these properties which in the long run dies.tell me of that which has no death,which u have found'.even the stars,the sun and moon the gods,the worlds will be destroyed one day and cease to exist.this birth and death has no beginning or end(refer scriptures)this is samsara.
however there is one,inexplicable by words(refer scriptures),which cant be grasped by the mind and the intellect.(gita-above the mind is intellect,i am above intellect)this unborn(refer sc.),from where all this world starts is verily the only thing that exists all the time.this brahman cant be seen by eyes,cant be heard by ears or by any other means as this brahman is beyond everything.however this brahman can be experienced.the mind,antahkarana is the place of experience.since the mind follows the intellect,knowledge of brahman leads the way for the manas and everything is comprehended by intellect.
found any flaw in this?

[amith vikram]

Dear Amith,

I will be very honest in my curiosity and i asked the questions in fact to know more about how "advaita" is understood by different followers. In fact, i am reading and 'trying' to understand various works of Shankara compiled by Rama Krishna Math.

So, along with being honest, can we also "think" and share our understanding with respect to

1) The philosophy itself with out hand waving...
2) Inter relation of different aspects of what Shri Shankara's advaita is all abt
3) What is that we can take and what is that is taken by you after "knowing" and understanding

I am emphasizing on the point 3 as faith with out rationale is mere sentiment.


i understand

So, in your response you said,

myth - advaita preaches atheism.it is buddhism in disguise.

fact - this is not true.

Your further explanation is not actually justifying this statement of "Myth" how about sharing your understanding which justifies the "Myth" as not right.?

I sincerely acknowledge that Shri Shankara is a greatest Devotee and also Top most. So, there is no question of His devotion and knowledge etc.


in that case how can advaita teach atheism?shankara was a bhakta,but the disciples of shankara are not.how can this be?

Also, i do agree to most of what you said about "nature" of Brahman. :). So, my curiosity is not even in the line of "How" and to what extend Brahman is described or hinted by scriptures etc. My curiosity is all about "why" this Brahman is nirguna and by addressing that Supreme entity as "nirguna" what is that you have understood? and how different it is from the concept of Nirvana?




nirguna,its hard 2 digest this word in the beginning.when the word nirguna is uttered,dont think of a non-living entity.it is not nirguna like wood or wall.i guess this is the reason for dispute.nirguna means,not being affected by gunas.lets take an eg.krishna or vyasa like many seem to be ever pleased with themselves,while the rest of the world were either happy with +ve results or dejected with -ve.no matter what occured,they were always that ananda rupis.nirguna means this.did u get a clue?

Do you mind talking with this pattern?

Hari Bol!

jai shri krishna

[devotee]

Namaste Vikram,

You may like to see posts on Shankaracharya at these links :

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4824&page=5

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4824&page=6

OM

[amith vikram]

namaste devoteeji,

i am posting a part of ur post again here:
PRM.12 : Q. Who is your enemy ?
A. Laziness is your enemy.

PRM.38. Q. For what should you take effort?
A. To learn, to be healthy and to give in charity needs great effort.

PRM. 45. Q. Whom will Gods worship?
A. Gods will worship those who have mercy.

PRM. 59. Q. What is Chathur pathram (the good four) which drives away the darkness of ignorance?

1. Charity coupled with sweet words.
2. Knowledge without pride.
3. Valour with patience.
4. Wealth with sacrifice.
These four rare things are called the good four.

PRM.75. Q. What should occupy your thought day and night?
A. The feet of God and not this life.

PRM. 79. Q. What should be spoken by men?
A. The name of Hari.
PRM. 81. Q. What should man earn?
A. Knowledge, wealth, strength, fame and Punya (result of good deeds)

PRM. 87. Q. What is like the ever perennial banyan tree?
A. Charity given to the proper people.
PRM.88. Q. What is the weapon for everybody?
A. The capability of proving with just deeds.
PRM.163.Q. Who is personification of all gods?
A. A wise man who does all his Karmas

thanks.

[grames]

Dear Amith,

After reading your explanation, i still do no understand or i do misunderstand...


nirguna,its hard 2 digest this word in the beginning.when the word nirguna is uttered,dont think of a non-living entity.it is not nirguna like wood or wall.i guess this is the reason for dispute.nirguna means,not being affected by gunas.lets take an eg.krishna or vyasa like many seem to be ever pleased with themselves,while the rest of the world were either happy with +ve results or dejected with -ve.no matter what occured,they were always that ananda rupis.nirguna means this.did u get a clue?


You saying Nirguna means "not being affected by Guna". And then you gave an example of Lord Krshna being happy by Himself. I am not getting any clue how these two are connected.

Is it because Lord Krshna is Nirguna, not affected by Guna so why He is always happy?

Ananda Rupi - Rupa is also a Guna isint?? Or are you implying that the ultimate achievement by a SadaKa that is promised by Advaita is to have this "Ananda" rupa?? but not affected by the Rupa?

Also, more curiously the term "Ananda" is also a Guna isint?

So honestly i did not get it yet. please help!

[amith vikram]

Dear Amith,

After reading your explanation, i still do no understand or i do misunderstand...




You saying Nirguna means "not being affected by Guna". And then you gave an example of Lord Krshna being happy by Himself. I am not getting any clue how these two are connected.

Is it because Lord Krshna is Nirguna, not affected by Guna so why He is always happy?

Ananda Rupi - Rupa is also a Guna isint?? Or are you implying that the ultimate achievement by a SadaKa that is promised by Advaita is to have this "Ananda" rupa?? but not affected by the Rupa?

Also, more curiously the term "Ananda" is also a Guna isint?

So honestly i did not get it yet. please help!
you said it!
ananda is a guna/nature/attribute of brahman!
however ananda is not dependent on satva-rajas-tamas.
as for rupa,u can ignore it,coz its not a shape but a state.
if ananda is a shape,i'd like to have a look.show me.remember brahman can be experienced.
if u r mixing 3 gunas with ananda,let me tell u,these 3 gunas will only appear as long as there is ego of 'i'.when this false notion of 'i' is negated by 'neti-neti',what remains is ananda.

i suppose we both agree on brahman being anand(bliss)&knowledge(concious)?

just like water stays seperate from the lotus leaf, these gunas stay seperate from brahman.

whatever we percieve,its because of the concious(knowledge) nature of brahman.everyone eats drinks lives strive 2 be happy,i.e,ananda(bliss).there is nothing in the world or universe or any other imagination which has chaitanya other than brahman.

lets go the other way,for a change..
brahman is sat.that which exists is sat and that which does not exist is asat.brahman alone exists and none other.if anything other than brahman should exist,for eg. ego,how can it EXIST being seperate from brahman.

[Krsna Das]

Hare Krsna !

Dandavat Pranamas to everyone !

I have two questions about advaita philosophy:

First Question:
Do the advait-vadis beleive that all the names and forms (material names and forms of Jivas (Jada-Deha) as well as spiritual names and forms of Supreme Person (Cinmaya-Vapu) ) are nothing but illusion?

Second Question:
In Padma purana, Lord Siva says that this philosophy is actually budhism only, but kind of hidden (pracchannah baudham ucyate). By the order of Supreme Lord, I incarnate in the form of a brahmin to propagate this false philosophy. What is the interpretation of advaita-vadis for the following verse:

mayavadam asac-chastram pracchannah baudham ucyate
mayaiva kalpitam devi kalau brahmana-rupina

Hare Krsna !

[devotee]

Do ISKCON members believe that Puranas enjoy higher authority than the Upanishads ?

If Puranas contradict Upanishads then they are either doctored or they must be interpreted in accordance with the Vedas.

Do you understand the above statement, Krsna Das ? Do you want to believe a doctored Purana or authentic Upanishads ? BTW, do you know why Chaitanya Mahaprabhu gave the doctrine of Achintya Bheda (duality)-Abheda when Dvaita vaad already existed ? Please try to figure this out.

And my advice is that please concentrate on your Bhakti Saadhana than indulging in Advaita bashing. Advaita is not your cup of tea.

OM

[Krsna Das]

Hare Krsna !

Dandavat Pranamas to everybody !

All Glories to SriSri Radha Krsna !

@ Devotee : Your post and the tone you have posted says all for me. I do not wish to discuss/learn anything from you/or a person like you. So you may kindly refrain from posting replies to any of my posts.

To all others reading this thread: I am not bashing any philosophy. I am just asking how do advait-vadis reconcile these verses from puranic literature, and please reply to my two questions mentioned in my post above ( In a peaceful manner )

[devotee]

Dear Krsna Das,

Your intentions are more than clear in your questions. Shall I remind you that it is Advaita Section ?

OM

[amith vikram]

Hare Krsna !

Dandavat Pranamas to everyone !

I have two questions about advaita philosophy:

First Question:
Do the advait-vadis beleive that all the names and forms (material names and forms of Jivas (Jada-Deha) as well as spiritual names and forms of Supreme Person (Cinmaya-Vapu) ) are nothing but illusion?

Second Question:
In Padma purana, Lord Siva says that this philosophy is actually budhism only, but kind of hidden (pracchannah baudham ucyate). By the order of Supreme Lord, I incarnate in the form of a brahmin to propagate this false philosophy. What is the interpretation of advaita-vadis for the following verse:

mayavadam asac-chastram pracchannah baudham ucyate
mayaiva kalpitam devi kalau brahmana-rupina

Hare Krsna !
advaita expounds that,god alone is truth,god alone is ever present and the jivas have no definition without god.
advaita expounds that,without god,not a grass can be moved.all that exists is god,in god,god,god,god.
it is all about god and nil about 'i'.
only the god can see and what does it see?
god again.
advaita expounds that man can chant and praise god only by the grace of god.
are u different from god?then god is surely not omnipresent.
advaita suggests a mumukshu to devote himself 2 any god,hari-hara.
but let me ask u,what is the reason that non-advaitins show such devotion 2 god for?
whatever u answer,advaita fearlessly states,renounce that.

[Onkara]

Hare Krsna !

Dandavat Pranamas to everyone !

I have two questions about advaita philosophy:

First Question:
Do the advait-vadis beleive that all the names and forms (material names and forms of Jivas (Jada-Deha) as well as spiritual names and forms of Supreme Person (Cinmaya-Vapu) ) are nothing but illusion?

Second Question:
In Padma purana, Lord Siva says that this philosophy is actually budhism only, but kind of hidden (pracchannah baudham ucyate). By the order of Supreme Lord, I incarnate in the form of a brahmin to propagate this false philosophy. What is the interpretation of advaita-vadis for the following verse:

mayavadam asac-chastram pracchannah baudham ucyate
mayaiva kalpitam devi kalau brahmana-rupina

Hare Krsna !
Namaste Krsna Das
1) As an Advaitin my answer is no, they are not illusions. Understanding superimpostion helps to reveal true nature of being.

2) Please can you provide a link to an English translation? I am very sorry but I have only just started to study Sanskrit.

[amith vikram]

about padma purana,i ve never read anythin like that..

[Krsna Das]

Amit Prabhu and Snip Prabhu, Dandavat Pranamas to both of you !

Amit Prabhu, I am unable to understand your message in the sense that how does it give direct and clear answers to both of my questions. Can you pl explain clearly.

Snip Prabhu, the verses and there meanings are as follows:


mayavadam asac-chastram pracchannah baudham ucyate
mayaiva kalpitam devi kalau brahmana-rupina

O Goddess, in the age of Kali I shall descend in the form of a brahmana to spread this Mayavada philosophy which is actually covered Buddhism. (Padma Purana)


svagamaih kalpitais tvam ca janan mad-vimukhan kuru
mam ca gopaya yena syat srstir esottarottara

Make the general public averse to Me (Krsna) by some imaginary hypothesis from you. Also camouflage me, so that the public will be deluded gradually by desire for material advancement. (Padma Purana)

Also, in the Varaha Purana Lord Visnu instructs Siva saying:


esa moham srjamy asu yo janan mohayisyati
tvam ca rudra maha-baho moha-sastrani karaya

O mighty-armed Siva, please write books filled with lies, and thus bewilder the people.


atathyani vitathyani darsayasva maha-bhuja
prakasam kuru catmanam aprakasam ca mam kuru

O mighty-armed one, please preach a collection of lies. Place yourself in the forefront, and conceal Me.

One more thing, This doctrine of Mayavada is so harmful to the jiva that Mahaprabhu Himself has warned us by saying, "Mayavada bhasya sunile haya sarva nasa." -- "One who hears the commentaries of the Mayavadis, will ruin his spiritual life."

[amith vikram]

Amit Prabhu and Snip Prabhu, Dandavat Pranamas to both of you !

Amit Prabhu, I am unable to understand your message in the sense that how does it give direct and clear answers to both of my questions. Can you pl explain clearly.

Snip Prabhu, the verses and there meanings are as follows:


mayavadam asac-chastram pracchannah baudham ucyate
mayaiva kalpitam devi kalau brahmana-rupina

O Goddess, in the age of Kali I shall descend in the form of a brahmana to spread this Mayavada philosophy which is actually covered Buddhism. (Padma Purana)


svagamaih kalpitais tvam ca janan mad-vimukhan kuru
mam ca gopaya yena syat srstir esottarottara

Make the general public averse to Me (Krsna) by some imaginary hypothesis from you. Also camouflage me, so that the public will be deluded gradually by desire for material advancement. (Padma Purana)

Also, in the Varaha Purana Lord Visnu instructs Siva saying:


esa moham srjamy asu yo janan mohayisyati
tvam ca rudra maha-baho moha-sastrani karaya

O mighty-armed Siva, please write books filled with lies, and thus bewilder the people.

atathyani vitathyani darsayasva maha-bhuja
prakasam kuru catmanam aprakasam ca mam kuru

O mighty-armed one, please preach a collection of lies. Place yourself in the forefront, and conceal Me.

please sir,
krishna das,
i appeal 2 your concience,how and why would neelakhanta,the one who consumed poison for the sake of the world,poison the same?
he who is so powerful,that his dance alone scatters the asuras,
why would he spread the ignorance among mere men?
who and what authority does he have,who classify advaitins as ateists?
what have the advaitins like swami vivekananda done the devotional souls of bharatha varsha?

this apart,in a direct sentence,no,hari hara or any dieties are not illusions.lets forget the words illusion/maya etc...
i can explain the purport of advaita without these words...

[Onkara]

Amit Prabhu and Snip Prabhu, Dandavat Pranamas to both of you !

Amit Prabhu, I am unable to understand your message in the sense that how does it give direct and clear answers to both of my questions. Can you pl explain clearly.

Snip Prabhu, the verses and there meanings are as follows:


mayavadam asac-chastram pracchannah baudham ucyate
mayaiva kalpitam devi kalau brahmana-rupina

O Goddess, in the age of Kali I shall descend in the form of a brahmana to spread this Mayavada philosophy which is actually covered Buddhism. (Padma Purana)


svagamaih kalpitais tvam ca janan mad-vimukhan kuru
mam ca gopaya yena syat srstir esottarottara

Make the general public averse to Me (Krsna) by some imaginary hypothesis from you. Also camouflage me, so that the public will be deluded gradually by desire for material advancement. (Padma Purana)

Also, in the Varaha Purana Lord Visnu instructs Siva saying:


esa moham srjamy asu yo janan mohayisyati
tvam ca rudra maha-baho moha-sastrani karaya

O mighty-armed Siva, please write books filled with lies, and thus bewilder the people.


atathyani vitathyani darsayasva maha-bhuja
prakasam kuru catmanam aprakasam ca mam kuru

O mighty-armed one, please preach a collection of lies. Place yourself in the forefront, and conceal Me.

One more thing, This doctrine of Mayavada is so harmful to the jiva that Mahaprabhu Himself has warned us by saying, "Mayavada bhasya sunile haya sarva nasa." -- "One who hears the commentaries of the Mayavadis, will ruin his spiritual life."
Thank you Krsna Das
This is new to me so a few questions arise, perhaps you can kindly direct me to some answers?

How is this associated with Advaita? Is it from Sri Sankaracharya's use of Maya? I see that Mayavada is the key word here, however I have read that this is not the name Sankaracharya used, so I wonder where the connection is?

Logically, if it was the will of Vishnu to bring in teachings which conceal the truth with the use of His Maya, then surely that has a benefit for Vishnu (Sri Krishna) which cannot be evil? So what is that benefit, is that benefit dervied from understanding this Mayavada and seeing through that teaching? If so is that which lies on the other side of the Mayavada could be Truth i.e. Vishnu Himself? In other words, the Lord has created this for some goodness or else the Lord has acted from evil?

If this is about Maya and it's role in Advaita, is this something we can take up here to help answer your initial quesitons?

[devotee]

Namaste Amit and Snip,

I think Satay should stop this.

The Padma Purana talks about Buddhism ! That clearly shows that it must have been written or doctored after Buddha. And it can't be upto the time of Sankara as no one was able to defeat Sankara in Shaastraartha. This brand of Bhakti-yoga (which refuted Upanishads & Advaita) came only nearly after 1500 AD (as I remember) & these doctored Puranas must have appeared during that period.

If these Puranas are to be believed then All Upanishads and Bhaagwad Gita get refuted. Then the Chaitanya Mahaapranhu's Bheda-Abheda theory will get reduced to only Bheda-Bheda (Duality alone).

People who are deluded by doctored Puranas & have never read Upanishads or even understood Bhaagwad Gita, claim to know everything !

OM

[amith vikram]

Namaste Amit and Snip,

I think Satay should stop this. Krsna Das just wants to spread hatred here.

The Padma Purana talks about Buddhism ! That clearly shows that it must have been written or doctored after Buddha. And it can't be upto the time of Sankara as no one was able to defeat Sankara in Shaastraartha. This brand of Bhakti-yoga (which refuted Upanishads & Advaita) came only nearly after 1500 AD (as I remember) & these doctored Puranas must have appeared during that period.

If these Puranas are to be believed then All Upanishads and Bhaagwad Gita get refuted. Then the Chaitanya Mahaapranhu's Bheda-Abheda theory will get reduced to only Bheda-Bheda (Duality alone).

People who are deluded by doctored Puranas & have never read Upanishads or even understood Bhaagwad Gita, claim to know everything !

OM
Namaste devoteeji,
i understand your concerns.but let people express whatever they feel.we should always be ready to answer all the questions,if they desire 2 know the truth.
the anti-advaita voice is heard more often these days,the reasons we all know why.the so called bhakta shiromanis need the world market as their followers,who call themselves the messengers of that charmer and spread hatred among all.
however,only the truth shines like the sun.so in my opinion,arguments are welcome,sir.

[Krsna Das]

My response to Amit Prabhu and Snip Prabhu:

Many thanks for your reply !

Although, as of now I have not received any answers to my questions. But I see that you have asked some questions about the above mentioned verses. Let me explain this per my own understanding of vedic litereature, in accordance with the Gaudiya Vaisnava tradition:

Lord Visnu instructed Lord Siva to preach a philosophy that conflicts the vedic principles. It sounds like a vaedic philosophy, but is actually hidden from of Budhist-Sidhanta.

Lord Visnu instructed Lord Siva to preach this philosophy because at that point of time, in India, people used to perform devotional service to Lord Visnu only for material motives and not for attaining Sudha-ekantiaka-prema-mayi-bhakti, devoid of desire for material gains and desire for Moksa (Liberation). In order to delude such people, and also to protect the swaroop of such Suddha-bhakti (avyabhicarini-bhakti), Lord Visnu ordered Lord Siva to spread this philosophy, because it is possible only for the pure-unalloyed devotees of Supreme Personality of GodHead to preserve the mood (bhava) of Sudha-Bhakti, not the persons having material motives or desire for liberation (meaning desire for 4 purusarthas).

This answer is according to vaisnava school of thought. I just wanted to know that what is the response of advaita-vadis for these verses.

I have not received any satisfactory answers as of now, but anyways thanks agian for your efforts to enlighten me.

[Onkara]

Namasté Krsna Das
The response given by Devotee is fairly satisfactory for me, given the time lines and the references to Buddha.

If we go further into the verses, I am not convinced this Mayavada is Advaita Vedanta. I appreciate that Advaita Vedanta has been called Mayavada, as this is the "hatred" on which Devotee Ji communicates his concerns.

Why is Advaita hated and called Mayavada? My assumption is that Advaita explains the problem of superimpostion as coming from Maya. Maya is also begningless. Not understanding these two concepts can lead to a quick decision that Advaita is some how incorrect. Advaita is not incorrect imho. I am yet to doubt Advaita and would be happy to try to explain Maya's role in Advaita Vedanta if you believe this is why the above is thought to be Advaita Vedata? There are others here who are more qualified than me to do so too.

Advaita Vedanta is not Buddhism. The above says Mayavada is buddhism. So my answer is that this Mayavada is not Advaita Vedanta.

My last point still stands; Why would Lord Vishnu create Mayavada if it did not serve a holly purpose? What purpose does Mayavada serve if not for man's benefit? Is not seeing through this Mayavada the goal and is not the concealment caused by this Mayavada a challange that you and I should face if so? So how are we do to that?

I am not defending Advaita here, as I do not believe Mayavada is Vedanta based on the above and Devotee Ji's answer.

[amith vikram]

the summary of advaita:
since it is me who should know about this,let us see who is this me:
who am i?
am i the body which is perishable?---no
am i the mind?
no,coz,i stay here when mind wanders
am i the intellect?
intellect is not on its own.
when we feel from various senses including the mind and the intellect,
the one which is pramana to all these is this conciousness.
surely the eyes wont see and the ears dont hear,but this conciousness,which is ever existant,is the witness for everything.
this ever existent conciousness in its purest form,i.e., devoid of rage towards enemies and love towards friends,the possesiveness,in general,is our true nature:-)
diving deep in this respect,it may not only be pride,but still ego exists.suppose i am a hari bhakta.when i know i am a _ of _,i will either feel _ or _
it cant be neutral.this is the ego.
we can practically experience this.suppose i am studying some book,say harry potter(enjoying thoroughly), my parents pester me 2 study network theory.i express my contempt for intruding my joy.
now,is this non living harry potter book capable of givin joy?
no,the joy was in me.the joy cannot be satisfied by reading a book or any other material or any thing apart from me.it is like adding ghee to the fire.in fact advaita says,it is not the joy at all.
yajnavalkya says: we likes other for the sake of ourselves not for the other's sake.we respect our parents for the sake of our parents which in turn is for ourself.like that,one may say i pray govinda or kailasnath,but he for ever satisfies his own self "I"
like krishna says,verily this self alone is sought after by everyone,no matter what.
advaita says:know this self,by knowing this,one can become pure in heart and intellect,throw away the deluded thoughts that this is happyness,this is not,and know that TAT TVAM ASI.you are that.
you need not get moksha couriered from vaikunta or kailasa gift wrapped to you,but this knowledge leads to moksha,which is the complete negation of "I",by neti-neti.
as you can see, advaita is staring right in your face!

[amith vikram]

My response to Amit Prabhu and Snip Prabhu:

Many thanks for your reply !

Although, as of now I have not received any answers to my questions. But I see that you have asked some questions about the above mentioned verses. Let me explain this per my own understanding of vedic litereature, in accordance with the Gaudiya Vaisnava tradition:

Lord Visnu instructed Lord Siva to preach a philosophy that conflicts the vedic principles. It sounds like a vaedic philosophy, but is actually hidden from of Budhist-Sidhanta.

Lord Visnu instructed Lord Siva to preach this philosophy because at that point of time, in India, people used to perform devotional service to Lord Visnu only for material motives and not for attaining Sudha-ekantiaka-prema-mayi-bhakti, devoid of desire for material gains and desire for Moksa (Liberation). In order to delude such people, and also to protect the swaroop of such Suddha-bhakti (avyabhicarini-bhakti), Lord Visnu ordered Lord Siva to spread this philosophy, because it is possible only for the pure-unalloyed devotees of Supreme Personality of GodHead to preserve the mood (bhava) of Sudha-Bhakti, not the persons having material motives or desire for liberation (meaning desire for 4 purusarthas).

This answer is according to vaisnava school of thought. I just wanted to know that what is the response of advaita-vadis for these verses.

I have not received any satisfactory answers as of now, but anyways thanks agian for your efforts to enlighten me.
well,in that case i have alreasdy given you the answer,which is crystal clear.

PS-no 2 things can occupy the same place.

[devotee]

Why is Advaita hated and called Mayavada?

Because ISKCON though proclaims to be a Hindu organisation, has its view borrowed from Christianity. Has anyone heard a Hindu proclaiming that Shiva is a demi-God ? ISKCON has been trying to give Hinduism a color which is completely alien to Hinduism.

This organisation has even manipulated Bhaagwad Gita in "Bhaagwad Gita As it is" to present all verses of Bhaagwad Gita which talk of Advaita & they call themselves Krishna Bhakta !

The reason why Chaitanya Mahaprabhu gave Bheda-ABHEDA (Duality-Non-duality) theory because he found that the Advaitic Verses of Upanishads cannot be supported by Maadhvaa's Dvaitic philosophy. However, this theory has been again distorted by ISKCON & they have taken all Abheda part from Bheda-Abheda !

I have no problem if they believe like this. However, they have no rights to show their superiority over Advaita when they are not even aware of Upanishads. ISKCON appears to be a desperate organisation whose members want to convert people to their fold as the people from Abrahimic religions do. This tendency is foreign to Hinduism.

I have serious doubts that the verses Krsna Das is quoting must have been written and inserted into the original scripture by them to distort the Truth.

If we believe what ISKCON members say i.e. attachment to one name & form, then what is the difference between their faith & Christianity ? Just replace the name "Krishna" with Jesus. There is actually no difference.

OM

[smaranam]

Although, as of now I have not received any answers to my questions. But I see that you have asked some questions about the above mentioned verses.
Lord Visnu instructed Lord Siva to preach a philosophy that conflicts the vedic principles. It sounds like a vaedic philosophy, but is actually hidden from of Budhist-Sidhanta.

Lord Visnu instructed Lord Siva to preach this philosophy because at that point of time, in India, people used to perform devotional service to Lord Visnu only for material motives and not for attaining Sudha-ekantiaka-prema-mayi-bhakti, devoid of desire for material gains and desire for Moksa (Liberation). In order to delude such people, and also to protect the swaroop of such Suddha-bhakti (avyabhicarini-bhakti), Lord Visnu ordered Lord Siva to spread this philosophy, because it is possible only for the pure-unalloyed devotees of Supreme Personality of GodHead to preserve the mood (bhava) of Sudha-Bhakti, not the persons having material motives or desire for liberation (meaning desire for 4 purusarthas).

This answer is according to vaisnava school of thought. I just wanted to know that what is the response of advaita-vadis for these verses.

I have not received any satisfactory answers as of now, but anyways thanks agian for your efforts to enlighten me.

Namaste KrshnaDas ji

About Padma Purana :

Devoteeji is right. These are puranas with tailor-made verses of later dates .... and later upanishads that cater specifically to one sect.

It is said that there are several versions of Padma Purana and it has interpolations.

Not only in that popular verse on 'mayavada' which is conveniently pulled out, isolated, out of context,
There is interpolation on something about RAma's bridge (setu) in the Padma Purana , acc. to some.

Let us hypothetically assume they were not interpolations.

This verse is during Lord Shiva's conversation with Devi PArvati. Shiva is so engrossed deep in love of Krshna, that He says these things. The verses before and after should be read to get an idea of Lord Shiva's mood in any case.

Remember how Krshna was teasing Rukmini - "O best of my queens, what did you find in Me ? A mere uncivilised cowherd , no good....." which made her faint , thinking 'Now My Lord is going to forsake me so He is saying such things' . (Shrimad Bhagvatam Canto 10)

Now, won't it be silly and ridiculous to take Krshna's words literally and believe He was just a village cowherd ?
Its the same with that verse in Padma Purana , which Lord Shiva says out of love.

This is what I said elsewhere about such cases :

With passage of time, poetic expressions and devotional sentiments of prema bhaktas turn into doctrinal statements and worse - sometimes dogmas. We have to be careful not to get into this Maya. "Time I am" says Bhagvan Sri Krshna.

[smaranam]

Namaste,

Some BhAgavatam for you

The msg - He, Brahman, Bhagvan, Parameshwar, enters jada prakrti and brings it alive. He alone is. Bhagvatam is poetic. Its beautiful. But we have to see the plane , platform and realm its speaking from.


SB 1.1.2 bhidyate hṛdaya-granthiś
chidyante sarva-saḿśayāḥ
kṣīyante cāsya karmāṇi
dṛṣṭa evātmanīśvare

Thus the knot in the heart is pierced, and all misgivings are cut to pieces. The chain of fruitive actions is terminated when one sees the Self as master.

SB1.2.28-29
vāsudeva-parā vedā
vāsudeva-parā makhāḥ
vāsudeva-parā yogā
vāsudeva-parāḥ kriyāḥ
vāsudeva-paraḿ jñānaḿ
vāsudeva-paraḿ tapaḥ
vāsudeva-paro dharmo
vāsudeva-parā gatiḥ

In the revealed scriptures, the ultimate object of knowledge is VAsudeva, the all pervading one. The purpose of performing sacrifice is to please Him. Yoga is for realizing Him. All fruitive activities are ultimately rewarded by Him only. He is supreme knowledge, and all severe austerities are performed to know Him. Religion [dharma] is rendering loving service unto Him. He is the supreme goal of life.

VAsudeva = one who is everywhere (does that ring a bell ?)

Vishwam Vishnur VashatkAra Bhuta-bhavya-bhavat-Prabhu (VishnusahasranAma)


Sarva idam.


SB2.1.17
abhyasen manasā śuddhaḿ
trivṛd-brahmākṣaraḿ param
mano yacchej jita-śvāso
brahma-bījam avismaran

After sitting in the above manner, make the mind remember the three transcendental letters [a-u-m], and by regulating the breathing process, control the mind so as not to forget the transcendental seed.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Krsna Das ji



Snip Prabhu, the verses and there meanings are as follows:


mayavadam asac-chastram pracchannah baudham ucyate
mayaiva kalpitam devi kalau brahmana-rupina

O Goddess, in the age of Kali I shall descend in the form of a brahmana to spread this Mayavada philosophy which is actually covered Buddhism. (Padma Purana)


svagamaih kalpitais tvam ca janan mad-vimukhan kuru
mam ca gopaya yena syat srstir esottarottara

Make the general public averse to Me (Krsna) by some imaginary hypothesis from you. Also camouflage me, so that the public will be deluded gradually by desire for material advancement. (Padma Purana)

Also, in the Varaha Purana Lord Visnu instructs Siva saying:

esa moham srjamy asu yo janan mohayisyati
tvam ca rudra maha-baho moha-sastrani karaya
O mighty-armed Siva, please write books filled with lies, and thus bewilder the people.

atathyani vitathyani darsayasva maha-bhuja
prakasam kuru catmanam aprakasam ca mam kuru

O mighty-armed one, please preach a collection of lies. Place yourself in the forefront, and conceal Me.

I find the verses you have quoted are interpolation for several reason, one which was pointed out to you by devotee ji.

Two, Madhvacharya never quoted this verses, isn’t it strange, that he remains silent on this verse . If this verse existed during his time, instead of writing pages of refuting advaita, he would have simply quoted this verse and closed the case.

And this one is strange that the lord who is Satva guna resort to asking Lord Shiva to mislead, then how is it possible to believe anything? If you take the position that the Lord misleads people sometimes, then it is possible that he was also misleading Vaishnava. How do you rule that possibility out? After all he said Bhaja Govinda did he not?

And it gets even more strange, accepting the possibility that for some strange reason the lords colludes to mislead why would they go on to broadcast the plan ? Now who would believe such a statement either they are stupid which they are not or we are, having known the plan in advance still we get deluded in that case there really was no need for the lies. It is like a child announce to father, when he comes home, mummy has not cooked Pizza for dinner. Seriously mind boggles.

Now my turn to ask, do you accept everything in Padma puran?

How about Siva Gita?

Jai Shree Krishna

[Eastern Mind]

Because ISKCON though proclaims to be a Hindu organisation, has its view borrowed from Christianity. Has anyone heard a Hindu proclaiming that Shiva is a demi-God ? ISKCON has been trying to give Hinduism a color which is completely alien to Hinduism.

I have no problem if they believe like this. However, they have no rights to show their superiority over Advaita when they are not even aware of Upanishads. ISKCON appears to be a desperate organisation whose members want to convert people to their fold as the people from Abrahimic religions do. This tendency is foreign to Hinduism.

If we believe what ISKCON members say i.e. attachment to one name & form, then what is the difference between their faith & Christianity ? Just replace the name "Krishna" with Jesus. There is actually no difference.

OM

Vannakkam Devotee: This is a bit of a sweeping generalisation, yet holds a lot of truth. In my experience, individuals within ISKCON do vary. I have observed the following.

The older a member is, the more likely they are to be tolerant of other faiths within Hinduism. Newly indoctrinated ones are the worst.

Americans are less tolerant than Indian ISKCONITES or even those that have spent considerable time in India. Ironically, I find Indian Christians to be less tolerant than American Christians. There is just something about a fresh (read Born Again) person who feels the need to share his experience with all other beings on the planet. Part of it is just newly found enthusiasm.

I have met some who respected my Saivism, at least in public. Even to the point of apologising for past ISKCON policies. I also know some who have departed from ISKCON for these very reasons. Perhaps after we departed they were saying, "Holy Cow, worshipping a demigod. How stupid is that!" But I didn't get that impression.

I do my best to be polite with ISKCON members and accept them into the Hindu fold. But yes, some days its really hard when you get dogmatic views expressed. Obviously the ones who come on here feel they are part of Hinduism, or they wouldn't be here at all. I also see that when hard feelings do arise here on HDF, this topic is close by. Its village mentality at its best.

Have a day of Love.

Aum namasivaya

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~


Namasté

I have read many of the compelling POV's above. For me, I look to the simple view of this great darśana and offer the following.

We know advaita अद्वैत means the following: a=not + dvaita = duality , duplicity , dualism
Also - advitīya = without a second , sole , unique, matchless ( as in couple) from a + dvitīya a=not + dvitīya= second, couple, accompanied by, companion

So , why such a big deal over this? What helps us better understand the value of this notion of this advitīya ?

IMHO there are many reasons and I hope the members of this forum will continue to offer their views based upon the śāstra-s, yet one salient point for me comes from the bṛhadaraṇyaka upaniṣad - puruṣavidha-brāhmaṇa, 2nd śloka. It simply says the following:　　

Any time there is a sense of 2, fear arises i.e. dvitiyad vai bhayam bhavati - Fear is born of duality.
dvitiyad or dvitīya द्वितीय - 2nd or two , couple,
bhayam or bhaya भय - fear , alarm dread apprehension
( rooted in bhī to fear for , be anxious about )
vai an emphasis and affirmation , generally placed after a word
and laying stress on it (it is usually translatable by 'indeed' ,
'truly' , 'certainly' )
bhavati or bhava भव arising or produced from , being inThe implications of this truth is profound... we can talk of this if there is interest.
praṇām

[amith vikram]

some tit bits from brihadaranyaka---


Chapter IV—The Creation and Its Cause
1
In the beginning, this universe was the self (Viraj) alone, in the
shape of a person. He reflected and saw nothing else but His
self. He first said: "I am He." Therefore He came to be known
by the name I (Aham). Hence, even now, when a person is
addressed, he first says: "It is I," and then says whatever other
name he may have. And because He, before (purva) the whole
group of aspirants, burnt (aushat) all evils, therefore He is
called Purusha. He who knows this verily burns up him who
wishes to be Viraj in advance of him.
Source: "

2
He was afraid. Therefore people still are afraid when alone. He
thought: "Since there is nothing else but Myself, what am I
afraid of?" Thereupon His fears were gone; for what was there
to fear? Assuredly, it is from a second entity that fear arises.

7
Now, all this universe was then undifferentiated. It became
differentiated by name and form: it was known by such and
such a name and such and such a form. Thus to this day this
universe is differentiated by name and form; so it is said. "He
has such a name and such a form."
This Self has entered into these bodies up to the very tips of the
nails, as a razor lies hidden in its case, or as fire, which sustains
the world, lies hidden in its source. People do not see the Self,
for when viewed in parts It is incomplete: when breathing, It is
called the vital breath (prana); when speaking, the organ of
speech; when seeing, the eye; when hearing, the ear; when
thinking, the mind. These are merely Its names according to Its
functions. He who meditates on one or another of Its aspects
does not know, for It is then incomplete: the Self is separated
from Its totality by being associated with a single characteristic.
The Self alone is to be meditated upon, for in It all these
become unified. Of all these, this Self alone should be known,
for one knows all these through It, just as one may find an
animal which is lost through its footprints. He who thus knows
the Self obtains fame and association with dear ones.
8
This Self is dearer than a son, dearer than wealth, dearer than
everything else, because It is innermost. If one holding the Self
dear were to say to a person who speaks of anything other than
the Self as dear, that he, the latter, will lose what he holds
dear—and the former is certainly competent to do so—it will
indeed come true.
One should meditate upon the Self alone as dear. He who
meditates upon the Self alone as dear—what he holds dear will
not perish.
9
They say: "Since men think that by the Knowledge of Brahman
they become all, what, pray, was it that Brahman knew by
which It became all?"
10
This self was indeed Brahman in the beginning. It knew itself

only as "I am Brahman." Therefore it became all. And whoever
among the gods had this enlightenment, also became That
Brahman. It is the same with the seers (rishis), the same with
men. The seer Vamadeva, having realized this self as That,
came to know: "I was Manu and the sun." And to this day,
whoever in a like manner knows the self as "I am Brahman,"
becomes all this universe. Even the gods cannot prevent his
becoming this, for he has become their

Self.
16
Now, this self (the ignorant person) is an object of enjoyment
(lokah) to all beings. In so far as he offers oblations in the fire
and performs sacrifices, he becomes an object of enjoyment to
the gods. In so far as he studies the Vedas, he becomes an
object of enjoyment to the rishis. In so far as he makes
offerings to the Manes and desires children, he becomes an
object of enjoyment to the Manes. In so far as he gives shelter
and food to men, he becomes an object of enjoyment to men. In
so far as he gives fodder and water to the animals, he becomes
an object of enjoyment to the animals. In so far as beasts and
birds and even ants find a living in his home, he becomes an
object of enjoyment to these. Just as one wishes no injury to
one's body, so do all beings wish no injury to him who has this
knowledge. All this, indeed, has been known and well
investigated.

Source: "The Upanishads - A New Translation" by Swami Nikhilananda in four volumes

[amith vikram]

contd...

Chapter IV—Yajnavalkya and Maitreyi (I)
1
"Maitreyi, my dear," said Yajnavalkya, "I am going to renounce
this life. Let me make a final settlement between you and
Katyayani (his other wife)."
2
Thereupon Maitreyi said: "Venerable Sir, if indeed the whole
earth, full of wealth, belonged to me, would I be immortal
through that?" "No," replied Yajnavalkya, "your life would be just like that of people who have plenty. Of Immortality,
however, there is no hope through wealth."
3
Then Maitreyi said: "What should I do with that which would
not make me immortal? Tell me, venerable Sir, of that alone
which you know to be the only means of attaining
Immortality."
4
Yajnavalkya replied: "My dear, you have been my beloved
even before and now you say what is after my heart. Come, sit
down; I will explain it to you. As I explain it, meditate on what
I say."
5
Then Yajnavalkya said: "Verily, not for the sake of the
husband, my dear, is the husband loved, but he is loved for the
sake of the self which, in its true nature, is one with the
Supreme Self.
"Verily, not for the sake of the wife, my dear, is the wife loved,
but she is loved for the sake of the self.
"Verily, not for the sake of the sons, my dear, are the sonsloved, hut they are loved for the sake of the self.
"Verily, not for the sake of wealth, my dear, is wealth loved,
but it is loved for the sake of the self.
"Verily, not for the sake of the brahmin, my dear, is the
brahmin loved, but he is loved for the sake of the self.
"Verily, not for the sake of the kshatriya, my dear, is the
kshatriya loved, but he is loved for the sake of the self.
"Verily, not for the sake of the worlds, my dear, are the worlds
loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self.
"Verily, not for the sake of the gods, my dear, are the gods
loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self.
"Verily, not for the sake of the beings, my dear, are the beings
loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self.
"Verily, not for the sake of the All, my dear, is the All loved,
but it is loved for the sake of the self.
"Verily, my dear Maitreyi, it is the Self that should be
realized—should be heard of, reflected on and meditated upon.
By the realization of the Self, my dear—through hearing,
reflection and meditation—all this is known.
6
"The brahmin rejects one who knows him as different from theSelf.
The kshatriya rejects one who knows him as differentfrom the Self.
The worlds reject one who knows them as
different from the Self. The gods reject one who knows them as
different from the Self. The beings reject one who knows them
as different from the Self. The All rejects one who knows it as
different from the Self. This brahmin, this kshatriya, these
worlds, these gods, these beings and this All—are that Self.
7—9
"As the various particular kinds of notes of a drum, when it is
beaten, cannot be grasped by themselves, but are grasped only
when the general note of the drum or the general sound
produced by different kinds of strokes is grasped;
"And as the various particular notes of a conch, when it is
blown, cannot be grasped by themselves, but are grasped only
when the general note of the conch or the general sound
produced by different kinds of blowing is grasped;
"And as the various particular notes of a vina, when it is
played, cannot be grasped by themselves, but are grasped Only
when the general note of the vina or the general sound
produced by different kinds of playing is grasped;
Similarly, no particular objects are perceived in the waking and
dream states apart from Pure Intelligence.
10
"As from a fire kindled with wet fuel various kinds of smoke
issue forth, even so, my dear, the Rig—Veda, the Yajur—Veda,
the Sama—Veda, the Atharvangirasa, history (itihasa),
mythology (purana), the arts (vidya), the Upanishads, verses
(slokas), aphorisms (sutras), elucidations (anuvyakhyanas) and
explanations (vyakhyanas) are like the breath of this infinite
Reality. From this Supreme Self are all these, indeed, breathed
forth.
11
"As the ocean is the one goal of all waters (i.e. the place where
they merge), so the skin is the one goal of all kinds of touch,
the nostrils are the one goal of all smells, the tongue is the one
goal of all savours, the ear is the one goal of all sounds, the
mind is the one goal of all deliberations, the intellect is the one
goal of all forms of knowledge, the hands are the one goal of all
actions, the organ of generation is the one goal of all kinds of
enjoyment, the excretory organ is the one goal of all excretions,
the feet are the one goal of all kinds of walking, the organ of speech is the one goal of all the Vedas
13
Then Maitreyi said: "Just here you have bewildered me,
venerable Sir, by saying that after attaining oneness the self has
no more consciousness."
Yajnavalkya replied: "Certainly I am not saying anything
bewildering, my dear. This Reality is enough for knowledge, O
Maitreyi."
14
"For when there is duality, as it were, then one smells another,
one sees another, one hears another, one speaks to another, one
thinks of another, one knows another. But when everything has
become the Self, then what should one smell and through what,
what should one see and through what, what should one hear
and through what, what should one speak and through what,
what should one think and through what, what should one
know and through what? Through what should One know That
owing to which all this is known—through what, my dear,
should one know the Knower?"

[devotee]

Namaste EM,

I think I was carried away by emotions. I normally maintain my cool but I am not super-human. You are right, generalization is not good. :)

I am a worshipper of Lord Krishna since my childhood & I read Bhaagwad Gita daily. I have read important books from all religions & also Upanishads & my opinion is that Bhaagwad Gita is unparalleled in wisdom. Though being Smriti BG enjoys a lesser authority than Upanishads ( as they are part of Vedas), I find it better than Upanishads as it comprises the essence of the Upanishads & Brahma Sutras in one place. Yet I do not reconcile with the attitude of the ISKCON. I really don't understand their problem. They say, "Lord Krishna is Supreme" ... ok ... how can they say that Lord Shiva is second to Lord Krishna ? This can be stated by only those who have no knowledge of Upanishads belonging to Krishna Yajurveda & they would have never heard of what Kashmir Shaivism is. There is a very strong relationship between Kashmir Shaivism & Advaita philosophy.

Let’s see these slokas from Bhagwad Gita which is a scripture that no ISKCON member can refute :

Avinaashi tu tadviddhi yena sarvam idam tatam |
Vinaashamavyayasya na kashchit kartum arhati || BG 2. 17||

The non-perishable here in the above verse has been denoted as, “Tat” (in Tadviddhi & Tatam). Again in the all verses referring to this Avinaashi, it has been referred to in singular number. Why ?

Achhedyoayam adaahyoayamakledyoashoshya cha |
Nityah sarvagatah sthaanurchaloayam sanaatanah || 2.24 ||

This Self in the above verse has been described as, “Sarvagatah” … means which is present everywhere. Again it is stated to be “Sthaanuh” i.e. non-moving. It is also called permanent & unchanging in the above verse. Now, if anything is really present everywhere, is non-moving & also unchanging … can it be more than one ?

Again this verse :

Mayaa tatam idam sarvam jagadavyaktamoortinaa |
Matsthaani sarvabhootaani na chaaham teshvasthitah || 9.4||

Let’s concentrate on the meaning of the first sentence : It says that Krishna has pervaded everything in this manifested universe. Now, equate that with attributes of all pervasiveness of Self in 2.24 … can there be two things pervading everything & everywhere ? If anything pervades “everything” & is “everywhere” … it cannot accept two things !

Lord Krishna explains this more explicitly in Chapter 13. Let’s see these verses :

Verse 13.13 :

Now I shall explain that which is worth knowing & after knowing which immortality is obtained : That is beginningless, me as supreme, Brahma which is called neither real (sat) nor unreal (asat).

Please note : Lord Krishna is Brhama & he is neither sat (real) nor asat (unreal).

Verse 13.14 :

He has his hands, feet, eyes, ears, heads & faces everywhere. That who hears all abides in this universe by pervading everything.

Please note : "Self pervades everything", says BG Chapter 2 & also Isa Upanishad. Can two things pervade everything & everywhere ? Logically impossible.

Verse 13.15 :

He is inside & also outside all beings. He itself is the moving ones & also the non-moving ones. Because of being very subtle, it is incomprehensible. It is what is located far off & also the nearest.

Please note : How Krishna being in the body of a human being as perceived by ISKCON, can have these attributes ?

Verse 13.16 :

It is indivisible & yet appears as divided in the beings . It should be understood as the originator, nourisher, & destructor of all beings.

Please note : He himself appears as divided in all beings. The One appears as many. Then what is our perception of Jivaatmaa ? Is it not illusion ?

Verse 13.23 :

He is the witness, the one who permits/sanctions, the sustainer, the enjoyer & Supreme Godhead. In these bodies, the Purush (i.e Jiva-Aatmaa), itself is Paramaatmaa (the Supreme Soul or God).

Please note : This Jiva-Aatmaa (individual self) itself is Paramaatmaa (or God).

Verse 13.25 :

Some see this Self in self by meditating on self, some by Saankhya yoga, some by Karma yoga.

Please note : By meditating on one’s individual self one can see Self in self. Is not Advaita ?

Verse 13.28

He, who sees that imperishable God abiding equally in all perishing (bodies) he alone sees (the reality).

Please note : Same God abiding equally in all beings !

Verse 13.31

When in different-different beings, one sees the One (alone), then he alone attains the expansion of the Brahman.

Please note : One must see One alone in different-different beings to attain the expansion of Brahamn.

Verse 13.33

As the Akaashaa (space) which is everywhere but because it is subtle, it doesn’t get soiled (affected), this Self too, which is everywhere & in these bodies doesn’t get soiled.

Please note : The Self is equated with Aakaashaa (space) pervading everywhere & in all beings.

........................................................

Are these above mentioned verses not crying hoarse on validity of Advaita alone as the supreme Truth ? The meaning of these verses have been distorted by ISKCON in its translation in “Bhagwad Gita as it is” (I like to call it as” Bhagwad Gita as it is not” !). So, if anyone has any doubt over the meaning of verses quoted above, I am ready to discuss every verse threadbare by taking the original meaning word-by-word as it is given in Sanskrit version of Bhagwad Gita which was spoken by Lord Krishna Himself.

OM

[Krsna Das]

Dandavat Pranamas to all who have contributed to this thread !

All glories to SriSri Radha Krsna !

I have read the responses given by all the members and following is my obeservation:


Many of them percieve my questions to be attack on advaita philosophy. Attacking a philosophy and asking a question - both are two different aspects and need not be confused with.
Some of the members feel that the verses which I have quoted are correct, but mayavad is not same as advaita-vada. Therefore advaita is not talked about in those verses. There is no harm in such thinking, however I will post a seperate thread of what GV's call Mayavad in Hare Krsna community.
Some members feel that verses itself were inserted sometime later in padma-purana. However no pramana (proof) was given, like who inserted those verses, what was the motive of that person, at what time these were inserted, how do we decide that the verses here are interpolated and not the real ones, which puranas have such interpolated verses, and how many such verse exist, is this applicable to vedas also? - No proof is given. That way I can also say that the BG verses mentioned in this thread are inserted/interpolated ones. By accepting such sidhhanta, we are ourselves putting a big question mark on our own glorious vedic literature. This is totally erroneous sidhhanta and is unacceptable, at least to me.
For few other posts, I do not feel they deserve my importance, so I am not replying at all.Thanks to all once again !

All glories to SriSri Radha Krsna.

[PERIOD]

[devotee]

Namaste,

In the last post, Pramaana has been asked for doubting the quotes from Padma Purana. The Pramaana are the Shruti which is acceptable to Bheda-Abheda (GV sect) & Advaita Vedanta equally. Let's see if what is stated in Shruti matches with what is stated in those verses in Puranas.

I have myself quoted verses from Bhagwad Gita ... can those verses be true if the dubious quotes from Padma Purana are correct ? Can the Upanishads like Maandukya Upanishad be true if those quotes are true ?

There are many manipulations in Puranas & that is why there are many versions. If all scriptures would have been pure and without any chance of misinterpretation what was the necessity of having a hierarchy of authority of scriptures ? Why do Puranas enjoy the lowest authority in the scriptures in Hinduism ?

The rules of all Dharmic debates are on the basis of Pramaana. The following is the hierarchy of authority of the scriptures :

a) Shruti i.e. Vedas (Samhita, Brahmana, AraNyaka & Upanishads) (highest authority) : Here also Upanishads get priority over other parts of Vedas in all 6 Vedanta Schools & that includes Advaita Vedanta & also Bheda-Abheda.

b) Smriti (Next lower authority, above Puranas but lower than Shruti): That includes Bhagwad Gita.

So, Bhagwad Gita or any Gita, Manu Smriti etc. cannot be interpreted in a way which refutes Upanishads.

c) Puranas (Ramayana, Sri Bhagwatam, Padma Purana, Maarkandeya Purana, Devi Purana, Mahaabhaarat, Shiva Purana etc.) : They are at the lowest rung of the ladder & no interpretation of these texts which refutes either Shruti or Smriti is acceptable.

I would like to underline the fact this hierarchy has been accepted by all Schools of Vedanta including Bheda-Abheda.

However, interestingly, people come armed with some dubious quotes from some Puranas (the lowest in authority) to refute Shruti (the highest in authority) !

OM

[grames]

Dear Amith,

I am glad i am talking to a rationale person and thanks for this response. Though this thread started by you has been 4 pages long by the time i am writing this response, i would like to focus on responding only to your messages.

You said...

"ananda is a guna/nature/attribute of brahman!"

This is not Advaitic position as far i understood so far reading various works of Shri Shankara. Brahman 'is' Ananda... and this Ananda is not a Guna as Brahman is Nirguna. Brahman is sat cit ananda is another way of describing what Brahman is though these three sat cit and ananda are not Guna of Brahman. ( Difficult wording i guess.. ). If you say they are Guna, duality will become reality which is not advaita's position but how do you understand this concept of Ananda, Cit and Sat not being the attributes or characteristics of Brahman is the confusing trick where my wonder is.

The three guna's you mentioned Sattva, Rajo and Tamo are not considered spiritual but material guna and i hope we dont have to do a long discussion to agree that these are not spiritual characteristics or guna. But, i will be interested to know whether such "brahman" is devoid of any spritual guna also which is not "Sattva, Raja and Tamo". If that is true...

1) How Brahman acts? So many Upanishadic passages declare abt Brahman's actions. How Advaita explains that?
2) How actionless Brahman act to get back to His original state? if samsara is between 'real and unreal" where Brahman is real but the samsara is unreal? something has to perform some "Action" (Sadaka) here to realize the "real" state isn't? What is that "Something"?? Is it Brahman? or anything else? If that is "Action" of 'anything else', existence of such "Anything else" becomes "real" isn't? So, the complete result of that "Anything else" realizing itself to Brahman state is truly an act of "Transformation" of one state to another isn't? ( Hope you remember the laws of conservation etc. ). If this is true, then realities of both are true which is again not Advaitic position.


So second point u made is..

"as for rupa,u can ignore it,coz its not a shape but a state."

Rupa... not sure why you called it a state. Rupa very strongly means, Form, figure etc. I think the crux of real understanding lays on understanding this term "rupa" or what Rupa means. If Rupa is of "Brahman" then Advaita itself is not directing the sadaka's, at least philosophically to the conclusion of Vedanta but takes the follower to an intermediate level only. Because, you are at least talking about few "things" about Brahman which makes such "Brahman" describable which is against the concept of "only experienceble " Brahman. ( In other words, you can utter nothing about Brahman but can only Experience). If Brahman has Rupa, He becomes personal Brahman and you have to accept then Brahman is not Nirguna. If you want to introduce Saguna aspect of Brahman, then you ought to explain how such "saguna" aspect comes in to existence with out "maya" acting on "nirguna" Brahman. Brahman is only one and so, Saguna Nirguna are not two different things but Only one. So, how will you differentiate Saguna Brahman here and deny that His Rupa is not real? or ignore His Rupa? If you can give reasons for that as, it is only meant for understanding the Brahman with two different "levels" of understanding of "Brahman", such teachings itself is unreal as

1) You are trying to teach about Brahman
2) You are trying to put the blame on "unreal" entity as it requires to levels of understanding though such unreal entities as "Avidya" and has no Yogyata for "knowing" any.
3) You are also misleading the "unreal" entity with the misleading terms of Saguna and Nirguna etc for Brahman as Brahman is Only One.


So, take your "other way around" concept. So you strongly believe that, "Brahman" alone exists. Is it mean, Nothing else exists? Does it also mean...

1) Brahman alone exists always in all states and forms? If not so, you have to explain the existence of everything else.
2) Everything is then Brahman and if that is true, the Anadi Maya should also be part of Brahman. Or you can never explain what this "Maya" is and since you cannot explain what this Maya is, you can also not understand what this Maya is. If you cannot understand what this Maya is, how can you detail ways to get rid of spell of this Maya? To cure a disease, any doctor require to understand the root cause isn't? If root cause has no plausible understanding, how can it be cured or get rid of? Explain me please.
3) If Brahman alone is real, everything else should be effect of Maya. Right? So, what about your source of information pertaining to Brahman? Veda, your Guru, Guru words, what you read here, your worldly experiences and even the advice, guidance for you to realize such Brahman, all should be "Not real" or effect of Maya too? Is it acceptable to you? If it is acceptable, then the entire philosophy re-applied on itself, makes that philosophy unreal and unworthy of following??

If not, give your reasoning for

1)Describing the creation, existence of Jiva and matter as "neither real nor unreal" which is not "Brahman".
2) Is Maya real? Or Maya is also Maya? Circular dependency to prove the philosophy??? Put a break and explain how when "Brahman" alone real, how maya is not a Maya? If Maya is real, then creation that is attributed to Maya should also be real? Advaita then becomes false? Explain this riddle.
3) "neither Real nor unreal but it is in between" and pls explain me how it is different from "nothingness" or a controversial "Shunya"??

( Note: i know most of us get side tracked with the term Shunya and so why wanted to explain my understanding of what Shunya is. This is also Buddhism view."Thus when its beginning and end are false; the interim or middle period must also necessarily be false." The past is non- existent, the future is non-existent and between the two, the present is also ultimately non-existent. “The present does not exist, it is simply another appellation for past and future. For example a word before being spoken is in the future and as soon as it is spoken the time changes to past and the present then is swallowed up, never to be found.” With this logic and argument the Buddhists want to prove that the present manifested universe is non-existent. Hope this is good basis to relate the Advaitic concept of "Neither Real nor Unreal and in between or in short Mityatva to this Buddhaism's Shunya)

Can you answer my questions? After your answers, let us talk about how Advaitic Nirguna Brahman is in fact, philosophically none other than Buddhism's void.

Please provide real substance rather than emotions, blind faith etc.

PS: Dear Devotee, a word of advice and also expectation... its not like you "own" this forum or the total custodian of the philosophy of Advaita and then behave like a dictator. If satay is not partial, i believe he will see your message and decide whether you are contributing or just spoiling the thread with anger and bad taste of words alone. Also remember, the faith of "Advaitin's increase multifold when they think and spend there spritual time to answer the questions raised by dull headed non-advaitins like me and seeing it as beneficial to improve your faith is what i consider positive attitude. In that process, if you may loose your faith, it is again not a loss at least in philosophical arena as you may be filled with another one to elate your faith simultaneously.

Will respond to your 'irrefutable "Advaitic" passage of BG in a separate thread if at all you are interested in any form of intellectual discussion rather than emotion faith based rattlings. Also, i ll remind you, the translations you have posted have numerous additional words to 'insist' the advaitic view which are not there in the original Gita text. So, i believe, for an unbiased learner, reader, AS IT IS is really as it is than your biased pure English translations. Take a break..spend time and lets agree on our personal interest how sincere we are in our belief or how much true our belief is. Ready?

[grames]

Dear Devotee,

Just a reality check on you...

Can you please provide a Pramaana for this....



the following is the hierarchy of authority of the scriptures :

a) Shruti i.e. Vedas (Samhita, Brahmana, Arankyaka & Upanishads) (highest authority) : Here also Upanishads get priority over other parts of Vedas in all 6 Vedanta Schools & that includes Advaita Vedanta & also Bheda-Abheda.

b) Smriti (Next lower authority, above Puranas but lower than Shruti): That includes Bhagwad Gita.
If you cannot give a pramana for your above claim, i would request you to take the standard vedantic schools definitions of what a Praamana is.
Hari Bol!

[devotee]

Namaste Grames,

I have written a full length post on Pramaana in thread, Aham Brahmasmi http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4824&page=5 . In the above post I have only talked about Sabda Pramaana.

I am surprised you don't accept these Pramaana. You are talking about authentic Pramaana ... I am eager to hear from you the correct version if what I have stated is not true.


OM

[grames]

Dear Devotee,


What is correct? Validity of all Veda along with Bramanas, Upanishads, Brahma Sutra bahsyas, Itihasas, Puranas, Gathas as Authentic. There is only one point that "Shri Madhva" school insists that, purana or portion of Purana are either Sattva, Rajasic or complete Tamo and they do have Praamana for that too. But the main focus of Vedantic schools are in the line of BS, BG and Ved Vaks + Upanishad's (pratana-tarya). That does not mean rest are not valid as the scholars or acharyas of various vedantic school did great works on Puranas and Itihasas that includes Shri Shankara too. His very famous Vishnu Sahasranama Bhasya is one proof of that. Also, some refuse to accept the fact that such classification of Puranas is not right, the subject matter of such puranas are in fact pleasing only to few people but not all. It is not a flaw though and as we gladly agree differences in the people and their order, these puranas also have such differences in their order or Gunas. So, this Praamana is of two types.. Kevala Praamana and Anu praamana. Kevala Praamana are Vedas. Anu Praamana are pratyaksha, anumaana and Agama. Order of these Praamanas are in fact, sequences rather than merits as all the Pramaanas when consistent in the sequential determination in explaining the truth with out any Virodah to the sequence are Completely Valid. ( I hope you can understand what i meant here. ). So, AnuBhava is the utmost criteria for certifying the validity or Praamana itself and anything against such AnuBhava even if it is scripture, is invalid.

[devotee]

Namaste Grames,

If you feel that Puranas can be used to refute Shruti then I have nothing to say. I will be happy to learn from you who has said so.

Are you asking pramaana for the hierarchy I have shown ?

OM

[grames]

Dear Devotee,

You are very lovely and same time don't see me as a demon who came to eat you here. I didn't say anything you said as "wrong" :).


Here is why i call it twist. For many school including Shri Shankara's Advaita, BG has very high status as it comes from the mouth of Lord and in the schools of Vaishnavas, BG has much more exalted status for the same reason.

Secondly, all that Ved Vyasa composed has same ranks and merits and if you teach order in their mertis, then such order should be in terms of what is in the subject of such composition. Thats exactly what Vaishnavas do. So, you believe or made to believe that some so called half backed Vaishnavas actually interpret things against Smirti or Shruti and their philosophies in totality is actually against Shruti Vaks as they are based on just Puranas which has very low status. That is exactly what i am calling as your Twist or how do i use this word safely? Ignorance??


So, my whole point is, Puranas do exist to explain the Shruti vaks beautifully and Ithihasas make it much more easier to lay a life style to follow what the Shruti Vaks are directing us indirectly. Your denial or wrong assumption that Vaishnava interpretations are aganist Upanishads, then i would say that, my dear devotee, Vaishnavas also got very best interpretations of the Shruti Vaks with out any inconsistency as you expect.



Are you asking pramaana for the hierarchy I have shown ?
OMVerily and Surely. :)

[devotee]

Should Shruti be read to bring in line with the Puranas or Vice-versa ? Do you know what is the meaning of Shruti & why it enjoys the highest authority ? It is in the name itself. Try to find why Shruti is called Shruti at all.

OM

[devotee]

Namaste Grames,

You posted another one while I was answering your edited post.

I must acknowledge that your last post has a much better tone & language. Can you tell me one thing : Where did I say that Bheda-Abheda or any school of Vedanta refute Upanishads ? If that were so, they would have never been called a School of Vedanta in the first place. Even Maadhva's Dwaita philosophy is one of the 6 Vedanta schools.

Regrading hierarchy, I can only ask you to talk to any person who you consider an expert in Hindu Scriptures. I don't think it is written anywhere (I cannot claim because I can't claim to have read all scriptures). This hierarchy is accepted by all Hindus. It doesn't need any proof to accept this.

Shruti are the divine revelations heard directly by the seers & that is why they are called Shruti (means, "heard"). Smriti means what is written from "memory" (Smriti in Sanskrit means, " as remembered"). So, what is directly heard must enjoy a higher authority than what is remembered. That is why Smriti are considered second to Shruti. Or do you think that the other way round is correct ?

Puranas naturally are neither Shruti nor Smriti & they must enjoy a lower status than both the above scriptures.

You are saying that all scriptures should agree as all are authoritative. However, if you start accepting Manusmriti as authoritative then some of the Rig-Veda verses get refuted. That shows that Manusmriti has been tampered with at some point of time.

If you say that Puranas are as authoritative as Shruti then tell me, should I accept Shiva as the Supreme personality of Godhead as per Shiva Purana or Vishnu as supreme personality of Godhead as per Vishnu Purana ? Or should I accept that Self is Supreme as says Mandukya Upanishad ? Who is Supreme ? It can't be all three ?

Now, you have to tell me, how do you decide which scripture I should accept. Or you don't see any difference in them ?

OM

[grames]

My dear,

You have a strongest feeling that Shruti has something and the rest has something else. So why you are so much boiling here. Hear this..

Shruti Vaks are in a nutshell is giving this info only ...

na hi kashchidapi abhedAgamaH
sa.nti cha bhede sarvAgamAH

So, now it is your insistence that Ithihasas or Puranas etc. are talking about something which is against Shruti. What gives you such conclusion? Just one school of Vedanta is entirely devoted to detail to the greatest extend that, all the Sattvic purana or portion of Purana's which are sattvic are very much inline with Shruti Vaks and also gives the right understanding of Shruti Vaks.


To make you happy, yes you are very correct that Purana or Ithihasas cannot and should not be conveying anything against what Shruti Vaks are conveying. But, do not assume that Vaishnavas in general are inconsistent or have bad meanings for Shruti Vaks because they have only Puranas.

[brahman]

Hare Krsna !

Dandavat Pranamas to everyone !

I have two questions about advaita philosophy:

First Question:
Do the advait-vadis beleive that all the names and forms (material names and forms of Jivas (Jada-Deha) as well as spiritual names and forms of Supreme Person (Cinmaya-Vapu) ) are nothing but illusion?

Second Question:
In Padma purana, Lord Siva says that this philosophy is actually budhism only, but kind of hidden (pracchannah baudham ucyate). By the order of Supreme Lord, I incarnate in the form of a brahmin to propagate this false philosophy. What is the interpretation of advaita-vadis for the following verse:

mayavadam asac-chastram pracchannah baudham ucyate
mayaiva kalpitam devi kalau brahmana-rupina

Hare Krsna !

Do the advait-vadis beleive that all the names and forms (material names and forms of Jivas (Jada-Deha) as well as spiritual names and forms of Supreme Person (Cinmaya-Vapu) ) are nothing but illusion?


I cannot take survey of the ‘advaitha vadis’ on their opinion about your question, so lets see what an ‘advaithi’ s answer on this (1st)question
“ Brahman is one without a second,
so there can’t be illusion and reality at the same time,
then its two, (1) is reality and (2) is illusion
sastras say its ONE alone
so it’s either reality or illusion,
So I would say reality and ignorance are light and dark sides of the pure consciousness,
when the light comes darkness diminishes,
Darkness is lack of brightness or darkness occurs on removal of light.
So it is light alone, light alone is real.
You may ask who is playing with this light.
Its he, the parameswara playing with the light
But why does he do that?
Its like a child sitting alone and playing building ‘building blocks’, he makes it, he breaks it, he changes the shape of it, he dreams of a new shape, he gets into deep sleep while laying the block
It’s a matter of aananda alone, he alone enjoys his game,he enjoys his dreams, he enjoys his deep sleep. those who loves the child too enjoys his game.

I would not like to step into arguments, I am happy the way the I am.

I too read a bit of sastras but I do not live in the sentence, instead I try enjoying the ultimate freedom (kind of hidden) than the controversies.
I too chant the names of supreme persons, I respect all moorthies, I even bow in front of a statue of Jesus Christ,
But at the same I am aware that these names are not different from the names of a chandala, since the divine force behind everything is that ONE. I see gold and stone alike. I see anus and mouth alike, I experience the purpose of it.”


You second question,
In Padma purana, Lord Siva says that this philosophy is actually budhism only, but kind of hidden (pracchannah baudham ucyate). By the order of Supreme Lord, I incarnate in the form of a brahmin to propagate this false philosophy. What is the interpretation of advaita-vadis for the following verse:
“None can’t deny the authenticity of the puranas at any level, so I would not interpret the puranas, instead I try enjoying the beautiful sabda of it by chanting it in devotion.
But If ever I happen to meet that Brahmana,
Who is the manifestation of ‘the supreme consciousness’
Who is the manifestion of ‘the ultimate knowledge’
Who is the maniefstion of ‘the auspicious, kind and gracious’
Who is the manifestion of ‘the never contaminated’
Who is the manifestion of ‘the conquesr of death’
I would not waste even a second to peform Sashtang Namaskar and try to chant what he whispers.
I would even love to meditate beside him…
Because the pure knowledge never lies(even though it is a manifestion), that’s my faith; faith on pure consciousness leads one to pure consciousness.
There is no room for sat sastra or asat sastra when the faith is pure.
If we do not believe the words of the manifestations of the pure consciousness, we are ourselves putting a big question mark on our own glorious vedic literature, which is a gift of the all-pervading parameswara ‘the ultimate consciousness’ through its own manifestations.”
Dear Krishna Das, please preach your philosophy and make me aware of my sin if any.

[Krsna Das]

Brahman Prabhu,

Please accept my dandavat pranamas !

I must say that you are the only that seems humble to me, among all other "advaithis" I have met in this forum ;)

Anyways, thanks for your reply. Keeping in mind the shortcoming of a human brain, I understand the following from your post:

Regarding my first question: Though your answer is not a "direct answer" for my questions, what I understand that this what you beleive -> The jada-deha as well as cinmaya-deha (of Supreme person) is all nothing but manifestation of Brahm himself. (FYI, in our Gaudiya Vaisnavism this philosophy is called Brahma-Parinamvad).

Second question: Sounds like you were not aware of these verses and so you have not given your own comments about this topic.

My motive is also not to debate or fight with anybody. I just wanted to know what advaithis have to say about my questions.

Please let me know if I have undestood you incorrectly.

[devotee]

Namaste Amit,

This is to clarify the doubt you expressed while giving rep points. I wanted to send you a pm but your profile doesn't allow that.

Brahman, in its unconditioned state in Turiya, is indescribable. It can be described only as "Neti-Neti" (Not this, Not this). What does it mean ? We can never say that Brahman is "this" ... yes, we can always say that it is not Brahman, that also is not Brahman etc.

The Brahman is also stated as, "that which alone exists". But that statement is made from our waking state where we have a certain notion about what existence is or what it is not. This notion of what we consider as "exists" is only within our mental realm which cannot be fully relied upon ( as they are perceived by our sense organs & there is no direct perception), as Brahman is beyond mental realm.

So, though it is true that Brahman is also termed as, "that alone exists" .... actually we don't really know what existence is ... and so, our concept of existence & non-existence cannot describe Brahman. That is why it is more apt to say, "It is neither sat nor asat".

I hope it clears the doubt.

OM

[kd gupta]

Padma puran is not to be followed very much as it contains many illogical and antisanatan views .

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Krsna Das ji


Some members feel that verses itself were inserted sometime later in padma-purana. However no pramana (proof) was given, like who inserted those verses, what was the motive of that person, at what time these were inserted, how do we decide that the verses here are interpolated and not the real ones,


Unrealistic request to insist on concrete proof, however circumstantial evidence were presented to doubt, the authenticity of the verses, the motive is quite clear. pity you choose to ignore them
You should know Puranas were found in many places and all or most of them were different version.

You may ask yourself why did Madhavachrya not quote these verses.

Is it not dishonest to accept some part and reject others because it does not agree with our Sidhantaa. Do you accept Siva Gita given in Padma puran?
　
　
　


which puranas have such interpolated verses, and how many such verse exist, is this applicable to vedas also? - No proof is given. That way I can also say that the BG verses mentioned in this thread are inserted/interpolated ones.

Most Puranas if not all has suffered not just from over zealous bhaktas of different kind but important to know it has been tempered with by muslims and Christians as well.
Vedas are different they are set in exact chandas and padas or meter and foot, any subtraction or addition the metre would fall.



By accepting such sidhhanta, we are ourselves putting a big question mark on our own glorious vedic literature. This is totally erroneous sidhhanta and is unacceptable, at least to me.

don’t you think accepting a sidhanta that the Lord deliberately mislead in our glorious scriptures, put a whole lot of question mark on authenticity of entire Vedic scriptures?

Jai Shree Krishna

[Krsna Das]

Dandavat Pranamas, Ganesh Prasad Ji,



You may ask yourself why did Madhavachrya not quote these verses.


As of now, I won't say that Sriman Madhvacarya did not quote these verses, because I haven't read all of his commentaries/literature. However, I do know that Sriman Mahaprabhu has quoted "Mayavadi Bhasya Sunile Haya Sarvanash - Even listening to the mayavadic interpretations of scriptures result into complete devastation of one's spiritual journey; and everybody knows that Sriman Mahaprabhu is Channa-avtar of Krsna himself.



Is it not dishonest to accept some part and reject others because it does not agree with our Sidhantaa. Do you accept Siva Gita given in Padma puran?

There is no question of rejecting anything from vedic literature. Just like vedas, puranas are also eternal. They just manifest at a particular point of time. This is our Sidhhanta. If you want explanation why we think like this, pl let me know. But we do accept that vedic literature itself propounds numerous philosophies depending on the mode in which the person following them is (Sattvik, Rajasik, Tamasic).



Most Puranas if not all has suffered not just from over zealous bhaktas of different kind but important to know it has been tempered with by muslims and Christians as well.

We don't accept that vidharmis have tempered with our scriptures, though we do beleive that they distroyed many of them like burning of great library in taxila etc. Also, the verses that I have mentioned are the result of such tampering and not the original verses - I don't accept this because there is no pramana for this. I would consider this as a wishful thinking, especially when our acaryas have actually given explanation for these verses.



Vedas are different they are set in exact chandas and padas or meter and foot, any subtraction or addition the metre would fall.

I agree. But not only vedas, even puranas and itihasas, all are eternal literature. Pl see above.



don’t you think accepting a sidhanta that the Lord deliberately mislead in our glorious scriptures, put a whole lot of question mark on authenticity of entire Vedic scriptures?

NOPE. Why Lord deliberately requested Lord Siva to preach this unauthorised philosophy, I have already explained this in this thread. pl. see this:

Lord Visnu instructed Lord Siva to preach a philosophy that conflicts the vedic principles. It sounds like a vaedic philosophy, but is actually hidden from of Budhist-Sidhanta.

Lord Visnu instructed Lord Siva to preach this philosophy because at that point of time, in India, people used to perform devotional service to Lord Visnu only for material motives and not for attaining Sudha-ekantiaka-prema-mayi-bhakti, devoid of desire for material gains and desire for Moksa (Liberation). In order to delude such people, and also to protect the swaroop of such Suddha-bhakti (avyabhicarini-bhakti), Lord Visnu ordered Lord Siva to spread this philosophy, because it is possible only for the pure-unalloyed devotees of Supreme Personality of GodHead to preserve the mood (bhava) of Sudha-Bhakti, not the persons having material motives or desire for liberation (meaning desire for 4 purusarthas).

This can be further understood clearly by (1) Tattva-gat-vicar (2) Aiswarya-gat-vicar (3) Madhurya-gat-vicar in relation to the "unique" relationship the Supreme person enjoys with Lord Siva.

All glories to SriSri Radha Krsna !

[amith vikram]

grames,
before i answer your question,i'd want u 2 hav a look at brahman's post as it answers one of ur Q.

"ananda is a guna/nature/attribute of brahman!"
This is not Advaitic position as far i understood so far reading various works of Shri Shankara

then u have got it wrong.not only advaita,every school agrees that brahman is pure existance and ananda.if not it is shunya.this is the diff b/w adv. and budd.however,there is no different one to experience this ananda.like all the differnt notes of instruments are variations of sound,but sound itself and without this general sound,how can there be diff notes?sound is the reason for rock or classic or noise.in the same way this ananda is the reason,this existance(brahman) is the reason for all universe.what is rock music?it is a pattern of sound.how is sound diff or seperate from rock?how can jiva be apart from ishvara?advaita says,like all the varieties formed out of this sound is indeed sound.jivas/universe is indeed brahman.as u can see,the all pervading nature of brahman is clearly understood by this eg.this is only a refernce.

1) How Brahman acts?
please show me one upanishad view which says,brahman acts.however my Q,why would brahman act?(gita:i am the cause of every thing,however know me as non doer)

something has to perform some "Action" (Sadaka) here to realize the "real" state isn't? What is that "Something"??
this brings a smile on my face,grames.if it was so,the vedas would have clearly mentioned -do this particular thing and bingo! nirvana.realize the real state:more appropriate.brahman can be realized and on being realized,one becomes brahman itself.when does a person realize?when the person thinks.and how does a person think?thanks to intellect.hence,knowledge of brahman alone leads to nirvana and not action.
brahman is one without a second.nothin exists apart from brahman.brahman is pure existence and pure bliss.all the universe,vishva as we see in the wakin state,the dream stae and deep sleep is nothin but brahman.all these are variations in this unborn,action less brahman.since jivas(ego) are nothin but brahman as the fundamental tattva,the famous phrase tat tvam asi.
advaita clearly explains why brahman/god is omnipresent,omnipotent,omnescient.if there are 2,like jivatma an paramatma,where are these 2 atmas?in what?r u sayin paramatma is 'in' this.pray,in what?

"as for rupa,u can ignore it,coz its not a shape but a state."
Rupa... not sure why you called it a state. Rupa very strongly means, Form, figure etc. I think the crux of real understanding lays on understanding this term "rupa" or what Rupa means. If Rupa is of "Brahman" then Advaita itself is not directing the sadaka's, at least philosophically to the conclusion of Vedanta but takes the follower to an intermediate level only. Because, you are at least talking about few "things" about Brahman which makes such "Brahman" describable which is against the concept of "only experienceble " Brahman. ( In other words, you can utter nothing about Brahman but can only Experience). If Brahman has Rupa, He becomes personal Brahman and you have to accept then Brahman is not Nirguna. If you want to introduce Saguna aspect of Brahman, then you ought to explain how such "saguna" aspect comes in to existence with out "maya" acting on "nirguna" Brahman. Brahman is only one and so, Saguna Nirguna are not two different things but Only one. So, how will you differentiate Saguna Brahman here and deny that His Rupa is not real? or ignore His Rupa? If you can give reasons for that as, it is only meant for understanding the Brahman with two different "levels" of understanding of "Brahman", such teachings itself is unreal as

i understand your Q.if u say,brahman has a rupa,there is no description of this rupa anywhere.even logically,we can create a rupa on fundamental aspect,like waves on water.so water is the abode of waves.if brahman has a rupa,on what abode is this rupa?i.e.,brahman is bound by its abode.no one can bind brahman.still,if u say brahman has a form like hands and legs,then you r believing your body and senses as you.grames,who r u?your body?where is this heading towards?charvaka!if still u insist the form is made of divine matter,which is the abode/source of that divine matter?is that what u call indescrible?then when we cant know it,why all these vedas,when there are other simple options like christianity.

1) Brahman alone exists always in all states and forms? If not so, you have to explain the existence of everything else
i have already told u.weather music or noise or speech,sound alone exists all the time,similarly brahman alone exists at all times and knowing this brahman,everythin else is known.but it should not b confused with,knowing sound,all other notes can b known,coz sound itself depends on its abode which is akasha.
3) If Brahman alone is real, everything else should be effect of Maya. Right? So, what about your source of information pertaining to Brahman? Veda, your Guru, Guru words, what you read here, your worldly experiences and even the advice, guidance for you to realize such Brahman, all should be "Not real" or effect of Maya too? Is it acceptable to you? If it is acceptable, then the entire philosophy re-applied on itself, makes that philosophy unreal and unworthy of following??

pray,what is the cause of maya?brahman.maya is bound by brahman.this is only relative.in essence maya doesnt exist.so whatever b the effect of maya,all happens in brahman.
"Thus when its beginning and end are false; the interim or middle period must also necessarily be false."
the big question-who is this saying everythin is false?

om tat sat

[amith vikram]

Namaste Amit,

This is to clarify the doubt you expressed while giving rep points. I wanted to send you a pm but your profile doesn't allow that.

Brahman, in its unconditioned state in Turiya, is indescribable. It can be described only as "Neti-Neti" (Not this, Not this). What does it mean ? We can never say that Brahman is "this" ... yes, we can always say that it is not Brahman, that also is not Brahman etc.

The Brahman is also stated as, "that which alone exists". But that statement is made from our waking state where we have a certain notion about what existence is or what it is not. This notion of what we consider as "exists" is only within our mental realm which cannot be fully relied upon ( as they are perceived by our sense organs & there is no direct perception), as Brahman is beyond mental realm.

So, though it is true that Brahman is also termed as, "that alone exists" .... actually we don't really know what existence is ... and so, our concept of existence & non-existence cannot describe Brahman. That is why it is more apt to say, "It is neither sat nor asat".

I hope it clears the doubt.

OM
namaste devoteeji,
but my understandin is difft. existance is nothin but sat.pure existence is sat.it is the ego which is the superimposition on sat that has to be negated.it is this ego which is the seer.so when the ego completely dissolves,what remains is sat.brahman is sat.
thats why it goes 'om tat sat brahma'---that which is sat.
and also satyameva jayate
and gita one knows me in truth.

isnt it?

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Krsna Das ji

I feel I see no gain in discussing this further at least not in here, your opinion and explanation do not satisfy me.

On one hand you are telling me the infallibility of Puranas yet on the other you are rejecting others on the grounds that sound pompous at best and dam right insulting at worst.

Siva Gita forms the part of Padma puran where Lord Siva is instructing none other then Lord Ram.

What you are insinuating here is that, it is in the mode of Tamsik and therefore rejected and yet you want me to believe that Lord deliberately mislead, for some cock and bull stories Therefore I shell continue tomorrow time permitting, but not here

Give this thread back to Amit ji and others to explain Adwaita.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Krsna Das]

I feel I see no gain in discussing this further at least not in here, your opinion and explanation do not satisfy me.


No problems at all !



On one hand you are telling me the infallibility of Puranas yet on the other you are rejecting others on the grounds that sound pompous at best and dam right insulting at worst.


Rejecting others? Which ones have I rejected? Can you pl name one?



Siva Gita forms the part of Padma puran where Lord Siva is instructing none other then Lord Ram.


So there is nothing wrong in that. Actually it is correct as per Madhurya-gata-sidhhanta of Sri Gaudiya Vaisnava Sampradaya. Lord Siva is the greatest of vaisnavas, so one must take his shelter to attain unconditional love at the lotus feet of Supreme personality of GodHead. That is waht Sri Bhagwan wants to convey.

Hari Bol.

[devotee]

Dear all,

We were discussing Shabda Pramana & what we got is this :


"Mayavadi Bhasya Sunile Haya Sarvanash - Even listening to the mayavadic interpretations of scriptures result into complete devastation of one's spiritual journey;

This is not taken from Shruti, not from Smriti & also not from Puranas. Then what sort of Pramana is this ?

That is verily apshabd (dirty words) pramana !

OM

[brahman]

Brahman Prabhu,

Please accept my dandavat pranamas !

I must say that you are the only that seems humble to me, among all other "advaithis" I have met in this forum ;)

Anyways, thanks for your reply. Keeping in mind the shortcoming of a human brain, I understand the following from your post:

Regarding my first question: Though your answer is not a "direct answer" for my questions, what I understand that this what you beleive -> The jada-deha as well as cinmaya-deha (of Supreme person) is all nothing but manifestation of Brahm himself. (FYI, in our Gaudiya Vaisnavism this philosophy is called Brahma-Parinamvad).

Second question: Sounds like you were not aware of these verses and so you have not given your own comments about this topic.

My motive is also not to debate or fight with anybody. I just wanted to know what advaithis have to say about my questions.

Please let me know if I have undestood you incorrectly.


Dear Krishna Das, thanks for your reply

Regarding my first question: Though your answer is not a "direct answer" for my questions, what I understand that this what you beleive -> The jada-deha as well as cinmaya-deha (of Supreme person) is all nothing but manifestation of Brahm himself. (FYI, in our Gaudiya Vaisnavism this philosophy is called Brahma-Parinamvad).


I would surrender than giving ‘direct answers’ for questions like this and manipulate others.
I would be interested in philosophy, than of direct talks on intellectual topics like this.
The ‘unperceived’ is perceived by the ‘perceived’. I cannot make you perceive the idea of Brahman, istead I may convey the idea of perceiving it.
I can give you food, but I can’t eat it for you.

Its supreme person alone, whatever other than THAT is illusion, THAT is called ATMAN.
ATMAN is BRAHMAN, Ayamatma Brahma

THAT IS pure, not manifestation, nor illusion

Second question: Sounds like you were not aware of these verses and so you have not given your own comments about this topic.

I am aware of these verses; also I am very much aware of the consequences if these verses weren’t quoted by the Lord.

If these verses were not said in padma purana, Sandhana Dharma must have been collapsed in last 1300 years, temples in Bharat must been brothels and bars by now. Advaitham is athi guhyam.

Dear Krishna das, this sacred Sandhana Dharma covers a wide range of mankind, not just philosophers alone.

Ultimately, HE did it both, so least interested..

I understand the promoters have divided the discussion in to divisions of thoughts, but it doesn’t mean others can’t access it. So I quit now to avoid ‘direct answers’ that sounds abrahmanic(to me), it was wonderful, but Still interested in GVp. love

[grames]

Dear Amith,

I am very sorry to say this... you haven't understood any of the questions i have raised and even if you have considered that you have understood, i don't think you have given any answers to my questions rather than giving what you think is the answer. I do not think i can continue this conversation at this level and forgive me please.

Thanks.

[amith vikram]

yeah, i know i'm not good.but however,the experience that advaita says is the kind one gets in deep sleep,where the mind and intellect stops.anyway,rest is ur wish.

[Onkara]

Dear all'

I feel that the following is true:

Vaisnava scripture and adherents do not 'Negate' Advaita nor does it 'Negate' Mayavadi, nor does it 'Negate' any other path.

But, other do indeed 'Negate' Vaisnavas.

Please say if there is a differring view of this.

Namaste Mohini Shakti Devi
Thank you for your kindness and open mind above. Here is a quotation I have come across:


"Sri (http://vedabase.net/s/sri)Caitanya (http://vedabase.net/c/caitanya)Mahaprabhu (http://vedabase.net/m/mahaprabhu) gave protection to devotees and killed many demons in the course of His preaching work. He specifically mentioned that the Mayavadi (http://vedabase.net/m/mayavadi) philosophers are the greatest demons. ". Source (http://vedabase.net/cc/adi/17/53/en1) and here (http://krishna.org/ISKCON/WHTTHK/msg00093.html)

If one accepts that there is a "problem" or the "demon" to overcome the next logical consequence is to accept that which is positioned to overcome that problem. Logically, once a follower agrees on what to avoid they are open to guidance.

Should we then be suprised to find facisim and cults even today basing their doctrine on rejection and disqualifiction of other people?

If we accept teachings of hatred, racism, sexism or just intra-religion battles of superiority then not only do we cause pain on the innocent but we fall to mAyA.


We should be careful with sentances such as:


"they are unintelligent and unable to understand the effects of devotional service. The word jugglery they use in an attempt to amalgamate knowledge, the knowable and the knower simply reveals them to be unintelligent (http://vedabase.net/tlc/25/en)."

Because here we are being ask indirectly to acept that we should not attempt to understand them because they use "word jugglery". We are also being lead to accept the generalisation that "the knower simply reveals them to be unintelligent". It doesn't matter who "they" are, because it could be anyone e.g. women. The doctrine of hate can be applied to any group or person. The problems begin when we accept it and we are indirectly obliged to accept it if we are to qualify as "the knowable" person in the above quote.

How can such generalisations be acceptable without personal investigation?

Because if it is an easy victory if the reader accepts your point of view by first accepting that the others are wrong. Once the reader has no other place to turn they are obliged to follow your lead.

On acceptace of the above quote we turn a blind eye as individuals, regardless of our religion or capability to find the truth for ourselves. It it better to try to understand something first-hand than to dismiss it without investigation based on anothers teaching.

We must unite in our differences, learn to understand how we differ and try to live together before we accept any of the above rhetoric.

Peace and love!

[brahman]

Namaste Mohini Shakti Devi
Thank you for your kindness and open mind above. Here is a quotation I have come across:

Source (http://vedabase.net/cc/adi/17/53/en1) and here (http://krishna.org/ISKCON/WHTTHK/msg00093.html)

If one accepts that there is a "problem" or the "demon" to overcome the next logical consequence is to accept that which is positioned to overcome that problem. Logically, once a follower agrees on what to avoid they are open to guidance.

Should we then be suprised to find facisim and cults even today basing their doctrine on rejection and disqualifiction of other people?

If we accept teachings of hatred, racism, sexism or just intra-religion battles of superiority then not only do we cause pain on the innocent but we fall to mAyA.


We should be careful with sentances such as:



Because here we are being ask indirectly to acept that we should not attempt to understand them because they use "word jugglery". We are also being lead to accept the generalisation that "the knower simply reveals them to be unintelligent". It doesn't matter who "they" are, because it could be anyone e.g. women. The doctrine of hate can be applied to any group or person. The problems begin when we accept it and we are indirectly obliged to accept it if we are to qualify as "the knowable" person in the above quote.

How can such generalisations be acceptable without personal investigation?

Because if it is an easy victory if the reader accepts your point of view by first accepting that the others are wrong. Once the reader has no other place to turn they are obliged to follow your lead.

On acceptace of the above quote we turn a blind eye as individuals, regardless of our religion or capability to find the truth for ourselves.

It it better to try to understand something first-hand than to dismiss it without investigation based on anothers teaching.

We must unite in our differences, learn to understand how we differ and try to live together before we accept any of the above rhetoric.

Peace and love!

Snip: It is better to try to understand something first-hand than to dismiss it without investigation based on anothers teaching.

Me: Thats true(An adverse judgement or opinion formed beforehand without good justification, right?)


Snip: We must unite in our differences, learn to understand how we differ and try to live together before we accept any of the above rhetoric.

Me: This is beautiful indeed!

Dear snip, We must be the change we wish to see(mkg). That's unity in diversity. peace love and bliss.




.

[amith vikram]

its about time that ISKCON should realize their nature of being intolerant and setting up a commercial enterprise in the name of krishna bhakti.ISKCON should be considered as a private organisation which has nothin to do with vedas or sanatana dharma.

[kd gupta]

its about time that ISKCON should realize their nature of being intolerant and setting up a commercial enterprise in the name of krishna bhakti.ISKCON should be considered as a private organisation which has nothin to do with vedas or sanatana dharma.
WONDERFUL..PL. listen to the bhajan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAxMzsu9wmY

[Mohini Shakti Devi]

surely you agree that Duryodhana was not a vaishnava nor an equivilant member of the Society for Krishna Consciouness, yes?

Duryodhana was a righteous aryaputra and he knew what was what, so was he an advaitist?

[atanu]

Hindu scriptures teach that the Advaita Lord must be known. It is fultile to argue without knowing oneself, since the inner most self is Lord. Advaita is touched by everyone during sleep, swoon, and in samadhi. But in samadhi alone the Advaita is known. Some senior members say that Advaita is not practical. On the contrary, the ultimate ananda and freedom is available only on experience of the Advaita, which can come only after experiencing Ghanashayam. Only after experiencing Ghanashaym as unbroken awareness and bliss, one can go to that which is unborn.

Some one has said "mayavada sunile sarvanash". First, advaita is not mayavada and second, if this person feels that advaita is mayvada then his sarvanash has already been done, since one cannot argue without first hearing. Sunile argue kara jai. One can only argue after hearing.

School children who have been told of Newton's law, dealing with behaviour of discrete masses, obviously feel disoriented when they further learn of probability fields that have no discreteness. Now Newton's laws cannot explain the bending of light by gravity but Einstein's law can and it can also explain the behaviour of discrete particles.

Om Namah Shivaya

[devotee]

Namaste Atanu,

Welcome back to the forum ! I really missed you !! I hope everything is fine with God's infinite grace on you & your family. :)

OM

[kd gupta]

Hindu scriptures teach that the Advaita Lord must be known. It is fultile to argue without knowing oneself, since the inner most self is Lord. Advaita is touched by everyone during sleep, swoon, and in samadhi. But in samadhi alone the Advaita is known. Some senior members say that Advaita is not practical. On the contrary, the ultimate ananda and freedom is available only on experience of the Advaita, which can come only after experiencing Ghanashayam. Only after experiencing Ghanashaym as unbroken awareness and bliss, one can go to that which is unborn.

Some one has said "mayavada sunile sarvanash". First, advaita is not mayavada and second, if this person feels that advaita is mayvada then his sarvanash has already been done, since one cannot argue without first hearing. Sunile argue kara jai. One can only argue after hearing.

School children who have been told of Newton's law, dealing with behaviour of discrete masses, obviously feel disoriented when they further learn of probability fields that have no discreteness. Now Newton's laws cannot explain the bending of light by gravity but Einstein's law can and it can also explain the behaviour of discrete particles.

Om Namah Shivaya
Namaste Atanuji , I could not get exactly, pl. explain..

[atanu]

Namaste Atanuji , I could not get exactly, pl. explain..

Namaste Guptaji,

Maha U.

tadbrahmaanandamadvandva.n nirguNa.n satyachidghanam.h .
viditvaa svaatmano ruupa.n na bibheti kadaachana .. 70..

paraatpara.n yanmahato mahaantaM
svaruupatejomayashaashvata.n shivam.h .
kaviM puraaNaM purushha.n sanaatanaM
sarveshvara.n sarvadevairupaasyam.h .. 71..


IV-70-71. One fears never (and from nothing) on knowing the Self as Bliss unequalled, attributeless and one mass of truth and consciousness. That is beyond all that is beyond, greater than the greatest, lustrous and eternal in nature, wise, ancient Auspicious Being worshipped by all gods.
-------------------------

First. It is useful to personalize God but not at the cost of forgetting His form of infinite-unbroken-undelineated satyachidghanam (known, IMO, mystically, as ghanashyam, who indeed teaches that He acquires form in association with mAyA but actually is unborn Mahesvara in truth). So, in minds infected with strongly embedded apriori notion of Shiva and Ghanashyam being two individuals, the simple truth may fail to register. What is unborm shivo turya is also the pragnyaghana sarvesvara from which all emanate. Vishnu is known as self born in the Vedas.

Second. Some people argue that such and such God is sarvottama. No doubt God is so, but that idea, IMO, has a limited purpose of steadying the devotion. God is paraatpara, beyond comparison and not merely sarvottam, which remains amenable to comparison.

To know the pragnyaghana, the revealed consciousness of the ever unborn Self, is a step forward to knowing the Self - the final goal. This step is plainly in the domain of Advaita, since satyachidghanam is undelineated, infinite and formless.

ghanam means unbroken and homogeneous -- dense homogeneous mass of existence-knowledge-bliss.

Om Namah Shivaya

[Eastern Mind]

Namaste Atanu,

Welcome back to the forum ! I really missed you !! I hope everything is fine with God's infinite grace on you & your family. :)

OM

I second that. Aum Namasivaya

[Krsna Das]

Dandavat Pranamas, Atanu Ji


Hindu scriptures teach that the Advaita Lord must be known. It is fultile to argue without knowing oneself, since the inner most self is Lord.


"...since the inner most self is Lord..."

- So do you mean to say that our real identity is the Lord itself, and we do not have seperate identity from the Lord?...



Some one has said "mayavada sunile sarvanash".
First, advaita is not mayavada.


That some-one is myself only. I am curious to know in what way is Mayavad different from Advaita - that will be an information for me.

Hare Krsna!

[Mohini Shakti Devi]

Where in the Vedas is the sanskrit compond word A-DVAITA
to be found?

[Mohini Shakti Devi]

Can not western Philosophers conclude that the self-centered goal of advaita, when not followed by a bonefide acarya, lead to meglomania?

[Mohini Shakti Devi]

Is there such a thing as Advaita-yoga?

[atanu]

Dandavat Pranamas, Atanu Ji
"...since the inner most self is Lord..."

- So do you mean to say that our real identity is the Lord itself, and we do not have seperate identity from the Lord?...

Dandavat Pranam Shri Krishna Das Ji,

Not so exactly. It will depend on what you mean by Lord -- whether you call the special attributes suited for the ocassion as Lord or you take the immutable as the eternity. Shri Krishna teaches "the wise constitutes My Heart".

Ishwara/Guru are special purushas whom no one can be identical to in terms of attributes. Krishna Das cannot be Cassius Clay or Einstein, what to talk of Lord? But Krishna Das, as a jnani, can constitute the Heart of Lord.


That some-one is myself only. I am curious to know in what way is Mayavad different from Advaita - that will be an information for me.



Do you not have faith/fear of Guru Vani "Destruction on hearing"? Why do you then wish to hear? Destruction upon destruction?

Hare Krsna

[Krsna Das]

Dandavat Pranamas, Hare Krsna !



Not so exactly. It will depend on what you mean by Lord -- whether you call the special attributes suited for the ocassion as Lord or you take the immutable as the eternity. Shri Krishna teaches "the wise constitutes My Heart".

Ishwara/Guru are special purushas whom no one can be identical to in terms of attributes. Krishna Das cannot be Cassius Clay or Einstein, what to talk of Lord? But Krishna Das can constitute the Heart of Lord.


So what I understand from your post is that Jiva and Sri Visnu, both are different in terms of attributes.

I have some more questions, if you can kindly spare some time to reply it for me:

1. What are these attributes, which differntiate Jiva from the Lord (Personal form).

2. What is the similarity between both Jiva and Lord (Personal as well as impersonal form).

3. According to advaita-vedanta all the names and forms are nothing but illusion (maya) and so there are unreal. Am I correct? Also, I have one more question in relation to this - does this mean that the forms in which Lord manifests in his personl form are also illusion?

Also, if you can cite some slokas from sruti in addition to your viewpoint, it would be helpful.



Do you not have faith/fear of Guru Vani "Destruction on hearing"? Why do you then wish to hear? Destruction upon destruction?
Hare Krsna

Mahaprabhu has warned - "Not even to hear this doctrine".

Persons who are steadfast in devotion do not get bewildered, even upon hearing these doctrines, because they are dridha-vratah:

te dvandva-moha nirmuktah bhajante mam dridha vratah

It if for this reason, our acarayas have studied sariraka-bhasya of SriPad Sankaracarya in order to understand why it is so deterrant to devotional service to those who are not steadfast (kanistha-adhikaris or kanistha-madhyama adhikaris).

So can you pls cite the differences between advaita and mayavad?

Thanks

[kd gupta]

Dandavat Pranamas, Atanu Ji



"...since the inner most self is Lord..."

- So do you mean to say that our real identity is the Lord itself, and we do not have seperate identity from the Lord?...



That some-one is myself only. I am curious to know in what way is Mayavad different from Advaita - that will be an information for me.

Hare Krsna!

Dear Kdasji
No you don’t have your own or seperate Identity, Atanujis para explains it…

To know the pragnyaghana, the revealed consciousness of the ever unborn Self, is a step forward to knowing the Self - the final goal. This step is plainly in the domain of Advaita, since satyachidghanam is undelineated, infinite and formless.

How mayavad is Vinashti [ or this body is perished ] this quote from Kenopunishad explains…

ih+cha+iti+vidit+ath+satyam+asti…na+cha+iti+ih+viditvat+mahati+vinashtih…2/5

If the supreme soul is understood in this body, then only is fruitful otherwise it is gone waste .