A few questions on Advaita and their answers

[devotee]

[size =3 ] Namaste Satay,

You expressed desire to know my stand on your doubts & I am writing it down below :

Q1. Why Brahman got deluded to begin with ? Why if I am Brahman, I can’t find my ‘self’ ? How is it that the all pervading Brahman whose nature is sat-chit-ananda got deluded or has the impression of delusion or has a dream of delusion ?



Answer : Let’s try to see the way I see it :

The Brahman is infinite consciousness. Let’s forget ourselves & the world for a moment & see a vast infinite space filled completely with Consciousness. Though it is infinite but the Consciousness is one alone. Now, this Consciousness is has inherent infinite possibilities to manifest Itself. It vibrates at various frequencies in its four different parts or layers. Let’s remember Maandukya Upanishad which describes this Atma or Brahman having four parts. The first two parts have infinite sets of vibrations at different coordinates of time & space combination (this time & space is within mental realm) within the infinite consciousness. So, there is one set of vibration at some point of space & time & we call it "Devotee". This entity "Devotee" has, in reality, no separate identity on its own but having a unique vibration of the Consciousness it seemingly acquires a separate identity & characteristics. To understand this further, let’s visualize a vast infinite Ocean in front of us. The Ocean is one but within its vast expanse, the water molecules are not having similar vibration everywhere. So, at some places, you see minor waves, somewhere high waves, somewhere hot water current, somewhere very cold water, somewhere peaceful bed of water, somewhere water vapour, somewhere icebergs etc. etc. …. there are infinite spots & each spot has a different characteristics of its own due to varied levels of vibration of the molecules. The Brahman or Atma has much more possibilities to offer than this simplistic example (let’s remember that Atma is unique … it cannot be compared with anything we know ..… so we must visualise more than what we are used to) …. these infinite spots having different vibrations can have individuality & a mind of their own (all these manifestation can be perceived only within our mental realm) which can differentiate itself from others … which can feel pains & pleasures.

When did it happen … how did it happen ? It never “happened” ... and so there is no question of how it “happened” ? This question comes from our conditioned mind which likes to believe that everything must have an origin. However, if everything must have an origin then even God must have an origin … so this explanation of the universe through “origin” theory doesn’t clear all doubts. The reality is something unique & for understanding that we must think beyond our conditioned way of thinking. There was never an origin & there will never be an end. Does it sound like, “Matter & energy can neither be created nor be destroyed” ? There are only changes in levels of vibrations which in turn changes the forms & perceptible characteristics of the “spots” on the bosom of the infinite ocean of consciousness.

The question was, “Why Brahman got deluded to begin with ?”. Here, we are mixing different possibilities from different states & creating confusion for ourselves. The Brahman has different characteristics & possibilities in different states (of vibration). The Carbon comes in the form of carbon black, graphite & diamond. The carbon black, diamond & graphite are all same substance & yet they are completely different. In a coal mine, you can find coal, graphite & diamond all together. They are all carbon but coal is not graphite & graphite is not diamond or vice-versa. So, Brahman in the first two states of existence i.e. waking & dreaming states is not called Brahman as it is not perceived as sat-chit-ananda then. It is not omnipotent, it is not omniscient, it is not the lord of all, it is not the cessation of all activities (vibrations). In these two states, because of the apparent individuality acquired, there is duality. There is "Devotee" …. there is the world which is different from "Devotee" & there is God. There is the fourth one too which is the primal peaceful ocean of infinite consciousness (on cessation of all vibrations/activities) where all the three states appear & disappear which cannot be described by anything we know or can know within our mental realm (i.e. within the first two states).

So, when Brahman is known as Brahman or perceived as Brahman in common parlance, there is no delusion as when we talk of Brahman, it is either the third state which is in our mind or the fourth state which is in our mind. This mind doesn’t perceive things in the first two states as Brahman due to our conditioned way of thinking. There is nothing which can delude it. The delusion is one of its characteristics within these two states … it is its inherent property.

If I am Brahman why I can’t find my own “self” ? Who says you cannot ? You are Brahman & you have to realize this Truth to be out of this world of delusion, pains & pleasures. This is the game we are all in. We have to change our vibration by treading on the path of Jnan Yoga & attain realization of our true state.

Q2. The neo advaitins are quick to say that muslim and christian scriptures teach the same thing as hindu scripture … that muslims and christians are brahman but then they turn around and attack anyone that questions them. Why do the neo advaitins get upset when questioned if everything is brahman? It doesn't make any sense!


Ans : Perhaps it is me, you are talking about as Neo-Advaitin. That is OK. :) Let me try to offer the answer to your question :

If anything is unconditioned Truth, it must be available to the entire mankind without any bias to race, country & scriptures. The Pratyaksha Pramaana is available that the One-ness has been attained in non-Hindu religions too irrespective of whatever they worship, whatever they think of God or whatever scriptures they have etc. The intense Bhakti takes you to one-ness of God irrespective of name & form you use. Al Mansoor Hallaz was a Muslim by faith … but he attained One-ness with God & proclaimed, “ I am the Truth” ! Rabia & Rumi were among others who attained One-ness with God though they belonged to Islam & might have never read Advaita Vedanta. Jesus too said, “I and my father are one”. Ramkrishna too proved this Truth by following different paths.

Advaitins cannot see “others” different from Brahman … otherwise they cannot follow this path. They always try to see the One-ness but they have to interact with this world within duality otherwise no interaction is possible and we have to go a long way before we can drop our ego completely.

I won’t say that Muslim & Christian scriptures too teach the same thing … but I can say with confidence that whether anyone worships Allah or Jesus or Krishna or Shiva or whatever chosen deity …. if the devotion is intense enough … if the love is intense enough … they all will attain the same Reality as Reality is one alone.

I cannot say what you mean by your later part of the question … as I see it, they don’t get upset on that question … they very well know the answer. But who is there to listen & understand ? No one can make anyone understand this complicated Truth unless he tries to understand that very carefully. What happens, as I see, is that the other person is in no mood to listen & understand but to attack by bringing in illogical arguments …. & there the communication breaks as the minimum requirement for a meaningful communication is not fulfilled. For a proper communication to be possible, there should be someone to say something & there should be someone ready to listen to that thing. But it doesn’t happen. You can understand that it can only bring bitterness & breakdown of communication. It is like you are trying to teach Quantum Mechanics to a student of Arts/Commerce but he doesn’t understand (expectedly), doesn’t listen to you but keeps attacking whatever you say ( & also your teachers & ideals). After a certain point of time, you are going to be irritated unless you are very advanced in spirituality or seasoned & can take it all calmly. The neo-advaitins you are talking about, including me, are not so much spiritually advanced or seasoned enough to take it all calmly. If they were, they, perhaps, would not have been on this forum in the first place.

I am surprised that you didn’t ask this question from a dualist. They too get irritated … imo, much more than the neo Advaitins … use more derogatory terms & sarcastic language etc. But perhaps, they are just normal human beings … & neo-advaitins are just not normal ! I will ask you to please check how many times the so called neo-advaitins on this forum criticized any of paths of devotion or their Gurus in derogatory terms & how many times the normal human beings, following the paths of devotion criticised Advaita & its teachers ! No one can accept derogatory terms being used against his Guru(s) & traditions. Advaitins are no exception. [ /size]

(to be continued in my next post ...)

OM

[devotee]

Namaste Satay,

You also asked me to answer questions which were posted by Grames in one of the recent threads. I am giving the answers below :

Q3. Questions posed by Grames in his post : You wanted to know the answers to questions posed by Grames in one of his post. Let me try to answer those :


Advaita does not stop you from performing Karma or Janana Yoga but the ultimate objective of such Yoga or results of performing so much Sadana is not clear.

It is crystal clear … nothing is clearer than this. I wanted to write on what the Advaitin actually do & why in the thred-series, “Aham Brahmasmi” but could not do it. It needs a lot of time & I don’t have so much time.
This Saadhna is to know, “who you really are” … removal of ignorance … realization of Self … by attaining which all your Karmas get roasted. You attain absolute freedom.


There is no pursha Artha's in Advaita and what is Karma? What is Artha? What is Dharma? What is Moksha? Truely they all are dreams or dream objects and they have no reality in them.

This question comes from the conditioned way of thinking when you can’t think beyond your body-mind- entity & resulting duality.
Once you realize Self, there is nothing which remains unattainable though the desire to attain anything is not there in the first place.


If you have to deny the controller aspect of spiritual realm, it is how your philosophy will be but Vaishnavas happily believe that it is Hari who is Supreme,

This, surprisingly, has come from our esteemed friend who claims that he knows Advaita more than the Advaitins know !

The third state of Brahman/Atma is the Controller of all, the lord of all. He alone is known as the Ishvara, Vishnu, Brahma, Shiva, Krishna etc. He IS supreme.


He is the one who made all the arrangement in this world for this Soul to experience His Supremacy

To experience his Supremacy ? Why this omnipotent God has any desire to “experience” supremacy ? That shows he was not happy in his unconditioned state ! He was bored as a normal human being by being all alone !! No. This concept of God brings down God to the level of humans like the doctrines of Abrahimic religions.

Lord Krishna said in BG, “The actions don’t bind me because I don’t have attachment to results of the Karma” ? If he really has desire to experience his Supremacy, how can this statement be true ? It is hard to believe that God will create this horrible world full of pains just to enjoy his experience of Supremacy among his own created beings ! This reduces God to the level of a megalomaniac human King.


So for Advaitin, work is encouraged but the goal is hidden or fruit of your work is hidden.

No, it is not hidden. Please read my above post.


Becoming Brahman is the delusion

“Becoming” is really a delusion. You have to realize that you are Brahman. You can’t be what you are already not. There is nothing which can be added from outside to make a non-Brahman Brahman.


and extra ordinary promise or declaration where the desired people are promised that "They are God"

Isn’t it a silly notion ? Who promises to whom ?


Such people even when they read Shruti, worship Lord do not know the real purpose behind such acts

Such people very well know. You can only say that you don’t know. How can you claim so confidently about others ?


and how many have answers for why are you in this situation in first place.

Please refer to my answer above. However, what is the answer of a dualist ? Why did God create such a world ? Why did he create beings & left him to suffer the pangs of hunger, the pains of illness & death ? Just to feel that He is God ? Can He be called compassionate as we call him ? Why did God allow India to be conquered by the mlechhas for centuries & its habitants humiliated worse than animals ? Why innocent children from poor countries are trafficked to Arab Countries & Western countries for sex & acting as their slaves ? Why does he allow an innocent girl to be raped by a lecher & sold in the market ? What was the need of creating such a horrible world ? You may say that it is because of their Karma. But how did they start doing bad karma in the first place ? Why such desires were given to him ? Why hunger was given to him ? By doing so, didn’t God know that this situation was inevitable ? If He didn’t know then how can He be called omniscient ?


Lord Krshna for them is just a "JivanMukta" and what else you can call as delusion? What is Lord Krshna for you? Brahman? Realized Jivan Mutka? One of us? Or twhat?

Who said that Lord Krishna is just a Jivan Mukta ? One can be Mukta (libertaed) when he is bonded or have illusion of bondage at any point of time. Lord Krishna’s incarnation was devoid of any bondage since its coming into this world in the form of a human being. Lord Krishna is what He is. Though speaking as a human being … he makes it clear that He is the supreme reality. He is God, the third state of Brahman … he is the Atman in the hearts of all beings. Lord Krishna’s birth is divya/alaukik ( not of this world) … it can’t be understood by our limited mental powers of perception. He is what he says about himself in Bhagwad Gita. Arjuna says in BG, “You alone know yourself by yourself”. (BG 10.15)


The only way you can equate all of them (all forms/names of God) is by only one rule of Advaitam and that too in absolute reality sense and if you have any different philosophical point to justify that all devatas are indeed same and with same ranks, i would be very much delighted to continue the conversation after such response.

And my friend claims that he understands Advaita ! This is not Advaita, my dear friend. Considering Vishnu, Brahma, Shiva, Mother Goddess & other devas as manifestation of the same supreme reality is not Advaita. It is Hinduism. It is what is taught to a Hindu child by his parents since he starts understanding this world. This understanding is in his blood. This is how I have been taught. Those who have come from other religions can have problems accepting this. Those who are very sectarian in their attitude can also have this problem. The westerner Hindu faces this problem as normally he joins a sect of Hinduism. But this is not what is taught to a common Hindu.
Advaita is something different. It doesn’t talk of equality of different forms & names of God … it talks about Only one reality which manifests itself in all the three states & it is what is the fourth. It proclaims, “Thou are That !”. In Advaita, the creator & the creation are not different.

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

These questions are food for thought for all dualists. These are the questions which took me towards Advaita :

[B]Question : The dualists say that we should all sing praise of God … we should worship God ... we should love God etc. & then God will love us. In what form should I love him ? How can I know that only BG is correct & the Bible is wrong ? How can I know that Padma Purana is correct & Shiva Purana is wrong ? Who can tell me what is really right & what is really wrong ? Why should God bother whether anyone criticizes him or praises Him ? Is He not mature enough to be free from effects of all such praises/ condemnation ? What will God do to an atheist if he is otherwise a very nice fellow but doesn't worship/love him as he doubts His very existence ?

OM

[satay]

Namaskar,
Thanks devotee for answering. I respect your point of view.

[AwareConsciousness]

The question of brahman's delusion is interesting. It would seem that brahman is unconcerned with being enlightened or deluded. Either way it is brahman simply manifest. Inquiries into our consciousness can lead us back to enlightenment away from delusion but even then, that is just another movement of brahman. We will never truly know the desires of brahman. We can only end our personal suffering by accepting that ATMAN=BRAHMAN, that we are part of the whole.

[grames]

Namaste all,

I am responding to one of the best answers that is written on this forum for various questions raised to know more insight in to Advaita. Though, the initial reading of this response looks very clear and convincing, a deep rational analysis with respect to our Shrutis, BS and BG and our day to day anubhava of real life, i tempt to raise more critical questions to get a deeper fitting answers from our beloved Devotee or for that matter, any scholar of Advaita.

Let me classify the response (two messages together) in to two namely, one where Devotee explains his understanding of what is "Advaita" as per his/her understanding. Set of Questions i am raising on his own description of what Advaita is. Secondly, what the stand of classical advaita on some of the idea he has proposed here, for which i would like to get some praanama from any 'classical' scholar's work or from Shrutis, BS or BG or bhasyas. To, in nutshell one set is for the personal writing of Shri Devotee and another set though not complete for actual Praamana that are available to support his personal description here. Though, i am restricting this response to only for the first option and will wait for Shri Devotee to take this conversation to "Praamana" based discussion so that more insights, clarity and truth can be shared with open mind and sincerity to the scared texts.

Before anything, i greatly appreciate Shri Devotee for his deeper understanding, language skills and extra ordinary example he put forth to explain his concept of advaita and finally his compassion and quest for Truth. Also, i believe he was never given a satisfactory answers that he had in his mind which he has raised at the later part of this message, by any Vaishnava school or Theistic school where God is Personal though answers for all such questions are in fact available and i will give 'excerpts' from great scholars who answered those questions with the support of proper Praamanas.

Now, to Devotees 'personal' explanation of what Advaita is... or answers to the questions...


Now, this Consciousness is has inherent infinite possibilities to manifest Itself.So, you are advocating that the Brahman is going to manifest?? How such manifestation happens for a nirVishesha Brahman when He is not having such qualities? If it is just His "Cit" that manifest, then such "Cit" becomes His quality/guna as Brahman is not affected by such manifestations and He manifests the Cit which is not inherent of what He is, which is against the concept of Brahman is Cit.


It vibrates at various frequencies in its four different parts or layers.

Nice statement. I am sure you are trying to explain the Maandukya here where the different states of "experience is narrated. But, the comparison or reasoning is very nice but the rational is missing something heavily here. Since, Brahman is Cit, Cit having four layers or parts mean Brahman having parts? Parts as in what? You are unknowingly advocating division of Brahman even if you mean to say the Parts are temporary,illusion or even super imposition etc. Brahman has no parts and if we have accept even 'tatasthalakshana", it is still imparting division to the Brahman. So, parts cannot mean layers, division, section, consciousness ( division of consciousness is absolutely oxymoron), perception, degree of realization etc. So, what these four states mean then? States of Brahman? It cannot be as you cannot impart division/parts to Brahman and that is against Shruti Vakyas. Secondly, your statement attracts more objection or doubt here as you are importing 'differences' to this infinite conscious entity called Brahman by saying, 'vibrates at various frequencies'. It has two Doshas. First one being nirVishesha, NirGuna Advaita Brahman 'vibrating' its(??) consciousness and then becoming a entity that perform action on itself. The next one being, Vibrating at "various" frequencies meaning Brahman is not equally distributed and not an undivided harmonious or congruous entity. So, explain me how such Brahman who is considered sat,cit and Ananta vibrates only the 'cit' portion? If such vibration happens, don't you think Brahman will no longer be NirVisesha?? and also partless? Sat Cit and Ananta though three words but are One which is Brahman is what 'Advaitam' means right? OR am i understanding with conditioned state of mind only?

The rest of the response is very good if these fundamental principles are acceptable as is.


When did it happen … how did it happen ? It never “happened” ... and so there is no question of how it “happened” ?

This is trick in plain words. What is that, that didn't happen? The vibrations? the manifestations due to Vibrations? Or the individuality that was assumed as the result of vibrations at different point in space and time? You only painstakingly wrote that, all such things "happened" but now you are asking back :when did it happen: ??? Are we lost? So, if your first paragraph is true to your heart, you have to accept that "it happened" at least because you explained that "its how it happens or happened" :). So, there is no more question of "orgin" of that incident and the doubt is not about the origin of that incident with respect to Kala at all. You can simply say it is eternal and you get much more support from Shruti Vaks for that claim. Jiva is eternal, the big A, AtMan is also eternal and you are teaching the individual identity is due to the big A Atman's cit vibrations and thus creates duality or assumes duality because of individuality. But regardless, why do you say it never happened and don't you think it is misleading and self contradicting? Your subsequent law of conservation of energy is something very different and cannot be applied to the "Advaitic" Brahman at least as how you explained. The LCE talks about "transformation" of one form of energy to another but Advaitic Brahman does not transform at all in to another form of energy. :). (Advaitic Brahman is monolithic energy and no transformation happens for that energy and it exist only AS IT IS eternally and that is how classical Advaita approaches the idea of Brahman).

Now whatever you built after these fallacious assumptions are not even ready or worthy yet to discuss until you clear the doubts i raised. So, i request you to substantiate proper praamana for your beautiful explanation of "advaita" and if you are interested, we can jump to more "praamana" based conversation to understand "Advaita" better first and then if at all it opens room for further inquiry then we can do that happily with sincerity and mutual respect.

janmadyasya Yatah! --- This is the knot for your beautiful explanation but only problem is, it has to be interpreted as how Shri Badrayana wants and not as how any particular school of philosophy wants.

[kd gupta]

Aum namah shambhavay cha mayobhavay cha namah shankaray cha mayaskaray cha shivtaray cha
urvārukamivabandhanān mṛtyormukṣīya māmṛtāt ||
Urvarkam+iva+bhandhanat+mritoh+mukshiya+ma+amratat

In advaitin language…

Gyani says, prabhu , I am matured so keep me away from all worldly relations, bondage which are like death similarly as ripe cucumber breaks off the parental body , but my parmatma shiva, not from the Immortality .

In Krsn language….

Na hi dehabhritaa shakyam tyaktum karmaanyasheshatah;
Yastu karmaphalatyaagi sa tyaageetyabhidheeyate.

Verily, it is not possible for an embodied being to abandon actions entirely; but he who
relinquishes the rewards of actions is verily called a man of renunciation.
Nature, and your own nature, too, will urge you to do actions. You will
have to abandon the idea of agency and the fruits of actions. Then no action will bind you.

My dear grames , this is now YOU only to choose .
:)

[devotee]

Dear Grames,

Please go through your posts below in different threads & the present threads. In all these posts, you are not asking questions for clarification. You are giving your own “fatwa” (the final verdict ) on issues related with Advaita. Most of you what you so aggressively assert in these posts just expose your ignorance even more. You use your condescending tone & sarcastic manner to “ask” for clarification !

No, this is not how clarifications are asked for. This is the way a pleader fights to win over his opponent by hook or by crook.

See these :

There is no pursha Artha's in Advaita and what is Karma? What is Artha? What is Dharma? What is Moksha? Truely they all are dreams or dream objects and they have no reality in them. If you have to deny the controller aspect of spiritual realm, it is how your philosophy will be


So for Advaitin, work is encouraged but the goal is hidden or fruit of your work is hidden. Becoming Brahman is the delusion and extra ordinary promise or declaration where the desired people are promised that "They are God" and guide them to work more in that direction of attaining/experiencing such oneness with Brahman. Such people even when they read Shruti, worship Lord do not know the real purpose behind such acts and how many have answers for why are you in this situation in first place. Lord Krshna for them is just a "JivanMukta" and what else you can call as delusion? What is Lord Krshna for you? Brahman? Realized Jivan Mutka? One of us? Or what? Can you talk about it clearly before we come back to discussing the ranks of Deities or Devatas?


The only way you can equate all of them is by only one rule of Advaitam and that too in absolute reality sense and if you have any different philosophical point to justify that all devatas are indeed same and with same ranks,


in nutshell one set is for the personal writing of Shri Devotee and another set though not complete for actual Praamana that are available to support his personal description here.


First of all, if you are not a Vaishnava, there is no concept of Deities to you in absolute reality and you cannot have one such unless you have to accept the "differences" as it becomes a necessity to justify the concept of Supreme Lord or various Devata.


If your belief is all but One Brahman in absolute reality, you should not have even the concept of Ista Devata and such Ista Devata are only relative reality and when you accept the term "relative", naturally ranking or differences between such realities are rationally true. Trying to equate such "Devata" as same with no difference is like comparing all the "paddle" of the boats and claiming they all are one and same with respect to their purpose though they are independent, unique and may be priced differently and used differently. So when your position is to even deny the temporary "devata" as relative reality with respect to the Absolute realization, what is the pride in ranking them as same with out any merit or praamanas? Shouldn't it be different as long as you are in relative reality and you pronounce such differences by various names and perceive various forms? So such differences which obviously will rank them in order isn't?


Now, to Devotees 'personal' explanation of what Advaita is... or answers to the questions...

Please note that you have given no Pramaan to prove anything you say above. However, just see your tone & language in the highlighted parts of your statement & have no pramaana to stand on ! They also show how much you know about Advaita & also other paths of devotion e.g. Shaivism or Shaktism.

0000000000000000000000000000000

Do you think, I should have any inclination to offer any explanation to whatever you have asked for seeing your such strong bias & your language used ? How can you ? I have nothing to gain by winning any argument here. Someone said that you should not “Assume” as by doing so you are actually making an ass of you & me.

I find that your this post asking for clarification is full of such assumptions :
a) You have assumed that everything I explained was a fig of imagination of my mind without any authority.

=> No. This is based on Shruti & also on teaching I received from my Guru who is from one of the orders of Sankara. Keeping in view of your attitude, I am afraid, you may not hesitate to ridicule him too … so I shall give you scriptural Pramaana to remove your doubts.

b) You have assumed that I have played with words to trick anyone.
=> What shall I gain by doing so ?

Advaita has been explained in many ways. Why ? Because it cannot be described by anything we know & can know. So, the best possible examples are offered. I have offered mine. The question is how does it contradict the Shruti ? Please try to prove that it against Shruti by quoting scriptural texts from Shruti ( As Advaita Vedanta doesn't rely upon Puranas).

OM

[devotee]

Dear Grames,

As you have already asked, let me try to answer your queries :


So, you are advocating that the Brahman is going to manifest??

This is how you read ? Did I say that “Brahman is going to manifest” ? I said, “this Consciousness has inherent infinite possibilities to manifest Itself”.


How such manifestation happens for a nirVishesha Brahman when He is not having such qualities? If it is just His "Cit" that manifest, then such "Cit" becomes His quality/guna as Brahman is not affected by such manifestations and He manifests the Cit which is not inherent of what He is, which is against the concept of Brahman is Cit.

First of all read Aitreya Upanishad which proclaims, “Prajnaanaam Brahma” i.e. Consciousness is Brahman. This Consciousness is called as the SELF & It is everything that was, is & what will be (Maandukya Upanishad … so it is called “Sat” (real, which exists) & it is blissful in its third and fourth states. As I told in my post in reply to Satay that when we say Brahman we think of only the third & the fourth states of Brahman. Moreover, the first two states are conditioned states & not the unconditioned state of Brahman. So, that is why Brahman is called Sat-Chit-Ananda. It is not perceived so in the first two states.

Read the Upanishad & ask these questions from yourself :

What is the meaning of Sat-Chi-Ananda ? Description of which parts (states) of the Ataman in Mandukya Upanishad talks about Sat-Chit-Ananda ? Does it describe the Waking & Dreaming States as Sat-Chit-Ananda ? Does Maandukya Upanishad talks about nirVishesha, Nirguna Brahman in the first two states ? You are mixing Turiya, the unconditioned reality with the first two states. Please read this Upanishad first.


but the rational is missing something heavily here. Since, Brahman is Cit, Cit having four layers or parts mean Brahman having parts? Parts as in what? You are unknowingly advocating division of Brahman even if you mean to say the Parts are temporary,illusion or even super imposition etc. Brahman has no parts and if we have accept even 'tatasthalakshana", it is still imparting division to the Brahman. So, parts cannot mean layers, division, section, consciousness ( division of consciousness is absolutely oxymoron), perception, degree of realization etc. So, what these four states mean then? States of Brahman? It cannot be as you cannot impart division/parts to Brahman and that is against Shruti Vakyas.

I am sorry but do you know what this question appears to me ? “The whole Ramayans is over & the question asked is, “I understood the whole Ramayana but I could not understand whose father Sita was. Can you please tell me ?””. I very well referred to Maandukya Upanishad which is Shruti & here you are claiming that it is against Shruti when it is very clear from your post that you didn’t find time to read that Upanishad as you were devoting your time in making preparations to attack me.

Please read the Upanishad first & then we shall discuss. Refer Maandukya Upanishad Verse 2.


Secondly, your statement attracts more objection or doubt here as you are importing 'differences' to this infinite conscious entity called Brahman by saying, 'vibrates at various frequencies'. It has two Doshas. First one being nirVishesha, NirGuna Advaita Brahman 'vibrating' its(??) consciousness and then becoming a entity that perform action on itself.

This makes it clear that you didn’t read the Upanishad I referred to. Please understand the first two states it talks about.


The next one being, Vibrating at "various" frequencies meaning Brahman is not equally distributed and not an undivided harmonious or congruous entity. So, explain me how such Brahman who is considered sat,cit and Ananta vibrates only the 'cit' portion? If such vibration happens, don't you think Brahman will no longer be NirVisesha?? and also partless? Sat Cit and Ananta though three words but are One which is Brahman is what 'Advaitam' means right? OR am i understanding with conditioned state of mind only?

The vibration is the activities which the Upanishad talks about …. on cessation of which the unconditioned state Turiya is attained & which is to be realised. So, till the time the activities are there, the vibrations are there …. the Unconditioned Turiya is not attained. The vibrations & resulting restlessness are very high in the first two states.
Your other questions are repeated ones & I have already answered them.


This is trick in plain words. What is that, that didn't happen? The vibrations? the manifestations due to Vibrations? Or the individuality that was assumed as the result of vibrations at different point in space and time? You only painstakingly wrote that, all such things "happened" but now you are asking back :when did it happen: ??? Are we lost? So, if your first paragraph is true to your heart, you have to accept that "it happened" at least because you explained that "its how it happens or happened" . So, there is no more question of "orgin" of that incident and the doubt is not about the origin of that incident with respect to Kala at all. You can simply say it is eternal and you get much more support from Shruti Vaks for that claim.

Your logic is not understandable to this less intelligent mind. How do you conclude that it must have an origin ? I said, the Ataman or the Brahman or the Infinite Consciousness has four parts/states. The three parts/states have activities (vibrations) & the fourth states is without any activity (Maandukya Upanishad).

How does it prove that this state of having four parts (states) must “happen” ? Did I really write “painstakingly” that it all happened ? Where did I write this, my dear friend ? Please enlighten me. You know my mind even better then myself !


Jiva is eternal, the big A, AtMan is also eternal and you are teaching the individual identity is due to the big A Atman's cit vibrations and thus creates duality or assumes duality because of individuality. But regardless, why do you say it never happened and don't you think it is misleading and self contradicting?

Mind your words, please ! I am not “teaching” this. This is what the Upanishad says. And I never said that it ever happened ! AND please note down : Jiva is eternal as Brahman/SELF & not as Jiva.


Your subsequent law of conservation of energy is something very different and cannot be applied to the "Advaitic" Brahman at least as how you explained. The LCE talks about "transformation" of one form of energy to another but Advaitic Brahman does not transform at all in to another form of energy.

I never said that Brahman is some sort of energy ! Then why could it have been stated to be indescribable ? You read more than what is written & understand the mind of the writer even much more than the writer himself !
What I was referring to is this : Please read & understand carefully.
Everything that we see & perceive within the first two states also is nothing but Brahman. Brahman is beginningless & indestructible & so are the matter & energy …. the vibrations of various spots in infinite coordinates on the vast infinite expanse of Consciousness (Brahman) keeps varying & present this manifested world. I also said that this is inherent property of the Brahman in the first two states. It never happened & so there is no question as to why this happened.

Now, can you understand the above ? No ? OK. Can you answer this question : When did water become ice or water vapour & why ? It all depends upon the level of vibration of the water molecules. The states keep changing. But who can say when it all started i.e. when the molecules started vibrating & why ? It is inherent nature of the molecules to vibrate & keep changing their forms depending upon at what level of vibration the molecules are.
You can say that there must be a time when water became ice …. But then you are assuming that water in liquid form was present in the beginning & not the ice. This phenomenon of changing of water into various forms is eternal. When did matter become energy or energy become matter ? No one can say when it all started & why. That is why Rig Veda says on creation, “Perhaps He (God) knows or perhaps he too doesn’t”. Actually, this questions are arising out of conditioned mind which thinks that everything must have an origin to start with. It is difficult to accept that there is only changing of forms … there is no creation in reality. It is the Consciousness alone which is manifesting itself in varied forms.


Advaitic Brahman is monolithic energy and no transformation happens for that energy and it exist only AS IT IS eternally and that is how classical Advaita approaches the idea of Brahman

Please teach me “Classical Advaita” where this all is written ! Brahman is not monolithic energy. And what do you understand by “AS IT IS” ? In reality or when perceived by mind in the two states ? Water & Ice both do remain H2O As It Is in both the states but they do have different characteristics in the two states.

Please quote the exact correct sentence from your source & then I can comment on what it means.

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

It seems that you want to show that you know better than me. If that is your motive, I quit here. However, please read the Shruti first before shouting at the top of your voice that what anyone has said is against Shruti. This is no way to discuss things. Do you note that you have made it completely clear that you have never read Maandukya Upanishad & you were not even aware of Aitreya Upanishad’s Mahaavaakya, “Prjnaanaam Brahma” ? Still you want to show that you know it best ! You could have done justice to my efforts if you had tried to understand what I said & first consulted the scriptures I referred before shouting that I was wrong !

I have no desire to prove anything & so unless you read the Upanishads, I don't think there is any point discussing all this. When you complete reading scriptures, please let me know & then we shall discuss.

With love ...

Devotee

[grames]

Haa haa!

With love but with out love :).
Secondly, i expected this kind of response and i know you will assume i haven't read Upanishads as that is the usual response i get from "Advaitins".
Also, what i wrote in different threads are in fact what "Advaita" in one way or other is and i can give you bhasya references if you care to know. Also, please note that i am not here to preech you what Advaita is either as i know you are very well convinced and not in a state to receive "questions", objections and it is very evident from this response of yours.

I pick only one of your answer and i also have no further interest to discuss with you on this subject anymore as i believe we both are "Self" satisfied already at least with our perception about each other. :)


This is how you read ? Did I say that “Brahman is going to manifest” ? I said, “this Consciousness has inherent infinite possibilities to manifest Itself”.
This Conscious/ness = Cit = Brahman in all states. Period.

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

The Upanishads, Gita and the Brahma Sutras, which form the Prasthana Traya or the Scriptural Trinity of Vedanta, clearly refer to the twin aspects of Life Spirit and consciousness as the Self in the human body.

[devotee]

Namaste Grames,

Great understanding, dear ! Be happy with that ! Who told you to study Advaita in the first place ?

Please concentrate on your bhajan kirtan. Advaita is not for everyone.

OM

[satay]

Namaste,

Thanks Devotee, Grames.

Honestly, I was hoping for a different outcome but perhaps that's not possible.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Satay and all


Namaste,

Thanks Devotee, Grames.

Honestly, I was hoping for a different outcome but perhaps that's not possible.

I dont know what outcome you were looking for, but mine is this unity based on what Shree Krishna is saying

sankhya-yogau prthag balah
pravadanti na panditah
ekam apy asthitah samyag
ubhayor vindate phalam
The ignorant, not the wise, consider Karma-Samnyasa and Karma-yoga as different from each other. The person who has truly mastered one, gets the benefits of both. (5.04)

The Supreme Lord said: Those ever steadfast devotees who worship with supreme faith by fixing their mind on Me as personal God, I consider them to be the best yogis. (See also 6.47) (12.02)

But those who worship the imperishable, the undefinable, the unmanifest, the omnipresent, the unthinkable, the unchanging, the immovable, and the eternal Brahman; (12.03)

Restraining all the senses, even minded under all circumstances, engaged in the welfare of all creatures, they also attain Me. (12.04)

Self-realization is more difficult for those who fix their mind on the formless Brahman, because the comprehension of the unmanifest Brahman by the average embodied human being is very difficult. (12.05)

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

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

These are the words of our Lord Shree Krishna, yet we do not take heed . Hindu unity is built on these principles. Unity in diversity.
choose a path that suit’s a seeker and no path is gained without endeavour.

He says hardly anyone know him in truth but those who strive to seek him he surely gives them the wisdom by which one can know him.

As long as we have desires and hate the goal is allusive , unless we apply Dharma in our life what use is all this words?

Rishi Atri performed tapsya not knowing who the supreme brahman was yet we or most talk as if we know him personally.

Dharma is for acharan

Jai Shree Krishna

[satay]

namaste Ganeshprasad,

Thank you for the post.

I apologize for the possibly out of context questions from my PM in the OP. Actually, my original PM to devotee was from an academic point of view. I am sure I didn't convey that to him clearly though so that's why this thread... I was hoping for a more intellectual type conversation with him only through PM's. It was supposed to be more from an academic angle.

But you are right, what use is all these words...


unless we apply Dharma in our life what use is all this words?

Dharma is for acharan

Jai Shree Krishna

[atanu]

Namaste all,
So, you are advocating that the Brahman is going to manifest?? How such manifestation happens for a nirVishesha Brahman when He is not having such qualities?

Since, Brahman is Cit, Cit having four layers or parts mean Brahman having parts? Parts as in what? You are unknowingly advocating division of Brahman even if you mean to say the Parts are temporary,illusion or even super imposition etc. Brahman has no parts------



Namaste Grames and friends.

Brahman is partless and immutable. From Grames, these are good questions, but only apparently, since the assumption is: "I am (the ego-mind-body) is the seer of all that I see". It is the changeable ego that is allowed to decide on immutable Brahman being deluded or being parted/broken etc. How nice.

Moreover, Advaita believes that it is the anadimat ignorance that causes the apparent sprouting. Just as VA believe that it is anadimat karma. Whose karma then? Similarly, Dvaita has many questions to answer.

Sufficient it to say that the real You are That, which must be known (as per Upanishads and the Gita). Ego-mind-body is not that. Being unknown to youself, however, you think that the manifest states of unknown darkness (deep sleep) or light/ shade (dream) or flesh (waking) are real. The ego is taken as the real as if floating in these dream worlds. Actually, the Seer is watching three dream states just as an accomplished actor (say like Kamal Hassan) may see his own ten roles. Does Kamal say "I am those ten characters"? Does, any one, after waking up consider the dream bodies as real? Further, when there are no bodies and no universe in the deep sleep was I really absent?

Aitareya Upanishad
-iii-12: Having split up this very end, He entered through this door. This entrance is known as vidriti (the chief entrance). Hence it is delightful. Of Him there are three abodes – three (states of) dream. This one is an abode, this one is an abode. This one is an abode.

I-iii-13: Being born, He manifested all the beings; for did He speak of (or know) anything else ? He realised this very Purusha as Brahman, the most pervasive, thus: “I have realised this”.
I-iii-14: Therefore His name is Idandra. He is verily known as Idandra. Although He is Idandra, they call Him indirectly Indra; for the gods are verily fond of indirect names, the gods are verily fond of indirect names.
-------------------------
We know every other thing but the Seer. Can we see the Seer who is seeing everthing from within us? No. It is impossible. Upanishads give an hint that the Purusha in the Right Eye is same as the Purusha in the Sun. The Seer is the reality who is resident in the right eye here and in the Sun there. How wonderful.


All these confusions and arguments arise since grame's premise is "I am this Body and I have eyes which see this world". Mistake is at the root, I would say.


Sufficient again to say that without experiencing the True Self (devoid of all koshas) these discussions will remain devoid of life. I will again remind that Upanishads and the Gita exhort that the Self-Brahman must be known -- else great sarvanash ensues. But Knowing is surely not intellectual since the Mind comes back therefrom.


Ganeshprasadji, IMO, has given excellent advice, which actually I am pursuing more earnestly nowadays.


And a request to dear Grames: May I humbly request you to stop for few days to query advaita darshana. Rather, I repeat Devotee's query as to why the Lord of your idea -- the omnipotent and omniscient controller of all should not be understood as a sadist who though all knowing, seems to allow evil happenings and although omni-empowered, does not stop evil persons and evil events. Why?


Best Wishes to all.


Om Namah Shivaya

[grames]

Namaste Atanu,

Hope everything is fine with you and after long time i am seeing one of your response.

Just few thoughts...


Moreover, Advaita believes that it is the anadimat ignorance that causes the apparent sprouting. Just as VA believe that it is anadimat karma. Whose karma then? Similarly, Dvaita has many questions to answer.Whose Karma" It is Karma of Jiva! In Dvaita view, the Karma is also rested along with the Jiva's after pralaya and such un liberated Jiva's again get subjected to the samsara based on their Anadi Karma. ( here Anadi basically refers to the eternity of its preservation).

But the problem with Advaita belief is, who owns this Ignorance or whose ignorance is this? You cannot say it is Brahman's is the point and with out that, Advaita cannot justify the "One without a Second" or "Only One and Nothing Else". So, pls explain if you can about whose "ignorance" is this?

Sometimes, examples alone do not do justice to Truth rather they just convey your idea which may not be the Truth. :)


All these confusions and arguments arise since grames premise is "I am this Body and I have eyes which see this world". Mistake is at the root, I would say.

That is just your idea of reimposing the already convinced Siddanta where you strongly believe that, it is because of the bodily notion alone i refuse to see Advaita. But, i guess my source of confusion is all about the very much 'unexplainable' but only experienceable vastu, the Brahman and denial of everything else as Dream.

Also, i understood the limitation of great advaitins to explain such "Advaita" using words or sentences as media and i believe, it is not going to be possible for any "Advaitin" to plainly explain what Advaita is other than asking someone to "experience" it. So, my simple and humble departure note for this thread is,

Those who experienced that Truth will not be able to tell you anything about it.
Those who wants to experience such Truth will not be able to learn anything about how to experience such Truth.
But, we have to believe that, Such Truth alone is Truth!

[atanu]

Namaste Atanu,

Whose Karma" It is Karma of Jiva!

Namaste grames,

No. Regarding karma my query was related to VA, wherein the status of karma is same as of ignorance in Advaita. Now if you examined the Gita teaching: "Arjuna know that you are not the doer", then you will probably be able to understand. Or may be not?


But the problem with Advaita belief is, who owns this Ignorance or whose ignorance is this? You cannot say it is Brahman's is the point and with out that, Advaita cannot justify the "One without a Second" or "Only One and Nothing Else". So, pls explain if you can about whose "ignorance" is this?

You like to see only the problems.

I have many times written that Svet. U. talks of vidyaavidya (a complex) resident in Brahman. That same vidyaavidya is vidya to some minds and avidya to other minds. In Brahman it is neither vidya nor is it avidya.

Again, Gita teaches: What is night for the ignorant is day for the yogi.


That is just your idea of reimposing the already convinced Siddanta where you strongly believe that, it is because of the bodily notion alone i refuse to see Advaita. But, i guess my source of confusion is all about the very much 'unexplainable' but only experienceable vastu, the Brahman and denial of everything else as Dream.

Yes. I am sure that whatever you (and most of us, including me) say is said from the framework of a soul seen as a body. The nature of the same atma in dream or in deep sleep is not taken into account in most cases, except by the advaitins. It is not taken seriously that the nature of this soul is empty space like the inside of seed (Chandogya U.). Have you experienced the nature of yourself apart from the body?

If you ever logically followed the dictum of Gita and Upanishads that the Atman-Brahman should be known; then indeed all that was seen and experienced sensually would belong to the domain of the changeable -- whatever you may call that changefulness.

That changefulness can be called dream-jagat-mAya, ignorance-karma etc. etc. It does not matter. The underlying immutable must be known -- and that matters.


Om Namah Shivaya

[grames]

Dear Atanu Ji,

I am surprised of this statement of yours...


I have many times written that Svet. U. talks of vidyaavidya (a complex) resident in Brahman. That same vidyaavidya is vidya to some minds and avidya to other minds. In Brahman it is neither vidya nor is it avidya.

Would you be interested to provide the verse so that i can understand better? Also, is the translation/meaning derived of any Shankara bahsya or later ones? Please share your knowledge on this.

[atanu]

Dear Atanu Ji,

I am surprised of this statement of yours...

Would you be interested to provide the verse so that i can understand better? Also, is the translation/meaning derived of any Shankara bahsya or later ones? Please share your knowledge on this.
[/font][/color]

Namaste grame

paJNchamo.adhyaayaH .

dve axare brahmapare tvanante
vidyaavidye nihite yatra guuDhe .
xara.n tvavidyaa hyamR^ita.n tu vidyaa
vidyaavidye iishate yastu so.anyaH .. 1..

Chapter V
1 In the Immutable, infinite Supreme Brahman remain hidden the two: knowledge and ignorance. Ignorance leads to worldliness and knowledge, to Immortality. Brahman, who controls both knowledge and ignorance, is different from both.

-----------------------
I experience the three darshanas as continuum and not pitted against each other. But for you its taking time. I see the truth of the three darshanas as three steps of Vishnu -- coming from Turya to the Jagrat and back. It does not require a lot of reading of bhasyas to intuit the truth. Moreover, bhasyas themselves cannot be comprehended in absence of meditative discrimination.

For example, if you followed up in meditation, the dictum of 'Neti-Neti', then in a flash you would realise that any boundary seen or perceived is not That.

Om Namah Shivaya

[grames]

Dear Atanu ji,

I have one question before we analyze and understand this verse. Are you aware of these two theories..Avaceda Vada and Abhasa Vada.

A straight forward dictionary translation will not give any meaning and i at least hope you acknowledge that.

Thanks


Namaste grame

paJNchamo.adhyaayaH .

dve axare brahmapare tvanante
vidyaavidye nihite yatra guuDhe .
xara.n tvavidyaa hyamR^ita.n tu vidyaa
vidyaavidye iishate yastu so.anyaH .. 1..

Chapter V
1 In the Immutable, infinite Supreme Brahman remain hidden the two: knowledge and ignorance. Ignorance leads to worldliness and knowledge, to Immortality. Brahman, who controls both knowledge and ignorance, is different from both.

-----------------------
I experience the three darshanas as continuum and not pitted against each other. But for you its taking time. I see the truth of the three darshanas as three steps of Vishnu -- coming from Turya to the Jagrat and back. It does not require a lot of reading of bhasyas to intuit the truth. Moreover, bhasyas themselves cannot be comprehended in absence of meditative discrimination.

For example, if you followed up in meditation, the dictum of 'Neti-Neti', then in a flash you would realise that any boundary seen or perceived is not That.

Om Namah Shivaya

[atanu]

Dear Atanu ji,

I have one question before we analyze and understand this verse. Are you aware of these two theories..Avaceda Vada and Abhasa Vada.

A straight forward dictionary translation will not give any meaning and i at least hope you acknowledge that.

Thanks

Namaste Grames,

Nice questions. It seems that you have questions and no answers. Will knowing the meanings of avaceda and abhasa enable one to realise? You may explain how?

Please. Don't you know that these are expositions on metaphors of limitation and reflection. But people who get into these arguments, do not know that the metaphors are not Brahman. If your goal is only to split hair based on the metaphors used for explaining Advaita, then why should I be interested?

Gaudapada has given a beautiful metaphor of 'Fire Brand' and its shape due to rotation. Is it Brahman or is it a Metaphor used for explaining, albeit approximately, that which is beyond word and mind?

Please remove your confusion first before testing others.

Om Namah Shivaya

[atanu]

For example, if you followed up in meditation, the dictum of 'Neti-Neti', then in a flash you would realise that any boundary seen or perceived is not That.

Why not follow it up?

[atanu]

Grames,

Bhamati and Vivarana schools are there to dispel doubts from minds of some who mistake metaphors as the reality. Brahman is neither limited nor reflected. These are explanations for creation, which according to Advaita, never took place.

If you read Shri Ramana with love, you may understand.

Similarly Dvaita and Vishistaadvaita are there to dispel doubts that Ego (thinker) and Brahman (Sat-Chit-Ananda) are same.

True follower follows what one's Guru teaches.

Om Namah Shivaya

[grames]

Thanks Atanu Ji!

I appreciate and adore your great words of this


True follower follows what one's Guru teaches.


and dismiss myself from this thread.

[Yogkriya]

Namaste Grames,

Great understanding, dear ! Be happy with that ! Who told you to study Advaita in the first place ?

Please concentrate on your bhajan kirtan. Advaita is not for everyone.

OM

Very well said!!!

Om Tat Sat!

Yogkriya

[devotee]

Namaste,

After Yogkriya's above post, I revisited this thread and read it all over again. Now, I think I could have made things more clear instead of losing patience with Grames in the above discussion. This post is aimed at clarifying the doubts of Grames a little more.

a) Manifestation of the Unmanifest :


So, you are advocating that the Brahman is going to manifest?? How such manifestation happens for a nirVishesha Brahman when He is not having such qualities?

The Self/Brahman in its NirVishesha state i.e. the fourth state is unmanifested. The Upanishads tell us that the that everything which is manifest has originated from the Unmanifest. I will quote here one Upanishad to support this :

Asadvaa idamagra AasIt. Tatau vai sadjaayata. (Taittriya Upanishad Ch.VII, Verse.1)

Why did I say: “ It has infinite possibilities to manifest itself” ? This needs no clarification as the entire universe in infinite forms having infinite different attributes is the proof of this … and the substratum of this varied manifestation is the same Consciousness/Brahman.

b) Vibration of Consciousness at different frequencies in its four different parts :

Here there were two objections :

1) Does Brahman/Self has parts or is it partless ?

Again it depends upon from which state we are looking at. Let’s remember that there is nothing which can be compared with Self. The Self is like Itself alone. So, getting exact analogy of It is impossible. If we see from Turiya state, then it is homogenous and partless but an overview from waking state suggests that it has four parts. This has been unambiguously stated in Maandukya Upanishad :

“Sarvam hyetad brahmaayamaatmaa, so AyamAtmaa chatuspaat” (Maandukya Upanishad, Verse 2.0)

=> This all is verily Brahman. This Self is Brahman. This Self, as It is, has four parts.

2) Does It really "Vibrate" ? :


Secondly, your statement attracts more objection or doubt here as you are importing 'differences' to this infinite conscious entity called Brahman by saying, 'vibrates at various frequencies'. It has two Doshas. First one being nirVishesha, NirGuna Advaita Brahman 'vibrating' its(??) consciousness and then becoming a entity that perform action on itself. The next one being, Vibrating at "various" frequencies meaning Brahman is not equally distributed and not an undivided harmonious or congruous entity. So, explain me how such Brahman who is considered sat,cit and Ananta vibrates only the 'cit' portion? If such vibration happens, don't you think Brahman will no longer be NirVisesha?? and also partless? Sat Cit and Ananta though three words but are One which is Brahman is what 'Advaitam' means right? OR am i understanding with conditioned state of mind only?

Vibration of Self is the reason behind all this and no Upanishad explains it better than Maandukya Upanishad and Gaudapad Kaarikaa. Let’s see below :

The first verse of this Upanishad tells us :

“Omityetadaksharamidam sarva tasyopavyaakhyaanam bhootam bhavishyaditi sarvamonkaar eva. Yachchaanyat trikaalaatItam tadayopankaar eva”

==> This syllable (also indestructible) that is OM is all this. Of this a clear explanation : All that is past, present or future is verily OM. And whatever is beyond the three periods is also verily OM.

Let’s remember that this OM was discovered by the Rishis at the highest level of saadhana (meditation) as sound coming from every pore of this universe … like the sound coming from a bronze metal gong after being struck. One can question that as Consciousness is not matter how its vibration produces sound ? Consciousness is neither matter not not-matter. It is something which we cannot perceive as it Itself is the perceiver. However, the vibration of consciousness is heard on being reflected through various chakras in our own body. The clear sound of OM can be heard by anyone in the right ear who has been able to activate his heart chakra. There is a state which is soundless too. This is the “vibration” of the Consciousness in different states. The first state is nothing but the vibration of the Consciousness which gives sound, “A” (the first part of AUM). The second state is vibration of Consciousness giving sound “U”. The third state is vibration of Consciousness giving sound “M”. The fourth is when all vibration stops and there is no sound. So, the silence coming after AUM is the Turiya.

Again Alaatashaanti-Prakaran of Mandukya Upanishad says :

“It is Consciousness – birthless, motionless and non-material, as well as tranquil and non-dual –which has the semblance of birth, appears to move and simulates a substance” – (Ala-45)

“As the movement of the firebrand appears to be straight or crooked, so it is the vibration of Consciousness that appears to be the knower and the known” (Ala-47)

“As the firebrand, when not in motion, becomes free from appearances and birth, so Consciousness, when not in vibration, will be free from appearances and birth” ( Ala-48)

“When Consciousness is in vibration, the appearances do not come to It from anywhere else. Neither do they go anywhere else from Consciousness when It is at rest, nor do they enter into It”. (Ala-51)


3) Prajnaanam Brahman – what does it really mean :

As the Dvaita and Bheda-Abheda Achintyaswaroop too are based on Vedanta, they have interpreted this statement of Aitreya Upanishad in their own way. They translate it as, “Brahman has (or possesses) Consciousness”. We have no arguments with those schools as long as they don’t challenge that Advaita Vedanta’s interpretation is wrong as was claimed by Grames. What is really the correct meaning ?

This statement has two Nouns Prajnaanam i.e. Consciousness & Brahman. Use of two nouns in this way in Sanskrit simply means that one is the same as the other e.g. Ramah Manushyah i.e. Ram is a man …. Sita Janakasya Kanya means Sita is daughter of Janaka etc. So, if we go by the acceptable usage in Sanskrit, it must mean, “Consciousness is Brahman”. In case it had to mean, “Brahman has consciousness” … the Brahman should have been used with saptam vibhakti which is not seen here in that sentence.


OM

[kd gupta]

Very well said!!!

Om Tat Sat!

Yogkriya
Never mind brother , IF, advaita is not for everybody .

Bhajan kirtan is for everybody...Enjoy .Surrender to that almighty and do your defined duty . Read 4 gita shlokas starting from aham sarvasya...gyan deepen bhasvita .

[devotee]

Bhajan kirtan is for everybody...Enjoy .Surrender to that almighty and do your defined duty . Read 4 gita shlokas starting from aham sarvasya...gyan deepen bhasvita .

Yes, you are right Gupta ji ! Thank you. :)

OM

[grames]

Dear Devotee,

It is very nice of you to put this response and i am glad i am given the understanding of yours. Thank you very much for that.

Your explanations are really nice and i mean it. I do not even find these kind of explanations in "Shankara" Advaita and so why i am delighted to read this one of yours.

So, as per you.. its the OMGhara which is the cause of "four" states and everything else. Also, extending the understanding in your own words, this OM is verily Brahman Himself/Itself or just Brahman. So, my original doubt is still not very clearly answered.

If Manifestations are "Real", then Dvaita also gains validity and reality at once. So, you are not going to say "Manifestations" are Real regardless of that perception from any of the four states. So, , Manifestations from the Unmanifest is only "neither real nor unreal" in the state of Turiya, the unexplainable state. In all other states, it is REAL because the states exists and we witness it. ( The ATMAN witness it because, it is the cause and effect of it and it is not transformed in to SOMETHING else) But your statement says, at Turiya the OM is viberationless, motionless as this state is "silent" in other words no Manifestation happens. Is that right understanding? If Yes, then

1. Are you suggesting the all "four" states are eternal? If you say YES for that, this is what happens...

a) All four states are Real cos they are eternal and they do have existence
b) Since there are four states, they are different in terms of what is experienced, what is known etc.
c) Differences becomes "eternal" for the reasons like OM Viberates at "Different" frequencies and the effect of the viberations also then becomes "real" and different.
d) So, in such case "Advaitam" can only indicate the quality of the Substance on which the vibrating force is "acting" and that will invalidate the concept of "Nirvishesha" Brahman.
e) Accepting this, the "part" or Amsha becomes a valid reality which will then negate the concept of EkoJivaVada

2. If your answer is NO
a) Some are eternal and some of them are not eternal... the Atman is eternal but the "Dream" of the Atman is not eternal. In other words, Turiya state alone is eternal and rest are not eternal.
b) Partless Brahman(niravayava, niṣkala) is both cause and effect and thus, imparting a part to that partless Brahman as eternal in one sense and not-eternal in another sense is Atattva. (Self Contradictory -Sarvam hyetad brahmaayamaatmaa, so AyamAtmaa chatuspaat”)

If the answer is NO for the foreclosing question ( Does Viberations happens in the Turiya State?).. then..

a) You have to explain the new state that is manifested or appear to be manifested from the unmanifested state.
b) OM Himself/Itself is Brahman and thus, it is always in Turiya. So, what is the "Cause" of this Viberation?
c) Beyond Pragna, there is no "cause"


or Kaala is also the product of Pragna? If "YES"
a) a jivanMukta case becomes so magical...though he is jivanMukta, he is still under the spell of the "Kaala"
b) His mukthi has no prayojana because He is still daunted by the "dream"
c) Dream object controlling the "dreamer" can only happen in "Dream" and since there is no reality to such "Dream", the whole idea of "Kala" controlling the Jiva/Brahman even after jivanMukthi is pointless.

if No then,
a) Pragna is not eternal cos Kaala then controls the Pragnaa too. Which is against the advaitic position


It is interesting that, all the works of Shankara can be beautifully understood by applying the Bedabedha model rather than the 'pure' monism model. Its just my statement. One of the striking thing is, even for a JivanMukta, the experience of the world is not ceased.

Also, i am not trying to prove here that "Advaita" is wrong and i guess that is what made your irritated etc. I am sorry abt that.

[devotee]

Namaste Grames,

Welcome back ! It is nice to see you posting again. :)

You have asked profound questions and I am impressed. I shall get back with a suitable response in a day or two as soon as I find sufficient time.

OM

[upsydownyupsy mv ss]

Dear devotee,

Your question 1 and its answer has confirmed my (self's) theory on mayavada, but still, I'm not completely believing advaitham. As a matter of fact, there is still a confusion in me between advaitha and dvaitha. For this, I'll have to explain my view on mayavada.

To begin with, there is an ever glowing, self luminous source of light. Well, lets consider, Huygen's wave theory of light. I presume you know that you know this. O.K, now lets say that there is a mirror that reflects the light of the luminous object. Lets say a ray, udums, falls on the mirrors and forms an image called udums2. Here we can say that, the light source is god, mirror is maya. Lets make another hypothetical assumption that this light ray travels only in presence of maya or else stays with the source, without motion. So, we can say the light ray is the self (udums) and the image is the visual self(udums2). To attain moksham, the visual self must be destroyed (even those bodies that lead to further rebirths), leaving the real self to exist with the ultimate reality or truth or knowledge (= state of knowing truth). To do this, the mirror, or barrier of maya must be broken.
All of the above confirms mayavada and is same as your explanation. But, does not explain how the light ray and light source are one and the same. There is another possibility, that I don't exist and god alone exists. This says advaitha is true, but sounds stupid. If god alone exists and I dont, Is there any need for me (soul) to gain more and more knowledge?

The sad thing is, I'm in a bitter confusion between advaitha and dvaitha. The fun part is, the more I think intellectually, the more interesting the case gets as I solve it. The funny part is...:D I refer religious and spiritual books, cds, etc. very very very rarely or never. I thank my academics and father that they just gave me glimpses of spirituality and later shunned me off spirituality. Oh God! I just love you! You're the sweetest!

[upsydownyupsy mv ss]

Kaala is also the product of Pragna? If "YES"
a) a jivanMukta case becomes so magical...though he is jivanMukta, he is still under the spell of the "Kaala"
b) His mukthi has no prayojana because He is still daunted by the "dream"
c) Dream object controlling the "dreamer" can only happen in "Dream" and since there is no reality to such "Dream", the whole idea of "Kala" controlling the Jiva/Brahman even after jivanMukthi is pointless.

if No then,
a) Pragna is not eternal cos Kaala then controls the Pragnaa too. Which is against the advaitic position


It is interesting that, all the works of Shankara can be beautifully understood by applying the Bedabedha model rather than the 'pure' monism model. Its just my statement. One of the striking thing is, even for a JivanMukta, the experience of the world is not ceased.

Also, i am not trying to prove here that "Advaita" is wrong and i guess that is what made your irritated etc. I am sorry abt that.

Dear Grames,
Can you plz tell me what bedabedha model is?

a) a jivanMukta case becomes so magical...though he is jivanMukta, he is still under the spell of the "Kaala"

A question for statement 'Pragnyanam Brah_ma?'

How can this is be? This very statement denies the power of knowledge over time, because, on attaining enlightenment, a person receives infinite knowledge and then pragnyanam and on one day becomes mukta, which is freeing oneself from the bonds of Maya and the materialistic world, where time exists. In the realm god, there is no such thing as time, if there is, there is no such thing as god. So, my question to your question is have you got the two words 'Pragnya and Pragnyanam mixed up?' They are 2 different words. Pragnya is the state of consciousness, pragynana is the permanent ultimate state of consciousness. Knowledge is the state of knowing the truth, Pragnya is the state of consciousness, be it awake, sleeping, daydreaming, dreaming, meditating, intellectually analysing things, etc and Pragnyanam is the superior Pragnya in which all the infinite knowledge that exists, now exists in the person with pragnyanam and the funniest part is Pragnyanam is truth, so very word truth evokes 'permanency' Truth doesn't change with time, like if you kill me today, I won't live for tomorrow as me.

So, if you were talking about pragnyanam, nope, dream object doesn't control dreamer, but, if you were talking about pragnya, dream object (time) is controlling another dream object (pragnya) , not dreamer. Hey! but wait! In Jivan mukta state, pragnyana alone exists and no other dream object.

'Pragnyanam Brah_ma' can been translated as,
'Indeed, truth alone is God' &
'The state of infinite consciousness that contains every bit of knowledge is god'
Probably this is the only advaitha statement that I can accept with no confusion.

Even after reading all this there may be a confusion in you. To this, I suggest intellectual experimental analysis. You'll find the answer in just a few hours, if your thoughts move in a specific direction.

Truth = That which does not lie to people.
Pragnya = state of consciousness.
knowledge = vishaya of truth.
Pragnyana = an enernal, permanent and subtle most state of
consciousness, which has infinite knowledge and itself is the truth.

I don't know the position and truths of advaitha, I still have doubts regarding both adavaitha and dvaitha. But, I've opted for Mayavada.

[devotee]

Namaste Grames,


its the OMGhara which is the cause of "four" states and everything else. Also, extending the understanding in your own words, this OM is verily Brahman Himself/Itself or just Brahman.

Yes, this is what the Upanishads say :

AUM iti etat aksharam imam sarvam tasyopakhyanam bhavadbhavishyat iti sarvam omkaar eva. Yat cha anyat trikaalaateetam tat api omkaar eva. (Mandukya Upanishad Verse 1)

=> All this is imperishable Om. A vivid explanation of this (is begun). All that is past, present, and future is but Om. Whatever transcends the three periods of time, too, is Om.

Aum iti Brahman. Om iti idam sarvam. (Taitriya Uoanishad)

=> OM itself is Brahman. Om itself is all this ( in all the four states ).



If Manifestations are "Real", then Dvaita also gains validity and reality at once.

There is no fight against Dvaita philosophy. However, Dvaita takes only upto the third state of Brahman i.e. Prajna or the God state (Saakaar Brahman or Saguna Brahman). Within the first three states Dvaita is fine and good and recommended. Otherwise, why would Sankara sing “Bhaj Govindam” and other bhakti songs ? Or why the Sanyaasis from Sankara’s schools would set up temples and images of God therein ?
Dvaita is the school where one must graduate first before getting admitted into Master degree of Advaita.


So, you are not going to say "Manifestations" are Real regardless of that perception from any of the four states.

No. Manifestations are seen from the three states alone. They lose their reality in the fourth. The dream things lose their reality once the dream is broken. The “real” is used to describe something which is changeless and indestructible. The only state which is beyond Kaala is Turiya … all other three states are limited by time.


So , Manifestations from the Unmanifest is only "neither real nor unreal" in the state of Turiya, the unexplainable state. In all other states, it is REAL because the states exists and we witness it. ( The ATMAN witness it because, it is the cause and effect of it and it is not transformed in to SOMETHING else) But your statement says, at Turiya the OM is viberationless, motionless as this state is "silent" in other words no Manifestation happens. Is that right understanding?

No… No. You didn’t get it correctly. It is “unreal” from the state of Turiya but it is “real” (relatively) from the first two states. That is why it is described as “Neither Real nor Unreal”. Their reality is only relative reality as the dream objects are in dream. Your witnessing it is in the same realm and therefore it is relative. Even your (individual) existence is relative.

Yes, when the Self is without vibration then there is no manifestation. Then there is no differentiation. There are no disturbances in the Infinite Consciousness. All the three states vanish here and only Turiya shines.


If Yes, then

1. Are you suggesting the all "four" states are eternal? If you say YES for that, this is what happens...

a) All four states are Real cos they are eternal and they do have existence
b) Since there are four states, they are different in terms of what is experienced, what is known etc.
c) Differences becomes "eternal" for the reasons like OM Viberates at "Different" frequencies and the effect of the viberations also then becomes "real" and different.
d) So, in such case "Advaitam" can only indicate the quality of the Substance on which the vibrating force is "acting" and that will invalidate the concept of "Nirvishesha" Brahman.
e) Accepting this, the "part" or Amsha becomes a valid reality which will then negate the concept of EkoJivaVada

No need to answer as the answer to conditional question was “No”.

Continued in next post ....

OM

[devotee]

Part-II


2. If your answer is NO
a) Some are eternal and some of them are not eternal... the Atman is eternal but the "Dream" of the Atman is not eternal. In other words, Turiya state alone is eternal and rest are not eternal.

It is not some Vs some. It is One Vs everything. … and use of the word “eternal” can create some confusion here. Because Maya is without beginning and without end. Maya is the nature of Brahman. Again the essence of everything is eternal. This everything is actually One alone. States keep on varying from one to the other depending upon the nature of vibration of Consciousness. These three states “happen” on the attributeless Turiya, the underlying reality. It is like Sea with waves. The sea can be compared with Turiya and the scene created by the rising & falling waves on it with the pictures coming and going on the screen. Only thing to remember here is that here (in the Self) the waves are being created & destroyed by Itself alone and not being caused by any outside agency (unlike this worldly sea where the disturbance is caused by external agencies like wind). It is the nature of the Brahman to project all the three states.


b) Partless Brahman(niravayava, niṣkala) is both cause and effect and thus, imparting a part to that partless Brahman as eternal in one sense and not-eternal in another sense is Atattva. (Self Contradictory -Sarvam hyetad brahmaayamaatmaa, so AyamAtmaa chatuspaat”)

So you are refuting the Upanishads by your worldly logic ? You are saying this because it is impossible for you to think beyond your relative world of conceptions. My dear friend, if you think critically …. All your concepts are relative. You have no absolute concept to rely upon. This reality as It is … cannot be conceptualized as It is like Itself alone … there is nothing with which It can be compared. Can you tell me why Chaitanya Mahaprabhu called it “Bheda-abheda achintya swaroop” i.e. “Duality as well as Non-duality --- which is unthinkable/not graspable ? Because there is Duality and also Non-duality but the exact nature of It is unthinkable.

Use of relative logic is flawed when we are trying to understand the absolute reality which is the reality behind all realities. I will give you one example to ponder over. If you can understand this, you would be in a better position to appreciate what Advaita Vedanta has to offer.

Our own consciousness is nothing but Brahman alone & that is why It is called “Self”. Whatever is there in Cosmic scale is available at microcosmic scale within this form of our own body/mind entity. Let’s see how our own consciousness creates and destroys worlds … how it creates many things out of itself (partless creating parts)… how it creates ephemeral things when it itself is eternal. Let’s take the example of a dream that you are seeing :

a) Before sleep/dream how many consciousness are there ?
Obviously, Only One … which claims itself as “you”. Right ?
b) When you are dreaming, you see various people in the dream. Say you are in market in a dream. Some people are selling fish, some are selling potato, some are selling rice … some are buying fish, some are buying potatoes, some are buying rice, some are just walking along. Some people are your friends … there are some people who are cheats and some your arch enemies. Some people try to cheat you … some are trying to corner you somewhere and kill you. You are behaving as any other being in that dream … behaving with shopkeepers as customer, with friends as friend and with enemies as enemy. Now please answer these questions :

i) Who is the origin and the end of all beings in the dream ?
Of course, “you” ( this “you” is individual consciousness who claims to own your “I”) who is sleeping/dreaming.

ii) You might have seen hundreds of people in your dream. Everyone is having its own individuality & they are acting in their own ways without any efforts being made by “you” (as this “you” is not even aware what they are going to do the next moment. As they are behaving in a logical way within the dream state … each of the hundreds of people must have consciousness … right ? If not, they cannot act independently the way they are acting in the dream. In other words, each being in the dream has a separate “I” of itself which is apparently different from the “I” which is the origin and end of all (i.e. the sleeping “I”) and it is also different from the “I” which is acting as “you” within the dream. So, the one sleeping “I” is both the material and efficient cause of the world created within your dream. The partless sleeping “I” has become so many different “I”s and yet It remains One alone. Am I right ?
iii) Out of so many “I”s which “I” is eternal/unchanging and which is not ?
Except your sleeping “I” all are perishable and have only relative “reality” within the dream. Please note how your One, partless individual Consciousness has got apparently many parts !

Now, this is a phenomena related with our own consciousness which we encounter every day. Why don’t you doubt the validity of this ? If this is possible then why do you say that Nirvishesha eternal unchanging One Brahman creating this whole world and still remaining essentially One is impossible ?

Continued in the next post ...

OM

[devotee]

Part-III


Does Vibrations happens in the Turiya State?

As I already told you … NO. Turiya is cessation of all phenomena, all prapancha of the three states.


a) You have to explain the new state that is manifested or appear to be manifested from the unmanifested state.

This question doesn’t arise. The three states are already explained.


b) OM Himself/Itself is Brahman and thus, it is always in Turiya. So, what is the "Cause" of this Vibration?

No. AUM has four parts and It is Brahman/Self. The “A” is Visva, “U” is Taijasa, “M” is “Prajna” and silence coming after A-U-M is Turiya. In fact, the sound of A,U and M is superimposed on the silence of Turiya lone. (please refer Mandukya Uanishad and also other upnishads).


c) Beyond Pragna, there is no "cause"

Incorrect statement. Prajna is the origin and end of all beings but it cannot be stated that Prajna is the cause. The “cause” is the nature of Brahman i.e. vibration of Brahman/Self & the essence of everything is the fourth i.e. vibrationless state of AUM/Self.


Kaala is also the product of Pragna? If "YES"
a) a jivanMukta case becomes so magical...though he is jivanMukta, he is still under the spell of the "Kaala"

Kaala is the nature within three states. It is not a product of Prajna. From Prajna alone originate everything and then they all merge back into Prajna alone. There is no “he” for a Jivan-mukta. The being that is Jivanmukta is birthless and eternal and beyond time. Time doesn’t affect It. Everything which has its origin (& death) within Maya is bound by Time or Kaala. Let’s remember one thing that if anything is born it must have an end.


b) His mukthi has no prayojana because He is still daunted by the "dream"

Incorrect conclusion. How can you draw this conclusion ? Please elaborate.


c) Dream object controlling the "dreamer" can only happen in "Dream" and since there is no reality to such "Dream", the whole idea of "Kala" controlling the Jiva/Brahman even after jivanMukthi is pointless.

Incorrect conclusions. How do you draw all these conclusions ? Please elaborate.


if No then,
a) Pragna is not eternal cos Kaala then controls the Pragnaa too. Which is against the advaitic position

None of the three states are eternal as I have explained above. Please let me know why you are bringing weird propositions for creating more confusion for yourself. I am unable to understand what purpose it serves. Please give yourself a chance to understand the whole picture that Advaita Vedanta offers which I feel is lacking here. Kaala is within the nature of three states. All the three states are bound by the limitations imposed by Kaala. It is by nature of the three states. Can you separate your own nature from "you" ? Nature of Brahman cannot be separated from Brahman. Nature of three states cannot be separated from the three states.


It is interesting that, all the works of Shankara can be beautifully understood by applying the Bedabedha model rather than the 'pure' monism model. Its just my statement.

If you ask me honestly, I don’t find much difference in at least Bheda-Abheda and Advaita-Vedanta … the difference is born mainly due to lack of thorough knowledge of one philosophy by the followers of the other. As I told you … please try to answer … why is it called “Bheda-Abheda Achintya swaroop” ? I asked this earlier too but the ISKCONites gave some answers which are not answering this basic question. The problem with them is that they cannot think beyond what their Guru has said. However, this binding doesn’t apply to you. :)


One of the striking thing is, even for a JivanMukta, the experience of the world is not ceased.
All experiences are by the sense organs. The sense organs don’t become Jivan-mukta. Only the individual self stops vibrating & attains the state of Turiya. He is not the sense organs or the body. Why would the body or the sense organs not follow the laws of nature of waking state ?


Also, i am not trying to prove here that "Advaita" is wrong and i guess that is what made your irritated etc. I am sorry abt that.

Thanks for that because only then the discussion can be fruitful & I also share the fault for getting agitated so easily. I don’t think you would have seen any Advaitin trying to show that Dvaita or Bheda-abheda is wrong ! All paths leading to God are valid. They have simply gone one step ahead of Dvaita and Bheda-Abheda but it doesn’t mean that they deny the relative truth within the waking and the dreaming states. If that were so, Shankara would not have coined the word, “Vyavharika satyam”.

OM

[grames]

Good. Your explanation is nice and i am not going to start another topic on knowing what is the "difference" between Pragna and Pragnyana! :)

But indeed, your last line is the answer so i will wait for you to read the questions that i have and wait for 'devotee's answer(s)

Thank you.

[devotee]

Namaste Upsy,

Mayavad and Advaita Vedanta given by Shankara are synonyms. The Advaita Vedanta proposed by Shankara is called Mayavad by ISKCONites & may be some others too. So, if you understand Mayavad, you are supposed to understand Adavaita.

To help you, I am giving you explanation of some of the terms here :

a) Dvaita :

This philosophy says that the Creator and Creation are two different things or the soul of a human being is different from God. Dvaita means existence of two or Duality.

b) Advaita :

This philosophy says that there is no two but One alone in essence. The variety seen in the creation is simply illusion or Maya. Adavita means Not-two or Non-duality.

c) Bheda-Abheda :

This philosophy says that the relationship between the creator and the creation is unimaginable/ungraspable. There is duality as well as non-duality simultaneously ... however understanding it is beyond our mental capabilty. Bheda-Abheda Achintyaswaroop means Both Duality and Non-duality which is unthinkable/ungraspable.

d) Maya :

Maya is the power of Brahman which creates illusion of many though there is only One. Maya exercises its power with Sattava, Rajas and Tamas gunas & deludes all beings. It creates illusion of an individual self ... individual self suffers from hungers of various Indriyas & tries to satisfy itself from the worldly things ... gets bound to good and bad doings & results thereof ... goes from birth to birth for satisfying its own unquenchable desires. Maya literally means "Illusion".

*********************

The example of light rays falling on mirror and creating image of a real object is a good example but not good enough. The whole thing is extremely difficult to understand. Please keep in mind that in reality, there is no separate agency as mirror brought from outside ... it is the Brahman which is the source of light ... it is the Brahman which is the light, it is the Brahman which is the mirror and it is Brahman alone which is the image.

How ? Imagine a vast water body which is frozen in many places but having clear water in some places and also has warm water in some places. There are many forms created by the presence of water, ice blocks and water vapour in the water body. However, all the forms are only illusion ... it is actually, one and only One water body.

This example is not free from all defects but there cannot be any example which is free from all defects as there is nothing which can be compared with Brahman. It is Advitiya ... one without a second.

OM


Dear devotee,

Your question 1 and its answer has confirmed my (self's) theory on mayavada, but still, I'm not completely believing advaitham. As a matter of fact, there is still a confusion in me between advaitha and dvaitha. For this, I'll have to explain my view on mayavada.

To begin with, there is an ever glowing, self luminous source of light. Well, lets consider, Huygen's wave theory of light. I presume you know that you know this. O.K, now lets say that there is a mirror that reflects the light of the luminous object. Lets say a ray, udums, falls on the mirrors and forms an image called udums2. Here we can say that, the light source is god, mirror is maya. Lets make another hypothetical assumption that this light ray travels only in presence of maya or else stays with the source, without motion. So, we can say the light ray is the self (udums) and the image is the visual self(udums2). To attain moksham, the visual self must be destroyed (even those bodies that lead to further rebirths), leaving the real self to exist with the ultimate reality or truth or knowledge (= state of knowing truth). To do this, the mirror, or barrier of maya must be broken.
All of the above confirms mayavada and is same as your explanation. But, does not explain how the light ray and light source are one and the same. There is another possibility, that I don't exist and god alone exists. This says advaitha is true, but sounds stupid. If god alone exists and I dont, Is there any need for me (soul) to gain more and more knowledge?

The sad thing is, I'm in a bitter confusion between advaitha and dvaitha. The fun part is, the more I think intellectually, the more interesting the case gets as I solve it. The funny part is...:D I refer religious and spiritual books, cds, etc. very very very rarely or never. I thank my academics and father that they just gave me glimpses of spirituality and later shunned me off spirituality. Oh God! I just love you! You're the sweetest!

[devotee]

Good. Your explanation is nice and i am not going to start another topic on knowing what is the "difference" between Pragna and Pragnyana! :)

But indeed, your last line is the answer so i will wait for you to read the questions that i have and wait for 'devotee's answer(s)



Prajna (or Pragna) is one of the states of Brahman whose mouth is Consciousness and It feeds on bliss i.e. the state of Saguna Brahman, the third state of deep sleep. The word Prajnanam is used for Consciousness in general.

Your last line indicates that you are not satisfied with the answers fully. But that is perfectly OK, otherwise you would become an Advaitin ! :)

BTW, you are most welcome to ask any further questions.

OM

[grames]

That response is not for you.... :)
I am preparing my response to your fantastic answers. :) Will post you once it is done.

a) Dvaita :

There is eternal difference between Iswara, Jiva and Jada ( Equating it to creator and creation is not actually the philosophy of "TattvaVada").

b) Advaita :

This philosophy says that there is no two but One alone in "essence". The variety seen in the creation is simply illusion or Maya. Advaita means Not-two or Non-duality.

c) Bheda-Abheda :

This philosophy says that the relationship between the Jiva and Jada is both different and non-different from Iswara ( that being "Simultaneous", is only one school's philosophy) .

[upsydownyupsy mv ss]

Hey devoteeji....
I always thought......
Pragnyana is permanent consciousness of bliss and knowledge.
Pragnya is consciousness in general.
The reason is, in my mother-tongue, as we speak, if someone faints, we say he has lost his pragnya and not pragnyanam.
The other reason is, I've heard statement 'Pragnyanam Brah_ma' from eastern advaitha school, especially from the followers of Sri Vivekananda and Sri Ramakrishna. I've even read that once, by chance in a quaterly of 'Smartha Sandhesha' .

[devotee]

Namaste Upsy,

Actually the words are Parjna and Prajnan and "m' is added in Sanskrit. Prajnan is used for Consciousness in Sanskrit ... like Prajnanam Brahman. Prajna, on the other hand, is used in Upanishads as third state of Brahman i.e. the Lord of all, God/Ishwara.

Both these words are closely related to each other. Prajnan is consciousness and Prajna is a state wherein the Self is described as "mass of consciousness (Prajnanaghan)" whose mouth is consciousness and which feeds on bliss. That is the blissful state of Self which is the Lord of all ... the origin and end of all beings in Visva and Taijasa states, which is omniscient and omnipotent.

OM

[grames]

Namaste Devotee,

Your answers to my earlier questions are very nice and after so much of thinking i decided to ask you more questions. The objective of my questions are not to "Refute" advaita and if at all my questions help anyone who wants to follow advaita and learn more abt advaita that will bring the happiness for my time in this thread.

Before i raise questions, your theory of "vibrations" is very nice and i have read something very close in that line in ThiruMoolar's ThiruManthiram but with some differences. In fact, this very fact will lead to his famous quote "There are not two but they are not one" ( Bedhabedha )

So, instead of picking everything at once i wanted you to explain this statement of yours.


It is not some Vs some. It is One Vs everything. … and use of the word “eternal” can create some confusion here. Because Maya is without beginning and without end
OM
I am sure you know very well the philosophical defects that were introduced to "Advaita" by concepts like "Moola Avidya" etc. More than throwing my doubts here, let me raise the same set of questions which were raised by Vaishnavas earlier along with some of my questions.

1. Maya, as per 'your' advaita is ANADI ANNANTAM
2. Advaita maya is/has avarana shakti (the power to completely cover the absolute reality) AND vikshepa shakti (the power to project the unreal world).
3. This Maya is a positive entity
4. Since it is beginingless as well as endless, there is no release for any if the 'ekoJiva' has to be held intact. If the ekoJiva can be compromised by your "multi-frequency" vibration theory, the released part is not totally free from the dominion of the "vibration" again because you have stated that 'vibrating' is the nature of Brahman.
5. That which has a beginning will certainly have an end, that which has no beginning can never have an end! A wrong knowledge is not a beginning of right knowledge and please do not bring such example if you are going to take this point for answers.

Would you please share your thoughts on the above points.

You asked:
why is it called “Bheda-Abheda Achintya swaroop” ?

A quick answer for now is, He is eternally the Whole and we are eternally the parts and how the parts are related to the whole "eternally" is Achintya. Parasara uses this word very intelligently when repying to Maitreya "acintya-jnana-gocarah" when describing the Lord. This "Achintya" swaroop is not graspable for reasons like, He is "full" of "vast number" of qualities (not because He is nirguna) and the number of qualities He posses are comparable to the number of Jiva in the Bramanda and thus inconceivable when you try to comprehend. So, the relationship in a very least comparable simile is like that of Heat to the fire but NOT EXACTLY JUST THAT.

[devotee]

Namaste Grames,


Before i raise questions, your theory of "vibrations" is very nice and i have read something very close in that line in ThiruMoolar's ThiruManthiram but with some differences. In fact, this very fact will lead to his famous quote "There are not two but they are not one" ( Bedhabedha )

I have already given you scriptural proof where vibration of Consciousness is described. Then why do you call it “your theory” ? This is not fair.



It is not some Vs some. It is One Vs everything. … and use of the word “eternal” can create some confusion here. Because Maya is without beginning and without end


I am sure you know very well the philosophical defects that were introduced to "Advaita" by concepts like "Moola Avidya" etc. More than throwing my doubts here, let me raise the same set of questions which were raised by Vaishnavas earlier along with some of my questions.

1. Maya, as per 'your' advaita is ANADI ANNANTAM
2. Advaita maya is/has avarana shakti (the power to completely cover the absolute reality) AND vikshepa shakti (the power to project the unreal world).
3. This Maya is a positive entity
4. Since it is beginingless as well as endless, there is no release for any if the 'ekoJiva' has to be held intact. If the ekoJiva can be compromised by your "multi-frequency" vibration theory, the released part is not totally free from the dominion of the "vibration" again because you have stated that 'vibrating' is the nature of Brahman.
5. That which has a beginning will certainly have an end, that which has no beginning can never have an end! A wrong knowledge is not a beginning of right knowledge and please do not bring such example if you are going to take this point for answers.

Please Grames, please stick to the rules of Dharmic Discussions. Why do you again say, “your Advaita” ? I don’t know what is in your mind but this way reminds me of old cheap way of discrediting someone when the other is not able to win in an argument. See, I have high respect for your for your beliefs and I am not here to win or lose an argument here. I am simply telling you my understanding of Advaita which is based on scriptures and teachings of my Guru.

Anyway, I proceed with assumption that you have no hidden agenda here and you are genuinely interested in this discussion.

“Moola Avidya” is what we have been talking about in Advaita. The other schools find it a defect because it is not compatible with their understanding of Vedanta. I don’t find it a defect & I have strong scriptural support for that. Maya has been called Anadi in Bhagwad Gita by Lord Krishna Himself and it has been unequivocally clarified so in Upanishads. Let me quote the verses here :

Bhagwad Gita :

Prakritim purusham chaiva viddhyanaadi ubhaavapi |
Vikaaraanscha guNanschaiva viddhi prakriti sambhawaan || BG 13.19||

Know both Prakriti and Purush as Anaadi (beginingless). Know that all the Vikaaraas (impurities) and Gunaas (Satva, Rajas and Tamas) born out of Prakriti.


This Prakriti is nothing but Maayaa itself. How ? See the following verse from Svetaaswatar Upanishad :

Sevetaaswatar Upanishad :

Maayaam tu Prakriti vidyaanmaayinam tu maheshawaram |
Tasyaavayavabhootaistu vyaaptam sarvamidam jagat || ( Svetaaswatar Upanishad 4.10)

Know Prakriti as Maayaa and the lord of Prakriti as Maheshwar (God). The whole universe is filled with beings who form His parts.

Why Prakriti is called Prakriti ? Because it is Prakriti or Nature of Brahman (in the first two states).

Maayaa is called beginningless and endless because it is not something which can be separated from Brahman. It is the nature of Brahman in the first two states & as Brahman is beginningless and endless … so is the Maayaa. However, the nature of Maayaa is not that simple too. Though it is endless it does have “an end” on attaining Turiya. Actually, this end is no end as Maayaa was only an illusion. For the being who attains Knowledge sees that there is no Maayaa but it continues for the others.

In support of what I have stated above, I quote the following scripture :

Maayaa naam anaadirarantarvatnI pramaaNapramaaNasaadhaaraNaa na sati na sadsati swayam vikaarhitaa niroopyamaaNaa satItarlakshaNashoonyaa saa saayetyuchyate | Agyaan tucchhapsya sati kaaltrayepi paamraaNaam vaastavi cha satvabuddhirlokkikaanamidamidmitthamityanivarchnIyaa vaktum na shakyate | (Sarvasaaropanishad 15-16)

That which is beginningless and yet which ends, which is neither being nor non-being and which in itself is seen as the taintless energy/power is called Maayaa or the magical world. It cannot be described in any other way except this. This maya is ignorance-like, petty and unreal, but is seen by the deluded persons as real at all times - past, present, future. Therefore to say that it is such cannot explain its real character.



Since it is beginingless as well as endless, there is no release for any if the 'ekoJiva' has to be held intact. If the ekoJiva can be compromised by your "multi-frequency" vibration theory, the released part is not totally free from the dominion of the "vibration" again because you have stated that 'vibrating' is the nature of Brahman.

The nature of Brahman is not the same in all the four states. Its nature of vibration keeps changing from one state to the other. The goal is to attain the vibrationless state which is Turiya where the sway of Maayaa ends. So, liberation is nothing but removal of sway of Maayaa i.e. end of the delusion of being separate from Brahman. Regarding peculiar nature of Maayaa, please see the verses I have quoted above from scriptures.



That which has a beginning will certainly have an end, that which has no beginning can never have an end! A wrong knowledge is not a beginning of right knowledge and please do not bring such example if you are going to take this point for answers.

The beginning and end is only of beings which come into apparent existence only under the influence of Maayaa in the first two states. Maayaa is the nature of Brahman in the first two states & it is Anaadi. As I have explained above, it has and end (who attain Knowledge) & yet it has no end. If you leave the manifested world which comes into being and then again merges back into third state of Brahman (Ishwara) what is there which has a beginning ? The other schools don’t agree with this proposition … but you have to see it from Advaita point of view.



why is it called “Bheda-Abheda Achintya swaroop” ?

A quick answer for now is, He is eternally the Whole and we are eternally the parts and how the parts are related to the whole "eternally" is Achintya. Parasara uses this word very intelligently when repying to Maitreya "acintya-jnana-gocarah" when describing the Lord. This "Achintya" swaroop is not graspable for reasons like, He is "full" of "vast number" of qualities (not because He is nirguna) and the number of qualities He posses are comparable to the number of Jiva in the Bramanda and thus inconceivable when you try to comprehend. So, the relationship in a very least comparable simile is like that of Heat to the fire but NOT EXACTLY JUST THAT.

As it is not my field, I would accept your version. However, my doubts are not removed. You are saying that “how the parts are related to the whole eternally is Achintya”. But the philosophy name itself says that the relationship with Brahman is “Bheda as well as Abheda” … i.e. both dual and non-dual and it is unthinkable. If the relationship is “bheda” then why should it be termed “unthinkable” ? … Even if it is pure “abhedaa” then also it cannot be unthinkable … it becomes unthinkable only when the relationship becomes both Bheda-Abheda at the same time. In fact, that explains why Gauraanga Prabhu accepted an Advaita aachaarya as his Guru. My thinking is that original thoughts of Gauranga Prabhu has been distorted by some of his followers later on and the original thoughts are lost for ever. Why I have this doubt because I could not find any direct explanation of this term by Gauraanga Prabhu himself …. all the available explanations are actually individual opinions … it doesn’t find its origin in Gauraanga Prabhu’s teachings.


OM

[grames]

Dear Devotee,

This discussion should be very useful for lot of people who are interested in learning "Advaita" because, the questions i raise are most of the time questions of the "learner". So, see me not as a person but see only my questions if they are valid and qualified to be answered.

Secondly, i do not have any hidden agenda for sure and when i referred "Your" advaita, it is surely not to discredit your view/understanding of "Advaita". The very reason why i use the 'your' in describing what you have said is to "distinguish" the flavours of "Advaita" from yours. If you happen to believe all "Advaitins" have same philosophy, then i will beg your pardon and there are many schools of Advaita ( with in the same name Advaita) and the Sringeri Mutt in the Karnataka state in fact arranges discussion with in the "Advaita" Groups. So, do not take that "your" as something derogatory and it should simply mean "your" expertise, 'your' understanding alone. Also remember that, it is because of the respect and expectation from you that you can provide more info, i am raising these questions to YOU. I echo what you said earlier
"I can't force you to believe anything but I must clarify here that : Criticizing your posts/views/"way of presentation of Hindu Dharma", doesn't mean criticizing you as a person".
I believe in the same .. hope we don't have to write too many explanation on our personalities after the above clarification. Thanks.


When you said this, "So you are refuting the Upanishads by your worldly logic ?", i didn't think that you are belittling me but i saw your resolute faith where you believe that, what you say in the ONLY meaning possible. In this context, i want to recollect what Shri Madhvacharya said. He says,"Know that the Vedas have three meanings, Mahabharata has ten meanings (for each hymn or verse), and Sahasranama giving the thousand names of Vishnu has a hundred meanings for each name of the Lord. " ( These are minimum number of meanings btw). I think we had some previous instances where you also acknowledged that "Word by word" translation sometimes do not do any justice for understanding a sloka. ( This is in fact, highly true and this is the very reason why most of the philosophical leaning is dependant on Acharyas bhasyas and the very reason why Acharyas written the bhasyas). So, i with humble feelings reject this sentence of yours as not useful to "accept" as the final truth or means OTOH i am interested to know why it should be the ONLY meaning or HOW IT MAKES IT SUPPORTIVE for the Advaita Darshana.


Now, a fresh start...

Dear Devotee,

Such a sweet nick and it is a great pleasure discussing with you even if it brings out lot of emotions sometimes but i still do enjoy writing responses to you.

You haven't given any scriptural proof for "multi frequency" vibrations yet but you think that you have given one. In fact, acquestically OM cannot viberate on a same media in multiple frequencies so if you say, Brahman is the media (material cause) but multiple frequencies still happening on the same Media, something is really wrong. (unless you include the Upadi 'Kaala' as part of the "OM" then you can have multiple frequencies - hope you now know why i was so curious abt Kaala or asking whether all four states are eternal etc.). Do you still think you have given proof.? In fact, it is very beautifully described in ThiruManthiram and if you get a copy of it, please read it.

The question is not about what is "Maya" dear devotee. I think you haven't got the question properly yet. It is easy to explain me what is maya because i am not having any different understanding of what you provided here.

In your detailed explanation, you seem to agree and support that "Maya is beginingless and endless" or in otherwords "eternal" and also as "nature" of Brahman ( praKriti) but then used this two totally confusing sentences...

Actually, this end is no end as Maayaa was only an illusion. For the being who attains Knowledge sees that there is no Maayaa but it continues for the others.
Which means, the nature of Brahman is "illusion" or not real? I am sure that cannot be possible. If this "illusion" or "Maya" is Anadi then it is not removed from the Brahman which in fact, cause the Brahman to "posses" this power of veiling, the Maya ( Bedhabedha again or pure Bedha).


The nature of Brahman is not the same in all the four states.This is also very much misleading and if you say 'nature' of Brahman is not same then it is no longer "brahman's" nature. :). You cannot say having "no nature" is Brahman's nature.


Maayaa is the nature of Brahman in the first two states & it is Anaadi.Again one more confusing explanation. If Maya is Brahman's nature, there should be no difference between Brahman and Maya as per Advaita and if this distinction is not maintained, the Advaitam is immediately lost. Maaya is Anaadhi and to justify that statement, either u should draw a separate explanation for the "four" quarters of Consciousness and then relate how these four states are comes in to perception with or with out the aid of Maaya retaining the stainless Brahman as just Sat, Chit and Ananda. ( It is not Sat, Cit, Maya, TuryaAnanda).

Anirdisya and anirvachanIya are two different words.

Btw, do you want me to ask more questions on your previous explanations? Or am i too much and not worthy to answer anymore?

Will wait for your response.

Thanks

[grames]

Dear Devotee,

I am giving separate response to this particular portion as it is not part of what we are discussing.

About ABAB


But the philosophy name itself says that the relationship with Brahman is “Bheda as well as Abheda” … i.e. both dual and non-dual and it is unthinkable.Not using proper words actually mislead the reader and also gives wrong understanding. It is not Bheda as well as Abedha. It is, Inconceivable simultaneous oneness and differences". So, it is not Abheda, Bheda or BhedaAbheda but something different from all these three. So, it is not dual alone, it is not non-dual alone, it is not both dual and non-dual if u want to use the word 'dual'. :)


If the relationship is “bheda” then why should it be termed “unthinkable” ? … Even if it is pure “abhedaa” then also it cannot be unthinkableSo
It is not Bheda and even if it is bheda, the SvaTantra pricinple is still ungraspable, unthinkable to its fullness and etc.
It is not Abheda and even if it is abheda, the nirGunatva or Turyatva etc. are not grapable, unthinkable etc.

I remember one of the nice bhakta here, (Smanaranam) who writes nicely about 'Bhedabheda' aspects very well. But for him and Bhedabheda vadins, the differences as well as the oneness are "real" and so, it is not the Siddhanta of Advaita.

Lord Gauranga's mission is not to create a new stream of philosophical debates but to propagate the most urgent need and requirement for "human kind" which is Prema for God by the most easiest and possible mean of Nama (saM)Kirtana. He has accepted two principles from four Vaishnava sampradaya which are

"From Madhva I will take two essential teachings; his complete rejection and defeat of the Mayavadi philosophy and his service to the deity of Krishna accepting Him as an eternal spiritual personality.

From Ramanuja I will accept two teachings; the concept of devotional service, unpolluted by karma and jnana, and service to the devotees.

From Vishnuswami’s teachings I will accept two elements; the sentiment of exclusive dependence on Krishna and the path of raga-marga or spontaneous devotion.

From Nimbarka, I will take two very important principles; the necessity of taking shelter of Srimati Radharani and the high esteem of the gopi's love for Krishna."

So, the initiation or learning from a Guru is not actually required for the Lord or His incarnations but He does so to guide the Jivas. It will be childish for a learnt to assume or understand that Lord Krshna learnt from SandiPani muni etc. Kesava Bharati is listed as the reincarnation of the same SandiPani Muni. In fact, all the three great Vaishnava acharyas had 'Advaitic" guru as their "diksha" gurus, but at one point of their life time they have 'defeated" their guru's in terms of their philosophical truths viz. Shri Madhva to Achyutaprajna, Shri Ramanuja to Yadava Prakash and Shri Chaitanya to Kesava Bhrati. (just a warning that they were divine personalities and we should not imagine imitating their acts.)

There is only one 'teaching' of Lord Chaitanya and it is His Siksastaka.

Link to: Siksashtaka

http://www.harekrsna.de/Siksastaka/Siksastakam-E.htm

Read what He is teaching and thats all He taught to the entire followers. So, the point is, it is not true that His followers "adulterated" or twisted His philosophy etc. or deviated from the 'dream' that He preached "Advaita" but the later Acharyas deviated. He had great contemporaries like Shri VyasaThirta, Shri MadhuShudhana, Shri Vallabacharya, TulasiDasa etc. It is futile to think that Shri Chaitanya was teaching "Advaita" when He accepted the "Shri Madhva's" philosophy and Vada against "Advaita".

The ABAB comes from the first line of Goswami's (do not assume or think of them like Jesus's sisyas) and whatever these Goswami's put in place are under the "Direct" instructions of the Lord Gauranga Himself. The entire philosophy is covered in the "siksastaka" and elaborated in to philosophy etc. in the goswamin's Tattavas and sandarpas. So, there is no scope for distortion or twist to His original purpose.

Hare Krshna!

[devotee]

Namaste Grames,

Just a minor clarification before I answer your questions :


"So you are refuting the Upanishads by your worldly logic ?"

This question is not really directed to you, if you can see. You may change "you" with "we" ... or change the entire sentence into third person, the point that it tries to emphasize is that "the Reality is beyond mental realm ... different from anything we know or can know ... and therefore, it is not correct to apply worldly logic to it". If that is possible, please give me one single example of Bheda-Abheda from this world.

Regarding your questions :

1) On vibration of the Consciousness :

Why do you think, the post number 25 is not sufficient proof ?

2) Why are you bringing different media etc. in picture when I have clearly written that it is a peculiar case of Consciousness vibrating ... where there is nothing but Consciousness alone. I hope you are not seeing Consciousness as some material !

3)
The question is not about what is "Maya" dear devotee. I think you haven't got the question properly yet.

Oh, then why did you write this ? : Maya, as per 'your' advaita is ANADI ANNANTAM

If Maya was so clear to you what was the need to write this ? and again :


Since it is beginingless as well as endless, there is no release for any if the 'ekoJiva' has to be held intact.

???

4)
you seem to agree and support that "Maya is beginingless and endless" or in otherwords "eternal" and also as "nature" of Brahman ( praKriti) but then used this two totally confusing sentences...

Why is it confusing ? When one person attains Turiya where there is "end" of Maya ... does Maya end for the world too ?

5)
Which means, the nature of Brahman is "illusion" or not real? I am sure that cannot be possible. If this "illusion" or "Maya" is Anadi then it is not removed from the Brahman which in fact, cause the Brahman to "posses" this power of veiling, the Maya ( Bedhabedha again or pure Bedha).

Can you explain me what the Mandukya Upanishad says about this Brahman/Self in Visva, Taijasa, Pragna and Turiya. Please write the verses and see for yourself ? What happens to the attributeless Turiya in the first & second state of Self ? If Maya remains intact in all states of Brahman then Mandukya Upanishad's verse explaining Turiya must be false !

Or please explain the verses of Mandukya Upanishad from Bheda-Abheda point of view or your view. Let me see what different meanings come out from those verses.

6)
This is also very much misleading and if you say 'nature' of Brahman is not same then it is no longer "brahman's" nature. . You cannot say having "no nature" is Brahman's nature.

Is it so ? You will then re-write the entire Physics ! Are the properties of Carbon in diamond state same as in graphite state ? Why water vibrating at a lower frequency freezes and the same water vibrating at higher frequency flows like liquid and gas ? Are the physical properties of water in all the states same ? Does the property of Steel having same chemical properties remain same whether it is annealed or hardened or normalised ?

7)
If Maya is Brahman's nature, there should be no difference between Brahman and Maya as per Advaita and if this distinction is not maintained, the Advaitam is immediately lost. Maaya is Anaadhi and to justify that statement, either u should draw a separate explanation for the "four" quarters of Consciousness and then relate how these four states are comes in to perception with or with out the aid of Maaya retaining the stainless Brahman as just Sat, Chit and Ananda. ( It is not Sat, Cit, Maya, TuryaAnanda).

You are a polite person. OK ? Can I say that Grames and politeness are one & the same ? Or say Grames is white in colour .. now can I say that Grames = White ?? Can you separate Grame's nature from Grames ?

How the stainless Brahman projects the three states has already been explained by me in my previous posts. Please refer to those posts. And whatever I have written is what Mandukya Upanishad says. Why don't you see those verses yourself ? What should be the meaning of those verses in your opinion ?


Btw, do you want me to ask more questions on your previous explanations? Or am i too much and not worthy to answer anymore?

Ask the questions, Grames ! But please make it a habit to read the given answers first. You are asking same questions again and again without refuting any of the answers and even if scriptural references are given you are saying that no references are given. Even if explanations are given you are saying that it is confusing ! Why ? It appears that you are devoting your entire time in framing questions and for reading answers you have no time at all !

OM

[devotee]

Namaste Grames,


In fact, all the three great Vaishnava acharyas had 'Advaitic" guru as their "diksha" gurus, but at one point of their life time they have 'defeated" their guru's in terms of their philosophical truths viz. Shri Madhva to Achyutaprajna, Shri Ramanuja to Yadava Prakash and Shri Chaitanya to Kesava Bhrati. (just a warning that they were divine personalities and we should not imagine imitating their acts.)

That is really a news to me that those Acharyas defeated their own Gurus ! Any historical evidence will help. Will you please provide details when the Shastrarthas took place and who was the witness ? Moreover, if they defeated their Gurus then they (Gurus) must have converted to Vaishnava sect leaving Advaita ? I really don't know. Please give the details.

I hope you understand what place a Guru has for a disciple in all Hindu traditions. Why Gaurang Prabhu chose to have an Advaitin to be his Guru and later on ridicule his own Guru - which is the gravest of sins a disciple can ever commit ! Why didn't he take initiation from any Vaishnava ? Or you mean to say that there was no Vaishnava sect in those times & therefore poor Gaurang was left with no choice to have diksha from Acharya of a false sect i.e. Advaita ! Which shastra says that taking diksha fom an Advaitic Acharya is compulsory ? What sort of lesson Gaurang Prabhu wanted to give to the society with his such a seemingly deplorable act (belittling his own Guru !) ? Can you tell me any instance where Lord Krishna did opposite of what Sandipani Muni taught Him ? If Gaurang was really an incarnation of Krishna then why did he forget "Loksangrah" as suggested by Lord Krishna ?? Belittling his own Guru by defeating him .... My God !! It cannot be expected from Gaurang !

Whatever explanation you have given of Bheda-Abheda is your own interpretation or might have been interpretation of some Vaishnava Acharya. I was not asking that & I am least interested in that. Please give me what Gaurang Prabhu himself said. Why did he name this philosophy as Bheda-Abheda-Achintya-Swaroop ?

OM

[grames]

Dear Devotee,

I am not sure if you know what Diksha or Siksha means and their differences. Secondly, the evidences for all these acharyas deviating from their Guru's are history and that is the very reason you have the new Darshanas in the Indian philosophical system.

Shri Madvacharyas guru has converted in to Tattvavada and he preached the TattvaVada in his later days as per SuMadvaVijaya. Shri Ramanuja's guru also started to preach vishitaDvaita and famous for his composition Yati-dharma-sammuccaya.

I am not sure about the later story of Shri Chaitanya's guru's life history.

So, if it is a new to you, i would suggest you to spend more time knowing what really happened especially from the authentic history of these great acharyas.

For the question why he names his philosophy etc. is in fact irrelevant because as far my knowledge goes, none of the philosophers named their system of thought with any particular name. Acintya Bhedabheda is the Tattva/philosophy that Lord Chaitanya is all about but he was not in to preaching philosophy but accelerating the mass for the Bhakthi process alone. So, i do not understand what are you trying to get by asking "why did he name??" when it is explained already that, it is the Tattva.

Hare Krishna!

[grames]

Dear Devotee,

Thanks and no more questions from me. :)
BTW, i have understood ur answers so why was asking more questions thinking that you are aware of the background of the questions. Anyways, i am no longer interested in this thread.

Thank you for your time.

[devotee]

Namaste Grames,



I am not sure if you know what Diksha or Siksha means and their differences.

That is ok but you should be at least clear that you know the difference. The Acharyas who initiate into Sannyaas ... are called Diksha Guru ... in case you have any doubts and they have a position as good as God for the disciple. Am I correct ?


Shri Madvacharyas guru has converted in to Tattvavada and he preached the TattvaVada in his later days as per SuMadvaVijaya. Shri Ramanuja's guru also started to preach vishitaDvaita and famous for his composition Yati-dharma-sammuccaya.
I am not sure about the later story of Shri Chaitanya's guru's life history.

I have gone through the records carefully & I think you should update your knowledge. None of the above saints ever had any Sashtrartha with their Gurus and there was no case of defeating one's Gurus. There was just one case when Ramanuja transgressed the diktat of his Guru in his Ashram and then he was expelled from there by his Guru. Madhvacharya had very good relation with his Guru and his Guru was very much proud of him & also gave him the title of "Ananda Tirtha". Similarly, Sri Chaitanya and his Guru shared a very good relationship. Yes, both these Gurus did participate in the bhajans/kirtans of his disciple ... but that is no surprise for me. It may be for you as you have still to know what the Advaitins really believe and do. Advaitins don't decry Dvaita. In fact, a person is initiated into Advaita only when he is found fit for it otherwise he is advised to follow the path of Dvaita (you may like to read some of the lectures given by Acharyas from Samkaracharya's Mutt. There are many temples in India which have been built by the Advaitins or has been supported by them. The Advaitins during their saadhana do some bhajans & some of those bhajans are same as the Dvaitins do. You may like to remember that Sri Ramkrishna Paramhansa enjoyed bhajans of Ma Kaali even after getting enlightened. I may also like to remind you that Adi Shankara wrote many bhajans just like any Dvaita follower. I myself do bhajans daily before starting my Yoga-saadhana.


So, if it is a new to you, i would suggest you to spend more time knowing what really happened especially from the authentic history of these great acharyas.

Yes, it was a news given to me by you and on enquiry it proved out to be a false news. You appear to be too much influenced by canards spread by ISKCONites ... please read the history and find out the Truth from sources which are not contaminated by the false fabrication by ISKCON. When these ISKCONites are able to distort the meaning of BG verses then spreading such rumour can be well expected from them.


For the question why he names his philosophy etc. is in fact irrelevant because as far my knowledge goes, none of the philosophers named their system of thought with any particular name. Acintya Bhedabheda is the Tattva/philosophy that Lord Chaitanya is all about but he was not in to preaching philosophy but accelerating the mass for the Bhakthi process alone. So, i do not understand what are you trying to get by asking "why did he name??" when it is explained already that, it is the Tattva.

Do you want to know why ? Please read the Das Mula (Ten roots) which are the essence of Sri Chaitanya's teachings :

1. The statements of amnaya (scripture) are the chief proof. By these statements the following nine topics are taught.
2. Krishna is the Supreme Absolute Truth.
3. Krishna is endowed with all energies.
4. Krishna is the ocean of rasa (theology).
5. The jivas (individual souls) are all separated parts of the Lord.
6. In bound state the jivas are under the influence of matter, due to their tatastha nature.
7. In the liberated state the jivas are free from the influence of matter, due to their tatastha nature.
8. The jivas and the material world are both different from and identical to the Lord.
9. Pure devotion is the practice of the jivas.
10. Pure love of Krishna is the goal.
11. Krishna is the only lovable blessing to be received.[/quote]

Please read root no 8 above and you would find the answer why Bheda-Abheda is called/named so.

OM

[devotee]

Namaste Grames,



Thanks and no more questions from me. :)
BTW, i have understood ur answers so why was asking more questions thinking that you are aware of the background of the questions. Anyways, i am no longer interested in this thread.


So, when the time came for answering questions you decided to run away ? This is not fair !! I thought I would learn from you how you were going to explain various Advaitic teachings contained in so many Upanishads and also in Bhagwad Gita. That would have given me a chance to understand why you say what you say.

Anyway, if you have any further doubts you are most welcome for a discussion again. However, I have decided that now onwards I would ask questions from you, so that I would be able to understand you better and you would also be able to understand my viewpoint in a better way. So, whenever you are ready, please let me know. :)

OM

[grames]

Dear Devotee,

First of all, thanks for spending time here answering my ignorance filled questions wrt advaita. Secondly, i am not at all running away but i do not find anything useful from my side asking certain questions for the reason that, i am not going to get any answers.

Secondly, i will be cornered here if i start talking about "other" views especially the theistic views. One of my theistic friend used to say, today's advaitin do not question the validity of their belief and faith and what is taught or learnt from books and translations are final. Don't take it as an accuse and it is just an opinion or may be generalization. :)

For your "vibrations" theory, i gave you the requirement for "multi" vibrations which is Kaala. Our Shastras provide the info that, Kaala is in fact "eternal" and Kaala itself means "eternal" and you also said "they all exists" because i am sure your intellect when inquired will provide only true answers. If we both agree that, Kaala is eternal, the rest of the puzzle and understanding will have much better and clear meanings. If you deny 'kaala", then there is no possibility of "multi-frequency" vibrations or in other words plurality. ( if you cannot understand what i am saying here, PM Me please)


Regarding the Diksha Guru:
It is not compulsory that a Diksha guru is always the Siksha Guru and in all the traditions the Siksha is more important than Diksha when it comes to learning the knowledge. Though for the Acharyas, Advaitins are Diksha Guru's, they have different Siksha gurus. For Shri Madhva, Lord Badrayana Himself is the Siksha Guru and for Shri Ramanuja, Shri YamunaMuni is the prime Shiksha guru ( but he had 5 Shiksha gurus). This is historical and there is no point doubting or confusing over what is already established and accepted as fact with witness from their biography and disciple's evidences.

Secondly, not sure why you brough ISKCON here with a bad opinion though you deny you are not prejudiced. SumadvaVijaya is not ISKCON authored or Ramanuja's history and they are all authored/recorded by the respective great shisyas of that Guru parampara. So, do not try to attribute anything bad because they are truth and just attributing it as some ISKCON propaganda is not healthy. For the accuse of ISKCON distorting the meaning of BG, i will be really offended for such remarks and with no hesitation would ask you to open a new thread and propose your 'truth' and how ISKCON distorted the meanings with proper details. If you dont want to do, i believe it is the character of a gentleman to acknowledge what he uttered in ill nature which is against his proclaimed belief that he is not partial. To let u know, i am more inspired by Shri Ramanuja and Shri Madhva and i do see the same Vaishnava theology in ISKCON/Gaudiya literature as well.


8. The jivas and the material world are both different from and identical to the Lord.Hmm... when i said that in the previous message you still not convinced and again throwing same thing and asking me to understand the very same reason. Yes i understand. Agree and accept. Did you understand it? In fact, if you agree that this is true, my dear devotee, i am repeating the same thing again and again... the above does not mean "Advaita" as in "Advaita darshana" and "Dvaita" as in Dvaita darshana or 'Bhedabheda' as in "bhedabheda" darshana. It is different from all these three and you still want to draw a line trying to equate it to "Advaita". Is it so?

For such Great Lord, it would be too easy to call it just "Advaita" to fulfill your desire. :)

And of course, i would be very much delighted to answer your questions if you raise one!

Your servant!

[devotee]

Namaste Grames,

1.

For your "vibrations" theory, i gave you the requirement for "multi" vibrations which is Kaala. Our Shastras provide the info that, Kaala is in fact "eternal" and Kaala itself means "eternal" and you also said "they all exists" because i am sure your intellect when inquired will provide only true answers. If we both agree that, Kaala is eternal, the rest of the puzzle and understanding will have much better and clear meanings. If you deny 'kaala", then there is no possibility of "multi-frequency" vibrations or in other words plurality. ( if you cannot understand what i am saying here, PM Me please)

The explanation given by me in this thread with vibration of Consciousness and manifestation of first & second states of Brahman has been taken from Mandukya Upanishad read with Gaudapad Karika. I would advise you to go through that first and then come back & explain to me how your insertion of "Kaala" fits in there. It is proving futile to discuss anything further unless you do that.

2.


Regarding the Diksha Guru:

It is not compulsory that a Diksha guru is always the Siksha Guru and in all the traditions the Siksha is more important than Diksha when it comes to learning the knowledge. Though for the Acharyas, Advaitins are Diksha Guru's, they have different Siksha gurus. For Shri Madhva, Lord Badrayana Himself is the Siksha Guru and for Shri Ramanuja, Shri YamunaMuni is the prime Shiksha guru ( but he had 5 Shiksha gurus). This is historical and there is no point doubting or confusing over what is already established and accepted as fact with witness from their biography and disciple's evidences.
My dear Grames, I am sorry to point this out that you have not understood the importance of Diksha Guru at all ! First of all, there is no scripture which says to have two different Gurus. This parampara is not accepted in all Sampradayas. In most of the Sampradayas, the Diksha and Shiksha Gurus are one & the same. This parampara started with practical difficulty of the Guru in giving adequate time to all his disciples. So, the work of instructing the new initiate was delegated to anyone elderly initiate to take of the new disciple. Moreover, the disciple can have a Shiksha Guru only which is approved by the Diksha Guru. It is sacrilegious to even think to have a Shiksha Guru who preaches a philosophy contradicting the teachings of the Diksha Guru. Diksha Guru is your Guru & you can do anything only with his approval.
I would advise you to read this passage which is written by one of the scholars from ISKCON (otherwise you may not agree to what I am saying) :


In this line, which essentially the Brahma Sampradaya, we find both 'diksha' and 'shiksha' methods used. Herein you will find the most simple understandings of devotees approaching one person who they accept as their life and soul, they take 'diksha' initiation from him, and by the training he gives to the disciple the diciple becomes his 'diksha' and 'shiksha' disciple. Others, due to various circumstances may receive initiation from their 'diksha guru' but find that shortly afterwards he passes away, and they are trained by another, who becomes their 'shiksha guru'. Sometimes disciples are entrusted to their senior godbrothers for training, thus their elders become their 'shiksha gurus'. Some are direct disciples of direct disciples coming down from the previous 'acaryas', but some, although initiated into the 'parampara' by another 'guru' in the line, have taken shelter of another pure Vaisnava in the line with his 'gurus' permission for further development. Others have come down through the 'parampara' line from outside the 'parampara', or from another 'parampara', or from an impersonalist background, and by the preaching of the 'acarya' of the time, have aligned themselves with him as his 'shiksha' disciples after having taken the necessary permission again from their initiating 'guru'. Srila Baladev Vidya Bhushana was one such case originally from a Madhwa background he met Sripad Radha Damodardev Goswami a disciplic descendant of Rasikananda prabhu, but living in Jaipur he studied under Srila Vishvanath Chakravarti Thakur, accepting him as his 'shiksha guru'. Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura was initiated (took 'diksha') into the 'sampradaya' via Sriman Bipin Bihari Goswami, but still he (the Thakur) took 'shiksa', instruction and inspiration from Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji, a great 'paramahamsa' who was the 'diksha' disciple of Bhagavat dasa babaji maharaj, who was the disciple of the disciple of the disciple of Baladev Vidya Bhushana (thre times removed, but te essence was carried through the parampara) from guru to disciple, and so on, as is the system. We also see this in the life of Sripad Madhwacarya, externally it appeared that he took initiation from Sripad Acyutapreksa (AcyutprajnaTirtha), but in his heart (as mentioned in Madhwa Vijaya) he had thoughts only of Srila Vyasadeva as will be explained in the following chapters (but still that sacred relationship was there that he asked permission fom Acutapreksha to go and visit Vyaas).

I need not tell you that considering Gauranga Prabhu as Lord Krishna himself and considering the Shiksha Guru of Madhava as Lord Badrayan Himself are only beliefs. It is simply a matter of faith and there are many who don't subscribe to this view.

3.
Secondly, not sure why you brough ISKCON here with a bad opinion though you deny you are not prejudiced. SumadvaVijaya is not ISKCON authored or Ramanuja's history and they are all authored/recorded by the respective great shisyas of that Guru parampara. So, do not try to attribute anything bad because they are truth and just attributing it as some ISKCON propaganda is not healthy. For the accuse of ISKCON distorting the meaning of BG, i will be really offended for such remarks and with no hesitation would ask you to open a new thread and propose your 'truth' and how ISKCON distorted the meanings with proper details. If you dont want to do, i believe it is the character of a gentleman to acknowledge what he uttered in ill nature which is against his proclaimed belief that he is not partial. To let u know, i am more inspired by Shri Ramanuja and Shri Madhva and i do see the same Vaishnava theology in ISKCON/Gaudiya literature as well.

We have done it before. I have showed you how the actual meaning of sanskrit verses are distorted by them. Don't worry, as long as we both are on this board, we will get enough opportunities again to come across it. :)

4.
Quote:
8. The jivas and the material world are both different from and identical to the Lord.

Hmm... when i said that in the previous message you still not convinced and again throwing same thing and asking me to understand the very same reason. Yes i understand. Agree and accept. Did you understand it? In fact, if you agree that this is true, my dear devotee, i am repeating the same thing again and again... the above does not mean "Advaita" as in "Advaita darshana" and "Dvaita" as in Dvaita darshana or 'Bhedabheda' as in "bhedabheda" darshana. It is different from all these three and you still want to draw a line trying to equate it to "Advaita". Is it so?

Yes, and you gave your opinion that this relationship was not simultaneous, right ? Any authority for declaring that ?


And of course, i would be very much delighted to answer your questions if you raise one!

I think you have conveniently forgotten to reply many questions raised in earlier posts. Please revisit the entire thread and start answering them.

OM

[grames]

Dear Devotee,

It is a pleasure to read your response. I think, i am not explicit in many of my responses and i guess that is the reason for many of your understandings which i think i should correct.

Let me not deviate this discussion too much in to Diksha Siksha discussion as well as the "facts" from "faith" etc. My two statements in this line are..

1. Diksha is not a fashion initiation and it is "very" important and in my statement "not always same" is actually pointing out the exception and didn't mean "diksha" is not important at all. But, sametime it is not always true that Diksha guru must be Shiksha guru and i gave the examples of Shri Madhva and Shri Ramanuja. There are various Yatis in Shri Madhva Sampradayas as well as Shri Ramanuja's lineage who had different diksha and Shisha guru. So, the point is Shri Madhva and Shri Ramanuja had different Diksha and Siksha Gurus and they deviated in the philosophy from their Diksha Gurus.

2. There is not going to be any "pramana" where Shri Chaitanya is Lord Himself or Shri Madhva took Shri Vyasa as his Shika Guru etc. for those who do not subscribe to these philosophical schools. This is not going to add any ammunition for diluting the new philosophical school and thought they brought to the vedantic school. So, i believe in that and i do not ask anyone else to believe in that. But what you see in their philosphy and teaching are not what their "Diksha" guru's were teaching and believed in. So, let us just take that as the fact as the schools they have started is still strong enough and have so much material and personalities to refer to.

I didn't say they are "NOT Simultaneously" one and different and i did say "THEY ARE SIMULTANEOUSLY ONE AND DIFFERENT" and that is the reason why it is not purely "Advaita" or purely "Dvaita" or purely "DvaitaDvaita" etc. More than reducing it to as "my" opinion, i want you to know and understand that, it is the "opinion" of the great Shri Bhakthi Vinodha, the father/guru of Srila Prabhupada's guru. (The DasaMoola has much better translations than the one you have provided just fyi).

Let us put these side discussion to the rest...

I ll go back and answer to all the questions you have raised "towards me" in this thread...

Hari Bol!

[devotee]

Namaste Grames,


c) Bheda-Abheda :


This philosophy says that the relationship between the Jiva and Jada is both different and non-different from Iswara (that being "Simultaneous", is only one school's philosophy) .

Didn't you say the above in reply to Upsy's questions ? ... Remember, my explanation of Bheda-Abheda was : " There is duality as well as non-duality simultaneously ..." & you felt to correct it immediately in the next post and now you are saying this :


I didn't say they are "NOT Simultaneously" one and different and i did say "THEY ARE SIMULTANEOUSLY ONE AND DIFFERENT"

Both are completely opposite views. Which one should I take as your final position ?



1. Diksha is not a fashion initiation and it is "very" important and in my statement "not always same" is actually pointing out the exception and didn't mean "diksha" is not important at all. But, sametime it is not always true that Diksha guru must be Shiksha guru and i gave the examples of Shri Madhva and Shri Ramanuja.

No, you said something very strong. You said :

a) that all these Acharyas defeated their Diksha Gurus in terms of their philosphical truths ==> ref :
In fact, all the three great Vaishnava acharyas had 'Advaitic" guru as their "diksha" gurus, but at one point of their life time they have 'defeated" their guru's in terms of their philosophical truths viz. Shri Madhva to Achyutaprajna, Shri Ramanuja to Yadava Prakash and Shri Chaitanya to Kesava Bhrati

b) that "in all the traditions the Siksha is more important than Diksha when it comes to learning the knowledge. Though for the Acharyas, Advaitins are Diksha Guru's, they have different Siksha gurus"

What does the above mean ? How can you change your version so quickly ? Again, it should be crystal clear here that Siksha Guru has no authority to teach anything contrary to the teachings of Diksha Guru. However, your above post gives no such importance to Diksha Guru at all but with its terse language belittles Diksha Guru in front of Shiksha Guru.


The DasaMoola has much better translations than the one you have provided just fyi

Oh ! Instead of just saying that, it would have been nice of you to quote the "better" translation. I understand Bengali quite well. Please quote the actual Bengali version if Gauranga said it in that language.

OM

[grames]

Dear Devotee,

I said:
I think, i am not explicit in many of my responses

and your post of this is surely pointing it out. Just my response...




This philosophy says that the relationship between the Jiva and Jada is both different and non-different from Iswara (that being "Simultaneous", is only one school's philosophy) .

Didn't you say the above in reply to Upsy's questions ? ... Remember, my explanation of Bheda-Abheda was : " There is duality as well as non-duality simultaneously ..." & you felt to correct it immediately in the next post and now you are saying this :

Both are completely opposite views. Which one should I take as your final position ?



I am not talking about my views yet.. and also i thought you will know that there is a Bheda-Abheda school as well as Acintya-Behda-Abheda school which are different. I hope this clarifies it when i said "one" school believes in that Simultaneous oneness and differences which is inconceivable which is the Gaudiya school. So, when we are talking about DasaMoola, it is the school which is not just a Behda-Abehda school but Acintya Behda-Abheda school and so why my new words or explanations and i hope it clarifies.



No, you said something very strong. You said : a) that all these Acharyas defeated their Diksha Gurus in terms of their philosophical truths ==> ref : [/font]
I am not changing anything about what happened and i merely repeating the incidents narrated in SumadvaVijaya and Ramanuja's biography. Why or what made you think i have stated something contradictory?



b) that "in all the traditions the Siksha is more important than Diksha when it comes to learning the knowledge. Though for the Acharyas, Advaitins are Diksha Guru's, they have different Siksha gurus"

What does the above mean ? How can you change your version so quickly ?
What do you think i have changed? I am still saying the same thing.. Siksha is the vital cos that is source from whom you learn everything and Diksha is a process of initiation and you very well know the difference.



Again, it should be crystal clear here that Siksha Guru has no authority to teach anything contrary to the teachings of Diksha Guru.
I will agree. This is my position. But it is not applicable to great divine personalities and our vendantic system evolved with such deviations. It is historic and not my own invention that Shri Madhva and Shri Ramanuja has deviated because they came with such purpose. So, why do you think i have the authority to say anything on this apart from stating what has happened? Taking it as belittling a Diksha guru from their life history is not advisable and i think i have given that warning along with that message itself.

(just a warning that they were divine personalities and we should not imagine imitating their acts.)
You missed another point i stated. DasaMula is not Shri Chaitanya's word but Shri Bhakthi Vonoda's. Here is the link... you can translate on your own if you do not like the translated text

http://www.scsmath.net/math/docs/Dasa-Mula.pdf

Hari Bol!