PDA

View Full Version : How does Advaita counter this argument?



Adhvagat
09 March 2011, 10:58 AM
"If you feel there is no God, how do you explain as to why you cannot free yourself from the limitations on Earth? If you feel YOU are the one in control of everything (as Advaita preaches that Soul and God are one and the same), then how come you don't enjoy happiness always and are also subject to sorrow and pain (as God is supposed to be an eternity of happiness)?" - Madhvacharya

At first I thought, well, the sorrow and pain wouldn't be the true nature of the divine... However, I noticed the question is not HOW, but instead, WHY. So the inquiry is basically: Why would God (Brahman), that is viewed as One, become two and put itself under influences that are not the reflection of his inate nature?

Om Tat Sat

NayaSurya
09 March 2011, 07:47 PM
It seems there are two portions here to consider. One is why would things be good and bad, happy and sad...pleasure and pain if We are He.

I used to ponder this question a lot as a child. It was one of those things I just couldn't get past. I remember being barely six or seven and asking the mormon elder why heaven was so so good. He was puzzled by this as I seemed very distressed. He said..."Don't worry heaven is perfect,always good and always wonderful."

But, his reply disturbed me even more...as I know that without wretched there can be no way to quantify wonderful.

There can be no way to know and mark the darkness without having some knowledge of light?

Isvara, in all His Beautiful, Wondrousness wanted to truly feel these things. So He broke Himself off, each portion just as the last...gently placing them onto the stage and manifesting this world.

The second portion of this is...Why would He bring Himself to such a state of misery and imperfection?

Well, look no further than your own parents, or your own children to answer this mystery. Broken off from this fragile vessel I brought these children into the world of pain and suffering because I know...that no matter what.....no matter what...we are always always fine....always perfect.
Nothing can change this...nothing. Kill me...take my sight...break me into bits...and I will remain whole.

These children were brought into this world to share this joy...and happiness...and with it comes sorrow and pain as they are inevitable portions of this blessed and wretched experience.


How can one truly know the gentle sentiments of love without one to love?

Holding my child...I close my eyes and I hug Shiva, I look into their eyes overwhelmed with this Beautiful Truth. It's almost too much to bear...knowing Beloved is Always Watching.


Today was a birthday, the 15th for our Sonshine...

We came for the Love, and stay for the ice cream.:p

TheOne
09 March 2011, 08:13 PM
We can't be happy always, otherwise there would be no sorrow and we can't be sad always otherwise there would be no happiness. It's like a mountain and a valley, you can't have one without the other.

And the Atman in each body never changes and isn't affected by happiness/sadness only the ego is affected by maya.


As for why? It is said that "all this" is in Divine Play. And as Alan Watts said, It's Brahman playing hide and go seek with itself by creating a world so vast and distinct that it tricked itself into believing that it was not Brahman.

This video explains it well in layman's terms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es_inFeGnwk

devotee
09 March 2011, 09:48 PM
Namaste Pietro,


"If you feel there is no God, how do you explain as to why you cannot free yourself from the limitations on Earth? If you feel YOU are the one in control of everything (as Advaita preaches that Soul and God are one and the same), then how come you don't enjoy happiness always and are also subject to sorrow and pain (as God is supposed to be an eternity of happiness)?" - Madhvacharya

Let us get the things straight here :

a) It is not Advaita position that there is no God. For an Advaitin, there is nothing but God alone & whatever is perceived as not-God is due to Maya.

b) Advaita says that the substratum of both JIva and Ishvara is same i.e. the Nirguna Brahman/the fourth state of Self ... "JIvo Brahmaiva naaparah" ! Once the veil of Maya is removed, JIva realises its true nature i.e. of being Brahman Itself.

c) Why don't we always enjoy the happiness & why are we subject to pain and sufferings ?

Advaita says that it is due to Maya which the nature of Brahman in the first two states of Self. When you are sleeping & dreaming you see a dream which may be completely different from reality. You may see that you have gone bankrupt even if you may be having a million dollars in bank ... you may see that you have lost your limbs in a bomb blast in the zone of war when actually you are comfortably lying on your bed etc. etc. and you suffer the pains arising out of these dreams even though there is absloutely no cause of worry.

Why does it happen so in dreams when actually it is not so ? Why do we suffer in dreams when the real "we" is absolutely unharmed by anything that happens in the dream ?

===> How does Dvaita answer it ?

OM

Adhvagat
10 March 2011, 03:06 AM
NayaSurya, that's a nice metaphor, thank you.

TheOne, that video is actually pretty awesome, I may subtitle it to portuguese.

Devotee, If I were a Dvaitacharya I could answer that for you more easily. :p

I think the unaceptable part to Dvaitas is the notion that Bhagavan is not really as supreme as Brahman itself and Bhagavan is God presenting itself through Maya, not an ultimate cause like Brahman. Could you talk more about this?

Just so you know where I'm basing my arguments on, I'm not a sympathizer of pure Dvaita, as far as I've studied my thoughts are more in line with Acintya-bheda-abheda.

Om Tat Sat

Onkara
10 March 2011, 03:20 AM
So the inquiry is basically: Why would God (Brahman), that is viewed as One, become two and put itself under influences that are not the reflection of his inate nature?

Om Tat Sat

Namasté
I feel the answers above are good and cover it, but just to add a thought.

Brahman isn't two, but appears as many. The sum (Brahman) is always present but it appears to change. It changes because we sense (see, smell, etc) change and this is reported to the mind. The mind remembers change. So really any sense of change is occurring at the level of mind/senses.

So the "influence" is the mind, which we are told is itself prarkiti. Prarkiti is still Brahman.

The quote by Sri Madhvacharya strikes me as being a little odd, what is the source of this quote? As Devotee-ji illustrates, the question seems to lack the basic premises, and as I would not underestimate Madhvacharya's understanding of Vedanta it strikes me as being a little strange to stop here. I wonder if this dialogue with a Buddhist or an Atheist and simply uses Advaita as a comparison in brackets, as personally I feel, it should be beyond doubt that Advaitin's recognise the gods of the Vedas?

Secondly Sri Madhvacharya would have an answer for this and I cannot see that being very different to the answer found in the Bhagavad Gita, on which both Sri Shankara and Sri Madhvacharya, I assume agree. I would be interested if you can find out more? :)




"If you feel there is no God, how do you explain as to why you cannot free yourself from the limitations on Earth? If you feel YOU are the one in control of everything (as Advaita preaches that Soul and God are one and the same), then how come you don't enjoy happiness always and are also subject to sorrow and pain (as God is supposed to be an eternity of happiness)?" - Madhvacharya

devotee
10 March 2011, 06:17 AM
The quote by Sri Madhvacharya strikes me as being a little odd

Yes, I also doubt it having come from Madhava.


I think the unaceptable part to Dvaitas is the notion that Bhagavan is not really as supreme as Brahman itself and Bhagavan is God presenting itself through Maya, not an ultimate cause like Brahman. Could you talk more about this?

Advaita talks about Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman. However, these are not two different Brahmans. The same Nirguna Brahman when seen through the first two states of Brahman (under the influence of Maya within mental realm) is perceived as Saguna Brahman. This is so because Nirguna Brahman/the fourth state of Brahman is inconceivable ... it is beyond all concepts ... beyond the whole mental realm. If you remember, this is what Lord Krishna tells us in Chapter 12 of Bhagwad Gita. He validates both the paths but warns that as the Nirugna Brahman is inconceivable within mental realm, it is a difficult path (i.e. not for every one).

Dvaita's objection is not because of the above. Dvaita has objection to JIva being claimed as Brahman Itself ... that is unacceptable to Dvaita. As per Dvaita, the JIva, Jada & God are eternally different.

OM

NayaSurya
10 March 2011, 07:21 AM
Once I was in one of my favorite places, it's a private forest reserve nearby. We were looking at this absolutely fabulous, lush green, steep hill in the distance and decided to walk to it and then roll down it. It's a past time here.:p

As we stood at the top of this beautiful scene it seemed so perfect...brilliant blue skies and fresh Spring grass covered in cherry blossoms...there was only one thing left to do...roll.

But as we began down the hill we realized it was covered in ants and razor edged rocks...things you couldn't see from above the tall, lush grass. Only things you could know from rolling down it. So steep, we could not stop and were battered brutally by the sharp stones...we simply tried our best to protect our limbs and suffer through it. At the bottom, covered in ants which bit us, cuts and bruises...we knew the full truth.

Now, those of us who had already came down began to tell the others at the top of the steep hill. "Stop...do not come..."

From that view we did not seem to worse for our trip. How many do you think simply took our advice and avoided this lesson? The hill appeared safe. They were not able to accept our differing viewpoint upon this and so they came down and suffered the same lessons...as it should be.

Sometimes things in life are just this way. They look one way until you begin uncovering the truth through experience and knowledge.

Both views are correct...the hill is lush beautiful...and trecherous...simultaneously.

Think of my signature...So much truth resides there.

We could debate upon which philosophy is correct, but both truly are...the most important thing to me within this discussion is the question upon why Shiva would be here in an imperfect state and if that would be even possible. This is what I can say as one, who has already come down the hill...

That there is nothing here which can taint the pure nature of these Portions. They are Portions Of Beloved Isvara. However, within this manifested reality things may appear bad. I like to think of it as drivers inside cars.

We can say our car is broken...or slow...fast. But, these labels and states of being do not affect us. We never say you are broken because your car is? Such is this world.

We, the car can be sad, broken, mentally ill, ...but We, the Portion inside, are whole, beautiful and unaffected.

anirvan
10 March 2011, 08:43 AM
Dear Respected friends,

we are dissecting Madhwacharya here. but to me its pretty unconceivable.we are not in a position to analyse such personalities as if we would have been in their position,certainly we would not have been sitting on internet and wasting time with such discussion.

once a person achieve a height like Madhwacharya, adisankar ,buddha, they stays in in brahma-sajujya.(equal and non-separable with brahman). so if we analyse by going their words,we are bound to do blunder in understanding their meaning.

The Context is very important.their advice depends upon the contemporary time period,to whom they are addressing and their goal. because supreme master (jagatguru) has always plan and goal and he preaches different theory and philosophy through these great-souls differently at different time.it purely depends upon the social,evolutional and spiritual status in society at that time.

so its totally unwise finger at their philosophy with our small bookish knowledge.

achintya-bheda-abheda is a concept not for ordinary souls.its for already realized ones. and again advita is also not for ordinary souls,its for above mentally developed souls. so for ordinary people god preaches daivta philosophy.

knowledge is gradual and ascending. through daivta only we can go into advita ,then achintya-bheda-abheda.

again ,even if we talk high sounding advita,but practically live in daivta world,behave as dual. and again spiritual practice is also purely dual.as how many of us can go in JNAN MARGA.that is purely by thinking that we are brahman ,we will able to be brahman. it ultimately make us arrogant,egoistic.

this excactly happened after Adi-shankar. people started byabhichar,downfall with name of aham-brahmansi. then next AVATAR came in form of such great souls like mDHAVACHARYA,BALLABHACHARYA,CHAITANYA who just broke that pseudo ego of Aham-brahmasmi. but by heart they knew the truth,but they preach to people what is needed at the time to be preached.

their noble aim is beyond our understanding.

sarangi dasi
12 March 2011, 06:01 AM
......
a) It is not Advaita position that there is no God. For an Advaitin, there is nothing but God alone & whatever is perceived as not-God is due to Maya.

b) Advaita says that the substratum of both JIva and Ishvara is same i.e. the Nirguna Brahman/the fourth state of Self ... "JIvo Brahmaiva naaparah" ! Once the veil of Maya is removed, JIva realises its true nature i.e. of being Brahman Itself.
.......

This is a succinct corrective to what appears to be erroneous premises in the OP question.

On the question of achintya bheda abheda as propounded by Lord Chaitanya - he was an Advaitin Sanyasi who was a devout Radha Krishna bhakta - the term refers to the inconceivable oneness and difference within the divine. At the mundane level oneness and difference can be easily demonstrated as in apples and oranges being all fruit and an apple is as much absolutely a fruit as an orange is absolutely a fruit and yet both are different. However in Brahman where distinctions are extinguished (due to transcending Maya) how can differences obtain?

We can discuss this at great length but Lord Chaitanya has used achintya which means INCONCEIVABLE and indeed it so - we cannot CONCEIVE it, concoct it, explain it. Its reality is, according to bhakta saints EXPERIENCED or KNOWN in Brahman realisation.

devotee
13 March 2011, 10:44 AM
Namaste Sarangi,

Thanks for a good post !

Good to see someone having such clear thoughts ! :)

OM

brahman
15 March 2011, 01:55 AM
At first I thought, well, the sorrow and pain wouldn't be the true nature of the divine... However, I noticed the question is not HOW, but instead, WHY. So the inquiry is basically: Why would God (Brahman), that is viewed as One, become two and put itself under influences that are not the reflection of his inate nature?

Om Tat Sat




Dear Pietro,

The human concepts called sin and merit, good and evil are all arise from that one Reality. And these are human perceptions based on human values. Those values vary from culture to culture, from one historical background to another and from one human being to another, have no absolute nor universal status. An exploding star in the far off galaxy may be immensely catastrophic for planets and beings in its cosmic region. Viewed from Earth it is not seen to be a catastrophy nor the result of evil, but merely to be an interesting, common astronomical event.

Good and evil, sin and merit are linked dualities which are perceived values only in the small field of human experience and transactions. It is not possible in that field to eliminate all evil and establish a kingdom of all good. Only through realization that the Self alone exists are both good and evil resolved in non-dual Reality. The absolute Itself is neither good nor evil, or conversely, is both good and evil, according to human’s regular points of view.


Pietro Impagliazzo: Why would God (Brahman), that is viewed as One, become two and put itself under influences that are not the reflection of his inate nature?
However, recognizing good and evil as actualities of human experience, Sri. Guru in his Darsana mala,thus says:

“Terrible is this world, it is void indeed, resembling an infernal city. Even as such did the all pervading Lord create this world. A wonder indeed”


To attempt to ascertain what is beyond the realm of human perception sounds a pointless exercise. Love:)

smaranam
15 March 2011, 07:27 AM
Namaste



We can discuss this at great length but Lord Chaitanya has used achintya which means INCONCEIVABLE and indeed it so - we cannot CONCEIVE it, concoct it, explain it. Its reality is, according to bhakta saints EXPERIENCED or KNOWN in Brahman realisation.

Yes, and if i may continue with SarangiJi's line of thought...

Bhaktas do not stop at Brahman realization. To them it is the beginning. They seek BhagavAn realization. They want BhagavAn and BhagavAn alone, whether two-handed or chaturbhuj.

* JnAnis are satisfied with Brahman realization - VAsudeva sarvam iti.
* Yogis are satisfied with ParamAtmA realization - within the heart of each entity.
* Bhaktas yearn for BhagavAn, the Person. Although they do yearn to see Him, they do not keep any expectations and just keep serving Him. BhagavAn realization includes Bhrahman/paramAtmA realization.

There can be a combination, but the acharyas suggest that pure bhakti is free of jnAna (and karma). Otherwise it is called jnAna-mishra, karma-mishra or yoga-mishra bhakti, not shuddha bhakti. So the bhaktas find themselves giving up philosophy at some point if they did indeed come from a jnAna-yoga path.

This was Lord Chaitanya's message as well as Vallabh, RAmanuj, MAdhav AchAryas and others.

It is not easy to rationally comprehend a BhagavAn with form. A completely spiritual form of BhagavAn as described in the vedas is not simply poetic expression. It is existential truth. Neither is the form mundane and material. BhagavAn's form, qualities and Leelas are real and eternal.

I like to look at it as the Supreme Repository of guNas and Tattvas, and that repository is a person - not anthromorphically human, not material, but an Entity with Personality. BhagavAn for the extra-terrestrial beings as well.


Jai Shri KRushNa

praNAm

devotee
15 March 2011, 08:01 AM
Namaste Smaranam,

Thanks for another good post ! :)

However, though your statements may be correct from Dvaita point of view, but there is slight misunderstanding from Advaitic point of view. You have tried to propose that Bhagwan realisation comes after Brahman realisation which is erroneous.

That would mean that Bhagwan is someone higher than Brahman & that inter-alia will mean that both are different things which is wrong. Brahman and Bhagwan are not different. From Advaitic point of view, Brahman has four states of existence : waking, dreaming, dreamless-deep-sleep, the fourth (which cannot be named).

When we say Bhagwan we simultaneously refer to two states above : the third state which is the Saguna Brahman and the fourth which is the Nirguna Brahman. In Bhagwad Gita Lord Krishna makes it amply clear that He has both these two states. Let's keep in mind that in both these states the Brahman is non-dual and auspicious. However, the third is said to be the origin and end of all beings and also the Lord of all beings.

OM

Ganeshprasad
15 March 2011, 08:11 AM
Pranam Smaranam ji


Namaste



VallabhAchArya always said that any philosophy including his own cannot be a complete expression of the Absolute Truth and we must respect all views.

Jai Shri KRushNa

Wonderful i like that.

another way to understand the same is when Lord shree Krishna says BG 9.15
jnana-yajnena capy anye
yajanto mam upasate
ekatvena prthaktvena
bahudha visvato-mukham


Jai Shree Krishna

smaranam
15 March 2011, 10:39 AM
Namaste



However, though your statements may be correct from Dvaita point of view, but there is slight misunderstanding from Advaitic point of view. You have tried to propose that Bhagwan realisation comes after Brahman realisation which is erroneous.

That would mean that Bhagwan is someone higher than Brahman & that inter-alia will mean that both are different things which is wrong. Brahman and Bhagwan are not different.
OM

Thank You DevoteeJi. Indeed that would be erronous. I meant to say "the NirguN aspect of Brahman'" when i said "Brahman'." Brahman is beyond time-space, and that post above was a bhakti perspective coming from the acharyas. However, although Perception factor is always there, i am looking at THE SUN thru' these tinted SUN-glasses that Dear MAyADevi gave me, and did not present that correctly.

So, from the bhakta's POV, the pure jnAni's focus on the nirguN aspect ultimately, and this comes closest to the ShAnta Ras relationship with Bhagvan. Does not mean they have not studied BhagvAn's guNas earlier.

Brahman is not only simultaneously sagun and nirgun, He is simultaneously five (or six ?) things for different kinds of souls, and each of the five/six is just right for each kind:

(nirguN) - shanta Ras e.g. The four KumArs (SanakAdi). This ras is shared by pure AtmARAms, tapasvis and pure yogis.
dAsya ras - He is Master of the Servant
sakhya ras - He is the Dearmost Friend - like Subala, Arjun...
vAtsalya ras - He is the Child of a parent - like Nanda YashodA Devaki Vasudev Purnamasi, the cows.
mAdhurya ras - He is the Lover/Husband like the gopis and queens.

If we go all over the Universe, most materially contaminated rasas can be clubbed into these when spiritualized into a relationship with Brahman. What about earthling to Jupiter ras, or Mars to Venus ? OK i shall stop :)

praNAm

Ganeshprasad
15 March 2011, 10:53 AM
Pranam Devotee ji

I can appreciate your position and your point off view but I do not call it erroneous simply because looking at it from Dwaita point off I perceive it to be wrong. We proceed from which ever position, apply it in our life and realize the truth, until that position is reached we are all sadhak reaching out to that goal, to make a judgement would be wrong.

Your statement on Bhagvan confuses me even further, how can you limit Bhagvan to be two state only?

Call what you like Bhagvan, Nirgun, sagun Brahman, at point of time it is deluded because he is always Sat Chit and Anand.

As for defination Of Bhagvan we know it means possessor.
These opulence’s are: 1) Strength, 2) Fame, 3) Wealth, 4) Knowledge, 5) Beauty, and 6) Renunciation.

You say Krishna makes it clear he has this two state perhaps you can point me to those verses. All I know he makes it amply clear that there is no truth beyond him.and what does he say about the two path? BG 5.4

sankhya-yogau prthag balah
pravadanti na panditah
ekam apy asthitah samyag
ubhayor vindate phalam


Jai Shree Krishna

brahman
16 March 2011, 04:29 AM
Dear Smaranam, Devotee and GP, three of you have beautifully presented various aspects of Realization.

And post 13 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=60445&postcount=13) was so enlightening, energetic than erroneous (Just another pov).

The philosophy of each people is a product of its environment and its specific modes of cognitive, intellectual, aesthetic, moral and religious experience.

The philosophy of any people is the cream of its culture and the integrated expression of its styles of thinking, feeling and living,is not to be identified with any particular mode of thought or by preconceived criteria.

Unless and until members of each culture approach the philosophies of others with an open mind and study them seriously, there will be neither the understanding of the other people nor the enlightenment and enrichment of one’s own philosophy and culture. (POV alone)
Love:)

devotee
16 March 2011, 06:53 AM
Namaste GaneshPrasad ji,




I can appreciate your position and your point off view but I do not call it erroneous simply because looking at it from Dwaita point off I perceive it to be wrong. We proceed from which ever position, apply it in our life and realize the truth, until that position is reached we are all sadhak reaching out to that goal, to make a judgement would be wrong.

I didn't say that the proposition was wrong. I said what the Advaitic point of view is & according to that it was erroneous & that is what I wanted to point out. Smaranam has given a very good post with great understanding and I respect that.


Your statement on Bhagvan confuses me even further, how can you limit Bhagvan to be two state only?

You are right. He alone Is (exists) in all the four states. However, when we say Bhagwan ... then don't refer to Jiva in the first & seccond states. Brahman in the first two states as JIva is not non-dual, not-auspicious, omnipotent, omiscient and the lord of all beings due to veil of Maya.


You say Krishna makes it clear he has this two state perhaps you can point me to those verses. All I know he makes it amply clear that there is no truth beyond him.and what does he say about the two path? BG 5.4

sankhya-yogau prthag balah
pravadanti na panditah
ekam apy asthitah samyag
ubhayor vindate phalam

You are right. He repeats again the same thing in Chapter-12 and Chapter 13 of Bhagwad Gita. You may like to refer to verses 2,3 & 4 of Chapter 12 where he says that the Nirguna Brahman upaskas also attain Him alone (Te prapnuanti maameva sarvabhootahite rataah). In fact chapter 13 again makes it clear that He alone is Nirguna who acts as saguna ... He is the Jiva, He is the Creator and also the destroyer in the hearts of all beings (Refer Verses 13.13 to 13.17).

Actually, it is very refreshing to see posts like what Smaranam & Sarangi have given. But as you have rightly pointed out, we should concentrate on our saadhana according to the choice of our paths. We are all going to the same Ultimate Reality anyway.

OM

sarangi dasi
16 March 2011, 06:54 AM
......
Bhaktas do not stop at Brahman realization. To them it is the beginning. They seek BhagavAn realization. They want BhagavAn and BhagavAn alone, whether two-handed or chaturbhuj.
.........

Yes, there is no stopping in Brahman for it is infinite. Brahman is the Being of Bhagavan, not a dead end.

Perhaps this is why those that are immersed in Brahman are all Bhagavata, including Shankara. That they espouse different ways of philosophising it with varying degrees of comprehension, precision or contestability does not diminish their experiential situation of their realisation.

Just as a scholarly precise way of writing Krsna is with dots under the r, s and n, and a more "vernacular" way (as AC Bhaktivedanta when NOT in print for published books) is Krishna are both reference for the same One.

vishnu
16 March 2011, 09:17 AM
Namaste,

I came across another interesting observation. It is said that "supersoul" resides in everyone's heart. And according to advaita, supersoul and soul are one and the same. If that is so than during heart transplant the soul should also change. But this does not happen. This proves karma theory also wrong. So, is advaita is wrong ?? !!!

Please comment if the logic is wrong.

Hari Om.

smaranam
16 March 2011, 10:11 AM
Namaste,

I came across another interesting observation. It is said that "supersoul" resides in everyone's heart. And according to advaita, supersoul and soul are one and the same. If that is so than during heart transplant the soul should also change. But this does not happen. This proves karma theory also wrong. So, is advaita is wrong ?? !!!

Please comment if the logic is wrong.

Hari Om.

Namaste VishNuJi,

Supersoul is inside the soul - like concentric circles. JeevAtmA is the outer ring, paramAtmA is the inner core. Advaita tries to unshell the jeevAtmA.

I shall tell you what Swami PrabhupAd explained when someone asked the same qn - heart transplant.

SP: I am sitting in this chair. You tell me this chair is old and needs to be replaced. So I simply get up, move aside, and let you replace the chair , then i go back and take my seat again - in the new chair kept in the same spot.

Similarly, the soul moves aside, lets the surgeons replace [the biological, material] heart, and then moves back in.

:)

I shall try to find the exact quote.

Actually, "heart" is physical as well as spiritual. When this discussion comes up - "Where is the soul ?" There are so many answers.
ShAstra says "in the heart" - Shwetashvatara Upanishad, Bhagavad Gita
Some say "in the adnya chakra" (betN the eyebrows) - BrahmaKumAris' answer
I say "on Shwetadweep". You will not find it on the map though. Since KRushNa asked me to walk into His heart, i am there too. Well, incidentally, KRushNa's heart is on Shwetadweep... but He lives in my heart and everyone else's ... so how does that work ? ...

----

The same argument can be extended to genetic engineering, singularity ...
What happens with genetic engineering ? Biological bodies are "made by man" in the Lab, "Made in CountryXYZ". So where does the soul come from ? The soul "takes possession of" the body, and as soon as it does, the body comes alive, whether apparently facilitated by man or God/prakruti/nature, if the body fits like hand-in-glove with the karma of this kAraN-sharIr (causal body - ID token of the jeevAtmA).

Singularity ? Do we want to open that can of worms ? Perhaps not on this thread. It claims that the entire persona can be uploaded onto a body with deceases (vikAr) like cancer, by collapsing the old body. So does that give rise to soulless robots like Blade Runner ? of course not.

Jai Shri KrushNa
praNAm

smaranam
16 March 2011, 10:43 AM
Namaste, here is the link to the conversation:
http://www.prabhupadanugas.eu/?p=6433
He points to BG2.13 - “As the embodied soul continually passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. The self-realized soul is not bewildered by such a change.”.

Radhe ShyAm ~

devotee
16 March 2011, 10:46 PM
Namaste Vishnu,


I came across another interesting observation. It is said that "supersoul" resides in everyone's heart. And according to advaita, supersoul and soul are one and the same. If that is so than during heart transplant the soul should also change. But this does not happen. This proves karma theory also wrong. So, is advaita is wrong ?? !!!

Please comment if the logic is wrong.


Smaranam has already explained it well and I think that should be sufficient. I would like to add a little bit :

The way you are out to derive "logical" conclusions one after the other ... it is going to prove that entire Hindu scriptures are wrong ! The Atman residing in the heart of all beings is not something that Advaita has proposed. It is accepted by all Vedantic schools because this is what the scriptures say.

However, please hold your breath & read further what the heart really means in this context. As Smaranam has stated, it is not the physical heart. It is located just below the begining of our neck & opposite Anahat chakra of our spinal chord. During meditation, the Atman at this location is seen as flame of a lamp of the size of our thumb. Again, it should not be construed that the Atman resides "Only" at this location and nowhere else ! It pervades the entire body but it is perceived prominently there in this form & therefore, it has been said that it is the "seat" of the Atman.

Please remember that Atman has unique characteristics and it cannot be "known" by any of our sense organs & also our mind ... it is beyond mental realm. It is the Eye of the eyes ... it is the Ear of the ears ... it is the Thinker of the thought ... It is the Perceiver & certainly not the object of perception ! :)

OM

amith vikram
18 March 2011, 03:25 PM
Well how can the supersoul be both formless and atomic in size? The thing is Since atman is reflected in the intellect, the mind has to be concentrated to that extent.

anirvan
19 March 2011, 01:24 AM
Dear Devotee,Smaranam,Sarangidasi and Brahman.

Bhagban is very different for person to person,not because of difference in their view or faith.
It is purely because of their spiritual ascendent. how far one has gone in spiritual sky,has seen that far. thats the reason Madhwacharya has said we should respect other"s view.as spiritual knowledge is ever evolving with great saints.this is clearly demonstrated in development of Vedas. and if you look at different philosophy being preached by different Avtars with refining always with descending time scale.

If god has not a form,how come these billions of forms exist in creation. whatever is not there in brahman,it can"t exist in creation. he is called formless because all forms exist inside him.just like 7 colours mixed to form white. same is meaning oF NIRGUANA -- EXISTENCE OF ALL GUNAS IN ONE, when these gunas manifest we called him SAGUNA/MAHASHAKTI/MAYA.

saguna and nirguana are not different state,but like BUTTER IN MILK.

GOD CREATED HUMAN IN HIS SELF IMAGE. because this form is the best form hiddent in NIRGUNA BRAHMAN.

anirvan
19 March 2011, 02:02 AM
GOD can be divided into different form like SUN as follows

1* Surya = Sun = bhagban (human form,dwibhuja--manifest only
to Ragamargi devotee-dasya,sakhya
batsalya,madhura bhava devotee)

2* Surya mandal = Umbra = param-atma(residing in all heart- as soul
realized in yoga siddhi)

3* Suryaloka = sunlight = brahman ( the Ang-jyoti of Bhagban= nirguna plus Saguna brahman , seen to Jnanis, nirvikalpa samadhi and to santa-bhaba-bhaktas)

It is very clear that the BHAGABAN beyond the Advita nirguana brahamn of Vedanta. vedanta has just given the hints about Bhagaban.
srimadbhagavat mahapurana has given detailed about him.thats why its called PARAM-HANSA-SAMHITA.it is only for PARAM-HANSA= those who had attained the Nirguna-brahman of Advita-vedanta through jnan/yoga/tantra.

The maharaasleela and Srikrishna avtar"s main purpose was to give this higher spiritual realm to human of earth. this Tattva was again Clarified in detail and practical sadhna was demonstrated by SRICHAITANYA avtar.

BHAGBAN has a abode,it is at the juncture of saguna-nirguna. it is neither perceived by JNANIS,or yogis, nor by Dvaita devotees.it can not be prceived by VIDHI-MARGI BHAKTAS. nor by Jnana-mishra bhakti.

only those ragamargi,kevala,parabhakti bhaktas who love him with ananya-chitta,who neither desire for Mokhsa,nor Swarga,nor for any kind of happiness for themselves, but only one desire to serve GOD will be finally go into his abode.

this abode is called NITYA-LOK/ BHAVA-LOK/GURU-DHAM/ NITYA-VRINDAVAN etc.

our world,its creation is the reflection of this nitya-lok. here we lfeel the shadows of the Bhavas like dasya,sakhya,batsalya,madhra,kanta bhava on the principle of that LOK.

JUST IMAGINE,IF THERE IS NO BHAVA ( EMOTIONS),IT CAN"T BE POSSIBLE IN CREATION.OUR CREATION IS DERIVED FROM THE INSPIRATION OF THIS DIVYA BHAVA OF BHAVA-LOK.

OTHERWISE WHAT"S THE PURPOSE OF THIS CREATION???

anirvan
19 March 2011, 02:29 AM
in brahman samadhi the entire chitta gets annihilated ,so only remnants is nirguana brahman of advita. But in PARA/ KEVALA BHAKTI sadhakas, a CHINMAYA SARIRA (etheral divine body) develop inside the chitta. only through that body the Chinmay bhagban can be seen felt and served. only this body is able to enter Notyalok. this body is beyond the nirguana brahman of advita.

even remaining in this earthly body,bhaktas can be able to enter into that eternal leela. one can call this as Private leela place of god and the universe creation leela as Public leela place.:cool1:
THE NITYALOK OR BHABA-LOK IS ETERNAL,BUT THIS SAGUNA LEELA IS MORTAL AND EVER-CHANGING.

jnani is able to see only the nirguana brahman,the light emanating from Bhagban,but Bhakta is able to see nirguna brahman as well his true swaroop,the chinmaya body.

you can refer GITA ,he himself says his birth death are divine,chinmaya and beyond knowledge of jeevas.

But the God of Dvaita philosophy is not equal to This bhagban of nityalok. they worship the Brahma,bishnu,maheswar etc.they are saguna brahman. but with pure bhaktis they gradually realise The real self of Bhagban and from BAIDHA MARGA BHAKTI ,THE GRADUATE INTO RAGA-MARGA BHAKTI.

Only few sadhakas has gone beyond this advita-nirguna brahman into bhava-lok. those highly evolved advita sannyasis are Chaitanya,bamadev,Nigamananda.sri-ramakrishna etc.

Adhvagat
19 March 2011, 02:50 AM
Dear Devotee,Smaranam,Sarangidasi and Brahman.

Bhagban is very different for person to person,not because of difference in their view or faith.
It is purely because of their spiritual ascendent. how far one has gone in spiritual sky,has seen that far. thats the reason Madhwacharya has said we should respect other"s view.as spiritual knowledge is ever evolving with great saints.this is clearly demonstrated in development of Vedas. and if you look at different philosophy being preached by different Avtars with refining always with descending time scale.

If god has not a form,how come these billions of forms exist in creation. whatever is not there in brahman,it can"t exist in creation. he is called formless because all forms exist inside him.just like 7 colours mixed to form white. same is meaning oF NIRGUANA -- EXISTENCE OF ALL GUNAS IN ONE, when these gunas manifest we called him SAGUNA/MAHASHAKTI/MAYA.

saguna and nirguana are not different state,but like BUTTER IN MILK.

GOD CREATED HUMAN IN HIS SELF IMAGE. because this form is the best form hiddent in NIRGUNA BRAHMAN.

Anirvan, that's exactly my problem with the notion that Bhagavan would be inferior (Brahman through Maya) than Brahman.

In fact I distanced myself a bit from ISKCON teachings exactly because I didn't agree that the realization of the impersonal aspect of God is an incomplete realization.

Currently I consider all three aspects of the divine complete and infinite in themselves. I mean, if God is infinite, even the realization of a tiny portion would reveal the infinity within, right?

What you say is also very interesting because I've always wondered the reason behind this human form and on a higher level the reason of why the elements organize themselves the way they do. There must be a great secret behind it all. I posted about this a while back: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=6761, if you could shed some light on that thread I'd be grateful.

Om Tat Sat

anirvan
19 March 2011, 08:20 AM
Pietro Impagliazzo, i salute your deep inquisitive mind searching the cause of creation.

i will explain this nityalok/bhagabatlok in the word of my gurudev.

* there is brahman---unmanifest,omnipotent,umnovable,inactive. a desire arise inside it.that desire is "i dont feel good being alone".(remember this is eternal desire behind the creation,,called brahman eshna,kshova).

* the desire became Mahashakti,the supreme mother.(saguna brahman,the so called God by Dviata philosophy). original tattva became GURU/supreme God---the advita bhagaban)

*Guru remained above(innermost circle of concentric rings) and Supreme mother (saguna brahamn/god of dvaita philosophy) remained below( the ring just outside Guru).

*the supreme mother then created billions of universe,plants,animals,springs,
river,seas...everything for his husband"s(supreme god-GURU).

* still neither husband,nor mahashakti (wife) became satisfied.then GURU(husband) descended little down, Mother ascended little up. there the Supreme mother created the BHAVALOK-or nityalok or Bhagabat lok for his husband"s happiness,that is the personal/private/secret home of wife and husband(guru and mahashakti).

* this is the nitya-vrindavan of Radha-krishna in the eyes of Vaishnavas.
this is the Kailasha of siva-gauri in eyes of saivitis.
this is the eternal Guru-dham(nityalok) for devotees of Guru.
this the Allah Hu of Sufi saints
this place is eternal,ever blissful,where advita is doing leela by becoming davita.they have advita knowledge,still they behave like davita.

*this very private place is only for supreme father,supreme mother and their devotees( here these devotees are no ordinary devotees,but Raga-margi highest level devotee...whose sadhna was totally devoid of self-gratification.they feel happy only seeing their god happy.for that matter they are always ready to go to hell also.

* this state comes after advita knowledge is attained and then bhava is matured( jnana-sunya bhakti).here the the body of each individual is not made up off the one made in the mortal creation.but its Chinmaya...the unthinkable divine elements.

This bhavalok is the primordial causative principle of our mortal creation. In that frame of Emotions,love and supreme service,this universe is created.
in other words we can view this as a rehearsal place to practice that supreme divine love with our parents,wife,children,neighbour so that we will be able to ascend into that eternal divine abode. is not this Achintya-veda-aveda is the pinnacle of all philosophy and ultimate truth.

so there is no question of superior or inferior god.same brahman takes different name/form in our human eyes,for different roles. do we say our mother is inferior to our father because mother is doing inferior household works , but they are equal parents to us.

jayaguru

karna
14 April 2011, 11:51 PM
At first I thought, well, the sorrow and pain wouldn't be the true nature of the divine... However, I noticed the question is not HOW, but instead, WHY. So the inquiry is basically: Why would God (Brahman), that is viewed as One, become two and put itself under influences that are not the reflection of his inate nature?

Om Tat Sat

Good question. If one is Brahman, why doesn't one feel bliss at all times? Calling it maya (and comparing it with our dream state) doesn't help, since it's tantamount to saying Brahman itself is subject to maya and is dreaming like an ordinary jiva. Now can Brahman, the all-knowing and ever-blissful, ever be subjected to maya and suffer like this?

charlebs
17 April 2011, 12:00 PM
It seems there are two portions here to consider. One is why would things be good and bad, happy and sad...pleasure and pain if We are He.

I used to ponder this question a lot as a child. It was one of those things I just couldn't get past. I remember being barely six or seven and asking the mormon elder why heaven was so so good. He was puzzled by this as I seemed very distressed. He said..."Don't worry heaven is perfect,always good and always wonderful."

But, his reply disturbed me even more...as I know that without wretched there can be no way to quantify wonderful.

There can be no way to know and mark the darkness without having some knowledge of light?

Isvara, in all His Beautiful, Wondrousness wanted to truly feel these things. So He broke Himself off, each portion just as the last...gently placing them onto the stage and manifesting this world.

The second portion of this is...Why would He bring Himself to such a state of misery and imperfection?

Well, look no further than your own parents, or your own children to answer this mystery. Broken off from this fragile vessel I brought these children into the world of pain and suffering because I know...that no matter what.....no matter what...we are always always fine....always perfect.
Nothing can change this...nothing. Kill me...take my sight...break me into bits...and I will remain whole.

These children were brought into this world to share this joy...and happiness...and with it comes sorrow and pain as they are inevitable portions of this blessed and wretched experience.


How can one truly know the gentle sentiments of love without one to love?

Holding my child...I close my eyes and I hug Shiva, I look into their eyes overwhelmed with this Beautiful Truth. It's almost too much to bear...knowing Beloved is Always Watching.


Today was a birthday, the 15th for our Sonshine...

We came for the Love, and stay for the ice cream.:p
your post gave me goosebumps. of course there is good and evil and taste and distaste in heaven. unending beautiful scenery and the ugliest buildings there are, in which divinities sometimes actually wishes to live.

I got this from a friend who has seen hell many times. (he has been locked up for 12 years because of 1 cannabis joint, he is now forever a stubborn nutter who believes he needs to cleanse everything from black magic using water from the dunes)

anirvan
19 April 2011, 09:07 AM
Good question. If one is Brahman, why doesn't one feel bliss at all times? Calling it maya (and comparing it with our dream state) doesn't help, since it's tantamount to saying Brahman itself is subject to maya and is dreaming like an ordinary jiva. Now can Brahman, the all-knowing and ever-blissful, ever be subjected to maya and suffer like this?

brahman is never subjected to torture by maya:mad: ....

brahman has two head. one is brahman..the blissful, other head is maya.he can"t cut second head as both head are vital for its existence.:p

TatTvamAsi
20 June 2011, 10:24 PM
At first I thought, well, the sorrow and pain wouldn't be the true nature of the divine... However, I noticed the question is not HOW, but instead, WHY. So the inquiry is basically: Why would God (Brahman), that is viewed as One, become two and put itself under influences that are not the reflection of his inate nature?

Om Tat Sat

Devotee has already answered this question wonderfully.

My thoughts on this are as follows:

Sorrow, happiness, excitement, etc. are ephemeral states of being. Think of it like a river that is either flooding (sadness) or flowing gently (happiness). The water that is fundamental to the river is the Atman. Any characteristics that attempt to describe the "river" are ephemeral and ultimately not OUTSIDE of the water that makes up the river. Many forget the water and focus only on the flooding or placidity of the water, not the water itself.

The fourth state TurIyA is like the water. The other three states are states of being that cannot exist without the fourth. That is why Brahman is TRANSCENDENT yet IMMANENT.

kallol
04 July 2011, 11:17 AM
My understanding :

A lifeless body is not a human. Nor the life is a human. It is the combination of the two that is called human.

The perception is at systems level and not component level. Our perception is matter only, which cannot exist without consciousness. We cannot percieve consciousness as it cannot be by definition (as it is the source) though it exists independently.

These two aspects are called higher form (consciousness) and the lower form (matter). Now you may term it as higher form of brahman and lower form of brahman or brahman and maya or paraprakriti and aparaprakriti or purusha and prakriti, etc.

Now that we can only percieve matter, it is inherently bringing in the consciousness with it. However we miss to recognise the consciousness as a seperate entity. We get stuck to the matter part only. This matter is subject to changes and thus fluctuations. These changes are the ones which attracts us - the colour, forms, emotions, activities, thoughts, etc. Though they are fatal - in the sense that they bind us perpetually to the maya cycle - we fail to out grow this stage mostly. Any change brings change in the state of mind. So we go through the pains and pleasure, etc.

However the other part, being the enabler of the lower part, is permanent, changeless and bland substratum. The feeling of "I" comes from there. Resting the mind in this "I" is the permanent blissful state. No change means no change in state of mind - so blissful.

It is like the cinema we see on the bland permanent substratum screen. We get engrossed in the cinema - flow with the emotions and lose sight of the substratum. However we cannot see the film only by projection or only by screen. It needs both.

So it depends on us, where we want to rest our mind - the ever changing beautiful prakriti or the bland changeless higher form of brahman.

That depends on our karma.

Love and best wishes