PDA

View Full Version : Advaita Vedantha: Serious Attentions Required.



brahman
26 February 2012, 01:58 AM
Respected Moderators and Members,

Sub: A Kind request

We would only be doing justice to our ancient Acaryas, especially the Classical Gurus like Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhava, when we are able to speak up their doctrines with its exact terminologies. Its relevance depends on the nature of the ‘frames of reference’ or Prakarana being discussed.

For methodological requirements and for the sake of philosophy, these Gurus have developed their own terminologies, theological supports, applied academic abstractions, which must not be mixed up pedantically by careful students. Thus, their goal being one, the point of method and the theory of knowledge adopted stand distinctly separate from the other.

If an aspirant to wisdom feels he has not understood the content of a particular literary genre, the author is not to be blamed, nor should one regard the aspects given to be of wrong order. This could simply be the result of a limited understating or lack of interest shown by the reader regarding the concerned ‘frame of reference’ of knowledge.

Examination of contents and the contemplative methods employed under the section ‘philosophy’ doesn’t belong to any ordinary logic and teaching. But, at the same time, regular posters in these sections often try to acquire a full status of values common to manhood against ivory tower isolation of the ancient thinkers.

We must be looking forward to establish confidence over consciousness and bipolar relationship between each other. This approach gains the fuller status of an Absolutist to refrain from witnessing Babel Tower tragedy or multi linguistic war under divinity. Careful seekers must avoid Canteen-ing in philosophy and philosophy-ing in Canteen, which are equally dangerous for the place we belong to, the Hindu Dharma and the Hindu Dharma Forums.

Every philosophy of Vedantic origin aims at the notion of Non-Duality in its ultimate sense, which doesn’t mean the methodology applied is of the same order, besides that the terminology used by one Darsana might contradict with the other in terms of meaning and interpretation.

With all due respect I suggest the Moderators to please rethink on the divisions under the section philosophy and to allocate a separate section ‘General Advaitha’, this enables the seekers belonging to the Philosophy with a prefix or suffix ‘advaita’ to their schools can make use of it and save the science of 'Advaitha Vedanta' from further contradictions and maintain its time immemorial purity of transcendence.Love:)

saidevo
26 February 2012, 09:36 AM
namaste everyone.

I am in full agreement with what Brahman proposes, with one suggestion that we name the traditional advaita (sub)forum as 'pAramparya advaita' or 'Traditional Advaita' wherein we discuss only about what our traditional AchAryas--Shankara and others--have taught us. Since most of us most of the time discuss only our own notions and opinions about advaita without seeking to validate it against the traditionally established advaita tenets and philosophy, the traditional advaita gets neglected or slanted to suit our speculations. Since HDF is one of the most popular and respected Hindu forums on the Net, we need to have a repertoire of explanations of the traditional advaita that laypersons can understand and discuss how we can implement the concepts in this modern age. Kudos to Brahman for bringing up this important issue.

sm78
26 February 2012, 10:16 AM
A forum is just the reflection of the those who post in it. So if advaita viewpoints in this forum appear a bit of a "weak sauce", its because posters are either unwilling or incapable of presenting a rigorous traditional viewpoint. You can create another folder, but who will fill it up? If the posters can't do it normally, how does a new forum make it suddenly happen? Most of the posts in the vaishnava folders are pretty rigorous for example, did that need separate folder/sub forum?

That said, I also don't see why traditional rigor is so important. What is the great thing in copying and pasting information from books? Copy pasting is a boring job, and only those with ample time can indulge in such things.

Quality of reply's often depend on the quality of queries. All hindu shastras have been revealed as answers to various questions posed. When that improves, answers will too.

I think those who talk from traditional view points can pay a little more attention to make sure they don't add speculation, and if they add speculation they should make it clear. Anything more than that is an overkill and artificial. Lets increase our knowledge and our posts will appear knowledgeable (to the right eye).

FutureHumanDestiny
26 February 2012, 11:49 AM
for the OP, please allow me to kindly augment the original thought with the notion that we would only be doing justice to our greater selves when we are able to apply the doctrine with it's exact application and become bequeathed with the ultimate attainment of Buddha-hood or Enlightenment.

-dale

devotee
26 February 2012, 08:02 PM
Namaste Brahman, Saidevo, SM and all,

I agree with SM on this issue. I don't think it would help. In fact, there are real dangers that the free environment of discussion will get contaminated.

Even without any separate forums for the discussion we all know that anything said without the support of Shastras or Advaitic AcharyAs explanations ... has not much value. You may start a thread or a series of threads which contain ONLY the Advaitic viewpoint as taught by the great AchAryAs. But what would happen if someone wants to contribute in that thread or asks some questions to be answered or raises some issue to be discussed ? Who will decide that "this much is what the AcharyAs said and beyond this it is not" ? Moreover, how do we decide that the later Advaitins like Swami VivekAnand, RAmkrishna Paramhansa, Swami Sri Youketswar, Maharishi Yogananda were the classical Advaitins or different ?

What is classical ? It is not only what Shankara said or GaudApad said. Did they say anything which was not there in the VedAnta scriptures ? The language, analogy and explanation changes with times. So, new language and terms would keep coming and it doesn't destroy the value of Advaitic teachings.

My idea is that we should not be so much fanatic towards our own conceived idea of purity. How will we treat Kabir , Shaivite Advaitins (like Kashmir Shaivism) etc. as they too don't talk VedAnta ... but speak the same Truth that VedAnta teaches ?

OM

anirvan
27 February 2012, 02:09 AM
I will fully agree the POV of DEVOTEE AND SM78. The proposed new section in Purist/classic Advita will become very monotonous and the takers will be only few or none.That way it will be better start a link page for all such literatures
/commentaries by such great Acharyas.anyone wishing to read can click on and read.

Its because most netizens are unaware of the complicated sanskrit wors and grammers...which are the languages of those Acharyas and there is no english substitutes for it.It will become another un-used thread like vaishnava/shakta forums.

Hari-om

saidevo
27 February 2012, 11:00 AM
namste everyone.

Yes, the doubts raised by members sm78, devotee and anirvan are valid enough to warrant a separate (sub)forum for Tradiitional Advaita. The issues I would like our members--specially those who are well familiar with traditional advaita--to deal with include the following:

It is NOT that only common people like us express our speculations about some concepts experientially established by our traditional AchAryas like Shankara. Many of the contemporary Hindu gurus (native as well as foreign) not only give their own speculations about these concepts as revealed in the traditional texts, but teach them as valid interpretations. Let us take an example:

In the 'Relevance of Religion' thread started by kallol, I gave the following link:
Globalizing Hinduism: A 'Traditional Guru' and Modern Businessmen in Chennai
http://www.jnu.ac.in/Academics/Schools/SchoolOfSocialSciences/CSSS/GSP/SummerSchoolStudyProgramme/10-Globalizing%20Hinduism.pdf

This report states as follows about the teachings of SvAmi DayAnanda sarasvatI, perceived to be a 'traditional' Hindu guru:

01. More significant is the explication of key concepts. For instance, in an audio-clip Dayananda says that moksha means seeking freedom in life, without which everything seems meaningless. In a dialogue with a student, he explains that: (27)

"My concept of moksha is freedom from the sense of limitation and the sense of dependence for your security and happiness. It is not my concept - it is the Vedantic concept. ... [It means] freedom from the sense of inadequacy."

But Dayananda's interpretation more obviously reflects a less spiritual, more this-worldly idiom that echoes contemporary western ideas about individual self-fulfilment, and in the dialogue just quoted, he insists that: 'The problem of sense of inadequacy is not a social problem but is an individual problem.'(28)

Dayananda's Chennai address (Harriss 2003: 358-9). Furthermore, moksha for Dayananda is not a very remote and difficult goal, whereas in the orthodox Brahmanical tradition, in P. V. Kane's words, to know and become identifIed with the Godhead is the ultimate objective (Kane 1977: 1631):

"This can be achieved by one's own efforts, but [it] ... is most difficult and requires the aspirant to give up egotism, selfIshness and worldly attachments."

This is what the Report says about SvAmi DayAnanda claims as one aspect of KRShNa's teaching about desires:

In the Gita, Krishna says that he manifests himself in human beings in the form of desires (which he does, though he qualifies this by referring to desires that are not inconsistent with righteousness [7.9]), and Dayananda claimed that this means that desire is a human privilege and a manifestation of divinity that actuates people to do things.

In life, though, unfulfilled desires normally outnumber fulfilled ones, so that people feel a sense of failure and inadequacy. Krishna, however, teaches us to control desires. (Actually, he tells us to renounce desires in order to obtain peace [2.55,71], as is indeed confIrmed in Dayananda's commentary.)(29)

Krishna therefore gives us a 'programme for living', 'a plan for life', which ensures that if desires are kept under control, the process of trying to fulfIl them - whether successfully or not - is enjoyable and we can learn from it. Hence there are 'varieties of experience', not 'failures'.

The point is, how do we understand the purpose and estimate the relevance, application and validity of behind such deviations from tradition even by well-versed and renowned Acharyas who are perceived to be traditional? Surely, this "weak sauce" version of interpretation of our key terms would percolate down the generations of modern Hindus, making them more and more ignorant and indifferent to the teachings of traditional AchAryas--even of shrI KRShNa!

devotee
27 February 2012, 09:46 PM
Namaste Saidevo ji,

I can understand and share your concern. What you are pointing out is a serious thing but I don't know what we can do about it. There many forums on the internet and there are many western self-proclaimed Advaita Gurus who have their own idea of Advaita. In fact, people start claiming enlightenment just after a few logical discussion on the issue of Advaita.

Similarly, we can't take Swami Dayananda at his face value. I don't if he has taken Diskhsa in any of the ten orders of SankarachArya or he is yet another self-proclaimed Advaita teacher like Swami (?) NityAnanda.

If we feel that a separate forum will filter this out, please go ahead with it. :)

OM

brahman
28 February 2012, 04:03 AM
RESPECTED moderators and members,

Let me thank the participants for the replies posted. They were excellent.

Before we proceed any further to reach a conclusion and pass it down the end result to the decision maker Sri. Satay, I would request you all to take on a pragmatic approach as we have already dealt this issue theoretically.

To help you in this, I am presenting here the current and proposed outlook of the divisions under philosophy.


The division under philosophy, number of threads, posts, and its descriptions (current)

Philosophy

Dvaita (22 Threads --- 166 Posts)
Forum for discussion of Dvaita Philosophy.

Advaita (143 Threads --- 2549 Posts
Forum for discussion of Advaita Philosophy and Monism.

Vishishtadvaita(12 --- 80)
Forum for discussion of Vishishtadvaita Philosophy and Qualified Monism.

Paradvaita (7 --- 275)
Forum for discussion of Tantrik Monism and Kashmiri Shaiva traditions.

-----------------------------------------

The division under philosophy, number of threads, posts and its description (as per our new proposal)


Philosophy

Tattva -Vada/Dvaitha Vedanta (22 Threads --- 166 Posts)
Forum for discussion of Dualistic non-dualism of Sri. Madhva.

Advaita Vedanta (143 Threads 2547 posts)
Forum for discussion of non-dualism of Sri. Sankara

Vishishtadvaita (12 --- 80)
Forum for discussion of qualified non-dualism of Sri. Ramanuja

Paradvaita (7 --- 275)
Forum for discussion of Tantrik non-dualism and Kashmiri Shaiva traditions.

Advaita-General
Forum for discussion of non-dualism of Vedantic origin
------------------------------------

Some valid doubts of SM and Devotee


SM Wrote: You can create another folder, but who will fill it up?

Spanning all non-dualistic philosophy of Indian origin with 143 threads and 2547 posts, Advaita Vedantha dominates the other 3 traditions in terms of the number of posts.

The new proposal allows further postings to their desired sections thus saving the genuine nature of the respected sections as listed under philosophy. This causes a split up rather than getting filled up.

--------------------------------------------------

Devotee Wrote: How will we treat Kabir , Shaivite Advaitins (like Kashmir Shaivism) etc. as they too don't talk VedAnta ... but speak the same Truth that VedAnta teaches ?

Yes, this has been known as 'Advaitha Approach' in India, which is unitive and non dual in character. At the same we should not refrain ourselves discussing the dangers behind it.

When some religious movements culminate one’s behaviour into an experience of trance, an insensible state as the ultimate goal of spirituality, it serves a momentary or temporary phase alone. No characteristics of technical advancement happen rather than loosing money and time.

On the contrary, when in performs technically advanced science, so called classical in the OP, the seeker is endeavoured to maintain an equilibrium of thought or stability of thought rather than a culmination in a state of trance; where trance, light at the end of torch, white heat, red glow, fire balls and upper palate tongue massage etc are normal and corollary without any room in its syllabus.

This 'sense of balance in consciousnesses' through scientific teaching and its application is usually brief in the beginning, the magnitude strongly rises each day, rendering us the humane qualities than of a godman.

----------------------------------------

Different sciences

Among us are the learned and the learners. We follow the fashion of respecting every science that has its origin in the Science of the Absolute. We give it due respect because we believe that for every science as a science, its terminologies, methods and applications has its own significance.


Methodology of Brahakuamaris may differ from that of Self realization fellowship; these subtle differences between these traditions are wisdoms pills for the serious students.

Why should we have many folders under one science called the Vedas? We could have a folder called “Vedas” alone.

---------------------------------------------

An Error in understanding

“Advata Vedanta” is a science developed by Sankara, where the word “Advaita” is an all inclusive general concept of the Absolute, proclaimed by the Vedas. This subtle difference has to be borne in mind throughout our reading.

Consciously or unconsciously, you and I have followed this error for sometime in this most happening intellectual Hindu gathering.

--------------------------------------------------

Thank you again

We all learn through mistakes. All fellow sincere seekers of wisdom are welcomed to take up this initiative further. To learn, and benefit others, lets allow ourselves to learn the science of it.Love:)



-----
-----
Note: Paraadvaita is mindfully left out as it is not a victim of this unsolicited contamination, it is still pure in my eys.

saidevo
28 February 2012, 09:03 AM
namaste everyone.

I am sorry to have prompted a negative impression about SvAmi DayAnanda SarasvatI of the ArSha VidyA Gurukulam ashram. This was due to my wrongly believing word for word, the report from the western authors I have cited in my earlier post. Having had a first darshan of SvAmiji with my friend a few months back, and seen a bit of his AnaikaTTi Ashram in Coimbatore, I should have known better.

On further search, I now understand that Svami DayAnanda is a unique and multifaceted spiritual and religious personality with incredible achievements in almost every area of religious and spiritual manifestation in India one can think about. By way of a small atonement, let me try to paraphrase some of what one can easily find in much more detail about SvAmiji and his service.

• SvAmi DayAnanda SarasvatI is NOT a "self-proclaimed Advaita teacher": His guru was SvAmi ChinmayAnanda whose guru was SvAmi SivAnanda of the Divine Life Society, RiShikesh.

• He is very much of a traditional AchArya--teacher, emphasizing the wisdom of the Vedic RShis and striving to rejuvenate/sustain all the cultural and religious facets of our Hindu Dharma, as can be readily seen from the following list of his activities and achievements.

• Teaching of Vedanta
‣ Gurukulams & Spiritual Retreat centers: Running these facilities and Teaching camps and long term courses for 5 to 6 months in a year
‣ Inspire and train a large number of people to become Vedanta teachers
‣ Many Public talks all over the world every year
‣ Outreach program
‣ Bhagavad Gita Home study program
‣ Research and Publications

• Recognizing contributions to Arsha vidya (Institution of ‘Arsha Kula Sreshtha’ award)
• Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha (apex body of ancient Hindu sampradayas)
• Hindu Dharma Samstha Pramukh Sabha (body of more recent Hindu institutions which are not members of the Acharya sabha)

• Dharma Rakshana Samiti
‣ Recognition and encouragement of Guruswamys
‣ Propogation of Grama devata worship (cala-pratistha of
Angala Pramesvari Amman)

• Pathashalas for preservation of Vedas and agamas
• Preservation of Temple traditions and cultures
‣ Oduvars – recognition and support for livelihood
‣ Construction of Ashta DikPalakas and proper offerings at Brhadeesvarar temple
‣ Thiruvidaimarudur ther (chariot) project

• Hindu-Jewish summits
• Promoting Education
‣ Dayananda education trust
‣ Krupa by Dayananda- B.D.Goenka seva trust
‣ Vedic heritage teaching program

• Preservation of arts and music
‣ Institution of Arsha Kala Bhushanam awards
‣ Thiruppugazh conference

• Promoting global harmony and world peace
• Thinkers meet (a forum for thinkers to address Hindu and National
issues)
• Digital library project
• International conference on Vedic Sarasvati River and Hindu Civilization (to get the true story of ancient India)
• Fighting Global warming (by advocating avoidance of red meat eating)

More details on the above projects can be had from an Interview conducted by Dr.V.Swaminathan, which is posted here:
http://www.dharmarakshanasamiti.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=32:an-interview-with-pujya-swami-dayananda-saraswati&catid=3:swamijis-discourses&Itemid=13
http://www.arshavidya.in/Interview.pdf

and these websites of SvAmiji and his disciples:
http://www.dayananda.org/
http://www.arshavidya.org/ (US ashram website)
http://www.arshavidya.in/ (Coimbatore-anaikatti ashram website)
http://www.acharyasabha.org/
http://www.aimforseva.org/

Unlike many traditional Hindu gurus, SvAmi DayAnanda is forthright on the subject of Hindu Dharma rakShaNam--protection against the aggressions of Christianity and Islam. The DAV chain of schools in India is based on his ideals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayanand_Anglo-Vedic_Schools_System

devotee
28 February 2012, 09:15 AM
If there is a new forum just for Sankara, then I would request that all threads created by me should be shifted to "Advaita General" as the Sankara's commentary is just one of the sources I have used in my posts.

OM

uttam
28 February 2012, 08:40 PM
Dear devotee ,
I observe a mismatch in you. you say , I quote ,"If there is a new forum just for Sankara, then I would request that all threads created by me should be shifted to "Advaita General" as the Sankara's commentary is just one of the sources I have used in my posts."

and your slogan is "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

does "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"match with sanakara's advaita ?

devotee
28 February 2012, 10:16 PM
Namaste Uttam,



I observe a mismatch in you. you say , I quote ,"If there is a new forum just for Sankara, then I would request that all threads created by me should be shifted to "Advaita General" as the Sankara's commentary is just one of the sources I have used in my posts."

and your slogan is "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

does "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"match with sanakara's advaita ?

This question has been asked by some more people earlier who thought that I was a Vaishnava. This confusion arises from the ignorance of Advaitic path and philosophy. Did Shankara worshiped God in forms and names ? Yes, otherwise why should he compose "Bhaj Govindam" ? Shankara is also credited with writing bhajans in praise of Mother Goddess.

Ramkrishna was an Advaitin (taken dikshA from Swami Totapuri, a SannyAsi from Puri order of Shankara) who worshiped Goddess KAli. Ramkrishna had no hesitation in worshiping other forms of God ... so much so, that he even meditated on Jesus Christ. There is one story related to this. Once Paramhansa Yogananda, the disciple of Swami Sri Yukteshwar (who took dikshA in Giri order of Shankara) was passing through a famous temple Tarkeshwar dedicated to Lord Shiva and while passing he didn't bow down to Lord Shiva's image (in the form of a black stone) ... engrossed in his Nirguna thoughts. He was on his way to meet one of the greatest SannyAsi, Sri Ramgopal in the Himalayas. A few days later when he could meet Ramgopal, Sri Ramgopal asked him, " Well, Swamiji, where does God live ?". Sri Yogananda was astonished at this simple but pointedly asked question from the yogi. He replied, "Why sir, He is everywhere. There is no place where He is not.". Sri Ramgopal laughed at this answer, "Oh, is it ? So, why did you feel that He was not there in the stone image of Tarkeshwar ??".

I think the point I wanted to make is clear. From my childhood I was attracted to Lord Krishna's form and his message in Bhagwad Gita and I consider Him my first Guru. Later on, I was attracted towards Advaita as I got interested in Upanishads and teachings of Advaitic teachers.

For a true Advaitin, there can be no discrimination on the basis of names and forms. What is there in form, the same is formless. These forms, formlessness, names and indescribable ... are all pastime of mind. These concepts have no real meaning in absolute sense.

OM

Seeker123
29 February 2012, 02:13 PM
Saidevo,

I am glad that you got a chance to research Swami Dayananda Saraswathi and get a better understanding of him. He and his students (Paramarthananda in Chennai) very much teach Sankara Bhasya in their courses to serious students on Gita, Upanishads etc. Of course they give lectures on general Vedanta on days such as Guri Purnima, New year day when they are invited to a temple etc. During those times since the audience does not comprise of serious seekers they may talk on how one cause use Vedanta to lead a better material life - control anger, manage desires, lead a better material life etc. This makes sense because most of the people are happy if they can do just that and if Vedanta helps them do it then it is wonderful. Because otherwise all they have is self help books like How to make friends and influence people, Powers of Positive thinking etc. Once people are exposed to the benefits of Vedanta they could become more seriously interested in Vedanta and start pursuing Moksha through reading Gita, Upanishads etc. seriously under a Guru. One of the problems in that article which you pasted in one of your previous messages was that it was quoting mostly from those types of lectures.

In your summary about Swami Dayananda you included DAV schools. I am afraid DAV schools are based on the older Swami Dayanand of Arya Samaj.

Seeker123
29 February 2012, 09:33 PM
If the intent is to guide people to traditional Advaitic teachers then there is value. How do we judge traditional Advaitic teachers? I think the question becomes how do we choose a Guru - 1. The Guru should know Sastra - so he should teach Upanishads and Gita; 2. The Guru should be self realized - by their writings it is possible to recognize if they are self realized. Some one like Nisargadatta was considered self realized but he did not teach Sastra so he was not your traditional Guru. So one cannot attain Moksha by being under a Guru who does not teach Sastra. Reading Sastra is essential for Moksha. It may be inspiring to read accounts of self realized souls no doubt. On this basis would Ramana be a traditional Advaitic Guru, would Shirdi Sai Baba be one? what about Sri Sri, Jaggi Vasudev, Swami Parthasarathy............

devotee
29 February 2012, 11:12 PM
Namaste Brahman, Saidevoji and all,

I don't know what others feel but there is a problem of not-readily finding quality threads due to sheer volume of threads in a forum.

This needs to be tackled. I am raising this issue in a thread in Feedback forum which is the right place to raise such issues.

OM

brahman
01 March 2012, 05:37 AM
If the intent is to guide people to traditional Advaitic teachers then there is value. How do we judge traditional Advaitic teachers? I think the question becomes how do we choose a Guru - 1. The Guru should know Sastra - so he should teach Upanishads and Gita; 2. The Guru should be self realized - by their writings it is possible to recognize if they are self realized. Some one like Nisargadatta was considered self realized but he did not teach Sastra so he was not your traditional Guru. So one cannot attain Moksha by being under a Guru who does not teach Sastra. Reading Sastra is essential for Moksha. It may be inspiring to read accounts of self realized souls no doubt. On this basis would Ramana be a traditional Advaitic Guru, would Shirdi Sai Baba be one? what about Sri Sri, Jaggi Vasudev, Swami Parthasarathy............




Dear Seeker,

Welcome, this thread is an initiative to appeal for a new division for Advaitha Vedanta, a science predicated by world renowned philosopher Adi. Sankara.

This mission of ours doesn't include finding a Guru, teaching sastras, judging and monitoring self realized personalities like Sri. Ramana, Sri. Shirdi Baba and so forth.

Your assertions and certitudes were good to read; at the same time you must see how valid these in this particular thread are. Love:)

saidevo
01 March 2012, 10:09 AM
namaste Seeker123.

You are right. The DAV school is based on the ideals of SvAmi DayAnanda Sarasvati of the Arya Samaj (I mistook the AV in DAV for ArSha vidyA).

I think the same way as you do about the 'apparant' dilution of Vedanta concepts in the teachings of SvAmi DayAnanda to suit the office-going and entrepreneurial Hindus. As you say, they would otherwise resort to self-help books of the types you have listed, or in worst cases seek the counsel of a 'shrink' (psychiatrist) like the average American under pressure. When shrI KRShNa in his GItA exhorts Arjuna to follow his svadharma--profession of his clan, why can't that advice apply to our kali-yuga svadharma too? The only requirement is that we shouldn't desire any fruits for our efforts and surrender our action as well as its fruits to shrI KRShNa.

This is what I meant in my post #7 when I talked about understanding "the purpose and estimate the relevance, application and validity of behind such (apparant) deviations from tradition even by well-versed and renowned Acharyas who are perceived to be traditional". In other words, when the teaching is from a Hindu guru who is affilitated to our tradition and culture--be it RAmakRShNa Paramahamsa, VivekAnanda, YogAnanda or DayAnanda--we must try to understand any apparant deviations from tradition in the proper context. We might as well say that in his GItA, shrI KRShNa himself teaches the concepts of both Advaita and vishiShTAdvaita, which is why the text is admired by all Hindus, cutting across their beliefs and sects.

Seeker123
02 March 2012, 12:43 PM
Dear Seeker

Welcome, this thread is an initiative to appeal for a new division for Advaitha Vedanta, a science predicated by world renowned philosopher Adi. Sankara. Love:)


Even though I was ambivalent about this initially having thought on this I now feel that it is a good idea to have a separate section on Traditional Advaita. We can discuss for example what is meant by Moksha for example as per traditional Advaita. Is it an experience in meditation etc etc.

uttam
10 March 2012, 10:49 AM
Dear devotee
I am quite satisfied at your reply to my mismatch question. But what I really like to know from you is what message you want to deliver by associating yourself with such opposite conceptions . I mean to say "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye" signifies that you are a vaishnab but actually you are a advaitin which is just opposite vaishnab philosophy.
Do you mean Adi Sankaracharya and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu can be seen at the same platform.I am confused. please help me.

I quote from your post "For a true Advaitin, there can be no discrimination on the basis of names and forms. What is there in form, the same is formless. These forms, formlessness, names and indescribable ... are all pastime of mind. These concepts have no real meaning in absolute sense." Would you please explain this.

sm78
10 March 2012, 11:33 AM
I mean to say "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye" signifies that you are a vaishnab but actually you are a advaitin which is just opposite vaishnab philosophy.

No it does not. Names of Krishna are not patented vaishnava nomenclature which others are barred from using. Is it so?

Apart from Sankaracharya writing bhaja govindam and a commentary on vishnu sahasranama, several present day advaita monks give public discourses on srimad bhagvatam ~ which itself is not really against advaita. An advaitin following the path of devotion for chitta suddhi can have any form of God as his/her Ista. Krishna is a very popular form of God and several south Indian smarta families are devotees of Krishna and Sri Venkatesha (Vishnu).

Your insistence on problem with an advaitin using "Om Namo Bhagvate Vasudevaya" when there is none, is perplexing. It seems like a deliberate attempt to stir up unnecessary debate and argument, when there is not much room for any? Are you bored that Grames is not replying to your arguments and you want indulge someone else at this point? Besides this is also outside the scope of the thread and the folder theme.

uttam
10 March 2012, 07:30 PM
Dear sm78
Please ,don't say like this. My debate with grames has no link here. Most probably grames has left the thread. But it is not fair to say that until grames replies me , I can not respond to other thread. You are also attending to different threads in intervals . I do not think it is a crime to respond when I find something to get involved. My friend, I never get bored because as soon as I can spare time I read only chaitanya charitamrita . You should not consider me a problematic personality who undertakes deliberate attempt to stir up debate with some one unnecessarily . In that case, I would have attended to every threads. Frankly speaking, I am only interested in any subject which bears vaishnab perspective .I have joined this forum to exchange views, not create any confusion deliberately. I think I have won your confidence about my intention for joining this forum . Coming to the point, Yes I think krishna is patented for vainabs because if you accept krishna as it is , you have to reject advaitabad since krishna represents bhakti, prem, rasa, nam, rup and lila madhurya , a swagun personality with all opulences . Are these elements can be found in advaitabad . Therefore I am curious to know how advaitabad can be related to vaishnabism. As I know since the inception of advaitabad by Adi sankaracharya, how one after another vaishnab jagatgurus like Ramanuj or Madhvacharaya refuted the advaita conception. In the mean time I have never got the chance to go through any such literature ( Is there ?)which establish a bridge between this two opposite conception. I request you to help me in this regard if there is any such literatures.
I quote from your post "Apart from Sankaracharya writing bhaja govindam and a commentary on vishnu sahasranama, several present day advaita monks give public discourses on srimad bhagvatam ~ which itself is not really against advaita."
See ,although Sankaracharya wrote bhaja govindam or others as you mentioned , does it mean that his advaitabad is supporting what vaishnabism establishes or there is no disagreement between advaitabad and vaishnabism. I do not know exactly at what stage of his career , Sankaracharya wrote this bhaja govindam or likes but definitely not at the same time when he wrote advaita philosophy. Neither he rejected his advaita philosophy which is based on jnan, which is regarded as Mayabad by vaishnab and even vaishnab are advised to keep away themselves from this Mayabad nor he may be regarded as vaishnab. Is there any chance to conclude that Sankaracharya himself left his own philosophy and started to practice bhaktimarg at the later state of his career ? I will be happy enough if you please explain what advaitin wants to establish by saying that sankaracharya composed bhaja govindam or such writings which leaves impression of being a bhakrimargi like a vaishnab but actually his own philosophy advaitabad is all set to disapprove the path followed by a vaishnab to attain Radha-Krishna prem bhakti. I think I have cleared my intention now. For your information , I have not gone through advaita literatures vigorously. I invite you to debate with open mind . I am not all-knowing person nor so you. So debate with free mind will help us both to enjoy and conclude some acceptable idea.

sm78
11 March 2012, 12:33 AM
Yes I think krishna is patented for vainabs because if you accept krishna as it is , you have to reject advaitabad since krishna represents bhakti, prem, rasa, nam, rup and lila madhurya , a swagun personality with all opulences.

Well, this becomes a point of opinion. If I take Krishna as he is in Mahabharata I will have to reject Vaishnavism and their attempts to retro fit the historical krishna with some philosophical justifications.


Therefore I am curious to know how advaitabad can be related to vaishnabism. As I said, in theory & practice there is no problem as need for bhakti as a means for chitta suddhi is accepted, and in practice most advaitins are bhaktas seeking knowledge. You will be hard pressed to find an advaitin who solely practices jnana yoga. On the other hand any advaitin will be a devotee of one or the other God including Krishna for some.


As I know since the inception of advaitabad by Adi sankaracharya, how one after another vaishnab jagatgurus like Ramanuj or Madhvacharaya refuted the advaita conception. In the mean time I have never got the chance to go through any such literature ( Is there ?)which establish a bridge between this two opposite conception. I request you to help me in this regard if there is any such literatures.
In Debates people are trying to discredit the ultimate philosophy and not the sadhana of the opposition school. Bhakti in advaita is part of its sadhana not philosophy. Who would have guessed that, Madhva Dvaita followers spend significant time worshipping various gods, goddesses, nagas, yakshas etc sometimes following keraliya tantra paddhatis which have precious little to do with vaishnava bhakti, from Madhva's dvaita arguments?

I am not vedantin so my knowledge is very limited in the what the literature of these 3 or other vedantic schools say, but there is a lot of discourse on the need for bhakti in advaita, in the writings of kanchi acharya for example. You may want to read them (available online) to see how bhakti makes sense from point of view of advaita. There must be many other advaita literature explaining the need for bhakti in sadhana for chitta suddhi - but not in the debate literature. Maybe others in the forum may be able to point them out. But kanchi acharya's writing are a good start - particularly his commentary on saundarya lahari.



See ,although Sankaracharya wrote bhaja govindam or others as you mentioned , does it mean that his advaitabad is supporting what vaishnabism establishes or there is no disagreement between advaitabad and vaishnabism. I do not know exactly at what stage of his career , Sankaracharya wrote this bhaja govindam or likes but definitely not at the same time when he wrote advaita philosophy. Neither he rejected his advaita philosophy which is based on jnan, which is regarded as Mayabad by vaishnab and even vaishnab are advised to keep away themselves from this Mayabad nor he may be regarded as vaishnab. Is there any chance to conclude that Sankaracharya himself left his own philosophy and started to practice bhaktimarg at the later state of his career ? I will be happy enough if you please explain what advaitin wants to establish by saying that sankaracharya composed bhaja govindam or such writings which leaves impression of being a bhakrimargi like a vaishnab but actually his own philosophy advaitabad is all set to disapprove the path followed by a vaishnab to attain Radha-Krishna prem bhakti. I think I have cleared my intention now. For your information , I have not gone through advaita literatures vigorously. I invite you to debate with open mind . I am not all-knowing person nor so you. So debate with free mind will help us both to enjoy and conclude some acceptable idea.
This is interesting and people do have opinions, but we would hardly know. Personally I am inclined towards your view. My knowledge of shankaracharya is anyway limited to his beautiful stotra sahitya, many beautiful hynms he composed, none of which had much advaita philosophy in them. They were bhakti pradhan (though not necessarily vaishnava bhakti) and some are very esoteric like ardhvanariswara stotra and saundarya lahari, only makes full sense in context of mantra sadhana. We may take them as his departure from his earlier philosophies, but an advaitin might use them to prove the need of bhakti to achieve the goal of advaita. One can conclude he spent first part of his life to produce the philosophical basis of his school while spent the time later to formulate aids to achieve the goal in form of bhakti hynms and mantra shastra compositions (but, like most, I don't believe saundarya lahari or prapancasara tantra have anything to do with Adi shankaracharya, but the rest of the stortra sahitya is mostly his own composition).

In short there is no conclusion, and people will interpret data according to their own dogma.

devotee
11 March 2012, 04:38 AM
Namaste Uttam,


But what I really like to know from you is what message you want to deliver by associating yourself with such opposite conceptions . I mean to say "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye" signifies that you are a vaishnab but actually you are a advaitin which is just opposite vaishnab philosophy.
Do you mean Adi Sankaracharya and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu can be seen at the same platform.I am confused. please help me.

I hope you very well know that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's Guru was an Advaitin. I feel that Chaitanya MahAprabhu did choose Bhakti path but he gave due credence to Advaita by his "Achintya-bheda-abheda" doctrine. This can be very emotional issue for some of the Vaishnava members here & so I won't like to go any further into that issue.

Very few people from Vaishnava school know that Bhagwad Gita propounds the Advaitic path too. I hate to discuss this with a confirmed Bhakta (as Advaita philosophy is not good for someone who is not spiritually ready) but as you have asked me, I would touch upon this subject a little. If you read Uttar Gita by Lord Krishna and some of the Upanishads (quite a good number) which are dedicated to Advaita, you will start believing that Advaita is the ultimate state where all have to reach.

Lord Krishna says in Uttar Gita :

"2.37Those that constantly chant the four Vedas and read other religious works and yet fail to realize "I am that Brahman", they are like the spoons that are used for every cooking operation, but yet remain without a single taste of the foods they prepare."

2.47. As an hungry person simply wastes his energy in vain when he strikes the air with blows for food, so also a reader of the Vedas and others Săstras simply wastes his time and energy, if, notwithstanding his study, he fails to realize that "I am Brahman".


I quote from your post "For a true Advaitin, there can be no discrimination on the basis of names and forms. What is there in form, the same is formless. These forms, formlessness, names and indescribable ... are all pastime of mind. These concepts have no real meaning in absolute sense." Would you please explain this.

God cannot have only one valid form .... in fact, he can also be worshiped as formless Brahman. All these forms have meaning only when there is mind ... beyond mind, there is no form or formlessness, names or namelessness. You have to go beyond mind to "know" what Reality is. The Infinite Consciousness which alone Is the ultimate Truth in the fourth state, is neither form, nor formlessness ... it is beyond all mental concepts. This Reality has four states, a) the waking state --- which is this manifest Universe with all beings, b) Dream --- which is subtle world of the dream and the subtle world before our birth and death c) The PrAjna state or God state d) The fourth state.

The third state of Brahman or Self is the third state of Self/Brahman and is the Lord of the first two states. We are in the first state. After death if bondage remains we shall be in the second state. These two states originate and dissolve back into the the third state or the God state. The God state is all powerful, all knowing and controller of all beings. This state of Self/Brahman is worshiped by people as Vishnu, Krishna, DurgA, Shiva, Jesus, AllAh etc. However, the Advaitin sees all those names and forms of God as the third state of Self ... and so there is no difference.

Prayer is important in Advaita SAdhanA too and so prayers are offered to God. However, an Advaitin's aim is to attain Turiya or the fourth state. Advaitin loves God ... he is not afraid of Him. He prays to God but doesn't beg ... he asks from God as a son asks something from his father. He sees God in all forms and even formlessness and everywhere ---> "Aham AtmAn GudAkesha SarvabhootAshya sthitah", "Sarvakhalvaidam Brahman". There is nothing which is devoid of God. It is God alone which is seen as any form/formless by our mind.

I don't think you should involve in all such discussions as your path doesn't allow JnAn yoga discussion.

OM

uttam
17 March 2012, 03:40 AM
Dear devotee
I thank you for sharing a little touch on advaita philosophy.I also salute you for acquiring so much command on advaita philosophy. I know very well in what sense Chaitanya Mahaprabu and his guru belong to advaita beliefs. I have not yet seen Uttara Gita nor have any idea about its content. Yes I do study Srimad Bhagavat Gita which is a part of Mahabharata.I do not know exactly when,where, why and by whom the others Gita were expounded. Actually after reading Srimad Bhagavat Gita , I do not feel it necessary to read any other Gita.Since you believe that Mahaprabhu also belongs to Advaita family , I like to present what is there in Chaitanya Charitamrita about advaita philosophy.
Adi lila -7th chapter
1) Mayabadi sannyasi in kasi told mahaprabhu,“ We are all happy to know that you are a devotee of Krishna but why do you avoid hearing vedanta sutra
what is the faults in it ?
2) After hearing this Mahaprabhu smiled and said to mayabadi sannyasi,” If you don’t mind I can say some thing about Vedanta philosophy”
3) Prabhu said, “ Vedanta philosophy is Iswar bachan (God’s speech) spoken by Sri Narayana in the form of vyasadeva”
4) Prabhu said, “ The defects like mistake (brahma),illusions (pramada),cheating ( vipralipsa), sensory inefficency ( karanapatava) do not exist in the words of the supreme God”
5) “The tattva which is described in upanisads and sutra is to be understood by its direct meaning ( mukhya vrittye) i.e.one must understand the verses as
they are.That is the ultimate glory in understanding .”
6) “Whatever commentary Acharya (sankaracharya ) made are all in terms of indirect/imaginery meanings ( gauna vrittye) and hearing such imaginery
commentary leads to destruction of all business i.e. one who hears such commentary is ruined.”
7) “ The direct meaning of the word ‘Brahma’ is bhagavan having all spiritual opulences . No one can be equal or greater than him”.
8) “ Everything about him ( bhagavan) is spiritual including his body and opulence. But mayabad ,covering his spiritual opulence, advocates the theory
of Impersonalism”
9) His body, his abode and his entourage are all spiritual but mayabadi says that there are all mere transformations of material mode of goodness ( prakrita
sattyer vikar)”
10 “ Mayabadi considers the transcendental body of Vishnu to be made of material (prakrita) nature which is the greatest offender at the lotus feet of
vishnu.There is no greater defaming against Vishnu”( Vishnu ninda)
11) “ Iswara tattva is like a great blazing fire ( jvalita jvalan) and the identity of jiva ( jiver swarup) is like small sparks of that fire( sphulingera kana)”
12) “ Jiva tattva is shakti (energy) and Krishna tattva is shaktiman( possessor of energy) and this is described in the Bhagavad Gita, Vishnu puran and otherscriptures”
13) “ The Mayabad philosophy is so degraded that it has taken the insignificant living entities (jiva tattva) to be the supreme ( para tattva) thus covering the glories of the supreme personality( srestha iswar mahattva)”
14) “ In his Vedanta sutra vyasadeva has described parinambad (transformation of the energy) but sankaracharya has misled the world by declaring that
vyasadeva was mistaken (vyasa-bhranta) . Thus he has raised opposition through out the world”
15) “According to sankaracharya, the supreme Lord himself is transformed in the parinambad ( theory of transformation of energy) . So by saying this he establishes vivartabad ( theory of illusion)
16) “Transformation of energy is a proven fact but the conception of self in the body( dehe atma-buddhi)is false that is an illusion”
17) “ Sri bhagavan possess of inconceivable energy or potency and by his inconceivable potency, he has transformed the material cosmic manifestation”
( achinta-sakti yukta sri bhagavan/icchaya jagat-rupe paya parinama)
18) “ using the example of a touchstone , which by its energy turns iron to gold and yet remains the same, we can umderstamd that although the supreme Lord transforms his innumberable energies,he remains unchanged”
19) “ Although a touchstone produces many varieties of jewels, it nevertheless remains the same. It does not change its original form”
20) “ If there is such inconceivable potency in material objects, why should we not believe in the inconceivable potency of the supreme Lord ?”
21) “ The basic principle of Vedas - Pranab (OMKARA) is the principal word( maha-vakya). This pranab(Omkara) is direcrt representation of supreme God (iswar-swarupa), the reservoir of all the universes(sarva-viswa-dham).
22) “ It is the purpose of the supreme Lord to present pranab ( Omkara) as the reservoir of all vedic knowledge whereas the words ‘tat tvam asi’ are only a partial explanation of vedic knowledge”
23) “ Covering Pranab ( Omkara) ,the mahavakya, mayabadi establishes ‘tat tvam asi’ as mahavakya( the principal word)
24) “ All the vedic sutras establish explanation of sri Krishna ( krishner avidhan)i.e. Lord Krishna to be understood but sanakaracharya made indirect explanation ( laksana vyakhyan) by covering the direct interpretation( mukhya vritti).
25) “ The self evident Vedas are the highest evidence of all but if the Vedas are interpretated ( laksana), their self evident –nature( swata-pramanata) is lost”
26) “ In this way by giving up the simple/direct meaning of the sutras,Mayabadi introdues indirect meaning(gauna-artha) based on their imagination”
27) the sannyasi told, “ We all know that the meaning of sutras made by acharaya is imaginery but for the sake our sampradaya we have to accept it”
28) “ Now let us see how well you can describe the sutras in terms of direct meaning (mukhya-artha), then mahaprabhu began his direct explanation”
29)” The substance which is greater than the greatest( brihad-vastu) is ‘Brahma’by name – we call sri bhagavan. He has full of six opulences and therefore he is the reservoir of absolute truth(para-tattva-dham)”
30) “ In his original form, he is full of transcendental opulences and is free from the contamination of material world(maya-gandha). It is to be understood that in all Vedas –bhagavan is the ultimate goal”
31) “ When we speak of the supreme as the impersonal(nirvisesa), we deny his spiritual potencies(chit-shakti). The whole can not be understood by accepting half of the truth ( ardha swarup na manile purnata haya hani)”
32) “ Relationship with supreme god( sambandha), activities in terms of that relationship( abhidheya) and the ultimate goal i.e. to develop love of god
( prayojana) –these three subjects are explained in every aphorism of the Vedanta –sutra,for they form the culmination of the entire Vedanta philosophy”

uttam
17 March 2012, 03:43 AM
Madhya lila-6th chapter
1)“ Vyas sutra artha( sutra compiled by vyasadeva) is as radiant as the sun
but swakalpita artha ( imaginery meaning by sankaracharya) simply covers that sun-shine with clouds”
2)“ The Vedas ,the Purans explain ‘Brahma’ as absolute truth(brihad- vastu,Iswar-laksana)”
3) “ The supreme personality of Godhead ( swayam bhagavan) is full with all opulences. You are trying to explain him as impersonal and formless”
4) “ Wherever there is an impersonal( nirvisesa) description in the Vedas , the Vedas mean to establish that everything belonging to supreme God is transcendental( aprakrita) and free of mundane characteristics( prakrita)”.
5) “ Everything in the cosmic manifestation( viswa) emanates from the ‘Brahma’, remains in the ‘Brahma’ and after annihilation it again enters the ‘Brahma’”
6) “ The personal features of bhagavan are categorized in three cases- namely ablative, instrumental and locative ( apadana,karana, adhikarana karak )”
7) “ When the bhagavan wished to become many, he glanced over the material energy( prakrita shaktite). Before the creation there were no mundane eyes or mind ( prakrita mano-nayana); therefore the transcendental mind and eyes ( aprakria netra-mana) of ‘Brahma’ is confirmed.”
8) “ The word ‘Brahma’ indicates purna swayam bhagavan and he is sri Krishna . This is revealed in all scriptures( sastra)”
9) “ The confidential meaning of Vedas ( veder nigudha artha) is not easily understood ; therefore that meaning is supplemented in the Puranas”
10) “ The vedic ‘ apani-pada’ mantra rejects material hands and legs ,yet it states that the Lord goes very fast and accepts everything offered to him”
11) “ Therefore sruti confirms that the ‘Brahma’ is personal(savisesa) but the mayabadi giving up the direct meaning interpretes him as impersonal (nirvesesa)”
12) “ How the supreme God( Brahma) ,whose transcendental form is complete with six opulences( sad-aiswarya-purnananda-vigraha) can be described as formless ( nirakara) ?”
13) “The ‘Brahma’ has three primary potencies. Are you trying to prove that he has no potencies?”
14) “ The supreme personality of godhead in his original form is full of eternity,knowledge and bliss. The spiritual potency in these three parts ( sat-chit-ananda) assumes three different forms”

15) “The three portions of the spiritual potency are called hladini (bliss),sandhini ( eternity) and samvit ( knowledge). We accept knowledge of these as full knowledge of ‘Brahma’”
16) “ The spiritual potency of supreme God also appears in three phases- internal( antaranga-chit shakti), marginal( tatastha-jiva shakti) and external ( bahiranga- maya). These three all engaged in his devotional service in love ( tine kare prema-bhakti)”
17) “ In his spiritual potency, the Lord enjoys six opulences. How dare you to reject his potencies ?”
18) “ The Lord is master of maya( mayadhisha) and jives are under maya ( maya-vasa). That is the difference between the Lord and the jives .How can you declare that the Lord and the living entities(jives) are one and the same ?”
19) In Bhagavat Gita the living entity( jives) is established as the marginal potency ( jiva rup shakti) of the supreme God. Yet you say that the jives is completely different from the Lord”
20) “ The transcendental form of the supreme god is complete in eternity, cognizance and bliss. However, you describe this transcendental form as a product of material goodness( sattva guner bikar)”
21) “ One who does not accept the sri brigraha ( transcendental form) of the Lord is certainly an agnostic. Such a person should be neither seen nor touched. Infact, he is subject to yamadanda (punished by Yamaraj)”
22) “ Vyasadeva presented Vedanta philosophy for the deliverance of jives but if one hears the commentary of sankaracharya ( mayavadi vashya) ,everything is spoiled”
23) “ The Vedanta sutra at establishing parinam-vada has come into being by the transformation of the inconceivable potency of supreme Lord”
24) “ The supreme Lord manifests himself as the cosmic manifestation by his inconceivable potency, yet he remains unchanged in his eternal, transcendental form”
25) “ Mayabad states that the supreme Lord is transformed. By accepting this theory, the mayabadi philosopher denigrate Vyasadeva by accusing him or error. Thus they find fault in the Vedanta sutra and interprete it to try to establish the theory of illusion”
26) “ The theory of illusion can be applied only when the jives identify himself with the body jiver dehe atma buddhi). So far as the cosmic manifestation (Jagat) is concerned, it can not be called false, although it is certainly temporary( naswar-matra)”

Now Chaitanya Charitamrita says the real storey of how this mayabad philosophy has come into being , what is the purpose behind this philosophy etc.
Mahaprabhu says ,” Actually there is no fault on the part of Sankaracharya. He simply carried out the order of the supreme God. He had to imagine some kind of interpretation and therefore he presented a kind of vedic scripture that is full of atheism.

PADMA PURANA -62.31( SIVAM PRATI SRI KRISHNA VAKYAM)
Swagamoi kalpitais-twam-cha janan mad-vimukhan kuru
Mam-cha gopaya yena syat sristir-esottaro

Sri krishna says ,”Shiva ¡ please make the people averse to me by imagining your own interpretation of the vedas and also cover me so that people will take more interest in material life just to propagate a population bereft of spiritual knowledge (sristi uttorottor briddhi) and addicted to fruitive activities and mental speculation.

PADMA PURANA - 25.7( DEVIM PRATI SRI SHIVAM VAKYAM)
Mayabadam asach-chastram prachhannam bauddham uchyate
Mayoiba vihitam devi kalau brahmana-murthina

Lord Shiva informed the Goddess Durga,” Hey devi Durge ¡ In the age of Kali I take the form of a brahmana( sankaracharya) and promote Mayabad philosophy ,a false scripture similar to Buddhist philosophy ( prachhanna bauddham)”

uttam
17 March 2012, 03:44 AM
I am surprised to think how the ultimate truth will be realised with the help of Mithya.The fact of the matter is Mithya will lead to a ultimate Mithya only instead of ultimate truth. I think before you take rope for a snake in a fading light , you have to have a prior knowledge of the real snake or I do not know why we remind of water in seeing mirage in the desert ? The ultimate truth is already there , now what will make difference if I do or do not try to know it . Will the ultimate truth do anything for me if I know him. Since the experiences in any of the states ( waking,dreaming deep sleeping) of truth is a kind of dream,illusion ,not real not unreal ( is there anything between ‘yes’ or ‘no’?)then, what shall I achieve by making spiritual journey through such false state of mind . I am telling you the biggest truth of this material world is ‘Death’ whether I try to know it or not , Death will definitely come to us. Think, how you go through one state(waking) and then discover it is illusion/false again go to another state(dreaming) and find it illusion/false and again go to next state( deep sleeping) and find it illusion/false and finally reach to Turiya state. In between you meet krishna ,Durga, Shiva and Ganesha and leave them as they are all discovered to be illusion , a false state of mind.The tragedy is after reaching in Turiya also you will not find the truth because the ultimate truth ,the Brahma is beyond any reach,any knowledge, any experience.It is inifinite it can not be described, defined and what not. You will be lost in a big space. What is the result of acquiring so much false knowledge ? Brahma is nitya nor jadam but to justify his status arguments are forwarded involving jada vastu.How nitya vastu can be justified by using jada vastu ? The total advaita philosopy is explained in terms of perception out of some examples. We born , we grow and we die . Are these all perception ? Perception subject to intellect. May be we are not having the required intellect to understand the reasoning of some the happeings of this world. Does it mean they are all false ?
Final question : Since the ultimate truth is Brahma and the world is appears to be real but actually not real then (1) will you please explain the status of mind which is part of unreal material world ? Is our Mind real or else (2) Except Brahma everything unreal . Sankaracharya is not Brahma . He is also unreal . He himself is a Mithya . Why not his conception , his philosophy is a false one ? 3) Brahma has no attributes . He or She is Nirguna, Nirvishes only real then who has given sankaracharya the intellect to expound the philosophy ?

devotee
17 March 2012, 04:41 AM
Namaste Uttam,



Mahaprabhu says ,” Actually there is no fault on the part of Sankaracharya. He simply carried out the order of the supreme God. He had to imagine some kind of interpretation and therefore he presented a kind of vedic scripture that is full of atheism.[/B]

PADMA PURANA -62.31( SIVAM PRATI SRI KRISHNA VAKYAM)
Swagamoi kalpitais-twam-cha janan mad-vimukhan kuru
Mam-cha gopaya yena syat sristir-esottaro

Sri krishna says ,”Shiva ¡ please make the people averse to me by imagining your own interpretation of the vedas and also cover me so that people will take more interest in material life just to propagate a population bereft of spiritual knowledge (sristi uttorottor briddhi) and addicted to fruitive activities and mental speculation.

PADMA PURANA - 25.7( DEVIM PRATI SRI SHIVAM VAKYAM)
Mayabadam asach-chastram prachhannam bauddham uchyate
Mayoiba vihitam devi kalau brahmana-murthina

Lord Shiva informed the Goddess Durga,” Hey devi Durge ¡ In the age of Kali I take the form of a brahmana( sankaracharya) and promote Mayabad philosophy ,a false scripture similar to Buddhist philosophy ( prachhanna bauddham)”

There is so much misinformation on Advaita Vedanta and there is so much hatred created by some people that I feel disgusted. The scriptures have been doctored to suit the interpretation some of the Vaishnvas wanted.

I would ask you to read the above passage carefully. A slight careful look at the passage will tell you that it is doctored. Buddha was born in 500 BC approx. So, as it names Buddha, it must have been written after Buddha. Again, it also mentions Sankaracharya. Shankaracharya was born in 8th Century AD, so it indicates that it must have been written after that.

Moreover, Shankaracharya didn't start the Advaitic philosophy. It was available much before Shankara :

a) His Param Guru, Gaudapad and his own Guru were Advaitins.
b) Ashtavakra Gita is one of the extreme Advaitic smriti and dates much before even Buddha, as far as I know. You may be aware that Ashtavakra is one of the ancient Gurus. He is mentioned in Mahabharata and must have been born before Lord Krishna.
c) Lord Krishna (Dwapar yuga) was born after RAma (TretA yuga). RAjA Janak mentioned in AshtAvakra Gita was was a confirmed Advaitin.
d) Lord Dattatreya was the son of Atri. He is the author of Tripur Rahasya and Avadhut Gita which are exclusively Advaitic scriptures.

So, historically, your support of Padma PurAna falls apart. If Padma PurAna is not doctored, the above cannot be true.

I have very high regard for Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Unfortunately, he didn't write any book himself. What we have today is some compilation of some conversations with him. This cannot be considered authentic. Moreover, I have a doubt that you are quoting ISKCON's version of Mahaprabhu's views. ISKCON is known for its hate-campaign against Advaita Vedanta. So, less said about ISKCON is better.

I would like to say to you only this. What should we believe in ? The Upanishads or the PurAnas ? Upanishads are Shruti and enjoy authority over the PurANas. PurAnAs or Smirtis are only as authentic as they are in conformity to Shruti.

OM

devotee
17 March 2012, 07:00 AM
Namaste Uttam,

I had to go for some urgent work and so I could not complete what I wanted to say in last post. So, continuing from there further :

In thread http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=9051 I have explained in detail what 'MAyA' means and in how many Upanishads MAyA word has been mentioned and the Advaita VedAnta as taught by Shankara is explained without any need for any interpretation. I would like that you should go through those Upanishads. All these Upanishads are main Upanishads mentioned in the list of 108 Upanishads of MuktikA Upanishad. So, clearly, this word cannot have its origin in mind of Shankara.

There are many Upanishads where the Advaita VedAnta as taught by Shankara is explained. Not only this, many smritis like Yoga Vashishtha, Avdhut Gita, AshtAvakra Gita talk of extreme of Advaita philosophy. So, Advaita VedAnta cannot have originated in the mind of Shankara.


Sri krishna says ,”Shiva ¡ please make the people averse to me by imagining your own interpretation of the vedas and also cover me so that people will take more interest in material life just to propagate a population bereft of spiritual knowledge (sristi uttorottor briddhi) and addicted to fruitive activities and mental speculation.

Nothing can be farther from the Truth ! Advaita VedAnta doesn't teach one to "Materialistic life" or "fruitive activities". Advaita VedAnta takes you away from Materialistic life. A Materialistic person can be a Vaishnava but he can't be an Advaitin. An Advaitin is taught to practise to keep his senses in control and turn his/her mind away from materialistic pleasures. So, this logic that Shankara was sent to teach Advaita VedAnta for making people materialistic is laughable and utterly ridiculous. Everyone knows how the PurANas were doctored to suit the interests of the Brahmins who wanted people to believe in the supremacy of Brahmins by caste. That is how killing of "Shambook" by Rama for doing penance was fabricated and the Manusmriti was doctored to make people believe in the caste system. If you read Shiva PurAna, it talks about supremacy of Shiva, if you read Sri Mad Bhagwat, it talks of supremacy of Vishnu, if you read Devi BhAgawat, it talks of supremacy of mother Goddess. So, which PurAna should one believe ? Who will say that this Purana is correct and the other is false ?

Finally, the Truth must be verifiable cutting across one's belief system, if it is really the Truth. Advaita is verified by many who never were taught be Shankara :

a) If you learn about MahAyAn Buddhism, you will note that though slightly different (Advaita VedAnta believes in God whereas Buddhism doesn't but believes in BuddhAhood which is akin to Turiya state), it does talk things similar to Advaita VedAnta using different terminology.

b) If you learn about Sufism, you will note that it actually talks of non-duality between the seeker and God as the final destination. I would like to quote Al-Mansoor-HallAz who declared, "An al Haque", meaning "I Am the Truth".

When one passes beyond this world and sees that Sovereign (God) without these 'veils,' then one will realize that all those things were 'veils' and 'coverings' and that what they were seeking was in reality that One."
c) Kashmir Shaivism as taught by Sri Abhinava GuptA is an Advaitic philosophy

"Oh Marvel! This illusion, although expressed in multiplicity, is no other than consciousness-without-a-second. Ha, all is but pure essence aware of itself."

d) Christianity : Jesus said, " I and my Father are One". Also, "Jesus said: "I" is the light (of awareness) that shines upon all things. "I" is the All from which everything emanates and to which everything returns." (Thomas, 186). There are many places in the Bible (New TestAment) which indicate towards non-duality.

e) Patanjali YogasutrAs (this is not a part of Advaita VedAnta) tells us that in SAmAdhi one experiences non-duality.

f) Ramana Maharishi was not from Advaita VedAnta school but he attained SamAdhi and experienced Non-duality and later on shared his thoughts which are similar to Advaita Vedanta

g) Sikhism : Holds the view of Advaita. Sikhism doesn't believe in Veda's supremacy and so has no relationship with Advaita VdAnta.

h) Jewish Tradition : Nonduality was unambiguously evident in the medieval Jewish textual tradition which peaked in Hasidism:

i) Taoism philosophy talks of non-duality

*********

Apart from above, Sri RAmkrishna Paramhansa who worshiped Goddess KAli i.e who was a dualist ultimately took dikshA under Advaitin SannyAsi and attained Non-duality. He experienced non-duality through Hinduism, Christianity and also IslAm.

So, I think there is something very very wrong in the false propaganda unleashed by some Vaishnava schools against Advaita VedAnta and Shankara.

OM

charitra
17 March 2012, 10:01 AM
Katha Upanishad II.ii.15: ‘ In that infinite Atman, the sun does not illumine, nor the moon, nor the stars, nor the lightsin our own households: that Light shines and, following It, these lights shine . Through that Light the whole universe is lighted.’

Bagavad Gita ChVIII.8.8: ‘With the mind not moving towards anything else, made steadfast by the metod of habitual meditation, and dwelling on the supreme Respondent Purusa, O Arjuna, one goes to Him.’

Speaking on the subject of ‘ The Absolute Manifestation’in London in 1896, Swami Vivekananda refers to the beneficent impact of this impersonal idea ofthe Advaita Vedanta on r eligion (ibid., p. 141) :

“ Another peculiarity of the Advaita System is that from its very start it isnon-destructive. This is another glory,the boldness to preach, “ Do not disturb the faith of any, even of those who through ignorance have attached to lower forms of worship”. That is what it says ‘do not disturb’, buthelp everyone to get higher and higher; just include all humanity.The philosophy preaches a god who issum total. If you seek a universal religion which can apply to everyone, that religion must not be composed of only parts, but it must always be their sum total and include all degrees of religious development’.

The above excerpts reminds us of the proclamation very early on in Rig VEda, the oldest religious scripture:

‘ Ekam Sat, Viprah Bahuda Vedanti.’ ( Truth is one, wise call it by many names). Ramakrishna himself worshipped only Kali . However, Ramakrishna maths and Vedanta centres always explain the Gita and praise its glory. Hinduism is the SumTotal of all sampradayas and their meeting point is Brahman. Krishna in Gita has explained nature of Brahman (Ch VIII) and directed us all towards realizing the Self or Atman. Interpretational confusions (of scripture) leads to possessiveness and as a result divisive schisms appear .- Namaste.

kallol
17 March 2012, 11:57 AM
With lots of concern again, I am finding that the wise contributors are getting into fight for supremacy of their belief.

Appreciate that different people will derive differently from the same TRUTH as per their "adhar" or capability. They translate that truth through the body (which definitely distorts the TRUTH) in their way to connect with the masses.

If some people want to study and analyse or try to understand a few scriptures, which they feel connected with, they are most welcome. If some people want free thinking to explore their way towards TRUTH that is also welcome (it has been the way in Hinduism like this). Some will have combination - also welcome.

Nothing is wrong - sharing knowledge, experiences, analysis and learning from them. Only part we need to refrain from is imposing and bring the EGO in front and thereby tend to be offensive.

I personally believe in reinventing, which anyway is required to assimilate and live the philosophy. Scriptural helps are welcome but again they are only guides - just like our books in schools and colleges. How brilliant one is comes out through his deeds and capabilities - which again is through complete assimilations and living the knowledge.

Sankara's philosophy being one topic - that might be a sub-section. Similarly for others.

devotee
19 March 2012, 01:10 AM
Namaste all,

I found this link which originally Saidevo ji had suggested to know better about Shankaracharya. I would like Uttam to read the content of this link carefully :

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/advaitin/message/14085

An excerpt copied from the above :


Within a few days, the Acharya reached Madhyarjuna, the famous Shaiva pilgrimage center. The Acharya was very happy to see the deity and worship him. Most scholars t that place were believers of mere rituals, as prescribed by the karma kanda. After the evening prayers, a big meeting was arranged on the temple courtyard. Hearing the
Acharya's flawless and rational exposition of the theory of Advaita and the self, most decided to accept the Acharya as their Guru. This greatly perturbed the scholars of that place who followed the karma kanda. Next day also, the Acharya seated in Siddhasana, making the Tatva Mudra in his hands, began to give discourses to the assembled people. All of them were listening to him in silence when one Brahmin from among the scholars stood up and said, " O revered sir, Our Madhyarjuna Shiva is a deity ever-awake to our prayers. We worship
and adore him. If we hear an express instruction from that Supreme Lord to the effect that the Advaita is correct, we shall all then accept it".

There was complete silence in the meeting. The Acharya went into a deep trance. His face expressed the calm of joyous communion with the Self. Awaking from meditation, the Acharya left his seat and went to the temple-door and knelt down in prayer, saying, " O Lord of Madhyarjuna, you indeed are the essence of all Upanishads. It is your glory that is proclaimed in the Vedas. You are the Lord of all Gods, you are All-knowing. Please reveal before all the truth that Advaita which is the main point of the Vedas is true and thus remove the doubts of all".

Even as the Acharya's prayers were over, a miraculous incident astonished everyone. The inside of the temple was bathed in a divine light and with it there was a voice from the heavens, deep and grave as the running clouds, saying, " Advaita is true, Advaita is True, Advaita is True". That sudden and unthinkable development overwhelmed all, taking their
very senses away. At this demonstration of the Acharya's supernatural powers, all were astounded and speechless with wonder, and rendered absolutely immobile. Everyone fully realized that the Lord of Madhyarjuna was ever-awake. Under the Acharya's influence the truth was revealed that the image that the local Brahmins were worshipping for so long with devotion was not a mere image. It was in fact a symbol of the Supreme Consciousness ever-awake. He listened to prayers and responded to the cries of the soul. The deep inner
meaning of image-worship was revealed through the Acharya.

OM

uttam
24 March 2012, 05:34 AM
Dear devotee

It is considered that the period of padma purana is before 7th century AD, most probably Padma purana was written during 6th century AD . Here in padma purana shiva said to Durga that he would appear as a brahman and propagate Mayabad which he did in the form of sankaracharya in 8 century AD. What is the wrong? Buddha came in 500 BC , now in 6th century AD if Mayabad is compared to Buddha ; what is the wrong ? Is not it after Buddha ? I am not agree with you to the point “The scriptures have been doctored to suit the interpretation some of the vaishnabas wanted”.

We know very well that Bhagavat Gita was spoken by Sri Krishna to Arjuna in the battle field of kurukshetra. But the fact is that Gita was not written by Sri Krishna . We have come to know all this happpenings from battle field through Sanjaya but he also did not write the Gita . I do not believe that some one else has heared the conversation between Krishna and Arjuna sitting in the battle field and wrote it there as it is . I believe that the contents of Gita was definetely spoken by Sri Krishna in different occasions before the battle took place and some one compiled and projected it in the Mahabharata as Gita . Again the very philosophy of Gita can be seen in upanishada also.But whatever we find in Gita , we take it granted that the philosophy was developed by Krihsna himself.

By giving this example ,I like to mention that although Advaita philosophy was not started by Sankaracharya but it has been shaped ,compiled and popularised among the masses by Sankaracharya only. This job was not done by other advaitin scholars before Sankaracharya.I believe that it is due to Sankaracharya that we are able to taste the advaita philosophy to a very little extent other wise it would have been quite impossible.Same thing happend in case of Gita also. The philosophy of Gita was already there in upanishada but we give credit to Sri Krishna for Gita jnan because he has played a big role for giving the philosophy a proper shape for better understanding of masses .In this sense Sanakaracharya is the founder of Advaita philosophy.

You should remember that Chaitanya Charitamrita was written by Krishna Das Kabiraj and the philosophy of chaitanya was put forward by all the well known vaisnabas like Swarup Damodar, Ramananda Rai ,Sri Rup Sri Sanatan Sri Raghunath Das Sri Jiva Goswami and Krishnadas Kabiraj and many more who enjoys very high regards. I think the word ‘authentic’ is not applicable in case of our scriptures also.
See ,from the point of view of translation of chaitanya charitamrita, some lines may look alike with that of ISKON version but so far chaitanya’s dharma is concerned , if I stand in the east, ISKON stands in the west. Regarding upanisadas or puranas, the choice may vary from person to person.

So far I have understood the sense of the sloka, Sri krishna wants that common people should not practice the true dharma. So a false philosophy is required to be introduced to destabilise the mindset of the people or to misguide the people . People are made confused by Mayabad . They can not decide what to be followed and what not They are made understood that every thing is illusion and nothing real in this sansar so that they are not directed towards Krishna to enjoy the transcendental pleasure rather they are directed to enjoy the material pleasure out of sansar and forget to follow the actual marg and get invloved in fruitive activities.If every body follows true dharma then there will be no wants ( kamana-vasana) and the creation (sristi) itself will be in danger.wants and fruitive activities are co-related. Advaita vedanta is such a philosophy which leads people to a situation beyond imagination , beyond any realization ,a goal which can not be defined ,experienced, touched or enjoyed or seen. Here no goal is fixed to be attained and whatever experienced are full of illusion. Neither a vaishnab nor a advaitin should have a materialistic goal. I know the goal of a vaishnab but I do not know the goal of a advaitin. In a limitless situation what can be the goal ? It is a vast sea of illusion and the only real is beyond experience. Therefore it is a misguiding philosophy. Sankaracharya was sent to mesmerize people by his Mayabad and take the attention of the people from sri krishna. Buddha rejected vedas and sankaracharya rejecting the actual explanation of vedas( Mukhya Vritti) establised a imaginery philosophy ( Gauna vritti). Both are same. You have also admitted this in your message. If you go on practising advaitabad, what will you achieve ? Can you realise or experience the Brahma at Turiya state? Your highest point is Turiya but here also you are helpless because Brahma is far away from you even in Turiya state.

It is surprising that the whole philosophy of Mayabad is explained in terms of some perception involving some examples only. Ghat-pat, snake-rope and mirage and gold and its ornaments are the pillars where this limitless building of advaitabad has been constructed. I requested you to explain the state of mind. Because ultimately it is mind which gives you the Turiya state but whether this mind is real or unreal or between real and unreal. I like to know what is mind ? you did not say anything.one basic question for you is for what purpose one should practice advaitabad ?what is the use of so much jnan or knowledge which does not lead to ultimate truth becasue the ultimate truth , the Brahma is beyond any reach or experience. The sun, The moon The great seas everything appears to be real actually they are unreal . The water you drink is also an illusion or bhrama.

uttam
24 March 2012, 05:38 AM
We are having 18 Puranas and I have doubt if Shiva purana is one of the 18 puranas or not.

You can not decide the correct subject because you are already misguided by Sankaracharya at the behest of krishna since you are a advaitin.( Please don’t mind ). Is the Brahma and the Allah same as far as their everything out of nothing concept is concerned ?

Finally you want me to read the content of the weblink given by saideoji on advaita philosophy. I quote from your message, “ O Lord of Madhyarjuna ………….. remove the doubts of all” – can you explain me how sankaracharya praying to Lord Madhyarjuna ? Can there be any Madhyarjuna God except Brahma ? Definitely this is his Bhrama or illusion otherwise how can Brahma have a form of Madhyarjuna ? It is a third state of his realisation before reaching Turiya and so it is a false state of mind only. Actually there is no Madhyarjuna God or anything like this .

“ Even as the Acharya’s prayers were over, a miraculous incident astonished everyone ………….Advaita is true”- I think this is an illusion . the outburst of the imagination of the state of mind. Because there is nothing to believe of any miraculous like happenings in this false world ( Mithya jagat). These all maya or mithya , a state of mind only . The only true is Brahma which is unthinkable ,unexperiencable,unlimited,undefined etc etc only uns and nons.

I have realised that you are following exactly the way what krishna wants. You mention Ramkrishnadev as a advaitin but I would like to tell that if I were with Ramkrishdev, I would have asked him whether his Kalimata is illusion or real.

uttam
24 March 2012, 06:18 AM
Dear kallol
I think there is no fight but exchange of views only. you have made a valuable remark that no one should bring the ego in front but I add that we all being simple human being can not escape from the clutch of ego etc. so a permissible amount of the salt or sour and much of the sweet will make the mixture tasty. The fact is that I respect your concern very much.

devotee
24 March 2012, 11:24 AM
Namaste Uttam,



It is considered that the period of padma purana is before 7th century AD, most probably Padma purana was written during 6th century AD . Here in padma purana shiva said to Durga that he would appear as a brahman and propagate Mayabad which he did in the form of sankaracharya in 8 century AD. What is the wrong? Buddha came in 500 BC , now in 6th century AD if Mayabad is compared to Buddha ; what is the wrong ? Is not it after Buddha ? I am not agree with you to the point “The scriptures have been doctored to suit the interpretation some of the vaishnabas wanted”.

We know very well that Bhagavat Gita was spoken by Sri Krishna to Arjuna in the battle field of kurukshetra. But the fact is that Gita was not written by Sri Krishna . We have come to know all this happpenings from battle field through Sanjaya but he also did not write the Gita . I do not believe that some one else has heared the conversation between Krishna and Arjuna sitting in the battle field and wrote it there as it is . I believe that the contents of Gita was definetely spoken by Sri Krishna in different occasions before the battle took place and some one compiled and projected it in the Mahabharata as Gita . Again the very philosophy of Gita can be seen in upanishada also.But whatever we find in Gita , we take it granted that the philosophy was developed by Krihsna himself.

By giving this example ,I like to mention that although Advaita philosophy was not started by Sankaracharya but it has been shaped ,compiled and popularised among the masses by Sankaracharya only. This job was not done by other advaitin scholars before Sankaracharya.I believe that it is due to Sankaracharya that we are able to taste the advaita philosophy to a very little extent other wise it would have been quite impossible.Same thing happend in case of Gita also. The philosophy of Gita was already there in upanishada but we give credit to Sri Krishna for Gita jnan because he has played a big role for giving the philosophy a proper shape for better understanding of masses .In this sense Sanakaracharya is the founder of Advaita philosophy.

You should remember that Chaitanya Charitamrita was written by Krishna Das Kabiraj and the philosophy of chaitanya was put forward by all the well known vaisnabas like Swarup Damodar, Ramananda Rai ,Sri Rup Sri Sanatan Sri Raghunath Das Sri Jiva Goswami and Krishnadas Kabiraj and many more who enjoys very high regards. I think the word ‘authentic’ is not applicable in case of our scriptures also.
See ,from the point of view of translation of chaitanya charitamrita, some lines may look alike with that of ISKON version but so far chaitanya’s dharma is concerned , if I stand in the east, ISKON stands in the west. Regarding upanisadas or puranas, the choice may vary from person to person.

So far I have understood the sense of the sloka, Sri krishna wants that common people should not practice the true dharma. So a false philosophy is required to be introduced to destabilise the mindset of the people or to misguide the people . People are made confused by Mayabad . They can not decide what to be followed and what not They are made understood that every thing is illusion and nothing real in this sansar so that they are not directed towards Krishna to enjoy the transcendental pleasure rather they are directed to enjoy the material pleasure out of sansar and forget to follow the actual marg and get invloved in fruitive activities.If every body follows true dharma then there will be no wants ( kamana-vasana) and the creation (sristi) itself will be in danger.wants and fruitive activities are co-related. Advaita vedanta is such a philosophy which leads people to a situation beyond imagination , beyond any realization ,a goal which can not be defined ,experienced, touched or enjoyed or seen. Here no goal is fixed to be attained and whatever experienced are full of illusion. Neither a vaishnab nor a advaitin should have a materialistic goal. I know the goal of a vaishnab but I do not know the goal of a advaitin. In a limitless situation what can be the goal ? It is a vast sea of illusion and the only real is beyond experience. Therefore it is a misguiding philosophy. Sankaracharya was sent to mesmerize people by his Mayabad and take the attention of the people from sri krishna. Buddha rejected vedas and sankaracharya rejecting the actual explanation of vedas( Mukhya Vritti) establised a imaginery philosophy ( Gauna vritti). Both are same. You have also admitted this in your message. If you go on practising advaitabad, what will you achieve ? Can you realise or experience the Brahma at Turiya state? Your highest point is Turiya but here also you are helpless because Brahma is far away from you even in Turiya state.

It is surprising that the whole philosophy of Mayabad is explained in terms of some perception involving some examples only. Ghat-pat, snake-rope and mirage and gold and its ornaments are the pillars where this limitless building of advaitabad has been constructed. I requested you to explain the state of mind. Because ultimately it is mind which gives you the Turiya state but whether this mind is real or unreal or between real and unreal. I like to know what is mind ? you did not say anything.one basic question for you is for what purpose one should practice advaitabad ?what is the use of so much jnan or knowledge which does not lead to ultimate truth becasue the ultimate truth , the Brahma is beyond any reach or experience. The sun, The moon The great seas everything appears to be real actually they are unreal . The water you drink is also an illusion or bhrama.

1. I have understood your status. Advaita philosophy is not for everyone. You won't be able to understand it. Moreover, why bother when it is not your path. You may try reading threads, "Aham BrahmAsmi", "Aham BrahAsmi-2", "Uttar Gita", "Aham Brahmasmi-4" etc. in Advaita forums. However, I doubt, if it helps unless you set aside your strong bias against Advaita.

2. You cannot prove anything by quoting a PurANa or Chaitanya Charitamrit if they are against VedAnta. Why ? PurANa has the lowest authority among scriptures due to their susceptibility to manipulations. Chaitanya Charitamrit has no authority at all. It has no locus standi to refute VedAnta.

You are rejecting Uttar Gita, a number of Advaitic Upanishads, Avdhoot Gita, AshtAvakra Gita, Yoga Vashishtha ... to defend what is written in Padma Purana. You are not even accepting Shiva Purana and Devi Bhagwad. Why do you think that you (Vaishnavas) alone are right and all others are wrong ? Why not it is the other way round ? The truth is that you have hardly any support of scriptures to stand on, if you can correctly see.

3. My advice to you is : Please rest assured. The Advaita is the Truth ... there is no doubt as it has been experienced by the seekers as has been stated in the VedAnta. The Padma PurANa is certainly doctored. Can you believe that God Himself would do something to misguide the Truth seekers ... moreover when the sinners are left out ? Whether the Advaitins are misguided or not, they are rejecting the worldly pleasures and pains ... so God's purpose of saving the "creation" cannot be served by misguiding the Advaitins.

Believe me, it is all canard and nothing else.

Please leave Advaita. It is not your cup of tea. Why don't you concentrate on your bhajans and kirtans ? May be, by God's grace, in one of the future births you will be eligible for Advaita philosophy. Till then, let's depart and tread on our paths sincerely.

OM

Sahasranama
24 March 2012, 11:51 AM
In the 'Relevance of Religion' thread started by kallol, I gave the following link:
Globalizing Hinduism: A 'Traditional Guru' and Modern Businessmen in Chennai
http://www.jnu.ac.in/Academics/Schools/SchoolOfSocialSciences/CSSS/GSP/SummerSchoolStudyProgramme/10-Globalizing%20Hinduism.pdf (http://www.jnu.ac.in/Academics/Schools/SchoolOfSocialSciences/CSSS/GSP/SummerSchoolStudyProgramme/10-Globalizing%20Hinduism.pdf)

This report states as follows about the teachings of SvAmi DayAnanda sarasvatI, perceived to be a 'traditional' Hindu guru:



I have not read the entire ebook in the link, but after browsing through it, it is pretty clear that the authors of it are very biased against Hindu politics. Swami Dayananda of the Arsha Vidya Gurukula is someone who has very strong opinions about Hindu politics and is very outspoken about it, that explains why these authors have an axe to grind with him.

uttam
24 March 2012, 02:02 PM
Dear devotee

Hold on and cool down . Your anger will not serve the purpose. So cool down and think what wrong I have said. If you can try to understand vaishnab dharma and even dare to call chaitanya mahaprabhu and his guru a advaitin then why I can not try to understand your advaita philosophy . who has given you the permission to express your viewes in vaishnab threads ? Being a advaitin you are not welcome in vaishnab association because vaishnab rejects Mayabad and accepts prem bhakti and believe that Sri Krishna is the supreme God with all his opulences and you should remember this lakshman rekha . I think you do not have any answers to my questions. can you think your parents are all false, a state of mind only. They are not real. Can you think the sun shines every day is false. Can you think the baby cries for food is a false state of mind and nothing real . what is the use of such jnan which can not help one to experience the ultimate truth. I agree that in a fading light one may take a rope to be a snake . does this mean that everything in this world appears to be real but actually they are all false , only a state of mind a big dhoka.Definitely I am not interested in such a philosophy where laughing, crying, loving eating seeing everything become false.

Is your mind a false or illusion . How do you think with the help of this false mind ? Being yourself a big Mithya ,how you treat yourself a truth seeker ?

In my post I have asked you so many questions . instead of giving suitable reply you are giving me advice. You can not avoid me by giving some advice only. You have to answer my questions. You are a truth seeker. Which truth you are talking of. Your ultimate truth , the Brahma is beyond any reach , any experience . You can not experience him ever.

devotee
24 March 2012, 07:57 PM
Namaste Uttam,



Hold on and cool down . Your anger will not serve the purpose. So cool down and think what wrong I have said.

From which post do you draw this conclusion that I was angry ? The way you are calling Advaita false and God-like saint, Shankaracharya as the person who taught false doctrrine, I should have lost my temper, but I didn't. I have not tried to denigrate Vaishnava or your revered teachers.


If you can try to understand vaishnab dharma

Please hold on. I know Vaishnavism much better than you or anyone here. So, I don't have to learn it. From my signature you must be aware by now that I am a devotee of Lord Krishna ... earlier my path was Bhakti and now it is Advaita.


and even dare to call chaitanya mahaprabhu and his guru a advaitin then why I can not try to understand your advaita philosophy

I am not "daring" ... I am stating the fact. Chaitanya MahAprabhu's Guru was an Advaitin. How can this be refuted ? Please don't start with this, "I believe that ....". Your beliefs have no value over what the fact is. Please also don't say that, "Chaitanya MahAprabhu" did it for abusing Advaita later on. I hope Chaitanya MahAprabhu was very much aware of what the position of a Guru is and he would never have liked to set a bad example to the world by abusing his own Guru.


who has given you the permission to express your viewes in vaishnab threads ?

I hope you are not drinking and then writing on this forum. Is this a Vaishnava thread ?


Being a advaitin you are not welcome in vaishnab association because vaishnab rejects Mayabad and accepts prem bhakti and believe that Sri Krishna is the supreme God with all his opulences and you should remember this lakshman rekha .

Who are you to decide where I am welcome or not ? The Gaudia sect is not the only Vaishnava sect. Except this sect, no other Vaishnava sect believes that Advaita is wrong. I know a God-realised Vaishnava saint here in Varanasi ... if you talk to him on the highest Truth ... he will talk on Advaita alone. Why ?


I think you do not have any answers to my questions.

You think too much. Please allow others to think and listen what the others say for a meaningful dialogue. Your questions are so stupid that I don't consider them fit enough to be answered. You have absolutely no idea what Advaita VedAnta says or is. How can I engage you in a discussion on a subject when I gather from your posts that you are completely ignorant on that subject ?


can you think your parents are all false, a state of mind only. They are not real.

First of all, you should learn how to behave when discussing. You are a man of 45 years of age and I expect that you understand that dragging parents into a discussion like this will only create bad blood. You should never reach the parents unless you want to attract abusive behaviour from other side too. However, I forgive you for doing that. I won't drag your parents here.


Can you think the sun shines every day is false. Can you think the baby cries for food is a false state of mind and nothing real.

What shall I tell you when you are at such a lower state of spirituality ? My dear friend, the "real" or "unreal" are all mental concepts. The things that you talk of, like my parents, the Sun or God-form to whom Adi Shankaracharya prayed to are illusion from Turiya state alone and not from any other state. If you have any idea of Advaita VedAnta, you must be aware of VyAvhArika Satyama and ParamArthika Satyam that Advaita Guru Shankara talked about. You must be very careful from what state you are trying to see. You are in the waking state of reality and therefore, from your status, the Sun, your parents and the God-form that you worship are all real. Baby, food, cries and mind are all in waking state & therefore everything within that state is real for the other. However, if you look from Turiya state, it is all illusion.


what is the use of such jnan which can not help one to experience the ultimate truth.

JnAn is experiencing the Ultimate Truth by definition. You must cool down to understand the basic concepts of JnAn mArga. You don't know even the abc of jnAn mArga and that is why you talk the way you do.


I agree that in a fading light one may take a rope to be a snake . does this mean that everything in this world appears to be real but actually they are all false , only a state of mind a big dhoka.Definitely I am not interested in such a philosophy where laughing, crying, loving eating seeing everything become false.

That is why Bhakti-yoga is suitable for you, my friend. Understanding Advaita VedAnta is like understanding Quantum Mechanics. It is not for everyone.


Is your mind a false or illusion . How do you think with the help of this false mind ? Being yourself a big Mithya ,how you treat yourself a truth seeker ?

First of all, you have no idea of what Mind is ? Mind is Self-looking-outward. Mind creates this world. Again, if you are able to understand that Mithya or Real depends upon the state from what you look at, you will agree that your question is stupid and needs no answer.


In my post I have asked you so many questions . instead of giving suitable reply you are giving me advice.

You have asked so many unintelligent questions, I know. It would lead us to nowhere. Can you teach Quantum Mechanics to a boy who has not read even Class-VIII's physics ?


You can not avoid me by giving some advice only. You have to answer my questions.

1. You will have to first stop wasting your energy in crying hoarse that "Advaita is a false philosophy". Unless you do that you won't be able to concentrate on what is being offered.

2. Read the threads I have suggested in my previous posts before a discussion on Advaita as your basic knowledge on Advaita is extremely poor. By reading those threads you will be in a better position to understand what I will say when I answer your questions.


You are a truth seeker. Which truth you are talking of. Your ultimate truth , the Brahma is beyond any reach , any experience . You can not experience him ever.

You are making noise like a child and asserting what you should not. Calm down. Advaita is the Ultimate Truth. However, it is not for everyone.

OM

devotee
24 March 2012, 08:37 PM
Namaste Uttam,

You are relying too much on the lowest scriptural authority and on Chaitanya CharitAmrit which has no authority. I will ask you to find answers to these questions :

a) You say that Padma PurAN was written in 6th centtry AD but it doesn't affect its authenticity. See, 6th Century is historic age i.e. we have written and documented history available. Now, if Padma PurAN was written in 6th Century AD as you assert, to whom was it revealed ? Was he (the writer of Padma PurAN) born in 6th century AD ? It is supposed to be written by VedvyAs. Was VedvyAs born in the 6th century ?

In fact, the historians believe that this PurANa was written/manipulated between 8th and 11th century, may be much after the Shankara's period.

b) Let's assume that God decided to misguide people so that this SamsAra continues. This shows that during the time when this PurANa was revealed or earlier than that when the God had this idea ... the dharma must be on peak so much so that almost every being was on the verge of attaining moksha and continuance of this SamsAsara was threatened. Was 6th century AD the peak of the Dharma ? If that was so, then 6th century AD must be Sat-yuga. Then all talk of Kali-yuga starting much earlier must be false ! Or did God try to misguide the hapless people in dark kailyuga when they were already in the blinding darkness by the effect of Kaliyuga ? If he did so, is He a compassionate God or an evil God ? If He really did do, He must be an evil God i.e. his act is unbecoming of a God.

c) Let's accept that Shankara was an incarnation to misguide people to keep people in SamsAr by making them attached to worldly pleasures as you say. I hope you are talking only about India as Vaishnavism was not much known outside India at that time and therefore all people who were not Indian or not-vaishnavas were already deluded and doomed to continue in the cycles of births and deaths. So, God must be worried only about people who had natural inclination of becoming a Vaishnava which he didn't want. What percentage of such people would be there ? What was the percentage of Vaishanavas in 6th century AD and how many non-vaishnavas had the potential of becoming a Vaishnava who must be misguided to save this world from destruction ????

d) ... and finally, what would it achieve ? Advaitins normally follow the YamA-Niyama and other limbs of Yoga. So, Advaitins are hardly attracted to the attractions of this world. So, instead of being deluded and getting attached to SamAsara they go away from SamsAra ? Was God a fool to design something which failed utterly to achieve its result ?

... But I have doubts you will try to see anything in real perspective. You are happy with your two books which are alone the Truth for you. I have no issues with that.

I have objection to your not-so-civilsed way of attacking Advaita and its Gurus. So, please concentrate on your bhajans and kirtans. You absolutely have no idea what you are saying. You are not in a position to believe in what the Truth is .... you want to have Truth which conforms to your beliefs. Sadly, you can't have the Truth by making yourself blindfolded. So, Truth is not for you. :)

OM

devotee
24 March 2012, 08:50 PM
Shiva PurANa

It is supposed to be written by VedvyAs. It says :


Lord Vishnu, with Goddess Lakshmi (Ramaa) worshipped Lord Shiva. With the
kindness of the supreme God, all desired were indeed fulfilled.
Even though I am the ancestor (of all humans), I am a worshipper of Lord Shiva. Son, only with his grace/kindness am I always the creator of the universe.

This whole chapter gives plenty of examples of incarnations of Lord Vishnu, great sages, great kings, all of whom worshipped Lord Shiva.


Lord Shiva said (to Lord Vishnu)

Lord Vishnu, you will have my imperishable/permanent devotion always. Become worshippable and praised by the world and even the Devas.
Best of the Devas, your (one more) great name will be Vishvambhara, which can take away all sins, no doubt, because of my good wish.


Lord Vishnu said (to God)

What do I have to say in front of you (when) you who knows everything from inside people's minds/hearts/souls is here? Still, Lord, for the pride/respect of your order, it will be said.
Lord Shiva, the world is suffering from the Daitya demons, and we have no happiness. My Lord, there exists no weapon of my own for killing the Daityas.
What do I do? Where do I go? There is no greater protector of mine (than you). Therefore, supreme God, I have come to your refuge.

So, who is the Supreme God ?

OM

kallol
24 March 2012, 10:17 PM
To understand the evolution of philosophy in terms of religion one has to simulate the societies at different point of time in history and also the "adhar" of the person presenting the knowledge in terms of religion or theories.

The same can be corroborated by studying and analysing in depth the history and the advances in scientific knowledge during the different periods.

1. In terms of physical scientific capabilities, it has been a gradual process. Today we are at certain level of understanding and in another 1000 years we will be at another. So on. The time during which the great theories of Sanatana Dharma was evolved, the physical science was at best rudimentary.

However the physical science is only proving certain theories which are already there in potential forms. Scientists are only rediscovering those. Again those are, till present, limited by our perceptions through the 5 senses. These 5 senses are the limiting factor for almost all human.

2. The mind has capabilities to discover beyond the 5 senses. The capable people could think the theories much before the time, though at much macro level.
This is what has happened in the 10s of thousands of years. When there was no scientific means to prove or understand any phenomenon, mind was the only search engine, which became powerful.

Imagine the twin star (arundhati ...), Indians are encouraged to look at after marriage. Without telescope, how did the saints know it is a twin star and not only that but that twin star rotate about one another (and not, one rotating about the other, which is common). The capability of mind was highly enhanced in the absence of, so called, scientific knowledge.

3. In the search of life and creation or self, the mind (s) of most of the great saints had gone through the same experience and revelations. That is why, inspite of variations, the basic philosopy remains same.

Now these people are also scientists but at mental level. We call people nurturing with physical systems in the labs as scientists but these people did the same at mental level. As this is what was possible, they did achieve much of the science, long before the physical science. These mental scientists are also known as Saints.

4. Now once the saints realized the TRUTH (now different saints achieve different levels of revelations depending on their individual capabilities and perseverance), they now need to take the TRUTH to the people.

Here lies the challenge. Most of the general mass is dumb in terms of science and logics. These constraints posed the challanges to the saints to make the highest scientific knowledge palatable and adoptable.

Even now talk about that everything is out of consciousness, that mind is a subtle matter, that these are all interlinked, that there are cycles of birth at all levels, etc - people will laugh at. Even with such level of scientific advances, people are not able to appreciate, the challenge was much higher in those days.

Only a few people earlier (a bit more now a days) had the capabilities to probe deep, had inquisitive minds, etc.

The science of Life and creation, what we term as Sanatana Dharama (Eternal knowledge), is the highest knowledge, knowing which all other sciences are known.

Next they also derived how the different layers of existence influence each other. Next they derived what is required to be in sync or alignment with the different layers to induce positivity.

However taking them to masses was the toughest task.

That is why different wise people took different paths to go to the masses. However the society also is highly fragmented into different capability segments. Thus different segments of the society latched on to what suits them.

Thus we have at the highest level "Knowledge or Gyana Yoga" and then "Karma yoga", "Bhakti yoga", etc. People start with temples (bhakti), rituals (karmas) and then to knowledge part. Bhakti part is the base for all and it qualitatively it increases as one moves forward. Initially it is Bhakti only, then Bhakti and Karma , thereafter it is Bhakti, niskama Karma and Gyana.

The most inquisitive minds (which are few) will go by advaita - which is more science oriented. These section looks for logics, knowledge, analysis and also in the path discovers the whole (or part) theory again. Even this part is partly camoflaged with the limitations of the people who had jotted them (further down in time).

Less inquisitive minds will go by dvaita - where through the belief that there is some supreme (sitting somewhere in baikuntha), he will tune his mind to believing whatever is there in the scriptures he is taught or otherwise is true. His life will be fully bhakti and ritualistic, and there will be lots of "go"s and "no go"s. This part was evolved to introduce a scare in the hearts of ordinary people i.e. there is someone powerful (omnipotent, omnipresent, etc) watching us always.

Most other people will be in between and some beyond these.

So the discussions are being held by different people of different capabilities. All are right with respect to their position in the path. There is no one superior or inferior. I started late and some one started earlier, I had different constraints and others have different, so the positions of each will be different. Let us appreciate this fact and move on.

I am not here to impose my ideas on others. Neither I will be immediately able to adapt to other's ideas (if out of my band of understanding). It is evolution happening slowly and steadily.

It is so good that we can learn from each other so much - that itself is so much to gain.

devotee
25 March 2012, 12:11 AM
The position of Lord Shiva and Advaita philosophy in Padma PurANa

When the Gaudiya sect says that Shiva is a demi-God and quotes Padma PurANa as the authority to buttress their point that "Lord Vishnu" is Supreme God. They forget to see what is written in Shiva Gita which is part of Padma PurANa. I would like to post here this excerpt from Shiva Gita :

Chapter VII – Vision of the Cosmic Form

Rāma said:

What was asked by me, O all-pervasive Lord, that stands as such. Here, an answer was not received from You by me at all, O great Lord! 1
Your body, O Lord – being of limited measure – how is it the origination of all beings, their maintenance and dissolution? 2 How are the Deities bound to their respective duties stationed in You? How is it that all of them are one with You? How is it that the fourteen worlds (are one with You)? 3 O Lord! Even after hearing it from You, there is a great doubt in me. You must deign to dispel the doubt in my mind which suffers from incomprehension. 4

The Lord said:

Though the seed of the banyan tree is very tiny, the huge banyan tree always existed in it. Otherwise, how can that tree come out of that seed? 5 Similarly, O Rāma, the origination and dissolution of the beings take place in My body. Even a large mass of salt easily dissolves in water and is no more visible, but when (that water is) boiled that salt appears as before. 6 Just as light emanates every dawn from the solar sphere, similarly all the universe originates from Me, exists and then merges in Me. Everything is in Me. O Rāma of noble resolves! Know it thus. 7

Rāma said:

O great Lord! Just as for a person confused regarding directions, the confusion is not removed even when correctly informed, similar is my delusion. What shall I do? 8

The Lord said:

O Rāma! I will show you how all this, the moving and the unmoving beings of the world subsist in Me. But you will not be able to see this. O son of Daśaratha, I will endow you with divine vision. Through that, shedding all fears, behold the expanse of everlasting luminosity of Mine. 9-10 My majesty cannot be perceived through physical eyes either by human beings or by celestial beings without My grace. 11

Suta said:

Having said thus, the Lord blessed him (Rāma) with divine vision. Then he (Rāma) saw the form of the Lord resembling subterranean fire. 12 Seeing that (form) luminous like millions of lightening flashes and striking intense terror even among the brave, Rāma in sheer fright, collapsed on his knees to the ground. Rāma, the dauntless hero, fell prostrate on the ground and again and again praising (the Lord) then rising, looked as far as he could. Rāma saw the form of the Lord, the Destroyer of Tripura, with sidereal universes inside it looking like she-sparrows, in constellations of luminous blaze. 13-15

He saw (within the form of the Lord) the mountains like Meru, Mandara and Vindhyā, the seven seas, the sun and the moon, the Gods and the five elements. 16 The son of Daśaratha beheld the forests, the holy mountains, the fourteen worlds and the entire cosmic expanse. He saw the battles between the Devas and the Asuras; those born and yet to be born; the ten incarnations of Viṣṇu and the His sports in those incarnations. 17

O dvijas, He saw the defeat of the Devas, the burning of Tripura and the extinction of all that is born and yet to be born. Beholding all this, Rāma filled with fear, prostrated again and again. (At this point) true wisdom dawned on Raghunandana (Rāma), and he extolled Śankara with meaningful hymns that contain the very essence of the Upanishads18-21

Rāma said:

O Lord! The Destroyer of distress of those who take refuge in You! Be gracious! Be gracious! O Lord of the universe! O, Thou worshipped by the Universe! Be gracious! Thou the Bearer of the Ganges, with moon adorning Your crest! Protect me, helpless as I am, from the fear of births and deaths. 22 O Lord! This world, indeed, is born only from You, in You alone the created beings live always, O Śambhu! Into You alone they undergo merger, just like trees and creepers into the earth. 23

O Wielder of the trident! Brahmā, Indra and Rudra, the Maruts, the Gandharvas, the Yakṣas, Asuras, the community of Siddhas, rivers like the Ganges, the oceans, all of them live in the midst of Your person. O Moon-crested One! Everything is illusorily projected by Your māyā. In You alone, the universe attains perceptibility. All this is perceived by the common people mistakenly (as real), just as silver is seen in a seashell or a rope is mistaken for a snake. 24-25
Filling the entire universe with Your splendour, manifesting things by Your own resplendence, O God of Gods, without Your light, this universe cannot be perceived even for a moment. 26

Great things do not rest on flimsy support. One single atom cannot support the Vindhyā mountains. This universe rests on Your person through Your māyā alone. I am convinced now about this. 27

Just as a fear-causing snake appearing in the rope has not really come into being, nor exists, nor undergoes destruction, similarly is the universe too taking shape in You, through that sheer māyā of Yours, O Nilakaṇṭha. 28


When it is enquired as to Your body assuming the nature of being, the very basis for the world of manifestation, that itself is seen to be certainly due to my ignorance. Thou art wholly the nature of Consciousness and Bliss. 29

O Destroyer of Tripura, Thou alone, being praised, bestow upon the enjoyers the fruits of the eminently meritorious acts, performance of Vedic sacrifices and charitable acts. But even this statement is not fully true because there is nothing different from You at all. 30

The Sages declare those as deluded by ignorance who mistakenly think that Śiva, Lord of the Himālayas, is pleased by external acts of worship and services. How can there be any desire for pleasure for one who is formless? 31



O Supreme Lord! Even the sovereignty of all the three worlds, You bestow as a reward on those people who offer You a leaf or a little water. I deem it all as the work of ignorance. 32


You pervade all the quarters and the intermediate directions. Thou art the universe, secondless, the infinite and the eternal. Even when this universe become extinct, there is no loss to You, just as there is no detriment to space (within a pot), when the pot is broken. 33


Just as the one, single Sun in the sky gets its many reflections in various vessels of water, so Thou, O Lord, art (variously) reflected in different minds. 34


There is nothing to be done by You even when the world is created, protected and dissolved. Even then, You bestow heaven etc. on the souls beginninglessly embodied according to their mortal fruits. It all happens as in a dream. 35

O Śambhu! For the two inert bodies, the subtle (sūkṣma) and the gross (sthūla) there could be no consciousness without the Self. Therefore, the scriptures, O enemy of Tripura, speak of pleasure and pain experienced through Your reflection in them. 36

Prostrations to Thee, O Swan in the ocean of Existence and Consciousness; prostrations to Thee, O Blue-Throated One, the very form of Time; prostrations to Thee, the Destroyer of all sins; prostrations to Thee, the one (witness) experiencer of the functions of the mind, which after all is illusory. 37

Suta said:

Prostrating thus before the Lord of the universe, standing with folded hands before Him, the over-awed Rāma praised the supreme Lord in so many words. 38

Rāma said:

O Self of the universe! Withdraw this cosmic form of Yours. By Thy grace, O Śambhu, the ocean of the world (of existence) has been seen (by me). 39

The Lord said:
O Rāma, the mighty-armed! There is nothing other than I.


Suta said:
Saying thus, the Lord withdrew the Gods and the other (forms) into His own form. 40 Closing his eyes in sheer delight, Rāma again opened his eyes and saw the Lord standing over the tiger-skin on the crest of the (Himālaya) mountain. Rāma saw Lord Nilakaṇṭha with three eyes and five faces, donning the tiger skin, His person adorned with sacred ash, wearing the serpents as His bracelets and sacred thread, wearing matted locks, blazing like lightening. (He saw) the One, the Lord of the universe, with moon on His crest, the supremely adorable, assuring freedom from fear, with four arms, holding a battle-axe, with a deer in one hand. 41-44 Then prostrating, Rāma, at the Lord’s command, sat in front of Him. Then, the God of Gods told Rāma, “Whatever you want to ask, O Rāma, you can ask of Me. There is no preceptor for you other than I.” 45
Thus ends the seventh chapter called the Vision of the Cosmic Form in the form of a dialogue between Śiva and Rāma in the Śiva-Gītā an upaniṣad delivering Brahma-vidyā, and a yoga śāstra occurring in the Padma Purāṇa.


Is it difficult to find Advaitic verses above or the verses which depict Lord Shiva as the Supreme God ?

So, where does Gaudiya Sect's false propaganda against Lord Shiva and Advaita stand ?

OM

Sahasranama
25 March 2012, 02:05 AM
Respected Moderators and Members,

Sub: A Kind request

We would only be doing justice to our ancient Acaryas, especially the Classical Gurus like Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhava, when we are able to speak up their doctrines with its exact terminologies. Its relevance depends on the nature of the ‘frames of reference’ or Prakarana being discussed.

For methodological requirements and for the sake of philosophy, these Gurus have developed their own terminologies, theological supports, applied academic abstractions, which must not be mixed up pedantically by careful students. Thus, their goal being one, the point of method and the theory of knowledge adopted stand distinctly separate from the other.

If an aspirant to wisdom feels he has not understood the content of a particular literary genre, the author is not to be blamed, nor should one regard the aspects given to be of wrong order. This could simply be the result of a limited understating or lack of interest shown by the reader regarding the concerned ‘frame of reference’ of knowledge.

Examination of contents and the contemplative methods employed under the section ‘philosophy’ doesn’t belong to any ordinary logic and teaching. But, at the same time, regular posters in these sections often try to acquire a full status of values common to manhood against ivory tower isolation of the ancient thinkers.

We must be looking forward to establish confidence over consciousness and bipolar relationship between each other. This approach gains the fuller status of an Absolutist to refrain from witnessing Babel Tower tragedy or multi linguistic war under divinity. Careful seekers must avoid Canteen-ing in philosophy and philosophy-ing in Canteen, which are equally dangerous for the place we belong to, the Hindu Dharma and the Hindu Dharma Forums.

Every philosophy of Vedantic origin aims at the notion of Non-Duality in its ultimate sense, which doesn’t mean the methodology applied is of the same order, besides that the terminology used by one Darsana might contradict with the other in terms of meaning and interpretation.

With all due respect I suggest the Moderators to please rethink on the divisions under the section philosophy and to allocate a separate section ‘General Advaitha’, this enables the seekers belonging to the Philosophy with a prefix or suffix ‘advaita’ to their schools can make use of it and save the science of 'Advaitha Vedanta' from further contradictions and maintain its time immemorial purity of transcendence.Love:)





I think a better idea would be to make one subforum for traditional Vedanta, as opposed to neo-Vedanta which is based on people's personal imaginations. All schools of traditional vedanta work with the same pramanas, they all use shastra as their starting point, only the conclusions are different. Instead of having a seperate forum for each school of Vedanta, if there was one subforum for traditional vedanta, people can discuss one vedantic subject from different point of views. What I have seen in the advaita folder is that people very quickly dismiss all criticism of advaita vedanta of Shankara using the excuse that this is an advaita subforum. This is not the right approach to vedanta, in Indian philosophy, the inclusion of the purvapaksha in the argumentations is of utmost importance. I do not think having one subforum for traditional advaita is a good idea, because actually there is no one form of traditional advaita vedanta. Swami Chinmayananda actually calls Shankaracharya a modern advaitin, compared to his precepts like Gaudapada and Vasishta. The best solution is to have a subforum for traditional vedanta. In an ideal world all adherents and enthusiasts of traditional vedanta would come together to discuss the same subject matter, using more or less the same pramanas. But in a non ideal world, most likely this will result in a flame war like we can see here above between devotee and uttam.

satay
25 March 2012, 02:32 PM
namaskar,


I think a better idea would be to make one subforum for traditional Vedanta,

No, we will not be making any new subforums on HDF. In fact, I be removing some.

Thanks

Closed for review.