Shrimad BhAgvat says... points to ponder about the Supreme Lord and His Creation

[hinduism♥krishna]

Pranams,

I don't agree that Advaita of Adi Shankara is a face of the Absolute Truth.

I am aware that Gaudiya Vaishnavas say that the Lord has an impersonal feature and that this impersonal feature is the featureless brahman worshiped by Advaitins. The problem is, Advaita preaches complete non-duality between jIva and brahman, and this is not accepted by Gaudiya Vaishnavas as far as I know. For Sri Vaishnavas, the relationship of jIva to brahman is one of simultaneous distinction-and-inseparability, as in the case of the body to the soul, or of an attribute to the thing possessing attributes. It is not considered unexplainable, and the idea that the distinction does not exist and that I am literally the same as brahman is illogical, inconsistent with shAstra taken as a whole, and also inconsistent with experience. Whether you relate paramAtmA to cit/acit entities by citing the shakti-Ishvara paradigm (as in the case of Chaitanya et. al.) or the sharIra-sharIrin paradigm (as in the case of Ramanuja), the bottom line is that the Lord and the cit-acit entities are all eternally real.

Namaste.
As per my knowledge, lord krishna says quite different from vaishnwa philosophy.Lord krishna doesn't say you are different from me.He says " There is one atma. Atma of all beings are me only.You should worship me knowing my omnipresent nature. Maya is mithya.It has no existence so bondage and liberation for soul is also mithya.Only parabramhan is real, all other things whuch have a shape are mithya.As maya has no existence, achit has also not existence. "
so saying achit is eternal is absolutely wrong. For realised soul there is no world nor achit. For him only chit atma is real which is formless and sat chit anand. And he came to know there is no other thing except my nature sat chit anand. All other things were false like one experiences all things in dream.
In uddhava gita, there are many shlokas indicating that there is only one atma.Seeing difference is occurred only due to three gunas formed by mithya maya.
In uddhava gita, lord krishna states that the thing with a form is mithya and seeing difference is the effect of maya. Because form and difference are totally mithya ( false) according to Lord krishna.

If u r believing soul is qualitatively same and quantitatively different, then give us just single verse from upanishada or bhagavat purana stating your belief?

Finitude and quantity don't applicable to atma whose nature is sarvagatah( all pervading). Finitude and form are only applicable to material thing, not to the soul or bramhan. Finitude and form are the products of maya which are completely mithya ( false) . And soul is beyond mithya maya and its products forms or finitude. Lord krishna comletely neglects the jivahood ( individuality) of soul and strongly confirms there is only one atma.

The oneness of atma with bramhan is the highest goal of atma

jai shri krishna, hari govinda

[brahma jijnasa]

Gaudiya vaishnwas philosophy is a mixture of vedic philosophy and their own specific philosophy originated from chaitanya charitamruta Gaudiya vaishnwas are those who considers shri krishna higher than bramhan which is certainly not authentic..Gaudiya vaishnwas are those who consider bramhan, paramatma and bhagavan are different which is also unauthentic according to bhagavat purana. Gaudiya vaishnwas are those who consider atma and bramhan are different and atma has spiritual body which is also not supported by upanishadas. Gaudiya vaishnwas are those who say there is a relationship ( friend or lover) between lord krishna and soul. In short they try to force material relationships at spiritual level.

As I can see you did not understand much about Gaudiya vaishnava philosophy.

If you think someone's opinion is not supported in the scriptures you are free to think so if you do not agree with someone's philosophy. But to have a different opinion on a subject matter does not constitute a proof that other opinions are incorrect.
It is well known fact that there are several different Hindu traditions and that their opinions and interpretations of scriptures could differ substantially.

regards

[philosoraptor]

As I can see you did not understand much about Gaudiya vaishnava philosophy.

He actually opined that I am a Gaudiya Vaishnava, several times now. That in and of itself should be proof positive that he's missing a few cards from his deck.

Primarily, his only rebuttal to any argument against his opinion is that the disagreeing party is a "gaudiya vaishnwa" or follows some "inauthentic," "sectarian dharma."

[philosoraptor]

As per my knowledge, lord krishna says

You are right.

That is merely as per your "knowledge."

Namaste

[hinduism♥krishna]

You are right.

That is merely as per your "knowledge."

Namaste

Philosoraptor is just trolling.

I just want proper pramana of the statement " soul is qualitatively same and quantitatively different " from upanishadas or bhagavat purana?
It must be a direct one.

i know all things about hk and also their non-vedic beliefs .
Does not the statement " krishna is higher than bramhan" nonvedic?
Does not the statement " bramhan, paramatma and bhagavan are different " nonvedic?
Does not the statement " soul and bramhan are different " contradictory to upanishada?

Shri hari govinda

[philosoraptor]

1) It depends on how brahman is defined. The word "brahman" can also mean other things in other contexts. Here are the various entries in Monier-Williams:

ब्रह्मन्(H1) ब्रह्मन् [p= 737,3] [L=146546] n. (lit. " growth " , " expansion " , " evolution " , " development " " swelling of the spirit or soul " , fr. √2. बृह्) pious effusion or utterance , outpouring of the heart in worshipping the gods , prayer RV. AV. VS. TS.
[L=146547] the sacred word (as opp. to वाच् , the word of man) , the वेद , a sacred text , a text or मन्त्र used as a spell (forming a distinct class from the ऋचस् , सामानि and यजूंषि ; cf. ब्रह्म-वेद) RV. AV. Br. Mn. Pur.
[L=146548] the ब्राह्मण portion of the वेद Mn. iv , 100
[L=146549] the sacred syllable Om Prab. , Sch. , (cf. Mn. ii , 83)
[L=146550] religious or spiritual knowledge (opp. to religious observances and bodily mortification such as तपस् &c ) AV. Br. Mn. R.
[L=146551] holy life (esp. continence , chastity ; cf. ब्रह्म-चर्य) S3ak. i , 24÷25 S3am2k. Sarvad.
[p= 738,1] [p= 737,3] [L=146552] (exceptionally treated as m.) the ब्रह्म or one self-existent impersonal Spirit , the one universal Soul (or one divine essence and source from which all created things emanate or with which they are identified and to which they return) , the Self-existent , the Absolute , the Eternal (not generally an object of worship but rather of meditation and-knowledge ; also with ज्य्/एष्ठ , प्रथम-ज्/अ , स्वय्/अम्-भु , अ-मूर्त , पर , परतर , परम , महत् , सनातन , शाश्वत ; and = परमा*त्मन् , आत्मन् , अध्यात्म , प्रधान , क्षेत्र-ज्ञ , तत्त्व) AV. S3Br. Mn. MBh. &c ( IW. 9 , 83 &c )
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146553] n. the class of men who are the repositories and communicators of sacred knowledge , the Brahmanical caste as a body (rarely an individual Brahman) AV. TS. VS. S3Br. Mn. BhP.
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146554] n. food Naigh. ii , 7
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146555] n. wealth ib. 10
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146556] n. final emancipation L.
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146557] m. (ब्रह्म्/अन्) , one who Prays , a devout or religious man , a Brahman who is a knower of Vedic texts or spells , one versed in sacred knowledge RV. &c ([cf. Lat. , fla1men])
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146558] m. N. of बृहस्-पति (as the priest of the gods) RV. x , 141 , 3
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146559] m. one of the 4 principal priests or ऋत्विज्as (the other three being the होतृ , अध्वर्यु and उद्गातृ ; the ब्रह्मन् was the most learned of them and was required to know the 3 वेदs , to supervise the sacrifice and to set right mistakes ; at a later period his functions were based especially on the अथर्व-वेद) RV. &c
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146560] m. ब्रह्मा or the one impersonal universal Spirit manifested as a personal Creator and as the first of the triad of personal gods (= प्रजा-पति q.v. ; he never appears to have become an object of general worship , though he has two temples in India » RTL. 555 &c ; his wife is सरस्वती ib. 48) TBr. &c
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146561] m. = ब्रह्मण आयुः , a lifetime of ब्रह्मा Pan5car.
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146562] m. an inhabitant of ब्रह्मा's heaven Ja1takam.
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146563] m. the sun L.
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146564] m. N. of शिव Prab. Sch.
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146565] m. the वेद (?) Pa1rGr2.
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146566] m. the intellect (= बुद्धि) Tattvas.
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146567] m. N. of a star , δ Aurigae , Su1ryat. ??
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146568] m. a partic. astron. योग L.
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146569] m. N. of the 9th मुहूर्त L.
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146570] m. (with जैनs) a partic. कल्प Dharmas3.
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146571] m. N. of the servant of the 10th अर्हत् of the present अवसर्पिणी L.
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146572] m. of a magician Ra1jat.

2) Vedas treat paramAtmA, bhagavAn, and brahman as the same. Vedas describe brahman as the parama purSha who is beyond tamas (see Rig Veda 10.90.1). That it is easy to make you angry should be proof positive that you are not that parama puruSha who is beyond tamas. Two things with different inherent characteristics cannot be the same. This is Logic 101.

3) The distinction between brahman and jIvAtmA has been discussed, with reference to explicit shruti-pramANa-s, several times, and your response was to dismiss them. Continuing to ask the same question, while ignoring the answer, is not going to give your views any more credibility.

Finally (and this part you need only consider if you want to avoid looking foolish in a public forum), you need to get over your wrong idea that opposing your watered-down version of Advaita philosophy means that one is a Gaudiya Vaishnava. This is known as "denial of reality," and it is a symptom of several psychiatric disorders. The reality is that the majority of vedAntic schools accept the distinction between soul and brahman and explain the relationship with reference to shruti in ways other than "soul is qualitatively same and quantitatively different." Maybe you may have heard of these guys: madhvAchArya, rAmAnujAchArya, nimbArkAchArya, vallabhAchArya just to name a few representatives of these non-Gaudiya, non-Advaita, vedAnta schools. Omkar can provide you with names of Shaivite scholars who similarly oppose your views. Considering that these erudite scholars have made it their life's work to study shAstra and write elaborate commentaries, while you have basic problems understanding Sanskrit (and apparently, English), and you have labeled them as "inauthentic" and "sectarian" even while professing respect for their views, you might consider a healthy dose of humility when you start knocking down viewpoints that oppose your own. At the very least, you could try reading their arguments and understand how they reconcile the different points in shAstra, especially considering that you have little interest in reading the postings of members here who try to educate you. At the very least, if you cannot trouble yourself to become acquainted with reality, then you could at least consider following forum etiquette and keeping your postings off of forums and threads where your opinions were not solicited to begin with.

[hinduism♥krishna]

Namaste, philosoraptor, a realised soul.
Is there any single authentic verse from bhagavat purana stating quantitative, qualitative aspects of atma? or from upanishada?
if yes mention it with original sanskrit verses.
I have 1000 authentic verses to prove oneness of atma n bramha.

plz let me know.
shri hari govinda

[brahma jijnasa]

He actually opined that I am a Gaudiya Vaishnava, several times now.
Primarily, his only rebuttal to any argument against his opinion is that the disagreeing party is a "gaudiya vaishnwa" or follows some "inauthentic," "sectarian dharma."

regards

[hinduism♥krishna]

Pranam, smaranam.

I think the word " enjoys " is very appropriate. Because there are many verses in bhagavat purana where it says that ishwara acts as a jiva in bodies of living entities.

One of them is:

Bhutairmahadbhirya emaha puro vibhurnirmaya shete yadamushu purushah ।
Bhunkte gunanashodasha shodashatmakah solangkushista bhagavanvanchasi me ।। (bhagavat 2.4.23)

Creating material bodies of living entities formed by panchamahabhuta, ishwara sleep as a jiva(atma with material and subtle body) into them and with the attachment to 16 kalas ( 5 dnyanendriye, 5 karmendriye, 5 pranas and 1 manah) ishwara enjoys (or experiences) 16 types of material subjects.

Also we get many verses indicating bramhaatmavidya or oneness of bramhan and atma.

Hari govinda hari

[smaranam]

Is there any single authentic verse from bhagavat purana stating quantitative, qualitative aspects of atma? or from upanishada?
if yes mention it with original sanskrit verses.

Namaste

DISCLAIMER: I am merely delivering the following message from Gaudiya AchArya, as I have understood it.

Actually the qualitative equality comes into picture because we are comparing jiva (parA-prakruti) and AtmA (purusha). You may say that Purusha is bramhan. However, jiva falls in the category of parA-prakRti, not purusha.

BG 7.5
apareyam itas tv anyāḿ
prakṛtiḿviddhi me parām
jīva-bhūtāḿ mahā-bāho
yayedaḿ dhāryate jagat

Besides these, O mighty-armed Arjuna, there is another, superior energy of Mine, which comprises the living entities who are exploiting the resources of this material, inferior nature.

prakrutim viddhi me parAm. That is the key. So we are really comparing apples and oranges. Jiva is a potency of the PurAN Purush. It is one of the Purush's several potencies:
Sat shakti
Samvit shakti
HlAdini shakti
Jiva shakti

So, the embodied jiva has only a tiny miniscule amount of energy (shakti) associated with it [AS LONG AS JIVA IDENTIFIES AS JIVA, OR AWARENESS OF JIVANESS HOLDS. - this in square brackets is my addition for you to relate.]
Plus, as long as the living being is within sattva raja tama, there is a tendency of getting trapped in mAyA. This makes jiva shakti minor, inferior compared to Sat, Samvit HlAdini shaktis of Bhagvan/Bramhan.

Whereas,
Ishvara = all-pervading Uttam Purush + infinite YogaShakti. Therefore Ishvar can do anything He wants. Jiva cannot.

This is the reasoning used to stay humbly devoted as long as we are within the three modes of material nature - sattva raja tama.

And, who isn't? says KRshNa:

BG 18.40
na tad asti pṛthivyāḿ vā
divi deveṣu vā punaḥ
sattvaḿ prakṛti-jair muktaḿ
yad ebhiḥ syāt tribhir guṇaiḥ

There is no being existing, either here or among the demigods in the higher planetary systems, which is freed from these three modes born of material nature.

Therefore, the message of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu for this Kali Yuga is:
In Kali Yuga people are chanchal in general. It is very difficult to transcend the modes in this body. Easier said than done. So, what good is it to hold lofty goals which are too theoretical and utopian? Acknowledge the jiva as a jiva. Don't call jiva NArAyaNa just by mere logic. Acknowledge the limitations, surrender to Guru and BhagvAn Shri KRshNa, and They will take you across. For this, your attitude should be extremely humble, and your devotion should be expectationless, motiveless.

Nirapeksha, nishkAm, ahaituki avyabhichAri bhakti with NO EXPECTATION of mukti. Just keep serving.

His definition of humility: (how humble can humble be?)
trinAd api sunichena
taror api sahishNuna
amAnina mAna dena
kirtanIya sadA harih
One should think of themselves as lower than a blade of grass, more tolerant than a tree, not expect any respect or honor, but always honor and respect others. In this consciousness only, it will be possible to chant Hari's names / glorify Hari continously, non-stop. kirtaniya sadA harih.

That is their goal. FYI, this is also the sentiment of TukArAm, DnyAneshwar, EknAth, the leaders of VArkari / NAth SampradAy, Datta devotees etc. although their ultimate is NirguN NirAkAr Bramhan.

Following are not possible acc. to St. DnyAneshvar:
a) bhave vina bhakti
b) bhakti vina mukti...
remember?
No bhakti is possible without bhAv, and no mukti is possible without bhakti.

So, IMHO, these arguments will lead noone nowhere.

_/\_
Hari mukhe mhaNA Hari mukhe mhaNA