A few questions on Advaita and their answers

[grames]

Dear Devotee,

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Your servant!

[devotee]

Namaste Grames,

1.

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

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

2.

Regarding the Diksha Guru:

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

My dear Grames, I am sorry to point this out that you have not understood the importance of Diksha Guru at all ! First of all, there is no scripture which says to have two different Gurus. This parampara is not accepted in all Sampradayas. In most of the Sampradayas, the Diksha and Shiksha Gurus are one & the same. This parampara started with practical difficulty of the Guru in giving adequate time to all his disciples. So, the work of instructing the new initiate was delegated to anyone elderly initiate to take of the new disciple. Moreover, the disciple can have a Shiksha Guru only which is approved by the Diksha Guru. It is sacrilegious to even think to have a Shiksha Guru who preaches a philosophy contradicting the teachings of the Diksha Guru. Diksha Guru is your Guru & you can do anything only with his approval.
I would advise you to read this passage which is written by one of the scholars from ISKCON (otherwise you may not agree to what I am saying) :

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

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

3.

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

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

4.

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

OM

[grames]

Dear Devotee,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hari Bol!

[devotee]

Namaste Grames,

c) Bheda-Abheda :

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

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

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

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

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

No, you said something very strong. You said :

a) that all these Acharyas defeated their Diksha Gurus in terms of their philosphical truths ==> ref :

In fact, all the three great Vaishnava acharyas had 'Advaitic" guru as their "diksha" gurus, but at one point of their life time they have 'defeated" their guru's in terms of their philosophical truths viz. Shri Madhva to Achyutaprajna, Shri Ramanuja to Yadava Prakash and Shri Chaitanya to Kesava Bhrati

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

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

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

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

OM

[grames]

Dear Devotee,

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, you said something very strong. You said : a) that all these Acharyas defeated their Diksha Gurus in terms of their philosophical truths ==> ref : [/font]

I am not changing anything about what happened and i merely repeating the incidents narrated in SumadvaVijaya and Ramanuja's biography. Why or what made you think i have stated something contradictory?

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

What does the above mean ? How can you change your version so quickly ?

What do you think i have changed? I am still saying the same thing.. Siksha is the vital cos that is source from whom you learn everything and Diksha is a process of initiation and you very well know the difference.

Again, it should be crystal clear here that Siksha Guru has no authority to teach anything contrary to the teachings of Diksha Guru.

I will agree. This is my position. But it is not applicable to great divine personalities and our vendantic system evolved with such deviations. It is historic and not my own invention that Shri Madhva and Shri Ramanuja has deviated because they came with such purpose. So, why do you think i have the authority to say anything on this apart from stating what has happened? Taking it as belittling a Diksha guru from their life history is not advisable and i think i have given that warning along with that message itself.

(just a warning that they were divine personalities and we should not imagine imitating their acts.)

You missed another point i stated. DasaMula is not Shri Chaitanya's word but Shri Bhakthi Vonoda's. Here is the link... you can translate on your own if you do not like the translated text

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

Hari Bol!