Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: Anarambhaniya(not worth pursuing)

  1. #1
    Join Date
    April 2011
    Location
    Bengaluru
    Posts
    102
    Rep Power
    66

    Anarambhaniya(not worth pursuing)

    ‘Jeeva(Individual soul) is different from Ishvara(God)’
    It may be accepted that the stand: Jeeva is different from Ishvara based on anumana(inference) like: We have not seen the Ishvara and accepting the Vedas, that there is one controller who controls everything. It is also clear from the Vedas that Ishvara is present in his own domain(like vaikuntha) and also that a jeeva can reach that domain after death(conditions apply). For the sake of argument, let’s assume that Vishnu is the god of the gods or the highest god. A jeeva could be a man or a woman, Brahmana or a shudra. Jeeva is the controlled and Ishvara is the controller.

    If this is the message of the Vedanta, then how is it different from other faiths like Christianity or islam which propounds the same message(replacing respective terms). It could be true that, afterall, one of these gods is true. But, we will never know. Hence this is not acceptable by the wise.

    Even if we have to come to a conclusion, then perhaps Christianity or islam is much simple. There is no discrimination on fellow humans based on the castes. If it is contended that caste system originated or sustained due to the theory of’ distribution of work’, then it has to be based solely on the merit of a human and not by birth. It is evident that there were Brahmanas who were of poor conduct, Kshatriyas who were in capable. The message given by all these faiths are the same but this vedic version comes with this inhuman act of discrimination which is not acceptable by the wise. Perhaps this is why sri Ramanujacharya were of the opinion that other castes too have the right to learn the scriptures.

    By doing rigorous sacrifices like agnihotra, by setting up fireplace and offering ghee and other things to the fire, are we trying to please the god to protect us? Then it should be called as slavery in disguise rather than sacrifice. What difference is there between a King and God? It means that jeeva is essentially bound forever to Ishvara either through sacrifices or through ‘bhakti’. If Bhakti is deemed greater than sacrifices, then why are the sacrifices mentioned in the Vedas? If sacrifices are mentioned for gaining greater worlds, then it means that jeeva is bound by It’s own desires and Ishvara has no meaning at all or Jeeva(devoid of desires) itself is Ishvara.

    Now for the sake of argument, let us accept the 9 types of Bhakti explained in the scriptures like: Sravana(intent on hearing about god), Kirtana(singing glories of god), Smarana( recounting the glories of god) etc. But what difference does it make if the jeeva includes this in the daily curriculum? Is a place guaranteed near the lord getting an opportunity to serve his feet? But again, what is gained by serving his lotus feet?Bliss/ananda? Now then, Bhakti is the currency for bliss. Just like a slave serves his master and cajoles him, for the sake of his well-being, a jeeva listens, sings and think about God to obtain bliss, to obtain mukti. There is no difference between this and a drunkard drinking liquor. Whether one tries to attain the state of bliss through senses or through bhakti by restraining the senses, both are but same-Samsara.

    It is true that God is Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omnipotent. Even if the Vedas or the other faiths don’t declare about the existence of God, when there is lack of anything, the conception of fullness comes. So even for an atheist the concept of Omnipresence, Omnipotence and Omniscience is there, imminent. Then what does one achieve by reading those Vedas which says the same thing. Hence the difference between jeeva and Ishvara is not the import of the Vedas and It is a waste of time to read such views and hence it is not acceptable by the wise.

    Now let us proceed a bit further and draw attention towards the relation between jeeva and Ishvara. Jeeva is not Omniscient and Ishvara is omniscient. For example, a jeeva can’t count the stars in the sky. So Ishvara should well be able to count these ‘countless’ stars. You see the contradiction here? If Ishvara has to succeed in doing this impossible act, then a different condition has to be brought in. Let’s call it Absolute plane. If we don’t bring in this special condition(explained later), even God will not be able to count the ‘countless’ stars. He will be wise to admit that it is countless. If god however claims that he can count the countless, then he is a God of the fools and not acceptable as God by the wise.

    Now, we know about lack of fullness and the very idea of omniscience is not even possible to think on a relative plane. To explain this omniscience, we have to bring in a condition, call it absolute plane. But this absolute plane condition is brought in based on relative plane only. Taking the same example: The jeeva is the knower and the stars are the known. To understand Omniscience, we have to have the jeeva as the locus, otherwise jeeva will never know about omniscience and there is no point in reading the scriptures.

    Whether one counts the stars in the sky or the ants in the garden, Omniscience can happen only when the known is not different from the knower. This is nothing but the absolute plane condition. If we try to explain Omniscience on a relative plane, then the knower tries to know the known for an infinite time and hence this is the definition of samsara and not Omniscience. In the same way, omnipresence and omnipotence can be explained on a plane which has no subject-object difference, as if in a deep sleep state. Those who regard the relative plane as the absolute, neither know about god nor do they want to. Indeed they are atheists in disguise. But how can this explain the non difference between jeeva and Ishvara? Since now omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence has been explained with the jeeva as the locus, we have defined God by arriving at the conclusion-Aham Brahmasmi- Jeeva is non-different from Ishvara. Whether you define God as Omniscient, Omnipresent and Omnipotent, or you define all these separately, it is still the same. And this can be defined with only jeeva as the locus. And thus this is acceptable to the wise.

    Just like a mother convinces her child that the moon will come every night and goes away during day, the scriptures talk about Ishvara. But when the child matures, it will know about the reality.

    But one might say: I don’t need Omniscience, I am quite satisfied in Lord’s service. A man can think like this, but it is just a statement which fools himself. Because, the locus of bhakti is jeeva. Jeeva, who is not omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, how can jeeva be so special when it comes to bhakti? Somehow a man will think that his bhakti is untainted and without pause. Just like a man who becomes proud of excess wealth or beauty. Never does a man want to love an ugly woman, never does a man want to hurt himself, never does a man want to worship an incapable. The idea of perfection whether attainment or bhakti, is imminent. As long as this knowledge of Vedanta is not understood, the man is subjected to this process of ‘counting the countless’. This is samsara. The knowledge of the non-difference between knower and the known is the release from this samsara, attaining god in the real sense. Thus paramarthika bhakti-absolute devotion is achieved by this knowledge of non-differnce (refer Vishnu sahasranama: one who is known by knowledge;refer gita:jnani is the best among bhaktas). Only this is accepted by the wise.

    Ishvara as the locus:
    It is also important to mention about Ishvara on a relative plane. But even while explaining about Ishvara, jeeva has to be the locus. Otherwise it can be said that: Ishvara knows himself as non different from Jeeva and others;end of story(refer gita: Krishna says-he knows about past and present but arjuna doesn’t). Thus again, non-difference between jeeva and Ishvara is verified.

    About Bhakti:
    If it is established that the non-difference between jiva and Ishvara to be the import of the Vedas, then what is the significance of bhakti?
    The bottom-line of bhakti is love which is imminent in man like love of family, love of senses, love of spouse/children, pets etc. A wise man concludes that love is imminent even when it is not diverted towards anything or anyone apart from himself. Love towards a wife can be possible only after meeting the wife(or would-be) and not before that. But the nature of that love was imminent even before meeting. Thus bhakti too is equal in all jeevas before and after realizing god. Knowledge of this is liberation. Ignorance is bondage(refer gita: I am same towards everyone. One who knows me correctly, he is in me and I am in him).

    My prostrations to Vyasa Bhagavan and Adi Shankaracharya.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    June 2006
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    541
    Rep Power
    745

    Re: Anarambhaniya(not worth pursuing)

    Hello SOV,

    Long article and not sure whether this is your own thoughts and wanted to give a response.

    Blind men describing an elephant is the best example or analogy i can think of. When you make assertive statements, it requires all the elements that makes the statement true to be mentioned. Missing that simple requirement creates the feel of the statement being true but totally false in the true sense.

    The first doubt is, if God is all powerful why ISLAM and CHRISTIANITY are not good cos they also have some sort of same theme. Only for few it is a problem cos the way how such theme is perceived and the way how the theme is forced to have only ONE meaning or utilized as a tool to gain advantage in terms of politics or economics. God is One and this theme is vedantic theme too. If you believe, at the end of this message you are going to come up with another version of God is One, you still remain in the same theme.

    Your statement about Shri Ramanuja cleary shows you are either ignorant about what the acharya is about or just using his name to promote your wishlist. Shri Ramanuja is not about every caste practicing every deeds and in his time itself the idea of Prapatti and Bhakthi were in place in full force. His greatest service is to make it clear that the caste is not by birth and it is totally due to the Guna and as well his present karma.

    Vedantic classification of human race is based on the above two criteria and again it is not to gain power or rights over one another but to make the human goal easily achievable by adopting to the particular role in the society. Varna Dharma is in fact a Dharma which propels the Sadaka to his/her ultimate destination and we can compare it to our college education. When you destine to become a doctor, you pursue medicine and like that. Seeing it as aweakness is ignorance and knowing it and understanding it as natural is WISE.

    Another statement is, whether God wants us to be His slave and in that case how can He be different from a King. So Bhakthi is currency for Bliss.

    Coming from different schools of thought, it is natural to view Bhakthi as slavery or some act of pleasing the God. In the Vaishanva schools, God is understood as someone who is "ALWAYS SATISFIED" and DO NOT REQUIRE anything else as HE IS THE MASTER of all by nature. If this philosophical point is not remembered, then making any other assertion is only valid in fools paradise. A desireful King makes his enemies, skilled people but not powerful enough to be independent etc. as his slaves so that he can get his desire fulfilled. But, the God should be understood as someone who has no desire (not the jivatman with no desire as God) eternally and forever. This is the greatest of the difference between a mortal King and Supreme God. So when God is fully satisfied always, what is that we do or what is that we can do to please Him? In fact, it is nothing that we can do to please Him. He is addressed as Bagavan, possessor of all opulence and renunciation as one of them too. This is extra ordinary combination and a normal mind cannot comprehend this in one entity however much you can try (nrsimha-rama-krsnesu sad-gunyam paripuritam). How will you praise someone who is already full of knowledge? How can you praise someone who is master of all the wealth? How can you please someone who is the strongest of the strong in strength? How can you please someone who is the most beautiful and incomparable in the entire universe? Oh..come on.. how can you please someone who has the most famous in the universe by your mere praise? When such God has everything at His disposal, as the owner of all where is the need or scope for praise or attempt of pleasing Him. ITS ONLY FOOLISH to believe or even think for a second that we pleasing Him. So, it should be wise to ask what the heck this Bhakthi is about in these schools and why bhakthi is praised by the very same Lord in Gita etc. Why all these great acharyas including Shri Shankara given so much importance to Bhakthi? If it is act of slavery, it will never be accepted as a mean to "release" cos such release will still keep the jiva as slave and muktha is a better slave. So know that, the science behind Bhakthi is much more subtle and require a lot of wisdom to even grasp the ABCD of it. This is the very same reason the VA schools have the concept of Prapatti and Maryada Marga in another vaishnava school to distinguish between pure Bhakthi and neophyte Bhakthi or in other words, practice to gain eligibility to perform Bhakthi and performing Bhakthi itself.

    Conception of fullness comes...

    This is another vague assumption and in a relative world, regardless of your brain power or intellectual superiority, you can never define or know what is FULL and there is no scope of experiencing the fullness or knowing the fullness of anything in this condition. So, Veda or Vedanta's import is again not to help the Sadaka to know the concept of full or fullness but to show the unique direction where the possessor of such qualities resides and our eternal relationship with that owner of all. On the other hand, if atheists also know the concept of fullness and have a way to experience it, there will not be a requirement for any thought of God and also you will have multiple ISHWARAs following such theory viz. one who follows the Vedas which not ATHEISM and one who does not follow Veda and a pure Atheist. So, believing two opposites can lead to same conclusion is not wise in the world of rationalists or in simple word, Wise.


    For example, a jeeva can’t count the stars in the sky. So Ishvara should well be able to count these ‘countless’ stars. You see the contradiction here?

    Drunkard dance . It is "countless" only in the world of Jeeva and it is not countless stars in the dominion of God. If He is the ultimate controller, as you agreed in the earlier para for the sake of argument, the argument should keep that agreement in tact to make sense. So, that ultimate controller does control the stars as well and to control all the stars, surely HE knows their count and since He is omniscient ( which is stated in the same contention), He must be having complete knowledge about the stars, their count, colors, life time etc. Otherwise, the meaning of omniscient should be different. So, making absurd statements is foolish and the thought process is not clear here.

    What should be taken from the above contention is only one.. that Lord is always in His absoluteness and He never subject Himself to any sort of relativity or relative reality etc. ( Absolute plane is not another dimension of God's existence and in the Bhakthi school, such thoughts are illogical and foolish). Even when He descends to this relative platform of material creation, which is again His own, under His control and because of His will alone, He is not subjected to any sort of relativity and when He is present with Arjuna, Arjuna alone is subjected to relativity and thus it establishes the truth of Jeeva being different from Ishwara. Secondly, the states in which they are in do not make the difference between them, but the very real nature of the two makes the difference and thus, ( since it is dvaita forum) the SvaRupa. Jiva's Gnana expands when He showers His mercy and removes the maya and allows the jiva to gain his svaroopa Gnana. Even in that liberated state, Jiva is no where close to Ishwara and thus eternally different. ( Even if an insignificant difference exist between two entities, or two part of same entities or two entities of same kind etc. they are still to be understood as "Different" when there is no more room for removal of such difference. When the difference itself is inherent, it is to be understood as FINAL and thus differences as eternal)

    Love is inherent and thus gets the medium to express when you meet a girl who agrees to reciprocate your feelings for her. This is the specialty of Love unlike other characteristic of living being where reciprocation increases the joy. This is one of the very basic idea of Bhakthi and if you see Love as slavery to a girl and what will be your understanding of her reciprocation? Slave to the Slave? If you understand that subtle thing, know that it is the second step of understanding what Bhakthi can really mean. So, when we win our ego and know the reality of our insignificance in this vast manifestations of worlds, beings and inert, humility will be immanent. That humility is the tool for searching the One, who creates, maintains, controls and annihilate this manifestations with His ocean like mercy and then rest is best experienced by learning and practicing Bhakthi.

    So, the rest of the message runs through same shallow logic and makes God weak and assumes Bhakthi as a slavery tool or Bhakthi as a Self excitement process to feel One with Lord. Poor broken logic but with repeated use of the word "wise" makes this message especially under the most rational school of thought as one of the lousiest.

    SOV gets his life meaning when it is Servant Of Vishnu!

    Vayu JivaUttama! Hari SarvaUttama!
    Hare Krsha!
    Last edited by grames; 20 July 2011 at 07:56 AM.

  3. #3

    Re: Anarambhaniya(not worth pursuing)

    Quote Originally Posted by grames View Post
    Hello SOV,

    Long article and not sure whether this is your own thoughts and wanted to give a response.

    It is also posted in Amith Vikram blog here-

    http://amithvd.sulekha.com/blog/post...h-pursuing.htm


    Weird thing is we have had one named AV on this forum...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    April 2011
    Location
    Bengaluru
    Posts
    102
    Rep Power
    66

    Re: Anarambhaniya(not worth pursuing)

    Quote Originally Posted by NayaSurya View Post
    It is also posted in Amith Vikram blog here-

    http://amithvd.sulekha.com/blog/post...h-pursuing.htm


    Weird thing is we have had one named AV on this forum...
    Yes. Amith vikram suggested me to join HDF.
    It is also posted here in his own website: http://saintyard.com/item/102-anaram...worth-pursuing

    He is not able to use the internet and hence I am posting in all the sites. Even the previous article about brahman-saguna/nirguna can be found in all three sites. These articles are however mine.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    April 2011
    Location
    Bengaluru
    Posts
    102
    Rep Power
    66

    Re: Anarambhaniya(not worth pursuing)

    Hello grames,
    Please read the post again. Apart from statements like HE IS THE MASTER,DO NOT REQUIRE, FULLY SATISFIED, I didn't see anything else as an objection in your reply.
    My stand on bhakti is clearly mentioned in last para.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    April 2011
    Location
    Bengaluru
    Posts
    102
    Rep Power
    66

    Re: Anarambhaniya(not worth pursuing)

    Please note- The frequent use of terms like -not acceptable by the wise- is the style used in Mayavada khandana of Madhwacharya. And this is one of the Objection in mayavada khandana(jiva brahma aikya is unacceptable). So this style has to attributed to madhwacharya and not my feeling.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    December 2009
    Posts
    1,938
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    2890

    Re: Anarambhaniya(not worth pursuing)

    Namaste SOV,

    BhagavAn is smiling at your intellectual presentation i am sure. Although you have made a base to give the final conclusion in the bhakti para, i see some flaws. GramesJi has given a good explanation.

    Quote Originally Posted by SOV View Post
    But one might say: I don’t need Omniscience, I am quite satisfied in Lord’s service. A man can think like this, but it is just a statement which fools himself. Because, the locus of bhakti is jeeva. Jeeva, who is not omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, how can jeeva be so special when it comes to bhakti? Somehow a man will think that his bhakti is untainted and without pause. Just like a man who becomes proud of excess wealth or beauty. Never does a man want to love an ugly woman, never does a man want to hurt himself, never does a man want to worship an incapable. The idea of perfection whether attainment or bhakti, is imminent. As long as this knowledge of Vedanta is not understood, the man is subjected to this process of ‘counting the countless’. This is samsara.
    Those statements in ink-blue : as long as that is the case it is not shuddha (pure) bhakti, it can happen in the sAdhak state not the siddha state.

    A pure devotee is free of all such material contamination like pride or vanity. They never look at outward appearance of the jeev - like 'ugly'. They are friendly, loving and compassionate towards all jeev. About worshipping the 'incapable' : they will bow down to the paramAtmA in the that jeev and can only bless her by instilling bhakti.

    The knowledge of the non-difference between knower and the known is the release from this samsara, attaining god in the real sense.
    To the part in blue i would add - only in quality, not magnitude. SAyujja (either Brahman Sayujja or Ishvar Sayujja) is not a requirement for release from samsAr. Then again, sAyujja does not make the jeev non-existent as a jeev and hence God in magnitude.
    It is not something to be "achieved" or attained, and pure bhakta not only have no expectations or desires (including mukti-gifts like salokya samipya saRsti ), they deny sAyujja as long as they can, possibly eternally. Radha and KrushNa also live as seperate entities what to speak of all jeevs.

    Thus paramarthika bhakti-absolute devotion is achieved by this knowledge of non-differnce (refer Vishnu sahasranama: one who is known by knowledge;refer gita:jnani is the best among bhaktas). Only this is accepted by the wise.
    Since the very word non-difference means different things to both of us let us leave it at that.

    Please forgive any errors or offenses i may not be aware of with my limited understanding.

    Here are 26 qualities of a pure devotee (Uttam adhikAri, shuddha bhakta) from Shri Chaitanya CharitrAmRta

    A pure devotee is:

    merciful
    not defiant
    truthful
    equal to everyone
    faultless
    magnanimous
    clean
    aware that everything belongs to Krishna
    a performer of welfare work for everyone
    peaceful
    surrendered to Krishna
    desireless
    indifferent to material acquisitions
    fixed in Krishna consciousness
    completely in control of bad qualities
    moderate in eating
    not obsessed with material things
    respectful
    without false prestige
    grave
    compassionate
    a friend to all
    poetic
    expert
    silent (speaks only about spiritual topics)


    praNAm
    Hare KRSNa
    Last edited by smaranam; 20 July 2011 at 01:09 PM. Reason: edited last comment on non-difference
    || Shri KRshNArpaNamastu ||

  8. #8
    Join Date
    April 2011
    Location
    Bengaluru
    Posts
    102
    Rep Power
    66

    Re: Anarambhaniya(not worth pursuing)

    Quote Originally Posted by smaranam View Post
    Namaste SOV,

    Since the very word non-difference means different things to both of us let us leave it at that.


    Hare KRSNa
    True. I am of the opinion that sayujya could be more than just physical. No physical world or body. Just being.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    June 2006
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    541
    Rep Power
    745

    Re: Anarambhaniya(not worth pursuing)

    Dear SOV,

    I am really amazed as well as surprised that you haven't seen any objections in the message for your original post. If you happen to believe that message you have posted is some sort of rebuttal or explanation of MayaVada Kaandana, it must be cleared with out any doubts that TattavaVada view is much more logical, rational and has complete shruti support to establish the Visnusarvottamtva conclusion.

    Shri Madwacharya states all logical reasons before he dismiss the "Advaita" of his times as Anarambhaniya. So, to follow such great saint of the vedantic traditions, it requires sound logic and shruti support to dismiss the TattvaVada or the Visnusarvottamtva as only illogical and unreal which none of the Advaita acharyas attempted rather accepted that as a "empirical" reality or in short words, TRUTH.

    OTOH, Kandanatraya and Shri Ramanuja's Saptha Vidha anupapatti or Shri Desika's Sada Dushani are not answered with any fitting response from Advaita camp so far. The most revered acharya of Advaita school Sri Madhusudana gives the view of Advaita in his famous AdvaitaSiddi which is again refuted by Shri Ramachandra Thirta's Tarangini etc. What to say about his "Krsnatparam kimapi tattvam aham na jane" .

    In fact, with the language, content of the message posted etc. i do not see any fruits on sharing the already shared knowledge and my only point which i already conveyed is,

    In Bhakthi School, the practice is logical, rational and in line with the Shruti, smrti and puranas and trying any logical refutation on these schools is futile exercise especially if you practice Advaita.

    Hari Bol!
    Last edited by grames; 21 July 2011 at 04:26 AM.

  10. #10

    Re: Anarambhaniya(not worth pursuing)

    Quote Originally Posted by grames View Post
    Dear SOV,

    I am really amazed as well as surprised that you haven't seen any objections in the message for your original post.


    amith vikram d., all rights reserved.


    and this-



    http://saintyard.com/itemlist/user/62-saintpubgoer



    This is why I did not go further.

    Amith V. leave forum say goodbye April 1...SOV show up April 17...

    But, AV blog still current and active whole time...even has his picture and email.

    So this user is either copy pasting some others work.. or is the previous the poster known as A.V.

    ...and either way is acting within deception.

    So what can one say to ignorance when it is clouded by such deception?

    You can learn a lesson from one so entrenched in deception...but it would not be of this higher Truth. It would be to remove yourself from them.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Siddhi - worth the pursuit?
    By yajvan in forum Patanjali
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 27 July 2007, 05:49 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •