Jump to content

Dark Warrior

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dark Warrior

  1. Here is the situation: 1) You quoted from Vedas, hence it is my duty to quote from the same Vedas to establish my point. 2) We have two types of Vakyas in Shruti - One talks of Bheda, and another talks of Abheda. Clearly, this contradiction needs to be resolved. The Shrutis say that Jivatma is body of Brahman. Two entities, are thus, inseparable, and can be addressed as One entity. 'Jack' signifies Jack's body and Soul. Hence, Abheda Vakyas like 'Aham Brahmasmi' simply address the Jivatma as body of Brahman. When I call you 'Ravindran', I address your body and soul. Similarly, your abheda Vakyas address both Brahman and Jivatma. Brahman is Consciousness does not mean He has no form. When we say 'Jack is Honest', honesty is an attribute of Jack. Hence, 'Prajnanam Brahma' means Brahman has the attribute of consciousness. Here is the explanation for the abheda vakyas I gave in my earlier post. Brahman's form 1) Brahman pervades the Universe because this Universe is the body of His svarupa. His svarupa has the attributes of Jnanam, Anantam, etc. At the same time, by His will, this svarupa exists as the Blue Hued Lord Vishnu in Vaikuntha and in this Universe. Brahman not only has the Universe as His body, but also exists within the Universe in a localised position. 2) Chandogya Upanishad calls Brahman as 'Pundarikaksha'. Purusha Suktam calls Him as Lakshmi Pathi. Rig Veda says all Devas aggregated in the navel of the unborn. The Veda also states 'Om tad visnoh paramam padam sada pashyanti suriyah', meaning, 'The abode of Vishnu is the highest and liberation is attained there'. This means, Brahman also has a specific abode. 3) References to Vishnu's Chakra and Sangha are there in Rig Veda and Atharva Veda. Therefore, Brahman, according to Vedanta, is Lord Vishnu, the abode of auspicious attributes and having a bluish-black form with lotus eyes. Finis. CONCLUSION - I have proven that Ravindran's interpretation of Vedanta is wrong. Now, he can reject Vedas and accept Bible or something else. That is his problem.
  2. As per your terms, you quoted the Vedas to establish your point. Hence, as per your terms, I should quote the same Vedas (and not Bible, Koran, etc.) to prove my point. Brahman as the soul of all Jivatmas, Prakrti, etc. Ya: Pruthviyaam tishtan prutviyaa antharo yam pruthvii na veda yasya pruthvii sareeram Ya: Aatmani tishtan aatmano antharo yam aatmaa na veda yasya aatmaa sareeram", This is taken from Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, belonging to the same Vedas you quoted yours from. Here, it states that both Prakrti and Atman is the body of Brahman. Hence, Brahman is not Atman, but Atman is the body of Brahman. Bheda Srutis "Prutak Aatmaanam Preritaaram cha mathva jushtasthathastenaamrutavamethi", "Bhoktha Bhogyam Prerithaaram cha mathva sarvam proktham trividham brahma ethat", "Nithyo Nithyaanaam chethanas chethanaanaam Eko bhayuuaam yo vidadhaathi kaamaan", "Pradhaana Kshetragjnyapathirgunesha:", "iGnyaagnyow iDvaavajaaveesaaneesow All these verses are taken from different sections of Vedas. All of them talk of Brahman and Jivatma as different entities. For instance, Nityo Nityaanaam... clearly states that there are millions of Jivatmas. Now, we have your Abheda Vakyas,
  3. Now, seeing as you have dung for brains, I am explaining it to you slowly: 1) I did not ask you where you got these vakyas. I know these vakyas are in Vedas. 2) You have quoted these vakyas, in proof of your view. That means, you, by default, accept the book containing these vakyas as something that conveys the ultimate truth. 3) Hence, to defeat you, I have to use the SAME book and prove you wrong. 4) If you refer to my first posts, I have shown that these Vakyas do NOT convey identity, but simply the soul/body concept. 5) By this way, I established that ACCORDING TO THE VEDAS, Brahman has a form, that His svarupa has jagat as its body, and by His sankalpa, he enters His own creation and Vaikuntha to reside as Vishnu. 6) To prove that the Lord has a form, I quoted from the SAME BOOK you did, Chandogya Upanishad - That the Lord has lotus eyes. ---- Conclusion - It has been proven that Vedas do not say Atman is Brahman. Ravindran's views are NOT in the Vedas. Hence, the debate is over. This debate is not about which book is superior, but about which philosophy is contained in the Vedas. Since you quoted from the Vedas, it means you automatically accept that the Vedas are giving information about the highest reality. Unless you show some sense, stop posting brainlessly.
  4. The position of a debate does not change like this - you first accept the Vedas, then you ask, how can I be sure Vedas are authentic. Have some sense. Correction - You are wrong in the interpretation of the Vedas. I am correct in the interpretation of the Vedas. That's all this debate is about. Once again, you can hardly understand your position. The Vedas do not convey your interpretation. Logically, that means - you either say you were wrong and accept the Vedas, or you could argue back, or you simply say you are right and reject the Vedas. Scriptural validity is not the question of debate here. Its about the philosophy enshrined in Vedas. Your quote 'Tat Tvam Asi' is from Chandogya Upanishad. Hence, it means, you accept Chandogya Upanishad as a text that conveys the ultimate truth. I have proven that Tat Tvam Asi conveys Brahman as the indweller of Jivas. Now, since you had quoted this text, it meant, you would accept the information from this text as the ultimate truth. My interpretation of this text is correct and yours is wrong. So, seeing as YOU are the one who quoted this text, YOU should accept this text as the ultimate truth, and hence, by default, Vishnu as Brahman. Otherwise, you can reject this text and never again quote it in support of your views. When you quoted the Mahavakyas from scripture, it meant you accepted these scriptures as the ultimate truth. Therefore, when I prove that these scriptures say Brahman is Vishnu, it automatically means you should accept it as the ultimate truth. If you do not accept the Vedas as the ultimate truth, then WHY did you quote from them to establish your point. Once again, you are very stupidly arguing a wrong case. We are arguing about what the Vedas say. If I prove that the Vedas say Lord Vishnu is supreme, you can either accept or reject the Vedas. I accept the Vedas, and hence, our debate is restricted to the Vedas alone. Try to understand. Again, stupidity is evident in all of your posts. You quoted from Veda. It means, you accepted it automatically as Valid. Otherwise, why quote from Veda? Such stupidity is incredible. You quote from Bhagavad Gita, it means you accept Bhagavad Gita is the truth. Hence, if Bhagavad Gita says Lord has a beautiful form, it means it is the ultimate truth, reality whatever. But then, this debate is about the scholarship of the book. And if you quote from this book, as you have done with the Mahavakyas, it means you automatically accept these books to be ttalking about the ultimate truth. If you did not consider the Vedas to be genuine expositions of the ultimate truth, then WHY did you quote the Mahavakyas from it? Got that, Ignoramus? Now, let me clear things up. Even a person with mush for brains would understand: 1) When you started the debate, you quoted from Book 'X'. That means, you had accepted that Book 'X' was conveying some truth. 2) I proved that Book 'X' is NOT conveying what you say. 3) So, my aim was to simply prove what this particular book says. You can either accept the book or reject it. Kapish? Again, in the beginning of the debate, you quoted from the Vedas. You had accepted that the Vedic Concept is the truth. I have proven that the Vedic concept says Vishnu has a beautiful form. Therefore, if you accept the Vedic concept as the ultimate truth, then YES, you need to accept Vishnu. If you think the Vedas are wrong, then you can reject it. The debate is 'WHAT DO THE VEDAS SAY?' I have clearly told you what the Vedas say. Hence, if you accept the Vedas, yes, the ultimate reality is a Blue skinned Lord. For me, he is. If you reject the Vedas, you can say all this is wrong. Hence, the object is NOT to determine whether the Vedas are better than other sources. The object of the debate is show exactly what the Vedas contain. I don't also give a damn what you ebelieve or pursue - I only care about interpreting the Vedas correctly. You wanted to know the Vedic concept of Brahman. This is the Vedic concept of Brahman. You are free to accept or reject the Vedas. Good Lord, When did I say Mahavakyas are not in Veda? I asked you, why are you quoting from Vedas if you do not want me to prove my point from Vedas? I have proven from Vedas, that Brahman is Vishnu. You therefore, either accept the Vedas or reject it. And can you tell me where I have been twisting statements and interpreting them? I clearly showed you how Vedas state that Paramatma and Jivatma are different and how the SAME MAHAVAKYAS DO NOT CONVEY IDENTITY, BUT INSEPARABILITY. Refer to my first post. I have explained the Mahavakyas perfectly. What did I ignore? When I said, 'you picked the Vakya from somewhere', I did not mean you did not take them from Vedas. I meant, you simply quoted them without understanding what they mean. Get it? Its simple english. Bloody fool, this debate is NOT ABOUT WHICH TEXT IS CORRECT. ITS ABOUT WHAT THE VEDAS CONTAIN. Good Lord, what an ignoramus. You are so stupid, its incredible. I did not ask you where you got the Vakyas. I said, you had stated Vakyas from the Vedas, hence, by default, you have accepted Vedas as pramana. Hence, to argue with you, I use the same pramana, ie the Vedas. I told you, you have accepted the vakyas, and hence Veda as pramana. Hence, if I prove you wrong, you cannot jump away and question, 'are Vedas authentic?' You can only say that the Vedas do not harbor your conclusions. You complete imbecile, I never asked you to give the source of your pramanas. If you have eyes, notice that I have explained your quotes. The subject of this debate, I repeat, was NOT to determine scriptural validity, but to explain that Tat Tvam Asi, Aham Brahmasmi, etc. DO NOT TALK OF IDENTITY. You have no brains, no sense of logic and are completely unaware of what the debate is about. I make it clear ONE MORE TIME - Object of this debate - Explaining the meanings of the Vakyas. Irrelevant to this debate - Examining whether the Vedas are better than other books, etc. The debate can be carried out ONLY if you accept that there is no better source than the Vedas. Because you quoted 'mahavakyas' from the Vedas, it means the thread is restricted to the Vedas. His porch light has completely gone out.
  5. Nice to see you back again. I suppose you didn't get enough of it in the Shiva thread? Honestly, one can simply count on you to agree with the wrong guys, huh? EDIT: To Ravindran, you have two options. Either try to prove that the Vedas convey your philosophy as you originally intended, or simply, say that the Vedas are wrong and get out of here. I never meant to argue with someone who doesn't accept the authority of the Vedas. The whole debate was based on the way you interpreted some Vedic Statements.
  6. Then, explain why you asked me 'What is the VEDIC concept of Brahman'? Good Lord, you are thick. The whole premise you based your arguments was on Vedic Texts. Hence, I have proven that these same Vedic Texts do not contain your beliefs. Therefore you have two options, 1) Either try to answer back using the same Vedic Texts, 2) Reject the Vedic Texts and say you don't follow them. If you choose option 2), I have two choices myself, 1) I could convince you that the Vedic Texts are authority and better than the rest, 2) I could simply say, 'Go ahead, do what you want'. Since you appear to be mentally incapable, I have decided on option 2). If you do not believe what the Vedas say, do not ever post 'Tat Tvam Asi' and claim that it conveys your views. You moron, I had no intention to convince 'neutral seekers'. You argued that Indra was the God of the Vedas, and that Brahman being the Universe was also mentioned in the Vedas. I proved that such things are not in the Vedas. However, if you feel your views constitute the ultimate reality, then go ahead, reject the Vedas. Dimbulb, this is not a thread to test scriptural validity. You started a debate asking me the Vedic Concept. Hence, I proved that my views are consistent with the Vedic concept. When you quoted 'Tat Tvam Asi' and 'Aham Brahmasmi', it meant that you were asking me as to how I can interpret these statements to suit my philosophy. I showed you, that 'Tat Tvam Asi' and 'Aham Brahmasmi' do not mean identity. That's all this debate was about. This is not to determine whether these texts are valid or not, but to ascertain the philosophy in these texts. If you are a Christian or Muslim or Buddhist, I wouldn't ask you to follow the Vedas. Believe what you will. Ranting and raving also is not going to convince anyone, is it? So far, you haven't even understood anything. Calling you names is definitely not a sin. Trust me, you are quite beneath my intelligence. Its actually fun arguing with someone so dull-headed as you, that's why I am doing it. I am afraid, we have a very flawed Brahman here. Logically, you asked me what do the Vedas say. Logically, I conveyed what the Vedas say. Hence, logically, this debate is about the Vedas and not about any other religion or text. So, either put up, or shut up. You asked me what was in Vedas. I showed you what was in Vedas. That's all this debate is about. It is about the philosophy contained in the Vedas, and not about whether the Vedas are better than other texts. In order to start a debate, we need pramanas. By asking me what do the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads say, you had accepted them as pramanas. Hence, if you say you don't believe them, it means you have other beliefs that are independent of Vedanta. In which case, I could care less about what you believe. Moron, I am on leave, so its no problem with me. The problem is, you have no idea of how to conduct a debate. Understand that this debate is not about the validity of the Vedas. This debate is about understanding what the Gita and Upanishads say. I have mentioned that Gita and Upanishads do not support your view. You started the debate by challenging me on what these texts said. If you say you do not believe in these texts, that means we have no debate at all. I assure you, by all means, keep posting. Exposing the hollowness of a completely brainless fellow like you is something that I shall enjoy. Unless the admins ban me for my language, so I suppose I will have to restrain that. The Kundalini has ruined Ravindran's brains. EDIT: To Admins, I shall refrain from abusing him here onwards.
  7. You bloody idiot, if you do not believe in the Vedas, it is fine by me. Go by your own experience. You, however, asked me, in no uncertain terms, 'What is the VEDIC concept of Brahman?' By asking that question, you were directly challenging me to reply from a Vedic point. This implies that you had accepted the Vedas as the source for debate. Furthermore, you quoted some vakyas from the Vedas and asked me to explain them. Which I did. My dear friend, I abuse with style, if I may say so myself. While some people have no brains and are actually incapable of answering, I answer with substance, logic, pramanas AND abuse. Ravindran, it is clear that you might be on drugs, rather than the vedic rishis. Of course, you are Brahman, you are 'realised', so you can enjoy, right? You don't even have logic on your side, for the record. EDIT: Here is Ravindran's original post: By quoting Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads (in quite an amateurish manner, I might add), he had already implied that he accepted the validity of these texts. Hence, it is logical that I respond by using those very texts, which I did, and proved that they did not talk of identity. To which he asks, 'how can you say they are valid?' To which I replied, 'Then why did you quote them in the first place?' We are talking about Vedanta here. Not Bible, Koran or any other book. 'Course, you have the freedom to reject Vedas as nonsensical and follow the other texts. But you wanted to prove that Upanishads talk about Universe being Brahman, etc. Hence, it follows that you should either argue with Vedic texts or stop replying to threads on Vedanta. Conclusion- Ravindran lacks logic and rhythm in his approach.
  8. In any case, by mere logic, I have shown how Brahman's svarupa can pervade, and at the same time, exist as the Dark Hued Lord in a localised place. All you have been saying is 'Universe is Brahman' without any sort of pramana, and misunderstanding what I have been saying. While Brahman's Svarupa is not limited to a specific form (it has an infinite form as conveyed by Purusha Suktam), He can certainly exist in full beauty as Vishnu in one localised place. Ravindran Kesavan, is after all, Brahman. He thinks one can worship a Snake or a cat because they are also by default, Brahman. I am also Brahman, by that logic. So, at the moment, Brahman is arguing with Brahman, trying to decide what Brahman is, and all this is an illusion, because only Brahman is real!! Cool. A lot of logic in this statement, dude.
  9. If you remember, you asked me what was the VEDIC concept of Brahman. Not the Biblical or Koranic concept of God. Therefore, I am only giving you the Vedic concept. Refute it with Vedic premise. So, I presumed you wanted to argue based on the Vedas. If you reject the Vedas, then go ahead and rely on your experience. Nope. That is the Christian view. The Vedas are held to be unauthored by even God. Hence, they are completely neutral and devoid of personal experience, etc. Even the words of God are not valid until they are affirmed by Vedas. That is why personal experience is rejected in Vedanta. There is no pramana to prove you are Brahman. Heck, your ignorant responses prove you have too many flaws to be Brahman. Yes, Vedas have been interpreted differently. That is why I said, you follow one interpretation and try to defend it. I will follow another and do the same. I have chosen Sri Ramanuja's interpretation. You have to choose from existing systems to argue. I can then prove you wrong. If you are gonna formulate some new system based on 'experience', I am sorry, dude, you are deluded. You quote from the Veda, you verify my quotes, you try to provide a refutation by answering my explanations. Period. Logic is pramana as long as you claim you do not belong to any Vedantic system. HOWEVER, You placed some pramanas like Tat Tvam Asi before me and asked me how I should explain them. Hence, the debate was started with the premise of explaining Vedic pramanas. If you had openly said you do not accept any Vedic system, I wouldn't have argued. The abuse goes to you. I assure you, you are not Brahman, so Krishna won't be affected.
  10. To clarify, let me clear up Ravindran's dilemma, before he accuses me of being 'jittery'. Quite frankly, name calling is not a sign of nervousness in my case, but a routine procedure whenever I debate. Ask anybody. Point 1 - If Narayana has a specic form , say He is a Blue skinned Lotus eyed Man, lying in a Sea , then what lies outside Him ? What about the sky above him, the space surrounding him and the water benieth him.? Is he there or not there, in the space outside his skin encaplulated form? This is the sad manner in which he has understood Vishishtadvaita. Lord Narayana has a Svarupa. This Svarupa has a specific form, which can expand into infinite heads, feet, etc. (as per Purusha Suktam). This Svarupa also has charateristics and attributes of Satyam, Anantam, Jnanam, etc. Now, this Svarupa has a form. This form has the entirety of existence as its body. This is confirmed by Brihadaranyaka (and Purusha Suktam). At the same time, the same Lord, by His infinite power, exists in both the material Universe and in Vaikuntha (which are both part of His body) as Vishnu. By His sankalpa, He can even enter His own creation. Therefore, the idea that Brahman has to be formless to pervade is squashed. When everything is His body, what is the need to be formless? A soul's consciousness automatically pervades and controls the body. Similarly, a Svarupa with form, has everything as its body, and controls it. Since body and soul are often addressed together, Upanishads say, 'Sarvam Khalv Idam Brahma'. Point 2 - that god is the only thing existing in the universe , that there is nothing else but god , that the world is god only, and that there is only one atma - paramatma - plurality of jeevatma's are illusion - all these could be shown as rigorous logical conclution with the accepted properties of god ; omipotence omnipresence and monotheism. amd it can be shown that violation of any one of the conclutionds would lead to either a contradiction or rejection of god's, accepted attributes of suprimacy, omnipotence omnipresence, and omnience. The idea of illusions is hardly logical. There is no pramana to say that what we observe isn't real. Advaita's ideas of Avidya can be addressed by me, but then, this person doesn't even claim to follow advaita. Apparently, he likes to call it 'Ravindran Vedanta'. Wonder where these characters crop up from? As explained, if everything exists as an attribute of Brahman, saying Brahman is the only reality simply means everything is included along with Brahman. Hence, no need to say Brahman is this Universe. The plurality of Jivatmas is established by scripture and by perception. For someone who claims to be a 'manifestation of Narayana', Ravindran is very slow on the uptake. Really, ungodlike, shall we say?
  11. The only monistic systems of thought deriving from the Vedas are Advaita Vedanta, to an extent, Bheda-Abheda and Bhaskara's scheme. Hence, if you wish to argue on what constitutes the philosophy of the Vedas, follow this school. But then, that was never the point. If you think monism exists by personal experience, then go ahead. I am talking about what exists in the Vedas. For this, you need to accept certain things - that Jivatmas, Prakrti and Brahman are eternal, nobody created them, that all gods are NOT equal (even as per Sankara's system), etc. When you do not even accept the basic tenets of Vedanta, how do you propose to argue? I am not interested in discussing your personal experiences. You are a prize idiot. Vedanta says Jivatma is not created by Brahman. Hence, whether Brahman is infinite or not is irrelevant. For that matter, Brahman is infinite and Atman is finite. Svetasvatara Upanishad describes Atman as anu. In any case, I am not here to argue about what you think is logical. I am arguing about what constitutes the subject matter of the Vedas. Hence, if you want to argue, quote Vedic Pramanas at every step to prove your point. Dullard. Again, no pramanas. However, I will humor you. Moron, Rudra, Indra, Chandra are Jivatmas who have attained a particular position by Narayana's grace. They carry out certain duties for Narayana, that's all. Rudra is not innately evil, but being in Samsara, he has a few flaws due to karma. The jivatma by nature is perfect. Rig Veda clearly states that man can become a Deva by bathing in Ganga. I am hoping you will substantiate this with pramanas. You fool, Narayana is present eternally in that blue skinned form in Vaikuntha. That is His abode. His svarupa by nature has a form. You are confusing 'form' with 'body'. He has a form, which isn't made of material elements. That is also His svarupa. And the Universe is the body of this Svarupa. At the same time, by His mere will, He exists in a localised place, even within the Universe (Vishnu Loka) or in Vaikuntha. However, His divyatma svarupa possesses all the qualities of satyam, jnanam, anantam, etc. and pervades this entire Universe. The whole of the Universe is the body of Narayana. There is NO EXISTENCE OR REALITY APART FROM NARAYANA AND HIS BODY. Jack pertains to Jack's body and Jack's soul. You can't call anything other than this space Jack. Hence, the body of Narayana contains everything, sky, space, ether, etc. He pervades it by His svarupa, as the indweller of all. I Again, dullard, I have explained that when everything is the body of Narayana's svarupa, He is one without a second. There is no existence apart from Him. If you say there is something beyond, then ne can keep asking what is beyond that. Ad Infinitum. If I am arguing with a Buddhist, I use logic. You claim that monism is in Vedas and Upanishads. Therefore, prove it in Vedas and Upanishads. Once agai, stupidly ignoring the body/soul concept and as usual, no pramanas. His form is not restricted. Purusha Suktam hails Him as Lord of infinite heads, infinite feet, etc. He is the soul of everything, with the world as His body. You are getting really irritating, all right. I have explained, very lucidly, that Narayana exists with a form. The Upanishads state that Jagat is the body of Narayana. Hence, Narayana is everywhere, as the entire Universe is His body. Just like your consciousness pervades the body, Narayana pervades the Universe. At the same time, by His sankalpa, He is present as the dark hued Vishnu. Chandogya Upanishad mentions that the lotus eyed Purusha resides with a form. Case closed. Again, you have completely ignored all valid pramanas. 1) Brahman is the sole reality. The Universe and Jivas are attributes of Brahman, as they are dependent on Brahman. Since an attribute is non-different from the person, Brahman with attributes alone is the sole reality. There is no existence other than this. 2) That the atman is not Brahman is vigorously established by many Pramanas, and by the simple fact that it is hailed as Sarira of Brahman. 3) That Narayana has a form, and that He pervades this Universe just like consciousness pervades this body negates the need to call the Universe as Brahman. Furthermore, Brihadaranyaka provides the pramana that the Universe is His body. 4) There is no logical premise to show that the plurality is an illusion. Bheda only is apparent. Perception is given full validity within its sphere. You dimbulb, you asked me this simple question - What is the Vedic concept of Brahman? I have explained it. So, if you want to argue a Vedic concept, you use pramanas from the Vedas. Instead, you deal with outside sources that are not relevant to Vedanta. It is very funny that you call me 'jittery' when you have demonstrated an abysmal lack of knowledge of Vedic pramanas. Your idiocy continues. I was never going to 'demonstrate' that your personal belief is wrong. I was asking you - WHAT IS IN THE VEDA. When you argue about Vedic concept of Brahman, I proved that universe is body of Brahman, and not soul. I showed that all gods are not equal, and that the Purna mantra pertains to Brahman, not Jivatman. Try refuting it using Vedic pramanas. So every god is Narayana? Explain why Narayana is called flawless, but Rudra is called sinful in the Vedas. Explain the heirarchy of Devas. Explain why other Devas are called Jivas in no unclear terms. Blind belief, and a tota lack of comprehension. Without understanding the Sariri/Sarira concept, you keep asking, 'How can Brahman with form pervade?'
  12. Vishishtadvaitins do not agree with it. The very fact is that, Dvaitins treat the 'eternal hell' quote in Gita literally and take it as pramana. But VAs treat it as something like a mother threatening a child. If there were some souls that were tamasic in their svarupa itself, it implies that none of us will have an idea as to whether we will get moksha, because some of us may be tamasic. If this is countered to say that tamasic souls will never have bhakti, then again, one can question as to why the Lord keeps these souls perpetually tamasic. If this is once again countered by saying that Atma has been tamasic eternally without the Lord's intervention, then one can raise the question - Lord Vishnu is omnipotent, then why can't he attempt to change the svarupa of the jivatma, to make it sattvik? If the Dvaitin counters even this by saying, Lord has no right to change something that is eternal, one can ask, what about His grace, the overriding factor? Krishna violated the rules of war to procure victory for the Pandavas. So, the Lord would want to break a few rules and change a tamasic jivatma's svarupa to give him moksha. Such things, like eternal hell and tamasic atmans, compromise the grace and omnipotence of the Lord. The pramanas quoted to establish such doctrines, when examined, pertain to samsara and have been mistakenly understood. Shruti says 'Paramam Samyam', ie, the Jivatma enjoys bliss equally with the Lord in moksha. This doesn't make the Jivatma equal to the Lord. Just like a sishya learns from an acharya, becomes equal to the acharya in knowledge and yet still remains indebted to the acharya, the jivatma gets bliss from the Lord and yet remains dependent on the Lord. Other than Ananda Taratamya and this, Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita are essentially the same. Personally, I don't think this little mistake of classifying souls as tamasic will hamper Dvaitins from getting moksha, anyway. Narayana is Brahman. Jivatmas and Prakrti are his sarira. So, stop harboring delusions that everyone is a manifestation of Brahman, and view all beings with equal respect, as servants of the Lord.
  13. Dude, I suggest you too, should post coherently. What you have been posting is also completely irrelevant and does not help Vaishnavism. If you want to state your views, do it in another thread. I love to be blunt.
  14. The main problem is, people have a preconceived view, and do not abide by what constitutes the rules of debate. If you are a Vedantin, you have to accept whatever the Vedic texts say, and argue based on pramanas. All Ravindran has done is quote mathematical formulas, Kant, Christianity and confuse it with Vedantic thought. In addition, He seeks to 'improve' on Sankara's philosophy and does not eve adhere to classical advaita. He also has no working knowledge of debating, and simply argues on some 5 vakyas he probably picked up from somebody. Furthermore, he thinks Hindus worship snakes, cats and everything else as a manifestation of God. This sort of nonsense is really irritating.
  15. Narayana has a Svarupa, which has the entire jivas and jagat as its body. In addition, Narayana, by His own sankalpa, exists in a shuddha sattva form outside of it, in a place called 'Vaikuntha'. In Gita, Krishna says, all Beings are in Me, and I am not in them. This means, despite everything being the sarira of Brahman, He can certainly exist aloof. Vedas also clarify that 1/3rd is Leela Vibhuti and 2/3rds is Nitya Vibhuti. There is nothing other than Narayana, meaning, there is nothing other than Narayana and His attributes. You do not say the Sun and its Temperature are two separate things. Yet, the Sun as an entity is distinguished from its quality of temperature. The whole of existence and reality is simply Narayana and His body. For a person named Jack, the name 'Jack' stretches to Jack's body and Jack's soul. Thus, Jack is One without a Second. There is no independent thing named Jack, and at the sametime, more than one entity is referred to as Jack. Similarly, Brahman, ie, Narayana, with all His attributes, is one without as second. If you are a Vedantin, stick to classical advaita. Personal opinions do not count. Shruti posits Bheda between Paramatma and Jivatma. The Creation shows Bheda, and it is real. Behind it, is the Jivatma. Now, Vishishtadvaita upholds multiplicity of Atman, but we do not deny that all Atman(s) are essentially similar. Each Atman is identical to one another in the sense that all of them have full jnana, and more importantly, have Paramatma as their antaryami. Thus, there is multiplicity even beyond the perceptible world. This is the purport of the Bheda and Abheda Shrutis. We are not Brahman. We are the body of Brahman, inseparable from Brahman. All names are Narayana's but all entities are not Narayana. Indra is a name of Narayana. A jivatma, which has Narayana as its antaryami, names Himself as Indra. That is all. You are still operating on the premise that Atman is Brahman. That is false, Atman is not Brahman. That verse is not talking about Jivatma. It simply is talking about the avatars of Narayana. Rig Veda confirms that Vishnu, the unborn, takes multiple births. The mantra clarifies that Narayana has an original form, from that form, whatever shape He comes in, is complete. Which simply means, whatever comes as avataras from Narayana is complete in all sense. As mentioned before, the mantra does not pertain to Jivatma, but to the manifestations of Narayana. The 4 Vyuha forms, Aniruddha, Pradyumna, Sankarshana and Vasudeva are simply hailed as complete arising from a complete form, ie, Narayana. This is irrelevant and not attached to Vedanta in anyway. Again, Jivatma is not a 'part' of Paramatma. Jivatma is a distinct entity. The Purna mantra refers to avatars of the Lord. Narayana is Brahma, Siva, Indra simply has the following meanings: 1) Each Deva has attribute of Brahman. Siva has auspicousness, but not wealth. Indra has wealth but not auspiciousness. Hence, Narayana, has all of the attributes, so He is Siva, Brahma, Indra. 2) Secondly, by Sarira/Sariri Bhava, only the indweller Brahman is addressed when we refer to Atma. Again, all this has no meaning to Vedanta. I request you to stop quoting Christian and Western philosophy all the time. Learn the Upanishads first. Vedanta clearly states that Jivas, Atman, Brahman, Prakrti, etc. are all eternal. Narayana never created them. But He has absolute control over it and everything is dependent on Him. No violation of sovernity. I am quoting from Sastra. Stop quoting Kant, Keating and other irrelevant stuff here. No 'Hindu' calls a snake or anything as God. It is a complete misconception. Archa Avatara is not 'Idol Worship'. I suggest you read up on classical Vedantic systems before arguing mindlessly. For one thing, a very clear distinction between Atman and Brahman is maintained. Atman is not a 'manifestation' of Brahman. We did not come from God. Sorry, Brihadaranyaka Upanishad clearly mentions that Narayana is the indweller of Prakrti and Jivas. Narayana's body is the world. Narayana is not the world. Excuse me? Have you even understood metaphysics? Vishishtadvaita, Dvaita, etc. are systems that are formulated on strict grammar and logic. Its idiocy to suggest what you have done. By addressing Atman as brahman, the Upanishads simply want to show the inseparability of the two entities. That is wh statements as 'Ayam Atma Brahma' need to be taken as 'Brahman being the indweller of the Jiva'. Pratyaksha itself shows that 'Jack' refers to both Jack's body and soul. There are many pramanas establishing difference and cannot be contradicted. You cannot say Bheda is insignificant and 5 vakyas of Abheda are significant because there is no pramana in Vedas to establish that. Since Bheda is clearly established in Shruti, one needs to interpret Abheda in such a way that it does NOT contradict Bheda. If you are not a follower of Sankara, I suggest you stop replying to Vedantic threads. Western Philosophy, while having its own merit, cannot be brought into Vedanta. Monism is not 'obvious'.
  16. Not really. Any idiot can learn this basic stuff if he makes the effort. You can only argue with your peers, as far as polemics are concerned.
  17. The key to unravelling the Vedas is simply one brilliant stroke of genius, ie, utilising the one verse in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad which says that the jivatma is the body of Brahman. I have said this many times, but for the sake of convinience, here it is one more time: Bhagavad Gita clarifies that the jivas are completely dependent on Brahman. Complete dependency is due to the material causality of the Universe as given in the Mundaka Upanishad, ie, Brahman creates the Universe just as a spider weaves its web. No extraneous material is used. The reason why jivatma is completely dependent on paramatma is because our soul is simply the body of Brahman. In short, Brahman is our soul's soul. Brahman is also present within every insentient thing, and is the soul of the Universe itself. Just like nails are dependent on the body, jivas and prakrti are dependent on Brahman. Dependencty implies that the jivas and prakrti are ATTRIBUTES of Brahman. Brahman is not affected by the flaws of the jivas because His svarupa is different from the attributes. If we take a red brick, there are two types of characteristics - the redness, which can change to blue color without affecting the nature of the brick. This redness is the Jivatma. Then, there are other characteristics like hardness of Brick, which should remain unchanging. The hardness is similar to other characteristics of Brahman, ie, Satyam, Jnanam, Anantam, which never change. So, before we come to the abheda shrutis, take an example. You say, 'Jack is smart'. When you say Jack, two distinct entities are being addressed - Jack's body and Jack's soul. You don't have separate names for the soul and body, yet, both are addressed when you say 'Jack'. This is qualified monism. Two entities become one in a special way. There is no identity, but inseparability. So, Aham Brahmasmi - I am Brahman. Signifies two entities like the Jack example. Your soul, and Brahman, who is the indweller. Hence, Brahman is being addressed here, and there is NO identity. Sarvam Khalv Idam Brahma - It has been stated that prakrti and jivas are attributes of Brahman. Since the attributes are inseparable from Brahman, it follows that they are not referred to differntly from Brahman. When we say 'Sun is shining', it implies that both Sun and Sun's rays are referred to in the sentence. Hence, Sarvam Khalv Idam Brahma simply refers to the fact that the Universe is the attribute of Brahman, and hence inseparable to Brahman. It has the essence of Brahman in the sense that Brahman is indweller. Prajnanam Brahma - Now, take the following analogy. When we say 'flame', it implies that there is light. Radiance is an inseparable part of the flame, but at the same time, the light pervades everywhere and becomes an attribute of the flame. Hence, the verse means that Brahman has the 'attribute' of consciousness. His svarupa has consciousness as its form and as its attribute. When you say 'Jack is honest', it doesn't mean Jack is made of some material called 'honesty'. Rather, Honesty is an attribute of Jack. Similarly, Satyam, Jnanam and Anantam are characteristics of Brahman. Ayam Atma Brahma - Similar to Aham Brahmasmi, it simply shows that Jivatma is body of paramatma, ie, your soul's soul is Brahman, just as Jack refers to both body and soul. Tat Tvam Asi - The advaitin interpretation that it implies identity is wrong. In all 9 examples, Yajnavalkya asks Svetaketu to look beyond modifications and understand the single underlying principle, ie, Brahman. Furthermore, Svetaketu was already arrogant, so it is out of context to say Yajnavalkya was calling him Brahman. It would give him more ego. Tat Tvam Asi means 'Your Soul's Soul is Brahman'. 'YOU' here signifies the jivatma as body of Brahman. 'THAT' refers to the Causal Brahman. Sri Ramanuja's explanation gives us the following meanings: 1) Tat Tvam Asi conveys that Jivatma is body of Brahman. 2) This implies that Paramatma is the indweller of all Jivas. 3) This distinguishes the Paramatma and Jivatma as distinct entities. 4) As Jivatma has an indweller, it signifies that Jivatma is completely dependent on Brahman. 5) The antaryami Brahman is identified to be the same as the Causal Brahman. 6) Complete dependency signifies that the jiva is an attribute of Brahman. There you go. The Bheda Srutis proclaim difference. Abheda Srutis proclaim relative identity and soul/body concept. Ghataka Srutis are for meditation on Brahman.
  18. Before I begin, let me clarify that this thread is NOT to demean advaitins, or to hold that 'X' philosophy is superior to 'Y' philosophy. I am responding to some basic questions posed by Ravindran Kesavan in the other thread. I will now address Ravindran's questions. Brahman, to me, is Sriman Narayana, the abode of auspicious attributes. He is Nirguna, meaning, devoid of bad attributes, and above the modes of sattva, rajas and tamas. Brahman is endowed with the attributes of Satyam, Jnanam and Anantam. Brahman is One without a Second, meaning, that Chit and Achit are inseparably linked to Brahman as attributes and hence, there is nothing other than Brahman with attributes. Brahman is not formless, but has a beautiful form. He is Pundarikaksha, the lotus eyed one. He is the Purusha extolled in the Vedas. He is Gitacharya, the One who delivered the Bhagavad Gita. Other Devas are Jivas. The Mandukya Upanishad, openly dismisses the idea that the world is unreal, or an illusion. In the Brahma Sutras, the world is clearly described to be real and even Sri Sankara struggles to get around this one. The World is real, but temporary in the sense that it is a constantly changing thing. There is only one truth, but it has many names. hence it means, Sriman Narayana, Lord of infinite attributes, is Brahman, and all names, ie, Indra, Rudra, Chandra, etc. belong to Him only. Upanishads do not say that all paths are same. Right knowledge of Brahman liberates. Upanishads are part of Vedas. There are many statements proclaiming difference between jivatma and paramatma. One famous example is that of two birds sitting in the same tree, one eating the fruit and another watching on. While the Dvaitins have reinterpreted all statements as Bheda, Bhagavad Ramanuja has classified Shrutis into three types - Abheda, Bheda and Ghataka Shrutis (Shrutis for meditation). I will explain the meanings of both abheda and bheda srutis. That verse does not mean all gods are equal. It only means, we must look beyond the bodily designations of cat, dog and brahmana, and see that all jivatmas are essentially similar, and equal to one another. We should also understand that every cat, dog, brahmana, deva, gandharva, etc. has Narayana as his/its antaryami. In short, see Narayana as indweller of all entities. I will explain later. Only 5% of the Upanishads proclaim identity. 95% of statements are Bheda. It is quite unwarranted that the advaitins claim that the statements proclaiming Abheda are more 'important' than the statements proclaiming Bheda. Bheda is attributed to the Vyavaharika level. Unfortunately, there is no such pramana for distinct saguna and nirguna Brahman. Nor is there a pramana to prove that the world is illusory or a dream. Mandukya states that Brahman creates out of desire and will quite forcefully. I reject the concept of Nirguna Brahman. The term 'attributeless brahman' is an oxymoron, as the quality of being 'attributeless' is itself an attribute.
  19. I have to say, this thread gets better and better. This comment is priceless. How about a meeting of the 'minds'? Two big brains, Ashok009 and Amlesh arguing would be appropriate, as they are both equally equipped for it. Dude, we are vegetarians/vegans, not cannibals.
  20. Yeah, I guess I need to retreat to the forest, grow a beard and 'experience' Jesus and Shiva merging into my side to be as enlightened as you appear to be. Thanks for the tip.
  21. Well, technically, Vishishtadvaitins call themselves Seshas (servants) of the Lord. Its the Advaitins who insist on absolute identity upon transcending the vyavaharika, but even they do not insist they are greater than God. So, I guess, being 'greater than god' must be either a new philosophy, or must not be a Vedantic premise. Oh well...
  22. That's very nice, but unfortunately, no Vedantin has ever mentioned Freud's theories on human psychology as pramana. Stick to the discussion, which is basically about what Vedas teach. Vaishnavas have proven that Vishnu is the Supreme Lord extolled in the Vedas. You respond by saying its due to errant human behaviour, instead of quoting from the Vedas to prove otherwise. Hence, the lack of coherence is entirely with you. Vedas proclaim Vishnu to be Supreme. Quoting Freud is not going to prove otherwise. How about some pramanas? Without a knowledge of philosophy, you childishly 'propound' too many things. Nonsensical views need to be corrected. Let me explain. Vedas, for that matter, praise Agni, Vayu, Indra and Chandra. But in Kena Upanishad, it is clarified that Indra has ahamkara and that he is not all-powerful. Mahanarayana Upanishad also claims that Indra, along with Adityas, Vasus, Maruts, etc. are born of Narayana. See a contradiction? On one side, you have verses claiming Indra to be Supreme. On the other, you see some verses claiming Indra has faults. In yet another verse, birth of Indra is mentioned. How can a supreme god possess false ego, and have a birth? So, what is the real explanation? If you refer to Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, everything, Jivas, Prakrti and creation (includes Devas, as Vedas say devas are created by Narayana) is the body of Brahman. When I call you 'Ravindran', I refer to two entities, ie, your body and soul. Hence, when Indra is hailed as supreme, two things are implied here: that Indra's soul is the body of Brahman. Hence, Brahman, the indweller of Indra, is being hailed as Supreme. Hence, Indra, who has faults and has been created, ie, had a normal birth, has an indweller who is Brahman.This resolves apparent contradictions. In Brahma Vidyas (upasanas) such as Pratardana vidya and Madhu vidya, it is clearly stated that a mumukshu should meditate upon the Supreme Self having Indra and other deities as His body. That Narayana is the antaryamin of everything is explained in many places in the Upanishads. yachcha ki.nchit.h jagat.h sarvaM dR^ishyate shrUyate.api vaa | a.ntarbahishcha tatsarvaM vyaapya naaraayaNaH sthitaH || Since you have been quoting nonsense from indology, claiming that Indra is the highest Brahman, I doubt if you are mentally capable of a true true vedic discussion. However, proceed if you must.
  23. Sigmond Freud, Akbar and Birbal, etc. are quite irrelevant to the discussion. Vaishnavas are Vaidikas, ie, those who follow the Vedas perfectly. If you do not have a pramana to refute the Vedic stance of Vishnu being Supreme, then do not post irrelevant banter. And Ranjeetmore, please stop posting. In truth, you are not helping either Vaishnavism or Shaivism with your posts.
  24. Idiots should stop insulting or disrespecting Shiva here and calling him evil. He is not god, but he certainly is a bhakta of Narayana. Like I said before, Brihadaranyaka Upanishad clearly mentions that Brahman is the indweller of all entities. And if you refer to my earlier post, I have proven without a doubt that Vishnu is Supreme. When it is proven that all devas are the limbs of Vishnu, and that Purusha Suktam clearly says Lakshmipathi is Brahman, it follows that we need pramans to prove that this Brahman is the indweller of Rudra. It is certainly mentioned that Rudra worships someone in the cave of his heart, and that he gets his Rudratva by meditating on Vishnu. Like I said, just because something is chanted in a Shiva temple, it doesn't make it right. If you want to prove Rudra is supreme, please provide me pramanas by following all the steps I outlined. Vishnu is mentioned as unborn, whereas Rudra is clearly mentioned to have been born from Narayana. What a nice reversal of truth. Actually, the verse is Sa Brahma Sa Siva Sa Indra. Narayana is Brahma, Siva, Indra. Some zealots interpolated this with Sa Hari, to make it look like Hari is just one of the gods. However, if you include Sa Hari, the metre of the hymn falls, and hence it is an interpolation. This is verified by unbiased scholars. Sa Siva does not cause the metre to fall and it is consistent with the theme of the hymn. Hence, it is completely genuine. Sri Rudram praises Rudra as Lord, and then, following the sarira/sariri model, addresses Brahman, ie, Vishnu. Provide pramanas to show otherwise. Are you aware that Vaishnavas regularly chant Sri Rudram? Only, we know what it really means, and attribute it to Vishnu. Like I mentioned before, quoting a few isolated verses that Rudra is Supreme, Vayu is Supreme, etc. does not make that deity Brahman. Follow a philosophy, then apply that philosophy to understand the Vedas. Even if you come up with a pramana that says 'Mahadeva with 3 eyes is Supreme', I can explain it by the sarira/sariri model. Unless you explain exactly why Rudra has a birth, disappears during pralaya, etc. you cannot claim he is supreme. Correction. By pleasing Brahman through Sri Rudra Japa, all devas are pleased. The hymn addresses Vishnu through Rudra. I have no problems chanting it. Kaivalya Upanishad is not authentic. There are 10 canonical Upanishads, with 3 more regarded as authentic. I could quote a 'Trivikrama Upanishad' if I wanted to. But I don't because its spurious as well. In any case, Vaishnavas fully agree that Sri Rudram is a beautiful hymn. It not only invokes Lord Sankarshana, the indweller of Rudra, but also presents the philosophy of Brahman being the soul of everything admirably. Still doesn't prove Rudra is supreme.You have not quoted one pramana to even refute my points. Satapatha Brahmana settles the matter once and for all. Vayu Purana, Kurma Purana are rajasic/tamasic and cannot be taken as authority. Kaivalya Upanishad is not authentic. You got that right!! Lalita Sahasranama is spurious, just like Shiva Sahasranama, Ganesha Sahasranama, etc. And yes, Shiva gave us the Rama nama. Which makes him, a bhakta of Narayana. Why is Vishnu Sahasranama alone authentic? Because nobody has even quoted or commentated on those other sahasranama texts. From ancient times, everyone has only mentioned Sri Vishnu Sahasranama. Even the most devout shiva bhaktas of the 6th century AD, the nayanmars, have not quoted it. Not even the Shaivites of the 10-12th centuries have even mentioned Shiva Sahasranama. Hence, it can safely be concluded that it is a late interpolation. Vishnu Sahasranama is the genuine one. There are over 10 commentaries on it, and it is completely in agreement with Vedas. Other Sahasranama violate the Vedas. For instance, saying that Devi or Shakti is responsible for Narayana is against many Vedic verses claiming Narayana to be the Brahman and to have no cause. Shiva and Shakti are jivas. Lakshmi Narayana is the only truth. Lakshmi too is a jiva, but a liberated one. Shiva and Shakti are still in samsara. As you can see, when all fails, Shaivites can only take resort in Advaita to say 'all gods are equal'. However, two things are overlooked, 1) Advaita was propagated by a Vaishnava only, ie, Sri Sankara, 2) Advaita has been defeated by Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita. Nobody cares about ISKCON. I am talking serious here. Being a smartha, you should know that your own guru, Sri Adi Sankara never asked his followers to worship Shiva. Your rituals being with Narayana smaranam and end with Sarvam Sri Krishnarpanam. Very funny. He has convieniently ignored other great sages like Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhva. Fact of the matter is: The average Hindu worships every god, invented or vedic, with no knowledge of philosophy or scripture. If you eliminate the number of the ignoramuses in the Hindu faith, then the numbers of true Vedantins come down drastically. I respect Shiva as an enlightened Bhakta. He is not god and the Vedas do not say he is. Well, considering that you have not yet answered one single question, it seems like you are content to dwell on your 'Sri Rudram' (and even that is a Vaishnavite hymn). Anytime you feel like establishing your point by following the methodology I gave you in my earlier post, feel free to post.
  • Create New...