shvu

Again, yet another of the incorrect versions that I was talking about. Ask for evidence and we will see the song & dance. Advaitins themselves do not know this, but you - an outsider - somehow found out about Shankara's "change of heart"! I have to meet him personally before I can defend his position? Yeah..right, I never met Shankara unlike you guys defending Chaitanya & Jesus because you regularly played golf with them during weekends. This is the kind of nonsense that makes you people lose crediblity. The rest of your post was mumbo-jumo that went straight over my dumb Advaitin brain for which I apologize. Perhaps of you spelt it out in simpler terms (and shorter too), then I may have a better chance grasping it. Cheers

People who go around repeating what they heard from someone else - that they are not their bodies - why then do you dread old age and disease? It is not you in pain anyway. Shouldn't they actually dislike living long lives as the sooner the body dies, the sooner they can get to their destination? Why seek medical care, etc., and try to prolong life? So the question is, do you really believe you are not the body or are you just holding on to the thought of living forever as it sounds comforting at some level? This also relates to animal slaughter. If you believe the animal is not its body, then why do you care? Also, the sooner it dies, the sooner it will move on to better life forms. And yet you want to prolong its body and ultimately delay its spiritual progress by keeping its body alive. Cheers

I stopped doing this several years ago as at that time, there was a clash between Pitruloka of the Vedas and the reincarnation concept of the Gita. Only one of them could be true, so I picked reincarnation and decided there was no Pitruloka. Now it is reversed. Subjectively, If I had to choose between Pitruloka and reincarnation, I will pick the former. However objectively, there is no evidence for either and so I have to pass on both. Cheers

This is wrong too. There are several others who know as well. Cheers

<o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p> It isn't as simple as you are putting it. I am not taking about Appaya, I was talking about Shrikanta. It is not the question of who deafeated whom, but I am saying various interpretations have come out of the Veda. The Purva Mimamsa tradition which was the precedent for Vedanta traditions was practically atheistic. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> So the same set of scriptures were used to draw up different conclusions by different traditions. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p> Not really. There are many Yajurvedin Shaiva Iyers where Rudram, chamakam, etc., play a major role. They are Advaitins of course, but setting that aside, they do not see Vishnu supremacy in the Yajur. <o:p></o:p> When talking about Hinduism as a whole, then the dynamics change. Brahmins form a tiny part of the whole group and for the rest, obviously there will not a direct connection to Vedanta. That is why they have their own scriptures or no scriptures. This is true for non Brahmin Vaishnavas too as they never bother with the Veda or the Gita or anything else. They are happy enough worshipping Narayana/Narasimha/Krishna and visiting Tirupathi, etc. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> This is also true for the Hindus who flock ISKCON temples. Their presence there does not mean they to Gaudiya Vaishnavism. I will bet most of them never even heard of the tradition. To them, it is just another Krishna temple. To close, a final point on "defeating" other interpretations. If you check with Advaita Mathas, they are absolutely undefeated. You check with Udipi and tattavada has been the most successful in debates. Ditto with Sri Vaishnavas. And to add, Chaitanya from Bengal, visited South India and defeated everyone there! <o:p></o:p> Cheers <o:p></o:p>

That is the Advaitic interpretation. Here is something amusing. When Dvaitins argue with Advaitins they will draw on points where the two doctrines differ which makese perfect sense. But with Hare Krishnas, they are usually either arguing about points that are part of neither tradition or else common to both traditions! Would it not be better to lay off topics we know nothing about? Pretentious knowledge only leads to embarassment. Cheers

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p> Bhaktajan can learn to write coherently. Or maybe he already knows how, but is not inclined to go that way.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p> What the Vedas promote is strictly prone to interpretation. There have been some odd cases where Shaiva scholars interpreted the Sutras to establish the supremacy of Shiva. But in general, the various Shaiva groups have their own scriptures and therefore what the Vedas say or do not say – is of no concern to them. A comon overlooked fact is the majority of HIndus do not bother with the Vedas and the Gita, though the Gita is pushed as a "Hindu Bible" in the west. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> The Advaita tradition does not care for assigning supreme status to any one form. The whole debate of Vishnu vs. Shiva is redundant in that tradition. They interpret the Veda to show oneness of a Nirguna Brahman. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> So it is certainly not the case that there is some kind of single universal truth that the Veda declares. It depends on your source. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Cheers<o:p></o:p>

Do you know where Shankara quotes this upanishad? I have never seen him quote outside the "top 10" which he has also commented on. But of course, I may have missed this one. Cheers

Nope. This is the false version I was alluding to, earlier. Both definitions are incorrect. If the Mayavadi is already God, then why does he want to become one with himself again? Advaitin -> Duality is not real and perceiving this fact is Moksha after which there is no duality. No one "becomes God" or "aspires to become God" as some people have put it. For eample, theist after all these years, still persists with the same nonsense about Advaita. Ask him for proof and he will go into a song & dance as usual. Advaita = Mayavada = Advaita = Mayavada = Advaita... There is no difference at all. Here is the relevant part from the Advaita FAQ Why is advaita sometimes referred to as mAyAvAda? The word mAyAvAda serves many purposes. Since advaita upholds the identity of the individual Atman with brahman, a doubt naturally arises about the origin of the variegated universe. The appearance of difference in the universe is attributed to mAyA. In popular parlance, mAyA means illusion, and a magician or a juggler is called a mAyAvI. Within advaita, mAyA has a technical significance as the creative power (Sakti) of brahman, which also serves to occlude, due to which the universe is perceived to be full of difference, and the unity of brahman is not known. See fuller details in response to Q. 3 above. Some vaishNava schools use the word mAyAvAda in a derogatory sense. However, this criticism interprets mAyA solely as illusion and criticizes advaita for dismissing the world as an illusion that is nothing more than a dream. Such a criticism neglects the philosophical subtlety of the concept of mAyA in advaita. Wikipedia should have something on this as well. You should also check Prabhupada's "What is Mayavada?" that was doing its rounds on the internet a few years ago. He quotes the "mayavadam asat shastram" verse from the Padma purana and how Shiva came as Shankara to preach this false philososphy. Therefore, in the words of Prabhupada himself, Shankara's Advaita = Mayavada. That should clear it up. Cheers

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Is that right? I know a number of Shiva devotees who worship him for material gain (several years now) and have seen no improvement in their lifestyles. Given that a huge chunk of the Indian population has been Shaiva for thousands of years and if it was as simple as worshipping Shiva to become affluent, then India would have been a superpower now. Of course, I have seen Vishnu/Krishna devotees too who did not get what they asked for. In one case, they went to Tirupathi to pray to the Lord and on their way back, their kids were killed in an accident. They might just as well have stayed home and been better off. In short, statements like the above “they derive great material benefit by worshipping him” are so not true. You are all adults and have lived long enough on the planet to know these things through direct experience. Why do you choose to override your personal experience (and intelligence) with some meaningless quotes from a religious text? Personal experience has more value and truth to it than what is written in a book by someone you never saw or met. Cheers

Krishna is a HK? He is not a Hindu, but he is now a HK? Sounds like the Jesus is a Vaishnava thing to me... As I said earlier, by HK, I mean Gaudiya Vaishnavas. My criticism comes from several posts made by your peers on this form for years. They never acknowlegde that they are the ones who create trouble here by criticizing others, but are always quick to take offense when criticism flows the other way. That is what I am taking about. You can always use the search feature to see how HKs were responsible for most threads that degenerate into mud-slinging. 1. Theist pokes his nose into Mayavada and calls it poison, but no one should object to that. Apparently, it is Aparadha to object to his views 2. Guruvani mocks Shaivism & Kundalini because they are not GV compliant, but again he is above criticism 3. I don't know where to begin when it comes to criticism of Hinduism. The list is long...but this should give you an idea of where I am coming from. Cheers

Mayavada is a name given to Shankara (800 AD)'s doctrine of Advaita by rival schools. One who adopts and follows this doctrine is a Mayavadi. Inside the tradition the term is rarely used, if ever. There are all kinds of distortions and incorrect usage of this term by some people, but the above definition basically covers it. You can look up Advaita on advaita-vedanta.org and/or wikipedia. Not because I am selling it (I am not), but just so you know what these terms mean when you hear them. It is better to take a few minutes to kow the offical position than to persist for years with an incorrect view. Cheers

Bija conveniently glossed over the part where HKs criticize others. As usual, I might add. As I said earlier, Hks are completely oblivious to their own shortcomings. 1. When I write HKs, I mean Gaudiya Vaishnavas. They may have all kinds of internal differences and politics, but outside the GV group, they are all the same. 2. My criticism is always in retaliation. It is Hks who poke their noses into Mayavada and other areas, which have nothing to do with their faith. When they go out seeking trouble, it is only fair to expect consequences. So for Bija et al., try to first accept your shortcomings. Until you do that, until you continue to pretend that you guys are not the one who start trouble on the forum, you have a long way to go. And if you do not believe me, check the history of this forum since 2000. Cheers

You ask, is this our civilization? The answer is Yes. Shaivas & Vaishnavas have been claiming superiority over one another since at least the time of the Mahabharata, which should be a minimum of 2000 years ago. Nothing has changed as of July 2008. The concept of debating other traditions has been around since the time of Badarayana and Jaimini which is also around 2000 years old. If you look at Buddhism, they styled themselves as different from Jainas, the Brahmin religion and every other leading religion during 2600 BC. It is not like they murdered each other when they found opportunities. They have coexisted peacefully enough, in spite of diffferences in religious beliefs. So I do not see a problem. It is human nature to think and feel one's own religious belief is better than everyone else's. Some people here tend to get very vocal about that and post disparaging comments on other beliefs. It is only natural that other parties will react to that. Some Hare Krishnas who were fond of criticizing Mayavada, Shaivism, etc., thought they had special privileges which allowed them to say anything they wanted, and no one should object to their mockery. As that was not the case, they have mostly disappeared from here. Cheers

OK...let us explore that line of thought a little bit. Does Krishna know today, which shirt I will wear tomorrow? If yes, then I do not have freewill. If no, then he does not know the future which contradicts the Gita verse. Cheers

I think it is also possible part of the paradox arises from incorrect understanding of the future. We (at least I) see the future linearly just like we see the past as a single path through time. As I examine the events of my life (and of others around me), I see that the majority of them are beyond my control. Like driving home from work - for instance. It is not just me, all the hundreds of other cars should drive correctly too, for me to not get involved in an accident. The same logic applies in almost everything in life as I see my part is so minimal - almost negligible to the point of completely discounting my active role. Cheers

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> How does this align with the concept of an omniscient God? We will draw some examples from the famous Bhagavad Gita. Krishna says he knows the past, present & the future. If he knows my future, then the choices I will eventually make are already known beforehand to someone (Krishna). Then how is that freewill? Here is the clash between freewill and the concept of an omniscient God. The two cannot be true at the same time. If we choose the freewill route, then we are placing serious limitations on the abilities of The Lord, as he is clueless about the future. He knows only the past and the present, but not the future which directly contradicts the Gita verse. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> The way I see it, there is no free will at all. Any perceived free will is apparent only. Again going back to the Gita, at one point Krishna tells Arjuna that if even if he does desire to go to war, he will do so anyway, bound by the duties born of his nature. The Lord resides in the hearts of all beings, controlling their actions as though they were mounted on a machine. This practically rules out the concept of freewill. Then one can argue the purpose of the Gita. Why did Krishna bother to tell him anything at all, if Arjuna was going to fight anyway? The only resolution I see is, the impression of freewill exists, but it is not real. The Dvaita School has an interesting way of explaining the concept of action and result. They say action and result should be seen independent of each other as the individual cannot be the cause of either on his own. So is there any underlying deeper logic and/or purpose behind the whole thing? It is incredibly important for people to believe there is something super-special happening under the hoods, and they are on their way to a better world. To them, theistic choices like heaven, etc., appear very attractive. But in reality, we have no way of knowing if any of this is true. We can never know if freewill exists and we can never know if there is something beyond what we perceive at this moment. Cheers

Best decision you made so far. Better to be silent than to make ignorant & incorrect assertions about Shankara & Bhaja Govindam. Cheers

Thank your stars I am not the moderator here. I would have booted you out (head first) for your poor netiquette. Try and keep your Hare Krishna arrogance in check. You have neither brains nor the necessary knowledge to pull it off. You should know all this by now as your bogus claims of Shankara were exposed. Cheers

Bhaja Govindam – Shankara’s famous composition of 12 verses has been misconstrued and interpreted out of context by some third parties. According to Advaita tradition, Shankara once saw an old grammarian teaching/arguing rules of grammar. On seeing this, he took pity on the old man and out came these 12 verses, basically telling him to stop wasting time on such activities and instead focus on releasing himself from the cycle of material life. It was not something that he composed on his deathbed after a “change of heart”. Those are willful lies perpetrated by unscrupulous people who have no regard for truth. Losers – in short. Cheers

And who taught these students about the "impersonal form" of God as you put it? Can you suppose something on this? While you are at it, try & understand that "impersonal form" is an oxymoron. That would be a good way to start exercising the brain - something that is going into serious disuse in your affiliation. Cheers

And the idiot refuses to remove his foot from his mouth...Well…<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p> Right...asking for evidence is considered "pathetic" in the world of Hare Krishnas - we know that already through our association with some of your distinguished peers. shvu is not sanskrit - like Hindu. So I guess that makes it an invalid name per HK logic unlike ranjeetmore which is found all over the Rigveda. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p><o:p></o:p> And as expected, you failed to deliver. This garbage you posted is not a work by Shankara as can be verified on advaita-vedanta.org and Wikipedia, among other sites. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> So what you accomplished thus far is to quote a bogus text (in typical Hare Krishna fashion) and try to pass off Gaudiya theology as Shankara’s Advaita!<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> And anyway, if Shankara’s Mayavada is the same as a Hare Krishna philosophy, then why do HKs have a problem with his Mayavada? Confused as usual?<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> But I have to admit, your approach is quite entertaining. Almost as close to Bhakti Vinoda’s fabrications on Madhva & Ramanuja. Keep it up and in a year or two, you should be able to concoct stories as good as Bhakti Vinoda himself. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Cheers<o:p></o:p>

It should be noted that Ancient India's alleged contributions to modern science are in most cases unsubstantiated and untrue. The zero as we use it today was developed in India and spread to Europe by Arab mathematicians & this is an acknowledged fact. Other than this, there is really no other contribution to speak of. It should be noted that Zero was independently developed by the Mayans too, for their base 20 numeral system. Speaking of Varahmahira, he thanks the Mlechchas for giving us the knowledge of astronomy. He says "though they are impure, they are trained in science and we thank them for giving us this knowledge". There you go... There is no point in holding on to pretensions of ancient grandeur which do not have a basis in reality. There were no Rishis in the Himalayas who picked up scientific knoweldge out of thin air through magic. Cheers

Yet another comedian jumps in with some fresh new comedy... Calling thy bluff. Provide a proper reference or stop posting bogus material on Shankara. More nonsense of course. Shankara never said anything like that and you are welcome to prove me wrong. As you raised this topic, the burder is on you to provide references so someone will take you seriously. Shows you have no idea what Advaita is - which should not come as a surprise to anyone. Interesting. So as you are the one who knows what Shankara the Aadi jagadguru "really" says and as you think he is right, you must be an Advaitin! Cheers

Perhaps...but they did not actually say so. So we are just speculating. The Matsya Purana lists all the major Puranas and provides a brief description of each Purana. These descriptions are of great interest because most of the Puranas in their present form deviate from these descriptions in some way. 1. Vishnu: The Matysa says the Vishnu has some 23000 verses. But in reality, the Vishnu only has some 14000 verses and yet it is a full text without the slightest indication that some portion is missing. 2. Bhagavatam: The Matsya says the Bhagavatam talks about events that occured in the Saraswata Kalpa and the story of Vritra. That is it....nothing is said about Krishna. The Bhagavatam as we know does not match this description. So I do not recommend reading too much into Puranas. They have most certainly undergone several revisions over time to gloss over their original content. In my opinion - and I am not the only one - the Bhagavatam as we know it today was not existing during the time of Shankara (800 AD) and was too new and an obvious interpolation during the time of Ramanuja which is why he never mentions the text. A couple of centuries later, it had become popular and so Madhva wrote a brief commentary on it to clear up some confusion it had created - like the avatar concept of Krishna, etc. Cheers