
shvu
Members-
Posts
1,850 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Gallery
Events
Store
Everything posted by shvu
-
Who sees Brahman incarnating, etc? That answers the question.
-
He interprets the verse exactly as is. Cheers
-
It is imperative that we keep in mind the difference between the jnaani's world and the ajnaani's world. They are very different in Advaita. The jnaani's view: "When all that exists is the self, who is there to help and who is there to worship?" On the Paramaartika level, there is only the Nirguna Brahman, period. From the Jiivanmukta's perspective [if we can call it that] there is no one to help, no deluded beings and most importantly, no such thing as liberation itself. As Gaudapaada says, the ultimate truth is that no one is ever born and no one ever dies. Needless to say, he has no body, either. According to Shankara, a person can attain Mukti at any point of time [bG Bhaashya, 13th chapter], and thus he sanctions Jiivanmukti, which is denied by the other two big schools of Vedaanta. The natural question that comes up next is "If a person attains Mukti what is the necessity for the body to coninue to live on as in the case of Shankara, Ramana, etc"? The answer is the Praarabdha karma of the body. Ramana did no saadhana and was an ordinary child, but yet was liberated at the age of sixteen. The reason is he was a yoga brashta, someone who had come within inches of realization in his past life. The results of this past saadhana enabled him to attain mukti without actually doing a thing. After Mukti, the body continues to function without actually having a center [Ramana's description] to fulfill it's destiny. It is better to read his own words on the topic. The ajnaani's view: Bondage, Liberation, a Krishna who is concerned about liberating mankind, Jiivankumta [or more specifically, the body of a jiivanmukta], etc, make sense only on the Vyavahaarika level. On the Vyavahaarika level, Brahman possesses attributes and is is different from the Jiiva. The rest follows. Far as I know, no. He sticks to the doctrine in his texts and in a few places such as the kaarika bhaashya, he salutes his Guru and parama Guru for removing his ignorance. That is as personal as he gets. His personal stories can be found in his biographies, which of course are mostly hagiographic. Ramana's talks are very useful in getting answers to this question. Cheers
-
Theist, Is it possible for one to say "BG as it is" is for rascals and also at the same time have great respect for Prabhupada? Thanks
-
Thanks. You are accepting that when Prabhupada says God, he is referring to the Maayaavaada version of God, which is not the same as Prabhupada's otherwise usage of God which happens to mean Krishna. The difference is noted. Is it also correct to say in "I am God", Prabhupaada acccepts that Maayaaavadins use I not in the sense of the personal, physical I, but I as in the atman [as in tattvamasi and in ayamaatma brahma] ? If he did accept that "I" and "God" as used by Maayavaadins is different from how Iskcon uses it, he knew exactly what Advaita was and I apologize for misunderstanding his position. All my criticism about his lacking knowledge of Advaita was wrong. And it also follows that Maayavaadins saying "I am God", is not the same as Maayaavadins saying they are Krishna. The meaning is implicit and the prima facie view is incorrect.
-
Out of curiosity, How can I [of attributes] say I am an impersonal God [of no attributes]? The statement is contradictory. How could Prabhupada have meant that?
-
Ramana's english was very limited. He dropped out of school when he was 16 and later on mostly read tamil and perhaps sanskrit. I am guesing he studied in tamil medium as his family was not exactly well off, financially. Although it has been while, I will try and recollect what I have read. When foreigners approached him, a translator would translate back and forth. According to Brunton's "A search in secret india", once Ramana started replying to one of Brunton's questions in faltering english. But he soon reached his limit and switched back to tamil. Cheers
-
Shiva, Please visit the temple and have some halva, Prabhu. It will make you feel better. Karthik, Jndas, I believe everyone here has said what they wanted to and no party is in a postition to accept the other's position. Instead of making this even worse, let us just let go and move on. Anyway, I don't think anyone here has anything new to add, other than repeat what was already posted or to criticize one another. As a measure of goodwill, I will even apologize for I don't what. That should hopefuly clear up the air. Cheers
-
And the desperate attempt to defend Prabhupada's slander, continues... Most of your conclusions are incorrect. Instead of nitpicking, which would mostly be a waste of time as you are just as ignorant about the basics of Advaita, let me just save myself some typing. You will have to remove the tinted glasses, step back for a moment and look at this from a neutral, unbiased perspective, if you can. Unless you do that, you will continue with such ridiculous views of Advaita. I stick by my earlier stance of iskcon's knowledge of Advaita fitting on the head of a you_know_what. I believe I've provided sufficient reasons to support my position. Based on who is looking at them, they will either make sense or they won't. Cheers
-
After Mukti, there is no Sadguna Brahman to forget ! The problem is your understanding of Advaita is confused and incorrect and will remain so, as long as you do not get it from a proper source. We will keep repeating the same arguments back and forth, ad nauseam. I suggest we agree to disagree until you learn about Advaita. That will be a move in the right direction. Cheers
-
The Guru that we see is perceived by us because we perceive duality. As an example, you perceive x, y, z and Ramana. The difference aamong them is x, y and z are also deluded souls perceiving duality, while in the case of Ramana, there is no delusion. The self, that is the self of all is operating there to provide useful instructions. Why does such a thing happen? Recall the yadaa yadaa..verse from the BG. A liberated person/body is like an avataar with a mission. That is the difference. As far as we are concerned, since we perceive duality, everything is real. The question of illusion doesn't arise. trying to bring in the concept of illuions/non-existence into our existence is wrong and will confuse. Like you said, cold, lonely, lifeless, etc make sense only when there is diversity. To each, his own, theist. Just like different people are attracted to different colors, different types of food, etc. we all choose that system which makes the most sense to us. It is what is true that is important rather than what appears attractive. Like the cup that Indian Jones picks out in the "Last crusade". Cheers
-
As far as the student is concerned, he exists and so does the Guru. The student cannot understand the perception of the Guru for it is not something that can be imagined and so he should not bother with that. When the Guru says "tattvamasi" which means "You are that", he is instructing Shvetaketu about the identity of his soul with the Brahman. i.e., the true nature of the student is Brahman. In the Upadesha Saahasri, Shankara starts the work as a dialogue between a Guru and his Shishya where the Guru starts off by telling the Shishya that he is not the body and his true nature is Brahman and that has to be realized. This is what is translated into english as "you are God", by some. If taken out of context as is done by some ignorant critics, this statement appears blasphemous and will of course, give an incorrect meaning. Cheers
-
Somesh, Let me also say that it is like a breath of fresh air to see an iskconite minus the condescending attitude. You have come a long way. Brahman has no satisfactory equivalent in English, just like many other sanskrit words. God is the english equivalent of the sankrit deva and is sometimes used for Brahman along with Supreme, etc. When I use Brahman, unless I specifically say otherwise, I mean the Supreme Brahman or in your words, para brahman. Whichever comes at the end is the Supreme Brahman, the Brahman I was referring to. Like I quoted y'day, eshhaa braahmii sthitihi paartha nainaaM praapya vimuhyati | sthitvaasyaamantakaale api brahmanirvaanamrichchhati || No, for when there is only the self, such a statement has no meaning. Who is saying that to whom? IMO, it is not a good idea to learn about the specifics of a doctrine on a discussion forum. If you are keen on knowing the position of Advaita [even if it is for criticism], get your knowledge from a valid source, which would be a work authored by Shankara himself. The last thing you want to do is to rely on knowledge from a non-advatic source. Advaita, unlike other doctrines, is confusing if not approached correctly. Shankara has given Bhakti it's due. What kind of evidence are you looking for? Let me know and we will take it from there. Cheers
-
Theist, You are back on square 1. I suggest you read thru the last few posts again to understand what an advaitin means when he says "you are God", etc. Cheers
-
Good points karthik, The problem faced by disciples is, they are bound by sentiments which places on them the burden of trying to justify every negative statement made by their Guru, which in this particular case happens to be many, unfortunately. Not everyone can be a Ramana Maharshi. Cheers
-
And if Advaitin does'nt say "I am God" then what is the doctrine?
-
Somesh, All the questions you have asked have been discussed in detail in "Is Advaita a genuine tradition?". This thread is a few months old and you can check it out to get my views on the Advaitic perspective of of the Gita which is based on the larger picure of including Upanishads. An interpretation of the Gita which is consistent with Sruti [viz., Advaita] is bound to be different from an interpretation that does not take Sruti into consideration [viz, Gaudiya]. Cheers
-
The second list is much better. To clarify, my statement was not targetted at Prabhupada, but towards all who hold such an ignorant notion about Advaita. Jndas mistakenly assumed that I was having SP in mind and "Prabhupada'ized" the discussion. But I am referring to the whole set of ignorant critics and so will avoid discussing SP in particluar. Pulling SP into this discussion is highly misleading. Therefore, I also regret shooting off my mouth about SP earlier. Let the poor soul rest in peace. yes, Let me apologize for some of my earlier statements. The *prima facie view* that one gets by reading the above does give an impression that Maayaavaadins declare they are God. Since in reality this is untrue [as I have explained the import of Aham Brahmaasmi and tattavamasi above, anyone who states, "Maayaavaadins declare they are God" knows nothing about Advaita. Their knowledge of Advaita can easily be written on the head of a pin [in fact, there would be space left] and no one should rely on their version of Advaita. Finally, half the dudes [sai baba, etc] mentioned above are not Advaitins at all in which case the argument falls flat again. To summarize, an Advaitin/Maayaavaadin will not declare "I am God". Hypothetically, If someone does, he is not an advaitin/Maayaavaadin at all, for he has not understood the doctrine. Thus, in either case, the argument against Maayaavaadins is invalid. Cheers
-
According to Shankara, it is the Supreme Brahman that is meant here. In his commentary on this verse, an objection is raised that it should mean the conditioned Brahman (Hiranyagarbha). Shankaa refutes this view and establishes that it is the Supreme Brahman. The commentary for this verse alone, runs to 19 pages where other objections are raised and refutted. Cheers
-
Sorry Somesh, As Jndas has failed to point out, no Advatin says "I am God". Please take the time to look at the Brhadaaranyaka verse that I posted to find out where this misconception came from. Can you provide some evidence to differentiate beween Brahman and Parabrahman? Thanks
-
Perhaps you need a course in rudimentary english? Show me one quote in your series of quotes where one proclaimed that he or she is God. Just one will do. The pinhead statment was not targetted at Prabhupada alone. It nets everyone who are of the opinion that Advaitins claim to be God. Prabhupada also said that man did not go to the moon. This does not mean that he knew astronomy. Lack of knowledge about a topic never stopped him from giving an opinion as in the case of Advaita. Like Rajan said, "He[sP] had an opinion on everything from sex to salvation to quarks to Begum Akthar". Now let me show how the typical jndas mind works. 1. Somone posts a quote from SP where SP says Shankara's Bhaashya is a rascal's version. 2. Jndas steps up to defend his Guru, by saying SP never called Shankara a rascal. By rascal, SP must have meant all other Mayaavaadins except Shankara. 3. How do you know? 4. Because that is the interpretation that suits me best. This the kind of strawman you are creating, in an attempt to justify your Guru's knowledge [or the lack thereof]. Anyway, please go back to your list and pull out *one quote* where an Advaitin said he or she is God.
-
I am not clear what the idea was behind posting this series of quotes by people such as Sai Baba, who is a Maayaavaadin [apparently]. But if this was supposed to prove that people who state Advaitins say "I am God" know more about Advaita than can be written on the head of a pin, it simply does not. Au contraire, it only strenghtens my earlier statment, as we shall see now. For starters, none of the above people have said "I am God" . They are instructing the student with "You are Brahman" in accordance with "tattvamasi, O Shvetaketu", which [suprise, surprise !!] was not conjured up by a "Maayaavaadin", but is from the Chaandogya Upanishad. Refer to the sixth book of CU for a better understanding of what that means, especially iskcon folks who have little or no idea about Vedas. AhaM Brahmaasmi is from the Brhadaaranyaka and the full verse runs as follows. This self was indeed Brahman in the beginning. It knew itself only as "I am Brahman." Therefore it became all. And whoever among the gods had this enlightenment, also became That Brahman. It is the same with the seers (rishis), the same with men. The seer Vamadeva, having realized this self as That, came to know: "I was Manu and the sun." And to this day, whoever in a like manner knows the self as "I am Brahman," becomes all this universe . Even the gods cannot prevent his becoming this, for he has become their Self. Now, if a man worships another deity, thinking: "He is one and I am another," he does not know. He is like an animal to the gods. As many animals serve a man, so does each man serve the gods. Even if one animal is taken away, it causes anguish to the owner; how much more so when many are taken away! Therefore it is not pleasing to the gods that men should know this. - BU 1.4.10 It is obvious from the above verse that it is as Advaitic as can be. In fact, Maadhva had to change it to "aheyam brahmaasmi" in order to justify his philosophy. When an advaitin quotes "aham brahmaasmi" it is in this context and not to mean he looks upon himself as some God. Of course, how can one expect someone who hasn't the basic knowledge of Advaita to know this? The "head of a pin" statement fits right in here. Enough said.
-
No Advaitin says "I am god". If someone has led you to believe so, you can be sure that their knowledge of Advaita can safely and effortlessly be written on the head of a pin. I would caution you against accepting any info about Advaita from such sources without verification. btw, the first line does not say "only a devotee knows me". Rather, it says "Through/By devotion, he knows me". However that is not our point of discussion here, so let us move on. Neither does Krishna say "vishate goloka tad anantaraM" or "vishate vaikunta tad anantaraM". Based on this, I can make an argument similar to yours. "Since he does not specifically say place, it is meant to be maaM", which therefore means maaM, which happens to be Advaitic. But however, that is not the way to interpret it. Let us also look at the other verse you quoted. What is meant by "My supreme abode" in 8.21? Is it a place or does it mean unity with Brahman? Let us look at more of the Giita to resolve this. eshhaa braahmii sthitihi paartha nainaaM praapya vimuhyati | sthitvaasyaamantakaale api brahmanirvaanamrichchhati || "Brahma NirvaanaM" is clear in it's meaning and while "my supreme abode" can be interpreted to mean Nirvaana in a figurative sense, can one explain things the other way? Since, it has been accepted by all and makes sense that Krishna is not taking about two separate goals in the Gita, it follows that "my supreme abode" also means Moksha, which means 18.55 is in fact, talking about the Bhakta entering Krishna/Brahman. Also Sruti such as, "brahmavit brahmaiva bhavati", etc confirm this interpretation of the Giita. Thanks. That is exactly what I am doing. Cheers
-
Somesh, You keep quoting 18.54 out of context. When I asked you to explain 18.55, you kept silent about it. No point is made when verses are interpreted of context. Cheers
-
The following is a story from the Mahaabhaaratha, Vanaparva, known as Dharmavyaada Geetha. ///////////////////////////// Kousika, a brahmin had studied all the Vedas and was a righteous person. But he had one failing; he neglected his duties towards his aged parents. He left home, went to a forest and performed penance for a number of years and acquired great spiritual powers. Once, while sitting under the shade of a tree, a bird dropped its filth on him. Kousika stared angrily at the bird and the bird was at once reduced to ashes. Kousika grew proud of his spiritual powers. Once, he reached a house and begged for his food as brahmanas were expected to live on alms. The lady of the house was a little busy and asked him to wait. Just then, her husband returned home, hungry. She first attended to her husband and in the process, she forgot Kousika. When she remembered him, she apologized and offered the usual courtesies. Kousika stared at her angrily as he did to the crane. The lady remarked "Don't think I am a crane. Your anger can do no harm to me since I was engaged in serving my husband as a dutiful wife ought to". Kousika was surprised that she knew the fate of the crane and begged to be excused. She advised him on the Dharma of a wife and asked him to learn further from one Dharmavyaada who was living in Mithila. Kousika immediately went to Mithila where he saw Dharmavyaada, who was a butcher, selling meat. On seeing Kousika, Dharmavyaada came running to welcome Kousika and told him how he was aware of the crane incident and the lady's directions to come to him for advice. This second revelation astonished Kousika further, since there was no way for them to have communicated to each other. Kousika pleaded with Dharmavyaada to enlighten him. Dharmavyaada advised him on several matters including Aachara, Anushtana, Ahimsa, way to salvation, Control of senses, and above all the value of parents and the services to be rendered to them as a sine qua non for being fit to perform other duties. Kousika realized his folly in neglecting his parents, returned home, and served them loyally. ///////////////////////////// Cheers