Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About sumeet

  • Rank
    Junior Member


  • Location
    Rolla, MO
  • Interests
    Everything that can be dovetailed with Sri Sri Radha-Krishna\'s unalloyed devotional service
  • Occupation
  1. I will briefly quote Ramanuja's full opinion of Advaita as expressed in Maha Siddhanta section of Sri Bhasya of Brahma Sutra of Bhagavan Veda Vyasa, First he gives opponents point of view under [i have only listed sub topic headings]: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe48/sbe48007.htm THE GREAT PÛRVAPAKSHA. 1) The only reality is Brahman. 2) The appearance of plurality is due to avidyâ 3) Avidyâ is put an end to by true Knowledge 4) Scripture is of greater force than Perception 5) The texts which represent Brahman as devoid of qualities have greater force 6) The text Taitt. Up. II, 1 refers to Brahman as devoid of qualities 7) Perception reveals to us non-differenced substance only 8) Difference--bheda--does not admit of logical definition 9) Being and consciousness are one. Consciousness is svayamprakâsa 10) Consciousness is eternal and incapable of change 11) The apparent difference between Consciousness and the conscious subject is due to the unreal ahamkâra Summing up of the pûrvapaksha view: As the outcome of all this, we sum up our view as follows.--Eternal, absolutely non-changing consciousness, whose nature is pure non-differenced intelligence, free from all distinction whatever, owing to error illusorily manifests itself (vivarttate) as broken up into manifold distinctions--knowing subjects, objects of knowledge, acts of knowledge. And then the great bhasyakar who started the theistic revolt against tenets of advaita says: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe48/sbe48008.htm THE GREAT SIDDHÂNTA. "This entire theory rests on a fictitious foundation of altogether hollow and vicious arguments, incapable of being stated in definite logical alternatives, and devised by men who are destitute of those particular qualities which cause individuals to be chosen by the Supreme Person revealed in the Upanishads; whose intellects are darkened by the impression of beginningless evil; and who thus have no insight into the nature of words and sentences, into the real purport conveyed by them, and into the procedure of sound argumentation, with all its methods depending on perception and the other instruments of right knowledge. The theory therefore must needs be rejected by all those who, through texts, perception and the other means of knowledge--assisted by sound reasoning--have an insight into the true nature of things." For further point by point rebuttal refer to the site. Your Servant Always, Sumeet.
  2. its really heartening to know that you say I am not supreme. Its so true. how can we be Supreme, just a small thought will help here. so ganesh prasad please contribute to threads i have opened. i think you are sensible member here. But please quote scriptures because God is known through scriptures alone and not through means like barney and co employ. hoping to see you there.
  3. subject is supremacy of Lord Vishnu
  4. Hare Krishna All, Having established Supremacy of Vishnu over all devatas like indra etc, now I am set on the task to prove supremacy of Vishnu over Caturmukha Brahma. Following this one there will be post evaluating ontological position of Vishnu and Shiva. But its gonna take time. Ouestion 1: So the question to be asked is what is the criteria to determine who is brahman ? Answer 1: The answer comes from "janma adi asya yatah" "He, from whom proceeds the creation, preservation and destruction of universe, is brahman." [VS 1.1.2] This sutra of vyasdeva is based on Taitirriya Up 3.1 "That verily from which these beings are born, that by which when born, they live and that into which, when departing, they enter,that, seek to know, that is brahman." So Vyasdeva puts down creation etc.. as defination of brahman. According to indian logic , an object is defined only in terms of its essential or ditistinguishing charactersitics[1] , hence one must take creation etc.... to be distinguishing characteristic of Brahman. [1] Line taken from Dr. SMS Chari's Phil of Upanisads Pg. 104. Question 2: This is fine still we want to see some more evidence. Show some more quotations is support of your position. Answer 2: Very well. Lets go ahead. Kaushitaki-Brahmana Upanishad IV-19 "Thereupon Balaki was silent. To him then Ajatasatru said: So much only Balaki ? `So much only' replied Balaki. To him, then, Ajatasatru said: In vain, indeed, did you make to converse saying `Let me declare Brahman to you'. He, indeed. Balaki,who is the maker of these persons, of whom verily this is the work, he alone is to be known." Baladeva comments that the word work used here doesn't means normal work but creation. [see Govinda Bhasya Pg 185.] Following the same line of thought after having defined material energy and then spirit soul Lord Krishna says in Gita, Chapter 7, Verse 6. "Of all that is material and all that is spiritual in this world, know for certain that I am both its origin and dissolution." Chapter 7, Verse 7. "O conqueror of wealth [Arjuna], there is no Truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread." Also in Bhagavatam 1.1.1, "Let me offer my obesiances unto Vasudeva from whom proceeds creation etc... of this world....." Question 3: But according to this caturmukha brahma deva who is supposed to be creator of the world will also be brahman. So how can you conclude only Vishnu is brahman and not caturmukha brahma ? Answer 3: Caturmukha brahma himself is created by that entity who imparts vedas to it. See here as we present evidence: You have mentioned that caturmukha brahma creates and is engineer of this world and we don't disagree with you because ***since*** this is stated in sastra it is our position as well. However, same sastra also says that he is created entity at the same time. Mundaka Upanisad 1.1.1 at the very outset says: "brahma devanam prathamah samabhuva visvasya karta bhuvanasya gopta" "Brahma is the first created amongst gods. He is creator of universe and protector of world." Here words Visvasya karta meaning creator[karta] of visva or universe and bhuvanasya gopta meaning protector of world substantiates the position of opponent. But at the same time this very upanisad itself says brahma or caturmukha is prathamah samabhuva or first created one. So even though we know brahma is creator and protector, he himself has been created. Hence according to criteria already established for determining who is brahman, we can safely rule out caturmukha brahma to be brahman himself, because brahman cannot be created. He creates all. And for the above reason even quotes like one given below cannot be understood to mean caturmukha brahma is same as brahman. Taitirriya Samhita 4.1.8 states - "hiranyagarbhah samavartatagre bhutsaya jatah patireka asit sadadhara prthivim dyam utenam kasmai devaya havisa vidhema" "Prior to creation hiranyagarbha existed and that He became ruler by creating all the beings. He sustained the physical universe below and also the heaven above..." I repeat, these verses cannot be used to establish that caturmukha brahma is brahman himself when seen in light of Mundaka Upanisad verse which also says caturmukha brahma is creator and protector but adding to these details it states that he too is created. If someone were to say but that taittirriya verse says caturmukha brahma existed prior to creation, so he should be supreme, to this we reply, the word creation here refers to creation carried out by caturmukha brahma which is secondary. But how can we call it secondary? because other srutis cited here say "Brahma is first created..." [Mund Up] and "at the beginning of creation brahma was projected..." [svet Up] talks a creation which includes creation of caturmukha brahma himself. And Mundaka says then this created one [Caturmukha brahma] goes on creating other things. Hence primary creation is one which includes creation of this brahma. This primary creator is brahman and he imparts vedas to brahman. And we have more support from Sruti to substantiate that brahma is created one. Svetasvatara Upanisad VI-18 "yo brahmanam vidadhati purvam...." "He who at the beginning of creation projected Brahma, who delivered the Vedas unto him........" Here we see that brahma was created and was taught vedas. Bhagavatam 1.1.1 after identifying brahman with Vasudeva on basis of janma adi asya yatah theme developed by Vyasdeva in Vedanta Sutra on basis of upanisad it says: "tene brahma hridâ ya âdi-kavaye ....." "It is He only who first imparted the Vedic knowledge unto the heart of Brahmâjî, the original living being....." adi kavaye means original created being. And we know from upanisad,brahma is first created being. Svet. and Mund both confirm this idea. Krishna or Vasudeva imparts him Vedic Knowledge. Svetasvatara says brahma who is first created is imparted vedic knowledge. Also, Gita essence of all upanisad supports the same position: First half of Gita 11.37 "kasmac ca te na nameran mahatman" "Why should they not offer their homage up to You, O great one ?" Then 11.37 says "gariyase brahmanah apy adi-kartre" "You are greater than brahma, O original creator..." gariyase brahmanah meaning greater than Brahma. Furthermore Gita 8.16 also teaches distinction between Krishna/Brahman and Caturmukha brahma. abrahma-bhuvanal lokah punar avartino 'rjuna mam upetya tu kaunteya punar janma na vidyate "All the worlds, down from the realm of brahma, are subjected to return, O Arjuna. But on reaching Me there is no rebirth." Please take note of this verse. In the word abrahma indicating brahma's realm is specifically used. Furthermore Narayana Upanisad and Maha Upanisad also says the same that brahma is born from Narayana. I haven't quoted them to keep this post from becoming unnecessarily too long. AS A SIDE NOTE: People just see how many different scriptures are condensed into just ***one*** verse of bhagavata 1.1.1. No wonder its called sarva vedam sara. Bhagavatam clinches the issue by quoting caturmukha brahma himself as saying - Bhagavatam 2.6.35: "Although I am known as the great Brahmâ, perfect in the disciplic succession of Vedic wisdom, and although I have undergone all austerities and am an expert in mystic powers and self-realization, and although I am recognized as such by the great forefathers of the living entities, who offer me respectful obeisances, still I cannot understand Him, the Lord, the very source of my birth." Question 4: But at some places Vishnu is also said to be created. So how can you say that Vishnu alone is brahman and not caturmukha brahma based on Sruti + Vedanta Sutra criteria you mentioned earlier ? In Sruti itself it is stated - Atharvasikha Up 2.15 states caturmukha brahma, rudra, indra and vishnu himself are all subjected to birth. And hence how can you use that criteria to rule out caturmukha brahma but not Vishnu. Answer 4: The answer is very simple. Birth in case of Vishnu refers to avatara and not birth in the sense of being created by some distinct entity. Krishna himself says this in Gita 4.5-6 where he also states that he takes avatar out of his own will and not forced by karma or any other entity. In Gita 10.2-3 he says his origin being caused by his own will is unknown to sages and devatas etc... and IT IS HE ONLY WHO KNOWS HIM TO BE UNBORN KNOWS HIM REALLY - HE IS UNDELUDED. Chapter 10, Verse 2. "Neither the hosts of demigods nor the great sages know My origin, for, in every respect, I am the source of the demigods and the sages." Chapter 10, Verse 3. "He who knows Me as the unborn, as the beginningless, as the Supreme Lord of all the worlds--he, undeluded among men, is freed from all sins." Sruti also says what Krishna says in Gita 4.5: "ajayamano bahudha vijyate" "Though He is unborn, he takes many births." [Purusha Sukta, Yajur Veda recension 21.] So also in Taittirriya Arayanka 3.12.7 "Being unborn, he is born in various form." Srutis also say [Compare this to Gita 10.3 and 4.9]- " The wise know well the manner in which He is born." [Taitirriya Arayanka 3.13.1] Krishna is not subjected to Karma. Sruti verifies this: "esa sarvabhutantaratma apahatapapma divyo deva eko narayanah" "He who is inner soul of every being, free from karmic bondage is the divine one - Narayana." [subala Upanisad 7] ***** And a similar claim cannot be made with respect to brahma since in his case Avatar theory is not admitted.***** Hence it is proven beyond doubt that Sri Hari is who is distinct from all devatas including Shakti/Uma is distinct from Caturmukha brahma too. He alone is Supreme. Rest are subordinate. We conclude by quoting another sruti vakya: "agnirvai devanamavamo visnuh paramah tadantarena sarva anya devatah." "Among deities, agni is lowest and Vishnu is Supreme and rest comes in between." [Aitareya Brahmana 1.1.1] Note words Visnuh paramah meaning Vishnu is Supreme, tadantarena meaning in between them [them meaning Agni as lowest, Vishnu as highest] comes "sarva" meaning all, "anya" meaning other, "devatah" meaning gods or deities. There is no reason for Srutis to create this hiearchies if there is one god appearing in forms of caturmukha, indra, agni, kali/uma/shakti etc......... The purport of whole scriptures is just one to establish Hari Sarvotamyah - Hari is Supreme. Your Servant Always, Sumeet.
  5. Only those who will quote scriptures to back up their claims and will not rant and rave are welcome to post here. Brahma Sutra clearly says: Sastrayonitvat I.1.3 "Brahman is realisable only through the scriptures." Srutestu sabdamulatvat II.1.27 "But (this is not so) on account of scriptural passages and on account of (Brahman) resting on scripture (only)." Sruteh: from Sruti, as it is stated in Sruti, on account of scriptural texts; Tu: but; Sabdamulatvat: on account of being based on the scripture, as Sruti is the foundation. (Sabda: word, revelation, Sruti; Mula: foundation.) So please those who do not want to rely on scriptures kindly stay out of this discussion. Veda Vyasa has clearly written that Knowledge of Brahman can only be had through scriptures. Hence we will rely on scriptures only. ADMIN ---- A request to you can you please delete posts which are just abuses or personal speculations lacking scriptural quotes from bonafide scriptures. First lets tackle this then we will followed this by 3 posts in which ontological position of Vishnu and Shakti, Vishnu and Caturmukha Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva will be addressed. And hence Supreme position of Lord Hari will be established. Now the post begins : All glories to Vishnu and Vaishnavas. The Rig Vedic verse "ekam sad viprah bahuddah vadantih" is a very beautiful verse which simply means that Truth[sat] which is one is known/called by many names by those who are learned. Rig Veda 1.164.46 "They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly- winged Garutman. To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan." Now in this verse "Him","He" refers to the same entity called "Sad" meaning truth. From the taittarya verse "satyam jnanam anatam brahma" we know that "Brahman is Truth, Knowledge[Consciousness], Infinte". Hence truth in the Rig Vedic verse refers to Brahman. We have both context support and scriptural support for this interpretation. Lets analyze this further: The verse says Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, Yama are all names of this being. Does this means that demigod Indra Lord of heavens, Agni Lord of fire etc are brahman himself or forms of brahman himself ? We say no it is not thus. Please listen to our reason: In Kena Upanisad following verses occurs: III-1. It is well-known that Brahman indeed achieved victory for the gods. But in that victory which was Brahman's the gods revelled in joy. III-2. They thought, "Ours alone is this victory, ours alone is this glory". Brahman knew this their pride and appeared before them, but they knew not who this Yaksha (worshipful Being) was. III-3. They said to Agni: "O Jataveda, know thou this as to who this Yaksha is". (He said:) "So be it." III-4. Agni approached It. It asked him, "Who art thou?" He replied, "I am Agni or I am Jataveda". III-5. (It said:) "What is the power in thee, such as thou art?" (Agni said:) "I can burn all this that is upon the earth." III-6. For him (It) placed there a blade of grass and said: "Burn this". (Agni) went near it in all haste, but he could not burn it. He returned from there (and said:) "I am unable to understand who that Yaksha is". III-7. Then (the gods) said to Vayu: "O Vayu, know thou this as to who this Yaksha is". (He said:) "So be it". III-8. Vayu approached It. It said to him, "Who art thou?" He replied, "I am Vayu or I am Matarsiva". III-9. (It said:) "What is the power in thee, such as thou art?" (Vayu said:) "I can take hold of all this that is upon the earth". III-10. For him (It) placed there a blade of grass and said: "Take this up". (Vayu) went near it in all haste, but he could not take it up. He returned from there (and said:) "I am unable to understand who that Yaksha is". III-11. Then (the gods) said to Indra: "O Maghava, know thou this as to who this Yaksha is". (He said:) "So be it". He approached It, but It disappeared from him. III-12. In that space itself (where the Yaksha had disappeared) Indra approached an exceedingly charming woman. To that Uma decked in gold (or to the daughter of the Himalayas), he said: "Who is this Yaksha?" IV-1. She said: "It was Brahman. In the victory that was Brahman's you were revelling in joy". Then alone did Indra know for certain that It was Brahman. In the above verse difference between demigods like Indra etc and omnipotent brahman is clearly mentioned. Indra, Agni and other are shown to be *** different *** and *** Absolutely dependent*** on Brahman. Even Uma wife of Lord Shiva praised as Shakti is different from Brahman. Hence forms of Indra, Varuna, Agni etc....... ain't that of brahman. For sruti declares the difference clearly. So how can one interpret without compromising validity of each Sruti verse quoted above including the Rig Vedic verse ? Here is one interpretation: 1) Agni, Indra, Varuna etc have brahman for their innermost self and hence are controlled and dependent on brahman in every way. Being thus dependent[given power and respective functioning capacity] and pervaded by brahman, the Supreme, they can be called brahman. Gita 11.39 vayur yamo 'gnir varunah sasankah You are air, fire, water, and You are the moon! ............ Gita 11.40 ananta-viryamita-vikramas tvam sarvam samapnosi tato 'si sarvah O thou of unilimited potency and infinite power, You pervade the entire universe, and thus You are everything. Here again the idea of infinite power of brahman, His position as the inner controller of everything is clearly mentioned by calling him all-pervading. This is well verified in antaryami brahmana of brihadaranyaka upnaisad where Supreme[brahman] is taught to be inner self/controller of everything. And since every one dervies their power from brahman alone he is everything. Arjuna confirms this vedic truth in the gita verse. Therefore one understanding of the verse can be that since brahman who is different from demigods like indra, varuna, agni etc..... being their inner self and controller and the source of their power etc, all these people can be said to represent him or aspects of him. 2) The words indra, varuna etc........ can be shown to be the names of brahman and not referring to the demigods agni, indra etc...... and hence the rig vedic verse means that Sad vastu brahman is known through *** its *** various names. Note words like Indra are name of Vishnu in Vishnu Sahsaranama. There is a specific sutra in Brahma Sutra which says that ultimate import of every word is Brahman. Check out Brahma Sutra 2.3.17 "But that which abides in the things movable and immovable, i.e. the terms denoting those things, are non-secondary (i.e. of primary denotative power, viz. with regard to Brahman); since (their denotative power) is effected by the being of that (i.e. Brahman)." These two interpretations of the verse is correct as it is well supported by Sruti and Gita. Hence brahman is brahman only, and is not indra, agni, varuna etc....... brahman who is satyam jnanam anantam is to be worshipped as he is and not as indra, agni etc........ If we wish to worship brahman as indra, agni etc..... in forms which are *** not *** brahman himself we should follow the principle of antaryami brahmana of brihadaranyaka upanisad. Otherwise its done with wrong understanding. The same is repeated: Aiterya Aranyanka "For the Bahvrikas consider him (the self) in the great hymn (mahaduktha), the Adhvaryus in the sacrificial fire, the Khandogas in the Mahavrata ceremony. Him they see in this earth, in heaven, in the air, in the ether, in the water, in herbs, in trees, in the moon, in the stars, in all beings. Him alone they call Brahman." Svetasvatara Upanishad 2.17 "The Self—luminous Lord, who is in fire, who is in water, who has entered into the whole world, who is in plants, who is in trees—to that Lord let there be adoration! Yea, let there be adoration." Gita 15.17-18 "But distinct is the Highest Spirit spoken of as the Supreme Self, the indestructible Lord who penetrates and sustains the three worlds.Because I transcend the perishable and am even higher than the imperishable, therefore am I known in the world and in the Veda as `Purushottama', the Highest Spirit." In Gita Sri Krishna further says: Chapter 7, Verse 20. "Those whose minds are distorted by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures." Chapter 7, Verse 21. "I am in everyone's heart as the Supersoul. As soon as one desires to worship the demigods, I make his faith steady so that he can devote himself to some particular deity." Chapter 7, Verse 22. "Endowed with such a faith, he seeks favors of a particular demigod and obtains his desires. But in actuality these benefits are bestowed by Me alone." In the above three verse the essence of all upanisad, Gitopanisad re-confirms what is written in Brihad aranyaka and Kena Upanisad verses. Demigods are ***different*** from and ***completely dependent*** upon Brahman[Krishna, Vishnu, Rama, Narayana, Vasudeva etc....] And hence Krishna very appropriately says: Gita 9.23 "O son of Kunti, those who worship devotedly different demigods, although with faith, they also actually worship Me alone, but it is without true understanding." but what is the result of worshipping with wrong understanding: "I am the only enjoyer and the only object of sacrifice. Those who do not recognize My true transcendental nature fall down. " Gita 9.24 What does fall down means ? It means go back into cycle of birth and death. So what is that transcendental nature that is to be known: It is: Svetasvatara Upanisad III-8: I have realized this Great Being who shines effulgent like the sun beyond all darkness. One passes beyond death only on realizing Him. There is no other way of escape from the circle of births and deaths. III-9: There is naught higher than or different from Him; naught greater or more minute than Him. Rooted in His own glory He stands like a tree, one without a second and immovable. By that Being the whole universe is filled. Also in Gita the essence of all upanisad: Gita 8.9 "One should meditate upon the Supreme Person as the one who knows everything, as He who is the oldest, who is the controller, who is subtler than the subtlest, who is the maintainer of everything, who has inconceivable form. He is luminous like the sun and, is transcendental to this material nature." ---------------------------
  6. you haven't answered my question about how God + Ego = Man is true ? Look at the questions raised in the earlier post and please answer them.
  7. Why not quote some of them ? Lets see which Sruti says some one else is greatest ? Vedas don't teach contradictory messages like Shiva is greatest, then Vishnu is greatest etc...... Vedas are unanimous in saying Hari Sarvottamyah - Lord Hari is Supreme. Knowledge about brahman can only be had from Scriptures alone, so personal speculation won't help. Instead of pitying on me why not show some scriptures that actually support your position. For every claim you make, quote Sruti or Brahma Sutra or Bhagavad Gita to substantiate them. I don't prefer debating with people who cannot quote sastras. So please do so in your next post.
  8. one should look into scriptures to realize brahman and not depend on one's speculation. most people come up with wonderfull ideas but there problem is they don't understand scriptures and hence don't even quote them.
  9. God + Ego = Man may i ask you how will a perfect God be bewildered by Ego ? How can you change the immutable and make him into something else ? Such brahman is not taught in vedas anywhere. Besides have you ever come across Sruti verses like - "agnirvai devanamavamo visnuh paramah tadantarena sarva anya devatah." "Among deities, agni is lowest and Vishnu is Supreme and rest comes in between." [Aitareya Brahmana 1.1.1] Note words "Visnuh paramah" meaning Vishnu is Supreme, "tadantarena" meaning in between them [them meaning Agni as lowest, Vishnu as highest] comes "sarva" meaning all, "anya" meaning other, "devatah" meaning gods or deities. There is no reason for Srutis to talk about this hiearchy if there is one god appearing in forms of caturmukha brahma, indra, agni, Vishnu, Shiva, kali/uma/shakti etc......... This brahmana contains one of the principal upanisad named Aiterya Upanisad.
  10. well guys i am back to this forum after very long break. my last posts here were in 2001 i guess or may be early 2002. anyways MB, your points though correct, but your attitude is not good. seriously thats not the way to present anything, let alone convincing others of your position. I hope you will realize what i am saying. PV if interested i can debate with you. I am an old member here since 2000, have seen a lot of this kind of nonsense and am mature too. may be you will enjoy debating with me.
  11. 1) If you have converted to islam then why you need to come here and tell us ? What do we have to do with that ? 2) And how can we sure that you have converted to islam and are just not kidding to grab attention ? 3) And you will not get any converts here. So better try your luck somewhere else.
  12. hare Krishna Please accept my humble obesiances unto your lotus feet. Sir I am a student and I was busy with exams for my summer semester for a week after 6th august. And then I had to leave for india on 13th. I had a overnite saty in kuwait. I am presently here in delhi. My father had an account in netkracker company which closed down and we still have to open up a new account. And my mother is ill so i have to take care of her. That is why i am in india. I am also working at Samsung R&D centre in Delhi. Moreover, i just recovered from fever. Delhi weather is really very much different from WI weather. Well now that i am well adjusted i can pick up the debate again. But please remeber i will be slow. I have to take care of my mother. And besides that i am working. But still i will carry the debate. When i return to the US in january posts from my side will be more frequent than what is now. Thanks for your patience and hope you are still interested. Your Servant Always OM TAT SAT Sumeet.
  13. Hare Krishna Please accept my humble obesiances unto your lotus feet. ---------- Sumeet, your writing seems to imply that I changed stand. But on the other hand, I have been saying the same thing. ---------- Sir there seems to be a little confusion. The point I am trying to make is that in one of my earlier post i pointed out the following verse from Holy Gita "The Supreme Lord is situated in everyone's heart, O Arjuna, and is directing the wanderings of all living entities,are seated as on a machine, made of the material energy." [ BG 18.61] To which you responded - Response : True. But the living entities are not atma. They are the higher energy of the Lord compared to dull matter. These are separate from the Lord like the desert and the mirage. Then I raised a question who do you think is the living entity refered to in 7.5. Because the words you use in your response above seems to indicate that you are pointing to BG 7.5. So i wanted to know in the context of 7.5 who does living entity refers to. I told you that in the material manifestation there is first the gross body, then the subtle body and beyond both these, is the immortal self. So according to 7.4 both gross body and subtle body are dull matter. So this living entity of 7.5 refers to immortal soul because in the material manisfestation the immortal self[of 7.5] and the material energy[of 7.4] combines to form the living forms we see around us.[ Sri Krishna Himself states this in 7.6 Note:etad-yonini bhutani sarvanity meaning " all beings have their source in this two-fold energy of mine." ] Hence the living entity mentioned in BG 18.61 is the pure immortal self. There is nothing else except for these two energies of Lord responsible for the manisfested cosmos. I thought you agreed with this point of mine leaving behind your previous point that living entities are not atma they are higher energy of Lord compared to dull matter. Sir you say that originally 14.27 was raised as being against advaita and we are hoppping from one verse to another in desperate attempt to fasify advaita. My point is that if we see the first interpretation of Adi Sankara, we note he writes about teh similarity of self and Supreme Self. So he is talking about a tenet of kevala-advaita which says brahman=atman. So if this tenet of advaita can be disproved on Vedic basis, then Sankaras first interpretation of 14.27 shall be blown apart. Then we can take on the second interpretation he offers. Interestingly that second one is quite relevant to the discussion of form of God going on between you and shvu ji and shvu ji and krishna prabhuji. Another point that you mentioned was why shouldn't we take just one verse and try to argue on its basis that kevala-advaitam is false. Sir to prove a philosophy false one has to disprove its tenets. In vedic scripture everything is interconnected. No one verse should be interpreted independent of the other. When a tenet is formed it is assumed to be consistent with the all the verses collectively and not just with few verse which can be interpreted in favor of the tenet. So while you disprove a tenet you will naturally go from one verse to another. Its often, that based on a single or a particular set of verses that people postulate tenets and build on philosophy but unfortunately in the end they land up utterly helpless when their philosophy is found to be incoherent with the entire body of the scripture. Since all the vedic literature complements each other it will be very natural to see many verses being employed to substantiate a point. IN SHORT: Any SINGLE verse of Vedas should be interpreted in light of ALL others. Sir Vedic scriptures teaches both bedha and abedha. To manitain that there exist only absolute distinction or only absolute oneness, one will run into problems with the scriptural assertion of simultaneous existence of both difference and non-difference. Philosophies like Vishistadvaita, dvaitadvaita, acintya bedha-abedha try to reconcile both these aspects substantiated by the Vedic literature into one coherent philosophy. Lastly you mentioned ----------- But remember we are going from one verse to another to prove Sankara wrong and we may have to cover all the scriptures before we discover He is right. ----------- Sir the only thing I would like to say in reply for this is it will be a miracle if this[what you say above] happens. The original posting of Karthik prabhu ji was : ----------- Can we defend advaita through the shrutis? Has it been conclusively shown by the Vaishnava acaryas like Ramanuja or Madhva that advaita is wrong [and hence non-vedic] and that Vaishnavism is the only true path? Or can someone argue that the shrutis are amenable to multiple interpretations and that one can claim that both both advaita and Vaishnavism are both vedic traditions? ----------- We should take up the tenets of Advaita philosophy and examine the in the light of Vedic scriptures and Adi Sanakaras' explanation and defend them successfully against Vaishnava onslaught. If one can do this successfully we can say that Advaita- Vedanta is genuine. Regarding the point that acaryas have given different realizations according to the individual. This is indeed true. God consciousness is propagated according to kala-patra-desa meaning time/circumstances, the capability of the recipient, place of revelation. But whether a particular realization is true, partially true or entirely false can be justified through the proper understanding of Vedic scriptures. So lets see if Adi Sankara's kevala-advaita philosophy is genuine or not ? From looking at the the participants so far in the 5 page long topic, we can see that Karthik, shvu and you appear to be on the advaitin side while me, krishnas, shashi, gHari and JN das ji appears to be on the Vaishnava side. Why not first frame up a general approach to answer this question which is agreeable to both parties ? Then we can proceed accordingly. Sir this isn't foolish criticism. It is an intellectual and philosophical debate which will help us learn more of advaita and you people more of Vaishnavism. Secondly when we defend and question our own beliefs we generally end up getting situated more firmly in them than ever before. This shall help us get closer to the Absolute. So lets take up this debate in a friendly spirit as two groups of Brahma vadins trying to seek out the absolute. I would like to hear what all the participants think of this proposal. Once we agree on the general approach we can start up with the brahman=atman tenet of advaita-vedanta. Your Servant Always OM TAT SAT Sumeet.
  14. Hare Krishna Please accept my humble obesiances unto your lotus feet. In an earlier post you said : ---------- But the living entities are not atma. They are the higher energy of the Lord compared to dull matter. These are separate from the Lord like the desert and the mirage. ---------- >>>And then you said: ---------- Beyond this illusory material gross and subtle body is the jiva bhutam or the countless jivAtmAs. The term living entity can refer to this also. But even this is separate from the Lord. ---------- >>>And now you say: ---------- Response : Beyond the gross and subtle body is the Self which is non-different from God. This brahman has no attributes (nirguna) and infinite attributes (sadguna - NArAyanA, KrishnA, RAmA etc.). ----------- >>>So you agree with me that beyond gross and subtle body is the immortal self. Now back to where this thing started. So now my question is, to who does living entity of 7.5 refers to ? Since it cannot refer to gross and subtle body and beyond them is only eternal atman. So is living entity of 7.5 this very immortal self which you and advaita calls absolutely identical with Brahman ? ----------- Response : Due to ahankar the mind thinks I am the doer and assumes a personality ............. Your assertion that ahankar influences atma is incorrect. ----------- >>>Please refer to BG 3.27 " The bewildered spirit soul, under the influence of the three modes of material nature, thinks himself to be the doer of activities, which are in actuality carried out by nature. " ahankara-vimudhatma kartaham iti manyate meaning that the spirit is bewildered by false ego thinks itself to be the doer of action. Note the sanskrit clearly says that. ----------- How can ahankar influence the atma which is brahman by nature ? Brahman is full of knowledge by delusion and can never be born -ajah. ----------- >>> Kindly see how immortal self falls prey to illusion BG 3.40 " The senses, the mind and the intelligence are the sitting places of this lust, with their help it veils the real knowledge of the embodied soul and bewilders him. " Note again the sanskrit - etair vimohayaty esa jnanam avrtya dehinam The word dehinam refers to the embodied spirit and to no one else. Embodied spirit means immortal self covered by gross and subtle body. Once its[embodied spirits] knowledge is covered by lust born out of mode of passion, the ahankar ego can easily bewilder such soul. In his commentary to this verse Sri Sankara writes "Senses, mind and intellect are said to be the abode of this craving. By means of these abodes obscuring knowledge, this foe deludes the embodied spirit in manifold ways." And then in commentary to 3.42 he equates this bewildered embodied soul to the supreme self. Now its my question to you that if there is absolutely no difference between self and Supreme Self, then how can Lord Krishna say the above mentioned verses ? How is it that the transcendental immutable brahman be deluded by His own energy which is fully under His control ? How can maya effect Supreme Self in this way ? Your Servant Always OM TAT SAT Sumeet.
  • Create New...