sambya

that a real truth spoken by you. the materialists waste their time because they dont have anything better to do.but all of us here are a group of people who know that realization is the only goal in this rare human birth,and also know that life might end at any moment and yet spend hours in this forum instead of doing something for our own spiritual upliftment.

hi ranjeet.now its better that you have analyzed and answered my questions.btu i should mention some points here : you said "whereas mayavadis say: Eh,I'm as great as you are.I won't bow down to you.I don't need you to cross this mountain." but this is a generalisation of all the advaitists.its true that some adherents to this theory are actually puffed up but most of them dont pursue advaita to defy or outshine god.just think of shaktas ans shaivas. almost all of them pursue a path of devotion to their respective ishta dev or devi ,but simultaneously believe in advaitic nirvikalpa to be the highest realization.so they are basically bhaktas with an advaitic philosophy.they never try to say im as great as you,but they dont reject advaita anubhuti.and specially in todays time most people believe in what some people call as neo-vedanta.in this there is no derogation or underestimation of the path of bhakti.they pursue prema bhakti but keep their belief in advaita .its called gyan mishra bhakti. when you said "but we take different meanings for the term Bhramn too." i couldnt understand what you meant. how can brahmn have two interpretations? brahman is unity.maybe you are trying to suggest the saguna and nirguna thing but that dosent split brahman in two.its a mere perception of brahman. similarly in paramhamsa case their realizations are essentially one,but the perceptions of general people may vary. also when you say "this logic is tosh"you must analytically explain why do you think it to be such. you said"Bhukti-Mukti pishachani. thats true. many advaitins(specially the neo advaitins) do not care for bhukti or mukti.they love brahman the formless nirguna aspect of lord just like dvaitins love their god with a form.its a misconception that advaitiats only strive for mukti and nothig else. also markendaya purana is not written by markendaya.it is a diolouge between jaimini and sage markendaya.all the major puranas were written by vyasa himself.remember that it is durga who was the main shakti of vishnu before the concept of radharani generated in gaudiya vishnavism.durga and mahalaxmi are non different and it is laxmi who took birth as tulasi according to one purana.also you say"Parabhupada has explained that there is not a distinct difference between the possessor of the Energy and the Energy as such,BUT the possessor alwys remains the controller of energy." that is true from one perspective but remember there are innumerable ways of viewing at things.when i think from the side of the 'powerfull' it is evident that he is superior to power , for without him power cannot work at all.but when i look from the side of 'power' its evident that without her powerfull cannot budge an inch.here power becomes superior.it all depends on what perspective you are looking at it. you mentioned --And the verse of the really illustrious Jiva Gosvami means thus: "Although Maya/durgadevi is really the external energy of sri krsna,she still resides within Him for she is His energy afterall." how is that? the interpretation would be-- yah-one who krishna-is called as krishna sa iva-he is also durga syat-durga herself yaa durga-one who is called as durga krishna eva-is also krisha sah-himself. where does the words 'external energy(vahiranga shakti)', 'resides' comes in? you said-"I'm not refuting the existence of Nirgun,Nirvishesh,niraakar Bhramn" by accepting nirgun brahman you automatically accept that everything is brahman.thanks for your final admission.now you know that advaita is not a complete hoax.it is in reality a very hazardous path with real dangers of falling down, which is why most spiritual leaders add bhakti with advaita and respect bhakti.that is why it is also written in gita that "one who follows gyan marga also comes to me,but with difficulty".so it is prooved that it is not a complete hoax but maybe an insufficient path.you dont need to follow advaita,but dont disrespect or disbelieve it. best of luck.

hi amalesh. i dont wish to generalise all vaishnavs and land them in a common catagory.read 'vaishnavs' as iskconites and people of similar thoughts. sorry for typing in that wrong sentence in a hurry. i did not mean krishna of course.not even the vaishnavs in general, but specifically members of iskcon.

well most guys in isckon puts forward these as their basic arguments.but hey,why do you think i dislike vaishnavs? i know that true vaishnavs are hard to find.and a true vaishnav is worthy of worship among men.i have nothing against such noble souls.its only the misconceptions and orthodoxy that im talking about. you said you hate books.thats your individual choice and there's nothing wrong with it but the very foundation of spirituality rests on words and wisdom of ancient sages ,which we find in the books.without them i can never argue,because my knowledge of god is from their sayings and not through my own realization.and in any case,without books neither krishna nor brahman would exist(existence in our knowledge,not real existence, i mean.). the day i personally realize him i would rejoin the forum and argue without reference to books.

im unaware of anything written about capital punishment in gita as claimed by bhktajan.or maybe i dont remember.can you please specify the texts so that i can give a reading of 'as it is' once more. im worried about ranjeet.why isnt he responding? it would be really nice to see the thread starter back here at this point of time.

i have always noticed that vaishnavs(specially iskcon) have a very insufficient knowledge of advaita.their arguments are mostly based on what their respective guru told them instead of what they have read and understood.im not against vaishnavs or krishna but this thread is to prove their ignorance regaurding advaita.and before venturing further i should humbly request everyone to read with a clear and impartial mind. MISTAKE 1 : they keep on assuming that brahman is an entity and has a particular state of existence.reading through a bit of advaitic books would clearly reveal that it is not so.brahman is perfect and absolute unity.it is one without a second.it does not come into existence.its the only thing that exists. MIATAKE 2 : they believe that brahman is krishna's angajyoti.this is utter nonsense.the very nature of brahman is complete and absolute unity.so where does krishna come in ,in the first place ?this angayoti concept is of much later origins when vishnu worshippers wanted to glorify their ishtadev more than brahman. MIATAKE 3 : they think that vaishnavism has been at the core of hinduism since the begining while advaita and else are all later developements.infact advaita was the dominant thought in vedic times only to be overshadowed in puranic era.that is why we find most upanishads to be mostly advaitic and puranas just the opposite.one of the biggest indication that brahman was at the root of sanatan dharma is the words braahman(one who is situated at brahmbhuta stage),brahmananda,brhmachari, etc.if krishna was the supreme then it would all have begun with krishna instead.you cant deny history can you? MISTAKE 4 : they often quote a story---" an advaitic sadhak believes in 'brahma satya jagat mithya'.but when his son dies and he cries with grief.where is your jagat mithya now??" this is ridiculous.a sadhak is never on the perfectional stage.he has his ego,mind and everything.he is trying to realize that this jagat is mithya.he have not achived that realization.so it is very natural for him to cry.and when he does achieve that state he dosent live any longer to tell the tale. true advaitist sanyasis would never claim jagat mithya unless he realized that.till you have your ego.the world is existing before you.its only when you transcend all ego you can realize that stage.the problem however arises when some over enthusiastic advaitic aspirant starts shouting jagat mithya and simultaneously participates in material activities. MIATAKE 5 : they think maya to have a continuous existence even in advaita.in the highest advaitic realization there is no such thing as maya.there is a well known story of mistaking a rope for a snake on stepping over it in the dark room and realizing moments later that it is a mere rope.but for those few moments it was a perfect snake to you.in a similar way we are in a perpetual delusion of thinking the one to be many.there is no such thing as cosmos or universe(the snake in the story) in pure advaita and maya is a name given to this unending delusion. MISTAKE 6 : they think brahman to be void . this is pure idiocy. void is where nothing exists,and brahman is that who only exist.there is no second existence other than brahman. how can existence be void ? MISTAKE 7 : they percieve brahman as something that can be speculated upon. this is out of absolute ignorance of advaita.the fundamental principle of advaita states that brahman is much beyond human endeavour or reasonong.it is vakya man atit(beyond mind and speech).so there is no scope of speculation in the first place. MISTAKE 8 : their argument - "an advitic sadhak after attaining nirvikalpa samadhi comes down again to the level of material consciousness .this shows that material world is existing and not mithya,for why would he come back to this world after highest realizations" this is a wrong notion that an advaitist comes down to material conciousness after nirvikalpa.the truth is that , on attaining nirvikalpa they give up body within 22 days.for once you are egoless and realized unity,the very concept of ' I ' dissapears.what happens then , cannot be described. only a few rarest individuals believed as incarnations have ever come down to this platform of material conciousness to liberate mankind. MISTAKE 9 : that advaita is a new theory propagated by shankara.advaita always existed side by side with other faiths.thats how other branches like vishishtadwaita,dvaitadwaita etc all have the word ' advaita ' in them .they couldnt do away with advaita philosophy,only they altered it to suit their needs. MISTAKE 10 : They keep on laying stress on jiva and atman and similar concepts in thier arguments.but according to highest advaitic realizations there is no individual jivatman,paramatman and suchlike stuff.how come these things come inside what is called perfect and absolute unity(brahman). these are a few of the serious blunders that these vaishnavs have been taught since the begining.and whenever they argue they cannot come out of this comical conceptions of brahman as an entity etc.

dear bhaktajan, thanks for atleast attempting my questions.but im really sorry to say that the explanations that you provided were insufficient and childlike.also iwould like to say that im not against krishna or vaishnavs ,but their pathetic habit of demeaning and hating others. but why this "none of your concern" thing ? and if it is not anyones concern ,other than gaudiya vaishnavas then so is advaita. it is at their risk and concern who preaches and practise it.why do you vaishnav have a deep concern to expose their mistakes? and im a vegetarian and not supporting non vegetarianism through my posts as you suggest. and you also say that "my guru says this".thats fine !!! so a buddhist guru says vedas are false,a tantric guru says krishna is subordinate to shakti,muslims say allah is the only god.christians say idol worship leads to hell and so forth.eventually they would all proove each other wrong. apart from anything else do you realize you sound like colonial christian missionaries? and lastly one more question to bhaktajan,when krishna says "mamekam saranam........." what does he mean by that according to your guru? does that mean that he orders everyone to surrender only to krishna leaving out everyone else ?? answer this and you will surely be elevated to the first position among global fundamentalist organisations.

ranjeet can you pull me out of this grave trouble by answering those questions.i hate seeing anybody(IN THIS CASE GAUDIYA VAISHNAVISM) get defeated without a chance. PLEASE ???!!

ha ha ha !! thats better.your post clearly shows you are angry or irritated. now do you know when a man is irritated?its when he loses the game.or when he is not paid enough attention.and how does it matter whether i be a man or a woman or a transexual? u being the complete(and enlightened of course) man should take up any challenge whichever source it comes from,isnt it?.its your duty as a MAN !!!! anyways a thousand thanks for prooving my point well that you have no logical answers to those questions. please dont be offended because of me asking you a personal question but im curious to know your nationality.are you a westerner??in case you are it makes sense of your style of arguments.its just identicall to the ways of christian missionaries and other adherents of abrahmnic religions. thousand dandavats

o noble bhaktajan pay attention to me.trust me im fallen and in a greater need of attention than kaiserose.wouldnt you help me out of these doubts by your unending intellect and direct nirvikalpa experience ??!!!

hmmm !!!! so what if a ramanuja devotee comes up and say the opposite ? would you fight? and why then you dont use the name krishnavs? also why is narayan or vishnu(in form of shalagram) needed on every puja of hindu patheon instead of krishna? ever thought of that ?

i still find no vaishnav genorous enough to answer my questions one by one.wouldnt ranjeet ,the original thread starter show me the way to enlightment. and bhaktajan,im afraid to say that i have been noticing in the last few months that you write a lot without any proper logic ,reasoning or scriptural quotation.why didnt you directly deal with my questions instead? deal with those questions one by one and i challenge that either you would end up realizing your mistake and shallow fund of knowledge or establish gaudiya vaishnavism(isckon) to be the most fundamentalist ,orthodox institution with medeival era thinking with an absolute lack of intellectuality among its members. deal with those questions PLEASE.

isnt it ridiculuous that the gaudiya vaishnav claim krishna to be source of all instead of accepting vishnu in that role.it is a genuine deviation from the traditional vaishnav teachings.its evident from the term 'vaishnava' that it was vishnu who was thought to be the source in ancient times only to be replaced by krishna later.if krishna had been the source since the begining why did they didnt call themselves krishnavs instead ??

in samrta bengal ive seen upavita containing three set of threads each containing three other,making the total number nine. in iskcon i saw upavitas with 2 sets of three. some oriyan brahmins wears yellow upavita while some wears white. then again in ancient temple sculptures we come across ratnopavita or upavita strung with jewels.moreover many tantric devi murtis are said to have nag yajnopavita meaning a upavita of a living snake.in my own personal upananyan ceremony i came across the kusa upavita(as much i can remember.).i have also read previously that the kusa grass girdle used to tie the cloth or deer skin around the waist later metamorphosed into upavita.hence im rather curious to know : 1- origin and its develpement 2- the concept of ratnopavita,was it ever in actual use? 3- did ladies ever wear upavita as the nag yajnapavitas seem to suggest in tantrik devis? 4- whats the number of threads in different parts of the country and faiths. 5-why the difference in colour?

can anyone help me by describing what devi bhadrakali looks like along with the dhyana mantra and its source.ive read that puranic bhadrakali is more like mahishasuramardini whiletantric version shows her as the fierce mother.please help.i know of an 300 year old small bhadrakali temple the ashtadhatu idol of which was stolen 40 years ago now they want to install a new diety but no one could remember the exact form of her.thats why i seek help.

after reading through many books and commentaries of vaishnavs specially iskcon i saw that their main force lies in quoting scriptures with absolute literal translation.they simply dont keep any space for other explanations based on emotion or rational thoughts,and call their version AS IT IS. so if they are so adept is taking and maintaining things AS IT IS why do they dont accept the fundamentals of upanishad like "TATWAMASI" and "AHAM BRAHMASMI" in a similar literal sense.this surely amounts to selective interpretation and hypocrisy.ANY ANSWER ??

taken from that veiw point engaging in these debetes and discussions in this forum is also useless,istead of doing sadhana to realize the supreme.but anyways its good to see you having a minimal respect of ramkrishna inspite of being a vaishnav.all iskcon followers hate him.

sad, no one is eager to answer my questions,or shall i think that they dont have any?? for better understanding i shall recapitulate and summarise my questions.... 1 : we are all gods little child.when a child calls his father pa' instead of papa does his father hit him? no,he loves him more for that !! so does the omnipresent absolute unaware of the fact that it is he who is being called,even if in a wrong manner(take that for arguments sake) ??CAN YOU CALL SO DUMB AN ENTITY GOD?OR IS IT THAT SOME VAISHNAVS BEING DUMB THEMSELVES ALSO VEIW GOD THEIR WAY !!!!!!!!!! 2 : before saying that some particular path is true and rest false one should try out all those paths with equal sincerity and fail to reach the goal.did you try out any of those paths ever ??if not then what your logic behind proclaiming them false?DONT YOU THINK THIS IS AGAINST BASIC INTELLIGENCE(in sure you have some left). 3 : theist says that "WHY SHOULD ANYONE RESPECT A VIEWPOINT THEY CONSIDER WRONG.RESPECT ONLY THE TRUTH." in this matter you are assuming right at the beginning that truth is a complete monopoly of you people.this is against the very intrinsic nature of truth.truth is that which stands naked for everyone to see.if something is realized only by few that obviously cant be truth. secondly,when you argue about the validity of any two points you have two assume both true or both wrong at the begining.but instead you people are starting your silly arguments with the assumption that advaita is wrong. also according to your super-dumb theory you suggest everyone to disrespect and hate and devalue anything that's not true according to his perception.THIS WOULD SURELY MEAN THAT YOU SUPPORT HITLER'S THEORY TO TERMINATE ALL NON ARYANS SIMPLY BECAUSE THEIR CULTURE WAS NOT TRUE ACCORDING TO HITLER.some vaishnavs do have amazing intellect!!!! 4 : to quote theist he speaks of "DEFEATING IMPERSONALISM".when would someone want to defeat impersonalism? obviously when he is envious or scared or insecured of that.when does a nation attack(and defeat) others? when they are eager to outshine that nation or conquer their riches.ITS A SHAME THAT SOME VAISHNAVS SUFFER FROM THAT SIMILAR COMPLEX. 5 : none of the vaishnavs in this thread have read anything about brahman except what they have been brainwashed by their teachers.they keep on mistaking brahman and maya as an entity. brahman is one and absolute.there is no concept of 'second' in advaitic philosophy.and maya dosent exist either.advaitic maya is different from vishistadwaitic's maya.in former , maya never exists(out of ignorance we feel it to exist)whereas in latter maya continues to exist even after liberation. SO MAYA NEVER VANISHES,ITS YOU WHO REALIZE THAT IT NEVER EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE.IT'S THIS COMMON MISTAKE(LIKE THINKING ROPE FOR A SNAKE)THAT IS COINED THE NAME MAYA. 6 : and what is this crap about bhakta paramahamsa and abhakta paramahamsa??paramahamsa is a stage of realization(highest perfectional stage.).HOW CAN A BHAKTA PARAMAHAMSA BE MORE ELEVATED THAN NON DEVOTEE PARAMHAMSA? THEN IT WOULD BE NO PARAMHAMSA AT ALL.HOW CAN TWO DIFFERENT STAGES OF REALIZATION BE GIVEN THE SAME NAME.?????? vaishnavs,test your IQ !!!! 7 : ranjeet says something like "VEDA IS BRHM SWARUP" now thats a new bit of info for me.does these dodoheads mean to say that puarans and tantras are more authoritative and philosophical than vedas.note that vedas also costitute the vedanta or upanishads.diregaurding upanishads would invalidate any school of hindu thought. all the views or doctrines that originated in india and disreguarded the vedas have perished from this land in due time(most notable xample being buddhism) .read history to verify . as there's no escaping historical and sociological laws you people might suffer the same end if you ignore vedas. 8 : my learned friend ranjeet calls durga the servant of krishna.HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS ?????? as you guys lay so stress on puranas i'll help you understand things from markendaya puran.it is said...." VISHNU SARIR GRAHAN MAHAMEESHAN EVA CHA.." MEANING THAT DEVI IS RESPONSIBLE FOR GRANTING THEIR RESPECTIVE BODIES TO SHIVA(ESHAAN) AND VISHNU.also in another area it is said......."krishnena samstute devi sashadbhaktya sada ambike ......"MEANING KRISHNA ALWAYS WORSHIPS DEVI WITH DEEP BHAKTI.WHAT ABOUT THAT ????!!!!! AND YOUR ILLUSTRIOUS JIVA GOSWAMI SAYS IN BHAGAVAT SANDARVA--"YAH KRISHNA SA IVA DURGA SYAT YAA DURGA KRISHNA EVA SAH " , MEANING THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DURGA AND KRISHNA. 9 : 'scriptural authorities' like these vaishnavs always suggest to understand scriptures literally instead of doing it emotionally.thus according to them in "MAMEKAM SHARANAM VRAJA....." krishna is suggesting to join him and kick out all other upasyas from their lives(we still believe he wasnt a tyrant ,dont we?).but but but THE MOMENT IT COMES TO "AHAM BRAHMASMI" OR "TATWAMASI" THEY START THEIR BHAVA VADI EMOTIONAL TRANSLATIONS. WHY DO YOU COWARDS DO NOT TAKE THESE BASICS OF HINDUISM IN ITS LITERAL SENSE ????????????? 10 : kaivalya is merely a sattwik experience according to one of my friends here.nirvana is but a fragment of "real brahmananda".HOW DO YOU KNOW ALL THIS?? SINNCE HOW MANY GENERATIONS HAVE YOU BEEN EXPERIENCING KAIVALYA OR NIRVANA???? as for me i dont think i could attain that in the upcoming few births. lastly few question to vaishnavs::::: 1 : why do you drink milk by depriving a young calf of its godsend nourishment and label it satwik food???isnt this cruellity??if unfertilised eggs are nonveg on account of being an animal's body secretions so is milk.if we would have really needed milk god would have send our mothers fully equipped to feed us all through our lives. 2 ; inspite of calling cows your mother you make drums out of her and enjoy in merriment after her death in name of lord's seva.WHAT DIGUSTING TAMASIC SEVA IS THAT WHICH ADVOCATES PLAYING OF DEAD MOTHER'S SKIN AFTER HER DEATH IN NAME OF GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!! 3 :If you are so faithfull to disciplic succesion why did gaudiya vaishnavas deviate from the original tilak markings of madhavacharya sampradaya??? IS IT ALSO SOME UNKNOWN METHOD OF SHOWING RESPECT WHICH YOUR ILLUSTRIOUS PRECURSORS HAVE DISCOVERED ??? no matter how much you argue with these dumb vaishnavs they can never understand.ONE NEEDS DEEP INTELLECTUALITY ,EXTENSIVE READING,AND RATIONAL SENSE PAR EXCELLENCE TO COMPREHEND A MINIMUM OF ADVAITA.PLEASE SOME ENLIGHTENED VAISHNAV FRIEND OF MINE DO THE HONOURS OF ANSWERING THE QUERRIES THAT I HAVE PUT FORWARD WITH PROPER REASONS AND SOUND LOGICS( start searching immidiately if you have any left after these illuminated years of brainwashing that you have gone through.)

no religion can be perfect for this goes against the principles of religion itself.lets explain why--realization is religion,we all know.it is the end and also the begining of religion.and all religions agree that the almighty can never be known in totallity.even sages like sukadev narada etc couldnt comprehend him totally,what to speak of mortal beings !!!so if no one knows him totally how can he say that it is the only approach??there might be a equally sound approach hidden from your veiw.advaita has as much right to god as bhakti.if you vaishnavs do not accept this then openly admit that your faith wants a complete monopoly of god,just like most christian and islamic leaders do.otherwise gather enough manliness and say that you have known him completely.that would make god finite and hence not god.thus your veiw that bhakti is the only way stands void. now lets think when can one say that this is the only correct path?only if he has personally attempted each of the other paths and repeteadly failed on attaining the truth through all of them.only then he can conclusively say that this is the only path and others wrong. but do you think you have tried out those paths even by a fragment? i dont think so ,coz most vaishnavs are not even allowed by their authority to read anything else than their own scriptures.when you have not tried advaita you have know right to judge it wrong or right.this goes against basic principles of logic. also none of you ever replied to my previous post where i said what if i say 'pa' insted of papa to god.would he come running to hit me and thus proove that he is selectively mercifull.answer that with valid reasoning,not your bogus as it is stuff.

sad to say but most vaishnavs have this habit of gossiping demeaning,distorting other faith systems. in old ages even saktas and shaivas and other groups also had it,but at the turn of the century while most have done away with it , vaishnavs still cling on to medieval theories and biased fundamentalism.in fact they take unending pride in such sctivities and discard all of science,history,geography,philosophy that seems to go against their scriptures,much like the medieval christian churches. apart from anything else why cant you have a simple basic respect for other's belief?this is not a hate forum that you go on posting such threads.this is a sadistic plesure that many vaishnavs seem to derive by downplaying other faiths resulting from deep rooted insecurity.that is exactly why a vaishnav is never allowed to go near advaitiast ,lest he starts behaving rationally instead of emotionally.how many advaitins have you come across posting such hate threads against vaishnavs?????? hardly any.at least i havent. isnt it harsh to hear ill words against your beliefs?for example what if i say that--you vaishnav speak such a lot of mother cow and non violence etc and yet dont hesitate to use cow leather for mridanga.if you say that its for lord's seva then i might as well deride that seva which teaches to play the deceased "MOTHER'S" skin for sake of service to lord.isnt robbing the young calf of its mothers milk also a equal act of violence???? and by this time it should be clear that world can never be free from'mayavadis',for if that would have been possible ramanujacrya and others would have succesfully done that by now.as because you people are obviously not anywhere near to them in terms of greatness its impossible that you can achieve what they couldnt.so better keep shut and concentrate on your own spiritual upliftment.

yes i read through the such explanation.like ramanuja sampradaya uses the red mark in the center to denote laxmi(red being the colour of shakti)through whom they seek to approach the lord.similarly the gaudiyas approach is through the mercy of tulasi devi and hence its a tulasi leaf.but inspite of that changing the red dot(laxmi) of madhva tilak and transforming it to tulasi is not definetly something of a respect or following ,is it?in fact it amounts to a change of belief also.

that makes better sense.i also share somewhat similarity with your views. but even if aryans did invade it was not like the version put forward by victorian historians that they brought light into the subcontinent.but if you read through the points in both the camps then the theory that they did not invade is more probale and fits in more nicely than the other. btw i liked your stand in the discussion reguarding advaita in another thread

dear ranjeet. i respect bhakti and believe it to be the easiest way to god. but at the same time i also believe and respect advaitabad as a valid doctrine.im willing to refute your points.firstly when you say that 'AS IT IS'what is the logic or proof behind that?whatever you said is definitely true,but only when viewed from achintya bhedabhed or vishishtadwaitic view points. but you are overlooking the numerous other school of thoughts and hence right at the begining of your argument indirectly assuming the falsity of other school of thoughts.this is against the principles of logic and basic reasoning. you are forgetting that brahma jiva and maya are three seperate(but interlinked) entities in achntya B.but not in advaita .in advaita there is nothing but unity,so no question of jiva,maya,cosmos destrucion creation arisei in the highest stage.then you may ask why do the advaitins ponder so much over maya,if everything is brahma?that because untill you have realized the truth you are not brahm. ill give you a story for that.when you step across a rope lying on the floor in a dark room you get frightened to think it to be a snake.moments later you realize it is a rope.but for those fearfull few moments it was a perfect snake with all its attributes.exactly the same way we are in the spell(it dosent end in a few moments though) of percieving the unity as many.this is advaitic concpt of maya.so your concepts of two maya(yogamaya and jada maya) would be invalidated right at the begining. also advaita dosent believe in anything 'jada'.there is nothing but unity which is but consciousness.pure and infinite. also im assuming that you are vaishnav by faith.ive seen that vaishnavs love to understand scriptures in an absolute literal sense.for exmple a vaishnav would never agree that, krishna by saying"sarva dharma paritajya mamekam.............ma sucah" advocates aspirants to surrender to god,but would insist that it advised to surrender only to krishna.but in cases like "tatwamasi" and "aham brahmasmi" they are quick to let go of their old ways and try spiritual interpretations.this is hypocrisy indeed. take it literally,like you do with gita and bhagavat !!!! there a saying 'bhavagrahi janardan' meaning that the lord understands and accepts the bhav or emotions of a seeker.he sees the mind not the action.right??and he is CAUSELESSLY mercifull also.i dont think anyone would object that.and every jiva would be his son. so now lets try a bhav badi thought.if we are all his sons and he is cuselessly mercifull and call out 'pa' instead of 'papa'would he come rushing with anger and slap you? iguess no.he would obviously understand your inability to fathom him and understand that you are actually calling out to him(may be in a distorted way).so why would he destroy the spiritual lives of advaitists even if they venturerd on the wrong tracks???isnt your god intelligent enough to realize that it is he who is being searched for???isnt he BHAVAGRAHI JANARDAn.if he woudnt then better stop calling him by this name. vaishnavs believe that sankaracharya (shiva) was instructed by bhagavan to preach this "false doctrine". can god who is CAUSELESSLY mercifull do such a partial act? for having done that he would turn to selectively mercifull !!!!!! that would make him imperfect and hence not god.coz god is someone who is always perfect. vaishnavs also ridicule the advaitists that , inspite of realizing brahman they come down and lead the lives of ordinary people .how can an individual who have realized brahman again lead a material life.amswer is that this is a false tale.a advaita sadhak on reaching the highest plane or nirviklalpa samadhi gives up his body(death in scientific terms). on total loss of ego(both good and bad) there can no 'existence' in material terms.its a state of perfect unity that cannot be described brcause in order to describe you need to speak and to speak you need minimal ego.only a few saints revered as incarnations have been able to come down from this plane of consciousness for benefit of mankind. lastly if you want to test the validity of any thought,theory or whatever, you must pursue it thoroughly and then form a opinion reguarding it that.but sadly whatever you have gone through is just a one sided explanation.you have looked at advaita from vishistadvaitic veiw pouints.you must first learn to look at vishihtavadita from advaitic viewpoints and only then you are eligible enough to form an opinion.apart from your vaishnav teaching what and how much have you read about advaita?????? sadly most vaishnavs dont read anything more than bhaagavat,gita,charitamrita(in case of gaudiya ones)isopanishd and think themselves as scriptural authirity,read through the basic upanishds (in their literal meaning of course)and you will get the idea of advaita. any more discussions are welcome.

one more thing.i dont believe in the idiotic theory that puranas were written before satya yuga and similar hilarious 'facts'.puranas were composed over a period of 1000 years with subsequent additions conntinuing till 18th century. and as to your comment on origin of man in africa it should be remembered that this is a a very recent theory formed under the liberalism and globalization influenced western society totally unlike the imperialistic 19th century west.

i dont believe that max muller downplayed indian history infact a minimum knowledge would immediately reveal his invaluable contribution in restoring the vedas(infact he saved it from extinction).neither did i mean to say that british always devalued india.they gave india many new and valuable developements(for exmple the idea of nationhood) and did a lot of good for this country. but it is a undeniable fact that they indulged some foul politics to retain their grip,(read through history to verify in case you have not). ive tried to read through the arguments of both the camps before forming an opinion in this matter,for believing something without sufficient study is against my principles. but as you insist that this had not been the case im curious to know why do you say so.what actually makes you think that the aryans were a superior "white men' from some unknown destinations who showed india(the dark tribal nation) light through their colonizations.it would help me to understand your view better if you elaborate your belief with proofs from history.