karthik_v

Dear Somesh prabhuji, Who that Supreme is explained in BG 13:18 as well, so we cannot isolate a verse and arrive at a conclusion. This verse clearly says that He is unmanifested. I am curious to know why you consider Brahman realization to be inferior to the rtealization that culminates as a result of bhakti. Does Krishna say so? As regards 13:23, here is what Sankara says:

Shvu, In its strict interpretation, Advaita allows only for the eternal existence of Nirguna brahman. You had stated that a jiivan mukta still preaches to a devotee just as in BG 4:7. Now I have 2 questions in this regard: One, that verse implies that Krishna has some concern for the devotee and so intervenes. In other words, this implies the existence of some attributes in the Supreme, for without which He cannot have concern for His devotee. If we are to state that a jiivan mukta also intervenes in the same way, does it not contradict the basic tenet of Advaita that the nirguna brahman is without attributes? Two, does Adi Sankara relate to any of his personal experiences of realization in any of his works?

Shiva, The above statement should have read: He clearly defines Aham and Brahman and then establishes Advaita based on the upanishadic principle.

Shvu, Here are some of the words as spoken by SP:

SP accepted only Krishna as God. He was categorical that Brahman was only subservient to Him. So, when SP uses the word God and gets agitated about its supposed misuse by Advaitins, he can only be referring to Krishna. Any objection? Okay, I stop with this. If Theist answers [quite unlikely though], and if he expects an answer from me, then I will respond to that.

Let us ignore Kanci mutt, for argument's sake. Do you accept that Sankara established atleast 4 mutts? Did you, or SP for that reason, quote any of the writings of any of those Sankaracaryas atleast? As far as I know Sankara didn't establish any mutt in Rshikesh or Benaras. If by your definition, Kanci mutt is fraudulent, by what yardstick Sai Baba fits into your list of prominent advaitins? Did Sankara found the Whitefield ashram? Not really. Did I not mention earlier that he acknowledges other karikars? No Advaitin has ever stated that Sankara's Advaita is in contradiction with that of the previous acaryas in that tradition. Even academics haven't stated so. I have never seen SP also mention any other Advaita acarya than Sankara [remember his infamous rascal's version, Sankara's version?]. So, any criticism of Advaita should begin with a quotation of Advaita works composed by Sankara.

Some smart mind reading prabhuji. BTW, which sentence of SP did I re-arrange to render that a skewed meaning? Oh...oh...oh...may be I did and never even realized. Prabhu, can you please help put this sentence spoken by SP so that the world understands its true spiritual meaning? "It is not that women don't enjoy being raped. They do. Even though they express some dislike outwardly, inwardly they enjoy it. Women seek men who are expert rapists." Thanks prabhuji, in advance.

Yeah. Let us move on.

Raga produced enough quotes, I thought.

If I am wrong on it, I stand corrected. Even your source says: Although he read and understood English quite well, he rarely spoke it. If people spoke English to him with clear diction and pronunciation he would not have much trouble understanding them. I have also read that he dropped out of school very early and couldn't speak English. In fact, most of the time he was silent. In any case, this is a minor issue as he certainly didn't write in English and all his words were translated by Brunton and others and as you are yet to answer my pertinent questions.

I posted this before - in fact twice. I am posting it again so that every neutral reader can easily understand what Ramana Maharishi meant when he said "I am God". Of course, you may still not agree, because doing so would mean that you accept that SP was wrong in the first place. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif http://www.nonduality.com/ramana1.htm So, if SP or any ISKCONite still argues that Ramana Maharishi wanted others to worship him as God, he can feel free to claim so. After all, SP wrote volumes bashing Sankara, without quoting his original works. What do you think the upanishadic verse Aham brahmasmi mean? Does it mean the seer who said so, who as per SP was Vyasa himself, was a rascal?

I can understand if a rationalist makes this statement because, he is only interested in consistently reproduceable experiences. On the other hand, a theologian depends on scriptural authority. If the Advaitins believe that the nirguna brahman is without attributes, they have the support of the scriptures - that is the shruti. What is your basis for rejecting that claim? And, more importantly, since the entire corpus of shruti, of which BG is not a part, states that nirguna brahman is without attributes, could you please explain what is your basis for disagreeing? My experiences in this world discount the possibilty of myself being with 16,008 wives simultaneously. It discounts the possibility of lifting a hillock on my little finger. It discounts the possiblity that an elephant could speak Sanskrit. Is it your argument that since these are all contradicted by our experiences of this world, they should be rejected? Could you please list 10 of them? No, let me prune down the list - 3 would do. Please list 3 of the arguments of Sankara, with refernece to his original works, his words and if possible the translation; and then please build your argument as to why they are absurd. Thanks in advance for a stimulating discussion and ending my post with the observation that this is not a misplaced hope. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Is this becoming some kind of personal attack on Shvu because he effectively showed that Srila Prabhupad's understanding of Advaita was inaccurate? You have listed Ramana Maharishi as one of the seers who claimed that he is God. I subsequently produced the url where Ramana Maharishi himself explains what he means by that. He clearly defines Aham and Brahman and then establishes the upanishadic principle. He does not say "I am God", as you have misunderstood. Could you kindly post those points I had raised so that the context is evident? Ramana Maharishi never spoke in English. He spoke in Tamil alone. He quotes the Sanskrit verse Aham Brahmasmi. Which word in this can be translated as God - I mean sadguna brahman like Krishna?

Thanks for pointing out. I have never seen any Advaitin such as the seers of the Kanci mutt address that way. Nor have I heard of that. The behaviour of some unknown ascetics in Rshikesh is not the yardstick for measuring Advaita, which has be be measured only by the writings of Sankara.

Perhaps, you got stuck with the analogy. I cautioned you not to get stuck with that, but seems like, for now, we need to go with the analogy /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Let us turn the analogy around once more. You said it is the girl's dharma to go to her husband's place. I agree. Suppose, the girl is obsessed with her parents that she won't even marry or if married, won't even think of her husband and just live with her parents, is she fulfilling that dharma? Is her attachment to her temporal state, her parents' abode, helping her fulfill her dharma? Obviously not. According to Advaita, the purpose of sadguna brahman is to liberate from the false perception of duality. Its purpose is not to get you entangled further in it. Further, as I have repeated a few times by now, once you are liberated, there is nothing else to perceive. Anyway, the objective of this discussion is not to establish the superiority of Advaita over GV/Vaishnavism or vice versa. I don't believe that such a thing is even possible. It just happens that the portrayal of Advaita and Advaitin by SP is not accurate and some of us just pointed that out.

Dear Somesh Prabhuji, The question of forgetting itself doesn't arise as nirguna brahman is free from attributes. A realized person neither forgets nor remembers, just as Krishna says in BG, a devotee experiences neither pain nor pleasure. Just to turn the analogy around, would you call a girl a betrayer because she left her parents to live with the husband they had chosen for her? I am reminded of a 2000 year old Sangam Tamil song whose translation I will provide. A girl elopes with her lover and the mother is sad. She goes to a saint and pours her heart out. He says: "Of what use is the shining white pearl Except to the one who wears it Even to the ocean in which it was reared; If you ponder the matter, so it is with your daughter Of what use is the sandal tree Except to the one who wears its scent Even to the forest where it grew; If you ponder the matter, so it is with your daughter" So, in the analogy I gave above, the purpose of a girl's life is to live with her husband. Her parents are significant only to the point where they help her attain that purpose. The same with sadguna brahman. I must add that an analogy is only figurative; it is not the truth in itself. It is impossible to explain Advaia, which is logical, through analogies. I gave this analogy only to provide a perspective.

Dear Ram prabhu, This is blasphemy /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif No, he doesn't. Shastras are man made and have been dynamically changing over time. A certain school doesn't become valid just because it takes recourse to shastras.

Dear Somesh Prabhuji, You will change this perception, if you talk to me once or if you read my posts a little longer /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Good question. Frankly, I don't know how to translate that word, just as I don't know how to translate the word dharma. I guess certain words have to be understood in the context of the tradition. Once you have become realized, there is no more duality and hence no sadguna brahman either. Till then, that is so long as you are in the temporal mode of duality, there is sadguna brahman. So, for the one in that state of duality, Krishna is still relevant and so is bhakti. Once you become realized, all that exists is nirguna brahman, which is undifferentiated. There is not even perception any more. Here is what I stated: "In other words, if you use the conventional functional definition of I [which identifies you in the mode of duality], then as per Advaita, you realize that you are nirguna brahman, after that "I" in you has ceased to be." In other words, such an identification is possible for the realized alone. So, it is not commonplace. It is possible only after you have transcended duality. It is not possible so long as you are in the mode of duality.

Dear Theist Prabhuji, I don't care to speak on behalf of all those on that list, which for all I care, might have included Jesus as well. Ramana was one among the list and I did point out that what is ascribed to him is totally false and produced Ramana Maharishi's own words to refute that. Did you read that? Would you form an opinion of what SP taught by reading the legal papers of Turley? If not, then why would you form an opinion of Ramana Maharishi by reading anything other than his own words? Talking of infection, do you think that we also need to address those followers who might have come to believe that women enjoy being raped and seek out expert rapists? Assuming that your allegation about the advaitins is true, which is not the case, as the words of Ramana Maharishi refute them, still someone thinking that he is God is not a big danger to a society as the one who thinks that women enjoy being raped [that too going by the pronouncements of his infallible master]. Do you think that marriages may be in a mess if the first born is a girl child because the followers may think that had the couple been chaste the first born would be a male [again going by the pronouncements of his infallible master]? Perhaps you should read some Advaita, if are bent upon attacking that philosophy. Yes, as per Advaita, there is no duality, but does it deny the perception of duality caused by avidya?

Dear Somesh prabhuji, As per Advaita, there is no difference. There is no duality, in reality. All that exists is nirguna brahman. The jiiva has no existence independent of the nirguna brahman. Yes and no. Advaita follows what is there in the upanishads. They do refute the existence of sadguna brahman in the ultimate analysis. Your last statement needs to be qualified. You never become God, as you are never independent of the nirguna brahman in the first place. So, when an advaitin says aham brahmasmi, one has to understand what he means by I, as can be learnt from that definition given by Ramana Maharishi. In other words, if you use the conventional functional definition of I [which identifies you in the mode of duality], then as per Advaita, you realize that you are nirguna brahman, after that "I" in you has ceased to be.

mmm....so every other guru, be it Sankara or Vivekananda becomes a rascal. The only one who is authentic is the one who believes that women enjoy being raped and seek out expert rapists. What to say? Nevertheless, I must point out to the factual error in SP's statement. Ramanujacarya gave the already existing mantra "Om Namo Narayana" to everyone. Does it mean that those Sri Vaishnavas who address with that salutation consider themselves to be Narayana? Vivekananda didn't manufacture the term "daridra Narayana". That term has been in usage in Tamil Vaishnava works for atleast 500 years before Vivekananda was born. Mukkuur Lakshmi Narasimhacharyar quotes that in atleast 2 instances. I will try to get those works and produce the relevant parts. There are deities with that name in Vaishnava temples that are over 500 years old. Sthala Purana of ancient Tamil Vaishnava temples would be immensely helpful in gathering true knowledge, so that one doesn't make such erroneous statements as SP has made here. Instead of waiting at the Pope's office in Vatican for an audience [which was denied to him], SP would have benefitted by paying a visit to the Sankara mutt in Kancipuram and seeing for himself if Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswati worshipped Narayana or not. Or what he advised the devotees to do.

Dear Gauracandra rabhu, May be you missed this url which I posted yesterday: http://www.nonduality.com/ramana1.htm I would just reproduce the relevant portions from therein. This is what Ramana Maharishi explicitly means when he says I: Hope that made the issue clear. Along with this quote, which is the essense of Advaita as explained by the great seer Ramana Maharishi, if you read the relevant quotes from Brhadaranyaka upanishad which Shvu and Raga had quoted and also the Vedanta sutras quotes, which I had quoted, it would become evident what an Advaitin means when he says "I". Of course, Ramana Maharishi has summarized it accurately. The simple and explicitly evident conclusion is that he doesn't say "I am God", as ISKCON followers understand "I". Ockham's razor /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Dear J N Das prabhuji, And Advaitins don't mean Sadguna Brahman at all, when they say I. The above reproductions should have made it clear. SP's understanding was wrong. Why did you conclude that I follow Advaita? BTW, Advaita and dogma are like oil and water. Dear Somesh Prabhuji, Kindly don't apologize. I don't deserve any apology from a wonderful person as you. I just thought I should clarify - that's all.

Karthik here: In case of the quote from Ramana Maharishi, it was conclusively shown that what he meant was radically different from what you [rather SP] implied. But then I must commend for having taken up the onerous task of defending SP's faulty understanding of Advaita /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Having said that I must add that a Vaishnava acarya needn't know one line about Advaita or the vedas or Upanishads. All he needs is unalloyed devotion to Krishna, of which SP had aplenty. In fact, Vaishnavism is dependent foremost on bhakti. What is rather sad is the tendency to attack other sampradayas, which are as great as Vaishnavism and to malign their acaryas, without even knowing who they are or what they stand for.

In case someone really wants to understand what Ramana Maharishi meant: http://www.nonduality.com/ramana1.htm

Thanks for pointing that out Guest. Now, it is very obvious that what Ramana Maharishi was speaking was indeed pure Advaita. In that context, "I am God" refers to the state of the self, when the "I" has ceased to be. By no stretch of imagination does it mean that Ramana Maharishi was claiming himself, in the state of duality, to be Sadguna Brahman, such as Krishna, as that statement of Srila Prabhupad seems to convey.