karthik_v

In particular, I would really like to know the source where Ramana Maharishi is supposed to have said "I am God". To the best of my knowledge, he was hardly fluent in English and spoke only in Tamil. Much of his life and work has been catalogued by Paul Brunton. PB was in fact seeking initiation from Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswati, who instead sent him to Ramana Maharishi. The writings of PB are authentic and accurate. So, I hope that you would be able to provide a reference to his works, to which we can trace this statement - and the context.

Dear J N Das Prabhuji, I haven't seen anyone quoting the sources of those statements. Further, in Aham Brahmaasmi Oneness with the Brahman happens, when Aham ceases to be. Does anyone really believe that either Sankara or any of his followers invented Aham Brahmaasmi?

Dear Somesh Kumar Prabhuji, Before I could log in, Shvu had answered your question aptly. BTW, it was I who raised the question, not Ram. Were you being sarcastic in the second part of your statement? I don't think that I have ever been sarcastic with you.

J N Das prabhuji, What was the context in which Ramana Maharishi said that? Could you kindly point me to the book that contains this? When somebody quotes some of Srila Prabhupad's statements such as, the devotees go that extra mile to present the context and explain it away. Not that they are always convincing. Is it also not pertinent that we know the context in which Ramana Maharishi said so? And above all, is it not curious that SP condemns Advaita without quoting any of the works of Sankara himself? Can someone judge SP's philosophy or even Caitanya Mahaprabhu's philosophy on the basis of the behavioural pattern of some ISKCON gurus?

Dear Somesh Kumar prabhuji, This is how SP translates BG 18.55 - "One can understand the Supreme Personality as He is only by devotional service. And when one is in full consciousness of the Supreme Lord by such devotion, he can enter into the kingdom of God." Which word in the verse talks of the kingdom of God. All I can see is visate tad-anantaram, which only means enters thereafter. Of course, we have gone over this verse once before, but I hope you understand why I am quoting this again.

Won't work. The judge is under the same illusion. Suppose you and the judge are both liberated, then there is neither "you" nor "the judge" left. Not the murder and the victim either. No court room either. All that is left is the Nirguna Brahman. And your statement is an example of how those unfamiliar with Advaita argue - out of their faulty understanding of that philosophy.

The response is titled "Shiva....list please". Now, why do I get the feeling that no matter how many times I respond, you may still claim that I never did, while conveniently forgetting to furnish with the list I asked you for? Could it be the effect of Maaya or would it be due to my bad association with maayavaadis?

Dear Shiva prabhuji, An anology can only be a kind of simile. It is not the truth in itself. At best, it can help you see things in a different perspective. After that, you have to take the effort to get to the truth, using logic. Earlier I stated that Sankara's philosophy, which depended on logic, was largely a break from the previous vedic acaryas, whose style had been largely analogical. So, analogy alone can't explain Advaita. I am surprised that you missed this basic point. So, may I hear from you a list of 3 realized souls outside of Advaita [atleast 1 from the 20th century please] and your parameters for identifying them? Supposing some of us are proud, be it so. Now when somebody from ISKCON scathingly attacks Sankara and even calls his philosophy yellow stool, all without understanding one word of that philosophy, what do you call it - humility? Shvu, Blinkers on /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Obsession with the unknown /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Dear Theist Prabhuji, A valid point, but bhakti doesn't depend on logical debate. It is beyond that. Azhwars and Caitanya Mahaprabhu [i assume], never debated anyone and show that their ways were alone correct. They were transcendental and experienced spiritual bliss, entirely through bhakti, without having the slightest necessity for scholarly debates. So, irrespective of what Advaita says, Vaishnavism is still very much valid. What is unnecessary is casting Vaishnavism in the moulds of Advaita and to debate that on false premises. As Rk veda says, Ekam sad viprah bahuddha vadati [The truth is One; the sages realize it many ways]. No matter what, you can always see me at the ISKCON temple on Sundays, because bhakti is what appeals to my heart. Dear Muralidhar Prabhuji, Because, they are not yet realized and for them duality still exists. Events happen only in the eyes of the one who perceives duality. Let me try to give an anology. Let us say you are smitten by Simran or Aishwarya Rai. You go to sleep dreaming of her. In your dreams you win her hand or run around the trees, [indian filmi style /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif] romancing. Now, so long as you are dreaming, the "dreaming you" perceives interaction with her. She exists in reality, but the "dreaming you" doesn't. Yet, the perception of interaction exists in the mind of the "dreaming you". Once you wake up, reality dawns. J N Das Prabhuji: What happens when I am fast asleep and dreaming and then just start to wake up? At that point, doesn't reality and dream tend to blur? I mean, for a brief moment, I can still be a part of the dream, yet I can also perceive the reality. This phase exists only for a while, before reality takes over.

1. What is the scriptural basis for this claim? 2. Assuming such a basis exists, how does it reconcile with other descriptions in Brahma Vaivarta Purana and other references quoted above suggesting that they were material in nature? Shvu has already clarified that he doesn't reject any of his works. I have already listed which ones I accept as having been authored by him. Now you have 2 options: 1. Start with the most acceptable list, that is the one which satisfies everyone's criteria - which means the ones I listed, and explain that quote of Shvu. 2. Ignore me and go ahead with what you accept as having been authored by Sankara and explain that quote. And also, using Sankara's philosophy, establish that Sadguna Brahman is eternal. Either way, I guess we have spent a lot of time on this meaningless pre-amble and it is time you started quoting the references from Sankara's work to support your claims. Hoping you hear from you soon on that.

1. What is the scriptural basis for this claim? 2. Assuming such a basis exists, how does it reconcile with other descriptions in Brahma Vaivarta Purana and other references quoted above suggesting that they were material in nature? Shvu has already clarified that he doesn't reject any of his works. I have already listed which ones I accept as having been authored by him. Now you have 2 options: 1. Start with the most acceptable list, that is the one which satisfies everyone's criteria - which means the ones I listed, and explain that quote of Shvu. 2. Ignore me and go ahead with what you accept as having been authored by Sankara and explain that quote. And also, using Sankara's philosophy, establish that Sadguna Brahman is eternal. Either way, I guess we have spent a lot of time on this meaningless pre-amble and it is time you started quoting the references from Sankara's work to support your claims. Hoping you hear from you soon on that.

I didn't say that ISKCON devotees alone think so. Most people will never go beyond the surface. But in ISKCON, you can often hear such arguments as, Sankara came to delude the Buddhists and re-establish Sanatana dharma through mayavada, which is rehashed Buddhism. Being Siva [who ias actually the topmost of Krishna's male servants /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif ] himself, before he breathed his last, he instructed his disciples about the true philosophy [in contravention to the silly Advaita he taught all along], which is Bhaja Govindam I like some of his translations of Thirumoolar, but I never delude myself into believing that he represents Sankara's Advaita.

Dear Muralidhar, Even most Advaitins agree that only 10 of those verses were compiled by Adi Sankara. Academics don't even agree to that. It is not as if Adi Sankara gave Bhaja Govindam as the final message to his disciples, though that is the standard line of ISKCON's arguments. Has it not ever surprised you that none in ISKCON would ever debate Advaita quoting his philosophical works, which every one agrees were authored by him, but only this song?

Yesterday, I also posted the words of Sankaracarya of Sringeri and all of that, apart from the works of Sankara, clearly state that only Nirguna Brahman is eternal. If you think that Sadguna Brahman, that is the form of the Lord, is also eternal and if you feel that Sankara says so, why don't you start presenting his arguments, with quotations? That would be the ideal starting point. What is so shocking about that? I posted, a few months ago, translation of the passages from Brahma Vaivarta Purana that depicted Radha making love to Krishna very passionately and lustily, just as humans do. Atleast from the vivid descriptions given therein, there was nothing to tell that apart from human sex. He even got killed by the arrow of a hunter, just as a normal being does. So, I don't find anything shocking in what Shvu has stated. I already answered this in another thread.

Yesterday, I also posted the words of Sankaracarya of Sringeri and all of that, apart from the works of Sankara, clearly state that only Nirguna Brahman is eternal. If you think that Sadguna Brahman, that is the form of the Lord, is also eternal and if you feel that Sankara says so, why don't you start presenting his arguments, with quotations? That would be the ideal starting point. What is so shocking about that? I posted, a few months ago, translation of the passages from Brahma Vaivarta Purana that depicted Radha making love to Krishna very passionately and lustily, just as humans do. Atleast from the vivid descriptions given therein, there was nothing to tell that apart from human sex. He even got killed by the arrow of a hunter, just as a normal being does. So, I don't find anything shocking in what Shvu has stated. I already answered this in another thread.

No problem. We can wait on that. I will see if I can have access in the meantime.

That is a valid point. Could you please point to a couple of such verses and also where Sankara quotes them, so that we can discuss on that? Thanks.

Dear Shiva prabhuji, Fine. I hope you don't denounce someone without knowing about him. You never lost it in the first place either. Such a perception of loss is only due to avidya. Since, as per Advaita, there is no duality, there is no loss of identity either.

Shvu, Thanks for the information. Which verse?

Dear Ram Prabhu, Nor does Anu Gita consider Krishna to be false. All it implies is that the Brahman is Supreme and that Krishna is only the Sadguna Brahman - hence relevant only in the temporal mode and not eternal. Before Sankara did, no acarya had written a bhasya on BG. Academics are still not certain that Sankara wrote that bhasya either. On the other hand, by logical analysis, academics are in agreement that Anu Gita was originally part and parcel of Mahabharata, while parts of BG are later day interpolations. We have gone over this before. Have you ever come across an acarya who ever denounced Anu Gita as bogus? Ignoring Anu Gita doesn't help.

Dear Shiva prabhuji, The way you have spelt Ramana suggests that you know nothing about him. Yet, it didn't stop you from denouncing him. Let us pretend that no Advaitin ever became realized. Could you please list the names of 3 non-Advatins [please include 1 from the 20th century], who attained realization and also kindly state the attributes for identifying a realized soul.

No, but I have come across statements where he talks of his audacity. But, there was a specific instance, during a cell programme, when a reading from SP's purport, made my father walk out. I need to check with my father which one it is, but there SP is supposed to have indulged in some blanket attacks on Sankara. Those who claim so, do have some validity atleast. Did we not go through the discussion on Anu Gita, where Krishna had forgotten the message of Gita and couldn't invoke the power that the Brahman had vested upon Him earlier? That is again from Mahabharata, of which BG is part. If someone argues that Krishna is the Supreme and Brahman is subservient to Him, then he should convincingly explain Anu Gita. One cannot ignore that and then launch an attack on those who say otherwise.

Dear Theist Prabhuji, That is quite a revelation. Since everybody, according to you, is a rascal and it is, according to you, an act of kindness, to call anyone so, may I ask if you would feel offended if someone were to address SP that way? Or if someone were to address the Goswamis or Caitanya Mahaprabhu that way? [it is another story that no Advaitin ever stoops that low]. A standard ISKCON misunderstanding of Advaita /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif When there is no duality, according to Advaita, where is the question of trying to be something else? Anyway, I realize that logic is not the best weapon to fight dogma with. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Do they? I haven't come across Sankara saying that worshipping Saguna Brahman is mere sentimentalism. Nor have I heard any leading Advaitin like Ramana Maharishi or Swami Chandrasekharendra Saraswati say so. Have you come across any [outside of the writings of SP]? If so, can you please point out? No problem. Would your statement apply to SP also? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Hari Bol Shiva Prabhuji, Now that your statement has rendered great sages like Ramana Maharishi a mere speculative fraud, would you be kind enough to tell me which acaryas [non Advaitins, of course /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif ] have attained realization? Could you also kindly tell me how to identify one who is realized?

Nevertheless, my question is: Did SP ever distinguish between Sankara's form of Advaita and that of others [assuming that they really are different]? Of course I know that SP did talk of the audacity of Sankara. Of course, I know that some of his remarks about Sankara have been quite scathing. If needed, I can dig up. Three months ago, my father refused to attend any more cell programmes, only because of SP's uncalled for and unjust attacks on Sankara - they are all in his purports. I have heard enough ISKCON sannyasis [one called his philosophy yellow stool, while the distinction of being called brown stool belonged to atheism] and some GV ones too [one called him a rascal; it is another story that he addressed Vyasa the same way for writing on Karma Kanda], who would attack Sankara. Of course, all without understanding his philosophy one bit.