Jahnava Nitai Das

[The following is from Tattva Prakasha 1.6] <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I am doing a project on Hinduism at school, so could you please give me some imformation on the Hindu conception of the Supreme Being.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In Hinduism the concept of the Supreme Being entails comprehension of three different divine features. Though each feature appears unique, factually they are one and the same Supreme Person. This is described in the Vedic text known as Bhagavata Purana as follows: vadanti tat tattva-vidas tattvam yaj jnanam advayam brahmeti paramatmeti bhagavan iti sabdyate "The Absolute Truth is realized in three phases of understanding by the knower of the Absolute Truth, and all of them are identical. Such phases of the Absolute Truth are expressed as Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavan." These three features, known technically as Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan can be understood as follows. Brahman is the all-pervasive impersonal form of God; Paramatma is the localized form of God within the heart of every living entity; and Bhagavan is the personal form of God who resides in His spiritual abode. These three features are factually the same Supreme Person. This can be understood by a simple analogy as told by our spiritual master Srila Prabhupada: "These three divine aspects can be explained by the example of the sun, which also has three different aspects, namely the sunshine, the sun's surface and the sun planet itself. One who studies the sunshine only is the preliminary student. One who understands the sun's surface is further advanced. And one who can enter into the sun planet is the highest. Ordinary students who are satisfied by simply understanding the sunshine-its universal pervasiveness and the glaring effulgence of its impersonal nature-may be compared to those who can realize only the Brahman feature of the Absolute Truth. The student who has advanced still further can know the sun disc, which is compared to knowledge of the Paramatma feature of the Absolute Truth. And the student who can enter into the heart of the sun planet is compared to those who realize the personal features of the Supreme Absolute Truth." There is another story on similar lines: There once were three brothers who lived in a village. They had never gone to the city before, and they had no understanding of what a train was. One day they went to the city to see for themselves what a train was. As they waited they heard the sound of the train's whistle, and they turned to another man and asked, "Is that the train?" And the man answered, "Yes." Hearing this one of the three brothers returned to his village and told everyone that the train is the sound of a whistle. The other two brothers, not being convinced with the answer, waited, and soon they saw the head light of the train in the distance. They turned to another man and asked, "Is that light the train?" The man replied, "Yes." Hearing this, one of the brothers was satisfied, and he returned to his village and explained how actually a train is not just a sound, but a bright light as well. After waiting some more time, the third brother saw the train pull into the station, and he was surprised at what he saw. There were doors and compartments, and so many people getting in and going out! There were food vendors, and ticket collectors, old men and young children! There was so much variety. After seeing this he was satisfied and he returned to his village to inform everyone what a train actually was. It wasn't just an impersonal sound or a localized light. It was complete variety. Thus the Supreme Person possesses three unique features, one impersonal and all-pervading, one localized within the hearts of all living entities, and one as a supreme individual residing in His spiritual abode. To understand the Absolute Truth, one must comprehend all three of these features simultaneously.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Everything is real. There are distinct Jivas, the vedas are eternal, there exists time and space, et cetera. This is what Advaita says. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Everything is real... except for the world, which is mithya (false)... except to the illusioned jivas, to whom the world is true... until they realize they never were jivas in the first place, then the world is again false... but since the world never existed in the first place, it never ceases to not be real... It is all the covering of illusion which limits the unlimited perception of brahman to an individualized state of identity. Why? Don't ask.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Here are some selections from the Svetasvatara Upanishad. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Could you post the sanskrit, or at least the verse numbers when you quote. In the past a number of your translations were inacurate.

What I meant was 'shankara' was liberated, and therefore whatever was seen to be acting within the avidya of material existence was nothing but an illusion created by prarabda karmas.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>A realized person cannot be called a 'soul' to begin with and is not bound to the body either. The Prarabdha-karma is for that body. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So then you are basically saying all of Shankaracharya's writings were just caused by the non-existent prarabda karmas, created by the illusion of maya through his non-existent body. So his teachings are the same material illusion we are supposed to become free from. I am glad that was cleared up.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>That was their Prarabdha-Karma. There is no standard pattern that all realized people will follow. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But why did non-existent prarabda karma continue to exist for a brahman realized soul?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>In simple words, the body has to complete the set of activites that it has to finish. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But I thnk the real question is why did he preach, knowing full well others did not exist. There was no need for him to liberate the non-existent. Since he had realized that he was everything, there was no point to continue preaching, for that entails accpetance if the illusion of duality. There are many sages throughout the Puranas that simply stopped acting. They became complete avadhutas.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>That is the key point of Advaita. For one, who realizes his true self as Brahman and everything as Brahman, there is no such thing as Jiva or Maya or Avidya. A person who is in ignorance, has no idea of Brahman.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is the point that most sane people have trouble accepting. Maya doesn't actually exist, yet it is covering the absolute truth. Ok, why not.

In the Gaudiya line, the worship is performed accorinding to the text Narada Pancharatra. The Gaudiyas simultaneously emplay two paths of service, one according to the Pancharatras, and one according to eh Bhagavata. The bhagavata-marga includes the nine processes of bhakti (sravanam, kirtanam, smaranam, etc.). The pancharatrika-marga deals primarily with regulated activities of service to the deity. The distinction between the vaikhanasa-agama and the pancharatra-agama, is the qualification for service. In the pancharatra-agamas, anyone who chants the name of the Lord is considered purified and qualified to engage in the worship of the deity, who is an incarnation of Vishnu (archa-avatara). In the vaikhanasa-agamas, there are pre-requisites for service, such as proper samskaras and established culture (varnashrama dharma).

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I was reading this thread again and I got to thinking about this example. Ayamaatma Brahma can be translated as 'Atman and Brahman are one'. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I guess we disagree. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Some examples, Jndas and this person are one This person is Jndas This Krishna is Vaasudeva Krishna and Vaasudeva are one <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> These examples are faulty, as both referred objects are exclusive. That is where interpretation comes in. Someone interprets that Brahman is an exclusive object, and therefore concludes that to say "atma is brahman", means "atma and brahman are one". But Brahman can refer to a number of things. If they are truly one, then by reversing the statement the meaning should remain true. "Brahman is atma." Now remember in this verse atma is refering to the individual soul. Otherwise its relevance to advaita is meaningless. The point is to prove that the individual soul is brahman. So one one hand we have the statement "The individual soul is brahman." This is an undisputed truth in all schools of Vedanta, vaishnava included. But the reverse is not true: "Brahman is the individual soul." This is not accepted by ANY school of Vedanta, including advaita. To limit Brahman in this way contradicts the very root, brihat. Thus, I hope everyone agrees that the translation "Atma and Brahman are one." is incorrect, both gramatically and philosophically. If A equals B, then B should also equal A. And since it doesn't, then we must conclude that A does not equal B. Besides that, the old SHVU argument would be, "Where in the Sanskrit is the phrase 'are one' coming from?" We have only three words: ayam - this atma - soul brahma - brahman Look carefully and tell me if the translation REALLY is "The soul and Brahman are one." Does it REALLY say that? I don't think so. It says "This soul is brahman". Quite undisputable, unless someone's goal is to argue that the night is day and the moon is actually the sun.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>In the case of India, Indian scolars have actively been working for a number of years to try and show India as a older civilzation than originally shown by the European Indologists. But the fact remains that till date, they have come up with nothing concrete. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But the problem in India is there are millions of people living on top of the archeological sites! How can someone try to dig up old Delhi to see if Hastinapura is underneath. India is one of the few places in the world where the ancient cities did not die. They are still living, and there are probably hundreds of layers of existence beneath the present cities. On the coasts, the cities that previously existed have been washed into the ocean. In the Tamil literature there is mention of three Madurais, two of which were washed into the sea, only the third one still existing. Each time the coast receded, the capital waas shifted further inland.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> Devotion is one of the 3 main paths to God, alongwith Jnana and Karma. It does not in any way mean that Devotion is the only true Sanathana Dharma. It is one of the 3 paths. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is irrelevant, as I am not trying to establish devotion as anything. The point is to show that bhakti, and prema-bhakti were not created 300 or so years ago, as someone around here claimed. Was that you, or was it someone else who made that claim?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Sure, there are. But Advaita without any qualifications by default, commonly applies to the philosophy of Shankara.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Maybe by popular notion advaita refers to Shankara's advaita, but that would just be a misconception. I think the other schools of advaita are not known well enough, and so they are often neglected. Also Shankara has become the most famous advaiti, so his name has almost become synonymous with the term advaita.

The source is Shvetashvatara Upanishad 6.38.

Regarding this topic, some would also consider the following verse to be refering to prema bhakti: yasya deve para bhaktir yatha-deve tatha gurau tasyaite kathita hy arthah prakashante mahatmanah "Only unto those great souls who have implicit devotion in both the Lord and the spiritual master are all the imports of Vedic knowledge automatically revealed." The words "para bhakti", or roughly "superior devotion", can be interpreted as prema-bhakti.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Time to educate you again. Advaita is the position of Shankara. Hence it cannot be the position of his rival as well. And here is an important equality that you will do well to remember. Mayavada = Advaita.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Mayavada may be classified as advaita, but the reverse wouldn't necessarily be true. The are many schools, such as jiveshvara-vada, parinama-vada, etc. There are even advaita lines belonging to shakta and shaivite lines.

This year at Kumbha mela, one of my friends went for doing a video documentary. He found that many of the naga baba sadhus hire people to walk around naked with them so that they appear to have many followers. There was one local man who was previously getting paid 30 rupees a day to clean the toilets. Suddenly he was seen walking around naked with a naga baba group. When asked he said that he was offered twice his previous salary to do this new job of walking around naked and saying "maharaj ki jaya". Even among the nagas such things go on.

But my point was that the translation was incorrect. The correct literal translation for ayamatma brahma is "This soul is brahman." I don't think anyone will disagree that this is different from what you offered, namely "Atma and Brahman are one." Anything else is not a translation, but an interpretation or commentary. Interpretations are also valid, but not when one tries to establish something solely based on it. For example, if someone offered that "Advaita says..." That would be fine. But if someone says, "here is the proof that..." and then quotes an interpretation, and not a translation, then that would be faulty.

I forgot to mention a small point on one of the previous threads. Now the threads are so long I don't know where it was, so I will mention it here. According to the traditional biographies, Shankara appeared over 2,000 years ago. Of course this isn't accepted by the modern indologists. They prefer to keep everything as having occured after Christ.

I think it was back in '89 where two naga baba sects had a big fight over which would bathe first at the Kumbhamela. They fought and fought , and finally one side said, "Then we will not bathe!". And the Police superintendent, who had been trying to negotiate between the two leaders said, "Then stay dirty." Still, I have to admit I like the naga babas. There are some real sadhus among them, but the majority of them are just wild.

Just as a side note, I would disagree with the translations you have provided. For example, 'ayamatma brahma' does not mean "Atman and Brahman are one" as you have given. That is an interpretation of the verse. It simple states "This soul is brahman." Why make a distinction on this translation? Because the statement, "I am american", and "I am America" are quite different. There is a similar case when we use this incorrect translation for ayamatma brahma.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> ayamatma Brahma [Atman and Brahman are one] - Mundaka tattvamasi [Thou art that] - Chaandogya aham brahmasmi [i am Brahman] - Brihadaranyaka prajnanam brahma [Absolute knowledge and Brahman are one] - Aitareya <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> These verses, which Shankara considered as mahavakyas, are quite non-substantial. Their meaning can be taken in a number of ways, as is evident by the various vedanta schools. For example, the statement 'aham-brahmasmi' is certainly not in dispute among any vedantic school. The dispute is on how the word brahman is defined in this context. Vaishnavas make a distinction between brahman and para-brahman, as indicated in the Gita shloka, param brahma param dhama. The fact is everything is brahman, sarvam khalv idam brahma. But the question that remains is if there is spiritual variety within brahman. As far as prajnanam, it is refering to the chit-shakti, which is anti-material, or brahman in short. Again there is no difference of opinion on this. The difference only comes in defining brahman.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>raso vai sah, rasam hy evayam labdhvanandi bhavati Can I have a reference number? I would like to see the context of this verse. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The source for this verse is Taittiriya Upanishad 2.7.1. I was surprised when I went to look up the reference. I have a Taittiriya Upanishad published by Ramakrishna mission, with commentary by Swami Sarvananda. I just had a glance over his purport, and was surprised to find he brings up this same point: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> 3. Flavour which is the essence, etc. - 'Rasa is the sappy vegetative life in trees and plants, a tincture in rain, the elixir of life, the soma-dew that drips from the world-tree, seed in all that reproduces its kind, savour in all things eaten or drunk, and the principle of beauty in art' - says a modern critic. The one quality of Rasa is that it causes satisfaction. But for the value of Rasa the world is destitute of taste or flavour. One who has comprehended the Bliss of Brahman is immersed in felicity and enjoys like a bee which has settled on a flower full of nectar; his mind is supremely delighted. Nothing attracts a pure mind more than the Bliss of the Divine; if God were not Rasa none will be attracted to Him. The Vaishnavas of the Bengal school identify Rasa with Sri Krishna. While annotating the third verse of the Bhagavata, Vishvanathachakravartin argues thus: In the Taittiriya the Koshas from Annamaya to Anandamaya are set forth in an ascending grade of superiority, culminating in Brahman, who is the foundation, and then Rasa is identified with Him; so in that series Rasa occupies the apex. Rasa is not identical with Brahman but the base of It. In this view enjoyment of God is placed above knowledge of Him. But the spirit of the Upanishads in general and the experience of godmen like Sri Ramakrishna do not warrant this distinction. True knowledge and highest bhakti are inseparable." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just did a couple searches on the internet to see what was the relative representation of different religions on the net. I used google to make the searches. These are the results for each word: hinduism - 329,000 sites hindu - 986,000 sites buddhist - 834,000 sites buddhism - 683,000 sites Islam - 2,030,000 sites Muslim - 1,260,000 sites Christian - 10,800,000 sites Christianity - 1,760,000 sites Jewish - 3,110,000 sites Judaism - 656,000 sites Gita - 192,000 sites Koran - 147,000 sites Quran - 215,000 sites Bible - 6,170,000 sites Torah - 491,000 sites Overall it seems Hinduism is the least represented among the major world religions. I would guess the majority of Buddhist sites would be in Chinese, and thus their actual figures would be much higher.

I just did a couple searches on the internet to see what was the relative representation of different religions on the net. I used google to make the searches. These are the results for each word: hinduism - 329,000 sites hindu - 986,000 sites buddhist - 834,000 sites buddhism - 683,000 sites Islam - 2,030,000 sites Muslim - 1,260,000 sites Christian - 10,800,000 sites Christianity - 1,760,000 sites Jewish - 3,110,000 sites Judaism - 656,000 sites Gita - 192,000 sites Koran - 147,000 sites Quran - 215,000 sites Bible - 6,170,000 sites Torah - 491,000 sites Overall it seems Hinduism is the least represented among the major world religions. I would guess the majority of Buddhist sites would be in Chinese, and thus their actual figures would be much higher.