atanu

This is the classic difference between impersonalist and Vaisnavas. The mayavadi's insist when we talk about individuals we are talking about bodies of this world. I am not making this mistake so please don't insist that I am.

Namste theist,

Yes, I insist that you are thinking the apparent division as real and permanent. The explanation is below.

But again, please explain to me how there can exist even a perception of duality if undifferentiate oneness is all there is?

Please digest the following and then answer why Lord says: And undivided, yet He exists as if divided in beings?

Avibhaktam cha bhooteshu vibhaktamiva cha sthitam;

Bhootabhartru cha tajjneyam grasishnu prabhavishnu cha.

17. And undivided, yet He exists as if divided in beings; He is to be known as the supporter of beings; He devours and He generates also.

Under your philosophy you say Brahman is static state (non-active). Then you say Brahman is the source and cause of maya. That is an activity. This is a fundemental contradiction. Can't you see that? It is a simple thing.

 

I am taking rest now. I'll respond again in the morning.

Hare Krishna

Who said Brahman is static? Did I?

Sleep will be really good for you. At least your mind being asleep (static), will not create the boundaries.

Om

------Understand this point?

 

Further, since Advaitins say we are all really just one being why when someone becomes self realized in Brahman do others still experience maya as a deluding force in their lives?

 

Does this not prove that souls are not just individual while under maya's spell but must be individual's post liberation as well.

Namaste theist,

No. You do not comprehend what you yourself say.

You have confused the mere objects (the bodies) with so-called others. A brahmvid knows the other bodies as similar to his own body as mere objects which dance by the will of the consciousness, which is indivisible one.

Till your mind makes you identify yourself with your body and the mind (which are ever changing) you will stick to the view that there is a brahmvid (knower of Brahman) who sees others. Whereas, for the brahmvid, the other bodies are (similar to his own body) objects which are illuminated by the light and intelligence of ONE.

Avibhaktam cha bhooteshu vibhaktamiva cha sthitam;

Bhootabhartru cha tajjneyam grasishnu prabhavishnu cha.

17. And undivided, yet He exists as if divided in beings; He is to be known as the supporter of beings; He devours and He generates also.

------------------

Unfortunately, I repeat that you have a strong mistaken idea that the very many bodies that apparently divide the Atman, have realities of their own. If you pause for some time and enquire as to what is sanatan in jiva, you will then realise that the sanatan is ONE: And undivided, yet He exists as if divided in beings.

Unfortunately again, some egos in their zeal to denigrate their apparent opponents, negate the teaching of the Lord.

Om

I for one would like to hear the Advaitin answer to the question on how there can even be such a thing as maya in the first place.

Namaste Theist,

Exactly. Advaita says that Maya is Maya -- a mistake. A mistake is not a reality. But please compare your view with that of great knower, Ranjit, who said:

Brahm,jeev maya.3 principles have been enumeratd in the veda.

Thus granting Maya an eternal place along with Brahman.

----------

I therefore asked Ranjit to explain what is his understanding of Advaita so we could have something on which to discuss, rather than just throw around opinions.

OM

 

Jeev is sanatan.Brahm is sanatan.Maya is sanatan(beginingless.)

 

 

Excellent. So, sanatan is the common factor that must be known before we can make any comment as to what is Jiva, what is Maya, and what is Brahman? OM. ranjit, do you know the sanatana in you? And can you list down the key teachings of Advaita to show to us that you know as to what you are calling 'a hoax'?

I do not understand

Sa ekaakii na ramate:

means: He had no SPORT...Not that HE wasn't happy!

 

Thats kind of a really naive statement to make.Sriman Narayana is SELF CONTENT.

Raso vai saha.

 

Namaste More,

Yes. Raso vai saha is eternally correct. Also correct is 'Sa ekaakii na ramate' when one does not know Shivam.

Absolutely correct is :V-45. All is calm (needing) no support, existing in the ether (of the heart), eternal, Shivam, devoid of ailment and illusion, name and cause.

V-46. Neither existent nor-existent, nor in between, nor the negation of all; beyond the grasp of mind and words, fuller than the fullest, more joyful than joy.

------------------

This joy does not need any support of another and does not need any support of creation. One must pause and at least do sharvana and manana. Ego positions are hard to give up but is required. Shri Krishna will teach so to the Yadus.

Regards,

Om

 

Good point, it is said, eko vai narayana asin na brahma na isano napo nagni-samau neme dyav-aprthivi na naksatrani na suryah: "In the beginning of the creation there was only the Supreme Personality Narayana. There was no Brahma, no Siva, no fire, no moon, no stars in the sky, no sun." (Maha Upanisad 1)

Namaste Suchandra Ji,

Yes you have brought out an excellent point through Maha Upanishad. Thanks.

Maha Upanishad

I-1-4 athaato mahopanishhada.n vyaakhyaasyamastadaahureko ha vai naaraayaNa

aasiinna brahmaa neshaano naapo naagniishhomau neme dyaavaapR^ithivii na

nakshatraaNi na suuryo na chandramaaH . sa ekaakii na ramate .

"I am Lord Siva"

Sri Krishna

 

 

Namaste Smiley,

Krishna Says:

Of all the Rudras I am Lord Siva; . . .

 

Yes, there are eleven Rudras in every being. These eleven Rudras are offsprings of one Aja Rudra.

Om

Originally Posted by atanu:

-

IF YOU DO NOT EXCEPT VYASADEVA'S WRITTINGS AS PART OF THE VEDAS THEN YOU HAVE NO VEDAS AT ALL TO HOIST UP YOUR FLAG POLL.

Dear Bhaktajan,

Dear Bhakta there is no flag pole except in your hierarchial mind. God is beyond comparison and let us worship Him as incomparable.

Your bhakti is marvelous but so is bhakti of many others. Because you belong to a particular school of thought is no reason to run down other devotees. More mature devotees in this very thread have given their views. We do not ask you to accept those views but we request you to be a bit more mature.

You have not read anything other than purports given to you. Those purports may be suitable to you but that does not invaldate other purports and especially the Veda. Please read what has been written above of Shiva Rudra from Bhagavatam. And please also read the following very carefully.

Rig Veda

Shiv

1.187.01 I glorify Father, the great, the upholder, the strong, by whose invigorating power Trita (Indra) slew the mutilated Vr.tra.

1.187.02 Savoury Pita_; sweet pita_; we worship you; become our protector.

1.187.03 Come to us, Pita_, Shiv with auspicious aids; a source of delight; not unpalatable; a friend well respected, and having none but agreeable properties.

1.187.04 Your flavours, Pita_, are diffused through the regions, as the winds are spread through the sky.

1.187.05 Those (men), Pita_, (are the enjoyers of your bounty), who are your distributors, most sweet Pita_, (to others); they who are the relishers of your flavours, are as if they had stiff necks.

1.187.06 The thoughts of the mighty gods are fixed, Pita_, upon you; by your kind and intelligent assistance, (Indra) slew Ahi.

1.187.07 When, Pita_, this (product) of the water-wealthy clouds, (the rain), arrives; then do you, sweet Pita_, be at hand with sufficiency for our eating.

1.187.08 And since we enjoy the abundance of the waters and the plants; therefore, Body, do you grow fat.

1.187.09 And since we enjoy, Soma, your mixture with boiled milk or boiled barley; therefore, Body, do you grow fat.

1.187.10 Vegetable cake of fried meal, do you be substantial, wholesome, and invigorating; and, Body, do you grow fat.

1.187.11 We extract from you, Pita_, by our praises, (the sacrificial food), as cows yield butter for oblation; from you, who are exhilarating to the gods; exhilarating also to us.

------------------

Shiv is the invigorator, the intelligence, the guide, the protector, the upholder, the food by which you grow. And Shiv is the all pervading Vishnu, who is the good Shiv.

You may know your father by the name of Rama and I may know the name of your father by the name of Krishna, but that does not change anything of the Universal father, the Seer of the Hiraynagarbha.

He is all that is important in you. Rest is inert ash.

Shiv Shiv.

Pranaam Atanu,

 

I should first of all thank you for the clarifications. It was up to the point.

In addition to that, I should say, I do understand your purport about non-indians studying the Vedic Shastras.. but it is also true that for those who were born with that culture, it is easier to decipher as it should be. But I'm more happier when I see the endeavor of Westeners. I myself was not born in India, but my origin is from there... I was born and brought up in Mauritius.. in an orthodox family. I should say I'm the rare lucky guys to be born in such a family because most of the people out there have chosen the unorthodox path. In that respect, I see that many of the westeners are the real gems... cause I've seen many Indians as well as People of Indian Origin bereft of that knowlege.

 

Considering all that... whenever we get to hear or read sloka [i mean the purport... it is easier for us to decrypt].

 

In Audarya.... from Theist, Bhaktajan, cbrahma, Bija and many others.. even though not from India... they know much much much than many many so-called [indian] Vedic Scholars.

Namaskar Amlesh,

Thank you for your considered reply. You are correct. It is not my intention to generalise therefore I stated: But a few very immature devotees (mostly non-indian neo HK devotees perhaps) read some purports and apply that to Shiva as demi God and what not.

Om

There is only one truth Hiranyagarpa. And it is this:

Namaskar Bija,

Thanks for the nice post. You, IMO, should integrate the above knowledge with the following (which has also been posted in another thread):

Svetasvatara Upanishad, Chapter 3

2. For there is one Rudra only, they do not allow a second, who rules all the worlds by his powers. He stands behind all persons, and after having created all worlds he, the protector, rolls it up at the end of time.

3. That one god, having his eyes, his face, his arms, and his feet in every place, when producing heaven and earth, forges them together with his arms and his Wings.

4. He, the creator and supporter of the gods, Rudra, the great seer, the lord of all, he who formerly gave birth to Hiranyagarbha, may he endow us with good thoughts.

The same knowledge is also there in Maha Narayana Upanishad.

There, through our sleeping (realm of Sarvesvara all attractive dark Krishna-Rudra), Dreaming (realm of luminous creator Hiranyagarbha) and Waking (realm of Agnivaisvanara) is one Seer, who knows these states and remains unchanged.

This achintyam is the Shiva Advaita Atman Turya who never slumbers. Lord Krishna is known truly when He is known as Shiva Advaita Atman.

Om

Deaer Sambya

I second your conclution ,and supply the Vedic pramana for thae same :

 

"Reality is one . Sears call it by varitey of names" - Rg Veda.

 

Regards,

Ravindran

Namaste Ravindran Ji,

There will be some misunderstanding in understanding the above verse if the phenomenal state of waking, dreaming, and sleeping and the transcendental Seer the Turya are not differentiiated and understood. Please consider as to why a single sage, while expressing his realisation and knowledge, has named more than one divinity such as Soma, Aditi, Vishnu, Indra etc etc., if there is no differences in these names?

What is actually intended is that Lord is ONE-EKO and He alone bears all these names and forms, as below:

------------------

Being in phenomenal realm and never ever having experienced the Samadhi of Turya, the differences of names and forms affect us very practically and we cannot say that the reality is one only and the names and forms do not signify any real differences. The differences are only transcended in the Turya.

Scriptures however exhort us to the Advaita Turya which is without a Second Lord, wherein there is no other and no fear and no death. The following verse from Mandukya Upanishad explains (on proper contemplation) what Shankaracharya teaches:

Mandukya Upanishad

The Fourth is thought of as that which is not conscious of the internal world, nor conscious of the external world, nor conscious of both the worlds, nor dense with consciousness, nor simple consciousness, nor unconsciousness, which is unseen, actionless, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable, indescribable, whose proof consists in the identity of the Self (in all states), in which all phenomena come to a cessation, and which is unchanging, auspicious, and non-dual. That is the Self; that is to be known.

• It is unchanging, it is known as One, all phenomena come to ceasation, it is the Self -- not another one.
  
• Self cannot be another one. It is unchanging, so number of other souls joining it as different entities is ruled out.
  
• It is Advaita. Number of other souls joining it yet remaining separate entities is ruled out.
  
• It is actionless. So, thoughts of serving it or actual tasks undertaken to serve it are not possible.
  
• It is not conscious of the inner or the outer. So, the consciousness of me and another is impossible.
  
• It not unconsciousness either. So, it is aware of itself without inner or outer perceptions.
  
• It is the Self which is Brahman. So nothing exceeds it.

That is the Self; that is to be known, though Mandukya terms the Self as achnityam - unthinkable. The Self is unthinkable because the Self alone thinks. There is no other with any power of cognition whatsoever. Only true way to know the Lord is in Samadhi, in union, as Advaita Atma.

That which is without parts is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self. <!-- / sig -->

Om Namah Shivaya

The Shiva of Bhagvatam is infact Rudra... a form of Shiva.

According to Hinduism there are 3 Eternal beings who do not change bodies... Vishnu, Anant Shesh Naag and Shiva.

 

That very Shiva is known as Sada Shiva... The Eternal Shiva.

Namaskar Amlesh,

Thank you for your post. I however, wish to further clarify a few points. We do not take Gaudya purports as Shruti, though for Gaudiya Bhaktas those purports may be valid -- as per their requirement and predilections. No problem with that approach since for Christians by name God is different. Difference of naming does not change the Truth. But a few very immature devotees (mostly non-indian neo HK devotees perhaps) read some purports and apply that to Shiva as demi God and what not.

If the followers of Sanatana Dharma do not rectify that, it is a great misfortune for us and not for Shiva or sanatana Dharma.

Svetasvatara Upanishad

4.18. When the light has risen, there is no day, no night, neither existence nor non-existence; Shiva alone is there. That is the eternal, the adorable light of Savitri, - and the ancient wisdom proceeded thence.

Sadashiva is advaitaatma. There is no second being. Rudra, the revealed Pragnya of the Eternal Beneficient Sadashiva is described as below in Shruti and in Bhagavatam:

Svetasvatara Upanishad, Chapter 3

2. For there is one Rudra only, they do not allow a second, who rules all the worlds by his powers. He stands behind all persons, and after having created all worlds he, the protector, rolls it up at the end of time.

3. That one god, having his eyes, his face, his arms, and his feet in every place, when producing heaven and earth, forges them together with his arms and his Wings.

4. He, the creator and supporter of the gods, Rudra, the great seer, the lord of all, he who formerly gave birth to Hiranyagarbha, may he endow us with good thoughts.

Bhagavatam (in Churning of the Ocean Chapter).

-

 

the maxim is, "A Fool remains concealed until he opens his mouth" --show me the Sastra!!!

 

 

Apt.

Srikanth,

 

Um Pah Loom Pha!

 

Ya gotta watch "Little Britain" [brit Television Comedy] --the new Monty Python.

-

You're sooo cute Sri Sri ji! When your tripping.

 

1)--HEY EVERYBODY,

I HAVE NOT SAID A SINGLE BAD THING ABOUT LORD SHIVA, NEVER!!!

 

I CHALLENDGE YOU TO FIND A SUCH A STATEMENT ANYWHERE ON THIS FORUM!!!

 

 

The following were your original comments:

--Your post prompts me to ask you, Why propagate Shiva's Fame? As the chief of Annihilation, darkness and ignorance why would anyone be interested in Shiva's Devotees' preaching?

--We want democracy and liberty and civility and work. Lord Shiva is an ascetic lest he becomes a botheration ---.

---Even Arjuna is more famous: ---

Do you not understand what you write??

Namaste Sarva,

I see that you have replaced your original post with some art of the poster variety.

Thanks

The Mayavadis see EVERYTHING as illusion, I am u, you are me and we are all together as ONE consciosness.

 

In this way claim to be God

 

Namaste sarva,

No. That is not how an advaitin sees everything. A realised Advaitin knows the Universe as divine Purusha and not as you and me.

Both are real however, Vaikuntha is imperishable while the mahat-tattva is perishable.

 

How can that which perishes be real in ultimate terms?

Advaitins merely ask us to abide by that which is always real -- that is God. Moreover, I cannot comprehend how Tattva, which means Thatness perish? How can God's true nature perish, unless there is a mistake in ascribing something else (such as ascribing divisiblity to Atman, which is ever indivisible) as the true nature. It is the mistake of seeing the Tattva as different and separate from Tat.

Please do not be hurried.

Om

I have heard that said numerous times atanu. And I appreciate what you say.

 

But I got some questions:

 

How did we come to our portion of knowledge gleaned so far? Was it spontaneous within the heart, or did hearing help also?

 

Or should we just let be? Let others take their course in life? I feel yes and no.

 

Is glorifying the beauty of God ok (sankirtan)? Maybe pure glorification of Reality the Beautiful is different than mixed preaching?

 

I question what to do. How to practice awareness and thoughtfullness, to speak only that which is realized? And how to discern what is realized knowledge, and what is just mental platform stuff?

 

any thoughts would be appreciated.

Namaste bija,

Frankly speaking, I did not expect such strong rejoinders/queries. You are welcome. Regards. Answers to your four questions follow.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

I have realized ignorance is simply seeing others as objects (for one's own gratification). The pitfall for many ignorant preachers.

 

Namaste bija,

That is a nice knowledge. Allow me to add that once the subject is known, then there is no need to preach.

Regards

Om

Originally Posted by atanu [as highlighted in red]:

"that you create any fool rascal, a god"

What is your objection to this?

What world-changing/'Nobel-Peace-Prise'-earning endeavor do you pretend to protect from being called:

"So that is not a Vedic sanction, that you create any fool rascal, a god".

 

It is a WONDER to see a boefide self-rightrous Svami claim turf for Krishna's banner (with a picture of Hanuman emblazened on it.

Lead, follow or get out of the way.

 

Your envy and anger is the poignant part of this dialogue--get a hold of your nerves man!

 

You are "representing" what we [Vaishnava-vedantists] call mayavadi [impersonalists due to limited knowledge of Vedanta]--and WE know all about it [except for unsuspecting neophytes].

 

What is Most Important to US is that you have a firm understanding of Vaishnava Philosophy --and that is the cross-word where we are meeting here on this forum.

 

So one day you will have been taught all you will ever need to preform Krishna-Bhakti on your own recognisance.

 

yours in Krishna's Service,

Bhaktajan

Dear Bhakta,

'Nobel-Peace-Prise', boefide self-rightrous ' , 'recognisance': Wow, What's all these words? Do you have your nerves in control?

It is already known that you do know everything, so you do not have to dilute this by self claiming: and WE know all about it [except for unsuspecting neophytes].

By the way, if you think that Rascal is a proper civil word then I have nothing to say.

Regards

atanu,

 

yes I can & will soon.

[mind-you, I have only been issueing wee bits of revelatory-sastric references --so as to give you time between each progressive posting to assimulate, in your daily life, the lessons that emerge in stages on your way to seeing the complete story as contained in the Vedas.]

 

First, YOU MUST prepare yourself for the coming "change of Heart" that you will undergo whist being revealed Godhead, Uttama-Parusha-pushan-rupa.

 

Such realization includes purging of multiple departments of daily life & consciousness so as to allow for your Persona to evolve to accept that you are made in the image of God and that the "Maya" is recognized as an assisting agent to you to rise above samsara and the Void and further demensions of neisciance.

 

Second, I'll get back to you as soon as possible--as providence allows.

Namaste Bhakta,

Thank you for 'issueing wee bits of revelatory-sastric references'. I will wait for the full revelation from your highness. It appears that you are privy to Godhead, Uttama-Parusha-pushan-rupa. Nice.

Om

-

I personally heard Prabhupada say that RamaKrishna and his disciple Vivikananda's impersonal nonsense Mayavadi philosophy has sent West Bengal to hell - go to Prabhupadas letters and read for yourself.

 

Prabhupada: "Ramakrishna Mission is not Vedic. It is a creation of Vivekananda's concoction. It is not Vedic. Just like they created a God, Ramakrishna. So that is not a Vedic sanction, that you create any fool rascal, a god". Perth, May 16, 1975 - 750516TA.PER) © 1991 by Bhaktivedanta Book Trust

 

 

Namaste Sarva,

I am wondering, why he did not lift West Bengal out of the hell? I am inclined to say that a person who uses such profanity as language will lead you deeper into that dark hell faster. (And such colourful bhaktas too, who express glee while posting the profanities, spread by the master, freely on the internet).

Om

1) Originally Posted by Bhaktajan

Vaishnavas, such as Lord Shiva-ji are also seeking Moksha at the end of his life time so that he can retire to repose himself in Govinda's embrace.

 

2) Originally Posted by Smiley

Bhaktajan, could you please elaborate on this statement?

I had not heard this idea before.

3) Originally Posted by Trivedi

Obviously You could not have heard this idea before - no one heard it before -

........................................................................................................

Here is what I learnt from the most historically impressive Holyman that ever hailed from India, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada:

 

Bhagavata-Purana 1.2.26:

"Those who are serious about liberation are certainly nonenvious, and they respect all. Yet they reject the horrible and ghastly forms of the demigods and worship only the all-blissful forms of Lord Vishnu and His plenary portions."

 

 

Bhakta,

After reading through your seemingly masterful;) responses (which actually reveal 'I know all' pomposity) to Lord Shiva bhaktas, I feel that you are not doing full justice to Swami Prabhupada. Can't you support your contentions from some valid scripture to validate your purports?

C'mon. You should be able to do it -- . C'mon. If you cannot do it, then accept that.

Om

Thanks aditya prabhu, I pasted mat param into an online sanskrit translator at

http://webapps.uni-koeln.de/tamil/ (put "prefix" and "Sanskrit-English") and the machine produced:

 

Capeller's Sanskrit-English Dictionary: Search Results

 

<TABLE cellSpacing=3><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=right>1</TD><TD vAlign=top>matpara, -parama</TD><TD vAlign=top>, & {-parAyaNa} a. devoted to me. [[-,]]</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Could be that param means superior and mat, surrender to the superior?

Namaskar

Thanks for the effort. Now please search another term 'anadimat'.

anadiMatparam can be parsed as anadimat (without beginning) or as matparam.

To translate that something controls Param Brahman is actually like saying 'Prabhupada controls Param Brahman, since only Prabhupada can translate so.

Similar passage from Svet. Upanishad will throw more light.

4.4 niilaH pataN^go harito lohitaaxa\-

staDidgarbha R^itavaH samudraaH .

</PRE>

anaadimat.h tva.n vibhutvena vartase

</PRE> yato jaataani bhuvanaani vishvaa .. 4..

4.4 . Thou art the dark-blue bee, thou art the green parrot with red eyes, thou art the

thunder-cloud, the seasons, the seas. THOU ART WITHOUT BEGINNING, because thou art infinite, thou from whom all worlds are born.

----------------------------

'Param Brahman under my control' is entertainment.

Om

---shiva is a state of monoism .....the scriptures say that there is no such thing as shiva and soul for where there is a soul shiva is not and where there is shiva there is no soul(duality ie the difference between the perciever and the percieved is lost)...it is the state of advaitic moksh or buddhist nirvana........it is beyond duality .....of existance and non existance............it is in this context that the statement (EKAM BHARM DWITIYA NASTI........is to be understood ..........EKAM BHRAM...ETC......DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS ONE GOD ...........IT MEANS THERE IS ONLY "ONE".......call this "ONE" as god or bhram or parabhram or WHATEVER.........but where this "ONE" exists there is no other .........

 

---

Namaskar,

Nicely said. Shiva is the substratum, where there is no dvittiya. Shivoadvaitaatma. ONE who never slumbers.

Om