Shashi
-
Content Count
197 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Shashi
-
-
Originally posted by ram:
Point : the other obvious problem with this interpretation is that Krishna is speaking the verse, and "I" can only refer to Him, who has attributes. There is no reason to switch subject and direct object in clear defiance of the context.
Response : This is a problem only if brahman and I are different as vaishnavas do against the direct statemens like aham asmi brahmAhamasmi. Does any one understand what brahmanah means before giving grammatical arguments ? Before I give the translation, I would like to hear that.
ShashiJI moves one amendment to RamJi's proposition. Moving that "vaishnava" be no more there and that "some peoples" put in place. Otherwise line of questionings is supported.
If my amendment be not agreemented by RamJi then I am sadly forcibly not suppoort his motion.
-
Originally posted by ram:
Point : In the second interpretation, "Brahman" is taken to be "Brahman with attributes" and "I" is taken to be Brahman which is beyond all attributes. Ignoring for the moment the problems of accepting a twofold concept of Brahman in Advaita
Response : There is no problem with twofold concept of brahman because the Absolute is describes as full of attributes and without it. Just like the Lord can take infinite forms, He can also be formless.
Agreemented. Motion seconded.
Speechings in support: Honourables Chairperson, in seconding RamJi's proposition I would most humbly utter "Achintya Bhedabhed". Please beg my pardons.
-
Originally posted by ram:
Point : But the subject of 14.26 is the jiiva, which if Shankara is going to quote here, considerably muddles this interpretation. He already considers "I" to be the inner Self in 14.27, and then says this inner Self is the same as the Supreme Self based on 14.26, whose subject is the jiiva becoming Brahman. He is thus equating the jiiva of 14.26 with the "I" or inner Self of 14.27. But Krishna is speaking this verse, so how has Krishna suddenly become a jiiva? Furthermore, Shankara writes that this jiiva, or inner Self, is the basis of Brahman, the Supreme Self. Why is the jiiva the basis of Brahman? According to Advaita, it should be the other way around, because the Brahman when combined with upaadhi or limiting adjunct yields the jiivas. Finally, Shankara then contradicts all of the preceeding remarks by writing that both the jiiva and Brahman are the same. This is all very nice and good for someone who forgets the verse in his attempt to understand the commenary, but we may perhaps remember that the verse is speaking of these two things as different, and is further saying that one is resting on the other.
Response : prathishta does not imply duality. When deities are installed, they always say prathishta has been done. Trying to understand this term which has no real equivalent, to my knowledge, in Egnlish is not correct. Prathishta implies unity not duality. There is no difference between the deity installed and the stone deity. So without going to the purport, one can see that the Lord is talking about unity. Sankara just clarifies that. There is no difference between the Self of the Lord and our own Self. This does not mean I am God, You are God nonsense. We never become Krishna as modern day advaitins say. We realize that our Self is the same as His. This is confirmed by statements like sarvam khalv idam brahman, tat tvam asi, the fact that brahman is never talked of in plural throughout sAstrAs, Ananda mayo 'bhyasAt and vAsudevam sarvam iti.
Seconded By Shashi subjecting to RamJi's proposition having addendum of Shashi's much much early on comment as hereon:-
Originally posted by Shashi much much early on:
BG 14:27 Lord is saying Brahman is home in Lord. Non duel (advaita) state of Brahman is already reached by previous BG 14:26. Verse 27 is now decribing status of non duelty. Lord and Brhaman are non different but Brahman is in Lord. The relations between Lord and Brahman is subject for achintya bhed abhed.
[This message has been edited by Shashi (edited 07-26-2002).]
-
Originally posted by ram:
Point : This is incompatible with the Vaishnava/Vedic view, which treats the personal aspect of the Lord as real. Using "truth is one, sages see it in many ways" does not reconcile Advaita and Vaishnavism, because followers of Advaita do not acknowledge the reality of BOTH the personal and impersonal conceptions. Furthermore, Advaitins consider the impersonal conception to be the highest conception of the Absolute truth. This is contradicted by Giitaa which states, "brahmaNo hi pratiShThaaham...." The Lord is the basis of the Brahman.
Response : This debate is caused only by differentiating between the Lord and His Self as vaishnavas do. Sankara Himself does not differentiate between the Lord and the Self as in brahmano hi prathishtAham. So there is no question of inferior or superior. Can you please show a single place where Sankara uses inferior and superior ?
Those upstanding for this line of questionings. MR or Madam Chairperson, please be including Shashi.
-
Originally posted by ram:
Point : Secondly, and most importantly, Advaita does not admit of any real, personal aspect of God. The personal aspect of God is maya. It is at best a temporary conception to help the neophyte grasp what is beyond the senses. Brahman alone exists, and Brahman according to Advaita is undifferentiated.
Response : This cannot be substantiated with statements from Sankara and therefore it is not worth countering. On the other hand, avyakto paro nArayanA by Sankara , His poetry full of advaita philosophy mixed with personal glorfication is an embarrassment to vaishnavas who claim ownership of the Lord and mAyAvAdis who deny the Lord. By the way, impersonalism is not part of Sankara's parlance.
Agreemented with RamJi. Motion seconded without speechings by Shashi.
-
If you say Brahman is being unmanifest you are bringing Brahman as duality which is not advaita. How is advaita claiming unmanifest and still the non duel? If unmanifest, then opposite is there. Manifest is attribution therefore same same unmanifest. This cannot be non duel unless one explains with the achintya bhedabhed in which case the prospect of Lord and BRahman together becomes lively.
Other hand if Brahman is being compared like mango seed then that one is unmanifest mango tree. But seed no more once baby mango tree becomes. But if Lord is compared as the mango then the twig is called as mango, the leaf as mango, the fruit as mango, the wood as mango, the seed as mango - see alll is mango. The mango is the Supreme Attribute for the twig, the leaf, the woods, the seeds, the fruits. Without mango the mango seed is meaningless.
Therefore Brahman is in LOrd as seed is in mango. Seed is not separate from mango. It is being mango seed.
BG 14:27 Lord is saying Brahman is home in Lord. Non duel (advaita) state of Brahman is already reached by previous BG 14:26. Verse 27 is now decribing status of non duelty. Lord and Brhaman are non different but Brahman is in Lord. The relations between Lord and Brahman is subject for achintya bhed abhed.
Otherwise how you can say Brahman unmanifest (and therefore call in opposite prospect) and claim non duel?
-
Originally posted by ram:
Refutal is there Webster's. It is the same as refutation.
2 entries found for refutal.
Thank you for enlightning. I am not having that Webster. My appalogies.
-
Originally posted by krishna_s:
It is too easy to get frustrated and angry; I think it would be a good idea to take a few minutes and collect yourself before responding to something.
One is seeing the poetics where poetics is none.
Another one is seeing frustrated and anger where frustrated and anger
is none.
These ones are the expart philospohers?
-
Originally posted by ram many many times:
Refutal
What word is this RamJi, it is not being in dictionaries.
Are you having the poetic licenses?
[This message has been edited by Shashi (edited 07-22-2002).]
-
Originally posted by Gauracandra:
Luke 18:25 “For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”
The enterance to kingdom is not being needle's eye. The enterance is being so much large that we are not beeing able to see the door frames. Without seeing same we are not even knowing wheteher we are being in enterance or not. Such is enterance.
As for the camels and the needle's eye? Why would camel even desire to be going through needle's eye?
-
RamJi I was never being the impolite to yourself. I am not calling you nonsense. Where I am saying this? I am did say that what you say is nonsense when you are say that I am making poetries when I am giving one anology. Then you are said that the poetry (which is not existing) is flaw. Another times you are say the poetics is coming from Lords devotee. Then you are saying poetry is inferiar to Truth.
So it is hodge podge sequences of utterances about poetry. This is the truths of the matter as I am seeing it. If the truth is being impolite for you, please bury head in sand pitch.
And, how you will challenge and defeat true Gaudiya if are discerning so much little that you are thinking I am Gaudiya?
-
Originally posted by ram:
Shashiji, Lord's poetry is perfect in composition. But not ours. In your poem ------
WRONG number 1. I have not said any the poem! What nonsense you are saying. I gave one comparison.
Originally posted by ram:
---- you are comparing mango pulp to the Lord and the seed to --------
WRONG number 2. In mine comparison I saying Lord is the mango and Brahman the mango seed within mango. SEed is part of the mango not seprate. Lord is not pulp Lord is the whole mango. Otherwise meanings of BG 14:27 is not applied.
Originally posted by ram:
But as per GVV, brahma jyoti covers the face of the Lord.
WRONG number 3. Where is mention "brahmajyoti" in BG 14:27?
And where have I mention brhamajyoti regarding Brahman? Where I am say I representation of GVV?
Ding Ding Ding.
Originally posted by ram:
Secondly, mango seed is thrown away because it is not eaten.
WRONG number 4. Some idiots are throwing away. Others are planting. SEEd is not rubbish. SEed is UNmanifest tree. When manifest no more the seed. BUt still the mango.
Originally posted by ram:
the Lord is glorifying brahma jyoti as ultimate in happiness.
WRONG number 5. Where is BG 14:27 mentioning "jyoti"?
Originally posted by ram:
This I say is inconsistent with GVV apart from poetic flaw.
WRONG number 6. Whoever is seeing poetic where none poetic is existing, that one is the flaw.
-
Originally posted by Gauracandra:
Several years ago some Mormons came to my door and started preaching. I was very friendly, took their publications, and that was about it. Then a number of months later, they showed up at my door again and said "Do you remember us?...."
Why GlutenJI are they asking this one? Are you having the forgetful face?
-
Originally posted by ram:
Shashi, Sankara says a devotee of Vasudeva becomes an eloquent poet. Your examples of drums and mangoes tell me that he is true -
. Anyway poetry cannot substitute for truth. The translation I am basis of brahman is shown to be incorrect in my earlier post. If brahma jyoti is like the seed, could you please explain how it can be the cause of ultimate happiness ?
No no no dear RamJI. By your requesting we are discussing BG 14:27. Gita is the poetry and Lord is speaking. It is Truth. Can you deny this? BhAGAVAD gITA IS dIVINE sONG. Song must have lyreic which is the poetry.
So what is Lord Poet say on this topic. Not mango not drums but, "I am the abode of Brahman" which is meaning that Brahman is abiding in Lord. Where are seeing brhamajyoti, Ram JI?
"brahmaNO hi pratiSTha 'ham"
please be noting it is not being like brahmajyotihi pratiSTha etc etc but
"brahmaNO hi pratiSTha 'ham".
-
Originally posted by ram:
Good points Shashi. But can we defer this until we complete the discussion on brahmano hi prathishtAham verse ?
At BG 14:27 Lord is saying "I am the abode of Brahman". This is meaning that Brahman is within Lord part of Lord.
As the mango seed is being found in the fruit so the Brahman is found in Lord. Who would be bother planting such seed if not hankering for beauteous mango?
-
Originally posted by ram:
Good points Shvu and Shashi.
Shashi - just a clarification. Devotion is not the property of vaishnava sampradAyAs nor is it dependant on acintya bheda abheda tattva. There are great devotees among advaitins. It is important to be a devotee.
Am agreedable that devotion is not property. Discussions on different vadas. Some vadas are better accompaniment for the full devotions.
Like you can play the miltary drum kit with the kirtanam or the mirdang.
You are knowing according to your own tastes which is more suitable. That is not meaning drum kit kirtanam is bad. If no mirdang what choice? Providing that drummer has good beat sense better drum kit than no drum at all.
-
Originally posted by shvu:
As seen above, the unmanifest Lord (Nirguna Brahman) manifests himself for a purpose (Sadguna Brahman).
If eternal Lord is unmanifest, how can be then manifest? At manifest point Lord is still UNmanifest?
Please considering on first principles.
What is eternal statis of Lord? Manifest or Unmanifest? If manifest in middle of unmanifest there is being break in eternal unmanifest, is not so? Same same vice versa.
For Lord being eternal all states of Lord must be eternal. Therefore Lord is being eternally manifest and eternally unmanifest. Otherwise you wiil be having problems with the etrnal state of Lord.
-
Originally posted by jndas:
Having said this, I really don't see this discussion going anywhere, as I don't believe either side is reading the posts in this thread.
Very truly so. My point that what is important question is not whether "genuine" but more which vada is being more comprehendsive interpreting of the Vedaanta was also being truly ignored. This would be agreeing with you somewhat as some genuine vadas are interpreting same with focus on impersonal, others on basis of paramatman, and ultimate on Lord. Therefore it is being the pointless arguing one is not the genuine because it is being different.
If wishing philosphy for impersonal please take advaita, if wishing fullness of devotional philosophy please be taking achintya bhedabhed.
-
Originally posted by Bhaktavasya:
While appreciating much of what BV Puri Maharaj has to teach, particularly that the teacher must be without malice and his humility (who can argue with vancha kalpa tarubyas ca?)is his vision one of more dandas and a rejuvenation of door to door style preaching?
What are you woorrying that maybe while you are out walking and talking with Lord, some rejuvenile dandas might be banging on your door?
-
Originally posted by shvu:
Just to check ourselves from digression which usually happens on a thread this long, I would like to remind participants that the original topic of the thread is to prove or disprove Advaita as a/the genuine Vedaantic tradition.
I am thinking that Vedaanta is not being tradition but the conclusion of shruti Veda. The differing vadas are interpretatives of same. Wheteher judged rite or wrong not relevant to genuineness of vada. If attempting to interpret Vedaanta, then they be vedaantic.
Same as the farmer trying very hard to grow the rice in wheat lands. Bad results but still he is the genuine farmer. Also same one growing millet on the wheat lands may be getting superior harvest as compared to wheat.
If the advaita was not being the vedaantic others would not have to bother argumenting with same. Like if RamanujacharyaJi was not thinking advaita Vedaantic, why he would take up challenge to topple same?
Therefore the proper questions is not what is genuine vedaantic but which one is offering the most comprehendsive insites for the Vedaanta. This one question would being more the constructive.
-
Originally posted by krishnas:
Now maybe Atma and Shashi, who think I am offensive, can explain to Karthik why this double standard is in fact not so. I'm staying out of it.
That one is seeing Lord Jesus in the Exodus.
Thus he must be explaining something before I must explaining. Up to that times he must be taking less coconut for the repasts. -
Originally posted by krishnas:
Now maybe Atma and Shashi, who think I am offensive, can explain to Karthik why this double standard is in fact not so. I'm staying out of it.
Pardons me? But when is it that I am saying you are offensive? Please be showing.
-
Originally posted by karthik_v:
Looks like you are upset with my quotes from the Bible
I just repeated what Jesus had stated - I didn't invent them.When you are finding Lord Jesus in Exodus then I will be feeling upset
.Until then you must be having the less coconut.
-
Originally posted by krishnas:
Another point to make is, if Vedas have any value as scripture, then they must be consistent in regards to their ultimate message. If they teach multiple contradictory conclusions then they cannot be useful as scripture. Nor are we going to accept that Advaita is actually compatible with all other philosphies, as this is nothing more than crass sentiment.
Consistence will be realised when enlightenment. Until then not useful to judge the Veda. Crass judgements.
Krishna Chat
in The Hare Krishna Forum
Posted · Report reply
Shames on you BhaktavasyaJi.
You are starting this topic as for chatting with Lord and now what you are promoting? Or is it you are making Krishna Chat a Chat radio programme and it is now times for some radio advertisements?