Vaishnava_das108

I never said that the Advaitic concept is unclear. I said that Advaitins do not have a clear conception of God, which is true.

Sorry, we do not accept people's personal experiences here. I am not interested in verifying the genuineness of your "experience," because it is by itself extremly biased. Pratyaksha is to be sufficiently accompanied with anumana and sabda. And of course, how do you know if what you perceived is correct? So let us stick to evidence with which everybody can easily consult without resorting to spurious claims of "enlightenment" that is an obvious disadvantage for others. If you noticed, a rather large section of the Isa Upanishad was posted above. The final verses of that Upanishad clearly state that God is a personal being behind His own effulgence. Thus it is foolish to think that the effulgence is all that needs to be realised, or seen, or whatever. Apart from that, Gaudiya Vaishnavas concentrate largely on Srimad Bhagavatam, which is pramanam-amalam; the spotless evidence. You are only partially correct. It is true that living entities have forgotten their Krishna Consciousness and is almost hopelessly revolving in samsara. By the association and enlightenment gained froma bona-fide guru, the living entity can once again enter the state of Pure Krishna Consciousness in consonance with their eternal identity as a servant of Krishna, not that we are Krishna. This idea is incorrect. Also, you would do well to provide some sastric evidence of your position instead of expecting us to accept whatever you say.

Sorry, we do not accept people's personal experiences here. I am not interested in verifying the genuineness of your "experience," because it is by itself extremly biased. Pratyaksha is to be sufficiently accompanied with anumana and sabda. And of course, how do you know if what you perceived is correct? So let us stick to evidence with which everybody can easily consult without resorting to spurious claims of "enlightenment" that is an obvious disadvantage for others. If you noticed, a rather large section of the Isa Upanishad was posted above. The final verses of that Upanishad clearly state that God is a personal being behind His own effulgence. Thus it is foolish to think that the effulgence is all that needs to be realised, or seen, or whatever. Apart from that, Gaudiya Vaishnavas concentrate largely on Srimad Bhagavatam, which is pramanam-amalam; the spotless evidence. You are only partially correct. It is true that living entities have forgotten their Krishna Consciousness and is almost hopelessly revolving in samsara. By the association and enlightenment gained froma bona-fide guru, the living entity can once again enter the state of Pure Krishna Consciousness in consonance with their eternal identity as a servant of Krishna, not that we are Krishna. This idea is incorrect. Also, you would do well to provide some sastric evidence of your position instead of expecting us to accept whatever you say.

Of course we will dispute it. Isn't that hilarious? Pray tell, which sage are you referring to who might be at odds with personalistic philosophy? As for incomplete knowledge, that Srimad Bhagavatam clearly stated that God is to be realised in three states; Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan. It is clear from this that you are talking only of Brahman-realisation, and hinting at Paramatma realisation too, but you evidently have no knowledge of the Bhagavan-realisation and yet you are touting the lower two as all-in-all! Why? And what evidence do you have to support this?

Of course we will dispute it. Isn't that hilarious? Pray tell, which sage are you referring to who might be at odds with personalistic philosophy? As for incomplete knowledge, that Srimad Bhagavatam clearly stated that God is to be realised in three states; Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan. It is clear from this that you are talking only of Brahman-realisation, and hinting at Paramatma realisation too, but you evidently have no knowledge of the Bhagavan-realisation and yet you are touting the lower two as all-in-all! Why? And what evidence do you have to support this?

Well we already know that the current appearance of falsity in the name of religion is fully embodied in the philosophy of Advaita. Furthermore, as stated earlier, Krishna Himself is the origin of the idea that the jivas are His eternal fragmental parts. The tininess of the jiva is testimony to it's serving duty. This is exemplified in the quote from CC: 'Jivera svarupa haya, krsnera nitya-dasa' - The constitutional position of the jiva is to be an eternal servant of Krishna. Get it? This is your constitutional position. There's no way you can get away from it. You may delay and hang out in the brahmajyoti for a while, but it will never last because your status is that of an ETERNAL servant. As for the actual state of the universe, what exactly do you wish to convery here? Is there a danger of this topic getting astronomical? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Well we already know that the current appearance of falsity in the name of religion is fully embodied in the philosophy of Advaita. Furthermore, as stated earlier, Krishna Himself is the origin of the idea that the jivas are His eternal fragmental parts. The tininess of the jiva is testimony to it's serving duty. This is exemplified in the quote from CC: 'Jivera svarupa haya, krsnera nitya-dasa' - The constitutional position of the jiva is to be an eternal servant of Krishna. Get it? This is your constitutional position. There's no way you can get away from it. You may delay and hang out in the brahmajyoti for a while, but it will never last because your status is that of an ETERNAL servant. As for the actual state of the universe, what exactly do you wish to convery here? Is there a danger of this topic getting astronomical? /images/graemlins/wink.gif

On the contrary, it is Krishna Himself who is the founder of this ludicrous and repugnant 'personal philosophy.' I suppose you are now going to argue that Krishna had an egoistic mind?In strict contrast, it is the impersonal philosophy that is worthy to be decried as we know from Padma Purana that it is a cheating philosophy.

On the contrary, it is Krishna Himself who is the founder of this ludicrous and repugnant 'personal philosophy.' I suppose you are now going to argue that Krishna had an egoistic mind?In strict contrast, it is the impersonal philosophy that is worthy to be decried as we know from Padma Purana that it is a cheating philosophy.

Sikhs do have plenty of their own sastric support enough to regard themselves as a branch of Vaishnavism. However, there are also (I hear) certain prayers that speak of the death of Vishnu. I will have to check this out because the Sikh sasta (Sri Guru Granth Sahib) is a compilation of the hymns of many saints of that time including Kabir, who was known for his temperament. Also, I reckon that the understanding if 'formless' in the Sikh way is more or less the same as is understood in the Gaudiya way, formless really menaing having no material form but accepting the existence of a spiritual form.

Sikhs do have plenty of their own sastric support enough to regard themselves as a branch of Vaishnavism. However, there are also (I hear) certain prayers that speak of the death of Vishnu. I will have to check this out because the Sikh sasta (Sri Guru Granth Sahib) is a compilation of the hymns of many saints of that time including Kabir, who was known for his temperament. Also, I reckon that the understanding if 'formless' in the Sikh way is more or less the same as is understood in the Gaudiya way, formless really menaing having no material form but accepting the existence of a spiritual form.

Krishna Himself says in the Bhagavad-gita; 'mamaivamso jivaloke jivabhuta sanatanah.' Sanathana means eternal. Buddhism does not even accept the existence of God. Advaita completely decries the concept of a personal God. How can they be 'personal' philosophies? I am sure that you have no sastra to back up your position.

Buddhism (sunyavada) denies the existence of the soul and of God. The goal of the "Living entity" (?!?!) is to merge or enter into the void (sunya). Advaita (mayavada) accepts the existence of the soul and of God, but does not to the theory of personalism. Advaitins also say that Brahman, when taking an avatar and descending into the mayik world, is also affected by maya. They do not have a clear perception of God. P.S. Does Buddhism really deny the existence of a soul? This is the first time I have heard of this. I always thought that they accepted that they were souls until they achieved the goal of extinguishing it into sunyata.

I wonder if there are any very nice quotes from Srila Prabhupada about how dreams in which Sri Guru appears can be bona fide? Also, this thread could be contributed to by devotees who would like to share their dreams or other experiences. By the way, I had a very lovely dream last night. There was some major sing-song event at Bhaktivedanta Manor. If anyone has been there, then they will know that we have three sets of deities, Sri Sri Radha-Gokulananda, Sri Sri Sita-Rama Lakshmana Hanuman, and small deities of Sri Sri Gaura-Nitai in the middle, with a Srila Prabhupada murti in the back. Well in the dream I arrived late for the 'jamming' as usual, and I entered to find the whole temple room buzzing with singing and dancing. Strangely, the Deity curtains were open and the Deities were displayed and were witnessing the dancing of the devotees. What i found very disturbing was that there were devotees dancing ON THE ALTAR, and that they had probably moved the murti of Sri Rama a little forward and was twisting His hips about in time to the mrdanga beat. I was feeling a little upset about this "sahajiya" (BEYOND shajiya!) attitude as we all know that it is written in NOD that non-brahmins cannot touch the Deity. But then I noticed that the devotees got off the altar and rejoined the crowd, but Rama wwas still dancing, and with His own moves now! And then He went back to stand in His normal position and told Lakshmana to go forward and join the dancing of the devotees in the temple room. Then I noticed that a large amount of devotees had congregated around the murti of Srila Prabhupada so tightly that I could not even see the murti. I went a little closer to see what the fuss was, and all of a sudden I saw that SRILA PRABHUPADA had risen off his vyasasana and was dancing with all of us devotees in the temple room and singing along to the kirtan. He was holding a little child's hand in his own. I was delirious with excitement and was about to faint because I was so excited. For some reason, I tend to get more excited whenever Srila Prabhupada appears in my dreams than anyone else.

What does Jesus have to do with anything here? Besides that, I did intensely study Islam for a while and so I am aware of the descriptions of Jesus in the Quran. What exactly are you referring to and how is it relevant to this topic?

Yes Iknow all of this. My question was rather simple. "LivingEntity" wants to engage in a discussion about how to defeat Mayavada philosophy. I am simply asking if we are talking about the Mayavada philosophy as founded by Adi Sankara, or are we discussing the hybrid forms?

Yes Iknow all of this. My question was rather simple. "LivingEntity" wants to engage in a discussion about how to defeat Mayavada philosophy. I am simply asking if we are talking about the Mayavada philosophy as founded by Adi Sankara, or are we discussing the hybrid forms?

The link doesn't work.

The link doesn't work.

This story is to be found in a Shaivite Purana, probably Shiva or Linga Purana. It is not a satvic purana, rather a rajasic or tamasic one.

This story is to be found in a Shaivite Purana, probably Shiva or Linga Purana. It is not a satvic purana, rather a rajasic or tamasic one.

One of the main problems of "Mayavada philosophy" is that it has crept insidiously into every religious system, and has been the subject of so much hybridization that it is sometimes no longer possible to tell the difference between a "new vein" and the original Mayavada as propounded by Adi Sankara. To this effect, we must be clear what we are trying to discuss. Are we trying to discuss the original Mayavada of Sankara, or the neo-Vedanta rubbish propounded by charlatans such as Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Ramana "Maharishi," Aurobindo, Sai Baba, et al?

One of the main problems of "Mayavada philosophy" is that it has crept insidiously into every religious system, and has been the subject of so much hybridization that it is sometimes no longer possible to tell the difference between a "new vein" and the original Mayavada as propounded by Adi Sankara. To this effect, we must be clear what we are trying to discuss. Are we trying to discuss the original Mayavada of Sankara, or the neo-Vedanta rubbish propounded by charlatans such as Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Ramana "Maharishi," Aurobindo, Sai Baba, et al?

anadir adir govindah; sarva karana-karanam.

anadir adir govindah; sarva karana-karanam.