mayavadi / impersonalism

[Guest guest]

Hare Krsna. Could somebody please explain the difference between mayavadi and impersonalism? Thanks so much.

 

Your servant,

Bhakta Mark

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

Impersonalisum means believing God to have no personal form, but is all-prevading, without any form.

 

The NEXT step from this would be, then if God is everywhere this means I am also God. THIS is Mayavadisum. Saying I am God.

 

The thing about both is, they both want to have impersonal realization of God, whether they believe they are God or not. So THE first step in realization is Brahman realization [i am sure you know this already]. Prabhupada mentions this in Gita, that realization comes in 3 stages, Brahman, Paramatma, and lastly Bhagavan. I write some more if you need to know anything.!

[Guest guest]

This is a common misconception. The next step from saying God is everywhere and everything is "God is ME" not "I am God". It says there is in fact no "I", which is why it is called the false ego. It says HE alone is existing. Like when someone announces, I am John Doe, does it mean the mouth alone, because the sound came from the mouth? There is a shift in identification. Although the sound comes from the mouth you know it is what is behind the sound that is speaking. Similarly when an enlightened master says "I am Brahman" it does not mean them personally. The identification has shifted.

 

 

If you say God is impersonal how can you turn around and say I, who am personal, am God, it makes no sense whatsoever, and it is absolutely NOT what is taught at any stage. When statements are made such as "I am Brahman", "You are that" These things are not personal designations saying that I, the person am all pervasive, go to a teacher of advaita they will tell you that that meaning is totally perverse. They never teach that.

 

Anyway I hope this clears things up.

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

Is serving that God. [Param-Brahman].

[Guest guest]

That does not follow logically. Service to God does not follow directly from that statement. Suppose God did not want you to serve him. Suppose you are just bothering him. How does the statement that he is allpervasive automatically mean that you should serve him?

 

In any case Service to god is there in all the movements. Ever heard of "Aim for Seva" it is not something only present in vishishta advaita or dvaita.

[Guest guest]

Suppose God did not want you to serve him

••the only way to really serve god is to serve a pure vaishnava uttama adhikari spiritual master. if he accepts to be served, god is also served

 

Suppose you are just bothering him

••there's nothing to suppose.. there's simply to approach the pure vaishnava and ask

 

In any case Service to god is there in all the movements

••subordination to god is there in any life's situation, because god is everything (brahman).. and we are subordinate to an infinite number of things, wheather, body, senses, diseases, death ecc.

But the only way to develope the full consciousness of this subordination and attain the full liberation from birth, suffering , pain and death is surrendering to Bhagavan Sri Krsna

[Guest guest]

Apparently you misunderstood the post. The questions were rhetorical and meant to show that you cannot extrapolate serving God from saying he is all pervasive.

 

I was just showing that service is a whole other topic

 

I don't quite get your analogy with the weather etc, we do not serve the weeather, body, senses, death although they hold sway over us..

 

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

I agree with guest devotee, I'd like to add that we can only attain bliss by the method of Surrender. Since we belong with Krishna. For devotees it's agreeable to somehow surrender through the Bhakti Path. We don't want to merge with Brahmajyoti or want heavenly happiness. Pure devotees don't even care that Krishna is God [They don't know]. This is what Krishna Consciousness is about. Forgetting Krishna is God, and just to love as friend etc. [Rasas..]

[Guest guest]

I am not debating that. The topic was impersonalism. The topic of surrender is off the topic.

[Guest guest]

The questions were rhetorical and meant to show that you cannot extrapolate serving God from saying he is all pervasive.

•••why not? god is everywhere, i am strict to serve such "everywhere" even if i do not want being limited by his external potency, maya, so the most intelligent step to do is to serve Him in full consciousness to receive also the bliss.

It is not possible to make the passage :

 

god is everywhere

 

so

 

god is me

 

because if i were the supreme i'd never forget it.

 

I forgot my original condition because a force, maya, has veiled my original consciousness, if i were the supreme lord it was impossible..

 

----

I don't quite get your analogy with the weather etc, we do not serve the weeather, body, senses, death

••we serve them because we are subjected to them and we act in the ways and directions they give to us

 

their purpose, being agents of maya, is to make us more and more entangled in material world

 

 

[Guest guest]

Please re-read the post where the difference between "I am God" and "God is me" is explained. Your arguments simply do not apply. Or conversely only apply with a perverse understanding of advaita.

 

"i am strict to serve such "everywhere" even if i do not want being limited by his external potency, maya"

 

I can't make head nor tail of what this is supposed to mean. "I am strict to serve such "everywhere" " ???????????

 

Please state your ideas more clearly.

 

 

As to why you can't make the transition from the first step to the second,the answer is simply that it does not follow logically. The first statement has absolutely nothing to do with the service. Suppose I say the ether is all pervading, does that mean that it becomes worthy of service???? No, it does not. Once again, I am not saying that there should be no service to God, I am just saying that an all pervasive nature is not a basis for service.

 

"their purpose, being agents of maya, is to make us more and more entangled in material world"

 

This still does not mean that we serve them. Is english your first language? I am getting the impression that it is not. If so then check out a dictionary to see what serve means, you can find one online at www.dictionary.com

 

Now do you see why it does not follow logically?

 

[Guest guest]

Your arguments simply do not apply. Or conversely only apply with a perverse understanding of advaita.

••i can maybe imagine where's your point.. but i wait for you to clarify what do you feel i am missing. remembre that gaudya vaishnavas are not advaitins and not dvaitins. Gaudyas are for coexistence of unity and difference.. very difficult to realize, but the only satisfactory way to give an explanation

 

serving means to act to satisfy the desires of someone else.. we act exclusively to satisfy the desire of the Supreme who wants us entangled by maya if we desire it, or who wants us liberated and free in his conscious devotional loving service.. if we desire it

 

 

 

english is not my first language..

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

.

 

What are we not understanding?

[Guest guest]

impersonalism, the rasa clash between and through out service and then i could say that is dificult to serve also to something non manifiest, but now on everyone personaly.. so on sort to clair the personal aspects of the allpervasive truth.. its dificult, yes.

 

the rasa between then u taste.

[Guest guest]

If you re-read the third post on the thread you would see what was said is the difference between what advaita teaches and what you think it teaches.

 

According to one advaitin teacher, to see change at the level of change and the changeless at the level of changeless, to see oneness at the level of oneness and difference at the level of difference, this is what advaita teaches. and this is where people get mixed up. I will give you one example. For example I once heard Swami Prabhupada saying that the position of advaita is like if you say everything is clay, there is no pot, no plate nothing it is just clay, then why dont you fetch water with a lump of clay, as another example, if you say everything is cotton, then why don't you wear a cotton ball instead of a shirt. Makes sense!!Except that the eachers of advaita also give these examples saying that this type of understanding of advaita is perversion and is not what is meant. So Obviously something is being misunderstood somewhere if BOTH people use the same examples.

 

Yes I know what vishishta advaita is about, if you understand what dvaita, vishishta advaita and advaita actually teach you will see there is no quarrel whatsoever between them, they merely speak from different standpoints.

 

Yes so now on to the part about serving. From your own definition. Serving means to act to satisfy the desires of someone else, so how can we serve nature, death etc? do these have desires? Now if we talk about service to the supreme, from your own definition, then we must act to satisfy his desires and that is service. Now what does being all pervasive say about his desires? Nothing.. all pervasive is a designation of dimension. Suppose I say I am large. Now can I say because I am large I eat a lot. Somebody may say Yes because you are large you eat a lot. Then what about a wall, a wall is large as well, does it eat a lot? NO! of course not why? Because largeness has nothing to do with eating, it is after you have accepted that I am ABLE to eat and couple that with the fact that eating a lot makes one large then you can say that if I am large then I eat a lot will follow logically.

 

Now do you see why service does not fall under this all pervasiveness. All-pervasive nature can be an allpervasive inert substance, non-intelligent. In that case what would be the need for service? It is only because you have attached all the other attributes of God to this statement that you are seeing a logical connection.

[Guest guest]

advaita teaches that the absolute truth is only impersonal, featureless and thats not correct

 

Yes I know what vishishta advaita is about

••gaudya vaishnavas are not vishistadvaita. Gaudyas are "acynthia beda, abeda tattva.." .. we are unconceivably different and non different from the supreme lord

 

From your own definition. Serving means to act to satisfy the desires of someone else, so how can we serve nature, death etc? do these have desires?

••the master of nature, the personified death is Sri Krsna Bhagavan.. and he has obviously transcendental desires. One desire is that, for our satisfaction, we follow perfectly the laws of karma to enjoy fully the freedom that he has given to us, the freedom to choose material world instead of vaikunta. So in this way we are serving being as, subordinates, at the service of the master..

 

Every act we do is under the direction and the desire of the absolute.. in this world and in the other one

 

--

 

It is only because you have attached all the other attributes of God to this statement that you are seeing a logical connection.

••so where's the problem?

[Guest guest]

"advaita teaches that the absolute truth is only impersonal, featureless and thats not correct."

 

This is not what advaita teaches. This is what YOU think advaita teaches.

 

""acynthia beda, abeda tattva.." .. we are unconceivably different and non different from the supreme lord

"

 

If it is inconceivable then how was Swami Prabupada able explain it? One of two situations arise. He explained the wrong thing or it is, in fact, not inconceivable. His interprettation was simple which is the opposite of inconceivable.

 

"the master of nature, the personified death is Sri Krsna Bhagavan.. and he has obviously transcendental desires.

"

 

Now you have shifted what is being served in order to make your argument plausible.

 

"Every act we do"

 

Krsna says one should not think himself the doer not even for a moment!

 

"so where's the problem? "

 

The problem is this is not what we were discussing. We were discussing impersonalism. I could very well come and start give a very correct statement on the price of oil, but it would not be in the context of what was being discussed.