Advaita - Buddhism in disguise?

[Guest guest]

Dear Govindaram:

 

I greatly appreciate your reply, yet I would like make this point:

 

To say that Shri Shankara taught that the world is "false" is a gross over-simplification of his philosophy. He says clearly that the world is "false" ONLY insofar as it is conceived as something independent of the Lord. When we say, "There is the world and here am I", the "world" we are referring to is a "false" one, for it is imagined to be something outside of Aatman and outside of Brahman. As Brahman alone truly exists, any "world" conceived to exists independently of Him is pure ignorance and vain imaginations, for NOTHING exists independently of the Lord.

 

Shri Shankara also states in very clear terms that the world is not simply "imaginary", but that it's reality is completely dependent upon and relative to the Absolute Reality of the Lord. When we reach true knowledge or "enlightenment", it is only the illusion of a "world" independent and separate from Brahman that disappears - not the world as it truly is: a relatively real manifestation of the creative energy of the Lord.

 

What could be more clear? And what could be more different that the doctrine of the Buddhists?

 

-Does Shri Shankara deny the existence of the Soul, as do the Buddhists? No.

 

-Does Shri Shankara deny the existence of the Lord, as do the Buddhists? No.

 

-Does Shri Shankara claim that the world is, in it's being, an illusion, as do the Buddhists? Absolutley not.

 

Shri Shankara claims the reality of the world is relative to the Absolute Reality of the Lord. He claims this world has no being and is "false" ONLY if by "world" we mean something outside of or independent to the Lord.

 

To paraphrase one of his many famous examples, perhaps this one may clarify:

 

The world is like a dream. While we are having it, it is very real to us. But after we awaken, we see it was only a dream and nothing more.

 

What could be clearer? Does Shri Shankara deny the existence of dreams? Absolutley not. He says dreams are very real. Yet their relative reality can only be judged by that of waking consciousness.

 

In the same way, one who is stuck in material consciousness may think this world is real independently of the Lord. Yet to one who has seen the truth, the relative reality of this world can only be seen as an extension of the One Surpeme Reality, Brahman.

 

A "world" as being separate from Brahamn: THAT world is "false".

 

A "world" as being a relatively real extension of the creative power of the Absolute Brahman: THAT world is "true".

 

When Shri Shankara teaches us to "flee this world", he is referring to the "world" as conceived independently of the Lord. For he clearly say that, even after reaching liberation, the wheel of karma continues to spin, and that we must perform our duty to those in this "world".

 

What could be clearer?

 

A Guest

[Guest guest]

I sincerely apologize for this strange triple post. I am at a loss to explain what happened here, as I only pushed the "continue" button once. Webmaster: Please delete these extra posts, as they are completely identical in content.

 

Sorry!

 

A Guest

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

Mmm, if the world is false how did it come about? Who created it since the Brahman as you say is unchangeable? And without qualities.

 

Krishna says that the soul cannot be cut into pieces in the Bhagavad-gita, so how do you propose the Brahman can be? Even if Maya is covering the soul, the usual question is always that Brahman cannot be cut.

 

Krishna says in Gita it cannot be, so your philosophy is akin to the Buddists, sorry to say. But you cannot deny it.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Govindaram:

 

I thank you again for your response.

 

It is becoming clear, however, that you have not read the works of Shri Shankara, for if you had, you would know the answers to all these questions. Shri Shankara answers them all in his works. I particularly suggest you read Sarva-vedaanta-siddhaanta-saara-samgrahah, for there all such matters are discussed in great depth.

 

And please, friend, remember that I simply ask those here to read the works themselves before judging a great soul such as Shri Shankara by going off of second- or third-hand reports from those who would have you put your faith in them or their organizations instead of where it belongs: in the truth. Of course, if you only listen to a Gaudiya Vaishnava regarding these matters, they will tell you nearly anything to keep you from reading these works, for they explain everything in a clarity that surpasses many other texts. Why should one be afraid? Read the works first hand. If they are so full of flaws, you will certainly find them out, and will be much better prepared to judge this great soul.

 

Also, I never said that this was my philosophy or my way of viewing reality. I have said nothing regarding my own beliefs or experiences. All I have tried to do is my humble best at presenting the sublime philosophy of Shri Shankara. I know that my words contain many flaws, and that I am not a skilled man at presentation or debate. That is the reason for my repeated suggestion that those interested should read the works themselves. None but Shri Shankara can explain the philosophy with such clarity and poetic beauty.

 

With that being said, I would like to do my best at answering your questions in the spirit of this supreme philosophy.

 

You ask: "If the world is false, how did it come about?"

 

1. I never claimed that the world is false or that Shri Shankara claimed that the world is false. On the contrary, I have tried to explain that Shri Shankara never taught this doctrine the way many here have slandered him with.

 

2. As Shri Shankara explains, the world came about through the creative power of the Lord.

 

You ask: "Who created it (the world) since Brahman, as you say, is unchangeable? And without qualities."

 

1. I never said that Brahman is unchangeable or that he is without qualities. Apparently, you are reading something other than what is there. But yes, Shri Shankara does maintain this position.

 

2. Shri Shankara makes it very clear that the Lord, Iisha, in conjuction with the creative energy of the Absolute, created the world.

 

You ask: "Krishna says that the soul cannot be cut into pieces in the Bhagavad-gita, so how do you propose the Brahman can be?"

 

I never claimed that the philosophy of Shri Shankara proposes to cut Brahman into pieces. In fact, there is absolute harmony between Krishna and Shri Shankara on this point. Absolute Reality is one. All divisions are ultimately illusionary, when viewed in light of the Absolute Truth of the Lord.

 

You conclude: "Krishna says in Gita it cannot be, so your philosophy is akin to the Buddists, sorry to say. But you cannot deny it."

 

I do not see how you have proven this in the least. Shri Shankara repeatedly explains that Absolute Reality is One, and that all division is ultimately illusionary. Yet he never claims that the Absolute Reality is a Void or a Nothing or a Nirvana, like the Buddhists do. Shri Shankara wrote a very supreme commentary on the Bhagavad-gita, so he was very aware of the words of Krishna. If you will not read his philosophical works, then surely you would read his bashya to the Bhagavad-gita, no?

 

And as for the philosophy of Shri Shankara being "akin" to that of the Buddhists, this is a purely subjective matter, for, to a Christian or a Muslim, even Gaudiya Vaishnavism is "akin" to Buddhism. So, one must first clarify what "akin" is to mean in this case.

 

Would you please read the works of Shri Shankara before judging him? You will find that - if you approach him with an open mind - you will me most pleased with his sweet words.

 

A Guest

[Guest guest]

You are saying to read Shankara's work, but which translations and commentaries on Shankara's work can be trusted of being most accurate? You know different translations can sometimes mistranslate a few words of commentators on shankara's bashya. So I want to know which publications would you recommend. The Ramakrishna mission and Chinmaya mission have a number of books on Shankara's teachings, commentaries, etc. But does Shankara's movement actually produce their own books? And would I get the most accurate translations there?

 

By the way, maybe you'll know of this, in the website of sri kanchi kamakoti preetam (http://www.kamakoti.org) it claims that it was established in 482BC, but Adi Shankara lived around the 8th century AD. Are these poeple referring to a different Shankara or are they trying to falsify history? The Sringeri math on the other hand accepts the date of 8th century AD.

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

I never said that Brahman is unchangeable or that he is without qualities.

____

 

Huh? If it is not then how is it perfect?

 

Bhagavad-gita says-

Bg.15.7. :

 

 

mamaiväàço jéva-loke

jéva-bhütaù sanätanaù

manaù-ñañöhänéndriyäëi

prakåti-sthäni karñati

 

mama—My; eva—certainly; aàçaù—fragmental particles; jéva-loke—world of conditional life; jéva-bhütaù—the conditioned living entities; sanätanaù—eternal; manaù—mind; ñañöhäni—six; indriyäëi—senses; prakåti—material nature; sthäni—situated; karñati—struggling hard.

 

TRANSLATION

The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal, fragmental parts. Due to conditioned life, they are struggling very hard with the six senses, which include the mind.

__

 

Krishna says we are His amsa, eternally fragented parts.

__

 

Ps. Amsa means part. Previously Krishna says, that the soul can never be cut into peices. And here Krishna says we are His part. How can you deny it?

 

The Supreme Lord is always unchangeable. So He cannot be covered with Maya. That means we are in fact Jiva's. As Krishna says above. You don't even need Gita, this is commen sence.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Guest 2:

 

Sadly, I know of no translations in any language which can perfectly replace reading the original texts of Shri Shankara. (Of course, I do not imply that I have read the actual documents produced at the time, but that I have read modern copies of the original.) I would suggest that you try to find a text that has both the original and a clear translation in your native tongue. Yes, that rasies a question as to the quality of the translation, but if you have a good lexicon or dictionary, then you should be able to correct any mistakes in the translation itself. And if you read the original, you receive the added benefit of experiencing Shri Shankara's mastery of poetics.

 

As for commentaries, I do not see them as being necessary, as the words of Shri Shankara are quite clear themselves. Read the original, meditate on any difficulties you may have, and then re-read the text. With the grace of the Lord, you will find that Shri Shankara has explained everything sufficiently.

 

As to the date when Shri Shankara walked this earth, I am aware that there is some dispute. Personally, I tend to agree with the dates 788 - 820 C.E., but that is nothing other than my humble opinion.

 

As to whether those who wrote the information on the Shri Kanchi Kamakoti Preetam website are conciously trying to falsify history, I would like to doubt it. I believe they have what they feel is conclusive proof for the dates they suggest. And as no one has yet been able to prove them wrong conclusively, I like to keep an open mind on the subject. Besides, does it really matter when Shri Shankara lived on this earth? Does it make a difference as to the truth of his philosophy? I think not. Therefore, I let those who are more skilled at research and debate argue about such matters of secondary importance.

 

I am greatly pleased to hear that you are considering reading these wonderful texts! Even if you do not agree with his philosophy, it is a very wise move on your part to read the original before judging Shri Shankara. I wish you much luck on your journey!

 

Dear Govindaram:

 

Once again, I thank you for your informative reply.

 

I ask you to please read my last response a bit more carefully, for I feel you have missed a vital piece of infomation regarding Brahman in the philosophy of Shri Shankara. I simply wanted to point out that you were putting words in my mouth that I did not say. However, I also pointed out that Shri Shankara claims that Brahman is wholly unchangeable and without any worldly qualities. Therefore, Shri Shankara most definately agrees that the Absolute Reality is perfect.

 

You say: "Previously Krishna says, that the soul can never be cut into peices. And here Krishna says we are His parts."

 

I am not entirely sure what it is that you mean to show with this statement. Are you claiming that Shri Shri Krishna has contradicted himself? As I am fairly sure this was not your intention, I would request that you please clarify before I comment in full.

 

However, there is one point I feel that can be made at this point:

 

As you wisely point out, the important word in the verse you mention (Bg.15.7.) is amsah. And as I see, you have understood it to mean "fragmental part". Yet I would like to point out that this is not the only possible interpretation of this particular word. For example, in Srimad-Bhagavatam 3.31.16, the word amsah has been translated as "partial representation". Now, if we understand the verse you mention in this light - that there is more than one possible translation - then I see no problem with reconciling the words of Krishna with the philosophy of Shri Shankara. Let me explain:

 

In the relative or conditioned world, all things seem to be separate from one another. Reality seems to be cut up into countless numbers of pieces, and there appears to be separation between the individual soul and the Lord. Now, we know this is folly, for there can be nothing outside of or beyond the Lord. Everything is a manifestation of his creative energy. Yet, to our conditioned senses, it seems as though we are separate, and we suffer because of it. Thus, Krishna says:

 

mamaivaamsho jiiva-loke jiiva-bhuutah sanaatanah

manah-sasthaaniindriyaani prakrti-sthaani karsati

 

(Bhagavad-gita 15.7.)

 

Here, Krishna clearly says that, as long as the individual soul (jiiva) finds himself in the relative or conditioned world (jiiva-loke), he forever remains a partial representation or fragmentary part (amsah) of the Lord, and as a result, he finds it very difficult to control the five senses and the mind.

 

How does this conflict with the philosophy of Shri Shankara?

 

caitanyam vyasty-avacchinnam pratyag-aatmeti giiyate

saabhaasam vyasty-upahitam sat-taadaatmyena tad-gunaih

 

abhibhuutah sa evaa'tmaa jiiva ity abhidhiiyate

kimcijjñatvaaniishvaratva-samsaaritvaadi-dharmavaan

 

(Sarva-vedaanta-siddhaanta-saara-samgrahah V. 319-320)

 

As far as I can see, the two correspond quite nicely.

 

A Guest

[krishnadasa 0]

you would never say that if you have ever understood the bhaja govindam. It clearly propounds that thats the way for salvation and thats the only way

 

Do you think Srila Shankara wrote Bhaja govindam to teach some oldman the sank grammar, well, I cant belive that !

 

Hari bol

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

Your post-

 

mamaivaamsho jiiva-loke jiiva-bhuutah sanaatanah

manah-sasthaaniindriyaani prakrti-sthaani karsati

 

(Bhagavad-gita 15.7.)

 

Here, Krishna clearly says that, as long as the individual soul (jiiva) finds himself in the relative or conditioned world (jiiva-loke), he forever remains a partial representation or fragmentary part (amsah) of the Lord, and as a result, he finds it very difficult to control the five senses and the mind.

___

 

This is changing the meanings. How can the soul be individual? And at the same time become one with the Lord?

 

This verse says that we are individual then it says we are eternally fragmented:

 

Bg.2.12

na—never; tu—but; eva—certainly; aham—I; jätu—become; na—never; äsam—existed; na—it is not so; tvam—yourself; na—not; ime—all these; janädhipäù—kings; na—never; ca—also; eva—certainly; na—not like that; bhaviñyämaù—shall exist; sarve—all of us; vayam—we; ataù param—hereafter.

 

TRANSLATION

Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.

www.vedabase.net

__

 

So it doesn't talk about oneness. That translations you posted unfortunality doesn't mention Krishna as saying 'My parts'. This has been left out.

 

It is commen sence, Brahman cannot be changed. Because it is eternal. So we are His parts. Bas.

 

 

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

Bg.2.13 Purport. www.vedabase.net

<font size="5">The Mayavadi theory of oneness of the spirit soul cannot be entertained on the ground that spirit soul cannot be cut into pieces as a fragmental portion. Such cutting into different individual souls would make the Supreme cleavable or changeable, against the principle of the Supreme Soul being unchangeable.</font>

__

 

This one paragraph is enough to dig the grave of Mayavada. I am sorry to say, but the knowledge contained with this is simple too much. Please study it carefully. Then speak.

 

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

Bg.2.21

<font size="5">O Partha, how can a person who knows that the soul is indestructible, <font color="red">unborn,</font color> eternal and immutable, kill anyone or cause anyone to kill?</font>

__

 

 

How can Brahman be born as a pig? Or a sheep.?

 

But YOU are meant to be Brahman! Unborn.! NO BIRTH.

 

God is unchangeable & Unborn. He never comes under illusion. Because He is Unborn. No Birth. 150,000 people die everyday. Is this Brahman? God is dying everyday? This is adsurd.

 

I think if you accept this one statment that God is Unborn. [even materially speaking- like me and you].

 

It is far better then to say a dog on the street is God and Param Brahman. And it is excavating on the pavement as some 'lila' or pastime. All you need to do is except that God is Unborn. He NEVER takes Birth. Either from your own Mayavada perspective or my own Vaishnava perspective, you cannot really deny it.

 

 

Ps. I do feel like am talking to a Buddist. And that I am going around in circles.

 

NB: For anybody reading this, this verse is explaining the soul as being eternal. But Mayavadis say that this Soul is Supreme Lord. Now if we say it is Supreme Lord, then how can it take birth? Since it is unchangleable. [being Supreme]. It is far out Buddisum. You need a clear head to understand it.

 

 

 

FACT: Maya cannot cover the Supreme Brahman. Nuff said. IF Maya could then that would make the Supreme changeable [thats Supreme niguna Brahman]. Ok I will stop here I have things to do. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Bhajan Govindam...

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Krishnadasa:

 

I see you have read the Bhaja govindam! Excellent!

 

But, why do you use this as an argument against Shri Shankara? I do not understand. I have always maintained that the words of Shri Shri Krishna and the philosophy of Shri Shankara are in harmony. The Bhaja govindam is proof. And yet you wish to say otherwise by referring to it? Please explain.

 

Dear Govindaram:

 

You say: "This is changing the meanings. How can the soul be individual? And at the same time become one with the Lord?"

 

Do not say that you are unaware of the distinction between Jiiva and Aatman! Dear sir, if you do not know of this very important distinction, you are in worse need of Shri Shankara than I at first supposed! Please, please, please read his works!

 

If you will not read Shri Shankara, then surely you will read Katha Upanishad:

 

anor aniiyaan mahato mahiiyaan

aatmaasya janto nihito guhaayaam

tam akratu pasyati viita-shoko

dhaatuh prasaadaan mahimaanam aatmanah

 

(Katha upanishad 1.2.20)

 

You say: "So it doesn't talk about oneness. That translations you posted unfortunality doesn't mention Krishna as saying 'My parts'. This has been left out."

 

Shall I repeat my comment?

 

I said: "Here, Krishna clearly says that, as long as the individual soul (jiiva) finds himself in the relative or conditioned world (jiiva-loke), he forever remains A PARTIAL REPRESENTATION OR FRAGMENTARY PART (AMSAH) OF THE LORD, and as a result, he finds it very difficult to control the five senses and the mind."

 

1. I never said I provided a translation of the verse. I only paraprased it, as you had already provived an adequate translation yourself.

 

2. Notice the part of my comment that I made into capitals? Did I, as you claim, leave something out? Because I certainly mentioned the individual being a "fragmentary part" of the Lord. Who do you think I was referring to with the word "LORD"?

 

You say: "The Mayavadi theory of oneness of the spirit soul cannot be entertained on the ground that spirit soul cannot be cut into pieces as a fragmental portion. Such cutting into different individual souls would make the Supreme cleavable or changeable, against the principle of the Supreme Soul being unchangeable."

 

Again, you prove that you have not read the works of Shri Shankara yourself, for you again resort to a third-hand source for your information which has obviously been written by an individual who has himself not read the works of Shri Shankara. No wonder that you all cannot think clearly! Someone has been filling your heads with misinformation! You should not be afraid of the truth! Have courage! Read the works of Shri Shankara for yourself! Stop quoting works written by misinformed third parties! How can you hope to find the truth if you will not go to the source?

 

How can I convince you to read these works if you will not listen to the voice of reason? Must I say it once again?

 

THE PHILOSOPHY OF SHRI SHANKARA DOES NOT MAINTAIN THAT THE WORLD IS "FALSE" OR THAT THE SOUL CAN BE CUT UP INTO PARTS. THE ABSOLUTE REALITY IS ONE. ANYONE WHO TELLS YOU OTHERWISE IS TRYING TO LEAD YOU INTO FOLLOWING THEIR OBVIOUSLY MANIPULATIVE CULT! DO NOT FEAR THE TRUTH! DISCOVER IT FOR YOURSELF!

 

Brahman does not take birth and does not suffer death. It is the Jiiva that appears to take birth and suffer death. The Aatman is "indestructible, unborn and immutable", as is clearly stated in the Bhagavad-gita (2.21). Apparently, you do not even understand the very scriptures you quote! Do you truly love Shri Shri Krishna? Then why do you purposefully misunderstand and misconstrue His words? To build a cult of followers? You are in grave danger if you think you can fool the Lord! He has given us the Bhagavad-gita as a guiding light, yet you repeatedly cast a veil of ignorance over that light, and try to ignore it's sublime philosophy! Why do you insist in this?

 

If you feel as though you are talking to a Buddhist when you hear the philosphy of Shri Shankara, then you display your ignorance even more, for it is apparent that you, sir, have never had an argument with a real Buddhist, but have simply been taught to parrot the words and lame arguments of some saffroned baffoon who told you he had the only path to Truth! And this, despite the most holy words of Shri Shri Krishna when he said:

 

ye yathaa maam prapadyante taams tathaiva bhajaamy aham

mama vartmaanuvartante manusyaah paartha sarvasah

 

(Bhagavad-gita 4.11.)

 

And furthermore:

 

sarva-bhuuta-stham aatmaanam sarva-bhuutaani caatmani

iiksate yoga-yuktaatmaa sarvatra sama-darshanah

 

yo maam pasyati sarvatra sarvam ca mayi pashyati

tasyaaham na pranashyaami sa ca me na pranashyati

 

sarva-bhuuta-sthitam yo maam bhajaty ekatvam aasthitah

sarvathaa vartamaano 'pi sa yogii mayi vartate

 

aatmaupamyena sarvatra samam pashyati yo 'rjuna

sukham vaa duhkham sa yogii paramo matah

 

(Bhagavad-gita 6.29.-6.32.)

 

Will you then deny that these are Shri Shri Krishna's words? You must admit it, for they are the very words of the Lord Himself as recored in the Bhagavad-gita! How can you then refute and contradict the very words of Shri Shri Krishna and imply that only YOUR way is the path to truth.

 

For He clearly says: "As all surrender unto Me, I reward them accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Pr&#803;th&#257;."

 

How can you contradict the Lord with such slander! Even if you THINK you disagree with Shri Shankara, how can you say he is not following the path of Shri Shri Krishna?

 

If you are at all reperesntative of the modern Gaudiya Vaishnavas, then it is very sad indeed, for you have not opened you heart even a tiny bit for others. How do you hope to spread the message of Shri Shri Krishna if you yourself do not practice His doctrine? Unless you change your ways, you are a shame to His Holy Name!

 

Please, I beg you, correct your ways. Read the Bhagavad-gita with a truly open heart. See the Truth and not the dogma instilled in you by your so-called "gurus". Go out and welcome the people into the path of service to the Lord! Stop your slander of Shri Shankara! You only create disharmony within Sanatana Dharma by doing so! Learn to see the Lord in all things, as He Himself commands! Do this not for me, but out of love for the Lord!

 

A Guest.

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

 

Brahman does not take birth and does not suffer death. It is the Jiiva that appears to take birth and suffer death. The Aatman is "indestructible, unborn and immutable",

 

 

 

And I ask you to not patronize me like I am some child. Just talk about philosophy I have no time to go through your rubbish. Now please answer me this:

 

I want you to use your commen sence, not quote from Bhagavad-gita. This is childs play-

 

~If Brahman is Supreme why does it suffer as a hog or a cow?

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Govindaram:

 

If you feel as though I have patronized you, I humbly apologize.

 

To answer your question as shortly and succinctly as possible:"If Brahman is Supreme why does it suffer as a hog or a cow?

 

~BRAHMAN DOES NOT SUFFER.

 

Seen from the perspective of Absolute Reality, there is no suffering, no death, no separation. These are all imagninations which take place in the Jiiva. The conditioned world makes it difficult for the Jiiva to see the reality of his true nature, and so it suffers. Yet this suffering is simply another manifestation of the conditioned world. Realize the Self, the Aatman, whose nature is one with the Brahman, and there will be no suffering.

 

A Guest

[Guest guest]

Maayavada Bhaasya suneele hobe Sarvanaash

[Guest guest]

Dear Guest (Re: simple):

 

You say: "Maayavada bhaasya suneele hobe sarvanaash."

 

Perhaps I have been wrong in my estimation of this discussion. It seems that those here are angry at the Maayavada school of thought, not with Shri Shankara. I will be the first to admit, there are many who claim to propound the philosophy of Shri Shankara and refer to it as "maayavada", however, I would also like to refer to my very first comment of this discussion-thread:

 

Please read the works of Shri Shankara for yourself. Do not rely of information from second- or third-hand sources (which, for the most part, are a real mess). To find the truth, you must go to the source.

 

If this is the case, then I apologize for my behaviour. However, I remain firm in my request that those here who have not read the works themselves to refrain from slandering such a great soul as Shri Shankara.

 

If you have not read his works, then simply refer to the source from which you draw your information. And be sure to say: "In the opinion of X, Shri Shankara taught...". For everything other than his original words are simply personal conjecture and nothing more.

 

Thank you

 

A Guest

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

Dear Govindaram:

 

If you feel as though I have patronized you, I humbly apologize.

 

To answer your question as shortly and succinctly as possible:"If Brahman is Supreme why does it suffer as a hog or a cow?

 

~BRAHMAN DOES NOT SUFFER.

 

Seen from the perspective of Absolute Reality, there is no suffering, no death, no separation. These are all imagninations which take place in the Jiiva. The conditioned world makes it difficult for the Jiiva to see the reality of his true nature, and so it suffers. Yet this suffering is simply another manifestation of the conditioned world. Realize the Self, the Aatman, whose nature is one with the Brahman, and there will be no suffering.

 

A Guest

__

 

 

 

 

 

If Brahman doesn't suffer why does it suffer.? Oh it doesn't really.! If it was the Jiva who suffered fair enough. [it is actually the Jiva who suffers according to Gita if you look at the facts, according to the principle of eternality and unchangeable Brahman] But THE SUPREME.? Please either re-read. Or reject.!

 

This is simple enough to say this is Buddist philosophy. 'I am really this, but not this'. People accept it according to their consciosuness. Please try to move on. There is not only Shankcharya who is athority. Haribol. And I shall I stop here. Goodbye.