Underlying truth in Geetha is Advaitha

[Guest guest]

 

What is the difference between advaitha and vishisthathvaidha? Difference between jeevthma and paramathma. Vishishthathvaidhis say that paramathma is inside jeevathma and he activates the jeevathma. A jeevathma is inferior to paramathma only on two counts.

 

1) Paramathma is lakhsmi pathi. Jeevathma isn’t.

2) Jeevathma can never mix with papramathma. But it can attain vishnulok and be at the feet of paramathma. That is the ultimate objective of a jeevathma.

 

What does advaitha say?

Jeevathma can never be separated from papramathma. Both are one and same. Every jeevathma is a part of paramathma. There is no difference between anything. Only maya gives the feeling of difference.

 

What does bhagavad Geetha say about this?

 

In chapter 7 he says “ Those who lose their intelligence in material desires worship “annya devthas” .

 

This is cited as proof of superiority of narayana over other gods. Every god except Krishna is “annya devtha” (alien god) So isn’t this proof that Krishna is superior to other devthas? Doesn’t Krishna say that worshiping other gods is “foolish”

 

NO.

We should see who is this “annya devtha” Since bhagavad Geetha is entirely based on Vedas we have to search for this slogan in Vedas also. Vedas mention “annya devatha” clearly.

 

“Anya devtham upasthe…… anyasow,anyoham asmithi” ( He who worships a god thinking that it is different from him is as naïve as a cow.)

 

So annya devtha can even include Krishna. Here the “annyam” mentioned is not from Krishna, but from yourself. If you worship Krishna asking for wealth or health, thinking that he is different from you, you still are praying an annya devtha.

 

Krishna says “ esa vasyamitha msarvam yathkinga jagathyam jagath” (everything in universe is filled up by me. “)

“Annya mam jnanayaghe ekathvena yagantha sa bahutha pruthakathvena upasathe”

Some jnana yogis worship me who is the nirguna bhrammam knowing that they are me( ekthavena), others worship me thinking that they are different from me(Prathakathvena upasithe).

Krishna says clearly that jnanis worship him thinking that they are him.

“asya jagatha thatha aham eva” ( I am the one who is the whole universe)

 

“Ananya partha mathsthavam dwathashasam thathaiva sa sakyam vedhithum paratahrshaba”

“Oh arjuna, you are nara naayanan. I am hari narayanan.. You are nothing except me, I am nothing except you. There is no difference between you and me. None knows it, none understands it”

 

Jnaniathma eva may (Jnani is my form. This is my opinion)

 

How more clearly can anyone explain advaitha? Can anyone point out a single slogan in Geetha saying that jeevathma is different from paramathma? Krishna says that he and arjuna are one and the same.

 

Somebody said that a common man can never reach god through advaitha. A common man can attain advaitha through dwaidha and vishisthathvaidha. Then that advaithi becomes a bhrammajnani. That is the last stage, that is the highest stage.

 

 

Krishna doesn’t say that all can understand him philosophically.

 

Sahasreshu manushyanam kassith sithaye yayathi (Out of thousands of men only one tries to reach me)

Yayatham sithanam abhi kassith thatvatha vedhi( Even among the yogis who try to reach me, only the one who keeps me as the “paramapatham” only understands me philosophically”)

 

Krishna said “kassith” meaning “keeping me as the paramapatham”..He did not mean “My paramapatham”

 

He further said “Jnaniathma eva may ..” Jnani’s athma is me.This is my final opinion.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

You are thinking above philosophy is supported only in "Kevala advaitham" by adi-shankara. if you are thinking like that, it exposes only your ignorance.

 

Actually, Sri Sri Vishnuswami founded "Shuddha-advaitha" philosophy much more earlier then adi-shankara.

Shuddha - advaitha means "Pure monoism". this sampradaya is called "Rudra Sampradaya". In Shuddha-advaitha, Lord Krishna is mentioned as parabrahma.

 

Adi-shankara expounded his "kevala advaitham" only on basis of shuddha-advaitha. Kevala advaitha has many defects & is incomplete & not supported by vedas.

 

Whereas "shuddha-advaitha" has no defects & is complete & supported by "Lord krishna" himself.

 

Hers Shuddha-advaita philosophy of "Sri Sri Vishnuswami" :

 

The Suddhadvaita Philosophy Of Sri Vishnuswami

 

Introduction

 

The philosophy of Sri Vishnuswamicharya is Suddha-Advaita or pure monism, because he does not admit Maya like Sankara (note: shankara came only later and got inspired by vishnuswami), and believes that the whole world of matter and souls is real and is only a subtle form of God. Those who bring Maya for the explanation of the world are not pure Advaitins, because they admit a second to Brahman. Vishnuswami holds that Brahman can create the world without any connection with such a principle as Maya, but Sankara traces the universe to Brahman through the power of Maya. Hence the philosophy of Vishnuswami is called pure monism or Suddhadvaita. Vishnuswami expounded that system in the Anu-Bhashya, his commentary on the Brahma Sutras. Vishnuswami was a Telugu Brahmin of South India. He migrated to the north and developed the views of Vishnuswamin who belonged to the thirteenth century. His system of thought is known by the name Brahma-Vada.

Vishnuswami says that the entire universe is real and is subtly Brahman. The individual souls and the world are, in essence, one with Brahman. Jiva, Kala (time) and Prakriti or Maya are eternal existences, but they have no separate existence apart from Brahman.

Vishnuswami was a great Sanskrit scholar. He settled down first at Mathura and then at Varanasi. He preached with great zeal the Vaishnava cult and philosophy. He was the founder of the great Vaishnava Mutts of Rajasthan and Gujarat. His followers are found in great numbers in Nathdwara.

 

Important Works of Vishnuswami

 

Vishnuswami accepts the authority not only of the Upanishads, the Bhagavad-Gita and the Brahma Sutras, but also of the Bhagavata Purana. The important works of Vishnuswami are Vyasa-Sutra Bhashya (Anu-Bhashya), Jaimini Sutra Bhashya, Bhagavata-Tika Subodhini, Pushti-Pravaha-Maryada and Siddhanta-Rahasya. All these books are in Sanskrit. He has written many books in Braj Bhasha also. The scriptures are the final authority for Vishnuswami.

 

Stress on Worship and Grace

 

Vishnuswami’s religion is a religion addressed to the worship of Vishnu in the form of Krishna. It is centred round the conception of a personal and beneficent God who is Sat-Chit-Ananda. Lord Krishna is the highest Brahman. His body consists of Sat-Chit-Ananda. He is called Purushottama.

Vishnuswami’s followers worship Bala-Krishna (Krishna as a lad). They have Vatsalya-Bhava (the attitude which regards God as a child). Vishnuswami lays great stress on Pushti (grace) and Bhakti (devotion). Maha-Pushti is the highest grace or Anugraha which helps the aspirants to attain God-realisation.

 

God-The Only Being

 

According to Vishnuswami, God is the Absolute or the Purushottama. He is perfect. He is Sat-Chit-Ananda. He is infinite, eternal, omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. He has all the auspicious qualities also. The Sruti texts which say that He has no attributes, mean only that He has not the ordinary qualities.

God is real. There is no other reality besides Him. He is the only Being. He is the source for this universe and all souls. He is the first cause and the only cause. God is the material as well as the efficient cause of the universe. He creates the world by the mere force of His Will. Brahman manifests Himself, of His own Will, as the universe and the individual souls, but He does not undergo any change in His essential nature. Things come out of the Akshara (Sat-Chit-Ananda), like sparks from fire. Brahman is the Creator of the world. He is also the world itself.

God is personified as Krishna, when He possesses the qualities of wisdom and action. He appears in various forms to please His devotees.

 

The World Of Nature And The World Of False Relations

 

Creation is manifestation of Brahman. The universe is the effect of Brahman. The universe is as eternal and real as Brahman Himself. The inanimate universe is filled with Brahman. The world is not an illusory appearance. It is not different from Brahman in essence.

Jagat is the world of Nature. It is not illusory. It is real. It is God Himself in one form. But, the Samsara or temporal involvement is illusory. This is created by the soul around its ‘I-ness’ and ‘mine-ness’. The separation from God on account of egoism makes the soul forget its original, true, divine nature. Samsara is a product of the soul’s imagination and action which play round its ‘I-ness’ and ‘mine-ness’. On account of its selfishness, it puts itself in wrong relations with other souls and with the objective universe. It creates a web of its own and gets itself entangled in it. This is an illusion, because the web has no reality. This Samsara, the world of false relations created by the soul, is alone Maya. Samsara or Maya rises because the soul, which is not apart from God, tries to set itself up as an independent reality or entity in its own right. The self which is something apart from God is illusory. Its body is illusory and its world also is illusory. All this is Samsara. It is very different from the world of Nature.

 

Jiva And Brahman

Analogy of the Spark and the Fire

 

The Jivas are not effects. They are Amsas or parts of God. They issue from Him spontaneously as sparks from fire. Brahman is the whole. The Jiva or the individual soul is part; but, there is no real difference between Brahman and the individual soul, because the individual soul is of identical essence with Brahman.(According to Ramanuja, the parts are really different from the whole.) The soul is one with Brahman. It is as real and eternal as Brahman.

The individual soul is not Brahman screened by the veil of Avidya. It is itself Brahman, with the attribute ‘bliss’ being obscured or suppressed. Ananda or bliss is suppressed or obscured in the individual soul. Ananda and consciousness are suppressed or obscured in matter or the inanimate world. When the soul attains bliss, and the inanimate world attains both consciousness and bliss, the difference between Brahman and these vanishes.

The soul is both a doer and an enjoyer. It is atomic in size, but it pervades the whole body by its quality of intelligence, just as sandalwood pervades even the places where it does not exist by its sweet fragrance and just as a lamp, though confined only to a part of a room, illuminates the whole room.

 

Classification Of Souls

 

There are three kinds of souls: (i) The pure (Suddha) Jivas. The divine qualities (Aisvarya) are not obscured in these souls by ignorance. (ii) The worldly Jivas (Samsarin). These souls are caught in the net or clutches of Avidya or ignorance. They experience births and deaths on account of their connection with gross and subtle bodies. (iii) Mukta Jivas or liberated souls. These souls are freed from the bonds of Samsara through Vidya or Knowledge. When the soul attains the final emancipation, it recovers its suppressed qualities and becomes one with God or Brahman. The world appears as Brahman to one who has realised the Truth or Brahman.

There is another classification of souls, viz., Pushti souls, Maryada souls and Pravahika souls. All these are different from one another in their origin, nature and final end. They all issue from God with their differences.

The Pushti souls are the highest, as they issue from the Ananda-Kaya or the bliss-body of God. These souls are the Amsa (parts) of His body. God is the Amsi (the whole). These are the souls of grace. They have the divine seed in them which bears fruit in the end. They ultimately reach the goal through the grace of the Lord. They have communion and fellowship with Lord Krishna. They develop Bhakti through the grace of the Lord. Bhakti is the means and the end in itself.

The Maryada souls are generated from the Vak or the Word of God. They are governed by law, not by grace. They perform their ritualistic duties, at first with selfish interests. Later on, they develop Nishkama-Bhava (unselfish attitude) and do their ritualistic routine without any self-interest. This purifies their mind. They reach the Akshara, which is a kind of vestibule to the abode of God. Afterwards they attain the supreme abode of God.

The Pravahika souls issue from the mind of God. They are the Samsaric Jivas. They are souls neither of grace nor of law. They are in continuous motion (Pravaha).

These three kinds of souls have further sub-divisions and cross-divisions into Pushti-Pushti, Pushti-Maryada, Pushti-Pravahika, Maryada-Maryada, Maryada-Pushti, Maryada-Pravahika, Pravahika-Pravahika, Pravahika-Pushti and Pravahika-Maryada.

 

Pushti Marga Or The Way Of Grace

 

The way of life and salvation, preached by Vishnuswami is called Pushti Marga. The soul of man has become weak and lean on account of sin. It is, therefore, in dire need of the grace of God for its upliftment and emancipation. God’s grace gives Pushti (nourishment) and Poshana (strength); and hence the name Pushti Marga or the Way of Grace.

The individual soul can attain the final emancipation only through the grace of God. Bhakti is the chief means of salvation. Jnana is useful. Maha Pushti or the highest grace removes great obstacles and helps in the attainment of God. The Bhakti generated by special grace is known as Pushti Bhakti.

 

The Four Kinds of Bhakti

 

This Pushti-Bhakti is of four kinds: (i) Pravaha Pushti-Bhakti, (ii) Maryada Pushti-Bhakti, (iii) Pushti Pushti-Bhakti and (iv) Suddha Pushti-Bhakti. Pravaha Bhakti is the path of those who while leading the worldly life, perform works which will lead to the attainment of God-realisation. Worldly life is compared to the flow of a river (Pravaha). Maryada Bhakti is the path of those who are rendered fit to attain knowledge which is useful for worship, through the grace of the Lord. They know all about the ways of God. They depend upon their own efforts to obtain knowledge. In Pushti Bhakti, the devotees lead a life of self-restraint. They hear discourses about the Lord. They do Kirtana and sing His Name. They do Japa of Mantra.

 

Suddha Pushti-Bhakti or the Purest Type of Devotion

 

In Suddha Pushti-Bhakti, the devotees do Kirtana and sing the Lord’s Name. They praise God. They develop a strong passion for doing these. This kind of devotion is generated by the Lord Himself. The Lord’s grace descends on the devotees. Then they develop a liking for God. This liking grows into Prema Bhakti (taste for God). The devotees acquire knowledge about God. Then they get attachment to God (Asakti). Then they develop a strong passion for attaining God. This is the ripe condition of love and Asakti. It is called Vyasana. This strong passion, or Vyasana, leads to the attainment of the highest bliss, the summum bonum or the end.

When love for Sri Krishna becomes intense, the devotee sees Lord Krishna everywhere. Hence everything becomes an object of love for him. He identifies himself with everything. The Gopis had this experience. They saw Krishna everywhere. They saw themselves also as Krishna. This is Para Bhakti or supreme devotion which becomes akin to the knowledge or Brahman-Jnana of the Vedantins or Jnanins. The inner and outer world is full of Krishna or Purushottama for such devotees. The fruit of this devotion is admission to the eternal sports or Lilas of Sri Krishna.

The supreme goal is not Mukti or emancipation. The highest goal is eternal service of Lord Krishna and participation in His sports in the celestial Vrindavana. Those who have developed Vyasana, or strong passion for God, reject with scorn the four kinds of Mukti. The Maryada-Bhaktas attain Sayujya Mukti, i.e., they become one with Sri Krishna. The Pushti-Bhaktas reject Mukti and take part in the sports or Lilas of Sri Krishna. They choose with intense delight the eternal service of Sri Krishna. The Bhaktas assume the forms of cows, birds, trees and rivers and enjoy the company of Sri Krishna, which bestows infinite joy. These sports are similar to those which Sri Krishna did in Vraja and Vrindavana. Some of the devotees become Gopas and Gopis and join the sports in the celestial Vrindavana.

 

Different Kinds of Liberated Souls

 

The liberated souls are of different kinds. Some have freed themselves like Sanaka. Some dwell in the city of God and attain salvation through the grace of the Lord. Some others develop perfect love and become the associates of God.

 

[Guest guest]

"Underlying truth in Geetha is Advaitha"

 

Kevala Advaitha has been proven false many times over by Vaishnava Vedantaists to the Kevala Advaithins themselves, but still some fool themselves that Kevala Advaitha is valid.

 

Among the many faults of Kevala Advaitha is its anti-vedik vivarta-vada. Badarayana propounds the vedik parinama-vada in many places, for example, in vedanta-sUtra 2.1.14: tad-ananyatvam ArabhambhaNa-zabdAdibhyaH. All real Vedantists accept this parinama-vada.

 

but in the Kevala Advaita sariraka bhashya, Shankar tries to interpret this away from parinama-vada and establish his vivarta-vada! As if he knows better than Badarayana!

 

 

Moreover, in padma purana Shiva says:

 

zRNu devi pravakSyAmi tAmasAni yathA-kramam

yeSAM zravaNa-mAtreNa pAtityaM jJAninAm api

 

apArthaM zruti-vAkyAnAM darzayal loka-garhitam

karma-svarUpa-tyAjyatvam atra ca pratipAdyate

 

sarva-karma-paribhraMzAn naiSkarmyaM tatra cocyate

parAtma-jIvayor aikyaM mayAtra pratipAdyate

 

“My dear wife, hear my explanations of how I have spread ignorance through MAyAvAda philosophy. Simply by hearing it, even an advanced scholar will fall down. In this philosophy, which is certainly very inauspicious for people in general, I have misrepresented the real meaning of the Vedas and recommended that one give up all activities in order to achieve freedom from karma. In this MAyAvAda philosophy I have described the jIvAtmA and ParamAtmA to be one and the same.”

 

and

 

mAyAvAdam asac chAstraM pracchannaM bauddham ucyate

mayaiva kalpitaM devi kalau brAhmaNa-rUpiNA

 

brahmaNaz cAparaM rUpaM nirguNaM vakSyate mayA

sarva-svaM jagato ’py asya mohanArthaM kalau yuge

 

vedAnte tu mahA-zAstre mAyAvAdam avaidikam

mayaiva vakSyate devi jagatAM nAza-kAraNAt

 

Padma PurANa, Uttara-khaNDa, 25

 

The MAyAvAda philosophy,” Lord ziva informed his wife PArvatI, “is impious [asac chAstra]. It is covered Buddhism. My dear PArvatI, in Kali-yuga I assume the form of a brAhmaNa and teach this imagined MAyAvAda philosophy. In order to cheat the atheists, I describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead to be without form and without qualities. Similarly, in explaining VedAnta I describe the same MAyAvAda philosophy in order to mislead the entire population toward atheism by denying the personal form of the Lord.”

[maadhav 0]

krishna in gita has not said advaita is wrong or false.

He has said that it is difficult for most people.

He recomemnds bhakti, pertifularly for kali yuga.

 

haren naama haren naama haren naama kevalam

kalau naste eva naste evna naste evan naste gatir anyathaa

 

bhakti is a method of using the tricks of maya against maya.

bhakti is not only the means, it is the end also.

it is safe as well. but one is free to disagree.

 

this debate among the vedic people about dwaita - advaita is with us since the time of creation. we alwasy have debated it strongly, but in a very civil way and non violent way and publicly. in this time of terrorism and when two anti-vedic ideologies have invaded in the land of the vedic people - bharat, it is not wise to debate it presently.

 

the following are the ways ways to avoid the debate:

 

- all the five great vaishnav aacharyas have debated it with the greatest advaitis of their times. none of us are so great as they (both sides) were. so, let us accept their conclusion if we can, or at least do not re-invent the wheel. why re-debate foolishly what is already concluded?

 

- all vaishnavas respect aadi shankaracharya for keeping buddhism out of bharat and re-establishing hinduism - sahatana dharma back. if he had not come, india would have been a full buddhist country. now, he has said :

 

bhaja govindam, bhaja govindam, bhaja govindam moodha mate.

well, we vaishnavas ae very moodha.

 

so, let us do bhakti.

 

- the difference in dvaita and advaita is in the final destination: advaita says when one becomes self realised, the one merges with god. dvaitis say one alwasy remains separate of god and serves god when one becomes self realised. now, self realization is not very easy to achieve like vegetables in the market. only one in a million may become be self realized fully. so, we almost all are at the grass level in our spiritual development/progress. being so, at the low level, why should we debate what is at the top most level? let us agree that when we reach the top level - the final destination, we will know who is where and our argumet will end by direct experience. till then let us both try to continue our sadhana sincerely and progress spiritually without condemning each other. the real danger to both of us is the two organized ideologies that have invaded india. let us keep them out. let us do something together for it or do by our separate programs,

but do it.

 

another way to end the debate is this:

let us see who (dvaiti or advaiti) can slove the following

problems in india:

 

- corruption

- poverty

- crook politicians

- malpractice of varnasrama

- clean water and electricity in villages

- help hindus to understand hinduism correctly thru gita.

- materialistic communism out of india.

- the two invaded aggresive anti-vedic ideologies

- educatiuon system (true history of india not tought)

- anti-vedic movies

 

instead of debating on dvaita-advaita, we must spend time in solving the above problems. after solved, we can debate in vedic way as we always have done. till then it is not wise to debate.

 

would you readers agree?

if so, tell your leaders and gurus please.

 

 

[Guest guest]

"would you readers agree?

if so, tell your leaders and gurus please."

 

if one's a real guru he does not need to receive advices by you... what concept of hinduism you have if you ridiculize the role of the guru in this way?

 

[Guest guest]

"krishna in gita has not said advaita is wrong or false.

He has said that it is difficult for most people"

 

Incorrect, Krishna speaks not of Kevala Advaitha anywhere in Gita. What you might be refering to is in chapter 12 where he talks about yogis who worship his impersonal aspect and will reach him eventually. Those yogis who he describes in that chapter and throughout Gita do similar practices as Kevala Advaithins but are not the same.

 

Nowhere in Gita does Krishna describe any yogis matching the description of Kevala Advaithins. Kevala Advaithins worship the impersonal brahman as the ultimate even higher than Krishna. This Kevala Advaitha Philosophy is false, for Krishna refutes this idea in 14.27 and 7.7. Nowhere does Krishna talk about any yogis who regard his form as temporary and the world as false like the Kevala Advaithins do. Actually he refutes these ideas in Gita, thus in effect refutes Kevala Advaitha and all other doctrines with these false ideas.

 

Bottom line, Kevala Advaitha is false. Period. Some may twist things around to falsely make it look valid, but no intelligent person is fooled by these tricks

[Guest guest]

right......

 

(sorry madhaav.. hinduism does not exist)

[Guest guest]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

((sorry madhaav.. hinduism does not exist)

 

You are being rude to millions of Hindus

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Guest guest]

millions?

where?

 

there's not hinduism and hinduists, we have now demonstrates that advaita is not in gita, sanatana dharma

 

so gita is a religion and advaita is another, we cannot call everything with the same name

 

let us help ourselves, let us fight terrorism, but we cannot bend religion to our purposes

[Guest guest]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(millions?

where?)

 

Go to India, there.

 

Re

(there's not hinduism and hinduists, we have now demonstrates that advaita is not in gita, sanatana dharma)

 

You have demonstrated nothing, besides advaita or devaita does not negate the existence of Hindus.

 

Re

(so gita is a religion and advaita is another, we cannot call everything with the same name)

 

Hindu is not a religion, but a way of life and i dont need you to tell me who Hindus are?

 

RE

(let us help ourselves, let us fight terrorism, but we cannot bend religion to our purposes )

 

Dharma is not something you can bend, you just follow.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

"What is the difference between advaitha and vishisthathvaidha? Difference between jeevthma and paramathma. Vishishthathvaidhis say that paramathma is inside jeevathma and he activates the jeevathma. A jeevathma is inferior to paramathma only on two counts."

 

>>>>> My reply. Ever heard of Sata Dushani of Vedanta Deshikar. No advaitin has ever been able to refute it.

 

Beyond do you even understand Vishistadvaita philosophy ?

 

Based on madhyadina recessions of brihad aryanyaka the antarmyami brahmana clearly mentions Supreme as indeweller within Atma[ jiva] and its controller. And it is very clear that jiva atman is different is from paramatman. Read vedic literatures properly.

 

"Jeevathma can never be separated from papramathma. Both are one and same. Every jeevathma is a part of paramathma. There is no difference between anything. Only maya gives the feeling of difference."

 

First of all a part of something is not absolutely identical with the whole. A whole and its part have difference, that is why they are called whole and parts.

 

first you say that jivatma is paramatma

then you say difference is due to maya,

 

may i ask you if everything is one conscious principle paramatma then who is percieving difference ?

If you say paramatman then you go against so many sastric statements which say it is beyond maya ?

When you use the word feeling it automatically implies presence of a conscious entity which can feel or possess atribute in this case of feeling ? how can attributeless paramatman[as is the description of absolute in ur school] possess an attribute ?

 

"In chapter 7 he says “ Those who lose their intelligence in material desires worship “annya devthas” .

 

This is cited as proof of superiority of narayana over other gods. Every god except Krishna is “annya devtha” (alien god) So isn’t this proof that Krishna is superior to other devthas? Doesn’t Krishna say that worshiping other gods is “foolish”

 

NO.

We should see who is this “annya devtha” Since bhagavad Geetha is entirely based on Vedas we have to search for this slogan in Vedas also. Vedas mention “annya devatha” clearly.

 

“Anya devtham upasthe…… anyasow,anyoham asmithi” ( He who worships a god thinking that it is different from him is as naïve as a cow.)

 

So annya devtha can even include Krishna. Here the “annyam” mentioned is not from Krishna, but from yourself. If you worship Krishna asking for wealth or health, thinking that he is different from you, you still are praying an annya devtha."

 

Only a mayavadi could have come up with such explanation.

Anya clearly means other than Krishna. The words of krishna are very clear and don't need lamplight from foolish philosophers.

 

Let me impart correct understanding of those verses:

 

The Rig Vedic verse "ekam sad viprah bahuddah vadantih" is a very

beautifull verse which simply means that Truth[sat] which is one is

known/called by many names by those who are learned.

 

Rig Veda 1.164.46

"They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-

winged Garutman. To what is One, sages give many a title they call it

Agni, Yama, Matarisvan."

 

Now in this verse "Him","He" refers to the same entity called "Sad"

meaning truth. From the taittarya verse "satyam jnanam anatam brahma"

we know that "Brahman is Truth, Knowledge[Consciousness], Infinte".

Hence truth in the Rig Vedic verse refers to Brahman. We have both

context support and scriptural support for this interpretation.

 

Lets analyze this further: The verse says Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni,

Yama are all names of this being.

 

Does this means that demigod Indra Lord of heavens, Agni Lord of fire

etc are brahman himself or forms of brahman himself ?

 

We say no it is not thus. Please listen to our reason:

 

In Kena Upanisad following verses occurs:

 

III-1. It is well-known that Brahman indeed achieved victory for the

gods. But in that victory which was Brahman's the gods revelled

in joy.

 

III-2. They thought, "Ours alone is this victory, ours alone is

this

glory". Brahman knew this their pride and appeared before them,

but

they knew not who this Yaksha (worshipful Being) was.

 

III-3. They said to Agni: "O Jataveda, know thou this as to who

this

Yaksha is". (He said:) "So be it."

 

III-4. Agni approached It. It asked him, "Who art thou?" He

replied, "I am Agni or I am Jataveda".

 

III-5. (It said:) "What is the power in thee, such as thou

art?"

(Agni said:) "I can burn all this that is upon the earth."

 

III-6. For him (It) placed there a blade of grass and said: "Burn

this". (Agni) went near it in all haste, but he could not burn

it. He

returned from there (and said:) "I am unable to understand who

that

Yaksha is".

 

III-7. Then (the gods) said to Vayu: "O Vayu, know thou this as

to

who this Yaksha is". (He said:) "So be it".

 

III-8. Vayu approached It. It said to him, "Who art thou?" He

replied, "I am Vayu or I am Matarsiva".

 

III-9. (It said:) "What is the power in thee, such as thou

art?"

(Vayu said:) "I can take hold of all this that is upon the

earth".

 

III-10. For him (It) placed there a blade of grass and said:

"Take

this up". (Vayu) went near it in all haste, but he could not take

it

up. He returned from there (and said:) "I am unable to understand

who

that Yaksha is".

 

III-11. Then (the gods) said to Indra: "O Maghava, know thou this

as

to who this Yaksha is". (He said:) "So be it". He

approached It, but

It disappeared from him.

 

III-12. In that space itself (where the Yaksha had disappeared) Indra

approached an exceedingly charming woman. To that Uma decked in gold

(or to the daughter of the Himalayas), he said: "Who is this

Yaksha?"

 

IV-1. She said: "It was Brahman. In the victory that was

Brahman's

you were revelling in joy". Then alone did Indra know for certain

that It was Brahman.

 

In the above verse difference between demigods like Indra etc and

omnipotent brahman is clearly mentioned. Indra, Agni and other are

shown to be *** different *** and *** Absolutely dependent*** on

Brahman. Even Uma wife of Lord Shiva praised as Shakti is different

from Brahman.

 

Hence forms of Indra, Varuna, Agni etc....... ain't that of brahman.

For sruti declares the difference clearly.

 

So how can one interpret without compromising validity of each Sruti

verse quoted above including the Rig Vedic verse ?

 

Here is one interpretation:

1) Agni, Indra, Varuna etc have brahman for their innermost self

and hence are controlled and dependent on brahman in every way. Being

thus dependent[given power and respective functioning capacity] and

pervaded by brahman, the Supreme, they can be called brahman.

 

Gita 11.39

vayur yamo 'gnir varunah sasankah

You are air, fire, water, and You are the moon! ............

 

Gita 11.40

ananta-viryamita-vikramas tvam

sarvam samapnosi tato 'si sarvah

O thou of unilimited potency and infinite power, You pervade the

entire universe, and thus You are everything.

 

Here again the idea of infinite power of brahman, His position as the

inner controller of everything is clearly mentioned by calling him

all-pervading. This is well verified in antaryami brahmana of

brihadaranyaka upnaisad where Supreme[brahman] is taught to be inner

self/controller of everything. And since every one dervies their

power from brahman alone he is everything. Arjuna confirms this vedic

truth in the gita verse.

 

Therefore one understanding of the verse can be that since brahman

who is different from demigods like indra, varuna, agni etc.....

being their inner self and controller and the source of their power

etc, all these people can be said to represent him or aspects of him.

 

2) The words indra, varuna etc........ can be shown to be the names

of brahman and not referring to the demigods agni, indra etc......

and hence the rig vedic verse means that Sad vastu brahman is known

through *** its *** various names. Note words like Indra are name of

Vishnu in Vishnu Sahsaranama.

 

These two interpretations of the verse is correct as it is well

supported by Sruti and Gita.

 

Hence brahman is brahman only, and is not indra, agni, varuna

etc....... brahman who is satyam jnanam anantam is to be worshipped

as he is and not as indra, agni etc........ If we wish to worship

brahman as indra, agni etc..... in forms which are *** not ***

brahman himself we should follow the principle of antaryami brahmana

of brihadaranyaka upanisad. Otherwise its done with wrong

understanding.

 

The same is repeated:

Aiterya Aranyanka 3.2.3.12:

"For the Bahvrikas consider him (the self) in the great hymn (mahad

uktha), the Adhvaryus in the sacrificial fire, the Khandogas in the

Mahavrata ceremony. Him they see in this earth, in heaven, in the

air, in the ether, in the water, in herbs, in trees, in the moon, in

the stars, in all beings. Him alone they call Brahman."

 

Svetasvatara Upanishad 2.17

"The Self뾩uminous Lord, who is fire, who is in water, who has

entered into the whole world, who is in plants, who is in

trees뾲o that Lord let there be adoration! Yea, let there be

adoration."

 

Gita 15.17-18

"But distinct is the Highest Spirit spoken of as the Supreme Self,

the indestructible Lord who penetrates and sustains the three worlds.

Because I transcend the perishable and am even higher than the

imperishable, therefore am I known in the world and in the Veda

as `Purushottama', the Highest Spirit."

 

 

In Gita Sri Krishna further says:

 

Chapter 7, Verse 20.

Those whose minds are distorted by material desires surrender unto

demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship

according to their own natures.

 

Chapter 7, Verse 21.

I am in everyone's heart as the Supersoul. As soon as one desires to

worship the demigods, I make his faith steady so that he can devote

himself to some particular deity.

 

Chapter 7, Verse 22.

Endowed with such a faith, he seeks favors of a particular demigod

and obtains his desires. But in actuality these benefits are bestowed

by Me alone.

 

In the above three verse the essence of all upanisad, Gitopanisad re-

confirms what is written in Brihad aranyaka and Kena Upanisad verses.

 

Demigods are ***different*** from and ***completely dependent*** upon

Brahman[Krishna, Vishnu, Rama, Narayana, Vasudeva etc....]

 

And hence Krishna very appropriately says:

 

Gita 9.23

"O son of Kunti, those who worship devotedly different demigods,

although with faith, they also actually worship Me alone, but it is

without true understanding."

 

but what is the result of worshipping with wrong understanding:

 

"I am the only enjoyer and the only object of sacrifice. Those who do

not recognize My true transcendental nature fall down. " Gita 9.24

 

What does fal down means ? It means go back into cycle of birth and

death.

 

So what is that transcendental nature that is to be known:

 

It is:

 

Svetasvatara Upanisad

 

III-8: I have realized this Great Being who shines effulgent like the

sun beyond all darkness. One passes beyond death only on realizing

Him. There is no other way of escape from the circle of births and

deaths.

 

III-9: There is naught higher than or different from Him; naught

greater or more minute than Him. Rooted in His own glory He stands

like a tree, one without a second and immovable. By that Being the

whole universe is filled.

 

Also in Gita the essence of all upanisad:

 

Gita 8.9

"One should meditate upon the Supreme Person as the one who knows

everything, as He who is the oldest, who is the controller, who is

subtler than the subtlest, who is the maintainer of everything, who

has inconceivable form. He is luminous like the sun and, is

transcendental to this material nature."

 

 

 

 

[maadhav 0]

yes, it seems like i am ridiculing gurus.

but i cannot, being a hindu first (vaishanv second.)

 

all i wish is that all the gurus unite against the two invaded indeologies in bharat.

 

if what i talk - our interest of dharma and rashtra-

do not come to the attention of our gurus, and if all of them remain un-united, never taling to each other, then the asuras have an easy job of dividing us further and acheiving their of goal of totally wiping our hinduism from the face of earth.

 

agree?

 

[barney 0]

Jivatma & Paramatma

 

.

 

Swami Atmananda

 

Asti - God is there :

 

…….. Jivatma means the individual self and Paramatma means God. Vedas in their earlier sections reveal the existence of God to man. Man is told of the ways of God, his nature and teachings. God is someone to be loved, because he is himself an embodiment of infinite love. He is revealed as the very creator, sustainer and also the destroyer of the world. Just as all musicians in an orchestra have to tune themselves to a basic note being played by one, so also every person has to tune him or herself to that basic harmony and order of the world called God. This facilitates bringing about a holistic vision. Such a person is never alone, on the other hand such person always has company of the highest embodiment of knowledge, love & power. It is a well known fact that it is our thinking which carves out our personality, thus with a single stroke the Vedic masters saw to it that all their followers not only retain the thought of the best and highest but also ultimately be an embodiment of all what God represents.

 

Asmi - I am that :

 

…….. The Vedic masters do not merely stop at revealing the existence of God. All religions and religious masters have been talking about these things. The unique aspect of Vedas is to reveal that there is a state in this very life & this very body where this Jivatma discovers its total identity with Paramatma. It was the summum bonum of human life. It was an experience beyond imagination. The contentment was total. It was something which he or she always was seeking. It was total liberation from all limitations of time, space and objectivity. They called it Moksha - the total freedom, the ultimate goal of human life. They discovered that Jivatma is & always was Paramatma alone. The duality was born out of ignorance. The seeker is the sought. Like in a dream a person erroneously takes oneself to be something which one is not and suffers unnecessarily, so also are the suffering of man. The final leap to total freedom & fulfillment is merely by some knowledge, the knowledge of Self.

 

Vedanta - the science of revealing the identity :

 

…….. It is interesting to note the two words Jiv-atma and Param-atma. Both have the word 'atma' in common. Atma means the Self, that which reveals as the 'I' in the hearts of all. When this 'I' is seen to have a sense of limitation, along with a sense of enjoyership & doership, then such 'I' is referred to as the Jiva-atma. A Jiva is someone who sees himself to be limited by space & time - he is at one place alone and not everywhere, and his existence is at a particular time alone and not at all times. When these sense of limitations are inquired upon and are realized to be an error then this sense of limitation drops and the same 'I' is seen to be free from these limitations of time & space then this very 'I' is referred to as the Paramatma. Param means that which is free from all limitations of time, space & objectivity i.e. that which is there at all times, all places and in all objects. Thus the word atma which is the common denominator in both these words shows that God is always realized as the very subjective essence of a person and not as some objective reality. The science which facilitates us to conduct this inquiry into the Self is Vedanta, the culmination of which is in the discovery of oneself to be free from all limitations. That person alone is said to have attained proper spiritual health, that person alone makes the best of his or her life, rest are comparable to a sick man, always seeking and seeking, and at the end of it all dying also with all the sense of limitations. They know not the joy & potential of human life. They have missed the boat.

 

 

[Guest guest]

"Can anyone point out a single slogan in Geetha saying that jeevathma is different from paramathma?"

 

You can find one if you actually read Gita dear, chapter 15 mamivamso jiva loke jiva bhuta sanatanah, and elsewhere isn't it?

 

"Krishna says that he and arjuna are one and the same."

 

Ya? Where? Chapter and verse number? What version of Gita are you reading, Barnes & Noble?

 

When in Srutis and other Vedic literatures oneness is proclaimed it doesn't mean absolute oneness as the Kevala Advaithins ridiculously claim. That is inconsistent with Vedik philosophy. The meaning of oneness in the Vedas is beautifully explained by Sri Ramanuja and other Vaisnava Acharyas

[Guest guest]

"Hindu is not a religion, but a way of life and i dont need you to tell me who Hindus are?"

 

Replace hindu with its original Indian proper name, sanatan dharma.

 

The muslims mispronounced sindhu as hindu and called everyone beyond that river as hindu

[Guest guest]

Re

(so gita is a religion and advaita is another, we cannot call everything with the same name)

Hindu is not a religion, but a way of life and i dont need you to tell me who Hindus are?

...maybe you need it if you don't know, way of life? based on wich principles?

 

(let us help ourselves, let us fight terrorism, but we cannot bend religion to our purposes )

Dharma is not something you can bend, you just follow.

,,,,so follow it.. dharma is that god is god and you are a creature, individual soul

 

 

[Guest guest]

but i cannot, being a hindu first (vaishanv second.)

••put your vaishnavism at the place you prefere... vaishnava means that guru is uttama adhikari, perfect and transparent messenger of sri vishnu

 

all i wish is that all the gurus unite against the two invaded indeologies in bharat.

••if you are a vaishnava you have to wish to serve whatever vishnu says trough the mouth of the guru, not what you desire to hear. Or you want to be more intelligent than visnhu and guru? i do not think so!

 

if what i talk - our interest of dharma and rashtra-

do not come to the attention of our gurus

••vaishnava guru is incarnation of paramatma... sat, cit, ananda.. all knowing, conscious of everything... paramatma, ksirodakasaiy vishnu knows everything

 

and if all of them remain un-united, never taling to each other

•••gurus are expansions of the same tattva.. paramatma... they are conscious , do not worry, do not believe to be more clever and intelligent.. or drop this vaishnava definition

 

then the asuras have an easy job of dividing us further and acheiving their of goal of totally wiping our hinduism from the face of earth.

••you are acting as an asura if you do not give respect and preminence to guru and sadhu... you free india from some asuras to put some others in their place? feeling more intelligent than guru (are you initiated? have you requested advice on this subject to your guru maharaja? are you doing any sadhana?) is asuric... the most asuric thing.. more that erecting mosquees on the hindu temples

[Guest guest]

A Jiva is someone who sees himself to be limited by space & time -

••jiva means "infinitesimal", "subordinate"... who realizes to be an atma , jivatma sees himself unlimited in space and time, sat, cit ananda but he knows that these shaktis come not from himself but from PARAM ATMA

 

Param means that which is free from all limitations of time, space & objectivity i.e. that which is there at all times, all places and in all objects.

••yes... and PARAM means Supreme.... who is supreme by his own internal potency

 

so we have subordinate atmas.. and supreme atma

 

and everyone knows it... who say to be god not remembering to be god is a liar, god does not forget.. he's CIT.. conscious

 

barney.. are you feeling to be god?

[maadhav 0]

you may not understand my effort.

some just cannot.

 

chant.

 

[Guest guest]

"you may not understand my effort."

 

i understand very well, and i understand also that you want to justify your theories as a devotional service but you are not able to do it without dangerously bending the philosophy... and that you are easily lost in a discussion not with an expert philosopher, but with a poor fellow like me who knows only some basic concepts...

 

surrender to a real master.. and listen to advices, not give advices to him on the war to muslims

 

[Guest guest]

Differences between Kevala-Advaita & Visishtadvaita

 

(Note : i have already explained "shuddha-advaita" in this thread itself.)

 

The question can be answered with a little bit of background on the Upanishads.The Upanishads are of three types namely bheda sruti, abheda sruti and ghataka sruti.

 

 

There are many passages in the Vedas, which clearly and categorically state that Brahman or Paramatma is different from Jivatma. These are called bheda sruti, because they show the difference between Paramatma and Jivatma. Bheda in Sanskrit means difference.

 

 

The following are some of the quotations. 1) 'Two birds with similar qualities and attached to each other, reside in the same tree. One of them (Jivatma) eats the fruit (the results of his karma), whereas the other (Iswara or Brahman) shines, without eating the fruit." 2) "The Jivatma realises that the supreme self or Brahman directs him and he is the object of direction". 3) "He, the Jivatma, is different from Brahman. By winning the grace of Brahman, the Jivatma attains salvation". 4) "The three-fold nature, can be simply put as follows (1) who experiences pleasure and pain; (2) the object of such experiences and (3)He,the Brahman who directs all". 79 5) "He is the lord of Matter and Jivatma and the possessor of qualities". I 6) "Brahman is the ruler whose knowledge has no limits. The Jivatma has his knowledge limited". 7) "The Brahman is different from Matter or Achetana and is greater than the Jivatma." 8) "He is different and He rules over the Jivatma and the Matter." 9) "The knower of Brahman attains the supreme." 10) "He reaches the other side of samsara and reaches the Paramapada of Vishnu". 11) "I belong to the Brahman and I will not leave Him". 12) "All these are born out of Him and because of Him they live and they go back to Him." 13) "The brahmins understand Him, by learning the Vedas, by doing penance, by giving donation and by doing yagas." 14) "The Brahman cannot be attained by reading the scriptures, by intelligence,..." 15) "He is the lord of all. He is the ruler of all". 16) "There are two eternal, permanent things. One is Brahman, knowing everything and all powerful. The other is with limited knowledge and powerless, namely, Jivatma." 17) "The Jivatma enjoys the Paramapada along with Brahman." So, the above are a few examples of bheda sruti. These are some of the passages from the Vedas, which clearly show that the Jivatma is different from Paramatma. There are innumerable such passages in the Vedas.

 

 

There are also passages in the Vedas, which show,on the face of it, that Paramatma and Jivatma are one and the same.p>

 

The following are some of the passages:- "You are that (Brahman)". "I am Brahman". "Everything here is Brahman". "All the things here are Brahman". "There are no different things". "There is only one".a>

 

The third type of sruti, ghataka sruti, describes the relationship between Brahman and Jivatma and Matter, as that of the soul and. the body (body/soul relationship).

 

 

The passages from the Antaryami Brahmana of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and Subala Upanishad which explains the body-soul relationship. These are called Ghataka sruti

 

 

This is called so, because this talks about the Iswara being the soul or antaryami of Jivatma and the matter. 'Antaryami' means "One who controls from inside".>

 

They are so -called, because they join or synthesise the apparently contradictory passages in the Vedas. They give "the proper to abheda srutis, which seem to state there is no difference between Jivatma and Paramatma.

 

 

By using this body/soul relationship, which has been shown above in the ghataka sruti, one can give proper interpretation to the abheda sruti.

 

 

When we say Rama, we mean the body of Rama, as well as the soul of Rama. We say Rama has a fair skin. We mean Rama's body has a fair skin. Similarly, the word "Rama" means his soul also. By the extension of the same principle, it also means the soul of Rama's soul, i.e., Iswara or Narayana. We have just seen that the individual soul or Jivatma is also the body of Iswara. In other words, Iswara is the soul of the individual soul, namely Jivatma. So, when we say Rama, this refers grammatically to 1) Rama's body, 2) Rama's soul, 3) Rama's soul's soul, i.e., Brahman or Iswara. With this understanding, if one read's the abheda sruti, the meaning will be quite clear. 2) One passage says "you are that", Now what this means is that your soul's soul is Iswara or Brahman, i.e., Brahman is also your soul's soul. 3) The passage "All this is Brahman" is also correct, because all Matter and Jivatma have Brahman as their soul and Brahman has all of them as His body. Hence naturally all this is Brahman. 4) The passage "I am Brahman" is also correct, because my soul's soul is Brahman. In other words, I am myself Brahman. Thus, by applying the body/soul relationship between Jivatma and Paramatma, all the passages in the Vedas, which appear like saying identity of Jivatma and paramatma, will be properly explained.

 

 

The basic principle has been established that Brahman or is the soul of Jivatma and I Matter and all its variations. So, the Jivatma and Matter and its variations are all the body of Brahman.As mentioned earlier, this is the fundamental doctrine of Visishtadvaita philosophy.

 

 

"Advaita" means "Not Two". The advaitins say that Jivatma and paramatma are not two (i.e., different) but they are One, i.e., identical. Hence this system of philosophy is called Advaita. The founder of Advaita philosophy is Adi Sankara./p>

 

"Visishtadvaita" means "Not Two-in a special way" or "Only one - in a special way". We say that Jivatma and paramatma are different and yet not different. They are different, as we have shown from the bheda sruti. Jivatma is the body and paramatma the soul. The soul is different from the body. This way, the paramatma is different from the Jivatma. They are not different because of the body-soul relationship, as explained in ghataka sruti. We call both Rama's body and Rama's soul, as Rama. Rama's body and soul together, are called as "Rama" only. So, Rama is only one. Similarly, Jivatma (the body) and Paramatma (the soul), can be called as only one - in a special way, because of the body/soul relationship. So, Jivatma and Paramatma can be called two-in-one or one-in-two. Hence our system of philosophy is called "Visishtadvait'a". This system was perfected by Ramanuja.

 

 

The Advaitins argue that abheda srutis, which say that the Jivatma is identical with Paramatma. supersede the bheda srutis. So, they do not accept the validity of bheda srutis. In other words, they accept only abheda srutis as authority.

 

 

We say that the Vedas as a whole are authority. So, why should the Vedas mention the bheda passages, if they are to be superseded. No sensible person will make a statement, if it is false and if it is to be superseded. Unless a statement is specifically mentioned as opponents point of view, it has to be taken as correct. Nowhere in the Vedas, it has been stated that the bheda passages represent opponents point of view. Hence the bheda srutis have to be taken as correct; and have to be properly synthesised with the other passages in the Vedas. Thus, we do not accept the Advaitins' argument.

 

 

Vishistadvaitin makes use of ghataka sruti, to resolve the apparent differences between bheda srutis and abheda srutis.

 

 

As mentioned above, the Advaitins are not able to properly explain bheda srutis. Visishtadvaita is the only system, which is able to explain properly both the Bheda srutis and Abheda srutis, with the help of Ghataka srutis.

 

 

The Advaitins say that everything, other than the Paramatma, is 'maya' or illusion. For Advaitins, the world itself is an illusion.

 

 

For this, the Advaitins have got three types of reality. They say that the Brahman is the only real thing or the ultimate reality; and everything else is illusion or maya.

 

 

We see a shell from a distance and we think it is silver. Only when we go near and examine, we find that it is really shell. 2) Similarly, from a distance we see a rope and mistake it to be a serpent. 3) Again, in a hot summer, on a tar road, we see at some distance water on the road, which is not actually so. It is only the reflection of the sun onthe tar road So, such illusions, as explained in the three cases above, fall into the first category, according to the Advaitins. These are called "Apparent Reality" (Pratibhasika Sat). In these cases, we are able to realise ourselves, at a later stage, that what we saw first was only an illusion. For example, thinking as silver, whereas it was only shell; similarly, thinking as serpent, when it was only a rope, is only an illusion.

 

 

The second category of reality is called by Advaitins as "Relative Reality" (Vyavaharika Sat). In this category come the world, air, sky, water. and so on. All these things are there and still, ultimately, they are only an illusion according to Advaitins. But, for all practical purposes, world, air, water and other elements are real things. So these things are called "Relative Reality" and form the second category.

 

 

The third category of reality, is the "Absolute reality" (Paramarthika Sat). This is Brahman.

 

 

The Advaitins classify all things into three types of realities, as follows: 1) Apparent reality (Pratibhasika Sat) - like mistaking shell as silver; mistaking rope as serpent. 2) Relative reality (Vyavaharika Sat) - like world, sky, fire, water. 3) Absolute reality (Paramarthika Sat) - This is Brahman. So, according to them, except for item (3) above, Brahman, everything else is maya (illusion).

 

 

The theory of Visishtadvaitins is exactly the opposite. We say that everything is real. There is no maya or illusion. The world is very much real. The Jivatma is very much real. In fact, we also say that, even the objects which we see in a dream are also real. Of course, the dream objects are purely temporary and are seen only by the person who dreams.

 

 

We say that this world is not an illusion. We mistake shell for silver. We mistake brass, or bronze for gold. We mistake a rope for a serpent - These are actually illusions. The world is not such an illusion. Whatever materials we find in this world, we are making use of them. The silver which we see, we make vessels out of it. We keep water in the silver vessel. Similarly, the gold which we see, we make jewels out of gold, and we wear them. So, the world, the materials, the objects which we see in the world, are all real.

 

 

The Vishistadvaiti's have full support from the Upanishads. Its been explained earlier about the process of creation, starting from matter. How from matter comes mahat, how from mahat comes ahankara and so on. I have also explained about the quintuplication, three-fold division and seven-fold division. The Upanishads have thus explained in detail the process of creation. So, the world and the objects and materials of the world are all the results of creation. When Upanishads take so much pains to explain the process of creation, is it correct to say that the whole thing is an illusion? There is no need for the Upanishads to describe in great detail the process of creation, if the whole thing is an illusion. Further, the Upanishads do not state anywhere that the world is an illusion.

 

 

The Upanishads say that the Lord, Brahman creates the world out of maya. So the Advaitins interpret the word maya as illusion. But we interpret the world maya as matter (prakriti). The Upanishads themselves say that maya is matter. So, apart from' other reasons, we interpret the word 'maya' as matter. From matter, the process of creation starts. But taking the meaning of 'maya' as illusion, the advaitins say that the whole world is an illusion.

 

 

At many places, several Upanishads categorically declare that Brahman creates this world. "Brahman creates beings, starting from Brahma, as before". "Brahman creates the beings, like sun and moon,as before".Unless the world, sun and moon, and other objects are real, there is no need to create them. This clearly shows that the created world is real. Of course, the Jivatma and Matter are eternal (nitya). At the time of pralaya, Matter and Jivatmas take very subtle (sukshma) form and merge with the Lord. Again, the process of creation starts, after pralaya. Thus we say that everything is real.

 

 

The Bhagavad Gita says: "I, who am the ultimate. cause of this world, join the Jivatma with Matter. Thus, all beings come out of this union". There are several such passages in Vishnu Purana and other Sastras which go to show that the world is indeed real.

 

 

They say that many objects in the world are not permanent. For example, there is a mud pot now; after some time it gets broken and it is destroyed. Similarly there is water in the river now. But in summer, the water gets dried up. Thus water is no longer there. Thus, nothing is real, because they are not there permanently at all times. This is one of the arguments of the Advaitins. ………

 

 

We agree with them on the facts. But we say that these facts only show that objects are nor permanent. It dows not follow that the objects are not real. In other workds, even though the objects are not permanent, they are real. We have to distinguish between a real thing and a permanent thing. Taking the example of the mud pot, the mud is there, which the potter makes into a pot. Again, after some time, the pot gets broken, and we come back to the mud. So, mud is there although mud pot gets broken Just because something is not permanent, we cannot say that it is not real. The mud pot is not permanent. Mud is real and also permanent. Similarly jewels are not permanent. We can melt them into gold and re- make some other jewel. So the jewels are not permanent, but the raw material, gold is permanent. But both gold and jewels, made out of gold, are real. We make use of the jewels. We wear the jewels,. So, we cannot say that jewls are not real. Mud is real and mudpot is real. Gold is real and gold jewel is real. These examples are given in Chandogya Upanishad to discuss the relationship between Brahman and the world. So, Brahman is real and the world is also real. Thus the argument of Advaitins that just because something is not permanent, it is not real, ( but an illusion) is not correct.

 

 

We are seeing the world. We make use of the things in the world. We enjoy them. So this has to be real. The above examples clearly show that the world which has come out, in the above examples are real. If the Vedas wanted to show that the world is unreal, they need not have given the above examples. Instead, the Vedas could have given the examples of mistaking a rope for a serpent, mistaking a shell for silver and so on. But instead of giving such examples, which suggest illusion, the Vedas have given examples of reality. From this also, it is clear that the world and everything else is real. Further, if the world and its beings are only an illusion, where is the question of the Lord protecting and destroying the world?.. All these activities of creating the world, protecting the world and destroying the world will have no meaning if the world is not real. The world is destroyed at the time of Pralaya. So the world is not eternal or permanent. It is in this meaning that sometimes it is mentioned that the world is not real.

 

 

The basic axiom that the Vedas as a whole , are the fundamental authority. So , there cannot be any inconsistency or difference between the different passages. If there is an apparent contradiction or inconsistency between two different two different portions of Upanishads, these have to be suitable reconciled or synthesized. 2.) The normal logic is that if the majority of the portions mean one thing and a small number of portions apparently mean something else, then these minority portions will have to be explained in keeping with the majority version. 3.) While the world is mentioned as real in innumerable places and the process of creation is described in detail, in a few places it is mentioned that the world is not eternal or everlasting. The world will be destroyed at the time of pralaya. What is meant is that all the chetanas and achetanas merge in the Lord, in a very subtle form, at the time of pralaya.

 

 

The three reasons to show why the world is real: 1.) The Vedas describe Brahman thus: Brahman is that, from whom all these beings are born; by whom all these beings live; in whom all these beings rest, after death. From the above description, it can be seen that all these beings have to be real. 2.) Brahman is the material cause of the world. He therefore evolves into the world. So how can the world which has been created by Brahman, be unreal? Thus we say that the world and all the beings in it are real.

 

 

A. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad clearly says that: " In this dream world, there are no chariots. There are no horses to draw the chario. There are no roads on which the chariot can go. Then the Brahman creates chariots. He creates horses to draw the chariot and He Creates roads. In this dream world, there are no joys or delights or raptures. Again, Brahman creates joys , delights and raptures. In the dream world, there are no pools, no tanks and no rivers. Again, Brahman creates pools, He creates tanks and He creates rivers. Indeed Brahman creates all these, in the dream - world".

 

 

A. The jivatma is not capable of creating the various objects in the dream. He does not have the power of creation because of his natural powers are restricted, as long as he is in this world. 2.)We also see many bad things in the dream. We are afraid to see such terrible things in our dreams.We often wake up with a start whenever we see bad things in the drea. If the Jivatma creates these objects, naturally he will create such bad things,such bad objects, which give him pain in his dreams. If the Jivatma creates these objects, naturally he will only create good and pleasant things in the dream. Since the dream consists of bad things also, it is clear that jivatma does not create the objects in the dreams. Only Iswara creates objects in the dream.

 

 

The reason is simple. The Jivatma does some small good things and some small bad things. These are not big enough, or significant enough. As a reward for small good things done, God gives him pleasure and good things, in the dream. So, he is happy during the duration of the dream , enjoying pleasant things. Similarly the Jivatma does small bad thigns, which are not very significant. Then a very mild punishment is given by the Lord, for those small bad things. This is by making the Jivatma feel the pain, by dreaming bad things or shocking news. So he is made to experience pain and sorrow during the duration of the dream.

 

 

There are several passages in the Vedas, which declare that there is only one supreme Lord or Brahman. The advaitins also agree that there is only one Brahman, the Para Brahman. However for purposes of worship, they accept a lower Brahman. This lower Brahman, is , according to them, not real ultimately, but is only Vyavaharika sat.

 

 

They say that 1.)The Para Brahman has no attributes or qualities.(Nirguna) 2.)It has no form. (Niravayava Brahman) According to them 1.) The lower Brahman (Apara Brahman) has good qualities (Saguna Brahman), 2.) It has aform (body). The lower Brahman can be worshipped as a Vishnu and so on. They further say as follows: "After worshipping the Brahman, in a form with qualities, like Vishnu, a person develops sufficient maturity of knowledge and viveka. Then he understands the real Brahman, which is without attributes. Then he also realizes that he is not different from the real Brahman or Paramatma. In other words, he ultimately realizes that the Jivatma and Paramatma are one and the same.

 

 

We do not accept that there are two Brahmans. There is no question of one Brahman being higher and another Brahman being lower. There is only one Brahman. The Brahman has all the auspicious qualities. That Brahman is free from all evil. The Brahman has also got a form - a beautiful and auspicious body, with four arms and sankha and chakra. Further the Brahman has Jivatma and matteras His Body.

 

 

There is no question of Jivatma being identical with Paramatma. But Jivatma has Paramatma as its soul; and Jivatma; and Jivatma is the body of the Paramatma. Thus both the Jivatma and Paramatma are one in the sense, that they form together the body and soul. So, they are 2-in-1. That is why our philosophy is called as Vishistadvaita.

 

 

At several places, the Vedas say that He has many auspicious qualities, attributes. In a few places, they say that Brahman is without attributes. We have to intepret this, in keeping with the majority portions. So when the Upanishad says "without Attributes" we intepret this as "without bad attributes" i.e, " with only good qualities" . This intepretation is necessary, to resolve the apparent contradiction between the portions saying Brahman has many auspicious qualities and the portions saying that Brahman is without attributes. If we stick on saying that Brahman is without qualities, then all the portions mentioning about the good qualities of Brahman will have no meaning.

 

 

In many places the Upanishads mention that Brahman is the Lord. He is the protector, and the world and the Jivatmas are Protected By Him. Again the Upanishads talk about Bhakti, about 32 vidyas or methos of doing bhakti to the Lord, for getting salvation. If the Lord has no attributes, no qualities, how can He protect the world. How can He give Salvation or Moksha to the Jivatma? It cannot be said that the Upanishads lay down the methods of Bhakti, for attaining salvation, and then deny these things , by saying that the Lord has no attributes or qualities. Without qualities how can He grant Salvation?

 

 

We intepret these in two ways: 1.)" Without Qualities" mean "without bad qualities". So, Brahman has all good qualities. 1.) The qualities are three sattva, rajas and tamas. So, "without qualities" can mean " without any of these three qualities". This will mean "suddha, sattva". Thus, we can say that the Brahman has the quality of "Suddha Sattva".

 

 

The words "Tattvamasi" means " That you there". Here " That" means Brahman. "You" means " Your souls's soul". So the words, "Tattvamasi" mean Brahman is your soul's soul. This is exactly the body / soul relationship. Brahman is the soul of ones soul. ..viz…Jivatma. So, the word, "Tattvamasi" only says that Brahman is the soul of Jivatma. The above is the teaching of the father, to son Svetaketu. When we say Svetaketu, it means his body and his soul. It also means his soul's soul which is Brahman.

 

 

No, that is not correct. Brahman is eternal. Jivatmas are eternal, Matter ( mula Prakriti) is eternal and the Vedas are also eternal. What it actually means is that Brahman has no equal. "He is without a Second" means, " He is without an equal", "He is unparalleled". All this means is that Brahman is Supreme, without any equals. It does not mean that there is nothing else than Brahman; and that everything else is an illusion or unreal. If this vies ( that all other are not real) is to be adopted, then let me repeat again that all the Upanishads explaining the process of Creation, explaining the Salvation of the jivatma, will all become meaningless. When we say that the Chola King was unique and there was no second person, what dowe mean? We only mean that, in strength and valor, he had no equals. He had no parallels. It does not mean there was no other person in this world , at that time. Similarly here also, it only means that Brahman has no equals..

 

 

The Jivatma also, by nature, has all the auspicious qualities and is free from evil, just like Brahman. But unfortunately, these good qualities are not fully exhibited, so long as he is in this world. During the period he is in this world, in this samsara, he is like a diamond, covered with dirt. When he attains salvation and reaches Paramapada, all the auspicious qualities shine in full in him and he is free from all evil. That is, he becomes like a diamond, cleaned from all dirt, and fully shining.

 

 

Q. They are eight in number: 1. Freedom from evil 2. Freedom from old age 3. Freedom from death 4. Freedom from sorrow 5. Freedom from hunger 6. Freedom from thirst 7. Desiring the truth (Satya kama) 8. Willing the truth (Satya sankalpa) These are apart from the basic nature of the Jivatma, of knowledge, bliss or happiness, and purity and so on.

 

 

According to Advaita, liberation comes finally, when the Jivatma realises that he is identical with Brahman or Paramatma. So, it is this knowledge, which leads to salvation..

 

 

Yes. According to Advaita, even in this world itself, it is possible to attain salvation. They call it Jivanmukti.

 

 

No. They do not recognise Paramapada, as the ultimate salvation.

 

 

The Advaitins say that it is only a partial salvation. They call it Krama mukti. They do not recognise Paramapada as the ultimate salvation.

 

 

Salvation means reaching Paramapada or Sri Vaikunta at the end of this life; and enjoying the Lord Sriman Narayana and being of service to Him and Lakshmi.

 

 

The Advaitins call some passages in the Upanishads as "great sentences" (Maha. vakyas). They say that these great sentences show that Jivatma and paramatma are one.

 

 

No.l "That you are". No.2" I am Brahman" No.3 " All the things here are Brahman." NO. 4 " There are no several things here".

 

 

The interpretation is very simple, if we apply the body/soul relationship 1) The first sentence is the famous "Tattvamasi". 2) In the same way, the second sentence, "I am Brahman" also is correct. My soul is Jivatma. Jivatma's soul is Brahman. So, my soul's soul is Brahman. Hence "I am Brahman". 3) The third sentence, "All things are Brahman," is also correct. Because, the soul or Atma of all things is Brahman, by the body/soul relationship. So, everything is Brahman, since everything has Brahman for its soul. Brahman has everything for His body. 4) By the same reasoning, the fourth sentence "There are no several things here" is also correct. Because all things have Brahman as their soul. Hence, all things are identified with Brahman, as their soul. Hence there are no several things. All things are Brahman only (as their soul) Thus we interpret the great sentences, in accordance with our philosophy.

 

 

Apart from these "great sentences", we have many portions in the same Upanishads, which proclaim clearly that Paramatma is different from the Jivatma. So, if "maha vakyas" are interpreted to mean that Jivatma is identical with Paramatma, we find these are followed by passages, saying Jivatma is different from Paramatma, viz., contra-dicting the identity of Jivatma and Paramatma. There is no need for the Vedas to proclaim something, to be contradicted immediately afterwards. Indeed in some places, the Upanishads give the opponents' view first and then give the correct view. But they clearly say that what was mentioned earlier was not the correct view and then explain or proclaim the correct view. There is no such specific statement in the Vedas, saying that bheda srutis are incorrect; or that abheda srutis only are correct. So, we say that all are to be interpreted suitably, to avoid any apparent contradiction.

 

 

We argue that 'Neti, Neti' ('not so\ not so'), in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad only means that Brahman's attributes cannot be limited to what was explained earlier. His attributes are infinite. Therefore, the passage means that the Brahman's attributes are not the only ones, which were mentioned earlier, but they are countless. Our stand is also vindicated by the following:- Immediately after this passage 'not so', 'not so', the Upanishad says that His name is Truth of the Truths. The Jivatmas are true, i.e., real and eternal. The Paramatma is the truth of the truth, i.e., also real and eternal. So, this passage also clearly shows that Brahman has innumerable attributes, i.e., He is not nirguna..

 

 

While criticising the Advaita view point, Ramanuja develops subtle arguments and logic, to show that there are several inconsistencies in the Advaita standpoint, regarding the Brahman and the Jivatma. In particular, Ramanuja lists out 7 inconsistencies in the Advaita arguments, which say that Brahman is without attributes, Brahman is without form and the world is unreal..

 

 

Narayana is accepted as the supreme deity.

 

 

He is full of good qualities. He is Nirguna.

[Guest guest]

When Science can explain each and every aspect of human life from his birth to his death and even the cause.Do karma and dharma hold true even in the 21st century??? One more thing i have a basic doubt...when advaitha and some other philosophy say "Aham Brahmasmi" then what is the need to build huge temples and worship GOD in a particular form?? Is it not enough to understand that GOD lives in everyone and do our daily routines without any biases??? When many saints in those periods have done away with idol worshipping why do we still follow it??

[Guest guest]

when advaitha and some other philosophy say "Aham Brahmasmi" then what is the need to build huge temples and worship GOD in a particular form??

-if you have a form also god have a form... advaita is false

 

Is it not enough to understand that GOD lives in everyone and do our daily routines without any biases???

--god lives aside everyone, we are in god but he's not inside us..... so we have many things to learn

 

When many saints in those periods have done away with idol worshipping why do we still follow it??

--if they were saints they would have not betrayed the ancient tradition of archana worship

 

.

.

.

that's the results of advaitism and mainstream hinduism:

 

A T H E I S M

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

Re.

(that's the results of advaitism)

 

SankraAcharya gave us back the Vedas be grateful

 

Re

(and mainstream hinduism:)

 

Go to villages where most of the population lives, still going to temples, chanting the lords names, most of them do not know the meaning of advait or dawait or they do not care.

 

 

Re

(A T H E I S M )

 

PRODUCT OF MODERN SCIENCE

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Guest guest]

Jai Ganesh

Re.

(that's the results of advaitism)

SankraAcharya gave us back the Vedas be grateful

..but the ultimate instruction of sri shankaracharya is "bhaja govinda.." devotion, not oneness

 

Re

(and mainstream hinduism:)

Go to villages where most of the population lives, still going to temples, chanting the lords names, most of them do not know the meaning of advait or dawait or they do not care.

...yes... this is devotion not oneness... it is the pseudo intellectual hinduism of modern age that is essentially atheist

 

Re

(A T H E I S M )

PRODUCT OF MODERN SCIENCE

...that in the ther thread our friends disciples of ramakrsna/vivekananda call as demonstration of their advaita style doctrine