Lord is One

[Guest guest]

And my point was because of our search for happiness if there is no bliss in advaita then the soul will progress forward and not back to temporary place of misery.

--the problem is that in advaita there's no devotion, because devotion means at least two subjects: the devotee and the object of devotion

 

A person whose mind is unattached to sensual pleasures, who discovers the joy of the Self, and whose mind is in union with Brahman through meditation, enjoys eternal bliss. (5.21)

--and this bliss is to have found krsna.. and not by the research of oneness, but through devotion... meditation is thinking of something or someone.. two subjects

 

If you are not dukhi you are sukhi

--not necessarily

 

Brahman is sat chit and anand why do you say there is no bliss here?

--brahman is in itself only SAT.. eternal...bliss is given by relationships and to have consciousness, knowledge, you must have several subjects and objects, or there's nothing to know

 

(--yes, it is possible to exchange happines for the end of suffering.. and there's no stop in searching.. nirguna brahman realization could turn in some sort of eternal hell if it would be possible to remain there eternally.)

End of suffering and eternal hell is contradictory.

--because it is impossible to stay eternally in impersonal realization... we do care more for joy, happiness than for stopping suffering. Or better it is more easy and natural to search bliss, when we have found bliss, the end of suffering is automatic

 

no more temporary misery of material life (healthy), would you than jump back in the ocean, having got bored on the shore or would you go explore the dry land?

--the problems is that there's nothing to explore.... me, the exploration and the land to explore are three things. In nirguna brahman realization there's only one thing .... ME

 

jaya (nice discussion!!!)

 

hare krishna.. om namah sivaya!!

 

Re: we are eternally active -- when does Karma stop?

--actions is there also in the absolute, not karma but lila

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(--the problem is that in advaita there's no devotion, because devotion means at least two subjects: the devotee and the object of devotion)

 

How does that answer my question?

We all know what devotion is, and an advaita express theirs in merging with Brahman, if they were to discover that there is more to it , what would they do? Go back to temporary material world or explore further in their pursuit of happiness?

 

 

A person whose mind is unattached to sensual pleasures, who discovers the joy of the Self, and whose mind is in union with Brahman through meditation, enjoys eternal bliss. (5.21)

 

Re

(--and this bliss is to have found krsna.. and not by the research of oneness, but through devotion... meditation is thinking of something or someone.. two subjects)

 

lord Shree Krishna is saying a self realized soul whose mind is fixed in Brahman, had he said mind fixed in

“ Me “than that is the highest realization, but he is saying in Brahman, two different subject, one and different.

 

 

Re

If you are not dukhi you are sukhi

(--not necessarily)

 

If it is not sukhi then what, Santi?

There is neither Self-knowledge nor Self-perception to those whose senses are not under control. Without Self-perception there is no peace; and without peace there can be no happiness. (2.66)

 

 

Re

(--brahman is in itself only SAT.. eternal...bliss is given by relationships and to have consciousness, knowledge, you must have several subjects and objects, or there's nothing to know)

 

Self can not reach eternal brahman without knowledge.

 

 

((End of suffering and eternal hell is contradictory.))

 

Re

(--because it is impossible to stay eternally in impersonal realization... we do care more for joy, happiness than for stopping suffering. Or better it is more easy and natural to search bliss, when we have found bliss, the end of suffering is automatic)

 

you are in a better position from here to get that happiness, the bliss that you can not realize in material world.

 

 

Re

(--the problems is that there's nothing to explore.... me, the exploration and the land to explore are three things. In nirguna brahman realization there's only one thing .... ME)

 

Yes this is true but I am answering your question if and when that me is active then the exploration will come.

 

Re

(--actions is there also in the absolute, not karma but lila )

 

So no reaction only bliss

 

 

hare krishna.. om namah sivaya!!

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

How does that answer my question?

We all know what devotion is, and an advaita express theirs in merging with Brahman

...there's no devotion in merging... if i love you and i merge in you, you disappear and only ME remains, lonely... so how can i be a lover , a devotee if the object of my devotion and love is no more here?

 

if they were to discover that there is more to it , what would they do?

.... the fact is that even if remotely, nirguna brahman realization, oneness, is possible to be achieved, When i am ONE there's no possibility to have other choices, ONE means no choices, no other subjects to be devote, no one to love, no goals, no actions, no desires.. so when merged in the one, i cannot desire to be in another place. Me, the desire, the other place is three, not one. So not having the possibility to desire a higher plane of existence there's automatical falling when we are no more satisfied by the simple stopping of suffering

 

A person whose mind is unattached to sensual pleasures, who discovers the joy of the Self, and whose mind is in union with Brahman through meditation, enjoys eternal bliss. (5.21)

...seen the gita as a whole.. this brahman is param brahman.. and meditation (man mana mad bhava bhakto) means three things: the subject, the object and the action of meditating

 

If you are not dukhi you are sukhi

(--not necessarily)

If it is not sukhi then what, Santi?

...yes... neutrality... but we are active and for us neutrality, inactivity is a condition limited in time, not eternal

 

There is neither Self-knowledge nor Self-perception to those whose senses are not under control. Without Self-perception there is no peace; and without peace there can be no happiness. (2.66)

...right... happines has peace inside and brahman is inside the personality of godhead... but not the opposite

 

Self can not reach eternal brahman without knowledge.

...yes, having the knowledge of god given by bhakti it is automatically given the knowledge of his omnipervasive aspect, When krsna eats the dust and yasodamata looks in his mouth to clean it, she sees the whole creation inside, She has not made separated efforts to realize brahman, she's devotee of the personality of godhead and automatically she has also the knowledge of brahman

 

 

 

hare krishna.. om namah sivaya

[Ganeshprasad 0]

 

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(...there's no devotion in merging...)

 

How does one want something and achieve it without devotion?

 

Re

(if i love you and i merge in you, you disappear and only ME remains, lonely... so how can i be a lover , a devotee if the object of my devotion and love is no more here?)

 

No it is not like that, this soul is thinking I came apart from this whole and my happiness lies in getting back with the whole.

Like the water merging with the ocean and becoming one with the whole, it is not like the ocean has merged with the drop and became a drop.

 

 

 

Re

(.... the fact is that even if remotely, nirguna brahman realization, oneness, is possible to be achieved, When i am ONE there's no possibility to have other choices, ONE means no choices, no other subjects to be devote, no one to love, no goals, no actions, no desires.. so when merged in the one, i cannot desire to be in another place. Me, the desire, the other place is three, not one. So not having the possibility to desire a higher plane of existence there's automatical falling when we are no more satisfied by the simple stopping of suffering)

 

 

Answer this, if you became one, no desires, no karma, the soul is realized it is eternal, transcended the material realm, you have become one with the whole, no one can come here without knowledge, so you are sat and chit, why would you then choose to go back to place of temporary miserable condition? On what grounds would one go back?

 

Bg.14.18 Those situated in the mode of goodness gradually go upward to the higher planets; those in the mode of passion live on the earthly planets; and those in the mode of ignorance go down to the hellish worlds.

This apply to gunas in this world, now think, this soul has gone beyond the three gunas, what is the destination?

 

A person whose mind is unattached to sensual pleasures, who discovers the joy of the Self, and whose mind is in union with Brahman through meditation, enjoys eternal bliss. (5.21)

 

Re

(...seen the gita as a whole.. this brahman is param brahman.. and meditation (man mana mad bhava bhakto) means three things: the subject, the object and the action of meditating)

 

So you are saying there is no Brahman realization? Why did he say Brahman, if he meant para Brahman, why did he not say ME?

 

 

 

Re

(If it is not sukhi then what, Santi?

...yes... neutrality... but we are active and for us neutrality, inactivity is a condition limited in time, not eternal)

 

if you have entered the eternal Brahman how is this state temporary?

Santi means peaceful not neutral.

 

 

There is neither Self-knowledge nor Self-perception to those whose senses are not under control. Without Self-perception there is no peace; and without peace there can be no happiness. (2.66)

 

Re

(...right... happines has peace inside and brahman is inside the personality of godhead... but not the opposite)

 

Now where did I say the opposite?

 

 

 

 

Re

(...yes, having the knowledge of god given by bhakti it is automatically given the knowledge of his omnipervasive aspect, When krsna eats the dust and yasodamata looks in his mouth to clean it, she sees the whole creation inside, She has not made separated efforts to realize brahman, she's devotee of the personality of godhead and automatically she has also the knowledge of Brahman)

 

So those who want to do it the hard way let them, even Krishna says this is hard, but he does not deny this fact Bg. 12 3-4.

 

 

 

Yasodamata ki Jai

hare krishna.. om namah sivaya

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

(...there's no devotion in merging...)

How does one want something and achieve it without devotion?

---devotion is love.. if i want to love you it is necessary that both us remain distinct individuals. if i want to merge, i want that me and you disappear.. and if i want you disappear it is not love, bhakti, devotion. Dedication to the practice, to the goal is necessary, but there's not a subject to reach, to love, to be devote of

 

and my happiness lies in getting back with the whole.

--happiness is given by relationships, by exchanges.. if merging in the whole you lose every relationship, bliss and consciousness are not possible in that condition

 

Like the water merging with the ocean and becoming one with the whole, it is not like the ocean has merged with the drop and became a drop.

--advaita says, with a partial mistake, that the drop and ocean is the same thing. I accept your definition, all efforts on merging resolve in merging in a drop. Autentic and true realization, but it is too little for us, too limited, so we do not get eternal relief from it

 

so you are sat and chit, why would you then choose to go back to place of temporary miserable condition?

--no cit in ONE, because consciousness means three things, the one who knows, the act of knowing and the things that are known.... and why we fall? because we have no ananda in oneness, no bliss.. There's the end of suffering, but no bliss.. bliss comes from relationships, variety. So we come back in the material world to restart another spiritual path

 

This apply to gunas in this world, now think, this soul has gone beyond the three gunas, what is the destination?

--krsna gives you exactly what you want, if you want to fall he gives you maya, if you want krsna he gives krsna, if you want devatas he gives you devatas, if you want oneness with the nirguna brahman he gives oneness... some of these goals are achieved when we have gone beyond the three gunas. My point is that giving up the three gunas does not coincide with devotion. Of course devotion gives, as collateral effect, to go beyond the gunas.. but not the opposite

 

So you are saying there is no Brahman realization?

--no, brahman realization is real in the sense that it can be achieved even if with great difficulty.. but it is unreal in the sense that it cannot be sustained eternally

 

if you have entered the eternal Brahman how is this state temporary?

--because we want also bliss and consciousness

 

Santi means peaceful not neutral.

--it is used also in the sense that we are doing anything actively negative and nothing actively positive... but there's no problem, tecnicalities are not important, my point is on neutrality, and for us neutrality is not enough, there's no happiness in it

 

jaya sri krsna, om namah sivaya

 

 

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(---devotion is love.. if i want to love you it is necessary that both us remain distinct individuals. if i want to merge, i want that me and you disappear.. and if i want you disappear it is not love, bhakti, devotion. Dedication to the practice, to the goal is necessary, but there's not a subject to reach, to love, to be devote of)

 

Yes but this is how they express their love, in the practice of becoming one with Brahman

 

 

Re

(--happiness is given by relationships, by exchanges.. if merging in the whole you lose every relationship, bliss and consciousness are not possible in that condition)

 

This is your concept, of their goal, but they have their reason or else why would their be such a concept also mentioned by Krishna.

 

 

Re

(--advaita says, with a partial mistake, that the drop and ocean is the same thing. I accept your definition, all efforts on merging resolve in merging in a drop. Autentic and true realization, but it is too little for us, too limited, so we do not get eternal relief from it)

 

 

if you cant get relief from meeting with the lord where can you? Even if I made a mistake in recognizing him or his energy?

 

Re

(--no cit in ONE, because consciousness means three things, the one who knows, the act of knowing and the things that are known.... and why we fall? because we have no ananda in oneness, no bliss.. There's the end of suffering, but no bliss.. bliss comes from relationships, variety. So we come back in the material world to restart another spiritual path)

 

 

I think I will agree to disagree on this one, I can only see a way forward. You are free to choose and search from where you left off

The Blessed Lord said: Son of Prtha, a transcendentalist engaged in auspicious activities does not meet with destruction either in this world or in the spiritual world; one who does good, My friend, is never overcome by evil.

 

 

Re

(--krsna gives you exactly what you want, if you want to fall he gives you maya, if you want krsna he gives krsna, if you want devatas he gives you devatas, if you want oneness with the nirguna brahman he gives oneness... some of these goals are achieved when we have gone beyond the three gunas. My point is that giving up the three gunas does not coincide with devotion. Of course devotion gives, as collateral effect, to go beyond the gunas.. but not the opposite)

 

May be not at first but as you say if it is not possible to stay in one, then in reality oneness never was achieved, in this case you still have the knowledge of the self the original search was to find the creator and the concept for that rightly or wrongly was the merging, it is only natural from here on for the soul to look beyond the Brahman realization.

 

Re

( no, brahman realization is real in the sense that it can be achieved even if with great difficulty.. but it is unreal in the sense that it cannot be sustained eternally)

 

 

So it is only natural look beyond that.

 

 

Re

( --it is used also in the sense that we are doing anything actively negative and nothing actively positive... but there's no problem, tecnicalities are not important, my point is on neutrality, and for us neutrality is not enough, there's no happiness in it)

 

If you are contented fine otherwise you look beyond.

 

jaya sri krsna, om namah sivaya

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

Yes but this is how they express their love, in the practice of becoming one with Brahman

--i do not understand, love is between two subjects.. in the research of oneness i see only (perverted) love for our own ego

 

This is your concept, of their goal

---using logic i cannot find any concept of love in annihilating everything and becaming one, only ME

 

but they have their reason

---stop suffering and/or exalt the ego

 

or else why would their be such a concept also mentioned by Krishna.

---because it is a possible goal even not the best and not eternal.... nirguna brahman exists, it is not maya, the fact is that we cannot stay there eternally

 

if you cant get relief from meeting with the lord where can you?

---there's no meeting... meeting is two subjects, krsna does not cheat, if you ask oneness he gives oneness. It is not that you search for oneness and you find krsna, or jesus or siva

 

You are free to choose and search from where you left off

--the problem is that oneness is not a condition where we can have freedom, because freedom is a quality, a power. There's nothing to choose, because the only subject is ONE without objects, there's no searching because searching is a an action, and there's no goals and destinations because it would break the oneness

 

the only system to break the oneness would be that a certain point krsna, vishu, siva etc. manifestate themselves to the one who has merged in oneness. But it would be not honest, he wanted nirguna brahman, not saguna brahman... so god does not cheat, when the "satisfaction" given by the stop of suffering is exausted, the individual comes back in a plane of existence that he has already achieved.. the matter

 

Son of Prtha, a transcendentalist engaged in auspicious activities does not meet with destruction either in this world or in the spiritual world; one who does good, My friend, is never overcome by evil.

---there's many terms to interprete here, and in my opinion none of them is to apply to advaita realization... transcendentalist, auspicious activities, doing good... and one who wants to merge is searching specifically the destruction of his individuality, and , of course, he does not want to go in the spiritual world. A world is made by subjects, objects and activities... oneness is not a world to live in.. oneness is oneness

 

if it is not possible to stay in one, then in reality oneness never was achieved

--so we cannot speak of realization, one is on the path, he has not achieved any goal in searching for oneness, then changes idea for the mercy of the lord and goes for bhakti... but if the oneness is achieved the only way to get out is coming back

 

in this case you still have the knowledge of the self the original search was to find the creator and the concept for that rightly or wrongly was the merging

---the problem is that neither the consciousness of the self is achieved. Our nature is to be servants/lovers, if at the start i take the wrong way, i have to return to the basics. To say that god is not supreme, that he has no form, no personality, no omnipotency, no eternal consciousness, is not a parallel way.. it is the opposite way. So there's no possibility to evolve from this if not for gods mercy. But we do not want god, we want to be one.

 

it is only natural from here on for the soul to look beyond the Brahman realization.

--as said there's no senses, no thoughts, no desires, no action of looking, nothing to look, no beyond... imagine a coma, no suffering but almosto no real existence (of course take it as an example)

 

 

 

 

 

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(--i do not understand, love is between two subjects.. in the research of oneness i see only (perverted) love for our own ego)

 

Yes the love is between two things, to seek the truth is their expression of love to know the all pervading expect of the lord is their worship. If they love the ego so much what is the logic in loosing it? Ego has to be negated to achieve the oneness the oneness in to the supreme ego.

like a drop merging in to the ocean the tiny ego in to supreme, and idea here I believe is to be happy having realized the futility of seprate existence from the whole.

 

Re

(---using logic i cannot find any concept of love in annihilating everything and becaming one, only ME)

 

No annihilation everything is still there, just want to be part of the whole again.

 

 

Re

( ---stop suffering and/or exalt the ego)

 

yes no one want suffering, having realized the soul is eternal,needs to get out of repeated birth and death this condition is unacceptable to the soul, it would be foolish for a drop of water to think I am the ocean, it would be equally naive to think that the drop is thinking along that line, when all it wants to do is become part of that One from which some how or other it got separated.

 

 

 

((or else why would their be such a concept also mentioned by Krishna.))

Re

(---because it is a possible goal even not the best and not eternal.... nirguna brahman exists, it is not maya, the fact is that we cannot stay there eternally)

 

I am sorry you are giving your opinion see what Krishna is saying?

But those who worship the imperishable, the undefinable, the unmanifest, the omnipresent, the unthinkable, the unchanging, the immovable, and the eternal Brahman; (12.03)

Restraining all the senses, even minded under all circumstances, engaged in the welfare of all creatures, they also attain Me. (12.04)

 

 

 

 

 

Re

(---there's no meeting... meeting is two subjects, krsna does not cheat, if you ask oneness he gives oneness. It is not that you search for oneness and you find krsna, or jesus or siva

 

Ok I accept that desiring oneness in pursuit of happiness than the lord is kind he grants that. So he grants oneness minus the happiness?

 

Re

( --the problem is that oneness is not a condition where we can have freedom, because freedom is a quality, a power. There's nothing to choose, because the only subject is ONE without objects, there's no searching because searching is a an action, and there's no goals and destinations because it would break the oneness)

 

so the drop has merged with the ocean has become part of the whole, eternal, no dukh no sukh but peaceful

 

 

Re

(the only system to break the oneness would be that a certain point krsna, vishu, siva etc. manifestate themselves to the one who has merged in oneness. But it would be not honest, he wanted nirguna brahman, not saguna brahman... so god does not cheat, when the "satisfaction" given by the stop of suffering is exausted, the individual comes back in a plane of existence that he has already achieved.. the matter)

 

 

Now why would the lord manifest to break the union? even accepting that they do why would they send the soul back to existence, the soul had rejected, the matter, he/she is now in spirit, one thing I know is that the lord is not cruel.

 

Son of Prtha, a transcendentalist engaged in auspicious activities does not meet with destruction either in this world or in the spiritual world; one who does good, My friend, is never overcome by evil.

 

Re

(---there's many terms to interprete here, and in my opinion none of them is to apply to advaita realization... transcendentalist, auspicious activities, doing good... and one who wants to merge is searching specifically the destruction of his individuality, and , of course, he does not want to go in the spiritual world. A world is made by subjects, objects and activities... oneness is not a world to live in.. oneness is oneness)

 

Ye right let us exclude the advaita

Restraining all the senses, even minded under all circumstances, engaged in the welfare of all creatures, they also attain Me. (12.04)

 

Let us reject what Krishna is saying above.

Let us reject ShankrAcharya

what did you say the lord does not cheat? Yes i agree he does not cheat

 

 

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

 

Shri Ganesh Prasad Ji,

 

I was surprised to see the progress of the thread.

 

Ganesh Prasad Ji, I wish you success. But at the same time I must gently pre warn you that your precious time will be wasted.

 

 

In an earlier thread, the same debater who has engaged you now claimed as below.

 

 

 

“”•• ••in gita it is said that krsna person is the source of brahman impersonal.. so the role of source is exchanged, ---------””

 

 

 

And in support of above he provided the following from Gita and Prabhupadas translation as given below.

 

•••Chapter 13. Nature, the Enjoyer, and Consciousness

 

”TEXT 13

 

jneyam yat tat pravaksyami

yaj jnatvamrtam asnute

anadi mat-param brahma

na sat tan nasad ucyate

 

SYNONYMS

jneyam--knowable; yat--that; tat--which; pravaksyami--I shall now explain; yat--which; jnatva--knowing; amrtam--nectar; asnute--taste; anadi--beginningless; mat-param--subordinate to Me; brahma--spirit; na--neither; sat--cause; tat--that; na--nor; asat--effect; ucyate--is called.

 

TRANSLATION

I shall now explain the knowable, knowing which you will taste the eternal. This is beginningless, and it is subordinate to Me. It is called Brahman, the spirit, and it lies beyond the cause and effect of this material world.”

 

 

 

But then I found that in Purport Prabhupada has clarified that Brahma here is creator Lord Brahma and not eternal unmanifest Brahman. Our great debater did not disclose this purport.

 

 

Moreover in at least 10 other translations I could not find: mat-param--subordinate to Me. But I found: anadimat-param: beginningless supreme.

 

 

So, this great devotee is in the habit of interpreting things as per his own beliefs. With him you will never reach anywhere.

 

 

I pointed to him that in Chapter VII of Gita: The way to the Supreme Spirit, Lord says:

 

The blessed Lord said: Sloka 3. The highest imperishable principle is Brahman. Its existence as embodied soul is called Adhyatma, and the offerings (into sacrificial fire) which causes the development of beingsis adhyyajna. Later he says: I am that as Adhyajna in this body.

 

 

He simply ignores that the Lord says that highest imperishable principle is Brahman whose embodied existence is Adhyatma and whose sacrifice is Adhyajna --- Lord Krishna himself.

 

 

No our great debater still sticks to his belief that embodied Krishna is source of the highest imperishable Brahman. So, after 2-3 weeks of going round and round, you will find that he holds different view on a most fundamental issue. And he will claim that he knew all along about this fundamental difference.

 

 

 

He will also ignore that Lord Krishna has said: “one who attains me does not ever return”.

 

 

And in the garb of anonymity, he may abuse also.

 

 

Atanu

 

[Guest guest]

If they love the ego so much what is the logic in loosing it?

...because we have not to lose the ego, the individuality, the personality... we have to lose the false concept that our ego is the body

 

(---using logic i cannot find any concept of love in annihilating everything and becaming one, only ME)

No annihilation everything is still there, just want to be part of the whole again

--mmh.. part means that there's distinction, division, dvaita.. in oneness there's not part and parcel.. oneness is one and feeling as parts is considered maya

 

But those who worship the imperishable, the undefinable, the unmanifest, the omnipresent, the unthinkable, the unchanging, the immovable, and the eternal Brahman; (12.03)

--yes.. worship.... a worship is possible only for a person, there's a worshipper and a worshipped.. and krsna many times in gita says that He's the source of brahman, the brahman is inside him

 

So he grants oneness minus the happiness?

--of course, in oneness there's no happines... we have to exchange feelings to find happiness

 

so the drop has merged with the ocean has become part of the whole, eternal, no dukh no sukh but peaceful

--and we cannot bear to be only peaceful, we want to be joyful... if the war ends, you are not satisfacted only by the absence of war (=the peace), you want happiness and you go outside to find friends, girlfriend, to go to cinema, theater, disco, seaside, traveling and so on.. the paradox is that for us is more nice a little joy in a big pain that no joy and no pain. So if we have no complete joy, we come back even in a world of total pain with a little joy to restart to quest for total joy and happiness

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

TRANSLATION

I shall now explain the knowable, knowing which you will taste the eternal. This is beginningless, and it is subordinate to Me. It is called Brahman, the spirit, and it lies beyond the cause and effect of this material world.”

But then I found that in Purport Prabhupada has clarified that Brahma here is creator Lord Brahma and not eternal unmanifest Brahman. Our great debater did not disclose this purport.

 

--- where?

 

http://www.asitis.com/13/13.html

 

" .....................This is also confirmed by Lord Caitanya in His teachings; therefore the description of Brahman mentioned in this verse is in relation to the individual soul, and when the word Brahman is applied to the living entity, it is to be understood that he is vijnana-brahma as opposed to ananta-brahma. Ananta-brahma is the Supreme Brahman Personality of Godhead. "

 

[Guest guest]

gita 14.27

 

And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness, and which is immortal, imperishable and eternal

 

 

Katha Upanishad

 

1-3-11. The unmanifested (avyakta) is subtler than Mahat (Hiranyagarbha) and subtler than the unmanifested is Purusha. There is nothing subtler than Purusha. That is the end, that is the supreme goal

 

 

Mandukya Upanishad

 

II-i-2: The Purusha is transcendental, since He is formless. And since He is coextensive with all that is external and internal and since He is birthless, therefore He is without vital force and without mind; He is pure and superior to the (other) superior imperishable

 

III-i-3: When the seer sees the Purusha – the golden-hued, creator, lord, and the source of the inferior Brahman – then the illumined one completely shakes off both merit and demerit, becomes taintless, and attains equality

 

(Note in the sanskrit it says brahma, this is not to be confused with brahmaa ji who has a long A at the end of his name)

 

[Guest guest]

dear O___O prabhu,

 

i respect you for your post.

i suggest you pick a user name that is a vedic name.

 

"O dash dash O" is not a vedic name.

it makes comunication awkward or difficult.

 

vedic literature has no shortge of names.

and i am sure you are not ashamed of a vedic name.

 

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

Atanuji prabhu thank you for your kind words

 

I know I could be wasting my time but that is no reason to stop, if we believe in something then we should never give up even if sometimes it may seem impossible.

 

This guest who I suspect is non other then yasodanandana if not my apologies to him.

 

His objection to advaita I can understand, for him sanatan dharma is Vaishnava, and nothing else, to me that is dangerous, even if I am a Krishna Bhakta, not that I am saying to be Vaishnava is dangerous. Koti koti vaishnavavrind ki Jai.

 

Daksa found this out paying a high cost, Maa Sati unable to bare the insult on Lord Shiva gave up the body that associated with daksa took her birth as Parvati.

 

Gustji having decided Hindu is a misnomer going on opposite direction thus he reject all arguments even if lord Krishna says so, otherwise his stand on Hindu falls apart.

So when you say sabKa malik ek, all Hindus easily relate to this even if when we have different concept about the same supreme lord especially when we follow the same way of life laid down by our ancestors following the same scriptures.

 

Reading his latest post I see he has answered only a part and ignored the rest he has a selective reading and that is his style, this way we will go round in circle, churning our mind, may be something good will come out of this.

 

Atanuji keep at it even if I agree or not your posts are very good, I look forward to read them, sabKa malik ek I am happy in this knowledge.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

His objection to advaita I can understand, for him sanatan dharma is Vaishnava, and nothing else, to me that is dangerous

--discriminating between what i believe and what i think to have realized it is better to say that form me the eternal dharma is theism.... for the other fact i do not feel that the danger is to have different ideas, i simply believe that everything has to be on the dialogue plane.. and in dialogue there's no harm. To think that sanatana dharma is theism, is an idea.. to think that sanatana dharma is many other things is another idea.. why an idea is more dangerous ?

 

Reading his latest post I see he has answered only a part and ignored the rest he has a selective reading and that is his style, this way we will go round in circle

--because i think that the answers i have avoided to give are simply repetitions of what i have said many times... the essential fact is that i find bhakti and inpersonal realization as opposite and i do not know, how they cannot bring to the same goal if not considering the one as some sort of preparation for the other

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(--discriminating between what i believe and what i think to have realized it is better to say that form me the eternal dharma is theism....)

 

Theism is to believe in God, the title of the thread speaks for itself.

 

Re

( for the other fact i do not feel that the danger is to have different ideas, i simply believe that everything has to be on the dialogue plane.. and in dialogue there's no harm. To think that sanatana dharma is theism, is an idea.. to think that sanatana dharma is many other things is another idea.. why an idea is more dangerous ?)

 

An idea by itself is no danger, mine is the only idea that is right, can be dangerous.

 

( --because i think that the answers i have avoided to give are simply repetitions of what i have said many times... the essential fact is that i find bhakti and inpersonal realization as opposite and i do not know, how they cannot bring to the same goal if not considering the one as some sort of preparation for the other )

 

One who knows that the position reached by means of renunciation can also be attained by works in devotional service and who therefore sees that the path of works and the path of renunciation are one, sees things as they are.(5.05)

 

I note you have not denied you identity

 

Jai Shree Krishna Jai Narsimhadev

 

[Guest guest]

(--discriminating between what i believe and what i think to have realized it is better to say that form me the eternal dharma is theism....)

Theism is to believe in God, the title of the thread speaks for itself.

--to be more clear.. for me sanatana dharma is personalism.. god is a person. As i have already said if the supreme personality is vishnu, krsna or siva is much less important

 

An idea by itself is no danger, mine is the only idea that is right, can be dangerous.

--any imposition is dangerous, also "all is the same" can be an imposition. "Only my idea is right" is simply honest, in our everyday life, buying food, driving the car, choosing dresses and so on, we decide between bad and good... so we can decide like this even in religion. If we keep the difference on the dialogue plane, there's no danger

 

One who knows that the position reached by means of renunciation can also be attained by works in devotional service and who therefore sees that the path of works and the path of renunciation are one, sees things as they are.(5.05)

---bhagavad gita is all written to promote this idea... arjuna renunciates keeping his activity and devoting it to krsna, not leaving everything and going meditating in the forest

 

sri nrsmha, jaya narasimha, jaya jaya narasimha deva

 

prahladesha jaya padma, mukha padma brnga

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(--to be more clear.. for me sanatana dharma is personalism.. god is a person. As i have already said if the supreme personality is vishnu, krsna or siva is much less important)

 

God is a person yes, but he/she also pervades the entire creation by the energy, how can you seprate the two?impersonal realization is also there, so what is true for you is also true for someone who wants to realize the other way

 

Re

(--any imposition is dangerous, also "all is the same" can be an imposition.)

 

Soul is free to choose that is my point. All is searching for the same, is different, from “all is the same,” imposition is if I tell you to accept my way, and that is the only way but I am not saying that .

 

Re

( "Only my idea is right" is simply honest, in our everyday life, buying food, driving the car, choosing dresses and so on, we decide between bad and good... so we can decide like this even in religion. If we keep the difference on the dialogue plane, there's no danger)

 

 

Yes honest for oneself I agree, difference can be discussed, respected, tolerated in this way we can all progress forward.

 

 

One who knows that the position reached by means of renunciation can also be attained by works in devotional service and who therefore sees that the path of works and the path of renunciation are one, sees things as they are.(5.05)

 

Re

(---bhagavad gita is all written to promote this idea... arjuna renunciates keeping his activity and devoting it to krsna, not leaving everything and going meditating in the forest)

 

Yes this is why the Lord Shree Krishna spoke the Gita. Arjun wanted to renounce prematurely because he was overcame by grief; he was worried about sins of killing his guru and family members.

 

If due to ego you think: I shall not fight; this resolve of yours is vain. Your own nature will compel you (to fight). (18.59)

What you do not wish to do out of delusion; you shall do even that against your will, bound by your own nature-born Karma, O Arjuna. (18.60)

Abandon all varieties of dharma (duty) and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear.(18.66)

 

And I agree with above, and also we are all bound by our karma, we have different propensities therefore we surrender onto the lord in different ways.

And that is why Lord Sri Krishna spoke of many paths to reach him, why you want to ignore this, only you and the lord knows.

 

And finally all the pandavas renounced the kingdom and proceeded to go to Himalayas.

 

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

God is a person yes, but he/she also pervades the entire creation by the energy, how can you seprate the two?

--i do not separate, both are existing and eternal.. the only thing is that the person is the source of the impersonal and not the opposite

 

impersonal realization is also there, so what is true for you is also true for someone who wants to realize the other way

---the goals are very different, the impersonal realization is not eternal (in my opinion). Another problem is that a personalist developes love for god in his personal form, if an advaitism says that the person of god is ultimately unreal and that his reality and existence is annihilated in being one with a supreme energy, i would be hypochrite in not considering it a complete blasphemy. And probably the advaitist consider me a poor fellow who needs icons and puppets to approach some spirituality. So there's no serious possibility to consider the two positions at the same level.

 

And I agree with above, and also we are all bound by our karma, we have different propensities therefore we surrender onto the lord in different ways.

--the external aspect is various, one will work as ksatrya, another as brahmana, another sudra or vaisha.. but the internal quality, the dharma, is devotion.. krsna says: "surrender to me", not "merge in me". The surrendering suggested by krsna is eternal, the subject who surrenders is eternal and krsna who gives shelter is eternal. Oneness is in the union of purposes, in the desire to be happy together.. not that krsna and arjuna loses their individuality and merge in the ONE. In my ears sounds like dieing

 

And that is why Lord Sri Krishna spoke of many paths to reach him, why you want to ignore this, only you and the lord knows.

--because considering all the gita and scriptures i see different levels of realizations and also realizations that are not eternal........

 

hare krishna

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(--i do not separate, both are existing and eternal.. the only thing is that the person is the source of the impersonal and not the opposite)

 

so if both is not separate, eternal and one, what make you think if you realize one you want know the other?

 

 

 

Re

(---the goals are very different, the impersonal realization is not eternal (in my opinion).)

 

 

Check your opinion or should I say opinions, one you say both are eternal and then you say impersonal realization is not eternal.

 

Re

(Another problem is that a personalist developes love for god in his personal form, if an advaitism says that the person of god is ultimately unreal and that his reality and existence is annihilated in being one with a supreme energy, i would be hypochrite in not considering it a complete blasphemy. And probably the advaitist consider me a poor fellow who needs icons and puppets to approach some spirituality. So there's no serious possibility to consider the two positions at the same level.)

 

 

Problems are in our minds only if we make it a problem then it becomes a problem but if we accept what Krishna says, and he says many things, every thing he says is eternal, therefor it does not bother me one way or the other.

 

 

Re

And that is why Lord Sri Krishna spoke of many paths to reach him, why you want to ignore this, only you and the lord knows.

(--because considering all the gita and scriptures i see different levels of realizations and also realizations that are not eternal........ )

 

I also see different levels of realization accept I do not judge them.

 

 

hare krishna

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

 

[Guest guest]

PURPORT

 

The Lord has explained the field of activities and the knower of the field. -----------.

 

--------- the description of Brahman mentioned in this verse is in relation to the individual soul, and when the word Brahman is applied to the living entity, it is to be understood that he is vijnana-brahma as opposed to ananta-brahma. Ananta-brahma is the Supreme Brahman Personality of Godhead.

 

 

PLease check it

[Guest guest]

so if both is not separate, eternal and one, what make you think if you realize one you want know the other?

...personal realization gives also the knowledge of brahman... but if you want to know brahman negating the person of krishna, krishna will not reveal to you. He's respectiful, he does not give what you do not desire

 

Check your opinion or should I say opinions, one you say both are eternal and then you say impersonal realization is not eternal.

...bhagavan is eternal, brahman is eternal.... for us souls realization of brahman separated by bhagavan is not eternal because we want activity, not simply the end of suffering

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

RE

(...personal realization gives also the knowledge of brahman... but if you want to know brahman negating the person of krishna, krishna will not reveal to you. He's respectiful, he does not give what you do not desire)

 

We have covered this ground many times.

when you reach the house, you also get to see the owner of the house. search was to find the truth in pursuit of happiness, he is very kind.

 

 

Re

(...bhagavan is eternal, brahman is eternal.... for us souls realization of brahman separated by bhagavan is not eternal because we want activity, not simply the end of suffering)

 

This is again your opinion, not what Bhagvan Krishna said in Bg12.3/4

 

But those who worship the imperishable, the undefinable, the unmanifest, the omnipresent, the unthinkable, the unchanging, the immovable, and the eternal Brahman; (12.03)

 

 

Restraining all the senses, even minded under all circumstances, engaged in the welfare of all creatures, they also attain Me. (12.04)

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

 

[Guest guest]

when you reach the house, you also get to see the owner of the house.

..not if you ask specifically to see the house without the proprietor

 

This is again your opinion, not what Bhagvan Krishna said in Bg12.3/4

..bhaktivedanta swami prabhupada will speak better than me:

 

http://www.asitis.com/12/3-4.html

http://www.asitis.com/12/5.html

http://www.asitis.com/12/6-7.html

 

 

 

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(..not if you ask specifically to see the house without the proprietor)

 

yes if someone thought the proprietor and the house(brahman)is eternal the creator, either way you find out when you get to the house.

 

Re

This is again your opinion, not what Bhagvan Krishna said in Bg12.3/4

(..bhaktivedanta swami prabhupada will speak better than me:)

 

I do not doubt that, at the same time he is not denying what Lord Krishna says, all being it is difficult.

 

Jai Shree Krishna