Advaita Philosophy

[Guest guest]

The clay is one but pots are many

••and absolute is both... clay (the brahman) and the pots (param atma and jivatmas)

 

There is a difference in the permanence of the one (the source) and the many (the effect)

••this in the relative world.. in the absolute everything is permanent

 

One who knows only the pots is superficial

•in the absolute the pot (the form of krsna) is the source of the clay (the brahman).. not the opposite. In teh absolute there's nothing essential or superficial. Everything's essential

 

Krishna has clearly stated that know my original unmanifest form.

••unmanifest to the materialists who cannot conceive a transcendental form

 

CIT itself is bliss

••CIT is consciousness

 

If you searched for bliss outside CIT then you have karma left.

••if you believe that the variety is only in the karmic world you are right. But being it also in the absolute and being definitely everything inside the absolute, knowing can be done inside the absolute and not in maya

 

I am not making the material world a parameter

••you are doing it.. because you are obstinately saying that variety is not in the absolute

 

You keep comparing variety in material world and spiritual world. I always hold that HE is incomparable

••wrong attempt.. i say that absolute has variety, not that variety is of the same kind of the matter. It is you that are negating the absolute variety because you think that it is equal to the material one

 

But I believe (not realize) that CIT is CIT and cannot be partitioned in terms of personality

••cit means "to know"... if the existence is one there's nothing to know for her. So CIT is something that cannot exist without plurality. (to know is an action, done by the one who knows towards a subject... three things..)

 

You believe that the CIT of the individual soul is personality bound and eternal.

••not bound,, we are bound if we express the desire to forget our eternal relationship with krsna. So, mercifully, krsna makes us forgetful through maya. But our free nature is eternally there, if we desire to come back krsna fulfills our desire "sarva dharma.. etc.. surrender.. i will free you from karma, i will give liberation"

 

You also believe that CIT of our soul and CIT of GOD differ in quantitative manner. God’s CIT is bigger.

••bigger is a way to explain.. the thing is that our "CITness" comes from god's "CITness" and not the opposite

 

I will not change my view till I realize the contrary. You will not change your view till you realize the contrary.

••i believe in the debate, i have no other belief.. if i cannot demonstrate something that i have said i start to think about it, i do not say "well.. we have different beliefs.. let us stop". I put myself in discussion.

 

The only difference is that I do not like you naming others fanatic, asura etc. This is not a sign of a wise person.

••i say in this way only if there's need... show me where i have said in that way and i will explain the reason or i will ask for excuses

 

I agree that realizing love is realizing the object of our love. But as stated earlier, I believe that CIT is ONE.

••knowing is the starting point of love. You know a girl, you see her, you listen to her and you start to love her. So CIT means to know, to know there's the need of something to know, and from consciousness comes love, love increase consciousness and consciousness increases love. So there's no possibility to have ONENESS and LOVE simultaneously

 

Who said it is not possible to speak and discuss?

••being ONE? how?

 

There has to be shrabana

••shravana is remembering.. one who remembers another

 

But arguing is fruitless because I will believe and do only that which the Lord has ordained.

••our arguing is to understand better what god has ordered.. i do not speak merely for the gratification to win a debate.. think also that there's many who read our discussion and maybe learn something

 

While arguing, ego gets the upper hand and harsh words result.

••it is up to us to discuss in a good way

 

Do you realize that you have blessed me?

••i have not blessed you.. Love is more nice than submerging, and it is more easy to achieve and eternal. Merging is almost impossible, it cannot be done if we do not consider krsna the supreme personality of godhead and, being active by nature, we fall after a while .... i have no power to bless anyone, but if i had it i would bless you to chant hare krsna mahamantra on regular basis everyday

 

jaya sri krsna

[Guest guest]

“The clay is one but pots are many

••and absolute is both... clay (the brahman) and the pots (param atma and jivatmas)”

 

 

Correct. What is the source becomes the effect.

 

 

 

”There is a difference in the permanence of the one (the source) and the many (the effect)

••this in the relative world.. in the absolute everything is permanent”

 

 

 

This is true till Brahma loka and not beyond that. Read below. In the beginning of each kalpa the Self is all alone.

 

 

BRIHADARANYAKA-UPANISHAD Part 1

FOURTH BRAHMANA.

1. In the beginning this was Self alone, in the shape of a person (purusha). He looking round saw nothing but his Self. He first said, 'This is I;' therefore he became I by name. Therefore even now, if a man is asked, he first says, 'This is I,' and then pronounces the other name which he may have. And because before (purva) all this, he (the Self) burnt down (ush) all evils, therefore he was a person (pur-usha). Verily he who knows this, burns down every one who tries to be before him.

-----

7. Now all this was then undeveloped. It became developed by form and name, so that one could say, 'He, called so and so, is such a one. ' Therefore at present also all this is developed by name and form, so that one can say,'He, called so and so, is such a one.'

---------

 

10. Verily in the beginning this was Brahman, that Brahman knew (its) Self only, saying, 'I am Brahman.' From it all this sprang. Thus, whatever Deva was awakened (so as to know Brahman), he indeed became that (Brahman); and the same with Rishis and men. The Rishivamadeva saw and understood it, singing,'I was Manu (moon), I was the sun.' Therefore now also he who thus knows that he is Brahman, becomes all this, and even the Devas cannot prevent it, for he himself is their Self.

Now if a man worships another deity, thinking the deity is one and he another, he does not know. He is like a beast for the Devas. For verily, as many beasts nourish a man, thus does every man nourish the Devas. If only one beast is taken away, it is not pleasant; how much more when many are taken! Therefore it is not pleasant to the Devas that men should know this.

 

Repeated for the less keen

 

10. Verily in the beginning this was Brahman, that Brahman knew (its) Self only, saying, 'I am Brahman.' From it all this sprang. Thus, whatever Deva was awakened (so as to know Brahman), he indeed became that (Brahman); and the same with Rishis and men. The Rishivamadeva saw and understood it, singing,'I was Manu (moon), I was the sun.' Therefore now also he who thus knows that he is Brahman, becomes all this, and even the Devas cannot prevent it, for he himself is their Self.

Now if a man worships another deity, thinking the deity is one and he another, he does not know. He is like a beast for the Devas. For verily, as many beasts nourish a man, thus does every man nourish the Devas. If only one beast is taken away, it is not pleasant; how much more when many are taken! Therefore it is not pleasant to the Devas that men should know this.

 

My note:

 

But less keen will remain so as ordained.

 

 

Their Guru knew their status and accordingly taught them a path and these less keen have taken the path as the truth and have become parrots.

 

 

Read again

 

------Therefore he who thus knows that he is Brahman, becomes all this, and even the Devas cannot prevent it, for he himself is their Self.

 

 

Guest, understand this and you will be liberated.

 

A Jiva who realizes Brahman and realizes that He is Brahman becomes all this even the Devas cannot prevent it, for he himself is their Self.

 

 

Such a jiva is the Self of the Devas.

 

 

Again repeated for memorization:

 

------Now if a man worships another deity, thinking the deity is one and he another, he does not know. He is like a beast for the Devas.

 

 

Guest, with your belief you are a beast to the Devas and you are trying to make other so. Only Pasupati can liberate you.

 

 

 

 

”CIT itself is bliss

••CIT is consciousness”

 

 

Consciousness is bliss.

 

 

 

”I am not making the material world a parameter

••you are doing it.. because you are obstinately saying that variety is not in the absolute”

 

 

 

I have never said that variety is not in the absolute. You are really naïve and you believe that others will fall for your crooked words.

 

One who believes in one ness can never say that variety is outside the absolute. Absolute is the variety.

 

 

 

” You also believe that CIT of our soul and CIT of GOD differ in quantitative manner. God’s CIT is bigger.

••bigger is a way to explain.. the thing is that our "CITness" comes from god's "CITness" and not the opposite”

 

 

Now CIT has become CITness.

 

 

 

 

”The only difference is that I do not like you naming others fanatic, asura etc. This is not a sign of a wise person.

••i say in this way only if there's need... show me where i have said in that way and i will explain the reason or i will ask for excuses”

 

 

 

That way and this way. Anyway this is sign of immaturity.

 

 

”I agree that realizing love is realizing the object of our love. But as stated earlier, I believe that CIT is ONE.

••-------- So there's no possibility to have ONENESS and LOVE simultaneously

 

 

Why? Don’t you love yourself?

 

 

”Who said it is not possible to speak and discuss?

••being ONE? how?”

 

 

You are naïve. You also agree that Krishna is ONE LORD. WE are within Him. How he speaks to Arjuna?

 

How your brain communicates to your brain?

 

And moreover, we are not in one ness yet.

 

 

 

”There has to be shrabana

••shravana is remembering.. one who remembers another”

 

 

You are naïve. You remember what you read.

 

 

”But arguing is fruitless because I will believe and do only that which the Lord has ordained.

••our arguing is to understand better what god has ordered.. i do not speak merely for the gratification to win a debate.. think also that there's many who read our discussion and maybe learn something”

 

 

Yes learning is the aim. But you argue for gratification only. You disregard all evidences of shruti. And there is not a point ever on which you say “I agree”. On the contrary you say: george bush is maha isvara just to argue that Krishna is not mahesvara of the Vedas and Upanishads but is a different entity.

 

 

 

 

”While arguing, ego gets the upper hand and harsh words result.

••it is up to us to discuss in a good way”

 

 

I agree. Provided when one agrees to leave ego aside and say “Yes, shruti says so”, when evidences are provided.

 

 

 

 

 

”Do you realize that you have blessed me?

••i have not blessed you.. Love is more nice than submerging, and it is more easy to achieve and eternal. Merging is almost impossible, it cannot be done if we do not consider krsna the supreme personality of godhead and, being active by nature, we fall after a while .... i have no power to bless anyone, but if i had it i would bless you to chant hare krsna mahamantra on regular basis everyday.”

 

 

 

 

It is like Christians saying that only Christ is the way and the light and the Lord. As if there is no other path. As if all paths of Upanishad are false paths. Upanishads gave the paths before Christ and before Gita.

 

 

A yogi, who is in union with the Supreme Being, sees every being with an equal eye because of perceiving the omnipresent Spirit abiding in all beings, and all beings abiding in the Supreme Being. (BG 6.29)

Those who perceive Me in everything, and behold everything in Me, are not separated from Me, and I am not separated from them. (BG 6.30)

 

 

Ayam atma brahma: Atman and brahman are the same

 

I wish that I could at least instill some questions in you.

 

Probably it is not possible.

 

Atanu

[Guest guest]

The clay is one but pots are many

••and absolute is both... clay (the brahman) and the pots (param atma and jivatmas)”

Correct. What is the source becomes the effect.

--brahman and param atma are source, not effect. In the absolute there's no difference.. all is source

 

This is true till Brahma loka and not beyond that. Read below. In the beginning of each kalpa the Self is all alone.

--we are not christians, we do not believe in creation from nothing. Everything exist eternally united and simultaneously separated inside god. So god is alone and various eternally and simultaneously.

 

Guest, understand this and you will be liberated.

--if i were god there were no need to liberate me

 

--Now if a man worships another deity, thinking the deity is one and he another, he does not know.

--who has said this? me?

 

Guest, with your belief you are a beast to the Devas and you are trying to make other so. Only Pasupati can liberate you.

--god is eternally liberated.. if there's the need for me to call pasupati to save me.. i am not god

 

”CIT itself is bliss

••CIT is consciousness”

Consciousness is bliss.

--and bliss is a rasagulla, so CIT means rasagulla.. agree?

 

One who believes in one ness can never say that variety is outside the absolute. Absolute is the variety.

--so there's eternal plurality of existence.. god and subordinates.. this is variety

 

” You also believe that CIT of our soul and CIT of GOD differ in quantitative manner. God’s CIT is bigger.

••bigger is a way to explain.. the thing is that our "CITness" comes from god's "CITness" and not the opposite”

Now CIT has become CITness.

--nothing more intelligent than this?

 

••i say in this way only if there's need... show me where i have said in that way and i will explain the reason or i will ask for excuses”

That way and this way. Anyway this is sign of immaturity.

--so solve your immaturity.. i wait

 

••-------- So there's no possibility to have ONENESS and LOVE simultaneously

Why? Don’t you love yourself?

••myself and others.. is god less than me that he can love only himself?

 

You are naïve. You also agree that Krishna is ONE LORD

--one and simultaneously various. God is omnipotent, he can be both things

 

How he speaks to Arjuna?

--speaking.. "bhagavan uvacha.. the blessed lord said) god can speak

 

How your brain communicates to your brain?

--my brain is not a person, he has not autonomy, it is me who, through the intelligence i am using the mind

 

Yes learning is the aim. But you argue for gratification only

--thanks.. you simply have no more arguments than insulting

 

You disregard all evidences of shruti.

--scriptures are to be taken as a whole and understood with the intelligence and logic

 

On the contrary you say: george bush is maha isvara just to argue that Krishna is not mahesvara of the Vedas and Upanishads but is a different entity.

--the fact that you have no more arguments is revealed by your obstinate playing with words. I have said that the word "isvara" is generically meaning "controller". So bush, at material level, is the isvara of the usa. In vedic scriptures tha word isvara is given to many manifestations of god and devas.. even sometime to devotees.

 

Provided when one agrees to leave ego aside and say “Yes, shruti says so”, when evidences are provided.

--i do not think that you have given evidences with scriptures that advaita is the right interpretation of absolute truth.

 

It is like Christians saying that only Christ is the way and the light and the Lord

--i am not offended to be called christian.. i have only recommended to chant the name of the lord.. are you against?

 

As if there is no other path. As if all paths of Upanishad are false paths. Upanishads gave the paths before Christ and before Gita.

--why are you saying wrong things about upanishads?

 

Those who perceive Me in everything, and behold everything in Me, are not separated from Me, and I am not separated from them. (BG 6.30)

--"those", "me", "perception".. three, not one. So this union is simultaneous to separation. Two lovers are the one thing because they're united in love, but they're also separated because from their being different the bliss comes. Is it difficult? two human lovers can do it, but ralized souls and god cannot do?

 

Ayam atma brahma: Atman and brahman are the same

--in a sense yes.. nothing is outside god, in another sense there's difference. Otherwise there's no bliss.

 

I wish that I could at least instill some questions in you.

Probably it is not possible.

--if your behaviour comes from your beliefs.....

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

"Ayam atma brahma: Atman and brahman are the same

--in a sense yes.. nothing is outside god, in another sense there's difference. Otherwise there's no bliss."

 

 

God is one. So He is not bliss, since He is oneness and alone -- as per you.

 

 

Br. Upanishad

 

Now if a man worships another deity, thinking the deity is one and he another, he does not know. To Devas they are beasts.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

"Now if a man worships another deity, thinking the deity is one and he another, he does not know."

 

of course... dvaita is not complete..advaita is not complete

 

both together they are complete..

 

acynthia beda abeda tattva... difference in quantity and non difference in quality

[Guest guest]

"Ayam atma brahma: Atman and brahman are the same

--in a sense yes.. nothing is outside god, in another sense there's difference. Otherwise there's no bliss."

 

 

God is one. So He is not bliss (as per you), since He is one.

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

acynthia beda abeda tattva... difference in quantity and non difference in quality

 

What is quantity of Sat?

 

Br. Upanishad

 

Now if a man worships another deity, thinking the deity is one and he another, he does not know.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

God is one. So He is not bliss (as per you), since He is one.

 

one and simultaneously various

 

he's various in the material world, so he's various necessarily in the spiritual one.. matter comes from spirit

[Guest guest]

acynthia beda abeda tattva... difference in quantity and non difference in quality

What is quantity of Sat?

 

quantity means that my being qualitatively god is given by the supreme not by myself

 

the demonstration is that i can fall prey of maya

[Guest guest]

"the demonstration is that i can fall prey of maya "

 

he's various in the material world, so he's various necessarily in the spiritual one.. matter comes from spirit "

 

 

You fall prey to Maya (your claim). So, how do you ascertain the reality of this world. Why do you not see the differentiated world in Turiya and dream less sleep. Why do you see variety in dream and waking states only.

 

What about those sages who remain in Turiya? Are they also Maya bound?

 

 

"quantity means that my being qualitatively god is given by the supreme not by myself"

 

Your above sentece i cannot understand. will you please explain?

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

"he's various in the material world, so he's various necessarily in the spiritual one.. matter comes from spirit "

 

Your above statement is gem. Yes, if there is variety in the material world then variety must be there in spiritual world.

 

But i have a nagging doubt. Is God not satisfied with the variety in the spiritual realm that He has to create this hate filled material diversity? What is the cause of this diversified material world which has sorrow, greed, and hate as characteristics?

 

Will you please enlighten me?

 

[Guest guest]

"You fall prey to Maya (your claim). So, how do you ascertain the reality of this world"

 

good question...

 

if i cannot find the reality, neither you can do it so we have to stop both talking..... but if we go on talking we have to use the logic,and the logic is that it is manifest that i am notthe supreme because i have now no supremacy at all over myself and the external world

 

i can be in maya, but i recognize that i exist....

 

i exist but existence is not under my control...

 

so i am not supreme... the existence itself is superior to me because for example you are living and i cannot have any power on yourself

[Guest guest]

"quantity means that my being qualitatively god is given by the supreme not by myself"

Your above sentece i cannot understand. will you please explain?

....

 

i am god...but my being god is given by someone else... so there's a "little", subordinate god, me... and a "big" supreme god who gives to me the features that i obviously have not created by myself

[Guest guest]

Is God not satisfied with the variety in the spiritual realm that He has to create this hate filled material diversity?

••no... matter is a service to us. We are free, but our freedom comes from god as all other aspect of existence. We live originally in the spiritual world, vaikunta.. some of us (inconceivably) choose freely to forget god and to illude our selves to be the supreme..

 

god agrees... he's humble, not a dictator

 

but we have not the power to forget and there's no place outside god.. so god makes us forget and he puts us in a world where all the features of the spiritual world are there, but in a shape, a way, that make us forget transcendence.

 

eternity is there, but it is turned in infinite births and deaths...variety is there, but it is not a source of bliss, but a source of pain,wars,hate and so on

 

karma is also eternity... action and reaction, and actions caused by these reactions without any possibility to stop and to get out free

 

this is the purpose of the material world...

 

we can get out only calling god at our help by expressing a little serious, desperate desire to be saved

 

then the religious process starts and invariably ends with the coming back to godhead

 

 

----

 

so this world exists because we want it

 

---

 

what do you think??

[Guest guest]

 

You say I am God, but my being is given by someone else

 

 

I do not understand where from this “my” arose in the first place. Did God will these numerous “my”?

 

How is this “my” different from God?

 

Then you have said: “some of us (inconceivably) choose freely to forget god and to illude our selves to be the supreme”

 

 

How these “some” arose. Who willed these “some”? And how these some could chose to think differently from God?

 

These “some” then wanted inferior existence for themselves and God agreed. This has created this world of wars, misery etc. Why God gives such permission?

 

As He is omnipotent, He could have easily satisfied the needs in the spiritual realm itself?

 

 

I do not know. I want to learn from you.

 

 

 

You say: “this is the purpose of the material world...”. I do not seem to grasp this. It seems there is no original cause.

 

When the result is agony and evil, why there should be “my” at all. Cannot God stop it at that stage itself?

 

 

The main question is: what is the cause for the “my”, which alone (as you have said) gives rise to all ills.

 

Yo have said: “so this world exists because we want it”

 

Again, why was “we” created. If “me” and “we” were not created but always existed then that would mean that within God there is always something ungodly. Is that so?

 

[Guest guest]

variety is the way of existence of the spiritual world.. by variety relationships are possible and from relationships ,, bliss

 

How these “some” arose.

••these "some" are eternal like the infinite souls who live eternally in the world of god

 

Who willed these “some”?

••god and his "parts" and "parcels" are simultaneous.... eternal

 

And how these some could chose to think differently from God?

••we are eternally independent... we can choose to remain with god.. we can choose to go away

 

These “some” then wanted inferior existence for themselves and God agreed. This has created this world of wars, misery etc. Why God gives such permission?

••to grant us freedom.... spiritual relationships are made by transcendental love... and for love freedom is necessary. And freedom gives the possibility to refuse love and eternity and choose death and misery

 

As He is omnipotent, He could have easily satisfied the needs in the spiritual realm itself?

••he's free and we are free... he do not want to force us or hypnothize us.We want to live without god? Ok... no god means no eternity and no eternity means death.

 

You say: “this is the purpose of the material world...”. I do not seem to grasp this. It seems there is no original cause.

••the original cause is our freedom.. we want to be free from god, a godless world is exactly like that

 

When the result is agony and evil, why there should be “my” at all. Cannot God stop it at that stage itself?

••individuality is eternal... because life is eternal... god actually gives us the possibility to stop all that stuff givin religions. We are free,we choose to go away and we choose to go back... and both directions are given by god

 

The main question is: what is the cause for the “my”, which alone (as you have said) gives rise to all ills.

••only a little number of souls come in this material universe to suffer. The true cause of individuality is bliss, and individuality is fully and freely developed in the spiritual world

 

If “me” and “we” were not created but always existed then that would mean that within God there is always something ungodly.

••you're not ungodly.. you are an eternal spiritual soul made of eternity, consciousness and bliss. When you come in the material world to experience the absence of god, is your material body who suffers, not your self. And this suffering helps you when some religion offers to you the possibilty to go back home to god. If you were happy you'd remain in the material world

[Guest guest]

Dear Guest,

 

I have continued my queries (that may be insignificant to you)in a new thread with an assumed name of Jigyasu. Will you please enlighten me there? I hope I am not bothering you.