Advaita Philosophy

[Guest guest]

Atanu, your response is without a doubt one of the most evasive, illogical, and inconsistent pieces of writing I have ever seen.

 

I really don't know what to say. You may have convinced yourself that you have some great philosophy here, but I can clearly see beneath your accusations and irrelevant banter that you have no real answers to the points raised.

 

It's also obvious to me that you have not studied the upaniShads you claim to be quoting.

 

Here is an example of something you consider to be really deep philosophy:

 

"There is no contradiction. The unreality of Maya is a reality and is eternal. The reality of Maya is unreality and is eternal. "

 

I'm sorry, but flowery words and pretty slogans do not a philosophy make.

 

Since it's obvious you are not prepared to have a serious discussion, I will leave you to your verbal circus. I'm sure Barney and others whose attention spans are about 2 seconds actually think you have something deep here. You will have to pardon me for excusing myself, however, because with "arguments" like yours, I'm having a much harder time taking you seriously.

 

Thinking is necessary. VedAnta is not for sentimentalists, but for people who are prepared to think. It is unfortunate that the self-proclaimed Advaitins on this forum have diligently refused to do this, which is why this discussion simply cannot proceed. All of this goes to show that Advaita's fragility is masked by the desire of its proponents to attack its detractors, to knock down strawmen, and to rely on flowery words that sound good on paper but mean nothing in reality. Hence, this is not a thinking man's philosophy.

 

Raghu

 

 

[atanu 0]

To Dear Raghu

 

 

Raghu Ji Gita is the source of Advaita. You may try to mis-translate a few verses but you cannot do it for all verses that I reproduce below. If you do not agree it is because your mind is ego bound with gunas of pride and you do not want to accept.

 

 

Bhagwan has said the followings:

 

By devotion one truly understands what and who I am in essence. Having known Me in essence, one immediately merges into Me. (18.55)

 

And Raghu Ji what Krishna is in essence?

 

bhokt˜raÕ yajñatapas˜Õ

sarvalokamahesvaram |

suh®daÕ sarvabh¨t˜n˜Õ

jñ˜tv˜ m˜Õ þ˜ntim®cchati

om tatsaditi þrŸmad bhagavadgŸt˜s¨paniÿatsu

brahmavidy˜y˜Õ yogaþ˜stre þrŸk®ÿõ˜rjunasaÕv˜de

sanny˜sayogo n˜ma pañcamo'dhy˜ya× ( 5|29)||

Please note: sarvalokamahesvaram

 

Bhagavad-gita 13.23

 

 

upadrastanumanta ca

bharta bhokta mahesvarah

paramatmeti capy ukto

dehe 'smin purusah parah

 

Translation: "In this body there is transcendental enjoyer who is the Lord, the supreme proprietor, who exists as the overseer and permitter, and who is known as the Mahesvarah "

 

 

Also read below to know that Krishna is none other than Mahesvara.

 

yo mam ajam anadim ca vetti loka-mahesvaram

asammudhah sa martyesu sarva-papaih pramucyate

 

He alone who knows Me as unborn, beginningless, and as Mahesvara, the Supreme Controller of all the worlds, is undeluded among mortals and freed from all sins

 

 

Brahman is the oblation. Brahman is the clarified butter. The oblation is poured by Brahman into the fire of Brahman. Brahman shall be realized by the one who considers everything as (a manifestation or) an act of Brahman. (4.24)

 

Knowing that, O Arjuna, you shall not again get deluded like this. By this knowledge you shall behold the entire creation in your own Self/Lord, or in Brahman. (4.35)

 

 

 

One who finds happiness with the Self, who rejoices the Self within, and who is illuminated by the Self-knowledge; such a yogi becomes one with Brahman and attains supreme nirvana. (5.24).

 

Note: such a yogi becomes one with Brahman and attains supreme nirvana.

 

 

The non-dualists, who adore Me as abiding in all beings, abide in Me irrespective of their mode of living. (6.31).

 

The imperishable Supreme Self, being beginningless and without Gunas, though dwelling in the body (as Atma) neither does anything nor gets tainted, O Arjuna. (13.31)

 

Atma in the body is My eternal indivisible fragment indeed. Atma gets bound (or attached, and is called Jeevaatma) due to superimposition or association with the six sensory faculties, including the mind, of perception. (15.07)

 

Please note: Atma becomes jivatma by association with sensory faculties

 

As the air takes away the aroma from the source (or flower), similarly Atma takes the six sensory faculties from the physical body it casts off (during death) to the (new physical) body it acquires (in reincarnation by the power of Karma). (15.08)

 

Relinquishing egotism, violence, pride, lust, anger, and desire for possession; free from the notion of "my", and peaceful; one becomes fit for attaining oneness with Brahman. (18.53)

 

 

 

One who finds happiness with the Self, who rejoices the Self within, and who is illuminated by the Self-knowledge; such a yogi becomes one with Brahman and attains supreme nirvana. (5.24).

 

 

Please note “---such a yogi becomes one with Brahman and attains supreme nirvana”.

 

 

Please also note:

 

 

The non-dualists, who adore Me as abiding in all beings, abide in Me irrespective of their mode of living. (6.31).

 

 

My logic may be faulty but Krishna the Mahesvara cannot be wrong.

 

 

Atanu

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

[yawn] Here we go again. Let's remind ourselves of a few basic facts

 

 

Raghu Ji Gita is the source of Advaita.

 

 

Not true. There is no Advaita in the Gita. I've studied it in the original Sanskrit. Have you?

 

 

You may try to mis-translate a few verses

 

 

You do not even know Sanskrit, so I fail to see how you can accuse anyone of mistranslating anything.

 

 

but you cannot do it for all verses that I reproduce below.

 

 

You have not quoted any verses, just English statements which you allege to be translations of some Gita verses. Anyway, you don't know one way or another since, as previously mentioned, you don't know Sanskrit.

 

 

If you do not agree it is because your mind is ego bound with gunas of pride and you do not want to accept.

 

 

 

Right. Like I said, this is the defense of Advaita. "This is obviously true and if you can't accept it, it is because you are so proud, etc etc"

 

Sounds familiar? This is fanaticism.

 

Raghu

 

[Guest guest]

Raghu Ji Gita is the source of Advaita.......

By devotion one truly understands what and who I am in essence. Having known Me in essence, one immediately merges into Me. (18.55)

•••bhaktya mam abhijanati

yavan yas casmi tattvatah

tato mam tattvato jnatva

visate tad-anantaram

 

SYNONYMS

bhaktya--by pure devotional service; mam--Me; abhijanati--one can know; yavan--as much as; yah ca asmi--as I am; tattvatah--in truth; tatah--thereafter; mam--Me; tattvatah--by truth; jnatva--knowing; visate--enters; tat-anantaram--thereafter.

 

TRANSLATION

One can understand the Supreme Personality as He is only by devotional service. And when one is in full consciousness of the Supreme Lord by such devotion, he can enter into the kingdom of God.

 

bhakti and merging cannot stand together... love means that two persons are different individuals and they relationate

 

---

Also read below to know that Krishna is none other than Mahesvara.

•••

 

upadrastanumanta ca

bharta bhokta mahesvarah

paramatmeti capy ukto

dehe 'smin purusah parah

 

SYNONYMS

upadrasta--overseer; anumanta--permitter; ca--also; bharta--master; bhokta--supreme enjoyer; maha-isvarah--the Supreme Lord; parama-atma--Supersoul; iti--also; ca--and; api uktah--is said; dehe--in this body; asmin--this; purusah--enjoyer; parah--transcendental.

 

TRANSLATION

Yet in this body there is another, a transcendental enjoyer who is the Lord, the supreme proprietor, who exists as the overseer and permitter, and who is known as the Supersoul.

 

mahesvara means maha isvara.. great lord.. this is a name who si perfectly fit for krsna

---

 

yo 'ntah-sukho 'ntar-aramas

tathantar-jyotir eva yah

sa yogi brahma-nirvanam

brahma-bhuto 'dhigacchati

 

SYNONYMS

yah--one who; antah-sukhah--happy from within; antah-aramah--active within; tatha--as well as; antah-jyotih--aiming within; eva--certainly; yah--anyone; sah--he; yogi--mystic; brahma-nirvanam--liberated in the Supreme; brahma-bhutah--self-realized; adhigacchati--attains.

 

TRANSLATION

One whose happiness is within, who is active within, who rejoices within and is illumined within, is actually the perfect mystic. He is liberated in the Supreme, and ultimately he attains the Supreme.

 

..if you see the bhagavad gita as the whole you easily understand in this way

---

The non-dualists, who adore Me as abiding in all beings, abide in Me irrespective of their mode of living. (6.31).

My logic may be faulty but Krishna the Mahesvara cannot be wrong.

 

Chapter 6. Sankhya-yoga

 

TEXT 31

 

sarva-bhuta-sthitam yo mam

bhajaty ekatvam asthitah

sarvatha vartamano 'pi

sa yogi mayi vartate

 

SYNONYMS

sarva-bhuta-sthitam--situated in everyone's heart; yah--he who; mam--unto Me; bhajati--serves in devotional service; ekatvam--oneness; asthitah--thus situated; sarvatha--in all respects; varta-manah--being situated; api--in spite of; sah--he; yogi--transcendentalist; mayi--unto Me; vartate--remains.

 

TRANSLATION

The yogi who knows that I and the Supersoul within all creatures are one worships Me and remains always in Me in all circumstances.

 

(gaudya vaishnavas are not dualist)

--

Chapter 18. Conclusion--The Perfection of Renunciation

 

TEXT 66

 

sarva-dharman parityajya

mam ekam saranam vraja

aham tvam sarva-papebhyo

moksayisyami ma sucah

 

SYNONYMS

sarva-dharman--all varieties of religion; parityajya--abandoning; mam--unto Me; ekam--only; saranam--surrender; vraja--go; aham--I; tvam--you; sarva--all; papebhyah--from sinful reactions; moksayisyami--deliver; ma--not; sucah--worry.

 

TRANSLATION

Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear.

 

how can you give an advaitist interpretation to such verse?

[atanu 0]

“Dear Atanu, you are still illiterate”

 

 

Dear Raghu,

 

I will prefer to remain illiterate rather than become deluded and dumb.

 

In reply to:

 

Rghu Ji Gita is the source of Advaita.

You say:

Not true. There is no Advaita in the Gita. I've studied it in the original Sanskrit. Have you?

 

 

My comment:

 

 

Your logic sense I admire.

 

Friends just see this. There is no Advaita in the Gita. I've studied it in the original Sanskrit.

 

 

Since, Raghu ji has studied Gita in original Sanskrit, so there is no advaita in the Gita.

 

 

 

 

 

In reply to:

 

You may try to mis-translate a few verses

 

You say:

You do not even know Sanskrit, so I fail to see how you can accuse anyone of mistranslating anything.

 

My comment:

It is the hallmark of some and not you. You quote those. And since I do not know Sanskrit how will I know that you have not mis lead me? So, I prefer to refer to use many translations and compare them.

 

By this process of comparison, it has been seen and demonstrated earlier, that interpolations and especially created purports are hallmark of some translations. Since, I do not know Sanskrit, I avoid them like bugs.

 

 

In reply to:

 

but you cannot do it for all verses that I reproduce below.

You have not quoted any verses, just English statements which you allege to be translations of some Gita verses. Anyway, you don't know one way or another since, as previously mentioned, you don't know Sanskrit.

 

I say:

The purport of your stock reply is: ”Atanu you don’t know Sanskrit. So, Advaita is wrong”

 

 

You have called me fanatic. It is much better than being called a RASCAL. I saw this word also in this forum recently. If in public, you are calling me fanatic, then what you are doing privately or in your mind I cannot imagine.

 

Baby cool down.

 

[atanu 0]

My reference

 

By devotion one truly understands what and who I am in essence. Having known Me in essence, one immediately merges into Me. (18.55)

 

 

Your reference

•••bhaktya mam abhijanati

yavan yas casmi tattvatah

tato mam tattvato jnatva

visate tad-anantaram

 

SYNONYMS

bhaktya--by pure devotional service; mam--Me; abhijanati--one can know; yavan--as much as; yah ca asmi--as I am; tattvatah--in truth; tatah--thereafter; mam--Me; tattvatah--by truth; jnatva--knowing; visate--enters; tat-anantaram--thereafter.

 

TRANSLATION

One can understand the Supreme Personality as He is only by devotional service. And when one is in full consciousness of the Supreme Lord by such devotion, he can enter into the kingdom of God.

 

bhakti and merging cannot stand together... love means that two persons are different individuals and they relationate”

 

 

 

 

My question

 

Show where the Kingdom word in the translation has come from.

 

I have joined the synonyms below:

 

 

by pure devotional service; Me; one can know; as much as; as I am; in truth; thereafter; Me; by truth; knowing; enters; thereafter

 

 

Unbiased readers may please like to parse the pieces and compare guest's (oops SP’s translation and the translation given by me.

 

 

 

 

Your interpretation

 

“upadrastanumanta ca

bharta bhokta mahesvarah

paramatmeti capy ukto

dehe 'smin purusah parah

 

SYNONYMS

upadrasta--overseer; anumanta--permitter; ca--also; bharta--master; bhokta--supreme enjoyer; maha-isvarah--the Supreme Lord; parama-atma--Supersoul; iti--also; ca--and; api uktah--is said; dehe--in this body; asmin--this; purusah--enjoyer; parah--transcendental.

 

TRANSLATION

Yet in this body there is another, a transcendental enjoyer who is the Lord, the supreme proprietor, who exists as the overseer and permitter, and who is known as the Supersoul.

 

 

 

 

mahesvara means maha isvara.. great lord.. this is a name who si perfectly fit for krsna”

 

 

My comment:

 

No problem here from my side. But I also know that you have hierarchy in mind.

 

 

So, this mahesvara is not the Mahesvara that I know, Isn’t it?

 

 

How can there be two Mahesvaras? So, Mahesvara of Vedas and Upanishads is Maya.

 

 

Your interpretation

 

”yo 'ntah-sukho 'ntar-aramas

tathantar-jyotir eva yah

sa yogi brahma-nirvanam

brahma-bhuto 'dhigacchati

 

SYNONYMS

yah--one who; antah-sukhah--happy from within; antah-aramah--active within; tatha--as well as; antah-jyotih--aiming within; eva--certainly; yah--anyone; sah--he; yogi--mystic; brahma-nirvanam--liberated in the Supreme; brahma-bhutah--self-realized; adhigacchati--attains.

 

TRANSLATION

One whose happiness is within, who is active within, who rejoices within and is illumined within, is actually the perfect mystic. He is liberated in the Supreme, and ultimately he attains the Supreme.

 

..if you see the bhagavad gita as the whole you easily understand in this way”

 

 

My comment:

 

This is excellent. One who knows that there is Mahesvara within, where is the cause of unhappiness for him?

 

 

 

I had reproduced

 

The non-dualists, who adore Me as abiding in all beings, abide in Me irrespective of their mode of living. (6.31).

My logic may be faulty but Krishna the Mahesvara cannot be wrong.

 

 

 

Your reference

 

“Chapter 6. Sankhya-yoga

 

TEXT 31

 

sarva-bhuta-sthitam yo mam

bhajaty ekatvam asthitah

sarvatha vartamano 'pi

sa yogi mayi vartate

 

SYNONYMS

sarva-bhuta-sthitam--situated in everyone's heart; yah--he who; mam--unto Me; bhajati--serves in devotional service; ekatvam--oneness; asthitah--thus situated; sarvatha--in all respects; varta-manah--being situated; api--in spite of; sah--he; yogi--transcendentalist; mayi--unto Me; vartate--remains.

 

TRANSLATION

The yogi who knows that I and the Supersoul within all creatures are one worships Me and remains always in Me in all circumstances.

 

(gaudya vaishnavas are not dualist)”

 

 

My comment:

 

I know gaudya vaishnavas are not dualists. You are the same Bheda-Abheda. We had discussed a lot. But you started calling me Asura.

 

 

But the truth is one. The truth cannot be Bheda at some time and Abheda at some other time. What is finally Abheda cannot be Bheda if not by Maya.

 

 

But why do not you argue with pure Bhedas?

 

Because, like you they also hold Krishna-Visnu as the Supreme; because the arguments stem not from logic or love for the Supreme but from faith that Visnu or Shiva is Supreme. Faith is good but it is in the mind and has to be transcended.

 

 

 

 

Your reference:

--

”Chapter 18. Conclusion--The Perfection of Renunciation

 

TEXT 66

 

sarva-dharman parityajya

mam ekam saranam vraja

aham tvam sarva-papebhyo

moksayisyami ma sucah

 

SYNONYMS

sarva-dharman--all varieties of religion; parityajya--abandoning; mam--unto Me; ekam--only; saranam--surrender; vraja--go; aham--I; tvam--you; sarva--all; papebhyah--from sinful reactions; moksayisyami--deliver; ma--not; sucah--worry.

 

TRANSLATION

Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear.

 

how can you give an advaitist interpretation to such verse?”

 

 

My comment:

 

“Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear. “

 

 

What is non-advaitic about it? Advaitins consider Gita in Total to be an exposition of Advaita only.

 

 

Why do you think that when I surrender to Krishna knowing Him to be the supreme (OK not my Mahesvara but your maha iswara only), I violate Advaita? This logic escapes me.

 

 

 

Many devotees who have submitted to Mahesvara (my Mahesvara) may be dualists or advaitins. How does submission contradict Advaita or prove dualism.

 

 

Bhagwan has also said:

 

One who finds happiness with the Self, who rejoices the Self within, and who is illuminated by the Self-knowledge; such a yogi becomes one with Brahman and attains supreme nirvana. (5.24).

 

 

 

And finally guest ji,

 

It also escapes my logic that how can there be two Mahesvaras?

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

mahesvara means maha isvara.. great lord.. this is a name who si perfectly fit for krsna”

My comment:

No problem here from my side. But I also know that you have hierarchy in mind.

••hyerarchy or not... krsna is surely maha isvara

 

So, this mahesvara is not the Mahesvara that I know, Isn’t it?

How can there be two Mahesvaras? So, Mahesvara of Vedas and Upanishads is Maya.

••in this context krsna is speaking.. he's called sri bhagavan.. i do not see any other maha isvara in this context

 

But the truth is one. The truth cannot be Bheda at some time and Abheda at some other time. What is finally Abheda cannot be Bheda if not by Maya.

••this is word jugglery.. put the word "acynthya" before abheda and use a little logic... the reality cannot be dvaita, because god is everything.. but the reality cannot be advaita, because there's a clear distinction between us and supreme.. we can be illuded by maya, he is the source of maya's energy

 

maybe we will understand better when we will be realized, but, for now, this is without doubt the truth

 

--

Why do you think that when I surrender to Krishna knowing Him to be the supreme (OK not my Mahesvara but your maha iswara only), I violate Advaita? This logic escapes me.

••because surrendering is opposite of merging... there's the action of surrendering, that is gradual and done through the procedure of karma(+bhakti) yoga, there's the subject krsna and the subject arjuna or the individual soul.... so there's three elements, not one element

 

Many devotees who have submitted to Mahesvara (my Mahesvara) may be dualists or advaitins. How does submission contradict Advaita or prove dualism.

••again.. if you merge you cannot be submissive, simply because there's no more one to be submissed of

 

It also escapes my logic that how can there be two Mahesvaras?

••this word can be used in many context... great chief, or great controller is not an intimate name like govinda, gopala, syamasundara and so on. It is clear that the maha isvara of the gita is krsna, called, for example, also bhagavan. In other context we will see.. in the american government context, the maha isvara is george bush

 

be serious, do something for your spiritual life

[atanu 0]

“mahesvara means maha isvara.. great lord.. this is a name who si perfectly fit for krsna”

My comment:

No problem here from my side. But I also know that you have hierarchy in mind.

••hyerarchy or not... krsna is surely maha isvara”

 

 

 

krsna is surely maha isvara --- Yes He is.

 

 

 

”So, this mahesvara is not the Mahesvara that I know, Isn’t it?

How can there be two Mahesvaras? So, Mahesvara of Vedas and Upanishads is Maya.

••in this context krsna is speaking.. he's called sri bhagavan.. i do not see any other maha isvara in this context”

 

----in the american government context, the maha isvara is george bush”

 

 

So, Krishna is maha isvara in the context of Gita only? So, while in USA you have to submit to George Bush in order to gain heaven. You don’t know what you think and speak.

 

 

 

 

 

 

“But the truth is one. The truth cannot be Bheda at some time and Abheda at some other time. What is finally Abheda cannot be Bheda if not by Maya.

••this is word jugglery.. put the word "acynthya" before abheda and use a little logic... the reality cannot be dvaita, because god is everything.. but the reality cannot be advaita, because there's a clear distinction between us and supreme.. we can be illuded by maya, he is the source of maya's energy

 

maybe we will understand better when we will be realized, but, for now, this is without doubt the truth”

 

 

True, we will know (not understand) when we realize Mahesvara within. But Krishna saya those who are in doubt can not attain Me. And "acynthya" is such a doubt. We do not have any doubt.

 

One does not understand on attaining Self Realization. One simply knows.

 

 

You concede: “the reality cannot be dvaita, because god is everything” . If God is everything then where is the difference, in God?

 

 

 

--

”Why do you think that when I surrender to Krishna knowing Him to be the supreme (OK not my Mahesvara but your maha iswara only), I violate Advaita? This logic escapes me.

••because surrendering is opposite of merging... there's the action of surrendering, that is gradual and done through the procedure of karma(+bhakti) yoga, there's the subject krsna and the subject arjuna or the individual soul.... so there's three elements, not one element”

 

 

 

Who said merging here? Your weak links are so open. You jump to words that have not been used. Without submission, God cannot be attained.

 

 

The level of our submission is supreme. While being a dasa you still feel with pride that I am serving the Lord. Whereas the Lord clearly says: all acts are acts of Gunas. So, although you are acting impelled by Sattwik Guna (which no doubt is best), you still believe that you are serving and that goes against Krishna’s teachings.

 

 

Those who have completed their Karma/Bhakti in this or previous lives can go to Jnana yoga. Lord says yogis remain in Him.

 

I will use your translation:

 

sarva-bhuta-sthitam yo mam

bhajaty ekatvam asthitah

sarvatha vartamano 'pi

sa yogi mayi vartate

 

SYNONYMS

sarva-bhuta-sthitam--situated in everyone's heart; yah--he who; mam--unto Me; bhajati--serves in devotional service; ekatvam--oneness; asthitah--thus situated; sarvatha--in all respects; varta-manah--being situated; api--in spite of; sah--he; yogi--transcendentalist; mayi--unto Me; vartate--remains.

 

TRANSLATION

The yogi who knows that I and the Supersoul within all creatures are one worships Me and remains always in Me in all circumstances.

 

 

Note “Remains always in me”. Krishna does not say that yogi surrenders at my feet and remains separate from me.

 

 

One who finds happiness with the Self, who rejoices the Self within, and who is illuminated by the Self-knowledge; such a yogi becomes one with Brahman and attains supreme nirvana. (5.24).

 

 

 

 

Bhagwan has said that He resides within everyone as Self. So, if after knowing the non-self nature of Aham and giving up pride-hatred etc., I surrender to the Self then am I violating the teachings?

 

 

 

10.20 I am the Self, O Gudakesa, dwelling in the hearts of all beings. I am the beginning and the middle and the end of all beings

 

 

15.5 The uneluded, those who are free from pride and ignorance, who have overcome the evil of attachment, who are ever devoted to the Self, who have turned away from desires and are entirely beyond the dualities of pleasure and pain, attain that imperishable state.

 

One who finds happiness with the Self, who rejoices the Self within, and who is illuminated by the Self-knowledge; such a yogi becomes one with Brahman and attains supreme nirvana. (5.24).

 

 

Please do not deride others who are also following Gita. You deride none but the Lord himself.

 

 

 

“Many devotees who have submitted to Mahesvara (my Mahesvara) may be dualists or advaitins. How does submission contradict Advaita or prove dualism.

••again.. if you merge you cannot be submissive, simply because there's no more one to be submissed of”

 

 

 

Again there is a proof of your biased mind. Where is the word merged above?

 

 

 

 

 

“It also escapes my logic that how can there be two Mahesvaras?

••this word can be used in many context... great chief, or great controller is not an intimate name like govinda, gopala, syamasundara and so on. It is clear that the maha isvara of the gita is krsna, called, for example, also bhagavan. In other context we will see.. in the american government context, the maha isvara is george bush”

 

 

Ha. George Bush also become maha iswarah from being president of America. Your understanding ------------.

 

 

When Lord says He is Mahesvara he also says that He is eternal. Are you an Indian? Or are you a neophyte non-Hindu, Iswarah word cannot be used lightly and in a limited context only.

 

 

 

”be serious, do something for your spiritual life”

 

 

One cannot but be serious about your lapses and your potential to misguide.

 

 

 

 

You have not enlightened me as to why you do not argue with pure dualists?

 

 

[Guest guest]

----in the american government context, the maha isvara is george bush”

So, Krishna is maha isvara in the context of Gita only? So, while in USA you have to submit to George Bush in order to gain heaven. You don’t know what you think and speak.

•••from this behaviour i see that you have not interest in spiritual consciousness but you like to debate and gratify your ego believing to have some dialectic capacity

 

True, we will know (not understand) when we realize Mahesvara within

••sorry... but you are not a mahesvara who will realize to be mahesvara,, if you were mahesvara you'd have nothing to realize

 

But Krishna saya those who are in doubt can not attain Me. And "acynthya" is such a doubt. We do not have any doubt.

••acynthia is not a doubt.. acynthia means incomprensible for human minds. If we do not cultivate love for krsna we sitck on human mind.. for now it is enough to say that reality is both dual and not dual... and it is a very simple and basic logic

 

One does not understand on attaining Self Realization. One simply knows.

••word jugglery... now you do non know, tomorrow you know, between today and tomorrow you have understood. But there's another option: if you feel that explanations and understanding are useless... stop debating and giving your opinion. Wait for realization and shut up

 

You concede: “the reality cannot be dvaita, because god is everything” . If God is everything then where is the difference, in God?

••if god is everything, also variety is contained in this "everyhting".... your everything is more colose to a "nothing" than a true everything. Do not blaspheme god, god is bhagavan, he possess everything

 

Without submission, God cannot be attained

••and submission means two persons and an actions.. so, again, no oneness in your sense

 

While being a dasa you still feel with pride that I am serving the Lord

••wrong.. if you serve with pride you are serving your pride not the lord... actually you are not serving (from where you get informations?)

 

Whereas the Lord clearly says: all acts are acts of Gunas.

••but not the acting in favor of the lord.. devotional service is no more in the realm of illusion.. listen to krsna: "surrender.. i will protect you from the reactions.." no more maya, no more karma, no more prakriti. Again you are blaspheming god saying that in spiritual realm there's no action

 

Those who have completed their Karma/Bhakti in this or previous lives can go to Jnana yoga. Lord says yogis remain in Him.

••add bhakti before yogis and you'll have the solution.. remember that bhagavad gita ends with bhakti, not with jnana yoga.. and arjuna choose the way of bhakti, he acts like he was a materialist, but he devote all himself and his actions to krsna. So bhakti+karma yoga, that is not karma yoga, but devotion throug action in the transcendence

 

TRANSLATION

The yogi who knows that I and the Supersoul within all creatures are one worships Me and remains always in Me in all circumstances.

Note “Remains always in me”. Krishna does not say that yogi surrenders at my feet and remains separate from me.

••read bhagavad gita as a whole, and you will understand that remain in me means in spiritual consciousness.. and spiritual consciousness is surrendering. United with krsna, but also separated to have blissful relationships, love, pleasure and so on

 

So, if after knowing the non-self nature of Aham and giving up pride-hatred etc., I surrender to the Self then am I violating the teachings?

••if you feel to be identificated with the supreme self, if you feel that a parcel of god, your self, can die to merge in the whole you are in illusion and you have not gave up pride. humble is who recognize the supremacy of god and surrenders

 

Please do not deride others who are also following Gita. You deride none but the Lord himself.

••so you are admitting that you are feeling to be god

 

Iswarah word cannot be used lightly and in a limited context only.

••this is your misconception... isvara is no a primary name of the lord and indicates supremacy... sometimes siva is called isvara, sometimes vishnu, sometimes also radhe... and there's a name of krsna who is isvara of the isvaras... of course this is not exactly the correct sanskrit

 

One cannot but be serious about your lapses and your potential to misguide.

••i am waiting for you to correct me and giving me a sufficient demosntration of my mistakes...

 

You have not enlightened me as to why you do not argue with pure dualists?

••sincerely i have no intention to enlighten you... i am only answering because this forum is public and many other unfortunate people can read your concoctions and blaspheming towards krsna bhagavan

[Guest guest]

the advaitist aspects found in bhagavad gita have nothing to do with the current advaita schools, in gita the fact that we can have more preference in seeing god pervasive instead of personal, is not a justification to believe that krsna is not the supreme or worse, that he's an illusory form

 

there's no negation of krsna as bhagavan in the gita

[Guest guest]

"the advaitist aspects found in bhagavad gita have nothing to do with the current advaita schools, in gita the fact that we can have more preference in seeing god pervasive instead of personal, is not a justification to believe that krsna is not the supreme or worse, that he's an illusory form

 

there's no negation of krsna as bhagavan in the gita "

 

 

 

Maya in Advaita is not illusion which means non-existence. It means that the grade of reality of Brahman is supreme and the grade of reality of Universe is below that of reality of Brahman.

 

The effect of this Maya makes us to see Universe as all but forget the underlying all pervasive Brahman.

 

 

When Bhagwan says in Gita that He is the Supreme (and you may not know but this is also stated in Rig Veda) and when Advaitins consider Gita as an authorative and indispensable document, where is the scope of negating Krishna?

 

 

Atanu

[Guest guest]

ask it to the advaitins

[Guest guest]

I am one

 

atanu

[Guest guest]

so enjoy your oneness

[Guest guest]

 

“----in the american government context, the maha isvara is george bush”

•••from this behaviour i see that you have not interest in spiritual consciousness but you like to debate and gratify your ego believing to have some dialectic capacity”

 

 

You only said “Bush is maha iswarah in the american context and Krishna in Gita context”.

 

There is one who is seeking ego gratification and that is not me. Rather I am alone in keeping cool.

 

 

5.29 Bhoktaaram yajnatapasaam sarvaloka maheshwaram;

Suhridam sarvabhootaanaam jnaatwaa maam shaantim ricchati.

29. He who knows Me as the enjoyer of sacrifices and austerities, the great Lord of all the worlds and the friend of all beings, attains to peace

9.11 Avajaananti maam moodhaah maanusheem tanumaashritam;

Param bhaavamajaananto mama bhootamaheshwaram.

 

9.11. Fools disregard Me, clad in human form, not knowing My higher Being as the great Lord of (all) beings.

10.3 Yo maamajamanaadim cha vetti lokamaheshwaram;

Asammoodhah sa martyeshu sarvapaapaih pramuchyate.

10.3. He who knows Me as unborn and beginningless, as the great Lord of the worlds, he, among mortals, is undeluded; he is liberated from all sins.

13.23 Upadrashtaanumantaa cha bhartaa bhoktaa maheshwarah;

Paramaatmeti chaapyukto dehe’smin purushah parah.

13.23. The Supreme Soul in this body is also called the spectator, the permitter, the supporter, the enjoyer, the great Lord and the Supreme Self.

 

 

In all above verses Lord identifies Himself with maheswaram – the Supreme Lord of the worlds. I say He identifies because deluded may think Him as body alone. This is supported

 

9.11. Fools disregard Me, clad in human form, not knowing My higher Being as the great Lord of (all) beings.

To above verses, for some unexplicable motive you have said the followings, equating bush , Krishna, maheswram.

 

 

“.. mahesvara means maha isvara.. great lord.. this is a name who si perfectly fit for krsna”

“••in this context krsna is speaking.. he's called sri bhagavan.. i do not see any other maha isvara in this context”

“••this word can be used in many context... great chief, or great controller is not an intimate name like govinda, gopala, syamasundara and so on. It is clear that the maha isvara of the gita is krsna, called, for example, also bhagavan. In other context we will see.. in the american government context, the maha isvara is george bush”

 

 

Now please see the following from Brahma Samhita to learn Sambhu and Krishna (Maha Vishnu) are not different.

 

 

Saktiman (joined to his sakti-female consort), Maheshvar- the great

Lord who is linga rupi. The lord of the world MahaVishnu is

manifest in Him.

 

 

 

I am very serious. I am a unifier whereas you are indeed an asura – bent upon differentiation.

 

 

Also read from Rig Veda

 

“RV Book 1

 

10 Aditi is the heaven, Aditi is mid-air, Aditi is the Mother and the Sire and Son.

Aditi is all Gods, Aditi five-classed men, Aditi all that hath been born and shall be born.

 

 

Book 2 HYMN XLIII. Rudra.

 

1 --------

2 That Aditi may grant the grace of Rudra to our folk, our kine, Our cattle and our progeny;

 

 

Uma-Rudra is the origin, everything manifests within.

 

 

 

 

“True, we will know (not understand) when we realize Mahesvara within

••sorry... but you are not a mahesvara who will realize to be mahesvara,, if you were mahesvara you'd have nothing to realize”

 

 

No one has claimed to be Mahesvara. I said we will know what Nirvana is when we realize (see with inner eye) Mahesvara within. Krishna says that HE resides within everyone.

 

 

 

 

 

“But Krishna saya those who are in doubt can not attain Me. And "acynthya" is such a doubt. We do not have any doubt.

••acynthia is not a doubt.. acynthia means incomprensible for human minds. If we do not cultivate love for krsna we sitck on human mind.. for now it is enough to say that reality is both dual and not dual... and it is a very simple and basic logic”

 

 

 

Very simple and basic is that grade of truth of Brahman is higher than the grade of truth of duality. Like various shapes of clay pots superimpose on clay and uninformed think that the pots are real and do not know about the clay that sources the pots. Clay is eternal whereas shapes of pots come and go.

 

Rest is all acynthia.

 

 

 

“One does not understand on attaining Self Realization. One simply knows.

••word jugglery... now you do non know, tomorrow you know, between today and tomorrow you have understood. But there's another option: if you feel that explanations and understanding are useless... stop debating and giving your opinion. Wait for realization and shut up”

 

 

Not word jugglery. Scriptures say it and realized souls tell that impure mind attached to objects does not go there. Gita says it --- “beyond intellect”. And thoughts are objects. You can understand many things but not Brahman. Sorry.

 

 

 

-------“stop debating and giving your opinion. Wait for realization and shut up”

 

 

Advice applies to you appropriately. It is not your thread that I have entered. How can you shut me up? It only shows your insolence.

 

 

 

 

“You concede: “the reality cannot be dvaita, because god is everything” . If God is everything then where is the difference, in God?

••if god is everything, also variety is contained in this "everyhting".... your everything is more colose to a "nothing" than a true everything. Do not blaspheme god, god is bhagavan, he possess everything”

 

 

You say: “god is everything, also variety is contained in this "everything” So, the variety of ills that we see in this world -- I will not name them, are also contained within Him?

 

 

 

 

“Without submission, God cannot be attained

••and submission means two persons and an actions.. so, again, no oneness in your sense”

 

 

Yes, two persons to start with but a purified soul becomes one with Him after losing all upadhis.

 

One who finds happiness with the Self, who rejoices the Self within, and who is illuminated by the Self-knowledge; such a yogi becomes one with Brahman and attains supreme nirvana. (5.24).

 

 

 

“While being a dasa you still feel with pride that I am serving the Lord

••wrong.. if you serve with pride you are serving your pride not the lord... actually you are not serving (from where you get informations? ••but not the acting in favor of the lord.. devotional service is no more in the realm of illusion.. listen to krsna: "surrender.. i will protect you from the reactions.." no more maya, no more karma, no more prakriti. Again you are blaspheming god saying that in spiritual realm there's no action.”

 

 

You know “blaspheming” is a very strong word. If it is not true I am sure it will turn back on you. Intentional blaspheming is the greatest sin and I do not do it. I hope your better sense will prevail.

 

 

Regarding the above point: Yes acting in His love is the best of Sattva guna (that I have already said). But the feeling “I am serving” is not the appropriate since Lord says all actions are done by Prakriti controlled by HIM. The feeling that I am serving is keeping the ego alive.

 

 

Bhakti as “I am servant of Lord is best but still it contradicts Krishna’s teaching that all works are done by the Prakriti.

 

You say:

 

“actually you are not serving (from where you get informations?)”

 

 

Yes. I am not serving Him. I know that every bit of work that I seem to do He only does. So, how can I serve Him? The truth is that it is His sacrifice and not ours. Actually He serves us and we are deluded that we are serving Him.

 

 

 

“Those who have completed their Karma/Bhakti in this or previous lives can go to Jnana yoga. Lord says yogis remain in Him.

••add bhakti before yogis and you'll have the solution.. remember that bhagavad gita ends with bhakti, not with jnana yoga.. and arjuna choose the way of bhakti, he acts like he was a materialist, but he devote all himself and his actions to krsna. So bhakti+karma yoga, that is not karma yoga, but devotion throug action in the transcendence”

 

 

Yes Lord says in 12.2-5 that devotion to Saguna aspect is better suited for the mankind since it is easier. But nowhere does He say that jnana is inferior.

 

 

The fire of Jnana burns all karma to ashes. There exists nothing so purifying like knowledge 4.37-38

 

Supremely dear is the wise man to Me. I regard him as My very Self. 17.17-18

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“TRANSLATION

The yogi who knows that I and the Supersoul within all creatures are one worships Me and remains always in Me in all circumstances.

Note “Remains always in me”. Krishna does not say that yogi surrenders at my feet and remains separate from me.

••read bhagavad gita as a whole, and you will understand that remain in me means in spiritual consciousness.. and spiritual consciousness is surrendering. United with krsna, but also separated to have blissful relationships, love, pleasure and so on”

 

 

 

I have read Gita as a whole. I do not require advice on this. What you say is purport of some other person and you do not understand the meaning yourself.

 

It is your mind’s wish that you would like love, pleasure etc. And you would be guaranteed those. No doubt, what you wish earnestly you will get.

 

 

 

“So, if after knowing the non-self nature of Aham and giving up pride-hatred etc., I surrender to the Self then am I violating the teachings?

••if you feel to be identificated with the supreme self, if you feel that a parcel of god, your self, can die to merge in the whole you are in illusion and you have not gave up pride. humble is who recognize the supremacy of god and surrenders”

 

 

Humble is one who believes that Lord is the doer. What you know about illusion? You are not Self Realized. You even have not given up the doership.

 

I have given several translations of 6.29 to 6.31 below

 

6.29 to 6.31

 

Sarvabhootasthamaatmaanam sarvabhootaani chaatmani;

Eekshate yogayuktaatmaa sarvatra samadarshanah.

29. With the mind harmonised by Yoga he sees the Self abiding in all beings and all beings in the Self; he sees the same everywhere.

Yo maam pashyati sarvatra sarvam cha mayi pashyati;

Tasyaaham na pranashyaami sa cha me na pranashyati.

30. He who sees Me everywhere and sees everything in Me, he does not become separated from Me nor do I become separated from him.

COMMENTARY: The Lord describes here the effect of oneness.

Sarvabhootasthitam yo maam bhajatyekatwamaasthitah;

Sarvathaa vartamaano’pi sa yogee mayi vartate.

31. He who, being established in unity, worships Me who dwells in all beings,—that Yogi abides in Me, whatever may be his mode of living.

 

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. (See also 4.35, 5.18) (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. (6.30)

The non-dualists, who adore Me as abiding in all beings, abide in Me irrespective of their mode of living. (6.31)

 

 

(29) He whose self is harmonized by yoga seeth the Self abiding in all beings and all beings in the Self; everywhere he sees the same.

(30) He who sees Me every where and sees all in Me; I am not lost to him nor is he lost to Me.

(31) The yogin who established in oneness, worships Me abiding in all beings lives in Me, howsoever he may be active.

 

 

One who has his mind Self-absorbed through Yoga, and who has the vision of sameness every-where, sees his Self existing in everything, and everything in his Self. (6.29)

One who sees Me in everything, and sees all things in Me,- I do not go out of his vision, and he also is not lost to My vision. (6.30)

That yogi who, being established in unity, adores Me as existing in all things, he exists in Me – in whatever condition he may be. (6.31)

 

 

A true yogi observes Me in all beings and also sees every being in Me. Indeed, the self-realized person sees Me, the same Supreme Lord, everywhere.(6.29)

For one who sees Me everywhere and sees everything in Me, I am never lost, nor is he ever lost to Me.(6.30)

Such a yogi, who engages in the worshipful service of the Supersoul, knowing that I and the Supersoul are one, remains always in Me in all circumstances.(6.31) (From SP)

 

 

 

The Self is Krishna, so union with HIM is mentioned. Now you will translate yoga yukta atmah as “dove tailed in Krishna consciousness”. Now if you remove Krishna consciousness, which is not there in the verse and then see dictionary you will find dove tailing means merging.

 

 

I know you will say: surrender and merging cannot go together. Because I know you I am answering in advance.

 

Yes when you surrender you are definitely not merged. But the lucky ones, who earnestly wish so, attain merging. This the Lord guarantees, provided one is devoted and understands His real nature as essence and as the Supreme Lord.

 

 

I have reproduced 5 translations of 18.55 below.

 

BG 18.55

 

Bhaktyaa maamabhijaanaati yaavaanyashchaasmi tattwatah;

Tato maam tattwato jnaatwaa vishate tadanantaram.

 

55. By devotion he knows Me in truth, what and who I am; and knowing Me in truth, he forthwith enters into the Supreme.

 

Through devotion he knows Me in reality, as to what and who I am. Then having known Me in truth, he enters (into Me) immediately after that (Knowledge). (18.55)

 

 

(55) Thorough devotion he comes to know Me, what My measure is and who I am in truth; then, having known Me in truth, he forthwith enters into Me.

 

 

By devotion one truly understands what and who I am in essence. Having known Me in essence, one immediately merges with Me. (See also 5.19) (18.55)

 

 

One can understand Me as I am, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, only by devotional service. And when one is in full consciousness of Me by such devotion, he can enter into the kingdom of God. (18.55) Translation by SP

 

 

 

Please note that only the SP translation includes Kingdom from nowhere. But as Brahman is all, therefore the Kingdom is also Brahman. So, even if you enter Krishna’s kingdom you enter Brahman.

 

 

 

“Please do not deride others who are also following Gita. You deride none but the Lord himself.

••so you are admitting that you are feeling to be god”

 

 

Wrong conclusion; you are deriding Lord’s teachings and not me.

 

 

“Iswarah word cannot be used lightly and in a limited context only.

••this is your misconception... isvara is no a primary name of the lord and indicates supremacy... sometimes siva is called isvara, sometimes vishnu, sometimes also radhe... and there's a name of krsna who is isvara of the isvaras... of course this is not exactly the correct Sanskrit”

 

 

Since Siva - Visnu are indeed iswara. Saying that guest is iswara would be blasphemy. George Bush is Maha Iswara is Maha Blasphemy.

 

 

 

“One cannot but be serious about your lapses and your potential to misguide.

••i am waiting for you to correct me and giving me a sufficient demosntration of my mistakes..”

 

 

Well: George bush is maha-iswara; Rig Veda is not valid in Kali Yuga; Soul changes behavior like a police man changes behavior at job and home; Brahman is emanated from Krishna. Etc. etc.

 

 

Nothing needs demonstration. Truth shines in HIS light.

 

.

 

“You have not enlightened me as to why you do not argue with pure dualists?

••sincerely i have no intention to enlighten you... “

 

 

OK. Don’t enlighten; I did not ask you to enter this discussion.

 

 

 

 

Atanu

[Guest guest]

"I am one" meant that I am an advaitin by belief.

 

I cannot enjoy "oneness" as suggested by you yet because I have not realized it.

[Guest guest]

Isn't it ironic that the more we doubt "oneness philosophy," the more its proponents call us all sorts of ugly names?

 

I mean, if we are all one, then by insulting me, they insult themselves, right?

 

I guess the "oneness" crowd has not realized the "oneness" they so desperately preach.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Now you feel the one ness and insult.

 

Where was your sense when you called other people fanatic, asura, cheater etc. and asked them to shut up?

[Guest guest]

You say: “god is everything, also variety is contained in this "everything” So, the variety of ills that we see in this world -- I will not name them, are also contained within Him?

••yes.. these illness are transcendentally shown in krsna's pastimes.. there's a famous lila when he says to have headache. So also illness is in spiritual world.. but in a satcitananda version

 

“Without submission, God cannot be attained

••and submission means two persons and an actions.. so, again, no oneness in your sense”

Yes, two persons to start with but a purified soul becomes one with Him after losing all upadhis.

•••this is simply your idea... krsna says "surrender.." not merge

 

Yes acting in His love is the best of Sattva guna (that I have already said).

••why satva guna? krsna does not say that "surrender to me.." is a partial or material level of understanding. Krsna is transcendental and every relationship with him is transcendental. So to serve krsna is not in satva guna, it is in transcendence

 

But the feeling “I am serving” is not the appropriate since Lord says all actions are done by Prakriti controlled by HIM.

••prakriti acts in the maya's world, not in vaikuntaloka. in spiritual world there's no mahamaya. So we serve humbly, conscious that he's giving us the grace, the power and the intelligence to do it.... but this is service, in a humble way, but it is

 

The feeling that I am serving is keeping the ego alive.

••it is obvious that if you are in the illusion of merging in the absolute, you believe that ego(, personality, form, name etc,) is real only in the matter. The false identification is alive when you serve your senses, not when you humby serve krsna without wanting anything back.. neither the liberation. So to relegate service to the material perspective is wrong. but i understand that you, believing in oneness, believe also that in the absolute there's no plurality of existence, no relationships and no actions. But it is wrong

 

I know that every bit of work that I seem to do He only does. So, how can I serve Him?

••every energy you have is krsna's... turn them in krsna's service. In this way you will not act because the matter treats you like a puppect, but you will be directed by krsna. This depending (=surrendering) by krsna is devotional service and it is in itself a liberation. The father is the one who gives the money to the sons, but he's extremely happy when in the father's holiday, the sons give to him a little present even they are simply giving back the father's money

 

Actually He serves us and we are deluded that we are serving Him.

••you are deluded that you and god are the same.. so your illusion/delusion is that you are serving yourself

 

Yes Lord says in 12.2-5 that devotion to Saguna aspect is better suited for the mankind since it is easier. But nowhere does He say that jnana is inferior.

••and what's the supreme and ultimate jnana of gita? that we have to surrender and serve.. then love.. bhakti

 

What you say is purport of some other person and you do not understand the meaning yourself.

••this is simply because you have no sufficient answers, are you put in diffiulty by a plagiarized like me?... i also have to say to you that your concoctions are not your original ones.. but there's no problem

 

It is your mind’s wish that you would like love, pleasure etc. And you would be guaranteed those.

••it is also my opinion that if you blaspheme the absolute in saying that there's no bliss in him, you will have much difficulties in reaching him

 

Yes when you surrender you are definitely not merged. But the lucky ones, who earnestly wish so, attain merging. This the Lord guarantees, provided one is devoted and understands His real nature as essence and as the Supreme Lord.

••fantasy... in no scripture is written that bhakti is an intermediate stage before merging

 

Since Siva - Visnu are indeed iswara. Saying that guest is iswara would be blasphemy. George Bush is Maha Iswara is Maha Blasphemy.

••this is a stupid way to win a debate.. go to do it with the children and there's hope that you'll get some results

 

OK. Don’t enlighten; I did not ask you to enter this discussion.

••you are free to quit if you do not like me

 

merge..

 

 

[Guest guest]

Where was your sense when you called other people fanatic, asura, cheater etc. and asked them to shut up?

 

feeling my oneness with you, when i insult you i insult me too.. so i am very humble

 

where's your (or our, or mine) problem?

[Guest guest]

BG 18.55

 

Bhaktyaa maamabhijaanaati yaavaanyashchaasmi tattwatah;

Tato maam tattwato jnaatwaa vishate tadanantaram.

 

55. By devotion he knows Me in truth, what and who I am; and knowing Me in truth, he forthwith enters into the Supreme.

 

Through devotion he knows Me in reality, as to what and who I am. Then having known Me in truth, he enters (into Me) immediately after that (Knowledge). (18.55)

 

 

(18.55) Thorough devotion he comes to know Me, what My measure is and who I am in truth; then, having known Me in truth, he forthwith enters into Me.

 

 

By devotion one truly understands what and who I am in essence. Having known Me in essence, one immediately merges with Me. (See also 5.19) (18.55)

 

 

 

Your emphasis on merge word is not appropriate AND IS VERY TIMID. I say: "SUBMERGE". Submerge manas in its source --THE PRIMAL SOUL. That is the path. In surrendering also only one thought remains -- the love of the Lord.

 

 

 

 

SUBMERGE does not mean that one is feeling to be God (your language). One can feel to be anything but that is delusion, since feeling is in Manas. AND SUBMERGE MEANS giving up manas.

 

 

Any problem? Do not woorry about those who believe in submerging.

[Guest guest]

merge or submerge the mistake is that your existence, that is a part and parcel of god, in this way disappears and make the world of god less complete and weak in comparison with the material one

 

if there's no different subjects, also the love of the lord does not exist

 

love is dynamic, it is made of desires, objects, subjects and actions

 

Any problem? Do not woorry about those who believe in submerging.

 

we are in the summer.. it is not a surprise that someone want to submerge in the sea or in the swimming pool for a while

[Guest guest]

“merge or submerge the mistake is that your existence, that is a part and parcel of god, in this way disappears and make the world of god less complete and weak in comparison with the material one”

 

 

So, as per you, the material existence with all fancies, illusions, rape, murder etc. is more complete than Sat-Chit-Anand existence of Turiya state, when consciousness is One. In Turiya state one can create all variety and can take up any form and can appear anywhere and do other limitless feats. But a sage abiding in Turiya will not be interested in the least in such non-eternal things.

 

 

”if there's no different subjects, also the love of the lord does not exist

 

love is dynamic, it is made of desires, objects, subjects and actions”

 

 

Love for “I” (and not i) is most dynamic; bringing forth all freedom, joy, unlimited goodness and everything. It is not an object of argument but realization.

 

 

Love for “I” removes the shackles of small I limitations.

 

 

”we are in the summer.. it is not a surprise that someone want to submerge in the sea or in the swimming pool for a while”

 

 

Unfortunately, this joke does not bring smile. Rather your wild statements do. Please stick to the chant “George Bush is maha isvara” and dance with raised hands

 

[Guest guest]

So, as per you, the material existence with all fancies, illusions, rape, murder etc. is more complete than Sat-Chit-Anand existence of Turiya state, when consciousness is One

••it is not for me or for you... if in the matter you have 928273 things and in the spirit you have only one thing.. the spirit has something less, the variety.. Then we will discuss how is the variety of the spiritual world in comparison with the one of the material world.

Sat Cit Ananda is there if there's variety... what can you know (CIT) if you are one? which situation or relationship you can enjoy (ananda) if you are one?

 

But a sage abiding in Turiya will not be interested in the least in such non-eternal things.

••nor a devotee in vaikunta... in the spiritual world there's not the variety of the matter, spirit has not to borrow the variety, plurality, relationships, personality, dynamism from the material world. Why you have the material world as a parameter to judge spiritual realities?

 

Love for “I” (and not i) is most dynamic; bringing forth all freedom, joy, unlimited goodness and everything. It is not an object of argument but realization.

••and realizing love is realizing the object of our love (god.."HIM") and that the relationship that unite us and him will be eternal. But if you think that it is not possible to speak of these subjects i must ask you why are you still writing

 

Please stick to the chant “George Bush is maha isvara” and dance with raised hands

••you are the one who advocate oneness (with george bush also) not mine.. (do not raise hands while submerging, you need them to swim, you risk to die)

[Guest guest]

 

 

”••... if in the matter you have 928273 things and in the spirit you have only one thing.. the spirit has something less, the variety.. “

 

 

 

The clay is one but pots are many. You are one but your posts are many. There is a difference in the permanence of the one (the source) and the many (the effect). Knowing clay, one can create any shape and form. One who knows only the pots is superficial. Krishna has clearly stated that know my original unmanifest form.

 

 

 

 

 

“-----Then we will discuss how is the variety of the spiritual world in comparison with the one of the material world.

Sat Cit Ananda is there if there's variety... what can you know (CIT) if you are one? which situation or relationship you can enjoy (ananda) if you are one?”

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

”But a sage abiding in Turiya will not be interested in the least in such non-eternal things.

••nor a devotee in vaikunta... in the spiritual world there's not the variety of the matter, spirit has not to borrow the variety, plurality, relationships, personality, dynamism from the material world. Why you have the material world as a parameter to judge spiritual realities?”

 

 

You are greatly mistaken. I am not making the material world a parameter. You are. You keep comparing variety in material world and spiritual world. I always hold that HE is incomparable. You only compare.

 

 

 

As we have discussed long back we both agree that soul is CIT. God is CIT. But I believe (not realize) that CIT is CIT and cannot be partitioned in terms of personality. You believe that the CIT of the individual soul is personality bound and eternal. You also believe that CIT of our soul and CIT of GOD differ in quantitative manner. God’s CIT is bigger.

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

”Love for “I” (and not i) is most dynamic; bringing forth all freedom, joy, unlimited goodness and everything. It is not an object of argument but realization.

••and realizing love is realizing the object of our love (god.."HIM") and that the relationship that unite us and him will be eternal. But if you think that it is not possible to speak of these subjects i must ask you why are you still writing”

 

 

 

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

 

Who said it is not possible to speak and discuss? There has to be shrabana, manana, and then sadhana and Samadhi. But arguing is fruitless because I will believe and do only that which the Lord has ordained. While arguing, ego gets the upper hand and harsh words result.

 

 

 

 

 

”Please stick to the chant “George Bush is maha isvara” and dance with raised hands

••you are the one who advocate oneness (with george bush also) not mine.. (do not raise hands while submerging, you need them to swim, you risk to die)”

 

 

 

 

If I die while submerged in HIM, I am blessed. Do you realize that you have blessed me?

 

 

Atanu