Advaita

[Guest guest]

“At one point of time God was alone

--this is christianism”

No read Vedanta.

--no this is christianism.. the beginning that the upanishad is explaining is cyclical. To giving a practical explanation the upanishad decides to say that god is alone at every (re)creation of the material world, but if he's eternal, also his parts and parcels are eternal. And also individualities, that come directly from his power to be an individual, do not disappear or die. So, read the vedas as a whole, and you will discover that, in the (re)creation moment, the individuals are simply not manifestated and reunited in god's person.. unity and variety as ever

 

My comment:

The guest is ignorant

--so atanu has not enough culture and logic to convince even an ignorant like the guest.. he needs to insult to get the gratification that he cannot get from knowing the right thing and explaining it successifully

 

He confidently makes a statement without research or learning properly from Guru.

--no bonafide guru teachs that individuality is only in the relative world

 

And Gita never contradicts shruti.

––because they say both that the goal is surrendering to god

 

So, do not ask: Why (and when) did we stop being “The God”? Ask: when the covering power of the dress will be overcome and the super soul will emerge nude.

--both are questions and both deserve answers: we never stop to be god, because we are not god and god does not lose or forget his condition. The covering will be overcomed by krsna and we will emerge as his eternal companions, lovers and servants if we start the process of surrendering.. but we are not the supersoul, there's no covering power that can cover supersoul

 

“The Lord is the one “I”

--oneness and variety.., one and many.. he's not limited, you cannot judge god with human parameters

 

Same parrot statements again

--that put you in so great difficulty that you do not answer and get angry insulting

 

For un Self Realized there is no oneness

--for the self realized there's oneness because evrything is god and there's variety because god is not less than us and he can enjoy relationships

 

And who said that Lord cannot manifest complete personalities?

--you. They're eternal, they are not subjected to creation and distruction

 

O Pusan, the one seer, O controller, O sun, offspring of Prajapati, bring out your radiant rays and focus your radiance so that I may be able to see the auspicious form of yours

--many actions, two individuals, a transcendental form

 

Who so ever person is there beyond, that also I am.

--he speaks of the fact that his source of existence is god, that he's inside god, that he's does not come from some other place and creator.. or he's contraddicting inside the same sentence.. and impersonalists, who are envious of god wanting to put them at his place are fooled by these words and do not understand the right meaning, illuding them selves to be god

 

Guest, understand this and you will be liberated.

--in theory i know in what sense i am brahman, do not worry.. obviously i do not fully realize it otherwise i would be in vaikunta

 

Only Pasupati can liberate you.

--i take it as a blessing.. please sri pasupati come to me to save me? (why are you using pasupati to insult me? you are against him? you want to blaspheme him as a deity only for stupid people like me?)

 

Please consult a true vedantist and find out that Gita would not be Gita if it happened to contradict Shruti.

--if your master is an authentic one, you are sleeping at classes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

"you deny love, in your kind of oneness there's no love "

 

Why? Don't you love yourself?

[Guest guest]

ggohil.i want to know your caste,please.thank you.

[Guest guest]

Not at one point of time,even now we are "parts of god" and not god himself.Just like a drop of occean which is a part of occean but isnt occean itself.

 

and all this maya doesnt affect us.Its like running a movie on a screen.The screen isnt affected by the movie or its contents.likiewise the athma inside us isnt affected by the maya.

[Guest guest]

"you deny love, in your kind of oneness there's no love "

Why? Don't you love yourself?

 

it is not oneness... me+my vision of myself+love

 

3....

 

variety

[Guest guest]

Your header is as below.

 

"you deny love, in your kind of oneness there's no love in oneness"

 

Do you not love yourself? Everyone loves the self best and when one realises that the self is God, the Love knows no bounds.

[Guest guest]

loving ourselves depends from the fact that we recognize a difference between us and our qualities, personalities, beauty and so on

 

so I love something that I am not... i have a car and i love my car, i have a dress and i love my dress, i have a nice face and i love my nice face, i have a good charachter and i love it

 

so, for love, some variety is needed

 

in the oneness preached by modern advaitins there's no plurality of subjects and objects.. no variety that could justify desires and actions between some subjects and objects involved

 

NIR-GUNA... NO-QUALITIES... NO-VARIETY

(no qualities to love...)

 

so... expanding this "i love myself" of the common life in a "i love myself" becoming THE ONE.. is against the sense of advaitism

 

the philosophers following strictly this position would correct you if they hear something like that

 

if in the oneness there's love, it is the demonstration that there's duality too.... and there's

[Guest guest]

"i have a nice face and i love my nice face"

 

So, if your face loses niceness you will stop loving yourself.

[Guest guest]

another demonstration that love is not ONE with the subject who loves

[ggohil 0]

"ggohil.i want to know your caste,please.thank you".

 

 

Hindu I guess....I follow the teachings of Sri Krsna...

[Guest guest]

"another demonstration that love is not ONE with the subject who loves "

 

So, your face is an object that you love as a subject. Well.

 

So, your face is different from you. And same way you are different from God.

[Guest guest]

of course... jaya !

[Guest guest]

I said:

 

So, your face is different from you. And same way you are different from God.

 

 

You said:

 

"of course... jaya ! "

 

 

I say:

 

Like a face without a body is non-existent, similarly you are non-existent. Only one awareness exists. Your existence is illusion.

 

 

Hail the Lord.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Like a face without a body is non-existent

••nahh... face is body and simultaneously a distinct part of the body.. if i say tou you "please touch your face" you do not touch a leg or a arm.. you touch the face

 

in the same way we are both god and different by god

 

---

 

similarly you are non-existent

••this is a useless statement, because we can only feel existence not to demosntrate or explain it. If you theorize that you do not exist be coherent and stop communicating, talking, acting, eating, writing in the forum and so on

 

---

 

Only one awareness exists

••no.. my awareness exists, your awareness exists... even if they were illusory, the supreme reality cannot be less than illusion.. so there's variety in god, variety and oneness, simultaneously

 

--

Your existence is illusion.

••again... nothing can be outside god.. so my existence is in god, and god is real and eternal... so i'm real and eternal

 

Hail the Lord.

••if you have no real existence... why the need to praise the lord?

 

jaya sri krsna bhagavan

[Guest guest]

"the term more powerful relates very well because god cannot be subjected to maya... in the absolute there's variety, and variety means also difference and different levels "

 

In Ramayana, Rama is deluded by maya and is reminded of his transcendental nature throughout the book. And if Rama is Vishnu himself, then how can God not be subjected to maya?

 

Personally, I don't believe God himself is subjected to maya, but parts of God can be, if not the core consciousness of God.

[Guest guest]

it is a lila... rama is never in maya, he's only playing a game for the pleasure of the devotees,,, he's the supreme, the whole, not part of the supreme

 

supreme has not core and surface