D`Atomic (HareKrishna) Virus

[Maitreya 0]

Originally posted by talasiga:

OKAY sweetie.

I will avoid the hair splitting pedantic arguments regarding the difference between something being intrinsically poisonous and something not poisonous but having a poisonous effect !

Yes I will avoid that argument by AGREEING with you. Yes, it is said by certain authorities that the hearing of the Holy Names from the lips of a non devotee has a POISONOUS EFFECT.

Well now Oopsie Whoopsie,you have drawn me in, but I can't go too far.We really need someone more educated in this subject then either of us.

 

We need to learn the difference between chaya-namabhasa and pratimba-abhasa.Chaya-namabhasa or svarupa-namabhasa is the partial infiltration of the Holy Name,as if sunlight has penetrated through clouds.

 

"Pratimba-abhasa appears when the rays of the holy name reflect off the lake of mayavadi thought, bequeathing sayujya-mukti upon the mayavadis who chant it.However this will fail to generate the quintessence of chanting: Krishna-preme." Sri Harinama Cintamani ch 3.

 

The sayujya-mukti is the poisonous effect.

 

Now, if this statement is accepted we still obtain scope for Melvin's idea of a Hare Krishna "virus" ("POISON"). As you may be aware, viruses need not, ipso facto, be a poison and, yet, under certain conditions can give rise to poisonous effects. Is the Hare Krishna virus that Melvin is raving about a concept for the POISONOUS EFFECT of so many non devotees chanting the MahaMantra?

I am not sure what Melvin is raving about, so I can't comment.

(Oh, by the way, a saucer of milk is not poisoned by a snake drinking from it. OOps. I am sorry - let me rephrase that: A saucer of milk touched by the lips of a snake does not give rise to poisonous effects by virtue of a snake having touched it.)

Now talasiga,I am surprised at you.This is a classic case of your mistaking the finger for the moon.Don't look at the finger, see rather where it is pointing,to the moon.

 

Hear from Vaisnavas only.

 

Hare Krishna

 

[edited to remove bold type]

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Maitreya (edited 08-29-2001).]

[talasiga 0]

Originally posted by Maitreya:

Now talasiga,I am surprised at you.This is a classic case of your mistaking the finger for the moon.Don't look at the finger, see rather where it is pointing,to the moon.

 

Yes

For the finger (the analogy) to point

to the moon (the subject)

there must be consonance

between the elements in the analogy

and the elements in the subject.

If this does not occur

then the finger is not pointing

in the direction of the moon

and we are left, askance,

staring at a finger.

 

Moreover,

where the subject

is a matter of Truth

the elements in the analogy

must be as true as possible.

 

As milk does not take on a poisonous effect

simply because the snake's lips touched it,

the only truthful construct that can be obtained between the milk analogy

and the Holy Names is that

just as milk does not take on

a poisonous effect

neither do the Holy Names.

 

HariNaam ki Jay !

 

[Guest guest]

The sayujya-mukti is the poisonous effect.

 

So, Badarayana Rsi must to be affected by this poison, as he clear states in Vedanta-sutras (4.4.4 to 15) that sayujiya-mukti is the basis of all forms of mukti. Baladeva also has agreed with Badarayana in his commentary. All of Vedanta-acarayas has done the same.

 

Is this person who has stated that sayujya-mukti is the poisonous effect of harinama denying sruti? A new theology to explain harinama’s effects should also follow sruti, otherwise it is only a concoction. Nowhere in sruti it is mentioned this ‘poisonous’ effect of Nama. Please read Chandogya Upanisad (7.1.3 to 5 and 7.2.1) about Name’s effects.

 

[Maitreya 0]

It is not the Name that has poisonous effect.It is the mayavada philosophy that gives the poisonous effect.

 

The moon is full talasiga.Stare at the finger if you wish.

[Guest guest]

It is the mayavada philosophy that gives the poisonous effect.

 

Sayujiya-mukti wasn’t invented by Sankaracarya. It is a bona fide conception of mukti defended by Badarayana Rsi and commented by him in details. All of the Vedanta-acaryas had accepted the concept of sayujiya-mukti, including Baladeva. Please read the comment by Baladeva in this regard in the Govinda-bhasya.

 

So, those who are stating that sayujya-mukti is the poisonous effect of harinama are clear denying sruti text and are against the opinion of Vedanta-acaryas, including Baladeva’s.

 

[Guest guest]

Talasigaji: So, my dear friend, how can Hari be more popular than Hari ?

 

Satyaraj: Who can understand the way that Hari sports His lilas? We simply cannot follow why He wants to be more popular playing a role and less popular plying another role. Even then Hari still is absolute, occupying all positions between the most popular and the less popular one, and even as the unknown.

 

[talasiga 0]

Originally posted by Maitreya:

It is not the Name that has poisonous effect.It is the mayavada philosophy that gives the poisonous effect.

 

The moon is full talasiga.Stare at the finger if you wish.

I can only see

the Crescent Moon

 

BTW, I am disappointed in you, Maitreya,

as you have not identified

the flaw in my arguments

 

 

[Maitreya 0]

Originally posted by talasiga:

I can only see

the Crescent Moon

The moon is full but you are still seeing some of the finger which blocks a portion of the moon, making it appear cresent.But that is an improvement and Maitreya is proud of Talasiga for making good progress.

BTW, I am disappointed in you, Maitreya,

as you have not identified

the flaw in my arguments

 

I didn't want to fall into the same flaw, that is one of over analysing the analogy.Is the finger crooked?Is it too short or long?Are the nails properly clipped?

 

We must just see what is being pointed out.Simple as that.

 

Cease to analyse,

What a surprise!

Before our eyes

A full Moon Rise.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Maitreya (edited 08-29-2001).]

[Maitreya 0]

Of course sayujya-mukti is available since time immemorable.But one who accepts it as the goal will not be able to develop Krishna-prema.

 

One can appreciate the glorious nature of the Brahman effulgence without merging into it.

But one cannot merge into it and appreciate or taste Krishna-prema.

 

Therefore mayavada philosophy is poisonous to the devotional creeper.

[talasiga 0]

Originally posted by Maitreya:

We must just see what is being pointed out.Simple as that.

 

Cease to analyse,

What a surprise!

Before our eyes

A full Moon Rise.

 

Certainly.

 

Now apply what you have said to Melvin's

postings about the Hare Krishna virus

and to

Satyaraja's "double speak".

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Of course sayujya-mukti is available since time immemorable. But one who accepts it as the goal will not be able to develop Krishna-prema. One can appreciate the glorious nature of the Brahman effulgence without merging into it. But one cannot merge into it and appreciate or taste Krishna-prema. Therefore mayavada philosophy is poisonous to the devotional creeper. Maitreya.

 

You are mistaken a rope by a snake. The concept of sayujya-mukti is that that one should be merged in Brahman. This does not mean that he is transformed into Brahman in all aspects. If you want to relish your Goloka you must to attain Goloka. It is said that this Goloka is non-different than Krsna Himself, as there is nothing different than Hari. So, you will be merged into Krsna’s abode, that is Krsna. But you won’t be Krsna Himself.

 

Therefore, Badarayana Rsi has established in Vedanta-sutras (4.4.4 to 15) that sayujiya-mukti is the basis of all sort of states that a mukta may relish. At the beginning the mukta should be placed into Hari’s abode (sayujiya) and thereafter he may relish it with Hari (salokiya-mukti), or he may have the same form that Hari’s (svarupiya) and so on. These are mukta’s attributes and they will be attained by mukta’s satya-samkalpa, the free will of a mukta that is always converted into a reality by Hari’s grace.

 

Baladeva, who is a Gaudiya-vaisnava, has followed the same line of Badarayana’s reasoning while commenting mukta’s attributes. He has stated that sayujiya-mukti is the basis of all forms of moksa.

 

Do you have another alternative than to be at Goloka without being merged into Hari? Is there something different than Hari?

 

And please explain the meaning of the statement: “One can appreciate the glorious nature of the Brahman effulgence without merging into it.”

 

 

[talasiga 0]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

And please explain the meaning of the statement: “One can appreciate the glorious nature of the Brahman effulgence without merging into it.”

 

Yes, this needs some explanation.

Finger pointing will not do.

 

What is it that can merge, or not merge,in That beyond which nothing exists?

 

And a question for a medical practitioner and philosopher:

 

Is the POOR DIFFERENTIATION (merging) in CELLULAR IDENTITY which is a feature of cancer

analogous

to the POOR DIFFERENTIATION (merging) in SPIRITUAL IDENTITY which is a purported feature of sayujya mukti ?

 

 

 

 

------------------

talasiga@hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Talasigaji:Is the POOR DIFFERENTIATION (merging) in CELLULAR IDENTITY which is a feature of cancer

analogous

to the POOR DIFFERENTIATION (merging) in SPIRITUAL IDENTITY which is a purported feature of sayujya mukti ?

 

Satyaraj: Yes, this metaphor is quite appropriate. Badarayana’s sruti can be inferred in that way if one’s desire as a mukta to have a personal form, or many personal forms. But some muktas may also opt for a ‘poor differentiation’, that’s to say, they don’t want to have any form at all. But even then they keep their own individuality, not merging in Brahman in the sense of complete dissolution of their identities, as jivas are eternal and cannot be destroyed.

 

Baladeva describes this sort of sayujiya as merging into the ocean of sat, cit and ananda that is Brahman’s substance, and to relish omniscience and bliss caused by it. This mukta is also satya-samkalpa and at any time he may also manifest forms, create worlds in samvyoma, and so on. Sayujiya is a mukta’s attribute and it cannot be denied or avoided.

 

[Guest guest]

mayavada philosophy is poisonous ...

 

Due the continuos contact with poison people may be poisoned. Mayavada is a kind of monism where maya is considered as something apart from Brahman. There are other monist theologies that included maya as part of Brahman, as cannot exist anything apart form Brahman: Brahman is one without a second.

 

Those who use to demonize the mayavada doctrine are stating: “There are only two things you have to know: what is Krsna and what is maya. You should declare war against maya.” But here one can notice the effect of the poison in the person who is always trying to deal with it. Krsna and maya are considered as two different things. That’s to say; maya is to be consider apart from Brahman. This is purest mayavada!!!

 

[Maitreya 0]

Originally posted by talasiga:

What is it that can merge, or not merge,in That beyond which nothing exists?

 

And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal, imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness.Bg 14.27

 

The jiva can merge or not merge.And as we see from the above verse Krishna is beyond 'That', being the basis of it.

 

 

[Maitreya 0]

TRANSLATION Cc Adi 3.18

“These liberations are sarsti [achieving opulences equal to those of the Lord], sarupya [having a form the same as the Lord’s], samipya [living as a personal associate of the Lord] and salokya [living on a Vaikuntha planet]. Devotees never accept sayujya, however, since that is oneness with Brahman.

PURPORT

Those engaged in devotional service according to the ritualistic principles mentioned in the scriptures attain these different kinds of liberation. But although such devotees can attain sarsti, sarupya, samipya and salokya, they are not concerned with these liberations, for such devotees are satisfied only in rendering transcendental loving service to the Lord. The fifth kind of liberation, sayujya, is never accepted even by devotees who perform only ritualistic worship. To attain sayujya, or merging into the Brahman effulgence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is the aspiration of the impersonalists. A devotee never cares for sayujya liberation.

 

[talasiga 0]

Originally posted by Maitreya:

And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal, imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness.Bg 14.27

 

The jiva can merge or not merge.And as we see from the above verse Krishna is beyond 'That', being the basis of it.

 

1. brahmano hi pratishtthaa 'ham

goes the first line of Bhagavad Geeta 14:27.

 

where is the word "impersonal" qualifying the Brahman here ? "Exactly please".

 

Before you answer, please see preceding verse 26, "He who serves Me with unfailing loving devotion......is fit for becoming Brahman." Now, if this Brahman must be read as innately impersonal, as your reading of verse 27 suggests, is the Lord propounding Bhakti as a means to the "impersonal" Brahman?

 

2. The soul is "aham brahmasmi" - of Brahman. The soul is eternal as is Brahman.

 

a) So, again the question, "What is it that merges, or does not merge, with the Brahman"?

 

b) What is it that is Eternal and yet is purported to perish by merging with the Eternal ?

 

 

[talasiga 0]

Originally posted by Satyaraja dasa:

..... maya ....apart from Brahman. This is purest mayavada!!!

Look !

It is the Bouncing Bhakta from Brasil !

 

Even so, I must agree with him.

 

(for the moment....)

 

 

[Guest guest]

Vedanta-sutra 4.4.4

 

avibhagena dristatvat

 

“The freed soul exists in a state of non-separation from the Lord, because of the scriptural text”

 

Commentary by Baladeva:

 

“The word sayujya means intimate union, and it is used in Mahanarayana Upanisad 25.1, where it is stated that the wise knower of Brahman attain sayujya within Brahman.

 

“But if sayujya is the only form of mukti, what becomes then of the other three forms, for the scriptures describes four kinds of mukti; i.e., salokya (residence in the same sphere with the Deity), sarshti (possing the same power, station or rank as the Deity), Samipya (proximity to the Deity) and sayujya? To this we reply that the other three kinds of mukti are but modes of sayujya. The sayujya-mukti includes all those.

 

“...Therefore the mukta jivas dwelling in Vaikuntha, are in three-fold union with the Lord: 1) they are in the world of the Lord, which is the Lord Himself, 2) the Lord is in them, so they can never be unconscious of the presence of the Lord; and 3) they are in union with the external form of the Lord.

 

“....The mukta-jiva is spite of their sayujya, or intimate union with the Lord, are not identical with the Lord.”

 

Therefore a text that states “devotees never accept sayujya, however, since that is oneness with Brahman,” is clearly denying sruti and should be rejected according to Badarayana Rsi’s opinion, corroborated even by Baladeva’s.

 

[Guest guest]

 

brahmano hi pratistha’ham (Gita 14.27)

 

“I am the structure of Brahman.”

 

Krsna is simply stating that He is this non-dual sac-cid-ananda substance that is Brahman, in other words that He is non-different than Brahman.

 

There is no room in this stanza to infer that Krsna is stating that He is the cause of the nirvisesa-brahman, as some fabulous commentaries leads one to believes.

 

[Guest guest]

 

As sayujya mukti is to be considered the only form of mukti (Vedanta-sutra 4.4.4), one may raise the question: “How can Your bhaktas attain the state of nirguna-brahman, which is possible only by experiencing oneness with Brahman?”

 

While commenting on this sloka (Gita 4.27) Srila Sridhara Svami quotes Krsna as saying, “I am the pratistha (structure) of Brahman, which means that I am concentrated Brahman. Although the sun is concentrated light, it is known as made of light. In the same way, although I am the form of Krsna (krsna-svarupa), I am of the same structure (brahmanno hi pratisthaham) of nirvisesa-brahman.”

 

In Sri Madhusudana Sarasvati’s commentary he writes: “The following doubt may be raised: ‘How can Your bhaktas, having attained to Your bhava (transcendental nature), become qualified to achieve that state of Brahman if You are different from Brahman?’ Anticipating this doubt, Sri Bhagavan says: bahmano hi pratisthaham (pratistha implies ‘I alone am sufficient and complete’). ‘Since I am of the same structure of Brahman, if someone realizes Me then his realization is sufficient and complete and the realization of Brahman is also included in that.’”

 

According to the Amara-kosa dictionary, the word paryapti means the complete Absolute Reality. Srila Madhusudhana Sarasvati has composed a sloka establishing whether Brahman is nirvisesa or savisesa.

 

para-krta-mana-dvandvam param brahmann narakrti

saundarya-sara-sarvasvam vande nandatmajam aham

 

“I worship the effulgent form of the essence of all beauty, the son of Nanda Maharaja, the parabrahman who has a human form, and who has put aside the duality of my mind.”

 

 

[amanpeter 0]

As I understand it, Lord Caitanya made available the understanding of Absolute Truth as simultaneously one and different. Although this concept cannot be explained by pholosophical explanations, it remains accessible to all through HIS DIVINE GRACE. Prabhupada gave the analogy of two clear panes of glass making it impossible to distinguish between them without the difference being revealed. So, too, the devotee depends on Sri Sri Radha-Krsna to reveal the absolute truth by Divine Grace, giving up ALL other efforts and simply surrendering in full devotional service.

 

I believe that those of us involved in this seemingly endless, mostly fruitless, discussion have indeed glimpsed the Truth both personally and impersonally, to some extent at least, by that same Divine Grace. However, our minds, false egos, etc. tend to immediately rush in and claim credit for `our` vision! Thinking `we` have somehow achieved a higher understanding through perceptive intelligence or perhaps other means, we try to explain to others with limited success and in doing so, often lose whatever it was we thought we understood in the first place. Fact is, that absolute truth was never ours to begin with! Krsna belongs to Radha and Radha belongs to Krsna!

 

Even if our Divine Vision was obtained through devotional service, still we are attempting to take credit for those efforts, when in fact we are doing NOTHING! Devotional service is doing us and, at best, we are allowing it to happen. Surrender must be continuous and uninterrupted for it to be perfect. The more we are given the more we must give up! Isn't that why we are always giving ALL GLORIES TO HIS DIVINE GRACE? JAI JAI SRI RADHE!!! valaya

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by amanpeter (edited 09-01-2001).]