the jivan mukta in advaita

[theist 1]

I understand there is a difference of opinion.Mayavadi's consider Krsna's form maya.We do not.

 

We consider the Brahman effulgence as having a source;Krsna's form.They don't accept that.

 

We accept that the jiva has an eternal indivduality that remains even when merged in the Brahman effulgence.They would object to that idea.

 

We propose that the jiva even has form in relation to Krsna's lila's in spiritual realms that lay beyond the glaring brahmajyoti.They would see that as an anthropomorphic fantasy.

 

The Vaisnava conclusions are different from Advaita.There is no need to artifically try to merge these two view-points.That is a discredit to both.It is also impossible.They are not saying the same thing and there is no need to pretend they are.

 

They are however perfectly harmonized in acintya bhedabheda.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

 

With due regards to Srila Prabhupada, I must state that he is certainly not referring to Advaita. This is what strengthens the accusation that ISKCON attacks Advaita, without understanding what it is, in the first place.

 

 

In Prabhupada's quote given by theist he doesn't mention advaita at all. You are inferring that he is referring to a particular school taught by a particular teacher.

 

I think the flaw lies in your inference, and your resultant feeling of offence.

[karthik_v 0]

 

The Vaisnava conclusions are different from Advaita.There is no need to artifically try to merge these two view-points.

 

 

Exactly. May I also add that there is no need to attack another philosophy either, especially on false assumptions?

[karthik_v 0]

 

In Prabhupada's quote given by theist he doesn't mention advaita at all. You are inferring that he is referring to a particular school taught by a particular teacher.

 

I think the flaw lies in your inference, and your resultant feeling of offence.

 

 

If that were so, then may I ask whom SP refers to as the author of Mayavada, herein? I know that SP often times referred to Sankara. Did he ever make the distinction that Sankara was the author of Advaita and not Maayavada [whatever it means]?

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

There are hundreds of branches of advaita philosophy founded by different teachers such as Dattatreya, Ashtavakra, etc. Shankara is simply the most famous teacher, but he is not the origin of the various schools. Each school will hold slightly different teachings. We need to see the teaching being mentioned and connect it to the school that teaches it.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

And regarding this particular quote, there is a nondualistic school that believes the avatara Krishna had a body of bones and flesh, and that when he was killed by an arrow, his material body remained and was later cremated. They even cite Puranic references in this regard.

[karthik_v 0]

 

Shankara is simply the most famous teacher, but he is not the origin of the various schools.

 

 

Nevertheless, my question is: Did SP ever distinguish between Sankara's form of Advaita and that of others [assuming that they really are different]?

 

Of course I know that SP did talk of the audacity of Sankara. Of course, I know that some of his remarks about Sankara have been quite scathing. If needed, I can dig up. Three months ago, my father refused to attend any more cell programmes, only because of SP's uncalled for and unjust attacks on Sankara - they are all in his purports. I have heard enough ISKCON sannyasis [one called his philosophy yellow stool, while the distinction of being called brown stool belonged to atheism] and some GV ones too [one called him a rascal; it is another story that he addressed Vyasa the same way for writing on Karma Kanda], who would attack Sankara. Of course, all without understanding his philosophy one bit.

[Guest guest]

 

what i find amusing is that for all the talk of what a jivan mukta is and is not,it is a fact that no advaitan

has ever become an actual jivan mukta.

 

It's like a third grader trying to describe what life is like for a college professor.

 

The advaitans misinterpret shastra due to a lack of actual realization and a profusion of speculation based on

the speculation of others who lack any actual realization.

 

When the jiva becomes brahman realized he does not

lose his self identification,he simply sees that everything is part of God and controlled by God.

Since he is part of everything he realizes that he is

also part of God and controlled by God.

 

The world is still the world it is not a mirage,or hallucination,it is seen throught the eyes of actual realization,it is all a part of the control of God.

 

Previously the person was in Maya,he did not see the world for what it was,he identified with his body,his mind,

and his intelligence.

 

He saw the activities around him as being chaotic and

happening independently of the control of God.

 

upon his elevation to brahman realization he no longer is confused by any of the previous thought patterns.

 

While he sees himself as being part of the supreme soul, he at the same time has established communication with that soul,realizing that he is not the same as the supreme, due to the supreme being the controller and the jiva is not.

 

The delusion of the advaitans is that they will see the world as false,which in fact is ridiculous.

 

this is due to speculation on the meaning of shastra without proper guidance or realization.

 

The meaning of maya is not that the world is false or a mirage, it means that the world to the conditioned soul

is not what it appears to be.

The world is not an illusion like a mirage,it is an illusion like the illusions performed by a magician,the conditioned soul is IN illusion when he percieves otherwise.

 

The reality of this world is not hallucinatory

or false ,it is simply completely controlled

by God,and comprised of God.

 

The controller is always the controller and the jiva

will never become part of the controller anymore then he is now.

 

The delusion of the advaitans is that the jiva when enlightened loses his individual identification,this is not a fact,he simply no longer indentifies with the body,mind or intellect.

 

The individuality of the jivan mukta becomes purified to it's essence, it becomes more individual upon attaining liberation not less individual.

 

Because he loses the identification of the self with body,mind,and intellect, all that is left is God and himself.

 

God is the controller we are the viewer of the control,and the beneficiary of that control.

 

[theist 1]

Rascal...Oh my!LOL What is the big deal anyway.We are all various types of rascals, and that is being kind.Everyone running around trying to be God in various ways.

 

Don't impersonal schools view devotees as mere sentimentalists, not able to comprehend the full reality yet.So they humor us in this condenscending way.."That's right little bhakta just keep chanting and engaging in your bhakti-yog sadhana,someday you will come to realize that you have been worshipping yourself all along."

 

Each proponent considers his position superior and that of others inferior.It's ok.Don't get hung up on these trifles.

[shvu 1]

 

 

what i find amusing is that for all the talk of what a jivan mukta is and is not,it is a fact that no advaitan has ever become an actual jivan mukta.

 

 

Wrong. Try Shankara, and Chandrashekhara Bharati, to name a few. Tradition has accepted them as Jiivan-muktas and if you think otherwise, backup your claim.

 

The rest of your post is just a lot of hand-waving, complaining about Advaita being imperfect, etc, while making no points. It is not even worth going into. If just a long list of complaints will do, I can write up such a list on any system.

 

Cheers

[karthik_v 0]

Hari Bol Shiva Prabhuji,

 

 

The advaitans misinterpret shastra due to a lack of actual realization and a profusion of speculation based on the speculation of others who lack any actual realization.

 

 

Now that your statement has rendered great sages like Ramana Maharishi a mere speculative fraud, would you be kind enough to tell me which acaryas [non Advaitins, of course /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif ] have attained realization? Could you also kindly tell me how to identify one who is realized?

[karthik_v 0]

Dear Theist Prabhuji,

 

 

Rascal...Oh my!LOL What is the big deal anyway.We are all various types of rascals, and that is being kind.

 

 

That is quite a revelation. Since everybody, according to you, is a rascal and it is, according to you, an act of kindness, to call anyone so, may I ask if you would feel offended if someone were to address SP that way? Or if someone were to address the Goswamis or Caitanya Mahaprabhu that way? [it is another story that no Advaitin ever stoops that low].

 

 

Everyone running around trying to be God in various ways.

 

 

A standard ISKCON misunderstanding of Advaita /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif When there is no duality, according to Advaita, where is the question of trying to be something else? Anyway, I realize that logic is not the best weapon to fight dogma with. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

 

Don't impersonal schools view devotees as mere sentimentalists, not able to comprehend the full reality yet.So they humor us in this condenscending way.."That's right little bhakta just keep chanting and engaging in your bhakti-yog sadhana,someday you will come to realize that you have been worshipping yourself all along."

 

 

Do they? I haven't come across Sankara saying that worshipping Saguna Brahman is mere sentimentalism. Nor have I heard any leading Advaitin like Ramana Maharishi or Swami Chandrasekharendra Saraswati say so. Have you come across any [outside of the writings of SP]? If so, can you please point out?

 

 

Each proponent considers his position superior and that of others inferior.It's ok.Don't get hung up on these trifles.

 

 

No problem. Would your statement apply to SP also? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

 

A standard ISKCON misunderstanding of Advaita When there is no duality, according to Advaita, where is the question of trying to be something else?

 

 

Since the objective reality of existence is that the atma is eternally individual and dependent on God, it remains true that monists are trying to be something they are not, even if they fail to understand it as so. Thus it is not a misunderstanding of their philosophy, but an understanding that they fail to perceive the supreme reality properly.

[Guest guest]

you talk about krishna eating and passing like we do. can you please explain how gita says havir brahma ?

[shvu 1]

 

 

Since the objective reality of existence is that the atma is eternally individual and dependent on God, it remains true that monists are trying to be something they are not, even if they fail to understand it as so. Thus it is not a misunderstanding of their philosophy, but an understanding that they fail to perceive the supreme reality properly

 

 

Since the objective reality of existence is that the atma is non-different and identical with God, it remains true that dualists are trying to be something they are not, even if they fail to understand it as so. Thus it is not a misunderstanding of their philosophy, but an understanding that they fail to perceive the supreme reality properly.

 

Cheers

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

 

Or if someone were to address the Goswamis or Caitanya Mahaprabhu that way? [it is another story that no Advaitin ever stoops that low].

 

 

Have you come across any statement where Prabhupada says Shankara is a rascall? The fact is he has never said it.

 

Chaitanya has said about Shankara the following:

 

tanra dosha nahi, tenho ajna-kari dasa

ara yei shune tara haya sarva-nasha

 

"Shankaracarya, who is an incarnation of Lord Shiva, is faultless because he is a servant carrying out the orders of the Lord. But those who follow his Mayavadi philosophy are doomed. They will lose all their advancement in spiritual knowledge."

 

Prabhupada's criticism is to those who deny the spiritual position of Krishna and who consider Him to have a mundane form. But that is something Krishna himself says in the Gita (calling them fools), so you should take up your complaint with God.

 

Chaitanya has also said the same thing:

 

prakrita kariya mane vishnu-kalevara

vishnu-ninda ara nahi ihara upara

 

"One who considers the transcendental body of Lord Vishnu to be made of material nature is the greatest offender at the lotus feet of the Lord. There is no greater blasphemy against the Supreme Personality of Godhead."

Some may also say that Shankara unfairly criticizes gramarians, calling them fools. bhaja govindam bhaja govindam govindam bhaja mudha mate. It is nothing unique to any particular school.

[theist 1]

Ädi 7.40 - While Lord Caitanya Mahäprabhu was passing through Väränasi on His way to Vrndävana, the Mäyävädi sannyäsi philosophers blasphemed against Him in many ways.

 

Ädi 7.41 - The blasphemers said,Although a sannyäsi, He does not take interest in the study of Vedänta but instead always engages in chanting and dancing in sankirtana.

 

Ädi 7.42 - This Caitanya Mahäprabhu is an illiterate sannyäsi and therefore does not know His real function. Guided only by His sentiments, He wanders about in the company of other sentimentalists.

 

Ädi 7.43 - Hearing all this blasphemy, Lord Caitanya Mahäprabhu merely smiled to Himself, rejected all these accusations and did not talk with the Mäyävädis.

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

why should the advaitan accpet

what is accepted by many in the world of maya,

since everything is an illusion,the acceptence

of so called sages must also be an illusion.

 

What the so called experts say must also be an illusion,therefore of no import.

 

So why accept as authority on reality something said by someone who is an illusion,what he says is an illusion,and what you think is an illusion ?

 

The one thing i do know,is that whoever accepts advaita

philosophy as being true,is contradicting advaita philosophy by the acceptence of it as real.

 

Turns your brain to mush,what !

[sha 0]

<big><font size=+2>Yes, it's Big Deal!!!</font></big>

 

bAhire se AlA bholA antare hRdaya galA

mukhe sadA kRSNa bolA cokhe azru mAlA

dInatAya se mATir mAnuS niSThAte acalA

kRSNa dite kRSNa nite dhare zakti sob

alaukika lokavat gauDIya vaiSNob

 

He looks artless, guileless

but inside his heart is melting;

the name of Krishna is always on his tongue

a garland of tears in his eyes.

 

In humility though forebearing,

his faith unswerving as a mountain.

 

To give or take Krishna,

is the power in his hands.

He looks like anyone,

but he is beyond the world.

That is a Gaudiya Vaishnava.

 

sabAra nIce paRe thAke sabAike se sevya dekhe

sabAra iSTa miSTa bhAkhe kRSNa tattva jñAne

sabAi debA sabAr sevA kRSNa adhiSThAne

nikhila bheda samanvayera mUrti savaibhava

tomAra preme goRA se gauDIya vaiSNava

 

He humbly takes the lowest place,

sees everyone as someone to serve;

to all he speaks what is pleasing and sweet,

connected to the truth of Krishna;

he knows that Krishna dwells in every soul

and so he gives to all and serves all.

 

All differences are resolved in him,

this is the glory he incarnates.

Formed through and through by Your love--

that is a Gaudiya Vaishnava.

 

sarvottama sadainya vinaya nirahaM suzAnti nilaya

nitAi graha grasta hRdaya sadaya vizva jIve

tomAra icchAya cale bale tomAra icchAya seve

tomAra gaNa sange se pAya prema rasArNava

tomAra sRSTa hRSTa iSTa gauDIya vaiSNava

 

He is the best of all, yet he makes no claims.

He is without ego, the house of blissful peace.

He is under the astral influence of Nitai,

and so merciful to all souls in the universe.

He walks and talks according to Your desire,

according to Your desire, he serves.

 

When in the company of those who are Yours,

he finds an ocean of relish.

Your personal creation, Your own ecstatic object of worship --

that is a Gaudiya Vaishnava.

 

(Sri Gopinatha Basak-contributed by Jagat)

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

This again brings us to the topic of jivan-mukti in advaita and its inherent inconsistencies. If Shankara was a jivan-mukta, then how was he perceiving the ignorance of multiplicity and interacting with it. There is no consistent answer within advaita for this.

 

Further, if the world is nothing but ignorance, then Shankara's words and writings (a product of the world), are also ignorance, and should not be followed. Since there is no consistent explanation for a jivan-mukta maintaining individuality, there can be no divination of the jivan-muktas writings.

 

As Ramakrishna would say, one who knows doesn't speak. (Of course, the fact that he said this would mean he didn't know.)

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

 

He humbly takes the lowest place,

sees everyone as someone to serve;

to all he speaks what is pleasing and sweet, connected to the truth of Krishna;

he knows that Krishna dwells in every soul

and so he gives to all and serves all.

 

 

There are plenty of vaishnavas who did not take the position of the straw in the street and allow others to do what ever they pleased. For example Hanuman, Arjuna, Nityananda, etc.

 

The Vaishnava is humble when he is personally insulted. But when the Lord or His devotees are insulted, he does not remain humble, but stands in their defence.

[Guest guest]

 

I cant speak for those who have been self realized,but i sure can speak about those who are not,

i.e. anyone who accepts advaita philosophy as anything other then an illusion.

 

Ramani,etc who cares if some people with no realization of their own ,elevate in their minds another with the same

level of non realization ?

 

We see this all the time,david koresh,jim jones etc.

should we accept as an authority the view's of others

that are popular with those who are in an illusioned state ?

[Guest guest]

Shiva, advaitam as taught by Sankara does recognize the position of isvara. some schools of advaitam equate sadguna brahman (rama, siva, krishna etc.) to illusion but that is not sankara's fault or fault of his philosophy. sankara answers all the philosophical questions adequately. according to sankara brahman is truth and is one. the self of every one, it is attributeless and is called nirguna brahman. situated eternally in the self (nirguna brahman) is sadguna brahman (krishna, siva, rama etc.). there is no gradation in brahman because brahman is one. vedas describe "gods" also as brahman because they are non-different from the one absolute truth - brahman. brahman is never addressed in plural because it is one. there is nothing but brahman.

 

thus the material world, the jivas are all only maya. they appear to be so but have no substance from an absolute stand point. a jiva takes birth and then leaves the body at death, exercises free will to perform actions, seems to be illusioned, tries for liberation and sometimes get liberated. obviously a all powerful and merciful god would not allow a jiva to suffer if it were real. the lord, who is our inner self, plays this lila because it is just like a dream or mirage. the brahman (god) never falls under illusion or takes birth. when a jiva realizes god (sad guna brahman) he realizes nirguna aspect also and vice versa. upon realization there is nothing but brahman or Him - vAsudevam sarvam iti or sarvam khalvidam brahman.

 

for most jivas on the path of transcendence, the realization of sadguna brahman as taught by alwars, nayanmars, caitanya is an interesting path whereas the paths of jnana and karma are arduous. but ultimately the result is the same which is knowing you are that brahman. at the time of knowing there is no time, knower, or the known. there are many sankarites who have followed the process of bhakti. why ? caitanya mahaprabhu is a great example of a sankarite who followed the path of bhakti to set an example for all of us.

[shvu 1]

 

More rambling again from you...

 

 

Ramani,etc who cares if some people with no realization of their own ,elevate in their minds another with the same

level of non realization ?

 

 

Learn to spell his name right. A similar statement would be,

 

"Chaitanya, Prabhupada, etc who cares if some people with no realization of their own ,elevate in their minds another [such as Shiva] with the same level of non realization ?"

 

Unfortunately, not being from an iskcon background, I do not make such statements.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

jndas wrote : Further, if the world is nothing but ignorance, then Shankara's words and writings (a product of the world), are also ignorance, and should not be followed.

 

the misconception is due to the fact we dont understand sankara. gita establishes the equality of action and inaction. sankara also establishes the equality of sadguna and nirguna brahman. thus the inaction of nirguna brahman is non-different from action of the sadguna brahman. so it is not that a self realized sankarite cannot speak but if he did not it is not a flaw either.