the jivan mukta in advaita

[Somesh Kumar 0]

 

To summarize, an Advaitin/Maayaavaadin will not declare "I am God". Hypothetically, If someone does, he is not an advaitin/Maayaavaadin at all, for he has not understood the doctrine.

 

 

Can you please tell who is an Advaitin who actually follows the *real doctrine* of Advaita philosophy, if you say that all the Big stalwart saints are not following Advaita?

 

And if Advaitin does'nt say "I am God" then what is the doctrine?

 

Also, Please do reply to my previous posts!

 

Let Krishna give us the intelligence to understand Him!!!

[shvu 1]

 

 

Can you please tell who is an Advaitin who actually follows the *real doctrine* of Advaita philosophy, if you say that all the Big stalwart saints are not following Advaita?

 

 

 

 

And if Advaitin does'nt say "I am God" then what is the doctrine?

 

 

[karthik_v 0]

Dear Gauracandra rabhu,

 

 

Srila Prabhupada said mayavadis are declaring that "I am God." This is a fact. Mayavadis do declare that they are God. Case closed. All of the people cited said EXACTLY what Srila Prabhupada said mayavadis say. The fact that some won't accept this obvious fact suggests their own dishonesty concerning what Mayavadis say. Just be honest with yourself. Once you are shown that you wrong, just admit it, and move on. Mayavadis do say "I am God."

 

 

May be you missed this url which I posted yesterday: http://www.nonduality.com/ramana1.htm I would just reproduce the relevant portions from therein. This is what Ramana Maharishi explicitly means when he says I:

 

 

Ramana Maharishi says:

 

Who am I?

 

"The gross body which is composed of the seven humours (dhatus), I am not; the five cognitive sense organs, viz. the senses of hearing, touch, sight, taste, and smell, which apprehend their respective objects, viz. sound, touch, colour, taste, and odour, I am not; the five cognitive sense-organs, viz. the organs of speech, locomotion, grasping, excretion, and procreation, which have as their respective functions speaking, moving, grasping, excreting, and enjoying, I am not; the five vital airs, prana, etc., which perform respectively the five functions of in-breathing, etc., I am not; even the mind which thinks, I am not; the nescience too, which is endowed only with the residual impressions of objects, and in which there are no objects and no functioning's, I am not."

 

 

 

Hope that made the issue clear. Along with this quote, which is the essense of Advaita as explained by the great seer Ramana Maharishi, if you read the relevant quotes from Brhadaranyaka upanishad which Shvu and Raga had quoted and also the Vedanta sutras quotes, which I had quoted, it would become evident what an Advaitin means when he says "I". Of course, Ramana Maharishi has summarized it accurately. The simple and explicitly evident conclusion is that he doesn't say "I am God", as ISKCON followers understand "I". Ockham's razor /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

Dear J N Das prabhuji,

 

 

You are confused as to what Srila Prabhupada "implied". You seem to think when he said "mayavadis say 'I am God'" he was refering to a saguna Brahman, such as Krishna.

 

 

And Advaitins don't mean Sadguna Brahman at all, when they say I. The above reproductions should have made it clear. SP's understanding was wrong.

 

 

As a dogmatic follower of advaita, you may try to defend their statements and say they mean something else.

 

 

Why did you conclude that I follow Advaita? BTW, Advaita and dogma are like oil and water.

 

Dear Somesh Prabhuji,

 

 

If you feel that there is even a some amount of sarcasm in what I said I ask a thousand apologies from you.

 

 

Kindly don't apologize. I don't deserve any apology from a wonderful person as you. I just thought I should clarify - that's all.

[karthik_v 0]

 

The Mayavadi sannyasis address amongst themselves: namo narayana. "Namo narayana" means every one of them has become a Narayana. This is their philosophy. And from this namo narayana principle, Vivekananda Swami has manufactured the word "daridra-narayana." So Narayana has become very cheap thing for them. Everyone has become Narayana; everyone has become God. Just like the rascal God is now in the hospital. God is under operation. (laughter) A "guruji" God. So they have no shame even that "If I am God, I cannot cure my bodily pains, what kind of God I am?" But these rascals will proclaim that they are God, and there is set of rascals, they will accept, "Oh, here is God." Vivekananda also said that "Why you are finding out God? Don't you see, so many gods are loitering in the street?" So God has become a funny thing for them.

 

Lecture on Bhagavad-gita 18.5 -- London, September 5, 1973 (Radhastami)

 

 

mmm....so every other guru, be it Sankara or Vivekananda becomes a rascal. The only one who is authentic is the one who believes that women enjoy being raped and seek out expert rapists. What to say?

 

Nevertheless, I must point out to the factual error in SP's statement. Ramanujacarya gave the already existing mantra "Om Namo Narayana" to everyone. Does it mean that those Sri Vaishnavas who address with that salutation consider themselves to be Narayana?

 

Vivekananda didn't manufacture the term "daridra Narayana". That term has been in usage in Tamil Vaishnava works for atleast 500 years before Vivekananda was born. Mukkuur Lakshmi Narasimhacharyar quotes that in atleast 2 instances. I will try to get those works and produce the relevant parts. There are deities with that name in Vaishnava temples that are over 500 years old. Sthala Purana of ancient Tamil Vaishnava temples would be immensely helpful in gathering true knowledge, so that one doesn't make such erroneous statements as SP has made here.

 

 

But the Mayavadis, they are thinking, "We are as good as Krsna." Therefore they do not go to the temple of Krsna. Because they think self, Narayana, Krsna.

 

 

Instead of waiting at the Pope's office in Vatican for an audience [which was denied to him], SP would have benefitted by paying a visit to the Sankara mutt in Kancipuram and seeing for himself if Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswati worshipped Narayana or not. Or what he advised the devotees to do.

[shvu 1]

 

Good points karthik,

 

The problem faced by disciples is, they are bound by sentiments which places on them the burden of trying to justify every negative statement made by their Guru, which in this particular case happens to be many, unfortunately.

 

Not everyone can be a Ramana Maharshi.

 

Cheers

 

[Somesh Kumar 0]

 

The doctrine is based on Upanishad statments such as ahaM brahmaasmi, tattavamasi, ayamaatma brahma, etc, which is about the identity of the Atman with Brahman.

 

 

Can you define what you call Brahman in English? For example Atman is soul. Then how do you define Brahman? You have'nt commented regarding my comment about the difference between Brahman and Parabrahman (Sri Krishna)! They have to reach to the stage of Parabrahman realisation from the stage of Brahman realisation.

 

SB says:

 

vadanti tat tattva vidas,

tattvam yad jnyanam avyayam

brahmeti parmatmeti

bhagavan iti sabdyate

 

So the Supreme is realised in three phases Brahman, Paramatma and then Bhagavaan! The advaitin understands about Bhagavaan when he comes in contact with a pure devotee of Sri Krishna.

 

 

Neither will a realized person proclaim he is God, for it doesn't make any sense when there is none other than the self.

 

 

That means that Advaitin is indirectly/directly refuting the presence of God in this case, if there's none other than self, which is very much similar as saying I am God.

 

 

The path of logic, he recommends only to advanced Mumukshus for they are ripe for knowledge. For the rest [but not limited to], Bhakti Yoga and Karma yoga is the way to go.

 

 

But, it seems to Me that Shankaracharya is not giving that importance to Bhakti as Krishna Himself wanted.

 

The best verse is:

 

Krishna says:

 

yoginam api sarvesham

mad gatenantara atamana

sraddhavan bhajate yo mam

sa me yuktatamo matah.

 

A person with <u>faith</u> who <u>worships</u> Me is the <u> Topmost Yogi</u>

 

Krishna is very clear in declaring that He wants Bhakti !!!

 

 

 

 

[karthik_v 0]

Dear Somesh prabhuji,

 

 

Can you define what you call Brahman in English? For example Atman is soul. Then how do you define Brahman?

 

 

As per Advaita, there is no difference. There is no duality, in reality. All that exists is nirguna brahman. The jiiva has no existence independent of the nirguna brahman.

 

 

That means that Advaitin is indirectly/directly refuting the presence of God in this case, if there's none other than self, which is very much similar as saying I am God.

 

 

Yes and no. Advaita follows what is there in the upanishads. They do refute the existence of sadguna brahman in the ultimate analysis. Your last statement needs to be qualified. You never become God, as you are never independent of the nirguna brahman in the first place. So, when an advaitin says aham brahmasmi, one has to understand what he means by I, as can be learnt from that definition given by Ramana Maharishi. In other words, if you use the conventional functional definition of I [which identifies you in the mode of duality], then as per Advaita, you realize that you are nirguna brahman, after that "I" in you has ceased to be.

[theist 1]

Shvu, perhaps you have a mission.Please go forth and tell those on JNdas' list that they should not claim to be God.This would be a great service.If they have passed, then please enlighten their followers who undoubtedly have become infected,through association with their teachers, with the same misconception that they are God.

 

You can tell them that no else exists so they should not be speaking to others.

 

Oh, but then, is there someone there claiming to be God, or is it just their past prarabha-karma speaking?Damn, now I'm all confused again.

 

[shvu 1]

 

Theist,

 

You are back on square 1. I suggest you read thru the last few posts again to understand what an advaitin means when he says "you are God", etc.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

[karthik_v 0]

Dear Theist Prabhuji,

 

 

Shvu, perhaps you have a mission.Please go forth and tell those on JNdas' list that they should not claim to be God.This would be a great service.

 

 

I don't care to speak on behalf of all those on that list, which for all I care, might have included Jesus as well. Ramana was one among the list and I did point out that what is ascribed to him is totally false and produced Ramana Maharishi's own words to refute that. Did you read that? Would you form an opinion of what SP taught by reading the legal papers of Turley? If not, then why would you form an opinion of Ramana Maharishi by reading anything other than his own words?

 

 

If they have passed, then please enlighten their followers who undoubtedly have become infected,through association with their teachers, with the same misconception that they are God.

 

 

Talking of infection, do you think that we also need to address those followers who might have come to believe that women enjoy being raped and seek out expert rapists? Assuming that your allegation about the advaitins is true, which is not the case, as the words of Ramana Maharishi refute them, still someone thinking that he is God is not a big danger to a society as the one who thinks that women enjoy being raped [that too going by the pronouncements of his infallible master]. Do you think that marriages may be in a mess if the first born is a girl child because the followers may think that had the couple been chaste the first born would be a male [again going by the pronouncements of his infallible master]?

 

 

You can tell them that no else exists so they should not be speaking to others.

 

 

Perhaps you should read some Advaita, if are bent upon attacking that philosophy. Yes, as per Advaita, there is no duality, but does it deny the perception of duality caused by avidya?

[shvu 1]

 

Somesh,

 

Let me also say that it is like a breath of fresh air to see an iskconite minus the condescending attitude. You have come a long way.

 

 

Can you define what you call Brahman in English? For example Atman is soul. Then how do you define Brahman? You have'nt commented regarding my comment about the difference between Brahman and Parabrahman (Sri Krishna)! They have to reach to the stage of Parabrahman realisation from the stage of Brahman realisation.

 

 

Brahman has no satisfactory equivalent in English, just like many other sanskrit words. God is the english equivalent of the sankrit deva and is sometimes used for Brahman along with Supreme, etc. When I use Brahman, unless I specifically say otherwise, I mean the Supreme Brahman or in your words, para brahman.

 

 

So the Supreme is realised in three phases Brahman, Paramatma and then Bhagavaan! The advaitin understands about Bhagavaan when he comes in contact with a pure devotee of Sri Krishna.

 

 

Whichever comes at the end is the Supreme Brahman, the Brahman I was referring to. Like I quoted y'day,

 

eshhaa braahmii sthitihi paartha nainaaM praapya vimuhyati |

sthitvaasyaamantakaale api brahmanirvaanamrichchhati ||

 

 

That means that Advaitin is indirectly/directly refuting the presence of God in this case, if there's none other than self, which is very much similar as saying I am God.

 

 

No, for when there is only the self, such a statement has no meaning. Who is saying that to whom? IMO, it is not a good idea to learn about the specifics of a doctrine on a discussion forum. If you are keen on knowing the position of Advaita [even if it is for criticism], get your knowledge from a valid source, which would be a work authored by Shankara himself. The last thing you want to do is to rely on knowledge from a non-advatic source. Advaita, unlike other doctrines, is confusing if not approached correctly.

 

 

But, it seems to Me that Shankaracharya is not giving that importance to Bhakti as Krishna Himself wanted.

 

 

Shankara has given Bhakti it's due. What kind of evidence are you looking for? Let me know and we will take it from there.

 

Cheers

 

 

[theist 1]

Shvu:

"Theist,

 

You are back on square 1. I suggest you read thru the last few posts again to understand what an advaitin means when he says "you are God", etc.

 

Cheers"

 

What is confusing, is when an advaitin says "you are God,etc.",if I believe him then I have to question who he is talking to and again why he is talking in the first place since according to him he himself doesn't exist.

 

 

 

 

[Somesh Kumar 0]

Karthik Prabhuji,

 

You are a wonderful person that's why you're calling an ignorant and bad person like me as wonderful.

 

 

As per Advaita, there is no difference. There is no duality, in reality. All that exists is nirguna brahman. The jiiva has no existence independent of the nirguna brahman.

 

 

But this still did'nt answer my question. What will you call Brahman in English?

 

 

Yes and no. Advaita follows what is there in the upanishads. They do refute the existence of sadguna brahman in the ultimate analysis.

 

 

How can anything be Yes and No ? If there's no sadguna brhaman then where is Bhagavaan? And if there's no Bhagavaan then where is Bhakti? Which is so much stressed upon by Sri Krishna in BG!

 

 

In other words, if you use the conventional functional definition of I [which identifies you in the mode of duality], then as per Advaita, you realize that you are nirguna brahman

 

 

Come on Karthik prabhuji, if this is the case then everyone has realised nirguna brahman by birth because everyone is by default in the state of duality!!! It takes a great effort to come out of duality and Sri Krishna's mercy makes this ocean of trouble (of duality) look like water in calf's hoof, which can be crossed easily!

 

This is the verse in SB that says this:

 

samsrita ya pada pallava plavam,

mahat padam punya yasho murare

bhavambudhir vatsa padam param padam

padam padam yat vipadan na tesam.

[shvu 1]

 

 

What is confusing, is when an advaitin says "you are God,etc.",if I believe him then I have to question who he is talking to and again why he is talking in the first place since according to him he himself doesn't exist.

 

 

As far as the student is concerned, he exists and so does the Guru. The student cannot understand the perception of the Guru for it is not something that can be imagined and so he should not bother with that.

 

When the Guru says "tattvamasi" which means "You are that", he is instructing Shvetaketu about the identity of his soul with the Brahman. i.e., the true nature of the student is Brahman. In the Upadesha Saahasri, Shankara starts the work as a dialogue between a Guru and his Shishya where the Guru starts off by telling the Shishya that he is not the body and his true nature is Brahman and that has to be realized. This is what is translated into english as "you are God", by some. If taken out of context as is done by some ignorant critics, this statement appears blasphemous and will of course, give an incorrect meaning.

 

Cheers

 

[karthik_v 0]

Dear Somesh Prabhuji,

 

 

You are a wonderful person that's why you're calling an ignorant and bad person like me as wonderful.

 

 

You will change this perception, if you talk to me once or if you read my posts a little longer /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

 

What will you call Brahman in English?

 

 

Good question. Frankly, I don't know how to translate that word, just as I don't know how to translate the word dharma. I guess certain words have to be understood in the context of the tradition.

 

 

If there's no sadguna brhaman then where is Bhagavaan? And if there's no Bhagavaan then where is Bhakti? Which is so much stressed upon by Sri Krishna in BG!

 

 

Once you have become realized, there is no more duality and hence no sadguna brahman either. Till then, that is so long as you are in the temporal mode of duality, there is sadguna brahman. So, for the one in that state of duality, Krishna is still relevant and so is bhakti. Once you become realized, all that exists is nirguna brahman, which is undifferentiated. There is not even perception any more.

 

 

if this is the case then everyone has realised nirguna brahman by birth because everyone is by default in the state of duality..

 

 

Here is what I stated: "In other words, if you use the conventional functional definition of I [which identifies you in the mode of duality], then as per Advaita, you realize that you are nirguna brahman, after that "I" in you has ceased to be."

 

In other words, such an identification is possible for the realized alone. So, it is not commonplace. It is possible only after you have transcended duality. It is not possible so long as you are in the mode of duality.

[theist 1]

Shvu:"As far as the student is concerned, he exists and so does the Guru. The student cannot understand the perception of the Guru for it is not something that can be imagined and so he should not bother with that."

 

But as far as the Guru is concerned, why does he speak to the student who he knows doesn't exist?If the Guru is actually realized according to advaita he should know that there is no one to speak to.Of course he wouldn't reflect that way, he wouldn't be there.So what motivates the conversation in the first place?It comes down to two recording machines,one called the guru, the other called the student,having a conversation (that also doesn't exist).

 

The guru recording machine apparently holds the final instructions concerning mukti and its attainment which is just played out for the benefit of the less advanced recording machine to record and pass on as it,in turn, realizes that nothing exists but Itself.

 

Sorry shvu, but this is a lonely, cold, lifeless view of life.Of course you would counter that there is no one to be cold or lonely and the concept of lifeless is meaningless with no concept of life to weigh it against.

 

To a vaisnava it is cold, lonely and lifeless, as a life without Krsna and others is no life at all.

 

I find the Chaitanya's doctrine far more persuasive.

 

I am curious as to why you don't.

 

 

[Somesh Kumar 0]

 

Let me also say that it is like a breath of fresh air to see an iskconite minus the condescending attitude. You have come a long way.

 

 

I must tell you that I'm not an ISCKONite yet. And one more thing is you should'nt generalise that all ISKCONites are with condescending attitude. Somehow, I never like generilsations when it comes to criticizing!!! And that is the truth

 

But I firmly believe

 

isvarah pramah krishnah,

sachidananda vigraha

anadir adir govinda

sarva karana karanam

 

That means the karanam of the discussion we are doing now is also Krishna!!!

 

 

When I use Brahman, unless I specifically say otherwise, I mean the Supreme Brahman or in your words, para brahman.

 

 

Come on Shvu prabhuji - How can you equate Brahman with Parabrahman??? Why is the Para suffix required then???

 

 

Whichever comes at the end is the Supreme Brahman, the Brahman I was referring to.

 

 

Same as above!

 

 

No, for when there is only the self, such a statement has no meaning. Who is saying that to whom?

 

 

When there is no two then where is Bhagavaan and where is Bhakti??? And when you're saying that everything is one only two things can be inferred:

 

1. There's no God

2. That one is God which means "I am God" and "Everyone is God".

 

Am I wrong???

 

 

Advaita, unlike other doctrines, is confusing if not approached correctly.

 

 

In that case no doctrine is easy to understand unless properly approached! Even Bhakti which is the most simple and the best process of realising Bhagavaan certified many times in BG by Sri Krishna!

 

 

Shankara has given Bhakti it's due. What kind of evidence are you looking for? Let me know and we will take it from there.

 

 

Please do tell how Jagat Guru Adi Shankaracharya interpreted

 

Man mana bhava mad bhakta...

 

Yoginam api sarvesham...

 

Matta parataram nanyet..

 

Did He mention about Krishna in these verses? If yes - Then I can say that Shankara has given Bhakti it's due. If not then I'm sorry He has'nt!

 

 

 

[shvu 1]

 

 

But as far as the Guru is concerned, why does he speak to the student who he knows doesn't exist?

 

 

The Guru that we see is perceived by us because we perceive duality. As an example, you perceive x, y, z and Ramana. The difference aamong them is x, y and z are also deluded souls perceiving duality, while in the case of Ramana, there is no delusion. The self, that is the self of all is operating there to provide useful instructions. Why does such a thing happen? Recall the yadaa yadaa..verse from the BG. A liberated person/body is like an avataar with a mission. That is the difference.

 

As far as we are concerned, since we perceive duality, everything is real. The question of illusion doesn't arise. trying to bring in the concept of illuions/non-existence into our existence is wrong and will confuse.

 

To a vaisnava it is cold, lonely and lifeless, as a life without Krsna and others is no life at all.

 

 

Like you said, cold, lonely, lifeless, etc make sense only when there is diversity.

 

I find the Chaitanya's doctrine far more persuasive. I am curious as to why you don't.

 

 

To each, his own, theist. Just like different people are attracted to different colors, different types of food, etc. we all choose that system which makes the most sense to us. It is what is true that is important rather than what appears attractive. Like the cup that Indian Jones picks out in the "Last crusade".

 

Cheers

[Somesh Kumar 0]

 

Once you have become realized, there is no more duality and hence no sadguna brahman either. Till then, that is so long as you are in the temporal mode of duality, there is sadguna brahman. So, for the one in that state of duality, Krishna is still relevant and so is bhakti.

 

 

Is'nt this like saying I'll love you before marriage and the moment I get married I forget you! i.e.

I'll talk of Sadguna Brahman till the point of attaining my desire of mukti and then I'll forget him!

Is'nt it selfish to think like that? Also the enjoyment you'll have of actually maintaining your individual relation with SyamaSundar Madan Mohan Sri Krishna is lost!

 

Also I can say one thing very clearly which I know about some of the Brahman realised saints is that they enjoy transcendental bliss in Hari kirtan and Hari katha which clearly certifies Krishna's BG 18.54 statement!

 

 

In other words, such an identification is possible for the realized alone. So, it is not commonplace. It is possible only after you have transcended duality. It is not possible so long as you are in the mode of duality.

 

 

That's not the aim of a devotee. After transcending duality you understand nirguna Brahma. And from that stage the person becomes a pure devotee if the Realised sage gets the association of a pure devotee.

 

The four Kumars and Suka Maharaj are the best examples!

 

 

[shvu 1]

 

I'll talk of Sadguna Brahman till the point of attaining my desire of mukti and then I'll forget him!

 

 

After Mukti, there is no Sadguna Brahman to forget !

 

The problem is your understanding of Advaita is confused and incorrect and will remain so, as long as you do not get it from a proper source. We will keep repeating the same arguments back and forth, ad nauseam. I suggest we agree to disagree until you learn about Advaita. That will be a move in the right direction.

 

Cheers

[karthik_v 0]

Dear Somesh Prabhuji,

 

 

Is'nt this like saying I'll love you before marriage and the moment I get married I forget you! i.e. I'll talk of Sadguna Brahman till the point of attaining my desire of mukti and then I'll forget him!

 

 

The question of forgetting itself doesn't arise as nirguna brahman is free from attributes. A realized person neither forgets nor remembers, just as Krishna says in BG, a devotee experiences neither pain nor pleasure.

 

Just to turn the analogy around, would you call a girl a betrayer because she left her parents to live with the husband they had chosen for her? I am reminded of a 2000 year old Sangam Tamil song whose translation I will provide. A girl elopes with her lover and the mother is sad. She goes to a saint and pours her heart out. He says:

 

"Of what use is the shining white pearl

Except to the one who wears it

Even to the ocean in which it was reared;

If you ponder the matter, so it is with your daughter

 

Of what use is the sandal tree

Except to the one who wears its scent

Even to the forest where it grew;

If you ponder the matter, so it is with your daughter"

 

So, in the analogy I gave above, the purpose of a girl's life is to live with her husband. Her parents are significant only to the point where they help her attain that purpose. The same with sadguna brahman.

 

I must add that an analogy is only figurative; it is not the truth in itself. It is impossible to explain Advaia, which is logical, through analogies. I gave this analogy only to provide a perspective.

[Somesh Kumar 0]

 

After Mukti, there is no Sadguna Brahman to forget !

 

 

Here again comes the point of different types of mukti which I talked of before.

 

If you want Sayujya mukti then OK you forget about Bhagavaan.

 

But devotees are interested in other aspects also which is

Salokya, Samipya, Sarsti, and Sarupya.

 

 

The problem is your understanding of Advaita is confused and incorrect and will remain so, as long as you do not get it from a proper source. We will keep repeating the same arguments back and forth, ad nauseam. I suggest we agree to disagree until you learn about Advaita. That will be a move in the right direction.

 

 

No.I think I understand Advaita which says that after mukti there is only Brahman which is the Sayujya mukti. But please do try to understand that there are other better kind of muktis as well!!! I also agree with you that we have to agree to disagree because unless we(especially the Advaitins) have developed the loving feeling to Bhagavaan we connot understand Him!!!

[Somesh Kumar 0]

 

The question of forgetting itself doesn't arise as nirguna brahman is free from attributes. A realized person neither forgets nor remembers, just as Krishna says in BG, a devotee experiences neither pain nor pleasure.

 

 

Forgetting and rememberence is due to Krishna as He says in BG

 

sarvasya chaham

hrdi sannivishtam

mattah smritir

gyanam apohanam cha

 

<u>I am situated in heart of everyone and rememberance, forgetfulness and knowledge is due to Me!</u>

 

 

Just to turn the analogy around, would you call a girl a betrayer because she left her parents to live with the husband they had chosen for her?

 

 

No. This is her dharma, if I can say so! So there's no question of betrayal here. Rather the parents are happy to get her married!

 

 

So, in the analogy I gave above, the purpose of a girl's life is to live with her husband. Her parents are significant only to the point where they help her attain that purpose. The same with sadguna brahman.

 

 

Sorry, I don't agree with you here. You mean to say that girl has to forget her parents after marriage??? Is this correct??? The same question arises in case of Sadguna Brahman who is our everything-

 

tvameva mata cha pita tvameva

tvameva bandhush cha sakha tvameva

tvameva vidya dravinam tvameva

tvameva sarvam mama deva deva

 

Is it fair on the part of the jiva to forget Bhagavaan after he realises his goal??? Of course, finally forgetfulness and rememberance is again given by Bhagavaan basing on the desire of the jiva.

 

updrshta anumanta

bharta bhokta mahesvara

paramtmeti capyukto

dehesmin purusa parah!

 

Are you trying to get this point? But finally as Shvu said we have to agree to disagree now.

 

 

 

[karthik_v 0]

 

Sorry, I don't agree with you here. You mean to say that girl has to forget her parents after marriage??? Is this correct??? The same question arises in case of Sadguna Brahman who is our everything-

 

 

Perhaps, you got stuck with the analogy. I cautioned you not to get stuck with that, but seems like, for now, we need to go with the analogy /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

Let us turn the analogy around once more. You said it is the girl's dharma to go to her husband's place. I agree. Suppose, the girl is obsessed with her parents that she won't even marry or if married, won't even think of her husband and just live with her parents, is she fulfilling that dharma? Is her attachment to her temporal state, her parents' abode, helping her fulfill her dharma? Obviously not.

 

According to Advaita, the purpose of sadguna brahman is to liberate from the false perception of duality. Its purpose is not to get you entangled further in it. Further, as I have repeated a few times by now, once you are liberated, there is nothing else to perceive.

 

Anyway, the objective of this discussion is not to establish the superiority of Advaita over GV/Vaishnavism or vice versa. I don't believe that such a thing is even possible. It just happens that the portrayal of Advaita and Advaitin by SP is not accurate and some of us just pointed that out.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

 

Nevertheless, I must point out to the factual error in SP's statement. Ramanujacarya gave the already existing mantra "Om Namo Narayana" to everyone. Does it mean that those Sri Vaishnavas who address with that salutation consider themselves to be Narayana?

 

 

Actually the factual error is in your statement. Namo Narayana is in the vocative, it is addressing someone as Narayana, and is the custom of all Sadhus in Rishikesh and Badrinatha. The mantra Ramanuja gave is "Om namo narayanaya", "I offer obeisances to Narayana." They are completely different statements.