05-27-2005, 01:17 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In fact Advaitins claim that Shiva or Vishnu have no independent and real existence and are just names for the formless Brahman. Thus Advaitins decry the existence of Shiva or Vishnu. For them, these are just names of imagination.. of maya.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay, we are back from Iskcon to this holier-than-thou rubbish that goes on in the name of advaita-bashing. First off, Hyagriva, you either have no idea of Advaita Vedanta, or you are purposefully misconstruing the argument and presenting it in a way which is asynchronous with traditional Advaita schools.
When an Advaitin "claims" Shiva or Vishnu have no real existence, they are refering to the "Name-Quality" combination. Guna, and Aakara are finite and limted as the Shruthi claims. But the Shruthis also says that a anyone who says "It" has a form is a fool, and one who says It is formless is a bigger fool. He who neither thinks of It as formed or formless perhaps may know it.
Shiva and Vishnu DO exist, and their existence is as real as your dreams are. The one permanent aspect in your dream and THIS reality is YOU, the Self. That alone is real. Thus Shiva and Vishnu are Real, and in Reality, they are your Self.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It has also prompted many self-made Gurus and Charlatans to call themselves Avataras since they say that there is absolutely no difference between them and Brahman. Some have self-styled themselves as 'Bhagavan' this and Bhagavan That.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While stating that there is no deriding, it is quite ironic that the Gaudiya followers with half-baked understanding of Shruthis talk about "Self made Gurus" and Charlatans. If your reference to Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi, be known that he did not confer any titles upon himself. As for Avathara this and Avatara that, Advaita is not averse to Avataras. Just like the Vision of Krishna in my dreams are in the framework of the mind, the external manifestation of Avatara, Amsa, Poornavathara, etc are within the framework of relativity. No two Avataras are distinct from 'each other', it is the same Self, (which is within this body too) is manifesting itself in a tangible form.
A name-form combination has no existence of it's own. It only relies on the substratum which can neither be defined, nor be known independently. When an Advaitin says Shiva or Vishnu, it is the same entity with different name or attribute. Or as the Shruthis call it Shivam/Advaitam (Mand.7).
On the one hand you say there is no deriding, but in the very next sentence mention that "We are superior to those xyz schools." There should be a healthy debate for any progress to take place, what I see is a stifling attitude where you say "We know we are superior, and hence you are inferior even though we donât mean it that way." If you say your views are valid (let alone superior), you have to back it up with Shruthi Pramana, and not padma-purana or kushmanda-purana.
You said:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->However, Vaishnavism is the most complete science on Bhakti and has the easiest and surest way of understanding love for Godhead and therefore enjoys a preeminent position.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You failed to say WHY it is the most complete science? The same claim can be made by christians who claim their way to be the path of Love, or islam that claims to be the only true religion of peace. You may want to back up your position on WHY Vaishnavism is more complete than say, Thiru Gnana Sambandhar's or Appar's way? A true bhaktha revels in ANYONE having bhakthi towards the Lord. To say that my interepretation alone is right, and yours is wrong is just laughable and is inconsistent go even with your own statement.
May Sri Hari who is but a form of Sadha Shiva be praised.
Okay, we are back from Iskcon to this holier-than-thou rubbish that goes on in the name of advaita-bashing. First off, Hyagriva, you either have no idea of Advaita Vedanta, or you are purposefully misconstruing the argument and presenting it in a way which is asynchronous with traditional Advaita schools.
When an Advaitin "claims" Shiva or Vishnu have no real existence, they are refering to the "Name-Quality" combination. Guna, and Aakara are finite and limted as the Shruthi claims. But the Shruthis also says that a anyone who says "It" has a form is a fool, and one who says It is formless is a bigger fool. He who neither thinks of It as formed or formless perhaps may know it.
Shiva and Vishnu DO exist, and their existence is as real as your dreams are. The one permanent aspect in your dream and THIS reality is YOU, the Self. That alone is real. Thus Shiva and Vishnu are Real, and in Reality, they are your Self.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It has also prompted many self-made Gurus and Charlatans to call themselves Avataras since they say that there is absolutely no difference between them and Brahman. Some have self-styled themselves as 'Bhagavan' this and Bhagavan That.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While stating that there is no deriding, it is quite ironic that the Gaudiya followers with half-baked understanding of Shruthis talk about "Self made Gurus" and Charlatans. If your reference to Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi, be known that he did not confer any titles upon himself. As for Avathara this and Avatara that, Advaita is not averse to Avataras. Just like the Vision of Krishna in my dreams are in the framework of the mind, the external manifestation of Avatara, Amsa, Poornavathara, etc are within the framework of relativity. No two Avataras are distinct from 'each other', it is the same Self, (which is within this body too) is manifesting itself in a tangible form.
A name-form combination has no existence of it's own. It only relies on the substratum which can neither be defined, nor be known independently. When an Advaitin says Shiva or Vishnu, it is the same entity with different name or attribute. Or as the Shruthis call it Shivam/Advaitam (Mand.7).
On the one hand you say there is no deriding, but in the very next sentence mention that "We are superior to those xyz schools." There should be a healthy debate for any progress to take place, what I see is a stifling attitude where you say "We know we are superior, and hence you are inferior even though we donât mean it that way." If you say your views are valid (let alone superior), you have to back it up with Shruthi Pramana, and not padma-purana or kushmanda-purana.
You said:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->However, Vaishnavism is the most complete science on Bhakti and has the easiest and surest way of understanding love for Godhead and therefore enjoys a preeminent position.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You failed to say WHY it is the most complete science? The same claim can be made by christians who claim their way to be the path of Love, or islam that claims to be the only true religion of peace. You may want to back up your position on WHY Vaishnavism is more complete than say, Thiru Gnana Sambandhar's or Appar's way? A true bhaktha revels in ANYONE having bhakthi towards the Lord. To say that my interepretation alone is right, and yours is wrong is just laughable and is inconsistent go even with your own statement.
May Sri Hari who is but a form of Sadha Shiva be praised.