Who Is A Hindu

[Guest]

Carl, Thanks for long and interesting posts.

There are many points where you carry your points through. But IMHO in several others, my understanding clashes with your statements.

The main reason for this I can think of, is a pretty sectarian approach. Although you used the allopathy vs ayurveda argument to justify it, I do not think that that example is valid or that this approach has been of much producttivity.

What I see is strong criticisms for competeing views, but also indications that the competing views haven't been comprehended fully. Quite evidently with the rope-snake argument as Gangajal also mentioned.

I venture strongly that many people who are using strong language against other views perhaps do not comprehend other views fully.

I think it would be very nice if people get together to discuss different views in a more conciliatory manner, to understand them first as understood by the protagonists, not as understood by the opponents. Once we understand the opposing view according to its protagonsists, only then a meanigful debate will take place. Otherwise we will just be firing real arrows at imaginary targets.

I saw your strong views about 'mayavad'. You also mentioned the superiority of 'achintya bheda-abheda' . I have been trying to understand this point for a while now. But so far haven't been satisfied. In fact many arguments that can be leveled against 'mayavad' or even 'shunyavad' can also be leveled against 'achintya-bheda-abheda'. In my so far half baked understanding of the concept, I frankly am stranded at a point where I find that this concept tries to roll contradictions into one supposed whole, which so far hasn't computed for me.

I will be much obliged if you expand on this point. May be in a separate thread. Perhaps the Vedanta thread.

[Guest]

New thread is started by Sunder for further discussion
<b>Iskcon: It's Role, Idealogies, And World-view. </b>
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.ph...T&f=10&t=887&s=

[Sunder]

Himalayan Academy: Who Then Are the Hindus?

[Guest]

Hi folks. Back after a while. Hope to address a few selected points here:

<b>rajesh_g</b>,
Let me give you a concrete example of how various creeds can share the same 'Hindu' cultural platform without having to tamper with Vedanta itself in order to come out with some philosophical 'compromise formula'. You must be aware of what happened recently with the Kanchi math. Although not accepted by the Sringeri math and others, the Kanchi math considers itself in the Advaita line. I have some Tamil friends here whose families are closely linked with the Kanchi math. I have other friends whose theological beliefs and formal affiliations are different (as are mine). Yet, we've put together a good Forum in this city where people get together and read Shankara's works, and help build awareness of what's going on politically. In fact, a large part of the group's logistics is provided by non-Advaitist people (most from Iskcon, in fact), even though the call was given by a Ramakrishna mission devotee (not that the RK mission is true Advaitist -- a point I'll come back to later). So why would they do this? Because the public apathy towards this blatant act of political thuggery against a symbolic Vedic religious authority is of concern to all who revere the Vedic heritage. So there you have it.

2. I see that in your worldview you see the world in terms of monotheistic v/s non-monotheistic and consider monotheism ...

No such thing. My only point was to show why a "monotheistic" creed must necessarily offer an informed criticism of non-monotheistic creeds, because of the philosophical and psycho-spiritual conflicts involved. Although I tried to explain this by the Ayurveda-allopathy analogy, one may really develop an appreciation of this imperative only after some immersion in both, in terms of philosophy and some practice. Conversely, non-"monotheistic" creeds will find monotheism an irreconcilable enemy, and therefore always try to subvert it or play it down. This is also natural.

Secondly, don't latch onto the word "monotheistic" too quickly. That word itself is rather broad. Clearly, "Christianity" (churchianity) and "Islam" (Islamism) have significant differences with Vaishnavism. But at the most basic level, the understanding that the Individual Soul is never "identical" with the Supreme (or rather, that that "identity" is qualified) forms the basis of "monotheism". So here, I am using the term "monotheism" in contradistinction to "atheistic monism", rather than "polytheism".

(a) I guess you were responding to my copy-paste on BR re. the quraish ? I agree that saying islam = arab paganism is false. It is much more then that. But you forgot to mention the first proposal that the quraish made -> dont speak ill of our gods. That doesnt sound too ridiculous to me. (b) IMHO hindu nationalism didnt put "religion" on table, it put hindu religion on table. The others were already on the table.

rajesh, I have no recollection of any discussion we had on BRF. Anyhow, regarding the "speaking ill of our gods" idea: Do not make an absolute virtue out of political correctness or mushiness. The Prophet was known to be rather gentle in speech, but philosophically there could be no pussy-footing. Muslims do believe in demi-gods of all sorts, in case you weren't aware. That is the status that Muhammad assigned to (some of) these "gods" that the Meccans were whining about. That, to them, was "speaking ill". So be it. Muhammad wasn't the first to use coercion. In any case, I'm not getting into a defence of everything that happenedd in Arabia here. I just want to defend the central thrust of my argument -- the justified necessity for a Vaishnava to educate an interested public in what Vaishnavism is, <i>and is not</i>. But if, for you, external "tolerance" as a phlosophical virtue is an <i>absolute point of judgment</i>, then even Secular Humanism may not satisfy you competely.

As for point (b), if you are suggesting that Vivekananda gave Hinduism a place at the table <i>vis a vis Islamism</i>, then that is even worse than the plausible virtue I was suggesting -- of upholding the value of religion in the national conscience. Setting 'Hinduism' up as a counter-Islamic or counter-Christian party is hardly the mission of the great sages. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu often said that "sectarianism and party feeling" were the enemies of spirituality -- and this is from one of the greatest "mayavadi-bashers" of all time. So it may be worthwhile to take a closer look at what He means...

OTOH, you have the RK-mission building "universal temples" complete with cross and crescent emblazoned on it, but open the books and you have lots of nationalistic talk, and of Vivekananda saying that Muhammad was an "imperfect yogi". You tell me who's being disingenuous and insidious here? If you think Muhammad is an imperfect yogi, then why not be open about it? Why hide behind an exterior of great "tolerance"?

4. Let me just clarify one thing - I am not against monotheism, per se. If Dharma needs this tool to defeat the abrahamnic cults once and for all, then so be it. ...

What is this "dharma" of yours? And what is this "abrahamic cults" business?? I'll tell you what it is -- its a bunch of sectarian labels that humans attach to their posteriors.

What is Vaishnavism's USP ? How does it equip "hinduism" with more
firepower ?

By "plundering the storehouse of Love of God and distributing it freely to those willing to accept it". Sri Ramanuja struck the first chord of a symphony that reached its crescendo with Lord Chaitanya. That singular act of the young Ramanuja distributing the mantra to all and sundry at great personal risk is a turning point in the religious history of India and the world. This is the "firepower", para-bhakti, Love of God. The belated efforts of several organizations (still caste-bound internally) to try to counter non-Hindu evangelism by doing some <i>social work</i> or whipping up <i>political sentiment</i> is useless in the long run. I personally know educated and well-off Hindus who are converting outside. When asked about casteism and the "defence of Hinduism" almost a century ago, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura said:

The judgment of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu is far superior to the slight improvement of the condition of the lower castes as proposed by the modern social reformers, nay , it far excels even the impartial equality as taught in the Gita. The proposal of the worldly-minded moralists for slightly raising the status  of the lower forms of society has some extraneous motive as its cause; there are various purposes hiding behind it, such as political objects, personal interests, motive for acquiring fame and such other ends. These subordinate principles have given rise to attempts for uplifting the lower castes, which are of an extremely worldly character and clearly betray their hypocrisy. The instruction of the Gita to look on all as equal to the self from the principle that all are souls is several times more elevated than they , and is free from the worldly dirt. But the teachings of Sri Caitanya Deva is not merely prohibitive of worldliness and based on impartiality, but it is a positive one of the character of transcendentalism.

Sri Caitanya Deva wants to engage all jivas in the service of God and thereby to elevate them to the highest status. He converts a crow to Garuda (the prince of Eagles). The religion promulgated by Him in not meant for Bengal alone, nor India even, but for all countries, all villages, His is the universal religion for all creatures. So has He said: “My name will be propagated in all towns, all villages that exist in the world.” 

...The religion as promulgulated by Him is that of the soul; and not that of the society, physical, mental and moral, and is not restricted to the usual form of devotion of the servant to the Majestic Lord. His religion discovers the innate nature of the jiva soul and is manifested in the unabated plenary love for God.

I also quote Shankaracharya from his viveka-chudamani (v. 31): "Among the instruments and conditions necessary for liberation, bhakti alone is supreme. A constant attempt to live up to one's own Real Nature is called a single-pointed devotion." In this and the next verse, Shankara poits out how bhakti is the most natural method, and also the final end, because it is the real nature of the jiva. Of course, I leave it as an exercise to you to read up on how some mayavadis get into a twist trying to interpret this verse among others, that too with reference to the Narada bhakti sutras!

- Why is it that hindu society is a cross-section of all creeds (per Carl) and why isnt any other society like that ? And despite all these 'creeds' what ties a hindu to another hindu ?

Because for several reasons relating to the history and human ecology of the subcontinent, we have an immense diversity in every aspect. What ties one Hindu to another? An ancient and common cultural experience I guess, and that also includes common tormentors and enemies at certain times in recent history.

What does it mean when a 'creed' or an acharya debates and defeats another acharya ? Does that mean the defeated acharya was 'false' ? If he was 'false' then was his experience 'false' ?

No, it doesn’t necessarily mean the previous acharya was “false”. At least not in the cases we’re dealing with here. As I’ve reiterated again and again on this forum, Vaishnavism does not reject the Advaitic conclusions. It only says that the Advaitic understanding of Veddanta is not complete, is not the last word. Vaishnava theory is <i>inclusive</i> of Advaita.

To understand this, we have to understand the nature of <i>jnana</i>, or the Noetic method. There are different types of logic. Jnana is not <i>linear</i> logic. It is a method whereby we circle around the subject of examination (Absolute Truth in this case) in a spiral fashion, examining it from various perspectives, and then zoom into it gradually like a cone into its apex. That’s the best way I can explain an abstract idea in short. Therefore we see that, although Madhva’s “dwaita” seems to have strayed quite far off from Shankara's “Advaita”, actually it is describing only one aspect of the same Truth. In fact, the Vedic definition of a “muni” is one artfully who describes the same truth in different terms! That is also the reason that Lord Chaitanya’s theology is the most complete, because it elegantly dovetails conclusions from all these into a complete picture, and covers more philosophical ground in doing so...

What does 'absolute truth' mean ?

Whew! You got me there bro. I’ll get back to you in about 20 years. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> But I hope you get an idea of how various answers to that question may be “different”, and yet not “contradictory”.

<b>gangajal</b> bhai!
Will just respond to some points:

Vivekananda called these sampradayas Vaishnavas because these sampradayas call themselves Vaishnavas. This is the reason why western scholars have accepted Vivekananda's position...

Your sampradaya seems to have a fascistic bent of mind trying to dictate to other sampradayas what they should call themselves....

Does this make sense? Isn't a self-realized representative of Vedanta supposed to put things in their place and point out deviations for the public good? So now you should not get upset if your beloved Western "scholars" write about sati and casteism as "Hindu" practices, because the people who do it call themselves Hindu.

Now you tell me which is more "fascistic": If I just want to make clear what I stand for and what I do not stand for (like Vaishnavas do), am I fascist? Or would I be fascist if I presumed to speak for you and everyone else, completely misrepresenting your point of view, and hogging the mic on the basis of my "nationalist" credentials (as the RK mission and others do)?

I laughed loudly even more after reading your claim that you were stating Shunyavad theory when you wrote that all except Brahman is non-existent and is a dream. Shunyavad, expounded by Nagarjuna and commented on by Chandrakirti, is a Buddhist theory and rejects Brahman and Atman and all eternalism. Why did you suddenly jump from Advaita to Shunyavad and then you get shunyavad wrong?

I used to think that obfuscation was a deliberate mayavadi tactic, but I see that its usually simply a case of scatterbrain. Please re-read my posts. The point I was driving home is similar to what you are pointing out – that typical mayavad is actually a concoction of true Advaita and shunyavad. In fact, Shankara himself was often criticized as <i>prachanna baudha</i> (hidden Buddhist). Why? Because, understandably, he undertook the monumental task of establishing the superiority of Vedanta in front of an audience that had no respect for Vedic literature in the first place. Therefore, responding to desha, kaala and paatra, Sripada Shankara expertly presented a higher truth (Brahman) in ways very similar to shunyavaadi phraseology. It is that inconvenient and double-edged phraseology that mayavadis latch on to when debating Vaishnava purvacharyas, thereby sliding down the slope of shunyavad atheism. What they end up with is the same shunyavad atheism, cloaked in Vedantic phraseology – <i>effectively the opposite of Shankara’s mission</i>.

RK mission does not follow Shunyavad but <b>bhakti misrita Advaita</b>...
...and also respects  <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo-->  Ramanuja's Vishistadvaita

”misrita” eh? <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> I’m glad you finally decided to fess up. At first, when the RK mission decided to call themselves “Advaitin”, the more established authorities of Advaita in India told them to take a hike. So then the RK mission called themselves “neo-Advaita”, whatever that means. Now gangajal is saying “bhakti misrita advaita”. Methinks you misunderstand Advaita <i>and</i> the idea of Bhakti. You should just be honest and call it “Sri Ramakrishna’s religion”, as Vivekananda once admitted. Like I said before, not only does RK mission have no right to speak on behalf of “Hinduism”, but it cannot speak on behalf of "Advaita" either.

On top of that, you go ahead and build “universal temples”, pretending to “respect” Islam and Christianity, in addition to your “respect” for Vishishtadvaita. We have seen on this very forum your disdain and hatred for Islam, Christianity, and your disagreement with Vaishnavism. So why the façade? As I said, <b>there is NO PROBLEM if you disagree with another philosophy, but don’t pretend to “respect” and then misrepresent that philosophy.</b> <i>Why can’t the RK mission conduct its mission purely on the strength of Sri Ramakrishna’s religion?</i> Why does it have to piggy-back on other established theologies (Advaita, Vaishnavism, Christianity, Islam, etc)? Why lay eggs in other nests?

Hi <b>sunder</b>.

So far as Omkara Pranava is concerned, He is considered the sound incarnation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead; (Sound, and "Incarnation"?? did I actually read Incarnation??)

Aha! Didn’t know you were so finicky about your English. Perhaps “manifests in sound” would be a better substitute. You’re probably familiar with the Vedic theory of vaak and what goes into a mantra, so no need for explanation here. Why quibble over English? You could have been a little more charitable with stuff you pull off a random website, especially when the article is not even written by a scholar sannyasi. It appears you’re scraping the barrel here looking for defects!

Thus the differences that come about is from the Agama stream of thought. The Brahma Sutra Bhashya (I have read only Shankara Bhashya) refutes the Agama schools - Pashupatha, Pancharatra etc, and reconciles them. Someone can educate me how Sri Ramanujacharya, and Sri Madvacharya interpret this.

sunder, the Vaishnava acharyas have also drawn the distinction b/w Agama and Shruti, etc., and give primacy to Veda proper, though they certainly did give greater value to Agama than do others. So firstly, note that every Vaishnava sampradaya began with an exegesis of the Vedanta sutra. As for the Puranas, most of them are acknowledged to have been corrupted, except for the Shrimad Bhagavatam, known as the amala purana (immaculate purana). Yamunacharya wrote a book called the “agama pramanya” in defence of the Agamas in general, even while admitting that they were corrupted.

<b>Shambhu</b>,

A person (X) who does not call for the conversion of other people based on his (X's) belief system [I put in the X to make the meaning clearer]. A hindu may ask for people to be reconverted to hinduism. "Reconverted" meaning that there exists strong evidence to say that the present religion the "other people" (above) was hinduism.

I added the reconversion clause to include the VHP etc.

So this is the kind of fatal defensive mentality that is the bane of modern Hinduism. Why does Hinduism not call for the “conversion” of others? Since when? The HIGHEST merit in the Veda goes to those who preach and spread the Vedic philosophy. In the Gita, Krishna says that one who spreads and preaches this knowledge is dearest to Him. One can bury the above “definition” of yours in a ton of quotes. The above mentality is a relic of the age when Hindus went into a shell, partly due to internal decay, and partly due to external aggression. <b>It is the ULTIMATE DHIMMI mentality.</b>

Ashok kumar, sunder and others, I hope to make a post on the new "Iskcon" thread later.

[Shambhu]

Carl,

I stand corrected. I was trying to define Hindus as they stand today. I would love to see Hindus start to convert others. (At the very least, it would lead to a decrease in worldwide violence-in the long run).

[Guest]

Carl,

Will respond later.

[Guest]

Belief is indeed stronger than ideas. For ideas evolve, whereas a belief by its very definition is rigid. However, the illusion of strength that a rigid belief gives will always be challenged by good ideas.

In my understanding, the Vaishnavism as defended by Carl is an belief similar to Christianity or Islam. In that it believes that the “individual soul” is somehow separate from the “universal soul”. We will end up arguing terminology and constructs ad infinitum in this pursuit.

It is illogical to argue with someone who has a belief, even if it is consistent to challenge the belief itself. The essence of Advaita (if you want to call it that!) is an idea. Different acharyas have given us different ways to think about the same problem, they have given us ideas to ponder on.

If Linus (from the popular comic strip Charlie Brown) wants to believe in the Great Pumpkin, who brings toys and gifts to children, at a cabbage patch, every Halloween, he is welcome to believe so. Millions believe in other such artificial beliefs. But please excuse the rest of us, including Mr. Schultz, if we remain skeptical regarding this belief.

Thus in my mind the labels assigned to me, a Hindu, has no meaning spiritually. As I ponder ideas, the way the vedantis would have wanted us to, but I have no rigid beliefs. If your motivation is political, social, etc., then yes, there is certainly reason to have discourse on who is a "Hindu"? But I dare say I want open that can of worms.

<b>Let me leave this subject with a few of my favorite verses:</b>

naham manye suvedeti no na vedeti veda ca
yon as tad veda tad veda no na vedeti veda ca

<i><b>I do not think that I know it well; nor do I think that I do not know it.
He, who among us knows it, knows it and he too, does not know that he does not know.</b></i>

Yasyamatam tasya matam maam yasya na veda sah
Avijnatam vijanatam vijnatam avijanatam

<i><b>To whomsoever it is not known, to him it is known: To whomsoever it is known, he does not know.
It is not understood by those who understand it; It is understood by those who do not understand it.</b></i>

<b>I for one sure don't understand it</b>

[Guest]

Dear Pulikeshi,
You bring up a good point -- (blind) belief versus contemplation. But I beg to argue that you misapply it here:

Of course, the acquisition of jnana involves sravana (hearing, reading), manana (contemplation) and nididhyasa (practical application in one's life). Blind "belief" is in the mode of Ignorance, i.e. acceptance of an idea without having investigated it to the best of one's ability. A casual seeker may be taken in by fancy word-jugglery, soothing cliches, etc. Or blind belief can be in the mode of Passion -- motivated by some personal egoic identification with a sect/school/community, etc. But belief in the mode of Goodness is quite alright. In fact, it is a precursor to nididhyasa. A little bit of shraddha is a precursor to nididhyasa, which then should ideally reinforce it to yield nishtha (conviction), by way of knowledge gained experientially. If it doesn't (given sufficient time), then we must re-examine our axioms and start over.

So it doesn't make sense to say "I only contemplate, but have no opinions (yet)", as if that is a virtue in itself. And you have quoted those verses a little out of context. Yes, as I indicated, blind belief in the modes of Passion or Ignorance can lead to ass-like fanaticism, but that does not mean that "belief" itself is somehow premature at any stage. If the above state of belief-lessness persists, then one can only assume that the subject is a dillitante spiritualist. We should at least bark up the wrong tree from time to time! The problem arises when we react to criticism in a passionate, egoic fashion. But if our sight is on Truth, then we would be thankful for well-meaning criticism, and make the required adjustment.

So in spirtual life, we start with a bare minimum of sambandha-jnana, then leading to abhidheya and prayojana. That basic sambandha-jnana, serving as the psycho-spiritual guideline for sadhana is what I have been speaking about here. <i>Sambandha-jnana gives the sadhaka an idea of the meaning of, and relationships between, purusha, prakriti, kaala, karma, jiva, etc. Now unless you're an empiricist, you won't deny the importance of this basic theory.</i>

So again, while lively debate may be "unsettling" to some, it should not induce one to avoid it altogether, because that mentality leads to the slippery slope of relativism. As long as the argument is supported by authoritative evidence, it can be enlightening. For the 2 quotes (out of context) which you have supplied, I can provide 50 Vedic quotes stressing the importance of conviction. My point is, <i>spiritual science is way more precise and discriminating than the simplistic theory you're suggesting</i>...which happens to be your own "belief". "We should not have opinions" is also an opinion onlee.

Its also interesting to note how many members here would like to define "Hinduism" to be <i>as different as possible from Islam/Christianity</i>. Now clearly, Churchianity and Islamism have become what they are because of a lack of (or withering away of) this discriminating, psycho-spiritual understanding of spiritual life, which is like walking on the razor's edge (kshurasya dhaara). But the Vedic literatuer and parampara provides us with lots of good uunderstanding of this aspect of spiritual life. THAT is the main difference that explains the deviant socio-political behaviour of these two communities (Xians, Muslims). Instead of seeing it this way, some here would rather express their disgust at Evangelist/Islamist behaviour by twisting Vedanta out of shape just to be <i>superficially</i> different from these "others". That is a disservice to Vedanta. JMT.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But I beg to argue that you misapply it here:
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Fine, but nothing in your argument indicates how I have misapplied it. Further, I said <b>belief</b> as opposed to <b>ideas</b>, please do not interpret my words. I try hard to say exactly what I mean. I did not mean blind beliefs or any other such construct.

In my post, I said: <b> “We will end up arguing terminology and constructs ad infinitum in this pursuit.” </b>. And this is exactly what you did; by bring up terminology: jnana, sravana, manana, sambandha-jnana, abhidheya, prayojana, etc. These terms have nothing to do with what I said to you.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->…. I can provide 50 Vedic quotes stressing the importance of conviction.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

The vedics challenged us to discuss ideas, and I have quite a few of them. Remember the vedas, upanishads, etc. were written over a period of time, by acharyas who differed in their opinion and ideology. <b>The sad part is that we have made the Vedas, Upanishads, etc. into some rigid holy book</b>. Whereas, they are guideline for new ideas to come forth. Hinduism survived because it evolves, not because it is some rigid dogmatic belief system. I would love to discuss with one and all that has ideas. What is the point to discuss them, with you in particular, when you have already made up your mind?

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->My point is, spiritual science is way more precise and discriminating than the simplistic theory you're suggesting...which happens to be your own "belief".
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Yeah! Spiritual anything can never be science, as there is no way to set up repeatable experiments to prove or disprove a theory. The theory suggested by the monists is very simple, but not simplistic. I can accept that one cannot either prove it or disprove it. The paradox is either understood by you, or it remains a relativist fog that you must rage against. Thus, I have no issue with worshipping Vishnu or Shiva, but at the same time subscribe to the idea of monism. However, you correctly point out that your belief is directly challenged by the paradoxical idea of monism. I say, deal with it <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->

There is no Sanathana Dharma without monism. This can only be understood if you can analyze why Hinduism (which I prefer to use interchangably with Sanathana Dharma[SD]) has survived all these eons, whereas other relgions have come and gone the way of the dodo. The central philosophy of SD is a paradox (like a black hole), beliefs in gods come and go, but the center remains intact. Thus Vishnu may have been Visnu before or Shiva may have been Rudra before, Venkateshwara, Bapuji, etc. may be incarnations of the same Vishnu, but this has nothing to do with the core. Different acharayas have tried their best to describe this paradoxical core, but all they have done is to give us some idea of what it is, to claim that there is a clear and consice way to know this truth is just an ego trip.

Thus you and the pope ratzinger share the same rationalizing principle that binds you with your belief.
Nothing wrong with it, but like Suzuki said: <b>“Your cup is already full!” </b>What is the use of me trying to pour you anymore tea?

I have a request, if you do want to discuss ideas, please do so without throwing up too much terminology. Like Einstien said: "A scientific theory should be as simple as possible, but no simpler".

I can describe to you Hindusim is great detail. The challenges we face as we go forward, and the opportunities we have, but you will have to pour out your cup of tea and come back with an empty cup. Maybe then, we can share a cup togther!

[Guest]

Hi Pulikeshi.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Further, I said belief as opposed to ideas, please do not interpret my words. I try hard to say exactly what I mean. I did not mean blind beliefs or any other such construct.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You still haven't been able to explain what the exact difference is, while trying to pretend that there are no insinuations. Of course, you say you don't like explaining things using terminology or words, although you have a predilection for dealing in zen koans!

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Remember the vedas, upanishads, etc. were written over a period of time, by acharyas who differed in their opinion and ideology. The sad part is that we have made the Vedas, Upanishads, etc. into some rigid holy book. Whereas, they are guideline for new ideas to come forth. Hinduism survived because it evolves, not because it is some rigid dogmatic belief system.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I agree. And my argument is exactly the same. Examine the evolution even as recently as 1500 years, and you will see who made a dogma out of Advaita, rejecting any further experience or elucidation of Absolute Truth. You will see who persecuted whom, who did so when they felt their ceremonial authority threatened, etc.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Yeah! Spiritual anything can never be science, as there is no way to set up repeatable experiments to prove or disprove a theory.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->As Rumi put it, "There are many ways, but there is only One Way". There are variants of this in any religious text. What does this mean? Sadhana is a science, not in the silly sense of "repeatability", but in the psychospiritual sense. What makes each one of our spiritual paths unique is the uniqueness of our mental make-up. Navigating our own psychophysical natures is what is unique, but the science of how to do so, the guidelines, etc are quite precise. Of course, I did not mean to stretch the word "science" to to suggest that spiritual progress is a <i>mechanical</i> process, and I think you knew that, but I guess nitpicking is a human failing.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The theory suggested by the monists is very simple, but not simplistic.
[...]
Thus, I have no issue with worshipping Vishnu or Shiva, but at the same time subscribe to the idea of monism.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Sorry, dogmatic Advaita (mayavad) is simplistic, not simple. Let's quit the word-jugglery for a bit, bro. <b>Don't dignify every ludicrous contradiction by calling it a "singularity"</b> just because it makes you feel intellectual. Take the instance of yourself "worshiping" Vishnu or Shiva. Now that would be dabbling in "Bhakti", right? Now why not take a look at what the Bhakti-shastras say about practicing Bhakti-yoga while entertaining notions of Impersonalism? They condemn it at every step, and I'm referring to sages like Vyasa, Narada, Shandilya, Garga, not to mention the recent Vaishava acharyas. This makes perfect psychological sense, <i>even if</i> we assume that the ultimate reality is something as simplistic as undeviating non-dualism. In terms of <i>practice</i>, you're wasting your time "worshipping". This is the only point I was trying to make. I am not "raging against" any school of philosophy, but against meddling rascals who want to re-define and misrepresent and rationalize other systems of Yoga according to their preconceived beliefs (oh sorry, "ideas").

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There is no Sanathana Dharma without monism. This can only be understood if you can analyze why Hinduism (which I prefer to use interchangably with Sanathana Dharma[SD]) has survived all these eons, whereas other relgions have come and gone the way of the dodo. The central philosophy of SD is a paradox (like a black hole)...<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Er, do you actually understand Achintya Bheda-bheda tattva (or any Vaishnava philosophy)?? Achintya bheda-abheda means <b>"the inconceivable paradox of simultaneous Oneness and Difference". Vaishnavism is centered around this deep paradox, this singularity, but everything else falls beautifully into place in relation to this axiom. </b> This is as opposed to the Advaitin (turned mayavadi) popes' version of simple and absolute Oneness, something that intellectual giants like yourself can wrap their finite intellects around and still sound mystical. <b>Mayavad is littered with umpteen paradoxes and contradictions, not just one. </b>But I think you actually like sexy words like "paradox" and "black holes", even though you profess disdain for terminological words. <b>An elegant and SIMPLE (not simplistic) theory can accommodate ONE paradox, not a million contradictions.</b> Occam's razor anyone?

Mayavadis keep talking of Unity, but they only have a Multiplicity of Contradictions! Vaishnavism speaks of only ONE Paradox.

You are also ignorant of "other religions" and their core philosophy. For example, although 99.9% of "Muslims" do not even know this, the real philosophy that the Prophet Muhammad transmitted to his closest disciples was pretty much about the "mystery of Uniqueness in Oneness". What dies like a dodo is the outer shell of religious tradition bereft of spirtual substance.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Thus you and the pope ratzinger share the same rationalizing principle that binds you with your belief. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I'm glad that in this post you were more open with the personal attacks, which you did by insinuation in your last post. My cup is actually quite empty, no offense to Suzuki. But like all half-baked, posturing mayavadis, your cups is brmming with disdain.

But as I hope I've made clear, the ideas you find attractive will find more real substance and support in Vaishnava philosophy than in the tongue-tied dogma, the sexy cliches and quotable quotes that you delight in. In any case, that's not the purpose of this thread. <b>My point here is to demonstrate how most people like yourself have a zero understanding of Vaishnavism (equating it with Vatican popery and fanaticism), and this lack of understanding is because of the mayavada misrepresentations that have flooded the public space, particularly in the last 100 years or so.</b>

[Guest]

Mysticism and philosphy are two different beasts. That is not to say that any one of them is invalid.

A philosophy has to deal with categories/symbols and their relationships and logic has to be a necessary part of the exercize.

Mysticism on the other hand can go beyond logic. Zen usually asks its practitioners to dwell on a contadiction to go beyond logical, symbolic way of thinking.

Philosophy and mysticsm can be complementary, but they should not be mixed up carelessly. The outcome of a careless mixing can be hilarious or even outrageous.

A philosophy can tolerate a paradox, as long as there is a way to explain away the paradox. But a philosphy is dead if it has a contradiction in it.

Even though monism (advaita of shankra) has been called here to be full of 'contradicions', I must disagree. Even a single contradiction kills a philosophy. Advaita is very much alive and kicking. But since Carl is very insistent that Advaita is riddled with contradictions, I would very much appreciate if he were to start a new thread, say called 'Mayavada' and expand on those contradictions. I am very much keen to find out what those claimed 'contradictions' are.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Er, do you actually understand Achintya Bheda-bheda tattva (or any Vaishnava philosophy)?? Achintya bheda-abheda means "the inconceivable paradox of simultaneous Oneness and Difference". Vaishnavism is centered around this deep paradox, this singularity, but everything else falls beautifully into place in relation to this axiom. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

As I mentioned earlier I have been trying for a while to understand 'achintya bheda-abheda'. The dificulty for me is that 'achintya bheda-abheda' appears not like a mere paradox. It seems very much like a contradiction. In logic a contradition is a statement of form

a and (not a)

Achintya bheda-abheda is very much like that statement. Krishna is one AND he is not one.
Logically speaking this statement is a contradiction. This statement would be called a paradox if there were a way to explain away the apparent contradiction.

In the hindu (not just vaishnva) scripture, such statements are found many times, it is clear that this idea of God being one as well as being many is pretty widespread in hinduism. So it appears that a concept like 'Achintya bheda-abheda' is faithful to a large body of the scripture.

But my persistent frustration has been in getting anything new from the idea of 'achintya bheda-abheda'. It merely seems to package the contradiction in a phrase, but hasn't quite managed to explain the paradox. It is like using terminology to explain away a problem. This is in conitnuation of the discussion we had in the Vedanta thread about 'Narayana'.

And about everything else falling beautifully into place if one accepts the axiom of 'achintya bheda-abheda', lets recall that in logic if a contradiction is taken as an axiom, any other statement can be derived from it. A contradiction taken as an axiom can indeed make derivation of any number of previously problematic statements a piece of cake which may be called 'falling beautifully into place'. I am not saying that this is what is done in vishishta-advaita. I don't know. But the dangers of starting from a contradictory axiom are always there.

My ideas are as follows:

1. Something like 'Achintya bheda-abheda' is implied in a vast number of Hindu scriptural statements.
2. Vishishta-advaitis take it literally where it appears like a paradox, if not an outright contradiction. God is one and many 'simultaneously'.
3. Contradictions are not fatal to a system of mysticism.
4. But a single contradiction kills a philosophical theory.
5. Therfore in my opinion, vishista-advaita appears to be more a system of mysticism, rather than a system of philosophy.
6. Mysticism is not inferior or superior to a philosophy, merely a different beast. Mysticism emphasizes knowledge by experience, while a philosophy emphasizes knowledge by logic/language/symbols etc. It is quite possible that the concept of 'one and not one' has necessarily to be experienced than explained.

6. 'Achintya-bheda-abheda' is not the only way of explaing the statements in scriptures like 'God is one and many'. There are other ways. Advaita vedanta handles this by saying that 'one' and 'many' are not simultaneously true for any observer. The observer is either in multiplicity under Maya or when light of knowledge are turned on, is witness to the unity. But not both 'unity' and 'multiplicity' simultneously. This removes the contradiction. Shaiva agama of Kashmir has yet anothet way to explain this.

[gangajal]

Ashok Kumar,
All the systems, Advaita, Vishsistadvaita, Dvaita, Achintyavedabheda suffer from contradiction.

The contradiction in the Achintyavedabheda system is obvious. It is claiming tha jiva is both different and non-different from Ishvara. This is obviously contradictory because two things A and B can not be simultaneously different and non-different. If A and B are non-different then A=B relation will hold. If A and B are different then the relation A not equal to B will hold. One can not have these two contradictory relations at the same time. One can not say 5=5 and 5 not equal to 5. Since the contradiction is obvious followers of Chaitanya call this Achintya, i.e. beyond human logic.

The contradiction in Advaita is also obvious and is admitted by Shankara himself. Shankara defines Brahman to be the unchanging non-dual, one without a second, absolute Reality. Of course there can be no world if Brahman is without a second and is unchanging since the world coming out of Brahman will change Brahman. Shankara has to invoke Maya Shakti to account for the phenomenal world. Shankara then runs into difficulty. If the world is real then obviously Brahman changes since Brahman is the material cause of the universe. Shankara avoids that problem by following vivartavada which says that Brahman only apparently transforms into the universe. Actually the universe is Brahman. Thus Brahman remains unchanging, one without a second, reality. This solution, however, does not solve the problem of shakti. If the transformation of Brahman is not real then the Maya Shakti which causes this vivartavada becomes also unreal. The question is, how can a real Shakti give rise to an apparent transformation of Brahman into universe? One would expect a real shakti to give rise to a real transformation of Brahman. One can not solve this problem by saying that Maya Shakti is unreal since Shakti is power of Brahman. An unreal Shakti would make Brahman unreal. It is this contradiction that makes Shankara say that Shakti is Anirvachaniya.

Gangajal

[Guest]

Thanks for an excellently enlightening post!

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Shaiva agama of Kashmir has yet anothet way to explain this.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Care to enlighten us more on how they accomplished it?

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-gangajal+Jun 7 2005, 02:31 AM-->QUOTE(gangajal @ Jun 7 2005, 02:31 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Of course there can be no world if Brahman is without a second and is unchanging since the world coming out of Brahman will change Brahman. </b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gangajal,

The real problem, if at all, that I see in Shankara’s monism is the need for Gods, and our chanting “Bhaja Govindam”, given the nature of Brahman and the individual human being.

I am trying hard to understand what you are saying here. Let me draw a diagram to see if this is what you mean:

<b>Brahman --(Maya Sakthi)--> Phenomenal Universe (Apparent Brahman)</b>

What you are saying is that Brahman cannot be unique as the Phenomenal Universe exists due to Brahman creating it. I find this argument untenable. There is no reason to believe that Universe came out of Brahman. Further, in my understanding Maya is our egotistical perception of what is essentially a single entity - Brahman. This transformation business is news to me. Could you point me to any good literature that talks about this transformation? Where does Shankara talk about this?

I must confess that I have come to ideas based on what I perceived on my own, and adopted those ideas expounded by the acharyas that were congruous with my own.

[Sunder]

<!--QuoteBegin-gangajal+Jun 7 2005, 02:31 AM-->QUOTE(gangajal @ Jun 7 2005, 02:31 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Of course there can be no world if Brahman is without a second and is unchanging since the world coming out of Brahman will change Brahman. </b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Pulikesi, Sri Shankara's explanation is that even though the rope is one without a second, there is a snake perceived based on the reality of the rope. This is where 'maya' and 'avidya' comes into picture. In the case of the snake and the rope, the observer is external to 'both'. But in case of Brahman, the observer, and the observed are supposed to be one and the same. Jeeva, which is itself a projection, and the Jagat, which is also a projection, are in reality Brahman - the cause of perception, which is beyond perception.

Initially the perception is 'God created the Universe'. Next we graduate to the thought that 'God did not CREATE the Universe, but God *became* the Universe'. Finally, thanks to Advaita we says God *appears* as the Universe, and then remain Silent in One's own nature.

My take on Who is a Hindu? -- Anyone who understands, appreciates, and revels in the Shruthi, Smrithi, Itihasa, Purana, or even one who does not know or understand the above but just goes on selflessly with his Karma Yoga is a hindu. Shankaracharya had criticized and unified seventy-two religions, the outcome is what we have today - "Hinduism".

[gangajal]

<!--QuoteBegin-pulikeshi+Jun 7 2005, 11:31 AM-->QUOTE(pulikeshi @ Jun 7 2005, 11:31 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-gangajal+Jun 7 2005, 02:31 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gangajal @ Jun 7 2005, 02:31 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Of course there can be no world if Brahman is without a second and is unchanging since the world coming out of Brahman will change Brahman. </b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gangajal,

The real problem, if at all, that I see in Shankara?s monism is the need for Gods, and our chanting ?Bhaja Govindam?, given the nature of Brahman and the individual human being.

I am trying hard to understand what you are saying here. Let me draw a diagram to see if this is what you mean:

<b>Brahman --(Maya Sakthi)--> Phenomenal Universe (Apparent Brahman)</b>

What you are saying is that Brahman cannot be unique as the Phenomenal Universe exists due to Brahman creating it. I find this argument untenable. There is no reason to believe that Universe came out of Brahman. Further, in my understanding Maya is our egotistical perception of what is essentially a single entity - Brahman. This transformation business is news to me. Could you point me to any good literature that talks about this transformation? Where does Shankara talk about this?

I must confess that I have come to ideas based on what I perceived on my own, and adopted those ideas expounded by the acharyas that were congruous with my own. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pulikeshi,

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The real problem, if at all, that I see in Shankara?s monism is the need for Gods, and our chanting ?Bhaja Govindam?, given the nature of Brahman and the individual human being. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

What is the problem with the Gods? If Brahman can appear to be jiva and jagat then surely Brahman can also appear to be Gods.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I am trying hard to understand what you are saying here. Let me draw a diagram to see if this is what you mean:

<b>Brahman --(Maya Sakthi)--> Phenomenal Universe (Apparent Brahman)</b>

What you are saying is that Brahman cannot be unique as the Phenomenal Universe exists due to Brahman creating it. I find this argument untenable. There is no reason to believe that Universe came out of Brahman. Further, in my understanding Maya is our egotistical perception of what is essentially a single entity - Brahman. This transformation business is news to me. Could you point me to any good literature that talks about this transformation? Where does Shankara talk about this?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

If universe did not come out from Brahman then Brahman is not infinite and would also violate numerous Upanishadic shlokas. Upanishads say Brahman is one without a second and a universe that does not come out of Brahman would violate that statement.

Yes, Maya shakti makes us perceive the snake as the rope as written by Sundarji. This is just an effect of Maya Shakti. Of course Maya Shakti is just the shakti of Brahman. The snake is the analogy for Brahman and the rope is the jagat. In kevala Advaita scheme the ontological status of Jagat is MITHYA. Now Mithya ordinarily means falsehood. However, when Jagat is called Mithya it is not meant that Jagat does not exist. The phenomenological existence of jagat is assumed. What is meant is that the ontological status of Jagat is less than that of Brahman.

The most authoritative discussion on these issues is the Brahma Sutra Bhasya of Shankara. You can also go through various Upanishadic Bhasyas of Shankara. Then there are some popular books written by Shankara like, "Atma Jnana", Vivekchudamuni", Upadesha Sahashra" etc.

[Guest]

Hi <b>Ashok Kumar</b>.
Impossible to do justice to all the points you've raised! <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> Following is my 2c:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Philosophy and mysticsm can be complementary, but they should not be mixed up carelessly.  The outcome of a careless mixing can be hilarious or even outrageous.

A philosophy can tolerate a paradox, as long as there is a way to explain away the paradox.  But a philosphy is dead if it has a contradiction in it.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well said. But you can extend the definition of "mysticism". In fact, for the most part, what Westerners call "mysticism" is the substance of yoga, the <i>practice</i> itself, which leads to realizations that come from outside the limits of <i>empirical</i> logic. But "logic" itself is not limited to the empirical or sensory. <i>"Mysticism" is the spiritual practice that bridges the One admissable logical gap in the founding philosophy that motivates the sincere aspirant to undertake mysticism in the first place.</i>

While gangajal and sunder have tried to explain <i>one</i> of the more well-known contradictions of kevala-advaita, they have only concealed the full extent and ramifications of this contradiction. Vivarta-vada by no means explains away this contradiction. In fact, it introduces further contradictions in Vedanta, apparently clashing with parinama-vada, etc. <i>This is a characteristic of mayavadi commentary.</i> Like one lie to another, they try to explain one contradiction with another Vedantic concept, but in <b>mis-defining (or mis-applying)</b> that concept, they create even more questions...and the chain reaction goes on. Ultimately, they are forced to deprecate and derogate large sections of shaastra, and that includes the Upanishads. (What a great service to Hinduism!)

Therefore, in tarka (Vedic logic), the rules for framing and evaluating an argument are very precise -- and it is very noteworthy that only the Vaishnava acharyas have adhered to the strictest standard of tarka. The so-called Buddhists (sunyavadis) had a highly compromised standard (a subset of these rules), and the mayavadis also have a somewhat less watered-down standard. I thought I would mention this to you since you have shown an appreciation for mathematical logic in your post.

Before I try to share my understanding of some of the questions you raised, let me also make another point, especially since sunder was all set to begin a shastric debate on Vedanta without a good idea of the sources he likes to quote from. A quote-contest without any idea of the larger picture is a scatterbrained exercise in futility! Firstly, We know from tradition that the original One Veda has been recompiled and divided progresssively into the 4 Vedas and the sub-Vedas etc as the yugas devolved. Each individual Upanishad, etc gives a partial point-of-view of the Absolute Truth, like the "blind men of hindoostan" touching different parts of the elephant. Secondly, let us also recognize the "probabilistic" occurences of higher truth in this vast ocean of shastra, because some of the quote-happy argumentators actually count the number of times words like "Indra" or "Brahman" occur in shastra to buttress their point! The majority of the Vedas proper deal with karma-kanda, which is an elaborate description of demigods, sacrificial rituals, benefits to be obtained, duties to be performed...all mostly with material motives (although there are plenty of clues thrown in that there is something higher to aspire for). Now any serious Hindu, including all mayavadis, know that by no means is this the highest branch of the Vedic tree. Therefore, the Vedanta sutra begins with the sutra "athaato brahma jijnaasa", i.e., now begins the search for higher truth, outside of the material spheres. Within this Upanishadic literature also (the jnana-kanda), the same pattern applies, i.e., in describing the Absolute Reality, a lot of time is spent on the slow ascent to the highest understanding, the most esoteric. Why is this the pattern in all of Vedic literature? This is answered many times in the Upanishads itself, and even in the Bhagavad Gita. It has to do with free-will and the <i>preparedness</i> of the aspirant to accept certain concepts. Casting pearls before an immmature audience will only lead to gross abuse.

In this same connection, it is also worth including this comment: That to understand the precepts of any great historical Teacher, avatar, prophet, etc, we <i>must necessarily</i> take into consideration the Time, Place and standard of the Recipients (desha, kaala, paatra). When one does this, one can see why all Vaishnavas maintain loyalty to Sripada Shankara (and also honour the Buddha), whereas the self-styled mayavadi popes cannot seem to admit any further expiation of Vedanta, and even begin to deprecate important sections of Hindu scripture in order to expain the open-ended "contradictions" in Shankara's philosophy.

Now Ashok, in your posts, just like you have not properly defined the term "mysticism", you did not define the term "God", though your usage of the term suggests certain assumptions. Another very important term you used rather loosely was "illusion". What do you understand by the word "illusion"? Illusion, or maya, is correctly defined as mis-identification, or superimposition of a wrong identity on an object. <i>Both</i>, the rope and snake exist, but misidentifying one for the other is maya. This material example should be extended upwards into the realm of consciousness. E.g., Maya is the misidentification of the Individual Soul with the Supreme Soul, i.e. the ultimate expression of runaway ishvara-bhaava as far as the jiva is concerned. But we'll come back to this later.

"God" has to be the biggest concept, by definition. Therefore, it is transcendental, infinite, etc. Now while tarka is very much a part of Vedic shaastra, the same Vedic shaastra says there is a place and limit for tarka. Tarka is to be applied only after certain axioms are admitted. But tarka alone <i>cannot </i>encompass Absolute Reality itself. <i>This statement itself is logical</i>, because if our admittedly finite minds could grasp the infinite Absolute Reality within a set if finite logical constructs, then that would itself be a contradiction. IOW, ONE of the axioms of Vedanta <i>has</i> to be an "inconceivable" paradox if its Absolute Reality we're talking about, and that paradox is explained by the very subject matter itself. Of course, that paradox is truly realized only through the practice of mysticism or whatever we want to call it.

Therefore it is not unreasonable that acintya bheda-abheda tattva should have a singular paradox as one of its axioms. In fact, it is very reasonable that it does. Now given that it does, it is perfectly elegant in the way it explains everything else, without any contradictions. This is an elegant theory, and has been challenged and proven so time and time again in history. OTOH, any grade of mayavada is riddled with multiple contradictions, and as I explained earlier, one contradiction tries to explain another, but only spawns new contradictions w.r.t. Vedantic assertions...finally forcing the mayavadi to either deprecate large parts of shastra, or to throw up his hands and say, "arre! we shouldn't ask all these questions because we are still in maya, so we cannot understand...Truth is beyond maya, so just become my disciple and start practicing..." Now, the important thing is that while this may seem reasonable, it is not. As the shastras state clearly, real yoga starts when the intellect is <i>satisfied</i>, and not suppressed. Otherwise why include tarka in Vedic shastra? To give the well-known allegory, when mother Yashoda tries to bind Damodara's belly to the grinding-mortar with all the rope she can find, it always falls 2 finger-widths short. That is the limitation of intellect. Finally, only when she surrendered and implored her baby boy did His causeless mercy allow her to tie Him. Therefore, satisfaction of intellect means what I stated above: Respectful admittance of One paradoxical axiom, with no other contradictions (followed by enthusiastic practice of yoga with devotion). The great chinese transcendentalist Chuang-tzu, great savant of Taoism, said "the sage does not desire to understand everything", meaning that given this much, one then dedicates oneself to the practice of spirtuality. So given its own axioms (some of which are also labelled inconceivable), mayavada still leaves us with a tangled web of contradictions. On the strength of mathematical elegance, we have to admit that acintya-bheda-abheda is far superior to any other philosophy, leave alone kevala-advaita.

To reiterate, <i>at the level of jnana</i>, there must be a paradox to begin with, if the subject matter is really Absolute Truth. To quote the Bhagavad Gita, the ninth chapter titled "the Most confidential Knowledge", verses 4, 5:

<b>"By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them.

And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer of all living entities, and although I am everywhere, still My Self is the very source of creation. "</b>

There's your paradox. Similarly in other parts, Krishna says that everything created rests upon Me like pearls strung upon a thread (sutre mani gana iva). (We also have the Vedantic idea of sutraatman). We further have the Upanishadic allegory of the Spider and His web. The web is actually "part" of the Spider, but is not the spider Himself. Et cetera...

It is interesting and pertinent here to note that in the BG, Krishna says that even Brahman rests upon Him: Chapter 14, text 27: brahmano hi pratishtha-aham...

<b>"And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness, and which is immortal, imperishable and eternal. "</b>

As for the material existence, it is divided into inferior material energy and superior material energy in Vedanta. The superior consists of the jivas, or living entities. Are they "one" with the supreme in ALL respects? No, not in all respects. It is a far more nuanced reality. to give just one well-known quote: BG 15:7 -- mamaivamso jiva-loke jiva-bhutah sanatanah..."

<b>"The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal, fragmental parts..."</b>

Only this can explain the potency and existence of maya-shakti. If there is COMPLETE identity between the jiva and Brahman, then how did the jiva beccome hypnotized by this Maya? It would mean that Maya is greater than Brahman itself. No amount of (mis-interpreted) vivarta-vada can explain this. But, to quote Bhaktisidddhanta Saraswati, a Vaishnava:

"The Prime Cause of all effects should not be mutilated or manufactured through the agency of our unblossomed prerogatives. <b>We are limited entities, but the Unlimited Infinity minus our infinitesimality would give us, as a result, an almost infinite gulf.</b> We are earnestly called upon to search for and establish a tie between us and the Unlimited Entity..."

Therefore, there exists a Supreme Soul, infinite and inestimable. While the jivatman is one with It in <i>certain respects</i>, we are not identical in <i>all </i>respects. But look at the convenient mis-definitions that some use. The sunyavadi Buddhists (and some previous Vaisesika people) had said that manas (mind) and the atman (soul) are one and the same thing. And that the goal of sadhana was to "extinguish" the mind (nirvana = extinguish). After that comes the great Void. Now Shankara trashed this theory and established the existence of a superconscious Brahman, and that atman is NOT the mind, but is the Soul. The soul is transcendental to body, mind, intelligence and false-ego. Now later, the mayavadis started saying that atman and paramatman are actually one and the same, just like the Sunyavadis said atman was the same as mind. The mayavadis made many such misidentifications. Brahman and parabrahman were same, etc, and they would sometimes bring in other concepts like saguna and nirguna to obfuscate the difference. But the Vaishnavas clearly explain and qualify the differences, and the necessity for having separate conceptual terms. The Vedic literature is quite precise, and the great rishis would not include new conceptual terms only to confuse things. Obfuscation and opacity is a mayavadi trait, not a Vedic characteristic.

The obfuscation extends to the link between philosophy and "mysticism". For instance, you will often find certain mayavadi writings "comparing" and contrasting "Vedanta" with "Bhakti yoga", which is more ridiculous than comparing apples to oranges. The former is philosophy, the latter is practice. They are complementary. So, because of mis-identifications and wrong definitions, they often see "embarassing" contradictions where none exist, especially the "neo-Advaita/self-esteem" parvenus of the recent colonial era. Embarassed by the heckling of inimical Westerners or Muslims, several mayavadi preachers in recent times have either been apologetic about various standard Vedic practices, and have then tried to artificially separate them from Vedanta. In doing so, they distort those practices as well as Vedanta itself. Even though they appealed to "Hindu pride", etc (a very un-Vedic trait), the ful extent of the damage they have done to Vedic religion is yet to be widely understood.

As per all shastras, all yoga must culminate in utter devotion, the essennce of which is reciprocal <i>rasa</i> at the highest level. Brahman-realization (brahma bhuta) is only the <i>beginning</i>, the <i>basis</i> of para-bhakti. There are various levels of realization after that (vibhava, vyabhicari, etc), culminating in <i>rasa</i>. This is a deep topic and too much to go into here, but suffice to say that problems arise when Brahman-realized persons have claimed that it is the last word. Paramahamsas who have gone further say this: That all the happiness in this material world is but a drop compared to the bliss of Brahman-realization...but the bliss of Brahman-realization is a drop compared to the ocean of nectar that lies beyond. Impersonalism cannot culminate in <i>rasa</i>, because it starts with false (or incomplete) sambandha-jnana -- that fundamental <b>map</b> which we use in our practice. The Absolute Truth can be realized in 3 aspects -- Brahman, Paramatman and Bhagavan, the last one being the Supreme Personality. This material universe has various aspects to it, but the crowning glory is personal Will, which finds its greatest expression in human personality. This, coming from "Brahman", means that it exists in Brahman. <b>How can the creation be greater than the Creator? How can the emanation be greater than the Source?</b> <i>Impersonalism, as I said, is riddled with contradictions when it denies personality and relationship in the Absolute.</i> Apparent "problems" arise when they attribute <b>material</b> characteristics to Vaishnava siddhanta, and thus make a mockery of it and then trash it. When Vaishnavism gets ito these realms, things are pretty <i>esoteric</i>, and without having a firm understanding of the basics, no appreciation is possible. As Chaitanya said, "mayavadi bhashya sunile haya sarvanaasha" -- Reading the shaastras through mayavadi commentary will lead to disaster, because it steals away and trashes the highest, most esoteric treasures of the Vedas.

Any trace of Impersonalism is considered suicidal for one practicing Devotional Yoga, as any of the shastras will attest. This assertion is not a mystery, as it makes perfecct psychological sense. Acceptance of one's eternally dependent position w.r.t the supreme is a sine qua non for any level of Bhakti. <i>Bhakti is not a timeserving pretense, as the mayavadis make it out to be.</i>

Concepts like we have discussed above are not simply limited to metaphysics anymore. They are now very much a part of cutting-edge Physics, such as superstring theory (although its not yet a proven theory). Of the 11 dimensions of Reality it talks of, most of these coefficients are said to represent "illusions of perception". You may find it worthwhile to study string theory a little, since it may help infuse some confidence in your skeptical evaluation of several Hindu concepts.

What's more, I have recently come across almost identical theologies from other far-flung parts of the world. Emmanuel Swedenborg, a Swedish scientist, inventor, and finally an ecstatic preacher, wrote extensively in Latin and German in the 1600s. His theology is almost a copy of Chaitanya Vaishnavism, which he called "True Christian Teachings". Same case with a very very small school of Islam which traces its lineage back right to two of the closest companions of the Prophet Muhammad.

The Vaishnava siddhanta elegantly explains all of vivarta, parinama, etc. It is too much to go into here, but some fundamental points have been made in response to your post: (a) the legitimacy of having a singular paradox in a theological axiom. (b) the inconcivable qualified oneness and its psychospiritual necesity.

I was glad you brought in Kashmiri "Saivism" in your post. You must be familiar with the spanda karikas, and the idea of spanda and nirodha as far as the Mind (i.e. manas) is concerned. You must be thinking that this is what explains the mutually exclusive existence of duality and non-duality. Its too much to go into in this post itself, but let's just put things into perspective. There are numerous occasions where the scriptures tell us that somewhat perverted reflections of Spiritual Reality are found, fractal-like, in the material world. Now the spanda karikas are obviously speaking in terms of the gross and subtle koshas, and from the PoV of kundalini. In that sense we can put it into perspective. But also, the Vaishnava commentaries clearly posit the existence of the Original of which everything on this side of existence is the material reflection, with the brahman realization inbetween. While for the Impersonalists, merging with Brahman and annihilating identity is final. This is not supported by the great sages, for whom Brahman realization is only a preliminary step.

[Guest]

Carl,

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Therefore it is not unreasonable that acintya bheda-abheda tattva should have a singular paradox as one of its axioms. In fact, it is very reasonable that it does.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Could you tell me what this singular paradox is in one line? – My personal interest is not the supremacy of one theory over another, as I am yet to see any theory make perfect sense. I honestly do not have the time to read your long posts, but I want to understand your point, so I request a short answer to the point.

You said that to understand a teacher/avatar/etc. one has to consider: desha, kala, paatra.
Fine, don’t you agree that the BG was written, much later, after the Vedic exuberance, and the idea that Krishna supposedly says, “brahmano hi pratishtha-aham” in the BG, is revisionist in one sense. The Vedic acharyas would not have known Krishna – in the sense the BG authors would have. 500 years from now there may be a God called Carl who claims that he is Krishna, who is also Brahman. Given your confidence in your beliefs, I don’t doubt this potential reality. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But also, the Vaishnava commentaries clearly <b>posit the existence</b> of the Original of which everything on this side of existence is the material reflection, with the brahman realization inbetween. While for the Impersonalists, merging with Brahman and annihilating identity is final. This is not supported by the great sages, for whom Brahman realization is only a preliminary step.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<b>Posit</b> being the key word – “to assume or affirm the existence of”. Thus in your own words Vaishnavaism is another idea, yet unproven. Further, according to you is all monistic ideas necessarily mayavadi? I see you desire a purposeful, casual, predictable universe which is shepherded by a deity. The mere understanding, or attempt at understanding, the infinite is in no way freeing, annihilating or liberating, just as understanding gravity does not make you free of it. Knowledge never sets one free, it only makes us see how unfree we are!

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In the case of the snake and the rope, the observer is external to 'both'.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t maya mean that observer not only mistakes the rope for the snake, but also the fact that he is different from either of them.

I do not understand Jeeva or the Jagat, but I can understand that I have a mind, and that mind through its consciousness desires distinctness from the rest of existence. The vedic acharyas wanted us to understand that our mind and the consciousness it exhibits is limited by our senses, that let us perceive and sample this universe in a limited way. Further, they wanted us to recognize that we are one and the same with the Universe, but for our egotistical desire to establish our distinctness. The idea of the soul, god, religion, etc, find mention but do not seem to be the main purpose of at least the Upanishads in my understanding.

I see Advaita a bit differently – I cannot tell you want love is, but I can tell you what it is not. Similarly, I cannot tell you what Brahman is, but I can tell you what it is not. This is the only way to define this indefinable quantity. There was a reason that this was not taught to the common masses. The hoi-poli is best left to believe in God, perform karma and continue the pursuit of moksha. To the select few that were given Upanishadic knowledge – unlike what Carl says, each branch here was one exposition of ideas. Not a partial collection of “blind men of Hindoostan’s” wisdom – they knew that reality of the “Matrix”, they were the system, they were above the system, and they could restructure the system if necessary. Understanding this leads to the understanding of why Hinduism survived all these eons.

<b>I don’t know “Who is a Hindu”, but I do know what one ought to be: – </b>
<b>One who believes in being noble by birth, unfettered by sacred books and deities but well versed in them, lives according to Dharma and uphold it at all costs, performs his Karma without expecting fruits for his actions, embodies virtue, bravery, charity, industry, learning and skepticism. One who is the best: Shudra, Vaishya, Kshatriya, Brahmana everyday.
</b>

[Guest]

Dear <b>Pulikeshi</b>,
You asked:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Could you tell me what this singular paradox is in one line?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
acintya bheda-abheda -- Inconceivable, simultaneous Oneness and Difference. Or, as Immanuel Swedenborg put it, Distinguished Oneness.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->You said that to understand a teacher/avatar/etc. one has to consider: desha, kala, paatra.
Fine, don’t you agree that the BG was written, much later, after the Vedic exuberance, and the idea that Krishna supposedly says, “brahmano hi pratishtha-aham” in the BG, is revisionist in one sense. The Vedic acharyas would not have known Krishna – in the sense the BG authors would have. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->So this is the kind of deprecation of scripture I was referring to in my post. But let me answer you briefly.

Firstly, every statement in the BG is supported by the "previously existing" Vedic literature. Let's be clear about that. you are WRONG in suggesting that the Vedic sages "would not have known" Krishna. Not only the Upanishads, but even the Rigveda, Samaveda, etc (and the Upanishads in their category) have many references to Krishna and His expansions. Just a few samples--

"The lotus feet of Lord Visnu are the supreme objective of all the demigods. These lotus feet of the Lord are as enlightening as the sun in the sky." <b>(Rg Veda 1.22.20)</b>

"Just as the sun's rays in the sky are extended to the mundane
vision, so in the same way the wise and learned devotees always
see the supreme abode of Lord Vishnu. Because those highly
praiseworth and spiritually awake brahmanas are able to see the
spiritual world, they are also able to reveal that supreme abode
of Lord Vishnu." <b>(Rg veda 1.22.20)</b>

"Lord Krishna is the color of a new rain cloud, therefore He is
compared to a transcendental cloud full of eternity, bliss, and
cognizance. He is the original supreme person. He is the origin
of all activities and the one and only Lord of all. He is the
worshipful Lord of the best of the demigods, the controller of
Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. Krishna is without any beginning.
Whatever auspiciousness is found within or beyond this universe the
devotee obtains in Krishna alone." <b>(kRShNa upaniShad, Rg veda)</b>

"The realm of Lord Visnu is the supreme spiritual abode." <b>(Katha Upanisad 1.3.9)</b>

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the reservoir of transcendental mellows (<i>rasa</i>)." <b>(Taittiriya Upanisad 2.7.1)</b>

"May Lord Govinda, Acyuta, Ananta Sesa, Vasudeca, and Lord
Vishnu bestow auspiciousness upon us. May Nara-Narayana,
Padmanabha and Purusottama bestow auspiciousness upon us. May
Vishvaksena, the Lord of the universe, Hrsikesha, and Lord
Hari bestow auspiciousness upon us. May Garuda and the son
of Anjana, who is the great devotee of Lord Rama, Hanuman,
bestow auspiciousness upon us. May the great and only Lord
of auspiciousness, Sri Krishna, who is like a transcendental
cloud full of eternity, knowledge, and bliss and who is the Lord
of all the demigods, bestow upon us all prosperity and
auspiciousness." <b>(kRShNa upaniShad, Rg veda)</b>

"hare kRShNa hare kRShNa kRShNa kRShNa hare hare
hare rAma hare rAma rAma rAma hare hare" - <b>Yajur Veda</b>

And so on...

What "Vedic exuberance" are you speaking of? Weren't the Upanishads also written "after" the Veda proper? In fact, isn't it acknowledged that originally there was only One Veda, which has been split into four as the Ages progressed? So where do you begin? But since you like shaky, unverified chronology, you must ONLY refer to the karma-kanda portion of the Vedas, because that seems to be preliminary to the jnana-kanda. So from now on, should we only pay attention to ritual piety and fruitive activities?

Obviously, this chronological argument is not valid by any standard. In fact, other rascals use it in reverse -- saying that the prior portions are "primitive", and should be ignored, while only the later portions should be accepted.

So I suggest you abandon this sort of silly speculation, and try to understand why great authorities, even in modern times, have recommended the Bhagavad Gita as a standard summary study of all Vedic literature. Shankara, Ramanuja, etc...all wrote commentaries on this text, and they said it was in the same league as the Upanishads, hence the name Gitopanishad.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Posit</b> being the key word – “to assume or affirm the existence of”. Thus in your own words Vaishnavaism is another idea, yet unproven.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Unproven?? In a laboratory, by "repeatability", you mean? <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> My friend, the Vaishnava theology is proven by all Vedic measures of proof, pratyaksha, shabda, etc... And the realizations of various Vaishnava saints are indeed identical, and therefore should serve to satisfy your penchant for repeatability! In fact, by "Vaishnava" saints I am not only referring to people from the Indian cultural sphere (b/c one could argue that it may be culture-specific fantasy), but these identical realizations are given by others from Iran, Turkey, Arabia, Eastern and Latin Europe, and Scandinavia. the most recent example I cited was Swedenborg.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I see you desire a purposeful, casual, predictable universe which is shepherded by a deity.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Oh on the contrary, unenlightened human nature "desires" just the opposite. They do not like to think themselves eternally dependent, etc. This sort of thinking, exemplified by the disdain in your tone, is symptomatic of what the Rishis call False-ego. In that state of mind, one cannot see the true value of concepts. For instance, "surrender" to people like you is a very mean position. You cannot see that it is factually the position of greatest freedom.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->500 years from now there may be a God called Carl who claims that he is Krishna, who is also Brahman. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Why wait for 500 years? <b>Every mayavadi says the above.</b> "I am God, and you can also become God". But no Vaishnava will say the same. Never before, never in the future. After all this discussion, you are still mixing up typical mayavadi traits with Vaishnavism.