Who Is A Hindu

Sunder · 06-09-2005, 08:22 AM

Mahabharatha: Anusasanika Parva - SECTION XIV

"Yudhishthira said, 'O son of the River Ganga, thou hast heard all the names of Maheshwara, the Lord of the universe. Do thou tell us, O grandsire, all the names that are applied, O puissant one, unto Him who is called Isa and Sambhu. Do thou tell us all those names that are applied unto Him who is called Vabhru or vast, Him that has the universe for his form, Him that is the illustrious preceptor of all the deities and the Asuras, that is called Swayambhu (self-creating) and that is the cause of the origin and dissolution of the universe. Do thou tell us also of the puissance of Mahadeva.'

"Bhishma said, 'I am quite incompetent to recite the virtues of Mahadeva of highest intelligence. He pervades all things in the universe and yet is not seen anywhere. He is the creator of universal self and the Pragna (knowing) self and he is their master. All the deities, from Brahman to the Pisachas, adore and worship him. He transcends both Prakriti and Purusha. It is of Him that Rishis, conversant with Yoga and possessing a knowledge of the tattwas, think and reflect. He is indestructible and Supreme Brahman. He is both existent and non-existent. Agitating both Prakriti and Purusha by means of His energy, He created therefrom the universal lord of creatures, viz., Brahma. Who is there that is competent to tell the virtues of that god of gods, that is endued with supreme Intelligence? Man is subject to conception (in the mother's womb), birth, decrepitude, and death. Being such, what man like me is competent to understand Bhava? Only Narayana, O son, that bearer of the discus and the mace, can comprehend Mahadeva. He is without deterioration. He is the foremost of all beings in attributes. He is Vishnu, because of his pervading the universe. He is irresistible. Endued with spiritual vision, He is possessed of supreme Energy. He sees all things with the eye of Yoga. It is in consequence of the devotion of the high-souled Krishna to the illustrious Rudra whom he gratified. O Bharata, in the retreat of Vadari, by penances, that he has succeeded in pervading the entire universe. O king of kings, it is through Maheswara of celestial vision that Vasudeva has obtained the attribute of universal agreeableness,--an agreeableness that is much greater than what is possessed by all articles included under the name of wealth. 1 For a full thousand years this Madhava underwent the austerest penances and at last succeeded in gratifying the illustrious and boon giving Siva, that Master of all the mobile and the immobile universe. In every new Yuga has Krishna (by such penances) gratified Mahadeva. In every Yuga has Mahadeva been gratified with the great devotion of the high-souled Krishna. How great is the puissance of the high-souled Mahadeva,--that original cause of the universe,--has been seen with his own eyes by Hari who himself transcends all deterioration, on the occasion of his penances in the retreat of Vadari undergone for obtaining a son. 2 I do not, O Bharata, behold any one that is superior to Mahadeva. To expound the names of that god of gods fully and without creating the desire of hearing more only Krishna is competent. This mighty-armed one of Yadu's race is alone competent to tell the attributes of the illustrious Siva. Verily, O king, only he is able to discourse on the puissance, in its entirety of the Supreme deity?'

http://hinduwebsite.com/siva/sivaintrod.htm

06-09-2005, 11:25 AM

QUOTEObviously, 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.


Carl keep your comments polite or choose to speak to yourself!

QUOTESo I suggest you abandon this sort of silly speculation


QUOTEFor instance, "surrender" to people like you is a very mean position.


This and other ad hominem attacks on your part make this discussion worthless.

You choose the blue pill and I the red - Good luck!

Sunder · 06-09-2005, 08:10 PM

QUOTE(pulikeshi @ Jun 9 2005, 11:25 AM) You choose the blue pill and I the red -Â Good luck! 
niiice <!--emo& Big Grin

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /> <!--emo& Big Grin

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' />

gangajal · 06-10-2005, 12:28 AM

Some quotes from svetasvatara.up

1.I know this great Person who is resplendent like the sun and is beyond darkness. By knowing him alone one transcends death; there is no other path to go. (Sv. Up 3.8)

2. By this Person is filled up all this, in relation to whom there is nothing superior or inferior, in comparison with whom there is nothing smaller nor greater, and who exists ALONE in His own effulgent glory, unmoving like a tree. ( Sv Up 3.9)

3. That which is higher than that superior (cause of the world) is WITHOUT FORM and without disease. Those who know This, they become immortal, while others get only sorrow. (Sv Up 3.10)

4. He who has all the faces, heads and necks, who resides in the intellects of all beings and is all-pervasive, is the Lord (Bhagavan) and therfore the omniscient SIVA. (Sv Up 3.11)

06-11-2005, 12:57 PM

Consider the recent post made by sunder, quoting from the Mahabharata (?). This kind of mayavadi argument is so common, that it is worth addressing separately here. Like many mayavadi arguments, the objective is obfuscation. Note that sunder-and-group have not at any point taken up a meaningful discussion on any particular CONCEPT (such as the Personal aspect of Absolute Truth), but they would like to jump to more esoteric details (âVishnuâ, âShivaâ, etc) and try to obfuscate.

To the uninformed reader, sunder's post seems to contradict other sections of Hindu shastra. By highlighting this (apparent) conradiction, sunder intends to imply: "See, now Siva is being praised. In other places Vishnu is praised. So all these are just stories. This is dangerous sectarianism. Better to ignore all this talk of Personality and just accept that the REAL supreme is Impersonal."

Before I directly address sunderâs latest cut-n-paste ecstacy, lets use another analogy (analogous concepts inserted in square braces []). Consider the following snippet of curious characters:

QUOTEÃÂ ÃÃ âºÂ·bÃÃÃ» Ã£Â² Â¨Ã´ÃârÂ¦h Ã½>Ãª LÂ Ë

The above is taken from an MP3 music File [analogous to shastra] on my desktop. I opened the file using a Word Processor application [anlogous to my own set of dogmatic axioms], and took a random snippet from the displayed result. By examining the above contents, I now declare that the file is full of gibberish -- apparently meaningless but amusing shapes, etc, ["contradictions"], that no such thing as music exists [its an "illusion"], and that the Ultimate Reality is just 0âs and 1âs and nothing else! (This will appeal to Matrix movie-spiritualists like Pulikeshi. I apologize for hurting his feelings, which caused him to whine like a schoolgirl.)

Now any halfway intelligent person will tell me: âYou foolish rascal, if you try to interpret the MP3 file [shastra] with an application program [philosophical lens] which is based on the assumption that the incoming bitstream can only contain UNICODE characters [a limiting conditionality to begin with], then what the hell do you expect? OTOH, if the application [philosophical lens] you used to interpret the same file had the ability to recognize that the incoming bitstream included numeric sound frequencies, which are then to be parsed by a bona fide psychoacoustic model, etc, [bona fide parampara that recognizes various aspects of Noetic methodology] then the output would have been music.â

Now note that both of us are actually correct. I would have been right to say that the file is just 0âs and 1âs, but clearly I was NOT seeing the whole picture. In fact, by making premature assertions based on fundamental ignorance, I was greatly obscuring the File contents [shruti shastra], and the associated MP3 technology (i.e. the process of realization of its mature contents) [yoga]. But the intelligent person who pointed out my mistake will be able to extract the greatest treasures [transcendental rasa] from the same file.

The above is a very close analogy of the difference between the Impersonalist mayavadi and the Vaishnava commentator. The Vaishnava completely accepts that Impersonal Brahman exists (brahmeti pramatmeti bhagavan iti sabdyate), but he asks you to decide if you want to stick around at a level of realization that comprises staring at a string of 0âs and 1âs, or whether you would like to listen to some good music. (I beg your pardon if this crude example is oversimplifying things a bit).

Now to briefly address sunder and gangajalâs latest graffiti:

As I stated in my last post to Ashok Kumar, mayavadi commentaries not only keep introducing more and more contradictions as they try to explain away one problem with another, but the mayavadis also see "contradictions" where none exist. This is because, given the dogmatic assumptions they BEGIN with (kevala-advaita in this case), which act like a filter in reading shastra, they fail to read closely what they themselves quote. (sunder canât see the special adumbrations about Krishna even in his own post, and gangajal wets his pants when he sees a word that's not Krishna/Vishnu in an Upanishad). The result is that they themselves are frustrated with Vedic scripture, and so they end up watering-down the bona fides of various Vedic scriptures. (Of course, in this case I have no idea why sunder chose to quote the Mahabharata, which is acknowledged to be corrupted by all acharyas, but let's ignore this for the moment. There are many bona fide scriptures that have similar passages about Krishna and Lord Shiva.)

These people do not understand the ontological position of Shiva (not just the gunavatara, but of Sadashiva). This is not the place to get into the details, but here's a start: Lord Siva, in association with maya, has many forms, which are generally numbered at eleven. Lord Siva is not one of the living entities (jivas); he is, more or less, Krishna Himself. The example of milk and yogurt is often given in this regard - yogurt is a transformation of milk, but still yogurt cannot be used as milk. Similarly, Lord Siva is an expansion of Krishna, but he cannot act as Krishna, nor can we derive the spiritual restoration from Lord Siva that we derive from Krishna. The essential difference is that Lord Siva has a connection with material nature, but Visnu or Lord Krsna is wholly transcendental. In Srimad-Bhagavatam (10.88.3) it is stated that Lord Siva is a combination of three kinds of transformed consciousness known as vaikarika, taijasa and tamasa.

In short, Siva is the umbilical link between the material and spiritual. Therefore, one will see Vedic literature divided into 3 parts based on subject matter (e.g. stuff dealing with hiranyagarbha, kundalini, etc will be under Lord Shiva) and guna (different grades of religion for different qualities of people). Of course, there's much more to it. The conceptual pancha-tattva of Chaitanya Vaishnavism, with its deep meanings is something I myself am not familiar enough with.

As for the eulogies Krishna Himself speaks to Lord Shiva in various scriptures â including the main Vaishnava scriptures â it is not possible for an Impersonalist to appreciate their significance. The problem is that, by distracting the curious and decent beginner with apparent contradictions, and by erecting the strawman of sectarianism, the mayavadi steals away that basic interest/respect, and kills it. Mayavada cannot exist without slicing, distorting, and selectively deprecating large parts of Hindu scripture. The confused mayavadi has no clue how to put all the pieces of the puzzle together. But Vaishnavism (and I refer to Chaitanya Vaishnavism in particular) supports and elegantly assembles everything together. The difference is the differing set of axioms (see analogy above). The mayavadi starts out with Impersonalist axioms, and then uses circular arguments, but only ties himself in knots.

That there is plenty of petty, ignorant, castebound sectarianism in certain parts of India doesn't help. It is only a handle for the mayavadi to persuade the proud-but-confused Hindu to just accept Imersonalism as the be-all and end-all. It sweeps a lot of ugliness under the carpet, shuts out a lot of the noise. But it also obscures the transcendental music that is truly the greatest treasure of the Vedas. Places like Tamil Nadu are a mental hospital comparable to pre-Islamic Arabia, complete with sectarian gods, concocted "puranas", and a high rate of female infanticide. Bengal is another place where great philosophies have been abused by deviant sects.

Shastra, when read with the wrong lens, only partially reveals itself in distorted ways. In fact, this is one of the ingenious aspects of Vedic shastra. Take one well-known example â Bhagavad Gita, chapter 7 verse 24. Such a crucial verse has been deliberately worded in ambiguous Sanskrit, so that it can be translated in exactly opposite ways! The difference is that, translated one way, it ties together all of the Gita, and translated another way (Impersonalist), it flies in the face of large sections of the Gita, including the very next verse. This is the difference. It is an entertaining exercise now, to flip through the contortionist commentaries that mayavadis have to write.

06-11-2005, 11:29 PM

QUOTEThis will appeal to Matrix movie-spiritualists like Pulikeshi. I apologize for hurting his feelings, which caused him to whine like a schoolgirl.


Quit baiting - you ain't worth my time!
You believe in your apology as much as you believe in any belief. Faith and belief hopefully makes one a better human being - not a spitefully cynical critic. I hope you see the logs in your eyes, before you point your fingers at the mote in others.
I have no intention of getting splashed by throwing stones at a pile of you know what!
Since you are it, enjoy it!

06-12-2005, 11:39 AM

QUOTEThe contents in this particular post, are not really my verbatim thoughts or style of discussion.
I will edit this post in a few days.sunder, pls leave this post of yours in tact, as it serves as an example of what I have been trying to demonstrate from the very beginning of this thread. IMHO, we should leave it to neutral readers and admins of this thread to judge who's "style" it is to fly off the handle at the very start of this thread, and then go runninng off to start another prurient hatchet-job thread while pretending to be objective, and who indulges in hit-and-run posts rather than a coherent conceptual presentation of points. Your duplicity would be entertaining if it were not so repetitive.

In any case, I request you to leave your post in tact. Note that I am not speaking to you or your sidekicks here (you already have your minds made up), but to any interested and open-minded readers on this forum. I think this thread will be an interesting study for them, and the hammering monotony of the blind assertions you make and re-make is an integral part of this thread, and is a characteristic I have been trying to elicit for the examination of others.

QUOTEBeware, this is not MY post. It is a quote from Vyaasa's Mahabharatha, which is part of the Hindu Shastra.So you just decided to quote the Mahabharata w/o intending to make any point? But then you say:

QUOTEWhile the Mahabharatha clearly mentions Sri Krishna propitiating and praying to Lord Shiva in EVERY yuga. Hindus also know Sri Rama praying to Sri Rameshwara at Rameswaram in the Treta Yuga.. The moorkhavadis imposters go to the extent of denying Sri Krishna & Rama their opinions and way of life, and excert their own (false) image of Krishna - in the process blaspheming the real Krishna who propitiates Mahadeva in every Yuga. So wasnât this what you were trying to say in thhe Mahabharata post?? And isnât that what I said you were trying to say?? I am also touched by your reverence for Krishna and shiva, even though your philosophy says that none of them really exist. As I said, your decoys, your duplicity, is patent in your posts. To give another example:

QUOTETwo-bit Scoundrels who claim to be the sishyas of the great Chaithanya and go under the garb of Gaudiya sect...
It is these unscrupulous scoundrel Moorkhavadis that bring a bad name to a beautiful philosophy like Krishna-Consciousness. So you have a lot of respect for Lord Chaitanya eh? Well, it was Lord Chaitanya who perpetuated the use of the word "mayavadi", which irks you so. There was no greater denouncer of mayavada than Lord Chaitanya, and He did so in the strongest language, and so have all the acharyas in His parampara, and before Him. This aspect of Vaisnavism is not the fancy of some newly-fouded religious organization, but is integral to Vaishnavism itself. In defining and teaching Vaishnavism, they have to delineate what it includes, and what is does NOT include.

Now about Vishnu eulogizing Lord Shiva: I have already mentioned that even Vaishnava scriptures are full of such passages. Why Lord Shiva, Krishna eulogizes and humbles Himself before so many other jivas. Krishna says, âthe love of my devotee purchases Meâ, âI follow the servant of My servant so that I may gather the dust from his/her lotus feet and put it on My head, because it is impossible for Me to repay their loveâ. There are numerous quotes to this effect. Refer the Uddhava Gita, and the Brihad-Bhagavad-amrita. In fact, Lord Shiva himself speaks of this great Love between the Supreme and His devotee in the latter. For the non-devotees, this great love is not comprehensible, because the concept of eternal, loving service is unpalatable, due to false-ego. A certain great 20th century mayavadi preacher criticized Vaishnavism for inculcating âa mentality of humility and servitudeâ. It is clear that he understands neither humility nor servitude.

The same preacher also berates Krishna for being too arrogant in making the following proclamations in the Bhagavad Gita: (a) That He alone is the Supreme and that all should Love Him alone, and importantly -- (b) that the worship of other demigods is "illegitimate" (avidhi-purvakam), and only for people attached to fruitive activities. This preacher singled Krishna out because no other deva makes these categorical assertions in all of Vedic scripture, even while they gracefully accept eulogies.

QUOTEThere can be no discussion if you cannot see the point "AHAM BRAHMASMI", and "PRAGNAANAM BRAHMA", "THATH THVAM ASI" in a non-dual way.That is my point. Your axioms are absolute, and you have not tried to understand how others have commented on such Upanishadic sutras. For example, aham brahmasmi simply means "I am spirit-soul", i.e. "I am NOT the gross or subtle bodies." It is an affirmation of one's true essence, stripped of any superimpositions (adhyaasa). But if you insist on interpreting it as "I am God", then you're right -- there can be no discussion. That is the point I was trying to make to rajesh_g earlier. The mayavadi dogma is inflexible, even though it does not sit well with Vedic philosophy as a whole.

To reiterate: When Sankara spoke, he spoke against the Buddhist sunyavadis. He was trying to establish that our true Self is not the Mind (as the sunyavadis postulated), but rather that we are transcendental to body, mind and intellect. We are spirit-soul. But mayavada started after the advent of Ramanuja. It was in the face of his commentaries that the cermonial popes of Advaita started tampering with Vedanta so as not to admit any further elucidation of Truth. This is when all this atman=paramatman kind of thing started. That is the reason, from the very beginning of my posts I have made a distinction b/w mayavada and Shankara's Advaita itself. Sankara is a hero to the Vaishnavas, and Vaishnavism is inclusive of Advaita.

QUOTELikewise, an Advaitin acknowledges that the relational world exists within the framework of name/form unlike the moorkhavadi imposters, who say Saguna "Rasa" is higher than Brahman Realisation.Now this is a very important part of sunder's post, because it highlights one of the GREATEST MISREPRESENTATIONS of Vaishnavism that mayavadi propoganda perpetuates. I had mentioned in my post to Ashok Kumar that mayavadis often misapply terms like saguna and nirguna to add to the mess.

Who on earth said that "rasa" is "saguna"?? What do you understand by saguna and nirguna anyway? As per the commentaries, nirguna means transcendent to the gunas -- the 3 modes of material nature. Nirguna has been defined as "nis-trai-gunya", i.e. free of the 3 gunas. IOW nirguna means non-material. Nirguna does not mean "no qualities". It means "no material qualities". And that's a nuance that your simplistic theories cannot grasp. In the Bhagavad Gita itself Sri Krishna speaks of Brahmajyoti as being transcendennt to the material universe...and then says that, even transcendental to this Brahmajyoti is His eternal, parama-dhaama, the eternal spiritual sky. In this esoteric realm, "rasa" is not subject to any modes, nor Time nor space. In fact, Time, Space and the Modes are subservient to "rasa", they are subordinate participants in "rasa". (BTW, "rasa" is different from "raasa". "rasa" means "transcendental mellows".) Anyhow, Vyasa, Narada, Shandilya, Garga, etc...all speak of this spiritual sky as being the highest (specifically higher than Brahma-bhuta), and they say that it can be only described by weak analogies, because it is essentially "nirvacaniya" -- indescribable.

To sum up, the mayavadi definition of nirguna and saguna is incomplete, and their characterization of Vaishavism as being a saguna-bound technique is a pathetic libel. It is their typical strawman argument to portray lila in a purely material sense, and therefore debunk it as obviously non-absolute. Vaishnavism denounces anthropomorphism as anther type of mayavada, so how can your characterization of Vaishnavism being "saguna" worship be true? It is hoped that the interested reader would pick up genuine Vaishnava books in order to delve into the philosophy.

In his hatchet-job thread, sunder was actually trying to portray a seemingly strained relationship between various Vaishnava schools (Madhva vs Gaudiya, etc). This is not true. At this point in time, a very significant movement is happening within Hinduism. Various semi-dormant schools of Vaishnavism are coming together to cooperate in disseminating Vaishnava philosophy, and to undo the great harm that has been done in the last 120 years or so. This has to be a very significant move, socially as much as religious, because some of the older Vaishnavite schools will have to spring-clean their houses in order to approach the "leading edge" of Vaishnava missionsâ remove the grime of casteism, etc that suddenly crept in and corrupted their mission, which Bhaktivinode Thakura started with Gaudiya Vaishnavism itself. And it will also be a movement that has to do largely without any government support, or âHindu-nationalistâ support, which certain mayavadi organizations enjoy. With all their talk of ânirgunaâ, these mayavadi guys have no problem filling their pages with nationalist rhetoric and other upadhis (designations).

Lastly, sunder makes the point about kevala-Advaita being the ONLY way to properly interpret Vedanta. But, as Iâve said before, one after another, various Vaishnava acharyas have publicly defeated proponents of kevala-advaita. I would like sunder to produce one famous example where a great Vaishnava acharya has been defeated in debate by a kevala-advaita preacher.

NOTE: sunder, one request: If you are a man of integrity, I want you to make an unequivocal admission on this thread that you have NOT read Vaishnava literature from the primary sources. It is patently clear from your posts to anyone familiar with the basics of Vaishnavism. Everything you say about Vaishnavism is straight out of certain popular mayavadi books (who are not even accepted by proper Advaitin authorities). If you had read even the most basic of Vaishnava books from their primary sources (books written by acharyas, not some random websites or lay pamphlets!), you would not be making the kind of cocksure assertions about "nirguna", "aham brahmasmi", "rasa", etc. Therefore, I ask you to make it clear to the other readers here that you have not read Vaishaism from the primary sources (maybe because you are quite satisfied with your current worldview, which is fine). But readers should know that you are not speaking about Vaishnavism from a position of real knowledge or understanding. I call on other knowledgeable members like hayagriva to testify to this

06-12-2005, 09:43 PM

Carl said: QUOTEWho on earth said that "rasa" is "saguna"?? What do you understand by saguna and nirguna anyway? As per the commentaries, nirguna means transcendent to the gunas -- the 3 modes of material nature. Nirguna has been defined as "nis-trai-gunya", i.e. free of the 3 gunas. IOW nirguna means non-material. Nirguna does not mean "no qualities". It means "no material qualities". And that's a nuance that your simplistic theories cannot grasp.
Well, in advaita vedanta, 'guna' stands for attributes in general. Although in continuation with Samkhya, it is often supposed that combinations of triguna indicate all the gunas/attributes. So here is a clear example of differences in definitions leading to unnecessary brickbats.. A lot of decibels are being wasted on semantics. It should be clear that "Atma", "guna" , "Brahman" etc may mean different things to different people. Lets be clear that it is utterly uselss to argue over definitions. Axioms and methods of derivations and results one can argue about.

Below I take saguna to mean with something possessing attributes in general, not just triguna.

Advatic position is that saguna is with attributes and nirguna is without attributes. One strong feature of dvaita and vishista-advaita is that, they propose a highest level of saguna, which is called Ishvara or some other name. Here is a real philosophical problem:

Attributes do not belong solely to an object. They are in the object-observer-observation combination. A marigold flower is not yellow by itself. Certain wavelngths of light must be present. Even then, a cow with single kind of cones in its retina will not be able to see 'yellow', only humans who have three kinds of cones can see the "color" as we understand it.

Now the question is: When Ishvara is being described in saguna terms (advaitaic defn of saguna), he is then the object possessing those attributes. Who is the observer then? Does the observer stand apart from the Ishvara? Then there will be another being than Ishvara himself for whom Ishvara himself is an object!. If this another being also has attributes, then another observer is needed. In short an infinite regress problem is there. Which also shows the difficulty with proposing a highest level of Saguna. It appears any saguna can always be superceded by another saguna. This is why Advaita came to define Nirguna as the only viable limit of sequence of sagunas.

If the observer of the 'gunas' of Ishvara doesn't stand apat from Ishvara, but is Ishvara's own Self or Atma, then there is a witness self within Ishvara for whom Ishvara with attributes is an object. Why shouldn't that deeper witness self within the Ishvara not be held superior to Ishvara himself? If that deeper self in turn possessed attributes, that willl necessitate another deeper witness self. Again this sequence can not stop at any level where the deeper witness self has attributes. There is no highest/final point of saguna type to stop at in this process. But a limiting point of Nirguna can be defined.

06-12-2005, 10:04 PM

carl says: QUOTETo reiterate: When Sankara spoke, he spoke against the Buddhist sunyavadis. He was trying to establish that our true Self is not the Mind (as the sunyavadis postulated), but rather that we are transcendental to body, mind and intellect. We are spirit-soul.

Well, the ancient vedic sage Kapila's Samkhya system is the one that for the first time separated witnes Self (purusha) from mind, intellect and ego(mana-buddhi-ahamkara). Hindus and Budhists both accepted Sankhya's basics. In comparison Descartes with "I think therefore I am" would be considered even pre-Kapila in philosophical subtlety of analysis about the nature of Self.

Shunyavadis are actually much more subtle than that. Nagarjuna's analysis led to a philosophy that could tear apart any idea of absolute 'reality' for any categories. Shunyavadis not only could show that Mind is ultimately unreal, they didn't even stop at Atma. Atma or self is unreal too following their analysis. Nagarjuna's madhyamaka-shastam in Sanskrita as recovered from Tibetan texts has been published by Motilal Banarssidass. A concize intro to shunyavada has been published as a set of lectures by Bodhidharma (who went to China and started the Dhyana or Cha'an school of meditation which in Japan became Zen),translated from chinese as "The Zen Teachings of Bodhidharma" by Red Pine.

06-13-2005, 03:26 PM

Ashok Kumar,
I fully agree with your presentation of the problem of infinite regression under saguna concepts. Thanks also for the concise encapsulation of Sankhya and later Buddhist identifications of Self with Mind (thereby reducing religious practice to pure psychoanalysis). I had referred to this pre-existing Vedic concept in a previous post. Why, even in the Bhagavad Gita we have a couple of verses that use "atman" in the sense of "mind". Sanskrit is a nuanced language.

But I do not think words are wasted in defining the exact semantics of "guna", saguna and nirguna. As I said, all Vaishnava literature insists on nirguna Vaikuntha. As I pointed out, even in the BG, Krishna points to Vaikuntha AFTER describing brahmajyoti, i.e., He points to this Vaikuntha as being transcendent even to brahman. Even more significantly, He says that while Impersonal Brahman-realization is NOT eternal, atttaining to Vaikuntha is eternal, never to return. So it is worth taking the time to understand how this kind of thing can be possible. How can a world of seeming "qualities" exist transcendental to this saguna, material world? IOW, how can we have a "nirguna Vaikuntha"??

By all accounts, this is a fascinating assertion made in various Vedic texts. This transcendental variegatedness is emphasized, but at the same time it is referred to as guna-rahita, nis-trai-gunya, nirguna. We have to get to the bottom of this. We cannot just brush all these Vedic statements under the carpet, because whether we like it or not, this forms a significant part of Vedic literature.

Now before one starts to delve into Vaishnav literature, certain points have to be made clear. The various darshanas are actually complementary when viewed from a greater height, i.e., apparent differences in two darshanas are reconciled when seen from the vantage point of a third, more sophisticated darshana. Therefore, very early in this thread I had pointed out that jnana, or the method of vichaara, is Noetic, and is compared to a spiral, conical approach, leading to the apex. Or we can think of it as ascending a mountain by a road that spirals round and round. As we go higher, we get a better view of what's below and what's around, and things fall into perspective. The various darshanas in Vedic philosophy are like that. It should be significant that Vedanta is agreed upon as being a higher point than any of the other darshanas. Vedanta is not exclusive of the other darshanas, but it includes and reconciles them. Semantic re-definitions (or more appropriately, elucidations or qualifications) play a key role in this ascent of darshanas. The "comb" or "filter" of our understanding becomes finer and finer as the semantics are better qualified.

Therefore, harking back to Sankhya definitions (by assumption not recognizing any supramundane reality like brahman, and certainly non-theistic) in an argument concerning Vedanta is an incongruous twist. It is anomalous at this height, it is a throwback. I hope you are understanding my point here. The Hindu shad-darshanas are NOT disjointed, mutually competitive schools of philosophy, nor are they different "viewpoints on the same plane (as they are unfortunately portrayed in some basic literature). Rather, they represent a gradual ascent on the path of jnana as discussed above, and different people may "get on" the train at a level they feel comfortable (i.e., how easily digestible the assumptions for each system are to them).

But this throwback to Sankhya (and certain Buddhist) and other "lower level" semantics while discussing a "higher altitude" system like Vedanta is characteristic of mayavadi commentaries, and I beg to argue that you may be making a similar error without realizing it. To give a historical presentation of this, which I did before on this thread --

Sankara accomplished the astounding mission of re-establishing the authority of the Vedas in India at a time when the "intelligentsia" was dominated by Veda-hating Buddhists of various denominations. How Sankara could work around this intellectual prejudice of his audience is a tribute to his genius: His mission was to defeat the prevailing philosophy of Voidism, and to do that he only had to persuade and inspire his audience of the existence of a conscious, eternal, blissful Reality. Now in doing this, he presented this one concept from Vedanta, and he did so using a phraseology that was familiar to and appealing to his Voidist audience. That he did so while remaining faithful to this Vedantic concept is itself stunning, but the problem is that this phraseology is double-edged...the consequences of which manifested when Ramanuja burst on the scene later. When Ramanuja, a great lover of Sankara, wanted to bring more of Vedanta into the light of popular undertanding (since the authority of Vedanta was now more accepted), he was obviously treading on the toes of the Advaita "priesthood", who based their ceremonial authority on Sankara. Jealous of their ceremonial power, they first tried to counter by argument, and later resorted to political intrigue to murder and persecute this new acharya and his disciples. Now in the argument phase, they fell back on some of the double-edged phraseology of Sankara, and, in order to try to show Ramanuja as being disloyal to Sankara, they actually fell on the wrong side of that phraseology, i.e., on the Voidist side -- effectively speaking "Sankara" in reverse! IOW, the throwback terminology had now gained institutional currency.

So this is just one of the basic errors on the part of mayavada, and many of us trying to get a grip on Hindu philosophy make this mistake. Therefore, semantics are at the heart of any philosophy, especially when the Masters are trying to do their best to describe a Reality that is ultimately "anirvachaniya" -- indescribable in words. The sages are using words as precisely and as best they can to give us a basic idea -- before we can start practicing yoga to actually realize it. So we really ought to pay more attention to how they define words, qualifying and expanding the definitions of previously defined terms as we approach the summit. This is not a waste of time.

In fact, the reason the Teachers take the trouble to explain and precisely define certain concepts is not for mere intellectual stimulation. This fundamental Knowledge is a pre-requisite for actual practice (yoga). As you know, each darshana is paired with a system of practice. Therefore, the philosophy is the sambandha-jnana for the corresponding yoga. On one hand we have the map, on the other we have the technique, the vehicle to traverse it. As we ascend the darshanas, the map gets more detailed, the terrain is better explained. That is the difference.

I also want to mention that, in referring to Vaishnava philosophy, I recommend you study Chaitanya, who encapsulated and further elucidated all the previous acharyas, and brought things full-circle. Don't just stop with Vishisht-advaita or Madhva's Dwaita. They are self-admittedly incomplete (especially in the case of Madhvacharya). Their point was only to establish and point out, in isolation, some aspect of Vedanta that the previous theories didn't account for. Prefixes of "kevala" (as in kevala-advaita) were later additions by dogmatic followers.

Now that we have a better understanding of how Hindu philosophy is an integrated whole, we can re-arrange our "mental map" in a better way, rather than just supporting an acccumulation of facts and assertions. It requires a great teacher to help us put the various parts of the jigsaw together, and that is where the confused types (mayavadis) fail. They are forced to discard or shrug at various pieces that just don't seem to fit in.

Now when the Vaishnava acharyas insist on drawing a distinction between "material qualities" and "spiritual variegatedness", then it is worth some thought, and they have provided enough assistance to understand this. After all, this goes to the heart of the difference b/w "material" and "spiritual", a distinction the Vedas are constantly making. In a previous post you used the word "illusion" rather loosely, but could you now define it -- especially in the light of the good comments you made about "observer-object-observation"? The comments you made about cow-vision versus humann vision are really apt. This definition of "illusion" is important to understanding what the Vedas mean by "material" and "spiritual". So if we could crystallize your definition of "illusion", and the SOURCE of illusion, etc, then great progress can be made.

Also, even though I didn't want to get into details, I did mention in my last post, that this so-called Vaikuntha is described as being transcendental to not only the gunas, but Time also. Now that should certainly have caught your attention, because it simply flips this "object-observer-observation" problem around. It is no longer sensible to talk in this way in a Realm where Time is "subservient" to Lila. A "succession of events" in linear fashion cannot be taken for granted. This is a point worth contemplating. Lots of windows fly open.

Just in case you think all this Vedic stuff is too "far out", I would like to draw your attention to the latest theories in Physics, viz. superstring theory, which I mentioned in a previous post. They are already saying that Time is actually capable of being an "Independent Actor", participating at will in, well, Reality...and that "parallel and intersecting(!) universes" exist in which Time behaves differently. I recommend you read "The Elegant Universe" by Nobel laureate Brian Greene, or at least watch the documentary on PBS. Modern scientific validation of certain ideas may make this Vedic Vaishnava stuff more digestible to our conditioned minds. It certain helped dampen my skepticism!

Also, from the point of view of PRACTICE (yoga), which involves a lot of understanding one's own mind, you will observe that the same effects of consciousness are produced by concentrating one's mind on eternity, and by concentrating one's mind intensely on the present moment. This may help give us greater insight into the meaning of Time -- and the relationship between Mind and Time. After all, manas, or mind, is compared to the screen-receptor of sensory observation, and is made of vayu-tanmatra.

In this way and many other ways, through wholistic contemplation and practice, we can expand our understanding. I can only provide some leads here. the books by bona fide acharyas are there for you to read. My point on this forum is to highlight that (a) great misrepresentation has been perpetrated by certain parties (either out of incompetence, or unscrupulousness), and (b) some of us may need to revise our "mental maps" and our "semantics" before we can approach Vaishnavism, which is unequivocally the summit of Vedic Knowledge. I hope in this post I have illustrated the anomalous "throwback" re-definitions that some use while discussing Vedanta-sutra.

And one last point bears re-iteration here: As we noted, every darshana has an attached system of practice. For Vaishnavism, it is raja-bhakti. Now one of the fundamental pre-requisites of raja-bhakti is to cure oneself of the most prominent features of false-ego. Some of the features are well-known, such as material attachment, etc. But also mentioned very explicitly is the notion of Impersonalism. It is worth meditating on why Impersonalism and the absence of rasa and relationship is a preference directly related with False Ego. In fact, it is referred to as a "triumph of ahamkara". Now my point here is that it is funny and perplexing how the mayavadis prescribe "bhakti" even while beginning and ending every leccture with Impersonalist conclusions (i.e. the Ultimate Reality is Impersonal). Now all shastras, and even Sankara, have said that Bhakti is the BEST process, and in fact the only way in this particular Age. Therefore, the mayavadis cannot get around Bhakti. So what do they do? They re-define bhakti as some preliminary process (although the Bhakti shastras say just the opposite). To the mayavadi, bhakti-yoga is a timeserving pretense. But according to the Bhakti-sutras, this sort of practice is totally useless. Even IF Bhakti were a preliminary process (not so), it makes no psychological sense for the Impersonalist teacher to tell the disciple from the very beginning itself that the actual Truth is Impersonal (not so)! So even by their own re-definitions, the mayavadis are contradicting themselves, which is not unusual.

Sunder · (This post was last modified: 06-14-2005, 08:36 AM by Sunder.)

QUOTE(Carl @ Jun 12 2005, 11:39 AM) NOTE: sunder, one request: If you are a man of integrity, I want you to make an unequivocal admission on this thread that you have NOT read Vaishnava literature from the primary sources. . 
Carl ji, you will find your answer in my post here..
http://www.india-forum.com/forums/index.ph...indpost&p=26066

I have honestly tried investing time in understanding Ramanujacharya's texts, but am unable to understand his line of reasoning the way I am able to understand Sri Shankaracharya's Bhashyas.

One thing I noticed in this thread. From discussing who is a hindu, we are actually getting into "who is not a Hindu". The hallmark of the nitty-gritty infighting is showing up quite well, and in the process has taken me away from where I originally wanted to go. I had to take some time to meditate upon this.

When I read your recent post this morning, I did not have any bouts of 'blood-boilings' or flying off the handle. I must admit, you are quite coherrent, and articulating your position well. In this context, I will be glad to ask you questions on topics I do not understand well.

I remember we were once talking about Mandukya Upanishad. Could you please lead me to Vaishnava sources of Bhashyas or interpretations of the Mandukya Upanishad? It would also be nice to hear your thoughts on the Great Upanishad.

cheers,
Sunder.

Sunder · 06-14-2005, 06:19 AM

Advaita FAQ from Vaishnava.com

Sunder · 06-14-2005, 08:30 AM

QUOTE(Carl @ Jun 13 2005, 03:26 PM) As I pointed out, even in the BG, Krishna points to Vaikuntha AFTER describing brahmajyoti, i.e., He points to this Vaikuntha as being transcendent even to brahman. Even more significantly, He says that while Impersonal Brahman-realization is NOT eternal, atttaining to Vaikuntha is eternal, never to return. 
This is new to me. Which shlokas of the BG talk about Vaikunta?

QUOTEBy all accounts, this is a fascinating assertion made in various Vedic texts. This transcendental variegatedness is emphasized, but at the same time it is referred to as guna-rahita, nis-trai-gunya, nirguna.

The three terms above, specially NIR-Guna sounds more like absence of gunas. Like Niraakara, nirmala, nirvikalpa, nishprapancha, neeraga, nishkriya, nishkalanka etc. To my understanding how is nirguna to be taken only as lack of rajo-thamo gunas, and not as lack of all three gunas - specially when there is mention of nis-trai-guna? I would love to hear more about this please.

QUOTEWhen Ramanuja, a great lover of Sankara, wanted to bring more of Vedanta into the light of popular undertanding ...
I did not know Ramanujacharya had great love for Shankaracharya. This again is interesting and new to me. Could you please lead me to sources that would confirm the same?

QUOTEDon't just stop with Vishisht-advaita or Madhva's Dwaita. They are self-admittedly incomplete (especially in the case of Madhvacharya).
I seem to be learning a lot here. This too is new to me. Could you please again let us know how (or more accurately why) the acharyas themselves admitted that their views were incomplete? How did this incompleteness turn into perfrection with the advent of Sri Chaitanya?

QUOTEIn a previous post you used the word "illusion" rather loosely, but could you now define it ...
How is illusion defined according to Vaishnavism?

Looking forward to hearing from you. I will maintain thooshni till then <!--emo& Smile

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' />

06-15-2005, 12:44 PM

sunder,
QUOTEWhich shlokas of the BG talk about Vaikunta?Quite a few. The one that comes to mind immediately is "yad-gatvA na nivartante, tad dhAma paramam mama" (15:6 I think). In various parts of the BG, this transcendentally variegated "dhAma" is spoken of distinct from immediately preceding descriptions of preliminary brahman-realization. This transcendental Realm is also clearly differentiated from the 7 "heavens" and 7 "hellish" worlds that are described as part of the material universe in Vedic literature. So we must try to find out what exactly this so-called Vaikuntha sky is, and how can such variegatedness exist outside this material universe (as we know it). We cannot simply sweep all this under a carpet, or shrug at it, because it is being pointed to as most desirable, and importantly, the only position from which there is no return to the material world.

This last point is of note, because sAyujya-mukti is not considered final in many interpretations. SAyujya-mukti, as you know, is liberation from material mahat-tattva into a state of (being under the impression of) annihilation of one's sense of identity (pure ego). The jiva apparently loses its identity in Brahman. Compared to material suffering, this is a blissful state, because the cessation of suffering is itself a phenomenal relief. The example is given: after prolonged, forceful immersion under water, a gulp of fresh air is a great pleasure, even if one is still being subjected to other constraining conditions, ie., even if one is not totally free. This is analogous to sAyujya mukti according to several authorities. And they insist that, even though it is liberation from Time-bound existence, it cannot be the final journey of conditioned Soul, simply because it is not the constitutional nature and position of the soul (which is bliss-seeking by nature). To give a comparison with mystic literatures from other traditions-- sAyujya-mukti is somewhat analogous to a state of Limbo. Therefore, the "bhagavan-realized" (if I may use that phrase) sages have said that sAyujya is "as palatable as Hell" to them!

Now here's an important point: Krishna, for the umpteenth time, repeats after the above quoted verse that the jivas are "My infinitesimal, eternal parts and parcels" (mamaiva-amsho jiva-loke jiva-bhUtaH sanatanaH). Quite early -- and repeatedly -- in the BG (from ch. 2 onwards), the Soul (atman) is declared to be atomic, i.e. indivisible, and the unit of conscious experience. Therefore it would make no sense to say that we are all the Supreme Soul, because clearly we are different points of consciousness. If we were not, then one person gaining moksha should mean that all jivas would become liberated simultaneously, since they are all supposedly One Soul according to mayavada. No amount of "maya" philosophizing can reconcile the atomic definition of atman with the FACT of different points of experience. Therefore the term amshaH is significant, and that amshaH-nature is sanatana -- eternal.

The word âamshaHâ is also significant for its assertion of infinitesimality contrasted with the infinite-ness of the Supreme, because then there is no conflict with the idea of âpUrNam adaH purnam idamâ¦â, etc. Infinitesimal particles cannot affect the infinity of the Supreme Infinite. This is the position of Godhead. But from the point of view of an infinitesimal particle, being separated from the Infinite Whole by any finitude...is as good as being infinitely separated from its Source, i.e., it is incapable of even conceiving or measuring the âseparationâ. The latter is our position as jivas. This is another reason why the One Central Axiom of any philosophy about Absolute Truth MUST necessarily be an inconceivable paradox -- achintya bheda-abheda tattva. Some nice cut-and-dried "kevela"-something (like kevala-advaita) is anomalous when the subject matter is Absolute Truth.

To be "one" with the Supreme does not mean to be identical in ALL respects, but to be "organically united with", i.e., a condition where the jiva's Marginal Free Will is dovetailed with the Will of the Supreme. Apparent "separation" under mahamaya (avidya-maya) occurs due to a dislocation of the individual soul's conscious will, which creates a false Center of Reference, called ahamkaara (false-ego). The goal of yoga (yoke, unite) is to re-unite by realizing our true constitutional position of sat-chid-ananda.

To give a closer understanding of this unity, various purvAcaryas have used various metaphors. To begin with, Sri Ramanuja has so many metaphors. One example is that of attribute-object. Nilo ghaTaH (the blue pot). At the abstract level, the attribute (blue colour adjective) is differentiable from the object (pot), but actually they are inseparable. Of course, these are all inadequate examples, but Sri Ramanuja is trying to show us various levels of "difference", as we go towards the more abstract, ultimately beyond Time-bound Mind. Or another example is of the sunlight and the sun. The sunlight is inseparable from the sun. But when the sunlight is streaming into your room, we would not say that the sun itself is in your room.

These metaphors are taken from Vedic literature. Similarly, there are many Vedic metaphors to give an idea of paramatman. The two birds (jiva and paramatman) on a branch is a well-known example. Another, better metaphor is of the moon reflected in different pots of water. Although the 13th chapter of the BG makes clear that there are 2 kshetrajnas in every material body-field, mayavadis want to argue that actually its one and the same kshetrajna. But then there are many contradictions, one of which has been presented above. (The limited yoga-siddhi of parakAyA-pravesha is by no means a confirmation of this mayavadi claim!)

QUOTEThe three terms above, specially NIR-Guna sounds more like absence of gunas. Like Niraakara, nirmala...
...
To my understanding how is nirguna to be taken only as lack of rajo-thamo gunas, and not as lack of all three gunasWho said it means only lack of rajo-tamo gunas and not all 3? nis-trai-gunya means "transcendental to (ALL THREE) gunas".

My post to Ashok Kumar was mostly about this. As Ashok specified, all material qualities are merely produced from different combinations of the 3 gunas, like the primary colours of light combine to give all colours in the spectrum. That much is clear. But the nuance I was trying to throw light on is the semantic definition of "guna" itself. This word is to be translated not simply as "quality", but as "material quality". Therefore, nirguna does not mean "no qualities", but "no material qualities".

What is the basis of this qualification? This is tied directly to the definition of mAyA (illusion). Throughout the Vedas, when avidya is being differentiated from vidya, sat from asat, the crux is â eternality (niya-anitya vastu viveka, as Sripada Sankara concisely puts it). Sat is eternality, asat is transience. "Eternal" means "beyond the dominance of Time". It doesn't mean something that goes on and on in a linear time-scale. Avidya-maya is the condition of misidentification, misdirection, dislocated intelligence. In this condition, we, the bliss-seeking Soul, are trying to find bliss in this material world. But because the material world is anitya (transient, time-bound), and our Soul is eternal, therefore we will NEVER find real happiness in this world. We are like fish out of water in this material-world. Forgetfulness of this is one aspect of maya. The Arabic word for the conditioned human being (insaan, which we use in Hindi), is from the rroot meaning "the forgetful".

But as Krishna says in the BG (15:15), He alone is the Cause of forgetfulness, remembrance and knowledge. Therefore, mAyA is His own potency, with which He covers certain jivas (because of their own Marginal Free Will). It is entirely conceivable that the infinitesimal, particle jiva can be covered by the energy of the Supreme, but it is a contorted argument to suggest that the Supreme Whole is covered by this mAyA-sakti, and that, to obviate the obvious contradiction, some -redefinition of "vivarta" is the actual explanation of this. Now HUNDREDS of quotes from Vedanta (and the BG itself) say that the Supreme Brahman is eternally transcendent to any illusory or degrading potency (avyaya, acyuta, etc). Any suggestion that Supreme Brahman itself becomes subjected to, or transformed into a self-hypnotic illusory state is really quite ridiculous.

Vivarta and parinAma, correctly understood, are the transformation of one potency/energy into another, e.g. of avidya-maya into vidya-maya, etc. It is a transformation of the consciousness of the jiva-Atman, not the Supreme Atman. The original definitions of vivarta and parinama are:

satattvato'nyatha buddhir vikara ity udiratah
atattvato'nyatha buddhir vivarta ity udahrtah

"The perception of a different object when a real object takes another form is called parinama. Perception of a different object when there is actually no different object is called vivarta. " But the later followers of Shankara changed the definitions of vivarta. They simply redefined it, and actually swapped meanings with parinama. Of course, parinAma also speaks of the transformations of internal energies (like the ontological derivation of Sadashiva from The Supreme). But thatâs another bunch of concepts. Moving on:

The root agent of avidya-maya is ahamkara, i.e. False Ego. To put it very briefly, false ego is the mistaken identification of our individual soul as the Reference Point of our Conscious Will, instead of the Supreme Soul. There are very wonderful explanations of this, and of the constitutional position of the Individual Soul w.r.t. the Supreme. Even philosophically ambiguous teachers like Yogananda have beautifully described this. One of the ways the Supreme is defined is as âthe impetus and reservoir of all rasaâ, while the individual Soul (in its constitutional position) is compared to an organic instrument or medium in this eternal, constantly expanding, constantly fluctuating âflowâ. Yoga is the process of slowly uncovering our true, organic relationship with the Supreme by dovetailing every impetus toward the Supreme, instead of the false sense of self. When the river runs toward the ocean, then it widens and deepens, but if it is mistakenly redirected to the mirage in the desert (false ego), then it only travels a small distance, leaving behind a quagmire and eventually drying up. This is the gist of avidya-maya and its enactment in material consciousness. The Bhakti-shastras describe the ultimate constitutional position as being one of a river constantly running to the ocean -- the river always remaining a river, a conduit for the water that originally comes from the ocean through the water-cycle, and goes back to the ocean.

Like avidya-maya, any form of âliberationâ, ANY state of the infinitesimal living entity, is also always under some or the other potency of the Supreme. Therefore, if you noticed, when speaking about sAyujya-mukti, I inserted the text âbeing under the impression ofâ in braces. This is because that condition of âannihilation of identityâ is ALSO an âillusionâ, since the Self is never annihilated, and this is made very clear in all Vedic scriptures. There is no question of complete âmergingâ of jiva with the Supreme, because the scriptures, immediately after pointing out the atomic individuality of all Souls, say that this is the eternal state of things. There is no question of a jiva really âlosingâ its identity in the Supreme eternally. This state of sAyujya limbo is also under an illusory potency. And so is BhagavAn-realization. That ultimate, eternal realization, never to return, is also under the potency of yogamaya, the âantaranga-saktiâ (Internal Energy) of the Supreme Godhead.

So I just want to make that clear. âIllusoryâ potency is always there -- in and out of material existence. Its just that one transforms to another. Therefore, the jivatman, who is also an energy of Godhead, is described as being taTastha-shakti (marginal energy), because, using our marginal free will we can take shelter of the Exterrnal, inferior potency, or the Internal, superior potency of Godhead. Of course, the Vedic literature has more to say about this, but this is the basic idea.

Now we can return to the question of why it is valid to qualify the definition of âgunaâ, when writing in English, as âmaterial qualitiesâ, and not just âqualitiesâ. In my last post to Ashok, I urged that we should understand that Time is not as rigid as we know it in this state of conditioned, bound (baddha) existence. When we start to think âbeyond Timeâ, then we can understand that rigid, Time-bound relationships (like object- observation-observed) are meaningless. Therefore, in Realms like that, two points of conscious experience CAN exist, and at the same time âdifferenceâ, or âseparatenessâ is no longer there in the way we understand it in our Time-bound existence here. Similarly, transcendental variegatedness can exist, in which Time (and the Gunas themselves, BTW) are devoted Actors, as described in the Bhagavata. Indeed, observing and meditating on how Vaishnava literature treats Time is a thrilling exercise. Krishna lila is full of Time-dilation, telescoping, etcâ¦I tell you, the depth and brilliance of Bhagavata lila far excels any other such literature, leave alone the DRY, directionless, dislocated koans of Zen without any larger philosophical context or understanding, that certain âhip and fashionableâ gasbags like to indulge in.

It is also worth trying to understand the relationship between Time and Mind, which are very closely intertwined, as I indicated in my last post.

QUOTE I did not know Ramanujacharya had great love for Shankaracharya.To give you just one example of the sense of loyalty that Sri Ramanuja had for Sankaracharya: When he and his disciples were fleeing persecution and murder from the pseudo-Advaitins, he entered a region of Karnataka that was dominated by Jains. Ramanuja writes that he feels he has fallen from the frying pan into the fire, and he quotes Sankara. Sankara said that if one is being charged by a mad elephant, and the only place to hide is a Jain temple, then better to be trampled by the elephant! Ramanuja went through great austerity and hardship in that region, even though he could have easily lived among the Jains and accepted their hospitality in return for not being too evangelistic about his Vedanta. Of course, a little later the local king was converted to Vaishnavism by Ramanuja.

Its quite common for people from caste-ridden places like Tamil Nadu to be surprised at this, because certainly there has been endless petty bickering between the so-called dogmatic followers of these great personalities. As I indicated, TN is really a bad case of mockery of Vedic religion, comparable to pre-Islamic Arabia. Please note that my own father is Tamil, so donât take these comments as some personal insult. It is a historical mess worth noting and studying for people interested in âsaving Hinduismâ.

QUOTEhow (or more accurately why) the acharyas themselves admitted that their views were incomplete? How did this incompleteness turn into perfrection with the advent of Sri Chaitanya?The different Vaishnava sampradayas differ in the varying emphasis on devotional attitude. In this sense, all are equal but different (like different flavours), and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu has said so Himself. All the Vaishnava acharyas were engaged in philosophical teaching only to the extent of convincing the people of their time to take to the most effective PROCESS of bhakti-yoga. The philosophy was needed to remove all doubts, and also to remove all traces of undesirable notions like âwe are all Godâ and other mayavadi contamination. So the Vaishnava acharyas were not interested in endless philosophical argument for its own sake, and they said so time and again. And they were all pretty effective in revitalizing and spreading true Vaishnavism. But in time, when things had time to sink in, certain questions would arise, which some carping mayavadis liked to pick on. And so on. As for Lord Chaitanya, I am in no position to judge which theory is âperfectâ. But we do know that His explanations took all previous Vaishnava-acharyas into its fold, and in fact He traveled widely, including in peninsular India.

I've been on holiday for 4 days, so its been fun sharing some of my limited understanding of Vaishnavism with you. But returning to the gist of this thread: The main point I want to make is that there is so much to Vaishnavism. It is so rich, philosophically, and more importantly, in the effectiveness and power of its process of yoga. So firstly I wanted to point out that Vaishnavism is highly misunderstood by the Hindu intelligentsia, some of whom think it is actually a sectarian bunch of Vishnu-bigots, in competition with "Shiva" or other deities. IMHO, by distracting the innocent masses with gross misrepresentations of Vaishnavism (and Vedic philosophy), certain pseudo-philosophers are committing a crime against the Vedas and Hinduism in my humble opinion. Vaccuous armchair philosophies litter the slippery slope to atheism, and these are sold to people, laced with whatever is the fashion of the day -- ethnic/nationalist pride at one time, or some perverted forms of modern relativism and "Zen", etc at another. Therefore, in defining "who is a Hindu", there is a risk of severely compromising and misrepresenting Vedic philosophy by making the term "Hindu" too inclusive, but there may be a loss of social capital by being too dogmatic about phlosophy. This is the "tension" between the two desirable objectives that I was mentioning to rajesh_g at the start.

gangajal · 06-15-2005, 11:21 PM

QUOTE but there may be a loss of social capital by being too dogmatic about philosophy

I am still laughing after reading this admonition against dogmatism from our dear friend Carl. This is the same Carl who claimed someone (I simply forget who - can you remind me Carl?) wetting his or her pants for the crime of posting some Svetashvatara Upanishad shlokas.

I can't resist posting some more verses ( even at the risk of wetting my pants):

"Having realised that (Atman) which is soundless, touchless, FORMLESS, imperishable, and also withut taste and smell, eternal, without beginning and end, even beyond the Mahat, immutable, - one is released from the jaws of death." (Katha Up 1.3.15)

"As pure water poured into pure water becomes the SAME, so O Gautama, becomes the self of the sage who knows (the UNITY of the Atman). ( Katha 2.1.15)

"This Self is indeed the MIGHTY LORD. He is the imperishable light that controls everything. He guides the intellect of all beings so as to enable them to gain that EXTREMELY PURE STATE (of Mukti)." (SVETASVATARA 3.12)

"It is He who resides in the body, the city of nine gates. He is the soul that sports in the outside world. He is the master of the whole world, animate and the inanimate." (Svetasvatara 3.18)

"For truly, EVERYTHING is Brahman, and this Self within (Atman) is Brahman." (Mandukya 2)

Sunder · 06-16-2005, 01:46 AM

Quote:The one that comes to mind immediately is "yad-gatvA na nivartante, tad dhAma paramam mama" (15:6 I think). In various parts of the BG, this transcendentally variegated "dhAma" is spoken of distinct from immediately preceding descriptions of preliminary brahman-realization.

Ahh.. This is what I too thought of. There is no specific reference to Vaikuntam as mentioned above. Dhaama is interpreted as Vaikuntam because Bhagavaan here is seen as Krishna (or Vishnu.) Thus Dhaama could be Vaikunta, Goloka, Kailasa etc. In the Brahmasutra bhashya of Shankara (as I have not read the other bhashyas), the point of no return is called 'Brahmaloka'. The Brahmagnani who travels via Fire->Light->Day->Shukla Paksha->Six months of Uttharayana etc reaches this Brahmaloka never to return again (BG 8:24 also speaks of this path). While the Yogi who travels via smoke->night->Krishna Paksha->Dhakshinayana->Chandramasa Jyothi go there and return back. An explicit reference to Vaikunta is not found in the Gita. (To me, the word Vaikunta brings an image of an Ocean of milk, where Sriman Narayana in all His resplendence is reclining on Adi Shesha.) Thus Vaikunta (taken to be the abode of the Self) is interpretive rather than explicit. But again, thanks for the clarification.

Quote:So we must try to find out what exactly this so-called Vaikuntha sky is, and how can such variegatedness exist outside this material universe (as we know it).

I agree that this Vaikunta or Dhaama should be sought. But where does one begin, and how is it defined by those who know it? As those who have seen it or attained would not have "returned" to speak about it.

Quote:This last point is of note, because sAyujya-mukti is not considered final in many interpretations. SAyujya-mukti, as you know, is liberation from material mahat-tattva into a state of (being under the impression of) annihilation of one's sense of identity (pure ego).

Like avidya-maya, any form of âliberationâ, ANY state of the infinitesimal living entity, is also always under some or the other potency of the Supreme. Therefore, if you noticed, when speaking about sAyujya-mukti, I inserted the text âbeing under the impression ofâ in braces. This is because that condition of âannihilation of identityâ is ALSO an âillusionâ, since the Self is never annihilated, and this is made very clear in all Vedic scriptures.

Perhaps so. But again, they are only certain *interpretations*. Other interpretations may consider them final, and these too can be found from great authorities like Raja Janaka - a videha muktha, or Astavakra, Rubhu, Yagnavalkya etc.

Here, you had mentioned taht there is an impression of the annihilation of the identity. The observer (Self) who has this impression (i.e. Kootastha) is immutable. This Kootastha, devoid of these impressions of annihilation or lack there of said to be the Liberated Being. You also seem to agree that the Self is not annihilated and the 'impression' is an illusion. The question is, to WHOM is this illusion occuring, and why?

Quote:To give a comparison with mystic literatures from other traditions-- sAyujya-mukti is somewhat analogous to a state of Limbo. Therefore, the "bhagavan-realized" (if I may use that phrase) sages have said that sAyujya is "as palatable as Hell" to them!

The mind makes a hell or heaven of anything. To a Atma Gnaani, when a saadhu or a paapi are one and the same, hell or heaven makes no difference. The thought that Sayujya is the same as hell is spoken by someone who has not known Saayujya, or not known hell, or both. When in deep sleep, is there thought of 'this is worse than hell' ? In Thureeyam, like in deep sleep, the mind being quiescent, there is nothing other than the Self that exists.

Quote:Now here's an important point: Krishna, for the umpteenth time, repeats after the above quoted verse that the jivas are "My infinitesimal, eternal parts and parcels" (mamaiva-amsho jiva-loke jiva-bhUtaH sanatanaH). Quite early -- and repeatedly -- in the BG (from ch. 2 onwards), the Soul (atman) is declared to be atomic, i.e. indivisible, and the unit of conscious experience. Therefore it would make no sense to say that we are all the Supreme Soul, because clearly we are different points of consciousness. If we were not, then one person gaining moksha should mean that all jivas would become liberated simultaneously, since they are all supposedly One Soul according to mayavada. No amount of "maya" philosophizing can reconcile the atomic definition of atman with the FACT of different points of experience. Therefore the term amshaH is significant, and that amshaH-nature is sanatana -- eternal.

When Bhagavaan was speaking to Arjuna, the state of mind of Arjuna is to be taken into account. When in the second chapter the Lord says, "Sarve Vayam athah param", the vayam (we all) is not the Absolute sense, but in relative sense of the bodies. Even if the jeevabhoothas are infinitesimal part of the whole, still they are different only in size, and not in kind. Space in a pot is exactly the same as outside. The space is never confined, even though it gives an illusion of being 'inside' and 'outside' a pot. When one pot is broken, it does not 'liberate' or 'affect' the space in any other pot.

The Brahmasutras or the Panchadasi (I forget which) contains this same argument (as to why liberation of one soul does not liberate others.) To the LIBERATED Soul, there is no difference. He sees "all" the souls as the Atma. To the "non-liberated Soul" that is steeped in avidya, this questions will exist...

If the Amsha bit has to be taken as infinitesimal portions of a full whole, then in the 10th chapter Sri Bhagavaan mentiones "Vrishneenaam Vaasudevosmi", and ends the chapter with "Athava bahunaitena kim gnaatena tavarjuna? vistabyaham idam krtsnam ekamsena sthito jagat." -- this could then be interpreted as even Vaasudeva who is part of the Vibhoothi list, is an Amsha of Bhagavaan -- this makes no sense unless the identity of the ghatakasha and the Mahaakaasha are seen to be essentially one and the same.

Quote:The word âamshaHâ is also significant for its assertion of infinitesimality contrasted with the infinite-ness of the Supreme, because then there is no conflict with the idea of âpUrNam adaH purnam idamâ¦â, etc. Infinitesimal particles cannot affect the infinity of the Supreme Infinite.

If Poornaad poornam udachyathe is said to be true, what is causing the difference between the Sarvagna (Omniscient), and the Kinchidgna (Limited knower)? How does the Kinchidgna get to know the Omniscient? Is it with "consciousness" that's different in nature from the "Omniscient"'s or is the nature of Consciousness the same in "both" the Infinite and the finite? If they are different, then "Buddhim Buddhimathaam asmi" would need clarification.

Quote:Or another example is of the sunlight and the sun. The sunlight is inseparable from the sun. But when the sunlight is streaming into your room, we would not say that the sun itself is in your room.

This seems like the difference between Maya and Brahman. As the Brahmasutra says "Ahi Kundalavat". Like a snake and it's coils. Jeeva and Brahman relationship cannot be that of Sun and light, as Jeeva is like the reflection of Brahman and not a quality of the same.

Quote:Although the 13th chapter of the BG makes clear that there are 2 kshetrajnas in every material body-field, mayavadis want to argue that actually its one and the same kshetrajna. But then there are many contradictions, one of which has been presented above.

How can there be TWO Kshetragnas? I always was focussing on "Kshetragnam cha api maam viddhi, sarva kshetreshu bharatha." Know me as the knower of ALL the Kshetras. Do you mean, by asking Arjuna to know Him, there is another "knowership" implicit? Or are there two separate knowers of all the fields themselves?

Quote:Any suggestion that Supreme Brahman itself becomes subjected to, or transformed into a self-hypnotic illusory state is really quite ridiculous.

There is no such claim that the Immutable is self-hypnotic in it's Original sense. Au contraire, there is reference that this self-hypnotism, forgetfulness, memory, sleep, dream, waking, etc are witnessed by the Self - i.e. is made possible by the Self which is untainted by all these.

Quote:The Bhakti-shastras describe the ultimate constitutional position as being one of a river constantly running to the ocean -- the river always remaining a river, a conduit for the water that originally comes from the ocean through the water-cycle, and goes back to the ocean.

Is the merging of the waterdrops in the river with the ocean real merging, or is it being close to the Ocean? It is uniform merging, correct? Likewise, the jeevas which are propogated at the beginning of a cycle, go back into their causal state at the end of the cycle. The Jeevan-Mukthas, or Videha-Mukthas are firmly established in the Self never to return. The Jagat is like the river (a conduit) which gives an appearance of Jeevas moving 'towards' Supreme. The same example is used by both of us to speak of diametrically opposing world-views.

Quote:There is no question of complete âmergingâ of jiva with the Supreme, because the scriptures, immediately after pointing out the atomic individuality of all Souls, say that this is the eternal state of things. There is no question of a jiva really âlosingâ its identity in the Supreme eternally. This state of sAyujya limbo is also under an illusory potency. And so is BhagavAn-realization. That ultimate, eternal realization, never to return, is also under the potency of yogamaya, the âantaranga-saktiâ (Internal Energy) of the Supreme Godhead.

Well said. All of the above statements fall into place if the statement Brahman ALONE is True is accepted. (Brahma eva Satyam.) In that case, there is no question of jeeva/Brahman merging at all (complete or partial.) There is no losing identity, and there is no Sayujya limbo too. There is no Bhagavan 'realization' as only Brahman Exists. Thre is no 'never-land' where one goes or comes from. All this falls into place if and only if Brahma EVA Satyam, and "Jeevo Brahmaiva na parah" is taken into consideration.

Quote:I tell you, the depth and brilliance of Bhagavata lila far excels any other such literature, leave alone the DRY, directionless, dislocated koans of Zen without any larger philosophical context or understanding, that certain âhip and fashionableâ gasbags like to indulge in.

I agree with you unconditionally that the Bhagavata lila is quite a nectar to read and listen to. I feel the same about Ramayana, Devi Bhagavata, and Shivapurana too. The 'DRY' self-enquiry only reinforces and hightens the experience when listening to the Bhaagavatham instead of counteracting it. Watching little kids play brings about more joy than listening to a dry lecture on Relativity or Superstrings. But, for that reason, one cannot say the Lecture on Superstrings is inferior to Walt Disney cartoons. Each one has it's time, place, audience, and purpose.

Quote:To give you just one example of the sense of loyalty that Sri Ramanuja had for Sankaracharya: When he and his disciples were fleeing persecution and murder from the pseudo-Advaitins, he entered a region of Karnataka that was dominated by Jains. Ramanuja writes that he feels he has fallen from the frying pan into the fire, and he quotes Sankara.

I would have loved to have seen some idealogical praising instead of quoting a sentence at the time of grave danger. Did Ramanuja accept Shankaracharya as a true interpreter and upholder of Vedic Dharma? Was he indebted (as you mention loyalty) to Shankaracharya's teachings? I would be thrilled if he did.

Quote:The main point I want to make is that there is so much to Vaishnavism. It is so rich, philosophically, and more importantly, in the effectiveness and power of its process of yoga.

I have no doubt you are right when stating so. There is so much to "Vaishnavism" that are spiritually beneficial. Vaishnavism (by that I hope you mean Pancharatra/Bhagavata school.) is quite rich in emotion based worship & is popular amongst people who wish to enquire the Self via the Bhakthi way.

Ekam Sankhyam cha Yogam cha, yah pashyathi sa pashyathi.

06-16-2005, 02:18 AM

Akhand Bharat no more relevant

06-16-2005, 02:52 AM

Carl, I will post a more complete response later. For now I just wanted to post a brief comment on the following:.
Carl said: QUOTEQuite early -- and repeatedly -- in the BG (from ch. 2 onwards), the Soul (atman) is declared to be atomic, i.e. indivisible, and the unit of conscious experience. Therefore it would make no sense to say that we are all the Supreme Soul, because clearly we are different points of consciousness. If we were not, then one person gaining moksha should mean that all jivas would become liberated simultaneously, since they are all supposedly One Soul according to mayavada. No amount of "maya" philosophizing can reconcile the atomic definition of atman with the FACT of different points of experience. Therefore the term amshaH is significant, and that amshaH-nature is sanatana -- eternal.

If one starts to think about the Self as the conscious observer within, then it becomes hard to escape the advaitic conclusion that Self is one for everyone

Advaitic view is that egos are manifold, not the Self. But ego is no more than an idea of the self. This "idea" can be changed. When you step on someone's toe, he may complain that you hurt 'him'. But if that toe gets cut off due to an accident, that persons identity doesn't vanish along with the toe. A person may identify with his body, but body changes every moment and decays, but he still thinks he is the same person. So the identification with the body was merely a supposed identification, not an essential one. This argument can be applied to any idea of self a person may have.

So ego is just a supposed self, it can be changed, dropped etc. Real self is the deepest observer in us, the ultimate witness.

Two objects are distinguished from each other by their attributes. But attributes necessarily imply an observer of those attributes. If the observer inside A is to be distinguished from the observer inside B, then we will have to give these observers distinguishing attributes. But if the observer in A has attributes then supposedly A can find a way to observe those attributes and then A will have a deeper observer inside which is observing this lower observer with attributes. Continue the limiting process and you reach a point where the deepest observer in A is left with no attributes. Same with the deepest observer in B or anybody else. Since these deepest observers don't have attributes they can't be distinguished from each other. And here comes the biggest idea of Vedanta.

There is a SINGLE observer in this universe. It is the deepest observer in all of us. It is our deepest self and it is identical with the self of all.

Samkhya view is merged with advaita at this point. Even though Samkhya proposes a multitude of purushas, the purushas can be distinguished from each other only while there is some disturbance in their prakritis. When the prakritis are comletely silent, then there is nothing left to distinguish the purushas from each other.

The 'soul' or jiva is perhaps the deepest kosha in us. But like other koshas, it perhaps is like a body too, that can be discarded/changed/ etc. Self or Atman as the witness within, must be deeper than the jiva. Advaitic conclusion is that jivas can be manifold, but not the deepest Self.

gangajal · 06-16-2005, 05:11 AM

Nature of Jivas:

Vaishnavas are right that Gita can be interpreted to mean that Jivas are atomic as is clear from this quote:
*****************************************************************************************
A fragment of Myself, immortal in nature, having become the embodied spirit
in the world of the living, attracts to Himself the mind and the five senses
born of Prakrti. (Gita 15.7)
*****************************************************************************************

However Krishna also says that He is the common source of everything as is clear from the following quotes:
**********************************************************************************
My Nature is divided into 8 categories - earth, water, fire, air, sky, mind,
understanding, and I-sense. (Gita 7.4)

This, O mighty armed, is My lower nature. Know that, as different from it,
is My higher nature forming the source of all Jivas and the support of the
whole universe. (Gita 7.5)

Know that all beings have these two natures of Mine as their source. I am
the origin and the dissolution of this entire universe. (Gita 7.6)
***************************************************************************************

These quotes would suggest that all jivas have a common source, i.e their consciousness is a higher nature of the Lord. Thus jivas are indeed atomic and also have consciousness, a higher nature of the Lord, in common. This would suggest that the Advaita theory of atomic pots in a common ocean of consciousness better fits Gita's teachings then Vaishnavism.

Sayujja Mukti:

Vaishnavism is wide of the mark in denouncing sayujja mukti as equivalent to hell. I can understand them not wanting that experience. But why call it hell when Gita seems to say that one can use both the Impersonal Reality (Jnana marga) and Bhakti to reach a COMMON goal as is clear from the following quotes:
*****************************************************************************************
Those who are devoted to the Imperishable (the Impersonal Absolute) - who is
the firm support of the world and is also undefinable, unmanifested,
transcendent, motionless, and all-pervading - even they reach me alone,
striving with their senses controlled, and with mind tranquillised and set
on the welfare of all.

(Gita 12.3-4)

But, O son of Prtha, soon will I lift from this ocean of death-bound wordly
existence, those whose minds are ever set on Me - those who abandon to Me
the fruits of all their actions together with the sense of agency thereof,
and who worship Me, meditating on Me as their sole refuge and their only
love. (Gita 12.6-7)
*******************************************************************************************

06-16-2005, 11:01 AM

Ashok Kumar,
Before making your more complete response, may I suggest that you re-consider the points I was trying to make earlier.

1) That you are making associations under very material assumptions, i.e. assumptios of rigid Time-bondage, etc. Please try to think more about this. All your theories involve Time-dependent event series. Try thinking outside this box for a moment.

2) Make a note that the Vedas are quite explicit that there are many different kinds of "liberation". Liberation means "liberation from the Time-bound material universe". "Truth" (sat) is defined as "eternal", and Untruth (asat, mithya) is defined as "transience". Therefore, as I've pointed out so many times in the last 2 posts, Time-bondage is the crucial factor here. Now all types of "liberation" are "eternal" in the sense that the Soul breaks free from Time-bondage, and free from all those constructs that depend on past-future for their existence (such as False Ego).

Yet, the Vedic literature is full of ordinal comparisons between the different types of "liberation". The significant point here is that there are virtually limitless possibilities in Universe, and it is at all times our spiritual aspirations that directly determine our destiny. Moreover, Universe is non-linear and cyclical in its workings, and what superficially might seem to be a development along a predetermined line, is in fact part of a much larger cycle that is invisible for our daily senses by virtue of its nonthinkable enormousness. Cyclic development, operative in a multitudinous array of Universes, is characterized by a limitless possibility of creation and manifestation. Thus, there is no line of development that is separated from or uninfluenced by our spiritual aims. It is of paramount importance to realize that it is up to us to create our destiny. It is our Spirit that is the continuous Creator of our Path. This is our Marginal Free Will. And, as the Vedic literature clearly describes various paths, various loci of spiritual development, it means that each jiva has its own Marginal Free Will. Please take the magnificence of this fact into account. And note that "will" corresponds to Soul, not False Ego.

False Ego CANNOT be the unit of conscious experience, by definition. False ego is more likened to a STATE of illusion, rather than as an ENTITY. It is the false shadow of a REAL entity, and that real entity is the individual, infinitesimal Soul (which is the true, pure ego -- i.e. point of identity).

Did you note another semantic qualification here? Vaishnavism defines "ahamkara" as False Ego, not simply "ego". Why? Because that's how its defined in various places in shastra. Janasya moho 'yam aham mameti. This idea of "aham mameti", i.e. "I and mine", i.e., selfish possessiveness, considering oneself to be the real Center, the ultimate enjoyer...this false notion is maya and ahamkara. The true position is that Godhead is the Ocean towards Whom all consciousness must flow. Therefore, "ahamkara" is False Ego, because there is an identity (jiva) that still exists beyond maya and material universe. But the mayavadis equate identity with jiva itself, which is not consistent with Vedanta.

Therefore, in explaining why the Bhagavata-dharma is the "most mature" fruit of the Veda, the following needs to be taken into account -- that there is no desire for denial or annihilation of any aspect of Eternal Existence by us jivas. There is no frustrated throwing-off, but rather, a complete and harmonous dovetailing of all aspects of Existence, in the mode of the deepest, cosmic Love imaginable.

3) Also, be aware that Vaishnavism often refers to the Supersoul as the "soul of all souls", in describing the relationship. But the individual soul is still differentiated from False Ego. You may want to investigate why they do that. Again, re-examine point (1) and (2).

Quote:It is the deepest observer in all of us. It is our deepest self and it is identical with the self of all.

Not "identical", but "united with". Please investigate the concept of sutraatman, etc.

Quote:The 'soul' or jiva is perhaps the deepest kosha in us.

No question of "perhaps" this or "perhaps" that. You cannot brush aside concepts by saying "perhaps this is just another something, after all". No. Tell me where it says that the Soul is another material kosha. A "kosha" is, by convention, material, i.e., made from the subtle elements from prakriti and pradhAna.

sunder,
In reply to a few comments you made:

Quote:But where does one begin, and how is it defined by those who know it? As those who have seen it or attained would not have "returned" to speak about it.

There's a Vedic concept called avatara, and also shaastra.

Quote:To me, the word Vaikunta brings an image of an Ocean of milk...

Please convey my regards to your grandmother. However, the "Vaikuntha sky" is an esoteric concept quite far above fantastic bed-time stories. In the Srimad Bhagavatam, and also in the Bhakti sutras, it is said that the Bhagavatam can truly be relished only by paramahamsas. But conditioned humans are advised to study it regularly with a submissive and open-minded attitude (shraddha), in order to be purified. Kids who have their minds made up may flip through, but apart from some "timepass", there would be no benefit.

Quote:You also seem to agree that the Self is not annihilated and the 'impression' is an illusion. The question is, to WHOM is this illusion occuring, and why?

Re-read my last post. The infinitesimal Soul is under this illusory potency. The question "why", however, is a really deep question. At this point all I'll say is that it was by the agency of the Soul's own Marginal Free Will, and the Supreme Soul's loving reciprocation.

Quote:The mind makes a hell or heaven of anything.

The bhagavan-realized Souls are not conditioned living entities. When they make a rhetorical statement like "sAyujya is as palatable as Hell", they do it to instruct conditioned living entities, in an attempt to influence us towards the most mature locus of spiritual development. We jivas are like sparks flying out of a spiritual furnace. But we have marginal free will. We can choose to extinguish ourselves, or to fall on inflammable substance and extend the blaze.

Interested readers may also want to investigate the concepts of the paths of "karaamaat" versus the paths of "ikraam" in Islamic mysticism. But please do so from bona fide sources (like Said Bediuzzaman Nursi).

Quote:Even if the jeevabhoothas are infinitesimal part of the whole, still they are different only in size, and not in kind.

Quite right, although I wouldn't start talking about "size" in this context. What it means is that we are one with the supreme in terms of Quality, but infinitely lesser in terms of Power. We have only Marginal Free Will, but no agency independent of the Supreme.

Quote:When Bhagavaan was speaking to Arjuna, the state of mind of Arjuna is to be taken into account. When in the second chapter the Lord says, "Sarve Vayam athah param", the vayam (we all) is not the Absolute sense, but in relative sense of the bodies.

Achha, even though the same assertion of eternal individuality is made over and oer again in the Gita, and in other sciptures? You know, there's an anecdote about oversmart interpreters. A lady asks her husband to go buy chicken. So in the market he hears the chicken hawkers saying "Buy my chicken. My chicken is the fattest!" So he thinks that fat must be the REAL "essence" of chicken. Why not go to the fat market? At the fat market, the hawkers are saying, "Buy my fat, its as smooth as oil!" So our hero now thinks that oil must be the essence of fat. So he goes to the oil market. Over there, the hawkers are saying, "Buy my oil. Its as clear as water!". So the man finally goes back home with a bucket of water, which his wife pours over his head. This is the position of oversmart mayavadi interpreters.

Quote:"Athava bahunaitena kim gnaatena tavarjuna? vistabyaham idam krtsnam ekamsena sthito jagat." -- this could then be interpreted as even Vaasudeva who is part of the Vibhoothi list, is an Amsha of Bhagavaan...

"With a single fragment of Myself I pervade and support this entire universe." Who exactly Vaasudeva is is quite another matter. Nowhere in this verse does it mention Vaasudeva as being an amsha. Vaasudeva and the innumerable other expansions of Godhead are another matter altogether, and a fascinating study no doubt. As I mentioned, there is jiva-shakti, but there is also chit-shakti, and much more.

Quote:If Poornaad poornam udachyathe is said to be true, what is causing the difference between the Sarvagna (Omniscient), and the Kinchidgna (Limited knower)?

Already touched upon this in the last post. The infinitesimal is liable to come under any illusory potency of the Supreme Infinite. The potency of the Supreme is causing the infinitesimal particle to feel "independent".

Quote:How does the Kinchidgna get to know the Omniscient? Is it with "consciousness" that's different in nature from the "Omniscient"'s or is the nature of Consciousness the same in "both" the Infinite and the finite? If they are different, then "Buddhim Buddhimathaam asmi" would need clarification.

Before we can speculate about pure consciousness, can you explain why you so casually link that to buddhi, which is one of the material elements?

Quote:Jeeva is like the reflection of Brahman and not a quality of the same.

Now you're going to have to explain this one, with support from scripture. I bet that the best you can do is appeal to atheistic Sankhya semantics, which even refer to atman as "mind". (However, there is a deeper, theistic explanation of this "reflection" idea also, but that it clearly not what you have in mind).

Quote:How can there be TWO Kshetragnas?

Ask Krishna. But He clearly says so. At first He says there is this ksetrajna that is the conscious knower of the individual body-fields. And then He says there is the other ksetrajna, which is the knower of ALL body-fields. There are 2 different descriptions in the space of a few verses. Now if you want to weave a story about "Arjuna's mental immaturity" to explain Krishna's words in scripture as redundant loose-talk, than its your prerogative. But as far as we know, Arjuna was no desert Bedou. He had a pretty sophisticated Vedic education. And scripture (including the BG) is not full of meaningless chatter. If it were, then venerable teachers like Shankara wouldn't give so much importance to them. Meaningless chatter appears to those who read scripture with the wrong lens.

Quote:There is no such claim that the Immutable is self-hypnotic in it's Original sense. Au contraire, there is reference that this self-hypnotism, forgetfulness, memory, sleep, dream, waking, etc are witnessed by the Self - i.e. is made possible by the Self which is untainted by all these.

I congratulate you for having concisely stated a common mayavadi contradiction here, with the concomitant word-jugglery. I am aware that in certain mistranslations (negligent of semantic precision), the word "Self" is used for any occurence of the words Atman and Paramatman. My old friend "gangajal"'s posts from the Upanishads on this thread are riddled with such semantically delinquent English translations.

Now you say that there is a hypnosis, illusion, etc that is being witnessed by a certain Self. What is being hypnotized here? What is under illusion? I can show you certain so-called Advaita texts that say it is "self-hypnosis". And in my previous post I have touched upon how "vivarta" and "parinama/vikaara" are misdefined and mis-applied by so-called Advaitins.

Quote:Is the merging of the waterdrops in the river with the ocean real merging, or is it being close to the Ocean? It is uniform merging, correct? Likewise, the jeevas which are propogated at the beginning of a cycle, go back into their causal state at the end of the cycle.

sunder, this is a very useful comment, and I mean it. Please scroll up and refer to the comments I made to Ashok Kumar. Now, the "jivaatman" is clearly an infinitesimal entity, but Vaishnavism also refers to paramatman as the Soul of all souls, and in fact the Pith of all Existence. By existence we mean Eternal (True) Existence, not Material Existence. So the eternal, spiritual existence of what may be compared to "spiritual attributes" is also a fact (refer my comments on Sri Ramanuja's metaphors, etc). Now I'm a little shaky on this, but from my limited study of the subject, the jivatman is one such fragmental spiritual attribute in relation to the Supreme Soul. Move on to the point I made about the locus of spiritual evolution. Now you may choose to "be" the water (or "be" under the impression that you are the water), or you may choose to be the river, which constantly reciprocates with the Ocean. In the former case, you choose to extinguish, or refuse and deny, the eternal spiritual existence of the multipotencies, of variegated opulence. It is a stunted "conclusion" to the opportunity for spiritual evolution. Of course, the fact is that even this "choice" is also from your Marginal Free Will, and actually has no agency of its own, except the Causeless reciprocation of the Supreme Will. I'll leave it at this for now.

Quote:All of the above statements fall into place if the statement Brahman ALONE is True is accepted. (Brahma eva Satyam.)

I repeat: "Satyam" corresponds with eternality. Now in that eternal existence, vivarta and vikaara operate. Vivarta and vikaara (parinama) are not to be thrown away when we're not talking of the present material mithya existence. Therefore, the eternal existence of spiritual variegatedness is entirely consistent with Vedanta. The denial of this is inconsistent with Vedanta, because it involves only a selective mis-application of several concepts, which are nowhere confined to those selective contexts.

Quote:Did Ramanuja accept Shankaracharya as a true interpreter and upholder of Vedic Dharma? Was he indebted (as you mention loyalty) to Shankaracharya's teachings? I would be thrilled if he did.

I bring you glad tidings. Yes, Ramanuja and all of us are indebted to Shankaracharya for re-establishing the authority of the Vedas. And we all accept shankara's exposition of the existence of Brahman as being satyam, but this is only one blindsided view of Ultimate Reality, and the succceeding acharyas widened that circle of light. And eat this -- Ramanuja had to plead on this very point (the authority of Vedic scripture) with the mayavadis (who claim a copyright on Shankara)! In their debates, Ramanuja was appealing to Vedic authority, while mayavadis were hedging, and wanted to stick ONLY to Shankara's commentaries, which, as I indicated, were partial expositions of Vedanta based on the receptiveness of the public in the times and place in which he lived. While Ramanuja was referring directly to Vedanta scripture, the mayavadis would not listen, annd insisted only on sticking to arguing the often ambiguous semantics of Shankara, rather than Vedanta itself. According to the mayavadis, if a conflict arose, then Vedantic terms were to be re-defined to make more sense of shankara's phrases, rather than the other way around! They didn't want to step out of their Advaita well, and that is still their position today.

Quote:Vaishnavism (by that I hope you mean Pancharatra/Bhagavata school.) is quite rich in emotion based worship...

Ah, the cigar-smoking, sangfroid of the exalted intelechooul. Mayavadis, not having any substantial argument, resort to underhand insinuations that Vaishnavism is for "emotional" types, whereas kevala-advaita is for "intellectual" giants onlee. Innocent laymen may be awed by these statements and impressed by some ridiculous word-jugglery. But I am still waiting for you to produce ONE historical example of a kevala-advaita scholar defeating a Vaishnava scholar in one of those famous public debates that are milestones in Hindu religious history. Just ONE, please. We can provide you with a dozen historical examples of Vaishnava acharyas, and even their good students, conclusively defeating mayavadi gurus (many of whom had royal patronage) in public debate (All of these Advaitins were noble enough to humbly accept defeat). Please provide an example of the opposite, and a famous, well-documented one that had significant impact. Not some street-corner tiff between caste-brahmins in Kumbhakonam.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?