03-10-2006, 03:51 AM
One thing I find difficult to understand is why everyone is obsessed with the opinion that their/our guru parampara (or a broader sect to which they/us belong) being the only correct parampara and nothing else.
The humble way I see all this is as follows (philosophically i may not be correct and you all may argue about it in a million ways, but sometime (philosophical) ignorance is bliss. It helps to see Bhagavan without the philosophical clouds. For some, without the philosophical clouds, they may not see him at all).
1) All sampradhayas talk about the Para Brahman being supreme, whichever way you call it (Narayana, Para Brahma Sakthi, Paratma, Parama Purusha, Iswara) or whatever you attribute it to (saguna, nirguna, formless, Narayana etc.) The rest of all are semantics to me.
2) Advaita if not understood properly, will appear as though it equates the saguna brahman (personal God) as immaterial in the scheme of the world. Actually it is not. I recollect reading Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswati on this topic and he was one of the most great bakthas I have ever seen. Like him most of the advaita acharyas were real bakthas(let us leave the exceptions here). I read that even Sri Chaitanya mahaprabhu was inspired by bhakthi of Sri Sridhara ( an advaitist in the bakthi sampradhaya). Though they would say that jeevatman= paramatmaman, they never equated their material self to the lord (again, let us leave the ones who are exception to the list).
3) Though I was born as a so called Vaishnava Smartha, In fact i am not for tagging someone as a Vaishnava, Smartha/madhva, saktha- i can only see an bhaktha (in different states. I even consider atheist a bhatha as he thinks about God more than we all do) and the Bhagavan. I believe that Advaita may be the ultimate truth, but when we are in this materialistic world, Dvaita and Vishitadvaita may be better or more apt, unless you are great purusha.
4) After reading the Srimad Bhagavata Rasamritha, i have come to the conclusion that all the sampradhaya /philosophies are means to the goal of attaining moksha or mukthi. Till you attain that state, all sampradhayas insists on Bhakthi ( a bit more , a bit less) and i only see this commonality and not the difference. If ones get obssessed with the very sampradhaya without worrying about the goal of the sampradhaya, then the sampradhaya/philosophy loses it value. No sampradhaya is above him(I call him Krishna, some may call it Sakthi, Some Iswara) . Before Bhagavan (the absolute) , the sampradhayas (the means) are all relative.
Again this is my humble opinion.
Radhe Krishna. Sarvam Krishnarpanam
Krishna Kumar ji, you have raised some valid questions but one humble request
1) Please do not use all upper case or bolding. Generally, it is considered as shouting.I understand you are very humble in your pronunciation
2) When quoting other's post, please use a different font or color or use the quote icon to differentiate between your post and the one you quote.
The humble way I see all this is as follows (philosophically i may not be correct and you all may argue about it in a million ways, but sometime (philosophical) ignorance is bliss. It helps to see Bhagavan without the philosophical clouds. For some, without the philosophical clouds, they may not see him at all).
1) All sampradhayas talk about the Para Brahman being supreme, whichever way you call it (Narayana, Para Brahma Sakthi, Paratma, Parama Purusha, Iswara) or whatever you attribute it to (saguna, nirguna, formless, Narayana etc.) The rest of all are semantics to me.
2) Advaita if not understood properly, will appear as though it equates the saguna brahman (personal God) as immaterial in the scheme of the world. Actually it is not. I recollect reading Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswati on this topic and he was one of the most great bakthas I have ever seen. Like him most of the advaita acharyas were real bakthas(let us leave the exceptions here). I read that even Sri Chaitanya mahaprabhu was inspired by bhakthi of Sri Sridhara ( an advaitist in the bakthi sampradhaya). Though they would say that jeevatman= paramatmaman, they never equated their material self to the lord (again, let us leave the ones who are exception to the list).
3) Though I was born as a so called Vaishnava Smartha, In fact i am not for tagging someone as a Vaishnava, Smartha/madhva, saktha- i can only see an bhaktha (in different states. I even consider atheist a bhatha as he thinks about God more than we all do) and the Bhagavan. I believe that Advaita may be the ultimate truth, but when we are in this materialistic world, Dvaita and Vishitadvaita may be better or more apt, unless you are great purusha.
4) After reading the Srimad Bhagavata Rasamritha, i have come to the conclusion that all the sampradhaya /philosophies are means to the goal of attaining moksha or mukthi. Till you attain that state, all sampradhayas insists on Bhakthi ( a bit more , a bit less) and i only see this commonality and not the difference. If ones get obssessed with the very sampradhaya without worrying about the goal of the sampradhaya, then the sampradhaya/philosophy loses it value. No sampradhaya is above him(I call him Krishna, some may call it Sakthi, Some Iswara) . Before Bhagavan (the absolute) , the sampradhayas (the means) are all relative.
Again this is my humble opinion.
Radhe Krishna. Sarvam Krishnarpanam
Krishna Kumar ji, you have raised some valid questions but one humble request
1) Please do not use all upper case or bolding. Generally, it is considered as shouting.I understand you are very humble in your pronunciation
2) When quoting other's post, please use a different font or color or use the quote icon to differentiate between your post and the one you quote.