11-09-2004, 06:41 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-sridhar k+Nov 3 2004, 10:24 AM-->QUOTE(sridhar k @ Nov 3 2004, 10:24 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Thanks for the info about Ramakrishna Advaita and i guess it explains the references to the three great philosophies at equal lengths in the Bhagavat Gita
But a rhetorical question, does Ramakrishna's concept still remain as Advaita, when it accepts Dvaita and Vishisadvaita? i.e. If all are valid from their respective standpoints (the level from which you look at it), ===> it is standpoint dependent , and how can truth be dependent on a standpoint?
What is Kevala advaita- Does it say jeevatma = paratma and it does not accepts the relevance of Dvaitic and Vishtadvaitic concepts? . If you are Brahman, why do you need to worship Brahman sort of a thing and Where does Adi Shankara's philoshophy fall under. My understanding was even Adi Shankaras concept is the same as Ramakrishna's with respect to accepting Dvaitic and Vishtadvatic relevance at a relative standpoint thouh at a absolute standpoint, it is advaita?
Just penned whatever came in my mind without organizing th questions and sorry for that. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sundar ji,
My apologies for the delay. I was out of town.
Ramakrishna agrees with Shankara that the Advaitic experience is the highest experience. There are some people, however, who do not care about that highest experience and want to retain some difference with Brahman. These people who want to retain some difference stay in Brahmalok for the rest of this cycle and are released when this cycle ends.
Ramakrishna says that though Advaitic experience is the highest experience, it is not the final experience. He says that the final state is the state of the Vijnana. When a person reaches the state of Vijnana she finds that there is no difference between the relative and the absolute. Both are "made" of Brahman. The relative is also real. He uses tha analogy of a fruit to argue that to declare the relative as unreal is like saying that only the seeds of the fruit are real while the skin and flesh are unreal. Such an approach will yield a wrong weight of the fruit.
This is the reason why Ramakrishna Vedanta does not accept Kevala Advaita's position that Hindu Gods and Goddesses are ultimately unreal. According to Ramakrishna personal forms of Gods and Godesses are frozen consciosuness like ice due to the cooling effect of Bhakti while Brahman the impersonal reality is like water due to the heating effect of the sun of Jnana.
There is also difference between Ramakrishna and Shankara about the highest stage of Nirvikalpa Samadhi. Ramakrishna says that an ordinary jiva can not last more than 21 days at the highest level of Nirvikalpa Samadhi. Only great teachers can come back to the relative world after having that experience. I have never seen any such declaration by Shankara.
Ramakrishna also talks of the experience of Bhavomukha. A person in that state can move from the absolute to the relative. This state can only be achieved by a Vijnani.
But a rhetorical question, does Ramakrishna's concept still remain as Advaita, when it accepts Dvaita and Vishisadvaita? i.e. If all are valid from their respective standpoints (the level from which you look at it), ===> it is standpoint dependent , and how can truth be dependent on a standpoint?
What is Kevala advaita- Does it say jeevatma = paratma and it does not accepts the relevance of Dvaitic and Vishtadvaitic concepts? . If you are Brahman, why do you need to worship Brahman sort of a thing and Where does Adi Shankara's philoshophy fall under. My understanding was even Adi Shankaras concept is the same as Ramakrishna's with respect to accepting Dvaitic and Vishtadvatic relevance at a relative standpoint thouh at a absolute standpoint, it is advaita?
Just penned whatever came in my mind without organizing th questions and sorry for that. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sundar ji,
My apologies for the delay. I was out of town.
Ramakrishna agrees with Shankara that the Advaitic experience is the highest experience. There are some people, however, who do not care about that highest experience and want to retain some difference with Brahman. These people who want to retain some difference stay in Brahmalok for the rest of this cycle and are released when this cycle ends.
Ramakrishna says that though Advaitic experience is the highest experience, it is not the final experience. He says that the final state is the state of the Vijnana. When a person reaches the state of Vijnana she finds that there is no difference between the relative and the absolute. Both are "made" of Brahman. The relative is also real. He uses tha analogy of a fruit to argue that to declare the relative as unreal is like saying that only the seeds of the fruit are real while the skin and flesh are unreal. Such an approach will yield a wrong weight of the fruit.
This is the reason why Ramakrishna Vedanta does not accept Kevala Advaita's position that Hindu Gods and Goddesses are ultimately unreal. According to Ramakrishna personal forms of Gods and Godesses are frozen consciosuness like ice due to the cooling effect of Bhakti while Brahman the impersonal reality is like water due to the heating effect of the sun of Jnana.
There is also difference between Ramakrishna and Shankara about the highest stage of Nirvikalpa Samadhi. Ramakrishna says that an ordinary jiva can not last more than 21 days at the highest level of Nirvikalpa Samadhi. Only great teachers can come back to the relative world after having that experience. I have never seen any such declaration by Shankara.
Ramakrishna also talks of the experience of Bhavomukha. A person in that state can move from the absolute to the relative. This state can only be achieved by a Vijnani.