HinduNet
Forums Chat Annouce Calender DigiCards Recommend Remote Invites
Page 1 of 16 1 2 3 ... 15 16 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#59352 - 07/08/04 01:13 PM dwaitha illusion-1
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
BROTHERS AND SISTERS ,In continuation to the Dwaitha- illusion, I wish to give some more of my observations. How will be sweetness? .how it looks like? Can any body give correct definition without any examples or reference? No will be the answer. The sweet is to be tasted and experienced. After experiencing we can say all the sweets have the the principle essence-sweetness. All the sweets are given different names like jangry, rasagulla, badusha etc as per their preparation. Electrical energy is the same which flow through the electrical bulbs,but the glow is different as per the capacity of the bulbs.All the reproducing principles are same though the same universal energy-brahman is present,but different characters are seen in the pranis .we discuss threadbear that brahman is all and not all..,dwaitham is good or adwaitham is good-it does not help the real seekers of truth . Infact ,nothing is good or nothing is bad.Good and bad are relative terms for understanding purpose.For sri adi Sankaracharya ,the thought of adwatham came .He preached adwaitham by living in dwaitham.so also Sri Ramanujacharya preached dwatham in the state of adwaitham.Those great sages experienced the respective concepts and then only preached .In the name of the great philosopies let us stop contradicting the versions given by them. Let us also experience the truth in those great philosophies. S ame Vishnu shown different leelas only to show dwaitha and adwaitha are interlinked.they are inseparable. Rama disappeared from Ayodhya after a dip in Sarayu river to go back to vikuntha.After krishna niryana,his energy had become one with the supreme energy-to go back as vishnu.When all appears as different-it is dwaitha and when all appears as one- it is adwaitham.
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59353 - 07/13/04 10:33 AM Re: dwaitha illusion-1 [Re: ksubbu]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Quote:

BROTHERS AND SISTERS ,In continuation to the Dwaitha- illusion, I wish to give some more of my observations. How will be sweetness? .how it looks like? Can any body give correct definition without any examples or reference? No will be the answer. The sweet is to be tasted and experienced. After experiencing we can say all the sweets have the the principle essence-sweetness.




The following observations apply:

It is easy to make lot of statements by avoiding pramANAs, as Ksubbu has done. It is time that people educate themselves about the methodology in which classical writers have operated. They go on pramANAs (mAnAdhInA meyasiddhiH: A piece of knowledge is established by the validity of the means of that knowledge) and not by making statements. For an example, let's take the analogy of sweetness that is presented above. How do we know that Brahman is, like sweetness, that can only be experienced and not defined? How do we know that Brahman is NOT like, say something like speed of light, that can be measured and defined to some precision? Thus the need for pramANas.

That dvaita is an illusion needs proof. No means of knowledge says that. The entire pratyakSha including sAkShi pratyakSha opposes that. There is no logical syllogism possible to that effect. No scripture says that. Texts like 'vishvam satyaM maghavAn' (Rigveda) or the IshAvAsya's 'yAthAtathyato.arthAn.h vyadadhAchchhAshvatIbhyaH samAbhyaH' (where the Lord is said to percieve this world as is) oppose the idea that the world is illusory. Why, the Brahmasutra 'na svapnAdivat.h vaidharmyAchcha' makes it unambiguous that this world is neither illusory nor ephemeral like a dream. In the 16th chapter of Gita, Sri Krishna declares that people who call this world as illusory are demons (asatyaM pratiShThaM te jagadAhuraniShvaraM).

The point that advaita has to be experienced and is beyond logical explanation is simply belying the fact that it is illogical and does not have pramANAs to that effect.

Btw, Sri Madhvacharya quotes a work called sUdashAstra, where sweetness of different materials are defined and differentiated from each other (like the sweetness of jaggery is not same as that of sugar; as such our experience itself is sufficient testimony to this. Ask any cook if he will interchangeably use jaggery and sugar in all cases).

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59354 - 07/13/04 03:33 PM Re: dwaitha illusion-1 [Re: nomadeva]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
Pramanas quoted are to be remembered certainly.the sweetness,i mentioned cannot be defined exactly without any reference.i am not comparing adwaitha with sweetness.what i mean to say is that it has to be experienced.parabrahman created the whole universe for his own sake--playnarayanopanishat says..brahmascha narayana .sivascha..all is his manifestation.the life is simply a drama where all the human beings are acting their roles.drama is not real..purely illusion.so said vemana a great yogi from andhra aalu suthulu maya..everything is maya.only parabrahman is true.remaining--illusion .parabrahman is not universe.universe is his shadow. shadow is not true .regards


Edited by ksubbu (07/13/04 03:45 PM)
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59355 - 07/16/04 08:42 AM Re: dwaitha is not an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Quote:


Pramanas quoted are to be remembered certainly.the sweetness,i mentioned cannot be defined exactly without any reference.i am not comparing adwaitha with sweetness.what i mean to say is that it has to be experienced.parabrahman created the whole universe for his own sake--playnarayanopanishat says..brahmascha narayana .sivascha..all is his manifestation.the life is simply a drama where all the human beings are acting their roles.drama is not real..purely illusion.so said vemana a great yogi from andhra aalu suthulu maya..everything is maya.only parabrahman is true.remaining--illusion .parabrahman is not universe.universe is his shadow. shadow is not true .




Again, there are no pramANAs quoted for the statements made. What is the source of the information that everything is mAyA? What is the source of information that the Universe is Parabrahman's shadow? What is the source of information that we all are playing roles in drama (that we have forgotten!)?

Somebody else can come up with counter-statements (that can be true to experience): Everything is not mAyA. The Universe is different from Parabrahman, who is chidAnandamaya. The Universe is also real, but is dependent on the Parabrahman. We are not playing any drama here, but doing sAdhana that is true to our nature.

How does one compare the first set of statements to the latter? Which one is true and how do we know it? Can we rely upon words of people, held to be wise by many? If yes, there are great yogis (like Sri Madhvacharya and Sri Raghavendraswamy of Mantralaya) who have upheld the reality of this Universe. How should we evaluate one against the other?

And that is where pramANAs come into picture. And no advaitin has dug out any pramANAs for his core ideas like jaganmithyAtva, jIva-brahma-aikya. No wonder, Ksubbu follows suit and makes statements only, without substantiating any of them.

Since there are no pramANAs to this world being illusory and there are counter-pramANas i.e. strong pramANAs to this world being real, dvaita is not an illusion. If at all there is any illusion, it is in the minds of people who think that it is an illusion :-)

The MahanarayanopaniShat does not Brahma, Shiva and other Gods are Narayana's manifestations. Instead it says that He possesses all qualities, in greater extent, that are present in other Gods: Narayana is called Brahma because He is sarva-vyApi. Narayana is called Shiva, because he possesses shivatva (auspiciousness. The Bhagavata says that Shiva became Shiva after he put the gangA i.e., Vishnu pAdodaka, on his head), Narayana is called Indra because He possesses unlimited aishwarya.

Regards,
Krishna


Top
#59356 - 07/16/04 12:20 PM Re: dwaitha is not an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
Here are some pramanas as required.i am quoting from MANDUKYA KARIKA translted by Gambhirananda formthe eight upanishads,volume 2.31' swapnamaye yatha srushtE gandhrva nagarE yathA ' 'tathA viswamidam srushtE vedantheshu vichkshanauh' Just as dream and magic are seen to be unreal or as is city in the sky,so also is this whole universe known to be unreal from upanishads by the wise. 32.there is no dissolution,no origination,none in bondage,nonestriving for salvation and none liberated.This is the highest truth.He goes from death to death.'one without second.'33.this self is imagined to be the unreal things and also to be non-dual,and theseperceived things are also imagined on the non dual things.therefore non-duality is auspicious.the vedantins realise that the univers is like rope in the night thought to be snake.i think you have gone through the eight upanishads translated by Gambhiranand.it is left to your esteemed discretion and wisdom to feel either universe is illusion or real.it was further given :when one is sleeping,what happens to his mind about dwatham?when one is in mediatation where is dwaitha for him?but to our ignorence we certainly feel that we are in dwaitham.as soon as the wisdom unveils the mind, one feels and experiences the ultimate brahman.thatwamasi.aham brahmosmi,prajnanam brahma.regards
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59357 - 07/19/04 08:07 AM Re: dwaitha is not an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306

Quote:

Here are some pramanas as required. i am quoting from MANDUKYA KARIKA translted by Gambhirananda formthe eight upanishads,volume 2.31'




The point to note is that the entire mANDUkya kArikA of Gaudapada is not a pramANa for every school of thought. For me (who believes in dvaita), Gaudapada's words carry as much worth as yours or that of even your own swami Venkatesh, when it comes to prAmANya. Dvaita, Vishishtadvaita and advaita hold shruti to be the ultimate pramANa in this regard, and Gaudapada karika or Mandukya Karika is not a pramANa.

In fact, while you should have quoted Agama prakaraNa (most of it is shruti) of Gaudapada prakaraNa, you quoted the vaitathya prakaraNa which is not a pramANa at all. To see the flaws given in the reasoning in the vaitathya prakaraNa, read Sri Madhva's prapancha-mithyatva-anumAna-khaNDana. Moreover, it should be easy for oneself to note the error: The waking state is first taken to be real to prove that dreams are unreal and different from the waking state; then it is concluded (again without any proof; just a loud statement) that waking state is no different and unreal too.

The Agama prakaraNa, which quotes the mANDUkya Upanishad (which is a pramANa) entirely, has a word to say on the creation of this world:

vibhUtiM prasavaM tvanye manyante sR^iShTichintakAH |
svapnamAyAsarUpeti sR^iShTiranyairvikalpitA || 7||
ichChAmAtraM prabhoH sR^iShTiriti sR^iShTau vinishchitAH |

Note the words of the Upanishad: It says that some hold the false notion (vikalpa) that this creation is like a dream or a magician's world (loose translation). But those of firm knowledge hold that this sR^iShTi is due to the Lord's will only.

Thus, we have the very shruti reject the idea that this world is illusory.

Quote:


it was further given :when one is sleeping,what happens to his mind about dwatham?when one is in mediatation where is dwaitha for him?but to our ignorence we certainly feel that we are in dwaitham.as soon as the wisdom unveils the mind, one feels and experiences the ultimate brahman.thatwamasi.aham brahmosmi,prajnanam brahma.regards





The cat thinks that, if it shuts its eyes nobody else will see. Same here. Btw, nirvikalpa samAdhi is a farce.
Other shruti-phrases that you have quoted are quoted out of context as they have nothing to say about the nature of world.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59358 - 07/20/04 10:58 PM Re: dwaitha is not an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
No 2 Offline
seeker

Registered: 07/05/04
Posts: 52
Loc: NYC, USA
Namaste. Although it would seem that others have some arguments to substantiate, it seems that you do as well.

"The cat thinks that, if it shuts its eyes nobody else will see. Same here. Btw, nirvikalpa samAdhi is a farce.
Other shruti-phrases that you have quoted are quoted out of context as they have nothing to say about the nature of world."

You have yet to explain exactly how nirvikalpa samadhi is analogous to a cat sitting with its eyes closed. The states of mind are definitely not the same. You have also not explained exactly how nirvikalpa samadhi is a farce, although you began doing so with your generic statement.

Another thing you have not explained is exactly how the quotes you outlined were out of context in any way.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, so please don't take any offense.
_________________________
Soul, Ego, God are merely words. Reality is not exactly any of them, nor is it otherwise. "There is no cessation, no coming-to-be, none in bondage, no seeker after liberation and no-one liberated. This is the absolute truth."-Gaudapada

Top
#59359 - 07/21/04 06:03 AM Re: dwaitha is not an illusion [Re: No 2]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Quote:

You have yet to explain exactly how nirvikalpa samadhi is analogous to a cat sitting with its eyes closed. The states of mind are definitely not the same.




It appears that you are reading the analogy out of context. It was meant to reject ideas that the world is an illusion since it is not percieved in dreams or in meditation.

Quote:

You have also not explained exactly how nirvikalpa samadhi is a farce



The concept is illogical because it is based on the veracity of the concept of nirvikalpa pratyabhij~nA. Now, that is illogical by definition.

Quote:

Another thing you have not explained is exactly how the quotes you outlined were out of context in any way.



This is not true. I mentioned the reason as 'they have nothing to say about the nature of world'.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59360 - 07/24/04 01:53 PM Re: dwaitha is not an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
Re: DWAITHA NOT ILLUSION

whatever i gave in this forum -i felt through my guru swamy venkatesh ,brahmajnaani.he did not study any books as you studied.it is by instinct he wrote about truth ,ie.,brahman is one and only one that is permanent.the remaining as we see is unreal because of changing nature.viswam is continuously changing as sun rises and sets.Before the dicovery of America,where is the question of americans Prior to the great sages where are adwaitham ,dwaitham and visiahtadwaitham philosophies?these philosophies only have their footing through the acharyas who are no more.they experienced the philosophy and propagated with authority.inspite of having seen the viswaroopa of lord Krishna,Arjuna fell to illusion and did did not stop crying when Abhimanyu was killed.the soham japa involantarily done itself indcates adwatham or oneness.one will be very sad when the dear ones suddenly demise.how far that sorrow remains?Is it not illusion?the entire universe is covered by illusion except brahma janaanis .we are really in dwaithm till we realise or experience oneness.that stage -adwaitham can not be explained.those seers are great.salutations to the sages.you are only banking on various pramanas but not going for the real ones.pls.adore the lotus feet of lord and try to get the unending happines and bliss. regards,

subrahmanyam
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59361 - 07/26/04 07:30 AM Re: dwaitha is not an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
> whatever i gave in this forum -i felt through my guru swamy
> venkatesh ,brahmajnaani.he did not study any books as you
> studied.it is by instinct he wrote about truth ,ie.,brahman

Thanks for admitting that your guru did not go by pramANAs instead wrote whatever he felt by instinct. Now, that is not enough for a person to believe that his experience is the truth. Why, a drunkard also feels many things, but would we give worth to his experiences? How do we know that some person is not inebriated or under some illusion (like the snake/rope analogy) when he thinks that advaita is the truth? In a nutshell, dear Ksubbu, you need to understand the need for pramANAs.



> is one and only one that is permanent.the remaining as we see
> is unreal because of changing nature.viswam is continuously
> changing as sun rises and sets.Before the dicovery of
> America,where is the question of americans Prior to the great
> sages where are adwaitham ,dwaitham and visiahtadwaitham
> philosophies?these philosophies only have their footing
> through the acharyas who are no more.they experienced the
> philosophy and propagated with authority.inspite of having
> seen the viswaroopa of lord Krishna,Arjuna fell to illusion
> and did did not stop crying when Abhimanyu was killed.the
> soham japa involantarily done itself indcates adwatham or
> oneness.one will be very sad when the dear ones suddenly
> demise.how far that sorrow remains?Is it not illusion?the
> entire universe is covered by illusion except brahma!
> janaanis .we are really in dwaithm till we realise or
> experience oneness.that stage -adwaitham can not be
> explained.those seers are great.salutations to the sages.you
> are only banking on various pramanas but not going for the
> real ones.pls.adore the lotus feet of lord and try to get the
> unending happines and bliss. regards,

All the above is empty rhetoric. There is no rule that if something is not permanent, it is not real.

Dvaita, rather the Panchabheda, is eternal because it is maintained by the Eternal Lord. Rishis have only experienced dvaita throughout. Advaita is only experienced by hallucinated people, I am sorry to say. Do you know that in the strict advaitic theory, the final experience is not an experience at all? Because every experience needs an experiencer, a knower. In your advaita, the Self is not a pramAtR (a knower) at the paramArthika level. Knowership is attributed to it, due to mAyA, according to advaita. So, according to advaita, if a person realizes all that, his realization, his identity everything ceases to exist. There is no experience (niether of bliss nor of anything) for the Self. The Self is also delineatead as nirvisheSha and niShkriyA. It has no action and no attributes, according to advaita. If an experience of self-awareness is attributed to it, it is no more niShkriya and nirvisheSha. Thus, the Self is truly a nothing in advaita, though advaitins have denied this. It is like saying 2 and 2 sum up to a number, which is not 4. It is as blatantly false and ridiculous. In effect, the advaita cannot be an experience (not even a super-experience).

And yet, believers like yourself try to get out of this illogical nonsense by holding that advaita cannot be explained by logic or is amenable to it. All that is sheer nonsense and a camouflage to hide the fact that advaita is illogical. For the same reason, you can post your advaita stuff anywhere on the world, but if it is a dvaita forum, be assured that it will be subject to heavy analysis and consequently severe criticism.

You are wrong that sages have experienced oneness after realization. No, they have experienced dvaita, where everybody is subject to, at all times, at all places, to the infinite majesty of one Supreme Brahman -- Vishnu.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59362 - 07/27/04 02:31 PM Re: dwaitha is not an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
No 2 Offline
seeker

Registered: 07/05/04
Posts: 52
Loc: NYC, USA
Quote:

> Rishis have only experienced dvaita throughout. Advaita is only experienced by hallucinated people, I am sorry to say. Do you know that in the strict advaitic theory, the final experience is not an experience at all? Because every experience needs an experiencer, a knower. In your advaita, the Self is not a pramAtR (a knower) at the paramArthika level. Knowership is attributed to it, due to mAyA, according to advaita. So, according to advaita, if a person realizes all that, his realization, his identity everything ceases to exist. There is no experience (niether of bliss nor of anything) for the Self. The Self is also delineatead as nirvisheSha and niShkriyA. It has no action and no attributes, according to advaita. If an experience of self-awareness is attributed to it, it is no more niShkriya and nirvisheSha. Thus, the Self is truly a nothing in advaita, though advaitins have denied this. It is like saying 2 and 2 sum up to a number, which is not 4. It is as blatantly false and ridiculous. In effect, the advaita cannot be an experience (not even a super-experience).




Very interesting. Just for clarification, are you contesting the validity of over half of the Sages that have ever existed? This includes Adi Sankara, without whom Hinduism would have died out completely a long time ago, and Madhva and Ramanuja would never have been able to propagate any of their teachings, nor would they have any teachings to propagate. This must also then include the sage Vashishta and several other figures critical to the Sanatana Dharma as we know it today.

I am also curious as to your interpretation of the Mahavakyas of the Vedas.

You are correct that the final experience is not an experience at all. However, the Self is not a nothing, rather it is void of human concepts, which you are right now using to attempt to explain it with.
_________________________
Soul, Ego, God are merely words. Reality is not exactly any of them, nor is it otherwise. "There is no cessation, no coming-to-be, none in bondage, no seeker after liberation and no-one liberated. This is the absolute truth."-Gaudapada

Top
#59363 - 07/27/04 04:12 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
Thank u for the reply. .The way how you are interacting and giving suggestions are indeed good. A guru is guru to all.. I donot think that the great sri Madhwacharya, the person behind the Dwaitha philosophy permitted his disciples to criticise other gurus and their phiolosophies such as adwaitha etc .Yes the people who realised the self will appear as mad but our thinking that they are mad is foolish .you have not seen my guru and not talked to him .How you can jump to compare him with hallucinated people. This is not good on your part. We are expressing our views on the topic and wish to gain some more knowledge. Now coming to dwaitha is illusion, many persons are quoting some of the mantras from different Upanishads and SACRED Vedas .It was given in the scriptures that Vedas are apourusheyas,How those vedas came in the book formation .If we go back to several crores of years ,in that period the vedas were only orally taught. The mantras were not written . Gurukulas were there and the disciples used to byheart the mantras. Later Sutha maharshi used to give the stories and about brahma tatwa. Then also there were no books.only od taala patra grandhas might be available. There used to be pralaya at the end of each yuga .How many yugas have passed away –nobody knows...Only some sages could tell.What happened to the vedas and upnishads when most of the life had been assimilated in the prlaya. Places had changed nad entire universe also underwent lot of stress .It was because of Balichkravarthy that the earth had become nine continents .When lord Vishnu pressed Bali down as VAMANA, the force from navarandhras of him split the earth in to nava khandas. .All the mantras were due to the sages .While they were in meditation or tapas,some sounds were heard by them. They were the sacred mantras in sanskrit.All the upanishads have their existance due to the great sages.It is certain that what we are thinking of true vedas might not be the same as we see now in written form. There might have some additions and deletions in the original vedas and upanishads. About sixty years back there no computers.till some years back there was no internet. As such how can you show some as pramanas for dwatha or adwatha are to be correct. I say that the present pramanas are also illusary as they come from the subsequent disciples of the sages who were nomore. Do you go to temples?if we go to temples,lord shiva for example.,it was given in scriptures that lord shiva is nagabhushana,jatajuthadhari etc.where can we find such description in shiva linga?In KrISHNA TEMPLES,WE FIND IDOL OF KRISHNA IN MARBLE STONE.Krishna is neelamegha syama .Is at not illusion that we are seeing krishna FORM in white marble.if krishna is really in that idol made of marble,we have to see lord in all marble stones. Is it possible?will it not be illusion?outer material WHICH IS SEEN AS OUR NORMAL EYE SEES IS certainly illusion. The inner power in the idol or any material is certainly great.that is in you in me and in all.. We see that .material changes but the inner …? will not change .this is parabrahman, allpervasive..This is true .you are thinking of dwaitha.,we are thinking of adwaitha.you can follow path shown by your gurus and the other follow their shown patha .All routes teminate at one point like rivers merging in sea. Who am I to converse with the invisible and to share opinions. .This is all parabrahman’s play.we are actors.. our portions will end at one juncture. Death. .Disappearance of the body. but journey continues till realisation comes and the ignorance disappears some may not like this .but pls. do not hate. Pls. view this with open heart one can find truth in what I say.May Lord Krishna,the universal master bless you. and all .regards,subrahmanyam.
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59364 - 07/28/04 06:06 AM Re: dwaitha is not an illusion [Re: No 2]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Quote:

Very interesting. Just for clarification, are you contesting the validity of over half of the Sages that have ever existed? This includes Adi Sankara, without whom Hinduism would have died out completely a long time ago, and Madhva and Ramanuja would never have been able to propagate any of their teachings, nor would they have any teachings to propagate. This must also then include the sage Vashishta and several other figures critical to the Sanatana Dharma as we know it today.




Well, It is obvious that we disagree on whom we consider a sage. For me, Adi Shankara for all his accomplishments is not a sage. The sages are seers of and the ones mentioned in the Vedas and ancillary literature. To honor anybody else as a sage is based on one's predilections.

Reg the role of Shankara in 'saving Hinduism from destruction', this is an exaggeration in appreciation of Shankara. better avoided like any misconception. Take a look at any good book on History of Indian Philosophy. If at all Sanatana dharma ever come under 'attack', it was from the Buddhism. And know what, the mImAmsA darshana had really thrown out Buddhism by even before Shankara was born. This is acknowledged by Shankara himself, as also the Kanchi Kamakoti.org` site testifies.

Quote:

I am also curious as to your interpretation of the Mahavakyas of the Vedas.



I believe you are curious about the dvaitin interpretation of mahAvAkyAs. There is a summary of the Upanishads at: http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/upanishad.html that will be of help to you. There is a book by Dr.BNK Sharma on the dvaita interpretation (and its justification) on the mahAvAkyas.

A learned friend told me that the word 'mahAvAkyAs' (as against alpavAkyAs) is not used by Shankara in any of his works. It is obviously a later creation.

Quote:

You are correct that the final experience is not an experience at all. However, the Self is not a nothing, rather it is void of human concepts, which you are right now using to attempt to explain it with.




OK, but can you let me know which advaitic work clarifies this idea? Honestly, my suspicion is that this is either your or a modern interpretation of the advaita. That by itself is not a problem, except that such is clearly contradicted by classical works on advaita.

In this matter, Advaita holds the Self to be nirvisheSha (absolutely attributeless) and not something whose attributes are beyond human comprehension. See Shankara's interpretation of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3.8.8.

Moreover, shruti is not a human composition. It is easier then to say that Brahman is beyond human comprehension and yet has all those glorious qualities mentioned in the shruti. But advaita does not do that.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59365 - 07/28/04 08:10 PM Re: dwaitha is not an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
No 2 Offline
seeker

Registered: 07/05/04
Posts: 52
Loc: NYC, USA
Quote:


Well, It is obvious that we disagree on whom we consider a sage. For me, Adi Shankara for all his accomplishments is not a sage. The sages are seers of and the ones mentioned in the Vedas and ancillary literature. To honor anybody else as a sage is based on one's predilections.

Reg the role of Shankara in 'saving Hinduism from destruction', this is an exaggeration in appreciation of Shankara. better avoided like any misconception. Take a look at any good book on History of Indian Philosophy. If at all Sanatana dharma ever come under 'attack', it was from the Buddhism. And know what, the mImAmsA darshana had really thrown out Buddhism by even before Shankara was born. This is acknowledged by Shankara himself, as also the Kanchi Kamakoti.org` site testifies.

I believe you are curious about the dvaitin interpretation of mahAvAkyAs. There is a summary of the Upanishads at: http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/upanishad.html that will be of help to you. There is a book by Dr.BNK Sharma on the dvaita interpretation (and its justification) on the mahAvAkyas.

A learned friend told me that the word 'mahAvAkyAs' (as against alpavAkyAs) is not used by Shankara in any of his works. It is obviously a later creation.

OK, but can you let me know which advaitic work clarifies this idea? Honestly, my suspicion is that this is either your or a modern interpretation of the advaita. That by itself is not a problem, except that such is clearly contradicted by classical works on advaita.

In this matter, Advaita holds the Self to be nirvisheSha (absolutely attributeless) and not something whose attributes are beyond human comprehension. See Shankara's interpretation of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3.8.8.

Moreover, shruti is not a human composition. It is easier then to say that Brahman is beyond human comprehension and yet has all those glorious qualities mentioned in the shruti. But advaita does not do that.

Regards,
Krishna




Namaste Krishna. First of all, I would like to thank you for the link and references for the mahavakya interpretations, as I appreciate that greatly.

As for the rest of the discussion, we may well disagree on what a sage is or isn't, and that is fine with me. What I meant by the saving of Hinduism is that Buddhism was religion of the vast majority in the South Asia of that time, and that Shankara was the person who made the largest changes in terms of the resurgence of the Sanatana Dharma. It is also noteworthy that most of the converts to Buddhism at the time were Dvaitins, like Asvaghosha for example. Advaita was the prime converter of people back to Hinduism. I also maintain that the sage Vasishta was not a Dvaitin, if you would prefer someone more scripturally oriented.

As for the Self discussion, even within Advaita there are different schools and systems so making statements that apply to all Advaitins is particularly difficult. You will note that I never stated that the Self has attributes which are beyond human comprehension and conceptual thought. All I stated was that it cannot be described in human concepts.

_________________________
Soul, Ego, God are merely words. Reality is not exactly any of them, nor is it otherwise. "There is no cessation, no coming-to-be, none in bondage, no seeker after liberation and no-one liberated. This is the absolute truth."-Gaudapada

Top
#59366 - 07/29/04 08:03 AM Re: dwaitha is not an illusion [Re: No 2]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Quote:

What I meant by the saving of Hinduism is that Buddhism was religion of the vast majority in the South Asia of that time, and that Shankara was the person who made the largest changes in terms of the resurgence of the Sanatana Dharma. It is also noteworthy that most of the converts to Buddhism at the time were Dvaitins, like Asvaghosha for example. Advaita was the prime converter of people back to Hinduism. I also maintain that the sage Vasishta was not a Dvaitin, if you would prefer someone more scripturally oriented.




The point is that by the time Shankara preached Advaita, most of them had already converted back to Hinduism. As such, it is not that people were buddhists before mImAmsakAs argued them out, just that they had serious doubts on the vaidika dharma and major inclinations towards Buddhism. I remember reading it in a book from Dr.BNK Sharma, where he quotes a transcript on a pillar constructed by Ashoka. I don't have much details offhand, but the transcript bore Ashoka's words that he would forcefully preach Buddhism and impose it on his subjects. (What a marked difference from the public potrayal of Ashoka, the great!) The point of relevance is that even in its heydays, there really were no people becoming buddhists, though it is likely they harbored some liking for it.

On the other hand, you are forgetting the point that Shankara himself credits Kumarila Bhatta to have stopped the sanAtana-dharma from disappearing. Shankara by himself was hardly responsible for any conversions. The Shankara Vijayas also make this point. Regarding the changes Shankara made, I believe it is his panchAyatana pUja scheme that can be seen as some sort of unifying act. Beyond that, it is an exaggeration.

How do you know that Ashvagosha was a dvaitin (rather a naiyyAyika or a sANkya) then?

Regarding Sage Vasishtha, if you have anything other than 'Yoga Vasishtha' (which is a much later work, ascribed to the sage) or 'adhyAtma rAmAyaNa', that leads you to think that he had advaitic inclinations, let me know.

Quote:

You will note that I never stated that the Self has attributes which are beyond human comprehension and conceptual thought. All I stated was that it cannot be described in human concepts.




Yes, I never stated that you stated that the Self has attributes beyond human comprehension. What I stated was that if at all Advaita had to convey a Brahman beyond human comprehension, it could still have done so by positing attributes that are beyond human comprehension. Such is ofcourse declared by shruti. Instead advaita goes to deny attributes of any sort, which is illogical. As such, if Brahman is delineated as something beyond human comprehension, the same can be said of son of a barren-woman, the flower in the sky. To avoid that, if it were to be said that Brahman exists or, as somebody else puts it, Brahman is existence, it will immediately contradict the earlier statement, as Brahman is not really out of human comprehension.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59367 - 07/29/04 01:41 PM Re: dwaitha is not an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306

I will leave out the irrelevant handwaving and concentrate on some points:

1. I did not criticize your guru's persona, but his viewpoints. He is not my guru, regardless of what you think of it. There is a dictum in the classical vedAnta: mAnAdhInA meyasiddhiH. If you want to establish something as true, such is dependent on the pramANAs to that effect. If you want to prove that dvaita is an illusion to a person who doesn't think so, you have to show pramANAs to that effect. In that regard i.e. in matters of prAmANya in a debate with an opponent, your guru's words are as useless as that of anybody including my guru. And for the case in point you don't have any pramANAs.

2. In his IshAvAsyopaniShadbhAShya, Sri Madhvacharya quotes a pramANa that says that if a person does not criticize wrong knowledge, he will suffer greater trouble than a person who has wrong knowledge. So too, here I am criticizing your wrong knowledge about dvaita being illusory. It is wrong knowledge because there is no pramANa to that effect.

3. The point that all shrutis or pramANAs that establish this world as real are later interpolations is hazardous to you too. How do you know that the reverse, i.e. whatever speaks of illusoriness of world (if there is one such thing) is not an interpolation? How do you know that the original and untainted vedas speak of dvaita being illusory? You must again be dependent on your guru's experiences or that of somebody else. How do you know that they were not hallucinating? My turn to ask you to think objectively and with an open mind.

4. About vigraha and related misconceptions: People have a large number of misconceptions about many things in life. Vigraha is one little aspect of it. Just think, would you have accepted if the Krishna icon is painted in nIla-megha-shyAma color? You would expect the idol to have Devaki and Vasudeva as parents! Which is why I think that you are ignorant of the scriptures' stance on pratIkopAsana; the chala and achala pratimAs.
Anyway, the point is if there are many misconceptions, it does not translate to dvaita being a misconception. For all you know, advaita is such a misconception (which is actually the case!).

5. About both dvaita and advaita leading to the same parabrahman: The Ishavasya Upanishad and Brihadaranyaka Upanishad say that followers of wrong knowledge go to andha-tamas (dark hell). There are numerous such verses in the Mahabharata. In the Gita, the Lord says that only people with correct knowledge will reach him. On the other hand, people of demoniac nature will never reach Him. Read the 16th chapter. In effect, both advaita and dvaita cannot be knowledge because they contradict each other. Since you have not shown any pramANas for advaita, it is certain that advaita is a hallucination.

Btw, Changing the subject lines is not going to make advaita a reality. Pramanas will. Show them up. Don't write irrelevant stuff.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59368 - 07/29/04 02:17 PM Re: dwaitha is not an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
well.i have some good discussion in this forum.some realities ofcourse not true have come.your viewpoint is good to you.anyhow i have my own happiness regarding adwaitha.all will leave their bodies after death.i cannot carry any material things from this earth nor you.i think you believe this.or if you stick on for any pramanam..god only saves you.we are certainly in dwaitham.without parabrahmam there is nothing.this is the belief for all.i still feel that adwaitham reveals the secrets of life.thank you. don't feel anger.your words about even my guru .. is bad. pls. see our website.www.srimadyoganjaneya.com you can see my guru's photo and sacred tail of lord Hanumanji regards.
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59369 - 08/02/04 02:07 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
What is life? The newly born baby does not know about gender. Mother slowly nourishes the child and takes care . After the child grows ,then the knowledge about the gender comes to picture. .The boy or the girl become youth and go for studies and love. At this stage also , nothing is known to them and life goes on with difficulties and at times happiness. Then the bonding of two genders with marriage and they never go for enquiring what for and why for this life as long as they are comfortable. Then also nothing is known to them regarding what for this life .I t will be mechanical like a machine .Afterwards,old age makes the body uncontrolled and the person depend on mainly the children .This is general life of most people. T he present day society is sympathetic on the illfated parents and the result – emerging of oldage homes.This is the universe in nutshell. How many sons and daughters are looking after their parents? In the internet web sites, there are mails that so and so cinema came-pls.see. This .life is hence compared to drama. Drama is illusory .It appea
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59370 - 08/02/04 02:16 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
What is life? The newly born baby does not know about gender. Mother slowly nourishes the child and takes care . After the child grows ,then the knowledge about the gender comes to picture. .The boy or the girl become youth and go for studies and love. At this stage also , nothing is known to them and life goes on with difficulties and at times happiness. Then the bonding of two genders with marriage and they never go for enquiring what for and why for this life as long as they are comfortable. Then also nothing is known to them regarding what for this life .I t will be mechanical like a machine .Afterwards,old age makes the body uncontrolled and the person depend on mainly the children .This is general life of most people. T he present day society is sympathetic on the illfated parents and the result – emerging of oldage homes.This is the universe in nutshell. How many sons and daughters are looking after their parents? In the internet web sites, there are mails that so and so cinema came-pls.see. This .life is hence compared to drama. Drama is illusory .It appears as real . when severe difficulties surround the persons ,they go for solutions to astrologers and godly persons .some times they will further be decieved .is it not illusion? The universal infinite energy in all the pranis is cause for the mind,budhi ,organs to function as per the receiving capacity of the body. Thoughts only come from within. Action then proceeeds. If no command is given computers do not work. So also if no command is there from within,the action will be nill. The fear about life is also from within. .This is all due to that thou art thee. Paramatma.-some may think that it is narayana,some others think it is eswara. Some as adishakthi .It is the belief .belief is good.. By belief in Adishankara, Padmapada could walk over the water .By strong belief only prahlada was protected by Srihari.so also markandeya wins over death and becomes immortal or chiranjeevi. So the bhakthas ,Thukaram,Gorakumbhar,Meerabai etc if we go in to the details,we can understand that the life is so beautiful with roses and thorns. The belief in god makes us sail comfortably in the ocean of life. Leave every thing to Him .He will lookafter. or feel that you are nothing but god . Whether one believes Dwaitha or Adwaitha , final goal is salvation or self realisation or mukthi.Let all be united and try to know what is what and what for.. The great truth finders have their journey towards the BEYOND. OF TRINITY.,but they did not discard the philosophies.Nava vidha Bhakti sutras were given by Shirdi Baba .Any one of the methods be follwed .Namaskarams. Regards.
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59371 - 08/02/04 04:06 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
What is life? The newly born baby does not know about gender. Mother slowly nourishes the child and takes care . After the child grows ,then the knowledge about the gender comes to picture. .The boy or the girl become youth and go for studies and love. At this stage also , nothing is known to them and life goes on with difficulties and at times happiness. Then the bonding of two genders with marriage and they never go for enquiring what for and why for this life as long as they are comfortable. Then also nothing is known to them regarding what for this life .I t will be mechanical like a machine .Afterwards,old age makes the body uncontrolled and the person depend on mainly the children .This is general life of most people. T he present day society is sympathetic on the illfated parents and the result – emerging of oldage homes.This is the universe in nutshell. How many sons and daughters are looking after their parents? In the internet web sites, there are mails that so and so cinema came-pls.see. This .life is hence compared to drama. Drama is illusory .It appears as real . when severe difficulties surround the persons ,they go for solutions to astrologers and godly persons .some times they will further be decieved .is it not illusion? The universal infinite energy in all the pranis is cause for the mind,budhi ,organs to function as per the receiving capacity of the body. Thoughts only come from within. Action then proceeeds. If no command is given computers do not work. So also if no command is there from within,the action will be nill. The fear about life is also from within. .This is all due to that thou art thee. Paramatma.-some may think that it is narayana,some others think it is eswara. Some as adishakthi .It is the belief .belief is good.. By belief in Adishankara, Padmapada could walk over the water .By strong belief only prahlada was protected by Srihari.so also markandeya wins over death and becomes immortal or chiranjeevi. So the bhakthas ,Thukaram,Gorakumbhar,Meerabai etc if we go in to the details,we can understand that the life is so beautiful with roses and thorns. The belief in god makes us sail comfortably in the ocean of life. Leave every thing to Him .He will lookafter. or feel that you are nothing but god . Whether one believes Dwaitha or Adwaitha , final goal is salvation or self realisation or mukthi.Let all be united and try to know what is what and what for.. The great truth finders have their journey towards the BEYOND. OF TRINITY.,but they did not disca
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59372 - 08/03/04 11:29 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Dear KSubbu,

I am sorry to disturb the glorious but incorrect picture that you are painting here. Your tenacity to say that dvaita is an illusion is appreciable, but your methods are deplorable. And my criticisms will keep continuing till either you start providing pramANAs and start talking logic or you stop posting it on this forum.

First thing is that you write lot of irrelevant stuff. You write lot of stuff that are correct in some vague context, but absolutely irrelevant here and then suddenly out of the blue, you add a line about dvaita being illusion. Know what, you could have just written that advaita is an illusion and things would just go on. For example, you wrote about children, present age problems of family etc and then say it is a drama! Where is the proof, pramana, sir? In other words, your speech sounds like that of a dim-witted politician and is not impressive.

And then about nature of paramAtma. As I said earlier, many people have delusions about many things in life. That does not mean those delusions are not so. If somebody thinks that 2 and 2 add up to 5, kick him. Don't honor him by spewing thrash such as 'all roads lead to same goal'. It is rubbish, ksubbu, because there are no pramANAs. Similar is the case with people's idea of paramAtmA. Many people have wrong notions about paramAtmA, when they should be instead reading the shruti to find out who it is. The Shruti is clear: yo deveShu adhi eka eva. Only one of them is superior to every other devatA. Read the Upanishads: all devatas are controlled by prANa who is in turn controlled by Brahman. Read the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad where the birth of Rudra is mentioned, while Brahman is considered ajaH (the unborn). And then see the mahA upanishad: eko ha vai naaraayaNa aasiinna brahmaa neshaano naapo naagniishhomau neme dyaavaapR^ithivii na nakshatraaNi na suuryo na chandramaaH -- Only the Narayana was there, niether was Brahma nor was Ishana (Rudra), nor the waters, nor the fire and the Soma, nor the skies and earth, not the stars, the sun and the moon. Read the ambhraNi sUkta of Rgveda where Lakshmi says that, whomsoever she wishes, she makes him Brahma, Rudra, a sage or a wiseman: yaM kamaye taM ugraM kRNomi tam brahmANaM taM RSiM taM sumedhaM!! Only Vishnu is the Supreme -- yasmAtkSharamatIto.ahaM, ahaM Adirhi devAnAM. Read the skanda purANa where Shiva tells Markandeya: ahaM bhogaprado vatsa, mokShadastu janArdanaH -- O dear child, I am only a giver of prosperity and worldly bhoga, but the giver of mokSha is Janardana. Why? Because the Brihadaranyaka says: ato anyad ArtaM: because everybody else is subject to misery.

But unfortunately people leave out all this evidence and run behind people who claim to have seen tails of Hanuman. To the more awakened person, it is very clear: they are seeing their own tails :-) And they are passing their glorious hallucinations to others.

If somebody (even if it is Shirdi Sai baba) says something against the pramANAs, ditch him.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59373 - 08/06/04 10:32 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
dear krishna, "vidyA vinaya sampannE brahmanE gavi hasthinau ...'the meaning you might have known.There is a story.once a learned pandit fully aware of pramAnAs and shastras was going on a boat to cross a river.he was telling the boatman about the shastras and pramAnAs.the boatman answered that he was not aware of the pramAnAs .The pandit commented that the life of boatman was waste.suddenly water started coming in to the boat.the boatman asked the pandit ..Sir, did you know swimming?the pandit replied "there was no pramAnA FOR SWIMMING and he did not know."Then you have no more life'By saying this the boatman jumped in to water and safely reached his place.one can know the fate of pandit.you may ask agai for pramAnA?Everyone should have the so called ego.but if it reaches height,there will be certain fall.regarding the tail of Hanumanji,-you might not have the capacity of seeing the sacred tail directly with your naked eyes.you might have heard about Rudram whic gives about the attributes of lord shiva.there are no differences among the trinity.the differences are created by illusion.when one is under the full coverage of illusory ego,he hill go to the extent of using the words ==ditch him.For my reasoning you are only seeing as trash.no proper answers.any how the illusion is there in your ego form.this is the forum to discuss in good meaning regards.
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59374 - 08/06/04 08:49 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
As the latest McDonald's ads say, I'm loving it.

Quote:

dear krishna, "vidyA vinaya sampannE brahmanE gavi hasthinau ...'the meaning you might have known.




I also know that it is irrelevant here.

Quote:

There is a story.once a learned pandit fully aware of pramAnAs and shastras was going on a boat to cross a river.he was telling the boatman about the shastras and pramAnAs.the boatman answered that he was not aware of the pramAnAs .The pandit commented that the life of boatman was waste.suddenly water started coming in to the boat.the boatman asked the pandit ..Sir, did you know swimming?the pandit replied "there was no pramAnA FOR SWIMMING and he did not know."Then you have no more life'By saying this the boatman jumped in to water and safely reached his place.one can know the fate of pandit.you may ask agai for pramAnA?




Dear Ksubbu, some points to note:
a. first of all, stories cannot be used as a proof or pramANa of anything. At best, they can be used for illustrative purposes. Speaking of stories, you know the story of an Emperor without clothes? Let me put it out anyway, as it helps. The Emperor was fooled by some tailors claiming that the dress will not be "seen directly with naked eyes" of the fools. In that story, that the King was naked was revealed by a boy because the boy seemed to rely directly on pramANAs (which is pratyakSha here). In your case, I am that boy to tell you that your theory and illusion re the tail of Sri Hanuman, is naked without pramANAs.

b. Even in your story (which you have made up from nowhere, obviously), the learned pandit is not really one. Know why? The answer to that question does not involve any pramANAs at all! (if at all any, it involves the idea of prAmANya-svatastva). And in a different way, pratyakSha pramANa reveals the effect of knowledge of swimming. So, the 'learned' pandit you created was not really one. This also implies that your understanding of pramANa is wanting in many aspects.

Quote:


Everyone should have the so called ego.but if it reaches height,there will be certain fall.regarding the tail of Hanumanji,-you might not have the capacity of seeing the sacred tail directly with your naked eyes.you might have heard about Rudram whic gives about the attributes of lord shiva.there are no differences among the trinity.the differences are created by illusion.when one is under the full coverage of illusory ego,he hill go to the extent of using the words ==ditch him.For my reasoning you are only seeing as trash.no proper answers.any how the illusion is there in your ego form.this is the forum to discuss in good meaning regards.





let's again separate the wheat from chaff. The points here:

a. About Namakam/Chamakam explicating the attributes of Lord Shiva. There is a larger discussion to this, but it suffices to quote the Rigveda 7.40.5:

asya devasya mILhuSo vayA viSNoreSasya prabhRthe havirbhiH |
vide hi rudro rudriyaM mahitvaM yAsiShTaM vartirashvinAvirAvat ||

This explains that Rudra owes his qualities to Vishnu. Please give me this kind of pramANas to say that dvaita is illusory.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59375 - 08/07/04 09:43 PM Re: dwaitha is not an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
krishna_susarla Offline
initiate
**

Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 119
Quote:

2. In his IshAvAsyopaniShadbhAShya, Sri Madhvacharya quotes a pramANa that says that if a person does not criticize wrong knowledge, he will suffer greater trouble than a person who has wrong knowledge. So too, here I am criticizing your wrong knowledge about dvaita being illusory. It is wrong knowledge because there is no pramANa to that effect.




Dear Krishna (nomadeva),

I have been looking for quotes like this for a long time. Could you give the exact pramaana and its source?

Actually, while we are on the subject, I am looking to expand my library with more tattvavaadi stuff. I have a few of madhva's commentaries on the upanishads (katha, maandukya, shatprashna, aatharvana) and the bhagavad-giitaa. I just got his brihadaaranyaka bhaashya in the mail, but much to my chagrin, it does not include the original Sanskrit of the commentary (grrr!).

I am specifically looking for the rest of his upanishad commentaries, his Rig Veda commentary, and his Mahaabhaarata commentary. I need the original Sanskrit for his writings, and I would prefer a good English translation but the latter is not strictly necessary. Can you refer me to some good sources (preferably something I could do over the internet) for such books?

thanks in advance,

- K

_________________________
H. Krishna Susarla M.D. Achintya Mailing List www.achintya.org

Top
#59376 - 08/09/04 12:36 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
“IchA dwesha samutthena dwanda mOhEna bharata , SarvabhUthAni sammOham sargE yanthi parantapa." “ The meaning is better known to you. .Due to the desire and hatred happiness and sorrow are born .All the pranis are born in illusion of the above dwanda. It was clear that the pranis are in illusion of sorrow and happiness.{bhranthi} .the power of maya is visible in the dwanda of desire and hatredness. As long as the person thinks that all that appears is real and feels that he is the head of family, she is his wife out of ignorance his life will be certainly waste .once a person starts thinking that nothing is related to him, he will be away from the desires and hatredness. Hence he wiill be away from the delusion of the attachments of material manifestations “.MatrudEvObhava”, “PitrudEvobhava”, ‘AchAryadEvOBHava” AthidhidEvOBHava” These are four MahAvAkyAs from the Upanishads. Pray your mother , pray your father, pray your guru ,and pray your guest. How many dwathins or adwaithins are strictly folowing the above great vakyas { pramAnAs}.A perfect guru is adhyAthma guru. Nobody has a right to scold mother, father , guest and the AchArya-the philsophical guru As such there will be no wrong mother ,.. and wrong knowledge. All the pranis are certainly in dwaitha. Otherwise karma has no meaning. All those who are away from the bondage due to kama ,krOdha ,mOha, lObha ,mada ,and mAtsarya-the arishadvargAs, the trigunAs- satva ,rajas,and tamO can see the lord of lords, you may call in any names in the self and in all. They are mahAtmAs.. Our salutes to them. PramAnAs should be there. if any body follows and give the meanings, they should first practise and DEMAND others also to follow. Let all be in dwaitha.and reach the goal.of learning and reaching the state of aham brahmOsmi. Or see lord of lords in all. Jai SreeRAm
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59377 - 08/09/04 04:23 PM Re: dwaitha is not an illusion [Re: krishna_susarla]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306


Quote:

Could you give the exact pramaana and its source?




It is given in the commentary on the 9th verse:

anyathopAsakA ye tu tamo.andhaM yAntyasaMshayam.h |
tato.adhikamiva vyaktaM yAnti teshhAmanindakAH |
tasmAd.h yathAsvarUpaM tu nArAyaNamanAmayam.h |
ayathArthasya nindAM cha ye viduH sa ha (te hi) sajjanAH |
te nindayA.ayathArthasya duHkhAj~nAnAdirUpiNaH |
duHkhAj~nAnAdisantIrNAH sukhaj~nAnAdirUpiNaH |
yathArthasya parij~nAnAt.h sukhaj~nAnAdirUpatAm.h |
yAnti eva (evaM) sR^ishhTikartR^itvaM nAN^gIkurvanti ye hareH |
te.api yAnti tamo ghoraM tathA saMhArakartR^itAm.h |
nAN^gIkurvanti te.apyevaM tasmAt.h sarvaguNAtmakam.h |
sarvakartAramIsheshaM sarvasaMhArakArakam.h (sarvasaMhArakAraNam.h) |

The source is not mentioned out there but it is a quote from some ancillary literature (as the TIkA says: smR^ityaiva vyAchaShTe).

Quote:

Can you refer me to some good sources (preferably something I could do over the internet) for such books?




Look at this: http://books.tatvavada.org/cgi-bin/books.cgi . But I don’t think it will let you buy books over the internet.
Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59378 - 08/09/04 09:28 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Dear KSubbu,

I have been wondering what your mail has anything to do with providing pramANAs that dvaita is illusory. do you think that this verse that you quoted:
Quote:

IchA dwesha samutthena dwanda mOhEna bharata , SarvabhUthAni sammOham sargE yanthi parantapa." The meaning is better known to you. .Due to the desire and hatred happiness and sorrow are born .All the pranis are born in illusion of the above dwanda. It was clear that the pranis are in illusion of sorrow and happiness.{bhranthi} .the power of maya is visible in the dwanda of desire and hatredness.



holds that dvaita is illusory? Can you be more explicit, please? As I understand the verse, it talks of beings deluded due to desire and revulsion. Where is the question of dvaita being illusory? Where does it say that once this ichChA and dveSha vanish, nothing else will remain (or no relations such as mother/father etc will vanish)? Or are you thinking that dvanda is same as dvaita? That will be a big joke!

Quote:

As long as the person thinks that all that appears is real



Now, have a look at what Sri Krishna says in 16.8. He enlists the qualities of demons (asuras), who will keep suffering lower births and never reach him. One of the qualities is that asuras think that this world is unreal: asatyaM apratiShThaM te jagadAhUranIshvaraM. Advaita precisely advocates one such tenet: The world is not real.

Rest of what you wrote, unfortuntely and as usual, is trash. The idea of mahAvAkya is unique to Advaita and even they don't consider the sentences you have quoted as mahAvAkyas.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59379 - 08/11/04 11:18 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
Dear Krishna, "Atha kathi padardhA ithi,sadasannidhyAcheti trayah,sadEva tatra brahma,asthuchham,jagatkalpitam brahmanya satyam midhyA,brahmaivAtmAjnEyam,brahmajnAnam samUlAnAma vivartakam sadbrahmani vilEyatE,anAtmATu sajeevO viyadAdi prapanchah,anAtma mUlam mAyA soucha brahmanyAkAsE mEghAdirina drshyatE,mAyA nAma anAdirantavatee pramAnA pramAna sAdhAranA nasateenAsatee nasadasatya nirvAchyadhishtAna evAvidyamAnAntarvAni vikalpanirUpyamAnO chAvacha vyavahAra bhEdavatee yA navidyatE vastutassA mAyA,tatswarUpa majnAnam,tadEvam brahma vijanAtyanubhavvaticha,tayrytE slOkAH" . This is from sarva sArOpanishad 18 th slOka.this clearly give that jagat midhya.there is no dwaitham .dwaitham is illusion.this is to be understood properly.SwAnubhavam is very essential to realise this.nirAlambOpanishad also give about adaitham.there are two in this .one is sukla yajurvEdAntargatam. Suka rahasyOpanishad also deals with the ultimate-brahmam{Atma].I understand what i write.i know what dwandam is and what dwaitham is.now i firmly say that the dwaitham is an illusion,appears to be real but not real.There is no difference between Atma and parabrahmam.If the Asuras were not there ,the dasavataras might not have been existed.this is all the leela of the parabrahmam.the bodies are unreal.only atma is real .regards,
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59380 - 08/13/04 03:43 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Dear KSubbu,

You quoted sarvasAropaniShat, nirAlambopaniShat and shukarahasyopaniShat. Good, but now find out which traditions of vedAnta consider them authentic. Only advaitins think that this is shruti. Neither does Dvaita nor vishiShTAdvaita pay any worth to
these? There are sufficient reasons to think that these Upanishads are actually fabricated texts:

a. The mother of all these non-canonical Upanishads is the muktikA upaniShat. It sanctions these texts as Upanishats and classifies them as sAmAnya, yoga, vaiShNava upaniShats. But that by itself is a bogus Upanishat. See this: http://www.dvaita.org/list/list_46/msg00018.html

b. There have been numerous works in the 3 schools of vedAnta, that refer to different Upanishads. Some works detail the vidyAsthAnas. They all name some Upanishads (even the non-canonical ones such as vAsudevopaniShat, rAma, gopAla-tApani, nR^isimha-tApanIya, turIya etc) but none of them name the set of Upanishads mentioned in the muktikA. Even Sayana, who quotes from various upanishads does not quote from muktikA to give a list of Upanishads. I believe Anandagiri, the commentator on Shankara's works mentions somewhere that there are many upanishads but does not refer to the muktikA. All these facts are a good hint that the muktikA and its other works are nothing but later fabrications of later advaitins. In fact, this idea of 108 Upanishads is as late as Upanishad Brahmendra Yogi. No other person of earlier generation, even advaitins, never talked of it.
c. There is another problem to Muktika. It does not mention many other Upanishads that are authentic and have been quoted by writers of all traditions. For example, the Shiva-sankalpa-Upanishad that belongs to the Yajurveda is not there in the list. The Bhallaveyashruti, the bAShkala mantropaniShat, the parama shruti are not found there.
d. It is also easy to see that these are composed by advaitins themselves and not the apaurusheya shruti. Take any of these (including the ones you quoted above). There is a set pattern: Take a couple of statements from Samhita/Other Upanishats/Gita. Mix them with some works of Shankara, Gaudapaada and other advaitins. Change the language a bit here and there (like adding 'ha' or 'u') and other standard phrases such as "sa hovAcha", "atra ete shlokA bhavanti" and lo, there you have an Upanishad. Just take the sarvasAropaniShat. Some of these overzealous fellas have even changed the text of known Upanishads also. The point in case is Bahvrcha Upanishad. See http://www.dvaita.org/list/list_52/msg00047.html for more details.

You want more proof that advaitins create upanishats just like that? Note that Shankara himself never uses the term 'mahAvAkyas'. He painstakingly quotes the texts (ahaM brahmAsmi, ekamevAdvitIyaM brahma etc) and not mention, even once, that these are the mahAvAkyas of shrutis. However, the later advaitins term them as mahAvAkyas. But then, how is that Shankara could have missed such an ubiquotous idea of mahAvAkyas, which is all over some of these Upanishads like shukarahasya (and many others)? The answer is simple: These are all fabricated ones. Btw, there is a live example of what I mean: Go to the Sanskrit Documents List and search for Ramakrishnopanishat. What you think to be an Upanishat is actually the sayings of Ramakrishna paramahamsa, as he is popularly called. But to be fair, these site owners have mentioned the authorship of that Upanishat. However the flow of time will only gullible people like you think that it is actually an Upanishat and quote it against dvaitins.

The point is very clear, Dear KSubbu. If you want to give pramANAs, you should first know what is a pramANa. There are really much more pramANAs that Srimad Acharya (or Srimad Anandatirtha, another name of Sri Madhvacharya) has given to prove that this world is true. Not every other tradition accepts them as valid. So, in a discussion we don't quote them. Similarly you are not supposed to quote those texts as pramANas that we consider as comic books. You are free to quote pramANAs from the dashopaniShats, the Vedas, the Shvetashvatara, Kaushitaki, Gopala/rAma/nRsimha tApanIya, vAsudeva Upanishats.

For example, you could have used the mANDUkya upanishat's "mAyAmAtram idaM dvaitam, advaitaM paramArthataH". But this has already been covered in the 'advaitin' forum and on this forum. Use that.

You said that svAnubhava to realize that dvaita is an illusion. Now see the pitfall of advaita. There is no svAnubhava in the paramArthika as the self is not a knower. And this is how a drunkard too will reply if you ask him to prove that 2 and 2 equals 5 and not 4 as is commonly known. He says, drink a peg and there you, 2 and 2 will equal anything that you want.

And still you say dvaita is an illusion? It is no wonder that Sri Krishna says of demons 'asatyaM apratiShThaM te jagat AhuH'. And the Brihadaranyaka Upanishat says that asuras are more in number.

AtmA is same as parabrahma, agreed. But what does this word AtmA refer to? Read the muNDakopaniShat: yasmin.h dyauH pR^ithivii chaantarikshamotaM manaH saha praaNaishcha sarvaiH | tamevaikaM jaanatha aatmaanamanyaa vaacho vimuJNchathaamR^itasyaishha setuH || 5|| Know that alone as 'AtmA' that in which, this entire cosmos, the earth, the universe, the mind and the prANAs are supported. Tell me dear KSubbu, do you think that your self is the support of the cosmos? If a person says 'yes' he is just telling lies or seeing illusions like the tail of Hanuman. The AtmA is only the Narayana as the Padma Purana says it explicitly.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59381 - 08/14/04 09:01 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
Dear Krishna, every prani is certainly under the clutches of illusion including the devatas and meditating sages as per Bhagavdgeeta.the mAyA's influence is little on brahmajnAnis.you have attemped well to prove that the upanishats which were against dwaitha were not real. This is a joke.It can be similarly given that the upanishats which were quoted by you were also composed by dwathins who wished to have upper hand.Regarding pramAnAs,when the dwaitha is illusion,the pramAnas are also illusory.coming to the tail of lord ,it is also illusion.As I have given in this tread,all that is visible to the eyes is illusion."yasminsarvamidam prOtam brahma sthAvara jangamam" "EkamEvAdwiteeyam brahma", EkamEvA dwiteeyam nannAma rUpavivarjitam".there is no second to brahman.I have belief in both lord vishnu and and lord Shiva.if there is no creation,there is no significance for lord vishnu.if there is no growth,no importance to lord shiva.if lord shiva was not there,there will be no creation.the trinity of gods are very important for the brahman.there will be no difference among the trinity.As we are in illusion,we think of gratness of our dear god.further,narayana if you think that he wears sankhu,chakra etc-with chaturbHahu and his abode -vikuntha-one among trinity.he cannot be paramatma ,the ultimate.narayana -paramatma has no form no ---the inner meaning of padmapurAna is to be understood corectly. Bhktha Rmadas gave"antA rAma mayam eejagamantA rAmamayam" because he deeply felt.he could see Rama in all.you can also say that all is nArAyaNa if you see nArAyana in all that appears before you.i now strongly feel that Brahman is on;y one that is real.the rest illusion.regards,


Edited by ksubbu (08/14/04 09:15 AM)
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59382 - 08/15/04 03:10 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306

Quote:

you have attemped well to prove that the upanishats which were against dwaitha were not real. This is a joke.




As I very much anticipated, you ended up thinking that I was against Upanishats that are against dvaita. But then, since you haven't shed a single point of evidence to show that the Upanishats you quoted were authentic (you can do that, as I mentioned earlier, by showing the quotes in the works of some classical advaitins: including and pre Sayana time) and not comic books, it is easy to see that you cover up your incompetence by saying that I am against Upanishats that are against dvaita. I'd actually hoped that you would see some light when I quoted the mANDUkya Upanishat, which very much 'looks' advaitic. But then, you are used to seeing tails of Hanuman and not pramANas and logic.

There is so much dvaitic stuff in texts like Sita Upanishat, but I doubt if such Upanishats are authentic. I had similar doubts about vAsudevopaniShat, but then I found it quoted by a scholar prior to when advaitins started creating Upanishats.

Do you know that it is very easy to explain all these references to illusory nature of world using a padmapurANa verse (6.227.41):

yatra mithyA prapaJNchatvaM vAkyaM vedAntagocharaiH |
dR^ishyamAnamidaM sarvaM anityaM iti chochyate ||
atrApiprAkR^itaM rUpaM anDasyaiva vinAshanaM |

Wherever in the scriptures, the world is said to be mithyA, it is only because, all this (whatever is seen) is not eternal. This Brahmanda when destroyed is actually a form of prakRiti that is unmanifest (this is in the next verse). This is to say that the world is real, but uneternal.

However I didn't use this verse to explain the quotes you gave. Know why? Because you quoted comic books. And applying padmapurANa verse to comic books is like 'picchuka miida brahmaastraM' (throwing brahmastra over a sparrow).

Quote:

It can be similarly given that the upanishats which were quoted by you were also composed by dwathins who wished to have upper hand.




That would mean, the entire scripture -- Vedas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, all Upanishats, Puranas, Mahabharata, Ramayana, Pancharatra -- should have been composed by dvaitins, er, Rishis. But it is useless to just make a claim. I can also claim many things, but if I don't provide proof, I'd be as bad as you or an inebriated guy. Prove to me, just as I did, that shrutis I quoted earlier were not known to others.

Quote:

Regarding pramAnAs,when the dwaitha is illusion,the pramAnas are also illusory.



So, are pramANAs illusory because dvaita is illusory? Or is dvaita illusory because pramANAs are illusory? If the former, why did you even care to quote some pramANAs, KSubbu? You really didn't know what you were doing then. In any case, let me remind you that you are doing the same thing that the Lord says asuras do: asatyaM apratiShThaM te jagat AhuH.

Quote:

"yasminsarvamidam prOtam brahma sthAvara jangamam" "EkamEvAdwiteeyam brahma", EkamEvA dwiteeyam nannAma rUpavivarjitam".there is no second to brahman.




So, when did anybody say there are two Brahmans? Or that Brahman had a prAkR^ita rUpa? But you ask, where is that Brahman has a rUpa in the first place? See these : yat te rUpaM kalyANAtamaM tat te pashyAmi (IshAvAsya Upanishad), yadA yadA pashyate rukmavarNaM (muNDakopaniShat), or the KenopaniShat: yadi manyase suvedeti daharamevaapi nuunaM tvaM vettha brahmaNo ruupam.h (if you think you know Brahman well, then you don't know even a little of that form of Brahman. There are more that hold Brahman to have a magnificient form, rather infinite forms, none of which have prakriti guNAs.

Quote:

I have belief in both lord vishnu and and lord Shiva.



Congratulations ! Who said I don't believe in Lord Shiva?

Quote:

narayana -paramatma has no form no ---the inner meaning of padmapurAna is to be understood corectly.




This is the joke, dear KSubbu. You don't know which verse of padmapurANa I referred to, but you talk of its inner meaning? Tell me, dear KSubbu, did you read my mind just like your teacher saw the tail of Hanuman? If yes, then pls tell me which verse of Padma purana I was referring to, what is its superficial meaning and what convention or scheme or framework did you use to arrive at the inner meaning?

On the other hand, that the Paramatma has a form, a splendorous one at that, which is very different from the forms of every one of us is very evident from the scriptures: just open the glorious vishvarUpAdhyAya. Do you know that the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad addresses the turIya (that the advaitins think is nirguNa brahman) form of Brahman as 'darshataM' (handsome)? Dear KSubbu, pls tell me the inner meaning of this and how you arrived at that.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59383 - 08/16/04 03:33 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
grames Offline
helper
**

Registered: 01/31/02
Posts: 562
Loc: Florida, USA
Hi

Pardon me for intruding in to a nice discussion....

I think advaitins do have different meaning for "Real" and so why they do not want to differentiate "Maya" and "Reality" and will it be better if advaitins and such believers define what is the meaning of the term "Real" mean to them?

Mr Subbu, i do like to know your meaning of "Illusion" and same time 'what' is "Illusioned" too. Also, do you believe that "Maya" is 100% equal to the english word "Illusion"?
_________________________
Hare Krshna!

Top
#59384 - 08/17/04 11:23 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
Dear Krishna, thank you for your comments. In the nArAyanopanishat, description about brahman was given .Kalascha-----,by yajurveda, then slokas from atharvana veda .pratyagAnandam brahma purusham ---pundareekam vijnAna ghanam ---brhmanyO{ dEvakee putrO } brahmanyO madhusUdhanO. Vedas were apaurusheyas.they Had their existance since the time unknown.i hope that this atharvana vEda which gave as brahmanyO Devaki putrO had its existance from only dwapara yuga. Or some dwaithins introduced the words devakiputrO in the respective talapatras .Devaki ,mother of Krishna was born only in dwapara yuga .As such how come devakisuto in atharvana veda. they can also give kausalya sutO. No body in the universe dare to find fault with the original Veadas where in .the absolute Knowledge shines. do you think that the present available books on vedas can stand as pramAnAs? So I say the present vedas as illusion. ,”Vedam sarvam, srvam vedam- vedamayam sarvam, sarva mayam vadaha” the sages in treta ,kruta and dwaparayugas ,used to chant the above mantra on vedas as yajna mantras to have peace and prospeity to all the pranis in the universe. . Regarding the puranas. When Vedas were rewritten by our brothern why not the puranas as per their liking.?if you quote the puranas in talapatra grandhas, any body will oblige. Even then also there will be a problem Narayana – name coined for paramatma by sages and vedas.. lord vishnu whose abode is vikuntha was also given many names as in the case of other gods.Above the trinity the ultimate is there ..parabraman or paramatma who hd no shape no ….sages immersed in tapas out of their devotion call vishnu as narayana.so also lord shiva as paramatma..Lord Rama and krishna almost reached the state of paramatma at times through the sankalpa of parmatama. In them. Somakasura stolen the vedas from brahma.this was given in the puranas and bhagavatam.this means that the vedas are in the form of talapatra granthas. Then what is the meaning of apaurusheyas?why lord vishnu took the form of matsya to kill the asura?what is the real meaning of vedas stolen?this confusion and ignorance among the pranis at the outset –is maya.
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59385 - 08/18/04 03:26 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Quote:

In the nArAyanopanishat, description about brahman was given .Kalascha




Dear KSubbu, the entire veda sings the glory of Brahman only: sarve vedA yatpadamAmananti (kaThopaniShat). The Lord Himself says in gItA: vedaishcha sarvaiH ahameva vedyo (I am the only One to be known by ALL vedas). The Harivamsha says:
vede rAmAyaNe chaiva purANe bhArate tathA | Adau ante cha madhye cha viShNuH sarvatra gIyate (Addressing Janamejaya, In the Vedas, ramayana, Puranas and the Bharata, it is Vishnu who is sung in the beginning, middle and end; everywhere).

a. Let's look at your point that presence of words like 'devakIputra' (son of devaki) imply that such parts of the Veda are interpolations.

But dear KSubbu, you take any part of the veda you will find reference to some or the other diety. Why take the first Rk of the Rgveda: agniM ILe purohitaM. Do you think the Rishi of this mantra could have been prior to the birth of agni. Yes, numerous texts talk of birth of agni (consider the brihadaranyaka, mahA, mahAnArAyaNa upanishads).

You take any section of the Vedas, you will find references to either places or objects or people; none of them are eternal. So, would you think all such references are interpolations? By that token, the entire veda would be an interpolation and in your wierd logic, an illusion.

The presence of names of created entities is an objection that is answered by many. For example, see shankara's brahmasUtrabhAShya on the sUtra: shabdetichennAtaH prabhavAtpratyakshAnumAnAbhyAm.h (1.3.28). He gives his justification for holding that veda is apaurusheya despite the names of created entities in the vedas. The dvaitin justification is different and actually answers the point, but it is of no relevance to you. Your own sampradAya Acharya has answered your objection. Get acquainted yourself with texts of your school and then talk of veda-apaurusheyatva.

b. let's agree for the timebeing that the vedas may be corrupted. But how do they become 'illusory' for that reason? Is that a problem with your English or with your logic? This is what happens if you try to establish that dvaita is illusory without any supporting pramANas: one makes foolish statements.

In any case, what's the deal on Lord Krishna's statement that asuras think that this world is not real (16.8). Is that also an interpolation? If yes, why did Shankaracharya even attempt explaining that line instead of denouncing it as an interpolation. Know what, he has done such twists in a couple of other places; see his commentary on the IshAvAsyaUpanishad (14th verse if I remember right).

c. And you say Krishna is not paramAtmA but somebody who has 'almost reached that state'? Rubbish. 'mattaH parataraM nAsti yatkiJNchid asti dhananjaya' (There is nothing whatsoever higher to Me, O Dhananjaya).

uttamaH puruShastu anyaH paramAtmA iti udAhR^itaH
....
yasmAtkSharaM atIto.ahaM axarAdapi cha uttamaH
ato.asmi loke veda cha prathitaH puruShottamaH

"O Arjuna, there are two types of Purushas: destructible and the indestructible. All beings are called xara puruShas while the immutable kUTastha (lakShmI, the abhimAni of that) is called axara-puruSha. But the best of the Purushas is different from both and He is called ParamAtmA. It is Him, the immutable Lord of all, that pervades and supports these three lokas. For that reason, I am much superior to both xara and axara. Therefore, I am known in this world and in the Vedas as the Purushottama". (Gita 15th adhyAya)

Get that, dear KSubbu? The Lord is unequivocal in saying that He IS the paramAtmA. There is nothing for Him to become or to realize.

Dear Ksubbu, your statements lack pramANAs. Your statements lack logic. And yet, very much like your brethren advaitins, you still trumpet advaita and rubbish that paramAtmA has no body? Where, dear KSubbu, did you get your ideas from? Comic books or people who see tails of Hanuman when empty air faces them?

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59386 - 08/18/04 10:59 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
Dear krishna, you have escaped giving suitable answer to mine.Many puranas gave that somakasura stolen the vEdAs from brahma?what do u mean by that?i have given some apprpriate reasoning which you could not digest .in the beginning of the this forum i gave that all that appears to the naked physical eye is no permanent.the universe is not stable and ever changing including the trinity.at one time or the other the viswam will be back to shoonya.may be it will take several crores of crores years.only paramatma is permanent.out of ignorance, the pranis do not realise the self -atman-paramatman.we give preference to the outer body but not the one that is inside of all.the body made of the atoms, molecules at one time disappears.what will remain-only the one that is paramatma.so outer bodies appear as real like the pot of water taking along with it the sky ,illusion.by feeling that all the bonds of relation are illusory ,one can slowly experience oneness.by that the ananda as given in tatiriyopanishad can be experienced. Lord Krishna, as many sages experienced as paramatma swaroopa and one avatar of lord vishnu.it is the parabrahma in lord krishna gave that he is paramatma.let us not worry about lord as you who always go by pramAnAs cannot see with your naked eyes because you are covered by the illusion of pramAnAs.He again said in Rahkshasas he was ---If he is paramAtma.why should he go for killing bhishma ,drona and other great people throgh Arjuna?why not he himself killed them?was he unable to kill?why he ran away from being afraid of attack by jarasandha?all the universe is certainly paramatma's creation.He is in every one.he is all .there is no second to him.his manifestation is all the creation.he is the universe.without him there is nothing.what you are thinking of you as prani is the ego.the ego is maya.when that particular ego occupies the pivot position in the life of prani,this is illusion.Arjuna after having tha darshan of viswa roopa of lord,feels highly energised and bows to lord.During the time of war when lord asks arjuna to kill karna,he hesitates thinking that it is against dharma.what happend to arjuna-ego there by illusion.now out of illusion ,i bet if you can show the tail of hanuman or face of lord hanuman--you can not show even after several years of penance.truth is always bitter. regards,
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59387 - 08/18/04 02:32 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
grames Offline
helper
**

Registered: 01/31/02
Posts: 562
Loc: Florida, USA
Hi subbu.,


It will be very nice to focus your points on "Why Dwita is illusion" rather than deviating the discussion with other controversies.

Also one point to mention is, you assumed you gave a strong logic to prove your stand on your beleif that "Dwita" is illusion but you still need to provide a solid logic to prove your statement which is still pending.

Secondly, personal experiences are unique and it can not be taken as universally true unless there is some credibility and authenticity to such experiencer. So why the vedic schools do not give much of importance to personal experience for references but references explain the true meaning of all your personal experiences. So, it is not vice versa. You might say, Sugar is bitter as u experienced it like that but the reference will say, No no Sugar is sweet and then it will say, it will be tasting bitter if you have the jaundice disease. Other than that, if you are propogating a new faith system., which do not require any vedic references thatz fine. Accept it as a truth becos none of the schools reject the authority of Veda and it is required to accept the Veda as the authority to understand the spiritual nature of God.

Like advaitins, you are dosed so strongly with "out of ignorance" we do not realize self-atman-paramatman ( u didn't use equal sign as usual ) . But, why you do not ask the immediate question that, what is "Ignorant" here? Self? or the Mind? or the outer body Or what? Then follow the advaitic bush beating... we give importance to outer body only. What this "WE" refer to? The outer bodies of the big mass or the 'Paramatman'?? So, if everything is illusion to you, at what account you want to consider what you advertise here is Truth and not an illusion?? How you can prove that what you say is true and what kind of authority you can estabilish for such statements with out giving references from Veda?
_________________________
Hare Krshna!

Top
#59388 - 08/18/04 10:28 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306

> you have escaped giving suitable answer to mine.Many puranas gave that
> somakasura stolen the vEdAs from brahma?what do u mean by that?

First prove to me that this question has some relevance to the topic we are at. Prove that dvaita is an illusion. Instead of giving pramANas, you are making statements. As long as you don't substantiate your statements, they are useless.

Quote:

i have given some apprpriate reasoning which you could not digest .in the beginning of the this forum i gave that all that appears to the naked physical eye is no permanent.




Dear KSubbu, this is indeed a big joke. Do you understand the meaning of the word, 'reasoning'? None of the mails you mention give any reasoning. You have made and are making statements only. There is no reasoning there. See in this mail: You made a statement that "all that appears to the naked physical eye is no permanent.the universe is not stable and ever changing including the trinity". Now, is this your reasoning to say that the universe is illusory? If yes, I have refuted it in an earlier mail. If x is non-eternal or impermanent, it does not mean it is not real. I even quoted the pramANas to that effect (see the padmapurana in one of the earlier postings).

And you have been avoiding dealing with Krishna Paramatma's statement that asuras think that this world is not real.

Quote:

one can slowly experience oneness.by that the ananda as given in tatiriyopanishad can be experienced




The true Ananda is of one's own self and is according to one's own yogyatA: says the TaittarIyopaniShat. The Knower of Brahman enjoys his own desires and experiences his bliss upon getting mokSha. The TaittarIya is very clear in saying that, in mokSha, there is multiplicity: so.ashnute sarvAn.h kAmAn saha brahmaNA vipashchitA (He enjoys all his desires in the company of Brahma in mokSha). He does not experience infinite bliss, but that which is intrinsic to his self: sa eko mAnuSha AnandaH . te ye shataM mAnuShA AnandAH; te ye shataM manuShyagandharvANAmAnandAH -- Thus is the hierarchy of bliss in mokSha.

Oneness in mokSha. That's another of advaitins' jokes.

Quote:

it is the parabrahma in lord krishna gave that he is paramatma




and how did you get to know of this? Did you get to know of this just as you or your teacher thought that a rope hanging from somewhere is the tail of Hanuman?

And this:

Quote:

If he is paramAtma.why should he go for killing bhishma ,drona and other great people throgh Arjuna?why not he himself killed them? was he unable to kill? why he ran away from being afraid of attack by jarasandha?




is a stupid argument because it presumes stupid rules: (i) Paramatma should not get anything done through anybody. He should do everything himself and (ii) that Krishna's running away from Jarasandha etc are not moha-janaka.

For the first point, it is obvious that you haven't read a page of gItA: Right in the Gita, the Lord says: nimittamAtraM bhava savyasAchi. O Arjuna (who is ambidexterous in wielding the bow), you are just an agent. if the Paramatma can make somebody an agent. Why do you think Krishna cannot say the same thing? In fact, he does say the same: that bhIShma, droNa and other warriors are already killed by me; you are just an agent. And we know your baseless reply to this: it was not Krishna but paramAtmA in Krishna. It is baseless because you don't have a pramANa to back your theory.

The Paramatma in Krishna is a creation of advaitins and will serve as a comic story to people who read the shAstrAs. A little reading of the Mahabharata shows that he was always the paramAtmA: when he appeared to be born, when he appeared to grow, when he appeared to die. Do you know that Krishna showed up with the four-armed form at the time of birth? At the time of 'avatAra samApti', when the hunter proceeds to grab his hunt, what does he find there? Instead of finding a hurt body, he sees the magnificient Lord, clad with pItAmbara, with many arms! (Refer Mahabharata 16.5.20). Read very carefully what the Mahabharata says there: While being explicit about Balarama leaving his body, the text refers to Krishna rising towards the heavens in that very splendorous form, who is later greeted by different divine beings. The text proceeds to talk of Narayana reaching his own abode, and then again of Krishna having an assembly with the divine beings. The text
also makes it a point to describe Krishna as 'avyaya' (change-less), lest we commit the mistake that there was some actual body-shedding. Others in the MBharata, like Arjuna, only infer that Krishna and Balarama must have shed their bodies. They don't see it.

Also, recollect the episode of rAjasUya yaj~na. Everybody is unanimous and unequivocal about Krishna being Narayana himself and always. If Krishna is not paramAtmA, then shishupAla is right in denying special respect to Krishna alone. No, indeed shishupAla was punished just because he thought Krishna was not the paramAtmA.

And you think Paramatma does not go around killing rAkShasAs because he is in them also. Wrong, read the 16th chapter. Esp

tAnahaM dviShataH krurAnsaMsAreShu narAdhamAn.h |
xipAmyajasramashubhAnAsurIShveva yoniShu || 16.19

and

mAmaprApyaiva kaunteya tato yAntyadhamAM gatim.h || 16.20


About jarAsandha, see these pramANas to dispel stupid thoughts:

The Garuda purana says:
paripUrNAni rUpANi samAnyakhilarUpataH |
tathA.apyapexya mandAnAM dR^ishhTiM tvAmR^ishhayo.api tu |
parAvaraM vadantyeva hyabhaktAnAM vimohane ||

And the nAradIya purANa says:

kR^ishhNarAmAdirUpANi paripUrNAni sarvadA |
nachANumAtraM bhinnAni tathA.apyasmAn.h vimohasi ||

Instead of seeing tails of Hanuman when there are none visible to you, pls learn to interpret the above pramANAs. Apply some logic then: If the Naradiya purANa says that all avataras of the Lord Vishnu are paripurna, then why did Krishna run away from Jarasandha? Didn't he have pUrNashakti? That is answered by the Garuda Purana: 'abhaktAnAM vimohanaM'. Did you also know that Krishna had defeated Jarasandha 17 times before he 'supposedly' ran away. Do you think that a person who can lift a mountain (big enough to accomodate an entire village) on his little finger couldn't really re-enact to kill Jarasandha's army in one shot? And you think that such a person who was capable of producing infinite replicas (during his time with the gopikAs) couldn't do the same when the need arose to kill Jarasandha's army? It is obvious to me that Krishna could have done anything he wanted to do, just didn't chose to. Why? 'abhaktAnAM vimohane'.


Quote:

i bet if you can show the tail of hanuman or face of lord hanuman--you can not show even after several years of penance



I'd prefer doing several years of penance to see Lord Hanuman to hallucinating myself that there is some phantom of a tail when a simple rope is lying in front of me.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59389 - 08/18/04 11:43 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
Dear krishna, Lord said"o Arjuna you are nimittamatra.all these bhishma drOna ...already killed." what do you mean by this.you are seeing bhima,drOna etc ., already killed.this give a meaning that the visible is unreal.how can lord say visible bhishma and all were dead even before they were physically dead.this also explains that the one appearing as living is not living.this is the bhranti.this bhranti will lead for the dwaitha which again is maya.like a snake in rope and pot of water appears to carry sky .At the time of imparting the highest knowledge to Arjuna,lord krishna became an embodiment of jnaana,the ultimate.During his life time ,as human,he had ups and downs.once lord vishnu takes birth as krishna on earth,he follwed the dharma prevailing that time on earth.he played with his mates,and even indra because of illusory ego tested lord by bombarding with rain-the result is govarthana dhari-krisna became.he was criticised by satrjit that krishna stolen shyamantakamani.the result is he married jambavathy.lord said'o Arjna i am like a father and the prkruti is like mother '.he married 16000 gopikas along with ashta wives and had children phyically.what do you understand from this?whole universe is there.the paramAtma is there.paramatma is real.and the universe appears to be real like bhima etc though visible with life, were killed as per lord krishna.we had very good discussion without knowing each other.the greatnes of avatarmurtis cannot be questioned.if is questioned.. it is for discussion sake.there is a discussion in one forum. krishna had ...with subhsdra.thsi is to be condemned.i don't get anything by saying dwatha is an illusion or dwaitha is real.the self in my body is in no way different from others ,but the extent of the arishdvargas, and other gunas associated with the body setup are different..discussion comes up.i am neither adwaithin nor dwaithin but human being.gods are greater than humans .they have no quqrrels among them.then why should we have this inequality and diversified thoughts regarding gods.the self is parmatma.he is omnipotent.by belief,let all pray god .the bhranti that my god is great-- these arguments will not give any thing.it rather arouses anger.with this anger,intelligence goes.As all rivers meet at the ocean ,all the paths of belief in god lead to the ocan of realisation.dear krishna ,i am sorry if i hurt you.i think you have no sleep while participating in this debate.i promise that that is not a rope.but tail of lord.real is real and unreal appears to be real.this is life.finally,some intropolations were there in the existing puranas and also epic and upanishads.Krishna quoted very nicely good pramanas.the viewers can take the pramanas given for reference.regards to all.
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59390 - 08/19/04 11:51 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Dear KSubbu,

Instead of giving pramANas for dvaita being illusory, you are now attempt to escape in a dignified manner by trying to gain some high moral ground? What's all this, dear KSubbu: "i am neither adwaithin nor dwaithin but human being"? Why do you think that I am not getting sleep because of this debate. If you have just seen the past of this forum alone, you would realize that we have had quite some debates with advaitins here. Though they too did not produce any pramANAs, unlike you they did not indulge in irrelevant gibberish all the time.

Let's come to the point that you are trying to make here:

Quote:

Lord said"o Arjuna you are nimittamatra.all these bhishma drOna ...already killed." what do you mean by this.you are seeing bhima,drOna etc ., already killed.this give a meaning that the visible is unreal.




If that (the visible living bhIShma is an illusion) is the case, why does He implore Arjuna to kill Bhishma and others (mayA hatAMstvaM jahi mA vyathiShThA yudhyasva jetAsi). In fact, the Lord _starts_ the verse asking Arjuna to kill them: tasmAttvamuttiShTha yasho labhasva jitvA shatrUn.h bhuN^.hxva rAjyaM samR^iddham.h.

So, dear KSubbu, if your interpretation is right it means the Lord is not only contradicting himself, but he is just misdirecting Arjuna.

To understand this part, let's look at the gItA itself:

amI cha tvA (tvAM) dhR^itarAshhTrasya putrAH sarve sahaivAvanipAlasaN^ghaiH
bhIshhmo droNaH sUtaputrastathA.asau sahAsmadIyairapi yodhamukhyaiH || 11.26

Here, Arjuna observes that Bhishma and others are entering the flames arising out of the Vishwarupa. This is a hint to understand the Lord's "mayaivaite nihatAH pUrvameva" (they are already killed by me). It means that He has already decided to kill them and for that event, Arjuna is the agent. Everything is real and happens on the Lord's decision (IshvAraj~nayA). In this case, He is informing Arjuna of His decision to ward off some doubts regarding invincibility of Drona (who is his teacher) and Bhishma, who has the powers to die when he wants to (From Prameya-dipika of Sri Jayatirtha).

It is not to say that whatever is visible is not real. otherwise, why will He go on to say that asuras think that this world is not real?

In addition, KSubbu, you asked about other activities of the Lord such as marriage, procreation etc. If you think there actually was some materialistic activity there, think again noting the pramANAs I mentioned yesterday (which were Sri Madhvacharya's Gitabhashya): abhaktAnAM vimohane.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59391 - 08/21/04 04:32 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
Dear Krishna, pls.ref gita 2-16.It is like this. "nAsatO vidyatE bhAvO nAbhAvO vidyatE sathaha" "ubhayOrapi drushtOntha stvanayO stathvadarsibhih" mening is well known to you.lord Krishna said.Arjuna you are giving importance to the asat-unreal jagat instead of the sat-being the atma. dear krishna there are two types of people.one} jnAnis two}ajnAnis.dwitham and adwaitham were due to sri Madhwacharya and sri Adi sankarAchArya.the differences between these groups are continuing .one group feels that lord vishnu is paramatma, and the other group as lord Siva.one thing is to be rememered.whether they think either way,the greatness of these will not change.if lord brahma is not there,there may not be any srushti.if vishnu is not there,there is no sthithi.layakaraka,shiva is not there,all will become immortal-which is not possible.these three are certainly sub ordinates to the parabrahman.if any one is thought to be parabrahman,then the meaning of trinity becomes nill.as you said in your earlier posts,the autority of the printed uppanishads is doubtful.Even in Gita also some intropulations might be there."Arjuna.. you are not a killer or the one is killed by you.bhIshma drOna ,etc warriors were burning in my garbha already dead"here the words of lord were somewhat contradicting one another.the meaning.no body is dead.he must be refering to Atma.he had not given importance to the asat body .regards
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59392 - 08/23/04 11:37 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Quote:

pls.ref gita 2-16.It is like this. "nAsatO vidyatE bhAvO nAbhAvO vidyatE sathaha" "ubhayOrapi drushtOntha stvanayO stathvadarsibhih" mening is well known to you. lord Krishna said.Arjuna you are giving importance to the asat-unreal jagat instead of the sat-being the atma.




Dear KSubbu, instead of always saying 'the meaning is well known to you', why don't you write the meaning of any verse that you quote? Are you afraid of doing incorrect translations?

Anyway, let's see what the verse says and what you have added in your infinite advaitic 'wisdom'.

na = not, asato = from asat (unreal), vidyate = is/comes about, bhAvaH = existence, na abhAvaH = neither is non-existence vidyate = is/comes about, sataH = from sat (real). The rule is simple: If something is non-existing, it cannot become existent. If something is existent, it cannot become non-existent.

Now, where on earth did you find justification to interpret this as "Arjuna you are giving importance to the asat-unreal jagat instead of the sat-being the atma". Where did Krishna say deha or jagat is unreal? KSubbu, you are forgetting this point: the Lord is very clear in saying asuras think that this world is unreal: asatyaM apratiShThaM te jagat AhuH. This line is not considered an interpolation by anybody, not even by Shankaracharya. If you think this line is an interpolation, give sufficient reasons and also why Shankara missed those reasons.

Quote:

the differences between these groups are continuing .one group feels that lord vishnu is paramatma, and the other group as lord Siva.



Dear KSubbu, Advaita does not say Shiva is supreme. It is Kashmir shaivism that says that.

About the utility of trinity being nill if Vishnu were to the Supreme, it is certainly the case that Vishnu can do both creation and destruction. That He indeed is responsible for all three is reverbated all through scripture. See Ishavasya Upanishad: If a person thinks that the Lord does only sambhUti (creation) and not asambhUti (destruction) he will end up in andhatamas. See the Mahabharata I quoted earlier: tau Adeshita panthAnau sR^iShTisamhArakArakau (Brahma and Rudra perform the acts of creation and destruction as instructed by Lord Narayana).

There is a simple collective word for all your following : tenacity in ignoring these pramANas, talk absolutely irrelevant stuff, repeat the same line till that line becomes a statement of fact, ignore logic -- advaitin.

My earlier posting mentioned why your interpretation of 'bhiShma, droNa being killed' is wrong. You obviously have no answer to it and hence resorted to repeat your lines.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59393 - 08/24/04 10:42 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
dear krishna,you hav been giving links on dwatham and quoting from the existing literature both in standard upanishads and gita.you asked many times to show pramAnAs.you had an illusory vision about me and my knowledge.Now i am giving the link.All those who vociferously talk that dwaitha is real can also see the link with all the pramAnAs.What i qouted as maha vakyas ,may be out of ignorance you rejected.i will repeat them.1]iamAtmA brahma{mundaka} 2}.tatwamasi{chAndOgya}3}.aham brahmOsmi{brahadAranyaka}. 4.}prajnAnam brahma{aiterEya}.all these will reveal that there only one that is brahma.in the link you see all the pramAnAs.ofcourse there is a correction.dwaitha appears to be real but not absolute reality or eternal.the link:www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad-phil.html.with the little knowledge of the links,upanishads ,sastras one should not come down to the level of seeing other's views on any subject as comics and etc.this clearly gives how ignorant is the person who passes the comment.a pandit is the one who sees equlity in all.your knowledge becomes waste if such comments are passed.atman is common to all .avidya is common.even devatas also had the experience of avidyA.they ran to lord vishnu for protection.sages with all perfection,pray lord for protection.i pray lord narayana to shower blessings .you have good knowlege.try to realise the one whom the upanishads praise .regards,
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59394 - 08/24/04 04:06 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
grames Offline
helper
**

Registered: 01/31/02
Posts: 562
Loc: Florida, USA
Hi Subbu.,

It will be nice and better if u scroll up and read what you wrote from the beginging and then compare yourself with the message you just wrote. Don't you think what you advertised so far is also aganist so many people opinion? Importantly, it is not about just someone's opinion but more about what can be true and real. I understand your love of Advaita though you deny it and politically say things like "Pandit" see everything equal blah blah. You indirectly deny all the points, references made from Veda and Upanishad's as illusions with out proper explanations and you are still considering bringing few statements from advaitic websites will prove your first accuse of "dwaitha being an illusion" but it will not. You believe that there is only one to be true and real and so why or what stops you from refuting such dwaitic view points? How about bringing such arguments rather than assuming the other loosing their sleep etc etc.

Also one point i noticed is, you are not advaitin and definitly so many of your statements reflect your confused understanding of Advaita itself. One such is the example you put in the above post...

Quote:

avidya is common.even devatas also had the experience of avidyA.they ran to lord vishnu for protection.




so you obiviously agree that there is someone higher, supreme to *protect* you and it is not just the "Self" which can give you protection or get you out of the so called "Illusion".


Cheer up
_________________________
Hare Krshna!

Top
#59395 - 08/24/04 11:45 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Quote:

you asked many times to show pramAnAs.you had an illusory vision about me and my knowledge.Now i am giving the link.



Thunder, Thunder, clap, clap.

Quote:

What i qouted as maha vakyas ,may be out of ignorance you rejected.



Dear KSubbu garu, I have mentioned why these vAkyAs or phrases have nothing to say about dvaita being illusory.

Quote:

i will repeat them.1]iamAtmA brahma{mundaka} 2}.tatwamasi{chAndOgya}3}.aham brahmOsmi{brahadAranyaka}. 4.}prajnAnam brahma{aiterEya}. all these will reveal that there only one that is brahma.



there is only one Brahman -- dvaita also says that. However, you were trying to prove that there is nothing else. or everything else is illusory. None of the above shrutivAkyAs say that.
That said, a suggestion would be use to a uniform transliteration scheme when you are quoting Sanskrit works.
A couple of mistakes in your 'mahavaakyaas':

ayaM AtmA brahma is from mANDUkya Upanishad and not muNDaka Upanishad. Regarding the flaws in advaitic interpretation of this shruti vAkya, see the first post in
http://www.hindunet.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=4757&page=2&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=32&vc=1 (search for mANDUkya Upanishad)

It is ahaM brahmAsmi and not ahaM brahmosmi. The general interpretation is 'I am Brahman'; apparently showing identity between the jIva and the Brahman. The logical/grammatical flaws in general interpretation of the shruti are:

The speaker is Brahman in the first place. Ofcourse later, Vamadeva Rishi says that, but he says he is identical to many others like Surya, who are said to be afraid of Brahman (RgVeda). That itself should be a clue to abstain from following the straightforward meaning.

This Brahman cannot be the Nirguna Brahman of Advaita. Knowledge, even Self-awareness, is not possible with pure thoughtless nirvisesa consciousness, for, that will bring in the duality of the thought and the thinker.

This interpretation is grammatically incorrect. The meaning of the sentence is, "Brahman knew of itself as -- I am Brahman". (It should have been 'Brahman knew of itself as 'Brahman') This is the problem with taking 'aham' and 'asmi' with the conventional meanings.

Moreover, it does not answer the problem raised in the preceding brAhmaNa: did Brahman also become Brahman by obtaining brahmavidyA?

The Chandogya Upanishad statement is 'sa AtmA.atattvamasi'. All nine illustrations given in the Upanishads prove bheda between Brahman and jiva. See http://www.hindunet.org/alt_hindu/1994/msg00941.html.

praj~nAnaM brahma is only a part of a bigger sentence in Aitareya Upanishad: yachcha sthAvaraM sarvaM tatpraGYAnetraM praGYAne pratiShThitaM praGYAnetro lokaH praGYA pratiShThA praGYAnaM brahma. That it means that this entire world that is different from pragyAna is established and supported by Prajnana, who is brahma. If this world is illusory, why will it be 'established' and 'supported' by Brahman? Now, who in their right senses will say that the illusory snake is established and supported by the rope?

So, the pramANas you quote for advaita are not pramANAs but flawed interpretation of shruti. So, get me better ones.

Quote:

i pray lord narayana to shower blessings .you have good knowlege.try to realise the one whom the upanishads praise




Thanks,
Krishna

Top
#59396 - 08/31/04 06:30 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
'AsathOmA satgamayA TamasomA jyOthirgamayA MrutyOrmA amrutangamayA ' .Lead us from the asat to sat.. what is asat and what is sat? we know that god is sat chitanand swarUpa. that is god is sat. Thinking that we{bodies} are permanent and not thinking that we are tatvamasi is asat. Lead us from darkness to light. keeping our mind constantly on material objects and thereby not going for realisation of self-paramAtma is darkness. Lead us from the death to eternal .whatever is the philosophy,final objective is only attainment of mukthi or mOksha. or self realisation .Those who got the biss of lord,were as stars twinkiling in the sky LIKE dHRUVA.Advathins show some pramAnAs (Sri Adi Sankara's writings and upaishads} and dvaithins also show some{Sri Madhwa cahrya's writings and upanishads}.The path is different but thay lead to the same destination-the paramatma. This is what I humbly feel. namaste .
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59397 - 08/31/04 07:10 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
Abhay Kulkarni Offline
seeker
**

Registered: 04/16/04
Posts: 92
Quote:

'AsathOmA satgamayA TamasomA jyOthirgamayA MrutyOrmA amrutangamayA ' .Lead us from the asat to sat.. what is asat and what is sat? we know that god is sat chitanand swarUpa. that is god is sat. Thinking that we{bodies} are permanent and not thinking that we are tatvamasi is asat. Lead us from darkness to light. keeping our mind constantly on material objects and thereby not going for realisation of self-paramAtma is darkness.





I dont understand why Advitan misinterpret things??.. It is very much true that we got to become "SAT"
( PS wat SAT means - the definations .. Does SAT solely means GOD???? ).. We will achive this SAT by gaining
"Yethartha Gnana and not Ayethartha Gnana".. I will just give you one scnerio tell me how do you solve this..

Scnerio is something like this..

There are 2 cows which are fighting for some food lying on earth and lets assume that food is so much that it can only
save one of the 2 cows which are terribly hungry for days.. A man sees these cows fighting for food.. Now he has 2 options

1) To bring some extra food from his house or so and feed both so that he saves both..
2) He may let one cow have the food and other die..

Which one will you choose and why?? ( PS based on your answer i want to bring you this analogy in respect to understanding
Vedas/Upanishads )..

Quote:

Lead us from the death to eternal .whatever is the philosophy,final objective is only attainment of mukthi or mOksha. or self realisation .Those who got the biss of lord,were as stars twinkiling in the sky LIKE dHRUVA.Advathins show some pramAnAs (Sri Adi Sankara's writings and upaishads} and dvaithins also show some{Sri Madhwa cahrya's writings and upanishads}.The path is different but thay lead to the same destination-the paramatma. This is what I humbly feel. namaste .




Self realisation the word itself give you the meaning of the existance of World ( Realism ) & the existance of Jivas
( By grace of Hari ) & the existance of Parabrahma..

So how can one attain self realisation by thinking HE himself is GOD????..

PS i have stressed above also only Yetharatha Gnana will give to Mukti and Ayethartha the ultiumate HELL..

Please also see the post http://www.hindunet.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=dwaita&Number=42826&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=5

Abhay.


Top
#59398 - 08/31/04 08:02 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: Abhay Kulkarni]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
yad bhAvO tatbhavti.you have taken literal meaning in what i quoted.a sanskrit word will have several meanings.what ever you take as per conext will hold good.hari- has in addition to the other meanings,is also known as" pig".everyone will feel dwaitha as long as the realisation comes or bliss of Hari.once that is there you donot find the universe except lord.you are not seeing hari in all.but are only saying.pls.feel it.then you will have no words.regards,
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59399 - 08/31/04 12:24 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
Abhay Kulkarni Offline
seeker
**

Registered: 04/16/04
Posts: 92
Quote:

yad bhAvO tatbhavti.you have taken literal meaning in what i quoted.a sanskrit word will have several meanings.what ever you take as per conext will hold good.hari- has in addition to the other meanings,is also known as" pig".everyone will feel dwaitha as long as the realisation comes or bliss of Hari.once that is there you donot find the universe except lord.you are not seeing hari in all.but are only saying.pls.feel it.then you will have no words.regards,




The ones who have attainted self realization say differently than what you say.. why dont you believe to ones who have attainted self realization and also is said by Parabrahma himself about these persons..

Abhay.

Top
#59400 - 09/02/04 11:30 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
Sri Aadi SankarAchArya ,an avatar of lord siva had the vision of lord siva in the form of chandala as per the story ."whom do you want to be away from you?is it this panchabhUtatmic body or the ever perwading atma?"After listening to these words from lord siva in the form of chandala,sri sankara realised the brahman..hence he became the founder of the advatha philosophy.sri Madhwacharya once went to badarikashrama to have the darshan of lord badarinarayana.There in one night while he was in meditation,heard the wonderful musical and attractive sounds of the flute of lord krishna.Witout intimating to any of his disciples he went to the place with full of devotion and tears coming out of his eyes wept for the darshan of lord. Then he saw lord krishna.BOTH ARE REALLY GREAT.But the followers have to realise the ultimate.
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59401 - 09/04/04 08:00 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
Abhay Kulkarni Offline
seeker
**

Registered: 04/16/04
Posts: 92
Quote:

Sri Aadi SankarAchArya ,an avatar of lord siva had the vision of lord siva in the form of chandala as per the story ."whom do you want to be away from you?is it this panchabhUtatmic body or the ever perwading atma?"After listening to these words from lord siva in the form of chandala,sri sankara realised the brahman..hence he became the founder of the advatha philosophy.




Well you really have no idea who is Shankaracharaya.. Please refer my post and link of it is

http://www.hindunet.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=43318&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

Quote:

sri Madhwacharya once went to badarikashrama to have the darshan of lord badarinarayana.There in one night while he was in meditation,heard the wonderful musical and attractive sounds of the flute of lord krishna.Witout intimating to any of his disciples he went to the place with full of devotion and tears coming out of his eyes wept for the darshan of lord. Then he saw lord krishna.




Looks like you have "Gnana meant for dyaitya mohan" about MadhvaAcharaya.. Please read in detail about his life history..

Quote:

BOTH ARE REALLY GREAT.But the followers have to realise the ultimate.




Only one can be true not both because they have entirely opposite stands in any respect..

If you think Adviata is ultimate to you may bound for ultimate hell..

If you think Dvaiat is ultimate then you may be bound to ultimate mukti..

Abhay.

Top
#59402 - 09/04/04 12:37 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: Abhay Kulkarni]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
thank you for your comments.Then do you know what is moksha?Then had Arjuna after having seen the viswarUpa of lord Krishna attained moksha?According to legend ,he was born as kannappa who adored lord shiva in Sri kalhasti.pls. go through the story of Bhaktha kannappa.i donot understand why the so called dwaithins developed hatred towards lord shiva,the karaka for laya.pls. go through the life history of adi shanakara.By simply writing"you donot know about sankaracahrya does not solve the problem.Madhvacharya was not only acharya for a sect..have a broad mind.i have given positive views.you are having negative understanding.dwaitham or adwaitham is not necessary for real bhaktas.what every one needs is only devotion and faith.One will be at loss when he hates any thing which is brahmaswarUpa.you shuld not have uttered ultimate hell.I have little jnaana.I came to know through some great jnaanis from north about sri madvacharaya. The approach is different but the goal is same THOUGH THE PHILOSOPHIES ARE DIFERENT.
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59403 - 09/07/04 01:40 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
Abhay Kulkarni Offline
seeker
**

Registered: 04/16/04
Posts: 92
Quote:

Then do you know what is moksha?Then had Arjuna after having seen the viswarUpa of lord Krishna attained moksha?




Well this is why i said u really dont know much knowledge about Dvita.. Arjuna is Indra himself and he has got Moksha,
rather i would say became Aproksha Gnani, before 20 Brahma Kalpas.. And will go to Vaikunta after the end of the
present Brahma Kalpa..

Quote:

i donot understand why the so called dwaithins developed hatred towards lord shiva,the karaka for laya.




I have no idea who (Dviatan) said you we hate Shiva.. Infact we ask Shiva every moment to get us the Gnana/Bhaki in Hari..

Did you know Shiva is param vaishava (and adherent follower of his guru Vayu) ??

Quote:

pls. go through the life history of adi shanakara.By simply writing"you donot know about sankaracahrya does not solve the problem.




When puranas quote shankara as a Dyaitya & has come in kaliyug as deluder.. then why respect such ppl..

Quote:

Madhvacharya was not only acharya for a sect..have a broad mind.i have given positive views.




Good for you..

Quote:

you are having negative understanding.dwaitham or adwaitham is not necessary for real bhaktas.what every one needs is only devotion and faith.




This is wat Ayathartha Ganana will lead us to.. we start accepting everything thas said by anyone is correct
& indeed forget wat GOD has to say.. and start assuming "AHAM BRAHMASMI"..

Quote:

One will be at loss when he hates any thing which is brahmaswarUpa.




Am not hating anyone personally but if any one does things with ILL motive then we need to hate that ILL motive..

Dont you hate Terrorist (Rather Terrorist act) who kill innocents for no reasons????????

Quote:

you shuld not have uttered ultimate hell.I have little jnaana.I came to know through some great jnaanis from north about sri madvacharaya. The approach is different but the goal is same THOUGH THE PHILOSOPHIES ARE DIFERENT.





You should read about TATVASANKYANAM written by MadhvaAcharaya then you will know..

Abhay.


Top
#59404 - 09/08/04 09:15 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: Abhay Kulkarni]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
regarding Arjuna is indra himself.i od hope thet you are not well aquainted with maha baharat.Arjuna was born to kunti for the boon of indra.so he is indra'S son.how do you say that Arjuna will go to vikunta after 20 brahma kalpas?are you predicting? inspite of Arjuna having heard all the sacred teachings of lord Krishna,he could not come out of the reality that his son Abhimanyu was killed in a most deceiving way in padmavyUha.This is what advithins called as MAya.Lord Krishna with all the wisdom in the entire universe just acted his role--leela.this was not even known to Arjuna or even brahma and indra due to the mAya of lordkrishna.the other way is also true.lord vishnu is parama saiva.vayu is one of the pancha bhUtas while siva is bhUtha nayaka
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59405 - 09/08/04 01:09 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
Abhay Kulkarni Offline
seeker
**

Registered: 04/16/04
Posts: 92
All i can say is you really dont have much knowledge in Dvaita.. First explore it and then comment..

Abhay.

Top
#59406 - 09/09/04 09:27 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306

Quote:

Then had Arjuna after having seen the viswarUpa of lord Krishna attained moksha?



No. But this question is irrelevant. Establish some relevance to this question and the stuff about Shankara's svaruupa.

Quote:

i donot understand why the so called dwaithins developed hatred towards lord shiva,the karaka for laya.



Rubbish. Dvaitins have all respect for Shiva. In fact, it is them who understands Lord Shiva, the mano-abhimAni devatA, the deity who blesses the devotees by nullifying the defects of mind, the one who teaches control over the ariShadvargas, the one who teaches the rAma-tAraka-mantra to the eligible sAdhakas, the guru of Uma who herself is the teacher of Indra and other devatas (Kena Upanishad). But they don't say He is the Supreme Being because the scriptures say that He is not Brahman and much lesser to mukhyaprANa (same category as Brahma) and viShNu. See the following pramANAs.

paramo vishhNurevaikastajj~nAnaM moxasAdhanam.h |
shAstrANAM nirNayastveshha tadanyanmohanAya hi || 1.53||

j~nAnaM vinA tu yA muktiH sAmyaM cha mama vishhNunA |
tIrthA.adimAtrato j~nAnaM mamA.adhikyaM cha vishhNutaH || 1.54||

abhedashchAsmadAdInAM muktAnAM hariNA tathA |
ityAdi sarvaM mohAya kathyate sati nAnyathA\rdq || 1.55||

(padma purana 6.71.114-116)

This is a statement made by Lord Shiva himself. He very clearly says how can there be any identity between that Supreme Vishnu and people like us? Even if such an identity is propounded anywhere, it is surely meant for delusioin only.

Quote:

pls. go through the life history of adi shanakara.




Tell us, dear KSubbu, which shankaravijaya do you want us to refer? do you know how many shankara vijayas are available? Also, how do you expect us to believe any of them because the earliest of them was written centuries after Shankara was born?

Quote:

I came to know through some great jnaanis from north about sri madvacharaya. The approach is different but the goal is same THOUGH THE PHILOSOPHIES ARE DIFERENT.




pls refer to my post on the 'Upanishads' forum. All routes cannot have same goal. Some have andhatamas as their goal. Some others have vaikuNTha as their goal.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59407 - 09/09/04 12:09 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
Abhay Kulkarni Offline
seeker
**

Registered: 04/16/04
Posts: 92
Quote:


Quote:

Then had Arjuna after having seen the viswarUpa of lord Krishna attained moksha?



No.




If the answer to that Q was NO is wat you literally mean then i am afraid in wat sense did u mean that.. Coz Arjuna is blessed with
Aparoksha Gnana before 20 Brahma Kalpa itself..

Quote:

Quote:

i donot understand why the so called dwaithins developed hatred towards lord shiva,the karaka for laya.



Rubbish. Dvaitins have all respect for Shiva. In fact, it is them who understands Lord Shiva, the mano-abhimAni devatA, the deity who blesses the devotees by nullifying the defects of mind, the one who teaches control over the ariShadvargas, the one who teaches the rAma-tAraka-mantra to the eligible sAdhakas, the guru of Uma who herself is the teacher of Indra and other devatas (Kena Upanishad). But they don't say He is the Supreme Being because the scriptures say that He is not Brahman and much lesser to mukhyaprANa (same category as Brahma) and viShNu. See the following pramANAs.

paramo vishhNurevaikastajj~nAnaM moxasAdhanam.h |
shAstrANAM nirNayastveshha tadanyanmohanAya hi || 1.53||

j~nAnaM vinA tu yA muktiH sAmyaM cha mama vishhNunA |
tIrthA.adimAtrato j~nAnaM mamA.adhikyaM cha vishhNutaH || 1.54||

abhedashchAsmadAdInAM muktAnAM hariNA tathA |
ityAdi sarvaM mohAya kathyate sati nAnyathA\rdq || 1.55||

(padma purana 6.71.114-116)

This is a statement made by Lord Shiva himself. He very clearly says how can there be any identity between that Supreme Vishnu and people like us? Even if such an identity is propounded anywhere, it is surely meant for delusioin only.





Very well said.. but these Adviatans dont consider any other stuffs in Veda/Upanishads apart from those Pancha Maha Vakyaz..


Quote:

Quote:

pls. go through the life history of adi shanakara.




Tell us, dear KSubbu, which shankaravijaya do you want us to refer? do you know how many shankara vijayas are available? Also, how do you expect us to believe any of them because the earliest of them was written centuries after Shankara was born?

Quote:

I came to know through some great jnaanis from north about sri madvacharaya. The approach is different but the goal is same THOUGH THE PHILOSOPHIES ARE DIFERENT.




pls refer to my post on the 'Upanishads' forum. All routes cannot have same goal. Some have andhatamas as their goal. Some others have vaikuNTha as their goal.

Regards,
Krishna




Just to add, some dont fall in either of the categories ( andhatamas & vaikuNTha ) & they are bound for the KalaChakara..

Abhay.

Top
#59408 - 09/10/04 03:49 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: Abhay Kulkarni]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Quote:

Coz Arjuna is blessed with Aparoksha Gnana before 20 Brahma Kalpa itself..




Aparoksha jnana is not same as mokSha. It only guarantees mokSha.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59409 - 09/10/04 01:54 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
Abhay Kulkarni Offline
seeker
**

Registered: 04/16/04
Posts: 92
Quote:

Quote:

Coz Arjuna is blessed with Aparoksha Gnana before 20 Brahma Kalpa itself..




Aparoksha jnana is not same as mokSha. It only guarantees mokSha.

Regards,
Krishna




Well it cannot be applied to Tatva Abhimani Devatas .. Because they will have as many Brahma Kalpa sadhana as Aparoksha Bhoga.. So the Aparoksha Bhoga is nearly same as Moksha or you can say equal to Moksha itself..

Aint it??

Abhay.

Top
#59410 - 09/11/04 04:50 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
dear krishna, i am now giving dasama khanda in darshanaOpanishad.In this sri Dattatreya answers humble questions form his disciple sage SAnkruti."AdhAtha ssammprvakshyAmi samAdhim bhvanAshanam,samAdhi ssamvidutpatthihi par jIvaiktamprathi,nityassarvagathO hyAtmA KUtashO dosha varjithaha,EAkassanbhidyatE bhrAmtyA MaYayA naswarUpathaha,tasmAdadvaithamE vAstina prapanchO na sanskruthihi,yadAkAshoghatAkAshO matthAkAsha itIritaha. nAham dEhO nacha prAnO nEndriyAni manOnahi,sadA sAkshi swarUpatwAchiva EvAsmi kEvalaha. the main meaning of this is that only advaitham and no prapamacham--viswam.he has given examples to substantiate his answer.further it was given that i am not a body,,prana,sensory organs,not mind,i am sAkshi rUpa ,hence shiva"thus whoever thinks ,is samadhi.this is one i am quoting as pramana that dwaitam is bhranti.still there are many pramanas.i will give one by one.regards,
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59411 - 09/13/04 05:58 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Quote:

dear krishna, i am now giving dasama khanda in
darshanaOpanishad.




Dear Ksubbu, till you keep quoting comic books and not upanishads considered authentic by all traditions, nobody with some idea of prAmANya will give you attention; just like nobody wastes time on a madman's proof of his own sanity.

I have already given you a list of upanishads in earlier posts.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59412 - 09/13/04 06:42 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: Abhay Kulkarni]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Quote:

Well it cannot be applied to Tatva Abhimani Devatas .. Because they will have as many Brahma Kalpa sadhana as Aparoksha Bhoga.. So the Aparoksha Bhoga is nearly same as Moksha or you can say equal to Moksha itself..




No, even tattva-abhimAni-devataas need to undergo the praarabdha karma before mokSha. Even if they have many kalpa-saadhanas unlike manuShya-gaNa, they are not same as muktaas. They too undergo laya like other muktiyogyas and take either of garuDa or sheShamArga before they collect near chaturmukha brahma. Collectively, they all undergo virajaa-nadi snaana before they get mokSha. The phala-adhyaaya of Brahmasuutras gives more details.

'aparoxa-jnaana' is not even 'nearly same as mokSha'. As mentioned above, they have to undergo the effects of praarabdha karma. Moreover, there are times where there is aparoxa-jnaana-tirodhana, when the Lord pulls the aparoxa-jnaana momentarily. It is then that you have incidents like the one mentioned in Kena upanishat (where Indra and other gods forgot that Vishnu is the source of their powers), or in the gItA itself (Mark Arjuna's own words at the end of gItA: naShTo mohaH smR^itirlabdhvaa. Having overcome the delusion and regained my senses, I shall now act upon your words). A mukta has no such incidents. A mukta is governed by the turIya form of the Lord, who does not give him any false knowledge at any point of time. An aparoxa-jnAni, like any other baddha, is governed by the vishva, taijasa and prajnA forms of the Lord. turIya rUpi vAsudeva acts only in mokSha.

Also, an aparoxa-jnAni is still subject to vidhi (injunctions) and niShedha (prohibitions) mentioned in the veda. Non-adherence to either would result in aananda-vriddhi or hraasa. He has some freedom, however, as mentioned in kAmAchArAdhikaraNa of the brahmasUtras. You might also read Srimad AchArya's bhAShya on Gita 3.17 where it is said that only a person in asampraj~nAtasamAdhi is not subject to the obligatory rituals like sandhyAvandana. A mukta has no karma to perform. He has no obligations whatsoever.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59413 - 09/13/04 01:33 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
Dear krishna,what a lovely person you are.any how your commitment and attachment to the dwaitha bhranti can be well understood from your replies.you donot believe dattatreya,incrnation of brhma ,vishnu and siva.,son of atri and anasuya.the trinity simply got child forms due to the pativrata shakthi of anasuya.when i quoted the upanishad,you call it as comics.how mad you are to think other's postings are simply comics.only sri madhwacharya can save you.the delusion of dwaitha is 100% in your thoughts.i have given the reply of sri Dattatreya to his disciple.you have a thought in you that the upanishads which gave against dwaitha are to be ignored.you are not an authority to dispense any upanishad of your choice.Dattatreya was great brahma jnAni and gave about the adwitham.regards,
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59414 - 09/13/04 05:08 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Dear KSubbu,

Your commitment to nonsense is so much that you read me wrong all the time. I don't doubt Sri Dattatreya's words. What I am doubting is that whatever comic book you have quoted are Dattatreya's words. Well, I am not surprised that you cannot understand simple logic. I can also write a book, name it 'dattaatreya-upadishta-tattvopanishat' and quote it here. Believe me, there are so many phonies out there that it is very easy to create an Upanishad.

Moreover, Sri Dattatreya is purely an avatara of Vishnu. He is NOT B, V and S put together. The Bhagavata Purana clarifies that Atri and Anusuya begot three sons from the trinity: (some sage whose name I forgot; from Brahma), Dattatreya from Vishnu and Durvaasa from Rudra. Get your facts right, sir. But for that you will have to stop reading tattva from comic books.

Regarding dvaita-bhraanti, I have none other than the Supreme Being Krishna say that people who consider this world as illusory and unreal are demons. Clear words accepted by all including Shankara.

You put only one true statement in the whole gibberish. Only Sri Madhvacharya can save me. Ofcourse, your notion of saving is different, but the point is only he can save me even in my notion of 'saving'. The Chandogya, brihadaaranyaka and Aiteraya Upanishads talk of only Mukhyaprana being in a position to ward off asura-avesha.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59415 - 09/14/04 01:13 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
Krishnarpanam.fantastic.dear krishna.how great is the ego.you have not seen me nor I saw you.Through discussion we are trying to have dialogue on dwaitha is illusion.pls. see how much is the power of illusion.this illusion is responsible for fighting among brothers, sisters, father and mother ,friends and follwers of the philosophies. By saying nonsense you won’t get any thing nor by retorting ,I won’t get any thing. This is all the drama. You are acting the role of condemning and i…. ‘YathA nadyAh syAndamANah samudrEstam gacchanti nAmarUpe vihAya tathA vidvAn nAmarUpAtu vimukthah, parAtparam purushamupaithi divyam’ this is 8 th mantra from truteeya muNdakE dwithIya khaNdah ,muNdakOpanishad.. As flowing rivers get themselves disappeared in the ocean losing their special names and distinct forms,so the wise man free from all his identifications with names and forms goes unto the the highest of high-the supreme divinity-the ultimate paramatma.this is the meaning of the mantra.now,it is because of only chtta bhrama the whole karma is done.this jagat is simply the kalpitham of ignorant mind-manas.so the names.what i understand is that once we remove the names---,all will be away form relative reality of the jagat.As you have pointed out,the upanishad quoted in my earlier post is not comic book.it is from atharvana veda--.the story of SRI Dattatreya is real and in circulation in india.the story you had about might be from dwaitha comics. regards,
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59416 - 09/14/04 01:41 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
Abhay Kulkarni Offline
seeker
**

Registered: 04/16/04
Posts: 92
Quote:

Krishnarpanam.fantastic.dear krishna.how great is the ego.you have not seen me nor I saw you.Through discussion we are trying to have dialogue on dwaitha is illusion.pls. see how much is the power of illusion.this illusion is responsible for fighting among brothers, sisters, father and mother ,friends and follwers of the philosophies. By saying nonsense you won’t get any thing nor by retorting ,I won’t get any thing. This is all the drama.




Ok let me continue if this world were illusion..

1) Why will you have food just discontinue having it Coz its meaning less..
2) Why will you go to doctor in case of any diseases coz any ways the disease itself does not exist rite??..
3) Why dont you go and kill some thoushands of people coz any ways its illusion rite??
4) Why dont you have hot melting iron as your food instead??
5) Why cant you show some miracles to happen as GOD does ( Coz u state PARAMATMAN = ATMAN )??


If i go on listing it would never end.. And now you say " I am telling this because of CONFUSION ( Agnana ) " rite

But according your defination even Agnana or Confusion = Paramatma rite??
So why on earth we cannot realise that we are Parattman himself???

This is all just a "HESHA PASHANDA VADA".. please if you dont beleive Dviata dont post in this forum..

Let we Dvaitians think as we want to.. Please go off from this forum ( Any ways u have Adviata Forum rite?? )

Abhay.


Top
#59417 - 09/14/04 03:04 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
grames Offline
helper
**

Registered: 01/31/02
Posts: 562
Loc: Florida, USA
Hi Subbu.,

Quote:

Through discussion we are trying to have dialogue on dwaitha is illusion.pls. see how much is the power of illusion.this illusion is responsible for fighting among brothers, sisters, father and mother ,friends and follwers of the philosophies




You are tripping the whole world but not giving any arguments to explain "WHY DWAITHA IS ILLUSION"? I think i am intrupting for the third time and i know it is nuisance. Look at your words...why you are worried about fight amoung sisters, brother and father mother etc etc when these relationships are illusion itself? What about all these fights being illusion? But does that make "Dwaitha illusion"? If you sit and take a deep breath and get out of your EGO and ( if possilbe get out of the advaitic faith for a bit ) and analyse.... "why am i making such statements?". I seem to worry about the relationship that 'exist' between my soul and the soul that took birth along with me and the souls that live around me. Do they 'exist' or this 'existance' itself is Maya? If my existance is Maya, how i will ever realize the other souls and their existance.? Are they are illusion too or effect of illusion? Or can they be real? If they are not real and if everything is illusion how do i ever know their presence? What kind of Yoga or knowledge will reveal my connection to other soul? Who is controlling all these aspects of thoughts and karma and who is cause of these cause? Nothing can happen with out a controller and i am witnessing there are so many things happening around me. I am eating as i feel hunger and i lift food with my hand and chew it and swallow it. I am controlling my eating process. So, who is controlling the soul inside me? Soul control itself? Or some super conciouss exist and that control everyone else?

The problem comes only when we need to agree on something we can not think of or experience by ourselves. For those that we can not experience, we need scriptual references. For everything else, we are the Master ( just kidding )... yeah we have chance to experience everything by ourselves. Body anti-body concept is not approved or authenticated by advaita and the differentiation of material existance from spiritual existance is easy to understand if you think there exist a difference. (Advaita stop u from thinking that there is no difference and body and anti-body are same and one). If you deny your experience as FALSE or ILLUSION i think you are always at the feet of ignorance. Expanding this personal experience to things that we can not experience is the highest progress in the spiritual journey and we need the blessing of some Supreme revelear for this to happen. Lets see if you like to choose this method of explaining why "Dwaitha is illusion".

Also remember, you are the accuser here and you need to give lot of information to prove it rather than putting some emotional, political and sentimental stuff. Most of your posts so far are from advaitic faith or some texts which specifically glorify advaitic view point out of context. It is not bad to agree to few statement but taking those few statements as ultimate truth is useless. That is flaw of Advaita and if the same four stements can be explained along with all other consistently with out problem, then i believe you shouldn't have any problem accepting the different explanation.If you are free from EGO ( impossilbe...so i should say, if u have less of ego ) please do not hesitate to accept the outcome of the discussion. Thanks.
_________________________
Hare Krshna!

Top
#59418 - 09/15/04 01:14 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: grames]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
thank u grames, i shall now give two incidents in srimadbhagavatam.it is left to you if there is dwaitham.lord krishna at a tender age shown the entire viswam in his mouth.is it a magic?no.is it dlusion that entire universe is in small mouth of lord?no .lord never shown any illusory things.let us now think that viswam is real.2.lord krishna shown in his garbha the kaurava's plight.also shown viswa rupa to arjuna.every one has belief in lord krishna as paramatama.now where are we?is it in viswam ?or in lord krishna's{paramatma's} garbha?which is true?for ignorant ,it is viswam.but for jnanis,it is in paramatma we live.you all believe that what ever you see is lord krishna.krishna in all.is it only for argument sake or really true.when it is true,where is jagat?jagat has no existance when god is completely filled in atom to brahmanda.this is what lord krishna said.because of dwanda maya..we are losing the track of paramatma and going for diversity--this illusion is power of lord..grames you have not seen my quotation from mundakOpanishad.we are part of paramatma.thimk this way.think of aham brahmaosmi.,think that you are lord krishna.or lord krishna in you and in every one..regards,
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59419 - 09/15/04 01:50 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Quote:

This is all the drama.




Dear KSubbu, you sure are funny. You haven't proven that dvaita is an illusion, agree that we are having a discussion on whether it is an illusion or not, yet you ask me to see the power of illusion and follow that up with some sentimental gibberish. Can you pls stick to the point here?

Now, coming to this quote from atharvaNopaniShat (the name of muNDaka Upanishat, as mentioned in the nAradIya purANa), before we get to specifics, let me first appreciate the fact that you seemed to have realized, atleast partially, that you need to quote texts that are acceptable to all traditions. That is progress, however slow it may be.

Quote:

‘YathA nadyAh syAndamANah samudrEstam gacchanti nAmarUpe vihAya tathA vidvAn nAmarUpAtu vimukthah, parAtparam purushamupaithi divyam’ this is 8 th mantra from truteeya muNdakE dwithIya khaNdah ,muNdakOpanishad.. As flowing rivers get themselves disappeared in the ocean losing their special names and distinct forms,so the wise man free from all his identifications with names and forms goes unto the the highest of high-the supreme divinity-the ultimate paramatma.this is the meaning of the mantra.now,it is because of only chtta bhrama




The above shruti says that a knowledgeable person, having become free of nAma and rUpa (name and form), obtains the resplendent Supreme Being, who is Higher to the Highest.

Now, our dear KSubbu says that this shruti is also saying that nAma and rUpa are false. On the other hand, as we can see, the shruti simply says that a mukta does not have the nAma and rUpa that is associated with this jagat. When did jagat become false because of that? It simply means that a mukta-sthAna is different from amukta-sthAna and one sheds the name and form associated with the amukta-sthAna while moving to become a mukta. Now, where did the shruti say that this jagat is false?

Quote:

once we remove the names---,all will be away form relative reality of the jagat.



Now, where does the shruti talk of relative reality? What the heck does that term mean? Advaitins have come up with this fanciful story of 'sattA-traividhya' (three types of reality) -- praatibhAsika, vyavahArika and paramArthika. Whatever that means, it has no scriptural authority.

Quote:

As you have pointed out,the upanishad quoted in my earlier post is not comic book.it is from atharvana veda--.the story of SRI Dattatreya is real and in circulation in india.the story you had about might be from dwaitha comics.




This is the funniest part in your mail: This story is _ in circulation in India _ ? How did you actually know this, dear KSubbu? did you do a survey? Also, even assuming that people widely believe in your theory, what makes you think people cannot have wrong notions? People in India hardly get to the core and learn the pramANAs; people have heard these stories from some others who have heard from some others; either that OR from comic books like Amar Chitra Katha, Tinkle, Chandamaama and TV Serials like Mahabharata and Ramayana. Most of the stories in vogue are either made up or can be traced to Agamas. That Dattatreya is purely an avatara of Vishnu is known from bhAgavata (multiple places; esp check the skandha where the story of kArtavIryArjuna is given) and from garuDa purANa (brahma kANDa). Before you name these as dvaitic comics, you should know that an advaitin, respected one at that, shrI shrIdhara svAmin has commented on the bhAgavata. Check out his commentary on bhAgavata 1.3.11. Since these purANas are sAttvika purANas, they overrule the information in taamasic purANAs.

--

Another point on the 'yathA nadyaH syandamAnAH' verse, it might be asked: Where is it said that a mukta (a liberated soul) will have some form at all. For that, see Chandogya Upanishad's: paraM jyoti rUpasampadya sveNa rUpeNa abhiniShpadyate (the liberated soul, having reached the Supreme Being, attains His own form. Also, the taittarIya Upanishad: kAmAnni kAmarUpa anusancharan.h: the liberated soul moves about taking whatever form He likes.

The mANDUkya Upanishad very clearly rules out the creation being a dream or magic. See the verse: svapnamAyAsarUpeti sR^iShTiH anyaiH vikalpitA. The Rigveda says: vishvaM satyaM maghavAnA (where Indra is told that the world is real). The Ishavaasya Upanishad says that the Lord observes this world as real (while a magician cannot watch his own magical creations).

Despite all this, KSubbu keeps singing the same song: dvaita is bhranti, this jagat is illusory. Unfortunately for him, bhagavAn Krishna has assessed such activity as belonging to asuras (demons): asatyaM apratiShThaM te jagat AhuH.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59420 - 09/15/04 02:18 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306

Quote:

lord krishna at a tender age shown the entire viswam in his mouth.is it a magic?no.is it dlusion that entire universe is in small mouth of lord?no .lord never shown any illusory things.let us now think that viswam is real.2.lord krishna shown in his garbha the kaurava's plight.also shown viswa rupa to arjuna.every one has belief in lord krishna as paramatama.now where are we?is it in viswam ?or in lord krishna's{paramatma's} garbha?which is true?for ignorant ,it is viswam.but for jnanis,it is in paramatma we live.you all believe that what ever you see is lord krishna.krishna in all.is it only for argument sake or really true.when it is true,where is jagat?jagat has no existance when god is completely filled in atom to brahmanda.this is what lord krishna said.because of dwanda maya..we are losing the track of paramatma and going for diversity--this illusion is power of lord..grames you have not seen my quotation from mundakOpanishad.we are part of paramatma.thimk this way.think of aham brahmaosmi.,think that you are lord krishna.or lord krishna in you and in every one..regards,




As it turns out once again, dear KSubbu has given evidence that does not match at all with his theory. His power of reasoning is so outstanding that one is thankful that all correspondence is only through mail. In the two incidents KSubbu mentioned, he has only communicated his ignorance of what Sri Krishna showed, lack of simple and clear thinking and finally blind belief to some advaitic idea, that he does not even know properly.

To justify my assessment, here's a place of his misunderstanding: The Lord showed this world as is, to yashoda. Dear KSubbu cannot make use of simple ideas that just like a photo is an image of the original and not the original itself, the Lord showed an image of the world in his mouth. And who said, a photo is illusory?

The same idea is applicable to the vision shown to Arjuna as well. We are all in a vishwa, that is different from Krishna paramaatma, and which is pervaded by Krishna paramatma.

To justify the point that dear KSubbu lacks clarity in thought: he first says jagat is false and kalpitaM, and then says that Krishna fills every atom, which is illusory! Lack of logical thinking is indicated by the fact that he thinks that if somebody pervades something, the latter does not have any existence. It is like saying since air pervades the earth, earth does not have any existence.

And add to this, he has thrusted his opinion covertly: "we all believe that everything is Krishna". No, we all don't believe that because it means all our flaws (like ignorance etc) will be that of Lord, then. Only asuras believe that their flaws is actually of the Lord. It is the asuras, who say that 'you are Lord Krishna'. See Gita 16.14: Ishvaro.aham (I am the Lord).

Dear KSubbu also doesn't understand that Shankara has expressly stated that one should not think oneself to be Brahman before the onset of jnAna. See the padyaprabandha of his upadeshasahasrI:

"ahaM brahmAsmi kartA cha bhoktA chAsmIti ye viduH |
te nashhTAH j~nAnakarmAbhyAM nAstikA syurna samshayaH"

Those who think 'I am Brahman, I am the doer and also I am the enjoyer', they become deprived of knowledge and karma-s and become athiests, without a doubt."


Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59421 - 09/15/04 02:34 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: grames]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Quote:

Most of your posts so far are from advaitic faith or some texts which specifically glorify advaitic view point out of context.




Pls note that I am not denying the texts quoted by KSubbu simply because they are 'advaitic'. I have given my reasons (see the end of page 3 in this discussion) and you will realize that I have not been affected by doctrinal affiliations in denouncing something as 'comic book'. Dear KSubbu has not supplied any justification of his usage of certain texts, er, comic books :-)

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59422 - 09/15/04 03:15 PM Can you explain this verse? [Re: nomadeva]
grames Offline
helper
**

Registered: 01/31/02
Posts: 562
Loc: Florida, USA
Dear krshna.,

I am curious how this sloka is explained in Madava's schools.

Quote:


om namo bhagavate vsudevya
janmdy asya yato nvayad itaratas carthesv abhijñah svarat
tene brahma hrdya adi-kavaye muhyanti yat surayah tejo-vari-mrdm yath vinimayo yatra tri-sargo 'mrsa
dhamna svena sad nirasta-kuhakam satyam param dhimahi
--- Bhagavatam 1.1.1






I believe, the meaning of real, unreal, false, true and illusion are all mixed and confused by advaitins and many such followers. I think understanding the meaning of these terms will help alot.


Edited by grames (09/15/04 03:28 PM)
_________________________
Hare Krshna!

Top
#59423 - 09/15/04 04:12 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: Abhay Kulkarni]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
good,what you wrote out of disgust is also illusion.this is mathibhraman.this is not your forum nor my forum.it is hindnet.org forum.you have other forums purely meant for illusory dwaitha.pls.go to a perfect guru to know about yourself.regards,
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59424 - 09/15/04 04:31 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
grames Offline
helper
**

Registered: 01/31/02
Posts: 562
Loc: Florida, USA
Namaskar ji.,

First, let me point out you didn't connect the dots. The incidents you stated are good but they do not justify your accuse because you didn't give proper explanation nor concluded any answer for your own question. I rather ask for your understanding of the above two incidents you mentioned.
Put yourself in mother yashoda's position and tell me what you would understand when you see all the cosmic manifestations inside a little boy's mouth? Same time, put yourself at Arjuna's position and what you will understand seeing His viswarupa? Which one of this is illusion and not real. Just make sure you do not contradict. Also, from your explanation please do justify why these varience or difference is illusion or precisly why Dwitha is illusion?

I also like to mention my understanding here. When mother yashoda enquired this boy whether He had eaten the earth in a solitary place, He wanted to show her that it is not just earth He is in control but everything else that is manifested and unmanifested. So, He wanted His beloved mother to realize that and so the cosmic display in His little mouth. Everything is situated in Him and everything is His manifestation same time He is distinct is my understanding. He is not just ishvara and He is parameshvara is the idea behind that incident.

About the arjunas visvarupa darshan, it is not the desier of the God to show his opulance but it is arjunas desier and as The loving personality, He gave arjuna the visvarupa darshan. I am not sure whether the cowherd boys who played with little Krshna had anything spititually less in terms of joy and bliss compared to Arjuna here. Devotees are not interested in the Rupa but Arjuna as the future initiator of the Parampara has to pass the information that He is the Supreme and he witnessed it to pass it across. Thou, sanjaya was narrating the incident, he didn't get the same bliss of what arjuna got nor the warriors at the battle field who had the physical presence at the same landscape. Same understanding here, everything is situated in Him and yet He is distinct. So, both the incidents are true and real and they do not contradict and if you understand them differently based on some special Janana, then it is ignorance. Interestingly, arjuna who became bewildered in wonder started his respectful obeisances to Krsna again and again, and with faltering voice he began to pray, not as a friend, but as a devotee in wonder. He didn't say i am Krsha nor misunderstood like I am Lord Krshna Himself. And very correctly arjuna state like this

tvaya tatam visvam ananta-rupa

and then

ananta-viryamita-vikramas tvam
sarvam samapnosi tato 'si sarvah

and then He again displayed Himself in two handed form and then says

sri-bhagavan uvaca
su-durdarsam idam rupam
drstavan asi yan mama
deva apy asya rupasya
nityam darsana-kanksinah

and


bhaktya tv ananyaya sakya
aham evam-vidho 'rjuna
jnatum drastum ca tattvena
pravestum ca parantapa

So, it is very clear here that He is distinct from everyone else and everything else same time He is all pervading. If you miss meaning of first half of the statement you will confuse the second half.

Thanks
_________________________
Hare Krshna!

Top
#59425 - 09/15/04 04:57 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
dear krishna,there are about 33 vakyas which say that the jagat is midhya.sarvam vikAra jAtam mAyAmAtram,nAsti dwaitham kutO martyam.,mAyAmAtramidam dwaithamadwatham paramArtththa,dwitIyakAranAbhAvAdanuthpanna midam jagat,yadhai vEdamnabhassUnyam jagacchUnyam thtthaivahi,drusya rUpancha drugrUpam sarvam shasa vishAnavat.these were quoted from different upanishads.good.you have good weath.--jnAnam.a forum means indiavidual ideas in addition to already existing pramAnAS.IF YOU WRITE WHAT ALL IS PRESENT IN A BOOK,What is new?we can better read the texts.this is more or less exchange of views .some may be wrong and contradictory to the present availble puranas.to some extent the upanishads and vedas are useful to go for knowledge.but this is not enough.to get the darshan of lord,one has to undergo several tests form real gurus and bhagavan himself.at present there are no true gurus.some of the gurus are after name and fame and wealth and luxuries.what is the jnana that particular guru imparts to the disciple.hence the self is the final guru.the adwaithins and dwaithins had shown respective pramanas for their superiority ---illusion.which ever is superior,what it is for common person?so one needs the method for reaching or realising the ultimate.bhakthi is polluted.by pramanas,one can not inculcate bhakthi into the present generation.regards,
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59426 - 09/16/04 08:41 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306

Quote:

there are about 33 vakyas which say that the jagat is midhya.



Dear KSubbu, only one of them has been traced by me to an upanishad; which is 'mAyAmatramidaM sarvaM'. Before I give you deeper meanings of the same line, pls tell us the sources of other 32 statements in canonical upanishads (i.e., those that are accepted to be so by people of all traditions).

Your handwaving and general emotional stuff is not worth commenting upon.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59427 - 09/17/04 06:01 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: grames]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
dear gramesji, good you have given rightly.i do not say little krishna.. lord krishna in the child form shown the entire viswam in his little mouth.yasoda thiks--is it dream or vaishnava mAya??? what i am seeing?'this ananda is only for may be one minute or hour or ..life long i donot know.but after lord leaves her,she had only sorrow that she could not see her son--lord krishna.it is lord krishna's illusory power.yasoda that time when she saw the universe was completely away form the shadvargs--kama,krodha.. and pure in mind without any thoughts of desires. further lord after showing his viswa rupa to arjuna through the divya netras {jnana netram} again makes him normal.As long as arjuna saw the divya rupa,he is away from worldly things.his mind has become still.he had no bahya smruthi.he had only lord krishna's name ,krishna everywhere,not an iota of space is also without krishna's form..energy..then light..then nothing .he is about to reach the top most of top..become one with ..i can not have words to explain.from that state arjuna was dragged back to normal state.this is what i feel. regards,
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59428 - 09/17/04 01:31 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
dear krishna, mahOpanishad,sAma vedAntantrgatam trutIyOdhyAya 4 th mantra.chittam kArana mardhAnAm thasmim tsati jagatrayam,tasmin kshINE jagat kshINam tacchikithsyam prayathnathah,..... meaning. mind is the cause for all meanings.when mind is there,the jagat traya is there.when mind becomes weak,the jagat also diminishes. regards,
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59429 - 09/19/04 05:14 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
grames Offline
helper
**

Registered: 01/31/02
Posts: 562
Loc: Florida, USA
Dear subbu.,

I feel like you are not interested in giving the meaning of what you read and rather you are taking meaning on the basis of your faith. If you want to read the subsequent verses on the incidents, i can post it but i believe you have a copy of those verses. Just try to understand what is there in the verse first rather than generating your own meaning.


Few misunderstood statements misleading this discussion altogether.


Quote:

he is about to reach the top most of top..become one with .




This is totally a biased understanding and if you read the way how Arjuna glorified and decribed the Supreme, you will understand the truth. Also, i do not understand where or what gave you the idea that arjuna was about to reach the "top most of the top, becoming one with"?????? You didn't really took the meaning of Yashoda's situation from Bagavatam rather you are manufacturing new meanings.

See, it is not bad or wrong to have your own faith and you have all the freedom to understand the spiritual concepts in your own way. Right or wrong rest in the progress you make and your englightment. But, you can not accuse something as wrong and not justify it at all. By making a statement like
Quote:

lord krishna's illusory power.



you obiviously agree the fact that He is distinct. By knowing that He is distinct, you should obiviouly understand that we are not same as Him and we are distinct on our own too. May be, the illusion is to know and understand the fact that He is distinct and He is independant. The words like, 'His mercy", His visva roopa all keeps Him at distinct state rather than equating us to Him as One. May be, the oneness itself is illusion which is acting so forcefully on you and most of the Advaitins. Instead of the Oneness in the absolute sense, the gross meaning of Oneness is propogated by advaitins to attract the monists and atheists.

I do not see any common grounds for us to continue this debate and i am sure you are never going to justify your accuse of "Dwaitha being illusion". Anyway, i am an intruder here so i am taking break for the health of this discussion. Thanks.
_________________________
Hare Krshna!

Top
#59430 - 09/20/04 10:45 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: grames]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
Bhagavad Geetha as given by Lord Krishna will be understood as per the bhava of the reader.the main bhava imparted by lord Krishna was only understood by Arjuna in toto.For Bhagavdgeetha many people have given commentaries as they understood .the understanding varies as per their knowledge.from the commentaries also people understand the exact meaning to some extent like students in a class.i camn say that your understanding is good.at the same time my understanding can not be bad. Also the avatar rahasya will be understood in different ways.. in purusha sUktham it was given like this ‘BrAhmanOsya mukhamAsIth,bAhU rAjanya kruthaha,UrU thadasya yadvysyah ,padbhagam shUdrO ajAyatha,chandramA manasO jAthah,chaksho sUryO ajAyatha….’ Just have a picture of lord vishnu .see the pictrue and understand.the face of lord became brahmins.,from hands kshatriyas,from thighs the vaisyas and from sacred padas sudras were born.from the mind of lord moon was born and from his eyes sun was born,from his nabhi antariksham-sky was born.entire visible viswam is part of lord vishnu. the parts of body are nothing but body itself,the vishwam is the part of body of lord.so viswam has no existance.it is lord visnu only.just as pot is not different from the clay,viswam is no different from lord visnu.it is the mind that is responsible for the diversity.if one can condition the mind,reality is known.
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59431 - 09/20/04 12:36 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306

Quote:

mahOpanishad,sAma vedAntantrgatam




Thanks, which shAkhA of sAmaveda is this, dear KSubbu? I am curious to know. You know Sri Madhvacharya and Ramanuja have quoted this Upanishad, but not of all their quotes can be found in the current Upanishad. Which makes me doubt the validity of current text. Nevertheless, we shall analyze the following verses and see where things stand:

Quote:

trutIyOdhyAya 4 th mantra.chittam kArana mardhAnAm thasmim tsati jagatrayam,tasmin kshINE jagat kshINam tacchikithsyam prayathnathah,..... meaning. mind is the cause for all meanings.when mind is there,the jagat traya is there.when mind becomes weak,the jagat also diminishes.




This is a question posed by nidAgha to Ribhu. Therefore it does not represent the truth as is. Find out Ribhu says and let me know. I must caution you again that I still doubt the veracity of this Upanishad's contents because of the above reasons.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59432 - 09/21/04 10:38 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
Dear krishna,'Aham sarva midam viswam paramAtamA hamatchyuataha,nAnya dastItisamvithyA parmA Sa hyahamkrutihi,sarvasmA dwyatiriktO ham vAlagrA davyaham tanuh,ithi yA samvidO brahman dwithIyAhamkruti ssubhA,mOkshA yaishA nabandhAyajIvanmukthasya vidyatE,pANi pAdAdi mAtrOhamithi ya syaisha nischayaha,ahamkAra trutIyO souU loukika stu ccha Eva saha varjya Eva durAtmA saU kanda ssamsAra dustrOH,ANeNaBHIHATo jantu radhOdhaha pari dhAvathi,anayA durahamkrutyABHAVatsamtyakthayACHIRAM,SISHTahamkAravAn jamtusshamavA nyAti mukthathAm' {16},this is the reply which was there in the same upanishad.the meaning ,i shall give later,regards,
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59433 - 09/21/04 05:09 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Quote:

viswam is part of lord vishnu. the parts of body are nothing but body itself,the vishwam is the part of body of lord.so viswam has no existance.it is lord visnu only.




Dear KSubbu has demonstrated his logical prowess again. He gives the analogy of body and parts, applies this analogy to Vishnu and Vishwam (whatever happened to thousand shrutis that proclaim that Brahman is different from Prakriti at the root level) without providing a pramANa and does a terrific (or terrible) somersault by saying that vishwam has no existence. No, if the body is same as body parts who says body parts has no existence? In fact, people would say that if there are no body parts, there is no body.

Again a reminder: asatyaM apratiShThaM te jagat AhuH (te refers to daityas).

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59434 - 09/22/04 09:44 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
Meanimg of the mantram:myself and this entire universe is paramatma.I am chaitanya swarUpa.there is no secondary to me.---this ego sankalpa is top most{may be the ego as supposed to be exhibited by adwaithins}.2 I am different from the entire universe.I am the smallest of the valagram.this jnana sankalpa ego is also great.these two ahankaras will lead the persons to moksha. finally the 3 rd.Identifying with body---this ego is the lowest.this is materialistic and mean.this ego will be a root of poisonous plant. This ego should be got rid off.
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59435 - 09/26/04 04:21 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
Dear krishna, jsut go through the mahOpanishad-samavEdantargatam.It gave completely on dwita being unreal.this universe appears to be present through mind.this is considered as chitta bhranti.even brahma ,vishnu and maheswara,the trintiy at one time dissolve in the self.regards,
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59436 - 09/28/04 01:58 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Regarding this dvaita illusion and mahA-upanishad, the discussion is in the 'Upanishads' forum. Refer to that. I do not wish to create duplicates of the same stuff in all fora.

Thanks,
Krishna

Top
#59437 - 09/28/04 02:03 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Quote:

Meanimg of the mantram:myself and this entire universe is paramatma



Dear KSubbu, though it is confirmed that the part of mahA-upanishad you have quoted is a fabricated text, the part of the text you have quoted does not translate to what you have said. And more importantly, this part does not say that dvaita is an illusion.

I think you need to be more careful in selecting appropriate passages of comic books.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59438 - 09/30/04 11:39 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
Dear krishna,your good knowledge should not be wasted in angry harsh words.As you could not find the mantras i quoted in Mahopanishad availble with you ,you can not declare that they are fabricated.you have given that they are intropolated as you don't like it.Any how i am now giving two books-vivekachudamani written by sri Adi Sankaracharya translated in to english by swami turiyananda and swami madhavananda.these two books are worth reading to know self and to know that dwaitha is bhranti or illusion.ANGER IS VERY DANGEROUS.regards
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59439 - 10/01/04 11:23 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Quote:

As you could not find the mantras i quoted in Mahopanishad availble with you ,you can not declare that they are fabricated



Dear KSubbu, I did find the verses you quoted but not those given many generations earlier by Sri Madhva. So, this is why I say that the text is fabricated. You have failed me again in comprehending the reasons I mentioned.

Tell me this dear KSubbu. Why are you not able to search for jaganmithyAtva quotes within the dashopaniShads?

On vivekachUDAmaNi, thanks for that. My opinion about that is that Shankara starts off assuming that advaita is right, rather than proving that advaita is right. I am not sure if he meant it to be a dialectical work in the first place.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59440 - 10/07/04 10:56 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
Dear Krishna. i am quoting one mantra from vivekachUdAmani."mAyAmAtramidam dwaitamadwaitam paramArdhatah, ithi brUtE sruthihi sAkshAtsushuptAvanubhUyatE" The srutIs themselvesdeclare that this dualistic universe is but a delusion from the stand point of absolute Truth. this is also experienced in the sleep. 405.(sruthis:katha II ii 11,BRAHADARANYAKA II iv 14.,Mundaka II ii., Chandogya VI xiv etc. regards.
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59441 - 10/08/04 05:58 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306

Quote:

i am quoting one mantra from vivekachUdAmani.




Dear KSubbu, I am very happy to see you quote from Shankara's works and more importantly from accepted upanishads. It is a big leap from where you were.

Did you know that advaitins of today don't think the mAyAmAtraM verse to be shruti? They (wrongly) think that it is a composition of Gaudapada. Anyway, since we mAdhvas think that most of the AgamaprakaraNa of Gaudapada karika is shruti, the mAyAmAtraM verse is considered authentic shruti. Therefore, here is the correct interpretation of the verse you quote:

Quote:

"mAyAmAtramidam dwaitamadwaitam paramArdhatah,




Let's see the entire context before we erroneously jump to the conclusion that dvaita i.e., this world is an illusion:

anAdimAyayA supto yadA jIvaH prabudhyate |
ajamanidramasvapnamadvaitaM budhyate tadA || 16||
prapaJNcho yadi vidyeta nivarteta na saMshayaH |
mAyAmAtramidaM dvaitamadvaitaM paramArthataH || 17||
vikalpo vinivarteta kalpito yadi kenachit.h |
upadeshAdayaM vAdo GYAte dvaitaM na vidyate || 18||

When the jIva, who is deep asleep due to beginningless ignorance, knows (himself) in the turIya state (i.e., mokSha), he sees the unborn, sleepless, dreamless, secondless Lord then. [this is to say that the Lord is beyond the three states that a jIva is subject to, in samsAra]. [Here, the seeker may want to know if the world would withdraw after the jIva gets mokSha, which is admittedly different from the three states. In reply, the Upanishad states] if the world were to be created out of nothing (like a chimera or an illusion), it would have definitely withdrawn. The duality of correct and erroneous knowledge does not exist in mokSha. It is only the truth that is perceived in mokSha. Had this world been somebody's imagination, then it would have been withdrawn (in mokSha). This teaching does not bring any duality of correct or erroneous knowledge to the wise].

In short, while there is the duality of correct and erroneous knowledge in the three states, this duality does not exist in mokSha (where one percieves correct knowledge only; after obtaining mokSha where the secondless Lord is seen). The world does not cease to exist, because it is not somebody's imagination (where wrong knowledge is involved).

Shankara interprets this verse to claim the illusoriness of this world. If the world were to exist, without doubt, it would have withdrawn. (Therefore, the world does not exist in factuality.) This world of duality, like an unreal snake superimposed on a real rope, is perceived merely due to mAyA. It is the non-duality that is absolute. If it were imagined (by someone), it would disappear. This argument, a teaching, when known, duality would not be seen.

The flaws in his interpretation are as follows:

1. The statement, 'if the world were to exist, it would have withdrawn (disappeared)' tries to draw a concomitance between Existence and Withdrawal (disappearance), i.e., it imagines a rule that anything that exists would disappear, which is not plausible. By the same token, even the Atman, which is accepted as existing, should also disappear. This problem would persist even if the word, 'vidyeta' were to be interpreted as 'perceived'. Thus, Shankara's interpretation poses a problem to his own thesis that only Atman exists.

Therefore, Srimad Anandatirtha interprets 'vidyeta' as 'created'. The verse would then mean, 'if the world were to be created (out of nothing), it would have definitely disappeared. This is not anybody's imagination'.

It should be noted that the same Upanishad has earlier rejected an opinion that assumes the creation to be an illusion: svapna-mAyA-sarUpeti sR^iShTiH anyaiH vikalpitA.

2. Then, let's get to the word 'advaita' and 'dvaita' here. From the context, the word, 'advaita' refers to the Turiya form of the Lord. In the first verse describing the Turiya,

nivR^itteH sarvaduHkhAnAmIshAnaH prabhuH avyayaH |
advaitaH sarvabhAvAnAM devasturyo vibhuH smR^itaH ||

These terms, 'prabhuH', 'devaH', 'vibhuH' 'sarvadR^iksadA', mean 'the Lord', 'the resplendent', 'the creator', 'the eternal observer of everything'. These qualities cannot, by any stretch of imagination, refer to nirguNa (quality-less)Brahman, which Shankara makes out to be. Thus, again his interpretation is flawed.

The 'advaita' IN THIS CONTEXT definitely refers to the Lord Himself, who controls the jIva in all his states; waking, dream, deep-sleep and finally the fourth.

The fourth form of the Lord is different from the first 3 forms such as vishva, taijasa and praajna, in the following sense: While the forms of Lord controlling the 3 states of jAgrat, svapna and suShupti, subject the jIva to the duality of erroneous and correct knowledge, the turIya form of the Lord bestows correct knowledge only.

In the Gita 15.15, the Lord does claim that he gives wrong knowledge (based on the jIva's karmas): mattaH smR^itiH j~nAnaM __ apohanaM __ cha.

The word, 'dvaita' in this context refers only to the duality of correct and erroneous knowledge and not to the world. The world is already and here established to be real and existing despite somebody getting mokSha.

3. The verse speaks of the jIva as 'supta' (sleeping), while the Lord is spoken of 'anidraM' (without sleep). Advaita says that this difference is removed when the Turiya form of 'Atman' is comprehended. Unfortunately for them, there is no text to that effect. It is an addition from their side.

4. mAyA has been translated as illusion here. The word mAyA means multiple things in vedic literature. For example, Shvetashvatara upanishad holds that the word 'mAyA' means prakriti (mAyAM tu prakR^itiM vidyAt.h).

Therefore this verse establishes the reality of world contrary to the advaitic belief.

I will treat rest of your post in separate sections.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59442 - 10/08/04 07:06 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Quote:

sruthis:katha II ii 11,




sUryo yathA sarvalokasya chakshuH
na lipyate chAkshuShairbAhyadoShaiH .
ekastathA sarvabhUtAntarAtma
na lipyate lokaduHkhena bAhyaH .. 11..

Where does this verse say that this world is an illusion? May be you meant 2.1.11 and not 2.2.11:

manasaivedamAptavyaM neha nAnA.asti kiMchana .
mR^ityoH sa mR^ityuM gachchhati ya iha nAneva pashyati .. 11..

This verse is frequently quoted by advaitins to deny multiplicity in mokSha. But see well, the 'iha' (here) of 'neha nAnAsti kiJNchana' refers to Brahman and denies multiplicity within Brahman.

Shankara himself reads thus in his commentary on the same line found in Brihadaranyaka. The line simply means that Brahman is sva-gata-bheda-vivarjita (devoid of internal differences). The example is that of tree and its internal parts like the branches and trunk. There are internal differences within a tree. Don't imagine Brahman to have such internal differences -- This is the teaching of Shruti. Nothing to do with world at all.


Quote:

BRAHADARANYAKA II iv 14.,




yatra hi dvaitamiva bhavati taditara itaraM jighrati taditara itaraM pashyati, taditara itaraM shR^iNoti, taditara itaramabhivadati, taditara itaraM manute, taditara itaraM vijAnAti |

yatra vA asya sarvamAtmaivAbhUt, tatkena kaM jighret, tatkena kaM pashyet, tatkena ka{\m+} shR^iNuyAt, tatkena kamabhivadet, tatkena kaM manvIta, tatkena kaM vijAnIyAt.h |

yenedaM sarvaM vijAnAti, taM kena vijAnIyAd, vij~nAtAramare kena vijAnIyAditi ||

This is another frequently quoted to deny dvaita in mokSha. But let's see the verse well. Here, the sage Yajnavalkya simply says: If there were to something like duality, then one would smell, see, listen etc to another. Where it is a pure-undifferentiated AtmA only, how can one see another etc.. By which all this is known, How will even that be known? O Maitreyi, how will knower know?

This sort of argument is reductio-ad-absurdum, where the reverse proposition of there being undifferentiated consciousness is assumed to be true and then the consequent absurdities are highlighted.

Strictly speaking, Yajnvalkya is simply positing a 'if-else' type of proposition. He does not say dvaita is not correct and that advaita is correct. It is an assumption of advaitins.

This verse is actually trouble to advaitins. Does an advaitin know that he has obtained mokSha? Does he realize that He is that eternal advitIya brahman? If the answer is 'yes', advaita's own interpretation of the above verse (where the knower cannot know) will be contradicted. If the answer is 'no', it follows that the concept of advaita's mokSha is indistinguishable from any other false concept (like the son of a barren woman), which can only be imagined and never be known.

Quote:

Mundaka II ii.,




None of the verses there talk of unreality of world.

Quote:

Chandogya VI xiv



What about this? Where is the unreality of world here? On the other hand, this passages says that we obtain the knowledge of Brahman from gurus, who in their kindness help us; just like the passers-by help a man, who was brought blind-folded to Gandhara.

Please give quotes that are relevant.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59443 - 10/08/04 09:43 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Quote:

this is also experienced in the sleep.




Dear KSubbu, suShupti means deep-sleep (dreamless sleep), not just sleep. Shankara says that since the world is not experienced in deep-sleep, it is false. Now, think a little: Why should reality be eternal? Why can't we say that objects that are changing and that have a beginning and end in a particular form, are real? This is one of the goofs of advaita to have linked reality and eternality.

It is also true that while we don't see the world in suShupti, we experience happiness and time. When we wake up, we exclaim: I slept happily for a long time. This proves that we percieve these in suShupti. This implies that there are more than one entities in suShupti, thereby invalidating advaita.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59444 - 10/08/04 05:59 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
No 2 Offline
seeker

Registered: 07/05/04
Posts: 52
Loc: NYC, USA
Quote:


Dear KSubbu, suShupti means deep-sleep (dreamless sleep), not just sleep. Shankara says that since the world is not experienced in deep-sleep, it is false. Now, think a little: Why should reality be eternal? Why can't we say that objects that are changing and that have a beginning and end in a particular form, are real? This is one of the goofs of advaita to have linked reality and eternality.

It is also true that while we don't see the world in suShupti, we experience happiness and time. When we wake up, we exclaim: I slept happily for a long time. This proves that we percieve these in suShupti. This implies that there are more than one entities in suShupti, thereby invalidating advaita.

Regards,
Krishna




I'm not trying to join this argument permanently, but I thought I'd make a few corrections here. Deep sleep is not said to be identical with Reality. Deep sleep is only considered the first stage of this kind of thing because the consciousness is different during the time you experience it. It is similar to consciousness without an object, and the subject is much more vague.

Secondly, the term "real" as used in Advaita, does not mean they are nonexistant, because in the phenomenal realm, they obviously are. What it means is that they are not permanent, nor do they ever exist as stable entities (the constant movement of matter is a good example). This trend was borrowed from Buddhism. The Reality that is eternal is Brahman itself, because Advaita holds Brahman to be identical with nuomenal Reality, and even phenomenal reality, although we do not perceive it as such.

Finally, in actual deep sleep, no happiness or time is perceived. There are no emotions experienced. This has been proven by brain-wave monitering. The only time people experience emotions are when they are sleeping lightly, or about to wake up, in which case their consciousness switches from the state of deep sleep to a lighter sleep. Time is also not perceived during deep sleep. When you wake up from sleep, you do not know how long you have been sleeping for until you check a clock, or look out of the window, etc. You depend on external factors for that. No one knows exactly how long they have been sleeping for without external signs. The phrase, "I slept happily" in reality makes no sense as far as deep sleep is concerned. It is generally equivalent to "I slept soundly", meaning that there were no disturbances to your sleep.

_________________________
Soul, Ego, God are merely words. Reality is not exactly any of them, nor is it otherwise. "There is no cessation, no coming-to-be, none in bondage, no seeker after liberation and no-one liberated. This is the absolute truth."-Gaudapada

Top
#59445 - 10/10/04 11:51 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
Dear krishna,Viveka chUdAmani 20:' Brahma satyam jaganmidhyEtyEvam rUpO vinischayaha, sOyam nityAnitya vastu vivEkaha samudAhrutaha:'A firm conviction of the mind to the effect that Brahman is real and the universe unreal ,is designated as discrimination{viveka}between real and unreal."here i mention that through our proper thinking that one has to decide which is true-eternal and non eternal.this is like firm belief that only brahman is true and others untrue.now i am giving the sloka-62.'na gacchati vinA pAnam vyAdhiroushadha shabdataha, vinA parokshAnubhavam brahma shabdairna muchyatE:' A disease does not leave off one simply utters the name of the medicine ,without taking it;similarly without direct realisation one cannot be liberated by mere utterance of the word brahman.'. this is what i gave in my earlier mails.we are only discussing what the upanishads gave.pls. see that SRI SHANKARA wrote bhashyas to the upanishads long back.In the earlier mail you wrote that as Shankara did not refer the mahOpanishad ,it was fabricated.i am quoting from Adi Shankara's viveka chUdAmani.even this also you are not believing.this is highly improper.regards,
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59446 - 10/12/04 10:51 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Dear Ksubbu, quoting any of Shankara's works is not going to help you. That is because I am not an advaitin and hence Shankara's words are not pramANa for me. It is just like Srimad Anandatirtha's words are not pramANa for you because he is not your Acharya.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59447 - 10/12/04 11:32 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: No 2]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Quote:

Deep sleep is not said to be identical with Reality.


I never said that suShupti is same as reality, according to advaitins. Nobody says that in the first place.

Quote:

Secondly, the term "real" as used in Advaita, does not mean they are nonexistant, because in the phenomenal realm, they obviously are. What it means is that they are not permanent, nor do they ever exist as stable entities (the constant
movement of matter is a good example).




This is a trend of neo-vedantins such as Vivekananda to hold that mithyA means changing world and not a non-existent world. Shankara and others have categorically denied any sort of reality to the world and like. In fact, while answering the moot question of whether mithyAtva denies the very existence of world, Madhusudana Saraswati affirms that the world does not exist at all (even at the time of perception just like the snake does not exist even at the time of perception). See his reply to the charges on the 2nd definition of mithyAtva.

We all know that advaita does not deny the world in the vyavahArika realm; just like the buddhists call it samvRtti. You are chasing a point that was never contended.

The point is that the whole edifice of vyavahAric and paramArthika is built on illogical grounds and we reject the ontological status advaita grants to the world in the paramArthika sense.

The definition of reality according to advaita is a negative one -- abAdhyatvaM (that which is not sublated). Another way to see that is: trikAlasarvadeshIyapratiyogitvaM.

Quote:

Finally, in actual deep sleep, no happiness or time is perceived. There are no emotions experienced. This has been
proven by brain-wave monitering.




I am sorry but you seem to have wrong data. In deep-sleep while the brain remains active (seen from the body movements unknown to oneself), the connection between brain and the consciousness is severed, as a consequence of which, we are not aware of the bodily movements and sorroundings. Also, there is no basis to assume that there are no emotions experienced at the deep sleep. On the other hand, scripture (and also Shankara) accept presence of bliss in deepsleep. In our experience too, we differentiate the happiness of this sleep from other alpha-level sleep where one is aware of entities other than oneself (and time). Another distinguishing feature is that lighter sleep is not necessarily blissful.

Also, it is wrong to say that Time is not experienced in deepsleep. Numerous times do people wake up and express surprise at the time for which they have slept: "I thought I slept for 8 hrs while I slept for 20 mins hardly" (Doing pranayama before sleep is supposed to give this effect). This proves that one has a certain notion of time during deepsleep (and sleep) which does not match with time of waking state. It is illogical to ascribe this notion to the 'lighter sleep' and not deepsleep. So is it to ascribe it to the antaHkaraNa or the brain. The notion of time also in the waking state does not require external events, while the measurement of time needs events. In fact, time is niether perceptible by the senses nor is inferrable. Time has to be perceptible by the soul for our experience to make any sense.

Quote:

The phrase, "I slept happily" in reality makes no sense as far as deep sleep is concerned. It is generally equivalent to "I slept soundly", meaning that there were no disturbances to your sleep.




Wrong. As seen above, there is niether scientific nor scriptural basis to above statement. As numerous studies on afternoon naps prove, a deep sleep of little time is more efficacious than that of disturbance-less sleep for long time.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59448 - 10/12/04 06:29 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
No 2 Offline
seeker

Registered: 07/05/04
Posts: 52
Loc: NYC, USA
Quote:


This is a trend of neo-vedantins such as Vivekananda to hold that mithyA means changing world and not a non-existent world. Shankara and others have categorically denied any sort of reality to the world and like. In fact, while answering the moot question of whether mithyAtva denies the very existence of world, Madhusudana Saraswati affirms that the world does not exist at all (even at the time of perception just like the snake does not exist even at the time of perception). See his reply to the charges on the 2nd definition of mithyAtva.

I am sorry but you seem to have wrong data. In deep-sleep while the brain remains active (seen from the body movements unknown to oneself), the connection between brain and the consciousness is severed, as a consequence of which, we are not aware of the bodily movements and sorroundings. Also, there is no basis to assume that there are no emotions experienced at the deep sleep. On the other hand, scripture (and also Shankara) accept presence of bliss in deepsleep. In our experience too, we differentiate the happiness of this sleep from other alpha-level sleep where one is aware of entities other than oneself (and time). Another distinguishing feature is that lighter sleep is not necessarily blissful.

Also, it is wrong to say that Time is not experienced in deepsleep. Numerous times do people wake up and express surprise at the time for which they have slept: "I thought I slept for 8 hrs while I slept for 20 mins hardly" (Doing pranayama before sleep is supposed to give this effect). This proves that one has a certain notion of time during deepsleep (and sleep) which does not match with time of waking state. It is illogical to ascribe this notion to the 'ligter sleep' and not deepsleep. So is it to ascribe it to the antaHkaraNa or the brain. The notion of time also in the waking state does not require external events, while the measurement of time needs events. In fact, time is niether perceptible by the senses nor is inferrable. Time has to be perceptible by the soul for our experience to make any sense.






Again, this idea of the world "not existing" is an issue of semantics. Check the examples commonly given by Advaitins as analogies to the world's existence for reference. None of them explicitly state that the world is flat-out void of existence.

There is scientific basis with which to understand that deep sleep does not involve emotion or time. Again, there have been several tests done on this that measure brain wave activity. Perhaps we are using different definitions of deep sleep here. The "bliss" that is ascribed to deep sleep is supposed to be similar to the bliss of samadhi, thus it is not a conventional bliss that can be regarded as an emotion. It is just the activity of object-void consciousness.

As for time in sleep, the guess we make as to how long we have slept has no real basis in anything, hence our need for external factors to inform us of our true time spent asleep. Besides, this contradicts the nature of deep sleep as upheld by Advaitins. If deep sleep is similar to subject and object-less awareness, then there is no real way to feel time. Why can't time be perceptible by the senses? Our concept of time is based solely on external factors as it is, and there is no way to prove otherwise. We only know of time because of non-time elements in our daily lives.
_________________________
Soul, Ego, God are merely words. Reality is not exactly any of them, nor is it otherwise. "There is no cessation, no coming-to-be, none in bondage, no seeker after liberation and no-one liberated. This is the absolute truth."-Gaudapada

Top
#59449 - 10/14/04 11:29 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: No 2]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Quote:

Check the examples commonly given by Advaitins as analogies to the world's existence for reference. None of them explicitly state that the world is flat-out void of existence.




You have missed the point that an advaitin of the stature of Madhusudana Saraswati has denied the existence of world in essence. You seem to be thinking that my understanding of the advaitin position is denial of world even in the vyavahArika sense. That is not correct. I know that advaita does not deny existence in the vyavahArika sense. It denies any sort of existence in the paramArthika. Now, I was objecting to lack of logic or pramANAs to this bifurcation of vyavahArika and paramArthika satta.

Quote:

There is scientific basis with which to understand that deep sleep does not involve emotion or time. Again, there have been several tests done on this that measure brain wave activity. Perhaps we are using different definitions of deep sleep here.




I don't think we are using different defintions of deepsleep. You are assuming that all emotions and their physical manifestations in terms of neuron-flow are invariably related. While this is true of emotions that are routed through the brain, it is not true of inherent happiness that is experienced by the soul in deep sleep.

In essence, there is no proof that null brain activity (where, you are again wrong on scientific grounds too. Brain activity is not null in suShupti. Except that the nodes that process sensory input don't record any activity) implies no emotions experienced. That is an assumption you make to ascribe bliss in deep sleep to some other state of mind. You also forget the fact that we experience enormous bliss in deepsleep for little time, in which there is niether the experience of light-sleep nor that of dreams.

Quote:

As for time in sleep, the guess we make as to how long we have slept has no real basis in anything, hence our need for external factors to inform us of our true time spent asleep.




The point you are missing again is not whether there is a basis or not. People do exclaim about the mismatch between the time they thought slept for, and the time in waking state (which you refer as 'true time' for no good reason). The point is that this mismatch couldn't have arisen if there were no conception of time at all in deep sleep.

Quote:

Besides, this contradicts the nature of deep sleep as upheld by Advaitins.



That's why we should discard the advaitins' theory as it is not based on facts.
Quote:

If deep sleep is similar to subject and object-less awareness, then there is no real way to feel time



The answer to that is deep sleep is not a fake and unreal thing as object-less awareness.

Quote:

Why can't time be perceptible by the senses? Our concept of time is based solely on external factors as it is, and there is no way to prove otherwise. We only know of time because of non-time elements in our daily lives.




External factors are needed only for measurement of time, not for the very concept itself. If time were to be perceptible by the senses, the moment I close my eyes, ears and other sensory organs, time should be imperceptible -- that is silly. I might not be able to measure time, but still I percieve it.

Time is not inferrable because there is no antecedent that establishes the existence of time. To explain that further, in a standard inference of the form if P -> Q, there is no 'P' that establishes time. Schools of mImAmsA and nyAya have sought to explain time on the basis of judgements such as 'past', 'future' etc. But all such antecedents presuppose the existence and flow of time.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59450 - 10/17/04 09:51 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
Dear krishna, 'Brahma vEdam viswamityEva vANI srouti brUtE dharva nishtA garisTa, tasmAthsarvam brahma mAtram hi viswam nAdhishtaAnAdbhinata rOpitasya' this is 231 mantram from viveka chUdA mani.meaning.the universe is verily brahman-such is the pronouncement of the Athrva vEda.Therefore the universe is nothing but Brahman,for that which is superimposed has no separate existance from subsratum.{ref Mundaka II ii II.} [398].'samAhitAyAm sati chitta vruttou parAtmani brahmaNi nirvikalpE ,nadrushyatE kaschidaya vikalpaha prajalpamAtraha pari sishyatE tataha'when the functions of mind are merged in the paramatman,the Brahman, the Absolute ,none of the phenomenal world is seen whence it is reduced to mere talk.{phenomenal world-created by name and form.hence unreal} {mere talk- on the lips of others, who are ignorant.refer-chandogya VI i 4-' ALL MODIFICATIONS ARE MERE NAMES AND EFFORTS OF SPEECH}.dear krishna, form the above it will be clear that it is due to the mind- that any thoughts will emerge.mind is always wavery.it yields to the attractions .when all the thoughts of mind merge with the parabrahman-- one can not see any other than the paramatama bhavana.then there is no question of dwaita.at that time when mind functions merge with self,the ultimate,what will remain?regards
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59451 - 10/18/04 11:04 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Quote:

viveka chUdA mani


Not a pramANa for dvaitins. So useless quoting it.

Quote:

ref Mundaka II ii II.


Vaitathya-prakaraNa of gauDapAdakArikA is not veda, is a composition of gauDapAda; even according to advaitins. Hence not a pramANa for dvaitins. Hence useless quoting it.

Quote:

chandogya VI i 4-' ALL MODIFICATIONS ARE MERE NAMES AND EFFORTS OF SPEECH


yathA somyaikena mR^itpiNDena sarvaM mR^inmayaM viGYAtaM syAd vAchArambhaNaM vikAro nAmadheyaM mR^ittiketyeva satyam.h |

O Dear boy (addressing Shvetaketu), Just as one knows all that is made of mud by knowing one lump of mud (on the account of similarity or the lump being pradhAna), so too one would know all dialects as they are all modifications of the root word 'mRittika' (mud).

Advaitins (i) insert a word 'mAtraM' (vAchArambhaNa mAtraM) which is not there in shruti and (ii) ignore the word 'iti' in 'mR^ittikA ityeva satyaM'. Thereby they read it as 'mR^ittikA eva satyaM'. Only mud is real. That is how they twist and torture shruti.

Shruti by itself talks neither of illusoriness of world nor of the world being transformed from Brahman. Is just ONE lump of mud the cause of all mud-products? Is one nail-cutter the cause of all iron products? Advaitins think so!

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59452 - 10/18/04 11:16 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
Dear krishna,Katha-II iii 14,15:when all the desires clinging to one’s heatrt fall off ,then the mortal becomes immortal and one attains Brahman.., When all the knots of the heart are destroyed ,even while a man is alive ,then a mortal becomes immortal. this much alone is the instruction of all {upanishads}. The concepts arising from ignorance are’ I am this body”., ”this wealth is mine” .,’I am happy and unhappy’.., ”this is my brother”. Etc.,When the bondages of ignorance are destroyed by the rise of opposite knowledge of identity of the self and the Brahman,in the form ”I am Brahman indeed and I am not transmigrating soul”then the desires originating from the knots become totally eradicated.then the mortal becomes immortal.for all the ignorant this world is real.but for the jnanis-all this universe is illusory .as long as avidya covers the human minds as is happening ,the universe is real.regards,
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59453 - 10/18/04 11:40 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Quote:

Katha-II iii 14,15:when all the desires clinging to one’s heatrt fall off ,then the mortal becomes immortal and one attains Brahman.., When all the knots of the heart are destroyed ,even while a man is alive ,then a mortal becomes immortal. this much alone is the instruction of all {upanishads}




yadA sarve pramuchyante kAmA ye.asya hR^idi shritAH .
atha martyo.amR^ito bhavatyatra brahma samashnute .. 14..

yathA sarve prabhidyante hR^idayasyeha granthayaH .
atha martyo.amR^ito bhavatyetAvaddhyanushAsanam.h .. 15..

Dear Ksubbu, 'atha' does not mean 'even while a man is alive'. It means 'then'. It refers to the time when a man has conquered all his desires, other than the desire to beget the grace of Vishnu. For, while all other desires are shunned by the scripture (niShkAma karma), the desire to know, love, earn his grace etc is sanctioned by the very scripture itself (AtmA vA are draShTavyo shrotavyo mantavyo nidhidhyAsitavyaH, yamevaiSha vR^iNute taM tena labhyaH, 'brahma jij~nAsA', nArAyaNaM mahAj~neyaM).

In any case, the shruti you quoted does not say that world is an illusion. It is your illusion that shruti says that. Read the verses properly and you will see Srimad Anandatirtha's doctrine of tAratamya in this very upanishad.

Also, the Upanishads depict mokSha as that where one's desires are satisfied instantaneously: imAM lokAn kAmAnnI kAmarUpyanusaJNcharan.h, so.ashnute sarvAn.h kAmAn saha brahmaNA vipashchitA (He enjoys all desires in the company of Brahma).

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59454 - 10/26/04 09:33 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
Dear krishna, thank u for your reply.i think i have not used "pichuka meeda brahmastram."i felt very happy in seeing your explantions by quoting sevearal upanishads and smritis and srutis.i hope many viewres enjoyed this .i have no enemity with you .i have given with little knowledge.the bhranti will certainly pvail up on the pranis for their ignrant way of life.if there is no illusion one has to either be permanently happy or unhappy.Even Brahma and Indra were under illusion regarding lord krishna's divinity.The Jnanam will only lift the person from the clutches of illusion.regards,
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59455 - 10/27/04 07:26 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Quote:

i think i have not used "pichuka meeda brahmastram."



Well, I think I have used picchuka mIda brahmAstraM. For others, it means 'using brahmaastra to kill a sparrow' (basically a massive attack for small enemy). In a general discussion, where there is an arbitrator, it should have been easy to see that it was a war (take it in the figurative sense) between unequals; with one side quoting pramANAs, logic, shAstras, denouncing comic books and other side quoting comic books and wrong translations of the Upanishads.

Quote:

i felt very happy in seeing your explantions by quoting sevearal upanishads and smritis and srutis.



Thanks for your appreciation, I also note that you don't have any replies to my criticisms of your advaitic translations, which by itself says a lot.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59456 - 10/28/04 07:44 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
Abhay Kulkarni Offline
seeker
**

Registered: 04/16/04
Posts: 92
Quote:

Dear krishna, thank u for your reply.i think i have not used "pichuka meeda brahmastram."i felt very happy in seeing your explantions by quoting sevearal upanishads and smritis and srutis.i hope many viewres enjoyed this .i have no enemity with you .i have given with little knowledge.the bhranti will certainly pvail up on the pranis for their ignrant way of life.if there is no illusion one has to either be permanently happy or unhappy.




I am happy that you accept Dwaita is not illusion..


Quote:


Even Brahma and Indra were under illusion regarding lord krishna's divinity.The Jnanam will only lift the person from the clutches of illusion.regards,





Brahma has never ever had misunderstanding of Lord Shree Hari..


Abhay.

Top
#59457 - 10/30/04 12:01 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: Abhay Kulkarni]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
Practicality of dwaita an illusion. Mind is the main cause for both vidya and avidya through Brahman. Jnanis through their jnanam differentaite which is real and which is unreal. There is only one which is permanent –Brahman because it has no change,no body and can not be describable. when we compare with Brahman all the appeared things are either unreal or illusory.All the minds of humans are decieved by the panchendrias.1]We genarally say that sun rises in the east and sun sets is west, thinking that sun is moving around the earth-illusion. But the earth is moving around the sun 2Tthough the earth is moving around itself,and we are also moving along with it,our mind is not in a position to .feel it-due to illuison.3}when we are in jagrut avastha, mind feels the presence of the universe and while in sleeping state mind is unable to feel the presence of universe., but Brahman whether we are in jagrut or any state is there without any change.
Adi Sankarachrya in his vivek chUdAmani advised the disciples that first one has to come to a decision that Brahman is true and the visible jagat as midhya or bhranti –illusory. Ultimate goal be dissolving in Brahman. For this He gave a method-for knowing Brahman one should go for discrimination regarding reality by thinking Neti,Neti-.our body is not doing any thing but under instructions of mind only the body functions.But mind is not independent.It depends on prana-Brahman.Name is not there before one’s birth and it has no value after one’s death.because of ignorance the mind always is in illusion. And gives importance to the body.From jnanam,one will slowly realise which is true and which is not. A jnani never aspires for the temporary materialistic benefits.
Let us question about ourselves-who am I?The answer certainly comes as you are brahman{that thou art thee.]All are in Brahman..All that we are getting is only through brahmam.the viswam is like the name of our bodies.you are mistaken.i never accepted the dwaita an illusion is wrong.Go through bhagavatam regarding lord krishna's manifested forms of gopalas WHERE IN YOU CAN FIND THE MaYA OF LORD kRISHNA.
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59458 - 11/02/04 03:30 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
Abhay Kulkarni Offline
seeker
**

Registered: 04/16/04
Posts: 92
GOD Bless You... You are an ignorant person to know what is truth.

When everyone is Brahman why should you tell us that we are Brahman.. Is there any point in saying something to someone and that someone is non other than sameone????

Now even after Krishna giving you all the examples of why one should believe world as REAL and JIVA( ATTMAN ) different from PARAATTMAN, you want to be ignorant.. so no one can help.. you cannot change us and we cannot change you.. so is the discussion meaningful then??

I hope you stop this...


Abhay.

Top
#59459 - 11/02/04 07:56 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: Abhay Kulkarni]
aham brahmaasmi Offline
seeker
***

Registered: 11/01/04
Posts: 55
Hello all,
Everyone has his/her own opinions and discussions are never made after conclusions and I can clearly see people with strong conclusions.Anyways, Iam raised neither dwaita nor adwaitha, and I was raised in a typical orthodox brahmin environment.I started reading books about dwaita,adwaita and vishistadwaita philosophies.Though some of the guys dont agree with me,most of the hindus live a adwaitic life.Most of the hindus treat their parents as gods,they can see god in a rock,then can see god in cow, they can see god in a tree etc.., the list goes on.And one cant say that there is god in just one kind of rock and not the other,its just the realization that matters.Similarily even god is there in ourselves,its just the realization,which makes us god.Thus i strongly believe that there is no "two" in the world, everything is one.Is there any proof that Rama is incarnation of vishnu? Absolutely no, we realized it and believed it.Why cant some one become Rama with the characterstics of Rama.Rama is also a man, he never did any kind of fancy magics.If I have the qualities of Rama and I ask you why cant I call myself an incarnation of god.
Even abhay ji and krishna ji though says they are dwaitic are advaitic.Again discussions are never made after conclusions, i chose hinduism by choice not just by birth, I never said no to some christians who tried to induce christianity,but i tried to understand their religion ,and weighed it with hinduism and they are no way near to our religion.The greatness of our religion is adwaita,
infact muslims philosophy more or less matches with dwaita as they believe in god and deciple as two different entities and christianity matches closely with vishishtadwaita as they believe in salvation through a guru(jesus).Dont be mad and iam sorry if some of my explanations offend you guys.Iam just trying to explain the truth in simple language.

Thanks

Top
#59460 - 11/03/04 11:29 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: aham brahmaasmi]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Quote:

iam sorry if some of my explanations



Since there isn't anything but an outpour of baseless beliefs, nobody gets offended here. Please note that your 'beliefs' are not of much interest here, which is explicitly a forum of opposing ideas. You might want to think twice before wasting time again.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59461 - 11/03/04 04:38 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
aham brahmaasmi Offline
seeker
***

Registered: 11/01/04
Posts: 55
Hi krishna,
I can understand how pissed off you are,but that is not our religion and culture has tought us.This forum is just to express the ideas and not to force or plead to follow certain beliefs like some religions do.
And thanks for your concern about my time krishna.
The difference between other religions and hinduism is that there is more than one way to reach salvation in our religion.So I guess we can reach salvation either by dvaita,advaita or vishistadvaita.Just like we can reach salvation by bhakti,karma,gnana.Routes might be different by destination is the same.Mr.Krishna , try to be cool and dont take and get personal.
Peace
Om shanti Om shanti Om shanti

Top
#59462 - 11/03/04 06:17 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: aham brahmaasmi]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Quote:

I can understand how pissed off you are,



I wasn't really upset with your stupid posting; many have done such postings in the past, but it perhaps would be a nice idea.

It is a matter of common sense (I see that you even lack the knowledge of basic netiquette to sign your name) to first see the archives of this forum, to see if some other fellow has voiced similar ideas and the responses to such ideas. For example, the idea that there are multiple paths to salvation; dvaita and advaita lead to the same goal, have already been discussed. The idiocy of the latter point lies in not recognizing the fact that the goals advocated in dvaita and advaita are quite different. While the conception of moksha of advaita is an imaginative pramAtRtva-vihIna-brahman, that of dvaita is shruti based and consequently holds a different view altogether. The pramANas for this are already provided.

If you go through the archives, you would also realize that unlike other fora where people discuss baseless ideas and further mystical experiences as pramANa, this forum is somewhat classical in expecting people to provide pramANas.

And that is the actual representative of Hinduism. Call spade a spade. Call an idiot an idiot. No mincing words. Talk of pramANas, no idle talk. Now if you confuse such directness to 'getting pissed off' (how unhindu!), well that's your problem.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59463 - 11/03/04 09:20 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
aham brahmaasmi Offline
seeker
***

Registered: 11/01/04
Posts: 55
Berdnard shaw once said "dont argue with stupids coz they make you bring to that level of stupidity and try to win" and bratruhari said more or less the same.You are a murkha,a sensible person tries to evaluate whats good and bad but only a fool sticks to one side without any evaluation and sure u r that kind.You are fool enough to think what you believe is hinduism.Iam sure you are a hindu by birth but behaving like a barbarian to be precise a murkha.Krishna you got some issues, iam sure you need some help,ofcourse you wudnt know coz you dont have sense,leave about common sense, may be your parents or friends should try to help you out.
May god save you
Jai sri ram

Top
#59464 - 11/04/04 03:23 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion *DELETED* [Re: nomadeva]
Shaivite Offline
guru
***

Registered: 11/06/02
Posts: 2999
Post deleted by Shaivite

Top
#59465 - 11/04/04 07:11 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: Shaivite]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Quote:

"The Truth is One but the Wise see it in different ways." --Rig Veda



Dear Shaivite, I presume you have given this quote (RV 1.164.46 to be precise) to justify that dvaita and advaita lead to the same goal. You should note the following:

1. it occurs in a certain context. You have to give the context and then justify its usage.

2. It says 'ekaM sat' and not "ekaM satya", as you would have wanted. There are more issues in the verse itself (punarukti of 'agni', for example). So you need to give a full word-by-word translation, show that the shrutivAkya is free of errors of literature (redundancy of speech, for example) and then justify your translation.

3. Even then, advaita and dvaita cannot lead to the same goal, when the goal itself is not mutually agreed upon. Recollect that I had written a lengthy criticism of this point, quoting Kathopanishad and others, which come sharply on people with 'avidyA'. IMO, advaita is made up of avidyA and hence the criticism applies to them. You would need to first rebuff this idea.

But without doing any of that, if somebody (who doesn't believe in the value of shruti-based discussion) just poses a statement out of the blue, without providing justification of any sort, it should be rejected as irrelevant and useless; which also has been done in the past.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59466 - 11/04/04 05:54 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: aham brahmaasmi]
grames Offline
helper
**

Registered: 01/31/02
Posts: 562
Loc: Florida, USA
Dear friend.,

Welcome to the board.
Just a little explanation... for you and for everyone who come to this board and read the messages. First of all, having your opinions is your own freedom and personal right. But, when you discuss it, write it here, debate on different opinions it is no longer personal and it is not necessary to *respect* your opinion *ON* discussion. Discussion is subjective and as you said, most people have conclusions ( including you after reading your post ) rather than curiosity, openess, interest to know the *subject* of discussion. It is like Judgments even before the court assembles. It is one of the bad thing that differentiate the people with just *faith* and sentiments from people with clarity and devotion. Blind faith is as dangerous as having no faith and most of them are victims of just blind faith.

Coming to the point, you said


Quote:



Most of the hindus treat their parents as gods,they can see god in a rock,then can see god in cow, they can see god in a tree etc.., the list goes on




it shows that you are also victim of such *blind* faiths and i do not understand the meaning of raised in an "Orthodox" bramin family. ( Don't take it very personal please. It is one good example of why the varna is not based on birth ). The clarification on such social belief, custom is more important than those belief itself. Not knowing the reasons will not justify or conclude that these customs have the meaning as u mentioned.

Hindus have a famous saying. Ma, pita, Guru and Daiva. May taking this as an example might explain the blind faiths.

Some interpret the above as,
Ma, pita and Guru all are Daiva.
Some interpret the same as,
Ma, Pita and Guru all are *as* good as Daiva
Some interpret the same as,
Ma and Pita are like Guru and Daiva.
Some interpret the same as,
The knowledge of Davia starts from Ma then pita and then gets clarified by a Guru so Ma, pita, guru, Daiva.

The clearer explanation then concludes..
Ma is the first person to introduce a soul in the material world and the pita is responsible for the material satisfaction of the same soul. But, life goal is more than these material satisfactions and so the Guru comes in and teach about the spritual nature and leads that souls to the Daiva.

I know, the last one is breath taking but that is what clarity means.

None of the hindu treat Ma, pita *as* God but they treat them as good as God. Understanding the difference is very important. The one who read Gita will not forget what Lord Krshna advocates.
Quote:

ajnas casraddadhanas ca
samsayatma vinasyati
nayam loko 'sti na paro
na sukham samsayatmanah




Translation to plain english --
But ignorant and faithless persons who doubt the revealed scriptures do not attain God consciousness. For the doubting soul there is happiness neither in this world nor in the next.
Quote:

antavat tu phalam tesam
tad bhavaty alpa-medhasam
devan deva-yajo yanti
mad-bhakta yanti mam api




Translation to plain english --
Men of small intelligence worship the demigods, and their fruits are limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the planets of the demigods, but My devotees ultimately reach My supreme planet.


Mr Subbu here addressed as "Lord Rama" and then "Lord Krshna" but all of the sudden changed his mind and write Rama and krshna are normal human too. Do you see any clarity of understanding here? Rama did make the stones float and that is His mystic power. You can not defeat the Laws of Gravity but He did. ( just one example for you to understand ). If you want to know the potential of Lord Krshna, please do read the Srimad Bagavatam and definitly your blind faith will get cleared. If you believe a little boy can lift a mountain with his little finger, then i agree to your philosophy and faith as the TRUTH. But, do read the Krshna Katha and do let me know if the appearence of Lord Krshna and his Leela is something you can do on your own.

The difference between Islam and Hinduism is by the way people practice the religion and it is political to compare Dwaita with islam. Advaita is not the greatness of our religion but it is the weakness of our religion as it is not the right way of understanding the spiritual nature or veda. But i agree, advaita is very attractive to people with no faith and for people who want to feel very great in no time. The one who understood advaita completly will feel bewildered as there is no truth in advaita. As long as you are in your Avidya mood and mode, you will believe Advaita is true but if you understand the spiritual Knowledge and cultivate it as wisdom, you will come to a point where you will understand that there is nothing more in advaita but still you are not satisfied naturally. Fact is, most ( almost all i can say ) advaitins do not understand advaita so they go on and preech like it is the best. Advaita is more a mimic of buddism with little better explanation but in a bad way. Buddist's nirvana and Advaita's nirguna are the same concepts but advaitins blindly believe it is the Ultimate Truth. It can be ultimate truth if the Spritual Nature is differentiated and not integrated as one object but again saying there is no such object but all are one and nirguna is pathetic. Just one good explanation of explaining how they did know about the 'Nirguna' will help to understand the advaita itself.

Look at Mr Subbu.. he claims he is not talking about Advaita but his total faith is Advaita and he is yet to understand the fact that, he is not genuine about what he is writing as he is not honest enough to agree his own faith. Lack of clarity, lack of honesty, lack of openess and above all lack of understanding is on his side and not on Mr Krshna. Narrating the subject wrongly in a cyclic fashion with multiple twist looses the outcome of the discussion so why i left this thread earlier. I can write a sentimental answer later to show why sentiments alone can not become the truth. Mr Subbu is not at all interested to know more nor brought anything out of his own thinking. Thou, we agree Mr Subbu is also hindu ( or trying to be hindu ) but he is not writing the truths nor showing any interest for the truth but accusing dwaitha as an illusion with no fact, no clarity nor evidances just like an innocent kid believing everyone will just take what he throws up here.

It is very basic to understand that, there are two different nature and one is material and the other one is Spritual. If advaitins deny the material nature as false, they are denying the truth to half. ( some advaitins do not deny unfortunatly). Over simplication will not solve the issue but complicate the issue. It is like firing up the house to kill bugs. Denying the differences is lack of understanding and not the Truth.


Edited by grames (11/04/04 06:28 PM)
_________________________
Hare Krshna!

Top
#59467 - 11/05/04 01:00 AM Interpretations! A JOKE [Re: grames]
grames Offline
helper
**

Registered: 01/31/02
Posts: 562
Loc: Florida, USA
About a century or two ago, the Pope decided that all the Sikhs had to leave Italy. Naturally there was a big uproar from the Sikh community.

So the Pope made a deal. He would have a religious debate with a member of the Sikh community. If the Sikh won, the Sikhs could stay. If the Pope won, the Sikhs would leave.

The Sikhs realized that they had no choice. So they picked the most intelligent guy of their community named Santa Singh to represent them. Santa asked for one additional condition to the debate. To make it more interesting, neither side would be allowed to talk. The Pope agreed.

The day of the great debate came. Santa Singh and the Pope sat opposite each other for a full minute. Then the Pope raised his hand and showed three fingers. Santa looked back at him and raised one finger. The Pope waved his fingers in a circle around his head. Santa pointed to the ground where he sat. The Pope pulled out a wafer and a glass of wine. Santa pulled out an apple.

The Pope stood up and said, "I give up. This man is too good. The Sikhs can stay."

An hour later, the cardinals were gathered around the Pope asking him what had happened. The Pope said, "First I held up three fingers to represent the holy trinity. He responded by holding up one finger to remind me that there was still one God common to both our religions. Then I waved my finger around me to show him that God was all around us.

He responded by pointing to the ground and showing that God was also right here with us. I pulled out the wine and wafer to show that God absolves us from our sins. He pulled out an apple to remind me of original sin. He had an answer for everything. What could I do?"

Meanwhile, the Sikh community had crowded around Santa Singh. "What happened?" they asked. "Well," said Santa, "First he said to me that the Sikhs had three days to get out of here. I told him by raising middle finger and not one of us was leaving. Then he told me that this whole city would be cleared of Sikhs. I let him know that we were staying right here."
"Yes, and then???" asked the crowd. "I don't know", said Santa,
"He took out his lunch, and I took out mine!!


Edited by grames (11/05/04 01:33 AM)
_________________________
Hare Krshna!

Top
#59468 - 11/05/04 03:15 AM Re: Interpretations! A JOKE [Re: grames]
Vedareda Offline
seeker

Registered: 07/17/04
Posts: 87
Mr Grames, great joke you made my day
_________________________
Om Ram Jai Shree Ram Come up, O lions, and shake off the delusion that you are sheep; you are souls immortal, spirits free, blest and eternal, ye are not matter, ye are not bodies; matter is your servant, not you the servant of matter. Vivekananda

Top
#59469 - 11/05/04 11:35 AM Re: Interpretations! A JOKE [Re: grames]
chandan1326 Offline
initiate

Registered: 06/17/03
Posts: 140
Loc: Kolkata, India.
Good joke, but was originally written about Jews.
_________________________
Chandan Pal, India andham tamah pravishanti ye avidyaamupaasate, tato bhooya iva te tamo ya u vidyaayaam rataah. - Ishopanishad.

Top
#59470 - 11/17/04 04:44 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
Lord Krishna in B.G 2-45 'o Arjun, be free from contradictions of happiness and sorrow,rest on that which is constant,and unconcerned with getting what you donot have as well as with protecting what you have,in order to dedicate yourself to the Self within.' and 46. After the final absolution a man does not need the Ved,just as we do not need a pond when there is all stretching ocean" These clearly explain the importance of the SELF.outside body has no significance for the Jnanis.Self is eternal and the body is unreal or purely temporary.
regards,
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59471 - 03/01/05 09:12 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
yOgasikhOpanishad iv 3.' swalpamavyantaram kruthvA jIvAtma paramAtmanOh, yastshtathi sa mUdhAtmA bhayam thasyApibhAshitham, yadajnAnAdbhavE dwaith mitharattat prvisyathi, AtmatthvEnatadA sarwam nEtarattatrachANvapi, anubhUthO vyayam lOkO vyavahAra kshmOpi san,asadrUpO yadhA swapna uttarakshaNa bAdhitaha, swapnE jAgaritham nAsti,jAgarE swapnatA nahi,dwayamEva layEnAsti layOpi hyanayOrnacha..' who ever differentiates even to the smallest atma and paramatma is a fool.he only has fear.as he is ignorant he sees the other as dwita.one has to see that all is atma.there is nothing other than atma.this whole visible world is like a dream.in dream there is no jagrut and in jagrut there is no dream.in laya there is neither jagrut nor swapna.there is no dissolution for jeevatma and paramatma.{problem with translation}
hence no dwaitha
_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59472 - 03/04/05 03:02 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
******* Is just ONE lump of mud the cause of all mud-products? Is one nail-cutter the cause of all iron products? Advaitins think so! ************

We are not talking of mud. We are talking of ONE Purusha. When there is nothing apart from him then, will there be a potter for him separate from him?

I must praise you for your use of english interspersed with sanskrit. Thats all.

Top
#59473 - 03/07/05 11:28 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Quote:

yOgasikhOpanishad


is not an authentic upanishad. Prove otherwise. The conditions were mentioned earlier.

Hence nothing is proved so far.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59474 - 03/07/05 11:55 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Quote:

******* Is just ONE lump of mud the cause of all mud-products? Is one nail-cutter the cause of all iron products? Advaitins think so! ************

We are not talking of mud. We are talking of ONE Purusha. When there is nothing apart from him then, will there be a potter for him separate from him?




I can't figure out which post of mine you are referring to, but that doesn't really matter. The context, as I guess it now, seems to be usage of sad-vidyA in the Chandogya Upanishad to prove that Brahman is the material cause of the world.

You are *perhaps* unaware that there are two schools of thought within advaita, regarding the material-causality of world. While some like vAchaspati mishra hold to vivarta-vAda, some others (like Prakashatman?) hold to Brahma-pariNama-vaada. Shankara's commentary on this section in the Chandogya can be interpreted in favor of both vivartavAda and brahma-pariNAma-vAda. I was criticizing the the latter view, that the Brahman is the upAdAna-kAraNa (just like mud is for pot) for the Universe though the modification is false. The Brahma-pariNamavaada folks rely on the 3 illustrations given by Sage Uddalaka to his son and they are the same illustrations I have quoted above.

Without this context, whatever you wrote about 'we are talking about one puruSha' is just another spurt of emotion to justify advaitic reading, however irrational it may be (and is).

Quote:

I must praise you for your use of english interspersed with sanskrit. Thats all.


Give me something to praise you for.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59475 - 03/07/05 08:49 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
***** I can't figure out which post of mine you are referring to *****

Do you forget what you write? You wrote as below:


******* Is just ONE lump of mud the cause of all mud-products? Is one nail-cutter the cause of all iron products? Advaitins think so! ************


Please do not bring any context as there was none. 'vivartavAda and brahma-pariNAma-vAda', these are obfuscations and irrelevant here. What is relevant here is your refutation through use of an inappropriate example. Pots are made by a potter out of clay. What is clay and who is potter? when:

"Brahman alone there was with his self in the beginning (Br. U.).

And there is no emotion. I am not an advatin. I am just checking on your logic.


****** Give me something to praise you for. *******

Well, a judge with a fuzzy logic faculty is no judge.


Om Namah Sivayya

Top
#59476 - 03/08/05 07:17 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
I finally figured out that you were referring to msg# 48949 which was posted on 17th Oct last year. Nearly 6 months back. Do you think it is not possible for a human to forget what he has written in the last six months?

Anyway, coming to the matter...

Quote:

Please do not bring any context as there was none. 'vivartavAda and brahma-pariNAma-vAda', these are obfuscations and irrelevant here.




Rubbish. Since I mentioned "Advaitins think so", I indeed was referring to the useless Advaitin translation of the Chandogya's sadvidyA. It is not something that I am bringing in now, if you are sensible enough to note.

Quote:

What is relevant here is your refutation through use of an inappropriate example. Pots are made by a potter out of clay. What is clay and who is potter? when:

"Brahman alone there was with his self in the beginning (Br. U.).

And there is no emotion. I am not an advatin. I am just checking on your logic.




More rubbish. The examples are not given by me, but by Chandogya Upanishad. Read:

yathA somyaikena mR^itpiNDena sarvaM mR^inmayaM viGYAtaM
syAdvAchArambhaNaM vikAro nAmadheyaM mR^ittiketyeva satyam.h || 6.1.4||

yathA somyaikena lohamaNinA sarvaM lohamayaM viGYAta\m+
syAdvAchArambhaNaM vikAro nAmadheyaM lohamityeva
satyam.h || 6.1.5||

yathA somyikena nakhanikR^intanena sarvaM kArShNAyasaM viGYAtaM syAdvAchArambhaNaM vikAro nAmadheyaM kR^iShNAyasamityeva satyamevaM somya sa Adesho bhavatIti || 6.1.6||

Now, read Shankara's commentary on the same verses. Then you can question me on why I feel it is incorrect or whatever (which I have anyway mentioned in my post that you quote here).

And don't change the example: it is not pot, but the relation between One lump of mud vs all mud products. You can't even read properly, let alone think.

You are simply raising noise here by not reading with a cool mind (assuming it exists).

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59477 - 03/09/05 02:21 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
Shri Noma

Please show us where any Advaitins has said that “one piece of clay is the cause of all mud products".


******* Is just ONE lump of mud the cause of all mud-products? Is one nail-cutter the cause of all iron products? Advaitins think so! ************

You have referred to the following verse for which 3 translations are given below.

yathA somyaikena mR^itpiNDena sarvaM mR^inmayaM viGYAtaM
syAdvAchArambhaNaM vikAro nAmadheyaM mR^ittiketyeva satyam.h || 6.1.4||

6.1.4
Translation 1
"Just as, my dear, by one clod of clay all that is made of clay is known, the modification being only a name, arising from speech, while the truth is that all is clay;

Translation 2

VI-i-4: ‘Dear boy, just as through a single clod of clay all that is made of clay would become known, for all modifications is but name based upon words and the clay alone is real;

Translation 3
4. The father replied: 'My dear, as by one clod of clay all that is made of clay is known, the difference being only a name, arising from speech, but the truth being that all is clay;


Now you are asking: Is just ONE lump of mud the cause of all mud-products? This is what Advaitins think.


And what the passages say? All three say the same thing: ‘Dear boy, just as through a single clod of clay all that is made of clay would become known, for all modifications is but name based upon words and the clay alone is real;


The Chandogya passage says that in case of ‘all clay products’, the clay is reality and the forms are names.


If you do not see the difference, then let God help me.



What I write below is not for you but for others who may be further interested.


A gold bangle is simply a name of a form of the base material gold. But until we ponder deeply, we take the bangle as an independent thing. Just think about a gold bangle for a moment and you will realize that it is just a concept – a name. That is what Chandogya and other Upanishads teach.

You may change the shape of the bangle to a ring and this will now be called a ring, but gold has not changed.

Friends just pick up a bangle and see whether the ‘bangle’ is an entity, like gold is, 'bangle' is the name for a shape.

********* Is just ONE lump of mud the cause of all mud-products? This is what Advaitins think. **************


Let Mr. Noma show us where any Advaitins has said that “one piece of clay is the cause of all mud products.

Top
#59478 - 03/10/05 06:07 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Shankara's commentary on Chandogya 6.1.4

yathA sa Adesho bhavati tacchR^iNu he somya -- yathA loke ekena mR^itpiNDena rucakakumbhAdikAraNabhUtena vij~nAtena sarvamanyattadvikArajAtaM mR^inmayaM mR^idvikArajAtaM vij~nAtaM syAt. kathaM mR^itpiNDe kAraNe vij~nAte kAryamanyadvij~nAtaM syAt? naiSha doShaH, kAraNenAnyatvAtkAryasya. yanmanyase anyasminvij~nAte.anyanna j~nAyata iti -- satyamevaM syAt, yadyanyatkAraNAtkAryaM syAt, na tvevamanyatkAraNAtkAryam. kathaM tarhIdaM loke -- idaM kAraNamayamasya vikAra iti? shrR^iNu. vAcArambhaNaM vAgArambhaNaM vAgAlambanamityetat. ko'sau? vikAro nAmadheyaM nAmaiva nAmadheyam, svArthe dheyapratyayaH, vAgAlambanamAtraM nAmaiva kevalaM na vikAro nAma vastvasti; paramArthato mR^ittiketyeva mR^ittikaiva tu satyaM vastvasti.

Dear Boy, listen to the instruction / teaching, as it stands -- just as in the world, when one lump of mud that is the cause for pots etc is known, every else that is the product of modifications to that, that which is the product of modification of mud is known. Contd...

Thus, as the above passage suggests, Shankara brings in the idea that this illustration of one lump of mud and mud-products is given by Uddalaka to convey the material causality (upAdAnatva) of Brahman. This is evident by the usage of words 'kAraNa', 'kArya' and 'vikAra'.

If the Upanishad were convey the upAdAnatva of Brahman, as Shankara thinks, the first illustration should be taken to mean one lump of mud is the material cause of all mud products, which is absurd. Yet, your hero doesn't mind shoving his thesis in, even if it means to torture the shruti by ignoring the word 'ekena', adding 'mAtra' (in vAchArambhaNaM) and eating the word 'iti' (in mR^ittikA iti eva satyaM).

Atanu, these points are raised by Sri Madhvacharya in 13th century and were repeated by Sri Vyasatirtha in his nyAyAmR^ita. Why don't you read the response of Madhusudana Saraswati (who incidentally was also from Bengal), if any, on the charges over advaitic interpretation of this shruti?

Regarding the other point which you mentioned for others, this response too is for others:

The Upanishads does not say that the form is not real or mithyA or to be ignored. Just a point to be remembered. In fact, it does not even say 'it is *only* a difference of form and name'. That 'only' (mAtraM) is added by Shankara.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59479 - 03/10/05 02:30 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
You asked:

********* Is just ONE lump of mud the cause of all mud-products? This is what Advaitins think. **************

I requested

Let Mr. Noma show us where any Advaitins has said that “one piece of clay is the cause of all mud products.

And you have cited the following comments on Chandogya verse of Snakara:

"Dear Boy, listen to the instruction / teaching, as it stands -- just as in the world, when one lump of mud that is the cause for pots etc is known, every else that is the product of modifications to that, that which is the product of modification of mud is known. "



Now show me where Sankara has said: "just ONE lump of mud is the cause of all mud-products", as you alleged.

Read again and again what you ascribed to Advaita in very general term as below.

********* Is just ONE lump of mud the cause of all mud-products? This is what Advaitins think. **************

I simply say that Advaita never says that one lump of clay is the cause of all clay products.


****** The Upanishads ------In fact, it does not even say 'it is *only* a difference of form and name'. That 'only' (mAtraM) is added by Shankara. **************


Yes, how nice. It is Sankara who actually weakened the statement of Upanishad:


'it is a difference of form and name' by adding 'only'.


The Upanishadic statement: 'it is a difference of form and name' (as quoted by you above) is much stronger, emphatic, and final. The 'only' is absolutely not required.

'it is a difference of form and name'

Bye my friend Noma

Om Namah Sivayyaa



Top
#59480 - 03/11/05 11:27 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Bye Mr.atta.

--
For others,

Quote:

And you have cited the following comments on Chandogya verse of Snakara:

"Dear Boy, listen to the instruction / teaching, as it stands -- just as in the world, when one lump of mud that is the cause for pots etc is known, every else that is the product of modifications to that, that which is the product of modification of mud is known. "

Now show me where Sankara has said: "just ONE lump of mud is the cause of all mud-products", as you alleged.




Looks like Mr.Atta has a hard time reading mails. This point is already answered in the earlier mail:

"If the Upanishad were convey the upAdAnatva of Brahman, as Shankara thinks, the first illustration should be taken to mean one lump of mud is the material cause of all mud products, which is absurd".

It is a matter of fact that Mr.Atta has no knowledge of sanskrit or even the shrutis and relies upon freewheeling translations. He is absolutely incompetent to judge the veracity of a translation, leave alone think of implications of a certain translation (his charge over me arises due to non-comprehension of the implication of Shankara's reading. Had this been an 'one of' instance, he would have been pitiable. But look at all these advaitins on this forum: not a single instance of intelligence). Thus, it is no surprise that he feels that the Upanishad's statement is sufficient on its own. He does not know, for example, that if a status of reality is given to these vikAra, either in form or name, Brahman, which is said to be the upAdAna kAraNa of this Universe will no more be avyaya, akhaNDa etc. The insertion of 'only' by Shankara is to give a color of mithyAtva to this vikAra, as can be seen in the further commentary.

Regards,
Krishna


Top
#59481 - 03/11/05 05:43 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
You said

********* Is just ONE lump of mud the cause of all mud-products? This is what Advaitins think. **************

You have cited the following comments on Chandogya verse of Snakara:

"Dear Boy, listen to the instruction / teaching, as it stands -- just as in the world, when one lump of mud that is the cause for pots etc is known, every else that is the product of modifications to that, that which is the product of modification of mud is known. "


Ha. Ha. Just show where Sankara says: "just ONE lump of mud the cause of all mud-products"

Om Namah Sivayya




Top
#59482 - 03/18/05 12:30 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
ksubbu Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 186
Loc: andhra pradesh,india
Dear Atanuji, namaskar.i am adding the incident regarding Sri Adi Shankara's fortune.he realised lord Shiva in a lowly untouchable.a great scholar and proficient in vedas might have founded the Adwaitham after having the darshan of lord Shiva .
'Yet, his most famous encounter was not with the famed ritualist Mandana Misra but with a lowly untouchable. On his way to the Viswanath temple in Kashi, he came upon an untouchable and his dog. When asked to move aside by Sankara's disciples, the untouchable asked: "Do you wish that I move my soul,the atman and ever lasting, or this body made of clay?" Seeing the untouchable as none other than the Lord, Sankara prostrated before Ishwara, composing five slokas (Manisha Panchakam).
this is from 'www.adishankara-wikipedia" the free encyclopedia' During Sankara's time Hinduism had lost some of its appeal, because of the influence of Buddhism and Jainism. Sankara stressed the importance of the Vedas and his work helped Hinduism regain strength and popularity. Although he did not live long, he had traveled on foot to various parts of India to restore the study of the Vedas

had Shankara been not born Hinduism might not have been survived

god is graet.

regards,


_________________________
subrahmanyam

Top
#59483 - 03/19/05 05:07 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: ksubbu]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
Thank You Subramaniam ji,

I have read this in Sankara Vijayam. Nice to recieve it again. It is Lord's prasad.


I will like to repeat something here.

Sankara is denigrated by some by quoting his famous "Jagat Mithyam"

This is not for those who are knowledgeable but for those who are initiates.

Sankara said:

Jagat Mithyam. Brahman Satya. Brahman is Jagat."

When Brahman is Satya, how can Jagat be Mithya since Brahman is Jagat? Sankara meant the perception of Jagat through so-called external senses is not true. Jagat really is Lord Vishnu.



Om Namah Sivayya.

Top
#59484 - 03/21/05 02:54 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
openSky Offline
initiate

Registered: 10/07/04
Posts: 185
Agree,

Some comments on Mithya...

Sat(truth) is that which stays forever and is permanent. Mithya literally is that which doesn't stay forever. Mithya (such as body, mind, matter) exists as an experience only for a finite period, but I think it is not very accurate to equate Mithya to illusion or Asat.

Asat is the word used to descibe something that has absolute no basis (permanent or temporary) Jagat Mithya perhaps only means that the world experience is fleeting (but not necessarily Asat)

Brahman is the only permanance (Brahman satya) as well as brahman is this ever changing world experience (Brahman Jagat) As the change is also a form of permanence.


Top
#59485 - 03/21/05 04:59 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: openSky]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
I feel that you have summed it up.


Top
#59486 - 03/23/05 11:01 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: openSky]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Quote:

Brahman is the only permanance (Brahman satya) as well as brahman is this ever changing world experience (Brahman Jagat) As the change is also a form of permanence




This is the definition of 'mithyA' that neovedantins like Vivekananda have tried to take. However, the more classical and educated advaitins have better definitions to offer. All such definitions have been well criticized in nyAyAmRta (which brings many shades of the term under 5 broad definitions) with no proper response from the advaita siddhi.

The neo-vedantins are no better because such a definition of mithyA does not live up to the ideals of 'ekameva advitIyaM' that Shankara so zealously upholds. He has explicitly said that the world is much akin to a rope superimposed on the snake and is illusory (This is said in his bhAShya on the vaitathya prakaraNa of the gauDapAda kArikA). The logical problem in having a time-based definition of mithyA is that it makes time real, while only Brahman is real and kAlAtIta as well. Which is why, most advaitin scholars of the past like padmapAda and vAchaspati mishra have avoided such defns in the past. See nyAyAmRta where these are quoted. You might also see the response in advaita-siddhi, which simply ignores the problem and makes ridiculous statements, just like some advaitins here, who cannot understand that their objection has been met and answered (Atanu Banerjee, for example) and respond just by parroting the same objection.

Btw, the definition you have given of mithyA is not correct by any of more educated advaitins. It is more a way of explaining the vyavahArika and pratibhAsika sattA, whose basis is in the definition of mithyA.


The standard reason given for breaking the two fold reality system is 'sat chet na bAdhyeta, asat chet na pratIyeta' (Had it been real, it will be uncontradictable and Had it been unreal, it would be imperceptible). This has a root in the Buddhist confusion of mixing up reality with eternality. Also, how can one ignore the flaw that if asat was absolutely imperceptible, how the heck did this guy even get to talk about it? There is a contradiction right there, if one cares to notice. So, these guys (not Shankara, who never bothered about the absurdities in his theory) thought that they will bring up another thing called mithyA, which is contradictable but perceptible. This is true of the snake in the snake-rope example and therefore, this world is like the snake in terms of 'reality-status' i.e., mithyA.

Now starts the fun. What exactly separates mithyA from asat (or atyantAsat)? asat is something that does not exist at all times. Now, that is true of mithyA too. The snake too does not exist at any time, even when it is percieved (this is expressly accepted by Madhusudhana Saraswati, when defending the 2nd definition of mithyAtva). Then, what is the difference between asat and mithyA? People did not say it is perceptibility; for the obvious reasons: that will be attributing a bhAva guNa (other than existentiality) to an abhAvapadArtha: like saying the black hair of a barren-woman's son is real, while the barren woman's son isn't! Anyways, they continued their gimmicks and stunts, which have been again well criticized.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59487 - 04/05/05 06:00 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
Well. You write very long.

Simplicicty is good.

Jagat Mithyam. Brahman Satya. Brahman is Jagat.

Simple. Depend on mind and make your own interpretations. Mind's nature is to partition, categorise -- till Soma flows.

****** He has explicitly said that the world is much akin to a rope superimposed on the snake and is illusory *******


Yes, I feel good to see a correct citation. What appears to be a spirit less universe (to the senses) is really the Lord (known to those endowed with inner divine eye).

Reality of Jagat is Lord.


BG 5.19 Ihaiva tairjitah sargo yeshaam saamye sthitam manah; Nirdosham hi samam brahma tasmaad brahmani te sthitaah.

5.17 Tadbuddhayas tadaatmaanas tannishthaas tatparaayanaah;
Gacchantyapunaraavrittim jnaana nirdhoota kalmashaah.


6.29 Sarvabhootasthamaatmaanam sarvabhootaani chaatmani;
Eekshate yogayuktaatmaa sarvatra samadarshanah.


7.18 Udaaraah sarva evaite jnaanee twaatmaiva me matam;
Aasthitah sa hi yuktaatmaa maamevaanuttamaam gatim.


The Jagat is Lord to one who is Yuktatma and sees Lord alone.


Om Namah Sivayya






Top
#59488 - 04/05/05 06:24 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
I have a genuine request to you. Though I feel that I will be rebuffed. But now a days it does not matter to get a rebuff.

You are in the labyrinths of logic, which is darkness. Get into Bhakti mode and Jnana will automatically come. Submit.

*************
Now starts the fun. What exactly separates mithyA from asat (or atyantAsat)? asat is something that does not exist at all times. Now, that is true of mithyA too. The snake too does not exist at any time, even when it is percieved (this is expressly accepted by Madhusudhana Saraswati, when defending the 2nd definition of mithyAtva). Then, what is the difference between asat and mithyA? People did not say it is perceptibility; for the obvious reasons: that will be attributing a bhAva guNa (other than existentiality) to an abhAvapadArtha: like saying the black hair of a barren-woman's son is real, while the barren woman's son isn't! Anyways, they continued their gimmicks and stunts, which have been again well criticized.
**********


"like saying the black hair of a barren-woman's son is real, while the barren woman's son isn't!"

This isn't a correct example. Barren women has no son at all. Whereas Jagat has a true substratum.


I know I will get a rebuff. But still I will like to tell you Nomadeva, that these philosophical differences are of no consequence; they stem from particular preferences. And these mental gymnastics are hindrances to a calm and tranquil mind, essential for realising the supreme.


What Sankara said was very simple. Do not miss the whole while describing the parts.

Top
#59489 - 04/15/05 08:42 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Quote:

Well. You write very long.

Simplicicty is good.




But it is better to write long than to write junk, which is what you are indulging in.

That Jagat is illusory or false is not upheld by any of the verses you quote. In fact, people with such opinions are expressly condemned, as of demoniac nature, by the Lord in 'asatyaM apratiShThaM te jagat AhuH anIshvaraM'. Don't dilute the meaning of this pristine verse by saying asatyaM is different from mithyAtva. Applying a little sense is sufficient to say that the earlier mail from me in this thread was just to say that such differentiation is not logically tenable and is not supported by the prasthAnatraya.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59490 - 04/15/05 10:13 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Quote:

You are in the labyrinths of logic, which is darkness.




Thanks, this is but an indication that, what you refer as jnAna etc do not have a logical basis.

And it is no bhakti which doesn't have any element of jnAna in it. otherwise, it is blind belief.

Quote:


*************
Now starts the fun. What exactly separates mithyA from asat (or atyantAsat)? asat is something that does not exist at all times. Now, that is true of mithyA too. The snake too does not exist at any time, even when it is percieved (this is expressly accepted by Madhusudhana Saraswati, when defending the 2nd definition of mithyAtva). Then, what is the difference between asat and mithyA? People did not say it is perceptibility; for the obvious reasons: that will be attributing a bhAva guNa (other than existentiality) to an abhAvapadArtha: like saying the black hair of a barren-woman's son is real, while the barren woman's son isn't! Anyways, they continued their gimmicks and stunts, which have been again well criticized.
**********

"like saying the black hair of a barren-woman's son is real, while the barren woman's son isn't!"

This isn't a correct example. Barren women has no son at all. Whereas Jagat has a true substratum.




You haven't understood the purport of above passage and therefore come up with an irrelevant remark. The above passage depicts that asat (an example of which is vandhyAputra, according to advaita) is not different from mithyA (an example of which is the world), though the contrary is claimed by advaita.

Read again and you will see why the example fits well. But I know, having being exposed to trash like neo-vedanta, which considers logic as mental gymanistics, it is either impossible or extremely difficult to see the importance of a good rigorous definition of the categories.

Given that many important advaitins of the yore have tried and spent effort in clarifying their positions and answering, rather saying something more worthwhile than "this is all mental gymanistics", it is an indication that they don't share stupid opinions which equate logical arguments to 'mental gymanistics'.

Since you don't think twice before making illogical requests, here's a good one from me: Spend time reading proper advaita works instead of diluted (and wrong) stuff from Ramakrishna mission and the like.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59491 - 04/24/05 01:17 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
*****************
But it is better to write long than to write junk, which is what you are indulging in.

**************



Junk is in you. I do not have time for language pyrotecchnics and clouding of the main issues.


You compared Aas below:

"like saying the black hair of a barren-woman's son is real, while the barren woman's son isn't!"


I simply repeat:

This isn't a correct example. Barren women has no son at all. Whereas Jagat has a true substratum. The Lord. The consciousness. The Self.



Top
#59492 - 04/25/05 08:27 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Quote:


I simply repeat:




Frogs are known to croak anyway, so it does not matter.

Quote:



This isn't a correct example. Barren women has no son at all. Whereas Jagat has a true substratum. The Lord. The consciousness. The Self.




For that very reason, asat is indistinguishable from mithyA. A point you are not getting.

Regards,
Krishna

Top
#59493 - 04/28/05 09:38 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: openSky]
HariDaasa Offline
wanderer

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 30
Quote:

Agree,

Some comments on Mithya...

Sat(truth) is that which stays forever and is permanent. Mithya literally is that which doesn't stay forever. Mithya (such as body, mind, matter) exists as an experience only for a finite period, but I think it is not very accurate to equate Mithya to illusion or Asat.

Asat is the word used to descibe something that has absolute no basis (permanent or temporary) Jagat Mithya perhaps only means that the world experience is fleeting (but not necessarily Asat)

Brahman is the only permanance (Brahman satya) as well as brahman is this ever changing world experience (Brahman Jagat) As the change is also a form of permanence.






Very simple question to you....

What about your above definition of 'mithya' ? Is it permanent or for a finite period ?

If it is later, then the very definition itself is mithya (by its own token) and hence this rule of mithya does not applicable every time.

If former, then we have one more 'Real' thing apart from Brahmn and hence non-duality is gone with the wind.

Do you have any other alternatives ? Let me know.

-HariDaasa

Top
#59494 - 05/05/05 02:16 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: nomadeva]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
*******Frogs are known to croak anyway, so it does not matter. ************

Great commendable imagination.


********For that very reason, asat is indistinguishable from mithyA. A point you are not getting.**********


A very interesting insistence on equating two clearly different words by one who hold duality true, mainly based on differences in Vac.




And I repeat: Your example of 'Barren women and his son'(as usual) was not at all appropriate since Jagat has a true substratum. The Lord. The consciousness. The Self.




Whereas an imaginary son has no substratum.






Top
#59495 - 05/05/05 02:24 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: HariDaasa]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
***** What about your above definition of 'mithya' ? Is it permanent or for a finite period ?***********

Friend is this important? The ultimate truth is that where vac and intellect do not reach.


Top
#59496 - 05/05/05 04:06 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
nomadeva Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/09/02
Posts: 306
Quote:


A very interesting insistence on equating two clearly different words by one who hold duality true, mainly based on differences in Vac.




The words are different but synonymous in General Sanskrit Literature. Advaita has tried to create a philosophical doctrine out of that, but has not been able so far to give a clear definition of the two.

The differences in Vac is due to fundamental differences, a point you are prone to miss.

Quote:


And I repeat: Your example of 'Barren women and his son'(as usual) was not at all appropriate since Jagat has a true substratum. The Lord. The consciousness. The Self.

Whereas an imaginary son has no substratum.




Usual croaking. Tell me, are you saying that asat is different from mithyA because the former has no substratum while the latter has? Is that your argument? Do you even remember, the original context in which I made that comment?

Anyway, I don't think you even understand the significance of having a separate category called mithyA and why advaita should resort to three-state logic. Have a look at Shankara's comm. on jagadvyApAravarjaM. Not that it will instill some reasoning in you, but a try is always good.

Regards,
Krishna



Top
#59497 - 05/06/05 12:53 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
HariDaasa Offline
wanderer

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 30
Quote:

***** What about your above definition of 'mithya' ? Is it permanent or for a finite period ?***********

Friend is this important? The ultimate truth is that where vac and intellect do not reach.






My dear, it is important indeed, because you are talking about truth; the very truth of definition of sat/asat/mithya. How can reality status of truth is not important? Fails to be called truth if you think it is not important.

Quote:

The ultimate truth is that where vac and intellect do not reach.




How do you know that ? that too sitting and talking in mithya world ?

-Haridaasa.

Top
#59498 - 05/06/05 12:59 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
HariDaasa Offline
wanderer

Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 30
Quote:


Sankara said:

Jagat Mithyam. Brahman Satya. Brahman is Jagat."

When Brahman is Satya, how can Jagat be Mithya since Brahman is Jagat?




Your equation can also reduces Brahmn to Mithya

-Haridaasa

Top
#59499 - 05/12/05 01:17 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: HariDaasa]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
************
Jagat Mithyam. Brahman Satya. Brahman is Jagat."

When Brahman is Satya, how can Jagat be Mithya since Brahman is Jagat?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your equation can also reduces Brahmn to Mithya

************

Nice. You wish to put the horse before the cart. With this concept examine other verses also.


For both Nomadeva and Haridasa,

Well, both of you are correct. And all who have seen the oneness in Turiya are the illusioned ones. OK, I accept it.

If you are happy then it makes me happy also since the I in you and I in me are same. Only many 'I am this' have become different.

Be happy.

Top
#59500 - 05/21/05 06:11 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion *DELETED* [Re: openSky]
universal-spirituality.org Offline
seeker

Registered: 05/20/05
Posts: 85
Post deleted by Shaivite

Top
#59501 - 05/21/05 02:17 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: universal-spirituality.org]
winsome Offline
member
**

Registered: 06/06/04
Posts: 213
Loc: USA
Quote:

In fact Sankara came as Ramanuja and clarified misunderstanding.



oh yeah Now you are coming here and clarifying the devil.

Top
#59502 - 09/30/05 12:14 PM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: Abhay Kulkarni]
sanjayhj Offline
stranger

Registered: 09/30/05
Posts: 1
Here are Abhay's Views : "Only one can be true not both because they have entirely opposite stands in any respect.If you think Adviata is ultimate to you may bound for ultimate hell. "

That is not acceptable. Newton's laws of physics are quite true but cannot be applied to Sub atomic particles. Similarly, max-planks theory cannot be applied to mechanics.

Dwaitha works at a different plane and advaitha at an other different plane.

If you feel Advaitha isnt good, its Your problem. Not advaitha's. Advaitha is knowledge . Dont compare it.

And where on earth did u get the story of shankara from? Vivekananda calls shankaracharya as an aspect of the parabramha. Have you ever recited/listened to "Laxminrusimha karavalambana" stotra of shankara.

Its very clear that you know nothing about the Great Acharya. He put Sanathana dharma back on track.

Read History ...

Top
#59503 - 10/01/05 03:01 AM Re: dwaitha is an illusion [Re: sanjayhj]
rrs Offline
stranger

Registered: 09/20/05
Posts: 8
Hello,

First of all, it is unfortunate to see Advaitins resorting the mystic experience, etc... as a proof. This is not correct of course.

"The words are different but synonymous in General Sanskrit Literature. Advaita has tried to create a philosophical doctrine out of that, but has not been able so far to give a clear definition of the two."

Mithya means that something is true from the Vyavahara perspective but not true from the Paramartha perspective.

Vyavahara perspective is less correct than the Paramartha perspective though not entirely incorrect. This is actually a bit like the theory of relativity. From one observer's PoV the velocity of a very fast object might be one number and from another's PoV it might be another. According to the theory of relativity both of these positions are correct from their own point of view. In Advaita we are not saying both the positions are equally correct but rather than one position is more complete than the other. Relative truth is truth that is true only under some constraints.

Something is Asat if it is true from neither the Paramartha perspective, nor from the Vyavahara perspective,

R.

Top
Page 1 of 16 1 2 3 ... 15 16 >


Moderator:  ashs, bbadmin, satay, Shaivite 
(Views)Popular Topics
VALUE BASED MANAGEMENT 5965425
Building A Caring Society 2308137
The Dvaita Viewpoint 1355517
Instances of Muslim Bigotry 1255400
Need some help with my MBA project 1152640
Islamic fanaticism and terror 844022
Allegations on Sinha : Who is gunning for whom? 711394
Christians Converting to Hinduism 621161
Instances of psuedo-secularism in India 503277
THEORY OF ACTION AND KARMA YOGA 408032




This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2010, Dharma Universe.