Advaitin tradition and definitions - All Advaitin-posts are merged into this thread

Certainly, the eloquent poem has beauty and nuances, however, there is something in this verse that does not flow properly:

kaivalyake narka mAne svargake khapuSpa jAne
indriya kRSNa sevane vizva-pUrNa sukhe
daivatAdi nAhi gaNe tomAra kRponmukhe
tomAra-i audArya vIrya AtmA akaitava
tomAra kRpA mUrtimanta gauDIya vaiSNava

He takes nondualistic liberation to be hell
and heaven to be a flower in the sky;
his senses are all engaged in Krishna's service
and so he sees the world as a place of joy;
he pays no attention to other gods,
turned only toward the search for Your mercy;

My point here is why someone in a pure state of mind would be repulsive about anything. The uttama bhakta (as in the poem) maybe indifferent towards liberation and enjoyment, nevertheless, most likely that in full awareness, must be no aversion in the realization.

Methinks you will find this same "fault" in the works of Sri Rupa and Sri Narottama.

Could you please be more specific?

'sayujya' sunite bhaktera haya ghrna-bhaya
naraka vanchaye, tabu sayujya na laya

Cc Madhya 6.241 (Dimock)

Hearing about sayujya instills hate and fear in the Vaisnavas. (Why would they not be repulsed by that which is averse to that which their heart seeks?) The verse you quoted seems to follows one of Prabhodananda Saraswati's own verses:



http://jagat.wisewisdoms.com/articles/showarticle.php?id=30

Thanks dear Braj, but the request was for Sri Rupa or Narottama’s poem, if is possible.


What I do not understand now is the Dimock's verse from Cc Madhya 6.241?

Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 6.241

bhakti-sādhana-śreṣṭha śunite haila mana

prabhu upadeśa kaila nāma-sańkīrtana


"Then the Bhaṭṭācārya asked Caitanya Mahāprabhu, "Which item is most important in the execution of devotional service?" The Lord replied that the most important item was the chanting of the holy name of the Lord".

http://caitanyacaritamrta.com/madhya/6/241/en



Moreover, I do really have difficulty time to understand (poetically as it may be) how a real Vaishnava would develop or cultivate "hate and fear" for anything.

What is it specifically that you want examples of--them showing aversion to anything? Aversion to kaivalya?




How is this relevant to discussion at hand?



If you love something, do you fear losing that thing? Do you hate those who abuse the object of your love?

Oh, I see what you are saying. He uses different verse numbering. Original verses and verse cited are numbered differently in his book. Thus the BBT edition will have the verse numbered somewhat higher.

Sri Google.com Muni gives it as Cc Madhya 6.268:

"A pure devotee does not like even to hear about sayujya-mukti, which inspires him with fear and hatred. Indeed, the pure devotee would rather go to hell than merge into the effulgence of the Lord."

(http://caitanyacaritamrta.com/madhya/6/268/en2)

Sorry if this is offensive do not throw plates at me.

To people interested in identification with Brahman or "nondualistic liberation," this does not exlude Personality, Form, Movement or Sound. The term nondualistic is not there to stand in duelling duality with the term dualistic. That would be inherently self-defeating. Language is inherently self-defeating. So we eventually give it a rest and rest on a way to talk about it.

It does not mean nondifferrentiation as opposed to differentiation. It is there as a signpost word to represent that which is not bound by human categories. Not this, Not that. It is Form and it is Formless. It is beyond the categories of Form and Formless. And it is not even that. It is impossible to satietedly stop talking about it, because when you stop, you are boxing it with words, that exlude other words. Just like Krsna can't be boxed by human categories. Even Personality is a box. We know that Krsna is way more than just Variegatedness and Personality close-ended as in with these words we are using.

Some groups of people, have redefined identification with Brahman and understood it as something that excludes Form et al. A state of silent formless ether with no motion. The external energy of Krsna. A sub-state of non-differentiation beneath the flavourful variegated Form of Krsna.

This definition is ailien to Advaitans and has nothing to do with them. They are the ones who first elaborated on these notions found within their own philosophy in the first place.

So when one group talks about nondualistic liberation, they have in mind one thing, but it is not at all what the people who those terms are even relevant to, have in mind.

Taking into account the understanding of nondualistic liberation as employed in that poem, I rejoice at such poems. To me it sounds like a lovepoem saying, I do not care at all about these grand things that the yogis aspire to, to me these grand things are just sheer hell, all I care about is serving you, Krsna, nothing more. I do not see this as some sort of aversion of a non-realized person. Really if there was no Personality there of feeling hate, love anger aversion and so on, then to be realized would be some kind of supra-Personality state, much like the state that Gaudiyas think defines the state of Brahman.

[Off topic for this thread, I believe, but I'll leave that up to another moderator seeing as I am involved in this one.]

The Advaitins are the ones who gave definition to all these terms, and Sankara makes it very clear what he means by those terms in several of his works. I don't believe any interpretation is necessary when the "founder" of Advaita defines what he is saying.

But anyway, I agree this is off-topic and we are better of continuing this in a dedicated thread if everyone so wishes.

You need to show a verse or poem of Sri Rupa that supports your first objection, above.



Vide Draupadi forgiving Asvattama, please.

Advaitans very clear with definitions? Yeah ok. Is this how you go about it: it says -Brahman is Formless- and that is a clear definition. It is true select a line from the Upanisads about it, or a Sankara quote, and treat it like the definition of a table. There are many ways to understand a word, the meaning does not correspond always to the way we are usually used to apprehending the meaning of that word in most contexts. Especially mystical vs secular-everyday contexts. Do you think I am saying this because I am blind to Brahman is Formless quotes by the founder? Is it even worth adding that point tirelessly. Maybe there is more to the word Formless, in the Advaitan context, than there is in the context of how the word Formless tends to be understood. Give me a very clear definition of Acintya Bheda Abheda while you are at it, I wonder if you have a clear definition of that too and everything is bright with the world all the more for it. Sorry I could not help myself I won't continue with this no need to make a new thread there is already too much of this in the now shut-down forums.

Evakurvan,

I think you doing great, why to stop it?

It is undeniable that Sanskrit words have multiple meanings, as any of the Sanskritists here would know. However, when we are speaking of Advaita it would then be proper to gain a proper understanding of it through the proper commentaries penned by the "founder", in this case Sankara. As far as understanding Advaita goes, we need not go beyond the writings of Sankara to understand the meanings of select words. And as I said, he made it very clear in his works what exactly he meant when he used such words.

I think that your understanding of what Sankara meant is very reductionistic and clashes with what I have learned, though I can see how you can come to that understanding. At one point you say the philosophy has very clear definitions, at another point you say you got sick of advaita because of its inconsistencies in philosophy. I agree to disagree with you. Hari Saran this is a very personal topic for me and mostly an unwelcome one
that only ends up in others perceiving me as arrogant or insulting so it is true it is best to forget it publically.

The line in the poem seems to be a resemblance of the famous "kaivalyam narakayate" verse by Sripada Prabhodhananda Sarasvati. Apart from that there are many verses from various AcAryas expressing "aversion" to different things. For example, ZrIla Narottama dAs expresses "aversion" to many things including demigod worship in several places within his works.


Then I would humbly suggest that you have not learned Advaita properly. I must say that I am puzzled as to why there is so much resistance to the study of Sankara's own works by those who seem to have an interest in the philosophy that he supposedly founded? It is a reasonable proposal after all. The various "alternative" meanings and emphases that are given to select words are precisely those that are given by neo-Advaitins who present a watered-down feel-good version of Advaita, and certainly does not agree with what Sankara taught. Just because someone has a different understanding does not necessarily mean that their understanding is correct. But then, if you insist that Sankara himself was very reductionistic, I'll agree!


Well, this is not about me, but I was referring primarily to contradictory presentations of it by various Advaitic teachers, who were themselves neo-Advaitists and presenting their own watered-down versions unfortunately, and secondarily to its clash with proper (alternative, VaiSNava) Vedanta philosophy.

Whatever I have written in my profile are brief and relative statements about my spiritual history. They are not meant to be taken as absolute statements by me about my views on Advaita. How strange that they are taken so. The point is that it is reasonably clear in itself, but it is in obvious conflict with other philosophical systems and its credibility is questionable. It seems to me that if anyone decided to properly study Sankara, they may even be surprised when they find out what Advaita is really all about. I am pretty sure that Vidyasankar Sundaresan would agree.

BRS has a whole section on the rejection of moksa, including Bhag 6.17.28 which describes it as equal to hell, and, later, says that it is better to be confined to a burning cage than to associate with those who are Krsna bahirmukha. Another section on raudra-bhakti-rasa.

I'm not sure where the idea that a Vaisnava gives up all aversion comes from. My guess is that it is a simplistic over-extension of a basic idea, much as we sing akrodha paramananda in honor of Nityananda Prabhu's tolerance and yet relish his kicking of Sivananda Sena in anger. In the great mix of time, lila & tattva, there is no place for setting things in concrete. As evidenced by the Cc quote and the verse of Prabhodananda Saraswati, there is no fault in the poem of Gopinath Basak on that account.




Sorry, but I'll just leave this one as is.

I have already talked about the so-called Neo-Advaita vs Sankarite Advaita on the other forum, as well as why certain anti-Advaitans like to pretend that there is a world of difference between the two. There, I have also talked about how some modern proponents water it down, but not in the direction that you are imagining, but in an opposite direction, that would further problematize your understanding of Sankara, instead of contradict mine. Also I find it strange that you assume you are the only one who has read Sankara, and this bizarre imagining that Advaitans of today refuse to read him. You can go to the relevant posts in that other forum, and then PM me if you have anything to say about it. I have already sent you a PM about this very topic a while ago but we continued chatting without a response to that PM, so we can do that there if there is anything to say. Be careful associating with mayavadis is equal to being in hell

Thanks Braj! Good points. Very well.

Here is maybe where I would like to focus, I mean, why aversion or repugnance is openly expressed by Gaudya Acaryas, and where it started.

Gourasundara Das gave a good example, Srila Narottama Dasa use to preach against Kali (demigod) Worshipers especially in West Bengal, another example is Ramanuja and Madhvacarya against Sankaras and so on…

On the other hand, Sri Ramacandra worshiped Lord Shiva, who is a Demigod, Sri Krishna, took initiation from Sandipani Muni, who was an impersonalist, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu took Sannyasa from an Impersonalist...

Moreover, in a Vedic Culture, like 5000 years ago, where all types of worshiping and path was naturally accepted, even Kali (Yuga) was given a chance by Parikshit Maharaja. In such an enviroment, it most likely that the expression of ‘religious tolerance’ was politically as well as spiritually correct!

For example, when Sri Krishna was on this planet, He never spoke badly about non dualism. He might have adverted Arjuna, but did it cordially and why would He speak bad, His Guru was one of them. In the same way, neither did Lord Caitanya; He converted the impersonalists like Sarvabhauma by logic and loving interpretation of the Shastras, however, Lord Caitanya never made a campaign against impersonalists.

As so the question is from where and how the words and feelings of hate and anger against other paths of spiritual realization begging to infiltrate Gaudiya Vaishnavism?

Therefore, in the middle of this (personal) dilemma, the conclusion that I humbly suggest (to my mind) is that some of those Gaudiya Mahatmas may spoke with repugnance about nondualism and sense gratification according to time, places, and circumstances, in order to instruct and advert. However, those same words of hate and objection should not be taken so radically, neither should they be echoed carelessly. If actually we as Gaudiyas want to survive as a broadminded community, those words should be a solemn remainder, rather then a habit in our daily vernacular.


That is how Sri Caitanya strategically started His preaching to Kali-worshipers and impersonalists:

suno suno nityananda, suno haridas
sarvatra amar ajna koroho prakas prati ghare ghare giya koro ei bhiksa
bolo `krsna', bhajo krsna, koro krsna-siksa iha bai arna boliba,
bolaiba dina-avasane asi' amare kohiba

"Listen, listen, Nityananda! Listen, Haridasa! Make My command known everywhere! Go from house to house and beg from all the residents, `Please chant Krsna's name, worship Krsna, and teach others to follow Krsna's instructions.' Do not speak, or cause anyone to speak, anything other than this."

This is Sri Krishna speaking to Arjuna 5000 years ago:

vita-raga-bhaya-krodha
man-maya mam upasritah
bahavo jnana-tapasa
puta mad-bhavam agatah

“Being freed from attachment, fear and anger, being fully absorbed in Me and taking refuge in Me, many, many persons in the past became purified by knowledge of Me -- and thus they all attained transcendental love for Me.”

These posts have been split off from another topic.

Let's try to cover this once and for all, this really isn't a topic we want to see covered in every other thread. Henceforth, all Advaita-Gaudiya-posts in this thread, not elsewhere.

Dandavats. All glories to the Vaisnavas.

Radhe Radhe!

It seems that this discussion is fast approaching the territory in which former topics such as Mayavadi Idea of Sunyata and Questions about Buddhist Sunyata arrived at.

As with any relationship we need to come to grips with where our common interests lie and where we simply do not agree. In instances where disagreements become debates and broad discussions become a debate on semantics which then evolve into subtle jabs at another's understandings we can probably conclude that we are going nowhere productive fast. In considering the result of the former topics mentioned above I think that there is good cause to see a similar result in this conversation.

In the last 24 hours I have received several concerns from others about where this topic is headed. With all of that in mind I think it is prudent to end the conversation here and request that discussions on this topic now continue via PM or elsewhere. To be honest I think it will be difficult for Evakurvan and Gaurasundara to ever have a productive conversation on such a topic until they discover their common ground and build a certain amount of understanding and respect of one another's past and, more importantly, where both desire to go. Until there is that level of understanding and respect a conversation on such topics is doomed from the inception.

With all of that being said if the topic doesn't start to take on a more productive direction I will go ahead and close this topic. Let's contain all posts regarding Advaita here and be responsible in identifying when a discussion is no longer a discussion.

Aspiring to serve the Vaisnavas,
Rasaraja dasa

I do not plan to continue this topic I have said whatever I have to say on Advaita in the Bheda Abheda thread, the Monism in Gaudiya Theology thread, and at the end of the Caitanya, Sridhar Svami thread. Probably in other threads too. The Questions on Buddhist Sunyata thread I did not even participate in it, it began as an inimical thread. However, I never really said anything about sunyata in the Mayavadi Ideas of Sunyata thread, other than the fact that it is also translated as Fullness. Perhaps that thread can be opened, yet left in the Archives, just so I can say some things I did not say because it got shut down. If it is opened, I will not do this now, but whenever. I apologize to all the people who are complaining to moderators about my topics, I do not enjoy alienating myself from people here it is like being so inspired by gardening yet having a few gardeners think that you aren't really into garderning and that you came to the gardening convention to disturb gardeners.

Well, I know this debate is about over and I am not even sure what is at the core of the debate, but it seems to be about representation and misrepresentation of Sankaracarya. I can't resist putting my two cents in. I am an advocate of the careful study of Sankara. I think it is a shame that so many devotees speak about him without having read a word he has written. Though both the parties here, Evakurvan (whatever that means) and Gaurasundara (we know what that means), claim to have studied Sankara, it is not clear that either has, or at least that either has done it well. The principle of put up or shut up should be applied here.

First, why study Sankara? Because he exerted such a profound influence on Sri Jiva. Anyone who has read Sri Jiva knows how many times and with what level of agreement he quotes Sankara. In fact, and this is a point that comes out rather clearly in Sri Namabrata Brahmacari's excellent Vaisnava Vedanta, Jiva appears to side more with Sankara than he does with Ramanuja. Surprising, huh? Jiva agreeing more often with Sankara than another Vaisnava? That is even more true with respect to Madhva.

What does one learn when one studies Sankara carefully? One learns that he was a devout Vaisnava. Here is what he says at the end of his introduction to his beautiful commentary on the Bhgavad-gita: paramArthatattvaM ca vAsudevAkhyaM parabrahmAbhidheyabhUtaM vizeSataH abhivyaJjayat ... gItAzAstram| "The Gita scripture reveals the highest truth to be Parabrahman, also known as Vasudeva, as the meaning it intends to convey." Extraordinary. Here he clearly equates Vasudeva, that is Krsna, with Parabrahman.

One also learns that Sankara was not a mayavadi. He hardly ever mentions maya. He talks primarily about avidya which he defines as sadasad-vilakSaNa-anirvacanIya-bhAva-rUpA, " Distinct from the sat and the asat, indescribable, and yet real." Mayavada was originally initiated by Mandana Misra, another Advaitin contemporary with Sankara. His views were blended with Sankara's centuries later probably by Vascaspati Misra.

Poor Sankara underwent several makeovers over time. One was this by Vacaspati Misra and another was that by Vidyaranya in the 14th century. Vidyaranya made him out to be a Saivite and attributing many Saivite ideas and texts to him. He was the minister of a Saivite king, the king of Vijayanaagaram.

To make a long story short, we owe more to Sankara than we do to either Ramanuja or to Madhva.

Oops! I have gone on long enough, but I think discussion of this stuff is healthy and illuminating.

I am doing a translation of the Gita using Sankara's commentary for notes. It will be posted at the Kutir when that comes back up. Not too long from now I hope.

Best wishes,

ys

Nitai

thank you nitai

evakurvan means to only and continuously perform one thing. My point was never to present some kind of scholarly exposition of Advaita, I do not think this is the way to go about talking about it, I prefer attempts at poetry or evocative language, this is the language of Advaita, there are plenty of books to learn definitions and historical connections just go to the popular wikipedia or read dry overpriced books by the scholars who taught me these things I am talking about now. I do not 'act' like I studied Sankara carefully I cannot even read Sanskrit properly and I barely read any books anymore since a few years ago.



haha I think I have put up pretty thoroughly throughout the ever-winding streams of threads where I post about this, all too many posts for even me, the poster, to want to read, and I doubt you or most have done so. Please do not dismiss these things as semantics. Though if it is seen as nonsense I can understand why, though to me it doesn't. Though it is still hard to just shut up due to this lingering feeling that something is missing. I also don't think a juxtaposition of credentials to prove to anyone clearly whether they have studied Sankara "well" is a very fruitful thing to do or use in a conversation, Sankara himself would cringe at this. I am sorry to again problematize most people's idea of mayavadis but I will add this as a sidenote since it is tangentially topical, it is not meant as an an attack, please do not complain about this post. The tradition is an experiential one, and no, jnana does not mean intellectualizing or being philosophical via the mental faculties, or how it is humorously sometimes referred to as dry "mental speculation."

I'm afraid that I no longer understand what this topic is supposed to be about. I thought it was about defining Advaitic philosophy per se, but this relation to GauDIya VaiSNavism is certainly very exciting.


It has certainly been a very long time since I undertook a deep study of ZaGkara's works, but that does not necessarily mean that I do not understand anything about it. I was making the simple point in relation to the earlier discussion that neo-Advaitins and their "alternative" explanations for some of ZaGkara's terms cannot be taken as "proper" orthodox Advaita, since they conflict with the "proper" definitions that were given by ZaGkara et al. I think that this principle relates to inter-sampradaya definitions. It looks like every Tom, Dick and Harry has a definition for certain terms, but whether they reflect or represent the opinion of ZaGkara is something that I believe needs examination.


All glories to ZaGkara. However, I would have thought that taking one of his quotes from a commentary to a text that was spoken by KRSNa does not really strike me as being "evidence" that he was a VaiSNava. I suppose one may also quote select stanzas from his ZrI VRndaSTaka (or whatever it was called) to prove that he was a VaiSNava. While a GIta-bhASya quote is very interesting, I find that his other works such as Viveka-cUDAmaNi, sAdhana paJcakam, brahmajJAnAvalImAlA etc. seem more precise regarding the philosophical schema that ZaGkara propounded. For example, he ends every stanza of the AtmazaTaka (aka nirvANazaTaka) with "zivo'haM zivo'ham".


In his Viveka-cUDAmaNi, ZaGkara seems to synthesise mAyA with avidyA:



Anyway Nitaiji, I read a letter from you on your website somewhere where you stated your research into ZaGkara's influence on GV. I look forward to seeing more on this from you if you have any time. It has been a very long time since I deeply studied any of ZaGkara's works since I gave most of them away. I'm afraid I do not have a good copy of his bhASya to the VedAnta-sutra. I find the Thibaut version difficult to read due to lack of time, so a re-acquaintance of sorts would be nice.

The following is just a continuation of what has been said above.
(Organic tomatoes only, please! )
===============================================

In order to simplify and avoid to have to go back and forwards lets consider that Gaudiyas have a goal named manjari-bhava and to pursue that they may have to abort many dharmic and non dharmic aspect of existence.

Well what is Gaudiya in the real sense of the word when viewing it from the western side of the planet; a religious group; sect; believe… That is probably what most people think when facing the question. The Gaudiya universe shrinks before the vast variety of religious organization; it is rather an exclusive path of secluded contemplation.

As so in order to have some harmony among those truth seekers, let’s have a fresh looking at the Bhagavad Gita:



Chapter 12, Verse 1.
Arjuna inquired: Which is considered to be more perfect, those who are properly engaged in Your devotional service, or those who worship the impersonal Brahman, the unmanifested?

Chapter 12, Verse 2.
The Blessed Lord said: He whose mind is fixed on My personal form, always engaged in worshiping Me with great and transcendental faith, is considered by Me to be most perfect.

Chapter 12, Verse 3-4.
But those who fully worship the unmanifested, that which lies beyond the perception of the senses, the all-pervading, inconceivable, fixed and immovable--the impersonal conception of the Absolute Truth--by controlling the various senses and being equally disposed to everyone, such persons, engaged in the welfare of all, at last achieve Me.

As we can see, the Lord addresses this subject matter about impersonalism in a cordial and comprehensive manner. There are no rough words, expression of hate or total repugnace, but a deep understanding about the different nature of both paths.

Therefore, saying that the final destination is the achievement if His lotus feet, Sri Krishna is actually validating the efforts and sincerity of those that are trying to be free from the clutch of Maya by merging into Brahman; His bodily effulgence. He is not encouraging going that way, however, He kindly glances at it.

Moreover, Lord Caitanya envisioned the differences in a non-judgmental way, He realistically added both paths in a revolutionary revelation, acintya-bheda-abheda-tattva; simultaneously one with and different from the Lord; A typical broadminded approach of a Butter-thief.

In conclusion, (based on personal experience) when walk-in any tradition Hindu Temple one can immediately perceive that they are in harmony with the Brahman and Bhagavan aspects of truth.

The institution actually welcome sadhakas of both paths without having to go through the whole-psychological endeavors to accommodate what are an eternal fact; Brahman and Bhagavan, both aspects of the same complexity.

In addition, I would say that it is indeed time for Gaudiyas starting moderating the radical prayers, poems and preaching that minimize others, which has already been properly accommodated by Lord Caitanya’s philosophy, more than 500 years ago.

Radhe-Radhe!

How about mAyAvAdI kRSNe aparAdhi? (CC 1.17.129)

I suppose you could say that any instance of an AcArya speaking "hatefully" against Advaita or whatever is a case of righteous anger, or some sort of ecstatic anger-bhAva.

I see it as righteous exstatic anger bhava but some people see it and dont! I see no fault in these beautiful poems full of Personality only it is a shame if people read such things and come to understand something other than what is most likely meant, as many do, and then paste these things from acaryas as brimstone chastisements! "Repent mayavadi, cry bitter tears or go to hell!" As someone here has pasted to me but it was eventually removed!

[ The rest of this post is at the beginning of this thread. - Mod ]

These are in the context and at hand at the moment:

He takes nondualistic liberation to be hell
and heaven to be a flower in the sky;
his senses are all engaged in Krishna's service
and so he sees the world as a place of joy;
he pays no attention to other gods,
turned only toward the search for Your mercy;
Gopinath Basak.


Identification with brahman appears like hell,
the heavenly kingdoms like so many figments of the imagination,
the indomitable black snakes of the senses
appear to have had their fangs extracted,
the universe appears to be full of joy
and the gods Brahma and Mahendra
seem as insignificant as worms
to those who have become wealthy
with the grace of Gaura's merciful glance:
I offer my praises to him.(34)
Prabhodananda Saraswati's

I can clearly see the Bhagavan aspect in the prayer, but the absence of the Brahman aspect without any proper address and respect emphasizes the dislike, therefore, not balanced with the eternal reality.

In my humble opinion, either one speaks well about or not at all; there is no happiness in superimposing one’s believe, by the strength of minimizing others. Again, with all due respect, spiritual realization has to be pure, not calculated, then it is a relish.

Example:

In his Sri Prarthana-paddhati [Stavamala], Srila Rupa goswami prays:

"O Queen of Vrndavana, O Radharani, Your complexion is like molten gold, Your doe-like eyes are captivatingly restless, a million full and brilliant moons wane before Your lustrous countenance, and a blue sari, having stolen the hue of a fresh rain-laden cloud, has enwrapped Your exquisite form. O Radha, You are the crest-jewel of all the dallying damsels of Vrndavana, fragrant and pristine like a budding jasmine flower. Your sublime form is adorned with priceless jewelry, and you are the best of all the charming and intelligent gopis. You are decorated with all wonderful excellences and surrounded by eight dedicated and beloved cowherd girls known as the asta-sakhis.

Jay Radhe!

Here are some fast words on jnana yoga since I said it is not mental speculation, but did not say more, though I do not plan to fill this thread with advaita chat.

Bhakti says have faith, Jnana says question everything. Raja says control your mind, Jnana says the controller is that which you are trying to control! When you explain that which can never be put into words, the closest you can get is paradox! As ancient Yogis have said, “To define Truth is to deny it.”

Jnana Yoga suggests that the supreme in life, such as divine love, truth, or God-consciousness, cannot be cultivated. These non-things cannot be brought about by our little minds and actions. Rather they come into being when we remove the obstruction of our ignorance and illusions. A famous Jnana Yoga saying is Tat Twam Asi or Thou Art That. This saying carefully uses the word -that- which points to truth instead of naming or defining it. Neti Neti. It has been called the pathless path.

Jnana Yoga encourages enquiry and questioning. It endeavors to free one from the limitations of knowledge. It shows us that when we begin to see the beauty and sacredness around us we do not need techniques, rituals or beliefs. But imbalanced Jnana can lead to intellectualism and dry, mental self- indulgence. A corollary to saying this would be to say that imbalanced bhakti can lead to ritualism and sentimentalism.

Wow. There we have it: Prabhodananda Saraswatipada should have read the Gita and visited Hindu temples before putting out his works that contain calculated realizations and a misunderstanding of eternal reality.

No.no. My point is Prabhodananda Thakura has a much better selection of Poems then that one. I basically do not like to read a poem that has superiority and inferiority analogies in it. The poem has to flow freely like the ocean, no like a river with stones on the way…

I’m sure that the scholastic audience can determinate in which category are those types of poems.



Again, Prabhodananda has higher level of poesy in his works.

More specifically, in that verse he says:

"and the gods Brahma and Mahendra
seem as insignificant as worms"
by Prabhodananda Thakura

Lord Brahma and Lord Shiva are both great Vaishnavas, how can I look at them as worms? It is impossible. Even if I have to consider that the mercy of Lord Caitanya is superior to anything else, I personally would feel bad just to imaging such great Vaishnavas being inferiorized at that level.

Moreover, it is said that a Vaishnava would take instruction even from a dog-eater, so then how the same Vaishnava can look down to personalities like Lord Shiva and Brahma, who are the heads of the Sampradaya and have been doing so much for the benefit of the universe.

Hi Gaurasundara,

Thanks for your comments. This is what I meant by "put up or shut up," actual quotes from actual texts. It is too easy to misrepresent a great author or great teacher unless one insists on the necessity of backing up what one says with real statements. Even that, however, can be misleading if one does not approach those statements with some critical questioning. Look at how often Jesus, for instance, appears to be just like the authors of the numerous presentations of his life and teachings. When a liberal writes Jesus is liberal; when a conservative writes Jesus is conservative. When a philosopher writes, Jesus is a philosopher, etc. etc. We have to question the texts very carefuly if we are not to be led astray. The same is true of Sankara. The big question in Sankara studies is what did he actually write. A huge number of texts has been attributed to him, even tantras (Sarada-tilaka). I don't think he wrote them all. In fact, I think he only wrote a few of them. It is largely a case of getting attention for one's own work by putting a famous author's name on it. Look at how many works are attributed to Vyasa, even works as stylistically different as the Mahabharata and the Bhagavata Purana. If one believed that one would have to conclude Vyasa wrote almost everything. Why he even divided up the Vedas, a clear attempt to justify his name (vi-Asa, the divider) according to a particular etymology.

How though does one determine which works Sankara most likely wrote and which he didn't? There are several approaches to this question and I can't discuss them all. One that I find a bit more persuasive is the idea that the real works of Sankara are the ones that have commentaries on them by his immediate or nearly immediate disciples. This winnows down the number from over a hundred to just a handful: essentially his commentaries on the Gita, the Brahma-sutras, the major Upanisads, the Visnu-sahasra-nama and a few others. Humm, this rather unsurprisingly eliminates all the Saivite texts.

Now on the question of Maya, I didn't say he never mentions it. I do claim that he is more interested in avidya or ajnana because of the importance of jnana in his system. In the quote you cite from the Vivekacudamani, which is one of the works that is often counted among those he actually wrote, he recognizes maya as a sakti of the supreme lord. Humm, that sounds like Vaisnavism. Don't we recognize three energies, antaranga, tatastha, and bahiranga. I don't see this as supporting anything that could be called mayavada. If it does, then we Vaisnava, too, are mayavadis.

In general, I am persuaded by the arguments marshalled by Paul Hacker, one of the great European scholars of Sankara, on the questions of authorship and the relationship of Visnu-Krsna to Parabrahman. By saying that I am persuaded I mean that I think they may be true, but need to be examined and tested. That is sort of where I am now in my study of Sankara.

Thanks for putting up, Gaurasundara. Hope to hear more from you.

Best wishes,

ys

nitai

PS. Don't believe everything you read.

Thank you nitai for showing how the same quote can be read in two different ways, based on one's preconceptions of what the thinker is supposed to be expounding. The bad thing here is that some traditions have already made rough outlines of what Advaita is supposedly saying, so Sankara quotes will only confirm those rough outlines to them no matter what. While interpretations more honest to advaita itself will be seen as 'classic examples of advaitans trying to get the one up' or whatever else.

This is why I take issue with putting up with quotes, people tend to just blazon one across a chat like wham bam thank you man as though it has proven anything conclusive, meanwhile other people take that quote to mean an entirely other thing.
There is a difference between looking at the words of a quotes vs. understanding what the quote internally means to the sadhakas for whom those quotes are gold.

It is good you are here to add these perspectives too bad you were not here some weeks ago when these chats were at their apex.

Hi Nitai, thanks very much for your knowledgeable reply. I agree completely with what you say but have just a couple of questions:


While it is a reasonable expectation to believe that the major works you have mentioned are more representative of ZaGkara's philosophy than others, how would you treat the texts that are attributed to ZaGkara and which come with the endorsement of the four Maths that he inaugurated? I would have thought that the "message" coming down through the line of ZaGkarAcAryas (paramparA, if you will) would be sufficient to help authenticate any texts with disputed authorship?
Of course it would be unreasonable to expect Math presentations to be unbiased, but on the other hand it may be that such presentations have a greater likelihood of being consonant with Advaitic tradition as it was from ZaGkara's time up to the present day?


I didn't present this quote as supporting mAyAvAdA, but incidentally I was not able to find this verse in my copy of VC. Do you happen to have the verse number at hand?


Would you be able to recommend any titles from Hacker that I could study? I am currently reading A Source Book on Advaita Vedanta by Prof. J.A.B. van Buitenen, but I don't find it very useful.

Kind regards,

Gaurasundara

They are human elements that exist within us regardless of cultivation or lack thereof. Their appropriate use was demonstrated by Thakur Mahashaya in his Prema-bhakti-chandrika, as recently cited at the end of this post. Also, see this post commenting on that verse.

First of all, the two first in particular are aspects of lila. Second, please provide some references to your assertion that Sandipani Muni was an impersonalist. That statement seems highly incorrect to me. Third, the biographical accounts we read of Keshava Bharati in the company of Mahaprabhu show that he was a devout Vaishnava regardless of his background in the Shankara-tradition.



He did say things such as:







It is not a question of fostering hate and anger in an active manner. However, when such topics are heard, the emotional reaction naturally comes about, as it goes diametrically against the ideals of prema.



You cannot possibly cite this in response to a sentiment arising out of meeting something averse to our aspirations for prema.

The story of Ramachandra Puri should be instructive in this regard. He came to Madhavendra Puri towards the end of his life, as Madhavendra was lamenting his not having attained Krishna. Ramachandra then instructed him to remember that crying was not a very spiritual thing to do, and that he should rather remember Brahman and be equipoised.

Madhavendra responded, dUra, dUra -- pApiSTha! -- "Go afar, sinner!" more mukha nA dekhAbi tui! - "Don't show your face to me, ever!"

Let us therefore try to appreciate the impetus out of which the emotions of the Vaishnavas are growing.

I am just curious as to why the Advaitans are thought of as being -diametrically averse- to prema and saying such ridiculous things, like do not cry think of Brahman equiposed! This is truly a bizarre caricatural depiction and it would be the same sort of thing as portraying gaudiyas as crying schoolgirls. I guess it is useful in some way to take something and stretch it to an absurd extreme, in order to critisize it based on this comical extreme.

If the personal form of Sri Krishna is a product of prakriti and has no existence in the post-mukti reality, that would certainly be a proposal diametrically opposed to prema, of which the zenith is in the post-mukti personal loving interaction.

I don't follow your point in "portraying gaudiyas as crying schoolgirls".

I am saying these depictions of Advaitans, like that one, and others I anecdotally hear, though containing some grain of truth, are in fact caricatures, like when you draw a person with a gigantic nose and giant chin in order to overly exagerate some of their features to an absurd degree. Just like how it would be if one were to make a caricature of gaudiyas as crying schoolgirls. I do not really want to elaborate fancyfully on a gaudiya-caricature to create a potent analogy of what is being done to Advaitans, but I think you get the picture of what I am saying.

So because we are told that the deity apparently vanishes for advaitains once they attain liberation, this must mean their path lacks spontaneous love for god and is one of dry mental gymnastics. It is easy to reduce others when one wants to take the monopoly on words like prema, to have them refer to something very specific, like love for krsna in the way that six goswamis delineated it. Otherwise: you have no prema or are diametrically opposed to it! Stay away from their commetnaries lest you be ruined forever! Nevermind the fact that our commentaries are standing on the shoulders of their commentaries.

It is better to understand what terms like 'no existence in the post-mukti' reality internally mean to Advaitans, as opposed to forming ideas based on pictograms.

Here is something that might cursoraily shed light on the Advaitan understanding of what that really means, and how undertones of it can even be found in Caitanyaism, extracted from my conversations with a lettered Gaudiya, unlike myself:

I think something similar happens with Caitanyaism especially in the works of Sanatana. He pushes the realization that love of Krsna is the real goal and that once one has that it doesn't matter where he or she is or with whom. The love experienced as rasa becomes larger than Krsna and in fact replaces Krsna. One with prema doesn't need Krsna. In fact, Krsna's presence brings the experience of prema down to a lower level.

In Sufism, a bhakti-path of wandering God-intoxicates who go around chanting and dancing their love of God in every town and village, there is the idea that the final obstacle to true spontaneous love of God is our concept of God itself.

For more information on the influence of Sufism on Caitanyaism, refer to this thread post #4 http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/index.ph...3102&hl=dervish

I apologize if this flies completely off topic or bothers anyone, you can send your complants directly to me in PM as opposed to the moderators if you wish, I would rather see the content of these complaints myself.

Are you suggesting that this is not the position of the Shankarites, and that they do envision the worship of the deity as having substance beyond being a method, the relationship between the worshiper and the deity as having post-mukti reality?



I cannot profess to be an expert in their theology, but as far as I've understood, there is no individual identity retained after the attainment of mukti. Please feel free to correct me (presenting appropriate references) if necessary.



Such curious conclusions. Would you care to present the premises on which you found these ideas? What have you read from Sanatan Goswami that leads you to presenting such a conclusion of what he has presented?

I am curious in knowing eva's sources, be it about of advaita/shankara or the about gaudiya theology. I want to see from where she is getting this kind of idea? Eva can you help us?

I am also kind of confuse to whom she is refering as "neo Krishanite"? this is new term to me.

Hi All,

I guess I am the guilty party, that is, the source of some of Eva's ideas. I am responsible for that last quote:. I wrote that to her in a personal communication. She should have identified her source. The basis for that is Sanatana Goswami's reflection on the state of the gopis after Krsna's departure. It is a beautiful discussion found in the seventh chapter of the first part of his Brhad-bhagavatamrta. I have been fascinated by Sanatana's idea of final separation suggested in that chapter. If you have not read it, please do. It is one of the classic moments of profundity in CV literature. I have been pondering and trying to push to its natural conclusions the existential tone of that chapter for years.

Best,

ys

nitai

Yes indeed, if people paraphrase others, they should indicate the same. I also believe that people should not be presenting conclusions without having reviewed the source texts (and even then, a degree of meek carefulness is in place).

I find the conclusion of rasa replacing Krishna a rather peculiar one, since Krishna most certainly features as the viSayAlambana-vibhAva of the rasa-experience, if as nothing else. Rasa has always been more than just Krishna, and will remain such. However, replacing the viSaya of bhakti-rasa with bhakti-rasa seems a bit of an oxymoron to me. Perhaps there is something that I am missing there.

Who as our acaryas ever said such a thing?

raso vai sah rasam hy evayam labdhvanandi bhavati...
"He Himself is rasa, the taste or mellow of a particular relationship. ..."
BRS, Srila Rupa Goswami

Wow! Speechless!


Not all of us have access to BRhad-bhAgavatAmRta. Is it possible somehow to post that specific part at least for us, please?

You guys really don't understand much, do you. This is one of the reasons I rarely come to this forum. It is too hard to overcome the ignorance of many of the members and I find myself wasting valuable time covering things that everyone should already know, if they only cracked a book once in while. I hear that one of you made the claim that Brahman is the external energy of Krsna. That is patently absurd. Madhava, is there any way to electronically spank someone? If there were, whoever said that should be spanked. Where is Jagat? How could he let this happen?

Krsna is not replaced as the visaya, he is always the visaya of the gopis love, whether he is present or not. It is his presence that becomes unnecessary, in fact, detrimental. The gopis in their mood of separation are already at their highest peak of loving Krsna. His returning to them would bring them down to the level of simply sambhoga, a definite step down from viraha.

Read, my friends, it is all there.

ys

nitai

Indeed it is. But how about we see the actual quote before anyone goes off defeating strawmen?

And is there really any need for the haughty "you guys"?

Well, the ignorance of the populace at large isn't going to dissipate unless the intellectual giants of the Chaitanya tradition come down their ivory towers among the common folk, equipped with patience and compassion. Considering that most of the folks out there aren't as qualified as you, what are you going to do? Have quality time sending e-mails to yourself?



I can't think of having ever read such a statement, unless this is a reference to Evakurvan's recent post where she says that some say that.



Thus Krishna does not become replaced, does he? His physical presence becomes irrelevant. The way it was worded (I don't know if the credit is yours or Evakurvan's) sounded as if the rasa becomes a reality independent of Krishna.

A quick search (the electronic equivalent of "cracking a book") shows the following post:



Is that the post you're referring to? Is that so absurd and objectionable?

He says there that there is substance to the world, since the world is Krishna's external energy. Not that shunyata is Krishna's external energy. Sheesh!

Radhe Radhe,

thank you Madhavaji I just searched for this post of mine.I was referring to the substance of this world, the material existence, and this IS the external energy of the Lord.

Dear Nitai, I bow down to your wisdom and your knowledge and if you think I should be "spanked", yeah, well, ... I am very sorry that I dumb German cannot meet up with the standard of wisdom that you expect.

But somehow I found your tone not really nice to the "guys" here...

Tarunji

Nitai, do you prefer Organic, or GMO tomatoes are ok for you?

Hari Saranji,

GMO tomatoes definitely!

best,

nitai

I just never said this. I know that Brahman is not the external energy...

You didnt trample on my ego.
Not possible, it is too big.

Nitai-ji, go raw, go rawfood sometimes, please...

This post was suppose to go on the other thread, but I think the moderator would prefer it in here.
=====================================================

Evakurvan,

Certainly I was not expecting all this avalanche of physiological intricacies. However, you make good points, but my basically approaching was to get some feedback on the "nature of the Gita", but somehow we got into this labyrinth of thoughts.

I do actually have great appreciation to GV interpretations of the Gita and I had also read some of Advaitans interpretations too. Actually the Advaitan BG, for me personally, does not have the same sweetness that I find in GV, but definitely it has a powerful persuasive language, which stimulate refined thoughts, however it is deficient in charm.

What I understood so far is that for GV, the Bhagavatam is the all in all, and it is the bases where GV get free from the non-dualism that is explored in BG. For example, Sankara made commentaries on BG, but he never touch the Srimad Bhagavatam; leaving it to be relished by Bhagavata Vaishnavas, only.

Srimad Bhagavatm is the book that Lord Caitanya based His movement, and is based on that that His followers established the GV philosophy. Later on, by Baladeva Vidyabhusana, the Govinda-Bhasya was presented as a consolidate form of the Srimad Bhagavatam’s philosophy.

As so, being the Srimad Bhagavatam the heart of GV philosophy, it is probably why that their commentaries on the literature and more specific the BG will not have those most common Sankarites interpretations, which have been around much earlier and obviously got more famous and stronger in the academic circles, where devotion to God is still seen as an over-romantic form of knowledge.

Therefore, Vaishnavas have being traditionally fighting against Sankaras, from Ramanuja, to Madhvacarya, to Lord Caitanya, it has been a constant confirmation (transformation) of their views; it is a continue battle between emotion and logic that will only be solved when both camps realize the greatness of each other. In other words, let the Buddhists, Christians, Mohammedans, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Vaishnavas, Sankarites, following their path, which have been (as a calling) selected by the Absolute for the Absolute, no one else has control over that but the Absolute.

Isn't it funny how sometimes one says something in one context and then turning to another finds that point being beautifully made. Call it serendipity or the will of the Almighty, at any rate I turned from this forum to the book that I am editing (Manindra Nath's Nectar of the Holy Name} and found this passage right before me. It is a fascinating discussion of how Krsna withholds his vision from those who worship him in order to intensify their love for him. The context is, of course Krsna's disappearance from the gopis, but it reaches far beyond that. I don't claim to understand this passage entirely, but I do understand the main gist. TarunGovinda Das, of course, doesn't need to read this passage since it didn't come from Madhava and besides he is busy right now kissing someone's ___ .

I apologize for all the extra characters mixed up in this. I just snatched it the way it is from the book I am working on. The extra characters control diacritics and such.

But, though they are worshiping me, I do not reveal myself to living beings in order to increase their
attachment, eagerness, and longing for me. It is just like a poor person who, after finding a great treasure,
has lost it. Consumed by the thought of it, he knows nothing else.footnote{Bh=ag., 10.32.20: {dn
begin{verse}
naaha.m tu sakhyo bhajato.api jantuun\
bhajaamyamii.saamanuv.rttiv.rttaye|\
yathaadhano labdhadhane vina.s.te\
taccintayaanyannibh.rto na veda||
end{verse}}
The second half of this verse is not included in Mani Babu's original text. I have added it because it is
discussed in 'Sr{=i} J{=i}va's following commentary. [Trans.]}

end{quote}
In accordance with this statement of the Lord himself, he causes a delay in attaining
him.footnote{J{=i}va on Bh=ag., 6.2.23: {dn iti tatvaakyadi"saa vilambena praapayati|}}

In his commentary on emph{Bh=agavata}, 'Sr{=i} J{=i}va says:

begin{quote}

[Kd{r}d{s}d{n}a says] ``I once said: `N=arada, I do not live in Vaikud{n}d{t}ha, nor in the heart of the
yog{=i}. Wherever my devotees are singing my names, that is where I am.' Even though I am wherever my
devotees are singing my names in accordance with that promise, I am not visible to them. Cowherd wom-en,
this is my behavior towards all, not just towards you. Don't think that it is a sign of my indiffence towards
you." The cowherd women ask: ``Why don't you appear to them?" Kd{r}d{s}d{n}a replies: ``In order to
increase their longing for me, that longing from which arises ceaseless meditation on me." The cowherd
wom-en respond: ``But we are always in the highest state of love for you." Kd{r}d{s}d{n}a replies:
``True. Still, it is to make that love even more special. The point is made by means of an example: `like a
poor person who has found wealth and then lost it.' By this example a special kind of distraction or total
engagement of the mind is taught. Therefore, in order to keep them ceaselessly absorbed in thought of me, I
do not show myself easily." Thus, there is no expectation for any kind of return because there is
only dependence on love (emph{prema}) and because all goals are fulfilled through the all-subduing power of
Kd{r}d{s}d{n}a's beauty, qualities, and so forth. Though he [Kd{r}d{s}d{n}a] is equal to a
compassionate parent, that compassionate parenthoold is transcended and his own well-wishing is revealed by
his giving a love for himself that does not also bestow him himself, but that brings him under control and
that is the very crown jewel of all the goals of humankind. Moreover, the superiority of the tasting of the
emph{rasa} of love for the beloved is made known through Kd{r}d{s}d{n}a's desire to increase it
ceaselessly and through the cowherd women's toleration of the pains of separation for that
purpose.footnote{J{=i}va, emph{Vaid{s}d{n}ava-tod{s}ad{n}i} on Bh=ag., 10.32.20: {dn naaha.m vasaami
vaiku.n.the yoginaa.m h.rdaye na ca| madbhaktaa yatra gaayanti tatra ti.s.thaami naaradetyaadi
maduktibhistannika.te sthitamapi sva.m tebhyo na dar"sayaamiityartha.h| na~na.h sarvaadau prayoga.h
svavaakyenaiva svasya yantranaapattyaa paramavaiyagryaat| he sakhya iti aatmaaraamatvaadiraahityameva
saadhitam| jantuunityava"se.saatsarvatraived.r"so mama vyavahaaro na tu bhavatii.sveveti naatmani
mamodaasiinya.m "sa"nkaniiyamiti bhaava.h| katha.m na bhajasi? tatraaha amii.saamiti anuv.rttiinaa.m
nirantaradhyaanaanaa.m v.rttiryasmaattasmai santatapremaprakar.saayetyartha.h| nanvasmaaka.m
tvayyanuv.rttiv.rtti.h sadaa vartata eveti cetsatya.m tathaapi vai"si.s.tyaarthamiti sad.r.s.taantamaaha
yatheti| vi"se.sato na.s.te haarita iti vaiyagryavi"se.so dar"sita.h| ataeva taccintayaa nitaraa.m bh.rto
vyaapta.h| tadeva.m ruupagu.naadinaa sarvava"sitvaatsarvaarthapuur.natvena premamaatrasaapek.satvena ca
pratyupakaaraa.napek.satayaa saamye.api karu.napit.Rnapyatikramya svasya hitai.sitva.m dar"sita.m
svaadeyasvava"siikaarasarvapuru.saartha"siroma.nisvapremadaanaat| tathaa priyapremarasaasvaadaadhikya.m ca
bodhita.m santatatadvardhanalaalasaattadartha.m tadvirahadu.hkhasahanaacceti j~neyam|}}

end{quote}


Fascinating stuff, n'est ce pas? Rasa rules!

ys

nitai

I did not identify my source, instead just said "by a lettered Gaudiya!" because I know of other people who tell me things like this but would rather be anonymous, so the times when I do include their comments, I just say something like: "This is something that somebody told me," because that is their wish. These types of things though, I do not see them as shocking revelations, I have always felt them in this tradition, to me they feel like my own feelings, except backed with quotes.

I am enjoying this forthrightness. I find there is a lack of forthrightness, and when it is there, it is veiled in academic language too thick to parse through, so few pay close mind to what is really being said, and just agree with it, because it sounds good. If it were phrased more simply, it would probably sound shocking.

I can comment on that BG quote by Tarunji, in order to show how it is possible to see it. Like I can point to how many times in sastra, almost everything is referred to as 'most perfect' at one point, depending on where you look. Most perfect is not a mutually exclusive thing, to the Lord, each is most perfect, why then all over the sastras are different things called most perfect. Are these "inconsistencies?" What is the point to read these things with our own little discursive categories like this and underline them thinking that we are proving something. This is why I cringe at the use of quotes here and try to stay away from the quote-game. I can go on about that passage but I do not think it belongs here and it would not lead to anything.

Please use "quotation marks" or the quote tags, or any other visual aids of your choice, if you cite something / someone verbatim to prevent misunderstandings.

Editted by Evakurvan


Sorry I did not see how it would lead to confusion, when I prefaced the passaged with, here is a passage extracted from my conversations with a lettered Gaudiya. Plus it was not a paraphrase it was word for word, the only thing I changed was I replaced the initials 'CV' with 'Caitanyaism.' Would it make a difference in the level of condescending reaction to me if you knew it was Nitai who had said that, and not just me? Is that why it should matter so much?

I am sorry I find the tone behind "oh yeah?! where did you READ that!" every few minutes, to be very discouraging and condescending, it is why people do not come here, they have told me as much. Everyone knows I am not well-read in Gaudiya, I have stated this so many times, what is this bizarre desire to have me repeat this and act "meek" whenever I say anything. It is clear I am unversed and sharing hunches, do I have to repeat that every post. It is not about being a scholar and reading books, why act like a Vedantin when you are a Bhakta. Isn't this the -very thing- Gaudiyas fault Advaitans for. Apparently this is what Advaitans (like me?) are supposed to be -all about,- dry-quoting intellectuals, and some Gaudiyas mock them for it! I think there is a place for people to say stuff, without being always reminded of their lack of book-reading in contrast to others, and embarassed into silence. Otherwise you are being elitist and barring almost everyone from feeling truly comfortable to participate, which is why it is always the same people participating in those chats.

Dasanudas like I explained here I am unversed in Gaudiya, what I say comes from reading this board, a bit from conversations with the lettered, contemplating closely the few verses that I know. As for Advaita I am immersed in this since I am 14. What I say comes from reading so many books about it that I can't even remember one of them and I have a degree in it. In both cases I see myself as speaking from an experiential-phenomenological perspective, which is why I try not get much into debating in the mode of arguing with apparently buck-stopping quotations, I am not a fan of this mood I think it often aberrates into endless sentence one-up-manship, and other sad ways of using sastra.

O Lord! Why did I ever start this topic?

hA hato'smi Nitaiprabho! Where are the symptoms of Gaudiya vaishnava?

Actually I started this topic thinking I 'll be able to bring our Jagat-ji on the scene. Where is he when we need him the most? Why is he putting us through this viSAda-vAyu - vipralambha?

*Editted by Evakurvan*

As for the post about Brahman or how it is more popularly called in some circles as 'Brahmajyoti' I have heard it explained to me as the external energy of Krsna, and likened to white light, and to keep going and not get enamoured by it, because it is better to reach Krsna, not stay at Brahmajyoti. I hear this or variations of this often, I have made posts against this understanding to no avail, I wonder why now no one here sees it that way in this thread. No I was not talking about Tarunji's comment, that thread has nothing to do with Advaita at all it is about Buddhist Sunyata, still I am curious where this tendency to liken any mayavadi thing with 'external energy' comes from, as we see in Tarunji's post. In the bheda abheda thread I was making attempts to correct this common comment, to say Advaitans do not call Brahman Brahmajyoti and they do not see it that way either. If this is not what some people here think, then I guess they should have agreed with that point I was making in the bheda abheda thread, instead of responding back only with constant objections or saying nothing. I am interested if you do not think that that is what 'Brahmajyoti' is, then what is it? Tarun?

Correct? There are scriptural statements to the effect that Brahman is the bodily effulgence of the Purusha. There is no question of "correcting" these scriptural statements and whether Advaitins accept these scriptural statements as true or false is no concern of ours either. They just exist.

I wonder what you would make of all those other 'scriptural statements' that say otherwise about Brahman, that you surely must have come across in your forays into Advaita. Surely.

Well here is one person who has the guts to admit he thinks of Brahman along those lines, at least there is some kind of forthrightness in this post as opposed to taking the dissimulative road of backtracking when things get uncomfortable and calling things strawman, as I fear happened a lot in the Sunyata thread when discussing other matters.

By the way it is better not to use Purusha, to others like me we are used to seeing the word Purusha and thinking of it as being synonymous to 'Brahman.' It turns out a quick google search for 'Purusha Definition,' defines it that way as definition #1 also.

Though my first association was to think of Purusha as the masculine element of 'spirit' in contrast to the feminine element Prakriti, 'matter.' This is why it is difficult to understand all of the Sanskrit words when one tradition uses them to mean a totally other thing from what they mean in general to others.

I have just now discovered something BIG about Advaita in my personal study which I previously did not know. But before speaking of it, I have decided to get it confirmed first by various Advaitin scholars that I know online. If it is confirmed, it will completely revolutionise my view of Advaita and will need further study.

However, in the context of this particular topic vis-a-vis Brahman being the Purusha's effulgence, which particular scriptural statements are you speaking of? Sorry, I know that you cringe when it comes to quoting but I'm afraid that I cannot understand precisely which statements you are speaking of unless you provide some quotes to begin with, please. As far as the VaiSNava understanding goes, the effulgence of the Lord is certainly glorious and is much-praised! Scriptural verses speaking of it's 'supremacy' are true. But I haven't encountered any such verse that speaks of Brahman (effulgence) being over and above everything.

Those that do speak of Brahman as over and above everything can be taken to mean Brahman as a person. 'Brahman' is used in different ways in different contexts. Sometimes the Highest Lord is referred to as Brahman. Sometimes the jIva is referred to as Brahman by which the Highest Lord is referred to as Parabrahman; just as the jIva is also known as Atma, the Highest Lord is sometimes referred to as 'Atma' too, and can also be known as ParamAtma. The language of the UpaniSads is very cryptic, and it take a deep study to know what is being spoken of within its particular context. This is why we need commentators such as Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhva, et al. They make it clearer according to their own points of view, and it is up to us to choose which view we will believe in.


Well sorry, but 'Purusha' is also one of those words that change definition according to context. I don't understand, however, how 'PuruSa' can be synonymous with Brahman since 'PuruSa' by definition means a 'Person', not a formless consciousness or whatever. Or on the other hand, 'PuruSa' can be synonymous with Brahman if we take it that both the terms 'Brahman' and 'PuruSa' refer to a 'Person'.

Welcome to the world of VaiSNava etymology.

brahmaNo hi pratiSThAham - I am the basis of Brahman. (BG 14.27)

What does KRSNa mean when He declares Himself to be the basis of Brahman? Does this fit into the "Advaitic" view that Brahman is over and above all? If so, then what does it mean when KRSNa says that He is the basis of Brahman? It cannot mean that Brahman is over and above everything because in this context, KRSNa is Brahman. If we accept that the "Brahman" referred to is something else like, say, His effulgence, then that would make a lot of sense since His effulgence will emanate from Him and KRSNa is certainly its basis.

Of course I am following VaiSNava understandings here. I am aware that Advaitins interpret these verses different, but I do not care to know what those interpretations are except for my intellectual study. I am a VaiSNava so I believe differently.

Just so we can be clear: are you, evakurvan and Nitai-ji, both suggesting the same thing, namely that the goal is to do away with the concept of God itself?

(Obviously the terminology is problematic here due to the "godlessness" of Vrajendra-nandana Krsna but for the sake of simplicity, I assume you can replace "God" with "Krsna" and say that the concept of Krsna can also be removed at a certain stage of realization.)

It is easy to coarsify something as "DOING AWAY WITH GOD" when summarizing it like that. It isn't a matter of that, as I'm sure you know, but these caricatures do serve their purposes.

Gaura, in Advaita it isn't a matter of fixating on which is more 'superior' Brahman or Vishnu. Brahman 'over and above all,' is not felt in the same vein as when Prabhupada says Krsna is over and above the demigods. It isn't a competition of which deity is higher. The very question itself would be confounding to a yogin and not raised seriously.

When I said what I said, I meant that you are surely aware of passages that do not speak of Brahman as the mere external energy of the 'Supreme Personality God.' These are not esoteric passages, the Catholic nun will tell you these definitions of Brahman in the Hinduism module in grade 5. There is no need to complicate things.

(p.s. Gaudiyas are "Hinduism" and "Hindu" too).

"Brahman-as-beyond-all" is meant not so much in the sense of being ABOVE all, but more in the sense of defying linguistic definition.

Non-duality is also there to express the defying of discursive either/or categories such as Oneness or Twoness, Personality or non-Personality.


p.s. I am a Vaisnava too.
p.p.s. can I be evakurvanji too?

Hmm. I didn't find an answer there. Can we try again? In summary or in detail, does Advaita-vedanta hold that our relationships with Krsna/God are eternal or not? Do we ultimately need to move beyond God, as per the Sufis and as per your understanding of Nitai's quote?

The caricatures will dissolve once the issues that lead to them dissolve.

Do you know what happens if you ask these kinds of questions as a sadhaka in Buddhism or in Advaita? It is not a matter of intentional evasiveness but a matter of honesty and being true to the means of these methods. Read what I said about what Jnana means, on that other thread, maybe it will clarify.

Why doesn't Jagat explain what he means by:

It doesn't matter if Krsna exists or not, just love him.

There is a notion of unmotivatedness
and a notion of the absurdity of these kinds of questions.

No Braja, I do not interpret Nitai's comment as meaning that we ultimately and conslusively "Do Away with God," when we are so Advanced.

No, I don't care what happens in those places. I am suprised though that the followers of philosophers who accept the Veda as real, the primacy of sabda, sastra yonitvat, etc., are reduced to being unable to clearly state a position on such a basic subject.

Equally surprising is that Google gives an answer in seconds, in words, from the works of luminaries from those paths.



Ask him. It is not relevant to my question--unless you are suggesting that there is something Advaitan in his statement (which will subsequently become unexplainable if it is questioned).



Can you please let us know where the absurdity begins and ends? It seems that the only topics that meet this charge of absurdity are those that are central to Vaisnava beliefs.



Then please explain how Nitai's statement "might cursoraily shed light on the Advaitan understanding of what that ['no existence in the post-mukti'] really means, and how undertones of it can even be found in Caitanyaism."

Yes I understood your original question and I would be interested in hearing what actual Sanskritists have to say about it, since I am inept at answering it, because I am not well-versed in Sanskrit. So I cannot make pronoucements about which tradition is closer to the Sanskrit, maybe someone else can.



Hahaha relished by Vaisnavas only? My friend come let me show you the countless Advaitains who swoon over Bhagavatam. From how they are cartoonishly depicted in some Gaudiya texts, you would NEVER guess that, now would you! Advaitans should be sitting there like equiposed statues in the corner or something, not moving! In fact somebody I know was first introduced to Krishna, and then entered Iskcon, via relishing an ADVAITAN book about the wonderful pastimes of Krishna! When he showed the book that brought him there, IGM said, do not read it it comes from Mayavadis! Yet this book is the inspiratation of why this person is in KC today.The lady who wrote that book she traces her lineage back to Sankara himself! Somebody else I know told me a story about how whenever this man in India would pass by all of the IGM kids would throw rocks at him and yell Mayavadi Mayavadi! This man who is in love with the Bhagavatam, and who teaches these things at the university, is it ok to throw rocks at him because he is 'Mayavadi?' Is this some kind of sublime anger-bhava? In that case I guess it is sort of cool. Does that mean I can throw rocks at you too as a lila?

Devotion to God is not seen as some over-romantic joke in academic circles at all, though that might be the way some people would like to imagine these people just like some people want to imagine Advaitans a the dry logicians! But still I see where you get this idea.



I hope you do not see the Advaitans as being in the camp promoting sheer logic! Do the constant paradoxical statements (or how some want to call them "inconsistencies,") that are at the heart of Advaita and the Jnanic Path sound very logical to you!

I applaud your wonderful attitude.

If you break up everything I say in little morcels to hostily challenge it, of course you are not going to know what I mean by what I am saying. Forget refuting what you think my understanding is, and try to see what I mean. I know that if you look at it without being ready to attack it, you can intimate to yourself these foggy things that I am evoking. Though I doubt you want to or care. They are just as foggy to myself, as they should be? Or maybe you think they should be splayed out in clear contractual definitions. Then we just dont feel the same way about the nature of these things. I am not able to produce anything more about it right now in this context. You can take this as my own flaw.

Your caricature of caricatures is reaching infinite regression..slipping from the realm of truth. I doubt that it is even a very accurate portrayal for the residents of your local ISKCON temple. Haridas Sastri on mayavadis:



It is not the activity that defines who a Gaudiya classifies as a mayavadi; it is the manner of their beliefs.

See the example of Mahaprabhu's lila with Advaita Acarya when the latter was preaching the superiority of jnana over bhakti: "bhakti, bhakta, bhagavan and guru--if these four become identical, then where will remain the beauty and sweetness of their inter-relationship?" ("The Glories of Advaita Acarya," Advaita Das)

If someone believes that Isvara is the reflection of Brahman on maya, a creation of maya, etc., their bhakti is inherently different than that of the Vaisnavas. Twas always thus and always thus will be.

I am not talking about any local temple I love my local temple it has the best Radha Krsna deities I ever saw in my life. I do not really see where I am making caricatures of Gaudiyas here, other than relating funny anecdotes, and it would be ridiculous to try and take this seriously as my true opinion of Gaudiyas. I think you want to put words in my mouth that way I am seen as an adversary. I find this troubling because I would rather be friends. Funny you are so sure about what Advaitans believe and at the same time you "don't care to know at all what goes on in those places!"

Let me tell you what goes on, among other things they perform a great service of chanting the Holy Name in sankirtan yoga. But then again, who cares about chanting the Holy Name, I mean MAYAVADIS! chant the Holy Name too! Just like they know sanskrit study and revere sastra too! And the same sastra that you do! Don't be fooled by such externals, they are poison, and even if they have the name of Krsna on their lips, they are just Krsna-crooks!

Does that not remind you at all of what many Gaudiyas say about people like you who are aspring for manjari-bhava? I have heard stuff like that a-plenty I would need 14 ears to hear it all! They can take out sastra-quotes against it too, just like you can take out sastra-quotes against Advaitans. And you know what Advaitans have a whole bunch of sastra-quotes too because they are the intellectuals of Hinduism, that is their specialty. I guess it is a matter of who is a better lawyer for their selected sastra-quotes.

There is no second where Srimati Radhika and the gopis do NOT think of their beloved Syam.


It is pretty odd and totally strange to discuss Krishna out of the picture.

Just let there be the impersonal worship and the personal worship.
No need to mix things up for one´s own purpose.

I am not trying to mix "personal" and "impersonal' worship together, I am actually an enemy of syncretism. Still if it inspires other people I think this is good, it just does not happen to be my thing. We have gone through the details of why I am talkign about these things in tedium before.



Completely agree, beautiful comment.

[Mbh 3.313.117]

tarko'pratiSThaH zrutayo vibhinnA

Logic is inconclusive, the shrutis differ.

dharmasya tattvaM nihitaM guhAyAM

the truths of dharma lie in a hidden place

Did I say anything about those endless Advaita-definitions? Where do they belong, again?

So effulgence of the Lord here means Brahman.

So to some people Brahman is apparently "Impersonal," and Advaitans strive for that.

So to simplify for the sake of making a point, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, even though I realize I am being non-intricate, Gaudiyas are about Personal Bhagavan, not Impersonal Brahman.

Though I would like to say this qualification of Brahman as "Impersonal" is a bit of a foreign imposition. To actual Advaitans, Brahman does not exclude Duality and Personality. Just like Krsna does not exclude Non-Duality either.

Indeed as I have heard, and as the tattva states, Krnsa contains both Duality and Non-Duality. Not just Duality. There is Radha and Krisna as One, and then there is Radha and Krsna as Two, as in the Lilas. In fact I have also heard that according to Madhvas, such higher and lower concepts applied to Krsna, like saying that His Non-Dual aspect is "lower" than Him, is "an explicit display of violence against God." I know we are not Madhvas but this is still interesting to ponder, what they say.


In lieu of this, I will paste something from a new anonymous person here, (who probably does not mind being named but I will ask later) :

bhAgavatam, the summum bonum of gauDIyas, unequivocally declares that there is NO - NO difference between brahman and bhagavAn. vadanti tat tattva vidas tattvam yajJAnaM advayam brahmeti paramAtmeti bhagavAn iti zabdyate - the difference is merely in the manner in which one adresses Him.

Yes I am pasting this despite not having read the entire Bhagavatam myself in Sanskrit, I think it is okay to paste this nevertheless, so please do not fault me on it!

How do we make sense of this Bhagavatam passage that Brahman and Bhagavan are the same thing? If we believe the Advaitan definition of their own theological term, that Brahman is not just "Impersonal," but Personal and Impersonal, and Inconvievably so, then this Bhagavatam quote makes more sense. [P.S. I know I am not citing quotes to prove that this is what Brahman means, but I am saying this as what I have been taught, in a language that would make sense to a Gaudiya who is not-conversant with Advaita. If you look at the elucidations on Brahman in the Upanisads, you will see why I am saying this].

It would also make more sense when trying to understand why Krsna would say that those who aspire for Brahman, attain me too.

I've asked it before, I'll ask it again. Do Advaitins perceive the form of Bhagavan as having a reality beyond illusion? If so, references please.



What's the Advaitan definition, again? Please post it here.

All posts concerning Shankara's doctrines and Advaita-vada are being moved into this thread for the time being. Please make the moderators' lives easier and just post them here to begin with. Let this be the grand thread on Advaitavada, we don't need to have it in every other thread.

I might not answer in those precise terms, because they are Gaudiya ways of looking at Advaita, but I will try to answer in a way I feel is more honest to Advaita itself, since this is what we are talking about. Though I have answered this before but it is not perceived because it is not answered within Gaudiya strictures.

I do not have any books in front of me, most everything I read is Library-Borrowed, but I have Lecture Notes:

Even the most uncompromising Advaitans who say ultimate reality is Impersonal, like Ramakrishna and Vivekananda, should be understood in the followng way: Ramakrishna says to accept both Nirguna (Impersonal) and Saguna (Personal) aspects of Brahman (God). That they are like icycles and water. That fighting over them is like fighting over the 2 colors of a chameleon, when a chameleon is both.

So yes, to speak in the Gaudiya terms, which ring wrong to Advaitans, but I will use this terminology anyway, the Personal aspect or Bhagavan and the Impersonal aspect or Brahman, are both accepted as God.

Words used to describe Brahman, like Non-Dual and this imposed "Impersonal," as I have said, are there as signposts that do not mean what some Gaudiyas say that they mean. As I have said many times, all these things like Non-Dual, have their own meanings within Advaita. Non-Dual is not there to stand in contrast to Dual, as it would probably stand in the eyes of some Gaudiyas. Still I find it peculiar this undercurrent I sometimes sense that Gaudiyas know more about Advaitan terms, than Advaitans know about their own terms. Still it is understandable.

[Note: I am using words like Gaudiyas and Advaitans, but not in a way to pit one against the other or talk unfavourably about one or another. Though I am doing it because this is just a matter of using language since I am trying to talk about two traditions, and I do not know how else to do it. Some have taken offense to this sort of Gaudiyas this Gaudiyas that language in the past, so I add this sidenote here.]

Another note, let us not repeat some kind of bizarre conversation about how Vivekananda is not really a Sankarite, something I have addressed here and also at Gaudiya-Repercussions.

vadanti tat tattva-vidas
tattvam yaj jnanam advayam
brahmeti paramatmeti
bhagavan iti sabdyate

"Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramatma or Bhagavan." (Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.2.11)


Honestly this verse does not mean that there is NO,NO difference between Bhagavan and Brahman.
From the viewpoint of tattva (tattva-gata-vicara), by truth, there is no difference in these three features (Bhagavan, Paramatma, Brahman). The Supreme Personality Of Godhead, Sri Krishna is not different from this features, all are within His Supreme Person.
This being inconceivably so.
His Person, His expansion as the supersoul and His effulgence are not different on the basis of tattva-gata-vicara. Vicara means "consideration". From this point of view Sri Krishna and Sri Vishnu are also non-different.
Also, by tattva-gata-vicara, Krishna is non-different from His energies.
But this is the consideration of tattva. I am not so learned and so I cannot translate or nicely explain "tattva-gata-vicara". Maybe "in consideration of the aspect of truth"...

But I understand the difference between "tattva-gata-vicara" and "rasa-gata-vicara".
"Rasa-gata-vicara" means the consideration of rasa (experiencing, feeling, becoming aware). So experience/feeling/becoming aware of mellows (rasa) in contrast to knowing (tattva).
By "rasa-gata-vicara" there is a VAST difference between these 3 features of the Absolute Truth.
In the realm of "rasa" , Bhagavan Sri Krishna stands Supreme.
The realization of His Personal Form is far more full of rasa than the realization of His Form as the Supersoul, and what to speak of the Formless Brahman. There, no "rasa" can be found, since there is by definition nobody there to experience anything.
The soul merges with Brahman and so there is no more experience, no more feeling.

Examples are there in our traditions:

In the CC, Sri Caitanya instructs Sanatana Goswami very elaborately in the realm of "tattva-gata-vicara".

krsnera svarupa-vicara suna, sanatana
advaya-jnana-tattva, vraje vrajendra-nandana

"O Sanatana, please hear about the eternal form of Lord Krsna. He is the Absolute Truth, devoid of duality but present in Vrndavana as the son of Nanda Maharaja.

(Madhya-lila)

But then, on the other hand, He discusses and instructs us indirectly (by putting the words into the mouth of Sri Ramananda Raya) in the association of Sri Ramananda Raya.

'krsnera svarupa' kaha 'radhara svarupa'
'rasa' kon tattva, 'prema'--kon tattva-rupa

"Kindly explain the transcendental features of Krsna and Srimati Radharani. Also explain the truth of transcendental mellows and the transcendental form of love of Godhead." (Madhya-lila)

This is a vast subject matter, "rasa" versus "tattva" and very very deep.
So it is not just:
"Hey, there is no difference between Krishna and Brahman".

I never saw Brahman herding cows, eating butter, kissing Svamini. etc...

And by the way, dear evakurvan, with all due respect, you seem to know the "real" Advaitavada, and you constantly tell us that we dont.

Does this mean that actually the Advaitins are hidden bhaktas?
Do they accept that there is an ETERNAL relationship between the soul and the Person of God?

Like Madhava said, please provide some references, not just some slokas out of context.


Not meaning to offend anyone
Tarunji

I do not understand why you think I am trying to say that all Advaitans are secretly Gaudiya Vaisnavas, that is absurd.

I am just saying some Gaudiyas, not all, think a lot of false things about Advaita.


Thank you for the passages you have pasted.





Juxtaposed like that, they nicely illustrate abheda and bheda. I find a lot of people forgot about that first part, as though it is some sub-part or discardable part. I guess if you want to say tattva is discardable, only the yogamaya of lila counts as true, then you can do that.

Still, I see the necessity of being blind to the oneness while relishing the twoness and that is great.

As for the other point concerning definitions of Brahman by "rasa-gata-vicara" standards, I do see what you are saying. Still I feel I have addressed how that understanding of Brahman is foreign and even somewhat opposite to the understanding of people who are actually Advaitan, who are the people you would think have the right to explain their own theological terms, and who would sit in shock and confused at such a bizarre elucidation of the meaning of Brahman.

Do not worry I am not offended the only way I would be offended is if you started to call me mayavadi demon or something like this!

Eva can you please present your source? From where you have learned advaita and which version of their bhasya you are using? Because threre are so many different Bhaysa and everyone is claiming the authenticity.

Also while discussing something about gaudiya understanding of Advaita and before refuting them please let us know that source also, otherwise it will spread wrong messages.

And while presenting your argument against the "Gaudiya misconceptions" please state the actual source of your understanding of Gaudiya and then show the counter logic and evidence from source to refute those . This is the actual way of debate. Without presenting the source and logic if you continue to say "I heard, I know... They will tell something like... Completely alien to them" etc. will not help much in discussion instead this type of debate will reappear again and again in this forum and nobody will be willing to listen at some point of time in future.

Please sometimes site some verses and translation of that accroding to your understanding unless our discussion will be endless without any conclusion or learnings.

Hope you can understand what I mean.

Also it will be helpful if you can present small gist about Advaita accroding to your own understanding.

Yours
Dasanudas

Water is liquid by nature; ice is an unnatural state brought about by an external element. In this analogy, is nirguna or saguna being compared to ice?

Here's a quote on the gopis from one of these aforementioned luminaries:

Evakurvan, I can't see this really going much anywhere unless you can boil your ideas of Advaitavada down to specific sources. Then we can all examine those sources and see what it's all about. Otherwise it's just so much ideas about what Advaita might be all about.

I have been told by a Sanskritist, that when Gaudiyas hear Brahman, they must be hearing

ahaM brahmAsmi

but if they want to understand what Brahman really means to Advaitans, they should be hearing:

ahaM braHmaNo’smi” –ity evam eva cintayitavyam | “tat tu samanvayAt” ity alam ||

Hmm, honestly speaking, I doubt that you have understood what I was referring to.
Nothing should be "discarded", our acaryas have reconciled everything.
Both are important.
The castle of rasa stands on the foundation of tattva.
You need to know about tattva, otherwise the aspect of rasa can be seen in mundane ways.
This has nothing to do with "yogamaya of lila"...



So, what is THEIR definition or understanding of Brahman?
Please do not answer with those phrases like "we cannot speak about Brahman".
Sure we can and many did.

Madhava is right, where do want to lead this discussion?
What do you want to achieve?

Also here is a poem, posted before by that same Sanskritist, that I have re-pasted twice but no one notices. It also speaks of how to Advaitans Brahman is one thing, and as you can see here in this poem, it does not have anything to do with what it is to some Gaudiyas, an external effulgence, a sort of sub-realm.

zrutim apare smRtim itare
bhArataM anye bhajantu bhava-bhItAH
aham iha nandaM vande
yasyAlinde paraM brahma


Some may worship the God of the Upanishads,
some the One described in the Smritis, and
yet others may bow down to the God glorified
in the Mahabharata, shaking with the fears
of life and death in this material world.

But I will place my head at the feet
of Nanda Maharaj in whose back yard
the Supreme Brahman is crawling about
in the form of a baby Boy.

Meaning?

Jesus,

what has this wonderful poem to do with this:



Did you read my answer before?
Its not just "ONE THING". The Absolute Truth reveals Itself in 3 aspects.

I am sorry that you want to use the fact that I am not quoting sastra, which I have already explained many timess why I am not doing it, or pasting the real life names of my professors on this board, as a reason to pretend you do not see the meaning of what I am saying.

Dasanudas, you do not need books, you mentionned I think a while back that you are familiar with a few Ramakrishna people. Please go to them right now and ask them what Brahman is, and hear what they have to tell you. Then, turn around and tell them, No No, that is not what it is, Brahman is is external effulgence of Krishna, a sort of impersonal substate of light, where reigns flavourlessness and formlessness.

I am not even really saying anything esoteric about Advaita at all, I am sorry if my reformulations on the matter from all angles shed zero light on the matter.

Would you care to name that Sanskritist? Perhaps you would also like to demonstrate the difference in the essential import of these two phrases?

Honestly, I do not use anything for any purpose.
I just DO NOT UNDERSTAND your definitions, your way of thinking, etc...
And many of us here dont.

Why cant you just say what your masters (Ramakrishna-people or whoever) say about Brahman?
For the last time:
What is BRAHMAN according to Advaita-philosophy.
No need to quote books, just tell me straight what you know.

And what is the translation of this:


Otherwise, just forget it.

I have repeated about 108 times now that I do not know Sanskrit. People who do, and who are able to forget Sanskrit and Quotes for at least five minutes, and have the open capacity to listen to IDEAS, are able to know what I am talking about and then provide the Sanskrit. It is my hope that some of the people here would be able to do that too. It is a shame that out of all yogas, this is BHAKTI, yet this obsession with not being able to come down to my unlettered level is stronger here than how it would be among JNANIS. I am afraid this is not a very benevolent way to dismiss ideas that we would rather just refute than understand.

yato vaco nivartante aprapya manasa saha

First of all you have escaped what we are asking from you to have a fruitefull dialogue. You have chosen the easier path to escape this.

It is really funny to see comment like this.
I have very much doubt that if you know anything about the Ramakrishna's position about Gaudiyas specially Gaurachandra. I am not talking about the "Ramakrishna Missions" philosophy lead by Vivekananda. If you know the activities and biography of ramakrishna you may conclude something else.

Do you have any understanding why in Ramakrisna mission they have regular Bhagavat Patha Saptaha and why they read Chaitanya Charitamrita? Please find out the answer.....

Anyway we are talking about Advaita not about Ramakrishna Misson. So
I would repeat my earlier post if you want to go ahead.

If you do not know Sanskrit, why you qoute Sanskrit then without translation.

This is getting a tiny tiny bit boring and frustrating.

I guess I waste my time...

Well, I'm sure people are open to ideas. However if you intend to present something regarding a particular philosophical tradition, it's mighty helpful if you can actually present their ideas instead of your ideas about what their ideas might possibly be.

If you don't know any Sanskrit, that's all right. There are plenty of translations out there you can draw from, and posting the translation with the Sanskrit shouldn't be too much of an endeavor.

I am personally not tremendously interested in understanding every other idea someone wants to start elaborately presenting. I have a lot of other things to do and to think about. I have to priorize, and priorizing here means understanding the original ideas through reviewing a presentation directly connected with original sources. Otherwise, there are so many other (and more interesting, I might add) ideas to explore.

You keep repeating--and then sometimes attacking--this gross misconception of bhakti and jnana. If you are serious about trying to rid us all of misconceptions, you might want to start modelling that yourself. Bhakti is not all about devotion, devoid of rationality and a strong basis in scripture.



Every religion in the world can give some kind of explanation as to what is God, what is the living entity, what is the universe and what is the relationship between them. Such a simple delineation is not asking too much.

If your path is too difficult to communicate, so be it. Those who are inclined can contact you for more information on that path. However to date you have not presented anything that contradicts the view of Sri Caitanya and his followers toward mayavada doctrines and I don't think you are going to. So why not just end this here?

I only now paid attention to this post.

Evakurvan, if the ideas you present, whether they are your own or those of others, are foggy, you may want to consider working on clarifying them before you get into extensive dialogues about what the ideas are not and what they should be.

Yes, clear contractual definitions are indeed what we are after. Without such, dialogues are nothing but breeding grounds for misconceptions and subsequent disagreements.

Read what I said there in context.
There is a reason why things are foggy, but not for lack of clarification.
I guess you can stop at the word foggy, and say that I am foggy, and say that this is why it is not clear.
If you want to pretend that this is what I -think- Advaita is, and not what it really is, go ahead. You are also ignorantly contradicting Advaitan scholars, with so many published books on the subject, who I would presume know way more about Advaita than you do, since what I say comes from these authorities on Advaita, who also happened to be my professors. Sorry I did not ransack the posts with quotes by them, I figured a few simple quotes are pretty clear.
When even those quotes are absurdly twisted around in an attempt to disqualify them, I see the futility of bringing in quotes. Even the most obvious ones are not absorbed, what to say if I were to bring in poetic sastra.
Even without these sort of credentials, it would be nice if people were nevertheless able to listen to a credential-free person based on IDEAS.
It is for this precise reason, that I debased the conversation to a 5th grade Hinduism level, where you can open any 5th grade book, and get an idea at least of the very bluntest point I am making.
Nevermind that I intentionally squashed the more interesting points of these posts, just for the sake of -at least- being understood at this very blunt level.
There are Gaudiyas here watching, way more conversant with these languages than any of the current responders, who understand exactly what I am saying and support it "all the way." But they do not want to take a public stand, for personal understandable reasons. So they remain entirely out of these threads.
Also I honour their belief that it is not the best thing to do, to publically utter that the understanding that some the Acaryas chose to present on these topics, was an incomplete one.
I appreciate that they are at least letting me know in private, that way I do not feel totally inept, like the active responders here would have me feel.
I wonder why the linguists do not require all kinds of fancy Sanskrit to understand the ideas I am presenting, but the apprentice-linguists here do.
You can read with a close mind, take whatever I say in a way that will serve your ontological needs or public-ego serving needs, and all is well.
I apologize if this tone here bothers anyone, it is the only honest way I can express my reaction at the kinds of responses I am getting publically.

Evakurvanji,


Yes I know how it is seen in Advaita, but I was presenting the VaiSNava understanding of it. But unfortunately, the UpaniSads are chock-full of references describing Brahman exactly like that, over and above all, yes, even as if over and above the demigods. For just one example of this, please read the Kena UpaniSad. It is a very well-known story of how Brahman is superior over Indra, Agni, Vayu, etc. There are many other references too, where Brahman is spoken of in a personal way.

One thing that strikes me at this moment is; when the Advaitin's prefer to emphasize those verses that speak of Brahman as an "impersonal" formless consciousness, beyond linguistic description, sac-cid-ananda and whatnot, how exactly do they deal with these other verses that speak of the same Brahman as if He (It) was a Person?


Yes, I know the type of verses you are speaking of, but what I am saying is that both concepts of "Brahman" are presented in the UpaniSads and this is obvious to anyone who reads them even casually. Brahman is presented as being both above all and beyond linguistic definition. That was the point which I was making earlier; due to the cryptic nature of the UpaniSads and other texts, verses should be studied and read very carefully within its context in order to arrive at the meaning of what is being said. The simple fact that there are three major VedAntic schools (as well as more relatively minor ones) prove that "Brahman" is perceived in different ways and it is upto people to decide which one they agre with the most.

And yes they can question each other's conception, why not? That is the history of debate.


Huh?

And "actual Advaitins" would be..? ZaGkara's followers? I find that extremely hard to believe even if we are talking about ZaGkara's followers or the various hodgepodge missions out there, because this is just simply not what is spoken about in much of ZaGkara's major works about Advaita-tattva. I presume that he should know what he was talking about since he codified the whole system? By the way I would like to see some references to this idea that according to "actual" Advaitins, Brahman does not exclude duality and personality.


What is even more interesting to ponder, is that I have not encountered anyone here positing that Brahman is "lower" than anything else like the paramAtma or bhagavAn aspects. It is simply just another facet of Him. However,...


Not necessarily so. Look at the verse again: brahmeti - paramAtmeti - bhagavan iti zabdyate. There is a gradation or progression of realisation there. The realisation of 'paramAtma' is higher than 'brahman', and the realisation of 'bhagavAn' is higher than that of 'paramAtma'. Not that one is "actually" higher than the other, that would be silly.


This is not stated anywhere. If so, where? If we are talking about the Bhagavad-gIta verses posted elsewhere and humourously referred to as the 'chilli laddu' concept, I would like to know in what way do those who aspire for Brahman attain Krishna? Because they certainly attain "Krishna" in the form of "merging" into His "impersonal brahman effulgence" and especially since Krishna says (BG 14.27) that He is the basis of this Brahman. However, as mentioned earlier, there is a gradation of realising Krishna that is available, and I suppose that some people would much rather play with Krishna Himself rather than swim around in His effulgence or so.

P.S. If Kishalaya has something to say, why doesn't he come here and say it directly?

That thing about Hindu, was a sort of comment responding to my hunch that some people here see themselves as Gaudiyas, as something which is beyond the amalgam of Hindu. This is just my hunch.

As in when someone patronized me by saying, Congratulations you are an honorary Hindu!, as though Hindus are a mishmash of things, and somehow Gaudiyas are beyond that.

No one explicitly said that on this board, but I have heard the term Hindu used explicitly in that way in other Gaudiya circles.

Gaura, it is amazing how after being for so long opponents, you are now saying things that totally confirm what I am saying about Brahman, maybe without even realizing it (your post #108). If you read through all these recent posts, you will see how what you are saying is beautifully helping me make my own points, even though it seems that you think that I am saying otherwise. To say it again, "Impersonal" Brahman to Advaitans, includes both Personal and Impersonal. But it does not end there either, because it is still Inconceivable. Just like the Caitanya Tattva does not end with our linguistic categories, because it is Acintya too. You can see elaborations and details of why I say this, as well as quoted references, in the posts. The main thrust here is, not understanding what words like Non-Dual mean, in the context of Advaita.

I am not really prepared to pull out BG or Upanisads quotes, to fight over which tradition has a more accurate translation and commentary on Sastra. I doubt anyone here has studied Advaitan commentaries, to be able to say that they are wrong and the Gaudiya ones more accurate. It is easy to take any Advaitan sastra quote I can paste, out of context, to skew it so that it still conforms to what Gaudiyas want it to conform to. I am not here to present the entire Advaitan BG and Upanisads in painstaking context to fight in this way, because that is what in the end I would have to do. Even that obvious quote I gave, to show that both personal and impersonal are accepted as equal aspects of God, Braja turns around to twist and massacre it, so that it stops saying that to his mind. There is no need to hairsplit which is higher, ice or water, that is obviously not what is intended by that quote, and you know it. I do not want to play this foolish game of doing that. I do not trust the active responders here enough to continue on like that. I will leave what I have said to stand here.

The Sanskrit explanation of how some Gaudiyas perceive Brahman vs. how Advaitans do, is really all I ever need to say to prove my bluntest of points. It shows that the Gaudiya perception of Brahman is incomplete. It is not incomplete if you look at it from the point of view of how some Gaudiyas want to define it. It is incomplete from the point of view of the very people who have it as central in their own theology. It is also incomplete from the point of view of general knowledge. Sorry this is hard to swallow for some. If you want to pretend I offer zero back-up, go ahead. I have said more than I need to have said already.

OK, I've just read the last couple of pages and I can see that this is not going anywhere unless we actually get around to defining key Advaitic concepts, and perhaps compare them with GauDIya concepts if applicable. I think that dasanudasji's advice to Evakurvanji was very nice and should be followed, because that is the only way we can get things sorted out.

I would like to kick off this definition thing with two main topics to start with. First, mukti. Or rather, do Advaitins retain individuality after being freed from the shackles of the paJca-kozas and the attainment of Brahman? What exactly does it mean when we say that the jIvAtma "merges" into Brahman? ZaGkara's Viveka-cUDAmaNi hardly deals with this subject as it focuses more on jIvanmukti. I asked this question to some Advaitin scholarly friends - some of whom have not yet replied - and I was directed to Swami Krishnananda's translation of ZaGkara's Brahma-sUtra-bhASya which is available online, and the fourth adhyAya specifically.

I took a look at it, and as far as the translation goes, it does appear that Advaitins retain a form of individuality after attaining mukti! This despite ZaGkara's commentary to "avibhAgena dRSTatvAt" specifically being written to indicate that upon attaining mukti, the jIva is freed from the koza-shackles and enters a state of "non-separation" from Brahman just as water mixes into water. However, ZaGkara's commentary to the succeeding verses appeared (to me) to suggest that the liberated jIva even after attaining mukti appears to participate in the powers of Brahman and actually shares in most of Brahman's powers except the power of creation. For me, it was unclear what exactly this meant; are the liberated jIvas enabled with the power to do things independently of Brahman, or are they functioning as Brahman?

One of the answers I have received is that since (according to Advaita) duality is perceived as being due to the darkness of ignorance (ajJAna), one cannot rightly say that darkness has merged into light. And since the attainment of Brahman implies complete identification with "Consciousness", there is no individuality left as the identification with the body (gross, subtle and causal) has been lost for ever. I have paraphrased this reply in my own words.

I do intend to study this conclusion further: one of the things that bugs me is that this reply did not specifically deal with my questions about the definition of mergence, and neither does it clearly explain why ZaGkara's commentary to the succeeding verses after "avibhAgena dRSTatvAt" seem to imply that individuality is retained according to Krishnananda's translation of ZaGkara's bhASya. Furthermore, I have a nagging feeling that these terms used like "Consciousness" and so on are a characteristic of the followers of Ramana Maharsi. Indeed, the fellow who replied to my question belongs to what I would refer to as a neo-Advaitic school since he and his friends highly respect the teachings of Ramana and Ramakrishna on a par with ZaGkara. The simple fact that they recommend Krishnananda's translation is an indication of this.

Also, I am awating a reply from "actual" Advaitins, those who strictly follow in ZaGkara's line and whose reply is likely to be free from adulteration.

Another issue I would like to ponder over is the experience of bliss (Ananda) that supposedly comes about through the path of Advaita. A little mention was made of it before in other previous threads, but I don't feel that it was dealt with adequately. Fortunately, this is an issue that can be compared to the GauDIya schema.

Now, according to ZaGkara's Viveka-cUDAmaNi, the attainment of this bliss is a natural result of the "enlightenment" that arises through the process of sAdhana. This bliss itself is the natural symptom of the Atma, so the consummate realisation that occurs in jIvanmukti (since VC deals with jIvanmukti) simply enables the jIva to revel in the bliss of its own self. Please note that I am giving a very simplistic description of the VC just to make this easier to understand and to save time. There is much more the VC says. To show something of this bliss, hundreds of shlokas exist but I will show just one here to make my point:


It is currently unknown to me if this bliss of jIvanmukti in the Advaita tradition is equal to the bliss attained upon actual attainment of Brahman, since in the Advaita tradition jIvanmukti means that you are still in the physical body to burn off some residual karma even though you are "officially" liberated and are no longer aware of your body. However, I would reasonably expect that the bliss gained upon actual attainment of Brahman is considerably higher.

Now, to draw a comparison between the experiential bliss gained in the Advaita tradition to the bliss gained in the GauDIya tradition, let us see the beautiful words of ZrI RUpa GosvAmI on the subject of sAndrAnanda-vizeSAtmA (the happiness of becoming one with the Supreme):


This simply shows what I was saying in an earlier post: The GauDIyas simply do not care to know the details of Brahman as aspired for and venerated by Advaita-vAdIs, for they are focusing on a realisation that is higher than theirs. In another thread I gave a facetious example of Krishna's offering both a chilli and a laddu. A much better example is given here; would you rather swim in the boundless and limitless ocean, or would you try to swim in the water that is contained in a cow's hoof-print? A simple question can only give rise to a simple answer.

I have read these recent posts but I fail to see how my points back up yours? Could you kindly clarify that, please? I believe I was questioning that very idea of Brahman being both Personal and Impersonal in Advaita. Unless you are speaking of Saguna and Nirguna Brahmans - which even Advaitins do not care much for - I do not see what else you are trying to say.


Rather, the point I made is that GauDIyas view the realisation of Brahman as incomplete. They do not care for it as they wish to pursue a higher ideal, BhagavAn, which incidentally will automatically include the aspects of Brahman and ParamAtma. Why have one when you can have three?

I hope the old friends will not think that Hari became impersonalist. No! I’m really not, however, being the fact that I didn’t have the same opportunity to get a credential as the “Lords’ servitor”, like most of you (the core of GD), therefore, the crude reality is that so far my friends, “Aham Brahmasmi!"
===============================================

Is there a moment to reflect the good things that we have been learning from these different lines of thoughts? I do really think that there are many ways to propagate or to say about what you believe without having to go through torrents of rain... Let me tell you something that you maybe familiar…

When in Pennsylvania in the end of 2004, I have been very close to Advaitas, it was definitely an experience in life. There I had the opportunity to meet Dayananda Swami a great Advaita Vedanta.

In the Arsha Vidya, mostly they were reading from Srimad Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads, here and there was a Puranic stories to illustrate some conversations. I remember in one weekend, there was Rasa-Lila-Dance performed by the kids present. However, my feelings were that Krishna somehow was less related to Vaishnavas than to Hinduism, and the Bhagavata Puruna stories (pastimes) always carries a different meaning that the ones in GV. Although Shankara never touched it his followers seems to be attracted for those popular puranas.

On the other hand, I had the opportunity to have long conversations with some of the students and they new that I was Vaishnava and actually they like even more. Most of the students were Indian decedents and few westerners here and there. It is actually very traditional, practically saying, the cream of the India Society in America and Canada are the patrons of this solid project.

The Bhajans to Dakshinamoorti are not so loud as the Vaihnavas and they do more in a recitation style. Students do really have great respect to the Sannyasis, who most of the times are memorizing mantras and studying Vedanta, and before the lectures they usually chant “Govinda Jay Jay Gopala Jay Jay”….

In a conversation with Dayananda Swami I asked what comes first Bhakti or jgAnA and he answered “Bhakti comes first then jgAnA, and he added most of the problems in religious organizations are there because of the absence of Bhakti. Everything comes from Bhakti; Knowledge comes from Bhakti”...

Coincidently, the first time I met him in the Arsha Vidya he was leaving to go to Rio, Brazil, after finding out that we were from there he liked and became very friendly toward us. He went to Rio in Gloria Arieira’s Vidya Mandir for a serie of lectures then departure to India. On the second occasion, on his way back to USA he actually spoke some Portuguese with us “ como vai?”

He has good qualities and is always in good mood, smiling and making jokes. Knowing that I was a devotee sometimes he would say “Hare Krishna!”
By the way I met Stephen Knapp (Sri Nandanandana Dasa) there in a especial event promoted by" Friends of Vedic Culture". He is a nice devotee that is trying hard to promote Vedic Culture/Hinduism in the west.

In resume, for us, having the opportunity to be in the Arsha Vidya was like a therapy, the pre-concepts and repulsion that we had about Advaitas and Shankarites had minimized to a very-lower-level and we came out with a better vision of what Vaishnavism, Vedic Culture and Hinduism is all about. However, for sure, there are still way much more to be learned.

I am sorry, I am not going to add much to any of this, or else it will go around in circles, and my points are there and I realize some are not going to understand them and keep answering them anyway, like in the present case. Except the word Ananda caught my eye. What is all this talk about Advaita not having an Ananda as "high." Please let us start quanitifying comparative Anandas friend, get out your Ananada yardsticks, mine is 10 inches long as it is broad!

This quantitative measure of Ananda is such utter nonsense, I am not trying to promote my so-called path, it seems knowing about something places you as a follower of it and in the positiion of impersonalist opponent on this board. I have avoided this same question in the past, I would rather not say anything to place myself in this box that a few people want to involuntarily place me in. This is why I avoid the Ananda topic twice now. I do not want to sound like I am here to praise the glories of Advaita. But seriously Gaurasundara, have you sat down and performed the sadhana? For real? Don't answer that. Oh Gaurasundara, you talk so much about this experiential Ananda of Advaita, and I am not here to tell you that I have experienced even a hoofprint full, but what do me and you know about this Ananda to be found in the innermost heart of the sadhaka?

The following is a repetition of things I have already said. You may skip this next one paragraph. I will not re-address these points in circles. Some people are not going to hear them and just repeat themselves at me all over again as I am well familiar with. I am doing it here out of my own impulse next time I will just let it be. So you can SKIP what is in the red brackets.

[ 1. Of course the bliss of Brahman is going to be lower to Gaudiyas if they insist on defining it as this substate of external energy or impersonal outer effulgence of Krsna.

2. How are we supposed to understand the term Imageless? How about, Image and Imageless, and inconceivably so. As I have stated before, each negation is not to be read as negation proper, negation is there as a signpost to describe something which is neither a negation nor an affirmation, that is the Neti Neti of the Jnanic method. Imageless is another way of playing hide-and-go-seek with conceptual attempts at definition. So yes without really knowing what it means, you may cringe at this idea of apparently Imageless God, God with no arms and legs or however you want to call it.

3. I have not said this specifically before but let me make an obvious point that flows from previous comments. You may cringe at this idea of remaining ALONE in your True Nature in pure consciousness and bliss. It sounds so Advaitan and repulsive. You may use a line like this to say, No! No! I do not want to revel in my own Self, I want to serve Radharani! I do not want to take this further, but just to add, what if you read True Nature as constitutional position of maidsevant of Radharani? Do you also not sit there in separation alone relishing in the bliss of such a true nature? Think back to Nitai's comment on Sanatana. I guess read in a different way, those lines do not sound as lonely narcicistic impersonal and cringeworthy anymore. Note I am obviously not trying to say that Sankara is talking about Radharani or is a secret Gaudiya, but making a point for illustration. ]

Answer to your last question
Would you rather swim in the boundless and limitless ocean, or would you try to swim in the water that is contained in a cow's hoof-print? Seriously this is a bit funny because no matter how clear it is supposed to be, my first reaction was to think that the cow's hoof print was the Gaudiya ananda, since boundless and limitless ocean of ananda is a completely Advaitan thing to say straight out of the demon's mouth, it is charming Rupa is turning this classic advaitan stock phrase on its head and appropriating it like that.

Now you tell me, which would you rather swim in? Would you rather swim in the imprersonal limitless formless ocean, or would you rather swim in the water of the formful hoof-print of the cow of that naughty cowherd boy? Do tell me which sounds more appealing to you now? I think you are horribly simplying the poetry of what the blessed Rupa is saying if you actually are reading those verses in the way that you are reading them and then asking this apparently obvious and simple question to boot.

With due respect to all participants in this thread, I will consider participating further when I see something tangible in the realm of original sources, whether it be a direct reference or the views of someone who is familiar with the originals cited.

Evakurvan, despite hearing much from her professors, evidently is not acquainted with the originals and therefore, in my personal view, not in a position on what Advaita stands for (despite the cheering notes from behind the scenes she gets). And yes, I do hold the same standard for Gaudiyas, as well. If they haven't a clue on where things were originally taught, I rarely take them too seriously as far as doctrinal integrity is concerned.

A thread worth pursuing vis a vis the statements of Krishnadas Kaviraja and so forth would be to study the development of Advaita-vada over the centuries, focusing on the differences between the medieval Advaitins Chaitanya was dealing with and contemporary Advaita.

At any rate, without original sources (which translate into a presentation that is worth taking seriously) I personally don't see this discussion going much anywhere.

Radhe Radhe!

Well, I am too getting really fed up with this word-jugglery with no sources.



Wow, still not getting the point, right?
The external energy is the material world, the effulgence is Brahman.




Now its getting really funny.
Are you serious?
Honestly, I really cannot take you seriously anymore. I am deeply sorry.

Who the heck swims in an impersonal ocean? After you are liberated and you merge into Brahman, you CANNOT experience "swimming". There is no more "I".

By the way, and please dont take this as an offence, I will not discuss this further with you, dear Evakurvan. Someone just showed me a link to the other forum, "Gaudiya repercussions", where you said the following (yeah, I know OFF-TOPIC, but relevant for my decision): [ Read here. ]

Sorry, I tried to be of help, but I am out of this Advaitavad-jugglery without any serious background.

Tarunji

How about we call it a topic and close it, and agree to disagree, and not have any more Advaitavada discussions for a while? It really isn't going anywhere.

Bingo.

You do not even know what I do in my personal life, if I eat meat or not. If you are going to dismiss whatever I say because I am a "meat-eater," then that is okay with me. In that post I am not saying people should eat meat. I am saying the reasons they give for not eating meat or often arrogant and ill-conceived. If you read the first thing I wrote in that thread, you will see I fully support all four regulative principles, yes even the sex one. I think they all serve as tips to deepen bhajan.

Almost everyone has little caveats for the sex one, but no one is going to stop talking to you or consider you less than human because of that. At the same time, these same people with these caveats get all high and mighty with the meat one, just because they are able to follow it.

Is one regulative principle more important than the other? No.

So why does everyone react like this to the meat one? Is it because they just love animals so much? I don't think so.

I dont dismiss anything you say because you may be a meat eater, but I cannot take anyone very seriously who doesnt understand that meat-eating is cruel.
Especially if he or she claims to be a Vaishnava.



Such a basic understanding for spiritual life.
I dont want to be arrogant, but my limited understanding tells me that Vaishnavism or spirituality on a larger scale and meat-eating cannot go together.

How can meat-eating not be cruel?
Anyway, off-topic and pointless, since it doesnt really matter what you eat, right?

I forgot to add that most of them do not care about Mono-diglycerides and other animal derives in the food such as in the ice creams, cakes and others products...

That was nice to share your personal experiences Hari Saran. I have been saying that Advaitans have Bhakti and that Jnana does not mean no Bhakti and that it is wrong of Gaudiyas to say that they have the monopoly on Bhakti. These were just seen as outlandish assertions. How can people believe this about Advaita when it is so ridiculously clownified in their circles. "Repent Mayavadi cry bitter tears," to paraphrase a Gaudiya quote. Your post illustrates my point in a personal gentle way so thank you.

The types of Yoga are not these discrete exclusive things.
This is a false way to look at them.
I see a lot of Jnana going on in Gaudiya Bhakti.

Just to add, I have always known about Bhakti, but not through IGM circles, but through my own studies in Hinduism. When I encountered IGM I was incredibly confused. I still am confused. When I look at the way terms like Bhakti and Vaisnav are monopolized so strangely. If you talk like this about Mayavadis you might as well talk like this about Meerabai.

My earliest experiences in Krishna sankirtan were when I was a kid obsessed with Hindusim seeking out places to go. So I found this place, they also have branches in India, they publish books on Radha Krishna. I go there alone and it is so foreign to me and I can't even remember how old I was but really young and it was all very strange to me. Then all of a sudden everyone starts chanting 'Hare Krsna,' and my first reaction was: Oh No! Are these the "Hare Krishnas?!" Darn! I came to a cult!

Later I realized they are Sankarite Advaitans. Sometimes I still go there.
When you learn about Bhakti, outside of IGM, in school, in general library books, you learn it is the path of devotion and it will often be explained in Advaitan terms. Bhakti does not stand in opposition to Advaita anywhere except here.

I'm afraid you are going after strawmen here. I don't think anyone has said that Gaudiyas, or even Vaishnavas at large, have a monopoly on bhakti. (And if somebody did say that, they should join the fellow who called Brahman the material energy of God and head over to Nitai's for treatment.)

The mukti-oriented bhakti pursued by Advaitins is even frequently given as an example of mishra-bhakti (mixed devotion). In the view of Rupa Goswami (vide BRS), bhakti oriented towards kaivalya-mukti falls short of the definition of uttama-bhakti (highest devotion), or shuddha-bhakti (pure devotion).

Evakurvan, please define jnana before anyone comments on this.

Cracking open a book:


(A Critique of MAdhva Refutation of the ZaMKara School of Vedanta, K Narain.)

The author, in this chapter on Isvara, goes on to explain the various post-Sankara theories of Isvara and the various upadhis responsible for his existence, e.g. avidya in sattva gives rise to Isvara; avidya in ignorance to the jiva.

There is a lot more relevant material here and in about a dozen other books I have on the subject but I don't have much time today. They all suggest the same thing as Mahaprabhu's statement quoted earlier: mayavada ultimately does away with the distinction between bhakta, bhagavan, bhakti and guru.

If this is incorrect, I wonder how both Sankarite scholars and hundreds of years of Vaisnava understanding have been so misled?



(ibid, p334)

In another one of these threads I typed a paragraph only on Jnana.

There are many ways to look at a word depending on who is doing the looking.

Bhakti can mean immature sentimentalism but it can mean transcendental emotion.

Jnana can mean mental gymnastics but it can mean sincere intellectual pursuit but it can mean the path of knowledge that "endeavors to free one from the conditioning and the limitations of knowledge."

That last part of the definition I "cracked open a book," thinking that the people here would have trouble accepting it even though it is pretty much completely non-esoteric. If you need to see proof that I am not inventing that line PM me. I find it tedious to be treated as though I am saying bizarre things out of thin air, when anyone can go get a general book on Advaita. And by that I do not mean from books that involve historical conflicts with demonizations and refutations, HatField n McCoy style, like I am seeing here. This much is obvious and I do not think I need to explain why.

Why don't you just tell what you meant with jnana in that sentence. Obviously you had something specific in mind, instead of a whole spectrum of possible meanings.

Do you know how it is defined in the Gaudiya theology, when contrasted with bhakti? If not, I suggest you acquaint yourself with books such as Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu (yes there's a translation available).

As for this word 'strawman' that I hate and that keeps being thrown around, as much as I do not like going back to look for threads, here is one example of what I mean by:
"You think that Gaudiyas have a monoply on bhakti."



It might not say so in so many words, but it does say so. Let us be straightforward. Let us not start fighting about how it does not say so. I think you pretty much know what I mean by that without pulling the strawman card out all of the time.

Madhava I do not appreciate the tone of your last post.
If I was not familiar with the ridiculous way some Gaudiyas makes a caricature of Jnana, I would not be here feeling uneasy about it. I do not need to read a book to hear more of what I have been hearing for a few years now. Enough namedropping and demanding that other people namedrop too. I see the value in it but there comes a time it turns into
gratuitous showcase.

I am sorry I am going more deeply into words than you want me to. Sometimes you just need to do that. I guess I can define it as Wisdom if that makes you happy.

You welcome, I always heard that the impersonalists chant Krishna’s names in their bhajans, but I never had so much inclination to share with them. However, when I finally visited the Ananda Marga I kind liked that.

Later on I find out that the Brahma Kumaris (at least in Brazil) also do the chant. So recently as I said before, the Sankarites too do a nice bhajans with Krishna’s names.

My experience is that besides GV, Sankarites seems to be in a good synchronization with the bhakti idea that evolves the process of chanting the Mahamantra Hare Krishna as presented by GV, of course the final goal differs, but they do chant with devotion.

It comes back to the over-simplistic classification of karma = for active people, jnana = for intellectuals, bhakti = for emotionalists. Arvind Sharma uses this somewhere and my guess is that it is the most common explanation of these three terms.

Perhaps you do need to read a book after all, instead of thinking about some half-witted caricatures you have been hearing and keep hearing. Your statement above makes it clear you haven't the foggiest idea of the application of the concept of jnana in the study of the nature of bhakti.

On the other hand, if you do know that and think that Rupa Goswami's definition of jnana vis-a-vis bhakti is a ridiculous caricature, then you're welcome to not participate here, since that isn't something we look forward discussing (vide board rules).



I do not appreciate the tone of most of your posts.

I'm sorry I would have had quotes to support the caricatures of Mayavadis if you had not deleted them from the forum. (Sadhana and Lifestyle thread).

I have asked you to supply me with some quotes like this I believe in PM but I did not receive any. Or maybe it was someone else.

Braja I have zero problem with that classification. I myself have stated just a few days ago that Advaitans can quote passages from Sastra too because they are the intellectuals of Hinduism after all.

If you want to make me out like I am trying to insult Rupa Goswami go ahead.
You can ban me if you want to it will only confirm what so many fellow Gaudiyas lament about Gaudiyas.

If I went and sifted through CC to post it here I am positive I would find ridiculous caricatures of Advaitans. I do not think I need to do that we all know what I am talking about. I have seen such quotes in this very forum I am sorry the fact that I do not search all over threads to paste them gives you leeway to reduce me. If you think me being honest about the caricatures means that I do not love Caitanya therefore do not belong here, that is your judgement.

These may be valid definitions in some context. However the term jnana has a very particular definition in our analysis of bhakti, and since the whole current discussion is in the context of bhakti, it would be good to use context-sensitive terms in the way that most logically follows the context to prevent misunderstandings.

When Gaudiyas say that "jnanis don't have bhakti", they mean: "The bhakti appearing in those aiming for kaivalya-mukti through the cultivation of brahma-jñAna isn't up to the standard of zuddha-bhakti."

However if someone is poorly educated in the theology of bhakti and related terminology, naturally such statements will look caricature-some. One may then reflect whose the problem is in the end, of those who speak with familiarity of the terms and their background in their theology, or those who don't bother to study the original theological works that make things crystal clear.

My point is that most Gaudiyas perceive Advaita to be the path of Jnana, meaning a dry intellectual path, as opposed to the juicy emotional path of Gaudiya.

If you want to pretend that most Gaudiyas here do not believe this, and call what I am saying a strawman, then you can do that. But I know that you know what I am talking about.

I added a fuller vision of what Jnana means to Advaitans, since they are after all the people one would expect to know the most about that form of Yoga, since it is the form associated to them. Explaining Jnana, I even added the unexpected dimension that it is actually quite experiential and about transcending the limits of intellectualism. This is definately a shocking addition to most people's understanding of Jnana here, unless no one wants to admit that now.

From the Advaitan view, and the general view, there is definately a misconception of Advaita among most Gaudiyas. A more vivid word for misconception is caricature. I realize some people are hypersensitive to the word caricature.

This is all I am saying there is no need to complicate it.

Raise your hands, everybody who believes that elements of bhakti aren't devoutly practiced among some Advaitins. I'll then point out an equal number of people who should go and read their Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu again.

The common Gaudiya conceptions aren't what you heard for many years on ISKCON Sunday Feast class. And, it isn't the common Gaudiya conception even if many Gaudiyas who left ISKCON after attending too many of those classes say so.

I am not talking about Iskcon. Whenever there is anything a bit uncomfortable, one can condescendingly blame it on IGM and it nicely resolves things.

Well, how far does your experience of Gaudiyaism go beyond ISKCON? Have you ever been to India and spoken to local Gaudiyas of different parivars? What's your basis for estimating what "Gaudiyas" think of any given topic?

Eva purhaps by this time without trying to explain to much about your postion, you could have gone back to find books like brs or cc to verify your idea of "Gaudiya Misconceptions".

Like I said in another thread, I am positive there are Gaudiyas who do not think this way, I am positive that if I go to India I would be more likely to find them, and thank god for that because I have surely not found them among the responding posters here among my 50+ pages of pleading about this.

I think caricature has a very different connotation than misconception and that is part of the problem with using that word. I think it goes farther than mere misconception into a sphere of deliberate and dramatic misrepresentation.

I am disturbed in this thread by GR posts used to discredit Evakurvan in some way. It was also taken out of context. And the irony is, I suspect Evakurvan may even be a vegetarian.

I agree wholeheartedly with Evakurvan, at least, that in the GV tradition I was formerly a member of there was a great deal of hyperbole used to discredit advaitin ideas and probably misrepresentation too. I remember vividly my spiritual master talking about how advaitins say "this is just my past time" (as they were all God) and replying, "then it is my pastime to kick you in the face." I remember it because it shocked and amused me at the time.

She has made me curious to read up a bit on them because I don't like to condemn spiritual approaches based on distortions of their teachings, as I suspect I was encouraged to do.

For that reason, I humbly request that Evakurvan submit a title or two for me to look up, rather than go to the bookstore and wander around trying to figure out who is the best author to read on the subject and maybe stumbling into the wrong one.

Didn't I just spell it out? Whoever says there is no devotionalism in Advaitin-traditions hasn't read Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu.

You said:


So let's see those "most Gaudiyas". Who are they? Two to three people at Gaudiya Discussions who may have said something to that extent due to not being well read in our basic texts? Does that make "most Gaudiyas" when it's bundled together with your ISKCON Sunday Love Feast lectures?

I guess all of these va-et-viens here of constant contestation and zero concession are my own imagination.

I have to say that accurately represents the stereotypes prevalent in the temples I lived in back in the 70s. I can't speak for the attitudes prevalent today in various GV communities around the world. I doubt that ISKCON has changed its general outlook, however, as they've had no motive to do so.

Mayavadi bashing was a popular Bhagavatam class subject.

I have to say I am pretty curious who it was who privately directed Tarunji to my GR post to say: Hey! I think she eats MEAT! Seriously whoever you are you just could have talked to me if my food habits are so interesting to you. I find all this behind-the-scenes behaviour pretty creepy. Please PM me directly if you have a problem with my posts.

Am I hearing the future name of another new forum?

By this I take it to mean that you will not respond to the section from K Narain, a non-Gaudiya scholar? Has he misunderstood Sankara and his followers? If so, please explain what he misunderstood, viz avidya, Isvara, etc.

The historical conflicts are real and occured/occur for a reason. Yesterday I quoted a section on the gopis merging with Krsna or choosing to retain their identity--something that is, again, averse to bhakti, and, again, something directly from a non-Gaudiya source, and, again, one of the so-called misconceptions that Gaudiya's have of mayavada. Here's Ramana:


etc., etc., etc. Nothing you have presented so far indicates any misunderstanding on the part of the Vaisnavas as to the means and goal of mayavada.

Please go ahead and post something--from the simplest explanation of Advaita to the most complex--that refutes Sankara, Ramana, etc. and the Gaudiyas themselves.

It is historical fact that in past how the Advaita vada had clashed with various Vaishnava School of thought. And most of the time how they were being defeated by followers of SriPad Ramanujam, SriPad Madhvacharya. These are all historical fact. There is an interesting fact how SriPad Ramanucharaya went to kashmir in a prominent Advaitavadi Asram to get one of their theological text so that he can counters advaitavada. And how those Advaitabadi tried to prevent him in getting that text....and failed.

It was all proven fact... And if you see now a days the Advaita Vadi are doing Krtana, Bhakti etc.... like those in Vaishnavas Tradition is because of the cumulative effects of tireless theological clashes with various Vaishna School for last 700- 800 years.....

If you think about the Advaita today, which had undergone transformation from what was there 500 - 700 years ago....

The mAyAvAdins whom Chaitanya Mahaprabhu met in Varanasi were evidently not of the type who subscribed to emotional bhakti. Those were, for obvious reasons, the prime object of Krishnadas Kaviraja's critique. Though there may have been very devotional Advaitins at that time somewhere, it seems that the sannyAsins of Kashi were not such, but were rather of the "dry" wing of the tradition. Hence their amazement when they saw Sri Chaitanya, a sannyAsin clad just as they were, and of the same tradition, dancing and singing with great fervor.

Though, I've heard, that there is, following the conversion of Prakashananda, a group of Advaitins there who practice Nam-sankirtan and so forth. I've never followed that up. He was reputed to be the head of sixty thousand sannyAsins. Regardless of the accuracy of the number, he must have been big.

Even if you go haridwar you will see the same thing.

I hope it is not too off topic , but I find no where else to post it in the current GD.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^





In the "First Step in God Realization", Srimad Bhagavatam, Canto 2, Chapter 1, it is remarkable that how in reality Sri Sukadeva teaches Parikshit Maharaja that one must first realize Brahman in order to proceed.

By the way he went through the same process as he says:

“In spite of being fully realized in transcendence my attention was drawn towards the enlightened verses on the pastimes, o saintly King, of which I studied the content.”( 9)

Here Sukadeva begin to explain the gradual process:

(15) Seeing the end of one's life one should be free from the fear of death in cutting with all desires through the weapon of non-attachment, including with all the physical that pertains thereto.
(16) Having left one's home, piously self-controlled for a sacred place, one should, properly cleansed and purified, seat oneself poised, in solitude according the regulations.
(17) The mind should be set to the practice of the three transcendental letters [A-U-M], and thus one attains, without forgetting the seed of the absolute [Brahman, the impersonal spirit], to the control of the Supreme by the regulation of breath.
(18) Withdrawn from the activity of the senses the mind, driven by the intelligence that engages the thoughtprocess of fruitive work for the sake of lower purposes, then will find absorption in the full of consciousness.
(19) Concentrating the mind thereafter on the different parts and divisions without losing sight of the complete, one should consequently not think of anything but the feet of that Supreme Vishnu, the reconciler of the mind.
(20) By the passion and inertia of nature the mind is always agitated and bewildered, but one will find that rectified in the concentration of the pacified that destroys all the wrong done.
(21) Being fixed in the habit of such systematic remembrance the mystics holding on to this devotion will soon attain to success in the shelter of the yoga that sees this as all-good.

http://www.srimadbhagavatam.org/canto2/chapter1.html

It is historical fact that in past how the Advaita vada had clashed with various Vaishnava School of thought. And most of the time how they were being defeated by followers of SriPad Ramanujam, SriPad Madhvacharya. These are all historical fact. There is an interesting fact how SriPad Ramanucharaya went to kashmir in a prominent Advaitavadi Asram to get one of their theological text so that he can counters advaitavada. And how those Advaitabadi tried to prevent him in getting that text....and failed. ]

It is no wonder you will not see Advaita scholars come here to try and converse with the Gaudiyas who have apparently "defeated" Advaita.
This reminds me of the funny stories of NM apparently defeating the Babajis.
Most Advaitans do not care about "defeating" you so you can sit there in smugness if you want to with all your pretty facts. I wonder how many Advaitan scholars find the stuff Gaudiyas say about them, actually worthy of their time. I can personally tell you, almost none.

I understand the need to refute me at all costs especially in public. Still it is better to pay attention to what I mean by the misconceptions and what I am saying about them, instead of always bringing it around to your own terms just so that you can be able to conclude every time: The Gaudiyas have misunderstood nothing! No one is going to say that the Ramana quote should be disproved. I do not have a problem with it. I am sure you agree it is better to read Advaita in context than within the FRAMEWORK of Hatfield and McCoy dynamics. The things I am saying about Advaita come from knowing about it outside of polemics and understanding the quotes from within their own layered context. Curiously, Advaitans do not have much interest in the battles. Maybe this is why they were never presented to me in my study and practise of Advaita. Gaudiyas have more interest in these battles. I guess for understandable reason, they are the ones who feel insecure in the face of the intellectual Ivory Tower Vedantists and their portentous establishment. This is why I do not need to be involved in any school of Gaudiya for long, before eventually hearing something about Mayavadis.

I am trying to present an alternate and more complete way of looking at Advaita, that obviously most Gaudiyas are not used to hearing about. I figured this would be thought of as having some merit and taken on its own merits. I did not think it would turn into a defensive fight of others trying to prove to me that Gaudiya understanding cannot possibly be wrong.

Here is my hopefully final post on the matter pasted from a post by Elpis.


The Bhaja Govindam according to Shankara's biographies were *not* written on his deathbed after he had a "change of heart" as some people state. It was composed much earlier and the context is totally different.


From GGM's electronic version of Bhaja Govinda
(http://www.granthamandira.org/details.php?image_id=566):

QUOTE
According to the tradition, Sankara was once walking in the streets of Varanasi accompanied by fourteen of his disciples when he overheard an elderly scholar reciting grammatical rules. Feeling compassion for the scholar, Sankara approached him and advised him to turn his mind to god and not waste his valuable time on grammar. Sankara is said to have composed twelve verses on that occasion, and the hymn is therefore known as the Dvadasamanjarikastotra. Furthermore, each of the fourten disciples present added one verse each; these fourteen verses are collectively known as the Caturdasamanjarikastotra.

PS. It is not letting me use the quote function so I have coloured all quotes green.

Eva I can understand that you do not know anything about the history as well as who were Sripad Ramanujam and SriPad Madhvacharya..... And wheather they were gaudiyas or not..... And also you acknowledged that you do not know anything about cc or brs or Gaudiya Theology but still you want to correct "Gaudiyas Misconceptions".
Great.... Carry on..

Interesting reply to my post, D.
I do not see how what I am saying about Advaita in the way that I am saying it has anything to do with this namedrop-competition you are trying to create.

Here is a nice quote from Dimock's CC
It nicely compliments the Sankara quote from BhG
Whoever is agitated by my daring to put the two side by side,
do ignore it please.

"Even though they are not possessed of books, those sages who delight in the self offer selfless bhakti to the great striding (Visnu); of such qualities is Hari."

Prove me whether I am wrong about my comment: I can prove otherwise:

1) When I said Sri Pad Ramanujam and Sri Pad Madhavachaya's followers used to engage in battle of debate with Advaitan and most of the times they used to defeat them ---> You understood guadiyas are engaged in debate with them

Conclusion: This proves that you are not aware of the fact SriPad Ramanujacharya and SriPad Madhavacharya were not Gaudiyas.

2) In the discussion in http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/index.ph...=60&#entry36440 thread with Jijaji ( bangli) you have acknowleged that you have not read cc.....
(Which you edited later)

I think I am done with you regarding this discussion, this is not leading to any fruiteful outcome , best of luck.

I have heard these names 100 times before in my conversations and I know them to be non-Advaitan Vaisnavas. Am I correct? Sorry I did not go look on google or ask anyone to verify, but I think I am. I am sorry if you want to hairsplit. A similar hairsplitting objection was raised at me regarding Sri Vaisnavas in the Sunyata thread.

My original reply to Bangli was to say that "I do not claim to understand CC," in case you do not remember. Why are you inventing things.

If you think I said otherwise and then editted it out to hide that fact, then you are mistaken.

I never said I have read every word of CC, I do not know why you imagine this embarasses me.

I am sorry your mood is to keep trying to cleverly make me look illiterate on matters that I do not even claim to be literate about.

I do not know why I keep obsessively posting here despite all of these kinds of unmoderated attitudes toward me.

Amen to that! Or should I say, Sadhu Sadhu!

I like Eva a lot but I am much disappointed at her reactions when so many people are trying to tell her how to go about making her points, or to get some knowledge, etc. But I would like to beseech the moderating team for one request:

Please do not close this thread. Please insist on source material and references.

I was musing earlier today that sooner or later a real Advaitin may stumble across this forum and initiate a proper discussion with references etc. I can say that I look forward to a day to discuss these things with someone who actually knows what they are talking about.

I am not much into saying something like this but I have seen plenty of others say it here before.

If you are kanistha you are unable to listen to IDEAS, so will dimiss things based on lack of quotes. Sorry for the term. Real Vedanta scholars with Masters degrees in it from India are understanding what I am saying and giving me Sanskrit quotes to prove it. I would think these count as quotes of some kind. For some reason, whenever I post anything like that, it is ignored. Instead this whole speech gets repeated about how I do not know what I am talking about. Forget Advaitan scholars. Incredibly Gaudiya linguists know what I am talking about and are giving me Sanskrit quotes too. You cannot deal with these things so you ignore them. Then you discredit me as though I am some fool due to your own inability to handle IDEAS beyond kanistha methods. Sorry again for the term.

Gaurasundara it is funny you take this opportunity to call me a fake Advaitan. I would rather not start the discussion about your own imaginary Advaitan credentials all over again, via a decade of Sai Baba. Or whatever other other Advaitan associations you claim to have dabbled in, only to conclude that they are full of "internal inconsistences" and led you to have a "mini-breakdown." I can "put out" with objective real and recognized Advaitan credentials, can you?

I am the only one who has the guts to waste my time with these topics here. Others who are way wiser just lay low. They advise me to do the same because it is useless with certain types of people. I should listen to them but I don't. I am starting to know better.

Final note to posts below.
It is all there. Some in this thread. Some in the others. Also, no sense in repeating the same things at me as I see some other poster doing below-below. No sense in me now explaining why I did what I did with that Rupa passage. Also, Hari-bhakti-sudhodaya as quoted by Rupa is still a Rupa passage. It does not mean I am not reading closely. This same thing was done to me before. There is nothing to say when there is a lack of receptivity. Forget acting defensive against an apparent perpetrator like a robot and be open. Only then you will be able to see the things you are missing. This is not supposed to shake your faith. Being open to this is not going to shake your faith. It is all there in the threads. Thank you.

------------------
Do not seek perfection in a changing world. Instead, perfect your love.

Buddhist Saying

Speaking for myself, I ignore them simply because I am yet to see them! Where are these quotes that will satisy the thirst of kanisthas such as myself by clearly delineating mayavada beliefs? All the talk of insecurity, ivory towers and a stock of private messages is all well and good but very little seems to be making it thru to the reading public. Please present something concrete from *any* source that contradicts what Sri Caitanya, Madhva, Ramanuja, Sankara and Ramana have stated concerning mayavada.

And for the silent cabal, please speak up. As much as you may disdain the mode of communication or the appearance of unbridled fanaticism, this is a discussion on siddhanta so it is worthy of your public input. Besides, I want to have something interesting to read in the morning.

Radhe Radhe!

Eva, not only have you completely misunderstood my post and the meaning of that post, but this reply of yours has completely shown to me your utter ignorance in these matters. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but if the gradations of 'Ananda' are "nonsense" to you, then let us collect all of the copies of TaittirIya UpaniSad and burn them!

Please, for the sake of all that is good and holy, refrain from talking about things that you clearly know nothing whatsoever about, even proceeding to dismiss it as nonsense. As a favour to everyone, read TaittirIya UpaniSad 2.8.1. Then come back and tell us if that UpaniSad was talking nonsense or not.


Then why ask?


That is why we have shastras and gurus to point us the way.


And all of those points were completely and utterly incorrect. But since you asked me to skip over them, I will too not bother to explain how they are wrong.


Since you have elsewhere "chastised" the GauDIya misconception that they have a monopoly on bhakti, I will ask you here: Since when do Advaitins have a monopoly on similes and metaphors?


Since you did not even bother to read it properly except for words that caught your eyes, you evidently did not realise that it was not RUpa GosvAmI who was talking, but he was quoting from the Hari-bhakti-sudhodaya to backup his point. As for my horrible simplification, I guess you will not agree with the direct meaning of the verse since it conflicts with your own understandings. And that is the point; you do not seem to relish points of view that are in conflict with your own. Is there a possibility that you could be wrong instead of everyone else? It really is weird.

It is no wonder you will not see GauDIya scholars go into other forums to "defeat" their philosophies either. But here is a question for you: Was anyone discussing Advaita and ZUnyata as much before you came here and brought it up in so many different threads?


How long have you been on the Net? You are obviously unaware of the fact that all these topics were endlessly debated on the old newsgroups since at least 1992, if not before.

If Advaitins supposedly do not care about defeating anybody (according to you), then why have they participated in historical debates with Dvaitins and others through the centuries? Why did ZaGkara himself debate with Buddhists etc? Why are you not even aware that Madhusudana Sarasvati authored the Advaita-siddhi as a response/refutation to the nyAyAmRita of the MAdhva exponent, VyAsatIrtha? Why why?

And by the way, just as an aside, this is not directly relevant to anything we have discussed so far in terms of philosophy but I would like to mention it anyway: The GauDIyas are more magnanimous to ZaGkara than others in that they at least accept him as an avatAr of Ziva coming to preach mAyAvAda philosophy as per what is written in the Padma Purana. Compare this with the Dvaitins who compose texts such as MaNi-maJjarI and teach it to their children as "beginner's Sanskrit" or so, the main thrust of this text being that ZaGkara was a scandalous, ugly sex-loving incarnation of a malicious demon who deliberately advented to muck things up in the spiritual arena.


The main problem here is that there is nothing to refute, since you do not represent or present authentic Advaita philosophy.


How can we if you yourself do not know what they are?


Could you give us details about this? And as Madhava asked you before, could you also give us details about your interactions with GauDIyas? I mean, who were they?


This statement shows to everyone how much of a bias you have towards Advaita. So by using the same logic as you, anything anyone tells you will automatically be rejected by you as "misunderstandings" or whatever, since you evidently do not care to know that there may indeed be very good reasons why such "misconceptions" exist in the first place. This is obvious since you just admitted that you hardly bother to read any replies except for words that catch your eye? As far as your last sentence goes, I can take it that you have never sat with Ramanuja or Madhva people either, therefore you will not know how much they talk against Advaita or not.


I have not seen it that way. I have seen it as everyone questioning your views since your presentations have been way off base as to what we have heard about Advaita. This point has been made over and over again by several people. In fact, I don't think that we have even got around to the point about if GauDIya understanding is right or wrong, since everyone has been far too involved in refuting your points as unrepresentative of real Advaita.


And what does that prove in relation to what we have been discussing? Many theories go around as to why ZaGkara wrote his 'Bhaja Govindam' text. There is even a third theory that the 'Govinda' he addresses is not Krishna, but his guru Govinda Bhagavatpada. So? This is completely irrelevant as usual.

I completley agree with Braja in his response to your points on this. I would only like to add that I am not immediately aware of any such case where your "quotes" have been ignored. Rather, I am ever-mindful of the fact that you consistently fail to answer direct and specific questions except, in some cases, with vague non-answers. Other than that, you seem to have an incredibly bad habit of posting other people's (points) quotes, yet you yourself say that you are against (Sanskrit) quotes! And when anybody responds to these quotes, your response to those responses are completely vague and unclear or a statement about how an understanding is beyond linguistic definition and blah blah. This may be a very cute way of avoiding responding to points that you don't know how to deal with, but to me it shows that by posting quotes and points from other people, you have not fully researched those points yourself and this is why you are unable to give clear and precise answers.

Eva, we are telling you these things for your own good. If you tried to do this in places such as the Dvaita List or Achintya (especially Achintya!), you wouldn't last five minutes.

It is all very well making blanket statements about supposed GauDIya closed-mindedness and inability to admit error, but this is not how it looks like to people who have spent years studying and discussing these issues. The simple fact that you do not appear to have even a casual understanding of GauDIya siddhAnta is self-defeating for you. How can you rail against GauDIya "misconceptions" when you don't know what they are? A lot of people here have told you these things several times, but unfortunately you do not listen. Just one example of this is when you said about how GauDIyas refer to Brahman as effulgence and that this is wrong and therefore must be corrected. You didn't even know that there were scriptural statements to that effect and that the GauDIyas had a very good reason to believe that Brahman is Krishna's effulgence. So, rather than try to "correct" the GauDIya "misconceptions" when you don't even know what they are, I believe it would be far more fruitful if you analysed your own misconceptions first.


I didn't say you were a "fake Advaitan". However, I do say that what you have presented of Advaita so far is not Advaita and it would make ZaGkara burst into tears. By the way, since you are being sensitive about being called a fake Advaitin, I assume this means you consider yourself or your views to be real Advaitin? A few pages ago you told me that you were a VaiSNava. In another thread you claimed that you were a Buddhist. What's going on?

What I meant by that statement is that since you are not representing Advaita properly, I hope for the day when a real Advaitin pops in here and we can discuss all of these issues properly, with sources, references, the dreaded quotes and all. This person is not you. Maybe it can be you if you ever get around to learning what Advaita is all about.


I have already done so. As for you, please do. This is what I have been asking to see since Day 1. But you know, even if you did have impressive qualifications I seriously doubt that they would be that impressive at this point, given that your presentation so far is really a caricature (your words) of what Advaita is all about.
Anyhow, how easy is it to launch personal attacks when no other answers are available and all other avenues of discussion lead to a dead end? Is this really the best you can do? Maybe Advaita is true: Advaita holds that this jagat and our perception of it is ultimately delusional and false since in "actual reality" is not happening. So when I was learning from those Advaitin monks in the Sanskrit school that was around here, I must have been deluding myself. Awfully sorry! Maybe Advaita really does have something after all.

How did I know you would bring up SB? I was actually waiting for that, and in response I only want to ask you: What do you know of SB? How many books of his have you read? Which ones are they? Please tell me, I really want to know. Its so funny, this intellectual dishonesty and bias when pitting a neo-Advaitin against another like Vivekananda or so.


Very good.

A few pages ago I wrote a couple of posts relating to how Advaitins perceive individuality after liberation and about the comparison of Ananda. I also brought up the points about 'Saivite Sankara' that Nitai brought up in another thread. I have received clarifying answers from those real Advaitins.
Is anyone interested in continuing this topic about Advaitin tradition and definitions, or should I not bother?

I am, as always, fascinated by the topic so by all means go ahead, and if everyone here becomes tired of it I am happy to host it at GR.

Some time ago when the bheda abheda thread was going on I did some Googling because I wanted to get the Advaitins' side of the conflict between them and the "Dualists" as they would call us. (Yes even me, since I retained acintya bhedabheda tattva as a concept.)

Here is a bit of what I found, both quotes and links:


http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/series/as/I...vaitaSiddhi.htm

Where it says:

The advaita-siddhi is regarded as one of the most important polemical works of advaita. It is MadhusUdana sarasvatI's brilliant and successful defense of advaita in response to the objections of the MAdhvas, the dualists. Shankara states that his doctrine of brahmajnAna (brahmajnAnamapi vastutantrameva - brahma-sUtra- bhAshhya 1.1.2) is a "vastu-tantra", a doctrine based on facts, as opposed to a "purushha-tantra", a doctrine based on the knowledge of an individual. One can raise objections against individual opinions but facts cannot be objected to; they can possibly be misunderstood.

One can possibly express ignorance of facts but not argue against them. So one may ask: how is it possible for the mAdhvas to raise objections against advaita that is based on facts? It is not possible. What the MAdhvas, the dvaitins, have done is to express misunderstandings, not objections.



It is, therefore, proper to answer the so-called objections of the mAdhvas by clearing their misunderstandings of advaita. But it must also be mentioned that, in some cases at least, it appears that the misunderstandings are not genuine misunderstandings but misunderstandings introduced on purpose to A) misrepresent advaita first and then, B) to try to refute the resulting misrepresentation. Nevertheless, advaitins should remove all misunderstandings, whether they be genuine or otherwise, and no advaitin has done this better than MadhusUdana SarasvatI, the great logician from Bengal.

More of this can be found at:

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/series/as/AS_pages.htm

the main page for the series is:

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/series/

and here's a forum where some dualist thought is represented by an advaitin:

http://www.siddha.com.my/ubb/Forum3/HTML/000062.html

example:

+++++

That the attainment of Brahman is the final goal of everyone is agreed by everyone. All debate on the meaning of Brahma Sutras, which all schools hold as valid and inviolable hinge on interpretation of few fundamental statements:

• Brahman is that from which proceed the creation, preservation and destruction of the universe
• The knower of Brahman will not return to mortal existence
• The liberated soul is free only in so far as it can enjoy the bliss of perfection equally as Brahman, but it cannot have the power of creation, preservation, and destruction etc. of the universe.


The Brahma Sutra does not clarify whether Liberation - Moksha is the attainment of a personal God or it is something else. Ramanuja and the Vaishnava Acharyas say 'Yes, It is like that only; because you cannot become God.’ But Acharya Sankara cannot accommodate himself to it -- if you cannot become God, you will be finite again; if you are finite, then you have to return, having not attained Moksha and that will contradict Sutra: The knower of Brahman will not return to mortal existence.

These problems have made Acharya Madhva to state that there is no connection between the individual and God. Madhva's philosophy is that the individual soul, Jiva, is a servant of God, dependent entirely.

All agree that when a jiva becomes one with Brahman it gets moksha or liberation. But three Acharyas -- Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva -- have their own definitions of liberation. Ramanuja views it as similar to mixing of water with milk. The two join together and become apparent one substance, yet water is not milk; the soul does not get identified with God. Madhva's view of liberation is like loss of individuality, like mixing grains of rice and grains of sesame. If sesame seeds and rice seeds are mixed together, each seed may think that it has lost its individual existence by communicating itself with other seeds. But in the case of Sankara, Moksha is like water mixing with water -- It is total oneness. It is intuitive here that soul being subtle, example of Til and Rice is the one most inappropriate.

Attaining Brahman, according to Ramanuja, the soul does not merge in God. It enjoys the Glory of God. Our body is made up of so many cells; can you say the cells themselves are you? And Ramanuja concludes that the entire world, all individuals are like cells or adjectives in the body of God. So is the case with the individuals attaining God; they are inseparable from Narayana, Vishnu, God Almighty, but they are not themselves Narayana. Ramanuja's doctrine is that the relation between God and the world is like individual soul-body relation. Acharya Sankara states that relation is a wrong concept altogether. Relation means accepting the existence of two different things. If there are two different things, they cannot become one; if the two cannot become one, duality will persist; if duality persists, there will be no attaining Brahman, which Brahma Sutra grants.

All difficulties arise from interpretation of the definition of God, Brahman, given in the Brahma Sutra, at the very beginning. Who is God? It does not say that God is the Supreme Absolute, indistinguishable, indivisible Eternal Being. The definition given is peculiar: Brahman is that from which proceed the creation, preservation and destruction of the universe.

Due to apparent contradiction of the three statements duality philosophy is prevalent and which is the cause of much misery and strife in our environment.

++++


A few other links:

Check out especially the last few paragraphs on this page:

http://www.ramakrishnavivekananda.info/viv...nifestation.htm

http://www.sunyaprajna.com/Advaita/WAVES.html


http://www.sunyaprajna.com/Advaita/AdvaiticDichotomy.html

Next is a nice little illustrated primer (from a book) about monism and dualism:

http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/...mandala-29.html

And there are forums too numerous to mention where periodically the dualists and advaitins duke it out. Apparently, the conflict is still raging in some places. I think it likely that as with any conflict, distortions exist on both sides.

The trick is finding that line of truth somewhere in between.

Sorry, one more quote, and I apologize if it has actually been posted before in one of the topics on this subject. I can't remember if it has or not.

Madhva and Ramanuja aren't exactly Gaudiyas.



How about you started with trying to understand what the Gaudiyas actually think, instead of going on these endless tirades about how they have misunderstood so many things. There's one magic process for that, and it consists of asking questions without trying to challenge everything at every turn.

How about this:

Please present -- shortly, one or two sentences for each point -- the points you feel the Gaudiyas have misunderstood, and we can then see whether it's something the entire tradition has wrong, or whether it's something you may have heard from some individuals who aren't that well grounded in the tradition's theology.

Is it, then, wise to try to day after day present your ideas to kanisthas?

One wonders why you bother if you consider the audience unfit for appreciating your insights. I assure you, it isn't going to get any better if you don't change your approach radically.

We're now on page 12 of this topic. If by page 16 we haven't seen:

1. A very concise summary of what exactly it is that the Gaudiyas supposedly misunderstand, with some reference as to where the misunderstanding occurs; and

2. Some original sources to establish that the ideas presented -- and supposedly misunderstood by Gaudiyas -- are in reality the ideas of Shankaracharya or other early Advaitins.

If these don't come about in the course of the next three pages, a total of 45 posts which is a generous amount, we conclude that the discussion really isn't going anywhere at all, and the thread will be closed. Conjointly with that, Gaudiya Discussions will be closed for discussions on Advaita-vada for the next month to come.

If someone should come up with (1) and (2) at any later time, we can start a new thread from a clean slate and study the topic properly.

Stating that something is a fact and it being a fact are two different things. The history of Vedanta is one of interpretation. Vaisnavas interpret it one way, Advaitans another. The very first verse that supposedly illuminates the misconceptions the Madhva's apparently have states:


This is exactly what the Vaisnavas object to! Instead of talking about misconceptions, it would be more fruitful to talk about real differences.

Radhe!

Dear evakurvan,
please dont be offended but I think critique can be applied to many of your posts.
Why not?

I got lots of critique and I learned a lot.

1) Your posts are very often just ideas with no support from anywhere substancial (scriptures,...)
2) Still you tend to KNOW all about Advaitavad, all about the misconceptions of Gaudiya philosophy
3) If challenged you tend to attack with points like "nobody understands my ideas"
4) Even after humbly trying to help you understand many points of Gaudiya philosophy I dont see any move on your part to learn or to be corrected (and many, including myself spent hours of typing helping words, see my "tattva/rasa"-post...)

What frustrates me the most is, that even basic questions have not been answered by you.

a) What is Brahman?
b) Who am I?
c) What is the meaning of my life?
d) Why is there the material world?
e) Where do we go after death?
......

You always refer to some "masters" or "professors" behind the scene and even then only fragmentally you provide insights in their "teachings".

About my "meat-eating" point:

I was not ridiculing or attacking your personal life, nor did I intend to put you down on some hierarchical ladder of evolution.

I was just making the point, that FOR ME it is very absurd if someone claims to be a Vaishnava, claims to live a spiritual life,...and then comes up with "meat-eating is not cruel" and provides arguments like the tiger also eats meat and so forth.
Then I went on to say that it is bizarre FOR ME that such a someone who cannot even see the necessity of a vegetarian life wants to "correct" a philosophy, where meat-eating is considered natural for human beings.

And by the way, the bliss of Brahman realization is considered to be like the amount of water in the hoofprint of a calf compared to the ocean of bliss of prema-bhakti.
Not that prema-bhakti IS the hoofprint and Brahman-realization is the ocean...


Yeah, I stop rambling.

We really should stop this Advaitavad-stuff and concentrate on better things.

Joy Sri Radhe

Horrible.

Problem is the jiva can never become Vishnu.

How many times has this been smashed to pieces in a) ancient times and b) in modern times....

But nobody of the proponents of such a philosophy are eager to listen and learn of the Gaudiya approach....

It is too long to paste here so I will give the link. I thought of asking permission but since that forum is viewable to the public then I don't think they would mind any links. So after I asked my questions about the possibility of retaining individuality after liberation, here is Jaldhar Vyas' reply. I should say that although I have no belief in Advaita-vAda, I am impressed by the presentation nevertheless.

Nitai's comments on another thread puzzled me, and I asked questions about them too. Here is the response to those points by the erudite and long-time Net debater and now academic, Vidyasankar Sundaresan.

As it seems that verses with the words "Brahman" and "Krsna" have begun to appear with some regularity and are, I guess, supposed to be relevant to the debate going on here, I would like to make it clear--and as I tried to explain several months ago--Gaudiya siddhanta does not deny Brahman. It is an integral part of our ontology! Brahmeti paramatmeti bhagavan iti sabyate. But recognizing Brahman is something quite different from denying the eternality and truth of Isvara, jiva, and bhakti, i.e. mayavada. Advaitans may not make that distinction; Vaisnavas do. The difference here is both simple and profound.

Going to internet forums of all these groups is not the best way to understand something. I was aiming for something else. Not this. Not examining via polemics. If you want to retrace historical debates that is fine. But this is not about role-playing past debates. None of that will give you an inkling of phenomenological understanding. This is what we are after. The rest is fioriture. I suggest you do not take Advaitans who try to prove the supremacy of their system over others as representative of anything. The good ones who do it are rare and operating on a level of Hegelian dialectic that is beyond what is going on on the surface.

I find these public reprimands as a response to my natural reaction at offensive posts to be onesided. Also odd I get framed as a person of a radically inimical approach, while the actual radically inimical approaches toward me get deleted by the moderator without a word. I get the public reprimands instead. I was hoping no one would use the fact that I self-consciously said kanistha as a point to paint me as a rude person. But I guess that is unfortunately what strikes you the most out of all that I said.

I believe this was posted on another forum but without the reference and without the mention of the difference with Buddhism.

Earlier in the same passage the same author states:



Stating that people misunderstand mayavada's viewpoint on the phenomenal world is interesting but doesn't directly influence the topic under discussion, IMO. Very clearly there is a difference in the ontological status of Isvara and jiva.

Here, here, here we go again! (SHELTER)

Very fitting to this renewed back-attack, playing the victim.



Headshaking
Tarunji

Everyone -

§3 - Please don't bicker with others, avoid escalating issues. Sometimes it is wiser to let things pass instead of taking everything to task. If you really need to fight with someone, please do it in private.

Please respect this and stay on topic. This isn't a place where you come to indulge in endless talks about how you are treated and yadda yadda.

If you can't stay on topic without endless innuendos on this and that, please don't post. And before anyone asks, no this isn't said with any one individual in mind. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Well said, taken to heart.
Thanks.

Note the Buddhism talked about here is the Yocachara Buddhism of extreme Subjective Idealism, not the Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism that we were talking about in the Sunyata thread. The latter two being the Buddhisms that fixate on Sunyata in sadhana and that represent over 60 percent of all Buddhists. (Figure would be even higher if they would include China in these stats).


Note, I did not say that you will not find places that state things like this. I said that you will, and even from the same authors that state the opposite later on. This is not a contradiction. It is a matter of experiencing Nirguna Brahman at one point, and experiencing Saguna Brahman at another point, neither point being "more supreme." Extravangantly singing the praises of one is not denying the other. You can see this in the Sharma quote that I quoted in the threads, where he quotes Ramakrishna to illustrate.

Dandavats. All glories to the Vaisnavas.

In my humble opinion we have compiled 12 pages of "stuff" with anything but discussions interwoven. A discussion is very different then talking at one another with no consideration in finding mutual points of agreement and specifically outlining areas of disagreement where points are made, digested, considered and responded to.

If one reviews the Board Guidelines it should be crystal clear that such rambling and scoldings are not acceptable regardless of ones age, years of devotional sanga or level o education. If you are only interested in making points without a proper discussion then start a website where you can boldly declare your thoughts in which they simply must be accepted. To do so on a discussion board is disrespectful to all that approach a discussion board to actually have a discussion.

I have reached out to several participants to ask them to discuss these subjects in a dispassionate manner and kindly consider other’s points for what they are before firing away another rash of posts

It is a waste of everyone’s time to simply challenge others views without interest in considering the possibility of their position. That simply isn’t a discussion. Furthermore it is absurd to declare something without a clear conception and ability to articulate clearly ones own view. Once that step is taken we have virtually ensured no conversation can or will take place.

Proper debate, which is what appears to be the aim of this thread, can and will only happen when one has not only an advanced understanding of their own position with the ability to articulate both the main tenants of ones position as well as place supporting material within proper context to establish the nuances of the outlined main tenants, Furthermore one must be well researched and have a rounded understanding of ones opponents position including both the main tenants and the supporting material within the proper context of their opponents position. Finally it also helps immensely to have at least formal respect to those you are debating. Otherwise you are going to get nowhere. I believe this is the case in the attempts at debate that have hit GD over the last two months regarding Advaita, Sunyat, etc. It is clear that most aprticipating in this thread have made up thier minds about one another and what they represent. There is no discussion going on rather point after misplaced point.

In my humble opinion to allow this thread 4 more pages of “stuff” is simply a waste of space.

Radhe Radhe!

Aspiring to serve the Vaisnavas,
Rasaraja dasa

I am posting to this advaita discussion not to escalate this issue further than it is, but to conclude since there is a notice of closing this thread in action already.

Since Evakurvan kept quoting so desperately about one Sanskritist and that Sanskritist is happened to be me, I felt the need of clarification of that statememt for everyone to understand.

This was evakurvan’s posting in bheda-abheda thread:

Since you were boasting about your name and explaining what it meant I gathered you had enough knowledge in Sanskrit and since the argument was going on non-stop I wanted that to end with this concluding posting:


This was your way of interpretation:

How would I know that being an advaita student, you wouldn’t know what anirvacanIya-vAd is? That was the tattva expounded by Shripad Shankaracharya through his commentary (zArIraka bhASya) on Brahmasutra.

Shrila Vyasadeva, the composer of Brahmasutra, on the other hand was not finding peace of mind until he was chastised by Narada and was told to give the real meaning of Brahmasutra to the jIvas. Only then he composed Bhagavatam which is known to be the natural commentary of Brhamasutra giving the bhakti side of explanation.

If you notice carefully you will see the first verse of Bhagavatam starts with the words “janmAdy asya yataH” which is the next to the very first sutra of Brahmasutra starting with “athAto brahma-jijJAsA”.

Notice carefully, the words Brahman and para-brahman. There is a difference.

You seem to dismiss the word para which means Supreme.

ahaM brahmAsmi, Tat tvam asi -- all these mahAvAkya –s could be explained in both ways.

The word [I]samanvaya means agreement/adjustment/synthesis. “Tat tu samanvayAt”[/I] is also one of the mahAvAkya –s in Brahmasutra.

“Tat” can be realized as both Brahman and Parabrahman upon adjustment according to the different level of understanding of the transcendentalists.

While the advaitins would explain “ahaM brahmAsmi” as “I am Brahma” , the bhakta –s in servitor’s mood would perceive that as “ahaM brahmaNo’smi” meaning “I am a part and parcel of Parabrahma”, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Once you know the meaning of the word Bhagavan and once you reach to Bhagavan realization you will never want to go back.

Personally, I was a vedanta student myself because this was the trend, and unfortunately it's still is in India. Many people are still confused because they didn't get the proper teaching. So much time has been wasted of this life. I don't want to waste any longer with this kind of confusing thought.

Since you only know the word eva in Sanskrit I thought you would also understand this part, “ity evam eva cintayitavyam" - only thus you must think if you want to accept the path of bhakti which is the sole foundation of gaudiya philosophy.

I hope I was clear enough.

This explanation what I've given came from one of the followers of Gaudiya tradition named Shrila Puri Maharaj who lived for 102 years. I pay my obeisances to his lotus feet.


Dear evakurvan! If you read it carefully you will see right away the word paraM brahma meaning Supreme Brahman whom we gaudiyas worship. Since you praised that poem before, and I'm sure you still praise that deep in your heart, you're just waiting to have His darshan in your dream - aren't you? You will be the most fortunate one if that happens.

This was originally posted in GD by one of our very dear devotee friend anuraag ji what I should have mentioned while you praised me on the other thread. As I was away for sometime I didn’t notice. I apologize for that.

Here is a verse you might appreciate:

yaM zaivAH samupAsate ziva iti brahmeti vedAntino
bauddhA buddha iti pramANa-paTavaH kartei naiyAyikAH |
arhann ity atha jaina-zAsanaratAH karmeti mImAMsakAH
so’yaM no vidadhAtu vAJchita-phalaM trailokya-nAtho hariH ||

May Hari, the Lord of the universe, the remover of evil – whom the devotees of Shiva worship as Shiva, the Vedantins as Brahman, the Buddhists as Buddha, the followers of Nyaya Philosophy who are clever in logic as the Agent, those devoted to the Jaina doctrines as Arhat, the ritualists of the Mimamsa school as Karma – may he grant us all our heart’s desires.

I would also like to conclude with this verse:

kRSno rakSatu no jagat-traya-guruH kRSNo hi vizambharaH
kRSNAd eva samutthitaM jagad idaM kRSNe layaM gacchati |
kRSNe tiSThati vizvam etad akhilaM kRSNasya dASA vayaM
kRSNenAkhila-sad-gatir vitaritA kRSNAya tasmai namaH ||

I'm very inclined to agree with you Rasaraja-ji. In my view, the most annoying thing of all is that it was exactly this sort of disturbing atmosphere that led to GD being closed down for more than a week in a brave attempt to force peace to prevail on these boards.

Not only did peace return but we also witnessed the removal of other disruptive elements who would normally cloud discussions with critical questioning or discussion that may or may not have had a damaging effect in mind. I am happy that they are now happy in their own forums. But it now seems that we are in close to the same state of affairs. As regards this topic, I feel that if Evakurvan doesn't fulfil Madhava's two requests pretty soon then we may as well go ahead and close this topic earlier. I am also in agreement with Madhavaji that the topic would be banned for a month, and hopefully a bit longer since it has now been our experience that such discussions go nowhere if people don't have a basic understanding of the mechanics involved. And in that vein I will also apologise to everyone who felt that my posts were on the heavy side lately.

It seems that this topic is quietening down lately anyway, so now I guess it is time for us all to hold hands and skip off to the Padavali forum and dance there in kIrtana. gaura-kIrtana-rase maghana nA hoinu.

Advitiya, I see those poems in that thread this is why I add to them other poems in that vein. These poems are saying something basic about what I am saying that is not coming through. Not so much the one you just pasted that you said I might appreciate, but the other ones there.

When I mention the Sanskrit, I state that I do not even know Sanskrit, but here is what a Sanskritist says. Many times I mention this. After reading one major point that I had been trying to make, you said, yes I have gone through this, and told me an alternate way to say it.Though I was a student of Advaita, I do not really know Sanskrit or any memorized Sanskrit verses. Perhaps this is unusual in India but if all you have is an undergraduate degree, you are not going to be very proficient in Sanskrit. This is why I sent you a private message to ask you more about it because I myself told you that I did not understand it.

There are people here proficient in the languages who understand the basic points I am making. You are not a person to have explicitly stated this to me, as others have. From what you responded on the abheda thread it would seem you know where I am coming from, since you were trying to help me explain my own point. Your sanskrit comment is not the only sanskrit comment in this thread. There is another one right under it supplied to me by someone else.

I was not boasting by explaining what my name means. I was trying to make a point. I guess many missed it. Eva and Kurvan are not difficult words to know about.

One can look at the many threads and see where I already talk about the misconception that no, I am Brahman, does not mean I am God. It means the spark inside me is God. If someone is going to point that out it means there is a difference. Reference available upon personal request.One can easily quote I am God quotes, but there is more to it than that. My aim is not to point to quotes it is to explain them. My explanations are not personal confabulations.

Is the aforementionned example yet another misconception that does not really exist and I am just imagining about imaginary misconceptions. I do not think so. Religion is a living thing, misconceptions involve what the people tend to generally think within a community, including this one.

I withdraw from the subject out of consideration for the strained feelings of the Vaishnavas here.
Thanks for the references.

This topic is hereby closed.

If someone wants to ever start a new topic on Gaudiya misconceptions on Advaita, they should start a topic with the following:

1. A list of references from which the Gaudiya-position becomes clear. We want to be certain that it actually is the Gaudiya-position that is being spoken of.

2. A list of references that demonstrate the actual Advaitin view. We want to be certain what the original views are that are said to be misunderstood.

Without the two in place, please don't start topics on Gaudiya understandings on Advaitavada, ever. Thank you.

- The Moderators