HinduNet
  
Forums Chat Annouce Calender Remote
[Prev][Next][Index]

vedAnta-sutra



[ Article crossposted from alt.religion.vaisnava ]
[ Author was Nathan Parker ]
[ Posted on 21 Feb 1995 15:10:20 -0800 ]



(this article is long, I suggest you download it)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

jAhnavA-nitAi dAsovAca:

Introduction:

The following article is offered, oh so humbly, in response to the
so-called response to the so-called repeated challenges posed by Sri
Sadananda, which I actually spent an hour last night reading (you sure did
write a lot). I welcome all comments and attacks anyone feels obliged to
give me. I will reply to any serious replies, but after 2 or 3 exchanges I
will cease replying if I see that the exchanges are of no value. This is
in no means meant to establish any particular philosophy, as that will
take lots of pages, which most people don't want to read. I am simply
bringing up some points of logic that should be addressed. If anyone feels
offended by any of my statements (no reason why you should), you should
just sit and chant: 

Invocation:

"Om. I am reading this article through my News reader. Om. I am Brahman.
Om. I, who wrote the News, which I am now reading due to my ignorance, is
the same as I, who am now reading the News, which I had written to Myself.
Om. I am Brahman. You are I Brahman, I am You Brahman. This News article
is News Brahman. The I Brahman is reading the News Brahman which was
written by the You Brahman, which is actually the I Brahman. Only due to
ignorance I have not already realized the oneness of the News the reader
and the author. Therefore I take everything as the prasad Brahman of the
We Brahman which is actualy only the Me Brahman. Om." 

"oM (mane padme 'haM) brahma satyam jagan mithyA" 

[please note this is a joke, those good hearted advaitans should laugh.
Wait, actually they are laughing because I am laughing and I am the One.
Therefore all are laughing (though all don't exist, because it is the one
only which exists)]

On with the article!

As I was saying, before the invocation above, I read through Sadananda's
reply, which was presented, oh so humbly, and I was suprised to find how
many attacks could hide behind a "SrI <x> jI uvAca". I will try to stay
away from that path. I am presenting here only the samSaya aspect of the
debate, and I will not get deeply into viShaya, siddhAnta, etc., which
will require lots of time and pages, which I don't think many people are
actually interested in. 

I was avoiding this thread, as it generally isn't so productive, but I
have decided to make some humble attempt at participating. The following
views are not necessarily presented as the siddhAnta, that is, this is an
analysis of the paratattva that arises when one presents a particular
philosophical view. In other words, if someone says this is like this,
then an analysis should follow to see if it is actually possible. Some of
my statements will appear to be denying Veda as useless, but that should
be taken in the system of analysis as the conclusion that is derived from
analysing a particular philosophy. It is not that I am presenting that
SAstra is useless, but if one goes according to the particular philosophy
being analyzed, then... This is the style of this analysis. That, based
on the philosophy analysed, the conclusion is this. Not that that is the
actual siddhAnta, for siddhAnta you would first need the correct
philosophy being analyzed, then siddhAnta will come. 

	I think what I said above will become clearer as my article goes
on. It is simply a style of analysing, that is the point. Please don't say
I am saying anything about what advaita says, perhaps I am, perhaps I am
not. I am stating thesis/antithesis, read it as that and nothing more. If
the shoe fits, wear it. Otherwise, give it to the neighbor. 



oM

hare kRSNa, hare kRSNa, kRSNA, kRSNa, hare, hare |

hare rAma, hare rAma, rAma rAma, hare hare  ||




viShaya:

"Ignorance of our nature as the (Absolute) Brahman is due to our
being covered by illusion (in the form of matter)."

samSaya:

Several questions will arise from this as follows. There is only one, yet
ignorance is covering us, that indicates that there are actually two. In
order for there to be both ignorance and Brahman simultaneously without
there being duality, that would mean that ignorance is an intrinsic
quality of Brahman. But this concept is flawed, since Brahman is nirguNa,
and illusion is prakRti, which is composed of the three guNas. Therefore
it would be impossible for the nirguNa Brahman to be possessing a material
q uality such as illusion. Secondly, even if there is somehow illusion and
Brahman without them being dual, the fact that the Brahman is being
covered by illusion means that the Brahman is subordinate to the illusion.
PrakRti would then be superior to the b rahman. This theory must be
rejected on the grounds that the Brahman is the Absolute Truth, and
nothing is superior to it. A third possibility is that the Brahman
transforms into the prakRti, and then by interaction with itself the
apparent dualities aris e. This theory must also be rejected on the ground
that Brahman is unchangeable as defined by the Srutis. One may also claim
that the Brahman has divided, and has therefore become many, but this
theory is likewise refutted in the Sruti, as Brahman is acch edyaH, na
chindanti, avikAryaH, etc. Therefore there can be no transformation of
Brahman, there can be no dividing of Brahman, and there can be no covering
of Brahman. Brahman comes from the root word bRhat, which means great.
Therefore if Brahman is grea t, it cannot be covered, because that would
make the prakRti the great, and hence it would be the prakRti that would
be Brahman, and Brahman would itself be prakRti. If the prakRti is
covering the Brahman, then the prakRti is in fact the puruSha. PuruSha is
the controller, whereas praKrti is the controlled. Therefore if the
prakRti is covering Brahman, it is the prakRti which is controlling
Brahman, hence prakRti is in fact puruSha, and is therefore the bRhat.
This should be rejected because the Srutis su pport no such theory. The
fundamental question of why does the Brahman get put into illusion still
remains. 

At this point one may say:

viShaya:

"It is the Brahman that desires to be covered."

samSaya:

The theory that the Brahman desires to be covered suggests that the
Brahman is lacking in something. Brahman is bRhat, there is nothing
lacking, therefore such a statement is against the definition of Brahman.
Further more, to say that the Brahman desires to be covered indicates that
the Brahman is not self-satisfied. Brahman is not attracted to anything,
therefore to say that Brahman wants to be covered indicates that it is
attracted to the result, or the by-product, of being covered. Such a
statement is against the Sruti, and is therefore discarded. Brahman is
full of Ananda by nature, how, then, is Brahman desiring to be covered? If
the Brahman is already everything, if it is already bliss, then what is
the motive behind the Brahman. For what purpose i s the Brahman desiring
to be covered. The idea of desire immediatley implies duality, the desire,
the desirer, the desired and the process of desiring. One may claim that
all four are merely the same Brahman, but in reply we answer that the
Brahman alread y is Brahman, and therefore does not need to attain
Brahman. If the Brahman is the desire, desirer, desired and the process of
desiring, all four are already attained, hence there is no need for
activity, or duality. Hence we reject this on the grounds: Ananda mayo
'bhyAsAt. 

The above viShaya itself will bring in another doubt, and that is, "What
does the Brahman want to get covered by?" If the Brahman can be covered,
it indicates duality, the covered, the coverer and the process of
covering. But since Brahman is already Brahman, there is no purpose for
any transition between a non-dual blissful state and duality. In reply one
may say that the Brahman transforms into the covered, coverer, covering,
and the process of covering, hence it is only Brahman covering itself. 
This violates the Srutis defintion of Brahman being unchangeable and is
therefore discarded. For further analysis of this point, we ask the
following question: 

"If Brahman is full of bliss, why does the Brahman desire to be covered?" 

Brahman has nothing to attain, as it is all, it is one. There is nothing
else to attain. To say that the Brahman desires to be covered implies that
there is a reason why it desires as such. That reason is known as an
attraction. Brahman is not attracted t o anything, therefore we must
reject such a theory. This still leaves us with the above doubt, to which
on may argue: 

viShaya:

"The Brahman desires to be covered to increase Its Bliss."

samSaya:

As stated previously: Ananda mayo 'bhyAsAt. The Brahman is by nature full
of all bliss. To say that the Brahman wants to increase Its bliss
indicates that there is some bliss which It does not possess. This would
directly imply the duality of seeker, soug ht, and process of seeking. To
say that that bliss is actually Brahman, would also be ludicrous, as
Brahman is already Brahman. There is only one Brahman, and that Brahman is
Brahman, so there is no need on Its part to become Brahman. The Brahman is
by na ture full of bliss, therefore we reject the above viShaya on the
grounds that the Sruti rejects it. 

At this point one may argue:

viShaya:

"It is acintya, and therefore can not be comprehended or discussed."

samSaya:

To this we reply: SAstra yonitvAt. It must be seen from the SAstra. Due to
our conditioned nature, we are subject to defects of illusion. In the
conditioned state we rely on pramAnas, or evidence, for understanding
prameyas. These pramAnas can be classifi ed according to three: pratyakSa,
anumAna, and Sabda. Different schools classify the pramaNas differently,
but that is all trivial, since the evidences remain the same. pratyakSa,
dirrect perception, is the most common form of evidence for understanding
p rameyas, but due to the fact that pratyakSa relies on the indriyas, it
is faulty and therefore not very reliable. anumAna refers to that evidence
of inference and deducing through logic. This is indeed superior to
pratyakSa, but it also is limited, as it is based on the intellect, which
is material. The Absolute can not be known by any means of mental
speculation, for it is beyond the conception of the mind and intellect.
Sabda refers to that pratyakSa which is authority, that which is beyond
doubt, that which is Supreme, that which is beyond the limitations of
matter. This is the Absolute pratyakSa because it does not rely on the
faulty facilities of the senses (karmendriya, jnanendriya, and manaH) and
is situated beyond intellect (bhudiH), and is for th is reason free from
doubts. Therefore we conclude: SAstra yonitvAt. Through the SAstras we can
know the transcendence. A further doubt may arise in one's mind: 

"The jIva is limited by matter, therefore how can he know the unlimited?" 

To this we reply: "aham brahmAsmi". The jIva is constitutionally the
Brahman, and therefore he is full of sat, cit, and Ananda. Since he is
himself the Brahman, therefore there is no limitations for him to know
himself. He is inherintly cit, which implie s consciousness, or knowledge.
Therefore, knowledge of Brahman is inherintly within the jIva. To this one
may then declare: 

viShaya:

"ahaM brahmAsmi", "I am Brahman"

samSaya:

Based on the Sruti we know that the jIva is indeed Brahman. The doubt,
then, will come, "If I am Brahman, then why am I not knowing that I am
Brahman." The Brahman is inherently sat, cit, and Ananda. To say that the
jIva is that Brahman, and then to say t hat the jIva doesn't know he is
that Brahman is contradictory, and therefore must be rejected. The Brahman
is supremely cit. This cit, or consciousness/knowledge, means that it is
correctly conscious, as it would be incorrect to say that, "I am
incorrectly conscious." For the Supreme to be incorrectly conscious of
Its position would be contradictory, because the Brahman is eternally cit,
and as Brahman being the everything, there is nothing to identify with
other than Brahman. Further more, cit implies du ality by nature, the
conscious, the consciousness, what it is conscious of, and the process of
consciousness. The statement ahaM brahmAsmi further forces duality. By
stating that "I am this," I am automatically stating it in relation to
something else. So to say I am this, means I am seperate from that.
Therefore "ahaM" indicates that there is duality of "I" and of "not I".
>From the Sruti we know that the jIva is sat, cit, Ananda, therefore we can
analyze what is Brahman.

Brahman itself is characterized in the SAstra as possessing these
characteristics of sat, cit, Ananda. Sat refers to eternity or continual
existence, with out any begining, or end, beyond the dualities of time.
Therefore to say ahaM brahmAsmi implies that one is eternally Brahman, and
does not undergo any change, as there is no change in Brahman. Therefore,
for the Brahman to undergo transition from non-dua lity to duality means
that it has violated its eternal nature. To state that Brahman has been
covered by illusion means that the position of Brahman has changed from
uncovered to covered, therefore it is violating its unchanging principle.
Cit can be anal ysed to mean consciousness. "ahaM cit" means I am
conscious, therefore the fact that I am conscious means that I am
conscious of something. There is an object of my consciousness. Therefore
duality is implied by the words "ahaM cit". This process of being
conscious of an object is called knowledge, therefore ahaM cit indicates
full knowledge. The fullness comes from the fact that the statement is
ahaM brahmAsmi, bRhat indicating fullness. If the jIva is full of
knowledge, then how does he come into ignoran ce. If there is knowledge, it
implies the duality of ignorance, and since the cit is sat, therefore the
ignorance is also sat.

Finally, Ananda indicates complete bliss. This is also by
definition sat and full. Therefore the doubt will arise, that, "If Brahman
is f ull of Ananda, and this Ananda is eternal, why am I suffering?" To
this one may reply: 


viShaya:

"Your Ananda is covered by the illusion."


samSaya:

This we cannot accept, as by defintion of bRhat, the Ananda is full. How
can the full be covered? Furthermore, if our Ananda is covered, that
indicates that we are not conscious of it. But cit is also eternal and
full. So to say that Ananda is covered ind icatesthat our cit is limited
and temporary, i.e. we are not presently conscious of our Ananda. For this
reason we disgard this viShaya as being contradictory to the statement:
ahaM brahmAsmi. 

Having established that "ahaM brahmAsmi", one may answer with the
following statement: 

viShaya:

"brahma satyam jagan mithyA", "Brahman is truth (real, that which is sat),
the world (that which changes, jagataH) is false." 

samSaya:

In response to this we say:

Since jagat is mithyA, i.e. that which changes is mithyA, therefore if one
says that the Brahman has transformed into the material nature (i.e.
transformation of Brahman theory), then Brahman is also mithyA. If Brahman
is mithyA, then what is the shelter (ASraya) for the mithyA. Brahman
itself is only mithyA, then what is it resting on? Since Brahman is
satyam, and since Brahman is mithyA, therefore Brahman is having mutually
contradictory qualities. If Brahman is non-dual, it is unable to possess
mutuall y contradictory qualities. For these reasons we reject the theory
that Brahman transforms to become the world. 

Further more, if the world is mithyA, then the activities of the world are
also mithyA. The Vedas deal with the world, and are therefore mithyA.
Since the Vedas themselves are mithyA, any activity prescribed in the
Vedas is mithyA. Therefore, based on the above viShaya, we would conclude
that the reading of Brahma-sUtra as well as any other material activity
are equal, they are both mithyA, and are therfore equally binding in
ignorance. One person is therefore bound by sinful activities and another
person is bound by the process of reading the Brahma-sUtra. 

Further more, since sUtra implies words, and since Brahman is beyond
words, and those words are mithyA, therefore Brahma-sUtra is a sham
and should be rejected. For these reasons we reject the above viShaya that
the world is false. 

Vishaya:

"Due to ahaNkAra we are bound in the illusion of the material world."

samSaya:

In reply to this we say:

AhaNkAra can be divided into two, namely "ahaM" and "kAra", that one
thinks "I am the doer (kAra, cause)." Therefore, when one is thinking that
he is the doer, then he is bound. That means that the correct
identification of ahaM is not ahaM-kAra, but rath er ahaM brahmAsmi. So
ahaM brahmAsmi is therefore contradictory to ahaM-kAra. THis being so, we
know from the Brahma-sUtra that Brahman is: 

athato brahma-jijNAsA
janmAdy asya yataH

That Supreme Brahman that is being inquired into in the Brahma-sUtras is
the supreme cause of everything, i.e. the supreme source (source,
maintenance, and dissolution). Therefore, for one to say "ahaM brahmAsmi"
means one is moving himself from small aha MkAra of thinking he is the
doer of material activities (B.G. 3.27) to the large ahaNkAra of thinking
ourself to be the supreme doer. This is by definition "ahaM" "kAra".
AhaNkAra results in our material binding, so supreme ahaNkAra results in
our being supremely bound. 

Further more, if the jagat is mithyA, then the statement "the jagat is
mithyA", which is a product of the jagat, is itself mithyA. If the false
satement is "the world is false", then the real statement is "viSvam
satyam", the world is real. 

Brahman is one, and there is no second. Then the samSaya arises: 

"Where is the mithyA (falsity) originating from?"

What is the cause of the material nature (prakRti), and why would the
Brahman, which is not attracted to anything, be attracted to mithyA, and
subsequently become illusioned. Since the mithyA is comming from Brahman
(janmAdy asya yataH), therefore Brahman must also include mithyA. Since
there is mithyA, the duality of satya must also exist. Therefore there is
duality present in Brahman. 

Further more, the cause is always present in the effect, just as mustard
oil is present in the mustard seed. One cannot get oil from a mustard seed
if the oil is not present in the seed in the first place, since that would
mean that existences was comming from non-existence. And since the
existence was coming from non-existence, then the non-existence would be,
in fact, the source, and not the Brahman. If non-existence is true, and not
mithyA, then that would mean that non-existence existed. Since
non-existence e xisted, it could not be non-existant, therefore there is a
contradiction of terms, which default it to being mithyA. Hence, existence
cannot come from non-existence. 

In the jagat there are many qualities, therefore the Brahman, which is the
source, must also possess these guNas, otherwise the existant would be
coming from the non-existant, which, by the previous formula, would mean
that Brahman itself is non-existence . Therefore this philosophy is
nondifferent from Buddhism, as the goal of both is ultimately nonexistence
(SUnyatvam), which is hidden in the Vedic philosophies by the juggling of
words by various SaNkaras. 

At this point one may say:

viShaya:

"The guNas in the jagat are actually 'not', since they are mithyA."

samShaya:

To this we reply that the "not" which is perceived as guNas is existing as
"not". Therefore it is indeed not mithyA, but satyam. If the "not itself
was mithyA, then there would be no variedgatedness in the jagat. But jagat
means "that which changes", which denotes the variegetedness. So the fact
that one "not" is perceived as a particular object means the "not" is
satyam. If there is a round "not", it is perceived as a round "not" only.
You can not perceive it as a square "not". And others who see it, also see
a round "not". That which makes a round "not" as a round "not", and not as
a square "not" is satyam. No matter how hard one tries by intellectual
excercise he can not change a round "not" from it's guNa. Therefore the
"not" is satyam, and its quality is also satyam, i.e. the quality is true
even though it may change. It is never false: viSvam satyam, the world is
real. 

At this point one may argue:

viShaya:

"Mangos come and go by season, the season ends, therefore the mangos are
not satyam." 

samShaya:

In answer to this we reply:


The mango may be present for one season, and not present for the other
seasons, but again the correct season will come and mangos will indeed be
(i.e. exist). Therefore mangoes are indeed eternal. Even when the jagat is
withdrawn, again creation will come , and again mangos will exist.
Therefore mangos are eternal. If the mango is eternal, then the mango is
indeed not mithya, as it is sat (eternal). If it is sat, then it is
satyam. "Brahma satyam", so mango is indeed Brahman. The jagat is eternal,
therefo re the jagat is satyam. Since the mango is satyam, and the mango
is also jagat, therefore: viSvam satyam, the world is real. 

At this point one may raise a doubt that:

viShaya:

"A clay pot in the begining is mud, and in the end it is mud. Therefore it
is mithyA, because only in the middle it is a pot." 

samSaya:

To this we reply:

In the stage of a pot, the pot exists. In the stages of mud, the mud
exists, both before and after manifestation as a cup. Therefore the
element of the mud is indeed satyam. Even after a pot dissolves into mud,
that mud remains existing and it neith er becomes nothing, nor everything,
nor anything other than the mud it originally was. Therefore the mud is
not mithyA in any stage. As mud, the mud is satyam, as a pot, the pot and
mud are satyam, and again as mud, the mud is satyam. And if need arises i
n the future, we will again make the mud into a pot, because the mud will
continue to be satyam. Therefore: viSvam satyam, the world is real. 

Again one may raise the objection:

viShaya:

"It is only a pot due to the perception of the seer. One man will see a
pot, and one man will see a hat." 

samSaya:

In reply we say:

The object itself does not change no matter how it is related to by
others. This is further proof that the object is satyam, it is real. One
man sees it as a pot, another sees it as a hat. These are merely
contextual properties which have no effect on the object itself. In both
states it still remains the same in all qualities. Therefore the pot is
satyam in all stages. 


viShaya:

"Liberation is real. The world is false."

samSaya:

Liberation requires us to give up the ignorance of dualities. Therefore
liberation is dependent on the nonpresence of illusion (duality). If the
dualities (i.e. the world) are mithyA, since liberation is dependent on
that mithyA (in nonpresence), therefore liberation would also be mithyA.
Hence, we reject any statement that says the world is false. 


To this one may say:

viShaya:

"It is like a green bird flying into a green tree. The bird and the tree
become one and you can not distinguish between the two." 

samSaya: 

To this we reply:

But the bird flying into the tree _never_ becomes the tree. He always
remains seperate from the tree. He neither grows branches, nor leaves. He
remains as a bird only. And after some time he will again come flying out
of the tree, still an individual bird . It is only due to incomplete
understanding that one would mistake the bird and tree as becoming one.
Because they both have the same quality of being green, therefore one may
falsely think they are same, but they are only qualitatively same. Because
one is blinded by all the leaves of the tree, it appears as though the
tree and the bird have become one. But, as stated in the Sruti: 

hiraNmayena pAtreNa
  satyasyApihitaM mukham
tat tvaM pUSann apAvRNu
  satya-dharmAya dRSTaye

"O my Lord, sustainer of all that lives, Your real face is covered by Your
dazzling effulgence. Please remove the covering and exhibit Yourself to
Your pure devotee." 

ISopaniSad 15

The Lord is having a spiritual body, as is confirmed in this verse by the
word mukham. And that body is hidden from the view of those who are not
purified of ahaNkAra, which includes the idea of being the ultimate cause.
It is the hiraNmayena that is hidding the Lord from the impersonalists,
and that hiraNmayena is what they confuse to be the Supreme. Therefore we
should note the example of the bird and the tree. The bird never becomes
the tree, and the tree never becomes the bird. 

In response to this one may say:

viShaya:

"Just like all rivers become ocean, so all merge into the One."

samSaya:

In response we again state that the river water never becomes the ocean.
The water molecules coming from the ocean is eternally remaining as
molecules. The molecules never become one with other molecules, nor do
they become all the molecules. If you take a drop of ocean water and
compare it to the ocean, you will see it is never the same in quantity.
The oneness comes only in quality. The ocean water contains the same
minerals as the drop of ocean water, but if you see the quantity of
minerals, you will f ind they are not same. This ocean of realization is
known as the bhakti-rasAmRta-sindhu, it is the nectar of devotion. And
those true vedAntists take pleasure in swiming in such an ocean of
devotion. But we should note that those who swim in the ocean nev er
become the ocean. An unintelligent man may think that it is all only
ocean, but one who has full knowledge will know that there are many fish,
such as whales, sharks, etc., who take pleasure in swimming in the ocean
of devotion. Such great fish never ca re for swimming in the rivers which
are comming down into the ocean, because for them they have already
attained the bhakti-rasAmRta-sindhu. 

In response, one may argue:

viShaya:

"We are all like pots in the sky. There is no difference between the
outside sky and the inside sky. By removing the pot, the sky becomes one." 

samSaya:

In response we say:

Such an analogy is not even useful for analysing the nature of the jIva,
since the pot in no way resembles the jIva. The jIva is conscious, so to
make an analogy of the jIva to something that is nonconscious is bad
logic. Neither is there such thing as a pot in the sky. Such things are
only imagination, and are therefore only present in the mind of the
confused. One must rise above such ideas that are the product of mind and
intellect and see through the eye of knowledge, the eye of SAstra. 

One may then argue back:

viShaya:

"When we are in the conditional state of consciousness we are active, when
we are not illusioned, the activity ends and we are situated in Brahman." 

samSaya:

In response we say:

This material world is known as durga, which means "very difficult to
move." If while bound, we are engaging in so much movement, then by logic
we can understand that when free we will be engaged in even more activity.
If a man is tied at the hands and fe et, struggling to be free, when he is
freed will he suddenly stop moving? The answer is no. Once free then his
real movement wil begin. Therefore this viShaya is discarded as being
below logic and against the Sruti. 

As a further analysis we ask: "Has anyone become One in the past?"

One may then argue:

viShaya:

"When one is liberated he does not speak. One who knows does not speak,
one who speaks does not know." 

samSaya:

In response we answer:

If you do not know of one who has become one in the past, then such a
philosophy is useless. There is no practical application of such a
philosophy, therefore it is blind leading the blind. If one who knows
doesn't speak, then, who ever said "one who know s doesn't speak", did not
know, because he was speaking. Therefore if he was not in vidya, but was
in avidya, the correct statement would then be, "One who knows speaks, one
who doesn't know shouldn't speak." 

In response one may then suggest:

viShaya:

"A full pot makes no noise, an empty pot makes noise."

samSaya:

To this we reply:

The jIva can not be compared to a pot, due to the fact that the jIva is
conscious and active. Therefore such an analogy is kutarka. Furthermore, a
pot never makes noise on its own. It is only when someone taps the pot,
that the noise is produced. Therefor e duality is again necessary for this
analogy to be effective. 

To this one may argue:

"Actually it is all Brahman only."

In reply to this we say:

If it is all Brahman, then there must be practical application of
philosophy. Everything is one, therefore whether we cook in the kitchen or
in the toilet makes no difference. If it is all one let everyone eat stool
and call it halava. 

To this some may reply:

viShaya:

"But now we are on the vyavahArika platform, and therefore we must act in
duality." 

samSaya:

In reply to this we say:

Since you are acting in duality, how can there be
a question of being freed? Your activities are dual, therefore you are
just conditioning your selves more and more into duality. Therefore become
one now, act as one now. If you are that Brahman, then be that Brahman.
SrIpAda SaNkarAcArya has made a challenge to the buddhists: If everything
is void, then become void _now_. Our reply is that the same should be
applied to those supporting the theory of oneness of all. If you are the B
rahman, then be resituated in your position _now_. Eat the stool, eat the
air, eat a human being, it is all one. Our conclusion therefore, is that
we are all servants of the parabrahman, Krishna, and therefore we should
act as servants of Krishna _now_. 


siddhAnta:

Hence, based on the above analysis, we conclude that the that Absolute
Truth is Krishna (SrI viSNu paratamam). He is beyond words, but He is
known by revelation (akhilAmnaya vedyam). The world is not false, it is
real (viSvam satyam). The differences are real (vedam sa jIvam). There are
gradations of sould (haricarana jusas taratamyam ca tesam). Attaining the
lotus feet of Visnu is liberation (mokSham viShNv anghri). The process for
liberation is unalloyed devotional service (tad amala bhajanam tasya hetu
m). Evidences are three, sensuous, inference and authoritative knowledge
from scripture (pratyakShadhithraya pramAnam). 


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Epilogue:

Sadanandaji and other Supreme Brahmans - one last piece of advice for what
ever it is worth. The great AcArya SrIpAda SaNkara has said that
liberation is only possible for those who take sannyAsa. So my humble
request to all of you "advaitans" is stop spe aking and go take sannyAsa.
If your philosophy has no practical application, then put it in the trash
bin on the left. If your philosophy is so great, then please, by all
means, take sannyAsa and realize Brahman. If there is no application of
philosphy, t hen this is nothing more than arm-chair speculation on
vedAnta. I much prefer some great soul such, as Jayendra Sarasvati, to
speak about advaita then the present situation with the world today, where
every Tom, Dick, and Harry is claiming to be an advait an. Advaita is not
cheap, but so many so-called swamis who claim to follow advaita-vedAnta
tell people they can do what they like and realize God. This is nonsense.
Whether Hindu of the year, or Hindu of the century, it makes no
difference. None of them a re speaking advaita philosophy. Regarding the
difference between brahmavAda and mAyAvAda and other schools of
non-dualistic thought, the difference can can be seen in the SAstra.
Brahmavada means one who appreciates the Brahman feature of the Supreme,
suc h people are described in the smRtis, such as the four kumAras,
Sukadeva gosvAmi, etc. Such a brahmavAda will, when introduced to
devotional service of Krishna, immediately take to such unalloyed service,
as was the case with the kumAras, and Sukadeva gos vAmi. Such great
vedAntists are known as bhaktivedAntists. I have no problem with great
advaitan AcArya's, but it is when I see rascals pretending to be advaitan
swamis tell people nonsense under the pretense that it is all one that I
become concerned. Such babus and swamis are all so abundant, but when it
comes to rules and regulations they speak what ever the public want to
hear. If you are an advaitan, then take sannyAsa, and if you won't then
don't lecture us on advaita. When Swami ShivAnanda was alive, he would
tell people "give up everything and take to vedAnta." But today the Swamis
are telling what ever you do is alright, after all "All roads lead to
Rome." What swamis do we have today? Today a swami means someone who has a
big beard and smile s while saying oM. Let me see some of you take
sannyAsa. That would be quite a sight. 


A small story to illustrate what happens when a person takes to advaita 
while not being renounced:

Once in South India I was visiting someone's house. And the wife asked me 
to get her husband to stop smoking, since it was a bad habit. A went to 
the man and asked why he didn't give up smoking, and his reply was:

"I am not smoking, it is the body which is smoking. The jIva is never the 
doer of any activity, he is always aloof. I am not this body. AhaM 
brahmAsmi!" And he went on puffing on his cigarette.

So I asked him, "Aren't you concerned with getting cancer?"

And he replied, "I am not the body, the soul is just watching the body 
and its activities. When the cancer comes, I will watch that also."

So such people should not be told advaita, because they are not renounced.
Only if one is controlling his senses can he understand vedAnta. 

Hare Krishna.
Jahnava-Nitai Das

Thus ends the speaking of some jIva who is the servant of all the
vaiSNavas of Lord Krishna. 






Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.