[Prev][Next][Index]
Advaita
From: sadananda@anvil.nrl.navy.mil (K. Sadananda)
Manishji writes:
> aham brahmasmi is always true but the spirit is all one!
> Now this is completly absurd. It is beyond doubt that the self in me
> is different than the self in Vidya and the self in so and so.
>You say it is beyond doubt - beyond of whose doubts? It is the mind that
>doubts.
It is beyond the doubt of the SAstra. Or should we go back to the bible
and debate on what the Brahman was doing on the seventh day, was He
resting in Hawaii or was He resting in Miami?
>What is different between you, Vidya and I are the manovritiies that is
>mental notions or ahankaras that we are different individuals since each
>one of our subtle bodies are different and identifying with these
>differences we claim our differences are real.
And why is the I Brahman in the situation that it is, while the you
Brahman is in the situation that you are. Why didn't this piece of Brahman
get reflected like that piece?
>These difference are all
>part of Prakriti aspect what advaita calls maya too. Krishna declares:
Sruti calls prakRti as mahad-brahma, care to comment why? Is it Brahman or
am I Brahman, or are we the one Brahman? Is it mithyA or is it Brahman?
>Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intellect and egoism - this is my
>eight fold divided prakriti. - In one stroke He covers both the grosser
>and the subtler aspects and declares that all is my prakriti. -
No school of advaita says that these are not the eight seperated energies
of Brahman. And that word "seperated" is very important, since it
indicates that there is the energy, and Krishna is the energetic, and they
are not one. And since the energy is the energy of Brahman, therefore it
is daivi hyeSha guNa mayi. It is divine. So how is it mithyA?
>Prakarshyena kriti is prakriti - my special doing. But my true nature is
>higher than this, and the Lord further declares that:
Yes, above the material energy is the spiritual energy, and "above both
the fallible and infallible is Krishna." So there is material energy
(prakRti), spiritual energy (jIva), and the puruShottama (who is the
Supreme, above the fallible and the infallib le).
>When you realize your true nature you can also declare that this body this
>identification with groser and subtle bodies - mano budhi and ahankar are
>my lower prakriti but my true nature is Aham Brahmasmi.
And above that infallible nature there is yet a supreme being, that is
puruShottama.
>I am a bangle or ring or necklace who says that - it is the gold in the
>bangle or in the ring that identifies that I am a bangle or necklace or
>ring when it identifies with the upadhies. There is no question of
>attaining something that you are not.
And neither do you ever become anything. You never become the One, nor do
you become the ring, nor the bangle nor the gold mine. You remain as you
are, but you have realized what you actually are. Before you were thinking
you were brass, now you know you are part and parcel of the gold mine, but
you never become the gold mine.
>Then what good is that Moksha.
MokSha is the state that we realize that we are part and parcel of the
gold mine. SInce we are part and parcel of Brahman, it is therefor oue
duty to serve the Supreme Brahman. oM tad viSNo paramam padam. Liberation
means attaining the lotus feet of ViSNu
.
>If bangle is going to gain gold then it can lose that gold. But it is gold
>all the time even when the bangle does no know that it is gold. It can do
>all the japa it wants RAham Swarnasmi - Aham Swarnasmi etc. - nothing
>happens. It can do all the karma it wants- jump up and down etc. - It can
>chant all the time it wants : Hare Swarna Hare Swarna, Swarna Swarna Hare
>Hare etc.
But by chanting Hare Krishna, one realizes that he is part and parcel of
the Supreme Brahman, he realizes that he is indeed not brass. He never
"becomes" sat-cit-Ananda, he is eternally sat-cit Ananda. He simply
realizes that that is his true constitution , and in such a consciousness
he engages in the service of the Supreme Lord, Krishna.
>All the bhakti, karma or dhyana etc. cannot bring gold into the
>bangle.
No one disputes that point, we are constitutionally eternally
sat-cit-Ananda.
>>Manishji writes:
>>If we are all just one self, than how can one attains liberation and
>> not all at the same time?
> When bangle realizes that I am gold its pursuit is fulfilled. That does
>not mean that ring has realized.
And that shows that the ring is different from the bangle. You so expertly
destroy your advaita philosophy.
>Ring of course
>will not believe it. It says I believe in the achintya Bheda-Abheda tatwa.
>You are a bangle, I am ring and the other fellow is a necklace. How can
>we all be one. It is against our day to day experiences. Bangle is
>different from ring, ring is different from necklace and the Bheda is real.
Oh gee, what a nicely hidden cheap shot that was. None of us rings or
bangles noticed that clever move. You accuse Manish for criticizing
Advaita without knowing it (which he does know), yet you criticize
acintya-bheddAbhedda-tattva even after _admitting_ you did not know
anything about it. Does the word hipacrite come to mind? No that is only
illusion.
>Differences are more important than the unity. How can we be all
>pervading gold. That is mayavada. That is blasphemy. Only the Bhagavan is
>gold, and says so in the SwarnaGeeta.
That is another nice cheap shot, but I will not comment on it, as I don't
want to add more personal attacks on top of what were already given so
kindly to Manish.
>They know that even though the life in lion
>and the life in me are the same, I better save this cat body from that lion
>body. What adaita says is absolutely scientific too. How?
Please read my personal response to your "scientific" advaita in the
article "vedAnta-sUtra" and continued in "more vedAnta for Sadananda". The
scientific advaita-vAda falls out the window.
>Science has progressed to the degree now that we all know that all mater
>consists of the fundamental particles - electrons, protons and neutrons
>etc.
A typical Mahesh yogi comment. You think the sANkhya in the Vedas is that
primitive? Sankhya is not so cheap.
>The table is different from a chair, which is different from the food
>I am going to take, which is different from the garbage next door. But
>yet scientist knows that all are nothing but the same fundamental matter -
>electrons, protons and neutrons in different proportions.
Why then do you find it hard to understand that in Brahman there can be
variegatedness? If matter is made by one uniform particle, and yet there
is difference, so why there must be non-duality in Spirit?
>This knowledge
>does not make him eat garbage instead of food.
And that is because _THE DIFFERENCES ARE REAL_.
>Advaita is to see the unity among the diversity.
And when you realize the unity, you feed the eggplant Brahman to the Gods
in the street. AUM.
>That knowledge does not negate the names and forms,
>and their temporal utility.
Here you have admitted that you _are not_ a BrahmavAdI, you are a clear
mAyAvAdI. You say that the names and forms are all temporary and for
utility purposes only. That is mAyAvAda. Therefore the name of Krishna and
the form of Krishna are also temporary? That is clear mAyAvAdas.
>real. Even that is a part of the dream too. Then only Rama realized
>that vyavaharika satyam or the lower prakriti and the higher prakriti
>aspects.
avajAnanti mAm mudha, mAnuShim tanum ASritah. Do you wonder why we call it
mAyAvAda and not a brahmavAda? It is very clear. Just read what you wrote
above.
>In your Bedha-Abheda, Abheda has to be the truth and Bheda is only for
>transactional purposes, like the scientist knowing fully well that all are
>assemblage of the fundamental particles.
You are asking or telling? Thanks for teaching me acintya-bhedAbheda, now
I will file this in the receptical on my left. You already admitted you
don't know bhedA-bheda-tattva, so why speak about it. On what grounds do
you criticize Manishji if you yourse lf are doing the same?
>If you give importance to Bhedha
>you are going to suffer because Bhedha confirms duality and when there is a
>duality there is a limitation and fear etc automatically follow.
Complete useless speculation. Show me in the SAstra where it says that if
Brahman has variegatedness there must be suffering. This is your
speculation. You think that the body of Krishna is like the mucous bile
and air body that we have now. Read B.g. 9.1 1, your name is right there,
Krishna is addressing you by name. Krishna's body is
sac-cid-Ananda-vigrahaH, and that is confirmed in the Sruti in the
gopAla-tApani upaniShad.
>What is wrong is only your understanding of what advaita says.
I must humbly submit the same statement in regards to your understanding
of advaita-vAda.
>I do not understand achinta Bheda-Abheda tatwa for me to argue scholarly
>with you about that philosophy.
Thanks for admitting that, maybe you can now go up and edit your
statements about acintya-bhedAbheda-tattva-vAda.
>So my criticism is not about
>that philosophy per se but the statement you have made in the note and your
>interpretation of the aphorisms and the Geeta sloka you presented.
I must admit that your grammarian skills fall a little short as well.
>It is like Sri Krishna killing the Kamsa or Shishupala even though He
>declares that He pervades the entire universe and all jeevas are his
>amsas, >and he is the life sustaining force even in Kamsa and Shishupala
>and >knowing fully well
The mAyAvAdIs have absolutely no answer to explain the unlimited pastimes
of the Lord. To them it is either a metaphor, or proof of Krishna's
mundane character.
>More in the next part.
I can hardly wait....
