[Prev][Next][Index]
Non-duality
From: sadananda@anvil.nrl.navy.mil (K. Sadananda)
> I am ananda
No, you are sadAnanda. :)
>First, every body wants happiness.
Once again this is a false speculation on your part. There are people who
do not want happiness, they want void. Then there are people such as the
Bhaktas who do not care about it either way, they just want to serve SrI
Krishna, heaven or hell makes no difference.
>Whatever I do and whatever I avoid doing is because I want to be happy.
Now you are juggling your words again. First you say _everyone_ now you
say _I_. So which is it? If it is only you, then you can not say everyone.
>This statement is absolutely true
>whether I am religious or irreligious, believer or non-believer, Krishna
>devotee or Siva Devotee, Hindu or Christian.
This statement is absolutely false. It is only true for the materialistic
people who want to enjoy through religious life. There is arthic religion
and the is paramarthic religion. Arthic refers to those who want to enjoy
through religious processes. Para marthic refers to those who are beyond
the material contamination of desire and do not mind whether they suffer
or enjoy, as long as they can serve the Supreme Lord.
>I am going after coffee for happiness and my friend going after tea and you
>after Krishna or other after Siva etc. In spite of the logic that
Once again verse 9.11 has your name in it. This is the clear proof that
you are a mAyAvAdI, a pracchana bhauda. You are equating Krishna with a
cup of coffee. What nonsense! Coffee is completely material, Krishna is
completely spiritual, this is the concl usion of the SAstra. You should
stop saying your opinion and state the Sruti, be a real vedAntI, not a
pseudo-vedAnti.
>Interesting corollary is, since every body loves ananda, everybody loves
>themselves!
No. Everyone loves the source of all bliss, that is Krishna. He is
rasarAja, the king of all blissful mellows.
>I do everything for my self only because I love myself.
Yes, this is self-centered nature. You must give up that self-centered
nature, and start doing everything for Krishna. That is the prappatti that
you mentioned previously, giving up personal desires and acting solely for
the satisfaction of Krishna's tran scendental senses.
>You love Krishna only because the love of Krishna brings you happiness.
What total nonsense. Please tell me what Sruti you are quoting here. What
kind of vedAnta is this, all speculation. Happiness is a material desire.
Those who are pure devotees of Krishna are akAma:, they have no material
desires. They serve Krishna becaus e that is their constitutional
position. They love Krishna without any desire for return or profit.
[more useless speculation about rAsa-lIlA and happiness and love etc.,
deleted]
I won't even comment on your mundane analysis of rAsalIlA. But for the
recored, this is why I say it is mAyAvAda and not brahmavAda.
>Vedanta says you can not reach that state of
>fullness or the infinite happiness by fulfilling the desires or by
>pursuits.
It is odd that you chose to refer to vedAnta. You were throwing a
no-hitter, why the change?
>The problem is you are trying to solve a problem that is not there.
If there is no problem, then why are you speaking so much about how to
solve it! There is _no_ problem, we should all go to sleep.
>It is actually a real problem right now.
This is worse than mAyAvAda, this is a circular definitions.
>Epilog!
>Manishji and other ISKAN members - one last piece of advise for whatever it
>is worth. Do not think Advaitins are in the wrong path, Vishitadvaitins
>are in the wrong path and only Hare Krishna's are in the right path.
Please show where someone has ever said that. No Hare krishna has ever
made such a statement. Look through the alt.hindu archives and post it
here if you find it. Neither do the Hare Krishnas say that viSiShtAdvaita
is wrong! It is absolutely a bonafide p ath, it belongs to a bonafide
sampradAya. You amaze me by you use of so-called logic and blind
accusations.
>Paths are many and they depend on where the individuals likes and dislikes or
>samskaras are.
All paths are not bonafide paths. Some are dead ends, some take you the
wrong way, and some run you in circles. Read ISopaniShad, it clearly says
there is a result for worshipping the Supreme Lord, and a _different_
result for worshipping others.
>That indeed is the glory of Hinduism. No one book, No one path. No one prophet.
But there are authoritative books, authoritative paths, and authoritative
prophets.
>If you want to criticize your so called mayavada then first
>understand what it says before you criticize.
If you want to speak mAyAvAda, please understand what it says before you
speak. You are not speaking SArIraka bhAShya, you are speaking something
called "hinduism".
>Many of them cannot be settled by logic or arguments.
Bring the dogma in! Typical mAyAvAda argument, but vedAnta refutes such a
statement by saying it can be known through the SAstra.
>One has to realize oneself by oneself.
Is this from Bhagavad-gita? Which verse are you quoting above? Perhaps you
were quoting 4.3 or 4.34?
>That is indeed Krishna's declaration: Uddaro atmanamatmanam!
Not even SaNkara makes such a statements.
>I am also a sadhak searching for truth.
Sorry, there is no such thing as a sAdhaka. You are what you're not
neither looking for.
>My humble pranams to all of you.
The humilty of your shots were amazing.
jnd
