[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: Unity In Diversity
-
Subject: Re: Unity In Diversity
-
From: manish@cadence.com (Manish Tandon)
-
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 23:04:26 GMT
-
Apparently-To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
From news@cadence.com Wed Mar 22 17: 54:04 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
-
References: <3ka8mr$1fr@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
-
Sender: news@cadence.com
In article #2448, bnaik@tezcat.com (Bharat Naik, M.D.) writes:
|> I am troubled by the...
|> improperly by the people who should not even talk...
If you are tolerant, you must be tolerant of intolerance.
You have no business telling others to be tolerant.
The tolerance -trap-
on with the article
The four mahavakyas according to the advaita dogma:
1. |> Teacher tells him the first mahavakya - Pragyanam Brahman and ask
|> him to think about it.
2. |> Before it becomes monotonous and boring, teacher introduces him
|> to second mahavakya, Tat twam asi.
3. |> Before he start thinking he knows it all and unraveled the mystery
|> of ages, the teacher throws the 3rd mahavakya at him, Ayam Atma
|> Brahman.
4. |> Apparently thrown off balance he continued his enquiry and
|> experienced the pinnacle of truth - Aham brahmasmi!
Let me tell you Mr. Bharat Naik, M.D., there is more to Upanisads than these
four phrases taken out of context by your swamis and used to claim to have based
their pinnacle of nonsense (i.e. advaita) on sruti.
To begin with, let me also give you some mahavakyas to substantiate that.
1. nityo nityanam cetanas cetanam -Katha 2.2.13
"He is the eternal 'nityo' among the eternals 'nityanam', the conscious
'cetanas' among the (many) conscious 'cetanam'."
The Upanisad continues to tell that, "He, the one among many, grants
their desires. By knowing the Lord (devan) - by discrimination (samkhya)
and yoga - one becomes free from all miseries. Please note that the
mahavakya explicitly says that there all the conscious living beings,
i.e. jivas, are also eternal "nityanam" - an adjective added to the
root of the world "nityam" to indicate plurality, which directly refutes
the advaita dogma that says One (brahman) alone is. Yet they (jivas)
are qualitatively one with the Lord, as both are eternal and conscious,
which is also indicated by "sarvam khalv idam brahman" Chandogaya
Upanisad 3.14.1
2. aninas catma badhyate bhoktr-bhavat jnatva devam mucyate sarva-pasaih
-Svetasvatar Upanisad (1.9)
"The soul, not being the Lord, is bound due to being an enjoyer. By
knowing the Lord 'devam', he is freed from all distress."
Again here the so called oneness of jiva and the Lord is explicitly
refuted here. So it is clear that "tat tvam asi", "ayam atma brahman",
etc. all refer to qualitative oneness as in case of cause and effect.
3. sa yo ha vai tat paramam brahma veda brahmaiva bhavati
-Mundaka Upanisad (3.2.9)
"one who knows the Supreme Brahman attains Brahman."
Again, it clearly and explicitly distinguishes between the liberated
state/final destination (brahman realization) of the jiva and the
position of the Lord who is the Supreme Brahman. So even after moksha,
there remains two, the oneness is only in terms of quality since the
jiva is brahman and the Lord is paramam brahman.
4. tam he devam atma-buddhi-prakasam mumuksur vai saranam aham prapadye
-Svetasvatar Upanisad (6.18)
"To that Lord who is lighted by His own intelligence, do I, eager for
liberation, resort for refuge."
5. Om tad visnoh paramam padam -Rg Veda 1.22.20
"The lotus feet of Vishnu are the supreme destination."
realax, you still haven't lost everything. The Lord is full of compassion and
will free you from all sinful reactions inflicted due to abiding in the
atheistic mayavadi philosophy. sarva dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja,
He says.
|> He sees the common thread to all paths - that is annihilation of ego.
This is another interesting word jugglery of the advaitic teachers, equating
ahankara to ego.
Here is "ego" as described in The Oxford Dictionary
the I, self; conscious thinking subject.
The existence of the self is axiomatic, true for me, for you, true for everyone,
and to say that this self is merely the gross and/or the subtle body is nothing
but ignorance and is not supported by sruti either.
Katha Upanisad (1.2.18)
na jayate mriyate va vipascin nayam kutascin na babhuva kascit
ajo nityah sasvato yam purano na hanyate hanyamane sarire
See how clearly it says that the self is never born and never dies, hence "ego"
which is nothing but an indicator of the -self- can not be the subtle or the
gross body, because sruti also explicitly says that those elements are not the
self, and the subtle body and gross body are not eternal.
And to say that that self is all one is equally ignorant because the level of
consciousness, knwoledge, etc. is all different between us and also my liberation
is independent from yours and vice versa.
The bangle-ring-gold analogy given by Shankara and to date used by mayavadis is
equally foolish for several reasons, 1). jiva is conscious, gold, bangle etc. is
not, its dead matter; 2). since jiva is conscious, he is also eternal, remember
"nityo nityanam cetansa cetanam", gold however is not eternal, something which
is simple enough to comprehand even with some basic knowledge of physics;
3). there is no such thing as One Gold, when we say gold, we are reffering to
a peice of gold which itself is a collection of zillions of fundamental particles
which are all independent of the other gold molecules that lump together, to
try to say its but one is nothing but ignorance.
|> Bhakta achieves this with surrendering the lower self (ego, body, mind and
|> intellect) to God.
As I said before, ego implies existence, the "I" and you can only serve or love
someone as long as you exist. Also, the "I" is NOT "lower self" as you blind
atheists claim, the lower self only consists of gross (pancha bhutam) and subtle
(manas, , and ahankara) bodies. "ahankara" is made up of "aham" and "kara" which
means "I am the doer" and we know from sruti that that isn't true:
"I am" does NOT equate to "I am the doer" because a bhakta realizes that he
exists only to serve the Lord and his service to the Lord itself is controlled
by the will of the Lord, so even in service, he is not the doer, the Lord is.
That is what means to surrender (the self), not to annihilate the self.
|> The concept of Maya has been used for the explanation of world of plurality
|> which seems to be in apparent contradiction to the reality and ultimate
|> truth which was unequivocally proclaimed by all realised ones that there is
|> only Brahman (God of Bhakta) and nothing else.
Wrong again.
"paramam brahma veda brahmaiva bhavati", after liberation, the jiva attains
the brahma-bhuta or brahmananda state, but nonetheless remains subordinate to
the Supreme Lord who is "paramam brahma".
And you can only know the Lord by His mercy, NOT by jnana or any other process
suggested by mayavadis.
dhatuh prasadan mahimanam isam -Svetasvatar Upanisad (3.20)
"only through the grace of the Lord 'dhatuh prasdan' can the embodied
atma realize the greatness of Lord 'mahimanam isam'."
|> There is too much discussion here about our relationship to the
|> God. One would say, He is master and I am his servant. The second one
|> would say, I am part of the God himself. And other would say, I am
|> the God. These seemingly different statements have one thing in common
|> that they all are right !!!
You interpreted bhakti according to your dogma and than claim that they are
all the same.
What a shameful act.
Hari Bol!
Manish
PS. You need to provide the exact location (verse #) for this in the Ramayan of
Valmiki in order to have any value and we shall verify it right here,
otherwise this just remains another fanciful concoction of the advaitans.
|> Nobody will make this point clear than Hanuman while explaining
|> his relationship to Lord Rama. Oh Lord Rama, when I am steeped in this
|> body consciousness, I am your servant. When I identify with my subtle
|> body, I am a part of you. But when I identify with Atman, you and I are
|> the same.
