[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ISKCON - help define these terms
In article <4il7pv$9e8@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
psista@gilbreth.ecn.purdue.edu (Prasad S. Sista) wrote:
>>First you say that you have no personal existence, and now you say you do.
>>It's clear to me that you have no idea what Advaita is,
>
> *** Sir sorry to interrupt. First of all there are two states here.
> one in which everything is one and the other in which they are all
> different.
Well, that's not what Ramakrishnan said. Nor am I aware of any reference in
Sankaracharya's works to the effect that there is a state in which "they are
all different." What is clear to me from advaita theory (and I would
appreciate it if someone could quote Sankara to the contrary) is that
everything is ultimately one, and that no distinctions are admitted.
If you read what Ramakrishnan has written, he says
> existence is the only thing VERIFIABLE. This is because you are in
> the second state. You will see this if you try to get an idea of what
Actually, what he said was that *personal* existence was what was verifiable.
This is interesting, because no advaitist that I know of accepts the idea that
we are individual, living entities. Rather, they accept that there is only one
world-soul, not many individual souls.
Furthermore, I don't how you can say that one person can be in one state
(where everything is the same) and another person can be in the other state.
What are these states, anyway? Are they actual places, or are they levels of
consciousness? If it is the latter, then how do you know there is a state
where everything is that same? Are you in that state? What about Ramakrishnan?
> he is talking about rather than trying to form an idea of whether he
> has an idea of advaita or not!!! Please try to see what people are
> SAYING instead of trying to evaluate their Parampara and their guru.
Well, I am trying to see what he is saying. I don't think what he or you are
saying is correct according to Sankaracharya's parampara.
>>>>wonder how we can accept a statement of truth from someone for whom the
>>whole
>>>>world is an illusion.
>
> *** Unfortunately it is for you and me that the whole world is an illusion
> and not for the person who is saying this because for HIM the world
> is just ONE, which is the absolute.
This is not a very scientific statement. Either the world is real, or it is an
illusion.
Also truth will remain to be
> true irrespective of whether one accepts it or not(just like Ganesha
> accepting milk was due to surface tension and not because HE was
> really drinking it:-))
So what is the truth? Is the world real, or an illusion?
>
>>Anyway, the orignal point stands. For you, the whole world is an illusion.
So
>>why should I accept anything you say? You are also an illusion, according to
>>your own so-called philosophy.
>**** It is not for Ramakrishnan that the world is an illusion. But if you
But I thought he said as much. How do you know? Let's see what he says...
> argue on this line, let me tell you. Even if you accept, you an
> illusion is accepting an illusion from an illusion who is called
> Ramakrishnan and I an illusion is writing(which is also an illusion)
> about this. Please dont stop the illusion logic wherever you want
> and start applying what you THINK(an illusion again) is NOT illusion.
Exactly. See how ridiculous the illusion theory is? You were trying to
criticize me, but instead you criticized the advaita theory.
> You are basically switching between two states as you like. The void
No. I am operating from the principle that the world is real, and then showing
how certain ideas become hard to believe when you accept that the world is
illusion.
> between these states is so huge that a very FEW people in the past
> have been able to get past it(or may be i should call them a few
> souls).
So have you crossed that void? Has ramakrishnan crossed it? How do you cross
it, anyway?
> I have one very straight forward question. Valmiki is supposed to be
> the author of Ramayana and is supposed to be a great man. What was
> his Parampara?
Krishna - Brahmaa - Naarada - Valmiiki.
>
>>Once again, carefully avoiding substance, you make assertions you cannot
>>support. I find it amusing that you believe I have shown myself "to be
>>unwilling to engage in any logical argument," you who are not even sure of
>>your own existence. Then you state that "your arguments on paramparaa has
> ****HaHaHa. Sorry about that i couldnt help laughing and writing it too.
> It is you who is not sure of what he is saying and not he who is
> unsure of his existence. You are totally wrong about his surity of
> his existence.
Well, then he should clarify that, rather than changing his philosophy to suit
his needs. Let Ramakrishnan give an explict declaration of the points in which
he believes, and which he considers to be advaita philosophy.
>>is amusing that you must rely on Ken, who equates worship of Beavis and
>>Butt-head and TVs with worship of Vishnu.
> *** The Vyadha who preaches the saint does not even worship any god.
> He says that he is deeply engrossed in whatever his duty is and hence
> this is equivalent to worshiping god.(Vyadha - butcher).
I really have no idea what this has to do with what I wrote.
>>There is no contradiction here. The difference between my disagreeing with
>>someone and your disagreeing is that
>>
>>1) I base my disagreements on clear reasoning, much of which goes unanswered
> ** Sorry to interrupt again. But i really didn't see the relationship
> between Materialism and lack of Celibacy. If you know the meanings of the
> two words, they dont have an If.. Then relationship of any kind.
> Such arguments obviously go unanswered because they dont make sense.
There is a relationship. Mundane sex desire is materialistic. Therefore,
according to advaita philosophy, one should remain celibate, and thus refrain
from indulging in things which are illusion.
>>you don't know what you are talking about, but you act as if you do. Show me
>>one verse that Prabhupada has mistranslated, and then tell me how it
>>translated. I contend that you are blowing off steam as usual, basedr
>>desire to discredit genuine religion and glorify anything which allo
>>maintain your own materialistic lifestyle.
> *** I really dont know about Prabhupada's translations and I really dont
> care. But how do you know that Ramakrishnan or anyone else is a
> materialist??
Because I used to be pseudo-advaitin like he is, and I know exactly how these
pseudo-advaitins think. Besides this same Ramakrishnan reads Kaama Sutra for
kicks and sees nothing wrong with meat-eating.
You have just now misinterpreted his nature by extrapolating
> from his writings.
It is not clear to me that you understand him any better than I do.
> And respected sir What exactly is GENUINE religion?
Well, I have always been taught that genuine religion teaches one to know and
love the Personality of Godhead, and to desire only to serve Him eternally.
brahma bhuuta prasanaatma
na socati na kankshati
samaha sarveshu bhuteshu
mad-bhaktim labhate paraam
> This i am really interested in knowing about. Because I never knew
> that there were a few fake religions. Pray enlighten me on this.
Well, I don't think the religion of the Satan worshipers here in Texas is a
genuine religion. The US Supreme Court also ruled that atheism is a religion.
So I don't think atheism is a genuine religion.
> (BTW I am not yet self realised and so for me everything exists as
> it is and is not an illusion.)
In that case, one wonders how you can postulate that such a state exists where
everything is illusion.
>
> Prasad Sista(also known as Sista)
> Real Secret of Work: Think about what you are doing and nothing beyond
Real Secret of Work according to Bhagavad-Gita:
man-manaa bhava mad-bhakto
mad-yaajii maam namaskuru
maam evaishyasi yuktvaivam
aatmaamam mat-paraayanaha
regards,
-- HKS
