[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: ISKCON - help define these terms

In article <4j2qmf$r73@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Hari Krishna Susarla <susarla.krishna@studentserver1.swmed.edu> wrote:
>In article <4il7pv$9e8@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
>   psista@gilbreth.ecn.purdue.edu (Prasad S. Sista) wrote:
>
>> *** 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.
   *** Neither am I aware of reference in Shankara's works about it. Why??
   I havent read any of Shankara's works myself. You are assuming that all
   advaitins are quoting from Shankara's works and this is not necessarily
   true always.
>Actually, what he said was that *personal* existence was what was verifiable. 
>This is interesting, because no advaitist thatIknow ofaccepts theidea that 
>we are individual, living entities. Rather,they accept that there is only one 
>world-soul, not many individual souls. 
  *** Well it might be interesting. But whether it is interesting or not or
   whether it is the belief of other advaitists or not, that is what he worte.
   So he never said that he is denying his own existence and this is the 
   truth. I beg you not to form an opinion about Ramakrishnan or anybody else
   just because you have 'SEEN' or heard a few other people talking about
   advaita and anyone who speaks about advaita HAS to speak the same thing.
   
>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?
*I have mentioned at the end of the post that I am not in that state.I dont
  mind saying it again. I am not in the state where everything is the same
  I am just quoting from what someone said when i said For Him everything 
  is the same.m
> 
>>  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.
 ** Enlightment required. What is Sankaracharya's parampara. By the way
   please  enlighten me on this one too. What exactly is `Paramapara?'
>
>>>>>wonder how we can accept astatementoftruthfrom 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. Eitherthe world is real,or it is an 
>illusion. 
 Well. It depends on where you are looking from. By the way since when did
   we start bringing science into this discussion. According to science, all 
   human beings are same. Differentiation is based on blood group and other 
   physical characteristics. As long as the statement is not illogical,
   it is fine.Please answer this question scientifically. What is 
   Religion?  One more question to be answered scientifically.
   Who is God??
>
>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?
**** I am testing my patience myself. I will write it again. It depends on
how you are perceiving the world. If you are perceiving it through your
senses and intellect then  everything is real and you see differences in form,
attributes etc. But if you are able to transcend these then everything is ONE
So I wish to say assuming that you have not transcended you senses and 
intellect, The world is REAL.
>
>>
>>>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.
  *** Sorry. I was not trying to criticise anyone. The illusion theory seems
   ridiculous to you because you are not realised. what advaita says is
   IF one is self-realised, everything is an illusion for Him. The aim of
   every human being(since he is endowed with the precious gift of THINKING or
   the intellect) should be to attain that state. There are different ways of
   achieving this.  
   eg:  Through Bhakti or love.
        Through Karma or work.
        Through knowledge or intellect.
   
>
>>    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.
  ** Yes indeed. It is hard to believe. But nobody is asking you to believe it.
    Just try to see if it is possible that such a state exists in which
    everything is one. Dont try to believe. Try to reason out. Belief is the one
    that shuts off your brain to logic.
>
>>    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 havent crossed it. Neither did Ramakrishnan. Please refer to the paths 
   that i have mentioned above.  If you need more clarification about those
   paths i will be pleased to tell you about them.
>
>>   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. 
   ** I was really unaware of this. thanks for the clarification.
      But Krishna was born in the Dwaaparyuga and Valmiki I thought belonged
      to the Tretayuga. So how can one born before somebody belong to the
    parampara of someone who is born later. Please correct me if I am wrong??
    
>
>>>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.
  ** Basically it doesnt depend on who you worship as long as you are REALLY
   worshipping!! In fact it is not necessary to `worship' in the literal
   sense of the word as is illustrated by parable of Vyadha. BTW you didnt
   answer my question. What was the paramapara of the Vyadha??
>>>
>>>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.
  ** I am trying not to be rude here. Please refer to the english dictionary.
     I said there is no if then relationship. that is if you are materialistic
     you are non-celibate doesnt follow
     

 
>
>> *** 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. 
  ** How do you know that he is a pseudo-advaitin. you are too biased by what
   you were and think that everyone is like that. By the way KS is an extremely
   well written book and has a lot of fundamental principles of life given in
   it. 
   
>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.
  ** Well I dont know how you understand him. So I cant make any concrete statement
  about this.
>
>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.
   ** This is the opinion of the person that has taught you and you have accepted
  it. Similarly some people accept someone else's opinion and they argue
   that theirs is the genuine religion. But do you know that Ramakrishna       
    Paramahansa followed the tenets of different religions and finally said that
   the PHILOSOPHIES of Hinduism, Christianity and Islam lead people ultimately
   to self-realisation. They only differ in their presentation and the ritualistic
   aspects. So you can always make a distinction between religions based on what
   their ritualistic and mythological aspects are but their philospies ultimately
   end in the same result.  So when one says all religions are same, he is 
   talking about the philosophical aspect of the religions. When one says 
   religions are different, he is talking about the ritualistic and aspects
   other than philosophy. Now, please define GENUINE religion as regards the
   philosophical aspect and we will discuss further on that after you give me
  your definition.
>
>>  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.
    ** So is it the US Supreme court that rules which religion is Genuine
   or which is not or is it your THINKING that rules out a few of them.
   By the way it is also possible that sometimes you think wrong?? Dont you
   think so??         
>>  (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.
     ** I never said I postulated.  I was quoting from what people who have
   realised have said. 
>
>>  
>>  Prasad Sista(also known as Sista)
>>  Real Secret of Work: Think about what you are doing and nothing beyond
     ** A problem to finish off. A tiger cub is feeling hungry and its mother
   wants to feed it. So it kills a cow who's calf is also hungry to feed its
   cub. What do you think is the tiger doing?? Dharma or Adharma??
   Please think about this.
   Regards
   Prasad S Sista
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Subm.: srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu Admin: srh-request@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu 
>Archives/Home Page: http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/soc_hindu_home.html
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.