aham brahmasmi --why so confusion ?

[shivsomashekhar]

Advaita resorts to explaining away ~98% of the śrutis as either karma kāṇḍa and/or vyāvahārika (including śrutis from upaniṣads), and of the remaining ~2% only portions of the sentences are used to establish their thesis.

The way I see it, this makes sense from an Advaita perspective because the Paramartha is beyond words and description. Obviously then, the bulk of their doctrine will be in the realm of Vyavaharika.

@kalyan most people here do not understand even basic saṁskṛtam, what exactly are to trying to learn by discussing upaniṣads!? If all you want is copy-paste of poor english translations that belie even the schools that are presented, it is really not that difficult - wikipedia/sacred texts/etc will give more than enough of such crap. Do you think anyone has even bothered reading what you've written in the OP to understand?

नारायणायेतिसमर्पयामि।

I am curious. The OP was written in English too and not in Sanskrit (basic or complex). As for his intent, it is self-evident, I would think . He has decided that his position is the only correct one and that he possesses the skill and wisdom to conclusively prove it. Anyone who disagrees is delusional.

IMHO, quoting Upanishads in Sanskrit will not help for two reasons -

1. By themselves, they have little or no value in discussion - not without their respective commentaries/interpretations.
2. Participation levels in such a discussion online would be abysmal.

 

[Ekanta]

...my point is don't abuse 'BhagawadGita' by trying to twist the clear sentences

aham brahmasmi---says 'I am brahman' yes but in a relative sense

Have you made up your mind yet?

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

The way I see it, this makes sense from an Advaita perspective because the Paramartha is beyond words and description. Obviously then, the bulk of their doctrine will be in the realm of Vyavaharika.

Well, nobody is questioning that. The point is: it doesn't make sense to accuse other philosophies to be indulging in explaining away śrutis, especially a) from someone claiming to be a follower of a philosophy which itself is based on explaining away most of the śrutis, and b) criticising other philosophies without even having bothered to read them! For someone believing that, "that which matters most is beyond words", silence is the only option.

I am curious. The OP was written in English too and not in Sanskrit (basic or complex).

Which is why it doesn't make sense to me

what exactly are to trying to learn by discussing upaniṣads!?

Note: sorry for the typo - i meant "what exactly are you trying to learn..."

As for his intent, it is self-evident, I would think . He has decided that his position is the only correct one and that he possesses the skill and wisdom to conclusively prove it. Anyone who disagrees is delusional.

Well, this is pretty much the position of everyone (including me) on the forum, or anywhere else in general. I wouldn't say i fully endorse all of OP's responses, but other than first comment, nothing really discussed the OP even.

IMHO, quoting Upanishads in Sanskrit will not help for two reasons -
1. By themselves, they have little or no value in discussion - not without their respective commentaries/interpretations.

I wouldn't agree with that. I don't know arabic, so the noises that arabs make have no value whatsoever. But does that mean the arabs themselves don't understand it? And can i claim that because it doesn't make sense to me, it cannot make sense at all? If so, interpretations/commentaries too cannot by themselves give any meaning either, for they are all originally in saṁskṛtam.
But the bigger point is: all philosophies are open to criticism - at least that is the tradition - the only qualifier being study of the work that is criticised (pūrvapkṣa).

2. Participation levels in such a discussion online would be abysmal.

Well, wouldn't low participation be better than unqualified ones? All that such open discussions have achieved is greater ill-will amongst different schools of thought.

नारायणायेतिसमर्पयामि।

 

[kalyan]

Have you made up your mind yet?

Ok for the sake of the argument..I will repost one post again which has not been answered yet. If you cannot answer this O think you should read BG first before we could have a fruitful discussion.

If atma EQUALS Krushna or if you guys are saying 'atma' and when Krushna says 'me' are the same? why in the world Sri Krushna gave different ways to achieve

1. attaining self
2. attaining him alone

let me know when you guys can come up with an answer to this simple question?

 

[kalyan]

Well, nobody is questioning that. The point is: it doesn't make sense to accuse other philosophies to be indulging in explaining away śrutis, especially a) from someone claiming to be a follower of a philosophy which itself is based on explaining away most of the śrutis, and b) criticising other philosophies without even having bothered to read them! For someone believing that, "that which matters most is beyond words", silence is the only option.


Which is why it doesn't make sense to me

Note: sorry for the typo - i meant "what exactly are you trying to learn..."

Well, this is pretty much the position of everyone (including me) on the forum, or anywhere else in general. I wouldn't say i fully endorse all of OP's responses, but other than first comment, nothing really discussed the OP even.

I wouldn't agree with that. I don't know arabic, so the noises that arabs make have no value whatsoever. But does that mean the arabs themselves don't understand it? And can i claim that because it doesn't make sense to me, it cannot make sense at all? If so, interpretations/commentaries too cannot by themselves give any meaning either, for they are all originally in saṁskṛtam.
But the bigger point is: all philosophies are open to criticism - at least that is the tradition - the only qualifier being study of the work that is criticised (pūrvapkṣa).

Well, wouldn't low participation be better than unqualified ones? All that such open discussions have achieved is greater ill-will amongst different schools of thought.

नारायणायेतिसमर्पयामि।

Good response.. But its not like my point or some others point, well it is Krushna's point even though he made clear distinction b.w 3 eternal entities most of the ppl in the forum (subscribing to advaita) instead of reading BG, lift random verses from internet translations and quote them. They have no answers to the post I made above because they dont know the context where it was said and well they dont know how to explain that at all

 

[kalyan]

He has decided that his position is the only correct one and that he possesses the skill and wisdom to conclusively prove it.Anyone who disagrees is delusional.

In this thread where did I call anyone delusional? O_O ..ur blog thread on hinduism va sanatana dharma is delusional yea!

 

[kalyan]

V-advaita though accepting karma kāṇḍa distinction, it at least takes all upaniṣad vākyas on the same footing.

Tattvavāda considers the entire gamut of śruti vākyas to convey tattva unequivocally and with a common purport with karma kāṇḍa meanings being only secondary.

@तत्त्वप्रह्व How does tattvavaada or dvaita explain the eternalness of Prakriti in BG ?

 

[Acintya_Ash]

If atma EQUALS Krushna or if you guys are saying 'atma' and when Krushna says 'me' are the same? why in the world Sri Krushna gave different ways to achieve

1. attaining self
2. attaining him alone

let me know when you guys can come up with an answer to this simple question?

Dear Friend, Lord Krishna indeed gave different ways, but the final goal is the same. Ayam Atma Brahma – This Self is Brahman.(Mandukya Up.)
Hare Krishna

 

[kalyan]

Dear Friend, Lord Krishna indeed gave different ways, but the final goal is the same.
Hare Krishna

YES........! Well that should shut down all other arguments about BhagawadGita achintya here...I am challenging dvaitans here too because they dont subscribe to eternalness of Prakriti. ..

The goal is not the same depending upon path you adopt...If I have to attain atma, I will choose the ways Krushna mentioned and practice them to attain self.

Attainin self= Kaivalyam which is devoid of god although it is permanent because u attained self which is eternal

The second part I have to explain in a different post...

Hare Krushna

 

[Acintya_Ash]

The goal is not the same depending upon path you adopt...If I have to attain atma, I will choose the ways Krushna mentioned and practice them to attain self.

Attainin self= Kaivalyam which is devoid of god although it is permanent because u attained self which is eternal

Okay. So you are saying Krishna is not our Atman/Self, Krishna is different, right?
I think it all boils down to the nature of Krishna. If you consider Krishna to be personal God then yes the destination will be different.
But if you consider Krishna to be impersonal, ie your Self then Anything apart from the Self/Krishna is but the realm of maya and what are the characteristics of maya? Anityam Asukham Lokham

 

[Acintya_Ash]

well it is Krushna's point even though he made clear distinction b.w 3 eternal entities most of the ppl in the forum (subscribing to advaita) instead of reading BG, lift random verses from internet translations and quote them.

The distinctions are made from the conventional perspective. For Brahman, everything is one.
Bg 6.29: With the mind harmonised by Yoga he sees the Self abiding in all beings and all beings in the Self; he sees the same everywhere.

Check out: http://www.advaita-vedanta.in/adhyaropa-apavada

 

[kalyan]

Okay. So you are saying Krishna is not our Atman/Self, Krishna is different, right?
I think it all boils down to the nature of Krishna. If you consider Krishna to be personal God then yes the destination will be different.
But if you consider Krishna to be impersonal, ie your Self then Anything apart from the Self/Krishna is but the realm of maya and what are the characteristics of maya? Anityam Asukham Lokham

You got me on wrong foot here...Krushna is indeed our atma...He is in you, in me , in animals, insects ,trees and also stones..in everything as antaryami or atma....
The main point lies in our word..our refers to jIva/atma. So basically he is atma of atma (us)..I refers to jIva and not physical bodies, that is where Krushna started in 2nd chapter. This is what upanishad says also.
AnEna jIvEnAtmanAanupravisya nAma rUpE vyAkaravaNI iti”
Brahman enters through a jIva into anything which has form and name is above says. Same Krushna said he enters through a jIva into everything and becomes atma to a jIva.

That is what my OP says if you reread that.

I am using now jIva word to cut down confusion.
Your point is jIva which is eternal = Krushna then attaining jIva/atma is attaining Krushna right?
Then there is no need for him to clearly outline 2 paths 1 for attaining jIva and 1 for attaining him alone

Your posted thread also says brahman and jivas and I am bookmarking it to read further on it because i like advaita in separating self/atma/I from physical detoriating physical body along with manas and indriyas. Basically when brahman gets projected in maya, advaita and visita advaita merge into same..when brahman gets reflected in maya which has infinite parts of avidya, the samsara begins and iswara, jIva and prakriti starts and jiva due to adhyasa not realizing the brahman as substratum gets karmic bondage thus by rotating in cycles of birth and death. Well it says jiva, prakriti is there but are all just brahman transformed and unreal due to brahman appearing constrained.
But then why Krushna said attaining self or atma which should be brahman or him itself as separate from attaining him is a thing to ponder for advaitans

 

[Acintya_Ash]

The main point lies in our word..our refers to jIva/atma. So basically he is atma of atma (us)..I refers to jIva and not physical bodies, that is where Krushna started in 2nd chapter. This is what upanishad says also.

Dear Friend, Atman remains "Jiva" as long as it has not realized oneness. When one rises beyond his jivahood by any of the yoga paths he realizes that he is one with Krishna/Atman, he merges with Atman. Jiva is not destroyed, only Ignorance of Jivahood is. Jiva is but Brahman under ignorance. But How can Brahman be ignorant? Brahman isn't ignorant, but it appears so in the conditioned mind, Apparent Perception. Just like the sun is ever shining, even when dark clouds appear to veil it.

I sm using now jIva word to cut down confusion.
Your point is jIva which is eternal = Krushna then attaining jIva/atma is attaining Krushna right?

Yes, Jiva is eternal, in the sense, the real nature of jiva is Brahman.

Hare Krishna

 

[Acintya_Ash]

Then there is no need for him to clearly outline 2 paths 1 for attaining jIva and 1 for attaining him alone

Okay, What is the nature of Atman(jiva in your terms)? -- sat-chit-ananda
What about Krishna/Brahman? -- sat-chit-ananda
R.H.S are equal.
Hence, Atman=Brahman

Why so confused?
Try this thread if you have references:
http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/wheres-atma-whos-not-brahma.164068/

 

[Acintya_Ash]

But then why Krushna said attaining self or atma which should be brahman or him itself as separate from attaining him is a thing to ponder for advaitans

Where is Krishna saying both are separate?
Okay, Now i get it, if you are interpreting "attain Me" as conventional me and not Atman, then indeed the goals with be separate.
So its you who should ponder on where to interpret "Me" as conventional and otherwise, Advaitins have uniform interpretation, Me=Atman always!

 

[kalyan]

Okay, What is the nature of Atman(jiva in your terms)? -- sat-chit-ananda
What about Krishna/Brahman? -- sat-chit-ananda
R.H.S are equal.
Hence, Atman=Brahman

Why so confused?
Try this thread if you have references:
http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/wheres-atma-whos-not-brahma.164068/

I understand your advaitic point but why Krushna gave 2 paths with 2 outputs if atman is brahman/Krushna himself is not answered yet

 

[Acintya_Ash]

I understand your advaitic point but why Krushna gave 2 paths with 2 outputs if atman is brahman/Krushna himself is not answered yet

Answered in Post #75

 

[kalyan]

Where is Krishna saying both are separate?
Okay, Now i get it, if you are interpreting "attain Me" as conventional me and not Atman, then indeed the goals with be separate.
So its you who should ponder on where to interpret "Me" as conventional and otherwise, Advaitins have uniform interpretation, Me=Atman always!

8th chapter 'Tat Brahma' and 'Adhyatma'..
For attaining atma one needs to know and practice 4 things and for attaining brahma he said 3 things and both have different output

 

[Acintya_Ash]

The Blessed Lord said:

Bg 8:3. Brahman is the Imperishable, the Supreme; His essential nature is called Self-knowledge (Adhyatma); the offering (to the gods) which causes existence and manifestation of beings and which also sustains them is called action.

Brahman and his nature are non-different. Brahman is Adhyatma.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Ok for the sake of the argument..I will repost one post again which has not been answered yet. If you cannot answer this O think you should read BG first before we could have a fruitful discussion.

If atma EQUALS Krushna or if you guys are saying 'atma' and when Krushna says 'me' are the same? Why in the world Sri Krushna gave different ways to achieve.

1. attaining self
2. attaining him alone

Let me know when you guys can come up with an answer to this simple question?

I have already given the answer, Kalyan, in my post # 60. Krishna talks about you and me only till ignorance remains in the person. When a person understands that Krishna, Arjuna, me, you, all, are but Brahman; it is then that it should be considered that the person's ignorance has gone. This is exactly what Krishna says:

"Vidyā-vinaya-sampanne, brāhmaṇe gavi hastini;
śuni caiva śva-pāke ca, paṇḍitāḥ sama-darśinaḥ." BG 5.18
(The knowledgeable consider a learned and gentle brāhmaṇa, a cow, a female elephant, a dog and a dog-eater (candala) as same.)

And, no use shouting, it is not going to impress members more. Not civil. Better underline what you think is important. But, of course, unconditioned love for the deity also is one way to achieve enlightenment and kaivalya (my homage to Gauranga Prabhu), I do not deny that.