Confirmation of Achintya Bheda abheda tatwa

[Stormcry]

I am no Sanskrit scholar, but based on your transliteration, it could also mean:
The situation of brahman am I...
The rest of brahman am I...
Brahman is certainly situated in myself...

Krishna is situated in bramhan , means that krishna is embodiment of bramhan . It doesn't mean that krishna is the base of bramhan. Even the person who is realised , is described as the person situated in bramhan or he is united with his real self ,paramatma .

Here are a few other instances in Gita:
"Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature as the Supreme Lord of all that be." Gita 9.11

Here shri krishna is saying that he is not a personal bramhan . He is above all ie formless bramhan.

Clearly, from Chapter 9 onwards in Gita, once Krishna speaks of confidential matters, Krishna uses I and me, more distinctively than Brahman.. also Arjuna after seeing Krishna's form, says

"You are the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the ultimate abode, the purest, the Absolute Truth. You are the eternal, transcendental, original person, the unborn, the greatest. All the great sages such as Nārada, Asita, Devala and Vyāsa confirm this truth about You, and now You Yourself are declaring it to me." BG 10.12-13.

This conclusion is in stark contrast to yours, which would be something like: "Oh, I see, I am just like you, I am the source, I am the eternal, etc.."

Further in Gita 18.61-66, we have the following verses:

"The Supreme Lord is situated in everyone's heart, O Arjuna, and is directing the wanderings of all living entities, who are seated as on a machine, made of the material energy. O scion of Bharata, surrender unto Him utterly. By His grace you will attain transcendental peace and the supreme and eternal abode. Thus I have explained to you knowledge still more confidential. Deliberate on this fully, and then do what you wish to do.
Because you are My very dear friend, I am speaking to you My supreme instruction, the most confidential knowledge of all. Hear this from Me, for it is for your benefit. Always think of Me, become My devotee, worship Me and offer your homage unto Me. Thus you will come to Me without fail. I promise you this because you are My very dear friend. Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear."

These verses don't mean that atma is different from bramhan .
Shri krishna himself declares in gita that he is atma of all living beings .

Note Krishna says more confidentially to surrender to the super-soul in us, and then even more confidentially to surrender to Him as Bhagvan. This act of surrendering, in fact, the act of love and devotion (Bhaktya) can only make sense where there are two individualities involved. To surrender to myself or to be devoted to myself seems oxymoronic: If I am Brahman in its entirety, then how do I surrender to Brahman. Do you see my point?

We don't want your judgement about aim of bhagavata purana. The bhagavata purana itself reveals the aim of that scripture .

Sutaji said to the shaunak :

“ sarvavedanta saram yadbramhatmaikatva lakshanam
Vastwadwitiyam tannishtham kaivalaikaprayojanam “ ( 12.13.12)

[ You already know that the essence of all upanishadas is the the non-dual unity of atma and bramhan . Only this is the given subject of bhagavat purana . The aim of this ( bhagavat purana ) is “kaivalya moksha “ ( unity of atma-bramhan) only . ]

So bhagavata purana is advaitian scripture . It deals with the devotion to hari with advaita knowledge .




What should be noted here ? nonsense ? Better you note that bhakti is the part of advaita practice . Advaita bhakti is the highest bhakti of shri krishna . Silly persons say that there wouldn't be a bhakti without duality. This is certainly not true . Because the devotion beyong gunas can not have any duality as duality is the product of maya /gunas .

Bhagvata Purana focuses on bhakti. As I mentioned bhakti necessitates two tattvas, the devotee and God. So I cannot see how Bhagvata Purana supports the idea that jiva is God.
Yes, jiva is aloof from maya, but that does not make it at the same level as Brahman in its entirety. Adi shankara, also avoided commentary of Bhagavata Purana, as far as I know, because it is primarily dvaita.

Who said bhakti needs devotee and krishna . Yes , bhakta considers themselves different from krishna as long as there is impure devotion .Once he gets the pure devotion ,he unites with paramatma which is his real identity .

As you are dvaitian , you don't know the sacred bhagavata purana's philosophy and what is devotion to hari.
Bhagavata purana contains two things : 1) advaita 2)bhakti . There are many vaishnawas who are advaitians . Obviously they are the true vaishnawas .

Do you know what is surrendering ?

When a real vaishnawa says " I am bramhan " , he is totally surrenderred to the supreme feet of god " . In him , there is no aham (jiva ) . He sees everything in his atma and his atma in everything . He realises " vasudavam sarvam -everything is bramhan ." He has dissolved his false self (jiva),which is nothing but pride , in omnipresent bramhan . Then where is the scope of partial pride ?

However , The one who sees difference between god and himself , he is not a surrenderred devotee . He doesn't surrender his "aham" in god's omnipresent nature ,bramhan . This is indeed the pride of self (jiva) .There is a pride of separate consiousness . That devotion is within the field of maya . Because he considers the duality , which has not absolute existence at all . In uddhava gita ,Shri krishna calls the duality as an illusion (maya) and the path of duality as a door to sorrow. So , indeed ,that devotion is not beyond the gunas . It is withinn maya .

Adi shankara, also avoided commentary of Bhagavata Purana, as far as I know, because it is primarily dvaita.

Stop these silly myths made by vasihnawas . :beach:
From rivals of realised adi shankara, one can expect such non sense claims.


Edited:

Adi shankara didn't comment on bhagavata purana. Because his birth was to establish the veda once again. Due to buddhism, veda was on the verge of extinction. So god took avatara to establish the real philosophy of veda ie advaita. Upanishadas and bramhasutras are the primary texts of hindu dharma. That's why adi shankara commented on them.

Understood ?

Btw, there is advaitian commentry on BP by shridhara swami who was a vaishnawa. Besides, there is a commentry on 11 canto of purana written in 15th century by advaitian vaishnawa, eknath, who was a realised topmost devotee of krishna

 

[Stormcry]

Pranam ,

This is for you .See how krishna critisizes dvaitian vaishnawas including iskconians :drool: :

“yavadasyasvatantratvam tavadishwarato……shucharpitaha “ (BP 11.10.33)

Meaning:

While the Jeeva is not dependent and free, there is fear of God, and those who follow the path of duality become greatly disturbed, given to sorrow.

 

[Stormcry]

because it is primarily dvaita.

It is one of the greatest myths in hindu dharma. Bhagavata purana is not l dvaitian scripture .It is purely advaitian scripture .

Many gurus like prabhupada had hided the actual philosophy of bhagavat purana to support their personal claims . In reality , the bhagavata of prabhupada is 80 % distorted version of true bhagavata purana . They have mistranslated verses according chaitanya charitamrit's philosophy .

Keep your eyes wide and see what are the final words of shukadeva to parik****a king .

"aham bramha param dham bramhaham paramam padam,evam samikshya chatmanamatmanyadhaya nishkale " (11)

Meaning :

Dear parik****a , 'You are himself that all-pervading bramhan . Only you are that absolute abode .By meditating like this ,you should fix your self steady in ever-lasting,endless bramhan.


Still you want to say BP is dvaitian scripture ?

 

[ions]

Dear friend, here are my replies to some of your points.

krishna is embodiment of bramhan

Herein lies the difference: My view is brahman is the effulgence of Krishna, who is parambrahman (beyond brahman).

Shri krishna himself declares in gita that he is atma of all living beings .

That is right. Key word here is 'all'. Living beings, or jiva, are single infinitesimal fragment:

mamaivāḿśo jīva-loke jīva-bhūtaḥ sanātanaḥ manaḥ-ṣaṣṭhānīndriyāṇi prakṛti-sthāni arṣati
- BG 15.7

āḿśo in mamaiv implies fragmental part

bhakta considers themselves different from krishna as long as there is impure devotion .Once he gets the pure devotion ,he unites with paramatma which is his real identity .

I agree, impure devotion has duality. Pure devotion begins after Brahman realization, where there is no I or aham. But for devotion to continue, it still requires two tattvas. This is where "Acintya Bhedhabeda" applies, inconceivable oneness and difference. Are you claiming devotion needs to be dropped after self-realization? Where is this supported?

So , indeed ,that devotion is not beyond the gunas . It is withinn maya .

Are you saying pure devotion is within confines of maya/gunas? Please point me to where this is said.

krishna critisizes dvaitian vaishnawas including iskconians

“yavadasyasvatantratvam tavadishwarato……shucharpitaha “ (BP 11.10.33)

Meaning:

While the Jeeva is not dependent and free, there is fear of God, and those who follow the path of duality become greatly disturbed, given to sorrow.

I think here duality is referring to pleasures and sorrows, the duality in maya, or material life. Are you saying those who follow the path of devotion become greatly disturbed, given to sorrow?

yāvat — as long as; asya — of the living being; asvatantratvam — there is no freedom from dependence on the modes of nature; tāvat — then there will be; īśvarataḥ — from the supreme controller; bhayam — fear; ye — those who; etat — to this material concept of life; samupāsīran — devote themselves; te — they; muhyanti — are bewildered; śucā — in lamentation; arpitāḥ — always absorbed.

I have my complaints with present day Iskconians, but that does not detract my appreciation of Prabhupada's message, nor Kripaluji's (who very scholarly supported the same ideas).

"aham bramha param dham bramhaham paramam padam,evam samikshya chatmanamatmanyadhaya nishkale "

We are of the same quality of Brahman, we are one with God, but we are not God (see how simultaneous oneness and difference is key). If you ardently believe you are God, the super-soul of all living beings, then I do not understand how you could ever be entrapped in Maya in the first place.

 

[Madhuri]

Just FYI, Achintya Abhedabheda tattva is not Dvaita philosophy. To think so is to not understand the philosophy.

 

[Madhuri]

"aham bramha param dham bramhaham paramam padam,evam samikshya chatmanamatmanyadhaya nishkale " (11)

Meaning :

Dear parik****a , 'You are himself that all-pervading bramhan . Only you are that absolute abode .By meditating like this ,you should fix your self steady in ever-lasting,endless bramhan.

Still you want to say BP is dvaitian scripture ?

None of these quotes contradict Achintya bhedhabedha Tattva, which is not a Dvaita philosophy.

 

[Stormcry]

Living beings, or jiva, are single infinitesimal fragment:

mamaivāḿśo jīva-loke jīva-bhūtaḥ sanātanaḥ manaḥ-ṣaṣṭhānīndriyāṇi prakṛti-sthāni arṣati
- BG 15.7

āḿśo in mamaiv implies fragmental part

Yes , no doubt jiva is the part of bramhan . But have you ever studied the gita very deeply ? Have you forgot what shri krishna says in bhagavad gita ? He says " There is an eternal , endless tree of sansara which has no beginning and whose roots are upawards. "

See the secret meaning of this verse .

Here shri krishna says that wordly life including jiva is eternal , endless . Then question arises , how is that possible ? How tree of samsara can be eternal ? Doesn't moksha destroys wordly existence ? Then how can krishna says it eternal and without beginning .

Tweak your intelligence . See , Here inverted tree is considered as image of true tree (bramhan) fallen in water (maya.) . In this way that tree is eternal as long as there is misconception that the image of tree is true.Similarly , that the wordly life of jiva is eternal as long as there is false conception about one's true self . In that sense , jiva is a part of bramhan and is considered as eternal as long as there is illusion about the self .

Besides , In bhagavata purana , jiva is not considered as real thing . Jiva is a mixture of mind ,intellect and various pranas . It is considered as part of bramhan only for simplicity . It is imagined as a part . In reality , the real self is atma ,not jiva .

You don't know what is jiva , atma and bramhan .That's the problem in your so called achintya philosophy .Let's see what bhagavata purana says about jiva.


“dehendriya pranamayo…..adhavati kalatantrah “ (BP 11.28.16)

Meaning:

The spirit hidden behind the body, the senses, the vital airs and the mind and identifying itself with them is called the Jeeva. The subtle body constituted of the Gunas and karmas is its material manifestation and is variously known as the Sootrama or the Mahat-Tattwa and controlled by God in the form of the Time-spirit) it revolves in Sansara. (World)

“satwam rajastam……tayoho param yat “(BP 11.3.37)

Meaning:

That which was one before creation became known as Pradhana (or Prakriti) of triple nature, consisting of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. Then by its active power it became as the Sutratma and by its power of understanding it became known as Mahat Principle. Again as a condition investing the Jeeva or individual soul, it became known as Ahankara (the ego). The incomprehensible Brahman alone shines as deities presiding over the senses and their objects and the pain pleasure experience. The effect and the cause – are all Brahman only, because it is cause of both.

Understood ?

Now see how jiva merges in krishna or atma .

“kalo mayamaye jive jiva atmani mayyaje
Atma kevala atmastho vikalpapayalakshanah “ ( BP 11.24.27)

Meaning : The Time merges into Jeeva (Purusha), and the Jeeva merges into me, the Atman which has no birth. Atman is Atman itself, where there is not Vikalpa. (Duality).

Now see how jiva is bramhan .


“satvam chabhijayed ………jivam vihay mam “ ( BP 11.25.35)

Meaning: The Jeeva having been free from Gunas, and having dropped the idea that it is Jeeva, attains Me and thus Jeeva freed from its separateness and liberated from Gunas unites with Me. ( bramhan)

Explaination: Thus when the sense of separate existence of the soul is no more, the division between I am Body and I am Atman has no place. Then what remains? Only completeness, alone-ness which we call Brahman remains.



“ jivo jivavinirmukto…..purno na bahirnantaratchharet “ ( BP 11.25.35)

Meaning: Such a person is complete Brahman as I am and he does not move either within himself or outside.

So, krishna’s devotees become Brahman, which is their original state.

Explaination: Just as the inner side of sugar is not separate from its outer side, so Brahman is the same inside and out, and it is flawless and full of self-bliss.When the man becomes one with Brahman, there is no death for him and if he lives further according to destiny, he has no sense of I about his body. He does not look at outer objects. There is no place in his mind for any thought about object. One should be sincere in worship of krishna, in order to be free from this ignorance and that is the reason why saints are loving the path of devotion with all their heart.
There is nothing higher than krishna devotion and if that devotion is one-pointed, then all the four liberations are his servants.

We are of the same quality of Brahman, we are one with God, but we are not God (see how simultaneous oneness and difference is key). If you ardently believe you are God, the super-soul of all living beings, then I do not understand how you could ever be entrapped in Maya in the first place.

Oh really ? Is this your translation ? Do you know sanskrit ? So you know sanskrit grammar and sanskrit words ?

I am really fed up of your distorted fake translations .

See the original verse in sanskrit :

Shukadeva says to parik****a :

अहं ब्रह्म परं धाम ब्रह्माहं परमं पदम् ।
एवं समीक्ष्य चात्मानं आत्मन्याधाय निष्कले

Should I translate it ? Ok I translate it according to my sanskrit knowledge

अहं - I , ब्रह्म - bramhan , परं - absolute , ब्रह्माहं - I am bramhan , परमं पदम् -absolute abode , एवं - in this way , समीक्ष्य - with caution ( meditating ) , चात्मानं - self , आत्मन्याधाय - FIX IN ATMA , निष्कले - undivided .

" I am absolute bramhan , I am that absolute abode , by meditating like this , you should fix your self in undivided infinite atma .

That's it . This is the real translation . Please don't put here your distorted translation of sacred bhagavata purana . Distorting bhagavata like sacred scripture is a sin .

 

[Stormcry]

So, the real meaning of that verse is like this .

" A part of Myself becomes the eternal Self in the world of beings and draws (to itself) the (five) senses with the mind as the sixth, abiding in the prakriti. " (BG 15.7)

In this way the conclusion is : the knowledge of Self gets solely confined to the body and because of its smallness, it appears as a part of Myself. When a ripple is formed on the sea as a result of a breeze,
it appears to be a part of the sea. In the same way, though krishna gives consciousness and egoism to the inert body, he appear as the individual Self in this body .

The activity that appears to go round due to the intellect of the embodied Self, is known as the world of the living (jivaloka). Where birth and death are regarded as real, krishna calls that the world of the living or mundane existence. Just as the moon, though different from water, is reflected in the water, so bramhan exists in this world of the living. If a crystal is placed on red powder it appears red, but in reality it is not so. In the same way, krishna's original nature as beginningless and inactive remains unaffected though he acts as jiva .

hari krishna hari

 

[ions]

Dear friend, I do not want to beat on this endlessly. Fundamentally, if I believe I am the same as Krishna, then I cannot surrender to Krishna nor serve Him. Therefore, I cannot begin on bhakti. To me surrendering to the idea, "I am all that there is", prevents me from relinquishing my ego, but on contrary may inflate it. IMHO, 'Tat tvam asi' is not something we surrender to, but something we meditate on, and perhaps, once we have perfected this meditation we ultimately realize and surrender our ego or I-ness. But to whom?

All your points support the idea of oneness, which I agree with. But it does not detract from the possibility of simultaneous and inconceivable difference (Achintya bhedhabedha). See Madhuri's response, do not confuse Dvaita with Achintya bhedhabedha.

Oh really ? Is this your translation ? Do you know sanskrit ? So you know sanskrit grammar and sanskrit words ?

That was not a translation. I was simply saying that even given your translation, it simply means we are one with Brahman, but does eliminate the possibility of simultaneous difference.

Here inverted tree is considered as image of true tree (bramhan) fallen in water (maya.)

Yes, I agree. I would take it a step further. A reflected tree in water implies a true tree exists. This tree is variegated, not in a maya/dual sense, but in the sense there can be activity and individuality, while being united on the Brahman platform.

Look: I do not know anything. I would prefer to follow the path of acharyas who have realized the truth and not invent my own interpretations. The path of oneness is an analytical/meditative path, which requires stringent prerequisites. Path of bhakti is my path, and it requires me to view myself not as God, but rather a servant of God.

 

[Stormcry]

None of these quotes contradict Achintya bhedhabedha Tattva, which is not a Dvaita philosophy.

Oh really ?

It is very clear that atma is bramhan. Yet you are saying that this verse doesn't contradict with achintya bhedabheda? I said jiva as unreal, yet you are saying it doesn't contradict ? Krishna said that jiva merges in him, yet you are saying it doesn't contradict ? krishna said atma is complete bramhan, yet you are saying it doesn't contradict ? Isn't this funny?
The whole BP is contradictory to Achintyabhedabheda. This gaudiya philosophy was newly created and it is found only in charitamruta.

" You are that bramhan ", is the core teaching of advaita. Shukadeva didn't say that you are qualitatively same and quantitatively different.

Krishna described jiva becomes bramhan and atma is infinite. While Iskcon philosophy says that atma is a point. Then Where is the support of atma as part according quantity aspect of that philosophy ? In this way, ktishna clearely denies the achintya philosophy.

 

[Stormcry]

Dear madhuri,

I want to tell you the fact that prabhupada taught wrong philosophy. He taught charitamrita through Bhagavata. In reality, he didn't teach the true philosophy of BP.

I know achintya philosophy is not dvaita philosophy. But know that it had been arised from dvaita of madhavacharya. I too like to consider achintya as a part of dvaita. The achintya is rival of advaita. So it is rival of BP.

Can you take some effort to read this ?

{ When a pot is broken, the portion of sky within the pot remains as the entire sky, just as before.But because of disappearance of portion of sky within pot one thinks that it has been connected to entire sky -but in reality, it was already connected to entire sky, In the same way, when the gross and subtle bodies die, it is just like jiva has become bramhan.(In reality jiva was already bramhan .His abramhata is just a false appearance.) ( BP 12.5.5)

This is the most popular example used by advaitians to show how jiva is bramhan.

Understood ,madhuri ji ?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hindus perhaps have a few hundred sects. If we start blaming each other, we would not have time for anything else. "Vipra bahudha vadanti".

 

[Madhuri]

Dear madhuri,

I want to tell you the fact that prabhupada taught wrong philosophy. He taught charitamrita through Bhagavata. In reality, he didn't teach the true philosophy of BP.

I know achintya philosophy is not dvaita philosophy. But know that it had been arised from dvaita of madhavacharya. I too like to consider achintya as a part of dvaita. The achintya is rival of advaita. So it is rival of BP.

Can you take some effort to read this ?

{ When a pot is broken, the portion of sky within the pot remains as the entire sky, just as before.But because of disappearance of portion of sky within pot one thinks that it has been connected to entire sky -but in reality, it was already connected to entire sky, In the same way, when the gross and subtle bodies die, it is just like jiva has become bramhan.(In reality jiva was already bramhan .His abramhata is just a false appearance.) ( BP 12.5.5)

This is the most popular example used by advaitians to show how jiva is bramhan.

Understood ,madhuri ji ?

Honestly I don't think that this quote contradicts Acintya Bhedhabheda Tattva either.

Do any followers of Acintya think this verse contradicts the philosophy?

Acintya also posits that the individual atma is Brahman (same quality = Brahman) but quantity is different (atma is not the whole of Brahman but only a tiny part of it).

Acintya is a panentheistic philosophy which means that all things are part of God and while you can say that God is all things, you cannot say that all things are God because each aspects of God is not equal to the whole of God. If you understand this idea, you will see that the quotes you have provided do not contradict it.

I think that Vishishtadvaita is a similar philosophy, although I am not very familiar with it.

 

[Stormcry]

Honestly I don't think that this quote contradicts Acintya Bhedhabheda Tattva either.

Do any followers of Acintya think this verse contradicts the philosophy?

Acintya also posits that the individual atma is Brahman (same quality = Brahman) but quantity is different (atma is not the whole of Brahman but only a tiny part of it).

Acintya is a panentheistic philosophy which means that all things are part of God and while you can say that God is all things, you cannot say that all things are God because each aspects of God is not equal to the whole of God. If you understand this idea, you will see that the quotes you have provided do not contradict it.

I think that Vishishtadvaita is a similar philosophy, although I am not very familiar with it.

Bhagavata purana says that atma is infinite , then how soul can be a tiny part of bramhan ?

Bhagavata purana says that soul gets free from idividuality and merges and becomes one with bramhan . While according to achintya , jiva doesn't get merged in bramhan and it gets individuality .

Bhagavata says that jiva under maya too is bramhan , while achintya doesn't accept this .

There are many such things which contradicts with achintya philosophy .



Believe or not , Bhagavata posits advaita bhakti only.

Hari Hari

 

[Stormcry]

Pranam madhuri ,

It seems that you haven't understood "achintya" philosophy properly.

It states that jiva is not bramhan . It is qualitatively similar with the bramhan . It is not same as bramhan . And it is quantitatively different from bramhan ie , it is a part of bramhan .

I didn't find any verse in entire bhagavata which states this achintya philosophy .

And note that soul is complete bramhan like krishna . I mean they both are one . The unity between bramhan and soul is non-dual unity .

Krishna says : “ jivo jivavinirmukto…..purno na bahirnantaratchharet “ ( BP 11.25.35)

Meaning: Such a realised person is complete Brahman as I am and he does not move either within himself or outside.

No any achintya follower accepts the atma as complete bramhan . Under the effect of maya , they say that atma is a part . i THINK ,THEY SHOULD BE CALLED AS " MAYAVADI "

In this way , the whole bhagavata purana contradicts with achintya philosophy . The true philosophy of bhagavata purana , I mean , of every scripture is ADVAITA .

"You are that bramhan " is the conclusion of bhagavata purana . " You are part of bramhan " , is not the philosophy of BP.

 

[Stormcry]

Dear Mdhuri , See this another verse spoken by parabramhan krishna himself .

" ज्ञानविज्ञान संयुक्तः आत्मभुतः शरीरनाम आत्मानुभवतुष्टमा नान्तारायै..... ( BP 11.7.10)

" When you will thus be enriched by analytical knowledge as well as self knowledge and find yourself as the Atman of all the beings who are having body and when you will be thus pleased with the experience of the all-pervading atma, you will not be thwarted by any hindrances. "

Just see what I have highlighted .

Still you will say it doesn't contradict with achintya philosophy ? If you say that , then it would be the height of stupidity and it will reflect your level of intelligence .

Hari govinda hari hari

 

[Stormcry]

Now see , how krishna says that only advaitians and advaitian vaishnawas attain him . Only advaitians and advaitian vaishnawas know what is bhakti and the knowledge of atma-bramhan .

Iskconites , gaudiyas or dvaita followers can not attain bramhan ever . :sorry1:

Krishna says :

" There is multiplicity of atma so long as there is inequality among the three Gunas and while this multiplicity of atma doesn't get vanished from the mind , the Jeeva remains in bondage forever . " :sad: [ bhagavata purana 11.10.32 ]

Hari Hari

 

[Urban Dharmic Warrior]

If you say that , then it would be the height of stupidity and it will reflect your level of intelligence .

I will say it, because you are clearly not seeing it yourself - that you are presenting as quite arrogant to the point of verbal aggression in this thread.

If all is Brahman, and Brahman alone is real, and Atman is Brahman, there is no difference..... then clearly Brahman is entertaining itself with the misunderstandings in this thread ... and that is just as it is.

.....Isn't that the essence of Advaita?

...... and isn't it so that Brahman cannot be conceived in words ..... so all debates on descriptions and comparisons and arguments on Brahman are dualistic. Just semantics.

 

[Stormcry]

I will say it, because you are clearly not seeing it yourself - that you are presenting as quite arrogant to the point of verbal aggression in this thread.

If all is Brahman, and Brahman alone is real, and Atman is Brahman, there is no difference..... then clearly Brahman is entertaining itself with the misunderstandings in this thread ... and that is just as it is.

.....Isn't that the essence of Advaita?

...... and isn't it so that Brahman cannot be conceived in words ..... so all debates on descriptions and comparisons and arguments on Brahman are dualistic. Just semantics.

Yes , Bramhan can not be described in words . However who said bramhan is describable ? Bramhan itself is beyond words , then how can words describe it ? Isn't it ?

However know that what upanishadas and purana say . " Knowledge is essential for moksha .Without knowledge , there is no moksha . " So , basically what I was discussing here is the knowledge about bramhan , not the description of bramhan .

What do you mean ? The statement " jiva is bramhan " from bhagavata purana is dualistic ? Which buddist acharya told you this ?

And BTW , I am not here discussing my personal views . I am just telling what bhagavata says .

Hari govinda hari

 

[ions]

Do any followers of Acintya think this verse contradicts the philosophy?

I do not think it contradicts the philosophy either. The pot cannot cover the entire sky, only a fragmental part of it. That is the difference between individual being and God. In quality they are the same, but not in quantity. The individual being is not the creator or dominator of all that there is.

Knowledge is essential for moksha .Without knowledge , there is no moksha . " So , basically what I was discussing here is the knowledge about bramhan , not the description of bramhan .

Knowledge is to know via experience in union. Like to know the taste of honey by tasting it, not by speculative discussion about it. That is not knowledge. It can be arrived by jgyana-yoga, an analytical/meditative path, but not by scholarly analysis of text alone. Understanding the message only serves the purpose of knowing the path. By actually walking the path we obtain to knowledge of self and God.

I am not here discussing my personal views . I am just telling what bhagavata says .

Knowers of the truth, realized-saints have very scholarly commented on the Brahma Sutra, Gita and Upanishads---after realizing the truth themselves. They have assimilated the conclusions in a consistent manner. In the last few thousand years, these individual have been: Nimbarkacharya, Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya, Kripaluji. It behoves to understand their message completely, before attempting your own interpretation. Your dubious translations, and even more dubious interpretations, without studying all of the vedic literature, and without actual self-realization (as far as I can tell), gives you very little credibility to assert your personal views as the truths of what Bhagavata Purana says.