Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
Do you find it odd that now I am defending you Bhaktas.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How many 'kinds' of Hinduism are there?
- Thread starter SageTree
- Start date
Do you find it odd that now I am defending you Bhaktas.
bhaktajan
Active Member
That makes you a Kshatriya.
So now, I must humble myself, to allow you to use me as a punching bag sparring partner ---I get no relief!!!
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
Saguna brahman mixed with maya, means the superimposition of our errornous perception, concepts and ideas onto the formless Brahman. There is one point advaita Vedanta is consistent on: you cannot describe Nirguna Brahman. Any description is Saguna Brahman.
All Saguna Brahmans are then just human imaginings. Whether this is Vishnu, Allah, Siva, Jesus or Yaweh.
I realise that Saguna is a man-made invention so I do not work with it. I instead work with the self by meditating and allows myself to enter into being. I see no need to work with visualizations, knowing that these visualizations are nothing more than human imagination - vikalpa vritti.
bhaktajan
Active Member
1] The original & eternally Only reason & purpose for a Temple = the Murti's Residence.
A House of God has always been since time-immemorial is a Home where God is offerred residence by conscious living beings ---this was headed by the elder wise Brahmana Classes.
Do we elect to opine that Jungle Natives first build a "Temple to God"/"House of Worship" because logically it follows according to the so-called 'Laws of Evolution' to conclude that before going out to 'Hunt & Gather' for sustanence; or even more: when farm crops fail, due to nature's indifference, it follows that an aboriginal indigenous native would surmise, "We must conjure a God to appease & rectify our short-comings"???
2] "Purana" as in the "Maha-Bharata" is the national History of ancient India.
Of cource you must be aware that to say otherwise is to invite suspicions of Anti-Hindu-propagandism; OTOH, such is the shades of scholastic investigations.
"Purana" = History.
These compilations are the bonefide Titles of History writ large via pedigrees/paramparas ---There are explicit time-lines enumerated in the Puranas ---that is why the word, "Purana" = History.
Because the sanskrit word, "Purana" is used, it is a direct denial of the common "Myth" status of Greek & Roman legend.
[It is ironic for me to admit, that South-East Asia, by six-degrees of culturally seperation, are they themselves are distant aficinados of Mythical Legends of Indian Origin].
3] Mythology of Western History = legend, nay, "Myth" literally; thus "Lore".
Lore | Define Lore at Dictionary.com
[Is it Ironic to say the word, 'literally' is derived from the word, 'Literature']
It has been my understanding is Greek & Roman "Myths" were never exposed to be
actual "Historical Records".
It has been my understanding is Greek & Roman "Myths" were entertainment via Stage-Plays similar to later "Morality Tales".
4] The time-line cited above is far far too short.
The time lines given/bestowed in its pages are traced back Kalpas upon Kalpas back to Brahma's first Breath.
The Devas are persons. The Devas are Brahma's descendents & they are the ipso-facto installed administartors here within this material-cosmic machine called the 'Universe'.
If you don't know this, then do as Alexander the Great surely was advised, "Do you job, and leave the Vedas to us".
BTW, How Many Devas are there? There is one for each operation and seperate element of ever created thing that could ever be inventoried.
IOW, there is a Deva behind the workings of every delegated task of Universal management; ie: Sun God (Surya); Water God (Varuna); Air God (Vayu) etc etc ---they are all advanced embodied beings with the greatest provinance of magnificently Good/Examplary par-excellance Karmic Letter of Reference or celestrial "curriculum vitae" ---it takes the 'right-stuff' to be born amongst celetrial arstocracy.
To aspire for karma-kanda based rewards is difficult now that we are entering Kali-yuga in-force.
5] All the Vedas were compiled and written by a singular person: Vyasadeva.
Vyasadeva put the Vedas into written form 3,000 BCE for the benefit of the future masses entering the age of kali-yuga.
Vyasadeva is not identified as a pudit that composed his own Scriptures.
Vyasadeva, did as was custom for great Hindu sages, he did compose his own summary on the Vedas known as the "Vedanta-sutra" [aka, brahma-sutras] under the instructions of his own Guru, Narada [Narada is Brahma's Son; and Brother of Shiva].
After this "Vedanta-sutra" was written, Vyasadeva wrote the perfect Vedanta commentary, Srimad Bhagavatam.
Where the Vedanta-sutra simply hints at what is Brahman, the Absolute Truth is explained in detail in the Srimad-Bhagavatam:
"The Absoulte Truth is that from whom everything emanates"
"janmady asya yatah" ("The Supreme Brahman, the Absolute Truth, is He from whom everything emanates.")
Last edited:
Namaste
Man is not independent from Saguna or Nirguna Brahman. Man cannot make or think anything which does not already exist in one form or another.
Duality holds that God and his creation are not linked, they are dual. This is the intial stance of the Abrahamic scriptures. My observation is that Creator and creation are not dual in truth, there is no duality between Creator and creation (aside from what our senes may report). This is why one can state that there is no-creation (ajati-vada) because neither came before the other, they are not dual. The "illusion" is to take that which changes (saguna) to be not Brahman (Abraham).[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT]
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
Advaita Vedanta does not see Saguna Brahman as false but as incomplete. Still realization of Saguna Brahman is a high state of realization in Advaita Vedanta.
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
Ishvara is a common term in Advaita. I know that Sankara used it.
Ishvara is seen as the Highest symbol of Brahman in maya. He is the inter-controller of the cosmos. We see Ishvara as having personal qualities do to maya. To aspire to realize your Ishtadavata is seen as a high goal in maya. Still ishvara is associated with maya. Brahman transcends maya.
The Highest goal of Advaita is to be a jivamukti free while in the body. In a way you are correct that The ideal is to merge into to Brahman after you die. To be honest I don't give what happens after death much thought.
The english term God is very hard to define. The jiva is not Ishvara they are two different things.
Bhakti is seen as a good thing in Advaita Vedanta. By loving Ishvara the devotee learns self control and becomes less aware of his ego and more aware of the absolute. It is seen as a very short step from realization of the personal God to knowledge of the Impersonal Truth.
Ramakrishna use to say Bhaktas what to taste the sugar and Jnani's want to become the sugar. Both are good as far as I am concerned. You say the highest goal in life is to be lost in love. That sounds good to me.
Last edited:
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
Panchadasi is a thorough and useful text about the absolute reality in Advaita (Nondual) Vedanta philosophy and the practices of contemplation and meditation. It was written by Swami Vidyaranya in the fourteenth century CE. The text has fifteen chapters, which is the source of its name Panchadasi, literally referring to the fifteen chapters. Reality has been described as "Sat, Chit, and Ananda" or "Existence, Consciousness, and Bliss." The fifteen chapters are presented in three sections, with each referring to Sat, Chit, or Ananda.
Panchadasi
Chapter 4: Dvaita Viveka Discrimination of Duality
Verses 1
Īśvareṇ-āpi jīvena sṛṣṭaṁ dvaitaṁ vivicyate, viveke sati jīvena heyo bandhaḥ sphuṭī-bhavet . There seems to be a distinction between mans creation and Gods creation. We must now study what this distinction is. How does mans creation differ from Gods creation? If this distinction can become clear to our consciousness, we may perhaps be able to free ourselves from the bondage of life.
http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/panchadasi/pan_17a.html
This shows word Ishvara is used in Advaita texts. Sankara also uses the word Ishvara in this comments on the Katha Upanishad, Gita and many other places.
bhaktajan
Active Member
If "Ishvara" is used by Shankaracarya to refer to God ---then how could the Advaita of Shankaracarya be non-theist?
Shankaracarya's doctrin is non-theist. Correct?
I can see that a jiva-atma may assert free-will to assume they are 'a limited' Ishvara.
But I cannot see how Shankaracarya would directly address God as the 'Ishvara' and then later negate God's existence.
I presume that Shankaracarya would not acknowledge Ishvara as an actual being, namely God All-mighty as an actual existing Entity commonly known in his own hindu background.
I presume that Shankaracarya would denounced the very notion of the existance of all Devata and of the Supreme Godhead as imaginary [so as to appease the Buddhist aristocracy of India's intelligencia of the time].
Shankaracarya's doctrin is non-theist. Correct?
I can see that a jiva-atma may assert free-will to assume they are 'a limited' Ishvara.
But I cannot see how Shankaracarya would directly address God as the 'Ishvara' and then later negate God's existence.
I presume that Shankaracarya would not acknowledge Ishvara as an actual being, namely God All-mighty as an actual existing Entity commonly known in his own hindu background.
I presume that Shankaracarya would denounced the very notion of the existance of all Devata and of the Supreme Godhead as imaginary [so as to appease the Buddhist aristocracy of India's intelligencia of the time].
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
No, he organized the denominations in Hinduism. This consists of the worship of five deities: Shiva, Vishnu, Devi, Surya and Ganesha. Depending on the tradition followed by Smarta households, one of these deities is kept in the center and the other four surround it. Worship is offered to all the deities by the householder followers of Sankara. They pick the form of God they like best.
They call this the Panchadevata.
He does not negate God's existence. Ishvara is Brahaman we just place personality on it do to maya. Sankara never said that Ishvara is not true. He never said Jiva is Ishvara they are two different things.
bhaktajan
Active Member
I do appreciate the nature of quickly posting writtings ---that are prone to mis-statements, ie:
Who is the "we"?
How can Brahman be a Ishvara?
Can Brahman be a Monarch too?
You are saying the CEO of an electric company is also known as the Platonium-Reactor Core.
You are saying the Master Chef of a resturant is also known as the plates, glasses, silverware and the dishwasher too.
Ishvara is not only the name of the Chief Boss ---it's the name of the door mat too?
Are you aware that Sankara said:
Adi Shankaracharya’s Bhaja Govindam:
1 Seek Govinda, Seek Govinda,
Seek Govinda, O Fool!
When the appointed times comes (death),
grammar rules surely will not save you.
2 O Fool! Give up the thirst to possess wealth.
Create in your mind, devoid of passions,
thoughts of the Reality.
With whatever you get, entertain your mind, be content.
etc:
English Translation of Bhaja Govindam by Adi Shankara
Govinda is none-other than Bhagavan Shr Krishna.
As Bhaktivedanta explained:
Last edited:
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
All Jiva's
Brahman is seen as Ishvara do to upadhi (limitations imposed on Brahman through the collective ignorance of maya)
Yes but a monarch cannot be Ishvara. Jiva and Ishvara come from the same substance Brahman. Just like you can make a cat and a Man out of clay. They are different forms but both made out of clay.
A few years ago I chanted this poem every day. Sankara created many great poems about Krishna, Mother, and Siva.
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
I do not practice Advaita I am a Shakta. Still I love Adi Sankara. I am just attempting to explain his philosophy. Shakti Philosophy and Advaita Vedanta differ is some ways, but they are much alike. The views of the Vaishnava that Brahman comes from the Lord Vishnu can also be argued from the scriptures. There are however some Vaishnava pundits who make a straw man out of Advaita Vedanta. If someone rejects non-dualism it should be due to its real philosophy. Not funny ideas projected on it.
Last edited:
bhaktajan
Active Member
A], b] & c] I have never heard this before.
Furthermore:
d], e] & f] I have never heard this before.
Advaita is ascribed to Shakaracarya's coomentary on Veda-Vyasa's "Vedanta-Sutra".
As per my knowledge, the Ultimate conclusion of the school of Hindu Philosophy known as Advaita, is diametrically opposite of Vaishnav [to which I belong].
Mind you, the basics are the same and NOT neccessarily contraditory nor cross-negating of each-other ---just the ultimate conclusion and purposes are diametrically opposite of eachother.
But interstingly the "diametrically opposite ultimate conclusion and purpose" exist side-by-side even after the opposing states of moksha are attained.
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
Very true
The three main source texts for all schools of Vedānta are the Prasthanatrayi. It consists of the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Sutras. This is also a tradition in Hinduism that seems to be started by Sankara.
kaisersose
Active Member
I believe Shankara was smart enough to realize that pure Vedanta as other doctrines of its time would never last for long. All other doctrines of that nature had failed to take off in a big way. So he bought in elements of Bhakti into his doctrine, created the trayi concept to include the Gita. wrote poetry on Shiva, etc., established Panchayatana Pooja, etc.
And his plan worked fine. Most people who follow Advaita focus almost entirely on these Bhakti based portions of the doctrine and hardly a handful have interest in the more esoteric parts. It is about knowing your audience.
First of all "Prasthan Trayi" is not Adi Shankara's creation. Anyone who writes ingenious commentaries on the Trayi (Upanishads, Brahm Sutra, BG) is given a label of Acharya. Adi Shankara wrote commentaries on all three and hence is called Acharya just like Ramanujacharya, Madhavacharya.
May be what you comment about Adi Shankara and Bhakti is your own need to create a logic to counter an object which does not suit you.
Regards,