Questions For Advaita or Vishishtadvaita Vedanta

[punkdbass]

And what about 'Maryādā Purushottama (the most proper) Rāma'? 'Rāma' reverberates in a Hindu heart equally strongly.

Oh of course; what I said was not meant to apply only to Krishna alone.. it is just that of all the Hindu deities, Krishna is really the only one I have any "experience" with.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. it is just that of all the Hindu deities, Krishna is really the only one I have any "experience" with.

Well, I think just like Sankara's 'advaita' than the other Hindu philosophies.

 

[Ravi500]

Could a Hindu focus on only Brahman and put little to no focus on the triumvirate or even Krishna?

Brahman is the formless absolute . Indeed a Hindu can focus only on Brahman , without focussing on the other deities, though they can be seen as Saguna Brahman, i.e Brahman with form.

This is mainly done through meditation and jnana yoga.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Adi shankara was dashnami, and smarta.
From his writings its obvious he uses the deities Shiva, Vishnu and Devi especially to represent Brahman.

The only way to find out is to actually read his books.

 

[Ravi500]

Hello, all.

About Advaita or Vishishtadvaita Vedanta:

I just happened to be reading internet pages today to look more into Hinduism and fell stuck comprehending it all. Hope someone here can enlighten me on these questions.

The concept of ParaBrahman: Correct me if I'm wrong but; Brahman is the All, the Absolute, right? If so, what could be beyond Brahman?

And: Is Anatman synonymous with subjective reality (the world as I, you, or they see it compared to the world as it is)? Or maybe with materialistic reality, a world focused on materialistic pleasures and achievements, indulging in the physical? Or something else?

What is the significance of any other God (or entity in general) beyond Brahman if all are Brahman?

I would say that the basic essence of the advaita and vishistadvaita philosophies is unselfishness . And this fact can be traced back to two main life changing events of the founders of these two philosophies themselves i.e Shankaracharya and Ramanuja.


Shankaracharya ,who was an orthodox brahmin, was walking along a path, when he saw a hunter bloodstained, with a bleeding deer on his shoulders, coming along the same path, surrounded by dogs trying to lick the blood of the dead deer which was dripping down.

Shankaracharya, immediately yelled at the hunter to move away, upon which the hunter replied. What is it that should move, the one consciousness that pervades you and me, or this body , made up of the gunas and elements, and which is perishable!!

Hearing this wisdom coming from the hunter, Shankaracharya prostrated before the hunter, who changed into Lord Shiva . Lord Shiva blessed him and vanished.

I would say Shankaracharya probably understood intuitively then what Krishna had stated in the Gita ,"The humble sages, by virtue of true knowledge, see with equal vision a learned and gentle brāhmana, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater (outcaste) ".



Regarding Ramanuja, the founder of the vishistadvaita philosophy, Ramanuja too exemplified this trait of seeing the Lord in all , and serving all.

Ramanuja's Guru, pleased with him, gave him his mantra, stating that its chanting will lead him to the path of salvation . The guru at the same time warned him not to give the mantra to anyone else, saying that would lead him to hell, not salvation.

Ramanuja however, went up to the top of the temple,calling all people towards him, and gave the mantra to everyone by reciting it loudly, exhorting them to chant it to gain salvation.

The Guru, furious, demanded an explanation , to which Ramanuja stated that "I will gladly suffer the tortures of hell myself if millions of people could get salvation by hearing the Mantra through me".

This deeply pleased Ramanuja's Guru, who embraced Ramanuja and blessed him.



One can find that , in both the cases of Shankaracharya and Ramanuja, the underlying message is that of empathetic inter-connectedness with all, and loving service to all .

Perhaps from these stories, one can understand intuitively what the philosophies of advaita and vishistadvaita are really trying to convey and aiming at.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Adi shankara was dashnami, and smarta. From his writings its obvious he uses the deities Shiva, Vishnu and Devi especially to represent Brahman. The only way to find out is to actually read his books.

Don't forget Ganesha, Surya, and Skanda. See Shanmata - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Shanmata is the system of worship, believed by the Smarta tradition to have been founded by Adi Shankara, the 8th century CE Hindu philosopher. It centers around the worship of the six main deities of Hinduism, viz, Shiva, Vishnu, Shakti, Ganesha, Surya and Skanda."

 

[Gopesh]

If shiva and brahmA have their origin in viShNu, does that not imply that viShNu is the source of those two, hence making him different from them in a sense? I never used the term lesser deities to refer to the anyadevatAH, I used the term "other deities" (in fact, as I pointed out, it was Adisha~Nkara who talked about the "lesser fruits of worshipping other deities" leading punkdbass to come to the conclusion that sha~Nkara views vinAyaka, mAtR^ika-s, etc. as lesser deities). I don't consider shiva to be lesser than viShNu; in fact, I consider pa~nchamukhI sadAshiva to be an aMsha of shrIviShNu's sa~NkarShaNa vyUha and I chant an anuvAkam of the shrI rudram daily. Perhaps rather than getting emotional over the fact that I am stating the siddhAnta of my sampradAya, you could actually argue against the points I have made. I have given a verse from the mahopaniShad (which is shruti) that established the "supremacy" of shrIman nArAyaNa ("eko ha vai nArAyaNa AsInna brahmA neshAno nApo nAgnIShomau neme dyAvApR^ithivI"), whereas your arguments have been strange neo-Hindu conclusions which have no basis in the shAstra-s such as thinking that worshipping a shower (seriously?) is the same as worshipping shrIkR^iShNa. Oh geez, thanks! We don't need Muslims or Christians to call us idiotic idol worshippers when we have people like you around.

Easy on the hyperbole, sheesh. I don't want someone to think that Hindus are crazy or something.

"Jinki rahi bhavana jaisi, prabhu murat dekhi tin taisi". So said Shri Goswami Tulasidas. By mocking my theory that it is possible to attain God through worshipping a shower, you are in fact insinuating God is not all-powerful. Are you denying God's capacity to present Himself in a shower? Shri Krishna is all-powerful. Refresh your memory, think of what Arjun saw when Shri Krishna presented himself in his true form; too much to fathom, the entire universe many times over. Why do you care what Muslims and Christians think? You can't insult the ininsultable. If they were to say God is not all-powerful, does that mean God is not all-powerful? "I don't want someone to think that Hindus are crazy or something", it seems like someone is more interested in the religion than they are in God.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

"Jinki rahi bhavana jaisi, prabhu murat dekhi tin taisi". So said Shri Goswami Tulasidas. By mocking my theory that it is possible to attain God through worshipping a shower, you are in fact insinuating God is not all-powerful. Are you denying God's capacity to present Himself in a shower? Shri Krishna is all-powerful. Refresh your memory, think of what Arjun saw when Shri Krishna presented himself in his true form; too much to fathom, the entire universe many times over. Why do you care what Muslims and Christians think? You can't insult the ininsultable. If they were to say God is not all-powerful, does that mean God is not all-powerful? "I don't want someone to think that Hindus are crazy or something", it seems like someone is more interested in the religion than they are in God.

You don't seem to comprehend the difference between an achit shakti of bhagavAn and a form with which to worship bhagavAn; there's a reason why prANapratiShThA/mUrtisthApanA is done according to texts like the pA~ncharAtra Agama-s. You are welcome to worship a shower, or even a turd, thinking that it may grant you jIvanmukti (perhaps it may, I don't know), but this nonsense logic (ultimately stemming from aj~nAna) isn't going to work on me. The fact that you're equating worshippong a shower with worshipping bhagavAn is insulting to me just as much as equating worshipping a shivali~Ngam with worshipping a penis (as Indologists do) is insulting. Please, take your neo-whatever elsewhere and don't deliberately try to pick fights with people who do not agree with you. Also, it's funny that you of all people are asking me "Why do you care what Muslims and Christians think?" when following your logic, anti-Hindu Islamist and Xian trolls are like little nArAyaNa-s and who wouldn't care what bhagavAn thinks, right? Of course, like all neo-advaitI-s, you would only misuse ahaM brahmAsmi wherein it helps you prove a point; arguing with someone like that is akin to... this:
[youtube]4KXidr0z1RY[/youtube]

 

[Aupmanyav]

I agree with Jaskaran. It is important to have the idols consecreated (Prānapratishth&#257. But it is said Valmiki obtained enlightenment by chanting 'Marā, Marā' instead of 'Rāma, Rāma'.

 

[Gopesh]

You don't seem to comprehend the difference between an achit shakti of bhagavAn and a form with which to worship bhagavAn; there's a reason why prANapratiShThA/mUrtisthApanA is done according to texts like the pA~ncharAtra Agama-s. You are welcome to worship a shower, or even a turd, thinking that it may grant you jIvanmukti (perhaps it may, I don't know), but this nonsense logic (ultimately stemming from aj~nAna) isn't going to work on me. The fact that you're equating worshippong a shower with worshipping bhagavAn is insulting to me just as much as equating worshipping a shivali~Ngam with worshipping a penis (as Indologists do) is insulting. Please, take your neo-whatever elsewhere and don't deliberately try to pick fights with people who do not agree with you. Also, it's funny that you of all people are asking me "Why do you care what Muslims and Christians think?" when following your logic, anti-Hindu Islamist and Xian trolls are like little nArAyaNa-s and who wouldn't care what bhagavAn thinks, right? Of course, like all neo-advaitI-s, you would only misuse ahaM brahmAsmi wherein it helps you prove a point; arguing with someone like that is akin to... this:
[youtube]4KXidr0z1RY[/youtube]

Haha! It insults you! Therein lies your problem. You feel insulted, but Bhagwan cannot be insulted, so why should you care what anyone says? By replying in the manner you have, you are - on a smaller level - 'picking fights' (as you have accused me of doing), but, - on a larger level - you are suggesting God is limited to one form or symbol. If someone worshipped a penis thinking it to be God, are you suggesting God would reject those prayers? If God rejected those prayers, God would not be God as God would not have the qualities - omnibenevolent, omnipresent yadda yadda - that have been attributed to God. I am not saying that the best way to get to God is by worshipping a shower, or a penis, or a turd but, you should accept that God has the capacity to accept prayers from those forms. I feel, by the nature of some of your sentences, that you are questioning my - for want of a better phrase, Hinduness. To clarify, I am a Brahmin student that was born and is living in London, who has had a janeu sanskar performed, eats to a strict diet - obviously no meat, but also onion and garlic amongst other tamsik foods, - and attends pujas and goes to mandirs regularly. My scriptural knowledge right now is limited due to the fact I live in London and I cannot claim to have done that duty that is required of every Brahmin. Though I am proud to be Hindu, I do not care if I am called whatever else I may be because the truth lies in the belief in God, something that is not restricted to Hinduism. Once you get out of this "Hinduism is the only way to God" mindset, God's infiniteness will be clearer.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Neti neti
Every illusion in existence is an idol of brahman,
but no idol is the complete Brahman.

But something cant both be and not be
No point getting attached to form or even formlessness.

Neti neti some speak of dualism, some of non dualism, neither knows truth.
Truth is wordless, spoken Truth is your philisophical oppinion.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

praNAm,

Haha! It insults you! Therein lies your problem. You feel insulted, but Bhagwan cannot be insulted, so why should you care what anyone says? By replying in the manner you have, you are - on a smaller level - 'picking fights' (as you have accused me of doing), but, - on a larger level - you are suggesting God is limited to one form or symbol.

Really, I'm the one engaging in "picking fights?" Rather, you were the one who seemed to bait me to respond by asking me ridiculously stu*** (for the lack of a better word) questions like "Do you think Lord Vishnu is happy when you say the Trimurti doesn't exist?" or dismissing vaiShNava beliefs out of question, probably because you view them as more "sectarian" than your somewhat neo-Hindu views...

If someone worshipped a penis thinking it to be God, are you suggesting God would reject those prayers? If God rejected those prayers, God would not be God as God would not have the qualities - omnibenevolent, omnipresent yadda yadda - that have been attributed to God.

To the contrary, if he is omnipotent, then he has the ability to reject and accept as he pleases. Forcing rejection or acceptation is limiting.

I am not saying that the best way to get to God is by worshipping a shower, or a penis, or a turd but, you should accept that God has the capacity to accept prayers from those forms.

I never said that he does not have the capacity to accept prayers in that "form," the question is if he does or not. To that, if you read the response, I responded with "perhaps it may [lead you to jIvanmukti], I don't know." One can not measure the lIlA of bhagavAn, even shishupAla and rAvaNa were granted liberation, and that was not a result of the pApakarma-s, but of bhagavAn's kRpa. Regardless, you're merely trying to restate the issue using a strawman. You stated that worshiping a shower with faith is no different than worshiping a mUrti, a view that is not supported by the lakShmitantram, which states that worshiping an achit shakti as bhagavAn does not lead to sAyujya mokSha and is offensive to a vaiShNava. Naturally, when a devotee is offended, bhagavAn is offended as well (as per the bhAgavatam), so your claim that "You feel insulted, but Bhagwan cannot be insulted, so why should you care what anyone says?" is also incorrect. Please provide something which can support your views and maybe then I'll take your views seriously.

I feel, by the nature of some of your sentences, that you are questioning my - for want of a better phrase, Hinduness. To clarify, I am a Brahmin student that was born and is living in London, who has had a janeu sanskar performed, eats to a strict diet - obviously no meat, but also onion and garlic amongst other tamsik foods, - and attends pujas and goes to mandirs regularly. My scriptural knowledge right now is limited due to the fact I live in London and I cannot claim to have done that duty that is required of every Brahmin.

Okay, well that's good for you then. However, this doesn't change the fact that you're engaging in what is clearly neo-Hindu polemics although I never said that you're not a Hindu.

Though I am proud to be Hindu, I do not care if I am called whatever else I may be because the truth lies in the belief in God, something that is not restricted to Hinduism. Once you get out of this "Hinduism is the only way to God" mindset, God's infiniteness will be clearer.

Again, how is this relevant to the conversation? I am not of a "Hinduism is the only way to God" mindset; I am merely saying that cultivating bhakti through worshiping an object which is not meant to be worshiped (such as a shower) has no shAstrik basis and is in fact condemned to an extent; the bhAgavata purANam defines such a devotee who doesn't engage in proper archana as materialistic (archAyAm evaharaye pUjAM yaH shraddhayehate na tadbhakteShuchAnyeShu sa bhaktaH prAkR^itaH smR^itaH).

Truth is wordless, spoken Truth is your philisophical oppinion.

I don't have a problem with nAstika-s in the Hindu forum, but you've made it very clear that you're not here to contribute, so if I may so guide you, perhaps your comments would be better received over on this part of the forum, thanks: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/mysticism-dir/
Monad Bless!

oM namo bhagavate vAsudevAya

 

[Aupmanyav]

I do not care if I am called whatever else I may be because the truth lies in the belief in God, something that is not restricted to Hinduism. Once you get out of this "Hinduism is the only way to God" mindset, God's infiniteness will be clearer.

But the Gods in Christianity and Islam are limited to their followers. For others, they only have eternal torment in hell. What about that? And then what about atheists? Will your God put them in hell only for not believing? Let me try to answer the question that I put. Hindu Gods and Goddesses are concerned only with the action of a person. If the action is righteous and according to the 'dharma', it is OK with them. If it is not according to 'dharma', then the person is punished, and to counter greater irreligiousness (adharma), Bhagwan takes avataras.

"Abhyutthānam adharmasya, tadātmānam srijamyaham."

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Ramakrishna was known by his close students to become overcome with bhakti and would worship his penis as a shivalinga.
He is one of the most recognizable Indian saints in the last 300 years.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Ramakrishna was known by his close students to become overcome with bhakti and would worship his penis as a shivalinga.
He is one of the most recognizable Indian saints in the last 300 years.

Yeah, and vivekAnanda ate beef and encouraged other Hindus to do the same. Just because some neo-Hindu "godman" does something doesn't make it compliant with the shAstra-s. I assume AsArAm bApU-s alleged rape of a 15 yr-old girl was also due to being overcome by "bhakti." After all, he too, is a recognizable Hindu "saint."

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Saints are custodians of religion, why would you not follow "saints"

I never heard of that other Guy, Ramakrishna is recognized by modern Hindus.
What you are saying implies that you disregard the evolution of Hinduism.
some would say that you are describing an ancient vedik religion.

Vedanta is described as the "end of Vedas" as in this is the perceptions of enlightened minds who have reached the end and thus essence of the eternal Vedas.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Saints are custodians of religion, why would you not follow "saints"

I never heard of that other Guy, Ramakrishna is recognized by modern Hindus.
What you are saying implies that you disregard the evolution of Hinduism.
some would say that you are describing an ancient vedik religion.

Vedanta is described as the "end of Vedas" as in this is the perceptions of enlightened minds who have reached the end and thus essence of the eternal Vedas.

praNAm,
Whatever you say...

 

[Contemplative Cat]

You got nothing,your arguments are all based on fundamentalism.
Fundamentalism is the death of religion.

 

[Poeticus]

You got nothing,your arguments are all based on fundamentalism.
Fundamentalism is the death of religion.

That's rubbish and a patent strawman, and you know it.

But, since you have levied this heinous charge upon him, please be kind as to offer proof or posts wherein his "arguments are all based on fundamentalism".

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

But, since you have levied this heinous charge upon him, please be kind as to offer proof or posts wherein his "arguments are all based on fundamentalism".

Didn't you hear? According to CC from NYC, not accepting an individual (rAmakR^iShNa) who worshiped his penis as a shivali~Ngam (and who considered swear words as meaningful as the Vedas and the Puranas and was particularly fond of performing japa by muttering the word “c*nt,” going so far as to say that "the moment I utter the word “****” I behold the cosmic vagina, which is mA brahmamayI, and I sink into it") or his shiShya (vivekAnanda), who ate beef, as a sant/guru/AchArya makes one a fundamentalist terrorist!

Edit: BTW, it's funny how neo-hindus from the vedAnta society complain regarding shrIla prabhupAda rightly criticizing vivekAnanda as a rascal for his comments about football (soccer) being more spiritually important than reading the bhagavadgItA, yet when rAmakR^iShNa calls debendranAth tagore (founder of the brahmo samaj cult) a “s*it guru” and his supporters “f*rt disciples,” they never rush in condemnation of him. I guess it's just easier to accuse traditional hindu-s of being fanatical than to accuse new-age "mysticist" hindu-s of being fanatical.

Edit again: Other quotes by him (from sources like the "shrI shrI rAmakR^iShNa kathAmR^ita") quote him stating that he "used to worship the penis of young boys with flowers and sandalwood paste" and couldn't help himself and that "A naked man used to be with me all the time then. I would touch his penis and cut jokes with him. Then I would laugh and laugh. This naked form came out of my own body – the picture of a paramahamsa – like a child."

This is supposed to be an individual who CC claims is one of the "enlightened minds who have reached the end and thus essence of the eternal Vedas" and a "custodian of my religion." Seriously?