shastra interpretations

[Stormcry]

Advaita only cares about its "Mahavakyas". To Advaitins, these are the most important parts of Upanishads and the rest is to be ignored completely. This is how most Advaitins react to Bheda and Gataka Shrutis.

We are Krishna followers, Advaita vaishnawa. There's a standard and authentic method to interpret veda. That method is merging all dualities of non-upanishadic shruti into upanishadik shruti and ultimately that Upanishadik knowledge in Brahman.

Krishna himself revealed the essence and method to interpret veda.

He says in Bhagavata....

“The Vedas enjoins me alone in the form of Yadnya, me alone in the form of various deities in Devata Kanda nay whatever is super-imposed on me first and then negated in Dnyana kandas is me alone taking this stand on me as the cause of all causes and the highest reality, the Vedas posit (states) diversity as a mere illusion and then denying it, ultimately becomes quiet. This much is the import of all the Vedas. (BG 11.21.43)


Thus dualities should be merged in the knowledge of Advaita oneness, because duality is an ignorance.

Though there are dualistic and nondualistic verses in veda, one shouldn't accept duality as the supreme reality ever. Because as per Krishna's discourse, Veda states duality at first but that itself negates in upanishada part. This means shruti accepts only advaita - knowledge part of veda and considers dualism as an illusion and ultimately merges it Advaita-Oneness.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Hinduism♥Krishna ji

We are Krishna followers, Advaita vaishnawa. There's a standard and authentic method to interpret veda. That method is merging all dualities of non-upanishadic shruti into upanishadik shruti and ultimately that Upanishadik knowledge in Brahman.

Krishna himself revealed the essence and method to interpret veda.

He says in Bhagavata....

“The Vedas enjoins me alone in the form of Yadnya, me alone in the form of various deities in Devata Kanda nay whatever is super-imposed on me first and then negated in Dnyana kandas is me alone taking this stand on me as the cause of all causes and the highest reality, the Vedas posit (states) diversity as a mere illusion and then denying it, ultimately becomes quiet. This much is the import of all the Vedas. (BG 11.21.43)


Thus dualities should be merged in the knowledge of Advaita oneness, because duality is an ignorance.

Though there are dualistic and nondualistic verses in veda, one shouldn't accept duality as the supreme reality ever. Because as per Krishna's discourse, Veda states duality at first but that itself negates in upanishada part. This means shruti accepts only advaita - knowledge part of veda and considers dualism as an illusion and ultimately merges it Advaita-Oneness.

ultimately yes all worships are one but as is said in the gita ''except some do so in the wrong way ''

this however is not to call anothers practice Ignorant , it is just prehaps less direct .

as for translations of the bhagavatam there are many with slight difference of inference , ...

please also consider the previous verse .....

SB 11.21.42: In the entire world no one but Me actually understands the confidential purpose of Vedic knowledge. Thus people do not know what the Vedas are actually prescribing in the ritualistic injunctions of karma-kāṇḍa, or what object is actually being indicated in the formulas of worship found in the upāsanā-kāṇḍa, or that which is elaborately discussed through various hypotheses in the jñāna-kāṇḍa section of the Vedas.
SB 11.21.43: I am the ritualistic sacrifice enjoined by the Vedas, and I am the worshipable Deity. It is I who am presented as various philosophical hypotheses, and it is I alone who am then refuted by philosophical analysis. The transcendental sound vibration thus establishes Me as the essential meaning of all Vedic knowledge. The Vedas, elaborately analyzing all material duality as nothing but My illusory potency, ultimately completely negate this duality and achieve their own satisfaction.
http://www.thekrishnastore.com/Detail.bok?no=795
we should be tollerant of each others understanding should we not ?
as Krsna slowly reveals himself to us all through different methods and practices ?

 

[Stormcry]

namaskaram Hinduism♥Krishna ji



ultimately yes all worships are one but as is said in the gita ''except some do so in the wrong way ''

this however is not to call anothers practice Ignorant , it is just prehaps less direct .

as for translations of the bhagavatam there are many with slight difference of inference , ...

please also consider the previous verse .....

SB 11.21.42: In the entire world no one but Me actually understands the confidential purpose of Vedic knowledge. Thus people do not know what the Vedas are actually prescribing in the ritualistic injunctions of karma-kāṇḍa, or what object is actually being indicated in the formulas of worship found in the upāsanā-kāṇḍa, or that which is elaborately discussed through various hypotheses in the jñāna-kāṇḍa section of the Vedas.
SB 11.21.43: I am the ritualistic sacrifice enjoined by the Vedas, and I am the worshipable Deity. It is I who am presented as various philosophical hypotheses, and it is I alone who am then refuted by philosophical analysis. The transcendental sound vibration thus establishes Me as the essential meaning of all Vedic knowledge. The Vedas, elaborately analyzing all material duality as nothing but My illusory potency, ultimately completely negate this duality and achieve their own satisfaction.
http://www.thekrishnastore.com/Detail.bok?no=795
we should be tollerant of each others understanding should we not ?
as Krsna slowly reveals himself to us all through different methods and practices ?

namaste,


I guess it's source vedabase. So authenticity is null. There's no material duality but just duality

What I wanted to say that shruti doesn't say that both duality and nonduality are true but she says duality is an illusion and oneness is true.

But our friend says shruti accepts duality as reality, which is really highly unacceptable. Even shruti rebuts duality between bhakta and devA.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Advaita only cares about its "Mahavakyas". To Advaitins, these are the most important parts of Upanishads and the rest is to be ignored completely.

No, I do not accept one mahavakya - 'Prajnanam Brahma'. Jnana or Prajna are effects of brain/mind, which is material. So, different strokes.

 

[Stormcry]

No, I do not accept one mahavakya - 'Prajnanam Brahma'. Jnana or Prajna are effects of brain/mind, which is material. So, different strokes.

He's talking about Advaita. You don't accept but advaita accepts.

In Sanskrit, 'pradnyana' means knowledge. The general idea is that means of attaining brahman are not different from Brahman itself. Brain, mind, guna, world all these are brahman. Brahman alone has Adhishthan everywhere so anything can't be different from brahman. If something is different, then that would also become sat like brahma because of its state of beginning less.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Hinduism♥Krishna ji

namaste,


I guess it's source vedabase. So authenticity is null. There's no material duality but just duality

Yes it is veda base ...

excuse me but I must ask , ....

you are Vaisnava , I am Vaisnava , how can any one Vaisnava say to a another ....there is no authenticity in your Sampradaya ????

prehaps you think that I am ignorant and stupid , but may I explain something which may make you look a little more kindly upon Srila Prabhupada , ..out of kindness and devotion to his own Guru he translated and gave purports which are particularly intended to help non sanskrit readers to understand the contents of Bhagavatam , Gita and so many other texts ....were it not for his efforts and devotion I would never have met such an opertunity , the exact translation may not be to your liking but if it has helped others , should any one seek to criticise him ?

What I wanted to say that shruti doesn't say that both duality and nonduality are true but she says duality is an illusion and oneness is true.

But our friend says shruti accepts duality as reality, which is really highly unacceptable. Even shruti rebuts duality between bhakta and devA.

if we are to speak of Duality or non duality what are your thoughts on Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's Achintya Bheda Abheda ?

 

[Chakra]

namaskaram Hinduism♥Krishna ji



Yes it is veda base ...

excuse me but I must ask , ....

you are Vaisnava , I am Vaisnava , how can any one Vaisnava say to a another ....there is no authenticity in your Sampradaya ????

prehaps you think that I am ignorant and stupid , but may I explain something which may make you look a little more kindly upon Srila Prabhupada , ..out of kindness and devotion to his own Guru he translated and gave purports which are particularly intended to help non sanskrit readers to understand the contents of Bhagavatam , Gita and so many other texts ....were it not for his efforts and devotion I would never have met such an opertunity , the exact translation may not be to your liking but if it has helped others , should any one seek to criticise him ?

It is simply because he believes that only his Maharastrian Vaishnavas are the "true Vaishnavas" (actually, Hinduism-loves-Krishna is not even a Vaishnava). All other Vaishnavas like Ramanuja, Madhva, Chaitanya, Jiva, Vallabha are all wrong because they had a "dualistic mind".

if we are to speak of Duality or non duality what are your thoughts on Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's Achintya Bheda Abheda ?

He has actually ranted on many times how Achintya Bheda Abheda is "unvedic" etc. I'm sure he hasn't even read Govinda Bhasya or the books of Jiva Goswami.

 

[Stormcry]

It is simply because he believes that only his Maharastrian Vaishnavas are the "true Vaishnavas" (actually, Hinduism-loves-Krishna is not even a Vaishnava). All other Vaishnavas like Ramanuja, Madhva, Chaitanya, Jiva, Vallabha are all wrong because they had a "dualistic mind".

I've studied bhagavata very deeply and found that the vaishnawism of it is none other than Maharashtra's vaishnawism. Maharashtra is called land of saints. Bhagavata clearly states jiva becomes brahman. The essence of advaita vaishnawism is found in Shukadeva's last teachings 12 canto 5th chapter.

Vaishnawas like ramanuja are also Vaishnawas but their work was to uplift common people who can't comprehend oneness. Seeing oneness is not easy at all, one should have sharp intellect for that.

He has actually ranted on many times how Achintya Bheda Abheda is "unvedic" etc. I'm sure he hasn't even read Govinda Bhasya or the books of Jiva Goswami.

The philosophy which has no direct supports from shastra is considered unvedic. I don't find a single verse in hundreds of scriptures, that states jiva is qualitatively same and quantitatively different. If I am wrong then I challenge you to support and prove your theory as vedic. In order to validate Iskon's vaishnawism, they should give strong supports either from bhagavata or Vishnu purana.

 

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

Could it be possible that Krishna preached Advaita and Dvaita, both? Because they both take one to another level that yet cannot be described in human words, because it doesn't live in the world of ideas but in the "world" of experience?

Despite my bias in favor of one or the other, it seems Krishna was advocating both paths.
And in the Life of Krishna, which of these two did Krishna exemplify by actions in His life (or Leelas)? One or the other or both? What were His very last events before He "left" (the material world)?

 

[ShivaFan]

... also, another question.

What was Lord Dattatreya's position or response (to the OP)?

 

[ShivaFan]

... also another question.

What would Lord Hanuman say? Advauta, dwaita, both?

 

[Chakra]

I am going to ask mods to move this to the Same Faith Debates. If anyone doesn't agree please let me know.

 

[Madhuri]

Actually bhedabheda is a type of Bheda.

You'll never give up this opinion, will you?

There is no duality in Bhehabheda. You still clearly have no idea what this concept is.

 

[Chakra]

I can't say anything for Achintya, but here's what's up with Visishtadvaita.

All Bhedabhedas recognize the ultimate oneness of everything because Brahman is the origin of all. Since he is the origin of all, he is everything. However, we (the jivas) are all attributes of Brahman, inseparable attributes just like power, beauty, and fame. You can never make Vishnu lose his beauty or power, just like you can never separate the Jivas from Brahman.

Anti-dvaita arguments don't work on Bhedabheda, HLK. Dvaita and Visishtadvaita are more different than you think.

 

[Stormcry]

You'll never give up this opinion, will you?

There is no duality in Bhehabheda. You still clearly have no idea what this concept is.

PranAm,


There's duality in bhedabheda. Jiva is always separate from Brahman. This is duality, just there's little modifications , that it's qualitatively same. However qualitative similarity is just meaningless because jiva has to remain separate. Even if jiva had different qualities, he'd have enjoyed bliss with vishnu....

 

[Madhuri]

PranAm,


There's duality in bhedabheda. Jiva is always separate from Brahman.

Except that it doesn't teach separation of Jiva and the Supreme. Hence why Bhedabheda says we are part and parcel of God.

 

[Jainarayan]

It seems to me that achintya bhedabheda is not much different than vishishtadvaita, just another acharya's version of it (they all have to have the last word... like these threads )... advaita w/ qualifications in that all diversity is part of the whole. Different yet the same. My arm is different from my foot, but they are part of my body. Neither my arm nor my foot is anything without being part of my body... that are all one. No achintya bhaedabheda is not duality.

 

[Madhuri]

It seems to me that achintya bhedabheda is not much different than vishishtadvata, just another acharya's version of it (they all have to have the last word... like these threads )... advaita w/ qualifications in that all diversity is part of the whole. Different yet the same. My arm is different from my foot, but they are part of my body. Neither my arm nor my foot is anything with being part of my body... that are all one. No achintya bhaedabheda is not duality.

Exactly!

 

[Chakra]

Visishtadvaita doesn't agree with all types of Bhedabheda however. Ramanuja actually critiques the Bhedabhedas of his times with the same intensity that he uses to critique Advaita.

 

[ratikala]

I've studied bhagavata very deeply and found that the vaishnawism of it is none other than Maharashtra's vaishnawism. Maharashtra is called land of saints. Bhagavata clearly states jiva becomes brahman. The essence of advaita vaishnawism is found in Shukadeva's last teachings 12 canto 5th chapter.

Vaishnawas like ramanuja are also Vaishnawas but their work was to uplift common people who can't comprehend oneness. Seeing oneness is not easy at all, one should have sharp intellect for that.

ALL GLORIES TO RAMANUJA JI , ...

surely the common man is no different to the uncommon man with the sharp interlect ??? if that is , ..that everything is Brahman ???

the common man posseses the humility to see god without wishing to be god , In which case I choose the path of the common man and eternal love of god .

also the common man does not need a sharp interlect he sees god with the heart .

The philosophy which has no direct supports from shastra is considered unvedic. I don't find a single verse in hundreds of scriptures, that states jiva is qualitatively same and quantitatively different. If I am wrong then I challenge you to support and prove your theory as vedic. In order to validate Iskon's vaishnawism, they should give strong supports either from bhagavata or Vishnu purana.

it seems that there are many forms of vaisnavism that you do not count as valid not just ISKCON alone ???