what is hinduisms highest priority

[atmarama]

That is a paradox. I am not sure you understand the full implication of what you are saying here. Let me explain.

Shiva took birth as Shankara with the sole intention of lying and deceiving people. He filled his Sutra-Bhashya, Upanishad Bhashyas, UPadesha saahasri, Soundarya Lahari, etc., with lies, lied with a straight face to his disciples and left behind a legacy full of lies which - for over a thousand years - is being cluelessly followed by hundreds of thousands of Advaitins - who were never Buddhists or had any association with Buddhism. Perhaps Shankara was laughing inside as well, when he was teaching his disciples at how he was conning them, big time?

Even worse, Shiva is a God who lies to his disciplies and devotees (whatever his reasons may be) and we have millions of people in India who are Shiva worshippers and are unaware that their Ishta Devata is a cheap liar.

This is essentially what you are saying when you stand by that verse. If you want to take this positon, I am absolutely fine. But having implied all of that, you contradict yourself when you claim high respect for Shankara.

Regardless of who said it, calling Shankara a liar and also claiming deep respect for him do not go together. Now if people want to pretend it is not a contradiction and everything is just fine, then so be it. It is the easy way out, after all.

:biglaugh: Well - that is a fertile imagination you have there...

Here is the section in Chaitanya Caritamrita explaining this confidential knowledge. Chaitanya Charitamrita is one of the most cherished and relished scriptures in the Gaudiya tradition:

CC Madhya 6: The liberation of Sarvabauma battacharya

TEXT 176
ei-mate kalpita bhäñye çata doña dila
bhattäcärya pürva-pakña apära karila

ei-mate—in this way; kalpita—imagined; bhäñye—in the commentary; çata—hundreds; doña—of faults; dila—gave; bhattäcärya—Särvabhauma Bhattäcärya; pürva-pakña—opposing elements; apära—unlimitedly; karila—manifested.

Thus Sri Caitanya Mahäprabhu criticized Sankaräcärya’s Sariraka-bhasya as imaginary, and He pointed out hundreds of faults in it. To defend Sankaräcärya, however, Särvabhauma Bhattäcärya presented unlimited opposition.

TEXT 177
vitandä, chala, nigrahädi aneka uthäila
saba khandi’ prabhu nija-mata se sthäpila

vitandä—counterarguments; chala—imaginary interpretations; nigraha-ädi—repulses to the opposite party; aneka—various; uthäila—raised; saba—all; khandi’—refuting; prabhu—Sri Caitanya Mahäprabhu; nija-mata—His own conviction; se—that; sthäpila—established.

The Bhattäcärya presented various types of false arguments with pseudo logic and tried to defeat his opponent in many ways. However, Sri Caitanya Mahäprabhu refuted all these arguments and established His own conviction.

PURPORT
The word vitandä indicates that a debater, not touching the main point or establishing his own point, simply tries to refute the other person’s argument. When one does not touch the direct meaning but tries to divert attention by misinterpretation, he engages in chala. The word nigraha also means always trying to refute the arguments of the other party.

TEXT 178
bhagavän—‘sambandha’, bhakti—‘abhidheya’ haya
premä—‘prayojana’, vede tina-vastu kaya

bhagavän—the Supreme Personality of Godhead; sambandha—relationship; bhakti—devotional service; abhidheya—transcendental activities; haya—is; premä—love of Godhead; prayojana—the ultimate goal of life; vede—the Vedas; tina-vastu—three subject matters; kaya—describe.

Sri Caitanya Mahäprabhu continued, “The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the central point of all relationships, acting in devotional service to Him is one’s real occupation, and the attainment of love of Godhead is the ultimate goal of life. These three subject matters are described in the Vedic literature.

PURPORT
In the Bhagavad-gitä (15.15) Lord Krsna confirms this statement: The actual purpose in reading the Vedas is to learn how to become a devotee of the Supreme Lord. The Lord Himself advises, man-manä bhava mad-bhakto mad-yäjé mäm namaskuru (Bg. 9.34). Therefore, after studying the Vedas, one must then execute devotional service by thinking always of the Supreme Lord (man-manä), becoming His devotee, worshiping Him and always offering Him obeisances.

TEXT 179
ära ye ye-kichu kahe, sakala-i kalpanä
svatah-pramäna veda-väkye kalpena laksanä

ära—except this; ye ye—whatever; kichu—something; kahe—says; sakala-i—all; kalpanä—imagination; svatah-pramäna—self-evident; veda-väkye—in the Vedic version; kalpena—he imagines; lakñaëä—an interpretation.

If one tries to explain the Vedic literature in a different way, he is indulging in imagination. Any interpretation of the self-evident Vedic version is simply imaginary.

TEXT 180
äcäryera dosa nähi, isvara-äjnä haila
ataeva kalpanä kari’ nästika-sästra kaila

äcäryera—of Sankaräcärya; dosa—fault; nähi—there is not; isvara-äjnä—the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead; haila—there was; ataeva—therefore; kalpanä—imagination; kari’—making; nästika—atheistic; sästra—scriptures; kaila—prepared.

“Actually there is no fault on the part of Sankaräcärya. He simply carried out the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He had to imagine some kind of interpretation, and therefore he presented a kind of Vedic literature that is full of atheism.

TEXT 181
svägamaih kalpitais tvam ca
janän mad-vimukhän kuru
mäm ca gopaya yena syät
srstir esottarottarä

sva-ägamaih—with your own theses; kalpitais—imagined; tvam—you; ca—also; janän—the people in general; mat-vimukhän—averse to Me and addicted to fruitive activities and speculative knowledge; kuru—make; mäm—Me, the Supreme Personality of Godhead; ca—and; gopaya—just cover; yena—by which; syät—there may be; srstir—material advancement; esä—this; uttara-uttarä—more and more.

“[Addressing Lord Siva, the Supreme Personality of Godhead said:] ‘Please make the general populace averse to Me by imagining your own interpretation of the Vedas. Also, cover Me in such a way that people will take more interest in advancing material civilization just to propagate a population bereft of spiritual knowledge.’ - Padma Puräna, Uttara-khanda (62.31).

TEXT 182
mäyävädam asac-chästram
pracchannam bauddham ucyate
mayaiva vihitam devi
kalau brähmana-mürtinä

mäyävädam—the philosophy of Mäyäväda; asat-çästram—false scriptures; pracchannam—covered; bauddham—Buddhism; ucyate—it is said; mayä—by me; eva—only; vihitam—taught; devi—O goddess of the material world; kalau—in the Age of Kali; brähmana-mürtinä—having the body of a brähmana.

“[Lord Siva informed goddess Durgä, the superintendent of the material world:] ‘In the Age of Kali I take the form of a brähmana and explain the Vedas through false scriptures in an atheistic way, similar to Buddhist philosophy.’” - Padma Puräna, Uttara-khanda (25.7).

I left two purports in as I thought they were quite apt, and relevant to the discussion so far. We accept Chaitanya Charitamrita as one of the most important scriptures, as do all gaudiya vaisnavas.

 

[atmarama]

One should accept a teacher only after testing and watching till we know that they are what they say they are.

A Guru should be accepted because you trust them and they have what you want. (Enlightenment is always accompanied by a lack of neurosis) How do they live are they full of love for all beings not only for the few who agree with them.

Hey Wannabe Yogi,

I agree with this part of your post 100%!!!

I have the Highest respect for Sri Chaitanya and his teachings. The more I hear about Achintya Bheda Abheda Tattva the more I like it. It is a very logical way to look at Hindu scripture.

Fully! It is a most wonderful understanding of vedanta Advaita and Dwaita in an inconceivable Achintya Bheda Abheda... Nothing else like it

 

[Madhuri]

Whatever the truth is about Iskcon (I am not sure myself) it is no refection on the path of the Lord Chaitanya.

As an ex-Iskon devotee, I 100% agree with this statement.

 

[atanu]

:biglaugh: Well - that is a fertile imagination you have there...

“[Addressing Lord Siva, the Supreme Personality of Godhead said:] ‘Please make the general populace averse to Me by imagining your own interpretation of the Vedas. Also, cover Me in such a way that people will take more interest in advancing material civilization just to propagate a population bereft of spiritual knowledge.’ - Padma Puräna, Uttara-khanda (62.31).

TEXT 182
mäyävädam asac-chästram
pracchannam bauddham ucyate
mayaiva vihitam devi
kalau brähmana-mürtinä

mäyävädam—the philosophy of Mäyäväda; asat-çästram—false scriptures; pracchannam—covered; bauddham—Buddhism; ucyate—it is said; mayä—by me; eva—only; vihitam—taught; devi—O goddess of the material world; kalau—in the Age of Kali; brähmana-mürtinä—having the body of a brähmana.

“[Lord Siva informed goddess Durgä, the superintendent of the material world:] ‘In the Age of Kali I take the form of a brähmana and explain the Vedas through false scriptures in an atheistic way, similar to Buddhist philosophy.’” - Padma Puräna, Uttara-khanda (25.7).

I left two purports in as I thought they were quite apt, and relevant to the discussion so far. We accept Chaitanya Charitamrita as one of the most important scriptures, as do all gaudiya vaisnavas.

I agree to most of the implications derived by kaisersose. The implications are self evident from the Padmapurana verses and also from other material you present. If one scans through any Hindu Dharma forum, one will find ISKCON or Gaudiyas harping only on deficiencies of advaita, calling it by an unacceptable name of mayavada. Why the focus is only on advaita, which ISCKON or Gaudiyas do not profess to study or follow?

Kindly keep Brahma Samhita, Padma Purana Uttara Khanda and other sectarian writings as teachings specific to your school. These are not sruti and neither these are smriti and thus do not represent the universal teaching of Hinduism. Padma Purana, especially the Uttara Khanda, is not genuine. No acharya has referred to the verses that you show. If they were available during his times, Madhava would have used them happily to critique advaita. Obviously there is something very wrong.

Veda calls Shiva as Ishwara and as the highest Self -- at the same time clarifying that the highest Self is nameless since the mind and the words come after. The highest self is Shiva because it is all good-auspicious. It is unthinkable that the highest Self and Ishwara will work to delude people.

Further, in contrast to Buddhism, where there is no place for Ishwara, Sankaracharya specifically teaches of Ishwara as the phaladAta -- the dispenser of karma fruits. In support, Sri Sankaracharya offers logic as well as the sruti of Veda. Advaita darshana and Buddhism have differences from the very root.

If there has to be a debate, kindly follow sruti or smriti only. Other texts that have been cited by you are school specific and should be viewed as such.

Om

Note: This is not a criticism of Gaudiya or ISKCON ways or of the revered teachers. The teachings are specific to target aspirants' capabilities and should remain so.

OM

 

[atmarama]

Hi atanu,

Yes, I was specifically presenting that section from the Caitanya Caritamrita as that is where I found the information I was quoting. It is also true that these teachings are the Gaudiya Vaisnava's specific understanding of the ultimate goal of life. If you do not accept Caitanya Caritamrita as authoritative that is your decision. I was simply presenting my understanding

Joy to the World :bb:

Haribol!

 

[atmarama]

These are not sruti and neither these are smriti

My understanding is that the puranas are smriti.

 

[kaisersose]

“[Lord Siva informed goddess Durgä, the superintendent of the material world:] ‘In the Age of Kali I take the form of a brähmana and explain the Vedas through false scriptures in an atheistic way, similar to Buddhist philosophy.’” - Padma Puräna, Uttara-khanda (25.7).

Considering,

1. Shankara wrote the first known commentary on the Gita (he starts by saluting Narayana)
2. He established the Sharada temple in Sringeri
3. He composed Soundarya Lahari
4. All his followers worship Shiva, Krishna, etc., in no lesser way than any other tradition in India

it clearly is established that there was nothing atheistic about Shankara or his doctrine or in the way it is being followed. Pratyaksha overrides Shastra and therefore, it follows that the Padma Purana quote is without merit (false).

Also as I said earlier, if such a direct quote really existed in the Padma Purana, it would have been used by Advaita critics a long time ago.

 

[kaisersose]

My understanding is that the puranas are smriti.

Correct.

The main schools of Vedanta do not consider Smriti as a primary authority - especially when it is not in line with Sruti. This is different from the Gaudiya school where Sruti is not considered at all and everything rests on the Bhagavatam, the Gita, and Gaudiya specific scriptures like the CC, etc.

Now if you want to discuss Advaita from Shankara's Viveka Chudamani or some similar text, then it would be great. But I recall Chaitanya told his followers not to listen to Mayavada philosophy, which I believe bans you from reading Shankara's or any other Advaitin's works. This means, you are blocked from learning Advaita from an authentic source which in turn means your understanding of the Advaita doctrine will continue to be incorrect.

A pity, considering all the time and enthusiasm Hare Krishnas have in talking about Advaita and yet are banned from learning anything about it.

 

[kaisersose]

I found a page with a quote attributed to Chaitanya about the ban I mentioned in the previous post.

This doctrine of Mayavada is so harmful to the jiva that Mahaprabhu Himself has warned us by saying, "Mayavada bhasya sunile haya sarva nasa." -- "One who hears the commentaries of the Mayavadis, will ruin his spiritual life." The Mayavada philosophy is certainly a great threat to all conditioned souls who have not taken full shelter of the previous acaryas.

Here is the link -
The Self-Defeating Philosophy of Mayavada | Sri Narasingha Chaitanya Ashram

Here is an interesting piece by that author -

The word 'Mayavada' does not appear in any of the authorized Vedic literatures. This makes it clear that Mayavada did not appear before or even during the Vedic age. It is a man-made concoction, that manifested in a post Vedic era.

Neither do the terms Gaudiya Vaishnava, Hare Krishna, Tattvavada, Dvaita, Advaita, Vishishtadvaita, Sanatana Dharma appear anywhere. So in trying to prove Advaita is false, unwittingly this gentleman proved all doctrines are false!

Also, he calls Advaita a "man-made concoction". This contradicts Atmaram's post that it was God-made, by Shiva who came down to teach a false philosophy to his followers. Which one do we believe?

 

[Riverwolf]

My understanding is that the puranas are smriti.

Most are. That one isn't.

I'd think that a text written in the 14th century is too late to be considered a central Hindu text.

 

[kaisersose]

Most are. That one isn't.

I'd think that a text written in the 14th century is too late to be considered a central Hindu text.

The Padma is among the 18 Mahapuranas and considered Smriti. However, as is the case with all Puranas, it has been interpolated several times over to the point where it contains agreat amount of spurious material. This Purana also comes in two recensions - Bengal and South Indian - and there are major differences between the two.

Here is HH Wilson's take on the Padma, which concurs with research by later scholars on this topic as well -

The different portions of the Padma Puráńa are in all probability as many different works, neither of which approaches to the original definition of a Puráńa. There may be some connexion between the three first portions, at least as to time; but there is no reason to consider them as of high antiquity. They specify the Jains both by name and practices.; they talk of Mlechchhas, 'barbarians,' flourishing in India; they commend the use of the frontal and other Vaishńava marks; and they notice other subjects which, like these, are of no remote origin. The Pátála Khańd́a dwells copiously upon the Bhágavata, and is consequently posterior to it. The Uttara Khańd́a is intolerantly Vaishńava, and is therefore unquestionably modern. It enjoins the veneration of the Sálágram stone and Tulasí plant, the use of the Tapta-mudra, or stamping with a hot iron the name of Vishńu on the skin, and a variety of practices and observances undoubtedly no part of the original system. It speaks of the shrines of Śrí-rangam and Venkatádri in the Dekhin, temples that have no pretension to remote antiquity; and it names Haripur on the Tungabhadra, which is in all likelihood the city of Vijayanagar, founded in the middle of the fourteenth century. The Kriyá Yoga Sára is equally a modern, and apparently a Bengali composition. No portion of the Padma Puráńa is probably older than the twelfth century, and the last parts may be as recent as the fifteenth or sixteenth...

This is the reason why traditional schools consider Smriti as secondary evidence. Madhva complained about spurious versions of the Mahabharata as early as in the 13th century.

 

[Riverwolf]

The Padma is among the 18 Mahapuranas and considered Smriti.

Okay. My bad.

 

[atanu]

For record, I wish to add three points.

1. mAyAvAda is not a term used by advaitins to describe their vAda. The propoer term is advaitavAda. I am atanu. If some one calls me natau, i do not become natau.

2. Veda speaks at several places of auspicious manifestation of Rudra, to protect the humble.

RV Book 10 HYMN XCII.

9 With humble adoration show this day your song of praise to mighty Rudra, Ruler of the brave: With whom, the Eager Ones, going their ordered course, he comes from heaven Self-bright, auspicious, strong to guard.

There are several other more Rig Vedic verses, indicative of Rudra's friendship and protection for the humble. Such veda verses prove that the Padma Purana (Uttara Khand), as presented and interpreted by some, does not conform to Veda.

3. Puranas are smriti. But Uttara Khand is most likely not. That does not matter however, as we have invariant scripts of Vedas and Upanishads.

Om

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

The Padma is among the 18 Mahapuranas and considered Smriti. However, as is the case with all Puranas,

My solution to this problem is simple. If any Smriti is problematic, throw it out. You have no need of following it.

Its funny is it not, how the ancient scriptures are less bigoted and sexist then the newer ones.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Well - that is a fertile imagination you have there...

Here is the section in Chaitanya Caritamrita explaining this confidential knowledge. Chaitanya Charitamrita is one of the most cherished and relished scriptures in the Gaudiya tradition:

As long as it is consistent with the Vedas it is fine.

It also needs to be said the author pf Caitanya Caritamrita never met Chaitanya personally.

 

[atmarama]

it clearly is established that there was nothing atheistic about Shankara or his doctrine or in the way it is being followed.

Could I please ask what is the ultimate reality/understanding according to advaita? Is it a loving relationship with the supreme, or "realizing" that you ARE the supreme. Is the form of the Lord, ie Krsna/Rama/Vishnu/Shiva, considered eternal, or temporary. Is the form of the Lord ultimately considered maya?

The main schools of Vedanta do not consider Smriti as a primary authority. This is different from the Gaudiya school where Sruti is not considered at all and everything rests on the Bhagavatam, the Gita, and Gaudiya specific scriptures like the CC, etc.

Yes. The Gaudiya school put the most importance on Srimad Bhagavatam, Chaitanya Charitamrita, Bhagavad Gita, bhakti-rasamrita-sindu and other books by the six goswamis and the followers of Lord Chaitanya. Still the siddhanta is understood to be consistent with vedanta, the ultimate goal of veda. Many great gaudiya scholars and teachers have wonderful writings - like Bhaktivinoda Thakur's Jaiva Dharma and so much more Here is a link to a short essay he wrote on the importance of Srimad Bhagavatam - The Bhagavata

The Bhagavata itself tells us what it is:

nigama-kalpa-taror galitam phalam
suka-mukhad amrta-drava-samyutam/
pibata bhagavatam rasam alayam
muhur aho rasika bhuvi bhavukah//​

"It is the fruit of the tree of thought (Vedas) mixed with the nectar of the speech of Sukadeva. It is the temple of spiritual love! O! Men of Piety! Drink deep this nectar of Bhagavata repeatedly till you are taken from this mortal frame."

Mahaprabhu Himself has warned us by saying, "Mayavada bhasya sunile haya sarva nasa." -- "One who hears the commentaries of the Mayavadis, will ruin his spiritual life."

Yes this is what Lord Chaitanya taught, and we gaudiyas are His followers

Veda speaks at several places of auspicious manifestation of Rudra, to protect the humble.

RV Book 10 HYMN XCII.

9 With humble adoration show this day your song of praise to mighty Rudra, Ruler of the brave: With whom, the Eager Ones, going their ordered course, he comes from heaven Self-bright, auspicious, strong to guard.

There are several other more Rig Vedic verses, indicative of Rudra's friendship and protection for the humble. Such veda verses prove that the Padma Purana...does not conform to Veda

I don't see how this proves that....

 

[atmarama]

As long as it is consistent with the Vedas it is fine.

Yes. The vaisnava position is that Veda is eternal and consistent. I must admit at this point my complete unqualification at presenting this gaudiya siddhanta.

It also needs to be said the author pf Caitanya Caritamrita never met Chaitanya personally.

The gaudiya understanding is that Srila Krsna das Kaviraja was specially empowered to document the life of Lord Chaitanya. The three main biographies on Chaitanya Mahaprabhu are CC, Chaitanya Bhagavata by Vrinadavan das Thakur, and Sri Caitanya Mangala by Lochan das Thakur.

 

[atanu]

The Brahmajyoti is theh effulgence from the Body of God, it is the Energy of God. It is what Advaitins would call, Brahman. Advaitins believe it is the ultimate reality, while us Gaudiya Vaishnavas believe that it is the effulgence or the shine of God.

Can we see a reference from an advaita guru that advaitins call energy of God as the ultimate reality (and the ultimate goal by implication)?

Krishna says "I am the Self". As far as I know, advaita goal is the Self itself, which upanishads call satyasya satyam (the truth of the truth, wherein the truth is the life force and the truth of the truth is the Self).

Om

 

[arun]

I think I heard the highest priority in hinduism is pleasure do you think i am correct.

yes.but not the momentary sensual pleasures.there is a higher,eternal spiritual pleasure beyond the senses which the yogis call paramananda.In the state of Samadhi or superconsciousness the Yogis come face to face with the Brahma/God and they say they are in the state of perfect bliss or perfect happiness.Compared with this the material pleasures are nothing .

The science of Raja-Yoga teaches us how to attain the samadhi and it's the practical religion.It requires no belief.We should believe in God when we see him.

"Reasoning and discrimination vanish after the attainment of God and communion with Him in samadhi. How long does a man reason and discriminate? As long as he is conscious of the manifold, as long as he is aware of the universe, of embodied beings, of 'I' and 'you'. He becomes silent when he is truly aware of Unity. "
-Sri Ramakrishna

More on Raja-Yoga and Samadhi can be found here.

these are some excerpts from chapter, The Claims of Religion,Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda:

What again is the goal of mankind? Is it happiness, sensuous pleasure? They used to say in the olden time that in heaven they will play on trumpets and live round a throne; in modern time I find that they think this ideal is very weak, and they have improved upon it and say that they will have marriages and all these things there. If there is any improvement in these two things, the second is an improvement for the worse. All these various theories of heaven that are being put forward show weakness in the mind. And that weakness is here: First, they think that sense happiness is the goal of life. Secondly, they cannot conceive of anything that is beyond the five senses. They are as irrational as the Utilitarians. Still they are much better than the modern Atheistic Utilitarians, at any rate. Lastly, this Utilitarian position is simply childish. What right have you to say, "Here is my standard, and the whole universe must be governed by my standard?" What right have you to say that every truth shall be judged by this standard of yours — the standard that preaches mere bread, and money, and clothes as God?

Religion does not live in bread, does not dwell in a house. Again and again you hear this objection advanced: "What good can religion do? Can it take away the poverty of the poor and give them more clothes?" Supposing it cannot, would that prove the untruth of religion? Suppose a baby stands up among you, when you are trying to demonstrate an astronomical theory, and says, "Does it bring gingerbread?" "No, it does not," you answer. "Then," says the baby, "it is useless." Babies judge the whole universe from their own standpoint, that of producing gingerbread, and so do the babies of the world.

Babies think that the happiness of the senses is the highest thing they can have. Most of you know that there is a keener enjoyment in man in the intellect, than in the senses. No one of you can feel the same pleasure in eating as a dog does. You can mark that. Where does the pleasure come from in man? Not that whole-souled enjoyment of eating that the pig or the dog has. See how the pig eats. It is unconscious of the universe while it is eating; its whole soul is bound up in the food. It may be killed but it does not care when it has food. Think of the intense enjoyment that the pig has! No man has that. Where is it gone? Man has changed it into intellectual enjoyment. The pig cannot enjoy religious lectures. That is one step higher and keener yet than intellectual pleasures, and that is the spiritual plane, spiritual enjoyment of things divine, soaring beyond reason and intellect. To procure that we shall have to lose all these sense-enjoyments. This is the highest utility. Utility is what I enjoy, and what everyone enjoys, and we run for that.

I move my hand, and I feel and I know that I am moving my hand. I call it consciousness. I am conscious that I am moving my hand. But my heart is moving. I am not conscious of that; and yet who is moving the heart? It must be the same being. So we see that this being who moves the hands and speaks, that is to say, acts consciously, also acts unconsciously. We find, therefore, that this being can act upon two planes — one, the plane of consciousness, and the other, the plane below that. The impulsions from the plane of unconsciousness are what we call instinct, and when the same impulsions come from the plane of consciousness, we call it reason. But there is a still higher plane, superconsciousness in man. This is apparently the same as unconsciousness, because it is beyond the plane of consciousness, but it is above consciousness and not below it. It is not instinct, it is inspiration. There is proof of it. Think of all these great prophets and sages that the world has produced, and it is well known how there will be times in their lives, moments in their existence, when they will be apparently unconscious of the external world; and all the knowledge that subsequently comes out of them, they claim, was gained during this state of existence. It is said of Socrates that while marching with the army, there was a beautiful sunrise, and that set in motion in his mind a train of thought; he stood there for two days in the sun quite unconscious. It was such moments that gave the Socratic knowledge to the world. So with all the great preachers and prophets, there are moments in their lives when they, as it were, rise from the conscious and go above it. And when they come back to the plane of consciousness, they come radiant with light; they have brought news from the beyond, and they are the inspired seers of the world.

But there is a great danger. Any man may say he is inspired; many times they say that. Where is the test? During sleep we are unconscious; a fool goes to sleep; he sleeps soundly for three hours; and when he comes back from that state, he is the same fool if not worse. Jesus of Nazareth goes into his transfiguration, and when he comes out, he has become Jesus the Christ. That is all the difference. One is inspiration, and the other is instinct. The one is a child, and the other is the old experienced man. This inspiration is possible for everyone of us. It is the source of all religions, and will ever be the source of all higher knowledge.

In true religion there is no faith or belief in the sense of blind faith. No great preacher ever preached that. That only comes with degeneracy. Fools pretend to be followers of this or that spiritual giant, and although they may be without power, endeavour to teach humanity to believe blindly. Believe what? To believe blindly is to degenerate the human soul. Be an atheist if you want, but do not believe in anything unquestioningly. Why degrade the soul to the level of animals? You not only hurt yourselves thereby, but you injure society, and make danger for those that come after you. Stand up and reason out, having no blind faith. Religion is a question of being and becoming, not of believing. This is religion, and when you have attained to that you have religion. Before that you are no better than the animals.

 

[kaisersose]

Could I please ask what is the ultimate reality/understanding according to advaita? Is it a loving relationship with the supreme, or "realizing" that you ARE the supreme.

I already answered this once before. But here it is, again.

According to all the three main schools of Vedanta, there is only one ultimate goal - Moksha as instructed by the Upanishads and the Gita. They all accept there is only one ultimate goal - not several (one for each school) as claimed by Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

Here are some verse from the Gita on the ultimate goal of Advaitins.

eshaa braahmii sthitih paartha nainaam praapya vimuhyati |
sthitvaasyaam antakaale pi brahmanirvaanamrcchati ||2-72||

naanyam gunebhyah kartaaram yadaa drastaanupashyati |
gunebhyas ca param vetti madbhaavam so dhigacchati || 14.19 ||

sarvakarmaani api sadaa kurvaano madvyapaasrayaha |
matprasaadaad avaapnoti saashvatam padam avyayam ||18-56||

sarvadharmaan parityajya maam ekam sharanam vraja |
aham tvaa sarvapaapebhyo mokshayisyaami maa suchaha ||18-66||

Also check 5-24, 5-25, 5-26, 6-15 and 6-23 from the Gita. I can quote several Upanishads like for instance - the teaching of Uddalaka in the Chandogya Upanishad (Sama Veda), but as Gaudiyas do not have a use for Vedanta, I am leaving them out.

Note that as a courtesy, I have refrained from posting translations to the Gita verses . Because, my translation would be a Mayavadi translation and Chaitanya has expressly banned you from reading them. I have thus protected you from dire consequences!