what is hinduisms highest priority

[kaisersose]

Atmaram,

Here are some questions and I would like to know your thoughts. Not what you learnt from your doctrine, but your own independent thoughts.

1. We humans look the way we do because of our functions. I need eyes to see, ears to hear, a mouth to speak, eat, etc., a skin as a protective layer, limbs,etc. They all exist for specific functions. But why does Krishna look human? Surely, he does not need eyes to see?

2. The Krishna avatar is supposed to be the "original form" of the LOrd. But the Krishna avatar was an infant, a toddler, a kid, an adolescent and an adult. By the same logic, as an adult, he would have looked different at different ages.

As all these forms are different, only one them could have been the original form. Which one was it? And was the size original as well?

Again, I am looking for your individual view. I am not looking for quotes from others.

Thanks

 

[Madhuri]

Atmaram,

Here are some questions and I would like to know your thoughts. Not what you learnt from your doctrine, but your own independent thoughts.

1. We humans look the way we do because of our functions. I need eyes to see, ears to hear, a mouth to speak, eat, etc., a skin as a protective layer, limbs,etc. They all exist for specific functions. But why does Krishna look human? Surely, he does not need eyes to see?

2. The Krishna avatar is supposed to be the "original form" of the LOrd. But the Krishna avatar was an infant, a toddler, a kid, an adolescent and an adult. By the same logic, as an adult, he would have looked different at different ages.

As all these forms are different, only one them could have been the original form. Which one was it? And was the size original as well?

Again, I am looking for your individual view. I am not looking for quotes from others.

Thanks

If I remember correctly, Krishna in the original form looks about 16 years old. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

As for why Krishna looks human, who knows? I think we could question why God would look like anything, or nothing, whatever it really is. Of course, I think it incorrect to ask why does God look human but rather why do humans look like God?

 

[Madhuri]

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!

I've heard it said that the Gaudiya Vaishnavas today misunderstand the meaning of 'mayavad', which actually means one who sees Maya as separate from God- ie/ dualist. Or something like that. I have no idea if this is correct...

 

[kaisersose]

I've heard it said that the Gaudiya Vaishnavas today misunderstand the meaning of 'mayavad', which actually means one who sees Maya as separate from God- ie/ dualist. Or something like that. I have no idea if this is correct...

Mayavada (doctrine of Maya) is not an incorrect term. It was used as early as in the 9th century by Bhaaskara - the bhedabheda (different from Achintya bheda abheda) scholar to criticize the doctrine of Shankara which had Maya as a central theme.

In time, critics almost exclusively used the name Mayavada instead of Advaita and it became a pejorative term. Some people take offense at the label, but I personally do not mind.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

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?

I will answer this question according to Advaita Vedanta and not my view of Shakti Philosophy. We do define Maya somewhat differently but our views are much alike.

Ishvara is real but the personal aspect only exists in Maya. Out side of Maya there is only Brahman, One without a second. So yes Krishna is eternal because he is Ishvara who never gets lost in maya like a jiva does but out side of Maya Krishna is Brahman.

Devotion leads to the highest just like knowledge does. Ramakrishna says that a Devotee wants to taste the sugar and the Jnana Yogi wants to become the sugar. Both paths lead to the same place, Freedom!

To answer the question about Siva is more time consuming because many devotees of Shiva are monist. Some have a whole different way of looking at it, the whole Siva/Shakti thing going on.

 

[Madhuri]

Ishvara is real but the personal aspect only exists in Maya. Out side of Maya there is only Brahman, One without a second. So yes Krishna is eternal because he is Ishvara who never gets lost in maya like a jiva does but out side of Maya Krishna is Brahman.

I admit that I do not understand this position. How does the personal aspect of God only exist in illusion? Does this make the personal aspect an illusion? Why is the personal aspect restricted to an illusory platform?

I think I need more in depth explanation.

 

[kaisersose]

I admit that I do not understand this position. How does the personal aspect of God only exist in illusion? Does this make the personal aspect an illusion? Why is the personal aspect restricted to an illusory platform?

I think I need more in depth explanation.

Advaita says Brahman alone exists and nothing else. The existence of anything or anyone else is not real and is an illusion. The end of this illusion is Liberation. And as Bramhan alone exists, putting a form to this Brahman makes no sense.

I have seen a lot of people get confused on this. But when they are unbiased, I believe they do get it. Not that they have to accept it, but they understand the Advaita stance.

 

[Madhuri]

Advaita says Brahman alone exists and nothing else. The existence of anything or anyone else is not real and is an illusion. The end of this illusion is Liberation. And as Bramhan alone exists, putting a form to this Brahman makes no sense.

I have seen a lot of people get confused on this. But when they are unbiased, I believe they do get it. Not that they have to accept it, but they understand the Advaita stance.

But doesn't this philosophy teach that EVERYTHING is Brahman? And that the only illusions are our perceptions of reality? And doesn't that include all forms and features? Isn't Liberation, or Realisation, the awakening to the reality that everything we experience IS Brahman? That is what I have been thinking Advaita philosophy is...

 

[kaisersose]

But doesn't this philosophy teach that EVERYTHING is Brahman?

Yes.

And that the only illusions are our perceptions of reality?

According to Advaita, everything we perceive is an illusion. Shankara opens his commentary on the Brahma-Sutras with this line -

Brahma Satya, Jagat Mitya, Jiva Brahmaiva na parah
Translation: Brahman is real, the world is unreal, the Jiva is Brahman and not different from it.

Currently, we perceive a world and duality because we are in an illusion or Maya. Liberation ends this illusion. A post-liberation state is beyond definition as stated in Upanishads like Kena (It is beyond the known; beyond the unknown). As the state of liberation is beyond definition, it cannot be becoming Brahman, merging with Brahman, usurping Brahman, becoming God or any of the stuff put out by critics.

If you dare break the ban, Advaita Vedanta Anusandhana Kendra or even the wikipedia site on Advaita goes into a lot of detail.

 

[Madhuri]

According to Advaita, everything we perceive is an illusion. Shankara opens his commentary on the Brahma-Sutras with this line -

Brahma Satya, Jagat Mitya, Jiva Brahmaiva na parah
Translation: Brahman is real, the world is unreal, the Jiva is Brahman and not different from it.

Currently, we perceive a world and duality because we are in an illusion or Maya. Liberation ends this illusion. A post-liberation state is beyond definition as stated in Upanishads like Kena (It is beyond the known; beyond the unknown). As the state of liberation is beyond definition, it cannot be becoming Brahman, merging with Brahman, usurping Brahman, becoming God or any of the stuff put out by critics.

The wording confuses me though. If everything is Brahman, how can the world be 'unreal'? Again, do you just mean our perceptions of the world? Or does this mean that the world does not even exist?

The confusion I think arises from saying that the world is illusion, rather than saying that we, the jivas, are in illusion. One version seems to say that the world does not really exist, while the other says that it does, but we are misunderstanding it.

So which one of the two is closest to Advaita philosophy?

And if there can be a 'real' and a 'false' reality, or if any part of reality is 'lesser' to another, how is this not...dualistic?

 

[kaisersose]

The wording confuses me though. If everything is Brahman, how can the world be 'unreal'? Again, do you just mean our perceptions of the world? Or does this mean that the world does not even exist?

The world is part of the illusion, as is everything that is perceived by us. The world is obviously real as long as the illusion persists.

The confusion I think arises from saying that the world is illusion, rather than saying that we, the jivas, are in illusion. One version seems to say that the world does not really exist, while the other says that it does, but we are misunderstanding it.
So which one of the two is closest to Advaita philosophy?

The first version is Advaita. I am not familiar with the second version.

And if there can be a 'real' and a 'false' reality, or if any part of reality is 'lesser' to another, how is this not...dualistic?

It is not duality because the "false" reality was never real. It is like the individual who dreams he was a king living in a palace and the palace disppears when he wakes up. The palace was never real, but it was real to him while he dreamt.

 

[Madhuri]

It is not duality because the "false" reality was never real. It is like the individual who dreams he was a king living in a palace and the palace disppears when he wakes up. The palace was never real, but it was real to him while he dreamt.

So the Advaita stance literally sees our experiences and the material universe as a 'dream'? I didn't realise. But we're all in this dream-land together? Or are you just part of my dream?

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I admit that I do not understand this position. How does the personal aspect of God only exist in illusion? Does this make the personal aspect an illusion? Why is the personal aspect restricted to an illusory platform?

I think I need more in depth explanation.

The world illusion is very easy to misunderstand in this context. It does not mean nonexistent, it means that relative existence is superimposed upon Brahman.

Ishvara is Brahman united with Maya, it is this combination which creates, preserves, and then dissolves the universe in an endless and beginning-less process. Ishvara is God made personal with attributes.

Ishvara is the ruler and controller of maya. Jivas are mayas plaything. We at the same time can say we are God (Brahman) and Gods (Ishvara) servants.
In our absolute nature we are one with Brahman, in our relative nature we are subject to HER (Ishvara). The relationship is yours to choose its all in the way you want to look at it.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

So the Advaita stance literally sees our experiences and the material universe as a 'dream'? I didn't realise. But we're all in this dream-land together? Or are you just part of my dream?

Sankara calls private illusions like dreams pratibhasika (illusory) and the universal or world illusions vyavaharika (phenomenal)

It is not that Maya is nonexistent it just disappears in the light of knowledge when we become Jivamuktis. We then see the truth.

 

[kaisersose]

So the Advaita stance literally sees our experiences and the material universe as a 'dream'? I didn't realise. But we're all in this dream-land together? Or are you just part of my dream?

Neither.

The world is as real as can be for you and me. The dream case was simply an example.

Shankara's statement that I posted earlier is the definition of Liberation. Until then, everything we perceive is real.

Actually, all schools of Vedanta have the goal of liberation and pretty much the same paths. They differ on their descriptions of post-liberation state and it is my opinion that Advaita comes closest to the Upanishadic "beyond the known and beyond the unknown". With no offense meant to anyone, the elaborate Shaiva and Vaishnava descriptions of the post-Liberation state with their oceans of milk (whole or non-fat?), snow-capped mountains, cows, silk, gold, etc., sound like they were written solely to dazzle aspirants.

 

[Madhuri]

The world illusion is very easy to misunderstand in this context. It does not mean nonexistent, it means that relative existence is superimposed upon Brahman.

Ishvara is Brahman united with Maya, it is this combination which creates, preserves, and then dissolves the universe in an endless and beginning-less process. Ishvara is God made personal with attributes.

Ishvara is the ruler and controller of maya. Jivas are mayas plaything. We at the same time can say we are God (Brahman) and Gods (Ishvara) servants.
In our absolute nature we are one with Brahman, in our relative nature we are subject to HER (Ishvara). The relationship is yours to choose its all in the way you want to look at it.

What do you mean by 'relative existence'?

I am getting a very different idea from what you are saying here to what Kaisersose was saying. Based on your explanation I would not understand that the world is 'false' or that the personal deity is 'less' than Brahman.

Neither do I understand your statement about Ishvara combined with Maya. Specifically because the sentence seems to show a oneness with Brahman and Ishvara but a separateness with Maya. Maya is still an aspect of Brahman. At what point is Ishvara or Maya not in existence? Wouldn't Brahman always be united with Maya?

In other words, is it correct to say that the personal deity is one aspect of Brahman? And in saying so, if everyone is equal, does Advaita philosophy allow any special distinction between the jiva and Ishvara?

I would really like to know though, how your explanation can be in harmony with Kaisersose' explanation. They seem conflicting to me.

 

[Madhuri]

Neither.

The world is as real as can be for you and me. The dream case was simply an example.

Shankara's statement that I posted earlier is the definition of Liberation. Until then, everything we perceive is real.

Actually, all schools of Vedanta have the goal of liberation and pretty much the same paths. They differ on their descriptions of post-liberation state and it is my opinion that Advaita comes closest to the Upanishadic "beyond the known and beyond the unknown". With no offense meant to anyone, the elaborate Shaiva and Vaishnava descriptions of the post-Liberation state with their oceans of milk (whole or non-fat?), snow-capped mountains, cows, silk, gold, etc., sound like they were written solely to dazzle aspirants.

Yes, liberation is a common thread. And in fact many of the themes we are dealing with are similar in each school of thought. But there are some slight, yet highly significant differences.

I am having some trouble getting a grasp on Advaita philosophy. I don't care what they say about post-liberation because I realise that any and all descriptions are allegorical to some extent. I'm very interested in the interpretations of reality.

 

[kaisersose]

Madhuri,

If I may, here is a suggestion.

Split the whole Advaita doctrine into two parts - pre-Liberation and post-Liberation. Do not bother with the post-Liberation status as it is not something that the mind can comprehend and analyze. Here are the relevant verses from the Kena Upanishad -

<Mayavadi translation alert for Atmaram>

There the eye does not go, nor speech, nor the mind.
We do not know, we do not understand how one can teach this.
Different, indeed, is it from the known,
and also it is above the unknown.
Thus have we heard from the ancients who explained it to us.

That which is not seen by the eye,
but that by which the eye sees:
know that to be God, not what people here adore.

Here is the full ink -
Upanishads Introduction and KENA UPANISHAD

The pre-lIberations state is as perceived. The world is real, we are all different, Brahman comes in a variety of forms, we have several paths to choose from, etc, etc. Nothing confusing or complex if you look at it this way.

 

[Madhuri]

Neither.

The world is as real as can be for you and me. The dream case was simply an example.

Shankara's statement that I posted earlier is the definition of Liberation. Until then, everything we perceive is real.

Ok...but then how does this differ from other schools of thought?

 

[kaisersose]

Ok...but then how does this differ from other schools of thought?

Leaving out all the post-liberation differences, things become real simple.

The key difference is Advaita does not have a hierarchy of Gods, unlike Vaishnava traditions. All forms, all Gods are equal in the world of Advaita. This is highly contrasted in Dvaita, where they have a strict hierarchy of Gods (taaratamya) and it is a key part of their doctrine with Vishnu on top.

Hence Advaita is more widely received among people as one can be a Shiva worshipper, Ambaal worshipper, etc., and still be an Advaitin.

The rest are all details, and not of any importance.