what is hinduisms highest priority

[Madhuri]

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.

What I don't understand is the explanation of a 'false world', if the world is real. What does that really mean?

The understanding that I have, which is part of my learning in Acintya Bhedabheda, is that the material universe is one aspect of God. It is illusory, in that it creates a covering that causes the jiva to be ignorant of its relationship with God/The Whole. This does not mean that the tree is not really there, or that this body and this earth is not really there, it simply means that we are seeing and understanding these things in a dualistic mindframe. Our perspective is only what is 'false'. When the soul attains liberation, this world does not disappear. It still exists, but we no longer exist 'in it'.

So how does my summarised understanding differ from the Advaita understanding?

I am not including here the difference between Ishvara and Brahman. I think that is one part of Advaita I understand, and you probably know my perspective about equality between Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan.

 

[atanu]

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.

Namaste kaisersose

I also personally do not mind. But that is not the point. Is an apple same as a mango? Advaita holds that at paramarthika level (in the ultimate essence) Brahman alone is real. To me, it cannot be called mAyAVada. This is the general position of advaitin also. If I name my son Aditya and some one insists on calling him Chandra will it be correct?

Either the criticism of mAyAvAda is of something else or the critic is not aware of what is advaitavAda.

Om

 

[kaisersose]

What I don't understand is the explanation of a 'false world', if the world is real. What does that really mean?

The understanding that I have, which is part of my learning in Acintya Bhedabheda, is that the material universe is one aspect of God. It is illusory, in that it creates a covering that causes the jiva to be ignorant of its relationship with God/The Whole. This does not mean that the tree is not really there, or that this body and this earth is not really there, it simply means that we are seeing and understanding these things in a dualistic mindframe. Our perspective is only what is 'false'. When the soul attains liberation, this world does not disappear. It still exists, but we no longer exist 'in it'.

So how does my summarised understanding differ from the Advaita understanding?

I am not including here the difference between Ishvara and Brahman. I think that is one part of Advaita I understand, and you probably know my perspective about equality between Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan.

Per Advaita, all duality ceases on Liberation. As Brahman alone exists, the world (an effect of Maya) does not exist anymore and the jiva is no longer a separate entity. This is Sat-chid-Ananda and the highest goal.

Liberation in Gaudiya Vaishnavism is about realizing one's true nature as a soul (not a body) and being situated in Goloka serving Krishna. Very similar to other Vaishnava conceptions of Moksha where they go to Vaikunta and serve Vishnu. In all these cases the world continues to be real and the Jiva continues to be an individual.

 

[kaisersose]

One other key difference between Advaita and Vaishnava Vedanta schools is Advaita allows the concept of Jivan-mukti. That is, liberation can happen when the person is still alive and the body will continue to live. Ramana Maharishi is popularly held as such a rare individual.

This concept of Jivan-mukti is rejected by all other schools.

 

[atanu]

What I don't understand is the explanation of a 'false world', if the world is real. What does that really mean?

Truly, these questions can be answered if one puts the questions to oneself. What is real? The one who says "I see the world" or the perceived/seen world ? By digging deeper and deeper and keeping in mind Sri Krishna's teaching to Arjuna "I am the Self" one intuitively comes to some understanding -- in time.

What distinguishes advaita from other darshanas -- at least apparently, is that its goal is to abide by following and similar such instructions of scripture.

Gita 13.12

I will describe that which is to be known and by knowing which life eternal is gained. It is the supreme Brahman that is beginningless and is said to be neither existent nor non-existent.

.........
More if there is interest.

Om

 

[kaisersose]

Namaste kaisersose

I also personally do not mind. But that is not the point. Is an apple same as a mango? Advaita holds that at paramarthika level (in the ultimate essence) Brahman alone is real. To me, it cannot be called mAyAVada. This is the general position of advaitin also. If I name my son Aditya and some one insists on calling him Chandra will it be correct?

Either the criticism of mAyAvAda is of something else or the critic is not aware of what is advaitavAda.

Om

Well, we can accept it as an alternate name. Buddhism (Bauddha dharma) was also known as Shunya Vada. Dvaita is known as Tattva-vada. Mayavada is an apt name for Advaita as it is the only doctrine that has Maya as a key part of its doctrine.

If it were not used more by critics than by the tradition itself, then there would be no problem.

 

[Madhuri]

One other key difference between Advaita and Vaishnava Vedanta schools is Advaita allows the concept of Jivan-mukti. That is, liberation can happen when the person is still alive and the body will continue to live. Ramana Maharishi is popularly held as such a rare individual.

This concept of Jivan-mukti is rejected by all other schools.

But I am very familiar with Jiva-mukti. This is a huge part of the Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy. Or did you mean to say that Advaita don't have this concept?

 

[Madhuri]

Per Advaita, all duality ceases on Liberation. As Brahman alone exists, the world (an effect of Maya) does not exist anymore and the jiva is no longer a separate entity. This is Sat-chid-Ananda and the highest goal.

Would it be correct to say that the world does not exist to/for the jiva? Ie/ it still exists but the jiva who has become liberated is no longer trapped by it.

Sat-chit-ananda is also part of Vaishnava philosophy. Even for those who believe in a realm like Goloka and Vaikutha, these places are not affected by Maya and they are entirely composed of Spirit- ie/ Sat-chit-ananda; being, knowledge and bliss.

 

[atanu]

Well, we can accept it as an alternate name. Buddhism (Bauddha dharma) was also known as Shunya Vada. Dvaita is known as Tattva-vada. Mayavada is an apt name for Advaita as it is the only doctrine that has Maya as a key part of its doctrine.

If it were not used more by critics than by the tradition itself, then there would be no problem.

Ya. I agree with the blue. But I do not with the red. What is wrong with advaitavAda, which is derived from scripture. Why another apt name is required? Dvaita does teach tattva tAratamya. Buddha taught shunya. But advaita teaches brahman is alone real. From that angle the alternate term is not appropriate. But for the purpose of discussions and debate it is like a nickname, perhaps.

 

[Madhuri]

What does it even mean to say that Brahman alone is real? To me, that says that Everything is real, since Brahman includes everything in existence...

 

[zenzero]

Friend Madhuri,

What does it even mean to say that Brahman alone is real? To me, that says that Everything is real, since Brahman includes everything in existence...

Now you have understood the ESSENCE of all RELIGIONS and when that It is realized [as there exists a gap between the understanding and realization of IT] Its all labels for that understanding as putting words to IT is impossible and It can only be indicated / pointed towards and that is what all religions are trying to do.

Love & rgds

 

[atmarama]

Previously I asked:

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?

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.

This only answered the first question... Sri Caitanya’s views were very clear however. Prema or love for God remains the highest purushartha (object of desire). The four traditional purusharthas—dharma, artha, kama and moksha—were rejected by him as relatively insignificant.

Although moksha as the goal of life is given the highest value by almost all the other Schools of Indian philosophy including advaita, it is only in Caitanya Vaisnavism that it is not seen as important. The reason behind this is that while the devotee’s only object of desire is to attain God by means of love, the one desiring liberation aims at the union of the devotee and God. Thus moksha acts as an obstacle in the path of bhakti and cannot satisfy the devotee’s desire to live in the constant company of God.

Ishvara is real but the personal aspect only exists in Maya. Out side of Maya there is only Brahman. 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.

Hmmm - not a very clear answer. I must point out here that this is not at all compatible with vaisnava siddhanta. As I understand Krishna is brahman. Therefore non-different from His name, form etc. Krishna, and all the Lords forms, are understood to be sat-cit-ananda ie eternal, full of bliss and knowledge. Although Brahman is accepted as being non different from the Lord, still the Lord is known as param-brahman.

In Srimad Bhagavatam it is said:

vadanti tat tattva-vidas
tattvam yaj jnanam advayam
brahmeti paramatmeti
bhagavan iti sabdyate

"Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramatma or Bhagavan"

Here are some questions and I would like to know your 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?

One point should be made here: my independent thoughts are worthless on their own. They should be confirmed by authoritative sources to be accepted as truth. That being said...

It makes sense to me that our forms are created in the image of the Supreme form, God. The Bible also verifies this: "Man was made in the image of God." Indeed, the question shouldn't be "why does Krishna look human", but rather "why do we humans look like Krishna"...

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?

My thoughts on this are that Krishna the Absolute Truth is beyond materially minded and mundane interpretations. He is supremely independent, and can perform human like pastimes if he so wishes. It should here be noted that after the age of 20 or thereabouts He didn't age at all... Showing that He is transcendental to the workings of this material manifestation.

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.

Shankaracharya's Gita Bhasya -

narayana paro vyakat

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead, Narayana, is beyond the material creation"

Not to mention his Bhaja Govindam verses:

bhaja govindam bhaja govindam bhaja govindam mudha-mate
samprapte sannitite kale na hi na hi raksati dukrn-karane

"You fools, all your grammatical word jugglery of suffixes, prefixes and philosophical speculation will not save you at the time of death. Just worship Govinda! Worship Govinda! Worship Govinda!"

Come to think of it no one explained why he sang this. If he was being serious surely he was saying we should worship Govinda???

Ishvara is Brahman united with Maya

Completely false according to vaisnava siddhanta...

Ishvara is the ruler and controller of maya.

Seemingly these are contradictions. But this second point is true according to vaisnava siddhanta.

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.

We understand that this material creation is the dim/perverted reflection of the spiritual world, which is made up of many different planets and unlimited jiva's in various relationships to the Lord.

A man is in the desert. He has no water and is dying of thirst. Wherever he goes he sees water, but actually it is a mirage. Does that mean there is no such thing as real water??? Of course not. In a similar way this material world is the illusory, temporary reflection of the spiritual reality. Makes sense to me

Per Advaita, all duality ceases on Liberation.

Yes, the spiritual world is understood to be absolute. No duality. But still there is loving and interactive relationship. Acyinta bed abed... Inconceivable oneness and individuality. You are one, but still you can experience loving exchanges...

One other key difference between Advaita and Vaishnava Vedanta schools is Advaita allows the concept of Jivan-mukti. That is, liberation can happen when the person is still alive and the body will continue to live. Ramana Maharishi is popularly held as such a rare individual.

This concept of Jivan-mukti is rejected by all other schools.

Well, gaudiyas accept one can be liberated even while within the body...

We can accept it as an alternate name. Buddhism (Bauddha dharma) was also known as Shunya Vada. Mayavada is an apt name for Advaita as it is the only doctrine that has Maya as a key part of its doctrine.

Great, as Lord Chaitanya Himself refered to advaita like that


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."

 

[atanu]

What does it even mean to say that Brahman alone is real? To me, that says that Everything is real, since Brahman includes everything in existence...

Namaste Madhuri

I suppose that the question is directed to me. Thanks for asking. Brahman is alone true is almost akin to saying that in sea, the sea and the waves are water only. The beginning is one material but the discrete created forms are not equal to that beginning. So, we cannot say that jagat is one truth and Brahman another. Note that this is the paramarthika view.

In the phenomenal waking and dreaming states, the entities are as true as the belief prevailing in consciousness. For example, when you find yourself fleshy in the waking period, the world is also so. When you become of light body, as in dreaming, the world is also so -- made of light and shade (although there is no sun). In deep sleep, without knowing, one is pure consciousness and thus there is no boundary perceived. But the Self is the Seer and Knower of these three states (but Self is not these three states). So, the Self, the Turya, is untouched and transcendental.

It is absolute Dvaita. There is absolute Dvaita between the realms of waking, dreaming, and deep sleep and the Turya being who knows these states. To me, Sri Madhavacharya is the greatest Advaita teacher after Shankara's time. Without first discriminatiing the 'without beginning duality' between a) the Seer and b)the States, Advaita cannot be comprehended.

But if one wants to know the Turya, as is prescribed in Upanishads, the whole situation will change. Who will know the Knower? Upanishads teach: There no other Seer but Him. There is no other knowr but Him. With above background, i will request you to analyse the following together:

Gita 13
13 I will describe that which is to be known and by knowing which life eternal is gained. It is the supreme Brahman that is beginningless and is said to be neither existent nor non-existent.

16 He is undivided (indivisible) and yet He seems to be divided among beings. He is to be known as supporting creatures, destroying them and creating them afresh.

22 The Supreme Spirit in the body is said to be the Witness the Permitter, the Supporter, the Experiencer, the Great Lord and the Supreme Self.
.......

Just analyse how you will know the undivided Paramatman as undivided, if you are another entity separate from it? How will you know that which is the actual knower? How can the knower be known?

Only in complete surrender, when the divisions and separate I sense created by ego vanish, then in complete union alone this will happen. This complete surrender is what I call the successful meditation -- when there is Brahman alone. This is not egoistic but this can only be the result of complete egolessness.

Om

Note: I have rambled unnecessarily. Yet questions will be welcome.

 

[atmarama]

One other point I feel I should make.

Within the advaitan camp I have heard that there are those who say that the Lords form is maya. Lord Chaitanya has said that these are mayavadi's, and they are the worst offenders at the lotus feet of the Lord.

Then there are what we refer to as brahmavadi's - although they are ultimately impersonalists, they are not offensive to the Lord ie they don't deride the transcendental form of the Lord as maya... They are often very spiritually advanced.

 

[atmarama]

Gita 13
13 I will describe that which is to be known and by knowing which life eternal is gained. It is the supreme Brahman that is beginningless and is said to be neither existent nor non-existent.

jneyam yat tat pravaksyämi
yaj jnätvämritam asnute
anädi mat-param brahma
na sat tan näsad ucyate

jneyam—the knowable; yat—which; tat—that; pravaksyämi—I shall now explain; yat—which; jnätvä—knowing; amritam—nectar; asnute—one tastes; anädi—beginningless; mat-param—subordinate to Me; brahma—spirit; na—neither; sat—cause; tat—that; na—nor; asat—effect; ucyate—is said to be.

I shall now explain the knowable, knowing which you will taste the eternal. Brahman, the spirit, beginningless and subordinate to Me, lies beyond the cause and effect of this material world.

 

[Madhuri]

One other point I feel I should make.

Within the advaitan camp I have heard that there are those who say that the Lords form is maya.

Yes, this is my understanding of the term as well.

 

[Madhuri]

Namaste Madhuri

I suppose that the question is directed to me. Thanks for asking. Brahman is alone true is almost akin to saying that in sea, the sea and the waves are water only. The beginning is one material but the discrete created forms are not equal to that beginning. So, we cannot say that jagat is one truth and Brahman another. Note that this is the paramarthika view.

Hey Atanu,
thank you for your response. I think that I am coming closer to understanding the concepts. As a follower of the Bhedabheda philosophy, I find that many of the things you say are compatible with my point of view. But I do get confused with the explanations that Advaitins use. You response was very helpful.

 

[atanu]

jneyam yat tat pravaksyämi
yaj jnätvämritam asnute
anädi mat-param brahma
na sat tan näsad ucyate

I shall now explain the knowable, knowing which you will taste the eternal. Brahman, the spirit, beginningless and subordinate to Me, lies beyond the cause and effect of this material world.

That is the crux. The word is anaadimatparam, which is 'Supreme Without Begginning'. Krishna has already declared in 8.3 the following:

8.3 Aksharam brahma paramam swabhaavo’dhyaatmamuchyate;
Bhootabhaavodbhavakaro visargah karmasamjnitah.

8.3. Brahman is the Imperishable, the Supreme; His essential nature is Adhyatman – the Self; the offering (to the gods) which causes existence and manifestation of beings and which also sustains them is called action.

Now some translators introduce a phrase “Brahman is subordinate to me” in Gita 13.13 and forget that they are creating a contradiction to verse 8.3. anaadimat has also been used in Svet. Up. for Brahman without any confusion.

Svet. Up. 4.4

niilaH pataN^go harito lohitaaxa\-
staDidgarbha R^itavaH samudraaH .
anaadimat.h tva.n vibhutvena vartase
yato jaataani bhuvanaani vishvaa .. 4.4..

4 .4 Thou art the dark—blue bee; Thou art the green parrot with red eyes; Thou art the thunder—cloud, the seasons and the seas. Thou art beginningless and all-pervading. From Thee all the worlds are born.
....

But Atmarama I am curious as to how much one can be stuck in groove of 'my God is superior' concept. Brahman is beyond comparison. Don't you think so?

Om

 

[atanu]

Hey Atanu,
thank you for your response. I think that I am coming closer to understanding the concepts. As a follower of the Bhedabheda philosophy, I find that many of the things you say are compatible with my point of view. But I do get confused with the explanations that Advaitins use. You response was very helpful.

You are welcome. Thanks.

 

[atmarama]

But Atmarama I am curious as to how much one can be stuck in groove of 'my God is superior' concept. Brahman is beyond comparison. Don't you think so?

I'm not in a "my God is superior" concept atanu. God is one, therefore we are talking of the same entity. Just I am saying in the ultimate sense He is a person, and you are saying He is not...

I would like to understand how, even though Krsna says so many times in Gita: Me, I etc how is it that you come to an impersonal absolute???

For example: 18.65

man-manä bhava mad-bhakto
mad-yäji mäà namaskuru
mäm evaisyasi satyam te
pratijäne priyo 'si me

man-manäù—thinking of Me; bhava—just become; mat-bhaktaù—My devotee; mat-yäjé—My worshiper; mäm—unto Me; namaskuru—offer your obeisances; mäm—unto Me; eva—certainly; eñyasi—come; satyam—truly; te—to you; pratijäne—I promise; prijaù—dear; asi—you are; me—My.

Always think of Me and become My devotee. Worship Me and offer your homage unto Me. Thus you will come to Me without fail. I promise you this because you are My very dear friend.

Whats going on here, does Krsna not mean what He says?