what is hinduisms highest priority

[Wannabe Yogi]

I know many Gaudiya Vaishnavas may not say it, but I do have deep respect for Adi Shankara. Its just that Advaita is just not for me, perhaps I am not advanced enough to understand it.

The path of the Lord Caitanya leads to the Highest. You have no need of Advaita. To tell you he truth I just loved all His singing and Dancing, philosophy is just so much more boring.

 

[kaisersose]

I dont see any contradictions in the Gita, sure in some places Krishna says that you should meditate, serve others, etc. But in the end, Krishna says that one should just surrender to Him (18.66). When Krishna says "Surrender to Me" who else is He talking about? I agree with Atmaram here, when I say look at ME I dont mean look at the door. If Krishna says "Surrender to Me" surely He means for us to surrender to Him, not to other Gods because he is Svayam Bhagavan, Parapurusha, the source of all. Is this not what it says in the Gita?

That is a very naive interpretation, to put it mildly.

The Gita is one scripture among a set and it has to be interpreted in line with all the other scriptures in the set. It is just Iskcon's way to interpret the Gita as -

- Krishna says he is better than all other Gods
- Worship me instead of these other inferior Gods

The Advaitin interpretation is all Gods including Krishna are one (no differences, rankings, etc). Obviously, the interpretation here is very different.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

That is a very naive interpretation, to put it mildly.

The Gita is one scripture among a set and it has to be interpreted in line with all the other scriptures in the set.

What is your set of scriptures. Are you talking about the Brahma Sutras, Upanishads and the Gita (Prasthanatrayi). Or do you mean all the scriptures.

 

[Bhagavata]

I agree Krishna says to surrender to Him. In the Tripura Rahasya the Divine Mother says that when she is pleased with an Devotee she gives all knowledge.

The Vedas are clear all the Gods are One.

Later on it in the same text (Mahabhrata) it was the Lord Krishna Himself gave the world the Shiva Sahasranama.(1000 names of Shiva) In it Krishna called Shiva the Substance of All, cause of All, and all of existance. Are Krishna and Shiva different Gods ? No they are not.

In the Gita he says He is all there is.

In the Devi Suktam (from the Rig Veda) A woman Rshi who is the daughter of Sage Ambrunar. Said that she was the Devi Vak and that

I am the Queen of the Universe; ... I am the all-knowing one and the prime one among the worshippable deities. I enter many bodies as the Atma, taking various forms and with different manifestations, in various ways. Hence, the Devas have incorporated me in various places.

That one who eats food, who sees, breathes, and hears whatever is said, he does all that only through me (my powers). Those who do not understand me, die. O dear one ! (to the worshipper or devotee), hear this singing of mine with concentration... I am the One worshipped by the Devas and the earthly beings.

like William Shakespeare said.
What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.


Vak, Shiva and Krishna are all the same.

Are you a smarta? This is very much along the line of Smartism, with the whole every God is apart of one.

The path of the Lord Caitanya leads to the Highest. You have no need of Advaita. To tell you he truth I just loved all His singing and Dancing, philosophy is just so much more boring.

That is my favorite thing about Caitanya. I want to have the same emotions He did, philosophy is secondary. When I hear about Him fainting, rolling on the ground, and doing other such things out of Prema, it just makes me respect Him so much!

 

[kaisersose]

What is your set of scriptures. Are you talking about the Brahma Sutras, Upanishads and the Gita (Prasthanatrayi). Or do you mean all the scriptures.

Not all the scriptures. Every school has its own set of scriptures and they are all required to maintain consistency within the set. This is big challenge and hence the various interpretations.

For example, there is the interesting "brahmano hi pratishta aham" verse in the Gita literally meaning I am the source of Brahman, where a literal reading would be confusing (and incorrect too, for most schools). Madhva interprets Brahman here as Lakshmi, Iskcon will read it literarally as they do not have to be consistent with Upanishads and so on.

In short, I was calling his view naive because the same Gita sends different messages to different schools. It is not something to be debated here as each party is only intent upon convincing the other and therefore there will be no change, whatsoever.

 

[Bhagavata]

Not all the scriptures. Every school has its own set of scriptures and they are all required to maintain consistency within the set. This is big challenge and hence the various interpretations.

For example, there is the interesting "brahmano hi pratishta aham" verse in the Gita literally meaning I am the source of Brahman, where a literal reading would be confusing (and incorrect too, for most schools). Madhva interprets Brahman here as Lakshmi, Iskcon will read it literarally as they do not have to be consistent with Upanishads and so on.

In short, I was calling his view naive because the same Gita sends different messages to different schools. It is not something to be debated here as each party is only intent upon convincing the other and therefore there will be no change, whatsoever.

The quote "Brahmano hi Pratishta aham" actually works out just fine for all of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, not just some ISKCON interpretation.

First of all, I dont think this is a debate, but a healthy discussion. I am not trying to convince anyone to believe what I say, or what Gaudiya Vaishnavism says, nor do I feel others are trying to do that to me. I think we are all just sharing our various view points. To look at it like that is to not understand the spirit of the discussion and to thus call it a debate in which each party is just trying to convince others of their views, which I dont think is quite accurate here.

 

[kaisersose]

The quote "Brahmano hi Pratishta aham" actually works out just fine for all of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, not just some ISKCON interpretation.
First of all, I dont think this is a debate, but a healthy discussion. I am not trying to convince anyone to believe what I say, or what Gaudiya Vaishnavism says, nor do I feel others are trying to do that to me. I think we are all just sharing our various view points. To look at it like that is to not understand the spirit of the discussion and to thus call it a debate in which each party is just trying to convince others of their views, which I dont think is quite accurate here.

My apologies. When I say Iskcon, I mean all of Gaudiyas. It is like a non-Christian views all Christians as the same, but within Christianity they have several factions (and one does not approve of the other ).

All Vedanta schools (including Vaishnavas) hold that Brahman = Krishna, with no difference between the two at all. Therefore, they will not read that verse literally. However, Gaudiyas do not depend on Upanishads or any other Vedic scriptures and hence are able to take the "Krishna is superior to Brahman" position. Even among Vaishnava traditions, this position is a minority.

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

Just like to share what *SURRENDER* means..
As have explained in all earlier posts the barrier between the *whole* or one can use any label for that universal energy and the individual form which again is a part of that very universal energy is the MIND and this MIND by nature *THINKS* and there is no way these thoughts can be STOPPED.
When the MIND *STILLS* the state is labelled *NO-MIND*; it is in this state that the individual energy which is the form is ONE with the UNIVERSAL energy and is a state labelled as *samadhi/ satori/ etc*.
This is the state when the individual is no more as an individual energy but is merged with the universal or *whole* and is also a state of *SURRENDER*.
Normally those on the path of BHAKTI are usually familiar with this word *surrender* rather than those on the path of *dhyan* as dhyanis /meditators reach the state of meditation only after having surrendered that *self* to start with.
There is nothing as superior or inferior amongst paths/ways all that one needs is to be religious about the practice to remain in the state of oneness.

Love & rgds

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

Other point that wish to share is about SCRIPTURES.
They are written by someone and contains truth but only by living those words do they come alive as otherwise they [scriptures] are dead words.

If one's mind is creating differences amongst any aspect of life only points at the surrender is incomplete and more practice is required for that surrender to take place and the scriptures to come alive.

When the scriptures become alive the whole existence becomes alive through such an individual.

Love & rgds

 

[Satsangi]

Friend atmaram,



It will be a pleasure if you can bring out which words made you feel such; would surely try and dispel the MYTHS created here!

What Ramakrishna said, have never been memorized [as that is for parrots] but the essence is that he reached the same state through practice of seven religions to demonstrate that all religions / paths are ways to reach the same state.

When you really know who *YOU* are then the whole *PLAY / MAYA will be a clear reflection like the moon on a still lake and for that one needs to still the mind either through devotion as you are doing or directly by bringing watchfulness as personal am doing. Only when the MIND is STILL does one reach the state of samadhi /satori / etc.
One has to understand THAT even those who take the path of devotion.

Once again, best wishes on your devotion to your devotion.

Love & rgds

Sorry to pitch in, could not resist. Friend Zenzero- you are right in your own way. Your goal is to to "still the mind" by whatever method and that would lead to the experience of Lord in your Chaitanya. According to the Bhakti path, personal God (for example Lord Krishna) is the Supreme and their Mukti is ONLY by His grace; "stilling of mind," if that happens, is only a secondary phenomenon of NO importance. For example, Pootna the demoness who was killed by child Krishna was given the same Mukti as Maa Yashoda by Lord Krishna. Another such example is Kansa. Even the demons got Mukti by His grace.

Regards,

 

[zenzero]

Friend Satsangi,

Now that is really the reflection that takes place when the lake [mind] is still meaning we are ONE in understanding and this understanding is the basis for further understandings and realization that its all ONE.

Now study any scriptures and relate that with the MIND / No-MIND concept and the result will be the same; oneness with different labels.

Love & rgds

 

[zenzero]

Friend Satsangi,

Now that you have brought out the topic of *DEMONS*.
If you relate this with MIND / NO-MIND concept you will understand that MIND by its very nature is the demon / satan as it THINKS and thoughts are perceptions which arises due to past karma, desires, etc. and mukti from this mind happens when one steadfastly is watchful / aware / conscious about the thoughts going on in the mind, the thoughts drop and the No-MIND remains.

God and Satan are the also a duality as is the mind and no-mind. Both are a reality and the existence of one is dependent on the other and so it is said *IT IS NOT TWO* as stating it as one is incorrect unless we understand that two together is ONE.

Love & rgds

 

[Satsangi]

Friend Satsangi,

Now that is really the reflection that takes place when the lake [mind] is still meaning we are ONE in understanding and this understanding is the basis for further understandings and realization that its all ONE.

Now study any scriptures and relate that with the MIND / No-MIND concept and the result will be the same; oneness with different labels.

Love & rgds

Friend Zenzero,

In principle, I do agree that "stilling mind" as in Yoga/Meditation and "total absorption of mind in the form of God" as in Bhakti lead to the same result.

But, then my question to you would be what was wrong with Shri RamaKrishna Paramhamsa totally absorbed in Godess Kali that Totapuri and to ask him to remove her image from his mind? My answer to that is- Totapuri just showed him another path and not a superior path necessarily. Here I am presuming Goddess Kali as the Supreme- which it was for RamaKrishna Paramhansa.

Regards,

 

[zenzero]

Friend Satsangi,

There is nothing superior or inferior but for that total absorption / merging to take place the mind should be devoid of any image / attachment and be totally free.
Yes later Ramakrishna having done that was free to again go back to Kali as now after being totally free from all attachments it is just a play that one involves in.

Love & rgds

 

[Satsangi]

True friend Zenzero, but for a Bhakta, the form of God is just not an "image" or an "attachment; it IS ALL THERE IS.

Regards,

 

[zenzero]

Friend Satsangi,

Personal understanding:
In that case Totapuri would not have been necessary for Ramakrishna.
However being no Totapuri or Ramakrishna am not qualified to comment as at best it would only be a guess which again would be a mis-perception of true facts.
Just for our own understanding: Is it possible for our minds not to carry any image of our own mothers any time in our lives??
Cause if one is using a form as medium for stilling the mind to personal understanding such a form remains even as a spec of cloud.
Other than that form is the gross part of the no-form and it is possible to travel from one end to the other from either ends and all it needs is total understanding and realization.
Finally it is all about the worshiper and the worshiped not remaining as two.

Love & rgds

 

[atmarama]

He actually said that in the conclusion of the Bhagavad Gita, which is chapter 18. Krishna just gave to Arjuna many ways of getting to God. Karma, Dhyana, Samkhya, and others. And then, in the end, he says for Arjuna to DROP IT ALL and simply surrender to Him. To me, what Krishna is saying here is that complete surrender to God is the direct way to God Consciousness.

The path that Sri Caitanya mapped out is the easiest in this day and age to attain God Consciousness. Its that simple to me. In the Adi Lila of the Caitanya Caritamrta, it is said "'In this Age of Kali there is no religious principle other than the chanting of the holy name, which is the essence of all Vedic hymns. This is the purport of all scriptures.' (Adi 7.74) That is why I love Gauidya Vaishnavism, because of the simplicity of the path towards God Consciousness.

I dont see any contradictions in the Gita, sure in some places Krishna says that you should meditate, serve others, etc. But in the end, Krishna says that one should just surrender to Him (18.66). When Krishna says "Surrender to Me" who else is He talking about? I agree with Atmaram here, when I say look at ME I dont mean look at the door. If Krishna says "Surrender to Me" surely He means for us to surrender to Him, not to other Gods because he is Svayam Bhagavan, Parapurusha, the source of all. Is this not what it says in the Gita?

Fully agree with all the above points...

The commentaries on the Gita are to many to count. Each school of thought has its own way of looking at it. So the Gita contains parts of truths from many differing traditions.

Yes, that is why The Spiritual Master is required, to give definitive knowledge. Once one accepts a spiritual master ones path becomes clear.

You should also remember that it was the great Advaita Acharya Adi Sankara that gave the Gita its place of importance in the Hindu scriptures.

Adi Sankara taught the same thing. I am glad you found your path.

I know many Gaudiya Vaishnavas may not say it, but I do have deep respect for Adi Shankara. Its just that Advaita is just not for me, perhaps I am not advanced enough to understand it

Let us remember the final words of the great Adi Sankara:

bhaja govindam, bhaja govindam
bhaja govindam mudhamate
samprapte sannihite kale
na hi na hi rakshati dukrinyakarane

'Worship Govinda, worship Govinda, Oh you fools and rascals, just worship Govinda. Your rules of grammar and word jugglery will not help you at the time of death."

Personal understanding:

Finally it is all about the worshiper and the worshiped not remaining as two.

I do not agree.

Personal understanding: Achintya-Bheda-Abheda Tattva
Achintya-Bheda-Abheda सचेत तत् त्वम् असि is a school of Vedanta representing the philosophy of inconceivable one-ness and difference,[1] in relation to the power creation and creator, (Krishna), svayam bhagavan.[2][3] and also between God and his energies[4] within the Gaudiya Vaishnava religious tradition. In Sanskrit achintya means 'inconceivable',[1] bheda translates as 'difference', and abheda translates as 'one-ness'. It is believed that this philosophy was taught by the movement's theological founder Chaitanya Mahaprabhu[5](1486 - 1534) and differentiates the Gaudiya tradition from the other Vaishnava Sampradayas. It can be best understood as integral monism, as a position between polar opposites of absolute monism of Advaita, and the dualist monism of Advaitadvaita.
Caitanya's philosophy of acintya-bhedābheda-tattva completed the progression to devotional theism. Rāmānuja had agreed with Śaṅkara that the Absolute is one only, but he had disagreed by affirming individual variety within that oneness. Madhva had underscored the eternal duality of the Supreme and the Jīva: he had maintained that this duality endures even after liberation. Caitanya, in turn, specified that the Supreme and the jīvas are "inconceivably, simultaneously one and different" (acintya-bheda-abheda). He strongly opposed Śaṅkara's philosophy for its defiance of Vyāsadeva's siddhānta.

 

[Bhagavata]

Let us remember the final words of the great Adi Sankara:

bhaja govindam, bhaja govindam
bhaja govindam mudhamate
samprapte sannihite kale
na hi na hi rakshati dukrinyakarane

'Worship Govinda, worship Govinda, Oh you fools and rascals, just worship Govinda. Your rules of grammar and word jugglery will not help you at the time of death."

Thanks for this quote, Atmarama!!!




Thanks for the explenation of Achintya Bheda Abheda too, Atmarama. I love reading the glorious philosophy that our Lord has givin us!

Here is something that I read from this site:
web.me.com/eternalbrothers/et..._Ramanuja.html

"
Non-dualism extrapolates from the logical principle that God is everything. For non-dualists consciousness reflects the Light of God, while creation reflects the Body or Bliss of God. The non-dualists include the 8th century Shankara, greatly admired throughout all of India, who taught that you could become totally God and that everything except the Divine Reality was an illusion. God Realization in this view was a foregone conclusion—everyone would sooner or later, according to Shankara, reach Final Enlightenment and be equal to God.

The problem was, when Shankara tried to argue his position logically, as good as it sounded in the beginning, by the time all the inconsistencies and problems with this comprehensive,argument-heavy approach came to light, the explanation was more complicated and abstruse than even the most devout disciple had any use for."



Though I do respect Adi Shankara, many parts of His philosophy dont make sense. And the Advaita excuse is "Because its above the Mind", or "You must realize it for it to make sense". I practiced the various forms of Non-Dualism, like Zen, Advaita, and the others. I would meditate all the time, but the inconsistancies within the philosophy itself would begin to rise and bring my practice to a hault. When I found the Bhagavad-Gita as it is by Prabhupada, that was it! It made so much sense, the philosophy was sound and the way to get there was simple and because of that I felt it could work with humans today. Pure Non-Dualism doesnt make sense to me, though it may to others. Pure Dualism, too, is a little extreme. But Achintya Bheda Abheda is, to me, the perfection of philosophy because it is a conclusion that both Dualism and Non-Dualism have their Truths, but neither are fully true.

 

[zenzero]

Friend atmaram,

Thank you once again.
Once again best wishes to you.

You are still to respond as to *who* is that who is not agreeing! or is it a *what*??

Love & rgds

 

[kaisersose]

Thanks for the explenation of Achintya Bheda Abheda too, Atmarama. I love reading the glorious philosophy that our Lord has givin us!

Here is something that I read from this site:
web.me.com/eternalbrothers/et..._Ramanuja.html

Just FYI,

That piece on Advaita - especially that Shankara taught that people can "become God" is completely false and not surprsingly because it comes from a Ramanuja page!

If you are really interested in Shankara (I am sure you are not), you would be reading and posting from a Shankara site and not a Ramanuja page. This is is no different than copying and pasting content on Obama from a republican site.