Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
I see my self as more of a Shakta who has been influenced by Adi Sankara. There is very little difference between the two world views.
I like that bhav also. It's what I like about Ramakrishna.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
what is hinduisms highest priority
- Thread starter evane123
- Start date
I see my self as more of a Shakta who has been influenced by Adi Sankara. There is very little difference between the two world views.
I like that bhav also. It's what I like about Ramakrishna.
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
I agree. Also, Ramakrishna taught Totapuri that Ishwara is real and our need of Her.
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
I you are just a hair off on your assessment of Sankara views of Maya. This hair makes all the difference. Maya is not a complete illusion it's not completely real also.
I must also say that to become God does not mean becoming Ishvara. There is a difference between Ishvara and Jiva although both are Brahman.
When you look at Advaita Vedanta through the eyes of Schrodinger it makes perfect sense. It was his inspiration for quantum physics.
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
very true.
kaisersose
Active Member
Just saw this post!
Hmm...these were not Shankara's final words at all. If you disagree, please provide evidence. I can quote authoritative biographies on Shankara like the Madhaviya Shankara Vijayam, etc., and not *one* of them claim these as Shankara's last words.
On the contrary, I have seen Iskcon push this theory that Shankara had a "change of heart" on his deathbed and composed the Bhaja Govindam. For the uninitiated, this is a little shenanigan to mislead them into thinking Shankara rejected his own doctrine as false on his deathbed!
Too many problems with this one,
1. Absence of evidence
2. Incorrectly assumes the Bhaja Govindam is against the Advaita doctrine.
3. Besides Bhaja Govindam, Shankara also composed other Stotras like Soundarya Lahari, Shivanandalahari, Sri Laxmi Narasimha Karavalamba Stotram, Sharada Bhujangam, Kanakadhaara stotram and others. Is it the Gaudiya Vaishnava position that they were *all* composed on his deathbed?
4. If somehow Bhaja Govindam is against Advaita, then why did his followers not give up Advaita right then? Why is Advaita still the leading Vedanta doctrine today - 1300 years after Shankara's alleged change of heart?
I would caution people against spreading malice and falsities on Shankara/Advaita - cloaked with statements like "Prabhu, I have great respect for Shankara, but...". You may get away with this trick elsewhere, but some of us here are well acquainted with these methods. Expect to be challenged for evidence or else simply, just stop talking about Shankara and Advaita. If your real intent is to follow Chaitanya, then I am sure you agree that Shankara, Advaita/Mayavada and the Bhaja Govindam are really none of your business.
No Offense meant, Prabhu
Last edited:
kaisersose
Active Member
Since the topic of Bhaja Govindam came up, here is the correct context.
Shankara was in Kasi where he saw an old Brahmana on the banks of the Ganga, memorizing rules of Grammar. He felt pity for this guy and sung the Bhaja Govindam. Mudhamate (fools) refers to people who are not striving for Moksha. The poem says that people should not waste their time on material activities as the length of life is unpredictable (like raindrops on a lotus leaf). They should instead direct their time and energy towards liberation by worshipping the Lord.
Several online copies are available for reading.
Shankara was in Kasi where he saw an old Brahmana on the banks of the Ganga, memorizing rules of Grammar. He felt pity for this guy and sung the Bhaja Govindam. Mudhamate (fools) refers to people who are not striving for Moksha. The poem says that people should not waste their time on material activities as the length of life is unpredictable (like raindrops on a lotus leaf). They should instead direct their time and energy towards liberation by worshipping the Lord.
Several online copies are available for reading.
Last edited:
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friends,
Personal understanding is that the form is the gross part of the no-form.
The two together makes the *whole*.
So if someone says that the form is greater and if someone says the no-form is greater is not incorrect in any way but it must be realised that both together makes the *whole*.
As ice as form is seeing but the same water as vapour cannot be seen.. So anyone taking side with vapour or with ice /water are both correct. What happened between Totapuri and Ramkrishna was that both shared this understanding that both form and no-form are two sides of the same coin.
ALL that is important is one is not holding to either and can see the *whole*.
What we must try and understand is to bring alive the situation the chemistry the reality and be one in understanding rather than clinging to one view only as EVERYTHING that is there, that is happening etc are all parts of the TRUTH / WHOLE / GOD / TAO / BRAHMAN / etc.
Love & rgds
Personal understanding is that the form is the gross part of the no-form.
The two together makes the *whole*.
So if someone says that the form is greater and if someone says the no-form is greater is not incorrect in any way but it must be realised that both together makes the *whole*.
As ice as form is seeing but the same water as vapour cannot be seen.. So anyone taking side with vapour or with ice /water are both correct. What happened between Totapuri and Ramkrishna was that both shared this understanding that both form and no-form are two sides of the same coin.
ALL that is important is one is not holding to either and can see the *whole*.
What we must try and understand is to bring alive the situation the chemistry the reality and be one in understanding rather than clinging to one view only as EVERYTHING that is there, that is happening etc are all parts of the TRUTH / WHOLE / GOD / TAO / BRAHMAN / etc.
Love & rgds
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friends,
Another understanding that wished to share:
Normally those on spiritual path even some enlightened people would call others *fools* if they are not on the spiritual path. Personal understanding is this:
Each form as mentioned above are a part of the whole be it in the form of a fool or in the form of a meditator both are maya [form] and so nothing to be serious about either as it is only a game the *whole* gets played out by. Individual forms keep evolving and some forms are able to become *conscious* and so take a position to get out of this cycle of birth and rebirth or simply merge with the *whole* etc. but again even that happening is possible due to the whole and the individual is simply a part of it.
Others who remain unconscious and keep taking the material fulfilment route are also parts of that same very whole and as holy as the self proclaimed holy except that this form has to fill out may speces through the desire fulfillment till his consciousness becomes arisen /active and where time is immaterial it makes no difference whether it happens in this life or another as evolution takes care of it and slowly evolution will carry each and every element in the whole towards the path taken.
Even before those who became enlightened and are known, we must understand that they too are merely humans which is just another form which was not there earlier and only through evolution that humans itself have appeared on earth as a form.
It so happens that some elements of the whole vaporised early and became enlightened like when the water is boiled H2O molecules on the surface vaporises earlier than those at the bottom. Does it mean that those molecules at the bottom are any less H2O or anyway inferior and such an event in an atmosphere of timelessness is meaningless.
Those who hold on to any particular view only need to broaden such views to understand that its all part of the whole and the whole is only the truth.
Love & rgds
Another understanding that wished to share:
Normally those on spiritual path even some enlightened people would call others *fools* if they are not on the spiritual path. Personal understanding is this:
Each form as mentioned above are a part of the whole be it in the form of a fool or in the form of a meditator both are maya [form] and so nothing to be serious about either as it is only a game the *whole* gets played out by. Individual forms keep evolving and some forms are able to become *conscious* and so take a position to get out of this cycle of birth and rebirth or simply merge with the *whole* etc. but again even that happening is possible due to the whole and the individual is simply a part of it.
Others who remain unconscious and keep taking the material fulfilment route are also parts of that same very whole and as holy as the self proclaimed holy except that this form has to fill out may speces through the desire fulfillment till his consciousness becomes arisen /active and where time is immaterial it makes no difference whether it happens in this life or another as evolution takes care of it and slowly evolution will carry each and every element in the whole towards the path taken.
Even before those who became enlightened and are known, we must understand that they too are merely humans which is just another form which was not there earlier and only through evolution that humans itself have appeared on earth as a form.
It so happens that some elements of the whole vaporised early and became enlightened like when the water is boiled H2O molecules on the surface vaporises earlier than those at the bottom. Does it mean that those molecules at the bottom are any less H2O or anyway inferior and such an event in an atmosphere of timelessness is meaningless.
Those who hold on to any particular view only need to broaden such views to understand that its all part of the whole and the whole is only the truth.
Love & rgds
Friend Zenzero,
I think it is possible for one to carry the image of one's mother without material attachment.
The use of form in Bhakti is NOT again primarily to still the mind. The FORM is the Brahman; there is no one else to still the mind for. If the stilling of mind or Samadhi into that form happens; it is a secondary phenomenon and not a primary goal.
I guess we both are looking at the same thing from two perspectives. As WY added, Ramakrishna also taught Totapuri that form was necessary.
Regards,
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friend satsangi,
As have explained the reasons for personal understanding that both form and no-form together makes the whole and there could be no denying of form to be as good and also that the a mind free of all thoughts including forms is what it is all about.
Finally just to state that we are all one but been parts of the *whole* play keep evolving and changing as that is the only thing that is permanent i.e. *CHANGE*.
In some thread there is a discussion of humans as higher form even there is a quote from someone stating human form to be the highest. Personally would state that human form could be the latest but no way can one state it as superior for as soon as the word superior is added the word inferior automatically comes into the picture by default and another duality gets created.
It is simply to understand that whatever is latest has more features even in scientific discoveries. So one can flow along with the fact that human form is the latest to evolve and that it carries on further to some other form [only speculating here] which like babaji maharaj is only seen by those whom he wants to be seen by living over so many centuries and having transparent body etc. and a logical progression to that form would be form invisible to human eye but visible in another sphere where forms are not limited to the planet earth but could be more galactic which human mythologies have discussed. So what was mythology at one time would be reality at another time like all Jules Verne novels which are all true today even Nostradamus's predictions meaning that there is no aspect in life including dreams which has no base in reality [TRUTH] somewhere, someplace, sometime.
Love & rgds
As have explained the reasons for personal understanding that both form and no-form together makes the whole and there could be no denying of form to be as good and also that the a mind free of all thoughts including forms is what it is all about.
Finally just to state that we are all one but been parts of the *whole* play keep evolving and changing as that is the only thing that is permanent i.e. *CHANGE*.
In some thread there is a discussion of humans as higher form even there is a quote from someone stating human form to be the highest. Personally would state that human form could be the latest but no way can one state it as superior for as soon as the word superior is added the word inferior automatically comes into the picture by default and another duality gets created.
It is simply to understand that whatever is latest has more features even in scientific discoveries. So one can flow along with the fact that human form is the latest to evolve and that it carries on further to some other form [only speculating here] which like babaji maharaj is only seen by those whom he wants to be seen by living over so many centuries and having transparent body etc. and a logical progression to that form would be form invisible to human eye but visible in another sphere where forms are not limited to the planet earth but could be more galactic which human mythologies have discussed. So what was mythology at one time would be reality at another time like all Jules Verne novels which are all true today even Nostradamus's predictions meaning that there is no aspect in life including dreams which has no base in reality [TRUTH] somewhere, someplace, sometime.
Love & rgds
atmarama
Struggling Spiritualist
Yes, thank you for that. Here is a link to the full poem. Although it seems that these were not Sangkaracharya's final words, it is agreed that they are his words.
Here is a nice link to the entire poem:
Bhaja Govindam
According to the gaudiya vaishnava sampradaya understanding, Sankaracharya was none other than Lord Shiva himself, the greatest vaisnava, who appeared to defeat buddism on the strength of vedanta (which had been rejected by Lord Buddha). Adi-sankara re-established the authority of the Vedas in an impersonal way. Then came Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya, and finally the ultimate culmination of Lord Chaitanya. In gradual degrees pointing towards the Supreme Personality of Godhead and achutya bed abed tattva (similtaneous oneness and difference).
From Wikipedia: Bhaja Govindam
"In this prayer, Adi Shankaracharya emphasizes the importance of devotion for God as a means to spiritual development and to liberation from the cycle of birth and death. The prayer leaves one in no doubt that the renunciation of our egotistical differences and surrender to God makes for salvation. Many scholars hold that this composition encapsulates with both brevity and simplicity the substance of all Vedantic thought found in whatever other works that Adi Shankaracharya wrote:
The refrain "Bhaja Govindam" which defines the composition and gives it its name invokes the almighty in the aspect of Vishnu; it is therefore very popular not only with Sri Adi Shankaracharya's immediate followers, the Smarthas, but also with Vaishnavas and others."
"The prayer leaves one in no doubt that the renunciation of our egotistical differences and surrender to God makes for salvation." -
This once again links directly with Lord Krishna's instruction in Gita 18.66: "Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me"
So as you can see we offer great respect to Sankaracharya, who was directly empowered by The Lord... Hopefully now you can understand why Shankara, Advaita/Mayavada and the Bhaja Govindam are our business to some degree. We need to have a good philosophical understanding of the siddhanta to be convinced of the superiority of the teachings of Lord Chaitanya. Please do not take offense.
All glories to the great vaisnava devotees of the Lord!
Hare Krsna!
Last edited:
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friends,
The reason for the earlier posts to discuss that there is nothing superior or inferior neither was Totapuri inferior nor was Ramakrishna superior they like us were being who lived consciously and in consciousness there is nothing as superior consciousness and inferior consciousness.
Rather one must attempt in assimilating all the various teachers words and make attempts to bring to the realm of consciousness where they all merge in this vast limitless timelessness ocean of consciousness.
Love & rgds
The reason for the earlier posts to discuss that there is nothing superior or inferior neither was Totapuri inferior nor was Ramakrishna superior they like us were being who lived consciously and in consciousness there is nothing as superior consciousness and inferior consciousness.
Rather one must attempt in assimilating all the various teachers words and make attempts to bring to the realm of consciousness where they all merge in this vast limitless timelessness ocean of consciousness.
Love & rgds
kaisersose
Active Member
I would like to draw the attention of moderators here.
This is a DIR forum and I am pretty sure this is not a place for evangelistic activity as attempted by the Hare Krishnas. They post incorrect material about Shankara and Advaita, drawing from iskcon and Ramanuja sites, which will be very misleading to people who do not know otherwise. Their founder Prabhupada wrote an article titled "Mayavada (Advaita) is a false philosophy". Regardless of their platitudes and praises to Shankara, their real view on Advaita should be clear to everyone.
It is my opinion, that they should stay away from posting lies on Advaita and this is in the hands of the moderators.
atmarama
Struggling Spiritualist
Lies?!? Did Shankaracayrya not sing Bhaja Govinda?
O, I understand then. Only your "understanding" of scripture is ok to discuss on Religious Forums? Do me a favour! We live in the age of free press... Please explain this to him moderators.
Specifically this is a thread on the highest priority of hinduism... Surely we should discuss our individual understandings. If any place, this is the right one.
Last edited:
kaisersose
Active Member
Except for chronology, everything here is incorrect.
Shankara primarily debates the Mimamsa school as the Purva pakshin. The Mimamsa school of Jaimini focused entirely on the Karma kanda of the Vedas (injunctions for action) and rejected Vedanta. Shankara championed Vedanta and was successfully able to convert over Mimamsa Brahmins to Vedanta. Buddhism was not his target as incorrectly believed by the Hare Krishnas. The Mimamsa scholar Kumarila Bhatta is believed to be responsible for converting back a lot of Buddhist scholars back to Mimamsa. The story is KUmarila Bhatta was on his death-bed when Shankara went to meet him for a debate. He told Shankara to debate his student Mandana Mishra instead.
There is nothing impersonal about Advaita. That is yet another piece of misinformation circulated by Iskcon. Advaitins worship Gods like anyone else, visit temple, sing Bhajans, etc. Does not get any more personal than that.
Shankara's doctrine was so forceful that it quickly spread across the country and became the standard. Several other scholars like Ramanuja and Madhva creatd new doctrines primarily arguing against Advaita. However, unlike Shankara, they all failed to find success beyond their own local regions (Karnataka and Tamilnadu). This does not make Advaita superior. It just means that for a variety of reasons, it continues to be the dominant Vedanta doctrine.
As for claims of superiority, if chronology matters, then Sai Baba is still alive which makes his school the most superior. Or else we can agree that chronology has nothing to do with it and Iskcon does not become superior to others simply because Chaitanya was born later than Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhva.
A feeling of superiority is arrogance and is a bad trait for someone who is engaged in spiritual activity.
atmarama
Struggling Spiritualist
This of course is according to the Advaita traditions viewpoint. When I made my post I mentioned that it was the Gaudiya understanding.
The personal & impersonal lies in the question: What is the ultimate goal? To love and serve the Lord eternally, or to "become one" with the eternal brahman?
Thank you for the discussion
kaisersose
Active Member
The goal of all the three major traditions of Vedanta (Shankara, Madhva, Ramanuja) is the same - to attain Mukti\Moksha\Liberation as instructed by the Upanishads, the Gita, etc. Nothing impersonal about that. None of these traditions state that multiple Ultimate goals are available and the individual can choose his own - one of the points on which Gaudiya Vaishnavas are confused.
On the topic, *all* of the following Iskcon propoganda about Advaita is false -
1. The Advaitin does not worship forms (False)
2. The Advaitin wants to merge with Brahman (False)
3. The Advaitin wants to merge with BrahmaJyothi - an Iskcon term (False)
4. The Advaitin aspires to become God (False)
If you disagree with any of the above, please provide evidence - not from iskcon sites, but from Advaita sources. If you want to discuss Advaita, then you should take the time to read about Advaita from a legitimate source. Unfortunately for you, Iskcon propoganda taught by Prabhupada is mostly incorrect as you will discover (if you spend some more time here) as he himself never bothered to learn Advaita before talking about it.
Last edited:
kaisersose
Active Member
Not on his deathbed as you stated earlier - which you conveniently left out. Trying to pull a fast one, will not work here.
It is a significant twist because deathbed implies he had a change of heart and I have talked to ISKCON people who said exactly that - The Mayavadi Shankara had a change of heart on his deathbed and told his disciples (fools) to worship Govinda instead of following Mayavada.
Correct. I'm an advaitin, but I still worship forms. Here's how I see it: whichever Form the Lord takes, I worship That.
If the ultimate reality is non-dual, then we're already one with Brahman. So, again, what you say is true.
What's BrahmaJyothi?
And again, if the ultimate reality is non-dual, we're already God. Nothing to "become"; only realize.