06-12-2005, 11:39 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The contents in this particular post, are not really my verbatim thoughts or style of discussion.
I will edit this post in a few days.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->sunder, pls leave this post of yours in tact, as it serves as an example of what I have been trying to demonstrate from the very beginning of this thread. IMHO, we should leave it to neutral readers and admins of this thread to judge who's "style" it is to fly off the handle at the very start of this thread, and then go runninng off to start another prurient hatchet-job thread while pretending to be objective, and who indulges in hit-and-run posts rather than a coherent <i>conceptual</i> presentation of points. Your duplicity would be entertaining if it were not so repetitive.
In any case, I request you to leave your post in tact. Note that I am not speaking to you or your sidekicks here (you already have your minds made up), but to any interested and open-minded readers on this forum. I think this thread will be an interesting study for them, and the hammering monotony of the blind assertions you make and re-make is an integral part of this thread, and is a characteristic I have been trying to elicit for the examination of others.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Beware, this is not MY post. It is a quote from Vyaasa's Mahabharatha, which is part of the Hindu Shastra.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->So you just decided to quote the Mahabharata w/o intending to make any point? But then you say:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>While the Mahabharatha clearly mentions Sri Krishna propitiating and praying to Lord Shiva in EVERY yuga.</b> Hindus also know Sri Rama praying to Sri Rameshwara at Rameswaram in the Treta Yuga.. The moorkhavadis imposters go to the extent of denying Sri Krishna & Rama their opinions and way of life, and excert their own (false) image of Krishna - in the process blaspheming the real Krishna who propitiates Mahadeva in every Yuga.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> So wasnât this what you were trying to say in thhe Mahabharata post?? And isnât that what I said you were trying to say?? I am also touched by your reverence for Krishna and shiva, even though your philosophy says that none of them really exist. As I said, your decoys, your duplicity, is patent in your posts. To give another example:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Two-bit Scoundrels who claim to be the sishyas of the great Chaithanya and go under the garb of Gaudiya sect...
It is these unscrupulous scoundrel Moorkhavadis that bring a bad name to a beautiful philosophy like Krishna-Consciousness. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->So you have a lot of respect for Lord Chaitanya eh? Well, it was Lord Chaitanya who perpetuated the use of the word "mayavadi", which irks you so. <b>There was no greater denouncer of mayavada than Lord Chaitanya, and He did so in the strongest language, and so have all the acharyas in His parampara, and before Him. This aspect of Vaisnavism is not the fancy of some newly-fouded religious organization, but is integral to Vaishnavism itself. In defining and teaching Vaishnavism, they have to delineate what it includes, and what is does NOT include.</b>
Now about Vishnu eulogizing Lord Shiva: I have already mentioned that even Vaishnava scriptures are full of such passages. Why Lord Shiva, Krishna eulogizes and humbles Himself before so many other jivas. Krishna says, âthe love of my devotee purchases Meâ, âI follow the servant of My servant so that I may gather the dust from his/her lotus feet and put it on My head, because it is impossible for Me to repay their loveâ. There are numerous quotes to this effect. Refer the Uddhava Gita, and the Brihad-Bhagavad-amrita. In fact, Lord Shiva himself speaks of this great Love between the Supreme and His devotee in the latter. For the non-devotees, this great love is not comprehensible, because the concept of eternal, loving service is unpalatable, due to false-ego. A certain great 20th century mayavadi preacher criticized Vaishnavism for inculcating âa mentality of humility and servitudeâ. It is clear that he understands neither humility nor servitude.
The same preacher also berates Krishna for being too arrogant in making the following proclamations in the Bhagavad Gita: (a) That He alone is the Supreme and that all should Love Him alone, and importantly -- (b) that the worship of other demigods is "illegitimate" (avidhi-purvakam), and only for people attached to fruitive activities. This preacher singled Krishna out because no other deva makes these categorical assertions in all of Vedic scripture, even while they gracefully accept eulogies.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There can be no discussion if you cannot see the point "AHAM BRAHMASMI", and "PRAGNAANAM BRAHMA", "THATH THVAM ASI" in a non-dual way.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->That is my point. Your axioms are absolute, and you have not tried to understand how others have commented on such Upanishadic sutras. For example, aham brahmasmi simply means <b>"I am spirit-soul", i.e. "I am NOT the gross or subtle bodies."</b> It is an affirmation of one's true essence, stripped of any superimpositions (adhyaasa). But if you insist on interpreting it as "I am God", then you're right -- there can be no discussion. That is the point I was trying to make to <b>rajesh_g</b> earlier. The mayavadi dogma is inflexible, even though it does not sit well with Vedic philosophy as a whole.
To reiterate: When Sankara spoke, he spoke against the Buddhist sunyavadis. He was trying to establish that our true Self is not the Mind (as the sunyavadis postulated), but rather that we are transcendental to body, mind and intellect. We are spirit-soul. But mayavada started after the advent of Ramanuja. It was in the face of his commentaries that the cermonial popes of Advaita started tampering with Vedanta so as not to admit any further elucidation of Truth. This is when all this atman=paramatman kind of thing started. <b>That is the reason, from the very beginning of my posts I have made a distinction b/w mayavada and Shankara's Advaita itself. Sankara is a hero to the Vaishnavas, and Vaishnavism is <i>inclusive</i> of Advaita.</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Likewise, an Advaitin acknowledges that the relational world exists within the framework of name/form unlike the moorkhavadi imposters, who say <b>Saguna</b> "Rasa" is higher than Brahman Realisation.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><b>Now this is a very important part of sunder's post, because it highlights one of the GREATEST MISREPRESENTATIONS of Vaishnavism that mayavadi propoganda perpetuates.</b> I had mentioned in my post to Ashok Kumar that mayavadis often misapply terms like saguna and nirguna to add to the mess.
Who on earth said that "rasa" is "saguna"?? What do you understand by saguna and nirguna anyway? As per the commentaries, nirguna means transcendent to the gunas -- the 3 modes of material nature. <b>Nirguna has been defined as "nis-trai-gunya"</b>, i.e. free of the 3 gunas. IOW nirguna means non-<b>material</b>. Nirguna does not mean "no qualities". It means "no material qualities". And that's a nuance that your simplistic theories cannot grasp. In the Bhagavad Gita itself Sri Krishna speaks of Brahmajyoti as being transcendennt to the material universe...and then says that, even transcendental to this Brahmajyoti is His eternal, parama-dhaama, the eternal spiritual sky. In this esoteric realm, "rasa" is not subject to any modes, nor Time nor space. In fact, Time, Space and the Modes are subservient to "rasa", they are subordinate participants in "rasa". (BTW, "rasa" is different from "raasa". "rasa" means "transcendental mellows".) Anyhow, Vyasa, Narada, Shandilya, Garga, etc...all speak of this spiritual sky as being the highest (specifically higher than Brahma-bhuta), and they say that it can be only described by weak analogies, because it is essentially "nirvacaniya" -- indescribable.
To sum up, the mayavadi definition of nirguna and saguna is incomplete, and their characterization of Vaishavism as being a saguna-bound technique is a pathetic libel. It is their typical strawman argument to portray lila in a purely material sense, and therefore debunk it as obviously non-absolute. <b>Vaishnavism denounces anthropomorphism as anther type of mayavada, so how can your characterization of Vaishnavism being "saguna" worship be true?</b> It is hoped that the interested reader would pick up genuine Vaishnava books in order to delve into the philosophy.
In his hatchet-job thread, sunder was actually trying to portray a seemingly strained relationship between various Vaishnava schools (Madhva vs Gaudiya, etc). This is not true. <b>At this point in time, a very significant movement is happening within Hinduism.</b> Various semi-dormant schools of Vaishnavism are coming together to cooperate in disseminating Vaishnava philosophy, and to undo the great harm that has been done in the last 120 years or so. This has to be a very significant move, socially as much as religious, because some of the older Vaishnavite schools will have to spring-clean their houses in order to approach the "leading edge" of Vaishnava missionsâ remove the grime of casteism, etc that suddenly crept in and corrupted their mission, which Bhaktivinode Thakura started with Gaudiya Vaishnavism itself. And it will also be a movement that has to do largely without any government support, or âHindu-nationalistâ support, which certain mayavadi organizations enjoy. With all their talk of ânirgunaâ, these mayavadi guys have no problem filling their pages with nationalist rhetoric and other upadhis (designations).
Lastly, sunder makes the point about kevala-Advaita being the ONLY way to properly interpret Vedanta. But, as Iâve said before, one after another, various Vaishnava acharyas have publicly defeated proponents of kevala-advaita. I would like sunder to produce one famous example where a great Vaishnava acharya has been defeated in debate by a kevala-advaita preacher.
NOTE: sunder, one request: If you are a man of integrity, I want you to <b>make an unequivocal admission on this thread that you have NOT read Vaishnava literature from the primary sources.</b> It is patently clear from your posts to anyone familiar with the basics of Vaishnavism. Everything you say about Vaishnavism is straight out of certain popular mayavadi books (who are not even accepted by proper Advaitin authorities). If you had read even the most basic of Vaishnava books from their <b>primary sources</b> (books written by acharyas, not some random websites or lay pamphlets!), you would not be making the kind of cocksure assertions about "nirguna", "aham brahmasmi", "rasa", etc. Therefore, I ask you to make it clear to the other readers here that you have not read Vaishaism from the primary sources (maybe because you are quite satisfied with your current worldview, which is fine). But readers should know that you are not speaking about Vaishnavism from a position of real knowledge or understanding. I call on other knowledgeable members like <b>hayagriva</b> to testify to this
I will edit this post in a few days.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->sunder, pls leave this post of yours in tact, as it serves as an example of what I have been trying to demonstrate from the very beginning of this thread. IMHO, we should leave it to neutral readers and admins of this thread to judge who's "style" it is to fly off the handle at the very start of this thread, and then go runninng off to start another prurient hatchet-job thread while pretending to be objective, and who indulges in hit-and-run posts rather than a coherent <i>conceptual</i> presentation of points. Your duplicity would be entertaining if it were not so repetitive.
In any case, I request you to leave your post in tact. Note that I am not speaking to you or your sidekicks here (you already have your minds made up), but to any interested and open-minded readers on this forum. I think this thread will be an interesting study for them, and the hammering monotony of the blind assertions you make and re-make is an integral part of this thread, and is a characteristic I have been trying to elicit for the examination of others.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Beware, this is not MY post. It is a quote from Vyaasa's Mahabharatha, which is part of the Hindu Shastra.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->So you just decided to quote the Mahabharata w/o intending to make any point? But then you say:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>While the Mahabharatha clearly mentions Sri Krishna propitiating and praying to Lord Shiva in EVERY yuga.</b> Hindus also know Sri Rama praying to Sri Rameshwara at Rameswaram in the Treta Yuga.. The moorkhavadis imposters go to the extent of denying Sri Krishna & Rama their opinions and way of life, and excert their own (false) image of Krishna - in the process blaspheming the real Krishna who propitiates Mahadeva in every Yuga.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> So wasnât this what you were trying to say in thhe Mahabharata post?? And isnât that what I said you were trying to say?? I am also touched by your reverence for Krishna and shiva, even though your philosophy says that none of them really exist. As I said, your decoys, your duplicity, is patent in your posts. To give another example:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Two-bit Scoundrels who claim to be the sishyas of the great Chaithanya and go under the garb of Gaudiya sect...
It is these unscrupulous scoundrel Moorkhavadis that bring a bad name to a beautiful philosophy like Krishna-Consciousness. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->So you have a lot of respect for Lord Chaitanya eh? Well, it was Lord Chaitanya who perpetuated the use of the word "mayavadi", which irks you so. <b>There was no greater denouncer of mayavada than Lord Chaitanya, and He did so in the strongest language, and so have all the acharyas in His parampara, and before Him. This aspect of Vaisnavism is not the fancy of some newly-fouded religious organization, but is integral to Vaishnavism itself. In defining and teaching Vaishnavism, they have to delineate what it includes, and what is does NOT include.</b>
Now about Vishnu eulogizing Lord Shiva: I have already mentioned that even Vaishnava scriptures are full of such passages. Why Lord Shiva, Krishna eulogizes and humbles Himself before so many other jivas. Krishna says, âthe love of my devotee purchases Meâ, âI follow the servant of My servant so that I may gather the dust from his/her lotus feet and put it on My head, because it is impossible for Me to repay their loveâ. There are numerous quotes to this effect. Refer the Uddhava Gita, and the Brihad-Bhagavad-amrita. In fact, Lord Shiva himself speaks of this great Love between the Supreme and His devotee in the latter. For the non-devotees, this great love is not comprehensible, because the concept of eternal, loving service is unpalatable, due to false-ego. A certain great 20th century mayavadi preacher criticized Vaishnavism for inculcating âa mentality of humility and servitudeâ. It is clear that he understands neither humility nor servitude.
The same preacher also berates Krishna for being too arrogant in making the following proclamations in the Bhagavad Gita: (a) That He alone is the Supreme and that all should Love Him alone, and importantly -- (b) that the worship of other demigods is "illegitimate" (avidhi-purvakam), and only for people attached to fruitive activities. This preacher singled Krishna out because no other deva makes these categorical assertions in all of Vedic scripture, even while they gracefully accept eulogies.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There can be no discussion if you cannot see the point "AHAM BRAHMASMI", and "PRAGNAANAM BRAHMA", "THATH THVAM ASI" in a non-dual way.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->That is my point. Your axioms are absolute, and you have not tried to understand how others have commented on such Upanishadic sutras. For example, aham brahmasmi simply means <b>"I am spirit-soul", i.e. "I am NOT the gross or subtle bodies."</b> It is an affirmation of one's true essence, stripped of any superimpositions (adhyaasa). But if you insist on interpreting it as "I am God", then you're right -- there can be no discussion. That is the point I was trying to make to <b>rajesh_g</b> earlier. The mayavadi dogma is inflexible, even though it does not sit well with Vedic philosophy as a whole.
To reiterate: When Sankara spoke, he spoke against the Buddhist sunyavadis. He was trying to establish that our true Self is not the Mind (as the sunyavadis postulated), but rather that we are transcendental to body, mind and intellect. We are spirit-soul. But mayavada started after the advent of Ramanuja. It was in the face of his commentaries that the cermonial popes of Advaita started tampering with Vedanta so as not to admit any further elucidation of Truth. This is when all this atman=paramatman kind of thing started. <b>That is the reason, from the very beginning of my posts I have made a distinction b/w mayavada and Shankara's Advaita itself. Sankara is a hero to the Vaishnavas, and Vaishnavism is <i>inclusive</i> of Advaita.</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Likewise, an Advaitin acknowledges that the relational world exists within the framework of name/form unlike the moorkhavadi imposters, who say <b>Saguna</b> "Rasa" is higher than Brahman Realisation.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><b>Now this is a very important part of sunder's post, because it highlights one of the GREATEST MISREPRESENTATIONS of Vaishnavism that mayavadi propoganda perpetuates.</b> I had mentioned in my post to Ashok Kumar that mayavadis often misapply terms like saguna and nirguna to add to the mess.
Who on earth said that "rasa" is "saguna"?? What do you understand by saguna and nirguna anyway? As per the commentaries, nirguna means transcendent to the gunas -- the 3 modes of material nature. <b>Nirguna has been defined as "nis-trai-gunya"</b>, i.e. free of the 3 gunas. IOW nirguna means non-<b>material</b>. Nirguna does not mean "no qualities". It means "no material qualities". And that's a nuance that your simplistic theories cannot grasp. In the Bhagavad Gita itself Sri Krishna speaks of Brahmajyoti as being transcendennt to the material universe...and then says that, even transcendental to this Brahmajyoti is His eternal, parama-dhaama, the eternal spiritual sky. In this esoteric realm, "rasa" is not subject to any modes, nor Time nor space. In fact, Time, Space and the Modes are subservient to "rasa", they are subordinate participants in "rasa". (BTW, "rasa" is different from "raasa". "rasa" means "transcendental mellows".) Anyhow, Vyasa, Narada, Shandilya, Garga, etc...all speak of this spiritual sky as being the highest (specifically higher than Brahma-bhuta), and they say that it can be only described by weak analogies, because it is essentially "nirvacaniya" -- indescribable.
To sum up, the mayavadi definition of nirguna and saguna is incomplete, and their characterization of Vaishavism as being a saguna-bound technique is a pathetic libel. It is their typical strawman argument to portray lila in a purely material sense, and therefore debunk it as obviously non-absolute. <b>Vaishnavism denounces anthropomorphism as anther type of mayavada, so how can your characterization of Vaishnavism being "saguna" worship be true?</b> It is hoped that the interested reader would pick up genuine Vaishnava books in order to delve into the philosophy.
In his hatchet-job thread, sunder was actually trying to portray a seemingly strained relationship between various Vaishnava schools (Madhva vs Gaudiya, etc). This is not true. <b>At this point in time, a very significant movement is happening within Hinduism.</b> Various semi-dormant schools of Vaishnavism are coming together to cooperate in disseminating Vaishnava philosophy, and to undo the great harm that has been done in the last 120 years or so. This has to be a very significant move, socially as much as religious, because some of the older Vaishnavite schools will have to spring-clean their houses in order to approach the "leading edge" of Vaishnava missionsâ remove the grime of casteism, etc that suddenly crept in and corrupted their mission, which Bhaktivinode Thakura started with Gaudiya Vaishnavism itself. And it will also be a movement that has to do largely without any government support, or âHindu-nationalistâ support, which certain mayavadi organizations enjoy. With all their talk of ânirgunaâ, these mayavadi guys have no problem filling their pages with nationalist rhetoric and other upadhis (designations).
Lastly, sunder makes the point about kevala-Advaita being the ONLY way to properly interpret Vedanta. But, as Iâve said before, one after another, various Vaishnava acharyas have publicly defeated proponents of kevala-advaita. I would like sunder to produce one famous example where a great Vaishnava acharya has been defeated in debate by a kevala-advaita preacher.
NOTE: sunder, one request: If you are a man of integrity, I want you to <b>make an unequivocal admission on this thread that you have NOT read Vaishnava literature from the primary sources.</b> It is patently clear from your posts to anyone familiar with the basics of Vaishnavism. Everything you say about Vaishnavism is straight out of certain popular mayavadi books (who are not even accepted by proper Advaitin authorities). If you had read even the most basic of Vaishnava books from their <b>primary sources</b> (books written by acharyas, not some random websites or lay pamphlets!), you would not be making the kind of cocksure assertions about "nirguna", "aham brahmasmi", "rasa", etc. Therefore, I ask you to make it clear to the other readers here that you have not read Vaishaism from the primary sources (maybe because you are quite satisfied with your current worldview, which is fine). But readers should know that you are not speaking about Vaishnavism from a position of real knowledge or understanding. I call on other knowledgeable members like <b>hayagriva</b> to testify to this