<!--QuoteBegin-Carl+Jun 17 2005, 11:05 AM-->QUOTE(Carl @ Jun 17 2005, 11:05 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The only differencce between a mayavadi and an ass is the numbber of legs.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Really??? I did not know Iskconites have more than two legs. But if you say so, I wont contest it.<!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> j/k.
BTW Carl, I have a quick question out of curiosity. Do you know basic samskrit or do you rely on translations to get the meanings of the upanishads? (the reason I ask is that I had pasted (not posted) the samskrit verse above ,and I am quoting the portion relevant below.
<b>aham brahmasmiti sa idam sarvam bhavati; tasya ha na devas ca nabhutya isate, atma hy esam sa bhavati.</b>
This says 'Sa idam SARVAM bhavathi'. Aham Brahmasmi was wrongly interpreted by you as 'I am just a spirit-being different from another Supreme Being which is also refered to as Brahman.' If Aham Brahmasmi means 'I am spirit-soul' (whatever that 'spirit-soul means), then the word Idam Sarvam Bhavathi would not arise if this spirit-soul is not the SAME as the Universal Soul which Alone Exists.
This has been clearly pointed out in the Mandukya Upanishad (which also explains why Sri Bhagavaan says 'Mayi sarvam idham protham sutre mahigana iva' in BG 7:7) The Immutable Self or Saakshi (Observer) is the link for the different worlds expereienced in Vishva/Taijasa/Pragna states. One who sees duality in these and misses the Substratum is called an animal of the devas above.
<b>atha yo anyam devatam upaste, anyo' sau anyo' ham asmiti, na sa veda; yatha pasur, evam sa devanam; yatha ha vai bahavah pasavo manusyam bhunjyuh, evam ekaikah puruso devan bhunakti;</b>
The above statement EXPLICITLY states that a person who worships a deva (any deva is a name-form combination) as "I am different and He is different" that person does not know. He is an animal.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Tell us, if you are God, why are you in maya right now, etc. But you don't want to get into that. You only want to keep splashing mis-translated and mis-interpreted verses about "one-ness" on this thread. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See, you make it easy for me. You ask the question, and you give the answer yourself. You already assumed I would not want to get into it... what more can I say?
But if you want to listen, you have to ask nicely. Then I shall perhaps reveal it to you.
you have typecast the Eternal Self as a personal being and call it only as Krishna to the exclusion of any other name-form. Such traits is forewarned in the Gita itself.
Avajananthi maam muooda maanushim thanum aashritam
param bhaavam ajaananto mama bhootha-mahesvaram. (9:11)
May your faith and good karma guide you towards Advaita Anubhava.
Really??? I did not know Iskconites have more than two legs. But if you say so, I wont contest it.<!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> j/k.BTW Carl, I have a quick question out of curiosity. Do you know basic samskrit or do you rely on translations to get the meanings of the upanishads? (the reason I ask is that I had pasted (not posted) the samskrit verse above ,and I am quoting the portion relevant below.
<b>aham brahmasmiti sa idam sarvam bhavati; tasya ha na devas ca nabhutya isate, atma hy esam sa bhavati.</b>
This says 'Sa idam SARVAM bhavathi'. Aham Brahmasmi was wrongly interpreted by you as 'I am just a spirit-being different from another Supreme Being which is also refered to as Brahman.' If Aham Brahmasmi means 'I am spirit-soul' (whatever that 'spirit-soul means), then the word Idam Sarvam Bhavathi would not arise if this spirit-soul is not the SAME as the Universal Soul which Alone Exists.
This has been clearly pointed out in the Mandukya Upanishad (which also explains why Sri Bhagavaan says 'Mayi sarvam idham protham sutre mahigana iva' in BG 7:7) The Immutable Self or Saakshi (Observer) is the link for the different worlds expereienced in Vishva/Taijasa/Pragna states. One who sees duality in these and misses the Substratum is called an animal of the devas above.
<b>atha yo anyam devatam upaste, anyo' sau anyo' ham asmiti, na sa veda; yatha pasur, evam sa devanam; yatha ha vai bahavah pasavo manusyam bhunjyuh, evam ekaikah puruso devan bhunakti;</b>
The above statement EXPLICITLY states that a person who worships a deva (any deva is a name-form combination) as "I am different and He is different" that person does not know. He is an animal.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Tell us, if you are God, why are you in maya right now, etc. But you don't want to get into that. You only want to keep splashing mis-translated and mis-interpreted verses about "one-ness" on this thread. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See, you make it easy for me. You ask the question, and you give the answer yourself. You already assumed I would not want to get into it... what more can I say?
But if you want to listen, you have to ask nicely. Then I shall perhaps reveal it to you.
you have typecast the Eternal Self as a personal being and call it only as Krishna to the exclusion of any other name-form. Such traits is forewarned in the Gita itself.
Avajananthi maam muooda maanushim thanum aashritam
param bhaavam ajaananto mama bhootha-mahesvaram. (9:11)
May your faith and good karma guide you towards Advaita Anubhava.