 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
oscuria
Verbal Guerrilla
Joined: Feb 01, 2008
Posts: 2066
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 11:16 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Daran wrote: | | oscuria wrote: | | I am not sure if I understood you correctly but from what I took was: View the bible in a non-dualistic way, while keeping in mind its dual nature? This could certainly work, as there are passages which can be interpreted non-dualistic. |
The concept of heaven is a dualistic concept because heaven is supposedly a place where the selected few can enjoy divine bliss, which means there is still dualism, still a dinstinction between indviduals and their goal and no proper unification with God.
I don't know the Bible that well, especially the Jewish part, but in the so-called new testament, there are a few obscured tidbits of non-dualism in the sayings of Jesus. But christianity has no real philosophical understanding of the teachings of Jesus and I think you can say that the final redactions of the scriptures included in the new testament are all fully dualistic.
I see a parallel with the cosmology of the Hare Krishna movement, where the yoga teachings of Krishna are about the individual soul unifying with the Cosmic Soul but the movement chose a dualistic philosophy where individuals can only be promoted to a hindu heaven with cows and cowherds who can forever enjoy the presence of the Lord. |
The Hare Krishna movement (Gaudiya Vaishnava) is heavily dualistic since they are a sub-branch of Madhavacarya's Dvaita school of thought. The difference between the two is that in Madhva's original teachings, it is Vaikunta (Heaven/Planet) and Vishnu/Narayana which is highest, while in the Caitanya's sect, it is Gokola (Heaven/Planet) and Krishna which is highest.
Vishishtadvaita, which is Ramanujacarya's school of thought, is non-dualistic while still maintaining a distinction between the Jiva and Brahman--and dismissing Shankaracarya's "Mayavada". The difference from ISKON's teachings and Ramanuja's teachings is pretty significant.
_________________
I'm no democRAT, I'm a republiCAN! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Daran
Forever Traveling
Joined: May 09, 2008
Posts: 1079
Location: Mokum, NL, EU
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| oscuria wrote: | | Vishishtadvaita, which is Ramanujacarya's school of thought, is non-dualistic while still maintaining a distinction between the Jiva and Brahman--and dismissing Shankaracarya's "Mayavada". The difference from ISKON's teachings and Ramanuja's teachings is pretty significant. |
So from how you describe it, this vishistadvaita is then probably synonymous with the dvaitadvaita cosmology (dualistic non-dualism), where the jiva has to go through a period of reincarnations where it feels seperation from God to finally merge with Him in the end. In this cosmology it still remains unclear from where the individual soul emerges in the beginning.
In the so-called advaitadvaitadvaita cosmology (non-dualistic dualistic non-dualism), which I personally support, the individual soul emerges from the Cosmic Consciousness and after many existences as a separated soul where it goes through a series of stages with ever increasing levels of indvidual consciousness, returns to its origin after the final spiritual merger.
I also reject the mayavada or simple advaita cosmology (pure non-dualism), because the idea that our present personal reality is nothing but an illusion, is not practical and leads to hypocrisy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
oscuria
Verbal Guerrilla
Joined: Feb 01, 2008
Posts: 2066
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Daran wrote: | So from how you describe it this vishistadvaita is then probably synonymous with the dvaitadvaita cosmology (dualistic non-dualism), where the jiva has to go through a period of reincarnations where it feels seperation from God to finally merge with Him in the end. In this cosmology it still remains unclear from where the individual soul emerges in the beginning.
In the so-called advaitadvaitadvaita cosmology (non-dualistic dualistic non-dualism), which I personally support, the individual soul emerges from the Cosmic Consciousness and after many existences as a separated soul where it goes through a series of stages with ever increasing levels of consciousness, returns to its origin after the final spiritual merger.
I also reject the mayavada or simple advaita cosmology (pure non-dualism), because the idea that our present personal reality is nothing but an illusion, is not practical and leads to hypocrisy. |
Well, I believe I did a bit of disservice to Ramanuja. He acknowledges the difference between Jiva and Brahman, but not with Atman and Brahman which to him is same. I believe what you are referring by dvaitadvaita is Nimbarka's teachings. He follows specifically, along with Vallabha, BhedAbheda which states that the Jiva and Brahman is made of difference and non-difference. I cannot speculate much on Ramanujacarya's teachings, but if I am correct, he believes that the Jivas form Brahman's body. He also does not acknowledge, from what I can tell, that Shiva (the Deva) is non-different from Vishnu (Paramatman); whereas Shankara states Shiva and Vishnu are only names of the Absolute. To Vaishnavas, only Vishnu/Narayana is highest. Shiva, Shambhu, Maheshvara, etc are only names/attributes of Vishnu.
I personally follow advaita, which states that the Jiva is Atman; that Jiva is Brahman. The confusion arises through attachments to the world which the Jiva interprets as being reality. When this idea is broken, then does Jiva find out that reality is Atman alone, ayam atma brahma. The Jiva is the one who thinks "I, Me, Myself, You, Yours" etc. Therefore, it is not one of difference and non-difference, but is thought of such through Maya. When the "I" thoughts seize, then realization is possible. Your argument against Shankara's teachings is a very common one. He never rejected the world as being fully illusionary, but a product of Maya; there is a difference. The way advaita is routinely explained by others would even deny Brahman, so that is definitely not the case. The world is real to the Jiva, but in Truth, only Brahman, only the Atman is Reality. Therefore, the only conclusion is that everything the Jiva (the one who identifies with the body) experiences is thought of through Maya, through avidya. For all practical purposes, this world is as real as everything we observe. The world is Vyavaharika; this has always been the case. In this, there is no contradiction to the teachings of Sruti.
I must add also: Where Shankara considers the worlds to be of unreality, Ramanuja, et al. finds them to be as real as Brahman. This basically signifying that the worlds are real because they were created by the Creator. To Shankara only Nirguna Brahman is reality.
_________________
I'm no democRAT, I'm a republiCAN! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Daran
Forever Traveling
Joined: May 09, 2008
Posts: 1079
Location: Mokum, NL, EU
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Since we are slightly off-topic anyhow.... 
I can't support the idea that the jiiva or the individual equals Brahman or the Cosmic Consciousness, because the jiiva is temporarily caught up in Maya or the idea of self as separated from others and Brahman as a whole is not. Only after self-realisation does the jiiva lose its identity and merge with Brahman but while its separation from Brahman still exists, it is caught up in a reality of its own, be it a relative one. Saguna Brahma (qualified Brahma) is not the same as Nirguna Brahma (unqualified Brahma). Hence I cannot support the pure advaita (mayavada) philosophy.
As long as the jiiva is caught up in Maya, it has to deal with this world and act accordingly because denying this relative reality makes someone to lead un unpractical life. If everything would be "just an illusion", then why bother to eat or stop at a railroad crossing when a train is approaching?
The Atman on the other hand is the same as Brahman but called differently from it because it dwells in many creatures as their true Self, which is only one and not many. So there exist countless jiivas in the universe but the Atman or Cosmic Soul (Kingdom of God) is only one although it dwells as if it were separated inside these countless jiivas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
oscuria
Verbal Guerrilla
Joined: Feb 01, 2008
Posts: 2066
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Namaskar, this indeed is certainly not found in the Bible
| Daran wrote: | Since we are slightly off-topic anyhow....
I can't support the idea that the jiiva or the individual equals Brahman or the Cosmic Consciousness, because the jiiva is temporarily caught up in Maya or the idea of self as separated from others and Brahman as a whole is not. Only after self-realisation does the jiiva lose its identity and merge with Brahman but while its separation from Brahman still exists, it is caught up in a reality of its own, be it a relative one. Saguna Brahma (qualified Brahma) is not the same as Nirguna Brahma (unqualified Brahma). Hence I cannot support the pure advaita (mayavada) philosophy.
As long as the jiiva is caught up in Maya, it has to deal with this world and act accordingly because denying this relative reality makes someone to lead un unpractical life. If everything would be "just an illusion", then why bother to eat or stop at a railroad crossing when a train is approaching?
The Atman on the other hand is the same as Brahman but called differently from it because it dwells in many creatures as their true Self, which is only one and not many. So there exist countless jiivas in the universe but the Atman or Cosmic Soul (Kingdom of God) is only one although it dwells as if it were separated inside these countless jiivas. |
The Jiva was never separate. The Jiva is name only. The idea of separation comes from identification to the body, to the material world; upadhi. In Sruti, it clearly states that the Atman cannot be split up into parts, it cannot be divided; it is never born, never dies, (has not been, will not be, will never be). If that is the case then what made the Atman enter Jiva (individualize)? The individual perishes as soon as the body dies, the jiva does not; this is evident. If the Jiva is not Atman (veiled in Maya/avidya), then how can it attain liberation? This is merely vivarta and adhyasa. There is only Brahman.
The relationship between the Jivatman to the Paramatman is the same as Atman to Brahman. The Jiva is deluded in ignorance through association with the gross, with desires. In this association, man finds duality. He grieves and laments over suffering. It is only until he identifies with the Supreme does ignorance seize. Desire keeps the Jiva being Jiva, that is keeps man becoming man, stuck in samsara where it is engrossed in distinctions. The distinction is observed through maya, but devoid of maya there is no distinction for there is only Brahman. Jiva, as explained, means one who identifies with the ego/body, but when there is no longer any identification where does Jiva go? The purpose of Jiva is to identify with Atman, to realize Brahman.
You stated: Saguna Brahma (qualified Brahma) is not the same as Nirguna Brahma (unqualified Brahma).
Of course not. When one thinks of Isvara, that is Saguna. When one thinks of Brahman, that is Nirguna. But, where does this distinction arise? From the same area that states the Jiva is different from Atman/Brahman. Shankara has summed up that Jiva is non-different from Brahman. This is merely vivarta and adhyasa. There exists only Brahman. Where there is separation, there is no realization. This is not saying that Jiva will become Isvara, and if I implied that then I apologize for the mistake. However, the distinction between Jiva and Isvara is caused by Maya/Avidya. The dual-world is Saguna; in this the worship of Bhagvan is reality. The non-dual world is Nirguna; in this only Brahman is reality.
What you are essentially saying is the same thing I am saying. The Jiva becomes Brahman as soon as Maya is removed; therefore in Advaita the Jiva has always been Brahman but because of Maya the individual (i.e. man) believes he is individual (i.e. soul). There is no merging in Advaita. How can you merge into that which has always been? Realization does not entail merging, it means becoming or awakening from the illusion (i.e. transcending maya); removing the fetters that is avidya, so to speak.
The second part you stated does not relate to Advaita. It is an assumption to believe that because Shankara taught that the world is veiled in Maya one mustn't live on or live in practical existence, this is contrary to anything that Shankara ever taught, including Gita. He stated specifically that the world is vyavaharika, that is relative. It's existence is relative to our experience meaning it is real to our senses as long as we identify with them. Therefore, one cannot negate this world (as it would go against our senses), but one can negate this world as one of pure reality. In this, there is no contradiction to Sruti where it states sarvam khalvidam brahma or All this is verily Brahman. Because of Brahman, this world is. However, to accept this world as pure reality, would be to accept that Brahman perishes when the universe perishes. Reality is that which never perishes, pure and never dies. It is made of pure existence; eternal. How can that which is destroyed be considered Brahman (i.e. Reality)? This is even stated in The Bhagavatam, which denies the ultimate reality of the world, and states that which is material is illusion to those in self-realization. When Jiva realizes Brahman, it ceases from being Jiva. Therefore, Sankara concludes that when one realizes Brahman as being ultimate reality, everything else falls into unreality. Sat Chit Ekam Brahma
Where the Atman dwells, so too does Brahman. This is known through the mahavakya. The whole point of the Jiva is to break away from Maya, if your life is not performed with realization, with liberation, in mind then the life is wasted; the individual remains in samsara. It is stated very clearly in The Gita that man cannot remain inactive for long. It also denies that man should live life for material gains and desire and that one must perform according to his varna. It states in Gita that those who remain inactive, yet tied to their senses are fools and only deluding themselves. The whole purpose for the Jiva is to realize Brahman which is echoed by Shankara. This is why Gita taught primarily two ways for liberation and realization: Jnana and Karma, both enveloped in Bhakti. Without selfless surrender realization is not possible. This is another thing that is misunderstood in Shankara's teaching.
I just realized something when I was reading through my post: Even with English translations to the Sanskrit other readers would still get confused. 
In any case, situated in truth there is no need to debate. What is there to argue? This is the purport behind all teachings and scripture.
_________________
I'm no democRAT, I'm a republiCAN! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Daran
Forever Traveling
Joined: May 09, 2008
Posts: 1079
Location: Mokum, NL, EU
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| oscuria wrote: | | therefore in Advaita the Jiva has always been Brahman but because of Maya the individual (i.e. man) believes he is individual (i.e. soul). There is no merging in Advaita. How can you merge into that which has always been? Realization does not entail merging, it means becoming or awakening from the illusion (i.e. transcending maya); removing the fetters that is avidya, so to speak. |
Namaskar,
You can indeed merge, because the consciousness of the individual and that of God are not yet on the same level. You are from an absolute viewpoint already one with God, but on another level you are still separated from experiencing that ultimate reality as an individual. That is why I don't accept mayavada or pure non-dualism, because I think one should practically speaking recognize this world as a relative reality too while at the same time working towards identifying oneself with God (Kingdom of God) or Ultimate Reality.
I think one should not presume to already be on that level and should not belittle the world as it appears to the unrealized soul. That is why I prefer the non-dualistic dualistic non-dualism philosophy over pure non-dualism.
There is a parallel in buddhism, where the indvidual soul as a separate entity is likewise completely denied a priori as one tries to work towards emptiness or nirvana.
I believe this created world should also be respected and that science and technical and industrial advancements should not be neglected. Buddhism and certain other spiritual philosophies such as mayavada have in the past been responsible for the neglect of worldy matters and that has indirectly hampered the spiritual progress of humanity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
oscuria
Verbal Guerrilla
Joined: Feb 01, 2008
Posts: 2066
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Daran wrote: | Namaskar,
You can indeed merge, because the consciousness of the individual and that of God are not yet on the same level. You are from an absolute viewpoint already one with God, but on another level you are still separated from experiencing that ultimate reality as an individual. That is why I don't accept mayavada or pure non-dualism, because I think one should practically speaking recognize this world as a relative reality too while at the same time working towards identifying oneself with God (Kingdom of God) or Ultimate Reality.
I think one should not presume to already be on that level and should not belittle the world as it appears to the unrealized soul. That is why I prefer the non-dualistic dualistic non-dualism philosophy over pure non-dualism.
There is a parallel in buddhism, where the indvidual soul as a separate entity is likewise completely denied a priori as one tries to work towards emptiness or nirvana.
I believe this created world should also be respected and that science and technical and industrial advancements should not be neglected. Buddhism and certain other spiritual philosophies have in the past been responsible for the neglect of worldy matters and that has indirectly hampered the spiritual progress of humanity. |
Pranam
Ah, we are basically saying the same thing spoken through different words due to guidance of different teachings and philosophy. I already explained that what you are stating is found in Advaita. The Advaitin accepts the world on the pragmatic level (vyavaharika). However, if one begins to associate with the world, to identify with the material, then that is falling into disillusionment. Therefore, it must be understood that this existence is not That existence; hence, unreal. It is a delusion that is factored in the mind of the individual which associates reality to where there is no reality. This is where viveka is crucial. One must be able to discriminate Atman/Brahman from what is not Atman/Brahman.
I understand what you mean about merging but the idea of realization, of liberation, is not the same in Advaita. There is no merging, the reason given is because the Jiva has always been Atma, but because of this existence it has seen itself as infinitesimal instead of the Infinite. It is also the same reason as to why people argue over what is God and what is His true name: Is it Allah? Jehova? Visnu? Guru? Shiva? Is He Benevolent? Malevolent? Ambivalent? Equanimous? This because the individual has yet to realize the whole.
In Advaita Truth is established through direct rejection of attaching one's Self from the material, that is the world. With detachment, the Self is realized, in this there is something called Jivanmukti. It should be of no surprised that all the great teachers were sannyasin. I do not agree with your last statement, probably because it goes against empiricism (in this I mean mine). When one identifies with worldly matters God is the furthest thing on the mind. The renouncer is the one closest to self-realization, while the labourer is the one furthest from self-realization. In this, there is no denying. However, as Sri Bhagvan has prescribed, performing Karma Yoga and Pure Bhakti, one is ensured moksha; one is not reborn.
The ultimate path should always be Brahman which is only accomplished when the veil of maya is removed.
_________________
I'm no democRAT, I'm a republiCAN! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Daran
Forever Traveling
Joined: May 09, 2008
Posts: 1079
Location: Mokum, NL, EU
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| oscuria wrote: | | The ultimate path should always be Brahman which is only accomplished when the veil of maya is removed. |
True, true, but the relative world should at the same time not be negelected. Spiritual realization through the removal of ignorance is not only for the happy few, not only for the odd mystic who happens to be born in the right situation, but should be attainable for all. Hence everyone on the planet should be provided with the basic necessities of life, because spiritual practices aren't possible if people don't have proper shelter, food, medicine, education, etc..
That's why I say that pure non-dualism is not the right general approach for this day and age, although it may lead to spiritual progress on an individual level.
The New Testament or rather the teachings of Jesus also emphasize renouncing the world in practice rather than in the mind only. Who knows what our western society would have looked like if protestantism would have come centuries earlier and science and technology would have progressed much earlier than they did. Without the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment our society would be much less materially developed than it is now.
A more comfortable life, freed from hard physical labour and worries about worldly matters is more conducive for spiritual practices. For monks they can live without luxuries or much possesions, but for society as a whole such a lifestyle would lead to the crudification of society. That is why worldly matters should be given proper attention while at the same time realizing that they are is just a reflection within an absolute reality beyond the reach of the senses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
oscuria
Verbal Guerrilla
Joined: Feb 01, 2008
Posts: 2066
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Daran wrote: | True, true, but the relative world should at the same time not be negelected. Spiritual realization through the removal of ignorance is not only for the happy few, not only for the odd mystic who happens to be born in the right situation, but should be attainable for all. Hence everyone on the planet should be provided with the basic necessities of life, because spiritual practices aren't possible if people don't have proper shelter, food, medicine, education, etc..
That's why I say that pure non-dualism is not the right general approach for this day and age, although it may lead to spiritual progress on an individual level.
The New Testament or rather the teachings of Jesus also emphasize renouncing the world in practice rather than in the mind only. Who knows what our western society would have looked like if protestantism would have come centuries earlier and science and technology would have progressed much earlier than they did. Without the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment our society would be much less materially developed than it is now.
A more comfortable life, freed from hard physical labour and worries about worldly matters is more conducive for spiritual practices. For monks they can live without luxuries or much possesions, but for society as a whole such a lifestyle would lead to the crudification of society. That is why worldly matters should be given proper attention while at the same time realizing that they are is just a reflection within an absolute reality beyond the reach of the senses. |
I am of the opinion that not everyone will realize God in their lifetime (unless they begin to remove themselves from all that troubles them). If that is not the case, then why is there so much life in this world? Why do people prefer to build companies which work at the expense of fellow man, than houses of worship that helps one realize God? This has always been the case; a person much prefers to live for himself than for his Self. The Bible came down to man for the betterment of His Soul, but what did they do with it? The Jnana Kanda too was usurped by the Brahmanical culture. The development of the Dharmashastras further elongated their superstitious role. If it wasn't for the Mahabharata/Gita, Ramayana and Puranas, what would the layman be reading or hearing? Even these fall into the hands of sectarian groups. Even too the people do not follow what is found in scripture.
The western culture, living in all the glories of a modern world, is forgetting about God. They would rather work and work without remembrance of what brought them to work. The spiritual path is not for everyone. Very few are they who dedicate themselves to God. Even fewer are they who know of God: Is He being? Is He non-Being? Which is true? They do not have the time to realize this science because they are busy at work. God is that which cannot be understood. The more I learn, the more I don't know, yet there are those after a bit of knowledge will not put any more effort, or believe they have realized that which has captivated many in existence. To the one who follows God, let God be his shelter, his food, his everything. This has always been what the scriptures have revealed. You cannot renounce in mind because once you become absorbed in duties, the absorption to God is replaced. Karma Yoga is taught to the individual who cannot waste his time doing nothing, but it was not taught so that he can advance himself in material wealth. The Spiritual life is not a comfortable life. Into a blind darkness they enter who follow after the Ignorance, they as if into a greater darkness who devote themselves to the Knowledge alone. People devote themselves to one or the other. Work or not-work, happiness or grief, knowledge or ignorance, but they never bother to transcend these dualities. The longer one remains in the world, the longer one suffers from dualities.
Everyday I recite a bit of Mohamudgara and Gita to remind me of the fruitlessness that is this world. To work in remembrance of God, to work with devotion, to lead a life in devotion to God, That is the proper path. Attaching oneself to the material leads to material fruit. Worry for One's self, not the luxuries that come in this world. Even then there should be no worries. This is what is meant by Karma Yoga, to not be attached to the fruits of your labor. Everything you reap shall be reaped for God. He alone is the enjoyer.
I must add that I am not speaking in a position of authority, but of understanding. This is all observation from my part; empiricism. Bhakti is the simplest path to God, Jnana the most difficult. Why? Because a little knowledge is dangerous, it leads to discomfort. It can also lead you away from God. However, in Jnana you realize that all this is not reality. The path to God is most difficult. In Jnana, the simplest path to God is the path of renunciation. What is meant by renouncing and the proper method of renunciation, however, is the question most asked. To this let a man decide the best to his abilities, and the best to his knowledge and capabilities, how much he is willing to renounce.
_________________
I'm no democRAT, I'm a republiCAN! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
