Pranams Amrut,
I agree, so why would there be a bias at some point to over emphasize the nirguna, this is not in line with shastra. Both are existing, so advaita is also an absolute truth.Advaita also accepts both saguNa brahman and nirguNa brahman and advaita is not just theory, it is practically applicable
In case of aham brahmasmi, it is I am Brahman. Here Brahman is not soul, it is Brahman
The word soul being used and spiritual in the English translation of sanskrit is only to be understood in conventional language. Soul we can mean by essence, everything has the essence of Brahman, jiva essence is brahman, so it is just the same way that the word soul is used in this context. Some say original nature, its not worth getting to tied up over linguistics, a little bit of common sense in language solves it. So when soul is being mentioned it just simple means Brahman, but expressed in English, the meaning is the same, it should not be complicated.
I agree and if my comments seem confrontational thats is not my intent, if i say things out of place please excuse me, but part of the thread does mention, and more specifically directed towards gaudiya vaishnava siddhanta that prem bhakti is somehow lesser than Brahman.Since this thread is in advaita forum, so I think we can freely discuss shastras from advaita POV
If we take away denomination and sectarianism then surely bias is not at factor in our search for absolute truth, unless sectarianism is the true purport of Veda and Vedanta.
Dvaita is progressive philosophy that ultimately leads to the perfect balance of dvaita and advaita, this is the philosophy of Sri Chaitanya, no extremes....
Very important point, and i am so happy that you have mentioned this. This is why the reaction of some vaishnavas are not so favourable to the conclusion given to our siddhanta when in fact they dont know the actual meaning.Understanding other siddhanta specially when we have done some amount of self study in our siddhanta is not that easy
I would like to learn more real advaita, but the problem is some advaitists are not rue brahmavadis, they comment according their understanding of the context of advaita and send that view to another sampradaya, this to me is total lack of integrity. But its Kali Yuga, what to do.....
I agree and have experienced personal insult on this forum in both public and private messages. So I agree that a true advaitist does not insult a person. So that narrows things better.Philosophical disagreements may be there, but we fight with none. Advaitin is at peace with all, fights none
Could not agree more, but in shastra form is also understood to have absolute attributes, so form of conditioned phenomena is one thing and svarupa is also above maya, in what i can gather the word form guna is one thing and the form of the svarupa is something entirely different, vishnu tattva is known as the sat cit ananda vigraha.Rising beyond mAya means to rise above names and forms and experience oneself as completeness, peace, bliss, but not separately. Here Isvara exists as pure consciousness, Brahman.
We are now in the state of duality as it says in Gita that phenomena or material energy has influenced to the jiva under the energy of maya to divide.
If I read advaita and it goes deeply into veda to describe the wonders of Brahman as the non dual, I feel I can learn so much about a different aspect and teaching of the great vedas. When another tradition projects its purports onto another tradition obviously the context is lost, I say that about Advaitists, gaudiya and any other branch of studying the absolute.
Brahman is not opulence of the lord. Srila Prabhupada has twisted words of Adi Sankara in his purports.
Could you explain that some more please, just so I know what you are referring to.
In many places in Veda it is described like this, but in other parts Brahman all inclusiveness can also incorporate rasa, this requires more than one, but at the same time that one is not divided, its only our material conception that says one cannot be divided. The absolute oneness can have variety.We accept ISvara and he is unlimited, but with name and form. In nirvikalp samAdhi, one does not experience anything, but himself, as non-dual atman / brahman.
I know my guru deva wanted to start a university in India for the complete non biased study of sanskrit, science, philosophy, veda to be built. Something similiar to nalanda monastery.
I would like a more deeper insight in advaita, but its polluted with anti personalism, and in the same light I am not so enthused about the anti advaita argument by some personalists vaishanvas.
But in the age of kali this is almost impossible because people prefer bias to truth.
Ys
Md
.
Bookmarks