Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16

Thread: Non-Advaita Translation of Upanishads?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Age
    29
    Posts
    1,088
    Rep Power
    1128

    Re: Non-Advaita Translation of Upanishads?

    Quote Originally Posted by hinduism♥krishna View Post
    namaste.

    If you don't believe check yourself. If you are not sure you should check it word by word why me?
    You offered translations of scriptures on a public forum to support a certain view. If the veracity of those translations are questioned, it is upto you to justify them by providing word-by-word derivations. This is basic forum ettiquette. Go through translations of these verses by any reputed Advaitin organization. You will find that they differ from yours.
    namastE astu bhagavan vishveshvarAya mahAdevAya tryaMbakAya|
    tripurAntakAya trikAgnikAlAya kAlAgnirudrAya nIlakaNThAya mRtyuJNjayAya sarveshvarAya sadAshivAya shrIman mAhAdevAya ||

    Om shrImAtrE namah

    sarvam shrI umA-mahEshwara parabrahmArpaNamastu


    A Shaivite library
    http://www.scribd.com/HinduismLibrary

  2. #12

    Re: Non-Advaita Translation of Upanishads?

    Quote Originally Posted by Omkara View Post
    You offered translations of scriptures on a public forum to support a certain view. If the veracity of those translations are questioned, it is upto you to justify them by providing word-by-word derivations. This is basic forum ettiquette. Go through translations of these verses by any reputed Advaitin organization. You will find that they differ from yours.
    Here is the part where HinduismKrishna will call Omkara a "gaudiya vaisnwa." If anyone disagrees with HinduismKrishna, it can only be that they are "gaudiya vaishnwas" who follow a "modified sectarian dharma" instead of the true dharma that HK follows.

    Wait for it.... wait for it....
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  3. #13
    Join Date
    June 2013
    Location
    Maharashtra
    Posts
    570
    Rep Power
    1125

    Red Face Re: Non-Advaita Translation of Upanishads?

    Quote Originally Posted by Omkara View Post
    You offered translations of scriptures on a public forum to support a certain view. If the veracity of those translations are questioned, it is upto you to justify them by providing word-by-word derivations. This is basic forum ettiquette. Go through translations of these verses by any reputed Advaitin organization. You will find that they differ from yours.
    Namaste.
    I consider it unnecessary to prove a true thing. Mainy great sages and saints like dnyaneshwar, eknatha had stated the meaning of vedas and upanishadas that atma and bramhan are one.I consider it true because they cannot be wrong cuz they were the great devotees of lord krishna .
    Also, even if i would write translations word by word, here are some people who will say it is interpolated.
    My general logic is if upanishadas truly want to say atma is different from bramhan, why they didnt use the sentences like " you are not bramhan, you are different from bramhan, atma is not bramhan, i am not bramhan. ". think about it.
    I surely know, dvaita philosophers are not very sincere in translating upanishadas.

    jai shri hari.
    Hari On!

  4. #14
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Age
    29
    Posts
    1,088
    Rep Power
    1128

    Re: Non-Advaita Translation of Upanishads?

    Quote Originally Posted by hinduism♥krishna View Post
    Mainy great sages and saints like dnyaneshwar, eknatha had stated the meaning of vedas and upanishadas that atma and bramhan are one.I consider it true because they cannot be wrong cuz they were the great devotees of lord krishna .
    So Ramanuja, Madhva,Vallabha,Nimbarka, Raghavendra Swami etc. were not great devotees of Lord Krishna?

    Quote Originally Posted by hinduism♥krishna View Post
    My general logic is if upanishadas truly want to say atma is different from bramhan, why they didnt use the sentences like " you are not bramhan, you are different from bramhan, atma is not bramhan, bramhan, you are different from bramhan, atma is not bramhan, am not bramhan. ". think about it.
    I have posted quotes from the Upanishads which destroy Advaita, but you did not bother to reply.

    These quotes are from Parama Upanishad, which is cited by Madhvacharya and has been accepted as authentic by advaitin scholars like Madhusudhana Saraswati, Sayanacharya and Sridhara Swamin in their works-

    jIvasya paramaikyaM tu buddhisArUpya ekasthAnanivAso vA vyaktisthAnamapex na svarUpaikatA tasya muktasyApi virU svAtantryapUrNate.alpatvapAratantrye vi- ******** iti paramashrutiH * ||

    'The unity of jiva with the Lord consists of sameness of thought or it may mean dwelling in the same place. Such sameness of habitation is relative to some particular manifestation of the Lord. It is not unity of essential being. For even the released individual is different from him. The difference between the two lies in the Lord being independent and infinite and the individual being finite and dependent'. Such are the words of Parama-Sruti.

    mithashcha jaDabhedo yaH prapaJNcho bhedapaJNchakaH | so.ayaM satyo hyanAdishcha sAdishchennAshamApnuyAt.h | na cha nAshaM prayAtyeshha na chAsau bhrAntikakalpitaH * | kalpitashchennivarteta na chAsau vinivartate * | dvaitaM na vidyata iti tasmAdaj~nAninAM matam.h * | mataM hi j~nAninAmetanmitaM trAtaM cha vishhNunA * | tasmAtsatyamiti proktaM paramo harireva tu" * ||- ******** iti paramashrutiH *

    The Parama-sruti says: 'The universe consists of five differences. They are the difference between God and the individual self, that between God and insentient matter, that among individual selves, that between insentient matter and individual self and that among the material entities themselves. This is real and unoriginated. If it were originated, it would perish.But it does not perish. Nor is it a fabrication of illusion. If it were so, it would have disappeared.But it does not dissapear. Therefore, the view that there is no duality is the view of the ignorant. The view of the enlightened is that this world is comprehended and protected by Visnu. Therefore it is proclaimed to be real.'

    vishhNuM sarvaguNaiH pUrNaM j~nAtvA saMsAravarjitaH | nirduHkhAnandabhuN^.hnityaM tatsamIpe sa modate * | muktAnAM chAshrayo vishhNuradhiko.adhipatistathA * | tadvashA eva te sarve sarvadaiva sa IshvaraH" ||-iti paramashrutiH *

    The Parama-sruti says: 'He who knows Visnu as full of excellences, gets rid of samsara and becomes a enjoyer of painless bliss for all eternity. He rejoices in proximity to Visnu. Visnu is the support for the liberated selves. He surpasses them and he is their Lord. All of them are under his control. He is always the supreme ruler'.
    namastE astu bhagavan vishveshvarAya mahAdevAya tryaMbakAya|
    tripurAntakAya trikAgnikAlAya kAlAgnirudrAya nIlakaNThAya mRtyuJNjayAya sarveshvarAya sadAshivAya shrIman mAhAdevAya ||

    Om shrImAtrE namah

    sarvam shrI umA-mahEshwara parabrahmArpaNamastu


    A Shaivite library
    http://www.scribd.com/HinduismLibrary

  5. #15

    Re: Non-Advaita Translation of Upanishads?

    Wait for it.....
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  6. #16
    Join Date
    June 2013
    Location
    Maharashtra
    Posts
    570
    Rep Power
    1125

    Arrow Re: Non-Advaita Translation of Upanishads?

    Namaste.shri hari hari om.

    sarvam hy etad.h brahma, ayam atma brahma so.ayam atma chatushpat.h..
    2..
    ( mandukya upanishada)

    All this is verily Brahman. This Atman is Brahman. This Atman has four quarters
    (parts).



    amatrash chaturtho. Avyavaharyah prapanchopashamah shivo. advaita
    evam onkara atmaiva samvishaty Atmana.a.Atmanam ya evam veda ..
    12.. ( mandukya)

    That which has no parts (soundless), incomprehensible (with the aid of sense
    organs), the cessation of all phenomena, all bliss and non-dual AUM, is the fourth
    and verily the same as Atman . He who knows this merges his self into the Cosmic
    Self.


    Quote Originally Posted by Omkara View Post
    I have posted quotes from the Upanishads which destroy Advaita, but you did not bother to reply.
    How advaita will get desteoyed if upanishadas say oneness of atma and bramhan.

    Quote Originally Posted by omkara
    'The unity of jiva with the Lord consists of sameness of thought or it may mean dwelling in the same place. Such sameness of habitation is relative to some particular manifestation of the Lord. It is not unity of essential being. For even the released individual is different from him. The difference between the two lies in the Lord being independent and infinite and the individual being finite and dependent'. Such are the words of Parama-Sruti.
    I dount support this at all. Here jiva is mentioned not atma.When atma appears to be bound by material and subtle body then it is called as " jiva "
    The term it is depedent is for jiva only , not to atma. I have already explained in srimad bhagavat says points to ponder....#20 that atma is ever free , it is beyond maya and liberation.Then how you can say atma is dependent
    Did you forget what lord krishna says in bhagavad gita about atma that it is all pervading .The all pervading thing can not be a dependant. And also all pervading thing can't be a finite. The finiteness and dependant is only for jiva which is illusory not to the omnipresent atma which is sat chit anand.

    Chandogya 7.24.1 says, “The finite is that that in which one sees something else…… knows something else. That which is finite is mortal.

    Brhadaranyaka Upanishad II.4.vi. “The Brahmana rejects him who knows the Brahmana to be different from the Self. The Kshatriya rejects him who knows the Kshatriya to be different from the Self. Worlds reject him who knows the worlds to be different from the Self. The gods reject him who knows the gods to be different from the Self. Beings reject him who knows beings to be different from the Self. All reject him who knows all to be different from the Self. This Brahmana, this Kshatriya, these worlds, these gods, these beings and this all are only the Self (atma)."


    Quote Originally Posted by omkara
    The Parama-sruti says: 'The universe consists of five differences. They are the difference between God and the individual self, that between God and insentient matter, that among individual selves, that between insentient matter and individual self and that among the material entities themselves. This is real and unoriginated. If it were originated, it would perish.But it does not perish. Nor is it a fabrication of illusion. If it were so, it would have disappeared.But it does not dissapear. Therefore, the view that there is no duality is the view of the ignorant. The view of the enlightened is that this world is comprehended and protected by Visnu. Therefore it is proclaimed to be real.'
    Can you give me the original sanskrit shloka ? It seems to be interpolated or recently added.Upanishadas doesn't talk about differences. In Upanishads there is mentioned many times that difference is not real.

    Upanishadas say they are fools who see differences.

    Brhadaranyaka I.iv.10 says ‘He who thinks that Brahman is one and he is another does not know.”

    Brhadaranyaka Upanishad I.iv.2 – “From a second entity only fear arises.”


    Quote Originally Posted by omkara
    The Parama-sruti says: 'He who knows Visnu as full of excellences, gets rid of samsara and becomes a enjoyer of painless bliss for all eternity. He rejoices in proximity to Visnu. Visnu is the support for the liberated selves. He surpasses them and he is their Lord. All of them are under his control. He is always the supreme ruler'.
    So what? Does this mean atma different from bramhan? Certainly no.

    Vishnu is turiya pada of atma. Also turiya is defined in mandukya upanishad as follow:
    7. Turiya is not that which cognises the
    internal, not that which cognises the
    external, not what cognises both of them,
    not a mass of cognition, not cognitive, not
    non-cognitive. It is unseen, incapable of
    being spoken of, unnameable, the essence
    of the knowledge of the one self, that into
    which the world is resolved, the peaceful,
    the benign, the non-dual, such, they think,
    is the fourth quarter. He is the self; He is to
    be known.



    Shri hari hari govinda.
    Last edited by hinduism♥krishna; 05 July 2013 at 09:57 AM. Reason: updating
    Hari On!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 28 May 2012, 12:51 AM
  2. The Bickerings/Complaints
    By sm78 in forum Feedback
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 08 January 2011, 12:13 PM
  3. Tattvas
    By grames in forum Advaita
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 14 October 2009, 07:55 AM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06 November 2007, 12:32 PM
  5. Definitions: Upanishads
    By yajvan in forum Dharma Lexicon
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12 April 2007, 06:49 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •