Post Reply
Page 8 of 11  •  Prev 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Switch to Forum Live View No Hell for Hindus/Buddhists - Part II
5 years ago  ::  Sep 23, 2009 - 12:54AM #71
silence_speaks
Posts: 568

Dear jm,


          :)


1. Regarding BG 2.12, i already quoted Sankara's comment on it. He said "the differences are with respect to bodies but not with respect to Atma".


2. By bringing out upanishad quotes, how am i claiming Vyasa is wrong! what kind of understanding is this?


3. Kaivalya upanishad quote i presented earlier ... the only answer you gave me was "i do not know" .


4. Can you please explain to me a little more about the 5 kinds of moksha?


Love!


Silence

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Sep 23, 2009 - 1:01AM #72
silence_speaks
Posts: 568

Dear HinduGuy,


          :) There are two points here.


1. Someone sees God, let us say. But he is an atheist. So he does not want to believe it is God. What does he do ? he rejects it. He does not do further inquiry. Please see this very clearly... in investigation of Truth, we should not allow "our feelings" to interfere. Please. we should be ready to accept even that which we do not like if it is found to be true upon investigation.


2. in a dream, suppose i see someone doing lot of charity ... after waking up, it becomes invalid. but while in dream, the charity has its meaning. So too, while this world is not recognized as a dream ... the works of Gandhi are really exceptional. But when someone goes beyond ... the works become mirage.


if you are in the dream ... yes Gandhi's works are very important.


if you are out of it... you are no more affected by the dream ... whether this body remains or goes it does not matter ... if you reached such a state... then , Gandhi's works are also just maya.


As such, for us such works of charity are means to take us beyond suffering ... in Hinduism its called nishkamya karma. there is very high place for charity. nowadays we see christian missionaries coming here to teach us charity and its such a pity ... coz in olden days ... our culture was so evolved that if someone comes to your home and seeks for shelter or food ... you would offer even your last morsel to them! Even if you are hungry, you would feed the guest first. And then you would not feel proud of what you have done ... you would rather take his blessing! such an exceptional tradition this is! its so beautiful ... charity was seen as a fundamental duty!  Please serve people ... please do not miss a single opportunity to make others happy. Start with your own family. Keep them smiling and happy ... and also spread the smile to others ... it purifies the mind and makes it ready for Self Knowledge.


Love!


Silence


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Sep 23, 2009 - 4:03AM #73
Jm8
Posts: 784

silence,

Srila Prabhupada explains in his commentary to 2.12 why Adi Sankara's ('the Mayavadi' he speaks about) interpretation fails:

vedabase.net/bg/2/12/en

Since any quotes have to be harmonized with Vs (clearly stating eternal difference between jivatma and isvara). If they're not, you have to come up with another interpretation. If you can't (and Advaita can't) your position isn't Vedantic. It can't get simpler than that.

Moksa types - an overview: www.veda.harekrsna.cz/bhaktiyoga/philoso...

Hope this helps. Hare Krishna

ekam sastram devaki-putra-gitam
eko devo devaki-putra eva
eko mantras tasya namani yani
karmapy ekam tasya devasya seva
(Adi Sankaracarya, Gita Mahatmya 7)

Your servant, bh. Jan

www.vrindavan-dham.com
www.veda.harekrsna.cz

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Sep 23, 2009 - 4:40AM #74
silence_speaks
Posts: 568

Dear jm,


           :)


1. what is this Vs ?


2. I was reading Srila Prabhupada's explanation ... but where is the argument? Sankara says with respect to the body is the differentiation. i do not see any argument against this in the site you pointed to. can you please tell me "what is so obvious?".


3. Where is it written that impersonal Brahman is less that Krishna? on the contrary Krishna himself says "i am the Atma" in all. Atma literally means "I" the Self.


4. The essential problem jm is in the understanding of TAT TVAM ASI. Ramanuja's explanation of TAT TVAM ASI is not correct. as it does not explain the kaivalya upanishad quote.


Love!


Silence


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Sep 23, 2009 - 6:15AM #75
silence_speaks
Posts: 568

Dear jm,


        :) Srila Prabhupada did not give an argument at all.


he just gave a statement "if (2.12 is interpreted to mean individuality is eternal and not material), then (sankara is wrong)" [Read this if (p) then (q). p : individuality is eternal. q: sankara is wrong]


The statement he made is right.  coz sankara is saying ~p [Not p].


so take any statement,  and say (if ~p then p) --- tautology. always true.


ill give any number of such statements.


like if it ~(not raining) then its raining.


ie, if it is not that it is not raining that means its raining.


if it is not that sachin scored 100 , it means he did not score 100!


Srila Prabhupada did just this.


he assumed 2.12 says individuality is eternal... and now he goes to prove that sankara is wrong. he has already assumed the opposite of sankara and now with that assumption it is direct inference!


So he goes on giving statements like this:


1. krishna affirmed his individuality in the past and ...


2. if individuality is material, how do we distinguish krishna's individuality? [the very fact that its material means, everything is material and therefore only material differentiation is possible. ]


3. if he is individual, BG has no value! [this is his worry. please see]


4. previous to this verse bodily conception is condemned who denies? Here Prabhupada has a problem with Bhagatyaga lakshanam ... In Rama gita Rama clearly explains that Self Knowledge means to understand the oneness of Jiva-atma and Param-atma by seeing the individuality as a mithya, dream. The fundamental argument of Advaita is not even considered here. why? is it an attempt to hide the argument or avoid it?


Love!


Silence


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Sep 23, 2009 - 10:55AM #76
HinduGuy
Posts: 373

Sep 23, 2009 -- 1:01AM, silence_speaks wrote:


1. Someone sees God, let us say. But he is an atheist. So he does not want to believe it is God. What does he do ? he rejects it. He does not do further inquiry. Please see this very clearly... in investigation of Truth, we should not allow "our feelings" to interfere. Please. we should be ready to accept even that which we do not like if it is found to be true upon investigation.


2. in a dream, suppose i see someone doing lot of charity ... after waking up, it becomes invalid. but while in dream, the charity has its meaning. So too, while this world is not recognized as a dream ... the works of Gandhi are really exceptional. But when someone goes beyond ... the works become mirage.


if you are in the dream ... yes Gandhi's works are very important.


if you are out of it... you are no more affected by the dream ... whether this body remains or goes it does not matter ... if you reached such a state... then , Gandhi's works are also just maya.


Even if you are hungry, you would feed the guest first. And then you would not feel proud of what you have done ... you would rather take his blessing! such an exceptional tradition this is! its so beautiful ... charity was seen as a fundamental duty!  Please serve people ... please do not miss a single opportunity to make others happy. Start with your own family. Keep them smiling and happy ... and also spread the smile to others ... it purifies the mind and makes it ready for Self Knowledge.


Silence


 



1. Regarding Atheists: I am sorry but don't you have it backwards? It is the Atheist who wants proof. He does not blindly accept something based on pure belief. This is a bit funny to me - For Silence an unseen God is real but the whole world that is before him is maya, unreal. You talk about feelings - who is the one who is using his feelings to see God? How about the Christians who insist that god can only be christ? Or the muslims who call others kafirs! They are talking facts? It is the Atheist who talks facts!


How do you see God? Just because you see something unexplained that does not mean that you saw God. Many people say they have seen UFO's, one must believe them to be true? Then please tell me what you won't believe? A David Koresh says he is God, and you just believe him? Even today I see some nuts who talk reverently about their baba who walked on fire! Science has proven this is an easy trick.


2. Saying Gandhiji's work is very important and then in the same breath saying it's just a dream dismisses his life's work. This man inspired millions! Thousands of men and women followed this man, making tremondous sacrificies for a great cause! The world today is better for it. And in the same breath you talk about making people happy - it's like there is a disconnect. People are making great personal sacrifices to do what? Why do you think Gandhi made all those sacrifices? to make people unhappy? Don't you think the world is a better place because of people like Gandhi?


Martin Luther King Jr was inspired by Gandhiji. Thanks to him, blacks in America have greater rights. Thanks to Nelson Mandela, South African blacks are free men.


And you can't see this?


Charity is fine, but you know what a perfect world is? A world where there are no beggers, no need for charities! In countries like sweden, where poverty is eradicated, there is no big need for charities, that's the kind of world we should shoot for! And how can we get there? By jobs! Starting industries, entrepreneurs, engineers, educated people - people just like you and me going out and buying things - buy a necessity or even the frivolous if you can afford it- give employment to millions!


I do agree with you about making people happy, but sad to see you can't see the contributions of people like Gandhiji for what they are.


I don't think you are on the right path, Silence.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Sep 23, 2009 - 4:38PM #77
nnn123
Posts: 1,536

the mind is just a clever (and lying, manipulative) rationalization machine.  It can convince you that Hitler was a great guy, that the Holocaust never existed, that you are justified in doing all manner of harm to other people. 


But there is a methodology to get at the truth and divorce ourselves from the mind's games and lies.  And that methodology is the spiritual path.  But praying and meditating, by leading lives of pure morality and great service to others, we purify our being to the point that we can properly understand spiritual perceptions.


Otherwise, we are like starving animals trying to discern the difference between gourmet food and stale bread.  Until we are in enough spiritual peace, we will not be able to make those discriminations and stale bread will seem identical to gourmet food.  In fact, when peope claim to have eaten gourmet food, we will bodly assert that it does not exist.


 


there are elaborate and detailed descriptions of hell and the afterlife in the Tibetan Book of the Dead, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, in Dante's work and also in the scriptures of all the major religions.


re the original question...


no, it is not the "soul" which is tortured, per se, but the tortures that exist in the afterlife are perceived/ experienced by the soul, as the soul gets purified to live its next life.


There is some discussion of the afterlife in:


 


Autobiography of a Yogi
By Paramhansa Yogananda


Chapter 43: The Resurrection of Sri Yukteswar


www.ananda.org/autobiography/#chap43


 


And there is more discussion in "The Holy Science," by Sri Yukteswar...


 


the importance of hell is very simple.  As Solomon said, "fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."  By fear that we are indeed punished for sin, we can get more motivation to lead the pure life in which the only true happiness exists.


 


Namaste,


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Sep 24, 2009 - 12:05AM #78
silence_speaks
Posts: 568

Dear Hinduguy,


               :)


1. I suggested that you should investigate. Atheist does not necessarily mean scientific and a theist does not necessarily mean someone who blindly believes. Atheist is a believer of "non-existence of God" and a theist is a believer of "existence of God" ... how does changing belief make anyone scientific? only a person who investigates into the Truth will know.


Discussing existence and non-existence of God without understanding what the word "God" means --- is like discussing existence or non-existence of "Dwindigole" ! First understand what God means. What is God? Who is this God ... understand. then investigate and decide. Without understanding what the word God means ... talking abt God is not at all scientific !


Vedanta is far more scientific than what you think. Its perhaps the only subject that has a whole science of Logic called Tarka Shastra. If you read Sankara you shall see how scientific he was.


 


2. Coming to Gandhi. To whom is the work of significance? to you and me who are indians? That too as long as we are alive. if i die , it hardly matters whether there was a gandhi or not. so all he did was spacewise and time wise limited. Just as in physics ... you should speak from the frame of reference.


From my frame of reference , Gandhi did great Service.


But once out of the Dream ... Say to a dead man ... Gandhi is not there at all ! So it hardly matters.


Investigate...


Quantum physics talks of multiversal universe. there are multiple parallel universes ... in one Gandhi is there, in the other there was no Gandhi ... or the Gandhi did not fight for freedom ...so in one universe his service was great ... in the other he was nothing.


so its relative. relative means, changing with time, changing spacewise ! its limited.


 


Love!


Silence

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Sep 24, 2009 - 5:34AM #79
Jm8
Posts: 784

silence,

it's a pity that you're unable to accept plain facts. I see it as a symptom of Kali yuga that less and less people can admit their mistakes. Why do you preach advaita? Did it ever occur to you that Brahman preaching to Brahman (a soliloquy) is nonsense?

Krishna in BG 2.12 says individuality is eternal. This is mukhya vritti, not any assumption. Otoh, it's Sankara who tries to introduce illogical gauna vritti to support his /God-given/ agenda. Individuality can't be material since material bodies aren't eternal and Krishna supports individuality of Himself and jivas in past and future.

The same is said in Vs 4.4.17-21. (Wonder how you missed that it stands for Vedanta sutra since we speak about it all the time.) Try to think about it.

Brahman is anandamaya (Vs 1.1.12-13; sutras up to 19 support isvara-jiva bheda, just like many verses of BG; Krishna is Para Brahman - BG 10.12, etc.). He's sat-cit-ananda and jiva too, while impersonal Brahman only has 'sat' aspect. Therefore jiva can't remain there eternally like in any so-called liberated position devoid of worshiping the lotus feet of the Lord (BhP 10.2.32). BhP 7.1 elaborates on sayujya case of Sisupala and Dantavakra.

Hope this helps. Hare Krishna

ekam sastram devaki-putra-gitam
eko devo devaki-putra eva
eko mantras tasya namani yani
karmapy ekam tasya devasya seva
(Adi Sankaracarya, Gita Mahatmya 7)

Your servant, bh. Jan

www.vrindavan-dham.com
www.veda.harekrsna.cz

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Sep 29, 2009 - 1:37AM #80
silence_speaks
Posts: 568
Dear jm,
     :)
Let us assume your point is correct.
I want to now see if it explains all positions correctly.

with this idea, is not kaivalya upanishad statement i made earlier, a contradiction?
Love!
Silence
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 8 of 11  •  Prev 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook