God Exists

[C RAVI]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Lot of people have jumped in crying wolf about what I said about advaitam, but nobody addressed the issue I raised. Let me repeat what I said:

"Advaitam, that is entirely a different cup of tea, they have to first decide whether they are theistic or not, at present they are a confused about it, IMO. "


​

This comment is not about whether or not Advaitam is valid, it is about theism within Advaitam. VA has a clear ideology and their theism fits in with their VA philosophy perfectly, however delusional their ideology is, at least there is coherence.

In the case of Advaitam where is the need for theism? Their philosophy is that jeevas are non-different from the attribute-less, characterless, pure consciousness, the only ultimate reality. Proper knowledge is the means to realize this, and when this realization sets in all differences vanish. In this scheme of things where is the need for theism? I know a whole lot of people will jump in and make assertive statements like saguna brhman upasana is the means to such knowledge, but that is not a persuasive argument, the contradictions stick out like a huge big sore thumb. Such responses, I must say, I have to just ignore, thank you very much.

Cheers!

Shri Nara,

Just expressing my thoughts here with you, based on what I could understand from your question. I am sure this not gonna make you feel satisfied. Still I am presenting myself.


The soul/energy that is the part and parcel of the NB, when takes the physical form in this physical word of Maya, the soul is stuck with all the Maya of the life in this physical world. One may choose to be in spirituality worshiping saguna brahman viz. Rama, Ganesha, Hanuman, Durga etc or just commonly "AANDAVA". Whatever may be the symbol, the spirituality helps the soul to attain realization in due course of brith and rebirth/refinement etc, find onself as one with the Brahman and get liberated/merged.

So, with this when folks are into spirituality they are theists.

Shri Nara, if you say that the above does not make any sense to prove the validity of
Theism, I would like to know on what terms you want the theists to support their claims?

Theists believe in God, spirituality and Karma. If you say that you don't believe in God/Spirituality itself, then what you feel can be the possible convincing answeres from Theists to your question in your post#2300.


If we asks whats the whole purpose of the creation, it is said that, it's all Leela of the God. I personally have this question for which I am searching the answer, as why leela is sought for by NB?

 

[Brahmanyan]

Proper knowledge is the means to realize this, and when this realization sets in all differences vanish. In this scheme of things where is the need for theism? Cheers!

Dear Sri "Nara",
You are a shrewd person. I admire your use of correct words to prove this. Sage of Tiruvannamalai always asks his followers to find "who" realize this? To whom this realization "sets in " (you have used correct word), and when the realization sets in all doubts vanish.
With my limited knowledge I would like to hold theism, like X in Maths, and like to hold on till I get the right answer.
Warm Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

 

[Nara]

....So, with this when folks are into spirituality they are theists.

Ravi, I have a feeling you did not get my point, which is not about the validity of theism, which I question of course, but not here. Here, my question is the need for theism within advaitic world view. Shri B sir got the point and has given a proper response from his personal POV.

...You are a shrewd person. I admire your use of correct words to prove this.

A good word from you sir is like a gentle soothing balm for all the barbs that come in my direction, I appreciate it.

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear Brother Nara Ji,

Advaita or 'non dualism' is the father of Visishtadvaita 'qualified non-dualism'.

We have discussed here and elsewhere quite a bit about Advaita to explain what it is. I doubt the fact that you don't understand it from the metaphysical viewpoint, because you were raised in the VA tradition, I am sure you were taught the differences so well.

So, here I am, asking myself. Why people so diverse as my brother Nara Ji and Sri Sangom Ji try to diminish a widely acknowledged philosophical thought (in it's least meaning) of Advaitam? It only suddenly occurred to me today.

Correct me if I am wrong. It is all about social ideology, is it not? You think that Advata is elitist and so a part of what you call as 'Brahminsm'! Yes, sir, finally I have figured it out - you are opposed to it, from the social justice/equity pov. Nothing to do with it's theological validity.

Actually, we all Advaitins can talk about it's merits as a self contained theology till Kingdom come (literally), you will still be saying 'Neti..., Neti....,'.

This explains why the folks like you who brought up the Seven Great Untenables, have not bothered to answer what Sri Saidevo posted as the response in the 'Advaita for Scholars' thread. Because all your arguments are not about Advaita at all.

Sorry to say this. but you have not been playing fair.

Regards,
KRS

 

[sarma-61]

imho, Shri Nara sir, seems to have a very valid argument when he says or means to say that a theistic mindset is not a sine qua non for acquiring advaitic brahmajnAnam. Though I claim myself to be a conservative brAhmana, I think Adi Sankara emphasized (and also re-iterated) that deep self-introspection is the only proper means for getting knowledge about the self.

He (Adi Sankara) could very well have said that the theistic/ dharmasastra prescribed observances are not necessary. But again, I feel he wanted the orthodox brahmins of his time to accept his philosophy and with this main objective, he engaged in learned debates with the meemAmsakas like kumarila, mandana and others and defeated them. May be it would have been very difficult for Sankara to make the common people accept an entirely revolutionary philosophy which dispensed with their age-old notions and practices as unnecessary and so he said that there is no harm in following those but, deep self-introspection alone will get you the desired goal.

I do not think that Shri Ravi sir's view that "Whatever may be the symbol, the spirituality helps the soul to attain realization in due course of brith and rebirth/refinement etc, find onself as one with the Brahman and get liberated/merged.", is correct, nor do I think Sankara says so. It is similar to saying that you simply go on using the tread-mill for a long time and you will be able to go to a distant place after enough time! Theism like the treadmill may equip you but it is for you to make the journey by foot (here, the self-introspection) to the distant place.

But like the proverbial dog's tail always remaining curved, people twisted Sankar's advaita in such a way that they continue in their own ways of bhakti-cum-meemamsaka ritual lifestyle and have successfully convinced generations of Hindus that this will bring to them "brahman realization" without any extra efforts. Shri ravi sir, imho, is only echoing this grossly mistaken notion.

 

[suraju06]

Mr KRS in post #2304:

Advaita or 'non dualism' is the father of Visishtadvaita 'qualified non-dualism'.

This is the claim of advaitins. It is not accepted by others.

 

[suraju06]

Why people so diverse as my brother Nara Ji and Sri Sangom Ji try to diminish a widely acknowledged philosophical thought (in it's least meaning) of Advaitam?

Every acknowledged philosophical thought has to go through this test. I do not find any attempt to diminish anything. If it appears to have diminished it is just that it has. It is after all a debate.

 

[C RAVI]

I do not think that Shri Ravi sir's view that "Whatever may be the symbol, the spirituality helps the soul to attain realization in due course of brith and rebirth/refinement etc, find onself as one with the Brahman and get liberated/merged.", is correct, nor do I think Sankara says so. It is similar to saying that you simply go on using the tread-mill for a long time and you will be able to go to a distant place after enough time! Theism like the treadmill may equip you but it is for you to make the journey by foot (here, the self-introspection) to the distant place.

But like the proverbial dog's tail always remaining curved, people twisted Sankar's advaita in such a way that they continue in their own ways of bhakti-cum-meemamsaka ritual lifestyle and have successfully convinced generations of Hindus that this will bring to them "brahman realization" without any extra efforts. Shri ravi sir, imho, is only echoing this grossly mistaken notion.

Shri Sarma,

I am not saying anything against/other than self-introspection. I am really surprised how you could get such an impression from my previous post. May be I was not clear.

I said the patience/quest/interest to get into self-introspection and realization comes by the help of spirituality, taking birth/rebirth/paying off karma, working towards reckoning one's inner consciousness. The whole process itself is like a saadhana and the soul has to go through the refining process, stage by stage. Only then the soul gets the desire to indulge in deep self-intospection and works towards liberation.

The thing that helps soul to make attempts towards self-introspection, while living in this world of Maya is spirituality. Generally it's spirituality on this Earth across boundries that's helping souls to be righteous as much as possible.

So, when souls attempts to use Spirituality for true and honest self-introspection and atains realization, I feel theism is very much within the Advaitic world view.

May be exceptions exists where a person could truly get into sefl-introspection, out of his desireous schedules and finds himself as enlightened and realized soul (having gone through many stages) without a bit of spiritual sense. But personally, I doubt it. A person can say to the world that I have made self-introspection honestly and thoroughly and I have atained the absolute realization without a bit of spirituality, like attesting onself. But the reality in this under the perview of Brahman can be totally different.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri suraju06 ji,

Of course it is a debate. You do not think that the folks here arguing against the Advaita are not trying to diminish it's validity as an accepted meta physical system? Sorry, but I disagree.

Visishtadvaita's ontology includes part of Advaita, which existed before the exposition of the former by Sri Ramanuja Acharyal. So, it does not matter whether this is accepted or not. This is a historical fact.

Visishtadvaita is also an Advaita, since only God the Absolute Self exists.

The above is from a Vaishnavite site:

Advaitha, Dvaitha and VisishtAdvaitha

Regards,
KRS

 

[ShivKC]

i wish sh.naachinarkiniyan is here to give an intellectual thoughts to VA and A.
let me use this opportunity to invite him here.

those who know him, pls send him a PM invite..

 

[ozone]

In this scheme of things where is the need for theism? I know a whole lot of people will jump in and make assertive statements like saguna brhman upasana is the means to such knowledge, but that is not a persuasive argument, the contradictions stick out like a huge big sore thumb. Such responses, I must say, I have to just ignore, thank you very much.

To travel to a new land, you need both a VISA and a Ticket !!

 

[sarma-61]

Shri KRS sir in post #2304
So, here I am, asking myself. Why people so diverse as my brother Nara Ji and Sri Sangom Ji try to diminish a widely acknowledged philosophical thought (in it's least meaning) of Advaitam? It only suddenly occurred to me today.

Correct me if I am wrong. It is all about social ideology, is it not? You think that Advata is elitist and so a part of what you call as 'Brahminsm'! Yes, sir, finally I have figured it out - you are opposed to it, from the social justice/equity pov. Nothing to do with it's theological validity.

Respected Shri KRS sir,

Kindly excuse me if any part of the following post does not look admissible as per this forum's rules. I venture to write about your post but am keenly aware it is a dare-devil act.

I have not read many of Shri Sangom sir's posts and I have not also read all posts by Shri Nara sir. And as a rather conservative-minded brahmanan, I feel I may not agree with their views on many points also.

But criticism of advaitam is somewhat like the case of the imaginary number i (j, sometimes) which is the square root of -1. This is an imaginary number not easily explained in words, analogies or examples, but as one studies more and more, this becomes of great use. Just similarly, advaitam is, so to say, imaginary and irrational and illogical and when viewed from that pov, there can be many defects/shortcomings in that philosophy. One who has a deep and abiding trust of the validity of advaita need not get flustered by such criticisms, imho, but try to answer the critics to the best of our ability.

If advaitam is elitist, VA or A is no less elitist imho because all three systems try to grab the bhEdaSrutis and abhEdaSrutis and twist and turn these to make them fit into their pre-designed mold, as I see the situation. The original cause lies with the vedas and, more, importantly, with the Upanishads which all talk about some ultimate truth but are not in chorus, talking about one single reality only. Sankara has with his enormous abilities, been able to convince a large section of the population - mostly brahmins of South India, I would say - that his view is the correct one.

None of us, despite all our pretensions, has gone even one solid step towards brahmajnAnam and we are discussing here. So, let us not feel that advaitam is criticised because there is something "elitist" in it; there is nothing elitist in it as can be seen from the story that even a Chandala could very easily silence Sankara with one very pointed query. If, therefore, all of us are true advaitins we should have ended caste system long ago, is it not? Additionally, how can we say VA or D is not elitist?

Why not let us say, "samadruShTeenE truShnA tyAgee...etc."?

 

[tbs]

dear TBS..I have a way to handle Ozone's post for you.

Ozone's post is an illusion..therefore it does not exists!!!LOL

hi renu
thank u so much.....everything is illusion....u r rite....

 

[tbs]

Mr KRS in post #2304:



This is the claim of advaitins. It is not accepted by others.

hi raju sir,
its well known historical fact.....even though VA is part of A.....but A more emphasis more Nirguna than saguna....VA adds more
saguna than nirguna......may be father or predecessor....but VA come out of A......

 

[Govinda]

To travel to a new land, you need both a VISA and a Ticket !!

Ozone,

The topic was regarding the Brahman, why would Brahman need a VISA and a Ticket? He is the owner of both the consulates - transcendental (Moksha Grantor) and the immanent (prakruti) .

Shouldn't that be a requirement for the jIvA? then don't both VISA (obligation/self-knowledge) and the Ticket(expiatory requirment/absolution of karma) become a requirement for the jIvA? Also, both VISA and Ticket, is an attestation of a person's identity (jIvA).

Your own example blew off the concept of 'jiva Brahmaiva na-parah' and that of two Brahman's. The need for VISA/ticket requires a Moksha Grantor which invalidates the jivan-mukti on its own and mukti is on a different land! Moksha Grantor is expected to validate the VISA/Ticket, hence cannot be 'Pure Consciousness', but an Omniscient person with a distinguishing knowledge. A can of worms!

 

[Govinda]

hi raju sir,
its well known historical fact.....even though VA is part of A.....but A more emphasis more Nirguna than saguna....VA adds more
saguna than nirguna......may be father or predecessor....but VA come out of A......

VA didnot add anything nor derived from Sankara Advaita.

Gita is the essence of the srutis (Veda/Upanishads). They are the basic source texts of Vedanta Philosophy. They are set forth in logic (nyaya) and order in Brahma Sutra of Badarayana/Vyasa. Brahma/Vedanta Sutra is the first aphoristic (maha-vAkya) manual. These three are the basic authority (PrasthAna Trayam) for the later philosophical schools. Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva et al have written Bhasyam based on the 3 authoritative texts.

All the commentaries of various schools were based on the original srutis/smritis. Sri Ramanuja did independent bhasyams on the above texts. As Sankara's works were available by then, Sri Ramanuja was critical of his concepts that were against the Vedic spirit. So, everyone had their own interpretations/understandings. But, what stands tall, is that which concurs with the logic/validity of the prasthAna Trayam, neither the one based on popularity/headcount nor that on easiness/relief (from karma/duties).

 

[Govinda]

Dear Sri suraju06 ji,

Of course it is a debate. You do not think that the folks here arguing against the Advaita are not trying to diminish it's validity as an accepted meta physical system? Sorry, but I disagree.

Visishtadvaita's ontology includes part of Advaita, which existed before the exposition of the former by Sri Ramanuja Acharyal. So, it does not matter whether this is accepted or not. This is a historical fact.



The above is from a Vaishnavite site:

Advaitha, Dvaitha and VisishtAdvaitha

Regards,
KRS

The Advaita that the Vedas declare and followed by the vaishnavas is that of ONE Absolute Person/Being, not the kind of Sankara Advaita [Nirguna/Saguna Brahmans that contradict Advaita (Only one without a second) and the illusory creation which invalidates the body(creation) and the powers of Brahman etc.]

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Govinda Ji,

Seems like you don't fully understand Sankara Acharyal's Advaita exposition, which has been validated as following the Srutis.

It is the same proposition that Visishtadwaita uses as part of it's ontology.

I don't know where you get information that Sankara Acharyals Advaita is somehow different in this respect.

Please sir, understand Advaita principles first on it's own terms, before saying things that are absolutely false. There is only one Brahman in Advaita. And the creation concept of Advaita does not invalidate any reality or concept.

Regards,
KRS

The Advaita that the Vedas declare and followed by the vaishnavas is that of ONE Absolute Person/Being, not the kind of Sankara Advaita [Nirguna/Saguna Brahmans that contradict Advaita (Only one without a second) and the illusory creation which invalidates the body(creation) and the powers of Brahman etc.]

 

[Nara]

....its well known historical fact.....even though VA is part of A.....but A more emphasis more Nirguna than saguna....VA adds more saguna than nirguna......may be father or predecessor....but VA come out of A......

tbs sir, I would like you to clarify a couple of questions I have regarding the above.

[1] You say "VA adds more saguna than nirguna". To tell you the truth I don't quite understand this. Your statement seems to imply that VA accepts both NB and Saguna Brahman (SB), but emphasizes more on SB. If this what you mean, then I must say, this is completely contrary to my understanding of VA. From what I have learned, VA completely rejects the idea of a nirguna brahman (NB) as not only anti-Vedic, but illogical as well. They have their own arguments for this, which may not be persuasive to you, but that is an altogether different issue. Would you please substantiate your statement, please?

[2] You say A may be a "father" of VA. For an idea to be considered "father" it must serve as a seed that is germinated and developed further into a more substantial, or useful form. But that is not the relationship between A and VA. VA simply rejects A as untenable and offers an alternative view. In fact they go so far as to say A is simply poison to the essential nature of jeeva as A says Jeeva and Paramatma are non-different. So, A and VA are completely antithetical to each other.

So, I just don't understand how A can be considered "father" of VA, it does not make any sense to me at all. Is your claim simply based on the historical fact that A came first? That is not very persuasive. Is it because the term "advaitam" is part of VA? That is even a more ridiculous an idea that I am sure you are not thinking along those lines. Anyway, if you will, please, clarify my doubts and I shall be grateful.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

The above is from a Vaishnavite site:

Advaitha, Dvaitha and VisishtAdvaitha

Folks, the full quote from the site may be helpful:

"The Advaita school, represented in its classical and most powerful form by Sankaracharya, argues that only the Absolute Self exists, *and* all else is false. Liberation consists in the realization that individuality is false, and the one's very essence is the Absolute Self, pure undifferentiated consciousness, one without a second. Since there is only one, and nothing else, the system is called Advaita, or ``non-dualism''.

​

Visishtadvaita is also an Advaita, since only God the Absolute Self exists. However, our concept of God, the supreme divine reality, includes as its fundamental modes the individual selves and all of matter. In other words, God is the indwelling Self of all, and this ``all'' is real as they are included in His body. Therefore, Visishtadvaita literally means non-duality of the qualified, since God is qualified by innumerable attributes, including individual selves and matter."

​

The highlighted portion illustrates why VA is the complete antithesis of A. VA's cardinal principle is duality, but an inseparable one, and that is the source of the word "advaitam" in VA. It is about an inseparable unity of Brahman on the one hand and Jeeva and Prakrti on the other. All three tatvas (Chetana, Achetana, Ishwara) are separate and absolutely real per VA.

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear bro Nara Ji,

I was the one who said A is the 'father' of VA. Those are my words. I did not say that in any pejorative or ownership or Advaita supremacy sense, only to say what is the starting basic assumption of both. That ONLY THE GOD ABSOLUTE SELF EXISTS.

Because of this, VA is called qualified non-dualism. If D is the main concept, perhaps it would have been called VD, no?

I have no interest in saying which Darsana is better. For me A makes sense. For others, VA or D make sense. I have no interest or reason to question the validity of any other metaphysical inquiry/theory.



Regards,
KRS

 

[Nara]

....Because of this, VA is called qualified non-dualism. If D is the main concept, perhaps it would have been called VD, no?

Dear KRS, I have no allegence to either A or VA. If anything I will go with A if only it is stripped of all the theism, but, to be truthful, I have no use for either of them. With this preamble, let me submit to you that you exhibit fundamental unawareness of what VA stands for. Let me explain.

It is believed Thirukkacchi Nambi (TKN) had the ability to converse with Lord Varadaraja while performing Alavatta (fanning) kainkaryam. Taking advantage of this supposed intimacy, Bhagavat Ramanuja requested TKN to find answers to six questions from the Para Brahmam itself. One of those six was "What is true, bedham or abedham? The answer he got from Lord Varadaraja, through TKN, was, "bedhamE dharshaNam", i.e. duality is the truth. This is what SVs believe to be the fundamental reality and I challenge anyone in the whole wide world to prove me wrong if they can.

There is another instance wherein Swami Sri Desikan (SSD) was called upon to mediate a debate between an advaitee and a Dwaitee and SSD is supposed to have ruled in favor of Dwaitee.

The darshanam is called Visihta-advaitam because of the concept called aprathak-siddi, inseparable unity between duality. To VA, duality is the ultimate truth, so is the inseparableness between Ishwara, who is not different from Para Brhmam, and everything else. VA is as far removed from A as can be. Anybody who sees a linkage between A and VA simply do not understand what VA is all about, and I say this with as much certainty as I can muster.

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear brother Nara Ji,

As I have said, I can only go by what I have read about VA and by no means, I know it as well as you do. I have not been interested much about learning other Sampradhayams much in depth as well. I only know a bit of Advaitam.

Okay, now I understand. This makes sense. So, I stand corrected.

Your way of explaining this is much more clear to me that what Sri Govinda Ji said.

Regards,
KRS

 

[ozone]

Dear Sri Govinda,
Your post #2315

The topic was regarding the Brahman, why would Brahman need a VISA and a Ticket?

.
The topic is also about jivatma and why it needs to be a Theist to attain Brahman, so
I feel the analogies might help the jiva to understand what is needed to prepare itself
for the journey.
While we might all think that spiritual attainment or Moksham is a given to all,
I hope you will agree with me that all jivatma's cant merge with Brahman as and when they like.
It needs an invitation and to get that invitation, you need to be eligible or qualified for that.
If the ownership and relationship with Brahman was so easy and flexible, wouldnt each jivatma want
to get liberated on its own free will.Isnt there an equivalent of a grantor who makes an atma go through multiple
births and deaths and decides when to liberate? So why would it be a can of worms??
may be i am being stupid, or confused as some like to call, but the point is - it is not so easy to
just decide for yourself and get liberated. There definitely is a need for sadhanas.

 

[C RAVI]

Dear Sri Govinda,
Your post #2315
.
The topic is also about jivatma and why it needs to be a Theist to attain Brahman, so
I feel the analogies might help the jiva to understand what is needed to prepare itself
for the journey.
While we might all think that spiritual attainment or Moksham is a given to all,
I hope you will agree with me that all jivatma's cant merge with Brahman as and when they like.
It needs an invitation and to get that invitation, you need to be eligible or qualified for that.
If the ownership and relationship with Brahman was so easy and flexible, wouldnt each jivatma want
to get liberated on its own free will.Isnt there an equivalent of a grantor who makes an atma go through multiple
births and deaths and decides when to liberate? So why would it be a can of worms??
may be i am being stupid, or confused as some like to call, but the point is - it is not so easy to
just decide for yourself and get liberated. There definitely is a need for sadhanas.

Exactly!!!!!!

Self-introspection and ataining the absolute realization is not a simple and one time process at a single point of time. It is a process of saadhana for each sole. This is what is my contention in my previous post.

Without spirituality this honest and true self-introspection in it's true sense can not be possible. The level of spirituality and the consequent self-introspection and the resultant realization deepens as the soul goes through the refining process from one birth to the other and get's qualified for liberation. This is the saadhna the soul goes through to reach to the highest level of self-introspection, absolute realization and finds what's the absolute bliss. When the soul finds what's the absolute bliss, it loses the energy/force without a single variation that enables it to be qualified for liberation, without the need to undergo any further saadhana.

Process of Completing Sadhana = capability to by the TICKT
Qualification/Eligibility & Approval to get relieved from Maya/birth/rebirth = VISA

Successful Landing and Entry into the new World = MERGING WITH THE ABSOLUTE BLISS