The endless debate: 3

Debate 3: Jnana Yoga means recognition of Lord in human

Purvapakshi 5: Jnana Yoga means recognition of Lord in human (... blah blah blah)

prb: Self-acclaimed swamiji, pls keep your definitions of jn~Ana yoga to yourself. Its not even close by the most lenient standards of Advaita.

All that junk that you copy paste here from your website is uncalled for. I've read it there, find it unfruitfully boring, cooked-up stuff, to misguide innocent masses, perhaps to end in calling you or your master an avatar purusha or something of the sort! This is not a spam community that you can copy paste unrelated stuff here!

The true followers of Shankara are not interested in whatever it is that you're selling in the name of incarnation-swami. So kindly find yourself a better place for your marketing.


Purvapakshi 5: Ayama atmaa... Veda says that individual soul is Brahman (Ayama atmaa..) or God. Is it correct? ... Advaitin says that the whole universe is made of awareness (sarvam khalvidam brahma..). But you find inert stones etc. in this universe.


prb: From Shankara's Brahma Sutra Bhashya, where He refutes Samkhya, the insentient is felt by the sentient being; it exists for the sentient! Thats how sarvam khalvidam brahma is to be understood. An advaitin views the presence of an inert stone as being reflected off the Self that is brahmaN. So there's no difference between what an Advaitin understands from Shankara or Krishna via the Gita.


Purvapakshi 5: ... but the interpretations of the present advaitins are wrong.


prb: Thats an unqualified blanket statement, pls give examples to explain what you mean.


Purvapakshi 5: He should really enjoy even his defeat in the argument.


prb: Get your basics straightened first, Mr. You should know the difference between "he that argues" and "He that stays unaffected" with the body-mind-complex doing whatever it does due to karma/ prArabdhA. na hanyate hanyamAne sharire! Thats the first lesson in any spiritual philosophy. If we were to judge people on their behavior alone, its easy to pinpoint a realized person, but its not so, never was, never will be. Now just because you're attacking people here and calling fellow Advaitins as wrong, I'm going to say the following:

I've seen your website too that itself claims to be of the highest order of equality and indirectly also claims to call yourself or whoever you're posing for as an avatar! It also puts theories of utter nonsense like real and false avatars! Pls spread your message elsewhere and fool deluded people!

This community is for people who want to share their learnings from Jagadguru Bhagavan Adi Shankaracharya. And for God's sake, pls do not attribute your (mis)behaviour to God or avatar or whatever!

gurorarpaNamastu


Purvapakshi 5: Veda says that individual soul is Brahman (Ayama atmaa..) or God. Is it correct?


prb: As it is, the first line of this thread as quoted by you is utter nonsense! Veda vAkya are considered as shruti and shruti is considered as pramANa. All the 6 theistic Indian philosophies are based on Vedas. Yes, Advaita Vedanta goes on logic undoubtedly, but in all of Shankara's works, opponents are also directed back to not go against shruti vAkya. So, if you question the vedas as correct, you don't belong to any of the Indian theistic philosophies, ergo, the question of God or faith in Him itself seems bogus coming from you!


Later...
(after Purvapakshi 5 started talking of a lot of things on avatars and saying that in a decade, all the other philosophies will go surviving only some avatar, etc... I can't find the post, must have been deleted by the moderator)


prb: Excuse my mortal existence, since I can't make head or tail of Swami's quotes that he attributes to Bible, Vedas, Shankara Bhashya, whatever. So pls give references of all that has been based on Shankara's bhashyas at least; the Bible references carry no weight in *proving* explanations of Vedas and brahmaN. So avoid those as *proofs*; I'm sure, we don't care abt that even if the most revered Swamiji quoted it.

If it interests you though, Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi quoted *Jehovah* or "I am That I am" as the best explanation of Atman, which itself comes from the Old Testament. It does hold a lot of value for me (since Ramana said it, not because of Bible), but it doesn't prove Advaita vAkya, instead it just helps Christians understand Advaita better!

In a decade's time, as I see things going now, we'll have more deluded people, more fake gurus, more sects, etc. Truth will always remain the same.


Much later...


prb: You're just copy pasting across threads or even in the same thread! When will you stop this nonsense? If you try to read, understand and/ or think, you'll probably know I'm asking for references about things that you fake to be as Shankara's quotes!

Try to understand the tone of the moderator, if nothing else gets in your fanatic approach! Even the owner of the group has voiced that the kind of *wrong* preaching that you're making is not needed in this group.

As for your ill-motivated posts, here's the boomerang:
--parabrahmaN is not a word *coined* by Shankara; the least you can you do is look up the list of Upanishad names and you'll know why that is!

@moderator: I think we're just wasting our time with psychotics!


Purvapakshi 5: Krishna told in Gita that 'vasudeva sarvamiti..', which means He is only Lord


prb: wrong! "All is vAsudeva" is the meaning, which throws off all the junk you wrote later on!


Purvapakshi 5: ...and asked Arjuna to worship Him only (ahamtva sarva paapebhyo..).


prb: wrong again! I think you should think even before you cook up things, Swamiji Maharaj, since half knowledge is dangerous! Look up what "sarva dharmAn parityajya" means.. it goes against your missionary activity too, although thats a-dharma, not dharma!


Purvapakshi 5: All the human beings are not the sons of Vasudeva. Also anybody's son is not Vaasudeva. Hence Lord Krishna clearly stated that He is only the Lord and there is nobody above Him whose permission is required if He wants to grant a boon or punish a sinner. Lord Krishna in general is referring to human incarnation who is only God.


prb: Thats extreme lunacy. I think all the people here have their nonsense-buzzers ringing to such statements! Thats because human incarnations are government servants for permissions, etc, perhaps? Yeah, thanks, guess your reaction is I'm your regular sinner who'll go to hell for that?


Purvapakshi 5: If everybody is Lord, why Arjuna has to fall on the feet of Krishna?


prb: Why do we do namaskar with folded hands to even an unknown person? My dear Sir, keep the "Bhagavadgita-and-Bible-bhel" aside for a while and get yourself a basic Sanathana Hindu Dharma book and do your homework please. For starters, we bow down to the so-called individualized soul within.


Purvapakshi 5: Krishna preached bhakti yoga, karma yoga (service to Lord) etc. Why Shankara supported them?


prb: This is a little difficult for fanatics to understand, so better read Shankara Gita Bhashya if really interested. Shankara glorifies Jnana any which way you try to interpret it.


Purvapakshi 5: Creation started long back some thousands and thousands of years.


prb: Can you give the date when it started for you? A ballpark figure +/- 10000 yrs?


Purvapakshi 5: "sofar these advaitins could not become God. How can they become God in future?"


prb: Nonsense buzzer ringing again, Sir! No Advaitin thinks of becoming God; God being a part of creation for an Advaitin. As long as a person is withing Maya, he is required to worship God and a dharmic follower does it religiously.


Purvapakshi 5: If they claim they were already God, now let them exhibit atleast one divine characteristic as declared by Veda.


prb: Ask a stupid Q and get a stupid reply: Did Krishna exhibit His divine characteristic(s) always?

Nonetheless, the most divine characteristic of any human being is his existence itself!


Purvapakshi 5: Cursing of lord is a sin and is called Bhagavat Apachara. Cursing the co-devotees is called Bhaagavat Aparchara. Both will have serious consequences.


prb: I don't think anyone here is cursing the Lord! I don't even know what co-devotees means!


Purvapakshi 1: "But the modern day Advaitins misinterpret it by saying "when we realize the Brahman, we will get out of the Birth and Death Cycle"


prb: I do not know who you're indicating here, but an Advaitin's defence here is that its a figure-of-speech only! Considering that one is bound by mAyA, realization figuratively puts one out of the cycle of birth and death (in a vyavhArik view). But as you rightly said, it is to realize that such a thing never existed (in a paramArthik view). praNAms.


Purvapakshi 5: The bare minimum ethics of satsanga is not to make personal attacks but can always present counter argument based on scriptures with quotations.


prb: Agreed. But it doesn't remain satsanga when one starts blabbering unrelated topics outside the boundaries of the specific community goals, even after being warned by moderator. So, exchange between you and me is not satsanga.


Purvapakshi 5: Probably, many here don't like this. They want statements praising their logics, depth of knowledge etc. only and do not want to hear any counter argument.


prb: Is that your counter-argument? That people is, perhaps, you! All that people here want is some sane satsanga so that all progress towards a common goal: moksha. Nah, not through present day avatArs, but through the immense knowledge left behind by great achAryAs of yore.


Purvapakshi 5: How come everybody is Vaasudeva?


prb: Not *everybody*, Maharaj, sarvaM means *all* or *everything*, (everybody being a subset of all) doesn't it? If so, what would vasudeva sarvaM iti mean?


Purvapakshi 5: Krishna only preached Gita. What did the other vaasudevas (as per you) have done?


prb: Moot point, if at all a point!


Purvapakshi 5: Krishna exhibited His divine characteristic 'Satyam jnanam anantam brahma.. Veda' by preaching excellent divine knowledge through Gita.


prb: Pls don't twist Qs to suit the answers you have! I asked "did he do so *always*?" like an identity card? He did not, thats why the Mahabharata, isn't it? Do we ask nonsensical Qs such as "inspite of the divine character being present, why was history's most ruthless war fought?" here to make useless points?


Purvapakshi 5: If everybody is Lord, Duryodhana also becomes Lord which is definitely not acceptable to anybody.


prb: That anybody too would mean you. An advaitin has no problem in accepting duryodhana as vAsudeva, thats brahmaN thats all there is. Did you ever get to Vishwarupadarshana in Gita?


Purvapakshi 5: ...
but it clearly proves that He supported bhakti marga (duality). Even Ramana Maharishi wrote a bhajan on Lord Arunachala praying Him to help his mother.

prb: There are lot of things attributed to Shankara, *including* what He did not write. But more importantly, Shankara may have written crores of hymns, but *none* of them are considered as a philosophy, per se. On one hand if you quote bhajagovindam, you can't ignore nirvANashaTkam. Thats why, Shankara's most important works are the prasthAna trayA and there are no two opinions (from advaitins) about that!

Ramana did not write Arunachala hymns for His mother alone, He wrote it for masses, including Himself. But you're missing the point (if at all you know so) that Ramana never preached praying to Arunachala *alone* and He *never* said that Arunachala can grant moksha or anything like that, if at all your belief has a concept of moksha!
Post a Comment