BAPS and Sri Swaminarayan Sampraday (ritual, rejecting, Earth, incarnation)

[Don Penguinoini]

Im not asking for that though, i am simply asking is his ban will be lifted.

[maybe]

Originally Posted by michaelm

Yoga Vasistha or the writings of Adi Shankara. Whilst they both state that God can be worshipped with form, they conclude that actually there is only Brahman - the formless.

He/She has form because we need to worship, but God with form is only for our benefit. To say that God is ONLY with form and is not formless is not correct...form is limited. Are you saying God is limited?

Adi Shankar Acharya was not a Brahm Vadi. Otherwise he would not have taught others to worship Shri Govind. Also he would not have made prayers and stotras in the name of Shri krishna. Adi Shankar Acharya taught that we should all become Brahm and worship Parbrahm. He also stated that God is nirakaar which means He does not have a form - this is fine when talking of God being Anvay. As Vyatirek God has a divine form.

Shri Vyas bhagvan was an Avtaar of God. So who could better explain this than Him? Hence the Purans are right. Also could you post me the writings of Vyas that are not online?

[Don Penguinoini]

Thats what i am trying to say, god is formless, if god has a form, that means god is limited, and god is infinite, right?

[michaelm]

Absolutely Penguino! However, nearly all of us need to have a focus. I believe in the formless. I dont even like the word 'God' or 'divine' since it conjourers up concepts. I prefer 'Supreme Consciousness' or some such phrase, which is still limiting and creates a concept which must therefore be misleading, but is hopefully less misleading (If you see what I mean).

Swami Vivekananda set up amny Ramakrishna missions. One he set up in the Himalayas was for Advaitist monks. When he visited them, he found a picture of Ramakrishna that was an object of devotion/reverence. At that point he realised that pure non-dualistic is very difficult and rare. We need something to focus on. The Shivalingams are a halfway house whereby they show devotion to a 'formless' object - a lump of rock (or in one Temple I went to, it looked suspiciously like a concrete bollard!).

Personally, I focus on the practice and the Guru. I dont think about any of the forms of God. since the infinite is beyond concept, understanding, definition or comprehension there is no point in trying. It can only be understood by experience, through 'Self Realisation' / 'Liberation'.

I love the teachings in the Baghavad Gita but do not have any feelings towards Krishna. To me only the teaching is important. But I do revere the Guru. Him I can see and speak to, and believe he has attained Liberation, so that much I can cope with. i leave all the clever stuff to him!

[michaelm]

Originally Posted by maybe

Adi Shankar Acharya was not a Brahm Vadi. Otherwise he would not have taught others to worship Shri Govind. Also he would not have made prayers and stotras in the name of Shri krishna. Adi Shankar Acharya taught that we should all become Brahm and worship Parbrahm. He also stated that God is nirakaar which means He does not have a form - this is fine when talking of God being Anvay. As Vyatirek God has a divine form.

Shri Vyas bhagvan was an Avtaar of God. So who could better explain this than Him? Hence the Purans are right. Also could you post me the writings of Vyas that are not online?

This is a bit difficult for me to reply to as oyu use terminology with which I am not familiar.

I am presently reading 'Viveka-Chudamani' (Crest-Jewel of discrimination) of Shankara. In it he talks about the formless. I think he (like Ramana Maharshi in the 20th Century) taught several different practices at several different levels. Basically saying that 'God' is formless, absolute and everything - the universe, everything, is a delusion we need to realise, and then we realise we are and always have been, the absolute (Brahman).

The teachings of Vyas that are not online?? - you mean the Yoga Visishta? Its huge!!

[maybe]

God is divine and with form. You are a shusk vedanti. Those who read the scriptures without fullust understanding them and see God as without a form after death attain just light. They live here as light for many many years. I mean way over the time of the age of one universe.

You have only seen the Vyatirekpanu of Supreme Reality and not the Anvaypanu. God lives in His spiritual abode in divine form. This form is most best. Purushottam is His name. Nothing can be compared to Him nor is limited. He is unlimited. How does a divine form mean that he is limited? It does not. What you state is all answered in the Purans.

[maybe]

Ramanujacharya maintained that the wisdom of the Shrutis points to the fact that Shiva and Jiva (Universal Soul (God) and the individual soul) are not same, although they are not separate from each other. While universe is the body of Brahman, He is the Soul and controlling Power of the universe. Brahman is not only the material and efficient cause of the universe; He has in fact become this universe of multiple names and forms. God has become all, even though remaining separate from His creation. It is not illusion or Maya. The God is seen as having all the benevolent qualities (Grace, Compassion, bestowing blessings etc.) and also the power to create, maintain, and destroy the creation. The highest ideal, and the final goal of human endeavor, is to love and worship God as our own, and completely surrender oneself to Him. Thus, Ramanuja's philosophy is called Advaita nondualism with qualification - as it accepts the plurality both of matter and of souls.

Vishishtha Advaita or qualified monism of Ramanuja is a philosophy of love and devotion; we can say he propounded Bhakti Yoga as the path to reach the Truth. Therefore it gives a synthetic view of the spiritual experiences of God or Brahman. Heavily depending upon theory of Karma, this philosophy applies the law of cause and effect to moral experiences. It brings to light the inner working of righteousness of God and affirms the impossibility of cruelty and bias in Divine nature. As you sow, so would you reap! This law applies to explain suffering for many and comfort for others. But the Grace of God, the most benevolent being, transfigures the rigorous law of karma and thus His grace or 'kripa' becomes the ruling principle of religion. Thus Ramanuja added concepts of devotion, worship, and faith as new dimensions to Vedanta. Ramanuja does not accept the impersonal and 'attribute-less' Brahman of Shankara, but rather an eternal personal Brahman, the repository of all blessed qualities.

Qualified non-dualists believe that God is the cause and the universe its effect, but as the effect can't be different from the cause, God is immanent in whole universe. Like the spider, God projects the whole universe from within Himself and therefore can withdraw it in Himself. Similarly, God can reach anywhere, as the spider reaches anywhere in the web. As from the blazing fire, fly millions of sparks of the same nature; even so from this Infinite Being -God- these souls have come. Instead of Maya, here we can say, that Ramanujacharya posits creative Power or Shakti of God. The main theme is that it is Brahman Itself who has become this whole universe. Thus Ramanuja accepts the reality of cosmos/universe/world as the manifestation of Brahman, differing here with Maya theory of Shankara. Here it must be made clear that Shankaracharya did not reject the manifest world as non-existent, but he called it 'relatively real' and not absolutely real. This concept is based on the differing definitions of knowledge given by Shankara and Ramanuja. As Swami Prabhavananda says in the book, The Spiritual Heritage of India:

"According to Shankara knowledge is self-luminous, light itself. It illumines objects of knowledge, and is therefore apart from and beyond the relation of subject and object. Relative knowledge is not true knowledge; it is not pure consciousness, though grounded upon it. Knowledge, by itself, is absolute. It is the Atman; Light itself. Relative knowledge is infinite knowledge made finite."

Shankaracharya discusses the question of reality of individual soul, this world, and Ishwara from this point of view, and labels them as illusory. He introduces the concept of primordial Ignorance - avidya - that deludes the human being in seeing the multifarious world when there is none! Final Liberation comes when this knowledge of unity of individual soul and eternal Soul is established through discrimination and dawning of universal intuition, transcendental oneness with Knowledge. Shankara is strong proponent of Jnana Yoga. The difference also alludes to one of the controversial aspects of interpretation of scriptures as far as relation between karma and knowledge is concerned. For Acharya Shankara the Highest Knowledge and the karma are antithetical to one another, while others, like Ramanujacharya and Vallabhacharya appear to disagree with him. Shankaracharya insists that the knower of Brahman, Brahmajnani, is free from all karma, both in their aspects of the effect on and the necessity for the realized soul.

"Ramanuja, on the other hand, does not take into consideration knowledge that is self-luminous and absolute. Knowledge, he declares, is always relative, and in it there is always a distinction between subject and object. In short, Ramanuja does not admit nirvikalpa samadhi, the unitary consciousness, the experience of the Self as one with Brahman."

For Ramanuja savikalpa samadhi is the highest transcendental experience that the Jiva can have. His Vedanta also emphasizes the pre-requisites such as –

• 1. Approaching the Guru with due humility, who is established in the Knowledge of Brahman, and learning from him that vidya,
  2. Giving up all attachments to this world and the next, and 3. Grace of the Lord to attain to the transcendental knowledge, in addition to the scriptural studies and sadhana.

[michaelm]

the word light here is not literal, but figurative.

You have your belief, I have mine. Obviously we differ.

[Don Penguinoini]

If there is a form, a form has a limit. Such as we do. We cant transform into a spider for example. A formless being could. god can assume any form. Some believe god has form, others dont. It still elads to the same god.

[maybe]

Originally Posted by michaelm

the word light here is not literal, but figurative.

You have your belief, I have mine. Obviously we differ.

Yes we differ as do many other hindus with each other. But the majority realise this absolute knowledge. But the proof exists of where the soul of great Bhakts have visited these abodes of God and seen His divine form which is limitless.