why no doership for Brahman?

[Shantanu]

Love for personal God as in Shiva, Jehovah, Allah can help one to go across duality to nonduality as shown by the likes of Basaveshwara who rejected casteism and the sufi Shirdi Sai Baba and Kabir who rejected all religious barriers which divided humanity.

And at the same time, religious belief in the personal God can also be used as an instrument to drive dualistic barriers between humanity resulting in confict , intensifying duality in the process and making religion counter-productive.

A positive attitude and precise theoretical understanding of what religion is meant for, can allow believers in personal God to make wise choices, instead of going down the road of conflict and spiritual degeneration creating hell on earth.



But Buddha attained Moksha faster than the so-called believers in God at that point of time who were busy trying to please God with all kinds of rituals like slaughtering animals and so on.

Once you know conclusively that a Personal God exists and moreover that He resides in your mind and heart and in the rest of your body there is no question of ever making a transition to non-duality. For God is always there. He has not gone away just because you have chosen to become non-dual. Further, you cannot reject what you have experienced of God. Moksha in this respect is therefore limited to a state of being where one knows God is there and can influence your life but you ignore that possibility and get on with your life free of any explicit consultations with God. That is liberation: personal emancipation. That is the ultimate state of living.

As for the benefits of non-duality that you mention like rejection of divisions in humanity like casteism and other forms of religious barriers, one cannot go against truth. If the truth or reality is that there are divisions in humanity one has to contend with that and do what is necessary to counter the evil that you could be affected by from another section of humanity. One has to confront people who disturb your personal life and stop you living in dignity. That is dharma. It is the overriding consideration of Hindusim. Loving everyone is therefore not an objective that is worth pursuing as a form of universal religion. If there is conflict it has to be fought with to restore your own good fortune. This is the lesson of Mahabharatta and Ramayana.

 

[ajay0]

Once you know conclusively that a Personal God exists and moreover that He resides in your mind and heart and in the rest of your body there is no question of ever making a transition to non-duality.

Merging with the Divine is a greater manifestation of love than setting oneself separate from Him from a dualistic perspective.

Adi Shankaracharya used to preach about non-duality but asked a dalit condescendingly who came in his path to move aside, not realising that the Divine Himself had come before him in the form of a Dalit. Later realizing his error, he prostrated before the Divine seeking His pardon.

As Shankaracharya had not by then realised Advaita or nonduality experientially, and just followed it as a belief system, he made the great sin of insulting the Lord Himself who came to test his nondual perception by asking Him to stand aside rudely.

Similarly as per the puranas, a great brahmin bhakta of Vishnu was walking along a parched desert. Vishnu sensing his great thirst , asked Indra to provide the brahmin with Amrit or the celestial nectar. Indra went in the guise of an untouchable and met the brahmin in the desert and requested the brahmin to accept his water, which was really amrit.

However the brahmin got angry and refused to accept Indra's amrit, thinking he will get polluted thus. And in the process the brahmin lost the chance of drinking Amrit and getting Indra's blessings.

 

[Shantanu]

Merging with the Divine is a greater manifestation of love than setting oneself separate from Him from a dualistic perspective.

Adi Shankaracharya used to preach about non-duality but asked a dalit condescendingly who came in his path to move aside, not realising that the Divine Himself had come before him in the form of a Dalit. Later realizing his error, he prostrated before the Divine seeking His pardon.

As Shankaracharya had not by then realised Advaita or nonduality experientially, and just followed it as a belief system, he made the great sin of insulting the Lord Himself who came to test his nondual perception by asking Him to stand aside rudely.

Similarly as per the puranas, a great brahmin bhakta of Vishnu was walking along a parched desert. Vishnu sensing his great thirst , asked Indra to provide the brahmin with Amrit or the celestial nectar. Indra went in the guise of an untouchable and met the brahmin in the desert and requested the brahmin to accept his water, which was really amrit.

However the brahmin got angry and refused to accept Indra's amrit, thinking he will get polluted thus. And in the process the brahmin lost the chance of drinking Amrit and getting Indra's blessings.

After experiencing God for years I finally wanted my freedom and liberty from HIm to decide things for myself and live the rest of my life free of attachments including attachment to the Lord but the Lord did not think that I would end up with a happy ending this way without His continued guidance and supervision of my mental state. So even after the realisation and practice of bhaktivedanta when I wanted moksha (total liberation) He continued to bless me with His guidance instead. I wondered whether nonduality was the path forward for me but once I saw that He was disuading me from going down the path of non-duality and Moksha it was no longer an option to pursue as bhakti was clearly the end phase of truthsearch.

Adi Shankaracharya was wrong in another respect. The Divine is within all people but It needs to be transcended to by surrendering to It for a very long time and in faith and devotion for It to come alive in a person, no matter who that person is, whether a brahmin, a dalit or a saint. Sankaracharya should first have looked for the Divine within himself before considering whether the Divine would visit him through a dalit. I would not prostrate before anyone except God Himself.

 

[ajay0]

So even after the realisation and practice of bhaktivedanta when I wanted moksha (total liberation) He continued to bless me with His guidance instead. I wondered whether nonduality was the path forward for me but once I saw that He was disuading me from going down the path of non-duality and Moksha it was no longer an option to pursue as bhakti was clearly the end phase of truthsearch.

Nonduality is a state of experiential understanding, not merely intellectual understanding. Even those who have gained a proper intellectual understanding of it is few, and most people have a delusionary understanding instead due to the lack of a subtle intellect to perceive its intrinsic nature and trumpet their interpretations to everyone as the infallible truth, misguiding themselves and others and begetting a lot of karma as well.

If you feel that duality is the option for you, go ahead with it. But it is not correct to sugar-coat it saying that bhakti is clearly the end phase of truth search which is just a personal interpretation.

It would probably be the right path for one at a certain point of time, and a necessary phase he or she have to go through in his or her spiritual evolution.

Bhakti is for those of an emotional nature, and there is nothing wrong with it, as long as one does not discriminate irrationally between people who have different belief systems for bhakti saying , ' I am right and he is wrong' and create conflict. ( in the version of God they pray to or with respect to those with atheistic/agnostic beliefsets)

Adi Shankaracharya was wrong in another respect. The Divine is within all people but It needs to be transcended to by surrendering to It for a very long time and in faith and devotion for It to come alive in a person, no matter who that person is, whether a brahmin, a dalit or a saint. Sankaracharya should first have looked for the Divine within himself before considering whether the Divine would visit him through a dalit. I would not prostrate before anyone except God Himself.

God is nondual, impartial and does not discriminate between any sorts of people. He would rather bless a good Christian than a bad Hindu, or a good Buddhist rather than a bad Muslim.

As Krishna stated in the Uddhava Gita, "Evil is seeing relative perspective of good and evil, and good is going beyond both."

Your statement that one ought to look for the divine within oneself first is insightful.

 

[Shantanu]

Nonduality is a state of experiential understanding, not merely intellectual understanding. Even those who have gained a proper intellectual understanding of it is few, and most people have a delusionary understanding instead due to the lack of a subtle intellect to perceive its intrinsic nature and trumpet their interpretations to everyone as the infallible truth, misguiding themselves and others and begetting a lot of karma as well.

If you feel that duality is the option for you, go ahead with it. But it is not correct to sugar-coat it saying that bhakti is clearly the end phase of truth search which is just a personal interpretation.

It would probably be the right path for one at a certain point of time, and a necessary phase he or she have to go through in his or her spiritual evolution.

Bhakti is for those of an emotional nature, and there is nothing wrong with it, as long as one does not discriminate irrationally between people who have different belief systems for bhakti saying , ' I am right and he is wrong' and create conflict. ( in the version of God they pray to or with respect to those with atheistic/agnostic beliefsets)





God is nondual, impartial and does not discriminate between any sorts of people. He would rather bless a good Christian than a bad Hindu, or a good Buddhist rather than a bad Muslim.

As Krishna stated in the Uddhava Gita, "Evil is seeing relative perspective of good and evil, and good is going beyond both."

Your statement that one ought to look for the divine within oneself first is insightful.

If God is there showing that a human being does not by himself have the intelligence to cope with very difficult life decisions and out of His grace and kindness points this out to you so you seek refuge in Him, how can a human being say No God, you go your own way and I will go my own? Would that not be egotistical and self-infatuated?

 

[ajay0]

If God is there showing that a human being does not by himself have the intelligence to cope with very difficult life decisions and out of His grace and kindness points this out to you so you seek refuge in Him, how can a human being say No God, you go your own way and I will go my own? Would that not be egotistical and self-infatuated?

Yeah, there is nothing wrong in using the personal God as a guide if you feel that way, as shown in the path of Bhakti Yoga or Yoga of love.

Sri Ramakrishna used to say that by pleasing the Divine Mother, She will remove the illusion of Maya and bring the devotee to the truth.

 

[Shantanu]

Yeah, there is nothing wrong in using the personal God as a guide if you feel that way, as shown in the path of Bhakti Yoga or Yoga of love.

Sri Ramakrishna used to say that by pleasing the Divine Mother, She will remove the illusion of Maya and bring the devotee to the truth.

You are an incredible person: how did you know so much? Are you Indian Hindu? How old are you? where did you study? - if you do not mind me asking these questions, that is.

 

[ajay0]

You are an incredible person: how did you know so much? Are you Indian Hindu? How old are you? where did you study? - if you do not mind me asking these questions, that is.

The person is just a transient appearance in existence which will disappear after some time, like any other object, as all external phenomena is characterized by impermanence.

By focusing on the impermanent and transient, one is subjecting oneself to the wiles of Maya who squeezes cunningly the life-force or prana out of oneself.

By focusing on the permanent, which is the truth, that is Self or non conceptual awareness or the thoughtless reality within, one escapes from the clutches of Maya and suffering.

 

[Shantanu]

The person is just a transient appearance in existence which will disappear after some time, like any other object, as all external phenomena is characterized by impermanence.

By focusing on the impermanent and transient, one is subjecting oneself to the wiles of Maya who squeezes cunningly the life-force or prana out of oneself.

By focusing on the permanent, which is the truth, that is Self or non conceptual awareness or the thoughtless reality within, one escapes from the clutches of Maya and suffering.

The way I see it, life on Earth is 4 billion years old. Humans have been on this planet for 2 million years or thereabouts. Modern humans or those with religious beliefs have been around for 40,000 years. We have written history dating back 10,000 thousand years. And now we are in the internet age. What an incredible story that has unfolded before our humanity and life that has remained in continuum over this period. This history has been there for a purpose. That purpose needs to be found and if you find you will understand Maya. You understand the Creator.

To me Maya is just the magical creational aspect of Sri Krishna, the Supreme God that is unfathomable. We can try but it is beyond human comprehension. When we appreciate our biological ancestry as I have outlined, one feels grateful that God has given us such a wondrous creation to live in and above all has given us our mind to appreciate the beauty. To detach oneself from that reality as the only thing that we have hard physical evidence for is just delusional. Maya does squeeze the lifeforce into existence but what an incredibe deliberate feat of God, do you not think?

To say that person or objects are impermanent and so must be ignored or discarded as unimportant so that there must be another objective or purpose to be found does not seem to be very wise. If it is to remove suffering on the other hand I can see the point of it.

To me suffernig can only be removed by truth, ascertaining the truth that generates contentment.

A person has one short life of 70 years on average. He has a chance to make his existence permanent by doing something incredible so that history will remember him like we remember the great sages. So I see a great purpose, and have accordingly constructed a Blog: Shantanu Panigrahi's Blog. That is how I wanted to make my life permanent. What do you say about that?

 

[ajay0]

To me Maya is just the magical creational aspect of Sri Krishna, the Supreme God that is unfathomable.

Some state that Jehovah is the supreme God, some state that Allah is the supreme God, some state that Jesus is the supreme Lord, some state that Rama is the supreme Lord....


I would say that these are all personal interpretations of God which varies as per the conditioning of the particular society and culture that person is born to.


If the buffalos become sentient enough to pursue bhakti yoga, they would obviously state that God is a buffalo with golden horns, and heaven is a place where there is plenty of shrubs and grass, no predators whatsoever, and plenty of angelic female buffalos.

We can try but it is beyond human comprehension. When we appreciate our biological ancestry as I have outlined, one feels grateful that God has given us such a wondrous creation to live in and above all has given us our mind to appreciate the beauty. To detach oneself from that reality as the only thing that we have hard physical evidence for is just delusional. Maya does squeeze the lifeforce into existence but what an incredibe deliberate feat of God, do you not think?

There is nothing wrong with enjoying God's creation. Trouble erupts only when one attaches oneself to that which is impermanent. All attachments obscure the natural state of Awareness which is the true intuitive guide in life.

Here is the pdf version of the enlightened master Nisargadatta Maharaj's classic book 'I am That' which gives deep insight into the nature of existence, life, God and enlightenment.

A person has one short life of 70 years on average. He has a chance to make his existence permanent by doing something incredible so that history will remember him like we remember the great sages. So I see a great purpose, and have accordingly constructed a Blog: Shantanu Panigrahi's Blog. That is how I wanted to make my life permanent. What do you say about that?

Thanks for the blog site. Looks quite interesting.

 

[Shantanu]

There is nothing wrong with enjoying God's creation. Trouble erupts only when one attaches oneself to that which is impermanent. All attachments obscure the natural state of Awareness which is the true intuitive guide in life.

All attachments lead to misery and prevent awareness/knowledge/truth. That is just a fundamental fact on existence. It's connection to the impermanence of objects is something that I do not yet understand.

 

[atanu]

I don't know about Kashmiri Shavism, but Brahman is generally thought of as beyond attributes. It doesn't do anything. It's like a timeless, infinite Bulk (physics) or Brane underlying Reality, a sort of source of potential or proto 'stuff' that can be perceived as the illusion of the Universe.
Unfortunately, without attributes, we can't really talk about or even conceive of Brahman. There's just nothing there to wrap your head around. But we Hindu-types persist. We stick on a little attribute here and a little power there (just to clarify things, you know), and soon we've woven whole, convoluted, theological tapestry of devas and actions and powers that every little sect has a different take on.

In Advaita, Brahman (nirguna, anyway) is attributeless and incomprehensible; but we can't argue, admonish, jump up and down or get all excited about it if we can't talk about it. So we start with the Sat-Chit-Ananda, the Tat tvam asi and the Aham Brahmasmi, then quickly dodge back with a Neti neti.
It all strikes me as confusingly complicated; but, of course, that's what makes Hinduism such a colorful, mad, theological Rube Goldberg.

If we lost our obsession with intricate, descriptive explanations we'd be, well...Buddhists.

It appears that at least some confusions that you refer to stem from lack of understanding of Sanskrit words.

Existences-awareness is not an attribute.