Bhagavad Gita /discussion, thoughts

[Desert Snake]

I am still confused by your confusion. Luckily, most people can understand basic thoughts.
You offer no evidence or even arguments. Please actually debate me. Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia show a lack of debate skills and a lack of knowledge. It is pointless to debate a troll.

You're getting the basics wrong. I can't argue against that. You're holding an apple, saying it's an orange, and expect me to argue about the nature of that orange.

As far as I'm concerned, our discussion is over.

 

[raw_thought]

You're getting the basics wrong. I can't argue against that. You're holding an apple, saying it's an orange, and expect me to argue about the nature of that orange.

As far as I'm concerned, our discussion is over.

Cool! You never debated only threw insults. Your entire " argument" can be summed up by, " I'm right and you are an uninformed fool."

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram R_T

Are you implying that Shankara's understanding is simplistic and does not do Hinduism justice?

you may well know that the vaisnava tradition does not share Shankaracharyas veiws in their entirity but see them as a stage in a progresional refinment of thought , ..infact allmost every Vaisnava will point to some teachings given by Shankaracharya in which he himself contradicts his own said the link you quote is some what of an over simplification .

what I am saying without need to criticise Shankaracharya is that there is more to Hinduism than impersonalism .

 

[raw_thought]

Agreed. There is more to Hinduism than "Brahman is Atman". My whole point is that it is part of Hinduism and a very important part of it.

 

[Desert Snake]

namaskaram deciple ji



I canot guarantee that R_T uses Ultimate reality in the same way I understand it but the trem is used in translation of some Buddhist thought , .....

where by one realises that there is an ultimate reality and a conventional reality .

Hmm I see. Regardless of what the mysterious argument is, (I can't figure it out), non-dualism cannot be presented alongside dualistic concepts. Once someone goes non-dualistic, they are pretty much 'stuck' with what that entails.
It's obvious to me that this sort of reasoning is from trying to force non-dualism into dualistic ideas, it doesn't work. If non-dualism were the original intent, we would not have two separate terms in the first place, we would have one word/description.

 

[raw_thought]

Perhaps this will cure your confusion. There is one reality but it can be understood inaccurately.

 

[Jainarayan]

1937 ... Poojya Acharyashri Charantirtha Maharaj .

Thanks, I'll check it out.

 

[ratikala]

Originally Posted by Poeticus

Shankara was a very complex Advaitic philosopher of the Advaita-Vedanta sub-group of the Vedanta line of thought. If you are truly interested, I'd recommend reading Shankara's Bhashya-s (aka: commentaries) on the Gita and various Mukhya Upanishads (Main Upanishads of Shruti). Keep in mind that Advaita-Vedanta is not the creme de la creme of Vedanta, and there have been other Bhashya-s by other guru-s that have argued or commented using authentic scriptural reasoning to support their conclusions. The point is not that one is better than the other; the highlight is the pluralism of thought.​

​

Are you disagreeing with the encyclopedia Brittanica? Are you saying that what they wrote," He wrote commentaries on the Brahma-sutra, the principal Upanishads, and the Bhagavadgita, affirming his belief in one eternal unchanging reality (brahman) and the illusion of plurality and differentiation." they were inaccurate?. Yes, there is a plurality of views but that does not mean that every view has the same truth value.

I have to agree with Poeticus above in that it would be wrong to look at it as there being levels of truth values , ... this truth is incredibly complex to the point of being so expansive as to be beyond conventional comprehension , therefore we can only hope to grasp the most minute portion of an understanding , this means that even if I understand the supreme as visnu , or as Krsna to have form , and another recognises the supreme to be formless there is no difference as the supreme pervades all , pervading form and formlessness, there is no higher truth value as there is equal truth in each veiw point , however to veiw oureslves as as sugested by the article quoted ....''It basically means that in our deepest selves, we are divine. All living things are divine in their deepest selves. Now, that divine self may be hidden or covered over by hatred, envy, fear or other negative things. But, it is there nonetheless and it is our "true" and "eternal" selves.''

whilst this is in some respect true in that the supreme pervades all , it is not so that we are in any way equal as we do not posess the fullness of nature that is posessed by the supreme , we are minute portions of that fullness , we canot assume equality with the supreme without merging and becoming selfless on the other hand some have such adoration for the supreme that they wish to remain seperate as the eternal servitors of the supreme . so where there is plurality of veiw there is no higer truth value .

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram diciple ji

Hmm I see. Regardless of what the mysterious argument is, (I can't figure it out), non-dualism cannot be presented alongside dualistic concepts. Once someone goes non-dualistic, they are pretty much 'stuck' with what that entails.

I am not sure that this is nececarily so ?

I beleive Shankaracharya realised both , I think it is possible to understand both to be one .

It's obvious to me that this sort of reasoning is from trying to force non-dualism into dualistic ideas, it doesn't work. If non-dualism were the original intent, we would not have two separate terms in the first place, we would have one word/description.

I canot guarantee that R_T uses Ultimate reality in the same way I understand it but the trem is used in translation of some Buddhist thought , .....

where by one realises that there is an ultimate reality and a conventional reality .

sorry it sounds like a riddle , but conventional reality is our curent state of bodily awareness and our association with the temporary and illusiory nature of this existance , and ultimate reality is the atainment of higher awareness , which the dualist refers to as god (in which ever form) and the nondualist refers to as Brahman both equalaly belong to higher awareness , to ultimate reality .

 

[ratikala]

Bhagavad Gita ch ..10 V ..10 &11

To those who are constantly devoted to serving me with love , I give the understanding by which they might come to me ....To show them special mercy , I dwelling in their hearts , destroy with the shining lamp of knowledge the darkness born of ignorance .

that supreme knowledge born of understanding is ultimate reality ,
the darkness of ignorance is conventional reality where we live under illusion .

 

[Desert Snake]

namaskaram diciple ji



I am not sure that this is nececarily so ?

I beleive Shankaracharya realised both , I think it is possible to understand both to be one .

Right, I was just replying to this specific discussion.

 

[raw_thought]

The Ratikala quote in the above post was a response to;
"Hmm I see. Regardless of what the mysterious argument is, (I can't figure it out), non-dualism cannot be presented alongside dualistic concepts. Once someone goes non-dualistic, they are pretty much 'stuck' with what that entails." ( post 145 )
OK, you concede that there is no contradiction in saying Brahman is Atman.
Or were you being sarcastic when you wrote, " Right"?

 

[atanu]

Gita is layered. Knowledge of different levels attract different sadhakas. For me, what follow are precise and leave no doubt.

X th Chapter

7. He who in truth knows these manifold manifestations of My Being and (this) Yoga-power of Mine, becomes established in the unshakeable Yoga; there is no doubt about it.

8. I am the source of all; from Me everything evolves; understanding thus, the wise, endowed with meditation, worship Me.

20. I am the Self, O Gudakesha, seated in the hearts of all beings! I am the beginning, the middle and also the end of all beings.

32. Among creations I am the beginning, the middle and also the end, O Arjuna! Among the sciences I am the science of the Self; and I am logic among controversialists.

...