We agree on the `chant and be`bit too, except we use different mantras....
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Fasting Days & Guidelines
- Thread starter Maija
- Start date
This is Advaita philosophy!
Advaita and Vaishnavism are not mutually exclusive. Achintya BhedAbheda is Gaudiya Vaishnavism, which smacks of the Abrahamic concept of Heaven. I'm not sanguine with that. I would point to a discussion at another site that adresses this very question, and answers that Advaita is certainly compatible with Vaishnavism, and why. However, I'm not sure if it is allowed to link to another site.
Using that criterion then, it's a safe bet that this area is actually a Smarta community. In the time I've been going to temple, I've never seen any one person make that proverbial beeline for his or her own deity's shrine, and no other. Even the priests cross lines. As I've mentioned a few times, the Shaiva priests, especially one of them, will participate in, or even conduct pujas to Vishnu, and vice versa. This particular priest has conducted Sri Satyanarayana puja.
Most people won't care that much. As for the priests, money talks, and they can also be Smartas with leanings, just like everyone else. After all, Adi Sankara, and Swami Sivananda, for all intents looked very much like Saivas. It they're hired at a Smarta temple, they'll do what they're asked to do. You'd have to engage one in a discussion, and even then you may not find out. In a city close to you, a Saiva group built a temple, and the Smartas, not happy with that, went and built their own a few blocks away. What you notice in the two is a different vibration. (That is if you can feel the difference. Many wouldn't be able to, and they just go to both.)
I would like to visit a temple devoted to one deity, to experience the difference. And as far as the priests, maybe their ages have something to do with it; I don't know. I think the oldest one is no older than 40something. The others are young, one even looks to be in his 20s, very baby face if not for the beard.
I know one like yours that, next time I go through that town, I probably won't bother to stop. (I might, who knows?) No focus, no vibration. All show, no glow. Talk the talk but not walk the walk. Notions, not motions. Symbols, not devonic energy. Well, you get the picture.
Vrindavana Das
Active Member
We agree on the `chant and be`bit too, except we use different mantras.
I agree. :yes:
The same is confirmed in the scriptures:
harer nāma harer nāma harer nāmaiva kevalam
kalau nāsty eva nāsty eva nāsty eva gatir anyathā
kalau nāsty eva nāsty eva nāsty eva gatir anyathā
"In this age of quarrel and hypocrisy, the only means of deliverance is chanting the holy name of the Lord. There is no other way. There is no other way. There is no other way." [Brihad Nāridya Purāna]
Pittsburg Venkateswara or Lanham Murugan then. both South Indian, one Saiva, the other Vaishnava.
Vrindavana Das
Active Member
It agree. They are not. Just the levels of realizations are different.
vadanti tat tattva-vidas
tattvaḿ yaj jñānam advayam
brahmeti paramātmeti
bhagavān iti śabdyate
tattvaḿ yaj jñānam advayam
brahmeti paramātmeti
bhagavān iti śabdyate
"The Absolute Truth is realized in three phases of understanding by the knower of the Absolute Truth, and all of them are identical. Such phases of the Absolute Truth are expressed as Brahman, Paramātmā, and Bhagavān." [S.B. 1.2.11]
Frankly, I have not understood the import of what you are saying here. So, I will reserve my comments for later.
I don't know... that's the place I feel most at peace at. Maybe it's the energy the people give off too. I always have a feeling of "it's good to be here". Maybe it's all highly personal, especially given my personal circumstances.
Don't get me wrong about the temple itself... it's not as if there is no structure to the groupings of sanctums, if I ever gave that impression. That is, you won't find a Shaiva sanctum at one end with a Vaishnava sanctum next to it, then at the other end the same thing, or in the middle it's a free-for-all with deity's all intermingled. Except for the presiding deity being in the middle, the right side of the temple is for all intents and purposes, Vaishnava; the left, Shaiva and Shakta.
They could very well have built a wall on either side of the Sri Guruvayurappan sanctum, with three entrances and had three temples.
What I mean is that the Gaudiya, especially ISKCON view of Vaikuntha and Goloka, with green grass, honeybees, celestial singing, and God in a personal form, sounds too much like the Christian and Muslim Heaven and Paradise. At the risk of being irreverent and disrespectful, it sounds too fairy tale.
Vrindavana Das
Active Member
If we accept the concept of Bhagavān, then we have to accept the concept of Bhaga also. If we use the word Dhanavān ("wealthy") but exclude the word dhana ("wealth"), then the dhanavān becomes meaningless. Similarly, He who possesses Bhaga is Bhagavān. Bhaga means majesty (aiśvarya) or potency (śakti). Therefore, Bhagavān is He who possesses all kinds of potencies or energies that could possibly exist. Thus, Bhagavān is the Omnipotent One:
aiśvaryasya samagrasya vīryasya yaśasaḥ śriyaḥ
jñāna-vairāgyayoś caiva ṣannāḥ bhaga itīṇganā
jñāna-vairāgyayoś caiva ṣannāḥ bhaga itīṇganā
One who possesses all majesty or wealth, all potency or strength, all fame, all beauty, all knowledge and all renunciation is known as Bhagavān.[ Vishnu Purana (6.5.79)]
The fact that Bhagavān possesses all beauty implies that He is beautiful; therefore, He must possess form.
In truth, because Govinda, the Cause of all Causes, possess form, we see many forms in the universe. Without there being a form in the cause, there cannot be a form in the effect; without there being a form in the source, there cannot be a form in the reflection. Logically, something cannot come from nothing.
īśvarah paramah krishnah
sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahah
anādir ādir govindah
sarva-kārana-kāranam
sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahah
anādir ādir govindah
sarva-kārana-kāranam
Krishna who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes.[B.S. 5.1]
The information of the Vaikuntha Planets and Goloka is there in the revealed scriptures. One such example I quote below:
śriyaḥ kāntāḥ kāntaḥ parama-puruṣaḥ kalpa-taravo
drumā bhūmiś cintāmaṇi-gaṇa-mayi toyam amṛtam
kathā gānaḿ nāṭyaḿ gamanam api vaḿśī priya-sakhi
cid-ānandaḿ jyotiḥ param api tad āsvādyam api ca
sa yatra kṣīrābdhiḥ sravati surabhībhyaś ca su-mahān
nimeṣārdhākhyo vā vrajati na hi yatrāpi samayaḥ
bhaje śvetadvīpaḿ tam aham iha golokam iti yaḿ
vidantas te santaḥ kṣiti-virala-cārāḥ katipaye
drumā bhūmiś cintāmaṇi-gaṇa-mayi toyam amṛtam
kathā gānaḿ nāṭyaḿ gamanam api vaḿśī priya-sakhi
cid-ānandaḿ jyotiḥ param api tad āsvādyam api ca
sa yatra kṣīrābdhiḥ sravati surabhībhyaś ca su-mahān
nimeṣārdhākhyo vā vrajati na hi yatrāpi samayaḥ
bhaje śvetadvīpaḿ tam aham iha golokam iti yaḿ
vidantas te santaḥ kṣiti-virala-cārāḥ katipaye
I worship that transcendental seat, known as Śvetadvīpa where as loving consorts the Lakṣmīs in their unalloyed spiritual essence practice the amorous service of the Supreme Lord Kṛṣṇa as their only lover; where every tree is a transcendental purpose tree; where the soil is the purpose gem, all water is nectar, every word is a song, every gait is a dance, the flute is the favorite attendant, effulgence is full of transcendental bliss and the supreme spiritual entities are all enjoyable and tasty, where numberless milk cows always emit transcendental oceans of milk; where there is eternal existence of transcendental time, who is ever present and without past or future and hence is not subject to the quality of passing away even for the space of half a moment. That realm is known as Goloka only to a very few self-realized souls in this world.[B.S. 5.56]
Shuddhasattva
Well-Known Member
Iskcon propaganda aside, It should be understood that Vrindavana is completely allegorical. These are not anthropic beings (or rather, not solely so - they may take any number of forms provisionally) in a three dimensional world of actual grass, trees, etc.
The supreme form is far beyond such dimensional constraints, as are the imperishable (akshara) realms beyond the maya which is subject to ceaseless transience (mithya).
Arguments against creation ex nihilo tend to be crude, and the above is no exception - noting that I am not necessarily arguing for creation ex nihilo as an absolute.
The supreme form is far beyond such dimensional constraints, as are the imperishable (akshara) realms beyond the maya which is subject to ceaseless transience (mithya).
Arguments against creation ex nihilo tend to be crude, and the above is no exception - noting that I am not necessarily arguing for creation ex nihilo as an absolute.
Last edited:
Maija
Active Member
i love the last bit of this,so sweet! as i chant and drift to sleep Im very excited to print and reread this in the am. thank you for sharing
hare krishna!
Maya3
Well-Known Member
I don't believe that there is a "heaven" like that. I think that is wishful thinking and a way for us to deal with death.
When we join God and don't reincarnate anymore it will be something that is not explainable.
Personally I think it will be more universal we would know the whole universe, not grasses and cows, but that is my imagination, there is now way we could know.
maya
When we join God and don't reincarnate anymore it will be something that is not explainable.
Personally I think it will be more universal we would know the whole universe, not grasses and cows, but that is my imagination, there is now way we could know.
maya
I have īśvarah paramah krishnah sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahah anādir ādir govindah sarva-kārana-kāranam believing it to mean God with form, Īśvarah, under the veil of maya and avidya, because that is where we are right now, and can't comprehend anything else. Currently Krishna, as Brahman, does have form and attributes. The permanence, or reality of that beyond maya flies in the face of Advaita.
Advaita Vedanta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jumps to the section Brahman Supreme Reality. I just can't accept the idea of Vaikuntha or Goloka as being the destination of the 'soul'. That implies dualism, achintya bhedabheda tattva notwithstanding (which is Gaudiya, anyway). Imo "inconceivable oneness and difference" =/ non-duality. This is my personal belief and feeling.
Last edited:
Vrindavana Das
Active Member
What the speaker of the verse - Lord Brahmā says, that I have mentioned. What you believe it to be, is different from the actual meaning.
For clarity, here is the word-to-word:
īśvarah — the controller
paramah — supreme
krishnah — Lord Krishna
sat — comprising eternal existence
cit — absolute knowledge
ānanda — and absolute bliss
vigrahah — whose form
anādih — without beginning
ādih — the origin
govindah — Lord Govinda
sarva-kārana-kāranam — the cause of all causes
Krishna who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes.[B.S. 5.1]
I have quoted the scriptures. Scriptures give description of the transcendental abode. Scriptures are transcendental and give an insight into the transcendental abode of the Supreme Lord. This is not my personal belief, but a scriptural fact. Advaita does not go beyond the formless Brāhman. So, you cannot hope to understand what is beyond the Brāhman with Advaita Philosophy.
In response to those who claim that the formless, non-variegated Brāhman is the Absolute Cause, Lord. Kṛṣṇa says in Bhagvad-gītā:
brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham
amṛtasyāvyayasya ca
śāśvatasya ca dharmasya
sukhasyaikāntikasya ca
amṛtasyāvyayasya ca
śāśvatasya ca dharmasya
sukhasyaikāntikasya ca
"I am the basis of the formless, impersonal Brāhman." [B.G. 14.27]
Pratiṣṭhā means 'basis', 'background', or 'in abundance'. Brāhman is blissful but in Kṛṣṇa, that bliss is in abundance. This means that Kṛṣṇa's bliss is infinite and is the basis even of brahmānanda. 'Ānandaṁ brahma' is a Vedic aphorism but ānanda, rasa, pleasure and bliss personified is none other that Lord Śri Kṛṣṇa. The evidence for this:
raso vai saḥ rasaṁ evāyaṁ labdhvānandī bhavati
"Those who attain the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the reservoir of pleasure, actually become transcendentally blissful" [Taittirīya Upniṣad 2.7.1]
That is why it is said that the Absolute Truth, Lord Ṣrī Kṛṣṇa, is also the cause of Brāhman. However, Brāhman, Parmātmā and Bhagavān are one in principle. It is said in the Śrimad Bhāgavatam:
vadanti tat tattva-vidas
tattvaḿ yaj jñānam advayam
brahmeti paramātmeti
bhagavān iti śabdyate
tattvaḿ yaj jñānam advayam
brahmeti paramātmeti
bhagavān iti śabdyate
"Those transcendentalists who know the nature of the unknowable substance that is beyond the reach of the senses, describe that absolute or infinite knowledge with words such as Brāhman, Parmātma and Bhagavān."[S.B. 1.2.11]
Last edited:
Scriptures can't transmit to the human mind the true nature of God/Brahman. So we have metaphors. And we have people who take them literally.
Shubhamastu.
Vrindavana Das
Active Member
Various scriptures, clearly mentioning details about Supreme Lord and His abode, can't transmit to the human mind. However, metaphors can. And we have people who believe this.
