• 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!

Questions For Advaita or Vishishtadvaita Vedanta

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jaskaran Singh

Divosūnupriyaḥ
Interesting, so if I'm understanding you correctly.. he dose seem to make a distinction between the Absolute Brahman and the Hindu Deities? Also, would you be able to provide an English translation? Or at least the chapter and verse number to the reference in the Bhagavad Gita? I'd like to check it out, thanks
Kind of; I'm saying that he's making a distinction between worshippers of viShNu and the worshippers of other deities (anyadevatAH).

This is what shrIkR^iShNa says (in verse 9.25)

यान्ति देवव्रता देवान्पितॄन्यान्ति पितृव्रताः।
भूतानि यान्ति भूतेज्या यान्ति मद्याजिनोऽपि माम्॥९.२५॥

yAnti devavratA devAnpitR^InyAnti pitR^ivratAH|
bhUtAni yAnti bhUtejyA yAnti madyAjino'pi mAm||9.25||

Rough Translation by Me: "Worshippers of the deva-s (devavratA) come near (yAnti) to the deva-s (devAn); worshippers of the ancestors (pitR^ivratAH) come near (yAnti) to the ancestors (pitR^In); worshippers of the bhUta-s (bhUta+ijyA) come near (yAnti) to the bhUta-s (bhUtAni); [in that way] also (api), worshippers (yAjino) of me (mad) come near (yAnti) to me (mAm)."

Here is the part that sha~Nkara says (in his bhAShyam/commentary):

यान्ति गच्छन्ति देवव्रता देवेषु व्रतं नियमो भक्तिश्च येषां ते देवव्रता देवान्यान्ति।
पितॄनग्निष्वात्तादीन्यान्ति पितृव्रताः श्राद्धादिक्रियापराः पितृभक्ताः।
भूतानि विनायकमातृगणचतुर्भगिन्यादीनि यान्ति भूतेज्या भूतानां पूजकाः।
यान्ति मद्याजिनो मद्यजनशीला वैष्णवा मामेव यान्ति।
समानेऽप्यायासे मामेव न भजन्तेऽज्ञानात्, तेन तेऽल्पफलभाजो भवन्तीत्यर्थः॥९.२५॥

yAnti gachChanti devavratA deveShu vrataM niyamo bhaktishcha yeShAM te devavratA devAnyAnti|
pitR^InagniShvAttAdInyAnti pitR^ivratAH shrAddhAdikriyAparAH pitR^ibhaktAH|
bhUtAni vinAyakamAtR^igaNachaturbhaginyAdIni yAnti bhUtejyA bhUtAnAM pUjakAH|
yAnti madyAjino madyajanashIlA vaiShNavA mAmeva yAnti|
samAne'pyAyAse mAmeva na bhajante'j~nAnAt, tena te'lpaphalabhAjo bhavantItyarthaH||9.25||

Rough Translation by Me: "The devotees of the gods (devavrata), [those people] whose religious observances and worship is directed to the gods, they go to reach (lit. come near to) the gods. The devotees of the ancestors (pitR^ivratAH) who are occupied with the shrAddha/funeral rites (and what not) and worship the ancestors, they go to the ancestors like agniShvAtta and the others (apArAH); those who perform pUjA of the ghosts such as vinAyaka and the mAtR^ika-s and the four bhaginI-s (from the vAma and bhairava tantras?) go to those bhUta-s; those who worship "me", who are inclined to worship "me," the vaiShNava-s, they come near to me alone (mAmeva yAnti). Although the effort required is the same, they do not worship me due to lack of knowledge (aj~nAnAt); therefore, they recieve the alpaphala/lesser results, this is the purpose/meaning (ityartham)."
 
Last edited:

punkdbass

I will be what I will be
Jaskaran Singh said:
Kind of; I'm saying that he's making a distinction between worshippers of viShNu and the worshippers of other deities (anyadevatAH).


Ohhhhh okay, I think I understand now. So basically, in the context of the verse in the Bhagavad Gita, Sri Krishna (an avatar of Lord Vishnu) says He is equal to the Absolute Reality, and makes a distinction between Himself (Krishna being the Absolute Reality Brahman), and with lesser deities?

In other words, previously what I was asking was whether or not there is a distinction between Absolute Reality/Brahman and the deity Vishnu(as manifested in Krishna) for example.. and the answer you're giving me here is basically: no there is not a difference, although there seems to be a distinction between Brahman and the lesser deities.

Thanks
 

Gopesh

Gopesh
Hello, all.

About Advaita or Vishishtadvaita Vedanta:

I just happened to be reading internet pages today to look more into Hinduism and fell stuck comprehending it all. Hope someone here can enlighten me on these questions.

The concept of ParaBrahman: Correct me if I'm wrong but; Brahman is the All, the Absolute, right? If so, what could be beyond Brahman?

And: Is Anatman synonymous with subjective reality (the world as I, you, or they see it compared to the world as it is)? Or maybe with materialistic reality, a world focused on materialistic pleasures and achievements, indulging in the physical? Or something else?

What is the significance of any other God (or entity in general) beyond Brahman if all are Brahman?

For any school (the view you personally relate with or would like to imput):

Which is more significant? Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver, or Shiva the destroyer?

Could a Hindu focus on only Brahman and put little to no focus on the triumvirate or even Krishna?

Hi, firstly, I'd like to say I'm no expert...actually, I'd like to say I am a big expert but, you know what I mean! 'Para Brahman' actually means 'Supreme entity/God/etc.' Another word often used to describe Brahman is 'Paramatma' which translates as 'Supreme Soul'. Nothing is beyond Brahman as everything contains Brahman. Which is more significant? The answer is down to the believer. In reality, no single entity is more significant in every single situation. Each of the Trinity would be redundant without the other two; if Brahma did not create, Vishnu would have nothing to preserve and Shiva would have nothing to destroy, if Vishnu did not preserve, Brahma's creation would be futile and Shiva would not be needed to destroy and if Shiva did not destroy, Brahma would not be able to create again and Vishnu would not be able to preserve. The truth behind focus of prayer as I see it is worship anything with belief be it Krishna or a Chrysler, Shiva or a Shower etc etc. the main point should be belief as all prayer goes to God anyway as it contains God. Whatever you pray to, God will accept in that form. Anyway, I have rambled on for quite a bit now, I hope your questions have had some light shed on them!
 

Jaskaran Singh

Divosūnupriyaḥ
Ohhhhh okay, I think I understand now. So basically, in the context of the verse in the Bhagavad Gita, Sri Krishna (an avatar of Lord Vishnu) says He is equal to the Absolute Reality, and makes a distinction between Himself (Krishna being the Absolute Reality Brahman), and with lesser deities?

In other words, previously what I was asking was whether or not there is a distinction between Absolute Reality/Brahman and the deity Vishnu(as manifested in Krishna) for example.. and the answer you're giving me here is basically: no there is not a difference, although there seems to be a distinction between Brahman and the lesser deities.

Thanks
Yes, from a vaiShNava perspective, brahma (not the deity brahmA, but the ground of all reality) is a quality of viShNu, who is the lord of all the worlds, supreme creator, etc. and all other deities and in fact everything that exists has its basis in him...
Hi, firstly, I'd like to say I'm no expert...actually, I'd like to say I am a big expert but, you know what I mean! 'Para Brahman' actually means 'Supreme entity/God/etc.' Another word often used to describe Brahman is 'Paramatma' which translates as 'Supreme Soul'. Nothing is beyond Brahman as everything contains Brahman. Which is more significant? The answer is down to the believer. In reality, no single entity is more significant in every single situation. Each of the Trinity would be redundant without the other two; if Brahma did not create, Vishnu would have nothing to preserve and Shiva would have nothing to destroy, if Vishnu did not preserve, Brahma's creation would be futile and Shiva would not be needed to destroy and if Shiva did not destroy, Brahma would not be able to create again and Vishnu would not be able to preserve. The truth behind focus of prayer as I see it is worship anything with belief be it Krishna or a Chrysler, Shiva or a Shower etc etc. the main point should be belief as all prayer goes to God anyway as it contains God. Whatever you pray to, God will accept in that form. Anyway, I have rambled on for quite a bit now, I hope your questions have had some light shed on them!
Only shAkta-s and smArta-s accept the concept of the trimUrti, vaiShNava-s do not. However, I agree that all worship ultimately goes to kR^iShNa (sarvadeva namaskAraH keshavaM pratigacchati comes to mind) as all deities have their foundation in him.
 
Last edited:

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
Punkdbass,

[As per Shankara's views, and that of early Advaita Vedanta, as well as that of the Vaishnava-s] Shri Vishnu is the Most Supreme - the Supreme of the Supremes of the Supremes of the Supremes; He is the Absolute Brahman; there is nothing greater than Shri Vishnu; Shri Vishnu can create and destroy infinite universes upon His own whim, at the drop of a hat, at the blink of His eyes; Shri Vishnu can spin "brahman" on His fingers like a basketball while taking a stroll through His created universes that house other universes while at the same time creating and destroying Himself infinitely. You can put an infinite number of Absolute Brahmans together, and it still don't got jack shizz on Shri Vishnu. In fact, as per the views of early Advaita Vedanta, Shri Vishnu feasts on and devours an infinite number of Absolute Brahmans as if they are nothing - in Shri Vishnu are housed an infinite number of Big Bangs. If a trillion, gazillion Absolute Brahmans were made immovable and unshakeable, Shri Vishnu can move them and topple them with a small sigh - a small sigh which has infinite power to create and destroy an infinite number of Absolute Brahmans - each Absolute Brahman housing an infinite number of universes. In fact, Shri Vishnu can create another Shri Vishnu more powerful than the one described above, and topple that Vishnu as if it is like farting in one's sleep, so to speak.

Now, do me a favor and replace all instances of "Vishnu" in the above with "Shiva". When you do that, you get the Shaiva view. And, if you were to replace "Shiva" with "Shakti" or "Devi", then you get the Shakta view. And, if you were to replace them with "the All-Gods", you will get the view of my theological school of thought.
 

Gopesh

Gopesh

Yes, from a vaiShNava perspective, brahma (not the deity brahmA, but the ground of all reality) is a quality of viShNu, who is the lord of all the worlds, supreme creator, etc. and all other deities and in fact everything that exists has its basis in him...

Only shAkta-s and smArta-s accept the concept of the trimUrti, vaiShNava-s do not.

The concept of the trimurti, regardless of whether or not 'Vaishnavs' accept it or not is ingrained into the Hindu religion. This superiority complex doesn't please God in any of the forms God holds and just harms people. Do you think Lord Vishnu is happy when you say the Trimurti doesn't exist? Though the Vishnu Puran states Shiva and Brahma have their origin in Vishnu, it does not say Vishnu is superior, in fact, the mere suggestion that one is superior is like saying one is superior to itself! Still, pray to God however you please for God will accept prayers in the form through which God is thought of.
 

Jaskaran Singh

Divosūnupriyaḥ
The concept of the trimurti, regardless of whether or not 'Vaishnavs' accept it or not is ingrained into the Hindu religion. This superiority complex doesn't please God in any of the forms God holds and just harms people. Do you think Lord Vishnu is happy when you say the Trimurti doesn't exist? Though the Vishnu Puran states Shiva and Brahma have their origin in Vishnu, it does not say Vishnu is superior, in fact, the mere suggestion that one is superior is like saying one is superior to itself! Still, pray to God however you please for God will accept prayers in the form through which God is thought of.
If shiva and brahmA have their origin in viShNu, does that not imply that viShNu is the source of those two, hence making him different from them in a sense? I never used the term lesser deities to refer to the anyadevatAH, I used the term "other deities" (in fact, as I pointed out, it was Adisha~Nkara who talked about the "lesser fruits of worshipping other deities" leading punkdbass to come to the conclusion that sha~Nkara views vinAyaka, mAtR^ika-s, etc. as lesser deities). I don't consider shiva to be lesser than viShNu; in fact, I consider pa~nchamukhI sadAshiva to be an aMsha of shrIviShNu's sa~NkarShaNa vyUha and I chant an anuvAkam of the shrI rudram daily. Perhaps rather than getting emotional over the fact that I am stating the siddhAnta of my sampradAya, you could actually argue against the points I have made. I have given a verse from the mahopaniShad (which is shruti) that established the "supremacy" of shrIman nArAyaNa ("eko ha vai nArAyaNa AsInna brahmA neshAno nApo nAgnIShomau neme dyAvApR^ithivI"), whereas your arguments have been strange neo-Hindu conclusions which have no basis in the shAstra-s such as thinking that worshipping a shower (seriously?) is the same as worshipping shrIkR^iShNa. Oh geez, thanks! We don't need Muslims or Christians to call us idiotic idol worshippers when we have people like you around.
मैत्रावरुणिः;3659478 said:
Punkdbass,

[As per Shankara's views, and that of early Advaita Vedanta, as well as that of the Vaishnava-s] Shri Vishnu is the Most Supreme - the Supreme of the Supremes of the Supremes of the Supremes; He is the Absolute Brahman; there is nothing greater than Shri Vishnu; Shri Vishnu can create and destroy infinite universes upon His own whim, at the drop of a hat, at the blink of His eyes; Shri Vishnu can spin "brahman" on His fingers like a basketball while taking a stroll through His created universes that house other universes while at the same time creating and destroying Himself infinitely. You can put an infinite number of Absolute Brahmans together, and it still don't got jack shizz on Shri Vishnu. In fact, as per the views of early Advaita Vedanta, Shri Vishnu feasts on and devours an infinite number of Absolute Brahmans as if they are nothing - in Shri Vishnu are housed an infinite number of Big Bangs. If a trillion, gazillion Absolute Brahmans were made immovable and unshakeable, Shri Vishnu can move them and topple them with a small sigh - a small sigh which has infinite power to create and destroy an infinite number of Absolute Brahmans - each Absolute Brahman housing an infinite number of universes. In fact, Shri Vishnu can create another Shri Vishnu more powerful than the one described above, and topple that Vishnu as if it is like farting in one's sleep, so to speak.

Now, do me a favor and replace all instances of "Vishnu" in the above with "Shiva". When you do that, you get the Shaiva view. And, if you were to replace "Shiva" with "Shakti" or "Devi", then you get the Shakta view. And, if you were to replace them with "the All-Gods", you will get the view of my theological school of thought.
Easy on the hyperbole, sheesh. I don't want someone to think that Hindus are crazy or something.
 
Last edited:

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
Easy on the hyperbole, sheesh. I don't want someone to think that Hindus are crazy or something.

:p

I apologize on the hyperbole-overkill [even though I don't think my post was 'crazy' - define 'crazy', will ya? ;)], however - there was no other way to definitively get the point across. Therefore, I believe my post will serve a strong purpose of the "end all, be all" view on "brahman" and the Ishta-s of various mainstream schools of thought.

Instead of the usual thread about brahman this and brahman that, I believe my post will serve a useful function. In fact, my post should be listed as a standalone sticky.

Inquirer:
"So, um, what is brahman"?​

Member of the HinduDIR:
"Just check out this one post, bro!"​
:p
 

Jaskaran Singh

Divosūnupriyaḥ
मैत्रावरुणिः;3659504 said:
:p

I apologize on the hyperbole-overkill [even though I don't think my post was 'crazy' - define 'crazy', will ya? ;)], however - there was no other way to definitively get the point across. Therefore, I believe my post will serve a strong purpose of the "end all, be all" view on "brahman" and the Ishta-s of various mainstream schools of thought.

Instead of the usual thread about brahman this and brahman that, I believe my post will serve a useful function. In fact, my post should be listed as a standalone sticky.

Inquirer:
"So, um, what is brahman"?​

Member of the HinduDIR:
"Just check out this one post, bro!"​
:p
Yes, that is indeed funny, and I do agree to an extent. I just wish that people here didn't use the term vedAnta to refer specifically to advaitavedAnta, because I'm a vedAntI who does not believe in kevalAdvaita and it pains me to see that people think that vedAnta in general sees Ishvara as nothing more than a reflection of brahma onto mAyA (despite that being only an advaitI concept). That's certainly not true in the case of the philosophy of the sampradAya which I follow and I consider my views to be just as "vedAntic" as that of advaitI-s.
 
Last edited:

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
Yes, that is indeed funny, and I do agree to an extent. I just wish that people here didn't use the term vedAnta to refer specifically to advaitavedAnta, because I'm a vedAntI who does not believe in kevalAdvaita and it pains me to see that people think that vedAnta in general sees Ishvara as nothing more than a reflection of brahma onto mAyA (despite that being only an advaitI concept). That's certainly not true in the case of the philosophy of the sampradAya which I follow and I consider my views to be just as "vedAntic" as that of advaitI-s.

I noticed a similar pattern as well; many will automatically believe that Advaita is the Vedanta. That's why I was very surprised that a conversation was even taking place with the word, "Vishishtadvata", in it. I was like, "omg! something other than Advaita? no way, Jose!" ... What I also find interesting is that regardless of there being a Vedanta DIR, many Vedanta-centric threads are posted in the Hinduism DIR, though probably innocently or out of naivety - even though Vedanta is relatively small in comparison to the theological make up of schools that "contribute" the most "popularly" when it comes to "Hinduism". Either way, I find such level of interest by non-Hindus, interest which is born from respect and not condescendence, to be exhilarating, inspiring, and humbling, especially with the deep-thinking questions that Punkdbass has been been asking. I find him to be a very honest and progressive seeker.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
No worries, thanks though. And yes, I cannot wait to live in a big city next year and visit Hindu temples and find a guru.
You are already a guru and do not need to consult any other. Continue with your studies in Hinduism if you so desire. In one of the forums my title is 'Search, be your own guru'. I am mostly against this guru business.
.. and the answer you're giving me here is basically: no there is not a difference, although there seems to be a distinction between Brahman and the lesser deities.
If there is a distinction between Vishnu/Krishna and other deities, then he is not the Brahman. Vishnu/Krishna can be Brahman only if he eschews/forgets other deities, otherwise he would not be 'ekameva'. And my view of 'ekameva' eschews the difference between any God and humans, or even animals, vegetation and non living. That is strictest 'advaita', real 'ekameva', and as my signature says "Sarve kahlu idam Brahma".
 
Last edited:

Jaskaran Singh

Divosūnupriyaḥ
You are already a guru and do not need to consult any other. Continue with your studies in Hinduism if you so desire. In one of the forums my title is 'Search, be your own guru'. I am mostly against this guru business.If there is a distinction between Vishnu/Krishna and other deities, then he is not the Brahman. Vishnu/Krishna can be Brahman only if he eschews/forgets other deities, otherwise he would not be 'ekameva'. And my view of 'ekameva' eschews the difference between any God and humans, or even animals, vegetation and non living. That is strictest 'advaita', real 'ekameva', and as my signature says "Sarve kahlu idam Brahma".
Well, kR^iShNa/viShNu is the antaryAmI of all the devatA-s, so in that sense he is no different from them, but at the Arthika level, he is different, as brahmA and rudra have their basis in him. This is the position of most vaiShNava-s and was likely also the position of Adi sha~Nkara himself.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Well, kR^iShNa/viShNu is the antaryAmI of all the devatA-s, so in that sense he is no different from them, but at the Arthika level, he is different, as brahmA and rudra have their basis in him.
Antaryamin (situated in) is different from 'being that'. Still not 'ekameva'. Say Vishnu is Shiva, Vishnu is Brahma, Vishnu is Garuda, Vishnu is Shesha, Vishnu is the cow standing outside my house and waiting for my wife to give her bread, and Vishnu is the bread, too. Then only it is advaita. I suppose there is an Upanishadic verse which says Brahman is the hotri and Brahman is the havishya, etc. I will search for it.
मैत्रावरुणिः;3659693 said:
tad asambhavam asti //
No problem at all. :)
 
Last edited:

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |

kiM IdR^ishaMvAkyam avakUjase?

Woah, hold on there, bro! I'm not that good with [Classical] Sanskrit! :D

But, why was my statement, of that kind, spoken/uttered? 'Cause...otherwise...we'd have to reciprocate and make a separate DIR for Shri Tilak Dādā. :p
 
Last edited:

Jaskaran Singh

Divosūnupriyaḥ
मैत्रावरुणिः;3659704 said:
Woah, hold on there, bro! I'm not that good with [Classical] Sanskrit! :D

But, why was my statement, of that kind, spoken/uttered? 'Cause...otherwise...we'd have to reciprocate and make a separate DIR for Shri Tilak Dādā. :p

Actually, it would literally be "why + such a statement + would be uttered (by you)." Using Atmanepadam (I think they call it middle passive or something in English) when not necessary often confuses people, lol.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Na kimapi samasyāsti. :D न किमपि समस्यास्ति |
 
Last edited:

Maya3

Well-Known Member
Punkdbass,

Advaita Vedanta: "Brahman(the absolute) is alone real; this world is unreal; and the Jiva or the individual soul is non-different from Brahman.” Whatever is, is Brahman.. Brahman itself is absolutely homogeneous, all plurality/difference is illusory. Brahman/The Atman is self-evident, it is not established by extraneous proofs. It is not possible to deny the Atman, because it is the very essence of the one who denies it. Brahman is not an object. Hence the Upanishads declare ‘Neti Neti, not this not that.’ Brahman is not a negative concept, or metaphysical abstraction, or non-entity/void. It is all-full, infinite, changeless, self-existent, self-delight, self-knowledge, self-bliss, essence. The essence of the knower, the Seer, transcendent and silent witness. Impersonal(without attributes), formless (w/o special characteristics), immutable... Brahman cant be described because description implies distinction. In Brahman there is no distinction of substance and attribute. Sat-Chit-Ananda constitute the very essence of Brahman. Brahman is impersonal, but becomes a personal God only though its associate with Maya. There appears to be a Higher Brahman from the transcendental viewpoint, and a lower Brahman from the relative viewpoint. The world is not an illusion, it is relatively real while Brahman is absolutely real. The unchanging Brahman appears as the changing world through Maya. Maya is not real, because it vanishes when you attain knowledge of the Eternal. It is not unreal also, because it exists [relatively] til knowledge dawns in you. the jiva/individual soul is only relatively real. Its individuality lasts so long as it is subject to unreal/limiting conditions due to ignorance. In reality it is not different from Brahman or the Absolute. The Upanishads declare – “that thou art.” Moksha is obtained when you merge your individual soul in Brahman and dismiss the erroneous notion that the soul is distinct from Brahman.

Well said, excellent explanation. Especially about Maya, and illusion!
Many don't understand this.

Maya
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top