Excellent video reconciling Advaita nondual Vedanta with dvaita dualist worship. It is true that many non dualist saints were the biggest devotees of God in a form like Adi Shankaracharya himself said Bhaja Govinda. But the explanation about higher and lower order suggests a hierarchy of spiritual perception. The question is do the dualists accept this hierarchy?
The Vedantic thoughts are the first and the last answer to the so many intriguing questions that the humanity is searching for. What is expounded by the Swamiji is categorical and ultimate to the question, what this universe is , and what this life does mean. Salutation you Swami ,for the clarity of your thoughts and the Wisdom that you cherish.
Love your short films ❤. So happy to have come across this channel. So much knowledge shared so generously. Thank you 🙏 the metaphor of the pot and clay doesn't leave room to misunderstanding
Pranam Swamiji (i) acknowledge Brahman mentally in everything I see and do . Sometimes I make statements that sound dualistic but am nondual. thank you.
Swami Tadatmananda - I so enjoyed this lesson, thank you very much, it clarified points that were not in focus, now I understand a bit more. One of my favorite parts of Hindu beliefs is 'its richness', it is the same richness found in life, in colors, in science, in music. As we can hear and enjoy many songs, so can we pray to many gods, I am so glad about this richness where I can decide who to worship with the chance to understand, and evolve.
Namaskaram Swami , im really glad that you told the actual meaning of Mithya , otherwise Many Godmen are benefiting these days by making people believe that after death , they will go to some "higher planets" , papa punyam( although in modern day , these are replaced by the judiciary)j , etc etc etc , 9:03 Corrupt organisations like ISKM negate this , thus establishing that they dont know the scriptures and are blindly following their interpretation of another Human 11:37 excellent point sir , even Swami Chinmayananda explains the same using the analogy of a relative / husband/wife vs the photo of them 12:22 Swami , but we dont have evidence of a supreme individual being providing blessings , thus isnt the idea of Brahman more logically inclined and relevant to us than that of a deity 15:53 and some blind believers who dont understand advaita vedanta also spread conspiracy theories like lord shiva lives in the 11th dimension , some miracles , they think people can defy the laws of nature or Brahman 16:44 again a balanced , unbiased explanation , hats off to you Swami 18:41 but the problem arises when Organisations like iskcon try to Abhrahamise things and blindly believe that only their representation of god is true, hence from there , they spread a lot of pseudoscience , it is the first time i actually found a Guru true to his knowledge and logic
A masterpiece in explaining Vedanta. Only the best of the best could explain the complex concepts of Vedanta in a straightforward manner and with great eloquence. Thankyou Swamiji.
Very good video. It helped me to further understand the flexibility of worship in sanatana dharma is not offered by any other way of spiritual life. That you are not limited in your choices. Let's say you consider Krishna as your ishtadev (as in preferred form of god to worship, also can be translated as personal god). Krishna most definitely is portrayed as a male human, while retaining a lot of godly powers of course. That does not mean you are limited to worshipping Krishna only as the male king of Dwaraka or as the naughty and playful child he was during his early years. Your relationship with Krishna need not be as a superior being whom you are subservient to, although that is still a valid approach. You can see Krishna in any number of ways that seems most effective for you. As a friend, as a teacher, as a father, as a mother, as a brother, as a wife, as a son, as a servant, as a king, or even as a subject. All of them are valid as long as you have a deep personal connection with god in the form you prefer. The same goes for any other form of god or goddess that you wish to worship. Be it Shiva, Vishnu, Parvati, Lakshmi, Brahma, Saraswati, Durga, Kali, Ayyapa, Kartikeya, Ganesha etc. God is not always above you and you are not always below. There is no such hierarchy. God already exists everywhere especially within you. Which is why the philosophy of "Aham Brahmasmi" exists. This philosophy is not due to pride or arrogance. On the contrary, after truly recognizing the god within yourself, you will become more humble than anyone else and live your life constantly with this humility and respect in mind till the last moments of your death. This is also why it is pointless to argue over which god or form is the more supreme because all of these gods are simply roles played by the ever lasting Parabrahman, the eternal and formless god beyond which nothing can exist. A person's father is not limited only to being a father of his child. He is also a husband. A son. A grandson. An occupation holder. A devotee (if he is religious). Can you compare the role of this person as a husband to being a son of his parents? No. Because they are completely different roles and require different mindset, behavior and rules. This is also why various different sects exist, most notably Shaivites and Vaishnavites. Do not fall into the trap of seeing your preferred god as superior or inferior to others. Each of them have a reason to exist differently. This is not an ego battle. The moment you bring pride and ego in your spiritual life, you have already lost any progress you might have made till then. Shiva, the cosmic lord of destruction worships Rama, the human avatar of Vishnu. Meanwhile, Rama on earth builds shivling to worship and gain favours and weapons from Shiva. Both of them have absolute and deepest respect and amity towards each other. They also have the Harihara form which is half Vishnu and half Shiva, once again reiterating to devotees of both gods that neither of them are interested in proving to be superior than the other and that worship of one of them automatically means worship of the other. In the Vishnu sahasranama, Shiva once again agrees that just chanting the name of "Rama" is equal to chanting the entire sahasranama stotra and that he himself attains supreme bliss by chanting the name of "Rama". And regarding the male/female division of gods and goddesses, Shiva himself has another form called "Ardhanaarishwara" in which he appears as half Shiva and half Parvati further proving that male or female does not matter. Rama was born on Navami and Krishna was born on Ashtami, both of which are considered inauspicious days in the traditional calendar called the panchang. All these are further efforts by the gods to dispel all superstitions regarding Navami and Ashtami being considered bad days to do anything. If I have said anything wrong, please reply below so I can change it.
Salutations, Guruji! Thank you so much for the insightful videos. The inclusion of related questions is particularly appealing and useful. I pray for Iswara’s blessings for your continued good health and seva. Om Shanti 🙏🏼
People create confusion about Bhagwan and worship and Bhagwan in the form and the formless and the universe. Folks everything is clearly explained in the Bhagaved Gita by Bhagwan Shri Krishna himself.
The mind projects, Consciousness reflects, That reflection is That within everything, Outside the minds limitations Is thee reflecting consciousness, Brahma alone reflects all that is a single being of Consciousness.
Wonderful discussion. I wonder if humans can even engage with the absolute formless and transcendent Brhaman, without any relationship to God - Ishvara. It's not human frailty but human nature.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge. What about consulting a qualified Jyotishi , in order to receive an appropriate mantra to connect with your "deity" according to your birthdate and personnal "map of the sky" ? Thank you for your answer
There is no such thing as less real and more real. Reality is a boolean. Something is either real or not. The confusion is about the amount of existence. Some are short-lasting, some are long-lasting and some are ever-lasting. But they are real only. The pot is as real as clay, but not as long-lasting. The clay has irregular shape, non-utility based nature. The pot has a regular or well-defined shape, it has a utility value (kArya-kAritva lakShaNa). It does not retain its shape for ever. Surely some Advaitins vehemently oppose that mithya does not mean illusion. But some Advaitins do advocate that mithya is an illusion. Why was confusion and ambiguity introduced needlessly. The word mithya has that “illusion” connotation. Why not use appropriate and unambiguous word? In GaudapAdakArika, second prakaraNa is called “vaitathya prakarana”. There the world is described as vitatha or not real only. Why this flip-flop between real and not real. If a person says that the ash is black, and when the objection is raised that it is grey, but not black, then the person argues, by black, I don’t mean black, but grey. Then why not just say grey, rather than saying black and reinterpreting it that too wrongly? Why call the world is mithya and then interpret it wrongly? The dream is not made of physical matter. It is a different kind of reality and is made of vAsanas or mental impressions. Surely the world and the dream have one common aspect. Both are transient. But the world is not like a dream. Brahmasutra says - 202 OM vaidharmyAchcha na svapnAdivat OM - Because of disimilarity, the world is not like a dream. It is common sense also. All of us are not getting same dream. Nor we are actors of some one else’s dream. The God, who created this world is also creating the dreams of all. We dream, but we don’t create the dreams either. The invalid statements and self-contradictions galore. There is no such thing as attributeless Brahman. That is like a hare’s horn, or son of a barren woman. Attributelessness itself is an attribute. And then It is given one of the greatest attributes ever. It is the fundamental underlying principle? How can an attributeless thing be that? Even worse. Is nirguna brahman everything? Then this Ishvara or Krishna - why is nirguNa brahman not talked about in Geeta? Is SaguNa Brahman satyam or not? If it is, then there is clash between the two. If not, then whole of Geeta teaching crumbles down. It is not a question of Dvaita or Advaita. It is a question of what is the truth and what is not.
This seems a lot like placating people who aren't non-dualists, or have not woken up. They will do what they do, creating and praying to all manner of culturally relevant beings and seeing through the lens they have... even to the point of paying lip service to advaita. Maybe they understand nonduality to be the higher, more sophisticated path or see it as a challenging mental exercise. That so many people learn advaita and so few become enlightened shows this. After all... it ISN'T complicated. It is easier than learning about all these "forms" of g-d, various dogmas, practices, rituals, and stories. Advaita can be learned and understood in seconds if you are ready for it. Tolerance for the spiritual comfort food of people who will probably never "get" advaita is fine, and you see this in other non-dual schools of thought as well (Kashmir Shaivism, Taoism, Dzogchen, Panentheism etc.). In fact, many monotheists understand their highest truth to be basically nondual. Kabalists often understand the supreme truth Adonai Echad (The Lord Is One), not merely as there only being one divine being, but that ALL things are this being. The knower, the known and the process of knowing. In every case, praying... to any deity, seems to hamper actually understanding. If you knew all things to be part of you and that you were contiguous with the infinite ground of being... why would you ever bother with prayer. Praise, certainly. Gratitude and awe... sure. But prayer is extremely dualistic and puts the prayer as some grovelling lesser being at the feet of some entirely made up character... just to get something in the illusion that is meaningless. To each their own.
It's not formless but beyond and pervades It's foolish to define One or many or formless. What We find is available to our sense organs so it's not something commendable...
The definition of God in abrahamic religions is not the same as Bhagavan. There is no concept of non duality except in Sanatana Dharma. Swamiji please clarify if my understanding is correct.
@@Ne0Freedom That is what I mean by Terminology. Also, Adi Shankara of Advaita has written commentary on Bhagavadgita. Bhagavadgita states, "ye yatha mam prapadyante tan tatha darshayamyaham". As you approach me, I show you exactly that way, formless or with form.
That's not what the scriptures say; neither does our own experience! What about the all pervading consciousness we all possess....the consciousness that even science is now acknowledging in every atom??
@@benjamindsouza6736 What about the atom? Does atom have a form? How do you know atom? What do you mean by OUR? Who are we and our experience? Do we have a form? You will find the answer is "Yes". Everything has a form and is also a formless.
