Is advaita a genuine vedic tradition?

Can we defend advaita through the shrutis? Has it been conclusively shown by the Vaishnava acaryas like Ramanuja or Madhva that advaita is wrong [and hence non-vedic] and that Vaishnavism is the only true path? Or can someone argue that the shrutis are amenable to multiple interpretations and that one can claim that both both advaita and Vaishnavism are both vedic traditions?

Originally posted by karthik_v:

Can we defend advaita through the shrutis? Has it been conclusively shown by the Vaishnava acaryas like Ramanuja or Madhva that advaita is wrong [and hence non-vedic] and that Vaishnavism is the only true path? Or can someone argue that the shrutis are amenable to multiple interpretations and that one can claim that both both advaita and Vaishnavism are both vedic traditions?

They are both Vedic traditions in that they both draw support from the Vedas for their respective philosophies.

 

But they cannot both be the correct conclusion of the Vedas, since these philosophies are mutually incompatible. Many Vaishnava conclusions rest on rejecting contradictory conclusions of other schools such as Advaita. This isn't unreasonable. Even science requires that we reject incorrect hypotheses to get at the correct one.

 

There are some points of philosophy that are shared between different Vaishnava schools, and also which are common between Advaita and Vaishnava schools. Even the non-Vedaanta Vedic philosphies have some pearls of truth in them. But partial correctness is not the same as complete correctness. We must accept the philosophy as a whole when we evaluate it. The "pick and choose" mentality is the stuff of new age sentimentalists, and should not be cited as a defense of anything.

 

Another point to make is, if Vedas have any value as scripture, then they must be consistent in regards to their ultimate message. If they teach multiple contradictory conclusions then they cannot be useful as scripture. Nor are we going to accept that Advaita is actually compatible with all other philosphies, as this is nothing more than crass sentiment.

 

Perhaps, Karthik, you can start by listing what you believe are the basic tenets of Advaita, and then we can discuss the shaastric basis of each one. For example, what do you believe to be the Advaitic conception of Brahman? of the jiva? of the relationship between Brahman and jiva? What is maya according to Advaita? Who is the Supreme Brahman according to Advaita? What is the position of the various devatas with respect to Brahman according to Advaita?

 

We can then discuss the specific points with respect to shaastra.

 

yours,

 

- K

 

 

 

 

------------------

www.achintya.org

Karthik, I also forgot to mention two more points:

 

First, you should list what you think are the acceptable pramaanas according to Advaita. Obviously, we must agree upon a shared set of evidence before debating.

 

Secondly, if and when you quote evidence, please don't make the mistake of just quoting some alleged English translation without Sanskrit, source name, and verse numbers. Be sure to provide at least the source and verse numbers if nothing else, so we can cross-examine the evidence.

 

thanks,

 

- K

 

 

------------------

www.achintya.org

Hari Bol Krishnas prabhuji,

 

If I had given you an impression that I am a scholar in advaita, please allow me to correct that. I am not. At best, I will be quoting what others have written. So, let us start the discussion with that in mind. Nor am I a spokesperson for advaita - as it is not something that I follow. But, I am here to point out at some of the mistakes in ISKCON's conception of advaita.

 

Let me start addressing the first point you have made. Why is that the vedas cannot be supportive of 2 schools of philosophy which are apparently contradictory? Rk veda clearly says Ekam sad vipra: bahuddha vadati [The Supreme truth in One, but the sages realize it many ways]. So, one sage may have realized the personal aspect of this Supreme while the other realized the Brahman. Also, the Rk veda says that the rks are existing at 4 levels, of which only one, vaak is at the level which we can understand. Yet the same Rk veda says that the truth of the vedas is beyond what the vaak or the words of the vedas convey. That brings around the following questions:

 

One, can we just get the picture of the Supreme truth just on the basis of the vedas, when the Rk veda itself says that the vedas carry a mystical meaning and not literal?

 

Two, can we establish conclusively, on the basis of the vedas, that the Supreme is a personal God?

Originally posted by karthik_v:

Hari Bol Krishnas prabhuji,

 

If I had given you an impression that I am a scholar in advaita, please allow me to correct that. I am not. At best, I will be quoting what others have written. So, let us start the discussion with that in mind. Nor am I a spokesperson for advaita - as it is not something that I follow. But, I am here to point out at some of the mistakes in ISKCON's conception of advaita.

 

 

I am not a spokesman for ISKCON, but I would point out that many criticisms of "mayavada" from ISKCON are actually criticisms of the watered-down, feel-good, neo-Advaita cults that have sprung up in the last few hundred years. If these people (Chinmaya, Sai Baba, Vivekananda, etc etc) were as faithful to Advaita as they claim, then you might have a case. As it is, the blame rests solely on those who misuse Advaita to get followers.

 

This Balasubramanian fellow from whom you get your impressions of Advaita, is also not entirely faithful to that tradition even though he is more knowledgeable than most. He doesn't acknowledge the correct position of shaastra on such things as sexual desire, vegetarianism, and other regulative principles. Hence, I wouldn't be surprised if he also preached a more "permissive" version of Advaita, just as the Vivekananda/Chinmaya types do.

Let me start addressing the first point you have made. Why is that the vedas cannot be supportive of 2 schools of philosophy which are apparently contradictory? Rk veda clearly says Ekam sad vipra: bahuddha vadati [The Supreme truth in One, but the sages realize it many ways]. So, one sage may have realized the personal aspect of this Supreme while the other realized the Brahman.

 

 

First of all, do you even know where in Rig Veda this statement is? Frankly speaking, most Hindus who quote it due so without regard for context. They just speak it like a slogan with little understanding of what it means.

 

Secondly, and most importantly, Advaita does not admit of any real, personal aspect of God. The personal aspect of God is maya. It is at best a temporary conception to help the neophyte grasp what is beyond the senses. Brahman alone exists, and Brahman according to Advaita is undifferentiated.

 

This is incompatible with the Vaishnava/Vedic view, which treats the personal aspect of the Lord as real. Using "truth is one, sages see it in many ways" does not reconcile Advaita and Vaishnavism, because followers of Advaita do not acknowledge the reality of BOTH the personal and impersonal conceptions. Furthermore, Advaitins consider the impersonal conception to be the highest conception of the Absolute truth. This is contradicted by Giitaa which states, "brahmaNo hi pratiShThaaham...." The Lord is the basis of the Brahman.

 

Also, the Rk veda says that the rks are existing at 4 levels, of which only one, vaak is at the level which we can understand. Yet the same Rk veda says that the truth of the vedas is beyond what the vaak or the words of the vedas convey. That brings around the following questions:

 

One, can we just get the picture of the Supreme truth just on the basis of the vedas, when the Rk veda itself says that the vedas carry a mystical meaning and not literal?

 

 

Where in the Rig Veda does it say that the "vedas carry a mystical meaning and not literal" ?? That is nothing more than a misunderstanding. I am aware of no such statement.

 

Vedaanta-suutra makes it clear that Brahman can be known from the Vedas - shaastra yonitvaat (VS 1.1.3). It is also stated in the shruti, ta.m tv aupaniShada.m puruSha.m pR^icchaami - "I shall now inquire about the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is revealed in the Upanishads." (bR^ihadaaraNyakopaniShad 3.9.26).

 

One may not be able to COMPLETELY understand the Supreme Brahman, since the concept will not fit into one's limited mind. But one can BEGIN to understand Him through the shaastras. The knowledge that shaastras teach is not to be discounted as non-literal, simply because represents partial knowledge of Him.

 

Two, can we establish conclusively, on the basis of the vedas, that the Supreme is a personal God?

Yes, we can. But again, what do you mean by "Vedas," and why do you think there is any doubt on this point?

 

yours,

 

- K

 

 

 

------------------

www.achintya.org

I forgot to add - that Gita quote is 14.27

 

 

 

Furthermore, Advaitins consider the impersonal conception to be the highest conception of the Absolute truth.

[...]

 

This is contradicted by Giitaa which states, "brahmaNo hi pratiShThaaham...." The Lord is the basis of the Brahman.

Shankara has commented on the Gita to show the purport of the Gita is advaitic. Hence, quoting the Gita to criticize advaita is not enough. Shankara's interpretation has to be taken up and proven incorrect.

 

brahman in "brahmaNo hi pratiShThaaham" is interpreted,

1. by Shankara to mean the inferior Brahman. So no contradiction there.

 

2.by Maadhva to mean Lakshmi. So no contradiction there either.

 

That Brahman is the highest truth, is recognized by all the 3 major schools of Vedaanta. On the contrary, interpreting the above statement to mean there is something "higher" than Brahman, will result in contradicting BG 2.72, 5.21, 5.24 just to name a few.

 

Cheers

 

 

Originally posted by karthik_v:

Has it been conclusively shown by the Vaishnava acaryas like Ramanuja ----- that Vaishnavism is the only true path?

Where is aying this? Show me? Please do not be quote from Exodus.

 

 

Originally posted by krishnas:

They are both Vedic traditions in that they both draw support from the Vedas for their respective philosophies.

 

They are the Vedantic becaiuse they are both draw supports from the Vedantic portions of the Vedas.

 

 

Originally posted by krishnas:

 

But they cannot both be the correct conclusion of the Vedas, since these philosophies are mutually incompatible. Many Vaishnava conclusions rest on rejecting contradictory conclusions of other schools such as Advaita. This isn't unreasonable. Even science requires that we reject incorrect hypotheses to get at the correct one.

 

 

The elephant tusk is hard and sharp, the elephant ear is soft and the flopsy. Both are correct experience of elephant but both are the incomplete. Though incomplete, still true. Elephant tusk not cancel out elephant ear.

Originally posted by krishnas:

Another point to make is, if Vedas have any value as scripture, then they must be consistent in regards to their ultimate message. If they teach multiple contradictory conclusions then they cannot be useful as scripture. Nor are we going to accept that Advaita is actually compatible with all other philosphies, as this is nothing more than crass sentiment.

 

Consistence will be realised when enlightenment. Until then not useful to judge the Veda. Crass judgements.

 

Hi,

 

If I'm not mistaken, the Vedas are both monistic and dualistic - this doesn't mean that they are contradictory. It means that both approaches to realization are adequate. If you believe in dualistic path solely, then why is there a need for yoga, meditation, self-realization? Even the Bhagavad Gita talks about self-realization. The perfect scenario is monistic theism, the fusion of both monistic and dualistic paths.

 

Karthik said: "Has it been conclusively shown by the Vaishnava acaryas like Ramanuja or Madhva that advaita is wrong [and hence non-vedic] and that Vaishnavism is the only true path?"

 

Why be so exclusive? Who said that Vaishnavism is the only true path? Exclusivity is what the christians and muslims preach.

Vaishnavism is a more direct path.

The soul is eternally a servant of Narayana; that is its constututional nature. Liberation is attaining that constitutional position of service to the Lord. Thus vaishnavism (worship of Lord Vishnu) is the ultimate goal of the living entity.

 

Krishnas prabhuji:

 

I would point out that many criticisms of "mayavada" from ISKCON are actually criticisms of the watered-down, feel-good, neo-Advaita cults that have sprung up in the last few hundred years. If these people (Chinmaya, Sai Baba, Vivekananda, etc etc) were as faithful to Advaita as they claim, then you might have a case. As it is, the blame rests solely on those who misuse Advaita to get followers.

 

Such criticism is not just limited to those who advocate a watered-down version of Advaita. In the purports of Srila Prabhupad as well in the lectures given by the sannyasis at ISKCON, we can come across scathing attacks on Advaita as well as Adi Sankara. Some sannyasis even go to the extent of calling Advaita "yellow stool", leaving no doubt as to what the criticism is targetted at.

 

This Balasubramanian fellow from whom you get your impressions of Advaita..

 

Okay, he is not the one from whom I get my inputs on Advaita. I just mentioned him because he has had many debates with ISKCON devotees.

 

First of all, do you even know where in Rig Veda this statement [Ekam sad....] is? Frankly speaking, most Hindus who quote it due so without regard for context. They just speak it like a slogan with little understanding of what it means.

 

RV 1:164:46. I have read the commentaries of Sri Aurobindo and Sayanacarya on this and both seem to convey what I stated. Please tell me if that is wrong and if so, please explain why.

 

Advaita does not admit of any real, personal aspect of God. The personal aspect of God is maya. It is at best a temporary conception to help the neophyte grasp what is beyond the senses.

 

I am not sure that is the correct understanding of Advaita. In another thread, another member pointed out from the sayings of Adi Sankara where he declares that Narayana is eternal and beyond time and creation. Not only that Sankara also worshipped Narayana. So, shall we conclude that Sankara himself was a neophyte? That wouldn't be correct.

 

followers of Advaita do not acknowledge the reality of BOTH the personal and impersonal conceptions.

 

If Adi Sankara himself did, then why is that his followers wouldn't? If you take Kanchi Sankara mutt for example, they do worship Narayana and also advice the devotees to do the same.

 

Advaitins consider the impersonal conception to be the highest conception of the Absolute truth. This is contradicted by Giitaa....

 

We discussed earlier in another thread about many verses in BG which declare Brahman as Supreme and the realization of that Brahman as being the highest perfection. BG 5:24-28 for example.

 

Where in the Rig Veda does it say that the "vedas carry a mystical meaning and not literal" ?? That is nothing more than a misunderstanding. I am aware of no such statement.

 

catvAri vAk parimitA padAni tAni vidurbrAhmaNA ye manISiNaH guhA trINi nihitA neNgayanti turIyaM vAco manuSyA vadanti [RV 1:164:45]

 

Translation: The words of the vedas exist at 4 levels; 3 of which are cavernous and 1 expressed through the words; the truth itself is beyond the words that the humans can perceive.

 

It is also stated in the shruti, ta.m tv aupaniShada.m puruSha.m pR^icchaami - "I shall now inquire about the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is revealed in the Upanishads." (bR^ihadaaraNyakopaniShad 3.9.26).

 

The "purusha", as per many commentators like Sri Aurobindo, doesn't represent a personal God. Nor does Adi Sankara think so. In fact, they argue that it only represents the Brahman, as the word is indeed a compound that can be split into "pur" + "usha". "Pur" means "a citadel" or "place of residence" and "usha" means "dawn" or "light". Hence, "purusha" stands for the "source of all light [that dispels maya]" or "Brahman". I am not arguing that this is the only correct interpretation, just as we cannot argue that "personal God" is the only correct interpretation.

 

Also if we look at the very first of the vedanta sutras, it says Athaatho Brahmajijnasa: meaning "now let us inquire about the Supreme Brahman". So, one can at best say that the vedas point to both the personal and the Brahman forms of the same Supreme. A relative gradation, saying that the personal God is superior to the Brahman, in itself has no support of the vedas.

 

But again, what do you mean by "Vedas," and why do you think there is any doubt on this point?

 

Vedas are the shrutis which includes the samhitas, brahmanas, aranyakas and the upanishads. Vedanta sutras are a summary of the vedas. Smritis such as BG, Srimad Bhagavatam are not vedas. Okay, let me rephrase the question: "Do the vedas unequivocally state that the Supreme is ONLY a personal God and that Brahman is subservient to Him?"

 

Shashiji:

 

Where is aying this? Show me? Please do not be quote from Exodus.

 

Krishnas stated that Ramanuja has shown conclusively that Sankara's advaita was wrong. Hence my question. Looks like you are upset with my quotes from the Bible I just repeated what Jesus had stated - I didn't invent them.

 

Shivaji:

 

Why be so exclusive? Who said that Vaishnavism is the only true path? Exclusivity is what the christians and muslims preach.

 

Prabhuji, I am not being exclusive. I very much agree that as Srila Prabhupad is a guru, so are Ramana Maharishi or Swami Chandrasekharendra Saraswati. But GV and ISKCON definitely launches scathing attacks on advaita and even tends to create an impression that the philosophy of Sankara was wrong and has been conclusively proven so many times over. I definitely believe that as SP sees the Supreme as Radha Krishna, sage Thirumular sees the same Supreme as Siva Shakti. But, ISKCON and GV have to necessarily rank them and declare that Siva is a demi-God. Indeed, some GV sannyasis even argue that Goddess Parvati is "after all a mere servant maid of Krishna". I am questioning this exclusiveness.

 

Bhatajoy:

 

Vaishnavism is a more direct path.

 

I too think so. But for some, realizing Siva through the writings of sage Thirumular may be the direct path.

Originally posted by shvu:

Shankara has commented on the Gita to show the purport of the Gita is advaitic. Hence, quoting the Gita to criticize advaita is not enough. Shankara's interpretation has to be taken up and proven incorrect.

 

 

I have the Giitaa bhaashyas of Shankaraachaarya, Raamaanuja, and Madhva, and I am prepared to discuss them if it is desired. But for the sake of brevity in my postings, I may not always bring up their commentaries initially since I am expecting that the puurva-pakshin will volunteer them if he finds them troublesome to explain away.

 

brahman in "brahmaNo hi pratiShThaaham" is interpreted,

1. by Shankara to mean the inferior Brahman. So no contradiction there.

 

2.by Maadhva to mean Lakshmi. So no contradiction there either.

 

 

...and by Raamaanuja to mean the jiiva. Many people can give interpretations, but the issue is whether or not those interpretations are acceptable here. Surely we are not going to fall prey to sentimentalism and say that no one meaning is correct because someone else has given a different meaning.

 

Let's examine these individually:

 

1) Shankara on BG 14.27: First of all, the idea of a "superior" Brahman and an "inferior" Brahman make no sense in a philosophy in which Brahman alone exists, and is undifferentiated and without qualities. Shankara seems unable to definitively explain the meaning of Brahman in 14.27, because he actually gives two different, mutually contradictory interpretations.

 

In the first interpretation, "I" is taken to be the "inner Self" while "Brahman" is taken to be the "Supreme Self." Already this is confusing, since Lord Krishna is the Supreme Brahman and He is speaking. So is Krishna not the Supreme Self? Shankara's commentary:

 

brahmaNaH iti || brahmaNaH paramaatmanaH hi yasmaat pratiShTaa aha.m pratitiShTati asmin iti pratiShTaa aha.m pratyagaatmaa |

 

A.G. Warrier's translation (which attempts to follow Shankara): "For, I, the inner Sef; am the ground in which dwells Brahman, the Supreme Self."

 

Confused? That's not all. For after distinguising between the "inner Self" and the "Supreme Self," Shankara then goes on to say that they are both the same, and that this is understood through jnaana-yoga:

 

"The inner Self is the ground of the Supreme Self whose essence is immortality, etc., and the highest bliss. This inner Self is ascertained to be the Supreme Self through right knowledge. This truth has already been affirmed in 14.26, 'becomes fit for the status of Brahman.'"

 

But the subject of 14.26 is the jiiva, which if Shankara is going to quote here, considerably muddles this interpretation. He already considers "I" to be the inner Self in 14.27, and then says this inner Self is the same as the Supreme Self based on 14.26, whose subject is the jiiva becoming Brahman. He is thus equating the jiiva of 14.26 with the "I" or inner Self of 14.27. But Krishna is speaking this verse, so how has Krishna suddenly become a jiiva? Furthermore, Shankara writes that this jiiva, or inner Self, is the basis of Brahman, the Supreme Self. Why is the jiiva the basis of Brahman? According to Advaita, it should be the other way around, because the Brahman when combined with upaadhi or limiting adjunct yields the jiivas. Finally, Shankara then contradicts all of the preceeding remarks by writing that both the jiiva and Brahman are the same. This is all very nice and good for someone who forgets the verse in his attempt to understand the commenary, but we may perhaps remember that the verse is speaking of these two things as different, and is further saying that one is resting on the other.

 

In the second interpretation, "Brahman" is taken to be "Brahman with attributes" and "I" is taken to be Brahman which is beyond all attributes. Ignoring for the moment the problems of accepting a twofold concept of Brahman in Advaita, the other obvious problem with this interpretation is that Krishna is speaking the verse, and "I" can only refer to Him, who has attributes. There is no reason to switch subject and direct object in clear defiance of the context. In fact, if Shankara is going to propose this as a valid explanation of the verse, then the Gaudiiya interpretation makes even more sense by virtue of being more literal.

2) Madhva on 14.27: Madhvaachaarya interprets the "Brahman" in 14.27 in the same way as he interprets "avyakta" in 12.1-5. So what what are the characteristics of this avyakta/Brahman? Let us see:

 

- Those who worship this avyakta/Brahman do attain Lord Krishna (12.4)

 

- Nevertheless those who are attached to worship of this avyakta/Brahman find that their progress is very troublesome (12.5)

 

- This avyakta/Brahman is immortal, imperishable, and eternal, and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness (14.27)

 

Now what makes more sense as an explanation for the avyakta or Brahman in these verses?

 

Is Brahman the supreme absolute truth, or is Brahman Lakshmii?

 

Does worship of Lakshmii lead to Krishna? Only by worship of the Supreme Brahman can one attain the Supreme Brahman. Even Maadhvas will readily agree to this.

 

Is worship of Lakshmii, a pure devotee of Vishnu, troublesome and difficult? Perhaps if one is worshiping Lakshmii independently, then this might be the case. But if one worships Her as the servant of Vishnu, then where is the difficulty? Worship of the devotees is always highly regarded and beneficial for the saadhaka. But even then, it is worship of Lakshmii with Naaraayana (the Supreme Brahman) that leads to Brahman, so worship of Lakshmii alone still does not.

 

Is Lakshmii the constitutional platform of happiness and bliss, from which devotees render pure devotional service to Krishna? Krishna says of Brahman (not Lakshmii) that it is the postion which, having attained, one neither desires for nor laments for anything, and becomes equal to all:

 

brahmabhuutaH prasanaatmaa no shochati na kaa.nkShati |

samaH sarveShu bhuuteShu madbhakti.m labhate paraam || giitaa 18.54 ||

 

(note that Brahman in this verse is NOT interpreted to mean Lakshmii by the Maadhvas)

 

He further states that Brahman is attained by performance of bhakti-yoga:

 

maa.m cha yo'vyabhichaareNa bhaktiyogena sevate |

sa guNaan samatiityaitaan brahmabhuuyaaya kalpate || giitaa 14.26 ||

 

One who engages in full devotional service, unfailing in all circumstances, at once transcends the modes of material nature and thus comes to the level of Brahman. (bhagavad-giitaa 14.26)

 

"sa guNaan samatiityaitaan" ... he transcends the material modes of nature. This is the well-known result of attaining the Supreme Brahman, not Lakshmii. If the attainment of Brahman causes one to neither desire nor lament for anything (BG 18.54), then why should we assume that the Brahman described similarly in 14.26-27, is something different, like goddess Lakshmii?

 

In chapter 14, the subject of Lakshmii-worship does not even come up. There is no explicit reference to Lakshmii worship in this chapter, so context does not support Madhva's interpreation. It is true that Krishna refers to "Brahman" in the beginning as the material nature (from which Maadhvas get the interpretation of Lakshmii, since she is the basis of the material energy in their view). But the occurrence of "Brahman" later in the chapter is clearly different, as we see the contrast beginning in verse 14.19, in which Krishna begins speaking of transcending the three modes. This is in contrast to the "Brahman" of the earlier verses, in which He discuss the various modes and their interactions. They are not the same.

Furthermore, Bhagavad-giitaa is not like the Upanishads. It was spoken before an audience of kshatriyas. Hence, we would not expect needlessly cryptic language and roundabout interpretations when simpler meanings and understandings would do just as well. That being the case, there is no reason to pick an out-of-the-way meaning for "Brahman" (as meaning Lakshmii, for example) in 14.27 when a more common one would do. Brahman commonly refers to the Supreme, and this makes sense here because it is spoken of as being that which is attained by bhakti-yoga, gives one supreme bliss, etc.

 

The same criticisms of Madhva's interepration apply as well to that of Raamaanuja. Note that I intend no disrespect to these great aachaaryas. Historically, their followers have never hesitated to attack our interpretation of BG 14.27. Most of the time they simply cannot accept that there is such a thing as an impersonal aspect of Brahman. But the idea of a formless effulgence emanating from the Lord is clearly admitted to in shaastras:

 

yena svarochiShaa vishva.m rochita.m rochayaamyaham |

yathaarko'gniryathaa somo yatharkShagrahataarakaaH || bhaa 2.5.11 ||

 

I create after the Lord's creation by His personal effulgence [known as the brahmajyoti], just as when the sun manifests its fire, the moon, the firmament, the influential planets and the twinkling stars also manifest their brightness (bhaagavata puraaNa 2.5.11).

 

dvaareNa chakraanupathena tattamaH para.m para.m jyotir anantapaaram |

samashnuvaana.m prasamiikShya phaalgunaH prataaDitaakSho'pidadhe'kShiNii ubhe || bhaa 10.89.51 ||

 

Following the Sudarshana disc, the chariot went beyond the darkness and reached the endless spiritual light of the all-pervasive brahma-jyoti. As Arjuna beheld this glaring effulgence, his eyes hurt, and so he shut them (bhaagavata puraaNa 10.89.51).

 

The Hari-vamsha, describing the same pastime, goes on to say that this effulgence is also the Lord:

 

brahmatejomaya.m divya.m mahat yad dR^iShTavaan asi |

aha.m sa bharatashreShTha mattejas tat sanaatanam || HV 2.114.9 ||

 

The divine expanse of Brahman effulgence you have seen is none other than Myself, O best of the Bhaaratas. It is My own eternal effulgence (shrii hariva.msha, viShNuparva 114.9).

 

Hari-vamsha states that the yogis enter it upon liberation:

 

prakR^itiH saa mama paraa vyaktaavyaktaa sanaatanii |

taa.m pravishya bhavantiiha muktaa yogaviduttamaaH || HV 2.114.10 ||

 

It comprises My eternal, spiritual energy, both manifest and unmanifest. The foremost yoga experts of this world enter within it and become liberated (shrii hariva.msha, viShNuparva 114.10).

 

... and goes on to state that this effulgence by itself is the goal of the nondevotee yogis:

 

saa saa.nkhyaanaa.m gatiH paartha yoginaa.m cha tapasvinaam |

tat pada.m parama.m brahma sarva.m vibhajate jagat || HV 2.114.11 ||

maameva tad ghana.m tejo j~naatum arhasi bhaarata || HV 2.114.12 ||

 

It is the supreme goal of the followers of Saa.nkhya, O Paartha, as well as that of the yogiis and ascetics. It is the Supreme Absolute Truth, manifesting the varieties of the entire created cosmos. You should understand this brahma-jyoti, O Bhaarata, to be My concentrated personal effulgence (shrii hariva.msha, viShNuparva 114.11-12).

 

Vishnu Puraana also speaks of a form and formless aspect of the Lord:

 

aashrayashchetaso brahma dvidhaa tachcha svabhaavataH |

bhuupa muurttamamuurtta~ncha para~nchaaparameva cha || VP 6.5.47 ||

 

The asylum of mind is Brahman, which of its own nature is twofold, as being with or without form; and each of these is supreme and secondary (viShNu puraaNa 6.5.47 - Wilson's critical edition).

 

amurtta brahmaNo ruupa.m yat sadityuchyate budhauH |

samastaaH shatktayashchaitaa nR^ipa yatra pratiShTitaaH || VP 6.5.69 ||

 

The second state of him who is called Vishnu, and which is to be meditated upon by the sage, is that imperceptible, shapeless form of Brahman, which is called by the wise, "that which is" (viShNu puraaNa 6.5.69 - Wilson's critical edition).

 

Thus, the Maadhvas and Shrii Vaishnavas cannot object to our saying there is such a thing as the Lord's brahmajyoti, and that it is nondifferent from the Lord Himself.

 

That Brahman is the highest truth, is recognized by all the 3 major schools of Vedaanta. On the contrary, interpreting the above statement to mean there is something "higher" than Brahman, will result in contradicting BG 2.72, 5.21, 5.24 just to name a few.

 

Except of course, that I did not say this. There is nothing higher than Brahman. Reread my exact words. I said that Advaitins do not admit of any higher conception of Brahman than the formless aspect - in this regard it is certainly incorrect. The concept of Brahman as Bhagavaan, posessing attributes, form, etc, is the higher (and more complete) *concept* of Brahman. There is no difference between the Lord and His brahmajyoti effulgence, but the concept of Brahman as brahmajyoti alone is incomplete. The Lord is simply saying here that He (Bhagavaan) is the basis of this incomplete, impersonal conception of His effulgence.

 

Many sentimentalists try to argue that Advaita is ok, because shaastras acknowledge an impersonal or formless aspect of Brahman. But inherent in Advaita is the idea that this and only this is Brahman, all else is maya or at best a lower conception. That simply will not due. The issue is not whether or not there are impersonal and personal conceptions in the Absolute Truth, because clearly there are. The issue is that Advaita accepts only the reality of the impersonal conception, and in that regard it contradicts numerous shaastric pramaanas and must thus be rejected.

 

regards,

 

- K

 

 

 

Originally posted by karthik_v:

Or can someone argue that the shrutis are amenable to multiple interpretations and that one can claim that both both advaita and Vaishnavism are both vedic traditions?

<font color="red">'jnAna yajnena cA 'pyanye yajanto mAm upAsate,

yekatvena pRthaktvena bahudhA vizvato mukham'</font>

(Gita 9.15)

 

'Yet others sacrifice with the Yagna of Knowledge and worship Me in various ways as the One, as the Distinct and as the All-faced.'

 

Worshipping Lord as the One, Undivided Pure Consciousness is the 'Advaita' or Non-Dualism.

 

Adoring the Almighty as the Distinct is the way of Dvaita or Dualism.

He is held as Distint from the 'Jagat' and the 'Jivatma' - the universe and the beings, both these categories dependent on Him.

 

Invoking 'Iswara' Lord as the All-Faced is the way of Visishtadvaita or Qualified Non-Dualism.

 

The universe and the beings in it are all the insentient and sentient aspects of the Body of the Lord.

It is for this reason He is called the All-Faced.

 

In whatever way the Lord is worshipped, it is acceptable to Him.

These several ways of understanding the Lord by the devotees are ALL their respective 'Jnana-Yajnas' or Sacrifices of Knowledge.

 

-Swami Chidbhavananda

 

<font color="blue">"Whatever be your concept of God, be it with Form or Formless, hold fast to it and ardently worship Him.

<big>But be not conceited that your concept alone of Him is the finale.</big>

 

In the course of your Sadhana you will come to KNOW by His Grace that His Attributes and Forms are Inexhaustible.</big></font>

 

-Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa

 

<center></center>

Krishnas, If one says that the commentary of Sri Madhvacharya is incorrect, then one is sitting at the tip of the branch and cutting its base - because Madhva is an acharya who connects gaudiyas to Vyasa. If you say that brahman means brahmajyoti only because that is the "literal meaning", you are breaking another aspect of GVV. The previous verse says that a devotee becomes brahman. But as per GVV, a devotee never attains brahma jyoti!! He almost always ends up as an eternal servant in goloka. So the interpretation of brahman to mean brahma jyoti alone cannot be correct even as per GVV. Also the same logic which is used to supercede the interpretation of brahman to mean Lakshmi can be used to supercede the interpretation of brahman to mean brahma jyoti. Where is brahman defined as brahma jyoti in BG ? Just as to understand brahman to mean Lakshmi one has to use external references and interpretations, one has to do for understanding brahman to mean brahmajyoti. There is another problem in saying that the jiva becomes brahman because jiva is already brahman. Also brahman is described as absolutely blissful - aikantikasya sukhasya. So the interpretation that brahman means brahma jyoti cannot be correct as per GVV because brahma jyoti is not the cause of absolute bliss for devotees. In fact they shun it. The interpretation is thus shown inconsistent with the vaishnava vedanta.

 

Then what is the correct interpretation ? Ofcourse, the interpretation of Sripad Sankaracharya who is considered a demon by Madhva, whose philosophy is considered wet stool by many ISKCON sannyasis, whose followers (the likes of Thyagaraja who had darshan of Rama) are considered as poisonous cobras by neophyte devotees in ISKCON and hearing whose commentary leads to complete destruction as per Caitanya Caritamrta. But it so happens that even a gross fool can understand His work by His mercy. May ThotakAshtakam bestow that understanding upon us.

 

In the verse 14.26, a devotee who worships the Lord is said to attain brahman. That is, why is it that one who worships Him(Krishna) attains liberation is explained by the Lord(Krishna) in 14.27.

 

Brahman here refers to the Lord(Krishna) and for this "interpretation" rather definition, one need not go outside BG. No vaishnava sampradAya can deny the interpretation of brahman to mean the Lord(Krishna) because all the vaishnava acharyas have used that definition. The Lord(Krishna), brahman, is dharma svarupam - dharmasya. (dharmam tu sAkshAt bhagavad prAnitam). The Lord(Krishna), brahman is immutable and eternal . - avyayasya, sAsvatasya. The Lord(Krishna), brahman is absolutely blissful - aikantikasya sukhasya (raso vai sah). The Lord(Krishna), brahman is situated in Him Self - brahmano hi prathishtAham. As He is situated in the Self, He is fit for worship. This Self, which is considered non-different from Him(Krishna) by Sankara, is the Self of all. Self-realization means to realize Him in us, the illusory material personalities produced by ahankara, manas etc.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 07-14-2002).]

Also brahman is described as absolutely blissful - aikantikasya sukhasya. So the interpretation that brahman means brahma jyoti cannot be correct as per GVV because brahma jyoti is not the cause of absolute bliss for devotees.

Actually it is described not as blissful but as "full of happiness" (sukhasya)and "immortal" or "nectarean" (amritasya). Concepts which are accepted as attributes of brahmajyoti by Gaudiya vaishnavas.

 

Furthermore, the brahmajyoti is full of bliss compared to the dualities of the mundane world. But it is a bliss of another category than that which is the nature of the soul. Nuetrality (freedom from suffering) is the foundation for ananda; thus the liberated devotee experiences both.

 

Brahman here refers to the Lord(Krishna) and for this "interpretation" rather definition, one need not go outside BG.

And brahman also refers to the living entity (prajnanam brahma, aham brahmasmi, etc.), as well as everything else in existence (sarvam khalv idam brahma). You're just arbitrarily pulling a definition out of a hat.

 

Originally posted by ram:

Krishnas, If one says that the commentary of Sri Madhvacharya is incorrect, then one is sitting at the tip of the branch and cutting its base - because Madhva is an acharya who connects gaudiyas to Vyasa.

 

 

 

Ram, just because we are connected to Madhva in paramparaa, it does not follow that we accept all of Madhva's teachings as true and correct. There are many points in which Madhva's philosophy differs with the Gaudiiya one, and it is hardly honest to say that we accept everything which Madhva says.

 

We don't find fault with Madhva since he was ordered to teach what he taught in Mahaaprabhu's unmanifest pastimes - this is described in the Bhavishya Puraana and Navadviipa Mahaatmyaa. Of course, non-Gaudiiyas will reject the historicity of these accounts. But the point here is simply that Gaudiiyas have reason to worship all of the Vaishnava sampradaayas, even if they staunchly defend their own siddhaanta from the criticisms of those same sampradaayas.

 

If you say that brahman means brahmajyoti only because that is the "literal meaning",

 

 

 

What I said (please reread my posting) is that Brahman in BG 14.27 means Brahman (God) because of context, and because that is the common meaning. But more specifically, it refers to the brahmajyoti aspect of Brahman, because Krishna (who is Brahman) is saying that He is the basis of this Brahman.

 

you are breaking another aspect of GVV. The previous verse says that a devotee becomes brahman.

 

 

 

That is not true. The previous verse says that the devotee comes to the level of Brahman. There is no question of "becoming" Brahman, as even this is defined by Lord Krishna in a Non-Advaitic sense - "brahma bhuuta prasanaatmaa.... mad-bhaktim labhate paraam" (BG 18.54)

 

But as per GVV, a devotee never attains brahma jyoti!!

 

 

 

That is also not true. Where are you getting your information from? Both the devotee and jnaani attain the brahmajyoti. In the case of the devotee, this is *obvious* from BG 14.26-27, and BG 18.54. BG 18.54 clearly states that upon attaining the Brahman platform, the devotee renders pure devotional service. BG 14.26 clearly states that the devotee attains Brahman by performance of bhakti-yoga, and that the personal Godhead Krishna is the basis of this "Brahman." So in reality, both devotees and jnaanis are situated in the brahmajyoti. The difference is that the devotees are situated closer to the Lord, in His Vaikuntha planets, and they render personal service to Him. The impersonalist jnaanis have no realization of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and so they remain outside (but still in the brahmajyoti), and they do not render service.

 

He almost always ends up as an eternal servant in goloka. So the interpretation of brahman to mean brahma jyoti alone cannot be correct even as per GVV.

 

 

 

Brahman means many things, and in the Govinda-bhaashya, Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana uses "Brahman" to mean Krishna. But in this particular case (BG 14.27), Brahman refers to the brahmajyoti, for the numerous reasons already given. Other aachaaryas may give other meanings with varying levels of correctness, but the brahmajyoti explanation is most consistent with context.

 

Also the same logic which is used to supercede the interpretation of brahman to mean Lakshmi can be used to supercede the interpretation of brahman to mean brahma jyoti.

 

 

 

Really? How is that? For your kind information, critics of the Gaudiiya view do NOT use that logic to reject the brahmajyoti explanation. Their whole argument is that there is no such thing as a brahmajyoti, and/or even were there such a thing, it is different from Brahman. I have already more than addressed these points.

 

Where is brahman defined as brahma jyoti in BG ?

 

 

 

Where is Brahman defined as Lakshmii in BG? Where is Brahman defined as sa-guna in BG? (note: don't try to use the beginning of chapter 14, since we have already established that this is not the same Brahman)

Where is Brahman defined as jiiva in BG?

 

Just as to understand brahman to mean Lakshmi one has to use external references and interpretations, one has to do for understanding brahman to mean brahmajyoti.

 

 

 

On the contrary, one can clearly infer from Bhagavad-giitaa alone that "Brahman" in BG 14.27 is the Supreme, and yet a distinct concept from Bhagavaan Krishna. These arguments have already been given by me.

 

The Lakshmii interpretation is just a very roundabout way of avoiding what Maadhvas will perceive as an impersonalist taint.

 

As far as using other shaastras besides Bhagavad-giitaa to understand the Giitaa, what of it? Is it, or is it not the case that any interpretation of a Vedic text should be consistent with other Vedic texts? When other Vedic texts clearly speak of an impersonal, effulgence that is also part of the Brahman, then how can you argue that no such concept can be in Bhagavad-giitaa?

 

There is another problem in saying that the jiva becomes brahman because jiva is already brahman.

 

 

 

I assume, Ram, that you are now going to prove this to us using authoritative, shaastric references. If you cannot do so, then please don't say it as if it is an undisputed fact.

 

Also realize (again), that the verses in question merely describe the jiivas attaining Brahman. They do not say that the jiivas "become" Brahman, at least not in any literal sense.

 

Also brahman is described as absolutely blissful - aikantikasya sukhasya. So the interpretation that brahman means brahma jyoti cannot be correct as per GVV because brahma jyoti is not the cause of absolute bliss for devotees. In fact they shun it. The interpretation is thus shown inconsistent with the vaishnava vedanta.

 

 

 

No such thing has been shown. The Gaudiiya interpretation is that this Brahman or brahmajyoti is the "constitutional position of ultimate happiness." - dharmasya sukhasyaikaantikasya cha. That makes sense since it is the platform from which the devotee renders devotional service.

 

Then what is the correct interpretation ? Ofcourse, the interpretation of Sripad Sankaracharya who is considered a demon by Madhva, whose philosophy is considered wet stool by many ISKCON sannyasis, whose followers (the likes of Thyagaraja who had darshan of Rama) are considered as poisonous cobras by neophyte devotees in ISKCON and hearing whose commentary leads to complete destruction as per Caitanya Caritamrta. But it so happens that even a gross fool can understand His work by His mercy. May ThotakAshtakam bestow that understanding upon us.

 

 

 

First of all Ram, calm down. Advaitists have said many nasty things about Vaishnavas for hundreds of years. Would you like to hear about some of them? Swami Vivekananda has written (documented in his complete works) that all the wars and conflicts in the world are due to Dvaita. He also said in his speech in the World Parliament of Religions that the worship of the archa-vigraha (which is sacred for Vaishnavas) is a superstition intended for primitive people who cannot grasp the Absolute Truth. Chinamayananda writes in his book _Self Unfoldment_ that jnaana is for people whose minds are more developed than their hearts, while bhakti is for those whose hearts are more developed than their minds. The audacity of these individuals is striking, considering how little shaastric pramaana they bring up to support their views.

 

Not only the likes of Chinmayananda and Vivekananda, but practically every Tom, Dick, and Harry I have met on the streets who professes to follow Advaita tries to claim that bhakti is a sentimental activity which at best leads to jnaana. Of course, these same "jnaanis" who claim this often eat hamburgers in McDonalds, make fun of ISKCON devotees for considering the cow sacred, go to Desi nightclubs, drink liquor, etc etc. Frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of "Advaitist" Hindus (often 2nd generation American Born Confused Desis) who claim that we are not meant to follow scriptural injunctions, and that to profess absolute correctness to them is somehow fanaticism on the order of Christianity or Islam. I am tired of these "Advaitist" Hindus who claim to be experts in Bhagavad-giitaa even though they have never read even a single verse of the Giitaa. I am also sick of these ABCD Advaitists who talk about how we are all God, and yet at the same time defy their parents by going out on dates with members of the opposite gender (Whatever happened to maatro devo bhava, pitro devo bhagava? I guess everyone is God except for the parents who try to teach proper behavior). I have also had it with "Advaitists" who try to argue that Advaita is correct because the Vedas are a mass of inherently contradictory texts written over the ages by different sages. All of these Hindus use lofty words like "Advaita,Vedaanta," and "dharma" with no concept of what they mean.

 

I can go on and on about the glories of "Advaita" as it is practiced in the United States, but I trust my point is clear. We can make this a character debate if you want, or we can stick to the philosophies themselves. If you wish to attack ISKCON devotees, do it somewhere else. This thread was initiated by Karthik who wanted to know if Advaita could be justified from the shrutis.

 

Secondly, where is your evidence that Thyaagaraaja is a follower of Shankaraachaarya? Not only I, but several of my friends in ISKCON who are Thyaagaraaja fans would take great exception to this statement. Much of the history written about Thyaagaraaja is tainted by Advaitic bias, because the people recording those histories are Advaitists. Thyaagaraaja may have been born into a smaartha family, but he was definitely Vaishnava in his outlook. This is obvious from his kiirtanas themselves. But perhaps we should save this for another thread.

 

Thirdly, your objection to Chaitanya-charitamrita's warning about hearing maayaavaadi commentaries is not sound. That same warning is echoed in Lord Shiva's own statements as recorded in Padma Puraana:

 

maayaavaadamasachchhaastraMprachchhannaMbauddhamuchyate |

mayaivakathita.ndevikalaubraahmaNaruupiNaa || 7 ||

apaartha.nshrutivaakyaanaa.ndarshayan lokagarhitam |

svakarmmaruupa.ntyaajyatvamatraivapratipaadhyate || 8 ||

sarvakarmmaparibhraShTairvaidharmmatva.ntaduchyate |

pareshajiivapaaraikyaMmayaatupratipaadhyate || 9 ||

brahmanosyasvaya.nruupa.nnirguNa.nvakShyatemayaa |

sarvasyajagatopyatramohanaartha.nkalauyuge || 10 ||

vedaarthavanmahaashaastraMmaayayaayadavaidikam |

mayaivakalpita.ndevijagataa.nnaashakaaraNaat || 11 ||

 

The doctrine of Maayaa (illusion) is a wicked doctrine and said to be pseudo-Buddhist. I myself, of the form of a braahmana, proclaimed it in Kali (age). It shows the meaninglessness of the words of the holy texts and is condemned in the world. In this (doctrine) only the giving up of one's own duties is expounded. And that is said to be religiousness by those who have fallen from all duties. I have propounded the identiy of the Highest Lord and the (individual) soul. I stated this Brahman's nature to be qualityless. O goddess, I myself have conceived, for the destruction of the worlds, and for deluding the world in this Kali age, the great doctrine resembling the purport of the Vedas, (but) non-Vedic due to the principle of Maayaa (illusion) (present in it). (padma puraaNa, uttara-khaNDa, 236.7-11)

 

By the way, Ram, the Thotaka whose name you invoked earlier, wrote a hymn in which he declared Shankaraachaarya to be an incarnation of Lord Shiva. This was posted by Anand Hudli to soc.religion.vaishnava many years ago. That also seems consistent with the Padma Puraana's statement to the effect that Lord Shiva would appear in the Kali Yuga and speak the doctrine identifying the Lord as nirguna and one with the jiivas. Note that Lord Shiva also states that this doctrine is veiled Buddhism, that it will cause destruction of the worlds, etc. So against that backdrop, I see nothing wrong with Lord Chaitanya's warnings about maayaavaada bhaashyas. Unless of course, you are going to argue that the doctrine mentioned here is not Advaita....

 

Or perhaps you will try to argue that it is all interpolation. That is a predictable argument used by those who wish to dismiss inconvenient evidence. Just be aware that I won't consider such an argument reasonable unless it is accompanied by convincing evidence.

 

In the verse 14.26, a devotee who worships the Lord is said to attain brahman. That is, why is it that one who worships Him(Krishna) attains liberation is explained by the Lord(Krishna) in 14.27.

 

 

 

That is not what is explained in 14.27. Krishna has already said that the devotee attains Brahman by bhakti-yoga in 14.26. But in 14.27 He says that He is the basis of this Brahman. Have you even looked at this verse lately?

 

Brahman here refers to the Lord(Krishna) and

 

 

 

Not so according to Shankaraachaarya. If you are a follower of Shankaraachaarya, then why are you not following his commentary? Shankara writes that the "I" is the jiiva while the "Brahman" is the supreme self. So Shankara does NOT interpret it the way you just did, although in the end he says that both of these entities are the same. But his interpretation is flaws for the obvious reasons given: you can't just switch subject and object for no good reason.

 

for this "interpretation" rather definition, one need not go outside BG. No vaishnava sampradAya can deny the interpretation of brahman to mean the Lord(Krishna) because all the vaishnava acharyas have used that definition.

 

 

 

No one is denying it. But like many Sanskrit words, Brahman can mean several different things depending on context. In BG 14.27 it refers to the brahmajyoti aspect of the Lord.

 

[snip]

 

The Lord(Krishna), brahman is situated in Him Self - brahmano hi prathishtAham. As He is situated in the Self, He is fit for worship. This Self, which is considered non-different from Him(Krishna) by Sankara, is the Self of all.

 

This interpretation makes no sense at all. Before you said that Krishna is Brahman, and that this is the obvious meaning of Brahman. But now you say that He is also the basis of Brahman, which thus translates into Him saying that He is the basis of Himself.

 

The idea that the Lord is different from His body and form has no basis in shaastra.

 

regards,

 

- K

 

 

 

 

------------------

www.achintya.org

Krishnas:

 

First of all let me thank you for so painstakingly answering so many points with references. You are definitely enriching this forum.

 

There are many points in which Madhva's philosophy differs with the Gaudiiya one, and it is hardly honest to say that we accept everything which Madhva says.

 

Well the Madhva tradition has it that Madhvacarya had his work approved by Veda Vyasa himself. If we accept Vyasa as the authority how can we disagree with anything that Madvacarya has written?

 

Advaitists have said many nasty things about Vaishnavas for hundreds of years....

 

You quoted Swami Vivekananda, Chinmayananda etc., who are all from the 20th century. What about the advaitins of the earlier age? Has any distinduished acarya ever assailed an opposing school or its founder the way Madhva attacked Adi Sankara? If none did that, then Vivekananda's accusation atleast has a bit of truth in it. I have never come across any advaitin who called any Vaishnava philosophy as "yellow stool". It seems that such attacks originated only from the GV/ISKCON side. Nor have I come across any advaitin who dedicates verse after verse and speech after speech in condemning another philosophy, as GV/ISKCON do. If anything, they just dismiss other schools as irrelevant.

 

It looks like GV/ISKCON badly need advaita to survive

 

Originally posted by karthik_v:

Looks like you are upset with my quotes from the Bible I just repeated what Jesus had stated - I didn't invent them.

 

 

 

When you are finding Lord Jesus in Exodus then I will be feeling upset .

Until then you must be having the less coconut.

 

 

Originally posted by karthik_v:

Krishnas prabhuji:

 

I would point out that many criticisms of "mayavada" from ISKCON are actually criticisms of the watered-down, feel-good, neo-Advaita cults that have sprung up in the last few hundred years.

 

Such criticism is not just limited to those who advocate a watered-down version of Advaita. In the purports of Srila Prabhupad as well in the lectures given by the sannyasis at ISKCON, we can come across scathing attacks on Advaita as well as Adi Sankara. Some sannyasis even go to the extent of calling Advaita "yellow stool", leaving no doubt as to what the criticism is targetted at.

 

 

 

Dear Karthik,

 

Can you please clarify what the purpose of this thread is? I was led into this discussion because I thought we were going to discuss the shaastric basis of Vaishnavism vs. Advaita. But now it seems you are worried about the behavior of some ISKCON followers. If you want to talk about ISKCON, then I must excuse myself. I am neither a member of, nor a spokesperson for, that organization. I cannot defend the behavior of ISKCON devotees, anymore than you can defend the numerous meat-eating "Advaitists" who presume to talk about what dharma is. I will, however, defend Srila Prabhupada's writings, which I regard as properly representative of Gaudiiya Vaishnavism. If you have some problem with something Srila Prabhupada wrote, please quote the exact source and we will discuss it.

 

My point has been that Srila Prabhupada launches criticisms against all impersonalists, against all Advaitisits, and sometimes against the real Advaita promoted by Shankara. You have to distinguish between them before you go on launching accusations. My experience has been that nothing I read was particularly scathing (especially compared to some Advaitist stuff I have read), but the more strongly worded criticisms in his writings are almost invariably directed against the cheap pseudo-Advaitist yogis who make a mockery of Sanaatana-dharma like Vivekananda et. al.

 

This Balasubramanian fellow from whom you get your impressions of Advaita..

 

Okay, he is not the one from whom I get my inputs on Advaita. I just mentioned him because he has had many debates with ISKCON devotees.

 

 

 

Yes he does call them "debates," doesn't he? Like I said, his "debates" usually consist of ignoring shaastric evidence that he cannot explain, and then going on character assasination trips until his opponent just gives up trying to have a civilized discussion.

 

First of all, do you even know where in Rig Veda this statement [Ekam sad....] is?

 

RV 1:164:46. I have read the commentaries of Sri Aurobindo and Sayanacarya on this and both seem to convey what I stated. Please tell me if that is wrong and if so, please explain why.

 

 

 

Karthik, you are misusing this. The entire mantra states:

 

indra.m mitra.m varuNamagnimaahuratho divyaH sa suparNo garutmaan |

eka.m sadvipraa bahuDhaa vadantyagni.m yama.m maatarishvaanmaahuH || R^igveda 1.164.46 ||

 

They have styled (Him, God) Indra (the resplendent), Mitra (the surveyor), Varuna (the venerable), Agni (the adorable), and He is the celestial, well-winged garutmat (the great), for learned priests call one by many names as they speak of the adorable as yama (ordainer) and matarishvan (cosmic breath). (R^igveda sa.mhitaa 1.164.46)

 

There is NOTHING in this mantra that says that all philosophies are correct. This mantra only says that God, Vishnu, has many names, among which are some names of various demigods. By absolutely no stretch of the imagination can this mantra be used to sanction belief in two, mutually contradictory schools of philosophy.

 

Advaita does not admit of any real, personal aspect of God. The personal aspect of God is maya. It is at best a temporary conception to help the neophyte grasp what is beyond the senses.

 

I am not sure that is the correct understanding of Advaita.

 

 

 

You are quite mistaken on this point, Karthik. Go see the Advaita home page located at http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ . There you will find the following excerpt (located at http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad-phil.html) located under the heading "nirguna and saguna brahman" :

 

"To resolve such passages in the upanishads, advaita vedAnta maintains that really brahman is devoid of all attributes, and is therefore known as nirguNa. brahman may be described as in the upanishads, as Truth (satyam), Knowledge (jnAnam), Infinite (anantam), or as Being (sat), Consciousness (cit), Bliss (Ananda), but none of these terms can be truly interpreted as attributes of brahman as a Super-person/God. Rather, it is because brahman exists, that this whole universe is possible. It is because brahman exists that man ascribes attributes to brahman. However, brahman's true nature cannot be captured in words, for all these attributes are ultimately just words. Hence, it is man's ignorance of Its true nature that postulates attributes to brahman, thereby describing It in saguNa terms (with attributes). This saguNa brahman is ISvara, the Lord, whose essential reality as brahman is not dependent on anything else, and does not change because of the production of this universe. Therefore, advaita holds that brahman's own nature (svarUpa- lakshaNa) is devoid of any attributes (nirguNa), while It is seen for the temporary purposes of explaining creation (taTastha- lakshaNa) to be ISvara, with attributes (saguNa)."

 

Please note, Karthik, that it clearly states that Brahman is really without attributes, that attributes are only ascribed to Brahman due to ignorance. This is an offensive sentiment to Vaishnavas, who maintain based on shaastra the Lord's essential nature is to have infinite transcendental attributes. This is NOT the conception of an ignorant person, but simply the shaastrically based fact.

 

In another thread, another member pointed out from the sayings of Adi Sankara where he declares that Narayana is eternal and beyond time and creation. Not only that Sankara also worshipped Narayana. So, shall we conclude that Sankara himself was a neophyte? That wouldn't be correct.

 

 

 

Shankaraachaarya is actually an incarnation of Lord Shiva, who is a great devotee of Lord Vishnu (vaishNavaanaam yathaa shambhu). So it is not surprising that, from time to time, devotional outpouring will appear in Shankara's writings. For example, in his introduction to his Bhagavad-giitaa bhaashya, he writes:

 

naaraayaNaH parovyaktaat: "Naaraayana is beyond the Unmanifest (Prakriti)"

 

But this is clearly not mainstream Advaita as promoted by Shankaraachaarya. Advaitists will tell you that to worship Vishnu is good. But they will also tell you that this is a saguna form of Brahman, or Brahman covered by maayaa, and thus it is ultimately not real. Orthodox Vaishnavas (those not following Advaita) find this offensive.

 

followers of Advaita do not acknowledge the reality of BOTH the personal and impersonal conceptions.

 

If Adi Sankara himself did, then why is that his followers wouldn't? If you take Kanchi Sankara mutt for example, they do worship Narayana and also advice the devotees to do the same.

 

 

 

But such worship is impersonal, for it proceeds with the assumption that the Deity being worshiped is sa-guna and thus ultimately not real. Only the underlying formless Brahman is real.

 

I'm sorry if the real Advaita does not match with your sentiments, Karthik, but you cannot redefine Advaita to make it suit your "all philosophies are one" world view. Advaita is what it is, and we must take it as it is.

 

Advaitins consider the impersonal conception to be the highest conception of the Absolute truth. This is contradicted by Giitaa....

 

We discussed earlier in another thread about many verses in BG which declare Brahman as Supreme and the realization of that Brahman as being the highest perfection. BG 5:24-28 for example.

 

 

 

How convenient for you that you do not mention the very next verse! After describing the attainment of the Supreme (Brahman), Krishna then states:

 

bhoktaara.m yaj~natapasaa.m sarvalokamaheshvaram |

suhR^ida.m sarvabhuutaanaa.m j~naatvaa maa.m shaantim R^ichchhati || giitaa 5.29 ||

 

A person in full consciousness of Me, knowing Me to be the ultimate beneficiary of all sacrifices and austerities, the Supreme Lord of all planets and demigods, and the benefactor and well-wisher of all living entities, attains peace from the pangs of material miseries. (bhagavad-giitaa 5.29)

 

Krishna is the Supreme Brahman as admitted in Giitaa itself:

 

para.m brahma para.m dhaama || giitaa 10.12 ||

 

You are the Supreme Brahman, the ultimate abode... (bhagavad-giitaa 10.12)

 

Advaitists cannot use verses describing the attainment of Brahman to mean that attaining formless Brahman is the highest goal, because Krishna clearly states "brahmaNo hi pratiShThaaham" - "I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman." Please note here that this simply follows from the Advaitist tendency to interpret the word "Brahman" in an impersonal way. If "brahman" means something impersonal, then the Advaitist cannot ignore the fact that Krishna is the basis of this "impersonal Brahman." Shankara tries to get around it by word-jugglery, but that simply will not work!

 

Where in the Rig Veda does it say that the "vedas carry a mystical meaning and not literal" ?? That is nothing more than a misunderstanding. I am aware of no such statement.

 

catvAri vAk parimitA padAni tAni vidurbrAhmaNA ye manISiNaH guhA trINi nihitA neNgayanti turIyaM vAco manuSyA vadanti [RV 1:164:45]

 

Translation: The words of the vedas exist at 4 levels; 3 of which are cavernous and 1 expressed through the words; the truth itself is beyond the words that the humans can perceive.

 

 

 

There is absolutely NOTHING in the above statement that holds that the Vedic statements are not literal. There is NOTHING in the above statement that supports Advaita specifically.

 

It is also stated in the shruti, ta.m tv aupaniShada.m puruSha.m pR^icchaami - "I shall now inquire about the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is revealed in the Upanishads." (bR^ihadaaraNyakopaniShad 3.9.26).

 

The "purusha", as per many commentators like Sri Aurobindo, doesn't represent a personal God. Nor does Adi Sankara think so. In fact, they argue that it only represents the Brahman, as the word is indeed a compound that can be split into "pur" + "usha". "Pur" means "a citadel" or "place of residence" and "usha" means "dawn" or "light". Hence, "purusha" stands for the "source of all light [that dispels maya]" or "Brahman". I am not arguing that this is the only correct interpretation, just as we cannot argue that "personal God" is the only correct interpretation.

 

 

 

That interpretation is wrong.

 

Indirect meanings should not be resorted to when direct meanings are acceptable in context. The straightforward meaning of purusha is not impersonal. Monier-Williams, a fairly impartial source, gives the following meanings of "purusha":

 

"a man, male, human being; a person; the primaevel man as the soul and original source of the universe; the personal and animating principle in men and other beings, the soul or spirit; the Supreme Being or Soul of the universe..."

 

As you can see, these definitions clearly connote personality. There are other definitions that are neutral in this regard, but there is certainly nothing that is obviously impersonal.

 

Furthermore, it is also said to Krishna in Bhagavad-giitaa:

 

tvam aadidevaH puruShaH puraaNas tvam asya vishvasya para.m nidhaanam |

vettaasi vedya.m cha para.m cha dhaama tvayaa tata.m vishvam anantaruupa || giitaa 11.38 ||

 

You are the original Personality of Godhead, the oldest, the ultimate sanctuary of this manifested cosmic world. You are the knower of everything, and You are all that is knowable. You are the supreme refuge, above the material modes. O limitless form! This whole cosmic manifestation is pervaded by You! (bhagavad-giitaa 11.38)

 

Please note that Arjuna addresses Krishna as "purusha." There is no basis for assuming that he refers to something impersonal within Krishna. There is no basis for assuming that purusha means something impersonal, when context clearly dictates otherwise.

 

Also if we look at the very first of the vedanta sutras, it says Athaatho Brahmajijnasa: meaning "now let us inquire about the Supreme Brahman". So, one can at best say that the vedas point to both the personal and the Brahman forms of the same Supreme. A relative gradation, saying that the personal God is superior to the Brahman, in itself has no support of the vedas.

 

 

 

No, no, no. Look Karthik, I don't mean to offend you. But you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

 

Brahman does not necessarily mean "impersonal." Why do you assume it be so?

 

Brahman in Vedaanta-suutra is clearly a personal Godhead. Madhva, Vallabha, Raamaanuja, Baladeva, and many other Vaishnava commentators have taken it as such. Of all the schools of Vedaanta, the majority are personalist.

 

Brahman is not impersonal, because even in shruti we find evidence of the contrary - His personality. For example, Iishopanishad 15 states "hiraNmayena paatreNa satyasyaapihita.m mukham" -- "Your real face is covered by Your dazzling effulgence." Similarly we have Iishopanishad 5: "tad ejati tan naijati" -- "The Lord walks and does not walk." The Shvetaashvatara Upanishad 3.16 says:

sarvataHpaanipaada.m tatsarvato'kShishiromukham |

sarvataHshrutimalloke sarvamaavR^itya tiShThati || shve 3.16 ||

 

With hands and feet everywhere, with eyes, heads, and faces everywhere, and with ears everywhere, that remains encompassing everything in the world... (shvetaashvataropaniShad 3.16)

 

Similarly we also have the following ultra-personalist statement:

 

vedaahameta.m puruSha.m mahaantamaadityavarNa.m tamasaH parastaat |

tameva viditvaati mR^ityumeti na anyaH panthaa vidhyate'yanaaya || shve 3.8 ||

 

I know that immense Person, having the color of the sun and beyond darkness. Only when a man knows him does he pass beyond death; there is no other path for getting there. (shvetaashvataropaniShad 3.8)

 

sa imaa.nllokaansR^ijata | ambho mariichiirmaramaapaH | ado'mbhaH pareNa diva.m ghauH pratiShThaantarikSha.m sariichayaH pR^ithivii maro yaa adhyastaattaa aapaH || aitareya 1.1.2 ||

 

So He created these worlds.... (aitareyopaniShad 1.1.2)

 

Surely, Karthik, common sense must prevail when we approach shaastric statements for interpretation. Do the above statements seems consistent with the activities of a Transcendental Person or a formless entity? Having a face, body parts, creating things, and walking about are not the activities of a formless entity.

But again, what do you mean by "Vedas," and why do you think there is any doubt on this point?

 

Vedas are the shrutis which includes the samhitas, brahmanas, aranyakas and the upanishads. Vedanta sutras are a summary of the vedas. Smritis such as BG, Srimad Bhagavatam are not vedas.

 

 

 

You are mistaken. Itihaasas and Puraanas constitute the fifth Veda, and this is acknowledged even in the shrutis.

 

naama vaa rikvedo yajurvedaH saamaveda aatharvaNashchaturtha itihaasapuraaNaH pa~nchamo vedaanaa.m vedaH pitryo raashirdaivo nidhirvaakovaakyamekaayana.n devavidyaa brahmavidyaa bhuutavidyaa kShatravidyaa nakshatravidyaa sarpadevajanavidyaa naamaivaitannaamopaasveti || CU 7.1.4 ||

 

Verily, a name is the Rig Veda so also Yajur Veda, Saama Veda, Atharva Veda, as the forth, the Itihaasa, Puraanas, as the fifth, graammar, the rules for the worship of the manes, amthematics, the science of portents, the chronology, the logic, the science of ethics, etymology, the ancillary knowledge of the Vedas, the physical science, the science of war, the Astrology, the science of snake-charming and the fine arts -- this is mere name, meditate on the name (chaandogya upaniShad 7.1.4).

 

R^igyajuHsaamaatharvaakhyaa vedaishchatvaara uddhR^itaaH |

itihaasapuraaNa.m cha pa~nchamo veda uchyate || bhaa 1.4.20 ||

 

R^ig-yajuH-saama-atharva-aakhyaaH - the names of the four Vedas; vedaaH - the Vedas; chatvaaraH - four; uddhR^itaaH - made into separate parts; itihaasa - historical records (.mahaabhaarata); puraaNam cha - and the Puraanas; pa~nchamaH - the fifth; vedaH - the original source of knowedge; uchyate - is said to be.

 

The four divisions of the original sources of knowledge [the Vedas] were made separately. But the historical facts and authentic stories mentioned in the Puraanas are called the fifth Veda (bhaagavata puraaNa 1.4.20).

 

It is also stated in the Atharva Veda that the Puraanas have the same divine origin as the Vedas:

 

R^ichaH saamaani chandaa.msi puraaNa.m yajuShaa saha |

uchchhiShTaaj jaj~nire sarve divi devaa divishritaaH || AV 11.7.24 ||

 

The R^ig, Saama, Yajur, and Atharva Vedas appeared from the Supreme Lord along with the PuraaNas and all the demigods residing in the heavenly planets (atharva veda 11.7.24).

 

Hence, Puraanas cannot be rejected as valid evidence, since they are considered as Fifth Veda and are also not of human composition.

 

But so far, most of what I have quoted is from even you will accept as Veda. I think it is sufficient for now.

 

Okay, let me rephrase the question: "Do the vedas unequivocally state that the Supreme is ONLY a personal God and that Brahman is subservient to Him?"

 

 

 

No, the Vedas unequivocally state that the Supreme is a personal God, and that He is Brahman. Brahman is not subserviant to Him; He is Brahman. There is an effulence emanating from His body which is also Brahman. All of this has already been supported by adequate pramaanas.

 

Let me ask you something, Karthik. You keep looking for evidence from shruti for personalism, even though shruti is by nature more difficult to understand that smriti. But Bhagavad-giitaa is clearly personalist from beginning to end, and you cannot accept it.

 

If you cannot even appreciate the obviously personalist thrust of the Giitaa, what makes you think you are going to recognize it in the shrutis?

 

Prabhuji, I am not being exclusive. I very much agree that as Srila Prabhupad is a guru, so are Ramana Maharishi or Swami Chandrasekharendra Saraswati. But GV and ISKCON definitely launches scathing attacks on advaita and even tends to create an impression that the philosophy of Sankara was wrong and has been conclusively proven

 

 

 

Advaitists launch scathing attacks on Vaishnavas. Vivekananda blames all the wars of the world on Dvaita. Chinmayananda says that Bhakti is for people of poor intelligence. The list goes on and on, yet I notice that you don't take issue with them. Why the double standard, Karthik?

 

At least Gaudiiya Vaishnava writings base their criticisms of Advaita on shaastric evidence. Most Advaitist criticism of Vaishnavism that I have seen is just sentimental bunk.

 

so many times over. I definitely believe that as SP sees the Supreme as Radha Krishna, sage Thirumular sees the same Supreme as Siva Shakti. But, ISKCON and GV have to necessarily rank them and declare that Siva is a demi-God. Indeed, some GV sannyasis even argue that Goddess Parvati is "after all a mere servant maid of Krishna". I am questioning this exclusiveness.

 

 

 

You say that Srila Prabhupada is a guru, but you reject those teachings of his which you cannot reconcile with your own personal views. This is not a very honest attitude.

 

You also object to the ranking of deities in the Vedas. But that ranking is also substantiated very EXPLICITLY by shruti:

 

agnirvai devaanamavamo viShNuH paramaH |

 

Agni is the lowest of all deities and Vishnu is the highest. (aitareya braahmaNa 1.1.1)

 

Now what do you have to say about this?

 

One should evaluate a philosophy's correctness by referring to shaastra. It is not that one picks the philosophy he likes, and then bends all the evidence to suit him.

 

Bhatajoy:

 

Vaishnavism is a more direct path.

 

I too think so. But for some, realizing Siva through the writings of sage Thirumular may be the direct path.

 

Ahh, the good old "It's correct if it is correct for you" philosophy. Where I'm from, we call that sentimentalism.

 

regards,

 

- K

 

Originally posted by karthik_v:

Krishnas:

There are many points in which Madhva's philosophy differs with the Gaudiiya one, and it is hardly honest to say that we accept everything which Madhva says.

 

Well the Madhva tradition has it that Madhvacarya had his work approved by Veda Vyasa himself. If we accept Vyasa as the authority how can we disagree with anything that Madvacarya has written?

 

 

Agreement and disagreement must be according to shaastra. Vedavyaasa approved of Madhva's Giitaa commentary, according to tradition. But that is not necessarily approval against an absolute standard; Krishna arranges for the truth to be revealed gradually, according to time, place, and circumstance. For his time, Madhva's staunchly dualistic concept was acceptable to begin refuting the predominantly impersonalist doctrines which existed.

 

Now again, this is a Gaudiiya view, which Maadhvas will not accept. I am just explaining how we can come in Madhva's paramparaa even though we differ philosophically.

 

 

Advaitists have said many nasty things about Vaishnavas for hundreds of years....

 

You quoted Swami Vivekananda, Chinmayananda etc., who are all from the 20th century. What about the advaitins of the earlier age?

 

 

You quoted ISKCON devotees, who are all from the 20th century. What about Gaudiiya Vaishnavas from earlier ages?

 

Has any distinduished acarya ever assailed an opposing school or its founder the way Madhva attacked Adi Sankara?

 

 

It is a politically-correct myth that Aadi Shankara did not assail any school of philosophy, and that he just peacefully settled in and accepted all other philosophies while simultaneously propagating his own.

 

It is well known among the scholarly Advaita community that Shankara wrote refutations of other Vedic systems of philosophy as well as Buddhism. Again, see the Advaita home page if you do not believe me:

 

"In addition to writing his own commentaries, Sankara sought out leaders of other schools, in order to engage them in debate. As per the accepted philosophical tradition in India, such debates helped to establish a new philosopher, and also to win disciples and converts from other schools. It was also traditional for the loser in the debate to become a disciple of the winner. Thus Sankara debated with Buddhist philosophers, with followers of sAm.khya and with pUrva mImAm.sakas, the followers of vedic ritualism, and proved more than capable in defeating all his opponents in debate. Sankara then sought out kumArila bhaTTa, the foremost proponent of the pUrva mImAm.sA in his age, but bhaTTa was on his deathbed and directed Sankara to viSvarUpa, his disciple. viSvarUpa is sometimes identified with maNDana miSra."

 

If none did that, then Vivekananda's accusation atleast has a bit of truth in it. I have never come across any advaitin who called any Vaishnava philosophy as "yellow stool". It seems that such attacks originated only from the GV/ISKCON side. Nor have I come across any advaitin who dedicates verse after verse and speech after speech in condemning another philosophy, as GV/ISKCON do. If anything, they just dismiss other schools as irrelevant.

 

It looks like GV/ISKCON badly need advaita to survive

Again, Karthik, I note the double standard in your thinking. On one hand, you don't want to hold Advaita responsible for the scathing, anti-Vaishnava remarks of modern-day Advaitins. But on the other hand, you hold Gaudiiya Vaishnavism responsible for some bad behavior on the part of neophyte, modern-day, ISKCON devotees.

 

yours,

 

- K