Shankara

[Guest guest]

dear gerald -

 

hare krishna. as you had stated in another mail, shankara's teaching

is that vishnu is all pervading and transcendental. i am ignorant

any writing from shankara that considers vishnu as illusory. if you

tell me what you are talking about with direct reference (not that

of his interpreters or followers), we can discuss it.

 

as i understand, illusion is mithya or that which is not the

reality. reality itself is hard to define in the material world but

if you see an object, it appears to be something. but from a

different view point and on analysis it is different. for example,

the glass tumbler in human cognition appears to be a bundle of atoms

when analyzed through scientific knowledge. it is an illusory

because it is NOT what it appears to be.

 

in the same sense, a jivatma is illusory because it displays the

qualities of the lord such as independance, knowledge, eternality

and consciousness but does not in reality possess that. it is

subject to creation and destruction and is therefore not real. the

gross matter is the lower energy of the lord and the subtle matter

is the higher energy of the lord. only the lord is real and is

brahman of the vedanta.

 

this transcendental brahman or lord is not impersonal because

brahman is the the Self and therefore the only real person. the

infinite forms of vishnu such as vamana, parasurama are identified

are as vishnu based on the fact that they are vishnu tattva. in the

same sense, all the forms of the lord including his forms as a

servant is identical to the lord due to the fact that he is brahman.

 

your servant

rajaram v.

[Guest guest]

Dear Rajaram You are blurring the clear distinctions between Advaita,

Vaishnavism, and "NeoVedanta" which is discussed clearly in my article at

http://www.iskcon.com/icj/7_2/72surya.htmlThere is no doubt about the fact that

in Shankara's Advaita philosophy, Lord Vishnu is the Supreme Personality: In his

Gita commentary (13.2), isvara is identified with Visnu: isvarasya visnoh.

Another identification occurs in Vedanta-sutra 2.2.42, where he accepts the

Pancaratra teaching that Narayana is "higher than the undeveloped, the highest

Self and the Self of all" and is the source of innumerable expansions. (See

also similar acknowledgements in his comments to Vedanta-sutra 1.4.1, 1.4.3 and

Gita 15.6.) In Vedanta-sutra 4.3.10, Sankaracarya refers to Visnu's abode as the

highest: "the souls proceed to what is higher than [the world of Brahma], i.e.

to the pure highest place of Visnu" (param parisuddham visnoh paramam padam

pratipadyante). See also the similar references in his comments to 1.4.1-4,

3.3.15. So does all this evidence mean that Shankara is a Vaishnava like

Ramanuja, Madhva and Srila Prabhupada? Well, the *problem* is that Vishnu's

supremacy is only in the *vyavaharika* stage. The *goal* of Advaita is the

*paramarthika* stage of absolute identity or impersonalism: In Shankara's Gita

bhasya 2.12, Krishna's transcendental body is lumped together with those of

others as objects in a lower stage of reality: "The plural number (in we) is

used following the diversity of the bodies, but not in the sense of the

multiplicity of the Self." The "Self" (atma) is clearly beyond the "we"

(which includes the individuality of the souls and Vishnu's all-pervading

spiritual body).

 

Therefore, all references to Advaita accepting Vishnu's supremacy relative to

the vyavaharika stage clearly contradicts Vaishnavism which accepts Vishnu's

supremacy as unconditional and absolute. The attempt to blur the distinction

between these two viewpoints is sloppy and produces a third and very defective

viewpoint which may be called "Neo Vedanta". The attempt by some others to

confuse NeoVedanta and Vaishnavism is yet another example of sloppy philosophy.

 

Regards Gerald Surya

[Guest guest]

Dear Gerald -

 

Hare Krishna. Please accept my humble obeisances.

 

Your scholarly writing just points to one eternal truth. To

understand an acharya, mere knowledge is not enough but you need

guru bhakti. I would suggest you read Totakashtakam. It is rather

harsh to say that Krishna's body is lumped together with the flesh

and blood that we are made of by a great devotee such as Sankara.

Anyway, please allow me to defend Sankara with respect to your

attack of his purport to 2.12. For brevity, I am just focussing on

your criticism of Sankara's opinion wrt Krishna's divya sariram

without trying to show why the verse does not unequivocally

establish duality as vaishnavas claim.

 

At the start of his purport to 2.12, Sankara clarifies that "When

the bodies were born and died in the past, Vishnu existed

eternally". atiteshu dehotpAtthivinasho shu gatadhi shu viyAdhi va

nitya eva aha mAsAmityAbhiprAyah. This is also consistent with how

he describes Vishnu's body in later parts of sariraka bhashya.

 

dehe bheda nu vrtyA bhahu: vacanam nAtmabhedAbhiprAyE Na. The

plurality is to indicate the multipliciplity of the body not the

Self. Here, most translators add we but that is not in Sankara's

bhashya. The plurality here only refers to the bodies of the mortal

beings such as kings.

 

> Therefore, all references to Advaita accepting Vishnu's supremacy

> relative to the vyavaharika stage clearly contradicts Vaishnavism

> which accepts Vishnu's supremacy as unconditional and absolute.

>The attempt to blur the distinction between these two viewpoints

>is sloppy and produces a third and very defective viewpoint which

>may be called "Neo Vedanta". The attempt by some others to

> confuse NeoVedanta and Vaishnavism is yet another example of

>sloppy philosophy.

 

 

Please establish that Sankara does not accept Vishnu's absolute

supremacy based on his works. Let us discuss that cover to cover to

see if Sankara's commentary is doing any injustice to the lord. If I

am defeated, I will come and preach gaudiya siddhanta

wholeheartedly. I already do whatever I agree with. If you lose, you

come with me to re-establish Sankara's works. Learn to perform

samskarams and live the life of a vaidhika brahmana.

 

> Regards

>

> Gerald Surya

[Guest guest]

It is rather harsh to say that Krishna's body is lumped together with the flesh

and blood that we are made of by a great devotee such as Sankara. Anyway, please

allow me to defend Sankara with respect to your attack of his purport to 2.12.

Please don't misunderstand my original statement. Krishna's body is spiritual

even according to Shankara, however it is in the realm of multiplicity.

Krishna's body does not exist in a vacuum. Shankara admits that He exists in

His paramam padam, beyond matter. All this indicates variety and multiplicity.

Unfortunately this spiritual variety is confined to vyavaharika stage in

Shankara's ontology.

At the start of his purport to 2.12, Sankara clarifies that "When the bodies

were born and died in the past, Vishnu existed eternally". atiteshu

dehotpAtthivinasho shu gatadhi shu viyAdhi va nitya eva aha mAsAmityAbhiprAyah.

This is also consistent with how he describes Vishnu's body in later parts of

sariraka bhashya.

No problem here. I never said that Sankara teaches that Vishnu's body is made of matter (jaDa).

dehe bheda nu vrtyA bhahu: vacanam nAtmabhedAbhiprAyE Na. The plurality is to

indicate the multipliciplity of the body not the Self. Here, most translators

add we but that is not in Sankara's bhashya. The plurality here only refers to

the bodies of the mortal beings such as kings.

First of all, the plurality spoken of in the verse itself refers to all

entities: Krishna and the kings (sarve vayam ataH paraM). How can Shankara's

discussion only be referring to the kings, when Krishna Himself and Arjuna are

included in the list of entities for discussion within the verse itself? Your

narrow interpretration of Shankara's comments on 2.12 leaves his viewpoint

unclear on the status of Krishna and Arjuna. Are there really three souls:

Krishna, Arjuna's soul, and the collective kings' souls? Or are they all one?

On the other hand, I would suggest the following: for the sake of *transition

only* from the previous verse 2.11, Shankara's opening sentences of his

comments refers to the material bodies of the kings (e.g. Bhishma, Drona), who

are not to be grieved for. However, the multiplicity through the middle and end

of the passage naturally reflects the subjects of the present verse 2.12

comprehensively including the bodies and identities of Arjuna and Krishna as

well. Therefore, Shankara is clearly accepting Krishna (and the mutual

distinctions between Krishna, Arjuna, and the kings) as being in the lower

reality only. If we take plurality in this way, the Shankara's viewpoint is

clear: all the entities (Krishna, Arjuna, the kings souls) are all a single

entity in the paramarthika stage of reality.

Please establish that Sankara does not accept Vishnu's absolute supremacy based

on his works. Let us discuss that cover to cover to see if Sankara's commentary

is doing any injustice to the lord. If I am defeated, I will come and preach

gaudiya siddhanta wholeheartedly. I already do whatever I agree with. If you

lose, you come with me to re-establish Sankara's works. Learn to perform

samskarams and live the life of a vaidhika brahmana.

I accept! In the present discussion of verse 2.12, Vishnu's individual identity

is accepted only in the vyavahara level. Therefore His supremacy, according to

Shankara, is conditional within that level.

> Therefore, all references to Advaita accepting Vishnu's supremacy > relative

to the vyavaharika stage clearly contradicts Vaishnavism > which accepts

Vishnu's supremacy as unconditional and absolute. >The attempt to blur the

distinction between these two viewpoints >is sloppy and produces a third and

very defective viewpoint which >may be called "Neo Vedanta". The attempt by

some others to > confuse NeoVedanta and Vaishnavism is yet another example of

>sloppy philosophy.

Regards

Gerald S

Note- For reference, here is Swami Gambhirananda's translation of Shankara's comments to 2.12:

 

2.12 Why are they not to be grieved for? Because they are eternal. How? Na tu

eva, but certainly it is not (a fact); that jatu, at any time; aham, I ; na

asam, did not exist; on the contrary, I did exist. The idea is that when the

bodies were born or died in the past, I existed eternally. [Here Ast. adds

ghatadisu viyadiva, like Space in pot etc.-Tr.] Similarly, na tvam, nor is it

that you did not exist; but you surely existed. Ca, and so also; na ime, nor is

it that these ; jana-adhipah, rulers of men, did not exist. On the other hand,

they did exist. And similarly, na eva, it is surely not that; vayam, we; sarve,

all; na bhavisyamah, shall cease to exist; atah param, after this, even after

the destruction of this body. On the contrary, we shall exist. The meaning is

that even in all the three times (past, present and future) we are eternal in

our nature as the Self. The plural number (in we) is used following the

diversity of the bodies, but not in the sense of the multiplicity of the Self.