Sankara (was Response to ****)

[Guest guest]

achintya, Rajaram Venkataramani

<v_raja_ram> wrote:

 

> A mayavadi should agree with ALL of the following statements -

>

> a) the world is ilusory.

> b) the jiva is illusory.

> c) the lord is illusory.

> d) brahman is real.

 

Dear Rajaram,

 

I do not agree with your position that a mayavadi must agree with the

above points. For one thing, this is a very *arbitrary* definition.

It is not clear that this is the definition used by Prabhupada or

other Vaishnavas. For another thing, points (b) and © are a matter

of semantics. What does it mean to say the Lord and jiiva are

illusory? Mayavadis do accept that we exist, and that the Lord

exists, but they say that the perception of individuality and

difference is the illusion.

 

Actually, strictly speaking, a maayaavaadi is one who accepts only

point (a) - that the world is an illusion. It is only the case that

such people tend to also believe in only the reality of Brahman and

that individuality is due to illusion that such beliefs are also

lumped in as "maayavaadi."

 

> According to sankara's teaching, the lord is not illusory and

therefore Sankara cannot be called a mayavadi.

>

 

Again, phrases like "Lord is not illusory" are a matter of semantics.

Sankara accepts that Brahman is real, and on this point there is no

doubt.

 

> Unless you establish that Sankara is a mayavadi, how can you say

that Caitanya asked us to avoid sankara bhashya ?

>

 

A maayaavaadi is one who accepts that the world is illusion. Who else

besides Shankaraachaarya has commented in such a way on the Brahma-

suutra? By process of elimination we can understand that Caitanya was

referring to Shariiraka-bhaashya. If you feel it is not, please

provide a good case for another Vedaanta-suutra commentary that could

fit the bill. Simply pleading that it might not be Shankara is not

enough.

 

> He only advised us to avoid mayavada, which is a deviant

interpretation of Vedanta.

>

 

Right. And who offered that deviant interpretation prior to the time

of Sri Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu? Please give an answer.

 

> Why did Krishnadas Kaviraj not refer to Sankara by name ?

 

It probably has to do with the fact that Gaudiiya Vaishnavas

understand that Shankara is in fact an incarnation of Lord Shiva, and

thus a concealed devotee of Lord Vishnu. Krishnadas probably avoids

explicit mention of Shankara so as to direct the readers to reject

his philosophy rather than the person Shankara per se.

 

> Please also address the reason for difference in presentation of

Sarvabhauma incident in caitanya bhagavatha vs. Caitanya Caritamrta.>

 

If you could explain to me how that is relevant here, I suppose I

could.

 

Many Puraanas also differ with each other when retelling specific

historical events from antiquity, the Lakshmii svayamvara being a

notable example (see the Vishnu Puraana vs. Bhaagavata accounts).

This does not make either version suspect. Similarly, different

biographers have written differently on Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu's

pastimes to emphasize different points.

 

I don't think you will find any evidence from any Gaudiiya biographer

of a bias in favor of Shankara's philosophy. But by all means, please

feel free to enlighten me with explicit evidence. As I have said

earlier, Gaudiiyas do not take issue with Shankara's character, but

they very vigorously disagree with Advaita, and there is no doubt

amongst them as to who was the foremost proponent of Advaita in this

age.

 

> I dont know but I think Srila Prabhupada chose to attack Sankara by

name because most mayavadis claim their authority from Sankara. No

one anyway has access to Sankara bhashya as it is not translated but

by mayavadis.

>

 

Actually Srila Prabhupada never "attacked" Shankara at all. Though he

has often referred to the "maayaavaadi philosophy of Shankara" and so

on. Also, his commentary on BG 2.12 is a direct refutation of

Shankara's commentary of the same.

 

> You have chosen jumbled order of Sankara's verses, which is enough

to confuse one's understanding of the author.>

 

Feel free to examine the context if you wish. Vivekachuudaamani is

unmistakeably an Advaita/maayavaadi text. I only picked the verses

that are most illustrative.

 

> Apart from that, you have chosen mayavada interpretation of

Sankara's works but this mayavada interpretation can easily be shown

to be incorrect.>

 

Those were not "interpretations." They were straightforward Sanskrit.

Shankara clearly taught that (jiiva)aatma = Brahman, that the world

is illusion, that liberation is attained by right knowledge and

discrimination, that bhakti really means the attainment of such

things, etc.

 

We shouldn't be sentimental due to upbringing and try to redefine

what Shankaraachaarya has written. We can respect his scholarship and

character even if we disagree with his philosophy. I am also from a

Smaartha family originally, for whom Shankaraachaarya is an household

word and praising his greatness is instinctive.

 

> There are two mayavada interpretations of verse 202, one of which

you have considered. Please allow me to show why both these mayavada

interpretations are wrong.

>

> 1) Brahman = nirguna brahman; Atman = jivatman

> 2) Brahman = saguna brahman; Atman = jivatman

 

Shankara wrote:

 

vinivR^ittirbhavettasya samyagj~naanena naanyathaa |

brahmaatmaikatvavij~naana.m shrutermatam || 202 ||

 

Real knowledge is the cause of its destruction. Real knowledge is

that: Brahman and Aatman are one and the same. This is the sure

decision of the scripture. (vivekaachuuDaamaNi 202)

 

He makes no distinction in the above between "saguna" and "nirguna"

Brahman at all. The concept of a "saguna Brahman" is an oxymoron, as

Brahman is beyond all gunas.

 

> According to sankara a jivatman is illusory whereas the brahman is

real.>

 

First of all, you yourself are not quoting from Shankara though you

request us to do so. May I ask what texts of Shankara you are reading

in the original Sanskrit?

 

Secondly, you earlier stated that maayaavaadis take the jiiva to be

illusory, and then said that Shankara was not a preacher of

maayaavaada. But here you are clearly saying that Shankara believes

the jiiva to be illusion. So which is it?

 

> A jivatman is born and transmigrates whereas the brahman is unborn.

So Sankara would not equate them and such an interpretation produces

inconsistency within Sankara's works itself.>

 

It is inconsistent, but the problem is he said it in the text above.

What you have provided is a partial refutation, not an apology, for

it.

 

> This inconsistency is reconciled through a proper understanding of

Sankara is as follows :

>

> 3) Brahman = Lord; Atman = Nirguna Brahman.

>

> All that Sankara is saying in this verse is that the Supreme Lord

is the innermost Self of all.>

 

I'm sorry, Ram, but that is nothing more than your own

misinterpretation of Shankara's writing. Shankara says *nothing* in

the context of Vivekaachuudaamani -202 regarding Brahman as iishvara

and Aatman as Nirguna Brahman. This is only your own attempt to

reinterpret it so that it is not subject to the rightful criticism it

deserves.

 

If Shankara was referring to Iishvara as Brahman, then why would he

try to equate Brahman with Nirguna Brahman? One does not need to say

that a thing is itself - this is redundant. A relationship of

identity need only be stated if it is not clear.

 

I'm sorry, but the Aatma referred to here is the jiivaatmaa. Look at

the context and you will see that this is the only interpretation

that makes sense.

 

> Who can deny that Vasudeva is the Self of all ? This understanding

also has the side benefit of defeating the mayavadi interpretation

that the lord is inferior to nirguna brahman. Even the vaishnava

acharyas accept that the lord and His Self are the same. And that

Vasudeva is the innermost Self of All.

>

 

As I said before, I think you agree with the Vaishnava point of view

and are simply reinterpreting Shankara's writings out of bias of

upbringing.

 

I don't doubt we *could* reinterpret Shankara's words, but I doubt

that your reinterpretation is what he was trying to say. As per the

verses quoted from Padma Puraana, Lord Shiva would appear in the form

of a braahmana to mislead the people and thus increase the population

of Kali Yuga. He wasn't therefore trying to enlighten them on

Vaishnava principles.

 

maayaavaadamasachchaastra.mprachchanna.mbauddha uchyate |

mayaivakathita.mdevikalaubraahmaNaruupiNaa || Pa Pur 6.236.7 ||

 

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). (padma puraaNa, uttara-khaNDa, 236.7)

 

apaartha.mshrutivaakyaanaa.mdarshayanlokagarhitam |

svakarmmaruupa.mtyaajyatvamatraivapratipaadhyate || Pa Pur 6.236.8 ||

 

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. (padma puraaNa, uttara-khaNDa, 236.8)

 

sarvakarmmaparibhraShTairvaidharmmatva.mtaduchyate |

pareshajiivapaaraikya.mmayaatupratipaadhyate || Pa Pur 6.236.9 ||

 

And that is said to be religiousness by those who have fallen from

all duties. I have propounded the identity of the Highest Lord and

the (individual) soul. (padma PuraaNa, uttara-khaNDa, 236.9)

 

brahmaNosyasvaya.mruupa.mnirguNa.mvakshyate mayaa |

sarvasyajagatopyatramohanaartha.mkalauyuge || Pa Pur 6.236.10 ||

vedaarthavanmahaashaastra.mmaayayaayadavaidikam |

mayaivakalpita.mdevijagataa.nnaashakaaraNaat || Pa Pur 6.236.11 ||

 

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 236.10-11)

 

> In VC verse 32, Sankara defines devotion is to search the true

nature of one's Self. This you think is an impersonal or low-brow

definition of devotion. I dont know why.>

 

It's simple, really. The most straightforward definition of devotion

is selfless service performed to the Lord without any tinge of karma

or jnaana. This is the definition accepted by Rupa Gosvami and other

Gaudiiya Vaishnavas.

 

Shankara's definition:

 

svaatmatattvaanusandhaana.m bhaktirityapare jaguH |

uktasaadhanasa.mpannastattvajij~naasuraatmanaH |

upasiidedguru.m praaj~na.m yasmaadbandhavimokShaNam || 32 ||

 

In other words, devotion can be defined as the search for the reality

of one's own Aatman. The seeker after the reality of the Aatman, who

possesses the above mentioned qualifications, should approach an

illumined teacher from whom he can learn the way to liberation.

(vivekachuuDaamaNi 32)

 

....defines devotion as the search for understanding one's own Aatman

(svaatmatattva). Noe that Shankara refers here to *one's own* Aatman,

and not the Aatman who transcends all, or Paramaatmaa. Merely

understanding that one's self is superior to the body, and is not of

the nature of prakriti, is not bhakti; rather, this understanding is

preliminary to bhakti, which requires to unalloyed service to the

Lord of all.

 

Even the *search* for Paramaatmaa is not really bhakti. For devotees,

serving the Lord is more important than seeing Him.

 

> It is only because I exist that I seek answers to questions such as

Who Am I ? Who is My Lord ? etc. But one may ask how can seeking to

understand one's true nature be defined as devotion. Is it not merely

acquiring jnana that I am not this body ? And is not such a jnana is

a mere stepping stone to devotion, which is executed after I realize

my nature as a jiva ? This is what you ask. But Sankara does not

consider realizing one's nature as a jiva apart from matter and the

lord as the highest realization or jnana. His definition of jnana is

different and perhaps arguably deeper. He says, based on the Gita

(for e.g. BG 7.6) that jiva shakthi, though part of the higher nature

is subject to annihilation.>

 

First of all, BG 7.6 says no such thing. Secondly, it makes little

sense to suggest that something which is part of the higher nature is

subject to destruction, as BG 2.16 states clearly that those things

which are real have no dissolution.

 

Third, you aren't actually quoting Shankara at all, though you

request that we do so. You have alluded to some areas in his

commentary where you think he says what you want him to. Does he? You

have previously asserted that the translations of Shankara's writings

which I provided were biased by maayaavaada. How do I know your own

translations aren't biased by wishful thinking? You should quote the

exact Sanskrit and translation so we can judge.

 

> Therefore, jiva is illusory (BG 2.16). >

 

Again, BG 2.16 says no such thing. All it does is speak of two

categories of things, those which are eternal and those which are

temporary.

 

>Realizing that the jiva is illusory, who is the true Self ? This

higher jnana is stated by the mahavakyas.>

 

Vaishnavas do not accept the mahaavakya/alpavaakya classification

which Shankara has provided, especially as it seems to arbitrarily

emphasize only those statements most conducive to propping up his

siddhaanta and deemphasizing the rest.

 

> Sankara explains that the real Self is Vasudeva and but for Him,

there is none. >

 

And that, my friend, is monism. Either we don't exist and only

Vaasudeva does, or actually we are all Vaasudeva. No Vaishnava will

accept it.

 

>So, a bhagavath jnani, due to his detachment from illusory

> nature, surrenders his own illusory self at the feet of the

supreme lord and such a mahatma is very rare. (BG 7.19).>

 

This does not even make sense. If one's self is actually illusory,

then where is the question of him surrendering anything? If jiivas do

not exist because they are illusory, then who actually renders bhakti-

seva to Lord? Your position is self-contradictory.

 

> If you may choose to see, this definition leads to atma nivedanam,

which is the greatest act of devotion.>

 

Aatma-nivedanam does not refer to surrendering one's "illusory self,"

but rather in engaging one's self whole-heartedly in pleasing the

Lord. The idea of surrendering one's "illusory self" is actually

meaningless.

 

> The lord can use such a jnani as an instrument in the gross

material world for His service or award Him any one of the

liberation. The jnani has surendered and does not choose. The lord

also has stated that such a uttma bhakta/jnani is His own self

(7.18). The lord does not consider this jnana or this jnani as low-

class.

>

 

Again, this simply does not make sense. On one hand, the jiiva is

illusory, and yet he can be awarded liberation. So, Lord awards

liberation to illusions?

 

BG 7.18 does say that the jnaani is the one Krishna considers to be

His very self. Even in English one might speak of a loved one as his

very heart and soul. It does not imply monism. Besides, the jnaani

referred to in 7.18 is actually the devotee, and not the one who

merely studies the nature of the self -- see the verses immediately

prior: in 7.17 the Lord states that this jnaani is the one who

practices "nitya-yukta eka-bhaktir" or eternally engaged in only

devotion. If this jnaani is "nitya-yukta eka bhaktir," then he is

eternally distinct from the Lord, or else he cannot be nitya-yukta

eka bhaktir, now can he? Devotion requires a devotee and an object of

devotion. Surely this is common sense.

 

> jagat is mithya but not asatya. Also, bhakti is nitya. Writing on

how this is so will make the mail too long.

>

 

Jagat is false, and yet not false? That seems to me like meaningless

doublespeak.

 

yours,

 

K