Guest guest Posted November 16, 2003 Report Share Posted November 16, 2003 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.