Clarifications On Padma Purana

[Guest guest]

Dear krishna_susarla,

Hare krishna. Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to sri guru and sri govinda.

You seem to be firmly convinced that i am sentimentally attached to sankara due

to my Smartha Brahmin background. I would like to assure you that i am open to

truth and hope you are. As the discussion is becoming too long, I would

suggest that we break the discussion in to four parts

1) Clarifications on Padma Purana evidence of Siva revealing the truth about

Sankara’s purpose in teaching advaitam.

2) Discussion on the gaudiya position on sankara by different acharyas from the time of caitanya

3) Discussion on Viveka Chudamani or any other work of Sankara that you consider

is not in line with sastras.

4) Discussion on the Vedic support to the Theory Of Illusion

In this mail, I would like to seek clarifications on the Padma Purana Evidence.

Padma Purana evidence:

 

Unlike the samhitas, which are identical across recensions puranas are not and

their authenticity should be verified before taking major decisions such as

criticizing Sankara’s commentary. This is not to say that Puranas are not

scriptures but though they are scriptures they are subject to interpolation.

1) Please see the "History of Indian Literature" by M Winternitz and

"History of Sanskrit Literature" by the eminent scholar P S S Sastri. Here is

the summary paraphrased: "There are 2 recensions of Padma Purana. Neither of

them has come down in any reliable redaction. One of them has 5 cantos, while

the latter of the 2 has 6. The extra canto is called Uttara khanda." The verses

quoted are from Uttara khanda of Padma Purana and please tell me why you

consider it authentic and not an interpolation. 2) Was Padma Purana

transmitted through any parampara? If so, are there any gaudiya or other

Vaishnava acharya commentary on the same? 3) Has any acharya before Srila

Prabhupada quoted these verses within the gaudiya sampradaya? If so, when and

where? 4) Why did Ramanujacharya not quote these verses? His purpose was to

defeat Sankara and the easiest way is to point out Siva’s own words. 5)

Madhwacharya was noted for quoting verses that were not extant

during his time. Did he at least quote these verses? 6) Before Sankara also,

there were different teachers of advaitam? How is this explained in the

context of these verses? 7)

Roman'"> As you also accepted, Sankara belongs to a branch of Brahma

Sampradaya. There is no evidence that he taught anything different from his

guru Govinda Bhagavath Padal. How is this invention theory proposed in Padma

Purana explained in this context? 8) Are all pats of Padma Purana acceptable

verbatim to you? Thank you for your patience.

Yours humblyRajaram V.

 

Protect your identity with Mail AddressGuard

[Guest guest]

achintya, Rajaram Venkataramani

<v_raja_ram> wrote:

>

> Dear krishna_susarla,

>

> Hare krishna. Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to

sri guru and sri govinda.

>

> You seem to be firmly convinced that i am sentimentally attached to

> sankara due to my Smartha Brahmin background. I would like to

> assure you that i am open to truth and hope you are. As the

> discussion is becoming too long, I would suggest that we break the

> discussion in to four parts

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

I am very glad that you have joined our list. I am really really very

happy. Its my habbit to counter question my own belief that is the

principles of Gaudiya Vaishnaivism. This is also the trait found in

our tattva acarya Sri Jiva Goswami, who is so busy thinking of

objections raised from oppositions point of view. I am very open to

truth, however I shall tell you that whenever I have thought of an

counter agruement to a Gaudiya Vaishnava principle I have always

found a more convincing answer in the works of acarya definately by

grace of Sri Guru and Lord Krishna, which inturn strenghten my faith

in the sampradya. Still, I repeat that I am open to the truth.

 

So its my pleasure to hear to you and debate with you. Kindly stay

here and give me the oppurtunity of engaging in this debate. Please

accept my humble obesiances unto you.

 

Excellent points. Lets divide the discussion as you suggested.

 

The padma purana verses you are talking about are unique to Gaudiya

Sampradya only. They haven't been quoted by anyone else. All other

vaishnavas sampradya don't think of Sankara as Shiva incarnate.

Neither they quote these verses. One great problem with Purana is

that no one knows there integrity with one exception of Bhagavata

Purana and if memory serves me right Vishnu Purana. There is no

sampradyaic commentary on different puranas. This is one of the chief

reason why they become lost of changed.

 

> In this mail, I would like to seek clarifications on the Padma

Purana Evidence.

>

> Padma Purana evidence:

 

> Unlike the samhitas, which are identical across recensions puranas

>are not and their authenticity should be verified before taking

>major decisions such as criticizing Sankara's commentary. This

is

>not to say that Puranas are not scriptures but though they are

>scriptures they are subject to interpolation.

 

 

>>>>>> 1) Please see the "History of Indian Literature" by M

Winternitz and "History of Sanskrit Literature" by the eminent

scholar P S S Sastri. Here is the summary paraphrased: "There are 2

recensions of Padma Purana. Neither of them has come down in any

reliable redaction. One of them has 5 cantos, while the latter of the

2 has 6. The extra canto is called Uttara khanda." The verses quoted

are from Uttara khanda of Padma Purana and please tell me why you

consider it authentic and not an interpolation. <<<<<<

 

Frankly telling you its very hard for me to defend this. I accepted

those on authority of previous acarya of our Sampradya. To tell

whether they are interpolation or not is very very difficult, infact

impossible for a person like me. Infact there is no way to note

interpolation in purana in my opinion. Purana doesn't have those

techniques built in the four veda which at once notify people of an

interpolation. Purana do differ from yuga to yuga also, because lila

of Lord differs though he is in same avatar, hence purana are not

rigid.

 

Puranas change according to kalpa-bheda. It is for this reason that

we find occasional differencies in certain editions of the Puranas.

 

The eighteen Puranas and eighteen Upa-Puranas are a vast body of

literature and there are so many different versions that it is

difficult to know which editions are complete and which texts have

been interpolated. This is due to the fact that there are no current

disciplic schools nor bona-fide commentaries for most of these works.

 

However, I will ask you not to refer to or take mundane sanskrit

scholars of any degree of fame seriously. There are so many famous

sanskrit scholars including famous indologist we know of who give

different and conflicting dates about origin of Veda. To any school

of vedanta this is matter to simply laught at. Finding date of an

eternal entity.

 

If you want to criticize or question any Gaudiya belief then ask

questions based on works of other sampradya or those in line of other

sampradya. We should be more bothered about those who actually

understand the scriptures[traditional schools of vedic thought] or

those scholars who follow them like OBL Kapoor, BNK Sharma, KT

Pandurangi etc.......... Lets not debate on basis of mundane scholars

and so called vedantins.

 

also, following verses from Padma Purana uttara khanda are accepted

valid by all five school of Vaishnava thought:

 

Padma Purana (Uttara Khanda 236.18-21):

" O beautiful lady, one should know that the Visnu, Naradiya,

Bhagavata, Garuda, Padma and Varaha are all in the mode of goodness.

The Brahmanda, Brahma-vaivarta, Markandeya, Bhavisya, Vamana and

Brahma are in the mode of passion. The Matsya, Kurma, Linga, Siva,

Skanda and Agni are in the mode of ignorance."

 

So does this still means that entire uttara khanda is interpolated ?

I have given you the idea of different editions of puranas due to

kalpa bheda.

 

>>>>> 2) Was Padma Purana transmitted through any parampara? If

so, are there any gaudiya or other Vaishnava acharya commentary on

the same? <<<<

 

There is no known commentary written on padma purana in Gaudiya

Sampradya or for that matter any other Sampradya in my knowledge. I

can be incorrect.

 

 

>>>> 3) Has any acharya before Srila Prabhupada quoted these

verses within the gaudiya sampradaya? If so, when and where? <<<<

 

Well within Gaudiya Sampradya these verses are pretty common since

they are said to be used by Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, himself.

 

 

>>>>> 4) Why did Ramanujacharya not quote these verses? His

purpose was to defeat Sankara and the easiest way is to point out

Siva's own words. <<<<<

 

To defeat Sankara Gaudiyas don't just quote these verses. They have

defeated it soundly in Govinda bhashya and Sat Sandarbha. Ramanuja

also never quoted Bhagavata, that doesn't mean that bhagavata was non

existent at his time and suddenly popped up into scene with advent of

Madhva. However, Sankara acarya is not regarded as Shiva's

incarnation by Madhva or Ramanuja.

 

Now my question to you:

 

Advaitins hold sanakra as Shiva incarnate, which verses they quote in

support of their view ?

 

 

>>>> 5) Madhwacharya was noted for quoting verses that were not

extant during his time. Did he at least quote these verses? <<<<<

 

Madhva acarya doesn't quotes these verses, yet if memory serves me

right both sri vaishnava and madhva school accuses sankara's school

of being prachanna baudhism. Something which gets sastric support in

verses of padma purana quoted by Gaudiyas. Yet ramanuja or madhva

never quoted those verses.

 

 

>>>>> 6) Before Sankara also, there were different teachers of

advaitam? How is this explained in the context of these verses?

<<<<

 

I am sure some one on this list can answer this.

 

 

>>>>> 7) As you also accepted, Sankara belongs to a branch of Brahma

Sampradaya. There is no evidence that he taught anything different

from his guru Govinda Bhagavath Padal. How is this invention theory

proposed in Padma Purana explained in this context?

<<<<<

 

Don't know the answer.

 

>>>>> 8) Are all pats of Padma Purana acceptable verbatim to you ?

<<<<<

 

Well those which fit in well the principles of Vedanta as taught in

prashan traya and bhagavata will be acceptable.

 

thanks for bringing up this topic.

 

Before going any further let me also point out that:

 

That at the time when our acaryas and Mahaprabhu quoted

such `spurious' books and verses to establish Sankara's

mayavada

link, no anti-party or for that matter great learned scholars who Sri

Chaitanya debated against came forward to deny the authenticity of

these quotes and their origin. What does that speak of the

autheticity of these verses ? I want to know your opinion. Similarly,

in the time of Madhva the sources of his scriptural references were

never disputed by his opponents.

 

And please remember " For acaryas to quote from fictitious scriptures

when living in an environment of highly learned panditas, seems both

incredulous and highly improbable. Therefore we may surmise from this

that many of these unknown books were lost in time, including

editions of puranas which are different to those we are familiar with

today."

 

Quoting spurious verses while living in an environment where each

school is under the scrutiny of the others is very very unlikely.

Give me one good reason why will any acarya faithfull to Lord or

Vedas will do that.

 

Infact before even discussing advaita and vaishnava school of

thoughts i want to discuss with you the issue of divinity of Sri

Chaitanya.

 

Hence I want to request you to post your views on divinity of Sri

Chaitanya. I guess for the first time in Vedic history pure devotees

of Lord like Ramanuja and his followers, Madhva and his followers,

Vallabha and his followers, Nimbarka and his followers are unable to

recognize Lord incarnate. I find it so difficult to understand that

why is that so ?

 

 

Your Servant Always

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

achintya, Rajaram Venkataramani

<v_raja_ram> wrote:

>

> Unlike the samhitas, which are identical across recensions puranas

are not and their authenticity should be verified before taking major

decisions such as criticizing Sankara's commentary. This is not to

say that Puranas are not scriptures but though they are scriptures

they are subject to interpolation.

>

 

I'm sorry, but I think I know exactly where this is leading. "Since

it's a Puraana, it's only a smriti, and thus we can reject it as

interpolation if it's not convenient for the genesis of our

theories." Let me be very frank in saying that I will reject anything

that even smacks of such arbitrary and unscholarly wrangling.

 

>

> 1) Please see the "History of Indian Literature" by M Winternitz

and "History of Sanskrit Literature" by the eminent scholar P S S

Sastri. Here is the summary paraphrased: "There are 2 recensions of

Padma Purana. Neither of them has come down in any reliable

redaction. One of them has 5 cantos, while the latter of the 2 has 6.

The extra canto is called Uttara khanda." The verses quoted are from

Uttara khanda of Padma Purana and please tell me why you consider it

authentic and not an interpolation.

>

 

It defeats the purpose of the Puraanas being available as scripture

if they are to be considered interpolation until proven otherwise.

Rather it should be the reverse that is true: Puraanas are *evidence*

until proven otherwise.

 

Everyone knows that Puraanas are meant to teach the essence of the

Vedas to those who don't have the qualification to study the shruti.

The idea that they are "interpolted until proven otherwise" defeats

this purpose.

 

What proof would satisfy you that the given sections are not

interpolated? "Interpolation" is just a criticism invented by those

who don't want to deal with evidence inconvenient to their position.

The Uttara-khanda verses I quoted are available in the Nag Publishers

edition, which is not sectarian in any way. Do you not find it odd

that verses you consider to be interpolated by Gaudiiya Vaishnavas

should nevertheless be found in non-Gaudiiya, non-Vaishnava secular

editions?

 

Some time ago, I looked up a textbook by one Bannerjee - I believe it

is called _Padma Purana: A Study_ or something like that. In it, he

listed various sections of the Uttara-khanda which were disputed

between different recensions. However, this section, containing Lord

Siva's condemnation of maayaavaada, was not one of them.

 

> 2) Was Padma Purana transmitted through any parampara? If so,

are there any gaudiya or other Vaishnava acharya commentary on the

same?

>

 

I'm not aware of any Vaishnava commentary on the Padma Puraana. I

hope you aren't trying to imply that it is only valid pramaana if

someone has commented on it.

 

As far as the paramparaa which has transmitted it, it is stated in

the Bhaagavatam that each section of the Vedas was entrusted to a

different sage, who in turn taught it to his disciples, etc. The

Puraanas I believe were given to Romaharshana. I'm not sure how the

transmission went from his line, as I have heard that each

sampradaaya has its own edition of the Puraanas - my guess is that

all of them were received from Romaharshana's line at some point.

 

Incidentally, you quoted one Winternitz on the unreliability of

transmission of Padma Puraana. May I know what his paramparaa is?

Since you have asked, it is only fair of us to cross-examine *your*

sources.

 

> 3) Has any acharya before Srila Prabhupada quoted these verses

within the gaudiya sampradaya? If so, when and where?

>

 

Srila Prabhupada quoted it in Teachings of Lord Caitanya in the

chapter on Mahaaprabhu's meeting with Prakaashaananda Sarasvati. I

suspect it was also quoted in Caitanya Caritamrta in the

corresponding section, either by Krishnadaasa Kaviraaja, or one of

the commentators after him and before Srila Prabhupada.

 

> 4) Why did Ramanujacharya not quote these verses? His purpose

was to defeat Sankara and the easiest way is to point out Siva's own

words.

>

 

Well, there are many verses which he did not quote - must all of them

be considered suspect as a result? Raamaanuja and Madhva had to

defeat Shankara using the pramaanas by which he attempted to

establish Advaita. It's no surprise that they also emphasized the

shruti as a result.

 

Incidentally, given your theory that Shankara is in fact a Vaishnava

and a personalist (and thus not a maayaavaadi), does it not trouble

you that two of the foremost scholars of that general time period --

Raamaanuja and Madhva, did not see it your way and instead proceeded

to dismantle his philosophy in favor of their own philosophical

positions? By contrast, I don't see nearly as much attempt on

Madhva's part to refute Raamaanuja.

 

Do you feel you have a more correct understanding of Shankara, and

that even Raamaanuja and Madhva have not gotten him right? I am

really curious to know.

 

> 5) Madhwacharya was noted for quoting verses that were not

extant during his time. Did he at least quote these verses?

>

 

Not to my knowledge. As mentioned before, Madhva and Raamaanuja were

trying to beat Shankara at his own game. One can find thousands and

thousands of Puraanic verses which neither of them got around to

quoting from - this does not cast doubt on their authenticity.

 

> 6) Before Sankara also, there were different teachers of

advaitam? How is this explained in the context of these verses?

>

 

Common sense. Who is most known for propagating Advaita? The other

teachers, or Shankara?

 

> 7) As you also accepted, Sankara belongs to a branch of Brahma

Sampradaya. There is no evidence that he taught anything different

from his guru Govinda Bhagavath Padal. How is this invention theory

proposed in Padma Purana explained in this context?

>

 

Shankara's sampradaaya descends from Vyaasa. Here is the listing

given on Vidya's Advaita Home Page:

 

nArAyaNa

padmabhuva (brahmA)

vasishTha

Sakti

parASara

vyAsa

Suka

gauDapAda

govinda bhagavatpAda

SankarAcArya

 

Now, it is obvious that somewhere after Vyaasa there has been a break

in the teaching of the siddhaanta. Vyaasa's magnum opus is Shriimad

Bhaagavatam, and Shriimad Bhaagavatam most certainly does not teach

Advaita. This makes Shankara's point of view (as described in his

Bhagavad-giitaa bhaashya and Vivekaachuudaamani) at least different

from Vyaasa - his alleged guru's guru's guru's guru.

 

All that is said by Lord Shiva in the Padma Puraana is that he would

propagate this maayaavaada philosophy in Kali Yuga. It did not say

that he invented that philosophy in the form of a braahamana, only

that he propagated it. Of course, being a major deity, he could

probably accomplish the act of creating something through an agent,

only to incarnate as that person's disciple's disciple to spread it.

But either way the point is moot.

 

> 8) Are all pats of Padma Purana acceptable verbatim to you?

>

 

I am not oblivious to the possibility that there *might* be

interpolation in *some* sections of *some* Puraanas. I simply object

to the logic that "this does not fit my theory, so it has to be

interpolation."

 

In my view, reasonable doubt about something being interpolated could

be maintained if it could be shown that:

(1) the sections in question existed in only a small minority of

total recensions, of which other, more obviously authentic ones did

not contain the sections in question,

(2) it expressed something contradictory to shruti, and

(3) it does not fit within the local context within which it is found.

 

These are just a few guidelines I can think of off the top of my

head. There might be others as well. My point is, don't reject things

*blindly.*

 

yours,

 

K

[Guest guest]

achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981> wrote:

 

> Madhva. However, Sankara acarya is not regarded as Shiva's

> incarnation by Madhva or Ramanuja.

 

Truthfully, I don't know how Madhva and Raamaanuja regard Shiva. I

believe Naaraayana Panditaachaarya (one of Madhva's biographers) has

quoted one Garuda Puraana in his Mani-Manjari to the effect that

Shankaraachaarya is a demon named Manimaan who was empowered by Shiva

to spread Advaita.

 

I do have a Tenkalai Sri Vaishnava friend who is familiar with the

Padma Puraana verses in question and does accept that Sri Shankara is

an incarnation of Shiva. I don't think this is based on Gaudiiya

influence, but rather something he heard from his guru, the Chinnya

Jeeyar Swami.

 

Anyway, I'm fairly certain these Padma Puraana verses are NOT

specific to the Gaudiiya editions. As I mentioned before, I found

these verses in the Nag Publishers edition (which is in turn based on

the Venkateshwara Steam Press edition).

[Guest guest]

hare krishna. please accept my humble obeisances. all glories to sri

guru and sri govinda.

 

This is all fine for a superficial debate. First of all, please

resolve if Sankara is Lord Siva or a Demon. This is a difference of

opinion within two acharyas in the same Brahma-Madhwa-Gaudiya

Sampradaya.

 

No one can establish interpolation 100% unless the interpolator is a

great fool. But if Uttara Khanda is considered an interpolation and

was never purported by an acharya before, it can not to be used to

just write-off Sankara.

 

BTW, Sankara is not pracanna bauddham. It accepts the lord, the

soul, spiritual planets etc. Does Buddhism ? The only common points

are karma and maya but even there the notions are remarkably

different because the buddhists dont accept divine hand.

 

 

your servant

rajaram v.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram> wrote:

> hare krishna. please accept my humble obeisances. all glories to

sri

> guru and sri govinda.

 

Raja Ram, hare krishna Please accept my humble obesiances

 

> This is all fine for a superficial debate. First of all, please

> resolve if Sankara is Lord Siva or a Demon. This is a difference of

> opinion within two acharyas in the same Brahma-Madhwa-Gaudiya

> Sampradaya.

 

Well the problem is with so many editions of purana available and

differences in Purana there is difference in various claims. Now this

is bad that we cannot even have standard view on Sankara. Both

Ramanuja and Madhva oppose Sankara but when such verses are

introduced, then it is said by their present followers, well this is

Gaudiya view of Sankara. We have nothing to do with that.

 

So the situation is:

 

1) Madhva call him a demon empowered by Lord Shiva. They base it on

some purana. I wonder how come a demon is writing poems like

Govindastaka.

 

2) Gaudiya call him Lord Shiva appearing on order of Lord Vishnu.

Ramanujaites and Madhvaites will disagree.

 

3) Sankaraacarya followers think of him as Shiva's incarnation but

there is no proof that I have seen from there side.

 

All this is because of varieties in Purana. I must say that I agree

that there is interpolation in Purana but its hard to say what is

iterpolation and what is not. Madhvaites will hold strong to their

view, so will ramanujaites and so will gaudiyas.

 

If you want one answer, then there is none. Each one will support

their view. Between relation between madhva and Gaudiya isn't that of

absolute philosophical oneness, consider gaudiya more of a branch of

madhav tree. There are differences between us.

 

Its a very common belief that many vaishnavas so proudly say:

 

acarya is free from four defects of mankind.

 

but when you encounter situation like this then it becomes hard to

agree that all acaryas are free from four defects of mankind. But

then question arises who is that acarya who is still defective and

you should know the rest............... how situation will become if

you point a figer at particular person.

 

Please contribute to my post differences amongst vaishnavas which is

meant to address such differences only. We can't neglect it.

 

 

Your Servant Always

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram> wrote:

 

> This is all fine for a superficial debate. First of all, please

> resolve if Sankara is Lord Siva or a Demon.

 

I will do no such thing, because all you are doing is delaying the

inevitable. What we were originally discussing here is whether or not

Shankara's philosophy as he taught it is compatible with Vaishnava

point of view. You are getting caught up on tangential issues with no

bearing on the fact that the Advaita of Shankaraachaarya is

incompatible with Vaishnavism. Whether Shankaraachaarya is a demon or

Lord Shiva has no bearing on this. It could be an issue of kalpa-

bheda, but that's moot.

 

You still have not provided a very reasonable interpretation at all

of what Shankaraachaarya has written regarding the identity of aatma

and brahman. All you have done is to provide your own

interpretations, which are themselves not straightforward or

consistent. Furthermore, while you take issues with the translations

offered by maayaavaadiis on Shankara's writings, I have yet to see

you parse out the Sanskrit and show exactly how their translations

are in error. This leads me to believe that you find their

translations acceptable, but that you do not agree with what Shankara

himself is saying.

 

This is a difference of

> opinion within two acharyas in the same Brahma-Madhwa-Gaudiya

> Sampradaya.

 

It's not the first, and it certainly is not the last. But none of

that changes the fact that Maadhvas and Gaudiiyas both find much to

object to in the philosophy of Shrii Shankaraachaarya.

 

> No one can establish interpolation 100% unless the interpolator is

a

> great fool. But if Uttara Khanda is considered an interpolation and

> was never purported by an acharya before, it can not to be used to

> just write-off Sankara.

 

First of all, this is nothing more than an excuse to avoid

inconvenient evidence. Shankaraachaarya himself has quoted Puraanas.

Why is it only interpolation when the Puraanas disagree with his

point of view?

 

I never stated that Uttara-khanda is considered interpolation. I

alluded to a scholar named Bannerjee who thought that some sections

of Uttara-khanda were interpolated. He may or may not be wrong on

this point. But even he never included the "maayaavaada" adhyaaya in

his list of suspected interpolations.

 

Finally, I was prepared to discuss the validity of Shankaraachaarya's

philosophy with direct reference to his writings, but this was not

acceptable to you. I only provided the Padma Puraana verses to show

that maayaavaada is not acceptable to Vaishnavas, as it is nothing

more than veiled Buddhism. Why did this strike a nerve with you? Is

it because you know, despite your objections, that what

Shankaraachaarya taught is in fact maayaavaada?

 

> BTW, Sankara is not pracanna bauddham.

 

Maayaavaada is prachanna bauddhaH. This is the statement of Lord

Shiva in Padma Puraana, which you have so far provided no good reason

for us to reject. Innuendo to the effec that there might be

interpolation somewhere doesn't cut it.

 

Shankaraachaarya may be a closet devotee of Vishnu, but that does not

change the fact that he taught maayaavaada.

 

It accepts the lord, the

> soul, spiritual planets etc. Does Buddhism ? The only common points

> are karma and maya but even there the notions are remarkably

> different because the buddhists dont accept divine hand.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "accepts the Lord, the soul etc." As

Gerald has rightfully pointed out, the reality of these things is

only accepted on the vyavahaarika stage, but not on the paramaarthika

stage.

 

Buddhists do not accept the reality of variegated manifestations in

the spiritual world, nor do they accept the reality of Brahman.

Shankaraachaarya accepts Brahman, but does not accept that Brahman

retains personality on the spiritual platform. Hence, it is really

nothing more than pracchana bauddhaH. Of course, there are

differences between Advaita and Buddhism, but ultimately both are

dry, impersonalist philosophies which deny the reality of the Supreme

Personality and bhakti-seva.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981> wrote:

> Well the problem is with so many editions of purana available and

> differences in Purana there is difference in various claims. Now

this

> is bad that we cannot even have standard view on Sankara. Both

> Ramanuja and Madhva oppose Sankara but when such verses are

> introduced, then it is said by their present followers, well this

is

> Gaudiya view of Sankara. We have nothing to do with that.

 

Pardon me for pulling you both back for a minute, but the Vaishnavas'

opposition to Shankara originally has nothing to do with the Padma

Puraana verses describing maayaavaada. Vaishnavas object to Shankara

based on how he has commented on the Upanishads, Bhagavad-giitaa, and

Vedaanta-suutra. What the Padma Puraana says about Shankara is merely

an aside - had I known Ram would have made such a huge issue out of

it and divert away us from what Shankara actually wrote, I would not

have bothered to mention it at all.

 

> So the situation is:

>

> 1) Madhva call him a demon empowered by Lord Shiva. They base it on

> some purana. I wonder how come a demon is writing poems like

> Govindastaka.

 

Madhva does not, AFAIK, refer to Shankara as a demon. It was

Naaraayana Panditaachaarya (Madhva's biographer) who wrote this. I

got this information from Krishna Normadeva on one of the

www.hindunet.org forums - he even provided a Garuda Puraana quote to

this effect. I have not had a chance to verify this quote, but

assuming it to be true, it shows a difference of opinion with respect

to Padma Puraana. This can only be due to 2 reasons:

 

1) One or both of the sources is interpolated.

2) Both are correct, but have kalpa bheda.

 

As far as position #1 is concerned, merely pointing out the

difference is not enough to prove or even reasonably support the

theory of interpolation. Many, many, many histories are described

differently in different Puraanas, sometimes in complementary ways,

and other times in mutually exclusive ways. Traditionally such

differences are attributed to kalpa-bheda. Someone actually suggested

to me that this was not enough, and that we had to have explicit

shaastric pramaana to prove that the pramaanas were valid and have

kalpa-bheda. So in other words, this gentlemen wants us to believe

that you must first have pramaana A and pramaana B which are

different, and furthermore a third pramaana C which refers to

pramaana A and pramaana B and validates both of them as kalpa-bheda.

Now, I for one have never seen an example of such a reconciliatory

statement in the Puraanas. Furthermore, the irony is not lost on me

of someone who would, by default, reject both pramaana A and pramaana

B because of personal bias, and yet require a pramaana C to reconcile

them. So if we provide it, why should he accept that?

 

Maayaavaadis are not unfamiliar with the process of reconciling

apparently contradictory statements in different shrutis. That they

should suddenly plead inability to do so in this case is wholly

unconvincing. Besides, who Shankara is (Shiva incarnate vs a demon

incarnate) will not change the fact that Shankara's writings are

fundamentally at odds with many basic Vaishnava beliefs.

 

> 2) Gaudiya call him Lord Shiva appearing on order of Lord Vishnu.

> Ramanujaites and Madhvaites will disagree.

 

I'm not aware that followers of Raamaanuja agree or disagree with

this position. Can you substantiate your view on this?

 

> 3) Sankaraacarya followers think of him as Shiva's incarnation but

> there is no proof that I have seen from there side.

 

I recall that he was glorified as such by one of the hymns of Totaka.

Anand Hudli, long time ago on soc.religion.vaishnava, posted one such

hymn there. That was years ago.

 

But again, Ram will not accept it since that would lend credibility

to the Padma Puraana description of Shankaraachaarya, which also

condemns maayaavaada as pracchana bauddhaH.

 

>From a Vaishnava perspective, maayavaada is nothing more than veiled

Buddhism. The very real differences between Advaita and Buddhism do

not change the fact that both are dry, impersonalist philosphies

which deny the reality of devotional service on the liberated

platform. This is why Advaita is not much better than Buddhism. Of

course, there are differences. But when the highest goal of service

to Krishna is neglected, those differences are trivial. The basic

concept of eternal, loving service to the Lord is lost. Consequently,

everything else is academic.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla@h...> wrote:

>> Pardon me for pulling you both back for a minute, but the

Vaishnavas'

> opposition to Shankara originally has nothing to do with the Padma

> Puraana verses describing maayaavaada. Vaishnavas object to

Shankara

> based on how he has commented on the Upanishads, Bhagavad-giitaa,

and

> Vedaanta-suutra. What the Padma Puraana says about Shankara is

merely

> an aside - had I known Ram would have made such a huge issue out

of

> it and divert away us from what Shankara actually wrote, I would

not

> have bothered to mention it at all.

 

 

Prabhu ji all that i am saying that its difficult to have a standard

view on Sankaracarya's identity. Sorry for missing the word identity

originally.

 

anyways your point is correct i had mentioned this to him earlier.

i said:

 

" Ramanuja, Madhava, Baladeva, Jiva goswami all had understanding of

sankara bhashya in sanskrit. They didn't need translators. Sridhar

Swami and Madhusudhana Saraswati are renonwed scholars/acarya of

Sankara sampradya. All this is well accepted. If you want to present

your hypothesis suggesting something radically new, then go ahead.

They haven't criticized him for nothing. Only when they found his

bhashya wrong from point of view of vedas thye wrote their criticism.

To say sankara's bhashya is inaccessible is wrong. All vaishava

acaryas have read it and expressed their displeasure with it."

 

 

> Madhva does not, AFAIK, refer to Shankara as a demon. It was

> Naaraayana Panditaachaarya (Madhva's biographer) who wrote this. I

................... [Edited for length]

 

I agree with your views. but then the question is Sankara of our age

can either be demon empowered by lord Shiva or he is Lord Shiva

himself. He can't be both. So quoting two different opinions for

Sankara of our age shows hardly any consistency in Vaishnava views

as far as his identity is concerned. That is my simple point.

 

 

 

> > 2) Gaudiya call him Lord Shiva appearing on order of Lord Vishnu.

> > Ramanujaites and Madhvaites will disagree.

>

> I'm not aware that followers of Raamaanuja agree or disagree with

> this position. Can you substantiate your view on this?

 

I remember from reading posts made by some gaudiyas on Dvaita/Sri

Vaishnava list. If memory serves me right Shirsha Rao said that Lord

Shiva being Vaishnavam yatha sambhu[bhagavata] why will he preach

such false stuff about Lord or something along those lines. Simple

point being that neither Ramanuja nor Madhava have alluded to

Sankara being Lord Shiva incarnate on Lord Narayana order. Also, no

acarya of their sampradya have quoted those verses from padma purana

on this issue. Its hard to say if the present day acaryas of Sri and

Madhava sampradya will agree or not. To me it seems like they are

more concrened about bashing his philosophy than knowing who he is,

because whoever he is, his philosophy certainly doesn't seems vedic

to vaishnavas. Some people say that most staunch opposition to

mayavada came from school of Ramanuja and Madhva. They are the ones

to call his school prachann baudhism .......... So people do make a

point that if there were Padma purana verses existing at their time

which were Sankara/mayavade specific, its hard to believe that they

will miss it.

 

 

 

Your Servant Always

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla@h...> wrote:

 

> > So the situation is:

> >

> > 1) Madhva call him a demon empowered by Lord

Shiva. They base it on

> > some purana. I wonder how come a demon is writing

poems like

> > Govindastaka.

>

> Madhva does not, AFAIK, refer to Shankara as a

demon. It was

> Naaraayana Panditaachaarya (Madhva's biographer) who

wrote this. I

> got this information from Krishna Normadeva on one

of the

> www.hindunet.org forums - he even provided a Garuda

Puraana quote to

> this effect. I have not had a chance to verify this

quote, but

> assuming it to be true, it shows a difference of

opinion with respect

> to Padma Puraana. This can only be due to 2 reasons:

 

 

As far as I know, several Madhvas are of the opinion

that Narayana Panditacharya was engaged in incessant

discussions with Sripada Madhvacharya himself. He was

a stalwart Advaitin until he finished discussing with

the latter, after which he became a stalwart Dvaitin.

Considering the time in which Sri Mani-manjari was

written (around 700 years ago) there were quite a few

scholars around who would have objected to such

"demonic" descriptions. The very text of SMM

elaborately describes the meeting of a "demon council"

headed by Sakuni to discuss how to disrupt the

religious situation in Kali-yuga. It seems unlikely to

me that Narayana Panditacharya would devote an entire

sarga of his work to a concept that "probably never

happened."

 

That said, has anyone here actually read SMM?

 

And what is that verse from Garuda Purana, out of

curiosity?

 

> Madhva call him a demon empowered by Lord Shiva.

They base it on

> > some purana.

 

Which Purana is this?

 

Haribol,

 

Gaura

 

=====

--

 

Gour Govinda Katha - gourgovindakatha/

 

 

 

 

 

Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now

http://companion./

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Gaurasundara wrote:

> As far as I know, several Madhvas are of the opinion

> that Narayana Panditacharya was engaged in incessant

> discussions with Sripada Madhvacharya himself. He was

> a stalwart Advaitin until he finished discussing with

> the latter, after which he became a stalwart Dvaitin.

> Considering the time in which Sri Mani-manjari was

> written (around 700 years ago) there were quite a few

> scholars around who would have objected to such

> "demonic" descriptions. The very text of SMM

> elaborately describes the meeting of a "demon council"

> headed by Sakuni to discuss how to disrupt the

> religious situation in Kali-yuga. It seems unlikely to

> me that Narayana Panditacharya would devote an entire

> sarga of his work to a concept that "probably never

> happened."

 

I haven't read the Sri Mani Manjari, but I've read the Sumadhva-vijaya. There

are mixed opinions about Narayana Panditacarya's works in general. While

Surendranatha DasGupta naturally thinks they're merely "legendary and

semi-mythical" (i.e., hagiography), the Madhvaite scholar B.N.K. Sharma feels

they give "a fairly complete and authentic account" of Madhva's life.

 

That said, it's worth noting that in addition to his father's being one of the

closest disciples of Madhva, Narayana Panditacarya's uncle was the personal

librarian of Madhva. It seems clear that he was an "insider," privy to a close

view of the then controversial new acarya (viz., Madhva) that was rarely

available to others. According to C.M. Padmanabhacarya in his Life and

Teachings of Sri Madhvachariar:

 

"The author of Sri Madhva Vijia (sic) was a great admirer and worshipper of

the person whose life he wrote. He was almost a contemporary of Sri Madhva, and

must have been a witness, with his father, of some at least of the chief events

set forth in his narrative. Hence he wrote with the fulness of personal

knowledge, and with the enthusiasm natural to recent converts."*

 

Maybe this is of some help, but the question itself is pretty subjective, by

nature, and it's fairly typical of the dvaita vs. advaita polemics of that time.

 

MDd

 

 

 

*(Bombay: C. A. Pattabiraman, 1983. pg. 103)