some of the flaws in GVV and how advaitam resolves it

[Guest guest]

[MODERATOR Note: Here is another submission I am not terribly inclined to

approve for posting, given the lack of specific evidence and the tendency to

make unsubstantiated remarks. Nor am I planning on touching this either - I just

don't see that there is anything to respond to, since no specific statements

have been quoted at all.

 

I just don't want to be made to feel that I had to keep someone down in order to

"defeat" them. So, here it is.]

 

hare krishna. with due respects to the devotional merit of vaishnava

acharyas, i would like to humbly point out some of the flaws of

gaudiya vaishnava vedanta that are resolved in advaita siddhanta. i

am doing this because i am enouraged by the moderator to post saying

that he encourages open discussion.

 

1. if bondage is the real attribute of the self, then how can it be

liberated as real attributes are permanent ? if bondage is not a real

attribute of the self, then why should one worry about the covering ?

if one should be concerned about it because the covering affects the

self, then it cannot be the real self as matter cannot affect the

self (fire does not burn etc.).

 

Here Sankara's explanation is very convincing that the Self is never

bonded or liberated. It is only illusion that makes one (illusory

personality created by ahankara, buddhi and manas) see the Self as a

jiva bonded and liberated. That also explains why the all

compassionate lord, the Self does not liberate every one at one shot

as it is only His lila completely under His control.

 

2. how can a liberated jiva further change state ? from brahma jnanis

to bhaktas as is said to be in the case of suka, four kumaras etc.

 

Here again Sankara's philosophy provides scope for a convincing

explanation. the spiritual planets are made only of sattva (visuddva

sattvam) and completely devoid of rajas and tamas. this is different

from material world as sattva is at least to some degree mixed with

rajas and tamas. as there is no rajas, there is no kama only prema in

the spiritual world. one may object saying that the "spiritual" world

will be subject to destruction. though this seems contrary to popular

faith, the lord confirms that saying he is cause of annihilation of

not only the material world but also the spiritual planets (BG 7.6).

what the lord himself says, no one else should contradict saying that

the spiritual planets are in a separate class of imperishable

planets. does it make the "lordhomeless" and "devoteeless". Not so

because all that he needs for his satisfaction is present in himself,

who is nirguna and of inconceivable form.

 

 

3. if jiva is full of knowledge by nature, why does it take ignorant

decisions ? what use is its knowledge if it is overcome by its

freewill like in the case of a mad man ? what will prevent even a

sadhaka who becomes a pure devotee from misuse of free will ? if it

is special mercy of te lord that was given as a reward to his

devotion and desire, then it is acquired merit not its essential

nature.

 

Here again, Sankara's philosophy does not have this problem because

multiplicity is born of ignorance.

 

4. if the spiritual world is ever changing due to the coming of new

jivas, it will be mutable. but by definition, spirit is immutable.

 

Here again, Sankara does not have a problem because the Self is

immutable - every thing else.

 

5. if a jiva's svarUpa is to be the devotee of the lord and it is her

essential nature, how is that nature lost ? if it is not lost but

only covered, then what is that covering made of ? if it is of the

nature of ignorance, then transcendental knowledge alone can remove

that covering. how can we criticize transcendental knowledge that is

said to come by the grace of the lord ?

 

Here again, Sankara's commentary is to the point and says igorance is

removed by knowledge which comes by the grace of the lord. Thus

bhakti is also not reduced.

 

6. if every one's svarUpa is to be a devotee of the lord, then how

can liberated souls devoid of material covering can be said to have

defect of not being a devotee of the lord ? as in the case of those

in brahma jyoti.

 

For Sankara, this problem does not arise because svarUpa - identity

with Vishnu - is realized not described.

 

7. if there are jivas in the brahma jyoti not perceiving the lord

directly, then it means it is their svarUpa. that means the lord is

partial towards His creatures because some have higher rasas and some

have lower rasas. if there is no difference in rasas, then many

statements of gaudiya acharyas would falsify. if it is said that it

is their desire that caused them to be gopis or light on his face,

then there is the problem of the process affecting the svarUpa. thus

svarUpa is subject to change and non-eternal.

 

For Sankara, this problem is not there as svarUpa - identity with

Vishnu - is realized not described. And it is independant of the

process though ultimately ignorance is removed.

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna

 

Thanks to Krishna prabhu for letting Raja Ram post his/Sankaras views

here. Its our pleasure to hear what rival schools have to say.

 

achintya, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram> wrote:

 

"1. if bondage is the real attribute of the self, then how can it be

liberated as real attributes are permanent ? if bondage is not a real

attribute of the self, then why should one worry about the covering ?

if one should be concerned about it because the covering affects the

self, then it cannot be the real self as matter cannot affect the

self (fire does not burn etc.)."

 

 

>>>> Raja Ram you have to explain how exactly is this a flaw in GVV.

 

"Here Sankara's explanation is very convincing that the Self is never

bonded or liberated. It is only illusion that makes one (illusory

personality created by ahankara, buddhi and manas) see the Self as a

jiva bonded and liberated. That also explains why the all

compassionate lord, the Self does not liberate every one at one shot

as it is only His lila completely under His control."

 

>>>> Can you please quote sastras to substantiate above claim so that

we may understand where in sastra you find support to above mentioned

claims ? Then based on those verses and their meaning we can proceed

our discussions.

 

Also, lets go point by point rather than attempting a shot at all of

them together.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Your Servant Always,

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

This point is explained by Krishna Himself in His teachings to

Uddhava. See chapter 11 of 11th canto of Srimad Bhagavatam.

 

Raghu

 

> achintya, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram>

wrote:

>

> "1. if bondage is the real attribute of the self, then how can it

be

> liberated as real attributes are permanent ? if bondage is not a

real

> attribute of the self, then why should one worry about the

covering ?

> if one should be concerned about it because the covering affects

the

> self, then it cannot be the real self as matter cannot affect the

> self (fire does not burn etc.)."

>

>

>

> "Here Sankara's explanation is very convincing that the Self is

never

> bonded or liberated. It is only illusion that makes one (illusory

> personality created by ahankara, buddhi and manas) see the Self as

a

> jiva bonded and liberated. That also explains why the all

> compassionate lord, the Self does not liberate every one at one

shot

> as it is only His lila completely under His control."

>