gaudIya vaiShNava objections to advaita of shrI shankarAchArya - introduction

[Guest guest]

This is a multi-part series of postings based on canonical gaudIya

vaiShNava works discussing objections to advaita philosophy of

ShankarAchArya. I offer this in light of recent postings on this

newsgroup by those holding to a certain revisionist view.

 

According to this revisionist view, which is not based on any

semblance of evidence, the mAyAvAda referred to in classical gaudIya

literature is not the advaita of shankarAchArya but something else,

and the actual advaita of shankarAchArya is actually compatible with

vaiShNava vedAnta.

 

Although Srila Prabhupada often used the term mAyAvAda to refer to

neo-Advaitist doctrines inspired by Advaita, along with Advaita

himself, it is clear that many of his criticisms of mAyAvAda apply

also to Advaita of ShankarAchArya. This is not a question of a

character attack; it is merely a statement of fact that the two

doctrines are not compatible in many ways. However, to avoid the

charge of misrepresenting ShankarAchArya, I will quote directly from

his works (something the Advaita revisionists will not do) to

establish what his position is, and then quote from gaudIya vaiShNava

AchAryas in response.

 

Please forgive me my change of transliteration styles. I'm going

through more of a pure ITRANS phase at the moment. :-)

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla> wrote:

>

> According to this revisionist view, which is not based on any

> semblance of evidence, the mAyAvAda referred to in classical

gaudIya

> literature is not the advaita of shankarAchArya but something

else,

> and the actual advaita of shankarAchArya is actually compatible

with

> vaiShNava vedAnta.

>

>>

 

I found this in CC Antya 2.95:

 

vaisnava hana yeba sariraka-bhasya sune

sevya-sevaka-bhava chadi' apanare `isvara' mane

SYNONYMS

vaisnava hana—being a Vaisnava; yeba—anyone who; sariraka-bhasya—the

Mayavada commentary Sariraka-bhasya; sune—listens to; sevya-sevaka-

bhava—the Krsna conscious attitude that the Lord is the master and

the living entity is His servant; chadi'—giving up; apanare—himself;

isvara—the Supreme Lord; mane—considers.

TRANSLATION

"When a Vaisnava listens to the Sariraka-bhasya, the Mayavada

commentary upon the Vedanta-sutra, he gives up the Krsna conscious

attitude that the Lord is the master and the living entity is His

servant. Instead, he considers himself the Supreme Lord.

 

Here Krsnadasa Kaviraja explicitly mentions Sariraka bhasya, which

was written by Sankara. Would Rajaram say that the Sariraka Bhasya

referred here is not the one written by Sankara?

 

Raghuram

[Guest guest]

Here Krsnadasa Kaviraja explicitly mentions Sariraka bhasya, which

was written by Sankara. Would Rajaram say that the Sariraka Bhasya

referred here is not the one written by Sankara?

 

>>>No, I think he would say, this is what Krishnadasa Kaviraja says. His

objection is against the view that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu explicitly mentions

Sankaracharya. So, if there is direct evidence of books/conversations where

Chaitanya Mahaprabhu talks about Sri Sankaracharya, that would help.

 

iys

 

Aravind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aravind Mohanram

Ph.D. Candidate

Dept. of Mat Sci and Engg.,

Penn State University,

University Park, PA 16801

www.personal.psu.edu/aum105

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

achintya, Aravind Mohanram <psuaravind>

wrote:

>

> Here Krsnadasa Kaviraja explicitly mentions Sariraka bhasya, which

> was written by Sankara. Would Rajaram say that the Sariraka Bhasya

> referred here is not the one written by Sankara?

>

> >>>No, I think he would say, this is what Krishnadasa Kaviraja

says. His objection is against the view that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu

explicitly mentions Sankaracharya. So, if there is direct evidence of

books/conversations where Chaitanya Mahaprabhu talks about Sri

Sankaracharya, that would help.

>

 

It isn't our job to prove that Chaitanya said what He said as

recorded in Krishnadaasa Kaviraaja's biography, which itself was

based on the Kadaachas of Muraari Gupta and Svaruupa Daamodara

Gosvaamii. Krishnadaasa's credentials as a Gaudiiya Vaishnava are

unassailable; he was requested by the Gaudiiya community to present

this biography. Unlike Raja_Ram, who was nowhere to be found at that

time, Krishnadaasa actually had the association of Chaitanya's most

intimate disciples.

 

No, the burden of proof is on Raja_Ram to show that Krishnadaasa's

representations are incorrect. If he cannot do this (and he can't),

then he should retract these sorts of childish objections.