gauDIya vaiShNava objections to advaita of shrI shankarAchArya - part 3

[Guest guest]

achintya, ranganathan narasimhan

<simhan74> wrote:

 

> Can someone translate this? Who is he condemning?

>

> dasa

>

> Narasimhan

 

I had forgotten about this one. I wanted to mention that it would be

easier to respond to messages like this if the diacritics were

translated into transliteration with ascii characters - maybe using

ITRANS or HK. Merely copy-cut pasting from Balaram/Tamal font encoded

files does not allow for the diacritics to translate.

 

In answer to your question, this is in shrI paramAtma sandarbha

71.16. He quotes shrI shankarAchArya's vedAnta commentary on 2.1.14

and refutes it. This will no doubt be upsetting to Raja_Ram, who has

argued in the past that there is nothing objectionable in shankara's

philosophy from a gauDIya viewpoint, but we must be honest with

ourselves.

 

The quote from shankara is near the end of his commentary on vedAnta-

sUtra 2.1.14, and it is as follows:

 

sarvaj~nasyshvarasyAtmabhUta ivAvidyAkalpite nAmarUpe

tattvAnyatvAbhyAmanirvacanIye saMsAraprapa~ncabIjabhUte

sarvaj~nasyeshvarasya mAyAshaktiH prakR^itiriti ca

shrutismR^ityorabhilapyate |

 

"Name and form which constitute the seeds of the entire expanse of

phenomenal existence, and which are conjured up by nescience, are, as

it were, non-different from the omniscient God, and they are

nondeterminable either as real or unreal, and are mentioned in the

Vedas and the Smritis as the power, called mAyA, of omniscient God,

or as prakriti."

 

This commentary of shankarAcArya is quoted by shrI jIva gosvAmI in

paramAtma sandarbha 71.16. What shankarAcArya is trying to explain is

that God is still the cause of the universe, even though the universe

is not real. He argues that name, form, etc are a product of the

mAyA/prakR^iti of God, but God is different from them. He also argues

that these qualities born of mAyA are neither real nor unreal - they

are anirvachanIya - nothing can be said about them. He then argues

further that God is above all of it - name, form, attributes, etc. In

fact, he argued this in the previous sections of the commentary:

 

tatraitatsiddhaM bhavati - brahmaprakaraNo

sarvadharmavishoSharahitabrahmadarshanAdeva phalasiddhau satyAM

yattatrAphalaM shrUyate brahmaNo

jagadAkArapariNAmitvAditaDbrahmadarshanopAyatvenaiva viniyujyate,

phalavatsaMnidhAvaphalaM tada^ngamitivat |

 

"That being so, the conclusion to be drawn is this: Since in a

context speaking of Brahman, it stands proved that the result (i.e.

liberation) accrues only from the realization of Brahman, devoid of

all distinctions created by attributes, therefore when in that

context some other fact is heard of that has no result, as for

instance, the modification of Brahman into the world, that fact has

to be interpreted as a means leading to that realization."

 

In other words, by acknowledging statements regarding the

transformation of Brahman into the world with qualities, etc.

shankara argues that Brahman ultimately has no name, form, qualities,

etc, because these are the neither real nor unreal products of

Brahman's mAyA. Thus, it is reconciled how Brahman has no qualities,

and yet is the cause of the world with qualities.

 

jIva gosvAmI refutes this position by quoting from bhAgavata purANa

11.11.3:

 

vidyAvidye mama tanU viddhyuddhava sharIriNAm |

mokShabandhakarI Adye mAyayA me vinirmite || bhA 11.11.3 ||

 

What this establishes is that vidyA and avidyA are products of the

Lord's potencies, and are thus subordinate to Him. In otherwords, it

is not that Lord has qualities and form by virtue of being in

association with His neither real nor unreal mAyA. Rather, He who has

qualities and form has a separate potency which He remains

transcendental to, and from which vidyA and avidyA come. So, the

Lord's form and qualities are not products of vidyA and avidyA, since

these are subordinate to Him.

 

What the above points establish are:

 

1) Shankara holds that Brahman is ultimately without form and

qualities (not accepted by gauDIya vaiShNavas)

2) Name, form, qualities are all product of mAyA which is neither

real nor unreal.(gauDIyas agree that material universe is product of

mAyA, but mAyA is real and its manifestations, though temporary, are

also real. Furthermore, name, qualities, form of Lord are NOT a

product of mAyA)

3) jIva gosvAmI disagrees with shankarAchArya's commentary on vedAnta-

sUtra 2.1.14 - as he quotes directly from sharIrakA-bhAShya and

refutes it. Whether you agree or disagree with jIva's response to

shankara, the point remains that he clearly disagrees with

shankarAchArya.

[Guest guest]

> 3) jIva gosvAmI disagrees with shankarAchArya's commentary on

> vedAnta-sUtra 2.1.14 - as he quotes directly from sharIrakA-bhAShya

> and refutes it. Whether you agree or disagree with jIva's response

> to shankara, the point remains that he clearly disagrees with

> shankarAchArya.

 

i discussed this with narasimhan prabhu. i agree that jiva gosvami

disagrees with sankara. my stand that the differences started with

krishna dasa kaviraj does not hold ground.

[Guest guest]

> jIva gosvAmI disagrees with shankarAchArya's commentary on vedAnta-

> sUtra 2.1.14 - as he quotes directly from sharIrakA-bhAShya and

> refutes it. Whether you agree or disagree with jIva's response to

> shankara, the point remains that he clearly disagrees with

> shankarAchArya.

 

i was wrong. this clearly establishes the continuity of gaudiya

position on sankara from caitanya mahaprabhu & sad gosvamis to srila

prabhupada. thanks narasimhan prabhu and krishna susarla prabhu for

their efforts in establishing the gaudiya position vis a vis sankara.