re: Gaudiya epistemology and ontology

[Guest guest]

A few weeks ago I had posted a message here asking for

an authoritative Vaishnava commentary on the Upanishads. Only Aravind prabhu

replied, and even that book I could not find in most public libraries here. The

BBT also didn't ahve any info, and didn't

show much interest in my query.

 

>>> HH Suhotra Swami wrote a detailed essay on the Philosophy of Upanishads,

which was downloadable from his website - I don't know if it is still online. If

you want, I can try to send the pdf documents. His essay is similar in approach

to S.M.S. Chari's, which as you say is unknown to many, while Dr.

Radhakrishnanan's is quite popular. I'm hoping some devotee would take up the

work of comparing and contrasting the 4 major philosophies (Dr. Chari addresses

three) including ABA. If it is already on, that's good.

 

iys

 

Aravind.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

achintya, "Carl" <rind_19 wrote:

 

> But seriously, my whole point is to *de-couple* our interaction with

> the Impersonalists on one side, and the Semitic churches on the

> other. I think preaching work is very *personal*. There is no

> question of "aligning" with one *social group* "against" any other.

 

And this has always been my point as well.

 

The trouble is that there is a definite tendency for many devotees in

the West to white-wash differences with Christianity, and this needs

to stop. It is a definite double standard that is reflected in many

post-Prabhupada writings, websites, BTG articles, etc. I have already

given many examples to substantiate this.

 

yours,

 

K

[Guest guest]

> > > Sankara has said in a couple of places that Vyasadev is wrong

> (!),

> > > and that he is now presenting a new "Advaita" Vedanta.

> >

> > Please quote with reference to context and if necessary we can

> > discuss.

 

Could you please quote exact reference to Sankara's works where he

says "Vyasa is wrong"?

 

Interpreting Vyasa is not the same as saying Vyasa is wrong.

[Guest guest]

heloddhunita-khedaya visadaya pronmilad-amodaya

samyac-chastra-vivadaya rasa-daya cittarpitonmadaya

sasvad-bhakti-vinodaya sa-madaya madhurya-maryadaya

sri-caitanya daya-nidhe tava daya bhuyad amandodaya

 

"O ocean of mercy, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu! Let there be an awakening of

Your auspicious mercy, which easily drives away all kinds of material

lamentation by making everything pure and blissful. Indeed, Your mercy

awakens transcendental bliss and covers all material pleasures. By Your

auspicious mercy, quarrels and disagreements arising among different

scriptures are vanquished. Your auspicious mercy pours forth transcendental

mellows and thus causes the heart to jubilate. Your mercy, which is full of

joy, always stimulates devotional service and glorifies conjugal love of

God. May transcendental bliss be awakened within my heart by Your causeless

mercy."

 

CC Madhya 10.119

[Guest guest]

Dear raja_ram prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances.

 

> Interpreting Vyasa is not the same as saying Vyasa is wrong.

 

"Interpretation" is a vague term here. The nature of "interpretation"

is important. As they say, "the devil quotes scripture."

 

When "interpretation" becomes "interpolation" of one's own meaning,

then it is manifest error. In my previous post, I explained how the

Mayavada understanding of Shankara is an error of superfluity as far

as the domain of philosophy goes. It is an extra qualification of

Vyasa's words that does not find coherent support in all of Vyasa's

works taken in totality. Therefore Shankara always remains the

**authority of last resort** for all types of Mayavadi sects.

 

As I also indicated, I am very interested in genuine attempts to

reconcile Shankaracharya's semantics with Vedanta. I mentioned my

understanding of "advaita" as distinct from "ekatvam", etc. Therefore

I am eager to hear your take on this also. And again, my criticism is

always directed at the Mayavada understanding of Shankara, and I am

always open to the sugggestion that Shankara was misunderstood and

used by such sects to find legitimacy.

 

As for a direct, undiplomatic refutation of Vyasa: It is obviously not

in the authoritative written works, but there are biographical

accounts of it in the life of Shankara, as well as of successor

kevala-advaitin acharyas and pontiffs. At best, they are defensively

deferential to Vyasadev, without the appearance of which they would

lose all claim to representing the Vedic tradition.

 

Your servant,

Carl.

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006, Carl wrote:

>

> As I also indicated, I am very interested in genuine attempts to

> reconcile Shankaracharya's semantics with Vedanta.

 

Members of the Vallabha sampradaya say that this was one purpose of their

founder-acarya, who was at once a monist and yet a staunch critic of mayavada in

particular. Whether or not Vallabhacarya was successful in doing that

reconciliation, you'll have to judge for yourself.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

> "Interpretation" is a vague term here. The nature

>> of "interpretation"

> is important. As they say, "the devil quotes scripture."

 

Sankara is not a devil or some thing, if that is your idea here -)

If you want to understand Sankara, then you have to go for a

structured study of the gita bhashya, sahasranama bhashya,

upanishads and then brahma sutra bhashya. For brahma sutra bhashya,

he imposes the constraint that you should have sama, dama, titikshva

and uparati. Even for his other works he imposes these constraints

and you should learn it only after you take sannyasa. So, your best

bet is to start with sahasranama bhashya and then read gita bhashya.

Other works can be read for gaining scholarship but it will also

lead to misunderstanding unless of course, you have some special

mercy from Sankara. Is this not true of all acharyas? You cannot

understand them but by their mercy.

 

If you want to argue against Sankara because that is your dharma as

a non-advaitin, please feel free to do so

 

If you bring up specific points where

he "interpolates", "misterprets", "juggles words", "offends the

lord", "concocts", "gives atheistic meanings", "non-

devotional", "foolish" and so on, I will resolve that. But let us do

it only as long as the moderator allows it. This forum is meant to

discuss gaudiya vaishnavism not sankara.

[Guest guest]

>This forum is meant to

> discuss gaudiya vaishnavism not sankara.

 

Dear raja_ram prabhu,

OK, whatever you say. Personally, I think comparative study is a good

way to learn.

 

For the Nth time: I am not criticizing Shankara the person, but am

questioning the Mayavada interpretation of his theories. On the other

hand, your responses are only about my personal lack of good

qualities - which is hardly a revelation! Pls ignore my clumsiness

and help me gain a better understanding, which is my main motivation

in participating on the forum. I am again requesting you to briefly

address some of the points I raised.

 

I can comprehand Shankara's theory only as a unidimensional, partial

exposition of Godhead, in His particular feature as Intellect.

Shankara's ontological priority is only a particularized, *logical*

priority, not a real priority. The Gaudiya Vaisnava philosophy seems

to be inclusive of the Sankarite viewpoint, but not the other way

round. Vaisnnavism recognizes the sense of Uniqueness within Oneness,

whereas Mayavada mistakes Oneness for uniformity.

 

As the Svetaasvatara Upanisad (1.6) says:

prthag aatmaanam preritam ca matva

juSTas tatas tenaamrtatvam eti

 

"When one understands that the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the

individualized spirit souls are distinct (prthak) entities,

then he may become qualified for immortality..."

 

Humble obeisances,

Carl.

[Guest guest]

> For the Nth time: I am not criticizing Shankara the person, but am

> questioning the Mayavada interpretation of his theories.

 

Generally, qualification and mercy are required to understand an

acharya. But in the case of Shankara even that is not required. He

establishes tattva based on sastras and logic.

 

1) There are countless vedic statements that declare advaitam. or

example, "tat tvam asi" repeated again and again in Chandogya

Upanishad is a very clear and direct teaching of the identity of the

individual soul with brahman. Brhad Aranyaka Upanishad clearly says

that thinking that the lord and the devotee are different is

ignorance. (If you dont have reference to these texts, I will

provide them).

 

2) The lord clearly declares that one should not think that this

world is unreal. However, Chandogya Upanishad clearly declares that

only existence is real and is One (mrtketyeva satyam). Only sad asad

lakshana definition by Sankara fits sastras and logical inference.

If the world with all variegatedness is real, why does it sublate on

analysis? What is called a pot is on analysis only clay. What is

clay is only shakti.

 

[MODERATOR NOTE: Please provide exact references.]