Guest guest Posted April 30, 2003 Report Share Posted April 30, 2003 Namaste Robert, > So, my dear Narasimha, please stop these rambling and argumentative > debates, With all due respect, my dear Robert, you should behave yourself in a debate. I can also accuse you of "rambling". But such demeanor is hardly worthy of us. We both are Jyotish gurus and have some responsibility. Let us not use words like "rambling" to describe arguments that we don't particularly like. OK, I'll cut down on the ramblings ;-) and jump straight into the main topic. > >I know that some followers of Srila Prabhupada dismiss Adi Sankara saying > >that he served a limited purpose (of removing Buddha's influence) and > >should hence be ignored. If an incarnation of Shiva can be dismissed as > >having served a limited purpose, isn't it possible that Srila Prabhupada > >too had a "limited purpose" to fulfill (creating blind faith in the > >Almighty among the people of this age) and wrote his translations accordingly?> > First of all, Srila Prabhupada - His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami > - commented upon Vedic literature and disseminated the true Siddhanta > thereof, to an extent never before seen in the 20th century. His Yes, he did a tremendous job. But Adi Sankara was not any less prolific. I have great respect for Srila Prabhupada, but I do not appreciate the way Adi Sankara was undermined. As a devotee (bhakta), Srila Prabhupada was second to none. But, as a Vedic scholar and philosopher, nobody born in Kali yuga so far beats Adi Sankara. Now let me address your insinuations against Adi Sankara. > verses from the Padma Purana:> mayavadam asac chastram> pracchannam bauddham ucyate> mayaiva kalpitam devi> kalau brahmana-rupina> > brahmanas caparam rupam> nirgunam vaksyate maya> sarva-svam jagato 'py asya> mohanartham kalau yuge> > vedante tu maha-sastre> mayavadam avaidikam> mayaiva vaksyate devi> jagatam nasa-karanat> "The Mayavada philosophy," Lord Siva informed his wife Parvati, "is impious > [asac chastra]. It is covered Buddhism, or in other words voidist in > nature. My dear Parvati, in Kali-yuga I assume the form of a brahmana and > teach this imagined Mayavada philosophy. In order to cheat the atheists, I > describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead to be without form and without > qualities. Similarly, in explaining Vedanta I describe the same Mayavada > philosophy in order to mislead the entire population toward atheism by > denying the personal form of the Lord." Well, what can I say? This is a liberal, loose and motivated translation aimed at undermining the great Adi Sankara. The word "asacchaastram" (wrong science) was not used to describe Sankara's teachings, but instead to describe "bauddham" (Buddhism). To me, the verses very clearly mean,"A wrong knowledge based on illusion (mayavada) and hiding is called Buddhism (bauddham uchyate). In Kali yuga, O Parvati, by me, born in a Brahmana family, will be established Brahman's supreme form. It will be mentioned by me to be nirguna, to baffle the world and this (Buddhism) also in Kali yuga. In all the great philosophical knowledge, this mayavada (of Buddhism) is quite non-Vedic. Because this causes destruction, this fact will be established by me alone in the world". So Shiva is not talking about Adi Sankara teaching wrong things. Instead, he is saying that he will teach about the nirguna nature of supreme Brahman (there is no indication anywhere that this knowledge is "fake" in some manner) to baffle the people enamoured by Buddhism and clarify the non-Vedic nature of Buddhist mayavada. In general, I am disappointed by this tendency to misrepresent scriptural sayings to insinuate those who teach things that are slightly different from one's narrow interpretations. > Further, according to the Shiva Purana, which you like to quote, the > following is stated: The Supreme Personality of Godhead told Lord Siva:> dvaparadau yuge bhutva> kalaya manusadisu> svagamaih kalpitais tvam ca> janan mad-vimukhan kuru> "In Kali-yuga, mislead the people in general by propounding imaginary > meanings for the Vedas to bewilder them." I do not agree with the meaning completely, but, more importantly, the timing of this is questionable (dwaaparaadau = at the beginning of Dwapara). So it is not clear to me if this applies to Adi Sankara. > So, what you are enjoying is the brilliant word-jugglery of the great > Sankara, and how everything is made to fit one model, that is Nirakara, > i..e. that the Supreme Absolute Truth is formless and without > qualities. This is what is meant by flat-out atheism, shrouded in the > cloak of a Vedic philosophy. Instead, in order to clarify the Param Nope, this is not flat-out atheism. Sankara only taught that the Supreme Brahman is nirguna and above gunas, but manifests in various forms that have various combinations of gunas (e.g. Brahma - rajas, Vishnu - sattwa, Shiva - tamas). It is also not to say that either of these three forms are any inferior to the Supreme Brahman. Krishna also taught about the all-pervading Brahman (Gita 3-15) that is present in every soul untouched by the external samskaras (5-19). Not only did Sankara believe in the various saguna forms of Supreme Brahman, but he composed beautiful prayers of many gods. So calling his theory as "atheism" is indefensible. > Tattva, or Absolute Truth, it is better to consult the Bhagavat Purana, > Srimad Bhagavatam (1/2/11), as follows:> vadanti tat tattva-vidas> tattvaà yaj jïänam advayam> brahmeti paramätmeti> bhagavän iti çabdyate> "Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this non-dual > substance Brahman, Paramatma or Bhagavan."> > The import of this verse is very clear. That the Supreme Absolute Truth is > known (that is, by those who are tattva-vidah, or learned in the Absolute > Truth) in three incremental steps, first as the all-pervasive Brahman > effulgence. Then, He is localized and enters each universe as > Garbodakasayi Vishnu, as well as the heart of all living entities > (Paramatma); while, in the final analysis, he is Bhagavan, or the Supreme > Personality of Godhead Who possesses six opulences in full. Well, the verse only says that learned transcendalists know that what is known as Bhagavan or Brahman or Paramatma is non-dual. This is basically supporting the Adwaita philosophy and I am surprised you are using this quote to criticize Adwaita philosophy! Forget all the import. That is not really there in the sloka. The sloka literally says that the Paramatma is non-dual. > Now, Adi Sankara, in his mission to re-define the conclusions of Vedic > shastras, on the order of Sri Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, > prefers to maintain his philosophy of formlessness, or covered atheistic > philosophy, as mentioned above. One has to stretch his imagination to Nope. As I pointed out, the verses you quoted say that Sankara re-establishes Vedic knowledge by baffling the non-Vedic illusionists of Buddhism by teaching about the nirguna Brahman who is supreme. > In this connection, note the following from the Catpar pandika, one of his > famous writings, in which Sripad Sankaracharya says:> bhaja govindam bhaja govindam> bhaja govindam mudha-mate> prapte sannihite kala marane> na hi na hi raksati dukrn-karane> "My dear foolish brothers, you kindly worship Krsna, Govinda..." Thrice he > says, bhaja Govindam bhaja Govindam bhaja Govindam mudha-mate. Mudha-mate > means "You foolish people, you kindly worship Govinda." Why? "Prapte > sannihite kala marane": "When death comes knocking at your door, your > grammatical interpretations of scriptures, will not save you. So please > worship Govinda." Yes, this immediately disproves your allegations of atheism. Adi Sankara is not an atheist. He taught the true nature of Supreme Brahman to the confused souls of Kali Yuga. Sadly, some people want to undermine him. BhagavadGita is the most brilliant spiritual text we have and Adi Sankara's bhashyam is the most brilliant commentary we have. If you know Sanskrit and still miss out on Sankara's bhashyam, I cannot tell you in words how much you are missing. > as the eventuality is that it > becomes a time vampire, while no agreement is in sight. Who said the goal of this debate was an agreement? The goal was to have a discussion on these Vedic spiritual aspects so that there will be some food for thought for the interested people even after the current planetary transits end. > Thank you,> OM TAT SAT> > Robert May Jupiter's light shine on us, Narasimha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2003 Report Share Posted April 30, 2003 How odd. First you argue for a free and open forum, stating that comments should not be brushed aside as "ramblings" -- then you make a dogmatic statement about something that "MUST NEVER be questioned" [shouting capital letters retained.] Intriguing. And *then* you top it off by tossing out a bigoted remark about Buddhism (bearing in mind that Shankaracharya himself has sometimes been called a crypto-Buddhist, since his philosophy, at least surfacially, bears a certain resemblance to that of the Nagarjuna. I myself don't concur 100% with that formulation, since as much as I appreciate Shankaracharya's contribution, I genuinely prefer the Madhyamika view.) Oh, let's shut our doors and windows, get our plastic sheeting and duct tape -- the Buddhist bogeyman is in town!! Au secours! Fondly, J.I. Abbot formulationIn a message dated 4/30/2003 11:52:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rageshwari75 writes: Second of all, I agree with Guruji Narasimha that arguments with which we do not agree should not be labeled as "ramblings" since that undermines the harmonic nature of this forum that is truly meant for "learning" through "discussions/debates". Third and last point I want to make is on this debate of Srila Prabhupada vs. Adi Sankaracarya. As much as Srila Prabhupada did for Hinduism in the modern days (in 20th century), the contribution of Sri Adi Sankaracarya MUST NEVER be questioned. Koch-ji, you might not be thoroughly aware with the history of "Bharata", the pious land that gave birth to the great Vedic civilization. But if you kindly read this paper (http://www.sulekha.com/articledesc.asp?cid=306467) on Brahmins in Bharata (think of Brahmins for now, as a social entity whose job was to protect and propagate the vedic knowledge from generation to generation in Bharata), you would realize that Adi Sankaracarya (referred in the given paper as "Brahmin Boy"), did a great service to mankind by saving Vedic civilization from being ravaged by Buddhism during the 7th century. So any effort to be-little his "beyond words can describe" contribution to Vedic civilization is "at its best" uneducated and ignorant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2003 Report Share Posted April 30, 2003 Hare Krishna Dear Narasimha, Ive read the ongoing debates... so basically Narasimha are you saying that YOUR translations of these slokas here and there are better or more "correct" and qualified, than A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada translations as they appear in Bhagavad-Gita As It IS, and Srimad Bhagavatam translated by him also? In otherwords, do you believe you are more qualified to translate and give more accurate translations, so that people should take your comments to heart, over and above Srila Prabhupada? Eager for your reply. With Best Wishes, Lakshmi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2003 Report Share Posted April 30, 2003 Dear Guruji Sri Naramsimha and Sri Robert Koch-ji, First of all, I heartily thank you for this enlightening debate as it reveals a lot of knowledge and enlightens poor souls (yes) like myself who are void of any of the vedic knowledge. Second of all, I agree with Guruji Narasimha that arguments with which we do not agree should not be labeled as "ramblings" since that undermines the harmonic nature of this forum that is truly meant for "learning" through "discussions/debates". Third and last point I want to make is on this debate of Srila Prabhupada vs. Adi Sankaracarya. As much as Srila Prabhupada did for Hinduism in the modern days (in 20th century), the contribution of Sri Adi Sankaracarya MUST NEVER be questioned. Koch-ji, you might not be thoroughly aware with the history of "Bharata", the pious land that gave birth to the great Vedic civilization. But if you kindly read this paper (http://www.sulekha.com/articledesc.asp?cid=306467) on Brahmins in Bharata (think of Brahmins for now, as a social entity whose job was to protect and propagate the vedic knowledge from generation to generation in Bharata), you would realize that Adi Sankaracarya (referred in the given paper as "Brahmin Boy"), did a great service to mankind by saving Vedic civilization from being ravaged by Buddhism during the 7th century. So any effort to be-little his "beyond words can describe" contribution to Vedic civilization is "at its best" uneducated and ignorant. As far as Srila Prabhupada is concerned, all of us agree that he is a GREAT contributor and a saint. No one is challenging that. It is only when disciples of Srila Prabhupada try to defame Sri Adi Sankaracarya, people like myself and Narasimha-ji feel like we can't take it. If you put things in perspective and try to understand the contribution of Sri Adi Sankaracarya in those times when Hinduism and Vedas were subjected to the survival threat, you would realize that your arguments were not completely educated. Namaste. Rageshwari. vedic astrology, "Narasimha P.V.R. Rao" <pvr@c...> wrote: > Namaste Robert, > > > So, my dear Narasimha, please stop these rambling and argumentative > > debates, > > With all due respect, my dear Robert, you should behave yourself in a debate. I can also accuse you of "rambling". But such demeanor is hardly worthy of us. We both are Jyotish gurus and have some responsibility. Let us not use words like "rambling" to describe arguments that we don't particularly like. > > OK, I'll cut down on the ramblings ;-) and jump straight into the main topic. > > > >I know that some followers of Srila Prabhupada dismiss Adi Sankara saying > > >that he served a limited purpose (of removing Buddha's influence) and > > >should hence be ignored. If an incarnation of Shiva can be dismissed as > > >having served a limited purpose, isn't it possible that Srila Prabhupada > > >too had a "limited purpose" to fulfill (creating blind faith in the > > >Almighty among the people of this age) and wrote his translations accordingly? > > > > First of all, Srila Prabhupada - His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami > > - commented upon Vedic literature and disseminated the true Siddhanta > > thereof, to an extent never before seen in the 20th century. His > > Yes, he did a tremendous job. But Adi Sankara was not any less prolific. I have great respect for Srila Prabhupada, but I do not appreciate the way Adi Sankara was undermined. As a devotee (bhakta), Srila Prabhupada was second to none. But, as a Vedic scholar and philosopher, nobody born in Kali yuga so far beats Adi Sankara. > > Now let me address your insinuations against Adi Sankara. > > > verses from the Padma Purana: > > mayavadam asac chastram > > pracchannam bauddham ucyate > > mayaiva kalpitam devi > > kalau brahmana-rupina > > > > brahmanas caparam rupam > > nirgunam vaksyate maya > > sarva-svam jagato 'py asya > > mohanartham kalau yuge > > > > vedante tu maha-sastre > > mayavadam avaidikam > > mayaiva vaksyate devi > > jagatam nasa-karanat > > "The Mayavada philosophy," Lord Siva informed his wife Parvati, "is impious > > [asac chastra]. It is covered Buddhism, or in other words voidist in > > nature. My dear Parvati, in Kali-yuga I assume the form of a brahmana and > > teach this imagined Mayavada philosophy. In order to cheat the atheists, I > > describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead to be without form and without > > qualities. Similarly, in explaining Vedanta I describe the same Mayavada > > philosophy in order to mislead the entire population toward atheism by > > denying the personal form of the Lord." > > Well, what can I say? This is a liberal, loose and motivated translation aimed at undermining the great Adi Sankara. The word "asacchaastram" (wrong science) was not used to describe Sankara's teachings, but instead to describe "bauddham" (Buddhism). To me, the verses very clearly mean,"A wrong knowledge based on illusion (mayavada) and hiding is called Buddhism (bauddham uchyate). In Kali yuga, O Parvati, by me, born in a Brahmana family, will be established Brahman's supreme form. It will be mentioned by me to be nirguna, to baffle the world and this (Buddhism) also in Kali yuga. In all the great philosophical knowledge, this mayavada (of Buddhism) is quite non-Vedic. Because this causes destruction, this fact will be established by me alone in the world". > > So Shiva is not talking about Adi Sankara teaching wrong things. Instead, he is saying that he will teach about the nirguna nature of supreme Brahman (there is no indication anywhere that this knowledge is "fake" in some manner) to baffle the people enamoured by Buddhism and clarify the non-Vedic nature of Buddhist mayavada. > > In general, I am disappointed by this tendency to misrepresent scriptural sayings to insinuate those who teach things that are slightly different from one's narrow interpretations. > > > Further, according to the Shiva Purana, which you like to quote, the > > following is stated: The Supreme Personality of Godhead told Lord Siva: > > dvaparadau yuge bhutva > > kalaya manusadisu > > svagamaih kalpitais tvam ca > > janan mad-vimukhan kuru > > "In Kali-yuga, mislead the people in general by propounding imaginary > > meanings for the Vedas to bewilder them." > > I do not agree with the meaning completely, but, more importantly, the timing of this is questionable (dwaaparaadau = at the beginning of Dwapara). So it is not clear to me if this applies to Adi Sankara. > > > So, what you are enjoying is the brilliant word-jugglery of the great > > Sankara, and how everything is made to fit one model, that is Nirakara, > > i..e. that the Supreme Absolute Truth is formless and without > > qualities. This is what is meant by flat-out atheism, shrouded in the > > cloak of a Vedic philosophy. Instead, in order to clarify the Param > > Nope, this is not flat-out atheism. Sankara only taught that the Supreme Brahman is nirguna and above gunas, but manifests in various forms that have various combinations of gunas (e.g. Brahma - rajas, Vishnu - sattwa, Shiva - tamas). It is also not to say that either of these three forms are any inferior to the Supreme Brahman. Krishna also taught about the all-pervading Brahman (Gita 3-15) that is present in every soul untouched by the external samskaras (5-19). > > Not only did Sankara believe in the various saguna forms of Supreme Brahman, but he composed beautiful prayers of many gods. So calling his theory as "atheism" is indefensible. > > > Tattva, or Absolute Truth, it is better to consult the Bhagavat Purana, > > Srimad Bhagavatam (1/2/11), as follows: > > vadanti tat tattva-vidas > > tattvaà yaj jïänam advayam > > brahmeti paramätmeti > > bhagavän iti çabdyate > > "Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this non-dual > > substance Brahman, Paramatma or Bhagavan." > > > > The import of this verse is very clear. That the Supreme Absolute Truth is > > known (that is, by those who are tattva-vidah, or learned in the Absolute > > Truth) in three incremental steps, first as the all-pervasive Brahman > > effulgence. Then, He is localized and enters each universe as > > Garbodakasayi Vishnu, as well as the heart of all living entities > > (Paramatma); while, in the final analysis, he is Bhagavan, or the Supreme > > Personality of Godhead Who possesses six opulences in full. > > Well, the verse only says that learned transcendalists know that what is known as Bhagavan or Brahman or Paramatma is non-dual. This is basically supporting the Adwaita philosophy and I am surprised you are using this quote to criticize Adwaita philosophy! Forget all the import. That is not really there in the sloka. The sloka literally says that the Paramatma is non-dual. > > > Now, Adi Sankara, in his mission to re-define the conclusions of Vedic > > shastras, on the order of Sri Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, > > prefers to maintain his philosophy of formlessness, or covered atheistic > > philosophy, as mentioned above. One has to stretch his imagination to > > Nope. As I pointed out, the verses you quoted say that Sankara re- establishes Vedic knowledge by baffling the non-Vedic illusionists of Buddhism by teaching about the nirguna Brahman who is supreme. > > > In this connection, note the following from the Catpar pandika, one of his > > famous writings, in which Sripad Sankaracharya says: > > bhaja govindam bhaja govindam > > bhaja govindam mudha-mate > > prapte sannihite kala marane > > na hi na hi raksati dukrn-karane > > "My dear foolish brothers, you kindly worship Krsna, Govinda..." Thrice he > > says, bhaja Govindam bhaja Govindam bhaja Govindam mudha-mate. Mudha-mate > > means "You foolish people, you kindly worship Govinda." Why? "Prapte > > sannihite kala marane": "When death comes knocking at your door, your > > grammatical interpretations of scriptures, will not save you. So please > > worship Govinda." > > Yes, this immediately disproves your allegations of atheism. Adi Sankara is not an atheist. He taught the true nature of Supreme Brahman to the confused souls of Kali Yuga. > > Sadly, some people want to undermine him. BhagavadGita is the most brilliant spiritual text we have and Adi Sankara's bhashyam is the most brilliant commentary we have. If you know Sanskrit and still miss out on Sankara's bhashyam, I cannot tell you in words how much you are missing. > > > as the eventuality is that it > > becomes a time vampire, while no agreement is in sight. > > Who said the goal of this debate was an agreement? The goal was to have a discussion on these Vedic spiritual aspects so that there will be some food for thought for the interested people even after the current planetary transits end. > > > Thank you, > > OM TAT SAT > > > > Robert > > May Jupiter's light shine on us, > Narasimha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2003 Report Share Posted April 30, 2003 Om Vishnave Namah ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 03:27 AM 4/30/03 -0400, you wrote: Namaste Robert, > So, my dear Narasimha, please stop these rambling and argumentative > debates, With all due respect, my dear Robert, you should behave yourself in a debate. I can also accuse you of "rambling". But such demeanor is hardly worthy of us. We both are Jyotish gurus and have some responsibility. Let us not use words like "rambling" to describe arguments that we don't particularly like. With due respect to you, instructing me "to behave myself" is a bit beyond what I would call the protocol of "scholarly argument". You tend to get personal when the argument heats up, and that makes you look bad. Anyway, I will side-step the Kindergarten instructions, and address the points at hand. OK, I'll cut down on the ramblings ;-) and jump straight into the main topic. The point is, that dry argument, and Sanskrit scholarship, is not the true means of understanding the Vedic texts. By offering different opinions from those given by great acharyas in the guru parampara system, as recommended in the Bhagavad gita and many Vedic texts, does not yield the true understanding. This is stated everywhere in the Vedic writings, and especially in the Maha-bharata as follows: tarko 'pratisthah srutayo vibhinna nasav rsir yasya matam na bhinnam dharmasya tattvam nihitam guhayam mahajano yena gatah sa panthah -- Mahabharata, Vana-parva (313.117) "Dry arguments are inconclusive. A great personality whose opinion does not differ from others is not considered a great sage. Simply by studying the Vedas, which are variegated, one cannot come to the right path by which religious principles are understood. The solid truth of religious principles is hidden in the heart of an unadulterated, self-realized person. Consequently, as the sastras confirm, one should accept whatever progressive path the mahajanas advocate.'" Earlier, Lakshmi made a good point. The true acharya in disciplic succession from Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, Srila Prabhupada, is translating and commenting on these verses. His is not an independent rendition; his is the commentary given by great Vaishnava Vedic scholars such as Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana, Srila Visvanatha Chakravarti Thakura, Srila Sridhara Swami, Srila Madhvacarya, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, and the list goes on. The opinions of Mahajanas, as mentioned above, are taken to relay the true import of Vedic shastras. So now we have a young man named Narasimha Rao, who thinks that his understanding is superior to all these great Acharyas (?) This is why I say, dry speculation, without a link to a specific Parampara through Diksha and the authorized initiatory process, is like beating the empty corn husk - you may exhibit great effort, but the result is a waste of time, in the final analysis. Now let me address your insinuations against Adi Sankara. You are quick to take offense, and that is also not becoming of a scholar. If you read the translations of these verses that were given, you will not find "insinuations" re: Sripad Sankaracharya. The verses I quoted simply report, that Lord Shiva was ordered by the Supreme Personality of Godhead Narayana/Vishnu, to appear in the form of a Brahmana in Kali-yuga to teach "asat-shastra', or false interpretations of the scriptures. You said that, "pracchanam baudham ucyate" meant that it was the Buddhist philosophy that was Mayavada, and not what Sankara was teaching. Well, if what he was teaching was akin to Buddhist philosophy, then that makes it the same thing, i.e. Mayavada, does it not? Further, the following is said also: "nirgunam vaksyate maya, sarva-svam jagato 'py asya, mohanartham kalau yuge", indicating that the philosophy of Nirguna, or formlessness, is meant to bewilder people in the Kali-yuga. The imports are clear to me. Well, what can I say? This is a liberal, loose and motivated translation aimed at undermining the great Adi Sankara. No. The verse says, "mayavadam asacc-astram, pracchanam baudham ucyate", Mayavadi philosophy, akin to Buddhism, was the purpose of the incarnation of Lord Shiva. I've given a direct quotation from Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu many times on this list, but so far nobody has responded to it: "mayavadi bhasya sunile haya sarva nasa", i.e. anybody who hears Mayavada philosophy is doomed. This is made in direct reference to the Sariraka Bhasya of Sripad Sankaracharya. Not only did Sankara believe in the various saguna forms of Supreme Brahman, but he composed beautiful prayers of many gods. So calling his theory as "atheism" is indefensible. If someone composes prayers in praise of the various forms of the Supreme Brahmana, but in the final analysis, is of the opinion that Brahman is ultimately formless, then he is misleading people. If you take the Bhagavad-gita alone as authority, and forget all the other scriptures, you cannot possibly accept that the form of the Supreme Lord, His qualities, pastimes, and paraphernalia are ultimately Nirakara. It depends on what the final conclusion is. This is why Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura warned against taking the indirect meanings of scriptural injunctions as illustrative of their true import. Krsna makes it clear in the Gita, that (1) He is the source of Brahma, and the Brahman effulgence is subordinate to him "Brahmano hi pratishtaham"; (2) his birth and activity are "divyam", that is transcendental; (3) his abode is "Avyakta", or unmanifested, as well as "aksarah", i.e. infallible; and finally, those who think differently, i.e. that the all-pervasive Brahman is His ultimate feature, are fools bereft of knowledge. This is not *my* language, it is that of Sri Krsna Himself: avajananti mam mudha manusim tanum asritam param bhavam ajananto mama bhuta-mahesvaram "Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature as the Supreme Lord of all that be." > Tattva, or Absolute Truth, it is better to consult the Bhagavat Purana, > Srimad Bhagavatam (1/2/11), as follows: > vadanti tat tattva-vidas > tattvaà yaj jïänam advayam > brahmeti paramätmeti > bhagavän iti çabdyate > "Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this non-dual > substance Brahman, Paramatma or Bhagavan." > > The import of this verse is very clear. That the Supreme Absolute Truth is > known (that is, by those who are tattva-vidah, or learned in the Absolute > Truth) in three incremental steps, first as the all-pervasive Brahman > effulgence. Then, He is localized and enters each universe as > Garbodakasayi Vishnu, as well as the heart of all living entities > (Paramatma); while, in the final analysis, he is Bhagavan, or the Supreme > Personality of Godhead Who possesses six opulences in full. Well, the verse only says that learned transcendalists know that what is known as Bhagavan or Brahman or Paramatma is non-dual. This is basically supporting the Adwaita philosophy and I am surprised you are using this quote to criticize Adwaita philosophy! Forget all the import. That is not really there in the sloka. The sloka literally says that the Paramatma is non-dual. No, no, Narasimha! If it were all One, then why would the distinctions between Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavan be mentioned? This is the meaning of Acintya-bheda-abheda philosophy that was taught by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Simultaneously one, but different. This is an adjunct to the Visishta-advaita philosophy of dualism taught by Srila Ramanujacharya. Brahman is all-pervasive, yes; higher than Brahman, however, is Paramatma, Who is the form of Vishnu/Narayana dwelling within the hearts of all living beings; and finally, higher than Paramatma, is Bhagavan, the Supreme Person, who possesses all six opulences in full. The verse was given yesterday giving the opulences. Similarly, in the Puranas, the difference between the Energy, and the Energetic are given. They are one in the sense of quality; but they are different quantitatively. Note the following, which I have quoted before, and which leaves no room for interpretation: eka-desa-sthitasyagner jyotsna vistarini yatha parasya brahmanah saktis tathedam akhilam jagat -- Vishnu Purana 1.22.53 "Just as the illumination of a fire, which is situated in one place, is spread all over, the energies of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Parabrahman, are spread all over this universe." Thus, there is a quantitative difference between the energy, and the energetic. The energetic in this case, is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Param brahman, whereas his various shaktis are spread everywhere. Krsna states thus: "mayadhyaksena prakrithih", that all manifestations are a product of His diverse energies. By pervading everything by his energies, His existence remains aloof and transcendental. Therefore, in the final analysis, He maintains a separate existence, form, personality, and pastimes, although He is one with everything simultaneously. This is called "Acintya", or inconceivable, and "bheda-abheda", simultaneously one and different, and it is this key piece that was missing in the philosophy presented by Sripad Sankaracharya. Caitanya Mahaprabhu said, however, that he was not at fault, because he did this on the order of his master, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Vishnu. In the Caitanya Charitamrta (in Bengali language), it is said, in discussion with regard to Sripad Sankaracharya: gauna-vrttye yeba bhasya karila acarya tahara sravane nasa haya sarva karya "Sripada Sankaracarya has described all the Vedic literatures in terms of indirect meanings. One who hears such explanations is ruined." -- Caitanya Charitamrta, Adi-lila 7.109 Also: tanhara nahika dosa, isvara-ajna pana gaunartha karila mukhya artha acchadiya "Sankaracarya is not at fault, for it is under the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead that he has covered the real purpose of the Vedas." CC Adi-lila 7.110 So, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, Who is the Lila-avatara for Kali-yuga, says that whoever hears the commentary on Vedanta by Sripad Sankaracharya is ruined. Yet, there is a young man from Maryland named Narasimha Rao, who says that these are some kind of evil insinuations. This is why I started out to say, Narasimha, that dry argument and speculation, without a link to the guru-parampara system, yields results contrary to that which is accepted by great authorities (Acharyas). Prabhupada, in his purports on Caitanya Charitamrta, comments on the above verses as follows: "Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura comments that mukhya-vrtti ("the direct meaning") is abhidha-vrtti, or the meaning that one can understand immediately from the statements of dictionaries, whereas gauna-vrtti ("the indirect meaning") is a meaning that one imagines without consulting the dictionary. For example, one politician has said that Kuruksetra refers to the body, but in the dictionary there is no such definition. Therefore this imaginary meaning is gauna-vrtti, whereas the direct meaning found in the dictionary is mukhya-vrtti or abhidha-vrtti. This is the distinction between the two. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu recommends that one understand the Vedic literature in terms of abhidha-vrtti, and the gauna-vrtti He rejects. Sometimes, however, as a matter of necessity, the Vedic literature is described in terms of the laksana-vrtti or gauna-vrtti, but one should not accept such explanations as permanent truths. [To wit, Sariraka-bhasya] The purpose of the discussions in the Upanishads and Vedanta-sutra is to philosophically establish the personal feature of the Absolute Truth. The impersonalists, however, in order to establish their philosophy, accept these discussions in terms of laksana-vrtti, or indirect meanings. Thus instead of being tattva-vada, or in search of the Absolute Truth, they become Mayavada, or illusioned by the material energy. When Sri Vishnu Svami, one of the four acharyas of the Vaisnava lineage, presented his thesis on the subject matter of suddhadvaita-vada, immediately the Mayavadis took advantage of this philosophy and tried to establish their advaita-vada or kevaladvaita-vada. To defeat this kevaladvaita-vada, Sri Ramanujacarya presented his philosophy as visistadvaita-vada (qualified dualism), and Sri Madhvacarya presented his philosophy of tattva-vada, both of which are stumbling blocks to the Mayavadis because they defeat their philosophy in scrupulous detail. Students of Vedic philosophy know very well how strongly Sri Ramanujacarya's visistadvaita-vada and Sri Madhvacarya's tattva-vada contest the impersonal Mayavada philosophy. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, however, accepted the direct meaning of the Vedanta philosophy and thus defeated the Mayavada philosophy immediately. He opined in this connection that anyone who follows the principles of the Sariraka-bhasya is doomed. This is confirmed in the Padma Purana, where Lord Siva tells Parvati: srnu devi pravaksyami tamasani yatha-kramam yesam sravana-matrena patityam jnaninam api apartham sruti-vakyanam darsayal loka-garhitam karma-svarupa-tyajyatvam atra ca pratipadyate sarva-karma-paribhramsan naiskarmyam tatra cocyate paratma-jivayor aikyam mayatra pratipadyate "My dear wife [shiva speaking to Parvati], hear my explanations of how I have spread ignorance through Mayavada philosophy. Simply by hearing it, even an advanced scholar will fall down. In this philosophy, which is certainly very inauspicious for people in general, I have misrepresented the real meaning of the Vedas and recommended that one give up all activities in order to achieve freedom from karma. In this Mayavada philosophy I have described the Jivatma and Paramatma to be one and the same." How the Mayavada philosophy was condemned by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and His followers is described in Sri Caitanya-Charitamrta, Antya-lila, Second Chapter, verses 94 through 99, where Svarupa-damodara Gosvami says that anyone who is eager to understand the Mayavada philosophy must be considered insane. This especially applies to a Vaisnava who reads the Sariraka-bhasya and considers himself to be one with God. The Mayavadi philosophers have presented their arguments in such attractive, flowery language that hearing Mayavada philosophy may sometimes change the mind of even a maha-bhagavata, or very advanced devotee. An actual Vaisnava cannot tolerate any philosophy that claims God and the living being to be one and the same. ‘brahma'-sabde mukhya arthe kahe -- -- ‘bhagavan' cid-aisvarya-paripurna, anurdhva-samana -- Caitanya Charitamrta, Adi 7.111 "According to direct understanding, the Absolute Truth is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who has all spiritual opulences. No one can be equal to or greater than Him." > Now, Adi Sankara, in his mission to re-define the conclusions of Vedic > shastras, on the order of Sri Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, > prefers to maintain his philosophy of formlessness, or covered atheistic > philosophy, as mentioned above. One has to stretch his imagination to Nope. As I pointed out, the verses you quoted say that Sankara re-establishes Vedic knowledge by baffling the non-Vedic illusionists of Buddhism by teaching about the nirguna Brahman who is supreme. Again you are wrong. Nirguna Brahman is not Supreme. That was the whole message given by Sri Caitanya, and also Sri Krsna: "Brahmano hi pratistaham", "that impersonal Brahman is subordinate to Me." and, "Vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedhyo", i.e. "by all the Vedas I am to be known (i.e. Sri Krsna, not some formless and quality-less aspect). This is the danger of Mayavada philosophy, as elaborated above: In the guise of teaching theism, actually it negates the Personality of Godhead. Sankaracharya, in the true sense, was Shiva, who is a great Vaishnava, always chanting the name of Rama. Thus, internally he knew what the param-tattva was, yet in his specific mission as Sankara, had to teach covered atheism. So, if the above is not convincing enough, then I rest my case. The fact is that you accept a version of the truth according to what is comfortable for you, and according to what fits an acceptable paradigm to your way of thinking. When you wish to get really serious about understanding Vedic philosophy, then you will have to come to a parampara and accept Diksha therein. Otherwise, whatever you have studied and learned, according to Srimad Bhagavatam, is "Srama eva hi kevalam", i.e. a useless waste of time. OM TAT SAT Best wishes, Robert ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Robert A. Koch, Vedic Astrologer Faculty Member, SJC and ACVA visit <http://www.robertkoch.com> and, http://www.jyotishdiscovery.com or Ph: 541.318.0248 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2003 Report Share Posted April 30, 2003 Om Vishnave Namah ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dear Rageshwari, Thank you for your views. Koch-ji, you might not be thoroughly aware with the history of "Bharata", the pious land that gave birth to the great Vedic civilization. But if you kindly read this paper (http://www.sulekha.com/articledesc.asp?cid=306467) Well, first you start out by congratulating me on an "enlightening debate", that has stimulated your knowledge, and now you are saying that I might not be thoroughly aware of Vedic civilization (?). Anyway.......... on Brahmins in Bharata (think of Brahmins for now, as a social entity whose job was to protect and propagate the vedic knowledge from generation to generation in Bharata), you would realize that Adi Sankaracarya (referred in the given paper as "Brahmin Boy"), did a great service to mankind by saving Vedic civilization from being ravaged by Buddhism during the 7th century. So any effort to be-little his "beyond words can describe" contribution to Vedic civilization is "at its best" uneducated and ignorant. First of all, one is not Brahmana by birth only. Birth in a particular caste, such as Brahmana, Ksatriya, etc., is meaningless in consideration of spiritual knowledge. This was the opinion of Sri Sanatana Goswami, the first disciple of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who said: "tatha diksa-vidhanena, dvijatvam jayate nrnam" This means, that it is only by accepting Diksha, initiation, into the bona-fide parampara, or disciplic succession, that one becomes a Brahmana, or "Twice-born". It is not by birth only. Indeed, since I have received two Diksha initiations from Srila Prabhupada, one in 1970, the other in 1971, that qualifies me to perform Brahminical duties, the chief of which is, as you say, "to protect and propagate the vedic knowledge from generation to generation in Bharata". How old are you? Before Narasimha Rao was born, I was travelling all over the US, as well as in India, preaching and propagating Sanatana Dharma by way of the Krsna Consciousness movement. I was also a pujari in the temple of Sri Sri Krsna -Balarama in Sri Vrndavana Dhama from 1975 to 1976, and then after that I was the head pujari in the temple of Sri Sri Radha Madana Mohana in Vancouver Canada, for 10 years. I taught Bhagavad-gita in universities, instead of attending the university myself to get a degree in some mundane science for the purpose of earning a lucrative income. I accepted vows restricting meat-eating, intoxications, sexual activity, and gambling, and never got married until I reached the age of 50. I never earned one cent for 20 years of my adult life, and instead gave life and soul to the service of my guru, and Lord Sri Jagannatha. I sat at the Lotus Feet of Srila Prabhupada, and learned the principles of Vedas from him directly, and whatever you are hearing from me on these lists, are his teachings verbatim. As far as Srila Prabhupada is concerned, all of us agree that he is a GREAT contributor and a saint. No one is challenging that. It is only when disciples of Srila Prabhupada try to defame Sri Adi Sankaracarya, people like myself and Narasimha-ji feel like we can't take it. The above statement is nonsense, and I am sorry for having to say that, Mata-ji. Please read my other post that I sent to the list today, in which I quoted Caitanya Charitamrta exclusively to show what Sri Caitanya's opinion on Sariraka Bhasya and Sripad Sankaracharya's teachings was. It takes courage to accept the Vedic injunctions as they are, without watered down interpretations. You can't take it, because you have been mislead up until now. The shastric injunctions are very clear, and the acharyas in 4 authorized Vaishnava sampradayas confer on these conclusions. Now let me tell you what I feel to be offensive: Some young Hindus seem to be of the opinion that Prabhupada was a saint had made great contributions, and in fact he was, and thank you for acknowledging that. But then, you are of the opinion that his disciples are a bunch of fools who say any nonsense thing and commit offense. Sometimes our language is strong, yes....I do not mean to offend. Yet, if you hear the language of the Gita, Sri Krsna is very strong, and uncompromising on many points. Whoever thus quotes Sri Krsna, the Acharyas, as well as Vedas, is going to sound uncompromising too. For example, Sri Krsna calls worshipers of Devatas, to the exclusion of Him, as "Alpa-medhasam", or less intelligent. You cannot define this any other way. Now, if I repeat this, does that make me "offensive"? By doing so, am I defaming Lord Krsna, who made the statement in the first place? If one repeats the words of shastra, "uncompromisingly," then he is also going to sound hard, yet that is the way of hearing the Absolute Truth. Take it as it is, or get the watered down version. As they say, "if you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen." So, people who love and adore Prabhupada, but at the same time scourge and denounce his disciples, in effect, are offending Prabhupada. I challenge you to give me one instance where I said something, that was not stated directly by Srila Prabhupada himself in any of his books, or recorded lectures. If you can show that I have misrepresented him, then I will humbly accept your chastisements. If you cannot, then stop the offensive tirade against a legion of pure Vaishnavas, i.e. the Krsna Consciousness movement, who did more in the course of 14 years to spread Sanatana Dharma all over the world, than 100 generations of Hindus that came before them. If you put things in perspective and try to understand the contribution of Sri Adi Sankaracarya in those times when Hinduism and Vedas were subjected to the survival threat, you would realize that your arguments were not completely educated. No, it is yours and Sri Narasimha Rao's opinions which are uneducated. Further, when did I give *my* opinion? That is not the duty of a disciple. My duty, is to quote and represent my guru Srila Prabhupada verbatim, and that is what I have done. So, in effect, are you saying that Srila Prabhupada was uneducated, after rendering over 120 volumes of Vedic literature into 30 different languages? Further, are you saying to me, that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu was uneducated too, when he said "Mayavadi bhasya sunile haya sarva nasa", i.e. with reference to Sariraka Bhasya, whoever hears Mayavada philosophy is doomed? It is not the Buddhist that is Mayavada, it is the philosopher who teaches any conclusion that establishes the Supreme Truth as Nirakara, or without qualities and form. At least Buddhism is direct Sunyavada, or voidism. What Sankara taught, was "covered" Sunyavada, within the shroud of flowery language, and thus misrepresented the true tenets of the Vedas. That is the most bogus, misleading, and untruthful disgrace to *your* scriptures, the Vedas, that I have ever heard of. Take the Vaishnava philosophy back to its roots, and you come to Lord Brahma himself, who said, "Govindam adi-purusam, tam aham bhajami". Before anything existed, there was Narayana, Govinda, the Supreme Person, and after everything is annihilated, including the abodes of Shiva and Brahma, He alone exists. Tell me that this Supreme Personality of Godhead is without form or quality, and I will have to tell you that you have offended your own religion. You wrote: >Koch-ji, you might not be thoroughly aware with the history >of "Bharata", the pious land that gave birth to the great Vedic >civilization. How old were you when you read the Maha-Bharata for the first time? I read the Maha-Bharata three times from cover to cover, in 1971. One does not have to be born in a particular country to be aware of its greatness. Furthermore, being born next door to Adi Sankaracharya, is not a qualification for really knowing what he taught, and on Whose order he taught it. OM TAT SAT Best wishes, Robert ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Robert A. Koch, Vedic Astrologer Faculty Member, SJC and ACVA visit <http://www.robertkoch.com> and, http://www.jyotishdiscovery.com or Ph: 541.318.0248 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 1, 2003 Report Share Posted May 1, 2003 Dear Robert Koch-ji, I do not have knowledge to argue with you any further and I believe Guruji Narsimhaji and others are doing a great job at it. But one thing I would want to argue against is your allegation: > Some young Hindus seem to be of the opinion that Prabhupada was a > saint had made great contributions, and in fact he was, and thank > you for acknowledging that. But then, you are of the opinion that > his disciples are a bunch of fools who say any nonsense thing and > commit offense. I do not know where you get this impression. I, and so do other Hindus whom I have known personally, do not think His disciples are fools. As a matter of fact, my nature is more like I take things at its face value. Meaning, I am always happy to see more and more people trying to understand Vedas and believe in Vedas. I do not care personally, whether these people are born as Hindus or they have a developed interest in Hinduism. And I agree with you that one does not have to born as a Hindu to learn Vedas. In fact, I am a Hindu by birth but unfortunately did not learn Vedas . But that cannot be said about everybody on this list. I am speaking for myself and not for everyone who is a Hindu by birth. So generalization does not help here. And if you see, not having learnt Vedas and Sanskrit language is one of the reasons why my hands are tied in this educational debate. Anyway, I just wanted to clear up this one allegation. Also a suggestion - please do not take things so personally so as to start using the hate-tone while replying to others. Everybody on this list is trying to learn here. Maybe, what you are saying is not what their experiences have been. And people have liberty to not agree with you. Don't they? Namaste. Rageshwari. vedic astrology, "Robert A. Koch" <rk@r...> wrote: > Om Vishnave Namah > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Dear Rageshwari, > > Thank you for your views. > > >Koch-ji, you might not be thoroughly aware with the history > >of "Bharata", the pious land that gave birth to the great Vedic > >civilization. But if you kindly read this paper > >(http://www.sulekha.com/articledesc.asp?cid=306467) > > Well, first you start out by congratulating me on an "enlightening debate", > that has stimulated your knowledge, and now you are saying that I might not > be thoroughly aware of Vedic civilization (?). Anyway.......... > > >on Brahmins in > >Bharata (think of Brahmins for now, as a social entity whose job was > >to protect and propagate the vedic knowledge from generation to > >generation in Bharata), you would realize that Adi Sankaracarya > >(referred in the given paper as "Brahmin Boy"), did a great service > >to mankind by saving Vedic civilization from being ravaged by > >Buddhism during the 7th century. So any effort to be-little > >his "beyond words can describe" contribution to Vedic civilization > >is "at its best" uneducated and ignorant. > > First of all, one is not Brahmana by birth only. Birth in a particular > caste, such as Brahmana, Ksatriya, etc., is meaningless in consideration of > spiritual knowledge. This was the opinion of Sri Sanatana Goswami, the > first disciple of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who said: > "tatha diksa-vidhanena, dvijatvam jayate nrnam" > This means, that it is only by accepting Diksha, initiation, into the > bona-fide parampara, or disciplic succession, that one becomes a Brahmana, > or "Twice-born". It is not by birth only. > > Indeed, since I have received two Diksha initiations from Srila Prabhupada, > one in 1970, the other in 1971, that qualifies me to perform Brahminical > duties, the chief of which is, as you say, "to protect and propagate the > vedic knowledge from generation to generation in Bharata". How old are > you? Before Narasimha Rao was born, I was travelling all over the US, as > well as in India, preaching and propagating Sanatana Dharma by way of the > Krsna Consciousness movement. I was also a pujari in the temple of Sri > Sri Krsna -Balarama in Sri Vrndavana Dhama from 1975 to 1976, and then > after that I was the head pujari in the temple of Sri Sri Radha Madana > Mohana in Vancouver Canada, for 10 years. I taught Bhagavad-gita in > universities, instead of attending the university myself to get a degree in > some mundane science for the purpose of earning a lucrative income. I > accepted vows restricting meat-eating, intoxications, sexual activity, and > gambling, and never got married until I reached the age of 50. I never > earned one cent for 20 years of my adult life, and instead gave life and > soul to the service of my guru, and Lord Sri Jagannatha. I sat at the > Lotus Feet of Srila Prabhupada, and learned the principles of Vedas from > him directly, and whatever you are hearing from me on these lists, are his > teachings verbatim. > > >As far as Srila Prabhupada is concerned, all of us agree that he is a > >GREAT contributor and a saint. No one is challenging that. It is only > >when disciples of Srila Prabhupada try to defame Sri Adi > >Sankaracarya, people like myself and Narasimha-ji feel like we can't > >take it. > > The above statement is nonsense, and I am sorry for having to say that, > Mata-ji. Please read my other post that I sent to the list today, in which > I quoted Caitanya Charitamrta exclusively to show what Sri Caitanya's > opinion on Sariraka Bhasya and Sripad Sankaracharya's teachings was. It > takes courage to accept the Vedic injunctions as they are, without watered > down interpretations. You can't take it, because you have been mislead up > until now. The shastric injunctions are very clear, and the acharyas in 4 > authorized Vaishnava sampradayas confer on these conclusions. > > Now let me tell you what I feel to be offensive: Some young Hindus seem to > be of the opinion that Prabhupada was a saint had made great contributions, > and in fact he was, and thank you for acknowledging that. But then, you > are of the opinion that his disciples are a bunch of fools who say any > nonsense thing and commit offense. Sometimes our language is strong, > yes....I do not mean to offend. Yet, if you hear the language of the Gita, > Sri Krsna is very strong, and uncompromising on many points. Whoever thus > quotes Sri Krsna, the Acharyas, as well as Vedas, is going to sound > uncompromising too. For example, Sri Krsna calls worshipers of Devatas, to > the exclusion of Him, as "Alpa-medhasam", or less intelligent. You cannot > define this any other way. Now, if I repeat this, does that make me > "offensive"? By doing so, am I defaming Lord Krsna, who made the statement > in the first place? If one repeats the words of shastra, > "uncompromisingly," then he is also going to sound hard, yet that is the > way of hearing the Absolute Truth. Take it as it is, or get the watered > down version. As they say, "if you can't stand the heat, then get out of > the kitchen." So, people who love and adore Prabhupada, but at the same > time scourge and denounce his disciples, in effect, are offending > Prabhupada. I challenge you to give me one instance where I said > something, that was not stated directly by Srila Prabhupada himself in any > of his books, or recorded lectures. If you can show that I have > misrepresented him, then I will humbly accept your chastisements. If you > cannot, then stop the offensive tirade against a legion of pure Vaishnavas, > i.e. the Krsna Consciousness movement, who did more in the course of 14 > years to spread Sanatana Dharma all over the world, than 100 generations of > Hindus that came before them. > > >If you put things in perspective and try to understand the > >contribution of Sri Adi Sankaracarya in those times when Hinduism and > >Vedas were subjected to the survival threat, you would realize that > >your arguments were not completely educated. > > No, it is yours and Sri Narasimha Rao's opinions which are > uneducated. Further, when did I give *my* opinion? That is not the duty > of a disciple. My duty, is to quote and represent my guru Srila Prabhupada > verbatim, and that is what I have done. So, in effect, are you saying that > Srila Prabhupada was uneducated, after rendering over 120 volumes of Vedic > literature into 30 different languages? Further, are you saying to me, > that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu was uneducated too, when he said "Mayavadi > bhasya sunile haya sarva nasa", i.e. with reference to Sariraka Bhasya, > whoever hears Mayavada philosophy is doomed? It is not the Buddhist that > is Mayavada, it is the philosopher who teaches any conclusion that > establishes the Supreme Truth as Nirakara, or without qualities and > form. At least Buddhism is direct Sunyavada, or voidism. What Sankara > taught, was "covered" Sunyavada, within the shroud of flowery language, and > thus misrepresented the true tenets of the Vedas. That is the most bogus, > misleading, and untruthful disgrace to *your* scriptures, the Vedas, that I > have ever heard of. Take the Vaishnava philosophy back to its roots, and > you come to Lord Brahma himself, who said, "Govindam adi-purusam, tam aham > bhajami". Before anything existed, there was Narayana, Govinda, the > Supreme Person, and after everything is annihilated, including the abodes > of Shiva and Brahma, He alone exists. Tell me that this Supreme > Personality of Godhead is without form or quality, and I will have to tell > you that you have offended your own religion. > > You wrote: > > >Koch-ji, you might not be thoroughly aware with the history > >of "Bharata", the pious land that gave birth to the great Vedic > >civilization. > > How old were you when you read the Maha-Bharata for the first time? I read > the Maha-Bharata three times from cover to cover, in 1971. One does not > have to be born in a particular country to be aware of its > greatness. Furthermore, being born next door to Adi Sankaracharya, is not > a qualification for really knowing what he taught, and on Whose order he > taught it. > > OM TAT SAT > > Best wishes, > Robert > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Robert A. Koch, Vedic Astrologer > Faculty Member, SJC and ACVA > visit <http://www.robertkoch.com> and, > http://www.jyotishdiscovery.com or > Ph: 541.318.0248 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2003 Report Share Posted May 3, 2003 JAYA JAGANNATHA! Dear Narasimha, Namaste. > verses from the Padma Purana:> mayavadam asac chastram> pracchannam bauddham ucyate> mayaiva kalpitam devi> kalau brahmana-rupina> > brahmanas caparam rupam> nirgunam vaksyate maya> sarva-svam jagato 'py asya> mohanartham kalau yuge> > vedante tu maha-sastre> mayavadam avaidikam> mayaiva vaksyate devi> jagatam nasa-karanat> "The Mayavada philosophy," Lord Siva informed his wife Parvati, "is impious > [asac chastra]. It is covered Buddhism, or in other words voidist in > nature. My dear Parvati, in Kali-yuga I assume the form of a brahmana and > teach this imagined Mayavada philosophy. In order to cheat the atheists, I > describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead to be without form and without > qualities. Similarly, in explaining Vedanta I describe the same Mayavada > philosophy in order to mislead the entire population toward atheism by > denying the personal form of the Lord." Well, what can I say? This is a liberal, loose and motivated translation aimed at undermining the great Adi Sankara. The word "asacchaastram" (wrong science) was not used to describe Sankara's teachings, but instead to describe "bauddham" (Buddhism). To me, the verses very clearly mean,"A wrong knowledge based on illusion (mayavada) and hiding is called Buddhism (bauddham uchyate). In Kali yuga, O Parvati, by me, born in a Brahmana family, will be established Brahman's supreme form. It will be mentioned by me to be nirguna, to baffle the world and this (Buddhism) also in Kali yuga. In all the great philosophical knowledge, this mayavada (of Buddhism) is quite non-Vedic. Because this causes destruction, this fact will be established by me alone in the world". Prachannam(hidden) bauddham (buddhism) ucyate (is spoken) mayaa (by me) is a passive case, and it means that the hidden Buddhism will be spoken by me. So Sankaracharya says he will speak this asac-chastra, whether you say that Mayavada is akin to Buddhism or Buddhism is akin to Mayavada, still the fact is there is a close similarity between the two, and Lord Siva Himself declares that it is asac-chastra, or against the authentic Vedic conclusion of Vyasadeva, and that He will preach it in the form of a brahmana. brahmanas (of the Brahman) caparam (and non-supreme) rupam (form) nirgunam (without qualities) vaksyate (is spoken) maya (by me) means that by me it will be said that the form of Brahman is aparam, or not supreme, in other words it is material, and Brahman is Nirguna, or without qualities. This is exactly what Sankara says, call it Mayavada or Advaita-vada. Then he says: vedante (to the Vedanta) tu (and) maha-sastre (the great scrpiture) mayavadam (theory of illusion) avaidikam (non-vedic) mayaiva (by me) vaksyate (is spoken) I will introduce an explanation of the great scripture Vedanta based on the theory of illusion (Mayavada), which is against Vedic conclusion. And finally, jagatam (of the universe) nasa-karanat (cause of destruction), this teaching will be the cause of destruction of the whole world. So I think he is very straightforward, and also as I have mentioned previously, if we read Adi Sankara's devotional poems like Achyitastakam, Govindastakam, Nandanandana-srikrsnashtakam etc. then it is clear that both cannot be taken literally. If we accept that Sankara is an incarnation of Siva, who is the greatest devotee, and is certainly not denying Krishna's spiritual form, let alone take his prayers in the 5th Skandha of Bhagavatam, then it is logical that Sankaracharya manifestes his true devotion in the se poems, while performs his duty of misleading the atheists while commenting on the Vedanta or Upanishads, or the Gita for that matter. Sanjayji mentioned that Sankara gave us the Gita. That may be true, that he preserved the original words spoken by Bhagavan Sri Krishna and retold by Vyasa and transcribed by Ganesha 5000 years ago. But then his comments is a separate thing. Sri Madhva and Ramanuja also gave their commentaries on the Gita, and obviously accepted the same slokas as authentic. So I think Sankaracharya's position is clear, and we can move on in the succession of incarnations in the Kali yuga from Buddha, who convinced people to give up animal slaughter in the name fo Vedic sacrifices which are not recommended in this age, to Sankara, who turned back people to Vedic culture, commenting on all the main shastras, but retaining the impersonal and atheistic conclusions of Buddhism, to Sri Caitanya, who gave us the yuga dharma, congregational chanting of Lord Hari's name. In the biography of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu his preaching to Prakashananda Saraswati, the leader of the Kasi Mayavadis in the beginning of the XVI. century, as well as to Sarvabhauma Bhattacharya, a leading impersonalist in Puri at the time. Both became devotees of Lord Caitanya along with their followers. Lord Caitanya also preached to Buddhists, to Muslims and to followers of Sri Samradaya and other Vaishnava Sampradayas, and established the supremacy of His achintya-bhedaabheda-vada philosophy. This shows that according to Him, these groups followed improper or incomplete teachings, and He confronted these teachings. Then there were the different pseudo-vaishnava groups, whom Bhaktivinoda Thakura calls apasampradayas, all of which originated themselves from Lord Caitanya, but were not actually accepted by him. One example is the Atibadi sampradaya, but this is another cup of tea, so we are not going to go into this now. As for astrologers, Lord Caitanya's grandfather, Nilambara Cakravarti was said to be a proficient astrologer, and he calculated Sri Caitanya's Jataka at His birth. The details can be read in Sri Caitanya Bhagavata by Vrindavana dasa Thakura. Srila Prabhupada's Guru Maharaja, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura was also an expert Jyotish, although we do not know details about his studies. I'm attaching his chart here. Yours, Gauranga Das Vedic Astrologer gauranga (AT) brihaspati (DOT) net Jyotish Remedies: WWW.BRIHASPATI.NET Phone:+36-309-140-839 Attachment: [not stored] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2003 Report Share Posted May 3, 2003 Jaya Jagannatha Dear List, Today my Bengali friend said that it shocks her that in an exam paper, one of the multiple questions was the following: Which religion believes in many Gods 1) Judaism 2) Christianity 3) Islam 4) Hinduism Yes, not guesses what is supposed to be the correct answer!! According to my friend Shamili, she says the fault lies with the tenets within Hindus. All other dominions preach to their own believers that there is ONLY ONE GOD. Being a Bengali, she says that most people from that region besides her family believes in Durga and Kali Ma and this has always confused her as to why MahaVisnu is never included in their oblations. Is this true? Best wishes, Swee swee (AT) brihaspati (DOT) net www.brihaspati.net Gauranga Das wrote: JAYA JAGANNATHA! Dear Narasimha, Namaste. > verses from the Padma Purana: > mayavadam asac chastram > pracchannam bauddham ucyate > mayaiva kalpitam devi > kalau brahmana-rupina > > brahmanas caparam rupam > nirgunam vaksyate maya > sarva-svam jagato 'py asya > mohanartham kalau yuge > > vedante tu maha-sastre > mayavadam avaidikam > mayaiva vaksyate devi > jagatam nasa-karanat > "The Mayavada philosophy," Lord Siva informed his wife Parvati, "is impious > [asac chastra]. It is covered Buddhism, or in other words voidist in > nature. My dear Parvati, in Kali-yuga I assume the form of a brahmana and > teach this imagined Mayavada philosophy. In order to cheat the atheists, I > describe the Supreme Personality of Godhead to be without form and without > qualities. Similarly, in explaining Vedanta I describe the same Mayavada > philosophy in order to mislead the entire population toward atheism by > denying the personal form of the Lord." Well, what can I say? This is a liberal, loose and motivated translation aimed at undermining the great Adi Sankara. The word "asacchaastram" (wrong science) was not used to describe Sankara's teachings, but instead to describe "bauddham" (Buddhism). To me, the verses very clearly mean,"A wrong knowledge based on illusion (mayavada) and hiding is called Buddhism (bauddham uchyate). In Kali yuga, O Parvati, by me, born in a Brahmana family, will be established Brahman's supreme form. It will be mentioned by me to be nirguna, to baffle the world and this (Buddhism) also in Kali yuga. In all the great philosophical knowledge, this mayavada (of Buddhism) is quite non-Vedic. Because this causes destruction, this fact will be established by me alone in the world". Prachannam(hidden) bauddham (buddhism) ucyate (is spoken) mayaa (by me) is a passive case, and it means that the hidden Buddhism will be spoken by me. So Sankaracharya says he will speak this asac-chastra, whether you say that Mayavada is akin to Buddhism or Buddhism is akin to Mayavada, still the fact is there is a close similarity between the two, and Lord Siva Himself declares that it is asac-chastra, or against the authentic Vedic conclusion of Vyasadeva, and that He will preach it in the form of a brahmana. brahmanas (of the Brahman) caparam (and non-supreme) rupam (form) nirgunam (without qualities) vaksyate (is spoken) maya (by me) means that by me it will be said that the form of Brahman is aparam, or not supreme, in other words it is material, and Brahman is Nirguna, or without qualities. This is exactly what Sankara says, call it Mayavada or Advaita-vada. Then he says: vedante (to the Vedanta) tu (and) maha-sastre (the great scrpiture) mayavadam (theory of illusion) avaidikam (non-vedic) mayaiva (by me) vaksyate (is spoken) I will introduce an explanation of the great scripture Vedanta based on the theory of illusion (Mayavada), which is against Vedic conclusion. And finally, jagatam (of the universe) nasa-karanat (cause of destruction), this teaching will be the cause of destruction of the whole world. So I think he is very straightforward, and also as I have mentioned previously, if we read Adi Sankara's devotional poems like Achyitastakam, Govindastakam, Nandanandana-srikrsnashtakam etc. then it is clear that both cannot be taken literally. If we accept that Sankara is an incarnation of Siva, who is the greatest devotee, and is certainly not denying Krishna's spiritual form, let alone take his prayers in the 5th Skandha of Bhagavatam, then it is logical that Sankaracharya manifestes his true devotion in the se poems, while performs his duty of misleading the atheists while commenting on the Vedanta or Upanishads, or the Gita for that matter. Sanjayji mentioned that Sankara gave us the Gita. That may be true, that he preserved the original words spoken by Bhagavan Sri Krishna and retold by Vyasa and transcribed by Ganesha 5000 years ago. But then his comments is a separate thing. Sri Madhva and Ramanuja also gave their commentaries on the Gita, and obviously accepted the same slokas as authentic. So I think Sankaracharya's position is clear, and we can move on in the succession of incarnations in the Kali yuga from Buddha, who convinced people to give up animal slaughter in the name fo Vedic sacrifices which are not recommended in this age, to Sankara, who turned back people to Vedic culture, commenting on all the main shastras, but retaining the impersonal and atheistic conclusions of Buddhism, to Sri Caitanya, who gave us the yuga dharma, congregational chanting of Lord Hari's name. In the biography of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu his preaching to Prakashananda Saraswati, the leader of the Kasi Mayavadis in the beginning of the XVI. century, as well as to Sarvabhauma Bhattacharya, a leading impersonalist in Puri at the time. Both became devotees of Lord Caitanya along with their followers. Lord Caitanya also preached to Buddhists, to Muslims and to followers of Sri Samradaya and other Vaishnava Sampradayas, and established the supremacy of His achintya-bhedaabheda-vada philosophy. This shows that according to Him, these groups followed improper or incomplete teachings, and He confronted these teachings. Then there were the different pseudo-vaishnava groups, whom Bhaktivinoda Thakura calls apasampradayas, all of which originated themselves from Lord Caitanya, but were not actually accepted by him. One example is the Atibadi sampradaya, but this is another cup of tea, so we are not going to go into this now. As for astrologers, Lord Caitanya's grandfather, Nilambara Cakravarti was said to be a proficient astrologer, and he calculated Sri Caitanya's Jataka at His birth. The details can be read in Sri Caitanya Bhagavata by Vrindavana dasa Thakura. Srila Prabhupada's Guru Maharaja, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura was also an expert Jyotish, although we do not know details about his studies. I'm attaching his chart here. Yours, Gauranga Das Vedic Astrologer gauranga (AT) brihaspati (DOT) net Jyotish Remedies: WWW.BRIHASPATI.NET Phone:+36-309-140-839 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.