The Sankara contardiction

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

I always thought that Adhi SAnkara was against rituals and I

understand that he defeated several Karma Kandins of his time in

prolonged debates and made them his disciples. If this is so , why did

he establish several Mutts which are upholders of rituals?Why did he

write several works upholding pure Bhakthi, if he was the greatest

exponent of Jnana of his time?Ramachander.P.R.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ramachander,

 

I don't think thare is a contradiction. Karma Kandins were of the view that

Karma itself can give moksha. It is this view that Shankara criticised and

not Karma itself. Shankara acknowledges the role of Karama in giving chitta

shuddhi, which in his view, is a prerequisite for gaining jnAnA.

 

Besides did not the lord himself enjoin upon even jnAnis to continue doing

their karma by saying, "loka sangraham evApi sampashyan karthum arhasi" -

You (a jnAni) need to do your karma in the interests common welfare for

other wise you may set a wrong example to the ajnAnis?

 

praNAms,

Venkat

 

 

On 8/6/06, ramya475 <ramya475 > wrote:

>

> Dear Friends,

> I always thought that Adhi SAnkara was against rituals and I

> understand that he defeated several Karma Kandins of his time in

> prolonged debates and made them his disciples. If this is so , why did

> he establish several Mutts which are upholders of rituals?Why did he

> write several works upholding pure Bhakthi, if he was the greatest

> exponent of Jnana of his time?Ramachander.P.R.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Ramachanderji namaste.

"Why did he write several works upholding pure Bhakthi, if he was the greatest exponent of Jnana of his time?"

Shankara was not only had to fight with the karmaTAs, but also with the Buddhists.

He must also have found laymen who were not yet ready to assimilate Vedanta - j~nAnakhAnda -adhikAritavm was lacking.

So the pure bhakti shlokas and stotras help them from becoming atheists.

This helps the chidren to get introduced to spirituality at a very young age.

Learning of the shlokas helps in teaching them:

1. As a speech therapy

2. Clarity in expression

3. Inexhaustible memory

4. Confidence building

5. Right attirude and right thinking

6. Respect and value for the culture

7. Respect for the teacher

8. Understanding the right values - dharma

9. Samskritam

10. Interest in the study of Vedanta, as they grow older and when they are ready.

11. IShTa devata upAsana

12. Everything in the creation has to be respected.

13. Finally to develop devotion - shraddha and bhakti in the scriptures.

The list is endless. Depends on the samskara vAsana of the person to find answers.

Why did vyAsa after organisisng the Vedas and writing the brahmasUtras, write the Srimad Bhagavatam - a bhakti purANa?

om namo narayanaya

Lakshmi Muthuswamy

 

 

 

Talk is cheap. Use Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.

[Guest guest]

Respected Sri Ramachandran,

 

Pranaams

 

Eventhough I am not all competent to talk about Sankara I couldnot resist the temptation of expressing my heart felt feelings. Sankara is not a prophet of a sectarian religion. He wanted to integrate all the religions in to the grand Vaidika Frame by reforming those religions prevalent at his time by removing the objectionable features in them and making false the feeling that other man's god is my devil. He accomodated Buddhism, Karma kanda (as a means for Chitta suddhi) Sakta, Saiva, Kasmira saiva ( by offering them Sri Vidya) Saura Ganapatya and others by leading all of them to same nondual truth. It is his liberal attitude towards other religions is seen as a apparent contradiction. In reality he removed all the contradictions in the religions prevalent on that day and made all the religons fit to reach the absolute truth. By establshing 4 maths in the four corners of the country dispelling the delusion that India as a one nation

was developed after British rule in India. Therefore he was rightly titled as Jagadguru which no other acharya deserved.

 

with regards

 

Moses Yesupadam

 

 

Talk is cheap. Use Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.

[Guest guest]

moses yesupadam <moses_yesupadam > wrote: Respected Sri Ramachandran,

Pranaams

Eventhough I am not all competent to talk about Sankara I couldnot resist the temptation of expressing my heart felt feelings. Sankara is not a prophet of a sectarian religion. He wanted to integrate all the religions in to the grand Vaidika Frame by reforming those religions prevalent at his time by removing the objectionable features in them and making false the feeling that other man's god is my devil. He accomodated Buddhism, Karma kanda (as a means for Chitta suddhi) Sakta, Saiva, Kasmira saiva ( by offering them Sri Vidya) Saura Ganapatya and others by leading all of them to same nondual truth.

From

Sankarraman

Dear Sir,

Sankara very vehemently opposed Buddhism. Where did you get the idea that he accomod? Even a person ignorant of his teachings knows that he is dead against Buddhism.

Sankarraman

 

Note from the List Moderators: There is substantial historical evidence in support of your and Sri Yesupadam's contentions. Sankara definitely was not 'very vehemently opposed to Buddhism' though he showed his disagreemnts with Buddhism on several aspects.

 

 

 

 

Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri G Sankarraman,

 

Pranams,

 

Thank you for your response for my posting. I have expressed my humble view in the posting that sankara refined and reformed Buddhist Philosophyto establish nondual reality using their dialectic taking Sruthi support. Herewith I am referring to a book recently read by me. From concluding para of Chpt 10 of " A History of Indian Philosophy" by Surendranath Dasgupta published by Motilal Banarsidas,Delhi for your valuable comments.

 

"Sankara and his followers borrowed much of their dialect form of criticism from the Buddhists. His Brahman was very much like a sunya of Nagarjuna. It is difficult indeed to distinguish between pure being and pure non-being as a category. The debts of Sankara to the self luminocity of the Vijnana vada Buddhism can hardly be be overestimated. There seems to be much truth in the accusations against Sankara by Vijnana Bhikshu and others that he was a hidden Buddhist himself. I am led to think that Sankara's philosophy is largely a compound of Vijnanavda and Sunyavada Buddhism with the with the Upanishad notion of permanence of self superadded."

 

Yours sincerely

 

Moses Yesupadam

 

 

 

 

Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

[Guest guest]

"Sankara and his followers borrowed much of their dialect form of criticism

from the Buddhists. His Brahman was very much like a sunya of Nagarjuna.

It is difficult indeed to distinguish between pure being and pure non-being

as a category. The debts of Sankara to the self luminocity of the Vijnana

vada Buddhism can hardly be be overestimated. There seems to be much

truth in the accusations against Sankara by Vijnana Bhikshu and

others that he was a hidden Buddhist himself. I am led to think that

Sankara's philosophy is largely a compound of Vijnanavda and Sunyavada

Buddhism with the with the Upanishad notion of permanence of self

superadded."

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

With all due respects to your doubts on shankara & advaita tradition, I

would like to point out that you are picking objections which are trying to

belittle shankara's advaita vEdAnta...I dont know whether this is

intentional...Anyway these objections are not at all new to the advaitins

since vishishtAdvaita AchAryas like Sri RamanujAchArya, yamunAchAra, dvaita

AchAryas like Sri AnandatIrtha (Sri MadhvAchArya) Sri jayatIrtha etc. etc.

have already vehemenly propagated this view & argued that advaita is

buddhism in disguise...I also heard that Prof. S. RAdhakrishnan also

floated his views by saying advaita's parabrahman is nothing but

nAgArjuna's shUnya...Now one more addition to the list & this time it is

Dasgupta!!! I dont know what is the criteria you are considering to prefer

Dasgupta's view as against our advaita AchArya-s views....infact none of

the advaita Acharya-s (including Kanchi mahAswAmigal, Sringeri's Sri

Chandrashekhara bhArati mahAswAmihaH) think like that even after

centuries!! If what shruti says about brahman is there in buddhism also

what should we do for that?? We are simply following shruti's verdicts on

parabrahman, if people from outside the traditional circle think it is

buddhism...do you think is it really a problem of advaitins??

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

With respects to society and great followers of Advait and non-followers.

Pranams,

Building parallels between two philosophies and comparing two standards one does

during analysis of the philosophy. Once one understand the truth of existence and

philosophy itself, they start respecting indvidual branches.

By all means we all are aware of roots of Budha, Jain and Advaith philosophies.

I am not even drop in ocean to summarize this, however would like help people

understand perspective, social constructs and evangelism behind Shankara's

philosophy was Life, Creation of Dhathu, Creation of Planets, Existence of Aatman

role of Bramhan. Versus practicing that and interpretation of them..

Om Sri Dakshinamoorthaye namah...

Pranams,

Hari.

 

bhaskar.yr (AT) in (DOT) abb.com wrote:

"Sankara and his followers borrowed much of their dialect form of criticism

from the Buddhists. His Brahman was very much like a sunya of Nagarjuna.

It is difficult indeed to distinguish between pure being and pure non-being

as a category. The debts of Sankara to the self luminocity of the Vijnana

vada Buddhism can hardly be be overestimated. There seems to be much

truth in the accusations against Sankara by Vijnana Bhikshu and

others that he was a hidden Buddhist himself. I am led to think that

Sankara's philosophy is largely a compound of Vijnanavda and Sunyavada

Buddhism with the with the Upanishad notion of permanence of self

superadded."

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

With all due respects to your doubts on shankara & advaita tradition, I

would like to point out that you are picking objections which are trying to

belittle shankara's advaita vEdAnta...I dont know whether this is

intentional...Anyway these objections are not at all new to the advaitins

since vishishtAdvaita AchAryas like Sri RamanujAchArya, yamunAchAra, dvaita

AchAryas like Sri AnandatIrtha (Sri MadhvAchArya) Sri jayatIrtha etc. etc.

have already vehemenly propagated this view & argued that advaita is

buddhism in disguise...I also heard that Prof. S. RAdhakrishnan also

floated his views by saying advaita's parabrahman is nothing but

nAgArjuna's shUnya...Now one more addition to the list & this time it is

Dasgupta!!! I dont know what is the criteria you are considering to prefer

Dasgupta's view as against our advaita AchArya-s views....infact none of

the advaita Acharya-s (including Kanchi mahAswAmigal, Sringeri's Sri

Chandrashekhara bhArati mahAswAmihaH) think like that even after

centuries!! If what shruti says about brahman is there in buddhism also

what should we do for that?? We are simply following shruti's verdicts on

parabrahman, if people from outside the traditional circle think it is

buddhism...do you think is it really a problem of advaitins??

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

 

 

 

 

Groups are talking. We´re listening. Check out the handy changes to .

[Guest guest]

advaitin, moses yesupadam

<moses_yesupadam wrote:

>

> Dear Sri G Sankarraman,

>>

> "Sankara and his followers borrowed much of their dialect form of

criticism from the Buddhists. His Brahman was very much like a sunya

of Nagarjuna. It is difficult indeed to distinguish between pure

being and pure non-being as a category. The debts of Sankara to the

self luminocity of the Vijnana vada Buddhism can hardly be be

overestimated. There seems to be much truth in the accusations

against Sankara by Vijnana Bhikshu and others that he was a

hidden Buddhist himself. I am led to think that Sankara's

philosophy is largely a compound of Vijnanavda and Sunyavada Buddhism

with the with the Upanishad notion of permanence of self superadded."

>

Srigurubhyo NamaH

Namaste,

 

While Bhaskar Prabhuji has adequately replied to the above, the

following may also be considered in this regard:

 

First and foremost of all, if one is a sincere seeker, one should

seek to verify the antecedents of an author before reading his work.

It is most beneficial to the seeker if the work is authored by a

Realized person coming from a sampradaya that is not alien to the

path he has chosen. The second best is to see whether the author is

himself a sadhaka following any good sampradaya. This is important

because, a non-sadhaka/non-realized person' views of these topics of

sadhana are worthy of only being taken at discounted value.

 

There is a publication titled 'The Agama Shastra of Gaudapada', a

doctorate dissertation of Prof. Vidushekhara Bhattacharya of Bengal,

published sometime in the 1930's. This work is a detailed account of

the author's view that Gaudapadacharya was a Buddhist himself and all

that he has said in the Kaarika is nothing but Buddhism.

 

This work has been elaborately critiqued by Dr. T.M.P. Mahadevan who

studied under Mahamahopadhyaya Vidvan Kuppuswamy Sastriar, in his

book titled 'Gaudapada' published sometime in the 1950's. Although i

have not read the former book, the latter has been perused by me. It

is a complete rebuttal of the views of the former author with

elaborate quotations and arguments.

 

Having said this, let me try to put forth my view of

the 'allegation', taking an analogy from everyday life:

 

My grandparents and some of my father's maternal uncles migrated to

Bangalore in the early part of the last century from some villages in

Kerala, in search of a living. After settling down, my father's

uncles begot a number of children. These children grew up speaking

the local Kannada language, so much so that even at home they spoke

to each other in Kannada. Everything else like their mother's nine

yards sari and the festivals and food habits continued in the Kerala

style, excepting the children's language that ought to have been

Tamil. When one of the daughters was married and sent to Bombay, her

children picked up Marathi as their language and conversed in it at

home too. So it goes. That much for the analogy.

 

I would venture to think that the situation that prevailed at the

time of Shankaracharya's advent was somewhat like this. The early

Bauddhas might have been largely the vaidika brahmanas who had taken

a disregard for the Vedic heritage and taken to Buddhism. They were

a great asset to the immigrant following since they were knowing

Sanskrit and versed in the scriptures. Gaudapadacharya and later

Shankaracharya had to engineer the task of reviving the Vaidika

Religion. To put across their message they had to adapt to and adopt

the dialectics of the widely prevalent Buddhists. There is a

saying: 'paradanDenaiva parasya taaDanam' = when a person comes to

beat us with a stick, we snatch that stick from him and hit him back

to defend ourselves. This had to be done by our Purvacharyas. Then,

there is another matter of great interest to us. Acharya Shankara

has adopted a nyaya in His unmatched genius: para-matam

apratiShiddham anumatam bhavati, as he says in the Sutra bhashya:

2.4.5.12. This means: 'whatever is not contradictory is accepted

many a time from the other systems as well.'

 

Finally, we can see what Achaya Shankara has to say about Buddha.

The Mandukya karika says IV.99:

 

kramate na hi buddhasya jnaanam dharmeshu taayinaH

sarve dharmaastathaa jnaanam na etad buddhena bhaashitam

 

Quote from Swami Gambhirananda's translation:

A part of the Acharya's bhashya for the above is:

Hence they (the souls, jivas) are the reality that is the Self,

Brahman, which like space is unchanging, immutable, partless,

eternal, non-dual, unattached, invisible, unthinkable, beyond hunger,

etc. as is said in the Vedic text, 'for the vision of the witness can

never be lost' (Br.Up.iv.iii.23). That the nature of the Supreme

Reality is free from the differences of knowledge, known, and knower,

and is without a second, this fact was not expressed by Buddha;

though a near approach to non-dualism was implied in his negation of

outer objects and his imagination (construct) of everything as mere

consciousness. But this non-duality, the essence of the ultimate

Reality, is to be known from the Upanishads only. This is the

purport. (unquote)

 

Thus, we can see that the allegations of the detractors are baseless.

 

Pranams to all sincere Mumukshus,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

I think the main comparison with Buddhism is due to Advaita's concept of Nirguna Brahman. Well, if somebody is not competent to understand this, there is no problem, as Saguna Brahma and Nirguna Brahma are not different anyway, except from different perspectives.

 

From Advaita's framework itself, which preaches a non dual Brahman without a second, Nirguna Brahman is a natural conclusion. Attributes are all relative isn't it?

 

For eg, we say that the sun is bright, and that the night sky is dark. The brightness or darkness is an attribute that is relative. Mercury, for example, is a bright shining object at night, but during its transits across the solar disc, it appears as a dark object. Brightness or darkness have no meanings without a framework. In a non dual framework, what could one gain by saying that Brahman is shining? With respect to what?? Similarly, all such attributes are purely relative, form included.

 

Brahman is truly inclusive of all infinite attributes and is a pUrNa, unlike any imperfections seen on earth. In the absence of any entity to compare Brahman with, it does not make sense to say that Brahman is brilliant, is kind, is knowledgeable etc.

[Guest guest]

Learned friends,

If I understand the original question correctly, permit me a few thoughts:

 

My interpretation of Sankara was not that he was against ritual, but the path advocated by mimamsakas and others that stressed the karmakanda portions of the samhitas and the brahmanas. For example, the statement; 'svargakamah agnihotram juhoti' - one who is desiring of heaven, should perform the agnihotra sacrifice, is clearly intended for one whose goal it is to be reborn in svarga (heaven). For Sankara, this is clearly not desirable, for it necessarily involves the continued cycle of birth and rebirth.

 

As moksa is not something to be attained in any real sense, it cannot be brought about by the fruits of action through the power of sacrifice and ritual (apurva).

 

However, Sankara admits that ritual action is necessary so long as one identifies him/herself with the body. Thus does he say in his adhyasabhasya that the scriptures are operative before the dawn of real knowledge of the Self. That is, so long as a person thinks 'I am a brahmana, Ksatriya' etc.

 

Upon renunciation however, such labels are to be discarded, and Brahma-sutra 3.4,24 says; atah eva ca agni-indhana-adi-anapeksa 'from that (reason the Sannyasi) has no need of lighting fires etc.

 

Thus, Sankara seems to be saying 'yes, carry on with your rituals'. Upon realisation however, such injunctions cease carry any force, and whether a jivan-mukti decides to carry on with rituals, or cease altogether, is of no consequence.

 

Respectfully,

Leon