Guest guest Posted January 29, 2007 Report Share Posted January 29, 2007 Aum Dear sir, I am a follower of advaita vedanta.When Iam searching the web -articles I get some informations which are quoted below . 1."Professors of philosophy in India refer to a verse from the Padma Purana (Uttara khanda 25.7) that reveals the hidden identity of Shankaracarya: mayavadam asac-chastram pracchannam bauddham ucyate mayaiva vihitam devi kalau brahmana-murtina "The Mayavada philosophy, Siva informed his wife Parvati, is covered Buddhism. In the form of a brahmana in the kali-yuga, I teach this imagined philosophy." Shankaracarya is thus widely accepted as an incarnation of Shiva." 2.The Mayavada was introduced by Siva as per the order of SupremeLordLord Vishnu(Same Purana).The same concept is also stated in Siva Purana." Sir,is these arguments are correct?I have no idea about these matters.Please give me a proper answer By manjithpunalur (AT) (DOT) co.in Here’s a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 Shree manjith Kumar, PraNams. I do not have padma puraNa to check the authenticity of the sloka. Shree Sundar may be able to do that. If I recall, calling Shakara as pracchanna boudha is started by dwaitin groups. Accusations and counter accusations have been going on from Charvaka time. It is better to ignore that kind of arguments. Shankara's advaita is not really maya vaada. It starts with Brahma satyam - which is one without a second (advaita). If at all it should be rightly called as Brahma vaada. Second if Padma puraNa has the sloka, then the authenticity of eiher the sloka or the puraNa itself can be questioned. It could be interpolation into puraNa or the PuraNa itself is written much latter than 9th century since it refers to mayavada and bouddhism. Hence it is better to stick to prasthaana traya - Vedas, Bhagavat Gita, Brahma suutra, in that order for PramaaNa. I suggest that it is better not to get into this kind meaningless discussions. Discussion of how far Advaita differs from Buddhism is an interesting point, and we had Our friend Benjamin Root who was very fond of equating the two. Hari OM! Sadananda --- manjith kumar <adhiti444 (AT) (DOT) co.in> wrote: > Aum > Dear sir, > I am a follower of advaita > vedanta.When Iam searching the web -articles I get > some informations which are quoted below . > > 1."Professors of philosophy in India refer to a > verse from the Padma Purana (Uttara khanda 25.7) > that reveals the hidden identity of Shankaracarya: > > mayavadam asac-chastram > pracchannam bauddham ucyate > mayaiva vihitam devi > kalau brahmana-murtina > "The Mayavada philosophy, Siva informed his wife > Parvati, is covered Buddhism. In the form of a > brahmana in the kali-yuga, I teach this imagined > philosophy." Shankaracarya is thus widely accepted > as an incarnation of Shiva." > > > 2.The Mayavada was introduced by Siva as per the > order of SupremeLordLord Vishnu(Same Purana).The > same concept is also stated in Siva Purana." > > > Sir,is > these arguments are correct?I have no idea about > these matters.Please give me a proper answer > > By > > manjithpunalur (AT) (DOT) co.in > > > > > Here’s a new way to find what you're looking for - > Answers > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 Shree manjith Kumar, PraNams. I do not have padma puraNa to check the authenticity of the sloka. Shree Sundar may be able to do that. If I recall, calling Shakara as pracchanna boudha is started by dwaitin groups. Accusations and counter accusations have been going on from Charvaka time. It is better to ignore that kind of arguments. Shankara's advaita is not really maya vaada. It starts with Brahma satyam - which is one without a second (advaita). If at all it should be rightly called as Brahma vaada. Second if Padma puraNa has the sloka, then the authenticity of eiher the sloka or the puraNa itself can be questioned. It could be interpolation into puraNa or the PuraNa itself is written much latter than 9th century since it refers to mayavada and bouddhism. Hence it is better to stick to prasthaana traya - Vedas, Bhagavat Gita, Brahma suutra, in that order for PramaaNa. I suggest that it is better not to get into this kind meaningless discussions. Discussion of how far Advaita differs from Buddhism is an interesting point, and we had Our friend Benjamin Root who was very fond of equating the two. Hari OM! Sadananda --- manjith kumar <adhiti444 (AT) (DOT) co.in> wrote: > Aum > Dear sir, > I am a follower of advaita > vedanta.When Iam searching the web -articles I get > some informations which are quoted below . > > 1."Professors of philosophy in India refer to a > verse from the Padma Purana (Uttara khanda 25.7) > that reveals the hidden identity of Shankaracarya: > > mayavadam asac-chastram > pracchannam bauddham ucyate > mayaiva vihitam devi > kalau brahmana-murtina > "The Mayavada philosophy, Siva informed his wife > Parvati, is covered Buddhism. In the form of a > brahmana in the kali-yuga, I teach this imagined > philosophy." Shankaracarya is thus widely accepted > as an incarnation of Shiva." > > > 2.The Mayavada was introduced by Siva as per the > order of SupremeLordLord Vishnu(Same Purana).The > same concept is also stated in Siva Purana." > > > Sir,is > these arguments are correct?I have no idea about > these matters.Please give me a proper answer > > By > > manjithpunalur (AT) (DOT) co.in > > > > > Here’s a new way to find what you're looking for - > Answers > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 advaitin, manjith kumar <adhiti444 wrote: > > Aum > Dear sir, > I am a follower of advaita vedanta.When Iam searching the web -articles I get some informations which are quoted below . > > 1."Professors of philosophy in India refer to a verse from the Padma Purana (Uttara khanda 25.7) that reveals the hidden identity of Shankaracarya: > > mayavadam asac-chastram > pracchannam bauddham ucyate > mayaiva vihitam devi > kalau brahmana-murtina > "The Mayavada philosophy, Siva informed his wife Parvati, is covered Buddhism. In the form of a brahmana in the kali-yuga, I teach this imagined philosophy." Shankaracarya is thus widely accepted as an incarnation of Shiva." > > > 2.The Mayavada was introduced by Siva as per the order of SupremeLordLord Vishnu(Same Purana).The same concept is also stated in Siva Purana." ShrIgurubhyo namaH Dear Manjith, Namaste. While Sri Sadanandaji has most decently replied your above post, let me 'indulge' in some semantics: As you have said above, Lord Vishnu is to be held vicariously responsible for that 'fraud'. For, afterall, is He not the 'kapaTa- nATaka-sUtradhArii' in the Mahabharata? Shiva only carried out the order of Vishnu. Let us take up the shloka as such: maayaa-vaadam = The Gita says: DaivI hyeShA guNamayI mama mAyA duratyayA. = This, My, MAyA made of three gunas is most difficult to overcome. The Lord says that it is His mAya. The Lord also says there itself: He who surrenders to Me alone, can overcome My MAyA. In the Gita itself we find: mAyayA apahRRita chetAH....= people, deluded by Maayaa...remain in bondage... The above is what is meant by the word 'MAyA-vAda' in the Padmapurana shloka. asac-chastram = the meaning is: 'Brahma/Atma vyatiriktam sarvam asat iti yat shAstram bodhayati tat asat-chAstram' That shastra that teaches that everything other than Brahman/Atman (Pure Consciousness) is asat, non-existent, is called asat-shaastram. That is it teaches that the world, the jivatva, bondage, etc. are all non existent from the Absolute Brahman point of view. The Gita itself teaches: na asato vidyate bhAvaH. The asat does not have true reality/existence. The Gita says elsewhere: Brahman is neither sat nor asat. The Taittiriya/Chandogya says: asadvA idam agra aasIt: asat alone existed prior to creation. The above is what is meant by the word: 'asat-shaastram'. pracchannam bauddham ucyate: Meaning: The Truth is pracchannam, covered. It is bauddham: buddhi-sambandhinam bauddham. buddhi- graahyam, buddhi-pradhaanam, sUkshma, shuddha, teekshNa buddyaa eva avagamyamAnam. It is related to buddhi, intellect,. so bauddham. The Advaitic Truth of the Upanishads is graspable by that intellect alone that is pure, sharp and subtle. The Mundaka and other Upanishads teach this. mayaiva vihitam devi kalau brahmana-murtina The Padma Puraana has paid such a rich homage to Acharya Shankara and the Aupanishada Advaita doctrine that He taught. So, the above verse does no harm to Shankara or Advaita. What you have said as 'imagined philosophy' should be properly read as: 'imagination'- philosophy. This philosophy teaches that jivatva, bondage, and the prapancha, world, are all the product of imagination and therefore not real. The Gita and the Upanishads eminently bear out this truth. Warm regards, subbu Om Tat Sat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 --- AUM Dear sir, Thank you for your valuable reply.I know that actualyy these arguments will not help we in spiritual progress.But sometimes,tobe say,these comments on advaita makes bothering Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 --- AUM Dear sir, Thank you for your valuable reply.I know that actualyy these arguments will not help we in spiritual progress.But sometimes,tobe say,these comments on advaita makes bothering Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 AUM Dear sir, Thank you for your valuable reply.I know that actualy these arguments will not help we in spiritual progress.But sometimes,tobe say,these comments on advaita makes bothering Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 --- AUM Dear sir, Thank you for your valuable reply.I know that actualyy these arguments will not help we in spiritual progress.But sometimes,tobe say,these comments on advaita makes bothering 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.