listening to the holy name from the lips of mayavadis

[Amlesh]

 

Respected dark Warrior,

 

There is no need to post your opinion again & again.You have explained many times in a very logical way.As mentioned above, Bhagavad Gita alone is sufficient to prove your point.

Anyway, as usual nice post worth reading

 

Pranaam

 

Agreed.

 

Those who are meant to understand. Have understood.

 

For those, whom Bhagwad Praapti is not yet in their Destiny, the Glory of the Lord will still be a mystery.

 

But they are on the way.

[srikanthdk71]

 

He is like fire; the moth like to play around; when burnt, then only the we get the realisation about the burning sensation.

 

Logically, no one can beat him; the only hick, he is zero tolerant about other paths.

 

Amlesh, I do not agree with the point that nobody can beat DW logically coz he doesnt apply logic at all. All he does is quote from books with his bhashya. Infact he has tremendous book knowledge. If he applies logic(which is independant of books), he can never be zero tolarent towards other paths.

[Amlesh]

 

Amlesh, I do not agree with the point that nobody can beat DW logically coz he doesnt apply logic at all. All he does is quote from books with his bhashya. Infact he has tremendous book knowledge. If he applies logic(which is independant of books), he can never be zero tolarent towards other paths.

 

It's because he knows the 5 irreligious principles:

1. Vidharma

2. Para-dharma

3. Abhasa

4. Upadharma

5. Chala-Dharma

 

When he argues on these Issues, it's only with the Vaishnavas.

 

He never argues; if someone does not consider Vedas.

[srikanthdk71]

 

It's because he knows the 5 irreligious principles:

1. Vidharma

2. Para-dharma

3. Abhasa

4. Upadharma

5. Chala-Dharma

 

When he argues on these Issues, it's only with the Vaishnavas.

 

He never argues; if someone does not consider Vedas.

 

Yeah, its not that i am a critic of DW, I completly agree with your observations. I too love the way he puts forward his perspective. I do not want DW to loose credibility when he takes things too personal and goes for personal attacks. That was my concern and not his outspoken abilities. He is infact like an encyclopedia with all answers. I generally feel, people should respect all forms of beliefs and put forward their belief hietherto otherwise there will be no differnce between a Christian Missionary trying to prove that only Christ can lead you to the truth or a person trying to mend the differance between Kafirs and Fakirs. Lets taste all flavours and enjoy their blends. But yes, your belief (whether Vaishnava/Shaiva/Dwaita/Advaita/VA) is what leads you to the truth.

[Amlesh]

 

Yeah, its not that i am a critic of DW, I completly agree with your observations. I too love the way he puts forward his perspective. I do not want DW to loose credibility when he takes things too personal and goes for personal attacks. That was my concern and not his outspoken abilities. He is infact like an encyclopedia with all answers. I generally feel, people should respect all forms of beliefs and put forward their belief hietherto otherwise there will be no differnce between a Christian Missionary trying to prove that only Christ can lead you to the truth or a person trying to mend the differance between Kafirs and Fakirs. Lets taste all flavours and enjoy their blends. But yes, your belief (whether Vaishnava/Shaiva/Dwaita/Advaita/VA) is what leads you to the truth.

 

Nice observation Sri.

[bhaktajan]

Originally Posted by srikanthdk71:

Lets taste all flavours and enjoy their blends. But yes, your belief (whether Vaishnava/Shaiva/Dwaita/Advaita/VA) is what leads you to the truth.

 

------------

SAYS WHO?

SAYS srikanthdk71!

 

I need no further proof of this right?

 

WHERE'S YOUR PROOF(S), srikanthdk71 ?

 

WHERE'S YOUR INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTION(S) TO THIS THREAD, srikanthdk71 ?

[Dark Warrior]

 

Amlesh, I do not agree with the point that nobody can beat DW logically coz he doesnt apply logic at all. All he does is quote from books with his bhashya. Infact he has tremendous book knowledge. If he applies logic(which is independant of books), he can never be zero tolarent towards other paths.

 

No offense to you, I respect your views. But this is interesting. I don't apply logic? The fact is, Advaita or Monism is neither a scriptural nor a logical premise.

 

I am not interested in discussing things outside of scripture because of one simple reason - There are too many people, millions, in fact, who do not accept the Vedas. I can give good reasons for accepting scripture, but seriously, its too much trouble. I'd rather focus on showing hindus the greatness of their own religion, rather than convincing outsiders or neutral monists.

 

It isn't my job, and I am not here to do it. Rest assured, I was an agnostic (despite being born in an orthodox family) in my early days. I did a great job of researching just about every religion from Wicca and Paganism to Buddhism and Christianity before I arrived at my own roots - Vedanta.

 

It is futile to state that we lack Logic. If you must know, both the schools of Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita have not just attacked monism one way. First, we prove that monism is not in scripture. Next, we prove that it is not logically tenable.

 

For the record, even Advaitins admit that they lack scriptural proof. Sureshvara, for instance, clearly says Avidya concept is not in scripture and is based on experience alone. Hence, the attack on monism is only by using strict logic and not just by quoting a few verses.

 

It is due to the unsurpassed rigor of Sri Ramanuja, and later on by Sri Madhva, that Advaita has been completely vanquished. 100 points of refutation by Sri Vedanta Desikar in Shata Dushani and the Nyayamrta of the Dvaita school. And if some people think this is a false claim - look at the proof. First, there is an authentic record of the defeat of Vidyaranya, the great advaitic scholar by Akshobhya Tirtha, as this debate was refereed by Sri Desika. Then, look at the number of false Upanishads - These are all monistic, proving that advaitins have been dishonest enough to attempt to fabricate scripture, when all else failed.

 

I have also read the Advaita Siddhi of Madhusudhana Saraswati. Before you accuse me of sticking to 'books', rest assured, this work tries to primarily use logic to estabish monism. However, one look will suffice to show that his logic has a lot of holes. For instance, his explanation of Mithyavada as neither non-existence nor existence by saying that negation of existence does not imply non-existence is completely based on faulty logic and is easily refuted. In fact, the Advaitins have not been able to reply to the Tarangini, a refutal of Advaita Siddhi.

 

Advaita gets into multiple tangles. As I said before, Maya is not an attribute of Brahman, or an entity distinct from Brahman. Which means, Brahman itself is Maya. If the theory of 'Mithya' it is said to belong to a substratum of neither existence nor non-existence based on the fact that negation of existence does not imply non-existence (It can be said that A is not B, B is not A, but C is neither A nor B), you get yourself into the muddle of accomodating multiple levels of reality, and also being unable to explain how something in the third state can impact the Vyavaharika and Reality (As C cannot be linked to A or B, the example falls flat). If Maya is unreal, it becomes totally illogical. If the Jiva itself is an illusion, then how come it is suffering in illusion? Avidya itself is real, as Sri Ramanuja argues that all perception is real. And so on...

 

However, I won't argue that here. The point I am trying to make is, people like Vivekananda are too egotistical to see the logic and rationality with which the followers of Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhva have demolished Advaita. And as for the 'all paths are same' theory, use logic here - One religion says God created souls and another says souls are as eternal as God. Could both texts have been given by the same God? No.

 

Experience needs to be verified before its accepted. I do not want to argue with people who don't accept scripture because there are too many of those around...how many can I convince? And indeed, what do I achieve even if I defeat someone here? Nothing. Hence, I leave that to the Lord.

[Bart Happel]

Dear Dark Warrior,

 

I’m really interested in your point against Advaita or Monism. Can you please give a compact presentation of the arguments in outsider’s language?

 

Kind regards, Bart

[kaisersose]

 

The fact is, Advaita or Monism is neither a scriptural nor a logical premise.

This is a partisan view. I can make a similar statement of any religious belief in the Universe. On the point, no Advaitin would make such an excuse for Advaita.

 

For the record, even Advaitins admit that they lack scriptural proof. Sureshvara, for instance, clearly says Avidya concept is not in scripture and is based on experience alone.

I have not read Sureshvara, but this claim is highly suspect. Can you provide a specific reference? If “lack of scriptural proof” was the official position of Shankara, then why did he write so much of literature? What was his basis for entering into debates with others? Mandana would have beaten him down to his socks in less than an hour. This criticism fails the most basic test of logic.

 

It is due to the unsurpassed rigor of Sri Ramanuja, and later on by Sri Madhva, that Advaita has been completely vanquished.

Can you define “complete defeat”? I say Advaita defeated Purva Mimamsa because this was Shankara’s prime target (purva Paksha) and history shows they are practically non-existent today. On the other hand a similar basis is wholly missing for Vaishnava groups to claim “complete defeat” of Advaita. Though Advaita was the Purva Paksha and they spent a lot of ink & energy criticizing the doctrine, they accomplished next to nothing in their task of defeating the doctrine. Advaitins are just as prominent today as they would have been if none of these Vaishava schools had existed.

So you see why I am curious about your concept of defeat. If this alleged defeat exists just in the minds of Vaishnavas, then I agree that is correct.

 

First, there is an authentic record of the defeat of Vidyaranya, the great advaitic scholar by Akshobhya Tirtha, as this debate was refereed by Sri Desika.

There is no record of defeat. It is a claim made by Vaishnavas and remains unconfirmed. A defeat such as that, would have Vidyaranya’s followers switch over to Vaishnava tradition and the Sringeri Matha would have collapsed. This claim is no better than Chaitanya defeating Dvaita and Vishishtadvaita.

Were there odd instances of defeat of one scholar by another? I am sure there were, but that is more a sign of incompetency of the debating individual than anything else. For instance, Dvaitins claim they have defeated Sri Vaishnavas. Does this mean Sri Vaishnavism was “completely defeated”?

 

Then, look at the number of false Upanishads - These are all monistic, proving that advaitins have been dishonest enough to attempt to fabricate scripture, when all else failed.

Not clear what you mean by this. Shankara commented on the top 10 Upanishads and proved they were monist. The same Upanishads were commented on by scholars of later doctrines. If they thought these Upanishads were false, then why did they bother to comment on them?

If you think Shankara fabricated scripture, then you will have to furnish evidence.

 

Cheers

[Dark Warrior]

 

This is a partisan view. I can make a similar statement of any religious belief in the Universe. On the point, no Advaitin would make such an excuse for Advaita.

 

 

I am aware that you hold this view. However, consider this example - Chaitanya Mahaprabhu defeated Tattvavadis. Do you believe it or not?

 

Simply saying that every religion makes such a claim, thus, we don't know what is right cannot be an adequate explanation. Proper examination of such claims is needed to find the truth. That is how I examined just about every world religion before I hit upon Vedanta. The theory of illusions is itself illogical, as take the Snake/Rope example - If the snake is an illusion, then the snake should have existed in reality elsewhere for the rope to be misconstrued as a snake. Thus, you can't have a dream without a basis in reality. Even if you dream of a monster with a 100 eyes, then the 'eyes' and the 'body' of the monster are objects that exist in reality.

 

Similarly, no matter what Advaitins claim, their interpretation is far fetched (just like Sri Chaitanya, no offense to Gaudiyas). In any case,

 

- There is a historical proof of Sri Vidyaranya's defeat by Akshobhya Tirtha (inscriptions, etc.). He was unable to prove the advaitic interpretation of Tat Tvam Asi.

 

- There is no Advaita in Gita or Brahma Sutras. Refer Sankara's commentary. When he sutras say 'Jivas and Brahman are real and different', Sankara adds a line ther, 'This difference is perceived due to Avidya'. There is no mention of Avidya anywhere by Vyasa in the Brahma Sutras, yet Sankara seeks to add that in his commentary. Similarly, there is no mention of the classification of realities, classification of Nirguna and Saguna Brahman, Mithyavada, etc....thus, advaita relies on too many assumptions and less scripture. However, we play the same game and refute it by logic.

 

 

I have not read Sureshvara, but this claim is highly suspect. Can you provide a specific reference? If “lack of scriptural proof” was the official position of Shankara, then why did he write so much of literature? What was his basis for entering into debates with others? Mandana would have beaten him down to his socks in less than an hour. This criticism fails the most basic test of logic.

 

Amazing. You actually thought that every term Sankara used is in Veda? Not even Advaitins say that!!

 

According to advaitins, the abheda vakyas are more important (some flimsy reason given, but shruti does not say this), so they believe that one must relegate all bheda to a lower rank.Therefore, they argue that Avidya, Nirguna/Saguna Brahman, classification of reals, are all just logical outcomes as one cannot perceive anything byut the Self. According to Advaitins, there is no need to substantiate these terms with scriptural pramana, as it can be experienced.

 

This is why advaita is heavily criticised. Too much assumption, and lack of pramanas. It is quite astonishing that you did not know of this at all. Heck, there is not even a pramana to say that abheda vakyas are more important than bheda vakyas in Veda!!

 

You know, I pretty much get the feeling that you think a 'debate' basically almost always has to do with the entire purport of Vedas. That is why you thought that the Mimamsa school had 'interpreted' the Veda to atheism earlier, or that Srikantha 'interpreted' Brahma Sutras to Shaivism (btw, the Brahma Sutras contain information about nature of Brahman and Jiva, they do not even have much about the supremacy of a god!!).

 

Understand - that schools like Mimamsa do NOT interpret the Vedas, nor is a study of Vedas needed to debate with them. The Mimamsa position is that the Vedas are primarily for karma/duties pertaining to material life. They consider the Upanishads as unimportant and ignore tem. Hence, to defeat them, we have to prove that Rituals are not as important as Jnana, or that all rituals serve the purpose of satisfying Brahman. Thus, there is no question of scriptural debate here.

 

Sankara debated with Mimamsakas, Buddhists, Jains, Pasupata sect, etc. These sects do not require much in the way of scriptural pramana. Mimamsas do not pay much attention to Upanishads, so, Sankara's task would be to convince them of its importance. And of course, he certainly did not use the Veda for Buddhists, but logic. As for the Shaivites, most likely he debated with them on the authenticity of Shaiva Agamas, which are unvedic according to him.

 

The only religion that Sankara could have argued based on scripture (in whole) with is the Bhagavata (Vaishnava) Sect. However, Sankara himself mentions in his Brahma Sutra bhashya that he has no arguments with them and considers them Vedic, though he rejects the Pancharatra. Thus, it is quite possible that Sankara never cared to debate with Sri Vaishnavas (who were the Bhagavatas existent at that time).

 

Sankara pretty much forces his opinion on the texts. That he breaks all rules of interpretation in his Gita Bhashya and Brahma Sutras is self evident.

 

The claim comes not from me, but from the Site owner of Advaita-Vedanta.Org. I, too, have not read Sureshvara's works (except for some brief summaries), but here is what the owner of the site has posted somewhere:

 

avidyA is not established by any of the means of knowing (pramANA-s).Sureshvara says that the person who would want to establish avidyA by any pramANa would also see the darkness in the interior of a cave with a lamp (TUbhVa 2.177). avidyA does not stand the scrutiny of the pramANa-s (SVa 2.181-182).

 

According to Sureshvara's example of a blue lotus/sky, ether is colorless, but when we see the sky, we think it is blue. And same goes for Avidya. No need for pramanas, just experience. However, this sounds more like Vishishtadvaita in my opinion. The fact is, perception should be given validity completely as far as its influence goes. Furthermore, some modification has occured to make the sky look blue, and the blueness of the sky is not an illusion, but a real thing. Hence, Avidya becomes Knowledge, and according to Sri Ramanuja, all Knowledge is real. Calling Avidya as neither existence nor non-existence is untenable, and the explanation of a 'third state' C which is neither A or B falls flat because both states of non-existence and existence need to be assessed with respect to the object. Thus, rather than A,B,C, we only have 'Either A or Not A', 'Either B or not B' or 'Either C or not C'. There is no in-between, and hence, Avidya becomes perception, ie, real.

 

 

Can you define “complete defeat”? I say Advaita defeated Purva Mimamsa because this was Shankara’s prime target (purva Paksha) and history shows they are practically non-existent today. On the other hand a similar basis is wholly missing for Vaishnava groups to claim “complete defeat” of Advaita. Though Advaita was the Purva Paksha and they spent a lot of ink & energy criticizing the doctrine, they accomplished next to nothing in their task of defeating the doctrine. Advaitins are just as prominent today as they would have been if none of these Vaishava schools had existed.

 

See, I agree that one should not trust biographies belonging to individual schools to understand if they are defeated or not. But scrutinise it. Is it possible that Gaudiyas vanquished Dvaita? Is it possible that Mimamsakas defeated Advaitins?

 

Hence, it is obvious to see how some claims are not valid, and how some are. Similarly, the advaitin claim of being undefeated is invalid. The Tarangini was an answer to Advaita Siddhi. However, not even Appaya Dikshitar has attempted to refute the Tarangini. Hence, in the history of Dvaita/Advaita debates, the Madhvas have had the last word.

 

Appaya Dikshitar admits in his own works (check them out, if you wish) that he was unable to get past the NAkaara in Narayana. Yet, Shaivites claim he defeated many Vaishnavas. So, this claim falls flat considering he himself has admitted his failure.

 

Still, Appaya remains popular. Hence, popularity is not a sign of being undefeated. Sri Ramanuja defeated many Jains, but most of them were so attached to Mahavira that they preferred to stick to their faith rather than convert even after being defeated.

 

Similarly, the VA school is also undefeated by Advaita. Recently, the Kanchi Mutt tried to answer Sri Desikar's Shatadhushani, but it was once again answered by the mordern scholars.

 

 

 

So you see why I am curious about your concept of defeat. If this alleged defeat exists just in the minds of Vaishnavas, then I agree that is correct.

 

Just assuming that Advaita is right because every Hindu follows it is correct? I can reverse it and say that all this idea of 'interpreting Veda to advaita' exists in your mind too!!

 

No offense. The average hindu nowadays worships all Gods and calls himslef a follower of Sankaracharya. Popularity contests do not count.

 

 

There is no record of defeat. It is a claim made by Vaishnavas and remains unconfirmed. A defeat such as that, would have Vidyaranya’s followers switch over to Vaishnava tradition and the Sringeri Matha would have collapsed. This claim is no better than Chaitanya defeating Dvaita and Vishishtadvaita.

 

Nope. As I said before, defeat of Vidyaranya is based on historical records. Both VA and Dvaita attest to the defeat and hence, it is reliable. Vedanta Desikar refereed the debate. The defeat of an advaitin by a dvaita scholar is mentioned the historical records of Vishishtadvaitins because Vedanta Desikar was the judge. It is a pretty unique debate in that sense, and hence, it is most conspicuous in history.

 

Why should Sringeri Mutt convert just because of Vidyaranya's defeat? For that matter, many Jains and Buddhists did not convert even when beaten. There is an attachment.

 

For instance, take the 1900s. The Kanchi Mutt was repeatedly claiming that Vishnu is not supreme as per Vedas. Sri PBA Swami and Sri Puttur Swami, a great scholar of the mordern times, gave them such convincing proof that theMutt has not replied to these refutations yet.

 

However, the Kanchi Mut has not 'collapsed' or 'converted' to Vaishnavism despite being beaten. This event can be easily verified as genuine...check the appropriate sources for Sri Puttur Swami's answer to Sri Chandrasekhar Saraswati.

 

Therefore, the claim that Advaita is correct because it is popular nowadays, or because every school falsely claims victories is as bad as believing that Gaudiyas defeated Tattvavadis. Because one look at the scripture is enough to show how convincingly advaita has been refuted.

 

I do not consider popularity as an equation. Advaita is popular because of two reasons - 1) Neovedantins like Vivekananda, 2) Hindus today have no idea of Philosophy.

 

Take two options - Advaitins nowadays say 'worship any god/be secular'. Vaishnavism says 'we worship only Vishnu'.

 

Hence, it is obvious that the average hindu would choose option 1) if he was unaware of philosophy.

 

Furthermore, Adi Sankara condemns Shaivism as Unvedic. That hasn't stopped Shaivism from becoming a majority, has it?

 

 

Were there odd instances of defeat of one scholar by another? I am sure there were, but that is more a sign of incompetency of the debating individual than anything else. For instance, Dvaitins claim they have defeated Sri Vaishnavas. Does this mean Sri Vaishnavism was “completely defeated”?

 

As I told you before, VA and Dvaita do not have proof to claim victories over each other. But Advaita is too far fetched. For the record, you have the following proofs:

 

- The defeat of Vidyaranya, a historical event.

 

- The defeat of Madhusudhana Saraswati's Advaita Siddhi by Tarangini.

 

- Lack of pramanas, as admitted by Sureshvara.

 

- Fabrication of many bogus Upanishads shows the advaitins were under great pressure.

 

 

Not clear what you mean by this. Shankara commented on the top 10 Upanishads and proved they were monist. The same Upanishads were commented on by scholars of later doctrines. If they thought these Upanishads were false, then why did they bother to comment on them?

If you think Shankara fabricated scripture, then you will have to furnish evidence.

 

Cheers

 

I did not say Sankara fabricated texts. He was honest and to his credit, undefeated.

 

But the later day advaitins certainly did. We have 108 Upanishads, of which 13 are authentic. The rest are all predominantly monistic. Heck, some of them look like exercepts from Sankara bhashya.

 

Conclusion - later day Advaitins fabricated texts because they were unable to defend their position properly with authentic texts, and caved to pressure. None of the fake Upanishads lean towards VA or Dvaita, which shows that these schools were capable of defending their philosophy honestly.

 

The Vedas talk of either VA or Dvaita, and that is clear. In my opinion, it is VA. However, there is no doubt that Advaita is not the correct philosophy of the Veda.

[Amlesh]

 

Originally Posted by srikanthdk71:

Lets taste all flavours and enjoy their blends. But yes, your belief (whether Vaishnava/Shaiva/Dwaita/Advaita/VA) is what leads you to the truth.

 

------------

SAYS WHO?

SAYS srikanthdk71!

 

I need no further proof of this right?

 

WHERE'S YOUR PROOF(S), srikanthdk71 ?

 

WHERE'S YOUR INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTION(S) TO THIS THREAD, srikanthdk71 ?

In fact Sri is the greatest contributor to this thread. His critical mind is mind blowing. He never accepts anything blindly.

 

All his questions and analysis will be helpful to the kids coming afterwards [maybe later years]. Through him only, that we got to know some of the secrets in DW's mind.

 

Arguing with Sri is really superb, he does not let the law of probability of any kind of interference.

 

And about you Bhaktajan, your contribution is the your Cut and Paste abilities. The kids will find the answer through you. Srimad Bhagwatam is indeed the crestjewel of the Vedic literatures.

 

To be frank, I count myself among the kids.

 

The only thing, I hope the kids will have the same capabilities as the swan, they can separate milk and water.

 

Even then I liked your fightings, it was indeed sweet.

[Saraba Iyar]

People talk through their hats on Vedic truths. Neither Narayana is a Vedic god nor non- monism the Vedic Doctrine. These are inventions of lesser mortals.

I come from a family of Hotr priests. Hotr is a master of Rg Veda and qualified to invoke deities. My father is a Hotr priest and my elder brother is a Hotr priest. Though I myself have not become a priest I am trained in Rig Veda..

 

Original Vadic Gods

Only Rg veda mantra has the power to invite or invoke deities. Other Vedas are for subsequent sublimentary purposes. For example the Adhvaryu priest trained in Yajur Veda by the Yajur Veda mantras, offers oblations in to fire to the deity invoked by the Hotr. The master of Sama Veda sings the praise of the deity invoked by the Hotr . The Bhrama priest trained in Adharva Veda is the overall supervisor of the yajna. There is a continuity of Rg, Yajur and Sama Vedas and unity amoung them. What devas are invoked by Rg is offered Oblation by Yajur and is praised by song of Sama.

 

Thus Rg Veda becomes the most important and sole authority on maters concerning gods. Hence it is the only authentic source regarding Gods. Classification and details of gods are to consulted only on Rg Veda. All other gods refered in Vedas are all different names or aspects of this original 33 deities.

 

Puranas count the gods as thirty three crores, Rg veda count is only thirty three.

Pramana: : Rg veda 1,139,11; 1,34,11; 1,42; 3,6,9; 8, 30, 2; 8,35,3; and 9,92.4

And these 33 gods are :

Triyatrimsadyo deva Ashto Vasava Yeka dasarudra

Duvadasaaditya Prajapatirscha Vashadkaranscha - Aitreya brahmana 10,5

(Thirty three devas are Eight Vasus, leven rudhras, twelve adyatyas, prajapati and Vasadkara) Note : Vashad kara is sometimes replaced by Indra.

 

Here is the names of all of them:

Eight Vasus: Agni, Jataveda, Sahoja Ajara, Vaisvanara, Naryapa, Panktiradha, Visarpi.

Leven Rudhras: Prabhrajamana, Vyavadata, Vasuki, Rajata, Parusha, Syama, Kapila, Atilohita, Urdhva, Avapatanta, Vaidyuta

Twelve Adithyas: Tvashtr, Savitr, Bhaga, Surya, Pushan, Vishnu, Vaisvanara, Varuna, Kesi, Vrshakapi, Yama, Aja-ekapat.

And finally, Indra (or some times Vashat) and Prajapati

All other gods are to be understood as merely names or aspects of these original thirty three gods only. There are no more gods in a unique sense. The thirty three crores could be interpreted as a fancy number of purana coming from the original number 33. There is a reason why there are only 33 gods and no more gods are possible. Vedic deities have their close link with the Sanskrit letters. The thirty three consonants correspond to thirty three gods. (Consonants from ‘ka’ to ‘ha’ are 33).

Pramana: Te tryatrimsadaksharo bavat triyatrimsaddho deva.

There are no more genuinly separate gods than these 33. If they are there they cannot be invoked by Vadic mantras, hence are non Vedic.

Note there is no mention of Narayana in this Rg vatic list of primary deities. The only suggestive name ‘Vishnu’ is actually one of the names of Sun.

 

There is no justification for the claim that monism has no place in Veda.

In fact Monism is the very official conception of Vedic Rishis and not an invention of Sankara or any latter or earlier lesser mortals. Here is the pramana:

Indra mitra varunamagnimahuradho diva sa suparno garutman

Yekam sadhuipra bahudha vadanthyagni yamam matarisvanamahuh.- Rg Veda (1,164,46)

“Reality is one. The seers call it by many names; Indra, mitra, agni, Suprana, yama and Matarisva”

 

And this one reality is described as: Akshra (imperishable), Nitya (eternal ),

sat (real), brahma ( ever expansive), and Ekam (one).

 

The entire universe finds its abode in this one reality only.

Pramana : Yatra visvam bhavaty eka- nidam - Sukla Yajur Veda (32,8) .

All the gods of vedic mantras are forms of this one spirit.

Pramana: Mahad devanam asuratvam ekam - Rg Veda ( 10,63,2)

 

Neither Narayana is a Vedic god nor is dualism, or any other form of non-monism, the Vedic doctrine. These are latter constructions and fabrications of pundits, not the truth of Rishis.

 

Saraban.

[kaisersose]

 

- There is a historical proof of Sri Vidyaranya's defeat by Akshobhya Tirtha (inscriptions, etc.). He was unable to prove the advaitic interpretation of Tat Tvam Asi.

The Advaita tradition has a totally different story. Suffice it to say that, the matter is not as a clear as the Vaishnavas make it out to be. This topic was discussed in the Advaita list in the past.

And your reason provided above cannot be correct. Akshobhya was a direct disciple of Madhva and in case you did not know, Madhva read tatvamasi as atatvamasi in order to provide a dvaitic interpretation (just like he had to twist aham brahmasmi into aheyam brahmasmi to align it with his doctrine). Akshobhya (the direct disciple) would have had to work with atatvamasi which is something the Vishishtadvaita moderator would never agree with and hence the whole story goes out of the window.

Btw, it was Akshobhya’s disciple Jaya Tirtha who first interpreted tatvamasi in the dvaitic way. And anyway, it is odd that a scholar like the head of a Advaita Matha was unable to provide the Advaitic interpration of a Mahavakya. Did it not strike as odd to you?

There is no Advaita in Gita or Brahma Sutras. Refer Sankara's commentary. When he sutras say 'Jivas and Brahman are real and different', Sankara adds a line ther, 'This difference is perceived due to Avidya'. There is no mention of Avidya anywhere by Vyasa in the Brahma Sutras, yet Sankara seeks to add that in his commentary. Similarly, there is no mention of the classification of realities, classification of Nirguna and Saguna Brahman, Mithyavada, etc....thus, advaita relies on too many assumptions and less scripture. However, we play the same game and refute it by logic.

You must be kidding if this is your basis. Madhva interpets Brahman in the Gita as Lakshmi, sees permanent varnas for souls and eternal hell. No one else sees any of this in the Gita. How is it that Vaishnavas are allowed to interpret the Gita any which way they desire, but Shankara cannot? The point of interpretation is to provide overall consistency in seemingly contradictory statements. And Shankara has addressed it very well.

Amazing. You actually thought that every term Sankara used is in Veda? Not even Advaitins say that!!

And where did I say that? And note that this holds true for Ramanuja and Madhva too. The bulk of the Vaishnava doctrine is not from the Veda, but from the Pancharatras. So I fail to see why you would use this as an argument against Shankara. For Vaishnavas, take the Vedas completely out of the equation and it would make little or no difference to their theology of Narayana/Hari & Lakshmi.

This is why advaita is heavily criticised.

Advaita is heavily criticized because of its success. Anything else you say about how Advaita interprets, Shruti, etc., I can show the same excuses and approach provided by other traditions as well. Without exception, interpretation starts with forming a basic premise and interpreting contradictory texts to show they are in line with the presupposed premise.

Understand - that schools like Mimamsa do NOT interpret the Vedas, nor is a study of Vedas needed to debate with them. The Mimamsa position is that the Vedas are primarily for karma/duties pertaining to material life. They consider the Upanishads as unimportant and ignore tem. Hence, to defeat them, we have to prove that Rituals are not as important as Jnana, or that all rituals serve the purpose of satisfying Brahman. Thus, there is no question of scriptural debate here.

Clearly then, you need to read history. If there was no question of scriptural debate, then what were Shankara and Mandana debating over for 15 days? And how does the bulk of Shankara’s literature target purva mimamsa when either position (according to you) is not based in scripture?

As for Avidya on advaita-vedanta.org, please read the topic here.

www_advaita-vedanta_org/avhp/ad-phil_html (Replace underscores with periods). As you can see, there is no need for Sureshvara or anyone to make excuses about not drawing their basic concepts from scripture.

There are bogus quotes in Vaishnava Puranas about how Shankara was Shiva who came down to the earth to mislead people. Madhva said Mayavada was introduced to the world by a demon named Manimanta. Madhva quotes heavily from texts like Brahma Tarka, etc., which are not known outside his tradition and are not available today. His "missing sources" has been a research topic by itself.

On the other hand, Advaita has never had a need to rely on Upanishads other than the top ten nor on any missing source. Where is the need to create and quote bogus Puranas? If you know of a specific instance where a leading Advaita scholar quoted a bogus Upanishad, then please show it to me.

The Vedas talk of either VA or Dvaita, and that is clear. In my opinion, it is VA. However, there is no doubt that Advaita is not the correct philosophy of the Veda.

This is your own individual perception and you are certainly welcome to it. As long as you accept, this is not some universal axiom such as 2+2=4. And since you think it is VA only and not Dvaita, then you should modify your statement that Vedas talk of VA only and not Dvaita or Advaita or anything else.

 

Let me be clear on this. I have no problems with people disagreeing with Advaita. But I object to incorrect criticism of Advaita like they claim to be God or are aspiring to be God, etc. Similarly, statements like they created bogus scriptures, or they have been “completely vanquished” or Advaitins make excuses that their basic tenets are not available in scripture, etc., are unfounded and incorrect, there being no objective basis for such accusations. I see this as nothing more than frustration born out of inability to replicate its success.

 

That is my point. And to repeat, I am not out to prove that Advaita is the right way.

 

Cheers

 

<?xml:namespace prefix = o />

[Dark Warrior]

 

The Advaita tradition has a totally different story. Suffice it to say that, the matter is not as a clear as the Vaishnavas make it out to be. This topic was discussed in the Advaita list in the past.

And your reason provided above cannot be correct. Akshobhya was a direct disciple of Madhva and in case you did not know, Madhva read tatvamasi as atatvamasi in order to provide a dvaitic interpretation (just like he had to twist aham brahmasmi into aheyam brahmasmi to align it with his doctrine). Akshobhya (the direct disciple) would have had to work with atatvamasi which is something the Vishishtadvaita moderator would never agree with and hence the whole story goes out of the window.

This is wrong.

Firstly, let us assume that Akshobhya was arguing with the Atat Tvam Asi logic. Vishishtadvaitins do not disagree at all on this one. Our opinion is also the same as that of the dvaitins - that this vakya proclaims Bheda and not Abheda.

So, Akshobhya would argue based on the 9 examples that there is no identity at all. Vedanta Desikar would not disagree with this. Atat Tvam Asi is gramatically correct.

Secondly, Madhva did not just say Atat Tvam Asi is the only way to put it. His main aim was to defeat the advaitic interpretation. So, what he did was - first, he took the vakya as Tat Tvam Asi and proved that it wasn't proclaiming identity. The method he used is termed as 'Vishesha' by Dvaitins (read it up).

Then, he suggested that this vakya could ALSO be taken as Atat Tvam Asi.

Thus, Akshobhya argued with Vidyaranya based on Tat Tvam Asi, and not Atat Tvam Asi, as Dvaitins have an explanation for both. And Vishishtadvaita does not disagree with the idea of 'Vishesha', hence we have no problems with it. However, we merely feel Sarira/Sariri bhava explains it better than Vishesha.

Thirdly, Vedanta Desikar was himself a friend of Vidyaranya. He was neutral to the debate. Even if both the debators had nothing to do with VA, he would still judge it as a neutral refree.

Vedanta Desikar's biographer did not meet Akshobhya Tirtha's biographer. Yet, both describe this debate. I do not think there is any doubt.

Btw, it was Akshobhya’s disciple Jaya Tirtha who first interpreted tatvamasi in the dvaitic way. And anyway, it is odd that a scholar like the head of a Advaita Matha was unable to provide the Advaitic interpration of a Mahavakya. Did it not strike as odd to you?

I did not say Vidyaranya was unable to provide an explanation. I said, his explanation was defeated on logical grounds by Akshobhya. To see whether the vakya proclaims identity, you have to critically examine it properly.

You must be kidding if this is your basis. Madhva interpets Brahman in the Gita as Lakshmi, sees permanent varnas for souls and eternal hell. No one else sees any of this in the Gita. How is it that Vaishnavas are allowed to interpret the Gita any which way they desire, but Shankara cannot? The point of interpretation is to provide overall consistency in seemingly contradictory statements. And Shankara has addressed it very well.

You do not understand. Let me explain.

Sri Ramanuja says 'Tat tvam Asi' addresses the inseparability of Atman and Brahman. For this, he provides proof from the Brihadaranyaka which actually mentions that Atman is the body of Brahman (making them inseparable). Thus, this is an interpretation that resolves contradictory statements.

However, Sankara provides no pramana for avidya from Veda. He simply assumes that it is inferred from experience (refer Sureshvara's explanation I gave earlier). The Sutras do not say the world is unreal, or that Avidya is present. They simply say 'Brahman and Jivas are real and different'. If you think this is due to avidya, then you should give a pramana from Veda that actually mentions that there is Avidya to show that there is a contradiction that needs to be resolved. Sankara does not do this.

Take this example - vakya says 'Eko Narayana Asit, Na Brahma Na isana'. Srila Prabhupada translates ths as 'there is only Narayana before creation, and this Narayana is a 'plenary expansion of Krishna'. Note, the vakya makes no mention about Krishna being the source of Narayana, it only talks of Narayana being Brahman. But Srila Prabupada adds this line about a 'plenary expansion' as he operates on the assumption that 'Krishna is superior to Narayana/Vishnu'. Rather than finding a direct pramana that says 'Narayana is an expansion of Krishna', Prabhupada relies on a distorted translation from the bhagavatam and uses it for vakyas describing Narayana.

Same with Sankara. Brahma Sutras say 'Brahman and Jivatma are real and different'. He adds his own opinion here, 'We know this difference is due to Avidya'. But Vyasa does not say it is due to Avidya, nor is there a pramana in shruti that talks of avidya. Sankara simply assumes this concept based on his own ideas and gives no pramana for it.

When there is no contradiction at all and when you are unable to provide a single pramana describing avidya as the cause, then why inject it into the sutras?

Shvu, this is not 'interpretation'. This is just forcing your opinion on a relatively straightforward statement. This is against the rules of Vedanta.

Now, about Madhva. His interpretation is actually acceptable because - there is a pramana in shruti that calls Lakshmi as 'Akshara'. Krishna does say that the tamo gunis suffer eternally (VAs take it as aupacharika, just like a mother threatening a child, but Dvaitins take it seriously and literaly).

Thus, Madhva quotes Lakshmi-Akshara as pramana in support of his points, but Sankara does not provid any pramana for avidya. He simply assumes that the difference is due to avidya.

The key word is 'Akshara'. Sankara takes it to mean 'Nirguna Brahman'. Sri Ramanuja takes it to mean 'Jivatma Upasana (meditation on the Jivatma)'. Madhva takes it to mean 'Lakshmi'.

'Akshara' means 'Unmanifested', 'All Pervading', 'Immutable', etc. All these terms refer to the Jivatma as well (Atman pervades by virtue of its subtlety and consciousness). Atman is imutable because it is the non-doer. It is also incomprehensible, etc. Shruti also calls atman as Akshara in places.

Option 1) is not tenable, because it involves text torturing. Krishna says 'there is nothing higher than Me'. Then, He says, 'Rather meditating on Akshara, meditate on Me'. Sankara takes this to mean 'Saguna Brahman Upasana'. But is Saguna Brahman higher than Nirguna Brahman? No. Such a classification (Nirguna/Saguna) is not even in the Gita. Krishna does not speak like that at all.

Akshara cannot be Nirguna Brahman because Krishna makes it clear that He is above the Kshara and Akshara. Kshara refers to Prakrti, I believe and Akshara cannot be Nirguna Brahman because Krishna is above it. It ca only be the Jivatma (Or Lakshmi, according to Sri Madhva).

Sankara also says it is not possible to meditate on Nirguna Brahman. Yet, Krishna apparently describes 6 chapters of Nirguna Brahman meditation, and then says 'don't do it'. Furthermore, look at these verses, 'See everyone in Me, and Me in everyone' and 'Although everyone is in Me, I am not in them'(implying the existence of a creator god sitting aloof), which isn't advaitic at all. The concept of Maya as ureal is also not in Gita, but Maya is simply mentioned to be a deluding force.

Madhva's interpretation is gramatically correct. But in the context, it does not appear as though Krishna is talking about Lakshmi. Sri Ramanuja is gramatically correct and also contextually correct as well. Krishna, for the first 6 chapters according to Sri Ramanuja, talks about 'kaivalya', ie, realisation of Atman alone, before realising the Paramatma within Atman. Krishna advises the seeker to not get absorbed in meditation of Atman, but to meditate on Him as well.

Akshara is not Nirguna Brahman by any stretch of the imagination.

And where did I say that? And note that this holds true for Ramanuja and Madhva too. The bulk of the Vaishnava doctrine is not from the Veda, but from the Pancharatras. So I fail to see why you would use this as an argument against Shankara. For Vaishnavas, take the Vedas completely out of the equation and it would make little or no difference to their theology of Narayana/Hari & Lakshmi.

This is an unfounded accusation. Sri Vaishnavism is Veda + Pancharatra. We use the pancharatra as an 'ancillory' and not directly.

Without the Pancharatra, we would still have Lakshmipathi Narayana, and without the Vedas, we do not have the jnana of the Brahma Svarupa of Lakshmipathi Narayana. Hence, it makes no sense to say we rely wholly on Pancharatra. Without the agamas, Vaishnavism still thrives.

The Vyuha theory occurs in the Vedas itself. In any case, are you aware that the Satapatha Brahmana actually mentions the name 'Pancharatra'? That is why, it is strange that Sankara denies it. Pancharatra is very much a part of Veda.

Advaita is heavily criticized because of its success. Anything else you say about how Advaita interprets, Shruti, etc., I can show the same excuses and approach provided by other traditions as well. Without exception, interpretation starts with forming a basic premise and interpreting contradictory texts to show they are in line with the presupposed premise.

Read Sankara's Upanishad Bhashyas. He makes grammatical mistakes (maybe purposely) even.

Advaita is not criticised for its success. The Veda has no advaita. Don't you think its strange that we have so much literature talking about difference between Gods and Rituals when all this is unreal? Why devote so much time to the unreal?

Advaita is criticised because it is VERY loosely based on Vedas. And yet, it claims to be a Vedic philosophy. That is the main reason every philosopher has targeted it. It is a dry philosophy with no vedic backing (although the tradition is Vedantic).

Clearly then, you need to read history. If there was no question of scriptural debate, then what were Shankara and Mandana debating over for 15 days? And how does the bulk of Shankara’s literature target purva mimamsa when either position (according to you) is not based in scripture?

Of course. Mandana would try to argue about how the Veda is more important for Karma Khanda. Sankara would try to use pramanas to show that Brahma Jnana is more important than rituals. Sankara may even talk about Atman=Brahman, but there is no need for him to show extensive proof, as Mandana does not accept the Upanishads. He would use logic as a tool.

AFTER Mandana accepts the importance of the Upanishads, he becomes an advaitin.

As for Avidya on advaita-vedanta.org, please read the topic here.

www_advaita-vedanta_org/avhp/ad-phil_html (Replace underscores with periods). As you can see, there is no need for Sureshvara or anyone to make excuses about not drawing their basic concepts from scripture.

I will check it out later and edit this post with an explanation (can't open it now). Rest assured, the only pramanas advaitins can give is their interpretation of 'Maya', or some random vakyas like 'One wihout a Second'. All these vakyas are not advaitic, and by reading the context, one can easily make it out.

The terms Nirguna/Saguna (as used in Advaita), Jivan Mukti, Classicification of Reals, Avidya and Mithyavada are not in any scripture. Brahma Sutras say World is Real. Sankara struggles to get around it. In another place, Brahma Sutras say Jivatma will never have the power to create, destroy or preserve. Sankara again struggles to get around it (I believe he uses Jivan Mukti in some way here).

I believe, even Jivan Mukti is denied by a Satapatha Brahmana quote which says that even the Gods long for death, as only by death can one be liberated and not otherwise.

There are bogus quotes in Vaishnava Puranas about how Shankara was Shiva who came down to the earth to mislead people. Madhva said Mayavada was introduced to the world by a demon named Manimanta. Madhva quotes heavily from texts like Brahma Tarka, etc., which are not known outside his tradition and are not available today. His "missing sources" has been a research topic by itself.

Nobody accuses Madhva of quoting bogus texts. If you must know, his Bhallaveya Shruti and Paingi Shruti have been quoted by later Sri Vaishnavas themselves.

Look, Madhva's reputation as a Vedantin is legendary. He and Sri Ramanuja were perfectly honest. Appaya Dikshitar could not refute the Tarangini and started blaming Madhva for fabricating scripture.

On the other hand, Advaita has never had a need to rely on Upanishads other than the top ten nor on any missing source. Where is the need to create and quote bogus Puranas? If you know of a specific instance where a leading Advaita scholar quoted a bogus Upanishad, then please show it to me.

For the record, the current version of Narayana Suktam used by Advaitins itself has an interpolation 'Sa Hari' to make it look like Vishnu is a lesser deva.

In any case, these Upanishads were most probably rejected because it was too easy to identify them as spurious. But they are ALL monistic, showing that monists deliberately fabricated them.

This is your own individual perception and you are certainly welcome to it. As long as you accept, this is not some universal axiom such as 2+2=4. And since you think it is VA only and not Dvaita, then you should modify your statement that Vedas talk of VA only and not Dvaita or Advaita or anything else.

Dude, Advaita/Dvaita debates have often been more on logic than scripture. Advaitins lay too much stress on experience, logic, etc. because they lack scriptural credibility.

I did not say Dvaita is not there in Vedas. Sri Madhva and Sri Ramanuja agree on most points, except a few minor details. I said, Dvaita and VA are so closely matched that either of them have the ability to defeat the other and yet, no outcome would be conclusive.

However, Advaita is so far fetched that it is not even in Veda.

 

 

Let me be clear on this. I have no problems with people disagreeing with Advaita. But I object to incorrect criticism of Advaita like they claim to be God or are aspiring to be God, etc. Similarly, statements like they created bogus scriptures, or they have been “completely vanquished” or Advaitins make excuses that their basic tenets are not available in scripture, etc., are unfounded and incorrect, there being no objective basis for such accusations. I see this as nothing more than frustration born out of inability to replicate its success.

 

That is my point. And to repeat, I am not out to prove that Advaita is the right way.

 

Cheers

 

<?xml:namespace prefix = o />

 

It is accepted that the fake Upanishads are monistic. And some of them contain examples from Sankara Bhashya. Atma Bindu upanishad, current version of Mahopanishad, etc. Who else but Advaitins could have done that?

[srikanthdk71]

Dear Dark Warrior/Kaisersose, your Vedic stance is fabulous. As per my understanding,

 

The Chaturashram/Chaturvedas/Chaturvarnas have a link.

Shruti and Smriti was taught in Gurukulam to be followed in Brahmacharya.

The Chaturvedas were followed by the Chaturvarnas in the Grihastashram.

The Upanishads were followed in the Vanaprastha.

The realised soul would attain the Sanyasa.

 

Now, where does the truth lie? I feel you people are better qualified than me to correct me if I am wrong.

[Hiranyagarpa]

 

It is accepted that the fake Upanishads are monistic. And some of them contain examples from Sankara Bhashya. Atma Bindu upanishad, current version of Mahopanishad, etc. Who else but Advaitins could have done that?

 

 

That is putting the cart before the horse. If the Upanishads contain examples from Sankara Bhashya, it means that sankara has taken it from Upanishads, not the other way round.

 

Hiranyagarpa

[Dark Warrior]

Srikanth, I am not against Advaita. I regard it as a great mental exercise, but logically and scripturally in my opinion, it falls way short. Nobody can deny that Sankaracharya has formulated too many of his own ideas instead of relying on pramanas. That is why the later debates between Dvaitins/VAs and Advaitins were more on logical grounds rather than scriptural grounds. Sri Vedanta Desikar calls them disguised Buddhists.

 

However, I have great respect for the scholarly abiities of Adi Sankaracharya and Madhusudhana Saraswati.

 

Coming to the Avidya query posed by Shvu, I checked the Advaita site. And I do not see any pramana for Avidya. It is clear that Advaitins rely on logic and experience to explain Avidya.

 

All that this site says is - Brahman is indescribable and beyond words, and hence the Upanishads raise the question of how this Brahman can be known. Sankaracharya opines that Atman is Brahman that has covered itself by Avidya, etc. So, Avidya, according to advaitins, does not need an pramanas and nor is there a pramana in scripture...it is just a natural and logical conclusion according to them, as I explained earlier.

 

Thus, the site does not give any sort of pramana for Avidya. Rather, they explain that as Brahman is unknown, and that it is impossible to get proof of anything existing apart from the Self, Avidya can be inferred. Sureshvara tries to use logic and experience to establish the truth of Avidya.

 

And as my earlier post conveyed, logically, VAs have refuted Avidya. For instance, one Upanishad says Brahman is beyond words. However, the Purusha Suktam and Chandogya describe Him as brilliant, auspicious and lotus eyed. Isn't this contradictory?

 

Sri Ramanuja avers that there is no pramana for Nirguna Brahman or for the unreality of the world in Veda. Hence, the contradiction is resolved thus - Brahman's svarupa is formless and has the attributes of Satyam, Jnanam, Anantam, etc. This Svarupa is beyond words. However, Brahman's Rupa Gunas like brilliance and lotus eyes can be described. This is due to His accessibility.

 

Now, if we differentiate between Svarupa gunas and Rupa gunas, what about the vakya that says Brahman is partless? Well, He is everywhere and since He is everywhere with everything as His body, nothing can be distinctly seen as part of Him. Chit, Achit and Isvara are inseparably linked together,thus they become Sarvam Khalv Idam Brahma. Simple.

 

In the Gita, Krishna says there is nothing higher than Him. Thus, He cannot be Saguna Brahman. He cannot be Nirguna, as Nirguna Brahman is not capable of action (being attributeless). Krishna talks about how He deludes with the help of Maya. Sankaracharya interprets this maya to denote the unreality. So, if Krishna is Nirguna Brahman, Maya can neither be an attribute nor an entity distinct from Him. If Krishna is Saguna Brahman, then Maya too is unreal, which becomes illogical.

 

To resolve this, Advaitins claim Mithyavada is neither existence nor non-existence. Again, no pramana, just logic. This has been refuted.

 

 

That is putting the cart before the horse. If the Upanishads contain examples from Sankara Bhashya, it means that sankara has taken it from Upanishads, not the other way round.

 

In which case, Sankara should have commentated on them, or atleast, he should have mentioned that he was quoting from these Upanishads. However, he gives these examples as his own views in his bhashya. The Upanishads present these views as integral to scripture.

 

Shvu - Your basic premise is that the Vedas can be interpreted anyway, and every school claims victory, but advaita is popular hence we have been unsuccessful. Understand that even after defeat, there need not be mass conversions. The tradition of polemics makes it clear that conversion is a personal choice. To date, Advaitins have not been able to answer the Tarangini or the 66 existing points of the Satadhushani.

 

Advaita is not in Veda. It is like the Gaudiyas saying Krishna is above Vishnu - a few vakyas, mixed with a lot of stress on experience and logic (the logic has been refuted).

 

Popularity is not a measure of success. The average hindu has no idea of philosophy and even Sri Sankara is mistaken to be a Shaivite nowadays.

[srikanthdk71]

 

Srikanth, I am not against Advaita.

 

Dear Dark Warrior, you have all rights to speak against Advaita as you have a strong standpoint. No doubts on your credibility.

[Bart Happel]

 

… 'See everyone in Me, and Me in everyone' and 'Although everyone is in Me, I am not in them'(implying the existence of a creator god sitting aloof), which isn't advaitic at all. …

 

But this corresponds very nicely to a certain type of mathematical objects called ‘fractals’. A fractal displays an infinite ‘self-similar’ structure in which representations of the overall structure (universe) can be observed at every geometrical scale within the structure.

 

A well known example of a fractal is the so called ‘Mandelbrot set’: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set, that I already mentioned in another thread, to illustrate the concept and principle of self-similar structure. Most notably: the entire, infinite structure can be generated on a computer screen by just a few lines of computer code. This represents the ‘one-ness’ of the whole structure.

 

Actually I’m quite surprised that I’m apparently the first here to suggest such an explanation.

 

Kind regards, Bart

[bhaktajan]

The 'Mandelbrot set’ [a numerical data input formula, ie: (Z = ZxZ +1) ] when inputed into a computer's arithmatic functions displays a holographic phenomenom.

 

I am familiar with these numerical formulas that generate self-evolving geometeric shapes.

 

Shapes that contain the same configurations weather you view the object from afar or when zooming-in microscopically,

 

[your Avatar Picture is the most famous example, a sitting Buddha type figure]

 

-- it examplifies that the basic rules of physics & Mathmatics are 'constant' in nature --from grand macro-structures to micro-structures --the basic laws of nature remain constant, definitive & absolute.

 

Ultimately, these rules culminate in 'what it means to be a person' are applicable & extend from beasts to humans to Devas and then finally to Bhagavan Shree Krishna.

 

Absolute Principles are applicable & govern to all phenomenom, no matter how small & insignificant the event.

 

The guidance of Mayavadi philosophy negates the Absolute nature of Personality as it exists as the seed impetuous for all gross material existance.

 

Thus, the Holy Name of the Absolute Personage of God is overlooked by those without a kinship [due to profound self-loathing] with a personal ... __________ .

[Bart Happel]

Yes, and..??

[srikanthdk71]

 

In the Gita, Krishna says there is nothing higher than Him. Thus, He cannot be Saguna Brahman. He cannot be Nirguna, as Nirguna Brahman is not capable of action (being attributeless). Krishna talks about how He deludes with the help of Maya. Sankaracharya interprets this maya to denote the unreality. So, if Krishna is Nirguna Brahman, Maya can neither be an attribute nor an entity distinct from Him. If Krishna is Saguna Brahman, then Maya too is unreal, which becomes illogical.

 

Dear Dark Warrior, where ever Krishna is saying I, does it mean he is refering to his physical appearance or is he relating it to the gross body? He is refering to the pure form of 'I', which is nothing but the Self and that which is in everyone. That 'I' is both Saguna in action and Nirguna as non-active. So, the Atma is a combination of both attributes which is defined again as ANORANIYAAN MAHTOMAHIYAAN or the definition of Atma itself which is 'Shivam Shantam Advaitam Chaturtamanyante Sa Atma Sabigyeyah'. The definition itself says it is Advaitam (one and the same, not two). Kriya or action is happening due to the presense of the Trigunas(Sattva, Rajas, Tamas) and delution of these actions were called Maya and yes, Maya is not an entity distinct from Him. There is nothing impure. Everything is Pure. Knowing everything is Vidya. As comprehended many a times 'If there is Dvaita, there is no Moksha'. If there is something called 'Moksha', Dvaita is a wrong concept. Even the definition of Manushya also says 'Mana eva Manushyanaam, Kaaranam Bandhamokshayoh'. So, when all scriptures talk about Moksha, Dvaita is a myth.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Dear Dark Warrior, where ever Krishna is saying I, does it mean he is refering to his physical appearance or is he relating it to the gross body? He is refering to the pure form of 'I', which is nothing but the Self and that which is in everyone.

 

In the first verse itself, Krishna differetiates between Himself and the Jivas, 'Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor did you'.

 

First of all, you seem to think Krishna is a normal human. Sorry, doesn't work. That He is Paramatma is the content of the Gita. Hence, to equate Him with Jivas, you need to produce a vakya that explicitly denies the reality of the world. However, Gita verifies that the world is real, creation is real, God is real and souls are real and distinct from Him.

 

When Krishna says 'I', He is simply referring to Himself - the Svarupa with the attributes of Satyam, Jnanam, Anantam. When He says He is the Self in everyone, He means 'I am the Self dwelling within the Atman'. The Atman is the body of Brahman, hence Brahman and Atman can be identified together on the basis of their inseparability.

 

Krishna says, 'Everything is strung on me, like pearls on a thread'. Hence, pearls and thread are different, yet inseparably linked together and identified by One name 'Necklace'. Similarly, Krishna is the Self, indweller of Atman in everyone and distinct from your atman.

 

This, in brief, is the difference between Jnana Yoga and Bhakti Yoga. Jnanis will meditate on their own atman (Akshara) and realise themselves (ie, their atman) to be the body of the indwelling paramatmA. Ayam Atma Brahma is one such example of a meditative vakya - First the AtmA, then Brahman is realised.

 

Arjuna asks Krishna, 'which is better, meditating on atmA as the body/mode of ParamatmA, or meditating on you?' Krishna replies, 'Such an upasana is very difficult, hence, meditate on My divine body (which is real and eternal), consisting of 2 hands, a flute, made of suddha satva, with lotus eyes, etc. I have come in this wonderful form just for your sake (read JitantE stotram) and hence, meditate on my gunas'.

 

For instance, take one Vidya in the Upanishads where the seeker is to meditate on NarayanA within the sun. This Brahman is described to possess a golden complexion, lotus eyes and a moustache too!! This uninterrupted meditation on Brahman is Bhakti Yoga, and it is differentiated from normal Bhakti.

 

 

 

That 'I' is both Saguna in action and Nirguna as non-active. So, the Atma is a combination of both attributes which is defined again as ANORANIYAAN MAHTOMAHIYAAN or the definition of Atma itself which is 'Shivam Shantam Advaitam Chaturtamanyante Sa Atma Sabigyeyah'.

 

An entity cannot be both active and non-active. It is attested by Krishna that He is the doer and the Atman is the non-doer. He also makes a clear difference between atman and paramatman (convieniently relegated to the 'lower level' of reality by Sri Sankaracharya).

 

Sorry. This definition is not supported by either Gita or Upanishads. The Lord abides in the Self and provides the power to execute action, making Him the doer. The Atman only has the power to choose the action. That much is clear frm the Upanishads.

 

Advaitins have the habit of equating 'AtmA' with Jivatman and then terming it as Brahman everywhere. Actually, Shruti itself refers to AtmA as ParamatmA in some places (Mandukya, for instance) and JivatmA in others. The context is never taken into account by advaitins, and everything indicating Bheda is 'unimportant'.

 

 

The definition itself says it is Advaitam (one and the same, not two). Kriya or action is happening due to the presense of the Trigunas(Sattva, Rajas, Tamas) and delution of these actions were called Maya and yes, Maya is not an entity distinct from Him. There is nothing impure. Everything is Pure. Knowing everything is Vidya.

 

Action happens while in samsara and is determined by Karma. This Karma is independent of, and yet controlled by the Lord, who doesn't interfere in its results. The exact nature of this is beyond the scope of the topic.

 

No offense, but you are not even speaking classical advaita here. Sankara does not say Maya is Brahman. To say Maya is Brahman, or Avidya is Brahman is lending impurity to Brahman. The doctrine gets downright nonsensical. If Brahman is knowledge and Brahman is Maya/Avidya, then Brahman knows Himself by His own knowledge. If Maya or Avidya is Brahman, it covers the knowledge, which is Brahman itself. This leads to a complete collapse.

 

 

As comprehended many a times 'If there is Dvaita, there is no Moksha'. If there is something called 'Moksha', Dvaita is a wrong concept. Even the definition of Manushya also says 'Mana eva Manushyanaam, Kaaranam Bandhamokshayoh'. So, when all scriptures talk about Moksha, Dvaita is a myth.

 

There are many places where it is stated to rise above duality. Typical advaitin interpretations overlook the real meaning. Krishna Himself talks about His abode as the highest goal for Jivatmas, then what is this 'Dvaita is a myth' theory?

 

A true jnani realises that he, the jivatman, is the body of the indwelling Superself, ParamatmA. Thus, due to the inseparability of two entities, he can say, 'Ayam Atma Brahma'. The word 'Srikanth' signifies your body and soul - two distinct entities as one. The 'pearls on a string' example shows that pearls and string, when properly comprehended, become expressible as one entity 'necklace'. There is no loss of duality, rather, the seeker comprehends the qualified monism, ie, 'Not two in a special way'.

 

Thus, like Krishna tells Shiva in the Vishnu Purana, 'You are fit to comprehend that you are not distinct from Me, and neither is the world'. A Jnani sees that all beings are identical to himself, ie, they are all Jivatmas with ParamatmA as indweller. He also sees Himself as an inseparable attribute and the body of Brahman. This does not imply total identity, as advaita says.

 

Number one, there is no pramana for classifying the world as unreal. The VyavaharikA and ParamahartikA classification finds no mention in Gita, Vedanta Sutras, and Upanishads. The Pramana provided by advaitins is 'One without a Second', implying jagat is an illusion. However, the Rig Veda, Mandukya Upanishad and Brahma Sutras say the world is real, Sankara says, 'On account of some pramanas like one without a second, we can dismiss this as unimportant'.

 

That is why I said his interpretation is far-fetched. After interpreting one vakya as advaitic, he dismisses 90% of shruti as 'unreal' or 'unimportant'. This is the wrong approach. His Brahma Sutra bhashya itself speaks volumes about how he struggles to get his philosophy together.

 

Since, everywhere else reality is stressed, and since shruti does not mention explicitly that the world is unreal, the vakya should be reinterpreted to fit the rest of Shruti. 'One without a Second' therefore implies that Brahman, who has Jivas and Jagat as His body, is the sole reality. Body (Jagat and Jivas) and Soul (Brahman), together are referred to as 'Brahman', just like the necklace analogy, which makes explanations easy.

[Amlesh]

The same Ram and Sita dwell in the heart of Hanumatha.

 

The Pure Self is Hari Himself.

 

Hanumatha got the privilege to prove it.

[Amlesh]

...and DW too.