Mayavadi?

[Sathya]

i still don't really understand this idea of Mayavadi. Please could someone explain in simple terms?

 

Jai Sri Krsna.

[shvu]

Mayavada is a name given to Shankara (800 AD)'s doctrine of Advaita by rival schools. One who adopts and follows this doctrine is a Mayavadi. Inside the tradition the term is rarely used, if ever.

 

There are all kinds of distortions and incorrect usage of this term by some people, but the above definition basically covers it. You can look up Advaita on advaita-vedanta.org and/or wikipedia. Not because I am selling it (I am not), but just so you know what these terms mean when you hear them.

 

It is better to take a few minutes to kow the offical position than to persist for years with an incorrect view.

 

Cheers

[Pankaja_Dasa]

Far as I know Sankracharya actually preached covered {Advaita-vadi} therefore actually preaching. {Mayavad}.

[Pankaja_Dasa]

Advaita-vadi belive everything is 'One'. Mayavadis believe everything is 'God'. Advaitens believe in Krishna but think His body is material. Mayavadis believe in the soul of Krishna and want to become one with God. Mayavad has roots in Advaita.

[Pankaja_Dasa]

Advatins .. I want to become one with God.

Mayavadis .. I am God and want to become one with Him.

[shvu]

 

Advatins .. I want to become one with God.

Mayavadis .. I am God and want to become one with Him.

 

Nope. This is the false version I was alluding to, earlier. Both definitions are incorrect. If the Mayavadi is already God, then why does he want to become one with himself again?

 

Advaitin -> Duality is not real and perceiving this fact is Moksha after which there is no duality. No one "becomes God" or "aspires to become God" as some people have put it. For eample, theist after all these years, still persists with the same nonsense about Advaita. Ask him for proof and he will go into a song & dance as usual.

 

Advaita = Mayavada = Advaita = Mayavada = Advaita... There is no difference at all. Here is the relevant part from the Advaita FAQ

 

Why is advaita sometimes referred to as mAyAvAda?

The word mAyAvAda serves many purposes. Since advaita upholds the identity of the individual Atman with brahman, a doubt naturally arises about the origin of the variegated universe. The appearance of difference in the universe is attributed to mAyA. In popular parlance, mAyA means illusion, and a magician or a juggler is called a mAyAvI. Within advaita, mAyA has a technical significance as the creative power (Sakti) of brahman, which also serves to occlude, due to which the universe is perceived to be full of difference, and the unity of brahman is not known. See fuller details in response to Q. 3 above. Some vaishNava schools use the word mAyAvAda in a derogatory sense. However, this criticism interprets mAyA solely as illusion and criticizes advaita for dismissing the world as an illusion that is nothing more than a dream. Such a criticism neglects the philosophical subtlety of the concept of mAyA in advaita.

 

Wikipedia should have something on this as well. You should also check Prabhupada's "What is Mayavada?" that was doing its rounds on the internet a few years ago. He quotes the "mayavadam asat shastram" verse from the Padma purana and how Shiva came as Shankara to preach this false philososphy. Therefore, in the words of Prabhupada himself, Shankara's Advaita = Mayavada. That should clear it up.

 

Cheers

[RadhaMukunda]

 

Advaita-vadi belive everything is 'One'. Mayavadis believe everything is 'God'. Advaitens believe in Krishna but think His body is material. Mayavadis believe in the soul of Krishna and want to become one with God. Mayavad has roots in Advaita.

No, not all advaita is mayavada and not everyone who believes that everything is Krishna (Brahman) is a mayavadi. Vallabhacharya established Shudha Advaita and the followers of that marga also believe that everything is Krishna (Ishavasyam idam sarvam, vasudevam sarwam iti), but they are not mayavadis.

 

Mayavada means believing that everything is maya. Meaning that the world is unreal or only a dream. This is close to what buddhists believe. The term mayavada is used by opponents of Shankaracharya and not by his followers.

 

The verse in the padma purana that Srila Prabhupada quotes is an interpolation by Jiva Goswami.

[Pankaja_Dasa]

if you both see what i wrote i said exactly the same. you just wasted 2 posts

[Pankaja_Dasa]

i know they both the same. Going as sastric Prabhupada mentions in Gita clearly what it is, without going into Advaita-vada for a reason.

[RadhaMukunda]

 

if you both see what i wrote i said exactly the same. you just wasted 2 posts

 

Yeah I love posting.

 

Sorry, I didn't understand.

[Pankaja_Dasa]

thats yr prob.

[bija]

 

i still don't really understand this idea of Mayavadi. Please could someone explain in simple terms?

Jai Sri Krsna. by sathya

 

Shvu states:Mayavada is a name given to Shankara (800 AD)'s doctrine of Advaita by rival schools. One who adopts and follows this doctrine is a Mayavadi. Inside the tradition the term is rarely used, if ever.

This is correct information from shvu.

 

Please read page 9 (main section of the book) of the below book for a Gaudiya Vaisnava definition of 'mayavada'. Not the number on the page scroller on the reader, but the actual page no. 9 on the books pages...scroll down.

 

<embed src="http://documents.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=3368786&access_key=key-ojevsytv8h5t7lkyef6&page=&version=1&auto_size=true" quality="high" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" play="true" loop="true" scale="showall" wmode="opaque" devicefont="false" bgcolor="#ffffff" name="doc_261607271960450_object" menu="true" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" salign="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%" align="middle" height="500">

 

Vaishnava Vijaya By Srila Bhaktiprajana Keshava Goswami - Upload a Document to Scribd

 

Read this document on Scribd: Vaishnava Vijaya By Srila Bhaktiprajana Keshava Goswami

[Pankaja_Dasa]

"Mayavada bhasya sunyo haya sarva nasha"- Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Then only shelter you have is Mahaprabhu Like my avatar says.

[bija]

Here is a simple defintion sathya, from the above book:

 

 

non-dualism or monism is another name for mayavadism

That is a simple defintion, but if we are to analyize both the vaisnava and advaita traditions, the defintions will deepen. Simply put the vaisnava sees the soul as being an eternal individual fragment of the whole, and the Supreme Personality of Godhead having a distinct identity eternally, also.

 

The advaitin will see the form of God (for example Sri Krsna) as a temporary/false phenomena, and will also see individual forms as temporary/false phenomena - a trick of the illusory potency. The vaisnava considers that God has multi-potencies, one being the external energy maya (illusory potency)-and that the Personality of Godhead and the minute spirit souls are distinct from that maya, and eternal in nature. The vaisnava will not see this mayic world of form as false - but simply temporary, and consider eternal form as reality. Various vaisnava schools have unique defintions of the minute souls and the Supreme Soul's relation.

 

This is as far as I understand. Maybe those more knowledgeable in advaitic philosophy and vaisnava philosophy, may like to comment. Hope this helps.

 

Personally I am an aspiring vaisnava, and feel attraction to individuality and bhakti to an eternal Supreme Person. So with that initial faith, the study of these different philosophies begins. In fact I am of the opinion, after our initial faith awakens, it is good to study these things out with discrimenation - either strengthening our faith, or balancing our faith in a more harmonious way while living in this world.

[Pankaja_Dasa]

He said explain in simple term, originally. Mayavadis dont belive God has form. . because they believe 'everything is one spiritually'. It's basic understanding. Even in simple terms it's hard to explain. Bhaja Gopala.

[srikanthdk71]

 

He said explain in simple term, originally. Mayavadis dont belive God has form. . because they believe 'everything is one spiritually'. It's basic understanding. Even in simple terms it's hard to explain. Bhaja Gopala.

 

Dear Pankaja Dasa, Yes. It is simple. If God had a form it cannot be unbound and infinite. Only a finite entity can have a form. The earlier posts also said Mayavadis believe in Krishna as the Conciouness and not the Sharira. Yes, even Rama had to leave his Sharira and so had Krishna. They demonstrated to the world what is Nitya and Anitya, what is Satya and Mithya. Conciousness is pure(Nityam & Satyam), unbound and infinite (Anant-Apaar) and rest is everchanging (ie., Maaya). Is it hard to explain?

[srikanthdk71]

 

This is correct information from shvu.

 

Please read page 9 (main section of the book) of the below book for a Gaudiya Vaisnava definition of 'mayavada'. Not the number on the page scroller on the reader, but the actual page no. 9

 

Dear Bija, To sell anything, you say that your product is always Superior to the rest. Same here. Or else, the organisation wouldnt have grown so big. Do you need so many books if your base is strong, so many quotations, personal attacks on the past. It all started from Madhvacharya where he found immense pleasure in the 'Khandana Vaada' that his predecessors like Sri Shankara or Sri Ramanuja who had a Siddhanta 'Mandanaa Vaada' unlike something to say 'I am the best. No one better than me' and talks of Surrender of EGO to Krishna.

[bija]

Quote:

<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> You are the supreme being among living creatures on this earth. by sri</td></tr></tbody></table>

 

The Supreme Godhead is the supreme...we are small/tiny sparks of that summum bonum. In a previous post you have said this above statement (that I have put in quotes)...do you really believe that? Do you really believe that you are the supreme?

 

(To the original poster of this thread) - statements such as this are the potential fruit of mayavadi teaching.

[bija]

 

It all started from Madhvacharya where he found immense pleasure in the 'Khandana Vaada' that his predecessors like Sri Shankara or Sri Ramanuja who had a Siddhanta 'Mandanaa Vaada' unlike something to say 'I am the best. No one better than me' and talks of Surrender of EGO to Krishna. posted by sri

 

What does the Gita says about the best; the most skillful, the mountain of mountains etc etc - it says that Krsna (the Supreme Personality) is the cause of all causes and the best of the best.

 

I have no interest to sell my false-ego - its a sham. Come down under for a holiday - you will see;). And I mean down under, where the wild things roam:eek3:. Now that was a good book (where the wild things roam) about a kid in a cat costume with big imagination - that's a plug.

[bija]

<embed src="http://documents.scribd.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=2073053&access_key=key-148af9unzej3634ipst6&page=&version=1&auto_size=true" quality="high" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" play="true" loop="true" scale="showall" wmode="opaque" devicefont="false" bgcolor="#ffffff" name="doc_315956364641532_object" menu="true" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" salign="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%" align="middle" height="500">

 

Where the Wild Things Are- 4 parts Reader's Theater Script - Upload a Document to Scribd

 

Read this document on Scribd: Where the Wild Things Are- 4 parts Reader's Theater Script

[shvu]

 

What does the Gita says about the best; the most skillful, the mountain of mountains etc etc - it says that Krsna (the Supreme Personality) is the cause of all causes and the best of the best.

 

That is the Advaitic interpretation.

 

Here is something amusing. When Dvaitins argue with Advaitins they will draw on points where the two doctrines differ which makese perfect sense. But with Hare Krishnas, they are usually either arguing about points that are part of neither tradition or else common to both traditions!

 

Would it not be better to lay off topics we know nothing about? Pretentious knowledge only leads to embarassment.

 

Cheers

[Pankaja_Dasa]

Only you know shuv.

[shvu]

 

Only you know shuv.

 

This is wrong too. There are several others who know as well.

 

Cheers

[Pankaja_Dasa]

Yes. I also know. But you dont know that.

[bija]

There is a subtle nuance and beauty in the doctrine of inconceivable simultaneous oneness and difference. But there is also a huge divide between advaita and gaudiya vaisnavism on several main points.

 

Firstly, the gaudiya vaisnava desires to identify herself/himself as a fragmental portion of the whole, and also Krsna is accepted as an eternal Supreme Personality of Godhead, simultaneously one and different to creation. Whereas these two are considered temporary/false by the advaitan along with creation. The gaudiya does not consider creation false, but simply temporary.

 

Now this thread began with the question, what does mayavadi mean. Considering, as you pointed out, mayavadi is a term used mainly by Hare Krsna's, I chose to explain the term from the Hare Krsna viewpoint. Hopefully the question has been answered somewhat. I normally do not enter discussions on this forum where people debate about mayavada, as it seems to enter personal criticism in some degree with all us on this forum. I knew it would possibly do this very thing in this thread, but chose to answer the honest question of sathya - it is a very good question which some of us do not know deeply about. Hence I offered the book for her to read. Which I am also reading presently to deepen my understanding - by the recommendation of my teacher.

 

If you consider my knowledge minimal or even humourous, that is ok; you are quite correct shvu it is limited, we both know that. Love and light to you.

 

Madhvacarya was referred to as an egotist, and indirectly that same ego was referred to me, as if surrender to Krsna is a dupe to hide ego. Now there is some truth in that, in this conditioned stage for many of us...but we continue to glorify Krsna in faith that the kirtan of his glories will purify us of the ignorance. I also felt it necessary to point out the potential flaw in mayavadi teaching, when ego is still prevalent. Please forgive my offence in this regard - it is displeasing to my heart. In my discussion I will not criticise Madhavacarya or Sankaracarya in such manner. As you know Lord Caitanya considered Sankaracarya as an empowered incarnation. This is one example of the beauty and inclusiveness of vedic traditions.