To Rafal - Is Kaun?

May 29, 2006

Namaste Sri RafalThis is huge. You want a course on the whole Bhagavad Gita, a few upanishads and Brahma Sutras plus comparisons between the different understanding of the scriptures. Kindly wait as I need time to first go through these 10 pages and, then, will comment. Till then, here is something for you - I usually call Iskcon as " Is Kaun? " meaning who is " Is " ? Thanks and RegardsBharatOn 5/29/06,

Rafal Gendarz <starsuponme wrote:

vyam vyasadevaya namah

Dear Ajit ji , Bharat ji

Thank You for Your time.

I paste the article once I found in my archives. The source

of this I think is some devotee from Iskcon. If You could correct it and give Your comments. I would be grateful.

Regards

Rafal Gendarz

III. Structure of Mayavada philosophy:

A. It is also called Vivartavada (lit. " superim- positionism " ).

1. arthadhyasa - superimposition of one object on another.

2. jnanadhyasa - imposition of illusion upon oneself.

3. For this superimposition to happen, there must be -

a. Senses.

b. An abnormal situation (e.g. darkness).

c. Experience.

d. An example of above three components: seeing a rope as a snake in the darkness.

B. Philosophical proofs, and which philosophers accept them:

1. Direct perception (accepted by Charvakas).

2. Inference (anumana) + 1 is accepted by Buddhists.

a. Hypothesis = there is fire on the mountain.

b. Cause (hetu) = because there is smoke there.

c. Example = Where there is smoke, there is fire.

d. Review of cause = The mountain has smoke...

e. Conclusion = ...therefore the mountain has fire.

3. Sabdha (spiritual sound) + 1 & 2 is accepted by Vaishnavas.

4. Arthavati (similarity) + 1-3 is accepted by logic- ians.

a. " Have you seen a blue cow? " did " (cow +

b. " No, but I would know one if I blue).

5. Arthapatti: " This fat man does not eat in the day > he must eat at night. " (Logicians)

6. Abhava (nonexistance) + 1-5 is accepted by Mayavad is.

a. Nonexistance means: " There is no cow here. "

b. It is a kind of knowledge based on the absence of knowledge or perception of something .

C. Four categories within M.P.:

1. Sat = existance (Brahman).

2. Asat = nonexistance (horns on rabbit).

3. Sat-asat = something that exists for a time, then ceases to exist .

4. Anirvachaniya = neither 1-3, i.e. Maya (which makes one think a rope is a snake. Inexplicable, illusiory).

D. Levels of perception according to Shankaracharya:

1. Paramarthika - transcendental (Brahman).

2. Vyavaharika - " practical " .

3. Pratibhasika - apparent, but illusiory (like dreaming ).

a. One must go from this stage to next higher.

b. When coming to second stage, individuality remains .

c. But at highest stage, individuality is erased.

E. Maya:

1. Maya is inexplicable; example - a dumb person cannot describe the taste of rasgulla, but still there is taste. Brahman is covered by Maya, but don't ask why.

2. Two stages of Maya:

a. Covering with illusion; that's simply Maya.

b. Distorting with ignorance (avidya).

3. When Maya covers Brahman with illusion, Iswara- consciousness appears. He is conditioned to be the Lord.

4. When Brahman is further distorted by avidya, jiva consciousness appears. Avidya makes the subtle

body .

5. There is no transformation in this process, only imposition (of a false conception .

6. When illusion and ignorance are dispelled, no state of any describable existance remains

7. Mayavadi story: Vyasadeva sent Sukadeva to learn from Janaka. Janaka said to Sukadeva, " Give me my dakshine before I teach you anything, because after you learn this teaching, you will reject everything, including me (the Guru). "

F. Example of Mayavadi logic:

1. Brahman " reflects " into Maya. Q: But how? If it reflects (e.g. moon on water) it must have a form . 2. A. First understand that Brahman is not a substance, so rules like that don't apply to it.

3. And apart from that, consider an object or substance that has qualities. Form is one such quality. But does form have form?

4. Q. What are you saying, `Does form have form? '

5. A. When you see a shadow or reflection, what is being reflected - form or substance? 6. Q. Well - the form.

7. So the form is not the substance. Form is what is reflected, but that form is different from the substance.

G. Jayatirtha Muni gives this example of Mayavadi process: just as when a person has a bad dream, the dream wakes him up; similarly, though the Mayavadi philosophy is still " maya " , it can wake one up out of illusion

..

H. Two schools of Mayavadi philosophy.

1. One accepts only Upanisads, Vedanta and Bhagavad- gita (prasthan-traya).

2. But the so-called Bhagavat-sampradaya (with acaryas like Citsukhacarya and Madhusudan Sarasvati) accept Puranas, Ramayana, etc. Just as Mayavadis in general are more accept dangerous than Buddhists, the Bhagavat sampradaya is most dangerous of all.They even Krishna's form is spiritual, but say that when He returns to the Paramvyoma, His form " dissolves " into Brahman First school would argue Krishna's form is material.

I. Bhag Tyag Lakshana:

1. Bhag (person).

2. Tyag (give up)

3. I.e. Now you have this designation; give it up.

a. On wall of Vaishnava temple, a Mayavadi wrote " So'ham " (I am Him).

b. A devotee came later and added Da, " DaSo'ham " (I am His servant).

c. Mayavadi returned, added Sa for SaDaSo'ham (I am eternally Him).

d. Devotee returned again and added Da for DaSaDaSo'ham (I am the servant of His servant).

IV. Weaknesses of Mayavadi Philosophy.

A. Their " Brahman " and Vyasadeva's Brahman are not the same.

1. Their Brahman is the Brahmajyoti.

2. Vyasadeva's Brahman is Krishna, the Purushottama.

3. Because they have no interest in Krishna, their Brahman categorically has no reality (it is wrongly defined from the outset).

a. Vyasa used the word Brahman as we use the word " God. "

b. It is a general term, used to create interest among as many people as possible (even those who are averse to Krishna).

B. They speak of " Sarvikalpa jnana " and " Nirvikalpa jnana " , but these are actually the same thing .

1. Example of approaching a mountain from a distance - at each stage, the same entity is being viewed

2. But Mayavadis say the far-off vision of a great shape on the horizon is of a different thing than theclose-up view of the mountain

C. They interpret Sanskrit words inaccurately to fit their own ideas.

1. Lord is " asarira. " They say this means He has no sarira or body; but the root of the word sarira means decay " ,so the word really refers to a body that decays, not simply a body " . 2.Lord is " akarana. " They say this means He has no senses; but this word really means that His senses because He is directly His are not energized by something else (e.g. as our material senses are energized by life energy) own form .

D. They interpret " He desired to become many " as meaning the progression from Brahman-Iswara-Jiva; but it is the Iswara who has the desire to become many. How the desireless Brahman desired to become the Iswara they.do not explain

E. If Brahman is all-pervading, where is Maya?

F. How is the Brahman cut into individual parcels of consciousness ?

G. Mayavadis say, " By knowledge (jnana), one becomes Brahman. "

1. But they also say that jnana and ajnana are Maya.

2. So you may remove your ajnana with jnana, but then with what will you remove the jnana?

3. To this they answer, " It is by the mercy of Brah man. " (!)

H. They say Brahman is without energy (shakti). Then how does it exist? (No answer ).

I. Snake and Rope:

1. In order for this example to have validity, the person must have prior knowledge of both " what is a rope " and " what is a snake. " How can undifferentiated Brahman have prior knowledge of Maya, which it then mistakes itself to be?

2. Besides that, in this example, the rope and snake are both real things, and that's why the illusion is effective.And since the illusion is effective, it is also true, i.e. the consequences of that illusion are no less effective than if the rope was really a snake(I'm scared, I scream, run away, etc.).

J. They say Maya is like a dream, but there's no continuity in our dreams from one night to the next. In the waking state we find day-to-day continuity. So to compare this life to a mere dream is facile.

K. Why is this illusion so consistent, if it is just hallucination? Why doesn't illusion come us to other ways, e.g. in instead of Brahman is the world (rope is snake), why not the world is Brahman (snake is rope)?

H. Mayavadis say one can only achieve liberation after death. Then his individuality ceases forever.

1. But how does this relate to their favorite rope/

snake analogy? One man lights a lamp and sees that the snake is really just a rope; another man runs off, frightened, never knowing it was an illusion. How are these two men different in their essential existance?

I. Who suffers in hell - soul or body?

1. Mayavadi may answer, " the body suffers only. "

2. But the body is matter, is it not?

3. Yes.

4. How can dead matter suffer?

5. Then it must be the soul that suffers.

6. Then you are saying Brahman suffers? But your

philosophy says there's no suffering in Brahman.

J. Shankara writes of the " vyavaharika " platform of exis tance, but nowhere is this word found in any scripture. Yet it is a fundamental component of his philosophy.

K. Upanishads say that nothing can attach itself to Brahman and it cannot be described in words. Shankara says these statements form the complete description of Brahman .

1. Sankara says take these descriptions literally.

2. How? By hearing these words, don't the Mayavadis become attached to Brahman?

L. Katha Upanishad 3.11: Above the jagat is avyakta, above avyakta is Purusha, and beyond Him is nothing else.

V. A look at Jiva Goswami's refutations of Mayavadi Philosophy:

A. He established the Srimad Bhagavatam as the shastric reference par excellence.

1. Brhad Aranyaka Upanishad 2.41 - 4 Vedas, Itihasa and Puranas have come from breath of Narayana .

2. Chandogya Upanishad 3.15.7 - 4 Vedas, Itihasas and Puranas are 5th Veda .

a. 4 cows and 1 buffalo are never grouped as a herd of 5 cows, because a buffalo is not a cow . b. 5 cows means 5 cows.

3. Mahabharata says " Puranas make Vedas complete. "

4. Shankaracharya's guru's guru wrote a commentary on a book that cited slokas from the Srimad Bhagavatam.

5. Garuda Purana says " artho 'yam brahma sutranam " : Bhagavat Purana gives meaning of Vedanta -sutra, Gayatri and the 4 Vedas .

6. Srimad Bhagavatam is the ripened fruit of the tree of the Vedic scriptures .

7. Srimad Bhagavatam is Veda: " it is compiled by the Lord Himself. "

8. Sukadeva Goswami was a Brahmajnani who became a devotee. Vyasadeva compiled the Bhagavatam only for Sukadeva, because only he could understand it (his other disciples were not qualified) .

a. Sukadeva ran away as soon as he was born. Vyasa told his other disciples to chant3 verses from the Srimad Bhagavatam in order to attract him back to the ashram (they were to chant these verses out loud when entering the forest to gather firewood or fetch water).

b. Thus Sukadeva was attracted and returned to learn Srimad Bhagavatam at the feet of his father He cannot be attracted by anything material. Therefore S.B. has something higherthan even Brahman realization (atmarama verse ).

B. Srimad Bhagavatam establishes Krishna as the Param Brahman.

1. Hiranyakashipu used the " neti neti " process to negate any possible chance of his being killed byan enemy when he requested a boon from Lord Brahma .

a. He left no chance that any type of entity within the material world could harm him . b. Practically he left only the Brahman. And that Brahman came as Narasingha and destroyed him; thus Lord Nrsinghadeva is the Supreme Brahman 2.Even Sridhar Swami has commented on " krishna stu bhagavan " , " narayana eva. " But Srila Jiva Goswami established Lord. Krishna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead

3. In the wrestling arena, everyone saw Krishna differently. The yogis saw Him as theTattva Paramam (Supreme Truth).

4. The pastime of Lord Damodar shows how the Supreme is unlimited, yet has a body . 5. Devaki said, " That Brahman, jyoti...etc. that all the impersonalists (jnanis and yogis) are seeking is You. "

VI. Vadiraja's Refutations of Key Tenets of Mayavadi Philosophy.

A. Vadiraja comes in the line of Madhvacharya. He lived in the 16th century. He is said to have lived for 120 years.

B. How Vadiraja exposed Mayavadi misinterpretations:

1. Vadiraja showed how Mayavadis have taken the " neti- neti " statement out of context .

a. They say " not this, not this " means " not jiva, not jada " (Brahman is neither the individual soul nor, matter - therefore, since only Brahman exists jiva and jada must be unreal).

b. But they've derived " neti-neti " from Brhad- aranyaka Upanishad 4.4.22, which states: " For the desire for sons is the desire for wealth and the desire for wealth the desire for worlds; both these, are indeed, desires only. This Self is not this, not this. "

c. This verse is stating that the Self (atman) is not to be had by desiring wealth or worlds. The direct meaning is sufficient; the " jada-jiva " interpretation is without foundation .

2. The meaning of " advaita " :

a. Mayavadis take " advaita " (not dual) to mean that Brahman has no difference. Therefore undifferentiated oneness is the only truth .

b. But the context is found in Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.1 & 2 - " In the beginning, my dear, this Being, one only, without a second. "

c. Vadiraja showed that " one without a second " means, according to grammar and logic " one Being,without a second Being " , or " He has no second " , i.e. there is only one God. But this does not mean that some thing or things below God can't bedistinguished from Him.

i. If the the word " advitiyam " as it appears in this verse actually means that nothing except undifferentiated Brahman exists, then the very text from which the word comes would be unreal, as it is a feature of the realm of difference.

ii. Thus the validity of the text would be destroyed by the very philosophy the Maya vadis ascribe to it

iii. He proved his point further with this example - if one says " The lotus is blue " , he does not mean to say that " lotus " and " blue " are exact synonyms. He means that blueness is a quality of. the lotus Similarly, when shastra says " Brahman is everything " , " everything " and " Brahman " are not exact synonyms, rather " everything " (souls and matter) are qualities of Brahman. Or, as blueness is a quality inseparable from the lotus, so we are inseparable from Brahman (but as Brahman has qualities we don't have, still there is distinction in this inseparability).

3. Vadiraja points out that Mayavadis say that both practical life and the scriptures are on the vyava harika platform - which means both are ultimately unreal. Yet they honor the scriptures and honor sattvik life as dispellers of illusion breeds bad results . But a Mayavadi cannot distinguish between these two categories of action .

.. a. In practical life, what is " true " is what works, i.e. what brings good resultsWhat is " untrue " Thus even on their so-called vyavaharika platform, they have no ultimate reference for deciding what is auspicious and what is inauspi cious

b. For example, using a Mayavadi analogy, the Mayavadis are not able to explain the difference between a man who sees that there is no silver in silvery shell and the man who thinks that silver a is there

i. They will say the man who discovered his error is conventionally correct (vyava harika), and the man who did not is under pratibhasika illusion .

ii. But the main thing is, both are in ultimate illusion. Now, the silvery shell analogy is used by them to illustrate how one comes out of ULTIMATE illusion and attains the truth paramarthika). Yet, using their own doctrine as the test, this example prooves itself invalid. So what are we left with?

4. Vadiraja compares the Mayavadis with Paundraka. He asks, " If Mayavadi philosophy is so pregnant with Truth, why did Krishna and His associates in Dwaraka laugh derisively when they heard Paundraka's letter which simply made the same claims as the Mayavadi philosophers? Why did, Shukadeva Goswami when reciting this event to Maharaja Parikshit before the learned assembly of great, saints and sages censure Paundraka repeatedly? Why did Vyasa, who wrote this narration down, also not come to the rescue of this doctrine? " Especially since the Mayavadis would hold that Krishna, His, court, Shukadeva Parikshit, the assembly of sages and Vyasa were actually all Mayavadis too.

5. How Mayavadis explain the perception of this world:

a. Brahman is the only reality.

b. When we see an object (e.g. a silvery shell it is nothing other than the), Brahman-consciousness c. But Brahman appears itself appearing in that way like a shell because of upadhi (.designation) that is superimposed upon it

d. Still, Pure Consciousness shines through the upadhi, making the object perceivable to our...[Message clipped]

May 29, 2006

Hare Krishna

Dear Bharat,

ISKCON stands for International Society for Krishna Consciousness,

it was started by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada.The

organization is world wide and is composed of every type of person

imagineable.The teachings are based on the teachings and

translations of Vedic scriptures by Srila Prabhupada and his

disciplic succession.

These are based on the teachings of Lord Caitanya and Vedic

scriptures.

Some of Srila Prabhupadas students are expert at sanskrit and other

topics,while others are not- however since Srila Prabhupada is

considered as a pure representative/authority , his followers/his

devotees accept his translations and teachings as the ultimate

authority and refer to them.I do not know who wrote the paper Rafal

posted.

(Much like SJC is based on Sanjay and his disciplic succession,etc.

But Krishna Consciousness should not be mixed up with comparing to

Jyotish)

Best wishes,

Lakshmi

sohamsa , " Bharat Hindu Astrology "

<hinduastrology wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Rafal

>

> This is huge. You want a course on the whole Bhagavad Gita, a few

upanishads

> and Brahma Sutras plus comparisons between the different

understanding of

> the scriptures.

>

> Kindly wait as I need time to first go through these 10 pages and,

then,

> will comment.

>

> Till then, here is something for you - I usually call Iskcon

as " Is Kaun? "

> meaning who is " Is " ?

>

> Thanks and Regards

> Bharat

>

> On 5/29/06, Rafal Gendarz <starsuponme wrote:

> >

> > *vyam vyasadevaya namah*

> > Dear Ajit ji , Bharat ji

> >

> > Thank You for Your time.

> >

> > I paste the article once I found in my archives. The source

> > of this I think is some devotee from Iskcon. If You could

correct it and

> > give Your comments. I would be grateful.

> >

> > Regards

> > Rafal Gendarz

> >

> > *III. Structure of Mayavada philosophy*:

> >

> > *A*. It is also called Vivartavada

(lit. " superim-

> > positionism " ).

> >

> > 1. arthadhyasa - superimposition

of one

> > object on another.

> >

> > 2. jnanadhyasa - imposition of

illusion

> > upon oneself.

> >

> > 3. For this superimposition to

happen,

> > there must be -

> >

> > a. Senses.

> >

> > b. An abnormal

situation (

> > e.g. darkness).

> >

> > c. Experience.

> >

> > d. An example of

above

> > three components: seeing a rope as a snake in the darkness.

> >

> > *B*. Philosophical proofs, and which

philosophers accept

> > them:

> >

> > 1. Direct perception (accepted by

> > Charvakas).

> >

> > 2. Inference (anumana) + 1 is

accepted by

> > Buddhists.

> >

> > a. Hypothesis =

there is

> > fire on the mountain.

> >

> > b. Cause (hetu) =

because

> > there is smoke there.

> >

> > c. Example =

Where there is

> > smoke, there is fire.

> >

> > d. Review of

cause = The

> > mountain has smoke...

> >

> > e. Conclusion =

> > ...therefore the mountain has fire.

> >

> > 3. Sabdha (spiritual sound) + 1 & 2

is

> > accepted by Vaishnavas.

> >

> > 4. Arthavati (similarity) + 1-3

is accepted

> > by logic- ians.

> >

> > a. " Have you seen a blue cow? " did " (cow +

> >

> > b. " No, but I would know one if I blue).

> >

> > 5. Arthapatti: " This fat man does

not eat

> > in the day > he must eat at night. " (Logicians)

> >

> > 6. Abhava (nonexistance) + 1-5 is

accepted

> > by Mayavad is.

> >

> > a. Nonexistance

means:

> > " There is no cow here. "

> >

> > b. It is a kind of

> > knowledge based on the absence of knowledge or perception of

something

> > .

> >

> > *C*. Four categories within M.P.:

> >

> > 1. Sat = existance (Brahman).

> >

> > 2. Asat = nonexistance (horns on

rabbit).

> >

> > 3. Sat-asat = something that

exists for a

> > time, then ceases to exist .

> >

> > 4. Anirvachaniya = neither 1-3, i.e. Maya (which makes one

think a

> > rope is a snake. Inexplicable, illusiory).

> >

> > *D.* Levels of perception according to Shankaracharya:

> >

> > 1. Paramarthika - transcendental

(Brahman).

> >

> > 2. Vyavaharika - " practical " .

> >

> > 3. Pratibhasika - apparent, but

illusiory

> > (like dreaming ).

> >

> > a. One must go

from this

> > stage to next higher.

> >

> > b. When coming to

second

> > stage, individuality remains .

> >

> > c. But at highest

stage,

> > individuality is erased.

> >

> > *E*. Maya:

> >

> > 1. Maya is inexplicable; example -

a dumb

> > person cannot describe the taste of rasgulla, but still there is

> > taste. Brahman is covered by Maya, but don't

ask why.

> >

> > 2. Two stages of Maya:

> >

> > a. Covering with

illusion;

> > that's simply Maya.

> >

> > b. Distorting with

> > ignorance (avidya).

> >

> > 3. When Maya covers Brahman with illusion, Iswara-

consciousness appears.

> > He is conditioned to be the Lord.

> >

> > 4. When Brahman is further distorted by avidya, jiva

consciousness

> > appears. Avidya makes the subtle

> >

> > body .

> >

> > 5. There is no transformation in this process, only imposition

(of a false

> > conception .

> >

> > 6. When illusion and ignorance are

> > dispelled, no state of any describable existance remains

> >

> > 7. Mayavadi story: Vyasadeva sent Sukadeva to learn from

Janaka. Janaka

> > said to Sukadeva, " Give me my dakshine before I teach you

anything,

> > because after you learn this teaching, you will

reject everything,

> > including me (the Guru). "

> >

> > *F.* Example of Mayavadi logic:

> >

> > 1. Brahman " reflects " into Maya.

Q: But

> > how? If it reflects (e.g. moon on water) it must have a

form .

> > 2. A. First understand that Brahman is not a substance, so rules

like that

> > don't apply to it.

> >

> > 3. And apart from that, consider

an object

> > or substance that has qualities. Form is one such quality.

> > But does form have form?

> >

> > 4. Q. What are you saying, `Does

form have

> > form? '

> >

> > 5. A. When you see a shadow or

reflection,

> > what is being reflected - form or substance?

> > 6. Q. Well - the form.

> >

> > 7. So the form is not the substance. Form is what is reflected,

but that

> > form is different from the substance.

> >

> > *G*. Jayatirtha Muni gives this example of

Mayavadi

> > process: just as when a person has a bad dream, the

dream wakes

> > him up; similarly, though the Mayavadi philosophy is

still " maya " , it can

> > wake one up out of illusion

> >

> > .

> >

> > *H.* Two schools of Mayavadi philosophy.

> >

> > 1. One accepts only Upanisads,

Vedanta and

> > Bhagavad- gita (prasthan-traya).

> >

> > 2. But the so-called Bhagavat-sampradaya (with acaryas like

Citsukhacarya

> > and Madhusudan Sarasvati) accept Puranas, Ramayana, etc. Just as

> > Mayavadis in general are more accept dangerous than Buddhists,

the Bhagavat

> > sampradaya is most dangerous of all.They even Krishna's form is

spiritual,

> > but say that when He returns to the Paramvyoma, His

form " dissolves " into

> > Brahman First school would argue Krishna's form is material.

> >

> > *I.* Bhag Tyag Lakshana:

> >

> > 1. Bhag (person).

> >

> > 2. Tyag (give up)

> >

> > 3. I.e. Now you have this

designation; give

> > it up.

> >

> > a. On wall of

Vaishnava

> > temple, a Mayavadi wrote " So'ham " (I am Him).

> >

> > b. A devotee came

later and

> > added Da, " DaSo'ham " (I am His servant).

> >

> > c. Mayavadi

returned, added

> > Sa for SaDaSo'ham (I am eternally Him).

> >

> > d. Devotee

returned again

> > and added Da for DaSaDaSo'ham (I am the servant of His servant).

> >

> > *IV. Weaknesses of Mayavadi Philosophy*.

> >

> > *A*. Their " Brahman " and Vyasadeva's Brahman are

not the

> > same.

> >

> > 1. Their Brahman is the

Brahmajyoti.

> >

> > 2. Vyasadeva's Brahman is

Krishna, the

> > Purushottama.

> >

> > 3. Because they have no interest

in

> > Krishna, their Brahman categorically has no reality (it is

wrongly

> > defined from the outset).

> >

> > a. Vyasa used the

word

> > Brahman as we use the word " God. "

> >

> > b. It is a

general term,

> > used to create interest among as many people as possible

(even those

> > who are averse to Krishna).

> >

> > *B*. They speak of " Sarvikalpa jnana "

and " Nirvikalpa

> > jnana " , but these are actually the same thing .

> >

> > 1. Example of approaching a mountain from a distance - at each

stage, the

> > same entity is being viewed

> >

> > 2. But Mayavadis say the far-off vision of a great shape on the

horizon is

> > of a different thing than theclose-up view of the mountain

> >

> > *C.* They interpret Sanskrit words inaccurately

to fit

> > their own ideas.

> >

> > 1. Lord is " asarira. " They say

this means

> > He has no sarira or body; but the root of the word sarira means

> > decay " ,so the word really refers to a body that

decays,

> > not simply a body " .

> > 2.Lord is " akarana. " They say this means He has no senses; but

this word

> > really means that His senses

because He

> > is directly His are not energized by something else (e.g. as our

material

> > senses are energized

by life

> > energy) own form

> > .

> >

> > *D.* They interpret " He desired to become many " as meaning the

progression

> > from Brahman-Iswara-Jiva; but it is the Iswara

who has the

> > desire to become many. How the desireless Brahman desired to

become

> > the Iswara they.do not explain

> >

> > *E*. If Brahman is all-pervading, where is Maya?

> >

> > *F*. How is the Brahman cut into individual

parcels of

> > consciousness ?

> >

> > *G*. Mayavadis say, " By knowledge (jnana), one

becomes

> > Brahman. "

> >

> > 1. But they also say that jnana

and ajnana

> > are Maya.

> >

> > 2. So you may remove your ajnana

with

> > jnana, but then with what will you remove the jnana?

> >

> > 3. To this they answer, " It is by

the mercy

> > of Brah man. " (!)

> >

> > *H*. They say Brahman is without energy

(shakti). Then

> > how does it exist? (No answer ).

> >

> > *I*. Snake and Rope:

> >

> > 1. In order for this example to have validity, the person must

have prior

> > knowledge of both " what is a rope " and " what is a snake. " How can

> > undifferentiated Brahman have prior knowledge of Maya, which it

then

> > mistakes itself to be?

> >

> > 2. Besides that, in this example,

the rope

> > and snake are both real things, and that's why the illusion is

> > effective.And since the illusion is effective,

it is also

> > true, i.e. the consequences of that illusion are no less

> > effective than if the rope was

really a

> > snake(I'm scared, I scream, run away, etc.).

> >

> > *J*. They say Maya is like a dream, but there's

no

> > continuity in our dreams from one night to the next. In the

> > waking state we find day-to-day continuity. So to compare

this life

> > to a mere dream is facile.

> >

> > *K*. Why is this illusion so consistent, if it

is just

> > hallucination? Why doesn't illusion come us to other ways, e.g.

in

> > instead of Brahman is the world (rope is snake), why not

the world

> > is Brahman (snake is rope)?

> >

> > *H*. Mayavadis say one can only achieve

liberation after

> > death. Then his individuality ceases forever.

> >

> > 1. But how does this relate to

their

> > favorite rope/

> >

> > snake analogy? One man lights a

lamp and

> > sees that the snake is really just a rope; another man runs

> > off, frightened, never knowing it was an

illusion. How are

> > these two men different in their essential

> > existance?

> >

> > *I*. Who suffers in hell - soul or body?

> >

> > 1. Mayavadi may answer, " the body

suffers

> > only. "

> >

> > 2. But the body is matter, is it

not?

> >

> > 3. Yes.

> >

> > 4. How can dead matter suffer?

> >

> > 5. Then it must be the soul that

suffers.

> >

> > 6. Then you are saying Brahman

suffers? But

> > your

> >

> > philosophy says there's no

suffering in

> > Brahman.

> >

> > *J*. Shankara writes of the " vyavaharika " platform of exis

tance, but

> > nowhere is this word found in any scripture. Yet it is a

fundamental

> > component of his philosophy.

> >

> > *K*. Upanishads say that nothing can attach

itself to

> > Brahman and it cannot be described in words. Shankara says

these statements

> > form the complete description of Brahman .

> >

> > 1. Sankara says take these

descriptions

> > literally.

> >

> > 2. How? By hearing these words,

don't the

> > Mayavadis become attached to Brahman?

> >

> > *L*. Katha Upanishad 3.11: Above the jagat is

avyakta,

> > above avyakta is Purusha, and beyond Him is nothing else.

> >

> > V. A look at Jiva Goswami's refutations of

Mayavadi

> > Philosophy:

> >

> > A. He established the Srimad Bhagavatam as the

shastric

> > reference par excellence.

> >

> > 1. Brhad Aranyaka Upanishad 2.41 -

4 Vedas,

> > Itihasa and Puranas have come from breath of

> > Narayana .

> >

> > 2. Chandogya Upanishad 3.15.7 - 4

Vedas,

> > Itihasas and Puranas are 5th Veda .

> >

> > a. 4 cows and 1 buffalo are never

grouped

> > as a herd of 5 cows, because a buffalo is not a cow .

> > b. 5 cows means 5 cows.

> >

> > 3. Mahabharata says " Puranas make

Vedas

> > complete. "

> >

> > 4. Shankaracharya's guru's guru

wrote a

> > commentary on a book that cited slokas from the Srimad

> > Bhagavatam.

> >

> > 5. Garuda Purana says " artho 'yam

brahma

> > sutranam " : Bhagavat Purana gives meaning of Vedanta

> > -sutra, Gayatri and the 4

Vedas .

> >

> > 6. Srimad Bhagavatam is the

ripened fruit

> > of the tree of the Vedic scriptures .

> >

> > 7. Srimad Bhagavatam is Veda: " it

is

> > compiled by the Lord Himself. "

> >

> > 8. Sukadeva Goswami was a

Brahmajnani who

> > became a devotee. Vyasadeva compiled the

> > Bhagavatam only for Sukadeva,

because only

> > he could understand it (his other disciples were

not

> >

qualified)

> > .

> >

> > a. Sukadeva ran

away as

> > soon as he was born. Vyasa told his other disciples to chant3

verses

> > from the Srimad Bhagavatam in

order to

> > attract him back to the ashram (they were to chant

> > these verses out loud when entering the forest

to gather

> > firewood or fetch water).

> >

> > b. Thus Sukadeva was attracted and returned to learn Srimad

Bhagavatam

> > at the feet of his father He cannot be attracted by anything

material.

> > Therefore S.B. has something higherthan even Brahman realization

(atmarama

> > verse ).

> >

> > B. Srimad Bhagavatam establishes

Krishna as

> > the Param Brahman.

> >

> > 1. Hiranyakashipu used the " neti neti " process to negate any

possible

> > chance of his being killed byan enemy when he requested a boon

from Lord

> > Brahma

> > .

> >

> > a. He left no

chance that

> > any type of entity within the material world could harm him

> > . b. Practically he left only the

Brahman. And

> > that Brahman came as Narasingha and

> > destroyed him; thus Lord Nrsinghadeva is the

Supreme

> > Brahman

> > 2.Even Sridhar Swami has commented on " krishna stu

bhagavan " , " narayana

> > eva. " But Srila

Jiva Goswami

> > established Lord. Krishna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead

> >

> > 3. In the

wrestling arena,

> > everyone saw Krishna differently. The yogis saw Him as theTattva

> > Paramam (Supreme Truth).

> >

> > 4. The pastime of

Lord

> > Damodar shows how the Supreme is unlimited, yet has a body .

> > 5. Devaki said, " That Brahman,

jyoti...etc.

> > that all the impersonalists (jnanis and yogis) are

> > seeking is You. "

> >

> > *VI. Vadiraja's Refutations of Key Tenets of Mayavadi

Philosophy.*

> >

> > *A*. Vadiraja comes in the line of

Madhvacharya. He lived

> > in the 16th century. He is said to have lived for 120 years.

> >

> > *B*. How Vadiraja exposed Mayavadi

misinterpretations:

> >

> > *1*. Vadiraja showed how

Mayavadis have

> > taken the " neti- neti " statement out of context .

> >

> > a. They say " not

this, not

> > this " means " not jiva, not jada " (Brahman is neither the

individual soul

> > nor, matter - therefore, since

only Brahman

> > exists jiva and jada must be unreal).

> >

> > b. But they've

derived

> > " neti-neti " from Brhad- aranyaka Upanishad 4.4.22, which

states: " For the

> > desire for sons is the desire for

wealth

> > and the desire for wealth the desire for worlds; both these,

> > are indeed, desires only. This Self is not

this, not

> > this. "

> >

> > c. This verse is

stating

> > that the Self (atman) is not to be had by desiring wealth or

worlds. The

> > direct meaning is

> > sufficient; the " jada-jiva " interpretation is without foundation

> > .

> >

> > *2*. The meaning of " advaita " :

> >

> > a. Mayavadis

take " advaita "

> > (not dual) to mean that Brahman has no difference. Therefore

> > undifferentiated

oneness is

> > the only truth .

> >

> > b. But the

context is found

> > in Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.1 & 2 - " In the beginning, my dear, this

> > Being, one only, without a

second. "

> >

> > c. Vadiraja showed that " one without a second " means, according

to

> > grammar and logic " one Being,without a second Being " , or " He has

no second " ,

> > i.e. there is only one God. But this does not mean that some

thing or

> > things below God can't bedistinguished from Him.

> >

> > *i.* If the the word " advitiyam " as it appears in this verse

actually

> > means that nothing except undifferentiated Brahman exists, then

the very

> > text from which the word comes would be unreal, as it is a

feature of the

> > realm of difference.

> >

> > * ii.* Thus the validity of the text would be destroyed by the

very

> > philosophy the Maya vadis ascribe to it

> >

> > *iii.* He proved his point further with this example - if one

says " The

> > lotus is blue " , he does not mean to say that " lotus "

and " blue " are

> > exact synonyms. He means that blueness is a quality of. the

lotus

> > Similarly, when shastra says " Brahman is

everything " , " everything " and

> > " Brahman " are not exact synonyms, rather " everything " (souls

and

> > matter) are qualities of Brahman. Or, as blueness is a quality

> > inseparable from the lotus, so we are inseparable from Brahman

(but as Brahman

> > has qualities we don't have, still there is distinc

tion in

> > this inseparability).

> >

> > *3*. Vadiraja points out that Mayavadis say that both practical

life and

> > the scriptures are on the vyava harika platform -

which

> > means both are ultimately unreal. Yet they honor the scriptures

and

> > honor sattvik life as dispellers of illusion breeds bad

results . But a

> > Mayavadi cannot distinguish between these two categories of

action

> > .

> >

> > .* a*. In practical life, what is " true " is what works, i.e.

what brings

> > good resultsWhat is " untrue " Thus even on their so-called

vyavaharika

> > platform, they have no ultimate reference for deciding what is

auspicious

> > and what is inauspi cious

> >

> > *b*. For example, using a Mayavadi analogy, the Mayavadis are

not able to

> > explain the difference between a man who sees that there is no

silver in

> > silvery shell and the man who thinks that silver a is there

> >

i. They

> > will say the man who discovered his error is conventionally

correct (vyava

> > harika), and the

man who

> > did not is under pratibhasika illusion .

> >

> > ii. But the main thing is, both are in ultimate illusion. Now,

the

> > silvery shell analogy is used by them to illustrate how one

comes out of

> > ULTIMATE illusion and attains the truth paramarthika). Yet,

using their

> > own doctrine as the test, this example prooves itself

> > invalid. So what are we left with?

> >

> > *4.* Vadiraja compares the Mayavadis with Paundraka. He

asks, " If

> > Mayavadi philosophy is so pregnant with Truth, why did

Krishna and His

> > associates in Dwaraka laugh derisively when they heard

Paundraka's letter

> > which simply made the same claims as the Mayavadi philosophers?

Why did,

> > Shukadeva Goswami when reciting this event to Maharaja Parikshit

before the

> > learned assembly of great, saints and sages censure Paundraka

repeatedly?

> > Why did Vyasa, who wrote this narration down, also not come to

the

> > rescue of this doctrine? " Especially since the Mayavadis would

hold that

> > Krishna, His, court, Shukadeva Parikshit, the assembly of sages

and Vyasa

> > were actually all Mayavadis too.

> >

> > *5*. How Mayavadis explain the

perception

> > of this world:

> >

> > *a*. Brahman is

the only

> > reality.

> >

> > *b*. When we see an object (e.g. a silvery shell it is nothing

other than

> > the), Brahman-consciousness *c*. But Brahman appears itself

appearing in

> > that way like a shell because of upadhi (.designation) that is

superimposed

> > upon it

> >

> > *d*. Still, Pure

> > Consciousness shines through the upadhi, making the object

perceivable to

> > our

> > ...

> >

> > [Message clipped]

>

May 29, 2006

Namaste Sri LakshmiI know. My office is right across the Delhi Iskcon Temple. I still call it " Is kaun? " Thanks and RegardsBharatOn 5/29/06, lakshmikary <lakshmikary wrote:

Hare Krishna

Dear Bharat,

ISKCON stands for International Society for Krishna Consciousness,

it was started by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada.The

organization is world wide and is composed of every type of person

imagineable.The teachings are based on the teachings and

translations of Vedic scriptures by Srila Prabhupada and his

disciplic succession.

These are based on the teachings of Lord Caitanya and Vedic

scriptures.

Some of Srila Prabhupadas students are expert at sanskrit and other

topics,while others are not- however since Srila Prabhupada is

considered as a pure representative/authority , his followers/his

devotees accept his translations and teachings as the ultimate

authority and refer to them.I do not know who wrote the paper Rafal

posted.

(Much like SJC is based on Sanjay and his disciplic succession,etc.

But Krishna Consciousness should not be mixed up with comparing to

Jyotish)

Best wishes,

Lakshmi

sohamsa , " Bharat Hindu Astrology "

<hinduastrology wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Rafal

>

> This is huge. You want a course on the whole Bhagavad Gita, a few

upanishads

> and Brahma Sutras plus comparisons between the different

understanding of

> the scriptures.

>

> Kindly wait as I need time to first go through these 10 pages and,

then,

> will comment.

>

> Till then, here is something for you - I usually call Iskcon

as " Is Kaun? "

> meaning who is " Is " ?

>

> Thanks and Regards

> Bharat

>

> On 5/29/06, Rafal Gendarz <starsuponme wrote:

> >

> > *vyam vyasadevaya namah*

> > Dear Ajit ji , Bharat ji

> >

> > Thank You for Your time.

> >

> > I paste the article once I found in my archives. The source

> > of this I think is some devotee from Iskcon. If You could

correct it and

> > give Your comments. I would be grateful.

> >

> > Regards

> > Rafal Gendarz

> >

> > *III. Structure of Mayavada philosophy*:

> >

> > *A*. It is also called Vivartavada

(lit. " superim-

> > positionism " ).

> >

> > 1. arthadhyasa - superimposition

of one

> > object on another.

> >

> > 2. jnanadhyasa - imposition of

illusion

> > upon oneself.

> >

> > 3. For this superimposition to

happen,

> > there must be -

> >

> > a. Senses.

> >

> > b. An abnormal

situation (

> > e.g. darkness).

> >

> > c. Experience.

> >

> > d. An example of

above

> > three components: seeing a rope as a snake in the darkness.

> >

> > *B*. Philosophical proofs, and which

philosophers accept

> > them:

> >

> > 1. Direct perception (accepted by

> > Charvakas).

> >

> > 2. Inference (anumana) + 1 is

accepted by

> > Buddhists.

> >

> > a. Hypothesis =

there is

> > fire on the mountain.

> >

> > b. Cause (hetu) =

because

> > there is smoke there.

> >

> > c. Example =

Where there is

> > smoke, there is fire.

> >

> > d. Review of

cause = The

> > mountain has smoke...

> >

> > e. Conclusion =

> > ...therefore the mountain has fire.

> >

> > 3. Sabdha (spiritual sound) + 1 & 2

is

> > accepted by Vaishnavas.

> >

> > 4. Arthavati (similarity) + 1-3

is accepted

> > by logic- ians.

> >

> > a. " Have you seen a blue cow? " did " (cow +

> >

> > b. " No, but I would know one if I blue).

> >

> > 5. Arthapatti: " This fat man does

not eat

> > in the day > he must eat at night. " (Logicians)

> >

> > 6. Abhava (nonexistance) + 1-5 is

accepted

> > by Mayavad is.

> >

> > a. Nonexistance

means:

> > " There is no cow here. "

> >

> > b. It is a kind of

> > knowledge based on the absence of knowledge or perception of

something

> > .

> >

> > *C*. Four categories within M.P.:

> >

> > 1. Sat = existance (Brahman).

> >

> > 2. Asat = nonexistance (horns on

rabbit).

> >

> > 3. Sat-asat = something that

exists for a

> > time, then ceases to exist .

> >

> > 4. Anirvachaniya = neither 1-3, i.e. Maya (which makes one

think a

> > rope is a snake. Inexplicable, illusiory).

> >

> > *D.* Levels of perception according to Shankaracharya:

> >

> > 1. Paramarthika - transcendental

(Brahman).

> >

> > 2. Vyavaharika - " practical " .

> >

> > 3. Pratibhasika - apparent, but

illusiory

> > (like dreaming ).

> >

> > a. One must go

from this

> > stage to next higher.

> >

> > b. When coming to

second

> > stage, individuality remains .

> >

> > c. But at highest

stage,

> > individuality is erased.

> >

> > *E*. Maya:

> >

> > 1. Maya is inexplicable; example -

a dumb

> > person cannot describe the taste of rasgulla, but still there is

> > taste. Brahman is covered by Maya, but don't

ask why.

> >

> > 2. Two stages of Maya:

> >

> > a. Covering with

illusion;

> > that's simply Maya.

> >

> > b. Distorting with

> > ignorance (avidya).

> >

> > 3. When Maya covers Brahman with illusion, Iswara-

consciousness appears.

> > He is conditioned to be the Lord.

> >

> > 4. When Brahman is further distorted by avidya, jiva

consciousness

> > appears. Avidya makes the subtle

> >

> > body .

> >

> > 5. There is no transformation in this process, only imposition

(of a false

> > conception .

> >

> > 6. When illusion and ignorance are

> > dispelled, no state of any describable existance remains

> >

> > 7. Mayavadi story: Vyasadeva sent Sukadeva to learn from

Janaka. Janaka

> > said to Sukadeva, " Give me my dakshine before I teach you

anything,

> > because after you learn this teaching, you will

reject everything,

> > including me (the Guru). "

> >

> > *F.* Example of Mayavadi logic:

> >

> > 1. Brahman " reflects " into Maya.

Q: But

> > how? If it reflects (e.g. moon on water) it must have a

form .

> > 2. A. First understand that Brahman is not a substance, so rules

like that

> > don't apply to it.

> >

> > 3. And apart from that, consider

an object

> > or substance that has qualities. Form is one such quality.

> > But does form have form?

> >

> > 4. Q. What are you saying, `Does

form have

> > form? '

> >

> > 5. A. When you see a shadow or

reflection,

> > what is being reflected - form or substance?

> > 6. Q. Well - the form.

> >

> > 7. So the form is not the substance. Form is what is reflected,

but that

> > form is different from the substance.

> >

> > *G*. Jayatirtha Muni gives this example of

Mayavadi

> > process: just as when a person has a bad dream, the

dream wakes

> > him up; similarly, though the Mayavadi philosophy is

still " maya " , it can

> > wake one up out of illusion

> >

> > .

> >

> > *H.* Two schools of Mayavadi philosophy.

> >

> > 1. One accepts only Upanisads,

Vedanta and

> > Bhagavad- gita (prasthan-traya).

> >

> > 2. But the so-called Bhagavat-sampradaya (with acaryas like

Citsukhacarya

> > and Madhusudan Sarasvati) accept Puranas, Ramayana, etc. Just as

> > Mayavadis in general are more accept dangerous than Buddhists,

the Bhagavat

> > sampradaya is most dangerous of all.They even Krishna's form is

spiritual,

> > but say that when He returns to the Paramvyoma, His

form " dissolves " into

> > Brahman First school would argue Krishna's form is material.

> >

> > *I.* Bhag Tyag Lakshana:

> >

> > 1. Bhag (person).

> >

> > 2. Tyag (give up)

> >

> > 3. I.e. Now you have this

designation; give

> > it up.

> >

> > a. On wall of

Vaishnava

> > temple, a Mayavadi wrote " So'ham " (I am Him).

> >

> > b. A devotee came

later and

> > added Da, " DaSo'ham " (I am His servant).

> >

> > c. Mayavadi

returned, added

> > Sa for SaDaSo'ham (I am eternally Him).

> >

> > d. Devotee

returned again

> > and added Da for DaSaDaSo'ham (I am the servant of His servant).

> >

> > *IV. Weaknesses of Mayavadi Philosophy*.

> >

> > *A*. Their " Brahman " and Vyasadeva's Brahman are

not the

> > same.

> >

> > 1. Their Brahman is the

Brahmajyoti.

> >

> > 2. Vyasadeva's Brahman is

Krishna, the

> > Purushottama.

> >

> > 3. Because they have no interest

in

> > Krishna, their Brahman categorically has no reality (it is

wrongly

> > defined from the outset).

> >

> > a. Vyasa used the

word

> > Brahman as we use the word " God. "

> >

> > b. It is a

general term,

> > used to create interest among as many people as possible

(even those

> > who are averse to Krishna).

> >

> > *B*. They speak of " Sarvikalpa jnana "

and " Nirvikalpa

> > jnana " , but these are actually the same thing .

> >

> > 1. Example of approaching a mountain from a distance - at each

stage, the

> > same entity is being viewed

> >

> > 2. But Mayavadis say the far-off vision of a great shape on the

horizon is

> > of a different thing than theclose-up view of the mountain

> >

> > *C.* They interpret Sanskrit words inaccurately

to fit

> > their own ideas.

> >

> > 1. Lord is " asarira. " They say

this means

> > He has no sarira or body; but the root of the word sarira means

> > decay " ,so the word really refers to a body that

decays,

> > not simply a body " .

> > 2.Lord is " akarana. " They say this means He has no senses; but

this word

> > really means that His senses

because He

> > is directly His are not energized by something else (e.g. as our

material

> > senses are energized

by life

> > energy) own form

> > .

> >

> > *D.* They interpret " He desired to become many " as meaning the

progression

> > from Brahman-Iswara-Jiva; but it is the Iswara

who has the

> > desire to become many. How the desireless Brahman desired to

become

> > the Iswara they.do not explain

> >

> > *E*. If Brahman is all-pervading, where is Maya?

> >

> > *F*. How is the Brahman cut into individual

parcels of

> > consciousness ?

> >

> > *G*. Mayavadis say, " By knowledge (jnana), one

becomes

> > Brahman. "

> >

> > 1. But they also say that jnana

and ajnana

> > are Maya.

> >

> > 2. So you may remove your ajnana

with

> > jnana, but then with what will you remove the jnana?

> >

> > 3. To this they answer, " It is by

the mercy

> > of Brah man. " (!)

> >

> > *H*. They say Brahman is without energy

(shakti). Then

> > how does it exist? (No answer ).

> >

> > *I*. Snake and Rope:

> >

> > 1. In order for this example to have validity, the person must

have prior

> > knowledge of both " what is a rope " and " what is a snake. " How can

> > undifferentiated Brahman have prior knowledge of Maya, which it

then

> > mistakes itself to be?

> >

> > 2. Besides that, in this example,

the rope

> > and snake are both real things, and that's why the illusion is

> > effective.And since the illusion is effective,

it is also

> > true, i.e. the consequences of that illusion are no less

> > effective than if the rope was

really a

> > snake(I'm scared, I scream, run away, etc.).

> >

> > *J*. They say Maya is like a dream, but there's

no

> > continuity in our dreams from one night to the next. In the

> > waking state we find day-to-day continuity. So to compare

this life

> > to a mere dream is facile.

> >

> > *K*. Why is this illusion so consistent, if it

is just

> > hallucination? Why doesn't illusion come us to other ways, e.g.

in

> > instead of Brahman is the world (rope is snake), why not

the world

> > is Brahman (snake is rope)?

> >

> > *H*. Mayavadis say one can only achieve

liberation after

> > death. Then his individuality ceases forever.

> >

> > 1. But how does this relate to

their

> > favorite rope/

> >

> > snake analogy? One man lights a

lamp and

> > sees that the snake is really just a rope; another man runs

> > off, frightened, never knowing it was an

illusion. How are

> > these two men different in their essential

> > existance?

> >

> > *I*. Who suffers in hell - soul or body?

> >

> > 1. Mayavadi may answer, " the body

suffers

> > only. "

> >

> > 2. But the body is matter, is it

not?

> >

> > 3. Yes.

> >

> > 4. How can dead matter suffer?

> >

> > 5. Then it must be the soul that

suffers.

> >

> > 6. Then you are saying Brahman

suffers? But

> > your

> >

> > philosophy says there's no

suffering in

> > Brahman.

> >

> > *J*. Shankara writes of the " vyavaharika " platform of exis

tance, but

> > nowhere is this word found in any scripture. Yet it is a

fundamental

> > component of his philosophy.

> >

> > *K*. Upanishads say that nothing can attach

itself to

> > Brahman and it cannot be described in words. Shankara says

these statements

> > form the complete description of Brahman .

> >

> > 1. Sankara says take these

descriptions

> > literally.

> >

> > 2. How? By hearing these words,

don't the

> > Mayavadis become attached to Brahman?

> >

> > *L*. Katha Upanishad 3.11: Above the jagat is

avyakta,

> > above avyakta is Purusha, and beyond Him is nothing else.

> >

> > V. A look at Jiva Goswami's refutations of

Mayavadi

> > Philosophy:

> >

> > A. He established the Srimad Bhagavatam as the

shastric

> > reference par excellence.

> >

> > 1. Brhad Aranyaka Upanishad 2.41 -

4 Vedas,

> > Itihasa and Puranas have come from breath of

> > Narayana .

> >

> > 2. Chandogya Upanishad 3.15.7 - 4

Vedas,

> > Itihasas and Puranas are 5th Veda .

> >

> > a. 4 cows and 1 buffalo are never

grouped

> > as a herd of 5 cows, because a buffalo is not a cow .

> > b. 5 cows means 5 cows.

> >

> > 3. Mahabharata says " Puranas make

Vedas

> > complete. "

> >

> > 4. Shankaracharya's guru's guru

wrote a

> > commentary on a book that cited slokas from the Srimad

> > Bhagavatam.

> >

> > 5. Garuda Purana says " artho 'yam

brahma

> > sutranam " : Bhagavat Purana gives meaning of Vedanta

> > -sutra, Gayatri and the 4

Vedas .

> >

> > 6. Srimad Bhagavatam is the

ripened fruit

> > of the tree of the Vedic scriptures .

> >

> > 7. Srimad Bhagavatam is Veda: " it

is

> > compiled by the Lord Himself. "

> >

> > 8. Sukadeva Goswami was a

Brahmajnani who

> > became a devotee. Vyasadeva compiled the

> > Bhagavatam only for Sukadeva,

because only

> > he could understand it (his other disciples were

not

> >

qualified)

> > .

> >

> > a. Sukadeva ran

away as

> > soon as he was born. Vyasa told his other disciples to chant3

verses

> > from the Srimad Bhagavatam in

order to

> > attract him back to the ashram (they were to chant

> > these verses out loud when entering the forest

to gather

> > firewood or fetch water).

> >

> > b. Thus Sukadeva was attracted and returned to learn Srimad

Bhagavatam

> > at the feet of his father He cannot be attracted by anything

material.

> > Therefore S.B. has something higherthan even Brahman realization

(atmarama

> > verse ).

> >

> > B. Srimad Bhagavatam establishes

Krishna as

> > the Param Brahman.

> >

> > 1. Hiranyakashipu used the " neti neti " process to negate any

possible

> > chance of his being killed byan enemy when he requested a boon

from Lord

> > Brahma

> > .

> >

> > a. He left no

chance that

> > any type of entity within the material world could harm him

> > . b. Practically he left only the

Brahman. And

> > that Brahman came as Narasingha and

> > destroyed him; thus Lord Nrsinghadeva is the

Supreme

> > Brahman

> > 2.Even Sridhar Swami has commented on " krishna stu

bhagavan " , " narayana

> > eva. " But Srila

Jiva Goswami

> > established Lord. Krishna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead

> >

> > 3. In the

wrestling arena,

> > everyone saw Krishna differently. The yogis saw Him as theTattva

> > Paramam (Supreme Truth).

> >

> > 4. The pastime of

Lord

> > Damodar shows how the Supreme is unlimited, yet has a body .

> > 5. Devaki said, " That Brahman,

jyoti...etc.

> > that all the impersonalists (jnanis and yogis) are

> > seeking is You. "

> >

> > *VI. Vadiraja's Refutations of Key Tenets of Mayavadi

Philosophy.*

> >

> > *A*. Vadiraja comes in the line of

Madhvacharya. He lived

> > in the 16th century. He is said to have lived for 120 years.

> >

> > *B*. How Vadiraja exposed Mayavadi

misinterpretations:

> >

> > *1*. Vadiraja showed how

Mayavadis have

> > taken the " neti- neti " statement out of context .

> >

> > a. They say " not

this, not

> > this " means " not jiva, not jada " (Brahman is neither the

individual soul

> > nor, matter - therefore, since

only Brahman

> > exists jiva and jada must be unreal).

> >

> > b. But they've

derived

> > " neti-neti " from Brhad- aranyaka Upanishad 4.4.22, which

states: " For the

> > desire for sons is the desire for

wealth

> > and the desire for wealth the desire for worlds; both these,

> > are indeed, desires only. This Self is not

this, not

> > this. "

> >

> > c. This verse is

stating

> > that the Self (atman) is not to be had by desiring wealth or

worlds. The

> > direct meaning is

> > sufficient; the " jada-jiva " interpretation is without foundation

> > .

> >

> > *2*. The meaning of " advaita " :

> >

> > a. Mayavadis

take " advaita "

> > (not dual) to mean that Brahman has no difference. Therefore

> > undifferentiated

oneness is

> > the only truth .

> >

> > b. But the

context is found

> > in Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.1 & 2 - " In the beginning, my dear, this

> > Being, one only, without a

second. "

> >

> > c. Vadiraja showed that " one without a second " means, according

to

> > grammar and logic " one Being,without a second Being " , or " He has

no second " ,

> > i.e. there is only one God. But this does not mean that some

thing or

> > things below God can't bedistinguished from Him.

> >

> > *i.* If the the word " advitiyam " as it appears in this verse

actually

> > means that nothing except undifferentiated Brahman exists, then

the very

> > text from which the word comes would be unreal, as it is a

feature of the

> > realm of difference.

> >

> > * ii.* Thus the validity of the text would be destroyed by the

very

> > philosophy the Maya vadis ascribe to it

> >

> > *iii.* He proved his point further with this example - if one

says " The

> > lotus is blue " , he does not mean to say that " lotus "

and " blue " are

> > exact synonyms. He means that blueness is a quality of. the

lotus

> > Similarly, when shastra says " Brahman is

everything " , " everything " and

> > " Brahman " are not exact synonyms, rather " everything " (souls

and

> > matter) are qualities of Brahman. Or, as blueness is a quality

> > inseparable from the lotus, so we are inseparable from Brahman

(but as Brahman

> > has qualities we don't have, still there is distinc

tion in

> > this inseparability).

> >

> > *3*. Vadiraja points out that Mayavadis say that both practical

life and

> > the scriptures are on the vyava harika platform -

which

> > means both are ultimately unreal. Yet they honor the scriptures

and

> > honor sattvik life as dispellers of illusion breeds bad

results . But a

> > Mayavadi cannot distinguish between these two categories of

action

> > .

> >

> > .* a*. In practical life, what is " true " is what works, i.e.

what brings

> > good resultsWhat is " untrue " Thus even on their so-called

vyavaharika

> > platform, they have no ultimate reference for deciding what is

auspicious

> > and what is inauspi cious

> >

> > *b*. For example, using a Mayavadi analogy, the Mayavadis are

not able to

> > explain the difference between a man who sees that there is no

silver in

> > silvery shell and the man who thinks that silver a is there

> >

i. They

> > will say the man who discovered his error is conventionally

correct (vyava

> > harika), and the

man who

> > did not is under pratibhasika illusion .

> >

> > ii. But the main thing is, both are in ultimate illusion. Now,

the

> > silvery shell analogy is used by them to illustrate how one

comes out of

> > ULTIMATE illusion and attains the truth paramarthika). Yet,

using their

> > own doctrine as the test, this example prooves itself

> > invalid. So what are we left with?

> >

> > *4.* Vadiraja compares the Mayavadis with Paundraka. He

asks, " If

> > Mayavadi philosophy is so pregnant with Truth, why did

Krishna and His

> > associates in Dwaraka laugh derisively when they heard

Paundraka's letter

> > which simply made the same claims as the Mayavadi philosophers?

Why did,

> > Shukadeva Goswami when reciting this event to Maharaja Parikshit

before the

> > learned assembly of great, saints and sages censure Paundraka

repeatedly?

> > Why did Vyasa, who wrote this narration down, also not come to

the

> > rescue of this doctrine? " Especially since the Mayavadis would

hold that

> > Krishna, His, court, Shukadeva Parikshit, the assembly of sages

and Vyasa

> > were actually all Mayavadis too.

> >

> > *5*. How Mayavadis explain the

perception

> > of this world:

> >

> > *a*. Brahman is

the only

> > reality.

> >

> > *b*. When we see an object (e.g. a silvery shell it is nothing

other than

> > the), Brahman-consciousness *c*. But Brahman appears itself

appearing in

> > that way like a shell because of upadhi (.designation) that is

superimposed

> > upon it

> >

> > *d*. Still, Pure

> > Consciousness shines through the upadhi, making the object

perceivable to

> > our

> > ...

> >

> > [Message clipped]

>

*tat savitur varenyam*

May 29, 2006

Dear Bharat,

If You have any good advaita material soft I would be grateful to You.

I hope You didnt recieve my mail in bad mood. No hard feelings.

Regards

Rafal Gendarz