call for debate ? sadguna brahman is not eternal as per sankara

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

You can read Shivananda's Vedanta Sutra Bhashya online here. It basically is an english translation of Shankara's Bhashya:

 

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_00.html

[raga]

 

Prabhupada: They are seeing... They’re tested. I don't make any compromise. All my speaking is also no compromise. Here is guru, here is Krsna, here is God, here is Vedanta. Real version they neglect, and they stick to the rascal's version, Sankara's version, Sariraka-bhasya. All over India, they are reading Sariraka-bhasya.

 

============ REF. Room Conversation -- July 1, 1976, New Vrindaban

 

<hr>

Thanks for pointing this out Raga. Now, the apolegetics in ISKCON wouldn't say any more that SP was only attacking the deviant Mayavadis, whoever they are, while he never said such things about Sankara.

 

 

I did a bit of research on what the Swami said about Sankara. He consistently presents Sankara as someone who cheated others, drawing from several verses of the Caitanya Caritamrita, quoted from Padma Purana. Aside this general line of thought, there are three prominent contexts where he spoke of Sankara:

 

1. Sankara, who in the end of his life said, "bhaja govindam...";

 

2. Sankara, who declared "nArAyaNaH paro avyaktAd";

 

3. Listing of "Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhva and other great acaryas".

 

As for the quote I presented above, let us note that its meaning changes drastically if we transcribe "they stick to the rascal's version, Sankara's version" as "they stick to the rascals' version, Sankara's version". In the former, "rascal's version" defines Sankara as author the rascal, in the latter "rascals' version" defines the bhasya as something written for rascals. It is virtually impossible for us to tell which one of the two is the correct reading.

 

Bhaktivedanta also consistently proposes, relying on the authority of the stanzas mentioned in (1) and (2), that the present-day Advaitins do not actually follow the conclusions of Shankara. There is also a third verse he refers to on occasion, "sa bhagavAn svayaM kRSNa devakI-nandana", to prove the theory. He also proposes that the Bhaja Govindam stanza was among the last things he wrote, as a final instruction to his followers. I wonder if there is much substance for the claim.

 

<font color="darkred">"Similarly Sankaracarya, he's also impersonalist, but he accepts Krsna the supreme authority. Sa bhagavan svayam krsna. "Krsna is that Supreme Personality of Godhead." The modern Mayavadi philosophers, they do not disclose this statement of Sankaracarya. To cheat people. But Sankaracarya's statement is there. We can give evidence."

 

(Bhagavad-gita lecture 2.8-12 -- Los Angeles, November 27, 1968)</font color>

 

And another one where he condemns the orthodox followers of Sankara as his imitators on account of their accepting his precepts:

 

<font color="darkred">"The Mayavadis try to imitate Sripad Sankaracarya. Pretending to be orthodox, they reject the truth that the jiva is part and parcel of Parabrahman, the Supreme Lord. They also deny the fact that it is only the part and parcel aspect of Parabrahman (the jiva) and not Parabrahman Himself who falls under the spell of maya. And worst of all, they deny that Parabrahman is none other than the Supreme Personality of Godhead. According to their lop-sided argument, when the jiva attains mukti (liberation) he merges into the impersonal Brahman and loses his individual identity. By this logic, when the Supreme Lord, the Parabrahman, incarnates in this material world or appears in the Deity form, He becomes an ordinary jiva. Thus the foolish Mayavadis draw a distinction between the Lord and His form, and in this way they commit great offences against Him."

 

(Renunciation Through Wisdom 4.3)</font color>

 

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

I presented above, let us note that its meaning changes drastically if we transcribe "they stick to the rascal's version, Sankara's version" as "they stick to the rascals' version, Sankara's version". In the former, "rascal's version" defines Sankara as author the rascal, in the latter "rascals' version" defines the bhasya as something written for rascals.

 

 

Even the reading of "rascal's version" can carry the same meaning as something followed by or written for a rascal. To me this is the obvious meaning, taking into account Prabhupada's past direct references to Shankara. You will not find a single quote where Prabhupada says "Shankara is a Rascal." On the contrary you find he is referred to as "Sripada Shankaracarya". You don't address someone reverentially as Sripada, and then call them a rascal.

 

 

It is virtually impossible for us to tell which one of the two is the correct reading.

 

 

Thus we refer the past teachings and statements of Prabhupada, which all confirm that he has utmost respect for Shankara, whom he considers an incarnation of Lord Shiva and the topmost vaishnava.

 

Any other conclusion is either due to ignorance of Prabhupada's teachings, or direct dishonesty on the part of the interpreter.

[shvu]

 

 

Shankara establishes that the form of the Lord is aprakrita. He defines maya-rupam as refering only to the apparent act of birth of the unborn Brahman.

 

 

Touche. That's what I am saying too. It means the Sadguna Brahman is within the premises of Maayaa. Anyway, the suutra Bhaashya takes up this issue and clearly resolves it.

 

Cheers

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Your failing to understand the difference between birth, janma, and that which acts and is born.

 

Please reread Shankara's commentary to 4.9. It is quite clear that he doesn't support your view at all regarding maya-rupam.

 

 

[shvu]

 

 

Shvu, I'd like to see the Sanskrit of Shankara's bhasya on 3.2.11 you presented earlier.

 

 

Sorry, I do not have access to the sanskrit at this time.

 

 

Bhaktivedanta also consistently proposes, relying on the authority of the stanzas mentioned in (1) and (2), that the present-day Advaitins do not actually follow the conclusions of Shankara. There is also a third verse he refers to on occasion, "sa bhagavAn svayaM kRSNa devakI-nandana", to prove the theory. He also proposes that the Bhaja Govindam stanza was among the last things he wrote, as a final instruction to his followers. I wonder if there is much substance for the claim.

 

 

None of these claims hold water. We have been thru this before on these forums.

 

ISKCON also complains that present day x'tians do not follow Jesus's teachings. This is a clever technique where one criticizes the system without actually criticizing the founder, for that is a sentimental thing for many. In general, while people are ok with specific points about their philosophy being taken up for criticism, they are not ok with their icons being slandered. Needless to say, Advatins know the extent to which they are true to Shankara's teachings more than anyone else, especially more than someone, who as far as one can see, hasn't read a single work of his other than Bhaja govindam and that too with an incorrect view of it's context.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Govindaashtakam, Soundarya Lahari, Bhaja govindam are poems and poems are written to eulogize; not to establish a doctrine. While poems are correct, it is not proper to use them to understand the doctrine...

 

 

If the poems are correct, then they must be consistent with advaita siddhanta. Thus they are equally valid evidences in this regard.

 

It is only your opinion that Shankara's poems are mere eulogies. It is not something Shankara has ever said.

 

All of Shankara's devotional poems point to personalism and the eternality of the Lord.

[shvu]

 

 

If the poems are correct, then they must be consistent with advaita siddhanta. Thus they are equally valid evidences in this regard.

 

 

No one ever said they are incorrect. They are referring to the Sadguna Brahman and so are consistent with Advaita. The point is, poems just aren't enough to understand a doctrine for they do not present the complete picture. That is the idea. No Advaitin Guru will teach a couple of Shankara's poems to his student and tell him he has now learnt Advaita and he needn't bother with the main texts.

 

Cheers

 

[Guest guest]

Karthik here.

 

Shvu,

 

Please feel free to correct if my summarization is wrong anywhere. I am basically quoting from BSB as translated by George Thibaut, but one may want to check the following url as well: http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_00.html

 

The first thing one needs to understand is what Sankara means when he says sadguna brahman. For Sankara, the individual soul has any "individuality" only because of the unreal upaadhis that arise out of its association with maaya. Hence, in the ultimate analysis, the individual soul or jiiva is unreal and strictly speaking the personal God Himself is unreal, as saguna itself is an outcome of maaya. [Refer BSB 1:1:5-11]

 

What does Sankara say the word "Lord" mean? He explicitly says that the word refers only to sadguna brahman. Let us begin with an example. In BSB 1:1:20-21, Sankara deals with Chandogya Upanishad [1:6:6] which talks of the an individual soul abiding within the sun or the highest Lord. Sankara says that this passage refers to the Lord, who, for the gratification of the worshippers, manifests Himself in a bodily shape made of maaya .

 

Likewsie in 1:1:12-19, Sankara also concludes that the aanandamaaya mentioned in Taittiriya upanishad [2:5] is not the jiiva but only the Nirguna Brahman. This explicity conveys that the jiiva, as distinct from Brahman, being unreal, is incapable of bliss. This rules out any duality, if one were to go by Sankara's own words and the logical conclusion is that sadguna brahman is also unreal.

 

In BSB 2:1:14, Sankara says that the material world is non-different from the source, which is Nirguna brahman, the only reality. Here, Sankara quotes BG 5:14-15, which says:

 

 

That the Lord [sadguna Brahman ? ---- this is my understanding] is not the cause of actions or of the capacity of performing actions or the connection of action and fruit, all of which proceeds by its own nature or avidya. Knowledge is enveloped by ignorance; hence all creatures are deluded.

 

Sankara also quotes BG 18:61 to the same effect to drive home the conclusion that saguna brahman is neither eternal nor real.

 

 

 

Hopefully, that sets the ball rolling.

[Guest guest]

J N Das prabhuji,

 

Even though I sign in, my handle doesn't appear, making it impossible for me to correct any typographic erros. Is this a problem due to my ISP? Does anyone else experience this?

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Not sure, because I haven't experienced any login problem directly. Try deleting your cookies before logging in.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

From Swami Shivananda's translation of Shankara's Brahma Sutra Bhashya 1.1.2:

 

 

Brahman must have some characteristics. You can attain knowledge of Brahman through reflection on its attributes. Otherwise it is not possible to have such knowledge.

 

 

[ram]

on the assumption that shvu's quote is correct, i have to concede defeat in this round. as i started this debate, i would like to close it.

 

but the explanation for poems and avyakto paro narayana are not satisfactory. until another round.

 

can we close the debate for now ?

[Guest guest]

Karthik here.

 

 

From Swami Shivananda's translation of Shankara's Brahma Sutra Bhashya 1.1.2:

 

Brahman must have some characteristics. You can attain knowledge of Brahman through reflection on its attributes. Otherwise it is not possible to have such knowledge.

 

 

A little surprising, because that is actually what Ramanujacarya stated. According to Thibaut's translation, which also illustrates how Sankara deals with those points where he differs from Badari, Badarayana or Jaimini, not only Sankara but even these people didn't seem to have held such a view [i need to check on this further]. Nevertheless, Ramanujacarya's Vishistaadvaita was based on Bodhayana's and that definitely d to this view of Brahman having attributes.

 

 

on the assumption that shvu's quote is correct, i have to concede defeat in this round. as i started this debate, i would like to close it.

 

 

Close it? I thought we are just getting into the discussion by listing the philosophical tenets of Advaita w.r.t. what Sankara wrote. Anyway, this is just a discussion and not a debate and there is hardly a need to concede defeat or declare victory. Just stay on and make your contributions, many of which have been valuable. A discussion like this is like an arms race. While you can start it, it is not within your powers to end it /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

 

but the explanation for poems and avyakto paro narayana are not satisfactory. until another round.

 

 

Sankara says that a jiiva under the illusion of duality can never be satisfied, though he has a cure for that illness /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ram]

in my opinion a debate or discussion should conclude or else it does not benefit the speakers or the listeners. shvu made a good point when he said that sankara refuted the notion of brahman with attributes as absolute/eternal even though this is the conclusion that even great practising advaitins like swami sivanand have drawn. i am not convinced by the explanations that the poems speak only figuratively. but unless we can come up with a truthful argument, there is no point in continuing the debate. as you know victory and defeat are but temporary. if after further study if i am convinced sankara's views were different, then i will come back. the problem in indiadivine forum is that discussions are not based on granthas - er. pusthakams.

[raga]

 

. if after further study if i am convinced sankara's views were different, then i will come back. the problem in indiadivine forum is that discussions are not based on granthas - er. pusthakams.

 

 

I have quoted from his Gita Bhasya. Both Shvu and Karthik have been quoting from his Brahma Sutra Bhasya.

 

What do you conclude in concluding this debate? Was Sankara an "impersonalist", one who did not believe in the eternity of sad-guna brahman, or not?

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Saguna is used often to refer to the imaginary meditations of yogis, conceiving of the virat purusha as the form of Brahman. This saguna brahman is illusiory - it does not factually exist in that manner, and thus is ultimately false. Saguna refers to Brahman composed of material qualities, which is just an imaginary state as Brahman is beyond the manifested world. Examples in the Upanishads abound of Brahman given a material identification. "Brahman is food.", "Brahman is Prana (life airs).", "Brahman is intelligence", "The feet of Brahman are the Patala loka.", "The bones of Brahman are the universal mountains.", "The hair of Brahman is the trees.", "The spine of Brahman is the sishumara chakra (tail of the dhruva loka system).", etc. These are all imaginations, taking material qualities, and conceiving them as aspects of Brahman, who is beyond all material qualities.

 

Narayana is nirguna, for he is beyond all material qualities, yet he is still the repository of all auspicious transcendental qualities.

 

The entire world, though based on a single unit of creation (paramanu, or sub-atomic particle), is filled with countless diversity. The spiritual realm, though based on chinmaya, pure consciousness, similarly manifests unlimited spiritual variety.

 

Though the imaginary saguna forms are not real or permanent, Narayana (who is without material qualities) is described everywhere as an eternal reality - the highest abode, beyond the prakrita manifestations.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

narayana-paro yogo

narayana-param tapah

narayana-param jnanam

narayana-para gatih

 

"All different types of meditation or mysticism are means for realizing Narayana. All austerities are aimed at achieving Narayana. Narayana is the supreme object of knowledge, and Narayana is the ultimate goal."

 

narayana-para veda

deva narayanangajah

narayana-para loka

narayana-para makhah

 

"The Vedic literatures are made by and are meant for the Supreme Lord, the demigods are also meant for serving the Lord as parts of His body, the different planets are also meant for the sake of the Lord, and different sacrifices are performed just to please Him."

 

[From the Srimad Bhagavatam]

[ram]

i held the stand that as per sankara brahman is not only attributeless but also full of attributes. shvu has quoted from upadesa sahasri that this stand is denied by sankara. so i have to agree, at this point of time, that as per sankara brahman is nirguna or attbituless. that which is attributeless is obviously impersonal. therefore shvu, karthik and your good self win this round of debate in your understanding that sankara's stand is purely impersonal.

 

i am not able to reconcile with the personalistic statements in the acharyas works in his songs and gita bhashya. on those counts i dont find satisfactory explanation. i may restart the debate after i read upadesa sahasri etc if i find anything in it contradictory to what we concluded now.

 

[raga]

Where is the nArAyaNaH paro 'vyaktAd sentence in the Gita Bhasya, any idea? Could you point me to the exact reference?

[Somesh Kumar]

Hare Krsna,

 

As JN Dasji also pointed out the BG verse

 

Avajananti maam mudhaa manushim tanumashritam,

param bhava ajananto mamebhya param avyayam.

 

Krsna has called them fools who deride Him as a normal human being, not knowing His eternal nature!

 

Whatever He did was either to please the devotees or to punish the demons.

 

And finally this verse says it all.

 

janma karmam ca me divyam,

evam yo vetti tatvatah,

tyaktva deham punar janmam,

naiti mameti so arjuna.

 

If we try to understand this verse with a submissive attitude then we can understand the position of Krsna. Please note the word divyam.

 

How did Shankaracharya interpret the above verses? Can Shvu or Kartik prabhus' enlighten us about this?

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Jndas said:

Lord Krishna states in the Gita, "Fools deride me when I descend in a human form. They do not understand my supreme nature as the Lord of everything." (Gita 9.11) Krishna is bhuta-mahesvara, and His nature is param-bhavam. If you think arrows can kill him, or that he gets indigestion, you are failing to see his param-bhavam.

<hr>

 

Hare Krishna!

"The ignorant ones — unable to understand My immutable, incomparable, incomprehensible, and transcendental form — assume that I, the Supreme Being, am formless and take forms or incarnate. Concealed by My divine power (Maya), I do not reveal Myself to such ignorants who do not know and understand My unborn, eternal, and transcendental form and personality." (Bhagavad-gita 7.24-25)

[Yogkriya]

Dear spiritual brothers/sisters,

Please accept my respects and obeisance!!

 

Spiritual = nonmaterial, incorporeal, intangible; inner, mental, psychological; transcendent, ethereal, otherworldly, mystic, mystical, metaphysical; rare extramundane. antonym physical.

 

What exactly is meant by Krishna having a so called "spiritual" body? The term in itself is confusing and non-scientific. What is a spiritual body?? Spiritual is what is made of spirit. A material 'body' is made up of gross / partially gross matter - consisting of the five elements, in a more or less set ration/configuration and combination of these elements, to start with.

 

The bodies of devas / demi-Gods, ethreal beings, are made up of three elements.

But Krishna took avatara. He came down to the material existence / plane for our benefit. And he says this in B.G. - " I come to establish righteousness (dharma).

And he came in a material body. He was concepted and born in a natural way as humans do - through the womb of his mother - Devaki. And did grow up as people do with normal material body made up of five elements.

But what set him apart in this human form was his Godliness inside the material body. At times he would choose override the material nature of his body, somethng that is termed as a miracle. Something that is not comprehensible and possible for a common person. The body remained the same.

So it is not about the body, but the spirit. This is important.

I hear some Iskcon devotees say, that it is a huge 'aparadha' (offence) to even think that Krishna had a "material body". Well, this is a devotional aspect of understanding!! But not the yogic scientific way. If you simply say it was a spiritual body, then this spiritual body term is a very vague one. It can also mean non-visible or nothing in material terms. This term is used to evoke reverence and devotion. But in Vedic terms it is not clear. If you say spiritual body, then you have to describe why and how. The spirit inside the body is "spiritual". Then there is the astral, causal and ethreal bodies inside the gross physical body. Various 'Pranas' ('lifetronic' energy currents) connect these different bodies in the grosser physical one. So if you simply say that Krishna had a spiritual body, then it explains nothing. The Vedic way of understanding takes viveka (logic), Kriya (the right action) and bhakti (devotional love) together. The world of feelings can go any distance.

 

One of my good American friends, who is also a direct Prabhupada (SPP) disciple, related an interesting incident that happened in front of his eyes in the U.S. back then. Once Prabhuapada snorted and spit out some mucous to clear his throat (or maybe nose?). The devotees walking along immediately rushed to collect it from the ground and wanted to divide it amongst themselves as prasad.. ! Prabhupada upon seeing this got really angry scolded them, and told them not to be so fanatical, but also use "viveka".

So this is the state of devotion. Also as SPP related that the gopies were not qualified village women, but had immense love and devotion for Krishna, hence were able to have his mercy. This is the way to go.

But it is important to understand the spiritual life with "viveka" and not just feelings alone. Devotion is important, and so is "viveka" or the knowledge to recognize and cleverly understand real from non real objective of devotion. And if the devotee also uses Vedic yogic way of realization along with his devotion, then his progress gains more momentum.

 

Avatar: The meaning of avatar is to transgress, to come down.

When the higher spiritual intelligence comes down to the human level it takes that material body. But the difference is that due to its complete control over matter, it can also transgress the material nature of its bodily atoms. It has the power to override the bodily limitations. The body is very much "material". A yogi adept in the 'ashta siddhis' can also transcendent over his body's material nature. He can also dissolve his material body into a body of light or create another body using the five elements in another place that may look exactly like the first one and do all the normal things with it. This will be an exact replica of the original material body in every way. That is a matter of "Vayaviya siddhi" or "Vayaviya viddhya". Yogis like Baba Lal (year- 1600) and Pranabananda (1890) have done just that in the past.

 

The principle is that the subtle spiritual energy or prakriti can control the gross material nature. This is the principle. The grosser material body will decay as it is influenced by the material nature. An avatara or a highly elevated yogi can choose to let it be under that influence or not.

 

As far as Krishna is concerned, He satified the laws of nature too. He could keep his body after the arrow pierced it. But decided not to. His mission for his avatara was accomplished. And he dissolved his bodiy atoms at his divine will. His body was not cremated. He simply disintegrated and dissolved his bodily atoms.

Just a few centuries ago, the well known saint and yogi Kabir did that too! When the fighting Hindus and Muslims came to take the remenants of his body, all they found were flowers in place of his body.

 

Hope I was able to explain a point with my limited understanding.

 

Om Namah Shivaya.