Is advaita a genuine vedic tradition?

[sumeet]

hare krishna

Please accept my humble obesiances unto your lotus feet.

 

Yes karthik ji he is from rice university and i find his post and his knowledge so vast that I am always appreciative of his qualities which made Lord Hari and Vaishnava gurus bless him to write so prolifically. Sir I am very impressed by your postings here. Thanks for blessing us with your humble presence.

 

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

Point : Secondly, and most importantly, Advaita does not admit of any real, personal aspect of God. The personal aspect of God is maya. It is at best a temporary conception to help the neophyte grasp what is beyond the senses. Brahman alone exists, and Brahman according to Advaita is undifferentiated.

 

Response : This cannot be substantiated with statements from Sankara and therefore it is not worth countering. On the other hand, avyakto paro nArayanA by Sankara , His poetry full of advaita philosophy mixed with personal glorfication is an embarrassment to vaishnavas who claim ownership of the Lord and mAyAvAdis who deny the Lord. By the way, impersonalism is not part of Sankara's parlance.

 

Point : This is incompatible with the Vaishnava/Vedic view, which treats the personal aspect of the Lord as real. Using "truth is one, sages see it in many ways" does not reconcile Advaita and Vaishnavism, because followers of Advaita do not acknowledge the reality of BOTH the personal and impersonal conceptions. Furthermore, Advaitins consider the impersonal conception to be the highest conception of the Absolute truth. This is contradicted by Giitaa which states, "brahmaNo hi pratiShThaaham...." The Lord is the basis of the Brahman.

 

Response : This debate is caused only by differentiating between the Lord and His Self as vaishnavas do. Sankara Himself does not differentiate between the Lord and the Self as in brahmano hi prathishtAham. So there is no question of inferior or superior. Can you please show a single place where Sankara uses inferior and superior ?

 

Point : But the subject of 14.26 is the jiiva, which if Shankara is going to quote here, considerably muddles this interpretation. He already considers "I" to be the inner Self in 14.27, and then says this inner Self is the same as the Supreme Self based on 14.26, whose subject is the jiiva becoming Brahman. He is thus equating the jiiva of 14.26 with the "I" or inner Self of 14.27. But Krishna is speaking this verse, so how has Krishna suddenly become a jiiva? Furthermore, Shankara writes that this jiiva, or inner Self, is the basis of Brahman, the Supreme Self. Why is the jiiva the basis of Brahman? According to Advaita, it should be the other way around, because the Brahman when combined with upaadhi or limiting adjunct yields the jiivas. Finally, Shankara then contradicts all of the preceeding remarks by writing that both the jiiva and Brahman are the same. This is all very nice and good for someone who forgets the verse in his attempt to understand the commenary, but we may perhaps remember that the verse is speaking of these two things as different, and is further saying that one is resting on the other.

 

Response : prathishta does not imply duality. When deities are installed, they always say prathishta has been done. Trying to understand this term which has no real equivalent, to my knowledge, in Egnlish is not correct. Prathishta implies unity not duality. There is no difference between the deity installed and the stone deity. So without going to the purport, one can see that the Lord is talking about unity. Sankara just clarifies that. There is no difference between the Self of the Lord and our own Self. This does not mean I am God, You are God nonsense. We never become Krishna as modern day advaitins say. We realize that our Self is the same as His. This is confirmed by statements like sarvam khalv idam brahman, tat tvam asi, the fact that brahman is never talked of in plural throughout sAstrAs, Ananda mayo 'bhyasAt and vAsudevam sarvam iti.

 

Point : In the second interpretation, "Brahman" is taken to be "Brahman with attributes" and "I" is taken to be Brahman which is beyond all attributes. Ignoring for the moment the problems of accepting a twofold concept of Brahman in Advaita

Response : There is no problem with twofold concept of brahman because the Absolute is describes as full of attributes and without it. Just like the Lord can take infinite forms, He can also be formless.

 

Point : the other obvious problem with this interpretation is that Krishna is speaking the verse, and "I" can only refer to Him, who has attributes. There is no reason to switch subject and direct object in clear defiance of the context.

Response : This is a problem only if brahman and I are different as vaishnavas do against the direct statemens like aham asmi brahmAhamasmi. Does any one understand what brahmanah means before giving grammatical arguments ? Before I give the translation, I would like to hear that.

[Shashi]

Originally posted by ram:

Point : Secondly, and most importantly, Advaita does not admit of any real, personal aspect of God. The personal aspect of God is maya. It is at best a temporary conception to help the neophyte grasp what is beyond the senses. Brahman alone exists, and Brahman according to Advaita is undifferentiated.

 

Response : This cannot be substantiated with statements from Sankara and therefore it is not worth countering. On the other hand, avyakto paro nArayanA by Sankara , His poetry full of advaita philosophy mixed with personal glorfication is an embarrassment to vaishnavas who claim ownership of the Lord and mAyAvAdis who deny the Lord. By the way, impersonalism is not part of Sankara's parlance.

Agreemented with RamJi. Motion seconded without speechings by Shashi.

 

 

[Shashi]

Originally posted by ram:

Point : This is incompatible with the Vaishnava/Vedic view, which treats the personal aspect of the Lord as real. Using "truth is one, sages see it in many ways" does not reconcile Advaita and Vaishnavism, because followers of Advaita do not acknowledge the reality of BOTH the personal and impersonal conceptions. Furthermore, Advaitins consider the impersonal conception to be the highest conception of the Absolute truth. This is contradicted by Giitaa which states, "brahmaNo hi pratiShThaaham...." The Lord is the basis of the Brahman.

 

Response : This debate is caused only by differentiating between the Lord and His Self as vaishnavas do. Sankara Himself does not differentiate between the Lord and the Self as in brahmano hi prathishtAham. So there is no question of inferior or superior. Can you please show a single place where Sankara uses inferior and superior ?

Those upstanding for this line of questionings. MR or Madam Chairperson, please be including Shashi.

 

 

[Shashi]

Originally posted by ram:

Point : But the subject of 14.26 is the jiiva, which if Shankara is going to quote here, considerably muddles this interpretation. He already considers "I" to be the inner Self in 14.27, and then says this inner Self is the same as the Supreme Self based on 14.26, whose subject is the jiiva becoming Brahman. He is thus equating the jiiva of 14.26 with the "I" or inner Self of 14.27. But Krishna is speaking this verse, so how has Krishna suddenly become a jiiva? Furthermore, Shankara writes that this jiiva, or inner Self, is the basis of Brahman, the Supreme Self. Why is the jiiva the basis of Brahman? According to Advaita, it should be the other way around, because the Brahman when combined with upaadhi or limiting adjunct yields the jiivas. Finally, Shankara then contradicts all of the preceeding remarks by writing that both the jiiva and Brahman are the same. This is all very nice and good for someone who forgets the verse in his attempt to understand the commenary, but we may perhaps remember that the verse is speaking of these two things as different, and is further saying that one is resting on the other.

 

Response : prathishta does not imply duality. When deities are installed, they always say prathishta has been done. Trying to understand this term which has no real equivalent, to my knowledge, in Egnlish is not correct. Prathishta implies unity not duality. There is no difference between the deity installed and the stone deity. So without going to the purport, one can see that the Lord is talking about unity. Sankara just clarifies that. There is no difference between the Self of the Lord and our own Self. This does not mean I am God, You are God nonsense. We never become Krishna as modern day advaitins say. We realize that our Self is the same as His. This is confirmed by statements like sarvam khalv idam brahman, tat tvam asi, the fact that brahman is never talked of in plural throughout sAstrAs, Ananda mayo 'bhyasAt and vAsudevam sarvam iti.

 

 

Seconded By Shashi subjecting to RamJi's proposition having addendum of Shashi's much much early on comment as hereon:-

 

Originally posted by Shashi much much early on:

BG 14:27 Lord is saying Brahman is home in Lord. Non duel (advaita) state of Brahman is already reached by previous BG 14:26. Verse 27 is now decribing status of non duelty. Lord and Brhaman are non different but Brahman is in Lord. The relations between Lord and Brahman is subject for achintya bhed abhed.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Shashi (edited 07-26-2002).]

[Shashi]

Originally posted by ram:

Point : In the second interpretation, "Brahman" is taken to be "Brahman with attributes" and "I" is taken to be Brahman which is beyond all attributes. Ignoring for the moment the problems of accepting a twofold concept of Brahman in Advaita

Response : There is no problem with twofold concept of brahman because the Absolute is describes as full of attributes and without it. Just like the Lord can take infinite forms, He can also be formless.

 

 

Agreemented. Motion seconded.

Speechings in support: Honourables Chairperson, in seconding RamJi's proposition I would most humbly utter "Achintya Bhedabhed". Please beg my pardons.

 

[Shashi]

Originally posted by ram:

Point : the other obvious problem with this interpretation is that Krishna is speaking the verse, and "I" can only refer to Him, who has attributes. There is no reason to switch subject and direct object in clear defiance of the context.

Response : This is a problem only if brahman and I are different as vaishnavas do against the direct statemens like aham asmi brahmAhamasmi. Does any one understand what brahmanah means before giving grammatical arguments ? Before I give the translation, I would like to hear that.

ShashiJI moves one amendment to RamJi's proposition. Moving that "vaishnava" be no more there and that "some peoples" put in place. Otherwise line of questionings is supported.

If my amendment be not agreemented by RamJi then I am sadly forcibly not suppoort his motion.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by Shashi:

ShashiJI moves one amendment to RamJi's proposition. Moving that "vaishnava" be no more there and that "some peoples" put in place. Otherwise line of questionings is supported.

If my amendment be not agreemented by RamJi then I am sadly forcibly not suppoort his motion.

 

 

I agree with this correction because greatest vaishnavas like Lord Shica can be an advaitin. I change it to some people which is what I meant.

[Guest guest]

Point : the other obvious problem with this interpretation is that Krishna is speaking the verse, and "I" can only refer to Him, who has attributes. There is no reason to switch subject and direct object in clear defiance of the context.

 

Response : brahmanah is gen. sing. of brahman. One can read that verse as brahmanah prathishta aham. or aham prathishtha brahmanah. Both would be grammatically correct. If we only treat aham as the subject, then the second meaning is lost. If we treat only brahman as the subject, then the first meaning is lost. So Sankara treats both as subject alternately by equating them so that the unity of attributeless brahman and attributeful Lord comes out clearly.

 

Sankara does not take Krishna out of it. He says that there is nothing but Him because He is brahman and the Self, which are the same.

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 07-26-2002).]

[sumeet]

Hare Krishna

Please accept my humble obesiances unto your lotus feet.

 

Ram prabhuji can you kindly type out the correct translation of shankaras' commentary on BG 14.27. Since I remember you mentioning that AG Warriers translation has some problems.

 

 

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

[sumeet]

Hare Krishna

Please accept my humble obesiances unto your lotus feet.

 

 

----------

ramji wrote:

Sankara just clarifies that. There is

no difference between the Self of the Lord and our own Self. This does not mean I am God, You are God nonsense. We never become Krishna as modern day advaitins say. We realize that our Self is the same as His. This is confirmed by statements like sarvam khalv idam brahman, tat tvam asi,

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

 

 

Here you have brought up an interesting tenet of Advaita. brahman = atman.

 

You say that we realize that our self is same as Lords.

 

So now I humbly request you to just give me the detailed nature of an individual soul and the Lord according to your understanding of advaita-Vedanta. I want to see where do you see " absolute identity " between the Lord and jivatma ? Because that is what kevala-advaita the doctrine of Sri Sankara teaches.

 

 

Here is some food for thought --

 

According to you and Advaita there are two forms of Lord, Sadguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman.

 

1) Jivaatman cannot be absolutely identical to Sadguna brahman since He possesses infinite transcendental attributes intrinsically. And unless one is not insane He won't argue that jivatman also has the same.

 

2) Coming to nirguna brahman still they are not absolutely identical. Since the intrinsic characteristic of Nirguna brahman is that it never comes under the sway of maya and is always situated in its transcendental position. While poor jivatman has to go under so much trouble, all of us are aware of it. And then has to seek liberation through study of Vedas.

 

Please reflect on this. Let me know what do you think ?

 

 

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by sumeet:

Hare Krishna

Please accept my humble obesiances unto your lotus feet.

 

Ram prabhuji can you kindly type out the correct translation of shankaras' commentary on BG 14.27. Since I remember you mentioning that AG Warriers translation has some problems.

 

 

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

Please dont offer obeisances to me as I am not qualified to accept obeisances. It will take more effort to translate it accurately word for word but not necessary for immediate purposes. But approximately, the first sentence of Sankara's translation is :

 

brahman, paramatman is established (prathishtha) in the self firmly like the self is establshed in the inner self.

 

Just as self and inner self are non-different, so is the brahman and Krishna. This is clarified by Sankara by stating that the Lord is the same as brahman and brahman alone exists. sarvam khalv idam brahman or vAsudevam sarvam iti.

 

As seen from the later parts of the purport brahman refers to the Lord just as I does. As He is brahman, He is the subject matter of all the Vedas - atato brahma jijnAsa. Calling Krishna brahman is not bad. This verse basically says that the Lord is atma rama or self-satisfied making Him worshippable. By finding satisfaction in Him, who is the Self of all we come to the same state of being Self satisfied or brahman platform.

[Guest guest]

Point : Jivaatman cannot be absolutely identical to Sadguna brahman since He possesses infinite transcendental attributes intrinsically. And unless one is not insane He won't argue that jivatman also has the same.

 

Response : One cannot compare the false material personalities to the Lord because these personalities are product of mayA. These personalities are like mirage in the desert. The basis of the mirage, the desert itself is the same for all. You and me are not God. But the Self of you and me is God. We are unreal and only He exists. To think I am a jIvAtmA and am separate from Him are born of ignorance of His true nature. He alone exists. vAsudevam sarvam iti.

 

Point: Coming to nirguna brahman still they are not absolutely identical. Since the intrinsic characteristic of Nirguna brahman is that it never comes under the sway of maya and is always situated in its transcendental position. While poor jivatman has to go under so much trouble, all of us are aware of it. And then has to seek liberation through study of Vedas

 

Response : Sadguna brahman also does not come under the sway of mAya except according to modern day advaitins who want to say that the Lord gets bound. Secondy, there is only brahman as there is absolute unity between sadguna and nirguna brahman. poor jivAtman ? How can that be ? What is the cause of His ignorance ? This problem of evil or ignorance is solved by Sankara and sAstras which say that both bondage and liberation are like a dream.

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 07-27-2002).]

[Guest guest]

Point : The Lord has effulgence on the face. hiranmayena..

 

Response : Yes. But to say that the effulgence is different from the Lord is incorrect.

 

 

Point : If by devotional service, one understands the Lord as He is, then what do you think that understanding is? Obviously that He is the master, and you are the servant, an understanding that implies that one will continue to engage in devotional service to Him. bahuunaa.m janmanaamante j~naanavaanmaa.m prapadyate |

vaasudevaH sarvamiti sa mahaatmaa sudurlabhaH || BG 7.19 ||

 

Response : While devotion is an attribute of sadguna brahman just as blessing the devotee is, this verse is a wrong verse to quote for that. The verse does not say that one realizes master-slave relationship. It says one realizes that every thing is vAsudeva. Unless you say everything excludes you and me and every one else.

 

Point : When Brahman is described as having a face, eyes, arms, form, activities, etc, there is no reason to assume that these exist only due to illusory perception, or only on the conditioned stage of existence. The onus is on the Advaitins to prove this. It cannot be assumed from the verses so far quoted.

 

Response : avyakto paro nArayana. Sankara never said that sadguna brahman is unreal. Even He did not say mAya is unreal. He just said it is mithya - neither sathya nor asathya.

 

Point : The idea that the forms exist only on the conditioned stage and disappear after liberation is contradicted by Bhaagavatam statements (some already quoted) in which Vaikuntha and its residents are described very explicitly.

 

Response : ananda mayo bhyAsAt. brahman enjoys by repetition. Who ever denied the pastimes of the Lord ? But one should not think just because the Lord comes as Rama and Krishna, He is different. sarvam khalv idam brahman.

 

Point : This whole discussion brings me to something that has been bothering me for a long time. Bhagavad-giitaa and other smritis are meant to elucidate the meaning of the shrutis. Giitaa itself was spoken on a battlefield, not before learned sages, so one would expect the language to be straightforward. That being the case, if Giitaa is obviously an Advaitist text, then why can’t Krishna just get on with it?

 

Response : Krishna is never out of it. For sample, just read unbiasedly the purport of 14.27 where most people believe that Sankara does word jugglery. He glorifies the Lord where as all other commentaried glorify some thing else treating brahman as something as something else. I have shown clearly that Krishna is not out of Sariraka Bhashya. In fact, the whole bhAshyam starts with avyakto paro nArayana and glorification of Krishna. Even Srila Prabhupada quotes Sankara to glorify Gita, right ?

[Guest guest]

Point : Why doesn’t Krishna explicitly state that Arjuna will lose his separate existence and merge into Him?

 

Response : But merge in to Him is not literally correct because there is nothing but Him. By devoting ourself to Him, we realize Him and then know nothing else but Him as Rama, Krishna and so on and on and on. And know that the Self of All is One. He says in verses like brahmano hi prathishtAIn natve vAham verse, He does say that material personalities are temporary - dehino smin and only the atman is real the verse when He discusses natvevAham.

 

 

Point : Why does Arjuna fall into ignorance in the first place, when he is actually Brahman?

 

Response : Why does any one fall in to ignorance when there is Lord who is full of knowledge protecting them ? How does He give us freedom that brings us so much misfortune ? What does partial freewill really mean - when He is the cause of all causes ? Advaita and SB answers this by saying that this ignorance is unreal. Out of the three states of brahman - the state of bondage and realization are unreal (Please read niyamas of bhakti yoga for exact verse). The only real state is brahman is eternally liberated.

 

 

Point : Why even mention bhakti at all (which encourages one to think of himself as subservient to Brahman) if oneness with Brahman is the ultimate conclusion?

 

Response : There are atleast two reasons among zillion reasons that bhakti is preached. ananda mayo bhyAsAt. brahman enjoys by repetition and exchange of relationship between its Selves like Rama and Sita, Rama and Hanuman, Krishna and Gopis and so on. So bhakti or unadulterated love is the nature of sadguna brahman. The second reason is that we need a real object of love to wake up from this dream state where we focus our love on non-real objects.

 

Point : How can maayaa even exist, if Brahman alone exists and everything else is false? Is maayaa an intrinsic property of Brahman or a thing having separate existence?

 

Response : maya means that which is not. So it is not correct to speak of its existence. But unlike Buddha, Sankara does not completely negate this existence because we experience it. He says it is mithya - neither sathya nor asathya. He and SB give a similar relation between brahman and maya. They say it is like desert and mirage. Mirage exists in one sense but does not in another just like maya. Mirage does not muddy make a desert. Similarly, maya does not make brahman ingorant because it is non-real.

[shvu]

 

That’s fine. For the sake of brevity, I may quote partial shlokas to make the point, only when I think the rest of the shloka does not add to or change the point. But if you feel I am leaving something important out, you can bring up the rest. Then again, maybe I’ll just quote them in full from now on so you don’t think I’m deliberately overlooking something.

 

Quoting in part, will do. I quoted the verse in full, because I wanted to explain it the Advaita way.

 

And my point is, why stop there? It’s one thing to offer an interpretation. It’s quite another to show that this interpretation follows from the text itself. Believability is a function of how well the interpretation fits the text. The relative weaknesses and strengths of each school can be judged on the basis of how much additional (not explicit) material must be invoked in order to explain the verse. This of course puts Shankara at a distinct disadvantage (what with His interpreting direct references to Krishna as formless Brahman), but I suppose all schools are guilty of it at one point or another.

 

I am agreeable to the principle of translations being literal, with commentary provided to further elucidate the actual meaning of the verse. Perhaps if there wasn’t a tendency among many Hindus to pull translations out of context and claim, “See, see, this Swamiji also believes in Advaita,” then this might also be a more realistic expectation. In any case, none of the sampradaaya translations that I have seen are strictly literal, and I’ve seen several. The only one I have which appears to be literal (at first glance) is the one by Gita Press, but I find that it loses clarity and seems self-contradictory at times owing to too much literalism.

 

Agreed.

 

It means that He advents Himself (not unmanifest Brahman adventing Himself as that is not stated) according to His own maayaa (“aatma-maayayaa”), not the maayaa that deludes the jiivas and is the stuff of which the material universe is created. The latter is described in Shriimad Bhaagavatam 2.5.12-23:

 

tasmai namo bhagavate vaasudevaaya dhiimahi |

yanmaayayaa durjayayaa maa.m vadanti jagadgurum || bhaa 2.5.12 ||

 

vilajjamaanayaa yasya sthaatumiikShaapathe’muyaa |

vimohitaa vikatthante mamaahamiti durdhiyaH || bhaa 2.5.13 ||

 

(Lord Brahmaa is speaking the verses)

 

I offer my obeisances and meditate upon Lord Krishna [Vaasudeva], the Personality of Godhead, whose invincible potency influences them [the less intelligent class of men] to call me the supreme controller. (bhaagavata puraaNa 2.5.12)

 

The illusory energy of the Lord cannot take precedence, being ashamed of her position, but those who are bewildered by her always talk nonsense, being absorbed in thoughts of “It is I” and “It is mine.” (bhaagavata puraaNa 2.5.13)

 

Madhva and Raamaanuja interpret “aatma-maayayaa” in Giitaa 4.6 similarly. Neither of them take it to mean the delusive potency which ensnares the jiivas. Even the nonsectarian Gita Press translation takes the “aatma-maayayaa” as being different from the delusive maayaa. There is no question of Lord Krishna coming under the same illusion which deludes the jiivas, as we have multiple pramaanas to the effect that Lord is transcendental to the material nature:

 

anaadiraatmaa puruSho nirguNaH prakR^iteH paraH |

pratyagdhaamaa svaya.mjyotirvishva.m yena samanvitam || bhaa 3.26.3 ||

 

The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the Supreme Soul, and He has no beginning. He is transcendental to the material modes of nature and beyond the existence of this material world. He is perceivable everywhere because He is self-effulgent, and by

 

His self-effulgent luster the entire creation is maintained. (bhaagavata puraaNa 3.26.3)

 

ekaH sR^ijati bhuutaani bhagavaanaatmamaayayaa |

eShaa.m bandha.m cha mokSha.m cha sukha.m duHkha.m cha niShkalaH || bhaa 6.17.21 ||

 

The Supreme Personality of Godhead is one. Unaffected by the conditions of the material world, He creates all the conditioned souls by His own personal potency. Because of being containated by the material energy, the living entity is put into ignorance and thus into different conditions of bondage. Sometimes, by knowledge, the living entity is given liberation. In sattva-guna and raajo-guna, he is subjected to happiness and distress. (bhaagavata puraaNa 6.17.21)

 

Note that these pramaanas describe the Supreme Person (purusha) as being nirguna, devoid of the gunas (i.e. the material qualities sattvo guna, raajo guna, tamo guna). The point here is that one cannot argue that a formless Brahman only is being described as such; the personal Godhead (puruSha, bhagavaan) is being described as devoid of material qualities (nirguNa) and

 

unaffected by them (niShkalaH). The context of SB 6.17.21 leaves no doubt that the material world and the three modes of material nature is the subject of discussion.

 

Aside from the above, we also have the statements of Bhagavad-giitaa. For example:

 

bhuumiraapo’nalo vaayuH kha.m mano buddhireva cha |

aha.nkaara itiiya.m me bhinnaa prakR^itiraShTadhaa || giitaa 7.4 ||

 

Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego – all together these constitute My separated material energies. (bhagavad-giitaa 7.4)

 

I suppose you might quibble with the translation of “prakR^iti” as “energy,” among other things. But the point here is that these things, which are of the material nature, are being described as the Lord’s (me bhinnaa prakR^itir aShTadhaa), while in the next verse we have a description of the paraam prakR^iti which comprises the living entities trying to exploit this inferior nature. Then Krishna says in the very next verse that He is the source of everything.

 

The point here is that the inferior nature, the maayaa which creates the world and deludes the jiivas, is subordinate to Krishna. He does not come under it. Hence it is not acceptable to postulate that the existence of Krishna’s form and activities are a play of the material potency, the same one which misleads the jiivas.

 

This will also cover Ram's earlier question.

 

The above is an incorrect interpretation of Advaita. Let us look at 4.6 again which Shankara explains thus,

 

Though I am birthless and undecaying by nature, though I am naturally possessed of an undiminishing power of Knowledge and though I am the Lord, the natural Ruler of beings, from Brahma to a clump of grass, yet by subjugating (adhisthaaya) my own Prakrti, the Maya of Visnu consisting of the three gunas, under whose spell the whole world exists, and deluded by which one does not know one's own Self (Vaasudeva), by subjugating that Prakrti of Mine, I take birth, appear to become embodied, as though born by means of My own Maayaa...but not in reality like an ordinary person. (Gambhiraananda's translation)

 

The word Adhistaaya in the verse, answers your points. Clearly the commentary does not mean that the Lord deludes himself. The Maayaa is his own and hence he is in full control at all times. The magician's magic dazzles only the audience and never the magician himself. For the purpose of establishing Dharma, the Lord manifests himself (aatmaanaM sR^ijaamyaham.h.). It follows that the Lord is originally unmanifest. aatma-maayayaa means Maayaa belongs to the Lord himself and is explained by Shankara above. Hence there is no need to interpret Maayaa in the Gita differently in different instances.

 

quote:

--

 

As you have yourself stated, Maayaa is not eternal and hence everything else follows. Coming to BG 4.9, Divyam simply means divine. Here the Lord says, although he is born like a regular human being, his birth is not like that of others because he is born to redeem mankind (while others are born due to Karma, etc), and hence it is divine. So are his actions. ---

 

First of all, I’m not even clear on whether or not this is Shankara’s position, who also seems to agree that Krishna’s activities and appearance are not material:

 

janma iti || tat janma maayaaruupa.m, karma cha saadhuunaa.m paritraaNaadi me mama divya.m apraakR^ita.m iishvara.m –

 

My birth, having the nature of an appearance, and My work, viz., the protection of the virtuous, etc., both of which are divine and lordly, and not material, - (Warrier’s translation)

 

A clarification would be appreciated.

 

Here is the commentary in full,

 

He who thus, as described knows truly, as they are in reality that divine, supernatural birth, which is a form of Maayaa, Karma, and actions, such as protection of the pious, etc, of Mine does not get rebirth after casting off this body. He attains Me O Arjuna. (Gambhiraananda's translation)

 

All forms are within the scope of Maayaa for the concept of forms holds meaning only when there is duality. How can a form make sense when there is no duality? Hence forms have no meaning after Mukti.

 

Secondly, I disagree with this (your) interpretation of 4.9, which needlessly redefines “divya” rather than giving it its proper place in context. Krishna is saying that His janmas and karmas are divine. Why? Because janmas and karmas of the jiivas are affected by the material nature – maayaa. Krishna’s janmas and karmas are not of the material nature – hence they

 

are divine or in other words transcendental to it. Based on context, that is the most obvious meaning of “divya,” since the tendency is to think that anyone who has janmas and karmas is under the spell of maayaa. There is nothing in the Sanskrit to

indicate that the Lord’s activities and appearances are described as such only because He is redeeming the fallen souls, unless you want invoke 4.7-8 as context to help elucidate the meaning of “divya.” However, we already have BG 4.6 in which He states He is adventing Himself by His own maayaa, so no help there either.

 

As explained above, the Lord is not deluded by his Maayaa. Rather, the manifest form and activites (although divine by virtue of it's purpose) are still very much within Maayaa. This form and activites are visible to onlookers, all of which exists only as long as duality is perceived.

 

 

quote:

--

 

The whole message of the Gita is, "Jnaaana liberates". What is Janaana? Jnaana is knowing the true nature oneself which is understanding Maayaa. I have already posted 18.55 to show this. If you need more proof, I can supply numerous other quotes to establish this fact. Shankara starts his Giita Bhaashya saying the whole purport of the Giita is "Jnaanaa alone liberates".

 

--

 

That may be Shankara’s view, but Bhagavad-giitaa says differently:

 

bhaktyaatvananyayaa shakya ahameva.mvidho’rjuna |

j~naatu.m draShTu.m cha tattvena praveShTu.m cha parantapa || giitaa 11.54 ||

 

My dear Arjuna, only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I am, standing before you, and can thus be seen directly. Only in this way can you enter into the mysteries of My understanding. (bhagavad-giitaa 11.54)

 

Now to be fair, “only” is inferred and not found in the Sanskrit. But this verse occurs after denying the possibility that one can see Krishna by study of the Vedas, penancy, charity, or worship. So far, we have only seen it claimed that by bhakti one can see Krishna. Similarly, we also have:

 

teShaam satatayuktaanaa.m bhajataa.m priitipuurvakam |

dadaami buddhiyoga.m ta.m yena maamupayaanti te || giitaa 10.10 ||

 

To those who are constantly devoted to serving Me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to Me. (bhagavad-giitaa 10.10)

 

Again, the Advaitin may quibble that buddhi yoga is given leading to liberation. But one gets this by “bhajataam priitipuurvakam,” so the conclusion that bhakti cannot liberate is wrong. By devotion one does get the understanding by which one comes to Krishna. I am not aware of any claims in the Giitaa that by jnaana-yoga, independent of bhakti, one can gain liberation.

 

There are many statements by Krishna to Arjuna that he should engage himself in devotional service, that He should know the supreme person, etc, and they often come at the end or near the end of each chapter for emphasis. These include 5.29, 6.47, 7.29-30, 9.34, 11.55, 12.20, 14.26, 15.19, among others. Although several different yoga systems and subjects of inquiry are

 

discussed, each time in the end it keeps coming back to bhakti. It makes little sense for Krishna to constantly stress bhakti when bhakti does not lead to liberation.

 

You have misunderstood my statement. According to Shankara, the message of the Giita is, Jnaanaa alone liberates. This should not be confused with "Jnaana Yoga alone liberates". There are 4 paths described in the Giita, any of which when followed dilligently will result in Mukti. The paths of Karma, Jnaanaa, Bhakti and Yoga ultimately result in Jnaanaa of one's own true nature which is Mukti.

 

udaaraaH sarva evaite GYaanii tvaatmaiva me matam.h | 7.18 |

 

All of these are indeed noble, but I regard the Jnaani as my own self.

bahuunaa.n janmanaamante GYaanavaanmaaM prapadyate |

vaasudevaH sarvamiti sa mahaatmaa sudurlabhaH || 7.19 ||

 

At the end of many births the man of Knowledge attains Me, (realizing) that Vasudeva is all. Such a high-souled one is very rare.

 

We will discuss your interpretation of BG 18.55 below.

 

I’m still not clear on whether or not your are finding fault with Srila Prabhupada’s translation. You may do that, of course, if you wish. But entire verse as follows...

 

 

 

The significance of Divyam has already been discussed above.

 

 

Correct. The Lord is originally unmanifest and the manifestation (as Matsya, Varaha, Krishna, Raama, etc) is for a purpose only as stated in 4.7 and 4.8. Also 12.3-4, etc acknowledges the unmanifest state. It is realistic for an unmanifest Lord to manifest himself as some form vis-a-vis an always manifest human form of the Lord (Krishna, for instance) to become unmanifest at some point for no conceivable reason.

 

 

Doesn't contradict anything I have said so far.

 

Coming back to 18.55,

 

 

bhaktyaa maamabhijaanaati yaavaanyashchaasmi tattvataH |

 

The meaning is Bhakti results in Jnaanaa/knowledge (abhijaanaati). I have explained this above. All paths result in knowledge of the truth.

 

 

That is not all. You left out vishate tadana.ntaram.h.

 

 

Please explain the above wrt vishate tadana.ntaram.h. When the Jiiva attains Mukti by entering into the Lord as stated in 18.55, who is the devotee of whom? Devotion again, makes sense only as long as there is duality. Since there is no more duality after Mukti, devotion is a means only.

 

 

Reading them together says, Supreme devotion leads to knowledge which results in Mukti immeditately. Your position is mooted by vishate tadana.ntaram.h.

 

 

And elsewhere, the Bhaagavatam says the world is unreal and so on, taking on a serious Advaita tone (especially canto 11, chapter 28...check out verses 6 and 7). What should one do when Smriti contradicts itself? Is it worth our time to take the trouble of trying to reconcile things? Not according to Advaita. The Prasthaana Traya is sufficient to establish the truth and all other scriptures are secondary. Shankara's Bhaashya on Suutra 2.1.1 runs to several pages explaining the position of Smriti. He quotes the Jaimini Suutra as follows,

 

When a Smriti contradicts a Vedic text, it is not to be relied on, for a Vedic text can be inferred to exist as the basis of a Smriti passage *only* when there is no such contradiction. - JS 1.3.3

 

Shankara also says,

 

In a case of conflict among the Smritis themselves, when it becomes incumbent to accept some and reject others, the Smritis agreeing with the Upanishads are to be accepted as valid, while the others are not to be relied on.

 

The Puraanaas themselves being full of contradiction, it is inevitable that only a selective portion is considered authority by any school. For instance, the Gaudiiyas hardly rely on the Vishnu Puraanaa, although it is THE Vaishnava Puraanaa, while Advaitins do. Also, Shridhara Swami, an Advaitin, wrote a commentary on the SB, the bhaavaartha-diipika, which apparently is one of the most popular commentaries on the SB. I have no idea how true he was to Advaita, but it would be interesting to see how he interprets such a description of Vaikunta.

 

 

Again, Bhakti-labhate does not mean devotion continues after Mukti. It means devotion is attained and consequently the devotee is ripe for Jnaanaa as exlained in the next verse 18.55.

 

 

You are right.

 

 

manasaivedamaaptavyaM neha naanaa.asti ki.nchana |

mR^ityoH sa mR^ityuM gachchhati ya iha naaneva pashyati || Katha Upanishad 2.1.11 ||

 

What indeed is here, is there; what is there, is here likewise. He who sees a difference here, goes from death from to death.

 

Shankara's Bhaashya (only the relevant portion):

 

...Anyone who deluded by ignorance perceives in Brahman, which is not a plurality, as though there is a difference, feels such differences as "I am different from the Supreme Self and the Supreme Brahman is dfferent from me"; he gets death after death. Therefore one should preceive thus: 'I am indeed Brahman which is homogenous consciousness and which pervades everything through and through and through like space. This is the meaning of this sentence. (Gambhiraananda's translation)

 

 

The above verse from the Katha is a sample. There are plenty of other verses which establish this such as,

 

naiva vaachaa na manasaa praaptuM shakyo na chakshushhaa |

astiiti bruvato.anyatra kathaM tadupalabhyate || Katha 2.3.12 ||

 

and so on. There are many verses which also hint at Brahman having attributes. How to resolve this apparent contradiction ? The answer lies in Mukti. As I have explained before Mukti is the Jiiva attaining knowledge about it's true self, after which there is no more duality (Brahma veda Brahmaiva Bhavati). When there is no duality, there can be no forms. Hence Brahman with attributes exists only as long as there is duality, as also supported by Katha 2.1.11 above.

 

 

This point has been covered above.

 

 

Let us see. A good example is...neither does Krishna talk about Raadha being his soul or rejecting Mukti in favor of Bhakti. If Gaudiiya Vaishnavism is the truth, Why wasn't Krishna being simple and straightforward? He also does not talk about five eternal differences or Vaikunta. Krishna says the teaching is a supreme secret which existed before and also gives details about 4 different paths, etc. Had his only intent been to instruct Arjuna to fight, he could have simply said "Just fight now. I will explain things later on" or at best instructed him in Bhakti and closed the matter in less than a 100 verses. But considering he never did any of the above, it is obvious that the Giita is not just for Arjuna, and is meant for a wider audience. There is nothing simple and straightforward about it, unless one only picks up choice verses and leaves out the rest. To show it as a unified text with a single purport, one has to resort to contextual interpretation, and this has been done by all schools without exception.

 

 

Jiivas are not created, which means there was no start point. So the question of "why were we created?" doesn't arise.

 

 

Similar to, why create the world at all and put people in there to go through pain and pleasure? Shaastra says Bhakti is one of the paths to Mukti. It does not say why it is so.

 

 

The BG says aatma-maayayaa" and also Vaasudevaha sarvamiti. Nothing exists that is apart from Brahman. Shankara says Maayaa is inexplicable. So nothing can be said about it.

 

In summary, Shankara has more than adequately shown the purport of the Giita to be advaitic and that liberation is due to correct knowledge alone. The same with the Suutra-Bhaashya and his other Bhaashyas. Advaita rose to ubiquity very early after it's inception and has stayed on top till date...in spite of severe criticism from rival schools. That is a true testimony to it's robustness and Shankara's brilliant logic.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Shvu, you have answered wonderfully. But there are a few points on which I would like to differ with you for the following reason:

 

There is a upanishadic verse where Hanuman tells Rama, "We are different in form but our self is the same". I cannot cull out the exact verse but if you do not want to believe this, leave it. I will explain otherwise. Sankara is completely liberated but He did perceive forms while realize that the Self of all is same. When He says avyakto paro Narayana, it is obvious that sadguna brahman has eternal pastimes like what SB says in Vaikuntha. But in all this action one sees inaction. Brahman is full of attributes and without it.

[sumeet]

Hare Krishna

Please accept my humble obesiances unto your lotus feet.

 

 

-----------

Ramji wrote:

Please dont offer obeisances to me as I am not qualified to accept obeisances.

-----------

This is how we Vaishnavas treat everyone who relates himself with Sri Hari.

 

My dear Gauranga Mahaprabhu has said -

 

"One should chant the holy name of the Lord in a humble state of mind, thinking oneself lower than the straw in the street; one should be more tolerant than a tree, devoid of all sense of false prestige, and should be ready to offer all respect to others. In such a state of mind one can chant the holy name of the Lord constantly." [sri Siksastaka 3]

 

I am simply following Him. Please see my offering obesiances to you from this point of view rather than looking at your own qualifications.

 

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

You and me are not God. But the Self of you and me is God. We are unreal and only He exists.

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

 

Well this brings us to a question

>>>Who I am ?

I am atman or Self.

And now according to advaita if Self is God.

Then I am God.

 

I guess you are pointing out to the fact that idea of " individuality " is " ignorance ".

 

But according to Vaishnava philosophy idea of "independent individual existence" is "ignorance". Independent existence means, I exist by myself.

 

According to Vaishnava understanding of Vedanta -

 

1) Material world is a Temporary Relative Truth.

 

2) Jivaatman is Eternal Relative Truth.

 

3) Brahman is the Only Independent[Absolute] Truth.

 

Both Material world and Jivaatman are truths relative to Brahman in the sense they depend on Him for their own existence. All Vaishnava school except dvaita, agree that there is both non-difference and difference between material world and brahman, jivaatma and brahman. They explain this relationship of simultaneous difference and non-difference differently from each other. That is why we have difference between Vaishnava philosophy.

 

Dear Sir, in the body there are two souls. One is jivaatman and the other is antaryami, the paramatman. They are two different entities.

 

Svetasvatara Upanisad (4.6):

"The individual spirit soul and the Supersoul, Supreme Personality of godhead, are like two friendly birds sitting on the

same tree."

 

Kindly refer to BG 15.15 & 18.61.

" The Supreme Lord is situated in everyone's heart, O Arjuna, and is directing the wanderings of all living entities,are seated as on a machine, made of the material energy." [18.61]

 

"I am seated in everyone's heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness. By all the Vedas I am to be known; indeed I am the compiler of Vedanta, and I am the knower of the Vedas."[bG 15.15]

 

 

You will see the difference declared.

The difference exist because jivaatman and paramatman are two distinct entities by themselves and paramatman is the Absolute Govering principle while the other is governed principle. They are not Absolutely same. To say that there is no jivaatman existing different from Lord is not acceptable in the light of sruti evidence and scripture based logical philosophy.

 

You are focusing only on abheda sruti but what about bheda sruti ? You have quoted sarvam khalv idam brahma and vasudevah sarvam iti but what about the above verses. Vedas declare both difference and non-difference.

 

May i also ask you another question -

 

In the verse 7.19 why does a jnaani who has realized that everything is Vasudeva "surrenders". Who He surrenders to if non-duality is the only truth ? The word surrenders invokes duality. Please don't forget that.

 

Lastly, I suggest that you read each Gita & Upanisad mantra individually and contemplate on it. And then comtemplate on them collectively. Then you will find where does kevala-advaita or kevala-dvaita stands.

 

Looking forward to you reply

 

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

Caitanya Mahaprabhu offered respects to mAyAvAdi sannyasis also. He recognized that Sabkara is a great acharya and took initiation from one of His followers. He also glorified Sridhar Swami's commentary of SB, which is advaitic in spirit. He did not make a laughing stock of advaitam and advaitins as many people do today. If you want to follow Him, it is good.Please accept my humble obeisances to you. Now let us look at your points :

 

Point : >>>Who I am ?

I am atman or Self. And now according to advaita if Self is God.

Then I am God.

 

Response : You are missing a point here. Upanishads talk about neti logic. Who am I ? I am atman. Is my eye atman ? No. My other senses ? No. My mind ? No. Nor my intelligence. My ahankara appears to be my Self but it is false and temporary. So even that is not atman. The Self that does not change when every thing changes is atman. And this is brahman.

 

Point : Svetasvatara Upanisad (4.6): "The individual spirit soul and the Supersoul, Supreme Personality of godhead, are like two friendly birds sitting on the same tree."

 

Response : The vrksha is material world. The birds are the illusory material personalities and the Lord. There is no mention of two atman in the verse. Please see it word for word.

 

Point : " The Supreme Lord is situated in everyone's heart, O Arjuna, and is directing the wanderings of all living entities,are seated as on a machine, made of the material energy."

 

Response : True. But the living entities are not atma. They are the higher energy of the Lord compared to dull matter. These are separate from the Lord like the desert and the mirage. There is nothing in the verse which suggests that there are many brahmans. By saying that brahman is absolute (Lord) and relative (Jiva), you are contradncting innumerable statements of the sastras.

 

Point : You are focusing only on abheda sruti but what about bheda sruti ?

 

Response : If advaitam can be established based on brahmano hi prathishtAham, please dont say I am closing my eyes to bheda sruti. Please tell me one "bheda sruti" that does not establish advaitam.

 

Point : In the verse 7.19 why does a jnaani who has realized that everything is Vasudeva "surrenders". Who He surrenders to if non-duality is the only truth ? The word surrenders invokes duality. Please don't forget that.

 

Response : In the material world, a jnani still has a body that came as a result of prArabda karma. Knowing, vAsudeva is everything including his own self, he surrenders all his false identity. What is the problem with that ?

[sumeet]

Hare Krishna

Please accept my humble obesiances unto your lotus feet.

--------

Point : >>>Who I am ?

I am atman or Self. And now according to advaita if Self is God.

Then I am God.

 

Response : You are missing a point here. Upanishads talk about neti logic. Who am I ? I am atman. Is my eye atman ? No. My other senses ? No. My mind ? No. Nor my intelligence. My ahankara appears to be my Self but it is false and temporary. So even that is not atman. The Self that does not change when every thing changes is atman. And this is brahman.

-----------

 

Well I will look more into Govinda bhashya to understand neti-neti.

 

 

-----------

Point : Svetasvatara Upanisad (4.6): "The individual spirit soul and the Supersoul, Supreme Personality of godhead, are like two friendly birds sitting on the same tree."

 

Response : The vrksha is material world. The birds are the illusory material personalities and the Lord. There is no mention of two atman in the verse. Please see it word for word.

-----------

Before I proceed further with the correct understanding of the verse, I want to know what do you mean by illusory material personality ? Who is this personality ?

 

-----------

Point : " The Supreme Lord is situated in everyone's heart, O Arjuna, and is directing the wanderings of all living entities,are seated as on a machine, made of the material energy."

 

Response : True. But the living entities are not atma. They are the higher energy of the Lord compared to dull matter. These are separate from the Lord like the desert and the mirage.

-----------

 

Living entities are not atma. And you call them higher energy of Lord comapred to dull matter. I think you are refering to BG 7.4-5.If you read 7.4 clearly then, both Gross and Subtle body are called inferior energy of Lord. And if you see that in the material manifestation first there is gross body, then a subtle body and then the immortal self. Except for this there is nothing else. So if both gross and subtle body belong to inferior energy, then kindly tell me what is manifested as living entities. Isn't it the immortal soul who are transmigrating through the cycle of birth and death ? If not that then who ?

 

 

-----------

Point : You are focusing only on abheda sruti but what about bheda sruti ?

 

Response : If advaitam can be established based on brahmano hi prathishtAham, please dont say I am closing my eyes to bheda sruti. Please tell me one "bheda sruti" that does not establish advaitam.

-----------

 

Well we have not yet concluded whether advaitam can be established on basis of 14.27 yet. So, please wait. Bheda sruti doesn't contradict advaitam or identity. rather they contradict absolute identity.

Identity or advaitam is a part of Achintya bheda-abheda. So i have no problem with advaitam. But problems arise only when you consider kevala-advaitam[Absolute identity only.] As this discussion goes on we will see what is told in vedas. We have to be patient because I don't know how much time will it take for us to come to conclusion. So lets be patient.

 

 

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

I surely have done a poor job as I have caused more questions than answers. You and I are not God even though many modern day "advaitins"talk such nonsense. Vaishnavism has done a good job exposing these foolish people. That we are not God is so obvious that one need not even consider any discussion on that.

 

Whatever we "know" about ourselves at this point of time and space is only a product of maya. So it is an illusory personality. The illusory personality "partially exists" without contaminating the Lord but has no existence but for Him. Living entity refers to this illusory personality.

 

Beyond this illusory material gross and subtle body is the jiva bhutam or the countless jivAtmAs. The term living entity can refer to this also. But even this is separate from the Lord. If vAsudevA (brahman) is everything, then brahman is vAsudevA. Then how can there be brahman separate from Him ? Assuming that is so, how can this jiva fall into ignorance as it is full of knowledge and is eternally pure ? Or how will the Lord ever allow a jiva to suffer assuming the jiva or its suffering is real ?

 

Sankara resolves this by saying that the concept of jiva is itself part of illusion! The concept of our individuality separate from Him is unreal. Therefore atma is not God.

 

You may say : but it can be established through sAstrAs that Rama, Krisha, Siva and countless liberated entities exist eternally and even Sankara accepts that them as sadguna brahman. Their existence cannot be unreal ? Does it not mean plurality ? No because even though Rama and Krishna look different, have different names and qualities, they are One. There are also sAstric statements that proclaim Siva and Krishna are the same. And upanishadic statements that Siva is brahman and paramatma.

 

How can two entities that are eternally different be the same ? This is resolved by saying that the Self is One and therefore the same for all. This Self known as nirguna brahman is non-different from sadguna brahman. This is the meaning of aham brahmAsmi. Therefore aham does not apply to even the jivAtmA what to speak of material material bodies. aham applies to God and He alone exists in His innumerable expansions.

 

Why does He expand while retaining Oneness ? anada mayo 'bhyAsAt. brahman derives happiness by repetition. Nature of brahman.

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 07-29-2002).]

[sumeet]

Hare Krishna

Please accept my humble obesiances unto your lotus feet.

 

----------

Whatever we "know" about ourselves at this point of time and space is only a product of maya. So it is an illusory personality. The illusory personality "partially exists" without contaminating the Lord but has no existence but for Him. Living entity refers to this illusory personality.

-----------

 

 

Ok. Who is this "we" who is ignorant due to maya ? Body won't be ignorant as it is not conscious, so also mind, intelligence, ego, senses which all are non-conscious entities. So who is ignorant ? It has to be some conscious entity. Who is it ? Who becomes this illusory personality ? Certainly body, mind, intelligence, senses, ego are not personality at all. So who is this conscious entity who becomes deluded due to maya ?

 

 

-----------

Beyond this illusory material gross and subtle body is the jiva bhutam or the countless jivAtmAs. The term living entity can refer to this also. But even this is separate from the Lord. If vAsudevA (brahman) is everything, then brahman is vAsudevA. Then how can there be brahman separate from Him ? Assuming that is so, how can this jiva fall into ignorance as it is full of knowledge and is eternally pure ? Or how will the Lord ever allow a jiva to suffer assuming the jiva or its suffering is real ?

 

Sankara resolves this by saying that the concept of jiva is itself part of illusion! The concept of our individuality separate from Him is unreal. Therefore atma is not God.

-----------

 

Well then tell me "who" is deluded into believing that "He" exists independent of Lord ? Again I repeat mind, senses, body, intelligence, ego won't be deluded. So who is deluded by maya ? If you say "he" is false illusory personality. Then I ask you "who becomes false illusory personality. Mind cannot be, so can't body, senses, intelligence, ego etc. So who becomes the illusory personailty ? Note one thing, for something to be a personality or something to be deluded it has to be a conscious entity. So who is this conscious entity ?

 

And yeah "countless jivAtmAs" ----> who are they ? Are they illusory too ? If not then how can an advaitin admit plurality of eternal entities ?

 

I won't go any further until this situation of " brahman = atman " is clear. And remember if this premise is proven false on Vedic basis, then Sankara's first interpretation of 14.27 will be blown apart into pieces. Then we will discuss the next interpretation he offers.

 

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

 

[This message has been edited by sumeet (edited 07-29-2002).]

[shvu]

 

Ram,

 

There is a upanishadic verse where Hanuman tells Rama, "We are different in form but our self is the same". I cannot cull out the exact verse but if you do not want to believe this, leave it. I will explain otherwise. Sankara is completely liberated but He did perceive forms while realize that the Self of all is same. When He says avyakto paro Narayana, it is obvious that sadguna brahman has eternal pastimes like what SB says in Vaikuntha. But in all this action one sees inaction. Brahman is full of attributes and without it.

Perceiving anything after liberation is repugnant to Advaita. Like I have said before, Brahman with attributes, Vaikunta, Kailaasa, etc can only exist as long as duality is perceived; only as long as there exists a distinct entity which perceives "Brahman with attributes" as something other than itself. Advaita, by it's very definition, rules out any kind of diversity (after Mukti).

 

Yaajnavalkya tells his wife Maitreyi in the Brhadaaranyaka,

 

For when there is duality, as it were, then one smells another, one sees another, one hears another, one speaks to another, one thinks of another, one knows another. But when everything has become the Self, then what should one smell and through what, what should one see and through what, what should one hear and through what, what should one speak and through what, what should one think and through what, what should one know and through what? Through what should One know That owing to which all this is known...through what, my dear, should one know the Knower?" - 2.4.14

 

Shankara was a Jiivan-mukta and his body/actions were performed according to it's Praarabda karma, which in his case was to provide instruction to all levels of people, which is why he speaks of analysing the falsity of diversity through intellect alone (for advanced souls) and also the ways of worship and action (for the rest). Hence, Shankara writing verses in praise of Naaraayana should not be mistaken to mean, he perceived the form of Naarayaana after liberation. To add, whether Brahman has attributes or not, is a non-issue for the ultimate goal is to liberate oneself, which is the end of all suffering. So long as it is bliss unimaginable, what difference does it make?

 

naantaHpraGYaM na bahishhpraGYaM nobhayataHpraGYaM

na praGYAnaghanaM na praGYaM naapraGYam.h |

 

adR^ishhTamavyavahaaryamagraahyamalakshaNaM

achintyamavyapadeshyamekaatmapratyayasaaraM

prapaJNchopashamaM shaantaM shivamadvaitaM

chaturthaM manyante sa aatmaa sa viGYeyaH || Maanduukya 7 ||

 

Translation:

It is not that which is conscious of the inner (subjective) world, nor that which is conscious of the outer (objective) world, nor that which is conscious of both, nor that which is a mass of consciousness. It is not simple consciousness nor is It unconsciousness. It is unperceived, unrelated, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable and indescribable. The essence of the Consciousness manifesting as the self in the three states, It is the cessation of all phenomena; It is all peace, all bliss and non—dual. This is what is known as the Fourth (Turiya). This is Atman and this has to be realized.

 

Cheers

 

[sha]

A number of disciples went to the Buddha and said,

"Sir, there are living here in Savatthi many wandering hermits and scholars who indulge in constant dispute, some saying that the world is infinite and eternal and others that it is finite and not eternal, some saying that the soul dies with the body and others that it lives on forever, and so forth. What, Sir, would you say concerning them?"

 

<font color="blue">The Buddha answered, "Once upon a time there was a certain raja who called

to his servant and said, 'Come, good fellow, go and gather together in one

place all the men of Savatthi who were born blind... and show them an

elephant.' 'Very good, sire,' replied the servant, and he did as he was

told. He said to the blind men assembled there, 'Here is an elephant,' and

to one man he presented the head of the elephant, to another its ears, to

another a tusk, to another the trunk, the foot, back, tail, and tuft of

the tail, saying to each one that that was the elephant.

 

"When the blind men had felt the elephant, the raja went to each of them

and said to each, 'Well, blind man, have you seen the elephant? Tell me,

what sort of thing is an elephant?'

 

"Thereupon the men who were presented with the head answered, 'Sire, an

elephant is like a pot.' And the men who had observed the ear replied, 'An

elephant is like a winnowing basket.' Those who had been presented with a

tusk said it was a ploughshare. Those who knew only the trunk said it was a

plough; others said the body was a grainery; the foot, a pillar; the back,

a mortar; the tail, a pestle, the tuft of the tail, a brush.

 

"Then they began to quarrel, shouting, 'Yes it is!' 'No, it is not!' 'An

elephant is not that!' 'Yes, it's like that!' and so on, till they came to

blows over the matter.

 

"Brethren, the raja was delighted with the scene.

 

"Just so are these preachers and scholars holding various views blind and

unseeing.... In their ignorance they are by nature quarrelsome, wrangling,

and disputatious, each maintaining reality is thus and thus." </font>

 

<font color="red">Then the Exalted One rendered this meaning by uttering this verse of

uplift,

 

O how they cling and wrangle, some who claim

For preacher and monk the honored name!

For, quarreling, each to his view they cling.

Such folk see only one side of a thing.</font>

 

Jainism and Buddhism. Udana 68-69: Parable

of the Blind Men and the Elephant

 

http://www.ettl.co.at/uc/ws/theme00b

[shvu]

 

You and I are not God even though many modern day "advaitins"talk such nonsense. Vaishnavism has done a good job exposing these foolish people...

Ram,

 

You have complained earlier about whom you refer to as "modern day" Advaitins. Can you tell me, who they are, how they are wrong and finally how they were "exposed" by Vaishnavism?

 

Thanks