Is advaita a genuine vedic tradition?

[Guest guest]

There are always different visions of the truth and each school claims that its vision is the highest. Even among various vaishnava schools there is difference in opinion what to speak of Sankara. If there are scathing remarks, then it leads to irreverent behaviour devoid of true knowledge. Intolerance leads to sectarianism. There are many good points that were made by JNDas and Krishnas. But they are all debatable and I will just focus on a couple.

 

For one, the Lord clearly says aikhantikasya sukhasya. Aikhantikasya means ultimate or absolute. If we take the direct meaning there is nothing higher than that. Stating things like brahma jyoti is just absence of duhkha etc., you are giving an interpretation completely opposite of what the Lord says - It is not the highest. The Lord says it is the highest and you say it is not the highest. Such a conclusion is not acceptable.

 

On the other hand, the Supreme Self is the source of ultimate happiness. So the meaning brahman = Lord is a more direct meaning. It also fits the context because it tells you the reasons to worship the Lord, the topmost being He is fixed in the Self - Atma Rama.

 

Krishnas made a point that my interpretation is not in line with what Sankara did. I disagree. As per Sankara the Self of the living entity and the Lord is One - nirguna brahman. To say that I refers to jiva is not correct understanding. When the Lord says I, it refers the same as the innermost self of every one. Here what He is saying is the Supreme Self (the Lord) is fixed in His Self (the Self of all).

 

More than the philosophy, devotion is important. The beauty of Gaudiya Vaishnava translation is worth mentioning, albeit inaccurate it serves a purpose. After talking about the process of coming to brahman (14.26), the devotee may be attracted to the eternal happiness of the brahman platform. But the Lord reminds the devotee not to forget that He is the basis of the impersonal brahman. Always remember Krishna, Never forget Him even when you are brahma bhuta prasanatma. In times when people think they are advanced beyond their actual position, it is the mercy of Srila Prabhupada to keep all his followers focussed on Krishna always. Jaya Srila Prabhupada.

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 07-15-2002).]

[shvu]

 

Seeing as your answer is summarized in these lines, I will only address them. However, if you feel I skipped something relevant, let me know and I will take it up.

 

Except of course, that I did not say this. There is nothing higher than Brahman. Reread my exact words. I said that Advaitins do not admit of any higher conception of Brahman than the formless aspect - in this regard it is certainly incorrect. The concept of Brahman as Bhagavaan, posessing attributes, form, etc, is the higher (and more complete) *concept* of Brahman.

 

If I understand you correctly, you have no problems with accepting Brahman as the ultimate, but your opinion is Brahman with a form is greater than the formless Brahman. This however, does not follow from BG 14.27. What in that verse implies two different types of Brahman? Brahman is mentioned elsewhere in the Gita as the ultimate goal, the Supreme power, etc. According to you, which type of Brahman (form or formless) do these verses refer to and why?

 

There is no difference between the Lord and His brahmajyoti effulgence, but the concept of Brahman as brahmajyoti alone is incomplete. The Lord is simply saying here that He (Bhagavaan) is the basis of this incomplete, impersonal conception of His effulgence.

Addressed above.

 

Many sentimentalists try to argue that Advaita is ok, because shaastras acknowledge an impersonal or formless aspect of Brahman. But inherent in Advaita is the idea that this and only this is Brahman, all else is maya or at best a lower conception. That simply will not due. The issue is not whether or not there are impersonal and personal conceptions in the Absolute Truth, because clearly there are.

 

According to the Advaita concept, there is no duality on Mukti. When there is no duality, there is no question of forms or formless, but for the sake of descriptions, formless comes closest. It follows, the ultimate reality is above forms (which does not mean invisible like Allah, etc).

 

The issue is that Advaita accepts only the reality of the impersonal conception, and in that regard it contradicts numerous shaastric pramaanas and must thus be rejected.

Au contraire, the Advaita concept nets everything ! Brahman with attributes exists in the Vyavahaarika level and on the Paramaartika level, nothing can be said or the closest description is Nirguna Brahman. Thus, Advaita doesn't violate any shaastric pramaanas and has no problems with concepts of Brahman with form, while other schools have a tough time explaining away Shruti like,

 

yachchakshushhaa na pashyati yena chakshuu.Nshhi pashyati |

tadeva brahma tvaM viddhi nedaM yadidamupaasate || Kena 1.7 ||

 

ashabdamasparshamaruupamavyayaM

tathaa arasaM nityamagandhavachcha yat |

 

anaadyanantaM mahataH paraM dhruvaM

nichaayya tanmRityumukhaat pramuchyate || Katha 3.15 ||

 

and so on.

 

 

Cheers

 

[karthik_v]

Shashiji:

 

When you are finding Lord Jesus in Exodus then I will be feeling upset . Until then you must be having the less coconut.

 

But the offensive verses I quoted were not just from Exodus. They are from all over. I also pointed out that all those books have the stamp of approval of Jesus. So, he cannot be dissociated from them. Please don't forget that Srila Prabhupad's "Thou shall not kill" argument itself was from OT. It was still a fine argument because, just like the Exodus which bothers you, this OT verse too had Jesus' approval

 

Krishnas:

 

Can you please clarify what the purpose of this thread is? I was led into this discussion because I thought we were going to discuss the shaastric basis of Vaishnavism vs. Advaita. But now it seems you are worried about the behavior of some ISKCON followers.

 

Let us stick to the original topic and keep ISKCON and GV out. I brought that point in response to your observation. That is all.

 

There is NOTHING in this mantra that says that all philosophies are correct. This mantra only says that God, Vishnu, has many names, among which are some names of various demigods. By absolutely no stretch of the imagination can this mantra be used to sanction belief in two, mutually contradictory schools of philosophy.

 

Nowhere did I indicate that ALL philosophies are correct. I just pointed out that 2 apparently conflicting philosophies can still be correct. Sri Aurobindo and Swami Dayananda Saraswati both argue that there is no demi-God in the vedas. The various names are just different attributes of the same Supreme. Taken in that context, the verse still means what I wrote before.

 

How convenient for you that you do not mention the very next verse! [bG 5:29]

 

Actually, we discussed them in in detail before. That is why I left it out. In the verses I quoted, Krishna says that attaining Brahman realization is the highest form of perfection. He says the same thing in many other places in BG. He also says that realizing His personal form is the highest perfections. So, Krishna doesn't rank the two. It only follows that Krishna allows both forms of realization and considers them as the highest goals by themselves.

 

Shankara tries to get around it by word-jugglery, but that simply will not work!

 

What a way to address Adi Sankara!!! No wonder you don't find it offensive when Srila Prabhupad talks of Adi Sankara's "audacity". Would you call it "word jugglery" when SP translates "Brahman" as "the Supreme personality of Godhead, Krishna"?

 

There is absolutely NOTHING in the above statement [RV 1:164:45] that holds that the Vedic statements are not literal. There is NOTHING in the above statement that supports Advaita specifically.

 

I never claimed that this verse supports advaita. I just claimed that this ascribes mystical meaning to the vedas. The same is clearly mentioned in the oldest devotional Tamil works [all of which were written millennium before the Victorian influenced Bengali works]. I can only quote the original vedic verse and its translation. If you still refuse to see that, can I force you prabhuji?

 

That interpretation is wrong.

 

Indirect meanings should not be resorted to when direct meanings are acceptable in context. The straightforward meaning of purusha is not impersonal. Monier-Williams, a fairly impartial source, gives the following meanings of "purusha"

 

Thanks for telling me that the interpretation of the great Dayanda Saraswati is "wrong". Never mind that you haven't offered one argument against the logic put forth - a logic that holds perfectly valid as per grammar. My surprise vanishes the moment I see you writing that Monier-Williams, the fanatical anti-Hindu Christian missionary translator, was impartial

 

I know that immense Person, having the color of the sun and beyond darkness.

 

I already wrote in a different thread about Svetasvatara upanishad clearly talking about the personal form of the Supreme. No doubts there. Likewise, there are upanishads [only the principal please...not the umpteen Moghul editions] that talk of the impersonal Brahman as the Supreme. This only adds credence to my statement that both forms are highest and they cannot be ranked. Advaitists quote Adi Sankara and argue that Isopanishad is all about impersonal Brahman. I will seperately provide the translations of Adi Sankara and Sri Aurobindo next. May be in the evening, after I return from work. I discussed this very point on advaita-vedanta.org

 

Very curious to ask you - in your quote there is a mention of the Supreme person with the "colour of sun". We all know that Krishna is of the colour of dark clouds and that Shiva has a golden complexion. Does this refer to Shiva as the Supreme Lord?

 

It is also stated in the Atharva Veda that the Puraanas have the same divine origin as the Vedas

 

I am not questioning their divine origin. But with so much interpolation, nobody is going to argue that they are in the same form as they were given originally. So, still puranas are out.

 

Bhagavad-giitaa is clearly personalist from beginning to end, and you cannot accept it.

 

That is not true. For every personalist verse, there is an impersonalist verse in BG.

 

You say that Srila Prabhupada is a guru, but you reject those teachings of his which you cannot reconcile with your own personal views. This is not a very honest attitude.

 

Because I never believe that SP is the only guru. I hold that a venerable saint like Thirugnanasambandhar is a guru too. And I also believe that no guru is perfect. That is why I have never surrendered unto any guru.

 

You also object to the ranking of deities in the Vedas. But that ranking is also substantiated very EXPLICITLY by shruti:

 

agnirvai devaanamavamo viShNuH paramaH |

 

Agni is the lowest of all deities and Vishnu is the highest. (aitareya braahmaNa 1.1.1)

 

A good point. I need to look into the commentary of the same written by Swami Dayanada Saraswati. I don't see Sri Aurobindo having commented on any Brahmanas. I don't have SDS with me, so this point will have to wait. BTW, whose commentary are you quoting?

 

You quoted ISKCON devotees, who are all from the 20th century. What about Gaudiiya Vaishnavas from earlier ages?

 

Perhaps none. But my criticism is only of GV of this century, whereas you launched a blanket attack on advaitins of all ages.

 

Shankara wrote refutations of other Vedic systems of philosophy as well as Buddhism.

 

This is another myth. Yes, there were 72 heterodox sects when Adi Sankara wrote, but his entire criticism of Buddhism is limited to only 18 verses of his bhasya, if I understand correctly.

 

Again, Karthik, I note the double standard in your thinking. On one hand, you don't want to hold Advaita responsible for the scathing, anti-Vaishnava remarks of modern-day Advaitins. But on the other hand, you hold Gaudiiya Vaishnavism responsible for some bad behavior on the part of neophyte, modern-day, ISKCON devotees.

 

Please look at the number of times you have spoken of my "double standards", "my dishonesty" and all such personal attacks. Do you think that a discussion will be more civil without personal attacks? Should we stoop to the level when SP and some of his disciples went to the levels of raising the pitch and indulged in personal taunts to chase away a female reporter who raised very uncomfortable questions for SP?

 

The attacks of Vivekananda and Chinmayananda are bad - no doubt, but they are nowhere near the attacks [often vile and cheap] lauched by GV and ISKCON gurus against advaita and advaita acaryas. Most importantly, the writings of advaitins doesn't depend on blasting another philosophy for their survival. You cannot come across one commentary of SP without scathing attacks on "mayavada".

 

I will also write in detail on BG 10:12 and 11:38

[shvu]

 

Now again, this is a Gaudiiya view, which Maadhvas will not accept. I am just explaining how we can come in Madhva's paramparaa even though we differ philosophically.

This has been discussed ad nauseam before.

 

One *cannot* differ from the teachings of the founder and yet claim to be in his paramparaa. Unless one can get dhiiksha in the Gaudiya line, start his own paramparaa with a neo new age teaching and claim to be in Chaitanyaa's paramparaa. If the latter is unacceptable, so is the former.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

[karthik_v]

Hari Bol Krishnas:

 

Since you quoted Svetasvatara upanishad, may I also remind you that it talks of Shiva as the Supreme and not Krishna. Are you in agreement with that? Here is the reason why I am asking this. You cannot accept Svetasvatara as authority only to drive home the point that the Supreme is a personal God and ignore the fact that it declares that Supreme to be Shiva.

[karthik_v]

Hari Bol Krishnas:

 

I promised I will get back to you on the 2 BG verses you had quoted. Here are the translations of Adi Sankara's bhasyam on these verses. In the evening, I will also get Sri Aurobindo's commentary [assuming I get back home early] and then we can discuss further on these two. That way we can conclude if BG admits to both the persobal and impersonal forms or just the personal form.

 

BG 10:12-13:

 

Bhavan, You; are the param brahma, supreme Brahman, the supreme Self; the param dhama, supreme Light; the paramam pavitram, supreme Sanctifier. Sarve, all; rsayah, the sages-Vasistha and others; tatha, as also; the devarisih, divine sage; naradah, Narada; Asita and Devala ahuh, call; tvam, You; thus: Sasvatam, the eternal; divyam, divine; purusam, Person; adi-devam, the Primal God, the God who preceded all the gods; ajam, the birthless; vibhum, the Omnipresent-capable of assuming diverse forms. And even Vyasa also speaks in this very way. Ca, and; svayam, You Yourself; eva, verily; bravisi, tell; me, me (so).

 

BG 11:38

 

You are the adi-devah, primal Deity, because of being the creator of the Universe; the puranah, ancient, eternal; purusah, Person-(derived) in the sense of 'staying in the town (pura) that is the body'. You verily are the param, suprem; nidhanam, Resort, in which this entire Universe comes to rest at the time of final dissolution etc. Besides, You are the vetta, knower of all things to be known. You are also the vedyam, object of knowledge-that which is fit to be known; and the param, supreme; dhama, Abode, the supreme State of Visnu. Anantarupa, O You of infinite forms, who have no limit to Your own forms; the entire visvam, Universe; tatam, is pervaded; tvaya, by You.

[karthik_v]

Hari Bol Krishnas:

 

Here is another interesting remark made by that member. Of course, I am throwing a flame bait

 

*****Begin post from advaita list*****

 

Shridhara Swami was definitely an Advaitin. Chaitanya himself originally took a Dashanami form of sannyasa and many of his spiritual ancestors have Dashanami names such as Puri, Saraswati etc. According to texts such as Garga Samhita, there are four Vaishnava sampradayas: Shri (Ramanuja), Brahma (Madhva), Sanatakumara (Nimbarka) and Agni (Vallabha.) The Gaudiyas don't figure on that list but nowadays they count themselves amongst Brahma sampradaya. This could give a clue as to what happened. In medieval times Advaita Vedanta came under severe attack by the Dvaita philosopher Vyas Tirth and his successors. Perhaps at that time under his influence a section of the Dashanamis went renagade and started a new sect. The hostility of the Gaudiyas towards Advaita Vedanta may be due to lingering embarrasment over their true origins.

 

*****End of post from advaita list*****

[krishnas]

Originally posted by ram:

There are always different visions of the truth and each school claims that its vision is the highest. Even among various vaishnava schools there is difference in opinion what to speak of Sankara. If there are scathing remarks, then it leads to irreverent behaviour devoid of true knowledge.

 

 

Always it comes back to accusations about "scathing remarks." Can we stick to the philosophical concepts in question, or are you going to be more consistent in your concerns, and address the condescending teachings about Vaishnavism/personalism which Advaitists have been spreading long before ISKCON?

 

Intolerance leads to sectarianism. There are many good points that were made by JNDas and Krishnas. But they are all debatable and I will just focus on a couple.

 

 

Rejecting an incorrect philosophical concept is *discriminating,* not intolerance. I have no interest in debating people whose best rebuttal is to cry "intolerance" or "fanaticism" every time their arguments have been defeated.

 

Please debate what you consider to be "debatable." I don't accept that a point is arguable simply on someone's claim that it is so. If you have left a point alone, then I assume you are conceeding it.

 

For one, the Lord clearly says aikhantikasya sukhasya. Aikhantikasya means ultimate or absolute. If we take the direct meaning there is nothing higher than that. Stating things like brahma jyoti is just absence of duhkha etc., you are giving an interpretation completely opposite of what the Lord says - It is not the highest. The Lord says it is the highest and you say it is not the highest. Such a conclusion is not acceptable.

 

 

Ram, when are you going to respond to the arguments I have already given, instead of knocking down strawmen? Where did I say that "brahma jyoti is just absence of duhkha?" That the Brahman described is the position of ultimate happiness (sukhasyaikaantikasya) contradicts nothing regarding the Gaudiiya interpretation, for reasons I have already given.

 

When are you going to respond to my objection to Shankara's twisting of subject and object in BG 14.27? You can't win an argument by addressing one point and ignoring the rest. Shankara's "topsy-turvy" interpretation, which takes Krishna out of the subject of the sentence, even though He speaks it, cannot simply be brushed aside as inconsequential.

On the other hand, the Supreme Self is the source of ultimate happiness. So the meaning brahman = Lord is a more direct meaning. It also fits the context because it tells you the reasons to worship the Lord, the topmost being He is fixed in the Self - Atma Rama.

 

 

Your interpretation makes no sense. For if it were as you say, then the Lord would be saying simply that He is fixed in Himself. Your interpretation implies duality between Krishna and His self, when no such duality is admitted to in scriptures.

 

Also realize that you are actually contradicting Shankaraachaarya by proposing your explanation to be correct. Shankara has actually given TWO interpretations of BG 14.27, one of which takes Brahman to be the savikalpa Brahman vs. nirvikalpa Brahman (Brahman with and without form). Shankara's followers cannot honestly forgive this interpretation, and then disagree with the Gaudiiya one, because the Gaudiiya one simply reverses the two Brahman concepts and gives an interpretation that better fits context.

 

If you wish to argue that Shankara's intepretation of BG 14.27 is correct, then you must address all of the objections.

 

Krishnas made a point that my interpretation is not in line with what Sankara did. I disagree. As per Sankara the Self of the living entity and the Lord is One - nirguna brahman. To say that I refers to jiva is not correct understanding. When the Lord says I, it refers the same as the innermost self of every one. Here what He is saying is the Supreme Self (the Lord) is fixed in His Self (the Self of all).

 

 

Please refer to Shankara's commentary again. I have the translation published by Sri Ramakrishna Matha and translated by Dr. A.G. Krishna Warrier. His translation of Shankara's commentary (again):

 

"For, I, the inner Self, am the ground in which dwells Brahman, the Supreme Self."

 

Again, let me point out that Shankara quotes 14.26 to describe the oneness of the inner Self and the Suprme Self. But 14.26 refers to the devotee who attains Brahman by performing Bhakti-yoga. So obviously, the inner Self is the jiivaatmaa. How can it not be so? Who is the inner Self? The inner Self is not Krishna, because Krishna has no need to perform bhakti-yoga to attain Brahman -- you yourself have already admitted that He is fixed in His position.

 

Regardless of the nomenclature one uses, Shankara speaks of two things - inner Self and Supreme Self, Supreme Self vs His Self, or whatever, and then goes on to say that they are the same. But neither BG 14.26 nor 14.27 say that these two things are absolutely the SAME. BG 14.27 doesn't even make sense if the two things compared are exactly the same. Instead of saying "I am the basis...." He should say "I am that Brahman."

 

More than the philosophy, devotion is important. The beauty of Gaudiya Vaishnava translation is worth mentioning, albeit inaccurate it serves a purpose.

 

 

Words like that should come from people who can produce *comprehensive* refutations of an opponent's point of view. You haven't even addressed 70% of the arguments brought up against Shankara's interpretation, so spare us.

 

You haven't addressed Shankara's topsy-turvy switching of "Krishna" and "Brahman."

 

You haven't addressed the evidence proving that there is both personal and impersonal forms of Brahman, and *both* are transcendental.

 

You haven't addressed the fact that Shankara gives a nirguna/saguna Brahman interpretation to 14.27, which renders any critcism of the Gaudiiya interpretation hypocritical.

 

You haven't addressed the shaastric evidence indicating that the brahmajyoti emanates from the Lord, and is also nondifferent from Him.

 

In fact, your understanding of the Gaudiiya concept of brahmajyoti does leave much to be desired.

After talking about the process of coming to brahman (14.26), the devotee may be attracted to the eternal happiness of the brahman platform. But the Lord reminds the devotee not to forget that He is the basis of the impersonal brahman. Always remember Krishna, Never forget Him even when you are brahma bhuta prasanatma. In times when people think they are advanced beyond their actual position, it is the mercy of Srila Prabhupada to keep all his followers focussed on Krishna always. Jaya Srila Prabhupada.

 

 

So after insisting that the "I" and "Brahman" are the same, now you are saying it is important to realize that there is in fact more to realize after attaining Brahman. But you say this after insisting that the Brahman in 14.27 is the all in all, and that there is nothing higher.

 

If either of Shankara's interpretations are correct, then the Gaudiiya one is not correct. If the Gaudiiya one is correct, then Shankara's are not correct.

 

You want to say that Shankara's interpretation is correct, but you cannot bring yourself to reject the Gaudiiya interpretation. If you are not that sure about Shankara's interpretation, then why defend it? Sentimentalism is no substitute for mature conviction.

 

regards,

 

- K

 

 

[krishnas]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

Hari Bol Krishnas:

 

Since you quoted Svetasvatara upanishad, may I also remind you that it talks of Shiva as the Supreme and not Krishna. Are you in agreement with that? Here is the reason why I am asking this. You cannot accept Svetasvatara as authority only to drive home the point that the Supreme is a personal God and ignore the fact that it declares that Supreme to be Shiva.

You are mistaken, Karthik. I am familiar with this Upanishad. Your misconception is there because the Upanishad refers to the Brahman in a couple of places as "maheshvara," an epithet traditionally reserved for Lord Shiva. But according to Vishnu Sahasranaama, Vishnu also has names like Shiva, Shambhu, Maheshvara.

 

Context supports the interpretation that Vishnu, not Shiva, is the Deity being glorified in the Shvetaashvatara. It is extremely unscholarly to argue that Shiva is the Deity being described. The same Upanishad states that this God gave birth to Lord Brahmaa and instructed him in Vedic knowledge. That is clearly Vishnu.

 

Vedaanta-suutra supports the principle that if context clearly points to a deity being described as Brahman, then that deity must be Vishnu. According to the Rig Veda which *you* quoted, the Supreme Brahman has many names, including some names of various devatas.

 

Yet at the same time, the other devatas besides Vishnu are subordinate to Him. This was *clearly* spelled out in the Aitareya Braahmana quote which I provided to you, and is substantiated by Puraanas, Bhagavad-giitaa, Naaraayanopanishad, and many, many others.

 

Karthik, your logic in suggesting that Shiva is the Deity being described in Shve. Up. because some names associated with him are used therein, is like me saying that Ramakrishna Balasubramanian and I are the same person because we both have "Krishna" in our names.

 

yours,

 

- K

 

 

 

[krishnas]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

Hari Bol Krishnas:

 

Here is another interesting remark made by that member. Of course, I am throwing a flame bait

 

*****Begin post from advaita list*****

 

Shridhara Swami was definitely an Advaitin. Chaitanya himself originally took a Dashanami form of sannyasa and many of his spiritual ancestors have Dashanami names such as Puri, Saraswati etc. According to texts such as Garga Samhita, there are four Vaishnava sampradayas: Shri (Ramanuja), Brahma (Madhva), Sanatakumara (Nimbarka) and Agni (Vallabha.) The Gaudiyas don't figure on that list but nowadays they count themselves amongst Brahma sampradaya. This could give a clue as to what happened. In medieval times Advaita Vedanta came under severe attack by the Dvaita philosopher Vyas Tirth and his successors. Perhaps at that time under his influence a section of the Dashanamis went renagade and started a new sect. The hostility of the Gaudiyas towards Advaita Vedanta may be due to lingering embarrasment over their true origins.

 

*****End of post from advaita list*****

All of these unscholarly remarks have already been defeated numerous times by many individuals.

 

Please consult the Achintya list archives (www.achintya.org) for a posting by me in which I very explicitly refuted all of these points with evidence. I believe the subject line of the message was "Re: Position Paper on ISKCON by the Poornaprajna Vidyapeetha." There are several messages with that title in the archive, but the one you are looking for is definitely there - look in the May - July 2001 area.

I don't wish to go on repeating the same arguments ad nauseum, but unfortunately some critics of the Gaudiiya parmparaa have a habit of giving objections, ignoring the responses, and then finding another forum in which to spread those same objections again.

 

 

[krishnas]

 

Originally posted by karthik_v:

Hari Bol Krishnas:

Isopanishad mantra 15:

 

The face of truth is hidden in a golden vessel. Remove that Pushan so I whose Dharma is truth may see.

 

 

[krishnas]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

Hari Bol Krishnas:

 

I promised I will get back to you on the 2 BG verses you had quoted. Here are the translations of Adi Sankara's bhasyam on

 

 

I think I can now see where this discussion is going. You are probably going to just quote Shankara translations verbatim rather than address the specific points of contention.

 

Again, I see no new, impersonal revelations in these Aurobindo translations.

 

[krishnas]

Originally posted by shvu:

This has been discussed ad nauseam before.

 

One *cannot* differ from the teachings of the founder and yet claim to be in his paramparaa.

 

 

So in that case, why does Madhva teach Dvaita when his diiksha guru taught Advaita? If Madhva got diiksha from Vyaasa, then where is the evidence of it? Certainly not in the biography of his which I previously quoted in another thread. And even if it could be proven that Vyaasa is the diiksha guru of Madhva, then still why does Madhva teach Dvaita, when Vyaasa's own writings like Shriimad Bhaagavatam speak of beda/abeda?

 

These arguments are pointless. One can come in a paramparaa and differ philosophically from it. Madhva has proven it. What one cannot claim is to follow exactly the philosophy of the puurvaachaaryas in that paramparaa, if he is introducing something new.

 

Unless one can get dhiiksha in the Gaudiya line, start his own paramparaa with a neo new age teaching and claim to be in Chaitanyaa's paramparaa. If the latter is unacceptable, so is the former.

 

One can claim any paramparaa he wants, but the test of a philosophy's legitimacy still rests on providing shaastric evidence.

 

yours,

 

- K

 

 

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

www.achintya.org

[karthik_v]

Hari Bol Krishnas prabhu:

 

I am familiar with this Upanishad. Your misconception is there because the Upanishad refers to the Brahman in a couple of places as "maheshvara," an epithet traditionally reserved for Lord Shiva. But according to Vishnu Sahasranaama, Vishnu also has names like Shiva, Shambhu, Maheshvara.

 

Not only that. In the second adhikara, it addresses the Supreme as Rudra and in the fourth interchangebly uses the term Shiva. I am at work and am quoting from memory - so I may be wrong with the exact reference. But, if you have the book, you can cross check. I am not sure, I don't have that book at home either, but if you want I can look up.

 

Vedaanta-suutra supports the principle that if context clearly points to a deity being described as Brahman, then that deity must be Vishnu.

 

Which sutra?

 

Please consult the Achintya list archives (www.achintya.org) for a posting by me in which I very explicitly refuted all of these points with evidence.

 

Thanks for the reference. I will look up.

 

Too bad for the Advaitins, but the word "mukha" or "face" is still in the Sanskrit, no matter how hard they try to brush it aside, and it still points to a personal Godhead.

 

Sri Aurobindo has also written in another context, that every word cannot be taken in the literal sense, as the vedic speech is highly figurative. This makes sense, as literal meaning leads to absurd meaning often times. You have not commented on the other flaws pointed out by that member from advaita list. You are yet to clarify, if the Supreme Lord with the complexion of sun, that you quoted this morning is Shiva, as Krishna has a dark complexion. I hope you address all the points I raised.

[karthik_v]

Krishnas prabhu:

 

Again, I see no new, impersonal revelations in these Aurobindo translations.

 

Those BG translations were of Adi Sankara bhasya - not Sri Aurobindo. I hope you are aware that Sri Aurobindo differs with Adi Sankara often. I am yet to quote Sri Aurobindo.

 

So in that case, why does Madhva teach Dvaita when his diiksha guru taught Advaita?

 

Did Madhva claim that he is following and propagating the teachings of his master's parampara?

 

If Madhva got diiksha from Vyaasa, then where is the evidence of it? Certainly not in the biography of his which I previously quoted in another thread.

 

So, biographies are irrefutable? Some months back, another member Satyaraja Das, pointed out that there are several inconsistencies in Caitanya Caritamrta. He showed that Caitanya Mahaprabhu is being portrayed as quoting the writings of Krishnadasa Kaviraja. Shvu participated in that discussion. Perhaps, he can recall the topic. Now, someone can demand proof from us that Caitanya Mahaprabhu was indeed an avatar.

 

And even if it could be proven that Vyaasa is the diiksha guru of Madhva, then still why does Madhva teach Dvaita, when Vyaasa's own writings like Shriimad Bhaagavatam speak of beda/abeda?

 

SB also talks of advaita.

 

One can come in a paramparaa and differ philosophically from it. Madhva has proven it.

 

You yourself admitted that Madhva's BG was approved by Vyasa. So, why are we not accepting that as the authority?

 

One can claim any paramparaa he wants, but the test of a philosophy's legitimacy still rests on providing shaastric evidence.

 

SP has always argued that parampara is the most important thing. Isn't that the reason why we scorn a Sai Baba or Ramakrishna Paramahamsa? And an important feature of parampara is that the disciple repeats what the guru passed on. How can there be mutation? So, parampara is as critical as shastric evidence as per SP. If parampara is not important, then why do we claim that we belong to Madhva's sampradaya?

[krishnas]

Originally posted by shvu:

Seeing as your answer is summarized in these lines, I will only address them. However, if you feel I skipped something relevant, let me know and I will take it up.

 

 

Pretty much all of it was relevant, otherwise I would not have posted it.

 

Au contraire, the Advaita concept nets everything ! Brahman with attributes exists in the Vyavahaarika level and on the Paramaartika level, nothing can be said or the closest description is Nirguna Brahman.

 

 

Vyavahaarika level exists because of contact with maayaa. Due to this, we see God with attributes and one Brahman as many jiivas, all according to Advaita.

 

But Lord's attributes are transcendental and beyond maayaa.

 

BG says "janma karma cha me divyam...." in which Krishna speaks of His activities and appearances and transcendental, which contradicts your/Advaitist theory. Shriimad Bhaagavatam 2.6.40 states that Lord is "vishuddha.m kevala.m" - pure and perfect, i.e. without any material tinge. This does not support the theory that Brahman is without attributes and only has/seems to have attributes do to contact with maayaa/illusory perception due to maayaa.

 

BG 18.54 states that one renders devotional service to the Lord even after attaining Brahman. This makes no sense if Brahman has no form or attributes.

 

Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana quotes Katha Upanishad 4.11 and 4.14 in Govinda-bhaashya 3.2.31 to refute the idea that the Lord is different from His form and attributes.

 

manasaivedamaaptavya.m neha naanaasti ki.mchana |

mR^ityoH sa mR^ityu.m gachchhati ya iha naaneva pashyati || katha 2.1.11 ||

 

Even through the purified mind this knowledge is to be obtained, that there is no difference whatsoever here (in the attributes of the Lord). From death to death he goes, who beholds this here with difference. (kaThopaniShad 2.1.11) * note some numbering schemes give this as 4.11 *

 

Shrii Madhva also comments on this Upanishad in the same way. He writes, "In 'neha nanasti kinchaneti' kinchan is to be empasized to affirm that there exists absolutely no difference in His various limbs of the body, His attributes and His actions. Nor is there differentiation or denial mutually."

 

There are other pramaanas, like Bhaagavatam 3.24.31, which speak of the Lord as having no form, yet many forms, which can only logically be interpreted to mean that Lord has no material form, yet has transcendental form.

 

Thus, Advaita doesn't violate any shaastric pramaanas and has no problems with concepts of Brahman with form, while other schools

 

 

Incorrect, for the reasons already given above and elsewhere.

 

have a tough time explaining away Shruti like,

 

yachchakshushhaa na pashyati yena chakshuu.Nshhi pashyati |

tadeva brahma tvaM viddhi nedaM yadidamupaasate || Kena 1.7 ||

 

ashabdamasparshamaruupamavyayaM

tathaa arasaM nityamagandhavachcha yat |

 

anaadyanantaM mahataH paraM dhruvaM

nichaayya tanmRityumukhaat pramuchyate || Katha 3.15 ||

 

and so on.

 

I'm not clear on why these would be difficult to explain from a Vaishnava perspective. Perhaps you could clarify, preferably by giving an explanation that fits within the overall Vedic context?

 

 

 

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

www.achintya.org

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

SB also talks of advaita.

But it also speaks of dvaita, which is why Gaudiya vaishnava's accept bheda-abheda, oneness and difference. The Bhagavatam does not support pure nondualism, nor the concept that avataras are brahman covered by Sattva guna (i.e. illusion).

 

[karthik_v]

Sri Aurobindo's commentary:

 

Isopanishad mantra 15:

 

The face of Truth is covered with a brilliant golden lid; that do thou remove, O Fosterer, for the law of the Truth, for sight.

 

Footnote:

In the inner sense of the Veda Surya, the Sun-God, represents the divine Illumination of the Kavi which exceeds mind and forms the pure self-luminous Truth of things. His principal power is self-revelatory knowledge, termed in the Veda Sight. His realm is described as the Truth, the Law, the Vast. He is the Fosterer or Increaser, for he enlarges and opens man's dark and limited being into a luminous and infinite consciousness. He is the sole Seer, Seer of Oneness and Knower of the Self, and leads him to the highest Sight. He is Yama, Controller or Ordainer, for he governs man's action and manifested being by the direct Law of the Truth, satyadharma, and therefore by the right principle of our nature, yath atathyatah, a luminous power proceeding from the Father of all existence, he reveals in himself the divine Purusha of whom all beings

are the manifestations. His rays are the thoughts that proceed luminously from the Truth, the Vast, but become deflected and distorted, broken up and disordered in the reflecting and dividing principle, Mind. They form there the golden lid which covers the face of the Truth. The Seer prays to Surya to cast them into right order and relation and then draw them together into the unity of revealed truth. The result of this inner process is the perception of the oneness of all beings in the divine Soul of the Universe.

 

Isopanishad mantra 16:

 

O Fosterer, O sole Seer, O Ordainer, O illumining Sun, O power of the Father of creatures, marshal thy rays, draw together thy light; the Lustre which is thy most blessed form of all, that in Thee I behold. The Purusha there and there, He am I.

 

Please note that Sri Aurobindo treats the verse as figurative speech and argues that mukham actually stands for the face of the truth. With some knowledge of ancient Tamil works, I am not surprised that the figurative speech is deployed. One can certainly argue that our ancient Sanskrit works too deployed figurative speech.

[krishnas]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

Krishnas:

 

Let us stick to the original topic and keep ISKCON and GV out. I brought that point in response to your observation. That is all.

 

 

 

I will also amend my previous statement, that I meant to say "Srila Prabhupada" and not "ISKCON" when I was referring to the types of criticism against different kinds of impersonalists.

 

There is NOTHING in this mantra that says that all philosophies are correct. This mantra only says that God, Vishnu, has many names, among which are some names of various demigods. By absolutely no stretch of the imagination can this mantra be used to sanction belief in two, mutually contradictory schools of philosophy.

 

Nowhere did I indicate that ALL philosophies are correct. I just pointed out that 2 apparently conflicting philosophies can still be correct.

 

 

 

Karthik, I will say this again, one more time. There is absolutely NOTHING in RV 1.164.46 to suggest anything at all about reconciling different schools of philosophy. The mantra merely states that God has many different names and is thus addressed differently by different sages.

 

Sri Aurobindo and Swami Dayananda Saraswati both argue that there is no demi-God in the vedas.

 

 

 

What do Sri Aurobindo et. al. have to say about Aitareya Braahmana:

 

agnirvai devaanamavamo viShNuH paramaH |

 

Agni is the lowest of all deities and Vishnu is the highest. (aitareya braahmaNa 1.1.1)

 

or Naaraayana Upanishad which states:

 

atha puruSho ha vai naaraayaNo 'kaamayata prajaa sR^ijeyeti |

naaraayaNaat praaNo jaayate manaH sarvendriyaaNi cha kha.m vaayur jyotir aapaH pR^ithivii vishvasya dhaariNii |

naaraayaNaad brahmaa jaayate |

naaraayaNaad rudro jaayate |

naaraayaNaad indro jaayate |

naaraayaNat prajaapatiH prajaayate |

naaraayaNaad dvadashaadityaa rudraa vasavaH sarvaaNi chandaa.msi naaraayaNaad eva samutpadyante naaraayaNat pravartante naaraayaNe praliiyante |

etad R^ig-vedo-shiro 'dhiite || naaraayaNopaniShad 1 ||

 

Naaraayana is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He desired, "I shall create children." From Naaraayana the life breath, mind, all the senses, either, air, fire, water, and earth, which maintains the universe, were born. From Naaraayana Brahmaa was born. From Naaraayana Shiva was born. From Naaraayana Indra was born. From Naaraayana Prajaapati was born. From Naaraayana the twelve Adityas, the Rudras, the Vasus, and all the Vedic hymns were born. From Naaraayana they were manifested. Into Naaraayana they again enter. This is the crown of the R^ig Veda (naaraayaNopaniShad 1).

 

How convenient for you that you do not mention the very next verse! [bG 5:29]

 

Actually, we discussed them in in detail before. That is why I left it out. In the verses I quoted, Krishna says that attaining Brahman realization is the highest form of perfection. He says the same thing in many other places in BG. He also says that realizing His personal form is the highest perfections. So, Krishna doesn't rank the two. It only follows that Krishna allows both forms of realization and considers them as the highest goals by themselves.

 

 

 

First of all, Karthik, this is not even Advaita that you are speaking. You are just reinterpreting Advaita to suit you.

 

Secondly, Krishna DOES distinguish between impersonal and personal realization. He states in BG 12.1-5 that worship in the impersonal way is troublesome for the saadhaka. In Padma Puraana already quoted by me in response to Ram, Lord Shiva also states that maayaavaada will mislead people and delude the three worlds.

 

Thirdly, you are again ignoring evidence, by referring to discussions with which I am not familiar. The verses you use to describe Brahman realization as the highest don't make sense without the next verse, which I will again post, since you (deliberately?) deleted it:

 

bhoktaara.m yaj~natapasaa.m sarvalokamaheshvaram |

suhR^ida.m sarvabhuutaanaa.m j~naatvaa maa.m shaantim R^ichchhati || giitaa 5.29 ||

 

A person in full consciousness of Me, knowing Me to be the ultimate beneficiary of all sacrifices and austerities, the Supreme Lord of all planets and demigods, and the benefactor and well-wisher of all living entities, attains peace from the pangs of material miseries. (bhagavad-giitaa 5.29)

 

What is the meaning of this, when it comes after Krishna's description of attaining Brahman as the highest? Simple. Krishna *is* that Brahman. You ignored that verse to cast an impersonalist slant on 5.24-28, when in fact those verses are NOT impersonal, because of the proximity of 5.29 to them.

 

Shankara tries to get around it by word-jugglery, but that simply will not work!

 

What a way to address Adi Sankara!!! No wonder you don't find it offensive when Srila Prabhupad talks of Adi Sankara's "audacity".

 

 

 

Karthik, can you just once, refer to the works of Shankara which I am quoting?

 

Shankara's first interpretation of 14.27 *is* word-jugglery, LITERALLY speaking. This is not intended to be an insult. It is a fact. I have already explained this, in my posting to Ram. Are you even reading anything I write? Shankara clearly switches "Krishna" and "Brahman" to make his point, even though Krishna is the "aham" in that verse.

 

This is mentioned by Maadhva and other commentators as well.

 

There is absolutely NOTHING in the above statement [RV 1:164:45] that holds that the Vedic statements are not literal. There is NOTHING in the above statement that supports Advaita specifically.

 

I never claimed that this verse supports advaita. I just claimed that this ascribes mystical meaning to the vedas.

 

 

 

What you clearly claimed, Karthik, was:

 

when the Rk veda itself says that the vedas carry a mystical meaning and not literal?

 

 

to which I asked, where is the basis of the idea that Vedas do not give litreal meaning, and then you incorrectly offered RV 1.164.45, which says nothing of the sort.

 

I can only quote the original vedic verse and its translation. If you still refuse to see that, can I force you prabhuji?

 

 

 

You could also try reading those verses, maybe at least once in a while. RV 1.64.46 "Ekam sad vipra: bahuddha vadati" as saying that two contradictory philosophies can be both be found in Vedas and acceptable? Come on...

 

That interpretation is wrong.

 

Indirect meanings should not be resorted to when direct meanings are acceptable in context. The straightforward meaning of purusha is not impersonal. Monier-Williams, a fairly impartial source, gives the following meanings of "purusha"

 

Thanks for telling me that the interpretation of the great Dayanda Saraswati is "wrong".

 

 

 

It is wrong. Why do you take Dayananda Sarasvati's correctness as a given, and then question Srila Prabhupada's correctness?

 

Just because you believe in Dayananda Sarasvati does not make him correct. Note that all of my arguments have been based on various shaastric pramaanas to date, while many of your arguments rest on believing that Aurobindo/Sarasvati/Shankara are already correct in thier understandings.

 

If you start with the premise that a philosopher is correct, then there is no meaning to questioning his philosophy's legitimacy based on Vedas, and there is no point in having this discussion.

 

Never mind that you haven't offered one argument against the logic put forth - a logic that holds perfectly valid as per grammar.

 

 

 

I quoted from a standard Sanskrit-English dictionary on the standard meanings of Purusha. I also quoted from Bhagavad-giitaa which identifies Krishna as Purusha.

 

Karthik, please find one Sanskrit-English dictionary that gives the definition of Purusha that your Aurobindo is giving.

 

My surprise vanishes the moment I see you writing that Monier-Williams, the fanatical anti-Hindu Christian missionary translator, was impartial

 

 

 

With regards to the Advaita/Vaishnava debate, he is relatively impartial. Who can I quote that you will accept? Definitions given by Aurobindo/Shankara/Sarasvati are unacceptable, since it is their school whose ideas are in question in the first place. You seem to be having a hard time with this. And you won't accept Srila Prabhupada's teachings as a given. So who is neutral here?

 

I know that immense Person, having the color of the sun and beyond darkness.

 

I already wrote in a different thread about Svetasvatara upanishad clearly talking about the personal form of the Supreme. No doubts there. Likewise, there are upanishads [only the principal please...not the umpteen Moghul editions] that talk of the impersonal Brahman as the Supreme.

 

 

 

I disagree. Please quote one. In fact, I want *you* do it. Since it is your claim, you be the responsible one and back it up with evidence. Don't just claim that such evidence exists. Let's see it.

 

This only adds credence to my statement that both forms are highest and they cannot be ranked.

 

 

 

Common sense holds that when you speak of "highest," you can refer to only one thing.

 

Advaitists quote Adi Sankara and argue that Isopanishad is all about impersonal Brahman.

 

 

 

An impersonal Brahman who has a face, walks around, etc etc.

 

Very curious to ask you - in your quote there is a mention of the Supreme person with the "colour of sun". We all know that Krishna is of the colour of dark clouds and that Shiva has a golden complexion. Does this refer to Shiva as the Supreme Lord?

 

 

 

Krishna has many forms, colors, and qualities. Now let me ask you, Karthik, how Brahman can be without qualities and yet described as being of the color of the Sun?

 

It is also stated in the Atharva Veda that the Puraanas have the same divine origin as the Vedas

 

I am not questioning their divine origin. But with so much interpolation, nobody is going to argue that they are in the same form as they were given originally. So, still puranas are out.

 

 

 

Even many shrutis have differences in word order from one shakha to another. Yet you accept shrutis as evidence.

 

Interpolation is just an argument invented by people who want to brush aside inconvenient evidence. For any given pramaana for which you cry "interpolation," you are unable to prove that interpolation has occurred, or even show a conflict with shruti.

 

Bhagavad-giitaa is clearly personalist from beginning to end, and you cannot accept it.

 

That is not true. For every personalist verse, there is an impersonalist verse in BG.

 

 

 

And it is interesting to note that you have yet to provide even one impersonalist verse from BG.

 

You say that Srila Prabhupada is a guru, but you reject those teachings of his which you cannot reconcile with your own personal views. This is not a very honest attitude.

 

Because I never believe that SP is the only guru. I hold that a venerable saint like Thirugnanasambandhar is a guru too. And I also believe that no guru is perfect. That is why I have never surrendered unto any guru.

 

 

 

Your concept of guru has no foundation in orthodox Advaita.

 

You also object to the ranking of deities in the Vedas. But that ranking is also substantiated very EXPLICITLY by shruti:

 

agnirvai devaanamavamo viShNuH paramaH |

 

Agni is the lowest of all deities and Vishnu is the highest. (aitareya braahmaNa 1.1.1)

 

A good point. I need to look into the commentary of the same written by Swami Dayanada Saraswati. I don't see Sri Aurobindo having commented on any Brahmanas. I don't have SDS with me, so this point will have to wait. BTW, whose commentary are you quoting?

 

 

 

I have no doubt that Aurobindo will have a commentary on this verse. I am asking you to put Aurobindo aside for a moment and look at the mantra itself. How can it mean anything other than what it says? Don't just blindly quote Aurobindo. Don't assume that because Aurobindo gives an explanation, that it therefore is correct.

 

You quoted ISKCON devotees, who are all from the 20th century. What about Gaudiiya Vaishnavas from earlier ages?

 

Perhaps none. But my criticism is only of GV of this century, whereas you launched a blanket attack on advaitins of all ages.

 

 

 

But you just said I named only modern-day Advaitins and asked for proof that aachaaryas from previous ages also made those remarks!

 

In your haste to accuse me of wrong doing, you just contradict yourself.

 

Shankara wrote refutations of other Vedic systems of philosophy as well as Buddhism.

 

This is another myth. Yes, there were 72 heterodox sects when Adi Sankara wrote, but his entire criticism of Buddhism is limited to only 18 verses of his bhasya, if I understand correctly.

 

 

 

Again quoting from the ADVAITA Home Page:

 

"In addition to writing his own commentaries, Sankara sought out leaders of other schools, in order to engage them in debate. As per the accepted philosophical tradition in India, such debates helped to establish a new philosopher, and also to win disciples and converts from other schools. It was also traditional for the loser in the debate to become a disciple of the winner. Thus Sankara debated with Buddhist philosophers, with followers of sAm.khya and with pUrva mImAm.sakas, the followers of vedic ritualism, and proved more than capable in defeating all his opponents in debate. Sankara then sought out kumArila bhaTTa, the foremost proponent of the pUrva mImAm.sA in his age, but bhaTTa was on his deathbed and directed Sankara to viSvarUpa, his disciple. viSvarUpa is sometimes identified with maNDana miSra."

 

I think this sufficiently defeats the idea of a politically-correct, all-accepting Shankaraachaarya.

 

Again, Karthik, I note the double standard in your thinking. On one hand, you don't want to hold Advaita responsible for the scathing, anti-Vaishnava remarks of modern-day Advaitins. But on the other hand, you hold Gaudiiya Vaishnavism responsible for some bad behavior on the part of neophyte, modern-day, ISKCON devotees.

 

Please look at the number of times you have spoken of my "double standards", "my dishonesty" and all such personal attacks. Do you think that a discussion will be more civil without personal attacks?

 

 

 

Criticizing ISKCON for its verbal attacks against maayaavaadiis, while turning a blind eye to attacks by maayaavaadis against Vaishnavas, is a double standard. Pointing it out is not a personal attack.

 

Using Rig Veda 1.164.45-46 to say that mutually contradictory philosophies are acceptable and that Vedas are not literal, is dishonesty, because they say no such thing. Pointing that out is not a personal attack.

 

You need to be more attentive to the evidence you quote, as well as the subject of the thread which you started.

 

Should we stoop to the level when SP and some of his disciples went to the levels of raising the pitch and indulged in personal taunts to chase away a female reporter who raised very uncomfortable questions for SP?

 

 

 

It looks to me like you have stooped to the level of making up accusations without evidence.

 

The attacks of Vivekananda and Chinmayananda are bad - no doubt, but they are nowhere near the attacks [often vile and cheap] lauched by GV and ISKCON gurus against advaita and advaita acaryas.

 

 

 

The attacks of Vivekananda and Chinmayananda are for worse than anything I have read in Srila Prabhupada's books. Sai Baba followers call the Deity of Krishna a "mud statue." Hindu Students Council members make fun of ISKCON devotees for considering the cow sacred, and then the same HSC members go and eat hamburgers.

 

Even more difficult to forgive is that these attacks are made on the basis of sheer ignorance of scriptural evidence.

 

Most importantly, the writings of advaitins doesn't depend on blasting another philosophy for their survival.

 

 

 

So why does Shankaraachaarya refute Buddhism? Why does he try to refute other schools of Vedic philosophy?

 

Karthik, you really have no idea what you are talking about.

 

You cannot come across one commentary of SP without scathing attacks on "mayavada".

 

 

 

Then how come you are unable to quote even one?

 

Karthik, I am one person with a full time job and a family to support. Yet I have spent most of my evening carrying on a discussion with three different individuals on Advaita vs. Vaishnavism, one of whom needs things repeated over and over again just to make a point.

 

All of the time I spent responding to you has gone to waste.

 

-You say you want to see if Advaita can be defended by shrutis. But in reality, you take the correctness of Advaitist commentaries (Shankara, Aurobindo, et. al.) on shrutis as a given, and don't bother to question them even when they give meanings that are obviously illogical (example, the "impersonal" definition of purusha - an obvious contradiction).

 

-You repeatedly misuse Vedic evidence to promote sentimental conclusions that are entirely of your own making. An example being your misuse of RV 1.164.45-46 to suggest that Vedas are not literal, or that contradictions are acceptable within Vedas.

 

-You really do not even understand Advaita. I have at numerous times shown that Shankara did NOT accept contradictory schools of thought, that he did assail other philosophies besides his own, that he does not accept the personalist concept of God in the transcendental platform. It is clear from your writings that you have fundamentally misunderstood Advaita on a number of levels. I suggest, Karthik, that you put aside your preconceived, politically-correct notions of what Advaita is, and spend time actually reading genuine Advaitist work. I recommend starting with Shankara's Bhagavad-giitaa bhaashya, like the one translated by A.G. Warrier.

 

-You say leave ISKCON out of it, yet you repeatedly bring it all back to a discussion of "scathing attacks" by one person against another. To make matters worse, you ignore the verbal abuses promoted by members of your side and heap all sorts of unfounded accusations on Srila Prabhupada and ISKCON. Sorry, Karthik, but those are the tactics of someone who knows he has been defeated.

 

-You repeatedly ignore evidence that I bring up to refute your "interpretations," and ignore also arguments refuting your arguments. You assert that there are no demigods, yet refuse to answer evidence that shows that there are. You say impersonalism is equally valid as personalism, yet you refuse to acknowledge verses like BG 14.27, 18.54, 5.39, etc which show the personalist conception to be higher.

 

-You repeatedly assert all kinds of things about Vedas without providing proof. For example, you have yet to show us a single, undisputably "impersonalist" verse or mantra anywhere.

 

I am sure you are a very nice guy in person, Karthik. But frankly you seem very confused to me. You don't seem to know what it is you want out of this thread - justify Advaita or insult ISKCON. You don't seem to understand Advaita at all, what with your claims that personalism and impersonalism are side-by-side concepts. You don't seem capable of understanding even the most elementary meanings of the evidence you quote - many of your definitions you just pull out of a hat and then use someone's name to justify it.

 

I don't really see any evidence that you are interested in evaluating Advaita's legitimacy according to shaastric evidence. It seems more like you have already decided you will accept (your version of) Advaita, and then bend all the evidence to fit it. I on the other hand, have not hesitated to go to sources other than Srila Prabhupada to support his conclusions.

 

As I said earlier Karthik, I just don't have time to keep repeating myself over and over. From now on, I will have to restrict my responses to those who at least have a better grasp of Advaita and can be attentive to the evidence. I'm sorry, but that does not include you.

 

warm regards,

 

- K

 

 

 

[krishnas]

Originally posted by jndas:

But it also speaks of dvaita, which is why Gaudiya vaishnava's accept bheda-abheda, oneness and difference. The Bhagavatam does not support pure nondualism, nor the concept that avataras are brahman covered by Sattva guna (i.e. illusion).

Because there is some abeda in Bhaagavatam, it does not follow that Advaita is substantiated by Bhaagavatam, since Advaita philosophy includes many other concepts like sa-guna Brahman, jiiva-paramaatmaa abeda, etc which are not based on shaastra.

 

These days, followers of the various watered-down Advaita sects try to argue that Advaita is a correct understanding of Vedas, because the Vedas are an inherently inconsistent hodge podge of mutually contradictory ideas. Thus, when you quote a "personalist" verse to the Advaitin, he thinks that by quoting an "impersonal" verse, his job is done. What he doesn't realize is, he must explain ALL of the evidence according to "impersonalist" doctrine, or he hasn't substantiated Advaita at all.

 

It's interesting to note that Christian Indologists are big fans of the "Inconsistent Vedas" theory. No Vedaanta school admits of such flaws in the Vedas. It would be pretty self-defeating if they did.

 

 

 

 

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

www.achintya.org

[krishna_s]

Originally posted by krishnas:

These days, followers of the various watered-down Advaita sects try to argue that Advaita is a correct understanding of Vedas, because the Vedas are an inherently inconsistent hodge podge of mutually contradictory ideas.

 

What I meant to say was, "because the Vedas are ALLEGEDLY an inherently inconsistent...."

 

Its a feature of neo-Advaitist Hindu sects, the idea that Vedas are a confusing and inconsistent hodge podge, and that the only way to resolve it all is to accept Advaita.

 

 

 

[sumeet]

Hare krishna

Please accept my humble obesiances unto your lotus feet

 

Krishna prabhu my dandavat pranams to you. i hope you haven't forgotten me. For some personal reasons i have been unable to post at achintya website. But now by grace of Sri Krsna i am back. Please give me your blessings respected sir. I am very very impressed by your postings here. Sir all glory to Sri Guru and Gauranga for your success. May they and you bless me in the same way.

 

Dear Karthik

Its nice to see a Vaishnava versus advaitin discussion. I hope we will be able to to satisfactorily answer your queries regarding whether vaishnavas have proven advaita to be non-vedic or not by grace of our Vaishnava acaryas and Sri Krsna.

 

Lets begin with Sri Aurbindos commentary you presented here:

 

" In the inner sense of the Veda Surya, the Sun-God, represents the divine Illumination of the Kavi which exceeds mind and forms the pure self-luminous Truth of things. "

 

The inner sense of Vedas is given by Holy Gita since it is the essence of Vedic knowledge. But in that shastra it is said -

 

Gita 10:11

"Out of compassion for them, I, dwelling in their hearts, destroy with the shining lamp of knowledge the darkness born of ignorance."

This I is not surya devata but I here stands for Lord Krishna.

Also in the same Shastra it is said -

Gita 10:21

" of lights I am the radiant sun "

 

But here Lord Krishna doesn't means that he is Sun God becoz Sri Krsna is describing his manifested opulences. And also according to

Gita 10:2

" Neither the hosts of demigods nor the great sages know My origin, for, in every respect, I am the source of the demigods and the sages. "

Here also Sri Krsna's difference from Sun God is stated. Also from where does the Sun gets its illumination -

Gita 15:12

" The splendor of the sun, which dissipates the darkness of this whole world, comes from Me. "

Again here "me" means Sri Krsna and not Surya-devata.

Also from the antaryami brahamana in Briharyanka Upanisad 111.7.9

"He who dwells in the Sun and within the sun, whom the sun does not know, whose body the sun is and who pulls(rules) the sun from within......"

He is Sri Krsna.

 

" His principal power is self-revelatory knowledge, termed in the Veda Sight. "

Again the Self revealed in Vedas is Sri Krsna

Gita 15:15

" By all the Vedas I am to be known; indeed I am the compiler of Vedanta, and I am the knower of the Vedas. "

And Sri krsna is certainly different from Sun God.

 

" His realm is described as the Truth, the Law, the Vast. "

Who will say the realm of Sun-God is Truth. Sun is destroyed at the end of creation. But if we understand this realm to be of Sri Krsna then one can understand it as truth and vast.

 

" He is the Fosterer or Increaser, for he enlarges and opens man's dark and limited being into a luminous and infinite consciousness. "

Again this is the role of Sri krsna and not Sun-God.

 

" He is the sole Seer, Seer of Oneness and Knower of the Self, and leads him to the highest Sight. He is Yama, Controller or Ordainer, for he governs man's action and manifested being by the direct Law of the Truth, satyadharma, and therefore by the right principle of our nature, yath atathyatah, "

 

Friend this is not function of Sun God it is function os Sri Krsna.

 

Gita 13:23

" Yet in this body there is another, a transcendental enjoyer who is the Lord, the supreme proprietor, who exists as the overseer and permitter, and who is known as the Supersoul. "

 

Gita 18:61

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

 

" a luminous power proceeding from the Father of all existence, he reveals in himself the divine Purusha of whom all beings

are the manifestations. "

 

The person seen within the Sun is not anyone else but Sriman Narayana

Vedanta sutra 1.1.20

" The being inside the sun and the eye is paratman and not any jiva,because the attributes of the Supreme Brahman are taught therein. "

 

" The Seer prays to Surya to cast them into right order and relation and then draw them together into the unity of revealed truth. The result of this inner process is the perception of the oneness of all beings in the divine Soul of the Universe. "

 

Only those who don't understand the purport of Vedas pray to Surya. But those who know it well pray to lotus feet of Sri Krsna present within and outside the Solar orb. To such Lord we all shall offer our respectful obesiances.

 

Srila Saraswati Prabhupada writes in commentary to Brahma Samhita verse 1

" His eternal beautiful heavenly blue-tinged body glowing with the intensity of ever-existing knowledge has a nude in both His hands. " My friend Sri Krsnas' body is shining with presence of ever existant knowledge and hence the face of Truth[sri Krsna] is hidden by glowing rays of His own transcendental person. So the devotee prays to Him to remove this powerfull glow of ever existing knowledge so that the devotee can see the face of truth. Which means face of Lord himself.

Dear friend in Gita 8:9

" sarvasya dhataram acintya-rupam aditya-varnam tamasah parastat"

or

"sarvasya--of everything; dhataram--the maintainer; acintya--inconceivable; rupam--form aditya-varnam--illuminated like the sun; tamasah--of the darkness; parastat--transcendental."

 

Also in mundaka upanisad 3.1.7

" brhac ca tad divyam acintya-rupam "

" He is immense, transcendental and possesses an inconcievable form "

The form of Lord is inconcievable and ever shining with the presence of knoweledge.

 

So the purport given by Srila Prabhupada is perfect. The devotee wants to see the face of truth but who is this truth ????

Gita 7.7

" mattah parataram nanyat kincid asti dhananjaya "

 

" O conqueror of wealth [Arjuna], there is no Truth superior to Me. "

 

Sri Krsnas' form is effulgent and He is the Supreme truth.

 

 

[shvu]

 

So in that case, why does Madhva teach Dvaita when his diiksha guru taught Advaita? If Madhva got diiksha from Vyaasa, then where is the evidence of it? Certainly not in the biography of his which I previously quoted in another thread.

 

For starters, nowhere in his works does Maadhva acknowledge anyone other than Vishnu himself as his Guru. According to his Sampradaaya, he is Vaayu himself and required no Guru. So for all practical purposes his lineage starts from himself.

 

Where it not for the biography, no one would have ever known of Achyutaprakashacharya, his initial Advaita Guru. Maadhva learnt nothing from him and according to the same biography, Achyutaprakashacharya later on took Diiksha in the Maadhva Samrpadaaya thus converting to Dvaita.

 

And even if it could be proven that Vyaasa is the diiksha guru of Madhva, then still why does Madhva teach Dvaita, when Vyaasa's own writings like Shriimad Bhaagavatam speak of beda/abeda?

Vyaasa has authored a more important work for the Vedaanta schools, the Brahma -Suutras. Maddhva as you know, has written a Bhaashya on the Suutras to show there is nothing other than Bheda in the Suutras. He has also written a Taatparya on the Bhaagavatam and one can guess what the nature of the Taatparya is. In summary, according to Maadhva, there is nothing other Bheda in the Scriptures. Hence there is no question of Maadhva digressing from Vyaasa.

 

Returning to the actual topic, it is obvious Maadhva did not claim lineage from Vyaasa and then give a new philosophy, unlike the Gaudiyas.

 

Cheers

 

 

[karthik_v]

Krishnas prabuji,

 

I asked, where is the basis of the idea that Vedas do not give litreal meaning, and then you incorrectly offered RV 1.164.45, which says nothing of the sort.

 

I gave you the verse of 1:164:45 and the commentaries of Sayanacarya and Sri Aurobindo to support it. Yet you have just stated that it is incorrect without bothering to offer 1 commentary in support of your claim

 

You could also try reading those verses, maybe at least once in a while. RV 1.64.46 "Ekam sad vipra: bahuddha vadati" as saying that two contradictory philosophies can be both be found in Vedas and acceptable? Come on...

 

Again, both Sayanacarya and Sri Aurobindo give the same meaning. The verse simply means that the Truth is One but the sages realize it many ways. The commentators I have mentioned say that this truth indeed means differing perceptions of that Supreme. If you claim it is nonsensical, can you please defend with some commentary? Plain denial is never a sound argument - no matter how often you repeat it vociferously.

 

Why do you take Dayananda Sarasvati's correctness as a given, and then question Srila Prabhupada's correctness?

 

I never took Swami Dayananda Sarasvati as a given. I am only questioning SP's assertion that his translation alone is correct.

 

I quoted from a standard Sanskrit-English dictionary on the standard meanings of Purusha. I also quoted from Bhagavad-giitaa which identifies Krishna as Purusha.

 

And I pointed out that Monier-Williams is no authority. What next? Michael Witzel?

 

Who can I quote that you will accept?

 

Try Nighantu for a change.

 

Krishna has many forms, colors, and qualities.

 

In which shruti is this mentioned? In which shruti do you find that Krishna has golden complexion?

 

Even many shrutis have differences in word order from one shakha to another. Yet you accept shrutis as evidence.

 

Even the worst critics of Hinduism do agree that thr veda samhitas are like tape recordings preserved over millennia. If you think that they have recensions please eloborate as to what the differences are.

 

Interpolation is just an argument invented by people who want to brush aside inconvenient evidence. For any given pramaana for which you cry "interpolation," you are unable to prove that interpolation has occurred, or even show a conflict with shruti.

 

Bhandarkar edition showed that of the 1,00,000 verses in Mahabharata atleast 30,000 are interpolation. Take Ramayana - the verses vary anywhere between 24,000 to 48,000. There is not even a sign of the existence of Srimad Bhagavatam before Adi Sankara. There is not even a sign that Bhagavad Gita existed even till 6th century CE, as even the 4000 hymns of the Azhwars have no idea about BG. Sure, you can believe that we are unable to prove interpolations

 

And it is interesting to note that you have yet to provide even one impersonalist verse from BG.

 

That after I quoted 5 verses - 5:24 to 5:28

 

I have no doubt that Aurobindo will have a commentary on this verse.[AB]

 

You seem to be too sure Sri Aurobindo had no utility for karma kanda. He didn't comment on any Brahmanas. I just finished checking his complete works.

 

But you just said I named only modern-day Advaitins and asked for proof that aachaaryas from previous ages also made those remarks!

 

Because you claimed that advaitins, over ages, have been abusing Vaishnavism.

 

Again quoting from the ADVAITA Home Page

 

How about quoting from the writings of Adi Sankara?

 

It looks to me like you have stooped to the level of making up accusations without evidence.

 

Why don't you directly ask why I made that accusation about Srila Prabhupad? Do you think that I may indeed have strong references that would vindicate what I wrote?

 

So why does Shankaraachaarya refute Buddhism? Why does he try to refute other schools of Vedic philosophy?

 

Karthik, you really have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Can you please show me in which work, in how many verses Adi Sankara refutes Buddhism and other philosophies? I already told you that he refutes Buddhism using 18 verses in Vedanta sutras.

 

You say you want to see if Advaita can be defended by shrutis. But in reality, you take the correctness of Advaitist commentaries (Shankara, Aurobindo, et. al.) on shrutis as a given, and don't bother to question them even when they give meanings that are obviously illogical (example, the "impersonal" definition of purusha - an obvious contradiction).

 

I gave the definition of Sri Aurobindo on Purusha. He indeed supports that with references to Nirukta. You will be surprised to know that even some Sri Vaishnava acaryas have considered that definition. Yet you claim that such a definition is illogical, without explaining why.

 

I have at numerous times shown that Shankara did NOT accept contradictory schools of thought..

 

Contradictory, may be in your opinion. They were not contradictory in his opinion. What do think is "Shanmatha"?

 

I see that you have been silent on Svetasvatara upanishad after I pointed out that it addresses Shiva as the Supreme. Once more, I have chosen not to react to any of your personal attacks. This thread is just 2 days old, yet you seem to have become impatient and have stared attacking me personally. It would be better if you can address the points with references. That would make a really sound argument.

[Guest guest]

Krishnas,let us look at the evidence one by one because when we flood the thread, we cannot focus. Until the debate is over,please refrain from using adjectives like word juggler about Sankaracharya. This "culture" of abusing great acharyas may seem natural to you because you call your own poorvacharya (Madhva) a liar and some one who speaks irrelevantly. But that is not the etiquet I learn from great vedic personalities of the past including Caitanya who respected every one including his own opponents.

 

Sankara's translation is consistent with his philosophy and also the context of the verse. In the previous verse the devotee is assured that worshipping the Lord will cause liberation. In this verse (14.27) the nature of the Lord is described as immortal, eternal, absolutely happy and self- situated. The inconsistency that you see are due to your lack of understanding. Please tell me your single foremost argument againt Sankara's commentary on this verse and give me a chance to counter that.

 

If you want to first hear me defeat the gaudiya vaishnava commentary on that, I am ready for that too.

 

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 07-16-2002).]