Caitanya's arguments against mayavada

[shvu]

 

Somesh,

 

I said all four paths, lead to the same result to which you replied,

 

 

What do you say when Krsna says:

 

yoginam api sarvesham, mad gatenantara atmana,

sraddhavan bhajate yo mam, sa me yuktatamo matah.

"Among all the yogis the one with faith who concentrates his mind on Me with the devotion is the Best"

 

Does'nt this clearly indicate that Krsna likes a Bhakta more than anyone else?

 

 

 

 

Elsewhere Krishna says,

 

udaaraaH sarva evaite gyaanii tvaatmaiva me mataM |

 

What do you understand from this?

 

 

Yeah, you're right here that to the general audience liberation or mukti is enough. But Bhakta does'nt even want mukti, though Krsna is ready to give him that.

And a sincere bhakta is surely not a general audience.

 

 

All Bhaktas, sincere or otherwise, are included under general audience.

 

Cheers

[Somesh Kumar]

Dear Shvu,

 

 

udaaraaH sarva evaite gyaanii tvaatmaiva me mataM |What do you understand from this?

 

 

I understand that Krsna is saying that gyaanii is my own self. But, here the gyaan refers to knowledge about Krsna and his pastimes. Krsna does'nt like the dry knowledge. The use of knowledge is only helpful if it helps in devotion otherwise it is srama eva hi kevalam

The verse in Bhagavatam is:

dharma svanusthita pumsam, visvaksena kathasu yah,

notpadayed yadi ratim, srama eva hi kevalam

 

"By exceuting dharma and developing gyaan, if we don't come to the point of listening to Krsna's pastimes and developing attachment to Him, then it's just hard labour and nothing else!!!

 

 

All Bhaktas, sincere or otherwise, are included under general audience.

 

 

Sincere bhaktas are very dear to Krsna as he as said.

 

Tesam gyaani nityayukta, ekabhaktir vishishyate

priyo hi gyani atyarthamaham, sa ca mama priya.

 

Note that this gyani is also not the dry speculator, but the one with prema for Krsna. Please note ekabhaktir vishishyate.

 

 

[Guest guest]

No. On the other hand Sankara clearly says that a mirage does not muddy make a desert. He never, for once, states that the Lord is covered by illusion or that He is a product of illusion. So, He is not a mayavadi.

 

 

 

[theist]

Guest posted:"Srila Bhakti Raksak Sridhara Maharaj in his time was requested by his godbrother Yagjavar Maharaj to help him debate against the renowned head of a shakta pandit society or (adwaitin- mayavad whatever one may label those following the impersonal conception), in the highest cultural district of West Bengal of that time.

They were renowned scholars not only in their own sampradayas but also academicly thruout India.

To cut a long story short they debated for seven days against 200 of them the pro's and cons of all sriptural conclusions. And ultimately culminated in these pandits conceding defeat to Srila Sridhara Maharaj. After he affectionately and satisfactorily answered a massive barage of hundreds of the deepest philosophical points one could only imagine. A hundred questions at a time were asked witout an intervening break to which SSM gave a hundred answers for hours at a time.

The only account of this meeting is living in the memory of Srila B.S.Govinda Maharaj who himself was amazed at such brilliance. But he would be more than happy to elaborate on the meeting if anyone were to enquire from him."

 

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

 

I would hate to see this fade away without a good taped/written accounting being made and preserved.

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

No. On the other hand Sankara clearly says that a mirage does not muddy make a desert. He never, for once, states that the Lord is covered by illusion or that He is a product of illusion. So, He is not a mayavadi.

 

 

You are confused as to what Shankara taught. Without getting into details, I will just quote from the advaita vendanta website FAQ to summarize their position.

 

Point One: The individual atma is the one supreme brahman.

 

 

...the brahma-sUtras and the bhagavad-gItA. advaita asserts that the real, essential identity of the jIva, the individual self, is nothing other than brahman Itself.

 

 

Point Two: The world of multiplicity, which is avidya or ignorance, is caused by Maya.

 

 

The world of multiplicity can be explained as due to mAyA, the power of creation wielded by the Creator, who is therefore also called the mAyin. From the point of view of the individual, the perception of duality/multiplicity is attributed to avidyA (ignorance) due to which the unity of brahman is not known, and multiplicity is seen instead.

 

 

 

Point three: the atma (Brahman) is covered by avidya, the by-product of maya, and must become free from this avidya to realize it's true nature.

 

 

However, the perception of multiplicity in the world, instead of the One brahman, is due to avidyA, i.e. ignorance. When avidyA is removed, the individual knows his own Self (Atman) to be brahman, so that there is no more world and paradoxically, no more individual. Here, the Self alone IS. Removal of avidyA is synonymous with brahman-realization, i.e. moksha.

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Again, from the advaita vedanta FAQ. They seem to have no problem calling advaita as Mayavada, why do you?

 

Why is advaita sometimes referred to as mAyAvAda?

 

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

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

From advaita vedanta FAQ, on the topic of bhakti:

 

"Thus, moksha can only indirectly be called a result of ritual action (karma mArga) or of devotional service (bhakti mArga ). These paths lead along the way, and constitute the "how" but not the "why" of liberation. In fact, moksha is not a result of anything, for it always exists. All that is required is the removal of ignorance. For this reason, the way of advaita vedAnta is also called the path of knowledge (jnAna-mArga)."

[karthik_v]

Hari Bol Somesh Kumar prabhuji,

 

I thought this would provide an Advaitin's perspective of Advaita. These are the words of The Sankaracarya of Sringeri mutt. Later today, I will attempt to answer your question.

 

 

...if it [Advaita] means on the other hand negation of any second principle INDEPENDENT of God, we have the sole right to monopolize that name for our system. It is only in the latter sense that our system goes by the name of advaita.

 

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/articles/Significance_of_the_name_Advaita.htm

 

 

This may be quite informative too: http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/articles/The_Riddle_of_Fate_and_Free.htm

[muralidhar]

Just a little background information.

 

Srila Sridhar Maharaj was born in a Smarta family in the village of Hapaniya, near Nabadwip, and he happened to be a family relation of many of the important Smarta pandits of Nabadwip.

 

I understand that while Vedanta was an issue in the discussions, the main issue was that Srila Sridhar Maharaj and many other men born in brahmin families had accepted Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, who was born in a non brahmin family, as Guru.

 

The Smartas of Nabadwip attempted to kill Srila Saraswati Thakur by stoning him with bricks. This is the reason why Srila Sridhar Maharaj decided to make his place of bhajan and temple in Koladwip, Nabadwip.

The Smarta brahmins did accept the conclusions presented by Srila Sridhar Maharaj and some were initiated.

 

Srila Yajabar Maharaj also would have been able to debate very successfully with the Smartas, but losing a debate like that would have very serious, negative consequences, so he asked Srila Sridhar Maharaj to represent the disciples of Srila Saraswati Thakur.

 

In regard to the points that Srila Sridhar Maharaj presented in that debate, I understand that he simply presented the same points that are always presented by Srila A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, Srila Jiva Goswami, Srila Saraswati Thakura, etc. We know Srila Sridhar Maharaj was a great philosopher, and he would sometimes present some interesting, new perspectives when discussing philosophy. But he always made a great effort to give an accurate and authoratative presentation of the teachings of the previous Vaishnava Acharyas.

 

Murali

 

[Guest guest]

How do you know advaita vedanta website represents advaita perfectly as Sankara taught ? There are so many gaudiya websites which dont represent gaudiya vaishnavism properly and Sankara's is so old.

 

 

[raga]

 

How do you know advaita vedanta website represents advaita perfectly as Sankara taught ? There are so many gaudiya websites which dont represent gaudiya vaishnavism properly and Sankara's is so old.

 

 

I'm just curious Ram, which works of Sankara have you studied in forming your conception of his teachings?

[Guest guest]

There are different realizations that acharyas teach. To learn a system of thought, one has to fall at the feet of the acharya and learn. During Sankara's time, Thotakacharya lived and he was not very intelligent. But he was surrendered and as a result, Sankara gave him so much knowledge that his other wiser devotees themselves admired. In the second verse of Thotakashtakam, Thotakacharya is praying to Sankara to give him the knowledge of all the schools of thought. To understand Sankara, I try to recite Thotakachashtakam. If my understanding should be debated, one has to quote from Sankara's own bhashyam.

[Guest guest]

Can some one present Caitanya's debate with Prakasananda and Sarva Bhauma ?

[raga]

Since your understanding appears to go against the general ideas of the present-day Advaita school, I believe it would be up to you to prove your idea of Shankara's teachings from his bhasya first.

 

Have you read Shankara's Vedanta-bhasya?

 

[raga]

 

Can some one present Caitanya's debate with Prakasananda and Sarva Bhauma ?

 

 

They are rather lengthy. Just refer to the respective chapters of the Caitanya Caritamrita.

 

Aside this, do you take Krishnadas's accounts of Caitanya's life authoritative? It appears to me from your earlier posts that you do suspect them as well as the writings of the Gosvamis. Is this so?

[Guest guest]

prabhu kahe, mAyAvAdI Ami ta saMnyAsI

bhakti tattva nAhi jAni, mAyAvAde bhAsi

 

sArvabhauma saMge mora mana nirmala haila

kRSNa bhakti tattva kathA tAMhAre pUchila

 

temho kahe, Ami nAhi jAni kRSNakathA

sabe rAmAnanda jAne, temho nAhi ethA

 

 

Caitanya admitted himself to be a mayavadi sanyasi and didn't know bhakti tattva being entangled in 'mayavada'. After having the association of Sarvabhauma his heart was purified but Sarvabhauma did not know the complete details of bhakti doctrine, so he advised Caitanya to learn the deep truths from Ramanandaraya.

[raga]

Present the context of the statement, otherwise it is very misleading.

[karthik_v]

Caitanya Caritamrta, Madhya Lila, Chapte 8, Text 124 onwards. BTW, I am not the guest who originally posted it.

[Guest guest]

http://www.indiadivine.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB1&Number=11726&page=16&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

 

[Somesh Kumar]

Hari bol Shvu, Ram and Kartik Prabhujis,

 

You have'nt responded to my comments on your comments..

 

Please do when you get time.

 

 

[karthik_v]

Dear Somesh Prabhuji,

 

I got overwhelmed with so many topics. I haven't forgotten you. In fact, I promised to answer a few other points of Shvu and J N Das as well and hopefully will do so, this week-end.

[stonehearted]

We know where this is; the Guest gave us the citation. What Madhava asked for was the context in which Kaviraja Goswami makes these remarks. Without that context, it's almost a given that one will misunderstand the meaning of the texts given.

 

Try again, Grasshopper.

[karthik_v]

 

Try again, Grasshopper.

 

 

I will try to post the entire context or atleast paraphrase it.

[Guest guest]

Does a Grasshopper shop for gras? What is gras?

Does a Praying Mantis man the prayer? What is prayer?

 

 

[Guest guest]

The only account of this meeting is living in the memory of Srila B.S.Govinda Maharaj who himself was amazed at such brilliance. But he would be more than happy to elaborate on the meeting if anyone were to enquire from him."

 

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

 

I would hate to see this fade away without a good taped/written accounting being made and preserved.

 

 

...take the essence...SP letter to Krsnadasa 1972

 

Dear Theist,

Unfortuneately in the times of such great debates, before the internet that is. Tape recorders were not in the possesion of such austere living sadhus, Srila Sridhar Maharaj lived on a hand full of rice, potatoe and buttermilk. Everything was committed to memory and only those following the practice of the Goswamis, could not only retain, but even elaborate and add new light to this perfect retention. It's inconceivable to me how they did it, as my memory is like a sieve, that is the essence falls through and all I'm left with is a wad of gunk. One step away from Alzeimers. But still I'm a mercy case and hope springs eternal for the lower sector. Somewhere and somehow I recall we are to chant and remember Krishna and to the best of my ability I'm endeavouring to do that. For all the conclusions of sastra are contained in this one instruction of Sri Caitanya Mahprabhu. Even if I forget everything else and remember this one thing hope remains.

I have noticed there are many people pregnant with knowledge but short in tolerance, humility and compassion. And as Srila Sridhar Maharaj would often say only loves conquest is perfect.

Still on the request of his godbrothers whom he loved dearly he would sometimes come out from his intimate sangha to assist in correcting some of the misconceptions of the day.For all I know there may be some record of such meetings, but I have only heard it from the lips of Srila B.S. Govinda Maharaj who recalls it with joy and some detail. Next to that Sripad Sudhir Goswami Mahraj and Sripad Swarupananda did their best to record translate and publish many of those spontaneous conclusions and realizations of His Divine Grace in the glorious books that so many vaisnavas have come to appreciate.

Like I said it lives in the consciousness of Srila Govinda Maharaj, for he opened himself through surrender and service to receive Srila Sridhar Maharajs full blessings. This is the process of parampara how divine grace is disseminated from one to another and if we have some spiritual vision we will detect the concentrated intensity of such enlivened souls. It's truly beyond speculation.

Sorry for the late reply, unlike some my time is restricted through other committments. In the service of guru and Gauranga I bow to your sincere interest and enquiry.

I have a brief taped account of this meeting which was published in one 'Kalyana Kalpataru' periodical but it doesn't go into the full detail of the whole meeting. It's history now but a good reference if someone were to preserve it, still it seems we have another battle to confront now. Maybe the same battle just the players have changed. People like Sripad Tripurari Maharaj, Sripad Narasingha Maharaj and Sripad Sudhir Maharaj may well be better equipped to relate these events.