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

[raga]

Here's a good shot. Rascal's version.

 

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

 

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

[bhaktajoy]

yes they don't read bhagavatam.it is natural commentary on vedanta by the same author.

[raga]

Can somebody do me a favor please? Just post one reference from Shankara where he discusses the subject matter of Sad Guna Brahman.

 

 

do we accept that brahman by definition is eternal ? as sankara refers to god(s) as sadguna brahman, it should be obvious that he considers them eternal. saying sadguna brahman = mayaa is same as saying truth = false.

 

 

As for the argument on its eternity equal to nirguna brahman, we must note that the material world is also understood as qualified brahman of forms (<font color="darkred">mama yonir mahad brahma tasmin garbhaM dadhAmy aham / tAsAM brahma mahad yonir | gItA 14.3/4 |</font color> ), but nevertheless the qualified brahman with forms discussed herein is not eternal in the same sense as the unqualified formless brahman, as the latter maintains its formless nature, while the forms of the former are ever-subjected to change, though the ingredients eternally remain in ever-new combinations. Hence, although the ingredient of the qualified brahman is eternal, its form is temporary. Thus from the Advaitin point of view it would not be incorrect to state that the forms of qualified brahman, including the forms of the gods, are forms of illusion, being temporary forms, but nevertheless being aspects of brahman in composition, consequently as eternal as everything else with forms in this world.

 

Interestingly, in commenting on 14.5, Shankara discusses triguNa as born from the mAyA of bhagavAn.

 

<font color="darkred">tasmAd guNA iva nitya-para-tantrAH kSetrajJaM praty avidyAtmakatvAt kSetrajJaM nibadhnantIva tam AspadIkRtyAtmAnaM pratilabhanta iti nibadhnantIty ucyate | te ca prakRti-saMbhavA bhagavan-mAyA-saMbhavA nibadhnantIva |</font color>

 

[raga]

 

yes they don't read bhagavatam.it is natural commentary on vedanta by the same author.

 

 

Yes, certainly it is all right for us to believe so. However, it is another matter to start debating this. To say the least, this idea is not very universally accepted. Of course interesting parallels in content can be shown between the Vedanta and the Bhagavata.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Maya rupam refers to the fact that though unborn, Krishna appears to take birth. He is factually the unborn, eternal Brahman, but He appears to be born and die like an ordinary person.

 

Swami Shivananda of Rishikesh, a noted advaita saint, states the following in his commentary to Gita 4.9, following in the footsteps of Shankara's own commentary:

 

"The birth of the Lord is an illusion. It is Aprakrita (beyond the pale of Nature). It is divine. It is peculiar to the Lord. Though He appears in human form, His body is Chinmaya (full of consciousness, not inert matter as are human bodies composed of the five elements). The birth of the Lord is an illusion. It is Aprakrita (beyond the pale of Nature). It is divine. It is peculiar to the Lord. Though He appears in human form, His body is Chinmaya (full of consciousness, not inert matter as are human bodies composed of the five elements)."

 

This is the significance of maya rupam in advaita.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Especially note Swami Shivananda's explanation of Lord Krishna's body. It is not composed of skin, hair, bones, etc. It is chinmaya, full of consciousness:

 

His body is Chinmaya (full of consciousness, not inert matter as are human bodies composed of the five elements).

 

 

[Guest guest]

when i said easy route it is not bothering to filter sankara's works from that of others. this easy quote is misquoted as is sankara. any way it is an easy route only as per karthik. it should not bother you anyway because you agreed in an earlier post that these are works of sankara. it is unfortunate to overlook hundreds of personalistic conclusions that the acharya has made. a good debate is to either establish the truth. after all who ever does it, it is one truth. if we are not willing to concede, there is no learning and it is only a clash of egos.

 

unless you agree with me or disagree with me on my post, there is no point in explaining mayaa rupam. vizhalukku iraitha neer pola.

[Guest guest]

raga, i did post from sankara :

 

satyam jnanam anantam nityam is the first line of Govindashtakam by sankara in praise of Govinda which beats all mayavada conclusions. avyakto paro narayana is also from gita bhashya. if you want me to i can go deeper and give more references to establish this conclusively.

[Guest guest]

oh! krishna. there is no evidence that caitanya critcized advaita leave alone criticize sankara. if any thing he glorified sankara. it is unfortunate that srila prabhupada is criticizing sankara so harshly.

 

i wonder if his movement's purpose is to awaken the sleeping smarhtas to re-establish sanatana dharma in the earth.

[Guest guest]

every one may read bhagavatham but it is only sankarites who understand the bhagavatham properly if any one does. the first verse of srimad bhagavatham says tejo vAri mRtam yatA. but madhvAs and gaudiyas conclude, vishvam satyam. it is sankara's jagan mithya which is a proper conclusion.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

oh! krishna. there is no evidence that caitanya critcized advaita leave alone criticize sankara. if any thing he glorified sankara. it is unfortunate that srila prabhupada is criticizing sankara so harshly.

 

 

Prabhupada does not say Shankara is a rascal, he says the sariraka-bhashya is the rascal's version of brahma-sutra bhashya (because it proclaims the jiva to be God).

[raga]

 

there is no evidence that caitanya critcized advaita leave alone criticize sankara.

 

 

Do you accept his biographies, Caitanya Bhagavata and Caitanya Caritamrita, as evidence?

 

 

 

every one may read bhagavatham but it is only sankarites who understand the bhagavatham properly if any one does. the first verse of srimad bhagavatham says tejo vAri mRtam yatA. but madhvAs and gaudiyas conclude, vishvam satyam. it is sankara's jagan mithya which is a proper conclusion.

 

 

Ram, sometimes your arguments are really surprising. Surprising in that they are astonishingly shallow, almost it appears as if you just argue for the sake of arguing. Can you tell me the context of the words tejo 'vari mRdAM yathA vinimayaH? What do they define?

 

 

 

raga, i did post from sankara :

 

satyam jnanam anantam nityam is the first line of Govindashtakam by sankara in praise of Govinda which beats all mayavada conclusions. avyakto paro narayana is also from gita bhashya. if you want me to i can go deeper and give more references to establish this conclusively.

 

 

Yes, it would be wonderful if you can go deeper. You should give us chapter and verse numbers and explain the context of whatever you quote.

 

[Guest guest]

jndas, if you see srila prabhupada's conversation, he clearly mentions that sankara is a rascal. we are so used to rewriting sastras that it is not difficult to reinterpret. but here the statements are very direct attack on sankara. of course, if prabhupada did not have this as a public stand but only a stand with confidential. simply criticizing sankara does not diminish the great work he did. but that will bring him infamy and the flaws of his life and works will come to light by the influence of time. satyam eva jayate.

 

sankara does not say that an atomic soul is god but that the conception of atomic soul is due to ignorance. this is the most direct interpretation of sastras. after talking about the plurality of bodies in the natve vaham verse, krishna refers to the brahman in the singular tense. the only place where he refers to the multiplicity of souls in the 7th chapter, he says that it is different from brahman, that is Himself. sankara establishes that jiva is part of maya on the count that nothing can exist independant of brahman.

[shvu]

 

Raga,

 

BG 4.9 is the place. Am still waiting for Ram to explain this. But I think it is better that I stop waiting.

 

Ram,

 

Govindaashtakam, Soundarya Lahari, Bhaja govindam are poems and poems are written to eulogize; not to establish a doctrine. While poems are correct, it is not proper to use them to understand the doctrine... especially, when other texts have been written specifically for that purpose. Try and use Bhaashyas and Prakarana Granthas [uS, VC, etc] while discussing the doctrine.

 

Let us look at Shankara's interpretation of Suutra 3.2.11. A doubt is raised if Sruti talks about Brahman having a twofold characterestic or if it is only one, which one is it [i.e., Nirguna or Sadguna]? The objection raised by the opponent is that Brahman must have both aspects [which also happens to be Ram's position].

 

Shankara refutes this objection in the next few verses, establishing that Brahman is only Nirguna in nature. His specific argument is, "It is not possible that the very same thing is possessed of form, etc and that it is also without these; for that is self-contradictory". All cases where a form is suggested is for *upaasana only*, for it is impossible to meditate on a Nirguna object. Also, if the other view is accepted [with forms], no logic can be provided to explain Sruti which state Brahman is formless [Katha 1.3.15, etc]. Finally, it is also the Nirguna Brahman alone which is true, by the Neti-Neti process.

 

Thus we have it on record that Shankara himself denies the ultimate reality of Sadguna Brahman, clearly stating that it is for the purpose of Upaasana only and it is the Nirguna Brahman alone that is real. When there is no diversity, what sense do forms make? It is as simple as that. I suggest, Upadesha Saahasri to understand Shankara's position.

 

Cheers

 

[Guest guest]

raga, there is no contemporary work which shows any arguments that caitanya uses to defeat advaita or sankara. the immediate works of gosvamis do not try to defeat sankara or reference to mayavada. this is a clear indication that gaudiya vaishnavism did not originally have offense on sankara or advaita.

 

perhaps in an attempt to establish bhagavath dharma (which will by its own merit lead to advaitam) the immediate followers started acintya bheda abheda tattva. or it is due to ignorance. out of pressure from traditional schools baladev wrote his own commentary. by the time krishnadas wrote his commentary it got filled with anti-advaita arguments. by the time of srila prabhupada, it has even turned in to an attack of sankara.

 

not to worry. all this will change as people accrue merits, and understand that they have to depend on sastras. for the sake of protection of dharma arjuna even killed his own guru. if that is the will of the lord, it will be.

[Guest guest]

shvu, i was not aware of the fact sankara has handled this objection as such. so i can comment only after further learning. so i give you the credit of victory in this first round of debate.

 

but works like bhaja govindam, govindashtakam etc. do establish that sadguna brahman is eternal. how do you say it is still correct ? pl. clarfiy.

[shvu]

 

Sadguna Brahman is symbolic. It is a reference to the Nirguna Brahman and in that sense it is non-different from it. That is what eternal means wrt Sadguna Brahman. Hence, Shankara praising Krishna as the eternal Brahman in the Giita, etc are all in that sense.

 

Shankara had already anticipated such doubts/arguments and has has taken the time to cover them in his Bhaashya.

 

Cheers

 

[Guest guest]

 

Prabhupada: They are seeing... They&#8217;re tested. I don&#8217;t make any compromise. All my speaking is also no compromise. Here is guru, here is Krsna, here is God, here is Vedanta. Real version they neglect, and they stick to the rascal&#8217;s version, Sankara&#8217;s version, Sariraka-bhasya. All over India, they are reading Sariraka-bhasya.

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

yes they don't read bhagavatam.it is natural commentary on vedanta by the same author.

 

 

Dear Bhaktajoy prabhuji, it is incorrect that Advaitins don't read SB. They very much do. In fact, Caitanya Mahaprabhu himself used only an Advaitins commentary on SB - so have I heard. It is an altogether different topic that SB and Vedanta sutras were not written by the same author.

 

 

Can somebody do me a favor please? Just post one reference from Shankara where he discusses the subject matter of Sad Guna Brahman.

 

 

Dear Raga, would you mind if I make lengthy posts from Sankara's Vedanta sutra bhasya which covers this question? The reason being that I am no authority on Advaita and instead of making public my faulty comprehension, I would prefer posting Sankara's very words, so that it enriches the discussion. Of course, that may be lengthy and come in several parts, which I will post, if you are interested. I need to type from the printed work, whatever Sankara has written, so can do so over this week-end.

[Guest guest]

The above post was made by Karthik, but for some reason my handle doesn't appear.

[Guest guest]

Karthik here. Looks like even in Govindastakam, which was not really authored by Sankara, Govinda actually refers to the non-dual Brahman [Refer verses 5, 6]. That is as per Kaanci Sankara mutt: http://www.kamakoti.org/shlokas/kshlok20.htm

 

Anyway, that is my last take on such poems, as I prefer to focus only on the real works of Sankara.

[raga]

 

raga, there is no contemporary work which shows any arguments that caitanya uses to defeat advaita or sankara. the immediate works of gosvamis do not try to defeat sankara or reference to mayavada. this is a clear indication that gaudiya vaishnavism did not originally have offense on sankara or advaita.

 

 

What do you consider a contemporary work? Do you accept Caitanya Caritamrita, compiled on the basis of Svarupa Damodara's and Murari Gupta's diaries and Raghunatha Das Gosvami's narrations? All of them spent extensive periods of time with Sri Caitanya. Vrindavan Das Thakura is also a contemporary of Sri Caitanya's, a close friend of Nityananda. His work also doesn't portray the mayavadi (or Advaitin if you please) sannyasis of Kasi in a very favorable light in their dealings with Sri Caitanya.

 

"A clear indication..." but how come? It appears to me that you are doing your best trying to limit the history and the writings (for example of Shankara) to fit your own convenience and your own line of thoughts instead of taking them as they are.

 

In closing, let me offer a quote from Prabodhananda Sarasvati, the former renown leader of the Advaitins of Kasi who was converted by Sri Caitanya into His emotion-laden path of bhakti, who then composed numerous works of abundant praise to Sri Caitanya, Sri Radha-Krishna and Sri Vrindavan. This prayer is from his Caitanya Candramritam (8):

 

<font face="Georgia" color=darkblue><center>dhig astu brahmAhaM vadana-pariphullAn jaDa-matIn

kriyAsaktAn dhig dhig vikaDa-tapaso dhik ca yaminaH |

kim etAn zocAmo viSaya-rasa-mattAn nara-pazUn

na keSAMcil lezo’py ahaha milito gaura-madhunaH || 8 ||</center>

“Shame on those dull-headed men whose mouths are wide open in declaring ‘brahmAham’! Shame on those who are attached to works of this world! Shame on those engaged in stupid austerities! Also shame on the moralists and the ritualists! Why do we lament for the men who are like animals, intoxicated by the flavors of poison? Alas! They have not tasted even a fragment of the honey of Gaura!”</font>

[raga]

 

Dear Raga, would you mind if I make lengthy posts from Sankara's Vedanta sutra bhasya which covers this question? The reason being that I am no authority on Advaita and instead of making public my faulty comprehension, I would prefer posting Sankara's very words, so that it enriches the discussion. Of course, that may be lengthy and come in several parts, which I will post, if you are interested. I need to type from the printed work, whatever Sankara has written, so can do so over this week-end.

 

 

Go ahead. That's what I've been waiting for all along. Otherwise this discussion will never be conclusive and will only wander from one meaningless preamble to the next. Let's get into the real thing now.

 

[raga]

 

Karthik here. Looks like even in Govindastakam, which was not really authored by Sankara, Govinda actually refers to the non-dual Brahman [Refer verses 5, 6]. That is as per Kaanci Sankara mutt: http://www.kamakoti.org/shlokas/kshlok20.htm

 

 

That doesn't really lend support to an Advaitin interpretation per se, or at least it is not unique to it. Verses 5 and 6 describe Govinda as He...

 

"...who appears in different forms, who is one and nondual... who is unimaginable, whose existence is known to the wise..."

 

"...who is free from duality, grief and delusion, who is wise, who dwells in the intellect, and who is pure-existence."

 

The Gaudiya tradition defines Govinda in very similar adjectives, as in the Brahma Samhita cherished by Sri Caitanya (5.39):

 

<font color=darkblue><center>advaitam acyutam anAdim ananta-rUpam

AdyaM purANa-puruSaM nava-yauvanaM ca |

vedeSu durlabham adurlabham Atma-bhaktau

govindam Adi-puruSaM tam ahaM bhajAmi || 5.39 ||</center>

"I worship Govinda, the Primeval Entity, whose infinite forms are non-dual, infallible and beginningless, who is the original ancient person, yet an ever-fresh youth, and who is difficult to attain through the Vedas but easily attained by inner devotion!"</font>

 

I agree with Shvu's point on the import of hymns in eulogizing / establishing siddhanta. Of course siddhanta may be drawn from hymns as well, but they cannot be taken as conclusive when they contradict the clearly expressed intent of the author in his extensive commentaries. Shvu, I'd like to see the Sanskrit of Shankara's bhasya on 3.2.11 you presented earlier.

[raga]

 

In fact, Caitanya Mahaprabhu himself used only an Advaitins commentary on SB - so have I heard.

 

 

This would be the bhasya of Sridhar Svami. I wonder if other commentaries existed at his time. I have not studied Sridhar's bhasya, but in as much as I've understood (as per Jiva's Tattva Sandarbha), it contains mixed elements of Advaita and non-Advaita. But this is another topic.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

BG 4.9 is the place. Am still waiting for Ram to explain this. But I think it is better that I stop waiting.

 

 

Actually, Shankara's commentary on this verse, cited by Raga, refutes your implied meaning to maya-rupam. Shankara establishes that the form of the Lord is aprakrita. He defines maya-rupam as refering only to the apparent act of birth of the unborn Brahman.

 

Shankara's Brahma-Sutra Bhashya 3.2.05-3.2-11 deal with negating the Upadhis attributed to Brahman. Brahman has been described in the Upanishads as having the mountains as His bones, etc., which are material objects. Such a sad-guna Brahman, where an imagined form is made from mundane universal reality, is only for purposes of meditation. This is discusssed in the fifth canto of Srimad Bhagavatam.