Is advaita a genuine vedic tradition?

[krishna_s]

This is a followup to a discussion thread we had a long time back regarding the scriptural validity of Advaita. I was actively and very enthusiastically participating, but I left my last reply in my Drafts box and sort of forgot all about it. More recently, I was tired of seeing it there, and so I decided to post it, incomplete though it is. Whether or not anyone cares to continue the thread, I don't know, but anyway here is what I had to say last about it...

 

Shvu writes:

 

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

tasmai namo bhagavate vaasudevaaya dhiimahi |

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

vilajjamaanayaa yasya sthaatumiikShaapathe’muyaa |

vimohitaa vikatthante mamaahamiti durdhiyaH || bhaa 2.5.13 ||

(Lord Brahmaa is speaking the verses)

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

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

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

anaadiraatmaa puruSho nirguNaH prakR^iteH paraH |

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

The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the Supreme Soul, and He has no beginning. He is transcendental to the material modes of nature and beyond the existence of this material world. He is perceivable everywhere because He is self-effulgent, and by His self-effulgent luster the entire creation is maintained. (bhaagavata puraaNa 3.26.3)

ekaH sR^ijati bhuutaani bhagavaanaatmamaayayaa |

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

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

Note that these pramaanas describe the Supreme Person (purusha) as being nirguna, devoid of the gunas (i.e. the material qualities sattvo guna, raajo guna, tamo guna). The point here is that one cannot argue that a formless Brahman only is being described as such; the personal Godhead (puruSha, bhagavaan) is being described as devoid of material qualities (nirguNa) and unaffected by them (niShkalaH). The context of SB 6.17.21 leaves no doubt that the material world and the three modes of material nature is the subject of discussion.

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

bhuumiraapo’nalo vaayuH kha.m mano buddhireva cha |

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

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

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

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

 

This will also cover Ram's earlier question.

 

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

 

Please note that I am not trying to interpret Advaita above. I am speaking for the meaning of Bhagavad-giitaa and whether or not it is consistent with Advaita.

 

 

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

 

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

 

Several points here:

 

1) When you have a pramaana saying that the Lord manifests Himself in the world, it is not obvious that He who is doing the manifesting is originally unmanifest (meaning formless). A Deity can be described as being “unmanifest” because of not manifesting Himself before one’s senses. Hence, the conclusion of Advaita being that Brahman is ultimately formless does not obviously follow from such statements as these.

 

2) Even taking “prakR^iti.m svaam adhiShThaaya” to mean subordinating the material nature, there is still no reason to assume that Lord is adventing Himself by the material nature. The Gita Press translation takes it that way, and they still interpret the “aatma-maaya” as being a different, transcendental potency. Madhva takes it to be different from maayaa or avidyaa because it is mentioned as being the Lord’s own, and you can guess how he interprets the rest of the verse. Sriidhar Swaamii, Raamaanuja and Srila Prabhupada take it to mean being situated in His own nature, or using His own nature. There is no reason to interpret it as adventing Himself by the material nature.

 

3) The maayaa (aatma-maayaa) by which the Lord advents Himself in the world is not the same as the maayaa which creates the material world and deludes the jiivas. The Lord distinguishes the former by saying “aatma-maayayaa” or “sva-maayayaa” in numerous places in the Bhaagavatam. Even nonsectarian translations like the Gita Press have picked up on this difference. To the best of my knowledge, only the Advaitist school takes the “aatma-maayayaa” to be the same as the maayaa which deludes the jiivas; no one else does. Thus, even if Advaitins acknowledge that the Lord is unaffected by the material nature, and that the material nature is His, it is still incorrect to hold that the Lord’s form is a result of that material nature.

 

4) There is no reason to assume that the Lord advents Himself due to the material nature, when multiple pramaanas (quoted by me in previous posting) show that these are subordinate to Him. Yes, the Lord is not affected by the material nature, but then why assume that He nevertheless advents Himself with it? Especially when He describes “sva-maayayaa” or “aatma-maayayaa” as the means by which He does this (in contrast to that which deludes the jiivas, which I have never seen described like this), one must assume this is a different maayaa.

 

5) Following from #4, Lord will not advent Himself using the delusive maayaa potency because that maayaa is described as being ashamed to come before the Lord’s presence:

 

vilajjamaanayaa yasya sthaatumiikShaapathe.muyaa |

vimohitaa vikatthante mamaahamiti durdhiyaH || bhaa 2.5.14 ||

vilajjamaanayaa - by one who is ashamed; yasya - whose; sthaatum - to stay; iikShaa-pathe - in front; amuyaa - by the bewildering energy; vimohitaaH - those who are bewildered; vikatthante - talk nonsense; mama- it is mine; aham - I am everything; iti - thus vituperating; durdhiyaH - thus ill conceived.

 

The illusory energy of the Lord cannot take precedence, being ashamed of her position, but those who are bewildered by her always talk nonsense, being absorbed in thoughts of "It is I" and "It is mine" (bhaagavata puraaNa 2.5.14).

 

I believe the full context of this verse was quoted by me in an earlier posting.

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

A clarification would be appreciated.

 

Here is the commentary in full,

 

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

 

 

What happened to “divya.m apraakR^ita.m” in Gambhiraananda’s translation/commentary? It does not seem to have gotten much emphasis, nor does this translation sufficiently explain the distinction when the original also describes the Lord’s alleged “maayaaruupam.” Lord has a form made of maayaa, and yet His birth is divine and not of the material nature. This is contradictory.

 

 

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

 

It has not been established conclusively that there is no distinction between jiiva and paramaatmaa on the stage of mukti, the Bhaagavatam verses I quoted clearly implying the contrary. That is another issue.

 

For now, it is unacceptable to argue that Lord’s form is due to maayaa, as that does not reconcile pramaanas saying that the Lord has form, attributes, etc. If the Lord’s form, attributes, etc are due to maayaa, then they do not exist in reality; hence He does not have them. This is therefore not a satisfactory interpretation of pramaanas giving description of the form, attributes of Brahman. Either Brahman really has forms and attributes or He does not. Invoking maayaa to say that the forms, attributes, etc exist due to illusion does not explain how Brahman can have form and attributes; it only explains how He can *appear* to have them.

 

 

Secondly, I disagree with this (your) interpretation of 4.9, which needlessly redefines “divya” rather than giving it its proper place in context. Krishna is saying that His janmas and karmas are divine. Why? Because janmas and karmas of the jiivas are affected by the material nature – maayaa. Krishna’s janmas and karmas are not of the material nature – hence they are divine or in other words transcendental to it. Based on context, that is the most obvious meaning of “divya,” since the tendency is to think that anyone who has janmas and karmas is under the spell of maayaa. There is nothing in the Sanskrit to

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

 

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

 

The point is that by virtue of being divine, they are not within the scope of the delusive maayaa. This seems to be a very obvious purport of the word “divya” based on the construction of the verse. The Advaitist take on this is a very forced meaning, like much of its interpretation of the Giitaa.

 

 

quote:

--

 

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

 

--

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

 

bhaktyaatvananyayaa shakya ahameva.mvidho’rjuna |

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

 

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

 

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

 

teShaam satatayuktaanaa.m bhajataa.m priitipuurvakam |

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The paths of karma and jnaana lead to liberation *through* bhakti-yoga. That is why it is stated time and again that by bhakti one gets liberation, and why Krishna repeatedly advises Arjuna to take to bhakti-yoga. If karma and jnaana yoga were independently sufficient to attain liberation, Krishna could have stopped His instructions with chapter 2. Even in chapters where other yoga systems are described, nevertheless in the end it keeps coming back to bhakti-yoga, as in chapter 6, wherein the Lord concludes (after describing the ashtaanga yoga process) that of all yogis, the one who knows Him is the best. As previously mentioned, most chapters end with some sort of instruction to take to bhakti, thus indicating the preeminent position of bhakti-yoga among the yoga systems.

 

Your position that jnaana, not jnaana-yoga, is responsible for liberation, is valid only in as much as you have understood what jnaana refers to here. As indicated previously, devotional service continues even on the liberated platform. The jnaana that one attains is not contrary to this; it is the realization of one’s eternal relationship with Krishna, not some artifical oneness with Him. In that sense, I agree that jnaana liberates. I do not see any evidence that the Advaitin concept of jnaana liberates.

 

 

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

 

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

bahuunaa.n janmanaamante GYaanavaanmaaM prapadyate |

vaasudevaH sarvamiti sa mahaatmaa sudurlabhaH || 7.19 ||

 

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

 

This translation of 7.19 (yours or Gambhiraananda’s?) casually dismisses “prapadyate” – surrender, no doubt in an attempt to minimize the devotional purport of this verse. As far as “vaasudevaH sarvam iti” and “tvaatmaiva me matam,” these are not Advaita by any stretch of the imagination. Even in English romantic literature we may see statements like “He is everything to me,” “he is my life and soul,” etc etc. Should we interpret these statements as contemporary Advaita?

 

This verse merely states that the jnaani surrenders after many births to Krishna, realizing that He is everything, that He is the only goal of all the Vedas, that everything is meant to satisfy Him, etc. That is the meaning of “vaasudevaH saravamiti.” Hence we also have in the Bhaagavatam:

 

naaraayaNaparaa vedaa devaa naaraayaNaa.ngajaaH |

naaraayaNaparaa lokaa naaraayaNaparaa makhaaH || bhaa 2.5.15 ||

naaraayaNaparo yogo naaraayaNapara.m tapaH |

naaraayaNapara.m j~naana.m naaraayaNaparaagatiH || bhaa 2.5.16 ||

And Krishna considers that jnaani similarly dear to Him, hence “I regard the Jnaani as my own self.”

 

There is no question of the jnaani being Krishna, because the jnaani comes under the spell of maayaa, which Krishna (Brahman) cannot. Besides which, if Advaita must be true, then why only the jnaani who surrenders does Krishna regard as His own self? Are not the other jiivas also Brahman? This is inconsistent.

 

Even if we take it to mean that everything is Vaasudeva, still there is no contradiction with Gaudiiya (or other beda-abeda) schools. Everything is certainly Krishna Himself or His manifested energies; nothing being ultimately independent of Him. This again brings up the question as to how Advaita can be derived from Vedic texts, when Brahman alone exists in Advaita and yet there is an entity known as maayaa which is invoked to explain the manifest world for form, perception, attributes, etc. If Brahman alone exists, then where is the question of maayaa existing? If maayaa exists within Brahman, then this contradicts the thinking that Brahman has no attributes.

 

Also, the “jnaani” referred to in 7.18 is not the same as the Advaitist jnaani. Again, verses need to be seen in context. This section of the Giitaa begins when Krishna says:

 

chatur-vidhaa bhajante maa.m janaaH sukR^itino 'rjuna |

aarto jij~nasur arthaarthii j~naanii cha bharatarShabha || giitaa 7.16 ||

 

catuh-vidhah--four kinds of; bhajante--render services; mam--unto Me; janah--persons; su-krtinah--those who are pious; arjuna--O Arjuna; artah--the distressed; jijnasuh--the inquisitive; artha-arthi--one who desires material gain; jnani--one who knows things as they are; ca--also; bharata-rsabha--O great one amongst the descendants of Bharata.

 

O best among the Bharatas, four kinds of pious men begin to render devotional service unto Me--the distressed, the desirer of wealth, the inquisitive, and he who is searching for knowledge of the Absolute. (bhagavad-giitaa 7.16)

 

He is describing the four types of people who begin to *worship* Him (i.e. different classes of bhaktas), of which the jnaani is one class. Then He says:

 

teShaa.m j~naanii nityayukta ekabhaktir vishiShyate |

priyo hi j~naanino 'tyartham aha.m sa cha mama priyaH || giitaa 7.17 ||

 

tesam--out of them; jnani--one in full knowledge; nitya-yuktah--always engaged; eka--only; bhaktih--in devotional service; visisyate--is special; priyah--very dear; hi--certainly; jnaninah--to the person in knowledge; atyartham--highly; aham--I am; sah--he; ca--also; mama--to Me; priyah--dear.

 

Of these, the one who is in full knowledge and who is always engaged in pure devotional service is the best. For I am very dear to him, and he is dear to Me. (bhagavad-giitaa 7.17)

 

The jnaani referred to is one who is “always engaged” in bhakti. To say that the jnaani ceases bhakti at some point is a direct contradiction of the words “nitya-yuktaH bhaktiH” indicating that he is *always* engaged in devotion. If the jnaani was worshipping Krishna to merge into Him and lose his individual existence, then He would have said that. But such a statement is not there.

 

It is then that Krishna speaks 7.18, indicating that this class of devotee is dearest to Him. Why is he dear to Him? The other devotees worship Krishna due to material distress, desiring material gain, or simply because they are inquisitive (BG 7.16). But the jnaani is the one who is “nitya-yuktaH bhaktiH” – always engaged in devotional service. I realize you might quibble about “service” in the translation, but bhakti implies service, as the devotional literature makes quite clear. We can discuss that in a separate thread, perhaps. The point here is that the jnaani is regarded by Krishna as His own self because the jnaani is always engaged in bhakti-yoga (hence He is dear to Krishna), as opposed to the other three classes who worship to get something out of it.

 

 

It is still not clear from your discussion of BG 4.6 what you think of Krishna’s form and activities, but it seems like you are trying to insist that they are in fact material, albeit divine because of His mission.

 

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

 

 

We have already discussed the possible other meanings of “manifest” and “unmanifest.” There is no reason to think that a formless God is doing the manifesting here. Again, Bhaagavata pramaanas already quoted by me do not support this concept.

 

 

As far as the Bhaagavatam pramaana, I have already given it. Here it is again:

vishuddha.m kevala.m j~naana.m pratyak samyagavasthitam |

satya.m puurNamanaadyanta.m nirguNa.m nityamadvayam || bhaa 2.6.40 ||

R^iShe vidanti munayaH prashaantaatmendriyaashayaaH |

yadaa tadevaasattarkaistirodhiiyeta viplutam || bhaa 2.6.41 ||

The Personality of Godhead is pure, being free from all contaminations of material tinges. He is the Absolute Truth and the embodiment of full and perfect knowledge. He is all-pervading, without beginning or end, and without rival. O Naarada, O great sage, the great thinkers can know Him when completely freed from all material hankerings and when sheltered under undisturbed conditions of the senses. Otherwise, by untenable arguments, all is disorted, and the Lord disappears from our sight (bhaagavata puraaNa 2.6.40-41).

 

Doesn't contradict anything I have said so far.

 

Not so fast. The Lord is vishuddham, so He cannot be covered by the material potency. This contradicts your whole position, which is that the Lord does in fact have a body and activities that are of the material nature, although somehow divine despite this. If the Lord is vishuddham, there is no question at all of Him having a form that is of the material nature. If a formless Godhead were being described as vishuddham within a material body, the Bhaagavatam could have said that. Anyway, describing the formless, attributeless Brahman by even this designation would still not be consistent with the concept of Brahman has having no attributes. Either way, not very consistent with Advaita.

 

 

 

1) Again devotion is mentioned here – bhaktyaa maam abhijaanaati…. (the part which you left out). This verse obviously does not do away with bhakti.

 

bhaktyaa maamabhijaanaati yaavaanyashchaasmi tattvataH |

 

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

 

The path of bhakti leads to the knowledge by which one gets liberation, as confirmed by Krishna Himself:

 

teShaa.m satatayuktaanaa.m bhajataa.m priitipuurvakam |

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

 

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

 

Other paths may lead to the knowledge that gives liberation, but only *through* bhakti, as it is bhakti only by which one gets liberation (BG 11.53-54 already quoted elsewhere).

 

There are two kinds of bhakti-yoga. Specifically, that which is performed on the conditioned platform (“saadhana-bhakti” in Gaudiiya Vaishnava parlance) and the unalloyed devotional service which is performed on the liberated platform (known as “prema-bhakti” in the Gaudiiya literature). Hence, statements like this which state that one gets some understanding through bhakti, really mean that by performing saadhana-bhakti one gets the knowledge by which he comes to the perfected state, which is rendering pure devotional service to the Lord. There is no reason to interpret the “understanding” received as something impersonal or monistic, because it is already stated in the previous verse that when one attains/becomes one with Brahman, he gets devotional service to Krishna. This verse merely reiterates that one gets to this liberated platform by bhakti.

 

 

3) Still nothing in 18.55 that refutes the idea of devotion on the transcendental platform or liberated state. All that is said is that by devotion one understands the Lord in truth....

 

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

 

It doesn’t contradict anything said by me so far. Maybe you can explain why you think it does?

 

 

If by devotional service, one understands the Lord as He is, then what do you think that understanding is? Obviously that He is the master, and you are the servant, an understanding that implies that one will continue to engage in devotional

service to Him. Hence:

bahuunaa.m janmanaamante j~naanavaanmaa.m prapadyate |

vaasudevaH sarvamiti sa mahaatmaa sudurlabhaH || BG 7.19 ||

After many births and deaths, he who is actually in knowledge surrenders unto Me, knowing Me to be the cause of all causes and all that is. Such a great soul is very rare (bhagavad-giitaa 7.19).

To surrender unto Krishna means to subordinate oneself to Him, etc. which can only mean/lead to bhakti. If it meant surrendering one’s individuality and merging into the supreme oneness, then the Lord would have said that. So far, Krishna has already defined what becoming one with Brahman means (18.54), and that “oneness” is clearly not absolute if supreme devotion is therein attained.

 

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

 

“vishate tat-anantaram” – the jiiva “enters thereafter,” in otherwords, he enters into Vaikuntha. What is the difficulty here?

 

Where is it stated that there is no more duality after mukti? That would contradict the statement of BG 18.54 in which one attains supreme devotion to Krishna after attaining Brahman. It contradicts BG 2.12 which speaks of eternal, individual living entities. It contradicts “nityo nityaanaam….” Etc of the Upanishads. It contradicts Shriimad Bhaagavatam 3.15.*** which explicitly describes the liberated platform and the distinctly individual living entities and Lord Vishnu. Arbitrarily denouncing any of this evidence as “interpolation” will not help you. Any explanation of Vyaasa’s position must take all of these sources into account, not just those which seem to lend themselves to your interpretation.

 

 

4) 18.54 still states that supreme devotion is attained by becoming Brahman. Devotion, again, implies two entities, since one does not speak of devotion between a thing and itself. It makes no sense to think that 18.55 would contradict this point, since it begs the question as to why Krishna would say in 18.54 “mad bhaktim labhate paraam” in the first place. BG 18.54 and 18.55 must be interpreted *together.* The meaning of one should not abandoned in favor of the other. Supreme devotion does occur after liberation, since Krishna is clearly speaking of the liberated state, or becoming one with Brahman in 18.54. BG 18.55 adds to this; it does not contradict it.

 

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

 

My arguments still stand. You misunderstand the sense of “knowledge” in this case, and you further read too much into “vishate tat-anantaram” as indicating some kind of monism or merging. You also arbitrarily ignore pramaanas (like Shriimad Bhaagavatam) which lend additional context which elucidate these points, which is why you come to an Advaitist understanding.

 

Even if “vishate tat-anantaram” meant what you say it does, which is not obvious, how is it consistent with Advaita, in which there is only one real entitity Brahman? You are saying that Brahman enters into itself? Krishna should have said that Arjuna would realize that they are both the same. Saying that the liberated entity enters into/merges with Krishna indicates that there was duality at some point, which is not consistent with a doctrine that holds that duality is due to illusion and Brahman alone exists. If anything, this might support the beda-abeda school of Bhaaskara, but it certainly does not support Advaita.

 

 

5) This point, that devotional service continues in the liberated state, is also supported by other pramaanas, for example Shriimad Bhaagavatam 3.15.14:

vasanti yatra puruShaaH sarve vaikuNThamuurtayaH |

ye’nimittanimittena dharmeNaaraadhayan harim || bhaa 3.15.14 ||

In the Vaikuntha planets all the residents are similar in form to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. They all engage in devotional service to the Lord without desires for sense gratification. (bhaagavata puraaNa 3.15.14)

The context is that Lord Brahmaa is describing how his sons the Kumaaras went to Vaikuntha, and then he goes on to describe Vaikuntha, of which the shloka above is one of the verses he spoke.

 

And elsewhere, the Bhaagavatam says the world is unreal and so on, taking on a serious Advaita tone (especially canto 11, chapter 28...check out verses 6 and 7). What should one do when Smriti contradicts itself?

 

 

You mean, “what should one do when Smriti *apparently* contradicts itself?” The answer is, one should shed one’s myopic vision of the Vedaanta and find an explanation that reconciles the seemingly contradictory viewpoints.

 

There are many *apparent* contradictions throughout the Vedic literature, but when it comes to shruti, Advaitins have no problem trying to explain away the statements that contradict their point of view. Their pleas for sympathy in the case of the Bhaagavatam are therefore not excusable. Standards of interpretation should be uniform, rather than looking for an excuse to reject something as “interpolated,” “contradictory,” etc.

 

As far as the specific pramaanas you mentioned, there is nothing here that contradicts the Gaudiiya view, though I suppose it might present a problem for the Maadhvas and their strict dualistic position. Then again, using your logic, Madhva wrote a tika on the Bhaagavatam, and you can guess how he interpreted this.

 

Certainly the material world is illusory since it is temporary, and because it seems to offer limitless opportunities for happiness when in fact there is nothing but the dualities of happiness and distress, etc.

 

Anyway, the real reason Advaitists reject the Bhaagavatam is because the Bhaagavatam contradicts their interpretation of Vedaanta. That’s all. Surely Vyaasa knows what He is talking about, and He has given these conclusion in the Bhaagvatam. Vedaanta-suutra is also smriti, but Advaitists don’t reject that.

 

The bottom line is that SB 3.15.14 cannot be written off by anyone whose authority derives from Shrii Vyaasadeva. It clearly describes individuality and devotional service on the liberated platform, rather than the formless, undifferentiated liberation of the impersonalists.

 

 

Is it worth our time to take the trouble of trying to reconcile things? Not according to Advaita. The Prasthaana Traya is sufficient to establish the truth and all other scriptures are secondary. Shankara's Bhaashya on Suutra 2.1.1 runs to several pages explaining the position of Smriti. He quotes the Jaimini Suutra as follows,

 

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

 

 

This statement is also quoted by Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana in his Govinda Bhaashya. But it cannot be used to reject the authority of the Bhaagavatam. Reasons:

 

1) We have it on the authority of the shruti that the Puraanas have the same origin as the Vedas, are actually the fifth Veda, etc. For example:

 

rigveda.m bhagavo'dhyemi yajurveda.m saamavedamaatharvaNa.m chaturthamitihaasapuraaNa.m pa~nchama.m vedaanaa.m veda pitR^iya.m raashi.m daiva nidhi.m va kovaakyamekaaayana.m devavidhyaa.m brahmavidhyaa.m bhuutavidhyaa.m kShatravidyaa.m nakShatravidyaa.m sarpadevajanavidhyaametadbhagavo'dhyemi || CU 7.1.2 ||

 

Revered master, I know the Rig Veda, the Yajurveda, the Saaamaveda, and the Atharvan as the fourth, the Itihaasa, Puraanas as the fifth, graammer, the rules for the worship of the manes, mathematics, the science of portents, the chronology, logic, the science of ethics, etymology, the ancillary knowledge of the Vedas, the physical science, the science of war, the astronomy, the science of snake-charming and the fine arts. This, venerable master, I know (chaandogya upaniShad 7.1.2).

 

The context, as you know, is Naarada submitting his doubt before his guru, who asks him first what he knows, and then Naarada speaks the above. Surely, we can agree that Naarada knows what he is talking about. We also know that the Puraanas have the same divine origins as the other Vedas:

 

R^ichaH saamaani chandaa.msi puraaNa.m yajuShaa saha |

uchchhiShTaaj jaj~nire sarve divi devaa divishritaaH || AV 11.7.24 ||

 

The R^ig, Saama, Yajur, and Atharva Vedas appeared from the Supreme Lord along with the PuraaNas and all the demigods residing in the heavenly planets (atharva veda 11.7.24).

 

So unless the Bhaagavatam is not a Puraana, we cannot dismiss it arbitrarily as “smriti” and hence fit to be ignored whenever convenient.

 

2) The Bhaagavatam itself substantiates itself as being on par with shruti –

 

katha.m vaa paaNDaveyasya raajarShermuninaa saha |

sa.mvaadaH samabhuuttaata yatraiShaa saatvatii shrutiH || bhaa P 1.4.7 ||

 

How did it so happen that King Pariikshit met this great sage, making it possible for this great transcendental essence of the Vedas [bhaagavatam] to be sung to him? (bhaagavata puraaNa 1.4.7)

 

The words “saatvatii shrutiH” indicate that the Bhaagavatam is the essence of the shrutis. This was spoken by the sages of Naimisharanya (who I think we can agree, also know what they are talking about) and recorded by Vyaasa here. If only shruti is acceptable as pramaana, then why not also the very essence of that shruti?

 

Vyaasa also indicates that the Bhaagavatam will enlighten the population of Kali Yuga:

 

kR^iShNe svadhaamopagate dharmaj~naanaadibhiH saha |

kalau naShTadR^ishaameSha puraaNaarko'dhunoditaH || bhaa P 1.3.43 ||

This Bhaagavata PuraaNa is as brilliant as the sun, and it has arisen just after the departure of Lord Krishna to His own abode, accompanied by religion, knowledge, etc. Persons who have lost their vision due to the dense darkness of ignorance in the age of Kali shall get light from this PuraaNa (bhaagavata puraaNa 1.3.43).

 

Again, we presume that Vyaasa, the very incarnation of Naaraayana who knows past, present, and future, also knows what He is talking about. Would He indicate that the Bhaagavatam would enlighten the population of Kali Yuga when it is going to be riddled with interpolation and made contradictory with itself and with shruti? I don’t buy it.

 

Now you may argue that the Bhaagavatam cannot be used to substantiate its own authority, since it is smriti and its authority is under question in the first place. To this, I would respond that (1) Any scripture possessing all worthwhile knowledge is obviously going to refer itself and its authoritativeness, (2) other Puraanas also glorify the greatness of the Bhaagavatam, and I doubt that all of those statements are interpolation (though I’m sure Advaitins would offer such arguments out of desperation), and (3) even Bhagavad-giitaa and Vedaanta-suutra are also smriti, yet Advaitins don’t reject these sources. Furthermore, you have not given any reason to reject the Bhaagavatam in the first place. Merely saying it is “interpolated” merely because you disagree with it does not count. We must see evidence.

 

 

Shankara also says,

 

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

 

The Puraanaas themselves being full of contradiction, it is inevitable that only a selective portion is considered authority by any school.

 

Puraanas are not “full of contradiction” as they are the fifth Veda and have the same origin as the Vedas (see evidence quoted above). Also, we have from the Upanishads:

 

sa yathaardraidhaagnerabhyaahitaatpR^ithagdhuumaa vinishcharanti eva.m vaaare'syamahato bhuutasya niHshvasitametadyadR^igvedo yajurvedaH saamavedao'tharvaaN^girasa itihaasaH puraaNa.m vidyaa upaniShadaH shlokaaH suutraaNyanuvyaakhyaanaani vyaakhyaanaani asyaivaitaani niHshvasitaani || BU2.4.10 ||

 

As from a fire kindled with wet fuel, clouds of smoke issue forth, so, my dear, verily, from this Glorious Great God has been breathed forth the Rig Veda, the Yajur Veda, Saama Veda, Atharvaangirasa, Itihaasa, Puraanas, Science of knowledge, Mystic Doctrines of Upanishads, pithy verses, aphorisms, elucidations and commentaries. From Him, indeed, are all these breathed forth (bR^ihadaaranyakopaniShad 2.4.10).

 

Would an omnipotent, omniscient God breathe out scriptures which are riddled with contradiction and serve only to mislead people? Perhaps, but that is a stretch, to say the least. Puraanas are created to establish the meaning of the Vedas for those not qualified to study the shrutis. They themselves say this:

 

vedavannishchala.m manye puraaNaartha.m dvijottamaaH |

vedaaH pratiShThitaaH sarve puraaNe naatra sa.mshayaH ||

bibhetyalpashrutaadvedo maamaya.m chaalayiShyati |

itihaasapuraaNaistu nishchalo’ya.m kR^itaH puraa ||

yanna dR^iShTa.m hi vedeShu taddR^iShTa.m smR^itiShu dvijaaH |

ubhayoryanna dR^iShTa.m hi tat puraaNaiH pragiiyate ||

yo veda chaturo vedaan saa.ngopaniShadi dvijaaH |

puraaNa.m naiva jaanaati na cha sa syaadvichakShaNaH || skaanda prabhaasakhande 5.3.121-124 ||

 

O best of the twice-born, I consider the meaning of the Puraanas to be as well established as that of the Vedas. Without doubt, the Puraanas give a firm foundation to the Vedas. Long ago, Mother Veda once became afraid of those who insufficiently hear from her, and she thought, ‘This sort of person will distort my meaning.’ But then the Itihaasas and Puraanas helped Mother Veda by firmly establishing her meaning. What cannot be found in the Vedas is found in the smriti, and what cannot be found in either is clearly explained in the Puraanas. O learned braahmanas, even if a person has studied the four Vedas along with the Vedaangas and Upanishads, he is not considered learned unless he knows the Puraanas. (skaanda puraaNa, prabhaasa-khaNDa 5.3.121-124)

 

Note the very clear statement that one must know the Puraanas in order to know the Vedas. The conclusion is that one who only studies the Vedas will likely come to a misunderstanding, and can certainly be assumed to have done so if he has contradicted the Puraanas. What kind of God would fail to see the lack of qualification of people in Kali Yuga, and not make available scriptures to appropriately enlighten them?

 

Anyway, we know that Shrii Shankaraachaarya also quotes from the Puraanas, Vishnu in particular. Why quote from them at all if they are subject to scrutiny because they are smriti? Either it is pramaana or it is not.

 

All Vedic literatures including the Puraanas very consistently describe the greatness and supremacy of Vishnu as they themselves state:

 

vede raamaayaNe chaiva puraaNe bhaarate tathaa |

aadaav ante cha madhye cha hariH sarvatra giiyate || SkP 4.95.12 ||

In the Vedas, Raamaayana, Puraanas, and Mahaabhaarata Lord Hari is glorified everywhere - in the beginning, middle, and end (skandha puraaNa 4.95.12).

That there are many sections of the Puraanas which glorify other deities is simply because the Puraanas are meant for different audiences, who may need to be gradually introduced to Vishnu-bhakti by an indirect process on the count of their raajaasic or taamaasic tendencies. This threefold classification of the Puraanas is found in the Puraanas themselves:

 

saatvikeShu puraaNeShu maahaatmyamadhika.m hareH |

raajaseShucha maahaatmyamadhika.m brahmaNoviduH ||

tadvadagneshcha maahaatmya.m taamaseShu shivasya cha |

sa.nkiirNeShu sarasvatyaaH pitR^INaamcha nigadyate || matsya p 53.67-68 ||

 

In the Saatvika Puraanas, there is largely a mention of Hari’s glory. In the Raajas Puraaanas there is the greater mention of Brahmaa’s glory. In the Taamasika Puraanas, there is a mention of Shiva and Agni’s glory. In all kinds of Puraanas, of all the three attributes, the glory of Sarasvatii and the pitris have been described. (matysa puraaNa 53.68-69)

 

The classification of the Puraanas into the three modes is also found in the Puraanas:

 

matsya.mkaurma.mtathaalai.nga.mshaiva.mskaanda.mtathaivacha |

aagneya.mchaShaDetaanitaamasaaninibodhame ||

vaiShNava.mnaaradiiya.mchatathaabhaagavata.mshubham |

gaaruDa.mchatathaapaadma.mvaaraaha.msubhadarshane ||

saattvikaanipuraaNaanivij~neyaanishubhaani vai |

brahmaaNDa.mbrahmavaivarta.mmaarkaNDeya.mtathaivacha ||

bhaviShya.mvaamana.mbraahma.mraajasaaninibodhame |

saatvikaamokShadaaH proktaaraajasaaH sarvadaashubhaaH ||

tathaivataamasaadevinirayapraaptihetavaH || padma, uttara, 236.18-22 ||

 

Know from me that Maatsya, Kaurma, Lainga, Shaiva, so also Skaanda, and Aagneya are taamasa. O you of an auspicious appearance, the Puraanas, viz. Vaishnava, Naaradiiya, so also the auspicious Bhaagavata, similarly Gaaruda, Paadma, Vaaraahaa, should be known to be saatvika. Know from me that Brahmaanda, Brahma-vaivarta, Maarkandeya, Bhavishya, Vaamana and Braahma are raajasa. The saatvika ones are said to give salvation and are always auspicious. Similarly, O goddess, the taamasa are said to be the case of (i.e. lead one to) hell. (padma puraaNa, uttara-khaNDa 236.18-21)

 

Now one may argue, “how can Puraanas be Vedic when they contain material that is of the nature of goodness, passion, ignorance, etc, and some of them are said to lead to hell?” The answer is that even Vedas also contain material that is of the nature of the three gunas (modes of material nature), but this is only for specific audiences and is meant for their gradual upliftment:

 

traiguNyaviShayaa vedaa nistraiguNyo bhavaarjuna |

nirdvandvo nityasattvastho niryogakShema aatmavaan || giitaa 2.45 ||

 

The Vedas deal mainly with the subject of the three modes of material nature. O Arjuna, becomes transcendental to these three modes. Be free from all dualities and from all anxieties for gain an safety, and be established in the self. (bhagavad-giitaa 2.45)

 

Both Puraanas and Vedas contain material that relates to the three modes of material nature. But that is not the limit of their scope – those who think there is nothing more will certain be stuck in the material world and even fall down into hell.

 

So it is clear that one must put greater emphasis upon the saattvik puraanas for developing transcendental knowledge. And among saattvik puraanas, the Bhaagavatam is the topmost puraana, as also substantiated by shaastra:

 

puraaNeShu tu sarveShu shriimadbhaagavata.m param |

yatra pratipada.m kR^iShNo giiyate bahudharShibhiH || Pa P, U Kh 193.3 ||

Among all the Puraanas, Shriimad-Bhaagavatam is the best. In every line great sages glorify Lord Krishna in various ways (padma puraaNa, uttara-khaNDa 193.3).

shriimadbhaagavataakhyo 'yam pratyakShaH kR^iShNa eva hi || Pa P, U Kh 198.30 ||

Without a doubt Shriimad-Bhaagavatam is directly Lord Krishna (padma puraaNa, uttara-khaNDa 198.30).

 

So you see, Shvu, you cannot simply ignore Puraanic evidence if you wish to represent the Vedaanta. The shrutis consider them Veda. The Puraanas account for their apparent inconsistencies. Shankaraachaarya and other Advaitins quote from Puraanas when it suits them. Puraanas are meant to elucidate the meaning of the Vedas, and one who studies the Vedas without the Puraanas comes to a wrong understanding.

 

It is not unfair to say that any school which admits to ignoring Puraanic evidence (especially from the Bhaagavatam, the best among the Puraanas) is simply destroying its own scholarly credibility.

 

 

For instance, the Gaudiiyas hardly rely on the Vishnu Puraanaa, although it is THE Vaishnava Puraanaa, while Advaitins do.

 

This is not true. Jiiva Gosvaamii quotes extensively from Vishnu Puraana in his Bhagavata-sandarbha. The reason Gaudiiya prefer the Bhaagavatam is for reasons already mentioned above – it is the one scripture that gives the essence of shruti, dispenses with goals external to prema-bhakti (see SB 1.1.2), and is best among Puraanas (numerous quotes which I am happy to provide).

 

 

Also, Shridhara Swami, an Advaitin, wrote a commentary on the SB, the bhaavaartha-diipika, which apparently is one of the most popular commentaries on the SB. I have no idea how true he was to Advaita, but it would be interesting to see how he interprets such a description of Vaikunta.

 

Shriidhar Swaami was not an Advaitin, as he came in the Kumaara sampradaaya (a well known Vaishnava sampradaaya in Vrindaavan). He is wrongly assumed to be an Advaitin because he wrote his Bhaagavatam commentary in such a way as to make it appealing to Advaitists. This is well known among Gaudiiya Vaishnava scholars, who do often refer to Bhaavaartha-diipika very favorably. Even if he did have an “Advaitist” slant on SB 3.5.****, it would be moot. Those verses clearly speak for themselves, and they are not speaking of Advaita. No help there.

 

 

6) Again, “vishate tat-anantaram” does not obviously refer to merging of jiiva into Bhagavaan. Aside from not explicitly describing a merging and loss of individuality of the jiiva, this should not be interpreted to contradict 18.54.

7) The verse phrase “enters into Me” by its very nature suggests two entities and contradicts Advaita, which holds that the jiiva and Brahman are the same. No doubt that Shankara comments on this in a way to get around this objection, but the issue of believability again arises.

 

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

 

No, it means exactly what it says. When one has attained/become one with Brahman “brahma-bhuta prasanaatmaa” he gets the supreme devotion to Krishna “mad-bhakti labhate paraam.” Are you telling me that “brahma-bhuuta” is not mukti?

 

 

Diversity of what? Now that is the question. As I mentioned before, using this verse to state that there are no attributes in Brahman contradicts other pramaanas stating that He does in fact have them.

 

manasaivedamaaptavyaM neha naanaa.asti ki.nchana |

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

 

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

 

Shankara's Bhaashya (only the relevant portion):

 

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

 

Again, you have offered nothing convincing here. When Brahman is described as having attributes elsewhere, there is no reason to assume that a formless Brahman is being referred to here.

 

 

Two points:

 

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

The above verse from the Katha is a sample.

 

There is nothing in the above verse from the Katha which says what you claim, unless you can prove from the outset that a formless Brahman is being referred to. When Brahman is described as having form and attributes elsewhere, there is no reason to assume that a different concept of Brahman is being referred to here. Thus, the verse above is saying that there is no internal differences in this Brahman which has form, attributes, etc. Surely you agree that verses should be interpreted within the global context.

 

There are plenty of other verses which establish this such as,

 

naiva vaachaa na manasaa praaptuM shakyo na chakshushhaa |

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

 

And yet, in the same text, we have verses like:

 

eSha sarveShu bhuuteShu guudo ‘tmaa naprakaashate |

darshyate tvagryayaabuddhyaa suukShmayaa suukShmadarshibhiH ||

 

Hidden in all the beings, this Self is not visibly displayed. Yet, people of keen vision see Him, with eminent and sharp minds. (kaThopaniShad 1.3.12)

 

How, Shvu, does one *see* a Brahman that has no form or attributes? The idea that they only see an illusory form of Brahman is not a valid explanation. Brahman either has form in reality or He does not. If they see Brahman, then they see Him, not an illusion.

 

And anyway, if we are all Brahman, then where does the question of “seeing Brahman” arise? This implies duality.

 

Katha 2.3.12 does not mean that Brahman has no attributes. It merely means that Brahman cannot be completely understood by the mind, speech, sight, etc. But one can begin to understand Him as He is revealed in shaastra with senses purified by bhakti-yoga.

 

 

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

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

Why doesn’t Arjuna ever realize, “My ignorance has been dispelled, and now I realize that I am You.”

 

 

First of all, I would appreciate a straight answer to the above questions, rather than an evasive approach using inappropriate counter arguments. Let us look at your counter arguments, which you use to suggest that Krishna would not be straightforward in His teachings to Arjuna:

 

 

Let us see. A good example is...neither does Krishna talk about Raadha being his soul or rejecting Mukti in favor of Bhakti.

 

 

This is obviously a very poor example, as Krishna’s lack of mention of Raadhaa has no bearing on whether or not He is speaking candidly here. Where in Bhagavad-giitaa does the subject of Raadhaa arise? Never did Arjuna ask the Lord about Raadhaa. In fact, it is considered a very confidential subject matter, as are all of the Lord’s dealings with the gopikas. Hence in the Bhaagavatam 10th Skandha Shukadeva warns Mahaaraaja Pariikshi about misunderstanding these confidential activities of the Lord.

 

In other words, the fact that Krishna did not choose to mention Raadhaa does not excuse Him from speaking very plainly about the Advaita siddhaanta. Hence, the fact that He did not do so is sufficient evidence to indicate that He did not intend to teach it.

 

 

If Gaudiiya Vaishnavism is the truth, Why wasn't Krishna being simple and straightforward? He also does not talk about five eternal differences or Vaikunta.

 

 

On the contrary, Krishna answered every one of Arjuna’s questions in a very simple and straightforward manner - and Advaita does not figure into His simple and straightforward explanations.

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

This not an answer, and it most certainly is not a problem for bhakti traditions. Living entities who do not wish to serve Krishna must go somewhere. They aren't going to be in Vaikuntha if they have not yet developed the need to serve Him. Now about an answer to my question, which is this: if Advaita is the conclusion, why teach a saadhana that makes one believe the opposite?

 

 

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

 

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

 

This is an evasive answer. Either maayaa exists, or it does not. One of the main faults in Advaita - it requires maayaa to exist in order to explain the perception of duality, yet it cannot explain how maayaa exists if a formless Brahman is all that exists.

 

 

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

 

Cheers

 

 

Absolutely untrue. “Advaita” is only “popular” because it appeals to the subtly atheistic slant of people raised in today’s secular environment. Saying that Advaita has “stayed on top” because of its mass appeal is like saying that Buddhism is also great because so many people in America’s urban marijuana-smoking subculture claim to follow it. In both cases, the “followers” simply claim to follow, but in reality they redefine the religions to their own whimsical tastes, picking and choosing what they want and assuming that everything else is optional or not applicable. Obvious examples of this include “Advaitists” who are convinced that there is no need to go to temples, “Advaitists” who eat meat, “Advaitists” who smoke, “Advaitists” who drink liquor, etc etc – not merely because they have character flaws which they are trying to change due to the influence of Advaita, but rather because they believe that such sinful activites are compatible with Advaita. Note that I am not even speaking of American converts, but of conservative Indians, even those of the brahmin caste, who ought to know better.

 

Most people who claim to follow Advaita don’t know a fig about the true scholarship of Shankara, preferring instead to follow the watered-down, feel-good, new-age versions of Advaita promoted by Chinmayananda, Vivekananda, etc etc. Those few people who actually dabble in Shankaraachaarya’s writings (like Ram) obviously have a problem with Shankara’s actual conclusions, since they redefine Advaita to make it more compatible with Vaishnava thought (such as introducing the idea that bhakti is eternal, as opposed to a means to an end, and that there is eternal distinction between God and the jiivas, etc).

 

While it is probably true that there are very few orthodox followers of any religion, I have frankly met no real practitioners of Advaita – most who admire it seem to implicitly acknowledge that the austerity it requires is impractical for them to follow when they are too busy coming to America and finding jobs in the IT industry.

 

In any case, the correctness of a religion is not determined by popular vote, but by basis in shaastra, which is what I have always held. And that is where Advaita cannot survive. Without knowing anything else, the fact that most Vedaantic traditions are not Advaitic and even opposed to Advaita on many fundamental grounds, is obvious evidence of the precarious grounds upon which it is based, shaastrically speaking.

 

Like the theory of the Big Bang, most people who follow Advaita do so because they want to believe it, and not because an objective survey of the scriptural evidence actually leads to such a conclusion.

 

 

H. Krishna Susarla

www.achintya.org

[Guest guest]

I enjoyed your mailing. It was very informative. I am quite new to Shankara's writings and am not at liberty to comment upon them at present. What I have read through secondary sources of advaita, I would have to dispute some of your conclusions. Advaita developed from Nagarjuna's philosophy and it is clear that it borrows heavily from this, and I am on more familiar ground with Nagarjuna.

Much of the conclusions to be found in advaita mirror those found in neo-confucian response to Chan Buddhism.

I would say that it is perfectly possible to call oneself a believer in advaita vedanta. Remembering that vedanta is supposedly based on the Upanisads. Whether your beliefs mirror those of Shankara is not that relevant.

As Ramakrishna put it, after discovering Brahman and realising in his case that atman and sakti are one of the same, then life can continue. It is the same conclusion of many neo-confucianists. The cosmos is not truly a void as in Nagarjuna's philosophy, but is in fact existing. It is probably easier to explain it as Nothing must exist because if it did not then there would have to be something in its place. If Nothing exists it in turn must be something. Hence Brahman is both in existence and simultaneously not in existence at the same time. Ramanuja, Madhva and Shankara need not actually be opposed to each other, it is possible to draw parallels between the three of them if one is to turn to Chinese philosophy in order to do so. They often appear to be the 3 blind men with the elephant from this point of view.

As a neo-confucian would put it, when one looks into a bowl of water and sees the bottom of the bowl, it is often easy to forget the bowl contains water and claim that there is nothing.

However, you are perfectly correct in saying that many people who claim to follow advaita forget that a lot of the work in shankara covers the Gita also. But it is not correct to deny that they are true advaita because they choose to ignore this and concentrate on the Upanisads when vedanta really refers to the Upanisads and not the gita, it is therefore possible to refer to oneself as believing in advaita vendata and ignore shankara's references to the gita as being something other.

 

moksa

[Guest guest]

When I originally posted this, the HTML tags did not display properly. I edited them now to correct this. Just in case anyone cares...

 

This is a followup to a discussion thread we had a long time back regarding the scriptural validity of Advaita. I was actively and very enthusiastically participating, but I left my last reply in my Drafts box and sort of forgot all about it. More recently, I was tired of seeing it there, and so I decided to post it, incomplete though it is. Whether or not anyone cares to continue the thread, I don't know, but anyway here is what I had to say last about it...

 

Shvu writes:

 

 

 

 

This will also cover Ram's earlier question.

 

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

 

 

 

Please note that I am not trying to interpret Advaita above. I am speaking for the meaning of Bhagavad-giitaa and whether or not it is consistent with Advaita.

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

Several points here:

 

1) When you have a pramaana saying that the Lord manifests Himself in the world, it is not obvious that He who is doing the manifesting is originally unmanifest (meaning formless). A Deity can be described as being “unmanifest” because of not manifesting Himself before one’s senses. Hence, the conclusion of Advaita being that Brahman is ultimately formless does not obviously follow from such statements as these.

 

2) Even taking “prakR^iti.m svaam adhiShThaaya” to mean subordinating the material nature, there is still no reason to assume that Lord is adventing Himself by the material nature. The Gita Press translation takes it that way, and they still interpret the “aatma-maaya” as being a different, transcendental potency. Madhva takes it to be different from maayaa or avidyaa because it is mentioned as being the Lord’s own, and you can guess how he interprets the rest of the verse. Sriidhar Swaamii, Raamaanuja and Srila Prabhupada take it to mean being situated in His own nature, or using His own nature. There is no reason to interpret it as adventing Himself by the material nature.

 

3) The maayaa (aatma-maayaa) by which the Lord advents Himself in the world is not the same as the maayaa which creates the material world and deludes the jiivas. The Lord distinguishes the former by saying “aatma-maayayaa” or “sva-maayayaa” in numerous places in the Bhaagavatam. Even nonsectarian translations like the Gita Press have picked up on this difference. To the best of my knowledge, only the Advaitist school takes the “aatma-maayayaa” to be the same as the maayaa which deludes the jiivas; no one else does. Thus, even if Advaitins acknowledge that the Lord is unaffected by the material nature, and that the material nature is His, it is still incorrect to hold that the Lord’s form is a result of that material nature.

 

4) There is no reason to assume that the Lord advents Himself due to the material nature, when multiple pramaanas (quoted by me in previous posting) show that these are subordinate to Him. Yes, the Lord is not affected by the material nature, but then why assume that He nevertheless advents Himself with it? Especially when He describes “sva-maayayaa” or “aatma-maayayaa” as the means by which He does this (in contrast to that which deludes the jiivas, which I have never seen described like this), one must assume this is a different maayaa.

 

5) Following from #4, Lord will not advent Himself using the delusive maayaa potency because that maayaa is described as being ashamed to come before the Lord’s presence:

 

vilajjamaanayaa yasya sthaatumiikShaapathe.muyaa |

vimohitaa vikatthante mamaahamiti durdhiyaH || bhaa 2.5.14 ||

 

vilajjamaanayaa - by one who is ashamed; yasya - whose; sthaatum - to stay; iikShaa-pathe - in front; amuyaa - by the bewildering energy; vimohitaaH - those who are bewildered; vikatthante - talk nonsense; mama- it is mine; aham - I am everything; iti - thus vituperating; durdhiyaH - thus ill conceived.

 

The illusory energy of the Lord cannot take precedence, being ashamed of her position, but those who are bewildered by her always talk nonsense, being absorbed in thoughts of "It is I" and "It is mine" (bhaagavata puraaNa 2.5.14).

 

I believe the full context of this verse was quoted by me in an earlier posting.

 

 

 

 

 

Here is the commentary in full,

 

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

 

 

 

 

What happened to “divya.m apraakR^ita.m” in Gambhiraananda’s translation/commentary? It does not seem to have gotten much emphasis, nor does this translation sufficiently explain the distinction when the original also describes the Lord’s alleged “maayaaruupam.” Lord has a form made of maayaa, and yet His birth is divine and not of the material nature. This is contradictory.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

It has not been established conclusively that there is no distinction between jiiva and paramaatmaa on the stage of mukti, the Bhaagavatam verses I quoted clearly implying the contrary. That is another issue.

 

For now, it is unacceptable to argue that Lord’s form is due to maayaa, as that does not reconcile pramaanas saying that the Lord has form, attributes, etc. If the Lord’s form, attributes, etc are due to maayaa, then they do not exist in reality; hence He does not have them. This is therefore not a satisfactory interpretation of pramaanas giving description of the form, attributes of Brahman. Either Brahman really has forms and attributes or He does not. Invoking maayaa to say that the forms, attributes, etc exist due to illusion does not explain how Brahman can have form and attributes; it only explains how He can *appear* to have them.

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

The point is that by virtue of being divine, they are not within the scope of the delusive maayaa. This seems to be a very obvious purport of the word “divya” based on the construction of the verse. The Advaitist take on this is a very forced meaning, like much of its interpretation of the Giitaa.

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

The paths of karma and jnaana lead to liberation *through* bhakti-yoga. That is why it is stated time and again that by bhakti one gets liberation, and why Krishna repeatedly advises Arjuna to take to bhakti-yoga. If karma and jnaana yoga were independently sufficient to attain liberation, Krishna could have stopped His instructions with chapter 2. Even in chapters where other yoga systems are described, nevertheless in the end it keeps coming back to bhakti-yoga, as in chapter 6, wherein the Lord concludes (after describing the ashtaanga yoga process) that of all yogis, the one who knows Him is the best. As previously mentioned, most chapters end with some sort of instruction to take to bhakti, thus indicating the preeminent position of bhakti-yoga among the yoga systems.

 

Your position that jnaana, not jnaana-yoga, is responsible for liberation, is valid only in as much as you have understood what jnaana refers to here. As indicated previously, devotional service continues even on the liberated platform. The jnaana that one attains is not contrary to this; it is the realization of one’s eternal relationship with Krishna, not some artifical oneness with Him. In that sense, I agree that jnaana liberates. I do not see any evidence that the Advaitin concept of jnaana liberates.

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

bahuunaa.n janmanaamante GYaanavaanmaaM prapadyate |

vaasudevaH sarvamiti sa mahaatmaa sudurlabhaH || 7.19 ||

 

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

 

 

 

This translation of 7.19 (yours or Gambhiraananda’s?) casually dismisses “prapadyate” – surrender, no doubt in an attempt to minimize the devotional purport of this verse. As far as “vaasudevaH sarvam iti” and “tvaatmaiva me matam,” these are not Advaita by any stretch of the imagination. Even in English romantic literature we may see statements like “He is everything to me,” “he is my life and soul,” etc etc. Should we interpret these statements as contemporary Advaita?

 

This verse merely states that the jnaani surrenders after many births to Krishna, realizing that He is everything, that He is the only goal of all the Vedas, that everything is meant to satisfy Him, etc. That is the meaning of “vaasudevaH saravamiti.” Hence we also have in the Bhaagavatam:

 

naaraayaNaparaa vedaa devaa naaraayaNaa.ngajaaH |

naaraayaNaparaa lokaa naaraayaNaparaa makhaaH || bhaa 2.5.15 ||

 

naaraayaNaparo yogo naaraayaNapara.m tapaH |

naaraayaNapara.m j~naana.m naaraayaNaparaagatiH || bhaa 2.5.16 ||

 

And Krishna considers that jnaani similarly dear to Him, hence “I regard the Jnaani as my own self.”

 

There is no question of the jnaani being Krishna, because the jnaani comes under the spell of maayaa, which Krishna (Brahman) cannot. Besides which, if Advaita must be true, then why only the jnaani who surrenders does Krishna regard as His own self? Are not the other jiivas also Brahman? This is inconsistent.

 

Even if we take it to mean that everything is Vaasudeva, still there is no contradiction with Gaudiiya (or other beda-abeda) schools. Everything is certainly Krishna Himself or His manifested energies; nothing being ultimately independent of Him. This again brings up the question as to how Advaita can be derived from Vedic texts, when Brahman alone exists in Advaita and yet there is an entity known as maayaa which is invoked to explain the manifest world for form, perception, attributes, etc. If Brahman alone exists, then where is the question of maayaa existing? If maayaa exists within Brahman, then this contradicts the thinking that Brahman has no attributes.

 

Also, the “jnaani” referred to in 7.18 is not the same as the Advaitist jnaani. Again, verses need to be seen in context. This section of the Giitaa begins when Krishna says:

 

chatur-vidhaa bhajante maa.m janaaH sukR^itino 'rjuna |

aarto jij~nasur arthaarthii j~naanii cha bharatarShabha || giitaa 7.16 ||

 

catuh-vidhah--four kinds of; bhajante--render services; mam--unto Me; janah--persons; su-krtinah--those who are pious; arjuna--O Arjuna; artah--the distressed; jijnasuh--the inquisitive; artha-arthi--one who desires material gain; jnani--one who knows things as they are; ca--also; bharata-rsabha--O great one amongst the descendants of Bharata.

 

O best among the Bharatas, four kinds of pious men begin to render devotional service unto Me--the distressed, the desirer of wealth, the inquisitive, and he who is searching for knowledge of the Absolute. (bhagavad-giitaa 7.16)

 

He is describing the four types of people who begin to *worship* Him (i.e. different classes of bhaktas), of which the jnaani is one class. Then He says:

 

teShaa.m j~naanii nityayukta ekabhaktir vishiShyate |

priyo hi j~naanino 'tyartham aha.m sa cha mama priyaH || giitaa 7.17 ||

 

tesam--out of them; jnani--one in full knowledge; nitya-yuktah--always engaged; eka--only; bhaktih--in devotional service; visisyate--is special; priyah--very dear; hi--certainly; jnaninah--to the person in knowledge; atyartham--highly; aham--I am; sah--he; ca--also; mama--to Me; priyah--dear.

 

Of these, the one who is in full knowledge and who is always engaged in pure devotional service is the best. For I am very dear to him, and he is dear to Me. (bhagavad-giitaa 7.17)

 

The jnaani referred to is one who is “always engaged” in bhakti. To say that the jnaani ceases bhakti at some point is a direct contradiction of the words “nitya-yuktaH bhaktiH” indicating that he is *always* engaged in devotion. If the jnaani was worshipping Krishna to merge into Him and lose his individual existence, then He would have said that. But such a statement is not there.

 

It is then that Krishna speaks 7.18, indicating that this class of devotee is dearest to Him. Why is he dear to Him? The other devotees worship Krishna due to material distress, desiring material gain, or simply because they are inquisitive (BG 7.16). But the jnaani is the one who is “nitya-yuktaH bhaktiH” – always engaged in devotional service. I realize you might quibble about “service” in the translation, but bhakti implies service, as the devotional literature makes quite clear. We can discuss that in a separate thread, perhaps. The point here is that the jnaani is regarded by Krishna as His own self because the jnaani is always engaged in bhakti-yoga (hence He is dear to Krishna), as opposed to the other three classes who worship to get something out of it.

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

We have already discussed the possible other meanings of “manifest” and “unmanifest.” There is no reason to think that a formless God is doing the manifesting here. Again, Bhaagavata pramaanas already quoted by me do not support this concept.

 

 

 

 

Doesn't contradict anything I have said so far.

 

 

 

Not so fast. The Lord is vishuddham, so He cannot be covered by the material potency. This contradicts your whole position, which is that the Lord does in fact have a body and activities that are of the material nature, although somehow divine despite this. If the Lord is vishuddham, there is no question at all of Him having a form that is of the material nature. If a formless Godhead were being described as vishuddham within a material body, the Bhaagavatam could have said that. Anyway, describing the formless, attributeless Brahman by even this designation would still not be consistent with the concept of Brahman has having no attributes. Either way, not very consistent with Advaita.

 

 

 

 

 

bhaktyaa maamabhijaanaati yaavaanyashchaasmi tattvataH |

 

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

 

 

 

The path of bhakti leads to the knowledge by which one gets liberation, as confirmed by Krishna Himself:

 

teShaa.m satatayuktaanaa.m bhajataa.m priitipuurvakam |

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

 

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

 

Other paths may lead to the knowledge that gives liberation, but only *through* bhakti, as it is bhakti only by which one gets liberation (BG 11.53-54 already quoted elsewhere).

 

There are two kinds of bhakti-yoga. Specifically, that which is performed on the conditioned platform (“saadhana-bhakti” in Gaudiiya Vaishnava parlance) and the unalloyed devotional service which is performed on the liberated platform (known as “prema-bhakti” in the Gaudiiya literature). Hence, statements like this which state that one gets some understanding through bhakti, really mean that by performing saadhana-bhakti one gets the knowledge by which he comes to the perfected state, which is rendering pure devotional service to the Lord. There is no reason to interpret the “understanding” received as something impersonal or monistic, because it is already stated in the previous verse that when one attains/becomes one with Brahman, he gets devotional service to Krishna. This verse merely reiterates that one gets to this liberated platform by bhakti.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

It doesn’t contradict anything said by me so far. Maybe you can explain why you think it does?

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

“vishate tat-anantaram” – the jiiva “enters thereafter,” in otherwords, he enters into Vaikuntha. What is the difficulty here?

 

Where is it stated that there is no more duality after mukti? That would contradict the statement of BG 18.54 in which one attains supreme devotion to Krishna after attaining Brahman. It contradicts BG 2.12 which speaks of eternal, individual living entities. It contradicts “nityo nityaanaam….” Etc of the Upanishads. It contradicts Shriimad Bhaagavatam 3.15.*** which explicitly describes the liberated platform and the distinctly individual living entities and Lord Vishnu. Arbitrarily denouncing any of this evidence as “interpolation” will not help you. Any explanation of Vyaasa’s position must take all of these sources into account, not just those which seem to lend themselves to your interpretation.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

My arguments still stand. You misunderstand the sense of “knowledge” in this case, and you further read too much into “vishate tat-anantaram” as indicating some kind of monism or merging. You also arbitrarily ignore pramaanas (like Shriimad Bhaagavatam) which lend additional context which elucidate these points, which is why you come to an Advaitist understanding.

 

Even if “vishate tat-anantaram” meant what you say it does, which is not obvious, how is it consistent with Advaita, in which there is only one real entitity Brahman? You are saying that Brahman enters into itself? Krishna should have said that Arjuna would realize that they are both the same. Saying that the liberated entity enters into/merges with Krishna indicates that there was duality at some point, which is not consistent with a doctrine that holds that duality is due to illusion and Brahman alone exists. If anything, this might support the beda-abeda school of Bhaaskara, but it certainly does not support Advaita.

 

 

 

And elsewhere, the Bhaagavatam says the world is unreal and so on, taking on a serious Advaita tone (especially canto 11, chapter 28...check out verses 6 and 7). What should one do when Smriti contradicts itself?

 

 

 

 

You mean, “what should one do when Smriti *apparently* contradicts itself?” The answer is, one should shed one’s myopic vision of the Vedaanta and find an explanation that reconciles the seemingly contradictory viewpoints.

 

There are many *apparent* contradictions throughout the Vedic literature, but when it comes to shruti, Advaitins have no problem trying to explain away the statements that contradict their point of view. Their pleas for sympathy in the case of the Bhaagavatam are therefore not excusable. Standards of interpretation should be uniform, rather than looking for an excuse to reject something as “interpolated,” “contradictory,” etc.

 

As far as the specific pramaanas you mentioned, there is nothing here that contradicts the Gaudiiya view, though I suppose it might present a problem for the Maadhvas and their strict dualistic position. Then again, using your logic, Madhva wrote a tika on the Bhaagavatam, and you can guess how he interpreted this.

 

Certainly the material world is illusory since it is temporary, and because it seems to offer limitless opportunities for happiness when in fact there is nothing but the dualities of happiness and distress, etc.

 

Anyway, the real reason Advaitists reject the Bhaagavatam is because the Bhaagavatam contradicts their interpretation of Vedaanta. That’s all. Surely Vyaasa knows what He is talking about, and He has given these conclusion in the Bhaagvatam. Vedaanta-suutra is also smriti, but Advaitists don’t reject that.

 

The bottom line is that SB 3.15.14 cannot be written off by anyone whose authority derives from Shrii Vyaasadeva. It clearly describes individuality and devotional service on the liberated platform, rather than the formless, undifferentiated liberation of the impersonalists.

 

 

 

Is it worth our time to take the trouble of trying to reconcile things? Not according to Advaita. The Prasthaana Traya is sufficient to establish the truth and all other scriptures are secondary. Shankara's Bhaashya on Suutra 2.1.1 runs to several pages explaining the position of Smriti. He quotes the Jaimini Suutra as follows,

 

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

 

 

 

 

This statement is also quoted by Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana in his Govinda Bhaashya. But it cannot be used to reject the authority of the Bhaagavatam. Reasons:

 

1) We have it on the authority of the shruti that the Puraanas have the same origin as the Vedas, are actually the fifth Veda, etc. For example:

 

rigveda.m bhagavo'dhyemi yajurveda.m saamavedamaatharvaNa.m chaturthamitihaasapuraaNa.m pa~nchama.m vedaanaa.m veda pitR^iya.m raashi.m daiva nidhi.m va kovaakyamekaaayana.m devavidhyaa.m brahmavidhyaa.m bhuutavidhyaa.m kShatravidyaa.m nakShatravidyaa.m sarpadevajanavidhyaametadbhagavo'dhyemi || CU 7.1.2 ||

 

Revered master, I know the Rig Veda, the Yajurveda, the Saaamaveda, and the Atharvan as the fourth, the Itihaasa, Puraanas as the fifth, graammer, the rules for the worship of the manes, mathematics, the science of portents, the chronology, logic, the science of ethics, etymology, the ancillary knowledge of the Vedas, the physical science, the science of war, the astronomy, the science of snake-charming and the fine arts. This, venerable master, I know (chaandogya upaniShad 7.1.2).

 

The context, as you know, is Naarada submitting his doubt before his guru, who asks him first what he knows, and then Naarada speaks the above. Surely, we can agree that Naarada knows what he is talking about. We also know that the Puraanas have the same divine origins as the other Vedas:

 

R^ichaH saamaani chandaa.msi puraaNa.m yajuShaa saha |

uchchhiShTaaj jaj~nire sarve divi devaa divishritaaH || AV 11.7.24 ||

 

The R^ig, Saama, Yajur, and Atharva Vedas appeared from the Supreme Lord along with the PuraaNas and all the demigods residing in the heavenly planets (atharva veda 11.7.24).

 

So unless the Bhaagavatam is not a Puraana, we cannot dismiss it arbitrarily as “smriti” and hence fit to be ignored whenever convenient.

 

2) The Bhaagavatam itself substantiates itself as being on par with shruti –

 

katha.m vaa paaNDaveyasya raajarShermuninaa saha |

sa.mvaadaH samabhuuttaata yatraiShaa saatvatii shrutiH || bhaa P 1.4.7 ||

 

How did it so happen that King Pariikshit met this great sage, making it possible for this great transcendental essence of the Vedas [bhaagavatam] to be sung to him? (bhaagavata puraaNa 1.4.7)

 

The words “saatvatii shrutiH” indicate that the Bhaagavatam is the essence of the shrutis. This was spoken by the sages of Naimisharanya (who I think we can agree, also know what they are talking about) and recorded by Vyaasa here. If only shruti is acceptable as pramaana, then why not also the very essence of that shruti?

 

Vyaasa also indicates that the Bhaagavatam will enlighten the population of Kali Yuga:

 

kR^iShNe svadhaamopagate dharmaj~naanaadibhiH saha |

kalau naShTadR^ishaameSha puraaNaarko'dhunoditaH || bhaa 1.3.43 ||

 

This Bhaagavata PuraaNa is as brilliant as the sun, and it has arisen just after the departure of Lord Krishna to His own abode, accompanied by religion, knowledge, etc. Persons who have lost their vision due to the dense darkness of ignorance in the age of Kali shall get light from this PuraaNa (bhaagavata puraaNa 1.3.43).

 

Again, we presume that Vyaasa, the very incarnation of Naaraayana who knows past, present, and future, also knows what He is talking about. Would He indicate that the Bhaagavatam would enlighten the population of Kali Yuga when it is going to be riddled with interpolation and made contradictory with itself and with shruti? I don’t buy it.

 

Now you may argue that the Bhaagavatam cannot be used to substantiate its own authority, since it is smriti and its authority is under question in the first place. To this, I would respond that (1) Any scripture possessing all worthwhile knowledge is obviously going to refer itself and its authoritativeness, (2) other Puraanas also glorify the greatness of the Bhaagavatam, and I doubt that all of those statements are interpolation (though I’m sure Advaitins would offer such arguments out of desperation), and (3) even Bhagavad-giitaa and Vedaanta-suutra are also smriti, yet Advaitins don’t reject these sources. Furthermore, you have not given any reason to reject the Bhaagavatam in the first place. Merely saying it is “interpolated” merely because you disagree with it does not count. We must see evidence.

 

 

 

Shankara also says,

 

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

 

The Puraanaas themselves being full of contradiction, it is inevitable that only a selective portion is considered authority by any school.

 

 

 

Puraanas are not “full of contradiction” as they are the fifth Veda and have the same origin as the Vedas (see evidence quoted above). Also, we have from the Upanishads:

 

sa yathaardraidhaagnerabhyaahitaatpR^ithagdhuumaa vinishcharanti eva.m vaaare'syamahato bhuutasya niHshvasitametadyadR^igvedo yajurvedaH saamavedao'tharvaaN^girasa itihaasaH puraaNa.m vidyaa upaniShadaH shlokaaH suutraaNyanuvyaakhyaanaani vyaakhyaanaani asyaivaitaani niHshvasitaani || BU 2.4.10 ||

 

As from a fire kindled with wet fuel, clouds of smoke issue forth, so, my dear, verily, from this Glorious Great God has been breathed forth the Rig Veda, the Yajur Veda, Saama Veda, Atharvaangirasa, Itihaasa, Puraanas, Science of knowledge, Mystic Doctrines of Upanishads, pithy verses, aphorisms, elucidations and commentaries. From Him, indeed, are all these breathed forth (bR^ihadaaranyakopaniShad 2.4.10).

 

Would an omnipotent, omniscient God breathe out scriptures which are riddled with contradiction and serve only to mislead people? Perhaps, but that is a stretch, to say the least. Puraanas are created to establish the meaning of the Vedas for those not qualified to study the shrutis. They themselves say this:

 

vedavannishchala.m manye puraaNaartha.m dvijottamaaH |

vedaaH pratiShThitaaH sarve puraaNe naatra sa.mshayaH ||

bibhetyalpashrutaadvedo maamaya.m chaalayiShyati |

itihaasapuraaNaistu nishchalo’ya.m kR^itaH puraa ||

yanna dR^iShTa.m hi vedeShu taddR^iShTa.m smR^itiShu dvijaaH |

ubhayoryanna dR^iShTa.m hi tat puraaNaiH pragiiyate ||

yo veda chaturo vedaan saa.ngopaniShadi dvijaaH |

puraaNa.m naiva jaanaati na cha sa syaadvichakShaNaH || skaanda prabhaasakhande 5.3.121-124 ||

 

O best of the twice-born, I consider the meaning of the Puraanas to be as well established as that of the Vedas. Without doubt, the Puraanas give a firm foundation to the Vedas. Long ago, Mother Veda once became afraid of those who insufficiently hear from her, and she thought, ‘This sort of person will distort my meaning.’ But then the Itihaasas and Puraanas helped Mother Veda by firmly establishing her meaning. What cannot be found in the Vedas is found in the smriti, and what cannot be found in either is clearly explained in the Puraanas. O learned braahmanas, even if a person has studied the four Vedas along with the Vedaangas and Upanishads, he is not considered learned unless he knows the Puraanas. (skaanda puraaNa, prabhaasa-khaNDa 5.3.121-124)

 

Note the very clear statement that one must know the Puraanas in order to know the Vedas. The conclusion is that one who only studies the Vedas will likely come to a misunderstanding, and can certainly be assumed to have done so if he has contradicted the Puraanas. What kind of God would fail to see the lack of qualification of people in Kali Yuga, and not make available scriptures to appropriately enlighten them?

 

Anyway, we know that Shrii Shankaraachaarya also quotes from the Puraanas, Vishnu in particular. Why quote from them at all if they are subject to scrutiny because they are smriti? Either it is pramaana or it is not.

 

All Vedic literatures including the Puraanas very consistently describe the greatness and supremacy of Vishnu as they themselves state:

 

vede raamaayaNe chaiva puraaNe bhaarate tathaa |

aadaav ante cha madhye cha hariH sarvatra giiyate || SkP 4.95.12 ||

 

In the Vedas, Raamaayana, Puraanas, and Mahaabhaarata Lord Hari is glorified everywhere - in the beginning, middle, and end (skandha puraaNa 4.95.12).

 

That there are many sections of the Puraanas which glorify other deities is simply because the Puraanas are meant for different audiences, who may need to be gradually introduced to Vishnu-bhakti by an indirect process on the count of their raajaasic or taamaasic tendencies. This threefold classification of the Puraanas is found in the Puraanas themselves:

 

saatvikeShu puraaNeShu maahaatmyamadhika.m hareH |

raajaseShucha maahaatmyamadhika.m brahmaNoviduH ||

tadvadagneshcha maahaatmya.m taamaseShu shivasya cha |

sa.nkiirNeShu sarasvatyaaH pitR^INaamcha nigadyate || matsya p 53.67-68 ||

 

In the Saatvika Puraanas, there is largely a mention of Hari’s glory. In the Raajas Puraaanas there is the greater mention of Brahmaa’s glory. In the Taamasika Puraanas, there is a mention of Shiva and Agni’s glory. In all kinds of Puraanas, of all the three attributes, the glory of Sarasvatii and the pitris have been described. (matysa puraaNa 53.68-69)

 

The classification of the Puraanas into the three modes is also found in the Puraanas:

 

matsya.mkaurma.mtathaalai.nga.mshaiva.mskaanda.mtathaivacha |

aagneya.mchaShaDetaanitaamasaaninibodhame ||

vaiShNava.mnaaradiiya.mchatathaabhaagavata.mshubham |

gaaruDa.mchatathaapaadma.mvaaraaha.msubhadarshane ||

saattvikaanipuraaNaanivij~neyaanishubhaani vai |

brahmaaNDa.mbrahmavaivarta.mmaarkaNDeya.mtathaivacha ||

bhaviShya.mvaamana.mbraahma.mraajasaaninibodhame |

saatvikaamokShadaaH proktaaraajasaaH sarvadaashubhaaH ||

tathaivataamasaadevinirayapraaptihetavaH || padma, uttara, 236.18-22 ||

 

Know from me that Maatsya, Kaurma, Lainga, Shaiva, so also Skaanda, and Aagneya are taamasa. O you of an auspicious appearance, the Puraanas, viz. Vaishnava, Naaradiiya, so also the auspicious Bhaagavata, similarly Gaaruda, Paadma, Vaaraahaa, should be known to be saatvika. Know from me that Brahmaanda, Brahma-vaivarta, Maarkandeya, Bhavishya, Vaamana and Braahma are raajasa. The saatvika ones are said to give salvation and are always auspicious. Similarly, O goddess, the taamasa are said to be the case of (i.e. lead one to) hell. (padma puraaNa, uttara-khaNDa 236.18-21)

 

Now one may argue, “how can Puraanas be Vedic when they contain material that is of the nature of goodness, passion, ignorance, etc, and some of them are said to lead to hell?” The answer is that even Vedas also contain material that is of the nature of the three gunas (modes of material nature), but this is only for specific audiences and is meant for their gradual upliftment:

 

traiguNyaviShayaa vedaa nistraiguNyo bhavaarjuna |

nirdvandvo nityasattvastho niryogakShema aatmavaan || giitaa 2.45 ||

 

The Vedas deal mainly with the subject of the three modes of material nature. O Arjuna, becomes transcendental to these three modes. Be free from all dualities and from all anxieties for gain an safety, and be established in the self. (bhagavad-giitaa 2.45)

 

Both Puraanas and Vedas contain material that relates to the three modes of material nature. But that is not the limit of their scope – those who think there is nothing more will certain be stuck in the material world and even fall down into hell.

 

So it is clear that one must put greater emphasis upon the saattvik puraanas for developing transcendental knowledge. And among saattvik puraanas, the Bhaagavatam is the topmost puraana, as also substantiated by shaastra:

 

puraaNeShu tu sarveShu shriimadbhaagavata.m param |

yatra pratipada.m kR^iShNo giiyate bahudharShibhiH || Pa P, U Kh 193.3 ||

 

Among all the Puraanas, Shriimad-Bhaagavatam is the best. In every line great sages glorify Lord Krishna in various ways (padma puraaNa, uttara-khaNDa 193.3).

 

shriimadbhaagavataakhyo 'yam pratyakShaH kR^iShNa eva hi || Pa P, U Kh 198.30 ||

 

Without a doubt Shriimad-Bhaagavatam is directly Lord Krishna (padma puraaNa, uttara-khaNDa 198.30).

 

So you see, Shvu, you cannot simply ignore Puraanic evidence if you wish to represent the Vedaanta. The shrutis consider them Veda. The Puraanas account for their apparent inconsistencies. Shankaraachaarya and other Advaitins quote from Puraanas when it suits them. Puraanas are meant to elucidate the meaning of the Vedas, and one who studies the Vedas without the Puraanas comes to a wrong understanding.

 

It is not unfair to say that any school which admits to ignoring Puraanic evidence (especially from the Bhaagavatam, the best among the Puraanas) is simply destroying its own scholarly credibility.

 

 

For instance, the Gaudiiyas hardly rely on the Vishnu Puraanaa, although it is THE Vaishnava Puraanaa, while Advaitins do.

 

 

 

This is not true. Jiiva Gosvaamii quotes extensively from Vishnu Puraana in his Bhagavata-sandarbha. The reason Gaudiiya prefer the Bhaagavatam is for reasons already mentioned above – it is the one scripture that gives the essence of shruti, dispenses with goals external to prema-bhakti (see SB 1.1.2), and is best among Puraanas (numerous quotes which I am happy to provide).

 

 

Also, Shridhara Swami, an Advaitin, wrote a commentary on the SB, the bhaavaartha-diipika, which apparently is one of the most popular commentaries on the SB. I have no idea how true he was to Advaita, but it would be interesting to see how he interprets such a description of Vaikunta.

 

 

 

Shriidhar Swaami was not an Advaitin, as he came in the Kumaara sampradaaya (a well known Vaishnava sampradaaya in Vrindaavan). He is wrongly assumed to be an Advaitin because he wrote his Bhaagavatam commentary in such a way as to make it appealing to Advaitists. This is well known among Gaudiiya Vaishnava scholars, who do often refer to Bhaavaartha-diipika very favorably. Even if he did have an “Advaitist” slant on SB 3.5.****, it would be moot. Those verses clearly speak for themselves, and they are not speaking of Advaita. No help there.

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

No, it means exactly what it says. When one has attained/become one with Brahman “brahma-bhuta prasanaatmaa” he gets the supreme devotion to Krishna “mad-bhakti labhate paraam.” Are you telling me that “brahma-bhuuta” is not mukti?

 

 

 

 

 

manasaivedamaaptavyaM neha naanaa.asti ki.nchana |

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

 

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

 

Shankara's Bhaashya (only the relevant portion):

 

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

 

 

 

Again, you have offered nothing convincing here. When Brahman is described as having attributes elsewhere, there is no reason to assume that a formless Brahman is being referred to here.

 

 

 

 

The above verse from the Katha is a sample.

 

 

 

There is nothing in the above verse from the Katha which says what you claim, unless you can prove from the outset that a formless Brahman is being referred to. When Brahman is described as having form and attributes elsewhere, there is no reason to assume that a different concept of Brahman is being referred to here. Thus, the verse above is saying that there is no internal differences in this Brahman which has form, attributes, etc. Surely you agree that verses should be interpreted within the global context.

 

 

There are plenty of other verses which establish this such as,

 

naiva vaachaa na manasaa praaptuM shakyo na chakshushhaa |

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

 

 

 

And yet, in the same text, we have verses like:

 

eSha sarveShu bhuuteShu guudo ‘tmaa naprakaashate |

darshyate tvagryayaabuddhyaa suukShmayaa suukShmadarshibhiH ||

 

Hidden in all the beings, this Self is not visibly displayed. Yet, people of keen vision see Him, with eminent and sharp minds. (kaThopaniShad 1.3.12)

 

How, Shvu, does one *see* a Brahman that has no form or attributes? The idea that they only see an illusory form of Brahman is not a valid explanation. Brahman either has form in reality or He does not. If they see Brahman, then they see Him, not an illusion.

 

And anyway, if we are all Brahman, then where does the question of “seeing Brahman” arise? This implies duality.

 

Katha 2.3.12 does not mean that Brahman has no attributes. It merely means that Brahman cannot be completely understood by the mind, speech, sight, etc. But one can begin to understand Him as He is revealed in shaastra with senses purified by bhakti-yoga.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First of all, I would appreciate a straight answer to the above questions, rather than an evasive approach using inappropriate counter arguments. Let us look at your counter arguments, which you use to suggest that Krishna would not be straightforward in His teachings to Arjuna:

 

 

 

Let us see. A good example is...neither does Krishna talk about Raadha being his soul or rejecting Mukti in favor of Bhakti.

 

 

 

 

This is obviously a very poor example, as Krishna’s lack of mention of Raadhaa has no bearing on whether or not He is speaking candidly here. Where in Bhagavad-giitaa does the subject of Raadhaa arise? Never did Arjuna ask the Lord about Raadhaa. In fact, it is considered a very confidential subject matter, as are all of the Lord’s dealings with the gopikas. Hence in the Bhaagavatam 10th Skandha Shukadeva warns Mahaaraaja Pariikshi about misunderstanding these confidential activities of the Lord.

 

In other words, the fact that Krishna did not choose to mention Raadhaa does not excuse Him from speaking very plainly about the Advaita siddhaanta. Hence, the fact that He did not do so is sufficient evidence to indicate that He did not intend to teach it.

 

 

 

If Gaudiiya Vaishnavism is the truth, Why wasn't Krishna being simple and straightforward? He also does not talk about five eternal differences or Vaikunta.

 

 

 

 

On the contrary, Krishna answered every one of Arjuna’s questions in a very simple and straightforward manner - and Advaita does not figure into His simple and straightforward explanations.

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

This not an answer, and it most certainly is not a problem for bhakti traditions. Living entities who do not wish to serve Krishna must go somewhere. They aren't going to be in Vaikuntha if they have not yet developed the need to serve Him. Now about an answer to my question, which is this: if Advaita is the conclusion, why teach a saadhana that makes one believe the opposite?

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

This is an evasive answer. Either maayaa exists, or it does not. One of the main faults in Advaita - it requires maayaa to exist in order to explain the perception of duality, yet it cannot explain how maayaa exists if a formless Brahman is all that exists.

 

 

 

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

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

Absolutely untrue. “Advaita” is only “popular” because it appeals to the subtly atheistic slant of people raised in today’s secular environment. Saying that Advaita has “stayed on top” because of its mass appeal is like saying that Buddhism is also great because so many people in America’s urban marijuana-smoking subculture claim to follow it. In both cases, the “followers” simply claim to follow, but in reality they redefine the religions to their own whimsical tastes, picking and choosing what they want and assuming that everything else is optional or not applicable. Obvious examples of this include “Advaitists” who are convinced that there is no need to go to temples, “Advaitists” who eat meat, “Advaitists” who smoke, “Advaitists” who drink liquor, etc etc – not merely because they have character flaws which they are trying to change due to the influence o