Adi Shankara - A Covert VaiSNava

[Guest guest]

Sankara is correct as he is referring to the body which lives by the true nature that is above the three gunas. The true nature above the three gunas is referred as nirguna while still embodied. This is referred to as narayana.

 

Sanakara expresses strong belief that a body by it's virtue is only supposed to live by it's true spiritual nature (that's above the three gunas). It's only ignorance, bondage and perception that makes a person ignorant.

[Guest guest]

______________

Sankara is correct as he is referring to the body which lives by the true nature that is above the three gunas. The true nature above the three gunas is referred as nirguna while still embodied. This is referred to as narayana.

______________

 

even taking your argument to be true, why? why doesn't he refer 'it' by any other name?

 

but this argument made by you has some serious defects.

 

first, the word 'nArAyaNa' is peculiar and it will refer only to Lord ViSNu and not to any other thing or deity.(Panini sutra - pUrvapadAt samgyAyAm agaH).

 

[note: similar word is 'rAmAyaNa' which will refer only to the itihasa of Lord RAma.]

 

also, the above argument made by you that the 'true nature' above three gunas is nirguna is not Shankara's view. he infact nowhere says so. please don't pass judgements or make decisions on Shankara by your own thought. refer to his commentaries in which he explains 'advaita'.

 

'nirguna' is not true nature which is embodied. also, he clearly makes a distinction between Saguna and nirguna brahmans. It is no point to argue that nirguna is just called 'narayana'.

 

'nirguna' does not have any name or form. 'nirguna' brahman is not sarvabhUtAntarAtma. it does not create , sustain and destroy. these are done by Saguna brahman.

 

also, going by the peculiarity of the word 'Narayana', if 'nirguna' brahman is called as nArAyaNa then it will suffice that Shankara considered ViSNu as nirguna brahman! this definitely refutes the argument that he was a smarta. he nowhere calls the 'nirguna' by anyother name even going by your logic.

 

But this is not what he says. Shankara considers ViSNu only to be Saguna brahman. not as nirguna brahman for his nirguna brahman is devoid of form, name, colour, smell etc. it is only gnAna svarUpa.

 

If you say that 'nArAyaNa' is nirguna brahman, it definitely bolsters my position that he was not a smarta. but hten as it is not his view, I do not accept this and I have explained it.

 

as I have shown above, Shankara definitely identifies Narayana with saguna brahman and he considered that no other deity is equal to or greater than Him. this clearly shows that he was not a smarta.

 

as no citations have been provided from his commentaries to show that he was a smarta, i consider that it vindicates my position. I started this thread only to confirm whether the conclusion arrived at after studying his commentaries is correct or not. now i think that my conclusions are justified.

 

anyway, i never wished to abuse Sri Shankara or for that matter any Smarta or Advaitin.

 

But my request for everyone(incl. VaiSNavas) is : "please read the commentaries written by your mahAcAryAs because unless we know our philosophy and its greatness, we will not be able to defeat the stupid arguments of missionaries and other Semitic religious fanatics. Infact, by using sound logic given in those commenatries, you can always defend the greatness of your religion as oppossed to the Semitic religions(fanatically narrow minded). I have such experience thanks to my tutor and I wish everyone of us learn our philosophy "

 

I hope everyone will find this thread useful.

 

Jai shri rAm!!

[Guest guest]

 

_______________

All the scriptures that praise the Lord as Narayana are in our favor, except we are a bit smart (as our Guru Sri Shankara) that though we may think, remember and adore our King only in his stately dress, we know he is just the same were he to wear an ordinary man's dress.

_______________

 

My argument has been very simple. Inhave cited from Shankara's own commentaries. I have not given any opinion of mine. If you think Shankara is a smarta then show it from his commentaries that he was one.

 

all your examples about King's dress is ridiculous. We identify our Lord when takes birth as a human. But we will certainly not acept someone who is not a king to be a king.

 

...

 

 

Sri Ravilochan, well I was off for the week and as expected you had blasted off my comments. Good job. As BinduMadhav suggested, you need to go through this cycle before you get some religious maturity to get out of it. As I said, the Smarta has no problems in seeing Sri Shankara praise (the Lord as) Narayana alone. I know you will never digest this fact. If it makes him a Vaishnava according to your wisdom, then please keep to that idea. I know plenty of Smartas whose ideal is Narayana, and there are many who who worship Rama or Krishna alone. The difference is that they are not averse to keeping a picture of Shiva in their pooja room and offering a flower at His Lotus feet. They recognize that from the higher standpoint the form or aspect of the Divine that they choose to worship does not limit the Lord and it is the same Lord that others may worship as Shiva. This bit of catholicity is the difference between a true Smarta and a stauch Vaishnavite. Do not expect us to go about saying "We also accept Shiva" so that Vaishnavites don't confuse us as themselves?

 

Such a necessity would occur were we insecure of our own position. We are not and neither is Shankara. At the very beginning, you put forth the grand claim that the Stotras of Shankara in praise of other Gods and Goddesses are future works of others. His Dakshinamoorthi Stotram, Nirvanashatkam and Shivananda Lahari are written by others, according to you. And all the Smartas here are at once to accept Sri Ravilochan's opinion in the matter and go looking for evidence where Sri Ravilochan wants them to. The Vaishnava FOR FEAR needs to put Vishnu's name at every corner; the Smarta does not. The Smarta can also accept that those of foreign religions are worshipping the same God as themselves and NO LESS. Do you think we need to go to the Church and Mosque every weekend so that the Vaishnavite will have his proof and not call us a hypocrite? Get over it.

 

I do not say scriptures are not essential. They are necessary to establish a philosophical position on the basis of what the sages have said. We accept the conclusions of the Rishis and hence the citation of scriptures serves as

evidence and a potential guide in our spiritual quest for truth. But the interpretation of the scripture or an Acharya's commetary depends on the person who does it: an immature person makes an immature conclusion, and a mature person makes a mature one :

 

You saw that Sri Shankara equates the Parabrahman with Narayana (a label by the way) in his commentaries and have concluded that the Parabrahman according to Sri Shankara cannot be Shiva or Durga. It seems he must in his efforts to establish Advaita in his commentaries also circulate a hundred names of God and make it a point in the commentaries (including on Gita!) to establish a separate sect called the Smartas which has a catholic outlook for Hindu Gods, lest the future strongly Vaishnava sects will mistake him. He should have been better prepared for Sri Ramanujacharya, Sri Madhvacharya and Sri Ravilochan.

 

Thankfully most of his followers do not concoct such limitations on his commentaries and can understand that he refers to the same God whether by Narayana in the commentaries of Advaita or Shiva/Annapurna in his stotras. Well that is the Smarta's interpretation of Shankara; let those who can, take it.

[Guest guest]

Krishna appeals that he's nirguna. He also says early on in BG that only fools believe that krishna didn't exist before his birth or after.

 

Vaishnavites who don't take every word of Krishna in BG, can be mistaken to be hindus triggering in arguments.

[Guest guest]

 

_________________

 

Now I have clearly shown in my posts that the stotra granthas which are claimed to have been written by Shankara surfaced after 1400 A.D. only while Shankara was definitely in the 9th century A.D. at the latest which leaves a time gap of around 500 whole years.

 

no Advaitin before 1400 A.D has ever cited these works nor have they written any traetise on them despite the fact that numerous treatises exist upon his commentaries. it is highly impossible that his followers will not even quote a whole bunch of his works for more than 500 years. why quote from them, they did not even mention that such works actually exist.

 

hence, I have not cited from 'Bhaja Govindam' as well.

 

the works cited by you were first quoted by Appaya Dikshita - the person who has the dubious distinction of citing previously unknown Upanishads, granthas and slokas. These were written by him and foisted upon others and vedas. This is very clear from the fact that not even a single person before him has ever cited the works/unknown Upanishads cited by him.

 

my argument is based on facts. If you think otherwise, then provide proof to the contrary. let debates be based on facts and not on slogan raising and one's own convictions.

 

so dont make a mockery of this thread by posting from the stotra granthas.

 

 

"Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense:

[Guest guest]

whoever you are, Mr. Guest, try to use some logic in your arguments. don't resort to slogan shouting.

 

When I say that stotra granthas were not written by Sri Shankara, I give the reasons for my conclusions. You have not even bothered to look at those reasons. this is ther problem. Shankara used logic in each and every step in his attempt to establish Advaita and so did Ramanuja and Madhva.

 

But you modern day Advaitins don't even care about logic. You just indulge in sloganshouting. You seem to behave as if you know about his philosophy despiter the fact that most of you have not even read his commentaries properly.

 

you close your eyes and say that 'I do not see.'

 

anyway, another person said that in Bg Krishna called Himself as 'nirguna'. definitely you cannot be an advaitin because Shankara himself considers Krishna as 'saguna'.

 

When Krishna says that He is ever present, it doesn't mean He is 'nirguna'. did you ever care to read Shankara's commenatries on the Gita?

 

Also, Krishna does not say that He is 'nirguna'.

 

another said 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'

 

nice play of words. when you can indulge in such plays, yopu can also show some evidence if it does exist. when no evidence to the contrary is present, then the fact presented must be taken as true. This is one of the basic tenets in 'tarka shastra'.

 

the above sentence can also be taken to say that because there is no evidence to say that Shankara was a Buddhist, it does not mean that he is not so(ie there may be some evidence to the contrary which we do not know).

 

but such a statement would be absurd as Shankara has lambasted Buddhism in his commenatries.

 

Similarly, saying that Shankara might have been a smarta is also silly, beacuse he himself says that no one else other than Krishna is worthy of worship. there was no need to say those words there. But he expressly used those words. that sets the matter clear.

 

so instead of indulging in word plays, indulge in reading your Acharya's scriptures.

 

unless you stop your slogan shouting and try to understand logic, it is useless to enter into argument.

 

you can quote from his commentaries to counter my views.

 

if you cite from the stotra granthas, just show a single proof that the particular stotra was handled or cited by some advaitin before 1200 A.D. I'll accept them as 'pramana'. but indulging in slogan shouting makes a mockery of this thread.

 

finally,

_______________

This bit of catholicity is the difference between a true Smarta and a stauch Vaishnavite. Do not expect us to go about saying "We also accept Shiva" so that Vaishnavites don't confuse us as themselves?

_______________

 

read it once again.

 

Shankara said 'No deity other than Krishna is worthy of worship'.

 

He did say in very clear words. When he says no one else is worthy of worship, it means that he will not worship them. Definitely, Shankara will not worship one whom he considers to be unworthy of it. I think you will accept atleast this fact or else it will make Shankara himself a collection of contradictions which he is definitely not.

 

so, the above words said by you will not apply for Shankara. I am not saying that Smartas must become Vaishnavas but what I am trying to say is that you must leave Shankara alone. Don't impose your ideas upon him for he was not a smarta.

 

my final request, do some proper 'tarka'. don't indulge in slogan shouting.

[Guest guest]

Sankara didn't call krishna as saguna. It's you. Try this. Interpret Sankara or BG the way you want, and make Sankara come back from the dead to correct you. If Sankara fails to come back from the dead at the count of 10, then you declare yourself the winner.

 

You can claim that you proved yourself to be the winner against slogan shouting advaitins.

[Guest guest]

I am new to this thread but i thought i must clear few points here:

 

 

"Interpret Sankara or BG the way you want"

 

Excuse me, it is you who is interpreting. Krishna shows his original four handed form to Arjun after showing his Universal Form, and also says to Arjun, that even the great sages after millions of years of penances, are not able to see this original Form of Lord. So BG confirms that Supreme Lord is Saguna. Its you who is interpreting Gita and Lord's words according to your own whimsical ways.

 

"and make Sankara come back from the dead to correct you."

 

I doubt if you are an Advaitin. bcoz if so, you would have never disrespected Sankaracarya by calling him 'dead'. Anybody who attains liberation does not take rebirth...and hence no death. And then what to speak of great Acarya like Adi Sankaracarya !! He had purposely descended to propagate a specific mission..and by calling him 'dead', you have only proven how incomplete your knowledge in transcendental matters is.

 

Hare Krishna !

[Guest guest]

Who taught you transedental matter. Who taught you how to interpret Krishna as saguna.

 

I sure this must be from one of the madarsa's run by ISKON.

[Guest guest]

 

whoever you are, Mr. Guest, try to use some logic in your arguments. don't resort to slogan shouting.

 

When I say that stotra granthas were not written by Sri Shankara, I give the reasons for my conclusions. You have not even bothered to look at those reasons. this is ther problem. Shankara used logic in each and every step in his attempt to establish Advaita and so did Ramanuja and Madhva.

 

But you modern day Advaitins don't even care about logic. You just indulge in sloganshouting. You seem to behave as if you know about his philosophy despiter the fact that most of you have not even read his commentaries properly.

 

you close your eyes and say that 'I do not see.'

 

anyway, another person said that in Bg Krishna called Himself as 'nirguna'. definitely you cannot be an advaitin because Shankara himself considers Krishna as 'saguna'.

 

When Krishna says that He is ever present, it doesn't mean He is 'nirguna'. did you ever care to read Shankara's commenatries on the Gita?

 

Also, Krishna does not say that He is 'nirguna'.

 

another said 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'

 

nice play of words. when you can indulge in such plays, yopu can also show some evidence if it does exist. when no evidence to the contrary is present, then the fact presented must be taken as true. This is one of the basic tenets in 'tarka shastra'.

 

the above sentence can also be taken to say that because there is no evidence to say that Shankara was a Buddhist, it does not mean that he is not so(ie there may be some evidence to the contrary which we do not know).

 

but such a statement would be absurd as Shankara has lambasted Buddhism in his commenatries.

 

Similarly, saying that Shankara might have been a smarta is also silly, beacuse he himself says that no one else other than Krishna is worthy of worship. there was no need to say those words there. But he expressly used those words. that sets the matter clear.

 

so instead of indulging in word plays, indulge in reading your Acharya's scriptures.

 

unless you stop your slogan shouting and try to understand logic, it is useless to enter into argument.

 

you can quote from his commentaries to counter my views.

 

if you cite from the stotra granthas, just show a single proof that the particular stotra was handled or cited by some advaitin before 1200 A.D. I'll accept them as 'pramana'. but indulging in slogan shouting makes a mockery of this thread.

 

finally,

_______________

This bit of catholicity is the difference between a true Smarta and a stauch Vaishnavite. Do not expect us to go about saying "We also accept Shiva" so that Vaishnavites don't confuse us as themselves?

_______________

 

read it once again.

 

Shankara said 'No deity other than Krishna is worthy of worship'.

 

He did say in very clear words. When he says no one else is worthy of worship, it means that he will not worship them. Definitely, Shankara will not worship one whom he considers to be unworthy of it. I think you will accept atleast this fact or else it will make Shankara himself a collection of contradictions which he is definitely not.

 

so, the above words said by you will not apply for Shankara. I am not saying that Smartas must become Vaishnavas but what I am trying to say is that you must leave Shankara alone. Don't impose your ideas upon him for he was not a smarta.

 

my final request, do some proper 'tarka'. don't indulge in slogan shouting.

 

Okay, there's nothing wrong with quoting some simple logic. Just because no one quoted Shankara's other works or we find no surviving evidence of it doesn't mean that no one ever did. Second, of coarse other philosophers were more concerned with his comentaries than his praises to God. I'm not surprised that they didn't quote them, however that is no proof that he didn't write them. Mabey you are the one lacking logic here.

 

Anyway I'm not a Shankaran Advaitist. Advaita comes way way before Shankara. Go read the major Upanishads it's all right there. I beleive in Shankara religion not because I follow him but because we follow the same religion. And if he din't write those other works as you say then I follow the same religion as whomever wrote them.

 

It's is you must leave Shankara alone. He has always belonged to the Smartas. Here's the biggest proof: VAISHNAVISM NEVER EXISTED IN HIS TIME IT WAS INVENTED MUCH LATER BY RAMANUJA.

[Guest guest]

"Who taught you transedental matter. Who taught you how to interpret Krishna as saguna."

 

KRISHNA HIMSELF TAUGHT. Read Bhgavad Gita for more details.

 

"I sure this must be from one of the madarsa's run by ISKON."

 

I dont want to say anything about ISKCON particularly, but one thing is foremost that Lord Krishna is worshipped with great devotion there. So pls dont offend Krishna by calling such organisations as Madarsas. Lord Caitanya taught that one should be humbler than the blade of grass and more tolerant than a tree. Srila Prabhupada propagated the same teachings by founding ISKCON. On the contrary, Madarsas only propagate violence, and methods of killing innocent people. I can understand your deluded condition under the influence of Maya..but what you wrote was just too much. Pls learn to control your anger.

[Guest guest]

 

VAISHNAVISM NEVER EXISTED IN HIS TIME IT WAS INVENTED MUCH LATER BY RAMANUJA.

I'd like a discussion on this. When exactly did exclusive Vaishnavism start? It think Ramanuja and Madhva came from a family background like Shankara, that worshipped many forms of God, but they preferred to worship Vishnu alone, so contributed to the Vaishnava tradition.

 

There was a tradition of worshipping Vishnu for a long time before these excusive vaishnava sets grew. So while worship of Vishnu was ancient, over 3000 years old, Vaishnava sects are just around a thousand years old. I personally think both Vaishnava and Shaivite sects exagerate how old their sects really are.

 

to the guest,

 

It cannot be doubted that Islam is intollerant of other religions, especially the non-abrahamic, idol-worshipping types of religion. Muslims do learn this intollerance from Mullahs in Madarsas. Islam is totally against these types of religion of which Hinduism is top of the list. It's not misinterpretation, Mullah-s and Imams interpret the koran more honestly than any Hindu applogist can.

[Guest guest]

 

Sankara didn't call krishna as saguna. It's you. Try this. Interpret Sankara or BG the way you want, and make Sankara come back from the dead to correct you. If Sankara fails to come back from the dead at the count of 10, then you declare yourself the winner.

 

You can claim that you proved yourself to be the winner against slogan shouting advaitins.

It looks you have no basic knowledge of Bhagwad Gita. You must learn that one should interpret the scriptures as it is not with your silly and stupid thinking. You must look for a satguru to understand BG.

If, you read chapter 12 of BG where Arjun is asking Krishna who is better the one who prays in your saguna form or Nirguna form. i don't think I have to explain everything to you what Krishna replied.

Stop misguiding others and your self also surrender to the lotus feet of Krishna and you will understand who Krishna is?

Hari Bol!

[vrajavasi]

Radhe Krishna

 

Ravi Lochan, ur argument is for the sake of argument.

 

It simply demonstrate the capacity of the person arguing.

 

I have seen similar arguments in Gaudiya discussions portraying Chaitanya Mahaprabhu as monist.

 

And here u r trying to show Shankaracharya as Vaishnavist.

 

Funny.

 

World at large knows shankara stands for what and chaitanya mahaprabhu stands for what.

 

One more funny thing u have quoted is he is not even smartha. what a wonderful imagination. I think, u r blaberring these things on a non vaidic platform. For ur kind information, Smartha, Shrivaishnava and madhvas all of them smarthas. Smartha simply indicates the fact that follower of smruthis. My staunch Shri vaishnavaite friends object to the fact if i refer me as a smartha. They say that we are also smarthas which is partly true. In spite of philosophical differences that exist between the three basic schools of philosophy, we are yet governed by the same set of smruthis and come under the same gothra lineage. Then what differentiates. The extra affiliation of puranic references and aagamas preferred by Shri vaishnavas and Madhvas in addition to smruthis makes the difference. We do not go an inch forward than the smruthis and in this we were guided long before adi shankaracharya. Adi shankaracharya simply given new life to the smartha way of living which had such dominance tilll the time of Ramanujacharya and Madwacharya and even chaitanya mahaprabhu of whom the last two had in fact took sanyas from advaitin sanyasis.

 

Whether it is atmaanusandhaanam or Bhakthi or even debate we smarthas do it with persons who are equally knowledgeable about the facts and in a dignified manner. Ur type of sensationalist or shouting brigage type or cut and paste quotes may be good for web site arguments. If u need a structured dialogue, a serious dialogue, the correct place is vidvat sathas organised in Advaitic monastaries where u would not dare to venture with ur cut and paste quotes.

 

Till then u can simply plant ur vijaya dvaja

 

Afterall ignorance is bliss

 

Whether it is krishna Bhakthi or Atma vichara it requires sincere efforts. and both are heavy subjects which require practice and not cut and paste type of debates. If u enjoy cut and paste debates enjoy it for the sake of it.

 

cause neither will u improve krishna bhakthi nor atma vichara in these type of debates since the basic object per se appears to me from these is satisfaction of ego.

 

Radhe krishna

[Guest guest]

_______________

If u need a structured dialogue, a serious dialogue, the correct place is vidvat sathas organised in Advaitic monastaries where u would not dare to venture with ur cut and paste quotes.

 

Till then u can simply plant ur vijaya dvaja

 

Afterall ignorance is bliss

 

_______________

 

For your kind information, recently I found that Shri P.B.AnnangarAcArya Swamy placd the same arguments before the PITAdhipati of KAnci mutt, Sri Chandrashekara saraswati and the revered AcArya was not able to oppose it. All this happened some decades ago. If you have any interrest in this, you can go through P.B.A. Swamy's books and also books about him.

 

Then, you have failed to notice that I have never said that Shakara is a complete VaiSNava even at a single place.

 

I have just said that he accepted ViSNu as Saguna brahman and I showed it from his commentaries. It is only because of this fact that I called him a 'covert' Vaisnava and not a smarta.

 

 

 

 

_______________

VAISHNAVISM NEVER EXISTED IN HIS TIME IT WAS INVENTED MUCH LATER BY RAMANUJA.

_______________

 

shows your lack of knowledge in Vedic scriptures and Vedanta. don't blabber something when you do not know about it.

 

Pancaratra system(Bhagavata cult) existed in India even during Maurya empire. The cult finds mention in Brahma Sutras and Shankara accepts that the cult is correct to the extant that ViSNu is Parambrahman and that worshipping Him gives moksha but he opposes it on what he considers as creation of JIvas found in it. So just don't blabber whatever comes to your mind. please read the various scriptures and then write.

 

YOUR BIGGEST PROOF IS NOTHING BUT A VERY BIG LIE.

 

 

 

_______________

of coarse other philosophers were more concerned with his comentaries than his praises to God. I'm not surprised that they didn't quote them, however that is no proof that he didn't write them.

_______________

 

this is complete lack of logic. you have not read my post clearly.

 

I am not speaking about about 'other philosophers' but about Advaitins who followed Shankara.

 

The Advaitins(before 1300 A.D) have written a lot of tIkAs on Shankara's works. But none of them have ever even mentioned about the so called stotras that are claimed to be written by Shankara.

 

No one will ever say that followers of a great teacher will not even mention the works written by him.

 

use some logic. all the citations I have given are from 'Advaitic sources' alone and not from the schools of other philosophers.

 

You can shout at the top of your voice but that will not make Shankara a Smarta because he was an Advaitin who accepted ViSNu alone as Saguna Brahman. That seals the matter.

 

all you smartas do is indulge in slogan shouting.

 

if you wish to indulge in more, do as you wish.

[Guest guest]

the guest indulges in misinformation campaign (Vaisnavism never existed before Ramanuja) because he is not able to prove that Shankara was a smarta which of course he was not.

 

Anyway, his way resembles that of those 'eminent' historians who when asked upon to prove their AIT/AMT just end up shouting rhetoric and writing some made up stories(their own imaginations). pity on him.

 

Now let me show him that Vaishnavism existed centuries and centuries before Shankara.

 

First of all, Vaishnavism has its roots in Puranic lore(Sattvic Puranas), Itihasas, PAncarAtra, vykAnasa and Vedas themselves.

 

Right from Rg Veda to Mahanarayana Upa. Visnu cult exists.

 

pAncarAtra existed even during the time when Brahma sutras were written is proved beyond doubt as it is cited by the sutrakara.

 

also, it was not Ramanuja who started the Vishistadvaitic Vaisnavite religion. He had various acaryas before him spreading the same religion.

 

Also, the direct disciple of BadarAyana VyAsa - BodhAyana, is cited by Ramanuja as the proponent of Vishishtadvaitic Philosophy and he has cited a lot from Bodhayana's work.

 

Thus Vaishnavite religion is as old as Brahma Sutras.

 

so don't place baseless arguments as clinching evidence.

 

I have found that it is useless to present your views here. for instead of providing proper arguments to contrary, all that people do is indulging in slogan shouting.

 

I am finding only 'Witzel' minded people and not some person with any basic inclination to find the truth.

 

If you wish to indulge in more slogan shouting, do so freely.

 

the basic point is - not one single point put forward by me has been refuted.

 

either you must refute them with proper proof or refrain from posting.

 

slogan shouting makes a mockery of proper intellectual debates and it has happened so in this thread also.

 

make a trash of this thread as much as you wish.

 

Let truth prevail!!

[Guest guest]

I agree with Ravilochan.

 

and what to speak of Vedas, Vaishnavism has no beginning and no end. Because Vaishnavism propagates service to Supreme Lord Krishna. Since Supreme Lord is beginningless, hence His service is also beginningless. Here is the proof that Vaishnavism is coming directly from Lord Hari. He first imparted this science to Lord Brahma and so on...

 

Disciplic Succession:

 

1. Krsna

 

2. Brahma

 

3. Narada

 

4. Vyasa

 

5. Madhva

 

6. Padmanabha

 

7. Nrhari

 

8. Madhava

 

9. Aksobhya

 

10. Jaya Tirtha

 

11. Jnanasindhu

 

12. Dayanidhi

 

13. Vidyanidhi

 

14. Rajendra

 

15. Jayadharma

 

16. Purusottama

 

17. Brahmanya Tirtha

 

18. Vyasa Tirtha

 

19. Laksmipati

 

20. Madhavendra Puri

 

21. Isvara Puri, (Nityananda, Advaita)

 

22. Lord Caitanya

 

23. Rupa, (Svarupa, Sanatana)

 

24. Raghunatha, Jiva

 

25. Krsnadasa

 

26. Narottama

 

27. Visvanatha

 

28. (Baladeva) Jagannatha

 

29. Bhaktivinoda

 

30. Gaurakisora

 

31. Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati

 

32. A. C. Bhaktivedanta Svami Prabhupada

 

Hare Krishna !

[Guest guest]

"If, you read chapter 12 of BG where Arjun is asking Krishna who is better the one who prays in your saguna form or Nirguna form. i don't think I have to explain everything to you what Krishna replied."

 

In chapter 12, Krishna says, those who worship the imperishable, the undefineable, the unmanifest, the omnipresent,......engaged in the welfare of all creatures, they also attain me.

 

Then Krishna says to Arjuna, "comprehension of the unmainifest bramhan by the average embodied human being is very difficult"

 

The advice thereafter to arjuna recommending to worship Krishna as his personal god, does not mean that krishna considers himself saguna.

 

Krishna is a great example who, while in spiritual bliss, considers the spiritually knowledgeable people as well as the ignorant people to be alike, as his own. Krishna suggests to the ignorant a devotional path which begins by considering he himself as a saguna god. How could there be more compassion than this.

 

All praise to krishna.

[vrajavasi]

Radhe Krishna,

 

Ravi lochan, Radhe Krishna

 

I dont know whether u r penning ur arguments from a vaidic or avaidic platform. prima facie it appears that u r pennig from an avaidic platform. cause u could not even comprehend what a smartha mean. For your kind information all the three mathacharyas from south india, viz., Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya and madhvacharya are all smarthas. Still even today people bound by these basic philosophies are smarthas bound by the smrthis they follow. it may be even that annangaracharya swamy and me falling under the same smruthi.

To say shankaracharya as not a smartha, is bluff and it is so out of ignorance. Ignorance is bliss.

 

If u think sugar is bitter go on arguing as such no power on earth can convince u.

 

and these success and defeat - if u see the history of debates there were many times the basic three philosophies debated and many persons debating from different platforms faced sucess and defeats. It would simply mean that the person putting forth a strong argument succeed and person putting forth weak argument gets defeated. nothing more nothing less. To say a philosophy is defeated is foolishness. Even after adishankaracharyas defeat of greatest bhudhist Nagarjuna, bhudhism still lives.

 

debates are for vidwans who are well versed in both the philosophies. I can say (with honesty) that I am neither well versed in Advaita nor Vishistadvaita nor dvaita nor even krishna bhakthi which is my basic domain from the platform of a smartha.

 

I do not know about u. Neither I wish to make pre conceived notions about that. can u honestly admit that u have out and out gone through Shankara Bhashya. or is it another cut and paste attempt.

 

I have already gone through this type of cut and paste argument in gaudiya discussions. There u can find quotations from authorised guadiya granthas wherein u would find Mahaprabhu calling himself "ami mayavadi". would u dare interpret this to establish that mahaprabhu was an advaitin.

 

selective misquotations would never prove the facts

 

Radhe krishna

[vrajavasi]

Radhe Krishna,

 

Ravilochan,Radhe krishna

 

I am writing back to insist just one point. As already penned, i dont know whehter u have out and out gone through shankara Bhashya. I am a krishna bhaktha. As I told already, I am so from a smartha platform.

Now just admit swearing upon the most loved krishna (if u love krishna) whether really u have gone through thoroughly the shankara bhashya at the first instance before starting comments on that.

 

Next, first of all know what a smartha mean before ever commenting shankaracharya is not a smartha. This is simply blasphemous. The phenomena which differentiate shankara from ramanujacharya and madhvacharya is apart from philosophical differences his steadfastly sticking on to smruthis and not prescribing anything in addition to smruthis as have been done by the other two aacharyas.And this aspect brands us as smarthas although Shrivaishnavas and Madhvas also follow same set of smruthis.

Coming to ur question of why no soul here is specifically answering ur out of context quotations - it is a waste of time.

Atleast if u discuss - not debate - advaita, vishistadvaita-dvaita - there would be some sense in that.

Then ur bluff that sthothra granthas composed by shankara was not of his. This is creating sensation and nothing else. Some time back there were such sensational nuisance by saying that Uttara kanda of Ramayana was not penned by Valmiki and the Dwadasa Skanda of Shrimad Bhagavatha was not at all there and this was latter addition. Ur argument about Shankara Sthothra granthas fall in this category.

If at all u r krishna bhaktha, discuss krishna bhakthi.

 

Radhe krishna

[Guest guest]

 

Radhe Krishna,

 

Next, first of all know what a smartha mean before ever commenting shankaracharya is not a smartha. This is simply blasphemous. The phenomena which differentiate shankara from ramanujacharya and madhvacharya is apart from philosophical differences his steadfastly sticking on to smruthis and not prescribing anything in addition to smruthis as have been done by the other two aacharyas.And this aspect brands us as smarthas although Shrivaishnavas and Madhvas also follow same set of smruthis.

Radhe krishna

 

Thanks for this post. I alluded to the same point more or less last week with the Smartas -Be Proud II where I said:

 

" ... to establish a separate sect called the Smartas which has a catholic outlook for Hindu Gods, lest the future strongly Vaishnava sects will mistake him. He should have been better prepared for Sri Ramanujacharya, Sri Madhvacharya and Sri Ravilochan. "

 

I wanted to correct another misstatement that I made: " I know plenty of Smartas whose ideal is Narayana, and there are many who who worship Rama or Krishna alone." Again in the spirit of argument; I do not know too many inclined to religion in a serious sense, maybe one Smarta (myself) and one Vaishnava (a friend), but that there are many should be valid.

 

Following the educating line of the Smrithis, here is a nice story mentioned by

Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswati of the Kamakoti peetam, Nov 9, 1957. It is part of a bigger talk "Siva and Vishnu are one" which unfortunately is a little much to type up.

 

"... There is an interesting story concerning the meaning of the name Rameswara. It is narrated that once the Devas got perplexed as to what exactly was the meaning of Rameswara. They approached Vishnu and requested him to enlighten them as to the exact significance of the term. Vishnu is reported to have told the Devas that the word is an example of "tatpurusha samaasa" and should be interpreted as "Ramasya Isvarah" or Rama's Lord, and that Rameswara denoted Siva. The Devas were not satisfied. They had a suspicion that Vishnu gave this interpretation out of a sense of humility, not wishing to assume for himself a superior position. So they approached Siva and requested him to clarify the position. Siva had no hesitation in telling the Devas that the word was an example of "Bahuvreehi samaasa" and that it should be interpreted as "Raamah Isvarah yasya saha Ramesvarah", He to Whom Rama is Isvara. Thereby, He signified that Vishnu is Lord for Him also. The Devas were not satisfied with both the interpretations and they appealed to Brahma, whom they believed would be impartial and non-partisan. Brahma is stated to have explained that the word should be interpreted by regarding it as an example of "karmadharaya samaasa" and that it affirmed the identity of both parts of the name, Rama and Isvara, that is, Raamscha asau Isvarascha Ramesvarah" .... So there is no meaning in taking the view that Siva and Vishnu are different Gods and then raising a controversy as to who is the real Paramatma. The truth about the matter is contained in Brahma's verdict that both are One. ..."

[Guest guest]

Krishna is a great example who, while in spiritual bliss, considers the spiritually knowledgeable people as well as the ignorant people to be alike, as his own. Krishna suggests to the ignorant a devotional path which begins by considering he himself as a saguna god. How could there be more compassion than this.

 

You know that a little knowledge is very dangerous. I can see it from your reply. Only people who are Murkh (Stupid) can think Krishna as a human being and Bhagwad Gita as a story book.

Krishna never said anywhere in any scripture that devotional path is for ignorants. Where as Krishna always said that who parys me in my human form understand me easly and more lovable to me. I can see you arrogance which is due to wrong assocation in spritual line.

You should find the SATGURU who can show you the right path. Don't be ignorant because life is very short and you may regert at the time when it is too late.

KRISHNA IS THE SUPREME PERSONALITY OF GOD HEAD. HE IS ALWAYS IN TRANSEDENTAL FORM. HE IS NOT MATERIAL.

Hari Bol! Let Krishna give you some wisdom to understand him.

Hari Bol!

[Guest guest]

Krishna clearly admits that the embodied human being finds bramhan realization difficult. This is only refering to the majority of the embodied human beings are ignorant. Krishna clearly asks this majority of the ignorant lot to pray to him, surrendering to him all actions, and fruits.

 

Where does krishna say in BG that he's transcendental and is different from you and me.

 

What the heck is transcendental, which is not a pancha boota. BTW, dont' bother explaining your meaning of transcedental, I am quite handfull with vedic knowledge.

[vrajavasi]

Radhe Krishna,

 

Dear smartha guest, while exchanging ideas with others, please maintain the smartha hallmark of humility. Yes, I agree at times due to blatant baseless attacks one may loose patience. But still patience is the bhushana which were shown by smartha bhakthas like thyagaraja, Shridhara Ayyawal, Marudanallur Sadguru Swamigal. And if u think that a person could not comprehend the vedic purport, never never never go on explaining what is vedic purport. And please never say bhakthi is for ignorants. Because, the three great purushas I have mentioned and Bhagavannama Bodendra who established bhakthi through vedic purport were not at all ignorants but prakanda vidwans.

Whether in Bhakthi marga or in Atma vichara, what makes us different from other vaidikas is our steadfast adherence to smruthis - which are Bhagavath Agnya. I have seen vaidika vaishnava sects web sites wherein the acharyas are requesting their sishyas not to miss the performance of nithyakarmas. It is a sorry phase that people in the name of doing bhakthi - krishna bhakthi - blatantly defies Bhagavath Agnya. But I am happy there are souls still available to remind people to obey the orders of the lord.

 

Radhe Krishna

[vrajavasi]

Radhe Krishna,

 

Dear friend, who quoted about Godhead. I would suggest a simple correction. Its understandable that u consider Gopiprananatha as the God above all. But If that is the spirit, I do not agree with the contradictory approach of Godheads and demigods. Whether it is impersonalism or monotheism - God is one. It is not like as such there are a band of gods and he has a head.

If u see from the purport of Bible or Koran - what u call demigods in Vaidika religion - what u have as angels or jins in Bible or koran - u have devathas (sorry i dont agree with the description - demigod). If u accept a tatva as god - all else are devathas. You can not simply add the suffix of God to devathas. (This I am explaining from a monotheistic view point). Devathas are just another species like human beings who are superior to humans. There are many species like devathas, Gandharvas, Kimpurushas etc., Bhagavath shabdha can be attributed to only one only one and only one. If u apply the suffix "God" to devathas u r not just pumping up their status but downgrading the status of "God". And to call Lord Krishna as "Godhead" is a further downgradation of the supreme Lord. You are like making him a leader of band of gods.

 

Radhe Krishna