Adi Shankara - A Covert VaiSNava

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

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.

Dear Guest, please go and read the Gita for once in your life and don't waste everyone's time. The entire 15th chapter explains Krishna is purushottama, beyond both the kshara (fallible) and akshara (infallible muktatmas). Besides this, here are some relevant verses:

 

Krishna is the source of everything:

aham sarvasya prabhavo

mattah sarvam pravartate

iti matva bhajante mam

budha bhava-samanvitah

"I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts."

 

There is no truth superior to Krishna:

 

mattah parataram nanyat

kincid asti dhananjaya

mayi sarvam idam protam

sutre mani-gana iva

"O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread."

 

Krishna is the source of all existence:

bijam mam sarva-bhutanam

viddhi partha sanatanam

buddhir buddhimatam asmi

tejas tejasvinam aham

"O son of Pritha, know that I am the original seed of all existences, the intelligence of the intelligent, and the prowess of all powerful men."

 

Krishna's birth and activities are divyam (transcendental, divine):

janma karma ca me divyam

evam yo vetti tattvatah

tyaktva deham punar janma

naiti mam eti so ’rjuna

"One who knows the transcendental nature of My appearance and activities does not, upon leaving the body, take his birth again in this material world, but attains My eternal abode, O Arjuna."

 

Krishna is in everyone's heart, and all Vedas point to Him:

sarvasya caham hridi sannivisto

mattah smritir jnanam apohanam ca

vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyo

vedanta-krd veda-vid eva caham

"I am seated in everyone’s heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness. By all the Vedas, I am to be known. Indeed, I am the compiler of Vedanta, and I am the knower of the Vedas."

 

Krishna is the Supreme Person (Purushottama), beyond even the infallible:

dvav imau purushau loke

ksharas cakshara eva ca

ksharah sarvani bhutani

kuta-stho ’kshara ucyate

"There are two classes of beings, the fallible and the infallible. In the material world every living entity is fallible, and in the spiritual world every living entity is called infallible."

 

yasmat ksharam atito ’ham

aksharad api cottamah

ato ’smi loke vede ca

prathitah purushottamah

"Because I am transcendental, beyond both the fallible and the infallible, and because I am the greatest, I am celebrated both in the world and in the Vedas as that Supreme Person."

 

One who knows Krishna knows everything:

yo mam evam asammudho

janati purushottamam

sa sarva-vid bhajati mam

sarva-bhavena bharata

"Whoever knows Me as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, without doubting, is the knower of everything. He therefore engages himself in full devotional service to Me, O son of Bharata."

[Guest guest]

Please understand that there could be several people who have read gita and may not be familiar with this concept of transcedental.

 

All matter is made of pancha bootas. Including any godly living entity. I just cut the hype of transcendental that so hyped and non-vedic.

 

In 15th chapter Krishna talks of the jeevatma, though imperishable, but not perceived by the individual. The individual's body is perishable.

 

Krishna is above such a jeevatma and body. Imperishable and perishable. He's the universal self.

 

For each of us on spiritual path, The jeevatma is to be perceived first and then the knowledge that the jeevatma is non-different from the universal bramhan. This is referred as universal self. Non-dual. This non-dual universal self is pure spirituality & formless.

 

Transcedental form is a meaningless thing. It corrupts.

[Guest guest]

 

Please understand that there could be several people who have read gita and may not be familiar with this concept of transcedental.

 

All matter is made of pancha bootas. Including any godly living entity. I just cut the hype of transcendental that so hyped and non-vedic.

 

In 15th chapter Krishna talks of the jeevatma, though imperishable, but not perceived by the individual. The individual's body is perishable.

 

Krishna is above such a jeevatma and body. Imperishable and perishable. He's the universal self.

 

For each of us on spiritual path, The jeevatma is to be perceived first and then the knowledge that the jeevatma is non-different from the universal bramhan. This is referred as universal self. Non-dual. This non-dual universal self is pure spirituality & formless.

 

Transcedental form is a meaningless thing. It corrupts.

 

Hare Krishna!

You are not only Stupid but ignorant also.

Don't concoct your version of Bhagead Gita. Learn through Satguru. That is your problem. You may be knowledgabale but no wisdom to understand that who is Supreme Lord Krishna. According to you if, all demigods are also god eaqual to Krishna means in this world everyone is the President of India or USA because there is no difference all are same.

I think you are really in the mode of ignorance that's why you are giving all these stupid explainations of yours. Because you are not in the path of Bhakti you have arrogance not humility to understand Krishna. You want to know who is Krishna you must surrender to him fully. Otherwise it is my challange to you that not only in this life but many more lifes you may take will never be able to understand who Krishna is. Bhagwad gita will remain a mystry for you.

Krishna said in Bhagwad-gita that one who surrenders to me fully I give him wisdom and knowledge to to understand me. Since you are not surrendered you cannot understand Krishna because you have no wisdom and knowledge. The knowledge you have is just stupidness.

Hari Bol!

[Guest guest]

 

Hare Krishna!

You are not only Stupid but ignorant also.

Don't concoct your version of Bhagead Gita. Learn through Satguru. That is your problem. You may be knowledgabale but no wisdom to understand that who is Supreme Lord Krishna. According to you if, all demigods are also god eaqual to Krishna means in this world everyone is the President of India or USA because there is no difference all are same.

I think you are really in the mode of ignorance that's why you are giving all these stupid explainations of yours. Because you are not in the path of Bhakti you have arrogance not humility to understand Krishna. You want to know who is Krishna you must surrender to him fully. Otherwise it is my challange to you that not only in this life but many more lifes you may take will never be able to understand who Krishna is. Bhagwad gita will remain a mystry for you.

Krishna said in Bhagwad-gita that one who surrenders to me fully I give him wisdom and knowledge to to understand me. Since you are not surrendered you cannot understand Krishna because you have no wisdom and knowledge. The knowledge you have is just stupidness.

Hari Bol!

 

 

You have provided me with your generous judgements. I would have thanked you for your time, if you had written in praise of lord krishna. Please speak for yourself rather than speaking for me regarding BG being a mystery.

 

I continue to refuse to

 

-Make judgements upon you

-Make judgements upon your version of BG

-Make judgements of your understanding on krishna

-See a mystery on your behalf

 

Not that I want to be compared as a bigger victim than blade of grass. I think you should continue cutting, pasting, discussing, challenging, judging ...may be this is good for you for now. Atleast you'll continue taking the name of krishna and there must be something good in it for you.

[vrajavasi]

Radhe Krishna,

 

my dear smartha guest and my dear guadiya guest.

 

Please try to understand that each one of u are interpretting Bhagavath Geetha from a different school. The Bhashya written in different schools by different acharyas would have surely different interpretations.

 

My dear smartha guest friend, just for a second please remember Shridhara Ayyaval, Thyagaraja Swamigal, Eknath maharaj of pandaripuram. Shankara Bhashya - u should be knowing - we are taught Bhashya Patam at a quite advanced stage in the life. Once we become totally matured as a guna sampanna human being shall we are offered the opportunity of Bhashya patam. And shankara Bhashya for prasthanathraya is a subject for atmavichara and subject for discussion in vidwat satas where the wave length of people in discussion - evenif belonging to different schools are same. Why I have mentioned the name of great souls above - to remind me and u of the atmagunas they have nurtured throughout their life. that is the hallmark of smarta sampradaya. with all humility i request u to maintain the hallmark of the sampradaya.

 

And my dear gaudiya guest, while putting forth ur view of Bhagavath geetha, please put forth the views. U should be well aware of the difference in the content of Gaudiya Bhashyas (Bhagavath Geetha as it is and other Gaudiya Bhashyas) and other Bhashyas. The difference in interpretation arises due to difference in the school of philosophy. But still still still - i could show u many many commonalities in these Bhashyas. I do not belong to the Gaudiya sampradaya. But I have completely read the life history of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and the life and times of his six goswamy sishyas- viz., Rupa Goswami, Sanathana goswami, Raghunatha dasa goswami, Radhunatha batta goswami,Jiva goswami and Gopalabatta Goswami. The one thing I admired and try to inculcate (albeit I know I could not till now perfected myself) from their lives are their humility, honesty, sincerety, vinayata, Soulabhya and sousheelya. I have listed much less qualities of these great purushas. What I have not listed are more. I humbly feel every krishna bhaktha, should posses these qualities to ever think of reaching the lotus feet of the sweet lord. If I have written anything wrongly, my dear friends - please without hesitation point out my wrongs.

 

For what I feel is - Swadosha parichayam is more more important than paradosha nirnayam.

 

In the name of Lord Krishna let peace and tranquility prevail

 

Radhe Krishna

[Guest guest]

Ravilochan,

 

Do you draw most of your conclusions regarding adi Shankara from Paul Hackers research and conclusions by chance?

 

curious guest

[Guest guest]

First of all, I do not know any Paul Heckers. I read Shankara's commentaries because I wanted to know about advaita. Each and every Advaitin explained it in a different way and so I decided to go through his own commentaries.

 

Secondly, 'Smartha' literally means 'one who follows Smriti'. But in practice, the word has come to be used to refer to that sect of people who consider all the deities as equal.

 

When I say that Shri Shankara was not a Smartha, I mean that he did not consider all deities to be same nor did he accept the Shan mathAs as the Kanchi Peeta is propagating.

 

I only clarified that in this thread. Of course, he was neither a complete VaiSNava as he was primarily an Advaitin who accepted the fact that no one except ViSNu is the Saguna Brahman.

 

I have the habit of reading various philosophies and holy books(incl. bible and quran which I personally consider as books of intolerance - they cannot be God's words.) I have also read the philosophies of Madhva and Ramanuja. So also that of Chaitanya. While right now, I am trying to read some Jain scriptures. I read such books beacuse i consider that you can accept the good things from any place and follow them.

 

I wrote about Shankara in this thread only because I thought that people are so confused about his philosophy that they have missed the crux of his philosophy.

 

I did not do this out of any bad motivation.

 

I just wanted to state the truth and also I wanted to confirm as to whether my conclusion is right.

 

When I asked an Advaita Pundit, he just said that as a VaiSNava i must not indulge in any matter about Shankara and that I must anything that they say about him. hence, I thought that I could find some broad minded Advaitin in the Internet who will clarify on this matter. But, unfortunately, it has not happened till now. No one has answered to the basic questions raised either in positive or negative. Let God help me.

 

Jai Shri RAm!!

[Guest guest]

 

Let God help me.

 

Jai Shri RAm!!

 

Yes correct. Don't worry Ravilochan; you have made your point, right or wrong. Now go after Him.

[pratap]

....."First of all, I do not know any Paul Hecker".....

 

The name is Paul Hacker, a very notable scholar on Shankara and interestingly enough, put forth the same EXACT ideas you have here. In fact almost word for word on some things you have stated. Which led me to suspect you were a covered 'Hacker' follower.

 

fancy that

[Guest guest]

 

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

 

 

This is more a general statement. Please indicate by atleast a partial quote of the beginning from the person whom you are referring to. The general public is often lost otherwise. Thanks.

[Guest guest]

 

First of all, I do not know any Paul Heckers. I read Shankara's commentaries because I wanted to know about advaita. Each and every Advaitin explained it in a different way and so I decided to go through his own commentaries.

 

Secondly, 'Smartha' literally means 'one who follows Smriti'. But in practice, the word has come to be used to refer to that sect of people who consider all the deities as equal.

 

When I say that Shri Shankara was not a Smartha, I mean that he did not consider all deities to be same nor did he accept the Shan mathAs as the Kanchi Peeta is propagating.

 

I only clarified that in this thread. Of course, he was neither a complete VaiSNava as he was primarily an Advaitin who accepted the fact that no one except ViSNu is the Saguna Brahman.

 

I have the habit of reading various philosophies and holy books(incl. bible and quran which I personally consider as books of intolerance - they cannot be God's words.) I have also read the philosophies of Madhva and Ramanuja. So also that of Chaitanya. While right now, I am trying to read some Jain scriptures. I read such books beacuse i consider that you can accept the good things from any place and follow them.

 

I wrote about Shankara in this thread only because I thought that people are so confused about his philosophy that they have missed the crux of his philosophy.

 

I did not do this out of any bad motivation.

 

I just wanted to state the truth and also I wanted to confirm as to whether my conclusion is right.

 

When I asked an Advaita Pundit, he just said that as a VaiSNava i must not indulge in any matter about Shankara and that I must anything that they say about him. hence, I thought that I could find some broad minded Advaitin in the Internet who will clarify on this matter. But, unfortunately, it has not happened till now. No one has answered to the basic questions raised either in positive or negative. Let God help me.

 

Jai Shri RAm!!

 

 

Krishna does not hail himself as saguna nor does shnakara hail krishna as saguna. It's you and the ignorance in you. Matter closed.

 

May be you should look for narrow minded advaitins who can live what they believe in krishna, not the broad minded advaitins who can allow corruption and interpret krrshna as saguna.

 

 

I like your story of "I thought that I could find ..., but unfortunately....Let god help me..". You are a victim. God is not. This differentiation of victim is favouring you and not god. Surrender begins when you consider god as the victim and youself as the non-victom. How can surrender be the other way around.

[vrajavasi]

Radhe Krishna,

 

I need not get into the shoes of anyone else to say that God is one and only one.

Upanishad very clearly says : "Sa Ekaha; Saya evamvith"

You take any theistic school of India. They steadfastly believe in oneness of God.

Although, advaitins believe in formless God, again they indicate to "Advitiya Brahmam". The one and only God.

You take, Shrivaishnava, Madwa, Pashupatha, Shaktha, Gaanapathya, Soura - to whom they refer to as "God" may differ - but there would not be any difference in the fact that they refer only one vaidic deity as "God".

Its not like as if you have a band of Gods and they have a head.

 

you can refer "Aanandavalli" of Taitriya upanishad where the ladder from manushya to brahmam is narrated.

If God is the supreme power, there can not be any prefixes or suffixes.

What you refer as demigod,(rather demigods) I steadfastly say they are not at all gods. They are devas. They are as perishable like you and me with only the difference of age. If you can live for hundered years, they have a higher life. Then how can you call them by any yardstick as "God".

God is one; only one

he is omnipresent

he is sath chith ananda.

By referring Devathas as demigods, you are unnecessarily increasing their status and by referring "God" as "Godhead" you are downgrading him.

 

Radhe Krishna

[narayanadasa]

Jai Sriman Narayana:

 

Vedas say....

 

Pragnam Brahma - Consciousness is Brahman - Aitareya upanishad - Rig Veda

Tat twam asi - That thou art - Chandogya upanishad - Sama Veda

Ayam Atma Brahma - This self is Brahman - Mandukya upanishad - Atharvana Veda

Aham Brahma asmi - I am Brahman - Brihadaranyaka upanishad - Yajur veda

[Vayuputra]

Namaste Ravilochan - Nice attempt to divide the Smartas - keep it up.

 

Of course, advaitins who have read the classics know as a matter of fact Sri Shankara's preference for Vishnu. Atleast Krishna was his Ishta devata, if nothing else that prompted him to use Vishnu wherver he needed a name for Saguna Brahman. That amounts to nothing however.

 

You could consider Vishnu as the full SB if desired so. So what is Shiva and other Gods according to advaita? The worst case, Shiva being part of the SB (manifestation of Vishnu). But SB by definition is infinite and not finite. Shiva then is no finite part of this SB. Shiva is also infinite. How do you now compare Vishnu and Shiva -it is a comparison between two infinities, one bigger than the other? It is a pointless and worthless comparison for advaitins. No spiritual benefit results from such comparisons.

 

An advaitin will consider all the supreme dieites of Vishnu, Lakshmi, Shiva, Parvati, Brahma, Saraswati, Ganesha, Kartikeya, Shasta etc on an equal rank only and would not waste time in grading them even if they were technically different. Advaitins will differentiate them from dieties based on avidya - like Gramadevatas, Karmadevatas or Durdevatas.

 

Whervever Sri Shankara says that Krishna alone is the greatest or worthy of worship, ot naturally includes all of the above mentioned dieties, which are a direct and equal manifestation of SB. Infact, I doubt if many advaitins would agree with your assessment of Krishna as SB. Only very few of the advaitins, those geared for some kind of debate, would ever make a distinction between SB and NB. They are one and the same. If you give a name, form and quality to the NB which is beyond such things, it is SB. A full blown SB could be called Vishnu according to advaita.

[vrajavasi]

Radhe Krishna,

 

Vayu putra, Radhe Krishna. Well explained. But I would suggest a small correction.

 

Your quote :

 

Only very few of the advaitins, those geared for some kind of debate, would ever make a distinction between SB and NB. They are one and the same. If you give a name, form and quality to the NB which is beyond such things, it is SB. A full blown SB could be called Vishnu according to advaita.

 

Prinicipally no advaitin could err to make a difference between SB and NB. But at the same time, while doing sagunopaasana, NB is neither invoked nor contemplated.

 

Radhe Krishna