shvu

No one ever said they are incorrect. They are referring to the Sadguna Brahman and so are consistent with Advaita. The point is, poems just aren't enough to understand a doctrine for they do not present the complete picture. That is the idea. No Advaitin Guru will teach a couple of Shankara's poems to his student and tell him he has now learnt Advaita and he needn't bother with the main texts. Cheers

No one ever said they are incorrect. They are referring to the Sadguna Brahman and so are consistent with Advaita. The point is, poems just aren't enough to understand a doctrine for they do not present the complete picture. That is the idea. No Advaitin Guru will teach a couple of Shankara's poems to his student and tell him he has now learnt Advaita and he needn't bother with the main texts. Cheers

Sorry, I do not have access to the sanskrit at this time. None of these claims hold water. We have been thru this before on these forums. ISKCON also complains that present day x'tians do not follow Jesus's teachings. This is a clever technique where one criticizes the system without actually criticizing the founder, for that is a sentimental thing for many. In general, while people are ok with specific points about their philosophy being taken up for criticism, they are not ok with their icons being slandered. Needless to say, Advatins know the extent to which they are true to Shankara's teachings more than anyone else, especially more than someone, who as far as one can see, hasn't read a single work of his other than Bhaja govindam and that too with an incorrect view of it's context. Cheers

Sorry, I do not have access to the sanskrit at this time. None of these claims hold water. We have been thru this before on these forums. ISKCON also complains that present day x'tians do not follow Jesus's teachings. This is a clever technique where one criticizes the system without actually criticizing the founder, for that is a sentimental thing for many. In general, while people are ok with specific points about their philosophy being taken up for criticism, they are not ok with their icons being slandered. Needless to say, Advatins know the extent to which they are true to Shankara's teachings more than anyone else, especially more than someone, who as far as one can see, hasn't read a single work of his other than Bhaja govindam and that too with an incorrect view of it's context. Cheers

Touche. That's what I am saying too. It means the Sadguna Brahman is within the premises of Maayaa. Anyway, the suutra Bhaashya takes up this issue and clearly resolves it. Cheers

Touche. That's what I am saying too. It means the Sadguna Brahman is within the premises of Maayaa. Anyway, the suutra Bhaashya takes up this issue and clearly resolves it. Cheers

Sadguna Brahman is symbolic. It is a reference to the Nirguna Brahman and in that sense it is non-different from it. That is what eternal means wrt Sadguna Brahman. Hence, Shankara praising Krishna as the eternal Brahman in the Giita, etc are all in that sense. Shankara had already anticipated such doubts/arguments and has has taken the time to cover them in his Bhaashya. Cheers

Sadguna Brahman is symbolic. It is a reference to the Nirguna Brahman and in that sense it is non-different from it. That is what eternal means wrt Sadguna Brahman. Hence, Shankara praising Krishna as the eternal Brahman in the Giita, etc are all in that sense. Shankara had already anticipated such doubts/arguments and has has taken the time to cover them in his Bhaashya. Cheers

Perhaps it may make thing more clear, if I say "apparent reality" or "relative reality". For instance, let us say a Babaji performs magic in India. While his followers see it is as a miracle, a magician who can perform that trick himself knows exactly how the Babaji pulled it off. COnsequently, the believer thinks that the coin came out of thin air, while the magician knows that the Babaji had the coin hidden somewhere on his person. If the magician shares his knowledge with the lay person, the lay person will also know the truth behind the matter. This is, svata Pramaana, parataH apraamana. As long as I hold the mistaken indentity that the rope is a snake, it is a snake to me, It doesn't even have to move or display any of the practical functions of a snake. That is the idea. A simple example is Krishna. Was there an Atman perceiving in his case? The answer of Advaita is no. It is the Supreme self as is the case with a Jiivanmukta. The Jiivanmukta is alive because that body has the purpose of imparting knowledge to the world and therefore it's purpose is akin to that of Sadguna Brahman. That is the universal soul. Where has it been said that only a deluded soul can keep a body functional? Try the case of Krishna or Raama again. I believe this also covers the rest of the post. Cheers

Raga, BG 4.9 is the place. Am still waiting for Ram to explain this. But I think it is better that I stop waiting. Ram, Govindaashtakam, Soundarya Lahari, Bhaja govindam are poems and poems are written to eulogize; not to establish a doctrine. While poems are correct, it is not proper to use them to understand the doctrine... especially, when other texts have been written specifically for that purpose. Try and use Bhaashyas and Prakarana Granthas [uS, VC, etc] while discussing the doctrine. Let us look at Shankara's interpretation of Suutra 3.2.11. A doubt is raised if Sruti talks about Brahman having a twofold characterestic or if it is only one, which one is it [i.e., Nirguna or Sadguna]? The objection raised by the opponent is that Brahman must have both aspects [which also happens to be Ram's position]. Shankara refutes this objection in the next few verses, establishing that Brahman is only Nirguna in nature. His specific argument is, "It is not possible that the very same thing is possessed of form, etc and that it is also without these; for that is self-contradictory". All cases where a form is suggested is for *upaasana only*, for it is impossible to meditate on a Nirguna object. Also, if the other view is accepted [with forms], no logic can be provided to explain Sruti which state Brahman is formless [Katha 1.3.15, etc]. Finally, it is also the Nirguna Brahman alone which is true, by the Neti-Neti process. Thus we have it on record that Shankara himself denies the ultimate reality of Sadguna Brahman, clearly stating that it is for the purpose of Upaasana only and it is the Nirguna Brahman alone that is real. When there is no diversity, what sense do forms make? It is as simple as that. I suggest, Upadesha Saahasri to understand Shankara's position. Cheers

Raga, BG 4.9 is the place. Am still waiting for Ram to explain this. But I think it is better that I stop waiting. Ram, Govindaashtakam, Soundarya Lahari, Bhaja govindam are poems and poems are written to eulogize; not to establish a doctrine. While poems are correct, it is not proper to use them to understand the doctrine... especially, when other texts have been written specifically for that purpose. Try and use Bhaashyas and Prakarana Granthas [uS, VC, etc] while discussing the doctrine. Let us look at Shankara's interpretation of Suutra 3.2.11. A doubt is raised if Sruti talks about Brahman having a twofold characterestic or if it is only one, which one is it [i.e., Nirguna or Sadguna]? The objection raised by the opponent is that Brahman must have both aspects [which also happens to be Ram's position]. Shankara refutes this objection in the next few verses, establishing that Brahman is only Nirguna in nature. His specific argument is, "It is not possible that the very same thing is possessed of form, etc and that it is also without these; for that is self-contradictory". All cases where a form is suggested is for *upaasana only*, for it is impossible to meditate on a Nirguna object. Also, if the other view is accepted [with forms], no logic can be provided to explain Sruti which state Brahman is formless [Katha 1.3.15, etc]. Finally, it is also the Nirguna Brahman alone which is true, by the Neti-Neti process. Thus we have it on record that Shankara himself denies the ultimate reality of Sadguna Brahman, clearly stating that it is for the purpose of Upaasana only and it is the Nirguna Brahman alone that is real. When there is no diversity, what sense do forms make? It is as simple as that. I suggest, Upadesha Saahasri to understand Shankara's position. Cheers

You have already taken the easy route out many times. If you wish to continue, explain Maayaa ruupam from Shankara's Giita Bhaashya.

You have already taken the easy route out many times. If you wish to continue, explain Maayaa ruupam from Shankara's Giita Bhaashya.

Hari bhol, Please visit the nearest ISKCON temple asap and have some halwa, Prabhu. The ghee will make you drowsy and you can sleep it off. When you wake up and find that you still have Qs about Maayaavaada, please return to the temple and have some more Halwa. Repeat this and you will find that all your Qs on Maayaavaada will eventually disappear. Hare Krishna

Karthik, Some people believe they have some kind of a prerogative to speak in a condescending manner about people who see things differently. A while back I posted an opinion by Rajan Parrikar about iskcon, based on his interactions with iskcon folks over a few years. In my opinion, he had someone like Srila Shiva in mind while writing that down. Notice how Srila Shiva made a sweeping claim that he was amused that no Advaitin had attained Jiivanmukti till date. Yet when asked to come up with names of realized people outside the Advaita line, there was more hand waving, but alas ! no names came up. Here is a strikingly similar situation, Someone (from iskcon) said about the BG as it is: > Frankly, I have found that, almost without exception, other Gita > commentaries introduce ideas that are dubiously supported by or even > explicitly rejected by the text of Gita itself. It's therefore hard > for me to recommend these commentaries as authoritative or > authentic. I just thought I'd mention it. Rajan Parrikar's reply, I also just thought I'd mention that this sounds very similar to the standard ISKCON blather I've often encountered. Over 3 years I heard the same in their Boulder ashram and whenever I'd confront them with "Which other version have YOU read," the response would be "Uhhh, ahemmmmm, ohhhhh, Prabhu have some more halva please." The halva was always top-notch, a solid A effort, although I could see that a more modest use of ghee would significantly improve the health benefits. Cheers

They do seem to accept that there was hair, external organs and skin, for he did look like a regular human being, with an Indian complexion. They however, have a problem with accepting that there were internal organs, such as a skeleton, a brain, larynx, digestive system, nervous system, etc. He was only pretending to eat rice and dairy products for there was no digestive system inside, to assimilate the food. I would like to see some scriptural support to show Vishnu had only external organs and no internal organs when he took birth as Krishna. Cheers

They do seem to accept that there was hair, external organs and skin, for he did look like a regular human being, with an Indian complexion. They however, have a problem with accepting that there were internal organs, such as a skeleton, a brain, larynx, digestive system, nervous system, etc. He was only pretending to eat rice and dairy products for there was no digestive system inside, to assimilate the food. I would like to see some scriptural support to show Vishnu had only external organs and no internal organs when he took birth as Krishna. Cheers

The real point is, since Krishna himself says he has descended in human form, it is only fair that he the Krishna born to Devaki, who had eyes, ears, a mouth, skin, hair, who shaved regularly, who ate and slept, had a human body made up of flesh and blood for the duration of his stay on earth, which was eventually killed by Jara, all of which was of course, part of the master plan. This does mean that he was not God or does not belittle him in any way. He descended on earth as a human born to human parents and how having flesh and blood goes against his glory, is something that I don't understand. Cheers

The real point is, since Krishna himself says he has descended in human form, it is only fair that he the Krishna born to Devaki, who had eyes, ears, a mouth, skin, hair, who shaved regularly, who ate and slept, had a human body made up of flesh and blood for the duration of his stay on earth, which was eventually killed by Jara, all of which was of course, part of the master plan. This does mean that he was not God or does not belittle him in any way. He descended on earth as a human born to human parents and how having flesh and blood goes against his glory, is something that I don't understand. Cheers

Actually it is the other way around. Devotion leads to Jnaana which leads to Moksha. Check BG 18.54 and 18.55. The sequence is quite clear. bhaktyaa maamabhijaanaati yaavaanyashchaasmi tattvataH | tato maaM tattvato gyaatvaa vishate tadanantaraM || Correct. The Jnaana referred to here is basic, primary knowledge that one develops by executing dharma. As a consequence of his dharma, the individual evolves and realizes there is more than just material life. After which, the individual comes to the point of knowing about and appreciating the glory of Krishna. This will develop Bhakti in the individual and then BG 18.54 and 18.55 will happen in succession. A sincere Bhakta is the one who is eligible or ripe for receiving Jnaana [which he will] and such a Jnaani is dear to Krishna, as explained in this verse. Can you explain what you mean by "dry speculator"? I don't understand what that means. Cheers

Among several other places, Shankara's acceptance of Jiivanmukti can be found in his commentary on BG 13.23. However, since this topic is not about the possibility of Jiivanmukti, but it's internal consistency, I am not getting into an analysis of how Jiivanmukti is possible. Understanding BU 2.4.14, which was posted earlier on this thread is important in order to understand the Advaitic coneption of Mukti. So long as the rope is mistaken to be a snake, it is a snake for all practical purposes. Similarly the world. As long as diversity is perceived, the world is real and will continue to remain so. Do you doubt the content of your dream, while dreaming? You never will, because you are unaware that you are dreaming and so everything in the dream is *real* until you wake up. That is the idea. It did not, but it was real enough at that time, irrepsective of whether it is ultimately real or false. That is the point. For instance, it doesn't help to think one is not the body because the BG says so. One has to actually know it as an experience to really understand what that means. Until then, for all practical purposes we are the body. The same logic applies in the case of the reality of the world. Thinking the world is an illusion because the scriptures say so is not enough, for it is absurd to think so while diversity is still being perceived. It is a reality only when there is no more diversity, which is Mukti. Let me rephrase my words as "The world is an apparent reality until Mukti". That should hopefully clear the confusion. From the perspective of the onlookers (which is the only perspective) it is that universal self operating everywhere all the time. There is no individual "liberated Atma" there anymore. Hence this question is moot. In fact, theist posted an interesting piece recently on this same thread where in a purport, Prabhupada speaks about the Jiivanmukta. That is pretty much what Ramana said about Jiivanmukti too. To avoid confusion about the tenets of Advaita, which is often seen in people belonging to other schools, the Advaitic tradition differentiates between the Vyavahaarika level and the Paramaartika level. If the difference between the two is unclear, Advaita in general, will remain unclear. Finally, Vidyaaranya [14th century], one of the pontiffs of the Sringeri Math, has authored Jiivanmuktiviveka, which is available in English. This work describes the advaitic conception of Jiivanmukti in detail. Cheers

Au contraire, they have the numbers, in terms of followers. Death cannot be perceived, theist. I cannot experience death, just like I cannot experience that point when I fall asleep. So basically, we will never die. Only others will see us as dead. Cheers

Theist, You are getting close. According to Advaita, a person does not attain Mukti and think 'Hey ! I got it !!!' . Simply because Mukti is absence of diversity where no such thing as I, Mukti, etc exist. The Jiivan-mukta is only to the eyes of the onlookers. We refer to that body as a Jiivan-mukta, although there is no Mukta per se. The concepts of illusion, reality and liberation again exist only to those who are under the spell of the illusion. The best verse to explain this is, For when there is duality, as it were, then one smells another, one sees another, one hears another, one speaks to another, one thinks of another, one knows another. But when everything has become the Self, then what should one smell and through what, what should one see and through what, what should one hear and through what, what should one speak and through what, what should one think and through what, what should one know and through what? Through what should One know That owing to which all this is known—through what, my dear, should one know the Knower?" - BU 2.4.14 Cheers

That is Maayaa, by virtue of which the unreal appears as real. So long as it appears real, it is real. Just like, until you wake up, you will never know you were dreaming. Cheers

Can you explain your Q?