karthik_v

Krishnas prabuji, I asked, where is the basis of the idea that Vedas do not give litreal meaning, and then you incorrectly offered RV 1.164.45, which says nothing of the sort. I gave you the verse of 1:164:45 and the commentaries of Sayanacarya and Sri Aurobindo to support it. Yet you have just stated that it is incorrect without bothering to offer 1 commentary in support of your claim You could also try reading those verses, maybe at least once in a while. RV 1.64.46 "Ekam sad vipra: bahuddha vadati" as saying that two contradictory philosophies can be both be found in Vedas and acceptable? Come on... Again, both Sayanacarya and Sri Aurobindo give the same meaning. The verse simply means that the Truth is One but the sages realize it many ways. The commentators I have mentioned say that this truth indeed means differing perceptions of that Supreme. If you claim it is nonsensical, can you please defend with some commentary? Plain denial is never a sound argument - no matter how often you repeat it vociferously. Why do you take Dayananda Sarasvati's correctness as a given, and then question Srila Prabhupada's correctness? I never took Swami Dayananda Sarasvati as a given. I am only questioning SP's assertion that his translation alone is correct. I quoted from a standard Sanskrit-English dictionary on the standard meanings of Purusha. I also quoted from Bhagavad-giitaa which identifies Krishna as Purusha. And I pointed out that Monier-Williams is no authority. What next? Michael Witzel? Who can I quote that you will accept? Try Nighantu for a change. Krishna has many forms, colors, and qualities. In which shruti is this mentioned? In which shruti do you find that Krishna has golden complexion? Even many shrutis have differences in word order from one shakha to another. Yet you accept shrutis as evidence. Even the worst critics of Hinduism do agree that thr veda samhitas are like tape recordings preserved over millennia. If you think that they have recensions please eloborate as to what the differences are. Interpolation is just an argument invented by people who want to brush aside inconvenient evidence. For any given pramaana for which you cry "interpolation," you are unable to prove that interpolation has occurred, or even show a conflict with shruti. Bhandarkar edition showed that of the 1,00,000 verses in Mahabharata atleast 30,000 are interpolation. Take Ramayana - the verses vary anywhere between 24,000 to 48,000. There is not even a sign of the existence of Srimad Bhagavatam before Adi Sankara. There is not even a sign that Bhagavad Gita existed even till 6th century CE, as even the 4000 hymns of the Azhwars have no idea about BG. Sure, you can believe that we are unable to prove interpolations And it is interesting to note that you have yet to provide even one impersonalist verse from BG. That after I quoted 5 verses - 5:24 to 5:28 I have no doubt that Aurobindo will have a commentary on this verse.[AB] You seem to be too sure Sri Aurobindo had no utility for karma kanda. He didn't comment on any Brahmanas. I just finished checking his complete works. But you just said I named only modern-day Advaitins and asked for proof that aachaaryas from previous ages also made those remarks! Because you claimed that advaitins, over ages, have been abusing Vaishnavism. Again quoting from the ADVAITA Home Page How about quoting from the writings of Adi Sankara? It looks to me like you have stooped to the level of making up accusations without evidence. Why don't you directly ask why I made that accusation about Srila Prabhupad? Do you think that I may indeed have strong references that would vindicate what I wrote? So why does Shankaraachaarya refute Buddhism? Why does he try to refute other schools of Vedic philosophy? Karthik, you really have no idea what you are talking about. Can you please show me in which work, in how many verses Adi Sankara refutes Buddhism and other philosophies? I already told you that he refutes Buddhism using 18 verses in Vedanta sutras. You say you want to see if Advaita can be defended by shrutis. But in reality, you take the correctness of Advaitist commentaries (Shankara, Aurobindo, et. al.) on shrutis as a given, and don't bother to question them even when they give meanings that are obviously illogical (example, the "impersonal" definition of purusha - an obvious contradiction). I gave the definition of Sri Aurobindo on Purusha. He indeed supports that with references to Nirukta. You will be surprised to know that even some Sri Vaishnava acaryas have considered that definition. Yet you claim that such a definition is illogical, without explaining why. I have at numerous times shown that Shankara did NOT accept contradictory schools of thought.. Contradictory, may be in your opinion. They were not contradictory in his opinion. What do think is "Shanmatha"? I see that you have been silent on Svetasvatara upanishad after I pointed out that it addresses Shiva as the Supreme. Once more, I have chosen not to react to any of your personal attacks. This thread is just 2 days old, yet you seem to have become impatient and have stared attacking me personally. It would be better if you can address the points with references. That would make a really sound argument.

Sri Aurobindo's commentary: Isopanishad mantra 15: The face of Truth is covered with a brilliant golden lid; that do thou remove, O Fosterer, for the law of the Truth, for sight. Footnote: In the inner sense of the Veda Surya, the Sun-God, represents the divine Illumination of the Kavi which exceeds mind and forms the pure self-luminous Truth of things. His principal power is self-revelatory knowledge, termed in the Veda Sight. His realm is described as the Truth, the Law, the Vast. He is the Fosterer or Increaser, for he enlarges and opens man's dark and limited being into a luminous and infinite consciousness. He is the sole Seer, Seer of Oneness and Knower of the Self, and leads him to the highest Sight. He is Yama, Controller or Ordainer, for he governs man's action and manifested being by the direct Law of the Truth, satyadharma, and therefore by the right principle of our nature, yath atathyatah, a luminous power proceeding from the Father of all existence, he reveals in himself the divine Purusha of whom all beings are the manifestations. His rays are the thoughts that proceed luminously from the Truth, the Vast, but become deflected and distorted, broken up and disordered in the reflecting and dividing principle, Mind. They form there the golden lid which covers the face of the Truth. The Seer prays to Surya to cast them into right order and relation and then draw them together into the unity of revealed truth. The result of this inner process is the perception of the oneness of all beings in the divine Soul of the Universe. Isopanishad mantra 16: O Fosterer, O sole Seer, O Ordainer, O illumining Sun, O power of the Father of creatures, marshal thy rays, draw together thy light; the Lustre which is thy most blessed form of all, that in Thee I behold. The Purusha there and there, He am I. Please note that Sri Aurobindo treats the verse as figurative speech and argues that mukham actually stands for the face of the truth. With some knowledge of ancient Tamil works, I am not surprised that the figurative speech is deployed. One can certainly argue that our ancient Sanskrit works too deployed figurative speech.

J N Das: It would probably be better if someone posted Bhaktivinoda Thakur's own statements about him eating fish. Valid.

Krishnas prabhu: Again, I see no new, impersonal revelations in these Aurobindo translations. Those BG translations were of Adi Sankara bhasya - not Sri Aurobindo. I hope you are aware that Sri Aurobindo differs with Adi Sankara often. I am yet to quote Sri Aurobindo. So in that case, why does Madhva teach Dvaita when his diiksha guru taught Advaita? Did Madhva claim that he is following and propagating the teachings of his master's parampara? If Madhva got diiksha from Vyaasa, then where is the evidence of it? Certainly not in the biography of his which I previously quoted in another thread. So, biographies are irrefutable? Some months back, another member Satyaraja Das, pointed out that there are several inconsistencies in Caitanya Caritamrta. He showed that Caitanya Mahaprabhu is being portrayed as quoting the writings of Krishnadasa Kaviraja. Shvu participated in that discussion. Perhaps, he can recall the topic. Now, someone can demand proof from us that Caitanya Mahaprabhu was indeed an avatar. And even if it could be proven that Vyaasa is the diiksha guru of Madhva, then still why does Madhva teach Dvaita, when Vyaasa's own writings like Shriimad Bhaagavatam speak of beda/abeda? SB also talks of advaita. One can come in a paramparaa and differ philosophically from it. Madhva has proven it. You yourself admitted that Madhva's BG was approved by Vyasa. So, why are we not accepting that as the authority? One can claim any paramparaa he wants, but the test of a philosophy's legitimacy still rests on providing shaastric evidence. SP has always argued that parampara is the most important thing. Isn't that the reason why we scorn a Sai Baba or Ramakrishna Paramahamsa? And an important feature of parampara is that the disciple repeats what the guru passed on. How can there be mutation? So, parampara is as critical as shastric evidence as per SP. If parampara is not important, then why do we claim that we belong to Madhva's sampradaya?

Hari Bol Krishnas prabhu: I am familiar with this Upanishad. Your misconception is there because the Upanishad refers to the Brahman in a couple of places as "maheshvara," an epithet traditionally reserved for Lord Shiva. But according to Vishnu Sahasranaama, Vishnu also has names like Shiva, Shambhu, Maheshvara. Not only that. In the second adhikara, it addresses the Supreme as Rudra and in the fourth interchangebly uses the term Shiva. I am at work and am quoting from memory - so I may be wrong with the exact reference. But, if you have the book, you can cross check. I am not sure, I don't have that book at home either, but if you want I can look up. Vedaanta-suutra supports the principle that if context clearly points to a deity being described as Brahman, then that deity must be Vishnu. Which sutra? Please consult the Achintya list archives (www.achintya.org) for a posting by me in which I very explicitly refuted all of these points with evidence. Thanks for the reference. I will look up. Too bad for the Advaitins, but the word "mukha" or "face" is still in the Sanskrit, no matter how hard they try to brush it aside, and it still points to a personal Godhead. Sri Aurobindo has also written in another context, that every word cannot be taken in the literal sense, as the vedic speech is highly figurative. This makes sense, as literal meaning leads to absurd meaning often times. You have not commented on the other flaws pointed out by that member from advaita list. You are yet to clarify, if the Supreme Lord with the complexion of sun, that you quoted this morning is Shiva, as Krishna has a dark complexion. I hope you address all the points I raised.

J N Das: The scriptures instruct us not to look for the source of a clean river, nor to look for defects in the early life of the saints. What one has done before becoming realized (or manifesting realization) is irrelevant. Agreed. Bhaktivinoda Thakur acknowledges the flaw in his actions and laments his fallen condition, whereas Vivekananda does not accept his actions as faulty or wrong. Agreed. In fact, Vivekananda advocates eating beef. For example he says, while talking on Brhadaranyaka upanishad, that the most glorious days of Indian history were when 5 Brahmins would finish off a cow for a meal. Realization has nothing to do with a ritual or a date any more than your upanayama made you realized in Brahman. We are refering to the point of self-realization (a point which we can not particularly identify), not the date he received his family priests initiation. I am not sure that I agree with this 100%. When somebody gets initiated by a guru, the guru gives him the instructions and the disciple promises to follow them. Since BVT was a scholar and even wote books, he wouldn't have failed to understand them. So, did he violate the oath he had taken? We should keep in mind the Bhagavatams statements regarding the liberated souls, that they appear as ordinary conditioned men until necessary to manifest their divine light. This I again agree with. Of course, only after having made the above point.

Hari Bol Krishnas: Here is another interesting remark made by that member. Of course, I am throwing a flame bait *****Begin post from advaita list***** Shridhara Swami was definitely an Advaitin. Chaitanya himself originally took a Dashanami form of sannyasa and many of his spiritual ancestors have Dashanami names such as Puri, Saraswati etc. According to texts such as Garga Samhita, there are four Vaishnava sampradayas: Shri (Ramanuja), Brahma (Madhva), Sanatakumara (Nimbarka) and Agni (Vallabha.) The Gaudiyas don't figure on that list but nowadays they count themselves amongst Brahma sampradaya. This could give a clue as to what happened. In medieval times Advaita Vedanta came under severe attack by the Dvaita philosopher Vyas Tirth and his successors. Perhaps at that time under his influence a section of the Dashanamis went renagade and started a new sect. The hostility of the Gaudiyas towards Advaita Vedanta may be due to lingering embarrasment over their true origins. *****End of post from advaita list*****

Hari Bol Krishnas: I promised I will get back to you on the 2 BG verses you had quoted. Here are the translations of Adi Sankara's bhasyam on these verses. In the evening, I will also get Sri Aurobindo's commentary [assuming I get back home early] and then we can discuss further on these two. That way we can conclude if BG admits to both the persobal and impersonal forms or just the personal form. BG 10:12-13: Bhavan, You; are the param brahma, supreme Brahman, the supreme Self; the param dhama, supreme Light; the paramam pavitram, supreme Sanctifier. Sarve, all; rsayah, the sages-Vasistha and others; tatha, as also; the devarisih, divine sage; naradah, Narada; Asita and Devala ahuh, call; tvam, You; thus: Sasvatam, the eternal; divyam, divine; purusam, Person; adi-devam, the Primal God, the God who preceded all the gods; ajam, the birthless; vibhum, the Omnipresent-capable of assuming diverse forms. And even Vyasa also speaks in this very way. Ca, and; svayam, You Yourself; eva, verily; bravisi, tell; me, me (so). BG 11:38 You are the adi-devah, primal Deity, because of being the creator of the Universe; the puranah, ancient, eternal; purusah, Person-(derived) in the sense of 'staying in the town (pura) that is the body'. You verily are the param, suprem; nidhanam, Resort, in which this entire Universe comes to rest at the time of final dissolution etc. Besides, You are the vetta, knower of all things to be known. You are also the vedyam, object of knowledge-that which is fit to be known; and the param, supreme; dhama, Abode, the supreme State of Visnu. Anantarupa, O You of infinite forms, who have no limit to Your own forms; the entire visvam, Universe; tatam, is pervaded; tvaya, by You.

Hari Bol Krishnas: Since you quoted Svetasvatara upanishad, may I also remind you that it talks of Shiva as the Supreme and not Krishna. Are you in agreement with that? Here is the reason why I am asking this. You cannot accept Svetasvatara as authority only to drive home the point that the Supreme is a personal God and ignore the fact that it declares that Supreme to be Shiva.

J N Das: ...and Bilvamangala was attached to a prostitute. That is not okay with me. How should I react when sombody tells me that Vivekananda was "attached" to Nivedita, but was a saint too? Krishnas: Even if he did, the allegation is that he did so before his initiation/spiritual rebirth. Ram has been asking this question for some days now and nobody has answered yet. Did he eat meat after hhis first initiation? Theist mentioned that BVT was writing books while eating meat? So, how can it be condoned? I don't defend the adharmic behavior of some ISKCON devotees, so stop making excuses for the adharmic behavior of modern-day Advaitins like Vivekananda. I am not defending Vivekananda. To me something is adharmic, if it is adharmic - no matter who commits it.

Shashiji: When you are finding Lord Jesus in Exodus then I will be feeling upset . Until then you must be having the less coconut. But the offensive verses I quoted were not just from Exodus. They are from all over. I also pointed out that all those books have the stamp of approval of Jesus. So, he cannot be dissociated from them. Please don't forget that Srila Prabhupad's "Thou shall not kill" argument itself was from OT. It was still a fine argument because, just like the Exodus which bothers you, this OT verse too had Jesus' approval Krishnas: Can you please clarify what the purpose of this thread is? I was led into this discussion because I thought we were going to discuss the shaastric basis of Vaishnavism vs. Advaita. But now it seems you are worried about the behavior of some ISKCON followers. Let us stick to the original topic and keep ISKCON and GV out. I brought that point in response to your observation. That is all. There is NOTHING in this mantra that says that all philosophies are correct. This mantra only says that God, Vishnu, has many names, among which are some names of various demigods. By absolutely no stretch of the imagination can this mantra be used to sanction belief in two, mutually contradictory schools of philosophy. Nowhere did I indicate that ALL philosophies are correct. I just pointed out that 2 apparently conflicting philosophies can still be correct. Sri Aurobindo and Swami Dayananda Saraswati both argue that there is no demi-God in the vedas. The various names are just different attributes of the same Supreme. Taken in that context, the verse still means what I wrote before. How convenient for you that you do not mention the very next verse! [bG 5:29] Actually, we discussed them in in detail before. That is why I left it out. In the verses I quoted, Krishna says that attaining Brahman realization is the highest form of perfection. He says the same thing in many other places in BG. He also says that realizing His personal form is the highest perfections. So, Krishna doesn't rank the two. It only follows that Krishna allows both forms of realization and considers them as the highest goals by themselves. Shankara tries to get around it by word-jugglery, but that simply will not work! What a way to address Adi Sankara!!! No wonder you don't find it offensive when Srila Prabhupad talks of Adi Sankara's "audacity". Would you call it "word jugglery" when SP translates "Brahman" as "the Supreme personality of Godhead, Krishna"? There is absolutely NOTHING in the above statement [RV 1:164:45] that holds that the Vedic statements are not literal. There is NOTHING in the above statement that supports Advaita specifically. I never claimed that this verse supports advaita. I just claimed that this ascribes mystical meaning to the vedas. The same is clearly mentioned in the oldest devotional Tamil works [all of which were written millennium before the Victorian influenced Bengali works]. I can only quote the original vedic verse and its translation. If you still refuse to see that, can I force you prabhuji? That interpretation is wrong. Indirect meanings should not be resorted to when direct meanings are acceptable in context. The straightforward meaning of purusha is not impersonal. Monier-Williams, a fairly impartial source, gives the following meanings of "purusha" Thanks for telling me that the interpretation of the great Dayanda Saraswati is "wrong". Never mind that you haven't offered one argument against the logic put forth - a logic that holds perfectly valid as per grammar. My surprise vanishes the moment I see you writing that Monier-Williams, the fanatical anti-Hindu Christian missionary translator, was impartial I know that immense Person, having the color of the sun and beyond darkness. I already wrote in a different thread about Svetasvatara upanishad clearly talking about the personal form of the Supreme. No doubts there. Likewise, there are upanishads [only the principal please...not the umpteen Moghul editions] that talk of the impersonal Brahman as the Supreme. This only adds credence to my statement that both forms are highest and they cannot be ranked. Advaitists quote Adi Sankara and argue that Isopanishad is all about impersonal Brahman. I will seperately provide the translations of Adi Sankara and Sri Aurobindo next. May be in the evening, after I return from work. I discussed this very point on advaita-vedanta.org Very curious to ask you - in your quote there is a mention of the Supreme person with the "colour of sun". We all know that Krishna is of the colour of dark clouds and that Shiva has a golden complexion. Does this refer to Shiva as the Supreme Lord? It is also stated in the Atharva Veda that the Puraanas have the same divine origin as the Vedas I am not questioning their divine origin. But with so much interpolation, nobody is going to argue that they are in the same form as they were given originally. So, still puranas are out. Bhagavad-giitaa is clearly personalist from beginning to end, and you cannot accept it. That is not true. For every personalist verse, there is an impersonalist verse in BG. You say that Srila Prabhupada is a guru, but you reject those teachings of his which you cannot reconcile with your own personal views. This is not a very honest attitude. Because I never believe that SP is the only guru. I hold that a venerable saint like Thirugnanasambandhar is a guru too. And I also believe that no guru is perfect. That is why I have never surrendered unto any guru. You also object to the ranking of deities in the Vedas. But that ranking is also substantiated very EXPLICITLY by shruti: agnirvai devaanamavamo viShNuH paramaH | Agni is the lowest of all deities and Vishnu is the highest. (aitareya braahmaNa 1.1.1) A good point. I need to look into the commentary of the same written by Swami Dayanada Saraswati. I don't see Sri Aurobindo having commented on any Brahmanas. I don't have SDS with me, so this point will have to wait. BTW, whose commentary are you quoting? You quoted ISKCON devotees, who are all from the 20th century. What about Gaudiiya Vaishnavas from earlier ages? Perhaps none. But my criticism is only of GV of this century, whereas you launched a blanket attack on advaitins of all ages. Shankara wrote refutations of other Vedic systems of philosophy as well as Buddhism. This is another myth. Yes, there were 72 heterodox sects when Adi Sankara wrote, but his entire criticism of Buddhism is limited to only 18 verses of his bhasya, if I understand correctly. Again, Karthik, I note the double standard in your thinking. On one hand, you don't want to hold Advaita responsible for the scathing, anti-Vaishnava remarks of modern-day Advaitins. But on the other hand, you hold Gaudiiya Vaishnavism responsible for some bad behavior on the part of neophyte, modern-day, ISKCON devotees. Please look at the number of times you have spoken of my "double standards", "my dishonesty" and all such personal attacks. Do you think that a discussion will be more civil without personal attacks? Should we stoop to the level when SP and some of his disciples went to the levels of raising the pitch and indulged in personal taunts to chase away a female reporter who raised very uncomfortable questions for SP? The attacks of Vivekananda and Chinmayananda are bad - no doubt, but they are nowhere near the attacks [often vile and cheap] lauched by GV and ISKCON gurus against advaita and advaita acaryas. Most importantly, the writings of advaitins doesn't depend on blasting another philosophy for their survival. You cannot come across one commentary of SP without scathing attacks on "mayavada". I will also write in detail on BG 10:12 and 11:38

Krishnas: First of all let me thank you for so painstakingly answering so many points with references. You are definitely enriching this forum. There are many points in which Madhva's philosophy differs with the Gaudiiya one, and it is hardly honest to say that we accept everything which Madhva says. Well the Madhva tradition has it that Madhvacarya had his work approved by Veda Vyasa himself. If we accept Vyasa as the authority how can we disagree with anything that Madvacarya has written? Advaitists have said many nasty things about Vaishnavas for hundreds of years.... You quoted Swami Vivekananda, Chinmayananda etc., who are all from the 20th century. What about the advaitins of the earlier age? Has any distinduished acarya ever assailed an opposing school or its founder the way Madhva attacked Adi Sankara? If none did that, then Vivekananda's accusation atleast has a bit of truth in it. I have never come across any advaitin who called any Vaishnava philosophy as "yellow stool". It seems that such attacks originated only from the GV/ISKCON side. Nor have I come across any advaitin who dedicates verse after verse and speech after speech in condemning another philosophy, as GV/ISKCON do. If anything, they just dismiss other schools as irrelevant. It looks like GV/ISKCON badly need advaita to survive

Krishnas: Just because one can refute another's philosophy by using shaastra, it is no reason to treat that person disrespectfully. I will not call Jesus, Shankara, or others bogus. Neither will I. I presented that argument a bit sarcastically. Many times GV, ISKCON sannyasis will even compare Sankaracaryas to poisonous cobras and advaita to "yellow stool". Yet, they will glorify Jesus like anything. Many times I have seen them condemn Swami Vivekananda for having eaten meat and even denounce him as bogus. Now it seems that BVT himself ate meat.

Krishnas prabhuji: I would point out that many criticisms of "mayavada" from ISKCON are actually criticisms of the watered-down, feel-good, neo-Advaita cults that have sprung up in the last few hundred years. If these people (Chinmaya, Sai Baba, Vivekananda, etc etc) were as faithful to Advaita as they claim, then you might have a case. As it is, the blame rests solely on those who misuse Advaita to get followers. Such criticism is not just limited to those who advocate a watered-down version of Advaita. In the purports of Srila Prabhupad as well in the lectures given by the sannyasis at ISKCON, we can come across scathing attacks on Advaita as well as Adi Sankara. Some sannyasis even go to the extent of calling Advaita "yellow stool", leaving no doubt as to what the criticism is targetted at. This Balasubramanian fellow from whom you get your impressions of Advaita.. Okay, he is not the one from whom I get my inputs on Advaita. I just mentioned him because he has had many debates with ISKCON devotees. First of all, do you even know where in Rig Veda this statement [Ekam sad....] is? Frankly speaking, most Hindus who quote it due so without regard for context. They just speak it like a slogan with little understanding of what it means. RV 1:164:46. I have read the commentaries of Sri Aurobindo and Sayanacarya on this and both seem to convey what I stated. Please tell me if that is wrong and if so, please explain why. Advaita does not admit of any real, personal aspect of God. The personal aspect of God is maya. It is at best a temporary conception to help the neophyte grasp what is beyond the senses. I am not sure that is the correct understanding of Advaita. In another thread, another member pointed out from the sayings of Adi Sankara where he declares that Narayana is eternal and beyond time and creation. Not only that Sankara also worshipped Narayana. So, shall we conclude that Sankara himself was a neophyte? That wouldn't be correct. followers of Advaita do not acknowledge the reality of BOTH the personal and impersonal conceptions. If Adi Sankara himself did, then why is that his followers wouldn't? If you take Kanchi Sankara mutt for example, they do worship Narayana and also advice the devotees to do the same. Advaitins consider the impersonal conception to be the highest conception of the Absolute truth. This is contradicted by Giitaa.... We discussed earlier in another thread about many verses in BG which declare Brahman as Supreme and the realization of that Brahman as being the highest perfection. BG 5:24-28 for example. Where in the Rig Veda does it say that the "vedas carry a mystical meaning and not literal" ?? That is nothing more than a misunderstanding. I am aware of no such statement. catvAri vAk parimitA padAni tAni vidurbrAhmaNA ye manISiNaH guhA trINi nihitA neNgayanti turIyaM vAco manuSyA vadanti [RV 1:164:45] Translation: The words of the vedas exist at 4 levels; 3 of which are cavernous and 1 expressed through the words; the truth itself is beyond the words that the humans can perceive. It is also stated in the shruti, ta.m tv aupaniShada.m puruSha.m pR^icchaami - "I shall now inquire about the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is revealed in the Upanishads." (bR^ihadaaraNyakopaniShad 3.9.26). The "purusha", as per many commentators like Sri Aurobindo, doesn't represent a personal God. Nor does Adi Sankara think so. In fact, they argue that it only represents the Brahman, as the word is indeed a compound that can be split into "pur" + "usha". "Pur" means "a citadel" or "place of residence" and "usha" means "dawn" or "light". Hence, "purusha" stands for the "source of all light [that dispels maya]" or "Brahman". I am not arguing that this is the only correct interpretation, just as we cannot argue that "personal God" is the only correct interpretation. Also if we look at the very first of the vedanta sutras, it says Athaatho Brahmajijnasa: meaning "now let us inquire about the Supreme Brahman". So, one can at best say that the vedas point to both the personal and the Brahman forms of the same Supreme. A relative gradation, saying that the personal God is superior to the Brahman, in itself has no support of the vedas. But again, what do you mean by "Vedas," and why do you think there is any doubt on this point? Vedas are the shrutis which includes the samhitas, brahmanas, aranyakas and the upanishads. Vedanta sutras are a summary of the vedas. Smritis such as BG, Srimad Bhagavatam are not vedas. Okay, let me rephrase the question: "Do the vedas unequivocally state that the Supreme is ONLY a personal God and that Brahman is subservient to Him?" Shashiji: Where is aying this? Show me? Please do not be quote from Exodus. Krishnas stated that Ramanuja has shown conclusively that Sankara's advaita was wrong. Hence my question. Looks like you are upset with my quotes from the Bible I just repeated what Jesus had stated - I didn't invent them. Shivaji: Why be so exclusive? Who said that Vaishnavism is the only true path? Exclusivity is what the christians and muslims preach. Prabhuji, I am not being exclusive. I very much agree that as Srila Prabhupad is a guru, so are Ramana Maharishi or Swami Chandrasekharendra Saraswati. But GV and ISKCON definitely launches scathing attacks on advaita and even tends to create an impression that the philosophy of Sankara was wrong and has been conclusively proven so many times over. I definitely believe that as SP sees the Supreme as Radha Krishna, sage Thirumular sees the same Supreme as Siva Shakti. But, ISKCON and GV have to necessarily rank them and declare that Siva is a demi-God. Indeed, some GV sannyasis even argue that Goddess Parvati is "after all a mere servant maid of Krishna". I am questioning this exclusiveness. Bhatajoy: Vaishnavism is a more direct path. I too think so. But for some, realizing Siva through the writings of sage Thirumular may be the direct path.

Very nice Krishnas prabhu. I agree with you. We cannot selectively quote Jesus and declare that he was a pure devotee, when it suits us, while condoning those actions of Jesus that portray him in poor light. It is also not necessary to fit every saint into the Vaishnava mould. Some, obviously, are not. That leaves us with only 2 options: One, accept that there are many paths to realization and that Vaishnavism is one of them. Two, declare that only Vaishnavism is valid and that Jesus, Sankara etc. were bogus.

Hari Bol Krishnas prabhuji, If I had given you an impression that I am a scholar in advaita, please allow me to correct that. I am not. At best, I will be quoting what others have written. So, let us start the discussion with that in mind. Nor am I a spokesperson for advaita - as it is not something that I follow. But, I am here to point out at some of the mistakes in ISKCON's conception of advaita. Let me start addressing the first point you have made. Why is that the vedas cannot be supportive of 2 schools of philosophy which are apparently contradictory? Rk veda clearly says Ekam sad vipra: bahuddha vadati [The Supreme truth in One, but the sages realize it many ways]. So, one sage may have realized the personal aspect of this Supreme while the other realized the Brahman. Also, the Rk veda says that the rks are existing at 4 levels, of which only one, vaak is at the level which we can understand. Yet the same Rk veda says that the truth of the vedas is beyond what the vaak or the words of the vedas convey. That brings around the following questions: One, can we just get the picture of the Supreme truth just on the basis of the vedas, when the Rk veda itself says that the vedas carry a mystical meaning and not literal? Two, can we establish conclusively, on the basis of the vedas, that the Supreme is a personal God?

Also, never forget that Srila Prabhupad often quoted Exodus 20:13, Thou shall not kill to condemn meat-eating among the Christians. Is this not from the Old Testament? Of course, it is. Were these words originally spoken by Jesus? Not at all. He was just repeating what was there in OT. So, is it someohow okay to quote passages from NT [which were in turn borrowed from OT] that are convenient to us and which project Jesus as a pure devotee and somehow not okay to quote those passages that portray him in bad light? I don't understand this logic. To me any passage originally coined by Jesus or just repeated by him from OT both mean the same - that they have his stamp of approval. Anything wrong with my logic?

There are some fools who criticize ISKCON for its prudish stance on sex. Idiots they are for they don't realize that Jesus, the pure devotee had an even stringent standard for sex Who is holiest to God? A man who avoids sex through castration. "For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off" [isaiah 56:3-5]. "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it" [Matthew 19:12]. Now don't be audacious and ask me if Jesus was a eunuch himself. You will go to hell. Which act does God consider disgraceful? Having sex with your dead brother's wife but refusing to impregnate her. "And Er, Judah's first born, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him. And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also" [Genesis 38:7-10]. "If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger; her husband's brother shall go in unto her . . . And if the man like not to take his brother's wife . . . then his brother's wife shall come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot and spit in his face . . . And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed" [Deuteronomy 25:5-10]. Though I am an admirer of Jesus, the pure devotee, the following one stumps me altogether. Can some knowledgeable person comment on this saying of Jesus? Under what circumstances does the Bible say a woman must have her hands cut off for touching her husband's genitals? When she touches them in an effort to protect her husband from an attacker. "When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her" [Deuteronomy 25:11-12]. What are God's policies regarding the treatment of women captured in war? A pure devotee must advocate fair treatment of women. Jesus doesn't disappoint in this department either The victor may choose any of the women he wants to be his wife. The victor may choose any of the women to be his wife but if she's bad in bed, while he may kick her out, he may not sell her as a slave. "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, and seeth among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; and she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and remain in thine house . . . And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her" [Deuteronomy 21:10-14].

One clear sign of a pure devotee is that he has absolutely unconventional views on sex. Of course, Jesus doesn't disappoint us in this department either How does God say you can determine whether your wife is cheating on you? Have a priest give her holy water to drink. If she’s an adulteress, her belly will swell and her thigh will rot. "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man’s wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him, and a man lie with her carnally . . . then the man shall bring his wife unto the priest . . . and the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel . . . And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot [Numbers 5:11-27]. Now I know as to why Christianity never took roots in Arabia. Simple, water is scarce in those deserts That is why another pure devotee, Prophet Mohammad, had to come up with ways that didn't require water for identifying an adultress Okay, most people these days don't know what role a woman should play in sex. Such fools must listen to Jesus, the pure devotee According to Jesus, what is a woman’s sexual role? To submit to her husband’s whims, for women were created to serve men and to satisfy men’s sexual needs. "For the man is not of the women; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman: but the woman for the man" [Corinthians 11:8-9]. "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord" [Colossians 3:18]. "For this cause God gave them up into vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman." [Romans 1:26-27]. "[Thy husband] shall rule over thee" [Genesis 3:16]. Are there X-rated descriptions in the teachings of Jesus, the pure devotee? Some fools think the following qualify that, but they know not that Jesus was a pure devotee: "For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses [Ezekiel 23:20]. "Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times" [Proverbs 5:19]. "Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?" [Kings 18:27]. I have always wondered what effect a combination of sexual perversions [resulting from oppression] and violence will produce when a pure devotee experiences them. All I had to do was look upto Jesus According to the Bible, what is an example of the payment a man of God had to provide to a king to marry his daughter? 100 foreskins of enemies of the king that the husband-to-be must slaughter [but, to curry favor, 200 foreskins was preferable]. And Saul was afraid of David, because the Lord was with him, and was departed from Saul . . .And Michal Saul’s daughter loved David: and they told Saul, and the thing pleased him. . . . And Saul said [to his servants], Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king’s enemies. . . . Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king’s son-in-law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife [samuel 18:12-27]. Beautiful, isn't it?

Can we defend advaita through the shrutis? Has it been conclusively shown by the Vaishnava acaryas like Ramanuja or Madhva that advaita is wrong [and hence non-vedic] and that Vaishnavism is the only true path? Or can someone argue that the shrutis are amenable to multiple interpretations and that one can claim that both both advaita and Vaishnavism are both vedic traditions?

Hari Bol Gauracandra Prabhu, Shashiji and Atmaji, In fact, every teaching of Jesus has come to us only through the 4 books that made the cut in 315 CE and a host of other books that were purged. Simply put it, whatever we consider as offensive or compassionate has all been recounted by his disciples. No authority in the church has ever stated that Jesus was either opposed to these sayings or was even uncomfortable with them. Also, it is not as if that Jesus did away with old testament. He did accept many parts of it and they found their way into NT. The verses I have quoted are among them. So, if Jesus didn't coin those messages, then he is atleast guilty of having propagated them. In my eyes, that still doesn't reduce the value of Jesus. I never believe that anyone is perfect. Not Jesus not Srila Prabhupad. Even a realized soul has his share of defects. So, while Jesus has been quoting these repulsive verses, SP has been quoting some repulsive verses from Manusmriti etc.. But, they also gave very sublime messages for the mankind. I would like to ask you as to why these verses are in the Bible, if they are not approved by the tradition which follows Jesus. And the main reason I am quoting these verses is because in ISKCON several speakers glorify Jesus as a pure devotee while launching uninformed, scathing attacks on Sankara and Lord Siva. Some even go to the extent of calling the teachings of Adi Sankara as Yellow stool. So, I am just providing the counter-balance Krishnas: Are you serious? Advaita has already been refuted many times over by Madhva, Ramanuja, et. al. Where exactly are you coming from with this? And I have come across Advaita practitioners claim that the philosophies of both Ramanuja and Madhva have been shown to be defective by many advaita acaryas. I have also come across several debates where the likes of Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian have very convincingly argued, with shruti basis, that advaita is the only true vedic tradition. Let me start a new thread and let us see arguments from both sides.

But the ultimate compassion and equanimity of Jesus doesn't surface until you read the following verse. One gets a feeling that Prophet Mohammad got his inspirations from Jesus. Does it mean that Prophet was also a pure devotee? What effect does God say warfare has on slavery? Whereas the men in any community invaded must be killed, the women and children are to be taken as slaves. "And when the Lord thy God hath delivered [a city] into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee. [Deuteronomy 20:13-14].

Here is further proof that Jesus was a very merciful, pure devotee. I hope atleast now those who doubt that he was the chosen one, dispel such doubts from their hearts. I must add that no other spiritual master has reached this level of kindness as displayed by Jesus For your reading pleasure: What does God say should happen to a master who beats his slave to death? He should not be punished if the slave survives for a couple days after the beating. "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money." [Exodus 21:20-21]. Of course, nobody claims that Jesus ever revered gomata, but one gets a feeling that he desired special treatment for gopati [oxen] Also note that Jesus, the saviour of the weak has displayed special kindness towards slaves and servants. Read on: What punishments does God mandate when an ox gores a free man and when an ox gores a slave? "If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death. . . . If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned [Exodus 21:28-32]. Of course, everybody knows that the love Jesus displayed was universal. No, he wasn't sectarian by any means. Yet, some fools still don't believe so. Thos who suspect that Jesus was ever partial in favour of his people should read this: What was the plight of those not born Israelites? They were to be taken by the Israelites as slaves, and their children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc. were destined to be slaves. "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever" [Leviticus 25:44-46]. How profound? Is there anybody out there who still doesn't believe that Jesus was a pure devotee full of compassion? Did you note in that quote from Exodus 21:28-32, Jesus assigning a value of 30 shekels to the life of a slave? Does some fool think that there was some kind of cosmic justice when Judas "sold" Jesus for the same 30 shekels? Well, such a fool doesn't realize that Jesus was a pure devotee

Krishnas: Advaita can be shown to be inconsistent with Vedic thought. I would be interested in knowing how. But, that may require a seperate thread in itself. You are most welcome to start one and I will participate. A few more shall be interested as well.

I don't know why people cannot accept Jesus as a pure devotee. Just read the following teachings of Jesus and you will have no doubt that he was a pure devotee full of compassion. Only fools will think that Jesus actively supported slavery, cruel punishments of the innocent and selling of one's own daughter. For the doubting Harrys, I have many more like these How did Jesus say a slave should treat his master? A slave must completely obey and fear his master, even if his master is cruel and unjust. "Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward" [Peter 2:18]. "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ" [Ephesians 6:5]. What is God's policy on physical punishment of your slave? "A servant will not be corrected by words: for though he understand he will not answer” [Proverbs 29:19]. “And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake” [Exodus 21:26-27]. What does God say is to happen to a male slave after six years of service? “If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever” [Exodus 21:2-6]. Does God allow you to sell your daughter into slavery? Yes. And the situation is not unbearable for her since, if her master takes her as his wife and she does not please him, he must set her free. “And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation, he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife: her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish” [Exodus 21:7-10].