ram

shvu, i was not aware of the fact sankara has handled this objection as such. so i can comment only after further learning. so i give you the credit of victory in this first round of debate.

 

but works like bhaja govindam, govindashtakam etc. do establish that sadguna brahman is eternal. how do you say it is still correct ? pl. clarfiy.

raga, there is no contemporary work which shows any arguments that caitanya uses to defeat advaita or sankara. the immediate works of gosvamis do not try to defeat sankara or reference to mayavada. this is a clear indication that gaudiya vaishnavism did not originally have offense on sankara or advaita.

 

perhaps in an attempt to establish bhagavath dharma (which will by its own merit lead to advaitam) the immediate followers started acintya bheda abheda tattva. or it is due to ignorance. out of pressure from traditional schools baladev wrote his own commentary. by the time krishnadas wrote his commentary it got filled with anti-advaita arguments. by the time of srila prabhupada, it has even turned in to an attack of sankara.

 

not to worry. all this will change as people accrue merits, and understand that they have to depend on sastras. for the sake of protection of dharma arjuna even killed his own guru. if that is the will of the lord, it will be.

jndas, if you see srila prabhupada's conversation, he clearly mentions that sankara is a rascal. we are so used to rewriting sastras that it is not difficult to reinterpret. but here the statements are very direct attack on sankara. of course, if prabhupada did not have this as a public stand but only a stand with confidential. simply criticizing sankara does not diminish the great work he did. but that will bring him infamy and the flaws of his life and works will come to light by the influence of time. satyam eva jayate.

 

sankara does not say that an atomic soul is god but that the conception of atomic soul is due to ignorance. this is the most direct interpretation of sastras. after talking about the plurality of bodies in the natve vaham verse, krishna refers to the brahman in the singular tense. the only place where he refers to the multiplicity of souls in the 7th chapter, he says that it is different from brahman, that is Himself. sankara establishes that jiva is part of maya on the count that nothing can exist independant of brahman.

every one may read bhagavatham but it is only sankarites who understand the bhagavatham properly if any one does. the first verse of srimad bhagavatham says tejo vAri mRtam yatA. but madhvAs and gaudiyas conclude, vishvam satyam. it is sankara's jagan mithya which is a proper conclusion.

oh! krishna. there is no evidence that caitanya critcized advaita leave alone criticize sankara. if any thing he glorified sankara. it is unfortunate that srila prabhupada is criticizing sankara so harshly.

 

i wonder if his movement's purpose is to awaken the sleeping smarhtas to re-establish sanatana dharma in the earth.

raga, i did post from sankara :

 

satyam jnanam anantam nityam is the first line of Govindashtakam by sankara in praise of Govinda which beats all mayavada conclusions. avyakto paro narayana is also from gita bhashya. if you want me to i can go deeper and give more references to establish this conclusively.

when i said easy route it is not bothering to filter sankara's works from that of others. this easy quote is misquoted as is sankara. any way it is an easy route only as per karthik. it should not bother you anyway because you agreed in an earlier post that these are works of sankara. it is unfortunate to overlook hundreds of personalistic conclusions that the acharya has made. a good debate is to either establish the truth. after all who ever does it, it is one truth. if we are not willing to concede, there is no learning and it is only a clash of egos.

 

unless you agree with me or disagree with me on my post, there is no point in explaining mayaa rupam. vizhalukku iraitha neer pola.

i will take the easy route because you have not proved why you reject sanakara's works. secondly, i dont have access to all the works of sankara. if you can provide a link we can debate with your restricted list.

 

Govindashtakam, written by Sankara describes Krishna as follows : satyam jnanam anantam nityam. krishna is just a human body invoking the supreme power, then how is it that he is anantam ? he was born and died - how is he nityam ? he lied - how is he truth himself ? he is part of mayaa or ignorance - how is he jnanam ? you may say - oh! sankara taught this for fools. but where does he say that fools are to be given false information ?

 

in the gita bhashya, sankara says avyakto paro narayana. thus stating that narayana is beyond maya, which is vyakta. narayana as you know is sadguna brahman and how can some thing that is qualified be avyakta ? this proves that sankara taught a very clear understanding of lord's form. pl. dont try a trivial redefinition of narayana as you dont have sankara to justify your interpretation. so we have to take the conventional meaning of narayana meaning vishnu as he uses them interchangeably.

 

why go that far ? do we accept that brahman by definition is eternal ? as sankara refers to god(s) as sadguna brahman, it should be obvious that he considers them eternal. saying sadguna brahman = mayaa is same as saying truth = false.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

we can definitely discuss but then we have to list down the books based on which to discuss. any point that we make has to be consistent with the overall conclusions made by sankara. if karthik or you would like to reject some portions of sanakara's work, then there is no point discussing without establishing the list of books that you consider is sankara's.

as we are analysing His body, can some one tell me the exact skin pigment that causes Him to have a dark blue colour (Krishna) and green colour (Rama). What is the racial acncestry ?

 

while i am not denying that humans have His form, His flesh, blood, excreta and genitals are not material but spiritual. So it cannot be said to be the same as what we have.

karthik and shvu - you have been holding this belief that sadguna brahman is not eternal. worst still - shvu has gone to the extent of saying krishna passes stool like we do. i would like to debate with you on this. please let me know which works of sankara you accept as authentic so that we can discuss based on that.

Yesterday in ISKCON, LA there was a program celebrating the grand success of LA Rath Yatra. During that program, there was a wonderful Odissi dance for the song :

 

guru brahma guru vishnu guru sAkshAt majeshwara ...

 

As per this song the guru is called parabrahman! I was wondering how this related to the gaudiya vaishnava school of thought. I thought it was very advaitic in content. Is this sign of growing tolerance towards advaitam ? Any thoughts ?

Originally posted by karthik_v:

How many acaryas have condemned "bonded labour", "untouchability" etc., which existed in India for the past 300 years? Hardly any. Do these things have any sanction in the vedas or smritis? They were prevalent, yet, why didn't any acarya criticize them?

 

Acharyas dont deal with social problems. Social reformers take care of that.

 

Originally posted by karthik_v:

Acaryas were certainly highly elevated, but except Krishna nobody is perfect. Every acarya had a few defects too.

 

You are way off from sAstrAs dear. One who is pefect attains His nature.

 

Originally posted by karthik_v:

... widespread deterioration or even might have been an accomplice to that.

 

Show me one convincing case.

Originally posted by karthik_v:

Real dangers creep in only when we insist that an acarya is all perfect and that every word and action of his is final.

 

Real dangers go only when we do that. A bonafide would teach the truth and act likewise. How can that cause any danger ?

 

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 06-28-2002).]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

I have read that the funeral hymns and the marriage hymns of the Rg veda are followed ditto today. This means that they were also burnt.

Pl. explain. Does marriage hymns talk about wife being burnt when husband dies ?

 

Originally posted by devan:

the Code of Manu states, "In childhood a female must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband, then to her sons; a woman must never be independent. There is no God on earth for a woman than her husband.....She must on the death of her husband allow herself to be burnt alive on the same funeral pyre. That everyone will praise her virtue."

 

this is a verse from the manu smriti. can some1 explain y woman is portrayed in such a manner. especially the last line which actually is SATI, which has been abolished in india now, since it was one of the biggest social evils to exist in the society

Arjuna tells in BG that if the war took place, women will be without protection and cause varna sankara or unwanted population. This shows that women were not forced to perform Sati. There was always a likelihood of them committing adultery after the death of their husbands. But a woman who committed Sati was considered virtuous. For an honourable person dishonour is worse than death. A woman without protection would have to live at the mercy of the society and it is hard to say if she will be able to remain chaste. It was also considered that widowhood is due to one's past karma. Instead of incurring more karma for the mere maintainence of the body, one gets rid of all the karma by offering the body in fire.

 

I am ready to agree with all these arguments under just one condition. Can some one knowledgeable let me know which section of the Vedas contain the mantras to be chanted during performance of Sati ? In the absence of such mantras, I find it difficult to accept that Sati is a bonafide Vedic truth.

Originally posted by jndas:

That is just your speculation. There is no mention that Manu's dharma shastra was lost. The dharma-shastras were being followed even in the time of Yudhishthira, but not by all.

 

The teachings of Manu that were lost (as referenced in the Gita) were the teachings of yoga, the process of linking with the Supreme Lord.

Agree. Krishna never speaks about the loss of manu smrti.

 

 

Originally posted by karthik_v:

Plain no. There is no mention in the vedas about any Manusmriti.

There is mention about Manu. His practces were Manu Smrtieven if he never wrote it down and stored it in his personal website.

 

No because whatever was taught to Manu was lost even before this yuga started. So what we have is spurious.

 

 

Originally posted by vinay:

i would like to if manu smriti or the code of manu is a part of the vedas?

 

Yes and No.

 

Dharma, when Vedas are present, why should one follow something not Vedic ?

 

The changes to DNA mentioned by Kalki are measureable. Has any one done that ? On what basis do you believe that ? `

Originally posted by krishnas:

Originally posted by gHari:

No, arrogance is the exact word to describe the mentality that typed 'so-called shelter'. This same arrogance has been betrayed over and over in these threads; it was as clear as the nose on the face. It was only a matter of time until until it brazenly revealed the great depth of its offensiveness.

Let me apologize if my words offended any one. Srila Prabhupada has done the great service of giving the treasure of love of Godhead around the world. But for him, we wont be discussing these words and these forums would not exist. I did not word them properly. I was just questioning the logic of giving up his authority, while accepting his translation.

 

If these threads are educating me about my anarthas, they are definitely serving the purpose for me. -

 

 

Karthik said :

 

The only botheration is some kind of fanaticism that goes with GV.

 

Response :

 

I dont think gaudiya vaishnavism is fanatical. Sweetness is the essence of this sampradaya. The devotees in gaudiya line are not even supposed to argue. They simply purify themselves and others by their intense devotion. Narottama Dasa for example. Even Mahaprabhu, who "defeated Mayavadis" never abused Sankara or Mayavada the way you hear in ISKCON temples these days. He took sannyasa initiation from Sankara sampradaya and there was no question of fanaticism or sectarianism. He convinced them by his humility sitting in the place where they washed their feet and knowledge giving 32 different meanings for the atma rama verse. While Sankara's works are filled with unalloyed devotion, his philosophy of monism is misunderstood by foolish people as equivalent to saying I am God. And they had to be given a different philosphy to correct their lost intelligence.

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 06-08-2002).]

Originally posted by gHari:

Right. He can point to his wonderful brain. And move 'on to higher authorities' (in his mind's eye). But I know one authority that will stand clear of such arrogance - Sri Krsna.

It is not a question of intelligence or arrogance. Raga was trying to use SP's commentary while not accepting his authority. I was just pointing out that if you move over to "higher authorities" within gaudiya line, I can theoretically go to a "higher authority" outside gaudiya line.

 

Originally posted by karthik_v:

Talking of upanishads, just because Adi

Sankara didn't comment on a particular upanishad doesn't mean it is bogus - provided some other acarya from any established school has commented on it. Has anyone commented on GTU before? So far as I know, most acaryas stuck to the 13 principal upanishads.

It is because Sankara commented on those verses they commented. In the pre-Muslim era, Sankara's influence was predominent. Even now his influence is very predominant but it is very diluted because his philosphical works are too rigourous for the modern mind. However his works of bhakti like Bhaja Govindam are still popular. But when the vaishnava acharyas came, they had to comment on these verses to convince people of their philosphy.

 

 

As long as any revelation is in line with shruti, it is to be accepted as the pramana. Srimad Bhagavatham, for example even if it is not commented. Or any revelation of an acharya. In another thread, I have given reasons for accepting shruti.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 06-08-2002).]

Even though some philosphical problems that we can point out, Gaudiyas have given the world hari nama. How can there be defect, where there is hari nama ?