raga

At least in 4.9:

 

<font color="darkred">janma karma ca me divyam evaM yo vetti tattvataH |

tyaktvA dehaM punar janma naiti mAm eti so'rjuna ||9||

 

taj-janma mAyA-rUpaM, karma ca sAdhu-paritrANAdi, me mama divyam aprAkRtam aizvaram evaM yathoktaM yo vetti tattvatas tattvena yathAvat tyaktvA deham imaM punar janma punar utpattiM naiti na prApnoti, mAm ety Agacchati, sa mucyate he'rjuna ||4.9||</font color>

 

Did you mean this one?

 

 

 

At least in 4.9:

 

<font color="darkred">janma karma ca me divyam evaM yo vetti tattvataH |

tyaktvA dehaM punar janma naiti mAm eti so'rjuna ||9||

 

taj-janma mAyA-rUpaM, karma ca sAdhu-paritrANAdi, me mama divyam aprAkRtam aizvaram evaM yathoktaM yo vetti tattvatas tattvena yathAvat tyaktvA deham imaM punar janma punar utpattiM naiti na prApnoti, mAm ety Agacchati, sa mucyate he'rjuna ||4.9||</font color>

 

Did you mean this one?

 

 

 

Reference for mAyA rUpam please?

Reference for mAyA rUpam please?

 

in the gita bhashya, sankara says avyakto paro narayana. thus stating that narayana is beyond maya, which is vyakta.

 

 

I failed to locate this in his Gita Bhasya. Where is it?

 

You can conveniently view Shankara's Gita Bhasya at http://www.gitasupersite.org , both the original text and Swami Gambhirananda's English translation. You can also find a translitterated Sanskrit edition at http://www.granthamandira.org .

 

I hope this provides some basis for the discussion. I would prefer to not see a single post any longer without references from Shankara's works. Otherwise it is just so many meaningless posts, or preambles as Karthik put it.

 

in the gita bhashya, sankara says avyakto paro narayana. thus stating that narayana is beyond maya, which is vyakta.

 

 

I failed to locate this in his Gita Bhasya. Where is it?

 

You can conveniently view Shankara's Gita Bhasya at http://www.gitasupersite.org , both the original text and Swami Gambhirananda's English translation. You can also find a translitterated Sanskrit edition at http://www.granthamandira.org .

 

I hope this provides some basis for the discussion. I would prefer to not see a single post any longer without references from Shankara's works. Otherwise it is just so many meaningless posts, or preambles as Karthik put it.

<font face="Georgia" color=maroon>

 

<center>

 

TIN GOSVAMI -- THE THREE GOSVAMIS</center>

 

Sri Raghunatha Das Gosvami, Sri Raghunatha Bhatta Gosvami and Sri Krishna Das Kaviraja Gosvami all disappeared from this world on the Sukla Dvadasi day of the month of Damodara during different years.

 

Fearful that the Moslem invaders would desecrate the sacred bodies of these saints, instead of being placed in a samadhi in the regular way, their bodies were cremated on the banks of Sri Radha Kund. Some of the ashes were left at this samadhi mandir which came to be known as Tin Gosvami Samadhi, the samadhi of the three Gosvamis. The rest of Sri Raghunatha Bhatta's ashes were buried in a samadhi at the Causathi Mahanta samadhi yard in Vrindavan, Sri Das Gosvami's ashes were buried in his samadhi mandir in the Gopinatha Mandir of Radha Kund, and Krishna Das Kaviraja's ashes were buried on the yard of the Radha Damodar Mandir.

 

During the three days to come before Purnima, we will be commemorating their disappearance days. I will be posting biographical accounts of them, starting with Sri Das Gosvami later on today. I apologize for not currently having the time to present them all today.

 

it is possible to show from so many available works that sankara not only gave nirguna brahman realization but also sadguna realization. God and devotion are real as per sankara.

 

 

Go ahead and present this. The only single text you've come up with frm his works is one quote from his gita bhasya subject to interpretation. It is interesting that you have understood the real doctrine of Sankara and the rest of the Advaitin tradition has not. Have you systematically studied the works of Sankara under a teacher to gain a comprehensive picture of his doctrine? Or, with or without a guru, have you read the entire gita bhasya and sariraka bhasya at least?

 

But verse 33 says he sees himself as well as the Lord.

 

 

The TRANSLATION says that.

I would like to see if Ram can quote something from the writings of Shankara.

 

Since Gita is about the only text I've seen him quoting, perhaps he could start with Sankara's Gita Bhasya available at http://www.granthamandira.org/ggm2/ggm.php?action=category&id=4 .

Present the context of the statement, otherwise it is very misleading.

 

Can some one present Caitanya's debate with Prakasananda and Sarva Bhauma ?

 

 

They are rather lengthy. Just refer to the respective chapters of the Caitanya Caritamrita.

 

Aside this, do you take Krishnadas's accounts of Caitanya's life authoritative? It appears to me from your earlier posts that you do suspect them as well as the writings of the Gosvamis. Is this so?

Since your understanding appears to go against the general ideas of the present-day Advaita school, I believe it would be up to you to prove your idea of Shankara's teachings from his bhasya first.

 

Have you read Shankara's Vedanta-bhasya?

 

 

How do you know advaita vedanta website represents advaita perfectly as Sankara taught ? There are so many gaudiya websites which dont represent gaudiya vaishnavism properly and Sankara's is so old.

 

 

I'm just curious Ram, which works of Sankara have you studied in forming your conception of his teachings?

 

So, there is no transcription of mahaprabhu's conversations itself to prove that he was against advaita. Our conception that mahaprabhu was preaching against the Sankara school comes from the works of gosvamis, krishnadas kaviraj and later day gaudiya saints.

 

 

I read this again and was very amused. Yes, indeed there is no evidence of his disagreeing with the Advaitins aside the information in his biographies. Nobody was there with a camera and a tape recorder. What kind of proof would you consider sufficient?

 

Nevertheless, I have come across atleast one GV guru [rather a break away, I should say], who denounced Sankara and also repeatedly called his philosophy Mayavada, which it is not.

 

 

The biographies of Caitanya use the term "mayavadi" on occasion while referring to the Advaitins of Kasi. It appears as if it is used synonymously with "Advaitin".

 

If you do not agree with this, can you tell us what is a proper definition of "mayavada", then? If you know it is not a term to be used for Sankara's philosophy, I'd expect you have a correct definition for it.

 

Interestingly, jIva gosvami does not discuss sankara at all directly. The only context that i could get in a quick search in which he discusses advaitam is in the context of sridhara svami's advaita vadam. I don know if it is same as Sankara's. As for Sankarites, there is no problem in being a vaishnava, saivite or a worshipper of any aspect of the absolute. He does not refer to mayavada at all!!! He is using the terms acintya many times but in a couple of cases that i looked in to, it is only to specify that the Lord is inconceivable. Who ever said brahman is conceivable anyway ?

 

 

Traditionally Gaudiya Vaishnavas are not obsessed with defeating others, so it should not be astonishing if you can't find critique of Shankara and so forth in the purvacharyas' writings. Here and there the differences between Advaita and Bhedabheda are discussed, but there is no campaign to defeat and smash and crash somebody and declare some class of men as fools and bogus rascals.

 

The only ones I find confrontational are the Madhvites. Perhaps some branches of the Gaudiya tradition which insist on their having both a formal and a doctrinal connection with the Madhva tradition have inherited some of the spirit from them. As far as I am aware of, though, none of the major Vaishnava groups agree with all of the conclusions of Advaita, and this is addressed on occasion. If they did, why would they have separate sutra-bhasyas then?

 

 

 

The mystery of who started this religion of acintya bheda abheda tattva is deepening. (The above notes are my first reaction. I did not go through the labour of trying to translate his work as such translations are available. I will look up the net for one).

 

 

I believe I explained it earlier on in this thread already that on the basis of Sri Caitanya's teachings to them, the Gosvamis delineated the theology of the tradition in their writings. The entire Sat Sandarbha of Sri Jiva is an excellent example of such a theological thesis.

 

no one knows what caitanya spoke about advaitam. can some quote what jiva gosvami defeated in advaita ?

 

 

I believe I already referred you to his Tattva Sandarbha. Did you look it up?

 

http://www.granthamandira.org/ggm/ggm.php?action=category&id=28

 

It is true that some so called advaitins degenerate in to impersonalists just as some vaishnavas degenerate in to sense gratifiers. but advaita as taught by sankara is not impersonal and it is about deovtion

 

 

I believe the term "impersonalism" is a word often used for the doctrine of the ultimate non-personality of both the individual and the Supreme, ie. at the state of perfection no difference will exist between the two in any regard. In other words, "It is all one". Of course oneness in itself is indisputable (particularly as specified oneness), but ultimate oneness without personal expression is "impersonalism". Is it not?

 

Can you concicely present the perfection as presented by Sankara?

 

as raga pointed out there is no detail except i think a mention about atma rama having different meanings

 

so who were instrumental in building this religion around caitanya ? gosvamis or even later ?

 

 

The Gosvamis systematized and presented the theology of Sri Caitanya. Rupa contributed the theology of bhakti-rasa, Gopala Bhatta wrote on rituals, Jiva on siddhanta. Their works are foundational. Aside this, the religion assumed more of its current shape in the famous festival of Kheturi overseen by Jahnava Mata where followers of Caitanya from different locations gathered. This gave a form to most of the mainstream lineages of Sri Caitanya's religion. Narottama, Srinivasa and Syamananda, all students of Jiva, further contributed in propagating the teachings of the Gosvamis around Bengal and Orissa.

 

Was there ever an instance when SP [or any GV acarya for that reason] ever analysed any of the bhasyas of Sankara and proved it to be wrong by reverting back to the shruti? Never. All they did was to define Advaita....oooops, Mayavada ....... whichever way the like and then launch an ad hominem attack.

 

 

Aside Bhaktivedanta, please refer me to any other GV acarya who has offered unjust critique of Advaita in your view. If you don't know of any, then kindly keep your critique focused to where it belongs. Thanks.

 

perhaps the talks between Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and Sarvabhauma Bhattacrya and those with Prakasananda Sarasvati in th CC.

 

 

Neither of the two get into the details of analyzing Advaita Vedanta. Aside this, Caitanya Caritamrita is a biography written by Krishnadas Kaviraj, and I am uncertain whether Ram takes anything on his authority.

 

So, there is no transcription of mahaprabhu's conversations itself to prove that he was against advaita. Our conception that mahaprabhu was preaching against the Sankara school comes from the works of gosvamis, krishnadas kaviraj and later day gaudiya saints.

 

As far as I know, the gosvamis were contemporaries of mahaprabhu. In the works of gosvamis, which ones deal directly with the advaita conception ? Is there any contemporary work which shows that mahaprabhu approved what gosvamis wrote about Sankara ?

 

 

Mahaprabhu didn't write an autobiography. Whatever you have comes from various biographies compiled by his followers, both contemporary and later. The Gosvamis' works are accepted by the entire Gaudiya Vaishnava Samaja as the authoritative delineation of Sri Caitanya's theology.

 

It is not that Mahaprabhu was preaching against anyone. Some sects inside the Gaudiya tradition have adopted this aggressive attitude of attacking, smashing, crashing, cutting and destroying of others. You will hardly find it among the mainstream Gaudiyas.

 

[Now I can already hear somebody coming in and trying to prove from their writings that Sri Caitanya, Krishnadas Kaviraja and the rest were also bigoted fanatics who had nothing better to do than to cast critique upon others not inside their school. Spare me please! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif ]

Me? No. I am from Europe, though gradually moving over to Braj.

Little effort is taken in the Caitanya Caritamrita to exhaustively present the dialogue between Caitanya and the Mayavadins, as it is mainly a hagiographical account. I would suggest you study the later half of Jiva's Tattva Sandarbha and Baladeva's Govinda Bhasya on Vedanta. I do not know of any good electric edition of GB, TS is available from www.granthamandira.org under Darsana > Gaudiya > Sat Sandarbha.