Adi Shankaracharya's atheistic philosophy...

[mohankrishna 0]

Hare Krishna!

 

Shrila Prabhupada refers to the Advaita philosophy as being atheistic. But I do not understand how. I'm confused because one of his compositions is Bhaja Govindam and another is the Nrmismha Stotra.

Someone who has understood and is in a position to explain clearly, please do.

 

Thank you

Hare Krishna!

 

MohanKrishna

[Guest guest]

Please accept my blessings. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

 

The answer to your question is given in the Shiva Purana:

 

dvaparadau yuge bhutva kalaya manusadisu svagamaih

kalpitais tvam ca janan mad-vimukhan kuru

 

The Lord Supreme ordered Lord Shiva: "In Kali-yuga, mislead the people in general by propounding imaginary meanings for the Vedas to bewilder them."

 

What had happened was that after Lord Krishna departed from this planet 5,000 years ago Kali yuga degraded more and more until it reached the point that people in India were slaughtering cows and supporting this heinous sin by distorted interpretations of the Vedic scriptures. Out of kindness on the animals Lord Krishna appeared as Lord Buddha and denied the Vedas. He was teaching non-violence and a doctrine that everything is zero or void.

 

This put a stop to animal slaughter but it completely destroyed the Vedic culture.

 

Then Krishna ordered Lord Shiva to appear to re-establish Vedic culture. The only way he could do that was to present a twisted version of the Vedic wisdom that would attract the atheistic Buddhists. In this way as Shankaracharya he re-established the Vedic culture in India, but with a distorted interpretation of the Vedas very akin to Buddhism. He taught a principle that everything is one.

 

Then Krishna ordered a series of Vaisnava Acharyas to come and re-establish the personal conception of God given in the Vedas. Finally Krishna came Himself as Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and established the principle of simultaneous Monism and Dualism, that the Absolute Truth is simultaneously, inconceivably one and different.

 

Shankaracharya presents one of the five types of moksha known as sayujya mukti, or merging into the oneness. This type of liberation is rejected by the Vaisnavas because it is only a temporary liberation. It does not bring lasting relief from this material existence. It is a cure on the symptomatic level, rather than dealing with the cause of the material disease itself.

 

There is actually is no factual merging into Brahman, there is only the appearance or impression of having done so. After some time the Brahmavadi falls back down again into material existence. The drop of water may appear to merge into the ocean but it comes again to the land by evaporating, forming into a cloud, and raining on the land.

 

Shankaracharya later in his life rejected his own impersonalistic teachings and taught devotion to Krishna because his impersonal teachings were simply a temporary tactic to defeat Buddhism and re-establish Vedic culture. Once this was accomplished he was then free to reveal his actual desire, that we should all surrender to Krishna.

 

His followers, however, did not take his final instructions. They were too attracted to the false idea of becoming God themselves, an idea which is easily embraceable by those who follow the impersonal teachings of Shankaracharya.

[Yegan 0]

Dear Guest,

In the other forum, "Did Adi Shankaracharya denounce Caste?" there is a tendency to think that Adi Shankaracharya believe in caste by birth and even "say" that if a sudra hears the vedas then molten lead should be poured in his ears which I think is something very abominable.

Was it the plan of Shankaracharya to spread that philosophy or the forum is being misled?

Haribol

[Guest guest]

 

Dear Guest,

In the other forum, there is a tendency to think that Adi Shankaracharya believe in caste by birth and even "say" that if a sudra hears the vedas then molten lead should be poured in his ears which I think is something very abominable.

Was it the plan of Shankaracharya to spread that philosophy or the forum is being misled?

Haribol

 

Use common sense. Consider Shankaracharya's philosophy, and ask yourself, if he truly believed all was one, would he make any such distinctions based on caste? Do you honestly think he was a hyprocrite? if so, why should he be revered? Why should his teachings live on when they come from someone impure, imperfect and insincere?

[Yegan 0]

 

Use common sense. Consider Shankaracharya's philosophy, and ask yourself, if he truly believed all was one, would he make any such distinctions based on caste?

Good point to reflect on but ultimately its his writings which are to be considered. His writings reflect his teaching.

If his writings show tendency of castism then this is how it is, and is in conflict with what his followers say on his preaching(I.e Oneness)

I dont know what his wrintings are, thats why Im asking.

Why should his teachings live on when they come from someone impure, imperfect and insincere?

There are many teachings around some pretty same to others, some completely different. They have survived and still surviving. Do you think they are all perfect/sincere/pure?

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Shankara accepted an untouchable as his guru, yet he also quoted the verse about the molten lead being poured in the ears of a shudra who hears vedas.

 

Thus the conclusion is caste is not just based on birth, and knowledge should be received from anywhere.

[Yegan 0]

 

Shankara accepted an untouchable as his guru, yet he also quoted the verse about the molten lead being poured in the ears of a shudra who hears vedas.

 

Thus the conclusion is caste is not just based on birth, and knowledge should be received from anywhere.

Ok, conclusion is that caste is not just based on birth (conclusion arrived because his Guru is an "untouchable")

Now, lets move a step further. What the term shudra above implies then?

[mohankrishna 0]

Dear guest,

Thanks very much for clearing this doubt of mine!

 

Hare Krishna!

 

MohanKrishna

[mohankrishna 0]

jndas prabhu, I've tried to contact you via your email at (the one that you use for msn). But it appears that you don't use it for emailing purposes. Please could you check it for me. It's a matter that I'd like to discuss with you in private.

 

Thank you

Hare Krishna!

 

MohanKrishna

[guru 0]

 

jndas prabhu, I've tried to contact you via your email at (the one that you use for msn). But it appears that you don't use it for emailing purposes. Please could you check it for me. It's a matter that I'd like to discuss with you in private.

 

Thank you

Hare Krishna!

 

MohanKrishna

 

I think Jndas Prabhu should be too busy with the Jagannatha Deities installation scheduled from 22nd of May.

[Guest guest]

How can Srila Prabhupada say Adi Shankara has an atheistic philosophy when he says that even Adi Shankara accepts Krishna as the supreme personality of Godhead. To me Adi Shankara's philosophy is impersonal, not atheistic, he believed in a formless and impersonal God, a 'force' like in the star wars film. He belived this concept of Brahman was God and all the deities were lower temporary manifestations of Brahman or symbolic representations of the powers of Brahman. Let's remember Adi Shankara was against Atheism, he thought Atheists were not very bright people. He taught 'personal God' concepts to the masses because he found that they coudln't grasp Advaita concepts and were more inclined to dualism. He thought that at least personal god worship will keep them in the company of Hinduism rather than convert to another and may lead to God realisation. One day when they develop their intelligence they will understand Advaita.

 

If you want to discuss whether or not Adi Shankara believed in caste by birth only and discrinated against lower castes, please visit the thread and conrtibute.

[Guest guest]

it's not an atheistic philisophy, he was an undercover vaishnav

[Guest guest]

like chaitanya mahaprabhu was an undercover advaitin