Mayavada Fallacy - Narasimha (to Robert)

[Guest guest]

Namaste Robert,

 

> >Namaste Robert,> >> > > So, my dear Narasimha, please stop these rambling and

argumentative> > > debates,> >> >With all due respect, my dear Robert, you

should behave yourself in a > >debate. I can also accuse you of "rambling". But

such demeanor is hardly > >worthy of us. We both are Jyotish gurus and have some

responsibility. Let > >us not use words like "rambling" to describe arguments

that we don't > >particularly like.> > With due respect to you, instructing me

"to behave myself" is a bit beyond > what I would call the protocol of

"scholarly argument". You tend to get > personal when the argument heats up,

and that makes you look bad. Anyway, > I will side-step the Kindergarten

instructions, and address the points at > hand.

 

I am also the administrator of this list and have the right to tell you to

behave when you call somebody's arguments as "ramblings". While you accuse me

of getting personal, it is you who called my arguments "ramblings".

> The point is, that dry argument, and Sanskrit scholarship, is not the true >

means of understanding the Vedic texts. By offering different opinions > from

those given by great acharyas in the guru parampara system, as > recommended in

the Bhagavad gita and many Vedic texts, does not yield the > true understanding.

This is stated everywhere in the Vedic writings, and

 

You have to realize that those "great acharyas in the guru sampradaya system"

are not only violating another great teacher Adi Sankara, but simply dismissing

him through misquotes. I am speaking against them only to support another "great

acharya in a guru sampradaya system" (namely, Adi Sankara, who established many

great centers of Vedic learning, which are thriving to this day).

> list goes on. The opinions of Mahajanas, as mentioned above, are taken to >

relay the true import of Vedic shastras. So now we have a young man named >

Narasimha Rao, who thinks that his understanding is superior to all these >

great Acharyas (?) This is why I say, dry speculation, without a link to a >

specific Parampara through Diksha and the authorized initiatory process, is

 

FYI, diksha and authorized initiatory process does not only mean joining a

specific spiritual organization. I had my initiatory process. You are only

jumping to conclusions about me. Why can't we discuss the matter without

discussing our dikshas etc? After all, if we don't agree, we can agree to

disagree.

 

You said about me "You tend to get personal when the argument heats up, and that

makes you look bad". I don't know exactly where I got personal, but it looks to

me like you are getting "personal" in the above paragraph by talking about my

age and referring to my diksha etc. I don't know if it "makes you look bad"

though.

> like beating the empty corn husk - you may exhibit great effort, but the >

result is a waste of time, in the final analysis.

> You are quick to take offense, and that is also not becoming of a > scholar.

If you read the translations of these verses that were given, > you will not

find "insinuations" re: Sripad Sankaracharya. The verses I > quoted simply

report, that Lord Shiva was ordered by the Supreme

> Personality of Godhead Narayana/Vishnu, to appear in the form of a Brahmana >

in Kali-yuga to teach "asat-shastra', or false interpretations of the >

scriptures. You said that, "pracchanam baudham ucyate" meant that it was

 

But, when I see that the sloka actually suggests that Sankara would fight

against false knowledge rather than creating false knowledge as the translation

says, I am justified in branding the translation as an "insinuation". From the

point of view of my interpretation, what else can it be?

> the Buddhist philosophy that was Mayavada, and not what Sankara was >

teaching. Well, if what he was teaching was akin to Buddhist philosophy, >

then that makes it the same thing, i.e. Mayavada, does it not? Further,

 

No. The sloka never said his teaching was similar to Buddhism.

> the following is said also: "nirgunam vaksyate maya, sarva-svam jagato >

'py asya, mohanartham kalau yuge", indicating that the philosophy of > Nirguna,

or formlessness, is meant to bewilder people in the > Kali-yuga. The imports

are clear to me.

 

But where is it clear that Shiva is saying that he will teach false interpretations?

> >Well, what can I say? This is a liberal, loose and motivated translation >

>aimed at undermining the great Adi Sankara.> > No. The verse says, "mayavadam

asacc-astram, pracchanam baudham ucyate", > Mayavadi philosophy, akin to

Buddhism, was the purpose of the incarnation > of Lord Shiva. I've given a

direct quotation from Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu

 

"Bauddham uchyate" means "is called Buddhism". The word "uchyate" does not fit

with the rest of your break up. If the verse wanted to say that a wrong science

akin to Buddhism was called mayavadam", then "uchyate" would be after

"mayavadam". With this word arrangement, all the words upto bauddham can only

be its adjectives qualifying it further. Whatever you describe, it basically

ends with "is called Buddhism". Thus it means "an illusionist knowledge based

on falsehood and hiding is called Buddhism". (Jesse Abbot, I am sorry if this

offends you. Let us not sidetrack when discussing one topic.)

> many times on this list, but so far nobody has responded to it:> "mayavadi

bhasya sunile haya sarva nasa",

 

That's because I don't know the language in which this is written and also don't

know the entire context. Moreover, does "mayavada" refer to Sankara's theory for

sure or does it refer to the theory that Sankara was countering?

 

So I do not want to comment on anything from Chaitanya Charitamritam. The quote

you gave from Padma Purana is very clear anyway.

> So, if the above is not convincing enough, then I rest my case. The fact >

is that you accept a version of the truth according to what is comfortable >

for you, and according to what fits an acceptable paradigm to your way of >

thinking.

 

The same would apply to you, Sir. I am atleast not branding your arguments as ramblings.

 

> When you wish to get really serious about understanding Vedic > philosophy,

then you will have to come to a parampara and accept Diksha > therein.

Otherwise, whatever you have studied and learned, according to > Srimad

Bhagavatam, is "Srama eva hi kevalam", i.e. a useless waste of time.

 

Thank you for your kind advice.

 

> OM TAT SAT> Best wishes,> Robert

I think I have made most of the important points I wanted to make. Moreover, the

tone of this discussion has changed now. So I will end this discussion with you

and will not reply to you. If Nomadeva replies to other emails, I may give

brief replies to him, as that particular debate is still maintaining an

excellent tone and level of scholarship.

 

Hopefully, all the viewpoints expressed by various learned people provided

interested readers with enough food for thought.

 

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

[Guest guest]

Just to add a little bit to that on Sri Adi Sankara Bhagavadh Padha.

People are free to interpret it in whatever way they want.

 

The celebrated sanskrit dictionary (Nigandu) ?!?! by the name

of "Amaram" which was purportedly written by Amarasimha, was about to

be destroyed by Amarasimha himself after he supposedly lost a verbal

duel (Dharga) with Sri Adi Sankara. He was following the custom of

his times when the loser accepts the victor's religion, philospohy

etc or whatever was agreed to at the beginning of the dharga (or

dharkka ?). On hearing this Adi Sankara bhagavadh Padha literally

rushed to save the works of Amarasimha who was a scholar of no little

measure himself. But the only work that could be saved

was "Amarakosa" or "Amaram" in short.

 

This was told by His Holliness Sri Chandrasekharendra Swami during a

discourse and is part of a series of books on his discourses.

 

Best Wishes

Senthilkumar

 

vedic astrology, "Sanjay Rath" <srath@v...>

wrote:

>

> ||Om brihaspataye namah||

> Dear Narasimha & Robert,

>

> > many times on this list, but so far nobody has responded to it:

> > "mayavadi bhasya sunile haya sarva nasa",

>

> That's because I don't know the language in which this is written

and also don't know the entire context. Moreover, does "mayavada"

refer to Sankara's theory for sure or does it refer to the theory

that Sankara was countering?

>

> So I do not want to comment on anything from Chaitanya

Charitamritam. The quote you gave from Padma Purana is very clear

anyway.

> [Rath:] Narasimha, the language is Oriya (could also be Bengali).

It says by listening to the Mayavadi bhasya, everything is destroyed.

>

> Although I have refrained from any statement till now, this is just

a reminder to the list that the Srimad Bhagavat Gita which we all

accept as the fountainhead of Satya Sanatana Dharma was given with

its 700 verses by ADI SANKARA. I believe that at that point of time,

there were quite a few 'original claimants' for the Gita, but this

was what was finally accepted. I find it rather strange that the book

which we are quoting today as the final authority for the dharma is

used to defame the the very person who sacrificed every enjoyment of

this planet to put it together for posterity.

>

> If Adi Sankara had not recorded the Gita, then ....just sit back

and think. Why did Sankara do what he did and what was the socio-

religious situation of India then?

> Similarly for Buddha deva. Leave aside all other teachings and just

look at the principal thought - AHIMSA. It is this single thought and

teaching for which I shall always respect the great one and call

Him 'TATHA-GATA'.

>

> Every religion, path or philosophy, when churned like the samudra

manthana, shall yeild both amrita (nectar) and visha (poison). This

happens only due to the churning, for without the churning there can

be amrita. The wise partake of the nectar and proceed. Be wise.

>

> The discussion between Nomadeva & Narasimha was very enlightening

for this list, and I request both of them to continue. Narasimha's

qualitative definition of mimamsa as "dry" or "wet" did not hold

ground with readers like me and of course he has explained in superb

detail later. Nomadeva's arguments are very unteresting. Robert

Prabhu Mars is your Atmakaraka - just a reminder.

> ...everybody please continue. Honestly, this is far more enjoyable

than any movie, burger or coke and has much more meaning as we are,

in essence, spiritual beings having a material experience. those are

very nice words in defining the jail term in this body.

>

> With best wishes & regards,

> I remain

> Sanjay Rath

> --

------

> Mail: H-5 B.J.B Nagar, Bhubaneswar 751014, India

> Tel:+91-674-2436871, Webpages: http://srath.com

[Guest guest]

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">.

mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;color:navy">Dear Narasimha and Sanjay,

color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;color:black">[Rath:] Narasimha, the language is

Oriya (could also be Bengali).

windowtext">

 

The

language is very clearly Bengali; I think there is no doubt about that.

Wingdings;mso-ascii-font-family:Garamond;mso-hansi-font-family:Garamond;

mso-char-type:symbol;mso-symbol-font-family:Wingdings">

symbol;mso-symbol-font-family:Wingdings">J

Garamond"> It belongs to the Padavali or the Vaishnav Padavali genre of poetry.

Padavalis were meant to be sung by the kirtaniyas. Hence, the phraseology of

the book is lyrical and poetic, like most geetikavyas. Moreover, it is in dialectical

Bengali. The spoken language changes from region to region, hence you have many

forms of Bengali. The author of Chaitanya Charitamrita, Krishnadas Kaviraj

Goswami, has also added his own notes and commentaries below each verse. These

are in normal prose Bengali.

 

 

Best regards,

mso-color-alt:windowtext">

 

mso-color-alt:windowtext">

Sarbani

mso-color-alt:windowtext">

 

10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:black">

color:black;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

 

"Courier New";color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext">

"Courier New"">

"Courier New"">

"Courier New"">

"Courier New"">

"Courier New"">

"Courier New"">

"Courier New"">

"Courier New"">

"Courier New"">

"Courier New"">

"Courier New"">

"Courier New"">

"Courier New"">

"Courier New"">

"Courier New"">

"Courier New"">

"Courier New"">

"Courier New"">

"Courier New"">

"Courier New"">

||

Om Tat Sat || Sarvam Sri Krishnaarpanamastu

||

Your use of

is subject to the

Terms of Service.

mso-color-alt:windowtext">