Mayavada Philosophy depresses me

[Guest guest]

I am disturbed by the Mayavada teaching that denies the individuality and preciousness of each jiva-soul.

 

I heard the Padma Purana predicted that the Mayavada teaching would come and spread, and it was taught by Lord Shiva who incarnated as Shankara. He taught this distorted version of Vedantic philosophy to save people from Buddhist lies, for one thing, and return the people of Bharat back to the Vedic religion, even if it was in a distorted form. It was a form of Vedanta that could "convince" those of a Buddhist bent, to turn away from Buddhism. Is this correct? Correct me if I am wrong on anything I said.

 

Who composed the Padma Purana, and where can I read it?

[Gaea 0]

 

I am disturbed by the Mayavada teaching that denies the individuality and preciousness of each jiva-soul.

 

I heard the Padma Purana predicted that the Mayavada teaching would come and spread, and it was taught by Lord Shiva who incarnated as Shankara. He taught this distorted version of Vedantic philosophy to save people from Buddhist lies, for one thing, and return the people of Bharat back to the Vedic religion, even if it was in a distorted form. It was a form of Vedanta that could "convince" those of a Buddhist bent, to turn away from Buddhism. Is this correct? Correct me if I am wrong on anything I said.

 

Who composed the Padma Purana, and where can I read it?

 

If it disturbs you, don't read about it. Stick to what makes you happy.

 

i don't think anyone here can tell you for sure Lord Siva's intentions when He incarnated as Shankara. Maybe people needed an alternative following. I do think it is wrong that you should call the predominant belief at the time "Buddhist lies" though - it's kinda hypocritical (no offense) since Buddha is accepted as a bona fide incarnation, thus His teaching served a purpose which is BOUND to have been successful (God does not know failure!!). There is a grand plan on this planet and God is the director - i think it is presumptious of us to deny or judge other's teachings including Buddhism and "Mayavada". They have their place in this world otherwise Buddha and Lord Siva would not have started them in the first place.

 

Re Padma Purana - not a clue, sorry... i though all Puranas had their root in Vyas?

[gokulkr 1]

Padma Purana is one of Satvic Puranas. It is given by Lord Vyasa deva to the mankind. It is the biggest of the satvic puranas.

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

i though all Puranas had their root in Vyas?

 

Shankracharya said Vedya Vyasa was wrong on many points. (and that is His Guru). So from the start you can tell He deviated from His own Gurudeva!

[theist 1]

 

I am disturbed by the Mayavada teaching that denies the individuality and preciousness of each jiva-soul.

 

I heard the Padma Purana predicted that the Mayavada teaching would come and spread, and it was taught by Lord Shiva who incarnated as Shankara. He taught this distorted version of Vedantic philosophy to save people from Buddhist lies, for one thing, and return the people of Bharat back to the Vedic religion, even if it was in a distorted form. It was a form of Vedanta that could "convince" those of a Buddhist bent, to turn away from Buddhism. Is this correct? Correct me if I am wrong on anything I said.

 

Who composed the Padma Purana, and where can I read it?

I have heard the same reason given and another one on increasing the population for kali-yuga. Someone that understands that point clearly can elaborate, I cannot.

 

One thing we know for certain is that the practical result was that Buddhism was pushed out beyond India for the most part and the Vedic religion,with it's acceptance of Brahman as the Absolute, was reestablished by Sankara.

 

The question I have is, by reestablishing the situation as it was before the advent of Buddha does that not make the incarnation of Lord Buddha an excercise in futility?

 

By that I mean if the vedic religon that people returned to was the same mix of polytheism, animal sacrifice for sins and an impersonal view of Vedanta then where is the gain? What is the benefit to Vedic religion really short of vaisnava mono-theism?

 

I believe the position of the illiterate monotheist who is a vegetarian on top of it, to be far far superior to any "vedic" animal sacrificer, polytheist or impersonalist no matter how scholarly and cultured he may be.

 

But then if we include the appearance of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu and see Sankara as a type of bridge between Buddhist voidism and Lord Caitanya and His acintya bhedabheda it makes sense.

[theist 1]

Wrong heading above, meant to say for that post, "To what gain?"

[theist 1]

 

If it disturbs you, don't read about it. Stick to what makes you happy.

 

i don't think anyone here can tell you for sure Lord Siva's intentions when He incarnated as Shankara. Maybe people needed an alternative following. I do think it is wrong that you should call the predominant belief at the time "Buddhist lies" though - it's kinda hypocritical (no offense) since Buddha is accepted as a bona fide incarnation, thus His teaching served a purpose which is BOUND to have been successful (God does not know failure!!). There is a grand plan on this planet and God is the director - i think it is presumptious of us to deny or judge other's teachings including Buddhism and "Mayavada". They have their place in this world otherwise Buddha and Lord Siva would not have started them in the first place.

 

Re Padma Purana - not a clue, sorry... i though all Puranas had their root in Vyas?

 

Krsna is the greatest cheat. He can lie and still produce a successful outcome.

[sanatan 0]

It also depresses me, and I've found that having a spiritual/theological discussion with a hardcore "impersonalist" ranks on the same level as a similar discussion with an evangelical Christian....it inevitably degenerates to a personal one-upmanship contest and a total waste of time.

[Gaea 0]

 

Krsna is the greatest cheat. He can lie and still produce a successful outcome.

 

yes, i don't deny that - it's just that i always get a negative vibe from many Krsna devotees when it comes to Shakaracarya and Buddha - my point is that we shouldnt look down on these things since they have come from God. It's like looking down on nursary mathematics and laughing at kids because they're trying to figure out 1+1. Buddha (Krsna) had His reasons as did other Avataras to preach the way they did. If that teaching does not appeal or apply to us, then we simply shouldn't comment - we certainly should not throw derogatory statements around. That's my 2 cents anyway.

[Gaea 0]

 

Shankracharya said Vedya Vyasa was wrong on many points. (and that is His Guru). So from the start you can tell He deviated from His own Gurudeva!

 

Being in the exalted position of the greatest Vaishnava (i.e. Siva) He did what He has to as per Krsna's instruction. Can we really... are we in any poisition to comment on how he deviated from Guru's teaching?

[Guest guest]

 

It also depresses me, and I've found that having a spiritual/theological discussion with a hardcore "impersonalist" ranks on the same level as a similar discussion with an evangelical Christian....it inevitably degenerates to a personal one-upmanship contest and a total waste of time.

 

While I'm on the fence to some extent re: impersonalism and theism, I can't help but wonder maybe the problem is with you and not the impersonalist. Or both. Who knows?

 

But I've found that many HK's on this board seem to have a rather closed-minded outlook towards the possibility of impersonalism being the highest goal. In any case, does it really matter? You go on your path, the impersonalist goes on his. Both of you ultimately end up where you want to be, so why this vindictive quality in your arguments with each other? One says the other can't see reason, but who are you to say you're right and the impersonalist is wrong? Only God decides that, and your smug assurance that you're right and the impersonalist is wrong is nothing more than an ego trip, something that both of you might agree is detrimental to spiritual progress.

[theist 1]

 

yes, i don't deny that - it's just that i always get a negative vibe from many Krsna devotees when it comes to Shakaracarya and Buddha - my point is that we shouldnt look down on these things since they have come from God. It's like looking down on nursary mathematics and laughing at kids because they're trying to figure out 1+1. Buddha (Krsna) had His reasons as did other Avataras to preach the way they did. If that teaching does not appeal or apply to us, then we simply shouldn't comment - we certainly should not throw derogatory statements around. That's my 2 cents anyway.

 

I agree 100%. I think it is some false bravado or something that makes us try to take enjoyment out of others misfortune. And not just Buddhists and Mayavadis but karmi's also.

 

A Vaisnava takes no pleasure in the pain or ignorance of others, he is concerned with helping them.

 

Insecurity also in our position I believe to be at the root of a lot of that.

 

We offer our respects to Srila Prabhupada for coming to the western world to free us from impersonalism and voidism. So in our efforts to serve his mission we must challenge all the no-self philosphies like Buddhism and materialistic science and the various "I am God" versions of Sakaracarya's teachings. In doing so however we should stick to making superior and persuasive points on why Vaisnavism is best and grow beyond the mocking stage.

[theist 1]

"But I've found that many HK's on this board seem to have a rather closed-minded outlook towards the possibility of impersonalism being the highest goal."

 

Well that is true. But would you not expect that from anyone who themselves have taken a positon on the debate? The impersonalist thinks the personalist is simply a sentimentalist whop needs to personify God in his mind and practice devotion to stay even somewhat connected with the absolute. And don't think members of those camps don't enjoy mocking the personalists also.

 

I was sitting on the beach in Hrishikesa chanting japa and along came a group of bramacharis from one of the local mayavadi schools. Seeing me and that I was a westerner they approach and one asked, "what is your sadhana?" I told him I had no strict sadhana but that I was developing a little attraction for bhakti-yoga at which point they all snickered and one said mockingly "bhakti-yoga" and started talking in Hindi so I couldn't understand. The rest responded in laughter.

 

It goes both ways.

[Gaea 0]

 

A Vaisnava takes no pleasure in the pain or ignorance of others, he is concerned with helping them.

 

Insecurity also in our position I believe to be at the root of a lot of that.

 

...efforts to serve his mission ... In doing so however we should stick to making superior and persuasive points on why Vaisnavism is best and grow beyond the mocking stage.

 

coudn;t put it better myself

[Guest guest]

I consider buddhist teachings spiritually dangerous to our soul-development and making a spiritual connection witH God for 2 reasons. One they are doing meditation practices with the intent to have their mind shut off or cease to function properly in some Nirvanic no-mind state. They believe the soul is an illusion, so they shun Self-Realization and seek a realization of emptiness. And two, because they convince their followers God is a fairy-tale and only fools believe in a God. So they convince people to believe God and soul do not exist. The 2 most important reasons to be on the spiritual path to begin with: Self Realization and God-Realization. How are these teachings not dangerous to our spiritual well being? sorry I am not politically correct.

 

Whether Buddha taught these things directly is another matter. We all know how religious teachings can go downhill after the founder is gone.

 

I don't just think that Vaishnavas are on the only path to Personal Liberation, so do not think I am being sectarian. I believe Personalist Saivites can also be liberated and go to the Shivaloka section of Vaikuntha. This is what my Spiritual Master teaches. I want to add, I have personally read of Saivite Gurus who are NOT Mayavada, and teach the individual soul and God remain eternally separate. So there is also Saivite Monotheism.

 

But as said, Mayavidi teaching was a way to help convince Buddhists to return to the Vedic religion. So it served it's purpose in a previous age.

 

 

"When Sankaracarya appeared in Bharata varsa there was great need for a guna-avatara of the Lord. The voidist philosophy of Buddha had already practically destroyed the teachings of the Vedas and the duties of varnasrama-dharma. Voidist Buddhism even denied the existence of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Although it did hint at the existence of the individual soul, Buddhism denied the soul's true eternal nature. At that time the brahmanas had practically become Buddhists and practically abandoned the religion of the Vedas.

 

"At that time extraordinarily powerful Lord Shiva descended as Sankaracarya to this world, re-established the authority of the Vedas, and transformed voidist Buddhism into the philosophy of Vedic impersonalism. For succeeding in this extraordinary work, the world will be long indebted to Sankaracarya.

 

"Every work in this world may be considered in two ways. Some work is useful in the context of a certain period of time, and other work is useful for all time. Sankaracarya performed work that was very important for that particular period in history."

 

Jaiva-dharma

(The Universal Religion)

by

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur

[Guest guest]

I think that the best in- depth critique of mayavada philosophy you can find in Sri Aurobindo's books but it is not an easy read.

Problem with mayavada philosophy as it was presented to the western sadhakas is also in motivaton of western sadhaka.

Gyana is one authentic approach mentioned in Bhagavad Gita but not suitable for population in kali yuga.

Many westerners are attracted by modern advaita beacuse it makes them feel they 're in control. They want something different from Christianity and advaita is perfect weapon for defeating fragile christian dualistic philosophy. Advaita is in many cases actually an act of rebelion of spiritualy immature persons.

 

Following this philosophy without long process of moral purification and without intense vairagya leads to development of the worst type of egotism.

This pseudo-advaitic ego becomes so strong in conviction that he is the only supreme reality that it fabricates experiences of enlightenment.

He becomes enlightened in his own imagination.

This is all described in Aurobindo's teachings.

For bhakta , the path is much easier because bhakta accepts supreme authority of personal God while follower of advaita may fall in trap of thinking that he is only reality which is often followed by acting as if he is supreme reality while others are just a little bit less supreme. You can see this from the example of Adi Da (Da Free John), Rajneesh and the likes.

 

Therefore, the follower of advaita will have a hard time to avoid living in contradiction. It is not impossible but is extremely difficult. Ramakrishna said that only monastic sadhakas which follow strict discipline may accept gyana approach but it is not advisable because bhakta gets everything by serving personal God with pure devotion.

Bhakta can actually get experience of Brahman easier than follower of advaita but bhakta is simply not interested. He wants to taste sugar, no to become sugar.

 

 

According to Aurobindo, impersonalism and personalism are artificially separated in this material world while on the spiritual level they present one concept. According to him there are eternal forms of Sri Vishnu which is something that no modern advaitin will ever admit. These forms are not imagination but present supreme reality and are in no way inferior to experience of non-dual Brahman.

Similar philosophy is actually very well known among Vaishnavas as acinthya bheda-bheda but Aurobindo's presentation differs.

Aurobindo himself has experience of non-dual nirvana but still considered philosophy of Vaishnavism as taught in Srimad Bhagavatam to be superior to Buddhism and Shankaracarya's mayavada.

He claimed nirvana to be just a passage, not the end of the road. He always taught that God is beyond nirvana.

 

 

Now, I am aware that I do not speak from pure dualistic platform of Madvacarya's philosophy and I generally avoid mentioning other gurus on this board but the fact is that the best critique of mayavada so far I've found in Aurobindo's books.

His teachings on subject of mayavada I find particulary interesting because (unlike most Vaishnavas I've met) he knew subject from his own experience during intense yoga sadhana and was at the same time bhakta of Sri krishna.

[Gaea 0]

 

I consider buddhist teachings spiritually dangerous to our soul-development and making a spiritual connection witH God...

 

yes i agree the teaching is spiritually different, but not dangerous. It may well be dangerous for personalists because they are at a different stage of spiritual development. One man's medicine may well be another man's poison. The fact is that today there is a very diverse range of people with an equally diverse range of spiritual development. Sweet sweet and compassionate Lord has created many paths to enable His children, step-by-step, to come back to Him according to their own capacities.

[Guest guest]

 

yes i agree the teaching is spiritually different, but not dangerous. It may well be dangerous for personalists because they are at a different stage of spiritual development. One man's medicine may well be another man's poison. The fact is that today there is a very diverse range of people with an equally diverse range of spiritual development. Sweet sweet and compassionate Lord has created many paths to enable His children, step-by-step, to come back to Him according to their own capacities.

 

Hi, first of all I am not a Hare Krishna sect. I am a Vaishnava though. I am just saying this because some Hare Krishnas are known to be intolerant to other paths, and I am not. My Gurudeva does not teach us to be intolerant of even Mayavidis, let them have their path, but he does speak against Impersonalism nonetheless.

 

While Mayavidi is a path to Impersonal Liberation, where one merges into the Impersonal aspect of God, is Buddhism the same? Since they do not even believe in God, Impersonal or Personal, how are they an alternative path to GOD-Realization (dual or non-dual awareness)? I think all Vedic philosophiess must be a superior spiritual path, or else Lord Shiva would not have come to defeat Buddhist thinking. Of course on the Buddhist forums they say are path is the inferior one, so it is a matter of perspective, and whether we believe in God and Souls or not. If we believe Brahman and the concept of A Self are illusions, than we should become Buddhists; but if we do believe in God and Souls, we will find the Buddhist teachings to be in serious error.

[sanatan 0]

 

It also depresses me, and I've found that having a spiritual/theological discussion with a hardcore "impersonalist" ranks on the same level as a similar discussion with an evangelical Christian....it inevitably degenerates to a personal one-upmanship contest and a total waste of time.

 

 

While I'm on the fence to some extent re: impersonalism and theism, I can't help but wonder maybe the problem is with you and not the impersonalist. Or both. Who knows?

 

But I've found that many HK's on this board seem to have a rather closed-minded outlook towards the possibility of impersonalism being the highest goal. In any case, does it really matter? You go on your path, the impersonalist goes on his. Both of you ultimately end up where you want to be, so why this vindictive quality in your arguments with each other? One says the other can't see reason, but who are you to say you're right and the impersonalist is wrong? Only God decides that, and your smug assurance that you're right and the impersonalist is wrong is nothing more than an ego trip, something that both of you might agree is detrimental to spiritual progress.

 

The problem is with me...getting in theological debates stokes up my false ego and sense of competitiveness. It becomes a personal matter of being right as opposed to sharing nectar and realizations, etc., and I have noticed that this happens with others as well. I try very hard not to engage in these types of conversations any more.

 

As far and Christians, impersonalists, and followers of any other paths go, great for them...they are on the path, and a very large percentage of them of them have more faith in God and advanced realizations than I'll ever have.

 

I didn't intend to convey the impression that I consider Gaudiya Vaisnavism or tha Hare Krishna movement to be the only path for everyone, because I certainly don't, even though it's the right one for me. Anyone who is sincerely seeking God and self realization is an advanced soul.

 

I think that my original post gave you the impression of smugness that it did because this is a predominantly GV board and I was grumbling a little bit...please accept my apologies for any offense given.

[Guest guest]

 

yes, i don't deny that - it's just that i always get a negative vibe from many Krsna devotees when it comes to Shakaracarya and Buddha - my point is that we shouldnt look down on these things since they have come from God. It's like looking down on nursary mathematics and laughing at kids because they're trying to figure out 1+1. Buddha (Krsna) had His reasons as did other Avataras to preach the way they did. If that teaching does not appeal or apply to us, then we simply shouldn't comment - we certainly should not throw derogatory statements around. That's my 2 cents anyway.

Hari OM:

 

Advaitha is a beautiful concept, without which all religions look remarkably stupid.

 

The core theme of all religions is like , a person X(called God, YHYH, Kuda, Bhagavan, Iswar...) creates a group of people and another person Y ( Lucifer, satan, Kali.....) . After this both X and Y start wooing the people to their camp with lots of threats and gifts. This game of wooing goes on eternally.

 

This seemingly irrational universe makes sense when viewed from the seemingly absurd concept of "Advaith"

 

Even Chaityna Mahaprabhu has accepted Advaith is a true concept but is impossible to implement or follow.

 

If i say, 1+1 need NOT be neccessarily 2 always, most of the children will laugh at me and think i am a nut case, however guys studying higher mathematics can understand there is some point there. So no offence in laughing or mocking advaith

 

PS: also note that being an advaithan is mutually contradicting to being a bhaktha, if you have that opinion please read Baja Govindam once written by Adi Shankaracarya. [Also you need to explain the term "Nirguano Mahan" found in Vishnu Sahasranama]

[bija 0]

Considering the three types of devotees (neophyte, middle, and topmost), the devotee situated on the middle platform for preaching purpose may be in opposition to mayavada and buddhism. But the devotee situated on the topmost platform will find no need for opposing views. Can this be so?

 

I kinda feel like Gaea in some ways. And feel in my heart that there is a place for buddhism and such. At least teaching a human being qualities of loving kindness and compassion is a good thing. I have been reading some of the Dalai Lama's books and have found them helpful in developing right view and learning to develop love for others more.

 

But as in the case of one of my spiritual guides ( my main teacher), he uses words such as bogus and non-sense paths when referring to such paths. I am sure his realisation of pure bhakti and intense desire to purely follow Lord Caitanya is the reason for this.

 

But then again, is he situated on the middle (madhyama) platform as a devotee and therefore, speaks in such ways.

 

Outwardly and inwardly trying to situate myself as a Hare Krsna, I have found this preaching against mayavada and buddhism a touchy point. My conscience pricks up, you might say. Then again I am not a pure devotee. In my heart I feel God is very big and that all these philosophies are maybe a natural progression in this great mystery.

 

Lately I have been experiencing much questioning in my heart.

Who is God? What is God? etc.

 

I was comforted by a quote I read in Srila Prabhupada's small book, 'The Matchless Gift.'

It said that 'the pure devotee is not concerned whether Krsna is God or not. The pure devotee just likes Krsna.'

 

That is about where my faith is at the moment, with my mind I do not know what is God for sure. But so much do I like reading about Gauranga-Krsna and vibrating His Holy Names. So Srila Prabhupada's above quote was very re-assuring for me. (oh, and by the way I am not a 'pure' devotee).

[gokulkr 1]

Sri Ramanujacharya didnt accepted teachings of his advaitin guru.Instead, Ramanujacharya wrote his own philosophy.

Sri Madhvacharya didnt accepted teachings of his advaitin guru. Instead, Madhvacharya wrote his own philosophy.

Similarly, Sri Shankarcharya found some flaws in teaching of Sri Badrayana Vyasa.

So instead of blaming Sri sankaracharya for going against his guru, keep in mind that even Sri Ramanuja & Sri Madhva also did the same.

These acharyas are so supreme that we should not find fault in their character/deeds.

 

Om Namo SuryaNarayanaya

[Guest guest]

We should not speak bad about Shankara, if we believe he is an incarnation of Lord Shiva.

 

Disagreeing with certain mayavada conclusions is another matter though. If you are a Vaishnava, you will disagree. And not just Vaishnavas, even Shaktas and Kashmir Saivites disagree with the Advaitin conclusions about the nature of "Maya" being a total illusion.

[Guest guest]

 

Hari OM:

 

Advaitha is a beautiful concept, without which all religions look remarkably stupid.

 

The core theme of all religions is like , a person X(called God, YHYH, Kuda, Bhagavan, Iswar...) creates a group of people and another person Y ( Lucifer, satan, Kali.....) . After this both X and Y start wooing the people to their camp with lots of threats and gifts. This game of wooing goes on eternally.

 

 

Uh-huh. I don't suppose it matters at all to your theory that Vaishnava Vedanta does not accept that people are "created" by God? Probably not since you are too busy coming up with a cute theory to explain away all and sundry viewpoints that don't agree with yours.

 

Consider reading the Vedanta-sutras some time.

 

 

 

This seemingly irrational universe makes sense when viewed from the seemingly absurd concept of "Advaith"

 

The universe makes plenty of sense, and invoking an untenable concept like Advaita is not warranted.

 

 

 

Even Chaityna Mahaprabhu has accepted Advaith is a true concept

 

 

I'm calling your bluff. Show me the proof.

 

 

 

If i say, 1+1 need NOT be neccessarily 2 always, most of the children will laugh at me and think i am a nut case, however guys studying higher mathematics can understand there is some point there.

 

I am an adult who has studied higher mathematics. I can say with certainty that you are a nutcase and that people laughing at your absurd theories is to their credit.

[Guest guest]

You say it's untenable, well, show me how it's more untenable than theism?

 

I'm on the fence as to if monism or theism is the ultimate truth, so I have no sides to take. So show me why advaita is wrong or any more untenable than theism.