isopanishad's first sloka indicates advaita philosophy

[sambya 0]

gandhi is a typical neo vedantist of 20th century. this school of thought accepts and practises bhakti in real life but believes in doctrine of advaita.

 

a typical vaishnav never accepts the equality of other deities.

 

an neo advaitin sticks to his ishta but believes in equality of all gods. gandhi didnt mention anywhere that only ram is the supreme god.

 

he believed in advaita as he was heavily influenced by ramakrishna -vivekananda thought that was sweeping through india at that time. he said , "after reading the works of vivekananada the love that i had for my country increased a thousand times."

 

when he used to come to calcutta a ramakrishna mission monk would go over to read ramakrishna kathamrita tto him.

 

vivekananda was a typicall neo vedantist believing in equality of all gods and following both the paths of bhakti and advaita.

 

if gandhi would have been a typical vaishnav( orthodox type) he could have never heard kathamrita and respected vivekananda , as all their teachings deal with advaita bhakti synthesis.

 

secondly it is absolutely incorrect to say that it was a bhakti movement that was present at the time of indian national movement.

 

the spirituality that most of our freedom fighters had was of this neo vedantic type. they practised bhakti and respected advaita. thats why you can never find any person disrepecting any god. the inner mood was always advaita,

 

read indian history and anandamath and youll get the answer. in anandamath the santans worship both shakti and vishnu as simultaneously highest tattwa.

 

i hope everyone remembers the crucial role of anandamath in spreading nationalism.

[sambya 0]

 

Different Gurus Teaching the same REAL conclusion.. that is Bhakti to Sri Ram.

 

again !!!

 

 

But who says that we might get ditto the same Guru in the next Birth.

 

Do you still remember who was your Guru in your Previous birth.

If I 'll ask you what you ate 3 weeks back, you'll say ehhhhh ehhhhh.

if you dont believe that you would get the same guru over next birth that would mean denial of samskars.

 

what kind of logic is this ? how can i remember that ? but that doesnt mean that it was not so. just beacuse i dont remember my past birth doesnt seem to suggest that past birth didint exist , does it ?

 

 

Open your eyes.. you are blind...

i see .... im still blind you know ..............agyanatimirandashya ....... remember ? maybe you have seen the light .

 

 

 

 

The Gita spoke about the Atheist.. you can see them in China.

The Gita spoke about the Karma Mimamsic... you see them in Japan.

The Gita spoke about impersonalism.. see the mirror.

The Gita spoke about whimsical ruler.. see Hitler

The Gita spoke about Nirvana.... Buddism

i was asking for definti historical references like authors , scriptures , names of books , inscriptions etc , not merely suggestions.

 

 

Find that term in any Sanskrit Text.

you shall get it along with words like 'mleccha' in later day scriptures. ill get you the exact one in some time.

 

Quote:

<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> Originally Posted by sambya

merely having ram in mind wont help at all. the end thing is

1- degree of realization

2-level of purity

3-continous dedication to lord like unbroken flow of oil.

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

True and He had.

sorry but that shows you have not yet made a deep study. gandhi doesnt conform to the characteristics of mahatma mentioned in any scriptures [ like ashta bikars ---swed(sweating) kampan(shivering) ashru(ecstatic tears) pulak(bliss) murccha(unconciousness) etc ]

 

the sanskrit text says "phalena parichiyate " which means a tree is identified by its fruits.i have not read experiments with truth because beacuse ive more spiritual books with me. and thats not necessary to understand that gandhi was not a mahatma. carry out a survey with all spiritual seekers(irrespective of their beliefs) and you will get the results. or else start a new thread---WAS GANDHI A self REALIZED MAHATMA?

 

tell me something ...........

you said that you stand for only truth . who is this truth ?

 

only ramachandra ? can krishna be also truth ? or kali perhaps ?

[Amlesh 1]

 

gandhi is a typical neo vedantist of 20th century. this school of thought accepts and practises bhakti in real life but believes in doctrine of advaita.

 

Read the Story of my experments with Truth..

Then you conclude.

Bhakti can never be part of the concept of Advaita.

Bhakti means abiding to the direction of a Superior Force.

 

 

a typical vaishnav never accepts the equality of other deities.

 

True...

He accepted Ram as the all in all.

Allah Tero Naam

Ishwar Tero Naam.

It is that version of the Raghu Pati Raghav Raja Ram that he made popular.

 

 

an neo advaitin sticks to his ishta but believes in equality of all gods. gandhi didnt mention anywhere that only ram is the supreme god.

 

He accepted Ram as the all in all.

Allah Tero Naam

Ishwar Tero Naam.

It is that version of the Raghu Pati Raghav Raja Ram that he made popular.

 

 

he believed in advaita as he was heavily influenced by ramakrishna -vivekananda thought that was sweeping through india at that time. he said , "after reading the works of vivekananada the love that i had for my country increased a thousand times."

 

when he used to come to calcutta a ramakrishna mission monk would go over to read ramakrishna kathamrita tto him.

 

vivekananda was a typicall neo vedantist believing in equality of all gods and following both the paths of bhakti and advaita.

 

Even I'm inspired by Swami Vivekananda...

I read in one of the Book by Swami vivekananda... If someone hits you once.. you hit him back with some additional force.

When MG believed in something like.. show the other unhit side of ur face.

 

He explicitly said that... my influence is "Vaishnavism" and Exlicitly said that according to him, "Tulsidasas Ramyana is the greatest modern work."

 

 

if gandhi would have been a typical vaishnav( orthodox type) he could have never heard kathamrita and respected vivekananda , as all their teachings deal with advaita bhakti synthesis.

 

No, you are getting all wrong in the concept of Vaishnavism.. you are somewhat comparing Vaishnavism with Iskconism or something else.

 

I myself I read other doctrines and inspire myself if that shows some truth.

This called real Vaishnavism.

But Gandhiji would have never accepted to slap anyone of his personal basis.

 

 

secondly it is absolutely incorrect to say that it was a bhakti movement that was present at the time of indian national movement.

 

The weapon to fight the British for independence was the Gita.

The Gita was the very companion of MG...

He only inspired Jawaharlal Nehru to read the Gita.

The Gita teached Bhakti and he said the inspiration of Bhakti in Him came by reading Tulsi Ramayana.

The Advaita concept of in his very beginning of his life but he came to very first love that of Sri Ram.

He was initiated with the Ram Naam mantra at a very tiny age by his lady cook.

The Bhakti was well present in the fight for independence.

 

 

the spirituality that most of our freedom fighters had was of this neo vedantic type. they practised bhakti and respected advaita. thats why you can never find any person disrepecting any god. the inner mood was always advaita,

 

Eve I respect Advaita

It is part of the Gita.

But not the Final Word.

The final word is Bhakti.

 

 

read indian history and anandamath and youll get the answer. in anandamath the santans worship both shakti and vishnu as simultaneously highest tattwa.

 

I'll try to do so...

but you read the Story of my experiments with Truth.

When I went to visit Delhi, I thought I'll spend 30 mins in the Gandhi museum but it started in that mood... but I finally spent 4 hours there.

 

I read all this speech and writings that were displayed there.

And I can say... such a Mahatma is surely very rare.

 

 

i hope everyone remembers the crucial role of anandamath in spreading nationalism.

 

They are contributors for sure and I respect that.

The Gita says... depending on the Degree of surender, I reward accordingly.

The reward is service itself.

Though the anandamath does not know who is the sanctioner of such endeavors but the Mahatma knows.

The degree of involvement in Bhakti or such Divine arrangements for works depends on the degree of surrender to Krishna.

 

Where did find in any Sruti the Total Explanation of the Term Bhakti.

It is only in the Gita.

 

So I guess, employment of Bhakti starts when Ram is known. Advaitins don't accept the Supremacy of Hari so why use the Term Bhakti.

 

Always I give explanation of Vaishnavism... and you question.

 

Now I would like to know what do you understand by the term spirituality and your conception of this world?

[Amlesh 1]

 

if you dont believe that you would get the same guru over next birth that would mean denial of samskars.

 

I believe in the Supreme alloting that, it can be that or not that.

 

 

what kind of logic is this ? how can i remember that ? but that doesnt mean that it was not so. just beacuse i dont remember my past birth doesnt seem to suggest that past birth didint exist , does it ?

 

What guarantees you?

The only thing that matters to Krishna is the binding of an individual to him.

 

 

i see .... im still blind you know ..............agyanatimirandashya ....... remember ? maybe you have seen the light .

 

hahahaha.. why you question so much then?

Maybe to give me light.

anyways.. granted.

 

 

 

i was asking for definti historical references like authors , scriptures , names of books , inscriptions etc , not merely suggestions.

 

Text: The Gita.

The Author: Krishna

 

Hey by the way, I guess Arjuna was not wise enough to ask Krishna References about his words.

 

For what you can see with your naked eyes.. no need to ask references for those who are already blind.

We have a lot of Drishtrasht these days... sanjayas have become rare.

When you asked your Mataji about what has been cooked.. and after answering you, do you ask for reference?

I guess, a glance in the Kitchen is enough.

 

Read the Gita and glance at this world.. you'll see everything.

 

 

 

you shall get it along with words like 'mleccha' in later day scriptures. ill get you the exact one in some time.

 

hahahahaha.. you are learning the lesson buddy...

Jai Sri Sita Ram.

Jai Sri Hanuman.

 

 

sorry but that shows you have not yet made a deep study. gandhi doesnt conform to the characteristics of mahatma mentioned in any scriptures [ like ashta bikars ---swed(sweating) kampan(shivering) ashru(ecstatic tears) pulak(bliss) murccha(unconciousness) etc ]

 

He was a Ksatriya...

He knew when and where to express his feelings.

Me also, if someone will meet me.. he'll never know that I'm influenced by Vaishnavism.. I know when and where to express my feelings.

 

I guess, showing sweat and other feelings while negociating freedom with the British would have I guess, created some other thought in the head of the British.

 

That's why independence of India was written in the Hand of a kshatriya rather than Brahmana.

you mixing and confusion the natures of different people and different jobs.

 

the sanskrit text says "phalena parichiyate " which means a tree is identified by its fruits.i have not read experiments with truth because beacuse ive more spiritual books with me. and thats not necessary to understand that gandhi was not a mahatma. carry out a survey with all spiritual seekers(irrespective of their beliefs) and you will get the results. or else start a new thread---WAS GANDHI A self REALIZED MAHATMA?

 

Yep, you are blinkered then, by your writting in those issues I could understand that you knew nothing about MG.

 

 

tell me something ...........

you said that you stand for only truth . who is this truth ?

 

only ramachandra ? can krishna be also truth ? or kali perhaps ?

What's the difference between Rama and Krishna.

And of course if I say Rama or Krishna obviously that will mean Kali Maata as well.

You know, Ramachandra/Krishna is the Universal set which englobes everything... Brahman dude, Brahman.

[ranjeetmore 0]

 

thats correct . only bhaktas can know. bhagavat prapti is actually not anything material . all this happens in the mental and emotional aspect. a sadhak sees god its with his divya eyes.its something that no one can comprehend.

 

sri ramakrishna used to say............................

 

"how would you describe to someone how does ghee tastes ? its imposiible !! only one who have tasted it knowshow does it taste."

 

but that doesnt mean he can know god totally.

 

 

thats a paradoxical statement. bhagatprapti happens only after you see hear and feel bhagavan. its not that you begin to see hear and feel him after bhagavatprapti , as your suggesting.

 

 

Yes that sounds paradoxical for the vedas say that only when you have a vision of Him,will you be able to escape Maya.

 

The way you took it,sounds paradoxical.

Actually,due to the Guru's causeless mercy,Swarupa shakti immediately manifests in the Sadhaka's heart,now making his mind,intelligence and senses Spiritual.Then prema Bhakti makes Her appearance and THEN Sri Bhagavan appears.THIS part is Bhagavatpraapti technically.

[chandu_69 0]

 

And he was a proponent of Advaita Vedanta.

Where did you learn that Gandhi was a proponent of advaita.

 

What exactly is your concept of advaita???.

 

Can you open a thread to explain your concept of Advaita?

[Deathless 0]

 

Really.....

He took the name the Ram while dying.

 

Gita was his life and soul.

 

Sri Ram was dearer to him than his own life.

 

Tulsidasa's Ramcharitra Manasa was considered by him to be the Greatest work.

 

His influence was Vaishnavism.

“I believe in Advaita; I believe in the essential unity of man and for that matter, for all that lives. Therefore, I believe that if one man gains spiritually, the whole world gains with him and if one man fails, the whole world fall to that extent…”

--Mahatma Gandhi

Many Advaita Vedantins also worship Vishnu and loved the Ramacharit Manas. Many of them love the Gita. Just because you follow Advait philosophy doesn't mean that you don't admire Vishnu. You seem to forget that the founder of Advait philosophy, Shankaracharya, wrote Bhaja Govindam.

 

He was a born Sri Hari Bhakta.. he was born in such a family.

One can be both a Vishnu Bhakta and a proponent of Advait.

 

 

He was somewhat initially contemplating and ventured in knowing the Arya Samaj and its doctrine... but who can resist Sri Ram.

He returned to the Bhagvata doctrine.

 

When He was asked who will accompany him to the 1st and 2nd conference table... He replied, "Sri Madana Mohan Malaviya"... The Great Vaishnava Brahmana who created the Banaras Hindu University.

 

Who cares? Ramakrishna Paramahansa, an Advaitan, was initiated by a Vaishnava. That doesn't mean he was a Vaishnava (though he did experiment with it).

 

 

The appreciated the work of the Advaitins but to become a Mahatma the only solution is the lotus feet of Sri Krishna.

The Advaitins had some role in the Independence Era but the Major Protagonist were Sri Hari Followers.

He does not give major roles to the whimsical who think themselves the doer, but to those who know that HE is basis in all the understanding.

 

Dude, read the story of my experiment with truth before coming to any conclusion.

 

AS HE HIMSELF SAID, "TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE SUPREME ALL PERVADING ABSOLUTE TRUTH FACE TO FACE ONE NEED TO LOVE EVEN THE MEANEST OF CRAP."

Nice saying...?

[Amlesh 1]

 

“I believe in Advaita; I believe in the essential unity of man and for that matter, for all that lives. Therefore, I believe that if one man gains spiritually, the whole world gains with him and if one man fails, the whole world fall to that extent…”

--Mahatma Gandhi

Me too I believe so.

 

Many Advaita Vedantins also worship Vishnu and loved the Ramacharit Manas. Many of them love the Gita. Just because you follow Advait philosophy doesn't mean that you don't admire Vishnu. You seem to forget that the founder of Advait philosophy, Shankaracharya, wrote Bhaja Govindam.

 

i know and I appreciate

 

One can be both a Vishnu Bhakta and a proponent of Advait.

 

I'm too with oneness but in Threaded Way, this is Advaita to me.

If ever I'm going to an Arya Samaj sanghatan... of course I'll appreciate the much they are doing.. though I know it is not complete.

Something is better than nothing.

 

 

Who cares? Ramakrishna Paramahansa, an Advaitan, was initiated by a Vaishnava. That doesn't mean he was a Vaishnava (though he did experiment with it).

 

The last word which counts... while leaving his body.

[sambya 0]

 

Quote:

<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> Originally Posted by Deathless

Who cares? Ramakrishna Paramahansa, an Advaitan, was initiated by a Vaishnava. That doesn't mean he was a Vaishnava (though he did experiment with it).

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

The last word which counts... while leaving his body.

 

Q : what do you think .......ramakrishna got liberated or not ?

 

Q : if a highly elevated spiritual man who has been practising devotion all through his life dies without thinking of god..............what happens to him? does he get mukti or not ?

 

answer in yes or no .

[Amlesh 1]

 

Q : what do you think .......ramakrishna got liberated or not ?

 

Sri Ramakrishna did not come to gain liberation.. he came to give liberation.

He was already a liberated soul even before his birth.

 

 

Q : if a highly elevated spiritual man who has been practising devotion all through his life dies without thinking of god..............what happens to him? does he get mukti or not ?

 

answer in yes or no .

That happened to Sri Bharat Maharaj.

He took birth again.. but to complete that process... God does not forget his past good endeavors.

However, thinking about God.. that is left to him only.

Krishna says that he devise the ways for one to think of him at the time death.

But for that Kripa one need to be really genuine in his Duty for Dharma.

[bhaktajan 0]

Originally Posted by Deathless

One can be both a Vishnu Bhakta and a proponent of Advait.

 

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

This is bogus!

'Vishnu Bhakti is for us to know and for you to find out'

 

Advaita is the monenclature for the conclusion of one's philosophy--it is not the sadhana.

 

The process for yogis from the Advaita schools-of-thought along with all other orthodox Vedic traditions observe the same elementry disciplines.

 

We share the same sadhana --we preform different waking pastimes and rituals.

 

Japa, bhajan, smarana, study of scripture, bathing, vegetarianism, ekadasi fasts, protecting the cow, call out BHAGAVAN!, watch re-broadcasts of Mahabharata, savor sweets from the chief Pujari, skip the top bead on our japa-mala beads, go to tirthas in Bharatavarsha etc etc etc.

 

It is wrong to say that Impersonalism is equal to personalism.

 

There may be a time and place to address one or the other--but they are of different conclusions at the end of the day.

[ranjeetmore 0]

Vishnu Bhakti Is COMPULSORY for a Jnyani.

 

NOTE: COMPULSORY.

 

Whereas upasana of Nirguna,Nirvishesh,Niraakar Brahm is not even required for the Bhakta Sadhaka.

 

Without Sri Hari's Bhakti how will you Cross Samsara?

 

On your own mettle?

 

That's nonsense.Whoever teaches such things should be slapped outright.

 

I'm saying with such confidence for there is only one condition to achieve any kind of Liberation: Godhead's mercy.

 

Now there is a general ignorance in the nature of asking.

 

Once Sri Narayana took Sri Devi to Indra.He wanted to show Her the small intelligence of Indra.

 

As soon as he saw Bhagavan,Indra prostrated and welcomed Him and praised Him for showing him mercy.

Sri Bhagavan said,"Ask for whatever you want."

"Maharaj,Give me such a woman whose beauty is unparallelled in all the three worlds".

 

Bhagavan immediately manifested infinite women with Yogamaya.Indra saw the first one and lost his senses.

"I want the first woman".

"Array,baaki sab toh dekh le".

"Nahi maharaj.Yehi chahiye."

You pple must have heard of Urvashi.

 

LAter on,Indra's guru came and saw Urvashi.He said,"Yeh kya hai?"

"Ji,Guru ji,Bhagavan aaye the toh ye maanga maine".

 

"Tu toh ek number ka gadha hai."

 

We don't know what saaman Bhagavan has.We are either asking for Bhukti,Trough sacrifices or for Mukti.

 

Once,Muktidevi came at a mahatma's house

He asked her,"Who are you?"

"I am Mukti.I have come to serve you."

The mahatma is startled.He shouts at her,"Doore tishth !"

 

Go far far FAR ! Don't come near me!Whatever Bhakti i've done..whatever Sentiments i've nurtured...once the desire to have you enters my mind,I will be destroyed forever.You just go from here.I don't want your service.Go AWAY.

 

Rsabh Bhagavan also encountered the ashta maha siddhis(the 8 mystic powers).He said,"Just get lost from my sight.I don't want anything to do with you."

[sambya 0]

 

Sri Ramakrishna did not come to gain liberation.. he came to give liberation.

He was already a liberated soul even before his birth.

thanks !!! good

 

 

That happened to Sri Bharat Maharaj.

He took birth again.. but to complete that process... God does not forget his past good endeavors.

do you mean jada bharat muni ?? his mind had fallen into a strong bondage with the deer . he started of the sadhana beautifully but got entangled accidentaly without ever realising it. that is why he had to take birth again.

 

it is the sum total of the conciousness that matters. if your level of conciousness is at the highest level (prema bhakti for example) you are bound to get liberation even if you dont quit body thinking of god(say , in sleep).

 

should you have any doubt , ask ur guru.

[sambya 0]

 

Vishnu Bhakti Is COMPULSORY for a Jnyani.

 

shastric proof required.

 

 

Without Sri Hari's Bhakti how will you Cross Samsara?

 

if i say maa durga is there( remember thousand of shastric proofs are available for that) ??

[ranjeetmore 0]

Shastric proof?

 

Plz read the bhagavatam.I don't think it says anything other than this:

Without the mercy of Sri Krsna,nothing can be gained.

 

Shankaracharya did bhakti.Krsna Bhakti.Prema Bhakti.

 

He wrote Krsna stuti.He said,"What is the need of mukti for prema Bhaktas of the Lord?"

 

This is the sole origin of Advaita saying this.

[sambya 0]

 

Shastric proof?

 

Plz read the bhagavatam.I don't think it says anything other than this:

Without the mercy of Sri Krsna,nothing can be gained.

text please.

 

and bhagavatam is not the only shastra. its acceptable only if it is specifically mentioned (with perfect clarity) in majority of shashtras.

 

 

 

Shankaracharya did bhakti.Krsna Bhakti.Prema Bhakti.

 

 

yes sure , krishna bhakti , durga bhakti, shiva bhakti .

 

and remember , all with equal sincerity !!!

 

 

He wrote Krsna stuti.

did you read niravanstakam, soundaryalahari or bhvavanyastakam ?? i guess not , otherwise you wouldnt have commented so foolishly.

[Amlesh 1]

 

thanks !!! good

 

 

mention not.

 

do you mean jada bharat muni ?? his mind had fallen into a strong bondage with the deer . he started of the sadhana beautifully but got entangled accidentaly without ever realising it. that is why he had to take birth again.

 

Maharaja Bharata took birth again as Jada Bharata

 

it is the sum total of the conciousness that matters. if your level of conciousness is at the highest level (prema bhakti for example) you are bound to get liberation even if you dont quit body thinking of god(say , in sleep).

 

should you have any doubt , ask ur guru.

My Guru will tell, "Still asking me question about liberation you fool."

 

Prema for Krishna is higher than liberation itself.

 

Have you never heard that a Vaishvana does not endeavor of Mukti.

[kaisersose 0]

 

Shastric proof?

 

Shankaracharya did bhakti.Krsna Bhakti.Prema Bhakti.

 

He wrote Krsna stuti.He said,"What is the need of mukti for prema Bhaktas of the Lord?"

 

This is the sole origin of Advaita saying this.

 

If you could actually produce a quote from Shankara as evidence, that would help your case. I say this, because if you have not noticed, all the distinguished Advaita critics on this forum [theist, et al.,], have not read a single line of Advaita and have failed to produce a single quote in support of their allegations till date.

 

You do you want to be part of that silliness.

 

Cheers

[ranjeetmore 0]

Kamyopasana yarthayanty

anudinam kincit phalam svepsitam,

kecit svargam athapavargam,

apadre yogadi yajnadibhih,

asmakam yadunandanamghri

yugala dhyanavadhanarthinam

Kim lokena damena kim nrpatina

Svargapavargaizca kim?

-Parbodha Sudhakara.

 

Those who waste their time for the attainment of Svarga/heaven/Bhukti or liberation(mukti Apavarga) are FOOLS!!

I do not want ANY OF THAT !

I only desire to remain engrossed in the sweet remembrance of the Lotus Feet of Sri Krsna.What is the need of heaven(bhukti) or Liberation(mukti) for the prema Bhaktas of the Lord ?

 

Now,plz note that liberation is the ultimate word in Sakta,Shaiva,Smarta traditions.Prema Bhakti is non-existent in the above.

Above verse of Sri Shankaracharya clearly defines Prema Bhaktas as superior to Karmis(Ones after bhukti) and Jnyanis(ones after Mukti).

 

Sri Shankaracharys made his mother DO SRI KRSNA Bhakti,when she was on her death bed.He had her have the Vision of the Lord.

Such things are never understood by offenders who view Sri Krsna as just another deity.

Prema Bhakti is exclusive to Vaishnavism.This fact is understood by the symptoms exhibited by Shankar Bhagvan himself for Sri Ramachandra.

Such symptoms and ecstasies are never depicted to have manifested in Sri Krsna/Sri Narayana/Sri Rama for any of the Gods(Happy now that i din't call them DEMIgods ?)

By such obvious glaring distinctions,it is to be understood that Sri Shankaracharya was not glorifying Sri Krsna just like he did for Sri Durgadevi and Bhagavan Shankar.

[kaisersose 0]

 

Kamyopasana yarthayanty

anudinam kincit phalam svepsitam,

kecit svargam athapavargam,

apadre yogadi yajnadibhih,

asmakam yadunandanamghri

yugala dhyanavadhanarthinam

Kim lokena damena kim nrpatina

Svargapavargaizca kim?

-Parbodha Sudhakara.

 

Dude, I am sure I told you this earlier. There is no work named "Parbodha Sudhakara" authored by Shankara. He wrote Bhashyas, Prakarana Granthas and Stotras, and this name does not appear in any of the 3 lists.

 

When I said you should be quoting Shankara, I meant you should be quoting from one of his real works. If you do not support your allegations with evidence, then obviously, people will not take your arguments seriously.

 

Tip: Try Shankara's Bhashyas on the sutras and the main upanishads. Or some of his more popular prakaranas such as upadesha sahasri and viveka chudamani. If you can produce quotes from one of these texts to support your position, then you will be having a strong case.

 

Cheers

[ranjeetmore 0]

"Janaan mat vimukhankuru" padma-purana.

 

Sri Krsna told Shankarji,

"Go and make everybody forget Me.Put them in ignorance."

"Jaao sabko mujhse vimukh karo".

 

Sri Shankaracharya is an incarnation of Sri Shankara.

 

This is the reason why Sri Shankaracharya did all this naatak.Actually,all vaishnava-acaryas have a good chuckle over this intimate fact.

[ranjeetmore 0]

 

Dude, I am sure I told you this earlier. There is no work named "Parbodha Sudhakara" authored by Shankara.

 

Cheers

 

Ignorance is bliss.

[ranjeetmore 0]

Shankaracharya has done bhashya from Gita to smallest of all_ Vishnu sahasranaam.

 

BUT he didn't write any Bhashya on Sri mad Bhagavatam.

 

The first verse itself establishes Sri Krsna's Eternal position as parabrahm.

[kaisersose 0]

 

Ignorance is bliss

 

If you want to remain in a state of bliss, you are certainly entitled to that.

 

 

"Janaan mat vimukhankuru" padma-purana.

 

Sri Krsna told Shankarji,

"Go and make everybody forget Me.Put them in ignorance."

"Jaao sabko mujhse vimukh karo".

 

Evidently, Krishna's plan seriously backfired because there is no Advaitin on the planet who has forgotten Krishna.

 

You would expect better from the Gods - to plan better and execute their plans better than this. On the topic, I would also not expect them to engage in ridiculous/shameful activities like sending avatars down to intentionally misguide people.

 

But that is just the way I see it. Since you say there are vaishnava acharyas chuckling over the idea of people being intentionally misled, not all is lost, I guess.

 

Cheers

[ranjeetmore 0]

"Antyavasthite ce ubhaya nityatvat avisesah "Vedant-2.2.34

 

In the beginning,during badha avastha and after moksa,the size of Aatma remains same.

 

"Utkraantya gatyaagatinam" vedant 2.3.19

 

Jeeva undergoes utkraman,gaman and aagaman.

 

"Svatmanacha uttara yoho" 2.3.20

Gaman and aagaman,these two facts prove jeevatma is anu

 

Vedavyasa himself doubts

"Na anuh.Atashruten ritiken nah!" 2.3.21

 

Jeeva is not anu,for vedas are saying aatma is infinite.

 

He Himself further gives the answer in the same verse:sometimes vedas denote Paramatma by 'aatma'

"Yah aatmani tishthati"

 

2.3.22,

2.3.23,

2.3,24,

2.3,25,

2.3.26,

2.3.27,

2.3.28.

 

Till here,Sri Vyasadeva HAS proved that Jeevatma is ANU(atomic).

 

SHANKARACHARYA HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THIS in his Bhasya on these 10 brahm sutras.

 

"Utkraanti gatyaagati shravanaani jeevasya PARICCHEDAM praapayanty "

- Shaankar Bhashya

 

Jeeva is PARICCHINN.Parichhinn means(NOT all pervasive/Anu/atomic).

 

NOW,

 

"Siddha Jeevatma can be addressed by "Jnyana" ,just like Bhagavan(Sat.chit.ananda) is understood by 'ananda'(anando brahmeti bajanat) only." - Brahm sutra 2.3.29

 

This clarifies the vedic statement that "jnyana is performing sacrifices".

Jnyana means jeeva,Just like Ananda means Brahm.

 

Here Sri Shankarachrya turned his tables.No No No ! jeevatma is all pervasive.

 

Here(in shankar bhasya) Shankarachrya quoted 4.4.22 Brhadranyak Upanishad.He made the particular verse from B.Upanishad as Jeeva Parak(addressing Jeevatma)

 

EVENTHOUGH He himself had quoted the same verse(B.Upanishad 4.4.22) in his commentary on Vedant sutra-2.3.21 as Brahm-parak(Addressing brahm).In this same verse,he had accepted Vedavyasa's direct conclusion that Jeevatma is anu(finite/atomic)

 

 

Thus Sri Shankaracharya's Bhasya is understood NOT to corroborate with his own commentary.It is inevitably faulty.