samba sada shiva & advaita ajit/bharat/others

[Guest guest]

Sri Rafal --

It would be nice if you could upload this as a file. I see that the

article is being truncated.

Thanks and regards

-rAm

sohamsa , " Rafal Gendarz " <starsuponme

wrote:

>

> vyam vyasadevaya namah

> Dear Ajit ji , Bharat ji

>

> Thank You for Your time.

>

> I paste the article once I found in my archives. The source

> of this I think is some devotee from Iskcon. If You could correct

it and give Your comments. I would be grateful.

>

> Regards

> Rafal Gendarz

>

> III. Structure of Mayavada philosophy:

>

> A. It is also called Vivartavada (lit. " superim-­

positionism " ).

>

> 1. arthadhyasa - superimposition of

one object on another.

>

> 2. jnanadhyasa - imposition of

illusion upon oneself.

>

> 3. For this superimposition to

happen, there must be -

>

> a. Senses.

>

> b. An abnormal

situation (e.g. darkness).

>

> c. Experience.

>

> d. An example of

above three components: seeing a rope as a snake in the darkness.

>

> B. Philosophical proofs, and which philosophers

accept them:

>

> 1. Direct perception (accepted by

Charvakas).

>

> 2. Inference (anumana) + 1 is

accepted by Buddhists.

>

> a. Hypothesis =

there is fire on the mountain.

>

> b. Cause (hetu) =

because there is smoke there.

>

> c. Example = Where

there is smoke, there is fire.

>

> d. Review of cause =

The mountain has smoke...

>

> e. Conclusion

= ...therefore the mountain has

fire.

>

> 3. Sabdha (spiritual sound) + 1 & 2 is

accepted by Vaishnavas.

>

> 4. Arthavati (similarity) + 1-3 is

accepted by logic-­ ians.

>

> a. " Have you seen a blue cow? " did " (cow +

>

> b. " No, but I would know one if I blue).

>

> 5. Arthapatti: " This fat man does

not eat in the day > he must eat at night. " (Logicians)

>

> 6. Abhava (nonexistance) + 1-5 is

accepted by Mayavad­ is.

>

> a. Nonexistance

means: " There is no cow here. "

>

> b. It is a kind of

knowledge based on the absence of knowledge or perception of

something .

>

> C. Four categories within M.P.:

>

> 1. Sat = existance (Brahman).

>

> 2. Asat = nonexistance (horns on

rabbit).

>

> 3. Sat-asat = something that exists

for a time, then ceases to exist .

>

> 4. Anirvachaniya = neither 1-3, i.e. Maya (which makes one

think a rope is a snake. Inexplicable, illusiory).

>

> D. Levels of perception according to Shankaracharya:

>

> 1. Paramarthika - transcendental

(Brahman).

>

> 2. Vyavaharika - " practical " .

>

> 3. Pratibhasika - apparent, but

illusiory (like dreaming ).

>

> a. One must go from

this stage to next higher.

>

> b. When coming to

second stage, individuality

remains .

>

> c. But at highest

stage, individuality is erased.

>

> E. Maya:

>

> 1. Maya is inexplicable; example - a

dumb person cannot describe the taste of rasgulla, but still there

is taste. Brahman is covered

by Maya, but don't ask why.

>

> 2. Two stages of Maya:

>

> a. Covering with

illusion; that's simply Maya.

>

> b. Distorting with

ignorance (avidya).

>

> 3. When Maya covers Brahman with illusion, Iswara- consciousness

appears. He is conditioned to be the Lord.

>

> 4. When Brahman is further distorted by avidya, jiva

consciousness appears. Avidya makes the subtle

>

> body .

>

> 5. There is no transformation in this process, only imposition (of

a false conception .

>

> 6. When illusion and ignorance are

dispelled, no state of any describable existance remains

>

> 7. Mayavadi story: Vyasadeva sent Sukadeva to learn from Janaka.

Janaka said to Sukadeva, " Give me my dakshine before I teach you

anything, because after you learn this teaching, you will

reject everything, including me (the Guru). "

>

> F. Example of Mayavadi logic:

>

> 1. Brahman " reflects " into Maya. Q:

But how? If it reflects (e.g. moon on water) it must have a

form . 2. A. First understand that Brahman

is not a substance, so rules like that don't apply to

it.

>

> 3. And apart from that, consider an

object or substance that has qualities. Form is one such

quality.

But does form have form?

>

> 4. Q. What are you saying, `Does

form have form? '

>

> 5. A. When you see a shadow or

reflection, what is being reflected - form or

substance? 6.

Q. Well - the form.

>

> 7. So the form is not the substance. Form is what is reflected,

but that form is different from the substance.

>

> G. Jayatirtha Muni gives this example of Mayavadi

process: just as when a person has a bad dream, the dream

wakes him up; similarly, though the Mayavadi philosophy is

still " maya " , it can wake one up out of illusion

>

> .

>

> H. Two schools of Mayavadi philosophy.

>

> 1. One accepts only Upanisads,

Vedanta and Bhagavad- gita (prasthan-traya).

>

> 2. But the so-called Bhagavat-sampradaya (with acaryas like

Citsukhacarya and Madhusudan Sarasvati) accept Puranas, Ramayana,

etc. Just as Mayavadis in general are more accept dangerous than

Buddhists, the Bhagavat sampradaya is most dangerous of all.They even

Krishna's form is spiritual, but say that when He returns to the

Paramvyoma, His form " dissolves " into Brahman First school would argue

Krishna's form is material.

>

> I. Bhag Tyag Lakshana:

>

> 1. Bhag (person).

>

> 2. Tyag (give up)

>

> 3. I.e. Now you have this

designation; give it up.

>

> a. On wall of

Vaishnava temple, a Mayavadi wrote " So'ham " (I am

Him).

>

> b. A devotee came

later and added Da, " DaSo'ham " (I am His

servant).

>

> c. Mayavadi

returned, added Sa for SaDaSo'ham (I am eternally

Him).

>

> d. Devotee returned

again and added Da for DaSaDaSo'ham (I am the servant of His

servant).

>

>

>

> IV. Weaknesses of Mayavadi Philosophy.

>

> A. Their " Brahman " and Vyasadeva's Brahman are not

the same.

>

> 1. Their Brahman is the Brahmajyoti.

>

> 2. Vyasadeva's Brahman is Krishna,

the Purushottama.

>

> 3. Because they have no interest in

Krishna, their Brahman categorically has no reality (it is

wrongly defined from the

outset).

>

> a. Vyasa used the

word Brahman as we use the

word " God. "

>

> b. It is a general

term, used to create interest among as many people as possible

(even those who are

averse to Krishna).

>

> B. They speak of " Sarvikalpa jnana " and " Nirvikalpa

jnana " , but these are actually the same thing .

>

> 1. Example of approaching a mountain from a distance - at each

stage, the same entity is being viewed

>

> 2. But Mayavadis say the far-off vision of a great shape on the

horizon is of a different thing than theclose-up view of the mountain

>

> C. They interpret Sanskrit words inaccurately to

fit their own ideas.

>

> 1. Lord is " asarira. " They say this

means He has no sarira or body; but the root of the word sarira

means decay " ,so the word really

refers to a body that decays, not simply a

body " .

2.Lord is " akarana. " They say this means He has

no senses; but this word really means that His

senses because He is directly His

are not energized by something else (e.g. as our material senses are

energized by life energy)

own

form

.

>

> D. They interpret " He desired to become many " as meaning the

progression from Brahman-Iswara-Jiva; but it is the

Iswara who has the desire to become many. How the desireless Brahman

desired to become the Iswara they.do not

explain

>

> E. If Brahman is all-pervading, where is Maya?

>

> F. How is the Brahman cut into individual parcels

of consciousness ?

>

> G. Mayavadis say, " By knowledge (jnana), one

becomes Brahman. "

>

> 1. But they also say that jnana and

ajnana are Maya.

>

> 2. So you may remove your ajnana

with jnana, but then with what will you remove the

jnana?

>

> 3. To this they answer, " It is by

the mercy of Brah­ man. " (!)

>

> H. They say Brahman is without energy (shakti).

Then how does it exist? (No answer ).

>

> I. Snake and Rope:

>

> 1. In order for this example to have validity, the person must have

prior knowledge of both " what is a rope " and " what is a snake. " How

can undifferentiated Brahman have prior knowledge of Maya, which it

then mistakes itself to be?

>

> 2. Besides that, in this example,

the rope and snake are both real things, and that's why the illusion

is effective.And since the

illusion is effective, it is also true, i.e. the consequences of that

illusion are no less

effective than if the rope was really a snake(I'm

scared, I scream, run away, etc.).

>

> J. They say Maya is like a dream, but there's no

continuity in our dreams from one night to the next. In

the waking state we find day-to-day continuity. So to

compare this life to a mere dream is facile.

>

> K. Why is this illusion so consistent, if it is

just hallucination? Why doesn't illusion come us to other ways, e.g.

in instead of Brahman is the world (rope is snake),

why not the world is Brahman (snake is rope)?

>

> H. Mayavadis say one can only achieve liberation

after death. Then his individuality ceases forever.

>

> 1. But how does this relate to their

favorite rope/

>

> snake analogy? One man lights a

lamp and sees that the snake is really just a rope; another man

runs off, frightened, never

knowing it was an illusion. How are these two men different in their

essential

existance?

>

> I. Who suffers in hell - soul or body?

>

> 1. Mayavadi may answer, " the body

suffers only. "

>

> 2. But the body is matter, is it not?

>

> 3. Yes.

>

> 4. How can dead matter suffer?

>

> 5. Then it must be the soul that

suffers.

>

> 6. Then you are saying Brahman

suffers? But your

>

> philosophy says there's no suffering

in Brahman.

>

> J. Shankara writes of the " vyavaharika " platform of exis­ tance, but

nowhere is this word found in any scripture. Yet it is a fundamental

component of his philosophy.

>

> K. Upanishads say that nothing can attach itself to

Brahman and it cannot be described in words. Shankara says

these state­ments form the complete description of

Brahman .

>

> 1. Sankara says take these

descriptions literally.

>

> 2. How? By hearing these words,

don't the Mayavadis become attached to Brahman?

>

> L. Katha Upanishad 3.11: Above the jagat is

avyakta, above avyakta is Purusha, and beyond Him is nothing else.

>

>

>

> V. A look at Jiva Goswami's refutations of Mayavadi

Philosophy:

>

> A. He established the Srimad Bhagavatam as the

shastric reference par excellence.

>

> 1. Brhad Aranyaka Upanishad 2.41 - 4

Vedas, Itihasa and Puranas have come from breath

of

Narayana .

>

> 2. Chandogya Upanishad 3.15.7 - 4

Vedas, Itihasas and Puranas are 5th Veda .

>

> a. 4 cows and 1 buffalo are never

grouped as a herd of 5 cows, because a buffalo is not a

cow . b. 5 cows

means 5 cows.

>

> 3. Mahabharata says " Puranas make

Vedas complete. "

>

> 4. Shankaracharya's guru's guru

wrote a commentary on a book that cited slokas from the

Srimad

Bhagavatam.

>

> 5. Garuda Purana says " artho 'yam

brahma sutranam " : Bhagavat Purana gives meaning of

Vedanta -sutra, Gayatri

and the 4 Vedas .

>

> 6. Srimad Bhagavatam is the ripened

fruit of the tree of the Vedic scriptures .

>

> 7. Srimad Bhagavatam is Veda: " it is

compiled by the Lord Himself. "

>

> 8. Sukadeva Goswami was a

Brahmajnani who became a devotee. Vyasadeva compiled

the

Bhagavatam only for Sukadeva, because only he could understand it

(his other disciples were

not

qualified) .

>

> a. Sukadeva ran away

as soon as he was born. Vyasa told his other disciples to chant3

verses from the

Srimad Bhagavatam in order to attract him back to the ashram

(they were to

chant these

verses out loud when entering the forest to gather firewood or fetch

water).

>

> b. Thus Sukadeva was attracted and returned to learn Srimad

Bhagavatam at the feet of his father He cannot be attracted by

anything material. Therefore S.B. has something higherthan even

Brahman realization (atmarama

verse ).

>

> B. Srimad Bhagavatam establishes

Krishna as the Param Brahman.

>

> 1. Hiranyakashipu used the " neti neti " process to negate any

possible chance of his being killed byan enemy when he requested a

boon from Lord

Brahma

.

>

> a. He left no

chance that any type of entity within the material world could harm

him .

b. Practically he left only the Brahman. And that Brahman came

as Narasingha

and

destroyed him; thus Lord Nrsin­ghadeva is the Supreme

Brahman

2.Even Sridhar Swami has commented on " krishna stu

bhagavan " , " narayana eva. " But Srila

Jiva Goswami

established Lord. Krishna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead

>

> 3. In the wrestling

arena, everyone saw Krishna differently. The yogis saw Him as

theTattva

Paramam (Supreme Truth).

>

> 4. The pastime of

Lord Damodar shows how the Supreme is unlimited, yet has a

body .

5. Devaki said, " That Brahman, jyoti...etc. that all the

impersonalists (jnanis and yogis)

are

seeking is

You. "

 

 

>

>

>

> VI. Vadiraja's Refutations of Key Tenets of Mayavadi Philosophy.

>

> A. Vadiraja comes in the line of Madhvacharya. He

lived in the 16th century. He is said to have lived for 120

years.

>

> B. How Vadiraja exposed Mayavadi misinterpretations:

>

> 1. Vadiraja showed how Mayavadis

have taken the " neti- neti " statement out of context .

>

> a. They say " not

this, not this " means " not jiva, not jada " (Brahman is neither the

individual soul nor,

matter - therefore, since only Brahman exists jiva and jada must be

unreal).

>

> b. But they've

derived " neti-neti " from Brhad- aranyaka Upanishad 4.4.22, which

states: " For the

desire for sons is the desire for wealth and the desire for wealth

the desire for worlds; both

these, are indeed,

desires only. This Self is not this, not this. "

>

> c. This verse is

stating that the Self (atman) is not to be had by desiring wealth or

worlds.

The

direct meaning is sufficient; the " jada-jiva " interpretation is

without

foundation

.

>

> 2. The meaning of " advaita " :

>

> a. Mayavadis

take " advaita " (not dual) to mean that Brahman has no difference.

Therefore

undifferentiated oneness is the only

truth .

>

> b. But the context

is found in Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.1 & 2 - " In the beginning, my dear,

this Being, one

only, without a second. "

>

> c. Vadiraja showed that " one without a second " means, according to

grammar and logic " one Being,without a second Being " , or " He has no

second " , i.e. there is only one God. But this does not mean that

some thing or things below God can't bedistin­guished from

Him.

>

> i. If the the word " advitiyam " as it appears in this verse actually

means that nothing except undifferentiated Brahman exists, then the

very text from which the word comes would be unreal, as it is a

feature of the realm of difference.

>

> ii. Thus the validity of the text would be destroyed by the very

philosophy the Maya­ vadis ascribe to it

>

> iii. He proved his point further with this example - if one

says " The lotus is blue " , he does not mean to say that " lotus "

and " blue " are exact synonyms. He means that blueness is a

quality of. the lotus Similarly, when shastra

says " Brahman is everything " , " everything " and " Brahman " are not

exact syn­onyms, rather " everything " (souls and matter) are qualities

of Brahman. Or, as blueness is a quality in­separable from the lotus,

so we are inseparable from Brahman (but as Brahman has qualities we

don't have, still there is distinc­tion in this

inseparability).

>

> 3. Vadiraja points out that Mayavadis say that both practical life

and the scriptures are on the vyava­ harika platform -

which means both are ul­timately unreal. Yet they honor the

scriptures and honor sattvik life as dispellers of illusion breeds

bad results . But a Mayavadi cannot distinguish between these two

categories of action .

>

> . a. In practical life, what is " true " is what works, i.e. what

brings good resultsWhat is " untrue " Thus even on their so-called

vyavaharika platform, they have no ultimate reference for deciding

what is auspicious and what is inauspi­ cious

>

> b. For example, using a Mayavadi analogy, the Mayavadis are not

able to explain the difference between a man who sees that there is

no silver in silvery shell and the man who thinks that silver a is

there

 

>

> i.

They will say the man who discovered his error is conventionally

correct (vyava­

 

harika), and the man who did not is under pratibhasika

illusion .

 

>

> ii. But the main thing is, both are in ultimate illusion. Now, the

silvery shell analogy is used by them to illustrate how one comes out

of ULTIMATE illusion and attains the truth paramar­thika). Yet,

using their own doctrine as the test, this example prooves

itself invalid. So what are we left

with?

 

>

> 4. Vadiraja compares the Mayavadis with Paundraka. He asks, " If

Mayavadi philosophy is so pregnant with Truth, why did Krishna

and His associates in Dwaraka laugh derisively when they heard

Paundraka's letter which simply made the same claims as the Mayavadi

philosophers? Why did, Shukadeva Goswami when reciting this event to

Maharaja Parikshit before the learned assembly of great, saints and

sages censure Paundraka repeatedly? Why did Vyasa, who wrote this

narration down, also not come to the rescue of this doctrine? "

Especially since the Mayavadis would hold that Krishna, His, court,

Shuka­deva Parik­shit, the assembly of sages and Vyasa were actually

all Mayavadis too.

>

> 5. How Mayavadis explain the

perception of this world:

>

> a. Brahman is the

only reality.

>

> b. When we see an object (e.g. a silvery shell it is nothing other

than the), Brahman-consciousness c. But Brahman appears itself

appearing in that way like a shell because of upadhi (.designation)

that is superimposed upon

it

 

>

> d. Still, Pure

Consciousness shines through the upadhi, making the object

perceivable to

our minds and

senses.

>

> e. This phenomenon of appearance is happening because Brahman is

obscured by avidya.

>

> f. Before avidya can be removed, a vritti (modifi­ cation)

of the viewer's mind must destroy the avidya surrounding the silvery

shell when the senses make contact with it. This vritti

is -compared to a canal through which

pure conscious­ness flows to envelop the object

in right under­ standing.

>

> g. When that happens, Brahman is mirrored in the vritti which then

lights up the object, revealing its true identity with Brahman.

Note: in this philosophy, the senses do not perceive the object Nor

even the mind. Nor the vritti, for the vritti is but a key that

unlocks the door behind which is the floodlight of

Brahman, which is the only conscious­ness. the object is a manifesta­

tion of Brahman

>

> i.

Who perceives the object? The Mayavadi answers that the jiva

(individual soul) does.

>

> ii.

But the jiva is verily Brahman, who thinks himself an individual due

to

advidya

iii. By seeing the object in true light, the jiva knows

its oneness with

Brahman 6. Vadiraja

probes the Mayavadi explanation of percep­

tion:

>

> a. If in the example

of the silvery shell, only the Brahman-consciousness is perceiving,

then how can the

shell be seen in two ways?

>

> i. If the origin of the phenomenon " silvery shell " is one and only

one, why is it sometimes seen as a shell, and sometimes as

silver?

>

> ii. The only " real " mechanism available to explain this (since

shell, avidya, jiva, senses, mind,)and even vritti are illusiory is

that Brahman is " shining forth. " For this,Shankara has quoted a

verse that appears in three Upanishads (Katha 2.2.15,

Mundaka 2.2.15, Shvetash­vatara

6.14): " The sun does not shine there, nor the moon and thestars, nor

these lighten­ings, much less this fire. After Him when He shines

everyth­

ing

shines; by the light of Him all this is light­

ed. "

 

>

> b. Still, there is

no reason for the silver shell illusion in the statement, " Brahman

shines forth " ,

nor in the quotes given to support the

statement .

>

> c. Mayavadis say

maya has two powers - veiling and projecting. When it obscures

Brahman, it exer­

cises the first potency, and when it projects an object (the shell)

onto consciousness,

the second

potency is exercised. But what about the illusion of silver in the

shell? That is

not explained

>

> d. Vadiraja asks

another question the object is a " part " of Brahman, and that the:

Mayavadis say

perceiver of the object is likewise a " part " of Brahman, each " part "

arising out of the avidya-

covering of

the. whole. So how does the one " part " get trans­ferred to the other

(the object to

the

perceiving consciousness)? Because, in Mayavadi philosophy, these

two " parts " are dealt

with as being two

separate manifesta­tions of Brahman, i.e. Mayavadis do say the object

and perceiver are not

identical with each other, but that both are identical with

Brahman.

 

>

> e. Mayavadis have an

answer: the object is imposed upon the perceiver by means of the

vritti (mental

adjustment). But then Vadiraja is quick to point out that the vritti

was first postulated

as the

means of illumination. Now it is being used as the cause for an

illusiory percep­tion of

an object as

well. So what is the need of saying? The vritti (mental adjustment)

gives rise to both

illusion and libera­

tion

 

 

>

> f. The Mayavadis give material objects too much reality by

identifying them with Brahman; on the other hand, they give them too

little reality by saying they are illusions .

>

> g. Mayavadis say there is a shakti of avidya called jadatmika

avidyashaktih, and this potency transforms itself into the visible

material manifestations of objects. But this avidya said to

bedestroyed upon enlightenment (i.e. is when the vrittih illumines

the object). So, when ignorance is de­stroyed, then the jadatmika

shakti must also be destroyed, and so it follows that the object

itself would be destroyed .

>

> i. One Mayavadi commentator, Bharatitir­tha has an answer of sorts

to this penetrationof, their philosophy. He says there are two the

kinds of ignorance: one which is covering jiva and another

which covers the Lord. The jiva-ignorance (pratibhasika) is when an

object shines forth, but the Lord removable ignorance (vyavaharika)

is - removed only

at

the time of liberation (or death).

>

> ) . ii.

But Bharatitirtha says this distinction il­ between il­lusions is

vyavaharika (or lusiory

>

> h. Since ignorance is destroyed, but the remains even after

enlightenment, then it object follows that the object

is the supreme Brahman; in words, Brahman is maya. There is no need

other for Mayavadis to postulate their elaborate theories of how

Brahman is covered by ignorance, etc. The bottom line is: Brahman is

maya - which runs directly against all shastra.

>

> i. Another evidence

of this is - the vritti the cause of enlightenment as well as

ignorance

is. This

vritti is also maya. So maya gives illusion and knowledge both.

>

> j. The Mayavadis

have two theories world-appearance: 1) superimposition and 2)

regarding the

material causality of ignorance (the aforemen­- tioned jadatmika

avidyasha­ktih). These

theories are

mutually exclusive: one demands that ig­norance be destroyed (by the

vritti) for objects

to appear; the

other demans that ignorance be for objects to exist.present

>

> k. Vadiraja says, " unintelligibility is not only the trademark of

your ignorance, it is also the trademark of your methodology. " He's

spoofing the Mayavadi Vimuktatman (13th century) who

wrote " Unintelligibility is the trademark of ignorance, not an objec­

tion to it " ; i.e., you can't hold ourphilosophy accountable for being

because it is describing an avidya which

unintelligible.unintelligible

is

 

>

> 7. Other arguments:

>

> a. The Mayavadis

attribute no qualities or powers to Brahman. Avidya creates an

illusion of

separate identity from Brahman; their example that Brahman is like

space, and avidya is is like

a pot. Vadiraja

asks, " then from where do act ivities arise? Does the space in a pot

exhibit -

activities? "

>

> b. Since Mayavadis

have no answer for this, it would appear that they are postulating

a

completely different consciousness for each embodied being, conscious­

nesses which in turn

are dif­ferent from

the imper­sonal Brahman. Then what good is their adherence to oneness

of con­ scious­

ness of all - beings?

>

>

>

>

>

> VII. A historical comparison of Vaisnava-vedanta, Maya­vadi-vedanta

and Buddhism.

>

> A. Many uninformed people think " Vedanta " is synonymous with

Shankaracharya's Mayavadi Advaita- Vaisnava. The Srimad Bhagavatam

is the natural commentary on the Vedanta-sutra, written

by Vyasadeva himself 5000 years ago

>

> 1. The philosophy of Shankaracharya (born about 600 AD), is really

just Buddhism in disguise, asexplained by Padma Purana (mayavada-asac-

chastram pracchanam bauddham ucyate).

>

> 2. This can be demonstrated by the chronology of key Mayavadi

philosophical explanations, whichappear first in Buddhist scriptures

and later show up in the philosophy of Shankara and his

followers

>

> B. With the advent of the Age of Quarrel (Kali-yuga), the six

systems of Vedic philosophy (i.e. Nyaya, Vaisesika, Sankhya, Yoga,

Karma Mimamsa and Brahma Mimamsa) which were originally the different

depart­ ments of Vedic study like the departments of study at

a university, began to compete with one another

>

> C. By the time of the Buddha (500 BC), . philosophical disputation

between the six schools had become rampant all over India. The

philo­sophy of the Buddhists as well as the Jains are spin-offs of the

quarrels of the six systems

>

> 1. Both Buddhism and Jainism combine different aspects of

the six systems, and both reject the authority of the Vedic

scriptures, because the constant bickering of the Vedic philo­sophers

had already under­mined the force of Vedic authority among

the people.

>

> 2. Buddha descended to lead people away from Vedic scholar­ship and

ritualism, which atheistic minded brahmanas had turned into dry

mental speculation and animal slaughter. In reaction against these

brahmanas,the Buddhist philosophical conclusion is Shunyavada

(voidism), and the ritualistic con­clusion is Ahimsa( non­violence).

>

> D. Vedanta according to early Buddhist records.

>

> 1. It is clear from Buddhist scriptures that " Vedanta " was

originally synonymous with Vaish­nava

>

> 2. vedanta. -

 

>

> a. Certain pre-Shankara Buddhist scriptures contain descriptions of

the teachings of .philoso­ phers

who used to argue against the Bud­dhists These scriptures were

originally in Sanskrit, but now only exist in

Chinese and Tibetan transla­ tions.

>

> b. The Abhidharma-mahavib­hasha-shastra(written around 150 A.D.) and

the Satyasid­dhishastra (250 A.D.) say that the followers of the Vedas

and Upanishads believe in the Maha­

purusha, who the world began and existed before exists within the

heart of allcreatures with a form the size of a thumb. The Abidharma-

mahavib­ hasha-shastra saysthat the followers of the Vedas believe

that " All that exists is nothing but purusha. Allthat happens is

caused by the transformation of the self-existant Ishwara . "

>

> c. In a work called

Shastra by Aryadeva, Vedan­ tists are portrayed as those who believe

that the world was

created by Brahma, who appeared from the navel of

Vishnu.

>

> d. In the Tattvasamgraha, the Buddhist writer Kamalashila

equates " Vedavadin " with " Purusha

vadin. "

>

> e. The Buddhist

writer Bhavya in the Mad­ hyamaka-hrdaya-karika describes the

Vedanta

philosophy as " Bhedabheda " ( " one-and-different " ) philosophy [Gaudiya

Vaisnavas call their

own .

philoso­phy Acintya Bhedabheda-

tattva

>

> f. Conclusion: Pre-Shankara Vedantism was personal (aimed at

knowing Vishnu) and did not hold to a doctrine of " all-is-illusion-

only " .

>

> 2. In Buddhist scriptures like the

Maha­parinir­vana- sutra and the Lankavatara sutra the seeds

of Sankara's

Mayavadi philosophy are found

>

> a. There are four

main schools of Buddhist philosophical thought, which appeared one

after

the

other before Shankara's Mayavadi

philosophy.

>

> i.

Vaibhashika, or direct realism.

>

> .. ii

representationalism Sautrantika, or

>

> iii.

Vijnanavada, or subjective idealism.

>

> iv.

Shunyavada, or voidism.

>

> b. Sri Yamunac­harya, writing in Siddhitraya, and Ramanujacharya in

his Sribhasya, have both pointed out the similarities between

Shankara's Mayavada and Vijnanavada. Vallab­hacharya alsomentioned

the same point.

>

> c. The Shunyavada philosophy teaches that shunya (void) is an

inexpressible and transcendent truth a concept echoed in Shankara's

explanation of Brahman). The Vijnanavada school teaches that

consciousness is the only truth and that the world we perceive is

illusion. Mayavada says the same.

>

> i. More­over in the Lankavatara-sutra, Shunyavada is

expressed in terms that resemble Upanishadic language:

nishthabhava param brahma ( " the Supreme Brahman is the ultimate

state of existance " ). This, work also asserts that the words

Brahman, Vishnu and Ishwara are other names for the Buddha

consciousness.

>

> ii. Shunyavada had an influence on the members of the Brahminical

community who were atheistic at heart. Gradually this began to

influence Vedanta scholarship. Mayavada began to appear in

Vedantacommentaries even before Shankar­acharya; for example, in the

writings of Gaudapada.

>

> 3. That Mayavada had stolen the salient features of shunyavada was

not unnoticed by the Buddhists themves.

>

> A. In a Chinese version of the Mahaparinirvana-­ sutra,

written after Buddhism was driven out of India, we find the following

note regarding the state of affairs of Buddhist philosophy inIndia of

that time: " Nowadays there are some remaining teachings of Buddha

that werestolen by Brahmins and written into their own commen­taries. "

>

> B. A Buddhist writer by the name of Bhartrhari, wholived about the

same time as Shankaracharya wrote that Shankara had similar ideas as

did he and other Buddhist philosophers of that

time

>

> 4. Furthermore, we find in the writings of early Mayavadis a self-

conscious defense against the charge that their philosophy is simply

Buddhism in new dress.

>

> A. One, Shriharsha, in a work called Khandanakhan­ dakhadya, says

that while Buddhism says the world of multiplicity is false, we

Mayavadis say the world of multiplicity is non-dual, or advaita

>

> B. But that's a poor defense, because Mayavadis also say Brahma

satya, jagan mithya truth, the world is illusion " ). And Buddhists

say enlightenment means under­standing pratitya-samut­ pada,

or " condi­tioned co-pro­duc­tion ( " Brahman is " , which is a monistic

theory of the world

>

>

> Regards

> Rafal Gendarz

>

>

>

> -

> " Ajit Krishnan " <ajit.krishnan

> <sohamsa >

> Monday, May 29, 2006 3:53 AM

> Re: samba sada shiva & advaita

>

>

> > Dear Rafal,

> >

> >> I know there can be mistake in my questions pertaining to mixing

> > the two levels : vyavaharica and reality

> >

> > Precisely. For example:

> >

> >> (1) Why the avidya and maya exists ?

> >

> > (1a) Why the [vyavaharika] avidya and [vyavaharika] maya

> > [vyavaharika] exists ?

> > (1b) Why the [vyavaharika] avidya and [vyavaharika] maya

> > [paramarthika] exists ?

> >

> > If your question is 1a, then it becomes " if something is blue in

> > colour, why is it blue in colour " , and is not very interesting.

If

> > it is 1b, then it becomes, " if something is blue in colour, why

is

> > it green in colour " , and is obviously self-contradictory. Re-

examine

> > your assumptions.

> >

> > Similar questions you can ask might be `Why does Krishna exist?',

> > or `Why do I exist?'.

> >

> > Your questions are good ones, but really require some fundamental

> > grounding in the method of [advaita] vedanta. Once this is in

place,

> > you will most probably no longer go looking for answers, but

spend

> > more time looking at your questions. The quest ceases being an

> > external one, and instead becomes an internal one.

> >

> >

> > ajit

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > *tat savitur varenyam*

> >

[Guest guest]

Namaste friends,

 

I quickly read the write-up below.

 

I said earlier that Dwaita is far better when we start out. Adwaita is only for very advanced seekers. Somebody who is just starting to learn physics is better taught F=ma rather than the general theory of relativity. Advaita is too subtle and it is very easy to misrepresent it. Even a great Maharshi like Vasishtha is not very easy to understand when he elucidates Advaitic concepts (as in "Yoga Vaasishtham").

 

As I said previously, all this does not really matter anyway.

 

Whether you choose Advaita or Dwaita or Visishtadwaita, the important thing is to master the chosen path. If you keep harping that Brahman is in all beings, but you have never actually experienced how Brahman is in all beings, what use is it? If you keep harping that Krishna with a specific form is supreme, but have never experienced Him, what use is it? If you keep haping that Sadashiva with a specific form is supreme, but have never experienced Him, what use is it?

 

Philosophy and erudite discussions are one thing and experience is quite another. It's the latter that stays with you forever. It's the latter that lifts you up spiritually. It's the latter that can give you the supreme knowledge that liberates you. So, seek the "experience" and forget about all philosophical arguments.

 

If you believe in Krishna consciousness, forget everything and seek to get close to Krishna. Seek a place at His feet and nothing else. If you are a Shiva devotee, seek a place at Shiva's feet and nothing else. If you are an Advaitin, seek to experience Brahman and seek to experience the entire universe as self.

 

Do sadhana. Do sadhana. Do sadhana. That alone will lift you up, not philosophical arguments.

 

It does not matter which you path you choose. All paths will take you to almost the same place.

 

May the light of Brahman shine within,

Narasimha

-------------------------------

Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net

Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

-------------------------------

 

> vyam vyasadevaya namah> Dear Ajit ji , Bharat ji> > Thank You for Your time.> > I paste the article once I found in my archives. The source> of this I think is some devotee from Iskcon. If You could correct it and give Your comments. I would be grateful.> > Regards> Rafal Gendarz> > III. Structure of Mayavada philosophy:> > A. It is also called Vivartavada (lit. "superim-­ positionism"). > > 1. arthadhyasa - superimposition of one object on another. > > 2. jnanadhyasa - imposition of illusion upon oneself.> > 3. For this superimposition to happen, there must be -> > a. Senses.> > b. An abnormal situation (e.g. darkness).> > c. Experience.> > d. An example of above three components: seeing a rope as a snake in the darkness.> > B. Philosophical proofs, and which philosophers accept them:> > 1. Direct perception (accepted by Charvakas).> > 2. Inference (anumana) + 1 is accepted by Buddhists.> > a. Hypothesis = there is fire on the mountain.> > b. Cause (hetu) = because there is smoke there.> > c. Example = Where there is smoke, there is fire.> > d. Review of cause = The mountain has smoke...> > e. Conclusion = ...therefore the mountain has fire. > > 3. Sabdha (spiritual sound) + 1 & 2 is accepted by Vaishnavas. > > 4. Arthavati (similarity) + 1-3 is accepted by logic-­ ians.> > a. "Have you seen a blue cow?" did" (cow + > > b. "No, but I would know one if I blue).> > 5. Arthapatti: "This fat man does not eat in the day > he must eat at night." (Logicians)> > 6. Abhava (nonexistance) + 1-5 is accepted by Mayavad­ is.> > a. Nonexistance means: "There is no cow here."> > b. It is a kind of knowledge based on the absence of knowledge or perception of something .> > C. Four categories within M.P.:> > 1. Sat = existance (Brahman).> > 2. Asat = nonexistance (horns on rabbit).> > 3. Sat-asat = something that exists for a time, then ceases to exist .> > 4. Anirvachaniya = neither 1-3, i.e. Maya (which makes one think a rope is a snake. Inexplicable, illusiory).> > D. Levels of perception according to Shankaracharya:> > 1. Paramarthika - transcendental (Brahman).> > 2. Vyavaharika - "practical".> > 3. Pratibhasika - apparent, but illusiory (like dreaming ).> > a. One must go from this stage to next higher.> > b. When coming to second stage, individuality remains . > > c. But at highest stage, individuality is erased.> > E. Maya:> > 1. Maya is inexplicable; example - a dumb person cannot describe the taste of rasgulla, but still there is taste. Brahman is covered by Maya, but don't ask why.> > 2. Two stages of Maya:> > a. Covering with illusion; that's simply Maya.> > b. Distorting with ignorance (avidya).> > 3. When Maya covers Brahman with illusion, Iswara- consciousness appears. He is conditioned to be the Lord.> > 4. When Brahman is further distorted by avidya, jiva consciousness appears. Avidya makes the subtle > > body . > > 5. There is no transformation in this process, only imposition (of a false conception .> > 6. When illusion and ignorance are dispelled, no state of any describable existance remains > > 7. Mayavadi story: Vyasadeva sent Sukadeva to learn from Janaka. Janaka said to Sukadeva, "Give me my dakshine before I teach you anything, because after you learn this teaching, you will reject everything, including me (the Guru)."> > F. Example of Mayavadi logic: > > 1. Brahman "reflects" into Maya. Q: But how? If it reflects (e.g. moon on water) it must have a form . 2. A. First understand that Brahman is not a substance, so rules like that don't apply to it. > > 3. And apart from that, consider an object or substance that has qualities. Form is one such quality. But does form have form?> > 4. Q. What are you saying, `Does form have form? '> > 5. A. When you see a shadow or reflection, what is being reflected - form or substance? 6. Q. Well - the form.> > 7. So the form is not the substance. Form is what is reflected, but that form is different from the substance.> > G. Jayatirtha Muni gives this example of Mayavadi process: just as when a person has a bad dream, the dream wakes him up; similarly, though the Mayavadi philosophy is still "maya", it can wake one up out of illusion> > . > > H. Two schools of Mayavadi philosophy. > > 1. One accepts only Upanisads, Vedanta and Bhagavad- gita (prasthan-traya). > > 2. But the so-called Bhagavat-sampradaya (with acaryas like Citsukhacarya and Madhusudan Sarasvati) accept Puranas, Ramayana, etc. Just as Mayavadis in general are more accept dangerous than Buddhists, the Bhagavat sampradaya is most dangerous of all.They even Krishna's form is spiritual, but say that when He returns to the Paramvyoma, His form"dissolves" into Brahman First school would argue Krishna's form is material. > > I. Bhag Tyag Lakshana:> > 1. Bhag (person).> > 2. Tyag (give up)> > 3. I.e. Now you have this designation; give it up.> > a. On wall of Vaishnava temple, a Mayavadi wrote "So'ham" (I am Him). > > b. A devotee came later and added Da, "DaSo'ham" (I am His servant). > > c. Mayavadi returned, added Sa for SaDaSo'ham (I am eternally Him). > > d. Devotee returned again and added Da for DaSaDaSo'ham (I am the servant of His servant). > > > > IV. Weaknesses of Mayavadi Philosophy.> > A. Their "Brahman" and Vyasadeva's Brahman are not the same.> > 1. Their Brahman is the Brahmajyoti.> > 2. Vyasadeva's Brahman is Krishna, the Purushottama.> > 3. Because they have no interest in Krishna, their Brahman categorically has no reality (it is wrongly defined from the outset).> > a. Vyasa used the word Brahman as we use the word "God." > > b. It is a general term, used to create interest among as many people as possible (even those who are averse to Krishna). > > B. They speak of "Sarvikalpa jnana" and "Nirvikalpa jnana", but these are actually the same thing .> > 1. Example of approaching a mountain from a distance - at each stage, the same entity is being viewed > > 2. But Mayavadis say the far-off vision of a great shape on the horizon is of a different thing than theclose-up view of the mountain> > C. They interpret Sanskrit words inaccurately to fit their own ideas. > > 1. Lord is "asarira." They say this means He has no sarira or body; but the root of the word sarira means decay",so the word really refers to a body that decays, not simply a body " . 2.Lord is "akarana." They say this means He has no senses; but this word really means that His senses because He is directly His are not energized by something else (e.g. as our material senses are energized by life energy) own form .> > D. They interpret "He desired to become many" as meaning the progression from Brahman-Iswara-Jiva; but it is the Iswara who has the desire to become many. How the desireless Brahman desired to become the Iswara they.do not explain > > E. If Brahman is all-pervading, where is Maya?> > F. How is the Brahman cut into individual parcels of consciousness ? > > G. Mayavadis say, "By knowledge (jnana), one becomes Brahman."> > 1. But they also say that jnana and ajnana are Maya.> > 2. So you may remove your ajnana with jnana, but then with what will you remove the jnana? > > 3. To this they answer, "It is by the mercy of Brah­ man." (!) > > H. They say Brahman is without energy (shakti). Then how does it exist? (No answer ).> > I. Snake and Rope:> > 1. In order for this example to have validity, the person must have prior knowledge of both"what is a rope"and "what is a snake." How can undifferentiated Brahman have prior knowledge of Maya, which it then mistakes itself to be? > > 2. Besides that, in this example, the rope and snake are both real things, and that's why the illusion is effective.And since the illusion is effective, it is also true, i.e. the consequences of that illusion are no less effective than if the rope was really a snake(I'm scared, I scream, run away, etc.). > > J. They say Maya is like a dream, but there's no continuity in our dreams from one night to the next. In the waking state we find day-to-day continuity. So to compare this life to a mere dream is facile.> > K. Why is this illusion so consistent, if it is just hallucination? Why doesn't illusion come us to other ways, e.g. in instead of Brahman is the world (rope is snake), why not the world is Brahman (snake is rope)?> > H. Mayavadis say one can only achieve liberation after death. Then his individuality ceases forever. > > 1. But how does this relate to their favorite rope/> > snake analogy? One man lights a lamp and sees that the snake is really just a rope; another man runs off, frightened, never knowing it was an illusion. How are these two men different in their essential existance? > > I. Who suffers in hell - soul or body?> > 1. Mayavadi may answer, "the body suffers only."> > 2. But the body is matter, is it not?> > 3. Yes.> > 4. How can dead matter suffer?> > 5. Then it must be the soul that suffers.> > 6. Then you are saying Brahman suffers? But your> > philosophy says there's no suffering in Brahman. > > J. Shankara writes of the "vyavaharika" platform of exis­ tance, but nowhere is this word found in any scripture. Yet it is a fundamental component of his philosophy.> > K. Upanishads say that nothing can attach itself to Brahman and it cannot be described in words. Shankara says these state­ments form the complete description of Brahman .> > 1. Sankara says take these descriptions literally.> > 2. How? By hearing these words, don't the Mayavadis become attached to Brahman? > > L. Katha Upanishad 3.11: Above the jagat is avyakta, above avyakta is Purusha, and beyond Him is nothing else. > > > > V. A look at Jiva Goswami's refutations of Mayavadi Philosophy:> > A. He established the Srimad Bhagavatam as the shastric reference par excellence.> > 1. Brhad Aranyaka Upanishad 2.41 - 4 Vedas, Itihasa and Puranas have come from breath of Narayana .> > 2. Chandogya Upanishad 3.15.7 - 4 Vedas, Itihasas and Puranas are 5th Veda .> > a. 4 cows and 1 buffalo are never grouped as a herd of 5 cows, because a buffalo is not a cow . b. 5 cows means 5 cows. > > 3. Mahabharata says "Puranas make Vedas complete."> > 4. Shankaracharya's guru's guru wrote a commentary on a book that cited slokas from the Srimad Bhagavatam.> > 5. Garuda Purana says "artho 'yam brahma sutranam": Bhagavat Purana gives meaning of Vedanta -sutra, Gayatri and the 4 Vedas . > > 6. Srimad Bhagavatam is the ripened fruit of the tree of the Vedic scriptures .> > 7. Srimad Bhagavatam is Veda: "it is compiled by the Lord Himself." > > 8. Sukadeva Goswami was a Brahmajnani who became a devotee. Vyasadeva compiled the Bhagavatam only for Sukadeva, because only he could understand it (his other disciples were not qualified) .> > a. Sukadeva ran away as soon as he was born. Vyasa told his other disciples to chant3 verses from the Srimad Bhagavatam in order to attract him back to the ashram (they were to chant these verses out loud when entering the forest to gather firewood or fetch water). > > b. Thus Sukadeva was attracted and returned to learn Srimad Bhagavatam at the feet of his father He cannot be attracted by anything material. Therefore S.B. has something higherthan even Brahman realization (atmarama verse ). > > B. Srimad Bhagavatam establishes Krishna as the Param Brahman. > > 1. Hiranyakashipu used the "neti neti" process to negate any possible chance of his being killed byan enemy when he requested a boon from Lord Brahma .> > a. He left no chance that any type of entity within the material world could harm him . b. Practically he left only the Brahman. And that Brahman came as Narasingha and destroyed him; thus Lord Nrsin­ghadeva is the Supreme Brahman 2.Even Sridhar Swami has commented on "krishna stu bhagavan", "narayana eva." But Srila Jiva Goswami established Lord. Krishna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead> > 3. In the wrestling arena, everyone saw Krishna differently. The yogis saw Him as theTattva Paramam (Supreme Truth).> > 4. The pastime of Lord Damodar shows how the Supreme is unlimited, yet has a body . 5. Devaki said, "That Brahman, jyoti...etc. that all the impersonalists (jnanis and yogis) are seeking is You." > > > > VI. Vadiraja's Refutations of Key Tenets of Mayavadi Philosophy.> > A. Vadiraja comes in the line of Madhvacharya. He lived in the 16th century. He is said to have lived for 120 years. > > B. How Vadiraja exposed Mayavadi misinterpretations:> > 1. Vadiraja showed how Mayavadis have taken the "neti- neti" statement out of context .> > a. They say "not this, not this" means "not jiva, not jada" (Brahman is neither the individual soul nor, matter - therefore, since only Brahman exists jiva and jada must be unreal). > > b. But they've derived "neti-neti" from Brhad- aranyaka Upanishad 4.4.22, which states: "For the desire for sons is the desire for wealth and the desire for wealth the desire for worlds; both these, are indeed, desires only. This Self is not this, not this."> > c. This verse is stating that the Self (atman) is not to be had by desiring wealth or worlds. The direct meaning is sufficient; the "jada-jiva" interpretation is without foundation .> > 2. The meaning of "advaita":> > a. Mayavadis take "advaita" (not dual) to mean that Brahman has no difference. Therefore undifferentiated oneness is the only truth . > > b. But the context is found in Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.1 & 2 - "In the beginning, my dear, this Being, one only, without a second." > > c. Vadiraja showed that "one without a second" means, according to grammar and logic"one Being,without a second Being", or "He has no second", i.e. there is only one God. But this does not mean that some thing or things below God can't bedistin­guished from Him. > > i. If the the word "advitiyam" as it appears in this verse actually means that nothing except undifferentiated Brahman exists, then the very text from which the word comes would be unreal, as it is a feature of the realm of difference.> > ii. Thus the validity of the text would be destroyed by the very philosophy the Maya­ vadis ascribe to it> > iii. He proved his point further with this example - if one says "The lotus is blue", he does not mean to say that "lotus" and "blue" are exact synonyms. He means that blueness is a quality of. the lotus Similarly, when shastra says "Brahman is everything","everything" and "Brahman" are not exact syn­onyms, rather "everything" (souls and matter) are qualities of Brahman. Or, as blueness is a quality in­separable from the lotus, so we are inseparable from Brahman (but as Brahman has qualities we don't have, still there is distinc­tion in this inseparability). > > 3. Vadiraja points out that Mayavadis say that both practical life and the scriptures are on the vyava­ harika platform - which means both are ul­timately unreal. Yet they honor the scriptures and honor sattvik life as dispellers of illusion breeds bad results . But a Mayavadi cannot distinguish between these two categories of action .> > . a. In practical life, what is "true" is what works, i.e. what brings good resultsWhat is"untrue" Thus even on their so-called vyavaharika platform, they have no ultimate reference for deciding what is auspicious and what is inauspi­ cious > > b. For example, using a Mayavadi analogy, the Mayavadis are not able to explain the difference between a man who sees that there is no silver in silvery shell and the man who thinks that silver a is there > > i. They will say the man who discovered his error is conventionally correct (vyava­ harika), and the man who did not is under pratibhasika illusion . > > ii. But the main thing is, both are in ultimate illusion. Now, the silvery shell analogy is used by them to illustrate how one comes out of ULTIMATE illusion and attains the truth paramar­thika). Yet, using their own doctrine as the test, this example prooves itself invalid. So what are we left with? > > 4. Vadiraja compares the Mayavadis with Paundraka. He asks, "If Mayavadi philosophy is so pregnant with Truth, why did Krishna and His associates in Dwaraka laugh derisively when they heard Paundraka's letter which simply made the same claims as the Mayavadi philosophers? Why did, Shukadeva Goswami when reciting this event to Maharaja Parikshit before the learned assembly of great, saints and sages censure Paundraka repeatedly? Why did Vyasa, who wrote this narration down, also not come to the rescue of this doctrine?" Especially since the Mayavadis would hold that Krishna, His, court, Shuka­deva Parik­shit, the assembly of sages and Vyasa were actually all Mayavadis too. > > 5. How Mayavadis explain the perception of this world:> > a. Brahman is the only reality.> > b. When we see an object (e.g. a silvery shell it is nothing other than the), Brahman-consciousness c. But Brahman appears itself appearing in that way like a shell because of upadhi (.designation) that is superimposed upon it > > d. Still, Pure Consciousness shines through the upadhi, making the object perceivable to our minds and senses. > > e. This phenomenon of appearance is happening because Brahman is obscured by avidya.> > f. Before avidya can be removed, a vritti (modifi­ cation) of the viewer's mind must destroy the avidya surrounding the silvery shell when the senses make contact with it. This vritti is -compared to a canal through which pure conscious­ness flows to envelop the object in right under­ standing. > > g. When that happens, Brahman is mirrored in the vritti which then lights up the object, revealing its true identity with Brahman. Note: in this philosophy, the senses do not perceive the object Nor even the mind. Nor the vritti, for the vritti is but a key that unlocks the door behind which is the floodlight of Brahman, which is the only conscious­ness. the object is a manifesta­tion of Brahman> > i. Who perceives the object? The Mayavadi answers that the jiva (individual soul) does.> > ii. But the jiva is verily Brahman, who thinks himself an individual due to advidya iii. By seeing the object in true light, the jiva knows its oneness with Brahman 6. Vadiraja probes the Mayavadi explanation of percep­ tion: > > a. If in the example of the silvery shell, only the Brahman-consciousness is perceiving, then how can the shell be seen in two ways? > > i. If the origin of the phenomenon "silvery shell" is one and only one, why is it sometimes seen as a shell, and sometimes as silver? > > ii. The only "real" mechanism available to explain this (since shell, avidya, jiva, senses, mind,)and even vritti are illusiory is that Brahman is "shining forth." For this,Shankara has quoted a verse that appears in three Upanishads (Katha 2.2.15, Mundaka 2.2.15, Shvetash­vatara 6.14): "The sun does not shine there, nor the moon and thestars, nor these lighten­ings, much less this fire. After Him when He shines everyth­ ing shines; by the light of Him all this is light­ ed." > > b. Still, there is no reason for the silver shell illusion in the statement, "Brahman shines forth", nor in the quotes given to support the statement . > > c. Mayavadis say maya has two powers - veiling and projecting. When it obscures Brahman, it exer­cises the first potency, and when it projects an object (the shell) onto consciousness, the second potency is exercised. But what about the illusion of silver in the shell? That is not explained > > d. Vadiraja asks another question the object is a "part" of Brahman, and that the: Mayavadis say perceiver of the object is likewise a "part" of Brahman, each "part" arising out of the avidya- covering of the. whole. So how does the one "part" get trans­ferred to the other (the object to the perceiving consciousness)? Because, in Mayavadi philosophy, these two"parts " are dealt with as being two separate manifesta­tions of Brahman, i.e. Mayavadis do say the object and perceiver are not identical with each other, but that both are identical with Brahman. > > e. Mayavadis have an answer: the object is imposed upon the perceiver by means of the vritti (mental adjustment). But then Vadiraja is quick to point out that the vritti was first postulated as the means of illumination. Now it is being used as the cause for an illusiory percep­tion of an object as well. So what is the need of saying? The vritti (mental adjustment) gives rise to both illusion and libera­tion > > f. The Mayavadis give material objects too much reality by identifying them with Brahman; on the other hand, they give them too little reality by saying they are illusions .> > g. Mayavadis say there is a shakti of avidya called jadatmika avidyashaktih, and this potency transforms itself into the visible material manifestations of objects. But this avidya said to bedestroyed upon enlightenment (i.e. is when the vrittih illumines the object). So, when ignorance is de­stroyed, then the jadatmika shakti must also be destroyed, and so it follows that the object itself would be destroyed .> > i. One Mayavadi commentator, Bharatitir­tha has an answer of sorts to this penetrationof, their philosophy. He says there are two the kinds of ignorance: one which is covering jiva and another which covers the Lord. The jiva-ignorance (pratibhasika) is when an object shines forth, but the Lord removable ignorance (vyavaharika) is - removed only at the time of liberation (or death). > > ) . ii. But Bharatitirtha says this distinction il­ between il­lusions is vyavaharika (or lusiory> > h. Since ignorance is destroyed, but the remains even after enlightenment, then it object follows that the object is the supreme Brahman; in words, Brahman is maya. There is no need other for Mayavadis to postulate their elaborate theories of how Brahman is covered by ignorance, etc. The bottom line is: Brahman is maya - which runs directly against all shastra. > > i. Another evidence of this is - the vritti the cause of enlightenment as well as ignorance is. This vritti is also maya. So maya gives illusion and knowledge both.> > j. The Mayavadis have two theories world-appearance: 1) superimposition and 2) regarding the material causality of ignorance (the aforemen­- tioned jadatmika avidyasha­ktih). These theories are mutually exclusive: one demands that ig­norance be destroyed (by the vritti) for objects to appear; the other demans that ignorance be for objects to exist.present> > k. Vadiraja says, "unintelligibility is not only the trademark of your ignorance, it is also the trademark of your methodology." He's spoofing the Mayavadi Vimuktatman (13th century) who wrote "Unintelligibility is the trademark of ignorance, not an objec­tion to it"; i.e., you can't hold ourphilosophy accountable for being because it is describing an avidya which unintelligible.unintelligible is > > 7. Other arguments:> > a. The Mayavadis attribute no qualities or powers to Brahman. Avidya creates an illusion of separate identity from Brahman; their example that Brahman is like space, and avidya is is like a pot. Vadiraja asks, "then from where do act ivities arise? Does the space in a pot exhibit - activities?"> > b. Since Mayavadis have no answer for this, it would appear that they are postulating a completely different consciousness for each embodied being, conscious­nesses which in turn are dif­ferent from the imper­sonal Brahman. Then what good is their adherence to oneness of con­ scious­ ness of all - beings?> > > > > > VII. A historical comparison of Vaisnava-vedanta, Maya­vadi-vedanta and Buddhism.> > A. Many uninformed people think "Vedanta" is synonymous with Shankaracharya's Mayavadi Advaita- Vaisnava. The Srimad Bhagavatam is the natural commentary on the Vedanta-sutra, written by Vyasadeva himself 5000 years ago > > 1. The philosophy of Shankaracharya (born about 600 AD), is really just Buddhism in disguise, asexplained by Padma Purana (mayavada-asac-chastram pracchanam bauddham ucyate). > > 2. This can be demonstrated by the chronology of key Mayavadi philosophical explanations, whichappear first in Buddhist scriptures and later show up in the philosophy of Shankara and his followers > > B. With the advent of the Age of Quarrel (Kali-yuga), the six systems of Vedic philosophy (i.e. Nyaya, Vaisesika, Sankhya, Yoga, Karma Mimamsa and Brahma Mimamsa) which were originally the different depart­ ments of Vedic study like the departments of study at a university, began to compete with one another> > C. By the time of the Buddha (500 BC), . philosophical disputation between the six schools had become rampant all over India. The philo­sophy of the Buddhists as well as the Jains are spin-offs of the quarrels of the six systems > > 1. Both Buddhism and Jainism combine different aspects of the six systems, and both reject the authority of the Vedic scriptures, because the constant bickering of the Vedic philo­sophers had already under­mined the force of Vedic authority among the people. > > 2. Buddha descended to lead people away from Vedic scholar­ship and ritualism, which atheistic minded brahmanas had turned into dry mental speculation and animal slaughter. In reaction against these brahmanas,the Buddhist philosophical conclusion is Shunyavada(voidism), and the ritualistic con­clusion is Ahimsa( non­violence).> > D. Vedanta according to early Buddhist records.> > 1. It is clear from Buddhist scriptures that "Vedanta" was originally synonymous with Vaish­nava > > 2. vedanta. - > > a. Certain pre-Shankara Buddhist scriptures contain descriptions of the teachings of .philoso­ phers who used to argue against the Bud­dhists These scriptures were originally in Sanskrit, but now only exist in Chinese and Tibetan transla­ tions. > > b. The Abhidharma-mahavib­hasha-shastra(written around 150 A.D.) and the Satyasid­dhishastra (250 A.D.) say that the followers of the Vedas and Upanishads believe in the Maha­ purusha, who the world began and existed before exists within the heart of allcreatures with a form the size of a thumb. The Abidharma-mahavib­ hasha-shastra saysthat the followers of the Vedas believe that "All that exists is nothing but purusha. Allthat happens is caused by the transformation of the self-existant Ishwara ."> > c. In a work called Shastra by Aryadeva, Vedan­ tists are portrayed as those who believe that the world was created by Brahma, who appeared from the navel of Vishnu. > > d. In the Tattvasamgraha, the Buddhist writer Kamalashila equates "Vedavadin" with "Purusha vadin." > > e. The Buddhist writer Bhavya in the Mad­ hyamaka-hrdaya-karika describes the Vedanta philosophy as "Bhedabheda" ("one-and-different") philosophy [Gaudiya Vaisnavas call their own . philoso­phy Acintya Bhedabheda-tattva > > f. Conclusion: Pre-Shankara Vedantism was personal (aimed at knowing Vishnu) and did not hold to a doctrine of "all-is-illusion-only". > > 2. In Buddhist scriptures like the Maha­parinir­vana- sutra and the Lankavatara sutra the seeds of Sankara's Mayavadi philosophy are found> > a. There are four main schools of Buddhist philosophical thought, which appeared one after the other before Shankara's Mayavadi philosophy. > > i. Vaibhashika, or direct realism. > > .. ii representationalism Sautrantika, or> > iii. Vijnanavada, or subjective idealism.> > iv. Shunyavada, or voidism. > > b. Sri Yamunac­harya, writing in Siddhitraya, and Ramanujacharya in his Sribhasya, have both pointed out the similarities between Shankara's Mayavada and Vijnanavada. Vallab­hacharya alsomentioned the same point. > > c. The Shunyavada philosophy teaches that shunya (void) is an inexpressible and transcendent truth a concept echoed in Shankara's explanation of Brahman). The Vijnanavada school teaches that consciousness is the only truth and that the world we perceive is illusion. Mayavada says the same. > > i. More­over in the Lankavatara-sutra, Shunyavada is expressed in terms that resemble Upanishadic language: nishthabhava param brahma ("the Supreme Brahman is the ultimate state of existance"). This, work also asserts that the words Brahman, Vishnu and Ishwara are other names for the Buddha consciousness. > > ii. Shunyavada had an influence on the members of the Brahminical community who were atheistic at heart. Gradually this began to influence Vedanta scholarship. Mayavada began to appear in Vedantacommentaries even before Shankar­acharya; for example, in the writings of Gaudapada. > > 3. That Mayavada had stolen the salient features of shunyavada was not unnoticed by the Buddhists themves. > > A. In a Chinese version of the Mahaparinirvana-­ sutra, written after Buddhism was driven out of India, we find the following note regarding the state of affairs of Buddhist philosophy inIndia of that time: "Nowadays there are some remaining teachings of Buddha that werestolen by Brahmins and written into their own commen­taries." > > B. A Buddhist writer by the name of Bhartrhari, wholived about the same time as Shankaracharya wrote that Shankara had similar ideas as did he and other Buddhist philosophers of that time > > 4. Furthermore, we find in the writings of early Mayavadis a self-conscious defense against the charge that their philosophy is simply Buddhism in new dress.> > A. One, Shriharsha, in a work called Khandanakhan­ dakhadya, says that while Buddhism says the world of multiplicity is false, we Mayavadis say the world of multiplicity is non-dual, or advaita > > B. But that's a poor defense, because Mayavadis also say Brahma satya, jagan mithya truth, the world is illusion"). And Buddhists say enlightenment means under­standing pratitya-samut­ pada, or "condi­tioned co-pro­duc­tion ("Brahman is ", which is a monistic theory of the world> > Regards> Rafal Gendarz> > - > "Ajit Krishnan" <ajit.krishnan> <sohamsa >> Monday, May 29, 2006 3:53 AM> Re: samba sada shiva & advaita> > > Dear Rafal,> > > >> I know there can be mistake in my questions pertaining to mixing > > the two levels : vyavaharica and reality> > > > Precisely. For example:> > > >> (1) Why the avidya and maya exists ? > > > > (1a) Why the [vyavaharika] avidya and [vyavaharika] maya > > [vyavaharika] exists ? > > (1b) Why the [vyavaharika] avidya and [vyavaharika] maya > > [paramarthika] exists ? > > > > If your question is 1a, then it becomes "if something is blue in > > colour, why is it blue in colour", and is not very interesting. If > > it is 1b, then it becomes, "if something is blue in colour, why is > > it green in colour", and is obviously self-contradictory. Re-examine > > your assumptions. > > > > Similar questions you can ask might be `Why does Krishna exist?', > > or `Why do I exist?'.> > > > Your questions are good ones, but really require some fundamental > > grounding in the method of [advaita] vedanta. Once this is in place, > > you will most probably no longer go looking for answers, but spend > > more time looking at your questions. The quest ceases being an > > external one, and instead becomes an internal one. > > > > ajit

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri NarasimhaThis is a euphoric response by initial study of an exalted text. I will neither attempt to change your understanding or suggest you anything. However, in a public forum would like to say that I do not agree to many of your statements about " paths " and about " dwaita -adwaita " . Moreover, I also do not agree to your separation of " study and questioning " to " sadhana " . In that case the whole of Yoga Vashistha is philosophizing. Then, why study it? Thanks and Regards

BharatOn 5/30/06, Narasimha P.V.R. Rao <pvr wrote:

 

 

Namaste friends,

 

I quickly read the write-up below.

 

I said earlier that Dwaita is far better when we start out. Adwaita is only for very advanced seekers. Somebody who is just starting to learn physics is better taught F=ma rather than the general theory of relativity. Advaita is too subtle and it is very easy to misrepresent it. Even a great Maharshi like Vasishtha is not very easy to understand when he elucidates Advaitic concepts (as in " Yoga Vaasishtham " ).

 

As I said previously, all this does not really matter anyway.

 

Whether you choose Advaita or Dwaita or Visishtadwaita, the important thing is to master the chosen path. If you keep harping that Brahman is in all beings, but you have never actually experienced how Brahman is in all beings, what use is it? If you keep harping that Krishna with a specific form is supreme, but have never experienced Him, what use is it? If you keep haping that Sadashiva with a specific form is supreme, but have never experienced Him, what use is it?

 

Philosophy and erudite discussions are one thing and experience is quite another. It's the latter that stays with you forever. It's the latter that lifts you up spiritually. It's the latter that can give you the supreme knowledge that liberates you. So, seek the " experience " and forget about all philosophical arguments.

 

If you believe in Krishna consciousness, forget everything and seek to get close to Krishna. Seek a place at His feet and nothing else. If you are a Shiva devotee, seek a place at Shiva's feet and nothing else. If you are an Advaitin, seek to experience Brahman and seek to experience the entire universe as self.

 

Do sadhana. Do sadhana. Do sadhana. That alone will lift you up, not philosophical arguments.

 

It does not matter which you path you choose. All paths will take you to almost the same place.

 

May the light of Brahman shine within,

Narasimha

-------------------------------

Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net

Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

-------------------------------

 

> vyam vyasadevaya namah> Dear Ajit ji , Bharat ji> > Thank You for Your time.> > I paste the article once I found in my archives. The source> of this I think is some devotee from Iskcon. If You could correct it and give Your comments. I would be grateful.> > Regards> Rafal Gendarz> > III. Structure of Mayavada philosophy:> > A. It is also called Vivartavada (lit. " superim-­ positionism " ). > > 1. arthadhyasa - superimposition of one object on another. > > 2. jnanadhyasa - imposition of illusion upon oneself.> > 3. For this superimposition to happen, there must be -> > a. Senses.> > b. An abnormal situation (e.g. darkness).> > c. Experience.> > d. An example of above three components: seeing a rope as a snake in the darkness.> > B. Philosophical proofs, and which philosophers accept them:> > 1. Direct perception (accepted by Charvakas).> > 2. Inference (anumana) + 1 is accepted by Buddhists.> > a. Hypothesis = there is fire on the mountain.> > b. Cause (hetu) = because there is smoke there.> > c. Example = Where there is smoke, there is fire.> > d. Review of cause = The mountain has smoke...> > e. Conclusion = ...therefore the mountain has fire. > > 3. Sabdha (spiritual sound) + 1 & 2 is accepted by Vaishnavas. > > 4. Arthavati (similarity) + 1-3 is accepted by logic-­ ians.> > a. " Have you seen a blue cow? " did " (cow + > > b. " No, but I would know one if I blue).> > 5. Arthapatti: " This fat man does not eat in the day > he must eat at night. " (Logicians)> > 6. Abhava (nonexistance) + 1-5 is accepted by Mayavad­ is.> > a. Nonexistance means: " There is no cow here. " > > b. It is a kind of knowledge based on the absence of knowledge or perception of something .> > C. Four categories within M.P.:> > 1. Sat = existance (Brahman).> > 2. Asat = nonexistance (horns on rabbit).> > 3. Sat-asat = something that exists for a time, then ceases to exist .> > 4. Anirvachaniya = neither 1-3, i.e. Maya (which makes one think a rope is a snake. Inexplicable, illusiory).> > D. Levels of perception according to Shankaracharya:> > 1. Paramarthika - transcendental (Brahman).> > 2. Vyavaharika - " practical " .> > 3. Pratibhasika - apparent, but illusiory (like dreaming ).> > a. One must go from this stage to next higher.> > b. When coming to second stage, individuality remains . > > c. But at highest stage, individuality is erased.> > E. Maya:> > 1. Maya is inexplicable; example - a dumb person cannot describe the taste of rasgulla, but still there is taste. Brahman is covered by Maya, but don't ask why.> > 2. Two stages of Maya:> > a. Covering with illusion; that's simply Maya.> > b. Distorting with ignorance (avidya).> > 3. When Maya covers Brahman with illusion, Iswara- consciousness appears. He is conditioned to be the Lord.> > 4. When Brahman is further distorted by avidya, jiva consciousness appears. Avidya makes the subtle > > body . > > 5. There is no transformation in this process, only imposition (of a false conception .> > 6. When illusion and ignorance are dispelled, no state of any describable existance remains > > 7. Mayavadi story: Vyasadeva sent Sukadeva to learn from Janaka. Janaka said to Sukadeva, " Give me my dakshine before I teach you anything, because after you learn this teaching, you will reject everything, including me (the Guru). " > > F. Example of Mayavadi logic: > > 1. Brahman " reflects " into Maya. Q: But how? If it reflects (e.g. moon on water) it must have a form . 2. A. First understand that Brahman is not a substance, so rules like that don't apply to it. > > 3. And apart from that, consider an object or substance that has qualities. Form is one such quality. But does form have form?> > 4. Q. What are you saying, `Does form have form? '> > 5. A. When you see a shadow or reflection, what is being reflected - form or substance? 6. Q. Well - the form.> > 7. So the form is not the substance. Form is what is reflected, but that form is different from the substance.> > G. Jayatirtha Muni gives this example of Mayavadi process: just as when a person has a bad dream, the dream wakes him up; similarly, though the Mayavadi philosophy is still " maya " , it can wake one up out of illusion> > . > > H. Two schools of Mayavadi philosophy. > > 1. One accepts only Upanisads, Vedanta and Bhagavad- gita (prasthan-traya). > > 2. But the so-called Bhagavat-sampradaya (with acaryas like Citsukhacarya and Madhusudan Sarasvati) accept Puranas, Ramayana, etc. Just as Mayavadis in general are more accept dangerous than Buddhists, the Bhagavat sampradaya is most dangerous of all.They even Krishna's form is spiritual, but say that when He returns to the Paramvyoma, His form " dissolves " into Brahman First school would argue Krishna's form is material. > > I. Bhag Tyag Lakshana:> > 1. Bhag (person).> > 2. Tyag (give up)> > 3. I.e. Now you have this designation; give it up.> > a. On wall of Vaishnava temple, a Mayavadi wrote " So'ham " (I am Him). > > b. A devotee came later and added Da, " DaSo'ham " (I am His servant). > > c. Mayavadi returned, added Sa for SaDaSo'ham (I am eternally Him). > > d. Devotee returned again and added Da for DaSaDaSo'ham (I am the servant of His servant). > > > > IV. Weaknesses of Mayavadi Philosophy.> > A. Their " Brahman " and Vyasadeva's Brahman are not the same.> > 1. Their Brahman is the Brahmajyoti.> > 2. Vyasadeva's Brahman is Krishna, the Purushottama.> > 3. Because they have no interest in Krishna, their Brahman categorically has no reality (it is wrongly defined from the outset).> > a. Vyasa used the word Brahman as we use the word " God. " > > b. It is a general term, used to create interest among as many people as possible (even those who are averse to Krishna). > > B. They speak of " Sarvikalpa jnana " and " Nirvikalpa jnana " , but these are actually the same thing .> > 1. Example of approaching a mountain from a distance - at each stage, the same entity is being viewed > > 2. But Mayavadis say the far-off vision of a great shape on the horizon is of a different thing than theclose-up view of the mountain> > C. They interpret Sanskrit words inaccurately to fit their own ideas. > > 1. Lord is " asarira. " They say this means He has no sarira or body; but the root of the word sarira means decay " ,so the word really refers to a body that decays, not simply a body " . 2.Lord is " akarana. " They say this means He has no senses; but this word really means that His senses because He is directly His are not energized by something else (e.g. as our material senses are energized by life energy) own form .> > D. They interpret " He desired to become many " as meaning the progression from Brahman-Iswara-Jiva; but it is the Iswara who has the desire to become many. How the desireless Brahman desired to become the Iswara they.do not explain > > E. If Brahman is all-pervading, where is Maya?> > F. How is the Brahman cut into individual parcels of consciousness ? > > G. Mayavadis say, " By knowledge (jnana), one becomes Brahman. " > > 1. But they also say that jnana and ajnana are Maya.> > 2. So you may remove your ajnana with jnana, but then with what will you remove the jnana? > > 3. To this they answer, " It is by the mercy of Brah­ man. " (!) > > H. They say Brahman is without energy (shakti). Then how does it exist? (No answer ).> > I. Snake and Rope:> > 1. In order for this example to have validity, the person must have prior knowledge of both " what is a rope " and " what is a snake. " How can undifferentiated Brahman have prior knowledge of Maya, which it then mistakes itself to be? > > 2. Besides that, in this example, the rope and snake are both real things, and that's why the illusion is effective.And since the illusion is effective, it is also true, i.e. the consequences of that illusion are no less effective than if the rope was really a snake(I'm scared, I scream, run away, etc.). > > J. They say Maya is like a dream, but there's no continuity in our dreams from one night to the next. In the waking state we find day-to-day continuity. So to compare this life to a mere dream is facile.> > K. Why is this illusion so consistent, if it is just hallucination? Why doesn't illusion come us to other ways, e.g. in instead of Brahman is the world (rope is snake), why not the world is Brahman (snake is rope)?> > H. Mayavadis say one can only achieve liberation after death. Then his individuality ceases forever. > > 1. But how does this relate to their favorite rope/> > snake analogy? One man lights a lamp and sees that the snake is really just a rope; another man runs off, frightened, never knowing it was an illusion. How are these two men different in their essential existance? > > I. Who suffers in hell - soul or body?> > 1. Mayavadi may answer, " the body suffers only. " > > 2. But the body is matter, is it not?> > 3. Yes.> > 4. How can dead matter suffer?> > 5. Then it must be the soul that suffers.> > 6. Then you are saying Brahman suffers? But your> > philosophy says there's no suffering in Brahman. > > J. Shankara writes of the " vyavaharika " platform of exis­ tance, but nowhere is this word found in any scripture. Yet it is a fundamental component of his philosophy.> > K. Upanishads say that nothing can attach itself to Brahman and it cannot be described in words. Shankara says these state­ments form the complete description of Brahman .> > 1. Sankara says take these descriptions literally.> > 2. How? By hearing these words, don't the Mayavadis become attached to Brahman? > > L. Katha Upanishad 3.11: Above the jagat is avyakta, above avyakta is Purusha, and beyond Him is nothing else. > > > > V. A look at Jiva Goswami's refutations of Mayavadi Philosophy:> > A. He established the Srimad Bhagavatam as the shastric reference par excellence.> > 1. Brhad Aranyaka Upanishad 2.41 - 4 Vedas, Itihasa and Puranas have come from breath of Narayana .> > 2. Chandogya Upanishad 3.15.7 - 4 Vedas, Itihasas and Puranas are 5th Veda .> > a. 4 cows and 1 buffalo are never grouped as a herd of 5 cows, because a buffalo is not a cow . b. 5 cows means 5 cows. > > 3. Mahabharata says " Puranas make Vedas complete. " > > 4. Shankaracharya's guru's guru wrote a commentary on a book that cited slokas from the Srimad Bhagavatam.> > 5. Garuda Purana says " artho 'yam brahma sutranam " : Bhagavat Purana gives meaning of Vedanta -sutra, Gayatri and the 4 Vedas . > > 6. Srimad Bhagavatam is the ripened fruit of the tree of the Vedic scriptures .> > 7. Srimad Bhagavatam is Veda: " it is compiled by the Lord Himself. " > > 8. Sukadeva Goswami was a Brahmajnani who became a devotee. Vyasadeva compiled the Bhagavatam only for Sukadeva, because only he could understand it (his other disciples were not qualified) .> > a. Sukadeva ran away as soon as he was born. Vyasa told his other disciples to chant3 verses from the Srimad Bhagavatam in order to attract him back to the ashram (they were to chant these verses out loud when entering the forest to gather firewood or fetch water). > > b. Thus Sukadeva was attracted and returned to learn Srimad Bhagavatam at the feet of his father He cannot be attracted by anything material. Therefore S.B. has something higherthan even Brahman realization (atmarama verse ). > > B. Srimad Bhagavatam establishes Krishna as the Param Brahman. > > 1. Hiranyakashipu used the " neti neti " process to negate any possible chance of his being killed byan enemy when he requested a boon from Lord Brahma .> > a. He left no chance that any type of entity within the material world could harm him . b. Practically he left only the Brahman. And that Brahman came as Narasingha and destroyed him; thus Lord Nrsin­ghadeva is the Supreme Brahman 2.Even Sridhar Swami has commented on " krishna stu bhagavan " , " narayana eva. " But Srila Jiva Goswami established Lord. Krishna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead> > 3. In the wrestling arena, everyone saw Krishna differently. The yogis saw Him as theTattva Paramam (Supreme Truth).> > 4. The pastime of Lord Damodar shows how the Supreme is unlimited, yet has a body . 5. Devaki said, " That Brahman, jyoti...etc. that all the impersonalists (jnanis and yogis) are seeking is You. " > > > > VI. Vadiraja's Refutations of Key Tenets of Mayavadi Philosophy.> > A. Vadiraja comes in the line of Madhvacharya. He lived in the 16th century. He is said to have lived for 120 years. > > B. How Vadiraja exposed Mayavadi misinterpretations:> > 1. Vadiraja showed how Mayavadis have taken the " neti- neti " statement out of context .> > a. They say " not this, not this " means " not jiva, not jada " (Brahman is neither the individual soul nor, matter - therefore, since only Brahman exists jiva and jada must be unreal). > > b. But they've derived " neti-neti " from Brhad- aranyaka Upanishad 4.4.22, which states: " For the desire for sons is the desire for wealth and the desire for wealth the desire for worlds; both these, are indeed, desires only. This Self is not this, not this. " > > c. This verse is stating that the Self (atman) is not to be had by desiring wealth or worlds. The direct meaning is sufficient; the " jada-jiva " interpretation is without foundation .> > 2. The meaning of " advaita " :> > a. Mayavadis take " advaita " (not dual) to mean that Brahman has no difference. Therefore undifferentiated oneness is the only truth . > > b. But the context is found in Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.1 & 2 - " In the beginning, my dear, this Being, one only, without a second. " > > c. Vadiraja showed that " one without a second " means, according to grammar and logic " one Being,without a second Being " , or " He has no second " , i.e. there is only one God. But this does not mean that some thing or things below God can't bedistin­guished from Him. > > i. If the the word " advitiyam " as it appears in this verse actually means that nothing except undifferentiated Brahman exists, then the very text from which the word comes would be unreal, as it is a feature of the realm of difference.> > ii. Thus the validity of the text would be destroyed by the very philosophy the Maya­ vadis ascribe to it> > iii. He proved his point further with this example - if one says " The lotus is blue " , he does not mean to say that " lotus " and " blue " are exact synonyms. He means that blueness is a quality of. the lotus Similarly, when shastra says " Brahman is everything " , " everything " and " Brahman " are not exact syn­onyms, rather " everything " (souls and matter) are qualities of Brahman. Or, as blueness is a quality in­separable from the lotus, so we are inseparable from Brahman (but as Brahman has qualities we don't have, still there is distinc­tion in this inseparability). > > 3. Vadiraja points out that Mayavadis say that both practical life and the scriptures are on the vyava­ harika platform - which means both are ul­timately unreal. Yet they honor the scriptures and honor sattvik life as dispellers of illusion breeds bad results . But a Mayavadi cannot distinguish between these two categories of action .> > . a. In practical life, what is " true " is what works, i.e. what brings good resultsWhat is " untrue " Thus even on their so-called vyavaharika platform, they have no ultimate reference for deciding what is auspicious and what is inauspi­ cious > > b. For example, using a Mayavadi analogy, the Mayavadis are not able to explain the difference between a man who sees that there is no silver in silvery shell and the man who thinks that silver a is there > > i. They will say the man who discovered his error is conventionally correct (vyava­ harika), and the man who did not is under pratibhasika illusion . > > ii. But the main thing is, both are in ultimate illusion. Now, the silvery shell analogy is used by them to illustrate how one comes out of ULTIMATE illusion and attains the truth paramar­thika). Yet, using their own doctrine as the test, this example prooves itself invalid. So what are we left with? > > 4. Vadiraja compares the Mayavadis with Paundraka. He asks, " If Mayavadi philosophy is so pregnant with Truth, why did Krishna and His associates in Dwaraka laugh derisively when they heard Paundraka's letter which simply made the same claims as the Mayavadi philosophers? Why did, Shukadeva Goswami when reciting this event to Maharaja Parikshit before the learned assembly of great, saints and sages censure Paundraka repeatedly? Why did Vyasa, who wrote this narration down, also not come to the rescue of this doctrine? " Especially since the Mayavadis would hold that Krishna, His, court, Shuka­deva Parik­shit, the assembly of sages and Vyasa were actually all Mayavadis too. > > 5. How Mayavadis explain the perception of this world:> > a. Brahman is the only reality.> > b. When we see an object (e.g. a silvery shell it is nothing other than the), Brahman-consciousness c. But Brahman appears itself appearing in that way like a shell because of upadhi (.designation) that is superimposed upon it > > d. Still, Pure Consciousness shines through the upadhi, making the object perceivable to our minds and senses. > > e. This phenomenon of appearance is happening because Brahman is obscured by avidya.> > f. Before avidya can be removed, a vritti (modifi­ cation) of the viewer's mind must destroy the avidya surrounding the silvery shell when the senses make contact with it. This vritti is -compared to a canal through which pure conscious­ness flows to envelop the object in right under­ standing. > > g. When that happens, Brahman is mirrored in the vritti which then lights up the object, revealing its true identity with Brahman. Note: in this philosophy, the senses do not perceive the object Nor even the mind. Nor the vritti, for the vritti is but a key that unlocks the door behind which is the floodlight of Brahman, which is the only conscious­ness. the object is a manifesta­tion of Brahman> > i. Who perceives the object? The Mayavadi answers that the jiva (individual soul) does.> > ii. But the jiva is verily Brahman, who thinks himself an individual due to advidya iii. By seeing the object in true light, the jiva knows its oneness with Brahman 6. Vadiraja probes the Mayavadi explanation of percep­ tion: > > a. If in the example of the silvery shell, only the Brahman-consciousness is perceiving, then how can the shell be seen in two ways? > > i. If the origin of the phenomenon " silvery shell " is one and only one, why is it sometimes seen as a shell, and sometimes as silver? > > ii. The only " real " mechanism available to explain this (since shell, avidya, jiva, senses, mind,)and even vritti are illusiory is that Brahman is " shining forth. " For this,Shankara has quoted a verse that appears in three Upanishads (Katha 2.2.15, Mundaka 2.2.15, Shvetash­vatara 6.14): " The sun does not shine there, nor the moon and thestars, nor these lighten­ings, much less this fire. After Him when He shines everyth­ ing shines; by the light of Him all this is light­ ed. " > > b. Still, there is no reason for the silver shell illusion in the statement, " Brahman shines forth " , nor in the quotes given to support the statement . > > c. Mayavadis say maya has two powers - veiling and projecting. When it obscures Brahman, it exer­cises the first potency, and when it projects an object (the shell) onto consciousness, the second potency is exercised. But what about the illusion of silver in the shell? That is not explained > > d. Vadiraja asks another question the object is a " part " of Brahman, and that the: Mayavadis say perceiver of the object is likewise a " part " of Brahman, each " part " arising out of the avidya- covering of the. whole. So how does the one " part " get trans­ferred to the other (the object to the perceiving consciousness)? Because, in Mayavadi philosophy, these two " parts " are dealt with as being two separate manifesta­tions of Brahman, i.e. Mayavadis do say the object and perceiver are not identical with each other, but that both are identical with Brahman. > > e. Mayavadis have an answer: the object is imposed upon the perceiver by means of the vritti (mental adjustment). But then Vadiraja is quick to point out that the vritti was first postulated as the means of illumination. Now it is being used as the cause for an illusiory percep­tion of an object as well. So what is the need of saying? The vritti (mental adjustment) gives rise to both illusion and libera­tion > > f. The Mayavadis give material objects too much reality by identifying them with Brahman; on the other hand, they give them too little reality by saying they are illusions .> > g. Mayavadis say there is a shakti of avidya called jadatmika avidyashaktih, and this potency transforms itself into the visible material manifestations of objects. But this avidya said to bedestroyed upon enlightenment (i.e. is when the vrittih illumines the object). So, when ignorance is de­stroyed, then the jadatmika shakti must also be destroyed, and so it follows that the object itself would be destroyed .> > i. One Mayavadi commentator, Bharatitir­tha has an answer of sorts to this penetrationof, their philosophy. He says there are two the kinds of ignorance: one which is covering jiva and another which covers the Lord. The jiva-ignorance (pratibhasika) is when an object shines forth, but the Lord removable ignorance (vyavaharika) is - removed only at the time of liberation (or death). > > ) . ii. But Bharatitirtha says this distinction il­ between il­lusions is vyavaharika (or lusiory> > h. Since ignorance is destroyed, but the remains even after enlightenment, then it object follows that the object is the supreme Brahman; in words, Brahman is maya. There is no need other for Mayavadis to postulate their elaborate theories of how Brahman is covered by ignorance, etc. The bottom line is: Brahman is maya - which runs directly against all shastra. > > i. Another evidence of this is - the vritti the cause of enlightenment as well as ignorance is. This vritti is also maya. So maya gives illusion and knowledge both.> > j. The Mayavadis have two theories world-appearance: 1) superimposition and 2) regarding the material causality of ignorance (the aforemen­- tioned jadatmika avidyasha­ktih). These theories are mutually exclusive: one demands that ig­norance be destroyed (by the vritti) for objects to appear; the other demans that ignorance be for objects to exist.present> > k. Vadiraja says, " unintelligibility is not only the trademark of your ignorance, it is also the trademark of your methodology. " He's spoofing the Mayavadi Vimuktatman (13th century) who wrote " Unintelligibility is the trademark of ignorance, not an objec­tion to it " ; i.e., you can't hold ourphilosophy accountable for being because it is describing an avidya which unintelligible.unintelligible is > > 7. Other arguments:> > a. The Mayavadis attribute no qualities or powers to Brahman. Avidya creates an illusion of separate identity from Brahman; their example that Brahman is like space, and avidya is is like a pot. Vadiraja asks, " then from where do act ivities arise? Does the space in a pot exhibit - activities? " > > b. Since Mayavadis have no answer for this, it would appear that they are postulating a completely different consciousness for each embodied being, conscious­nesses which in turn are dif­ferent from the imper­sonal Brahman. Then what good is their adherence to oneness of con­ scious­ ness of all - beings?> > > > > > VII. A historical comparison of Vaisnava-vedanta, Maya­vadi-vedanta and Buddhism.> > A. Many uninformed people think " Vedanta " is synonymous with Shankaracharya's Mayavadi Advaita- Vaisnava. The Srimad Bhagavatam is the natural commentary on the Vedanta-sutra, written by Vyasadeva himself 5000 years ago > > 1. The philosophy of Shankaracharya (born about 600 AD), is really just Buddhism in disguise, asexplained by Padma Purana (mayavada-asac-chastram pracchanam bauddham ucyate). > > 2. This can be demonstrated by the chronology of key Mayavadi philosophical explanations, whichappear first in Buddhist scriptures and later show up in the philosophy of Shankara and his followers > > B. With the advent of the Age of Quarrel (Kali-yuga), the six systems of Vedic philosophy (i.e. Nyaya, Vaisesika, Sankhya, Yoga, Karma Mimamsa and Brahma Mimamsa) which were originally the different depart­ ments of Vedic study like the departments of study at a university, began to compete with one another> > C. By the time of the Buddha (500 BC), . philosophical disputation between the six schools had become rampant all over India. The philo­sophy of the Buddhists as well as the Jains are spin-offs of the quarrels of the six systems > > 1. Both Buddhism and Jainism combine different aspects of the six systems, and both reject the authority of the Vedic scriptures, because the constant bickering of the Vedic philo­sophers had already under­mined the force of Vedic authority among the people. > > 2. Buddha descended to lead people away from Vedic scholar­ship and ritualism, which atheistic minded brahmanas had turned into dry mental speculation and animal slaughter. In reaction against these brahmanas,the Buddhist philosophical conclusion is Shunyavada(voidism), and the ritualistic con­clusion is Ahimsa( non­violence).> > D. Vedanta according to early Buddhist records.> > 1. It is clear from Buddhist scriptures that " Vedanta " was originally synonymous with Vaish­nava > > 2. vedanta. - > > a. Certain pre-Shankara Buddhist scriptures contain descriptions of the teachings of .philoso­ phers who used to argue against the Bud­dhists These scriptures were originally in Sanskrit, but now only exist in Chinese and Tibetan transla­ tions. > > b. The Abhidharma-mahavib­hasha-shastra(written around 150 A.D.) and the Satyasid­dhishastra (250 A.D.) say that the followers of the Vedas and Upanishads believe in the Maha­ purusha, who the world began and existed before exists within the heart of allcreatures with a form the size of a thumb. The Abidharma-mahavib­ hasha-shastra saysthat the followers of the Vedas believe that " All that exists is nothing but purusha. Allthat happens is caused by the transformation of the self-existant Ishwara . " > > ...[Message clipped]

[Guest guest]

 

 

| om gurave namah |Dear Bharat, Narasimha...

Where is the Jyotish? Please stay on track...you have made this Laloo's rail and everything is going to Bihar.Best wishes and warm regards,Sanjay RathPersonal: WebPages ¡ü Rath¡Çs Rhapsody SJC WebPages: Sri Jagannath Center ¡ü SJCERC ¡ü JIVAPublications: The Jyotish Digest ¡ü Sagittarius Publications----

 

 

 

sohamsa [sohamsa ] On Behalf Of Bharat Hindu AstrologyTuesday, May 30, 2006 1:45 PMsohamsa Subject: Re: Re: samba sada shiva & advaita ajit/bharat/others

Namaste Sri NarasimhaThis is a euphoric response by initial study of an exalted text. I will neither attempt to change your understanding or suggest you anything. However, in a public forum would like to say that I do not agree to many of your statements about "paths" and about "dwaita -adwaita". Moreover, I also do not agree to your separation of "study and questioning" to "sadhana". In that case the whole of Yoga Vashistha is philosophizing. Then, why study it? Thanks and Regards Bharat

On 5/30/06, Narasimha P.V.R. Rao <pvr wrote:

 

 

 

Namaste friends,

 

I quickly read the write-up below.

 

I said earlier that Dwaita is far better when we start out. Adwaita is only for very advanced seekers. Somebody who is just starting to learn physics is better taught F=ma rather than the general theory of relativity. Advaita is too subtle and it is very easy to misrepresent it. Even a great Maharshi like Vasishtha is not very easy to understand when he elucidates Advaitic concepts (as in "Yoga Vaasishtham").

 

As I said previously, all this does not really matter anyway.

 

Whether you choose Advaita or Dwaita or Visishtadwaita, the important thing is to master the chosen path. If you keep harping that Brahman is in all beings, but you have never actually experienced how Brahman is in all beings, what use is it? If you keep harping that Krishna with a specific form is supreme, but have never experienced Him, what use is it? If you keep haping that Sadashiva with a specific form is supreme, but have never experienced Him, what use is it?

 

Philosophy and erudite discussions are one thing and experience is quite another. It's the latter that stays with you forever. It's the latter that lifts you up spiritually. It's the latter that can give you the supreme knowledge that liberates you. So, seek the "experience" and forget about all philosophical arguments.

 

If you believe in Krishna consciousness, forget everything and seek to get close to Krishna. Seek a place at His feet and nothing else. If you are a Shiva devotee, seek a place at Shiva's feet and nothing else. If you are an Advaitin, seek to experience Brahman and seek to experience the entire universe as self.

 

Do sadhana. Do sadhana. Do sadhana. That alone will lift you up, not philosophical arguments.

 

It does not matter which you path you choose. All paths will take you to almost the same place.

 

May the light of Brahman shine within,

Narasimha

-------------------------------

Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net

Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

-------------------------------

 

 

> vyam vyasadevaya namah> Dear Ajit ji , Bharat ji> > Thank You for Your time.> > I paste the article once I found in my archives. The source> of this I think is some devotee from Iskcon. If You could correct it and give Your comments. I would be grateful.> > Regards> Rafal Gendarz> > III. Structure of Mayavada philosophy:> > A. It is also called Vivartavada (lit. "superim-­ positionism"). > > 1. arthadhyasa - superimposition of one object on another. > > 2. jnanadhyasa - imposition of illusion upon oneself.> > 3. For this superimposition to happen, there must be -> > a. Senses.> > b. An abnormal situation (e.g. darkness).> > c. Experience.> > d. An example of above three components: seeing a rope as a snake in the darkness.> > B. Philosophical proofs, and which philosophers accept them:> > 1. Direct perception (accepted by Charvakas).> > 2. Inference (anumana) + 1 is accepted by Buddhists.> > a. Hypothesis = there is fire on the mountain.> > b. Cause (hetu) = because there is smoke there.> > c. Example = Where there is smoke, there is fire.> > d. Review of cause = The mountain has smoke...> > e. Conclusion = ...therefore the mountain has fire. > > 3. Sabdha (spiritual sound) + 1 & 2 is accepted by Vaishnavas. > > 4. Arthavati (similarity) + 1-3 is accepted by logic-­ ians.> > a. "Have you seen a blue cow?" did" (cow + > > b. "No, but I would know one if I blue).> > 5. Arthapatti: "This fat man does not eat in the day > he must eat at night." (Logicians)> > 6. Abhava (nonexistance) + 1-5 is accepted by Mayavad­ is.> > a. Nonexistance means: "There is no cow here."> > b. It is a kind of knowledge based on the absence of knowledge or perception of something .> > C. Four categories within M.P.:> > 1. Sat = existance (Brahman).> > 2. Asat = nonexistance (horns on rabbit).> > 3. Sat-asat = something that exists for a time, then ceases to exist .> > 4. Anirvachaniya = neither 1-3, i.e. Maya (which makes one think a rope is a snake. Inexplicable, illusiory).> > D. Levels of perception according to Shankaracharya:> > 1. Paramarthika - transcendental (Brahman).> > 2. Vyavaharika - "practical".> > 3. Pratibhasika - apparent, but illusiory (like dreaming ).> > a. One must go from this stage to next higher.> > b. When coming to second stage, individuality remains . > > c. But at highest stage, individuality is erased.> > E. Maya:> > 1. Maya is inexplicable; example - a dumb person cannot describe the taste of rasgulla, but still there is taste. Brahman is covered by Maya, but don't ask why.> > 2. Two stages of Maya:> > a. Covering with illusion; that's simply Maya.> > b. Distorting with ignorance (avidya).> > 3. When Maya covers Brahman with illusion, Iswara- consciousness appears. He is conditioned to be the Lord.> > 4. When Brahman is further distorted by avidya, jiva consciousness appears. Avidya makes the subtle > > body . > > 5. There is no transformation in this process, only imposition (of a false conception .> > 6. When illusion and ignorance are dispelled, no state of any describable existance remains > > 7. Mayavadi story: Vyasadeva sent Sukadeva to learn from Janaka. Janaka said to Sukadeva, "Give me my dakshine before I teach you anything, because after you learn this teaching, you will reject everything, including me (the Guru)."> > F. Example of Mayavadi logic: > > 1. Brahman "reflects" into Maya. Q: But how? If it reflects (e.g. moon on water) it must have a form . 2. A. First understand that Brahman is not a substance, so rules like that don't apply to it. > > 3. And apart from that, consider an object or substance that has qualities. Form is one such quality. But does form have form?> > 4. Q. What are you saying, `Does form have form? '> > 5. A. When you see a shadow or reflection, what is being reflected - form or substance? 6. Q. Well - the form.> > 7. So the form is not the substance. Form is what is reflected, but that form is different from the substance.> > G. Jayatirtha Muni gives this example of Mayavadi process: just as when a person has a bad dream, the dream wakes him up; similarly, though the Mayavadi philosophy is still "maya", it can wake one up out of illusion> > . > > H. Two schools of Mayavadi philosophy. > > 1. One accepts only Upanisads, Vedanta and Bhagavad- gita (prasthan-traya). > > 2. But the so-called Bhagavat-sampradaya (with acaryas like Citsukhacarya and Madhusudan Sarasvati) accept Puranas, Ramayana, etc. Just as Mayavadis in general are more accept dangerous than Buddhists, the Bhagavat sampradaya is most dangerous of all.They even Krishna's form is spiritual, but say that when He returns to the Paramvyoma, His form"dissolves" into Brahman First school would argue Krishna's form is material. > > I. Bhag Tyag Lakshana:> > 1. Bhag (person).> > 2. Tyag (give up)> > 3. I.e. Now you have this designation; give it up.> > a. On wall of Vaishnava temple, a Mayavadi wrote "So'ham" (I am Him). > > b. A devotee came later and added Da, "DaSo'ham" (I am His servant). > > c. Mayavadi returned, added Sa for SaDaSo'ham (I am eternally Him). > > d. Devotee returned again and added Da for DaSaDaSo'ham (I am the servant of His servant). > > > > IV. Weaknesses of Mayavadi Philosophy.> > A. Their "Brahman" and Vyasadeva's Brahman are not the same.> > 1. Their Brahman is the Brahmajyoti.> > 2. Vyasadeva's Brahman is Krishna, the Purushottama.> > 3. Because they have no interest in Krishna, their Brahman categorically has no reality (it is wrongly defined from the outset).> > a. Vyasa used the word Brahman as we use the word "God." > > b. It is a general term, used to create interest among as many people as possible (even those who are averse to Krishna). > > B. They speak of "Sarvikalpa jnana" and "Nirvikalpa jnana", but these are actually the same thing .> > 1. Example of approaching a mountain from a distance - at each stage, the same entity is being viewed > > 2. But Mayavadis say the far-off vision of a great shape on the horizon is of a different thing than theclose-up view of the mountain> > C. They interpret Sanskrit words inaccurately to fit their own ideas. > > 1. Lord is "asarira." They say this means He has no sarira or body; but the root of the word sarira means decay",so the word really refers to a body that decays, not simply a body " . 2.Lord is "akarana." They say this means He has no senses; but this word really means that His senses because He is directly His are not energized by something else (e.g. as our material senses are energized by life energy) own form .> > D. They interpret "He desired to become many" as meaning the progression from Brahman-Iswara-Jiva; but it is the Iswara who has the desire to become many. How the desireless Brahman desired to become the Iswara they.do not explain > > E. If Brahman is all-pervading, where is Maya?> > F. How is the Brahman cut into individual parcels of consciousness ? > > G. Mayavadis say, "By knowledge (jnana), one becomes Brahman."> > 1. But they also say that jnana and ajnana are Maya.> > 2. So you may remove your ajnana with jnana, but then with what will you remove the jnana? > > 3. To this they answer, "It is by the mercy of Brah­ man." (!) > > H. They say Brahman is without energy (shakti). Then how does it exist? (No answer ).> > I. Snake and Rope:> > 1. In order for this example to have validity, the person must have prior knowledge of both"what is a rope"and "what is a snake." How can undifferentiated Brahman have prior knowledge of Maya, which it then mistakes itself to be? > > 2. Besides that, in this example, the rope and snake are both real things, and that's why the illusion is effective.And since the illusion is effective, it is also true, i.e. the consequences of that illusion are no less effective than if the rope was really a snake(I'm scared, I scream, run away, etc.). > > J. They say Maya is like a dream, but there's no continuity in our dreams from one night to the next. In the waking state we find day-to-day continuity. So to compare this life to a mere dream is facile.> > K. Why is this illusion so consistent, if it is just hallucination? Why doesn't illusion come us to other ways, e.g. in instead of Brahman is the world (rope is snake), why not the world is Brahman (snake is rope)?> > H. Mayavadis say one can only achieve liberation after death. Then his individuality ceases forever. > > 1. But how does this relate to their favorite rope/> > snake analogy? One man lights a lamp and sees that the snake is really just a rope; another man runs off, frightened, never knowing it was an illusion. How are these two men different in their essential existance? > > I. Who suffers in hell - soul or body?> > 1. Mayavadi may answer, "the body suffers only."> > 2. But the body is matter, is it not?> > 3. Yes.> > 4. How can dead matter suffer?> > 5. Then it must be the soul that suffers.> > 6. Then you are saying Brahman suffers? But your> > philosophy says there's no suffering in Brahman. > > J. Shankara writes of the "vyavaharika" platform of exis­ tance, but nowhere is this word found in any scripture. Yet it is a fundamental component of his philosophy.> > K. Upanishads say that nothing can attach itself to Brahman and it cannot be described in words. Shankara says these state­ments form the complete description of Brahman .> > 1. Sankara says take these descriptions literally.> > 2. How? By hearing these words, don't the Mayavadis become attached to Brahman? > > L. Katha Upanishad 3.11: Above the jagat is avyakta, above avyakta is Purusha, and beyond Him is nothing else. > > > > V. A look at Jiva Goswami's refutations of Mayavadi Philosophy:> > A. He established the Srimad Bhagavatam as the shastric reference par excellence.> > 1. Brhad Aranyaka Upanishad 2.41 - 4 Vedas, Itihasa and Puranas have come from breath of Narayana .> > 2. Chandogya Upanishad 3.15.7 - 4 Vedas, Itihasas and Puranas are 5th Veda .> > a. 4 cows and 1 buffalo are never grouped as a herd of 5 cows, because a buffalo is not a cow . b. 5 cows means 5 cows. > > 3. Mahabharata says "Puranas make Vedas complete."> > 4. Shankaracharya's guru's guru wrote a commentary on a book that cited slokas from the Srimad Bhagavatam.> > 5. Garuda Purana says "artho 'yam brahma sutranam": Bhagavat Purana gives meaning of Vedanta -sutra, Gayatri and the 4 Vedas . > > 6. Srimad Bhagavatam is the ripened fruit of the tree of the Vedic scriptures .> > 7. Srimad Bhagavatam is Veda: "it is compiled by the Lord Himself." > > 8. Sukadeva Goswami was a Brahmajnani who became a devotee. Vyasadeva compiled the Bhagavatam only for Sukadeva, because only he could understand it (his other disciples were not qualified) .> > a. Sukadeva ran away as soon as he was born. Vyasa told his other disciples to chant3 verses from the Srimad Bhagavatam in order to attract him back to the ashram (they were to chant these verses out loud when entering the forest to gather firewood or fetch water). > > b. Thus Sukadeva was attracted and returned to learn Srimad Bhagavatam at the feet of his father He cannot be attracted by anything material. Therefore S.B. has something higherthan even Brahman realization (atmarama verse ). > > B. Srimad Bhagavatam establishes Krishna as the Param Brahman. > > 1. Hiranyakashipu used the "neti neti" process to negate any possible chance of his being killed byan enemy when he requested a boon from Lord Brahma .> > a. He left no chance that any type of entity within the material world could harm him . b. Practically he left only the Brahman. And that Brahman came as Narasingha and destroyed him; thus Lord Nrsin­ghadeva is the Supreme Brahman 2.Even Sridhar Swami has commented on "krishna stu bhagavan", "narayana eva." But Srila Jiva Goswami established Lord. Krishna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead> > 3. In the wrestling arena, everyone saw Krishna differently. The yogis saw Him as theTattva Paramam (Supreme Truth).> > 4. The pastime of Lord Damodar shows how the Supreme is unlimited, yet has a body . 5. Devaki said, "That Brahman, jyoti...etc. that all the impersonalists (jnanis and yogis) are seeking is You." > > > > VI. Vadiraja's Refutations of Key Tenets of Mayavadi Philosophy.> > A. Vadiraja comes in the line of Madhvacharya. He lived in the 16th century. He is said to have lived for 120 years. > > B. How Vadiraja exposed Mayavadi misinterpretations:> > 1. Vadiraja showed how Mayavadis have taken the "neti- neti" statement out of context .> > a. They say "not this, not this" means "not jiva, not jada" (Brahman is neither the individual soul nor, matter - therefore, since only Brahman exists jiva and jada must be unreal). > > b. But they've derived "neti-neti" from Brhad- aranyaka Upanishad 4.4.22, which states: "For the desire for sons is the desire for wealth and the desire for wealth the desire for worlds; both these, are indeed, desires only. This Self is not this, not this."> > c. This verse is stating that the Self (atman) is not to be had by desiring wealth or worlds. The direct meaning is sufficient; the "jada-jiva" interpretation is without foundation .> > 2. The meaning of "advaita":> > a. Mayavadis take "advaita" (not dual) to mean that Brahman has no difference. Therefore undifferentiated oneness is the only truth . > > b. But the context is found in Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.1 & 2 - "In the beginning, my dear, this Being, one only, without a second." > > c. Vadiraja showed that "one without a second" means, according to grammar and logic"one Being,without a second Being", or "He has no second", i.e. there is only one God. But this does not mean that some thing or things below God can't bedistin­guished from Him. > > i. If the the word "advitiyam" as it appears in this verse actually means that nothing except undifferentiated Brahman exists, then the very text from which the word comes would be unreal, as it is a feature of the realm of difference.> > ii. Thus the validity of the text would be destroyed by the very philosophy the Maya­ vadis ascribe to it> > iii. He proved his point further with this example - if one says "The lotus is blue", he does not mean to say that "lotus" and "blue" are exact synonyms. He means that blueness is a quality of. the lotus Similarly, when shastra says "Brahman is everything","everything" and "Brahman" are not exact syn­onyms, rather "everything" (souls and matter) are qualities of Brahman. Or, as blueness is a quality in­separable from the lotus, so we are inseparable from Brahman (but as Brahman has qualities we don't have, still there is distinc­tion in this inseparability). > > 3. Vadiraja points out that Mayavadis say that both practical life and the scriptures are on the vyava­ harika platform - which means both are ul­timately unreal. Yet they honor the scriptures and honor sattvik life as dispellers of illusion breeds bad results . But a Mayavadi cannot distinguish between these two categories of action .> > . a. In practical life, what is "true" is what works, i.e. what brings good resultsWhat is"untrue" Thus even on their so-called vyavaharika platform, they have no ultimate reference for deciding what is auspicious and what is inauspi­ cious > > b. For example, using a Mayavadi analogy, the Mayavadis are not able to explain the difference between a man who sees that there is no silver in silvery shell and the man who thinks that silver a is there > > i. They will say the man who discovered his error is conventionally correct (vyava­ harika), and the man who did not is under pratibhasika illusion . > > ii. But the main thing is, both are in ultimate illusion. Now, the silvery shell analogy is used by them to illustrate how one comes out of ULTIMATE illusion and attains the truth paramar­thika). Yet, using their own doctrine as the test, this example prooves itself invalid. So what are we left with? > > 4. Vadiraja compares the Mayavadis with Paundraka. He asks, "If Mayavadi philosophy is so pregnant with Truth, why did Krishna and His associates in Dwaraka laugh derisively when they heard Paundraka's letter which simply made the same claims as the Mayavadi philosophers? Why did, Shukadeva Goswami when reciting this event to Maharaja Parikshit before the learned assembly of great, saints and sages censure Paundraka repeatedly? Why did Vyasa, who wrote this narration down, also not come to the rescue of this doctrine?" Especially since the Mayavadis would hold that Krishna, His, court, Shuka­deva Parik­shit, the assembly of sages and Vyasa were actually all Mayavadis too. > > 5. How Mayavadis explain the perception of this world:> > a. Brahman is the only reality.> > b. When we see an object (e.g. a silvery shell it is nothing other than the), Brahman-consciousness c. But Brahman appears itself appearing in that way like a shell because of upadhi (.designation) that is superimposed upon it >

> d. Still, Pure Consciousness shines through the upadhi, making the object perceivable to our minds and senses. > > e. This phenomenon of appearance is happening because Brahman is obscured by avidya.> > f. Before avidya can be removed, a vritti (modifi­ cation) of the viewer's mind must destroy the avidya surrounding the silvery shell when the senses make contact with it. This vritti is -compared to a canal through which pure conscious­ness flows to envelop the object in right under­ standing. > > g. When that happens, Brahman is mirrored in the vritti which then lights up the object, revealing its true identity with Brahman. Note: in this philosophy, the senses do not perceive the object Nor even the mind. Nor the vritti, for the vritti is but a key that unlocks the door behind which is the floodlight of Brahman, which is the only conscious­ness. the object is a manifesta­tion of Brahman> > i. Who perceives the object? The Mayavadi answers that the jiva (individual soul) does.> > ii. But the jiva is verily Brahman, who thinks himself an individual due to advidya iii. By seeing the object in true light, the jiva knows its oneness with Brahman 6. Vadiraja probes the Mayavadi explanation of percep­ tion: > > a. If in the example of the silvery shell, only the Brahman-consciousness is perceiving, then how can the shell be seen in two ways? > > i. If the origin of the phenomenon "silvery shell" is one and only one, why is it sometimes seen as a shell, and sometimes as silver? > > ii. The only "real" mechanism available to explain this (since shell, avidya, jiva, senses, mind,)and even vritti are illusiory is that Brahman is "shining forth." For this,Shankara has quoted a verse that appears in three Upanishads (Katha 2.2.15, Mundaka 2.2.15, Shvetash­vatara 6.14): "The sun does not shine there, nor the moon and thestars, nor these lighten­ings, much less this fire. After Him when He shines everyth­ ing shines; by the light of Him all this is light­ ed." > > b. Still, there is no reason for the silver shell illusion in the statement, "Brahman shines forth", nor in the quotes given to support the statement . > > c. Mayavadis say maya has two powers - veiling and projecting. When it obscures Brahman, it exer­cises the first potency, and when it projects an object (the shell) onto consciousness, the second potency is exercised. But what about the illusion of silver in the shell? That is not explained > > d. Vadiraja asks another question the object is a "part" of Brahman, and that the: Mayavadis say perceiver of the object is likewise a "part" of Brahman, each "part" arising out of the avidya- covering of the. whole. So how does the one "part" get trans­ferred to the other (the object to the perceiving consciousness)? Because, in Mayavadi philosophy, these two"parts " are dealt with as being two separate manifesta­tions of Brahman, i.e. Mayavadis do say the object and perceiver are not identical with each other, but that both are identical with Brahman. > > e. Mayavadis have an answer: the object is imposed upon the perceiver by means of the vritti (mental adjustment). But then Vadiraja is quick to point out that the vritti was first postulated as the means of illumination. Now it is being used as the cause for an illusiory percep­tion of an object as well. So what is the need of saying? The vritti (mental adjustment) gives rise to both illusion and libera­tion > > f. The Mayavadis give material objects too much reality by identifying them with Brahman; on the other hand, they give them too little reality by saying they are illusions .> > g. Mayavadis say there is a shakti of avidya called jadatmika avidyashaktih, and this potency transforms itself into the visible material manifestations of objects. But this avidya said to bedestroyed upon enlightenment (i.e. is when the vrittih illumines the object). So, when ignorance is de­stroyed, then the jadatmika shakti must also be destroyed, and so it follows that the object itself would be destroyed .> > i. One Mayavadi commentator, Bharatitir­tha has an answer of sorts to this penetrationof, their philosophy. He says there are two the kinds of ignorance: one which is covering jiva and another which covers the Lord. The jiva-ignorance (pratibhasika) is when an object shines forth, but the Lord removable ignorance (vyavaharika) is - removed only at the time of liberation (or death). > > ) . ii. But Bharatitirtha says this distinction il­ between il­lusions is vyavaharika (or lusiory> > h. Since ignorance is destroyed, but the remains even after enlightenment, then it object follows that the object is the supreme Brahman; in words, Brahman is maya. There is no need other for Mayavadis to postulate their elaborate theories of how Brahman is covered by ignorance, etc. The bottom line is: Brahman is maya - which runs directly against all shastra. > > i. Another evidence of this is - the vritti the cause of enlightenment as well as ignorance is. This vritti is also maya. So maya gives illusion and knowledge both.> > j. The Mayavadis have two theories world-appearance: 1) superimposition and 2) regarding the material causality of ignorance (the aforemen­- tioned jadatmika avidyasha­ktih). These theories are mutually exclusive: one demands that ig­norance be destroyed (by the vritti) for objects to appear; the other demans that ignorance be for objects to exist.present> > k. Vadiraja says, "unintelligibility is not only the trademark of your ignorance, it is also the trademark of your methodology." He's spoofing the Mayavadi Vimuktatman (13th century) who wrote "Unintelligibility is the trademark of ignorance, not an objec­tion to it"; i.e., you can't hold ourphilosophy accountable for being because it is describing an avidya which unintelligible.unintelligible is > > 7. Other arguments:> > a. The Mayavadis attribute no qualities or powers to Brahman. Avidya creates an illusion of separate identity from Brahman; their example that Brahman is like space, and avidya is is like a pot. Vadiraja asks, "then from where do act ivities arise? Does the space in a pot exhibit - activities?"> > b. Since Mayavadis have no answer for this, it would appear that they are postulating a completely different consciousness for each embodied being, conscious­nesses which in turn are dif­ferent from the imper­sonal Brahman. Then what good is their adherence to oneness of con­ scious­ ness of all - beings?> > > > > > VII. A historical comparison of Vaisnava-vedanta, Maya­vadi-vedanta and Buddhism.> > A. Many uninformed people think "Vedanta" is synonymous with Shankaracharya's Mayavadi Advaita- Vaisnava. The Srimad Bhagavatam is the natural commentary on the Vedanta-sutra, written by Vyasadeva himself 5000 years ago > > 1. The philosophy of Shankaracharya (born about 600 AD), is really just Buddhism in disguise, asexplained by Padma Purana (mayavada-asac-chastram pracchanam bauddham ucyate). > > 2. This can be demonstrated by the chronology of key Mayavadi philosophical explanations, whichappear first in Buddhist scriptures and later show up in the philosophy of Shankara and his followers > > B. With the advent of the Age of Quarrel (Kali-yuga), the six systems of Vedic philosophy (i.e. Nyaya, Vaisesika, Sankhya, Yoga, Karma Mimamsa and Brahma Mimamsa) which were originally the different depart­ ments of Vedic study like the departments of study at a university, began to compete with one another> > C. By the time of the Buddha (500 BC), . philosophical disputation between the six schools had become rampant all over India. The philo­sophy of the Buddhists as well as the Jains are spin-offs of the quarrels of the six systems > > 1. Both Buddhism and Jainism combine different aspects of the six systems, and both reject the authority of the Vedic scriptures, because the constant bickering of the Vedic philo­sophers had already under­mined the force of Vedic authority among the people. > > 2. Buddha descended to lead people away from Vedic scholar­ship and ritualism, which atheistic minded brahmanas had turned into dry mental speculation and animal slaughter. In reaction against these brahmanas,the Buddhist philosophical conclusion is Shunyavada(voidism), and the ritualistic con­clusion is Ahimsa( non­violence).> > D. Vedanta according to early Buddhist records.> > 1. It is clear from Buddhist scriptures that "Vedanta" was originally synonymous with Vaish­nava > > 2. vedanta. - > > a. Certain pre-Shankara Buddhist scriptures contain descriptions of the teachings of .philoso­ phers who used to argue against the Bud­dhists These scriptures were originally in Sanskrit, but now only exist in Chinese and Tibetan transla­ tions. > > b. The Abhidharma-mahavib­hasha-shastra(written around 150 A.D.) and the Satyasid­dhishastra (250 A.D.) say that the followers of the Vedas and Upanishads believe in the Maha­ purusha, who the world began and existed before exists within the heart of allcreatures with a form the size of a thumb. The Abidharma-mahavib­ hasha-shastra saysthat the followers of the Vedas believe that "All that exists is nothing but purusha. Allthat happens is caused by the transformation of the self-existant Ishwara ."> > ...[Message clipped]

 

 

avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 0622-1, 05/29/2006Tested on: 5/31/2006 12:03:18 AMavast! - copyright © 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.

[Guest guest]

Dear Bharat,

 

Questioning (or "vichara" as Vasishtha calls it) is sadhana too. The point I really wanted to drive home is that internal practice (sadhana) of whatever you believe in - whether it is vichara or chanting a mantra or something else - is far more important than external arguments and convincing others that your path is the correct one.

 

Dear Sanjay,

 

I was somehow under the wrong impression that sohamsa was for astrology as well as spiritual discussions. I don't know how I got that wrong impression.

 

That is why I came here and wrote all these mails on Adwaita, Dwaita, the hidden meanings in stories etc etc. I will stick to Jyotish in future.

 

While some spiritual discussions go nowhere (or to Bihar as you said :-), I truly enjoyed the discussions between Lakshmi Ramesh, Ajit, Bharat etc. We don't all agree on everything, but we make each other (and others) think.

 

 

May the light of Brahman shine within,

Narasimha

-------------------------------

Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net

Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

-------------------------------

 

> | om gurave namah |> Dear Bharat, Narasimha...> > Where is the Jyotish? Please stay on track...you have made this Laloo's rail> and everything is going to Bihar.> Best wishes and warm regards,> Sanjay Rath> > Personal: <http://srath.com/blog/> WebPages ¡ü <http://srath.com/blog/>> Rath¡Çs Rhapsody> SJC WebPages: <http://.org/> Sri Jagannath Center ¡ü> <http://sjcerc.com/> SJCERC ¡ü <http://jiva.us/> JIVA> Publications: <http://thejyotishdigest.com/> The Jyotish Digest ¡ü> <http://sagittariuspublications.com/> Sagittarius Publications> ----> _____> > sohamsa [sohamsa ] On Behalf Of> Bharat Hindu Astrology> Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:45 PM> sohamsa > Re: Re: samba sada shiva & advaita ajit/bharat/others> > > Namaste Sri Narasimha> > This is a euphoric response by initial study of an exalted text. I will> neither attempt to change your understanding or suggest you anything.> However, in a public forum would like to say that I do not agree to many of> your statements about "paths" and about "dwaita -adwaita".> > Moreover, I also do not agree to your separation of "study and questioning"> to "sadhana". In that case the whole of Yoga Vashistha is philosophizing.> Then, why study it?> > Thanks and Regards> Bharat> > > On 5/30/06, Narasimha P.V.R. Rao <pvr wrote:> > Namaste friends,> > I quickly read the write-up below.> > I said earlier that Dwaita is far better when we start out. Adwaita is only> for very advanced seekers. Somebody who is just starting to learn physics is> better taught F=ma rather than the general theory of relativity. Advaita is> too subtle and it is very easy to misrepresent it. Even a great Maharshi> like Vasishtha is not very easy to understand when he elucidates Advaitic> concepts (as in "Yoga Vaasishtham").> > As I said previously, all this does not really matter anyway.> > Whether you choose Advaita or Dwaita or Visishtadwaita, the important thing> is to master the chosen path. If you keep harping that Brahman is in all> beings, but you have never actually experienced how Brahman is in all> beings, what use is it? If you keep harping that Krishna with a specific> form is supreme, but have never experienced Him, what use is it? If you keep> haping that Sadashiva with a specific form is supreme, but have never> experienced Him, what use is it?> > Philosophy and erudite discussions are one thing and experience is quite> another. It's the latter that stays with you forever. It's the latter that> lifts you up spiritually. It's the latter that can give you the supreme> knowledge that liberates you. So, seek the "experience" and forget about all> philosophical arguments.> > If you believe in Krishna consciousness, forget everything and seek to get> close to Krishna. Seek a place at His feet and nothing else. If you are a> Shiva devotee, seek a place at Shiva's feet and nothing else. If you are an> Advaitin, seek to experience Brahman and seek to experience the entire> universe as self.> > Do sadhana. Do sadhana. Do sadhana. That alone will lift you up, not> philosophical arguments.> > It does not matter which you path you choose. All paths will take you to> almost the same place.> > May the light of Brahman shine within,> Narasimha> -------------------------------> Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net> Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org> Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org> -------------------------------

[Guest guest]



 

 

 

| om gurave namah |Dear Narasimha

No no...it is alright. Please continue. I also enjoyed this very much but was hoping that some jyotish content would also be added as this is helpful for our *material digestion* of spiritual values and thoughts.Best wishes and warm regards,Sanjay RathPersonal: WebPages ◠Rath’s Rhapsody SJC WebPages: Sri Jagannath Center ◠SJCERC ◠JIVAPublications: The Jyotish Digest ◠Sagittarius Publications----

 

 

 

sohamsa [sohamsa ] On Behalf Of Narasimha P.V.R. RaoThursday, June 01, 2006 7:05 AMsohamsa Subject: Re: samba sada shiva & advaita ajit/bharat/others

 

Dear Bharat,

 

Questioning (or "vichara" as Vasishtha calls it) is sadhana too. The point I really wanted to drive home is that internal practice (sadhana) of whatever you believe in - whether it is vichara or chanting a mantra or something else - is far more important than external arguments and convincing others that your path is the correct one.

 

Dear Sanjay,

 

I was somehow under the wrong impression that sohamsa was for astrology as well as spiritual discussions. I don't know how I got that wrong impression.

 

That is why I came here and wrote all these mails on Adwaita, Dwaita, the hidden meanings in stories etc etc. I will stick to Jyotish in future.

 

While some spiritual discussions go nowhere (or to Bihar as you said :-), I truly enjoyed the discussions between Lakshmi Ramesh, Ajit, Bharat etc. We don't all agree on everything, but we make each other (and others) think.

 

 

May the light of Brahman shine within,

Narasimha

-------------------------------

Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net

Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

-------------------------------

 

> | om gurave namah |> Dear Bharat, Narasimha...> > Where is the Jyotish? Please stay on track...you have made this Laloo's rail> and everything is going to Bihar.> Best wishes and warm regards,> Sanjay Rath> > Personal: <http://srath.com/blog/> WebPages ¡ü <http://srath.com/blog/>> Rath¡Çs Rhapsody> SJC WebPages: <http://.org/> Sri Jagannath Center ¡ü> <http://sjcerc.com/> SJCERC ¡ü <http://jiva.us/> JIVA> Publications: <http://thejyotishdigest.com/> The Jyotish Digest ¡ü> <http://sagittariuspublications.com/> Sagittarius Publications> ----> _____> > sohamsa [sohamsa ] On Behalf Of> Bharat Hindu Astrology> Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:45 PM> sohamsa > Re: Re: samba sada shiva & advaita ajit/bharat/others> > > Namaste Sri Narasimha> > This is a euphoric response by initial study of an exalted text. I will> neither attempt to change your understanding or suggest you anything.> However, in a public forum would like to say that I do not agree to many of> your statements about "paths" and about "dwaita -adwaita".> > Moreover, I also do not agree to your separation of "study and questioning"> to "sadhana". In that case the whole of Yoga Vashistha is philosophizing.> Then, why study it?> > Thanks and Regards> Bharat> > > On 5/30/06, Narasimha P.V.R. Rao <pvr wrote:> > Namaste friends,> > I quickly read the write-up below.> > I said earlier that Dwaita is far better when we start out. Adwaita is only> for very advanced seekers. Somebody who is just starting to learn physics is> better taught F=ma rather than the general theory of relativity. Advaita is> too subtle and it is very easy to misrepresent it. Even a great Maharshi> like Vasishtha is not very easy to understand when he elucidates Advaitic> concepts (as in "Yoga Vaasishtham").> > As I said previously, all this does not really matter anyway.> > Whether you choose Advaita or Dwaita or Visishtadwaita, the important thing> is to master the chosen path. If you keep harping that Brahman is in all> beings, but you have never actually experienced how Brahman is in all> beings, what use is it? If you keep harping that Krishna with a specific> form is supreme, but have never experienced Him, what use is it? If you keep> haping that Sadashiva with a specific form is supreme, but have never> experienced Him, what use is it?> > Philosophy and erudite discussions are one thing and experience is quite> another. It's the latter that stays with you forever. It's the latter that> lifts you up spiritually. It's the latter that can give you the supreme> knowledge that liberates you. So, seek the "experience" and forget about all> philosophical arguments.> > If you believe in Krishna consciousness, forget everything and seek to get> close to Krishna. Seek a place at His feet and nothing else. If you are a> Shiva devotee, seek a place at Shiva's feet and nothing else. If you are an> Advaitin, seek to experience Brahman and seek to experience the entire> universe as self.> > Do sadhana. Do sadhana. Do sadhana. That alone will lift you up, not> philosophical arguments.> > It does not matter which you path you choose. All paths will take you to> almost the same place.> > May the light of Brahman shine within,> Narasimha> -------------------------------> Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net> Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org> Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org> -------------------------------

 

 

avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 0622-2, 05/31/2006Tested on: 6/1/2006 11:33:32 AMavast! - copyright © 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri SanjayjiThank you getting us back to Delhi via Rajdhani Express. Meanwhile, Bihar is changing under not so Laloo rule. Perhaps we had something to do with it.Tongue in cheek remarks. Do not pay much attention but thanks for caring.

Thanks and RegardsBharatOn 5/31/06, Sanjay Rath <

guruji

> wrote:

 

 

 

 

| om gurave namah |Dear Bharat, Narasimha...

Where is the Jyotish? Please stay on track...you have made this Laloo's rail and everything is going to Bihar.Best wishes and warm regards,Sanjay RathPersonal:

WebPages ¡Ü

Rath's Rhapsody SJC WebPages: Sri Jagannath Center ¡Ü SJCERC

¡Ü JIVAPublications:

The Jyotish Digest ¡Ü Sagittarius Publications----

 

 

 

sohamsa [sohamsa ] On Behalf Of Bharat Hindu AstrologyTuesday, May 30, 2006 1:45 PMsohamsa Subject: Re: Re: samba sada shiva & advaita ajit/bharat/others

Namaste Sri NarasimhaThis is a euphoric response by initial study of an exalted text. I will neither attempt to change your understanding or suggest you anything. However, in a public forum would like to say that I do not agree to many of your statements about " paths " and about " dwaita -adwaita " . Moreover, I also do not agree to your separation of " study and questioning " to " sadhana " . In that case the whole of Yoga Vashistha is philosophizing. Then, why study it? Thanks and Regards Bharat

On 5/30/06, Narasimha P.V.R. Rao <pvr wrote:

 

 

 

Namaste friends,

 

I quickly read the write-up below.

 

I said earlier that Dwaita is far better when we start out. Adwaita is only for very advanced seekers. Somebody who is just starting to learn physics is better taught F=ma rather than the general theory of relativity. Advaita is too subtle and it is very easy to misrepresent it. Even a great Maharshi like Vasishtha is not very easy to understand when he elucidates Advaitic concepts (as in " Yoga Vaasishtham " ).

 

As I said previously, all this does not really matter anyway.

 

Whether you choose Advaita or Dwaita or Visishtadwaita, the important thing is to master the chosen path. If you keep harping that Brahman is in all beings, but you have never actually experienced how Brahman is in all beings, what use is it? If you keep harping that Krishna with a specific form is supreme, but have never experienced Him, what use is it? If you keep haping that Sadashiva with a specific form is supreme, but have never experienced Him, what use is it?

 

Philosophy and erudite discussions are one thing and experience is quite another. It's the latter that stays with you forever. It's the latter that lifts you up spiritually. It's the latter that can give you the supreme knowledge that liberates you. So, seek the " experience " and forget about all philosophical arguments.

 

If you believe in Krishna consciousness, forget everything and seek to get close to Krishna. Seek a place at His feet and nothing else. If you are a Shiva devotee, seek a place at Shiva's feet and nothing else. If you are an Advaitin, seek to experience Brahman and seek to experience the entire universe as self.

 

Do sadhana. Do sadhana. Do sadhana. That alone will lift you up, not philosophical arguments.

 

It does not matter which you path you choose. All paths will take you to almost the same place.

 

May the light of Brahman shine within,

Narasimha

-------------------------------

Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net

 

Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

 

Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

-------------------------------

 

 

> vyam vyasadevaya namah> Dear Ajit ji , Bharat ji> > Thank You for Your time.> > I paste the article once I found in my archives. The source> of this I think is some devotee from Iskcon. If You could correct it and give Your comments. I would be grateful.> > Regards> Rafal Gendarz> > III. Structure of Mayavada philosophy:> > A. It is also called Vivartavada (lit. " superim-¡© positionism " ). > > 1. arthadhyasa - superimposition of one object on another. > > 2. jnanadhyasa - imposition of illusion upon oneself.> > 3. For this superimposition to happen, there must be -> > a. Senses.> > b. An abnormal situation (e.g. darkness).> > c. Experience.> > d. An example of above three components: seeing a rope as a snake in the darkness.> > B. Philosophical proofs, and which philosophers accept them:> > 1. Direct perception (accepted by Charvakas).> > 2. Inference (anumana) + 1 is accepted by Buddhists.> > a. Hypothesis = there is fire on the mountain.> > b. Cause (hetu) = because there is smoke there.> > c. Example = Where there is smoke, there is fire.> > d. Review of cause = The mountain has smoke...> > e. Conclusion = ...therefore the mountain has fire. > > 3. Sabdha (spiritual sound) + 1 & 2 is accepted by Vaishnavas. > > 4. Arthavati (similarity) + 1-3 is accepted by logic-¡© ians.> > a. " Have you seen a blue cow? " did " (cow + > > b. " No, but I would know one if I blue).> > 5. Arthapatti: " This fat man does not eat in the day > he must eat at night. " (Logicians)> > 6. Abhava (nonexistance) + 1-5 is accepted by Mayavad¡© is.> > a. Nonexistance means: " There is no cow here. " > > b. It is a kind of knowledge based on the absence of knowledge or perception of something .> > C. Four categories within M.P.:> > 1. Sat = existance (Brahman).> > 2. Asat = nonexistance (horns on rabbit).> > 3. Sat-asat = something that exists for a time, then ceases to exist .> > 4. Anirvachaniya = neither 1-3, i.e. Maya (which makes one think a rope is a snake. Inexplicable, illusiory).> > D. Levels of perception according to Shankaracharya:> > 1. Paramarthika - transcendental (Brahman).> > 2. Vyavaharika - " practical " .> > 3. Pratibhasika - apparent, but illusiory (like dreaming ).> > a. One must go from this stage to next higher.> > b. When coming to second stage, individuality remains . > > c. But at highest stage, individuality is erased.> > E. Maya:> > 1. Maya is inexplicable; example - a dumb person cannot describe the taste of rasgulla, but still there is taste. Brahman is covered by Maya, but don't ask why.> > 2. Two stages of Maya:> > a. Covering with illusion; that's simply Maya.> > b. Distorting with ignorance (avidya).> > 3. When Maya covers Brahman with illusion, Iswara- consciousness appears. He is conditioned to be the Lord.> > 4. When Brahman is further distorted by avidya, jiva consciousness appears. Avidya makes the subtle > > body . > > 5. There is no transformation in this process, only imposition (of a false conception .> > 6. When illusion and ignorance are dispelled, no state of any describable existance remains > > 7. Mayavadi story: Vyasadeva sent Sukadeva to learn from Janaka. Janaka said to Sukadeva, " Give me my dakshine before I teach you anything, because after you learn this teaching, you will reject everything, including me (the Guru). " > > F. Example of Mayavadi logic: > > 1. Brahman " reflects " into Maya. Q: But how? If it reflects (e.g. moon on water) it must have a form . 2. A. First understand that Brahman is not a substance, so rules like that don't apply to it. > > 3. And apart from that, consider an object or substance that has qualities. Form is one such quality. But does form have form?> > 4. Q. What are you saying, `Does form have form? '> > 5. A. When you see a shadow or reflection, what is being reflected - form or substance? 6. Q. Well - the form.> > 7. So the form is not the substance. Form is what is reflected, but that form is different from the substance.> > G. Jayatirtha Muni gives this example of Mayavadi process: just as when a person has a bad dream, the dream wakes him up; similarly, though the Mayavadi philosophy is still " maya " , it can wake one up out of illusion> > . > > H. Two schools of Mayavadi philosophy. > > 1. One accepts only Upanisads, Vedanta and Bhagavad- gita (prasthan-traya). > > 2. But the so-called Bhagavat-sampradaya (with acaryas like Citsukhacarya and Madhusudan Sarasvati) accept Puranas, Ramayana, etc. Just as Mayavadis in general are more accept dangerous than Buddhists, the Bhagavat sampradaya is most dangerous of all.They even Krishna's form is spiritual, but say that when He returns to the Paramvyoma, His form " dissolves " into Brahman First school would argue Krishna's form is material. > > I. Bhag Tyag Lakshana:> > 1. Bhag (person).> > 2. Tyag (give up)> > 3. I.e. Now you have this designation; give it up.> > a. On wall of Vaishnava temple, a Mayavadi wrote " So'ham " (I am Him). > > b. A devotee came later and added Da, " DaSo'ham " (I am His servant). > > c. Mayavadi returned, added Sa for SaDaSo'ham (I am eternally Him). > > d. Devotee returned again and added Da for DaSaDaSo'ham (I am the servant of His servant). > > > > IV. Weaknesses of Mayavadi Philosophy.> > A. Their " Brahman " and Vyasadeva's Brahman are not the same.> > 1. Their Brahman is the Brahmajyoti.> > 2. Vyasadeva's Brahman is Krishna, the Purushottama.> > 3. Because they have no interest in Krishna, their Brahman categorically has no reality (it is wrongly defined from the outset).> > a. Vyasa used the word Brahman as we use the word " God. " > > b. It is a general term, used to create interest among as many people as possible (even those who are averse to Krishna). > > B. They speak of " Sarvikalpa jnana " and " Nirvikalpa jnana " , but these are actually the same thing .> > 1. Example of approaching a mountain from a distance - at each stage, the same entity is being viewed > > 2. But Mayavadis say the far-off vision of a great shape on the horizon is of a different thing than theclose-up view of the mountain> > C. They interpret Sanskrit words inaccurately to fit their own ideas. > > 1. Lord is " asarira. " They say this means He has no sarira or body; but the root of the word sarira means decay " ,so the word really refers to a body that decays, not simply a body " . 2.Lord is " akarana. " They say this means He has no senses; but this word really means that His senses because He is directly His are not energized by something else (e.g. as our material senses are energized by life energy) own form .> > D. They interpret " He desired to become many " as meaning the progression from Brahman-Iswara-Jiva; but it is the Iswara who has the desire to become many. How the desireless Brahman desired to become the Iswara they.do not explain > > E. If Brahman is all-pervading, where is Maya?> > F. How is the Brahman cut into individual parcels of consciousness ? > > G. Mayavadis say, " By knowledge (jnana), one becomes Brahman. " > > 1. But they also say that jnana and ajnana are Maya.> > 2. So you may remove your ajnana with jnana, but then with what will you remove the jnana? > > 3. To this they answer, " It is by the mercy of Brah¡© man. " (!) > > H. They say Brahman is without energy (shakti). Then how does it exist? (No answer ).> > I. Snake and Rope:> > 1. In order for this example to have validity, the person must have prior knowledge of both " what is a rope " and " what is a snake. " How can undifferentiated Brahman have prior knowledge of Maya, which it then mistakes itself to be? > > 2. Besides that, in this example, the rope and snake are both real things, and that's why the illusion is effective.And since the illusion is effective, it is also true, i.e. the consequences of that illusion are no less effective than if the rope was really a snake(I'm scared, I scream, run away, etc.). > > J. They say Maya is like a dream, but there's no continuity in our dreams from one night to the next. In the waking state we find day-to-day continuity. So to compare this life to a mere dream is facile.> > K. Why is this illusion so consistent, if it is just hallucination? Why doesn't illusion come us to other ways, e.g. in instead of Brahman is the world (rope is snake), why not the world is Brahman (snake is rope)?> > H. Mayavadis say one can only achieve liberation after death. Then his individuality ceases forever. > > 1. But how does this relate to their favorite rope/> > snake analogy? One man lights a lamp and sees that the snake is really just a rope; another man runs off, frightened, never knowing it was an illusion. How are these two men different in their essential existance? > > I. Who suffers in hell - soul or body?> > 1. Mayavadi may answer, " the body suffers only. " > > 2. But the body is matter, is it not?> > 3. Yes.> > 4. How can dead matter suffer?> > 5. Then it must be the soul that suffers.> > 6. Then you are saying Brahman suffers? But your> > philosophy says there's no suffering in Brahman. > > J. Shankara writes of the " vyavaharika " platform of exis¡© tance, but nowhere is this word found in any scripture. Yet it is a fundamental component of his philosophy.> > K. Upanishads say that nothing can attach itself to Brahman and it cannot be described in words. Shankara says these state¡©ments form the complete description of Brahman .> > 1. Sankara says take these descriptions literally.> > 2. How? By hearing these words, don't the Mayavadis become attached to Brahman? > > L. Katha Upanishad 3.11: Above the jagat is avyakta, above avyakta is Purusha, and beyond Him is nothing else. > > > > V. A look at Jiva Goswami's refutations of Mayavadi Philosophy:> > A. He established the Srimad Bhagavatam as the shastric reference par excellence.> > 1. Brhad Aranyaka Upanishad 2.41 - 4 Vedas, Itihasa and Puranas have come from breath of Narayana .> > 2. Chandogya Upanishad 3.15.7 - 4 Vedas, Itihasas and Puranas are 5th Veda .> > a. 4 cows and 1 buffalo are never grouped as a herd of 5 cows, because a buffalo is not a cow . b. 5 cows means 5 cows. > > 3. Mahabharata says " Puranas make Vedas complete. " > > 4. Shankaracharya's guru's guru wrote a commentary on a book that cited slokas from the Srimad Bhagavatam.> > 5. Garuda Purana says " artho 'yam brahma sutranam " : Bhagavat Purana gives meaning of Vedanta -sutra, Gayatri and the 4 Vedas . > > 6. Srimad Bhagavatam is the ripened fruit of the tree of the Vedic scriptures .> > 7. Srimad Bhagavatam is Veda: " it is compiled by the Lord Himself. " > > 8. Sukadeva Goswami was a Brahmajnani who became a devotee. Vyasadeva compiled the Bhagavatam only for Sukadeva, because only he could understand it (his other disciples were not qualified) .> > a. Sukadeva ran away as soon as he was born. Vyasa told his other disciples to chant3 verses from the Srimad Bhagavatam in order to attract him back to the ashram (they were to chant these verses out loud when entering the forest to gather firewood or fetch water). > > b. Thus Sukadeva was attracted and returned to learn Srimad Bhagavatam at the feet of his father He cannot be attracted by anything material. Therefore S.B. has something higherthan even Brahman realization (atmarama verse ). > > B. Srimad Bhagavatam establishes Krishna as the Param Brahman. > > 1. Hiranyakashipu used the " neti neti " process to negate any possible chance of his being killed byan enemy when he requested a boon from Lord Brahma .> > a. He left no chance that any type of entity within the material world could harm him . b. Practically he left only the Brahman. And that Brahman came as Narasingha and destroyed him; thus Lord Nrsin¡©ghadeva is the Supreme Brahman 2.Even Sridhar Swami has commented on " krishna stu bhagavan " , " narayana eva. " But Srila Jiva Goswami established Lord. Krishna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead> > 3. In the wrestling arena, everyone saw Krishna differently. The yogis saw Him as theTattva Paramam (Supreme Truth).> > 4. The pastime of Lord Damodar shows how the Supreme is unlimited, yet has a body . 5. Devaki said, " That Brahman, jyoti...etc. that all the impersonalists (jnanis and yogis) are seeking is You. " > > > > VI. Vadiraja's Refutations of Key Tenets of Mayavadi Philosophy.> > A. Vadiraja comes in the line of Madhvacharya. He lived in the 16th century. He is said to have lived for 120 years. > > B. How Vadiraja exposed Mayavadi misinterpretations:> > 1. Vadiraja showed how Mayavadis have taken the " neti- neti " statement out of context .> > a. They say " not this, not this " means " not jiva, not jada " (Brahman is neither the individual soul nor, matter - therefore, since only Brahman exists jiva and jada must be unreal). > > b. But they've derived " neti-neti " from Brhad- aranyaka Upanishad 4.4.22, which states: " For the desire for sons is the desire for wealth and the desire for wealth the desire for worlds; both these, are indeed, desires only. This Self is not this, not this. " > > c. This verse is stating that the Self (atman) is not to be had by desiring wealth or worlds. The direct meaning is sufficient; the " jada-jiva " interpretation is without foundation .> > 2. The meaning of " advaita " :> > a. Mayavadis take " advaita " (not dual) to mean that Brahman has no difference. Therefore undifferentiated oneness is the only truth . > > b. But the context is found in Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.1 & 2 - " In the beginning, my dear, this Being, one only, without a second. " > > c. Vadiraja showed that " one without a second " means, according to grammar and logic " one Being,without a second Being " , or " He has no second " , i.e. there is only one God. But this does not mean that some thing or things below God can't bedistin¡©guished from Him. > > i. If the the word " advitiyam " as it appears in this verse actually means that nothing except undifferentiated Brahman exists, then the very text from which the word comes would be unreal, as it is a feature of the realm of difference.> > ii. Thus the validity of the text would be destroyed by the very philosophy the Maya¡© vadis ascribe to it> > iii. He proved his point further with this example - if one says " The lotus is blue " , he does not mean to say that " lotus " and " blue " are exact synonyms. He means that blueness is a quality of. the lotus Similarly, when shastra says " Brahman is everything " , " everything " and " Brahman " are not exact syn¡©onyms, rather " everything " (souls and matter) are qualities of Brahman. Or, as blueness is a quality in¡©separable from the lotus, so we are inseparable from Brahman (but as Brahman has qualities we don't have, still there is distinc¡©tion in this inseparability). > > 3. Vadiraja points out that Mayavadis say that both practical life and the scriptures are on the vyava¡© harika platform - which means both are ul¡©timately unreal. Yet they honor the scriptures and honor sattvik life as dispellers of illusion breeds bad results . But a Mayavadi cannot distinguish between these two categories of action .> > . a. In practical life, what is " true " is what works, i.e. what brings good resultsWhat is " untrue " Thus even on their so-called vyavaharika platform, they have no ultimate reference for deciding what is auspicious and what is inauspi¡© cious > > b. For example, using a Mayavadi analogy, the Mayavadis are not able to explain the difference between a man who sees that there is no silver in silvery shell and the man who thinks that silver a is there > > i. They will say the man who discovered his error is conventionally correct (vyava¡© harika), and the man who did not is under pratibhasika illusion . > > ii. But the main thing is, both are in ultimate illusion. Now, the silvery shell analogy is used by them to illustrate how one comes out of ULTIMATE illusion and attains the truth paramar¡©thika). Yet, using their own doctrine as the test, this example prooves itself invalid. So what are we left with? > > 4. Vadiraja compares the Mayavadis with Paundraka. He asks, " If Mayavadi philosophy is so pregnant with Truth, why did Krishna and His associates in Dwaraka laugh derisively when they heard Paundraka's letter which simply made the same claims as the Mayavadi philosophers? Why did, Shukadeva Goswami when reciting this event to Maharaja Parikshit before the learned assembly of great, saints and sages censure Paundraka repeatedly? Why did Vyasa, who wrote this narration down, also not come to the rescue of this doctrine? " Especially since the Mayavadis would hold that Krishna, His, court, Shuka¡©deva Parik¡©shit, the assembly of sages and Vyasa were actually all Mayavadis too. > > 5. How Mayavadis explain the perception of this world:> > a. Brahman is the only reality.> > b. When we see an object (e.g. a silvery shell it is nothing other than the), Brahman-consciousness c. But Brahman appears itself appearing in that way like a shell because of upadhi (.designation) that is superimposed upon it >

> d. Still, Pure Consciousness shines through the upadhi, making the object perceivable to our minds and senses. > > e. This phenomenon of appearance is happening because Brahman is obscured by avidya.> > f. Before avidya can be removed, a vritti (modifi¡© cation) of the viewer's mind must destroy the avidya surrounding the silvery shell when the senses make contact with it. This vritti is -compared to a canal through which pure conscious¡©ness flows to envelop the object in right under¡© standing. > > g. When that happens, Brahman is mirrored in the vritti which then lights up the object, revealing its true identity with Brahman. Note: in this philosophy, the senses do not perceive the object Nor even the mind. Nor the vritti, for the vritti is but a key that unlocks the door behind which is the floodlight of Brahman, which is the only conscious¡©ness. the object is a manifesta¡©tion of Brahman> > i. Who perceives the object? The Mayavadi answers that the jiva (individual soul) does.> > ii. But the jiva is verily Brahman, who thinks himself an individual due to advidya iii. By seeing the object in true light, the jiva knows its oneness with Brahman 6. Vadiraja probes the Mayavadi explanation of percep¡© tion: > > a. If in the example of the silvery shell, only the Brahman-consciousness is perceiving, then how can the shell be seen in two ways? > > i. If the origin of the phenomenon " silvery shell " is one and only one, why is it sometimes seen as a shell, and sometimes as silver? > > ii. The only " real " mechanism available to explain this (since shell, avidya, jiva, senses, mind,)and even vritti are illusiory is that Brahman is " shining forth. " For this,Shankara has quoted a verse that appears in three Upanishads (Katha 2.2.15, Mundaka 2.2.15, Shvetash¡©vatara 6.14): " The sun does not shine there, nor the moon and thestars, nor these lighten¡©ings, much less this fire. After Him when He shines everyth¡© ing shines; by the light of Him all this is light¡© ed. " > > b. Still, there is no reason for the silver shell illusion in the statement, " Brahman shines forth " , nor in the quotes given to support the statement . > > c. Mayavadis say maya has two powers - veiling and projecting. When it obscures Brahman, it exer¡©cises the first potency, and when it projects an object (the shell) onto consciousness, the second potency is exercised. But what about the illusion of silver in the shell? That is not explained > > d. Vadiraja asks another question the object is a " part " of Brahman, and that the: Mayavadis say perceiver of the object is likewise a " part " of Brahman, each " part " arising out of the avidya- covering of the. whole. So how does the one " part " get trans¡©ferred to the other (the object to the perceiving consciousness)? Because, in Mayavadi philosophy, these two " parts " are dealt with as being two separate manifesta¡©tions of Brahman, i.e. Mayavadis do say the object and perceiver are not identical with each other, but that both are identical with Brahman. > > e. Mayavadis have an answer: the object is imposed upon the perceiver by means of the vritti (mental adjustment). But then Vadiraja is quick to point out that the vritti was first postulated as the means of illumination. Now it is being used as the cause for an illusiory percep¡©tion of an object as well. So what is the need of saying? The vritti (mental adjustment) gives rise to both illusion and libera¡©tion > > f. The Mayavadis give material objects too much reality by identifying them with Brahman; on the other hand, they give them too little reality by saying they are illusions .> > g. Mayavadis say there is a shakti of avidya called jadatmika avidyashaktih, and this potency transforms itself into the visible material manifestations of objects. But this avidya said to bedestroyed upon enlightenment (i.e. is when the vrittih illumines the object). So, when ignorance is de¡©stroyed, then the jadatmika shakti must also be destroyed, and so it follows that the object itself would be destroyed .> > i. One Mayavadi commentator, Bharatitir¡©tha has an answer of sorts to this penetrationof, their philosophy. He says there are two the kinds of ignorance: one which is covering jiva and another which covers the Lord. The jiva-ignorance (pratibhasika) is when an object shines forth, but the Lord removable ignorance (vyavaharika) is - removed only at the time of liberation (or death). > > ) . ii. But Bharatitirtha says this distinction il¡© between il¡©lusions is vyavaharika (or lusiory> > h. Since ignorance is destroyed, but the remains even after enlightenment, then it object follows that the object is the supreme Brahman; in words, Brahman is maya. There is no need other for Mayavadis to postulate their elaborate theories of how Brahman is covered by ignorance, etc. The bottom line is: Brahman is maya - which runs directly against all shastra. > > i. Another evidence of this is - the vritti the cause of enlightenment as well as ignorance is. This vritti is also maya. So maya gives illusion and knowledge both.> > j. The Mayavadis have two theories world-appearance: 1) superimposition and 2) regarding the material causality of ignorance (the aforemen¡©- tioned jadatmika avidyasha¡©ktih). These theories are mutually exclusive: one demands that ig¡©norance be destroyed (by the vritti) for objects to appear; the other demans that ignorance be for objects to exist.present> > k. Vadiraja says, " unintelligibility is not only the trademark of your ignorance, it is also the trademark of your methodology. " He's spoofing the Mayavadi Vimuktatman (13th century) who wrote " Unintelligibility is the trademark of ignorance, not an objec¡©tion to it " ; i.e., you can't hold ourphilosophy accountable for being because it is describing an avidya which unintelligible.unintelligible is > > 7. Other arguments:> > a. The Mayavadis attribute no qualities or powers to Brahman. Avidya creates an illusion of separate identity from Brahman; their example that Brahman is like space, and avidya is is like a pot. Vadiraja asks, " then from where do act ivities arise? Does the space in a pot exhibit - activities? " > > b. Since Mayavadis have no answer for this, it would appear that they are postulating a completely different consciousness for each embodied being, conscious¡©nesses which in turn are dif¡©ferent from the imper¡©sonal Brahman. Then what good is their adherence to oneness of con¡© ...[Message clipped]

[Guest guest]

Om Ganeshaya namah

Dear Guru Sanjay Ji, Narasimha ji and others,

Pranam.

I would also like to convey my appreciation of the discussions,

which I feel pertain to the core of the Vedas, so how can these ever

be uncorrelated with vedangas!

 

Please continue.

 

regards,

Om Shri Krishnarpanamastu.

Himanshu Mohan

 

sohamsa , " Sanjay Rath " <guruji wrote:

>

>

>

>

> | om gurave namah |

> Dear Narasimha

>

> No no...it is alright. Please continue. I also enjoyed this very

much but was hoping that some jyotish content would also be added as

this is helpful for our *material digestion* of spiritual values and

thoughts.

> Best wishes and warm regards,

> Sanjay Rath

>

> Personal: <http://srath.com/blog/> WebPages â—

<http://srath.com/blog/> Rath’s Rhapsody

> SJC WebPages: <http://.org/> Sri Jagannath Center â—

<http://sjcerc.com/> SJCERC â— <http://jiva.us/> JIVA

> Publications: <http://thejyotishdigest.com/> The Jyotish Digest â—

<http://sagittariuspublications.com/> Sagittarius Publications

> -

---

>

>

>

> _____

>

> sohamsa [sohamsa ] On

Behalf Of Narasimha P.V.R. Rao

> Thursday, June 01, 2006 7:05 AM

> sohamsa

> Re: samba sada shiva & advaita

ajit/bharat/others

>

>

> Dear Bharat,

>

> Questioning (or " vichara " as Vasishtha calls it) is sadhana too.

The point I really wanted to drive home is that internal practice

(sadhana) of whatever you believe in - whether it is vichara or

chanting a mantra or something else - is far more important than

external arguments and convincing others that your path is the

correct one.

>

> Dear Sanjay,

>

> I was somehow under the wrong impression that sohamsa was for

astrology as well as spiritual discussions. I don't know how I got

that wrong impression.

>

> That is why I came here and wrote all these mails on Adwaita,

Dwaita, the hidden meanings in stories etc etc. I will stick to

Jyotish in future.

>

> While some spiritual discussions go nowhere (or to Bihar as you

said :-), I truly enjoyed the discussions between Lakshmi Ramesh,

Ajit, Bharat etc. We don't all agree on everything, but we make each

other (and others) think.

>

> May the light of Brahman shine within,

> Narasimha

> -------------------------------

> Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net

> Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

> Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

> -------------------------------

>

> > | om gurave namah |

> > Dear Bharat, Narasimha...

> >

> > Where is the Jyotish? Please stay on track...you have made this

Laloo's rail

> > and everything is going to Bihar.

> > Best wishes and warm regards,

> > Sanjay Rath

> > --------------------------------

-

> > Personal: <http://srath.com/blog/> WebPages ¡ü

<http://srath.com/blog/>

> > Rath¡Çs Rhapsody

> > SJC WebPages: <http://.org/> Sri Jagannath Center

¡ü

> > <http://sjcerc.com/> SJCERC ¡ü <http://jiva.us/> JIVA

> > Publications: <http://thejyotishdigest.com/> The Jyotish Digest

¡ü

> > <http://sagittariuspublications.com/> Sagittarius Publications

> > --------------------------------

-----

> > _____

> >

> > sohamsa [sohamsa ]

On Behalf Of

> > Bharat Hindu Astrology

> > Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:45 PM

> > sohamsa

> > Re: Re: samba sada shiva & advaita

ajit/bharat/others

> >

> >

> > Namaste Sri Narasimha

> >

> > This is a euphoric response by initial study of an exalted text.

I will

> > neither attempt to change your understanding or suggest you

anything.

> > However, in a public forum would like to say that I do not agree

to many of

> > your statements about " paths " and about " dwaita -adwaita " .

> >

> > Moreover, I also do not agree to your separation of " study and

questioning "

> > to " sadhana " . In that case the whole of Yoga Vashistha is

philosophizing.

> > Then, why study it?

> >

> > Thanks and Regards

> > Bharat

> >

> >

> > On 5/30/06, Narasimha P.V.R. Rao <pvr@> wrote:

> >

> > Namaste friends,

> >

> > I quickly read the write-up below.

> >

> > I said earlier that Dwaita is far better when we start out.

Adwaita is only

> > for very advanced seekers. Somebody who is just starting to

learn physics is

> > better taught F=ma rather than the general theory of relativity.

Advaita is

> > too subtle and it is very easy to misrepresent it. Even a great

Maharshi

> > like Vasishtha is not very easy to understand when he elucidates

Advaitic

> > concepts (as in " Yoga Vaasishtham " ).

> >

> > As I said previously, all this does not really matter anyway.

> >

> > Whether you choose Advaita or Dwaita or Visishtadwaita, the

important thing

> > is to master the chosen path. If you keep harping that Brahman

is in all

> > beings, but you have never actually experienced how Brahman is

in all

> > beings, what use is it? If you keep harping that Krishna with a

specific

> > form is supreme, but have never experienced Him, what use is it?

If you keep

> > haping that Sadashiva with a specific form is supreme, but have

never

> > experienced Him, what use is it?

> >

> > Philosophy and erudite discussions are one thing and experience

is quite

> > another. It's the latter that stays with you forever. It's the

latter that

> > lifts you up spiritually. It's the latter that can give you the

supreme

> > knowledge that liberates you. So, seek the " experience " and

forget about all

> > philosophical arguments.

> >

> > If you believe in Krishna consciousness, forget everything and

seek to get

> > close to Krishna. Seek a place at His feet and nothing else. If

you are a

> > Shiva devotee, seek a place at Shiva's feet and nothing else. If

you are an

> > Advaitin, seek to experience Brahman and seek to experience the

entire

> > universe as self.

> >

> > Do sadhana. Do sadhana. Do sadhana. That alone will lift you up,

not

> > philosophical arguments.

> >

> > It does not matter which you path you choose. All paths will

take you to

> > almost the same place.

> >

> > May the light of Brahman shine within,

> > Narasimha

> > -------------------------------

> > Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net

> > Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

> > Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

> > -------------------------------

>

>

>

> *tat savitur varenyam*

>

>

>

>

>