shvu Posted April 16, 2001 Report Share Posted April 16, 2001 There exists a common belief that Shankara's Advaita philosophy is simply Buddhism in disguise and quoted as, Mayavadam prachanna baudham. The one similarity is both Advaita and Buddhism hold that the world is unreal on Moksha. The main differences, 1. Advaita has always been around in some form or the other, until it was given a clear-cut form by Shankara. The whole purport of the Vedanta can be shown to be advaitic, by quoting the following Mahavakyas, one from each Veda. ayamatma Brahma [Atman and Brahman are one] - Mundaka tattvamasi [Thou art that] - Chaandogya aham brahmasmi [i am Brahman] - Brihadaranyaka prajnanam brahma [Absolute knowledge and Brahman are one][Aitareya] 2. The fundamental difference between Buddhism and Advaita is the concept of Brahman. Buddhists have a void and deny Permanence. Advaita on the other hand is based on the Eternal Brahman of the Sruti. 3. The means to Moksha again are different in both systems. Besides there are multiple schools of Buddhism, and so when one says Baudha, it is unsufficient. Since Dvaita is also based on Vedanta, by the above logic, one can also say Dvaita is prachana Advaita. Hence it is incorrect to say that Advaita is veiled Buddhism. They are as different as can be. It is also incorrect to say that Advaitins are atheists. They have their basis in the Vedas and that would imply that the Vedas are atheistic in nature. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2001 Report Share Posted April 16, 2001 I have never thought Advaita to be veiled Buddhism... Just political poopla.. ;^) jijaji Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2001 Report Share Posted April 16, 2001 jayasriradhey says; "It is well known to the followers of Bhagavatpada Sri Shakaracarya that He was PRACCHANNA BUDDHA,Lord Buddha in dsguise" Dear jayasriradhey, 1st of all ..please forgive me if I offended you in any way last week! I have always read your postings and considered you to have worthwhile contributions. Perhaps I misunderstood you, perhaps I was out of line (which I do on occasion I admit) anyway...there is is ;^) As far as advaitavadins accepting adi-shankara as buddha reincarnated.. I would love to see some scriptural quotes to support your statement... ;^) jijaji Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted April 17, 2001 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2001 This thread should be a good place t oclear up some misconceptions. There is a piece of misconception that Shankara the Mayavadin, during his last years had a change of heart! That is, he realized that his Advaita philosphy was false and he told people to worship Govinda by composing the Bhaja Govindam. Of course, it is totally false. According to tradition, Shankara once saw an old man memorizing the gramar rules of Pannini. He suddenly felt a concern, realizing that most people spend their lives in vain pursuits. Out of this concern, he composed the Bhaja Govindam. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2001 Report Share Posted April 17, 2001 Many scholar who are not Vaisnavas have also accepted Sankara as the one who nurtured the flow of the Buddhist conception. These scholars include Vijñanabhiksu, who is a prominent scholar of Sankhya philosophy; learned yogis of the Patanjali doctrine, and even Buddhist scholars. Now we will show some similarities between the views of Sankara and Gautama Buddha. Gautama Buddha states that the world is sunya-tattva in all the three fases of time. Everything in the world is sunya, non-existent, in the beginning, middle and end. Acarya Sankara also taught that the cause of the world is a principle called avidya (ignorance), which is devoid of past, present and future. This principle of ignorance is inexpressible due to its special characteristics of being neither existent nor non-existent. Brahma satyam mithya - Brahman is real and the world is false. nidramohat svapnavad tan na satyam suddhah puryo nitya ekah sivo 'ham (Atma-pañcaka 3) It is clear that Buddha's sunya and Sankara's mithya (falsehood) are both the same. Only the words are different. What is the real difference between Buddha's trikala-sunyatva and Sankara's inexpressible principle of existence and non-existence? Many scriptures of the Mahayana branch of Buddhism also states that the only means to achieve liberation is prajña-paramita, which is the dame as tattva-jñana postulated by Sankara. Sankara considered moksa as a condition of complete freedom from grief of this world. The cause of this liberation is jñana of the oneness of Brahman and jiva, and of Brahman and this illusory existence. The brahma-jñana is the only cause of complete annihilation of avidya. Buddha's prajña is exactly the same principle, only with some different words. Prajña-paramita and 'prajñanam brahma' , that Sankara has quoted from Taittirya Upanisad are the same tattva-jñana, but Buddhists had postulated it before Sankara. The Prajña-paramita-sutra of Mahayana's states: saktah kasvamihastotum nirnimittam nirañjanam sarvavag visayatitam ya tvam kvacidanisrita and Sankara has made his plagiarism: arastrdarsanadrsyadibhava sunyaika vastuni nirvikare nirvikare nirvisese bhida kutah So, Sankara himself has actually referred to Brahman as sunya!!! Amara-kosa dictionary is not a sectarian book meant for Gaudiya Vaisnavas, and if you see the word Buddha, he has been called advaita-vadi. To copy right his doctrine Sankara named it kevaladvaita-vada, pure non-dualism, just to make a new market to the same old wine sold by Gautama Buddha. Acarya Sankara has only transformed sunya-vada into brahma-vada to re-establish the honor and the authority of Vedas. But only the name has changed, the basis of both is the same. dasa dasanudasa Satyaraja dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted April 17, 2001 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> arastrdarsanadrsyadibhava sunyaika vastuni nirvikare nirvikare nirvisese bhida kutah So, Sankara himself has actually referred to Brahman as sunya!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Before we go further, can you tell me where Shankara made this statement? Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted April 17, 2001 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2001 It is another popular misconception that Shankara came to fight Buddhism. Shankara did not have a single arugment with the Buddhists. Most of his criticizm and debates were with the Purva Mimamsakas. In his Brahma-sutra Bhasya, he mostly critizes Purva Mimamsa and to a lesser extent, Nyaya, Sankhya and Buddhism. Kumarila Bhatta, a Purva Mimamsaka and a contemporary of Shankara, is traditonally believed to have converted a large number of Buddhists back into the Hindu fold. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted April 17, 2001 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2001 My picture was of Shankara chasing the Buddhists with a cane until they cleared the borders of India, but I will go with yours :-) Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2001 Report Share Posted April 17, 2001 If Shankara would have been a cabbie.... He would have cleaned up in tips for driving all those Buddhists out of India..! ;^) jijaji Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted April 17, 2001 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2001 Looks like Shankara had positioned himself at the border. His 4 main disciples had opened 4 centres in India, where the Buddhists would all collect. Then the disciples would drive them until the border. From there, Shankara would personally drive them across the border. This is how he managed to drive so many buddhists out of India. Of course, these 4 transport centres are today the 4 main Mathas of Shankara and we can guess where the funding must have come from. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 17, 2001 Report Share Posted April 17, 2001 ;^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^) ;^) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2001 Report Share Posted April 18, 2001 shvu says; "It is another popular misconception that Shankara came to fight Buddhism. Shankara did not have a single arugment with the Buddhists. Most of his criticizm and debates were with the Purva Mimamsakas. In his Brahma-sutra Bhasya, he mostly critizes Purva Mimamsa and to a lesser extent, Nyaya, Sankhya and Buddhism." I will agree with shvu on this significant point! This is no hidden secret..Shankara was mainly concerned with Purva Mimamsa rather than Buddhism. He certainly did NOT make attack against Buddhism his mission as some would have you believe.... Iskconites say 'Shankara Drove the Buddhists out of India". Whenever I heard that phrase I always wondered.."What kind of vehicle did he use?" Model-t's were not even available. It seems if Shankara drove the Buddhists out of India it would have takin a large amount of petrol as well. So in conclusion it would have been a massive exodus of biblical magnitude...involving thousands of Cars, Trucks, Motorcycles etc.. Seems it would have been recorded in the Digvijaya's...LOL ;^) jijaji Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2001 Report Share Posted April 18, 2001 It is another popular misconception that Gaudiya-vaisnavas are 'against' Sri Sankaracarya. We consider that Sankaracarya is none other that Mahadeva-Sankara himself - sankarah sankarah saksat, and that Sankara is the highest Vaisnava - vaisnavam yatah sambhu. Sankara is the guru for the Vaisnavas. For this reason Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu Himself has instructed all of His followers to always refer to Sankara as Acarya. And for his own part, Sri Sankara was a perfect Vaisnava. We consider Acarya Sankara as a gunavatara, and at the time he has appeared in India, there was a great need for a gunavatara like him, as evidenced by these scholars of many lines assembled at this forum. Besides Buddhism, many other concocted philosophies, anitya-dharmas were affecting all Vedic dharma. Sankaracarya, the extraordinarily powerful incarnation of Mahadeva, has appeared to re-established the respectability of the Vedic lore. This was an uncommon feat. All Brahmanda will remain ever indebted to Sri Sankaracarya for this tremendous contribution. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's teachings would be impossible without Sankaracarya's contribution. In this material world, all activities may be judged according to two different criteria: 1. Tatkalika - those that are relative to a particular period of time. 2. Sarvakalika - those that are applicable for all time. Sankaracarya's work is to be considered tatkalika and resulted in tremendous benefit to all jivas. Sankaracarya laid a foundation upon which Vaisnava Acaryas such as Ramanuja, Madhva and others, erected the edifice of pure Vaisnava-dharma. Therefore, Sankaravatara is considered by us as a great friend and pioneer acarya of Vaisnava-dharma. Vaisnavas are now easily able to reap the fruit of the philosophical precept taught by Sankaracarya, as without them no sambandha-jñana would be available. Up to the point of mukti, there is a great deal of agreement between Sripada Sankaracarya's and all Vaisnava-acrayas' doctrines. Let us consider these similarities: 1.Both lines consider that sentient living entities in this material world are completely distinct and separate from the gross and subtle material bodies. 2. That the jivas are spiritually existent. 3. That mukti entails giving up all connection with this material world. 4. That the worship of Sri Hari is the method to purify the heart and attain mukti. 5. That sadhu-sanga is the basis for any real spiritual practice. Actually Acarya Sankara has remained silent only on the question of the extraordinary destination attained by jivas after liberation. Therefore we say that Acarya Sankara simply pointed out the path and did not further reveal the confidential secrets of Vaisnava-dharma. Furthermore, the perfectional stage of absolute oneness, known as advaita-siddhi, and that of prema-bhakti may be conceived as identical from one specific point of view. The narrow interpretation of absolute oneness, however, is quite different than the meaning of prema. If advaita-siddhi is to be defined as the pure state of a transcendental entity who is devoid of all relationship with insentient matter, then prema and advaita-siddhi may be described as the same. But some modern scholars are not satisfied with advaita-siddhi meaning the oneness of spiritual nature, or cit-dharma. They attempt to establish that the spiritual entities, cit-vastu, themselves become one, and they disregard the conception of the ideology of non-distinction expounded by srutis and propagate in its place a distorted and concocted version. As this opinion is detrimental to the eternity of prema, Vaisnavas have declared this aberrant philosophy to be in opposition to Vedas and also against Sripada Sankaracaya's original teachings. Sankaracarya described the state of non-difference simply as the unadulterated condition of spiritual substance. However, some of his so-called followers have marred his reputation, by describing the various states of prema as illusory phenomena, and we call this aberrant deviation mayavada. In this conception of mayavada, advaita-siddhi can never be equaled with prema. dasa dasanudasa Satyaraja dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2001 Report Share Posted April 18, 2001 It is another popular misconception that Gaudiya-vaisnavas are 'against' Sri Sankaracarya. We consider that Sankaracarya is none other that Mahadeva-Sankara himself - sankarah sankarah saksat, and that Sankara is the highest Vaisnava - vaisnavam yatah sambhu. Sankara is the guru for the Vaisnavas. For this reason Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu Himself has instructed all of His followers to always refer to Sankara as Acarya. And for his own part, Sri Sankara was a perfect Vaisnava. We consider Acarya Sankara as a gunavatara, and at the time he has appeared in India, there was a great need for a gunavatara like him, as evidenced by these scholars of many lines assembled at this forum. Besides Buddhism, many other concocted philosophies, anitya-dharmas were affecting all Vedic dharma. Sankaracarya, the extraordinarily powerful incarnation of Mahadeva, has appeared to re-established the respectability of the Vedic lore. This was an uncommon feat. All Brahmanda will remain ever indebted to Sri Sankaracarya for this tremendous contribution. Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's teachings would be impossible without Sankaracarya's contribution. In this material world, all activities may be judged according to two different criteria: 1. Tatkalika - those that are relative to a particular period of time. 2. Sarvakalika - those that are applicable for all time. Sankaracarya's work is to be considered tatkalika and resulted in tremendous benefit to all jivas. Sankaracarya laid a foundation upon which Vaisnava Acaryas such as Ramanuja, Madhva and others, erected the edifice of pure Vaisnava-dharma. Therefore, Sankaravatara is considered by us as a great friend and pioneer acarya of Vaisnava-dharma. Vaisnavas are now easily able to reap the fruit of the philosophical precept taught by Sankaracarya, as without them no sambandha-jñana would be available. Up to the point of mukti, there is a great deal of agreement between Sripada Sankaracarya's and all Vaisnava-acrayas' doctrines. Let us consider these similarities: 1.Both lines consider that sentient living entities in this material world are completely distinct and separate from the gross and subtle material bodies. 2. That the jivas are spiritually existent. 3. That mukti entails giving up all connection with this material world. 4. That the worship of Sri Hari is the method to purify the heart and attain mukti. 5. That sadhu-sanga is the basis for any real spiritual practice. Actually Acarya Sankara has remained silent only on the question of the extraordinary destination attained by jivas after liberation. Therefore we say that Acarya Sankara simply pointed out the path and did not further reveal the confidential secrets of Vaisnava-dharma. Furthermore, the perfectional stage of absolute oneness, known as advaita-siddhi, and that of prema-bhakti may be conceived as identical from one specific point of view. The narrow interpretation of absolute oneness, however, is quite different than the meaning of prema. If advaita-siddhi is to be defined as the pure state of a transcendental entity who is devoid of all relationship with insentient matter, then prema and advaita-siddhi may be described as the same. But some modern scholars are not satisfied with advaita-siddhi meaning the oneness of spiritual nature, or cit-dharma. They attempt to establish that the spiritual entities, cit-vastu, themselves become one, and they disregard the conception of the ideology of non-distinction expounded by srutis and propagate in its place a distorted and concocted version. As this opinion is detrimental to the eternity of prema, Vaisnavas have declared this aberrant philosophy to be in opposition to Vedas and also against Sripada Sankaracaya's original teachings. Sankaracarya described the state of non-difference simply as the unadulterated condition of spiritual substance. However, some of his so-called followers have marred his reputation, by describing the various states of prema as illusory phenomena, and we call this aberrant deviation mayavada. In this conception of mayavada, advaita-siddhi can never be equaled with prema. dasa dasanudasa Satyaraja dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted April 18, 2001 Author Report Share Posted April 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>It is another popular misconception that Gaudiya-vaisnavas are 'against' Sri Sankaracarya.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> One has to read the 'What is Mayavada?' article by Prabhupada to know that it is not a misconception. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Sankaracarya, the extraordinarily powerful incarnation of Mahadeva, has appeared to re-established the respectability of the Vedic lore.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As explained earlier, this is not true. Shankara did not have a single argument with the Buddhists. Read the Madhava Shankara Vijayam for details. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>In this material world, all activities may be judged according to two different criteria: 1. Tatkalika - those that are relative to a particular period of time. 2. Sarvakalika - those that are applicable for all time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This depends on various factors. From history, we know that no religion has remained the same for long. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Sankaracarya laid a foundation upon which Vaisnava Acaryas such as Ramanuja, Madhva and others, erected the edifice of pure Vaisnava-dharma.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually they came out with their dharmas by going against the Advaita philosophy. So they would disagree that Shankara served as a foundation. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>But some modern scholars are not satisfied with advaita-siddhi meaning the oneness of spiritual nature, or cit-dharma. They attempt to establish that the spiritual entities, cit-vastu, themselves become one, and they disregard the conception of the ideology of non-distinction expounded by srutis and propagate in its place a distorted and concocted version. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> More details, please? <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>As this opinion is detrimental to the eternity of prema, Vaisnavas have declared this aberrant philosophy to be in opposition to Vedas and also against Sripada Sankaracaya's original teachings. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What is this new philosophy? <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>However, some of his so-called followers have marred his reputation, by describing the various states of prema as illusory phenomena, and we call this aberrant deviation mayavada.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Mayavada is a fairly old term and describes Shankara's original philosophy. Can you explain what you mean? Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2001 Report Share Posted April 18, 2001 If Shankara is held so high in the Gaudiya Vaishnav community then why..pray tell... is it recommended that one jump into a river and bathe immediately upon seeing such an offender? Iskcon/Gaudiya Math have a dysfunctional relationship with Shankara; They use him when they can when it supports their PREACHING ... He is Shiva in disguise deceiving all the demons into false philosophy leading them away from the true Vedic tradition (Gaudiya Vaishnavism) or at least the Jehovas Witness version i.e. iskcon/gaudiya math! Funny how Shankara didn't mean anything he said? ;^) jijaji Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted April 18, 2001 Author Report Share Posted April 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>...recommended that one jump into a river and bathe immediately upon seeing such an offender? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What happens, if there is no river nearby? Height of discomfort: Seeing a Mayavadin in the middle of the Sahara desert. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahnava Nitai Das Posted April 18, 2001 Report Share Posted April 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>If Shankara is held so high in the Gaudiya Vaishnav community then why..pray tell... is it recommended that one jump into a river and bathe immediately upon seeing such an offender?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps we can see a reference to this, then we can see which school the quote belongs to, and whether it mentions "Shankara". Otherwise the logic just doesn't work. To say, "If shankara is held so high..." and then refer a verse that does not mention shankara, just doesn't seem to fit together properly. Of course, maybe upon seeing the verse your point may become clear. Better we wait and see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2001 Report Share Posted April 18, 2001 Now we are witnessing an Iskcon/Gaudiya Math phobia. This is the same sectarism that you supposedly are combating changed to another camp. Isckon and Gaudiya Matha are quite different groups, and even inside of Gaudiya Math there are so many lines. The common thread among them is that they were originated from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupada, and are placed into Sarasvata Paribhar. We are trying to postulate an specific point of Srila Sarasvati Prabhupada's teachings that is suddha-bhakti. For certain many of the current opinions spread by missionaries, that most of the time are not well versed in Gaudiya-vaisnava-tattva and siddhanta, are not the same of ours. In fact, most of Gaudiya-Vaisnava Acaryas always had stressed the same opinion on Sankaracarya that we had mentioned before. If you only know the version present by missionaries, what can be done? Concerning advaita-jñana and its conclusion that jñana is beyond the influence of maya, as postulated by Sankaracarya, all of our Acaryas are unanimous stating the same. The only difference that they denote is concerning prema, that is our aim. Advaitavadis state that prema is not an eternal function of jivas, and it is not absent in the state of moksa. We say otherwise. We are not opposite to Sankaracarya's teachings simply because they have nothing to do with prema-bhakti. As we pointed out before, the points of agreement are many, and the main point of discussion is what happens after moksa, and the concept of mukti itself. Prema as described by Sri Caitanya as the highest development of the unalloyed state of perfect oneness. The state known as mahabhava is a special manifestation of this prema where both the separateness and intimate relationship of the knower and the object of knowledge are transported to an unprecedented state where both may appear to be melted in a mundane scale or definition. Here the theory of mayavada cannot be of any utility in understanding the subject matter, and therefore it is negligible. But in essence, as we posted before, the perfectional stage of absolute oneness, known as advaita-siddhi, and that of prema-bhakti may be conceived as identical from that specific point of view; and the narrow interpretation of absolute oneness, however, is quite different than the real meaning of prema. dasa dasanudasa Satyaraja dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted April 18, 2001 Author Report Share Posted April 18, 2001 Hi Satyaraja Dasa, Now you have changed your position to saying that they are different. Which is what I am saying too. It is impossible to reconcile different Indian traditions and such an exercise is not required either. To clarify, there is no new 'Mayavada' as you said earlier. Advaita [Mayavada] is still understood as the teachings of Shankara and that is how it is followed to this day. Any new philosophy that may claim to be Advaita and digresses from Shankara is termed Neo-Vedanta. Coming back to the different traditions, they are all different. Instead of saying 'I am right, the rest are wrong', a better attitude would be to say, 'we are all different; you go your way and I will go mine'. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shvu Posted April 18, 2001 Author Report Share Posted April 18, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>We state that nirvisesa kevaladvaita-vada in not a real advaita-vada as described in Vedas and Upanisads.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I already said this once, and I will say it again. Advaita is what was taught by Shankara and remains unchanged to this day. Trying to separate Shankara from his philosophy is out of question. Here is the Katha Upanishad verse you quoted in english, This Atman cannot be attained by the study of the Vedas, or by intelligence, or by much hearing of sacred books. It is attained by him alone whom It chooses. To such a one Atman reveals Itself. This is one of my favorites, partially responsible for my atheism. However, I must say I don't see the relevance of this verse here. Here is some sample advaita from the Katha Upanishad, Having realised Atman, which is soundless, intangible, formless, undecaying and likewise tasteless, eternal and odourless; having realised That which is without beginning and end, beyond the Great and unchanging—one is freed from the jaws of death. - Katha Upanishad 1.3.15 If a man is able to realise Brahman here, before the falling asunder of his body, then he is liberated; if not, he is embodied again in the created worlds. - Katha Upanishad 2.3.4 I can provide tons of such evidence to show that advaita is directly supported in the Sruti. And once again, there is only one Advaita philosophy as taught by Shankara. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2001 Report Share Posted April 18, 2001 Below is some of Prabupada's own words about Mayavadis and Shankara...! Krishna Consciousness--Hindu Cult or Divine Culture? There is a misconception that the Krishna consciousness movement represents the Hindu religion. In fact, however, Krishna consciousness is in no way a faith or religion that seeks to defeat other faiths or religions. Rather, it is an essential cultural movement for the entire human society and does not consider any particular sectarian faith. This cultural movement is especially meant to educate people in how they can love God. Sometimes Indians both inside and outside of India think that we are preaching the Hindu religion, but actually we are not. One will not find the word "Hindu" in the Bhagavad-gita. Indeed, there is no such word as Hindu in the entire Vedic literature. This word has been introduced by the Muslims from provinces next to India, such as Afghanistan, Baluchistan, and Persia. There is a river called Sindhu bordering the north western provinces of India, and since the Muslims there could not pronounce Sindhu properly, they instead called the river Hindu, and the inhabitants of this tract of land they called Hindus. In India, according to the Vedic language, the Europeans are called mlecchas or yavanas. Similarly, Hindu is a name given by the Muslims. India's actual culture is described in the Bhagavad-gita, where it is stated that according to the different qualities or modes of nature there are different types of men, who are generally classified into four social orders and four spiritual orders. This system of social and spiritual division is known as varnasrama-dharma. The four varnas, or social orders, are brahmana, ksatriya, vaisya. and sudra. The four asramas, or spiritual orders, are brahmacarya, grhastha, vanaprastha, and sannyasa. The varnasrama system is described in the Vedic scriptures known as the Puranas. The goal of this institution of Vedic culture is to educate every man for advancement in knowledge of Krishna, or God. That is the entire Vedic program. When Lord Caitanya talked with the great devotee Ramananda Raya, the Lord asked him, "What is the basic principle of human life?" Ramananda Raya answered that human civilization begins when varnasrama-dharma is accepted. Before coming to the standard of varnasrama-dharma there is no question of human civilization. Therefore, the Krishna consciousness movement is trying to establish this right system of human civilization, which is known as Krishna consciousness, or daiva-varnasrama--divine culture. In India, the varnasrama system has now been taken in a perverted way, and thus a man born in the family of a brahmana (the highest social order) claims that he should be accepted as a brahmana. But this claim is not accepted by the sastra (scripture). One's forefather may have been a brahmana according to gotra, or the family hereditary order, but real varnasrama-dharma is based on the factual quality one has attained, regardless of birth or heredity. Therefore, we are not preaching the present-day system of the Hindus, especially those who are under the influence of Sankaracarya, for Sankaracarya taught that the Absolute Truth is impersonal, and thus he indirectly denied the existence of God. Sankaracarya's mission was special; he appeared to reestablish the Vedic influence after the influence of Buddhism. Because Buddhism was patronized by Emperor Asoka, twenty-six hundred years ago the Buddhist religion practically pervaded all of India. According to the Vedic literature, Buddha was an incarnation of Krishna who had a special power and who appeared for a special purpose. His system of thought, or faith, was accepted widely, but Buddha rejected the authority of the Vedas. While Buddhism was spreading, the Vedic culture was stopped both in India and in other places. Therefore, since Sankaracarya's only aim was to drive away Buddha's system of philosophy, he introduced a system called Mayavada. Strictly speaking, Mayavada philosophy is atheism, for it is a process in which one imagines that there is God. This Mayavada system of philosophy has been existing since time immemorial. The present Indian system of religion or culture is based on the Mayavada philosophy of Sankaracarya, which is a compromise with Buddhist philosophy. According to Mayavada philosophy there actually is no God, or if God exists, He is impersonal and all-pervading and can therefore be imagined in any form. This conclusion is not in accord with the Vedic literature. That literature names many demigods, who are worshiped for different purposes, but in every case the Supreme Lord, the Personality of Godhead, Visnu, is accepted as the supreme controller. That is real Vedic culture. The philosophy of Krishna consciousness does not deny the existence of God and the demigods, but Mayavada philosophy denies both; it maintains that neither the demigods nor God exists. For the Mayavadis, ultimately all is zero. They say that one may imagine any authority--whether Visnu, Durga, Lord Siva, or the sun-god--because these are the demigods generally worshiped in society. But the Mayavada philosophy does not in fact accept the existence of any of them. The Mayavadis say that because one cannot concentrate one's mind on the impersonal Brahman, one may imagine any of these forms. This is a new system, called pancopasana. It was introduced by Sankaracarya, but the Bhagavad-gita does not teach any such doctrines, and therefore they are not authoritative. The Bhagavad-gita accepts the existence of the demigods. The demigods are described in the Vedas, and one cannot deny their existence, but they are not to be understood or worshiped according to the way of Sankaracarya. The worship of demigods is rejected in the Bhagavad-gita. The Gita (7.20) clearly states: kamais tais tair hrta jnanah prapadyante 'nya-devatah tam tam niyamam asthaya prakrtya niyatah svaya "Those whose minds are distorted by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures." Furthermore, in the Bhagavad-gita (2.44), Lord Krishna states: bhogaisvarya-prasaktanam tayapahrta-cetasam vyavasayatmika buddhih samadhau na vidhiyate "In the minds of those who are too attached to sense enjoyment and material opulence, and who are bewildered by such things, the resolute determination for devotional service does not take place." Those who are pursuing the various demigods have been described as hrta jnanah, which means "those who have lost their sense." That is also further explained in the Bhagavad-gita (7.23): antavat tu phalam tesam tad bhavaty alpa-medhasam devan deva-yajo yanti mad-bhakta yanti mam api "Men of small intelligence worship the demigods, and their fruits are limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the planets of the demigods, but My devotees reach My supreme abode." The rewards given by the demigods are temporary, because any material facility must act in connection with the temporary body. Whatever material facilities one gets, whether by modern scientific methods or by deriving benedictions from the demigods, will be finished with the body. But spiritual advancement will never be finished. People should not think that we are preaching a sectarian religion. No. We are simply preaching how to love God. There are many theories about the existence of God. The atheist, for example, will never believe in God. Atheists like Professor Jacques Monod, who won the Nobel prize, declare that everything is chance (a theory already put forward long ago by atheistic philosophers of India such as Carvaka). Then other philosophies, such as the karma-mimamsa philosophy, accept that if one goes on doing his work nicely and honestly, automatically the result will come, without need for one to refer to God. For evidence, the proponents of such theories cite the argument that if one is diseased with an infection and takes medicine to counteract it, the disease will be neutralized. But our argument in this connection is that even if one gives a man the best medicine, he still may die. The results are not always predictable. Therefore, there is a higher authority, daiva-netrena, a supreme director. Otherwise, how is it that the son of a rich and pious man becomes a hippie in the street or that a man who works very hard and becomes rich is told by his doctor, "Now you may not eat any food, but only barley water"? The karma-mimamsa theory holds that the world is going on without the supreme direction of God. Such philosophies say that everything takes place by lust (kama-haitukam). By lust a man becomes attracted to a woman, and by chance there is sex, and the woman becomes pregnant. There is actually no plan to make the woman pregnant, but by a natural sequence when a man and a woman unite, a result is produced. The atheistic theory, which is described in the Sixteenth Chapter of the Bhagavad-gita as asuric, or demoniac, is that actually everything is going on in this way, because of chance and resulting from natural attraction. This demoniac theory supports the idea that if one wants to avoid children, he may use a contraceptive method. Actually, however, there is a great plan for everything--the Vedic plan. The Vedic literature gives directions regarding how men and women should unite, how they should beget children, and what the purpose of sex life is. Krishna says in the Bhagavad-gita that sex life sanctioned by the Vedic order, or sex life under the direction of the Vedic rules and regulations, is bona fide and is acceptable to Him. But chance sex life is not acceptable. If by chance one is sexually attracted and there are children, they are called varna-sankara, unwanted population. That is the way of the lower animals; it is not acceptable for humans. For humans, there is a plan. We cannot accept the theory that there is no plan for human life or that everything is born of chance and material necessity. Sankaracarya's theory that there is no God and that one can go on with his work and imagine God in any form just to keep peace and tranquillity in society is also more or less based on this idea of chance and necessity. Our way, however, which is completely different, is based on authority. It is this divine varnasrama-dharma that Krishna recommends, not the caste system as it is understood today. This modern caste system is now condemned in India also, and it should be condemned, for the classification of different types of men according to birth is not the Vedic or divine caste system. There are many classes of men in society--some men are engineers, some are medical practitioners, some are chemists, tradesmen, businessmen, and so on. These varieties of classes are not to be determined by birth, however, but by quality. No such thing as the caste-by-birth system is sanctioned by the Vedic literature, nor do we accept it. We have nothing to do with the caste system, which is also at present being rejected by the public in India. Rather, we give everyone the chance to become a brahmana and thus attain the highest status of life. Because at the present moment there is a scarcity of brahmanas, spiritual guides, and ksatriyas, administrative men, and because the entire world is being ruled by sudras, or men of the manual laborer class, there are many discrepancies in society. It is to mitigate all these discrepancies that we have taken to this Krishna consciousness movement. If the brahmana class is actually reestablished, the other orders of social well-being will automatically follow, just as when the brain is perfectly in order, the other parts of the body, such as the arms, the belly, and the legs, all act very nicely. The ultimate goal of this movement is to educate people in how to love God. Caitanya Mahaprabhu approves the conclusion that the highest perfection of human life is to learn how to love God. The Krishna consciousness movement has nothing to do with the Hindu religion or any system of religion. No Christian gentleman will be interested in changing his faith from Christian to Hindu. Similarly, no Hindu gentleman of culture will be ready to change to the Christian faith. Such changing is for men who have no particular social status. But everyone will be interested in understanding the philosophy and science of God and taking it seriously. One should clearly understand that the Krishna consciousness movement is not preaching the so-called Hindu religion. We are giving a spiritual culture that can solve all the problems of life, and therefore it is being accepted all over the world. (His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada from Science of Self Realization.) comments...? ;^) jijaji Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2001 Report Share Posted April 18, 2001 From The Advaita Vedanta Home Page FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS Q;What is the relationship between advaita and buddhism? Is advaita a mere copy of buddhism? A;No, advaita is not a mere copy of buddhism. For a few centuries now, advaita has been criticized as being "pracanna bauddham" - buddhism in disguise. This criticism stems mainly from some of the vaishNava schools of vedAnta, but it is misplaced. Firstly, there is no one "buddhism" and for the criticism to be valid, it must be specified which school of buddhism is being referred to. SankarAcArya expends a lot of effort criticizing many of the philosophical positions taken by various schools of buddhism in his commentaries. Among modern academic scholars, advaita vedAnta is most often compared with the madhyamaka and yogAcAra schools of buddhism. This has been inspired mainly by the fact that the mANDUkya kArikAs, written by gauDapAda, Sankara's paramaguru, exhibit a great familiarity with this school of buddhism. However, if it is held that advaita vedAnta is essentially the same as madhyamaka buddhism, it must be pointed out that such a view stems from a misunderstanding of the important tenets of both advaita vedAnta and madhyamaka buddhism. There are many key details in which advaita differs from the madhyamaka school of buddhism. As for yogAcAra, the points of similarity arise from the fact that both advaita vedAnta and yogAcAra buddhism have a place for yogic practice, as do other schools of Indian philosophy. For further details, consult http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/gaudapada.html. Q;Why is advaita sometimes referred to as mAyAvAda? A;The word mAyAvAda serves many purposes. Since advaita upholds the identity of the individual Atman with brahman, a doubt naturally arises about the origin of the variegated universe. The appearance of difference in the universe is attributed to mAyA. In popular parlance, mAyA means illusion, and a magician or a juggler is called a mAyAvI. Within advaita, mAyA has a technical significance as the creative power (Sakti) of brahman, which also serves to occlude, due to which the universe is perceived to be full of difference, and the unity of brahman is not known. Some vaishNava schools use the word mAyAvAda in a derogatory sense. However, this criticism interprets mAyA solely as illusion and criticizes advaita for dismissing the world as an illusion that is nothing more than a dream. Such a criticism neglects the philosophical subtlety of the concept of mAyA in advaita. @> ....groovey baby! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 18, 2001 Report Share Posted April 18, 2001 couldn't resist..... from The Advaita Vedanta Homepage GAUDAPADA gauDapAda is the first historically known author in the advaita vedAnta tradition, whose work is still available to us. He may be said to be the pioneer of the ajAti vAda school in advaita vedAnta. gauDapAda is traditionally said to have been the guru of govinda bhagavatpAda, who was the guru of SankarAcArya. Not much is known about gauDapAda, the person. The name gauDa indicates that he was a north Indian by birth, and many places, from Kashmir to Bengal, have been postulated as his home. The sArasvata brAhmaNas of Goa and northern (coastal) Karnataka, who are said to have immigrated from north India, trace the lineage of the Kavale maTha to gauDapAda, but not through SankarAcArya. However, one branch of the sArasvata brAhmaNa community is affiliated to the citrapura maTha, the lineage of which is traced through SankarAcArya, while yet other (gauDa) sArasvata groups are followers of the dvaita school. gauDapAda composed the gauDapAdIya kArikAs (GK), which constitute an expository text on the mANDUkya upanishad. The GK is divided into four books (prakaraNas), titled Agama-prakaraNa, vaitathya-prakaraNa, advaita-prakaraNa and alAtaSAnti-prakaraNa respectively. The kArikAs of the first book are traditionally found interspersed with the prose passages of the mANDUkya upanishad, while the other three books are separated from the body of the upanishad. Other works that are attributed to gauDapAda are: sAm.khyakArikA bhAshya, uttaragItA bhAshya, nRsimhottaratApanI upanishad bhAshya, and a couple of works on SrIvidyA upAsanA - subhAgodaya and SrIvidyAratnasUtra. There is a lot of controversy in modern critical scholarship about the identity and the philosophy of the author(s) of the GK. Thus, there is one opinion that each book is probably written by a different author. And there is another opinion that all books are written by the same author. [1] One author traces connections between gauDapAda's kArikAs and the later pratyabhijnA school of Kashmir Saivism. [2] From the various vedAnta schools comes another kind of controversy. According to the advaita school, all four prakaraNas are writings of a human author named gauDapAda, and are therefore not regarded as Sruti, even though the first prakaraNa is found interspersed with the sentences of the mANDUkya upanishad. According to the dvaita school, however, 27 kArikAs of the first prakaraNa are not compositions of a human author, and are therefore as much Sruti as the prose passages of the mANDUkya upanishad. The most notorious controversy about the GK is about the influence of mahAyAna buddhism on its author. Curiously enough, even those rival vedAnta schools which criticize advaita as pracanna-bauddham (buddhism in disguise) do not quote the GK to substantiate their criticism. However, among modern scholars who are interested in studying Eastern philosophies such as advaita vedAnta and mahAyAna buddhism, this has been a hot topic for debate. [3] It is clear that the GK has been written in the context of a vedAntic dialogue with various schools of mahAyAna buddhism, more prominently the yogAcAra and madhyamaka schools. GK IV (alAtaSAnti prakaraNa) refers to the mahAyAna school of buddhism as agrAyana. Moreover, the very metaphor of the alAtacakra is a peculiarly buddhist one. The alAtacakra is a burning firebrand that is waved in a circle, creating an impression of a continuous circle of fire. It is interesting to note here that gauDapAda characteristically inverts the use of the buddhist metaphor. The buddhist uses the metaphor to insist that the impression of a continuous circle is an illusion, there being nothing more than the momentary spatial positions of the burning brand. Hence, from the buddhist prespective, it is plainly an error to see the burning circle as having any svabhAva - "own-nature". gauDapAda on the other hand points out that the burning brand is itself the substratum of its momentary spatial positions and the illusion of a burning circle caused by waving the brand. Hence, according to him, even if the burning circle is an illusion, its svabhAva is nothing other than that of the burning brand. Seen in context, the entire discussion in the GK seems to be a continuation of the age-old svabhAva vs. nihsvabhAvatA and Atman vs. nairAtmya debates between vedAntic and buddhist schools. According to Sankara's commentary on these kArikAs, gauDapAda uses buddhist metaphor and buddhist terminology to come to vedAntic conclusions regarding the ultimate existence of the Atman = brahman as the substratum (adhishThAna) of all experience. That he speaks the buddhist language does not mean that he is a buddhist in disguise. Moreover, it is not very surprising that gauDapAda, a vedAntin, is very familiar with buddhist doctrine. Tradition recounts that the famous pUrva-mImAm.saka, kumArila bhaTTa, learnt from bauddha and jaina teachers, with a view to understanding their schools before he wrote his own works on mImAm.sA. Besides, by its very nature, classical Indian philosophical writing proceeds by means of demarcating one's own position from that of another's, pointing out where they are similar and on what issues they differ. An intimate knowledge of the other's philosophical system is necessary for such refutation to take place. The contention of some modern scholars that gauDapAda's philosophy is nothing more than buddhism clothed in vedAntic colors is based on two errors, that do not do justice to either mahAyAna buddhism or to advaita vedAnta. The first and the more serious error lies in interpreting the madhyamaka concept of SUnyatA as an Absolute, equivalent to the Atman or brahman of vedAnta. A careful reading of nAgArjuna's mUlamadhyamaka-kArikAs and other works shows what pains the madhyamaka school takes to avoid the extreme of absolutism (SAsvata-vAda). While the buddhist ajAtivAda maintains, "There is no birth," gauDapAda's argument about ajAtivAda says, "There is an Unborn." Thus, gauDapAda clearly upholds the Atman as the absolute. For nAgArjuna, no view is correct, because every view ultimately entails some absolutist positon, an extreme that is avoided by the buddhist middle path. gauDapAda, on the other hand, is inclusivistic in his scope. He argues that every view entails an absolutist position, and precisely for this reason, all views are said to be non-conflicting (avirodha) with the absolutism of advaita. There are other points of contrast. For nAgArjuna, there is no need to affirm a substratum (adhishThAna) of phenomena, whereas for gauDapAda, the Atman is the substratum of all experience. The madhyamaka non-duality is in terms of the emptiness (SUnyatA) of all phenomena, while in the vedAnta view of non-duality, phenomena are possible only due to the essential reality of the Atman, which is pure consciousness. The madhyamaka school does not describe SUnyatA as an independent absolute entity, whereas the advaita vedAnta emphasizes brahman/Atman as an Absolute. In the light of these significant differences, seeing nothing but mahAyAna buddhism in gauDapAda's advaita vedAnta is impossible without seeing madhyamaka buddhism itself through vedAnta-tinted glasses. As for the other schools of buddhism such as vijnAnavAda, the madhyamaka school itself criticizes them for holding views that entail consciousness as an Absolute. gauDapAda possibly agrees with this evaluation of the vijnAnavAda school. The second error lies in ignoring the fact that advaita vedAnta no doubt developed to a substantial degree before the time of composition of GK IV. Already in the paingala upanishad of the Sukla yajurveda, which Sankara quotes in his bhAshya, there is a detailed exposition of non-duality through the method of adhyAropa-apavAda, (sublation of superimposition). With Sruti being interpreted in this way, advaita vedAnta, with all its "illusionist" conclusions, follows very naturally: the ultimate reality of only the substratum is upheld, and the superimposition is denied an independent reality. Obviously, gauDapAda hails from this vedAntic tradition, and in his kArikas, he addresses his contemporary mahAyAnists. It is also important to remember that the development of both mahAyAna buddhism and vedAnta took place more or less simultaneously, and within the same larger geographical area. It would be foolhardy to expect that there would not have been some interaction between the two most powerful streams (brAhmaNa and bauddha) of Indian philosophical thought. It is clear from the history of Indian philosophical thought that both brAhmaNa and bauddha sides held steadfastly to their basic axioms, although the individual systems within each stream held diverse opinions on various philosophical issues. On the whole, it seems as if reading too much mahAyAna buddhism into the GK is jumping to conclusions. This is not a chauvinistic defense of advaita vedAnta with respect to buddhism. I only want to point out that there are many subtle points which make the two systems very different, although both systems describe Reality as being beyond name and form. It would be well to remember that the converse criticism, i.e. that mahAyAna buddhism is but vedAnta clothed in buddhist colors, has been addressed by as early a buddhist writer as bhAvaviveka (6th century CE). #:-0>......now we's rockin!! jijaji Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2001 Report Share Posted April 19, 2001 >> As this opinion is detrimental to the eternity of prema, Vaisnavas have declared this aberrant philosophy to be in opposition to Vedas and also against Sripada Sankaracaya's original teachings. What is this new philosophy? This is not a 'new' philosophy. Sruti states the eternality of jivas and their svarupa. There are so many quotes stating for example that jivas can be compared to sparks from a fire, and so on. Prema is part of jva's svarupa, that is to say, it is never absent even when in a dormant condition into jada-jagat. Sruti also states that jivas are not caused by ignorance, as they are part of Brahman's svarupa according srutis: yam evaisa vrnute tena labhyas tasyaisatma vivrnute tanu svan (Katha Upan. 1.2.23) We state that nirvisesa kevaladvaita-vada in not a real advaita-vada as described in Vedas and Upanisads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.