Advaita - Buddhism in disguise?

[Guest guest]

 

No one is stating that all Acarya Sankara's teachings on advaita-vada are the same as those followed by Vaisnavas' lines. We only had pointed out some similarities on the path and the fundamental difference of the sadhya, or aim.

 

Bhaktas are not worried with mukti, as they consider it a great disturbance in their path. They avoid especially the kind of mukti postulated by mayavadis, that is brahma-sayujiya-mukti. Therefore, all Acarya Sankara's teachings concerning mukti are simply ignored by bhaktas.

 

It also seems that Acarya Sankara actually could not defeat Buddhists at his time. Sri Sivanatha-siromani's Sabdartha-mañjari sheds light on Sankara Acarya's life history. There we read that Sankaracarya was eventually defeated in scriptural debate by a Tibetan Buddhist lama, who was at that time a famous jagat-guru among the Buddhists.

 

Before commencing the debate they vowed that the loser would give up his life by falling into a vessel filled with boiling oil. Acarya Sankara finally admitted defeat, and actually gave up his life as they had agreed. In this way, Sankaracarya, an effulgent flame in this world, departed in 812 A.D. being defeated by a Buddhist.

 

Yadavaprakasa, Sridhara Svami, Sri Bilvamangala, Trivikrama Acarya, Prakasananda sarasvati, Vasudeva Sarvabhauma, Madhususana Sarasvati and countless advaita-vadis were defeated by Vaisnava-acaryas in scriptural debates and acknowledged the superiority of bhakti over jñana, they gave up kevaladvaita-vada and accepted initiation into bhakti-marga.

 

There is no historical record anywhere of any Vaisnava being defeated by Sankara Acarya, or by his followers, or giving up Vaisnavism to accept advaita-vada. Maybe the opposite party will say that they are all too much fanatic to be converted!

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[shvu]

 

Hi Satyaraja Dasa,

 

If I have guesses right, you have some amterial on Shankara and Advaita that you are posting at regular intervals. That explains why you avoid all my questions and instead, post something different.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>It also seems that Acarya Sankara actually could not defeat Buddhists at his time. Sri Sivanatha-siromani's Sabdartha-mañjari sheds light on Sankara Acarya's life history. There we read that Sankaracarya was eventually defeated in scriptural debate by a Tibetan Buddhist lama, who was at that time a famous jagat-guru among the Buddhists. Before commencing the debate they vowed that the loser would give up his life by falling into a vessel filled with boiling oil. Acarya Sankara finally admitted defeat, and actually gave up his life as they had agreed. In this way, Sankaracarya, an effulgent flame in this world, departed in 812 A.D. being defeated by a Buddhist.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

[sigh]

 

Utter tripe, is how one can describe this. How did you manage to get hold of such nonsense?

 

I have already told you that your sources for information on Shankara and advaita are all false. If you continue to post from such sources, you will only make a fool of yourself. Perhaps such things would have worked on VNN, because you had like-minded people to discuss with. They had no more knowledge of Shankara than you do.

 

But trying such gimmicks elsewhere, will simply not work. But if you want to look funny, then you can certainly continue to post all the rest of the material you have on Shankara and Advaita. People can have a good laugh at your expense.

 

Cheers

[shvu]

 

This is why the classical traditions of Vedanta in India [including Vaishnavas] do not recognize the Gaudiya school as a valid Vedantic tradition. The Dvaita and Vishishtadvaita schools who recognize their opponent Advaita as a valid tradition, hesistate to acknowedge the Gaudiyas, although they are Vaishnavas.

 

Not surprising, after reading these fake stories on Shankara, Advaita and also the other fake stories on Madhva, Ramanuja and Nimbarka from the Navadvipa Dham Mahatmya. This along with their record of quoting non-existent verses from the scriptures explains why. Someone on the top, came up with a pack of lies, and now the Gaudiyas are stuck with it.

 

---

 

To quote a Dvaitin Scholar on this (in respose to the story of Madhva in the Navadwipa-Dham):

 

I don't know who wrote the Navadwipa Dham, but from the evidence of the above, the author had to be a person totally unrestrained by any notion of intellectual honesty, true scholarship, or devotional morality. The only authentic biography of Madhva, the Sumadhva Vijaya, makes no mention of any such event as described; also, neither Madhva himself, nor any scholar

of his school, accepts the spurious claim that Chaitanya is Vishnu Himself -- a claim that I myself have shown to be without foundation.

 

These are preposterous prevarications created by a non-scholar, and readily absorbed by willing hordes of credulous acolytes.

 

It is such putrescent scholarship, combined with a style of translating scripture that is completely free of syntactic and semantic correctness, what to speak of intellectual depth.

 

---

 

No one, can put it better.

 

Cheers

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I have already told you that your sources for information on Shankara and advaita are all false. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

That is, of course, your opinion. You are entitled to it. But it isn't very logical to think everyone will agree with you on the basis that you say so.

 

 

[Guest guest]

quote:

--

It also seems that Acarya Sankara actually could not defeat Buddhists at his time. Sri Sivanatha-siromani's Sabdartha-mañjari sheds light on Sankara Acarya's life history. There we read that Sankaracarya was eventually defeated in scriptural debate by a Tibetan Buddhist lama, who was at that time a famous jagat-guru among the Buddhists. Before commencing the debate they vowed that the loser would give up his life by falling into a vessel filled with boiling oil. Acarya Sankara finally admitted defeat, and actually gave up his life as they had agreed. In this way, Sankaracarya, an effulgent flame in this world, departed in 812 A.D. being defeated by a Buddhist.

--

 

Satya...why you post such craziness? This makes you look like a quack!

 

;^)

jijaji

 

[shvu]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>That is, of course, your opinion. You are entitled to it. But it isn't very logical to think everyone will agree with you on the basis that you say so.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

It is hardly a question of opinion. Let me give an example which will hopefully make it clear. The best example here of course, would be Chaitanya.

 

If someone comes up with a story of Chaitanya, where he had a debate with a mayavadi, lost the debate and consequently jumped into a big tub of boiling water, will any of the Gaudiyas buy such a story? I will say no. Because they have a source for Chaitanya's life-story which is accepted as authentic. The same applies for everyone.

 

To repeatedly quote from false sources, especially after I have pointed out a couple of times that the only valid source for the life-story of Shankara is the Madhaviya Shankara Vijayam, qualifies as foolishness.

 

History is not a matter of opinion that everyone can have his own version of it.

 

Cheers

 

[shvu]

 

I have to add something. If someone came up with such a story about Chaitanya, not only the Gaudiyas, no one else will accept such a story. Only a fanatic, with vested interests in defaming Chaitanya will perhaps to such nonsense, in spite of knowing very well that it is false.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

>> That explains why you avoid all my questions and instead, post something different.

 

Most of your questions are showing that you do not have a proper initiation into any real Advaita-vada school, and therefore you are only a free lancer, trying to understand transcendental matters with no transcendental direction at all. They do not deserve any answer because they are ridiculous. If you want to understand Sankaracarya, at first you should take shelter at his parampara.

 

Besides your ignorance and sectarism in all sastra, you dare to criticize a school whose aim you cannot imagine what it is. As many people have told you, sastra have many meanings, according individual's levels of realization. Therefore its translations and comments are not only 'completely free of syntactic and semantic correctness, what to speak of intellectual depth', but also most of the times they are completely beyond any material understanding and scholar's reasoning.

 

The book that you refer to (Navadvipa-Mahatmya) was written by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura, an eminent acarya in our line. It is not meant for people in general and it describes the spiritual mood that one should perform Sri Navadvipa-dhama parikrama and the realizations that one may have. As we told you, this book was made in a samadhi state and those who already had attained this same condition may witness whatever the acarya has written.

 

To your information, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura was an eminent Judge during the British-raj, and was very erudite. He wrote more than 100 books on suddha-bhakti in our line and many commentaries on sastras. He was well versed in Sanskrit, Bengali, Urdu, Farsi, Hindi, Greek, English and many other languages. His British superiors use to consider him one of the topmost magistrates at his time, and he was very respected by the Hindu and Muslim communities as well.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[shvu]

 

Please, you are breaking my heart :-)

 

Let us see how you, who have 'proper knowledge' have been arguing for/against Shankar by hopping around from one opinion to another.

 

1. First, you said Advaita was a fake and had no support from Sruti. I proved you wrong.

 

2. Then you said Acharya Shankara's Advaita was distorted by modern philosophers and this distortion is Mayavada. False again.

 

3. Then you said Shankara was Lord Shiva who came down to defeat Buddhists. That is wrong again because Shankara never debated with Buddhists. Neither is there any support from the scriptures to show that Shankara was an avatar.

 

4. Today you totally changed your position and said that Shankara did not defeat the buddhists and gave up his life in boiling oil [sic]. One wonders how Lord Shiva who specifically came down to defeat Buddhism, was defeated by a mere mortal, especially considering that he had the backing of the Supreme personality of Godhead. It is amazing how history changes on a daily basis with you.

 

5. You quoted a verse from the Katha Upanishad which had no relevance. When I pointed it out, there was no reply from you.

 

6. The latest stand that you have taken, is that I am not in parampara, so my knowedge is not correct. if you thought so, you should have mentioned this earlier and not engaged in discussion with an ignorant person like me. Why the late realization? If you cannot answer questions posed by an ignorant person, then you will have trouble answering questions from a bonafide scholar. You need to know how to tackle second grade questions before you will take on a graduate.

 

The fact that you cannot answer simple questions put by lay-people shows the extent of your pretentious knowedge of Advaita and Shankara. Quoting fake stories and non-existent aspects of Advaita will get you nothing. Like I said, it may have worked in VNN, but not here.

 

Cheers

 

[Guest guest]

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).

[Guest guest]

Satya says;

"Most of your questions are showing that you do not have a proper initiation into any real Advaita-vada school, and therefore you are only a free lancer, trying to understand transcendental matters with no transcendental direction at all. They do not deserve any answer because they are ridiculous. If you want to understand Sankaracarya, at first you should take shelter at his parampara."

 

 

Excuse me...Satya there are Gaudiya Vaishnavs who claim that you have no proper diksha into an authentic Sampradaya within Sri Chaitanyas school and we can argue about that until the cows come home!

 

So try some other approach other than you are not properly initiated to understand! ha ha ..

 

Regarding Shankara being boiled a pot...sounds like you been smokin some ;^)

 

You are getting creamed in this debate I hope you know, regardless if you accept it or not..!

 

;^)

[shvu]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

True. It is very simple to show that Buddhism during the time of Gaudapada was nothing but Vedanta in disguise. So it is actually the other way around.

 

Cheers

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>To repeatedly quote from false sources, especially after I have pointed out a couple of times that the only valid source for the life-story of Shankara is the Madhaviya Shankara Vijayam, qualifies as foolishness.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

What is determined as authentic and what is false is a matter mostly based on opinion. Though there are "more accepted" opinions and "less accepted" opinions. I'm not arguing for or against either stance. My point is just on what is accepted as standard authority. It will naturally differ according to individuals. I never heard the story about the boiling oil before. Perhaps more information on the source would be helpful.

 

I would generally agree that those texts written immediately after the departure of the acharya would be more authentic in a general sense. But then there is the point of revelation, which Shvu is probably unable to accept as an atheist. The text Navadvipa-mahatmya is not claimed to be based on other texts. It's claim is that it is revelation from a liberated soul. Every tradition has such texts that are divinely authored or inspired. There is no way to prove or disprove such texts. Belief in them will ultimately rely on the faith on has in the source.

 

Just as an example, Ramakrishna claimed Chaitanya manifested to him. Personally, as a follower of Chaitanya, I do not believe the claim for various reasons that are not important to bring up at present. But there is no way for me to prove or disprove Ramakrishna's statements. I could present a logical argument as to why I don't believe the claim. But it is ultimately based on logic, and logic is ultimately fallable. That's why such a belief or disbelief must be based on faith.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>

History is not a matter of opinion that everyone can have his own version of it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Unfortunatley everyone does have their own opinion. And even more unfortunate is that accepted "history" is just the opinion of the powerful nations and societies.

 

It would be nice if there actually were a "history" as it really was. But conditioned living entities have various defects, such as cheating propensities, etc., which invariably make it impossible to have an objective history of the world.

 

[shvu]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>What is determined as authentic and what is false is a matter mostly based on opinion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

I cannot come up with some incidents in the life of Chaitanya from an unknown source which do not conform to the Chaitanya Charitamrita and say it is my opinion, can I? Surely, that is not the way, history works.

 

Regarding the navadwipa-Dham, you had earlier said that it was based on the Bhavisya Purana. That rules out the possibility that it was a secret. Unless, one says the Supreme personality of Godhead chose to keep it a secret until the 16th century. This raises the question of where was this information recorded?

 

But now if you say it was revealed, then I have no comments about that. That is a matter of personal opinion. But one can understand that this puts down Madhva, Ramanuja and Mimbarka. Especially unacceptable to their respective followers, because they do not accept Chaitanya as an avatar.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

At the beginning of this thread Shvuji has quoted srutis mantras:

 

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]

 

And has stated that we could not offer any argument against the advaita-vada interpretation of these mantras. We consider Brahma and jiva as two eternal different entities, as stated by sastra:

 

dva suparna sayuja sakhaya samanam vrksam parisasvajate

tayoranyah pippalam svadvatyam asnannanyo bhicakasiti

(Rg Veda 1.164.21, Mundaka Upanisad 3.1.1 and Svetasvatara Upanisad 4.6)

 

This mantra shows that jivatma and Paramatma are not one. The mantras ayatmatma, tattvamasi, aham brahmasmi only are explaining that Brahma and jivatma have the same nature, i.e., both are sac-cit-ananda. These mantras are not stating that after a while jiva will be transformed into Brahman, or that he will merge into Brahman. This concept is only a fake made by advaitavadis.

 

And by certain this advaitavadi does not known the sense of the word prajñanam, otherwise he would seek after initiation before mention this sloka.

 

Do you know if there are ritviks mayavadis, Jijaji?

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

 

[shvu]

 

Hi Satyaraja Dasa,

 

Switching positions as usual. Anyway here we go,

 

I am aware of the Dvaita interpretation. I was never arguing against that, to begin with. I was quoting Sruti to show that Advaita is not something that was fabricated by Shankara by covering Buddhism. That was the point. I was trying to drive home the point that Advaitic concepts existed before Buddhism.

 

A side note:

All the quotes that the Dvaitins provide can be interpreted in an advatin way and vice versa. You see, that is how we have 3 different Vedantic schools today. That is why the 3 big Acharyas are known as intellects par excellence. One can go into how a term should be interpreted and debate on it forever.

 

Curiously, what is the relevance of the verse that you quoted? Here it is, in english

 

Two birds, united always and known by the

same name, closely cling to the same tree.

One of them eats the sweet fruit; the other

looks on without eating.

 

Cheers

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

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.

 

Actually you will never see the relevance of this verse in your present condition of a self-made Sankarite. To summarize Acaryas Sankara's instructions on how to attain moksa, following the meaning of this verse, we would say:

 

"At first you should born in India in a good bramanin family. Thereafter you will spend your childhood studding Sanskrit, rules of grammar, nyaya, and so on. During your youth you should follow varnasrama and be very pious in all aspects, never neglecting you nitya and namittika-dharma. When you are mature you should adopt vanaprastha-asrama and leave your family life, fixing your residence at Varanasi. At Varanasi you may find sadhu-sanga and you should study Vedanta under the anugatya of these sadhus. Thereafter you should enter into sannyasa-asrama and you will have to perform untold austerities to purify your budhi and body. You should remain at Varanasi studding Vedanta until you get suddha-buddhi. At the moment of your death, if by any good fortune you hear the word "Rama" or you utter this word while leaving your material body, you will attain moksa. Otherwise you will remain bounded in samsara."

 

So, as the sruti text states, Atman will not be attained by buddhi, by studding sacrade books, or due austerities, performance of varnasrama-dharma, pious activities and so on. Atman will be attained by His own sel-revelation through His name. Nama is not different that nami. Atman and His name are the same, and the only cause of moksa.

 

Therefore this verse is proving that advaita-vada has nothing to do with moksa, as only Atman is the cause of moksa, and that advaitavada is only a fake to delude idiots.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[Guest guest]

satay says;

 

"Do you know if there are ritviks mayavadis, Jijaji?"

 

most likely.....watch out!

 

;^)

[Guest guest]

It also seems that Acarya Sankara actually could not defeat Buddhists at his time. Sri Sivanatha-siromani's Sabdartha-mañjari sheds light on Sankara Acarya's life history. There we read that Sankaracarya was eventually defeated in scriptural debate by a Tibetan Buddhist lama, who was at that time a famous jagat-guru among the Buddhists. Before commencing the debate they vowed that the loser would give up his life by falling into a vessel filled with boiling oil. Acarya Sankara finally admitted defeat, and actually gave up his life as they had agreed. In this way, Sankaracarya, an effulgent flame in this world, departed in 812 A.D. being defeated by a Buddhist.

 

 

I just can't get over this post Satyaji...you honestly don't believe this yourself do you??

 

;^)

[shvu]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Atman will be attained by His own sel-revelation through His name. Nama is not different that nami. Atman and His name are the same, and the only cause of moksa. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

I presume, you can understand plain english. Here is the verse again,

 

This Atman cannot be attained by the

study of the Vedas, or by intelligence, or

by much hearing of sacred books.

 

As anyone can see, it says that Atman cannot be attained by action or intelligence. It does not talk about Nama or any such nonsense. That was a fake piece contrived by you, and added to it.

 

It follows to say 'whomsoever it chooses, to him it is revealed'. Very plainly it sets out to say that the Atman cannot be realized through effort. Obvious enough, if you set aside your fictious additions. Needless to say your interpretation of that verse is much less than nonsense.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> ...and that advaitavada is only a fake to delude idiots. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Wrong as shown above.

 

Two can play this game. How about a dose of your own medicine. I have a feeling you will find it bitter. Goloka is a fictious place considering that it was not around till the 16th century? It was cooked up by some ambitious Gaudiyas, who cashed in on Chaitanya's fame, to create a new samprapaya and a bunch of gullibles like you fell for it hook, line and sink. How does that sound? You see, I am good at it too :-)

 

What else you got?

 

Cheers

 

[Guest guest]

Nama and nami are the same: abhinnatva nami naminoh, this is a famous mahavakhya.

 

Srimad Bhagavatam (2.1.11) states:

 

etan-nirvidyamananam icchatam akubhayam

yogunam nripa nirNitam harer namanukirtanam

 

The only certain way to attain liberation is nama-kirtanam. It is not any advaita-vada or dvaita-vada, or any other philosophical path. Ataman and His name are transcendental and therefore the same in all aspects. The real meaning of the name is only delivered to those who are surrendered to Him. There is no question of sadhana or any other vain effort to attain it.

 

[Guest guest]

There are two different kinds of faith, or sraddha. One is named laukika-sraddha, or mundane faith. This kind of faith is caused by some impressions given by senses, and processed into the mind and intelligence. This kind of faith is always changing as new information are given to the mind and intelligence by the senses. It is changing all day.

 

Another kind of faith is called paramarthika, or transcendental. This kind of sraddha is caused by paramarthika samsakaras, impressions that are not mundane, and it may cause the real understanding of the meaning of sastras. This kind of sraddha is eternal and is never mutable. It increases with the jiva's spiritual development.

 

As the adhikaras of scholars and devotees are quite different, it is natural that some hardships in communication may also occur. Concerning the sraddha of a scholar, it is to be consider as laukika, or mundane. Scholars may change this laukika-sraddha as they like, because this kind of faith is mutable by definition. The foundation of this sraddha is their knowledge on history, grammar, philosophy, and any other mundane topic. This foundation is also a fake, as it is not permanent neither eternal.

 

Those who are following spiritual path have paramarthika sraddha. This kind of faith is not mutable by definition. The foudation of this kind of sraddha are all paramathika subjects, that the intellect cannot measure at all. Therefore a scholar who has his faith always changing should consider a devotee as a fanatic, due his unmovable faith and different foundations.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

 

 

[shvu]

 

Yeah....a dose of your own medicine and you are not liking it.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Nama and nami are the same: abhinnatva nami naminoh, this is a famous mahavakhya.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

From where, may I ask?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Dear Shvuji<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Dear Satayaraj Dasji,

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>While discussing in these forums we are trying to do kirtana, a process of bhakti.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

This is a new one to me. You thought Advaita was ridiculous, fraud, Shankara jumped into oil, etc and were abusing Advaita at length. Now you have switched your position once again. Is it that, you ran out of your stock of material on Shankara and Advaita?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>So, we are practicing bhakti-yoga all day, as prescribed by our parampara. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

No one ever criticized your Bhakti-yoga. You on the other hand took a free hand in criticizing others by quoting fake stories and false concepts.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>But what is your sadhya while studding advaita-vada and even bhakti-sastras? To gratify your mind? To prove to yourself that caitanyties are only fools? To pose as a scholar? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

I am here to show ignorant people like you that Advaita is not a false philosophy as has been falsely projected by the revered Acharyas of your Sampradaya. Not one of your allegations have been valid. I will continue till you exhaust your stock of arguments, which I believe, are being cut and paste from some diverse third class articles that you have. That explains why you cannot back up your claims and also why your postings have consistently been inconsistent and contradicting one another.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>To attain moksa? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

You see, for an atheist, there is no such thing as a soul and hence no such thing as moksha. Surely it is obvious.

 

Cheers

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>

I cannot come up with some incidents in the life of Chaitanya from an unknown source which do not conform to the Chaitanya Charitamrita and say it is my opinion, can I?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are plenty of people who do just that, and it becomes a matter of their faith. Of course, when they do that, not many people listen. And that is what should be expected.

 

My opinion is that the authorized (traditional) biographies of any acharya (shankara, madhva, ramanuja, chaitanya, etc.) should be accepted as primary evidence. But this does not rule out some other source of biographical information that may exist or manifest.

 

But then in general, secondary evidence relies heavily on faith.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>

Regarding the navadwipa-Dham, you had earlier said that it was based on the Bhavisya Purana.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The meeting of Chaitanya with the acharyas is described in Bhavishya Purana, but the particular narration of Navadvipa-mahatmya (and its details) are, according to the tradition, revelation. This is a matter of faith based generally on one's spiritual experience and relationship with Thakur Bhaktivinoda, the author of the text.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>

But now if you say it was revealed, then I have no comments about that. That is a matter of personal opinion. But one can understand that this puts down Madhva, Ramanuja and Mimbarka. Especially unacceptable to their respective followers, because they do not accept Chaitanya as an avatar.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Since most followers of the mentioned acharyas consider Chaitanya to be a living entity, the entire occurence would be dismissed as false. It then becomes a question not about whether Chaitanya appeared to these personalities, but whether Chaitanya is in fact an avatara. Based on one's conclusion to that point, the other conclusions would follow.

 

 

[sumeet]

Hare Krishna

Please accept my obesiances unto your lotus feet:

 

Thanks Shvu for bringing up this topic. Let's make this discussion more learned by focussing on the doctrines of Advaita as based on Vedanta-[upanisads and Brahma sutra, Gita] rather than critisizng Sripada Sankracarya or Gaudiya Vaishnavas. I think that discussion on that line will serve the purpose better.

 

To begin with I want to ask Shvu one question doesn't Advaita insists on Absolute equality of Lord and jivatma or does it talks about identity of Supreme and jivatma due to both being of same nature-sat chit ananda ? By identity I mean sharing of common nature.

 

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.