Advaita - Buddhism in disguise [cont..]

shvu · April 20, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Prema-bhakti is not a concept, neither it is a philosophy, it is a sentiment. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then it is not a Dharma. How did you claim earlier that it is the only true Sanathana Dharma? It is not even a philosophy according to you. Then on what grounds can you say that Advaita is false?

You are not able to come up with consistent arguments. Your postings repeatedly contradict one another. First learn to be coherent. That is the only way you can get anywhere with debating.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>He are talking about mayavada's philosophy, that is a fake. A temporary system of belief, and meant to those who may have laukika-sraddha on it. Therefore it is a by-product of maya. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me tell you how this sounds to me. You have been brainwashed by your revered Gurus, that Mayavada is false, false, false, false, false, false... Like a broken record, you keep on repeating that without providing any details. Of course, you have none, except for any false info you have from your third grade articles. If this is part of your missionary activity of defaming Mayavada and claiming your concepts are the only true ones, then you are certainly doing a very poor job.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>For certain you will say that Padma Purana is a false source of information on Sri Sivaji as Sankaracarya, but this is your own and lonely opinion, devoid of any expression, as you are not even a sampradayaka adavaita-vadi.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ever heard of such a thing called fact? If you were in India, or if you had the good sense to take some time to study Indian religion, you would have known that there are multiple versions of each Purana, which are regional, sectarian and vary widely across the country. But of course, you have been brainwashed to believe that all your literature is the only true literature. Not your fault. You see when the source is wrong, everything goes wrong, as amply demonstrated in your case.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>We have nothing to do with Iskcon, as you well know.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is certainly news to me, I had no idea.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>We are not quoting any Vaisnava's books, bur history books. Do you have any idea of the Naga-baba's sect and theirs activities? Just answer this point. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The chameleon changes it's colors again. Now you are quoting history books, huh? Anyway, I have no idea of Naga-Babas because I don't have access to the comic books that you have. However I did read that portion that you had written about Shankara and Naga-babas and I enjoyed it. It was fun.

Thanks for taking the time to entertain us.

Cheers

shvu · April 20, 2001

Last week, people discovered some lost portions of the Padma Purana in west Bengal. Here is the complete story of Shankara from this version.

Begin-------

On the command of the supreme personality of Godhead, the demi-god Shiva came down to earth to battle Buddhism by creating a false, philosophy titled Mayavada. It was basically meant to delude, idiots. But surprisingly, a Buddhist defeated Shankara and he had to give up his life, by diving into a tub of oil. Enraged, Shiva went to Goloka to meet the Supreme Personality. Full of anger, Shiva asked him, "What in the world is going on??? you told me to defeat the buddhists and now you had a buddhist defeat me !" [One must note that Shiva can talk to the SPG this way because they are old pals. However if someone else does so, the SPG gets angry and will toss him into hell]

The Supreme personality said "Yu poor fella, did you notice the date on which I told you to go down? It was the first of April. I fooled ya !"

All the ladies in Goloka clapped at the clever joke of the Supreme personality of Godhead.

End------

He who listens to this story with reverence and devotion is freed from the ocean of Samsara. All his sins are destroyed and he will have no more rebirth.

Cheers

shvu · April 20, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Some would consider the Taittiriya Upanishad to be refering to prema bhakti in the following verse:

raso vai sah, rasam hy evayam labdhvanandi bhavati <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can I have a reference number? I would like to see the context of this verse.

Cheers

Jagat · April 20, 2001

You are a funny guy, SHiVU.

animesh · April 20, 2001

Hi jijaji,

I was just joking when I requested you to change your username. In Hindi, jijaji means brother in law. Ha ha. :-)

animesh · April 20, 2001

Hi Satya ji,

You have written that Lord Siva has himself called His doctrine as pseudo-Buddhism. Does it mean that He made this revelation after Sri Sankaracarya had taught his philosophies? If yes, does it mean that Sri Ved Vyasa compiled this in Padma Puran after that?

You may say that Ved Vyasa knew about the future and therefore he could write all these things even though he was present much before not only Sankaracarya but also Gautam Buddha. But please note that you have written the revelations made by Lord Siva in the past tense.

animesh · April 20, 2001

Satya ji,

One should not try to find the similarities between modern day Buddhism and the teachings of Sankaracarya to show that Sankaracarya's teachings were same as those of Gautam Buddha. This is because after the advent of Sankaracarya, many new branches of Buddhism emerged. Many people talk of Hinayana and Mahayana. But there are many sub divisions in these too. The teachings of a large no. of these can be safely considered to be very very different from those of Gautam Buddha. The only branch of Buddhism that comes close to the actual teachings of Gautam Buddha is Theravada. Gautam Buddha had remained silent about many topics (Brahm etc.) which Sankaracarya had discussed in length. It is true that you will find some similarities between teachings of Gautam Buddha and those of Sankaracarya. But, based on these, it is wrong to assume that Sankaracarya had simply copied Gautam Buddha and gave a new 'brand name' to his philosophy. This is because the teachings of Sankarcarya are closer to most of teachings in Vedas and Upanishads than to the teachings of Gautam Buddha. If the teachings of Gautam Buddha clash with those of Vedas and Upanishads, then you will find that teachings of Sankaracarya are found in Vedas and Upanishads and not in Buddhism. As an example, the followers of Sankaracarya believe that happens. Buddhists also believe in this. But the detailed meanings of the rebirth in the two are very much different. Do you know the difference?

animesh · April 20, 2001

In all the branches of Hinduism that I am aware of, including Advaita, there is belief of the existence of soul. It is believed that a soul passes from one body to another. This is how rebirth happens. Buddhists do not believe in the existence of soul. Now the question is "How can there be rebirth without soul? If there is no soul, then what is it that reincarnates?"

The answer can be given by taking an analogy. If you take one fruit, then from its seeds a tree can be grown. Hopefully, there will be many fruits in that tree. It is not necessary that if the first fruit was good, then latter fruits must be good. Similarly, it is not true that if the first fruit was bad, then latter fruits must be bad. There are many other factors. But, we can not say that they are completely independent. The quality of latter fruits is very much dependent on (though not necessarily same as) the quality of the first fruit.

Buddhists believe in reincarnation in a similar way. As the quality of one fruit may affect the qualities of other fruits, so do the deeds of people at present affect the life of those who are yet to be born. In a way, even though Buddhists also talk of rebirth, they do not mean the same thing by rebirth as Hindus believe. Hindus belive that the same soul reincarnates. But Buddhists do not believe in the existence of a soul. When they say that A was reborn as B, they simply mean that the deeds of A affected the life of B.

Do you think this is anyway close to the teachings of Advaita?

jijaji · April 21, 2001

Jagatji,

I find the dude shvu interesting as well..!

He's got Satya Sweetrice skirtin around and around and around!

(I have not forgotten Charan Das Babaji material)

;^)

jijaji

shvu · April 21, 2001

Continuing with the orginal topic, here are some more facts to show that Advaita is not Buddhism in disguise.

1. Gautama the Buddha himself taught only the "four noble truths". He refused to answer questions such as "Does Atman exist?" or "Does God exist?" His silence on this issue is usually taken to be a denial.

2. A few centuried after the Buddha, the Madhyamika school of Buddhism was founded by Nagarjuna, a philosopher of great dialectical skill. His skill extended to

showing that the major tenet of momentariness and even the idea of the Buddha himself were all self-contradictory and false. Without going into the details of his debates with rival Buddhist schools, it is sufficient to note here that he succeeded in establishing the supremacy of his school

in India, from where it later spread to Tibet, China and Japan. The important philosophical entities in Madhyamika philosophy are Sunya and Maya. Both Sunya and Maya are defined in his school in terms of the four-fold negation, neither Being, nor non-Being, nor neither, nor both.

The important point to note is that six to seven centuries after the Buddha, by postulating an Absolute eternal, the Mahayana school ended up almost converting Buddhism into Vedanta.

Along came Gaudapada, the Advaitin. He noticed at once that the Madhyamika argument was but a variant of the Upanishadic argument of Neti, neti. The only difference between the Advaitic Absolute and the Madhyamika Absolute was in the definition. The Advaita's Absolute was of course, eternal Brahman.

He did not need to conduct polemics against other schools of Buddhism, as the

Madhyamikas had already contradicted all earlier schools. This contradiction is not just a simple one, for the Madhyamika school had ended up with the category of the Absolute Eternal - the category of the Vedanta. All that was now needed to be

proved was that the Absolute of Madhyamika needed to be further refined.

By accepting all the discussions of the Madhyamika philosophers, but pointing out the untenability of the major conclusion of Madhyamika, Gaudapada left no choice for Madhyamika but to convert itself fully to

Vedanta.

Gaudapada did this in the time honored Indian method - assimilation instead of conversion. He could have stressed the importance of the testimony of the Upanishads to disprove the Buddhists. The plain answer of the Buddhist would have been "Your Vedas are not scripture for

me - therefore you are wrong." Hence this was the ingenious technique adopted by Gaudapada.

In conclusion,

It can be seen that the concept of Buddhism changed over time after the Buddha and by the time of Gaudapada, Buddhism had become very similar to Vedanta. Hence to say Shankara's Advaita was Buddhism indicated insufficient knowledge of Buddhism, Upanishads and Advaita.

By reading the Vedanta, one can see that the tenets of Advaita are all present in the Vedas and are not 'copied' from Buddhism. For those who are fond of Puranas, the Vishnu Purana which is considered to be a Vaishnava Purana is also Advaitic. Historically too, this Purana is the oldest of all the Puranas. That should set the matter to rest.

Further, people who wish to talk about Advaita should first read authentic sources recognized by the Shankara Sampradaya. Unfortunately, a lot of inferior articles containing false information on Shankara and Advaita have been spread around by people with vested interests. One should keep this in mind, and ensure that their source for any information on Advaita is a recognized and valid one. Otherwise their arguments will hold no water.

Cheers

April 21, 2001

Dirty game Shvu, you oppened another thread and did not instruct the opposite party. Then our posts would be incoherent, for certain. We will post again our points, that were in the other thread.

>> But you don't believe that Vaisnava acaryas have just given different names to their philosophies to "make a new market to the same old wine sold by Sankaracarya". Why?

Dear Animeshji, pranamam.

You made a very auspicious question, congratulations. This is revealing a sincere heart seeking after the Truth.

Actually our Vaisnava Acarya's business is to distribute prema-bhakti. They are not in the market of philosophies. But jivas have different adhikaras to accept their product. Therefore, to transform these jivas into customers of their product, they sometimes may prescribe karma and jñana as a preliminary platform to attain prema-bhakti.

Regarding jñana, they elaborate different systems of philosophy, meant to those jivas who are in that stage of sanatana-dharma's natural evolution (jñana-adhikaris). As you may know, Srila Ramanuja Acarya has proposed a philosophy named Visista-advaita, Sri Madhvacarya a philosophy named Dvaita-vada, and Dvaita-advaita, suddha-dvaita, are also proposed by Vaisnava Acaryas. Sriman Mahaprabhu has conciliated these different Vaisnava philosophies with His acintya-bheda-abheda doctrine.

But is fact there is no anthological disagreement among these different Vaisnava's doctrines, as they are all savisesa-abheda. They all teach the eternal difference between jiva and Brahman. None of these schools accept kevala-abheda. They are also only different names to the same old wine.

These philosophical schools and their tenets are not the aim itself. They are considered as an stage, named sambandha-jñana. At this stage a candidate for prema-bhakti should at first known the difference between jiva and jagat, jiva and Brahman, Brahman and jiva, and so on.

Similarly, advaita-vadis defenders are always on sale their old wine, that is sayujiya-mukti. Sometimes it comes as a system of philosophy as preached by Gautama Buddha, other times as mayavada such as

taught by Acarya Sankara, and in ancient times as the systems concocted by Gautama, Kapila, Ravana and many other rsis, munis, and other jivas and avataras. Sometimes they are Vedic, sometimes are not Vedic according different times, places and circumstances.

When we state that Buddhism and Sankara's mayavada are the same, for certain we are not saying that they are equal in all aspects of their misleading words and concocted speculations. We are stating that their aim is the same; i.e., sunyava, nirvisesa-vada, nirvana, and other kinds of abominable sayujyia-mukti that are against jiva's eternal svarupa.

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

posted 04-20-2001 10:38 AM PT (US)

>> You believe that Sankaracarya had to end his life by jumping into burning oil because he was defeated by a buddhist monk.

Actually what we believe or not is out of question regarding this subject matter. We had posted a version by a famous author, and he is stating that. We are not disregarding the Acarya only because we had posted a point related in a popular biography on him. Sankaracarya's followers should present

another version on his departure. Maybe in a bed, during his old age (33 years), and reciting or witting a stotra glorifying Govindaji.

Please point out your version.

BTW: Don't you forget to explain the activities of the Naga-baba sect whose founder-acarya was Srila Sankaracarya himself!!!

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

posted 04-20-2001 11:10 AM PT (US)

The doctrine of Maya is a malicious doctrine and is considered as pseudo-Buddhism. I am who disclosed it in the age of Kali. It shows the lack of meaning of the material creation and it condemns the sacred texts. In this doctrine I advise to everybody to stop with their activities.

Those who doesn't execute their duties are considered religious persons. I proclaimed the identity of the Lord with the individual soul. I declared that the nature of Brahmam is without attributes. This doctrine resembles itself to be a Vedic doctrine, but it is no-Vedic due to the principle that Maya is present in it. I conceived it for the destruction of the worlds and to deceive everyone in this era of Kali. (stated by Bhagavan Siva himself in the Siva Gita)

Any comment? This was compiled by Srila Krsna Dvapayana Vyasa in the Padma Purana (in samadhi state, of course). Therefore this text is older than any Gaudiya-vaisnava Acarya, and even than Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's advent. It was translated by a board of scholars supported by UNESCO and

published by Munshiram Manorhal Publishers Pvt Ltd (Delhi), who also publish books on Buddhism, Advaita-vada, Jainism, and all Vedic darsanam. (he is not an Iskcon member)

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

Jahnava Nitai Das · April 21, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>raso vai sah, rasam hy evayam labdhvanandi bhavati

Can I have a reference number? I would like to see the context of this verse.

The source for this verse is Taittiriya Upanishad 2.7.1.

I was surprised when I went to look up the reference. I have a Taittiriya Upanishad published by Ramakrishna mission, with commentary by Swami Sarvananda. I just had a glance over his purport, and was surprised to find he brings up this same point:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

3. Flavour which is the essence, etc. - 'Rasa is the sappy vegetative life in trees and plants, a tincture in rain, the elixir of life, the soma-dew that drips from the world-tree, seed in all that reproduces its kind, savour in all things eaten or drunk, and the principle of beauty in art' - says a modern critic. The one quality of Rasa is that it causes satisfaction. But for the value of Rasa the world is destitute of taste or flavour. One who has comprehended the Bliss of Brahman is immersed in felicity and enjoys like a bee which has settled on a flower full of nectar; his mind is supremely delighted. Nothing attracts a pure mind more than the Bliss of the Divine; if God were not Rasa none will be attracted to Him. The Vaishnavas of the Bengal school identify Rasa with Sri Krishna. While annotating the third verse of the Bhagavata, Vishvanathachakravartin argues thus: In the Taittiriya the Koshas from Annamaya to Anandamaya are set forth in an ascending grade of superiority, culminating in Brahman, who is the foundation, and then Rasa is identified with Him; so in that series Rasa occupies the apex. Rasa is not identical with Brahman but the base of It. In this view enjoyment of God is placed above knowledge of Him. But the spirit of the Upanishads in general and the experience of godmen like Sri Ramakrishna do not warrant this distinction. True knowledge and highest bhakti are inseparable."

shvu · April 21, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Dirty game Shvu, you oppened another thread and did not instruct the opposite party. Then our posts would be incoherent, for certain. We will post again our points, that were in the other thread.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was surprised that you continued to post on the old thread after I opened this thread. I guess, you did not notice the new thread. The new thread is because the old page was too big to load. Sorry for not informing you, my opponent.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Actually our Vaisnava Acarya's business is to distribute prema-bhakti. They are not in the market of philosophies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Congratulations SD, you have done it again. If you are not in the market for Philosophies, why are you picking on the Advaita philosophy? Contradiction again.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But jivas have different adhikaras to accept their product. Therefore, to transform these jivas into customers of their product, they sometimes may prescribe karma and jñana as a preliminary platform to attain prema-bhakti.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To me, it sounds like a case study for a managment student specializing in marketing.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>As you may know, Srila Ramanuja Acarya has proposed a philosophy named Visista-advaita, Sri Madhvacarya a philosophy named Dvaita-vada, and Dvaita-advaita, suddha-dvaita, are also proposed by Vaisnava Acaryas. Sriman Mahaprabhu has conciliated these different Vaisnava philosophies with His acintya-bheda-abheda doctrine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was not exactly a reconciliation, but certain parts were extracted from the different traditions and incorporated into the new philosophy of Acintya-Beda-Abeda. As a side note, it is impossible to reconcile the 3 classical Vedantic traditions.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But is fact there is no anthological disagreement among these different Vaisnava's doctrines, as they are all savisesa-abheda. They all teach the eternal difference between jiva and Brahman. None of these schools accept kevala-abheda. They are also only different names to the same old wine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This old wine, as you put it, is the Vedas [Eternal source]. Hence it is not suprising that a Vedantic school draws from Vedanta. If someone gives new wine, then it is rightfully not Vedanta [your case] and not eternal either.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>These philosophical schools and their tenets are not the aim itself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

False. For every school, their tenets are complete in themselves.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>...and other kinds of abominable sayujyia-mukti that are against jiva's eternal svarupa. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shankara proved to the world that the concept of a distinct Jiva is born out of Avidya. Hence to the Advaitins, the Jiva is a product of Ignorance and is not eternal.

Amazing fact: Advaita is still running strong 1300 years later, surviving repeated assaults by other traditions. An example of neat logic, in my opinion. When I say assaults, I do not mean the comic, missionary style and unscholarly defamation that you have been attempting, but real scholarly criticizm by the Madhva school and the Ramanuja school.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Sankaracarya's followers should present another version on his departure. Maybe in a bed, during his old age (33 years), and reciting or witting a stotra glorifying Govindaji.

Please point out your version. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As everyone here knows, I have already mentioned the standard, accepted biography of Shankara atleast 3 times. But of course, in true missionary style, you will ignore it because you know that it does not support your fake, defaming stories. But since you ask, the authoritative biography of Shankara is the Madhaviya Shankara Vijayam. You may want to read the name a bunch of more times, until it stays in your memory. According to the Vijayams, Shankara departed [disappeared] from the world in Kedarnath at the age of 32. No death-bed compositions, no change of heart and no suicide in burning oil. No fights with Buddhists either. That knocks your whole list off.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Don't you forget to explain the activities of the Naga-baba sect whose founder-acarya was Srila Sankaracarya himself!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Srila Shankara? :-)

I have no idea, where you heard this from. How about the name of a history book where you read this ? Besides, whether Shankara founded the Naga-baba sect or not, no one has to explain their activites. Not unless, you can come up with a good reason as to why such an explanation is required. I personally, don't see how this is relevant to the discussion.

Cheers

jijaji · April 21, 2001

NAGA SANNYASIS & THE KUMBHA MELA

{ Video } - Sannyasi initiations at Haridwar Kumbha Mela.

Before time was counted, long before the appearance of man, the gods & the demons put aside their eternal battles for a moment, & collaborated in churning the ocean of milk for the nectar of immortality. When this nectar was finally produced, & before any of the demons save one could taste it, the son of the chief of the gods stole the vessel or kumbh , containing the nectar & took off in the sky chased by just about everyone. During his flight four drops fell to earth. Those places where the drops fell are still today considered among the holiest of all pilgrimage spots inIndia. Thay are Haridwar, Prayag (Allahabad), Ujjain & Trambak (Nasik). At those times of JupiterÕs reurn in the heavens to itÕs position when each drop was spilled in each locality, a Kumbh Mela is held for at least 30 days. During this period, there are several auspicious times, based on the sky, for religious bathing , ritual, & most important, initiation. This is by far the largest gathering of human beings on earth. On the most auspicious bathing day in Prayag, 1995, sixteen & a half million people gathered at the confluence of the Ganges & Yamuna Rivers for a holy bath, & over 45 million people visited the place over a 30 day period. In Haridwar,1998, over 8 million pligrims bathed in a single day.

But the single greatest attraction at the Kumbha Mela, what draws the millions of Indians is not even their holy Ganga , but the sight of the Naga Sannyasis , the ancient order of naked yogis maintaining a tradition so old, that it is lost in the mist of another age. The masses are mermerized, awed, & even frightened by the august sight of tens of thousands of majestic renunciates , yogis, & shamans wearing ashes for clothes, wrapping marigolds in their long tresses of matted hair piled on top of their heads like crowns, marching in the Royal Procession to the Bath, escorting their spiritual preceptor, the three headed god, Dattatreya.

They are the Nagas, meaning the Ônaked onesÕ, belonging to an order founded by Dattatreya (a naked philosopher not totally unlike the Greek Diogenes) in the Treta Age (a long long time ago), & finally organized into a sect by Adi Shankara in the 5th century BC. They see themselves (as many Indians do ), as the ultimate protectors of the Sanatana Dharma, or what we call the Hindu religion, but in fact, what they call the natural order of the universe. They are cherged with ultimately maintaining the law of nature.

Going through the door of initiation into Sannyas or the state of renunciation, an ordinary person, a householder, becomes a denizen of another world, a mythic world, wher different laws are in effect, & becomes transformed into a different kind of being, an almost mythological being with mythological powers, sometimes performing miracles, certainly mythologically capable of such thingss consistent with the laws of his extraordinary world. He joins the world of gods & demons, & is a member of a family not determined by blood & genes, but by esoteric tradition, the mystical genes coming fron Dattatreya. The ÒmatingÓ, the ÒprocreationÓ, & the ÒempowermentÓ of these ÒfamiliesÓ exclusively takes place at a Kumbha Mela.

I have been a member of the Naga Sannyasis for the last 30 years, the only foreigner ever to be an initiate & member of Juna Akhara , the oldest & largest grouping of the order. As such, I have taken my initiations at the Kumbha Mela, & have participated in 12 Melas. As the approach of the 21st Century has had itÕs eroding effects on the order, as it has on all traditional societies around the world, I am driven to show the world an anachronism, one of the last glorious manifestations of an age long passed, of a mythology quickly beibg replaced by Disney, & a tradition spawned from a very ancient gene.

shvu · April 21, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>He found that many of the naga baba sadhus hire people to walk around naked with them so that they appear to have many followers. There was one local man who was previously getting paid 30 rupees a day to clean the toilets. Suddenly he was seen walking around naked with a naga baba group. When asked he said that he was offered twice his previous salary to do this new job of walking around naked and saying "maharaj ki jaya".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That sounds cool :-)

Nothing like the business of religion to make money. Once established as a Guru, one gets money, fame and power. The movies star also gets all the three, but he has to work for it and his stardom is not permanent. But a Guru's fame never fades. It increases after his death and if his disciples handle it right, he may even become an avatar.

The only problem with becoming a Guru is one should be willing to lie straight, without flinching and should have no moral scruples about taking people for a ride.

Cheers

shvu · April 21, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The only problem with becoming a Guru is one should be willing to lie straight, without flinching and should have no moral scruples about taking people for a ride. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, there may be/have been some genuine person somewhere. Such a one will not fall in this category.

Cheers

Jahnava Nitai Das · April 21, 2001

I think it was back in '89 where two naga baba sects had a big fight over which would bathe first at the Kumbhamela. They fought and fought , and finally one side said, "Then we will not bathe!". And the Police superintendent, who had been trying to negotiate between the two leaders said, "Then stay dirty."

Still, I have to admit I like the naga babas.

There are some real sadhus among them, but the majority of them are just wild.

Jahnava Nitai Das · April 22, 2001

This year at Kumbha mela, one of my friends went for doing a video documentary. He found that many of the naga baba sadhus hire people to walk around naked with them so that they appear to have many followers. There was one local man who was previously getting paid 30 rupees a day to clean the toilets. Suddenly he was seen walking around naked with a naga baba group. When asked he said that he was offered twice his previous salary to do this new job of walking around naked and saying "maharaj ki jaya".

Even among the nagas such things go on.

April 22, 2001

Dear Shvuji, while defending your own position your points are the same of all fanatics, missionaries and other sectarian groups.

You only put your laukika-sraddha in a biography made by a Sankaracarya's follower and reject all the other sources. Harekrsnas do the same as you are doing while defending their positions. Joevah Witness also do the same.

But Bhaskaracarya, who was also an advaitin and Sankaracarya's contemporary and opposite, had some stormy ontological battles with Sankaracarya, totally rejecting his mayavadi hypothesis. Even a discile of Sankaracarya named Anandagiri, wrote a book entitled "Sakara Vijaya" giving ample proof of these events. He states that his guru could not defeat Bhaskaracarya in arguments. Bhaskaracarya was the propagator of saiva-visista-advaitavada and his victory over Sankaracarya at Ujjain is quite famous.

Bhaskaracarya's comment on Vedanta gives his contemporary views of Sankaracarya, stating clearly that Sankara's mayavada was only plagiarizing mahayana Buddhists. In the page 85 of his bhasya, published by Chowkhamba Sanskrit Book Departament in 1915, he states:

tatha ca vakhyam parinamas tu dadhyadvat iti

vigitam vicchinna-mulam mahayanir buddhais

tat grathitam mayavadam vyaratanto lokan vyamohayanti

So, he clears states that his opponent was only mayavadims was only plagiarizing and turning around, deluding the people.

Even Bhaskaracarya's opponents at his time, state that in fact was Bhaskara who was a factual conquer of Buddhists far and wide all over India, they also witnessed and had related that Sankara had many theological debates and theological contents with Smartas, Saivas, Saktas, Tantrikas and also Buddhists. They unanimous had stated that Sankaracarya's victories were basically limited to karmakandis, smartas, saktas, kapilaks, tantrics, Buddhists and his own disciples.

So, they concluded that victories of this caliber were not to be considered impressive due to the overtly mundane level of consciousness of these opponents. Living entities like them, who were followers of the path of tamas, conducters of animal sacrifices, drinkers of blood, and so on, are at that time living in their human forms merged in deep tama guna and thus any triumph in a debate with them should not be considered as any significant accomplishment.

Regarding Sankaracarya being fried in a boiling oil caldron in 818 AD, this narrative is made by Sivanatha Sironami a well know advaita-vadi and a respectable acarya from the past. This episode may be founded at his "Sabdartha Manjarai" pg 33, published in 1901.

Regarding our post on Sankaracarya as being a Sri Siva's avatara, these same slokas from Padma Purana, that some followers of the Sankaracarya sect use to consider as an interpolation by Vaisnavas, are also given by the Sankhya-yogi of the Samanvavadi line, also an adviatavadi, Vijñan Bhiksu in his commentary of Sankhya. For certain these slokas are quoted in Sanskrit and from another version of the Padma Purana, different than Munshiram-UNESCO's.

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

shvu · April 22, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Dear Shvuji, while defending your own position your points are the same of all fanatics, missionaries and other sectarian groups.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pranams, Satyaraj Dasa Goswami Maharaj,

So far I have not defended anything. I have only been pointing out that all your allegations are based on faulty sources and are wrong. These allegations have been concocted by fanatics, missionaries and sectarians [like you]. Hope that is clear.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You only put your laukika-sraddha in a biography made by a Sankaracarya's follower and reject all the other sources. Harekrsnas do the same as you are doing while defending their positions. Joevah Witness also do the same.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are also some Vijayams written by Shankara's followers, which hare not accepted because of conflicting information. The Madhaviya Shankara Vijayam, is considered the best Vijayam based on it's authenticity. Not because the story is a nice one.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But Bhaskaracarya, who was also an advaitin and Sankaracarya's contemporary and opposite, had some stormy ontological battles with Sankaracarya, totally rejecting his mayavadi hypothesis.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Time to educate you again. Advaita is the position of Shankara. Hence it cannot be the position of his rival as well. And here is an important equality that you will do well to remember. Mayavada = Advaita.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Even a discile of Sankaracarya named Anandagiri, wrote a book entitled "Sakara Vijaya" giving ample proof of these events. He states that his guru could not defeat Bhaskaracarya in arguments.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong again. A work titled as Sankara Vijaya, attributed to Anandagiri [13th century] is not existent today. This Anandagiri is also mistaken with Totaka, a direct disciple of Shankara. Anandagiri lived 5 centuries after Totaka.

Another vijayam by one Anantanandagiri who is mistakenly identified with Anandagiri, exists and is consideres a corrupt and unreliable piece of literature. The western indologists call this author as an 'unblushing liar', for his distortions.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Bhaskaracarya was the propagator of saiva-visista-advaitavada and his victory over Sankaracarya at Ujjain is quite famous.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In Brazil, perhaps. Not anywhere else.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>So, they concluded that victories of this caliber were not to be considered impressive due to the overtly mundane level of consciousness of these opponents.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not surprising, considering that this peice was written by opponents. Not unlike the sour grapes story. Now where is the excellent philosophy of these people? It is not in existence today, which explains everything.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Living entities like them, who were followers of the path of tamas, conducters of animal sacrifices, drinkers of blood, and so on, are at that time living in their human forms merged in deep tama guna and thus any triumph in a debate with them should not be considered as any significant accomplishment.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Something like Indiana Jones and the temple of doom?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Regarding Sankaracarya being fried in a boiling oil caldron in 818 AD, this narrative is made by Sivanatha Sironami a well know advaita-vadi and a respectable acarya from the past. This episode may be founded at his "Sabdartha Manjarai" pg 33, published in 1901.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can guess what kind of a respectable Acharya, he must have been.

You have managed to collect all possible kinds of false info about Shankara. Even if the 4 pontiffs of the Shankaracharya Mathas, sat together in discussion with you and told you about the authentic story of Shankara, you will not accept it. However if someone else comes up with some story like Shankara was an alcoholic and died of drug overdose, you will readily post it in indiadivine forums with your true brainwashed, missionary spirit.

Cheers

April 22, 2001

>> Even if the 4 pontiffs of the Shankaracharya Mathas, sat together in discussion with you and told you about the authentic story of Shankara, you will not accept it.

You make me laugh!!! What a typical cult member mentality! Harekrsnas also have their official version on the life of their Acarya. This biography is called "Srila Prabhupada Lilamrta" and they read this book as any sastra in their cults. But we known that the author of this book is a bhakta at the lowest platform of bhakti, and he is far away from the state of samadhi. Therefore this biography was made by indriya-paratantra, the kind of knowledge that jivas may attain through their material senses, and cannot give one the fruit real knowledge. We prefer to hear about the late Acarya from our guru-parampara, that is the right source to understand Acarya's deeds and his personality.

For certain, the author of this historical biography on Srila A C Bhaktivedanta Swami Goswami is a guru in his sect, and also may have several other books on spiritual matters. But even if all the hundreds pontiffs of the sect sat together in discussion with me and told me about the authentic story of their Acarya according their version, I would never accept it as bona fide.

Srila A C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada has been among us 23 years ago; and his official biography is now a fake. Can we imagine how authentic is a Sankara's biography made more than 1300 years ago?

If you really want to known something real about Sankara, first try to find a sad-guru who may have the realization of his acarya, and when you finally attain the state of samadhi by his mercy, you will realize Sankara by yourself. Then you will be correct.

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

shvu · April 22, 2001

I am glad that I could make you laugh.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>We prefer to hear about the late Acarya from our guru-parampara, that is the right source to understand Acarya's deeds and his personality.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now it is my turn to laugh. Thanks for making me laugh, time and again with your excellent humor.

Time to educate you again : The Shankara Mathas were established by Shankara himself and the pontiffs trace their linage back to Narayana. When the pontiff tells the story of Shankara, it is as authentic as can be.

Cheers

Jahnava Nitai Das · April 22, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Time to educate you again. Advaita is the position of Shankara. Hence it cannot be the position of his rival as well. And here is an important equality that you will do well to remember. Mayavada = Advaita.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mayavada may be classified as advaita, but the reverse wouldn't necessarily be true. The are many schools, such as jiveshvara-vada, parinama-vada, etc.

There are even advaita lines belonging to shakta and shaivite lines.

shvu · April 22, 2001

Sure, there are. But Advaita without any qualifications by default, commonly applies to the philosophy of Shankara. Any other form of Advaita will have to carry it's full name.

SD made a statement that x of Advaita battled with Shankara's Mayavada. That is an incorrect statement, as explained above.

Cheers

shvu · April 22, 2001

Common misbeliefs about Shankara and Advaita:

1. Shankara came to re-establish Vedic Dharma by defeating Buddhists.

2. Advaita is Buddhism in disguise.

3. Advaitins are atheists.

4. Shankara is not a Mayavadin. So according to some people, when they lambast Mayavada and Mayavadins, that does not include Shankara.

Of course, all four are false and I have attempted to show that above, in this thread.

Cheers

Sign In

Advaita - Buddhism in disguise [cont..]

Recommended Posts

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post