Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Sign in to follow this  
karthik_v

Is advaita a genuine vedic tradition?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Point : And yeah "countless jivAtmAs" ----> who are they ? Are they illusory too ? If not then how can an advaitin admit plurality of eternal entities ?

 

 

Response : I have already answered this question anticipating it. Please re-read my post which answers other questions also. If after reading thouroughly, if you think any questons remains to be answered, let me know. How can two entities that are eternally different be the same ? This is resolved by saying that the Self is One and therefore the same for all. This Self known as nirguna brahman is non-different from sadguna brahman. This is the meaning of aham brahmAsmi. Therefore aham does not apply to even the jivAtmA what to speak of material material bodies. aham applies to God and He alone exists in His innumerable expansions.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 07-30-2002).]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Shvu,

 

When Sankara says avyakto paro nArAyana, it means nArAyana is beyond mAyA. There is no reason to say that it is for fools. When Sankara says brahman has attributes, there is no reason to say brahman has no attributes. When Vedanta says that brahman walks and walks not and attributes names to brahman, there is no reason to say that brahman has no attributes. When s devotee attains liberation by meditating on the attributes of brahman, there is no reason to say that attributes are not of any consequence. Sankara is Lord Siva Himself if we believe in ThotakAshtakam. To say that He is a product of mAyA and has prArabhda karma is also unreasonable. Lord Siva is non-different from Lord Krishna and He appears by controlling mAyA.

 

I do not indulge in personal attacks unless it serves any purpose. When I say modern day advaitins, I refer to advaitins who deny brahman with attributes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ram,

 

Evidently you have a false understanding of the concept of Mukti in Advaita. From what I understand, you seem to think the Jiiva remains distinct from the Supreme even after Mukti and is capable of perceiving (optionally) forms of the Supreme. This is not Advaita. Can you produce a quote from Shankara where he acknowledges the possibility of Brahman with Attributes persisting after Mukti?

 

We find in the kaarikas,

 

ajamanidramasvapnamanaamakamaruupakam.h |

sakR^idvibhaataM sarvaGYaM nopachaaraH kathaJNchana ||

 

It (Brahman) is birthless, sleepless, dreamless, nameless and formless. It is ever effulgent and omniscient. No duty, in any sense, can ever be associated with It. -- GK 3.36

 

yadaa na liiyate chittaM na cha vikshipyate punaH |

aniN^ganamanaabhaasaM nishhpannaM brahma tattadaa ||

 

When the mind does not lapse into inactivity and is not distracted by desires, that is to say, when it remains unshakable and does not give rise to appearances, it verily becomes Brahman. -- GK 3.46

 

Gaudapaada says Brahman is without attributes and on Mukti, everything is Brahman only. This has been commented by Shankara and I can produce the commentaries if required. This proves Shankara attests the attributeless Brahman and that the concept was not invented by "modern day" advaitins.

 

 

 

When Sankara says avyakto paro nArAyana, it means nArAyana is beyond mAyA. There is no reason to say that it is for fools.When Sankara says brahman has attributes, there is no reason to say brahman has no attributes. When Vedanta says that brahman walks and walks not and attributes names to brahman, there is no reason to say that brahman has no attributes. When a devotee attains liberation by meditating on the attributes of brahman, there is no reason to say that attributes are not of any consequence.

 

 

You have missed the point. avyakto paro nArAyana does not mean the forms of Naaraayana (Raama, Krishna, Narasimha, etc) are above Maayaa. Attributes are useful for cultivating Bhakti and this point has been covered in the Giita,

 

klesho.adhikatarasteshhaa.n avyaktaasaktachetasaam.h |

avyaktaahi gatirduHkha.n dehavadbhiravaapyate ||

 

For them who have their minds attached to the Unmanifested the struggle is greater; for, the Goal which is the Unmanifest is attained with difficulty by the embodied ones.-- BG 12.5

 

Also Gaudapaada says,

 

yaM bhaavaM darshayedyasya taM bhaavaM sa tu pashyati |

taM chaavati sa bhuutvaa.asau tad.hgrahaH samupaiti tam.h || GK 2.29 ||

 

These two verse show the role of the Sadguna Brahman. But once the truth is realized, there is no more division, which is the essence of Advaita.

 

 

 

Sankara is Lord Siva Himself if we believe in ThotakAshtakam. To say that He is a product of mAyA and has prArabhda karma is also unreasonable. Lord Siva is non-different from Lord Krishna and He appears by controlling mAyA.

 

 

It is a misconception that Shankara was the founder of the Advaita philosophy. Advaita has it's roots in the Vedaanta and was given a concrete form by Gaudapaada. Thotakaashtakam is not a work of Shankara, but was composed by Thotakaachaarya, Shankara's disciple. The Maadhaviiya Shankara Vijayam and many other works also praise Shankara as an avatar of Shiva. However, Shankara himself never claims to be an avatar in any of his works nor has such an avatar been predicted in scriptures. He humbly salutes his Guru (Govindapaada) for enlightening him and his Paramaguru (Gaudapaada) for establishing the truth. Given the Indian trend of elevating Gurus to the positions of avatars, I will stick to Shankara's works and view him as an exceptionally gifted human being, a prodigy, but not an avatar.

 

 

 

I do not indulge in personal attacks unless it serves any purpose. When I say modern day advaitins, I refer to advaitins who deny brahman with attributes.

 

 

As seen above, Shankara himself and Gaudapaada before him, have clearly stated that Brahman ultimately cannot have attributes. There is a well known trend of critics trying to separate Shankara from other Advaitins, finding fault in their philosophy and saying they deviated from Shankara. Funnily enough, the points they criticize are the ones stated (in unequivocal terms) by Shankara himself. Either, they are not familar with Shankara's position or else they hesitate to directly criticize him. Whatever be the case, it has been shown above that an Advaitin who states "Brahman ultimately cannot have attributes" is *not deviating* from Shankara and is perfectly in line with his teachings.

 

Recommended reading:

 

Shankara's Brahma-suutra Bhaashya

Shankara's Upadesha Saahasri

 

Cheers

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Shvu, if you trying to teach simple points like ThotakAshtakam was written by ThotakAcharya or Sankara was not a founder of Advaitam, you can try teaching my 2 year old before it is too late. I have mentioned this earlier myself. According to ThotakAshtakam believed to be sung in Sankara's presence, He is an avatar of Lord Siva. It does not matter whether Sankara is an avatar of Lord Siva or not as His philosophy does not need that defense

As per my understanding attributelessness and infinite attributes are both aspects of the Absolute according Sankara. And that they are same.

 

Point : You have missed the point. avyakto paro nArAyana does not mean the forms of Naaraayana (Raama, Krishna, Narasimha, etc) are above Maayaa. Attributes are useful for cultivating Bhakti and this point has been covered in the Giita,...

 

Response : Read your Gita verse in the context that Narayana is avyakta. And see it in practical context that it is difficult to realize God. When did we see Him last ? It applies to sadguna brahman (Narayana) as much as it does to nirguna brahman. GK : It is true that sadguna brahman is realized according to one's mood. But this does not mean that sadguna brahman does not exist independant of our perception. It is folly to say BRAHMAN (sadguna) is dependant on our perception (MAYA). And not in line with Sanakara's.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Point : Ok. Who is this "we" who is ignorant due to maya ? Body won't be ignorant as it is not conscious, so also mind, intelligence, ego, senses which all are non-conscious entities. So who is ignorant ? It has to be some conscious entity. Who is it ? Who becomes this illusory personality ? Certainly body, mind, intelligence, senses, ego are not personality at all. So who is this conscious entity who becomes deluded due to maya ?

Response : May I ask why ? Personalities are formed by the subtle body. AhankAra is enough to explain illusory personality. Illusion is to Atma what mirage is to desert.

 

I have explained these points in my posts on this page. And also raised the problems with duality. Please re-read them.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hare Krishna

Please accept my humble obesiances unto your lotus feet.

 

---------

The illusory personality "partially exists" without contaminating the Lord but has no existence but for Him.

---------

 

>> What do you mean by "partially exists" ?

 

 

-----------

Beyond this illusory material gross and subtle body is the jiva bhutam or the countless jivAtmAs. The term living entity can refer to this also. But even this is separate from the Lord.

-----------

 

>>Please refer to BG 3.42-43

" The working senses are superior to dull matter; mind is higher than the senses; intelligence is still higher than the mind; and he [the soul] is even higher than the intelligence. "

 

" Thus knowing oneself to be transcendental to material senses, mind and intelligence, one should control the lower self by the higher self and thus--by spiritual strength--conquer this insatiable enemy known as lust. "

 

On the 3.42, Adi Sankara comments, the Self mentioned to be same as the Supreme Self.

 

Also see this

 

" For the objects are higher than the senses, The mind higher than the objects,

Intelligence higher than the mind,

The great self higher than intelligence. "

[ katha upanisad 1.3.10 ]

 

last line reads like buddher atma mahan parah. So beyond the gross body and the subtle body is the immortal self just as I earlier said. Please clarify your position on this.

 

So in the light of the above your comment is wrong.

 

 

-----------

Point : Ok. Who is this "we" who is ignorant due to maya ? Body won't be ignorant as it is not conscious, so also mind, intelligence, ego, senses which all are non-conscious entities. So who is ignorant ? It has to be some conscious entity. Who is it ? Who becomes this illusory personality ? Certainly body, mind, intelligence, senses, ego are not personality at all. So who is this conscious entity who becomes deluded due to maya ?

Response : May I ask why ? Personalities are formed by the subtle body.

-----------

 

>>Material personalities are definately formed by subtle body but what about eternal personalities ? they aren't formed by subtle bodies. Personalities like Sri Rama, Sri Krishna etc are not a product of Subtle body.

 

 

-----------

AhankAra is enough to explain illusory personality.

-----------

 

>>But you are missing my question. It asks you to tell me who is deluded into becoming illusory personality by ahankar. I said mind can't be deluded, so can't be senses, gross body, intellect or any material manifestation because they are non-conscious. So who does ahankar influences to make an illusory personality ?

 

 

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Point : What do you mean by "partially exists" ?

Response : It is like the existence of water in the mirage in a desert. You cannot say it does not exist because you see it. But it does not because it cannot be touched not can it quench your thirst. tEjO vAri mRtam yatA. Just like a mirage does not make the desert muddy, the mAyA does not contaminate the brahman(Lord).

 

 

Point : So beyond the gross body and the subtle body is the immortal self just as I earlier said. Please clarify your position on this.

 

So in the light of the above your comment is wrong.

 

Response : Beyond the gross and subtle body is the Self which is non-different from God. This brahman has no attributes (nirguna) and infinite attributes (sadguna - NArAyanA, KrishnA, RAmA etc.). Even though sadguna brahman is many, it is one and one with nirguna brahman. There is nothing but brahman or vAsudevA including our Self. Any thing that is considered separate from Him is illusion incl. our thinking that our self (AtmA) is different from Him. There is nothing but Him and therefore there can be nothing separated from Him - the material world or the jIvAs. If the world is real or the jIvAs real, the all compassionate Lord would not allow them to suffer. So the concept of jIvAs is an illusion just like the inferior energy of the Lord is.

 

Point : Personalities like Sri Rama, Sri Krishna etc are not a product of Subtle body.

 

Response : I always agree with this point. The Lord is brahman and is not an illusion. Sankara has clearly said avyakto paro NArAyanA. Lord with His infinite attributes (names, forms, qualities etc.) is transcendental and is one with nirguna brahman.

 

Point : But you are missing my question. It asks you to tell me who is deluded into becoming illusory personality by ahankar. I said mind can't be deluded, so can't be senses, gross body, intellect or any material manifestation because they are non-conscious. So who does ahankar influences to make an illusory personality ?

 

Response : Due to ahankar the mind thinks I am the doer and assumes a personality. The subtle body, karma and gunas are responsible for personality. The subtle body carries the influence of activities from one body to another. But the Self within all the bodies is never affected because He is ajah. Your assertion that ahankar influences atma is incorrect. How can ahankar influence the atma which is brahman by nature ? Brahman is full of knowledge by delusion and can never be born -ajah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hare Krishna

Please accept my humble obesiances unto your lotus feet.

 

In an earlier post you said :

 

----------

But the living entities are not atma. They are the higher energy of the Lord compared to dull matter. These are separate from the Lord like the desert and the mirage.

----------

 

>>>And then you said:

 

----------

Beyond this illusory material gross and subtle body is the jiva bhutam or the countless jivAtmAs. The term living entity can refer to this also. But even this is separate from the Lord.

----------

 

 

>>>And now you say:

 

----------

Response : Beyond the gross and subtle body is the Self which is non-different from God. This brahman has no attributes (nirguna) and infinite attributes (sadguna - NArAyanA, KrishnA, RAmA etc.).

-----------

 

>>>So you agree with me that beyond gross and subtle body is the immortal self.

Now back to where this thing started.

So now my question is, to who does living entity of 7.5 refers to ? Since it cannot refer to gross and subtle body and beyond them is only eternal atman. So is living entity of 7.5 this very immortal self which you and advaita calls absolutely identical with Brahman ?

 

-----------

Response : Due to ahankar the mind thinks I am the doer and assumes a

personality ............. Your assertion that ahankar influences atma is incorrect.

-----------

 

>>>Please refer to BG 3.27

 

" The bewildered spirit soul, under the influence of the three modes of material nature, thinks himself to be the doer of activities, which are in actuality carried out by nature. "

 

ahankara-vimudhatma kartaham iti manyate

meaning that the spirit is bewildered by false ego thinks itself to be the doer of action.

Note the sanskrit clearly says that.

 

 

-----------

How can ahankar influence the atma which is brahman by nature ? Brahman is full of knowledge by delusion and can never be born -ajah.

-----------

 

>>> Kindly see how immortal self falls prey to illusion

 

BG 3.40

" The senses, the mind and the intelligence are the sitting places of this lust, with their help it veils the real knowledge of the embodied soul and bewilders him. "

Note again the sanskrit -

etair vimohayaty esa jnanam avrtya dehinam

 

The word dehinam refers to the embodied spirit and to no one else. Embodied spirit means immortal self covered by gross and subtle body.

 

Once its[embodied spirits] knowledge is covered by lust born out of mode of passion, the ahankar ego can easily bewilder such soul. In his commentary to this verse Sri Sankara writes

 

"Senses, mind and intellect are said to be the abode of this craving. By means of these abodes obscuring knowledge, this foe deludes the embodied spirit in manifold ways."

 

And then in commentary to 3.42 he equates this bewildered embodied soul to the supreme self.

 

Now its my question to you that if there is absolutely no difference between self and Supreme Self, then how can Lord Krishna say the above mentioned verses ? How is it that the transcendental immutable brahman be deluded by His own energy which is fully under His control ? How can maya effect Supreme Self in this way ?

 

 

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Sumeet, your writing seems to imply that I changed stand. But on the other hand, I have been saying the same thing. No one can deny that advaita teaches that Self is beyond matter. The concept of jIvAs and the matter exist in advaita also except that they are partially real - like a mirage. I have given reasons in my earlier post.

 

We are jumping from one verse to another in a desperate attempt to establish that advaitam is false. I do not mind doing that but that it will take us forever. If you will, please choose one verse that establishes that advaitam is false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

As per Sankara, the concept of jIvAtmA does exist just as the material world does. But both are illusory as they are separate from Him and nothing but Him exist. For details please refer my earlier.

 

It is also true that the jIvA is the same as the Lord. How can jIvA be called illusory and at the same time considered same as the Lord ? The concept of jIvA as separate from the Lord is illusory. aham brahmAsmi. The self is the same as the Self. Otherwise how can the jIvA in 7.5 be responsible for upholding jagat (dharyate) ?

 

In ahankAra vimUdhAtmA verse, AtmA means the mind not the soul. The soul is said to be vipascin or full of knowledge. How can that be fooled by ahankArA ? When the mind turns towards Him, this ignorance is removed.

 

We can go on discussing 3.40 and 3.42 also if you want. But I would like to point out that we started with brahmano hi prathishtAham to prove Sankara wrong. And we are goinf from one to another in our desperate attempt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

My previous responses seem to be lost. Let me try to recap what I posted. Please bear with me if it appears twice.

 

Sumeet, you seem to indicate that I changed my mind after going in circle. But the fact remains that I said the same thing. Let me repeat it briefly and for details, please read my earlier posts.

 

1. The jIvA is beyond the material world.

2. Just like there is variety in the material world, there are countless jIvAs.

3. The jIvAs and the material world are separate from God or brahman.

4. Nothing exists except Brahman. Therefore the concept of jIvas and material world is illusion - it partially exists like a mirage. For details, read my earlier posts.

 

In 3.27, Atma refers to the mind because the soul is vipascin and full of knowledge. (It can be considered as referring to jIvAs but that is tougher to understand.)

 

 

I can go on discussing the other verses if you want. But remember we are going from one verse to another to prove Sankara wrong and we may have to cover all the scriptures before we discover He is right.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

acintya bheda, abheda tattvam||

 

Dont think duality, advaitam is truth.

 

We can prove all philosophies. It depends on the ability of the person who is debating. The acharyas have given their realization according to our ability to understand. We should take it and progress rather than engage in foolish criticism. There is truth in different religions what to speak of advaitam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How Krsna creates living entities that are different from Him is certainly inconceivable, and is definitely a topic that can yield many intimate hours of speculation.

 

It is important to note that Lord Caitanya's expounded position is not bheda and abheda, but rather simultaneously inconceivably bheda and abheda. Both must be taken as part of the truth. Not one and the other, but both simultaneously.

 

I used to program video games for airline passengers. One game was backgammon. Eventually the game became so life-like I would forget myself and feel all the emotions of a real battle with a human being as I played. I would get frustrated, amazed, even angry, and talk to the machine as though it were a friend. I became so fascinated by the game's activities that I literally forgot that it was simply something I had created. Perhaps similarly Krsna created us for His enjoyment. I do not see it as impossible that He sees us as separate from Him, although likely deep-down inside somewhere He knows it is all a part of Him.

 

We seem fond of axioms. Let us start from the axiom that all has been created for the pleasure of Supreme Lord. Starting from this highest axiom we may be able to get past the paradoxes seemingly created by the lower detail-level axioms.

 

I guess what I am trying to say is: It's not about us. It's about Him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hare Krishna

Please accept my humble obesiances unto your lotus feet.

 

 

----------

Sumeet, your writing seems to imply that I changed stand. But on the other hand, I have been saying the same thing.

----------

 

Sir there seems to be a little confusion. The point I am trying to make is that in one of my earlier post i pointed out the following verse from Holy Gita

 

"The Supreme Lord is situated in everyone's heart, O Arjuna, and is directing the wanderings of all living entities,are seated as on a machine, made of the material energy." [ BG 18.61]

 

To which you responded -

 

Response : True. But the living entities are not atma. They are the higher energy of the Lord compared to dull matter. These are separate from the Lord like the desert and the mirage.

 

Then I raised a question who do you think is the living entity refered to in 7.5. Because the words you use in your response above seems to indicate that you are pointing to BG 7.5. So i wanted to know in the context of 7.5 who does living entity refers to. I told you that in the material manifestation there is first the gross body, then the subtle body and beyond both these, is the immortal self. So according to 7.4 both gross body and subtle body are dull matter. So this living entity of 7.5 refers to immortal soul because in the material manisfestation the immortal self[of 7.5] and the material energy[of 7.4] combines to form the living forms we see around us.[ Sri Krishna Himself states this in 7.6 Note:etad-yonini bhutani

sarvanity meaning " all beings have their source in this two-fold energy of mine." ]

Hence the living entity mentioned in BG 18.61 is the pure immortal self. There is nothing else except for these two energies of Lord responsible for the manisfested cosmos. I thought you agreed with this point of mine leaving behind your previous point that living entities are not atma they are higher energy of Lord compared to dull matter.

 

Sir you say that originally 14.27 was raised as being against advaita and we are hoppping from one verse to another in desperate attempt to fasify advaita. My point is that if we see the first interpretation of Adi Sankara, we note he writes about teh similarity of self and Supreme Self. So he is talking about a tenet of kevala-advaita which says brahman=atman. So if this tenet of advaita can be disproved on Vedic basis, then Sankaras first interpretation of 14.27 shall be blown apart. Then we can take on the second interpretation he offers. Interestingly that second one is quite relevant to the discussion of form of God going on between you and shvu ji and shvu ji and krishna prabhuji.

 

Another point that you mentioned was why shouldn't we take just one verse and try to argue on its basis that kevala-advaitam is false. Sir to prove a philosophy false one has to disprove its tenets. In vedic scripture everything is interconnected. No one verse should be interpreted independent of the other. When a tenet is formed it is assumed to be consistent with the all the verses collectively and not just with few verse which can be interpreted in favor of the tenet. So while you disprove a tenet you will naturally go from one verse to another. Its often, that based on a single or a particular set of verses that people postulate tenets and build on philosophy but unfortunately in the end they land up utterly helpless when their philosophy is found to be incoherent with the entire body of the scripture. Since all the vedic literature complements each other it will be very natural to see many verses being employed to substantiate a point. IN SHORT: Any SINGLE verse of Vedas should be interpreted in light of ALL others.

 

Sir Vedic scriptures teaches both bedha and abedha. To manitain that there exist only absolute distinction or only absolute oneness, one will run into problems with the scriptural assertion of simultaneous existence of both difference and non-difference. Philosophies like Vishistadvaita, dvaitadvaita, acintya bedha-abedha try to reconcile both these aspects substantiated by the Vedic literature into one coherent philosophy.

 

Lastly you mentioned

-----------

But remember we are going from one verse to another to prove Sankara wrong and we may have to cover all the scriptures before we discover He is right.

-----------

 

Sir the only thing I would like to say in reply for this is it will be a miracle if this[what you say above] happens.

 

The original posting of Karthik prabhu ji was :

-----------

Can we defend advaita through the shrutis? Has it been conclusively shown by the Vaishnava acaryas like Ramanuja or Madhva that advaita is wrong [and hence non-vedic] and that Vaishnavism is the only true path? Or can someone argue that the shrutis are amenable to multiple interpretations and that one can claim that both both advaita and Vaishnavism are both vedic traditions?

-----------

 

We should take up the tenets of Advaita philosophy and examine the in the light of Vedic scriptures and Adi Sanakaras' explanation and defend them successfully against Vaishnava onslaught. If one can do this successfully we can say that Advaita-

Vedanta is genuine.

 

Regarding the point that acaryas have given different realizations according to the individual. This is indeed true. God consciousness is propagated according to kala-patra-desa meaning time/circumstances, the capability of the recipient, place of revelation. But whether a particular realization is true, partially true or entirely false can be justified through the proper understanding of Vedic scriptures. So lets see if Adi Sankara's kevala-advaita philosophy is genuine or not ?

 

From looking at the the participants so far in the 5 page long topic, we can see that Karthik, shvu and you appear to be on the advaitin side while me, krishnas, shashi, gHari and JN das ji appears to be on the Vaishnava side. Why not first frame up a general approach to answer this question which is agreeable to both parties ? Then we can proceed accordingly. Sir this isn't foolish criticism. It is an intellectual and philosophical debate which will help us learn more of advaita and you people more of Vaishnavism. Secondly when we defend and question our own beliefs we generally end up getting situated more firmly in them than ever before. This shall help us get closer to the Absolute. So lets take up this debate in a friendly spirit as two groups of Brahma vadins trying to seek out the absolute.

 

I would like to hear what all the participants think of this proposal. Once we agree on the general approach we can start up with the brahman=atman tenet of advaita-vedanta.

 

 

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sumeet,

 

I have a couple of points.

 

 

Regarding the point that acaryas have given different realizations according to the individual. This is indeed true. God consciousness is propagated according to kala-patra-desa meaning time/circumstances, the capability of the recipient, place of revelation. But whether a particular realization is true, partially true or entirely false can be justified through the proper understanding of Vedic scriptures. So lets see if Adi Sankara's kevala-advaita philosophy is genuine or not ?

 

 

What is meant by proper understanding of "vedic scriptures"? If a system other than Shankara's is professed to interpret "Vedic scriptures" correctly, Shankara's Advaita is ipso facto false. Can you define what proper understanding of "vedic scriptures" is? More specifically, which Vedaantic system (viz., Maadhva, Raamaanuja, etc) is the correct one? Let us take it from there. I presume you are going by the standard definition of "vedic scriptures".

 

 

From looking at the the participants so far in the 5 page long topic, we can see that Karthik, shvu and you appear to be on the advaitin side while me, krishnas, shashi, gHari and JN das ji appears to be on the Vaishnava side. Why not first frame up a general approach to answer this question which is agreeable to both parties ? Then we can proceed accordingly. Sir this isn't foolish criticism. It is an intellectual and philosophical debate which will help us learn more of advaita and you people more of Vaishnavism.

 

 

Far as I know, Karthik and Ram are Gaudiiya Vaishnavas themselves and are quite familiar with the Gaudiiya position. The point of the thread was to see if Advaita is genuine or not. Now how can that be done? Producing one quote after another and providing alternate meanings will not do. Advaita has answers to all such questions and so this discussion will go nowhere.

 

 

I would like to hear what all the participants think of this proposal. Once we agree on the general approach we can start up with the brahman=atman tenet of advaita-vedanta.

 

 

You go first. Can you state the problem with Brahman = Atman?

 

Cheers

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Sumeet, from our discussions it is obvious that defeating advaita is not slam dunk. For each verse that you gave countering advaita I have given the advaitic stand point. For 7.5, I have given reasons why considering jIvA to be separate from the Lord is illusion. We can go on discussing verse after verse if you want. We need a guarantee from JNDas that he will keep this website active for a few lifetimes.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Noting that there is no further debate i would like to conclude that advaita is a genuine vedic tradition despite the fact that other vedic traditions differ from advaitam. There is no room for blaspheming Sankara.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hare Krishna

Please accept my humble obesiances unto your lotus feet.

 

Sir I am a student and I was busy with exams for my summer semester for a week after 6th august. And then I had to leave for india on 13th. I had a overnite saty in kuwait. I am presently here in delhi. My father had an account in netkracker company which closed down and we still have to open up a new account. And my mother is ill so i have to take care of her. That is why i am in india. I am also working at Samsung R&D centre in Delhi. Moreover, i just recovered from fever. Delhi weather is really very much different from WI weather. Well now that i am well adjusted i can pick up the debate again. But please remeber i will be slow. I have to take care of my mother. And besides that i am working. But still i will carry the debate. When i return to the US in january posts from my side will be more frequent than what is now.

 

Thanks for your patience and hope you are still interested.

 

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

There are people who said Sankara is a word juggler and that his school is not a genuine vedic tradition. It is interesting that no one questioned the qualification of the person who made this claim. On the other hand, my humble self has shown that Sankara's philosophy is not so trivial that it can be defeated by ordinary people like us.On this basis I said that Sankara's is a genuine vedic tradition but my qualification is questioned. If some one concludes and that Sankara's tradition is not genuine, there is nothing wrong in me concluding that His tradtion is genuine. All I am saying is that let us accord Him high respect as we would to vaishnava acharyas and discuss humbly the philosophical tenets - if we want to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Sumeet, take care of your mother and of course we can discuss slowly. We are not so big to debate and all. We are such fools that we cannot understand Vedanta. We dont have to try too hard. Instead we have to turn towards the Lord as Caitanya advised and chant Hare Krishna. The main thing is to abstain from talking about a great acharya like Sankara condescendingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read that Sankaracarya is considered to be an incarnation of Lord Siva. Certainly he must be afforded respect. And this was from someone who disagreed with the philosophy expounded by Sankara, following the footsteps of Sri Caitanya who condemned the reading of some of Sankara's works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hare Krishna,

 

1. Is sadguna Brahman and nirguna Brahman the same according to advaita ?

 

2. If sadguna Brahman is just maya then

 

(i) What is maya according to advaita ?

(ii) If maya is similar to mirage in the desert then nirguna Brahman is not real in the sense that it will not be able to give mukti just as mirage will not quench our thirst. So in effect it is useless to even talk about sadguna Brahman. Still advaita talks about Sadguna Brahman ???

(iii) If Sadguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman are the same then there is still no need to talk about the "one as two". Then it should be that Brahman is both Sadguna(in purely spiritual sense) and Nirguna(in purely materialistic sense).

 

What is the correct definition of Sadguna Brahman according to advaita.

 

3. If advaita says that there is no material body or jiva but there is only the "one self" then what is that which comes under the influence of Karma and maya. How can something that does not exist can undergo birth and death repeatedly (reincarnation). Surely advaita does not intend to say that karma and its effects are only maya. If the "one self" undergoes re-incarnation how is it that Brahman comes under the influence of "maya". If you say that it is sadguna Brahman then go back to question 2.

 

4. What is the concept of mukti in advaita and what is that strives and attains the same? What is ignorance according to advaita and what is that overcomes this ignorance ?

 

I have heard that many advaitists say that you are already what it is that you seek (whatever this means). Some others explain like a cataract that covers the eyes ignorance covers you from true knowledge. How can an illusory body or Jiva attain true knowledge ? These things will just disappear in any case. Then it should be the "one self" that attains salvation and overcomes ignorance. But how is it that the "one self" in my body is still enveloped in ingnorance, after all it is Brahman. If the "one self" is sadguna Brahman then please answer question 2.

 

I have not received satisfactory answers to any of these questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I have not received satisfactory answers to any of these questions.

 

 

What answers did you receive Raghuraman, and why were they unsatisfactory?

 

Thanks

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...