Caitanya's arguments against mayavada

[Guest guest]

theist, i dont know why you say sankara taught that devotion is a ladder to be kicked off - is there any reference ?

 

Devotion exists between individuals on the sadguna platform - like in the case of hanuman and rama. For us who are products of maya, devotion is like a dream without substance.

[theist 1]

..but I notice I forgot the question mark.Many people use the phrase bhakti or devotion but they mean something else,worshiping the form of Vishnu, Siva, Ganesh, Kali etc. with the view of merging into the Deity(or the formless Brahman) when their sadhana is complete.

 

When you stated that Sankara taught devotion I was wondering if this is what you were refering to.Sorry i wasn't clear.I am confused on this, obviously.

[Guest guest]

We should'nt get too technical with our definitions of impersonalism. Basicly there are two schools.

The vaisnavas recognize that all animation and inanimation come from the Supreme personality of Godhead including the Brahman effulgence. (that many impersonalists take as the source of all, an impersonal primordial force, undefineable and unameable.)

And that all jivas are eternally and constitutionally part and parcel of that Supreme Personality, functioning as servant of the servants of God, never losing our individual existence or identity in the halo of the Supreme.

Whereas the impersonalist school of thinking as i understand it, believes divinity is reached through merging ones existence into everything and nothing, hence becoming one with all, or falsely realizing the ultimate illusion that we are all God, where all is one. This conception is lacking accomodation of the variegatedness or difference and therefore can not be the Absolute Truth for there is nothing outside the Absolute.

Mahaprabhus' teaching of achinta beda beda tattva taught we are simultaneously one with and different from God, only this kind of oneness is more with the will of God. Or if you like our existence is due to God's infinite mercy or that the divine spark of life that we are, has come from the reservoir of life that He is. But to merge our soul into a primordial ocean of light and forsake our opportunity to serve our beloved Lord is really quite repugnant to a Vaisnava. Akin to suicide in this world. And the misconception of the impersonalist whether through the Buddhists, Shaktas, Adwaitins, Sankarites, Taoists or Maoists and illusionists to draw everyone into this unconciousness is the greatest diservice to God and His loving devotees, short of offending those surrendered souls who have given their life cent per cent to the Lord. Unless any of them direct the soul beyond this state, to their loving relationship with Krsna beyond this experience.

They can have all the following under the sun, it matters little unless they direct these souls to their true and fullfilling, ultimate, satisfactory existence.

That isn't to say that all these teachings don't have some value or contribution to the overall picture, just that they lack full accomodation. And may well impede ones progress back home to the real goal of life.

The analogy of God being like 'milk that can produce many by products such as curd, butter, cheese etc. but these products cannot turn around and produce milk' is very appropriate here. That is the light or the jivas are incapable of producing Krishna but He is capable of producing His own effulgence, and also every jiva that may spring from his Divine will.

[karthik_v 0]

Dear Ram Prabhu,

 

 

advaita as taught by sankara is not impersonal and it is about deovtion.

 

 

Perhaps, you want to cast Advaita in the same mould as Vaishnavism /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif I am not sure that your understanding is correct. All the argments that can be used to project Advaita as supportive of personal worship of God come from very secondary sources like Bhaja Govindam etc.. In case you are not aware, even Advaitins agree that only 10 of those verses were written by Sankara himself and the rest is all interpolation by later day Advaitins [who perhaps wanted to keep the flock together]. Many academic scholars consider the entire work as wholesale interpolation.

 

Even Al Beruni [11th century CE] writes that only ignorant masses worshipped the idols and the knowledgeable Brahmins [except those who exploited those masses] looked down upon that practice condescendingly. He says that they were focussed on attaining realization of the formless. Of course, I am not saying that we should take Al Beruni blindly, but it is worth noting his perspective.

 

If you read Sankara's bhasyas [which alone should be the source for discussing Advaita and not some dubious songs - however beautiful they are], it becomes very clear that Sankara asserts that the only true state is that of Brahman. Worship of personal God is to be considered only as a path to this salvation.

 

Sankara re-established Shanmatha only so as to help the masses attain Brahman realization, in the ultimate analysis. So, while it is true that devotion is very much an integral aspect of Advaita, it goes without saying that the Supreme, as Advaita establishes it with reference to the shruti, is the Brahman which is beyond form.

 

 

I would like to point out that the great service of vaishnava school is stressing personalism.

 

 

Yes, they have rendered a great service, but then the Saivite and the Advaitins have rendered as much, in fact often more, service. One of the negative consequences of Vaishnavism has been a very rabid sectarian approach, which was originally started by Ramanuja. He used to initiate some of his disciples saying: let the 6 fold worship perish. Madhva continued this tradition further. Yet, if we see the writings of the original creators of genuine, non-sectarian, devotional Vaishnavism, that is the Azhwars, they never bother themselves with this kind of polemics and sectarianism. They have been pouring out their devotion for Narayana. It is another story that with the advent of the Muslims and the rise of casteist Brahminism, Ramanuja has been pushed to prominence and a very sectarian Vaishnavism has come to the fore. The original Vaishnavism would have none of his sectarianism.

 

Dear Theist Prabhuji,

 

 

Many people use the phrase bhakti or devotion but they mean something else,worshiping the form of Vishnu, Siva, Ganesh, Kali etc. with the view of merging into the Deity(or the formless Brahman) when their sadhana is complete.

 

 

While there are 2 versions about the early life of Meera [one says she was a young widow and the other says her husband was alive], hagiography is unanimous that she merged with Krishna. Just to let you ponder.

 

Coming back to your statement, what many people think doesn't necessarily become Advaita. To paraphrase Advaita, once you attain realization, there is no more you. All that is left is Brahman - the only true state.

 

Dear Guest,

 

 

And the misconception of the impersonalist whether through the Buddhists, Shaktas, Adwaitins, Sankarites, Taoists or Maoists and illusionists to draw everyone into this unconciousness is the greatest diservice to God and His loving devotees, short of offending those surrendered souls who have given their life cent per cent to the Lord.

 

 

What if, in the ultimate analysis, the shruti supports only the Brahman as Supreme? In that case would you say that the Vaishnavites who have been "deluding" the masses have done a great disservice? Of course, this is not my view, but just to point out that sectarianism doesn't help. Please note that reference to Krishna occurs only in the first and the tenth mandala of Rk veda and these are the latest mandalas. None of the original mandalas even hint about Krishna.

[Guest guest]

Guest, the point i am asking is who gave the acintya bheda abheda tattva ? then we can debate the merits and demerits thereof.

[shvu 1]

 

 

The vaisnavas recognize that all animation and inanimation come from the Supreme personality of Godhead including the Brahman effulgence. (that many impersonalists take as the source of all, an impersonal primordial force, undefineable and unameable.) And that all jivas are eternally and constitutionally part and parcel of that Supreme Personality, functioning as servant of the servants of God, never losing our individual existence or identity in the halo of the Supreme.

 

 

You will have to be specific and use "Gaudiyas" or "Gaudiya Vaishnavas" in place of Vaishnavas. The reason being, all other groups of Vaishnavas will disagree with most of what you have written.

 

 

Whereas the impersonalist school of thinking as i understand it , believes divinity is reached through merging ones existence into everything and nothing, hence becoming one with all, or falsely realizing the ultimate illusion that we are all God, where all is one. This conception is lacking accomodation of the variegatedness or difference and therefore can not be the Absolute Truth for there is nothing outside the Absolute

 

 

You've understood wrong.

 

[Guest guest]

Karthik - if you want to debate me based on sastras or logic, i am willing to spend time for you. If you want to play psycho analyst, trying to state my intent, i am not your client - sorry.

 

I dont have to depend on any other person's scholarship to understand advaita. If some one - including yourself - is interested in defeating me you are welcome. As per Sankara :

 

The absolute truth is full of infinite attributes and is attributeless - sadguna (Rama, Krishna,Siva, eternal associates etc.) and nirguna brahman (the self) non-different from one another. The self of all is that brahman. The animate (jivas) and inanimate objects are products of maya and therefore only relatively true. As this world is maya so is the enjoyment and suffering. Some jivas attempt to understand the brahman as they take the path of knowledge, when they cease to exist on attainment of mukti. Those in the path of ignorance continue to experience the dualties under the influence of kala and karma. Vedas provide guidance for both.

[Somesh Kumar 0]

Dear Karthik prabhu,

 

 

While there are 2 versions about the early life of Meera [one says she was a young widow and the other says her husband was alive], hagiography is unanimous that she merged with Krishna. Just to let you ponder.

 

 

I think you might be knowing this that there are different kind of muktis:

 

Salokya - Living in the same place with Krishna

Sarupya - Having the same appearance as Krishna's

Samipya - Being near Krishna always

Sarsti - Having opulences similar to Krishna's

Sayujya - Becoming one with Krishna

 

... And for devotees of Lord becoming one with him is suicidal.

 

Why does Krishna say?

Brahma bhuta prasanna atma, na socati na kanksati.

Samah sarvesu bhutesu, mad bhakti labhate param

 

Note the word param with bhakti. Does'nt this clearly indicate that devotion is even higher then the Brahman realisation? And that uninterrupted devotion starts from the stage of Brahman realisation?

 

What does Sankaracharya say about this verse? What's his interpretation?

 

[shvu 1]

 

 

Note the word param with bhakti. Does'nt this clearly indicate the devotion is even higher then the Brahman realisation?

 

 

It does not, when you look at the continued part of this message in the next verse. This was discussed at some length a while back on these forums and can be retrieved thru search. I notice many iskcon people using this argument to state Bhakti > Mukti, but such a notion is not supported in the BG anywhere.

 

The simple purport of the BG is that Arjuna should fight the war and for a more general audience, it is to attain liberation from the cycle of birth and death, employing one of the four means. All four methods will fetch *the same* result.

 

Cheers

[karthik_v 0]

Hari Bol dear Somesh Kumar prabhuji,

 

First of all forgive me for this lengthy reply. I wanted to answer your point as elaborately as I could.

 

 

What does Sankaracharya say about this verse? What's his interpretation?

 

 

 

A translation of Adi Sankara's commentary [http://gitasupersite.org/]:

 

Commentary 18.54:

 

Brahma-bhutah, one who has become Brahman, attained Brahman through the above process; and prasanna-atma, [Prasada means the manifestation of the supreme Bliss of the Self as a result of the total cessation of all evils. Prasanna-atma is one who has attained this in the present life itself.] has attained the blissful Self, the indwelling Self; na, does not; socati, grieve-does not lament for the loss of something or the lack of some quality in oneself; nor kanksati, desire. By saying 'he does not grieve nor desire', this nature of one who has attained Brahman is being restated. For it does not stand to reason that in the case of a knower of Brahman there can be any hankering for something unattained. Or, (in place of kanksati) teh reading may be na hrsyati, does not become elated.

 

Becoming samah, the same; sarvesu bhutesu, towards all being-i.e., he verily judges what is happiness and sorrow in all beings by the same standard as he would apply to himself (cf. 6.32); but the meaning is not 'seeing the Self alike in all beings', for this will be spoken of in (the next verse), 'Through devotion he knows Me'-; he, the one who is of this kind and steadfast in Knowledge, labhate, attains; param, supreme; madbhaktim, devotion to Me, to the supreme Lord; (he attains) devotion which is described as Knowledge, as the 'fourth' in, '.....four classes of people....adore Me' (7.16).

 

Here is the translation of Adi Sankara's commentary for the referenced verse:

 

Commentary 7.16

 

Again, O Arjuna, foremost of the Bharata dynasty, caturvidhah, four classes; of janah, people; who are eminent among human beings and are pious in actions, and are sukrtinah, of virtuous deeds; bhajante, adore; mam, Me; artah, the afflicted-one who is overcome by sorrow, who is in distress, ['One who, being in distress and seeking to be saved from it, takes refuge (in Me).'] being over-whelmed by thieves, tigers, disease, etc.; jijnasuh, the seeker of Knowledge, who wants to know the reality of the Lord; artharthi, the seeker of wealth; and jnani, the man of Knowledge, [i.e. one who, already having intellectual knowledge, aspires for Liberation.] who knows the reality of Visnu.

 

Commentary 18.55

 

Bhaktya, through devotion, through that devotion described as Knowledge; abhijanati, he knows; mam, Me; tattvatah, in reality; as to yavan, what I am, with the extensive differences created by limiting adjuncts; and yah asmi, who I am when all distinctions create by the limiting adjuncts are destroyed-Me who am the supreme Person comparable to space [in points of all-pervasiveness and non-attachment.] and one-without-a-second, absolute, homogeneous Consciousness, birthless, ageless, immortal, fearless and deathless.

 

 

Tatah, then; jnatva, having known; mam, Me, thus; tattvatah, in truth; visate, he enters into Me, Myself; tadanantaram, immediately after that (Knowledge). Here, by saing, 'having known, he enters without delay', it is not meant that the acts of 'knowing' and 'entering immediately after' are different. What then? What is meant is the absolute Knowledge itself that has to no other result, [in place of phalantarabhava-jnana-matram eva, Ast. reads 'phalantarbhavat jnanamatram eva, absolute Knowledge itself, since there is no other result'.-Tr.] for it has been said, 'And....understand Me to be the "Knower of the field", (13.2).

 

 

Opponent: Has it not been contradictory to say, he knows Me through that which is the supreme steadliness (nistha) in Knowledge?

 

 

Vedantin: If it be asked, How it is contradictory?

 

 

Opponent: The answer is: Whenever any Knowledge of something arises in a knower, at that very moment the knower knows that object. Hence, he does not depend on steadfastness in Knowledge which consists in the repetition of the act of knowing. And therefore, it is contradictory to say one knows not through knowledge, but through steadfastness in knowledge which is a repetition of the act of knowing.

 

 

Vedantin: There is no such fault, since the culmination of Knowledge-which (Knowledge) is associated with the causes of its unfoldment and maturity, and which has nothing to contradict it- in the conviction that one's own Self has been realized is what is referred to by the word nistha (consummation): When knowledge-which concerns the identity of the 'Knower of the field' and the supreme Self, and which remains associated with the renunciation of all actions that arise from the perception of the distinction among their accessories such as agent etc., and which unfolds from the instruction of the scriptures and teachers, depending on purity of the intellect etc. and humility etc. which are the auxiliary cuases of the origin and maturity of Knowledge-continues in the form of the conviction that one's own Self has been realized, then that continuance is called the supreme steadfastness (nistha) in Knowledge.

 

 

This steadfastness in Knowledge that is such has been spoken of as the highest, the fourth kind of devotion in relation to the three other devotions viz of the afflicted, etc. (cf. 7.16). Through that highest devotion one realizes the Lord in truth. Immediately after that the idea of difference between the Lord and the Knower of the field vanishes totally. There-fore the statement, 'one knows Me through devotion in the form of steadfastness in Knowledge', is not contradictory. And, in this sense, all the scriptures-consisting of Vedanta (Upanisads etc.), History, Mythology and Smrtis-, as for instance, 'Knowing (this very Self the Brahmanas) renounce....and lead a mendicant's life' (Br. 3.5.1), 'Therefore they speak of monasticism as excellent among these austerities' (Ma. Na. 24.1), 'Monasticism verily became supreme' (ibid. 21.2), which enjoin renunciation become meaningful. Thus, monasticism means renunciation of rites and duties. There are also the texts, 'Having renounced the Vedas as well as this world and the next' (Ap. Dh. Su. 2.9.13), and 'Give up religion and irreligion' (Mbh. Sa. 329.40; 331.44), etc. And here (in the Gita) also various relevant) passages have been pointed out. In is not porper that those texts should be meaningless. Nor are they merely eulogistic, since they occur in their own contexts. Besides, Liberation consists in being established in the changeless real nature of the indwelling Self. Indeed, it is not possible that one who wants to go to the eastern sea and the other who wants to go in the opposite direction to the western sea can have the same course!

 

 

And steadfastness in Knowledg consists in being totally absorbed in maintaining a current of thought with regard to the indwelling Self. And that is opposed to coexistence with duties, like going to the western sea. It has been the conclusion of those versed in the valid means of knowledge that the difference between them is as wide as that between a mountain and a mustard seed! Therefore it is established that one should have recourse to steadfastness in Knowledge only, by relinquishing all rites and duties.

 

 

The fruit of the attainment of success from the Yoga of Devotion consisting in worshiping the Lord with one's own actions is the ability to remain steadfast in Knowledge, from which, follows stead-fastness in Knowledge, culminating in the result, Liberation. That Yoga of Devotion to the Lord is now being praised in this concluding section dealing with the purport of the Scripture, with a veiw to generating a firm conviction with regard to it (the purport of the Scripture):

 

 

 

Perhaps, now we can discuss by analysing the commentaries provided by Sankaracarya and srila Prabhupada.

 

PS: At times, I do believe that Islam is the easiest religion to follow. No philosophy. No need to think. No questions allowed. No criticism tolerated [unless, you want a fatwa]. No apostasy [unless you want to be killed]. Rape, plunder and killings while you are on this earth. 72 heuris and boys like pearls [for the homosexuals] in the heaven, after you land there after some fidayeen attack. And to cap it all, a "role model" of a Prophet [whom Gibbon calls a "barbarian"]. How cool isn't it? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Jazak Allah!

[Guest guest]

Although His energies are inconceivable we still insist on knowing Him.

The conclusion of Jiva Goswami on acintya-bhedabheda-tattva

 

ekam eva tat parama-tattvam svabhavikacintrya-saktya sarva-daiva svarupa-tad-rupa-vaibhava-jiva pradhana-rupena caturdhavatisthate suryanta mandalastha-teja iva mandala tad-bahir-gatarasmi-tat-praticchabi-rupena durghata-ghata-katvam hyacintyatvam.

The absolute truth is one. His natural characteristic is that he possesses inconceivable potency. His inconceivable potencies are reposed in four different stages: his own personal form (svarupa), the expansions of his divine form (tad-rupa-vaibhava), the jiva souls (jiva), and the material ingredients (pradhana). With regard to the sun, there is the sungod, the internal power of the sun, and that power when it is expanded as the extenal rays of the sun. Then there is the shadow of the sun, that is to say, the sun's reflection which is in darkness, far from the sun's influence. This illustration is being used for the sake of an example. The point of this example is that in the same way that the sun appears in this fourfold manifestation (the sungod, its internal power, its external rays, and its shadow), there is one eternal supreme truth (the Lord Himself) whose form is eternal, but who is possessed of different potencies: svarupa-sakti (internal energy), jiva-sakti (soul energy), and maya-sakti (external energy). There seems to be a contradiction in this matter between the Lord being one eternal absolute truth and his simultaneously possessing inconceivable potency. How is it possible to understand such a contradiction? To that it is said that "acintya" (inconceivable) means "beyond the bounds of the jiva soul's capacity to understand." An event which is extremely rare or unlikely, even physically impossible, is inconceivable. For the Supreme Lord, however, nothing is impossible as a result of the fact that he has inconceivable power. [Therefore the Lord's oneness with (and distinction from) his energy is said to be inconceivable - acintya-bhedabheda-vada]

[Note: A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami paraphrases this section of Jiva Goswami's Bhagavata-Sandrabha as follows: "Srila Jiva Goswami states in his Bhagavata-Sandharbha (16) That by His potencies, which act in natural sequences beyond the scope of the speculative human mind, the Supreme Transcendence, the summum bonum, eternally and simultaneously exists in four transcendental features: His personality, His impersonal effulgence, His potential parts and parcels (the living beings) and the principal cause of all causes. The Supreme Whole is compared to the sun, which also exists in four features, namely the personality of the sun-god, the glare of his glowing sphere, the sun-rays inside the sun planet, and the sun's reflections in many other objects. The ambition to corroborate the existence of the transcendental Absolute Truth by limited conjectural endeavors cannot be fulfilled, because He is beyond the scope of our limited speculative minds. In an honest search for truth, we must admit that His powers are inconceivable to our tiny brains. The exploration of space has demanded the work of the greatest scientists of the world, yet therer are countless problems regarding even fundamental knowledge of the material creation that bewilder scientists who confront them. Such material knowledge is far removed from the spiritual nature, and therefore the acts and arrangements of the Absolute Truth, are, beyond all doubts, inconceivable.] (Bhagavata-Sandharbha 16)

 

 

[Guest guest]

Somesh -

 

That verse just says that all the kinds of liberation are not asked for by a devotee. There is no special mention about sayujya in the verse itself.

 

[Guest guest]

Interestingly, jIva gosvami does not discuss sankara at all directly. The only context that i could get in a quick search in which he discusses advaitam is in the context of sridhara svami's advaita vadam. I don know if it is same as Sankara's. As for Sankarites, there is no problem in being a vaishnava, saivite or a worshipper of any aspect of the absolute. He does not refer to mayavada at all!!! He is using the terms acintya many times but in a couple of cases that i looked in to, it is only to specify that the Lord is inconceivable. Who ever said brahman is conceivable anyway ?

 

 

The mystery of who started this religion of acintya bheda abheda tattva is deepening. (The above notes are my first reaction. I did not go through the labour of trying to translate his work as such translations are available. I will look up the net for one).

[karthik_v 0]

Dear Ram Prabhu,

 

 

The mystery of who started this religion of acintya bheda abheda tattva is deepening.

 

 

Congrats! You have converted a subject as sober as theology into a mystery thriller. Can we expect an action packed climax? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Guest guest]

MooJi!

Are you really being confuscated?

You are liking Jesus who is saying

"I and my Father are One". Still he is saying one is son and one is father. He is preaching oneness while the difference is being implyed. Nowhere Jesus is say we are one and different. But that is understood because he is preach the Oneness and still he is son and the other is father.

Same same Shankaracharya. He is preaching the oneness of Lord. The difference is implyed like in Jesus.

Advaita is saying Lord is Absolute. Absolute cannot be qualifed as Absolute minus difference. Then there is no absolute. Are you understaning this?

 

Advaitins who say Lord cannot entertain difference are not the true Advaitins but mayavadins being a corruption of Advaita who are only seeing oneness and difference in exclusive conditions as known in Maya. Their view of Lord is tainted by limitations of Maya. This is Mayavada. The true Advaita is "tainted" only by the sight of Lord.

 

If Lord Chaitanya had been meeting Shakaracharya directly there would not being any defeat of anybody. Only the different lamps lighting the One Lord.

 

MooJi, thanking you for your patience for my most clumsy presentations.

[theist 1]

Moo Shashi,we haven't heard from you for a while.Yes Jesus taught acintya bhedabheda.As you point out he said "I am the Father are one", then He said, "The Father is greater than I".This is GV siddhanta,although the Bible is not nearly as full in explainly this as GV Vaisnava's.

 

What I am confused on is how someone can say Sankara taught devotion.Unless it refers to approaching the brahmajyoti with an attitude of devotion.Still it is different from what I hear the Vaisnavas saying.And what kind of devotion is it when the worshipper must have in the back of his mind the thought that actually he is worshipping himself,and just doing the bhakti sadhana until he fully realizes that.

 

So I will just patiently listen in to this thread(while grazing peacefully in the pasture) and see where it goes.

 

Moo Gopala!

[Guest guest]

What is such nonsense about Shashi?

I am simply "Guest" OK? If you stop namecalling me Shashi I not call you the MooJi no more OK? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

Pwoint 1 I would like to say as:-

Honoring Self to worship Lord is like looking after Temple to worship Lord. In temple duty we are cleaning very nicely even sweeping the porch is important service. Now this process of cleaning is involving the discriminations via sorting what is good and what is not. The dirt is rejected yet the flowers are accepted. Old flower petals from yesterdays worships is treated gently in distributions but the dirt is disposed without decorums. Same same in tending to one's self for the worship of Lord. That which conductive to the worship is being polished and that which is selfish and not conductive is being discarded. Our self is being the first temple. If we are not able to honorate the God given temple of Self how than we can honorate the temple for god made by the man with Gods Grace?

 

Pwoint 2 goes like this:-

You see madhurya rasa between Gopis and Lord is not a person or a thing like Lord is Person and Devotees are same. The rasa is a thing but not like a thing with a form. It is a relationship thing between two forms. Same same other rasas, OK? Now Brahman is like this in the sense that it is not being a thing or a person but Being itself. So when Radha is merged in madhurya rasa she is being one with that rasa it is not meaning she is impersonal or has been lost her Person or the Lord. So you can be seeing that the Advaita is the study of the merging with Brahman or the pure being. Whereas the Chaitanya Vaad is being the unfolding of WHAT ARE THE QUALITIES of that being and these qualities of the divine being are only describale in reference to Lord and associates.

[raga 0]

 

Interestingly, jIva gosvami does not discuss sankara at all directly. The only context that i could get in a quick search in which he discusses advaitam is in the context of sridhara svami's advaita vadam. I don know if it is same as Sankara's. As for Sankarites, there is no problem in being a vaishnava, saivite or a worshipper of any aspect of the absolute. He does not refer to mayavada at all!!! He is using the terms acintya many times but in a couple of cases that i looked in to, it is only to specify that the Lord is inconceivable. Who ever said brahman is conceivable anyway ?

 

 

Traditionally Gaudiya Vaishnavas are not obsessed with defeating others, so it should not be astonishing if you can't find critique of Shankara and so forth in the purvacharyas' writings. Here and there the differences between Advaita and Bhedabheda are discussed, but there is no campaign to defeat and smash and crash somebody and declare some class of men as fools and bogus rascals.

 

The only ones I find confrontational are the Madhvites. Perhaps some branches of the Gaudiya tradition which insist on their having both a formal and a doctrinal connection with the Madhva tradition have inherited some of the spirit from them. As far as I am aware of, though, none of the major Vaishnava groups agree with all of the conclusions of Advaita, and this is addressed on occasion. If they did, why would they have separate sutra-bhasyas then?

 

 

 

The mystery of who started this religion of acintya bheda abheda tattva is deepening. (The above notes are my first reaction. I did not go through the labour of trying to translate his work as such translations are available. I will look up the net for one).

 

 

I believe I explained it earlier on in this thread already that on the basis of Sri Caitanya's teachings to them, the Gosvamis delineated the theology of the tradition in their writings. The entire Sat Sandarbha of Sri Jiva is an excellent example of such a theological thesis.

[raga 0]

 

Nevertheless, I have come across atleast one GV guru [rather a break away, I should say], who denounced Sankara and also repeatedly called his philosophy Mayavada, which it is not.

 

 

The biographies of Caitanya use the term "mayavadi" on occasion while referring to the Advaitins of Kasi. It appears as if it is used synonymously with "Advaitin".

 

If you do not agree with this, can you tell us what is a proper definition of "mayavada", then? If you know it is not a term to be used for Sankara's philosophy, I'd expect you have a correct definition for it.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Does Shankara teach that Brahman becomes covered by illusion? If so, his philosophy is mayavada. You can word-juggle your way out of it, but in essence it is true.

 

[raga 0]

 

So, there is no transcription of mahaprabhu's conversations itself to prove that he was against advaita. Our conception that mahaprabhu was preaching against the Sankara school comes from the works of gosvamis, krishnadas kaviraj and later day gaudiya saints.

 

 

I read this again and was very amused. Yes, indeed there is no evidence of his disagreeing with the Advaitins aside the information in his biographies. Nobody was there with a camera and a tape recorder. What kind of proof would you consider sufficient?

[Somesh Kumar 0]

Hare Krsna Kartik prabhu ji,

 

Thanks for your inputs.

 

 

The fruit of the attainment of success from the Yoga of Devotion consisting in worshiping the Lord with one's own actions is the ability to remain steadfast in Knowledge, from which, follows stead-fastness in Knowledge, culminating in the result, Liberation. That Yoga of Devotion to the Lord is now being praised in this concluding section dealing with the purport of the Scripture, with a veiw to generating a firm conviction with regard to it (the purport of the Scripture):

 

 

So, Sankarcharya himself is acknowledging the supremacy of devotion over knowledge here. Is'nt it? If I'm not wrong He is saying that to remain steadfast in knowledge devotion of Lord is required

And who is making the knowledge steadfast? Krsna, of course!

 

tesam satata yuktanam, bhajatam priti purvakam.

dadami buddhi yogam tam yena mam upayanti te.

 

Krsna says that He gives the the knowledge to the person who comes to him.

 

Bhaktya, through devotion, through that devotion described as Knowledge;

 

 

With due respect to Sankaracharya, I'd like to ask why is devotion here interpreted as knowledge? A person can love Krsna without any knowledge just because he's attracted by His beautiful Syamasundara feature! And I think that is real Bhakti, where in the person loves Krsna just for the sake of loving Him.- Krishna says Mayyaskta manah paratha Get your mind attached to Me!

 

 

PS: At times, I do believe that Islam is the easiest religion to follow. No philosophy. No need to think. No questions allowed. No criticism tolerated [unless, you want a fatwa]. No apostasy [unless you want to be killed]. Rape, plunder and killings while you are on this earth. 72 heuris and boys like pearls [for the homosexuals] in the heaven, after you land there after some fidayeen attack. And to cap it all, a "role model" of a Prophet [whom Gibbon calls a "barbarian"]. How cool isn't it?

 

 

Sorry Kartik prabhu ji, but it's not good to criticize or be sarcastic to Islam! I think we should respect everyone and all the religions, because they are originally there to increase attachment to God. Please always remember Krsna's saying Panditah samah darsinah "seeing everyone in equal terms" as the same Lord is there in the person who follows Islam!

 

Forgive me if I've said something wrong here. But, at the spiritual level that we're talking now, we have an immense responsibility to respect all the religions and being compassionate to them.

 

 

 

[Somesh Kumar 0]

Dear Shvu,

 

Bhakti > Mukti, but such a notion is not supported in the BG anywhere.

 

 

What do you say when Krsna says:

 

yoginam api sarvesham, mad gatenantara atmana,

sraddhavan bhajate yo mam, sa me yuktatamo matah.

"Among all the yogis the one with faith who concentrates his mind on Me with the devotion is the Best"

 

Does'nt this clearly indicate that Krsna likes a Bhakta more than anyone else?

 

 

The simple purport of the BG is that Arjuna should fight the war and for a more general audience, it is to attain liberation from the cycle of birth and death, employing one of the four means. All four methods will fetch *the same* result.

 

 

Yeah, you're right here that to the general audience liberation or mukti is enough. But Bhakta does'nt even want mukti, though Krsna is ready to give him that.

And a sincere bhakta is surely not a general audience.

 

Krsna says:

 

manusyanam saharesu, kascid yatati siddhayet,

yatatam api siddhanam, kascin mam vetti tattvatah.

"Out of thousands of people, very few know me, really as I am"

 

One more place Krsna says:

 

Janma karmam ca me divyam, evam yo vetti tattvatah,

Tyaktva deham punar janmam, naiti mameti so arjuna.

 

Who can know that Krsna's janma and karma are divya? Only a sincere bhakta. And by knowing this he has no more janma. He gets mukti

 

In fact, the topic which is stressed upon the most in BG is bhakti!!!

[Somesh Kumar 0]

 

That verse just says that all the kinds of liberation are not asked for by a devotee. There is no special mention about sayujya in the verse itself.

 

 

I am not sure which verse you're talking about? But one thing which is clear is that devotee does'nt want Sayujya liberation as due to that He loses His most cherished desire of serving the Lord personally!

[Guest guest]

 

Does Shankara teach that Brahman becomes covered by illusion? If so, his philosophy is mayavada. You can word-juggle your way out of it, but in essence it is true.[/qb]

 

When AC Bhaktvedanta SwamiJi is saying, "due to our association with material nature our consciousness has become polluted" are you suggesting he is being Mayavadi? Of course not.

 

No Vedantin would be saying same. All true vedantins are knowing Lord is always pure. What is covered is the relationships from the ANGLE of the human souls. That is the expression.

 

Who is saying Lord is overcome by His Maya. No it is us who are overcome, is it not? When we are being fallen from our divine condition due to polluted focus in consciousness we are in Maya. When we are merged in our relation with Lord that is Brahman. That relation has different qualities or rasas which is a higher more refimnement topic for devotional living. Brahman is base of it. Prabhupad is saying this in many places in TLC and NOD, is he not?

 

Some limited philosphers are having problems with achintya bhedabheda IS being no rreason for Chaitanya Vaad to be having problems with the others. Bhakti is at the top of the mountain and can be seeing all the other paths their poistives and minuses without derogatoring them.