PDA

View Full Version : Isha Upanishad refutes Mayavada (Illusionism) by Shankara



savithru
12 September 2014, 07:47 AM
Namaste,

Sri Aurobindo - Isha Upanishad (http://www.aurobindo.ru/workings/sa/04/0010_e.htm)



Unfortunately there has been a great deal of unnecessary confusion regarding the meaning of this Upanishad. Shankara is generally recognised as the most important commentator of the Isha Upanishad, but if all these conclusions are accepted, then Mayavada, the Illusionism of Shankara, sinks in the bottomless ocean. The founder of Mayavada is incomparable and immensely powerful among the philosophers. Just as thirsty Balaram brought to his feet the Yamuna unwilling to alter her course, by dragging and pulling her with a plough, so also Shankara, finding this Upanishad destroyer of Mayavada and standing across the path toward his destination, dragged and pulled the meaning till it agreed with his own opinion. One or two examples will suffice to show the miserable condition to which this Upanishad has been reduced by such treatment.
I completely agree with Aurobindo here Isha Upanishad when correctly interpreted from the traditional point of view clearly refutes the doctrine of illusionism propounded by Shankara.

Mayavada has resulted in a great loss of the ageless wisdom hidden in the Vedas which is our true mother and father it is important to remember that without the Vedas Upanishads would not have existed. When the mistake was done by our own commentaries what's the point in criticizing western scholars like Max Mueller, Griffith and Weber who translated the Vedas when her wisdom was already lost ages ago.

All Hindus need to wake up to this truth and take the concept of Ishvara (hiranyagarbha) in Advaita as seriously as nirguna Brahman. Pushan, Agni, Vayu, Mitra, Varuna, Indra, Rudra, Usha, Ashvinis, Yama they all literally exist in the womb of Hiranyagarbha and one has to go beyond Hiranyagarbha to know nirguna Brahman. If without Hiranyagarbha if you try to know Brahman you will only end up in a great darkness. This is the kind of Advaita which the Vedic rishis gave us. No more confusion please. Don't twist the doctrines of Vedas and the Upanishads just to make it look more intellectual and appealing to others, the doctrine and truth is far more important than the number of people following Advaita or Hinduism.

silence_speaks
12 September 2014, 08:41 AM
Namasthe!

:)

If Everything is Ishvara, and we conclude that this forum is ishvara ... thereby, we conclude ishvara changes ... since this forum changes!!

if ishvara changes .... ishvara becomes "Time Dependent" !!

So what are the changes we see ??

Love!
Silence

savithru
12 September 2014, 11:47 AM
Namasthe!

:)

If Everything is Ishvara, and we conclude that this forum is ishvara ... thereby, we conclude ishvara changes ... since this forum changes!!

if ishvara changes .... ishvara becomes "Time Dependent" !!

So what are the changes we see ??

Love!
Silence

Namasthe,

:)

What changes is prakrithi not Ishvara, he is Purushottama means he resides in everything as the first verse of the Isha Upanishad says but he doesn't change even though he has associated himself with prakrithi, he is Gunatheetha means the three gunas of prakrithi like Sattva, Rajas and Thamas doesn't affect him like it affects us. He is Brahman in manifestation.

silence_speaks
12 September 2014, 10:43 PM
Dear savithru,
:)

So then, am I Ishvara or Prakriti ? or both ?

Love!
Silence

savithru
13 September 2014, 05:07 AM
Dear savithru,
:)

So then, am I Ishvara or Prakriti ? or both ?

Love!
Silence

Neither, You are the Purusha residing in Ishvara.

Isha Upanishad 16. O Fosterer, O sole Seer, O Ordainer, O illumining Sun, O power of the Father of creatures, marshal thy rays, draw together thy light; the Lustre which is thy most blessed form of all, that in Thee I behold. The Purusha there and there, He am I. (Sri Aurobindo)

silence_speaks
13 September 2014, 05:59 AM
Dear savithru,
:) Namasthe!

I have a few questions:
1. Is Prakriti time dependent ? If so it dies !
2. Where in Prakriti is purusha ? Every atom, every minutest portion ? Is there any portion of Prakriti that does not contain purusha ?
what is the relationship between prakriti and purusha ?

Love!
Silence

Kalicharan Tuvij
14 September 2014, 04:00 AM
Namaste,


I completely agree with Aurobindo here Isha Upanishad when correctly interpreted from the traditional point of view clearly refutes the doctrine of illusionism propounded by Shankara.
We will do well to remember that the tallest leaders of Dharma are our Rsis, not the acharya-s.


If Everything is Ishvara, and we conclude that this forum is ishvara ... thereby, we conclude ishvara changes ... since this forum changes!!
As per the Vedic understanding only Rudra counts as Ishvara. And one of the Avatara-s of Vishnu can also be seen as Ishvara (apart from being a Bhagwan).

All the Vedic Devi-s and Deva-s are Swayambhu-s (Self-Create). This is the most basic teaching of Arsha Dharma and if someone who doesn't know this by heart is not an Astika at all.



I have a few questions:
And I hope these questions are sincere ones and not rhetoric.


1. Is Prakriti time dependent ? If so it dies !
First, there is an unhealthy obsession with the matter and cause of creation and such and such. The correct attitude will be to observe and understand the reality unfolding in front of our very own eyes. Many say, "no, this is very mundane and boring" and then turn into nāstika- a rather honourable thing to do than start obsessing, speculating about grand problems of cosmic proportions.

Second, "Prakriti", "Purusha" are unVedic ideas (and non-Vedic words even), and somewhat sound too sexist to me. So, I don't know what are Prakriti, Purusha et all.

Finally, just to give an example (and not go to more basic premises), Rudra is called "Tryambaka" that is, "having three mothers". Not one, but three! This example is just to inform the reader that any of the Swayambhu-s, depending on the case, can be the progenitor, the seed, of All and everything else.


2. Where in Prakriti is purusha ? Every atom, every minutest portion ? Is there any portion of Prakriti that does not contain purusha ?
what is the relationship between prakriti and purusha ?
Again, I don't know what is prakriti and purusha. But I can give another example by saying "Indra is all pervading", "Varuna is all pervading", "Dhatar is all pervading", and so on.



KT


P.S.: pls note that the purpose of this post is educational, not polemical.

anucarh
14 September 2014, 04:07 PM
Namaste savithru ji,


I'm interested in your point of view, but I'm not sure that I understand some of your comments.


You say, "I completely agree with Aurobindo here Isha Upanishad when correctly interpreted from the traditional point of view clearly refutes the doctrine of illusionism propounded by Shankara." As you probably know, the Purṇādvaita Vedānta or Integral Nondualism of Śrī Aurobindo is a 20th century development. No ancient record of this subschool of Vedānta exists. In contrast, Advaita Vedānta as a distinct branch of Vedānta, the branch of Vedānta taught by Śrī Ādi Śaṅkarācārya, goes back at least as far as the 6th century, when it was taught by Śrī Gauḍapādācārya (who apparently had the same understanding of māyā or illusion as his disciple's disciple), arguably even further back than that. If I am looking for a teaching that is part of an established tradition... Well, you already know where I'm going with this. Is it possible that by "the traditional point of view" you mean to say that Śrī Aurobindo managed to uncover the "original" or "one true" point of view of the Vedas?


If you mean that Śrī Aurobindo's view is the "one true Vedic perspective," the only "permissible" perspective, then it seems there's a common challenge that must be overcome. Those who have studied the Vedas in depth like to point out that the Vedas teach from many different perspectives. For example, the Vedas contain many creation stories taught from very different perspectives which would seem to be directed at different sorts of individuals. Did the universe begin with the cracking of a cosmic egg? Was it the dividing of a cosmic person? Was it more like the building of a house by a carpenter? Or did it begin with neither being nor non-being? The Vedas say yes to all of the above and offer many other perspectives besides these. So it would seem that more than one perspective is permitted in the Vedas. (This is not a criticism of the Vedas by any means. This is actually part of their greatness.)


Now you might say, I concede that there's more that one way of looking at creation in the Vedas, but there is only "one permissible" philosophy of Vedānta in the Upaniṣads, the "one true" teaching that equally affirms saguṇa ("with qualities") and nirguṇa ("without qualities") Brahman, just as Śrī Aurobindo says. Even here there are those who have studied the Upaniṣads comprehensively and in depth who disagree that only one perspective can be found. They say , as I mentioned in my first thread, that the Upaniṣads contain several different viewpoints about Brahman, jīvas ("souls" or individual beings), and the world (including dualism, qualified nondualism, and nondualism) to help individuals at different stages of understanding. [See Swami Nikhilananda, The Upanishads: A New Translation, vol. 1, 6th ed. (New York: Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center, 2003), pp. 13, 64-65.] In fact, certain passages in the Upaniṣads do seem to fit most easily with the teaching of Śrī Ādi Śaṅkarācārya. Here are two of the many examples from the Upaniṣads that this great teacher of Advaita used to capture his teaching:


"The One alone is real; therefore there exists no multiplicity in the universe." Adhyātma Upaniṣad 63


"By the mind alone is Brahman to be realized. There exists in It no diversity whatsoever. He who sees in It diversity, as it were, goes from death to death." Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.4.19


Others have found dualistic passages that seem to teach an absolute difference between Brahman and a real creation. Still others have found passages that teach that Brahman is both one and many all at once. It seems then that more than one perspective is permissible in the Vedas. Apparently, more than one perspective can help you on the journey to the goal of liberation (mokṣa). More than one branch of Vedānta seems to be valid. What do you think?


praṇām

savithru
15 September 2014, 02:30 AM
Namaste savithru ji,


Namaste anucarh ji,



I'm interested in your point of view, but I'm not sure that I understand some of your comments.


Thanks for your interest and I hope this conversation clears some of your doubts.



You say, "I completely agree with Aurobindo here Isha Upanishad when correctly interpreted from the traditional point of view clearly refutes the doctrine of illusionism propounded by Shankara." As you probably know, the Purṇādvaita Vedānta or Integral Nondualism of Śrī Aurobindo is a 20th century development. No ancient record of this subschool of Vedānta exists. In contrast, Advaita Vedānta as a distinct branch of Vedānta, the branch of Vedānta taught by Śrī Ādi Śaṅkarācārya, goes back at least as far as the 6th century, when it was taught by Śrī Gauḍapādācārya (who apparently had the same understanding of māyā or illusion as his disciple's disciple), arguably even further back than that. If I am looking for a teaching that is part of an established tradition... Well, you already know where I'm going with this. Is it possible that by "the traditional point of view" you mean to say that Śrī Aurobindo managed to uncover the "original" or "one true" point of view of the Vedas?


Everyone quotes the Isha Upanishad and interprets it in his own way but how many of them know the rishi behind this Upanishad? How many of them have cared to know what is the traditional interpretation of it? How many of them know how did this Upanishad originated? If people had researched more about this then they would know how ancient Sri Aurobindo's view of purna advaita is. The source of my information is not from Aurobindo it comes from some where else which I will explain below.

Of course Sri Aurobindo was from the 20th century and Shankara was from the 6th century but people have forgotten about one thing that there still exist a minority of Śrauta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrauta) traditions who practice the historical Vedic religion to this day in India. We are alive we are not dead.

The rishi behind the Isha Upanishad is the great sage Yajnavalkya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yajnavalkya). How did the Isha Upanishad came into existence?




Yajnvalkya

According to traditional accounts, Yāj�avalkya was the son of Devarāta and was the pupil of sage Vaisampayana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaisampayana) . Once, Vaisampayana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaisampayana) got angry with Yāj�avalkya as the latter argued too much to separate some latter additions to Yajurveda in being abler than other students. The angry teacher asked his pupil Yāj�avalkya to give back all the knowledge of Yajurveda that he had taught him.

As per the demands of his Guru (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru), Yāj�avalkya vomited all the knowledge that he acquired from his teacher in form of digested food. Other disciples of Vaisampayana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaisampayana) took the form of partridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partridge) birds and consumed the digested knowledge (a metaphor for knowledge in its simplified form without the complexities of the whole but the simplicity of parts) because it was knowledge and they were very eager to receive the same.

The Saṃskṛt name for partridge is "Tittiri". As the Tittiri (partridge) birds ate this Veda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veda), it is thenceforth called the Taittirīya Yajurveda. It is also known as Kṛṣṇa Yajurveda or Black-Yajurveda on account of it being a vomited substance.

The Taittirīya Saṃhitā thus belongs to this Yajurveda. Then Yāj�avalkya determined not to have any human guru thereafter. Thus he began to propitiate the Sun God, Surya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surya). Yāj�avalkya worshipped and extolled the Sun, the master of the Vedas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veda), for the purpose of acquiring the fresh Vedic portions not known to his preceptor, Vaiśampāyana.

The Sun God, pleased with Yāj�avalkya penance, assumed the form of a horse and graced the sage with such fresh portions of the Yajurveda as were not known to any other. This portion of the Yajurveda goes by the name of Śukla Yajurveda or White-Yajurveda on account of it being revealed by Sun. It is also known as Vajasaneya Yajurveda, because it was evolved in great rapidity by Sun who was in the form of a horse through his manes.The rhythm of recital of these vedas is therefore to the rhythm of the horse canter and distinguishes itself from the other forms of veda recitals. In Sanskrit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit), term "Vaji" means horse. Yāj�avalkya divided this Vajasaneya Yajurveda again into fifteen branches, each branch comprising hundreds of Yajus Mantras. Sages like Kanva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanva), Madhyandina and others learnt those and Śukla Yajurveda branched into popular recensions named after them.

(http://www.shuklayajurveda.org/)Isha Upanishad belongs to the Shukla Yajurveda tradition (http://www.shuklayajurveda.org/) which I am part of and is being practised to this day. As it says in that website Shuka Yajurveda tradition is not known to many people. It is with this affirmation that I am saying that Sri Aurobindo's view of purna advaita did not originated purely from the speculations of a Yogi in the 20th century in fact this view of advaita dates back to at least 3000 B.C or even far back which was the period of Vedic rishis.




If you mean that Śrī Aurobindo's view is the "one true Vedic perspective," the only "permissible" perspective, then it seems there's a common challenge that must be overcome. Those who have studied the Vedas in depth like to point out that the Vedas teach from many different perspectives. For example, the Vedas contain many creation stories taught from very different perspectives which would seem to be directed at different sorts of individuals.


Yes this change of view has a wide range of implications on every domain of science and religion which challenges everything we knew about Vedas and the Upanishads. But the Vedas and the Upanishads remain coherent and consistent and the same truth can be found in the Rig Veda too that's why Sri Aurobindo wrote the book The Secret of the Vedas.



Did the universe begin with the cracking of a cosmic egg? Was it the dividing of a cosmic person? Was it more like the building of a house by a carpenter? Or did it begin with neither being nor non-being? The Vedas say yes to all of the above and offer many other perspectives besides these. So it would seem that more than one perspective is permitted in the Vedas. (This is not a criticism of the Vedas by any means. This is actually part of their greatness.)

Yes the universe originated from a cosmic egg or to say more specifically from the womb of Hiranyagarbha. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiranyagarbha)



Hiraṇyagarbha (Devanagari: हिरण्यगर्भः ; literally the 'golden womb' or 'golden egg', poetically rendered 'universal germ') is the source of the creation of the Universe or the manifested cosmos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmos) in Indian philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_philosophy), it finds mention in one hymn of the Ṛigveda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigveda) (RV 10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandala_10).121), known as the 'Hiraṇyagarbha Sūkta', suggesting a single creator deity(verse 8: yo deveṣv ādhi devā eka āsīt, Griffith:"He is the God of gods, and none beside him."), in the hymn identified as Prajāpati (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prajapati) The concept golden womb is again mentioned in Viswakarma suktha Rg 10-82.


Now you might say, I concede that there's more that one way of looking at creation in the Vedas, but there is only "one permissible" philosophy of Vedānta in the Upaniṣads, the "one true" teaching that equally affirms saguṇa ("with qualities") and nirguṇa ("without qualities") Brahman, just as Śrī Aurobindo says. Even here there are those who have studied the Upaniṣads comprehensively and in depth who disagree that only one perspective can be found. They say , as I mentioned in my first thread, that the Upaniṣads contain several different viewpoints about Brahman, jīvas ("souls" or individual beings), and the world (including dualism, qualified nondualism, and nondualism) to help individuals at different stages of understanding. [See Swami Nikhilananda, The Upanishads: A New Translation, vol. 1, 6th ed. (New York: Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center, 2003), pp. 13, 64-65.] In fact, certain passages in the Upaniṣads do seem to fit most easily with the teaching of Śrī Ādi Śaṅkarācārya. Here are two of the many examples from the Upaniṣads that this great teacher of Advaita used to capture his teaching:


"The One alone is real; therefore there exists no multiplicity in the universe." Adhyātma Upaniṣad 63


"By the mind alone is Brahman to be realized. There exists in It no diversity whatsoever. He who sees in It diversity, as it were, goes from death to death." Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.4.19


Others have found dualistic passages that seem to teach an absolute difference between Brahman and a real creation. Still others have found passages that teach that Brahman is both one and many all at once. It seems then that more than one perspective is permissible in the Vedas. Apparently, more than one perspective can help you on the journey to the goal of liberation (mokṣa). More than one branch of Vedānta seems to be valid. What do you think?


praṇāmWe have to value the ancient oral traditions over anything else because that's where the truth of Hinduism is. Even though I am from South India I feel sorry for Shankara because one has to speak the truth always. Shankara did a great job in re-establishing Advaita from the repeated onslaught of Buddhist philosophy which we all are truly indebted to him but it seems Buddhism had a strong influence over him which compelled him to come up with the theory of Maya or Illusionism which as it currently stands is in variance with Indian philosophy and for what the ancient Aryan rishis stood far.

One of the main reasons why Hinduism never enters into any intellectual debates between Theist and Atheist is because Hinduism lacks a strict coherent definition which is a valid criticism by western academicians. Different perspectives need to be analyzed and criticized carefully based on evidence and study of the scriptures and we have to arrive at a single perspective. Hinduism and educated Hindus are actually in a crisis and it is important that we rediscover our souls at the right time and rise.

silence_speaks
15 September 2014, 05:18 AM
Dear savithru (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/member.php?u=4936),
:)

Buddhism, Hinduism etc , set aside ... the Truth ... as it stands ... is perfectly revealed by Shankara.

Shankara is not mayavadi ... he is Brahmavadi !

One has to understand properly.

There are three : SAT, ASAT, MITHYA.
SAT : trikalepi tishtati ... it is as it is in all three states of time.
in other words it is time independent.

ASAT : trikalepi na tishtati ... its not there in all three states of time .... ex: horns of a hare.

MITHYA: IT "Appears" but IS NOT! This is where Maya comes into picture.
what IS is SAT...

its like a snake imagined on a rope. We have example of a dream in our lives. dream appears, is it there ?

so in this classification ... there is no scope for error ... since its a perfect partition.

Even if u say "God is present everywhere" ...
our current vision that "God is not present anywhere" is "Wrong" ... it is MITHYA! There is Maya !



Love!
Silence

silence_speaks
15 September 2014, 05:19 AM
Thats why i asked you "If Prakriti is dependent on time ... is it not subject to death " ?!
What is some times there and some times not there ... is ... mithya!!

savithru
15 September 2014, 11:30 AM
Dear savithru (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/member.php?u=4936),
:)

Buddhism, Hinduism etc , set aside ...


Both Buddhism and Hinduism should not be set aside instead they both should be set straight because they both have strayed from the truth.



the Truth ... as it stands ... is perfectly revealed by Shankara.
The Truth as it stands is not perfectly revealed by Shankara. Saguna Brahman with many attributes is as real as Nirguna Brahman without attributes.



Shankara is not mayavadi ... he is Brahmavadi !
"Brahma Sathyam Jagat Mithyam". Shankara is indeed a mayavadi.

"Both Purusha and Prakrithi is Brahmam" (Sri Aurobindo). This is the correct view.



One has to understand properly.

There are three : SAT, ASAT, MITHYA.
SAT : trikalepi tishtati ... it is as it is in all three states of time.
in other words it is time independent.

ASAT : trikalepi na tishtati ... its not there in all three states of time .... ex: horns of a hare.

MITHYA: IT "Appears" but IS NOT! This is where Maya comes into picture.
what IS is SAT...
Brahman is both time and timeless, it is mutable and immutable, it is one and many, it is finite and infinite, it is life and death, it is heat and cold, it is nirguna and saguna.


its like a snake imagined on a rope. We have example of a dream in our lives. dream appears, is it there ?
Jagat is real its not a dream the world continues to exist even after you know Brahman, the world will not dissolve with in you.



so in this classification ... there is no scope for error ... since its a perfect partition.

Even if u say "God is present everywhere" ...
our current vision that "God is not present anywhere" is "Wrong" ... it is MITHYA! There is Maya !

Love!
SilenceBrahman is both knowledge and ignorance. The world is good and it is real and Doing verily works in this world a man should live a hundred years, one should not give up work and become a sanyasi. This is what Krishna says in Bhagvad Gita that one who sees no difference between one who works and one who renounces work is a very intelligent person.

savithru
15 September 2014, 11:49 AM
Thats why i asked you "If Prakriti is dependent on time ... is it not subject to death " ?!
What is some times there and some times not there ... is ... mithya!!

Prakrithi subjected to death? Prakrithi always exists with purusha it will not disappear it just either becomes manifested in creation of the world or becomes unmanifested in dissolution of the world.

Both the manifested and the unmanifested should be known to have complete knowledge of Brahman.

anucarh
15 September 2014, 06:52 PM
Namaste savithru ji,


Thank you for your reply. If I understand you correctly, Śrī Aurobindo consulted "ancient oral traditions."* This is new information to me. I'd be grateful if you would point me to a quote in one of his writings where he explains this. At the moment I'm unable to locate a source for this idea and I get a very different idea from Śrī Aurobindo's The Secret of the Veda, where he explains his own "theory of psychological interpretation" of the scriptures as a means to get to the "inner sense" beneath the symbols and go deeper than the "ritualistic interpretation."


In chapter 4 of this book he walks the reader through his process of interpretation step by step. He starts by laying out his principles of interpretation (on pages 34-35 and 40) that involve looking to the "internal evidence" of the texts. He says that "a hypothesis of the sense of Veda must always proceed, to be sure and sound, from a basis that clearly emerges in the language of the Veda itself." So the good interpreter must look only to the Sanskrit in the text to find the true meaning. There "should be clear indications in the explicit language...which will guide us to that sense." We already know by this point from chapter 2 (p. 19) that his primary source of information about Sanskrit was "Yaska's lexicon, our most important help" (i.e. Yāska's Nirukta, an ancient treatise that explains the etymology and semantics of Sanskrit words). He further asserts that we must look for consistent meanings (a "firm and not fluctuating sense," he says) "founded on good philological justification" and meanings that fit "naturally into the context." Sound interpretation will "illuminate what seemed obscure" and "create intelligible and clear coherence where there seemed to be only confusion." On page 40 he adds that the good interpreter must "avoid Sayana's tendency" to blur important distinctions between words, giving them "their vaguest general significance." Instead distinguishing between the meanings of words with precision is key.


Pages 40 through 47 of chapter 4 show how Aurobindo followed these principles, using a process of reasoning and what he calls "commonsense," along with a comparison to his own personal experiences at one point, to uncover the hidden meaning of the Vedas. On page 42 he explains how he began to go deeper than the "surface meaning."


Aurobindo's own detailed explanation of how he determined the meaning of the scriptures makes sense to me as an accurate description of his process. He was after all educated in England and apparently did not have a guru, unless you count the voice and presence of Svāmī Vivekānanda that he experienced when he was in jail in 1908 (an implicit endorsement of Neo-Vedānta?), according to his Autobiographical Notes. Moreover, his Integral Psychology and Intergral Yoga seem to be widely perceived (mistakenly perhaps?) to be innovations in that they are said to synthesize a variety of ideas and practices from different sources.


If he offers another account of how he reached his conclusions, I'm very interested. Thank you.


praṇām


* "We have to value the ancient oral traditions over anything else because that's where the truth of Hinduism is."

savithru
15 September 2014, 11:07 PM
Read the Veda in light of Aurobindo (http://kireetjoshiarchives.com/indian_culture/glimpses_vedic/veda-light-sri-aurobindo.php) where he explains that when he was in Pondicherry that he was turned to the Vedas and gained new insights about the Vedas from his learning of the Tamil language through which the Vedas affirmed his own spiritual experiences of the divine more profoundly than anything else.

Moreover Integral Yoga or "Inner yajna" is not a new invention of Sri Aurobindo it was practised by the ancient Vedic rishis like Vishwamitra, Vamadeva, Vashishta, Gargi, Yajnavalkya, Vaishampayana etc.


"The Isha Upanishad introduces to us the integral spiritual realisation and the principle of the integral yoga; within a short space it resolves many difficult problems. It is a śruti replete with sublime, profound and fathomless significances. This Upanishad, concluded in eighteen slokas, explains in these small mantras many major truths of the world. Such “infinite riches in a little room” can be found only in this śruti."

- Sri Aurobindo

silence_speaks
16 September 2014, 01:21 AM
Dear savithru ji,
:) One can say anything : shankara was wrong etc.
But one should supply proofs. Without appropriate proofs and systematic analysis one cannot see the truth! What is the use in saying "Aurobindo's view is correct view"... Aurobindo's views dont stand the test of basic reasoning.

-----------------------------------1-------------------------------------------
when you say "Brahman is both purusha and prakriti" ...
a) You have created a divide .... a way to divide brahman : and so brahman being "Akhandita" is negated !
b) Moreover since prakriti changes Brahman too changes ! Since its prakriti atleast in part !


-------------------------------------2----------------------------------------

Purely on a logical ground if something changes :

a) It dies. Since its time dependent.
b) There is something that is changelessly present with reference to which this changes.
Now if some changeless presence is there ... i rename that as "Brahman" ... and what is changing with reference to it ... i rename it as "Mithya" ... since mithya is that which is for some time and then not there ... what is hallucination ? You see for some time and then its no more! thats hallucination....

-----------------------------------3----------------------------
Further ... when you say "World is not a dream".... its something you are stating without any proof , appropriate logic!

Love!
Silence

devotee
16 September 2014, 01:57 AM
Namaste Savithru,

You have used too much of bold and increased font in your posts. This makes one feel as if you are shouting through your posts. :(

Can you use normal fonts ? This will make reading your posts easy. If there is something really special in any post, you may like to highlight that word/term used in the post.

OM

savithru
16 September 2014, 05:46 AM
Dear savithru ji,
:) One can say anything : shankara was wrong etc.
But one should supply proofs. Without appropriate proofs and systematic analysis one cannot see the truth! What is the use in saying "Aurobindo's view is correct view"... Aurobindo's views dont stand the test of basic reasoning.

-----------------------------------1-------------------------------------------
when you say "Brahman is both purusha and prakriti" ...
a) You have created a divide .... a way to divide brahman : and so brahman being "Akhandita" is negated !
b) Moreover since prakriti changes Brahman too changes ! Since its prakriti atleast in part !


-------------------------------------2----------------------------------------

Purely on a logical ground if something changes :

a) It dies. Since its time dependent.
b) There is something that is changelessly present with reference to which this changes.
Now if some changeless presence is there ... i rename that as "Brahman" ... and what is changing with reference to it ... i rename it as "Mithya" ... since mithya is that which is for some time and then not there ... what is hallucination ? You see for some time and then its no more! thats hallucination....

-----------------------------------3----------------------------
Further ... when you say "World is not a dream".... its something you are stating without any proof , appropriate logic!

Love!
Silence

The Vedic rishis neither arrived at the truth by logical reasoning or by intellectual speculation. They arrived at it by practising Deity Yoga. Brahman is both khand and akhand. Brahman cannot be conceptualized it is beyond logic and reason. However the truth of whatever I am saying here can be realized by systematic practice of Yoga.

Those who want to know whether Shankara was right or Aurobindo was right will practice Deity Yoga and worship Hiranyagarbha and figure out the truth by themselves by doing both saguna as well as nirguna upasana while the others those who doesn't do will end up in darkness and ignorance.




The Secret of the Isha

It is now several thousands of years since men ceased to study Veda and Upanishad for the sake of Veda or Upanishad. Ever since the human mind in India, more & more intellectualised, always increasingly addicted to the secondary process of knowledge by logic & intellectual ratiocination, increasingly drawn away from the true & primary processes of knowledge by experience and direct perception, began to dislocate & dismember the many sided harmony of ancient Vedic truth & parcel it out into schools of thought & systems of metaphysics, its preoccupation has been rather with the later opinions of Sutras & Bhashyas than with the early truth of Scripture.

Veda & Vedanta ceased to be guides to knowledge & became merely mines & quarries from which convenient texts might be extracted, regardless of context, to serve as weapons in the polemic disputes of metaphysicians. The inconvenient texts were ignored or explained away by distortion of their sense or by depreciation of their value. Those that neither helped nor hindered the polemical purpose of the exegete were briefly paraphrased or often left in a twilit obscurity. For the language of the Vedantic writers ceased to be understood; their figures, symbols of thought, shades of expression became antique & unintelligible. Hence passages which, when once fathomed, reveal a depth of knowledge & delicacy of subtle thought almost miraculous in its wealth & quality, strike the casual reader today as a mass of childish, obscure & ignorant fancies characteristic of an unformed and immature thinking. Rubbish & babblings of humanity’s nonage an eminent Western scholar has termed them not knowing that it was not the text but his understanding of it that was rubbish & the babblings of ignorance. Worst of all, the spiritual & psychological experiences of the Vedic seekers were largely lost to India as the obscurations of the Iron Age grew upon her, as her knowledge contracted, her virtue dwindled & her old spiritual valiancy lost its daring & its nerve. Not altogether lost indeed for its sides of knowledge & practice still lived in cave & hermitage, its sides of feeling & emotion, narrowed by a more exclusive & self-abandoned fervour, remained, quickened even in the throbbing intensity of the Bhakti Marga and the violent inner joys of countless devotees. But even here it remained dim & obscure, shorn of its fullness, dimmed in its ancient and radiant purity. Yet we think, however it may be with the Vedas we have understood & possess the Upanishads! We have understood a few principal texts & even those imperfectly; but of the mass of the Upanishads we understand less than we do of the Egyptian hieroglyphics and of the knowledge these great writings hold enshrined we possess less than we do of the wisdom of the ancient Egyptians. Dabhram evapi twam vettha Brahmano rupam!

I have said that the increasing intellectualisation of the Indian mind has been responsible for this great national loss. Our forefathers who discovered or received Vedic truth, did not arrive at it either by intellectual speculation or by logical reasoning. They attained it by actual & tangible experience in the spirit, — by spiritual & psychological observation, as we may say, & what they thus experienced, they understood by the instrumentality of the intuitive reason. But a time came when men felt an imperative need to give an account to themselves & to others of this supreme & immemorial Vedic truth in the terms of logic, in the language of intellectual ratiocination. For the maintenance of the intuitive reason as the ordinary instrument of knowledge demands as its basis an iron moral & intellectual discipline, a colossal disinterestedness of thinking, — otherwise the imagination and the wishes pollute the purity of its action, replace, dethrone it and wear flamboyantly its name & mask; Vedic knowledge begins to be lost & the practice of life & symbol based upon it are soon replaced by formalised action & unintelligent rite & ceremony. Without tapasya there can be no Veda. This was the course that the stream of thought followed among us, according to the sense of our Indian tradition. The capacity for tapasya belongs to the Golden Age of man’s fresh virility; it fades as humanity ages & the cycle takes its way towards the years that are of Iron, and with tapasya, the basis, divine knowledge, the superstructure, also collapses or dwindles.

The place of truth is then taken by superstition, irrational error that takes its stand upon the place where truth lies buried builds its tawdry & fantastic palace of pleasure upon those concealed & consecrated foundations, & even uses the ruins of old truth as stones for its irregular building. But such an usurpation can never endure. For, since the need of man’ being is truth & light, the divine law, whose chief article it is that no just demand of the soul shall remain always unsatisfied, raises up Reason to clear away Superstition. Reason arrives as the Angel of the Lord, armed with her sword of doubt & denial (for it is the nature of intellectual Reason that beyond truth of objective appearance she cannot confidently & powerfully affirm anything, but must always remain with regard to fundamental truth agnostic and doubtful, her highest word of affirmation “probably”, her lowest “perhaps”), — comes & cuts away whatever she can, often losing herself in a fury of negation, denying superstition indeed, but doubting & denying also even Truth because it has been a foundation for superstition or formed with some of its stones part of the building. But at any rate she clears the field for sounder work; she makes tabula rasa for a more correct writing. The ancient Indian mind felt instinctively — I do not say it realised or argued consciously — the necessity, as the one way to avoid such a reign of negation, of stating to the intellectual reason so much of Vedic truth as could still be grasped and justifying it logically. The Six Darshanas were the result of this mighty labour. Buddhism, the inevitable rush of negation, came indeed but it was prevented from destroying spirituality as European negation destroyed it for a time in the eighteenth & nineteenth centuries by the immense & unshakeable hold the work of the philosophers had taken upon the Indian temperament. So firm was this grasp that even the great Masters of negation — for Brihaspati who affirmed matter was a child & weakling in denial compared with the Buddhists, — could not wholly divest themselves of this characteristic Indian realisation that subjective experience is the basis of existence & the objective only an outward term of that existence.

But admirable & necessary as was this vast work of intellectual systemisation, subtle, self-grasped & successful beyond parallel, supreme glory as it is now held and highest attainment of Indian mentality, it had from the standpoint of Vedantic truth three capital disadvantages.

- Sri Aurobindo

savithru
16 September 2014, 05:55 AM
Namaste Savithru,

You have used too much of bold and increased font in your posts.


I am not the only one many members here use it. Of course it is annoying for the eyes to get adjusted to different fonts in the same thread but please get used to it.



This makes one feel as if you are shouting through your posts. :(
Not really, I have started using this font in other threads too since I believe the default font is too small for people to read.



Can you use normal fonts ? This will make reading your posts easy. If there is something really special in any post, you may like to highlight that word/term used in the post.

OMAs I said the default normal font is too small I believe.

silence_speaks
16 September 2014, 06:38 AM
Dear savithru,
:)



The Vedic rishis neither arrived at the truth by logical reasoning or by intellectual speculation. They arrived at it by practising Deity Yoga. Brahman is both khand and akhand. Brahman cannot be conceptualized it is beyond logic and reason. However the truth of whatever I am saying here can be realized by systematic practice of Yoga.

Those who want to know whether Shankara was right or Aurobindo was right will practice Deity Yoga and worship Hiranyagarbha and figure out the truth by themselves by doing both saguna as well as nirguna upasana while the others those who doesn't do will end up in darkness and ignorance.


You are welcome to your beliefs. Beliefs cannot be reasoned about ... coz they are just beliefs.
neither can experiences be reasoned with .... since all experiences are states of mind ... any experience u might have had can be simulated in a neuro science lab!

Liberated living is not a matter of experience ... more so since experiences are dumb and its your interpretation of the experience that matters !

Anyways ... "Reject statements that lack reasoning whether by a aged person or sage sukha himself. Accept words that are logically correct even if they are from a bird or a kid"

Love!
Silence

silence_speaks
16 September 2014, 06:40 AM
I would like to bring to the notice of the readers that Ramana also had differences with some of the views of Aurobindo :

http://selfabidance.blogspot.in/2013/04/ramana-maharshis-views-on-aurobindos.html

Love!
Silence

savithru
16 September 2014, 06:55 AM
Dear savithru,
:)



You are welcome to your beliefs. Beliefs cannot be reasoned about ... coz they are just beliefs.
neither can experiences be reasoned with .... since all experiences are states of mind ... any experience u might have had can be simulated in a neuro science lab!

Liberated living is not a matter of experience ... more so since experiences are dumb and its your interpretation of the experience that matters !

Anyways ... "Reject statements that lack reasoning whether by a aged person or sage sukha himself. Accept words that are logically correct even if they are from a bird or a kid"

Love!
Silence

For those who make their own sruti and ignore God not much can be said about their arrogance. :rolleyes: As I said those who worship Hiranyagarbha will receive the sublime wisdom and achieve immortality while the others remain in ignorance due to their pride.

silence_speaks
16 September 2014, 07:10 AM
For those who make their own sruti and ignore God not much can be said about their arrogance. :rolleyes: As I said those who worship Hiranyagarbha will receive the sublime wisdom and achieve immortality while the others remain in ignorance due to their pride.

Dear Savithru ji,
:)

Sruthi does not contradict logic. Shabda pramana is not supposed to be in contradiction with anumana or arthapathi.

So Logic is a valid means of knowledge for the areas it has access to. What is logically rejectable cannot be an opinion of the sruthi.

Again, if you are claiming that Shankara himself created his own sruthi ... you need to substantiate that with sufficient reasoning and proper study ... it needs not just enough knowledge of logic but a proper understand of what shankara meant , first of all! that requires very elaborate study.
if you claim i am creating my own sruthi ... i have no teaching of my own ... i present what shankara taught as i understand ... and yes what i present may be wrong ... and it can be corrected if proper reasoning is provided.

:)

God is not ignored ! that is also a wrong understanding of shankara's teachings.

Love!
Silence

savithru
16 September 2014, 07:56 AM
Dear Savithru ji,
:)

Sruthi does not contradict logic. Shabda pramana is not supposed to be in contradiction with anumana or arthapathi.


Shruthi is beyond logic, it is not necessary that Shruthi should be based on logic. Shruthi is Apaurusheya.




So Logic is a valid means of knowledge for the areas it has access to. What is logically rejectable cannot be an opinion of the sruthi.
If this was true then all logical positivists would have been knowers of Brahman by now.



Again, if you are claiming that Shankara himself created his own sruthi ... you need to substantiate that with sufficient reasoning and proper study ... it needs not just enough knowledge of logic but a proper understand of what shankara meant , first of all! that requires very elaborate study.
if you claim i am creating my own sruthi ... i have no teaching of my own ... i present what shankara taught as i understand ... and yes what i present may be wrong ... and it can be corrected if proper reasoning is provided.

:)

God is not ignored ! that is also a wrong understanding of shankara's teachings.

Love!
SilenceShankara simply put was a crypto-Buddhist whose views destroyed the whole importance and wisdom hidden behind the Purva Mimamsa.

The correct view of Advaita do not consider Ishvara to be an illusionary construct or as a projection of one's mind. Ishvara is the controller of your mind how can he be a projection of your mind? There is a real world independent of the mind. Panchabhuthas and Tanmatras is not Maya, they are real not illusions and they exist independent of one's mind.

The doctrine of Maya is not Sruthi and hence this theory by Shankara should be discarded completely as it is variance with Indian philosophy.

savithru
16 September 2014, 11:41 AM
Namaste Savithru,

You have used too much of bold and increased font in your posts. This makes one feel as if you are shouting through your posts. :(

Can you use normal fonts ? This will make reading your posts easy. If there is something really special in any post, you may like to highlight that word/term used in the post.

OM

Oops! I am running from an ubuntu machine and for me the fonts were appearing quite readable and good but later when I checked my posts on a windows machine I realized that the font was all gibberish.

I am really sorry I didn't knew this before. :(

silence_speaks
16 September 2014, 08:00 PM
Dear savithru ji,
:)



Shruthi is beyond logic, it is not necessary that Shruthi should be based on logic. Shruthi is Apaurusheya.


Sruthi should not contradict logic does not mean it should be based on logic.

For example when they say : There is a heaven ... that is beyond the "Realms of logic".

But if they say, "earth is flat" or "a time dependent object does not die " etc ... that would be contradicting logic.

Sruthi - Yukthi - Anubhavah .... thats how one realizes the truth.

Yukthi has its place ... in rejecting wrong ideas.

Rest of what you wrote comes from incomplete understanding of what Shankara said in the first place.

Love!
Silence

savithru
17 September 2014, 01:48 AM
Dear savithru ji,
:)

Rest of what you wrote comes from incomplete understanding of what Shankara said in the first place.

Love!
Silence

We very well understand the doctrine of Shankara and his theory of Maya as it currently stands is against the orthodox view of the Vedas and the Upanishads. Shankara's theory of Maya should be wiped out from the earth as he has misled all of us into untruth. The fact that you did not addressed my argument and simple brushed it aside shows that the truth was never on your side.

Mayavada and Buddhism - Are they one and the same? (http://gosai.com/writings/mayavada-and-buddhism-are-they-one-and-the-same)



Conclusion

The concepts of maya, avidya, vyayaharika-satya and paramarthika-satya, advaya, prajna, the unreality of the universe and time and the attributeless Brahman are all Buddhist contributions, without which there would be no Advaita philosophy. It thus becomes obvious why Sankara was disinclined to launch an all out attack upon Sunyavada Buddhism when he and his predecessor Gaudapada had appropriated so much from that doctrine.


In conclusion, by carefully analyzing the above points it would seem that Sankara’s detractors were correct in assessing that his philosophy was crypto-Buddhism. It can clearly be observed that Sankara and Gaudapada attempted to amalgamate Buddhist epistemology and psychology with the metaphysics of the Upanishads and Vedanta. Thus, from an orthodox standpoint, this automatically disqualifies Advaitavada (of Shankara) as a traditional school of Vedic thought.

silence_speaks
18 September 2014, 01:26 AM
Dear savithru,
:)
Whether truth was on my side or not is not the matter.
the matter is what is the Truth. There is no place for personal feelings and emotions here.

What do you want me to prove or disprove ?
You have some views. you base them on belief ....
I cannot prove or disprove your belief... since belief is a belief, not based on logical deductions.

And then you claim Shankara taught buddhism ... if so what ? Buddha was an enlightened one ... its good that there are so many similarities ! That just goes to show that liberated living is nearly the same, expressions may be slightly different !

From your quotations etc I get a doubt. Is Aurobindo's Advaita also called "Vishishtadvaita " ?

Love!
Silence

silence_speaks
18 September 2014, 01:51 AM
What matters at the end of the day is
not where i am a dvaitin , vishistadvaitin , or advaitin.

or even Buddhist.

It does not matter whether i confirm to "Vedas" or "Koran"

What matters is where i discover total Satisfaction ... and live a liberated life here and now or not !

Whether i live like a Stitapragnya, here and now ... irrespective of whether i follow buddhism or dualism ... is all that matters ... since here and now ... if i am a stitapragya, i am free and reveling as myself.

devotee
18 September 2014, 02:47 AM
Namaste,

Should we trust Sri Aurobindo ? What is his credentials on realisation of Truth ?

Saying this, "Shankara's theory of Maya should be wiped out from the earth as he has misled all of us into untruth." can be seen as merely an outburst of an inflated ego ... unless who says this has realised the Truth.

Savithru, are you Self/Brahman/Truth-realised ?

OM

savithru
18 September 2014, 07:30 AM
Dear savithru,
:)
Whether truth was on my side or not is not the matter.
the matter is what is the Truth. There is no place for personal feelings and emotions here.


Absolutely, this is nothing personal, its about the Truth which you followers of Shankara fail to understand.



What do you want me to prove or disprove ?
You have some views. you base them on belief ....
I cannot prove or disprove your belief... since belief is a belief, not based on logical deductions.


Belief is based on scriptures and tradition and that is our ultimate Pramana and Pradhana and not logical deductions. Our Rishis were not Logicians.



And then you claim Shankara taught buddhism ... if so what ? Buddha was an enlightened one ... its good that there are so many similarities ! That just goes to show that liberated living is nearly the same, expressions may be slightly different !


What similarities? Buddhism is completely incompatible with the Vedas and the Upanishads and Shankara himself criticized Buddhist philosophy fanatically.

General assessment of Buddhist philosophy

"No further special discussion is required. From whatever points of view the Buddhist systems are tested with regard to their plausibility, they cave in on all sides, like the walls of a well dug in sandy soil. [Buddhist philosophy] has, in fact, no foundation whatever to rest upon, and thus it is foolish to adopt it as a guide in the practical concerns of life. Moreover, the Buddha,3 by presenting three mutually contradictory systems of philosophy — teaching respectively the reality of the external world, the reality of consciousness-only, and general emptiness — has himself made it clear either that he was a man given to making incoherent assertions, or else that hatred of all beings moved him to propound absurd doctrines that would thoroughly confuse all who might take him seriously. Thus, the Buddha's doctrine must be entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own happiness."
- Shankara Shankara's commentary on the Vedanta Sutras
(https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Byca0YQM2EgsZ2o4aEU3UElDdDA/preview)
Only ignorant and foolish people think that Buddhism is compatible with the Vedas and the Upanishads. Sure there are different levels of enlightenment and Buddha too was enlightened but that doesn't mean his teachings should be taken as the ultimate ignoring what the Sruti texts are saying about the ultimate reality.



From your quotations etc I get a doubt. Is Aurobindo's Advaita also called "Vishishtadvaita " ?

Love!
Silence

No, Ramanuja gives too much emphasis to the Saguna Brahman ignoring its Akhand attributeless Nirguna qualities. Aurobindo's advaita dates back to at least 3000 BC and Brahman is both Saguna and Nirguna which is the only correct view.




What does Nirguna Brahman mean? Ramanuja argues vehemently against understanding Brahman as one without attributes. Brahman is Nirguna in the sense that impure qualities do not touch it. He provides three valid reasons for staking such a claim:


Shruti/ Shabda Pramana: All shrutis and shabdas denoting Brahman always list either attributes inherent to Brahman or not inherent to Brahman. The shrutis only seek to deny Brahman from possessing impure and defective qualities which affect the world of beings. There is evidence in the shrutis to this regard. The shrutis proclaim Brahman to be beyond the tri-gunas which are observed. However, Brahman possesses an infinite number of transcendental attributes, the evidence of which is given in vakhyas like "satyam jnanam anantam Brahma" (Taittiriya Upanishad).


Pratyaksha Pramana: Ramanuja states that "a contentless cognition is impossible". And all cognition must necessarily involve knowing Brahman through the attributes of Brahman.


Anumana Pramana: Ramanuja states that "Nirgunatva" itself becomes an attribute of Brahman on account of the uniqueness of no other entity being Nirguna. Ramanuja had simplified relationship between bramha and soul.According to him though soul is integral part of bramha it has independent existence.

- Vishishtadvaita

savithru
18 September 2014, 07:42 AM
What matters at the end of the day is
not where i am a dvaitin , vishistadvaitin , or advaitin.


All philosophical systems Dvaita of Madhwa, Vishistadvaita of Ramanuja, Advaita of Shankara, Shuddha Advaita of Vallabah and Samkhya are wrong. The correct philosophical system is Isha Upanishad.

Dvaita is wrong because it does not recognize that Self is Brahman.
Vishishtadvaita is wrong because it does not recognize that Brahman is literally Nirguna and one without attributes.
Advaita is wrong because it does not recognize that Saguna Brahman is equal in reality with Nirguna Brahman.
Samkhya is wrong because it does not recognize Ishvara.



or even Buddhist.
Buddhism was refuted by Shankara long ago.



It does not matter whether i confirm to "Vedas" or "Koran"
Yeah why it does not matter go and form you own religion then don't respect tradition and orthodoxy.



What matters is where i discover total Satisfaction ... and live a liberated life here and now or not !

Whether i live like a Stitapragnya, here and now ... irrespective of whether i follow buddhism or dualism ... is all that matters ... since here and now ... if i am a stitapragya, i am free and reveling as myself.I don't think you can know Brahman without following the historical Vedic tradition.

savithru
18 September 2014, 07:51 AM
Namaste,

Should we trust Sri Aurobindo ?


Yes we should, his efforts and voluminous writings were sincere and anyone who has carefully studied the Vedas knows that he is right.

"In short, I seek not science, not religion, not Theosophy, but Veda — the truth about Brahman, not only about His essentiality, but about His manifestation, not a lamp on the way to the forest, but a light and a guide to joy and action in the world, the truth which is beyond opinion, the knowledge which all thought strives after — yasmin vijnate sarvam vijnatam. I believe that Veda to be the foundation of the Sanatan Dharma; I believe it to be the concealed divinity within Hinduism, — but a veil has to be drawn aside, a curtain has to be lifted. I believe it to be knowable and discoverable. I believe the future of India and the world to depend on its discovery and on its application, not to the renunciation of life, but to life in the world and among men. "

- Sri Aurobino



What is his credentials on realisation of Truth ?
His arguments are his credentials and he is very much close to sampradaya and orthodoxy.



Saying this, "Shankara's theory of Maya should be wiped out from the earth as he has misled all of us into untruth." can be seen as merely an outburst of an inflated ego ... unless who says this has realised the Truth.

Savithru, are you Self/Brahman/Truth-realised ?

OMNot yet but I am a follower of Hiranyagarbha Yoga Tradition which our Rishis followed.

silence_speaks
18 September 2014, 10:00 AM
Dear savithru ji,
:)

1. You are right that shankara refuted Buddhist views (some of them) ... and that is the reason why its important to understand what are those views he rejected and why. And where there is no disagreement. This understanding is viveka. We do not throw away the baby with the bath water !

2. Scriptures are not merely beliefs. IF they were beliefs how is one kind of belief better than other ?

When we say that Vedas are shabda pramanam it means : The subject matter of vedas is supposed to be anadhigata, not available to other pramanas and it should also satisfy phalavat arthabodhakatvam.

Here, its important to note that if its anadhigata , then alone vedas are the shabda pramanam. So if it contradicts anumana [logic] ... we cannot call it a valid conclusion of the vedas.

This is the reason why the logical questions I raised earlier hold true and cannot be left out with the pretext that shabda pramanam is beyond logic. Beyond logic does not mean it can get contradicted by logic. what can get contradicted by logic would not fall into shabda pramana category. Even so my earlier contradictions hold.


Finally ... Sraddha does not mean belief.

Love!
Silence

savithru
18 September 2014, 11:34 AM
Dear savithru ji,
:)

1. You are right that shankara refuted Buddhist views (some of them) ... and that is the reason why its important to understand what are those views he rejected and why. And where there is no disagreement. This understanding is viveka. We do not throw away the baby with the bath water !

2. Scriptures are not merely beliefs. IF they were beliefs how is one kind of belief better than other ?

When we say that Vedas are shabda pramanam it means : The subject matter of vedas is supposed to be anadhigata, not available to other pramanas and it should also satisfy phalavat arthabodhakatvam.

Here, its important to note that if its anadhigata , then alone vedas are the shabda pramanam. So if it contradicts anumana [logic] ... we cannot call it a valid conclusion of the vedas.

This is the reason why the logical questions I raised earlier hold true and cannot be left out with the pretext that shabda pramanam is beyond logic. Beyond logic does not mean it can get contradicted by logic. what can get contradicted by logic would not fall into shabda pramana category. Even so my earlier contradictions hold.


Finally ... Sraddha does not mean belief.

Love!
Silence

There is something superior than Logic and Reason and its called Revelation and Wisdom. What, you think that Sri Aurobindo did not thought about the contradictions? He was well aware of that and he had enough wisdom to see how the Rishi trampled on the law of contradiction at each level showing its invalidity and reconciling opposite propositions to a divine harmony. The accusations on Shankara and his followers still stands and its a very big accusation which they cannot lift their face and stand without guilt that they corrupted the Sruti to hide their coward theory of Maya. Yajnavakya is no match to Shankara.

"Synthesis of knowledge, synthesis of dharma, reconciliation and harmony of the opposites form the very soul of this Upanishad. In Western philosophy there is a law called the law of contradiction, according to which opposites mutually exclude each other. Two opposite propositions cannot hold good at the same time, they cannot integrate; two opposite qualities cannot be simultaneously true at the same place and in the same instrument. According to this law, opposites cannot be reconciled or harmonised. If the Divine is one, then however omnipotent He might be, He cannot be many. The infinite cannot be finite. It is impossible for the formless to assume form; if it assumes form, then it abrogates its formlessness. The formula that the Brahman is at the same time with and without attributes, which is exactly what the Upanishad also says about God who is nirguṇo guṇī, with and without attributes, is not admitted by this logic. If formlessness, oneness, infinity of the Brahman are true, then attributes, forms, multiplicity and finiteness of the Brahman are false; brahma satyam jaganmithyā, “the Brahman is the sole reality, the world is an illusion” — such a totally ruinous deduction is the final outcome of that philosophic dictum. The Seer-Rishi of the Upanishad at each step tramples on that law and in each sloka announces its invalidity; he finds in the secret heart of the opposites the place for the reconciliation and harmony of their contradiction. The oneness of the universe in motion and the immobile Purusha, enjoyment of all by renunciation of all, eternal liberation by full action, perpetual stability of the Brahman in movement, unbound and inconceivable motion in the eternal immobility, the oneness of the Brahman without attributes and the Lord of the universe with attributes, the inadequacy of Knowledge alone or of Ignorance alone for attaining Immortality, Immortality obtained by simultaneous worship of Knowledge and Ignorance, the supreme liberation and realisation gained not by the constant cycle of birth, not by the dissolution of birth but by simultaneous accomplishment of Birth and Non-Birth, — these are the sublime principles loudly proclaimed by the Upanishad."

- Sri Aurobindo

devotee
18 September 2014, 10:23 PM
Namaste Savithru,


Yes we should, his efforts and voluminous writings were sincere and anyone who has carefully studied the Vedas knows that he is right.

It is all your assumptions or beliefs. Many people don't agree with this.


Not yet but I am a follower of Hiranyagarbha Yoga Tradition which our Rishis followed.

What is "Hiranyagarbha Yoga tradition" ?

OM

silence_speaks
19 September 2014, 01:00 AM
Dear savithru ji,
:) Pramanas are means of knowledge. Amongst the various means of knowledge there is no higher or lower. What is available to one means of knowledge is not available to another.

For example what is available to my nose is not available for my ears. both present knowledge. Nose is one means of knowledge which provides us with information about smell. The ears provide us with means to sound. Ears and nose are two means of knowledge and have distinct functions. They serve distinct functions.

Same thing with any two means of knowledge. We cannot say logic is superior to pratyaksha. Pratyaksha works in one domain, logic or anumana works in another domain.

Shabda pramana in yet another domain : that is why the knowledge it provides is anadhigata .

-------------------

Now coming to so called "super natural" : :) How can you confirm its not a figment of imagination ? Any experience ... how ever exotic you may claim it to be ... can be simulated through neural manipulations. So ... the idea of such experiences being " superior " not well studied and mere imagination.

Love!
Silence

savithru
19 September 2014, 01:01 AM
Namaste Savithru,



It is all your assumptions or beliefs. Many people don't agree with this.



What is "Hiranyagarbha Yoga tradition" ?

OM

As Sri Aurobindo says the greatest enemy to Hinduism is none other than ignorant coward Hindus not anyone external to them.

I am on the path of Hindu revivalism. The Vedic gods are making a come back.



Hindu revivalism

Some modern Hindu spiritual thinkers like Shri Aurobindo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shri_Aurobindo) assign symbolism to the Vedic deities like Savitr. The Vedic deities are not only forces of nature, but also forces that exist within the human intellect and psyche and help the individual in spiritual progress. Shri Aurobindo has enumerated the symbolic significance of the Vedic Gods in his book "The Secret of the Vedas".


According to Shri Aurobindo, the vedic imagery are deeper than mere imagery. The gods, goddesses and the evil forces mentioned in the Vedas represent various cosmic powers. They play a significant role in the drama of creation, preservation and destruction in the inner world of a human being.


Once the senses are controlled and the mind is stabilized through slaying of all the dark powers, comes the awakening, the goddess Ushas, who brings along with her Ashvins into the world of inner consciousness. After Ushas appear Aditi, the Primal Sun, the God of Light, first as Savitr, who represents the Divine grace essential for all spiritual success, and then as Mitra, who as the Divine love is considered as a friend of the illumined mind (Indra) and his associates (the other gods). The Sun is of Truth, after which appear Rta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rta), Truth in Action and Rtachit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rtachit&action=edit&redlink=1), Truth consciousness.

savithru
19 September 2014, 01:09 AM
Dear savithru ji,

Now coming to so called "super natural" : :) How can you confirm its not a figment of imagination ? Any experience ... how ever exotic you may claim it to be ... can be simulated through neural manipulations. So ... the idea of such experiences being " superior " not well studied and mere imagination.

Love!
Silence

Do you know something? I know science and science doesn't have a scientific definition for consciousness yet. You along with your logic, reason and the scientific method think that YOU ARE GOD without showing any humility to the person who created this universe.



In Hinduism eight siddhis (Ashta Siddhi) are known:[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhi#cite_note-13)

Aṇimā: reducing one's body even to the size of an atom
Mahima: expanding one's body to an infinitely large size
Garima: becoming infinitely heavy
Laghima: becoming almost weightless
Prāpti: having unrestricted access to all places
Prākāmya: realizing whatever one desires
Iṣṭva: possessing absolute lordship
Vaśtva: the power to subjugate all[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhi#cite_note-14) Bhagavata Purana

Five siddhis of yoga and meditation

In the Bhagavata Purana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavata_Purana), the five siddhis of yoga and meditation are:

tri-kāla-jñatvam: knowing the past, present and future
advandvam: tolerance of heat, cold and other dualities
para citta ādi abhijñatā: knowing the minds of others and so on
agni arka ambu viṣa ādīnām pratiṣṭambhaḥ: checking the influence of fire, sun, water, poison, and so on
aparājayah: remaining unconquered by others[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhi#cite_note-15) Ten secondary siddhis

In the Bhagavata Purana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavata_Purana), Lord Krishna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Krishna) describes the ten secondary siddhis as:

anūrmi-mattvam: Being undisturbed by hunger, thirst, and other bodily appetites
dūra-śravaṇa: Hearing things far away
dūra-darśanam: Seeing things far away
manaḥ-javah: Moving the body wherever thought goes (teleportation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleportation)/astral projection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astral_projection))
kāma-rūpam: Assuming any form desired
para-kāya praveśanam: Entering the bodies of others
sva-chanda mṛtyuh: Dying when one desires
devānām saha krīḍā anudarśanam: Witnessing and participating in the pastimes of the gods
yathā sańkalpa saḿsiddhiḥ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sankalpa_%28Hindu_thought%29): Perfect accomplishment of one's determination
ājñā apratihatā gatiḥ: Orders or commands being unimpeded [14 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhi#cite_note-16)

Tell your scientific morons to try and simulate this if they can or else please kindly allow us to revive Hinduism so that we can demonstrate these Siddhis confirming the existence of the supernatural. Science is not God and it doesn't know anything.

devotee
19 September 2014, 01:11 AM
Namaste Savithru,

You have not replied to this question :


What is "Hiranyagarbha Yoga tradition" ?


BTW, can you stop using flaming language as it is prohibited in this forum ?

OM

silence_speaks
19 September 2014, 01:35 AM
Dear Savitru ji,
:)



Do you know something? I know science and science doesn't have a scientific definition for consciousness yet.


That is true. Science does not understand consciousness.



You along with your logic, reason and the scientific method think that YOU ARE GOD without showing any humility to the person who created this universe.


No I do not. It would be stupid to think I am God, since i am limited. I cannot convince you that shankara was right even after so many posts :)... that should not be the case with God :D !

So its obvious that I am not God.


Coming to your super natural powers ... can you explain why you listed them for me here ?



Tell your scientific morons to try and simulate this if they can or else please kindly allow us to revive Hinduism so that we can demonstrate these Siddhis confirming the existence of the supernatural. Science is not God and it doesn't know anything.


If they are morons how can they be scientific ? :) and who has demonstrated siddhis ? I am yet to find one. Have you found one ? How did you verify if he is tricking or really a siddha ? If you accepted he is a siddha without verification, do you think you have anything more than an emotional claim to make ?

If you have found one ... do a simple test. I have thought a word in my mind ... let him tell what i have thought ! Lets see he will be able to tell. If he is able to tell, ill myself come there and find out ! since if there are such siddhis possible ,it would be of great help for the society. But then, just imagining and believing some ideas ... wont help anyone !

Love!
Silence

savithru
20 September 2014, 05:43 AM
Namaste Savithru,

It is all your assumptions or beliefs. Many people don't agree with this.


Of course we are a minority but our POV (point of view) is not based upon blind assumptions or beliefs instead its based upon extremely good scholarly evidence from traditional scholars in the field and also by Sri Aurobindo who is one of the prime proponent of this theory. We can destroy Hinduism and the agamas if we chose to.





What is "Hiranyagarbha Yoga tradition" ?

OM


I instructed this imperishable science of yoga to the sun-god, Vivasvan, and Vivasvan instructed it to Manu, the father of mankind, and Manu in turn instructed it to Iksvaku. The supreme science was thus received through the chain of disciplic succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that way. But in course of time the succession was broken, and therefore the science as it is appears to be lost.”


- Bhagavad Gita 4.1 & 4.2
Hiranyagarbha Yoga is the oldest form of yoga which existed even before Patanjali compiled the Yoga sutras into a new philosophy of Yoga combining Samkhya and other darshanas. A few surviving teachings of the Hiranyagarbha Yoga still exists here and there and in this form of Yoga more emphasis is given to inner yajna and inner sacrifices to Vedic deities. It is the Yoga of the Sun god who is the true knower of this yoga.

savithru
20 September 2014, 06:05 AM
Dear Savitru ji,

Coming to your super natural powers ... can you explain why you listed them for me here ?


Because you said religious experiences can be simulated by neuroscience so go ahead simulate the siddhis which I have mentioned here through neuroscience. The point is simple religious experiences of God are not hallucinations instead they are real otherwise there is no point in one going after Deity Yoga. Try simulating levitation in a laboratory if not ask your neuro-scientists to just shut up because through yoga one can achieve all those feats.



If they are morons how can they be scientific ? :)
Scientists are morons because they do not study religion or the history of religion as they do the natural world.



and who has demonstrated siddhis ? I am yet to find one. Have you found one ? How did you verify if he is tricking or really a siddha ? If you accepted he is a siddha without verification, do you think you have anything more than an emotional claim to make ?

If you have found one ... do a simple test. I have thought a word in my mind ... let him tell what i have thought ! Lets see he will be able to tell. If he is able to tell, ill myself come there and find out ! since if there are such siddhis possible ,it would be of great help for the society. But then, just imagining and believing some ideas ... wont help anyone !

Love!
SilenceSiddhis are possible its just that no one takes it too seriously these days because every one is running after the European system of education and no one practice Yoga seriously along with mantras instead they just do it to stretch their fatty bodies. How can you find a siddha when there is no one at this age of time and space who applies the science of Yoga properly?

silence_speaks
20 September 2014, 06:44 AM
Dear savithru,
:)



How can you find a siddha when there is no one at this age of time and space who applies the science of Yoga properly?


So have you seen a Siddha or not ?

1) If you have never seen one ... then you "Believe" in siddhis. I cannot question or reason about a belief. Its unvalidated , unverified idea! Its your personal and emotional bondage with that idea... i do not wish to be harsh with you on that but these are called superstitions. But children want to believe all that since it gives them fun. They need to grow up.


2) If you have met one ... I asked if you validated that he is a siddha not a trickster ! How to validate ? Well, i gave the best idea. Ask him to tell a word i imagined. If he has any kind of siddhi he will be able to tell that !


I have created this experiment since siddhis like levitation can also be imitated by someone like PC Sarkar. so with regards that there may be some possibility of getting tricked. But with my experiment there can be no way. If you find one who can answer my question above ... let me know ... ill come to where you are and find out the way to publish a scientific paper on that. I'll spend rest of my life on making it popular and publishing the paper.

Love!
Silence

savithru
20 September 2014, 07:07 AM
Dear savithru,
:)



So have you seen a Siddha or not ?

1) If you have never seen one ... then you "Believe" in siddhis. I cannot question or reason about a belief. Its unvalidated , unverified idea! Its your personal and emotional bondage with that idea... i do not wish to be harsh with you on that but these are called superstitions. But children want to believe all that since it gives them fun. They need to grow up.


2) If you have met one ... I asked if you validated that he is a siddha not a trickster ! How to validate ? Well, i gave the best idea. Ask him to tell a word i imagined. If he has any kind of siddhi he will be able to tell that !


I have created this experiment since siddhis like levitation can also be imitated by someone like PC Sarkar. so with regards that there may be some possibility of getting tricked. But with my experiment there can be no way. If you find one who can answer my question above ... let me know ... ill come to where you are and find out the way to publish a scientific paper on that. I'll spend rest of my life on making it popular and publishing the paper.

Love!
Silence

I don't know why people act so foolishly and bigoted without understanding the epistemology and dynamics of Indian philosophy. Its nothing but shear double standards and delusions.

Shankara himself demonstrated the siddhi of parakaya pravesha, the act of entering another body alive which clearly shows that consciousness is outside the current scientific paradigm. Stop worshipping science and logic for god sake and wake up to the truth.



After debating for over fifteen days, with Maṇḍana Miśra's wife Ubhaya Bhāratī acting as referee, Maṇḍana Miśra accepted defeat.Ubhaya Bhāratī then challenged Adi Shankara to have a debate with her in order to 'complete' the victory. She asked him questions related to sexual congress between man and woman – a subject in which Shankaracharya had no knowledge, since he was a true celibate and sannyasi. Sri Shankracharya asked for a "recess" of 15 days. As per legend, he used the art of "para-kaya pravesa" (the spirit leaving one's own body and entering another's) and exited his own body, which he asked his disciples to look after, and psychically entered the dead body of a king. The story goes that from the King's two wives, he acquired all knowledge of "art of love". The queens, thrilled at the keen intellect and robust love-making of the "revived" King, deduced that he was not their husband, as of old. The story continues that they sent their factotums to "look for the lifeless body of a young sadhu and to cremate it immediately" so that their "king" (Shankracharya in the king's body) would continue to live with them. Just as the retainers piled Shankracharaya's lifeless corpse upon a pyre and were about to set fire to it, Shankara entered his own body and regained consciousness. Finally, he answered all questions put to him by Ubhaya Bhāratī; and she allowed Maṇḍana Miśra to accept sannyasa with the monastic name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga_patta) Sureśvarācārya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sure%C5%9Bvara), as per the agreed-upon rules of the debate.

silence_speaks
20 September 2014, 08:25 AM
Dear Savitru ji,
:)

Please calm down, we are only discussing ... no harm in seeing all sides of the story. Purvapaksha is allowed even on the upanishadic statements. So nothing wrong in questioning your claim about siddhis.




Shankara himself demonstrated the siddhi of parakaya pravesha, the act of entering another body alive which clearly shows that consciousness is outside the current scientific paradigm. Stop worshipping science and logic for god sake and wake up to the truth.


Did he demonstrate it to you ? For what I know its no more than a story unless you see it yourself ! Its a mere story ... a few people want it to be true so hold onto it on belief!


I am asking, what is the basis for your belief ? And you are not answering such a simple question! And how do you know if you had an experience that it is not hallucination. I have also proposed a good test for you to verify. :) And am totally open provided its validatable!!


Love!
Silence

savithru
20 September 2014, 02:16 PM
Dear Savitru ji,

Did he demonstrate it to you ? For what I know its no more than a story unless you see it yourself ! Its a mere story ... a few people want it to be true so hold onto it on belief!


Shear double standards, people like you are truly the real enemies of Hinduism. Shankara was never an atheist you might just go on to say that Gayatri doesn't exist at all. Its all just a story isn't it? How do you think Ramakrishna Pramahamsa was enlightened? He was not enlightened by simply worshipping emptiness and nihilism but by worshipping a deity who was Kali ma. He practised Deity Yoga and gave the brilliant student Swami Vivekananda to the world.



I am asking, what is the basis for your belief ? What the hell, is this a forum for discussing Hinduism or a forum for discussing atheism? My beliefs are based on a tradition which is millennium of years old and I know more about my religion than atheistic Hindus who have hijacked and corrupted Hinduism leading it to its decline.

anucarh
20 September 2014, 04:11 PM
Namaste,

It is clear from his Autobiographical Notes that Śrī Aurobindo revered Svāmī Vivekānanda, looked up to him, and saw him as an exalted being, after all it was Aurobindo's experience of Svāmī Vivekānanda while he was in jail that was part of his spiritual awakening. (You might even say that Aurobindo borrowed an idea from Svāmī Vivekānanda. The svāmī followed his own guru in teaching that the realization of nirguṇa "without qualities" Brahman does not sublate or negate saguṇa "with qualities" Brahman.) It is equally clear that Svāmī Vivekānanda revered Śrī Ādi Śaṅkarācārya. He is the one who made the name Śaṅkara famous in the West. In fact he revered all of the great Vedānta ācāryas (teachers), just as his own guru, Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa, did. This is why the Rāmakṛṣṇa Order publishes translations of Śrī Ādi Śaṅkarācārya's writings, as well as Śrī Rāmānujācārya's writings. It is why they publish a book about the teachings of the great bhakti (devotion) schools of Vedānta. Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇa was one who did not criticize any tradition (sampradāyam na nindati). He taught that there is no single frame of reference or perspective from which Reality is viewed which is superior to all others. This was one of his greatest teachings. And you might say he proved his insights by living the life of a realized master. He fully embodied all of the extraordinary virtues praised in the Bhagavad Gītā and elsewhere. He lived selflessly, showed love and compassion to everyone without exception, practiced constant gentleness and patience, never showed a trace of ego, etc. (The Gospel of Ramakrishna is perhaps the single most informative book about his life and teachings, as recorded by a disciple, although there are others.)

It is also worth noting that Śrī Ādi Śaṅkarācārya did not oppose bhakti at all. In fact he composed hymns to Lord Viṣṇu, Lord Śiva, the Divine Mother, and others. (These can be read in the same volume as the Ramakrishna Order's translation of his Ātmabodha.)

It is not my intention to tell others what to think. I'm simply offering these thoughts for your consideration. Everyone will see things in his or her own way.

May all be happy.

praṇām

silence_speaks
20 September 2014, 09:37 PM
Dear savithru ji,
:)



How do you think Ramakrishna Pramahamsa was enlightened? He was not enlightened by simply worshipping emptiness and nihilism but by worshipping a deity who was Kali ma.


who said that one cannot realize through Bhakti ?
"Emptiness and nihilism" -- shunyavada is not the same as Advaita as taught by shankara.



What the hell, is this a forum for discussing Hinduism or a forum for discussing atheism? My beliefs are based on a tradition which is millennium of years old and I know more about my religion than atheistic Hindus who have hijacked and corrupted Hinduism leading it to its decline.


:) A Belief is a belief ... it just means you do not know... even if it is based on a tradition. Do you believe you have two hands or do you know ? If you know ... its not a belief. IF you believe, it means you are not sure !!


Love!
Silence

savithru
21 September 2014, 12:39 PM
Namaste,

It is also worth noting that Śrī Ādi Śaṅkarācārya did not oppose bhakti at all. In fact he composed hymns to Lord Viṣṇu, Lord Śiva, the Divine Mother, and others.

praṇām

It doesn't change the fact that Shankara did opposed the philosophy of Purva Mimamsa and underestimated a sect called Sauram who worship Surya as Saguna Brahman and affirm that Surya is above the Trimurthis and they clearly show that Vedas and the Upanishads destroys Mayavada (Illusionism) by Shankara to the bottomless ocean. When someone has made a mistake it should be criticized even if it is Swami Vivekanada or Shankara no hard feelings and no sentiments I am only in the pursuit of truth. When the saura texts didn't abide according to their theory of Mayavada the followers of Shankara silently removed those texts from the canon of principle Upanishads. Shankara was very silent about this particular sect.

Sauram

"The Saura sect that worships Surya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surya) as the supreme person of godhead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity) and saguna brahman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saguna_brahman) doesn't accept the Trimurti as they believe Surya is God. Earlier forms of the Trimurti sometimes included Surya instead of Brahma, or as a fourth above the Trimurti, of whom the other three are manifestations; Surya is Brahma in the morning, Vishnu in the afternoon and Shiva in the evening. Surya was also a member of the original Vedic Trimurti, which included Agni and Vayu. Some Sauras worship either Vishnu or Shiva as manifestations of Surya, others worship the Trimurti as a manifestation of Surya, and others exclusively worship Surya alone."

savithru
21 September 2014, 12:52 PM
Dear savithru ji,
:)



who said that one cannot realize through Bhakti ?
"Emptiness and nihilism" -- shunyavada is not the same as Advaita as taught by shankara.


Nirguna Upasana is nothing but just that emptiness and nihilism in disguise.




:) A Belief is a belief ... it just means you do not know... even if it is based on a tradition. Do you believe you have two hands or do you know ? If you know ... its not a belief. IF you believe, it means you are not sure !!


Love!
Silence
Yes my views are not based on blind faith I just know and I am smiling inside as to what things you followers of Mayavada lose who will enter into an even more blind darkness than the one's who worship only the saguna Brahman as the Rishi says.

This thread is not about me its about the truth of Vedas and the Upanishads the fact that you never addressed my criticisms shows the cowardice of Mayavada which cannot stand up to scrutiny against the Light of the Vedas. You are just displaying your ignorance to the whole world.

silence_speaks
22 September 2014, 01:42 AM
Dear savithru ji,
:)



Nirguna Upasana is nothing but just that emptiness and nihilism in disguise.


Not true ! This is what I was saying. If Shankara was a nihilist, then why did he pray to Vishnu ? What was "Bhaja Govindam" ? Thats why I said that understanding has to be there.



Yes my views are not based on blind faith I just know and I am smiling inside as to what things you followers of Mayavada lose who will enter into an even more blind darkness than the one's who worship only the saguna Brahman as the Rishi says.


We revel in Bliss 24 7 ! :) What is there to miss ?




This thread is not about me its about the truth of Vedas and the Upanishads the fact that you never addressed my criticisms shows the cowardice of Mayavada which cannot stand up to scrutiny against the Light of the Vedas. You are just displaying your ignorance to the whole world.


To ascertain that Shankara was wrong you first have to :
1) understand what shankara said.
2) yourself understand vedas better - in a holistic fashion.

both these require very sound knowledge of sanskrit (vedic sanskrit) and logic. Along with a life dedicated to study of vedas.

Have you got all that ? Thats why i said you claim is baseless.

Love!
Silence

savithru
22 September 2014, 06:52 AM
Our traditional scholars and philosophers are well versed in both Purva Mimamsa as well as in Uttara Mimamsa. I advice readers to read the Integral Advaitism by Sri Aurobindo written by Ramachandra Mishra (http://books.google.co.in/books?id=vf-EXycD0UUC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false) where differences between our view and the Shankarites have been clearly laid out. The game is all over for the followers of Shankara more and more people have started realizing the truth and how Shankara has misled the whole world by introducing his Buddhist theory of Maya to Indian philosophy which needs to be thrown away at any cost. More and more people are following the philosophy and view put forward by Sri Aurobindo.

satay
22 September 2014, 09:10 AM
Admin Note

Thread under review.

satay
22 September 2014, 09:15 AM
namaskar,




I am on the path of Hindu revivalism.



Good luck with your journey.