PDA

View Full Version : Soundarya Lahari - Shree Shankaraachaaryaa - Advaita



Anirudh
30 November 2014, 02:03 AM
Namaste

While commuting I happen to listen Soundarya Lahari few days ago. It was a melodious and peaceful experience.

Although didn't understand a bit of it then, later learnt that it was composed by Shree Shankaraachaaryaa along with other associated legends.

It is a very beautiful poem.

Shree Shankaraachaaryaa has composed Baja Govindam, Karaavalambam and Soundarya Lahari among others.

While Shree Shankaraachaaryaa spearheaded Advaita concepts why should he compose poems praising Govinda or Lakshmi Nrusimha or Parvathi ?

Out of all the three I listed Baja Govindam is in line with Advaita but still why Govinda?

Also legends around these poems says he met Shivaya or saved by Nrusimha etc etc. How is this possible?

I request readers to forgive me, if my question is not appropriate.

smaranam
30 November 2014, 07:48 AM
Namaste

If I may point out a few things --

1. The truth is, that the advaita in the VedAnta, is more like a set of axioms or aphorisms. It is not to be confused with a practice, way of life or some action to be taken.

a + b = c
A square has four equal sides.
The earth is round
Likewise, the Source of everything and everyone is One. Therefore, do not keep a mentality of seperateness -- of mine and yours. Do not carry the burden of doership, ownership, acheivement, and thereby keep expectations and encounter dissappointments.

This is all vedAnta is telling us.

2. Adi Shakara was a Govind-premi. If he was a rUpa of Shankara then that fits perfectly. Shambhu loves Govind and vice versa although Shambhu is none other than Govind playing a different role. [* Shambhu, Shankar are names of Shiva]

3. He set examples of at least karma-kAnDa and upAsanA if not bhakti. Bhakti should never be misunderstood as karma-kAnDa. There is no doubt that jivas need to acknowledge they exist, impressions exist, vRtti exist, and there is a need to streamline and regulate that existence.

If jivas are beginingless, they are not about to vanish so soon. If it is the nature of Brahman to manifest jivas, then it is.
What is, is.

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya

Ekam
30 November 2014, 09:03 AM
Namaste
While Shree Shankaraachaaryaa spearheaded Advaita concepts why should he compose poems praising Govinda or Lakshmi Nrusimha or Parvathi ?


Namaste.

What advaita concept forbids praising gods? I don't know any.

Pranams.

smaranam
30 November 2014, 09:27 AM
Namaste.

What advaita concept forbids praising gods? I don't know any.

Pranams.
Namaste Ekam

I can tell where the OP is coming from, and I have seen this myself.

The strong advocates of non-duality (on the internet) tell us that if I am praising God, or associating with God, or dependant on God, or calling God, even speaking to Him or walking with Him, that is a sign of ignorance and confusion because I see "me and God"

If even a pure devotee is supposedly ignorant, in mAyA, having 'sankuchit vRtti' or blemish or whatever, then what to speak of work-in-progress devotees -- if they acknowledge that the underlying Source or Truth is One at some level, yet talk about "there is me and there is BhagavAn" then they are told they are "confused"

This is something that devotees especially of the pure bhakti tradition have to protect themselves from.

Please see my point 1. above ....

Advaita is knowledge in terms of an axiom -- that the underlying truth is One. Therefore, mA sucha! Do not fear or worry, nothing is "yours" that you lost it. That does not snatch my right to love the Lord as another Being I depend on and am a part of. In fact BhagavAn Shri KRshNa encourages it. The devotee in knowledge is the best to Him.

This is because the bhakta-vatsal karuNAkAri (the Compassionate parent of the devotees), knows well that the only way to be Absolutely One with the One is to live in deep samAdhi and do nothing OR to leave the body. While embodied we have to carry on our duties, we have to acknowledge our individual role in this birth. For the devotees, that is not possible without the nectar that is BhagavAn Svayam by their side, at Whose Lotus Feet they reside.

At this point, the Bhagavad GeetA sAr (gist) is most appropriate -- in this context. I'll be back with it.

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya

smaranam
30 November 2014, 09:44 AM
Hare KRshNa

Here is the beautiful GeetA Saar (gist, essence) in Hindi, (I have had it for years in a poster form with cutest GopAL on one side)
http://www.eaglespace.com/spirit/geetasaar.php

This is Geeta Saar translated into English
http://www.eaglespace.com/spirit/geetaenglish.php

excerpt:
[tum kyA ho? kyA hai tumhArA jo tum rote ho ki chalA gayA?]

"What did you lose that you cry about? What did you bring with you, which you think you have lost? What did you produce, which you think got destroyed? You did not bring anything - whatever you have, you received from here. Whatever you have given, you have given only here. Whatever you took, you took from God. Whatever you gave, you gave to him. You came empty handed, you will leave empty handed. What is yours today, belonged to someone else yesterday, and will belong to someone else the day after tomorrow. You are mistakenly enjoying the thought that this is yours. It is this false happiness that is the cause of your sorrows."

he nAtha nArAyaNa vAsudeva...

Anirudh
30 November 2014, 10:46 AM
Namaste Smaranam ji

Thanks for your reply.

Anirudh
30 November 2014, 11:23 AM
Namaste Ekam ji

If the ultimate reality is Brahman and Brahman is beyond name and forms then instead of focusing on Nirguna Brahman why should Shree Shankaraachaaryaa praise Saguna Brahman or Ishwara or a particular form of God(s) like Nrusimha or Parvati etc etc ?

To me it sounds like...

I have a problem statement in maths..

I approach Grade 1 maths teacher. Teacher provides me a solution. Then I am told the solution given by Grade 1 teacher is not un real but illusory. It is not incorrect but the ultimate solution is available with Grade 5 teacher. So seek the help of Grade 5 teacher.

Likewise why should Shree Shankaraachaaryaa introduce Grade 1 teacher (Maya) when my goal is to seek Moksha which is available to me by identifying myself with Grade 5 teacher.





Namaste.

What advaita concept forbids praising gods? I don't know any.

Pranams.

smaranam
30 November 2014, 02:06 PM
Namaste Anirudhji


Likewise why should Shree Shankaraachaaryaa introduce Grade 1 teacher (Maya) when my goal is to seek Moksha which is available to me by identifying myself with Grade 5 teacher.

Because I/many seekers could very well be in Grade 1. I thought that was obvious.

However, Grade 1 of this school is not the same as Grade 5 of another school. Apples and Oranges.

yajvan
30 November 2014, 02:58 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

I only offer this in passing... govinda takes on a few meanings.
One is his guru govinda bhagavatpāda and the other is kṛṣṇa; He does this in one stroke. The ability to praise both and see them as non-different. This non-difference is at the core of advitīya thought.


But what of the other devatā ? ādi śaṅkara-ji understood that in practice the infinite can be seen in one. And to unfold this insight of advitīya, one needed to start somewhere. So , he mentions several devatā. This allows one to align their practice to that one they might adore as the infinite is on one.

Said another way, ādi śaṅkara-ji knew the human condition ( this is supported by his fine work found within vivekacūḍāmaṇi¹) and understood the aspirant had to be uplifted to this realization of advitīya's direct experience of wholeness. He knew the native had to start somewhere. To this fact he offered the devatā's within the pañcāyatana puja. From my point of view how could this not be more encompassing and enduring ?


iti śivaṁ

1. vivekacūḍāmaṇi - this says, the crown jewel of discrimination ( some say crest jewel).

Anirudh
30 November 2014, 03:16 PM
Namaste Smaranam Ji

We aren't comparing Advaita with any other philosophies here. So there are no different schools.

The introduction of Grade 1 teacher is an unwanted confusion here unless there exist some other valid reasons.

In those days ie (during Shree Shankaraachaaryaa days) these philosophies weren't available to all. So the possibility of Grade 1 students is minimum or remote. I don't think Shree Shankaraachaaryaa would have had debates with Grade 1 students either.

Maya concept is a well thought out answer to the practices followed then. But writing new poems / hymns on Ishwara doesn't make sense because there were many poems/hymns praising Ishwara.

For eg... In spirit both Lakshmi Nrusimha Karavalambam stotram and Nrusimha Kavacham of Prahallad are one and the same.

We can argue Shree Shankaraachaaryaa is a great poet so he sang but why he praise or pray Nrusimha (a particular form)when he himself is a self realized who understand that Brahman is beyond form?

Hope Advatins of HDF will consider my question as valid and share their wisdom.



Namaste Anirudhji


Because I/many seekers could very well be in Grade 1. I thought that was obvious.

However, Grade 1 of this school is not the same as Grade 5 of another school. Apples and Oranges.

smaranam
30 November 2014, 03:36 PM
We aren't comparing Advaita with any other philosophies here. So there are no different schools.
I understand you are not talking about other philosophies. The reason I mentioned the apples and oranges is because some students of Advaita think that Grade 5 of some other school(s) can be Grade 1 of Advaita, which is not the case. So it was just an FYI.

By the way I do not belong to any of the schools -- but have learned from several of them.

Jai Shri Ram

anucarh
30 November 2014, 07:24 PM
We can argue Shree Shankaraachaaryaa is a great poet so he sang but why he praise or pray Nrusimha (a particular form)when he himself is a self realized who understand that Brahman is beyond form?

Namaste Anirudh ji,

Because he considered bhakti or devotion to the Lord to be a suitable path for the majority. Many of his present-day admirers are unaware that he emphasized that the Advaitin [1.] path of knowledge (jñāna marga or jñāna yoga), leading to Self-realization after the three general stages of Hearing, Thinking, and Constant Meditation, is actually for very few people in their current condition. This is especially clear in the first 32 verses of the Vivekacūḍāmaṇi, beginning well before the famous "four" prerequisites (sādhana catuṣṭaya) are even mentioned. He writes that the path of knowledge is only for those who have accumulated vast amounts of merit over many lifetimes, who are learned (in the scriptures), who are skilled in reasoning, etc. [2.] And his four prerequisites for the path of knowledge, found in in the Vivekacūḍāmaṇi (verses 17-30 in my copy, but the verse numbering in the Vivekacūḍāmaṇi varies slightly across translations), in his commentary on the Brahma Sūtras (1.1.1), and originally in the Aṣṭāvakra Saṁhitā, include, among other things, renouncing all pleasures of the senses (as part of vairāgya, renunciation) and patient endurance of suffering without any reaction or complaint (titikṣā, which is one of the six treasures of self-control). All of these criteria and more must be met to tread this path. (Additionally, there is a section in his Brahma Sūtra Bhāṣya that further seems to exclude vast numbers people from this path on a controversial basis, but some contend that this wasn't his actual view, pointing to another work attributed to him, and this section is probably best not discussed here.)

He only rejected "dualistic" bhakti as a path to liberation for those already on the direct path of knowledge. He had no problem with encouraging bhakti for everyone else, composing various hymns for the deities, composing poetry encouraging worship and "chanting the Lord's names," etc. Individuals who are opposed to bhakti as an indirect path to liberation tend to point to his declaration near the end of his Bhagavad Gītā Bhāṣya that knowledge alone leads to liberation. They've missed the many places in the same commentary in which he says that the indirect path of bhakti inevitably, eventually also leads to that very knowledge that brings liberation. Just look at his commentary on B.G. 18.65. Svāmī Gambhīrānanda of the Advaita Ashrama translates it thus: "The idea conveyed by the passage is: Having thus understood that the Lord is true in His promise, and knowing for certain that Liberation is the unfailing result of devotion to the Lord, one should have dedication to God as his only supreme goal." Renowned Indian Advaitin scholar Vidyavachaspati V. Panoli translates it in this way: "The drift is that having known the solemn oath of the Lord and having understood the inevitable result of devotion to be Moksha , one should only seek refuge in the Lord." Similarly, in his commentary on B.G. 18.56 he writes, "one to whom I am the refuge, to whom I, Vāsudeva the Lord, am the refuge, i.e. one who has totally surrendered himself to Me; even he, [I]āpnoti, attains; the śāśvatam, eternal; avyayam, immutable; padam,State of Viṣṇu; mat-prasādāt, through My, i.e. God's, grace." (tr. Svāmī Gambhīrānanda). In case there is any doubt about which path is being discussed here, immediately before verse 56 he says, "That Yoga of Devotion to the Lord is now being praised in this concluding section" (ibid.), after explaining that the path of devotion also leads to the knowledge that liberates. Indian scholar Sudhakshina Rangaswami, in her book The Roots of Vedānta, summarizes Śaṅkara ji's writings on the bhakti path in this way, "The devotee who worships Īśvara reaches the world of Hiraṇyagarbha after death, and is finally liberated during the cosmic dissolution..." The person on the path of bhakti finally gets to the same place in the long run via an indirect route. Liberation is still by knowledge in the very end, but it is bhakti that takes one to that point.

I hope this helps.

praṇām




1. I realize that there are many Advaitas from the Śāktādvaita of Śrī Sumedhā Hāritāyana and the Parādvaita of Śrī Abhinavagupta to the modern neo-Advaita based on the teachings of Śrī Rāmana Mahāṛṣi. Within Vaiṣṇavism there is also the Śuddhādvaita (Pure Nondualism) Vedānta of Śrī Vallabhācārya, which is said to have been based on the teachings of of Śrī Viṣṇusvāmin. Here I'm speaking only of the Advaita of Śrī Ādi Śaṅkarācārya.


2. In Svāmī Turīyānanda's translation of the Vivekacūḍāmaṇi, some of these 32 key verses or ślokas look like this:

v. 2 "...As for discrimination between the Ātman and the non-Ātman, for direct perception of the Ātman itself, for continuous union with Brahman, and final liberation--these cannot be obtained except through the merits of a hundred billion well-lived lives."

v. 16 "A man should be intelligent and learned, with great powers of comprehension, and able to overcome doubts by the exercise of his reason. One who has these qualifications is fit for the knowledge of the Ātman."

v. 17 "He alone is qualified to seek Brahman who has discrimination, whose mind is turned away from all enjoyments, who possesses tranquility and the kindred virtues, and who feels a longing for liberation."

Anirudh
30 November 2014, 08:35 PM
Namaste Anirudh ji,

Because he considered bhakti or devotion to the Lord to be a suitable path for the majority.



Thank you very much Anucarh ji. I can't emphasise the importance of this answer in my spiritual pursuit now. I will read the list of book(s) you have listed.

In the beginning was skeptical whether I am misusing my membership by raising random and irresponsible questions.

Thank you HDF community.

I am greatly indebted to your invaluable service. But for HDF wouldn't have found answers to many of my questions.

Anirudh
30 November 2014, 09:07 PM
Namaste Yajvan ji

Thank you for sharing your views. I had thought about HIS intention to groom the seeker to Advaita but the (power) importance and the legends associated with those hymns makes me wonder why he preached a path contradictory (my view based on my limited knowledge) to Advaita concept.

We cant see a single Navrathri celeberation without the rendition of Mahishasura Mardini stotram composed by Shree Shankaraachaaryaa.


PS:

By humble conclusion is our Achaaryaas were visionaries. They have given vast immeasurable richness. We should use them to help us in uniting us than dividing ourselves.

I am yet identify the way Navrathri is celebrated in a orthodox Sri Vaishnava branch.

Anirudh
01 December 2014, 07:45 AM
Namaste Smaranam ji


I understand you are not talking about other philosophies. The reason I mentioned the apples and oranges is because some students of Advaita think that Grade 5 of some other school(s) can be Grade 1 of Advaita, which is not the case. So it was just an FYI.

By the way I do not belong to any of the schools -- but have learned from several of them.

Jai Shri Ram

a)Well whatever it didn't address my question.

b)We are directly or indirectly and knowingly or un knowingly linked to a Sampradaya or a philosophy.

Around an year+ ago believed these philosophies do not impact a seeker's Saadhana but they do. They are the governing body that define the fence or boundaries.

We may wish to argue whether the practices need boundaries. Yes. But that's a different question .

However thanks for sharing your views

Ekam
01 December 2014, 10:07 AM
Namaste Anirudhji


Namaste Ekam ji

If the ultimate reality is Brahman and Brahman is beyond name and forms then instead of focusing on Nirguna Brahman why should Shree Shankaraachaaryaa praise Saguna Brahman or Ishwara or a particular form of God(s) like Nrusimha or Parvati etc etc ?


Precisely because Nirguna Bragman is beyond name and forms that it can't be the most appropriate object of hymns of praise directly. Thus, it's normal that he choose to praise the forms He takes.

You could write a poem about the space of this room, but it would be more productive to write about the objects in the room.

Nirguna Brahman is atributeless, so the best stotram about it is Silence. Everything else would be not entirely correct. No word in our language can describe Nirguna Brahman, not thought in our minds can conceive it.


To me it sounds like...

I have a problem statement in maths..

I approach Grade 1 maths teacher. Teacher provides me a solution. Then I am told the solution given by Grade 1 teacher is not un real but illusory. It is not incorrect but the ultimate solution is available with Grade 5 teacher. So seek the help of Grade 5 teacher.

Likewise why should Shree Shankaraachaaryaa introduce Grade 1 teacher (Maya) when my goal is to seek Moksha which is available to me by identifying myself with Grade 5 teacher.

The solution given by Grade 1 teacher and the solution given by Grade 5 teacher can both lead to Moksha.

"Guru, Rama, Krishna, Kali etc. are all only Truth or Reality. They are names and forms to aid those who are not able to go directly to the truth, so that in time they may be softened up, so to speak, and ‘approach’ the Truth directly".

It doesn't mean that Bhakti is "ignorant" or "illusory", but just that it's not a direct path. And not everyone has to follow the same path or the same teacher. Some have a taste for the direct path, other from other kinds of paths. If they all lead to the same result you can't say that one is better than the other.

Each case is different. A person with strong devotional character that pursues the direct path of non-duality can take much more time to "get it" than if he had taken the devotional path (which is also non-dual). So for that person in particular the devotional path was "better".

And just a note:

"When it is said that the world is an illusion, it means that the world as it is normally conceived to be, is an illusion. The world is normally conceived to exist in its own right, separate from and independent of the Awareness or Consciousness that knows or experiences it. Nobody has ever experienced such a world, because it would be impossible to have an experience without Consciousness. Hence it is said to be an illusion".

Pranams

Anirudh
01 December 2014, 06:59 PM
Namaste Ekam ji

Thank you very much for sharing those words. I would like to cross check with you whether I have understood your statements completely and clearly.

#1. Shree Shankaraachaaryaa didn't stop or rejected the duality route to reach the final destination or the last leg of purushartha. He himself believed and praised the attributes of Bhagwaan or Brahman.

#2. Shree Shankaraachaaryaa went a step ahead and said at the highest level, Brahman has no form and no attributes. This route also takes the Seeker to reach the final destination or the last leg of purushartha.

If #1 and #2 are true, for the time being I will not question on the necessities of the route #2. Because

a) We all come in different shapes and size and hence need different medium to reach the final leg.

b) The emphasise is on the act of reaching the final leg and not on the route to reach.

c) As the purpose of our (soul) to take human appearance is to reach the final leg, it is inappropriate or probably counter productive to divert of focus from reaching the final leg to other actions including efforts to validate the routes.

Thanks and Regards


Namaste Anirudhji



Precisely because Nirguna Bragman is beyond name and forms that it can't be the most appropriate object of hymns of praise directly. Thus, it's normal that he choose to praise the forms He takes.

You could write a poem about the space of this room, but it would be more productive to write about the objects in the room.

Nirguna Brahman is atributeless, so the best stotram about it is Silence. Everything else would be not entirely correct. No word in our language can describe Nirguna Brahman, not thought in our minds can conceive it.



The solution given by Grade 1 teacher and the solution given by Grade 5 teacher can both lead to Moksha.

"Guru, Rama, Krishna, Kali etc. are all only Truth or Reality. They are names and forms to aid those who are not able to go directly to the truth, so that in time they may be softened up, so to speak, and approach the Truth directly".

It doesn't mean that Bhakti is "ignorant" or "illusory", but just that it's not a direct path. And not everyone has to follow the same path or the same teacher. Some have a taste for the direct path, other from other kinds of paths. If they all lead to the same result you can't say that one is better than the other.

Each case is different. A person with strong devotional character that pursues the direct path of non-duality can take much more time to "get it" than if he had taken the devotional path (which is also non-dual). So for that person in particular the devotional path was "better".

And just a note:

"When it is said that the world is an illusion, it means that the world as it is normally conceived to be, is an illusion. The world is normally conceived to exist in its own right, separate from and independent of the Awareness or Consciousness that knows or experiences it. Nobody has ever experienced such a world, because it would be impossible to have an experience without Consciousness. Hence it is said to be an illusion".

Pranams

smaranam
01 December 2014, 08:50 PM
a)Well whatever it didn't address my question.

I have given very clear explanations in both post 2 and post 8. Unfortunately you cannot not see it. Shankaracharya showed Grade1 because many people would be in Grade1 of his school.

"of his school" are very important words. Anyways, I do not want to continue this conversation.

Amrut
02 December 2014, 12:57 AM
Namaste Anirudh ji,

Adi SankarAcArya ji was a jagad guru. He traveled all over India. He didnt debated with all the masses of India. Masses are not interested in technicalities or philosophies. They are attracted with the lofty personality of a saint.

He only established advaita as the highest level of truth and rejected other systems or approach's final destination and not the whole path. e.g. the final destination or position of jIva w.r.t. brahman which is different for different sampradAya-s.

Adi Sankara had verbal duels with scholars and he fought against philosophical difference between bauddha dharma. udayanAcArya, an adept in tarka (logic) established by logic that Isvara exists. kumArila bhaTTa, a pUrva mimAmsaka established the validity of veda-s and karma kANDa. Last rejection by bauddha-s was rejection of brahman as supreme, which Adi Sankara refuted and established brahman as the supreme.

But for masses, advaita is not suitable. It is only for very pure souls. Adi Sankara had only 4 disciples even though he roamed throughout India. He could have made thousands or even lakh-s.

Advaita is established on foundations of veda-s and so the first step is inner purification of karma kANDa. bhakti is also important. Sringeri AcArya-s emphasize great on bhakti. Advaita comes into picture only at a much later time. Infact Sringeri AcArya-s are trained in bhakti too. They too have divine vision of God.They will never say, surrender to me (as I am Brahman), but will always say surrender to sArdAmbA or Siva or kruShNa. They will not say, I did this work or I order this work. they say, ambA gave me order to do this work and by her grace this work was completed. When interacting with masses, one stays in dual plane only. Only when alone or in meditation, advaita bhAva is important. Else one cannot communicate with other.

smArta sampradAya was already practiced before Adi Sankara as it is evident in his gItA commentary on chapter 2, verse 10 (BG 2.10) where he has used the word 'smArta'.

In short Adi Sankara supported all paths

karma kANDa (mimAmsA, srauta, smArta)
upAsanA kANDa (Agama-s, temple worship, worshipping any form of God)
GYAna kANDa (meditation on nirguNa brahman)
yOga (Gloss yOga tArAvalI on pataljalI yOga sUtra)

But for final destination, Adi Sankara has established nirguNa brahman and the state of oneness as the supreme state of consciousness.

Adi Sankara has also written commentary on parts apastamba dharma smriti like pAtAla khaNDa. So he accepted dharma smriti-s too. He has also quoted many dharma smriti-s in his commentaries. Adi Sankara also established, repaired many temples and re-consecrated Sri jagannAtha bhagavAn (his idol) in the temple, which he got instruction from God in a dream and he established a matha - 'purI matha' there itself to take care of temple. So he supported Agama-s too, as they are needed for temple worship.

In polemical debates, it is the final destination, the final goal, that is debated and established :) Stay away from this.

Sringeri paramAcArya Sri abhinavavidyAtirtha mahAsvamI has said, all those who 'pretend' to be in advaita state, but are not are 'pseudo-advaitins'. Outwardly they may look calm, but from within there is storm of vAsanA-s.

It is like, seeing a snake, but saying that I see rope. karma leads to inner purification. Faith in God is established and is further strengthened by bhakti. These two make a strong base, without a strong base, (upon which advaita rests), practising advaita is like building castle in the air. In rare cases, the base was created in past life / lives, so such rare souls, yOga braSTa-s, can directly switch to advaita as soon as they start spiritual practice.

btw, have you read prabodha sudhAkara? It is a rare text which ends with bhakti and in which Adi Sankara greatly emphasizes kruShNa bhakti. He says Krishna is root of all incarnations and is the original para-brahman

OM

hinduism♥krishna
02 December 2014, 01:10 AM
He says Krishna is root of all incarnations and is the original para-brahmanJust impossible! Adi shankara can't speak against Vishnu Purana ;) , wherein krishna is mentioned as incarnation of vishnu. I think I'd read it, let me see how and where he says it. *Could you please give me verse no.?*

Anirudh
02 December 2014, 03:13 AM
Namaste Amrut Ji

Thanks for the post. It caused few doubts, will post them when I am able to put those doubts in words.

Amrut
02 December 2014, 06:13 AM
Just impossible! Adi shankara can't speak against Vishnu Purana ;) , wherein krishna is mentioned as incarnation of vishnu. I think I'd read it, let me see how and where he says it. *Could you please give me verse no.?*


Namaste,

whenever any form of God is praised as Supreme Brahman, it is nirguNa brahman. So viShNu is not caturbhuja viShNu. In the same way, kruShNa is not murlidhar, a person. So kruShNa as supreme brahman is technically nirguNa. This is the general stand. but in the mood of bhakti, you extole your beloved God as the supreme and not as any incarnation :)

Adi Sankara was in the mood of bhakti. I will point the verse no in a day or two

@Anirudh

No Problem Anirudh ji,

My personal opinion is that we have limited time. Since you are personally trying to settle in VA, better dip yourself in bhakti then trying to compare other sects. It is not possible to understand each and everything, better move on and try to be with Shri Ramachandra Prabhu as much as you can.

OM

Ekam
02 December 2014, 09:04 AM
Namaste Ekam ji

Thank you very much for sharing those words. I would like to cross check with you whether I have understood your statements completely and clearly.

#1. Shree Shankaraachaaryaa didn't stop or rejected the duality route to reach the final destination or the last leg of purushartha. He himself believed and praised the attributes of Bhagwaan or Brahman.

#2. Shree Shankaraachaaryaa went a step ahead and said at the highest level, Brahman has no form and no attributes. This route also takes the Seeker to reach the final destination or the last leg of purushartha.

If #1 and #2 are true, for the time being I will not question on the necessities of the route #2. Because

a) We all come in different shapes and size and hence need different medium to reach the final leg.

b) The emphasise is on the act of reaching the final leg and not on the route to reach.

c) As the purpose of our (soul) to take human appearance is to reach the final leg, it is inappropriate or probably counter productive to divert of focus from reaching the final leg to other actions including efforts to validate the routes.

Thanks and Regards

Namaste Anirudhji.

Exactly. I would elaborate on the subject, but Amrutji has already done it brilliantly. I subscribe to his view too.

Pranams.

Amrut
03 December 2014, 12:52 AM
Just impossible! Adi shankara can't speak against Vishnu Purana ;) , wherein krishna is mentioned as incarnation of vishnu. I think I'd read it, let me see how and where he says it. *Could you please give me verse no.?*


Namaste,

Please find verses from Prabodh Sudhakar:

prabodha sudhAkara (Prabodh Sudhakar)
प्रबोध सुधाकर

(Notes are comments by Samvid, translator of Prabodh Sudhakar, published by Samata Books)

Chapter 19, the Divine grace.

Note, though the author has divided this grantha into chapters, the verse numbers do not restart in each chapter, but continue from previous chapters. Total number of verses are 257.

येयदुनन्दननिहतास्तेतुन भूयःपुनर्भवंप्रापुः।
तस्मादवताराणामन्तर्यामीप्रवर्तकःकृष्णः॥२४१॥

241. As regards those who were killed by (kruShNa), the delight of the Yadu-race, they did not again suffer rebirth. Therefore, kruShNa is the originator and inner controller of Divine incarnations

Note: Here kruShNa is identified with the Supreme Self who resides within all beings and controls their actions. It is He who incarnates on earth to upholds the moral and spiritual Law.


ब्रह्माण्डानिबहूनिपक्ङजभवान्प्रत्यण्डमत्यद्भुतान्
गोपान्वत्सयुतानदर्शयदजंविष्णूनशेषांच्श्र यः।
शभुर्यच्चरणोदकंस्वशिरसाधतेच मूर्तित्रयात्
कृष्णोवैपृथजस्तिकोऽप्यविकृतःसच्चिन्मयोनीलिमा॥२४२॥


242. He who showed brahmA, the unborn, numerous universe-systems and in every such universe, extremely wonderful Creator-gods (or lotus-born brahmA-s), cowheards accompanied by calves and all protector-gods (viShNu), and the water emanating from whose feet, Sambhu (or Lord Siva) bears on his head, (that) kruShNa is indeed distinct from the tree-fold form of Godhead (brahmA, viShNu, Siva), some indescribable unmodified blueness consisting of Pure Being-consciousness.

Note: In this verse, the author displays his devotion to kruShNa, as well as his uncompromising stand on the Unity of Godhead. kruShNa is seen by him as the Trancendent Reality surpassing the Divine Trinity-brahmA, the creator God, viShNu, the Protector-god and Siva, the Destroyer-god – though purANa-s hold that he is the full incarnation of viShNu. When brahmA removed the cowherds and the calves and concealed them in a cave without the knowledge of kruShNa, the latter showed him innumerable universe-systems, each with it’s own Trinity and cowherds and calves.

The celectial gangA river is considered as emanating from the feet of viShNu (regarded as kruShNa) and, when it was brought to earth, Siva is stated to have borne it on his head to reduce its force. The idea conveyed by the verse is that kruShNa is, inreality, the Transcendent Existence-consciousness-Bliss and is the very soul and basis of all universes. Gods and beings.

Earlier, kruShNa, vAsudeva is equated as Self of all, inner controller and as Sat-Chit-Anand. This is not mentioned in single verse but spread over a few verses (not in continuity).

Here the deity of preservation (viShNu) is different than the supreme reality, viShnu. The deity of preservation or say the Trinity is born from 1/4 th part of Sri hari, who is the cause of all. In advaita this ‘source of all’ is taken as Brahman, which is not a person. It is referred by names, hari, vAsudeva, keSava, nArAyaNa, janArdhana or even Siva, ambA, etc. Mostly names of viShNu are used for major times. This may be confusing to many. At times trinity are taken as feminine aspects, pradhAna prakruti


viShNu is the nearest murta-svarUpa of Brahman and so worthy of praise and worship says viShNu purANa.

EDIT:

Personal Note: When someone like rAdhA or kruShNa is extolled as the supreme reality, it is said by great devotees in trance, in ecstasy, in god-intoxicated state. We got to respect them for their devotion. I personally do not go into technicalities like, did rAdhA ever exists, why is she absent from viShNu and bhAgavat purANa, or in mahAbhArata (as kruShNa's lover) etc. The sheer force of devotion will raise the faithful devotee into ecstasy. What more is needed. This love is no ordinary love and will flush our all negativity and will no doubt melt all sins

OM