PDA

View Full Version : Need refutation on this argument put forth by the hare krishnas:



Newbee_b
19 December 2011, 04:18 PM
I have been searching for it in Sankara Bhashya of Gita but could not find any:

http://www.bhagavad-gita.us/articles/609/1/Bhagavad-Gita-212/Page1.html

Gita 2:12

Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.

Argument:
The Mayavadi theory that after liberation the individual soul, separated by the covering of maya, or illusion, will merge into the impersonal Brahman and lose its individual existence is not supported herein by Lord Krishna, the supreme authority. Nor is the theory that we only think of individuality in the conditioned state supported herein. Krishna clearly says herein that in the future also the individuality of the Lord and others, as it is confirmed in the Upanishads, will continue eternally. This statement of Krishna’s is authoritative because Krishna cannot be subject to illusion. If individuality were not a fact, then Krishna would not have stressed it so much—even for the future.

If individuality refers to the empirical universe, then there is no need of teaching by the Lord. The plurality of the individual soul and of the Lord is an eternal fact, and it is confirmed by the Vedas as above mentioned.
-end-

Not surprising mayavada is their name for advaita.IMO,One tactic used by dualists is that they don't quote any verse which supports advaita (from upanishads).Any support against this argument is appreciated.

Om Namah Shivaya!

yajvan
20 December 2011, 04:06 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

The conversation ( as I see it ) is just not framed correctly. To suggest an individual soul , this is where the issue begins. It never was or is ~individual~.

Take a knot in a rope. Remove the knot. Where did it go ? Like that, remove this ignornace of there is '2' and where does it go ? Was it ever there in the 1st place ?

It is said (in kaśmir śaivism) This Supreme independent (svātantrya) state of God Consciousness (caitanya) is the form.
But the form of what? Here is the wisdom offered and what I hope to add to this conversation. It is the 'form' of everything.
This implies that solid ( body) or spiritual ( non-body) , material or non-material however subtle, has this form. It is the essence of everything, and this is the Supreme, Brahman. Where then is this individual soul ?


praṇām

Jainarayan
20 December 2011, 06:25 PM
Namaste.

Mayavada is indeed a pejorative term given to Advaita. Advaita is not accepted by Gaudiya Vaishnava, which ISKCON is. Gaudiya Vaishnava subscribes to Achintya BhedAbheda, "inconceivable one-ness and difference" or VishishtAdvaita, Advaita with qualifications.

Achintya BhedAbheda says we are one and the same as the Lord, yet different; the human mind cannot conceive of this. I am not Gaudiya, but I lean towards Achintya BhedAbheda. VishishtAdvaita posits diversity bound to an underlying unity, i.e. Brahman as represented by Supreme Goddess Lakshmi and Supreme God Narayana as One, rather than as Krishna, who is Vishnu/Narayana. Unless I miss my guess, the differences between Achintya BhedAbheda and VishishtAdvaita are subtle.

Taking the position that ISKCON subscribes to Achintya BhedAbheda, Srila Prabhupada, in my interpretation, is saying that Lord Krishna is hinting at Achintya BhedAbheda, tacitly rejecting Advaita. We've always existed as one and the same, yet different, and will always exist as one and the same, yet different. We just cannot grasp this with our human minds.

Newbee_b
20 December 2011, 06:39 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

The conversation ( as I see it ) is just not framed correctly. To suggest an individual soul , this is where the issue begins. It never was or is ~individual~.

Take a knot in a rope. Remove the knot. Where did it go ? Like that, remove this ignornace of there is '2' and where does it go ? Was it ever there in the 1st place ?

It is said (in kaśmir śaivism) This Supreme independent (svātantrya) state of God Consciousness (caitanya) is the form.
But the form of what? Here is the wisdom offered and what I hope to add to this conversation. It is the 'form' of everything.
This implies that solid ( body) or spiritual ( non-body) , material or non-material however subtle, has this form. It is the essence of everything, and this is the Supreme, Brahman. Where then is this indiviual soul ?


praṇām

Hey dude...I get your advaita viewpoint.My ISKCON friend says that,if Lord Krishna and Arjuna are indeed same Brahman,why is he using plural tense?Further,Prabhupada goes on say that Lord Krishna does not refer to material bodies here since Krisna says they are eternal.

How would an advaitin resolve the plurality mentioned here?Does this verse refers to the Vyāvahārika level ?How do we get that he indeed refers to Vyāvahārika level .

Newbee_b
20 December 2011, 06:41 PM
Namaste.

Mayavada is indeed a pejorative term given to Advaita. Advaita is not accepted by Gaudiya Vaishnava, which ISKCON is. Gaudiya Vaishnava subscribes to Achintya BhedAbheda, "inconceivable one-ness and difference" or VishishtAdvaita, Advaita with qualifications.

Achintya BhedAbheda says we are one and the same as the Lord, yet different; the human mind cannot conceive of this. I am not Gaudiya, but I lean towards Achintya BhedAbheda. VishishtAdvaita posits diversity bound to an underlying unity, i.e. Brahman as represented by Supreme Goddess Lakshmi and Supreme God Narayana as One, rather than as Krishna, who is Vishnu/Narayana. Unless I miss my guess, the differences between Achintya BhedAbheda and VishishtAdvaita are subtle.

Taking the position that ISKCON subscribes to Achintya BhedAbheda, Srila Prabhupada, in my interpretation, is saying that Lord Krishna is hinting at Achintya BhedAbheda, tacitly rejecting Advaita. We've always existed as one and the same, yet different, and will always exist as one and the same, yet different. We just cannot grasp this with our human minds.
Hi TouchedbytheLOrd nice to see you posting here!I do get the ISKCON interpretation.What I needed was how advaita interprets this verse.

Ananda
20 December 2011, 06:51 PM
Hello Newbee_b,


Welcome to the forum.




There is no refutation to be found for this particular argument given in the Shankara Bhashya because Shankara only refuted strong arguments, and this is not one of them. The argument is both circular in nature and it's also a strawman. I'll explain why.

A strawman is a fallacy whereby the the opponent's position is misrepresented and then attacked creating the impression in the unwary that the opponent has successfully been defeated. A circular argument is a fallacy where the conclusion one wishes to prove is already assumed to be true in the premise. Prabhupada's argument contains both fallacies and can be rejected on these grounds.

First, the strawman;



The Mayavadi theory that after liberation the individual soul, separated by the covering of maya, or illusion, will merge into the impersonal Brahman and lose its individual existence is not supported herein by Lord Krishna, the supreme authority.

This is not a theory supported by 'Mayavadis' - it is a strawman theory invented by Prabhupada in order to give the impression that his doctrines are more correct. Look closely at this 'theory' and you will see how it is inherently inconsistent and counter to the actual Advaita position. Prabhupada says that the individual soul is separated by maayaa from Brahman, and that after liberation, the individual soul merges back into Brahman; but this is simply not true from the Advaita standpoint. The Self (soul) is not individual, and nor is it separate from Brahman, because it is Brahman. Further, only Brahman exists in the past, present and future; this is the Advaita view. Even liberation is unreal from the highest standpoint. You must remember that Advaita comes from the top-down perspective, that only Brahman exists; everything else, be they jivas, bondage, world, liberation etc only hold sway from the empirical standpoint of ignorance.

Fundamentally, the Self is Brahman; the Self is not an individual jiva- the condition of being a jiva is superimposed onto the Self through ignorance, but it never actually becomes an individual as Prabhupada mistakenly says; it never actually separates from Brahman (itself!). When the Upanishads speak of attainment of Brahman, they are taken figuratively as if a woman who forgets where her necklace is finds it even though it's always been around her neck. Prabhupada takes the individuality of the self as an a priori assumption, he thinks the Self is really individual, this is why he can never understand the Advaita view; the living being, the individual jiva, is not the true status of Atman, it is the Atman seen wrongly as a transmigrating, bound, suffering being from the standpoint of self-ignorance.

The Self is not born, it does not die, it does not suffer nor require liberation- and why?



Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.


Because it is the immortal, fearless Brahman. Krishna is here revealing to Arjuna the true nature of his own Self. None of us will ever cease to be because the very essence of the embodied being is the immortal Atman, identical to the absolute. Now, keeping this in mind, look at what Prabhupada then says;



Krishna clearly says herein that in the future also the individuality of the Lord and others, as it is confirmed in the Upanishads, will continue eternally.


Based on the fact that Krishna is referring to Arjuna, the assembled men and himself collectively when referencing the immortality of the Self, Prabhupada concludes that the Self must therefore be eternally an individual. This is a circular argument. Prabhupada already assumes that the Self is an individual, therefore, if Krishna refers to multiple jivas he must be saying that the multiple souls are eternal, and that therefore Advaita is wrong. Prabhupada has missed the deeper import of this verse. Shankara explains that Krishna uses the collective personal pronoun figuratively because Brahman is the eternal Self of all beings, of all the embodied jivas, and not because there are many Atmas.

There is absolutely no incongruity between the given verse and the Advaita view if the Advaita view is a) correctly understood and b)one does not assume a priori one's own view is correct to begin with.

Look again at what Prabhupada here says;



If individuality were not a fact, then Krishna would not have stressed it so much—even for the future.

The circular reasoning is as follows;


1) Individuality is a fact\true (assumption)
2) If Individuality were not a fact, then Krishna would not mention it
3) Krishna mentions Individuality in Gita 2:12
4) Therefore Individuality is a fact


This is extremely poor reasoning. Prabhupada makes the error of not distinguishing between the embodied being and the Atman, therefore when Krishna says 'you' with reference to Arjuna or the others, he assumes straight away that the subject is individual. When Krishna says 'you' what is he really referring to? Advaita says he is referring to the Self as-it-is, the saakshin, Knower of the Field (kshetraj~na) free from the limited superimposition of ignorance which creates the impression of being an embodied, individual jiva. This Self is identical to Brahman (as in the mahavakya that thou art) and therefore the verse should be understood in a deeper sense. Krishna is gradually teaching Arjuna the real nature of the Self because Arjuna takes himself to be an embodied being. He firsts starts by teaching that the Self of everyone is immortal, as in this verse, later (chapter 13) he will go on to identify himself (Brahman) as Arjuna's own Self in 'Know Me as the Knower of the Field in all of the Fields'. The interpretation given by Prabhupada is shallow, and he resorts to strawman attacks in order to sure up his own perceived strengths.

Prabhupada does not question the individuality of the Atman, he strongly believes it, as do many, many people. The Self is one without a second, this is the Advaita view; and therefore we are under no obligation to refute Prabhupada's argument when he assumes a-priori the individuality of the Self. This assumption does not stand scrutiny in Advaita, so neither do any of his arguments require rebuttal. The dualist's (or qualified nondualist's) ideas cannot be addressed by Advaitins, because we admit no duality and their worldview only has relevance in avidyaa.

To sum up my thoughts, the verse given above from the Gita can be interpreted by both non-dualists and dualists according to their own philosophies, but the verse itself shows no bias for one or the other; despite Prabhupada's distorting strawman and circular reasoning uses to make it seem otherwise. As I have said, this particular argument requires no refutation because it is invalid to begin with.






:)

Newbee_b
20 December 2011, 09:10 PM
Hello Newbee_b,


Welcome to the forum.




There is no refutation to be found for this particular argument given in the Shankara Bhashya because Shankara only refuted strong arguments, and this is not one of them. The argument is both circular in nature and it's also a strawman. I'll explain why.

A strawman is a fallacy whereby the the opponent's position is misrepresented and then attacked creating the impression in the unwary that the opponent has successfully been defeated. A circular argument is a fallacy where the conclusion one wishes to prove is already assumed to be true in the premise. Prabhupada's argument contains both fallacies and can be rejected on these grounds.

First, the strawman;




This is not a theory supported by 'Mayavadis' - it is a strawman theory invented by Prabhupada in order to give the impression that his doctrines are more correct. Look closely at this 'theory' and you will see how it is inherently inconsistent and counter to the actual Advaita position. Prabhupada says that the individual soul is separated by maayaa from Brahman, and that after liberation, the individual soul merges back into Brahman; but this is simply not true from the Advaita standpoint. The Self (soul) is not individual, and nor is it separate from Brahman, because it is Brahman. Further, only Brahman exists in the past, present and future; this is the Advaita view. Even liberation is unreal from the highest standpoint. You must remember that Advaita comes from the top-down perspective, that only Brahman exists; everything else, be they jivas, bondage, world, liberation etc only hold sway from the empirical standpoint of ignorance.

Fundamentally, the Self is Brahman; the Self is not an individual jiva- the condition of being a jiva is superimposed onto the Self through ignorance, but it never actually becomes an individual as Prabhupada mistakenly says; it never actually separates from Brahman (itself!). When the Upanishads speak of attainment of Brahman, they are taken figuratively as if a woman who forgets where her necklace is finds it even though it's always been around her neck. Prabhupada takes the individuality of the self as an a priori assumption, he thinks the Self is really individual, this is why he can never understand the Advaita view; the living being, the individual jiva, is not the true status of Atman, it is the Atman seen wrongly as a transmigrating, bound, suffering being from the standpoint of self-ignorance.

The Self is not born, it does not die, it does not suffer nor require liberation- and why?





Because it is the immortal, fearless Brahman. Krishna is here revealing to Arjuna the true nature of his own Self. None of us will ever cease to be because the very essence of the embodied being is the immortal Atman, identical to the absolute. Now, keeping this in mind, look at what Prabhupada then says;





Based on the fact that Krishna is referring to Arjuna, the assembled men and himself collectively when referencing the immortality of the Self, Prabhupada concludes that the Self must therefore be eternally an individual. This is a circular argument. Prabhupada already assumes that the Self is an individual, therefore, if Krishna refers to multiple jivas he must be saying that the multiple souls are eternal, and that therefore Advaita is wrong. Prabhupada has missed the deeper import of this verse. Shankara explains that Krishna uses the collective personal pronoun figuratively because Brahman is the eternal Self of all beings, of all the embodied jivas, and not because there are many Atmas.

There is absolutely no incongruity between the given verse and the Advaita view if the Advaita view is a) correctly understood and b)one does not assume a priori one's own view is correct to begin with.

Look again at what Prabhupada here says;




The circular reasoning is as follows;


1) Individuality is a fact\true (assumption)
2) If Individuality were not a fact, then Krishna would not mention it
3) Krishna mentions Individuality in Gita 2:12
4) Therefore Individuality is a fact


This is extremely poor reasoning. Prabhupada makes the error of not distinguishing between the embodied being and the Atman, therefore when Krishna says 'you' with reference to Arjuna or the others, he assumes straight away that the subject is individual. When Krishna says 'you' what is he really referring to? Advaita says he is referring to the Self as-it-is, the saakshin, Knower of the Field (kshetraj~na) free from the limited superimposition of ignorance which creates the impression of being an embodied, individual jiva. This Self is identical to Brahman (as in the mahavakya that thou art) and therefore the verse should be understood in a deeper sense. Krishna is gradually teaching Arjuna the real nature of the Self because Arjuna takes himself to be an embodied being. He firsts starts by teaching that the Self of everyone is immortal, as in this verse, later (chapter 13) he will go on to identify himself (Brahman) as Arjuna's own Self in 'Know Me as the Knower of the Field in all of the Fields'. The interpretation given by Prabhupada is shallow, and he resorts to strawman attacks in order to sure up his own perceived strengths.

Prabhupada does not question the individuality of the Atman, he strongly believes it, as do many, many people. The Self is one without a second, this is the Advaita view; and therefore we are under no obligation to refute Prabhupada's argument when he assumes a-priori the individuality of the Self. This assumption does not stand scrutiny in Advaita, so neither do any of his arguments require rebuttal. The dualist's (or qualified nondualist's) ideas cannot be addressed by Advaitins, because we admit no duality and their worldview only has relevance in avidyaa.

To sum up my thoughts, the verse given above from the Gita can be interpreted by both non-dualists and dualists according to their own philosophies, but the verse itself shows no bias for one or the other; despite Prabhupada's distorting strawman and circular reasoning uses to make it seem otherwise. As I have said, this particular argument requires no refutation because it is invalid to begin with.

:)

Thanks for taking so much time to bring out your answer,quite convincing for me.You seem to be advaita acharya.:p

I really liked the part I have made bold!
Cheers.
Noobie

Tāṇḍava
21 December 2011, 06:20 AM
I have been searching for it in Sankara Bhashya of Gita but could not find any:

http://www.bhagavad-gita.us/articles/609/1/Bhagavad-Gita-212/Page1.html

Gita 2:12

Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.

Argument:
The Mayavadi theory that after liberation the individual soul, separated by the covering of maya, or illusion, will merge into the impersonal Brahman and lose its individual existence is not supported herein by Lord Krishna, the supreme authority. Nor is the theory that we only think of individuality in the conditioned state supported herein. Krishna clearly says herein that in the future also the individuality of the Lord and others, as it is confirmed in the Upanishads, will continue eternally. This statement of Krishna’s is authoritative because Krishna cannot be subject to illusion. If individuality were not a fact, then Krishna would not have stressed it so much—even for the future.

If individuality refers to the empirical universe, then there is no need of teaching by the Lord. The plurality of the individual soul and of the Lord is an eternal fact, and it is confirmed by the Vedas as above mentioned.
-end-

Not surprising mayavada is their name for advaita.IMO,One tactic used by dualists is that they don't quote any verse which supports advaita (from upanishads).Any support against this argument is appreciated.

Om Namah Shivaya!


How important is it?

Three guest are invited to a feast. The first is poor and hungry. He is truly grateful to be able to have a nutritious hot meal.

The second is a rich merchant. He is truly grateful to be able to taste fine foods cooked with the best ingredients by skilled cooks. He looks forward to trying some of the treats at home and looks for ideas he can use when he hosts his own feasts, when he will return the favour and delight in giving himself.

The third is a spiritually inclined man. He is grateful for the chance for the host to give, and for people coming together. He would have been just as happy if a poor man had provided a small simple meal.

It is clear that none of the three can say that the others are wrong for their reasons for being grateful for the feast, though all have different reasons. What is more, though we might see one reason as the best reason over all, for each person in their own situation isn't their reason the best one for them?

Newbee_b
21 December 2011, 11:01 AM
How important is it?

Three guest are invited to a feast. The first is poor and hungry. He is truly grateful to be able to have a nutritious hot meal.

The second is a rich merchant. He is truly grateful to be able to taste fine foods cooked with the best ingredients by skilled cooks. He looks forward to trying some of the treats at home and looks for ideas he can use when he hosts his own feasts, when he will return the favour and delight in giving himself.

The third is a spiritually inclined man. He is grateful for the chance for the host to give, and for people coming together. He would have been just as happy if a poor man had provided a small simple meal.

It is clear that none of the three can say that the others are wrong for their reasons for being grateful for the feast, though all have different reasons. What is more, though we might see one reason as the best reason over all, for each person in their own situation isn't their reason the best one for them?

Yes as long as the person involved understands the other persons situation.:)

yajvan
21 December 2011, 12:41 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté



Hey dude...I get your advaita viewpoint.My ISKCON friend says that,if Lord Krishna and Arjuna are indeed same Brahman,why is he using plural tense?Further,Prabhupada goes on say that Lord Krishna does not refer to material bodies here since Krisna says they are eternal.

How would an advaitin resolve the plurality mentioned here?



Duality here is used for teaching purposes... in ignorance there is 2 for teaching, no ? There must be a sender and receiver. One must reivew not only the bhāgavad gītā but the mahābhārata to appreciate the full level of instruction that goes on. We need to be aware that the bhāgavad gītā is 700 verses out of the ~ 100,000 verses in the mahābhārata.


Yet at the end of the day my sleep is not disturbed by this dichotomy of thinking because it is the wise that tell is that there is unity in diversity. One with clear vision sees 2 but knows there is 1.


Also , I hope you are a regular here on HDF. If so , please consider greeting the reader with a hello or some open salutation. This is our custom here and you will build friendships in this manner. Also , some posters may be older then the author and we greet them properly out of respect.

praṇām

Ananda
21 December 2011, 03:08 PM
Hello Newbee_b,




My ISKCON friend says that,if Lord Krishna and Arjuna are indeed same Brahman,why is he using plural tense?

I mentioned briefly the reason for this in my previous post;



Krishna is gradually teaching Arjuna the real nature of the Self because Arjuna takes himself to be an embodied being.


Arjuna doesn't know he is Brahman. Krishna speaks to Arjuna from the standpoint of his self-ignorance and gradually reveals Arjuna's real nature throughout the Gita as the Atman, which is identical with the content of the word 'Me' when Krishna speaks of himself as the Knower and the Self of all beings (Brahman). So as not to confound Arjuna, Krishna reveals his identity with Brahman methodically and speaks of the knowledge of Brahman as the goal to be attained through sadhana and prescribes all the various converging paths towards that goal in detail.

We find in the thirteenth chapter, an extremely concise exposition on the real nature of the jiva's identity with Atman/Brahman in such verses as;


13.1 O son of Kunti, this body is referred to as the 'field'. Those who are versed in this call him who is conscious of it as the 'knower of the field'.

13.2 And. O scion of the Bharata dynasty, understand Me to be the 'Knower of the field' in all the fields. In My opinion, that is Knowledge which is the knowledge of the field and the knower of the field.

Whereby Krishna, who is Brahman, is identifying himself as the conscious witness (saakshin) in all bodies. The Knower, the Witness, is none other than the Atman of each embodied being- one's actual nature which is partially covered over by ignorance (but which truly reveals it). Krishna is saying that knowledge of the Knower and the field (ie discrimination between the Self and the body, elements etc) is called Knowledge because it results in the eradication of superimposition and therefore the removal of the ignorance which creates the impression of being a transmigrating, (individual) jiva. When this ignorance is uprooted by knowledge, then the svarupa of the Self shines forth as Brahman.

What is the real nature of that Self? He says;


13.31 Being without beginning and without qualities, O son of Kunti, this immutable, supreme Self does not act, nor is it affected, although existing in the body.

13.32 As the all-pervading space is not defiled, because of its subtlety, similarly the Self, present everywhere in the body, is not defiled.

It is eternal and untouched by the fruits of actions, just like space is not defiled by its contents. Also, just as space is all pervading and one only, so too is the Self;


13.6 And that Knowable, though undivided, appears to be existing as divided in all beings, and It is the sustainer of all beings as also the devourer and originator.

13.22 He who is the Witness, the Permitter, the Sustainer, the Experiencer, the great Lord, and who is spoken of as the transcendental Self is the supreme Person in this body.


It is one and non-dual Brahman, but appears to be many due to false superimposition. The Self of each being is not the transmigrating jiva, but the Atman which sustains it and is what Krishna refers to when he says 'Me'; the Knower of the body in all bodies- one alone.

Krishna then enjoins various methods and meditations conducive to self-knowledge, such as seeing the Self as a non-agent, seeing God as the Self in all beings etc.

The nature and fruit of Knowledge is restated again;


13.23 He who knows thus the Person and Nature along with the qualities will not be born again, in whatever way he may live.

13.30 When one realizes that the state of diversity of living beings is rooted in the One, and that their manifestation is also from That, then one becomes identified with Brahman.

13.34 Those who know thus through the eye of wisdom the distinction between the field and the Knower of the field, and the annihilation of the Matrix of beings,- they reach the Supreme.

Krishna reveals to Arjuna that Knowledge is to discriminate, to distinguish between oneself as the knower, the witness and everything that is known ie the field of the body, mind, world etc. When we discriminate properly between them, then the essence of both is understood. The ignorance which previously prevented this vision through false superimposition (or a conflation of the field and the knower of it) is burned up, along with the notion of being a jiva in a world of jivas (Matrix of beings), and only Brahman, the Supreme, remains, and the Upanishad says 'that thou art'.

The content of the word 'Me' when Krishna speaks is identical to the content of the word 'You' (thou) when there is correct understanding. The deep import of the word 'You' is not a transmigrating jiva called Arjuna or Devadatta or Ananda, it is the conscious knower, the witness, the hearer, the smeller; the Atman. Of this Self it is said in the Upanishads 'There is no other Witness but Him, no other hearer but him...' Who is He? He is the content of the word 'That' in the Upanishadic saying, and 'That' is Brahman. Hence, the Self is Brahman, and Krishna is That, and Arjuna is That- but for his want of knowledge Krishna must teach him this fact.


To summarise, plurality is accepted prima facie by Krishna (and so spoken of figuratively as Shankara explains) because Arjuna is ignorant of the non-dual Self. It is later that we see Krishna revealing to Arjuna what the Self really is and refuting the notion of plurality of selves. As yajvan says, plurality must be assumed and utilised for teaching when ignorance is present, otherwise there is no possibility of imparting knowledge through teaching, and therefore no way of dispelling ignorance.





:)

Newbee_b
21 December 2011, 05:23 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté






Duality here is used for teaching purposes... in ignorance there is 2 for teaching, no ? Threre must be a sender and receiver. One must reivew not only the bhāgavad gītā but the mahābhārata to appreciate the full level of instruction that goes on. We need to be aware that the bhāgavad gītā is 700 verses out of the ~ 100,000 verses in the mahābhārata.


Yet at the end of the day my sleep is not disturbed by this dichotomy of thinking because it is the wise that tell is that there is unity in diversity. One with clear vision sees 2 but knows there is 1.


Also , I hope you are a regular here on HDF. If so , please consider greeting the reader with a hello or some open salutation. This is our custom here and you will build friendships in this manner. Also , some posters may be older then the author and we greet them properly out of respect.

praṇām

Thanks a lot for your inputs,Yajvan!

Newbee_b
21 December 2011, 05:27 PM
Hello Newbee_b,

I mentioned briefly the reason for this in my previous post;

:)

Thanks again for detailed reply Ananda!My posts have been "approved" out of order by the mods here,so my queries for the plurality of tense where asked before your first answer!

Adhvagat
21 December 2011, 06:42 PM
I have been searching for it in Sankara Bhashya of Gita but could not find any:

http://www.bhagavad-gita.us/articles/609/1/Bhagavad-Gita-212/Page1.html

Gita 2:12

Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.

Argument:
The Mayavadi theory that after liberation the individual soul, separated by the covering of maya, or illusion, will merge into the impersonal Brahman and lose its individual existence is not supported herein by Lord Krishna, the supreme authority. Nor is the theory that we only think of individuality in the conditioned state supported herein. Krishna clearly says herein that in the future also the individuality of the Lord and others, as it is confirmed in the Upanishads, will continue eternally. This statement of Krishna’s is authoritative because Krishna cannot be subject to illusion. If individuality were not a fact, then Krishna would not have stressed it so much—even for the future.

If individuality refers to the empirical universe, then there is no need of teaching by the Lord. The plurality of the individual soul and of the Lord is an eternal fact, and it is confirmed by the Vedas as above mentioned.
-end-

Not surprising mayavada is their name for advaita.IMO,One tactic used by dualists is that they don't quote any verse which supports advaita (from upanishads).Any support against this argument is appreciated.

Om Namah Shivaya!

Don't get too worked up on refutations.

Spirituality is not a fight. Even if the other party think it is there's no reason for you to think the same.

I see that ISKCON gets a little too one-sided with bhakti. What can we do?

I got to know Hinduism through ISKCON and now after doing my own research and going through a bit of a personal spiritual quest I can better understand the big picture.

Om

Newbee_b
22 December 2011, 12:50 AM
Don't get too worked up on refutations.

Spirituality is not a fight. Even if the other party think it is there's no reason for you to think the same.

I see that ISKCON gets a little too one-sided with bhakti. What can we do?

I got to know Hinduism through ISKCON and now after doing my own research and going through a bit of a personal spiritual quest I can better understand the big picture.

Om
Agree with you.No point in refutations :p.

anisha_astrologer
24 December 2011, 12:58 AM
Agree with you.No point in refutations :p.

Agreed. there is no point in arguing and refuting someone or something. Spirituality can not be attained unless you grow above these negative trifles of life.

brahman
24 December 2011, 04:28 AM
I have been searching for it in Sankara Bhashya of Gita but could not find any:

http://www.bhagavad-gita.us/articles/609/1/Bhagavad-Gita-212/Page1.html

Gita 2:12

Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.

Argument:
The Mayavadi theory that after liberation the individual soul, separated by the covering of maya, or illusion, will merge into the impersonal Brahman and lose its individual existence is not supported herein by Lord Krishna, the supreme authority. Nor is the theory that we only think of individuality in the conditioned state supported herein. Krishna clearly says herein that in the future also the individuality of the Lord and others, as it is confirmed in the Upanishads, will continue eternally. This statement of Krishna’s is authoritative because Krishna cannot be subject to illusion. If individuality were not a fact, then Krishna would not have stressed it so much—even for the future.

If individuality refers to the empirical universe, then there is no need of teaching by the Lord. The plurality of the individual soul and of the Lord is an eternal fact, and it is confirmed by the Vedas as above mentioned.
-end-

Not surprising mayavada is their name for advaita.IMO,One tactic used by dualists is that they don't quote any verse which supports advaita (from upanishads).Any support against this argument is appreciated.

Om Namah Shivaya!






Dear Newbee_b,


In fact discriminating the eternal Reality from the transient appearances is not the ultimate goal of Advaitha Vedanta , it is rather realizing the inseparable oneness of the eternal, and the transient flow of appearances.

It is true that this realization requires discrimination between the TWO.

This discrimination need not necessarily be understood as attaining the perfect knowledge of the eternal Reality or Brahman.

It signifies rather that the seeker, in the beginning, perceives instinctively the unavoidabilty that there is an eternal Reality underlying and distinct from all appearances; but becoming totally convinced of the nature of that Reality, and how it is related to the appearances, becomes transparent only at the final stage of one’s search for Truth. Love:)


Note: This is a POV alone and not relating to any exegesis or polemics.

Newbee_b
25 December 2011, 06:43 AM
Dear Newbee_b,


In fact discriminating the eternal Reality from the transient appearances is not the ultimate goal of Advaitha Vedanta , it is rather realizing the inseparable oneness of the eternal, and the transient flow of appearances.

It is true that this realization requires discrimination between the TWO.

This discrimination need not necessarily be understood as attaining the perfect knowledge of the eternal Reality or Brahman.

It signifies rather that the seeker, in the beginning, perceives instinctively the unavoidabilty that there is an eternal Reality underlying and distinct from all appearances; but becoming totally convinced of the nature of that Reality, and how it is related to the appearances, becomes transparent only at the final stage of one’s search for Truth. Love:)


Note: This is a POV alone and not relating to any exegesis or polemics.
:) :) :)

rku
14 January 2012, 09:42 AM
Dear,

Here, lord Krishna is essentially referring to individual consciousness/souls which are ultimately same as per his own arguments.

Therefore, I couldn't see any confusion which this particular verse of Geeta may create against the Advaita.

Kali Bhakta
29 March 2012, 06:15 AM
Probably one of the best ways to arm yourself in a debate against ISKCON members is to arm yourself with quotes from the Upanishads and from Bhagavad Gita (not the 'As It Is' version obviously).

Ananda I was hoping I could get your input on an argument I read put forward by an ISKCON devotee against 'Mayavadi philosophy in a magazine from years ago that I recently read.' Before I quote it, I should add that I can easily see that the argument is a caricature of Advaita (Gaudiya Vaishnavas generally make Advaita sound like something I dreamed up on crack) but I'm not quite sure I would respond to at least one of the arguments. I'll go ahead and quote it now:

"This doctrine has problems. Among them:
First: If I am God, why am I suffering like a dog? The swamijis will say that it's because I've forgotten who I really am. But what kind of God is that? Second: If all that exists is one supreme impersonal truth, where does illusion come from? Truth and illusion--that's not one, that's two."

The answer to the second argument is simple enough in my mind. Shankara's viewpoint was that there was only one reality, illusion isn't reality and so its existence cannot justify any absolute dualism. I can easily see that the first argument is a distortion as well, the Jiva is the Self reflected onto impure Maya (as the Srimad Devi Bhagavatam puts it) but I'm not sure how I can explain this without appearing to posit some distinction between Jiva and the Self. You seem very well versed in Advaita however, maybe you can help me out.

Regards,
William.

Spiritualseeker
01 April 2012, 10:17 AM
Namaste,

I find that arguments seem to drain me. I can debate with people, but really none of it is reality. For an example imagine that I converted to ISKON way of beliefs. I could come up with many arguments to support them. Or if I stay upon Advaita I can come up with many arguments. So what is reality? I think it is better for us to live the expressions that we choose and to have firm recognition of the truth that the Upanishads and other scriptures point to. Arguments will only harden our hearts. But this is just my opinion, after all the great Shankaracharya debated and refuted many schools in his time.


Om Namah Shivaya

Kali Bhakta
26 April 2012, 06:37 AM
I think Spiritualseeker makes a good point. These kind of debates can easily lead to bitterness and frustration particularly when the people that you are debating are only interested in creating strawmans and circular logic etc, etc, etc...

ZarryT
16 May 2012, 06:03 AM
"The Mayavadi theory that after liberation the individual soul, separated by the covering of maya, or illusion, will merge into the impersonal Brahman and lose its individual existence"

What stands out for me here is the word "lose". There is a dichotomy, whereby whilst the individual merges into the impersonal brahman, the individual isn't "lost" since it was never otherwise than the impersonal brahman. The duality is between types of experience, and not a duality of selves.

On the one hand, there is the character (the individual self) but on the other hand there is the actor (Brahman), and the character in its totality is no more and no less than the actor.

On the other hand, the actor can be backstage and not acting, waiting for its cue (the merging of the individual into the impersonal) or the actor can be on stage, acting as the character.

it is in this second part that the duality is found between self and brahman - in order to play the character well, the actor forgets that he is an actor and becomes the character unto himself.

philosoraptor
27 May 2012, 05:14 PM
Namaste Ananda and other devotees/seekers

This discussion caught my attention as it is a point of interest for me. Note that I am not an ISKCON devotee nor am I a Gaudiya Vaishnva nor an Advaitin.

I think the first point to acknowledge is that in gItA 2.12, Sri Krishna is clearly speaking of a plural number of entities when He says, "Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be." Thus, a very straightforward reading of the verse would assume a plural number of individual, conscious entities rather than a single, conscious entity. This is also consistent with our experience. I know that if I harm myself, for example, none of you will feel the pain. Nor is it the case that one of you getting liberation will necessarily get it for me at the same time. Thus, we are different beings, and that seems implicit in gItA 2.12.

Knowing a priori that we appear to be different individual beings, I would expect that a major spiritual revelation that we are all actually the same conscious living entity should spell it out very clearly and consistently. But that is not the case in this verse, or anywhere else in the Gita as far as I can see.

Furthermore, to say that the soul *is* brahman contradicts the position that Brahman "is the eternal Self of all beings, of all the embodied jivas," because this latter statement presupposes the exitence of both Brahman and jivas. Actually, the latter position is more that of viShishtAdvaita, and it is supported in the Upanishads also. See for example bR^ihadAraNyakopaniShad 3.7.15:

"He who inhabits all beings, but is within it, whom no being knows, whose body is all beings, and who controls all beings from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. This much with reference to the beings. "

Again, reading this in a very straightforward way, we have to conclude that "He" (Brahman) and "all beings" (the jIvAtmans) are different, and that the jIvAtmans constitute His "body." It's hard to accept that the "beings" referred to here are merely the bodies made up of matter, since bodies have no consciousness inherent in them without the presence of the paramAtman or the jIvAtman. It is also hard to accept that the person who is failing to do the knowing is the paramAtman, since the paramAtman always knows Himself. Hence, the beings that do not know their inner controller must be the jIvAtmans, and it is brahman/paramAtma who is their inner controller. Both are real and are related as body is to soul.

Compared to a straightforward reading, an interpretation to the effect that there really is no individual jIva seems to be a much more forced reading.

regards,

Philosoraptor

devotee
30 May 2012, 02:10 AM
Namaste Phil,

So, in your opinion, Lord Krishna is talking of eternal existence of Jeevas in the verse. OK. Let's agree with that and proceed to other verses where the qualities of the AtmAs are given :

Verse 2.24 says :

This AtmA is "nityah" (eternal), "sarvagatah" (all pervasive, omnipresent), SthANuh (unchangeable, stable), "achalah" (non-moving) and "sanAtanah" (without beginning and end).

If the AtmAs are many, can they all be sarvagatah and achalah ? Please visualise innumerable AtmAs and try to see them sarvagatah and achalah simultaneously and yet see them going with the bodies from one place to the other and migrating from one body to the other on rebirths.

How do you feel ?

OM

philosoraptor
30 May 2012, 10:10 AM
Namaste Phil,

So, in your opinion, Lord Krishna is talking of eternal existence of Jeevas in the verse.


Namaste. Always a pleasure to speak to a devotee :-)

It isn't just my opinion. Most traditional Gita commentators that I have come across have taken the same position. Even Sridhar Swami appears to have taken that position.


OK. Let's agree with that and proceed to other verses where the qualities of the AtmAs are given :

Verse 2.24 says :

This AtmA is "nityah" (eternal), "sarvagatah" (all pervasive, omnipresent), SthANuh (unchangeable, stable), "achalah" (non-moving) and "sanAtanah" (without beginning and end).

If the AtmAs are many, can they all be sarvagatah and achalah ? Please visualise innumerable AtmAs and try to see them sarvagatah and achalah simultaneously and yet see them going with the bodies from one place to the other and migrating from one body to the other on rebirths.

How do you feel ?

OM

Good questions both. Let's start with sarvagataH:

A single, individual soul is not all-pervading, as that interpretation contradicts the particle-like character of the soul as described in shvetAshvatara upaniShad 5.9:

bAlAgrashatabhAgasya shatadhA kalpitasya cha |
bhAgo jIvaH vij~neyaH sa chAnantyAya kalpate ||

On the other hand, if one takes the import of "sarvagataH" ("being everywhere") as driving home the point that the the soul pervades all elements and thus is *subtler* than the elements, it becomes apparent why Krishna includes this in a conversation with Arjuna about the indestructibility of the soul. Because if the soul is subtler than the elements (which directly follows from pervading all elements), then one cannot harm the soul with weapons which only damage things which are made up of the elements. This is the sense which Raamaanuja takes it and seems most consistent with the context of telling Arjuna that the soul is indestructible.

Regarding "achalaH," again, I think one has to take it in context. Krishna is explaining to Arjuna why he cannot actually kill another jIvAtman. The soul cannot be moved by weapons. Raamaanuja writes "It is stable, immovable and primeval. The meaning is that It is unchanging, unshakeable and ancient." Madhva takes "achalaH" as meaning "being without any worldly kind of activity" by which I take it to mean that he is emphasizing the non-worldly nature of the soul (and hence, the soul's immunity from worldly weapons).

So in summary, neither of those would be difficult to explain from a non-advaitin point of view, and when read within their context, they do not lend themselves easily to an Advaitic interpretation.

Now, if you don't mind me asking, I'm curious to know how one takes a statement like bR^ihadAraNyakopaniShad 3.7.15:

"He who inhabits all beings, but is within it, whom no being knows, whose body is all beings, and who controls all beings from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. This much with reference to the beings. "

... and extrapolates from this that there is only one entity Brahman, and nothing else exists. Would it not be more straightforward to accept the direct meaning that both Brahman and jIva-s exist, and that the former is the inner controller of the latter?

regards,

Philosoraptor

devotee
30 May 2012, 11:29 AM
Namaste phil,




Good questions both. Let's start with sarvagataH:

A single, individual soul is not all-pervading, as that interpretation contradicts the particle-like character of the soul as described in shvetAshvatara upaniShad 5.9:

bAlAgrashatabhAgasya shatadhA kalpitasya cha |
bhAgo jIvaH vij~neyaH sa chAnantyAya kalpate ||

You are moving from one scripture to the other without clearing the doubts of the former. The question is what does Sarvagatah mean not how AtmAn is described somewhere else. If you want to rely on this verse, please tell me how it refutes it being sarvagatah and achalah that we are discussing ? Please comment on word-by-word translation and see.


On the other hand, if one takes the import of "sarvagataH" ("being everywhere") as driving home the point that the the soul pervades all elements and thus is *subtler* than the elements, it becomes apparent why Krishna includes this in a conversation with Arjuna about the indestructibility of the soul. Because if the soul is subtler than the elements (which directly follows from pervading all elements), then one cannot harm the soul with weapons which only damage things which are made up of the elements. This is the sense which Raamaanuja takes it and seems most consistent with the context of telling Arjuna that the soul is indestructible.

Why should "sarvagatah" be indestructible ? Even if it is subtler than the elements how can it pervade all elements ? It is not necessary that which is subtler than the elements must pervade everything ! Can there be two things which would be simultaneously "sarvagatah" ? Not only this, we can't forget that it is "Achalah" too. How does an unmoving thing moves in the bodies of you, me and other beings ?


Regarding "achalaH," again, I think one has to take it in context. Krishna is explaining to Arjuna why he cannot actually kill another jIvAtman. The soul cannot be moved by weapons.

I think it was you who suggested that we should not interpret the scriptures the way we like but should take it as it is. Now, tell me, when "Achalah" means straightway, "unmoving" in sanskrit why should any one try to change it ? "Soul cannot be moved by weapons" ... do you think this what Krishna would say if He really wanted to say what you are suggesting ? Moreover, the effect of weapons has already been discussed in "Achhedyoayam" and other adjectives used for AtmA are not for weapons at all. It also says, "AdAhyo", Ashoshyaevacha" ? Then why should you assume that the whole verse is talking of effect of weapons and nothing else ? There are other adjectives used for AtmA too which are not at all talking its immunity towards weapons but something else. So, is it not a distorted meaning taken out by you of the word, "Achalah" ?


Raamaanuja writes "It is stable, immovable and primeval. The meaning is that It is unchanging, unshakeable and ancient." Madhva takes "achalaH" as meaning "being without any worldly kind of activity" by which I take it to mean that he is emphasizing the non-worldly nature of the soul (and hence, the soul's immunity from worldly weapons).

Is it proper to refute Advaita by quoting RAmAnuja or MAdhvA ? Why is your understanding. Let's give RAmAnujachAryA, MAdhava and Shankara some rest for the time being. Let's discuss the scriptures from our understanding of sanskrit and logic and see what should be the correct meaning. Again, "what do you mean by "worldly kind of activity" which the Atman doesn't do ? How is the jeevAtman non-worldly ? The JeevAtma is fully worldly and takes part in all worldly activities ? If it didn't how could it acquire the merits and sins of the Karmas performed by it ?


So in summary, neither of those would be difficult to explain from a non-advaitin point of view, and when read within their context, they do not lend themselves easily to an Advaitic interpretation.

No, you cannot take some extrapolated translation by someone for one verse and not allow the other to interpret the other verse except the way it suits you. Let's play fair. I too can give you the Advaitic meaning of "There was no time when these Kings were not ... etc.". But let's deal the issue with our own undrstanding without rapidly moving from one scripture to the other.

The questions remain :

a) Can there be two things which are truly sarvagatah i.e. all-pervading ?

b) Can an achalah move in bodies ?


Now, if you don't mind me asking, I'm curious to know how one takes a statement like bR^ihadAraNyakopaniShad 3.7.15:

"He who inhabits all beings, but is within it, whom no being knows, whose body is all beings, and who controls all beings from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. This much with reference to the beings. "



I can discuss all the 108 Upanishads with you. Let's first finish and come to a conclusion on verses of Bhagwad Gita. However, let me assure you that quoted verse doesn't refute Advaita even a little bit but supports it. When one single thing inhabits all beings and is my own immortal self then how is it many ? How can single being be seen as many ? If He is different from me, why should He be called "my self" at all ... why keep this confusion and why not call it just "God" ? But this would derail the issue we are dealing with here. Let's discuss the verses we have chosen.


... and extrapolates from this that there is only one entity Brahman, and nothing else exists. Would it not be more straightforward to accept the direct meaning that both Brahman and jIva-s exist, and that the former is the inner controller of the latter?

You are too quick to pass judgement. Discussions are not done in this way. Please answer the questions I have asked. I have not given any conclusion from my side. I am not asserting whether Advaita is right or Dvaita is. Let both of us start with clean slates.

You are free to consult Sanskrit dictionary to see the correct meaning of words in the verse I have quoted. Does it support your translation or mine ?

OM

philosoraptor
30 May 2012, 12:11 PM
Namaste devotee,


Namaste phil,

You are moving from one scripture to the other without clearing the doubts of the former. The question is what does Sarvagatah mean not how AtmAn is described somewhere else.

No I'm not. shAstra-s have to be understood *consistently.* jIvAtman can't be all-pervading in one shAstra and then particle-like in another shAstra. All vedAntists accept that smRiti should be understood in a way that does not contradict shruti. Hence, if shruti says that jIvAtman is atomic, then gItA has to be understood in that way too.


Why should "sarvagatah" be indestructible ? Even if it is subtler than the elements how it can pervade all elements ? Can there be two things which would be simultaneously "sarvagatah" ?

It is indestructible precisely because it is sarvagataH. Being sarvagataH it pervades all elements. Because it pervades all elements/matter, it follows that it is subtler than the elements/matter. Since weapons of war can only harm things made of matter, QED the soul is indestructible. Hence, Arjuna should not grieve for the destruction of bhIshma, drOna, and others and that is precisely how it fits in that context.


Not only this, we can't forget that it is "Achalah" too. How does an unmoving thing moves in the bodies of you, me and other beings ?

Because it is "unmoveable" by *worldly means.* Despite his bowmanship and mastery over so many divine weapons, nothing Arjuna can do can move the jIvAtman. All he can do is destroy the body, leaving the jIvAtman to move under the influence of its karma to another body.

Interpreting "achalaH" in the way that you suggest contradicts other shrutis which do describe it moving between different bodies, from heaven to earth, etc.


I think it was you who suggested that we should not interpret the scriptures the way we like but should take it as it is. Now, tell me, when "Achalah" means straightway, "unmoving" in sanskrit why should any one try to change it ?

Because the meaning you have proposed is not consistent with context and actually contradicts shruti. There are times when being inappropriately literal also leads to the wrong understanding.


Is it proper to refute Advaita by quoting RAmAnuja or MAdhvA ?

I didn't realize I was trying to refute Advaita. I was merely pointing out how other commentators explained that particular verse in order to answer your question.


Why is your understanding. Let's give RAmAnujachAryA, MAdhava and Shankara some rest for the time being. Let's discuss the scriptures from our understanding of sanskrit and logic and see what should be the correct meaning.

I'm afraid I may not be the logician you think I am. I tend to read things and assume a straightforward meaning unless there is reason to assume otherwise. I've already explained why "sarvagataH" and "achalaH" can't be interpreted in the ways that you proposed. Leaving aside Shankaraachaarya as you proposed to do, have you explained why gItA 2.12, which speaks of a plural number of entities, should be logically interpreted to refer to a single entity? Because if so, I missed that.


No, you cannot take some extrapolated translation by someone for one verse and not allow the other to interpret the other verse except the way it suits you. Let's play fair.

What "extrapolated translation" are you referring to? When have I "not allowed" you to interpret any verse?

I quoted the translation of the bRhadAraNyaka upaniShad by Swami Madhavananda of the *Advaita Ashram* (http://www.celextel.org/upanishads/shukla_yajur_veda/brihadaranyaka.html). I gave the exact verse numbers so you should be able to look up the Sanskrit yourself if you doubted the translation.


I too can give you the Advaitic meaning of "There was no time when these Kings were not ... etc.". But let's deal the issue with our common sense.
The questions remain :

a) Can there be two things which are truly sarvagatah i.e. all-pervading ?

b) Can an achalah move in bodies ?


The problem is your misunderstanding of the terms. Specifically, you misunderstood the meaning of the terms as used by Sri Krishna because you took them out of context.



When one single thing inhabits all beings and is my own immortal self then how is it many ?

It isn't. It is one being who resides within the many jIvas. Hence, the Advaita Ashram translation of bRihadAraNyaka upaniShad 3.7.15:

"III-vii-15: He who inhabits all beings, but is within it, whom no being knows, whose body is all beings, and who controls all beings from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. This much with reference to the beings."

Please note that I've seen more or less the same translation given by at least 2 other translators.

Thus, the jIvAtman is the Atman of the body. And the paramAtma who resides in each jIvAtma is the Atma of the jIvAtma. And that is why He is "your immortal self." Because He (the paramAtma) dwells within you (the jIvAtma), just as you (the jIvAtma) dwell within the heart of the body.

There is no other straightforward way of reading "He who inhabits all beings" without taking "all beings" as real, plural and conscious.

regards,

Philosoraptor

devotee
30 May 2012, 11:35 PM
Namaste phil,




No I'm not. shAstra-s have to be understood *consistently.* jIvAtman can't be all-pervading in one shAstra and then particle-like in another shAstra. All vedAntists accept that smRiti should be understood in a way that does not contradict shruti. Hence, if shruti says that jIvAtman is atomic, then gItA has to be understood in that way too.

The consistency can be understood when you will allow it to be understood. You have assumed a lot of things and are not allowing any other views to be considered except what you think to be correct. Did I ever say that Smritis should not conform to the Shruti ? No. But you have assumed that I said that and you have put forward your extended conclusion based on that. Ever thought why Bhagwad Gita uses AtmA instead of JeevAtma in the verse ? Let's assume that in the verse I have taken, BG uses AtmA as JeevAtmA and therefore, it was necessary to translate Sarvagatah and achalah as you suggest. If that were so, why did Krishna said this, "Aham AtmA gudAkeshah sarvabhUtAshaya sthitah" ? Why didn't Krishna use different words for JeevAtmA and AtmA ? How can you take a sloka from Sruti which talks of JeevAtma and equate it with another word in another scripture where AtmA is being talked about ?

You are assuming that the said verse of Gita talks about JeevAtmA and there lies your mistake. As you are not ready to move from this position, there can't be any progress in discussion. As assumptions remain unchanged so will the conclusion be.


It is indestructible precisely because it is sarvagataH.

Please tell which principle says so ?


Being sarvagataH it pervades all elements.

But you denied it pervading all elements, didn't you ? How can one "thing" pervade more than one thing ? How can your JeevAtmA pervade the mountain in front of you ?


Because it pervades all elements/matter, it follows that it is subtler than the elements/matter. Since weapons of war can only harm things made of matter, QED the soul is indestructible.

Can't it (the destruction) be achieved even by BrahmAstra or some powerful mantras ? Why are you thinking of only conventional metallic weapons ?


Hence, Arjuna should not grieve for the destruction of bhIshma, drOna, and others and that is precisely how it fits in that context.

It will fit into the right context, even if you think in Advaitic way. So, fitting into context is no issue at all.


Because it is "unmoveable" by *worldly means.* Despite his bowmanship and mastery over so many divine weapons, nothing Arjuna can do can move the jIvAtman. All he can do is destroy the body, leaving the jIvAtman to move under the influence of its karma to another body.

Did Krishna use the term, "worldly means only" ? I am afraid ... you have a very strong fixed idea and therefore I can't make you see the correct meaning. Please be happy with this translation which, in fact, is distorted translation and nothing else.


Interpreting "achalaH" in the way that you suggest contradicts other shrutis which do describe it moving between different bodies, from heaven to earth, etc.

No, it doesn't contradict Shruti. You are mixing up JeevAtmA and AtmA. JeevAtmAs are normally referred to as Bhootas or BhootAtmAs.


I didn't realize I was trying to refute Advaita. I was merely pointing out how other commentators explained that particular verse in order to answer your question.

Till now you have been advocating to accept the Dvaita version in this Advaita forum. What was that for ?


I'm afraid I may not be the logician you think I am. I tend to read things and assume a straightforward meaning unless there is reason to assume otherwise. I've already explained why "sarvagataH" and "achalaH" can't be interpreted in the ways that you proposed. Leaving aside Shankaraachaarya as you proposed to do, have you explained why gItA 2.12, which speaks of a plural number of entities, should be logically interpreted to refer to a single entity? Because if so, I missed that.

It will be difficult to understand it for you unless you are ready to accept other views. So, I wonder how it will be fruitful at all ! The Advaita is difficult to understand and if you are not in a mood to listen and accept other views, any discussion on this matter will be simply a waste.


What "extrapolated translation" are you referring to? When have I "not allowed" you to interpret any verse?

You were discussing something with Ganeshprasad ji in another forum. Didn't you say this,
When "interpretation" becomes confused with "interpolation" and "explanation" is misread as "insinuation," and the gist of the conversations becomes one of "I have great respect for scripture, just as long as I don't disagree with it," then I think that it is a sign that nothing productive will come of participating further in the discussion. Hence, I'll leave you to it on this one. ?


The problem is your misunderstanding of the terms. Specifically, you misunderstood the meaning of the terms as used by Sri Krishna because you took them out of context.

Why do you think that I am taking the meaning out of context and you are doing it right ? Any special cause for this extra confidence ?


It isn't. It is one being who resides within the many jIvas. Hence, the Advaita Ashram translation of bRihadAraNyaka upaniShad 3.7.15:

"III-vii-15: He who inhabits all beings, but is within it, whom no being knows, whose body is all beings, and who controls all beings from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. This much with reference to the beings."

Have you considered the rope and snake analogy ? The reality is the rope but snake is perceived due to avidyA/ignorance. Are there two entities i.e. both rope and snake ? Have you considered that AtmA has four states and the first three states arise and dissolve on the fourth which is the sole reality ? The reality is one alone i.e. the Turiya. Unless this is understood you will have problems in understanding Advaitic point of view.


Please note that I've seen more or less the same translation given by at least 2 other translators.

It is ok. I didn't say that the translation is wrong. No need to bring in more proofs.


There is no other straightforward way of reading "He who inhabits all beings" without taking "all beings" as real, plural and conscious.

From you present status, "yes", but if you agree to move to Advaitic analysis, you will get the real picture of the reality as it is. The answer appears to be correct doesn't mean that it is correct.

OM

devotee
31 May 2012, 01:01 AM
Continued from the last post :

Let's see some of the verses you have relied upon :

bAlAgrashatabhAgasya shatadhA kalpitasya cha |
bhAgo jIvaH vij~neyaH sa chAnantyAya kalpate || Sve. 5.9.

What does this verse say ? This verse talks about jIvAh. We can't have any confusion about it here. Again, it uses the word, "kalpitsaya cha". Kalpita means "imagined" though it is also used in "creation". Again it says, "cha ananta kalpate". "Ananta" means "infinite". How can same thing which is as subtle or thin as hundredth part of a hair be "infinite" ? How is it One and also Infinite at the same time ?

How do you explain this paradox ?

In fact, the above verse should be read with this previous verse :

V-8: Subtle as the point of a goad, and pure, effulgent and infinite like the sun, He alone is seen assuming as another the size of a thumb on account of the finiteness of the heart (in which He appears), and associating Himself with egoism and Sankalpa on account of the limitations of the intellect.


The Pure, effulgent and Infinite are the adjectives used here for the AtmA/JeevAtmA. How can Infinite be many ?

I can explain this further in detail, if you interested. However, if you are happy with your current views, I quit here.

OM

devotee
31 May 2012, 01:56 AM
Let's see some of the verses taken from Uttar Gita :

Chapter-2

34. The Yogins who contemplate me with one mind as "I am he" are saved from the sins collected during a hundred millions of Kalpas.

35. As the Akasa of the pot is absorbed in the Mahakasa when the pot is broken, so also the ignorance-bound Jivatman is absorbed in the
Paramatman when ignorance is destroyed.


36. He who has been able to acquire the knowledge of the Tattvas that the Jivatman is absorbed in the Paramatman, even as the Akasa of the
Pot is absorbed in the Mahakasa, becomes undoubtedly free from the chain of ignorance, and goes into the sphere of the Light of Supreme
Knowledge and Wisdom.

37. If a man practise asceticism and severe austerity for a thousand years, standing on one leg only, he cannot realize one-sixteenth part of the
benefit gained by Dhyana Yoga (meditation).
Those that constantly chant the four Vedas and read other religious works and yet fail to realize "I am that Brahman", they are like the spoons that are used for every cooking operation, but yet remain without a single taste of the foods they prepare.

As the ass bears the burden of sandal (wood), whereby he feels only the weight of the load and not the virtue of the sandal, even so is the case of
the (nominal) readers of the many Sastras, because they do not understand the real meaning of them, but carry them about like the beast of
burden.

39. At the time when the body oscillates backward and forward, the Braahmana who hesitates to believe that he is Brahman fails to understand the
great subtle Atman, even if he be conversant with the four Vedas.

More posts from Upanishads sometime later ...

OM

philosoraptor
31 May 2012, 10:52 AM
Namaste devotee,

I'm a little perplexed by the tenor and content of your last several posts. First, after you objected to my quoting from the Upanishads to support a consistent interpretation of the Gita, I thought you were trying to say that you did not want to involve any other scripture. But then you started quoting from an obscure scripture that isn't even shruti and is of dubious authority. You keep accusing me of "not allowing" you to interpret, etc, whereas I am not aware of having used force to change your behavior in any way.



Let's see some of the verses you have relied upon :

bAlAgrashatabhAgasya shatadhA kalpitasya cha |
bhAgo jIvaH vij~neyaH sa chAnantyAya kalpate || Sve. 5.9.

What does this verse say ? This verse talks about jIvAh. We can't have any confusion about it here. Again, it uses the word, "kalpitsaya cha". Kalpita means "imagined" though it is also used in "creation". Again it says, "cha ananta kalpate". "Ananta" means "infinite". How can same thing which is as subtle or thin as hundredth part of a hair be "infinite" ? How is it One and also Infinite at the same time ?

The Ramakrishna Math translation of Swami Tyagisananda (http://www.celextel.org/upanishads/krishna_yajur_veda/svetasvatara.html) has "That individual soul is as subtle as a hairpoint divided and sub-divided hundreds of times. Yet he is potentially infinite. He has to be known."

The Max Muller translation at Sacred Texts has (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe15/sbe15104.htm) "That living soul is to be known as part of the hundredth part of the point of a hair, divided a hundred times, and yet it is to be infinite."

The translation of Jayaram V at http://www.hinduwebsite.com/sveta5.asp has "It is equal to the one hundreth part of the hundreth part of the point of a hair. Yet it is capable of infinity."

The translation I have in my hands has "The proportion of the Jiva is to be known as equal to one hundreth part of the one hundreth part of the tip of the hair. He, verily becomes capable of attaining infinity."

Furthermore, when you look at the context, it is evident that the subject matter changes from that of Brahman to that of the jIva who is capable of becoming embodied right between SvU 5.6-5.7, in case the word "jIva" in 5.9 wasn't sufficient to make that point.

Most translators seem to understand SvU 5.9 to speak of an atomic character to the jIva, as opposed to an all-pervasive one that your gItA 2.24 interpretation requires. And most translators understand the "infinity" part as something to be attained. This is most likely referring to the attainment of liberation. Hence, no paradox.

Suffice it to say that I was merely expressing my doubts about the Advaitic interpretation of gItA chapter 2. I had no intention of changing anyone's views on the subject. I merely wanted to examine the arguments supporting the Advaitic view, which at first glance seemed somewhat forced to me, given the Upanishadic statements affirming the plurality of particle-like jIvas. I think what preceeded this is sufficient for that purpose. It did not occur to me that my questions might lead to resentment or hostility. I apologize in advance if anything I said offended anyone.

Best wishes,

Philosoraptor

devotee
31 May 2012, 11:44 PM
Namaste Phil,



I'm a little perplexed by the tenor and content of your last several posts. First, after you objected to my quoting from the Upanishads to support a consistent interpretation of the Gita, I thought you were trying to say that you did not want to involve any other scripture.

I am really sorry, if you are anyway felt hurt with the tenor and content of my posts which was not intended. However, I have seen that you are quick to dismiss others' views and pass a judgment too quickly !

Please see this :


Again, reading this in a very straightforward way, we have to conclude that "He" (Brahman) and "all beings" (the jIvAtmans) are different, and that the jIvAtmans constitute His "body." It's hard to accept that the "beings" referred to here are merely the bodies made up of matter, since bodies have no consciousness inherent in them without the presence of the paramAtman or the jIvAtman. It is also hard to accept that the person who is failing to do the knowing is the paramAtman, since the paramAtman always knows Himself. Hence, the beings that do not know their inner controller must be the jIvAtmans, and it is brahman/paramAtma who is their inner controller. Both are real and are related as body is to soul.

You are free to have your opinion but this is simplistic way of seeing things from Advaitic point of view. Please note that it is Advaita forum meant for Advaitic discussions. However, I have no issues upto this point until you said this :


Compared to a straightforward reading, an interpretation to the effect that there really is no individual jIva seems to be a much more forced reading.

On one hand, you are not able to see beyond the gross and subtle nature of things and you are claiming this ! If your understanding is limited to that and you think it is forced reading then why discuss it on this Advaitic forum ?

Then when I tried to make you see reason by correct translation of "Sarvagatah" and "achalah", you discarded this view saying that it violated Shruti ! You quoted a verse which unmistakenly talks of JeevA and you are trying to refute on that the verse which talks of AtmA. You are not able to see the difference between "JeevAtmA" and "AtmA" and you kept on saying that what I am proposing was violating Shruti ! Please read this :



The problem is your misunderstanding of the terms. Specifically, you misunderstood the meaning of the terms as used by Sri Krishna because you took them out of context.

How can you dismiss others' views like this and blame others for misunderstanding things when reality is that you have no idea which verse is talking about JeevAtmA and which verse is talking about "AtmA". How can you tell anyone "You misunderstood the meaning" ... without taking a pause that it might be you who might have misunderstood the terms ?

The final blow is your last salvo !


But then you started quoting from an obscure scripture that isn't even shruti and is of dubious authority.

Uttar Gita is an obscure Scripture ! ... and it is of dubious authority ! That shows your knowledge of scriptures. Please ... if you don't know something ... it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist and it has a dubious authority.

Yes, it is not a shruti. But when did I claim that it was shruti ? I stated in the last sentence of my post that quotes from Upanishads shall follow. However, before I could do that, you have given your judgment.

If you want a good discussion with anyone, you will have to listen to him and give him time as one asks for.


You keep accusing me of "not allowing" you to interpret, etc, whereas I am not aware of having used force to change your behavior in any way.

Yes, you didn't do this in this discussion with me. However, I went through a discussion you had with Ganeshprasad ji and I have quoted that. If you think that I should not have done that ... please forget this. However, please have a look at your "Straightforward reading" and Forced reading" comments quoted by me above. This let me think that you valued the translations as they should be without any forced translation to take out the meaning as one wanted. In this discussion, you are not ready to accept the correct translation of two words in the same verse .... so I was surprised as it didn't match you stance in the said discussion.



The translation I have in my hands has "The proportion of the Jiva is to be known as equal to one hundreth part of the one hundreth part of the tip of the hair. He, verily becomes capable of attaining infinity."

Furthermore, when you look at the context, it is evident that the subject matter changes from that of Brahman to that of the jIva who is capable of becoming embodied right between SvU 5.6-5.7, in case the word "jIva" in 5.9 wasn't sufficient to make that point.

Most translators seem to understand SvU 5.9 to speak of an atomic character to the jIva, as opposed to an all-pervasive one that your gItA 2.24 interpretation requires. And most translators understand the "infinity" part as something to be attained. This is most likely referring to the attainment of liberation. Hence, no paradox.

Here is the clue to the mystery that pervades "Sarvagatah" and "Achalah" used in Bhagwad Gita in the verse I quoted. "Infinity" is not something to be attained but to be realised. Body and JivAh have no existence from the Absolute point of view. The bodies and jIvAs are only apparently there. It is easy to see them as many ... there is nothing big to see that there are many. The gross (the body) is illusion. The subtle (the Jeeva) too is illusion.

Why should you take so much pains to prove existence of Jeeva to refute Advaita ? It is not needed. There are fully visible bodies which are many !! This whole world is there. Just say this : "There are so many bodies I see in this universe. There are so many trees, planets, stars etc. How can be they only one ??". So simple. Advaita gets refuted !!! What is the need to prove the existence of Jeeva to refute Advaita ???

However, Advaita's view is different. The Upanishads say that it is One alone which is appearing as many. However, it is not easy to understand Advaita. It needs time. I will quote a number of verses from Upanishads which leave no doubt that Advaita's view is correct.


Suffice it to say that I was merely expressing my doubts about the Advaitic interpretation of gItA chapter 2. I had no intention of changing anyone's views on the subject. I merely wanted to examine the arguments supporting the Advaitic view, which at first glance seemed somewhat forced to me, given the Upanishadic statements affirming the plurality of particle-like jIvas. I think what preceeded this is sufficient for that purpose. It did not occur to me that my questions might lead to resentment or hostility. I apologize in advance if anything I said offended anyone.

There is no need to apolozise. As you are new here, you are new to me and I am new to you. We both need sometime to correctly understand each other. During this period we must allow some misunderstanding to take place which is natural. :)

Please rest assured, I have no hidden agenda against you. :)

OM

devotee
01 June 2012, 10:39 AM
Namaste Phil,

The VedAnta is full of references wherein Brahman has been declared as One alone without a second and any existence of Jeeva or body or the world has been declared as creation of illusory MAyA. I am not sure where to start from and where to end. However, I will take Upanishads which have not been commented upon by Shankaracharya as anyone who is interested in those commentaries can very well refer to those Upanishads but other schools have tried to find some other meaning in them.

Mahopanishad 4.71&72

“I am that Brahman who is adorable always even by the DevatAs who is higher than the highest, greater than the greatest, eternal, shivam, tejomaya, omniscient, beginningless and ancient.” This understanding is the best possible way to Moksha.

Considering that “ I am not Brahman” or considering oneself different from Brahman is what binds the mind. “Everything is Brahman alone” ... this resolve liberates the mind.

6.58

“I am the Self of everything in this universe, every form is mine alone and I am indestructible.” This third type of resolve is cause for liberation.

SarvasAropanishad

What is bondage (of the Soul) ? What is Moksha (liberation) ? What is Avidya (nescience) ? What is Vidya (knowledge) ? .... What is the Karta (agent), what the Jiva (individual self), the Kshetrajna (knower of the body), the Sakshi (Witness), the Kutastha, the Antaryamin (Internal Ruler) ? What is the Pratyagatman (Inner Self), what the Paramatman (Supreme Self), the Atman, and also Maya ?

Answers all these questions as given below :

Self which is Ishwar and JIva when looks upon the body and such like things other than the Self as Itself: this egoism is the bondage of the soul. The cessation of that (egoism) is Moksha, liberation. That which causes that egoism is Avidya, nescience. That by which this egoism is completely turned back is Vidya, knowledge.

Maitreyopanishad :

II-2. The body is said to be the temple; the individual Self (Jiva) is Shiva alone. One should discard the faded flowers in the form of spiritual ignorance and worship God (with the conviction) ‘He and I are one’.

Yogatatvopanishad

9. How did that which is the seat of Paramatman, is eternal and above the state of all existing things and is of the form of wisdom and without stains attain the state of Jiva ?
10. A bubble arose in it as in water and in this (bubble) arose Ahankara. To it arose a ball (of body) made of the five (elements) and bound by Dhatus.
11. Know that to be Jiva which is associated with happiness and misery and hence is the term Jiva applied to Paramatman which is pure.
12-13. That Jiva is considered to be the Kevala (alone) which is freed from the stains of passion, anger, fear, delusion, greed, pride, lust, birth, death, miserliness, swoon, giddiness, hunger, thirst,ambition, shame, fright, heart-burning, grief and gladness.

Mandal Brahmana Upanishad

At last he attains this state of discrimination (thus): 'I think I am the non-dual One only. I was in ignorance for some time (in the waking state and called therefore Vishva). I became somehow (or involuntarily) a Taijasa (in the dreaming state) through the reflection (in that state) of the affinities of the forgotten waking state; and now I am a Prajna through the disappearance of those two states. Therefore I am one only. I (appear) as more than one through the differences of state and place. And there is nothing of differentiation of class besides me'.

JAbAlDarshna Upanishad

“I am Parameshwara. I am not bound in the bondage of this world. There was never anything except me. As the waves and froth arise and dissolve in sea, this world arises and dissolves in me. Therefore the mind which is the cause of this universe is non-different from me.” He who starts seeing him in Parameshwara form of Self attains the blissful state of oneness with Self.

JAbALI Upanishad

JivA is nothing but God Himself who is acting under the influence of “AhamkAr”.

I will stop here as there are many other references and mentioning all of them here is a time taking exercise.

OM

philosoraptor
01 June 2012, 11:07 AM
Pranams,



Uttar Gita is an obscure Scripture ! ... and it is of dubious authority ! That shows your knowledge of scriptures. Please ... if you don't know something ... it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist and it has a dubious authority.


I've never heard of an "Uttar Gita." Perhaps my knowledge of scripture is limited, but I'm guessing that if I've not heard of it, many others have not heard of it either. Certainly it is neither shruti, not is it even a part of Shankaraachaarya's prasthAna-trayi. What would be the point of quoting a scripture which only Advaitins accept to convince someone who is not an Advaitin? Especially when we were talking about other mainstream shrutis which you did not like me bringing up? I'm just going to hazard a guess here, and hopefully you won't take it as me denying you your right to interpret scripture. Isn't the real reason for quoting Uttar-Gita the fact that you have to extensively re-interpret the Bhagavad-Gita and the Upanishads to bring them in line with Advaita philosophy, while Uttar-Gita appears to say exactly what you want it to say without the need for interpretation?


Here is the clue to the mystery that pervades "Sarvagatah" and "Achalah" used in Bhagwad Gita in the verse I quoted. "Infinity" is not something to be attained but to be realised.


Right. One has to realize the infinite Brahman. So, nothing obviously Advaitic about Shvetaashvatara Upanishad 5.9, and certainly nothing to refute the particle-like character of the jIva that is described therein. :-)


Body and JivAh have no existence from the Absolute point of view. The bodies and jIvAs are only apparently there. It is easy to see them as many ... there is nothing big to see that there are many. The gross (the body) is illusion. The subtle (the Jeeva) too is illusion.

I'm aware of this point of view. In fact, I used to believe in Advaita. Until, that is, I read the Bhagavad-Gita. I've since read several translations of the same, including A.G. Warrier's translation of Shankaraachaarya's commentary. The idea that Sri Krishna was teaching all along that bodies and jIvas are merely illusory and only one undifferentiated Brahman exists, does not really come out from an objective reading of the text. I can think of a few Gita shlokas taken out of context which sound very Advaitic, but not when read as part of the whole teaching. And unlike the Upanishads, which I would expect to have some cryptic meanings, I would have expected something like the Gita be relatively straightforward in spelling out the truth, being that it was spoken on a battlefield before an audience of soliders instead of a gathering of sages. But then again, that could just be because I'm a simple-minded guy. :-)

regards,

philosoraptor

devotee
01 June 2012, 11:12 PM
Namaste Phil,



I've never heard of an "Uttar Gita." Perhaps my knowledge of scripture is limited, but I'm guessing that if I've not heard of it, many others have not heard of it either. Certainly it is neither shruti, not is it even a part of Shankaraachaarya's prasthAna-trayi. What would be the point of quoting a scripture which only Advaitins accept to convince someone who is not an Advaitin? Especially when we were talking about other mainstream shrutis which you did not like me bringing up? I'm just going to hazard a guess here, and hopefully you won't take it as me denying you your right to interpret scripture. Isn't the real reason for quoting Uttar-Gita the fact that you have to extensively re-interpret the Bhagavad-Gita and the Upanishads to bring them in line with Advaita philosophy, while Uttar-Gita appears to say exactly what you want it to say without the need for interpretation?

If you would have only told me that you don't accept Advaita but the Vaishnava's interpretation of scriptures, we could have have saved our valuable time wasted in this discussion so far. I have no intention to prove that Advaita is superior to any other path to anyone. I sincerely thought you were interested in understanding the message of Upanishads and Bhagwad Gita. But as you already have made up your mind, this discussion was completely unnecessary and a waste of time.

You have never heard of Uttara Gita and that is OK but I am surprised that you still stick to this idea that "if you have not heard of it ... many ...." etc. You have also stated again and again that it is not Shruti ! What do you want to say ? No Geeta (among so many Geetas) is a Shruti, my dear friend and that includes Bhagwad Gita too. Why do you think Bhagwad Gita becomes more authoritative than Uttara Gita ? After all, both are smritis ??

As far as your understanding that it is obscure scripture and what not .... please note that Uttar Gita and MAndukya Upanishad are only two authoritative scriptures which are credited to be commented upon by great Advaitin Gaudapad who was Param Guru of Shankaracharya. So, it hardly matters whether it forms the part of PrasthAn trayi. Do you think that a scripture which was so revered by his Param Guru, will not command due respect from Shankaracharya ? You may like to note .... this scripture is held in high esteem by all Advaitins.

Again, all smritis (that includes all Geetas) are authority as long they conform to Shruti. So, I don't know why you should have any issue with a scripture being a Shruti or not as long as it conforms to the Shruti. It is a different issue that your and my interpretation of shruti are different. Please remember that I am an Advaitin whereas you are not. So my choice of scriptures will not be the same as yours.


Right. One has to realize the infinite Brahman. So, nothing obviously Advaitic about Shvetaashvatara Upanishad 5.9, and certainly nothing to refute the particle-like character of the jIva that is described therein. :-)

I have no issues with your understanding. However, just one correction, if you allow me : "Realisation is completely different from attaining". ... and you are fully within your rights to dismiss SvetAsvatara Upanishad being devoid of any Advaitic teachings. I have already stated my viewpoint and I have no desire to add anything to it further.


I'm aware of this point of view. In fact, I used to believe in Advaita. Until, that is, I read the Bhagavad-Gita. I've since read several translations of the same, including A.G. Warrier's translation of Shankaraachaarya's commentary. The idea that Sri Krishna was teaching all along that bodies and jIvas are merely illusory and only one undifferentiated Brahman exists, does not really come out from an objective reading of the text. I can think of a few Gita shlokas taken out of context which sound very Advaitic, but not when read as part of the whole teaching. And unlike the Upanishads, which I would expect to have some cryptic meanings, I would have expected something like the Gita be relatively straightforward in spelling out the truth, being that it was spoken on a battlefield before an audience of soliders instead of a gathering of sages.

You are completely free to have your own understanding of Bhagwad Gita or any other scripture in Sanatan Dharma. Why should anyone have any objection to that ? ... but don't you think you chose the wrong forum to discuss it all here ?


But then again, that could just be because I'm a simple-minded guy. :-)

I hope you know yourself best. No need to attach a label for others to "force read" you. Thanks. :)

OM

philosoraptor
02 June 2012, 08:21 PM
Namaste devotee,



If you would have only told me that you don't accept Advaita but the Vaishnava's interpretation of scriptures, we could have have saved our valuable time wasted in this discussion so far.

What a strange thing to say. First of all, I don't accept or reject any system of commentary a priori. I like to read about them and compare/contrast with what the scriptures say, and then come to a conclusion. Second, I don't see what acceptance has to do in the first place. Obviously, if I'm trying to see why I should "accept" a given commentary as the correct one, it can't be that I have to first accept that it is correct in order to understand how it is correct. Finally, I don't understand the dichotomy you have drawn, e.g. "Advaita interpretation" vs "Vaishnava interpretation." Are you saying that one cannot be an Advaitin and a Vishnu devotee at the same time?



I sincerely thought you were interested in understanding the message of Upanishads and Bhagwad Gita. But as you already have made up your mind, this discussion was completely unnecessary and a waste of time.

I study the message of the Upanishads and the Gita every morning as part of my sadhana. Aside from sticking to the commentaries of traditional acharyas, I don't restrict my reading to any one sampradaya. Just because I do not accept the validity of your version of Advaita as a given does not make me insincere.


What do you want to say ? No Geeta (among so many Geetas) is a Shruti, my dear friend and that includes Bhagwad Gita too. Why do you think Bhagwad Gita becomes more authoritative than Uttara Gita ? After all, both are smritis ??

Bhagavad-gita has a commentary written on it by representatives of almost every major Vedanta tradition. By contrast, the Uttara-gita seems to be only popular among Advaitins. On this basis I would infer that the Bhagavad-gita carries greater weight in Vedantic discourse than the Uttara-gita.


You may like to note .... this scripture is held in high esteem by all Advaitins.

... and by no one else, which is precisely my point. Why quote a scripture which only Advaitins accept, to convince someone who isn't already an Advaitin? This would be like a Tamil Sri Vaishnava trying to convince you on the basis of Divya Prabandham, or a Gaudiya Vaishnava trying to convince you on the basis of Chaitanya Bhagavata, or a Madhva trying to convince you on the basis of Brahma-Tarka. Would you accept as authoritative quotes from Divya Prabandham on the basis that all Tamil Sri Vaishnavas revere it? I doubt it.



Again, all smritis (that includes all Geetas) are authority as long they conform to Shruti. So, I don't know why you should have any issue with a scripture being a Shruti or not as long as it conforms to the Shruti. It is a different issue that your and my interpretation of shruti are different. Please remember that I am an Advaitin whereas you are not. So my choice of scriptures will not be the same as yours.


Since it is the meaning of shruti which is in dispute, your attempt to quote a non-shruti text (especially one which only your sampradaya accepts) to support your reading of the shruti text does little to bolster your argument. Just saying is all.....

best wishes,

philosoraptor

devotee
03 June 2012, 12:27 AM
Namaste Phil,

To tell you the truth, I find it hard to digest your claim of sincerity by seeing your steadfastness to stick to one version of scriptural texts.

Again, I am aghast to see your statements on Uttar Gita which is line with the texts from Shruti I posted later on. In spite of those postings ( I can post still more but I am sure by now that you are not sincere at all), you are hell bent on discrediting Uttar Gita by hook or by crook. There is no scriptural authority which says that Bhagwad Gita has more authority than any other scriptures. Please note that Bhagwad Gita too has borrowed verses from Upanishads ... so there is nothing so special about it which is not there in Uttar Gita.

Leave aside, Uttar Gita. I posted Shruti texts too. Why did you keep silent against those if you are really sincere ? Are they not saying the same thing that Uttar Gita said ? You have not uttered a single word against them. I am waiting to hear you say, "Oh, I have really never heard any of them. These too appear to be obscure and of disputed authority ! ... and you know ... when I have not heard of them ... there must be many who might not have heard of them !! "

I quit this thread here. Thanks for all your sincerity which I could not see.

OM

philosoraptor
03 June 2012, 01:48 PM
Pranams,



To tell you the truth, I find it hard to digest your claim of sincerity by seeing your steadfastness to stick to one version of scriptural texts.

And which version would that be? All I said is that I can't accept an explanation of a text that does not seem to follow from the text itself. It surely cannot be the case that every "interpretation" of an apaurusheya scripture must be as valid and as "apaurusheya" as every other. Don't you think it's a bit presumptuous to assume that those who don't agree with you fail to do so because of sectarian bias? As if there was no way they could have legitimate doubts about your interpretations to begin with...



Leave aside, Uttar Gita. I posted Shruti texts too. Why did you keep silent against those if you are really sincere ? Are they not saying the same thing that Uttar Gita said ? You have not uttered a single word against them. I am waiting to hear you say, "Oh, I have really never heard any of them. These too appear to be obscure and of disputed authority ! ... and you know ... when I have not heard of them ... there must be many who might not have heard of them !! "

You provided translations from 7 different Upanishads, none of them being the principle Upanishads commented on by Shankaraachaarya or any major sampradaya commentators. Furthermore, you failed to provide verse numbers for at least 4 of them, apparently because you did not want me to cross-examine the evidence to check them against the context. Finally, it's really not clear to me why you felt the need to gloss over the pramaanas I quoted from Shvetaashvatara and Brihadaaranyaka (and which are accepted by everyone) and instead quote these less well-known texts. But be that as it may, and with the caveat that I've not yet examined the context, I don't see any serious issues for non-Advaitic points of view in any of those translations as posted except for possibly the one alleged to be from jAbAlI upaniShad. As far as that one is concerned, I'd have to look at the context.

But again, I'm not sure there is any point to further discussion, since it seems that in order to be eligible to discuss any interpretation with you, I have to first accept that Advaita only is correct.

regards,

philosoraptor

philosoraptor
03 June 2012, 08:06 PM
I retract my objection about the lack of verse numbers for those Upanishads. Evidently, those are very short 5-6 mantra Upanishads, hence no need for number to find the relevant mantras.

Nevertheless, my other doubts remain.

regards,

devotee
03 June 2012, 11:32 PM
Dear Phil, I won't engage with you ever in a discussion now onwards. However, sometimes I feel that you may be sincere but you have not read majority of scriptures. Keeping that in mind I would advise that if you want to understand the message of VedAnta as it conveys (without being influenced by Shankara, Ramanajum, etc.) my advice would be that you read all the 108 Upanishads yourself. Better if you can get Sanskrit versions of those. I have Sanskrit versions available of all 108 Upanishads and whenever I have doubts I refer the Sanskrit version.

After reading them, you accept whatever appeals to you. I have no desire that you accept Advaita version of scriptures. A few answers to your objections :

a) There is nothing like major Upanishads or minor Upanishads unless they are dubious in origin (108 Upanishads have been considered the main Upanishads in MuktikA Upanishad. However, nearly 200 Upanishads are considered authentic and authoritative.). ShankarAcharyA didn't live long enough to write bhAsya on all Upanishads. We can't blame him for not wrintig bhasya on Uttar Gita or smaller Upanishads. The Vaishnava saints have chosen only those Upanishads ( may be some which supported their views) which were commented upon by Shankara in order to refute Shankara's claims.

b) The reason that I have not engaged in a discussion on already commented Upanishads was that enough material is already available from both Advaita and non-Advaita sides for all those Upanishads. So, my discussion with you is not going to bring out anything new as every side would have enough ammunition to fight. I chose these Upanishads because we can apply our minds without being affected by the commentary of the different AchAryas.

Again, these 7 are not the only Upanishads which claim so. There are a number of such references in many Upanishads. If you read them you would know yourself.

c) I have no desire that you or anyone should accept Advaitic interpretation of texts. In fact, VedAnta (there are verses) prohibits imparting Advaitic teachings to unripe minds. Also, what would I gain or lose whether you accept or not accept it ?

However, the way you have discussed did leave me shocked :

i) You are translating Sarvagatah and achalah in your own way. Though you accept that Sarvagatah means available in all elements ... but you are not sure the self which is in you ... how it is there in other object too ? Because, if your self is available in anything else, the individuality of self goes for a six.

ii) You are taking a verse from an Upanishad which talks about Jeeva (the verse itself says so) and start applying to AtmA. Perhaps you have misunderstood, "Jeeva's relative existence is not denied by Advaita". This body is called the sthula sharira and Jeeva the shUkshma sharira ... both are shariras and destructible. The essence is the Atma and that alone is indestructible, achalah and sarvagatah.

iii) Not only that, you said, "As Jeeva is subtle and 'atomised' (?) and therefore it is indestructible." ... and so forcefully ... QED ??? Petrol after getting atomised becomes much more combustible ... how being subtle can be the cause of indestructibility ?

Please try to find out if any of the authoritative texts say that Jeeva is indestructible, achalah or sarvagatah. Please find the text which talks about Jeeva without any doubt and not about AtmA.

iii) Uttar Gita has not been challenged even by the Vaishnava saints and yet you went after it like none else. Your claim that "If you don't know about it ... it was an obscure scripture and has dubious authority" was too arrogant.

You again quipped, " and by no one else" when I said that Uttar Gita was held in high esteem by all Advaitins. So much of ahamkAr won't lead you to anywhere. How can you claim "and by no one else" ? Have you taken census of what everyone feels about it ?

Finally, before I leave, I would reiterate :

I don't rely on what Shankara or anyone said for the interpretation of the scriptures. People have tried to find extraordinary meanings in words where there is simple message in the Upanishads and that include some of the great Acharyas too. Perhaps I should not say so against them but that is what I found when I read all the Upanishads one by one.

Thanks and bye ...

OM

philosoraptor
04 June 2012, 05:07 PM
Pranams devotee,



i) You are translating Sarvagatah and achalah in your own way.


I've done nothing of the sort. I have merely understood the terms within their context of gItA chapter 2, especially gItA 2.12 which speaks of our eternal existence in the plural case.


Though you accept that Sarvagatah means available in all elements ... but you are not sure the self which is in you ... how it is there in other object too ? Because, if your self is available in anything else, the individuality of self goes for a six.

"the self which is in you" is a somewhat ambiguous statement without clarifying the terms involved. "you" cannot refer to the body, because the body by itself has no consciousness and is achit. I am a jIvAtma within a body. The self that is within me is the paramAtma, and He is present within every jIvAtma. I (the jIvAtma) am only present within my body. But the paramAtma who is present inside me is present inside all other jIvAtmas and their bodies also.



ii) You are taking a verse from an Upanishad which talks about Jeeva (the verse itself says so) and start applying to AtmA.

There are two kinds of Atmas - paramAtma and jIvAtma. The verse from Shvetaashvatara Upanishad 5.9 is clearly referring to the latter and states that its dimensions are 1/100th of 1/100th the tip of a hair. QED the Upanishads acknowledge the existence of the self (jIva) as a particle-like, non-material entity.


Perhaps you have misunderstood, "Jeeva's relative existence is not denied by Advaita". This body is called the sthula sharira and Jeeva the shUkshma sharira ... both are shariras and destructible.

Please cite the pramAna proving that jIva is destructible or loses its individual existence. I would appreciate something from mainstream sources. Thanks.


The essence is the Atma and that alone is indestructible, achalah and sarvagatah.

I rechecked, and Gita 2.12 still says, "Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor your, nor any of these kings, nor in the future shall any of us cease to be." The most straightforward reading is that we are each one of us an eternal being. If Krishna meant to say that we are only eternal in the sense of being the one paramAtman that pervades everything, then this would have been the place to mention it. But He did not do so.



iii) Not only that, you said, "As Jeeva is subtle and 'atomised' (?) and therefore it is indestructible." ... and so forcefully ... QED ??? Petrol after getting atomised becomes much more combustible ... how being subtle can be the cause of indestructibility ?

Petrol is matter and subject to the laws governing the existence of matter. Jiiva by contrast belongs to a superior category as stated by Sri Krishna in gItA 7.5:
apareyam itas tvanyAM prakRtiM viddhi me parAm / jIvabhUtAM mahAbAho yayedaM dhAryate jagat //. Hence, it is not subject to the same laws governing such things as combustion of petrol or chemical reactions of atoms.



Please try to find out if any of the authoritative texts say that Jeeva is indestructible, achalah or sarvagatah. Please find the text which talks about Jeeva without any doubt and not about AtmA.

Shvetaashvatara Upanishad 5.9 clearly mentions "jIva" and establishes its particle-like (as opposed to all-pervasive) character. It further states that this jIva has to be known. That's a rather strange prescription to give about something that is ultimately destructible, don't you think? Furthermore, who does the knowing of the jIva if the jIva is (as per your opinion) ultimately destructible? It is implicit that the jIva exists eternally, otherwise the Upanishad would not have stressed the importance of knowing it.

The Katha Upanishad 2.2.13 speaks of one eternal amongst many eternals "nityo nityAnAM chetanashchetanAnAM eko bahUnAM yo vidadhAti kAmAn..." Now, if you follow Advaita, you would probably interpret the mantra as "nityo anityAnAM..." but the previous mantra indicates that the wise ones realize His presence within all beings and thus gain eternal bliss. How could they (plural) get eternal bliss if they lose their individual existence? And how would knowing of His existence within temporary, destructible entities lead one to gaining eternal bliss? It makes more sense to infer that the beings in whom the paramAtma dwells are eternal.


iii) Uttar Gita has not been challenged even by the Vaishnava saints and yet you went after it like none else. Your claim that "If you don't know about it ... it was an obscure scripture and has dubious authority" was too arrogant.


I merely stated that it carried less weight in Vedaantic discourse than the Bhagavad-Gita, as evidenced by the fact that almost every tradition has quoted from or commented on the latter, and few have done so for the former. While we're on the subject, I'm not aware of any Advaitins challenging the authority of the Tamil Divya Prabandham. So once again (second time), would you accept quotes from the Divya Prabandham as authoritative, bearing in mind that Sri Vaishnavas regard it as totally consistent with shruti, just as you expected me to accept quotes from the Uttar-Gita because Advaitins says it is consistent with shruti? And if you don't, does that make you, in your own words, "arrogant?"

Hopefully you don't think it unreasonable to insist on one standard of epistemology for Vedantic discussions.



I don't rely on what Shankara or anyone said for the interpretation of the scriptures.


In that case, when you read a statement that says "There never was a time when I did not exist, you did not exist, nor all these beings not exist, nor in the future will we ever cease to be" which of the following conclusions is most likely to result from an objective, non-Shankara-relying mode of analysis:

(a) We are all individual, eternal beings.
(b) We are all one, eternal being.

I think it would be interesting to put this question to neutral (non-Hindu) persons who do not know the Gita, just to see what their gut reaction would be to such a statement, wouldn't you?

regards,

shiv.somashekhar
05 June 2012, 04:14 PM
Please cite the pramAna proving that jIva is destructible or loses its individual existence. I would appreciate something from mainstream sources. Thanks.

....


I rechecked, and Gita 2.12 still says, "Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor your, nor any of these kings, nor in the future shall any of us cease to be." The most straightforward reading is that we are each one of us an eternal being. If Krishna meant to say that we are only eternal in the sense of being the one paramAtman that pervades everything, then this would have been the place to mention it. But He did not do so.

Forgive the interruption. Without taking sides, I have a couple of points here.

1. On the Gita 2.12 being a good place for Krishna to be clear, that is not how it works, which is precisely why this discussion exists. If the author was clear to the point where there was no room for ambiguity, then there would be zero interpretations of the Gita and not a dozen different ones and therefore, this discussion would never have started.

2. It is also not necessary that the text by itself be comprehensive and complete. If that were the case, it would not be necessary to have the Trayi nor would there be the need for ten different Upanishads. Shankara felt it necessary to bring in a full set of scripture and quote a in b's commentary and b in c's commentary and so on. So did Ramanuja and Madhva which makes it clear that none of these texts can stand by themselves in defining any of the Vedanta doctrines.

3. On the permanence of Jiva's identity, an advaitin would for example, quote the Brhadaranyaka where Yajnavalkya compares it all to a lump of salt dissolving in water. Now this may be interpreted in multiple ways, but the Advaitin interpretation has an equal standing among others. And with the advaitin interpretation of this text, it is easy to interpret Gita 2.12 as a reference to the single Brahman.

philosoraptor
05 June 2012, 05:27 PM
Forgive the interruption. Without taking sides, I have a couple of points here.

1. On the Gita 2.12 being a good place for Krishna to be clear, that is not how it works, which is precisely why this discussion exists. If the author was clear to the point where there was no room for ambiguity, then there would be zero interpretations of the Gita and not a dozen different ones and therefore, this discussion would never have started.

The Gita was spoken to remove Arjuna's doubt with the essence of Upanishadic wisdom. One would expect a certain degree of clarity given the nature of the conversation, the shorter interval in which it took place, and the audience (warriors instead of sages). This is not to say that every verse is crystal clear by our standards, but in cases where there is little ambiguity to begin with(as in Gita 2.12), it is difficult to accept forced interpretations to replace a straightforward meaning. Especially when there is no good reason to discard the more straightforward meaning in the first place.

Again, I would be very interested to know how most people would take that statement as spoken. I just don't think most people would read that and say, "ah-hah, clearly we are all one eternal soul!" More to the point, I just don't see how the warriors on the Kurkshetra battlefield, who were all about to fight each other, would have understood it that way.


2. It is also not necessary that the text by itself be comprehensive and complete.

I don't think anyone claimed that it was.



3. On the permanence of Jiva's identity, an advaitin would for example, quote the Brhadaranyaka where Yajnavalkya compares it all to a lump of salt dissolving in water. Now this may be interpreted in multiple ways, but the Advaitin interpretation has an equal standing among others. And with the advaitin interpretation of this text, it is easy to interpret Gita 2.12 as a reference to the single Brahman.

Several shruti quotes already provided by me earlier indicate the existence of a plurality of eternal souls. So, to summarize, we have bedha shrutis which Advaitins will interpret to support abedha, abedha shrutis which non-Advaitins will intepret to support bedha, and the gItA which supports the bedha viewpoint with its clear reference to eternal existence of a plural number of living entities. But, nevermind that. We're going to ignore the straightforward meaning of the gItA on the authority of abedha shrutis, and then reinterpret the bedha shrutis in a similar vein. Gone from this discussion is any explanation of why the straightforward meaning was unacceptable to begin with.

Added to this are the multiple claims by Sri Krishna (see 7th chapter, 9th chapter, etc) that He is teaching the full knowledge, most confidential/king of all knowledge etc (j~nAnaM te 'haM savij~nAnam in gItA 7.2 and idaM tu te guhyatamaM in gItA 9.1) yet we never see a clear statement by Sri Krishna to the effect of, "Do not grieve, Arjuna, because you are in reality Me. We are both the same Brahman. Only because of illusion do you think we are two different beings."

This is why I think many seekers who are trying to understand vedAnta have trouble accepting Advaita as its obvious conclusion. It's not because of the presumption that it's just "difficult to understand." It's because it does not feel like a natural conclusion from all of the evidence.

regards,

shiv.somashekhar
05 June 2012, 06:17 PM
Gone from this discussion is any explanation of why the straightforward meaning was unacceptable to begin with.

1. There is no universally accepted "straight forward" meaning here. I read this verse as Krishna telling Arjuna that he always existed, which is absurd. Arjuna took birth and eventually died like anyone else. He was not *always*existing.

2. This raises the question of - when is a verse to be read literally and when does it require interpretation? The answer - in my opinion, depends entirely on the context. If one is reading the Gita in isolation with no context of a doctrine, then no interpretation is required. But if one is reading it in the context of a doctrine such as Advaita or Dvaita, then if the literal reading of the verse aligns with the doctrine, then go with it (also criticize opponents for not being literal). If the literal reading does not quite align, then it calls for interpretation. That is, the verse needs to be interpreted to make it part of a coherent whole.

This rule is not specific to Advaita and is followed by everyone. All authors who setup new doctrines have engaged in interpretation - as necessary - to produce that homogenous system. If they restricted themselves to literal readings, they would not have gotten anywhere. So it is not the case that the scripture leads to the doctrine; it is the other way around. The doctrine was defined first and the scripture was then read/interpreted to be an exact match.


Added to this are the multiple claims by Sri Krishna (see 7th chapter, 9th chapter, etc) that He is teaching the full knowledge, most confidential/king of all knowledge etc (j~nAnaM te 'haM savij~nAnam in gItA 7.2 and idaM tu te guhyatamaM in gItA 9.1) yet we never see a clear statement by Sri Krishna to the effect of, "Do not grieve, Arjuna, because you are in reality Me. We are both the same Brahman. Only because of illusion do you think we are two different beings."

From a vedanta perspective, no such statement is necessary. The requirement is the trayi to be interpreted consistently and Shankara acheived that. He successfully read and interpreted all their content to mean atman = brahman.


This is why I think many seekers who are trying to understand vedAnta have trouble accepting Advaita as its obvious conclusion. It's not because of the presumption that it's just "difficult to understand." It's because it does not feel like a natural conclusion from all of the evidence.

That position belies reality. Advaita has always been and continues to be the dominant vedanta tradition. But I must also add, that the majority of the people belonging to vedanta sampradayas have little or no knowledge of the intricacies of their systems. They mostly dwell on the ritualistic parts such as how to wear the nama, puja procedures, fasting on ekadashi and so on.

Modern people who try learn advaita rarely seem to be reading any of Shankara's works. Instead, they read Vivekananda or Ramana or else it is free web pages - none of which are good options for understanding Shankara's advaita - in my opinion. And then we have rival groups like ISKCON and others, who, without ever reading a single line of Advaita and without quoting a single reference, are able to write pages of criticism on the subject!

philosoraptor
05 June 2012, 07:23 PM
1. There is no universally accepted "straight forward" meaning here. I read this verse as Krishna telling Arjuna that he always existed, which is absurd. Arjuna took birth and eventually died like anyone else. He was not *always*existing.

But that reading ignores the context - later in the chapter Krishna compares the changing of bodies to changing of clothes. So the most obvious reading of Gita 2.12 is that the beings then known as Arjuna, Drona, Duryodhana, etc always existed. Not that they are all one entity, or that they always existed as Arjuna, Drona, Duryodhana...



2. This raises the question of - when is a verse to be read literally and when does it require interpretation? The answer - in my opinion, depends entirely on the context. If one is reading the Gita in isolation with no context of a doctrine, then no interpretation is required. But if one is reading it in the context of a doctrine such as Advaita or Dvaita, then if the literal reading of the verse aligns with the doctrine, then go with it (also criticize opponents for not being literal). If the literal reading does not quite align, then it calls for interpretation. That is, the verse needs to be interpreted to make it part of a coherent whole.

Here is where I'd disagree. It's not enough that the given verse doesn't gel with one's personal doctrine. It should be interpreted if the apparent meaning doesn't seem consistent with its local context, and/or consistent with the global corpus of Vedaantic evidence. Certainly an intepretation may be called for if its apparent meaning suggests something we know from experience is not true. To me, the strength of a system of interpretation lies in how often it reinterprets precisely for these reasons, as opposed to how often it interprets because an otherwise plausible meaning just doesn't fit their bias. I also think that conservative interpretations are generally more preferable to far-fetched ones that require additional assumptions not precisely elaborated in the texts.



Added to this are the multiple claims by Sri Krishna (see 7th chapter, 9th chapter, etc) that He is teaching the full knowledge, most confidential/king of all knowledge etc (j~nAnaM te 'haM savij~nAnam in gItA 7.2 and idaM tu te guhyatamaM in gItA 9.1) yet we never see a clear statement by Sri Krishna to the effect of, "Do not grieve, Arjuna, because you are in reality Me. We are both the same Brahman. Only because of illusion do you think we are two different beings."

From a vedanta perspective, no such statement is necessary. The requirement is the trayi to be interpreted consistently and Shankara acheived that. He successfully read and interpreted all their content to mean atman = brahman.

Every commentator reads the statements of the trayi in a consistent way. That doesn't help the seeker who is trying to know what the truth is. Nor does it help one who wants to know what the speaker of the statements was really trying to say. A seeker cannot be asked to accept all three systems as equally valid, since they contradict each other on many fundamental points.

For me, an outsider to all three traditions, I look for how well the interpretation best captures the feel of the text. It is not reasonable to expect me to accept that Sri Krishna would neglect to mention that trivial point about us all being the same Atman, when He claimed to be teaching the "king of all knowledge" and "the most confidential of secrets."



That position belies reality. Advaita has always been and continues to be the dominant vedanta tradition. But I must also add, that the majority of the people belonging to vedanta sampradayas have little or no knowledge of the intricacies of their systems.

Which, I would argue, is one of the reasons why Advaita continues to be a dominant vedanta tradition. I would also add that, if you subract out the watered-down, feel-good, neo-Advaitin off-shoots, you are left with a far less dominant Advaita. In fact, if you subtracted out those who claim to follow a tradition only by accident of birth, you are probably left with a very tiny minority of scholars in each sampradaya.



Modern people who try learn advaita rarely seem to be reading any of Shankara's works.


That's true. I have Shankaras Gita commentary, his brama-sutra commentary, all of his upanishad commentaries, and few other writings credited to him, and I refererence them often. But then again, my priorities may be different, since I don't feel constrained to refute/accept him/anyone else based on pre-existing sectarian affiliation.

regards,

shiv.somashekhar
05 June 2012, 08:24 PM
But that reading ignores the context - later in the chapter Krishna compares the changing of bodies to changing of clothes....

That is the point. So it is clear then, that the verse cannot be read literally - not without the aid of other verses.

Once this has been established, then the question is how far do we reach out (from the verse) to get its correct meaning? The scope would be purely arbitrary; scope to +/- five verses, scope to the chapter, scope to the text, scope to the trayi. The traditional vedanta guru has used trayi scope - that is, it is sufficient if the verse can be interpreted to be consistent with the big picture. It is not the case that it should make sense by itself nor within the chaper nor within the text.

More later....

philosoraptor
08 June 2012, 07:23 PM
That is the point. So it is clear then, that the verse cannot be read literally - not without the aid of other verses.

Once this has been established, then the question is how far do we reach out (from the verse) to get its correct meaning? The scope would be purely arbitrary; scope to +/- five verses, scope to the chapter, scope to the text, scope to the trayi. The traditional vedanta guru has used trayi scope - that is, it is sufficient if the verse can be interpreted to be consistent with the big picture. It is not the case that it should make sense by itself nor within the chaper nor within the text.

More later....

I really don't see why this is a big issue, or why we need to establish some hard and fast rule about scope. We all read books from time to time, and we all have to use context to interpret individual sentences. We start with an implicit assumption that the author has a main idea and isn't going to contradict himself in one part of the book compared to another part.

Obviously, when I speak of "reading literally," I'm not talk about excluding context. On the contrary, I've pointed out elsewhere on these forums that being too literal can sometimes lead you to a wrong meaning in some places.

The most straightforward reading of Gita 2.12 is that we are all eternal living beings. To go from this statement, as written, to the idea that we are all eternal only in the sense of being *one* being, requires extensive reinterpretation which detracts from the straightforward feel of the verse. Again, noting this particular weakness of Advaita with regard to bedha shrutis, I will also note a similar doubt I have about Dvaita and its treatment of many abedha shrutis. But none of this is to disparage the scholars of either system, nor is it it to tell anyone else what they should believe. These are merely my doubts as a seeker, based on what I know of each system of thinking at this point in my search (and my knowledge of both is likely to change as I read more).

regards,

Omkara
04 October 2012, 09:04 PM
Pranams,



I've never heard of an "Uttar Gita." Perhaps my knowledge of scripture is limited, but I'm guessing that if I've not heard of it, many others have not heard of it either. Certainly it is neither shruti, not is it even a part of Shankaraachaarya's prasthAna-trayi. What would be the point of quoting a scripture which only Advaitins accept to convince someone who is not an Advaitin? Especially when we were talking about other mainstream shrutis which you did not like me bringing up? I'm just going to hazard a guess here, and hopefully you won't take it as me denying you your right to interpret scripture. Isn't the real reason for quoting Uttar-Gita the fact that you have to extensively re-interpret the Bhagavad-Gita and the Upanishads to bring them in line with Advaita philosophy, while Uttar-Gita appears to say exactly what you want it to say without the need for interpretation?



Right. One has to realize the infinite Brahman. So, nothing obviously Advaitic about Shvetaashvatara Upanishad 5.9, and certainly nothing to refute the particle-like character of the jIva that is described therein. :-)



I'm aware of this point of view. In fact, I used to believe in Advaita. Until, that is, I read the Bhagavad-Gita. I've since read several translations of the same, including A.G. Warrier's translation of Shankaraachaarya's commentary. The idea that Sri Krishna was teaching all along that bodies and jIvas are merely illusory and only one undifferentiated Brahman exists, does not really come out from an objective reading of the text. I can think of a few Gita shlokas taken out of context which sound very Advaitic, but not when read as part of the whole teaching. And unlike the Upanishads, which I would expect to have some cryptic meanings, I would have expected something like the Gita be relatively straightforward in spelling out the truth, being that it was spoken on a battlefield before an audience of soliders instead of a gathering of sages. But then again, that could just be because I'm a simple-minded guy. :-)

regards,

philosoraptor

Hi, a link here to Uttara Gita.I do not think it can be considered a pramana though.

http://www.celextel.org/othervedantabooks/uttaragita.html

I have read it quoted by Ramanandis though.

zuikification
31 May 2013, 11:01 AM
There is an ancient saying: "you told me once, I believed you. You told me twice, I started to doubt you. You told me many times, I disbelieved you". That was exactly my experience with the Bhativedanta purports: you can meet this claim that they are right and the "mayavadis" are wrong almost on every page. Even this fact alone raises suspicions. Any newcomer to Iskcon will learn among the very first things how smart are the dualist commentaries of their guru and how stupid the "mayavadis" are. I mean, if they are so right, why reiterate it on almost every page and in every lecture? My inevitable conclusion after hearing it drummed into my head almost daily for many years was that probably they are NOT so absolutely right after all, and they push their dualist philosophy so uncompromisimgly and aggressively while bashing the Advaitins ("mayavadis") so intensely out of their own deep insecurity and doubt. After all, the Vedic striptures are quire ambiguous on this issue: you can find a lot of quotations to support the dualistic as well as monistic philosophy. Therefore, it seems to be no wonder for me, that hare krishnas never actually allow their followers to study the actual 4 Vedas or 108 Upanishads (even though they do not forget to mention on every occasion that they propagate the most pure, original and untainted "Vedic" teachings) However, in practice only 3 Vedic scriptures with heavily biased commentaries of their guru are actually studied (Bhagavad Gita, Bhagavata Purana and Sri Isopanisada - out of hundreds!!! - and out of them obly one - Isha upanishada - a tiny book - is a real "scripture" from the category of Sruti). Strange kind of "Vedic philosophy" without ever having studied the Vedas themselves :) That is probably because they are afraid that any unbiased and unbrainwashed learner will find for himself what the original scriptures actually say on the ultimate unity or duality between God and man. Therefore they need the heavily biased commentaries on the very few scriptures that they actually allow their followers to read.


In contrast, my impression was that many Advaitins feel much more relaxed and confident and do not feel the urge to repeat in every publication of theirs that only their interpretations are right and the Hare Krishnas are wrong or unintelligent. At least I have never seen such claims in their books. On the contrary, I have seen that many Advaitins acknowledge that the Truth can be multifaceted and go by many names: therefore one can approach it as a dualist, pluralist, qualified monist or as an Advaitin and that all paths ultimately lead to the same goal, since all is ultimately One. After realizing this, how is it possible to feel insecure and threatened by rivalling sect's teachings? Meanwhile, petty and nitpicking narrow-minded doctrinaires are full of deep inner doubt and insecurity and therefore feel the strong need to concoct all kinds of "proofs" in order to make themselves and others believe that they are right and Advaitins are wrong. However, even the Gaudiyas' founder Chaitanya Mahapraabhu propounded the doctrine of "achintya bhedabheda" (inconceavable oneness and difference between the soul and God) which has a potential to reconcile both Advaitins (monists) and Dvaitins (dualists) without the need to fight or elevate one side of the debate at the cost of the other, since God is unlimited and beyond our hairsplitting, He can be both one and separate. Unfortunately, while paying lip service to this beautiful and all-inclusive philosophical principle, many narrow-minded sectarians propound the Hindu version of Jehovah's Witnessism :(

I do not know, maybe I am being too judgmental towards Iskcon, but that was my experience from spending many years under the influence of their doctrines...

hinduism♥krishna
09 July 2013, 01:16 PM
There is an ancient saying: "you told me once, I believed you. You told me twice, I started to doubt you. You told me many times, I disbelieved you". That was exactly my experience with the Bhativedanta purports: you can meet this claim that they are right and the "mayavadis" are wrong almost on every page. Even this fact alone raises suspicions. Any newcomer to Iskcon will learn among the very first things how smart are the dualist commentaries of their guru and how stupid the "mayavadis" are. I mean, if they are so right, why reiterate it on almost every page and in every lecture? My inevitable conclusion after hearing it drummed into my head almost daily for many years was that probably they are NOT so absolutely right after all, and they push their dualist philosophy so uncompromisimgly and aggressively while bashing the Advaitins ("mayavadis") so intensely out of their own deep insecurity and doubt. After all, the Vedic striptures are quire ambiguous on this issue: you can find a lot of quotations to support the dualistic as well as monistic philosophy. Therefore, it seems to be no wonder for me, that hare krishnas never actually allow their followers to study the actual 4 Vedas or 108 Upanishads (even though they do not forget to mention on every occasion that they propagate the most pure, original and untainted "Vedic" teachings) However, in practice only 3 Vedic scriptures with heavily biased commentaries of their guru are actually studied (Bhagavad Gita, Bhagavata Purana and Sri Isopanisada - out of hundreds!!! - and out of them obly one - Isha upanishada - a tiny book - is a real "scripture" from the category of Sruti). Strange kind of "Vedic philosophy" without ever having studied the Vedas themselves :) That is probably because they are afraid that any unbiased and unbrainwashed learner will find for himself what the original scriptures actually say on the ultimate unity or duality between God and man. Therefore they need the heavily biased commentaries on the very few scriptures that they actually allow their followers to read.


In contrast, my impression was that many Advaitins feel much more relaxed and confident and do not feel the urge to repeat in every publication of theirs that only their interpretations are right and the Hare Krishnas are wrong or unintelligent. At least I have never seen such claims in their books. On the contrary, I have seen that many Advaitins acknowledge that the Truth can be multifaceted and go by many names: therefore one can approach it as a dualist, pluralist, qualified monist or as an Advaitin and that all paths ultimately lead to the same goal, since all is ultimately One. After realizing this, how is it possible to feel insecure and threatened by rivalling sect's teachings? Meanwhile, petty and nitpicking narrow-minded doctrinaires are full of deep inner doubt and insecurity and therefore feel the strong need to concoct all kinds of "proofs" in order to make themselves and others believe that they are right and Advaitins are wrong. However, even the Gaudiyas' founder Chaitanya Mahapraabhu propounded the doctrine of "achintya bhedabheda" (inconceavable oneness and difference between the soul and God) which has a potential to reconcile both Advaitins (monists) and Dvaitins (dualists) without the need to fight or elevate one side of the debate at the cost of the other, since God is unlimited and beyond our hairsplitting, He can be both one and separate. Unfortunately, while paying lip service to this beautiful and all-inclusive philosophical principle, many narrow-minded sectarians propound the Hindu version of Jehovah's Witnessism :(

I do not know, maybe I am being too judgmental towards Iskcon, but that was my experience from spending many years under the influence of their doctrines...

Hari govinda ॐ

NAMSTE.
I read your post and i want to tell you that i experienced the same.
I was with iskcon for one year .According to my experience , on every page of iskcon gita, you will find two main statements, one is "krishna is supreme god " and other is "advaitians are foolish and devils, advaita theory is very harmful for spiritual progress , they loose their existence by merging self in partial blissful bramhan and in this way they do spiritual suicide , krishna is higher than bramhan." These all what i quoted in other is indeed false. Their key to spread kc is to disprove advaita and repeatedly saying "only we are authentic ".
AFTER reading insultations on advaitians i was sure that these people are not true devotees. True devotees of lord krishna can not insult others.
Later on, i started to read upanishadas, gita and bhagavt purana with original authentic translation of sanskrit verses, at that time i amazed, i came to know that these all scriptures are telling only oneness of atma and bramha with direct and indirect means.
Also, Most vedic scholars see iskcon as non-vedic organization as it accept krishna higher than bramhan.

Hari govinda ॐ hari

philosoraptor
09 July 2013, 06:27 PM
Later on, i started to read upanishadas, gita and bhagavt purana with original authentic translation of sanskrit verses,

Namaste,

Given that you don't know Sanskrit (by your own admission), how exactly do you know what constitutes an "authentic translation?"

hinduism♥krishna
25 July 2013, 08:44 AM
Namaste,

Given that you don't know Sanskrit (by your own admission), how exactly do you know what constitutes an "authentic translation?"

Namaste,
I know sanskrit and I learned it in school days.
Please don't ask such questions? I said I referred authentic translations and checked it whether it is correct or not.
And yes I m not master in sanskrit to translate it at my own :-)
My mothertongue is marathi whose grammar is similar as that of sanskrit. So I don't have any difficulty in studying sanskrit.
:D and also I m from bramhan family.

Jai shri hari :D

Sudas Paijavana
25 July 2013, 08:51 AM
delete

hinduism♥krishna
25 July 2013, 09:22 AM
Deleted

jthomasnaz
25 July 2013, 11:24 AM
Since all things are pieces of our creator- it will not matter if he is expressed as singular or plural-because you if you look at the total of him-he is one creator.