Adi Sankaracharya's Abrahamic Tendencies

[philosoraptor]

There have been devotees who wanted to be the Lord's stepping stone in his altar (for devotees to step on) so there is nothing wrong with that.

Well said!

[ShriBala]

There have been devotees who wanted to be the Lord's stepping stone in his altar (for devotees to step on) so there is nothing wrong with that.

Scholarship might evolve into great and dedicated bhakti too..

Those devotees were filled with bhakti bhava and not aham bhava .

Scholarship does not mean putting down others and for the sheer purpose of ridiculing them. The great acharyas including Shri Ramanujacharya never insulted others whom they might have trumped in an argument. They respected the others' right to their own beliefs even if they didn't subscribe to them.

Not only are their philosophical teachings important for us but also their bhakti bhava, humility and love for others.

[Amrut]

Namaste,

If I remember, Advaita Ashram is of swami Vivekananda, whos guru was Sri Ramakrishna. You do not believe in both. So why would you read a commentary of them?

that pdf is around 84 mb and more than 900 pages. It takes time to load and contains commentary of 8 acharyas.

but then, keeping the vishnu part aside, when you know sanskrit, why would you read english translation?

Brother, please can you let me know which path are you following.

Aum

[devotee]

My dear Ramkrishna,

This is going to be enlightening moment for you to understand what a Kutarka is : See below :

I and Indiaspirituality have confirmed in our posts what Shankara actually wrote in Sanskrit originally. I have even provided English translation done from the Original Sanskrit text. We have also offered that as Phil himself knows Sanskrit (as per his own claim), he can very well verify the truth by referring to the exact version what Shankra actually wrote. However, by Phil's logic, a translation done by a third person is more reliable than the original text of the author himself !

Pranams. Swami Gambhirananda belongs to the Advaita Ashram, and so I do not think one can accuse him of sectarian bias, if one believes Advaita to be non-sectarian.

By the way, I have a translation of the commentary of madhusUdhana sarasvatI, also an advaitin, and Swami Gambhirananda translates it the same way.

This is a rare opportunity when you can have a broad smile on your face during a serious discussion. I am tempted to tell you a story :

A retired Government Official suddenly found that his pension is not being deposited in his account. So, he goes and sees the officer concerned to check what the matter is. The officer checks the record and says, "As per our records, you are died on xx/xx/xx date. So, the pension has stopped". The retired official was bewildered. He retorted, "But you can very well see that I am alive". Without being affected even a little bit by this, the officer said, "Are you mad ? How can the Government records be wrong "?

I will reply to the rest of Phil's post later.

OM

[Sahasranama]

I have downloaded a copy in sanskrit to check the word whether Vishnu is written in sanskrit in either verses 9:23 and 9:24

source:

http://archive.org/details/SrimadBha...es-WlsPansikar

EDIT: Go to page 441 - 442. (The actual page no printed is 432 and 433, but that page in pdf file is 441-442)

I also checked hindi commentaries (of shankar bhasya) by some saints like Swami Ramsukhdasji (who was worshipper of bhagavan Ram), Sri Harikrishandas Goenka, Swami Chinmayananda, Swami Tejomayananda

The dino is right, the word vaishnavA is there which is derived from Vishnu.

The objections raised here by the neo advaitins are tiresome.

[devotee]

Namaste Sahas,

I don't think you are so much against the "Neo-Adavitins" that you started supporting even the proven wrong quotes. Yes, the word Vaishnava is mentioned in the commentary but not in the verses quoted by Phil. Phil has given a translation which shows Vishnu being written in the commentary of the verses quoted by him which is not there. In fact, the whole translation is significantly different than the actual text.

Use of the word "Vaishnava" is aptly done by Shankara where it is used. I can prove you that but we are not discussing that at this moment.

OM

[Amrut]

The dino is right, the word vaishnavA is there which is derived from Vishnu.

The objections raised here by the neo advaitins are tiresome.

Namaste,

What made you think I am Neo Vedantin?

If I understand correctly, Swami Gambhirananda is from Advaita Ashram, which is an Ashram build by Monks of Ramakrishna Order. Sri Ramakrishna did not himself build any ashram. first ashram dedicated to Sri Ramakrishna was built by Swami Vivekananda. So who is neo-vedantin. I remember that you have said in one thread that Vivekananda has to be avoided like a plague.

As I understand both OP and you do not like neo-vedanta. Op in one thread has even said that he does not trust Sri Ramakrishna. So why look for info from their ashram, be it advaita (according to you and OP, it should be a neo-advaita and not pure advaita, as vivekananda has brought Neo-vedanta - right)

Unless my assumption is wrong about the ashram, OP is contradicting his own statements.

If this is the case, then why are you trusting it?

Can you please go to the sanskrit commentary. I do not say anymore. If the word vishnu or narayana or krushna is there, it is there. If it is not it is not.

What i mean is that we have to go to the basics and if sanskrit translation is available, why not go for it, specially when OP and you know sanskrit.

I also said that I am not a sanskrit scholar, so knowledgeable people can throw some light on it.

What I am talking about is the consistency of OP. At one time philospraptor ji says I do not trust Sri Ramakrishna. In the same thread, he took time to explain neo-vedanta of Swami Vivekananda (I thank him as i was unaware of neo-vedanta philosophy at that time, and had requested him), then you quote from a saint of Ramakrishna order.

I humbly requested to go to basics, as I am aware that Philosoraptor is learned in sanskrit.

I never said, THERE IS NO SUCH WORD AS VISHNU' I simply said, 'I did not find it'

Since OP has replied in a way that he thinks commentary by Swami Gambhirananda is authentic, so what is the path is he practicing and does he follow Sri Ramakrishna or vivekananda's neo-advaita? I think it is fair to ask for clarification, to clear doubts, not to fight.

I hope I have made my stand clear.

Still if you need anymore clarifications, please do let me know and i will try my best to clear them.

Aum
Indiaspirituality

[Amrut]

Regarding Madhusudhana Saraswati, If wikipedia article is correct, here is a quote

Follower of Bhakti Yoga
Madhusūdana sarasvatI was a great devotee of Lord krishna. Just like Appayya Dikshita, who integrated Sivadvaita into advaita vedanta, madhusūdana bridged the sAtvata school of Pancaratra Vaishnavism and Advaita Vedanta philosophy. It is also interesting to note that madhusUdana boldly differs from Adi Sankara in some of his interpretations of the Brahma Sutras and the gItA, although he salutes Adi Sankara and Suresvara in the most reverential terms. Tradition also recounts that viTThaleSa, the son of vallabhacharya of the Suddhadvaita school, studied under madhusūdana sarasvatI, who thus forms a crucial link between Advaita Vedanta and many vaishNava sects in the north.

Again *if* the article on wikipedia is correct, he was a bridge to vaishnav and advaita. While Op, does believe that both are mutually contradictory belief systems / paths

Journey from Dvaita to Advaita is interesting one.

Is A.G. Warrier realized? Can anyone give more info about him. A quick search did not fetch me some details about his life. Thank you.

EDIT: Even Swami Rama was once a Shankaracharya. My Friend Sahasranama likes him too much - dont mind.

Aum

[Amrut]

namaste,

Is there a difference between devas and Ishwara? I think both are sanskrit words. so if shankaracharya wanted, he could have written Ishwara in sanskrit instead of devas or written 'both except Krushna all other Ishwara and devatas ...'

But I see that OP is just trying to continue the discussion on the comment of Devotee from thread Does shruti ... , which I feel was mis-understood.

I see OP is trying to prove something, as I understand the base is wrong (i.e. misinterpreting words of devotee). I do not want to be a 'haddi' in your love affair with Devotee.I do not want to be a part of love triangle I will not gain anything from it to excel in spirituality.

==> Sahasranama, this time you are on time at party

Aum
Indiaspirituality

P.S. I am unsubscribing from this thread. So I will not get any more notifications.

[philosoraptor]

Namaste,

If I remember, Advaita Ashram is of swami Vivekananda, whos guru was Sri Ramakrishna. You do not believe in both. So why would you read a commentary of them?

Because it is shankarAchArya's commentary, not Vivekananda's commentary. I don't follow shankarAchArya either, but even I can readily spot the differences between the real advaita philosophy propagated by Adi shankara and the "new-and-improved" version which has caught hold of the imagination of so many modern Hindus.

I'm perfectly happy to concede that there is a mistranslation if someone can actually point it out and show me. This is why I always provide (and will continue to provide) verse numbers and/or the Sanskrit. I think it should be a standard when having these sorts of discussions. More to the point, many neo-advaitins clearly love Ramakrishna and Vivekananda, so they should not object to a translation of one of their followers on sectarian grounds. The fact that you have to hint that Swami Gambhirananda has mistranslated the commentary according to sectarian Vaishnava grounds even after acknowledging him to be an Advaita ashram member just shows your desperation.

As of this writing, this thread has apparently been moved to the "Jalpa If you must pointless argue with others...." forum. It is unfortunate that it is regarded that way by some. After senior members opined that those great AchAryas who accepted deva-hierarchy are "fit for Abrahamic religions," I felt some education was in order. So far, I have shown that Adi shankarAchArya has commented on several key verses in ways that are identical to those "Abrahamic" scholars, but there has been very little outcry against Adi shankarAchArya. Why this double-standard? It is because of an attitude among uninformed Hindus, based on bad experiences with Christianity and Islam, that theism is somehow by the very fact militant and fundamentalist, while Hinduism is somehow non-theistic and all-accepting. Adi shankara is often hailed as the great leader who taught this great doctrine of all gods being the same and all religions being true. This of course, is nothing more than propaganda. Hindu culture is beautiful as it is, and it does not need to be changed to accommodate those who lack the patience to study the source materials.

As for what path I am on, I've said it before in my intro - I'm a seeker. You don't have to be committed to a path in order to point out the facts and how well certain conclusions fit or don't fit the facts.

regards,