How To Win An Argument With An Advaitin

[Omkara]

Quote Parama Upanishad, which is cited by Madhvacharya and has been accepted as authentic by advaitin scholars like Madhusudhana Saraswati, Sayanacharya and Sridhara Swamin in their works-

jIvasya paramaikyaM tu buddhisArUpya ekasthAnanivAso vA vyaktisthAnamapex na svarUpaikatA tasya muktasyApi virU svAtantryapUrNate.alpatvapAratantrye vi- ******** iti paramashrutiH * ||

'The unity of jiva with the Lord consists of sameness of thought or it may mean dwelling in the same place. Such sameness of habitation is relative to some particular manifestation of the Lord. It is not unity of essential being. For even the released individual is different from him. The difference between the two lies in the Lord being independent and infinite and the individual being finite and dependent'. Such are the words of Parama-Sruti.

mithashcha jaDabhedo yaH prapaJNcho bhedapaJNchakaH | so.ayaM satyo hyanAdishcha sAdishchennAshamApnuyAt.h | na cha nAshaM prayAtyeshha na chAsau bhrAntikakalpitaH * | kalpitashchennivarteta na chAsau vinivartate * | dvaitaM na vidyata iti tasmAdaj~nAninAM matam.h * | mataM hi j~nAninAmetanmitaM trAtaM cha vishhNunA * | tasmAtsatyamiti proktaM paramo harireva tu" * ||- ******** iti paramashrutiH *

The Parama-sruti says: 'The universe consists of five differences. They are the difference between God and the individual self, that between God and insentient matter, that among individual selves, that between insentient matter and individual self and that among the material entities themselves. This is real and unoriginated. If it were originated, it would perish.But it does not perish. Nor is it a fabrication of illusion. If it were so, it would have disappeared.But it does not dissapear. Therefore, the view that there is no duality is the view of the ignorant. The view of the enlightened is that this world is comprehended and protected by Visnu. Therefore it is proclaimed to be real.'

vishhNuM sarvaguNaiH pUrNaM j~nAtvA saMsAravarjitaH | nirduHkhAnandabhuN^.hnityaM tatsamIpe sa modate * | muktAnAM chAshrayo vishhNuradhiko.adhipatistathA * | tadvashA eva te sarve sarvadaiva sa IshvaraH" ||-iti paramashrutiH *

The Parama-sruti says: 'He who knows Visnu as full of excellences, gets rid of samsara and becomes a enjoyer of painless bliss for all eternity. He rejoices in proximity to Visnu. Visnu is the support for the liberated selves. He surpasses them and he is their Lord. All of them are under his control. He is always the supreme ruler'.

[shiv.somashekhar]

Quote Parama Upanishad, which is cited by Madhvacharya and has been accepted as authentic by advaitin scholars like Madhusudhana Saraswati, Sayanacharya and Sridhara Swamin in their works-

Unfortunately this is misleading. If Sayana and Madhusudhana Saraswati accepted this Upanishad as authentic, you have to provide their interpretation of it. Unless, they interpreted this Upanishad the way you do, there is no basis for your argument.

[Jeffery D. Long]

Quote Parama Upanishad, which is cited by Madhvacharya and has been accepted as authentic by advaitin scholars like Madhusudhana Saraswati, Sayanacharya and Sridhara Swamin in their works-

jIvasya paramaikyaM tu buddhisArUpya ekasthAnanivAso vA vyaktisthAnamapex na svarUpaikatA tasya muktasyApi virU svAtantryapUrNate.alpatvapAratantrye vi- ******** iti paramashrutiH * ||

'The unity of jiva with the Lord consists of sameness of thought or it may mean dwelling in the same place. Such sameness of habitation is relative to some particular manifestation of the Lord. It is not unity of essential being. For even the released individual is different from him. The difference between the two lies in the Lord being independent and infinite and the individual being finite and dependent'. Such are the words of Parama-Sruti.

mithashcha jaDabhedo yaH prapaJNcho bhedapaJNchakaH | so.ayaM satyo hyanAdishcha sAdishchennAshamApnuyAt.h | na cha nAshaM prayAtyeshha na chAsau bhrAntikakalpitaH * | kalpitashchennivarteta na chAsau vinivartate * | dvaitaM na vidyata iti tasmAdaj~nAninAM matam.h * | mataM hi j~nAninAmetanmitaM trAtaM cha vishhNunA * | tasmAtsatyamiti proktaM paramo harireva tu" * ||- ******** iti paramashrutiH *

The Parama-sruti says: 'The universe consists of five differences. They are the difference between God and the individual self, that between God and insentient matter, that among individual selves, that between insentient matter and individual self and that among the material entities themselves. This is real and unoriginated. If it were originated, it would perish.But it does not perish. Nor is it a fabrication of illusion. If it were so, it would have disappeared.But it does not dissapear. Therefore, the view that there is no duality is the view of the ignorant. The view of the enlightened is that this world is comprehended and protected by Visnu. Therefore it is proclaimed to be real.'

vishhNuM sarvaguNaiH pUrNaM j~nAtvA saMsAravarjitaH | nirduHkhAnandabhuN^.hnityaM tatsamIpe sa modate * | muktAnAM chAshrayo vishhNuradhiko.adhipatistathA * | tadvashA eva te sarve sarvadaiva sa IshvaraH" ||-iti paramashrutiH *

The Parama-sruti says: 'He who knows Visnu as full of excellences, gets rid of samsara and becomes a enjoyer of painless bliss for all eternity. He rejoices in proximity to Visnu. Visnu is the support for the liberated selves. He surpasses them and he is their Lord. All of them are under his control. He is always the supreme ruler'.

This does not necessarily refute Advaita. If one is mindful of the original Sanskrit and not the English translation, it is perfectly compatible with Advaita. "It is not unity of essential being" translates "na svarUpaikatA." The term svarUpa can be translated as "essential being," but it can also refer to the specific form in which a being manifests. Similarly, the original Sanskrit that translates as "Nor is it a fabrication of illusion" does not utilize the term mAyA, which is often popularly mistranslated as "illusion," but is better rendered as "appearance": the way Reality manifests to one at a given time, as conditioned by a variety of factors. One can easily square these verses with "sarvaM khalvidaM brahman" with the understanding that Brahman manifests as God, selves, and insentient matter as the underlying essence (not svarUpa, but svabhAva) of all.

Some Advaitins do talk as if all difference is illusion, but this is not universally the case. If mAyA is understood as appearance, then we can say that Brahman appears as Īśvara, jīvas, and jagat, without denying the reality of the distinctions among these three.

Does this make sense?

[Omkara]

Some Advaitins do talk as if all difference is illusion, but this is not universally the case. If mAyA is understood as appearance, then we can say that Brahman appears as Īśvara, jīvas, and jagat, without denying the reality of the distinctions among these three.

Your views are closer to Bhaskaracharya's Bheda Abheda, Kashmir Shaivism, Shuddhadvaita, Siddha Siddhanta and other Theistic monist philosophies than Shankara's Advaita vedanta. I don't really have a problem with such an explanation of shruti, except that it posits brahman as the material cause and requires the creation of souls, two things i am as yet unable to accept.

[Jeffery D. Long]

Your views are closer to Bhaskaracharya's Bheda Abheda, Kashmir Shaivism, Shuddhadvaita, Siddha Siddhanta and other Theistic monist philosophies than Shankara's Advaita vedanta. I don't really have a problem with such an explanation of shruti, except that it posits brahman as the material cause and requires the creation of souls, two things i am as yet unable to accept.

Yes, indeed! I do affirm Brahman as material (and efficient) cause; but along with you, I do not accept the creation of souls, if by creation one means creation at some specific time (as in the dominant Abrahamic model of creation). With some of the schools you have mentioned, I see creation as an ongoing process with no beginning or end (i.e. I am being "created" even as I write this). Creation at some specific point in time, before which there was nothing, contradicts innumerable passages of shruti and smriti (not least being Bhagavad Gītā 2:12, the verse that "converted" me to Hindu Dharma).

I am also of the view that Sri Ramakrishna's understanding (and to some extent Swami Vivekananda's) is much closer to these schools of thought than to Shankara's Advaita Vedanta.

[ShivaFan]

Namaste Jeffery

Thank you for this very, very interesting insight into Advaita.

So specific to further communion with those who reflect some of the points you just made, this would be Ramakrishna order?

I have called myself a "rascal Saiva" in some posts, in part due to my hesitation regarding Advaitin traditions of the school but now, as I no longer am as much interested in various self-identities as in the past, having now clearly seen that those wrapped up in such are more often the same who discriminate against me and want to limit my expansion of knowledge and enlightenment based on petty material and life attachments to identities, perhaps I now need to be more embracing of the Advaitin traditions that also have a life within Saiva Siddhanta.

Thank you.

Om Namah Sivaya

[Jeffery D. Long]

Namaste ShivaFan,

Thank you for your appreciative note. There really is no "official" doctrine in the tradition of Sri Ramakrishna. However, the Ramakrishna Order, in most of its publications and teaching, has tended (following Swami Vivekananda) to interpret Vedanta through the matrix of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta. More recently, though, I have read and been in conversation with a growing number of both monastic and lay scholars who are discussing the ways in which the teaching of Ramakrishna (and to some extent Vivekananda) is more akin to Śākta and Śaiva understandings of Advaita (such as those expressed in the schools cited by Omkara in his response to my initial reply on this thread) than to Shankara's Advaita. There is also a growing sense among many scholars (and not only among those affiliated to the tradition of Ramakrishna) that even Shankara's Advaita is not exactly what people have come to think of as "Shankara's Advaita," the latter being more the product of later medieval commentators than of Shankara himself, whose understanding of māyā also seems more amenable to a realist interpretation, at least in some passages, than the "illusionism" often attributed to him.

I have always been drawn to Advaita, finding it a comforting doctrine in the face of the suffering and impermanence that characterizes so much of our life in the material world. At the same time, intellectually, there is a one-sidedness to it that goes against the grain of the metaphysical realism to which my mind tends to lean. Hence an understanding of non-duality that does not obliterate real diversity is quite appealing to me.

I can say much more about this, but it's getting late in my part of the world!

Oṃ namaḥ Śivāya.

[Amrut]

Quote Parama Upanishad, which is cited by Madhvacharya and has been accepted as authentic by advaitin scholars like Madhusudhana Saraswati, Sayanacharya and Sridhara Swamin in their works-

jIvasya paramaikyaM tu buddhisArUpya ekasthAnanivAso vA vyaktisthAnamapex na svarUpaikatA tasya muktasyApi virU svAtantryapUrNate.alpatvapAratantrye vi- ******** iti paramashrutiH * ||

'The unity of jiva with the Lord consists of sameness of thought or it may mean dwelling in the same place. Such sameness of habitation is relative to some particular manifestation of the Lord. It is not unity of essential being. For even the released individual is different from him. The difference between the two lies in the Lord being independent and infinite and the individual being finite and dependent'. Such are the words of Parama-Sruti.

mithashcha jaDabhedo yaH prapaJNcho bhedapaJNchakaH | so.ayaM satyo hyanAdishcha sAdishchennAshamApnuyAt.h | na cha nAshaM prayAtyeshha na chAsau bhrAntikakalpitaH * | kalpitashchennivarteta na chAsau vinivartate * | dvaitaM na vidyata iti tasmAdaj~nAninAM matam.h * | mataM hi j~nAninAmetanmitaM trAtaM cha vishhNunA * | tasmAtsatyamiti proktaM paramo harireva tu" * ||- ******** iti paramashrutiH *

The Parama-sruti says: 'The universe consists of five differences. They are the difference between God and the individual self, that between God and insentient matter, that among individual selves, that between insentient matter and individual self and that among the material entities themselves. This is real and unoriginated. If it were originated, it would perish.But it does not perish. Nor is it a fabrication of illusion. If it were so, it would have disappeared.But it does not dissapear. Therefore, the view that there is no duality is the view of the ignorant. The view of the enlightened is that this world is comprehended and protected by Visnu. Therefore it is proclaimed to be real.'

vishhNuM sarvaguNaiH pUrNaM j~nAtvA saMsAravarjitaH | nirduHkhAnandabhuN^.hnityaM tatsamIpe sa modate * | muktAnAM chAshrayo vishhNuradhiko.adhipatistathA * | tadvashA eva te sarve sarvadaiva sa IshvaraH" ||-iti paramashrutiH *

The Parama-sruti says: 'He who knows Visnu as full of excellences, gets rid of samsara and becomes a enjoyer of painless bliss for all eternity. He rejoices in proximity to Visnu. Visnu is the support for the liberated selves. He surpasses them and he is their Lord. All of them are under his control. He is always the supreme ruler'.

Namaste,

Madhusudan Saraswati was a Krishna bhakta and an Advaitin
Shridhara Swami was a Ram bhakta and an advaitin
Sayanacharya along with his brother Madhav Vidyaranya Swami wrote commentaries on Vedas, which are not 100 % advaitic or do you think that Advaita covers whole of vedas or that Advaita is like a PhD or is an essence of vedas?

So if you are accepting and respecting them, then you have to accept both dvaita and advaita and everything they accepted.

Omkara, you are not a Vaishnav and not an advaitin, still keep quoting from Madhacharya's works???

Paramacharya Sri Sri Chandrashekhar (Indira) Saraswati refers to Shri Madhavacharya as the 'Great Madhavacharya'. He acknowledges works of Sri Ramanujacharya.

Shastras do not teach us to become refuTacharya (refute-acharya)

Shri Ra. Ganapati, who noted down discourses of Paramacharya over years and then released them in the form of book ‘Deivathin kural’ in 7 volumes. 2 volumes are translated in English and released under title ‘Hindu Dharma. All 7 volumes are available under title ‘Voice of God’ and are published after being approved by Paramacharya.

http://mahaperiyavaa.wordpress.com/2...apati-in-1996/

http://shanmatha.blogspot.in/2012/02...s-feet-of.html

http://gkamesh.wordpress.com/tag/ra-ganapathi/

http://www.srikanchimahaswami100.org/books.htm



Shri Ra. Ganapati was initiated by Swami Brahmananda, a direct disciple of Sri Ramakrishna. Paramacharya hs good relation with Ra. Ganapati.


Adi Shankaracharya did not reject Dvaita


Adi Shankara did not reject dvaita, which is evident from his compositions. Also advaita is not for everybody, especially, whose consciousness is strongly embedded in physical body (BG 12:5 and 12:6). Adi Shankara also repaired many temples and installed idols, including the famous Jagannath Puri. Infact Adi Shankara was a Vishnu bhakta. 3 maths, if I remember correctly are established in the land of Narayana. Jagannath Puri has Puri Math, Joshi / Jyotir Math is in Badrinath and Dwarka Math is in Dwarka, place where Lord Krishna lived.

Advaita only asks one to rise above dvaita, as it considers Nirvikalp Samadhi as the supreme state, but when same Brahman is doing any karma / kriya, then he is called as Ishwara, who is endowed with 6 upaadhis. Jiva is enveloped with panch mahabhuta i.e. a-vidha maya.

A genuine advaitin will asks, why is it necessary to think this world is mithya? How will it help my spiritual progress?

Madhusudan Saraswati is a great e.g. of this transformation.


One has to dive deep within, into the depths of ocean. Waves are seen only on surface and not in ocean depth. It is entirely a different condition.


Genuine sadhakas do not learn Shastras with intentions like proving, winning and contradicting. They learn for their own salvation. So even if a shastra is not quoted by Madhavacharya, still it is revered by Advaitins, as it helps to progress them in spirituality.

IMHO, your very assumption that shastras are only genuine only if they are quoted by Vaishnav acharyas and advaitins is not correct.

e.g Niralamba Upanishad is revered by Advaitins, but may not be quoted by Vaishnav acharyas, but Lahiri Mahashay has written a commentary on it. Uttara Gita is also revered by Advaitins as Shri Gaupadacharya has written commentary on it.

Same goes true for Vaishnavas, Shaivas and Shaktas

Shiva Rahasya, an up-purana, is also considered important and revered by Shaivas. Shakras revere Devi Bhavagat though it is not one of 18 major puranas

All 108 upanishads are authentic (for an advaitin) as a great advaitin Upanishad Brahma Yogin has written commentaries on them.

EDIT: Tamil scriptures are not universally accepted and / or quoted by all Hindu schools, yet some like Thirumandiram, Periya Purana and Thirukkural are revered by Tamils..

Lingayas do not worship according to vedas. They worship according to their agamas.

If param shruti or any other shruti is not a part of 108 upanishad but still is quoted by great acharyas then it is authentic. Even if it is not quoted by any acharya, but is regularly studied by any one system of philosophy, then that shruti / smriti is authentic for that particular sect / philosophy.

If by referring to Purana, Adi Shankara means only one purana – Vishnu Purana, does this mean that other puranas were written after Adi Shankara?


T.M.P. Mahadevan has written commentaries on upanishads and so have monks of Sri Ramakrishna order. People following Sri Ramana Maharshi follow shastras and devote time learning Advaita Vedanta.


Even Gaudpanda did not reject dvaita or wished to refute any other faith. Advaita is only for matured pure minded souls. Upadeshas are given from adhikaara bheda. Different philosophies covers people of different nature (prakruti).

Infact, in beginning, people are taught dvaita, then depending upon prakruti, they either continue pure bhakti or shift towards advaita.


Great vedantin and a devotee of Sri Ramana Maharshi says,

Dr. T.M.P.Mahadevan, the great Vedantic scholar, says in his book `Ramana Maharshi and His Philosophy of Existence'– "We believe that Advaita is not a sectarian doctrine. It is the culmination of all doctrines, the crown of all views. Though other views may imagine themselves to be opposed to Advaita, Advaita is opposed to none.

As Gaudapada, a pre-Sankara teacher of Advaita, says, Advaita has no quarrel with any system of philosophy. While the pluralistic world-views may be in conflict with one another, Advaita is not opposed to any of them. It recognises the measure of truth that there is in each of them; but only, that truth is not the whole. Hostility arises out of partial vision. When the whole truth is realised, there can be no hostility. (Mandukya Karika, III. 17 & 18; IV. 5)".

Source


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

A personal request:


Omkara, brother, you are very intelligent and have gathered great knowledge at this age. I humbly request you from the bottom of my heart that please read shastras for your own spiritual progress. Your photographic memory and intelligence will be an asset and in future can be of great help to mankind. People like you are needed, provided you give yourself a proper direction.

If you do not like Advaita, just leave it. 2 opposite species can live in harmony without disturbing each other.

e.g. humans and fish. All types of creatures collectively form an ecosystem and an imbalance in their habitat and population would mean imbalance in ecosystem.

As one progress in spirituality, all logic, dogmas, theories, etc drop. Love for God, total surrender, unconditional surrender is the way to go. Heart knows no discipline, no procedure. After internal purity is achieved, then God, who is inside us, in our heart will guide introvert mind and establish into heart.

To progress, you will have to be at peace, which cannot be attained by refuting paths which you do not like. People will continue to practice religion and path / belief system that they believe.

I pray to God so that we all can get his divine grace and experience the essence of Shastras.

Good luck for your spiritual progress.

btw, please can you tell me who has translated Param Shruti and where did you get it in print and in which language is it translated.

Pranams

Aum

Amrut

[Omkara]

Omkara, you are not a Vaishnav and not an advaitins, still keep quoting form Madhacharya's works???

I know that you consider it wrong to explore literature outside one's own school, but frankly this is like an ostrich burying its head in sand. How are we to know our understanding of scripture is correct when there are other interpretations of the scriptures? By studying other interpretations and evaluating their strengths and weaknesses, of course.

IMHO, your very assumption that shastras are only genuine only if they are quoted by Vaishnav acharyas and advaitins is not correct.

Why?

e.g Niralamba Upanishad is revered by Advaitins, but may not be quoted by Vaishnav acharyas, but Lahiri Mahashay has written a commentary on it. Uttara Gita is also revered by Advaitins as Shri Gaupadacharya has written commentary on it.

Revered by which Advaitins? Why has no advaitin cited or commented on the Niralamba Upanishad or even mentioned it in their works? As for Gaudapada's commentary on the Uttara Gita, it is not considered to be an authentic work of Gaudapada either by neutral scholars or by traditional Advaitins (Ask in any major mutt)

All 108 upanishads are authentic (for an advaitin) as a great advaitin Upanishad Brahma Yogin has written commentaries on them.

Upanishad Brahma Yogin cannot be considered an authority on the authenticity of Upanishads. While commenting on Brahma Upanishad, he comments on some lines which are not part pf the upanishad. This is proved by the fact that the passage in question is quoted by Sayanacharya, and those lines are missing. Similarly, he omits some lines in Maitrayani Upanishad. Therefore since he did not verify the authenticity of his sources, he is not an authority.

btw, please can you tell me who has translated Param Shruti and where did you get it in print and in which language is it translated.

The parama- shruti is not extant anymore. Only those parts quoted by Madhvacharya survive in his commentaries. You can find these verses, along with other quotes from parama upanishad, here- https://sites.google.com/site/harsha...nutatvanirnaya


By the way, you have not said anything in response to my original post. Does the parana upanishad contradict advaita or not, in your opinion?

[Omkara]

Just an aside, what do you think this verse means? Don't cheat and look at Griffith's translation, which follows the Advaitin interpretation.

`vishvaM satyam.h' (RV 2.24.12)

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of any major Indian panguage can tell that this verse is saying the world is real. On the other hand, Advaitins insist that this verse means "All praise to"