How To Win An Argument With An Advaitin

[Amrut]

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.

I do not consider it wrong. Logically you are right.

As far as my life is concerned, I have been given all books by my Guru. I have not read any other books and listened to pravachans that are not given by my Guru even though they are lying in my father's cupboard, the only exception being Guru Gita, which I have fully read more than one time. When I translated few verses from daily prayer and shown them to my Guru, he was very happy and encouraged me to daily use them as prayer.

There are many shastras and many POV. For an average person like me, it is very difficult to select any shastra and select commentary by any saint. There are so many commentaries available. I kept praying to God to show me the way and was ready to to even leave the system which I was practising i.e. Pranic Healing. Surprisingly, the acharya himself handed me to my current Guru and hinted that they are not in line with traditional way.

To me, a guru is the best judge to give me what I want. Finally isn't it the final thing to realize what Guru and Shastras say? if we fail then no matter what we have achieved, their efforts go in vain.

shastras are extremely necessary, but later on it is all meditation. Guru makes extrovert mind introvert and God who is inside us (in heart) establishes mind in heart.

I do not say exploring other paths is wrong, but I personally find no need to explore them, as my path has already been chosen and I am already walking on it.

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

Why?

The reason is not all shastras available are used for refutation. Again, not all events and verbal duels are documented. In case of Adi Shankara, he himself did not write his own autobiography, but was written by later acharyas. Only important events are remembered. Again, refuting any POV or logic depends upon the current situation, and there may be instances in which similar thing is said in more than one shastra. At that time, quoting from same shastra is better. This is my personal opinion.

I believe acharyas of all philosophies of Hindu dharma should unanimously say that this shastra is man made, that too with not so noble intentions. Your argument and belief cannot be logically discarded, as there is every possibility of interpolation, adulteration and even changing entire verses. But the problem is that we do not know which verses were manipulated.

Now for a beginner and average person like me, the problem will be, whenever I am given any shastras, instead of being happy the first question will arise - Is this authentic? I think it is not a healthy sign. So we are in difficult situation. I keep praying to God to show me correct way. After praying for months, I got a Guru and after trusting him, I have not questioned him, except once. He peacefully replied that 'all that suits your prakruti and necessary for your spiritual progress are already given'.

I am not knowledgeable like you. I have a question. Did Adi Shankara and Vaishnav acharyas argued that X shruti is man made, etc?

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)

Recently, my whole family except me went to Chardham pilgrimage and my elder brother had some discussion with 2 acharyas of Joshi Matt. I do not know which position he holds, but hold similar views. Anyways, this debate will go on. Afterall it comes to faith. I would end up by saying that 'I believe' the Gaudapadacharya has written commentary.

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.

Even Adi shankara has began commentary on Gita from 2:10. Again, In chapter 13, first verse is not quoted by Adi Shankara. It is not present in my copy of Gita translated and commented by Swami Tadrupanand Saraswati. But Sri Ramanuja has commented. Please go to the link in my sign, Gita Supersite' to have a quick look.

Such differences will remain, again, finally it all comes down to 'belief'

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

Thank you. I will have a look. It would have been better if it was available. As even in bhagavatam at times, Shiva is praised as supreme by Lord Brahma to calm him after Sati sacrificed herself in yagna.

Again in 10.14.22, it is written that this jagat is unreal (asatyam), as interpreted by Srila Prabhupada.

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?

I will read it again and reply you soon. As Sri Madhavacharya has interpreted, and he was a genius grammarian, poet and much more and that he has also commented on prasthantrayi from dvaita POV, it is not surprising that he has interpreted this verse from dvaita POV. He must also have defeated many advaitins with in extraordinary abilities and indepth knowledge.

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"

As you are aware, I am not knowledgeable like you. I do not read english translations, unless compulsory. I like to read them in my mother tongue, since God gave me birth in Hindu Gujarati speaking family, so Gujarati is the best that suits me.

Regarding this verse, we will have to read few verses before and after this one to understand in what reference is has to be taken. Please can you get back and refer to a few verses and if necessary post them. I will trust your conclusion. I have not read vedas, but very few shastras and have often repeated them daily for years.

If it is dvaita POV or it is said that jagat, as brahman is satyam, as it is said that all the world which we have been told as mithya is satya and is brahma svarupa. Brahman-Ishwara-Maya are one and the same thing. Just like if you wish to accept Fire (Ishwara) then you will have to accept it's warmth.

It is only the path which demands that one has to think of maya as mithya. The vision of this jagat after Self Realization is not the same as that we see it daily. You see divinity everywhere. Thinking of this world as mithya helped me to quickly make my mind introvert. This concept can be practically applied in life. To enter non-dual state, it is necessary to believe jagat is mithya, as it is not eternal and keeps changing i.e. there is transformation. Nothing is permanent.

Will come back soon.

Aum
Amrut

P.S. I am also trying to find a way to talk in very briefly and not talk extensively - it's work in progress

[Omkara]

Shastras do not teach us to become refuTacharya (refute-acharya)
Genuine sadhakas do not learn Shastras with intentions like proving, winning and contradicting. They learn for their own salvation.

Fair enough. I am not trying to 'refute' anyone. I created this thread primarily to share information with non-Advaitins.

[Amrut]

Fair enough. I am not trying to 'refute' anyone. I created this thread primarily to share information with non-Advaitins.

Oh ok. My apologies for being an uninvited guest.I withdraw myself from this thread.

Some questions are left unanswered from my side. Do let me if you would like to continue our conversation.

I think Dvaita / Vaishnav forum is better place to post this thread. Just my 2 cents

Namaste

Amrut

[philosoraptor]

I don't have any problem with this thread in the philosophy forum. That being said, I am hard-pressed to believe that a single quote from a shruti accepted by Advaitins can lead one to conclusively refute Advaita. Many mantras from the mainstream upaniShads don't seem to support Advaita philosophy at all, and yet Advaitins have embraced forced interpretations of those shrutis for centuries.

While we're on the subject, I have noticed that Advaita seems to have evolved in a direction of embracing realism instead of the literal mAyAvAda for which it has been historically known. Conversely, I am noticing that there are some who claim that the mAyAvAda was a misinterpretation and that the acceptance of realism was always the case since Adi Shankara. I am doubtful of this latter view, but I am always prepared to change my mind if the evidence is convincing.

BTW, these were interesting quotes - thanks for sharing them.

[brahma jijnasa]

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.

Where have you arrived so far?
What is your understanding of scripture right now?
I am just curious.

regards

[Jeffery D. Long]

I don't have any problem with this thread in the philosophy forum. That being said, I am hard-pressed to believe that a single quote from a shruti accepted by Advaitins can lead one to conclusively refute Advaita. Many mantras from the mainstream upaniShads don't seem to support Advaita philosophy at all, and yet Advaitins have embraced forced interpretations of those shrutis for centuries.

While we're on the subject, I have noticed that Advaita seems to have evolved in a direction of embracing realism instead of the literal mAyAvAda for which it has been historically known. Conversely, I am noticing that there are some who claim that the mAyAvAda was a misinterpretation and that the acceptance of realism was always the case since Adi Shankara. I am doubtful of this latter view, but I am always prepared to change my mind if the evidence is convincing.

BTW, these were interesting quotes - thanks for sharing them.

The realist interpretation of Adi Shankara is contentious and requires one to ignore the subsequent commentarial tradition, but it's consistent with the works whose authenticity is not disputed, and if one does not insist on translating mAYA as "illusion."

[Jeffery D. Long]

I would add to my last posting that Shankara repeatedly says that mAyA is neither real nor unreal. This is consistent with translating mAyA as appearance rather than illusion (something wholly unreal). An appearance is not real (that is, it is not the thing it represents), but it is also not unreal (it and the thing it represents do indeed exist, it has a real substrate).

[Sahasranama]

You can refute all schools of medieval till contemporary Vedanta with one quote from the shastras. But they don't really care, as long as they have their bona fide guru approved siddhanta that they can defend endlessly in their debate clubs.

[Believer]

Namaste,

If there are multiple paths under the general umbrella of Hinduism, is there a need for one Hindu to win a debate and another to lose?
Do Hindus need to be pitted against each other?
Why not let each of them follow their own traditions to better themselves?
Are we pushing this issue too far?

Pranam.

PS, Remember that in a pi$$ing contest, whoever drinks the most water before the contest, ends up being the winner.

[brahman]

How To Win An Argument With An Advaitin

Dear Omkara


Often there arises a tendency for us to become self-critical if what we like is not liked by others. Yet, if we are human beings, there should be an underlying Happiness regarding what we like.


We have to distinguish how we cater to the general Happiness, and what implications it has its particular aspects. A husband and wife may love each other very much. They live a unified life, but that does not mean that they do not have two toothbrushes. However, having separate tooth brushes does not take away from their friendship in the least.


I like vegetarian dishes and some of my friends like non-vegetarian dishes. So should I give up my vegetarian diet in deference to the others’ non-vegetarian taste for the sake of our wholesale Unity?


When we shift our focus from particular objects back to the Self, we will stop getting so confused on these pseudo contentions.

The space we occupy is always there for us, and the space occupied by the other is there for them.

The Absolute is big enough to include everything and everyone. Love

Below passages are worthy of note and quoted here for the sake several other reasons.

You can refute all schools of medieval till contemporary Vedanta with one quote from the shastras. But they don't really care, as long as they have their bona fide guru approved siddhanta that they can defend endlessly in their debate clubs.

Namaste,

If there are multiple paths under the general umbrella of Hinduism, is there a need for one Hindu to win a debate and another to lose?
Do Hindus need to be pitted against each other?
Why not let each of them follow their own traditions to better themselves?
Are we pushing this issue too far?

Pranam.

PS, Remember that in a pi$$ing contest, whoever drinks the most water before the contest, ends up being the winner.