Adi shankarAchArya's views on anya-devata worship

[philosoraptor]

As per my recollection, madhusUdana sarasvatI does not mention names of anya-deva-s, but he is very clear in his commentary that srI kriShNa/nArAyaNa only is to be worshiped. This is hardly a "non-advaitin POV" - it's a very clear statement that simply cannot be interpreted any other way. It's meaningless to comment on a scripture if the direct meaning of the comments as they are written must be rejected, and alternate, more oblique meanings must be sought merely for political reasons.

As far as the changes advaita has undergone, I would ask this: do you follow advaita because it represents the timeless philosophy of sanAtana-dharma, or do you follow it because you like what it is now? Because if the former is the case, then I would imagine that the changes on major points of siddhAnta like this one would be cause for concern.

[Amrut]

As far as the changes advaita has undergone, I would ask this: do you follow advaita because it represents the timeless philosophy of sanAtana-dharma, or do you follow it because you like what it is now? Because if the former is the case, then I would imagine that the changes on major points of siddhAnta like this one would be cause for concern.

All I can say is that I have not chosen the path, but was given to me. I have surrendered to my Guru and have full trust on him. All the knowledge about advaita is because of his and Guru's grace. Even this fact came to be known after I learned and practiced advaita. I met my guru after repeated prayers to show me a way.

So in my case, I have to follow what my guru says. I understand what you say, that we must follow what is authentic. Method of adhyAropa apavAda is the authentic and traditional. We find these words it is 13.13, 9.5 in Man. Up. 7 in Shankara Bhasya. To talk more on the topic is itself a new topic, means another thread and at times the discussion is very exhausting and time consuming. I will remain busy in the coming days.

Surrender to nArAyaNa is the easiest way to gain inner purity and hence it is prescribed here.

That is why I have told to read even the intro, which says that earlier, it was mentioned that only through Yoga only can attain brahman, which is not so. As said, it is in chapter 9 that it is taught that one who surrenders to Vishnu reaches him. but this is not an end. There are more chapters and there is chapter 13, from where Jnana begins. We have to study full gita as verses and chapters are connected to each other like a chain. Again if we talk on this matter, we could keep going.

Krishna teaches Karma, Bhakti and Jnana.

I would end this by saying that, according to Adi Shankara, Krishna in this verse talks about surrendering to Vishnu

Aum

[philosoraptor]

Pranams,

My interest in religion is pretty much this. I'm dying. I've been dying ever since the day I was born. Some day this body will breathe no more. When that day will come, I cannot say. But as it is a foregone conclusion that everything will be taken from me at the time of death, I feel the need to spend at least some time understanding the purpose of life, even if that isn't entirely consistent with the opinions of some individuals or sects. Nothing will be served by comforting myself with a popular philosophy which fails to acknowledge or even conceals the Truth. I don't need a religion or a "personal philosophy" that I can put on like a coat and later take off when it gets too warm. I need authentic guidance.

Now, what was given to me was pAnchopAsana and other smArtha traditions. All gods are equal, and bhakti is just one of many paths. shAstra-s like bhagavad-gItA should be studied and followed. Some of these views I later came to realize were not authentic smArtha views, and many of them I came to realize were not consistent with the actual opinions of shAstra-s like bhagavad-gItA. When there is a difference of opinion between shAstra and guru, I cannot force myself to follow the guru and his tradition merely due to accident of birth. This is why I introduced myself on this forum as a seeker. I have to put aside considerations of sectarian loyalty and see which point of view really seems to represent the shAstra. And then find the guru that teaches that point of view.

Now, what I find interesting about this discussion is that, contrary to what I was taught as a child, Adi shankara does indeed place a premium on the worship and meditation on nArAyaNa, and does NOT equate His worship with the worship of other gods. This comes out clearly from bhagavad-gItA, but it also comes out clearly from his commentary to the same. When so many so-called advaitins make harsh criticisms of Vaishnavas for their exclusive devotion to nArAyaNa and their acknowledgement of the subordinate position of deva-s, why do these so-called advaitins fail to acknowledge the fact that Adi shankarAchArya and commentators like madhusUdana sarasvatI made the same distinctions? Nothing in gItA 9.5 or 13.13 changes that. The obvious, non-sectarian conclusion that is crystal clear from an objective reading of the texts, is that brahman, though He pervades the universe and the deva-s, is superior to both. Yet, because the truth of this was obscured from me by neo-smArtha thinkers, I and many others have been diverted from meditation on brahman to meditation on entities which are not brahman. I have wasted my time following such views, not realizing them to be false. Now I feel the pressure to catch up on doing what I should have done all these years.

Again, let me reiterate. I am dying. Perhaps some other people on this forum think they will live forever, but I know that I will not. I don't have time for partisan ideologies or "new-and-improved" interpretations. I don't care if the truth about dharma and moral codes does not meet with approval by my Western, egalitarian-minded friends. I don't care if not believing in "all gods are the same God" will make me unpopular with peers. Truth is what it is, and believing otherwise will not change that.

Let me give an example that came up recently. I worship rAdhA-kRiShna at home. However, it came to my attention that not all Vaishnava sects consider rAdhA to be an authentic deity. Such opinions no longer offend me. On the contrary, I have recently begun to question this and have collected arguments both for and against her worship. At this stage, I am not really convinced one way or another, but the point is - I would want to know what the Truth is, and follow that, even if it means i have to change my practice. I don't want to simply do something because I belong to this sect and this is how it is always done in that sect.

It's precisely with this mood that I question things. If I can question my own beliefs, then I expect that people who want to argue with me should have the maturity to be able to question theirs. On the other hand, when some people denounce these kinds of discussions as "jalpa," I just feel that they are not on my wavelength and probably never will be.

regards,

[Amrut]

In my case it was reverse. I was practising Pranic Healing, which is a new age phenomenon and not traditional. The Pranic healing acharya handed over me to an advaita acharya. This happened after repeated prayers to show me correct way. Faith showed me the way and not fact finding.

To expect others to think and behave in the same same leads one to misery. Nor you nor others can be happy. Everyone wants to see their impression (their image) in others.

If you are born a smarta, then it suits you the most, else why would god give you birth in Smartha Family? Why do not not practice the correct Advaita and search authentic Advaita? You may say Shastra-s does not support advaita (after some research). In that case why is it so much compelling to discuss about Adi Shankara?

I have to put aside considerations of sectarian loyalty and see which point of view really seems to represent the shAstra. And then find the guru that teaches that point of view.

Being neutral is a good thing.

If everybody can read and correctly understand shastras on their own, then there is no need to find a guru. It is like going to a doctor and then saying that 'give me this medicine' or search and visit to a doctor who gives me the medicine I want, because according to me after years of research this is the correct medicine.

Sure our wavelengths do not match. Continue your discussion and fact finding good luck.

[brahman]

Namaste Omkara



Perhaps due to my English construct here, I am being misunderstood. All I am saying is, even though I am a dualist (dvaita), I am seeing that those sects which emphasize duality seem to often engage in these types of threads, pitting one Devata against another over wasteful jalpa instead of just praising their Lord. Fixations such as this on a single quote of some commentator (though renown) really takes the cake, it becomes almost laughable, and so I now wonder if I have made a mistake in sort of ignoring the Advaita aspects of the Saiva Siddhanta tradition in my zeal for devotion (which, devotion is not discounted in Advaita either, I am refering to dualists). Simply said, it seems among Avaitans that they are more kind, more respectful to all the Family within Hinduism, especially within a public forum (while reserving the right to be sectarian in some aspects among themselves), and this being said from someone as me who obviously has dualistic nature. Not all dvaitans are raw on the edges, especially those who love devotees as next to God, it's just some who are makes one reconsider Advaita as a house that has many respectful and tempered Hindus, level headed, not like those who have chips on their shoulders and walk around with "machine gun minds".

Jai Ganapati.

I am finished with this thread.

Om Namah Sivaya

Dear ShivaFan,

I see this post worth considering and feel delighted to share my views on certain errors pointed out by you. Also I take the opportunity to transfer the contents of this post to a more suitable arena, where these naturally complex but seemingly natural, thoughts have significance. Love

I welcome you to read this post: Duality,Non-Duality etc are mere Blanket Terms

[philosoraptor]

To expect others to think and behave in the same same leads one to misery. Nor you nor others can be happy. Everyone wants to see their impression (their image) in others.

I actually don't feel the need to see myself in others. Really and truly, what motivates me is a desire to know the truth about things. Not relative truth, but Absolute Truth.

If you are born a smarta, then it suits you the most, else why would god give you birth in Smartha Family?

Put simply, I don't believe it's appropriate for me to follow something blindly, merely due to accident of birth. By the same logic, I could argue that, had I been born in a non-Hindu family, then it's ok to be non-Hindu, otherwise why would God put me there?

There are a lot of nice benefits to being born in a smArtha family, not the least of which is exposure to culture and a certain standard of piety that is expected. But, at the end of the day, "smArtha" is not a divinely created category, but a man-made one. This is unlike categories like brahmin, kshatriya, vaishya, shudra, man, woman, etc which are divinely created and so, we do have an obligation to be who we are within those limits.

Why do not not practice the correct Advaita and search authentic Advaita? You may say Shastra-s does not support advaita (after some research). In that case why is it so much compelling to discuss about Adi Shankara?

Put simply, had I known in my youth that Adi shankara endorsed nArAyaNa-sarvottamatva, as opposed to panchopAsana, it would have made a big difference to me. All along, advaita was represented to me as "all gods are same," with viShNu-bhakti being considered an optional path. You should worship, but it does not matter who you worship. In that case, why do the worship? Any intelligent person will naturally ask. If you say that I am free to think of Vishnu as supreme or non-supreme, then how will that instill the basic shraddha in me to approach Vishnu with sincere feeling? Right knowledge leads to right action. Wrong knowledge does not lead to right action. One does not act on a certain bit of information (i.e. Vishnu is Brahman) unless he is convinced of the correctness of that information. Saying "all gods are same" and "you have freedom to decide which path is right for you" sends mixed signals to a young person who is searching for the truth.

How does one know what the authentic advaita is? Is Adi shankara's commentary not representative of the authentic advaita? One would think so, but look at all the furious opposition that is generated when someone points out that Adi shankara did not endorse "all gods are same" philosophy in his commentary. It just reminds me that while we all say we want truth, some people would prefer comfortable lies over unpleasant truths.

regards,

[Amrut]

Namaste,

Judging from your posts and general behaviour here on forums, I would ask you one question.

There is something that must have happened in the past that must have made you to dislike advaita. Did such an incident happened? Would you like to share it here?

We must not have blind faith. I will give one e.g.

Recently, in shaiva forum, when Omkara said that Atharvashirsha Upanishad is genuine, you didn't questioned his sincerity and honesty and decided put this upanishad in a to-do list. During first few visits, you may cross check an acharya, but when we know that a saint has digested all shastras and is sincerely speaking from shastras then you should develop faith in him and stop questioning him. I do not like to sit in chair of judge and cross check every statement a saint makes.

Like I have earlier quoted, Paramacharya, has said 'one God as many' and have asked us (his believers) to adopt 'Nahi Ninda Nyaya'. My guru says the same. I should not question his sincerity and honesty (like you didn't question Omkara's honesty, since you think that he has done his homework).

You must be aware that I have changed my opinion on Varna Dharma, after reading Paramacharya. unfortunately, one chapter is missing in online version, hence it took time to understand the topic. After ShivaFan ji asked about quotes from authentic source, I quoted from Adi Shankara's bhasya 18.41 and that was enough for me. On personal level, no more proof needs to be hunted. Faith helps to speed up progress. I am not talking about blind faith. Pray to God and not to any human being, says my Guru. During first few meetings, he used to say, in case of doubt pray to God and have faith. He didn't say come and ask me.

In this case, I was merely pointing out that since no decisive conclusion could be arrived, lets have a look at other commentators. I didn't even gave my personal opinion for two post. This suggestion came after you all scholars and fact finders could not arrive at definite conclusion, not before. This is an unbiased as I can get.

I was not focussing on 'Narayana is supreme deity', though in another thread, according to my understanding in Ke. up. 3.12 Adi Shankara does say Shiva is Ishvara and Parvati (Uma), who is knowledge (vidya), appeared as Lady.

Paramacharya says the same thing. Now it is left to us how to interpret acharya's words (both Paramacharya and Adi Shankara)

If our wavelength does not match, it is better that you continue your discussion with whom you respect.

Aum

[Omkara]

Like I have earlier quoted, Paramacharya, has said 'one God as many' and have asked us (his believers) to adopt 'Nahi Ninda Nyaya'. My guru says the same. I should not question his sincerity and honesty (like you didn't question Omkara's honesty, since you think that he has done his homework).

Most Advaitins after Shankaracharya and his immediate followers were Smartas, including Kanchi Paramacharya.

As Dr.Jeffrey Long has pointed out, Shankaracharya may not have necessarily shared the ideas of later Advaitins on Maya and Avidya too.

In my humble opinion, important points of theology like supremacy of one deity over another should be decided on BEFORE approaching a guru.

[Amrut]

In my humble opinion, important points of theology like supremacy of one deity over another should be decided on BEFORE approaching a guru.

Pranams,

Thank you. I understand, but laymen do not read shrutis or may not have access to shrutis. Not many can understand shrutis.

As Dr.Jeffrey Long has pointed out, Shankaracharya may not have necessarily shared the ideas of later Advaitins on Maya and Avidya too.

This is possible, but I need a Guru who can guide me, as I am not capable enough to understand subtle concepts by myself. The technique of meditation has to be taught by someone. when one finds it difficult to practically apply teaching of shastras, one will have to consult someone. This is the practical difficulty. To make task difficult, there are many paths, many commentaries written on Gita and other shastras. Practically one has to approach the best available option or 'do it yourself'.

At times one can find himself in difficult situation

Belief comes from reading authentic sources shastras and to understand shastras we need someone who explains them.

egg or chicken?

First I will learn to swim then I will dive in swimming pool
First dive, then you will learn to swim

EDIT: the danger I see in approaching a Guru after reading shastras is that one may develop some fixed ideas, while not knowing anything means to believe what is said. In todays time, this can lead one to be exploited (faith in exploited)

OM Namah Shivaya

[philosoraptor]

Namaste,

Judging from your posts and general behaviour here on forums, I would ask you one question.

There is something that must have happened in the past that must have made you to dislike advaita. Did such an incident happened? Would you like to share it here?

Pranams,

You have it all wrong. I don't dislike Advaita. I disagree with it, but that does not mean I dislike it.

What I dislike is the persistent dishonesty that takes place in these modern Hindu discourses on forums and elsewhere, usually displayed by Neo-Hindu thinkers, and examples of which include, but are not limited to:

1) Equating philosophical disagreement with intolerance and bigotry.
2) Equating preferences for a particular ishta-devata, even when it is based on shAstric considerations, as "sectarian" and "intolerant."
3) The indiscriminate hijacking of Adi shankara's advaita philosophy to support humanistic, neo-Hindu paradigms of socio-political discourse.
4) Revisionist attempts to claim that Hindu morality on matters pertaining to caste- and gender-relations matched post-modern, Western views on these issues, followed by violent lashing out against anyone who tries to point out (with facts and evidence) that this was not really the case.
5) Preaching of "tolerance" and "respect" by self-appointed arbiters of Hindu morality, not uncommonly themselves self-declared advaitins or "non-dualists," and yet who habitually lash out at those who discuss topics with which they are uncomfortable.
6) #5 in particular have a tendency to barge in on discussions for which they were not invited and try to discourage discussions on subjects with which they are uncomfortable.
7) The attempts by Neo-Hindus to portray Adi shankara's advaita as a morally and philosophically permissive ideology, one in which the individual gets to decide for himself what is and is not right, and what is and is not correct.

I would like to add that, I know traditionally-minded advaitins who are just as offended by the above as I am.