Isha Upanishad refutes Mayavada (Illusionism) by Shankara

[savithru]

Namaste,

Sri Aurobindo - Isha Upanishad

Unfortunately there has been a great deal of unnecessary confusion regarding the meaning of this Upanishad. Shankara is generally recognised as the most important commentator of the Isha Upanishad, but if all these conclusions are accepted, then Mayavada, the Illusionism of Shankara, sinks in the bottomless ocean. The founder of Mayavada is incomparable and immensely powerful among the philosophers. Just as thirsty Balaram brought to his feet the Yamuna unwilling to alter her course, by dragging and pulling her with a plough, so also Shankara, finding this Upanishad destroyer of Mayavada and standing across the path toward his destination, dragged and pulled the meaning till it agreed with his own opinion. One or two examples will suffice to show the miserable condition to which this Upanishad has been reduced by such treatment.

I completely agree with Aurobindo here Isha Upanishad when correctly interpreted from the traditional point of view clearly refutes the doctrine of illusionism propounded by Shankara.

Mayavada has resulted in a great loss of the ageless wisdom hidden in the Vedas which is our true mother and father it is important to remember that without the Vedas Upanishads would not have existed. When the mistake was done by our own commentaries what's the point in criticizing western scholars like Max Mueller, Griffith and Weber who translated the Vedas when her wisdom was already lost ages ago.

All Hindus need to wake up to this truth and take the concept of Ishvara (hiranyagarbha) in Advaita as seriously as nirguna Brahman. Pushan, Agni, Vayu, Mitra, Varuna, Indra, Rudra, Usha, Ashvinis, Yama they all literally exist in the womb of Hiranyagarbha and one has to go beyond Hiranyagarbha to know nirguna Brahman. If without Hiranyagarbha if you try to know Brahman you will only end up in a great darkness. This is the kind of Advaita which the Vedic rishis gave us. No more confusion please. Don't twist the doctrines of Vedas and the Upanishads just to make it look more intellectual and appealing to others, the doctrine and truth is far more important than the number of people following Advaita or Hinduism.

[silence_speaks]

Namasthe!



If Everything is Ishvara, and we conclude that this forum is ishvara ... thereby, we conclude ishvara changes ... since this forum changes!!

if ishvara changes .... ishvara becomes "Time Dependent" !!

So what are the changes we see ??

Love!
Silence

[savithru]

Namasthe!



If Everything is Ishvara, and we conclude that this forum is ishvara ... thereby, we conclude ishvara changes ... since this forum changes!!

if ishvara changes .... ishvara becomes "Time Dependent" !!

So what are the changes we see ??

Love!
Silence

Namasthe,



What changes is prakrithi not Ishvara, he is Purushottama means he resides in everything as the first verse of the Isha Upanishad says but he doesn't change even though he has associated himself with prakrithi, he is Gunatheetha means the three gunas of prakrithi like Sattva, Rajas and Thamas doesn't affect him like it affects us. He is Brahman in manifestation.

[silence_speaks]

Dear savithru,


So then, am I Ishvara or Prakriti ? or both ?

Love!
Silence

[savithru]

Dear savithru,


So then, am I Ishvara or Prakriti ? or both ?

Love!
Silence

Neither, You are the Purusha residing in Ishvara.

Isha Upanishad 16. O Fosterer, O sole Seer, O Ordainer, O illumining Sun, O power of the Father of creatures, marshal thy rays, draw together thy light; the Lustre which is thy most blessed form of all, that in Thee I behold. The Purusha there and there, He am I. (Sri Aurobindo)

[silence_speaks]

Dear savithru,
Namasthe!

I have a few questions:
1. Is Prakriti time dependent ? If so it dies !
2. Where in Prakriti is purusha ? Every atom, every minutest portion ? Is there any portion of Prakriti that does not contain purusha ?
what is the relationship between prakriti and purusha ?

Love!
Silence

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

Namaste,

I completely agree with Aurobindo here Isha Upanishad when correctly interpreted from the traditional point of view clearly refutes the doctrine of illusionism propounded by Shankara.

We will do well to remember that the tallest leaders of Dharma are our Rsis, not the acharya-s.

If Everything is Ishvara, and we conclude that this forum is ishvara ... thereby, we conclude ishvara changes ... since this forum changes!!

As per the Vedic understanding only Rudra counts as Ishvara. And one of the Avatara-s of Vishnu can also be seen as Ishvara (apart from being a Bhagwan).

All the Vedic Devi-s and Deva-s are Swayambhu-s (Self-Create). This is the most basic teaching of Arsha Dharma and if someone who doesn't know this by heart is not an Astika at all.

I have a few questions:

And I hope these questions are sincere ones and not rhetoric.

1. Is Prakriti time dependent ? If so it dies !

First, there is an unhealthy obsession with the matter and cause of creation and such and such. The correct attitude will be to observe and understand the reality unfolding in front of our very own eyes. Many say, "no, this is very mundane and boring" and then turn into nāstika- a rather honourable thing to do than start obsessing, speculating about grand problems of cosmic proportions.

Second, "Prakriti", "Purusha" are unVedic ideas (and non-Vedic words even), and somewhat sound too sexist to me. So, I don't know what are Prakriti, Purusha et all.

Finally, just to give an example (and not go to more basic premises), Rudra is called "Tryambaka" that is, "having three mothers". Not one, but three! This example is just to inform the reader that any of the Swayambhu-s, depending on the case, can be the progenitor, the seed, of All and everything else.

2. Where in Prakriti is purusha ? Every atom, every minutest portion ? Is there any portion of Prakriti that does not contain purusha ?
what is the relationship between prakriti and purusha ?

Again, I don't know what is prakriti and purusha. But I can give another example by saying "Indra is all pervading", "Varuna is all pervading", "Dhatar is all pervading", and so on.



KT


P.S.: pls note that the purpose of this post is educational, not polemical.

[anucarh]

Namaste savithru ji,


I'm interested in your point of view, but I'm not sure that I understand some of your comments.


You say, "I completely agree with Aurobindo here Isha Upanishad when correctly interpreted from the traditional point of view clearly refutes the doctrine of illusionism propounded by Shankara." As you probably know, the Purṇādvaita Vedānta or Integral Nondualism of Śrī Aurobindo is a 20th century development. No ancient record of this subschool of Vedānta exists. In contrast, Advaita Vedānta as a distinct branch of Vedānta, the branch of Vedānta taught by Śrī Ādi Śaṅkarācārya, goes back at least as far as the 6th century, when it was taught by Śrī Gauḍapādācārya (who apparently had the same understanding of māyā or illusion as his disciple's disciple), arguably even further back than that. If I am looking for a teaching that is part of an established tradition... Well, you already know where I'm going with this. Is it possible that by "the traditional point of view" you mean to say that Śrī Aurobindo managed to uncover the "original" or "one true" point of view of the Vedas?


If you mean that Śrī Aurobindo's view is the "one true Vedic perspective," the only "permissible" perspective, then it seems there's a common challenge that must be overcome. Those who have studied the Vedas in depth like to point out that the Vedas teach from many different perspectives. For example, the Vedas contain many creation stories taught from very different perspectives which would seem to be directed at different sorts of individuals. Did the universe begin with the cracking of a cosmic egg? Was it the dividing of a cosmic person? Was it more like the building of a house by a carpenter? Or did it begin with neither being nor non-being? The Vedas say yes to all of the above and offer many other perspectives besides these. So it would seem that more than one perspective is permitted in the Vedas. (This is not a criticism of the Vedas by any means. This is actually part of their greatness.)


Now you might say, I concede that there's more that one way of looking at creation in the Vedas, but there is only "one permissible" philosophy of Vedānta in the Upaniṣads, the "one true" teaching that equally affirms saguṇa ("with qualities") and nirguṇa ("without qualities") Brahman, just as Śrī Aurobindo says. Even here there are those who have studied the Upaniṣads comprehensively and in depth who disagree that only one perspective can be found. They say , as I mentioned in my first thread, that the Upaniṣads contain several different viewpoints about Brahman, jīvas ("souls" or individual beings), and the world (including dualism, qualified nondualism, and nondualism) to help individuals at different stages of understanding. [See Swami Nikhilananda, The Upanishads: A New Translation, vol. 1, 6th ed. (New York: Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center, 2003), pp. 13, 64-65.] In fact, certain passages in the Upaniṣads do seem to fit most easily with the teaching of Śrī Ādi Śaṅkarācārya. Here are two of the many examples from the Upaniṣads that this great teacher of Advaita used to capture his teaching:


"The One alone is real; therefore there exists no multiplicity in the universe." Adhyātma Upaniṣad 63


"By the mind alone is Brahman to be realized. There exists in It no diversity whatsoever. He who sees in It diversity, as it were, goes from death to death." Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.4.19


Others have found dualistic passages that seem to teach an absolute difference between Brahman and a real creation. Still others have found passages that teach that Brahman is both one and many all at once. It seems then that more than one perspective is permissible in the Vedas. Apparently, more than one perspective can help you on the journey to the goal of liberation (mokṣa). More than one branch of Vedānta seems to be valid. What do you think?


praṇām

[savithru]

Namaste savithru ji,

Namaste anucarh ji,

I'm interested in your point of view, but I'm not sure that I understand some of your comments.

Thanks for your interest and I hope this conversation clears some of your doubts.

You say, "I completely agree with Aurobindo here Isha Upanishad when correctly interpreted from the traditional point of view clearly refutes the doctrine of illusionism propounded by Shankara." As you probably know, the Purṇādvaita Vedānta or Integral Nondualism of Śrī Aurobindo is a 20th century development. No ancient record of this subschool of Vedānta exists. In contrast, Advaita Vedānta as a distinct branch of Vedānta, the branch of Vedānta taught by Śrī Ādi Śaṅkarācārya, goes back at least as far as the 6th century, when it was taught by Śrī Gauḍapādācārya (who apparently had the same understanding of māyā or illusion as his disciple's disciple), arguably even further back than that. If I am looking for a teaching that is part of an established tradition... Well, you already know where I'm going with this. Is it possible that by "the traditional point of view" you mean to say that Śrī Aurobindo managed to uncover the "original" or "one true" point of view of the Vedas?

Everyone quotes the Isha Upanishad and interprets it in his own way but how many of them know the rishi behind this Upanishad? How many of them have cared to know what is the traditional interpretation of it? How many of them know how did this Upanishad originated? If people had researched more about this then they would know how ancient Sri Aurobindo's view of purna advaita is. The source of my information is not from Aurobindo it comes from some where else which I will explain below.

Of course Sri Aurobindo was from the 20th century and Shankara was from the 6th century but people have forgotten about one thing that there still exist a minority of Śrauta traditions who practice the historical Vedic religion to this day in India. We are alive we are not dead.

The rishi behind the Isha Upanishad is the great sage Yajnavalkya. How did the Isha Upanishad came into existence?

Yajnvalkya

According to traditional accounts, Yāj�avalkya was the son of Devarāta and was the pupil of sage Vaisampayana . Once, Vaisampayana got angry with Yāj�avalkya as the latter argued too much to separate some latter additions to Yajurveda in being abler than other students. The angry teacher asked his pupil Yāj�avalkya to give back all the knowledge of Yajurveda that he had taught him.

As per the demands of his Guru, Yāj�avalkya vomited all the knowledge that he acquired from his teacher in form of digested food. Other disciples of Vaisampayana took the form of partridge birds and consumed the digested knowledge (a metaphor for knowledge in its simplified form without the complexities of the whole but the simplicity of parts) because it was knowledge and they were very eager to receive the same.

The Saṃskṛt name for partridge is "Tittiri". As the Tittiri (partridge) birds ate this Veda, it is thenceforth called the Taittirīya Yajurveda. It is also known as Kṛṣṇa Yajurveda or Black-Yajurveda on account of it being a vomited substance.

The Taittirīya Saṃhitā thus belongs to this Yajurveda. Then Yāj�avalkya determined not to have any human guru thereafter. Thus he began to propitiate the Sun God, Surya. Yāj�avalkya worshipped and extolled the Sun, the master of the Vedas, for the purpose of acquiring the fresh Vedic portions not known to his preceptor, Vaiśampāyana.

The Sun God, pleased with Yāj�avalkya penance, assumed the form of a horse and graced the sage with such fresh portions of the Yajurveda as were not known to any other. This portion of the Yajurveda goes by the name of Śukla Yajurveda or White-Yajurveda on account of it being revealed by Sun. It is also known as Vajasaneya Yajurveda, because it was evolved in great rapidity by Sun who was in the form of a horse through his manes.The rhythm of recital of these vedas is therefore to the rhythm of the horse canter and distinguishes itself from the other forms of veda recitals. In Sanskrit, term "Vaji" means horse. Yāj�avalkya divided this Vajasaneya Yajurveda again into fifteen branches, each branch comprising hundreds of Yajus Mantras. Sages like Kanva, Madhyandina and others learnt those and Śukla Yajurveda branched into popular recensions named after them.

Isha Upanishad belongs to the Shukla Yajurveda tradition which I am part of and is being practised to this day. As it says in that website Shuka Yajurveda tradition is not known to many people. It is with this affirmation that I am saying that Sri Aurobindo's view of purna advaita did not originated purely from the speculations of a Yogi in the 20th century in fact this view of advaita dates back to at least 3000 B.C or even far back which was the period of Vedic rishis.

If you mean that Śrī Aurobindo's view is the "one true Vedic perspective," the only "permissible" perspective, then it seems there's a common challenge that must be overcome. Those who have studied the Vedas in depth like to point out that the Vedas teach from many different perspectives. For example, the Vedas contain many creation stories taught from very different perspectives which would seem to be directed at different sorts of individuals.

Yes this change of view has a wide range of implications on every domain of science and religion which challenges everything we knew about Vedas and the Upanishads. But the Vedas and the Upanishads remain coherent and consistent and the same truth can be found in the Rig Veda too that's why Sri Aurobindo wrote the book The Secret of the Vedas.

Did the universe begin with the cracking of a cosmic egg? Was it the dividing of a cosmic person? Was it more like the building of a house by a carpenter? Or did it begin with neither being nor non-being? The Vedas say yes to all of the above and offer many other perspectives besides these. So it would seem that more than one perspective is permitted in the Vedas. (This is not a criticism of the Vedas by any means. This is actually part of their greatness.)

Yes the universe originated from a cosmic egg or to say more specifically from the womb of Hiranyagarbha.

Hiraṇyagarbha (Devanagari: हिरण्यगर्भः ; literally the 'golden womb' or 'golden egg', poetically rendered 'universal germ') is the source of the creation of the Universe or the manifested cosmos in Indian philosophy, it finds mention in one hymn of the Ṛigveda (RV 10.121), known as the 'Hiraṇyagarbha Sūkta', suggesting a single creator deity(verse 8: yo deveṣv ādhi devā eka āsīt, Griffith:"He is the God of gods, and none beside him."), in the hymn identified as Prajāpati The concept golden womb is again mentioned in Viswakarma suktha Rg 10-82.

Now you might say, I concede that there's more that one way of looking at creation in the Vedas, but there is only "one permissible" philosophy of Vedānta in the Upaniṣads, the "one true" teaching that equally affirms saguṇa ("with qualities") and nirguṇa ("without qualities") Brahman, just as Śrī Aurobindo says. Even here there are those who have studied the Upaniṣads comprehensively and in depth who disagree that only one perspective can be found. They say , as I mentioned in my first thread, that the Upaniṣads contain several different viewpoints about Brahman, jīvas ("souls" or individual beings), and the world (including dualism, qualified nondualism, and nondualism) to help individuals at different stages of understanding. [See Swami Nikhilananda, The Upanishads: A New Translation, vol. 1, 6th ed. (New York: Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center, 2003), pp. 13, 64-65.] In fact, certain passages in the Upaniṣads do seem to fit most easily with the teaching of Śrī Ādi Śaṅkarācārya. Here are two of the many examples from the Upaniṣads that this great teacher of Advaita used to capture his teaching:


"The One alone is real; therefore there exists no multiplicity in the universe." Adhyātma Upaniṣad 63


"By the mind alone is Brahman to be realized. There exists in It no diversity whatsoever. He who sees in It diversity, as it were, goes from death to death." Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 4.4.19


Others have found dualistic passages that seem to teach an absolute difference between Brahman and a real creation. Still others have found passages that teach that Brahman is both one and many all at once. It seems then that more than one perspective is permissible in the Vedas. Apparently, more than one perspective can help you on the journey to the goal of liberation (mokṣa). More than one branch of Vedānta seems to be valid. What do you think?


praṇām

We have to value the ancient oral traditions over anything else because that's where the truth of Hinduism is. Even though I am from South India I feel sorry for Shankara because one has to speak the truth always. Shankara did a great job in re-establishing Advaita from the repeated onslaught of Buddhist philosophy which we all are truly indebted to him but it seems Buddhism had a strong influence over him which compelled him to come up with the theory of Maya or Illusionism which as it currently stands is in variance with Indian philosophy and for what the ancient Aryan rishis stood far.

One of the main reasons why Hinduism never enters into any intellectual debates between Theist and Atheist is because Hinduism lacks a strict coherent definition which is a valid criticism by western academicians. Different perspectives need to be analyzed and criticized carefully based on evidence and study of the scriptures and we have to arrive at a single perspective. Hinduism and educated Hindus are actually in a crisis and it is important that we rediscover our souls at the right time and rise.

[silence_speaks]

Dear savithru,


Buddhism, Hinduism etc , set aside ... the Truth ... as it stands ... is perfectly revealed by Shankara.

Shankara is not mayavadi ... he is Brahmavadi !

One has to understand properly.

There are three : SAT, ASAT, MITHYA.
SAT : trikalepi tishtati ... it is as it is in all three states of time.
in other words it is time independent.

ASAT : trikalepi na tishtati ... its not there in all three states of time .... ex: horns of a hare.

MITHYA: IT "Appears" but IS NOT! This is where Maya comes into picture.
what IS is SAT...

its like a snake imagined on a rope. We have example of a dream in our lives. dream appears, is it there ?

so in this classification ... there is no scope for error ... since its a perfect partition.

Even if u say "God is present everywhere" ...
our current vision that "God is not present anywhere" is "Wrong" ... it is MITHYA! There is Maya !



Love!
Silence