Re: The Uddhava Gita?
Namaste Kim,
Originally Posted by
kimtadbrahma
Sudarshan, why were your points deleted? I am quite sure we can carry on this discussion in a civil manner. These are important matters for Hindu Dharma, possibly the most important. My view, for what it is worth, is that the greatest glory of Hinduism is its ability to function as a single religious tradition whilst simultaneously embracing enormous doctrinal diversity. Hence you and I can disagree absolutely, but we can discuss our differing views in a mood of friendship and respect. The fact that I do not hold to the same understanding as yourself in no way represents any inhibition of my respect and admiration for yourself as a scholar and devout adherent of dharma. Perhaps I am not understanding the forum properly?
I understand that Satay wants this forum to be free of all debates which usually turn into street fights in the end, with eveyone crying "It is me", "It is me". His conclusion is right as all forums where discussions are allowed are invariably filled with lots of dirt. So probably we could give Satay his wish. So I wont go into a any great depth and just answer your points.
Originally Posted by
kimtadbrahma
Now as to your point on reconciliation. Has it ever been achieved? I have thought long and hard about this whilst studying our sacred texts. You say that such reconciliation is consistent with Vaishnavism, but is that an unbiased assessment or is it in some way shaped by factionalism? That question only you can answer, but it is one that all of us must confront with profound honesty.
There is nothing the 100% will agree on. What would constitute a reconciliation in your opinion? You have to possibly go through a vast amount of literature to examine the validity of all systems - there could be no simple conclusions. Majority opinion is convincingly in favour of Vaishnavism. No one would dare to say that Shaivism is incorrect, but that it finds lesser support than Vaishnavism in the vedas.
With this in mind, I cited you Shankara's own views in the matter. All vedantins know that there are apparently many contradictions in the scripture. It is generally accepted that Vedanta Sutras of Badarayana is a proper reconcilation of the scripture as a whole, and has formed the basis of all systems. Whose commentary have you read and which has been most reasonable to you? Many peer reviewed neutral authorities have no doubts in classifying Shankara's commentary as a far fetched one and beyond the scope of the sutras, and against the very word of sutras. If you would like, we could discuss every issue on this.
Adi Shankara's views are absolutist, and we cannot say that he either supported Vaishnavism or Shaivism. Nirguna Brahma, by its very definition is beyond form, name or any affinity with either Vaishnavism or Shaivism. So, Shankara's opinion regarding this matter can be verified only from his concept of the Saguna Brahma. From his own reconciliation of the scripture, whom does Shankara pick as the Saguna Brahma? There is exactly one SB, and whatever we see is a manifestation of him in Advaita. This is exactly VA's view point, but for VA this is absolute truth, not phenomenal or illusory.
If we choose to base our opinions on his major works, Gita Bhasya, Brahma Sutra Bhasya and the commentaries on the ten upanishads, one could easily discover that he refers only to Vishnu wherver he addresses SB. This is undeniable. In Gita Bhashya, under the commentary for 7.17, Shankara says that Krishna is Ekabhakti because no one else is to be found who is worthy of worship. Certainly this is not something to be brushed off. Similarly in his commentary on 6.47, he openly states that the Yogi who meditates on Krishna is superior to all Yogis who mediate on Rudras and Adityas. There is rarely anywhere in his works he ever refers to Shiva, leave alone use superlatives. Also, in his Vishnusahsranama commentary he interprets the name Keshava as the "originator of Brahma and Shiva" - what do we make out? This is a classical Vaishnava position that proves that he based his authority on Vaishnava Puranas rather than on Shiava Puranas. He may have composed many hynmns on Shiva and Shakti, of course we have to admit that Shankara perceived no differences between Shiva and Vishnu per se, as it is against Advaita's message. But his bias towards Vaishnavism is not questionable to somebody who views his works impartially. I have many Advaitin sanyasin friends in personal life and have taken this against them( who are probaby behind my scientific approach to Hinduism rather than blind faith), and they nod assent, after all how can anyone deny quotations from his own works? In Brahmasutra Bhasya, he is seen quoting only from Vaishnava Puranas, and rarely otherwise. As a traditional rule in vedanta, Shaiva Puranas are classified as tAmasic, because it is mentioned so in Padmapurana, and if Shankara had a bias towards Vaishnavism, then he must have acceptd this quote as well.
Originally Posted by
KIm
After many years of study and reflection, my own view, and again it may well be worthless is that any factionalist adherence is counterproductive as it inhibits one's spiritual freedom and forces one at times to propound views and interpretations of sacred text that one does not really believe in, if one is absolutely honest with oneself. And here I am speaking as one who was a sampradaya member, but renounced that position with great pain and personal loss
Being part of a sampradaya is important for one's own consistancy. I personally have no grudges against any Hindu belonging to any sampradaya because his views would be more consistant. After all, we base our sAdhana on certain beleif patterns and why not follow the footsteps of one of the great Acharyas - whether it be Advaita, VA, Dvaita or something else? If you have a guru, then you have a sampradaya and it not so hard. Without a guru, what sAdhana can we perform, expect based on our ideas? And how do we know our ideas are superior to any of these Acharyas or gurus?
Reconciling scripture is fundamental to many Hindus, because the claims of some people like I am a dvaitin in the morning, Vishistadvaitin in afternoon and Advaitin at night is kind of self contradictory in itself.
Originally Posted by
Kim
In terms of the reconciliation of our scriptures, ie Upanishads, Vedanta Sutra, Mahabharata, Gita etc, I now feel that this is a false goal. Whether one be an Advaitin, a Shaivite, Dvaitin, Visisthadvaitin or other, at some point one will be forced to argue that a sloka or passage is saying what it is not saying and to subvert the meaning in order to bring it into congruence with a factional theology.
So does this mean that our sacred texts are contradictory? Yes, of course it does. But does that render them meaningless as you seem to suggest it would do. Again this is a matter that has greatly exercised my mind, and perhaps I am not able to see things properly. But I have reached the conclusion that the opposite true. The irreconcilability of different texts in fact reveals that the Absolute cannot be reduced to the type of simplistic creedal formulae that our minds hanker after. The true truth (if you will forgive the tautology) is far more subtle and is not available to the rational mind.
I cant tell you about Upanishads that have some "advaitic looking" passages, but have no doubts regarding the purport of Gita and Vedanta sutras. I agree with your point that absolute truth simply cannot be concluded from logic and scripture alone, as it is subject to interpretation. It should be known in expereince. If all Hindus could concentrate on a verifiable approach like systematic forms of Yoga, one could arrive at the truth, and stop fighting. The absence of practical verification has led to blind beleif in scripture and the infighting. Even Srivaishnavism in its early stages was pro-yogic, and somehow lost now. But as you know, the path of devotion and Karma Yoga do not carry with them a ready means of practical realization, though they can ultimately lead to the goal.
Guard your Dharma, Burn the Myth, Promote the Truth, Crush the superstition.
Bookmarks