Advaita Vedantha: Serious Attentions Required.

[sm78]

I mean to say "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye" signifies that you are a vaishnab but actually you are a advaitin which is just opposite vaishnab philosophy.

No it does not. Names of Krishna are not patented vaishnava nomenclature which others are barred from using. Is it so?

Apart from Sankaracharya writing bhaja govindam and a commentary on vishnu sahasranama, several present day advaita monks give public discourses on srimad bhagvatam ~ which itself is not really against advaita. An advaitin following the path of devotion for chitta suddhi can have any form of God as his/her Ista. Krishna is a very popular form of God and several south Indian smarta families are devotees of Krishna and Sri Venkatesha (Vishnu).

Your insistence on problem with an advaitin using "Om Namo Bhagvate Vasudevaya" when there is none, is perplexing. It seems like a deliberate attempt to stir up unnecessary debate and argument, when there is not much room for any? Are you bored that Grames is not replying to your arguments and you want indulge someone else at this point? Besides this is also outside the scope of the thread and the folder theme.

[uttam]

Dear sm78
Please ,don't say like this. My debate with grames has no link here. Most probably grames has left the thread. But it is not fair to say that until grames replies me , I can not respond to other thread. You are also attending to different threads in intervals . I do not think it is a crime to respond when I find something to get involved. My friend, I never get bored because as soon as I can spare time I read only chaitanya charitamrita . You should not consider me a problematic personality who undertakes deliberate attempt to stir up debate with some one unnecessarily . In that case, I would have attended to every threads. Frankly speaking, I am only interested in any subject which bears vaishnab perspective .I have joined this forum to exchange views, not create any confusion deliberately. I think I have won your confidence about my intention for joining this forum . Coming to the point, Yes I think krishna is patented for vainabs because if you accept krishna as it is , you have to reject advaitabad since krishna represents bhakti, prem, rasa, nam, rup and lila madhurya , a swagun personality with all opulences . Are these elements can be found in advaitabad . Therefore I am curious to know how advaitabad can be related to vaishnabism. As I know since the inception of advaitabad by Adi sankaracharya, how one after another vaishnab jagatgurus like Ramanuj or Madhvacharaya refuted the advaita conception. In the mean time I have never got the chance to go through any such literature ( Is there ?)which establish a bridge between this two opposite conception. I request you to help me in this regard if there is any such literatures.
I quote from your post "Apart from Sankaracharya writing bhaja govindam and a commentary on vishnu sahasranama, several present day advaita monks give public discourses on srimad bhagvatam ~ which itself is not really against advaita."
See ,although Sankaracharya wrote bhaja govindam or others as you mentioned , does it mean that his advaitabad is supporting what vaishnabism establishes or there is no disagreement between advaitabad and vaishnabism. I do not know exactly at what stage of his career , Sankaracharya wrote this bhaja govindam or likes but definitely not at the same time when he wrote advaita philosophy. Neither he rejected his advaita philosophy which is based on jnan, which is regarded as Mayabad by vaishnab and even vaishnab are advised to keep away themselves from this Mayabad nor he may be regarded as vaishnab. Is there any chance to conclude that Sankaracharya himself left his own philosophy and started to practice bhaktimarg at the later state of his career ? I will be happy enough if you please explain what advaitin wants to establish by saying that sankaracharya composed bhaja govindam or such writings which leaves impression of being a bhakrimargi like a vaishnab but actually his own philosophy advaitabad is all set to disapprove the path followed by a vaishnab to attain Radha-Krishna prem bhakti. I think I have cleared my intention now. For your information , I have not gone through advaita literatures vigorously. I invite you to debate with open mind . I am not all-knowing person nor so you. So debate with free mind will help us both to enjoy and conclude some acceptable idea.

[sm78]

Yes I think krishna is patented for vainabs because if you accept krishna as it is , you have to reject advaitabad since krishna represents bhakti, prem, rasa, nam, rup and lila madhurya , a swagun personality with all opulences.

Well, this becomes a point of opinion. If I take Krishna as he is in Mahabharata I will have to reject Vaishnavism and their attempts to retro fit the historical krishna with some philosophical justifications.

Therefore I am curious to know how advaitabad can be related to vaishnabism.

As I said, in theory & practice there is no problem as need for bhakti as a means for chitta suddhi is accepted, and in practice most advaitins are bhaktas seeking knowledge. You will be hard pressed to find an advaitin who solely practices jnana yoga. On the other hand any advaitin will be a devotee of one or the other God including Krishna for some.

As I know since the inception of advaitabad by Adi sankaracharya, how one after another vaishnab jagatgurus like Ramanuj or Madhvacharaya refuted the advaita conception. In the mean time I have never got the chance to go through any such literature ( Is there ?)which establish a bridge between this two opposite conception. I request you to help me in this regard if there is any such literatures.

In Debates people are trying to discredit the ultimate philosophy and not the sadhana of the opposition school. Bhakti in advaita is part of its sadhana not philosophy. Who would have guessed that, Madhva Dvaita followers spend significant time worshipping various gods, goddesses, nagas, yakshas etc sometimes following keraliya tantra paddhatis which have precious little to do with vaishnava bhakti, from Madhva's dvaita arguments?

I am not vedantin so my knowledge is very limited in the what the literature of these 3 or other vedantic schools say, but there is a lot of discourse on the need for bhakti in advaita, in the writings of kanchi acharya for example. You may want to read them (available online) to see how bhakti makes sense from point of view of advaita. There must be many other advaita literature explaining the need for bhakti in sadhana for chitta suddhi - but not in the debate literature. Maybe others in the forum may be able to point them out. But kanchi acharya's writing are a good start - particularly his commentary on saundarya lahari.

See ,although Sankaracharya wrote bhaja govindam or others as you mentioned , does it mean that his advaitabad is supporting what vaishnabism establishes or there is no disagreement between advaitabad and vaishnabism. I do not know exactly at what stage of his career , Sankaracharya wrote this bhaja govindam or likes but definitely not at the same time when he wrote advaita philosophy. Neither he rejected his advaita philosophy which is based on jnan, which is regarded as Mayabad by vaishnab and even vaishnab are advised to keep away themselves from this Mayabad nor he may be regarded as vaishnab. Is there any chance to conclude that Sankaracharya himself left his own philosophy and started to practice bhaktimarg at the later state of his career ? I will be happy enough if you please explain what advaitin wants to establish by saying that sankaracharya composed bhaja govindam or such writings which leaves impression of being a bhakrimargi like a vaishnab but actually his own philosophy advaitabad is all set to disapprove the path followed by a vaishnab to attain Radha-Krishna prem bhakti. I think I have cleared my intention now. For your information , I have not gone through advaita literatures vigorously. I invite you to debate with open mind . I am not all-knowing person nor so you. So debate with free mind will help us both to enjoy and conclude some acceptable idea.

This is interesting and people do have opinions, but we would hardly know. Personally I am inclined towards your view. My knowledge of shankaracharya is anyway limited to his beautiful stotra sahitya, many beautiful hynms he composed, none of which had much advaita philosophy in them. They were bhakti pradhan (though not necessarily vaishnava bhakti) and some are very esoteric like ardhvanariswara stotra and saundarya lahari, only makes full sense in context of mantra sadhana. We may take them as his departure from his earlier philosophies, but an advaitin might use them to prove the need of bhakti to achieve the goal of advaita. One can conclude he spent first part of his life to produce the philosophical basis of his school while spent the time later to formulate aids to achieve the goal in form of bhakti hynms and mantra shastra compositions (but, like most, I don't believe saundarya lahari or prapancasara tantra have anything to do with Adi shankaracharya, but the rest of the stortra sahitya is mostly his own composition).

In short there is no conclusion, and people will interpret data according to their own dogma.

[devotee]

Namaste Uttam,

But what I really like to know from you is what message you want to deliver by associating yourself with such opposite conceptions . I mean to say "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye" signifies that you are a vaishnab but actually you are a advaitin which is just opposite vaishnab philosophy.
Do you mean Adi Sankaracharya and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu can be seen at the same platform.I am confused. please help me.

I hope you very well know that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's Guru was an Advaitin. I feel that Chaitanya MahAprabhu did choose Bhakti path but he gave due credence to Advaita by his "Achintya-bheda-abheda" doctrine. This can be very emotional issue for some of the Vaishnava members here & so I won't like to go any further into that issue.

Very few people from Vaishnava school know that Bhagwad Gita propounds the Advaitic path too. I hate to discuss this with a confirmed Bhakta (as Advaita philosophy is not good for someone who is not spiritually ready) but as you have asked me, I would touch upon this subject a little. If you read Uttar Gita by Lord Krishna and some of the Upanishads (quite a good number) which are dedicated to Advaita, you will start believing that Advaita is the ultimate state where all have to reach.

Lord Krishna says in Uttar Gita :

"2.37Those that constantly chant the four Vedas and read other religious works and yet fail to realize "I am that Brahman", they are like the spoons that are used for every cooking operation, but yet remain without a single taste of the foods they prepare."

2.47. As an hungry person simply wastes his energy in vain when he strikes the air with blows for food, so also a reader of the Vedas and others Sãstras simply wastes his time and energy, if, notwithstanding his study, he fails to realize that "I am Brahman".

I quote from your post "For a true Advaitin, there can be no discrimination on the basis of names and forms. What is there in form, the same is formless. These forms, formlessness, names and indescribable ... are all pastime of mind. These concepts have no real meaning in absolute sense." Would you please explain this.

God cannot have only one valid form .... in fact, he can also be worshiped as formless Brahman. All these forms have meaning only when there is mind ... beyond mind, there is no form or formlessness, names or namelessness. You have to go beyond mind to "know" what Reality is. The Infinite Consciousness which alone Is the ultimate Truth in the fourth state, is neither form, nor formlessness ... it is beyond all mental concepts. This Reality has four states, a) the waking state --- which is this manifest Universe with all beings, b) Dream --- which is subtle world of the dream and the subtle world before our birth and death c) The PrAjna state or God state d) The fourth state.

The third state of Brahman or Self is the third state of Self/Brahman and is the Lord of the first two states. We are in the first state. After death if bondage remains we shall be in the second state. These two states originate and dissolve back into the the third state or the God state. The God state is all powerful, all knowing and controller of all beings. This state of Self/Brahman is worshiped by people as Vishnu, Krishna, DurgA, Shiva, Jesus, AllAh etc. However, the Advaitin sees all those names and forms of God as the third state of Self ... and so there is no difference.

Prayer is important in Advaita SAdhanA too and so prayers are offered to God. However, an Advaitin's aim is to attain Turiya or the fourth state. Advaitin loves God ... he is not afraid of Him. He prays to God but doesn't beg ... he asks from God as a son asks something from his father. He sees God in all forms and even formlessness and everywhere ---> "Aham AtmAn GudAkesha SarvabhootAshya sthitah", "Sarvakhalvaidam Brahman". There is nothing which is devoid of God. It is God alone which is seen as any form/formless by our mind.

I don't think you should involve in all such discussions as your path doesn't allow JnAn yoga discussion.

OM

[uttam]

Dear devotee
I thank you for sharing a little touch on advaita philosophy.I also salute you for acquiring so much command on advaita philosophy. I know very well in what sense Chaitanya Mahaprabu and his guru belong to advaita beliefs. I have not yet seen Uttara Gita nor have any idea about its content. Yes I do study Srimad Bhagavat Gita which is a part of Mahabharata.I do not know exactly when,where, why and by whom the others Gita were expounded. Actually after reading Srimad Bhagavat Gita , I do not feel it necessary to read any other Gita.Since you believe that Mahaprabhu also belongs to Advaita family , I like to present what is there in Chaitanya Charitamrita about advaita philosophy.
Adi lila -7th chapter
1) Mayabadi sannyasi in kasi told mahaprabhu,“ We are all happy to know that you are a devotee of Krishna but why do you avoid hearing vedanta sutra
what is the faults in it ?
2) After hearing this Mahaprabhu smiled and said to mayabadi sannyasi,” If you don’t mind I can say some thing about Vedanta philosophy”
3) Prabhu said, “ Vedanta philosophy is Iswar bachan (God’s speech) spoken by Sri Narayana in the form of vyasadeva”
4) Prabhu said, “ The defects like mistake (brahma),illusions (pramada),cheating ( vipralipsa), sensory inefficency ( karanapatava) do not exist in the words of the supreme God”
5) “The tattva which is described in upanisads and sutra is to be understood by its direct meaning ( mukhya vrittye) i.e.one must understand the verses as
they are.That is the ultimate glory in understanding .”
6) “Whatever commentary Acharya (sankaracharya ) made are all in terms of indirect/imaginery meanings ( gauna vrittye) and hearing such imaginery
commentary leads to destruction of all business i.e. one who hears such commentary is ruined.”
7) “ The direct meaning of the word ‘Brahma’ is bhagavan having all spiritual opulences . No one can be equal or greater than him”.
8) “ Everything about him ( bhagavan) is spiritual including his body and opulence. But mayabad ,covering his spiritual opulence, advocates the theory
of Impersonalism”
9) His body, his abode and his entourage are all spiritual but mayabadi says that there are all mere transformations of material mode of goodness ( prakrita
sattyer vikar)”
10 “ Mayabadi considers the transcendental body of Vishnu to be made of material (prakrita) nature which is the greatest offender at the lotus feet of
vishnu.There is no greater defaming against Vishnu”( Vishnu ninda)
11) “ Iswara tattva is like a great blazing fire ( jvalita jvalan) and the identity of jiva ( jiver swarup) is like small sparks of that fire( sphulingera kana)”
12) “ Jiva tattva is shakti (energy) and Krishna tattva is shaktiman( possessor of energy) and this is described in the Bhagavad Gita, Vishnu puran and otherscriptures”
13) “ The Mayabad philosophy is so degraded that it has taken the insignificant living entities (jiva tattva) to be the supreme ( para tattva) thus covering the glories of the supreme personality( srestha iswar mahattva)”
14) “ In his Vedanta sutra vyasadeva has described parinambad (transformation of the energy) but sankaracharya has misled the world by declaring that
vyasadeva was mistaken (vyasa-bhranta) . Thus he has raised opposition through out the world”
15) “According to sankaracharya, the supreme Lord himself is transformed in the parinambad ( theory of transformation of energy) . So by saying this he establishes vivartabad ( theory of illusion)
16) “Transformation of energy is a proven fact but the conception of self in the body( dehe atma-buddhi)is false that is an illusion”
17) “ Sri bhagavan possess of inconceivable energy or potency and by his inconceivable potency, he has transformed the material cosmic manifestation”
( achinta-sakti yukta sri bhagavan/icchaya jagat-rupe paya parinama)
18) “ using the example of a touchstone , which by its energy turns iron to gold and yet remains the same, we can umderstamd that although the supreme Lord transforms his innumberable energies,he remains unchanged”
19) “ Although a touchstone produces many varieties of jewels, it nevertheless remains the same. It does not change its original form”
20) “ If there is such inconceivable potency in material objects, why should we not believe in the inconceivable potency of the supreme Lord ?”
21) “ The basic principle of Vedas - Pranab (OMKARA) is the principal word( maha-vakya). This pranab(Omkara) is direcrt representation of supreme God (iswar-swarupa), the reservoir of all the universes(sarva-viswa-dham).
22) “ It is the purpose of the supreme Lord to present pranab ( Omkara) as the reservoir of all vedic knowledge whereas the words ‘tat tvam asi’ are only a partial explanation of vedic knowledge”
23) “ Covering Pranab ( Omkara) ,the mahavakya, mayabadi establishes ‘tat tvam asi’ as mahavakya( the principal word)
24) “ All the vedic sutras establish explanation of sri Krishna ( krishner avidhan)i.e. Lord Krishna to be understood but sanakaracharya made indirect explanation ( laksana vyakhyan) by covering the direct interpretation( mukhya vritti).
25) “ The self evident Vedas are the highest evidence of all but if the Vedas are interpretated ( laksana), their self evident –nature( swata-pramanata) is lost”
26) “ In this way by giving up the simple/direct meaning of the sutras,Mayabadi introdues indirect meaning(gauna-artha) based on their imagination”
27) the sannyasi told, “ We all know that the meaning of sutras made by acharaya is imaginery but for the sake our sampradaya we have to accept it”
28) “ Now let us see how well you can describe the sutras in terms of direct meaning (mukhya-artha), then mahaprabhu began his direct explanation”
29)” The substance which is greater than the greatest( brihad-vastu) is ‘Brahma’by name – we call sri bhagavan. He has full of six opulences and therefore he is the reservoir of absolute truth(para-tattva-dham)”
30) “ In his original form, he is full of transcendental opulences and is free from the contamination of material world(maya-gandha). It is to be understood that in all Vedas –bhagavan is the ultimate goal”
31) “ When we speak of the supreme as the impersonal(nirvisesa), we deny his spiritual potencies(chit-shakti). The whole can not be understood by accepting half of the truth ( ardha swarup na manile purnata haya hani)”
32) “ Relationship with supreme god( sambandha), activities in terms of that relationship( abhidheya) and the ultimate goal i.e. to develop love of god
( prayojana) –these three subjects are explained in every aphorism of the Vedanta –sutra,for they form the culmination of the entire Vedanta philosophy”

[uttam]

Madhya lila-6th chapter
1)“ Vyas sutra artha( sutra compiled by vyasadeva) is as radiant as the sun
but swakalpita artha ( imaginery meaning by sankaracharya) simply covers that sun-shine with clouds”
2)“ The Vedas ,the Purans explain ‘Brahma’ as absolute truth(brihad- vastu,Iswar-laksana)”
3) “ The supreme personality of Godhead ( swayam bhagavan) is full with all opulences. You are trying to explain him as impersonal and formless”
4) “ Wherever there is an impersonal( nirvisesa) description in the Vedas , the Vedas mean to establish that everything belonging to supreme God is transcendental( aprakrita) and free of mundane characteristics( prakrita)”.
5) “ Everything in the cosmic manifestation( viswa) emanates from the ‘Brahma’, remains in the ‘Brahma’ and after annihilation it again enters the ‘Brahma’”
6) “ The personal features of bhagavan are categorized in three cases- namely ablative, instrumental and locative ( apadana,karana, adhikarana karak )”
7) “ When the bhagavan wished to become many, he glanced over the material energy( prakrita shaktite). Before the creation there were no mundane eyes or mind ( prakrita mano-nayana); therefore the transcendental mind and eyes ( aprakria netra-mana) of ‘Brahma’ is confirmed.”
8) “ The word ‘Brahma’ indicates purna swayam bhagavan and he is sri Krishna . This is revealed in all scriptures( sastra)”
9) “ The confidential meaning of Vedas ( veder nigudha artha) is not easily understood ; therefore that meaning is supplemented in the Puranas”
10) “ The vedic ‘ apani-pada’ mantra rejects material hands and legs ,yet it states that the Lord goes very fast and accepts everything offered to him”
11) “ Therefore sruti confirms that the ‘Brahma’ is personal(savisesa) but the mayabadi giving up the direct meaning interpretes him as impersonal (nirvesesa)”
12) “ How the supreme God( Brahma) ,whose transcendental form is complete with six opulences( sad-aiswarya-purnananda-vigraha) can be described as formless ( nirakara) ?”
13) “The ‘Brahma’ has three primary potencies. Are you trying to prove that he has no potencies?”
14) “ The supreme personality of godhead in his original form is full of eternity,knowledge and bliss. The spiritual potency in these three parts ( sat-chit-ananda) assumes three different forms”

15) “The three portions of the spiritual potency are called hladini (bliss),sandhini ( eternity) and samvit ( knowledge). We accept knowledge of these as full knowledge of ‘Brahma’”
16) “ The spiritual potency of supreme God also appears in three phases- internal( antaranga-chit shakti), marginal( tatastha-jiva shakti) and external ( bahiranga- maya). These three all engaged in his devotional service in love ( tine kare prema-bhakti)”
17) “ In his spiritual potency, the Lord enjoys six opulences. How dare you to reject his potencies ?”
18) “ The Lord is master of maya( mayadhisha) and jives are under maya ( maya-vasa). That is the difference between the Lord and the jives .How can you declare that the Lord and the living entities(jives) are one and the same ?”
19) In Bhagavat Gita the living entity( jives) is established as the marginal potency ( jiva rup shakti) of the supreme God. Yet you say that the jives is completely different from the Lord”
20) “ The transcendental form of the supreme god is complete in eternity, cognizance and bliss. However, you describe this transcendental form as a product of material goodness( sattva guner bikar)”
21) “ One who does not accept the sri brigraha ( transcendental form) of the Lord is certainly an agnostic. Such a person should be neither seen nor touched. Infact, he is subject to yamadanda (punished by Yamaraj)”
22) “ Vyasadeva presented Vedanta philosophy for the deliverance of jives but if one hears the commentary of sankaracharya ( mayavadi vashya) ,everything is spoiled”
23) “ The Vedanta sutra at establishing parinam-vada has come into being by the transformation of the inconceivable potency of supreme Lord”
24) “ The supreme Lord manifests himself as the cosmic manifestation by his inconceivable potency, yet he remains unchanged in his eternal, transcendental form”
25) “ Mayabad states that the supreme Lord is transformed. By accepting this theory, the mayabadi philosopher denigrate Vyasadeva by accusing him or error. Thus they find fault in the Vedanta sutra and interprete it to try to establish the theory of illusion”
26) “ The theory of illusion can be applied only when the jives identify himself with the body jiver dehe atma buddhi). So far as the cosmic manifestation (Jagat) is concerned, it can not be called false, although it is certainly temporary( naswar-matra)”

Now Chaitanya Charitamrita says the real storey of how this mayabad philosophy has come into being , what is the purpose behind this philosophy etc.
Mahaprabhu says ,” Actually there is no fault on the part of Sankaracharya. He simply carried out the order of the supreme God. He had to imagine some kind of interpretation and therefore he presented a kind of vedic scripture that is full of atheism.

PADMA PURANA -62.31( SIVAM PRATI SRI KRISHNA VAKYAM)
Swagamoi kalpitais-twam-cha janan mad-vimukhan kuru
Mam-cha gopaya yena syat sristir-esottaro

Sri krishna says ,”Shiva ¡ please make the people averse to me by imagining your own interpretation of the vedas and also cover me so that people will take more interest in material life just to propagate a population bereft of spiritual knowledge (sristi uttorottor briddhi) and addicted to fruitive activities and mental speculation.

PADMA PURANA - 25.7( DEVIM PRATI SRI SHIVAM VAKYAM)
Mayabadam asach-chastram prachhannam bauddham uchyate
Mayoiba vihitam devi kalau brahmana-murthina

Lord Shiva informed the Goddess Durga,” Hey devi Durge ¡ In the age of Kali I take the form of a brahmana( sankaracharya) and promote Mayabad philosophy ,a false scripture similar to Buddhist philosophy ( prachhanna bauddham)”

[uttam]

I am surprised to think how the ultimate truth will be realised with the help of Mithya.The fact of the matter is Mithya will lead to a ultimate Mithya only instead of ultimate truth. I think before you take rope for a snake in a fading light , you have to have a prior knowledge of the real snake or I do not know why we remind of water in seeing mirage in the desert ? The ultimate truth is already there , now what will make difference if I do or do not try to know it . Will the ultimate truth do anything for me if I know him. Since the experiences in any of the states ( waking,dreaming deep sleeping) of truth is a kind of dream,illusion ,not real not unreal ( is there anything between ‘yes’ or ‘no’?)then, what shall I achieve by making spiritual journey through such false state of mind . I am telling you the biggest truth of this material world is ‘Death’ whether I try to know it or not , Death will definitely come to us. Think, how you go through one state(waking) and then discover it is illusion/false again go to another state(dreaming) and find it illusion/false and again go to next state( deep sleeping) and find it illusion/false and finally reach to Turiya state. In between you meet krishna ,Durga, Shiva and Ganesha and leave them as they are all discovered to be illusion , a false state of mind.The tragedy is after reaching in Turiya also you will not find the truth because the ultimate truth ,the Brahma is beyond any reach,any knowledge, any experience.It is inifinite it can not be described, defined and what not. You will be lost in a big space. What is the result of acquiring so much false knowledge ? Brahma is nitya nor jadam but to justify his status arguments are forwarded involving jada vastu.How nitya vastu can be justified by using jada vastu ? The total advaita philosopy is explained in terms of perception out of some examples. We born , we grow and we die . Are these all perception ? Perception subject to intellect. May be we are not having the required intellect to understand the reasoning of some the happeings of this world. Does it mean they are all false ?
Final question : Since the ultimate truth is Brahma and the world is appears to be real but actually not real then (1) will you please explain the status of mind which is part of unreal material world ? Is our Mind real or else (2) Except Brahma everything unreal . Sankaracharya is not Brahma . He is also unreal . He himself is a Mithya . Why not his conception , his philosophy is a false one ? 3) Brahma has no attributes . He or She is Nirguna, Nirvishes only real then who has given sankaracharya the intellect to expound the philosophy ?

[devotee]

Namaste Uttam,

Mahaprabhu says ,” Actually there is no fault on the part of Sankaracharya. He simply carried out the order of the supreme God. He had to imagine some kind of interpretation and therefore he presented a kind of vedic scripture that is full of atheism.[/B]

PADMA PURANA -62.31( SIVAM PRATI SRI KRISHNA VAKYAM)
Swagamoi kalpitais-twam-cha janan mad-vimukhan kuru
Mam-cha gopaya yena syat sristir-esottaro

Sri krishna says ,”Shiva ¡ please make the people averse to me by imagining your own interpretation of the vedas and also cover me so that people will take more interest in material life just to propagate a population bereft of spiritual knowledge (sristi uttorottor briddhi) and addicted to fruitive activities and mental speculation.

PADMA PURANA - 25.7( DEVIM PRATI SRI SHIVAM VAKYAM)
Mayabadam asach-chastram prachhannam bauddham uchyate
Mayoiba vihitam devi kalau brahmana-murthina

Lord Shiva informed the Goddess Durga,” Hey devi Durge ¡ In the age of Kali I take the form of a brahmana( sankaracharya) and promote Mayabad philosophy ,a false scripture similar to Buddhist philosophy ( prachhanna bauddham)”

There is so much misinformation on Advaita Vedanta and there is so much hatred created by some people that I feel disgusted. The scriptures have been doctored to suit the interpretation some of the Vaishnvas wanted.

I would ask you to read the above passage carefully. A slight careful look at the passage will tell you that it is doctored. Buddha was born in 500 BC approx. So, as it names Buddha, it must have been written after Buddha. Again, it also mentions Sankaracharya. Shankaracharya was born in 8th Century AD, so it indicates that it must have been written after that.

Moreover, Shankaracharya didn't start the Advaitic philosophy. It was available much before Shankara :

a) His Param Guru, Gaudapad and his own Guru were Advaitins.
b) Ashtavakra Gita is one of the extreme Advaitic smriti and dates much before even Buddha, as far as I know. You may be aware that Ashtavakra is one of the ancient Gurus. He is mentioned in Mahabharata and must have been born before Lord Krishna.
c) Lord Krishna (Dwapar yuga) was born after RAma (TretA yuga). RAjA Janak mentioned in AshtAvakra Gita was was a confirmed Advaitin.
d) Lord Dattatreya was the son of Atri. He is the author of Tripur Rahasya and Avadhut Gita which are exclusively Advaitic scriptures.

So, historically, your support of Padma PurAna falls apart. If Padma PurAna is not doctored, the above cannot be true.

I have very high regard for Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Unfortunately, he didn't write any book himself. What we have today is some compilation of some conversations with him. This cannot be considered authentic. Moreover, I have a doubt that you are quoting ISKCON's version of Mahaprabhu's views. ISKCON is known for its hate-campaign against Advaita Vedanta. So, less said about ISKCON is better.

I would like to say to you only this. What should we believe in ? The Upanishads or the PurAnas ? Upanishads are Shruti and enjoy authority over the PurANas. PurAnAs or Smirtis are only as authentic as they are in conformity to Shruti.

OM

[devotee]

Namaste Uttam,

I had to go for some urgent work and so I could not complete what I wanted to say in last post. So, continuing from there further :

In thread http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=9051 I have explained in detail what 'MAyA' means and in how many Upanishads MAyA word has been mentioned and the Advaita VedAnta as taught by Shankara is explained without any need for any interpretation. I would like that you should go through those Upanishads. All these Upanishads are main Upanishads mentioned in the list of 108 Upanishads of MuktikA Upanishad. So, clearly, this word cannot have its origin in mind of Shankara.

There are many Upanishads where the Advaita VedAnta as taught by Shankara is explained. Not only this, many smritis like Yoga Vashishtha, Avdhut Gita, AshtAvakra Gita talk of extreme of Advaita philosophy. So, Advaita VedAnta cannot have originated in the mind of Shankara.

Sri krishna says ,”Shiva ¡ please make the people averse to me by imagining your own interpretation of the vedas and also cover me so that people will take more interest in material life just to propagate a population bereft of spiritual knowledge (sristi uttorottor briddhi) and addicted to fruitive activities and mental speculation.

Nothing can be farther from the Truth ! Advaita VedAnta doesn't teach one to "Materialistic life" or "fruitive activities". Advaita VedAnta takes you away from Materialistic life. A Materialistic person can be a Vaishnava but he can't be an Advaitin. An Advaitin is taught to practise to keep his senses in control and turn his/her mind away from materialistic pleasures. So, this logic that Shankara was sent to teach Advaita VedAnta for making people materialistic is laughable and utterly ridiculous. Everyone knows how the PurANas were doctored to suit the interests of the Brahmins who wanted people to believe in the supremacy of Brahmins by caste. That is how killing of "Shambook" by Rama for doing penance was fabricated and the Manusmriti was doctored to make people believe in the caste system. If you read Shiva PurAna, it talks about supremacy of Shiva, if you read Sri Mad Bhagwat, it talks of supremacy of Vishnu, if you read Devi BhAgawat, it talks of supremacy of mother Goddess. So, which PurAna should one believe ? Who will say that this Purana is correct and the other is false ?

Finally, the Truth must be verifiable cutting across one's belief system, if it is really the Truth. Advaita is verified by many who never were taught be Shankara :

a) If you learn about MahAyAn Buddhism, you will note that though slightly different (Advaita VedAnta believes in God whereas Buddhism doesn't but believes in BuddhAhood which is akin to Turiya state), it does talk things similar to Advaita VedAnta using different terminology.

b) If you learn about Sufism, you will note that it actually talks of non-duality between the seeker and God as the final destination. I would like to quote Al-Mansoor-HallAz who declared, "An al Haque", meaning "I Am the Truth".

When one passes beyond this world and sees that Sovereign (God) without these 'veils,' then one will realize that all those things were 'veils' and 'coverings' and that what they were seeking was in reality that One."

c) Kashmir Shaivism as taught by Sri Abhinava GuptA is an Advaitic philosophy

"Oh Marvel! This illusion, although expressed in multiplicity, is no other than consciousness-without-a-second. Ha, all is but pure essence aware of itself."

d) Christianity : Jesus said, " I and my Father are One". Also, "Jesus said: "I" is the light (of awareness) that shines upon all things. "I" is the All from which everything emanates and to which everything returns." (Thomas, 186). There are many places in the Bible (New TestAment) which indicate towards non-duality.

e) Patanjali YogasutrAs (this is not a part of Advaita VedAnta) tells us that in SAmAdhi one experiences non-duality.

f) Ramana Maharishi was not from Advaita VedAnta school but he attained SamAdhi and experienced Non-duality and later on shared his thoughts which are similar to Advaita Vedanta

g) Sikhism : Holds the view of Advaita. Sikhism doesn't believe in Veda's supremacy and so has no relationship with Advaita VdAnta.

h) Jewish Tradition : Nonduality was unambiguously evident in the medieval Jewish textual tradition which peaked in Hasidism:

i) Taoism philosophy talks of non-duality

*********

Apart from above, Sri RAmkrishna Paramhansa who worshiped Goddess KAli i.e who was a dualist ultimately took dikshA under Advaitin SannyAsi and attained Non-duality. He experienced non-duality through Hinduism, Christianity and also IslAm.

So, I think there is something very very wrong in the false propaganda unleashed by some Vaishnava schools against Advaita VedAnta and Shankara.

OM

[charitra]

Katha Upanishad II.ii.15: ‘ In that infinite Atman, the sun does not illumine, nor the moon, nor the stars, nor the lightsin our own households: that Light shines and, following It, these lights shine . Through that Light the whole universe is lighted.’

Bagavad Gita ChVIII.8.8: ‘With the mind not moving towards anything else, made steadfast by the metod of habitual meditation, and dwelling on the supreme Respondent Purusa, O Arjuna, one goes to Him.’

Speaking on the subject of ‘ The Absolute Manifestation’in London in 1896, Swami Vivekananda refers to the beneficent impact of this impersonal idea ofthe Advaita Vedanta on r eligion (ibid., p. 141) :

“ Another peculiarity of the Advaita System is that from its very start it isnon-destructive. This is another glory,the boldness to preach, “ Do not disturb the faith of any, even of those who through ignorance have attached to lower forms of worship”. That is what it says ‘do not disturb’, buthelp everyone to get higher and higher; just include all humanity.The philosophy preaches a god who issum total. If you seek a universal religion which can apply to everyone, that religion must not be composed of only parts, but it must always be their sum total and include all degrees of religious development’.

The above excerpts reminds us of the proclamation very early on in Rig VEda, the oldest religious scripture:

‘ Ekam Sat, Viprah Bahuda Vedanti.’ ( Truth is one, wise call it by many names). Ramakrishna himself worshipped only Kali . However, Ramakrishna maths and Vedanta centres always explain the Gita and praise its glory. Hinduism is the SumTotal of all sampradayas and their meeting point is Brahman. Krishna in Gita has explained nature of Brahman (Ch VIII) and directed us all towards realizing the Self or Atman. Interpretational confusions (of scripture) leads to possessiveness and as a result divisive schisms appear .- Namaste.