In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com (Vidyasankar Sundaresan) writes:
|> Sankaracharya's interpretations of the Brahmasutras and the Upanishads are
|> extremely orthodox. He does not interpret scriptures any which way he
|> wants. Rather it is the dvaita and the achintya bheda-abheda schools that
|> wilfully misinterpret the scriptures. And for the sake of polemics against
|> Sankara's school, you intentionally misinterpret Sankara too. You quote
|> Sankara whenever it suits you (read, whenever you want to demonstrate the
|> orthodoxy of your views :-) :-)) and revile him at other times. I have
|> already followed up to your articles on s.r.e. on the Chinmaya mission,
|> but you haven't cared to respond to them. Maybe you have some answers
|> How blind can one get? Mr. Know it all, please show me how the
|> Brahmasutras are so crytal clear that they need no interpretation? Do you
This is true because it is said in the Vaivarta Purana. Also included
in the list of crystal clear texts are the Vedas, the Puranas devoted
to Lord Vishnu, and the original Ramayana. The same phrase was repeated
by Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu when he converted the impersonalist sannyasis
of Benares headed by Prakasananda Sarasvati. Prakasananda later
commented, "Because Sankara wanted to establish monism, he had to
interpret the Vedanta in a different way ... all authors who attempt
to give their own views misinterpret Vedanta"
|> mean to say that Sankara, Ramanuja, Bhaskara, and even Madhva who
|> interpreted these were all fools? Of course you will say that Sankara
|> created all the misunderstanding, and the others after him only tried to
|> clear up the mess he created. In that case, why do all of them also
|> disagree among themselves?
Ramanuja, Madhva, Sridhar Svami, Baladeva Vidyabhausana (sp?) and other
great Vaisnava acaryas have all, of course, commented on the Brahma-sutra,
and they generally do _not_ disagree on philosophy, but
do sometimes in practice. But all the Vaisnava schools generally accept
each other; Gopala Bhatta Gosvami was born in a Ramanujite (read
visistadvaita) home but joined Chaitanya's (acintya bheda-abheda)
school. Similarly one of the greatest disciples of Chaitanya was
Prabhodananda Sarasvati, who was also in the Sri (Ramanuja) sampradaya.
Sri Chaitanya and Vallabhacarya were contemporaries and good friends,
although they belonged to different Vaisnava sampradayas.
|> Finally, see if you can convincingly prove how Sankara/advaita is wrong,
|> without quoting the Padmapurana or some such other lame work. A few months
Well, I'll quote from Padma Purana anyways
Padma Purana --
Lord Siva says:
pracchannam bauddham ucyate
mayaiva kalpitam devi
"The Mayavadi[impersonalist] school is inferior
scripture & veiled Buddhism. I take the form of a
brahmana [Sankara] to mislead the atheists"
continues (this time I'll just write the English trans. as the
Sanskrit is quite long)
"My dear Devi, sometimes I teach Mayavadi philosophy for
those who are engrossed in the mode of ignorance. But if
a person in the mode of goodness happens to hear this Mayavadi
philosophy, he falls down, for when teaching the Mayavadi
philosophy, I say that the living entity and the Supreme Lord
are one and the same."
|> ago, we had a major discussion on alt.hindu regarding advaita and
|> visishtadvaita. I am sure you can get copies of all articles from the
|> moderator. Convince yourself that you can explain away all the upanishadic
|> passages quoted therein without recourse to advaita.
Upanishads hint at an impersonal God but come to the conclusion
of a Personal God with real transcendental qualities. Compare a
translation of "Isopanishad" by Srila Prabhupada and by an
impersonalist -- you'll find the impersonalist stretching the
words beyond their meanings & interpreting words in non-standard ways a
lot more frequently (such as using "purnam" for "infinite" rather
than "complete"; "asurya" for "both the gods & the demons, opposed to
the divine state of non-duality" versus "of the demons").
There is no end in the Bhagavata Purana of liberated monists
(not to be confused with materialistically trapped monists like
Vivekananda, Ramakrishna, etc.) becoming great devotees of Krishna
and Vishnu. The Catuh-Sana (4 sons of Brahma) are great examples;
they became devotees upon smelling tulasi leaves offered to the feet
of Narayana. The atmarama verse in the early part of this Purana
is where all advaitic philosophies fall apart.
atmaramas ca munayo
nirgrantha apy urukrame
kurvanty ahaitukim bhaktim
"Those who are completely self-satisfied and great
thinkers, liberated from all illusion, nevertheless
are attracted by great transcendental pleasure by devotional
service of Lord Hari, Urukrama (Vishnu as Vamana)"
Chaitanya Mahaprabhu gave over 60 different meanings for this
verse which all correspond to the same conclusion -- the perfection
of liberation is devotional service. The perfect jnani
is the one who becomes a bhakta. Even Sankara did most of
his bhakti hymns in his later life, perhaps to show this
I guess I'll conclude with 2 other useful passages
Brhad-Naradiya Purana [38.126]
harer nama harer nama harer namaiva kevalam
kalau nastyeva nastyeva nastyeva gatir anyatha
"In Kali-Yuga the only means of deliverance is always
repeating the name Hari. There is no other way. There is
no other way. There is no other way." (Pretty much
to Krishna Susarla's original point, huh?)
hare krsna hare krsna
krsna krsna hare hare
hare rama hare rama
rama rama hare hare
iti sodasakam namnam
"These sixteen words -- Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna,
Hare Hare/Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare -- are
especially meant for counteracting the contamination of Kali.
To save oneself from the contamination of Kali, there is no
alternative but the chanting of these sixteen words."
The quotes & translations above are all from
_Teachings of Lord Caitanya_ by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.