[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: What is Maayavaadam (Advaita)? (fwd)
First of all, this is an introductory note to the SRH Editor. I note that this
posting indicates that it was forwarded from somewhere. Since it was my
understanding that the moderator does not accept articles forwarded from other
groups without explicit permission of the author, and that he also does not
accept followups to articles on other groups (I had several of my posts
rejected for this very reason), this should not be here on SRH. Why has this
policy suddenly changed?
In article <4fvv8k$r1b@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>susarla.krishna@studentserver1.swmed.edu (Hari Krishna Susarla) wrote:
>
>>This is an excerpt from _Teachings of Lord Chaitanya_ by Srila Prabhupada=
>>Copyright, Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. Used with permission.
>
>> In the Siva purANa the Supreme Lord says:
>>
>>dvAparAdau yuge bhUtvA
>> kalayA mAnuSAadiSu
>>svAgamaiH kalpitais tvaM ca
>> janAn mad-vimukhAn kuru
>>
>> "In the beginning of the dvApara-yuga, directed by My orders, man=
>>y
>>>sages will bewilder the people in general by mAyAvAdI philosophy."=20
>>
>
>I made a mistake in saying that Prabhupada was talking tripe about evidence
>from the Shiva puraana. I apologize for making such a statement without
>actually seeing what Prabhupada said. I should have said
> "Prabhupada was talking utter tripe and patently twisting verses
> to suit his convenience".
I am impressed with your humility. As the article follows, I will attempt to
demonstrate that you are mistaken in your beliefs.
>
>1. There is an organ approximately 1-2inches below the top of the forehead.
It's
>called the eye.
Actually, since nothing exists according to advaita, there are no eyes, are
there?
Usually there are two eyes, except in the case of Shiva who is
>supposed to have three. If one opens them (advisable when one is awake) and
>reads the samskrita verse and the translation one will notice a BIIIIIG
>inconsistency. The translation of the verse introduces mayavada nonchalantly
>with no regard for truth. The interpretation is somewhat correct if you leave
>out the "in general by mayavada philosophy". If you don't believe me ask
Shrisha
>Rao who is a Maadhvaa (I think) and who seems to be well versed in the
samskrit.
Looking at the verse, I note that the word "mayavada" is not there, like it
was in the Padma Purana verse. However, the mere absence of this word does not
mean that mayavada philosophy is not being alluded to. Mayavada is known by
many other names, such as advaita and abedha vada. While the word "mayavada"
is not present as such, there may be a synonym here which neither of us are
familiar. If somone is learned in Sanskrit, it would be nice if he could parse
the verse and clarify.
However, the reference to mayavada is certainly justified because it *is*
mentioned elsewhere, by name. I'm sure if one were to take the trouble of
using his [nonexistent?] eyes, he would notice the Padma Purana verse:
mAyAvAdam asac-chAstraM
pracchannaM bauddham ucyate
mayaiva kalpitaM devI
kalau brAhmaNa-rUpiNA
which specifically mentiones mayavadam in a context relevant to Lord Shiva and
his descent as Sankara.
>2. I remember that I quoted something from the Chandogya Upanishad and you
took
>me to task for not being scholarly since I left out the exact verse number.
Let
>me enlighten you. The Satharudra samhita (which describes the avataaras of
>Shiva) is about 25 times larger than the Chandogya U*. I guess Prabhupada is
>not scholarly enough for you.
I have no idea what the point is of the above paragraph, esp the last
statement "I guess Prabhupada is not scholarly enough for you..."
Regarding the satharudra samhita, i don't doubt that it describes the various
Shiva avatars. But can you honestly claim that it describes them all? I don't
think so. The Bhaagavatam describes about 24 avatars of Vishnu, but it is
commonly understood that there are many others besides those described in that
particular Purana.
Furthermore, since Lord Shiva's mission was to come in the guise of a great
philosopher and acharya, you would not expect the information on his
appearance to be so easily discovered, because then people would know that it
is a misleading philosophy and would simply ignore it. Part of the Lord's plan
was that many people would become mislead by mayavadi philosophy, so some
secrecy would be necessary to conceal Sankara's true identity.
>
>3. Even a person with a meagre knowledge of history will know that Shankara
was
>born somewhere in 700-800AD(, exact date unknown). Similarly a person with
even
>a modicum of knowledge of the Yuga system will know that this date falls in
the
>Kali and not Dvapara Yuga. Thus, anyone can see the above verse can in NO WAY
>refer to Shankara. I would suppose Prabhupada had atleast some knowledge of
>yugas and so on. The only conclusion I can come to is Prabhupada was trying
to
>twist facts (euphemism for outright lying).
I wish you would learn to read for understanding before posting these kinds of
personal attacks on SRH. If you had actually read the article, rather than
simply look for outlets to vent your frustration, you would note that the
particular verse being spoken was cited simply to demonstrate that it is part
of the Lord's plan to confuse people with mayavadi philosophy. The verse
mentions that this would begin in Dvapura Yuga. Kudos to Ramakrishnan for
noting that Sankara was born in Kali Yuga. Now, think about this for a moment.
Are you aware that there are other rishis who have spoken mayavadi philosophy?
Sankara was not the first. Before him there was Dattatreya, Astavakra, and
many others. The verse from PP simply states that this was part of the Lord's
plan, and we can infer from that it was also part of the Lord's plan for
Sankara to continue this in the Kali Yuga.
In case you didn't do so before, please note the title of article: "What is
Maayavaadam?" It is meant to be about Mayavadi philosophy in general, not
necessarily limited to Sankaracarya. Try to read the whole thing next time
before engaging in these petty personal attacks.
>
>4. I once gave the location of the Sivasahasranama and verses where Krishna
>worshiped Shiva in the Paadma puraana. The only comment you could come up was
>that it was probably spurious (without even checking). I'll tell you now:
This
>mayavada verse from the Paadma puraana was probably introduced by some guy in
>the Gaudiya line.
This line of thinking is self-defeating. You have now way of knowing if your
version of PP is authentic, and if you claim the same about the one belonging
to the Gaudiyas, then you also have to face up the same criticism.
All I can say in response is that I accept the scripture as it has come down
in paramparaa, because I don't belive in hodgepodge religion. I realize that
you feel it is your mission in life to prove the inconsistency of Vedanta, and
I'm sure many other materialistic persons will applaud your actions. After
all, if the Vedanta is inconsistent, then we don't have to surrender to any
spiritual authority and can continue with our sense gratification, right?
Your claims are totally arbitrary and are not supported by any line of Vedic
acharyas. What major school of Vedanta has confirmed that your version of PP
is authentic? None. You only accept scripture as useful so that you can prove
it is all inconsistent. That is completely atheistic. It will seem
inconsistent if you don't consult a bona fide guru.
If he were as ignorant as Prabhupada about history, it's no
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Personal attack alert! Where is our SRH moderator now?
>surprise. He must have been under the delusion that Shankara was the main
force
>in defeating the Buddhists.
Strawman alert! Where did Prabhupada say Sankara was the "main force" in
defeating the Buddhists? All he said, which is plainly obvious to anyone who
took the time to read his writings, was that Sankara did defeat the Buddhists.
No mention is given about who was the main force, or anything like that. He
never denied that there were others who also defeated Buddhism.
>>Thus according to
>>mAyAvAdI philosophy, the Lord is a product of this material nature, and
>>the living entity is in the lowest stage of ignorance. That is the sum
>>and substance of mAyAvAdI philosophy.=20
>
>Prabhupada strikes again with his ignorance of the Advaita philosophy.
Ramakrishnan, I don't think you really have a clue as to what your own Advaita
philosophy is saying.
Advaitists accept the theory that the Lord comes in a body made out of
material elements. That is the point Prabhupada makes above, and which is now
being ridiculed by Ramakrishnan. Why do advaitists accept this? Because
advaitists deny that there is any such thing as a spiritual form. If
advaitists accept that Krishna's form is spiritual, then their whole
philosophy will crumble. If Krishna's form is spiritual, then why can't we
also have spiritual forms? And if we all have spiritual forms, why can't there
be a spiritual world wherein these various spiritual persons have loving
exchanges. The whole advaitin philosophy of a formless, abstract,
uninteresting, Brahman would fall apart if they accepted Krishna's form as
anything other than material. And the reason they are called mayavadis is
because they assume that Krishna's form is material.
God has form, and this is a fact. If God is formless, then how do you account
for the fact that we are now posessing form? An illusion of something
presupposes its existence somewhere. The advaitin view that it is all One in
the end, with no qualities or form, is not supported even from a logical point
of view.
I urge
>readers of srh to read Upadeshasahasri (my favorite), Vivekachudamani or
>Vicharasangraham (my other favorite).
I suggest SRH readers read Bhagavad-Gita.
>
>>For example, in the SvetASvatara upaniShad it is
>>stated that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the origin of everythin
>> that He has multiple potencies. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is
>>transcendental to the cosmic manifestation. He is he origin of all
>>religion, the supreme deliverer and the possessor of all opulences. The
>>Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is just like the sun, profusely
>>distributes His energies while situated beyond the cloud of this material
>>cosmic manifestation. He is the master of masters and He is the Supreme
>>of the supremes. He is known as the greatest Lord, the Per sonality of
>>Godhead. His energies and potencies are multiple and variously
>>distributed. It is also stated that viSNu is the Supreme and that saintl=
>>y
>>persons are always anxious to see His lotus feet (Rg veda 1.22.20). In
>>the aitareya upaniShad it is als o stated that the cosmic manifestation
>>came about when the Lord glanced over material nature (1.1.1-2). This is
>>also verified by the praSna upaniShad (6.3).=20
>
>I urge the readers of srh to notice a strange fact here. There are no verse
>numbers given for the reference from the Svetaasvataara Upani*, but numbers
Fascinating that you now complain over someone else not giving you verse
numbers, but when I did the same thing to you, you became upset.
are
>given for the other references. Fortunately, I am well acquainted with the
>Svetaasvataara Upanishad. Let me give some verses from it. The readers will
>understand why Prabhupada deliberately left out the verse numbers from the
>Svetaasvataara U*. I especially want to please the scholars in our midst and
>hence give the exact reference numbers.
I will respond point by point to each of these verses when I acquire a copy of
Svetaasvataara Upanishad.
>[rest of the article from Prahbupada's book which has been written with a
logic
>of epsilon (on a scale of 0 to 10), where epsilon is arbitrarily close to
zero,
>summarily deleted]
This is a PERSONAL ATTACK. And the moderator is a hypocrite for allowing it to
pass without so much as a complaint.
>
>In short Prabhupada's article
>
>1. patently misinterprets verses.
>2. leaves out exact reference details whenever there is a possibility of
> contradicting him by actually seeing the verse and the context.
>3. displays a massive ignorance of the Advaita system.
>4. utterly illogical and lacks any sort of coherence.
In summary, Ramakrishnan's reply
1) Demonstrates complete ignorance of advaita, while faulting others of the
same
2) Whines that others leave out exact references, when he himself feels
justified in engaging in similar practices
3) was completely void of anything intellectual, and was motivated by purely
malicious desires to villify someone who is vastly more learned and austere
than he ever will be. This kind of chest-beating seems to be the best he can
offer in the way of logical discourse.
-- HKS
