Bhakti as a concept in Hinduism is foreign influence.

[KRN]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Mine was a mere conjecture based on how Puranic stories are interpreted.
I read the story of Ganesha in the forum here (thread is in the Philosophy section). There are Muslim websites that make fun of such stories. When I got the significance of that story it made some sense to me as to the greatness of that story.

I do not take things literally with descriptions because literal understanding of such things is a sign of immature understanding.

Sir, the whole point,is not your personal belief, but whether Sankaracharya considered the Vishwaroopam literally or not.

Right at the very beginning of the Gita bhashyam, Sankaracharya makes clear his strong belief that Krishna was an incarnation of the divine Lord Narayana, with infinite powers. Hence it is perfectly reasonable for Acharya to consider the Vishwaroopam literally. Pls explain your statement "literal understanding of such things is a sign of immature understanding".

You have conjectured based on some puranic stories unrelated to the matter, but if you want to find out what Acharya actually thought about this, you need to refer the Bhashyam and see what he has written about it. So that's why I asked you.

 

[KRN]

Sir, you are imagining. My question to you, after Prof Moorthy shared the link, was about your conclusions and how you arrived at them. After visiting Professor Moorthy's link actually I bought that book from Amazon/Kindle and have browsed the chapter 11.

Good to know that you have started reading the Gita Bhashyam. The beauty and glory of the Sunlight, that is the Sankara bhashyam to Gita, Upanishads and Brahmasutram can transform a person's life! It has proved to be so in the case of many people! It can give one great mental strength. It is no exaggeration that Adi Sankara is considered the greatest thinker-philosopher of India by a majority of scholars Indian as well as foreign. One day you will thank me for this

You have made my day Sir

I now know that your conclusions are based on literally reading what Acharya wrote on chapter 11. To me that is unsatisfactory, there must be some significance of this Vishwaroopam that is not obvious while reading this literally. I will find our from others I know.

Do you mean, upon reading the Bhashyam to the 11[SUP]th[/SUP] Chapter of Gita, you aren’t able to find anything other than that Acharya considered it a true incident, which happens to be unsatisfactory to you??

You seem to be like a person who has memorized parts of dictionary but cannot write a paragraph to communicate clear answers to the doubts I raised. I have not sensed what reality you have shared other than your beliefs and literally interpreted conclusions (like a duelist)

Where have you raised any doubt at all? All that I could see was some queries asking for citations along with my interpretations...and some conjectures that you say you made based on some Puranic stories unrelated to the Gita.

And with regard to literal interpretation, have you seen anything in the Bhashyam that says, such-and-such statement(s) in the commentary should be treated literally and the rest otherwise?

 

[prasad1]

A debate about Bhakti can go one as long as the sun and moon exists.

Personally I fee what we think is Bhakti is a state of mind of feeling an emotional connectivity in the Master and Dasa
format.

Best example of pure Bhakti is a Dog and Human relationship.
What a dog has for his master is Bhakti..its built on loyality..trust and faithfulness that the master is everything..he is the provider..i survive becos of him..i would lay down my life for him.
Yes..we see this Bhakti in a dog.

Now lets compare it with Bhakti of Human and GOD.
Boy!..we are no DOGS!
Mostly Bhakti is based on fear hence God fearing..we fear to suffer from anything.
We desire punyam..not papam..we desire higher heavens not hell..we desire success not failure..we make transactions with God yet we claim to Love Him.

Do we give up our lives for God? Heck no! Some give up their lives for 72 virgins in heaven

Lets see heaven concept..in Hinduism Indraloka is like a bollywood movie..item numbers Apsaras and all..why?
Just to tempt the human mind to behave for a reward.

Thats just primitive..to be doing anything for a reward..can a human mind strive for a state sans fear..sans desire..sans attachment..sans identification? ( even of a genetic kind)


May be if we reach that state..that would be true Bhakti..what we call Bhakti now is just an over rated glorified emotional " affair" for personal gain.

What a profound post.

You are right we have a word Bhakti, I can understand it existed in our VEdas,
But the present day the word Bhakti has taken a different meaning. It is purely begging. I do not think that alone was the meaning of Bhakti in olden days.

The present day Bhakti in Hinduism is a aberration, influenced from other sources.
Bhakti alone can not solve our problems, Bhakti can not negate action of our karma.

 

[KRN]

It is obvious because right at the very beginning, ie in the preface or the Upodghaatam to the Gita, Acharya has clearly explained his views on lord Krishna. As I mentioned earlier, this comes before he even starts the Gita slokas. I had stated this many times already. You don't have to read the entire Bhashyam - all you need to do is read once from the very beginning. The first few pages at least.

This was never a point of debate or discussion for me. Acharya is a Bhaktha but not in the sense people practice today ( I have given examples of what I see people practicing in this thread in the name of Bhakthi)

Sir, earlier you had stated that it is hard for you to believe that Acharya was a Krishna bhakta. One of my debating points was 'Acharya was a Krishna Bhakta'. After going through the Upodghaatam or preface of the Gita, do you still disagree with this point?

 

[KRN]

What I meant with my message to you is this: Let there be not personal attacks - I have not attacked you. Personal attacks degenerate a discussion. I have not asked or said anything outside the scope of topics discussed.

Yes Sir, you have not made personal attacks and that is really nice of you.

 

[KRN]

I think you have been responding without understanding what the question is. If you think I am in the dark, you need to provide light in my context not while basking in the Sun outside. Truth to be told you are in the darkness too except your posts has an air of imagining being under the sun,

Sir, no amount of reflected light from me will amount to the understanding that you will get from the splendour of the Sun, that is Sankara's own commentary to the Gita.

In one sense, all of us are in darkness, but more pertaining to the topic, I am sure about being in the light insofar as the statements or debating points I mentioned earlier are concerned You or your expert friends have not yet proved me wrong

In your responses, you have confused between facts (what is actual translations), your own conclusions (based on your own bias such as seeing literal interpretations as truth) and pet beliefs (Siddhi etc. ).

Beg your pardon, it's just the other way around. You have confused between facts (actual words of Acharya), your own conclusions or conjectures or false notions (statements like Acharya wrote in a symbolically significant way, Acharya wasn't a Krishna Bhakta and so on), gross exaggerations (today's bhakti is like this, most bhaktas are like that etc) and a few mistaken comparisons (Gita as an Einstein paper, or as a fox and crow story)

If you have carefully gone through the Upodghatam or preface to the Gita bhashyam, Acharya has given a clear picture there of his views on lord Krishna as an avatara of lord Narayana or Vishnu, possessing of infinite powers. And it is in this context that the whole Gita was dealt with.

The point here is, Vishwaroopam, a miracle in the eyes of the common man, was fully accepted as a true Yogic performance by the great Krishna Bhakta Sankaracharya. And you will not be able to produce even a hint from the Gita bhashyam, that Acharya thought of the Viswaroopam as anything other than a true incident.

Are you saying 'every other Bhakta' 'believe and fear god for his power over nature'? From where did you get that idea?

Most people of today's Bhathas even have pride in 'fear of god'. Some even advertise in matrimonial - "we are god fearing family". Children are told that if they dont do something swami will come prick their eyes

Matrimonial advertisements generally follow a certain prescribed format. That in no way implies anything about Bhakti or Bhaktas. Many modes of bhakti are followed in India, like connecting to God as one does with a friend, or with a child, or as a son (of mother goddess) etc. When it comes to Krishna, whatever else they may think of him, the majority of adherents of Hinduism will not have a bhakti of 'fear of Krishna'.....

Sir, Kindly go ahead and expose holes in my statements or understanding, by quoting from Acharya's works, with citations, your interpretations. What or who is preventing you?

I am searching for truth - simple naked truth. I have no desire to expose holes. I have showed in the last few responses where I see the holes.

And right from the beginning, I've been directing you to the simple naked truth, ie to Acharya's own words in the Bhashyam. Nice to see that at long last you have made a move to start looking into it

 

[a-TB]

Sir, the whole point,is not your personal belief, but whether Sankaracharya considered the Vishwaroopam literally or not.

Right at the very beginning of the Gita bhashyam, Sankaracharya makes clear his strong belief that Krishna was an incarnation of the divine Lord Narayana, with infinite powers. Hence it is perfectly reasonable for Acharya to consider the Vishwaroopam literally. Pls explain your statement "literal understanding of such things is a sign of immature understanding".

You have conjectured based on some puranic stories unrelated to the matter, but if you want to find out what Acharya actually thought about this, you need to refer the Bhashyam and see what he has written about it. So that's why I asked you.

Puranic story I referred to is unrelated to Gita. You are right. It was an example to show that much of our teachings and even rituals are based on symbolism. If one is literal there can be all kinds of contradictions. I am wondering the symbolic significance of the Vishwaroopam. Acharya does not make any statement other than support literal translation. My intuition is that there must be more and if I find out I will share that understanding.

 

[a-TB]

Sir, no amount of reflected light from me will amount to the understanding that you will get from the splendour of the Sun, that is Sankara's own commentary to the Gita.

In one sense, all of us are in darkness, but more pertaining to the topic, I am sure about being in the light insofar as the statements or debating points I mentioned earlier are concerned You or your expert friends have not yet proved me wrong



Beg your pardon, it's just the other way around. You have confused between facts (actual words of Acharya), your own conclusions or conjectures or false notions (statements like Acharya wrote in a symbolically significant way, Acharya wasn't a Krishna Bhakta and so on), gross exaggerations (today's bhakti is like this, most bhaktas are like that etc) and a few mistaken comparisons (Gita as an Einstein paper, or as a fox and crow story)

If you have carefully gone through the Upodghatam or preface to the Gita bhashyam, Acharya has given a clear picture there of his views on lord Krishna as an avatara of lord Narayana or Vishnu, possessing of infinite powers. And it is in this context that the whole Gita was dealt with.

The point here is, Vishwaroopam, a miracle in the eyes of the common man, was fully accepted as a true Yogic performance by the great Krishna Bhakta Sankaracharya. And you will not be able to produce even a hint from the Gita bhashyam, that Acharya thought of the Viswaroopam as anything other than a true incident.



Matrimonial advertisements generally follow a certain prescribed format. That in no way implies anything about Bhakti or Bhaktas. Many modes of bhakti are followed in India, like connecting to God as one does with a friend, or with a child, or as a son (of mother goddess) etc. When it comes to Krishna, whatever else they may think of him, the majority of adherents of Hinduism will not have a bhakti of 'fear of Krishna'.....



And right from the beginning, I've been directing you to the simple naked truth, ie to Acharya's own words in the Bhashyam. Nice to see that at long last you have made a move to start looking into it

One of my friends knows someone who is a very knowledgeable scholar. I have not reached out to that person.
So there has been no experts engaged in this from my side.

When I joined the forum my family were curious to contribute using my login. They lost interest quickly. I was fortunate when I joined to have had email conversations with two 'veterans' of this forum many years ago. One is Mr Sangom and the other is Mr tks. I have written to Mr tks. I am not sure anyone is out to prove you wrong. My question continues to be about what whether Acharya , a philosopher accepted the miracle of Vishwaroopam. If there is symbolism, what is it. That has been my main query here.

Acharya, I am sure did not distinguish between Siva or Vishnu or Krishna like the way people of various sects believe. That is what I meant when I said he was not (just) a Krishna Bhaktha. He was a Bhaktha of Bhagavan. By definition Bhagavan is all powerful, present everywhere etc.
What is missing in your description is non-duality in the understanding of Vishvaroopam.

Again I do thank you for getting me interested in trying to read Gita. I must say that this book with Bhashya translation is hard to follow for a novice. Chapters like 11 and even 10 are easier to read. I have only skimmed the book so far

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna...

Ok..lets get simple..
We all work..why do we work?
Cos we need money to lead a comfortable life.

Is that a desire?
Some might say so.

But it can also be called a reaction to the action called work.

Work is action..money is reaction.

If just say the work is not bringing in money..then what do we call it?

We can call it system malfunction..action reaction mechanism malfunction

So what do we next?

Repair the system...look for faulty parts and make the Action Reaction system work again.

Tell me..where is desire of a personal gain in this to ensure a system works?

If we get technical we get a clearer picture.

Renuka,

We can be technical if other persons are not affected by our actions. but the problem is when others are affected it becomes more than just technical. So money generation as a reaction has to be viewed in that sense.

 

[KRN]

One of my friends knows someone who is a very knowledgeable scholar. I have not reached out to that person.
So there has been no experts engaged in this from my side.

My consistent point in this regard is, anyone, be they expert or lay person can verify all my statements by directly perusing the Gita bhashyam. It is very simple and straight forward. But it is your choice whether to engage experts or not.

When I joined the forum my family were curious to contribute using my login. They lost interest quickly. I was fortunate when I joined to have had email conversations with two 'veterans' of this forum many years ago. One is Mr Sangom and the other is Mr tks. I have written to Mr tks. I am not sure anyone is out to prove you wrong.

Sure. My whole intention is to get the forum visitors interested in the Gita Bhashyam and thereby gain a clearer perspective on Acharya's ideas.

The motto of the non-profit organization I'm affiliated to, is "matheva no rakshati sankara bhashyashaktih"

My question continues to be about what whether Acharya , a philosopher accepted the miracle of Vishwaroopam. If there is symbolism, what is it. That has been my main query here.

My answer, directly verifiable, is, there is a commentary as though the event was the plain truth.

I will just post a few more thoughts on this, before I wind up

Sankaracharya though a commentator conforming to the orthodoxy of the times, wasn't any blind believer. In the Gita Bhashyam itself, at one place he writes (in commentary to sloka 18.66) "na hi pratyakshavirodhe Srutheh praamaanyam. Na hi Srutisatamapi sheethognih aprakaashah iti bruvat praamaanyam upaaiti"

Meaning

"Scriptures cannot be certainly considered an authority against observed facts. Even if a hundred Vedic texts declare that fire is cold and devoid of light, they cannot become an authority on this point and will need to be rejected".

"na cha vachanam vasunah saamarthyajanakam" (Brahma sutras 1.4.10)

meaning "scriptural texts cannot impart power to anything" (ie, they are just revelatory in nature) and there are more such quotes.

Yet, it can be seen that Acharya treated Vishwaroopam in a matter-of-fact way only.

Vishwaroopam as an event described in the 11th Chapter, is an integral part of the Gita. A typical commentator who considers it a true event, will not write in his commentary to each sloka "this a true event", "this really happened" etc... What he will do, is to provide commentary to the event in a matter-of-fact, or as you say literal way. If the commentator wanted us to treat the event as anything other than a true event, he would give at least a hint to that perspective somewhere/anywhere in the entire commentary. There is nothing of that sort.

There are many other Gita slokas, wherein Acharya goes beyond the plain commentary, and delves into the Mahabharata proper and even gets into speculation mode. For example, here's what Acharya says in 11.34, 35

11.34
"" We have seen that the four warriors Drona, Bhishma, Jayadratha and Karna are invincible. Hence they have instilled fear in Arjuna. Let us see how? (Here Acharya takes notes from the Mahabharata part that is outside of the Gita)

Drona, who was the Dhanurvedaacharya himself, was possessed of all kinds of Divyastras (divine weapons). Moreover, he was the Guru of Arjuna himself.
Bhishma due to his being a Swacchandamrityu, cannot be killed by others in battlefield, except with his own permission. Bhishma himself was possessed of many Divyastras, and has encountered lord Parashurama himself in Dvandayuddha, without getting defeated.
Jayadratha, whose father is presently undergoing severe Tapas with this aim 'Whoever lets fall my son's head on the earth, may his head as well fall on the earth".
Karna, who is possessed of the invincible Shakti provided by Vasava (Indra), and who is the son of Surya, and was born of an unmarried woman.

11.35. Acharya says...

"Now what we see here is a statement from Sanjaya, with a secret intention in his mind. What is it? We have heard the statement of the lord about these four invincible heroes. If Dhritarashtra realises that these four heroes are not really invincible, and infact they are going to be defeated and killed by Arjuna, he would then realise that his son Duryodhana would be left without support in the battlefield. And hence Dhritarashtra would lose all hope of victory in the battle, and would perforce seek peace with the Pandavas. Hence it is with this this intention, that Sanjaya gives this advice. Alas, even that sane advice was again not listened to by Dhritarashtra, due to the play of destiny.

This kind of speculation on the intentions of Sanjaya, that goes beyond the sloka under consideration, is one example that reveals Acharya's perception of the Mahabharata.

Again I do thank you for getting me interested in trying to read Gita. I must say that this book with Bhashya translation is hard to follow for a novice. Chapters like 11 and even 10 are easier to read. I have only skimmed the book so far

You are most welcome Sir

 

[KRN]

Acharya, I am sure did not distinguish between Siva or Vishnu or Krishna like the way people of various sects believe. That is what I meant when I said he was not (just) a Krishna Bhaktha. He was a Bhaktha of Bhagavan. By definition Bhagavan is all powerful, present everywhere etc.

Yes, you are right. Acharya was a Bhakta of the one nondual Supreme Parabrahman. However he acknowledged the popular gods like Siva, Vishnu, Krishna, Devi etc.

So, just by way of a final conclusion to my messages above...

In the commentary to the Kenopanishad, Acharya refers to the goddess "Uma Haimavathi" as the daughter of Himavan and eternal consort of the lord Ishwara.
In the prakarana work Upadesha Saahasri, considered an authentic Sankara work by all scholars, Acharya refers to lord Raama, the son of Dasaratha, and refers to an episode from the Ramayana
As mentioned earlier one just needs to refer the preface to the Gita bhashyam, for Acharya's consideration that Krishna was the incarnation of Lord Narayana or Vishnu, and that Krishna possessed infinite powers. Once we start reading the slokas, we will be able to see many other slokas wherein Acharya considered Krishna an incarnation of Vishnu or Narayana.
In the commentary to the Vishnu Sahasranama-bhashyam Acharya refers to Arjuna's meeting of lord Siva/Mahadeva in the kiraata form, from whom he obtained divine weapons like Pashupatastra.

Many such examples could be given.

Acharya's advice, as I understand it, is - all these stories maybe true and one can very well accept them. One just shouldn't stop there or get stuck there. One needs to go beyond all that, into the spirit of Advaita or Tattvamasi, because that is the only way out of the sorrow and delusion of the samsaric world.

Asmaakam apratyakshamapi chirantanaanaam pratyaksham (Brahmasutra bhashyam 1.3.3)

Meaning: - Even things that are beyond the limits of our perception, were matters of direct perception of our forefathers.

Eka eva Paramatmeshwarah Taisthairgunavisheshaih Vishishta Upaasyo Yadyapi Bhavati Tathaapi Yadhaagunopaasanameva phalaani vhidyante. Tam Yathaayathaa upaasate tadeva bhavati (Brahmasutra bhashyam 1.1.12)

Meaning:- Though the Highest Self is one only, the Lord, distinguished by different qualities becomes the object of different prayers; and the fruits of prayer vary in accordance with qualities attributed to the lord in prayer.

Nirgunamapi sad brahma naamaroopagathaih Gunaih Sagunam upaasanartham tatra tatra upadishyate ityetadapi uktameva. Sarvagatasyaapi brahmanah upalabdhyartham sthaanavishesho na viroopyate saalagrama iva Vishnoh ityetadapi uktameva (Brahmasutra bhashyam 1.2.14)

Meaning:- It is but appropriate that Brahman, although devoid of qualities, is prescribed, for prayer purposes by various texts, as possessing qualities depending on name and form. It is not inappropriate to assign specific places for the Omnipresent Brahman, as it serves as a prop to the mind in prayer, just as it is justifiable to pray Vishnu in the salagrama stone.

 

[KRN]

Due to some pressing work, I would not be visiting this forum for the next few days. Once I return, will reply to any message requiring my response

 

[a-TB]

Due to some pressing work, I would not be visiting this forum for the next few days. Once I return, will reply to any message requiring my response

Sir,

Thank you for your detailed posts.

Understood where you are coming from.

The issue is reconciling non-duality teaching with these statements. You have portrayed Shankaracharya to be a dualist with all these citations. There is a contradiction.

I will try to get other views just because I am now curious to find out

 

[a-TB]

Sir,

Thank you for your detailed posts.

Understood where you are coming from.

The issue is reconciling non-duality teaching with these statements. You have portrayed Shankaracharya to be a dualist with all these citations. There is a contradiction.

I will try to get other views just because I am now curious to find out

Dear Mr KRN,

Do you have any response to the above in bold " You have portrayed Shankaracharya to be a dualist with all these citations. There is a contradiction. "

 

[tbs]

Dear Mr KRN,

Do you have any response to the above in bold " You have portrayed Shankaracharya to be a dualist with all these citations. There is a contradiction. "

hi


there are two things of truth in advaita....paramarthikam and vyavaharikam...in many dual places....acharya says as vyvaharikam....in

vyavaharikam dualism possible..even in viswaroopam context...

 

[KRN]

Dear Mr KRN,

Do you have any response to the above in bold " You have portrayed Shankaracharya to be a dualist with all these citations. There is a contradiction. "

Sir,
There is no contradiction as Sri tbs stated above. However, since many sects go by the name dualism, I will elaborate on this point a little.

Advaita has little or no issues with dualists as long as they

a) Accept the authority of the Vedas (and specifically the Upanishadic component of the Vedas)
b) Believe in a single God
c) Whose God is an all-pervasive (Antaryami) entity, from whom everything in the universe is created, live in all the while, and dissolves at the end

In the Advaitic perspective, there is a single, Infinite, eternal entity, ocean-like. a-TB, KRN, tbs etc are like droplets of foam in this ocean, and Gods like Vishnu, Siva...are waves wholly encompassing all these foam particles.

1) Advaita accepts dualistic creeds of Indian origin, like Vishnu-worship, Siva-worship, Devi-worship, Ganesha-worship etc, because their source books like Ganesha Purana, Vishnu Purana etc follow (a), (b), (c)

2) Advaita rejects certain dualistic creeds of Indian origin, like the Sankhya and Yoga, because they follow (a) but do not follow (b) and (c)

3) Advaita doesn't support the dualistic creeds of foreign origin, like Islam and Christianity, because they follow (b) but do not follow (a), and (c)

For all practical purposes the Advaitin is in perfect alignment with Bhakti, and with most dualistic sects, as long as they adhere to (a), (b) and (c). Here I am not going into some subtle points of difference, like in their differences with the Vaishnava systems of Chaturvyuhas etc.

In fact the Advaita Guru Gaudapadacharya states thus in his kaarika to the Mandukyopanishad.

स्वसिद्धान्तव्यवस्थासु द्वैतिनो निश्चिता दृढम् ।
परस्परं विरुध्यन्ते तैरयं न विरुध्यते ॥ १७ ॥

svasiddhāntavyavasthāsu dvaitino niścitā dṛḍham |
parasparaṃ virudhyante tairayaṃ na virudhyate || 3.17 ||

17. The dualists obstinately cling to the conclusions arrived at by their own enquiries. They contradict one another; whereas the Advaitin finds no conflict with them.


अद्वैतं परमार्थो हि द्वैतं तद्भेद उच्यते ।
तेषाम् उभयथा द्वैतं तेनायं न विरुद्ध्यते ॥ १८ ॥

advaitaṃ paramārtho hi dvaitaṃ tadbheda ucyate |
teṣām ubhayathā dvaitaṃ tenāyaṃ na viruddhyate || 3. 18 ||

18. Non-duality is the ultimate Reality, while duality is said to be its modification. Therefore the nondual position does not conflict with the dualist’s position.

 

[a-TB]

There is no contradiction as Sri tbs stated above.

Advaita has little or no issues with dualists as long as they

a) Accept the authority of the Vedas (and specifically the Upanishadic component of the Vedas)
b) Believe in a single God
c) Whose God is an all-pervasive entity, from whom everything in the universe is created, live, and dissolves at the end

Hence, broadly speaking

1) Advaita easily accepts dualistic creeds of Indian origin, like Vishnu-worship, Siva-worship, Devi-worship, Ganesha-worship etc, because their source books like Ganesha Purana, Vishnu Purana etc all follow (a), (b), (c)

2) Advaita rejects certain dualistic creeds of Indian origin, like the Sankhya and Yoga, because they follow (a) but do not follow (b) and (c)

3) Advaita doesn't support the dualistic creeds of foreign origin, like Islam and Christianity, because they do not follow (a), (b) and (c)

Now why I said "broadly speaking" above

The upasanas taught by creeds coming under (1) will not lead to immediate moksha, but it will be definite and progressive.

Dualistic creeds like SriVaishnavas have some other text books like Pancharatras and deal with some additional matters like Chaturvyuhas. In the eyes of the Advaitin, these are not essential. However, in view of their following (a), (b) and (c), Advaita still reveres the original sages of these dualistic creeds, as Rishis and ready to get along with their practices.

With regard to (3), Advaita acknowledges that their upasanas will give temporary results, and their adherents will have to be reborn in this world, as various human and non-human beings.

Thanks to Mr TBS and you , Mr KRN for your response.

But it is highly unsatisfactory.

The issue is not about dualists or advaitins or any other group.

It is not about who approves what thinking.



Question is really about what the vedas/ upanishads actually teach (via Gita) and therefore what is the real truth.

If there is one God for me, then there are two - myself and God - Is that the reality? If many people believe in one God is that reality ? Is that reality called Advita? Somehow I think not.

You cannot have truth as ONE ( that is Paramarthika I assume) and then real world has many people and things (so we call that by another name Vyvaharika ).

These definitions do not really resolve the fundamental contradictions of one and many as to what is the truth.

If Sankara says truth is one but then talks about Vishvaroopa as a real event (where there is more than one meaning Krishna and Arjuna ) something does not add up

These cannot be waved off by using some words as definition.

Contradiction remains and not answered.

 

[a-TB]

Dear Mr KRN:

I had replied to a version of your post before you had edited and added more information.

So Advitins have no problems with Dualists but Dualists cannot accept Advitins.

The issue really is - what is the real truth or is it all speculations and people believe what they want to?

 

[KRN]

Dear Mr KRN:

I had replied to a version of your post before you had edited and added more information.

Sir,
Just wanted to clarify in case there is a misunderstanding
It is my policy to not edit any post of mine, once it has been replied to. While editing yesterday, I didn't see your response. Also the timestamp shows your reply to have been made over an hr after my editing.

My response was with regard to your query "Why Sankaracharya, a known advaitic Guru, is seen supporting dualism in his works. Is there a contradiction".

There is no contradiction, because that is how Advaita philosophy works. It is geared to support all dualism that accept (a), (b) and (c).

For further clarification, you can refer any of the standard Advaita texts, including the karika to the Mandukya Upanishad, from which I'd quoted earlier.

You cannot have truth as ONE ( that is Paramarthika I assume) and then real world has many people and things (so we call that by another name Vyvaharika ).

But when you consider this so-called real world having many people and things, what is its reality?
The person whom I saw running a marathon a minute ago, is motionless now, and will be a framed photograph tomorrow. How can a world in which such things happen regularly, be a real World?

The issue really is - what is the real truth or is it all speculations and people believe what they want to?

Perhaps everyone is still on a search for that elusive, real truth...

As for Advaita tradition, it bases itself on the Upanishads which is considered the outpourings of the Rishis from their direct experience (not speculation). Also this tradition firmly states that it's truths can be directly realised by anyone willing to undergo it's practices (that go by the name Sadhana-chatushtaya), under the guidance of a Guru.

 

[a-TB]

Sir,
Just wanted to clarify in case there is a misunderstanding
It is my policy to not edit any post of mine, once it has been replied to. While editing yesterday, I didn't see your response. Also the timestamp shows your reply to have been made over an hr after my editing.

My response was with regard to your query "Why Sankaracharya, a known advaitic Guru, is seen supporting dualism in his works. Is there a contradiction".

There is no contradiction, because that is how Advaita philosophy works. It is geared to support all dualism that accept (a), (b) and (c).

For further clarification, you can refer any of the standard Advaita texts, including the karika to the Mandukya Upanishad, from which I'd quoted earlier.



But when you consider this so-called real world having many people and things, what is its reality?
The person whom I saw running a marathon a minute ago, is motionless now, and will be a framed photograph tomorrow. How can a world in which such things happen regularly, be a real World?



Perhaps everyone is still on a search for that elusive, real truth...

As for Advaita tradition, it bases itself on the Upanishads which is considered the outpourings of the Rishis from their direct experience (not speculation). Also this tradition firmly states that it's truths can be directly realised by anyone willing to undergo it's practices (that go by the name Sadhana-chatushtaya), under the guidance of a Guru.

Dear Mr KRN:

I was replying and then was Googling to make sure my question is legitimate. By the time I posted, you had added some items for clarification

Coming back to the discussion now - Advita from my understanding is opposite of dvita or dualism.

How can Advita support (at an understanding level) its opposite. I am not talking about accepting others and respecting traditions.

If Vishvaroopa happened in reality according to Sankara Acharya that cannot square away with the advita understanding.

Agreed Rishis are visionary and experienced etc. That is not an explanation to fundamental contradiction as to how dualism is also true (that is what accommodation is since Acharya is saying Vishwaroopa is a real event for Arjuna) while saying Advita the opposite of dualism is also true.

I think you and Mr tbs have just accepted all these as a matter of belief only.

Also you have 3 conditions - namely acceptance of Veda, acceptance of one God, all pervasive god.

Even that is a over specification. If Veda/Upanishad say one God and it is all pervasive where is the question of other two conditions.
If Vedas do not say one God etc, then the conditions are self contradictory

So the explanation has flaws..

Thanks for your engagement

 

[KRN]

Dear Mr KRN:

Coming back to the discussion now - Advita from my understanding is opposite of dvita or dualism.

How can Advita support (at an understanding level) its opposite. I am not talking about accepting others and respecting traditions.

Agreed Rishis are visionary and experienced etc. That is not an explanation to fundamental contradiction as to how dualism is also true (that is what accommodation is since Acharya is saying Vishwaroopa is a real event for Arjuna) while saying Advita the opposite of dualism is also true.

Sir,
It is dualism to think in terms of opposites. Advaita never does that.....Advaita is all-encompassing, hence cannot be the opposite of anything

Advaita requires a paradigm shift in our understanding.

Can the ocean be considered the opposite of a wave from it?

To provide an entirely accurate explanation of this intuitive idea is difficult (rather, my lack of competence in English language).

I think you and Mr tbs have just accepted all these as a matter of belief only.

I had a spiritual experience many years ago, that strengthens my belief in Advaita, but would prefer not to divulge it.

Also you have 3 conditions - namely acceptance of Veda, acceptance of one God, all pervasive god.

Even that is a over specification. If Veda/Upanishad say one God and it is all pervasive where is the question of other two conditions.

If Vedas do not say one God etc, then the conditions are self contradictory

So the explanation has flaws..

Thanks for your engagement

Sir, I mentioned this in my previous post. There are sects who, while themselves professing allegiance to the Vedas, their philosophy leads them to conclusions quite different from (b) and (c). Advaita cannot agree with such sects that offer lip service to the Vedas. Hence the relevance of conditions (b) and (c). These are the sects mentioned under category (2) in my earlier post.

Here we are not dealing with the intricacies of Advaita as such but on how it considers the varying dualistic sects - whether Advaita treats them all the same way or not. Hence the necessity of the 3 conditions.

If Vishvaroopa happened in reality according to Sankara Acharya that cannot square away with the advita understanding.

I beg to differ. It can easily square with Advaita

The Upanishads say, Brahmavid Brahmaiva Bhavati. A person who attained to the realisation of Brahma-jnanam, will come to have access to the infinite powers that come with being Brahma.

The Upanishads reiterate this idea in many places. And an advaitin, as a follower of the Upanishads, will have no objection to the above statement.

In the Gita, Krishna taught Brahma-jnanam to Arjuna. He talked about himself incarnating in the world for the sustenance of Dharma. A perusal of the Gita will indicate that Krishna was a Brahma-jnaani himself. To a Brahmajnani possessed of the powers of Brahma, Vishwaroopam is child's play.

 

[a-TB]

Sir,
It is dualism to think in terms of opposites. Advaita never does that.....Advaita is all-encompassing, hence cannot be the opposite of anything

Advaita requires a paradigm shift in our understanding.

Can the ocean be considered the opposite of a wave from it?

To provide an entirely accurate explanation of this intuitive idea is difficult (rather, my lack of competence in English language).



I had a spiritual experience many years ago, that strengthens my belief in Advaita, but would prefer not to divulge it.



Sir, I mentioned this in my previous post. There are sects who, while themselves professing allegiance to the Vedas, their philosophy leads them to conclusions quite different from (b) and (c). Advaita cannot agree with such sects that offer lip service to the Vedas. Hence the relevance of conditions (b) and (c). These are the sects mentioned under category (2) in my earlier post.

Here we are not dealing with the intricacies of Advaita as such but on how it considers the varying dualistic sects - whether Advaita treats them all the same way or not. Hence the necessity of the 3 conditions.



I beg to differ. It can easily square with Advaita

The Upanishads say, Brahmavid Brahmaiva Bhavati. A person who attained to the realisation of Brahma-jnanam, will come to have access to the infinite powers that come with being Brahma.

The Upanishads reiterate this idea in many places. And an advaitin, as a follower of the Upanishads, will have no objection to the above statement.

In the Gita, Krishna taught Brahma-jnanam to Arjuna. He talked about himself incarnating in the world for the sustenance of Dharma. A perusal of the Gita will indicate that Krishna was a Brahma-jnaani himself. To a Brahmajnani possessed of the powers of Brahma, Vishwaroopam is child's play.

Thanks for sharing your comments Mr KRN.

Let me boil down the issue is simpler terms.

Advita = Not two as the Truth
Dvita = Two or more 'entities' as the Truth

'Not two' as the only Truth (reality) includes 'Two or more entities' as the Truth (reality) is hard to swallow.

Our experience is that we see many people. animals and insects etc. Dualists believe that each of the souls are non-perishable and hence they are real. Then there is a God who is a universal soul which is also a reality.

Advita - not two means one reality or truth.

IN Vishvarupa - Lord with all but Arjuna in that form in one reality, Arjuna the observer is the other distinct reality. So it is dualistic reality.

Advita as 'not two' truth cannot include 2 or more parallel truths.

Ocean is not opposed to wave but that metaphor does not apply here. Advita is 'not two' being the truth and its opposite is falsehood (ignorance?). Two or more simultaneous truths has to be falsehood and cannot be included within Advita

I am not sure what I am missing here. I am not asking you to repeat because I have read and re-read but it does not answer the basic contradictions in logic. I am not asking for a detailed teaching of Advita which you understood intuitively and by experience.

In my Google searches I came across a statement that Advita is NOT an experience. To experience, one needs experiencer and experienced which means experience can only real only if dualism is real.

It seems people have accepted based on belief or experience. I just think there is general confusion if something of a simple contradiction cannot be dismissed easily with a response

If the entire Vishvarupa was symbolic, then it is possible to resolve some contradictions.

 

[KRN]

Thanks for sharing your comments Mr KRN.

Let me boil down the issue is simpler terms.

Advita = Not two as the Truth
Dvita = Two or more 'entities' as the Truth

'Not two' as the only Truth (reality) includes 'Two or more entities' as the Truth (reality) is hard to swallow.

Our experience is that we see many people. animals and insects etc. Dualists believe that each of the souls are non-perishable and hence they are real. Then there is a God who is a universal soul which is also a reality.

Advita - not two means one reality or truth.

IN Vishvarupa - Lord with all but Arjuna in that form in one reality, Arjuna the observer is the other distinct reality. So it is dualistic reality.

Vishwaroopam is not an advaitic vision. It has an entirely different purpose and context, in the battlefield. Let us assume it to be dualistic - so what? It doesn’t contradict the philosophy of Advaita in any way. Please peruse the entire Vishwaroopam chapter of the Gita.

The scope and purpose of Vishwaroopam is clearly indicated by Krishna in Gita (11.32) and (11.33).

Vishwaroopam is to reveal to Arjuna that, even without his efforts, the warriors ranged against him in the battlefield will die, as their ‘Time is Up’. So Krishna is exhorting Arjuna to be the instrument in the ‘hands of Time’ and fight the enemies.

In the vision of Vishwaroopam, Arjuna sees the leading warriors of both sides rushing into the mouth of Time. See sloka (11.26) and other related slokas of the Gita.

Now, Arjuna survives the 18-day battle, so obviously it is not logical to see him ‘eaten up by Time’ in the Vishwaroopam vision.

Nor is it expedient, in the context of the purpose of making him fight in the imminent battle, to scare Arjuna off by showing his future death (which anyway occurs a full 36 years later), through the Vishwaroopam.

Hence it is quite logical for Krishna to not make Arjuna see himself in the jaws of Time, through the Vishwaroopam.

Now did Arjuna truly 'see' Vishwaroopam, and if so how?

In Gita (11.8), Krishna states - "You cannot see my Vishwaroopa form, with this mortal eye. I will provide you with 'divya chakshus' or divine eye."

So, (if you trust the words of Krishna) - it is by no mortal sight, that Arjuna was enabled to perceive the Vishwaroopam. But, that Arjuna was able to perceive, must be clear from this.

And as I mentioned yesterday, (if you accept Krishna as a Brahmajnani), he can not only acquire the powers of the all-consuming Time, but also share such vision with Arjuna.

And as I quoted from Sankaracharya earlier,
Asmaakam apratyakshamapi chirantanaanaam pratyaksham (Brahmasutra bhashyam 1.3.3)

Meaning: - Even things that are beyond the limits of our perception, were matters of direct perception of our forefathers.

Advita as 'not two' truth cannot include 2 or more parallel truths.
Ocean is not opposed to wave but that metaphor does not apply here.

The metaphor is not mine, but one frequently used by Sankaracharya in his Bhashyam to explain Advaitic thought. See the Bhashyam to Aitareya Upanishad for example.

Advita is 'not two' being the truth and its opposite is falsehood (ignorance?).

Again you are falling into the fallacy of the dualists. To consider ignorance as an opposite to Advaita, is to give an identity to falsehood/ignorance, separate from Brahman, and thereby postulate a duality. That is NOT the Advaita position, whatever else you name it.

I am not sure what I am missing here.

Perhaps a perusal of the original texts of Advaita, and the Bhagavad Gita

I am not asking you to repeat because I have read and re-read but it does not answer the basic contradictions in logic. I am not asking for a detailed teaching of Advita which you understood intuitively and by experience.

No no. I learnt Advaita by perusing the original texts like the Sankara Bhashyams under the guidance of a Guru, and then had experiences that strengthened my belief. That was what I said.

Sir, to discuss contradictions in Advaita you need to first ensure that your understanding of Advaita is right. How can you ignore the texts of Advaita and simply resort to "read and re-read"ing whatever stuff comes up in your google searches.

In my Google searches I came across a statement that Advita is NOT an experience. To experience, one needs experiencer and experienced which means experience can only real only if dualism is real.

No, that is the failed logic used by the Buddhists. That might have worked in their fights with the dualists but not with the Advaitins. The Advaitic idea is, the characteristic being ‘experienced’, is inherent in and inseparable from the experiencer. For example, if you take the experience ‘Anandam’, that is not something separate from the experiencer. Because Brahman is sat-chit-anandam. (as the Upanishads proclaim). And in Advaita, there is only Brahman, and nothing other than Brahman exists. So the experience of Anandam, or any other experience cannot indicate dualism.

If the entire Vishvarupa was symbolic, then it is possible to resolve some contradictions

In post 133, you had stated "Again I do thank you for getting me interested in trying to read Gita. I must say that this book with Bhashya translation is hard to follow for a novice. Chapters like 11 and even 10 are easier to read. I have only skimmed the book so far."

So far, I have enjoyed answering your doubts in the past several days. For my explanation I have used direct references from the Advaitic texts and to texts like the Gita.

If you are a sceptic that's great. If you see contradictions in Advaita, that's fantastic. Let me add...you are in alignment with many others who disbelieve in Advaita, like Sri Vaagmi

I don't consider myself an expert in Advaita. I am a learner, as I indicated in our earlier discussion too.

But apparently your understanding of Advaita or Vishwaroopam episode of the Gita, is not as per the standard texts. So, most of my time in replying, (though I like writing on Advaita), has been spent on explaining the basics of Advaita, or in repeating my posts, or quoting from the texts and so on.

So going forth, my humble suggestion to you is to not ask me your doubts without first perusing the original Advaita texts and the Gita. And if your doubts persist, please open a fresh thread here outlining your understanding with references from the texts you have read, your doubts or the contradictions whichever way you see them, and then if I have time, we can discuss further.

 

[a-TB]

Vishwaroopam is not an advaitic vision. It has an entirely different purpose and context, in the battlefield. Let us assume it to be dualistic - so what? It doesn’t contradict the philosophy of Advaita in any way. Please peruse the entire Vishwaroopam chapter of the Gita.

The scope and purpose of Vishwaroopam is clearly indicated by Krishna in Gita (11.32) and (11.33).

Vishwaroopam is to reveal to Arjuna that, even without his efforts, the warriors ranged against him in the battlefield will die, as their ‘Time is Up’. So Krishna is exhorting Arjuna to be the instrument in the ‘hands of Time’ and fight the enemies.

In the vision of Vishwaroopam, Arjuna sees the leading warriors of both sides rushing into the mouth of Time. See sloka (11.26) and other related slokas of the Gita.

Now, Arjuna survives the 18-day battle, so obviously it is not logical to see him ‘eaten up by Time’ in the Vishwaroopam vision.

Nor is it expedient, in the context of the purpose of making him fight in the imminent battle, to scare Arjuna off by showing his future death (which anyway occurs a full 36 years later), through the Vishwaroopam.

Hence it is quite logical for Krishna to not make Arjuna see himself in the jaws of Time, through the Vishwaroopam.

Now did Arjuna truly 'see' Vishwaroopam, and if so how?

In Gita (11.8), Krishna states - "You cannot see my Vishwaroopa form, with this mortal eye. I will provide you with 'divya chakshus' or divine eye."

So, (if you trust the words of Krishna) - it is by no mortal sight, that Arjuna was enabled to perceive the Vishwaroopam. But, that Arjuna was able to perceive, must be clear from this.

And as I mentioned yesterday, (if you accept Krishna as a Brahmajnani), he can not only acquire the powers of the all-consuming Time, but also share such vision with Arjuna.

And as I quoted from Sankaracharya earlier,
Asmaakam apratyakshamapi chirantanaanaam pratyaksham (Brahmasutra bhashyam 1.3.3)

Meaning: - Even things that are beyond the limits of our perception, were matters of direct perception of our forefathers.



The metaphor is not mine, but one frequently used by Sankaracharya in his Bhashyam to explain Advaitic thought. See the Bhashyam to Aitareya Upanishad for example.



Again you are falling into the fallacy of the dualists. To consider ignorance as an opposite to Advaita, is to give an identity to falsehood/ignorance, separate from Brahman, and thereby postulate a duality. That is NOT the Advaita position, whatever else you name it.



Perhaps a perusal of the original texts of Advaita, and the Bhagavad Gita



No no. I learnt Advaita by perusing the original texts like the Sankara Bhashyams under the guidance of a Guru, and then had experiences that strengthened my belief. That was what I said.

Sir, to discuss contradictions in Advaita you need to first ensure that your understanding of Advaita is right. How can you ignore the texts of Advaita and simply resort to "read and re-read"ing whatever stuff comes up in your google searches.



No, that is the failed logic used by the Buddhists. That might have worked in their fights with the dualists but not with the Advaitins. The Advaitic idea is, the characteristic being ‘experienced’, is inherent in and inseparable from the experiencer. For example, if you take the experience ‘Anandam’, that is not something separate from the experiencer. Because Brahman is sat-chit-anandam. (as the Upanishads proclaim). And in Advaita, there is only Brahman, and nothing other than Brahman exists. So the experience of Anandam, or any other experience cannot indicate dualism.



In post 133, you had stated "Again I do thank you for getting me interested in trying to read Gita. I must say that this book with Bhashya translation is hard to follow for a novice. Chapters like 11 and even 10 are easier to read. I have only skimmed the book so far."

So far, I have enjoyed answering your doubts in the past several days. For my explanation I have used direct references from the Advaitic texts and to texts like the Gita.

If you are a sceptic that's great. If you see contradictions in Advaita, that's fantastic. Let me add...you are in alignment with many others who disbelieve in Advaita, like Sri Vaagmi

I don't consider myself an expert in Advaita. I am a learner, as I indicated in our earlier discussion too.

But apparently your understanding of Advaita or Vishwaroopam episode of the Gita, is not as per the standard texts. So, most of my time in replying, (though I like writing on Advaita), has been spent on explaining the basics of Advaita, or in repeating my posts, or quoting from the texts and so on.

So going forth, my humble suggestion to you is to not ask me your doubts without first perusing the original Advaita texts and the Gita. And if your doubts persist, please open a fresh thread here outlining your understanding with references from the texts you have read, your doubts or the contradictions whichever way you see them, and then if I have time, we can discuss further.

Thanks for your detailed response, Mr KRN.

I will use this opportunity to learn more.

By labeling you have responded or dismissed some issues. I dont know what Buddhist religion think. Regardless, the issue is including dualism as final truth into non-dualism as final truth.

Now people such as Mr Vaagmi are rooted in beliefs they are raised in and cannot see past their beliefs. You say your training and experience has strengthened your belief in Addvita. So it is all beliefs in the end.

Like you suggested I will read up more.

Thanks for the engagement so far.

Best,

 

[KRN]

Thanks for your detailed response, Mr KRN.

I will use this opportunity to learn more.

By labeling you have responded or dismissed some issues. I dont know what Buddhist religion think. Regardless, the issue is including dualism as final truth into non-dualism as final truth.

Now people such as Mr Vaagmi are rooted in beliefs they are raised in and cannot see past their beliefs. You say your training and experience has strengthened your belief in Addvita. So it is all beliefs in the end.

Like you suggested I will read up more.

Thanks for the engagement so far.

Best,

Sir,
I enjoyed responding, as your queries made me look a little deeper into these matters.

I have not dismissed the pt raised by Buddhist logicians. I have also given the response from the Advaita perspective refuting the same.

And, mine is belief corroborated/strengthened by experience

Best,
KRN