Need refutation on this argument put forth by the hare krishnas:

[devotee]

Dear Phil, I won't engage with you ever in a discussion now onwards. However, sometimes I feel that you may be sincere but you have not read majority of scriptures. Keeping that in mind I would advise that if you want to understand the message of VedAnta as it conveys (without being influenced by Shankara, Ramanajum, etc.) my advice would be that you read all the 108 Upanishads yourself. Better if you can get Sanskrit versions of those. I have Sanskrit versions available of all 108 Upanishads and whenever I have doubts I refer the Sanskrit version.

After reading them, you accept whatever appeals to you. I have no desire that you accept Advaita version of scriptures. A few answers to your objections :

a) There is nothing like major Upanishads or minor Upanishads unless they are dubious in origin (108 Upanishads have been considered the main Upanishads in MuktikA Upanishad. However, nearly 200 Upanishads are considered authentic and authoritative.). ShankarAcharyA didn't live long enough to write bhAsya on all Upanishads. We can't blame him for not wrintig bhasya on Uttar Gita or smaller Upanishads. The Vaishnava saints have chosen only those Upanishads ( may be some which supported their views) which were commented upon by Shankara in order to refute Shankara's claims.

b) The reason that I have not engaged in a discussion on already commented Upanishads was that enough material is already available from both Advaita and non-Advaita sides for all those Upanishads. So, my discussion with you is not going to bring out anything new as every side would have enough ammunition to fight. I chose these Upanishads because we can apply our minds without being affected by the commentary of the different AchAryas.

Again, these 7 are not the only Upanishads which claim so. There are a number of such references in many Upanishads. If you read them you would know yourself.

c) I have no desire that you or anyone should accept Advaitic interpretation of texts. In fact, VedAnta (there are verses) prohibits imparting Advaitic teachings to unripe minds. Also, what would I gain or lose whether you accept or not accept it ?

However, the way you have discussed did leave me shocked :

i) You are translating Sarvagatah and achalah in your own way. Though you accept that Sarvagatah means available in all elements ... but you are not sure the self which is in you ... how it is there in other object too ? Because, if your self is available in anything else, the individuality of self goes for a six.

ii) You are taking a verse from an Upanishad which talks about Jeeva (the verse itself says so) and start applying to AtmA. Perhaps you have misunderstood, "Jeeva's relative existence is not denied by Advaita". This body is called the sthula sharira and Jeeva the shUkshma sharira ... both are shariras and destructible. The essence is the Atma and that alone is indestructible, achalah and sarvagatah.

iii) Not only that, you said, "As Jeeva is subtle and 'atomised' (?) and therefore it is indestructible." ... and so forcefully ... QED ??? Petrol after getting atomised becomes much more combustible ... how being subtle can be the cause of indestructibility ?

Please try to find out if any of the authoritative texts say that Jeeva is indestructible, achalah or sarvagatah. Please find the text which talks about Jeeva without any doubt and not about AtmA.

iii) Uttar Gita has not been challenged even by the Vaishnava saints and yet you went after it like none else. Your claim that "If you don't know about it ... it was an obscure scripture and has dubious authority" was too arrogant.

You again quipped, " and by no one else" when I said that Uttar Gita was held in high esteem by all Advaitins. So much of ahamkAr won't lead you to anywhere. How can you claim "and by no one else" ? Have you taken census of what everyone feels about it ?

Finally, before I leave, I would reiterate :

I don't rely on what Shankara or anyone said for the interpretation of the scriptures. People have tried to find extraordinary meanings in words where there is simple message in the Upanishads and that include some of the great Acharyas too. Perhaps I should not say so against them but that is what I found when I read all the Upanishads one by one.

Thanks and bye ...

OM

[philosoraptor]

Pranams devotee,

i) You are translating Sarvagatah and achalah in your own way.

I've done nothing of the sort. I have merely understood the terms within their context of gItA chapter 2, especially gItA 2.12 which speaks of our eternal existence in the plural case.

Though you accept that Sarvagatah means available in all elements ... but you are not sure the self which is in you ... how it is there in other object too ? Because, if your self is available in anything else, the individuality of self goes for a six.

"the self which is in you" is a somewhat ambiguous statement without clarifying the terms involved. "you" cannot refer to the body, because the body by itself has no consciousness and is achit. I am a jIvAtma within a body. The self that is within me is the paramAtma, and He is present within every jIvAtma. I (the jIvAtma) am only present within my body. But the paramAtma who is present inside me is present inside all other jIvAtmas and their bodies also.

ii) You are taking a verse from an Upanishad which talks about Jeeva (the verse itself says so) and start applying to AtmA.

There are two kinds of Atmas - paramAtma and jIvAtma. The verse from Shvetaashvatara Upanishad 5.9 is clearly referring to the latter and states that its dimensions are 1/100th of 1/100th the tip of a hair. QED the Upanishads acknowledge the existence of the self (jIva) as a particle-like, non-material entity.

Perhaps you have misunderstood, "Jeeva's relative existence is not denied by Advaita". This body is called the sthula sharira and Jeeva the shUkshma sharira ... both are shariras and destructible.

Please cite the pramAna proving that jIva is destructible or loses its individual existence. I would appreciate something from mainstream sources. Thanks.

The essence is the Atma and that alone is indestructible, achalah and sarvagatah.

I rechecked, and Gita 2.12 still says, "Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor your, nor any of these kings, nor in the future shall any of us cease to be." The most straightforward reading is that we are each one of us an eternal being. If Krishna meant to say that we are only eternal in the sense of being the one paramAtman that pervades everything, then this would have been the place to mention it. But He did not do so.

iii) Not only that, you said, "As Jeeva is subtle and 'atomised' (?) and therefore it is indestructible." ... and so forcefully ... QED ??? Petrol after getting atomised becomes much more combustible ... how being subtle can be the cause of indestructibility ?

Petrol is matter and subject to the laws governing the existence of matter. Jiiva by contrast belongs to a superior category as stated by Sri Krishna in gItA 7.5:
apareyam itas tvanyAM prakRtiM viddhi me parAm / jIvabhUtAM mahAbAho yayedaM dhAryate jagat //. Hence, it is not subject to the same laws governing such things as combustion of petrol or chemical reactions of atoms.

Please try to find out if any of the authoritative texts say that Jeeva is indestructible, achalah or sarvagatah. Please find the text which talks about Jeeva without any doubt and not about AtmA.

Shvetaashvatara Upanishad 5.9 clearly mentions "jIva" and establishes its particle-like (as opposed to all-pervasive) character. It further states that this jIva has to be known. That's a rather strange prescription to give about something that is ultimately destructible, don't you think? Furthermore, who does the knowing of the jIva if the jIva is (as per your opinion) ultimately destructible? It is implicit that the jIva exists eternally, otherwise the Upanishad would not have stressed the importance of knowing it.

The Katha Upanishad 2.2.13 speaks of one eternal amongst many eternals "nityo nityAnAM chetanashchetanAnAM eko bahUnAM yo vidadhAti kAmAn..." Now, if you follow Advaita, you would probably interpret the mantra as "nityo anityAnAM..." but the previous mantra indicates that the wise ones realize His presence within all beings and thus gain eternal bliss. How could they (plural) get eternal bliss if they lose their individual existence? And how would knowing of His existence within temporary, destructible entities lead one to gaining eternal bliss? It makes more sense to infer that the beings in whom the paramAtma dwells are eternal.

iii) Uttar Gita has not been challenged even by the Vaishnava saints and yet you went after it like none else. Your claim that "If you don't know about it ... it was an obscure scripture and has dubious authority" was too arrogant.

I merely stated that it carried less weight in Vedaantic discourse than the Bhagavad-Gita, as evidenced by the fact that almost every tradition has quoted from or commented on the latter, and few have done so for the former. While we're on the subject, I'm not aware of any Advaitins challenging the authority of the Tamil Divya Prabandham. So once again (second time), would you accept quotes from the Divya Prabandham as authoritative, bearing in mind that Sri Vaishnavas regard it as totally consistent with shruti, just as you expected me to accept quotes from the Uttar-Gita because Advaitins says it is consistent with shruti? And if you don't, does that make you, in your own words, "arrogant?"

Hopefully you don't think it unreasonable to insist on one standard of epistemology for Vedantic discussions.

I don't rely on what Shankara or anyone said for the interpretation of the scriptures.

In that case, when you read a statement that says "There never was a time when I did not exist, you did not exist, nor all these beings not exist, nor in the future will we ever cease to be" which of the following conclusions is most likely to result from an objective, non-Shankara-relying mode of analysis:

(a) We are all individual, eternal beings.
(b) We are all one, eternal being.

I think it would be interesting to put this question to neutral (non-Hindu) persons who do not know the Gita, just to see what their gut reaction would be to such a statement, wouldn't you?

regards,

[shiv.somashekhar]

Originally Posted by philosoraptor

Please cite the pramAna proving that jIva is destructible or loses its individual existence. I would appreciate something from mainstream sources. Thanks.

....


I rechecked, and Gita 2.12 still says, "Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor your, nor any of these kings, nor in the future shall any of us cease to be." The most straightforward reading is that we are each one of us an eternal being. If Krishna meant to say that we are only eternal in the sense of being the one paramAtman that pervades everything, then this would have been the place to mention it. But He did not do so.

Forgive the interruption. Without taking sides, I have a couple of points here.

1. On the Gita 2.12 being a good place for Krishna to be clear, that is not how it works, which is precisely why this discussion exists. If the author was clear to the point where there was no room for ambiguity, then there would be zero interpretations of the Gita and not a dozen different ones and therefore, this discussion would never have started.

2. It is also not necessary that the text by itself be comprehensive and complete. If that were the case, it would not be necessary to have the Trayi nor would there be the need for ten different Upanishads. Shankara felt it necessary to bring in a full set of scripture and quote a in b's commentary and b in c's commentary and so on. So did Ramanuja and Madhva which makes it clear that none of these texts can stand by themselves in defining any of the Vedanta doctrines.

3. On the permanence of Jiva's identity, an advaitin would for example, quote the Brhadaranyaka where Yajnavalkya compares it all to a lump of salt dissolving in water. Now this may be interpreted in multiple ways, but the Advaitin interpretation has an equal standing among others. And with the advaitin interpretation of this text, it is easy to interpret Gita 2.12 as a reference to the single Brahman.

[philosoraptor]

Originally Posted by shiv.somashekhar

Forgive the interruption. Without taking sides, I have a couple of points here.

1. On the Gita 2.12 being a good place for Krishna to be clear, that is not how it works, which is precisely why this discussion exists. If the author was clear to the point where there was no room for ambiguity, then there would be zero interpretations of the Gita and not a dozen different ones and therefore, this discussion would never have started.

The Gita was spoken to remove Arjuna's doubt with the essence of Upanishadic wisdom. One would expect a certain degree of clarity given the nature of the conversation, the shorter interval in which it took place, and the audience (warriors instead of sages). This is not to say that every verse is crystal clear by our standards, but in cases where there is little ambiguity to begin with(as in Gita 2.12), it is difficult to accept forced interpretations to replace a straightforward meaning. Especially when there is no good reason to discard the more straightforward meaning in the first place.

Again, I would be very interested to know how most people would take that statement as spoken. I just don't think most people would read that and say, "ah-hah, clearly we are all one eternal soul!" More to the point, I just don't see how the warriors on the Kurkshetra battlefield, who were all about to fight each other, would have understood it that way.

2. It is also not necessary that the text by itself be comprehensive and complete.

I don't think anyone claimed that it was.

3. On the permanence of Jiva's identity, an advaitin would for example, quote the Brhadaranyaka where Yajnavalkya compares it all to a lump of salt dissolving in water. Now this may be interpreted in multiple ways, but the Advaitin interpretation has an equal standing among others. And with the advaitin interpretation of this text, it is easy to interpret Gita 2.12 as a reference to the single Brahman.

Several shruti quotes already provided by me earlier indicate the existence of a plurality of eternal souls. So, to summarize, we have bedha shrutis which Advaitins will interpret to support abedha, abedha shrutis which non-Advaitins will intepret to support bedha, and the gItA which supports the bedha viewpoint with its clear reference to eternal existence of a plural number of living entities. But, nevermind that. We're going to ignore the straightforward meaning of the gItA on the authority of abedha shrutis, and then reinterpret the bedha shrutis in a similar vein. Gone from this discussion is any explanation of why the straightforward meaning was unacceptable to begin with.

Added to this are the multiple claims by Sri Krishna (see 7th chapter, 9th chapter, etc) that He is teaching the full knowledge, most confidential/king of all knowledge etc (j~nAnaM te 'haM savij~nAnam in gItA 7.2 and idaM tu te guhyatamaM in gItA 9.1) yet we never see a clear statement by Sri Krishna to the effect of, "Do not grieve, Arjuna, because you are in reality Me. We are both the same Brahman. Only because of illusion do you think we are two different beings."

This is why I think many seekers who are trying to understand vedAnta have trouble accepting Advaita as its obvious conclusion. It's not because of the presumption that it's just "difficult to understand." It's because it does not feel like a natural conclusion from all of the evidence.

regards,

[shiv.somashekhar]

Gone from this discussion is any explanation of why the straightforward meaning was unacceptable to begin with.

1. There is no universally accepted "straight forward" meaning here. I read this verse as Krishna telling Arjuna that he always existed, which is absurd. Arjuna took birth and eventually died like anyone else. He was not *always*existing.

2. This raises the question of - when is a verse to be read literally and when does it require interpretation? The answer - in my opinion, depends entirely on the context. If one is reading the Gita in isolation with no context of a doctrine, then no interpretation is required. But if one is reading it in the context of a doctrine such as Advaita or Dvaita, then if the literal reading of the verse aligns with the doctrine, then go with it (also criticize opponents for not being literal). If the literal reading does not quite align, then it calls for interpretation. That is, the verse needs to be interpreted to make it part of a coherent whole.

This rule is not specific to Advaita and is followed by everyone. All authors who setup new doctrines have engaged in interpretation - as necessary - to produce that homogenous system. If they restricted themselves to literal readings, they would not have gotten anywhere. So it is not the case that the scripture leads to the doctrine; it is the other way around. The doctrine was defined first and the scripture was then read/interpreted to be an exact match.

Added to this are the multiple claims by Sri Krishna (see 7th chapter, 9th chapter, etc) that He is teaching the full knowledge, most confidential/king of all knowledge etc (j~nAnaM te 'haM savij~nAnam in gItA 7.2 and idaM tu te guhyatamaM in gItA 9.1) yet we never see a clear statement by Sri Krishna to the effect of, "Do not grieve, Arjuna, because you are in reality Me. We are both the same Brahman. Only because of illusion do you think we are two different beings."

From a vedanta perspective, no such statement is necessary. The requirement is the trayi to be interpreted consistently and Shankara acheived that. He successfully read and interpreted all their content to mean atman = brahman.

This is why I think many seekers who are trying to understand vedAnta have trouble accepting Advaita as its obvious conclusion. It's not because of the presumption that it's just "difficult to understand." It's because it does not feel like a natural conclusion from all of the evidence.

That position belies reality. Advaita has always been and continues to be the dominant vedanta tradition. But I must also add, that the majority of the people belonging to vedanta sampradayas have little or no knowledge of the intricacies of their systems. They mostly dwell on the ritualistic parts such as how to wear the nama, puja procedures, fasting on ekadashi and so on.

Modern people who try learn advaita rarely seem to be reading any of Shankara's works. Instead, they read Vivekananda or Ramana or else it is free web pages - none of which are good options for understanding Shankara's advaita - in my opinion. And then we have rival groups like ISKCON and others, who, without ever reading a single line of Advaita and without quoting a single reference, are able to write pages of criticism on the subject!

[philosoraptor]

Originally Posted by shiv.somashekhar

1. There is no universally accepted "straight forward" meaning here. I read this verse as Krishna telling Arjuna that he always existed, which is absurd. Arjuna took birth and eventually died like anyone else. He was not *always*existing.

But that reading ignores the context - later in the chapter Krishna compares the changing of bodies to changing of clothes. So the most obvious reading of Gita 2.12 is that the beings then known as Arjuna, Drona, Duryodhana, etc always existed. Not that they are all one entity, or that they always existed as Arjuna, Drona, Duryodhana...

2. This raises the question of - when is a verse to be read literally and when does it require interpretation? The answer - in my opinion, depends entirely on the context. If one is reading the Gita in isolation with no context of a doctrine, then no interpretation is required. But if one is reading it in the context of a doctrine such as Advaita or Dvaita, then if the literal reading of the verse aligns with the doctrine, then go with it (also criticize opponents for not being literal). If the literal reading does not quite align, then it calls for interpretation. That is, the verse needs to be interpreted to make it part of a coherent whole.

Here is where I'd disagree. It's not enough that the given verse doesn't gel with one's personal doctrine. It should be interpreted if the apparent meaning doesn't seem consistent with its local context, and/or consistent with the global corpus of Vedaantic evidence. Certainly an intepretation may be called for if its apparent meaning suggests something we know from experience is not true. To me, the strength of a system of interpretation lies in how often it reinterprets precisely for these reasons, as opposed to how often it interprets because an otherwise plausible meaning just doesn't fit their bias. I also think that conservative interpretations are generally more preferable to far-fetched ones that require additional assumptions not precisely elaborated in the texts.

From a vedanta perspective, no such statement is necessary. The requirement is the trayi to be interpreted consistently and Shankara acheived that. He successfully read and interpreted all their content to mean atman = brahman.

Every commentator reads the statements of the trayi in a consistent way. That doesn't help the seeker who is trying to know what the truth is. Nor does it help one who wants to know what the speaker of the statements was really trying to say. A seeker cannot be asked to accept all three systems as equally valid, since they contradict each other on many fundamental points.

For me, an outsider to all three traditions, I look for how well the interpretation best captures the feel of the text. It is not reasonable to expect me to accept that Sri Krishna would neglect to mention that trivial point about us all being the same Atman, when He claimed to be teaching the "king of all knowledge" and "the most confidential of secrets."

That position belies reality. Advaita has always been and continues to be the dominant vedanta tradition. But I must also add, that the majority of the people belonging to vedanta sampradayas have little or no knowledge of the intricacies of their systems.

Which, I would argue, is one of the reasons why Advaita continues to be a dominant vedanta tradition. I would also add that, if you subract out the watered-down, feel-good, neo-Advaitin off-shoots, you are left with a far less dominant Advaita. In fact, if you subtracted out those who claim to follow a tradition only by accident of birth, you are probably left with a very tiny minority of scholars in each sampradaya.

Modern people who try learn advaita rarely seem to be reading any of Shankara's works.

That's true. I have Shankaras Gita commentary, his brama-sutra commentary, all of his upanishad commentaries, and few other writings credited to him, and I refererence them often. But then again, my priorities may be different, since I don't feel constrained to refute/accept him/anyone else based on pre-existing sectarian affiliation.

regards,

[shiv.somashekhar]

Originally Posted by philosoraptor

But that reading ignores the context - later in the chapter Krishna compares the changing of bodies to changing of clothes....

That is the point. So it is clear then, that the verse cannot be read literally - not without the aid of other verses.

Once this has been established, then the question is how far do we reach out (from the verse) to get its correct meaning? The scope would be purely arbitrary; scope to +/- five verses, scope to the chapter, scope to the text, scope to the trayi. The traditional vedanta guru has used trayi scope - that is, it is sufficient if the verse can be interpreted to be consistent with the big picture. It is not the case that it should make sense by itself nor within the chaper nor within the text.

More later....

[philosoraptor]

Originally Posted by shiv.somashekhar

That is the point. So it is clear then, that the verse cannot be read literally - not without the aid of other verses.

Once this has been established, then the question is how far do we reach out (from the verse) to get its correct meaning? The scope would be purely arbitrary; scope to +/- five verses, scope to the chapter, scope to the text, scope to the trayi. The traditional vedanta guru has used trayi scope - that is, it is sufficient if the verse can be interpreted to be consistent with the big picture. It is not the case that it should make sense by itself nor within the chaper nor within the text.

More later....

I really don't see why this is a big issue, or why we need to establish some hard and fast rule about scope. We all read books from time to time, and we all have to use context to interpret individual sentences. We start with an implicit assumption that the author has a main idea and isn't going to contradict himself in one part of the book compared to another part.

Obviously, when I speak of "reading literally," I'm not talk about excluding context. On the contrary, I've pointed out elsewhere on these forums that being too literal can sometimes lead you to a wrong meaning in some places.

The most straightforward reading of Gita 2.12 is that we are all eternal living beings. To go from this statement, as written, to the idea that we are all eternal only in the sense of being *one* being, requires extensive reinterpretation which detracts from the straightforward feel of the verse. Again, noting this particular weakness of Advaita with regard to bedha shrutis, I will also note a similar doubt I have about Dvaita and its treatment of many abedha shrutis. But none of this is to disparage the scholars of either system, nor is it it to tell anyone else what they should believe. These are merely my doubts as a seeker, based on what I know of each system of thinking at this point in my search (and my knowledge of both is likely to change as I read more).

regards,

[Omkara]

Originally Posted by philosoraptor

Pranams,



I've never heard of an "Uttar Gita." Perhaps my knowledge of scripture is limited, but I'm guessing that if I've not heard of it, many others have not heard of it either. Certainly it is neither shruti, not is it even a part of Shankaraachaarya's prasthAna-trayi. What would be the point of quoting a scripture which only Advaitins accept to convince someone who is not an Advaitin? Especially when we were talking about other mainstream shrutis which you did not like me bringing up? I'm just going to hazard a guess here, and hopefully you won't take it as me denying you your right to interpret scripture. Isn't the real reason for quoting Uttar-Gita the fact that you have to extensively re-interpret the Bhagavad-Gita and the Upanishads to bring them in line with Advaita philosophy, while Uttar-Gita appears to say exactly what you want it to say without the need for interpretation?



Right. One has to realize the infinite Brahman. So, nothing obviously Advaitic about Shvetaashvatara Upanishad 5.9, and certainly nothing to refute the particle-like character of the jIva that is described therein. :-)



I'm aware of this point of view. In fact, I used to believe in Advaita. Until, that is, I read the Bhagavad-Gita. I've since read several translations of the same, including A.G. Warrier's translation of Shankaraachaarya's commentary. The idea that Sri Krishna was teaching all along that bodies and jIvas are merely illusory and only one undifferentiated Brahman exists, does not really come out from an objective reading of the text. I can think of a few Gita shlokas taken out of context which sound very Advaitic, but not when read as part of the whole teaching. And unlike the Upanishads, which I would expect to have some cryptic meanings, I would have expected something like the Gita be relatively straightforward in spelling out the truth, being that it was spoken on a battlefield before an audience of soliders instead of a gathering of sages. But then again, that could just be because I'm a simple-minded guy. :-)

regards,

philosoraptor

Hi, a link here to Uttara Gita.I do not think it can be considered a pramana though.

http://www.celextel.org/othervedanta...ttaragita.html

I have read it quoted by Ramanandis though.