Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 135

Thread: Mandukya Upanishad

  1. #11
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
    Posts
    1,802
    Rep Power
    191

    Post

    The Turiya is Shiva ~ please read the Mandukyopanishad.

    Narayana is the Creator, and (as we also know from the Mandukya) the Creator is Prajna.

    It appears that you have never actually spoken with any member of Shri Shankaracarya’s Order.

    Narayana is Guru (i.e. Prajna), and Shiva is God (i.e. Turiya), and for Dasanami Sannyasins (and ALL traditional Hindus) the Guru is equivalent with God.

    Om namo Narayana !

    Since Shankaracarya’s Gita Bhasya is a commentary on the Gita, it naturally begins in praise of Lord Krishna who is commonly known as Vasudeva or Govinda. But remember that Govinda is only Bhairava !

    In Advaita there can be no separation of Kala and Akala.

    And NO manifestation is absolutely eternal.

    And since you are so keen to use the words “real” and “unreal” it would certainly be a good idea for you to explain exactly what you mean by these terms.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Age
    50
    Posts
    117
    Rep Power
    119
    Quote Originally Posted by Sudarshan
    Does the Trinity has any proof? Must be your personal opinion.
    Indeed, it has proof, provided you are ready to look out of the sectarian box and all bookish and polemic literature.

    My reasons are three fold for saying this:

    1. For personal reasons, and family background I cannot distinguish between Narayana and Devi. Such a distinction is viewed by me as an offence, so there is ultimately no question of grading the trimurti. Any difference between Shiva and Vishnu or Devi for that matter, if at all true, are superficial and insignificant as far as I am concerned. And I dont need books to teach me anything in this regard.

    2. I am guessing that your own views are based on the Vaishnava literature that proves the supremacy of Vishnu, from the vedas, the Upanishads, the puranas and so forth. While there is considerable depth in these polemical literature, it also bypasses references of Shiva as paratattva and even tries to ignore Shaiva Puranas as tamasic. No sane person in the world will agree that the same Vyasa compiled all the puranas, and then labelled some of his own works as tamasic. That is a human interpolation.

    If Vyasa Bhagavan referred to Shiva as the supreme in some of his works, Vishnu in some other, and Devi in some other, what can it mean? All of these are just arthavada, or just eulogizing a particular entity. To any Hindu who is not bowing to dogma, it should be clear that these texts are just meant to emphasise different apects of the same God. Any Hindu can teach you this.

    I also clearly mentioned the reason in another thread, why proving Vishnu sarvottama is so critical to establishing a dvaita-advaita philosophy. So it is only a polemical strategy. You need to either establish either Shiva sarvottama or Vishnu sarvottama to prove Vishsitadvaita or Dvaita, because even though dvaita-advaita vada is strongly supported by scripture, it cannot be rigorously defended by holding Vishnu and Shiva in a complementary relationship. So, Shaiviate of dvaita origin will have to prove that Shiva is paramatma and Vishnu is a jeevatma or Shiva's Shakti to defend their philosophy. Similarly, Vaishnavites need to prove that Shiva is just a jeeva to firmly prove their philosophical position. Can you show me a single school that preached dvaita or dvaita-advaita, without either a Vishnu or a Shiva bias? There is none, and they wont be taken seriously. Monothesim, by very defintion requires a particular diety to be the supreme and the controller of all others - whether it be Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu or Shiva. Some followers of monotheism get greatly attached to this supreme concept of God, and get overwhelmingly devoted and win their liberation. Some others misunderstand things, they end up abusing the religion, and thrive by snubbing others who dont beleive in their God and so on...the religion of Monotheism is not at fault, the fault is in the followers who have failed to read into the strong message of total faith that lies embedded in Monotheism.(Bhakti and grace is much more emphasised in Monotheism than Monism for obvious reasons)

    3. Thirdly, I cannot honestly find a good reason why Vishnu worship is superior to Shiva worship to a layman like me. I do not know either Vishnu or Shiva. I only beleive in a supreme being, which has no form , or has a form that is not prakritik. That means, I cannot visualize God in anyway, whether it be Vishnu or Shiva. Any form of God that we see in photos is purely imaginative. Is Vishnu really the being who has four weapons? Is Shive really the being with a matted hair and having bhasma on his forehead? This is all human symbols given to God.

    So let us say I want to meditate on Vishnu. What am I supposed to meditate on? A God with four hands, and blue skin color? Or, is it a God who looks like Shiva? So, all this is absolutely meaningless when it comes to meditation. The object of meditation is to know God, for which an initial object is assumed as a focus of concentration. Some symbol is chosen to start with. Honestly, I find it impossible to concentrate on such human like Gods with considerable details. It is much easier to concentrate on a single small point, located betwen the eye brows, or at the center of your heart. I concentarte on a single black imagined dot, and assume it is Vishnu. That is all is possible as long as you neither know Vishnu or Shiva. Shaivites would think that this small dot is Shiva. Any difference in approach?

    Absolutely none. To a starter, any differences between Shiva and Vishnu are just fictitious. You will automatically know more as you grow in spiritual wisdom from repeated medittaive practice. Then you can figure out how to meditate on Shiva or Vishnu ( that is, after you know who these two Gods are in reality)

    All these differences between Gods are man made. Even if they are true, who am I, a mere mortal supposed to grade Gods? Isn;t the very thought apalling? Acharyas and sages are different, they had honest intentions to make these claims, but we should ask ourselves are we really competent to grade Shiva and Vishnu? Why so much arguing, hatred and violence based on different concepts of God? There is truly one God whom you can call by any name and any form -- until you are mature enough to realize God. It is possible that Vishnu is a higher God than Shiva or vice versa, but the why the hell do I care now?

  3. #13
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    The Reality and its manifestations

    Quote Originally Posted by Sudarshan
    Namaste-ji!

    Yes, it is too far fetched to suggest that ice and water are sublated by steam....All of water, ice and steam are always real.

    Just came in on invitation from a friend.


    Namaste Sudarshan,

    I think that both you and Ram have got the example of water appearing as liquid, solid and gas wrong. It is not the case of ice/water/steam sublated by each other. But knowing the real unseen unborn cause that appears as in any of the three states of liquid/solid/gas. Beneath, whatever is seen, there in an unborn principle. We see water as liquid/ice/or vapour. But a scientist will see water as H2O -- a molecule. A spiritualist, however, will know water as Apah -- an expression of a desire in Brahman. Ultimately and fundamentally, what is water? It is a desgin made in consciousness, without consciousness itself changing (even consciousness being a mere name to indicate that unchanging indescribable reality).

    Regarding, Turiya, please refer to the description of it in Mandukya. Turiya is stated as the Self itself. The other padas are not so described. The three states of Pragnya, Taijjas, and Visva lead to each other, the Turiya remaining as the whole timelessly. In Pragnya there is no thought, yet it leads to thoughts/dreams (Taijassa), which again leads to Visva. These three states are in the realm of Pragnya. But the Turiya is not -- it is neither Pragnya or non Pragnya. It is the indescribable Self, which can only be experienced in unity with it.


    I understand that Mandukya Upanishad can be understood truly in Turiya only, since its subject is Turiya, which is indescribable, nor Pragnya and neither non-Pragnya.


    Regards

  4. #14
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Age
    50
    Posts
    117
    Rep Power
    119

    On Turiya

    Quote Originally Posted by Atanu Banerjee
    Regarding, Turiya, please refer to the description of it in Mandukya. Turiya is stated as the Self itself. The other padas are not so described. The three states of Pragnya, Taijjas, and Visva lead to each other, the Turiya remaining as the whole timelessly. In Pragnya there is no thought, yet it leads to thoughts/dreams (Taijassa), which again leads to Visva. These three states are in the realm of Pragnya. But the Turiya is not -- it is neither Pragnya or non Pragnya. It is the indescribable Self, which can only be experienced in unity with it.
    Let us see each of your lines:

    "Turiya is stated as the Self itself" - Turiya is stated to be Atma, which in your trasnlation is the Self. I dont translate Self as Atma. Atma is Brahman. Yes, Brahman is Turiya.

    "The other padas are not so described" - True, Prajna is Jiva, which is not Brahman, and Visva and Taijasa, which are not identical to Brahman - no contradictions, even by your own words.


    "The three states of Pragnya, Taijjas, and Visva lead to each other, the Turiya remaining as the whole timelessly." - Correct, Atma sakshatrakara proceeds as Visva, Brahman and Jiva, all of which are Kala. No contradictions with my interpretations, even by your own descriptions.

    "In Pragnya there is no thought, yet it leads to thoughts/dreams (Taijassa), which again leads to Visva. " - This is a self contradiction. You said that Prajna has no thoughts, but it leads to thoughts..akin to saying that I am not rich, but I bought a benz car.


    "These three states are in the realm of Pragnya." - Yes, I have not contradicted this anywhere. Atma sakshatkara includes Vishva and Brahma sakshatkara.


    "But the Turiya is not -- it is neither Pragnya or non Pragnya. It is the indescribable Self, which can only be experienced in unity with it."

    Yes, Turiya is not Prajna (Brahman is not jiva), it is the indestructible Brahman, which is experienced only(sayujya mukti) in unity with it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Atanu Banerjee
    I understand that Mandukya Upanishad can be understood truly in Turiya only, since its subject is Turiya, which is indescribable, nor Pragnya and neither non-Pragnya.
    This is not in objection with Vishsitadvaita in anyway. Do prove me wrong.

    Your problem is equating Atma with the Self, as any non advatin will point out. Replace Atma with Brahman, and read Ayam Atma Brahma in an organic body-part relationship, and there are no contradictions anywhere.

    Atanu Bannerjee, could you point out errors in Vishsitadvaita interpretation of Mandukya, I will be too glad to correct them for you. We read it almost like advaitins, but you know, our interpretation does not suffer from a problem of the need to sublate all non Turiya states. Make a simple change - Change Atma to Brahman. Read all Mahavakyas in an organic relationship, in a co-ordinate predicate way. There are no contradictions to sort out, no need to introduce anivachaniya, nor any need to make Brahman Nirguna, nor any need to negate the reality of Visva or Tajasa.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369
    Namaskar,

    [Replace Atma with Brahman, and read Ayam Atma Brahma in an organic body-part relationship, and there are no contradictions anywhere.]

    Oh. I will replace self with Atma wherever I used self. But dear, what does Atma mean -- that which is one's own self. The point, however, is there is nothing beside the Turiya Atma, mntioned as the truth in the particular upanishad. There is no individual soul or individual being, which also you cannot interpolate. So, this Atma is Brahman. And this atma is shivoadvaitam. I know different people understand advitam to mean different thing as per their predilection. So, if you have your own view of this advaitam then you may also have your own view of Advaita. Why bother?



    Also, I note that you have ignored to mention the mis-understanding wrt to the real water that appears as solid, liquid and vapour. The real water is Pragnya wishing to see it as water. The Pragnya has not changed however.



    ["In Pragnya there is no thought, yet it leads to thoughts/dreams (Taijassa), which again leads to Visva. " - This is a self contradiction. You said that Prajna has no thoughts, but it leads to thoughts..akin to saying that I am not rich, but I bought a benz car.]



    Yes, I am correct. Pragnya is not thought, which are the various faces of Pragnya. Please refer to Mandukya where it says that "Its face (Lord Pragnya's face) is thought. It is wrong to say "I am not rich", in the first place. How can I be rich? I is I. However a thought in I can feel that I is rich. This is the crux of the matter; attaching thoughts emanating from consciousness as the consciousness itself is the first superposition.



    [-----. There are no contradictions to sort out, no need to introduce anivachaniya, nor any need to make Brahman Nirguna, nor any need to negate the reality of Visva or Tajasa.]


    There is no need to sublate non Turiya states at all. You only think that Advaita has a need to do so. OM as a whole is Brahman, the Amatra beneath the OM is Brahman. But without the indescribable amatra, the OM (Vag) is not there at all. Jagat Miythya, Brahman Satya, Brahman Jagat. I request you to examine concepts as organic whole and not pick some part alone. Advaita does not conflict with any knowledge whatsoever. It only conflicts with sense perceptions, which are as such faulty. Like seeing blue color in sky, where there is none.


    Regarding, VA understanding, the greatest problem I face is the dictum: When Experience and shruti contradict, the experience should get precedence. A short write up follows.

    The foundation of vishistadvaita is the dictum “In cases of Scripture conflicting with Perception, Scripture is not stronger”. VA either ignores or adds qualification to the verses that speak of “distinction less Brahman – the Supreme” as the highest truth. Few such verses that point to “distinction less Brahman – the Supreme” are presented below.


    'In the beginning, my dear, there was that only which is, one only without a second' (Kh. Up. VI, 2, 1); 'Bliss is Brahman' (Taitt. Up. III, 6, 1); 'All this is that Self' (Bri. Up. IV, 5, 7); 'There is here no diversity whatever' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 19); 'From death to death goes he who sees any difference here' (Ka. Up. II, 4, 10); 'For where there is duality as it were, there one sees the other'; 'but where the Self has become all of him, by what means, and whom, should he see? by what means, and whom, should he know?' (Bri. Up. IV, 5, 15); 'the effect is a name merely which has its origin in speech; the truth is that (the thing made of clay) is clay merely' (Kh. Up. VI, 1, 4); ‘for if he makes but the smallest distinction in it there is fear for him' (Taitt. Up. II, 7)


    The following passages are from the Vishnu-purâna:

    In which all difference vanishes, which is pure Being, which is not the object of words, which is known by the Self only--that knowledge is called Brahman' (VI, 7, 53); .--'Of that Self, although it exists in one's own and in other bodies, the knowledge is of one kind, and that is Reality; those who maintain duality hold a false view' (II, 14, 31); 'As owing to the difference of the holes of the flute the air equally passing through them all is called by the names of the different notes of the musical scale; so it is with the universal Self' (II, 14, 32); 'He is I; he is thou; he is all: this Universe is his form. Abandon the error of difference. The king being thus instructed, abandoned the view of difference, having gained an intuition of Reality' (II, 16, 24). 'When that view which gives rise to difference is absolutely destroyed, who then will make the untrue distinction between the individual Self and Brahman?' (VI, 7, 94).


    'He knows Brahman, he becomes Brahman only' (Mu. Up. III, 2, 9); 'Knowing him only a man passes over death; there is no other path to go' (Svet. Up. III, 8).



    To ignore such shruti and say: “In cases of Scripture conflicting with Perception, Scripture is not stronger” is correct? I do not understand. It is better to first look at sense perception and see how weak they are and understand them in the light of advaitam Turiya. I ask “Is what is perceived through the senses the absolute truth?” Then animals know better than us since they have better sense apparatus – they see, hear, and smell better. And then what is the use of scriptures? Is scripture only meant to state what is obvious to the senses? Though the proponents of Dvaita and vishistadvaita hold that “scripture is authoritative on the ground of eternity, begininglessness and free from defects”, still they argue “scripture is to be interpreted without opposing the perception”. So, they add modifications to very simple "Thou art That". Why shruti is even needed? Perception alone would do, since by no means perception is to be opposed.


    Further, in support of “Perception” the following is argued by VA proponents:


    “If in some cases cognition of difference be a defect, it does not follow that it is always so in respect to everything. Such a contingency would arise even in respect of non-difference. For the knowledge of the scared text cannot arise except with the knowledge of the difference involved in words, the sentences and their meanings.

    The knowledge of non-difference too is dependent upon the cognition of difference like perception and therefore the distinction between the scripture and perception as the sublater and sublated does not hold good.

    Therefore visistadvaitin conclude, whenever scriptural texts conflict with perception, the former should be interpreted without opposition to the later.

    Perception is the foundational and basic factor of all experiences. It offers subsistence to inference and scripture, and thus is of greater force than scripture which depends on perception.”

    End of citation


    Is Turiya experiece a sense perception? If sense perceptions are required to interpret and color mahavakyas then, what is the need of Vedas at all. Perceptions alone should do. The knowledge of Turiya is not of perception, since it is neither Pragnya and nor not-Pragnya. And this also ignores the fact that Avidya leads to Vidya, but Avidya is not the truth. They simply ignore shruti verses such as below:

    'Having known it, let him practise meditation' (Bri. Up. IV, 4, 21);


    TB II, 8, 8, 5

    The Word, imperishable, is the Firstborn
    of Truth, mother of the Veda and hub of
    immortality. May she come to us in
    happiness in the sacrifice! May she,
    our protecting Goddess, be easy of
    entreaty!


    So, although Vac is the first born of truth but Vac is not THAT, independent of the Turiya source. The result of meditation as enjoined above in Bri. Up. IV, 4, 21 (after revelation of the vac) is the final goal. Therefore pramanas are the directives to the truth – which is part less as per shruti. And shrutis themselves are not THAT but they are pointers to THAT, like an address is a pointer to a man but not the man himself.



    Om namah bhagavate shri Vasudevayya namah
    Om namah Sivayya
    Last edited by atanu; 26 March 2006 at 09:50 AM.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Govinda Lokam
    Age
    45
    Posts
    738
    Rep Power
    356
    Quote Originally Posted by Ram
    I also clearly mentioned the reason in another thread, why proving Vishnu sarvottama is so critical to establishing a dvaita-advaita philosophy. So it is only a polemical strategy. You need to either establish either Shiva sarvottama or Vishnu sarvottama to prove Vishsitadvaita or Dvaita, because even though dvaita-advaita vada is strongly supported by scripture, it cannot be rigorously defended by holding Vishnu and Shiva in a complementary relationship. So, Shaiviate of dvaita origin will have to prove that Shiva is paramatma and Vishnu is a jeevatma or Shiva's Shakti to defend their philosophy. Similarly, Vaishnavites need to prove that Shiva is just a jeeva to firmly prove their philosophical position. Can you show me a single school that preached dvaita or dvaita-advaita, without either a Vishnu or a Shiva bias? There is none, and they wont be taken seriously. Monothesim, by very defintion requires a particular diety to be the supreme and the controller of all others - whether it be Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu or Shiva. Some followers of monotheism get greatly attached to this supreme concept of God, and get overwhelmingly devoted and win their liberation. Some others misunderstand things, they end up abusing the religion, and thrive by snubbing others who dont beleive in their God and so on...the religion of Monotheism is not at fault, the fault is in the followers who have failed to read into the strong message of total faith that lies embedded in Monotheism.(Bhakti and grace is much more emphasised in Monotheism than Monism for obvious reasons)
    Please give a good justification for such guesses. Are you trying to say that Acharya's work was just contrived? And he did not even beliieve in what he was establishing? Are you trying to say that Sri Ramanuja did not beleive in Vishnu sarvottama and yet he proved it in his works. Looks like a speculation. On what reasoning can you base such claims?

    Please dont write irrelevant stuff that nobody will beleive in. Please answer properly.
    Guard your Dharma, Burn the Myth, Promote the Truth, Crush the superstition.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Govinda Lokam
    Age
    45
    Posts
    738
    Rep Power
    356
    Namaste Atanu,

    Quote Originally Posted by Atanu Banerjee
    Oh. I will replace self with Atma wherever I used self. But dear, what does Atma mean -- that which is one's own self. The point, however, is there is nothing beside the Turiya Atma, mntioned as the truth in the particular upanishad. There is no individual soul or individual being, which also you cannot interpolate. So, this Atma is Brahman. And this atma is shivoadvaitam. I know different people understand advitam to mean different thing as per their predilection. So, if you have your own view of this advaitam then you may also have your own view of Advaita. Why bother?
    It is due to the highly controversial nature of the texts of Upanishads that Sage Vyasa composed a summary of the vedanta and called it Brahma sutras. Thus, all disputes are to be settled using Brahma sutras, insteading of fighting it out with Upanishads, open to interpretations...

    What do Brahma Sutras say regarding advaita, and regarding Ajati vada or Mayavada or even regarding Nirguna Brahman?

    What does the Gita say regarding them?


    Have an open mind while reading scriptures and judging the commentaries of others. One single verse in vedanta sutras are enough for advaita: (2.1.22). Note that this verse is a restatement of an earlier statement and confirms the relationship.


    Read Sri Shankara's own commentary on this verse and decide for yourself. When the verse explicitly declares that Brahman and jiva are different because it is taught by the scripture, Shankaracharya brushes aside the sutra in a characteristic way, like this:

    The scriptures teach that Brahman and the soul are different, (inserted here by Shankara) but we know it is purely due to avidya.

    Brahmasutras have never spoken of a concept called Maya nor of avidya of the advaitin kind. Nor is the identity ever affirmed ever later in the entire commentary, which means the dualist relationship holds for the entire length of the sutras. Yet Sri Badarayana is given a super knockout in that commentary. When Vyasa, who is an incarnation of Vishnu is given such rough treatment, how to take your commentaries seriously? The same thing has been done to the Mandukya as well.

    Brahmasutras also say that soul is part of the Brahman.(2.3.43). Read Shankara's interpretations of this pada to see how he deals with the "part" and makes it a "whole".
    Guard your Dharma, Burn the Myth, Promote the Truth, Crush the superstition.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Govinda Lokam
    Age
    45
    Posts
    738
    Rep Power
    356
    Quote Originally Posted by sarabhanga
    And since you are so keen to use the words “real” and “unreal” it would certainly be a good idea for you to explain exactly what you mean by these terms.
    Advaita's definitions regarding reality:
    Real: One which has not been sublated.( defined in a neagtive sense actually)

    Vishsitadvaitin's definition will look like:
    Real: Being or occurring in fact or actuality or having verifiable existence.

    The problems regarding a negative defintion is that there is no frame of reference to know what is sublated or not, and not a particularly useful definition in a practical context.

    So a sage realizing the paramArtika satta says that everything that others see is sublated, while others have no means to verify them. Hence, to take serious claims of such definitions, we need scripture to precisely define this for us. It has not, and it makes no references to sublations anywhere. This maybe the biggest controversy in the history of vedanta. No non advaitic sage has yet been able to verify if this is the case. Advaita does rely on super natural verification even to start with, for a logical defence -- which others dont have to.

    Vishsitadvatins even hold dreams as real as we still recollect the dream, and if we had a nightmare we wake up with a pounding heart etc, so the experience is actually real. Ever had a thief or ghost chasing you in the dream? You will wake up with a big alarm!! The dream is recorded in the memory as if it were real - we can remember dreams for several hours and even for years.
    Guard your Dharma, Burn the Myth, Promote the Truth, Crush the superstition.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Govinda Lokam
    Age
    45
    Posts
    738
    Rep Power
    356
    Quote Originally Posted by sarabhanga
    The Turiya is Shiva ~ please read the Mandukyopanishad.
    Just because it uses the term Shivodvaitam? Even Shankara has not referred to as Shiva here. Shivodvaitam is just referred to as an auspicious advaita, which is Narayana.

    Quote Originally Posted by sarabhanga
    Narayana is the Creator, and (as we also know from the Mandukya) the Creator is Prajna.
    There are enough pramANas to indicate that Narayana is unborn, and not Prajna, who is born from Turiya. By the way, Bhagavad Gita should be a good proof of the fact that Vasudeva Krishna is the absolute -- he does say that there is nothing highest whatsoever to him.( mattah parataram nasti..)


    Quote Originally Posted by sarabhanga
    Since Shankaracarya’s Gita Bhasya is a commentary on the Gita, it naturally begins in praise of Lord Krishna who is commonly known as Vasudeva or Govinda. But remember that Govinda is only Bhairava !
    It does not merely praise him as Prajna, but as the Parabrahman. Read his Brahmasutra Bhasya, and read the header at the start of each pada - the same highest Vasudeva! He makes a few reference to Vishnu being the highest goal in a few places. And yes, he uses the name of Shiva once in his BSB - to refute the Pasupata doctrine promulgated by Shiva.

    There are absolutely no indications in Shankara's works to prove that Narayana is Prajna, as in both BSB and GitaBhasya, Narayana is held to be the unborn supreme being! I request you show some evdience in either the BSB or the Gitabhasya to prove your assertion - Shiva is turiya and Narayana is prajna from within Shankara's prastana granthas. That is not his view at all, though it maybe the view of modern advaitin Acharyas.

    Note the number of quotes from Vishnu Purana in his BSB and compare it with the number of quotes from Shaiva Puranas. Note how he interprets the word "Shiva" in Vishnu Sahasranama, "Vishnu alone is praised as Shiva in scripture because he is auspicious".

    I am not trying to say that advaita has a different "rating" for Vishnu or Shiva. ( we can see even Ram siding with that!)

    But what was Shankara's preference? There is very little doubt regarding that....you are free to prove otherwise by quoting from his main works especially the BSB. The BSB is the true yardstick with which his preferences can be judged instead of works like GitaBhaasya.
    Guard your Dharma, Burn the Myth, Promote the Truth, Crush the superstition.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
    Posts
    1,802
    Rep Power
    191

    Post

    Namaste Sudarshan,

    I asked for your own understanding of “reality” and “unreality” because you have been using those terms quite freely.

    Advaita considers that true Reality is eternal and unborn Existence or Being.

    If Vishishtadvaita’s definition of reality is “actual being” or “verifiable existence”, then it considers true Reality is “true Existence”. And the nature of “truth”, in this case, is apparently connected only with its “actuality” or “verifiability” ~ and then we have plenty of scope for argument over the precise verification methods, and on it goes.

    Advaita only knows that the Truth is immortal, and although I must agree that im-mortal is a “negative definition” of Truth, consider what is negated here!

    And Sanatana Dharma is NOT primarily defined by its “verification” ~ rather, Hindu Dharma is defined by its sanAtana (i.e. eternal, perpetual, permanent, everlasting) nature.

    Advaita does NOT depend on verification by anyone ~ rather, Advaita follows the lead of Sanatana Dharma and relies on eternity as its primary judge of “actual” or ultimately true Reality.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Hi everyone! I have some questions.
    By Bethany in forum New to Sanatana Dharma
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 28 May 2012, 05:13 PM
  2. Which upanishads are Shruti?
    By wcrow in forum Upanishads & Aranyakas
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09 February 2010, 11:38 AM
  3. Looking at Mandukya Upanishad differently
    By devotee in forum Advaita
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04 July 2009, 12:58 AM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06 November 2007, 12:32 PM
  5. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 20 April 2006, 12:02 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •