Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
If only Kumarila didn't consume his life in order to correct a slight he made to Dharmapala...sigh.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why Advaita Vedanta first?
- Thread starter Vinayaka
- Start date
I'm always surprised when I encounter such stuff, but I'm just relating my experience. You get naive after awhile when most all of the people you hang out with aren't of that mentality. At this stage in life, of course, I'm far more comfortable amongst Indian people than westerners, even though I'm white. On pilgrimage once (Omaha, Nebraska) some Indians were visiting that temple for the first time, and they actually approached me to ask questions, because I assume, I looked the most 'at home'. They were kind of surprised when I told them, "I'm not from here either."
I feel this says a lot for the colour-blindness of the Hindu community in North America. Or at least, in Anglophone North America.
I don't know if there's much of a Hindu community in Mexico or in Central America. There's a Hare Krishna restaurant in Guatemala City, I hoped to go there but it was way in the outskirts.
shivsomashekhar
Well-Known Member
We do not know if Kumarila would have fared better than Mandana. Maybe yes, maybe not.
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
My money's on Kumarila. He would have demolished Shankaracharya in vada-bhiksha. For all practical purposes, he is pretty much the greatest Hindu polemicist Bharat ever had (EDIT: probably matched only by the Buddhist, Dharmakirti, in Indian dialectics).
Actually Shiv, sometimes I daydream about going into Vedantic/neo-Vedantic centers here in the States and engaging with them in vada-bhiksha in order to illustrate the pseudo-nihilism of their camp, and their disastrous detachment to the Vedic principle of virya. I would also illustrate the futility of theological boasting and summon them under the auspices of Dharma in purely socio-cultural contexts. Can you imagine the glory that could be won? The gods of the pitr-s would be proud!
तत्त्वप्रह्व
स्वभावस्थं निरावेशम्
Most 'westerners' that i've interacted with hitherto had one or more of the following w.r.t. their motivation to explore advaita/māyāvāda (not necessarily in the order of importance):
1- Natural next step after their tryst with Buddhism
2- Apparent stark contrast from abrahamic religions
3- Inspired by personalities like Ramaṇa, Rāmakṛṣṇa, Vivekānanda, et al, and some even by Satya Sai Baba
4- Resources and institutions both physical and online especially in western countries
However, most have no idea of core tenets as propounded by Śri Śaṅkara, and are generally influenced by different institutions like for instance Chinmaya Mission etc. What's popular is neo-advaita where the rules for adhikārin are so relaxed that anyone and everyone is qualified.
Within India, māyāvāda popularized by Śri Śaṅkara's around late 8th century had an opportune period of several centuries to establish itself and flourish without any other socio-political interference. Taking full advantage of this innumerable temples and monasteries in key places were established that functioned as beacons of the school of thought and it is this institutionalization that has unarguably resulted in its popularity.
On the other hand, viśiṣiṭādvaita and tattvavāda which were popularized by Śri Rāmānuja and Śri Madhva between 11-12th century respectively found themselves amidst increasing political unrest owing to muslim invasions which by Śri Madhva's time had made north of Gaṅgā inaccessible to common non-muslim citizens. Śri Madhva never institutionalized any aspect of his philosophy other than establishing one monastery installing Kṛṣna and placing eight saṁnyāsis to perform pūjā endowing them with nothing more than sālagrāmas, mūrti, mantropadeśa, kaupīna, and austere rules.
It is quite a misconception to think that no other school has had any impact beyond its location of origin. Despite having different schools within, Śri Rāmānuja's system has great following both in the north and south and will find Śri Rāmānuja's mūrti at Badari too. A comparison between māyāvāda and tattvavāda, for me, is a study of contrasts:
1- Though māyāvāda posits unity, Śri Śaṅkara explicitly indicates that women and śūdras are ineligible for not only his philosophy but śāstras in general, and therefore cannot achieve mokṣa. Women have to be born as men, and that too as brahmins and then gain knowledge to be eligible. On the other hand, Śri Madhva who emphasizes difference posits everyone is eligible for mokṣa, and that jāti has nothing to do with varṇa, one born in śūdra jāti can be in fact of brāhmaṇa varṇa, and women too are eligible for mokṣa just like vaidika ṛṣi-patnis, and even śūdra by varṇa is eligible for mokṣa.
Popular discourse, however, will give a totally different picture.
2- Śri Śaṅkara toured bhārata establishing various institutions for propagating his philosophy, which today with the advent of neo-advaita schools, i believe is reaching towards proselytizing stages. Śri Madhva with one small monastery established his philosophy solely on its own merit. Advaitasiddhi and brahmānandīya, the two brilliant māyāvāda treatises that tried refuting Śri Madhva's philosophy were refuted by Vanamāli Miśra, a uttara-bhāratīya paṅḍita.
Popular discourse of vedānta=māyāvāda is largely based on post-Mueller vedānta fans who would've not studied a single prakaraṇa in original; whereas no vedānta scholar worth his knowledge would make such a claim.
3- Śri Śaṅkara's devotional compositions are great, but the bhakti aspect inherent in Śri Śaṅkara's outlook appears to have withered with intellectual onslaughts of Śriharṣa-s and their ilk. Śri Madhva composed about 12 compositions all in samskritam which were sung as bhajans and kīrtans. Śri Purandara Dāsa who came later took to composing songs in the local kannaḍa language, each composition discussing the sublime truths of veda easily understandable by even laymen with no knowledge of samskritam. He is considered as the karṇātaka-sangīta-pitāmaha - the grand founder of classical music. Swāmi Haridas of the Vrindāvan - the Guru of Tānsen - is said to Śri Purandara Dāsa's disciple.
Popular discourse will remain silent or pay lip service with perhaps a footnote reference.
4- Vidyāraṇya who was of māyāvāda school founded the Vijayanagara empire and royal patronage was extended to many monasteries, which continue till date. Śri Vyāsa, a mādhva saṁnyāsi whom Kṛṣṇadevarāya, the most illustrious of the empire, took as his Guru, even took responsibility of the throne during a time inauspicious for the king, sought to extend no such royal patronage despite the possibility. Śri Vyāsa also had the opportunity to render service at the famous Tirumala and he chose to do so from outside not wishing to interfere with tradition. Unless specifically invited, like for e.g., in Thiruvanantapuram's Anantaśayana it is Śri Madhva's philosophy not to intervene.
Popular discourse will speak nothing of Śri Vyāsa, but Kṛṣṇadevarāya has composed a poem where he specifically extols his Guru Śri Vyāsa.
5- Māyāvāda provides no explanation whatsoever about the world nor does it accept the existence of atoms. It even condescends any intellectual pursuit in this direction as futile endeavor. Śri Madhva on the other hand, explains with vedic proofs of the further divisibility of atoms, existence of UV, a non-linear timeline and innate chaos within the sub-atomic structure, the various forms of force/energy that interact at a sub-atomic structure that provides mass, gravity, etc resulting in function and form, all this in the 12th Century.
Popular discourse largely by neo-advaitists is significantly towards assimilating theories with adaptations which often contradict original māyāvāda tenets.
6- Māyāvāda/Advaita is popular by name. Śri Madhva doesn't even name his philosophy, dvaita (~dualism) is rather a given name which often does no justice to the philosophy other than contrasting with advaita. Tattvavāda on other hand only means true-theory.
Popular discourse about "hopeless dualism" extends to include Śri Madhva's philosophy by virtue of given name, and very few intend to explore any further.
Most tenets of māyāvāda rest on logical constructs and any questions on the validity is met with two standard answers - 'you haven't understood properly' or 'anirvacanīya' i.e., inexplicable. So the argument that it can be understood without mysticism is not really valid. I've seen neo-advaita gurus befuddle neophyte westerners with genuine inquisitiveness to understand with statements like "oh, it is something to be experienced not explained" in workshops.
What indeed works is that at a broad level 4-5 aupaniṣadic half-sentences removed from context can be highlighted as favoring māyāvāda and the entire philosophy is built around them. I consider it as spiritual-allopathy, whereas other schools require a more holistic understanding and are like āyurveda (not the popular one though).
I see a distinction b/w Ramaṇa's - austere-aloof-silent - advaita and Vivekānanda's - lax-active-advocative - neo-advaita. The former is only as popularly practiced as perhaps any other. It is highly unlikely to find workshops and classes which try to explain the inexplicable under say, Śri Madhva's school or even for that matter Śri Rāmānuja's. So there is a inherent distinction in terms of advocacy adopted by the two schools. Popular advaita follows the footsteps of Vivekānanda of reaching out to the masses, whereas, tattvavāda prefers individual-level practice, where the pupil is expected to strive hard to find a guru in order to gain insight.
Everything is as it ought to be, though.
नारायणायेतिसमर्पयामि ।
shivsomashekhar
Well-Known Member
Agree.
Just to be clear, this is neo-Advaita and not traditional Advaita. However, like I said earlier, Advaita is a lot more complex than "all is one" or just quoting some mahavakyas.
shivsomashekhar
Well-Known Member
Do you have a reference for Shankara's position on women and study of Veda? He does talk of Shudras and their ineligibility to study Veda in his Sutra Bhashya, but it should be noted that he quotes some well known Dharma shastras like Gautama or Manu ( I need to look this up). And in this regard, Madhvas are not different. I am pretty sure neither Madhva nor his successors endorsed the idea of allowing Vedic study for non-Dwijas. Therefore, if this is a criticism, this is a reflection of the state of affairs in medieval India and applies equally to Shankara and Madhva.
I am not aware of Shankara restricting Moksha by gender or class. I would like to see a reference.On the other hand, Madhva introduced the concept of eternal damnation based on the varna of the soul, which is peculiar to his doctrine.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
That is your constitutional right according to Hindusim, Poeticus. Why should anyone mind?
A-la Poeticus' post above, no reason why they are not entitled to their different views.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
I think you will find it interesting. Do visit one as soon as possible. Forget the comment, it is a discussion.
I do not think so. Sri Ramanuja, Sri Nimbarka, and Sri Madhvacharya are great pillars of Hinduism. I do not really get along with Sri Vallabhacharya for one reason, the hereditary succession of gurudom. It is like Nehru-Gandhi dynasty which ruled India for a long time.
Shankara bowed to the out-caste (Chandala).
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
In my 'advaita' (I do not like the neo-advaita' label) there is no karma because there is no birth, no death. And Krishna said nobody gets killed and no one is a killer. It is 'maya' all through.
No enlightened. Cannot put 'Parmarthika' and 'Vyavaharika' in their proper places. None of the two should be denied.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
It is not an experience. It is a deduction by analysis.
Hindus go to HDF (Hindu Dharma Forum). I found it very stiffling there and very un-Hindu, but it is their forum, why should I complain? IndiaDivine, I think, is a shade better.
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
I am what I always was - Star-dust, Brahman.
Tends to be an inconvenient answer when a friend casually asks how you are.
Yes, Advaita is the truth of Veda. If Veda were about Duality, it'd not have criticized Dualistics in Upanishada-s. The truth is that moksha is possible only if there is unification of Atman & Brahman and I don't think Bhedavadi would ever attain Moksha. Because they're worshiping Duality - which is maya.I truly believe that the final conclusion is Advaita ... pure monism. The difference is all about how we get there The person who's brahmavadi attains Moksha, Mayavadi who accept duality and existence of maya don't.
Last edited:
Brahman is changeless, eternal.Same today as it was yesterday, and will be the same tomorrow.
No arguments here. I've also come to that conclusion by my own reasoning. But I don't feel that's all there is. While experience may be the incorrect word, some deeper understanding is, I think, possible.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Vedas are not about non-duality or duality, they are about multiplicity.