• 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!

Adi Shankara's Keval-Advaita

ameyAtmA

~ ~
Premium Member
Namaste

Shruti, Smruti, Agama all point to Oneness, Advaita. Many have experienced it too by the Grace (anugraha) of Brahman, this local poster included.

top-down: "It was I who became all of this, and came down multiple levels to then be surrounded by the manifested world. Originally that is who I am. TAT . TAT padArtha is what is realized."

bottom up: "I can see this in my nature, as being that of the nature of my IshTa, as being the nature of others."

The purpose is not to gain siddhis, but to abide in the Oneness of Brahman by whatever anugraha comes along in whatever time.
While, after leaving the body (i.e. death of body - dehAnta) , there is more spiritual life/journey ahead, in higher lokas (realms), which can lead to omniscience if Parameshwar wills it, or if it serves any purpose such as welfare of the world. This is optional and up to Brahman', which is God for most schools of thought.

[Previously, I always wondered -- if siddhis are actually pre-requisites to actual advaita realization in the true sense -- well apparently not for the basic moksha at least. ]

I am going to list at least a few siddhanta lines - that propound a-dvaita which are ok in their place, and at least logical, gracious and grateful.

1. VaishNav Dharma is very sweet, VishishTAdvaita is the closest school of thought to advaita, and give experience of Onenesss, and can potentially lead to omniscience (sarvadnyatA) if the ShaktimAn MahA-VishNu wills it - per VishishTAdvaita

2. Bramha-KumAris is not advaitic, it is Monotheistic, a sweet and simple path that makes no tall claims, just that "I am a peaceful pure soul" and you go in proximity of Shiv.
Again, it is theistic and includes the factor of Grace and gratitude.

3. smArta - a friendly approach that says the 5 (or 6) forms of Brahman are the same Brahman, and advaita is to be experienced via ahaMgrahopAsanA - worship via identification with your IshTa, or because of leela by the IshTa - whatever may be the case.

4. Kashmiri Shaiva - trika, other monistic Shaiva and ShAkta schools : These also say that jiva can ultimately realize oneness with Shiva by anugraha i.e. Grace of Shiva (or Devi or both / all).
Here, there is no trick involved --- you either realize you are originally of the nature of Shiva - as a peaceful AtmA
OR , after death of the body (videha mukti) -- potentially become omniscient by the Grace of Shiva-Shakti.

In these schools, Shiva is complete, with Shakti. There are no ridiculous claims like His omnipotence is an observation in Avidya etc.
While VaishNav schools are bhAvpUrNa and full of bhakti with some aiming for pure devotion (shuddha bhakti), there is gratitude in the Shaiva-ShAkta paths , be it jnana-mishra bhakti.
A few of the Shaiva-ShAkta pAths may adopt some tAmasic routes, but most do not.
At least the one who became Shiva does not toss Shiva's omnixxx under the VyAvahArika rug.



All of these schools fulfill the shruti mahAvAkyas - be it conditionally, but ultimately the potential is there.
Tat tvam asi. Aham BramhAsmi. pradnyAnam Brahman. sarvam khalu-idam Brahman.
Whether via Vedanta or Agama.


----
5. Jainism is very honest with what can and cannot happen according to them. Each jiva can become a siddha and continue to rise higher and higher even after the basic moksha.
Fair enough. Incomplete as it may appear to some, this is at least fair and gracious enough.

6. Buddhist deny Brahman but at least they are atheists up front, do not play hide and seek and claim theism by saying "BUT it is avidya"

7. Sikhism is logical, derives from Hindu dharma, sings devotional hymns to Ram, Krishna, Devi, in addition to the formless Omkar, and their oneness is similar to other theistic monist schools - somewhere between dvaita and advaita --
HOWEVER some of their latter gurus wrote offensive things just to teach emphasis on going beyond attachment to personal forms of Brahman. This was an attempt to break off from the brotherhood with Hindu Dharma the parent.


-----
Now let's see what Adi Shankara said :

Shankara in Brahma Sutra Bhasya 2.1.14 states:
तदेवमविद्यात्मकोपाधिपरिच्छेदापेक्षमेवेश्वरस्येश्वरत्वं सर्वज्ञत्वं सर्वशक्तित्वं च, न परमार्थो विद्यया अपास्तसर्वपाधिस्वरुपे आत्मनि ईशत्रीशितव्यसर्वज्ञत्वादिव्यवहार उपपद्यते, तथा चोक्तम् - 'यत्र नान्यपश्यति नान्यच्छृणोति नान्यद्विजानाति स भूमा इति' यत्र 'त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत्' इत्यादिना च एव परमार्थवस्थायां सर्वव्यवहाराभावं वदन्ति वेदान्ता ।। 2.1.14

Hence the Lord's being a Lord, his omniscience, his omnipotence, &c. all depend on the limitation due to the adjuncts whose Self is Avidya; while in reality none of these qualities belong to the Self whose true nature is cleared, by right knowledge, from all adjuncts whatever. Thus Scripture also says, 'Where one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, understands nothing else, that is the Infinite' (Ch. Up. VII, 24, 1); 'But when the Self only has become all this, how should he see another?' (Bri. Up. II, 4, 13.) In this manner the Vedânta-texts declare that for him who has reached the state of truth and reality the whole apparent world does not exist.

"Thus in Shankara's Kevala-Advaita these qualities like omniscience, omnipotence are the products of Avidya. So they do not exist in highest state." - a kevala Advaitin.

WHAT? Now just because an individual cannot do what Shiva, VishNu and Devi can, we want to call it avidyA?
Sour Grapes?

Now I understand why some say this SiddhAnta Is "veiled atheism" or "veiled Buddhism."
Then why not say "We do not believe there is any agency of Maha-VishNu involved, there is no Grace involved, no one is answering your bhakti" ? Then that is what you believe, and that is that.


Why not just be content by saying omniscience is optional, we are part of the fabric, simply realizing I am that Brahman' is enough for moksha?
That this does not violate the mahAvAkyas at all.


What is the need for having such offensive sidhhAnta?
Yes, Shankara's two-fold satya, calling SaguNa Brahman's Shakti as avidyA is extremely offensive.
Basically tossing Brahman's Almightiness under the rug just because we cannot explain aham BrahmAsmi without it.
 
Last edited:

ameyAtmA

~ ~
Premium Member
Now I understand why some say this SiddhAnta Is "veiled atheism" or "veiled Buddhism."
Then why not say "We do not believe there is any agency of Maha-VishNu involved, there is no Grace involved, no one is answering your bhakti" ? Then that is what you believe, and that is that.


Why not just be content by saying omniscience is optional, we are part of the fabric, simply realizing I am that Brahman' is enough for moksha?
That this does not violate the mahAvAkyas at all.


What is the need for having such offensive sidhhAnta?
Yes, Shankara's two-fold satya, calling SaguNa Brahman's Shakti as avidyA is extremely offensive.
Basically tossing Brahman's Almightiness under the rug just because we cannot explain aham BrahmAsmi without it.

So Shankara did this to save Vaidic & sanAtana dharma, VedAnta from the influence of Buddhism -- nAstik darshan - atheism that was spreading at the time.
Shankara used the bitter medicine to reconstruct the bridge back. To do that, and bring the minds back, he had to use some of that language of neti neti.

Welcome Back , he said.

He also revived, propounded and recommended the smArta tradition -- which was already there for centuries before this, but he prescribed it to his follower gruhasta families (householders) -- that were not his sannyasi disciples.

We celebrate his sAdhanA chaTusthaya, four-fold strict discipline, practice.
We celebrate his compositions --

Gems like nirvANa shaTakam -- - His answer to His Guru (Govindji) in Madhya Pradesh, at age eight -- in answer to the question "Who are you?"
chidAnanda rUpah: shivoham shivoham
I am the form and embodiment of bliss, pure auspicious Shiv is who I am, not these eyes ears hands, I do not have parents siblings, Guru nor disciple, I am neither earth water fire air not ether,
I have neither fear of death nor death...
I have neither attachment nor desire nor anger nor hatred

I am the blissful Shiv alone.


We celebrate his ingenuine GovindAshTakam , Saundarya Lahiri, Bhaja Govindam and more
satyam jnAnam anantam nityam anAkAsham paramAkAsham |
goshTha prAngaNa ringaNalolam anAyAsham paramAyAsham |
mAyAkalpitanAkAram anAkAram bhuvanAkAram |
kshmAyA nAthamanAtham praNamatha GovindaM paramAnandaM ||


Worship Govinda (Krishna) who is the Truth, supreme bliss, knowledge, infinite, and eternal, who is free from Ákásha (space and other upádhis - qualifiers), who is the highest light, who was eager as a child to crawl in the cow-pen, who is really free from difficulties, but who appears to be in difficulties (or who is the abode of máyá, cause of all), who appears manifold due to máyá, who appears as the world, who is the Lord of the earth and of Shri, and who has no Lord to control him. (1)



--
However, he has saved the dharma now. We have come a long way since. NidhidhyAsana, sAdhanA is all good, but the obligation he had to the masses to make the keval-advaita siddhAnta generic and balance the mathematical equation by canceling omnipotence with mAyA no longer exists.

We do not have that obligation, AchArya Shankara did that for us, so that the future generations of sanAthan dharma can experience the richness it yields.

We need not walk on tight ropes, we can come in and out of samAdhi, be a devotee and the Whole whenever we want.
Just as long as we sift the sat, chit, and Anand and maintain it.

The mystical realization of being the One , still holds. Thus the mahAvAkya aham BrahmAsmi is fulfilled.

Be the sacchidAnanda, worship the sacchidAnanda
 
Last edited:

ameyAtmA

~ ~
Premium Member
There is one more point.

There is a Guru that says true advaita, FULL complete real advaita is reserved for the avatArs.
It applies to avatArs because avatArs are VishNu Himself or at least empowered by VishNu.

Years ago this thought came to my mind too -- perhaps what Shankara was teaching his immediate disciples was applicable to him, with the siddhis he had, and was not meant for everyone. At the time I did not know he was cancelling with mAyA to balance the equation.

Datta-Guru (in Treta Yug) also gave the avadhUt GeetA through His disciple, and only the nirguNatva applies to the masses.

This is why Shri KRshNa says in the Bhagvad Geeta

BG 7.3 manushyAnAm sahasreshu kashchid yatati siddhaye |
yatatam api siddhAnAm kashchin mAm vetti tattvatAh: ||

Out of thousands of humans, a rare one strives for perfection. Out of thousand such perfections, a rare seldom one knows Me really in truth [ tattvatAh: ]

tattvatAh: ==> in principle, tattva, tattva => TAT + va => TAT ness (as in om tat sat, TAT-purush). That-ness. MY-ness, My nature, and Who I am.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Why not just be content by saying omniscience is optional, we are part of the fabric, simply realizing I am that Brahman' is enough for moksha?
That this does not violate the mahAvAkyas at all.
What is the need for having such offensive sidhhAnta?
Basically tossing Brahman's Almightiness under the rug just because we cannot explain aham BrahmAsmi without it.
Dear Ameya, This is your view and this may also be the view of many Hindus, but I differ with this view. Omniscience (or omni-potence) is not just optional but it is patently false. A Nirguna Brahman will not be interested in knowing anything. A nirguna Brahman will not need omni-potence because it is not involved in the affair of the World. It will be an imperfection / vikara of a nirguna Brahman if it was interested in knowing anything or interfering in the affairs of the world.

Moksha / enlightenment / jnana / deliverance / salvation; all these words men deliverance from ignorance. Therefore, realization that one is, and that all other things in the universe are none other than Brahman is the highest understanding - non-duality. There is absolutely no need to attribute 'almightyness' to Brahman and nothing has to be tossed under the rug. There is nothing beyond it. That is what Krishna said In Gita:

“vidyā-vinaya-sampanne, brāhmaṇe gavi hastini;
śuni caiva śva-pāke c, paṇḍitāḥ sama-darśina.”


That is what Chandogya said: “.. ekena mritpindena sarvam mrinmayam vijnātam syāt
vāchārambhanam
vikāro nāmadheyam mrittika ity eva satyam.”


That is also what Mandukya said: “sarvam hi etad brahma, ayamatma brahma’
 
Last edited:

ameyAtmA

~ ~
Premium Member
Dear Ameya, This is your view and this may also be the view of many Hindus, but I differ with this view. Omniscience (or omni-potence) is not just optional but it is patently false.

NirguNatva is not interested in world affairs. This is why abiding in that is very peaceful.
However, we cannot have an apples to apples conversation because you do not believe in ParamAtmA, Parameshwar (God, GuDha).

-------
Further, I understand the nirguNa sacchidAnanda.

However, what about Parameshwar Shakti and Leela? This is a question for the more theistic advaitins, question not applicable to you. Thanks for your post.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
However, what about Parameshwar Shakti and Leela? This is a question for the more theistic advaitins, question not applicable to you. Thanks for your post.
IMHO, Paremeshwara is the belief of half-baked advaitists, who cannot yet abandon duality. Shakti and Leela are how we experience the effect of existence of Brahman.
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
Namaste

Shruti, Smruti, Agama all point to Oneness, Advaita. Many have experienced it too by the Grace (anugraha) of Brahman, this local poster included.

top-down: "It was I who became all of this, and came down multiple levels to then be surrounded by the manifested world. Originally that is who I am. TAT . TAT padArtha is what is realized."

bottom up: "I can see this in my nature, as being that of the nature of my IshTa, as being the nature of others."

The purpose is not to gain siddhis, but to abide in the Oneness of Brahman by whatever anugraha comes along in whatever time.
While, after leaving the body (i.e. death of body - dehAnta) , there is more spiritual life/journey ahead, in higher lokas (realms), which can lead to omniscience if Parameshwar wills it, or if it serves any purpose such as welfare of the world. This is optional and up to Brahman', which is God for most schools of thought.

[Previously, I always wondered -- if siddhis are actually pre-requisites to actual advaita realization in the true sense -- well apparently not for the basic moksha at least. ]

I am going to list at least a few siddhanta lines - that propound a-dvaita which are ok in their place, and at least logical, gracious and grateful.

1. VaishNav Dharma is very sweet, VishishTAdvaita is the closest school of thought to advaita, and give experience of Onenesss, and can potentially lead to omniscience (sarvadnyatA) if the ShaktimAn MahA-VishNu wills it - per VishishTAdvaita

2. Bramha-KumAris is not advaitic, it is Monotheistic, a sweet and simple path that makes no tall claims, just that "I am a peaceful pure soul" and you go in proximity of Shiv.
Again, it is theistic and includes the factor of Grace and gratitude.

3. smArta - a friendly approach that says the 5 (or 6) forms of Brahman are the same Brahman, and advaita is to be experienced via ahaMgrahopAsanA - worship via identification with your IshTa, or because of leela by the IshTa - whatever may be the case.

4. Kashmiri Shaiva - trika, other monistic Shaiva and ShAkta schools : These also say that jiva can ultimately realize oneness with Shiva by anugraha i.e. Grace of Shiva (or Devi or both / all).
Here, there is no trick involved --- you either realize you are originally of the nature of Shiva - as a peaceful AtmA
OR , after death of the body (videha mukti) -- potentially become omniscient by the Grace of Shiva-Shakti.

In these schools, Shiva is complete, with Shakti. There are no ridiculous claims like His omnipotence is an observation in Avidya etc.
While VaishNav schools are bhAvpUrNa and full of bhakti with some aiming for pure devotion (shuddha bhakti), there is gratitude in the Shaiva-ShAkta paths , be it jnana-mishra bhakti.
A few of the Shaiva-ShAkta pAths may adopt some tAmasic routes, but most do not.
At least the one who became Shiva does not toss Shiva's omnixxx under the VyAvahArika rug.



All of these schools fulfill the shruti mahAvAkyas - be it conditionally, but ultimately the potential is there.
Tat tvam asi. Aham BramhAsmi. pradnyAnam Brahman. sarvam khalu-idam Brahman.
Whether via Vedanta or Agama.


----
5. Jainism is very honest with what can and cannot happen according to them. Each jiva can become a siddha and continue to rise higher and higher even after the basic moksha.
Fair enough. Incomplete as it may appear to some, this is at least fair and gracious enough.

6. Buddhist deny Brahman but at least they are atheists up front, do not play hide and seek and claim theism by saying "BUT it is avidya"

7. Sikhism is logical, derives from Hindu dharma, sings devotional hymns to Ram, Krishna, Devi, in addition to the formless Omkar, and their oneness is similar to other theistic monist schools - somewhere between dvaita and advaita --
HOWEVER some of their latter gurus wrote offensive things just to teach emphasis on going beyond attachment to personal forms of Brahman. This was an attempt to break off from the brotherhood with Hindu Dharma the parent.


-----
Now let's see what Adi Shankara said :

Shankara in Brahma Sutra Bhasya 2.1.14 states:


"Thus in Shankara's Kevala-Advaita these qualities like omniscience, omnipotence are the products of Avidya. So they do not exist in highest state." - a kevala Advaitin.

WHAT? Now just because an individual cannot do what Shiva, VishNu and Devi can, we want to call it avidyA?
Sour Grapes?

Now I understand why some say this SiddhAnta Is "veiled atheism" or "veiled Buddhism."
Then why not say "We do not believe there is any agency of Maha-VishNu involved, there is no Grace involved, no one is answering your bhakti" ? Then that is what you believe, and that is that.


Why not just be content by saying omniscience is optional, we are part of the fabric, simply realizing I am that Brahman' is enough for moksha?
That this does not violate the mahAvAkyas at all.


What is the need for having such offensive sidhhAnta?
Yes, Shankara's two-fold satya, calling SaguNa Brahman's Shakti as avidyA is extremely offensive.
Basically tossing Brahman's Almightiness under the rug just because we cannot explain aham BrahmAsmi without it.

Why do you find this offensive? Do you think such qualities as omniscience and omnipotence exist beyond vyavaharika. If so, what is there to be omnipotent or omniscient of in Paramartika? Do you think there is a god named Shiva in Paramartika? A separate entity from that named AmeyAtmA? As I understand it, all are Ishvara, and Ishvara is identical to Brahman. Tat tvam asi.
 

ameyAtmA

~ ~
Premium Member
Why do you find this offensive? Do you think such qualities as omniscience and omnipotence exist beyond vyavaharika. If so, what is there to be omnipotent or omniscient of in Paramartika? Do you think there is a god named Shiva in Paramartika? A separate entity from that named AmeyAtmA? As I understand it, all are Ishvara, and Ishvara is identical to Brahman. Tat tvam asi.

It is not about existing beyond vyavahArika.
It is about ontological existence, and labeling omnipotence-omniscience as avidyA, mAyA, which acc. to me is unnecessary.

Anger, pride, hatred, fear etc. fall under mAyA, omniscience of VishNu does not. It is what radiates from another area of Brahman.

Shankara had to speak the Buddhist language as more people were getting swayed by Buddhism, Nagarjuna's 2-fold satya. So he adopted that concept and added a cherry on top.

When a person A abides in pArmArthika , that does not change the ontological status of VishNu. A may see oneness with the Lord, but that makes no ontological difference to the Lord's omnipotence, omniscience, VAtsalya for the world. Life goes on.

--------
A few days ago you suggested God has no mind and He does not think.
Same logic here --- That is too much of a restriction is it not? And who are we to decide what He can or should do? People have experienced God's mind irrespective of who went into pArmArthika and who didn't.

The 2-fold satya does not belong or apply to Ishwar. He is simultaneously awake, the turIya, and can do whatever.

IMHO, Paremeshwara is the belief of half-baked advaitists, who cannot yet abandon duality. Shakti and Leela are how we experience the effect of existence of Brahman.

This is not about belief at all.

It seems you are a full-baked advaitin who has realized Brahman. Did you suddenly stop believing that your wife and kids exist?
Did your wife's cooking skills suddenly disappear just because you realized Brahman?

"Oh but that is vyavahAr"
Sure. vyAvahAric satya.

Advaitin A is not the center of this Universe. Why should A's family forget how to cook or drive a car just because A went into nirvikalpa samAdhi?

Shakti and Leela are how we experience the effect of existence of Brahman.

I meant Parmeshwar-Shakti as one word, Parameshwar-Leela as one word.

The point is that Shankara called it avidyA.

The point of this thread is : Is it necessary to call Ishvar-Shakti avidyA?

Again, the keval-advaitin is not the center of the universe.
Ishvar-Shakti continues to be what it always was, ontologically irrespective of A going into nirvikalpa samAdhi, B reaching teevra vairAgya or C playing tennis.
A,B,C think they have become sacchidAnanda , so what? That does not make Ishvar-Shakti disappear.
 
Last edited:

ameyAtmA

~ ~
Premium Member
Another thing: How is it that Shiva does not suddenly lose all Shakti acc. to Kashmiri Shaivism, just because one individual in a corner of the world said "Shivoham" ?
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
It is not about existing beyond vyavahArika.
It is about ontological existence, and labeling omnipotence-omniscience as avidyA, mAyA, which acc. to me is unnecessary.

Anger, pride, hatred, fear etc. fall under mAyA, omniscience of VishNu does not. It is what radiates from another area of Brahman.

Shankara had to speak the Buddhist language as more people were getting swayed by Buddhism, Nagarjuna's 2-fold satya. So he adopted that concept and added a cherry on top.

When a person A abides in pArmArthika , that does not change the ontological status of VishNu. A may see oneness with the Lord, but that makes no ontological difference to the Lord's omnipotence, omniscience, VAtsalya for the world. Life goes on.

--------
A few days ago you suggested God has no mind and He does not think.
Same logic here --- That is too much of a restriction is it not? And who are we to decide what He can or should do? People have experienced God's mind irrespective of who went into pArmArthika and who didn't.

The 2-fold satya does not belong or apply to Ishwar. He is simultaneously awake, the turIya, and can do whatever.

Fair enough. I can see where you're coming from, and I have no desire to refute your understanding of the ontology of Vishnu. Quite the contrary. I find your perspective fascinating.

I was just a bit taken that you called Shankara's commentary offensive. I don't find the perspective of others, even those of other religions, to be offensive, even it it is contrary to my own. It doesn't make another's less valid than mine. Just different.

As I see it, our understandings are based on our experiences. Jivas, even Jivanmuktas and Brahmacharis, don't share identical experiences. Unless we've shared identical experiences, we are quite unlikely to share identical perspectives with regard to ontology. :)
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
A may see oneness with the Lord, but that makes no ontological difference to the Lord's omnipotence, omniscience, VAtsalya for the world.

People have experienced God's mind irrespective of who went into pArmArthika and who didn't.
He is simultaneously awake, the turIya, and can do whatever.

It seems you are a full-baked advaitin who has realized Brahman. Did you suddenly stop believing that your wife and kids exist?
A went into nirvikalpa samAdhi?

Parameshwar-Leela as one word. The point is that Shankara called it avidyA.
The point of this thread is : Is it necessary to call Ishvar-Shakti avidyA?
Again, the keval-advaitin is not the center of the universe.
Ishvar-Shakti continues to be what it always was, ontologically irrespective of A going into nirvikalpa samAdhi, B reaching teevra vairAgya or C playing tennis.
A,B,C think they have become sacchidAnanda , so what? That does not make Ishvar-Shakti disappear.
Who is Vishnu? There is no Vishnu or Shiva. That is 'vacharambhanam vikaro namadheyam", that is a distortion in the manner of naming and speaking. In truth, there is Brahman only - and that is ME.

Lord? What Lord? You still live in the era of Lords, Dukes and Viscounts. Who is this "He" that you are talking about? Is it a he or a she or none of them? That is not Advaita. I believe that all those who claim to have experienced any God's mind are either fakes or hallucinated. Leave out the 'turiya' jargon. 'Nirvikalpa Samadhi' also is religious (ontological) jargon. It does not mean anything.

Yeah, I am a full-baked Advaitist. My wife, my children, myself, my enemies, all exist in Vyavaharika. In Paramarthika, even 'I' do not exist, only Brahman does.

Yes, I believe Sankara was correct in calling (if he did) Parameshwara-leela as 'advidya' because after all it is an illusion.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Ameya, you do not believe in what Sankara said. You started the topic with just one view - to denigrate it. That is why I have replied to you. Otherwise I have no problem with people having different views.
 

ameyAtmA

~ ~
Premium Member
I was just a bit taken that you called Shankara's commentary offensive. I don't find the perspective of others, even those of other religions, to be offensive, even it it is contrary to my own. It doesn't make another's less valid than mine. Just different.

I am not personally offended.

Atheists do not affect me. Other religions do not affect me. This is not about me.

I was raising a question objectively from a collective Hindu perspective.

A large percentage of VaishNavs respect ShankarAchArya, but find some of his teachings extremely offensive.

It is one thing if a person is an atheist - then just say so.
Is it right to say Ishwar is a product of mAyA, avidyA from point A in time because I no longer need Ishwar?

Why can't the kaivalya-yogi simply co-exist in kaivalya?

Not all yogis are like that. There are Yogis who have experienced Ishwar first hand, Yogananda Paramhamsa, Ramkrishna Paranhamsa, Devotees of Dattatreya - their paths lead to kaivalya, but they are aware of and have a lot of love and respect for Ishvar-sAmarthya and His avatArs, even as they simultaneously felt the Oneness with Ishwar .

I had not understood the full implications of Shankara's teachings specifically, which differed from other advaita flavors, up until

(i) I finally got the answer to my decade old question which no one was willing to answer and which had faded into the background interest-wise: Why can't a jnAni lift the Govardhan?

(ii) The answer (which happened to lie in Shankara's bhAshya on the Bramha sUtra) --- shocked and made me sympathize with the GauDiyas.

The bhashya, and the advaitin reaction to it : "Therefore omniscience - omnipotence of Ishwar, of Ishwar being Ishwar , is all a product of avidyA"

avidyA? a product of?

Anyhow, it was nice talking to you.

Who knows? Perhaps my creating this thread was someone else's will? Perhaps I was a mere instrument of their will?
It has happened before.
 

ameyAtmA

~ ~
Premium Member
Ameya, you do not believe in what Sankara said. You started the topic with just one view - to denigrate it..
Not to denigrate, but to raise the question. I respect Shankaracharya but think he had his reasons during that time. I like his nirvaN shaTakam.
The Bramha sutra bhashya opened my eyes -- to the full implication of his teachings. It was simultaneously good and bad news.

Good because of the utter peace of kaivalya. That we can keep. The rest -- is it necessary?

I feel I was made an instrument for creating this thread.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Like Buddha said, do not put all your faith in scriptures ('nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna)'). Brahma Sutras are another example. It is not God's own word but views of Sage Badarayana / VedaVyasa / Krishna Dwaipayana. One can differ from it if one has a reason.
Why can't the kaivalya-yogi simply co-exist in kaivalya?
Co-exist with any falsehood where my perswonal beliefs are involved? No. I am too enamored of truth. Lord Rama said, "Satyan nasti parama padam" (No station higher than truth). And that is my beacon. Otherwise, Vishnu, Shiva, Murugan, Ganesha, Mothers Bhavani, Lakshmi, Saraswati, Rama, Krishna, Hanuman, all are OK.
 
Last edited:

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
It is one thing if a person is an atheist - then just say so.
Is it right to say Ishwar is a product of mAyA, avidyA from point A in time because I no longer need Ishwar?

Why can't the kaivalya-yogi simply co-exist in kaivalya?

In my understanding, Shankara was not a Samkya yogi; he was an Advaitan jnani, and therefore did not recognize a duality of prakriti and Purusha. I don't think not doing so necessarily qualifies on as an atheist. I think a better term would be transtheist, since he acknowledges the existence if Saguna Brahaman along with the qualities of omnipotence and omniscience in vyavaharika.
 

ameyAtmA

~ ~
Premium Member
In my understanding, Shankara was not a Samkya yogi; he was an Advaitan jnani, and therefore did not recognize a duality of prakriti and Purusha. I don't think not doing so necessarily qualifies on as an atheist. I think a better term would be transtheist, since he acknowledges the existence if Saguna Brahaman along with the qualities of omnipotence and omniscience in vyavaharika.
Excellent point, but that implies the SaguN is dormant in the nirguN.
If he does not distinguish between Prakruti and Purush then Purush's Prakruti is dormant, simply unmanifest in parmArtha.
Dormancy = potential.
The potential exists in Brahman' in the highest state - parmArtha, kaivalya.
The highest Chaitanya that remains alone at the end of gazillion yugas holds this potential, otherwise there is no way for anything to come forth from the Pure Chaitanya. Pure Consciousness.

BG 9.8 prakṛtiṁ svAm avaṣṭabhya
visṛjAmi punaḥ: punaḥ:
bhūta-grAmam imaṁ kṛtsnam
avashaṁ prakruter vashAt


‘Again and again do I, resorting to My Nature, emit all this multitude of beings, lying in the power (control) of [My] Nature.’
- Shri KRshNa , BG 9.8

Not acknowledging the dormant potential (Shakti) or dormant prakruti, points to an unbalanced equation, that he (Adi Shankara) balances by calling it a "magic-mAyA".
Even so, the magic-mAyA is really dormant, and a potential within Brahman.
Just a matter of semantics as long as one understands this magic-mAyA does not come from nowhere-land, but it is potential hidden in Brahman'.
It does not mean we cannot sift out the evident nirguN from the potential and abide in it - again - this becomes sAnkhya.

This loophole does not exist in Kashmiri Shaivism or ShivAdvaita for example. I am deliberately not listing the VaishNav VishishTAdvaita or ShuddhAdvaita.

I do not mean to hurt or disturb anyone by saying this. Just looking at it objectively. Like a mathematical equation. This info should not make a difference to anyone's sAdhanA or bhAv.

My namaskAr to those who have reached kaivalya. _/\_
 
Last edited:

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
Excellent point, but that implies the SaguN is dormant in the nirguN.
If he does not distinguish between Prakruti and Purush then Purush's Prakruti is dormant, simply unmanifest in parmArtha.
Dormancy = potential.
The potential exists in Brahman' in the highest state - parmArtha, kaivalya.
The highest Chaitanya that remains alone at the end of gazillion yugas holds this potential, otherwise there is no way for anything to come forth from the Pure Chaitanya. Pure Consciousness.

I do prefer the term "unmanifest" over "dormant." But I do like how you describe the state as "potential."

When ameyAtmA is in Samadhi, is he manifest or unmanifest in Paramartika? Would you refer that state of being as "dormant?"

As I understand it, Saguna Brahman is unmanifest in Paramartika and exists only as satcitananda.
 
Top