• 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!

Shankara was wrong: Integral Advaitism by Sri Aurobindo

Pleroma

philalethist
Shankara was a crypto Buddhist and a Mayavadi, by introducing the theory of Maya (the doctrine of Illusionism) into Hindu philosophy he induced Buddhist philosophy into Hindu philosophy in disguise, like a wolf in sheep's clothing. Mayavada is at variance with Hindu philosophy and should be dismissed as a false theory.

Shankara was highly influenced by Buddhist philosophy even though he was the one who took us out from the repeated onslaught of Buddhist philosophy in India. This huge influence of Buddhism guided him to show a negative attitude towards the whole of Purva Mimamsa darshana. Shankara's advaita is not the true advaita that exists in the Vedas and the Upanishads.

Integral Advaitism by Sri Aurobindo

Both Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman should be worshipped and one cannot exist without the other. Both God, Brahman and the world are real.

Dvaita is wrong because it does not recognize that Self is Brahman.
Vishishtadvaita is wrong because it does not recognize that Brahman is literally Nirguna and one without attributes.
Advaita of Shankara is wrong because it does not recognize that Saguna Brahman is equal in reality with Nirguna Brahman.
Samkhya is wrong because it does not recognize Ishvara.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Dvaita is wrong because it does not recognize that Self is Brahman.
Vishishtadvaita is wrong because it does not recognize that Brahman is literally Nirguna and one without attributes.
Advaita of Shankara is wrong because it does not recognize that Saguna Brahman is equal in reality with Nirguna Brahman.
Samkhya is wrong because it does not recognize Ishvara.
:D Every one was wrong and only Aurobindo is correct. That is characteristically un-Hindu. No problem if that is your view, but IMHO, you realize that all Hindus may not have this view. Mandukya Upanishad says that there is no need to worship either the manifest or the unmanifest. You may want to take this topic to the Same faith debate section.
 
Last edited:

StarryNightshade

Spiritually confused Jew
Premium Member
So much negativity and self-righteous certainty. I'm not too entirely sure if those are what Sanatana Dharma should be about.

For the record, I'm not the biggest "fan" of Shankara (I'm Vishishtadvaitan/a follower of Ramanuja), but I wouldn't go as far as to say that he was flat-out wrong. The same goes for Dvaita and Samkhya
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
So much negativity and self-righteous certainty. I'm not too entirely sure if those are what Sanatana Dharma should be about.

I concur wholeheartedly, Starry. I just don't get the idea posting with the attitude, "Here I am, I'm the teacher, and I'm here to teach." I don't see many people reacting positively to that approach. Yes everyone has an opinion. But here on the forum it's about dialogue, camaraderie, and attempting to uplift people.

Now ... I've heard this argument before, it's nothing really new, and Shankara has his place, else he wouldn't be so oft quoted and adored by so many. Not my personal tradition either. As for Aurobindo, he definitely was a prolific writer, but that's about all I know. And the only reason I know that is when I went to university about 40 years ago, we browsed the Hinduism section of their massive library, and encountered a voluminous set called, "The complete works of Sri Aurobindo."
 

Pleroma

philalethist
So much negativity and self-righteous certainty. I'm not too entirely sure if those are what Sanatana Dharma should be about.

One is certain because of one's systematic study of the Vedas and the Upanishads not because of one's delusion and pride. It is not only me who is criticizing Shankara it is Aurobindo himself who takes on Shankara and attacks him fervently.

Sri Aurobindo, Isha Upanishad

Unfortunately there has been a great deal of unnecessary confusion regarding the meaning of this Upanishad. Shankara is generally recognised as the most important commentator of the Isha Upanishad, but if all these conclusions are accepted, then Mayavada, the Illusionism of Shankara, sinks in the bottomless ocean. The founder of Mayavada is incomparable and immensely powerful among the philosophers. Just as thirsty Balaram brought to his feet the Yamuna unwilling to alter her course, by dragging and pulling her with a plough, so also Shankara, finding this Upanishad destroyer of Mayavada and standing across the path toward his destination, dragged and pulled the meaning till it agreed with his own opinion. One or two examples will suffice to show the miserable condition to which this Upanishad has been reduced by such treatment.
 

Pleroma

philalethist
I concur wholeheartedly, Starry. I just don't get the idea posting with the attitude, "Here I am, I'm the teacher, and I'm here to teach." I don't see many people reacting positively to that approach. Yes everyone has an opinion. But here on the forum it's about dialogue, camaraderie, and attempting to uplift people.

Western born Hindus and westerners converted to Hinduism who lack knowledge of Indian Acharyas do not know much about Hinduism while born Hindus from India have the advantage of their native language which is similar to Sanskrit and helps them to better acknowledge and appreciate the veracity of the truth proclaimed by Indian Acharyas.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Which verse?
"Andham tamah pravishanti ye 'sambhutam upasate,
tato bhuya iva te tamo ya u sambhutyam ratah."
Into blind darkness enter those who worship the unmanifested, and those who worship the manifested enter, as it were, into even greater darkness.
Ishavashya Upanishad 12 (not Mandukya)
One is certain because of one's systematic study of the Vedas and the Upanishads not because of one's delusion and pride. It is not only me who is criticizing Shankara it is Aurobindo himself who takes on Shankara and attacks him fervently.
In that case Aurobindo was wrong, notwithstanding his french companion or the set-up they have in Puducherry. I think 'fervently' means 'as if one has a fever'.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Western born Hindus and westerners converted to Hinduism who lack knowledge of Indian Acharyas do not know much about Hinduism while born Hindus from India have the advantage of their native language which is similar to Sanskrit and helps them to better acknowledge and appreciate the veracity of the truth proclaimed by Indian Acharyas.
Now, that is a very uncharitable statement. Max Muller, Ralph Griffiths, and so many others (Indology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) were very competent in Sanskrit. Actually when Luigi Pio Tessitori came to know that my grandfather is a Kashmiri, he talked to my grandfather in Kashmiri, but my grandfather did not know that much Kashmiri (We had settled in Rajasthan). Tessitori was fluent in many European and Eastern languages. We should be thankful to the European indologists who did excellent work on Hindu scriptures, saved them from being lost, and spent their lives on it. It is ungrateful not to do so.
 
Last edited:

Sumit

Sanatana Dharma
"Andham tamah pravishanti ye 'sambhutam upasate,
tato bhuya iva te tamo ya u sambhutyam ratah."
Into blind darkness enter those who worship the unmanifested, and those who worship the manifested enter, as it were, into even greater darkness.
Ishavashya Upanishad 12 '.
This verse is incomplete without the next (verse 13 and verse 14)

anyadevahuh sambhavadanyadahurasambhavat ।
iti susruma dhiranam ye nastadvichachaksire ॥ 13॥
By the worship of the Unmanifested one end is attained; by the worship of the manifested, another. Thus we have heard from the wise men who taught us this.

sambhutim cha vinasam cha yastadvedobhaya saha ।
vinasena mrtyum tirtva sambhutya'mrtamasnute ॥ 14॥
He who knows at the same time both the Unmanifested and manifested , overcomes death by unmanifested and obtains immortality through manifested.

This verse isn't about Worshipping (praying) but about attaining knowledge (Worship) of both manifested and unmanifested simultaneously.
 

Pleroma

philalethist
"Andham tamah pravishanti ye 'sambhutam upasate,
tato bhuya iva te tamo ya u sambhutyam ratah."
Into blind darkness enter those who worship the unmanifested, and those who worship the manifested enter, as it were, into even greater darkness.
Ishavashya Upanishad 12


Sri Aurobindo and I have dedicated our whole lives in studying Isha Upanishad. You forgot to read the next two verses of the Ishavashya Upanishad.

अन्यदेवाहुः सम्भवादन्यदाहुरसम्भवात् ।
इति शुश्रुम धीराणां ये नस्तद्विचचक्षिरे ॥१३॥

anyadevahuh sambhavadanyadahurasambhavat ।
iti susruma dhiranam ye nastadvichachaksire ॥ 13॥

Scholars say that the worship of sambhuti [Hiranyagarbha] and asambhuti [Prakrti] produce different results. Wise men confirm this. [XIII]


सम्भूतिं च विनाशं च यस्तद्वेदोभयँ सह ।
विनाशेन मृत्युं तीर्त्वा सम्भूत्याऽमृतमश्नुते ॥१४॥

sambhutim cha vinasam cha yastadvedobhaya saha ।
vinasena mrtyum tirtva sambhutya'mrtamasnute ॥ 14॥

He who worships the unmanifested [asambhuti] and also the manifested [sambhuti] attains immortality by the unmanifested [asambhuti] and conquers death by the manifested [sambhuti]. [XIV]

(not Mandukya)

Yeah, I was wondering where it is said in Mandukya.

In that case Aurobindo was wrong, notwithstanding his french companion or the set-up they have in Puducherry. I think 'fervently' means 'as if one has a fever'.

Aurobindo received his teachings from Swamy Vivekananda in a vision. You cannot beat that giant (Aurobindo) so easily.
 

StarryNightshade

Spiritually confused Jew
Premium Member
One is certain because of one's systematic study of the Vedas and the Upanishads not because of one's delusion and pride. It is not only me who is criticizing Shankara it is Aurobindo himself who takes on Shankara and attacks him fervently.

Sri Aurobindo, Isha Upanishad

No one can be certain of anything. What one views as truth, the other will see as only half-truth. As they say, certainty is a mind killer.

Speaking of which, you claim that it's systematic study of the Vedas and Upanishads when it comes to accepting Aurobindo's Advaita as being superior to other ontologies; and not, as you say, "delusion and pride". Couldn't one argue that this is a prideful or delusional POV?


Western born Hindus and westerners converted to Hinduism who lack knowledge of Indian Acharyas do not know much about Hinduism while born Hindus from India have the advantage of their native language which is similar to Sanskrit and helps them to better acknowledge and appreciate the veracity of the truth proclaimed by Indian Acharyas.

If that is the case, why don't more people follow Aurobindo?
 

Chakra

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Shankara's Advaita has stood the test of time, and will continue to be the dominant Advaitic philosophy in Hinduism for a while. Of course, there are many Hindus who do not agree with all of Shankara's points. That's why Neo-Advaita is so popular these days. It combines elements from different sects to create a new, fresh Advaita for the people.
 

Chakra

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Shankara was a crypto Buddhist and a Mayavadi, by introducing the theory of Maya (the doctrine of Illusionism) into Hindu philosophy he induced Buddhist philosophy into Hindu philosophy in disguise, like a wolf in sheep's clothing. Mayavada is at variance with Hindu philosophy and should be dismissed as a false theory.

Shankara was highly influenced by Buddhist philosophy even though he was the one who took us out from the repeated onslaught of Buddhist philosophy in India. This huge influence of Buddhism guided him to show a negative attitude towards the whole of Purva Mimamsa darshana. Shankara's advaita is not the true advaita that exists in the Vedas and the Upanishads.

Integral Advaitism by Sri Aurobindo

Both Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman should be worshipped and one cannot exist without the other. Both God, Brahman and the world are real.

Dvaita is wrong because it does not recognize that Self is Brahman.
Vishishtadvaita is wrong because it does not recognize that Brahman is literally Nirguna and one without attributes.
Advaita of Shankara is wrong because it does not recognize that Saguna Brahman is equal in reality with Nirguna Brahman.
Samkhya is wrong because it does not recognize Ishvara.

"Shankara was a crypto-Buddhist"

Give me a break. He has lambasted Buddhism in his Brahma Sutra Bhasya. Just because he had a similar philosophy does not make him a "crypto Buddhists". Advaita was in existence way before Buddhism, although not as well known.

I guess you'll soon say that Madhvas and Sri Vaishnavas are "crypto-Abrahamics"?
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
He who knows at the same time both the Unmanifested and manifested , overcomes death by unmanifested and obtains immortality through manifested.
Most humbly, I state that I know both, the manifested and the unmanifested. I have overcome death through the unmanifested, and thereby have already become immortal. (If one overcomes death, one automatically becomes immortal - get my point? Then the manifested is not required. I knew about the next two veses also. Basically, I know all the verses of Ishavasya Upanishad. :))

"Brahma veda Brahmaiva bhavati" (One who knows Brahman, verily becomes Brahman).
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Aurobindo received his teachings from Swamy Vivekananda in a vision. You cannot beat that giant (Aurobindo) so easily.
What do you mean by vision? A dream or an understanding (Eureka moment)? I do not believe in revelation through dreams. For you Vivekananda and Aurobindo may be giants, for me they may not be any other than a she-elephant, a cow, a dog, or a dog-eater. Is not this what Lord Krishna said? Lord Buddha said do not have belief because of another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya*), nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū).

Now, that is a beautiful word - bhabba-rūpatāya, Skt - Bhavya Rupyata - looking great with arms folded and a turban on the head or with a salt and pepper sparse beard.
 
Last edited:

Pleroma

philalethist
"Shankara was a crypto-Buddhist"

Give me a break. He has lambasted Buddhism in his Brahma Sutra Bhasya.

Just because he had a similar philosophy does not make him a "crypto Buddhists".

I didn't denied the fact that Shankara attacked Buddhism in his Brahma Sutra Bhasya but he did incorporated many Buddhistic elements into his Advaita philosophy and hence led to the corruption of Indian philosophy and also the true Advaita philosophy of the old was completely lost.

Mayavada and Buddhism - Are they one and the same?



Advaita was in existence way before Buddhism, although not as well known.

And that old Advaita is the Integral Advaita of Sri Aurobindo.
 

Pleroma

philalethist
Lord Buddha said do not have belief because of another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya), nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū).

The Vedas were revealed scriptures and they are the true words of the gods. Hindus believe in revelation and in visions. If you want to follow Buddha please leave Hinduism DIR and go and join the Buddhism DIR. Advaita doesn't support atheism. Please leave Hinduism DIR.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
.. but he did incorporated many Buddhistic elements into his Advaita philosophy and hence led to the corruption of Indian philosophy and also the true Advaita philosophy of the old was completely lost. Mayavada and Buddhism - Are they one and the same?
What is wrong in Sankara's accepting from Buddhism? Is not Lord Buddha an avatara of Lord Vishnu? What if Mayavada and Buddhism are the same. Is it not all Lord's 'leela'? Did not Lord Buddha come to re-establish 'dharma' (Sambhavami yuge-yuge)? New theories would not be able to weaken advaita and Hinduism.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
The Vedas were revealed scriptures and they are the true words of the gods. Hindus believe in revelation and in visions. If you want to follow Buddha please leave Hinduism DIR and go and join the Buddhism DIR. Advaita doesn't support atheism. Please leave Hinduism DIR.
I know. The whole of Book VII was revealed to my forebears, the Vasishthas. There is no need for a Buddhist to leave Hinduism. It is a part of Hinduism. First understand 'advaita' before you comment on it. IMHO, 'Advaita' does not, should not accept duality of man and God. If it does, it does not remain 'advaita'.
 
Top