Shankara was wrong: Integral Advaitism by Sri Aurobindo

[Chakra]

Yes, that's the main message of advaita, I am God.

That's nirguna Brahman. You aren't God, but God is you. Go read the Gita Bhasya of Shankara. He calls Krishna the Supreme God and Supreme Soul of all.

Accepting a fact of the cosmos is not ahamkara. Even Vishnu has to agree with this truth.

Lol...it's the other way around. Truth has to agree with Vishnu, for Vishnu is the refuge of even truth.

 

[Chakra]

Sure, he said 'Jeevo Brahmaiva na parah'. Non-duality, that is the foundation of 'advaita'. No 'ahamkara' involved. Even Caliph Indrahim al-Baghdadi is Brahman, since there is no second.

That's Nirguna Brahman. There's no difference between Brahman and Jiva in the absolute stage. But to say that there is no difference between Brahman and Jiva in the vyavahara is far-fetched, IMHO.

Shankara also says this:
(Lord Krishna says) 'I, the Supreme Parabrahman known by name as vAsudeva, am the source of the whole world. From Me alone evolves the whole universe in all its changes, including existence and dissolution, action, effect, and enjoyment'":

as well as

[There is none who is equal to you, and when that is the case, how even can there be any who is superior to You in any of three worlds, Oh Lord, who is of unrivaled power?]--from Arjuna's POV.

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Ha ha, even I am none other than Saguna Brahman. Even a stone is Saguna Brahman. But then you are not an advaitist.

In which case, whether i agree or not, and because a mayavadi/advaitist would, it is brahman calling brahman a fool. तत्र का परिदेवना ? And because all are the same brahman, Sri Shankara is right, Sri Madhva is right, Sri Ramanuja is right. If as an advaitist one does not agree with this, then it is nothing but bigotry. But as a non-advaitist i can disagree.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Chakra]

In which case, whether i agree or not, and because a mayavadi/advaitist would, it is brahman calling brahman a fool. तत्र का परिदेवना ? And because all are the same brahman, Sri Shankara is right, Sri Madhva is right, Sri Ramanuja is right. If as an advaitist one does not agree with this, then it is nothing but bigotry. But as a non-advaitist i can disagree.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

What is also intriguing is how Shankara, Madhva, and Ramanuja (and almost everyone in history) could have had a different understanding of the truth if they were all Saguna Brahman. I mean, it's just one soul, so there should be only one view.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Are you responsible for the creation and the cause for everything? How is this anything less than ahamkara?

What creation? Did not Sankara say that it is an illusion. "Brahma satyam jagan-mithya". Brahman is unchangeable. I am Brahman (Aham Brahmasmi, Tat twam asi). All things in the universe are forms only.

"Yatha, saumya, ekena mrt-pindena sarvam mrnmayam vijnatam syat vacarambhanam vikaro nama-dheyam, mrttikety eva satyam." Chhandogya Upanishad.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In which case, whether i agree or not, and because a mayavadi/advaitist would, it is brahman calling brahman a fool. तत्र का परिदेवना ?

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

In Vyavaharika, such things are not done. In Parmarthika, no one calls anyone fool and no one is called a fool. Did not Lord Krishna say so in SrimadBhagawadGita - Who is the killed, and who is the killer?

 

[Aupmanyav]

That's Nirguna Brahman. There's no difference between Brahman and Jiva in the absolute stage. But to say that there is no difference between Brahman and Jiva in the vyavahara is far-fetched, IMHO.

I have already told you that Parmarthika is my natural abode.

 

[Pleroma]

That's nirguna Brahman. You aren't God, but God is you. Go read the Gita Bhasya of Shankara. He calls Krishna the Supreme God and Supreme Soul of all.

He also calls Shiva the Supreme God and Supreme Soul of all. You are just cherry picking his works.

Lol...it's the other way around. Truth has to agree with Vishnu, for Vishnu is the refuge of even truth.

Vishnu is a puny god like others according to Shankara.

 

[Pleroma]

And where exactly has he stated thus?

Read this.

Shankara Sampradaya.

 

[Chakra]

He also calls Shiva the Supreme God and Supreme Soul of all. You are just cherry picking his works.

I see no contradiction. Shiva is a common noun and is applicable to Vishnu himself. Plus, how are you going to reconcile the fact that him and ancient Advaitins have regarded Vishnu superior to Shiva?

Vishnu is a puny god like others according to Shankara.

"(Lord Krishna says) 'I, the Supreme Parabrahman known by name as vAsudeva, am the source of the whole world. From Me alone evolves the whole universe in all its changes, including existence and dissolution, action, effect, and enjoyment'": (commentary on 10.8)

Does this sound like a "puny" god?

 

[Pleroma]

Doesn't matter, for it cannot prove how Sri Shankara or Sri Madhva or Sri Ramanuja were wrong.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

Shankara refutes Madhva and Ramanuja with his Advaita philosophy. The Vedic Rishis refute Shankara's Mayavada advaita in this way all the three Acharyas were wrong. Both Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman existed from the beginning and both has to be equally worshipped. Both the personalist Vaishnavas and Madhvas and the impersonalist Shankarites were wrong.

 

[Chakra]

I have already told you that Parmarthika is my natural abode.

Then why would you say you are Saguna Brahman? You have stepped out of your abode. Saguna Brahman is only found in vyavahara.

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Tat twam asi

If you go by literal translations, tat - That / tvam - you / asi - are; just like in a sentence tvam kutra asi - where are you. So if you translate tvam kutra asi in the same way as tat tvam asi it will mean there is no difference between you and where. Which is why you have this vyavaharika-paramarthika; but i'd love to know if there is any shastra pramana for this otherwise logical construct.

In Parmarthika, no one calls anyone fool and no one is called a fool.

Which would mean Sri Shankara himself was not in paramarthika when he wrote the bhashya.

mrttikety eva satyam

In any case it is satyam, then.

I mean, it's just one soul, so there should be only one view.

Yes, i feel you'll have the answer in youर own sentence by just adding one word "if" and removing one:
If "it's just one soul, [so] there should be only one view."

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Then why would you say you are Saguna Brahman? You have stepped out of your abode. Saguna Brahman is only found in vyavahara.

Because it is his natural abode, though he has not yet reached there

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Shankara refutes Madhva and Ramanuja with his Advaita philosophy.

No actually, Sri Madhva and Sri Ramanuja refuted Sri Shankara's siddhanta.

Your understanding of Sri Madhva siddhanta is inaccurate.
Drop the confrontational approach and share knowledge it will be of immense use for one and all:

Sri Shankara

• Jagat Mithya
• bheda is vyavaharika
• paramarthika jiva-brahma aikya in moksha
• saguna is vyavaharika of which Narayana is the highest conceptualization
• nirguna is paramarthika which has no attributes
• one immutable tattva with all the apparent changes as adhyasa
• moksha is agnaana nivritti, ananda prapti
• jgnana and sannyasa as moksha sadhana

Sri Ramanuja

• Jagat satya
• bheda until moksha
• saamya in moksha except lakshmipatitva and jagatvyapara
• saguna - Narayana is the highest form of upasana
• moksha is agnaana nivritti, ananda prapti
  
• prapatti as moksha sadhana

Sri Madhva

• jagat satya
• bheda between jiva and brahma both here and in moksha
• saguna and nirguna enunciated in the shastras are the same: just as saguna means sakala sadguna sampanna, nirguna means sakala dosha rahitya
• moksha is possible only by svarupaanusandhana
• one independent tattva - Narayana, two dependent tattvas - jivas and jada and permanent difference amongst each of the three since what does not exist can never be
• moksha is svarupaananda prapti, atyantika dukkha nivritti
• jgnana with bhakti as moksha sadhana

Sri Aurobindo

• jagat satya
• bheda is vyavaharika
• both saguna and nirguna are same
• sarvasaamya or jiva-brahma aikya upon moksha
• moksha is agnaana nivritti, ananda prapti
  
• moksha sadhana -- not sure -- as stated in sannyasopanishad?

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Pleroma]

I see no contradiction. Shiva is a common noun and is applicable to Vishnu himself. Plus, how are you going to reconcile the fact that him and ancient Advaitins have regarded Vishnu superior to Shiva?

First drop the idea that Shankara was a Vaishnava. Is Devi, Ganapati and Surya a common noun for you?

Shankara's works on Devi

• Ananda Lahari
• Devi Bujangana Strotram
• Sri Lalitha Pancharathnam
• Sri Sharada Bhujangam
• Soundarya Lahari

Shankara's works on Shiva

• Shiva Bhujangam
• Shiva Panchakshara Strotram

Shankara's works on Ganesha

• Ganesha Pancharatnam
• Shri Ganesha Bujangam

Shankara's works on Vishnu

• Shri Krishnastakam
• Govinda Ashtakam
• Vishnu Shatpadi strotram

Shankara was a smarta and he praised all the five deities as the supreme Saguna Brahman, he did not gave any special preference to Vishnu, in fact he was more a Shaktha than a Vaishnava.

"(Lord Krishna says) 'I, the Supreme Parabrahman known by name as vAsudeva, am the source of the whole world. From Me alone evolves the whole universe in all its changes, including existence and dissolution, action, effect, and enjoyment'": (commentary on 10.8)

Does this sound like a "puny" god?

I can cite various verses from Shankara's Devi upasana where he states that Vishnu is subordinate to her. It indeed sounds Vishnu was a puny god in those instances.

 

[Poeticus]

"Vishnu is a minor god in the Vedas" is a conjuring that didn't exist before the 1700s. Connect the dots, ya'll. Heck, for someone who is supposedly a "puny" god, Vishnu, like Mahadeva, surely is eulogized quite extravagantly in the small number of sukta-s dedicated solely to him, the glorious Wide-Strider---sukta-s which should be confirmed by interested parties:

R.V.1.154
R.V.1.156
R.V.7.99
R.V.7.100​

Regardless, the importance of a deity has never been measured by the amount of praises the deity is "given". Each and every mentioning of a deity is a part of Shabda. An empirical hierarchy, therefore, is most definitely an anti-Hindu imposition worth acknowledging. Plus, how many of you know that when one sukta is given more importance than another sukta the concept of apaurusheya is ultimately voided?

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

You don't know anything about Sauram and Surya is not our supreme God.

I'm a follower of the Saura sect and we reject the concept of Trimurthi entirely in Hinduism. Surya, the Hindu Sun God is the supreme Lord of the Universe. We are hard polytheists and we believe that the gods literally exist, they are neither symbolic creations or archetypes of the human mind or pure myths created by humans. Gods exist independent of the human mind in their own realm and our view is an emanationist view of God. All other gods emanated from Surya and all other gods exist in his womb and hence he is called as Hiranyagarbha, Surya is Saguna Brahman and hence this view is henotheism, he is the supreme Lord neither Krishna, Vishnu, Shiva or Brahma.

Intellectual dishonesty can never be right.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Pleroma]

Intellectual dishonesty can never be right.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

Our Supreme Lord is Savitar not Surya. Surya is just a cover up for the outer masses because Lord Savitar is too holy to be pronounced every time and everywhere.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Then why would you say you are Saguna Brahman? You have stepped out of your abode. Saguna Brahman is only found in vyavahara.

For you I am Saguna Brahman, otherwise I am It (Ayamatma Brahma). I am always there.

Which would mean Sri Shankara himself was not in paramarthika when he wrote the bhashya.

Sankara was the head of a sect. Surely, sect heads have to remain in both realities, social and religious obligations and responsibilities. I am unencumbered, a free bird.

In any case it is satyam, then.

Yes, in a different reality.