• 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

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Our Supreme Lord is Savitar not Surya.
I thought it was Indra with 289 Hymns followed by Agni with 218. However, if we cannot decide these things by discussions, could I suggest the use of swords? I think the thread needs cleaning. Hinduism Forum was supposed to be blue, no debates.
 

Chakra

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
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.



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.

All those are attributed to him. If you can tell me any Advaitin who quotes from those works before 11th or 12th century, then I'll accept them as authentic.

And yes, all names refer to Brahman first. There is Shruti evidence for all this.
 

Pleroma

philalethist
I thought it was Indra with 289 Hymns followed by Agni with 218. However, if we cannot decide these things by discussions, could I suggest the use of swords? I think the thread needs cleaning. Hinduism Forum was supposed to be blue, no debates.

Just because a deity has more number of references it doesn't mean that deity is the Supreme. Superiority is determined by the content and the meaning of the verse for a deity not by the number of verses that a deity is being referred. If you want to go by the verses then let's consider the number of verses from all of the Vedas and not just from the Rig Veda.
 

Pleroma

philalethist
I've asked the mods to move this thread to the Same Faith Debates.

Why does this thread has to be moved to the Same Faith debates. I am a Hindu and a Saura and this is one of the views of Hinduism as per sampradaya. I have every right to present this view in the blue DIR as this is a part of Hinduism and there is no controversy to it.
 

Chakra

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Why does this thread has to be moved to the Same Faith debates. I am Hindu and a Saura and this is one of the views of Hinduism as per sampradaya. I have every right to present this view in the blue DIR as this is a part of Hinduism and there is no controversy to it.

It's gotten into a debate now, which is against the DIR. It's best to move it, unless you want this thread to be closed and all of us to be banned. :)
 

Pleroma

philalethist
All those are attributed to him. If you can tell me any Advaitin who quotes from those works before 11th or 12th century, then I'll accept them as authentic.

And yes, all names refer to Brahman first. There is Shruti evidence for all this.

Trust me, I am from South India and I know Shankara's Smarta sampradaya very well. He was a Devi Upasaka and a strong adherent of Shaktism.

ShriChakram.jpg


Shankaracharya installed Sri Chakra in places of Shakti worship where ever he travelled through out India. Many matas established by him still follow the Smarta tradition.
 

Stormcry

Well-Known Member
Dear Pleroma....

pleroma said:
Sri Aurobindo
pleroma said:
  • jagat satya

Only ignorants think this world as real. Upanishanida and Purana clearly state that this world is unreal. It is not permanent, the thing which was before the creation and will remain after the dissolution is real, and that is brahman. This world is just an imagination in brahman. This is what vedanta states.

This is really funny! If there's no duality in brahman, how can there be duality of saguna and nirguna. The world has been called as saguna including gods and upanishada states that this world(saguna) is unreal and also to disprove the possibilty of anything different from brahman, veda says this world is brahman, if this was not said then the world(maya) would have become real as it'd have separate infinite existence.


Not to mention, all those saguna stuffs including all gods merge in brahman. Below is the support from upanishada.

III-49-54. Even the Quarters (like North) are not seen, regions give other (wrong) instruction; even the oceans and the stars dry up, even the permanent becomes impermanent, even Yogins (Siddhas) perish, demons and others decay; Brahma is reduced (to nothing), the unborn Vishnu too; Shiva becomes non-existent, the lords of the quarters decay. Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra and all classes of creatures run towards destruction, like water-streams towards the marine fire. Dangers come for a moment, so does wealth; birth and death are only for a moment - everything dies. The brave ones are killed by those not brave - a hundred are killed by one. Poison changes its scope (effect) - poison is not poison! (Maha-Upanishada)

"All the visible things in the world are nothing more than the consciousness without vibration - contemplate this." IV-1-24.

IV-44-49. The visible cosmos of un-moving and moving things melts away like dream in a (dreamless) sleep. The wise people have attributed, for empirical purposes, names for the supreme Being, such as, Rita Atma, Para Brahma, Truth etc. Just as armlets etc., are only words and meanings, not different from gold, so also is the magical illusion of the cosmos extended by the supreme being.


Yeah, no one has right to twist the meaning of veda, not even your aurobindo...:p
 
Last edited:

Pleroma

philalethist
Dear Pleroma....

Only ignorants think this world as real. Upanishanida and Purana clearly state that this world is unreal. It is not permanent, the thing which was before the creation and will remain after the dissolution is real, and that is brahman. This world is just an imagination in brahman. This is what vedanta states.


Purana is not Sruti, no one should take it seriously. Veda and the Upanishads slams Mayavada completely. Mayavada is just an interpretation of the Upanishads it is just a theory on the Upanishads and not a fact. Purva Mimamsa scholars would have laughed at people who say jagat is mithya due to their unborn ignorance of the Vedas. Upanishads are not the end of the Vedas they are the ending message of the Vedas. When Vedas and the Upanishads are taken as a whole Mayavada dies in the bottomless ocean.

This is really funny! If there's no duality in brahman, how can there be duality of saguna and nirguna. The world has been called as saguna including gods and upanishada states that this world(saguna) is unreal and also to disprove the possibilty of anything different from brahman, veda says this world is brahman, if this was not said then the world(maya) would have become real as it'd have separate infinite existence.

Not to mention, all those saguna stuffs including all gods merge in brahman. Below is the support from upanishada.

III-49-54. Even the Quarters (like North) are not seen, regions give other (wrong) instruction; even the oceans and the stars dry up, even the permanent becomes impermanent, even Yogins (Siddhas) perish, demons and others decay; Brahma is reduced (to nothing), the unborn Vishnu too; Shiva becomes non-existent, the lords of the quarters decay. Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra and all classes of creatures run towards destruction, like water-streams towards the marine fire. Dangers come for a moment, so does wealth; birth and death are only for a moment - everything dies. The brave ones are killed by those not brave - a hundred are killed by one. Poison changes its scope (effect) - poison is not poison! (Maha-Upanishada)

"All the visible things in the world are nothing more than the consciousness without vibration - contemplate this." IV-1-24.

IV-44-49. The visible cosmos of un-moving and moving things melts away like dream in a (dreamless) sleep. The wise people have attributed, for empirical purposes, names for the supreme Being, such as, Rita Atma, Para Brahma, Truth etc. Just as armlets etc., are only words and meanings, not different from gold, so also is the magical illusion of the cosmos extended by the supreme being.

That's exactly what Aurobindo's objection is against Shankara that Saguna Brahman is equally real with Nirguna Brahman. There is no duality here, the argument is whether Brahman is personal, impersonal or both. Aurobindo is saying even the world is Brahman and it is also real just as the Nirguna Nirakara Brahman is real. It is an holistic approach and upholds Advaita in a much more superior way than Shankara who rejected Saguna Brahman as real and accepted it only has a lower reality called Vyavaharika Sathya and by stating that this Vyavaharika Sathya is also unreal he became a Mayavadi. It is this element of Advaita of Shankara which Aurobindo is objecting.

The context is important, just by reading the Vedanta without reading the Vedas gives rise to such blind ignorance.

Yeah, no one has right to twist the meaning of veda, not even your aurobindo..:p.

That's exactly what you are doing. Twisting the meaning of Veda. :p
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
All scriptures are divinely inspired. For me it may be Rama Charit Manas, for a Maharashtrian it could be Jnaneshwari, for a Tamil it could be Thirukkural. And then we take the meaning according to our gunas. No one should deride any.
 

Acintya_Ash

Bhakta
That's exactly what Aurobindo's objection is against Shankara that Saguna Brahman is equally real with Nirguna Brahman. There is no duality here, the argument is whether Brahman is personal, impersonal or both. Aurobindo is saying even the world is Brahman and it is also real just as the Nirguna Nirakara Brahman is real.
If Both are real, then what is the relation between the two?
Sounds like Dual Brahman of Neo-Advaita doesn't it? Two sides of the same coin?
 

Stormcry

Well-Known Member
Purana is not Sruti, no one should take it seriously. Veda and the Upanishads slams Mayavada completely. Mayavada is just an interpretation of the Upanishads it is just a theory on the Upanishads and not a fact.

Hello bro..

Purana is smriti, I got it ;) So what if I gain the knowledge of brahman and write it down on paper in simpler yet in most efficient way, will it be different than what I gained?

Moving forward: Every Hindu school has mayavada theory. Because they explain what maya is
. Besides, I also don't understand why you call adishankara as mayavadi. In fact he said "Only Brahman is real".. He should be called as Brahmavadi and he's definitely brahmavadi. Rivals can bark but we don't listen..


When Vedas and the Upanishads are taken as a whole Mayavada dies in the bottomless ocean.

Veda and Upanishada are contradictory to each other, Upanishada refutes the reality of preceding portions of veda and accepts only brahman. Because non-upanishadik veda mainly deals with Karma while upanishada deals with knowledge, this knowledge and karma are contradictory to each other and they can not be reconciled.

Upanishada is a part of Veda, the ending part of veda that unveils the real message of Veda. Lord krishna, brahman, himself talks on this subject like this:


Krishna says: “The Vedas enjoins me alone in the form of Yadnya, me alone in the form of various deities in Devata Kanda nay whatever is super-imposed on me first and then negated in Dnyana kandas is me alone taking this stand on me as the cause of all causes and the highest reality, the Vedas posit (states) diversity as a mere illusion and then denying it, ultimately becomes quiet. This much is the import of all the Vedas. (BG 11.21.43)

I hope you've understood what krishna is talking about here..


That's exactly what Aurobindo's objection is against Shankara that Saguna Brahman is equally real with Nirguna Brahman.There is no duality here,

Rise up dude! You say there's no duality but you accept two different things in first place and yet say they're equal.[It's logical fallacy]. The idea is that unless you don't accept that essential nature of Saguna is Nirguna only, you are still overwhelming in duality, of course, you can't say they are one and you know, Veda screams whoever see duality here go through the cycles of birth and death, no end whatsoever!


the argument is whether Brahman is personal, impersonal or both. Aurobindo is saying even the world is Brahman and it is also real just as the Nirguna Nirakara Brahman is real.

Yeah, the world is Brahman. Who's denying it? But Vedanta also says that this world is an illusion. Thus, these are two ideas, seeming contradictory to each other but are not contradictory at all. It seems that you've failed to reconcile these two ideas and you are confused and blindly interpreted that as it is said world is brahman, the world [as we perceive] is real. Surely, that's not what veda preaches.

It is an holistic approach and upholds Advaita in a much more superior way than Shankara who rejected Saguna Brahman as real and accepted it only has a lower reality called Vyavaharika Sathya and by stating that this Vyavaharika Sathya is also unreal he became a Mayavadi. It is this element of Advaita of Shankara which Aurobindo is objecting.

"There's existence of Brahman alone"- This is the core teaching of Vedanta. Whatever there's is all brahman. So where's the question of rejecting something. Vyavaharika satya is never called as lower reality, it has been called as non-existent. It is neither real nor unreal nor in between. In reality it has no existence at all but it is just assumed in order to unveil the brahman, by a technique of negation.

Let me explain, For example, suppose a man is seeing the bird flying in the sky and for some time through imagination he's assumed himself that he's seeing a bird flying with its footprints, So what'll the person, who's well discrimination, gonna do to awake him from his false impression ? Yeah, he will say footprints are not there or all you see is only a bird. The reality that there was only bird not its footprints, is unchanging irrespective of that man's imagination.

So here, let's see what I've said-

Man- Ignorant
Another person- Veda
Bird- Brahman
Footprints- World
All you see is only a bird- All is Brahman
Footprints are not there at all- The world is non-existent, unreal


You got it. huh? :)

The context is important, just by reading the Vedanta without reading the Vedas gives rise to such blind ignorance.

I don't see any blind ignorance than believing world as real, that's what even common men do or perceive in their lives and you know they are as ordinary as animals are, both believe in the reality of world :p


Thank You
 
Last edited:

Chakra

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hello bro..

Purana is smriti, I got it ;) So what if I gain the knowledge of brahman and write it down on paper in simpler yet in most efficient way, will it be different than what I gained?

Moving forward: Every Hindu school has mayavada theory. Because they explain what maya is
. Besides, I also don't understand why you call adishankara as mayavadi. In fact he said "Only Brahman is real".. He should be called as Brahmavadi and he's definitely brahmavadi. Rivals can bark but we don't listen..




Veda and Upanishada are contradictory to each other, Upanishada refutes the reality of preceding portions of veda and accepts only brahman. Because non-upanishadik veda mainly deals with Karma while upanishada deals with knowledge, this knowledge and karma are contradictory to each other and they can not be reconciled.

Upanishada is a part of Veda, the ending part of veda that unveils the real message of Veda. Lord krishna, brahman, himself talks on this subject like this:


Krishna says: “The Vedas enjoins me alone in the form of Yadnya, me alone in the form of various deities in Devata Kanda nay whatever is super-imposed on me first and then negated in Dnyana kandas is me alone taking this stand on me as the cause of all causes and the highest reality, the Vedas posit (states) diversity as a mere illusion and then denying it, ultimately becomes quiet. This much is the import of all the Vedas. (BG 11.21.43)

I hope you've understood what krishna is talking about here..




Rise up dude! You say there's no duality but you accept two different things in first place and yet say they're equal.[It's logical fallacy]. The idea is that unless you don't accept that essential nature of Saguna is Nirguna only, you are still overwhelming in duality, of course, you can't say they are one and you know, Veda screams whoever see duality here go through the cycles of birth and death, no end whatsoever!




Yeah, the world is Brahman. Who's denying it? But Vedanta also says that this world is an illusion. Thus, these are two ideas, seeming contradictory to each other but are not contradictory at all. It seems that you've failed to reconcile these two ideas and you are confused and blindly interpreted that as it is said world is brahman, the world [as we perceive] is real. Surely, that's not what veda preaches.



"There's existence of Brahman alone"- This is the core teaching of Vedanta. Whatever there's is all brahman. So where's the question of rejecting something. Vyavaharika satya is never called as lower reality, it has been called as non-existent. It is neither real nor unreal nor in between. In reality it has no existence at all but it is just assumed in order to unveil the brahman, by a technique of negation.

Let me explain, For example, suppose a man is seeing the bird flying in the sky and for some time through imagination he's assumed himself that he's seeing a bird flying with its footprints, So what'll the person, who's well discrimination, gonna do to awake him from his false impression ? Yeah, he will say footprints are not there or all you see is only a bird. The reality that there was only bird not its footprints, is unchanging irrespective of that man's imagination.

So here, let's see what I've said-

Man- Ignorant
Another person- Veda
Bird- Brahman
Footprints- World
All you see is only a bird- All is Brahman
Footprints are not there at all- The world is non-existent, unreal


You got it. huh? :)



I don't see any blind ignorance than believing world as real, that's what even common men do or perceive in their lives and you know they are as ordinary as animals are, both believe in the reality of world :p


Thank You

About the Vedas and Upanishads, does that mean that both reflect contradictory ideas? If so, then wouldn't this give the Aryan Invasion Theory some importance since the Vedas were the original texts of the Aryans but later on the Upanishads were written instead of them both being divine and original?
 

Stormcry

Well-Known Member
About the Vedas and Upanishads, does that mean that both reflect contradictory ideas? If so, then wouldn't this give the Aryan Invasion Theory some importance since the Vedas were the original texts of the Aryans but later on the Upanishads were written instead of them both being divine and original?

No, it won't give any importance. Because it's a peculiar characteristic of Veda to accept first what is superimposed on brahman in order to refute them in the ending by neti neti. That's how veda ends up itself near Brahman and becomes quite. Certainly she has known brahman but by exclaiming 'ohh' she remains quite and ultimately merges herself in brahman accepting the existence of brahman alone.. Know that knowledge(veda) and Ignorance are born out of maya, even as one thorn removes another thorn, Veda using the counter-thorn of maya (knowledge) itself removes the ignorance(another thorn)..

Thank You
 

Pleroma

philalethist
Hello bro..

Purana is smriti, I got it ;) So what if I gain the knowledge of brahman and write it down on paper in simpler yet in most efficient way, will it be different than what I gained?

Moving forward: Every Hindu school has mayavada theory. Because they explain what maya is
. Besides, I also don't understand why you call adishankara as mayavadi. In fact he said "Only Brahman is real".. He should be called as Brahmavadi and he's definitely brahmavadi. Rivals can bark but we don't listen..

Nonsense! Both the Classical Samkhya school and the Samkhya-Yoga Darshana school considered the world to be real. It was only after the influences of Jainism and Buddhism on the Hindu traditions which corrupted the Vedantic tradition and Indian philosophy.

"Patanjali's writing also became the basis for a system referred to as "Ashtanga Yoga" ("Eight-Limbed Yoga"). This eight-limbed concept derived from the 29th Sutra of the 2nd book, and is a core characteristic of practically every Raja yoga variation taught today. The Eight Limbs are:



    • Yama (The five "abstentions"): Ahimsa (non-violence), Satya (Truth, non-lying), Asteya (non-stealing), Brahmacharya (non-sensuality, celibacy), and Aparigraha (non-possessiveness).
    • Niyama (The five "observances"): Shaucha (purity), Santosha (contentment), Tapas (austerity), Svadhyaya (study of the Vedic scriptures to know about God and the soul), and Ishvara-Pranidhana (surrender to God).
    • Asana: Literally means "seat", and in Patanjali's Sutras refers to the seated position used for meditation.
    • Pranayama ("Suspending Breath"): Prāna, breath, "āyāma", to restrain or stop. Also interpreted as control of the life force.
    • Pratyahara ("Abstraction"): Withdrawal of the sense organs from external objects.
    • Dharana ("Concentration"): Fixing the attention on a single object.
    • Dhyana ("Meditation"): Intense contemplation of the nature of the object of meditation.
    • Samadhi ("Liberation"): merging consciousness with the object of meditation.
In the view of this school, the highest attainment does not reveal the experienced diversity of the world to be illusion. The everyday world is real. Furthermore, the highest attainment is the event of one of many individual selves discovering itself; there is no single universal self shared by all persons."

Aurobindo's approach is Integral Yoga, the old Hiranyagarbha Yoga Darshana, the Vedic Yoga Darshana and Indians always considered the world to be real.

"Doing verily works a man should live a hundred years covet not what other man possesses" (Isha Upanishad)

Which is consistent with the message of the Gita which teaches us not to renounce our works by forcing us to take up Karma Yoga. One has to master both Purva Mimamsa as well as Uttara Mimamsa. If you only go after Uttara Mimamsa you will end up in a blind darkness like this. The word Maya is the least frequently used words in the Vedas and the Upanishads. The theory of illusion is completely at odds with Indian philosophy.


Veda and Upanishada are contradictory to each other, Upanishada refutes the reality of preceding portions of veda and accepts only brahman. Because non-upanishadik veda mainly deals with Karma while upanishada deals with knowledge, this knowledge and karma are contradictory to each other and they can not be reconciled.

Upanishada is a part of Veda, the ending part of veda that unveils the real message of Veda.

Sruti cannot contradict Sruti. By stating that the Vedas and the Upanishads are contradictory to each other you have made the very foundation of Hinduism to be infallible. Its a Juvenile statement.

Karma Yoga and Jnana Yoga cannot be reconciled? Oh dude please read the Gita once again.

Chapter 5, Verse 1.
bump.gif
Arjuna said: O Krsna, first of all You ask me to renounce work, and then again You recommend work with devotion. Now will You kindly tell me definitely which of the two is more beneficial?

Chapter 5, Verse 2.
bump.gif
The Blessed Lord said: The renunciation of work and work in devotion are both good for liberation. But, of the two, work in devotional service is better than renunciation of works.

Chapter 5, Verse 3.
bump.gif
One who neither hates nor desires the fruits of his activities is known to be always renounced. Such a person, liberated from all dualities, easily overcomes material bondage and is completely liberated, O mighty-armed Arjuna.

Chapter 5, Verse 4.
bump.gif
Only the ignorant speak of karma-yoga and devotional service as being different from the analytical study of the material world [sankhya]. Those who are actually learned say that he who applies himself well to one of these paths achieves the results of both.

Chapter 5, Verse 5.
bump.gif
One who knows that the position reached by means of renunciation can also be attained by works in devotional service and who therefore sees that the path of works and the path of renunciation are one, sees things as they are.


Lord krishna, brahman, himself talks on this subject like this:
Krishna says: “The Vedas enjoins me alone in the form of Yadnya, me alone in the form of various deities in Devata Kanda nay whatever is super-imposed on me first and then negated in Dnyana kandas is me alone taking this stand on me as the cause of all causes and the highest reality, the Vedas posit (states) diversity as a mere illusion and then denying it, ultimately becomes quiet. This much is the import of all the Vedas. (BG 11.21.43)

I hope you've understood what krishna is talking about here..

Gita is meaningless without the Vedas and it has to be understood with in the context of the Vedas and the Upanishads. Again you are making a very big mistake which is you are not reading the Gita from the perspective of the Vedas. Krishna is talking to us allegorical terms and in order to understand the message of the Gita completely, first you have to study the Vedas from Sampradaya.


Rise up dude! You say there's no duality but you accept two different things in first place and yet say they're equal.[It's logical fallacy]. The idea is that unless you don't accept that essential nature of Saguna is Nirguna only, you are still overwhelming in duality, of course, you can't say they are one and you know, Veda screams whoever see duality here go through the cycles of birth and death, no end whatsoever!

Yeah, the world is Brahman. Who's denying it? But Vedanta also says that this world is an illusion. Thus, these are two ideas, seeming contradictory to each other but are not contradictory at all. It seems that you've failed to reconcile these two ideas and you are confused and blindly interpreted that as it is said world is brahman, the world [as we perceive] is real. Surely, that's not what veda preaches.

"There's existence of Brahman alone"- This is the core teaching of Vedanta. Whatever there's is all brahman. So where's the question of rejecting something. Vyavaharika satya is never called as lower reality, it has been called as non-existent. It is neither real nor unreal nor in between. In reality it has no existence at all but it is just assumed in order to unveil the brahman, by a technique of negation.

Let me explain, For example, suppose a man is seeing the bird flying in the sky and for some time through imagination he's assumed himself that he's seeing a bird flying with its footprints, So what'll the person, who's well discrimination, gonna do to awake him from his false impression ? Yeah, he will say footprints are not there or all you see is only a bird. The reality that there was only bird not its footprints, is unchanging irrespective of that man's imagination.

So here, let's see what I've said-

Man- Ignorant
Another person- Veda
Bird- Brahman
Footprints- World
All you see is only a bird- All is Brahman
Footprints are not there at all- The world is non-existent, unreal


You got it. huh? :)

I don't see any blind ignorance than believing world as real, that's what even common men do or perceive in their lives and you know they are as ordinary as animals are, both believe in the reality of world :p

Thank You

The point is Mayavadis are as wrong as common men. Both are deluded, the latter do not know about the divine but the former err even after knowing the divine due to their half baked knowledge.

This is east and not the West and we reject the Law of Contradiction. Its perfectly rational in our world for two opposite things to exist simultaneously or two contradictory things to be true. This is what Aurobindo is arguing against Shankara.

"Synthesis of knowledge, synthesis of dharma, reconciliation and harmony of the opposites form the very soul of this Upanishad. In Western philosophy there is a law called the law of contradiction, according to which opposites mutually exclude each other. Two opposite propositions cannot hold good at the same time, they cannot integrate; two opposite qualities cannot be simultaneously true at the same place and in the same instrument. According to this law, opposites cannot be reconciled or harmonised. If the Divine is one, then however omnipotent He might be, He cannot be many. The infinite cannot be finite. It is impossible for the formless to assume form; if it assumes form, then it abrogates its formlessness. The formula that the Brahman is at the same time with and without attributes, which is exactly what the Upanishad also says about God who is nirguṇo guṇī, with and without attributes, is not admitted by this logic. If formlessness, oneness, infinity of the Brahman are true, then attributes, forms, multiplicity and finiteness of the Brahman are false; brahma satyam jaganmithyā, “the Brahman is the sole reality, the world is an illusion” — such a totally ruinous deduction is the final outcome of that philosophic dictum. The Seer-Rishi of the Upanishad at each step tramples on that law and in each sloka announces its invalidity; he finds in the secret heart of the opposites the place for the reconciliation and harmony of their contradiction. The oneness of the universe in motion and the immobile Purusha, enjoyment of all by renunciation of all, eternal liberation by full action, perpetual stability of the Brahman in movement, unbound and inconceivable motion in the eternal immobility, the oneness of the Brahman without attributes and the Lord of the universe with attributes, the inadequacy of Knowledge alone or of Ignorance alone for attaining Immortality, Immortality obtained by simultaneous worship of Knowledge and Ignorance, the supreme liberation and realisation gained not by the constant cycle of birth, not by the dissolution of birth but by simultaneous accomplishment of Birth and Non-Birth, — these are the sublime principles loudly proclaimed by the Upanishad."

- Sri Aurobindo, criticizing Bhagavatpada Shankara and demolishing his theory of Mayavada

Its a problem for Shankarites and not for us we have no contradiction whatsoever. There is no logical fallacy. It looks like a contradiction to our limited finite minds but when realized from the Supermind there is no contradiction whatsoever. It is not gods who will disappear it is logic and reason which will disappear into oblivion by realizing Brahman.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
About the Vedas and Upanishads, does that mean that both reflect contradictory ideas? If so, then wouldn't this give the Aryan Invasion Theory some importance since the Vedas were the original texts of the Aryans but later on the Upanishads were written instead of them both being divine and original?
Now you are getting the drift. Most of the Upanishads (Aitareya being considered the oldest) were written after Aryans arrived in India and interacted with indigenous thoughts. Even Books 10, 1 and 9 of RigVeda are supposed to be written later. The Battle of Ten Kings which took place on the banks of River Ravi is mentioned in Book 10.

"The Vedic period reaches its peak only after the composition of the mantra texts, with the establishment of the various shakhas all over Northern India which annotated the mantra samhitas with Brahmana discussions of their meaning, and reaches its end in the age of Buddha and Panini and the rise of the Mahajanapadas." Vedas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The "family books": mandalas 2–7, are the oldest part of the Rigveda and the shortest books .. The eighth and ninth mandalas, comprising hymns of mixed age, account for 15% and 9%, respectively. The first and the tenth mandalas are the youngest; they are also the longest books, of 191 suktas each, accounting for 37% of the text." Rigveda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Hymns in Book 7 being credited to my supposed clan, the Vasishthas)

Of course, there was no invasion as none is mentioned in Vedas. It was a prolonged peaceful migration from Central Asia. The problem is only about the oldest Vedic period, which in my view goes back to 6,000 BC when, as RigVeda mentions, 'Aditi found the samvatsara' and the sun rose on the day of vernal equinox in the asterism of Castor and Pollux (Punarvasu, Aditi being the deity of Punarvasu).
 
Last edited:

Chakra

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Now you are getting the drift. Most of the Upanishads (Aitareya being considered the oldest) were written after Aryans arrived in India and interacted with indigenous thoughts. Even Books 10, 1 and 9 of RigVeda are supposed to be written later. The Battle of Ten Kings which took place on the banks of River Ravi is mentioned in Book 10.

"The Vedic period reaches its peak only after the composition of the mantra texts, with the establishment of the various shakhas all over Northern India which annotated the mantra samhitas with Brahmana discussions of their meaning, and reaches its end in the age of Buddha and Panini and the rise of the Mahajanapadas." Vedas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The "family books": mandalas 2–7, are the oldest part of the Rigveda and the shortest books .. The eighth and ninth mandalas, comprising hymns of mixed age, account for 15% and 9%, respectively. The first and the tenth mandalas are the youngest; they are also the longest books, of 191 suktas each, accounting for 37% of the text." Rigveda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Hymns in Book 7 being credited to my supposed clan, the Vasishthas)

Of course, there was no invasion as none is mentioned in Vedas. It was a prolonged peaceful migration from Central Asia. The problem is only about the oldest Vedic period, which in my view goes back to 6,000 BC when, as RigVeda mentions, 'Aditi found the samvatsara' and the sun rose on the day of vernal equinox in the asterism of Castor and Pollux (Punarvasu, Aditi being the deity of Punarvasu).

It is a nice idea, but since my sampradaya doesn't see any contradiction between Vedas and Upanishads, there is no need for an Aryan migration. :)
 

Stormcry

Well-Known Member
Aupmanyav bro, would you please stop yourself mentioning your Aryan theory? ;) I'm seeing in almost every thread you mention that Aryan theory, which had been completely debunked in its all aspects.
 

Chakra

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Aupmanyav bro, would you please stop yourself mentioning your Aryan theory? ;) I'm seeing in almost every thread you mention that Aryan theory, which had been completely debunked in its all aspects.
I agree, but remember, Aup-ji is the all pervading Brahman. He can't be wrong. :)
 
Top