Shankara was wrong: Integral Advaitism by Sri Aurobindo

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

No, first tell me why should I teach you the correct interpretation of the Isha Upanishad verse which I quoted earlier.

Of course, how can you when you are yourself unsure of its correct interpretation!

a Vaikhanasa anchorite (belonging to a Vaishnava sect)

These upanishads are first of all of ambiguous origin, yet not all vaishnavas are vaikhanasas.

Even most of those listed in your upanishad, can attain moksha by surrendering to Narayana -
a eunuch - iLaa/sudyumna
a fallen man - ajaamila
a maimed person - rishi ashtavakra
women - many rishi patnis, like devahUti, meera
a deaf person, - don't know
a child - dhruva, prahlada
a dumb person - jada bharatha
a heretic - bANAsura

Sanyas Upanishad is saying that people like you are not eligible for the instruction of the tattvam asi verse. First remove your delusion and the Moha that you have for your beloved Krishna and then come back to me.

अविद्यायामन्तरे वेष्ट्यमानाः स्वयन्धीराः पण्डितम्मन्यमानाः । दन्द्रम्यमाणाः परियन्ति मूढा अन्धेनैव नीयमाना यथाऽन्धाः ।।

Yeah see as to who is expelled from understanding the superior teachings of the Upanishads according to the Sanyas Upanishad. You are simply not eligible for Advaita since you have moha for Vaishnavaism and hence you will never be able to understand the sruti in the correct way unless you stop being a fanatical Vaishnavaite.

तुरीयातीतावधूतोऽहं स्वात्मन्येवकैवल्यं पश्यामि स्वरूपानुसंधानव्यतिरिक्तान्यशास्त्राभ्यासेन किं मे प्रयोजनं । अमृतेन तृप्तस्य पयसाऽपि किं प्रयोजनं । Unbound as i am for i see Narayana within, other than this or higher than this whether tattvamasi or any other half-sentence i have no use of. For having tasted the nectar of narayana what use will i have of anything lesser even if it is milk. And no one is undeserving of this nectar, and the only requirement is unconditional love. That you are any better or are privileged from all those "ineligible" listed in your upanishad is itself a big moha!

Shankara has proved that Advaita is right and both Madvacharya and Ramanujacharya as wrong about their interpretations.

Sri Shankara flourished before other Acharyas, so his siddhanta was challenged by the latter not the other way around.
Moreover, Sri Shankara himself refers to people who don't consider Krishna as ishvara and sarvajgna as:
“ ऐश्वर्यस्य समग्रस्य धर्मस्य यशस श्रियः । वैराग्यस्याथ मोक्षस्य भग इतीङ्गना “ ऐश्वर्यादिषट्कं यस्मिन् वासुदेवे नित्यमप्रतिबद्धत्वेन सामस्त्येन च वर्तते “ उत्पत्ति प्रलयं चैव भूतानामागतिं गतिम् । वेत्ति विद्यामविद्यां च स वाच्यो भगवानिति - उत्पत्त्यादिविषयं च विज्ञानं यस्य स वासुदेव वाच्यः भगवान् Sri Shankara bhashya Bhagavad Gita C3|V37

या वासुदेवे अनीश्वर असर्वज्ञाशङ्का मूर्खाणां - fools that doubt the ishvaratva and sarvagnatva of Vasudeva Krishna C4|V4,5

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Chakra]

Shankaracharya was a Devi upasaka too. Does that mean he was a Shakta? Hell no. He was a smarta and he was the one who established Panchayatana puja. Worshipping five deities Shiva, Vishnu, Devi, Surya and Ganesha as supreme in turn. Advaita philosophy slams Vaishnavaism in and out.

Shankara clearly accepts Vishnu as supreme and the rest as Jivas. He interprets that name "Keshava" in his Vishnu Sahasranama commentary as "Ruler of Brahma and Shiva". Moreover, he has used the name Narayana to refer to Brahman. As you know, Narayana refers solely to the Puranic Vishnu. That eliminates Shiva as being supreme as per Advaita. In his commentary to Gita 6:47, he says that worshipers of Krishna are more exalted than devotees of Rudra or Aditya. In his introduction, Shankara says that Ishvara (Vishnu) is independent of Maya, unlike the Jivas.

In his entire Gita, he talks about how pointless Deva worship is. He says that even though worshipers of other Gods and Vaishnavas may have enough efforts to please their God, it is Vaishnavas alone who gain the eternal fruit of Moksha while the other devotees have to return back to Samsara. I can give you the verses if you want. To say that Advaitins today are Smartha is one thing. To say that Shankara was a Smartha is just ridiculous.

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Sauram worships Sun God as the direct manifestation of Saguna Brahman. Sauram was popular during the time of Shankara and he didn't knew what to do with this sect as it contradicted his teachings and hence he treated this sect as a separate sect in Hinduism.

He was a smarta and he was the one who established Panchayatana puja. Worshipping five deities Shiva, Vishnu, Devi, Surya and Ganesha as supreme in turn.

From #135 to #160 its a full philosophical u-turn.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Aupmanyav]

या वासुदेवे अनीश्वर असर्वज्ञाशङ्का मूर्खाणां - fools that doubt the ishvaratva and sarvagnatva of Vasudeva Krishna C4|V4,5

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

Though Sankara is my guru, I do not like the use of such uncivilized language by anyone, not even from Gods, and I doubt if the line is from Sankara. He said Ishwvara exists only in the Vyavaharika Satya. Ishvara is not a thing of Paramarthika Satya.

It reeks of self-importance, 'ahamkara'. If it is one's view then it is correct and the opinion of others is wrong. This type of thinking is not permissible even in this forum.

 

[Chakra]

Though Sankara is my guru, I do not like the use of such uncivilized language by anyone, not even from Gods, and I doubt if the line is from Sankara.

Name calling has always been a part of Vedantic debates. Madhvas were called "disguised logicians" by Advaitins and Advaitins were called "disguised Buddhists" by Vaishnavas. Why don't you check the verses yourself. I may not have the same commentary as Tattvapravah, but the idea is still the same: Shankara accepts Krishna alone as Ishvara.

He said Ishwvara exists only in the Vyavaharika Satya. Ishvara is not a thing of Paramarthika Satya.

This was never even in contention. Gita doesn't support your idea of "calling the formless with any name and give it any form, Shiva, Shakti, Ganesha, Kartikeya, Hanuman, etc".

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Though Sankara is my guru, I do not like the use of such uncivilized language by anyone, not even from Gods, and I doubt if the line is from Sankara. He said Ishwvara exists only in the Vyavaharika Satya. Ishvara is not a thing of Paramarthika Satya.

It reeks of self-importance, 'ahamkara'. If it is one's view then it is correct and the opinion of others is wrong. This type of thinking is not permissible even in this forum.

I hold nothing against anyone's personal views, at the same time original works cannot be altered either. Refer Works of Shri Shankara Volume 11 Bhagavad Gita Bhashya Vol 1, Vani Vilas Press, Sri Rangam.

 

[Pleroma]

Shankara clearly accepts Vishnu as supreme and the rest as Jivas. He interprets that name "Keshava" in his Vishnu Sahasranama commentary as "Ruler of Brahma and Shiva". Moreover, he has used the name Narayana to refer to Brahman. As you know, Narayana refers solely to the Puranic Vishnu. That eliminates Shiva as being supreme as per Advaita. In his commentary to Gita 6:47, he says that worshipers of Krishna are more exalted than devotees of Rudra or Aditya. In his introduction, Shankara says that Ishvara (Vishnu) is independent of Maya, unlike the Jivas.

In his entire Gita, he talks about how pointless Deva worship is. He says that even though worshipers of other Gods and Vaishnavas may have enough efforts to please their God, it is Vaishnavas alone who gain the eternal fruit of Moksha while the other devotees have to return back to Samsara. I can give you the verses if you want. To say that Advaitins today are Smartha is one thing. To say that Shankara was a Smartha is just ridiculous.

Shankara slams your beloved Krishna by saying that Nirguna Brahman is superior to everything which directly contradicts Bhagavad Gita 14:27 where Krishna says I am the basis for Nirguna Brahman. Wow, again an embarrassment to the Vaishnavas. Truth should be self evident not manipulative like the way you Vaishanavas are doing.

 

[Pleroma]

From #135 to #160 its a full philosophical u-turn.

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

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

 

[Pleroma]

Of course, how can you when you are yourself unsure of its correct interpretation!

Thanks for revealing that you are not worthy enough to understand the superior Advaita teachings of the Upanishads and the Sanyas Upanishad was right in saying that adherents of Vaishnava sect should not be initiated into the Mahavakyas.

 

[Chakra]

Shankara slams your beloved Krishna by saying that Nirguna Brahman is superior to everything which directly contradicts Bhagavad Gita 14:27 where Krishna says I am the basis for Nirguna Brahman. Wow, again an embarrassment to the Vaishnavas. Truth should be self evident not manipulative like the way you Vaishanavas are doing.

And when was this in contention? Do you even understand how Advaita works? In the vyavahara level, there is a Saguna Brahman in charge of creation, preservation, and destruction. And that Saguna Brahman is none other than Krishna. That would make Shankara a Vaishnava.

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Though Sankara is my guru, I do not like the use of such uncivilized language by anyone, not even from Gods, and I doubt if the line is from Sankara. He said Ishwvara exists only in the Vyavaharika Satya. Ishvara is not a thing of Paramarthika Satya.

It reeks of self-importance, 'ahamkara'. If it is one's view then it is correct and the opinion of others is wrong. This type of thinking is not permissible even in this forum.

Well perhaps you are an atheist, but "I do not like the use of such uncivilized language by anyone, not even from Gods" doesn't this too smack of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness that there is in the person self-ordained omniscience which can direct even Gods into what is right and what is not?

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

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

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

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

Thanks for revealing that you are not worthy enough to understand the superior Advaita teachings of the Upanishads and the Sanyas Upanishad was right in saying that adherents of Vaishnava sect should not be initiated into the Mahavakyas.

The concept of "mahavakyas" was itself popularized by Sri Shankara whom you call a crypto buddhist (albeit not knowing where this term originated from).

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Aupmanyav]

Madhvas were called "disguised logicians" by Advaitins and Advaitins were called "disguised Buddhists" by Vaishnavas.

Of course, I have read about Sri Madhvacharya using such words, but my reaction is still the same - it is uncivilized. "Disguised Buddhists" is different from fools.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Do you even understand how Advaita works? In the vyavahara level, there is a Saguna Brahman in charge of creation, preservation, and destruction. And that Saguna Brahman is none other than Krishna. That would make Shankara a Vaishnava.

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

 

[Chakra]

Ha ha, even I am none other than Saguna Brahman. Even a stone is Saguna Brahman.

Okay, then can you please tell where Shankara says that normal Jivas can be Saguna Brahman?
Are you responsible for the creation and the cause for everything? Are you on par with Shiva, Brahma, and even Parabrahman Vishnu himself?

How is this anything less than ahamkara?

 

[Pleroma]

And when was this in contention? Do you even understand how Advaita works? In the vyavahara level, there is a Saguna Brahman in charge of creation, preservation, and destruction. And that Saguna Brahman is none other than Krishna. That would make Shankara a Vaishnava.

According to Shankara, that Saguna Brahman can be any deity, it can be Shiva, Vishnu, Ganapati, Surya or Devi. He did not gave any special preference to Vishnu. He was a Shanmatha impersonalist which contradicts the personalist Vaishnavaite view. Shankara was a smarta not a Vaishnava. According to him, Vishnu is an ordinary God like any other God like Devi, Ganapati, Shiva or Surya etc.

 

[Chakra]

According to Shankara, that Saguna Brahman can be any deity, it can be Shiva, Vishnu, Ganapati, Surya or Devi. He did not gave any special preference to Vishnu. He was a Shanmatha impersonalist which contradicts the personalist Vaishnavaite view. Shankara was a smarta not a Vaishnava. According to him, Vishnu is an ordinary God like any other God like Devi, Ganapati, Shiva or Surya etc.

And where exactly has he stated thus?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Okay, then can you please tell where Shankara says that normal Jivas can be Saguna Brahman? .. How is this anything less than ahamkara?

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.

 

[Pleroma]

Are you responsible for the creation and the cause for everything? Are you on par with Shiva, Brahma, and even Parabrahman Vishnu himself?

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

How is this anything less than ahamkara?

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