[Advaita-l] Another instance of Advaita wrongly comprehended

[Sunil Bhattacharjya]

Namaste,

The misunderstandings are created by man only. The Sankhya says that the world is created by Prakriti and for all the dehadhaaris there is nothing but the Prakriti. Ishvara does not come into picture.The dehadhaaris can get rid of the dehas by knowing the swaroopa of Prakriti as Prakriti shies away, when it is known. Lord Buddha was not satisfied with this explanation and he found the at the state of bodilessness (Shunya state) there is the Buddhatva or consciousness, which he called the Shunyata. However great Purandara Dasa could not have been aware of Lord Buddha's depth. It is true that Lord Buddha did not talk about Ishvara but he did talk about Brahman in the Tevijja sutta.

The Ishvara is the master of the Maya or Prakriti, but mostly he does not show his might and allows things to happen according the rules of his prakriti. Vedavyasa said that Lord Krishna could have nullified the curse of Gandhari but he let that happen. However there are exceptions and the Lord revived the foetus of Uttara and did not allow the foetus to die. So it could be right for some to ignore Ishvara and his power over Prakriti.

Patanjali tells us about Ishvaa-pranidhana but he gives as an alternative too and Ishvara pranidhana is not the only way in his sceme to achieve Kaivalya. That means Sankhya knowledge can liberate people and even Lord Krishna ratifies that.

Thus the Indian philosophy is really wonderful and the only problem is with some teachers. Most of the teachers promote their own views and try to belittle the other views and do not look at things holistically. Probably Adi Shankara was one of those teacher, who had balanced views, yet some people criticize him. He talked about the mithyatva of the world as the people look at it. We see a man as a male and a woman as a female but does the soul have any gender?  A man of today could have been a woman some decades ago giving birth to a child. Kapila explains these things to his mother Devahuti. Thus what we see in this world are the temporary truths, the Vyavaharika truths only when we look at things with our Indriyas. We see the reality only when we look inward. Adi Shankara alone (of the teachers in the last three millenia) taught this.

Regards,
Sunil KB







On Sunday, February 2, 2014 7:50 AM, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatpraveen at gmail.com> wrote:
 
Hari Om, Subbuji,

Its unfortunate indeed that Bhagavatpada is so hopelessly misunderstood.
Dasa-ru could have very well replaced the third line with "One shruti
mantra said tattvamasi" and taken it from there!

Kind rgds,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known!
[Br.Up. 4.5.15] */


On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 3:25 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>wrote:

> Here is a song purportedly authored by Sri Purandara Dasa:
>
>
> Obba Acharyanu Daiva ve Illavenda ,
> Obba Acharyanu Daiva ke Entu gunavenda ,
> Obba Acharyanu Nirguna Nirakara Niravyaya nenda - Kadeyalli Tanae
> Daivavenda
> Obbaru Vedartha aritu Ariyaru
> Obba Madhwacharyare Purandara Vitthalanobbane Daivavendu Torisakottaraagi
>
> ಒಬ್ಬ ಆಚಾರ್ಯನು ದೈವವೇ ಇಲ್ಲವೆಂದ ,
> ಒಬ್ಬ ಆಚಾರ್ಯನು ದೈವಕೆ ಏಂಟು ಗುಣವೆಂದ,
> ಒಬ್ಬ ಆಚಾರ್ಯನು ನಿರ್ಗುಣ ನಿರಾಕಾರ ನಿರವಯನೆಂದ
> ಕಡೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ತಾನೇ ದೈವವೆಂದ
> ಒಬ್ಬರೂ ವೇದಾರ್ಥ ಅರಿತೂ ಅರಿಯರು
> ಒಬ್ಬ ಮಧ್ವಾವಚಾರ್ಯರೇ ಪುರಂದರ ವಿಠ್ಟಲನೊಬ್ಬನೇ ದೈವವೆಂದು ತೋರಿಸಿಕೊಟ್ಟರಾಗಿ
>
> The meaning of which is:
>
> One Acharya proclaimed 'there is no God' [Buddha?]
> One Acharya said 'God has eight attributes' [Ramanuja?]
> One Acharya said  'attributeless, formless, partless' and ultimately said
> 'I am myself God' [Shankara ?]
> None of these, though knowing the meaning of the Veda, really knew.
> Only Acharya Madhwa taught that Purandara ViTThala alone is God.
>
>
> One can easily see that the above is not a correct representation of
> Advaita.  Even though Advaita holds the Supreme Reality to be devoid of
> attributes, form and parts, there is no declaration of identity of the
> self, jiva, with 'god' which is Ishwara.  For 'Ishwara' Advaita does admit
> attributes and forms-at-will.  The distinction that is made between Ishwara
> and (nirguna) Brahman in Advaita is generally overlooked by critics of
> Advaita and the charge that advaitins identify themselves with Ishwara
> which is saguNa-brahman. is very commonly made.  The above song is just one
> instance.
>
> regards
> subrahmanian.v
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org

>
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org