There is an interesting verse which Iskcon uses, I will use the translation of Srila Prabhupada himself, and give you the gist of what Iskcon wants to state. Following is the verse and translation from the Iskcon website
bhaktya mam abhijanati yavan yas casmi tattvatah tato mam tattvato jnatva visate tad-anantaram SYNONYMS bhaktya—by pure devotional service; mam—Me; abhijanati—one can know; yavan—as much as; yah ca asmi—as I am; tattvatah—in truth; tatah—thereafter; mam—Me; tattvatah—by truth; jnatva—knowing; visate—enters; tat—thereafter; anantaram—after TRANSLATION One can understand the Supreme Personality as He is only by devotional service. And when one is in full consciousness of the Supreme Lord by such devotion, he can enter into the kingdom of God.
Now please notice here, Srila Prabhupada gives a lot of things in the word to word translation, but he forgets to include that part of the word to word translation in the overall translation. Why did Prabhupada do this, this is a big question, let us take another translation, I will use Swami Sivananda’s translation of the same verse
18.55 By devotion he knows Me in truth, what and who I am; then having known Me in truth, he forthwith enters into the Supreme.
Now Swami Sivananda translations this as “enters into the Supreme”, Prabhupada translates it as follows “he can enter into the kingdom of God.” Now question is this, where is spiritual Kingdom or Kingdom of God in the verse itself? Srila Prabhupada himself does not mention it in his word to word translation to begin with. If Srila Prabhupada is presenting Gita as it is supposed to be presented, then why does he keep interfering with the translations of the Gita ? he complains of people changing the commentary on the Gita, but here he changes the translation itself, even Baldev Vidya Bhushan who comes in his lineage does not do this, however Prabhupada has decided to do this, question is why ? The general answer given by Iskcon is that, he wanted to promote more Bhakti,….good, so why did Sri Ramanuja or Sri Venkatanatha not do this ? why only him ? did they not want to promote Bhagavad Gita as a text of devotion ? If people would stubbornly insist that Prabhupada is still right in doing this, then is Srila Baldev Bhushan wrong in not interfering with the translations ? In my experience all Iskconites do is respond to my posts with pure hatred nothing more, other responses are merely a joke, they have no value in order to respond. Fine, inspite of all of this, does this even work for Iskcon? Does this justify their position ? Shri Krishna unfortunately does not agree with them, in the 6th chapter of the Bhagavat Gita Shri Krishna says the following
मूल श्लोकः
सर्वभूतस्थितं यो मां भजत्येकत्वमास्थितः।
सर्वथा वर्तमानोऽपि स योगी मयि वर्तते।।6.31।।
English Translation By Swami Sivananda
6.31 He who, being established in unity, worships Me Who dwells in all beings, that Yogi abides in Me, whatever may be his mode of living.
So notice here “He who, being established in unity, worships Me Who dwells in all beings, that Yogi abides in Me,” this means only he who is established in Ekatva or unity, such a person truly worships Shri Krishna, now you may think, common, I am just using this verse to justify my line of thinking, not so, following is that Shri Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita
मूल श्लोकः
तेषां ज्ञानी नित्ययुक्त एकभक्ितर्विशिष्यते।
प्रियो हि ज्ञानिनोऽत्यर्थमहं स च मम प्रियः।।7.17।
Translation: Among these the Jnani is ever endowed with the Bhakti of oneness is the special one, I am exceedingly the dear to the Jnani and the Jnani is dear to me.
I have translated Ekabhakti as Bhakti of oneness, since seeing this oneness is what Gita is teaching us, the verse 18.20 clearly give the knowledge of oneness the highest position. So a Jnani ought to have this, also Shri Krishna himself says that the Jnani is himself alone, in the verse 7.18 . This means that true Bhakti is not different from the knowledge of oneness as per Shri Krishna. Shri Krishna also makes this pretty clear in 18.50 as follows
मूल श्लोकः
सिद्धिं प्राप्तो यथा ब्रह्म तथाप्नोति निबोध मे।
समासेनैव कौन्तेय निष्ठा ज्ञानस्य या परा।।18.50।।
English Translation By Swami Sivananda
18.50 Learn from Me in brief, O Arjuna, how he who has attained perfection reaches Brahman (the Eternal), that supreme state of knowledge.
So this is for seeing oneness and not sitting in a room and doing Bhajan to the Murthy of the Lord.
This is not to downplay Bhakti to the Saguna form of the Lord in any way, but this is just to show that the Bhagavad Gita is not stating what Iskcon is trying to state, in fact there is nothing in the Bhagavad Gita that even supports Iskcon’s philosophy. Also Bhakti actually leads you to Jnana as per Bhagavad Gita, following is the verse
मूल श्लोकः
तेषां सततयुक्तानां भजतां प्रीतिपूर्वकम्।
ददामि बुद्धियोगं तं येन मामुपयान्ति ते।।10.10।।
English Translation By Swami Sivananda
10.10 To them who are ever steadfast, worshipping Me with love, I give the Yoga of discrimination by which they come to Me.
As a final nail in the coffin, I would like to show what is this Yoga of discrimination or discernment on the basis of the Bhagavad Gita only, following is the verse
13.3 And, O scion of the Bharata dynasty, under-stand Me to be the ‘Knower of the field’ in all the fields. In My opinion, that is Knowledge which is the knowledge of the field and the knower of the field.
In short I have my argument on the basis of Bhagavad Gita only, nothing else. We can continue to keep giving more and more verses but I believe this is sufficient.
It is quite interesting that the attacks on Advaita Vedanta are getting more and more interesting. But we must understand one thing clearly, these people who keep attacking Advaita or Adi Shankara are not people who have actually examined things to even begin with. Infact the article that I will be referring to is voluminous so I am not sure as to how many parts this article will go into.
Following is what our Virashaiva friend states
“We’ll start by examination of the term “māyāvāda” And it’s vocabulary accuracy first. This is so since some people think this term is offensive and resort to terms like Advaitavāda, Ekātmanavāda and Ajāti Brahmavāda. None of these are accurate. Advaita Vād this term is not accurate since schools of Kashmiri Saivism and Vallabhacharya of Vaishnavism are also Advaitins and despite this they have their differences from Shankara’s doctrines.”
Well not quite, the accurate description of Advaita Vedanta would be Ajatavaada or Brahmavada, the reason being that concentration here is about finding out what reality is, see for example we see the Sun rising and setting but is there actually sun rise and sunset, the answer is no, since when looking at this deeply we understand that it is merely the rotation of the earth. Also the blogger goes ahead and tries to criticize Vyavaharika and Paramarthika Satyam. But the day and night can be taken as Vyavaharika Satta and Earth actually rotating and there being no day and night in actually can be taken as Paramarthika Satta. Therefore there is nothing wrong with Vyavaharika and Paramarthika Satta.
There is one more objection raised by him here that, Virashaivism and Kashmiri Shaivism can also be considered Advaita, they can be but they have taken the name aa Shivadvaita not as Advaita alone. We will also examine there doctrines and objections later on.
Our Veera Shaiva friend gives the following quote
“In the case an apprehension may arise that there is merely a void everywhere which would be non different from the Buddhistic idea. Hence the text says siva eva kevalah, siva who is pure by nature and not void
~ Svetāshvatara Upanishad Bhashya 4.18″
Here the Bhashya is talking about the Upanishad Mantra which states that at that point there was neither day nor night. In case someone has a misapprenhension that this is the Buddhistic position of Shoonya, the Shloka clarifies that this is not so is what is stated here, but our friend writes as follows
“So since the intellectual admits his own doctrine being only mildly different from the Buddhist system of thought”
This makes absolutely no sense, infact this is what the Bhashyam states
“तर्हि तत्त्वं सर्वत्र शून्यमेव जातमिति बौद्धमताविशेषमाश ङ्कयाह — शिव एवेति ।”
Meaning: Hence to remove the doubt that if it is being proposed (i.e if the Upanishad is proposing) that everything is Shoonya the clarification is given, that it is Shiva alone.
It seems this person has not bothered to look at anything, he also gives 3 quotes from Buddhist Sutras but it seems there is no reference given for them. This shows clearly that our friend knows nothing and has simply copy pasted something.
Our Veerashaiva friend goes ahead and states that Advaita should be derived in the following way, he copy pastes a lot of stuff however we will simply take it point by point
1. If we have Ekam, we want to say not Ekam we say Anekam. Similarly Advaitam should be Anadvaitam .
2. Dvitam and Dvitiyam have a difference, Dvitam means two, Dvitiyam means 2 fold.
3. Before creation the whole cosmos and Shiva were simultaneously in a two as well as not two state hence to indicate this Advitiyam is used.
4. Meikandar a Shaiva Acharya brought this out.
Basically the Schrodinger’s cat problem in which the cat is simultaneously alive and dead at the same time. This actually sounds like nonsense, why people cannot see this interpretation of Advitiyam as nonsense, since the whole passage quoted here, is completely presented in a complicated way.
Also Vachaspatyam a Sanskrit dictionary
अद्वैत
न० द्विधा इतम् द्वीतं तस्य भावः द्वैतं भेदः
Here न is for negation, द्विधा means dual,
So here the translation of the above Sanskrit phrase is ” The dual pair having been obtained the it’s expression is Duality or difference”. Therefore Advaita is Non-duality or Non-difference.
Before beginning this article I would like to warn the readers that this article is quite voluminous hence you may need to spent quite some time to read this, I have made this article as this will be the end of the series and I have no intention to continue this series further. The Narayana Astra bloggers have retired so they will not go ahead and respond back to this article. The Ramanujaprapanna blogger merely copy pasted information from the Narayanastra bloggers simply without checking anything.
11
In Brahmasutra bhashyam for Yaavadadhikaaraadhikaranam Sri Shankara writes “सनत्कुमारोSपि brahmana एव मानसः पुत्रः स्वयं रुद्राय वरप्रदानात् स्कन्दत्वेन प्रादुर्बभूव”
Meaning: skanda or kartikeya was an incarnation of Sanatkumar & not of Paramatma or Param Ishwara.
Veda says “तमसः पारं दर्शयति भगवान् सनत्कुमारः तं स्कन्द इत्याचक्षते”। keeping this in mind Sri Shankara gave such a bhashyam
Answer: This is one very good objection, if Adi Shankara merely considered Skanda as an Aadhikaarika Purusha as stated in the Brahma Sutra Bhashya 3.3.32, then that means Adi Shankaracharya cannot consider Skanda as a form of Ishwara, However that is definitely not the case here, this is the reason Adi Shankara comments as follows in the Chandogya Upanishad Bhashya
“कोऽसौ ? भगवान् ‘उत्पत्तिं प्रलयं चैव भूतानामागतिं गतिम् । वेत्ति विद्यामविद्यां च स वाच्यो भगवानिति’ एवंधर्मा सनत्कुमारः । तमेव सनत्कुमारं देवं स्कन्द इति आचक्षते कथयन्ति तद्विदः ।”
Translation: Who is that Bhagavan ? He who knows the creation, dissolution of the creation, who knows the birth and death of beings who knows both knowledge and ignorance , these kind of qualities Sanatkumara has, that Sanatkumara is called Skanda by the wise.
Which means that Adi Shankara accepts Sanatkumara or Skanda as a form of Ishwara, Vaishnavas may object stating, just because Adi Shankara gives the definition of Bhagavan, and accepts Sanatkumara as Bhagavan, why should you declare that he sees him as Ishwara ? My answer to this is that since Adi Shankara has quoted the Vishnu Purana over here, 6.5.76 . Obviously Vishnu is seen as Sarveshwara in Vishnu Purana, so Bhagavan as defined there has to be applied to the Supreme Lord. Hence it is quite obvious that Adi Shankara sees Skanda or Sanatkumara as a form of Ishwara alone. Then why again is he treated as Aadhikarika Purusha, the reason is simple, Sanatkumara is a Jnana Avatara, hence to show how Jnanis sometimes become Aadhikarika Purusha, Sanatkumara demonstrates this way.
13
It can be asked let Sri Shankara uphold Vishnu but what is the harm in accepting paratva for other gods? In that case it will result in many ishwaras .Sri Shankara while commentating on Gita shloka beginning with “न त्वत्समोस्त्यभ्यधिकः कुतोSन्य; states that
“न च त्वत्समः त्वत्तुल्यः अन्यः अस्ति न हि ईश्र्वरत्वं संभवति अनेकेश्र्वरत्वे व्यवहारानुपपत्तेः।त्वत्सम एव तावदन्यो न संभवति कुत एव अन्यः अभ्यधिकः स्यात्”।
(There is no one equal to you because otherwise if there are more than one ishwara, jagat vyavahara will be in chaos). Thus acharya having refuted the existence of more then one ishwara established Vasudava as the only Param Ishwara who is devoid of none equal or above Him
Answer: This is a commentary of Adi Shankara on the Bhagavat Gita verse 11.43, what people do not understand is that Bhagavat Gita is actually elaborating the Upanishad, so the Samskrutam words in 11.43 “न त्वत्समोऽस्त्यभ्यधिकः ” meaning : There is none equal to you or greater than you .
This has been put due to being inspired by the Shvetahshvatara Upanishad, following is the verse from the Shvethashvatara Upanishad
न तस्य कार्यं करणं च विद्यते न तत्समश्चाभ्यधिकश्च दृश्यते।
Translation: Oh him there is no body, nor instruments of action, there is none equal or greater to be seen, his supreme power creates this manifold world which is of the nature of knowledge, power and execution.
Shvetahshvatara Upanishad Chapter 6 verse 8
In fact Adi Shankara quotes this in his Brahma Sutra Bhashya to prove that Ishwara is without any form. Please find the link below which explains this in detail.
Hence since such an Ishwara is without form obviously such an Ishwara is one only, but for the sake of Bhaktas he takes many forms, this has also been stated by Adi Shankara emphatically, yet Vaishnavas want to ignore it completely. We will even show that in Adi Shankara’s own words.
14
While commentating on Vishnu sahasranaam explaining the naam “संप्रमर्दन”, Sri Shankara writes “सम्यक् प्रमर्दयति रुद्रकालादिभिर्विभूतिरिति संप्रमर्दनः”
(The one who destroys the jagat through His vibhutis Rudra,Kala etc..). Thus acharya has expressed that Rudra is one of the vibhuti of Bhagavan & not param Ishwara.
Answer: It is crystal clear that for Adi Shankara Ishwara , i.e Saguna Brahman has no form, there is a doubt if Adi Shankara himself wrote the Bhashya for Vishnu Sahasranaamam, however even if we take for granted that Bhagavadpada wrote this, such a quotation by this blogger is senseless. The reason being is that in the same Vishnu Sahasranaamam Bhashyam the following is quoted
विष्णोरन्यं तु पश्यन्ति ये माम् ब्राह्मणं एव वा ।
कुरतर्क मतयो मूढाः पच्यन्ते नरकेष्वधः ।।
Vishnu is different , Brahma is different from me , he who uses twisted logic to somehow show that we are different , such fools will actually be cooked in Naraka post death .
ये च मूढा दुरात्मानो भिन्नं पश्यन्ति माम् हरेः ।
ब्राह्मणं च ततस्तस्मात् ब्राह्महत्यासमम् त्वधम् ।।
He is considered an evil person , a wrong doer who sees me as different from Hari and Brahma . If some one sees us as different they get the Papa of Brahma Hatya or killing of a Brahmin .
Bhavishyat Purana Maheshwara Vachana
This is quoted in the Bhashyam which makes it crystal clear that the writer of the Vishnu Sahasranaamam Shankara Bhashyam did not consider any difference between Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, otherwise quotation of such a verse is unnecessary. Vaishnavas come up with twisted logic to stating that this is in Paramartha but in Vyavaharika Shankara considered Vishnu to be Supreme, such persons are to be cooked in hell as they are using twisted logic. This is not my words these are the words of the Purana itself.
15
Again while explaining the name “भूत महेश्र्वर”, Sri Shankara writes “भूतेन सत्येन स एव परमो महानीश्र्वर इति वा भूतमहेश्र्वर”. Thus acharya intends that Vishnu is really Maheshwar while Maheshwaratam of siva etc are aupachaarikam means they are called maheshwar due to respect. While commentating on “महेज्य”, acharya says “सर्वासु देवतासु यष्टव्यासु प्रकर्षेण यष्टव्यो मोक्षफलदातृत्वादिति महेज्य” meaning Vishnu worship is greater than worship of others, as He is the giver of moksham.
Answer: This again shows that Vaishnavites in general are very very desparate, I would suggest readers to actually learn Samskrutam and read the Shankara Bhashyam on Vishnu Sahasranaamam, it is simply a delight to read it. In fact when I read it, it revealed a lot of things to me. If we take for granted that Adi Shankara wrote the Bhashyam for Vishnu Sahasranaam, then he quotes the Vishnu Purana to show non-difference between Shiva and Vishnu following are the verses he quotes
त्वया यदभयं दत्तं तद्दत्तमखिलं मया
मत्तोऽविभिन्नमात्मानं द्र ष्टुमर्हसि शंकर
Translation: Oh Shankara whatever protection is given by you, know that to be given by me, I see you to be non-different from me.
Vishnu Purana Book 5 Chapter 33 verse 47
अविद्यामोहितात्मानः पुरुषा भिन्नदर्शिनः
वदंति भेदं पश्यंति चावयोरंतरं हर
Translation: Deluded by Avidya, people who differentiate see difference between us oh Maheshwara.
Vishnu Purana Book 5 Chapter 33 verse 49
The 1st half of this verse is quoted in the Vishnu Saharsanaamam Shankara Bhashyam, hence the author of this Bhashyam obviously had the non-difference of Shiva and Vishnu in mind otherwise no need to quote it.
16
Sri Shankara writes while commentating on “यावदधिकाराधिकरणं in his Brahmasutra bhashyam that “यथासौ भगवान् सविता सहस्त्रयुगपर्यन्तं जगतोSधिकारं चरित्वा तादवसाने उदयास्तमयवर्जितं कैवल्यं आनुभवति”. (Savita (sun god) after completing his tenure of thousand yuga experiences kaivalyam devoid of rise & set).
Here too Sri Shankara says that sun god too is a adhikaarika purusha & not param Ishwara thus refuting Soura matam in which sun god is held as supreme ishwara,
Answer: Not quite, if we look at the Chandogya verse 1.6.7 and 1.6.8 it talks about the Hiranmaya Purusha, or the Golden person, obvious it is the Devata within the Sun, in the Brahma Sutra 1.1.20 Adi Shankara states the following “यत्तूक्तं हिरण्यश्मश्रुत्वादिरूपवत्त्वश्रवणं परमेश्वरे नोपपद्यत इति अत्र ब्रूमः स्यात्परमेश्वरस्यापीच्छावशान्मायामयं रूपं साधकानुग्रहार्थम् “
Translation: As said by you, the form of the golden person described in the Sun cannot be applied to Parameshwara, we will answer this, it is possible for Parameshwara to take whatever form he wants through his Maya for the benefit of the Sadhakas.
So Adi Shankara has declared very emphatically that it is very much possible for Parameshwara to take any form for the sake of the Sadhaka. So even if Vaishnavas argue that Surya has been declared as an Aadhikaarika Purusha and hence cannot be taken as a form of Ishwara, hence Sauram gets cancelled, even then due to the very own words of Shankara that Ishwara takes a form suitable for the Upasaka alone is enough to show that he would support the worship of the Surya Devata as Parameshwara.
17
While commentating on mantra “तद् विष्णोः परमं पदं” (3-9), acharys writes
Since he writes Vasudeva for the word Vishnu & since for word padam instead of writing swaroopam, he writes staanam (abode), acharya has considered here attainment of abode of saguna brahmam & he considers Vishnu alone to be saguna brahmam.
Even whenever acharya gives example of symbolic worship, he mentions “Saalagraame वैष्णु दृष्ठिः”, “यथा प्रतिमादौ विष्ण्वादिबुद्धिः” & not “लिंगे शिवदृष्ठिः”.Thus acharya’s contemplation is always on Bhagavan Narayana,
Ans: It seems this blogger has put 2 points in one point, no matter, we will answer the objection here, actually there is one blogger called Adbhutam he has answered the 1st part. Following is what he says
“Kathopanishat 1.3.4 bhashyam:
//तथा च श्रुत्यन्तरं केवलस्याभोक्तृत्वमेव दर्शयति — ‘ध्यायतीव लेलायतीव’ (बृ. उ. ४-३-७) इत्यादि । एवं च सति वक्ष्यमाणरथकल्पनया वैष्णवस्य पदस्यात्मतया प्रतिपत्तिरुपपद्यते, नान्यथा, स्वभावानतिक्रमात् ॥//
The ‘vaiṣṇava padam’ (called by the name ‘tad viṣṇoḥ paramam padam’ in the Kathopanishat 1.3.9) is no ‘abode’ that the blogger imagines it to be. An abode is some geographical location which is finite and has to be reached by one who is removed from there. Shankara says in the above commentary, appearing a little before the mantra 1.3.9, that the ‘vaiṣnava padam’ is that which is to be realized as one’s own Atman, self. He reasons: the nature of the jīva is not being a bhoktā, enjoyer, but the very Pure Consciousness devoid of any upādhis of kartṛtva and bhoktṛtva. He says, only if this is admitted the teaching of ‘vaiṣṇavam padam’ coming in the sequel will be appropriate. And to show the appropriateness Shankara says ‘the vaiṣṇavam padam’ is to be realized as one’s self itself, non-different from it.”
One can find a more detailed answer to this from the blogger, I would also recommend people go through the blog, it is simply amazing.
The blogger states that Adi Shankara goes ahead and says “यथा प्रतिमादौ विष्ण्वादिबुद्धिः” “just as in images you put the notion of Vishnu” , but this is actually in the commentary on Bhagavat Gita 4.24, so I do not find it surprising that Adi Shankara even used this to begin with. Also in the Kenopanishad Chapter 1 verse 5 (Pada Bhashya) Shankara comments as follows “तत्तस्मादन्य उपास्यो विष्णुरीश्वर इन्द्रः प्राणो वा ब्रह्म भवितुमर्हति”
Meaning: Hence the other is worshiped like Vishnu, Ishwara, Indra, or Prana can be called Brahman.
Here Ishwara means Shiva, so it is obvious that Adi Shankara places Vishnu, Shiva and even Indra at the same level at the level of Aparabrahman.
18
Sri Shankara in Gita bhashya at many places writes “परं देवं नारायणं” (9-22), “वासुदेवाख्यं परbrahma भूतं” (15-3) meaning Narayana is parabrahma, paramatma but never ever described Shiva etc. by such words.On the contrary mentions that these gods are created by saguna brahma Narayana.
Answer: It is quite interesting that the blogger wants to put his own ideas into it
Adi Shankara says the following in his Kathopanishad Bhashyam
Translation: The Purusha being only of Pure consciousness alone, having nothing other than himself, hence he is subtle as well as expanded all over is to be known as the inner self, is to be established and is the climax when reached. Hence it is said for the travelers , who travel everywhere, the Samsaris it is the ultimate destination, therefore it is said in Gita 14.6 “going where there is no return.
Also I have answered such claims sufficiently in the article below.
Generally present day advaitins say Bramha, Vishnu & Rudra are same & thet there is no difference between them. Such a thinking is proved to be wrong by Sri Shankara in his bhashyas.
Gita bhashya shloka (8-16 “किम् पुनः त्वत्तः अन्यत् प्राप्ताः पुनः आवर्तन्ते इति? उच्यते-आ bramhaभुवनात्, -bramhaभुवनं bramha लोक इत्यर्थः,आ bramhaभुवनात्- सह bramha लोकेन लोकाः सर्वे पुनरावर्तिनः-पुनरावर्तिन स्वभावाः.,,,मां एकं उपेत्य तु कौन्तेय पुनर्जन्म पुनरुत्पत्तिः न वैद्यते”
(People who attain others & not yourself, do they return to this world? listen answer to this. Bramhabhuvanam means bramha’s place. All places upto bramhaloka have the nature of return to this world.But those who attain me alone do not return). Here acharya writes that krishna shows the vast difference between bramha & Himself.
Gita shloka (11-37)
“Bramhan:-हिरण्यगर्भस्यापि आदिकर्ता-कारणं”. Here acharya writes that arjuna says krishna is the cause of bramha too.
Gita shloka(4-16)Sri Shankara writes the meaning of “भूतानां ईश्र्वरः”as “bramhaaदिस्तंभपर्यन्तानां ईश्र्वरः”(One who has nature of controlling everything from bramha to tiny grass).Here acharya shows that among the controlled jivas, bramha is the first & Krishna is the natural controller of him.
Answer: All of this is refuted with the following quote from the Kenopanishad by Shankara in his Pada Bhashyam
Kenopanishad Chapter 1 verse 5 (Pada Bhashya) Shankara comments as follows “तत्तस्मादन्य उपास्यो विष्णुरीश्वर इन्द्रः प्राणो वा ब्रह्म भवितुमर्हति”
Meaning: Hence the other is worshiped like Vishnu, Ishwara, Indra, or Prana can be called Brahman.
So even Shiva and Indra can be called Brahman or Ishwara or Saguna Brahma as per Shankara. It does not matter how many ever Bhagavat Gita verses or Bhashya portions the blogger quotes he has no answer to this.
20
While commentating on names” भूतकृत् भ्तभृत्”, acharya writes
“रजोगुणं समाश्रित्य विरिंचरुपेण भूतानि करोति इति भूतकृत्।तमोगुणमधिष्ठाय रुद्रात्मना कृन्तति हिनस्तीति वा भूतकृत्।सत्वगुणमधिष्ठाय भूतानि बिभर्ति पाति धारयति पोषयति इति वा भूतभृत्।”
(By attaining rajo guna in the form of bramha creates & hence is called bhootakrut,By attaining tami guna in the form of rudra destroys & hence also bhootakrut.By attaining satva guna He protects the creations ,holds them & make them flourish & hence He is called bhootabrut”.
Sri Shankara who wrote that by having forms of raajasik Bramha & taamasik Rudra, he could have writtem by taking form of saatvik Vishnu he protects but instead wrote” by attaining satva guna, he protects”. Thus acharya intends that Vishnu alone does creation & dissolution through Bramha & Rudra & Himself directly does the protection .Thus acharya ,having attributed greater satva guna to Vishnu & lower rajasik guna to Bramha & lowest taamasik guna to Rudra ,accepts difference among the trimurtis in the vyavahaarika state.
Acharya has explicitly accepted Vishnu to be saguna bramha, & first place among jivas to Bramha & second place to Rudra.
Ans: I will first show how ridiculous the bloggers argument is over here, there is no place where Acharya has explicitly stated that Vishnu alone is Saguna Brahman, but,our blogger is kind of desparate, in the same Vishnu Sahasranaama Bhashyam believed to be written by Adi Shankara the following is said
“रुर्दुःखं दुःख हेतुं वा विद्रावयति स प्रभुः । रुद्र इत्युच्यते तस्माच्छिव: परमकारणम् ” इति लिङ्गपुराणवचनात्
Translation:He who destroys रु which is misery or cause of misery , such a Lord is called Rudra and hence Shiva the ultimate cause as stated in Linga Purana.
So I can use this quote and state, see Adi Shankara did not leave quote of Shiva being the ultimate cause, hence Adi Shankara has actually proved supremacy of Shiva indirectly , this is actually a ridiculous argument made by me, similarly this blogger’s argument is equally ridiculous to begin with.
Also the same Bhashya the following verse from Hari Vamsa is quoted
अहं त्वं सर्वगो देव त्वमेवाहं जनार्दन ।
आव्योरन्तरं नास्ति शब्दैरर्थैर्जगत्पते ।।
You and I both are omnipresent , you are me oh Janardana , between me and you there is no difference either in word or meaning.
There is no difference between Shiva and Vishnu even in word of meaning as per this verse quoted in the Bhashya, hence we can clearly see that the Bhashyakara had no such intention it is only these moronic Vaishnavas who love to inject such baseless things.
21
while commentating on the word “सर्वभूतांतरात्मा” of Mundakopanishad (2-4),Sri Shankara writes
(This dev who is known as Vishnu & Anantha, the foremost among those having body & also one who has the universe as His body, is antaratma of everyone). Thus in saguna tatva, first place is given to Vishnu by acharya.
Thus acharya has not considered someone above Vishnu which is evident from his prasthanatraya bhashya & saharanaama bhashya & acharya has quoted from satvika puranas like Vishnu purana & not touched the taamasa purana vaakyaas which abuse Vishnu.
Ans: This is why I somes times feel I should have named this series as stupidity of Vaishnavas instead of desparation of Vaishanavas, I will explain why also please find the following is what Adi Shankara saya in the Mundaka Bhashyam
Shankara’s commentary is:
सङ्क्षेपतः परविद्याविषयमक्षरं निर्विशेषं पुरुषं सत्यम् ‘दिव्यो ह्यमूर्तः’ (मु. उ. २ । १ । २) इत्यादिना मन्त्रेणोक्त्वा, पुनस्तदेव सविशेषं विस्तरेण वक्तव्यमिति प्रववृते ; सङ्क्षेपविस्तरोक्तो हि पदार्थः सुखाधिगम्यो भवति सूत्रभाष्योक्तिवदिति । यो हि प्रथमजात्प्राणाद्धिरण्यगर्भाज्जायतेऽण्डस्यान्तर्विराट् , स तत्त्वान्तरितत्त्वेन लक्ष्यमाणोऽप्येतस्मादेव पुरुषाज्जायत एतन्मयश्चेत्येतदर्थमाह, तं च विशिनष्टि —
Translation:The Supreme Brahman, Akṣaram, free of all attributes, that is the subject matter of the Parā vidyā, was stated concisely as ‘divyo hyamūrtaḥ puruṣa…’ Mundaka 2.1.2. Now, in the sequel, with a view to present that Puruṣa alone along with attributes, in an elaborate manner, the Upaniṣad proceeds. This manner of consice-elaborate presentation, like sutra-bhāṣya, will enable one to grasp the tattva easily. He who is born of the First-born Hiraṇyagarbha, within the Cosmic Egg (Golden Egg), who is called ‘Virāt’, even though shown as born once-removed (that is, through the medium of Hiranyagarbha), is actually born of the Supreme Puruṣa alone and thus is of that content alone. With a view to state this, the current mantra describes him (virāṭ)-
So here Vishnu is Hiranyagarbha or Brahma not the Vishnu which these Vaishnavas think of, this is why I feel they are stupid. Please find the link to the article below explaining this further
Sri Shankara while commentating on first kaarikaa of Maandukyopanishad writes “ईश्र्वरो यो नारायणाख्यः” (Ishwara who is known as Narayana).
Answer: There is no such quote in the Mandukya Bhashyam, the reference also has not been provided here.
23.In bhashya of Paanchataatra adhikarana of brahmasutra ,Sri Shankara that Narayana is very much known in shruti ,smriti as Ishwara.(“श्रुतिस्मृत्योरीश्र्वरप्रणिधानस्य प्रसिद्धत्वात्”)
Answer: No the translation here is wrong here it means “As Ishwara Pranidhana is spoken frequently in Shrutis and Smritis”. So basically the blogger does not know what he is stating he is just desparate to some how prove that Adi Shankara considered on the four handed Vishnu to be Saguna Brahman.
24. In Gita bhashya too writes “मयि देवे परमेश्र्वरे सर्वज्ञे सर्वात्मनि वासुदेवे”(3-30) (In me who is pram ishwara ,omniscient sarvaatmaa Vasudeva),
Answer: Adi Shankara says “मयि वासुदेवे परमेश्वरे सर्वज्ञे सर्वात्मनि” meaning: In me Vasudeva, the Supreme Lord all knowing the Self of All. So here Vasudeva as per Adi Shankara means the Self of all not some Vishnu sitting in Vaikunta.
25 “परमेश्र्वरे विष्णुं”(8-5) (In parameshara who is Vishnu), “मयि -वासुदेवे परमेश्वरे”(4-35),
Ans: In the Gita 8.4 Adi Shankara says the following
“सर्वयज्ञाभिमानिनी विष्ण्वाख्या देवता यज्ञो वै विष्णुः इति श्रुतेः।”
Translation: The Devata that identifies with all the Yajnas is called Vishnu, as Yajna is indeed Vishnu as stated by Shruti.
So there is a Devata that identifies with all Yajnas and that Devata Krishna is identifying himself with that Devata besides Vasudeva is the Self of all not some Vishnu with 4 hands in Vaikunta.
Also in 4.35 following is what Adi Shankara states
Ans: In the Gita 7.14 Adi Shankara states the following “मामेव मायाविनं स्वात्मभूतं सर्वात्मना”
Translation: Me the wielder of Maya, who is the very Self , Self of all.
So Vasudeva again is Self of all not some Vishnu sitting in Vaikunta with 4 hands.
In Gita 7.16 Adi Shankara states “ज्ञानी विष्णोः तत्त्वविच्च”
Translation: The Jnani , knower of the essence of Vishnu. Hence it can easily be seen that the Narayana here is also the Self not some Vishnu with 4 hands in Vaikunta
Ans: This ““परमश्चासौ ईश्र्वरश्च ईशनशीलश्च इति परमेश्र्वरः” is also not present in13.27 Gita Bhashyam , in the 14.26 Gita Bhashyam Shankara states “सर्वभूतहृदयाश्रितं” present in the heart of all beings, hence definitely not the Vaikunta Vasa Vishnu. Also “भगवतः ईश्र्वरस्य नारायणाख्यस्य”is not present in the Bhashyam 15.16
Ans: Also in 15.17 Acharyas states “.आत्मा च सर्वभूतानां प्रत्यक्चेतनः” meaning the “Self of all beings in the form of inner self. So Vasudeva means something else for the Acharya here.
In 18.61 Acharya comments as “सर्वभूतानां सर्वप्राणिनां हृद्देशे हृदयदेशे” meaning: present in all living beings lying in their heart.
This is Narayana not some figure in Vaikunta with four hands.
30.While commentating on names like ईशान, ईश्र्वर, परमेश्र्वर in Vishnu saharanaama bhashya, Sri Shankara shows that meaning of common nouns like ishwara,maheshwara ,ishaana, parameshwara etc. are applicable to Narayana alone, But while commentating on the word Narayana ,he writes “नारायणाख्यः,वासुदेवाख्यः etc. considering them to be proper nouns. But acharya has never indicated in all of his works, supreme as “ईश्र्वराख्यः”, “परमेश्र्वराख्यः”, “ईशानाख्यः”, “शिवाख्यः”, “महेश्र्वराख्यः”.Thus it can be concluded from Sri Shankara’s prasthana traya & Sahasranaam bhasya that acharya held Narayana alone as Saguna Brahman & other gods as jivas being controlled by HIM.
Ans: This again stupidity at it’s peaks, now the Vishnu Sahasranaamam is actually Namams of Vishnu so obviously anyone actually commenting on them will apply them to Vishnu, not only that, Acharya at many places especially in the Mundaka and Mandukya signifies Shiva as the ultimate reality. So when Adi Shankara states Shiva he means ultimate reality therefore it is not required that he states शिवाख्यः and so on anywhere.
I think I have given more than sufficient references and rebuttals to show how Vaishnavas are desparate. Now the reason I say Vaishnavas are desparate is because it appears no one is taking them seriously. Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhva are considered bigots by people. Hence to sell their Vishnu Paratva they are desparately finding ways to prove that Adi Shankara considered only Vishnu to be Saguna Brahma. But from the Bhashyas it does not appear to be so.
It seems the stupidity of Iskcon knows no bounds, following is what they have stated
“The respective works of Yamunacharya and Ramanuja which quote this passage are Agama-prAmANya and vEdArtha-saMgraha. sāttvikeṣu purāṇeṣu māhātmyamadhikam hareḥ /“
Now does Vedartha Samgraha even quote this ? This is something to be considered. They also have the following argument
“Now losers can say padma puran is interpolated but but wait this verse was quoted by sripad Ramanujacharya ji and Yamunacharya ji in 12th century debates along with the whole host vedantist. And the verse from matsya puran was quoted by sripad Ramanujacharya ji and Yamunacharya in vedant sangrah“
So the claim here is that Vedartha Samgraha quotes Padma Purana. Since Sri Ramanuja is in the 12th century he quotes this in his Vedartha Samgraha. Also some Iskconites claim that the verses quoted in Skanda Purana which talk about Tamasatva of Vaishnava Puranas is later 15th century addition and so on. Now we do not know on what basis they say this, we don’t know, maximum they will say no Acharya quoted it before that. We will not go into why this argument does not work. We will simply examine the claim of Iskcon, in order to make a claim they need to show some basis, Iskcon as usual fails to show basis for it’s claims. 1st thing to be clarified here is that the quotation in the Vedarthasamgraha is from Matysa Purana, not Padma Purana. Also this particular section talks about the Satwika, Rajasika and Tamasika Kalpas. It does not talk about Puranas as such. This problem here is that, Iskconites are desparate to the core, they just heard something, Vedartha Samgraha of Sri Ramanuja has this, they do not bother to give reference or exact verses. Following is what Shri Ramanuja says, please find the screen shot below along with translation.
Vedartha Samgraha Published by Ramakrishna Ashrama Pg no 103
Now the 1st question I have to Iskconites is that in what way does this prove that there is a categorisation of Puranas into Satwika, Rajasika and Tamasika ? There is no classification of Puranas even present in the verses quoted by Shri Ramanujacharya.
2nd question, if the Padma Purana categorisation was present during the time of Shri Ramanujacharya, why did he not quote it in the Vedartha Samgraha itself? I mean the quotation is absent here, in fact in order to prove that Satvatva of Vaishnava related scriptures he takes the help of a Manusmruti quote then the Matsya Purana quote about the various Kalpas. So where is the question of Padma Purana quotes being present during the time of Shri Ramanujacharya ? If they are present why did Shri Ramanujacharya not quote them in his Vedarthasamgraha ? Does this not show desparation as well as the utter stupidity of Iskconites ? Also it is very easy to show that even if the Satwika, Rajasika and Tamasika Kalpas are shown in the Matysa Purana it does not necessarily prove that only Vishnu related scriptures are Satwik, why you may ask, since Bhagavat Gita 18.20 , 21 and 22 classifies the Satwika, Rajasika and Tamasika knowledge. We have also shown that both Vaishnava and Shaiva Puranas actually give Satwika knowledge which is Advaita knowledge. There is one more idiotic and moronic argument which Iskcon uses, they use the verse 13.28 to prove that 18.20 means something else, basically the translation of Prabhupada as follows,
But following are 3 more translations which show this to be completely different.
So does this not prove without a doubt that Iskcon’s arguments are nonsense ?
This is the problem, Iskcon comes up with all sorts of claims and we have to keep debunking them. 1st they said, the Skanda Purana verses quoted by me are not present in Skanda Purana, then when I showed them, they state that this is something later added into it, then they make a claim that Padma Purana verses are quoted by Shri Ramanuja in Vedarthasamgraha.
I want people to understand one thing clearly, stop trusting any claim that Iskcon makes, they are not trust worthy in anyway, they can go down to any pathetic extent. The ways of Iskcon include, lying, personalised attacks, spamming, hitting below the belt and so on. This is what Iskcon’s methods are all about, and also stop calling Iskconites as Vaishnavas, they are Abrahamic slaves nothing more.
Previously we have looked at how the Sampradaya argument of Iskcon becomes invalid if we look at the Upanishads themselves. There are other criticisms on the Sampradaya argument of Iskcon, however we will not go into that. Once we quote Bhagavata verses, this will completely remove any doubt on what Upanishad says, and how Bhagavatam is completely inline with what was presented in the previous article.
Let us look at the Bhagavatam verses below
अन्ने प्रलीयते मर्त्यं अन्नं धानासु लीयते ।
धाना भूमौ प्रलीयन्ते भूमिर्गन्धे प्रलीयते ॥ २२ ॥
Translation: The mortal is melted into food, the food is melted into the seed, the seed is melted into the earth, the earth into smell.
अप्सु प्रलीयते गन्ध आपश्च स्वगुणे रसे ।
लीयते ज्योतिषि रसो ज्योती रूपे प्रलीयते ॥ २३ ॥
Translation: In water the smell is melted, the water goes back into taste, the taste is again melted into luminosity, the luminosity is again melted into sight.
रूपं वायौ स च स्पर्शे लीयते सोऽपि चाम्बरे ।
अम्बरं शब्दतन्मात्र इन्द्रियाणि स्वयोनिषु ॥ २४ ॥
Translation: Sight is melted into the wind, wind into the sense of touch, that sense of touch is again melted away into space, space into sound, the rest of the senses are melted into their own causes.
योनिर्वैकारिके सौम्य लीयते मनसीश्वरे ।
शब्दो भूतादिमप्येति भूतादिर्महति प्रभुः ॥ २५ ॥
Translation: That without change oh Sowmya that is again melted into the Mind of Ishwara, whatever has been told, sound
स लीयते महान् स्वेषु गुणेशु गुणवत्तमः ।
तेऽव्यक्ते संप्रलीयन्ते तत्काले लीयतेऽव्यये ॥ २६ ॥
Translation: That mind is again melted into the Gunas of Prakriti, the Gunas go back to the unmanifest state of Prakriti called Avyakta, this in turn is again melted into the changeless.
कालो मायामये जीवे जीव आत्मनि मय्यजे ।
आत्मा केवल आत्मस्थो विकल्पापायलक्षणः ॥ २७ ॥
Translation: Jiva who is of the nature of Maya and in time is merged into the Self which is me unborn. The Self is established in itself. It is without any change what so ever.
Bhagavatam Canto 11 Chapter 24 verses 21-27
Now just notice the verses above, this proves without a doubt that this is very much inline with the Upanishads, it tells about proceeding from effect to cause and ultimately to the changeless Supreme reality. The same methodology that is told in Chandogya Upanishad is again told here in a different way. Notice here that in the 24th verse, Uddhava is addressed as “Sowmya”, the very same way Uddalaka addresses Shvetahketu in the Chandogya Upanishad.
Also what is the main aim of Bhagavatam as per the Bhagavatam itself, following is the verse
सर्ववेदान्तसारं यद् ब्रह्मात्मैकत्वलक्षणम् । वस्तु अद्वितीयं तन्निष्ठं कैवल्यैकप्रयोजनम् ॥ १२ ॥
Reference: Canto 12, Chapter 13 verse 12
Translation: The essence of all Vedanta is the oneness of Atman and Brahman, the reality is Non-dual, to be established in that is Kaivalya, that is the whole purpose here.
So in short the whole purpose of Bhagavatam is to propose the oneness of Atman and Brahman and to be established in it.
This proves without doubt that Bhagavatam whom the Iskconites consider as the King of scriptures is also following the procedure as prescribed by the Upanishads. The Sampradaya argument by Iskcon is proved to be bogus with this.
I wanted to name this article desparation of Iskconites, however I refrained myself from that, Iskcon is absolutely desparate at this point. Also many Vaishnavas especially some Sri Vaishnavas are getting angry if I call Iskconites as Vaishnavas, so I will call them Iskconites only. There is an interesting verse in the Vishnu Puranam 4.1.84 , following is the verse
कलामुहूर्त्तादिमयश्च कालो न यद्विभूतेः परिणामहेतुः
अजन्मनाशस्य सदैकमूर्त्तेरनामरूपस्य सनातनस्य
One can look up this verse in the Vishnu Puranam themselves the claim is that Gita press has got it wrong. Before we look at the Gita press translation let us look at what Iskcon is claiming as shown below
“Now a person is trying to say that in the same verse there come a term सदैकमूर्त्तेरनामरूपस्य and he is breaking it as sadaikmurtera+anamarupasya which is completely wrong and this is the correct anvaya sadaikamūrttera+nāmarūpasya but why this is correct it is because if we look at the devanagari text then it would look like this after my anvaya : सदैकमूर्त्तेर+नामरूपस्य= सदैकमूर्त्तेरनामरूपस्य and if I do it in the opponents way then it would look like this सदैकमूर्त्तेर+अनामरूपस्य but but but if we add these two terms then the word will change like this सदैकमूर्त्तेर+अनामरूपस्य= सदैकमूर्त्तेरानामरूपस्य whereas the original term was सदैकमूर्त्तेरनामरूपस्य(as अ+अ=आ & आ+अ=आ). Hence this proves that Gitapress is completely wrong here.”
Iskcon is trying absolutely hard to prove that the Gita press translation is wrong, however let us look at the compounded word “सदैकमूर्त्तेरनामरूपस्य” actually the split of this word has to be as follows , I will do a Sandhi viccheda or removing the Sandhi completely ignoring the compound word itself and split this whole compound into the component words. It would be as follows
सत् एक मूर्तेः अनाम रूप अस्य
I would not be going into the rules of Sandhi for Panini to confuse my readers, I simply want to show that this is how the split is done, not what Iskcon imagines it to be.
I will take the verse itself and do a word to word translation.
Then I will show the Gita press translation
Let me take the word to word translation
कलामुहूर्त्तादिमयश्च – the parts which are full of Muhurtas , and so on, कालो – time न – is not यद्विभूतेः- whose specialised being परिणामहेतुः – reason for change
अजन्मनाशस्य- without beginning and end सदैकमूर्त्तेरनामरूपस्य – of that form which is existence alone which is without name and form सनातनस्य – of that eternal.
Let me also split a compound here
कलामुहूर्त्तादिमयश्च is split into कला:, मुहूर्त आदि मय: च then post this comes कालो which when removing Sandhi is कालः . Here it means that the Time with it’s various measurements beginning with Muhurta and so on. Let me take the compound सदैकमूर्त्तेरनामरूपस्य again and split it.
It would be as follows however this time I will give word to word meaning
सत्-reality or existence एक- one alone मूर्तेः- of that form अनाम – without name रूप- without form अस्य- of him.
The word मूर्तिः is generally form, however specifically here it means essence. For example, स्वरूप literally means ‘own form’. But for example we say प्रेमस्वरूप , it will mean full of love or essentially love. Similarly सदैकमूर्त्ते: would be which is essentially of that mere existence alone. Obviously if the verse wants to indicate it to be existence alone it will be without name and form hence अनामरूप without name and form. I think this would be enough for my readers to grasp it. So the translation of 4.1.84 would be as follows
“Time which consists of Muhurtas and so on, is not the cause of change for the Vibhutis of that One essential reality without beginning and end, without name and form and eternal. “
The Gita press translation is as follows .
Hindi Translation of Gita Press English translation of H.H Wilson
Any student of Samskrutam who is familiar with Sandhis or conjunctions in Samskrutam will clearly understand that Iskcon is wrong here.
But however if Iskcon still feels that it is still correct over here, then they face one problem here, the reason being that Srila Prabhupada follows the same kind of split of Sandhi or conjunction.
Following is the verse from Iskcon’s own website
Srimad Bhagavatam Canto 11, Chapter 13 and verse 24.
now for the compound गृह्यतेऽन्यैरपीन्द्रियै:, Prabhupada splits it as follows in his word to word translation as shown below
gṛhyate — is perceived and thus accepted; anyaiḥ — by others; api — even, indriyaiḥ — senses
Please find the screen shots below
Now let us look at the argument of Iskconites again, they state the following
“सदैकमूर्त्तेर+नामरूपस्य= सदैकमूर्त्तेरनामरूपस्य and if I do it in the opponents way then it would look like this सदैकमूर्त्तेर+अनामरूपस्य but but but if we add these two terms then the word will change like this सदैकमूर्त्तेर+अनामरूपस्य= सदैकमूर्त्तेरानामरूपस्य “
But there own Prabhupada is not agreeing with them, why ? Since he has split the compound गृह्यतेऽन्यैरपीन्द्रियै: as follows
gṛhyate or गृह्यते , anyaih or अन्यैः , api or अपि and indriyaiḥ or इन्द्रियैः
So as per the logic of Iskcon Prabhupada should have split अन्यैरपि as simply अन्यैः and पि, instead of अन्यैः and अपि .
Why did Prabhupada use ‘अ’ over here ? So in short this goes very much against the Sanskrit rules which Prabhupada used here. So in short if we are wrong here, then Prabhupada also did something wrong here also. Yet as we know Iskcon, they are least bothered, they will simply say the same thing and will be absolutely stubborn, which is fine, this world has variety of people in it Iskcon is one of them.
It is a well known fact that the Narayanastra bloggers make all sorts of claims, these claims are supported by Chinna Jeeyar Swami himself and prominent Vaishnava speakers like Dushyant Sridhar. However, if any one looks at those claims dispassionately, they will be seen as without any reason or rationale and will be absolutely baseless. I have refuted many such claims in this blog, now I will refute one more claim made by the Narayanastra bloggers that Sureshwaracharya, a disciple of Adi Shankara considered Vishnu to be higher than Shiva. Following is their claim
“sureshvara and jnAnOttama compare Siva to Adi Shankara, where the former bears the river Ganga that flows from the feet of Lord Vishnu, while the latter bears the river of brahma-vidyA that flows from the Lord Vishnu’s feet/His essence as nirguNa brahman:viShNoH padAnugAM yAM nikhila bhava nudaM sha~Nkaro.avApa yogAtsarvaj~naM brahma saMsthaM munigaNaiH sahitaM samyag abhyarchya bhaktyA |vidyAM ga~NgAm ivAhaM pravara guNa nidheH prApya vedAnta dIptAMkAruNyAt tAm avochaM jani mRRiti nivaha dhvastaye duHkhitebhyaH ||(Naishkarmyasiddhi, 4.76)Translation: The River Ganga, which flows from the (toe nail on the left) foot of Vishnu was obtained by Shankara (Lord Rudra) through yogic effort. Later Bhagiratha worshiped the all-knowing Rudra, who is surrounded by groups of sages, whose mind is ever fixed on Brahman, with devotion to obtain the river for the salvation of the people of the earth. Similarly, I worshiped the one endowed with great qualities who is challed Shankara, who is also all-knowing, surrounded by sannyasis, who is ever meditating on Brahman, who obtained the brahmavidyA that flows from Vishnu’s feet, so that I can compassionately disseminate that brahma-vidyA to those who are in sorrow due to cycles of births and deaths, so they may rid themselves of the same.Here, sureshvara shows the superiority of Vishnu, by saying that Shiva bears on his head the waters that washed His feet.”
Before answering this I would like to add one thing here, 1st of all this whole idea of my God is higher than your God is the most childish idea, this does not constitute spirituality in any in any, no reasonable and sane person would believe in such ideas. If there are people who believe in such things, then remember they are not sane or reasonable, they are still emotionally immature people no matter if they sit in a very honoured place or be scholars does not matter, they are immature and irrational people, rationality does not work for them, spirituality is above rationality, these people are below rationality.
Now let me go ahead and take the verse in the Devanagari script and will do a word to word translation of the verse as well, let us look at the verse below
विष्णोः – of that all pervading , पादानुगां – following that plane, यां – that , निखिलभवनुदं – pushes away the complete creation , शङ्करः – Shankara , अवाप – got it, योगात् – due to Yoga ,सर्वज्ञं – all knowledge ,ब्रह्मसंस्थं – being established in Brahman , मुनिगणसहितं – with the association of Munis, सम्यगभ्यर्च्य- having given good and proper service, भक्त्या – with devotion .
विद्यां – this knowledge ,गङ्गाम् – Ganga , इव – as if , अहम् – I ,प्रवरगुणनिधेः – Of that mine of knowledge with the quality of tradition, प्राप्य – having got , वेदान्तदीप्तां – the light of Vedanta knowledge, कारुण्यात्- out of compassion, ताम् – to them ,अवोचम् – I have said , दुःखितेभ्यः – towards those in sorrow , जनिमृतिनिवहध्वस्तये – towards people in Samsara.
So the translation would be as follows
Shankara through the Yoga of doing service to Munis established in Brahman with Devotion got that knowledge of that all pervading plane which pushes away the whole creation which is all knowledge, like the Ganga of knowledge I have also gained this knowledge through the good quality of the mine of tradition, out of compassion I have told this to the people who in samsara experience sorrow.
Now none of this ” River Ganga, which flows from the (toe nail on the left) foot of Vishnu was obtained by Shankara,” nonsense is even there in the verse to begin with. Of course Vaishnavas may argue that I have changed the verse to mean something else. But they fail to understand the Samskrutam words used here. We find a compounded word here “निखिलभवनुदं ” let me split this “निखिल” – everything or all ,भव – existence , नुदम्- pushing or removing . Now let me take the 1st 2 words विष्णोः पादानुगां, so if I take the विष्णोः as of that Lord Vishnu, पादानुगां – coming from his feet, indicating Ganga. So if I even take the Vaishnava stance for the 1st 4 words “विष्णोः पादानुगां यां निखिलभवनुदं” , the meaning will be “From Vishnu’s feet comes Ganga that removes or destroys all existence” . This will be the meaning, so obviously there is no Ganga coming from Vishnu’s feet and Bhagiratha even mentioned here. If this is not desperation on the part of Vaishnavas as a whole what is it then? There is nothing in this verse which even remotely indicates what these Vaishnavas want to prove. I mean it is ok that you want to critique something or prove something. But this is ridiculous and stupid to begin with, I am sorry I have to write this, but this is utterly stupid. If we keep examining their claims it will be stupid, why do Vaishnavas do this ? Simple they are emotionally immature, just like a kid says my daddy is stronger than your daddy, same way Vaishnavas generally have this attitude, my daddy is the greatest, he is the daddy of your daddies or whichever daddy you worship, my daddy is his daddy. So my daddy is the greatest, this is how immature the approach of Vaishnavas is to begin with. Therefore I request people to use some sense before even admitting any claim from Vaishnavas in general, not only Vaishnavas, any one with such a immature childish attitude, be it Muslims or Christians or any one, better to be mindful of what they claim as they have this immature attitude. Not only that it also appears that no one is taking them seriously, so they have to keep making claims that Adi Shankara was actually a Vaishnava or his disciples considered Vishnu the topmost and so on. So Shri Ramanujacharya or Shri Madhwarcharya do not have value. It is like a product you want to sell, no one is taking the product, so next option is simply market it in such a way that people get attracted to it. This is a sort of marketing of the Vaishnavas.
There is an argument by Iskconites that, the knowledge received by Sampradaya alone is correct, any other means of knowledge is not accurate and is subject to change. The argument used by Iskconites is that, for logic there are 2 processes, one inductive and the other deductive. So inductive logic requires people to make observations then make a general rule, for example all men are mortal, but question can be asked how do you know that all men are mortal, the answer that will be given in the inductive process is that since we do not observe any exception to the rule, the Iskconite responds to this stating that this might be the case, however it does not rule out the possibility of an unknown person being immortal. But if we take the deductive process, that as per this rule all men are mortal, for example some scripture says this, then job is done. The scripture is supposed to have been given by an all perfect person, hence such knowledge is infallible, as this comes from an unbroken tradition of teachers the knowledge is perfect. This is in short the argument of Iskconites on the Sampradaya, very well presented, there is however a flaw in the argument.
Please find the screen shot below referencing Prabhupada’s own words on the inductive and deductive processes
Book Raja Yoga Chapter 5
A similar argument was attempted by Charvakas, towards the Nyaya philosophers, but Buddhists broke this argument. Buddhists stated that, cause and effect are always related, it is always noticed that for a specific cause there is a specific effect, for a mango seed you get a mango tree only, you do not get a Guava tree. Similarly to establish something to be true, we simply need to invoke the relation of cause and effect. Now why am I stating all of this, since Iskcon is stating that we need to simply adhere to a particular tradition to have perfect knowledge, and that this has to be accepted at face value without any questioning since all questioning is a product of inductive process as per them. This is a totally wrong assumption, there is also another reason, the Upanishad uses this relationship of cause and effect to explain the reality. Now we have another method called Anvaya and Vyatireka, what this means is that if the cause is there the effect is there, this is Anvaya, if the cause is removed the effect is also absent, this is Vyatireka. Now if we take the example of pot and clay, if the clay is present, the pot is present, if the clay is absent the pot is also absent. Hence investigation is done in this manner, this completely eliminates Prabhupada’s argument of inductive and deductive processes. Many scientific laws use this same principle as well. Now then, a question may be asked, if a suggestion is being made to discard the Guru and Sishya Sampradaya and even discard the Shastra altogether. That is not being suggested here, we are simply stating that Shastra as such is not asking you to blindly believe what it says, Shastra is not telling you not to verify what it says. But ofcourse without Shastra the investigation becomes impossible. The Guru also has a very specific function over here. We will check on that as well. Now if we look at the Chandogya Upanishad it says the following
4. Where else, except in food, can the body have its root? In the same way, O Somya, when food is the sprout, search for water as the root; when water is the sprout, O Somya, search for fire as the root; when fire is the sprout, O Somya, search for Sat [Existence] as the root. O Somya, Sat is the root, Sat is the abode, and Sat is the support of all these beings.
Chandogya 6.8.4
Now let us understand what is being said here, the seeker is adviced to go from the effect to the cause, here the Upanishad says food is the effect of water, water is the effect of fire and finally fire is the effect of ultimate reality.
What does this actually even mean, here food means something solid, water means liquid,so solidity has come from liquidity, liquidity comes from gaseous state that comes from particles and particles inturn come from vibrations these vibrations inturn when stopped resolve into space that space again resolves into existence (mere unqualified existence) as per the Upanishad. So a question may come, what is the function of the Guru here. Now the Guru in the Upanishad is not telling to do Bhajan of Krishna or Devotion of Krishna , then that you will go to Goloka post death, that is not what the Guru is stating here. The Guru is guiding his disciple to understand reality. Here the Guru is Uddalaka and the disciple is Shvetahketu who is his son. Now let us look at the verse from the Upanishad below
1. Uddālaka said, ‘Bring me a fruit from this banyan tree.’ Śvetaketu replied, ‘I have brought it, sir.’ Uddālaka: ‘Break it.’ Śvetaketu: ‘I’ve broken it, sir.’ Uddālaka: ‘What do you see inside?’ Śvetaketu: ‘There are tiny seeds, sir.’ Uddālaka: ‘Break one of them, my son.’ Śvetaketu: ‘Sir, I’ve broken it.’ Uddālaka: ‘What do you see in it?’ Śvetaketu: ‘Nothing, sir’.
The next verse is as follows
तं होवाच यं वै सोम्यैतमणिमानं न निभालयस एतस्य वै सोम्यैषोऽणिम्न एवं महान्यग्रोधस्तिष्ठति श्रद्धत्स्व सोम्येति ॥ ६.१२.२ ॥
2. Uddālaka said: ‘O Somya, the finest part in that seed is not visible to you. But in that finest part lies hidden the huge banyan tree. Have faith in what I say, O Somya
Chandogya 6.12.1-2
So here the Guru is telling the Sishya to look analyze and then understand that from the most imperceptible from the most subtle comes the gross. From the unseen subtle parts of the seed comes the huge banyan tree. Even so, from the unseen subtle cause comes this whole universe is what is being told here.
So this is what the Guru is telling the Sishya, this is the methodology used by the Guru.
2.—And as someone may remove that person’s blindfold and say, ‘Gandhāra is this way; go this way,’ and the intelligent man goes from one village to another, asking his way and relying on the information people give, until he reaches Gandhāra; similarly, a person who gets a teacher attains knowledge. His delay is only as long as he is not free of his body. After that he becomes merged in the Self.
Chandogya Upanishad 6.14.2
Now the Upanishad talks about a Rich man kidnapped from his house and thrown into a deserted place, later a merciful man comes and removes the blindfold from the man and this Rich man being intelligent asks other people passing by for the way to his country Gandhara. Similarly the seeker in order to know the reality uses his intelligence and takes the help of the teacher.
Hence the Upanishad says आचार्यवान् पुरुषो वेद – through the teacher know it. It also uses the word “मेधावी”, meaning being intelligent. So what is the student supposed to do, he is supposed to investigate go from effect to cause with the help of the Guru and Shastra.
This is the actual Sampradaya or tradition meant by the Veda. This is the actual Vedic method, not some rubbish of only 4 authorised Sampradaya and so on. This is not based on some commentary or speculation this is being talked base on the Upanishad alone.
तद्विज्ञानार्थं स गुरुमेवाभिगच्छेत्समित्पाणिः श्रोत्रियं ब्रह्मनिष्ठम् ॥ १२ ॥
12. Let a Brahmin having examined the worlds produced by karma be free from desires, thinking, ‘there is nothing eternal produced by karma?; and in order to acquire the knowledge of the eternal, let him Samid (sacrificial fuel) in hand, approach a perceptor (preceptor?) alone, who is versed in the Vedas and centered in the Brahman.
The next verse is
तस्मै स विद्वानुपसन्नाय सम्यक्प्रशान्तचित्ताय शमान्विताय ।
13. To him who has thus approached, whose heart is well subdued and who has control over his senses, let him truly teach that Brahmavidya by which the true immortal purusha is known
Mundaka Upanishad 1.2.12-13
The Upanishad clearly tells that one approaches a Guru and then questions and investigates to find out the reality. The same process is used as told in the Chandogya. This is the tradition as per the Upanishad.
So now I am also presenting the tradition based on the Upanishad alone, not even based on the commentary simply the verses of the Upanishad itself. Not only that following is the verse from the Katha Upanishad.
अन्यत्र भूताच्च भव्याच्च यत्तत्पश्यसि तद्वद ॥ १४ ॥
14. What thou seest other than virtue and vice, other than what is made and what is not, other than the past and the future, tell me that
Kathopanishad 1.2.14
Here Nachiketa is telling Yama “यत्तत्पश्यसि तद्वद” That which you see, tell me that. So here the Guru should have been himself realised and he is supposed to give the same realisation to the disciple.
What must the Guru see, following is what the Isavasya Upanishad says
यस् तु सर्वाणि भूतान्य् आत्मन्य् एवानुपश्यति ।
सर्वभूतेषु चात्मानं ततो न विजुगुप्सते ॥ ६ ॥
6. And he who sees all beings in himself and himself in all beings has no aversion thence.
Isavasya Upanishad verse 6
This is the vision the Guru has. The Sishya gets the following vision post having been instructed by the Guru
हा३वु हा३वु हा३वु । अहमन्नमहमन्नमहमन्नम् । अहमन्नादोऽ ३ हमन्नादोऽ ३ हमन्नादः । अहं श्लोककृदहं श्लोककृदहं श्लोककृत् । अहमस्मि प्रथमजा ऋता ३ स्य । पूर्वं देवेभ्योऽमृतस्य नाआआभायि । यो मा ददाति स इदेव मा ३ वाः । अहमन्नमन्नमदन्तमा ३ द्मि । अहं विश्वं भुवनमभ्यभवा ३ म् । सुवर्न ज्योतीः ॥ १० ॥
10. Oh! Oh! Oh! I am food, I food, I food! I food-eater, I food-eater, I food-eater! I am the combining agent, I the combining agent, I the combining agent. I am the First-born of the existence! Prior to gods, the centre of the immortal. Whoso giveth me, he surely doth thus save. I, the food, eat him who eats food. I the whole being destroy. Light, like the sun!
Taittiriya Upanishad 3.4.10
So this is the realisation the Sishya gets, I am everything. This is the true Sampradaya based on the Upanishads itself. Now the function of the Guru is for facilitating this realisation for the Sishya. Guru becomes the means to know this experientially. Hence Upanishad says आचार्यवान् पुरुषो वेद – know this through Acharya. Since without Acharya experiential knowledge is not possible. Hence Sampradaya, it must consist of such visionaries.
This proves without doubt that the Sampradaya argument used by Prabhupada and others has no meaning whatsoever. Although this refutes Prabhupada’s theory of Sampradaya, to make this more effective we will take the verses from the Bhagavata Puranam itself and show how Bhagavata Puranam is inline with these teachings. Since Iskcon considers Bhagavatam to be the King of scriptures, we will show actually what the King wants to say.
Iskcon, has done a very good job, in trying to defend their categorisation of Puranas, they state that Adi Shankara, in his Sarva Vedanta Sara Samgraha says the following
श्रुत्या सत्त्वपुराणानां सेवया सत्त्ववस्तुनः।
अनुवृत्त्या च साधूनां सत्त्ववृत्तिः प्रजायते।।370।
Translation:, Hearing of Saatwik Puranas, consuming Saatwik substances, by following Saints, the Saatwik thoughts and deeds are born and increased.
Iskcon uses this quote to justify that, Adi Shankara accepted Saatwika Puranas. Therefore if Adi Shankara accepted Saatwika Puranas, we also ought to accept that there are Rajasika Puranas, and Tamasika Puranas, if for Adi Shankara all Puranas are Saatwik, then why should he specifically state, Saatwika Puranas. Now the way I generally answer such things in my articles is in a very different way. I take the argument and statement as it is, without changing anything, without even stating that this is my explanation for it, I answer it from the text itself. For example Bhagavat Gita verses, I used the Bhagavat Gita verses themselves without actually giving much explanation. Here also I will take the work of Adi Shankaracharya by the name of Sarva Vedanta Sara Samgraha and explain it.
Let me further explain Iskcon’s argument here, remember I take the strongest arguments of Iskcon and refute them, if I have not refuted something which Iskcon has stated, it means I do not find the argument worth refuting. Suppose we ask Iskcon, how do you know that only categorisation of Vaishnava Puranas as Sātwika in Padma Purana is alone correct and Adi Shankara is referring to that categorisation ? Iskcon will state that, since in the Vishnu Sahasranamam Shankara points out that using Satwa Janardhana takes the function of maintenance as Vishnu, therefore Vishnu is Satwa and since Vishnu is Satwa, naturally Puranas relating to him ought to be Saatwika. This is the argument of Iskconites. Pretty sure I have not misrepresented their arguments in anyway. Now let us answer this argument of theirs using
Let us use the Sarva Vedanta Samgraha alone to answer this properly.
Following is what Adi Shankaracharya describes as Shuddha Satwa
प्रत्यक्प्रत्ययसंतानप्रवाहकरणं धियः।
यदेषा मध्यमा शान्तिः शुद्धसत्त्वैकलक्षणा।।98।।
Translation: One whose thought current continously dwells on the idea of the inner self getting middling peace know that to be of the nature of Shuddha Satwa.
So Shuddha Satwa means dwelling continously on the inner Self. Ok then probably concentration on the deity Vishnu is Satwa and not Shuddha Satwa yes ? No, since this is what Adi Shankara states
विषयव्यापृतिं त्यक्त्वा श्रवणैकमनस्थितिः।
मनसश्चेतरा शान्तिर्मिश्रसत्त्वैकलक्षणा।।99।।
Translation: Leaving the functions of the senses with the mind and focusing on only listening of the inner self, the mind gets peace less than the middling one. Know that to be mixed Satwa.
So Satwa here does not mean Vishnu for Shankara, so even if the categorisation of Puranas are accepted then also there is no guarantee that this means Vishnu related only. Satwa is when the idea of the inner self is continously maintained. Hence Puranas which talk about this are Saatwika Puranas, not that they are Vishnu related.
Let us look at the words of Adi Shankara from this perspective,
श्रुत्या सत्त्वपुराणानां सेवया सत्त्ववस्तुनः।
अनुवृत्त्या च साधूनां सत्त्ववृत्तिः प्रजायते।।370।
Now let us look at the compound सत्त्वपुराणानां, if you look at the other translations they will translate it as Saatwika Puranas, but it does not really make any sense when looking at it from the perspective that Shankara considers as Satwa, let me give the word to word translation
Word to word translation: श्रुत्या-hearing , सत्त्वपुराणानां – Saatwik Parts of Puranas, सेवया- consuming , सत्त्ववस्तुनः – Saatwik foods, च- and , अनुवृत्त्या -following , साधूनां – Of Saints, सत्त्ववृत्तिः – Saatwik thought, प्रजायते- is increased.
So translation is “Hearing the Saatwik Parts of Puranas, consuming Saatwik foods and also by following Saints (in their conduct). Saatwik thought is increased.”
Hence Sātwik part here indicates Advaita knowledge or Advaita related knowledge, Adi Shankaracharya confirms the same in Bhagavat Gita 18.20,
Translation: That knowledge, which is directly the right knowledge, which is of the nature of Non dual self, know that to be Sātwika.
Swami Gambhirananda translates as follows
“Viddhi, know; tat, that; jnanam, knowledge, realization of the Self as non-dual, complete realization; to be sattvikam, originating from sattva”
So Saatwika knowledge is knowledge of Advaita for Adi Shankara that is very clear over here.
There is one small argument which Iskconites use here, following is how it is
“Adi Shankaracarya explained the name ‘Kesava’ in Vishnu Sahasranam Bhasya as one who controls Brahma Vishnu Mahesh.
Adi Shankaracarya in his Vishnu Sahasranama Bhasya, 10th verse, quotes Mahābhārata Harivamsha-3.89.8-9 and says—
harirekaH sadA dhyeyo bhavadbhiH sattvamAsthitaiH || omityevaM sadA viprA paThata dhyAta keshavam ||
“Hari alone is to be meditated upon by you all, who are established in sattva Guna. By the pranava mantra (“Om”) you must always recite and meditate on Keshava.””
Now I can also give another explanation like this, let me quote how the Bhashya explains the name Rudra in the Vishnu Sahasranaama,
“रुर्दुःखं दुःख हेतुं वा विद्रावयति स प्रभुः । रुद्र इत्युच्यते तस्माच्छिव: परमकारणम् ” इति लिङ्गपुराणवचनात्
Translation :He who destroys रु which is misery or cause of misery , such a Lord is called Rudra and hence Shiva the ultimate cause so it is said in the Linga Purana.
So I use this to prove that since Adi Shankara does not leave the word “परमकारणम्” meaning Ultimate cause, Adi Shankara accepts Shiva alone to be ultimate cause in the Vishnu Saharsanaamam.
But frankly speaking both arguments are ridiculous. Since in the Vishnu Sahasranaama Bhashyam, enough quotes are taken from the Puranas to show the oneness of Shiva and Vishnu. Yet Iskconites and Vaishnavas conveniently ignore this. We need to understand that mostly if Iskconites or Vaishnavas give some kind of quotation, it ought to be taken with a pinch of salt. If you want to ignore it that would be best, otherwise you can explore it properly see the context and truth of it.
It appears that the depravity of Iskcon has no bounds, they put up an article with the title below
To hide their depravity Iskcon states the following
“Disclaimer— We do not believe on the below incidence taken from Shankara-Dig-Vijaya. Infact, we reject the entire biography, with possibe truths in it here and there. But because Advaitins accept their authenticity, by playing the devil’s advocate this article is only meant to show them their own Acarya’s deeds. Otherwise, we have utmost respect for Adi Shankaracarya, who was the incarnation of Lord Shiva himself.”
Now please look at the very clever wording “we reject the entire biography with possible truths in it here and there”. This is a fantastic trick of Iskcon, they state that they do not believe that the incident occurred in the 1st place, but instead are very much interested in making the article in order to slander Adi Shankara’s image, what is the whole idea of doing this if not to slander Adi Shankara’s image and what possible truths are they speaking about? What is the basis on which they accept and reject something as true ? I believe it is absolutely safe to assume that whatever serves their agenda they will say it to be true. We must remember that when they apparently quoted the Upadesa Sahasri, we clearly saw that the quote they showed never even existed. Now let us look at the way they try to slander Adi Shankaracharya as follows
Actually this is not present in any Digvijaya, the Iskconites also seem to give the reference as very vague Canto 9th-10th it is quite safe to assume that this quote is their own creation. Please find the screen shot below.
Shankara Digvijaya by Swami Tapasyananda Canto 9 Pg No 111
So Adi Shankara was in a fix, he had to accept the challenge to prove his Sarvajnatva. Now the Iskconite says the following
So the whole idea is, to somehow go ahead and slander Adi Shankaracharya, now let us come to the this point by point.
Shankara being a Sanyasi debating a with a woman on sexual topics is wrong , 1st of all this shows the basic ignorance of Iskconites, Adi Shankara debating here on Kama Shastra, now let us look at one thing, is not sex a part of life ? Without sex would we be here? Now suppose a doctor actually advices couples on sex would it be indecent? Or if Doctors discuss on it for the good of the patients or couples is it bad? So why can we not look at the discussion between Adi Shankara and Ubhayabharati from this perspective? They are also simply discussing the Kama Shastra in a very detached way like how Doctors discuss with patients in a detached way, same case here also. Ok let us look at his second and third objection together since basically they are the same. Since they are basically the same, Adi Shankara has sexual relationship with someone else’s wives, really? The wives belongs to King Amruka for all practical purposes it was Amruka himself, so where is the question of taking permission to do it? Also it was consensual where is the question of rape? The Iskconite may argue but it was Adi Shankara’s subtle body that controlled King Amruka’s body, ok then do Iskconites believe that relationship comes with the subtle body or Jiva or with the physical body alone. All relationships are based on the physical body alone, with the physical body gone, that relationship ends. So obviously the wives also come with the physical body alone. So where is the question of rape?
Let me put it in another way, a Jiva is born to a certain set of parents and dies as a baby, now that same Jiva is born to a different set of parents, so what happened to the relationship of the Jiva with the parents of the previous birth? Were they parents due to the body or due to the Jiva? The relationship comes due to body obviously. Similarly all relationships relating to wife, husband, brother, sister, mother etc comes with the body alone. Even so the relationship between Amruka and his wives is related via body alone, the Jiva has no relation whatsoever. If the Jiva was related as they argue then the Jiva would be incapable to having relationship when acquiring a different body. Relationship begins with the body and ends with the body hence Adi Shankara used the relationship of the body alone.
Ok there can be one more objection, suppose a Yogi knows how to do to that, he may misuse this for his own personal gains, then such a Yogi gathers more Vasanas and falls further into Samsara, was Adi Shankara gaining more Vasanas in this case attachment not at all, since the Digvijaya states the following
Shankara Digvijaya by Swami Tapasyananda Canto 10 Pg No 118
Adi Shankara was a witness to the King’s body, he observed the acts, also the nature of joy was merely a perversion of the Brahmic bliss. This literally means Adi Shankara was unattached to the act, what was he actually doing, Shankara Digvijaya states the following
Shankara Digvijaya by Swami Tapasyananda Canto 10 Pg 118
So Adi Shankara was not attached to the act to begin with. I would request readers to remember this particular point since I would be stressing more on this, in the end of the article.
Let us look at one more fake quote Iskconites produce
The Iskconite again gives his own commentary as follows
From when Is Iskcon talking about sense to begin with? one blogger Gaudiya Kalpataru goes ahead and refutes another Iskconite blogger Nitaigauranga. Not only that they have decided to discard the interpretation of Prabhupada in the Gita as it is. Now Iskcon is going to talk sense here?
Not only that the Iskconite blogger changed the very meaning of Achintya Bhedabheda, if we just google Achintya Bhedabheda in google you get the definition that Achintya Bhedabheda means inconceivable difference in oneness,so Achintya here points to the difference in non-difference, but the Gaudiya Kalpataru blogger has changed Achintya to mean that since Bhagavan is infinite he is Achintya ? So they are ready to twist and turn the meaning of their own philosophy in order to refute others to the extent of not even making sense. Iskcon is going to talk sense here?
Also what people do not realize here is that this objection is thrown by Saraswati towards Adi Shankara during his ascension towards the Sarvajnapeetham, following is the extract
Shankara Digvijaya by Swami Tapasyananda Canto 16 Pg No. 192-193
Now the explanation by Adi Shankara was that “from birth I have done no sin” hence Adi Shankara is blemishless and sinless. He also states that what was done was with another body not the body he has now. Now let us provide a little bit of explanation for this.
1st of all, did Adi Shankara have relationship with the wives of Amruka using the body of a Sanyasi viz his own body, the obvious answer is no, so now the only objection left over here was that, would his mind not be affected by such an act, the Digvijaya is crystal clear that he was merely studying if from a very detached perspective, plus the joy that he got was merely a perversion of the Brahmic bliss that he was always experiencing to begin with so where is the question of him getting attached to it.
So let us summarise the objections and their refutations below
Was it correct for Adi Shankara being a Sanyasi to have sexual relationships with Amruka’s wives ? The answer is that Adi Shankara have entered Amruka’s body so whatever was done was with Amruka’s body hence Sanyasa Dharma of Adi Shankara was not affected.
They were Amruka’s wives, hence belongs to a different Jiva, was it then not wrong for Adi Shankara to have sexual relationships with another Jiva’s wives- We must understand that all relationships come with the body, hence there is no meaning in stating that relationships of the body belong to the Jiva, as stated before relationships begin and end with the body. Adi Shankara merely used the relationships of that particular body for a certain purpose and then left it.
Would this not be a mental sin or Papam done by Adi Shankara being a Sanyasi? The answer is no, since it has already been told through the Shankara Digvijaya that Adi Shankara was unattached to these pleasures and that they were merely a perversion of the Brahmic bliss he was always in .
This removes the objections on Adi Shankaracharya, now there may be some Iskconites who may object more, we know that Iskconites anyways do not use logic to begin with, if anyone has experience in debating Iskconites they will know that Iskconites just copy paste a lot of things, mindlessly copy pasting pages on comments is debate for an Iskconite, this is the level of sense Iskconites have to begin with. So the Shankara Digvijaya is crystal clear that when Adi Shankara answered Devi Saraswati during the ascension of the Sarvajnapeetham that whatever was done was with another body and not this one. Devi Saraswati accepted this. So when Devi Saraswati was herself willing to accept this explanation, that too Devi Saraswati is the Goddess of learning. So this means Iskconites are so shameless that they are willing to through away what Devi Saraswati the very Goddess of learning gave weight to? So they are willing to even insult Devi Saraswati here?
Now one thing Iskconites may state, that they do not accept this nor do they accept Adi Shankara’s episode of Parakaya Pravesa. Well even if we take this into consideration, why are Iskconites more interested in the Parakaya Pravesa episode, so whatever is useful in slandering Adi Shankara’s image they are ready to write articles and propagate on it, but when Devi Saraswati herself accepts Shankara’s explanation and when the Digvijaya is crystal clear that Shankara saw no pleasure in those sexual escapades they are unwilling to highlight it. If they want to highlight something they ought to highlight everything. Not just the Parakaya Pravesa episode.
In fact in the Shankara Digvijaya, sage Vyasa meets Adi Shankara and states the following regarding the commentary on the Brahma Sutras
Shankara Digvijaya by Swami Tapasyananda Canto 7 Pg No 74
Note, as per this Vyasa clearly states “Many have made commentaries on my aphorisms in the past and many will do so in the future also. But none of them has been able to know their real meaning as I conceive it; only you have“
So are Iskconites willing to accept this to highlight this anywhere, if they are willing to highlight the Parakaya Pravesa episode, why not this ? I will tell you why, since it is detrimental to their own propaganda, whatever favors their propaganda they are ready to highlight, with this they can slander Adi Shankara’s image. If they want to highlight they ought to highlight the words of Vyasa in the Shankara Digvijaya as well.
We must understand that Iskcon is ready to go ahead and deliberately hurt people’s feeling for their own propagation. The Bhagavat Gita that they swear by says the following
मूल श्लोकः
अनुद्वेगकरं वाक्यं सत्यं प्रियहितं च यत्।
स्वाध्यायाभ्यसनं चैव वाङ्मयं तप उच्यते।।17.15।।
English Translation by Shri Purohit Swami
17.15 Speech that hurts no one, that is true, is pleasant to listen to and beneficial, and the constant study of the scriptures – this is austerity in speech.
Yet Iskcon is ready to hurt others by calling Shaiva related scriptures as Tamasika, anyone who opposes them are termed as demons or Asuras. Their own Prabhupada is willing to use the word “Rascal” for anyone refuting the beliefs he believes, this Prabhupada who is going against the very words of Bhagavat Gita is going to be an authority on Gita? So this shows very clearly that Iskcon or it’s followers do not have any consideration for the words of Gita itself. They will choose what suits their propaganda, also we don’t need Gita to tell us this, this is basic human courtesy, not to deliberately hurt someone with our words, yet Iskconites and Iskcon does this alone, so when they don’t even have basic courtesy, how can they claim to give spirituality ? This clearly shows the level of depravity Iskcon can go into.
Please find the link to the Digvijaya by Swami Tapasyananda below
Answering ISKCOn 