Forwarded message from Marko Manninen
hbd at DDIT.ERNET.IN
Sun Dec 31 14:27:52 CST 1995
2nd message from Marko Manninen :
> Thanks for your list. I hope these questions could be answered:
> What is the biggest problem between Advaitas and Vaishnavas?
I leave this question at present for other members of the list.
> likes to attack Advaitas very strongly, like with emotional force.
> Vaishnavas are doing a lot in a real world through Krishna movement for
> leading people to godhood. Are Advaitas going to show there is another way
> to interpret Vedas?
Yes, not another method but more correct method. To give an analogy --
Newtons Laws of motion are good enough under certain limited circumstances,
but you have to take into account relativistic mechanics in general. Not that
Newton is entirly wrong, he is limited. Problem starts when Newton claims
that only my Laws are final and correct.
> How Advaitas comments Caitanaya and the foretellings
> of him in veda literature?
> When guru-parampara was written up and when
> Vyasa was living? Is it possible to get somewhere the sankara-lineages
> Bhagavad Gita translation?
Yes, of course shankarabhasya on Geeta !
> In which time the oldest BG has found, how old
> is the puplicly seen BG?
I do not know. (Does any one know, please?)
> How Advaitas translates BG 10:6?
I am attaching with this a text file. If you have questions, I shall be happy
> I have studied many ways (practically and holy scriptures) different
> religions and trying to find something real in them and asked what is the
> truth behind them. Something real is that human mind (lower manas/ego)
> seems to be the destroyer of reality. Destroy the destroyer is serious tip
> for seekers, but then how the individual soul can serve (bhakti) the
> Supreme Soul of Universe? If we somehow reach our goal (highest knowledge
> and peace, meaning not knowing only our lineage of religion and
> philosophy, but like Sankara, knowing every initiation of every system)
> why should we go alone to "nirvana"? Rather should we keep every human in
> our mind and like boddhisatva, only when every greature has reached its
> goal, he will be happy and lift his legs to the side of rest. Isn't that
> the true meaning of Bhakti? Not just Me but We, not just God but the
> childrens of God.
For an Advaitin, there is no difference between "me" and "we".
This will require some discussion. I suggest you try to follow the List for
some time and bring up these questions one by one.
Best wishes from
-------------- next part --------------
Regarding Shrimad Bhagavad Gita 10-6 : (How Advaitin look at it)
mahar.saya.h sapta puurve catvaro manastathaa |
madbhaavaa maanasaa jaataa ye.sa.m loka imaa.h prajaa.h || (10-6)
This shloka should be considered along with a previous one :
yo maamajamanaadi.m ca vetti lokamahe"svaram |
as.mmuu.dha.h sa martye.su sarvapaapai.h pramucyate || (10-3)
Because I am the original cause of maharshis and devas, no one is my source,
so I am without birth or begining. One who knows me as the fourth state
(i.e. not jagrata, svapna, etc.), such best person, devoid of confusion, gets
released from all sins.
A simple and straight explanation (of 10-6) :
"In past seven Maharshis, four (SanatKamars) and the Manus were created by
me and they (in turn) created these fields (Loka) and these population."
Shri Krishna speaks like this, i.e., as if the World is a Parmarthik Satta,
becausethe confusion of Arjuna is not yet over (he is going to say only
later in A.11 and A.18 that "na.s.to moho ...") Here the purpose is to
simply show the Vibhutis of the Lord.
More detailed discussion :
We start with noting that there are five types of perceptions, out of which
three are mistakes (or confusion) :
1. Pratibhasik mistake : "the rose is yellow" a man having jaundice will
have such perception;
2. Vyavaharik or Big mistake : "the rose is red", an ordinary man will have
3. Parmarthik mistake : "the Lord has become a rose" as propounded by
4. Satya : "the Lord appears as if a rose"
5. Purna Satya : "only the Lord is there, the rose is not there".
Out of these the first and the last is not for ordinary person.
Gaudapadacharya in his Mandukya karika (IV - 42) upalambhaat ...
Wise men support casuality only for the sake of those who being affraid of
absolute non-manifestation (of things, stick to the (apparent) reality of
the (external) objects on account of their perceptions (of such objects) and
their faith in religious observances.
Also, Karika (II- 20 to 30) is worth refering to understand how the Creation
is seen by various categories of persons.
Also, Brahmasutra (2-1-24) and (2-1-31) are relevant :
upasa.mhaaradar"sanaannetti cenna k.siirav.rddhi ||
It is not correct to say that Brahman can not create because it does not
vikara.natvaanteti cettaduktam ||
It is already answered that Brahman can be cause of the Jagat without mana,
This explains the position of Advaitin (that too an Ajatavadin).
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list