[Advaita-l] Questions regarding Advaita Vedanta.

[Satish Arigela]

Please see earlier discussions on this. It was discussed plenty of times.
So most likely old people in the list are tired of these & wont asnwer.
I maybe wasting time with this response.. but the seeming innocence with which
these questions are posed make me write this. I wil not touch any technical 
points as
there are learned people here who can answer better.

>1) Classification of Puranas is found in Padma Purana:

>shAstrANyapi cha sarvANi trividhAni mahAmate ||
>yAni satyavaraM viShNuM vadanti parameshvaram.h |
>tAni shAstrANi sarvANi sAtvikAni matAni vai ||
>prajApatiM kR^ishAnuM cha tathA devIM sarasvatIm.h |
>paratvena vadachChAstraM rAjasaM parichaxate ||
>yachChAstraM liN^gapAramyaM vAmadevamumApatim.h |
>tamaH pravartakaM vakti tattAmasamudAhR^itam.h ||

>Satvic Puranas - Srimad Bhagavatham, Vishnu, Varaha, Garuda,
>Brhad-Nardiya, Padma
>Rajasic Puranas - Brahma, Brahmavaivarta, Brahmananda, Bhavisya,
>Surya, Markendaya
>Tamasic Puranas - Shiva, Linga, Skanda, Kurma, Vamana, Agni

 
One can trash the above by quoting the skAnda purANa which says that vaiShNava
purANa-s are tAmasika and that the shaiva purANa-s are sAttvika.
See the purANa-s also give you a reverse picture. 
There is a certain community which I will not name, whose maThAdhipati-s and 
schloars
"exhibit a pronounced streak of faking texts".
Since more than searching for truth their minds are more focused on winning 
petty arguments, they will retort by saying that the mahAbhArata says vaiShNava 
purANa-s are sAttvik and shaiva ones tAmasik.
The trick is that mahAbhArata is smriti-like and so outweighs purANic 
statements. When asked to quote the statements they say that "their version" of 
mahAbhArta has it but this cannot be found in copies outside those maTha-s or 
scholars. So it is not hard to guess what is going on here.
By the way, how come the mahAbhArata talks about purANa-s when purANa-s never 
existed in its time!?
For fun: I have a certain mUla-mahAbhArata in my possession where the great 
nArAyaNa predicts that in kali, people of a certain community will come up with 
fake texts & interpolate existing ones, to prove their points. That great 
parama-puruSha, keshava gives a cute smile & winks at mahAlakShmI as he says 
this, pointing to some maTha-s in bhU-loka :-))

>2) This is even more disturbing..After reading this I felt like I have
>done great Dosha against my guru Adi Shankara. I need clarification on
>these..
>These verses are found in Padma Purana.
>mAyAvAdamasachchAstraMprachchannaMbauddha ucyate |
>mayaivakathitaMdevikalaubrAhmaNarUpiNA || Pa Pur 6.236.7 ||
 
Do you think it is really hard to get some verses composed and insert into 
texts?
Instead of defending/strategizing the nation from outsiders, these guys put 
all(or most) of their intellect for centuries authoring spurious works like this 
and in propagating those copies.


>4) Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu who is an avatar of Sri Krishna paramatma
>said that one who reads Shankara Bhashya of Brahma Sutras 
 
How do you know he is an avatara of kR^iShNa? 
I will say that if one subscribes to all the fanciful claims made by various 
mata-s and their
maTha-s, one will surely go mad! That is the state of affairs for the last 
couple of centuries.
Fanciful silly bhakti stories & miracle mongering!
 
>this Bhagwan Ved Vyas himself certifies that Sri Shankara
>is the only one who correctly understood the meaning of his Brahma
>Sutras and granted 16 additioanal years to Sri Shankara for the
>propoganda of Advaita.
 
These stories are meant for kids. It is sad to see adults hanging on to these 
things.

> Some scholars interpret this as the latter
>one is Abhinava Shankara and not Adi Shankara bhagavatpadacharya. Is
>this true?
 
Do these really matter?

>6) It is clear from the Guru parampara that Gaudapadacharya is none
>other that the great Patanjali maharishi who is an amsha of Adi
>Shesha, but at the same time Srimad Ramanujacharya is also an amsha of
>Adi Shesha. How come the same Adi Shesha who taught advaita to Govinda
>Bhagavatpadacharya deny advaita and form Vishistadvaita?
 
Which is exactly why I said one will go mad if they subscribe to such fanciful 
claims of all maTha-s