Seeking to Understand Advaita

[Surya Deva]

No, atheistic Advaitis are crypto-pseudo Advaitis because they don't know what our traditional Acharyas knew. It is the Acharyas who represent true Advaita. Western atheistic Advaitis are not true Advaitis because they are delusional. Any one from tradition knows that as so many people here have already said that they are wrong and they have a serious misunderstanding.

Your arguments are as sophisticated as "I am right, you're wrong"

 

[Pleroma]

Western atheistic Advaitis are deluded and any one coming from traditions knows that. Its a simple deductive logical fact.

 

[Surya Deva]

Western atheistic Advaitis are deluded and any one coming from traditions knows that. Its a simple deductive logical fact.

Ah, calling a whole group of people that comes from another part of the world other than India and are not theistic "deluded" Wow, what a great mind and intellect you have, what great upbringing and schooling.

To other Hindus? Why don't you challenge comments like this? Is it either because you don't care or you actually share those beliefs? Remember, this is a forum where hundreds of thousands of people from different religions and backgrounds are coming here. If they see Hindus belittling and attacking their own kind and not batting an eye lid when Hindus make racist comments about other people in the world, they are going to form judgements about Hinduism on the whole.

Hindus on this forum are the representatives of Hinduism on this forum. We need to be more responsible and self-critical. Lets stop loud, racist, nationalist, irrational Hindus spoiling the image of our religion. Speak up.

 

[Pleroma]

LoL, did you saw their posts? They are with me. With Truth.

 

[Shântoham]

Sūrya Deva wrote: The word reality here is improper and misleading if not contextualized, but I could not really think of another word. In Advaita the only existent reality is Brahman who is Sat-Chit-Ananda. This is absolute reality(paramatika satyam) and the reality that is produced from Maya(which we falsely call matter) which produces Jiva and Ishvara, which then produce the rest of the world is the temporal pragmatic reality(vyavahrika satyam) but which is an illusion:
Panchadasi

2.97. If we abstract from the cosmos the existence which underlines it, all the worlds and all objects are reduced to a mere illusory appearance. What does it matter even if they still continue to exist?

6.129. Since the effects of Maya are undeniably manifest, its existence canot be denied. Being stultified by knowledge, it cannot be really said to exist. From the point of view of absolute knowledge it is always inoperative and hence neglible.


6.133. Maya transforms the immutable Kutastha, the every association-less Atman, phenomenally into the form of the universe. Casting the reflections of Atman on itself, Maya creates Jiva and Ishvara

6.136. The magic show looks wonderful and inexplicable so as long as the magician is not directly known, but when the magician is so known, the magic shown is known as such and is no longer wonderful.

6.235. The Sruti decalres that in fact there is no destruction and no origination; none in bondage and none engaged in practice for liberation; no aspirant for liberation and none liberated. This is the transcedental truth.

6.236. Maya is said to the desire fulfilling cow. Jiva and Ishvara are its two calves. Drink of its milk of duality as much as you like, but the truth is non duality.

Hence it is established that ishvara, jiva and world are unreal. This is why a Pure Advaitin does not worship Ishvara, for Ishvara is an illusory product of Maya and the Shruti very explicitly tell us not to worship the unmanifest impersonal energy. An Advaitn does not have to worship anything, an Advaitin listens to the Shruti, contemplates on the Shurti and meditates on the Shruti to realize the paramatika sayam while practicing chittashuddi or purification of their mind so that the meaning of the Shruti awakens their Jnana. In order to achieve this Advaitin practices Yoga to still the activities of the mind to awaken the Jnana within.

Namaskāram

And yet you disappoint me once again. I asked you specific questions based on your statement and you simply avoided any direct answer. You just gave me another mouthful of personal opinions.
If you cannot back up your statements with Śruti and Bhāśya – and Pañcadasī is neither – it is personal opinion and not Vedānta.
Are you unfamiliar with Śruti and Bhāśya? As a Vedāntin Śruti and Bhāśya should be your bread and butter.
I don’t aspect any rational reply from you on the matter of Śruti and Bhāśya since you denied the centrality of Bhagavadpāda in regard to (Advaita) Vedānta. No Vedāntin would take you seriously after such a ludicrous statement. Not even your precious scholars.
You underlined for me Pañcadasī 2.97 and 6.133. Here is the Sanskrit for 2.97:

brahmāṇḍa loka deheṣu sadavastuni pṛthak kṛte
asanto’ṇḍādayo bhāntu tadbhāne’pīha kā kṣatiḥ

Could you point out which of the above indicates the part you underlined for me (illusory appearance)? The reason why I ask is because if you can point out the exact terminology we can then connect it to Śruti and Bhāśya and thru them to the Siddhānta. In this way – and only in this way – we can establish if your contention is valid – not selectively posting other people translations of the Texts and then claiming loudly that it is the contention of Vedānta.
A Text can only be accepted in relation to the Siddhānta and not in relation to personal opinions.
For 6.133 I will ask just one question – if Māyā is Jaḍa how can it create?
Anyway I plan to address your Pañcadasī nonsense the sooner I have some spare time.
In the meantime I hope you realize that according to your own contention even a Pure Advaitin is an illusory product of Māyā – so why an illusory product of Māyā cannot worship another illusory product of Māyā?
It’s interesting that you speak of Cittaśuddhi since one of the major contributors to it is Upāsanā – worship.

Sūrya Deva wrote: Please cite a recognized Advaita text which says we should worship Ishvara?

Recognized by whom? You? I am afraid you don’t know the Tradition that well. You already discarded the Bhagavadgītā – and by doing so you implied that all the Ācāryas are incompetent – so let’ s see. How about the Bhaktirasāyana and the Gūḍhārtha-Dīpikā of Madhusūdana Sarasvatī? The Prabodhasudhākara, and the Bhaja Govindam of Bhagavadpāda? The countles Upāsanās of the Upaniṣads? The countless Stotram accepted by the Tradition? The very same Tradition you claim to rapresent. There is more if you need more.
Though Vedānta upholds the primacy of Jñānam for the realization of the identity of Brahman with Pratyak Ātman, it does acknowledge the necessity of Bhakti to the Personal aspect of Brahman (Īśvara) by whose Grace one attains Jñānam. Īśvara prasāda nimitta jñāna praptyā eva (Bhagavadgītā Bhāṣya 2.39).
It recognizes that the same Impersonal Brahman appears as the personal Īśvara – the Creator and Lord of the Universe. Rather, the same Reality is manifesting as Īśvara, Jīva, Jagat.
Īśvaro gururātmeti mūrttibhedhavibhāginevyomavad vyāpta dehāya dakṣiṇāmūrttaye namaḥ – I prostrate to Lord Dakṣiṇāmūrti, who is all-pervading like space, but who appears (as though) divided as the Lord, the Guru, and the Self.
As a self-proclaimed traditionally trained Vedāntin you should know the above verse real well. But you don’t.

Pranāms

 

[ratikala]

dear sureya deva ,

when you first came here we welcomed you ,
despite your describing your self as a disident hindu , hoping that some fellowship would soothe your sore head , by welcoming you in such way we showed tolerance . since then you have attacked our traditions , told us that our beleifs are invalid , acted in ways which are downright divisive , you deliberately rattle and provoke people then criticise them if they get anoyed at you , this is adharmic behavior . why should we continue to tollerate this ?

I will add there seems to be an obvious persecution complex with what seems like the majority of Hindus posting on this forum against atheist Hindu schools like Advaita. We are treated like heretics and abused and insulted.

even though you have attacked my tradition , I have not attacked yours , I have nothing against advaita nor advaitins provided that we respect each others traditions , what I dont understand and I have asked you directly is why you insist that advaita is atheistic ? yet you chose to avoid this question when I asked it ?

if you have been insulted it is because you have deliberately goaded people , you have insulted their country , their religion and their inteligence , what you have received is what you have deliberately tried to stir up and you have thorouly enjoyed it , if you didnt enjoy trouble you would not continualy provoke it .

So much for tolerant Hindus, eh?

yes we are tolerent , you can insult us but it is unwise to insult our traditions , there is a point when tolerance must stop and that is when faced with adharma .

 

[Vinayaka]

Ratikala ... nice reasonable post. I'm glad you're able to retain a sense of civility. That show maturity.

 

[Maya3]

when you first came here we welcomed you ,
despite your describing your self as a disident hindu , hoping that some fellowship would soothe your sore head , by welcoming you in such way we showed tolerance . since then you have attacked our traditions , told us that our beleifs are invalid , acted in ways which are downright divisive , you deliberately rattle and provoke people then criticise them if they get anoyed at you , this is adharmic behavior . why should we continue to tollerate this ?

Well said.
Thank you. I think you have very eloquently expressed how most of us feel here.

Maya

 

[Surya Deva]

dear sureya deva ,

when you first came here we welcomed you ,
despite your describing your self as a disident hindu , hoping that some fellowship would soothe your sore head , by welcoming you in such way we showed tolerance . since then you have attacked our traditions , told us that our beleifs are invalid , acted in ways which are downright divisive , you deliberately rattle and provoke people then criticise them if they get anoyed at you , this is adharmic behavior . why should we continue to tollerate this ?

Like I said before, "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword"
I come from an Advaita perspective within Hinduism which does not agree with the other perspectives: Visesadvaita, Dvaita and Bhedabheda. Historically, we Advaitins have refuted these perspectives(see my thread in general debate form "Refutation of a personal creator God" and therefore I am not doing anything different by challenging them.

What I am challenging here is the dogma of theism, as most Hindus on this forum are theists(and those who pretend to be advaitins, are also theists) and they pretend like they are the official viewpoint of Hinduism. So atheists like myself are excluded. As atheism is indeed a valid tradition within Hinduism I am fully within my rights to challenge such dogmatic views.

I am also challenging the dogma of religious pluralism, which means I must accept another opposing tradition as equally valid to mine. As historically this has never been a feature of Hinduism, I don't see why it should be now.

I am also challenging Puranic Hinduism because it is based on Smriti, it is falsified by modern scholarship(i.e., we know it has interpolations, bad scientific statements, written by sectarians) Hindus on this forum behave as if this is also scripture of Hinduism, when I do not accept it as scripture. It is a clear doctrine in Hinduism that only the Vedas are Shruti. Hence when Hindus insist Puranas, Gita, Dharmashastras are also scripture, I am going to object.

I see Hindusim as probably Jesus saw the Jewish religion in his time - degenerated, hypocritical, confused etc. I think Hinduism needs reform, and the reform should be along these lines

1) The restoration of the free, independent and rational thinking and debating culture and to make debating tournaments an institution again within Hinduism
2) The rejection of the postmodern attitude of religious pluralism
3) The official and absolute canonizing of the Sruti of the Upanishads as our official religion and rejection of any interpretations of Upanishads that is clearly not supported by the Upanishads(only Advaita qualifies, as none of the other traditions can justify their interpretations)
4) Rejecting Purans as scriptures of Hinduism, but treating them as nothing more than mythology, stories, legends, illustrations for the masses.

even though you have attacked my tradition , I have not attacked yours , I have nothing against advaita nor advaitins provided that we respect each others traditions , what I dont understand and I have asked you directly is why you insist that advaita is atheistic ? yet you chose to avoid this question when I asked it ?

See the thread "Refutation of a Personal God" to see why Advaita is clearly an atheist philosophy. Brahman is a substance, not a personal God.

if you have been insulted it is because you have deliberately goaded people , you have insulted their country , their religion and their inteligence , what you have received is what you have deliberately tried to stir up and you have thorouly enjoyed it , if you didnt enjoy trouble you would not continualy provoke it

I am both Hindu and ethnically Indian, that I would be insulting myself if I was insulting India and Hinduism. What you consider to be insults, are self criticism, and no culture or even individual that is not capable of self-criticism and reflection can ever mature and grow. I think Hinduism needs to reform and the majority of the Hindus on this forum seem to be against reform of any kind. This is an indictment on Hindus.

yes we are tolerent , you can insult us but it is unwise to insult our traditions , there is a point when tolerance must stop and that is when faced with adharma .

So now I am adharmic? Interesting somebody who says that women and men should have equal rights, the caste system should be abolished, the Ganga should be purified, homosexuals/transgender should be welcomed, superstitious practices like animal and human sacrifice should end, the Vedas should be canonized as the defacto scripture of Hindus, science and Hinduism should be reconciled, Hinduism should be made a global religion and unite the whole world as one family would be called adharmic

On the contrary I think I am one of the most dharmic Hindus on this forum and I won't comment on what I think of others who have told me "Homosexuality should be punished" "Indian-Hindus are superior to Western-Hindus" "Caste system should be maintained" and "Puranas should be accepted as scripture and everything they say as gospel" and "Hinduism is superior to Science"

 

[Surya Deva]

And yet you disappoint me once again. I asked you specific questions based on your statement and you simply avoided any direct answer. You just gave me another mouthful of personal opinions.

No, I gave you a mouthful of citations from the Panchadasi which clearly show Ishvara is an illusory product of Maya.

If you cannot back up your statements with Śruti and Bhāśya – and Pañcadasī is neither – it is personal opinion and not Vedānta.

Panadasi is not personal opinion, it is a recognized text book of Advaita Vedanta in virtually every Vedanta ashram. It is based on the hermeneutical school of Advaita Vedanta which is directly based on Shruti. I have now also cited from the Vivekachudamani, a classical work of Shankara and it has been shown the same view is expressed that Ishvara is an illusory product of Maya.

Are you unfamiliar with Śruti and Bhāśya? As a Vedāntin Śruti and Bhāśya should be your bread and butter.

No I am familiar with the Sruti and the Bhasaya of Shankara. Here is a list of texts I have read on Advaita:

Traditional Othodox Advaita:

The principal Upanishads(various translations) The Bhagvad Gita(various translations ) The Vivekachudamani(various translations) Brahma Sutras with the commentary of Shankara and commentary of Vidyaranya, Panchadasi, Aatma Bodha, Tattva Bodha, Upadesha Sahasari, Aparokshanubhuti, Drik-drishya-vivek, Jeeva yatra, Vedanta sara, Ashtavarka Samhita.

Non conventional Advaita: Yoga Vasistha

Modern Advaita: Aatma-vichara(Ramana Maharishi) Jnana Yoga(Swami Sivananda) The Gospel of Ramakrishna, the complete works of Swami Vivekananda, the selected works of Swami Krishnananda, the selected works of Nisargadattamaharaj and Anandamayi Ma. The selected works of Swami Dayananda(Arsh Vidya)

In addition to all these probably several dozens of academic books and journal articles on Advaita. I also have a formal BA dissertation on Samkhya and Advaita philosophy. I have a formal BA degree in philosophy with first class honours and studied broad philosophical areas: philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, formal logic, history of philosophy, philosophy of language(I intend to pursue MA or Phd soon, I studied as a mature student to pursue my passion)

Other Hindu philosophical schools and texts:
Veda Samhitas(various translations) Mahabharata, Ramayana.The Vaiseshika Sutras, the Nyaya Sutras, the Yoga Sutras, The Tarkasamagrah, Shiva Sutras, Vijnana Bhairava Tantra, Hatha Yoga pradapika, Shiva Samhita

Technical Hindu texts(not exhaustively, but familiar)
Sushrutha Samhita, Charaka Samhita, Chandashastra, Arthashastra

In addition probably more than a 100 academic books on Hinduism and Hindu related areas. My personal library of books now consists of hundreds of books.

My scholarship in Advaita and Hinduism is therefore very high. The many Hindus here who are faulting my scholarship probably have not even read 5% of what I have. I am far more well-read than the average Hindu and the average Hindu Pandit(who specializes in a single branch)

Now, care to tell me what your own credentials are sir? I will start to ask this question to anybody who faults my scholarship from this point on.

I don’t aspect any rational reply from you on the matter of Śruti and Bhāśya since you denied the centrality of Bhagavadpāda in regard to (Advaita) Vedānta. No Vedāntin would take you seriously after such a ludicrous statement. Not even your precious scholars.

Nope, I have not denied the centrality of the Bhagvad Gita. The Gita is a part of the Advaita triple canon I know. However, it is only part of the triple canon because Shankara commented on them. The commentaries on the triple canon go onto form the particular school of the Vedanta darsana. As multiple commentaries are possible various schools have developed. The actual defining textbooks of Advaita philosophy are the prakarana granths, which present systematically the doctrines and tenets of Advaita philosophy.

The Bhagvad Gita is not binding on me because it is not Sruti.

Could you point out which of the above indicates the part you underlined for me (illusory appearance)? The reason why I ask is because if you can point out the exact terminology we can then connect it to Śruti and Bhāśya and thru them to the Siddhānta. In this way – and only in this way – we can establish if your contention is valid – not selectively posting other people translations of the Texts and then claiming loudly that it is the contention of Vedānta.

I will do no such thing because I cannot read Sanskrit. The translation I cited of the Panchadasi is by Swami Swahananda of the Ramakrishna Matha, who is an expert in Sanskrit and Advaita Vedanta Siddhanta, and thus his translation is reliable. If, however, you believe the translation is faulty then you must demonstrate it by showing us what the correct translation is and give us a detailed work-by-word breakdown so we can verify for ourselves. Until then, any accusation that the translation is faulty is baseless.

For 6.133 I will ask just one question – if Māyā is Jaḍa how can it create?

Creation does not require a sentience. A volcano creates hot lava; Planet Earth creates plants, animals and humans.

In the meantime I hope you realize that according to your own contention even a Pure Advaitin is an illusory product of Māyā – so why an illusory product of Māyā cannot worship another illusory product of Māyā?

Because it is the case of the blind worshiping the blind. Advaita prescribes meditation as the means to awaken ones jnana and destroy avidya as the ONLY means via which liberation can be attained. It does not prescribe worship of Ishvara.

It’s interesting that you speak of Cittaśuddhi since one of the major contributors to it is Upāsanā – worship.

Upasana is meditation and not worship. There are many forms of Upasana like Upasana on Akasha; Upasana on Prana. Upasana is explained scientifically in the Yoga Darsana.

Recognized by whom? You? I am afraid you don’t know the Tradition that well. You already discarded the Bhagavadgītā – and by doing so you implied that all the Ācāryas are incompetent – so let’ s see. How about the Bhaktirasāyana and the Gūḍhārtha-Dīpikā of Madhusūdana Sarasvatī? The Prabodhasudhākara, and the Bhaja Govindam of Bhagavadpāda? The countles Upāsanās of the Upaniṣads? The countless Stotram accepted by the Tradition? The very same Tradition you claim to rapresent. There is more if you need more.

I am not familiar with any of these texts, except Bhaja Govindam(as Shankara had a theistic background, so he accommodated theism as a part of provisional reality(vyavahrika) as he was sympatheitic tot it, but Gauapada did not, he was pure staunch Advaitist and did not accept this nonsense of levels of reality. As Shankara is just one of many Advaita exponents, I am not obliged to only accept his views. I will accept what Advaita philosophy teaches in the prakarana granths only if it is rational and can be demonstrated by perception and reasoning.

Whether Advaita is actually a valid hermeneutics of Shruti is of secondary importance to me, what is important is whether Advaita can stand up as an independent and rational philosophy and not just a theological exgesis.

Though Vedānta upholds the primacy of Jñānam for the realization of the identity of Brahman with Pratyak Ātman, it does acknowledge the necessity of Bhakti to the Personal aspect of Brahman (Īśvara) by whose Grace one attains Jñānam. Īśvara prasāda nimitta jñāna praptyā eva (Bhagavadgītā Bhāṣya 2.39).

Again, I am not obliged to accept Shankaras concession to Bhakti. If you can show me through the prakaranas granthas a rational reason for Bhakti to ishvara I will accept it. I have seen only the opposite in the prakaranas: They say unequivocally that jnana is the only means to liberation and nothing else. Why? As the cause of bondage is ignorance.

Appeal to authority, even of Shankara is not going to convince me.

It recognizes that the same Impersonal Brahman appears as the personal Īśvara – the Creator and Lord of the Universe. Rather, the same Reality is manifesting as Īśvara, Jīva, Jagat.
Īśvaro gururātmeti mūrttibhedhavibhāginevyomavad vyāpta dehāya dakṣiṇāmūrttaye namaḥ – I prostrate to Lord Dakṣiṇāmūrti, who is all-pervading like space, but who appears (as though) divided as the Lord, the Guru, and the Self.
As a self-proclaimed traditionally trained Vedāntin you should know the above verse real well. But you don’t.

I am not devotional, so I am not interested in reading many of Shankaras devotional poems. I read technical prose and rational descriptions. I cannot be swayed by testimony and appeal to authority alone. I am through and through rational. Show me the prakarana grathas which say we should worship Ishvara and if you demonstrate it conclusively and it is rational, I will have no problem retracting my position and worshiping Ishvara myself.

So far the two prakarana granths I have cited Panchadasi and Vivekachudamani say the exact opposite to worshiping Ishvara. They call Ishvara an illusion and delusion my friend. That is not going to make me worship Ishvara now, is it?

 

[ratikala]

dear sureya deva

"I have not come to bring peace, but a sword"

you come brandishing a sword and thinking you are clever ,

then you expect to be treated with respect ???

I will add there seems to be an obvious persecution complex with what seems like the majority of Hindus posting on this forum against atheist Hindu schools like Advaita. We are treated like heretics and abused and insulted.

if a warrior like you wants to go on a one man crusade to save hinduism , you had better toughen up and not let a few words of insult get under your skin .

So much for tolerant Hindus, eh?

tolerant to a point , but past that we too must take up the sword of wisdom .
it is double edged and flaming at the tip, it is to cut out ignorance and burn it to the core

tibetan tantra , I know , but where did tantra come from ?

and if as according to you everything is illusion , even isvara is illusion !
then you my freind are illusion , I am illusion , the basis of this debate is also illusion , everything is illusion ....
jai , bliss !

 

[Madhuri]

(and those who pretend to be advaitins, are also theists)

That's because your definition of theism and atheism are different to them. And most people.

 

[Pleroma]

The Lord

Verse 8*

“HE”

In its third movement the Upanishad takes up the justification of works already stated in general terms in its second verse and founds it more precisely upon the conception of Brahman or the Self as the Lord,—Ish, Ishwara, Para Purusha, Sa (He)— who is the cause of personality and governs by His law of works the rhythm of the Movement and the process of the worlds that He conceives and realises throughout eternal Time in His own self-existence.

It is an error to conceive that the Upanishads teach the true existence only of an impersonal and actionless Brahman, an impersonal God without power or qualities. They declare rather an Unknowable that manifests itself to us in a double aspect of Personality and Impersonality. When they wish to speak of this Unknowable in the most comprehensive and general way, they use the neuter and call It Tat, That; but this neuter does not exclude the aspect of universal and transcendent Personality acting and governing the world (cf. Kena Upanishad III). Still, when they intend to make prominent the latter idea they more often prefer to use the masculine Sa, He, or else they employ the term Deva, God or the Divine, or Purusha, the conscious Soul, of whom Prakriti or Maya is the executive Puissance, the Shakti.

The Isha Upanishad, having declared the Brahman as the sole reality manifesting itself in many aspects and forms, having presented this Brahman subjectively as the Self, the one Being of whom all existences are Becomings, and as that which we have to realise in ourselves and in all things and beyond all things, now proceeds to assert the same Brahman more objectively as the Lord, the Purusha who both contains and inhabits the universe.

It is He that went abroad. This Brahman, this Self is identical with the Lord, the Ish, with whose name the Upanishad opens, the Inhabitant of all forms: and, as we shall find, identical with the universal Purusha of the 16th verse,—“The Purusha there and there, He am I.” It is He who has become all things and beings,—a conscious Being, the sole Existent and Self-existent, who is Master and Enjoyer of all He becomes. And the Upanishad proceeds to formulate the nature and manner, the general law of that becoming of God which we call the world. For on this conception depends the Vedic idea of the two poles of death and immortality, the reason for the existence of Avidya, the
Ignorance, and the justification of works in the world.

- Aurobindo, Isha Upanishad

The Lord is a person, He is the one who has Inhabited in all the things of the world, He indeed exists.

 

[jg22]

Surya Deva,

For the sake of clearing up the misconceptions you have paraded across the forum, I am opening myself up to the charge of being a liar, by once again breaking my promise to cease posting in this debate. I hope that even in commiting a falsehood, I can abolish so many more falsehoods that you have propagated. You have engaged in so many contradictions, absurd logical knots, and misquotations of texts, that the pristine waters of Vedants become muddy and unclear in your presence. You have made bold claims (about yourself and Advaita), and commited such a catalogue of errors that it is taking me many hours in collecting them (for refutation) and yet there is no doubt that I could not possibly collect them all and respond to them all due to their volume, so I will begin this post by stating that there will be things that I have missed, answers that I have not fleshed out appropriately, connections I have overlooked and ones I have imagined; for that I would ask the other members of the forum to fill in the gaps if they so feel inclined.

You have stated many inaccurate things about Advaita, all the while claiming to be a proper representative of it (and said everybody else is wrong), and, in order to 'win' in any exchange you initiate, you subtly change your position and adopt the words of your perceived oponents (when, I contend, you realize you are wrong). I have taken the liberty of browsing some of your recent posts and extracting the claims therein, which I am now presenting here for refutation. I have grouped the claims into topics for easy comprehension. First I will be presenting your claims (views) relevant to each topic, then I will explain and present the view of Shruti/Bhashya/etc to contrast with yours, which will hopefully demonstrate that the ideas you have been lauding as siddhanta are in fact in conflict with siddhanta, and are therefore to be rejected or modified.

This will be a very, very long post (so will actually be divided into several posts, and posted in installments), and is taking me hours to compile and write (such is the extent of the sheer incoherence of your claims), so I would appreciate it if you can conjure the patience and civility to read the whole thing, not ignoring any of it (as you have been wont to do in my previous posts) and allow me to post all of the installments before you give a reply. I will NOT be responding to any replies you or somebody else might give until I have finished writing and have posted all of the installments, since I am still very busy writing them. Contained in my posts will be answers/replies to claims you have made earlier in this thread (and which I have not previously replied to, or which you have not replied to) so this post also serves as an addendum to our dialogue in this current debate.

I am going to begin the post by discussing your comments on Shankaracharya, and then I will explain why I have started with this.

You said in this thread:

Shankaracharya his views and works do not define Advaita, Shankaracharya is considered nor the first nor the last exponent of Advaita. He learned Advaita from Gaudapada, and he and Gauadapa did not agree completely with one another. While Gauadapada was purely Advatist and rejected the reality of everything other than Brahman, Shankara made a concession and introduced this theory of relative and pragmatic reality but which is still illusory in relation to the absolute.

First you have made the claim that Shankaracharya and Gaudapadacharya were in disagreement. This is wrong, for, as I will demonstrate later, this fancied contention of yours is based on your misunderstanding of the meaning of the words 'satyam' and 'mithya'. Second, and the main point I wish to make, is your claim that Shankaracharya's works do not define Advaita. Shankaracharya is, to my knowledge, the only Advaita Acharya who has commented on all of the major Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Sutras. For this reason I have stated that anything which contradicts Shankaracharya's words contradicts Advaita. The Acharya has offered the most complete and consistent vision of Advaita because he has commented on (and made intelligible) the whole Prasthanatrayi. His Bhashyas are the bedrock, the foundation for all successive Advaitins which came after him; therefore Shankaracharya's words are the stable starting point for all enquiries into Advaita Vedanta. If our views regarding Advaita militate against Shankaracharya's own words, then it is not the Acharya's words which we must reject- why? Because Shankaracharya is a sure authority, a reliable authority. I have not said that Shankaracharya is the ONLY authority (as you misrepresent me), I have said that his words are a stick by which we measure all other claims about Advaita (including yours!), since nobody will dispute the fact that Shankaracharya is indeed a reliable authority on Advaita Vedanta. That is why I have asked you time and time again to provide quotes from his commentaries to support your positions, because if you can do this then you have demonstrated that your views have a very firm foundation, and I would be extremely presumptuous to deny their validity. I am not trying to score points with you, and I have no dispute with you personally; I am simply determined to understand Vedanta accurately (no matter who is representing it) and thus I am asking for evidence of your claims from an authority which is extremely reliable. With this in mind, your next statement is disrobed as a strawman:

Advaita Vedanta has had many teachers and exponents such as Yajnavalkya, Ashtavakra, Gaudapada, Shankara, Sadananda, Vidyaranya to modern day teachers like Nisargattamaharaj, Ramanana Maharishi, Swami Ramakrishna, Swami Vivekananda. In order to insist that we only consider Shakara teachings is to falsely misrepresent Advaita Vedanta as being only Shankaras and this position is not even taken by traditional Advaita Vedanta ashrams in India like Kailasha Ashram.

You have misinterpreted (or misrepresented) my plea for Bhashya evidence as a rejection of all other kinds of evidence. Whatever evidence you present to me will be boosted hugely by supporting evidence from Bhashya, since, as I have said, Bhashya is an extremely solid foundation for all other evidences. You have had a great opportunity to prove all of your claims by going to Bhashya, but squandered it by quibbling and clinging to partial selections from Prakarana Granthas.

I am not against Shankara, I am just against the kind of traditional fundamentalism and myopia you are now showing that we must only accept Shankaras version. I know why you are insisting on Shankara, because you have now realized the Panchadasi I cited completely contradicts your position, so you are now playing the shifting the goalpost fallacy to accepting only Shankaras position.

The quotes you provided from the Panchadashi, are, as I will prove later, taken from a greater context, and, when replaced into their proper context, utterly demolish your interpretation of them. I have not asked for Bhashya quotes from you because I 'realized the Panchadashi completely contradicts my position', I have asked because, as I have said, Bhashya is a solid foundation for any claim, and because I know that your citations from Panchadashi are faulty. It's quite simple: any accurate citation from the Bhashyas to support your claims will refute my contentions- so why go to Prakarana Granthas,which themselves rely on Bhashya? Why go to the rivulet when you can go to the fountain source? I contend this is because 1) You are afraid Bhashya will not support your position, 2) there is far less wiggle-room for contorting the meaning of Bhashya than there is for Granthas, because Bhashya is an explanation of the Shruti, and therefore an explanation of Advaita Vedanta, whereas the Granthas are summaries in general or particular on various subjects within Vedanta, and 3) You are not well enough familiar with Bhashya. I hope that, over the course of my post, I can demonstrate all three of these points.

End of First Part.

 

[jg22]

Now, the reason I have started with Shankaracharya is so that we can establish a solid basis for discussion going forward. I am going to comment on your citations from the Prakarana Granthas (and disclose the proper meaning behind them), but I am also going to quote from Shankaracharya to refute your claims, and since it is established that Shankaracharya is a firm authority, my refutations will be decisive. Now we will move on to the debate proper.

I want to begin, once again, by explaining the meanings of Satyam and mithya. I contended, and still do, that most of your misinterpretations of Vedanta, and most of your false claims, have stemmed from a fundamental misunderstanding of the correct meaning of these words. I have noticed that you have flip-flopped considerably from your first standpoint (of regarding mithya as totally non-existent) and now do admit, in recent posts, that Jiva/Jagat/Ishwara has SOME reality, since you now concede that Brahman is their basis. Irreguardless of this, I am going to bring up your previous claims and refute them anyway (since this is beneficial for anybody sitll labouring under some confusion about the meaning of the words), and later I will point out how you are still confused about the status of Jiva/Jagat/Ishwara.

First, in your stubbornness to cling to the opinion that 'mithya' means non-existent, you ignored all of my explanations in this and other threads on the deifnition of Sat/mithya. So I am going to repost those explanations here, to save me much time and effort writing what I have already said:

1.On Mithya

First, depending on english translations, you have said that the word mithya means totally non-existent, having no basis in reality whatsoever. When confronted with an explanation of mithya, you have outright rejected it, or ignored it, and simply restated your claim that mithya means unreal, because the english translation says 'unreal'. Then, to bolster this, you have quoted from Prakarana Granthas, because, they too, use the word 'unreal' , in order to prove that mithya, therefore, means unreal. This is an absurd argument.

You have responded, mockingly, saying:

It is amusing in fact to watch theistic Hindus on this forum squirm to reinterpret obvious literal words like "unreal" to not mean "unreal"

I had previously warned against interpreting the translated word 'unreal' in a literal sense to denote non-existence, because, as I had already proven, the word 'mithya' does not mean non-existent.

The words 'real' and 'unreal' in english connotate at face value something which exists and does not exist respectivelly. The word 'real' (or true) used in the context of Vedanta, Satyam, refers to something which exists, but with the qualification that it exists in all three phases of time, never changes, and can not be sublated or subsumed by anything else. By this definition, only Brahman can be called Satyam. Yet, this does not mean, then, that everything else is therefore non-existent (as the english word might indicate). That which is not Satyam is called mithya, a dependently existing thing, and it can not be called either Satyam or non-existent. It cannot be called non-existent, for, as I have said and showed, a non-existent thing has no locus for its appearance or manifestation. The world, for example, is something we experience, so we cannot call it totally non-existent. And yet, the world changes, does not always exist, and is sublated by knowing its source (Brahman), therefore we cannot call it Satyam either. Mithya means that which is not totally existent, nor totally non-existent, and therefore is dependently existent only. This is the subtlety in meaning of the words which are very clumsily translated into english and become misunderstood by so many people, therefore opening Advaita up to charges of denying the existence of the world and the self, charges which Advaita is not guilty of.

I said that the word 'unreal' is deceptive, because in english it is taken to mean non-existent, ie the opposite of 'real' or existent. In sanskrit, the word for non-existent is not mithya, but asat, abhava or tuccham. The opposite of existence (sat) in sanskrit is not mithya, it is asat. You completely ignored this, and the website link I provided you with which clears up misconceptions about the meaning of mithya due to the literal reading of the english word 'unreal', and you ignored Shantoham's extremely concise explanation of it, and simply repeated yourself over and over again. You mounted up some defense when you said:

This is why through vivek we distinguish between sat and asat, and set aside all unreal reality.

But this is based on a misunderstanding, once again, of the meaning of 'mithya'. Viveka is nitya-anitya viveka, it is discrimination between the permanent and impermanent, NOT discrimination between the existent and non-existent. We cannot discriminate between the existent and non-existent, because the non-existent lacks all attributes for comparison or relationship (this will be explained a little further down where I quote from Shankaracharya). Since the non-existent is non-existent, by that very fact it cannot be perceived, therefore it cannot be distinguished from anything else, or pointed out as idam, this, in order to say 'this is non-existent'. You have conflated the word asat with the word mithya; I cannot set aside a non-existent thing, because it is not there to set aside. I can set aside a mithya thing- because though it is not totally non-existent, it is not Satyam (permanent, unchanging, unsublatable) either- and that is what Viveka prescribes. In Viveka I am setting aside all that is mithya, all that is dependent, all that comes and goes, in order to discover that which does not come and go, which is eternal and independent. That is what is meant by the word Satyam. And what is meant by the word 'unreal' is english translations is mithya, the apparent, the dependent, the transient, the sublatable. The word 'unreal' in english translations does not mean non-existent, or asat.

I am once again quoting myself and my explanation of mithya from the Brahmajnanavalimala:

ghaTakuDyAdikam sarvam mRttikAmAtram eva ca
tadvad brahma jagat sarvam iti vedAntaDiNDimah--19

The pot, wall, etc., are all nothing but clay. Likewise, the entire
universe is nothing but Brahman. This is proclaimed by Vedanta.

If, as you claim, mithya means non-existent, then it follows that if the jagat is mithya then the universe is non-existent. If the universe is non-existent, then how can the universe be Brahman, as the previous verse says? If the universe is non-existent, then it follows that, since the universe is nothing other than Brahman, then Brahman, too must be non-existent. But this cannot be so, for Brahman is Sat- the one Existence. We cannot say both that the universe is absolutely without any existence and that it is nothing but Brahman, which is absolute existence. The universe is not absolutely non-existent (tuccham, like the hare's horn). This is borne out by the verse above which uses the example of the pot and wall.

A pot and a wall are not totally non-existent; we experience them, we have a use for them. If they were a total fiction then we could not experience or use them; a fictional cup can hold no water, and a fictional wall cannot hold up a roof. A totally non-existent thing lacks a locus of experience and transaction. A pot and a wall, on the other hand, do have a locus: clay. The shape of the pot is nothing but the shape of the clay. The weight of the pot is nothing but the weight of the clay. The material of the pot is clay, and the clay, for the purposes of the illustration, is existence, Sat, not a mere non-existence.
The reason the text says that jagat is mithya is not because the world is totally non-existent, but because, just as the pot has no other independent existence from its material, clay, so too does the universe have no independent existence from its adhishtanam, Brahman. And, just as there is an apparent variety and multiplicity of objects such as pots, plates, walls etc , though, on close analysis, it is seen that all of these differences are only seeming differences within the one (existent) material, clay, so too are all the apparent differences within the universe, such as bhutas, lokas, Ishwara, etc seen upon closer analysis to be nothing other than Brahman, the one sole Sat. They are not seen to be non-existent, and nor does their appearance cease with the attainment of the knowledge of their unity in Brahman.

End of Second Part.

 

[jg22]

To help explain the first paragraph, viz. that we cannot say that Jiva/Jagat/Ishwara are both non-existent and Brahman (ie Satyam), I am quoting from the Panchadashi:

2.33 The sun does not have the attribute of darkness; nor is it itself of the nature of darkness. As existence and non-existence are similarly contradictory, you cannot predicate something about nothing, so how do you say 'nothing existed'?

Vidyaranya states that existence and non-existence are totally contradictory, therefore, something which is non-existent cannot then be spoken of (as if) it is existent. This is why I have said a totally non-existent thing lacks a locus for experience and transaction. A totally non-existent thing, like a square circle, or the son of a barren woman, owing to the fact that it is never perceived, and can never be interacted with, cannot face later sublation or resolution into something else. A totally non-existent thing (tuccham, or that which is atyanta abhava- always non-existent) can neither be born from a prior state of non-existence (prak abhava) like a pot before it is moulded from the clay, or non-existence after destruction (pratvamsa abhava) like after the pot is broken, and therefore that which is mithya, being impermanent and sublatable, cannot be totally non-existent. If the world is totally non-existent, then we could not perceive it (and yet the fact is we do perceive it), and nor could we later resolve it, through knowledge, into something else. If the world can be perceived and can be sublated (or negated) into a substratum, then it is not totally non-existent, for its substratum is not non-existent. This is borne out by the Panchadashi:

2.35 If you affirm that name and form attributed to an existing thing are both creations of Maya, then tell us what is the substratum upon which Maya creates names and forms; for illusion without a substratum is never seen.

In this verse, Vidyaranya is disputing with people which admit that the names and forms of the whole universe are all products of Maya, but who deny that this Maya produces from an existent substratum. In short, these people are saying what you said, ie that everything which is produced from Maya is totally non-existent. Vidyaranya refutes them by saying that something which is merely apparent, ie mithya (here translated as 'illusion',) can never be without a substratum of existence, for such a thing is never seen. Even the appearance of a snake on a rope has a rope for its basis, not non-existence, and for that reason the snake, though a mere appearance on the rope, cannot be called totally non-existent, for it is the substratum itself, which exists, which is wrongly perceived as a snake. If something can be resolved into something else (like the snake seen in the rope, the pots into the clay, etc), then that which is resolved is an (apparent) effect of the substratum it is resolved into. When you say 'Jagat/Ishwara/Jiva' are totally non-existent, but are then facing countless Shruti texts which explicitly state that all three are nothing but Brahman, then your premise is self-refuting. Why? Because if that which is totally non-existent, asat, is nothing but Brahman, which is Sat (existence), then asat becomes Sat, and so is no longer asat at all. If Jiva, Jagat and Ishwara are all nothing but Brahman, then they are nothing but Sat, existence absolute, and therefore they can never be called non-existent.

Shri Shankaracharya in his Bhashya on the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, in the Ghata Bhashyam, has said that a relationship between something which exists and something which does not exist is impossible. He says that a relationship (sambandha), any kind of relationship, has to be between two existent things only. We cannot, for example, say that that a cause exists, and its effect is totally non-existent. Why? Because then it is no effect at all, owing to its own non-existence! He says '...na sambandha kaaryam asat cha kaaranam sat' - no relationship between a non-existent effect and an existent cause. Therefore, when you say that all of the products of Brahman's Maya are non-existent, you are in essence saying the same as 'Brahman does not create through Maya' and this militates against Shruti, reasoning, and peception. One may object that if sambandha depends on two existent vastus, then the non-duality is being contradicted, but this is not so, because we can perceive (an apparent) relationship between something which is satyam and something which is mithya (ie a pot and clay), whereby the existence of the effect is none other than the existence of the cause in which it inheres (which is to say, the effect is, in reality, non-different from the cause). This leads me to a very minor digression, where you have said:

Advaita philosophy rejects satkaryavada, they accept only vivartavada

This cannot be true, because Shankaracharya himself has said in the Ghata Bhashya, in his refutation of asatkaryavadins, '...atah srishti puurvam kaaryam asti cha atah srishti puurvam kaaranam api asti'- therefore, before srishti the effect exists, and (also) the cause exists. The effect exists in the cause before its manifestation, insofar as the effect is nothing but the potential nama-rupa of the cause, and lies unmanifested (therefore not non-existent) before the apparent modification into name and form. Srishti is nothing but the manifestation of the unmanifest name and form, which is an inherent potential of the cause (just as Maya is the inherent shakti of Brahman). This is no way conflicts with the idea that the effect is an appearance of the cause only, since a pot is nothing but the appearance of nama-rupa on the clay, and that appearance ie manifestation always inheres (potentially) in the cause itself.

Furthermore, since I established that the substratum for all names and forms is Sat, ie Brahman, by quoting from the Shruti:

Chandogya Upanishad, 6-2: "In the beginning there was Existence, One only, without a second. Some say that in the beginning there was nonexistence only, and that out of that the universe was born. But how could such a thing be? How could existence be born of non-existence? No, my son, in the beginning there was Existence alone–One only, without a second”

“He, the One, thought to himself: Let me be many, let me grow forth. Thus out of himself he projected the universe; and having projected out of himself the universe, he entered into every being. All that is has its self in him alone. Of all things he is the subtle essence. He is the truth. He is the Self."

See also: Taittiriya Upanishad, 2-6-1 & 2, Brahma Sutra Bhashya, 1-3-41 (Brahman is the accomplisher of names and forms, and their abode), and 1-4-23 to 27 for an exhaustive proof of Brahman alone as the material cause for all appearances of name and form.

It is firmly established that mithya does not mean non-existent. Hence, with this in mind, we can approach your claims regarding the nature and status of Jiva/Jagat/Ishwara, and completely refute them.

End of Part Three. Next Part(s) will deal with Ishwara and Atheism. It will be posted later (tomorrow), please be patient, thank you.

 

[Pleroma]

Like I said before, "I have not come to bring peace, but a sword"

As shown by others, your sword is blunt.

 

[Surya Deva]

This will be a very, very long post (so will actually be divided into several posts, and posted in installments), and is taking me hours to compile and write (such is the extent of the sheer incoherence of your claims), so I would appreciate it if you can conjure the patience and civility to read the whole thing, not ignoring any of it (as you have been wont to do in my previous posts) and allow me to post all of the installments before you give a reply. I will NOT be responding to any replies you or somebody else might give until I have finished writing and have posted all of the installments, since I am still very busy writing them. Contained in my posts will be answers/replies to claims you have made earlier in this thread (and which I have not previously replied to, or which you have not replied to) so this post also serves as an addendum to our dialogue in this current debate.

I have read all your installments so far and I am not really impressed or feel challenged. Most of your posts just seem to be thinly veieled personal attacks and strawmans of my arguments. I have so far been paitent and allowed you to post your installmants, but you literally are taking several days to post them and you have imposed this arbitrary and unilateral condition that I do not respond until you have finished everyone of them. I am sorry but what makes you think you have the right to stop somebody from responding to your points until you let them? It will not take me as long to respond to your posts as it has taken you to post them - because there is little in terms of solid argument, it's mostly just personal attacks and accusations. So I will shortly begin responding to your posts, so finish your last instalment soon.

 

[Ekanta]

Most of your posts just seem to be thinly veieled personal attacks and strawmans of my arguments... it's mostly just personal attacks and accusations.

I think this sums up everything. Good luck having a conversation.

 

[Surya Deva]

First you have made the claim that Shankaracharya and Gaudapadacharya were in disagreement. This is wrong, for, as I will demonstrate later, this fancied contention of yours is based on your misunderstanding of the meaning of the words 'satyam' and 'mithya'.

All scholars have noted there is a strong difference between Gauadapada and Shankaras presentation of Advaita. They say that Gaudapada presents a pure form of Advaita, while Shankara makes a concession for the householders, by not totally denying their reality as long as they experience it and called this a transactional realty. But Gauapada did not even make this concession, he outright and flatly called it all an illusion

1.7. Those who dwell on creation consider it a divine miracle. Others imagine it is like a dream or an illusion.
1.17. If the phenomenal world were real, it would undoubtedly vanish. All this duality is mere Maya. Non-duality is the supreme reality.

1.18. If the multiplicity were imagined, it would vanish. Such talk is merely for instruction. On knowing, duality ceases.
2.4. Just as dream objects are unreal, so, and for the same reason, objects perceived in the waking state are also unreal. The only difference is the restriction (of dream objects) to an interior location.
2.6. What does not exist in the beginning and does not exist at the end certainly does not in the middle! But like illusions, they seem real. (Even as an object appears it is decaying in time, such that it is not what it appears it is receding into the past, while that which is conscious of it is never bound in Time.)

3.27. That the existent should come into being is only possible in an illusory manner. Anyone who claims it really happens is saying that what has already come to be comes to be.
3.28. The non-existent does not come to exist either in illusion or in reality. The son-of-a-barren-woman is born neither in illusion nor in reality.

3.26. Consciousness has no contact with objects, and no contact with appearances of objects. Objects are non-existent and appearances of objects non-different from consciousness.

3.27. At none of the three times (past, present, future) does consciousness make contact with objects. Since there are no objects, how can there be deluded perception of such?

3.28. Neither consciousness nor its objects ever come into existence. Those who perceive such a coming-to-be are like those who can see footprints in the sky!​

This is known as ajati vada, the doctrine of no creation. Gaudapada was a staunch proponent of this and made absolutely no concession of there being even a temporal creation. He was the teacher of the teacher of Govinda, Shankara's teacher. So if Shankara is just a disciple continuing the tradition of his teachers, why would he teach the opposite of ajati vada? Shankara didn't at all, as we have already see him explicitly state in his Vivekachudamani earlier many times. Here are just a few instances:

1.20. A firm conviction of the mind to the effect that Brahman is real and the universe unreal, is designated as discrimination (Viveka) between the Real and the unreal.
1.63. Without causing the objective universe to vanish and without knowing the truth of the Self, how is one to achieve Liberation by the mere utterance of the word Brahman ? -- It would result merely in an effort of speech.
3.232. If the universe, as it is, be real, there would be no cessation of the dualistic element, the scriptures would be falsified, and the Lord Himself would be guilty of an untruth. None of these three is considered either desirable or wholesome by the noble-minded.
3.234. If the universe be true, let it then be perceived in the state of deep sleep also. As it is not at all perceived, it must be unreal and false, like dreams.​

It really does not get anymore explicit than this. I have now shown you categorically both Gaudapada and Shankara flatly denying the existence of the universe and say that it vanishes completely like a dream on realization. How you can interpret this not to mean this is flagrant dishonesty. I really hope our objective readers reading can see how dishonest you are being by pretending Advaita does not teach the universe is an illusion. For I have now cited 3 core Advaita works: Panchadasi, by Vidyaranya, Vivekachudamani by Shankara and now Mandukakarika by Gaudapada and everyone of them have explicitly stated the universe is an illusion that disappears like a dream on realization.

Second, and the main point I wish to make, is your claim that Shankaracharya's works do not define Advaita. Shankaracharya is, to my knowledge, the only Advaita Acharya who has commented on all of the major Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Sutras. For this reason I have stated that anything which contradicts Shankaracharya's words contradicts Advaita. If our views regarding Advaita militate against Shankaracharya's own words, then it is not the Acharya's words which we must reject- why? Because Shankaracharya is a sure authority, a reliable authority.

I am going to make two points here

1)Appeal to authority fallacy. Shankara's authority is not infallible, he is not a apta(Risi) his works are not divine revelation(Sruti) He is an ordinary human like you and me, and he has imperfections like you and me too. Moreover, Shankara did not start even his own tradition of Advaita, the tradition was started by Gaudapda his teachers teacher. It is a well accepted fact within the Advaita tradition that Advaita is not a new philosophy which Gauadapada invented under the influence of Buddhism, it goes back to the Upanishadic seers, one of them Yajnavalkya, is regarded to be the earliest and most representative Advaitist by the Advaita tradition.

Nor were the first prakarana granthas first written by Shankara, pre Shankara Advaita parakarana granthas exist like the Astavakra Samhita. In the introduction to the Astavakra Samhita translation by Swami Niyyaswarupananda, Dr Satkari Mukherjhee, former professor of Sanskrit at the University of Calcutta and expert on Indian philosophy, writes:

The astavakra Samhita is an accredited classic of Advaita Vedanta. It leaves no room for loophole for the misconception or misinterpretation of its fundamental standpoint or attitude. It would have been a matter of great satisifcation had we been in possession of similar works in other schools of philosophy and religion, the paucity of which is poignantly felt by scholars regarding the Buddhist school. The present work makes us understand what Advaita Vedanta stands for. Its assertions are categorical, positive, direct and unambigious. It is an ancient classic, which proves that Gauadapada or Sankarcharya did not propound a newfangled philosophy under the influence of Buddhist idealist thought, as facile scholarship seeks to estabish now days in the basis of superficial and flimsy parallelsisms. This system of thought, on the contrary, had its moorings in the Upanishads and received definite articulation in older works, including the present one...It gives a candid, unhestitating, unblushing and unapologetic presentation of the cardinal principles of Vedanta, without consideration for and concession to our realistic predispositions. No wonder, that it is a vade-mecum for monks of the Sankara orders. Of course it has not been widely popular with householders because it refuses to cater to their instincts or to make allowances for the exigences of social or political circumstances​

Now let us see what the Astavakra Samhita says:

2.1. Oh, I am spotless, tranquil, pure consciousness and beyond natue. All this time I have merely duped by illusion
2.2. As I alone reveal this body, even so do I reveal this universe. Therefore mine is this universe, or verily nothing is mine
2.3. Oh, having renounced the universe, together with the body, I now perceive the Supreme Self through the secret of wisdom
2.16. Oh, the root of misery is duality. There is no other remedy for it except the realization that all objects of experience are unreal and I am pure, one, consciousness and bliss.
2.17. I am Pure consciousness. Through ignorance I have imposed limitation upon myself. Constantly reflecting in this way, I am abiding in the absolute
2.18. I have neither bondage nor freedom. Having lost its support, the illusion has ceazed. Oh the universe, though existing in me, does not in reality so exist.
2.19. I have known for certain that the body and the universe are nothing and that the Self is pure consciousness alone. So on what is it now possible to base imagination​

All pre-Shankara Advaita texts make no concession to houeholders, they are only for the renunciants(sanyasa) those who completely reject the world, treating it is an unreality and source of delusion and misery. This tendency can be seen up to Gaudapada and thus we find Gaudapara is pure Advatist. The Bhagvatpada was started by Shankara, who unlike his predecessors makes a concession to householders and legitimates their worship of Ishvara as means to an end of higher Brahman-realization. He advances the theory of vyavahrika or transactional reality in order to accomodate the reality of others as well. Why did Shankara do this? Shankara was a missionary and his aim was to bring Advaita Vedanta to the masses. Prior to Shankara, Advaita Vedanta was only for the renunicant.