Apparently I missed a couple of posts. Sigh.
The length of this post is *your* fault. (As a rule I refuse to take responsibility for anything, but in this case it really is your fault anyway.)
1. Terminology
I never said that Vedanta has been commandeered in that way. I merely brought up the hypothetical example to illustrate in what manner Philosophy has been misused, stripped of its actual meaning, generalised and misapplied at random.
And at least some among the Hellenes do not too consider it too late to reclaim their word.
But Greek belongs to the Hellenes, so it is not unlikely that they would have devised the word. (Unless English translations chose to use this more commonly-known Greek word for a more obscure Greek one that was actually used? I wouldn't know.)
"Who robbed who here?" Well, both the cross and crucifix in Hellenismos - with Dionysus on it - IIRC predates the earliest known uses of the christist crucifix and cross. It also predates christianism's claim that jeebus was cruficied, since the more "original" Greek-language bible has jeebus staked. So the fact that christianism now uses the cross doesn't mean that the Hellenes took it from christianism, when it is known (and long admitted) that the matter was the other way around. Similarly, the Church using "theurgy" for its rituals need not at all immediately imply that the Hellenes must have robbed the church's terminology. Even though Neoplatonism may have been late in Hellenismos, it still existed around a time when the christian church's "traditions" hadn't been anywhere near established yet; a time when a great many unrecognised gospels were still being peddled, and when various heresies declaring views of christianism/jeebus/mary that were profoundly inconsistent with current church belief were still afoot, and a time when I think the bishop of Rome hadn't yet assumed a more universal title of absolute and superior authority - to give some examples.
Now to your #68 which contains serious assertions that someone ought to have corrected -
2. About Nirguna Brahman
Both are a reality: the Brahman - the Supreme Ultimate, the Absolute Reality - is Nirguna and can and does (of its own accord) assume a plurality of individual forms which makes it Saguna. Just like the Tao. People who deny one of these and insist solely on the other are in denial.
Also, the well-known paths in Vedaanta (Advaitam to Dvaitam) are consistent with the Agamic paths too. And that's as to be expected, as they're all part of the same religion (Hindoooism), so it's no surprise that they speak of the same things and keep repeating, reinforcing and confirming each other.
And also this:
Creation is manifest. That which is beyond, is ... whatever it is.
One can't perceive or confirm anything Beyond existence, but in creation, Divinity *certainly* assumes forms. They are very real forms and they are the Gods' own forms - and Shankara obviously understood this, even if modern vocalists claiming to follow some part of his teachings do not. When Shankara speaks of *Nirguna* Brahman though, he explains that it is indeed without attributes. This is simply a fact about "Nirguna", just like Shivalingam is the moorty for Nirguna Shiva (Nirguna Brahman).
Shankara Bhagavadpada is not the one who came up with it: it's there in the Vedaanta texts that were established materials from well before him, and it's a part/view of Shaiva Agamic tradition, it's in Shaktam, it was repeated by Vishnu as Dattatreya etc. And the Gita is at least partly about revisiting the upanishadic - but not exclusively upanishadic - That which Brahman is.
I think Shankara's explanation of Advaitam could differ slightly from the other pre-existing explanations of Advaita, but I can't recall whether it was in his view that the Maya was unreal. Or maybe the difference concerned something else entirely (don't remember; read this in younger days.) That is beside the point however, as the Gods *are* real, their manifestations are real. And those who are attached to the Gods - their attachments are consequently real and remain real. See point 5 below.
While Shankara BP's works on Nirguna Brahman were about the Nirguna nature of Brahman, his works on the Saguna forms of Brahman were on the Saguna Brahman, Brahman manifest. Examples of the latter in point 4 below.
The nature of Brahman - its state of being - is SCA. The unmanifested Divinity is *like* that: it IS (i.e. it is real), and its state of being is SCA (i.e. SCA is its natural state).
3. Buddhism
- In Buddhism, the ultimate reality is Nothing. Maya is illusion that prevents people from realising this. In Buddhism, Nirvana is liberation into realising the truth of Nothing.
- In Hindu religion, the ultimate reality is ParaBrahman - which is the All/the Everything, the Absolute Reality. Liberation in Hindu religion is realisation of/oneness with the Only Real (which exists, or rather which IS, as the Gita states), and which is that which permeates everything in existence and beyond: i.e. the Grand Spirit (the paramapuruSha). It is both the source of and sustenance of everything, and when all of creation is withdrawn/retracted again, it remains - complete, as ever.
Advaitam - all explanations of it including Shankara's - is Vedantic (incl. UpanishadicÃÂ) and also one of the views of the Agamas in that it declares that that Barely-describable-ness, "The Supreme Ultimate" (to steal again from the translation of the Taoist description) - which is often, but not exclusively, called "Brahman" in Hindu literature - is the Absolute Reality, and that all pashus are of its nature, since everything is derived from its fundamental reality. According to the Upanishads (from what I understood), this is the goal, it is that which has to be realised. And the manifest forms of the Gods - all of which are saguna Brahman, which is as Real as the Nirguna Brahman, since one is a version of the other - are the means for many a Hindu to realise Brahman (and, being equivalent, they are hence naturally considered the end in themselves), whereas some may prefer contemplating the Unmanifest (though the Gita indicates that this path is generally hard for mortals to achieve). Modern Hindus who peddle purely the Unmanifest tend to be the ones who can't realise either variant. I am not remotely criticising any who contemplate the Nirguna Brahman - and any that have done so, tend to traditionally be ones that also worship the Saguna Brahman since they realise the intrinsic connection between the two - I am commenting on the confused vocalists one sees everywhere. They juvenilely think of the Saguna Gods as quaint myth, then how will they understand the Nirguna which is even further from their limited contemplation? (And why would I care.)
Anyway, Hindu Dharma's reality is the Brahman, the Supreme Ultimate All, the Everything.
Bauddha Dharma and Hindu Dharmic religion are saying the very opposite: because Nothing is NOT the same as Everything. The All is NOT the same as the Void. Realising the very real Absolute Reality is NOT the same as realising the essentially unreal nature of absolutely everything.
Buddhism denies the All of Hindu religion. It denies the existence/reality of the Absolute Reality, having replaced it with Nothing. It consequently denies everything in Hindu (and Taoist, Hellenistic, etc) religion.
Shankaracharya was not at all peddling Buddhism, since he was only repeating the established, traditional views of Hindu religion (as are condensed in Vedaanta texts). Where Shankara appears to have diverged with some established Hindu traditional views of Advaitam, it was - going by very vague memory - only in the nature of reality of Maya and/or Ignorance. The Parabrahman for Shankara BP was very much an absolute reality, as it has always been for all Hindus. And this is why the Gods are very much a known reality for him too, something he could not - and would not and hence did not - deny. He is very much a Hindoo.
Vedaantic texts do *not* presage Buddhism, despite confused uppity Buddhist statements to the contrary. The Upanishads restate (some important elements in) the Vedam, and the Agamas run in parallel and are likewise connected to the Vedam too. All other *ancient*, established Hindu literature merely adds to the same.
4. "Symbolism"
But these claimants are *not* in line with Shankara, regardless of their claims.
What matters is not others' perception of Shankara, but what Shankara made known of himself. Those who claim he was doing things "only symbolically" are obviously ignorant of things such as how Sri Chakra Pooja, when carried out by people who do not have a sincere attachment to the God(s) therewith addressed, would not achieve the goal of it. Now, why would Shankara waste his time on it if he did not mean it sincerely and meant it only symbolically? Because the real practice is *far* more than symbolism. And Shankara is hardly a dabbler.
So people who claim to appreciate Shankara are essentially calling him dishonest when they dismiss or make little of the relevance that his devotional practices (and works) have to him and when they diminish the sincerity with which he viewed the Gods. Yes, he wrote various stotras for all Hindus to use, but I have never read a hint of false intention in them.
In fact, in his stotras he sticks traditionally to the established verbal worship (with consequent correct mental imagery) of the various Gods: from memory, the Kanakadhaara Stotram has a sequence that matches in form and praise with elements of the Shri Lakshmi Hrudayam, his SL contribution to the AL is typical established Lalita worship, his verbal/mental worship of Murugan too is correct and is as mirrored in Tamizh practice and works (earlier ones, as well as later ones like the powerful Tamizh masterpiece the (S)Kanda shaShTi kavacham), his stotram to Bhava's wife is perfection itself: the universal Hindu accessibility to her is part of how she has always been viewed.
The ShaTpadi Stotram (to Vishnu) is illustrative. From memory: Shankara explains that, like the waves belong to the ocean and not the ocean to the waves, Shankara - while realising he is not different from the ParamapuruSha who is the husband of the MahaLakshmi (herself also declared elsewhere to be the parabrahmaswaroopiNi) - also knows he belongs to Shripati and not Shripati to Shankara BP. This view is traditionally Hindoo and hence is there in many a traditional Hindu text; Shankara is not the originator or innovator of this Hindu understanding.
It is clear for me that in composing the Stotras in such a way as to make them usable for the general Hindus (i.e. not just himself), Shankara was certain of their profound merit (and hence the effects it would have on the Hindus to whom he could bequeath these). It also implies that he was certain of the greatness of the objects of his praise therein, else why would he recommend them, if he wasn't convinced of the great benefit for Hindus to remain firmly attached to their (his) Gods?*
Any dabbling modern advaitam-peddler answering this last question wrongly has essentially declared Shankara was dishonest. I don't know a greater offence to heap on someone they otherwise claim to think of as their teacher/whatever he means to them.
*Since the Gods - and the Gods alone - give realisation, moksha and saayujyam. And Shankara remains consistent with this in appending to the AL - I think it is the AL which states that by just starting the line "Bhavani tvam", she (Lalita), knowing the AL Seer's true desire, gave the Bhakta Saayujyam without them even asking for it at that stage.
Shankara is not an original in Hindooness. He is not a rebel either. He is a Hindoo, following on from many Hindoos before him - one of many Hindoos of the type that likes to think and ponder over the gnyaana of the Hindu texts.
His efforts on Vedantam's behalf may not have defeated Buddhism (it was actually the usually uncredited full-on VedaBrahmanas who had already defeated Buddhism in the intellectual/practical/in every important sphere of religion - something for which Hindu laity are forever indebted, whether they are aware of it or not, whether they know to be grateful for it or not), but Shankara - being a Hindoo parroting established Hindooism - is NOT a Buddhist, and only people who don't know would argue so.
Traditional followers of Shankara are nothing like those moderns who deny his Gods (and the meaning and importance the Hindu Gods have to him), even as the moderns repeat "aham brahmaasmi" to themselves without comprehension to lecture others online.
Poor Shankara. To be hijacked by aliens and the alienated. All such Alien Abductions (like inculturation) should really be denounced by Hindus as a crime that will not be tolerated. Should be. Instead, it is modern Hindu vocalists who keep selling him and Advaitam and even all Vedantam off to the highest bidder (like they've been doing to Yoga, etc). Meanwhile, even as they sell some Hindoo things, they mark other core Hindoo things (that they've been brainwashed into being ashamed of) as junk to be dumped off. <- The kind of Indian "intellectuals" who look down their nose at the "polytheistic idolatry of the masses" and at the "ritualism" of the Vedas. (Rituals? Oh yes, most certainly. Meaningless rituals? Absolutely NOT.) The same class of alienated "intellectuals" can elsewhere be seen declaring that "Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism are in essence the same religion. Knowledgeable Hindoos' long-standing efforts to make known the contrary be damned."
And I don't understand the sort of self-confusiosos who declare that Advaitam is somehow magically, miraculously separate from or even contradicting 'Theism'/itself (let alone that it is somehow "closer to Buddhism" - or Jainism - of all impossible things) - it must be a great miracle indeed that must have transpired which allows any to deny what is intrinsically 'Theist'. Or those who say that Saguna contradicts Nirguna Brahman - imagining that the Nirguna is somehow mutual exclusive with Saguna <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' />, when it so obviously is not. Clearly they can't compute one half of Hindoo religion. That's one natural aspect of this mysterious Parabrahman that they can't "get".
Actually, it's the christoconditioned that frequently make those claims about Hindu religion (and if only Hindoos bothered to notice something profoundly important to their situation, they'd see that the christowest has been doing the same to the religion called Taoism too, and to Hellenismos - read christowestern books). Else they declare - as a run up to inculturation and appropriation/parasitism - that Advaitam must be "monotheistic". What an impossibility. Or they attempt to separate "Monism" from what they call "polytheism" imagining a mutual exclusivity where there is none. Uh, NO. These are not *Hindoo* views.
Christianisms are always attempting to dissect the acceptable from the unacceptable in the "pagan" religions, ready to ingest/appropriate the one and throw out the other. Macaulayists - with or without the "Intellectual Indian" title conferred on them - merely do the same subconsciously.
5. OMGs it is never-ending:
Brahman is Permanence. Being essentially of Brahman means the Pashu's jeevaatman or whatever partakes of that permanence. The relationship with the stable Absolute Reality (the paramapuruSha) is permanent too, it remains real and stable.
Whether the nature of that relationship in the non-material world Beyond remains as it is in the world of manifestation, is something that one can't answer from this end. People can argue about it until the cows come mooing home.
But the Gods teach us of themselves. And the forms of the Gods in creation are their natural, own forms, just as their names and mantras are their own. What happens when creation dissolves? It's whatever happens. But the Gods are real. And Hindu texts explain how Lalita and Shiva exist past the dissolution, just as Krishna too confirms his permanence, etc. This is why one can find various ancient traditional established Hindu views on Vedaantic texts reiterated: those existing Hindu paths/views can and do all find vindication for their individual positions in the same texts.
But why people have to beat themselves up over a question that can only be faced/answered conclusively after death and Moksha is beyond me. Why can't people just live while alive. The Real Gods exist and can be known in life itself.
My next post here will be on missionising/proselytising.
The length of this post is *your* fault. (As a rule I refuse to take responsibility for anything, but in this case it really is your fault anyway.)
1. Terminology
Quote:Its too late to reverse the philosophy meme. But universal Vedanta meme is not established yet so you have a chance there to change the trend.
I never said that Vedanta has been commandeered in that way. I merely brought up the hypothetical example to illustrate in what manner Philosophy has been misused, stripped of its actual meaning, generalised and misapplied at random.
And at least some among the Hellenes do not too consider it too late to reclaim their word.
Quote:But probably is a good development of the word guru meme.Its has some positive values.No. And no.
Quote:Theurgy,that's a word that is use often in the church.Who robbed who here.Theurgy. See Neo-Platonism. And mayhap it existed in Hellenismos prior to NeoPlatonism too?
But Greek belongs to the Hellenes, so it is not unlikely that they would have devised the word. (Unless English translations chose to use this more commonly-known Greek word for a more obscure Greek one that was actually used? I wouldn't know.)
"Who robbed who here?" Well, both the cross and crucifix in Hellenismos - with Dionysus on it - IIRC predates the earliest known uses of the christist crucifix and cross. It also predates christianism's claim that jeebus was cruficied, since the more "original" Greek-language bible has jeebus staked. So the fact that christianism now uses the cross doesn't mean that the Hellenes took it from christianism, when it is known (and long admitted) that the matter was the other way around. Similarly, the Church using "theurgy" for its rituals need not at all immediately imply that the Hellenes must have robbed the church's terminology. Even though Neoplatonism may have been late in Hellenismos, it still existed around a time when the christian church's "traditions" hadn't been anywhere near established yet; a time when a great many unrecognised gospels were still being peddled, and when various heresies declaring views of christianism/jeebus/mary that were profoundly inconsistent with current church belief were still afoot, and a time when I think the bishop of Rome hadn't yet assumed a more universal title of absolute and superior authority - to give some examples.
Now to your #68 which contains serious assertions that someone ought to have corrected -
2. About Nirguna Brahman
Quote:Shankara believe the the Ultimate was impersonal,whit no attributes,nirvishesha. The gods,just like humans were temporary manifestations of the attributeless Brahman.Upanishads IIRC speak on the same topic too. Brahman without form or attributes is nirguna, and when it has form - being saguna - it is the Hindu Gods. Many Gods - in the various texts of Rishis and other Gods - are declared the very Brahman and hence as being the very form of Brahman.
Both are a reality: the Brahman - the Supreme Ultimate, the Absolute Reality - is Nirguna and can and does (of its own accord) assume a plurality of individual forms which makes it Saguna. Just like the Tao. People who deny one of these and insist solely on the other are in denial.
Also, the well-known paths in Vedaanta (Advaitam to Dvaitam) are consistent with the Agamic paths too. And that's as to be expected, as they're all part of the same religion (Hindoooism), so it's no surprise that they speak of the same things and keep repeating, reinforcing and confirming each other.
And also this:
Quote:The gods and humans will return in the future in the unmanifested Brahman.Again, the notion you're referring to is not any originality on Shankara's part. It is in Hindoo religion, from traditional Hindoo texts. Consequently, the Gita also alludes to this. I read a translation of the (plain) Gita before ever I heard what Shankara's view was, and my understanding of the relevant refs in the Gita seemed to me to cohere with what I think I later read in Vedaanta texts. Shankara didn't devise it. He was merely repeating.
Creation is manifest. That which is beyond, is ... whatever it is.
One can't perceive or confirm anything Beyond existence, but in creation, Divinity *certainly* assumes forms. They are very real forms and they are the Gods' own forms - and Shankara obviously understood this, even if modern vocalists claiming to follow some part of his teachings do not. When Shankara speaks of *Nirguna* Brahman though, he explains that it is indeed without attributes. This is simply a fact about "Nirguna", just like Shivalingam is the moorty for Nirguna Shiva (Nirguna Brahman).
Shankara Bhagavadpada is not the one who came up with it: it's there in the Vedaanta texts that were established materials from well before him, and it's a part/view of Shaiva Agamic tradition, it's in Shaktam, it was repeated by Vishnu as Dattatreya etc. And the Gita is at least partly about revisiting the upanishadic - but not exclusively upanishadic - That which Brahman is.
I think Shankara's explanation of Advaitam could differ slightly from the other pre-existing explanations of Advaita, but I can't recall whether it was in his view that the Maya was unreal. Or maybe the difference concerned something else entirely (don't remember; read this in younger days.) That is beside the point however, as the Gods *are* real, their manifestations are real. And those who are attached to the Gods - their attachments are consequently real and remain real. See point 5 below.
While Shankara BP's works on Nirguna Brahman were about the Nirguna nature of Brahman, his works on the Saguna forms of Brahman were on the Saguna Brahman, Brahman manifest. Examples of the latter in point 4 below.
Quote:Yes some call him confused theist:how is possible to say that the Brahman is SatCitAnanda(truth-conscience-happiness)which are attributes by excelence and then say that Brahman have no attributes at all?Read the plain Gita. It explains itself better than anyone else explaining it. It's hard to render anything accurately in English, and besides I'm not good at communicating. So I'm going to use words that may not be the right ones, but which hopefully give a notion of what I mean -
The nature of Brahman - its state of being - is SCA. The unmanifested Divinity is *like* that: it IS (i.e. it is real), and its state of being is SCA (i.e. SCA is its natural state).
3. Buddhism
Quote:yes he talk about Brahman,but he see it as nirvishesa ,which is very similar(if not identical whit the buddhist Void(see Nirvana).No. Such identification is absolutely wrong. Buddhism's Void is fundamentally different from Brahman. Things could not be more opposite.
- In Buddhism, the ultimate reality is Nothing. Maya is illusion that prevents people from realising this. In Buddhism, Nirvana is liberation into realising the truth of Nothing.
- In Hindu religion, the ultimate reality is ParaBrahman - which is the All/the Everything, the Absolute Reality. Liberation in Hindu religion is realisation of/oneness with the Only Real (which exists, or rather which IS, as the Gita states), and which is that which permeates everything in existence and beyond: i.e. the Grand Spirit (the paramapuruSha). It is both the source of and sustenance of everything, and when all of creation is withdrawn/retracted again, it remains - complete, as ever.
Advaitam - all explanations of it including Shankara's - is Vedantic (incl. UpanishadicÃÂ) and also one of the views of the Agamas in that it declares that that Barely-describable-ness, "The Supreme Ultimate" (to steal again from the translation of the Taoist description) - which is often, but not exclusively, called "Brahman" in Hindu literature - is the Absolute Reality, and that all pashus are of its nature, since everything is derived from its fundamental reality. According to the Upanishads (from what I understood), this is the goal, it is that which has to be realised. And the manifest forms of the Gods - all of which are saguna Brahman, which is as Real as the Nirguna Brahman, since one is a version of the other - are the means for many a Hindu to realise Brahman (and, being equivalent, they are hence naturally considered the end in themselves), whereas some may prefer contemplating the Unmanifest (though the Gita indicates that this path is generally hard for mortals to achieve). Modern Hindus who peddle purely the Unmanifest tend to be the ones who can't realise either variant. I am not remotely criticising any who contemplate the Nirguna Brahman - and any that have done so, tend to traditionally be ones that also worship the Saguna Brahman since they realise the intrinsic connection between the two - I am commenting on the confused vocalists one sees everywhere. They juvenilely think of the Saguna Gods as quaint myth, then how will they understand the Nirguna which is even further from their limited contemplation? (And why would I care.)
Anyway, Hindu Dharma's reality is the Brahman, the Supreme Ultimate All, the Everything.
Bauddha Dharma and Hindu Dharmic religion are saying the very opposite: because Nothing is NOT the same as Everything. The All is NOT the same as the Void. Realising the very real Absolute Reality is NOT the same as realising the essentially unreal nature of absolutely everything.
Buddhism denies the All of Hindu religion. It denies the existence/reality of the Absolute Reality, having replaced it with Nothing. It consequently denies everything in Hindu (and Taoist, Hellenistic, etc) religion.
Quote:Other see him as a hidden buddhistFirst of all, others' assertions about a person's "true state" are irrelevant, how do you imagine they can form the basis of any kind of genuine argument here? (In general too: they need not be at all representative of the one accused. Remember how you pompously declared at various times that I was an Advaitin/Smarta/animist/folk religionist or something - yeah *right* - and how your accusations are wrong. So we can set aside similar external claims.)
Shankaracharya was not at all peddling Buddhism, since he was only repeating the established, traditional views of Hindu religion (as are condensed in Vedaanta texts). Where Shankara appears to have diverged with some established Hindu traditional views of Advaitam, it was - going by very vague memory - only in the nature of reality of Maya and/or Ignorance. The Parabrahman for Shankara BP was very much an absolute reality, as it has always been for all Hindus. And this is why the Gods are very much a known reality for him too, something he could not - and would not and hence did not - deny. He is very much a Hindoo.
Vedaantic texts do *not* presage Buddhism, despite confused uppity Buddhist statements to the contrary. The Upanishads restate (some important elements in) the Vedam, and the Agamas run in parallel and are likewise connected to the Vedam too. All other *ancient*, established Hindu literature merely adds to the same.
4. "Symbolism"
Quote:At the beginning of the century the indian intellectuals go ahead whit Shankara and say:"See you westerners,we are not primitive,we do not worship gods,we have abstract philosophy.Yes Shankara talk about gods but you see,he did it symbolically.He did not really mean it".Whatever.
But these claimants are *not* in line with Shankara, regardless of their claims.
What matters is not others' perception of Shankara, but what Shankara made known of himself. Those who claim he was doing things "only symbolically" are obviously ignorant of things such as how Sri Chakra Pooja, when carried out by people who do not have a sincere attachment to the God(s) therewith addressed, would not achieve the goal of it. Now, why would Shankara waste his time on it if he did not mean it sincerely and meant it only symbolically? Because the real practice is *far* more than symbolism. And Shankara is hardly a dabbler.
So people who claim to appreciate Shankara are essentially calling him dishonest when they dismiss or make little of the relevance that his devotional practices (and works) have to him and when they diminish the sincerity with which he viewed the Gods. Yes, he wrote various stotras for all Hindus to use, but I have never read a hint of false intention in them.
In fact, in his stotras he sticks traditionally to the established verbal worship (with consequent correct mental imagery) of the various Gods: from memory, the Kanakadhaara Stotram has a sequence that matches in form and praise with elements of the Shri Lakshmi Hrudayam, his SL contribution to the AL is typical established Lalita worship, his verbal/mental worship of Murugan too is correct and is as mirrored in Tamizh practice and works (earlier ones, as well as later ones like the powerful Tamizh masterpiece the (S)Kanda shaShTi kavacham), his stotram to Bhava's wife is perfection itself: the universal Hindu accessibility to her is part of how she has always been viewed.
The ShaTpadi Stotram (to Vishnu) is illustrative. From memory: Shankara explains that, like the waves belong to the ocean and not the ocean to the waves, Shankara - while realising he is not different from the ParamapuruSha who is the husband of the MahaLakshmi (herself also declared elsewhere to be the parabrahmaswaroopiNi) - also knows he belongs to Shripati and not Shripati to Shankara BP. This view is traditionally Hindoo and hence is there in many a traditional Hindu text; Shankara is not the originator or innovator of this Hindu understanding.
It is clear for me that in composing the Stotras in such a way as to make them usable for the general Hindus (i.e. not just himself), Shankara was certain of their profound merit (and hence the effects it would have on the Hindus to whom he could bequeath these). It also implies that he was certain of the greatness of the objects of his praise therein, else why would he recommend them, if he wasn't convinced of the great benefit for Hindus to remain firmly attached to their (his) Gods?*
Any dabbling modern advaitam-peddler answering this last question wrongly has essentially declared Shankara was dishonest. I don't know a greater offence to heap on someone they otherwise claim to think of as their teacher/whatever he means to them.
*Since the Gods - and the Gods alone - give realisation, moksha and saayujyam. And Shankara remains consistent with this in appending to the AL - I think it is the AL which states that by just starting the line "Bhavani tvam", she (Lalita), knowing the AL Seer's true desire, gave the Bhakta Saayujyam without them even asking for it at that stage.
Shankara is not an original in Hindooness. He is not a rebel either. He is a Hindoo, following on from many Hindoos before him - one of many Hindoos of the type that likes to think and ponder over the gnyaana of the Hindu texts.
His efforts on Vedantam's behalf may not have defeated Buddhism (it was actually the usually uncredited full-on VedaBrahmanas who had already defeated Buddhism in the intellectual/practical/in every important sphere of religion - something for which Hindu laity are forever indebted, whether they are aware of it or not, whether they know to be grateful for it or not), but Shankara - being a Hindoo parroting established Hindooism - is NOT a Buddhist, and only people who don't know would argue so.
Traditional followers of Shankara are nothing like those moderns who deny his Gods (and the meaning and importance the Hindu Gods have to him), even as the moderns repeat "aham brahmaasmi" to themselves without comprehension to lecture others online.
Poor Shankara. To be hijacked by aliens and the alienated. All such Alien Abductions (like inculturation) should really be denounced by Hindus as a crime that will not be tolerated. Should be. Instead, it is modern Hindu vocalists who keep selling him and Advaitam and even all Vedantam off to the highest bidder (like they've been doing to Yoga, etc). Meanwhile, even as they sell some Hindoo things, they mark other core Hindoo things (that they've been brainwashed into being ashamed of) as junk to be dumped off. <- The kind of Indian "intellectuals" who look down their nose at the "polytheistic idolatry of the masses" and at the "ritualism" of the Vedas. (Rituals? Oh yes, most certainly. Meaningless rituals? Absolutely NOT.) The same class of alienated "intellectuals" can elsewhere be seen declaring that "Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism are in essence the same religion. Knowledgeable Hindoos' long-standing efforts to make known the contrary be damned."
And I don't understand the sort of self-confusiosos who declare that Advaitam is somehow magically, miraculously separate from or even contradicting 'Theism'/itself (let alone that it is somehow "closer to Buddhism" - or Jainism - of all impossible things) - it must be a great miracle indeed that must have transpired which allows any to deny what is intrinsically 'Theist'. Or those who say that Saguna contradicts Nirguna Brahman - imagining that the Nirguna is somehow mutual exclusive with Saguna <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':blink:' />, when it so obviously is not. Clearly they can't compute one half of Hindoo religion. That's one natural aspect of this mysterious Parabrahman that they can't "get".
Actually, it's the christoconditioned that frequently make those claims about Hindu religion (and if only Hindoos bothered to notice something profoundly important to their situation, they'd see that the christowest has been doing the same to the religion called Taoism too, and to Hellenismos - read christowestern books). Else they declare - as a run up to inculturation and appropriation/parasitism - that Advaitam must be "monotheistic". What an impossibility. Or they attempt to separate "Monism" from what they call "polytheism" imagining a mutual exclusivity where there is none. Uh, NO. These are not *Hindoo* views.
Christianisms are always attempting to dissect the acceptable from the unacceptable in the "pagan" religions, ready to ingest/appropriate the one and throw out the other. Macaulayists - with or without the "Intellectual Indian" title conferred on them - merely do the same subconsciously.
5. OMGs it is never-ending:
Quote:Yes he love gods,he even make a system of 5 or 6 gods most worshiped at his time(Vishnu,Shiva,Devi,Surya,Ganesha and Murugan). But it was not an eternal relationship.(And he also composed to Saraswati and from memory to Brihaspati, etc.) Am ignoring the literal meaning of Eternal which implies time, since time does not exist in that which is Beyond; time is part of creation alone -
Brahman is Permanence. Being essentially of Brahman means the Pashu's jeevaatman or whatever partakes of that permanence. The relationship with the stable Absolute Reality (the paramapuruSha) is permanent too, it remains real and stable.
Whether the nature of that relationship in the non-material world Beyond remains as it is in the world of manifestation, is something that one can't answer from this end. People can argue about it until the cows come mooing home.
But the Gods teach us of themselves. And the forms of the Gods in creation are their natural, own forms, just as their names and mantras are their own. What happens when creation dissolves? It's whatever happens. But the Gods are real. And Hindu texts explain how Lalita and Shiva exist past the dissolution, just as Krishna too confirms his permanence, etc. This is why one can find various ancient traditional established Hindu views on Vedaantic texts reiterated: those existing Hindu paths/views can and do all find vindication for their individual positions in the same texts.
But why people have to beat themselves up over a question that can only be faced/answered conclusively after death and Moksha is beyond me. Why can't people just live while alive. The Real Gods exist and can be known in life itself.
My next post here will be on missionising/proselytising.