Next post is relevant to this thread. This is not, except for point [c] below. Hence swapped position with next post.
Romani stuff -
[quote name='HareKrishna' date='06 November 2011 - 04:53 AM' timestamp='1320534934' post='113610']Yes,i know you dont have arguments and try to avoid the painful subject[/quote]
Is that right? Blackmail, huh?
But fine. I'll play along...
[quote name='HareKrishna' date='04 November 2011 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1320347186' post='113588']Shankara was completely illogical comparably whit Buddha. He said that Brahman is Sat-Cit-Ananda(which are attributes) than he completely contradict his first statement saying that Brahman has no attributes.
Again Shankara claim that Atman has no attributes,thing that made Atman to be the same thing whit buddhistic Non-Atman.[/quote]
(a) Now, Shankara parroted a pre-existing view - as seen in parts of various Hindu upaniShads - that the Atman is identical to the paramatman. <- And that reduces the proof required: making it easier for me in this case, as I just need to deal with *one* thing, not *two*.
In short: all I need to do is merely show that Shankara did NOT invent how "the paramaatma [Brahman] is (among other things) nirguNa and SCA", and then *that* will subsequently show that it was not *Shankara* who came up with it (as Romani claims: that it was Shankara who was "contradicting" himself and was completely illogical) but rather that Shankara was merely parroting (a pre-existing view of the) pre-existing Hindu religion on these very matters.
Easy.
So, let's take a simple example. As stated earlier, the LT and LS (which both belong together being part of the LU in the BP) predate Shankara.
=> LS: nirguNa, satya-j~nAnAnanda, and LT: sachchidAnanda.
(LT also: saguNa. LS similarly: roopa, aroopa etc.)
That suffices to make my point. But just to drive the other point home - that my proof is concluded as I don't need to say anything about the jeevAtman anymore - am grabbing this line from the VS upaniShat described as belonging to the SV:
So whichever Hindoos are to blame for/originated the views Romani is accusing Adi Shankara BP of originating, it ain't Shankara BP. Can blame it on Hindoo religion. These very views - *together* - existed there all along.
(b ) More on Romani's claim that
[quote name='HareKrishna' date='04 November 2011 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1320347186' post='113588']Brahman is Sat-Cit-Ananda(which are attributes) than he completely contradict his first statement saying that Brahman has no attributes"[/quote]
Have already seen in the LS and LT that it was not Shankara who was "contradicting" himself. As for Romani's other charge that SCA is "an attribute" - seen in how Romani implies in the rest of his statement that nirguNa means "no attributes": <- from this 2-part statement, it can be made out that Romani is claiming that SCA is owing to guNas. [And hence his conclusion that the lack of the latter (-> nirguNa/"Brahman has no attributes") means the former must be negated ("can't be SCA").]
BUT:
Though Romani insists that SCA "must" fall under "attributes", clearly it's his definition that is causing the contradiction. Because, in contrast,
(i) many a Hindu predating Shankara (and many after him still - and they all got these ideas from their ancient Hindu sacred scriptures) view SCA as the .... say, "innate nature" of Brahman, i.e. the nature of the Hindoo Gods (their Selves).
(ii) But by the very internal logic that many Hindus insisted on exactly these things which Romani finds contradictory <- that *very* logic dictates that the Hindoo Gods/the Hindoos' Parabrahman(/AtmA) being SCA is viewed separate from the guNas. (So it's not something that would be considered a product arising of the evolution of the guNas. And nirguNa = devoid of guNas/or: neutral state of guNas, i.e. an equilibrium of cancellation, but with the potential still existing - since we're told Prakriti itself is called Brahman.)
From (i) and (ii): this means the paramaatmaa is considered by such Hindus as being of the nature of SCA regardless of whether it is in nirguNa state or sadguNa manifested state.
Romani's fallacy is that merely because "things" [specifically: Other People's Business] appear illogical to *him*, that "therefore" these things "must be" illogical full-stop. And if you can't care less about things not making sense to him, he will threaten that you "dont have arguments and try to avoid the painful subject".
Of course, it still won't make sense to him (which is why one bothers to respond), as this is the 2nd time that I can recollect that he's raised this very topic. On this very thread.
"Tomorrow" he may raise it again. And threaten again. It's practically a matter to bet on.
(c ) So, Shankara parroted a strain of pre-existing Hindu views, just as he said, not Buddhism (and didn't agree with the latter on the very points besides. As seen for example in the quoteblock of 2 posts ago).
Romani then finds that (Shankara) "copied Buddhism in more trivial aspects":
[quote name='HareKrishna' date='06 November 2011 - 04:53 AM' timestamp='1320534934' post='113610']In more trivial aspects,he copied buddhistic style,like shaven head and beard and wearing the red garment,like buddhist monks.And unlike hindu philosophers that had beard and long hair,not to mention the red garment problem.[/quote]
- Buddhists didn't invent the shaven head/beard. Hindus had even several types of shaven heads among them. But it's true that Buddhist monks didn't have "beard and long hair", which is something Hindus did and still do have.
- As for the manjal orangish saffron garment of the Hindus - it's not "red" - Sadhus have long worn it.
Many a time, I've seen "bearded long haired" Sadhus - looking pretty much like Rishis to me - dressed in orange, with akshamaalas and bhasmam come to ask for bhikSha from vegetarian Hindu homes. Sometimes, they come on pilgrimage to the deep southern reaches all the way from some distant part of Bharatam. At other times, they are starting off from the south to the other parts of their motherland. And all they ever asked for was rice and at times water.
[And No: wandering ascetics asking for bhikSha does not imply "Buddhist monk". Long before them, Sadhus and mainstream brahmanas were doing so too - except that Hindus didn't do it for missionising purposes, but because they were Yatis/Yogis/on a Yatra. That this ancient Hindu phenomenon was well-recognised can be seen in how RavaNa imitated the pre-existing Hindu variant as a ruse to kidnap Sita.
To this day, Sadhus and mainstream brahmanas still go around, stopping to ask for Bhiksham - though the latter don't wear the colour as they are not Sadhus.]
Actually, apparently the borrowing of the robe has been shown to be in the opposite direction to that which Romani alleges. The following [color="#0000FF"]from Sudheer Birodkar's page on Buddhism[/color] (Birodkar apparently gets referenced by the Encyclopaedia Britannica - I think it was - as a reference site. Not that this would be a compliment, but since the Britannica is not known for being biased in favour of Hindus on anything, the following can be posted):
(d) As for Romani threatening "monotheism" - most of his examples are described by western scholars as IIRC *henotheism* instead. <- Still not right, but this is just to show that it ain't monotheism. (Although there are examples of monotheism in India: e.g. the "Brahmo Samaj" has developed into exactly this. Which is also why the opportunistic christian adherents among them insist that other Brahmos accept/realise that their invisible monogod is jeebusjehovallah.)
Anyway, there's no point explaining why the various examples given are not at monotheism. Romani has made the same statement lots of times before and no matter how often a response is given that explains why he is wrong (and where he went wrong), he - insisting he knows the religion better than Hindus - will repeat the same statement again. But then, Hindu religion does not compute to non-heathens.
(e) And lastly, about this:
[quote name='HareKrishna' date='04 November 2011 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1320347186' post='113588']Also ,in 12-13 century ,from Shankara teachings, appear monotheistic religions propagated by Ramanuja and Madhva [...] They are named Dvaita Vedanta(opposite to Shankara's Advaita Vedanta).From Dvaita Vedanta appear monotheistic religions like ramanadi,gaudya,iskcon(harekrsna),baps,shaiva siddhanta,ganapati monotheism(today mostly extinct) and other 5-6 monotheistic sects.
We can say that Shankara open the road to monotheism in hindu religion.[/quote]
Uh, how to say:
(i) Azhwars predate Ramanuja (and Shankara besides). And Ramanuja merely followed in their tradition, besides parroting the upaniShads for supporting evidence.
(ii) Shaiva Siddhantam predates Shankara BP (I can count 2 refs to Nayanmars in Shankara BP - in his SAL and in his contribution to the SL.)
[Same appears to hold for the bhaktas who recognised gaNapati as the Supreme Ultimate too - IIRC at least in TN, but not confirmed. But the pre-existing popularity would explain why Shankara felt inspired to compose stotras to Ganapati also.]
So no, Shankara - and hence Ramanuja and Madhva - did not "open the road" to the views (dubbed "monotheism" by Romani) of those Hindu traditions that pre-existed.
So, in summary:
1. Romani wrong: Shankara was NOT the one to first conclude that both nirguNa parabrahman and SCA hold true. (<- Plus, when you tie that with Hindu texts that equate jeevaatma with paramaatma and declare this to be SCA, it still fits.) It's there in the LU.
2. Romani does not get what those Hindus who claim "nirguna (as also saguNa) parabrahman=SCA" mean, because Romani's definition for guNa (and hence nirguNa) clashes with theirs.
3. Romani was in error about Hindus adopting shaven head from Buddhists. Even among brahmanas this is common.
4. Romani was mistaken in declaring that Hindus adopted something called a "red" robe from Buddhists. Hindus already had the saffron robe, which Buddhist monks apparently adapted for their robe.
5. Romani is in disagreement with many western definitions of various Hindu religious communities: he declares various Hindus as monotheists, while other more official western viewpoints often declare the same Hindus as henotheists. I'm not saying either is right, but Romani is definitely wrong. By definition of monotheism.
6. Romani declared that Shankara and then Ramanuja and Madhva gave rise to "monotheism" in Hindu religion, and implied that the two last-mentioned acharyas gave rise to Dvaita Vedanta "monotheisms" and that this was then subsequently visible in various Hindu groups. Except that - next to the "monotheism" bit (and the fact that all Dvaitam comes from ancient Hindu shruti - and said Acharyas argued their point from there) - Romani got relative chronology wrong: at least two of the groups (possible even three) demonstrably predate even Shankara.
Romani stuff -
[quote name='HareKrishna' date='06 November 2011 - 04:53 AM' timestamp='1320534934' post='113610']Yes,i know you dont have arguments and try to avoid the painful subject[/quote]
Is that right? Blackmail, huh?
But fine. I'll play along...
[quote name='HareKrishna' date='04 November 2011 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1320347186' post='113588']Shankara was completely illogical comparably whit Buddha. He said that Brahman is Sat-Cit-Ananda(which are attributes) than he completely contradict his first statement saying that Brahman has no attributes.
Again Shankara claim that Atman has no attributes,thing that made Atman to be the same thing whit buddhistic Non-Atman.[/quote]
(a) Now, Shankara parroted a pre-existing view - as seen in parts of various Hindu upaniShads - that the Atman is identical to the paramatman. <- And that reduces the proof required: making it easier for me in this case, as I just need to deal with *one* thing, not *two*.
In short: all I need to do is merely show that Shankara did NOT invent how "the paramaatma [Brahman] is (among other things) nirguNa and SCA", and then *that* will subsequently show that it was not *Shankara* who came up with it (as Romani claims: that it was Shankara who was "contradicting" himself and was completely illogical) but rather that Shankara was merely parroting (a pre-existing view of the) pre-existing Hindu religion on these very matters.
Easy.
So, let's take a simple example. As stated earlier, the LT and LS (which both belong together being part of the LU in the BP) predate Shankara.
=> LS: nirguNa, satya-j~nAnAnanda, and LT: sachchidAnanda.
(LT also: saguNa. LS similarly: roopa, aroopa etc.)
That suffices to make my point. But just to drive the other point home - that my proof is concluded as I don't need to say anything about the jeevAtman anymore - am grabbing this line from the VS upaniShat described as belonging to the SV:
Quote:sachchidAnAndamAtmAnam-advitIyaM-brahma-bhAvayed-ityupaniShat ||Likewise, Shankara parrots that the Atman is "chidananda" (being identical with Shiva).
So whichever Hindoos are to blame for/originated the views Romani is accusing Adi Shankara BP of originating, it ain't Shankara BP. Can blame it on Hindoo religion. These very views - *together* - existed there all along.
(b ) More on Romani's claim that
[quote name='HareKrishna' date='04 November 2011 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1320347186' post='113588']Brahman is Sat-Cit-Ananda(which are attributes) than he completely contradict his first statement saying that Brahman has no attributes"[/quote]
Have already seen in the LS and LT that it was not Shankara who was "contradicting" himself. As for Romani's other charge that SCA is "an attribute" - seen in how Romani implies in the rest of his statement that nirguNa means "no attributes": <- from this 2-part statement, it can be made out that Romani is claiming that SCA is owing to guNas. [And hence his conclusion that the lack of the latter (-> nirguNa/"Brahman has no attributes") means the former must be negated ("can't be SCA").]
BUT:
Though Romani insists that SCA "must" fall under "attributes", clearly it's his definition that is causing the contradiction. Because, in contrast,
(i) many a Hindu predating Shankara (and many after him still - and they all got these ideas from their ancient Hindu sacred scriptures) view SCA as the .... say, "innate nature" of Brahman, i.e. the nature of the Hindoo Gods (their Selves).
(ii) But by the very internal logic that many Hindus insisted on exactly these things which Romani finds contradictory <- that *very* logic dictates that the Hindoo Gods/the Hindoos' Parabrahman(/AtmA) being SCA is viewed separate from the guNas. (So it's not something that would be considered a product arising of the evolution of the guNas. And nirguNa = devoid of guNas/or: neutral state of guNas, i.e. an equilibrium of cancellation, but with the potential still existing - since we're told Prakriti itself is called Brahman.)
From (i) and (ii): this means the paramaatmaa is considered by such Hindus as being of the nature of SCA regardless of whether it is in nirguNa state or sadguNa manifested state.
Romani's fallacy is that merely because "things" [specifically: Other People's Business] appear illogical to *him*, that "therefore" these things "must be" illogical full-stop. And if you can't care less about things not making sense to him, he will threaten that you "dont have arguments and try to avoid the painful subject".
Of course, it still won't make sense to him (which is why one bothers to respond), as this is the 2nd time that I can recollect that he's raised this very topic. On this very thread.
"Tomorrow" he may raise it again. And threaten again. It's practically a matter to bet on.
(c ) So, Shankara parroted a strain of pre-existing Hindu views, just as he said, not Buddhism (and didn't agree with the latter on the very points besides. As seen for example in the quoteblock of 2 posts ago).
Romani then finds that (Shankara) "copied Buddhism in more trivial aspects":
[quote name='HareKrishna' date='06 November 2011 - 04:53 AM' timestamp='1320534934' post='113610']In more trivial aspects,he copied buddhistic style,like shaven head and beard and wearing the red garment,like buddhist monks.And unlike hindu philosophers that had beard and long hair,not to mention the red garment problem.[/quote]
- Buddhists didn't invent the shaven head/beard. Hindus had even several types of shaven heads among them. But it's true that Buddhist monks didn't have "beard and long hair", which is something Hindus did and still do have.
- As for the manjal orangish saffron garment of the Hindus - it's not "red" - Sadhus have long worn it.
Many a time, I've seen "bearded long haired" Sadhus - looking pretty much like Rishis to me - dressed in orange, with akshamaalas and bhasmam come to ask for bhikSha from vegetarian Hindu homes. Sometimes, they come on pilgrimage to the deep southern reaches all the way from some distant part of Bharatam. At other times, they are starting off from the south to the other parts of their motherland. And all they ever asked for was rice and at times water.
[And No: wandering ascetics asking for bhikSha does not imply "Buddhist monk". Long before them, Sadhus and mainstream brahmanas were doing so too - except that Hindus didn't do it for missionising purposes, but because they were Yatis/Yogis/on a Yatra. That this ancient Hindu phenomenon was well-recognised can be seen in how RavaNa imitated the pre-existing Hindu variant as a ruse to kidnap Sita.
To this day, Sadhus and mainstream brahmanas still go around, stopping to ask for Bhiksham - though the latter don't wear the colour as they are not Sadhus.]
Actually, apparently the borrowing of the robe has been shown to be in the opposite direction to that which Romani alleges. The following [color="#0000FF"]from Sudheer Birodkar's page on Buddhism[/color] (Birodkar apparently gets referenced by the Encyclopaedia Britannica - I think it was - as a reference site. Not that this would be a compliment, but since the Britannica is not known for being biased in favour of Hindus on anything, the following can be posted):
Quote:The yellow coloured robes that the Buddhist Bhikkus donned were borrowed from the Saffron robes of the Hindu ascetic. Although as for the Buddhists the yellow colour was chosen to represent an autumn leaf which was once green but has inevitably turned yellow in conformation with the law that everything born has to decay and pass away.
(d) As for Romani threatening "monotheism" - most of his examples are described by western scholars as IIRC *henotheism* instead. <- Still not right, but this is just to show that it ain't monotheism. (Although there are examples of monotheism in India: e.g. the "Brahmo Samaj" has developed into exactly this. Which is also why the opportunistic christian adherents among them insist that other Brahmos accept/realise that their invisible monogod is jeebusjehovallah.)
Anyway, there's no point explaining why the various examples given are not at monotheism. Romani has made the same statement lots of times before and no matter how often a response is given that explains why he is wrong (and where he went wrong), he - insisting he knows the religion better than Hindus - will repeat the same statement again. But then, Hindu religion does not compute to non-heathens.
(e) And lastly, about this:
[quote name='HareKrishna' date='04 November 2011 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1320347186' post='113588']Also ,in 12-13 century ,from Shankara teachings, appear monotheistic religions propagated by Ramanuja and Madhva [...] They are named Dvaita Vedanta(opposite to Shankara's Advaita Vedanta).From Dvaita Vedanta appear monotheistic religions like ramanadi,gaudya,iskcon(harekrsna),baps,shaiva siddhanta,ganapati monotheism(today mostly extinct) and other 5-6 monotheistic sects.
We can say that Shankara open the road to monotheism in hindu religion.[/quote]
Uh, how to say:
(i) Azhwars predate Ramanuja (and Shankara besides). And Ramanuja merely followed in their tradition, besides parroting the upaniShads for supporting evidence.
(ii) Shaiva Siddhantam predates Shankara BP (I can count 2 refs to Nayanmars in Shankara BP - in his SAL and in his contribution to the SL.)
[Same appears to hold for the bhaktas who recognised gaNapati as the Supreme Ultimate too - IIRC at least in TN, but not confirmed. But the pre-existing popularity would explain why Shankara felt inspired to compose stotras to Ganapati also.]
So no, Shankara - and hence Ramanuja and Madhva - did not "open the road" to the views (dubbed "monotheism" by Romani) of those Hindu traditions that pre-existed.
So, in summary:
1. Romani wrong: Shankara was NOT the one to first conclude that both nirguNa parabrahman and SCA hold true. (<- Plus, when you tie that with Hindu texts that equate jeevaatma with paramaatma and declare this to be SCA, it still fits.) It's there in the LU.
2. Romani does not get what those Hindus who claim "nirguna (as also saguNa) parabrahman=SCA" mean, because Romani's definition for guNa (and hence nirguNa) clashes with theirs.
3. Romani was in error about Hindus adopting shaven head from Buddhists. Even among brahmanas this is common.
4. Romani was mistaken in declaring that Hindus adopted something called a "red" robe from Buddhists. Hindus already had the saffron robe, which Buddhist monks apparently adapted for their robe.
5. Romani is in disagreement with many western definitions of various Hindu religious communities: he declares various Hindus as monotheists, while other more official western viewpoints often declare the same Hindus as henotheists. I'm not saying either is right, but Romani is definitely wrong. By definition of monotheism.
6. Romani declared that Shankara and then Ramanuja and Madhva gave rise to "monotheism" in Hindu religion, and implied that the two last-mentioned acharyas gave rise to Dvaita Vedanta "monotheisms" and that this was then subsequently visible in various Hindu groups. Except that - next to the "monotheism" bit (and the fact that all Dvaitam comes from ancient Hindu shruti - and said Acharyas argued their point from there) - Romani got relative chronology wrong: at least two of the groups (possible even three) demonstrably predate even Shankara.