Removing The Sheen From Buddhism

[HareKrishna]

If Shankara was only parroting then why is so famous?

Yes,the basic conce[pts predate Shankara(as if that was the problem),thats dont change the



fact that Upanishads themselves are contradictory,whit disparate notions that Shankara mixed



in a strange way.

Upanishads go from one contradiction to another An husky try to solve the problem by going



Iskcon style ,sugesting(like Iskcon) that Nirguna mean only whithout the 3 gunas.While



Upanishads understand this as refering to all atributes(nut just the 3 basic



atributes).Shankara also understand by Nirguna ,lack of all atributes(not just



satva,rajas,tamas).

Ramanuja also is critical of Shankara on this point,sugesting that Brahman cant be SCA and



Nirguna at the same time.

Husky is wrong again when he confuse dvaita whit monotheism.He should know that hindu



monotheism can be advaita(like ramanuja's) or dvaita(like Madhva's).The proper term is



vishishta(whit atributes) or avishishta(lack of them).Thats why Ramanuja call his doctrine



vishishta advaita(Advaita whit atributes) ,doctrine that suport a personal allpowerful



God(which Ramanuja believe is Vishnu) and make all other gods ,lesser, not-allpowerfull



godsFor him Vishnu is The God and all other gods are servants of Vishnu.

Is not any ishtadeva doctrine here ,Vishnu is not the biggest just in the mind of the



believer(as ishtadeva implies) but real and independent .

Maybe alvars(alvars not azhwars,tamil,not tamizh,speaking english here?) were ishtadevas and



see their favorite god as The One ,but this is not the case for Vedanta scholars mentioned



before.Maybe even ancient bhagavatas(see Heliodorus Pillar) were ishtadevas ,whit their



Vasudeva,the god of gods.Maybe,we can not be sure.But is sure that later vedantins were



monotheists.Not henotheists(ishtadevas in a more fluid definition of the word).