[Advaita-l] Adwaita and God.

Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 3 10:52:16 CDT 2010

Dear Shrikantaji,

I think you have not noticed that nobody said that Yoga is not different from Vedanta. They are definitely at diferent levels. However it is my understanding that the OM in Yoga and OM in Vedanta are the same. Can you show any shastriya reference where these two OMs are different?
In the  Yoga of Patanjali the Purusha gets freed from the clutches of Prakrii by meditating on OM (Ishvara) but it is not said that the dvaitahood disappears. In Vedanta it is
 shown that the Purusha and OM (Brahman) are not different and thus the Dvaitahood disappears (only from the Advaitic point of view). Sometimes the different terminologies used in different darshanas  make people confused. For example what is  Tanmatra in Sankhya is not called by the same name in Vedanta and you must be aware of that. Such differences in terminologies confuse even the great scholars but not a scholar at the level of Adi Sankaracharya and he knew his subject well. Ishvara in Yoga and Brahman in Vedanta are the same and that is irrespective of whether Gaudapadacharya sees Ishvara and Brahman in Vedanta as the same or not. The Vedanta is the teaching at the ultimate level but one cannot wish away the importance of Yoga. Lord had asked Arjuna to be a Yogi and had given several definitions of Yoga and one should be careful in understanding the contexts the Lord was referring to. 
If you are convinced that Adi Sankaracharya's guru Govindapada was not an incarnation of Patanjali it would be nice if you tell us the proof you have from Rambhadra Dixit to show that Gaudapadacharya was the disciple of Patanjali. Just assertions do not satisfy people. However  don't you think that people would not have linked Govindapada with Patanjali unless there were similarities in their views. 
May I request you kindly to read my mail carefully in case you desire to talk about the matter in that. Firstly kindly do not forget that the argument on Shunya from the etymological viewpoint came  in support of the statement that Lord Buddha's teaching at the highest level of Mahayana was not Nihilistic. I made it very clear about my understanding and mentioned that Nagarjuna,
 who lived five centuries after Lord Buddha, shouted from the rooftop 
that Shunya is not non-existence. I am talking about the Mahayana 
Buddhism. I told you what  Shunya etymologically is.. Kindly tell me what according to you is the etymology of Shunya if you think of it differently. Etymologically Shunya means expansion (and the consequent disappearance
 from a fixed form) and that I understand that this matches the definition of 
Vishnu too. If you do not agree then let us agree to disagree.
It is improper to bring in Hinayana into the discussions as I made it clear earlier by bringoing in the statements of Nagarjuna that we are discussing at the Mahayana level. May be you are not aware of the differences in  teachings at the Hinayana and Mahayana levels.
Further did I anywhere say that the creation came from Shunya? 
You said about
 reference in Vedanta that Vishnu is not Shunya. Will you kindly cite the reference?

Finally I assure you that  I am not questioning your scholarship and who am I to do that?


Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

--- On Wed, 11/3/10, srikanta
 <srikanta at nie.ac.in> wrote:

From: srikanta <srikanta at nie.ac.in>
Subject: [Advaita-l] Adwaita and God.
To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Date: Wednesday, November 3, 2010, 1:52 AM

Dear Sunil Bhattacharjee,
The system of Yoga(Patanjali) has been discussed and critically analysed
by Shankara Bhagawathpada in his Brahmasutra bhashya and in his Upanishad
Bhashya.It is the view of the Bhagawathpada that Yoga is diferent from
Adwaita vedanta.In Patanjali Yoga it is still Dwaitha despite its
ashtangayoga marga.Adi shankara's Guru,GovindaBhagawathpada is not an
reincarnation of Patanjali.Infact,in the book written by Ramabhadra
Dixitha,Acharya Gaudapada,the grandpreceptor of Shankara was a disciple of
Patanjali,from whom Gaudapada learnt the Mahabhashya.The
 state of
Yoga is not Turiya,as you have said.In the Bhagawadgitha all the other
systems have been discussed,but it is in favour of Adwaita.
In your earlier posting you have said that Vishnu is "Shunya".this is
wrong.From "Shunya",no creation can come.Vishnusahasranama says,"Om
vishvam vishnu vashatkaram bhutha,bhavya,bhavat prabhu",which means this
Vishva is ancreation(explosion?)of Vishnu,who is in the past,present and
the future.Kathopanishath says,"Ishano Bhutha bhavyasya".We have various
statements in the vedantha which says that Vishnu is not shunya.
Buddhism which was founded by Buddha,later split into many branches.The
Hinayana believes in the existence of the world,like the dwaitins.The
mahayana,further split into various branches like,Teravada,Yogachara
vijnanavada of Vasubandhu,Dignaga,Dharmakeerthi,Sunya vada of Nagarjuna
who started the Pratityasamutpada,which he said was the real teaching
vajrayana,Tantrik Buddhism which incorporated Hindu Gods like
Yoginis,symbols,diagrams etc.The Tibetian form of Buddhism(Lamaism)has the
chant,"Om Manipadme Hum",how did this word,"OM'entered into Buddhism?They
have also "Hayagriva worship"which is purely a Hindu worship.

Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

 unsubscribe or change your

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list