[Advaita-l] Question on Mayavada

Venkatesh Murthy vmurthy36 at gmail.com
Tue Nov 23 06:13:09 CST 2010

If said Padma Purana Sloka is genuine why  Ramanuja does not refer it
once in Sri Bhashya?  He wrote laghu Purvapaksha laghu Siddhanta, Maha
Purvapaksha of Advaita and Maha Siddhanta but no mention of Padma
Purana Sloka.He spends large amount of time and energy in Sri Bhashya
he should have mentioned it.

Conclusion - The Padma Purana Sloka is later added by miscreants.

You can check yourself


Please think.



On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Rajaram Venkataramani
<rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the elaborate responses to my question. It is difficult to
> respond to them individually. The reponsed fall in to three categories:
>   1. The padma purana verses are bogus. I am okay to accept it if  one
>   is able to prove interpolation. I have heard better arguments from outside
>   this forum to support this but none scholarly enough. The strongest one is
>   that there are four recensions of Padma Purana andthe said verses appear
>   only in the Bengali edition. But when I enquired I realized that such a
>   statement was not based on evidence but anti-gaudiya sentiment. None of the
>   members on this forum made that argument but tried to prove intterpolation
>   on two counts. One, the verse shows misunderstanding of advaitam. But that
>   is not the case because the description of total renunciation, jIva brahma
>   aikyam etc. are correct. Two, the verse contradicts the upanishadic
>   conclusion of advaitam by condemning jIva Brahma Aikyam. jIva Brahma aikyam
>   or sayujyam is not unique to advaitam. Gaudiyas also also accept abheda
>   bhakti (so'ham and gopalaham) and sublation of the world during maha
>   pralaya. The problem is with declaring that Ishwara is sublated on
>   mukti. There is no shruti or smrti statement to say that Ishwara is sublated
>   on attainment of jnana.
>   2. The padma purana verses do not refer to Sankara. Someone on the forum
>   supported the stand that it could refer to Ramanujacharya saying that when
>   the verse is clear there is no need to look at the following or preceding
>   statements. As a smartha brahmin, a son of a staunch advaitins and a devotee
>   of Sankara, I am dismayed by such shallow arguments. If some one says,
>   "Rama, an incarnation of Vishnu, appeared at Sita's svayamvara. He wielded
>   the axe in a manner that scared kshatriyas assembled there". If one leaves
>   the second sentence, it will not refer to Parasurama.  Another support came
>   for this that this is a complex argument that it could refer to but not that
>   it does. The point is it could but it does not because the descriptions only
>   match Sankara. When what does not is considered as if it could, it is not
>   complex but trivial and convoluted. To say that it does not refer to
>   Sankara, one has to show how the conclusion of the verses are incorrect and
>   then show who it refers. If it refers to more than one, it is still
>   necessary to show who it most closely resembles.
>   3. The padma purana verses contradict Sruti and Smrti (kshetrajna capi
>   mam viddhi). If a puranic verse contradicts sruti or smrti, it should be
>   rejected. The kshetrajna verse can equally well be interpreted to show that
>   Ishwara is distinct from the kshetrajna (jiva) who knows idam sariram (body
>   in singular) because he knows all the bodies (sarva kshetreshu bharatha). If
>   the term sariram in singulaar in the previous verse can refer to class of
>   bodies, there is no fault in kshetrajna referring to a class of kshetrajnas
>   in the next. There are statements in the shruti that declare Ishwara as the
>   controller of jiva and prakrti. For one who says that Ishwara is a product
>   of Maya, these statements of sastras are ultimately false because Ishwara
>   does not exist in the ultimate sense but the statement of Sankara brahma
>   satyam jagat mithyam is not.  The Lord who is bestowed with unobstructed
>   power of jnana speaks of his prakrti distinct from Himself (ashtada bhinna
>   prakrti). Those argue that Ishwara is a product of Maya seem to reach a
>   state the Lord never does though one with Him!
> Sri Jaladhar Vyas mentioned that jnana is not a subtractive process. If it
> is a view supported by what Sankara says, then it is an argument that
> Advaitam is not Mayavada. But the rest of the group seems to believe that
> Brahman is distinct from Ishwara, Jiva and Jagat, which are results of Maya.
> On realizing Brahman, none of these exist. Does the ocean know "I am the
> ocean. I am the wave" or does it not. Does clay know I am pot? Does gold
> know I am necklace, I am ring? Unless Brahman of Advaitam is jadam like gold
> or clay, it should know I am Vishnu. I am Narayana. It is not a knowledge of
> an external entity but of itself - advaya jnanam.  But on hearing what
> people say on this forum, it seems Brahman does not know or in better terms
> have jnapti (undifferentiated knowledge).
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list