Sri ShankarAcharya is not Maniman - 2

In the following video, the Dvaita scholar is continuing to provide more reasons to prove Sri Adi Shankaracharya is an incarnation of the demon, Maniman   : 

ಅದ್ವೈತಿ ಭಕ್ತನು ಜಗನ್ಮಾತೆಯರ ಪಾತಿವ್ರತ್ಯವನ್ನು ನಾಶ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಾನೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದ ಶಂಕರರು ಗೌರವಕ್ಕೆ ಅರ್ಹರೇ?

Here is a high level summary of the above video:

In the Soundarya lahari, Acharya Shankara has written that a true Advaitic devotee of the Devi, will get to become equal to Brahma and Vishnu and will enjoy the company of their consort godesses like Saraswathi, Lakshmi and Rathi and will even attract them with his beauty, so much that they would even shirk from their Paativratyam or chastity. This is obviously demonic and proves that Shankara is the demon, Maniman.

Advaitin's Reply: 

This may apparantly appear to be demonic when the text is seen through the lens of Rajas and Tamas. But from the sattvic view point, the Advaitic Bhakta is only a child of the divine parents - Parvathi or Maya and Parameshwara. The Advaitic devotee who is actually a jnAni is just a witness for the passtimes of the Ishwara and His mAyA shakti, manifesting in the form of all the many gods and godesses like Brahma-Saraswathi, Vishnu-Lakshmi and Manmatha-Rathi and so on. The devotion of such a devotee-JnAni who is a non-doer and non-enjoyer (with no karthrutva or bhoktrutva ) is nothing but an expression of pure love to the divinity, similar to Gopika bhakti towards Sri Krishna. 

In the Rasa Leela of Bhagavatam, All Gopika sthrees, left their husbands and family duties and came to enjoy the company of Sri Krishna. Did they lose their chastity? That kind of spiritual love or pure devotion should never be reduced or compared to the mundane human lust. 

A pure devotee could be considered "equal" to Brahma, Vishnu and Manmatha only in similarity of their auspicious gunas or attributes. Such a devotee's sankalpa aligns or becomes one with that of Ishwara, which is always directed towards loka kalyana, jagat or dharma rakshana. The entire world of nature or prakruti is the Mother and Ishwara as the husband, is her protector. Like wise, Advaita jnAni bhakta who as their child, is also a protector of Dharma or Jagat or Prakruthi who is in the form of his mother. The Vishnu Purana clearly states that all feminine forms are of Lakshmi and all masculine forms are of Vishnu. All the godesses like Saraswathi, Lakshmi, Rathi and so on are different forms of the mother only for an Advaita jnAni-Bhakta. So as a protector of his Mother, he can be considered as her "husband" also. The words 'sapatna" or "samana" in Soundarya lahari, should only be interpreted in this sattvic way. There is only pure unadulterated love or prema between Ishwara and his consort in the spiritual realm with no tinge of earthly "lust". There is no place for earthly human lust at all in the spiritual realm.

The Vedic mantra that is used in marriages states - "AtmA vai putra nAmAsi" which means that the husband himself is born as the son, from his consort. The devotee is a child and Ishwara and his consort Shakti are his divine parents. The reference to the advaitic devotee "enjoying" the company of the godesses should only be taken as a child enjoying the company of the mother. The so called "shirking from pAtivratyam or chastity" of the divine mothers, is nothing but the pure motherly love and appreciation of the devotee child, who, due to his constant contemplation, acquires similar gunas and attributes of his divine father, Ishwara! 

So, there is no such thing as shirking from Paativratyam or chastity, on the part of the divine mothers and there is no such thing as advaitic devotee becoming equal to Brahma or Vishnu.

Objection: Then why did Shankara not explicitly state the Advaitic devotee as the child of the Mother? He himself has interpreted the word "sapatna" as a "shatru" or enemy, elsewhere. So the above interpretation goes against that.

Explanation: There is no need to explicitly state that as there is only unadulterated pure love in the spiritual realm. Pure devotees always take Sattvic meanings from all the scriptural statements. Even then, in the act of protecting His mother (Parkruthi / Nature / Dharma) Advaitic jnAni bhakta could also be considered as a "enemy" or "competitor" for Ishwara in a positive sense, because such a jnAni, unlike Ishwara, will not hate or punish his haters also. Jnani's always have unconditional anugraha for the entire universe. They do not hate their haters, just like sage Vasishta who tolerated all the hardhips caused by Vishwamitra without any kind of retaliation! 

Objection: In that case it is also possible to justify the ghastly act of Duryodhana to unrobe Draupadi, by somehow interpreting it in a "sattwic" manner. Are Advaitins ready to do that?

Explanation: Duryodhana's adharmic act to unrobe Draupadi is in the level of the body which is physical, motivated by kama or lust. While the communion of an Advaitic bhakta with the Ishta devata is spiritual, where the jiva chaitanya is merging with the Brahma chaitanya, which is always of the nature of pure love or sacrifice. They both are diametrically opposed to each other.

So Dvaitin's interpretation of the Soundarya lahari slokas is wrong and their claim that Sri Shankara is an incarnation of the demon Maniman stands refuted!

Namaste

Suresh

Sri ShankarAcharya is not Maniman - 1

 

In this Youtube Video - ಅದ್ವೈತಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಅದ್ವೈತವನ್ನು ಶಂಕರರ ವಿಷಯದಲ್ಲಿಯೇ ಅನುಷ್ಠಾನ ಮಾಡಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ!- a Dvaita scholar is trying to claim Sri Shankara is indeed a demon by name Maniman.

Here is a highlevel summary of the above Video:

The video presents a critique of Advaita Vedanta philosophy from the perspective of Dvaita (Madhva) philosophy. It questions why Advaitins object to Madhva texts identifying Adi Shankara as an incarnation of the demon Maniman, pointing out that under Advaita's own core premise—where everything, including all beings, is ultimately the one Parabrahma—both Shankara and Maniman are non-different from Brahman. Ultimately, the speaker argues that Advaita philosophy fails to be practically applicable (anushthana) in real life, whereas Dvaita provides a consistent framework for spiritual practice and worship.

Dvaitin's first argument:

As per the transitive law in Mathemeatics, if a = b and c = b, then it follows that a = c. Accordingly, if Shankara = Brahman and Maniman = Brahman, then, what is the problem for Advaitins in accepting Shankara = Maniman?

Advaitin's reply: 

The above is a very childish argument, because based on the same logic, it follows that even Madhva = Maniman, and every Maadhva = Maniman! 

The Advaitic Brahman is the Universal Self in which every particular self is inseparably rooted. There is no separate identification for the inividual self at all. All names and forms like Shankara and Maniman only point to this universal, non-dual Self which is beyond names and forms, and is everywhere! Every soul or jiva is given a name after taking birth. The soul has no name or form by itself! 

The difference in names, forms and gunas or attributes are not denied and accepted as transactional reality and from that point, there is no "equality" as such between any particular name or form in transaction. So, Dvaitin's claim that Shankara is an incarnation of demon Maniman, based on the non-dual Self, stands refuted! This is not even supported by any scriptural statement, whatsoever.

Dvaitin's second argument:

We Dvaitins, the followers of Madhva, accept there is no swagata bheda between any form of Vishnu. We accept aikya or oneness in all the infinite forms of Vishnu - like the Matsya, Kurma, Varaaha, Narasimha, Raama, Krishna and so on. Likewise, we accept oneness between all the many forms of Shiva - like the Shiva, Rudra, Kashi Vishwanatha, Somanaatheshwara, Kailaseshwara, Ashwatthaama, Durvasa, Shukamuni and so on.  Similarly we accept oneness in the form of Vayu, Hanuman, Bheema and so on...

We Madhvas meditate on the above oneness of deities. Can Advaitins do the same with Shankara and Maniman? Advaitin's cannot even practice what they preach!!

Advaitin's reply:

Advaitins meditate on the oness of the entire universe (Vishwa), which includes all names and forms, with the Atman which is explicitly taught in the Mandukya upanishat. They SEE the oneness in the existence of the entire universe in the Self and the Self in the Universe which is explicitly taught in the Bhagavad Gita (6-29) and is very much experiential also. They SEE Brahman through all names and forms. But difference in names, forms and qualities is accepted in transaction. So the oneness in all the Vishnu's forms, Shiva's forms and other devata's forms are valid as transactional reality in Advaita also. Ultimately the oneness of the Ishwara with the entire universe is also accepted as per BhagavadGita, VishnuSahasranAma dhyana sloka and Purusha Sukta. Are Dvaitins ready to accept this universal form of the Lord? If yes, then welcome to Advaita as there cannot be any second entity outside this cosmic form of the Lord! This could be argued as the VishishtAdvaitic view, but it is the stepping stone for Advaita.

Dvaitins preach Ishwara is swatantra (independent) and Jiva is paratantra (dependent). In the transactional world, every jiva is absolutely dependent on the universe for existence. So it follows that the entire universe is Ishwara and all jivas are not external to Him. Every name and form has no separate existence apart from the Universe. When the entire Universe is realized as the ONE Supreme, universal form of Ishwara, Advaita automatically gets established. 

If Dvaitin's accept the oneness of Vishnu who is present in all the many jivas and jada, as their inner Self (paramAtma) - it leads to Advaita only, as the self (jiva or atman) has no separate identification apart from Ishwara/Brahman who is everywhere. Every name/form, arises, remains and returns back to the Universe which is verily Ishwara / Brahman!

Actually Rakshasas hate Devatas and Vishnu who is well known as Davata pakshapati (partial to Devatas). Rakshas also hate Yagya which simply means deva puja or worship of devatas. So Rakshasas are actually bheda vadis or dvaitins. They can never be Advaitins who are Ikya vadins. So Acharya Shankara and Advaitins can never be identified as Rakshasas. 

Iswhwara on the other hand who is establihed as the SarvAntaryAmi Atma (All pervading and indwelling Self), irrespective of whether one is a Deva or Asura, should be an Advaitin as He keeps everything within Himself and there is nothing outside Him at all.

So, the claim that Sri Shankara is an incarnation of the demon Maniman stands refuted! If Vishnu is identified as the All pervading and indwelling Self of all - it leads to Advaita only. Dvaita is indirectly teaching Advaita!  

 

Namaste

Suresh