.......
P.S. There is an emoticon there for no apparent reason, where there should be the letter B with a parenthesis and there is nothing I can do to remove it!

Continued... by Dr C. S Shah

[In Bhakti] the aspirant realizes the beauty and bliss of his beloved God (Ishta). [He experiences] the bliss of nearness to God.

The purpose of Jnana Meditation, and Karma, viz. A) to attenuate the ego, B.) to control the mind and the senses, and C) to control Prana, is easily achieved in the silence and softness of Bhakti. The Chosen Ideal bestows His love and Grace on His beloved devotee without consideration of caste and creed, education and wisdom, money and power. Thus, we find Shabari and Hanuman, Mirabai and Surdas, Kabir and Eknath, Tukaram and Chokha in the same category of blessed devotees irrespective of vast differences in their upbringing, educational qualifications, and social hierarchy. They entered into the states of altered consciousness while thinking of God with form, as their Ishta. These devotees believed the reality of God as the final and obvious truth. For them there was no question of any doubt in this regard. And equally true is the fact that the person-impersonal Reality indeed came to life and presented Itself before all of these devotees, sometimes as a helper, sometime as a friend, or a benefactor, or sometime as graceful Ishta.

What a different picture of the bhakti of Advaitins than I learned ...

.......

"I think something similar happens with Caitanyaism especially in the works of Sanatana. He pushes the realization that love of Krsna is the real goal and that once one has that it doesn't matter where he or she is or with whom. The love experienced as rasa becomes larger than Krsna and in fact replaces Krsna. One with prema doesn't need Krsna. In fact, Krsna's presence brings the experience of prema down to a lower level" (Nitai) .

What a different picture of the bhakti of Advaitins than I learned in ISKCON! From them I always had the impression that their worship was a bit of make believe or dress-up, where they simply imagined a personal Deity as a device or means to an end with no real belief in the Person they were worshipping. It was presented as a sham, with the ultimate goal to throw the Deity off the altar and climb on themselves as "God" once they had fully "realized" that as fact. God, of course, in the Supreme sense, not as in a little part and parcel sense.

So whatever devotional activities they engaged in were ignored as fake, with no real love or devotion.

What an arrogant view!

Thank you for guiding us in this exploration of what bhakti means in other traditions.

Mahaprabhu Shri Vallabhacharyaji was the last amongst the recent known Acharyas in India. Hence, there must be some special features in the sect developed by Him. He must also had to face criticism, dialogues/debates with the scholars of other sects to establish the worth and originality of philosophy of our sect. This worth has become extinct with passage of time and today our Marg is practiced as a Marg of Mandir, Darshan, Manorath, and Prasad. Hence, it has become absolutely necessary to re-establish the worth and originality of our sect.

These are the basic delineations you will get from Philosophy of Indian Religion Encyclopedias and they are true and valid. But as is the case with experiential traditions like Sankara's Advaita there is usually more to it than that. When I am talking about Advaita I am not only talking about the modern represantitives even though my quotes here are from them, this is a continuation of more meticulous discussions that took place on another forum. I do know that when Iskcon refers to Mayavadis they are not only talking about Sankara like you say, but about Vivekananda and Ramakrishna too. As you know Prabhupada refers to Ramakrishna as the Mayavadi who poisoned all of Bengal. There are other examples...

It is true that the Advaitans of today have had to discuss Sankarite thought in dialogue with later thought in order to explain his teaching in light of all of the new philosophies that came after him, something that Sankara himself obviously could not do. This does not mean they are not Sankarites. One would think that Ramakrsna and Vivekananda would  understand Sankara's writings better and in a more experiential way than polemic opponents out to form a new school, and out to prove the worth of this new school by contrasting its uniqueness and originality vis a vis the school that came before it. I came across a quote from a Pushti-Marg site illustrating just that, this need to frame oneself as a purveyor of originality, perhaps blurring the intricacy of what the former school was really saying in the process:

An example of blurring what the former school was saying in the process is when I heard somebody say that in Sivadvaita and Shuddadvaita there is nothing but God, in this world and the others, and contrasting this to the Advaita of Sankara which apparently does not contain this realization, in order to show how those other schools are unique (and by extention special and valuable- though the latter was not implied by that person). I have responded to this elsewhere, as I have responded to many of the things you say here about Advaita in intricate detail in another forum, I can PM you the relevant threads.

On a fast note about things touched upon before, though we might read that Sankara's Advaita posits Nirguna as the ultimate, do you really think that what Sankara means by Nirguna is what you imagine that he means by it. Do you think that in the final stage he ultimately sees existience hierarchically where one realization is dismissed for a "higher" one? Does that sound like a very "purely nondualistic" thing to say?

Just the act of saying it dismisses the school from being "purely nondualistic," because you are creating dualisms with this sorting and numbering. Since when does pure nonduality posit such binaries. Do you think that what Sankara means by nonduality is a state that *excludes* duality or sees it as an inferior means to an end.

Ramakrishna and Vivekananda, the most radically so-called "impersonalist" Advaitains, do not think so (Sharma.) That would be self-defeating. I know that this problematizes some people's understanding of Advaita, especially if it is an understanding that is deduced from an encyclopedic comparison with the other schools of Vedanta. There is more on the other forum about these issues...

Schools of Vedanta
By Swami Sivananda
The Divine Life Society, Rishikesh

Introduction
The Sutras (Brahma-Sutras) or aphorisms of Vyasa are the basis of the Vedanta philosophy. These Sutras have been variously explained by different commentators. From these interpretations have arisen several schools of philosophy, viz., Kevala Advaita philosophy of Sri Sankaracharya, the philosophy of Qualified Monism or Visishtadvaita of Sri Ramanujacharya, the Dvaita philosophy of Sri Madhavacharya, the Bhedabheda philosophy of Sri Nimbarkacharya, the Suddha Advaita (pure non-dual) philosophy of Sri Vallabhacharya. The Achintya Bhedabheda philosophy of Sri Chaitanya and the Siddhanta philosophy of Sri Meykandar.

Each system of philosophy treats of three main problems, viz., God, world and soul. The several schools of philosophy are only different attempts at discovering the Truth.

The different Acharyas, belonging to distinctly different branches, became founders of sects and great system-builders. The followers of these schools sought to prove their orthodoxy by interpreting the Vedanta Sutras in accordance with their own tenets, showing their claims to be based on, and regularly evolved from, ancient tradition.

Sruti – The Common Basis Of All Schools

The Vedanta schools base their doctrines on the Upanishads. The Upanishads, the Vedanta Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita are regarded as the authoritative scriptures. They are called Prasthana-Traya Granthas. Different commentators of the Vedanta Sutras have formed different views on the true nature of Brahman (the Supreme Reality), but they all base their theories on the supreme authority of the Sruti (Vedas – Upanishads). To reject any one of these views is to reject the Sruti itself.

The Three Main Schools Of Metaphysical Thought

Sri Sankara, Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhava are the most illustrious commentators on the Vedanta Sutras (Brahma-Sutras). These commentators have tried to establish theories of their own, such as Advaita-Vada (unqualified non-dualism or uncompromising or rigorous monism), Visishtadvaita-Vada (differentiated or qualified monism) and Dvaita-Vada (strict or rigorous dualism). Sankaracharya had in view, while preparing his commentary, chiefly the purpose of combating the baneful effects which blind ritualism had brought to bear upon Hinduism.

Dualism (Dvaita), Qualified Monism (Visishtadvaita) and Monism (Advaita) are the three main schools of metaphysical thought. They are all stages on the way to the Ultimate Truth, viz., Para-Brahman (the Supreme Reality). They are rungs on the ladder of Yoga. They are not at all contradictory. On the contrary, they are complimentary to one another. These stages are harmoniously arranged in a graded series of spiritual experiences. Dualism, Qualified Monism, Pure Monism – all these culminate eventually in the Advaita Vedantic realisation of the Absolute or the Transcendental Trigunatita Ananta Brahman.

Madhava said: "Man is the servant of God", and established his Dvaita philosophy.

Ramanuja said: "Man is a ray or spark of God", and established his Visishtadvaita philosophy.

Sankara said: "Man is identical with Brahman or the Eternal Soul: and established his Kevala Advaita philosophy.

The Dvaitin wants to serve the Lord as a servant. He wishes to play with the Lord. He wishes to taste the sugar-candy.

A Visishtadvaitin wants to become like Lord Narayana and enjoy the divine. He does not wish to merge himself or become identical with the Lord. He wishes to remain as a spark.

A Jnani (jnana = knowledge) merges himself in Brahman. He wishes to become identical with Brahman. He wants to become the sugar-candy itself.

People have different temperaments and different capacities. So, different schools of philosophy are also necessary. The highest rung is Advaita philosophy. A Dualist or Qualified Monist eventually becomes a Kevala Advaitin.

Different Conceptions of Brahman only different approaches to the Reality

Nimbarkacharya reconciles all the different views regarding the Lord taken up by Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhava and others, and proves that their views are all true with reference to the particular aspect of Brahman dealt with by them, each in his own way. Sankara has taken Reality in Its transcendental aspect, while Ramanuja has taken It in Its immanent aspect, principally; but Nimbarka has adjusted the different views taken by the different commentators.

Sri Sankaracharya, Sri Ramanujacharya, Sri Madhavacharya, Sri Vallabhacharya and Sri Nimbarkacharya – all were great souls. We cannot say that Sri Sankara was greater than Sri Ramanuja, or Sri Vallabha was greater than Nimbarka, etc. All were Avatara Purushas. Each one incarnated himself on this earth to complete a definite mission, to preach and propagate certain doctrines which were necessary to help the growth of certain type of people, who flourished at a certain period, who were in a certain stage of evolution.

All schools of philosophy are necessary. Each philosophy is best suited to a certain type of people. The different conceptions of Brahman are but different approaches to the reality. It is extremely difficult, rather impossible, for the finite soul to get – all at once – a clear conception of the Illimitable or Infinite Soul, and more so, to express it in adequate terms. All cannot grasp the highest Kevala Advaita philosophy of Sri Sankara all at once. The mind has to be disciplined properly before it is rendered as a fit instrument to grasp the tenets of Sri Sankara’s Advaita Vedanta.

Salutations and adorations to all Acharyas! Glory to the Acharyas! May their blessings be upon us all.
_______________________________________


The Advaita Philosophy of
Sri Sankara
(According to some scholars Sankara was born in the year 788 A.D.)

Introduction
The first systematic exponent of the Advaita is Gaudapada, who was the Parama-Gura (preceptor’s preceptor) of Sri Sankara. Govinda was the disciple of Gaudapada. He became the preceptor of Sankara. Gaudapada has given the central teaching of Advaita Vedanta in his celebrated Mandukya Karika. But it was Sankara who brought forth the final beautiful form of Advaita philosophy, and gave perfection and finishing touch to it. Carefully go through Sri Sankara’s commentaries on the principal Upanishads, the Brahma-Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita. You will clearly understand his Advaita philosophy. The commentary on the Vedanta Sutras (Brahma-Sutras) by Sankara is known as Sariraka Bhashya.

The teachings of Sankara can be summed up in half a verse: "Brahma Satyam Jagan Mithya Jivo Brahmaiva Na Aparah" (Brahman the Absolute alone is real; this world is unreal; and the Jiva or the individual soul is non-different from Brahman). This is the quintessence of his philosophy.

The Advaita taught by Sri Sankara is a rigorous, absolute one. According to Sri Sankara, whatever is, is Brahman. Brahman Itself is absolutely homogeneous. All difference and plurality are illusory.

Brahman – The One Without A Second

The Atman (Soul) is self-evident.(Svatah-siddha). It is not established by extraneous proofs. It is not possible to deny the Atman, because It is the very essence of the one who denies It. The Atman is the basis of all kinds of knowledge, presuppositions and proofs. Self is within. Self is without; Self is before, Self is behind; Self is on the right; Self is on the left; Self is above and Self is below.

Brahman is not an object, as It is Adrishya (beyond the reach of the eyes). Hence the Upanishads declare: "Neti, Neti" – not this, not this, not that. This does not mean that Brahman is a negative concept or a metaphysical abstraction or a non-entity, or a void. It is not another. It is all-full, infinite, changeless, self-existent, self-delight, self-knowledge and self-bliss. It is Svarupa (essence). It is the essence of the knower. It is the Seer (Drashta), Transcendent (Turiya) and Silent Witness (Sakshi).

Sankara’s Supreme Brahman is impersonal, Nirguna (without Gunas or attributes), Nirakara (formless), Nirvisesha (without special characteristics), immutable, eternal and Akarta (non-agent). It is above all needs and desires. It is always the Witnessing Subject. It can never become an object as It is beyond the reach of the senses. Brahman is non-dual, one without a second. It has no other beside It. It is destitute of difference, either external or internal. Brahman cannot be described because description implies distinction. Brahman cannot be distinguished from any other than It. In Brahman, there is not the distinction of substance and attribute. Sat-Chit-Ananda (absolute Existence, absolute Consciousness, absolute Bliss) constitute the very essence or Svarupa of Brahman, and not just Its attributes.

The Nirguna Brahman of Sankara is impersonal. It becomes a personal God or Saguna Brahman only through Its association with Maya.

Saguna (with form or attributes) Brahman and Nirguna (without form) Brahman are not two Brahmans. Nirguna Brahman is not the contrast, antithesis or opposite of Saguna Brahman. The same Nirguna Brahman appears as Saguna Brahman for the pious worship of devotees. It is the same Truth from two different points of view. Nirguna Brahman is the higher Brahman, the Brahman from the transcendental viewpoint (Paramarthika); Saguna (with attributes) Brahman is the lower Brahman, the Brahman from the relative viewpoint (Vyavaharika).

The World – A Relative Reality

The world is not an illusion, according to Sankara. The world is relatively real (Vyavaharika Satta), while Brahman is absolutely real (Paramarthika Satta). The world is the product of Maya or Avidya (ignorance). The unchanging Brahman appears as the changing world through Maya. Maya is a mysterious indescribable power of the Lord which hides the real and manifests itself as the unreal. Maya is not real, because it vanishes when you attain knowledge of the Eternal. It is not unreal also, because it exists till knowledge dawns in you. The super-imposition of the world on Brahman is due to Avidya or ignorance.

Nature Of The Jiva And The Means To Moksha

(Nature of the individual soul and the means to final liberation)

To Sankara, the Jiva or the individual soul is only relatively real. Its individuality lasts only so long as it is subject to unreal Upadhis or limiting conditions due to Avidya (ignorance). The Jiva identifies itself with the body, mind and the senses, when it is deluded by Avidya or ignorance. It thinks, it acts and enjoys, on account of Avidya. In reality, it is not different from Brahman or the Absolute. The Upanishads declare emphatically: "Tat Tvam Asi" (That Thou Art). Just as the bubble (foam) becomes one with the ocean when it bursts, just as the space within a pot becomes one with the universal space when the pot is broken, so also the Jiva or the empirical self becomes one with Brahman when it gets knowledge of Brahman. When knowledge dawns in it through annihilation of Avidya, it is freed from its individuality and finitude and realises its essential Satchidananda (Existence, Consciousness, Bliss) nature. It merges itself in the ocean of bliss. The river of life joins the ocean of existence. This is the Truth.

The release from samsara means, according to Sankara, the absolute merging of the individual soul in Brahman due to dismissal of the erroneous notion that the soul is distinct from Brahman. According to Sankara, Karma and Bhakti (devotion) are means to Jnana (knowledge) which is Moksha (liberation).

Vivarta Vada Or The Theory Of Superimposition

To Sankara, this world is only relatively real (Vyavaharika Satta). He advocated Vivarta-Vada or theory of appearance or superimposition (Adhyasa). Just as snake is superimposed on the rope in twilight, this world and body are superimposed on Brahman or the Supreme Self. If you get knowledge of the rope, the illusion of snake in the rope will vanish. Even so, if you get knowledge of Brahman or the Imperishable, the illusion of body and world will disappear. In Vivarta-Vada, the cause produces the effect without undergoing any change in itself. Snake is only an appearance on the rope. The rope has not transformed itself into a snake, like milk into curd. Brahman is immutable and eternal. Therefore, It cannot change Itself into the world. Brahman becomes the cause of the world through Maya, which is Its inscrutable mysterious power or Sakti.

When you come to know that it is only a rope, your fear disappears. You do not run away from it. Even so, when you realise the eternal immutable Brahman, you are not affected by the phenomena or the names and forms of this world. When Avidya or the veil of ignorance is destroyed through knowledge of the Eternal, when Mithya Jnana or false knowledge is removed by real knowledge of the Imperishable or the living Reality, you shine in your true, pristine, divine splendour and glory.

The Advaita – A Philosophy Without Parallel

The Advaita philosophy of Sri Sankaracharya is lofty, sublime and unique. It is a system of bold philosophy and logical subtlety. It is highly interesting, inspiring and elevating. No other philosophy can stand before it in boldness, depth and subtle thinking. Sankara’s philosophy is complete and perfect.

Sri Sankara was mighty, marvellous genius. He was a master of logic. He was a profound thinker of the first rank. He was a sage of the highest realisation. He was an Avatara of Lord Siva. His philosophy has brought solace, peace and illumination to countless persons in the East and the West. The Western thinkers bow their heads at the lotus-feet of Sri Sankara. His philosophy has soothed the sorrows and afflictions of the most forlorn persons, and brought hope, joy, wisdom, perfection, freedom and calmness to many. His system of philosophy commands the admiration of the whole world.

I was simply pointing out that there is a reason for the Bhakti sampradayas disdain for Advaita Vedanta. Prabhupada is not unique in that, in fact Gaudiya's are rather tame in their critique of Advaita compared to some other Bhakti Sampradayas.

Ramakrishna was illiterate and unschooled in Vedanta of any type. His teachings were eclectic and based on his own personal visions and inspirations from "The divine mother". Vivekananda was even more eclectic then Ramakrishna, although he was well educated. To understand Sankara all you have to do is read what he wrote and what his sampradaya acaryas have written, it's not a big difficult task.

I am aware of the prejudiced attitude and skewed understanding that several of the more sectarian schools of Hinduism have against Advaita, not just Prabhupada, though I am glad you are admitting that you were wrong to say that Iskcon's critque of Advaita is limited to Sankara. Therefore the point of my pastings which was to illumine Iskcon misconceptions - as well as the misconceptions of other Gaudiyas who are more careful about publically proclaiming these misconceptions - was spot on, and your objection irrelevant. I do not know why you are pitting it as a debate between so called "Bhakti Sampradayas" vs. Advaitans as though Bhakti is something opposed to Advaita, you would do better to choose different terminology to describe your characterizations.

Ramakrishna was illiterate and unschooled in Vedanta of any type. His teachings were eclectic and based on his own personal visions and inspirations from "The divine mother". Vivekananda was even more eclectic then Ramakrishna, although he was well educated. To understand Sankara all you have to do is read what he wrote and what his sampradaya acaryas have written, it's not a big difficult task.
--------------------------------------------

Though you put "Divine Mother" in ironic quotations there is a history behind Kaali worship older and more traditional than that which even the most traditional Gaudiyas practise, so it would be better not to phrase things in these condescending ways, just like you will not see me condescending upon the neophyteness of the Caitanya movement, which compared to Advaita is pretty much Neo-Hinduism. Calling Ramakrsna unschooled is not going to disprove anything about his understanding of Sankara, Sankara's teachings are experiential, he himself would cringe at this kind of showcase of intellectualism despite the falsely elitist picture that is painted of Advaitans in Gaudiya literatures.*

That said, if you want to question the lineage of Advaitins like Sivananda and others, or pretend that you  understand Sankara and Sanksrit better than they do, that is a product of your own ego and I leave it at your dicretion, I am not much into lineage battles nor do I see their value. As for these claims to eclecticism or Neo-Advaita, I have addressed them in various places elsewhere in detail and you can search for that if you don't mind, I do not want to repeat for every new objector. Except to quickly say that if you are going to say these things, then you should refer to the creative acaryas in the Gaudiya tradition (which is sort of redudant because acaryas tend to be acaryas by dint of being creative), as neo-Gaudiyas too.

Modern Institutions: In addition to the more traditional advaita maThas and akhADas, various sannyAsIs of the daSanAmI order have established some of the more well-known modern institutions, like the Ramakrishna Math and Mission (swAmI vivekAnanda), the Self-Realization Fellowship (paramahamsa yogAnanda), the Divine Life Society (swAmI SivAnanda), Yoga Vedanta Center (swAmI vishNudevAnanda), the Chinmaya Mission (swAmI cinmayAnanda), and others. Among these, the founders of the Ramakrishna Mission, the Divine Life Society and the Chinmaya Mission trace their spiritual descent through the Sringeri paramparA. The Self-Realization Fellowship has links to the Puri paramparA. These organizations usually teach some variant or the other of advaita vedAnta, generally combined with yoga practice, or an acceptance of the prophets of the Semitic religions, and/or an emphasis on social service. These modern institutions tend to have as much a presence in the West as in India, and their ideologies have come to be called by the generic name of neo-vedAnta. It remains to be seen whether these institutions will be the catalysts for the growth of a truly universal philosophy/religion that has been a dream of most of their founders. 

Getting back to the "Divine Mother" comment, there is no need to get confused just because Ramakrshna is not parroting terms as we are used to them. When he talks about Mother Kaali he is talking about Brahman and he says as much himself: "Kaali is verily Brahman, and Brahman is verily Kaali." What is more typically Advaitan than getting your inspirations experientially from Brahman. Do you think the all-pervasive Brahman as the Upnaisads describe it is limited by the confines of the one name you want to put on it. Read the Upanisads and you will see the answer is No.There is no need to call this eclecticism, doing so stems from a limited encyclopedic understanding of Sankara, who by the way was a Vaishnava. I have elucidated on Sankara's understanding of Brahman quickly in passing in the above post, and more in detail elsewhere so I will not go over this here.

As for your paste of Sivananda I am already familiar with his writings and have had advaitin-to-advaitin type conversations about them at his ashram (as opposed to the rarely fruitful and polemic mode of advaitin-gaudiya). Such involvement is a different story from postulating apparently conclusive answers based on google searches. While we are talking about Sivananda I dare you to go debate with them about their lineage to Sankara I am sure it will be a blast (!!). The things you have put in bold are not contradicting what I am saying, within every path there is glorification of one's own process, I dare you to find one path that does not somewhere contain these comments - for the audience they are intended for these comments are absolutely true. As you should know you will find Sivananda as well as other Advaitins making claims that problematize those very claims - and this is not a contradiction either.

As for your comments on what Advaita really teaches, there is no need to repeat yourself, I know what you believe about Sankara and Advaita, I have read these encyclopedic understandings myself and they are valid within their sphere and within their function.