We will take up more objections Q: How can Brahman, which is indivisible, pure consciousness, have portions that fall under the rule of Maya and think themselves jivas? Ans: Advaita has never stated that due to Brahman coming under Maya Jiva is created or that Brahman becomes Jiva. This is a wrong understanding of Advaita Vedanta to begin with. Q:Knowledge and delusion cannot share the same location, just as light and darkness cannot both be present in exactly the same place. Ans: Advaita Vedanta does not state that there is one portion of Brahman that gets covered by Maya, and that portion ex ..read more

I have decided to take some better objections of Jiva Goswami than some ridiculous and pathetic objections. Let us look at one such objection. In the Anuchcheda 38.2 Jiva Goswami says the following. anyatra siddhasya vastuna evānyatrāropo yathā śuktau rajatasya, etad eva mithyā-khapuṣpāder āropāsambhavāt pūrva-pūrva-vivarta-mātra-siddhānādi-paramparātve dṛṣṭāntābhāvāc ca | “Only an object that exists elsewhere can be superimposed onto something else, for example, silver on an oyster shell. This is because it is impossible to superimpose a non-existent object, such as a sky-flower, onto somethi ..read more

We will look at how the blogger refutes his own statements He says the following “A good analogy must be as similar as possible to what it illustrates. The greater the similarity, the stronger the analogy. But the analogy of the sky and the pot is not similar enough to the situation the Mayavadis try to apply it to: while the sky and Brahman are similar, the sky’s upadhi, the pot, is empirical, while Brahman’s upadhis must be merely apparent” Now the same blogger says the following “. In the Bhagavad-gita Lord Krishna addresses Arjuna as purusha-vyaghra, “tiger among men.” In its primary sense ..read more

More and more Rubbish objections, the Iskcon blogger objects as follows “The objects one sees in dreams, misperceptions, or hallucinations are intangible. In a dream one may eat a big feast, for example, but upon waking up one will still feel hungry; the feast appears real only while dreaming. Similarly intangible are misperceived or imagined objects, such as a “snake” that is in fact a rope; fear of the snake will persist only as long as the misperception or hallucination continues. This kind of illusory reality (pratibhasika-satta) is inferior to the empirical world and to absolute reality ..read more

We are continuing with the response to the Bimba Pratibimba Vada objection, here our blogger states the following “But Shrila Jiva Gosvami is willing to grant the opposition a respite and hypothetically accept their premise that Brahman can reflect in upadhis; in this case all-pervading Brahman must also exist in the upadhis, in which it supposedly reflects. But if the reflected object, Brahman, is already present in the reflecting medium, the upadhis, how will it reflect there?” Now to back track on this Bimba Pratibimba Vada is stating that just as the Sun reflected in various mirrors appear ..read more

We are taking up the remaining objections raised by the Iskcon blogger on the Pariccheda Vada of Advaita, however I would like to point out that I am unsure of where in the Advaitic texts it is called Pariccheda Vada, but we will take up the same name that this opponent of Advaita decides to take. Now he misrepresents the position of Advaita as seen below “Brahman being neither pierceable nor divisible, it cannot be broken or delimited into jivas the way one might break a large stone into pebbles.” Advaitins never claimed that Brahman was divided into Jivas this is a clear misrepresentation of ..read more

In this article I will take up the objection on Pariccheda Vada of Advaita by an Iskcon blogger who shows the objection by Jiva Goswami, the objections are quite underwhelming but we will still look at them. If time permits I will look at his other derisory objections on Advaita and answer them. We will take up the objections by Iskcon They describe in their blog on Paramarthika, Vyavaharika and Pratibhasika as follows “In Advaita monism, existence (satta) is understood on three different levels—pratibhasika (merely apparent reality), vyavaharika (ordinary, empirical reality), and paramarthika ..read more

It is a well known fact that the Narayanastra bloggers make all sorts of claims, these claims are supported by Chinna Jeeyar Swami himself and prominent Vaishnava speakers like Dushyant Sridhar. However, if any one looks at those claims dispassionately, they will be seen as without any reason or rationale and will be absolutely baseless. I have refuted many such claims in this blog, now I will refute one more claim made by the Narayanastra bloggers that Sureshwaracharya, a disciple of Adi Shankara considered Vishnu to be higher than Shiva. Following is their claim “sureshvara and jnAnOttama co ..read more

Iskcon, has done a very good job, in trying to defend their categorisation of Puranas, they state that Adi Shankara, in his Sarva Vedanta Sara Samgraha says the following श्रुत्या सत्त्वपुराणानां सेवया सत्त्ववस्तुनः। अनुवृत्त्या च साधूनां सत्त्ववृत्तिः प्रजायते।।370। Translation:, Hearing of Saatwik Puranas, consuming Saatwik substances, by following Saints, the Saatwik thoughts and deeds are born and increased. Iskcon uses this quote to justify that, Adi Shankara accepted Saatwika Puranas. Therefore if Adi Shankara accepted Saatwika Puranas, we also ought to accept that there are Rajasika Pur ..read more

I have decided to answer some fake claims agains Hinduism hence I have taken this objections and answered them. Claim1: In Ramayana 6.125.43-44 Bharata donated 16 virgin girls gift as wives to Hanuman after he returrned from Lanka Response: This an absolutely nonsensical claim for sex slavery, reason being that Bharata is promising Hanuman Virgins from high families for marriage. Let us look at the verses once ..read more