Longest padayatra ever

[Ellen]

1 minute ago, Silverado said:

Ur misunderstood no problem

[Silverado]

2 minutes ago, Ellen said:

[tom bhayya]

1 hour ago, Silverado said:

2 times dude,defeated Buddhists with single hand and converted them back into hinduism

buddhism ey better anavasaram ga back ki vacham,, hindusim - all bad in it = buddhism ani oka peddhayana cheppadu. 

[Sachin200]

26 minutes ago, Ellen said:

Ha kani shankaracharya solely did not eradicate buddhism. Inkoka reason yenti ante...asal buddhism blurrr aipovadam 4-6th century lone modalaindi. During gupta dynasty. Guptas were extremely prosperous. Vipareetamaina sampada toni  patrons perigaru. Deeni valla mahayaana sect became even more ritualistic. So much so that..hinduism ki buddhism ki teda lekunda poindi. 

Like i mentoned before, buddhism was formed to make religion easy without hard rituals and too  much intellectual stuff. Mahayana vachi malli danni complicate cheste...inthakanna hinduism a nayam ane stage ki velpoindi. By the time shankaracharya was born and brought in Advaita...Buddhism already saw its Nadir

Shankaracharya added the last nail in the coffin ...for the lack of better words

EventhoughBuddhism  lost its sheen but the beliefs were still present . Most importantly people used to believe because if it's simplicity .

[Sachin200]

15 minutes ago, Silverado said:

Anyways I respect Buddhism it is peaceful religion and born in india ,my icon is also from that religion

@TrollBaitis not coming to discuss abt cult religions

  hatred towards BJP esp modi topics , turakmeedha topic etc antey vastadu

 

[Silverado]

SHANKARA’S EARLY LIFE

Sri Shankara was born of Shivaguru and Aryamba at Kaladi in Kerala. He lost his father at an early age. He made rapid strides in his learning. In his eighth year he obtained the consent of his mother and took up sanyasa. He started out in quest of a competent teacher. And eventually found Govinda Bhagavatpada (the disciple of Gaudapada) on the banks of the Narmada. He stayed with his Guru for a while. Under his command, he went to Kashi and Badri.

It was during this period while in Badri when he was of twelve years of age, he wrote his most profound commentaries on the Vedanta Sutras of Badarayana, the principal Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita which are known as Prasthanatraya, being the authorities on the Vedanta Sastras. The Bhashyas (commentaries) of Shankara are monumental works covering the import of the Vedic teachings and supplemented by clear reasoning and lucid exposition. This doctrine of Brahma Vidya which Shankara propounded through his works is what is known as Advaita Vedanta or Non-dualism. It confers salvation through the elimination of duality across the world.

At this time of Indian History, the spiritual life among the Buddhists was at low ebb with the vigor and purity of Buddha having vanished. The masses had moved away from the Vedic way of life comprising of the various duties in accordance to the tradition and the stages in life. A strong and urgent need for the revival of the Sanatana Dharma was therefore felt.

The Vedic rituals and sacrifices were revived and gained a position of honor. In course of time, the sacrifices and rituals (karma kanda) reigned supreme and were upheld as the ultimate goal. The true Vedic dictums (jnana kanda) were forgotten. Spiritual insight was conspicuous by its absence. At such a crucial juncture, Sri Adi Shankaracharya appeared on the scene.

Shankara realized that unless he was able to win over this powerful group of proponents and followers of ritualism, his goal of re-unifying India and making it a beacon light of spirituality would remain unfulfilled.

Thrilled by the experiences, Shankara set his mind on the task ahead and commenced his next task namely to propagate his tenets as set out in his Prasthanathraya Bhashyas to the world.

SRI SHANKARA AND KUMARILA BHATTA

Starting on this mission of a spiritual conquest of the whole of India, Shankara decided to go first to Prayag with a view to win over Kumarila, the staunch upholder of the ritualistic interpretation of the Vedas and get his explanatory comments (Vartika) on his Bhashya on Brahma Sutras of Badarayana – Vyasa.

Having reached Prayag, he came to know that Kumarila was about to enter into a fire, as an act of expiation for betraying his teacher from whom he had learnt stealthily the tenets of Buddhism. Sri Shankara rushed to the place where Kumarila had set himself to burn. Kumarila recognised Shankara, narrated to him his work against the Buddhists, his awareness about Sri Shankara's Bhashyas and his desire to write a Vartika (explanatory treatise) on his Bhashyas. Kumarila explained how he was not in a position to break his vow of expiation and therefore asked him to meet his disciple Mandana Misra. He added that if Shankara could defeat Mandana Misra, whose actual name was Vishwaroopa, who was the most renowned protagonist of the Purvamimamsa School, the ritualistic interpretation of the Vedas, it would clear all obstacles in the mission that Shankara had undertaken. Shankara then proceeded to Mandana's place called Mahishmati, in the present-day Bihar. (According to another version it is at the confluence of the Narmada and Mahishmati rivers, near Omkarnath in Madhya Pradesh.)

SRI SHANKARA AND MANDANA MISRA

Mandana Misra received the best of traditional training at the feet of Kumarila Bhatta and perfected his scholarship. He settled at Mahishmatipura as a house-holder with his wife Ubhaya Bharati.

Mandana Misra and Ubhaya Bharati were an ideal couple, each of them equal to the other in all branches of learning, ethical character and strict observation of Vedic injunctions. Ubhaya Bharati was supposed to be an avatara of goddess of learning, Saraswati Devi, as Mandana Misra was supposed to be an avatara of Brahma. His scholarship and the reverence in which he was held earned him the honorific epithet of 'Mandana Misra'. His real name was Vishwaroopa.

Mandana Misra was a distinguished practitioner of the mimamsa philosophy. The mimamsa philosophy is mainly derived from the karma kanda portion of the Vedas and emphasizes on the importance of rituals. In this school of thought, a particular ritual is done, and the results are achieved instantaneously. It displays a straightforward cause and effect relationship if practiced accurately.

When Sri Bhagavatpada reached the mansion of Mandana Misra, it was found bolted from inside. Sri Bhagavatpada, as a Sanyasin, had no right of admission into a house found closed. Such are the rules of Smriti, which govern the daily conduct of traditional Sanyasis. Sri Bhagavatpada pondered a little. He had firmly decided to redeem Mandana Misra from the rigidity of dogmatic ritualism. Therefore he felt like using his extraordinary Yogic powers. Great Yogi and Siddha Purusha as he was, Sri Bhagavatpada entered the house through the closed door.

Mandana Misra had an innate dislike for Sanyasis because in his staunch belief of ritualism, he felt that only those who wished to escape the rigours of Vedic injunctions found a refuge in the Sanyasa ashrama. Moreover when Sri Bhagavatpada entered the house, it was a time when the presence of a Sanyasin was most unwelcome. Mandana Misra was performing a shraddha and the Brahmins were about to be fed. The entry of Sri Bhagavatpada at such a time caused a disturbance and Mandana Misra was infuriated.

Hot and harsh exchanges followed. The Brahmins found the situation going out of control. They wished to set it right. They suggested to Mandana Misra to invite Sri Bhagavatpada for Biksha seeing him as a bhokta occupying Vishnu Sthana in the ceremony. Staunch ritualist as he was, Mandana Misra was fully bent upon saving the ritual. He invited Sri Bhagavatpada accordingly.

But Sri Bhagavatpada declined to accept the invitation. He explained to Mandana Misra that he did not come for bhiksha of the edibiles but for a vada bhiksha, a polemical debate in philosophy. Mandana Misra who had never met his match in learning before was willing for a dialectical fight. He gladly welcomed it. The shraddha was allowed to be finished as ordained. The debate was fixed for the next day.

Mandana Misra was a perfect and adept ritualist who preached widely. The young and charming advaita vedantin, Adi Shankara, on his country wide tour was eager to debate with Mandana Misra, who was by then already very old. Mandana Misra reasoned that since he had spent more than half his life learning and preaching mimamsa, it would be unfair to debate with a youngster in his twenties who barely had any experience. Hence, with the intention of being fair on Shankara, Misra allowed Shankara to choose his own judge. Shankara had heard greatly about Misra’s righteousness and appreciated him for his act of fairness. But he was quick to decide that none but Mandana Misra’s wife herself can be the most appropriate judge for this debate. To make the dispute more purposeful, they agreed to a wager. If Shankara looses in debate, He would become disciple of Mandana Misra and get married in the life. If Manadana Misra looses, he should become Sanyasi and disciple of Shankara. This was the bet of the debate.

The debate between them commenced and continued for months. Thousands of scholars gathered everyday

Mandana Misra, at a ripe old age, still remained a man with very sharp intellect and a very solid grasp of logic, but he was slowly losing. Despite being such a young man, Shankara’s realization of the ultimate Brahman and his knowledge of Maya, enabled him to win over Misra’s arguments easily. Misra was a very accomplished ritualist, yet he seemed to lack some understanding of higher spiritual truths that Shankara seemed to have experienced already. At the end of a long period, Mandana Misra was almost ready to accept defeat, when his wife, Ubhaya Bharati, declared that in order to defeat a man in debate the opponent should also defeat his wife.

[Silverado]

4 minutes ago, tom bhayya said:

buddhism ey better anavasaram ga back ki vacham,, hindusim - all bad in it = buddhism ani oka peddhayana cheppadu. 

Better than abrahamic cults 

But Buddhism is best chepina peddayana evaru 

[tom bhayya]

45 minutes ago, Ellen said:

Buddhism modalainde...paamarulaki easy ga undadaniki. because hinduism and sanskrit stratification  was too difficult. It really started with good intention. The reason to introduce pali kuda ade....easy ga untundi ani. malli andulo intellectual depth form cheste....buddhism origins ke ardham undadu. it is a simple religion

Coming to ashoka...ilanti preachers toh problem is everywhere. intention okati, teachings okati...as it passes through generations, vinevallaki ardham ayyedi okati. 

Na uddesham "defeat" ane word is not correct, adedo yuddham ane oka extremist bhavam vastadi ikada. the timing was good for  Adi shankaracharya. And if anything was destroyed by shankaracharya...it is the "corrupted firm in buddhism".not buddhism itself 

all because of varna system vallalo valley cheppukuni migilina vallaki dhooram chesaaru, buddhism continue ayyi untey ippatiki ee caste system ey undedhi kaadhu mana desam lo, valla upper hand kosam vedas ni vallaki anukulam ga intrepret chesi valla control lo pettukunnaru ani @TrollBait anta undey 

[Silverado]

Just now, tom bhayya said:

all because of varna system vallalo valley cheppukuni migilina vallaki dhooram chesaaru, buddhism continue ayyi untey ippatiki ee caste system ey undedhi kaadhu mana desam lo, valla upper hand kosam vedas ni vallaki anukulam ga intrepret chesi valla control lo pettukunnaru ani @TrollBait anta undey 

@TrollBait oka pastor emaina septadu fake leftist history

[Sachin200]

Just now, tom bhayya said:

all because of varna system vallalo valley cheppukuni migilina vallaki dhooram chesaaru, buddhism continue ayyi untey ippatiki ee caste system ey undedhi kaadhu mana desam lo, valla upper hand kosam vedas ni vallaki anukulam ga intrepret chesi valla control lo pettukunnaru ani @TrollBait anta undey 

All because of @Paiditalli batch Ani @TrollBait antadu

[Sachin200]

1 minute ago, Silverado said:

@TrollBait oka pastor emaina septadu fake leftist history

tanaki alert untundhi emo , turak topics or pvnr /modi/vajpayee etc meedha vestey definite ga vastadu

[Ellen]

5 minutes ago, tom bhayya said:

all because of varna system vallalo valley cheppukuni migilina vallaki dhooram chesaaru, buddhism continue ayyi untey ippatiki ee caste system ey undedhi kaadhu mana desam lo, valla upper hand kosam vedas ni vallaki anukulam ga intrepret chesi valla control lo pettukunnaru ani @TrollBait anta undey 

thank the Guptas..Economy, S&T, politics etc...ki golden age. Sociology vachesarki mottham armpits licked because of them. Social stratification came back with stronger and uglier dogmas. 

[Silverado]

5 minutes ago, Sachin200 said:

tanaki alert untundhi emo , turak topics or pvnr /modi/vajpayee etc meedha vestey definite ga vastadu

Ithe mullah ga maripoyada oh my @TrollBait

Adhe sare gani y no @Andriod_Halwabro

And other jalaga 's fans

[Silverado]

6 minutes ago, Ellen said:

thank the Guptas..Economy, S&T, politics etc...ki golden age. Sociology vachesarki mottham armpits licked because of them. Social stratification came back with stronger and uglier dogmas. 

Hey 

After Shankaracharya, who had previously toured India spreading impersonalism, Madhvacarya also traveled the length and breadth of India preaching personaltheism and devotion to Lord Vishnu. He defeated innumerable Jains, BUDDHISTS, Mayavadis, atheists, logicians, and agnostics.
 
   With a hope of meeting Shrila Vyasadeva himself Madhvacharya walked up the Himalayas. Vyasadeva gave him a Shalagrama sila called Ashtamurti, approved his Bhagavad-gita commentary, and blessed Madhvacharya with deeper realizations of the sastras. 
 
   In Udupi, Madhvacharya installed a beautiful Deity of Gopala standing alone holding a cowherding stick. This Deity manifested from within a chunk of gopi-candana (sacred clay). He established eight mathas (Temples) to lovingly serve "Udupi Krishna." The sannyasi leaders of each matha worship the Krishna Deity with a rigorous regimen of ceremonial ritual, punctuality, and impec-cable personal conduct. Every Ekadashi they observe nirjala (total fast all food and water).
   The Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya originates with the Madhvas. Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and His followers thoroughly studied Madhva's works before compiling their philosophy. For the Sat Sandarbhas Shri Jiva Goswami drew heavily from Madhva's writings. Jiva Goswami found 'the Gaudiya philosophy of acintya-bheda-abheda tattva in Madhva's Bhagavat-parya. Shri Chaitanya Himself visited Udupi, the seat of Madhva's sect. The Lord introduced Hari Nama sankirtana into their se

[Sachin200]

1 hour ago, Ellen said:

I dnt think he defeated anybody. "defeat" is not a proper word in this context. Buddhism failed due to various reasons...mainly due to corruption within inner circles. 

The Acharya invites a learned Buddhist Monk to a cup of coffee and of course, debate over respective Schools of Thought!]

Acharya: How was your day?

Buddhist Monk: The question is immaterial and irrelevant.

Acharya: Oh! Will you kindly state why do you say so?

Buddhist Monk: The workaday life is just a passing illusion. The so-called “manifold world” of material and mental elements arises solely through the causal co-operation of the transitory factors of existence (Called Dharmas) those depend functionally upon each other. Since, the material and mental universe arises through the concurrence of forces that are not permanent, the so-called World is not permanent. Everything that we call “world” are illusory, momentary. [He lays down the Sarvastivada, or, Sautrantika view of Buddhism]

Acharya: Oh. Heavy fire! Let me rephrase you. So what you are basically saying is that the perceived World is momentary; just an illusion – ever changing, and that there is no permanent essence of anything anywhere of the empirical Universe, be it mental or material, cognitive or non-perceptive.

Buddhist Monk: Yes, that’s the statement. Everything in the empirical world is only a stream of passing Dharmas, which are mere processes - impersonal and evanescent processes. These Dharmas can be characterized as Anatta (Anatma - Bereft of Self), i.e., being without a persisting self, without independent existence. [The Dharma theory of Buddhism]

Acharya: Ok. I get your point of view about momentariness, impermanence and Anatta. May I ask you a very simple question? When you started the sentence “The Question is immaterial and irrelevant” – it was immaterial and irrelevant to whom? What or who is the Subject to whom those perceptions appeared?

Buddhist Monk: (Enraged) To no one in particular. There is nothing more to this alleged (sic) world’s existence than the co-ordinated flux of wide variety of elemental, co-dependent factors (Dharmas), which bring forth collective experience of world-consciousness in individual and universal aspects. So, the perception occurred to some non-existent entity.

Acharya: Ok! Hypothetically accepting your view, tell me Monk, who is the witness to these arising of dependent elements? Who/what is the witness to the flux? Against what the flux is not static? If you are moving in a train at the same speed with another train, you will see both trains as stationary. A perception of speed requires comparison with a stationary object. Likewise, perception of flux requires a changeless object for measure of standard. Who/What is that?

Buddhist Monk: I object! What is the necessity of a Witness? That too, eternal permanent witness?! No way such a thing exists. People die and their trace vanishes, things get broken, Worlds get destroyed – all without leaving trace. Where is permanence?

Acharya: Hold your breath, Holy Monk. A witness is necessary in order to have a cognition of any phenomenon – take the event of your momentariness or flux. A witness can only say something is transitory or momentary. If there is no Witness, who would perceive and who would make a statement?

(This is one of the greatest novel argument of Acharya, his own contribution to logic and metaphysics – “Who is it that who sees and says Everything is impermanent – That entity has to present, existent and permanent”)

Buddhist Monk: If you say there has to be a Witness, who will witness that witness? How would you establish that Witness exists? What you say is wrong because there will be infinite regress. You say a Witness is necessary to claim cognizance. Fine, then tell me, who will say that there is a Witness? Where will this infinite loop end? In your Theory, everything has to be present to make the Witness known. This is nothing but Dependent Origination.

Acharya: Dear Friend, there is no logical necessity (Akanksha) for something to grasp the grasper. The witness stands self-proved. (This is one of the greatest sources of Pramana – Arthapatti as used by the Acharya)

Buddhist Monk: Even if there is any Witness, that entity; material or intellectual will be momentary, ever-changing, always in flux. So, one can’t say there is any witness at all.

Acharya: You seem to insinuate that everything is momentary and transitional – the flux keeps on changing every nano-second, the reality changing every nanosecond just like waves of sea erase the previous impressions in sand made by the preceding wave. So, who is there who perceives and makes this claim that Nothing is permanent?

And, against what standard you measure permanence relative to impermanence? Everything is impermanent relative to what? If everything if temporary, then how would the concept of any sort of permanence even arise? What is the ground for you to stand on? What is the reference point? Against what measuring rod will you judge impermanence?

Monk, Even to say Nothing exists, there has to be a relative plane of Existence. Else against what would you say Nothing exists, if you don’t know what Existence is? And when you say non-being is there – so logically, non-being exists – impermanence is permanently there, you are putting yourself in serious logical snare. Don’t you think by negating everything you are caught in an absurd redux? The entire Theory of Impermanence is erroneous.

Agreed what one sees or perceived is fleeting, transitory. But then how do you create your own locus standi for the transitoriness to be perceived? Who is the witness, the spectator? There has to be One. The primordial ground, the eternal essence, which is at the basis of everything and from which the whole world has arisen (the Brahman of the Upanishads). There is no void, all that exists is Fullness, Brahman. The world is not non-existent (Asat), but it is illusory (Mithya) meaning, it exist, but appears to us other than what is really is because of Ajanan (Ignorance), Avidya (Nescience) and Maya (Illusions)

 

lifted from quora Inka Chala undi discussion, to begin