[Advaita-l] Acarya Shankara is not a blind follower of theScriptures

[Srikrishna Ghadiyaram]

hariH Om !!

I am just reading this following sentence in the book,
naishkarmyasiddhi , a monograph by John Grimes, page
25:

"The section of the Vedas dealing with knowledge has
the same import as that dealing with rites." Sankara's
commentary on Brihadaranyaka Up 4.4.22

Om Namo Narayanaya !!

Srikrishna

--- K Kathirasan   NCS <kkathir at ncs.com.sg> wrote:

> Namaste Siddharthaji,
> 
> I do agree with you. G Kannan in his book
> 'Understanding Karma Kanda' gives a nice simile for
> the Vedas. He compares it with a tree:
> 
> Tree - Samhita
> Branches - brahmanas
> Unripe fruits - aranyaka
> Ripe fruits - upanishads
> 
> If we look at it this way, then we may not have a
> problem. Recently while studying the book by Dr CL
> Prabhakar on the Shukla Yajur Veda, I realized that
> there are many mantras of the Upanishads in the
> Samhita itself. It is not that the Upanishads are
> texts that have no connection with the Samhitas. In
> fact the Upanishads are born from the contemplation
> of the mantras in the Samhita. Morever, Ishavasya
> and brhadaranyaka upanishads are found in the
> Samhita and Aranyaka respectively. To be sure, only
> the Samhita is revealed per se or what the mantra
> drshtas saw. The rest (brahmana, aranyaka &
> upanishad) is born from it. 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]
> On Behalf Of sidha at omkarananda-ashram.org
> Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 10:07 PM
> To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> Subject: [Advaita-l] Acarya Shankara is not a blind
> follower of theScriptures
> 
> 
> Respected Kartik Ji,
> 
> >>>>>>>If you note VAchaspati Mishra's commentary,
> every time he 
> >>>>>>>disagrees
> with Shankara, he provides **quotes from shruti and
> smR^iti** that bear out his view. VAchaspati Mishra
> doesn't say, "I disagree with Shankara because I
> don't like what he is teaching", which is blasphemy!
> 
> Neither do I say that. My point is that there are
> some points where I differ from the standpoint of
> Bhagavan Adi Shankara. Let me tell you where. It
> seems like, I again say it seems like, because I
> can't remember Shankara saying that clearly, but he
> has simply followed the Mimamsakas, Acarya Shankara
> accepts that all the 4 Vedas only contain rituals
> and not any Adhyatmika teachins. Even though myself
> I'm a firm Advaita Vedanta and I can give you proofs
> of Advaita Vedanta in the Rig-veda, which shows that
> only this philosophy is Vedic, it seems like
> traditionally Advaita Vedantins assert the rest of
> the Vedas (not the Upanishads) to be a part of the
> rituals and nothing to do with spirituality. At
> least this is what I was again and again told by my
> traditional masters, till I first started to learn
> the Rig-veda in year 2000, when I started to doubt
> that explanation that so called 96 thousand Mantras
> only deal with Karma or Upasana????????????? Such a
> statement is in fact a blasphemy which scholars have
> been doing since thousands of years. One can see
> traces even in the Nirukta and Patanjala
> Mahabhashya, where Yaska and Patanjali firmly
> opposes such views. They in fact discouraged me from
> reading the Samhitas, saying that they are of no use
> for those who are seeking Moksha. A recent statement
> by Shri Jaladhar ji was also a similar one. My
> full-time study of the Rig-veda in the past 4 years,
> clearly shows that whatever we see in the
> Upanishads, is just a clear commentary on the very
> obscure Mantras of the Vedas. The Sun of knowledge
> in the Vedas is far more radiant than the Sun of
> knowledge in Upanishads, Gita and Brahmasutra. So
> whatever I'm saying is based on the Shruti and on my
> own understanding and logic, that is why I disagree
> with Shankara, not in his philosophy, but in this
> particular aspect. I hope this makes it clear.
> However, I would like to add here that Shankara
> doesn't really say something like that, on the
> contrary he has praised the Rig-veda very very much
> in the BrahmaSutra Bhashya 1-1-2.
> 
> >>>>Can you please provide reasons for the above
> assertion?
> 
> Shankara himself states, "if the Shruti would tell
> us that the fire is cold, would Shruti be considered
> authentic?". I say that Shankara is not a blind
> follower of the Shruti in the sense that he doesn't
> simply believe what the Shruti says, he also follows
> his rational mind. In places like Chandogya Bhashya
> 1-2-1 (he provides a very different meaning of the
> words Deva and Asura) and Isha Bhashya 9,8 (He
> provides  a very different significance of the terms
> Vidya and Avidya_ Shankara doesn't take the words of
> the Shruti verbally, but he gives a rational
> explanation. This is what makes him so special. Even
> though Shvetashvatara Upanishad clearly glorifies
> Bhagavan Kapila, he is the greatest opponent of
> Shankara in the Brahmasutras. In Aparokshanubhuti
> Shankara clearly condemns the standpoint so clearly
> mentioned in the Gita and Chandogya Upanishad
> regarding Prarabdha. (Shloka
> 90)
> Shankara clearly states in the Gita (13-2) Bhashya,
> " a person knowing all the scriptures, but not
> knowing the tradition, should be considered a fool".
> In Kenopanishad (2-4) Vakya Bhashya and its Ananda
> Giri commentary it is clearly concluded that
> "knowledge of the Brahman arising from the
> scriptures is objective (vishayatvena or paroksha),
> and thus it is not true knowledge, only subjective
> realization is true knowledge". That is why I'm
> saying that Shankara is not at all a blind follower
> of the Scriptures.
> 
> >>>>>>>>But you do see that if your reasoning goes
> against shruti and
> smR^iti,
> it cannot be accepted.
> 
> Hence, I'm not reasoning against Shruti, but I'm
> reasoning according to the Rig-veda Shruti.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As per pUrva mImAmsA,
> the Vedas are *eternal*, meaning that they have
> neither a beginning nor an end with time. The idea
> of scriptures having been "created (by an omniscient
> being)" is Buddhist, and KumArila argues against
> such an attitude towards the Vedas.
> 
> I don't know if you would say this if you carefully
> read the Bhashya on the Sutra 1-1-3, where Bhagavan
> Bhashyakara clearly uses the term "sambhava". If you
> would look into the Bhamati there you would realize
> that the standpoint of Vyasa is different from
> Kumarila in this regard. He clearly mentions that
> even though Mimamsakas accept that the Vedas are
> Anadi, the followers of Vyasa don't agree with that.
> I think that standpoint of Vedanta is far more
> logical than that of the Mimamsakas. Love,
> Siddhartha Krishna
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> want to unsubscribe or change your options? See:
>
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> Need assistance? Contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> _______________________________________________
> want to unsubscribe or change your options? See:
>
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> Need assistance? Contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com