No subject
Mon Jan 10 22:46:00 CST 2005
appears that it was one of his earlier works, though he refers in it to the
VedAntakalpalatikA and also, as you say, refers back to it in the GAD, which is
rather a later work.
For those interested, an earlier version of the JVS article was published in
the Vedanta Kesari:
"The Samnyasi and the Bhakta: Madhusudana Sarasvati's Reappraisal of the
Bhagavad Gita." Vedanta Kesari (Madras) 76 (March, April, May 1989): 93-96,
134-139, 172-180.
Has Swami Gambhiranandaji's excellent translation of the GAD been mentioned on
this list? See:
Madhusudana Sarasvati. Bhagavad-Gita with the Annotation Gudharthadipika.
Trans. by Swami Gambhirananda. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama, 1998.
I do not recommend at all the earlier translation by S. K. Gupta. It in many
places is more of a paraphrase.
Lance
=====
Lance Nelson, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Theology and Religious Studies
University of San Diego
San Diego, California USA 92110
PLEASE RESPOND TO: lnelson at s...
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
================================================================================
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
To unsubscribe from ADVAITA-L please send an e-mail to
listserv at l... with
body of the message containing SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L
If you need any other help please contact listmaster at a...
========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 16:29:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Philosophical debates and hoaxes
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Anand Hudli <anandhudli at h...>
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 20:19:52 -0400, Bhadraiah Mallampalli
<vaidix at H...> wrote:
>>mAya
>
>This item was never needed because there was nothing that could not be
>deconstructed and explained in terms of ritual. A counter question: is the
>any mention of avidya or ajnAna in veda or upaniSats?
Sure, there are occurrences of "mAyA", "mAyinaM", "mAyinAM", etc. in
what is believed by even the skeptics of today (who do not believe
Vedas to be eternal) to be very ancient- the R^igVeda saMhitA.
As a rudimentary experiment, I recommend those interested to open the
electronic text version of the R^igVeda saMhitA at:
ftp://vedavid.org/pub/IBM_texts/RV_ITRANS_NoAccent_NoCompress/rvibm.1.txt
and do a search for "mAyA". You will be surprised to see how many "hits"
you get. You may also find occurrences in other maNDalas of the Veda
at the same site.
So much for the theory that advaitins borrowed the term "mAyA" from
the Buddhists!
Anand
================================================================================
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
To unsubscribe from ADVAITA-L please send an e-mail to
listserv at l... with
body of the message containing SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L
If you need any other help please contact listmaster at a...
========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 18:30:10 -0400
Subject: Sankaravijaya texts - III
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Vidyasankar Sundaresan <vsundaresan at h...>
>From
Message-Id: <.>
Jun 6, 2001 - Post made by Vidyasankar Sundaresan, from Pasadena, USA,
to the Advaita-L mailing list. Archives hosted at Advaita Vedanta
Anusandhana Kendra (www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l.html)
.______________________.
| Part III of a series |
=========================================================================
Sankara's birthplace -
--------------------
The general oral tradition says that Sankara was born in the village of
Kaladi in Kerala. This is also found in the texts written by Madhava,
Cidvilasa, Brahmananda Saraswati, Rajacudamani Dikshita, Sadananda,
Nilakantha Dikshita and others. Anantanandagiri's Sankaravijaya, in its
1971 edition [1], also gives Kaladi as the place name. However, the 19th
century editions of this text from Calcutta [2, 3], give the birthplace as
Cidambaram in Tamil Nadu. The Cidambaram version also mentions that Sankara
was born to a Brahmana lady, three years after her husband left home to
become a monk. This is referred to in an old encyclopedia, where the author
has relied on the old editions. [4]
Veezhinathan, the editor of the 1971 version from Univ. of Madras, informs
us that two sets of manuscripts of this text may be classified, one set
giving the Cidambaram legend and another giving the Kaladi legend. He gives
the Kaladi version in the text, citing Acyutaraya in support, and puts the
Cidambaram story into footnotes. His reasoning is that the Kaladi version
is authentic, while manuscripts that give Cidambaram are not.
However, there is a reference in the same text, which compares the infant
Sankara with Cidambaresa, which would be appropriate for the Cidambaram
version, but not for the Kaladi version. T.M.P. Mahadevan gives us a very
roundabout "explanation", according to which Kaladi is near Trichur, the
original name of which is Tirusivapperur, which has the name Perur in it,
and that there is a town called Perur in Coimbatore, which has a Nataraja
temple, and is called Adi-Cidambaram. Whatever the merits of this may be,
this supposed explanation still has to refer to Cidambaram in a twice-
removed fashion.
Cidambaram continues to remain central in Anantanandagiri's text, because
it places Sankara's guru, Govinda, at Cidambaram. Mahadevan's introduction
tells us that according to Kanchi matha sources, even Gaudapada was from
Cidambaram. Earlier, in his work on Gaudapapda, Mahadevan had explicitly
refused to view the matha sources as reliable ones [5], but his
introduction to Anantanandagiri's text, he raises no such doubts. In any
case, all this indicates that manuscripts that refer to Cidambaram are the
authentic ones, while those that give Kaladi are probably not authentic. It
follows that the Cidambaram version given in this text comes with all its
unsavory details, casting doubt over the legitimacy of Sankara's birth.
So much for all the ado raised by Mr. Sivabgs about Sankara's birthplace.
Again, to reiterate, I confess to much perplexity when I see that this text
is quoted so often and with such force, by those who derive their authority
from Sankara's name.
Mahavakyas - Four or more?
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian has already pointed out that Panchikarana and
Sukarahasya Upanishad explicitly give four sentences, which are
traditionally known as the four Mahavakyas for initiation into Sannyasa.
T.M.P. Mahadevan's introduction to Anantanandagiri's Sankaravijaya says
that Panchikarana lists only three such sentences, and implies many more.
This is again extremely perplexing, as all editions of Panchikarana give
"tat tvam asi, brahmAham asmi, prajnAnam AnandaM brahma, ayam AtmA brahma
ityAdi vAkyebhyaH [SrutibhyaH]." There are clearly four sentences here, all
of them being versions of the standard four. Yes, the word ityAdi is used,
but then, no Advaitin has denied the existence of other Upanishadic
sentences that teach Advaita. Mahadevan's statement simply makes no sense.
There is one place in the main text of this Sankaravijaya itself, where the
Mahavakyas are mentioned. Veezhinathan makes the text read, "tat tvam asi,
ahaM brahma asmi, ayam AtmA brahma, prajnAnaM brahma, (neha nAnAsti
kiMcana) iti." He has inserted neha nAnAsti kiMcana in parentheses here,
and proceeds to explain himself in a long footnote. Surprisingly, the
footnote has not a single word about this sentence, but enters into a long
digression about how oM tat sat should be a Mahavakya. However, it is not
surprising that he does this, because G. C. Pande's book on Sankara's life
[6] reports that according to Kanchi Matha texts, oM tat sat is the
Mahavakya of that matha.
Veezhinathan also raises the strawman argument that ahaM brahmAsmi, from
the Sukla Yajurveda Upanishad cannot be a Mahavakya for monks of the
Krishna Yajurveda. This is bogus. If this is so, Sankara should be
criticized for commenting on Upanishads of all four Vedas, instead of
sticking to the Veda of his ancestors. Nobody has claimed that the
Mahavakyas should be so rigidly divided according to Veda affiliation, but
everybody has come to associate the four Mahavakyas with the four Mathas
traditionally said to have been established by Sankara, probably based on
nothing more than the fact that each is a set of four.
Be that as it may, it is clear that Veezhinathan has tampered with the
text, and wilfully, in his addition of neha nAnAsti kiMcana within
parentheses. The very next sentence in Anantanandagiri's text uses the term
mahAvAkya-catushTaya in the context of upadeSa, and proceeds to refer to
the "rahasyaveda", where Siva gives upadeSa to Suka, using the mahAvAkya-
catushTaya. This is obviously a reference to the Sukarahasya Upanishad, and
as already pointed out, that text explicitly says, "atha mahAvAkyAni
catvAri" and lists the standard four.
So much for Veezhinathan's claim to having produced a "critical edition" of
Anantanandagiri's text.
It should be obvious that the goal has been to reject the number four, by
hook or by crook. I am sorry to sound harsh, but those who claim to
represent tradition cannot also toss it aside and trample upon it in this
fashion.
This will be the concluding part of this series. Some posts in this series
have sparked a few responses, but there is no point in lengthening this
beyond a certain point. For further small details and analysis, I point
interested readers to my forthcoming article in the International Journal
of Hindu Studies. I will notify list members when it is published.
_________________________________________________________________________
Notes -
-----
1. N. Veezhinathan. ed. Anantanandagiripranitam Srisankaravijayam. 1971.
Madras: University of Madras; [with a foreword by T. M. P. Mahadevan].
2. Jayanarayana Tarkapancanana and Nabadweep Goswami, eds. Sankaravijaya.
1868. Calcutta: Asiatic Society (Bibliotheca Indica No. 46, 137 and 138).
3. Jibananda Vidyasagara Bhattacharya. ed. Sankaravijaya. 1881. Calcutta:
Sarasudhanidhi Press.
4. V. S. Ghate. Sankaracarya. In, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics,
XI: 185-186. 1924. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
5. T. M. P. Mahadevan. Gaudapada: A Study in Early Vedanta. 1960. Madras:
University of Madras.
6. G. C. Pande. Life and Thought of Sankaracharya. 1994. Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass.
=========================================================================
================================================================================
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
To unsubscribe from ADVAITA-L please send an e-mail to
listserv at l... with
body of the message containing SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L
If you need any other help please contact listmaster at a...
========================================================================
Subject: Re: Philosophical debates and hoaxes
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 20:05:07 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Bhadraiah Mallampalli" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Sri Anand Hudli-hi,
Thanks for the reference re: mAya in RgVeda. I will create a new thread for
it.
"Buddhistic influence"
It is clear that Bhagvan Buddha was an innovator but set up his own shop
opposing Vedas for political reasons. Aren't we champions of copy rights? We
must give due credit to Buddha for his innovations.
Buddha's initiatives may have prompted Vedic scholars to dig back into vedas
as we do it today whenever a new scientific or philosophic wave takes over
the world. It may be no different than that.
As the vedic culture had already peaked out a few milennia before Buddha and
the original meaning of the scriptures was lost, there were no further
prajApati legends being created, and almost all new literature was poetic
(kAlidAsa etc). This only goes to prove intellectual honesty of scholars in
that they did not use any word without knowing its meaning, just because it
is the "in thing" to do.
By the time of gauDapAdAcharya advaita in vedas was well known. I read only
one post Sankara work advaita makarandam of lakSmIdhara and it is
consistent.
Buddhistic influence is a dirty word, but I see so such thing in AchAryas or
later works.
Even any use of Buddhistic jargon is no proof of influence. It is like the
way we use English words like mind, however inadequate they are.
It is only when the approach itself becomes corrupt or inconsistent, the
accusation of Buddhistic influence is valid.
But the real influence of Buddhism is on the people. A good number of Indian
philosophers of 20th century who respect vedas taught things like emptyness.
Akasha is fine with me, but not emptyness. This makes the whole approach
inconsistent and difficult to classify where it belongs.
Best regards
Bhadraiah
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
================================================================================
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
To unsubscribe from ADVAITA-L please send an e-mail to
listserv at l... with
body of the message containing SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L
If you need any other help please contact listmaster at a...
========================================================================
Subject: mAya in Rgveda
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 20:21:56 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Bhadraiah Mallampalli" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Sri Anand Hudli-ji,
(Sorry it was a typo, and I wrote "hi" which is also a valid address.)
Thanks for the reference re: mAya in RgVeda. I still haven't looked into
them but here is preview of how I like to approach the matter.
1. All the references to mAya in Rgveda must be looked into and studied.
2. Very often I hear advaitists become apologic about the use of mAya
concept by Sankara. If non-duality can explain everything what is the need
for mAya? Now with Rgvedic reference, I see no reason for apology with
scriptural evidence. Yes, mAya exists (relative to us).
3. mAya may be just another tool to explain advaita like snake and rope.
4. I am tending to conclude to that mAya may be something created by higher
deities to continue its own pre-eminence. For instance your boss may keep
some things confidential, and that may appear as mAya to you. We have
absolutely no right to know about it or question it, nor do we have any
competence to understand even if revealed to us. upaniSats are very clear
about hierarchical order gods depending on context. These vedic gods create
their own food, do guard it and deny it to beings ruled by them to continue
their own pre-eminence.
Br.U. 1.4.10: "Therefore it is not pleasant to the Devas that men should
know this."
If this is mAya we have absolutely no right to question mAya. But mAya
doesn't exist from the highest view point.
4. Now a question arises who created mAya for indra who is only one level
lower than Existence! Did Brahman create it? No. Other gods like viSNu may
have created it to deal with indra. Or the very birth of indra may have
created it.
More ideas please!
Best regards
Bhadraiah
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
================================================================================
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
To unsubscribe from ADVAITA-L please send an e-mail to
listserv at l... with
body of the message containing SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L
If you need any other help please contact listmaster at a...
========================================================================
Subject: mAya in Rgveda
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 20:30:08 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Bhadraiah Mallampalli" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Sri Anand Hudli-ji,
Repeat posting: I will take care to recheck for typos in future.
Thanks for the reference re: mAya in RgVeda. I still haven't looked into
them but here is a preview of how I like to approach the matter.
1. All the references to mAya in Rgveda must be looked into and studied.
2. Very often I hear advaitists become apologetic about the use of mAya
concept by Sankara. If non-duality can explain everything what is the need
for mAya? Now with Rgvedic reference, I see no reason for apology. Yes, mAya
exists (relative to us)!
3. mAya may be just another tool to explain advaita like snake and rope.
4. I am tending to conclude to that mAya may be something created by higher
deities to continue their own pre-eminence. For instance your boss may keep
some things confidential, and that may appear as mAya to you. We have
absolutely no right to know about it or question it, nor do we have any
competence to understand even if it is revealed to us. upaniSats are very
clear about hierarchical order of gods depending on context. These vedic
gods create their own food, they do guard it and deny it to beings ruled by
them to continue their own pre-eminence.
Br.U. 1.4.10: "Therefore it is not pleasant to the Devas that men should
know this."
But this mAya doesn't exist from the highest view point.
4. Now a question arises who created mAya for indra who is only one level
lower than Existence! Did Brahman create it? No. Other gods like viSNu may
have created it to deal with indra. Or the very birth of indra may have
created it.
More ideas please!
Best regards
Bhadraiah
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
================================================================================
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
To unsubscribe from ADVAITA-L please send an e-mail to
listserv at l... with
body of the message containing SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L
If you need any other help please contact listmaster at a...
========================================================================
Subject: Re: mAya in Rgveda
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 21:01:08 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Bhadraiah Mallampalli" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
>Buddhistic influence is a dirty word, but I see "no" such thing in
> >AchAryas or later works.
No such thing!
Best regards
Bhadraiah
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
================================================================================
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
To unsubscribe from ADVAITA-L please send an e-mail to
listserv at l... with
body of the message containing SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L
If you need any other help please contact listmaster at a...
========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 22:11:31 -0400
Subject: Re: mAya in Rgveda
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Anand Hudli <anandhudli at h...>
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 20:21:56 -0400, Bhadraiah Mallampalli
<vaidix at H...> wrote:
>1. All the references to mAya in Rgveda must be looked into and studied.
>
I agree. A systematic study requires us to look into commentaries on
the R^ig veda by sAyaNa, skandasvAmI, venkaTa-mAdhava, and others.
>From this study, especially sAyaNa who is recognized as the foremost
among such commentators, perhaps a clear picture of the origins of
the mAyA theory will emerge.
>2. Very often I hear advaitists become apologic about the use of mAya
>concept by Sankara. If non-duality can explain everything what is the need
>for mAya? Now with Rgvedic reference, I see no reason for apology with
>scriptural evidence. Yes, mAya exists (relative to us).
>
True. The negative connotations of mAyAvAda and prachchhanna-bauddha-mata
have been propagated viciously by many schools who could not find any
breach in the impregnable fortress of advaita built on strong
foundations by GauDapAda and Shankara, with rock-solid walls by
the likes of shrIharSha and MadhusUdana, and finally a strong roof and
banner by those jIvanmuktas in the recent past who have served as
beacons or living proof of the doctrines of advaita. Also, Western
and modern Indian scholars have their own fish to fry, and with the rise
in popularity of Buddhism in the West, they feel that somehow advaita
must be a rehash of shUnyavAda or mAdhyamika theories to fit the
upaniShads. One of the allegations is that the upaniShads themselves
were "composed" after Buddha. But this is clearly refuted by the fact
that the Vedas as a whole, saMhitAs, brAhmaNas, and upaniShads, are
remarkably consistent and self-contained and it is foolish to argue
that one part of the Vedas which is consistent with others is
prebuddhist (the R^igveda saMhitA for example) while another
part (the upaniShads) are post-buddhist.
Anand
================================================================================
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
To unsubscribe from ADVAITA-L please send an e-mail to
listserv at l... with
body of the message containing SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L
If you need any other help please contact listmaster at a...
========================================================================
Subject: Irony of possessiveness!
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 19:55:47 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Chandrashekaran Venkataraman <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Dear members,
Amidst all the controversies (about the superficial details) that
have been flying in this list, I would like to share an ironical
situation I was in about a few years back.
I belong to kaanchi mutt, but never have been very spiritually
associated with the mutt in any sense except that I am a follower
of advaita and adore Sri Chandrasekarendra Saraswati, as much as
I adore Sri Chandrasekara Bharathi of Sringeri mutt.
My friend and colleague belongs to Sringeri mutt. Abt a few years back,
I recollect, we were discussing about Sankara's period... I went by what
I have read in history, having no valuable acquaintance with any other
sources, and asserted that Sankara's period is 8th century AD.. but my
friend asserted that it's well before birth of christ. We being good
friends settled down saying 'how does it matter' and remained calm in
the end. If you noticed, here we belonged to two difft. mutts
but were asserting the other's belief as the valid one unknowingly.
What an irony?! This irony was brought out by our ignorance about
our respective traditional beliefs, I agree. But there is also a
remote chance that if we had known our respective beliefs and were
staunch about it, we would have asserted differently.. So much to
our ego and its possessions!
The possessiveness in us lots of times paints the Truth, but it
seems so innocent most of the times when it does this! But the
solace is that Truth being much much bigger than the individuals
who are defending it and those who are offending it (either knowingly
or unknowingly), it prevails ever untainted amidst our constant
endeavours to know it as it is. So human efforts should be to share
ideas and *discover* the Truth. Truth doesn't need any Guards.
I think these are some lessons brought out by Sankaravijaya series
posted by Vidya. But still we haven't discovered the Truth as it is
in this case since there are still disputes. But the Truth is prevailing
intangibly regardless of the mortals going after it... I feel this
is pretty much same as human endeavours in defining the one God in
many ways... In whatever way each human defines God, God will exist
as what He is regardless of the mortals after Him. God is Truth.
Sorry, if this sounds like rambling...
Just wanted to share these thoughts.. I would be glad if this
is valuable in the present context.
Regards,
chandra.
================================================================================
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
To unsubscribe from ADVAITA-L please send an e-mail to
listserv at l... with
body of the message containing SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L
If you need any other help please contact listmaster at a...
========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 23:38:21 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Philosophical debates and hoaxes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, nanda chandran wrote:
> The world changes. You change. Still saints teach there's a changeless
> reality in you underlying all the change.
I'm being a little nit-picky here but I'd just like to point out that the
changeless reality is not just in you but everywhere. The problem is only
secondarily that you don't recognize the changeless reality but mainly
that you you do recognize a you (and me and them...) The point I'm trying
to elucidate is that Advaita Vedanta is not only pointed inwards but
outwards too. A mystical approach can also mean being like Purusha who
"covers all this and ten fingers beyond."
> Not only is it *in you*, they
> also teach that it is only you yourself.
In the same vein, a more accurate way to say "not only is it in you it is
everywhere. There is no you only it."
[...]
> If you sit quietly - when there's no action either mental or physical -
> it is only natural that you'll be by yourself - after a period of time
> when the agitation of the body and mind has died down, your true self
> will shine through. But the problem is that nobody can
> sit quitely in a place for more than a few minutes, without their mind
> asking for "justification" for such an action, without the body craving
> to move/act. Within minutes you'll be up and running - being will become
> becoming.
>
> So when sages script a way of life for people with the ultimate purpose
> of aspiring for nirvaana - they know that they
> cannot only talk about the changeless - they've to cater towards the
> changing too. Yes, even the samnyaasin cannot be in a changeless state
> - with a mind turned inwards - for more than few hours a day. So what
> do we do with the rest of the day? The monkey mind if left to itself
> will feed on all things which are not conducive to you being yourself.
In Samkhya/Yoga this stillness of the mind (chitta vrtti nirodhah) is
Samadhi the ultimate goal. You have revealed why Advaita Vedanta rejects
this view. Samadhi is an unnatural state. The mind is naturally
inconstant and that's why force must be used to still it. This is ok for
Samkhya/Yoga because it is dualistic and they readily admit the soul
(purush) is not part of nature (prakrti.) But jnana as described in
Advaita Vedanta is much more than stillness of the mind. Brahman is not
apart from prakriti made up of three gunas. It contains it and transcends
it. Even all the movement in the universe is nothing compared to the
infinity of Brahman. The knowledge of Brahman is unshakeable and
effortless.
[...]
> The
> conflict here is not between me and Jaladhar or between Buddhism and
> Vedanta (here Vedanta is what Jaladhar interprets it to be; for me
> there's no difference between Buddhism and Vedanta)
1. Nothing I've said is "Jaldhar's opinion" only the views our sadguru
parampara has held forever. I don't go for pulling notions out of thin
air just to suit my fancy. If you should find an opinion of mine is not
authentic I'll gladly retract it.
2. The idea that there could have been a Buddhist influence o Advaita
Vedanta I don't agree with but atleast it's plausible. That "there's
no difference between Buddhism and Vedanta" is an idea more fantastic than
any exploit of Kumarila Bhatta.
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at b...>
================================================================================
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
To unsubscribe from ADVAITA-L please send an e-mail to
listserv at l... with
body of the message containing SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L
If you need any other help please contact listmaster at a...
========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 23:47:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Madhusudana on bhakti
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Thankyou for your most informative post. You described an 11 stage
process of Bhakti. What are the 11 steps? Does Swami M.S. give a
shastraic rationale for this?
Also will your translation of the Bhaktirasayana include the Sanskrit
text? A pet peeve of mine is translations that don't include the original
text. It makes it very difficult for people who know Sanskrit to check
the accuracy of the translation.
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at b...>
================================================================================
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
To unsubscribe from ADVAITA-L please send an e-mail to
listserv at l... with
body of the message containing SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L
If you need any other help please contact listmaster at a...
========================================================================
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 00:00:40 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Sankara's life period
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, Chandrashekaran Venkataraman wrote:
> While this is the case, why is the life period of the most eminent
> of all Indian religious personalities, Sankara, so much debated
> even by the very orgs. that represent his dharsana? Even if one
> says there is lot of other issues (related to originality of mutt etc.,)
> that has given rise to this forced ambiguity (per se), why is no
> other school of scholars able to nail this down? Are we so much
> starved of data to prove one way or the other, once and for all?
> I apologise if this question is annoying.. This is a sincere question
> as I am totally an illiterate in this area.
>
You're right there just isn't enough data. Indians (particulary
Sannyasis like Shankaracharya) never cared much for dates. The estimates
of the times of Buddha and Mahavira are in part based on the calendar
systems based upon their lives. But their is no "Shankara Samvata" so
that can't help. And even if there was it might not be accurate. (It is
widely suspected that the Christian calendar is off by four years because
the calendermakers--the first of whom lived about a couple of hundred
years after Jesus--miscalculated his date of birth.)
Other information about Buddhist authors we get from the date when
translations were made by the Chinese (and later the Tibetans.) The
Chinese were as meticulous with dates as the Indians were not. Why? I
don't know but there you have it. As the translations were not made
instantly even this leaves a margin of error.
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at b...>
================================================================================
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
To unsubscribe from ADVAITA-L please send an e-mail to
listserv at l... with
body of the message containing SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L
If you need any other help please contact listmaster at a...
========================================================================
Subject: Re: Philosophical debates and hoaxes
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 05:53:30
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "nanda chandran" <vpcnk at H...>
>Buddhistic influence is a dirty word, but I see so such thing in AchAryas
>or
>later works.
See even Ramana Maharishi only expeienced the Reality. But he "learnt"
Advaita only by listening to various texts on the subject. When he heard
them he was able to reconcile those teacings with his own spiritual
experience.
So what I'm saying here is not that maya or ajaativaada is not a Vedic
concept - but that before Nagarjuna nobody was able to *explain it
logically*. Ramana himself admits that after even his experience he did not
know about any unifying substratum underlying all the diversity in the
world. He just knew his own Self and knew that it was not the body or mind
and beyond birth and death. That's how much he knew. And only after
listening to various expositions of Advaita was he able to logically work
out the implications of his experience.
So yes, the Vedic sages did know of maya and ajaativaada. Gaudapaada himself
says so - that those versed in the Vedas know the world to be unborn. But
only that they were not able to logically explain how. It is Nagarjuna's
genius which shows how it is so. The whole of Madhyamaka Shaastram is
nothing but an exposition of ajaativaada and maya.
But could he have borrowed this from other sources? As he was a brahmin
before his conversion to Buddhism it is very possible that he did borrow the
concept. But as noted before - he didn't borrow the logical exposition. From
what we can make out both ajaativaada and maya were buried in Vedic
teachings and nobody really understood it. It was he who picked it out.
Indian philosophy in those days was a highly competitive environment with
all philosophers of all schools well versed in the teachings of other
schools. If a logical exposition was already present - then when Nagarjuna
came out with his teachings, the Buddhists themselves would have condemned
it as a Vedic concept (as they condemned Vijnaanavaada of resembling the
Atman doctrine too much) and other schools too would have noted it. But no
such thing happened. Before Gaudapaada, maya and ajaativaada were recognized
Bauddha concepts. But in contrast look at how Bhaskara reacts when Advaita
surfaced : maahaayaanika
bauddhagaathitam maayaavaadam (Bhaskara's Bhasya on the Brahma Sutras). He
was quick to note that Maya was a Buddhist concept, because it was they who
had logically explained it and made it their own teaching.
Also note that Shankara himself recognizes only Gaudapaada of being the one
who brought out the truth of the Upanishads - because it was only he who
recognized that ajaativaada and maya were actually Vedic concepts though it
was being taught by the Buddhists - and he reconciled it with the Vedanta.
Even this "Vedic" or "Bauddha" concept is only foolishness. Ajaativaada
and maya is in phenomenal terms the product of reason/jnaana - you analyze
ideas about the world and they are not ultimately meaningful and hence the
world can neither be desribed as real, nor unreal, nor both, nor neither -
maya. The idea is that what the Buddhas experience, they're proving it by
logic.
And Bhadraiah, please read more about Buddhism before coming to unwarranted
conclusions about what it taught or didn't teach.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
================================================================================
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
To unsubscribe from ADVAITA-L please send an e-mail to
listserv at l... with
body of the message containing SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L
If you need any other help please contact listmaster at a...
========================================================================
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 14:03:21 -0400
Subject: Re: mahAvAkyAs
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: BGS <owner-advaita-l at L...>
On Fri, 1 Jun 2001 10:42:18 -0700, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian
<balasr at Y...> wrote:
>Thanks Ravi, for the pointer. I went through the other
>mails of Mr BGS in the ambaa list. It's interesting
>when someone joins the list claiming that he can
>supply the details of original research on BhaTTar and
>then the only contribution seems to be a monlogue on
>why Kudali and not Sringeri was the maTHa established
>by sha.nkara. One is certainly justified in wondering
>what the motives here are.
Rama, it seems that you have not searched the list properly.
In my intro. I had informed them about my collections on
Bhattar.Please read my posts in the ambaa list about bhattar.
BGS
================================================================================
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
To unsubscribe from ADVAITA-L please send an e-mail to
listserv at l... with
body of the message containing SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L
If you need any other help please contact listmaster at a...
========================================================================
Subject: FW: JIVA & BRAMHAN - a Lecture from Dr. SMS CHari this sunday eve ning
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 11:49:54 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Chandrashekaran Venkataraman <owner-advaita-l at L...>
-----Original Message-----
From: Krishna Kalale [mailto:kkalale1 at s...]
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 11:43 AM
To: lecture-announce at yahoogroups.com; bhakti-list at yahoogroups.com;
malolan_net at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lecture-announce] JIVA & BRAMHAN - a Lecture from Dr. SMS
CHari this sunday evening
Lecture Annoucement : PLEASE FORWARD TO OTHER GROUPS IF YOU ARE A MEMBER
Lecture from Dr. SMS Chari
Subject : Jiva and Bramhan in the Upanisads and Bhagavadgita
Duration ; Lecture 1 hr - Q& A 40 minutes.
Date : June 10th, Sunday : 6pm Pacific 9pm EST
Note : Dr. SMS Chari is the author or several books on Vedanta.
Cost : $8
To get dial in number and codes send email to pavitra at w...
<mailto:pavitra at w...> ( Srinath Chakravarthy)
Note : this is an important lecture on the aspects of how the Bhagavadgita
and Upanisads explain the nature of Jiva and Bramhan. This will be a
comparitive analysis based on several Vedantic Acharyas. This lecture
throws some light on the subject matter of the new book which Dr. Chari is
writing currently. It is a treat to discuss these details with Dr. Chari
and interested people can take advantage of this lecture which will be
followed by Q&A.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lecture-announce-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
Visit http://ramanuja.org/svss/lectures.html for latest info
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
================================================================================
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
To unsubscribe from ADVAITA-L please send an e-mail to
listserv at l... with
body of the message containing SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L
If you need any other help please contact listmaster at a...
========================================================================
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 12:56:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Sankaravijaya texts - III
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <owner-advaita-l at L...>
--- Vidyasankar Sundaresan <vsundaresan at H...>
wrote:
> Veezhinathan also raises the strawman argument that
> ahaM brahmAsmi, from
> the Sukla Yajurveda Upanishad cannot be a Mahavakya
> for monks of the
> Krishna Yajurveda. This is bogus. If this is so,
> Sankara should be
> criticized for commenting on Upanishads of all four
> Vedas, instead of
> sticking to the Veda of his ancestors. Nobody has
> claimed that the
> Mahavakyas should be so rigidly divided according to
> Veda affiliation, but
> everybody has come to associate the four Mahavakyas
> with the four Mathas
> traditionally said to have been established by
> Sankara, probably based on
> nothing more than the fact that each is a set of
> four.
This is a very important point made by Vidyasankar.
The association must have been based on the fact that
each is a set of four only. There seems to be a
misconception, sometimes within the tradition itself,
that the mahAvAkya upadesha at the start of sannyAsa
is like some gAyatrI mantra upadesha or something like
that.
The important thing is to realize that unity is taught
in all 4 vedas. That is the idea behind *4*
mahAvAkya-s. Surely no one would think there are no
other passages teaching unity? The idea of meditation
on mahAvAkya-s is also explicitly rejected by
Sureshvara in his naishhkarmya siddhi. He asks "if the
sentence tattvamasi cannot dispel ignorance once, how
can it dispel ignorance by repeated meditation on it?"
Plus, various mahAvAkya-s get repeated in different
upanishhads. For example, the kaivalya upanishhad
which has been quoted by sha.nkara has the statement
"tattvamasi tvameva tat.h". Also the aghamarshhaNa
sUktam in the kR^ishNa yahureveda declares:
yo.ahamasmi brahmAhamasmi | ahamasmi brahmAhamasmi. So
one should not fall into the error of rigid
demarkations and understand why shruti comes up with
the number 4.
Rama
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
================================================================================
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
To unsubscribe from ADVAITA-L please send an e-mail to
listserv at l... with
body of the message containing SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L
If you need any other help please contact listmaster at a...
========================================================================
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 12:17:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Madhusudana on bhakti
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Ashish Chandra <ramkisno at H...>
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001 23:47:14 -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at B...>
wrote:
>Thankyou for your most informative post. You described an 11 stage
>process of Bhakti. What are the 11 steps? Does Swami M.S. give a
>shastraic rationale for this?
>
I believe I have also read of only 7 bhumikas - that at the 7th, Brahman is
fully known.
>Also will your translation of the Bhaktirasayana include the Sanskrit
>text? A pet peeve of mine is translations that don't include the original
>text. It makes it very difficult for people who know Sanskrit to check
>the accuracy of the translation.
In addition to what Jaldhar has said, could you also post a history of
Bhaktirasayana e.g. when it was written etc. AFAIK, GUdArthadIpikA was
written by Swami Madhusudan Saraswati in order to be accepted by his
Advaita guru in Kashi, who wanted proof of his eligibility. Maybe some list
member knows why his Guru put this condition on Swami Madhusudan.
thanks
ashish
================================================================================
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
To unsubscribe from ADVAITA-L please send an e-mail to
listserv at l... with
body of the message containing SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L
If you need any other help please contact listmaster at a...
========================================================================
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 13:23:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Sankaravijaya texts - III
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Vivek Anand Ganesan <v_ganesan at Y...>
--- ShrI Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian wrote:
> The idea of meditation
> on mahAvAkya-s is also explicitly rejected by
> Sureshvara in his naishhkarmya siddhi. He asks "if the
> sentence tattvamasi cannot dispel ignorance once, how
> can it dispel ignorance by repeated meditation on it?"
Thank you for this information. I was under the impression
that vAkya upadesham was specifically meant for meditation.
Namely, shravanam, manannam and nidhidhyasanam were meant
especially for the mahAvAkya-s. What is the role of the
mahAvAkya-s then? Does it just teach the tattva? If we are
not supposed to meditate on them then what should we
meditate on? I kindly request clarification on this.
Thanks,
-Vivek.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
================================================================================
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
To unsubscribe from ADVAITA-L please send an e-mail to
listserv at l... with
body of the message containing SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L
If you need any other help please contact listmaster at a...
========================================================================
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 18:19:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Sankaravijaya texts - III
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Vidyasankar Sundaresan <vsundaresan at h...>
Vivek Anand Ganesan wrote:
>Thank you for this information. I was under the impression
>that vAkya upadesham was specifically meant for meditation.
>Namely, shravanam, manannam and nidhidhyasanam were meant
>especially for the mahAvAkya-s. What is the role of the
>mahAvAkya-s then? Does it just teach the tattva? If we are
>not supposed to meditate on them then what should we
>meditate on? I kindly request clarification on this.
If meditation is to be seen as japa, the way people recite a
mantra, without understanding any deeper meaning behind it,
then no, the mahAvAkyas are not meant to be meditated upon in
this fashion. Indeed, there are numerous stories about how a
mantra for japa need not have conventional or even a hidden
meaning, but a meditation on it will still yield fruits. A
mantra can often be a purely meaningless syllable. Inasmuch
as this is a mental activity, which gives a result, japa is
akin to karma. However, it is a matter of definition, that
AtmajnAna is not the result of any action whatsoever.
Sankara and Suresvara make the point, numerous times, that
the Sruti has a revelatory role (jnApaka or bodhaka), so
the vedAnta-vAkyas are to be understood and internalized.
The process of doing this, in reality, IS meditation. The
dictionary meaning of the verbal root, to meditate, is -
to contemplate, to reflect upon, to focus one's thoughts on,
to ponder over. In this sense, when a scientist is thinking
intensely about his research problem, he is meditating; when
a judge is pondering over evidence in a court trial, he is
meditating; when a university professor is planning his
lecture, he is meditating; when a student is focussed on
his assignments, he is meditating; when a musician is
immersed in his music, he is meditating. (As an aside, this
is what makes me impatient with those who claim that there
is no spirituality in Western music. To me, the spirituality
is in the person, not in the thing.) However, these are not
the same as repeating a mantra some x times.
Sravana, manana and nididhyAsana are indeed meant for the
mahAvAkyas, but the object here is to know the knowledge
revealed by the vAkyas. If we realize that the word manana
implies the operation of memory, and that nididhyAsana is
analogous to the word dhyAna, then yes, there is meditation
involved. But we have to be very clear about what we mean
by the word meditation here. Memory implies a recollection
of that which is already known. Similarly, dhyAna implies
a focussing of attention on that which is already known.
It therefore follows that what makes the thing known is
primarily SravaNa. That is why mahAvAkya upadeSa is given
much importance in the tradition.
Note that Sankara gives a very high place to what is called
dhyAna-yoga, in his commentary on the Gita, as he labels
dhyAnayoga as an integral part of the right vision that is
AtmajnAna (samyag-darSanasya antaranga - Gitabhashya 5. 27).
Any action is only an external/peripheral portion of this
dhyAnayoga (samyagdarSanasya antarangasya dhyAnayogasya
bahirangaM karma iti - Gitabhashya chapter 6, introductory
passage).
When Suresvara says - "If one teaching of tattvamasi does
not reveal the Atman, then how will mere repeating of the
sentence reveal it?" - he is raising an objection to an
old Vedantic view called prasaMkhyAna vAda. When we dig
into the texts, we see that this is part of a very old
dispute in the history of Vedanta. The prasaMkhyAna vAdin
says that meditation on the vAkyas is to be done till the
Atman is experienced (prasaMkhyAnam ataH kAryaM yAvad
AtmAnubhUyate - verse chapter 18 in Upadesasahasri).
There is a small book by Jonathan Bader, titled Meditation
in Sankara's Vedanta, published by Aditya Prakashan, Delhi.
There are a few points on which I would disagree with the
author, but I definitely recommend it as a ready reference
work. Also see the discussion by Mayeda in his introduction
to the translation of Upadesasahasri, and my paper in the
Adyar Library Bulletin, 1998, on prasaMkhyAna vAda, and
Sankara's teaching of parisaMkhyAna meditation. Among the
contemporary teachers of Advaita in the US, I would draw
attention to what Swami Dayananda Saraswati of the Arsha
Vidya Gurukulam says about this topic.
To round this off by going back to the tradition, note that
the practice of the Dasanami Sannyasins in India is not to
do japa of the mahAvAkyas, but to meditate on the akAra,
ukAra and makAra (auM), as described in the mANDUkya up.
and in the prakaraNa text called pancIkaraNa.
This praNavadhyAna is either on the brahman with attributes
or on the higher brahman. This follows mANDUkya kArikAs
(praNavo hy aparaM brahma, praNavaS caiva paras smRtaH).
However, note that the auMkAra is not called a mahAvAkya.
Technically, it is an akshara, i.e. a syllable, not a vAkya.
(aum ity etad aksharam idaM sarvam... - mANDukya up.)
Best regards,
Vidyasankar
================================================================================
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
To unsubscribe from ADVAITA-L please send an e-mail to
listserv at l... with
body of the message containing SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L
If you need any other help please contact listmaster at a...
========================================================================
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 08:27:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Re : Philosophical debates and hoaxes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Ram Chandran <rchandran at c...>
Namaste Nandaji:
Though your logic appears compelling, I am sorry to say that I disagree.
Here is my understanding of Shankara's statement: "don't get seduced by
looking at the navel of a woman." Shankara by this statement warns the lower
ends of human tendencies and ask us to assume the higher levels. When we
were children, we get amused by the toys and if we go to a toy store, we
want to buy and play with the toys. As children, our mind gets agitated
because of our attachment to things that we like and enjoy. But as adults,
when we go to the toy store, the same toys that we used to play do not have
any impact on us and we are no more agitated. We do become ‘instant
jnanis!" Whether you agree or disagree, we have high potential to be a jnani
and avoid getting mind agitation when seeing objects that bring sensual
pleasures. According to Vedanta, we are truly jnanis but our ignorance and
false attachment propels desires and we suffer due to their consequences.
We do take up samnyaasam slowly and steadily, some can do it faster and
others may indulge in worldly things for a longer time. Please understand
that the Vedantic view of human liberation is much more appealing than the
views expressed in Buddhism. Vedanta doesn't deny that pain is inevitable
but it stresses that suffering is avoidable through detachment. You may
have a different point of view and may be more convinced with point of view
of Buddhism and I fully respect it but I certainly don't agree.
Coming back to intellectual conceptualization, let me restate my
understanding. Vedanta distinguishes between "para" and "apara" vidya.
Apara vidya includes learning and mastering of all scriptures including the
Vedas. The Upanishads (also in Vivekachoodamani) states that apara vidya is
not sufficient for God-realization and it is para vidya that can lead us to
Self-realization. The famous quotation of the Upanishads, "the more we
know, the more we don't know" signifies why the path of intellectual
education will never help us realize the Brahman. Please understand that
faith is integral part of Advaita Vedanta and "God" is the gate keeper who
opens the door for us when the reach the gate to liberation. All the road
maps, guides and vehicles that travel can take us may at the most can take
us to the Gate. But with only God's grace, the gate will open for human
liberation. If you are convinced that without God's grace and with only
intellectually, you can be liberated, I respect your view but I disagree.
Your statements regarding ‘object,' and ‘subject' are intellectually quite
appealing but it can take us no where as for as I can see. According to
Vedanta, we should prepare discard all notions including the notion of
Advaita Philosophy to get the liberation. Once again, God's grace alone will
guarantee our liberation and this statement is the statement of faith which
is quite essential in understanding Shankara's Advaita Philosophy. The
reading of books and Shastras are only to help us to cultivate ‘faith.' St
Augustine is quite correct when he said: "faith is to believe what we don't
see; its reward is to see what we believe."
warmest regards,
Ram Chandran
================================================================================
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
To unsubscribe from ADVAITA-L please send an e-mail to
listserv at l... with
body of the message containing SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L
If you need any other help please contact listmaster at a...
========================================================================
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 12:27:28 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Philosophical debates and hoaxes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, nanda chandran wrote:
> There're some problems here. There's the true Self which is non-dual
> with brahman. The false self is a product of ignorance. It has no reality in
> itself and Shankara clearly says that liberation is only the removal of
> ignorance. You neither *go into* liberation or does liberation *come to*
> you. You already are liberated and all you need to do is get rid of the
> ignorance - the false self.
>
No there is only one self. Whether it is perceived as true or false
depends on the perceiver. It is there, in the perception, that the value
true or false resides. Removal of ignorance means a change in perspective
not the creation or destruction of anything. Perhaps a picture might
help.
Before Moksha:
+---+
| A | B
+---+
After Moksha:
+-------+
| A B |
+-------+
A and B represent two putative "objects". The box, the boundaries of "self".
What changes after the dawn of jnana is only the notion of where the
boundaries of self are. (Or to be more accurate the notion that there are
no boundaries to the self.)
> You say : "The false self can transcend ignorance because the truth
> that it learns is *there are no external objects*. What it preceived as
> external is really nothing other than itself".
>
> The false self is ignorance. It is due to it that objects are perceived
> as *different* from yourself. So where's there sense in saying that the
> false self realizes that there are no external objects? If it perceives
> external objects as nothing other than itself it only means - it which
> is ignorance perceives external objects which too are a product of
> ignorance as no different from itself. Sure, but where's there liberation
> here?
>
Ok time for a another picture.
Samsara Moksha
false self true self
ignorance jnana
| |
+----->----->----->----->----->----->+
| |
A B
All that is happening between point A and point B is a change of
perspective, the nature of the perceiver is exactly the same. The self is
only "false" insofar as it considers things to be external. This
feeling of externality grows less and less until it disappears. Then the
self is true.
> See - ultimately to *know* the external - is only ignorance. That's the
> reason it is repeatedly said that the Self cannot be known as an object.
> The Self is only you - self-established knowledge - to be known as the
> subject, here and now.
>
The object is not to know the external or internal but to know non-difference.
> But who knows that? If your true self has to know it, then obviously
> it cannot be perfect - for it is then short of that knowledge.
> For
> reasons given above, it cannot be the false self which knows this either. So
> let us reflect more on what abheda or ananya means.
>
That argument could be made against any kind of Vedantic sadhana. At
first the equivalance has to be taken as a matter of faith or ideology.
As the level of discipline and experience becomes higher the
sense of equivalence becomes stronger and stronger until it is
unshakeable. This is mukti.
> Because it is your liberation which is at stake here. So it is your self
> which needs the attention.
>
This may be so at the very beginning but ashe learns more, the sadhaka
realizes this is a false premise.
> As long as there's the thought "there is no something else" - it is
> only vritti - duality and ignorance. "There's no something else" is
> not a thought or knowledge - it is rather lack of any knowledge of
> difference. And this feeling of non-difference is not conceptual to
> be "known" as an object. It is an integral experience where when you
> know your own self, the self of the world too becomes known - "knowing
> which everything else is known".
>
> >And again let me point out that Bhakti does not imply "external object"
>
> You can have grand ideas about it - but all action necessarily implies
> duality.
>
But Bhakti does not imply action!
> >The difference is he now
> >abides in the unshakeable conviction that these are not "external objects"
> >but only his own self.
>
> You've to first explain how such a knowledge will arise with an *external*
> search.
The same way it can arise from reading the words of the Vedas (an external
object) or hearing a Guru (an external object) or reading a book (an
external object.)
> As noted earlier : 1. according to maayaavaada you cannot *know*
> external objects.
The distinction betwen external or internal is purely a matter of
perspective. The goal of any kind of Vedantic sadhana is to wean the
sadhaka away from the idea of external objects.
> 2. even if you know, it is not your true self which knows
> as it doesn't need any such knowledge. So if it is your false self which
> knows that things external to it are none other than itself - then it can
> only mean ignorance knows ignorance. So all this only leads to absurdity.
>
Then according to you all Vedantic sadhana is absurd. Every sadhaka
starts off mired in ignorance. If the ignorant cannot know, then
knowledge is impossible. Yes ignorance knows ignorance. Ignorance uses
ignorance to negate ignorance.
> >Don't you see? there is no "your" or "my" in Brahman. *Everything* is
> >non-dual with Brahman.
>
> But you're not *in* Brahman, are you? You are an individual who's striving
> for liberation. Do not mix vyavahaara and paramaartha.
>
Then why did you say "*your*self is Brahman". That is also mixing up
vyavahara and paramartha no? In order to give the sadhaka a goal to aim
for the end result of that sadhana (this applies to any sadhana) is
described in detail. At first the sadhaka only pays lip service to such
words. As he progresses they become more solid for him.
If the statement "yourself is Brahman" is possible and meaningful than the
statement "everything is Brahman" is also possible and meaningful. If
one is a mixup of perspectives, both are.
> But whose liberation are we talking about here? Are you trying to liberate
> the world? Even if you *know* the truth of the world, then the world will be
> liberated and you'll still be standing in ignorance. Personal salvation is
> at stake here. The world is maya because of your avidhya. So it is your
> avidhya which needs to be removed.
>
Perhaps "personal salvation" is the initial motive to make a person
interested in Vedanta but again the aim of the sadhana is to disabuse him
of the notion that there is "person", "world", even eventually
"liberation" Avidya will not lessen while he believes in such things.
> Don't tell me that the world is not different from you - that's only so
> in the ultimate sense - if you are a jnaani. For the jiva it is different -
> else why would there even be an advaita Vedanta as a path to liberation? Can
> the knowledge of "non-difference" arise in you from studying the world?
> Maayaavaada is the reason it cannot.
>
Actually even in the world there is some sense of non-difference. Take
for example a soldier dressing the same way, following the same orders
etc. as the rest of the army. Or perhaps more apropos for our discussion,
a mothers love for her child. When the child is hurt, she feels the pain
as much. The problem with these small outbreaks of non-difference is they
are transient. Vedanta is a system for making non-difference stick. If
even the common man can have some inkling of non-difference, then surely
the Vedantic sadhaka can even before he is a jnani.
> The realization of unity between the world and yourself is not a product of
> mere conceptual thinking or understanding. Then it will only be as
> unreal as normal experience which differentiates between yourself and
> the world. Then you can imagine anything - there's no world or no you or
> the world is in you or under you or above you etc
>
Again the same can be said of any form of sadhana. They all start off as
concept. Their worth is measured by where they end up.
> Advaita teaches an integral spiritual experience where you know yourself
> as non-different from the world.
>
> You can have a conception in your mind that Bhagavan is not external -
> but everytime you act you're only proving otherwise. As long as the
> mind is not turned inward, all acts are external. Even the turning
> inward of the mind is also action - but it leads to inaction and
> non-dualism.
>
A basic misunderstanding in this discussion revolves the meaning of
Karma.
Action is an adequate English translation but not a perfect one. Some
kinds of actions do not fall under the purview of karma. Things like
eating, sleeping, breathing for instance are purely instinctual. (this by
the way is the defence against those who think Jivanmukti is impossible
because they say it is impossible to give up action entirely.) What is
karma then? It is action performed with intention. During a religious
ritual we make the saMkalpa (intention) "ahaM amuka karma karishye" and in
secular actions too we have some intention in mind. It is intention which
is to be avoided by the sadhaka because it presupposes duality.
Interestingly in III.32 Gaudapadacharya uses the words na saMkalpayate to
describe what happens to the mind after realization. "It does not
intend." Not it does not think. A jivanmukta can also talk to people,
move objects, or trip over things. The difference is he no longer has
thoughts like "I will do this to achieve that." This is what is meant by
transcending karma.
> >And incidently even Gaudapadacharya uses the words Prabhu (e.g. III.13)
> >and Bhagavan (e.g. IV. 82) to describe Brahman.
>
> But he doesn't mix vyavahaara and paramartha indiscriminately.
>
No he doesn't. Tell me, why do you think he used those particular words?
> Unless you sit still everything is action only. There's no great complexity
> here - any movement of your body, senses and mind is action only.
It may be action but it isn't karma in the sense a Vedantin cares about.
> Even inward search is action. But it is an effort towards in-action
> which leads to abiding in yourself and non-dualism. You have to
> explain how bhakti can achieve this. I also notice that your
> definition of bhakti has progressively undergone radical change from
> the day we first started this discussion. First it was merely praying
> to bhagavan - now I've no idea what you're talking about. In the next
> post, in precise terms please clearly explain your conception of
> bhakti.
>
Bhakti in a nutshell is intense love of God. It certainly includes prayer
but perhaps the key behavior is the Bhakta's attention is constantly
focused on God. It is purely selfless (i.e. lacking intention which as I
mentioned is the hallmark of karma.) When the bhakta realizes that God is
not other than his own self it is jnana nothing else.
> Also, let us first reconcile jnaana and bhakti with the fundamental
> psychology and metaphysics of Advaita. Then we can turn to what the
> teachers of Advaita say. Else it will only be your interpretation against
> mine.
So first you're going to a priori assume a "psychology and metaphysics of
Advaita" and then turn to the people who actually created that psychology
and metaphysics? That seems to be approaching the problem backwards to
me.
And I must say I'm getting rather annoyed with this "well that's just your
opinion" attitude people have. Advaita Vedanta is a living force today.
It is plainly obvious that its' exponents have no problem with Bhakti.
I've shown that their historical predecessors haven't had such a problem
either. You on the contrary have mostly offered up unsupported assertions
and where you have given quotes more often than not you've misinterpreted
them. There is such a thing as objectivity. I for one try and maintain
an objective outlook as much as possible. I only wish more people would
do the same.
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at b...>
================================================================================
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
To unsubscribe from ADVAITA-L please send an e-mail to
listserv at l... with
body of the message containing SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L
If you need any other help please contact listmaster at a...
========================================================================
Subject: Re : Philosophical debates and hoaxes
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 17:04:58
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "nanda chandran" <vpcnk at H...>
>Namaste Nandaji:
>
>Though your logic appears compelling, I am sorry to say that I disagree.
>
>Here is my understanding of Shankara's statement: "don't get seduced by
>looking at the navel of a woman." Shankara by this statement warns the
>lower
>ends of human tendencies and ask us to assume the higher levels. When we
>were children, we get amused by the toys and if we go to a toy store, we
>want to buy and play with the toys. As children, our mind gets agitated
>because of our attachment to things that we like and enjoy. But as adults,
>when we go to the toy store, the same toys that we used to play do not have
>any impact on us and we are no more agitated.
But we have other "toys" to interest us, don't we? Irrespective of age, I
would think that there'll always be some desire for something external to
you. Ofcourse I'm only young and have not lived long enough as you - and
therefore I can only say this from my perspective. If you see Indian
philosophers I think most of them were pretty young too - Shankara was
definitely young. So was Gautama Siddhartha and Nagarjuna. So in their works
when they write about philosophy they can only express what an young man
feels. When the philosophical consciousness increases not only does your
awareness of reality increase, your awareness of samsaara also increases on
the side - so the lure of the external world is even more heightened. That's
the reason Shankara warns people not to succumb to sensual desires but
persevere in their spiritual effort.
>Whether you agree or disagree, we have high potential to be a jnani
>and avoid getting mind agitation when seeing objects that bring sensual
>pleasures. According to Vedanta, we are truly jnanis but our ignorance and
>false attachment propels desires and we suffer due to their consequences.
>We do take up samnyaasam slowly and steadily, some can do it faster and
>others may indulge in worldly things for a longer time. Please understand
>that the Vedantic view of human liberation is much more appealing than the
>views expressed in Buddhism.
Ram, all this is terribly subjective. Bhartrhari thinks that if you delay
too much your mind and body will not have the necessary strength for the
effort that's required to liberate oneself. I think it is in the vairaagya
shaatakam he says : "there're only two things that're of interest to a man -
the breasts of a woman and the forest". So I guess even he was pretty
troubled by his desires. But ultimately he did renounce. Likewise if
Shankara had no such thoughts would he have talked about being attracted by
the navel of a woman?
The greatest problem in such matters is you'll not know what suffering is
unless you take samnyaasam. If you live your normal life doing what you do
daily and getting what you want, how will you know what suffering is? I'll
suggest something to you : take three things which are really dear to you -
which give you a lot of happiness and pleasure - it can be anything - food,
entertainment, people who're dear to you etc - abstain from them for a
month. See the amount of heartburn and restlesness it will cause. After
experiencing this think about people who renounce everything for life.
I tried this out practically a couple of years back. I quit my job in the US
and came back home to Madras and didn't take up a job for six months -
though I ate normal food and slept in a bed, I avoided all forms of
entertainment and pleasure and read only spiritual books - it was sheer hell
and in the end I was only depressed. But I think it was an eye opener for
me. For prior to that I was fantasising about taking up samnyaasam etc and
after my experiment I knew how immature I was spiritually - I lacked the
physical, mental and moral discipline. Most people experience happiness and
pleasure only because of things external to them - it can be both material
and subtle like thoughts. We exist every moment in the anticipaton of
experiencing something which will make us happy or give us pleasure - that's
what sustains our lives amidst all the disappointments - it can be anything
- food, love of dear ones, a new car or dress, career goals etc. Take these
external things away and watch how much misery will arise - without all
these to feed you with happiness/pleasure life will become meaningless in
the phenomenal sense. You've no idea how much attached you're to things
unless you give them up. Try experimenting - it'll show you how much you
presume.
The problem is even more compounded when you mind is filled with wrong
notions. Intially when I used to practice meditatation, Yagnavalkyaa's :
"when you're all there is", used to really depress me. Think about your ego
which has no identity apart from all the objects it experiences - thinking
that the end is only itself being the only thing in the world!
Ram, I'm not going to go beyond this. You take up samnyaasam - then you tell
me whether samsaara is suffering or not.
>Vedanta doesn't deny that pain is inevitable
>but it stresses that suffering is avoidable through detachment. You may
>have a different point of view and may be more convinced with point of view
>of Buddhism and I fully respect it but I certainly don't agree.
>
>Coming back to intellectual conceptualization, let me restate my
>understanding. Vedanta distinguishes between "para" and "apara" vidya.
>Apara vidya includes learning and mastering of all scriptures including the
>Vedas. The Upanishads (also in Vivekachoodamani) states that apara vidya
>is
>not sufficient for God-realization and it is para vidya that can lead us to
>Self-realization. The famous quotation of the Upanishads, "the more we
>know, the more we don't know" signifies why the path of intellectual
>education will never help us realize the Brahman. Please understand that
>faith is integral part of Advaita Vedanta and "God" is the gate keeper who
>opens the door for us when the reach the gate to liberation. All the road
>maps, guides and vehicles that travel can take us may at the most can take
>us to the Gate. But with only God's grace, the gate will open for human
>liberation. If you are convinced that without God's grace and with only
>intellectually, you can be liberated, I respect your view but I disagree.
>
>Your statements regarding ‘object,' and ‘subject' are intellectually quite
>appealing but it can take us no where as for as I can see. According to
>Vedanta, we should prepare discard all notions including the notion of
>Advaita Philosophy to get the liberation. Once again, God's grace alone
>will
>guarantee our liberation and this statement is the statement of faith which
>is quite essential in understanding Shankara's Advaita Philosophy. The
>reading of books and Shastras are only to help us to cultivate ‘faith.' St
>Augustine is quite correct when he said: "faith is to believe what we don't
>see; its reward is to see what we believe."
>
>warmest regards,
>
>Ram Chandran
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of ADVAITA-L Digest - 10 Jun 2001 to 11 Jun 2001 (#2001-145)
>****************************************************************
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
================================================================================
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
To unsubscribe from ADVAITA-L please send an e-mail to
listserv at l... with
body of the message containing SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L
If you need any other help please contact listmaster at a...
========================================================================
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 13:10:42 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Re : Philosophical debates and hoaxes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001, nanda chandran wrote:
> To be other than yourself - all activity of the mind, body and the senses
> necessarily imply difference.
I disagree. Actions of the body such as breathing, sleeping etc. are
purely instinctual. A hospital patient in a coma has little brain
function. He doesn't cognize difference at all. But he still breaths,
sweats, etc. In the same way the mind will constantly be active. This is
no more noteworthy than the kidneys producing urine. Rather than engage
in a futile quest to stop the mind from doing what it's supposed to do,
Advaita Vedanta aims to remove its objects of attention after which mental
turmoil is irrelevant.
> Yes, even turning the mind inward is sunk
> in duality - but unlike the other modes of saadhana, it leads to
> abiding in yourself and non-dualism.
>
Why should turning the mind inward be privileged in this way? Other forms
of sadhana also lead to non-dualism.
> >Ramana is not part of your triumvirate.
>
> He is not, because for you I've to use authors who teach from the shruti.
> Because for you the shruti has "absolute" value in vyavahaara - you
> should first understand why vyavahaara is vyavahaara - because it is only
> relative and not absolute.
Right now vyavahara is all we have. If you argue from paramartha you're
putting the cart before the horse. The most you can do is give a vision
of paramartha as the final goal of sadhana but it can't be the main
substance of your arguments. Shruti may be illusionary in the end but
right now it is the only pramana for knowing Brahman.
> Ramana was conversant neither in shruti nor
> sanskrit before his liberation. Liberated he automatically understood the
> substance of the former and the latter just came to him naturally!
>
Perhaps. There have been posts on this list suggesting this isn't true.
> You just have to explain how it can. As I've explained all along -
> *all action* necessarily is sunk in duality.
But you've also admitted to the possibility of duality leading to
non-duality.
> Unless you define bhakti
> as abiding in your own self - as Ramana himself does - bhakti cannot
> result in the non-dual experience. See I'm not contesting the spiritual
> efficacy of bhakti. But only that it cannot directly effect the non-dual
> liberation.
>
> Actually if you look at the bhakti specialists - the bhakti Vedaantists
> - who've developed even more sophisticated means of bhakti than Advaita
> - they all necessarily believe in a God who's distinct from their own
> Atman. Unlike the Advaita conception of Atman as "space in a jar which
> is non-different from the space outside", for the bhakti Vedaantists
> Atman is either a part or an attribute or an expression of God. That's
> fine but it is not non-dualism (Advaita).
>
Then why bring it up? Advaita Vedanta has it's own views on Bhakti and
doesn't need the help of "specialists".
> See if Shankara or Sureshvara had taught karma-jnaana-samuccayavaada as
> Mandana Mishra did, then we will not have any problem with integrating
> karma and bhakti in our philosophy. Then we can interpret that singing
> Bhajagovindam or Saudaryalahari can by itself effect liberation.
>
Again your raising a strawman. Singing a stotra cannot effect liberation
anymore than chanting the mahavakyas can. But just as knowledge of the
meaning of the mahavakyas does effect liberation, so does the intense love
and feeling of non-difference with God caused by Bhakti.
> But the demand of logic has necessiated our great aacharyas to reject
> action as ignorance - for all action only takes you away from yourself.
> If you're the non-dual Atman then you've to reject action to be yourself.
> So they have clearly taught in their philosophical works that action of
> any kind by itself cannot effect liberation. So after this if they still
> teach bhakti in their hymns we can either conclude that they're
> contradicting themselves or that even as, "the merciful Veda teaches
> bhakti, karma and jnaana to people depending on their level of intellect",
> so did our great acaaryas do so. I've great respect for the intellect of our
> aachaaryas - so I stand by the second conclusion.
>
Or we can make a third conclusion that action is something other than you
think it is and Bhakti isn't action. May I again point out that
Shankaracharya established the puja to Shri Chandramouleshwara and his
descendents still do it today. Even on the days when they have no
visitors.
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at b...>
================================================================================
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
To unsubscribe from ADVAITA-L please send an e-mail to
listserv at l... with
body of the message containing SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L
If you need any other help please contact listmaster at a...
========================================================================
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 15:07:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Sankara's life period
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Vidyasankar Sundaresan <vsundaresan at h...>
Sorry for a late reply.
Note - I prefer to use the abbreviations CE (Common Era) and BCE
(Before Common Era), instead of AD and BC.
Chandrashekaran Venkataraman <VCHANDRA at A...> wrote:
>Indian History is strewn with eminent personalities both from
>political and cultural circles. Most of them have been dated
>without much doubt.. Even Buddha's and Mahavira's periods have
>been dated without disputes (or I think)... The Alwars and
Dated without dispute only for those who accept the inferences of
historical research. There are those who would claim that Buddha
must have lived in the 18th or 19th century BCE. One motivation
(for some people, not all) for such a date is the desire to date
Sankara to the 5th c. BCE, instead of the 7th-8th c. CE.
A related question is that of the Maurya dynasty. Those who would
date Buddha to the 18th c. BCE would also like to put the Mauryas
at such an early date. Apparently, the Candragupta of whom there
is some evidence in the 3rd century BCE belonged to the Gupta
dynasty, not the Maurya one. Needless to say, these assertions
do not take a lot of evidence into account. And they make a lot
of unnecessary assumptions, e.g. assigning an average of 25 years
for every king named in a dynasty. These assumptions do not take
into account possibilities like what we have seen even in the very
recent past - a king "ruled" for only one weekend in Nepal.
So, the "dated without much doubt" holds for those who have taken
the pains to compare a lot of historical sources, from India, Sri
Lanka, China, Greece etc. For others, they prefer to live in a
state of doubt, for various reasons of their own.
Regarding Sankara's date, life history etc. -
There is a tradition that he lived a short life of 32 years. Why
there is a near unanimity about this tradition is a mystery, when
there are disputes about so many other biographical issues. It is
unknown whether Sankara was patronized by any king or dynasty. If
he was, records are unavailable. Even from a period where records
are indeed available, people claim impossible things. E.g. we all
know the dates of the Vijayanagara dynasties, of the various Nayaks
and the Marathas after them, as far as south Indian history is
concerned. This doesn't stop people from claiming a 15th century
CE date for someone who must have undeniably lived in the 18th c.
That is why, when they also give dates down to a fine degree of
precision, from 509 BCE to 2001 CE, I question them.
The very notion of a factual biography as a written account is of
a Western origin, and even there, it is quite recent. The earliest
biographies from Europe date from the 15th century CE or so. We have
to realize that an important religious figure attracts all kinds of
legends around him. What we have about Sankara is not a plain
biography, but what is called a hagiography. This term is primarily
used in a Christian context, but can be extended to the texts that
intend to describe the life of any religious figure in the world,
from Buddha and Jina to Christ and Mohammed. Asking for historically
attested facts in such things is often a wild goose chase.
Sankaracharya has been a title for a long time now. When people say,
Sankaracharya said this or that, they probably have in mind not the
Adi Sankaracharya, but one of the later title-holders. This leads to
variant traditions, and to some confusion.
And then, there is the question of religious belief. I may be in a
minority nowadays, but I don't think that something like Sankara's
possible date should be a matter of "belief". pratyaksha is ruled
out for things from a distant past. What we can know from anumAna,
arthApatti and anupalabdhi should be good enough, so long as we are
honest enough to acknowledge that false assumptions can lead to false
conclusions. Where these false assumptions come from is a different
question. I do not subscribe to the view, "my family belongs to this
matha, therefore I must believe the date that its mathadhipati claims
for Sankaracharya." I would rather go to the mathadhipati and try to
discuss the issue with him.
Tying religious belief to historical facticity is foreign to us. For
example, what sort of historically factual proof can one offer in
support of the statement that Krishna is an avatAra of Vishnu? Going
a step further, does the religious value of such a statement stand
in need of supporting historical evidence? On the other hand, there
are things that are quite mundane, and do not call for belief in a
religious sense.
Finally, we have to look at what needs proof, and what constitutes
proof. A particular detail on which there is unanimity does not
need external proof. Nobody has disputed that Sankara did not live
for long. There are no mathas around that claim that he lived for
say, 80 years or 100 years. So, there is no need to prove to any
scholar that Sankara lived a very short life. Only in instances
where there is some internal dispute does one need other sources
of proof. In these cases, the burden of proof rests on those who
make the claims that are disputed.
Best regards,
Vidyasankar
================================================================================
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
To unsubscribe from ADVAITA-L please send an e-mail to
listserv at l... with
body of the message containing SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L
If you need any other help please contact listmaster at a...
========================================================================
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 15:43:40 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: New member introduction: Rajagopal Balasubramanian
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Hi,
My name is Rajagopal Balasubramanian. I am a Software
Engineer working with Ericsson at Rockville, Maryland.
I am very much interested in learning about the
advaita philosophy.
Regards,
Rajagopal
================================================================================
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
To unsubscribe from ADVAITA-L please send an e-mail to
listserv at l... with
body of the message containing SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L
If you need any other help please contact listmaster at a...
========================================================================
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:16:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Re : Philosophical debates and hoaxes
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Anand Hudli <anandhudli at h...>
>> Actually if you look at the bhakti specialists - the bhakti Vedaantists
>> - who've developed even more sophisticated means of bhakti than Advaita
>> - they all necessarily believe in a God who's distinct from their own
>> Atman. Unlike the Advaita conception of Atman as "space in a jar which
>> is non-different from the space outside", for the bhakti Vedaantists
>> Atman is either a part or an attribute or an expression of God. That's
>> fine but it is not non-dualism (Advaita).
>>
>
>Then why bring it up? Advaita Vedanta has it's own views on Bhakti and
>doesn't need the help of "specialists".
>
...
>Or we can make a third conclusion that action is something other than you
>think it is and Bhakti isn't action. May I again point out that
>Shankaracharya established the puja to Shri Chandramouleshwara and his
>descendents still do it today. Even on the days when they have no
>visitors.
Bhakti, like karma and jnAna, can be classified into different
types. Karmas can be classified as nitya, naimittika, kAmya, and
niShiddha. We are told to avoid kAmya (karma with a desire for a
result), and niShiddha (prohibited or sinful) karmas. Again,
jnAna can be aparA vidyA or parA vidyA. We are told to seek
parA vidyA. Similarly, bhakti can be of different types. The common
ground among all types of bhakti is that it is
premarUpA, essentially love. But one can be engaged in love with
different motivations. For example, the typical love of a young man
for a young woman is motivated by the pleasure of engaging in
romantic/erotic actions, a pleasure that is mistaken for a higher
kind of bliss. Many people love God as long as He seems to hold
the promise of material benefits. Once there is a calamity and
if they feel that God didn't do anything to help them, they stop
loving God, losing all "faith." This kind of love with a motive
is akin to karma done with a desire for a particular result. As such,
it is to be avoided. But when love for God is without a motive and
unconditional, it becomes qualified to be called "bhakti-yoga." It
becomes a great purifier and becomes conducive to the dawn of jnAna,
as karma-yoga does. In karma-yoga, one is asked to perform actions
with no attachment to the results. In bhakti-yoga, one is asked to
love God with no expectation of anything from Him and without any
conditions attached.
The advantage of such bhakti over karma is that even a sannyAsin is not
forbidden to practice it. Why? Because, first of all, such bhakti does
not have to involve actions. One can use the mind to contemplate on God.
Here there is, no doubt, mental activity. But mental activity is subtler
than physical activity and there is less chance of being caught up
in duality through mental activity. Second, such mental activity can
"seamlessly" make a transition from bhakti to jnAna. Note that a
"seamless" transition from karma to jnAna is not possible because the
two are by definition dead opposed to each other, "ativirodhataH" as
MadhusUdana says. He further says, bhagavadbhaktinishhThaa tu madhyame
parikiirtitaa, practice of devotion to God (bhakti) is explained as
intervening (between the two - karma and jnAna).
Further he says that bhakti is three-fold:
ubhayAnugatA sA hi sarvavighnopanodinI |
karmamishrA cha shuddhA cha jnAnamishrA cha sA tridhA ||
That bhakti is compatible with both jnAna and karma and it removes
all obstacles (to spiritual progress). It (bhakti) is of three
types - bhakti mixed with karma, pure (shuddhA) bhakti, and
bhakti mixed with jnAna.
This "seamless" transition from bhakti to jnAna is possible because
of the following condition. When God has entered the mind of the devotee
and has pervaded it to such an extent, the devotee sees God in himself,
outside, and everywhere. At that point, he/she starts to knock down the
last barriers of duality, the separation between God and devotee. Once
the barrier of duality is destroyed, God and devotee merge just as
described by the shivAnandalaharI verse, as a river runs towards the
ocean, merges with it, and the two become indistinguishable. This is
the state where one could declare "so .ahaM, so .ahaM", (I am He).
Anand
================================================================================
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
To unsubscribe from ADVAITA-L please send an e-mail to
listserv at l... with
body of the message containing SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L
If you need any other help please contact listmaster at a...
========================================================================
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 07:40:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Re : Philosophical debates and hoaxes
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Ram Chandran <rchandran at c...>
Namaste Nandaji:
I totally agree that we are talking about the subjective science of religion
and everything that we write or say is likely to be subjective. This is
again a relative statement and some talks and writings are likely more
subjective than on others. My contention is that Shankara's advaita
philosophy is relatively more objective and open to discussion than other
vedantic and other religous philosophies.
Let me conclude my part of these discussions with a note of thanks to you
for your openess and well articulated conversation with patience. I also
want to commend you for your keen interest in advaita and related
philosophies at your young age. Both Joy and suffereings are mind projected
illusions and when we realize our true being, we will certainly attain total
peace!
warmest regards,
Ram Chandran
> --- In advaita-l at y..., "nanda chandran" <vpcnk at H...> wrote:
>
> Ram, all this is terribly subjective. Bhartrhari thinks that if you
> delay
> too much your mind and body will not have the necessary strength for
> the
> effort that's required to liberate oneself.
================================================================================
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
To unsubscribe from ADVAITA-L please send an e-mail to
listserv at l... with
body of the message containing SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L
If you need any other help please contact listmaster at a...
========================================================================
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 14:20:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Re : Philosophical debates and hoaxes
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Vidyasankar Sundaresan <vsundaresan at h...>
nanda chandran <vpcnk at H...> wrote:
>I tried this out practically a couple of years back. I quit my job in the
US
>and came back home to Madras and didn't take up a job for six months -
>though I ate normal food and slept in a bed, I avoided all forms of
>entertainment and pleasure and read only spiritual books - it was sheer
hell
>and in the end I was only depressed. But I think it was an eye opener for
Nanda, this falls under the category of "don't try this at home by
yourself." It is not for nothing that the traditional advice has always
been to seek a personal Guru first. Just thinking logically about Advaita
and trying out a discipline without the close supervision of a master is
apt to cause problems. There is no advantage in ending up in a trizanku-
like state, which is neither here nor there. If we are serious, we first
need to get prepared, mentally and physically, through other means,
including karma-yoga and bhakti-yoga and upadeza.
Vidyasankar
================================================================================
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
To unsubscribe from ADVAITA-L please send an e-mail to
listserv at l... with
body of the message containing SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L
If you need any other help please contact listmaster at a...
========================================================================
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 12:43:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Re : Philosophical debates and hoaxes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "S. V. Subrahmanian" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
START EARLY. DRIVE SLOWLY. REACH SAFELY.
>From
Message-Id: <.>
nanda chandran <vpcnk at H...> wrote:
>I tried this out practically a couple of years back. I quit my job in the
US
>and came back home to Madras and didn't take up a job for six months -
>though I ate normal food and slept in a bed, I avoided all forms of
>entertainment and pleasure and read only spiritual books - it was sheer
hell
>and in the end I was only depressed. But I think it was an eye opener for
Nanda, this falls under the category of "don't try this at home by
yourself." It is not for nothing that the traditional advice has always
been to seek a personal Guru first. Just thinking logically about Advaita
and trying out a discipline without the close supervision of a master is
apt to cause problems. There is no advantage in ending up in a trizanku-
like state, which is neither here nor there. If we are serious, we first
need to get prepared, mentally and physically, through other means,
including karma-yoga and bhakti-yoga and upadeza.
Vidyasankar
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
================================================================================
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
To unsubscribe from ADVAITA-L please send an e-mail to
listserv at l... with
body of the message containing SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L
If you need any other help please contact listmaster at a...
========================================================================
Subject: Re: Philosophical debates and hoaxes
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:04:46
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "nanda chandran" <vpcnk at H...>
>Nanda, this falls under the category of "don't try this at home by
>yourself." It is not for nothing that the traditional advice has always
>been to seek a personal Guru first. Just thinking logically about >Advaita
>and trying out a discipline without the close supervision of a >master is
>apt to cause problems. There is no advantage in ending up in >a trizanku -
>like state, which is neither here nor there. If we are >serious, we first
>need to get prepared, mentally and physically, >through other means,
>including karma-yoga and bhakti-yoga and upadeza.
Vidya, really grateful for the advice for I know that you've only my best
interests at heart.
But as I said my "experiment" was two years back. Irrespective of whatever
path you take Truth will not let you down if you correctly and sincerely
aspire for it. If you falter, it will guide you like a mother. But again
Truth is nothing but you yourself in your essence. Tat tvam asi - aham
brahmaasmi - ayam aatma brahma. Also logic is only logic if you're unable to
reconcile it with your life - but if you're able to reconcile it with your
ife, it is the truth.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
================================================================================
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
To unsubscribe from ADVAITA-L please send an e-mail to
listserv at l... with
body of the message containing SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L
If you need any other help please contact listmaster at a...
========================================================================
Subject: Re: Philosophical debates and hoaxes
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 20:07:16
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "nanda chandran" <vpcnk at H...>
>START EARLY. DRIVE SLOWLY. REACH SAFELY.
Good advice - but only if you know where you are going.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
================================================================================
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
To unsubscribe from ADVAITA-L please send an e-mail to
listserv at l... with
body of the message containing SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L
If you need any other help please contact listmaster at a...
========================================================================
Subject: Sankara Vijayam Contradictions
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 21:58:05
Content-Type: text/html
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Ravishankar Venkatraman" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
<html><DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<P>Sankara Vijayam Contradictions – Part I</FONT><FONT face=Arial> </P></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<P>I am posting this message in 3 parts. </P>
<P>While I was in India fifteen years ago, I had keen interest in the topics – the age of Sankara and the Sankara Vijayams. I did extensive study on these topics then, and I came to the conclusion that there are so many contradicting events in history, that we cannot decide an objective date for Sankara, and the number of mathas established by Sankara. Both the dates 509 B.C. and 788 A.D. seem to be valid, unless we totally deny the authority of the other sources. I would not be able to show my references here, as I do not have my compilations with me now. However, I wanted to send this note now as this was being discussed a couple of weeks ago. I could get more information in a few months time for interested readers, when I visit India. May be people like Vidyasankar can help find the relevant quotes, as he seems to have access to the material. I have tried my best not to distort any information, and if you feel that I have some details wrong, please let me know and we can !
verify later.</P>
<P>I want to stay away from the politics of this matter, as I consider myself as a honest seeker, and someone who respects the lineage of Sankara, and all the monks following Sankara’s tradition. I intend to avoid any negative innuendoes or direct reference to any of the Sankara institutions for the purposes of defaming them, and I hope I am successful.</P>
<P>To start with, I want to discuss the sources about Sankara’s life. The majority of information about Sankara comes from the Sankara Vijayams. Siva Rahasya and Markandeya Samhita add more details. We also have the traditional Guru Parampara Stotras (with different names) from the four Amnaya mathas like Puri, Dwaraka, Sringeri and Jyosirmath, and the Kanchi matha. We have information in the Mathamnaya stotras of the Amnaya mathas. There are a lot of other Mathas throughout India following the Dasanami tradition, and some of them can shed information on this topic, based on their Parampara traditions.</P>
<P>We will see some of the differences and also see why we cannot solve them. Firstly, we can take the case of Sankara Vijayams. Anantanandagiri Sankara Vijayam (ASV) has been under a lot of fire here. Vidyasankar questions its authenticity, and the motives behind Dr. Veezhinathan’s work and so on. Though there could be some valid points in the arguments, I want to ask how good is any other Sankara Vijayam?</P>
<P>ASV has 2 distinct versions about his place of birth, the one mentioning Kaladi and the one mentioning Chidambaram. Which one of them is correct? Vidyasankar chooses the one that mentions Chidambaram to be more acceptable. </P>
<P>If you look at how these documents (not only ASV but other Sankara Vijayams as well) have been rewritten several times, we can understand the reason for these kinds of textual differences. How were they copied from the "Original" source text? There are many possibilities here. One of them was exactly copied from the source verbatim and the other was copied from the source to the extent the source was available, and some more subjective text was added for completing the document. This iterative process of reproducing the original manuscript gives room to more and more changes in the later versions. </P>
<P>H.H. Wilson used ASV for his study of the ancient religions and cults, and accepted it to be a safe reference to know about the lifetime of Adi Sankara. He did not believe that Adi Sankara could do so many miracles as depicted and called the author a liar. What do Asthikas like us think here? Do we think that Sankara cannot do miracles?</P>
<P>ASV mentions that Sri Sankara had many disciples other than the usual four. It mentions about a disciple Suddhanantanandendragiri, whom some people identify with Totakacharya and Anandagiri. Here comes the confusion about Anandagiri and Anantanandagiri. If you refute this argument, then Anandagiri Sankara Vijayam is different from Anantanandagiri Sankara Vijayam. There could be more than one Anandagiri in history.</P>
<P>...Continued in <FONT face=Arial size=2> Sankara Vijayam Contradictions – Part II</FONT><FONT face=Arial></P></FONT></FONT></DIV><br clear=all><hr>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <a href="http://explorer.msn.com">http://explorer.msn.com</a><br></p></html>
================================================================================
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
To unsubscribe from ADVAITA-L please send an e-mail to
listserv at l... with
body of the message containing SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L
If you need any other help please contact listmaster at a...
========================================================================
Subject: Sankara Vijayam Contradictions Part II
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:03:08
Content-Type: text/html
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Ravishankar Venkatraman" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
<html><DIV>
<DIV>Sankara Vijayam Contradictions – Part II (continued from Sankara Vijayam Contradictions – Part I) </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Madhaiviya Sankara Vijayam (MSV) has been very popular since 19th century, as it was the first one to be printed. It has two commentaries – ‘Advaita Rajya Lakshmi’ written by Achyutaraya Modak and ‘Dindima Vyakyanam’ by Dhanapathi Suri. </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Madhava mentions, in the beginning few slokas, that he has compiled his book from various sources available on Sankara’s life. Though some people accept Anandagiri as a mentioned source, they may not accept ‘Vyasachala Sankara Vijayam’ as another source. Madhava holds Vyasachala in a very high esteem in the beginning verses and praises him as a great poet. Vyasachala Mahadeva is of a much later date (16th century). This contradicts that the author of Madhaviyam was the great Vidyaranya swami who lived couple of centuries before him.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>If we assume that the author was not a 14th century person, the other sources (of a later period) for Madhaviyam (not mentioned by the author but identified later) are ‘Sankarabyudham’ by Raja Chudamani Dikshitar, Pathanjali Vijayam by Rama Badra Dikshitar and Bhagavatpada Saptati by Jagannadha. We can see some of the slokas from these books are in ‘Madhaviya Sankara Vijayam’ without any change. It may be argued that books like ‘Shankarabyudhayam’ and ‘Bhagavadpada Saptati’ used Madhaviya Sankara Vijayam as their source and not vice versa. But Madhava admits that he has compiled from other books. ‘Bhagavadpada Saptati’ has 70 slokas and ‘Madhaviya Sankara Vijayam’ has roughly 2000 slokas. It has the 70 slokas from ‘Bhagavadpada Saptati’ without any change. Is it possible for someone ‘to copy and paste’ from one book and call it another book?
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>The author of ‘Advaita Rajya Lakshmi’ in his commentary on MSV, when talking about the last days of Sankara adds some slokas from Siva Rahasyam, and mentions that this information is available in ‘Anandagiri’s Sankara Vijayam’ also. The slokas say that Adi Sankara attained siddhi in Kanchi. Madhaviyam says that Sankara lived in Kanchi, but attained Siddhi in the Himalayas. The point we have to note here is that MSV’s commentator gives credibility to Sankara’s siddhi in Kanchi, while the main text maintains that it happened in the Himalayas. Where is the MSV text used by Achyuta Raya Modak to make his commentary? Is it different from the one we have today? If it was the same, did someone tamper with the commentary?
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>The question of whether Adi Sankara established only four mathas or five or even more is equally confusing. We have accounts of only four Mathas, listed in the popular Mathamnaya stotras (like Mathetivrttam accepted by Sringeri). These stotras are attributed to Sankara himself. Each of these four mathas has its own version of Mathamnaya stotra, and there are contrasting details in them. How can we attribute all the differences to the same author, Sankara? Sureswara is claimed to be the head in several places, Dwaraka and Sringeri. The system of associating a Mahavakya, Sampradaya, ksetra and tirtha to a mutt, has come from the Mathamnaya stotra. The concept of Sankara having establishing four mutts came from this too. The Mathamnaya stotras do not deny anywhere that Sankara established more than four mutts.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>Some feel that Sri Sankara established the Sumeru and the Paduka mathas in Varanasi, and the Namboodhiri mathas in the Malabar as well, based on some other sources. Many of these mutts have disappeared over the period of time. All the Mathas have had rough times and good times as well. After Vidyaranya swami established the Vijayanagar Empire, Sringeri Matha has had special royal patronage, and its popularity grew manifold. The other Mathas had a modest existence.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>The Amnaya mathas have not sorted out their differences. The first major difference is Dwaraka and Puri maintaining Sankara lived between 509 – 477 B.C. and Sringeri maintaining that Sankara in 8th century A.D. (earlier in 1st century B.C.). The second major difference is the role of Sureshwara as the first Acharya of these Mathas. Mathetivrttam claims that the first Acharya of Sringeri was Prithvidhara (some identify him as Hastamalaka), while Sringeri Matha maintains that their first Acharya was Sureshwara.
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>...continued in Sankara Vijayam Contradictions – Part III) </DIV></DIV><br clear=all><hr>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <a href="http://explorer.msn.com">http://explorer.msn.com</a><br></p></html>
================================================================================
"bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam"
To unsubscribe from ADVAITA-L please send an e-mail to
listserv at l... with
body of the message containing SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L
If you need any other help please contact listmaster at a...
========================================================================
Subject: Sankara Vijayam Contradictions Part III
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:05:30
Content-Type: text/html
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Ravishankar Venkatraman" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
<html><DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<P>Sankara Vijayam Contradictions – Part III (continued from Sankara Vijayam Contradictions – Part II)</P>
<P>The Mathamnaya is the primary basis for claiming that Sankara established only four mathas. These texts do not take into account other Mathas established by Sankara. Siva Rahasyam clearly says that Sankara established 5 mathas, the fifth one in Kanchi. It adds that Sankara ascended the sarvajnapITha</FONT><FONT size=2> </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>in Kanchi, and attained siddhi there. We know what MSV, ASV and other texts say about this in this forum in various posts.</P>
<P>We have to find out whether Sri Sankara was the author of Mathamnaya stotras and if so, why there are so many differences among them? They should be of a later date then, but written by whom? By one author, or many? Which one of them is correct? Were they written with the intention of glorifying one Matha over the other, because of some verses with preferential treatment in classifying the Mathas. </P>
<P>There are many questions unanswered and they will remain unanswered. I do not think the erudite people in this forum have an answer for all these. We have to fit in all the pieces of the puzzle properly and give solid reasons for the ones that do not fit well. People have done this to some extent, but still it is enigmatic. It is not with such thoroughness that the argument is totally acceptable. I feel that everybody has been loyal to his/ her emotions, family affiliations and personal preferences. I do not think that this is a prolific topic to engage in, for advancing our knowledge on Sri Sankara and his philosophy.</P>
<P>The politics of staunch devotees has induced them to find references in these texts substantiating their arguments and disputing other claims for nearly a century. We have to come out of the influence caused by our affiliations, to even truly consider another opposing view for review. There is so much of a critical evaluation of ASV and not an evaluation of MSV. In my opinion, all these texts should be used as a guidance to know the life, times and activities of Sankara, and not used to refute any claim about anything. We are trying to build the life history of great personality who condemned duality, from various contradicting sources propagating schism. How can we achieve this? </P>
<P>Attributing the date of Sri Sankara to 788 A.D as opposed to 509 B.C has the same problem. While we may refer to the GOI accepting this date and some internal evidences in Sankara’s works, there are a good amount of poin