From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Tue Dec 1 15:13:27 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 16:13:27 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari -35 Message-ID: Sivaanandalahari -35योगक्षेम--धुरंधरस्य सकलः-श्रेयः-प्रदोध्योगिनो दृष्टादृष्ट-मतोपदेषकृतिनो ब्राह्यान्तर-व्यापिनः। सर्वज्ञस्य दयाकरस्य भवतः किं वेदितव्यं मया शंभो त्वं परमान्तरंग इति मे चित्ते स्मराम्यन्वहम्॥३५॥ yogakShema--dhuraMdharasya sakalaH-shreyaH-pradodhyogino dR^iuShTAdRRiShTa-matopadeShakR^itino brAhyAntara-vyApinaH | sarvaj~nasya dayAkarasya bhavataH kiM veditavyaM mayA shaMbho tvaM paramAntaraMga iti me chitte smarAmyanvaham..35.. What can I express to you who shoulders the responsibility of acquisition and preservation, who is engaged in giving all good thing, who is Guru ( Teacher) to teach the way to attain the desired from the known world and unknown others, who is inside and outside and all pervading, who knows everything and who is merciful ? Oh! Shambo , every day I think in my mind that you are close to me and doer of good to me. 35 *Commentary *"AnanyaaschinthayanthO maam yE janaa: paryupaasathE | ThEshaam nithyaabhiyukthaanaam yogakshEmam vahaamyaham || is the pradhigna of the Lord given in the Geetha. Hey! MahaprabhO! You are adept in giving superior sreyas to bhaktha janas. You teach people their own way to obtain the sukham of this world and of the beyond. 'ya: sarvagna: sarvavitha' says the sruthi and you are pervading the ins and outs of everything. You come to know of everything by being in the heart of all praaNis. Moreover in this sloka, AachaaryaaL uses the word 'dhayaakarasya'. It is explained as 'karOtheethi kara: dhayaayaa: kara: dhayaakara:'. It can be said that you are the source of 'dhayaa'. This dhayaa has manifested as aalaahala paanam, thripura samhaaram, mrithyunjaya leela and GangavadharaNam besides being sarvagna. Hey! KaruNaanidhE! You are of such great mahima. As you are capable of knowing the manObhaavam of sakhala praaNis that include me, what is there for me to tell you? You are my eternal saviour. I am keeping you in my heart as my Paramaanandharangan. This itself is giving me limitless sreyas. வேண்டத்தக்க தறிவோய்நீ வேண்ட முழுதுந் தருவோய்நீ வேண்டும் அயன் மாற்கரியோநீ வேண்டி என்னைப் பணி கொண்டாய் வேண்டி நீயா தருள்செய்தாய் யானும் அதுவே வேண்டினல்லால் வேண்டும் பரிசு ஒன்று உண்டென்னில் அதுவும் உன்தன் விருப்பன்றே. (திருவாசகம்) From kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com Tue Dec 1 21:14:14 2009 From: kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com (kuntimaddi sadananda) Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 19:14:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Advaita-l] A Perspective -11 Message-ID: <201812.24318.qm@web56003.mail.re3.yahoo.com> tat tvam asi - II tat tvam asi – you are that – statement is pronounced in Ch. Up. 6th Chapter by father-teacher Uddaalaka to his son-student Swetaketu. The purpose of the teaching is to establish the declarative statement made by the teacher that knowing one thing; one can know everything else – eka vijnaanena sarva vijnaanam bhavati. This cannot be true in objective sciences where one cannot know anything fully and completely, even if one tries. In any science, our experience is that one becomes super specialist in narrower and narrower field of investigation. The nature of the objective knowledge is such that more one investigates the more it reveals. Hence as we learn more and more, we become more and more aware of the vastness of the knowledge and start discovering that what we know is insignificant compared to what we do not know. Our ignorance grows faster than the knowledge. One the other hand, an Upanishadic student approaches a teacher and daringly asks, Sir, please teach me that knowledge knowing which I will know everything – kasmin no bhagavo vijnaate sarvam idam vijnaatam bhavati – Mu. Up. Here Uddaalaka’s statement also amount to the same – knowing that one thing, one will know everything. He illustrates this with an example saying knowing gold, one essentially knows all the products of gold. That means he has the substantive knowledge of all the ornaments made of gold, that are created and yet to be created. In essence, if we know the material cause, all products of that material are as well known, since the cause pervades the effects. Gold pervades the gold-ornaments. Taking examples of ring, bangle, bracelet, etc, we have established that all are nothing but gold itself with various names and forms. Hence ring, bangle, bracelet are only names for convenience or for transactional purposes, but in reality, there is no ring, no bangle or no bracelet. What is there is only gold. Thus ring, bangle and bracelet have transactional reality but not absolute reality. Transactional reality or vyaavahaarika satyam is called mithyaa. Mithyaa means they do not have independent existence away from their substantive, gold. Every mithyaa will have satya or reality as their substantive – Hence they are called superimpositions on the reality. Thus ring, bangle, bracelet, etc are names and forms superimposed on the substantive gold. If I am ignorant of the substantive and take the superimposed attributive names and forms as real, then there is an ignorance caused error of judgment on my part, and the error is called error of superimposition or adhyaasa. There is no pramANa for adhyaasa, protests a dvaitin, while committing himself that very error of superimposition by identifying himself with his body, mind and intellect. Upanishad utilizes the familiar example to emphasize the fundamental problem in life. 1. Gold does not undergo any transformation – it only appears in different forms. In Vedanta it is called vivarta or apparent transformation, in contrast to pariNAma involving a change in the substantive, like milk becoming curds or yogurt. Inhere properties change only when substantive changes– upayannpayan dharmo vikaaroti hi dharmiNam – says Sureswara. Similarly Brahman, the material cause for the universe does not and in fact, being infinite, cannot undergo any modification or transformation. Apparent transformations are only apparent and not real. From gold point, gold remains as gold without any transformation. It can say it is my nature to exist in variety of forms for which people give different names. That is only my vibhuuti or glory. Thus the whole creation is only an apparent transformation with attributive differences in the created entities with names and forms, with Brahman underlying the essence of the creation. From Brahman point there is no creation – apparent or real. Only from the point of jiiva identifying with local BMI looks at the world separate from him. For him only there is a creation and Vedanta says if you are seeing creation then that is only apparent and not real. 2. Appearance of many products each with of their attributes that differ from those of others is the essence of creation. Hence all objects of creation are nothing but material cause itself with different names and forms. The names and forms are only transactionally real but have no absolute validity, similar to ring and bangle, etc. That is called mithyaa. Hence scriptures use the word – vaachaarambhanam vikaaraH – transformation only at the level of speech, that is, naamkevaaste - a name for a form. For this, scripture is the only pramANa. 3. Ego and the resulting samsaara are caused by ignorance of the underlying substantive, changeless reality and taking the apparent plurality with divergent attributes as reality, causing attachments and aversions or raaga and dvesha. Hence Vidyaaranya says in dRikdRisya viveka asti bhaati priyam ruupam naamam chetyamsapancakam| adyatrayam brahmaruupam jagadruupam tato dvayam|| Every entity in the world has five characteristics: existence, cognoscibility, attractiveness, form and name. Of these five, the first three belong to Brahman and the other two belong to the world. Thus world is nothing but Brahman as substantive but with names and attributes. All other nouns assigned to the world are like ring and bangle are mithyaa only. Similar to what we said about ringly gold, bangly gold, all the objects are adjectival Brahman as for example, this body-Brahman, food-Brahman, drink-Brahman, eater-brahman and eated-brahman, etc as every thing in the universe is name and form superimposed on the substantive Brahman; and that is exactly how Krishna describes taking Vedic ritual as example: brahmaarpaNam brahma haviH, bramhaagnou brahmaNaahutam| brahaiva tena gantavyam brahmakarma samaadhinaa||4-25 In essence, everything is nothing but Brahman. Hence Upanishad says –sarvam khalvidam brahma – neha naanaasti kincana - all THIS is indeed Brahman – In this universe there is no plurality whatsoever. Suppose if ring or bangle or bracelet goes to their guru and ask sir please tell me where I can find Gold-God, because of which the whole universe of ornaments came, by which they are sustained, and into which they go back, as I want to attain or merge with that Gold-God. Does the ring or bangle or bracelet have to do some karma yoga or service to Gold or do some meditation or upaasana on Gold, so that Gold-God can, out of compassion, appear in front of the ring, bangle or bracelet or do they have to take-up some sanyaasa or become parivraajaka for them to discover or realize the truth about themselves, because that is what scriptures have said or aachaaryaas have said, etc. The teacher will say you do not have to look anywhere else or go anywhere, because - tat tvam asi – YOU ARE THAT. Of course, ring, which has been accustomed to think itself to be a ring and brain-washed for generations that it is only a ring, is not ready to accept that it is gold. Sir, how can I be that gold-God? I am only a ring with all the limitations in the world with ID, OD, and width and ellipticity, born on such and such a date, suffering so much, imprisoned in the fingers of this person, etc. while gold is all pervading ever present reality without any limitations of IDs and ODs. The teacher will have to teach the ring that it has to renounce its notions about itself – I am not the ring, with all those qualities of the ring, but I am that because of which I exist as a ring and without that there is no ring at all. Upanishad says that all pervading gold that everyone is seeking is the very core of the ring, bangle or bracelet – discover that Gold-god in the very heart or your inner essence, devoid of all IDs ODs etc. – yo veda nihitam guhaayaam parame vyoman. (I am only dramatizing the processes with no offence is intended for anyone). Reality is as simple as that and one cannot escape from it even if one wants. How far the ring has to go to discover the gold, that far I have to travel to discover Brahman. The obstacle in my seeing such an obvious truth is due to my lack of proper vision. I am looking everywhere while the truth is daringly present right here and now. Hence Krishna calls this as kingly secret because no one believes it even if one is told. The problem resides in the fact that although I am a conscious entity, I identify intensely with superimposed inert entities that I am not ready to accept that I am devoid of any inertness. I am not ready to accept that like ring, bangle and bracelet, there is no validity for the forms and names other than for convenience, the essence of each is the very material because of which they are what they are and without that they have no independent existence. Hence if we make an identity statement that ring = bangle = gold, for the equation to be valid, we discard their superficial differences in terms of forms or other attributes that distinguish ring from bangle and gold and only look at the essential or substantive content and recognize their identity as they are made of the same substance, gold. Thus discarding the superficial attributes but equating at substantial level to validate the identity relation is technically called bhaaga tyaaga lakshaNa. This is illustrated by a classical example – The teacher says soyam devadattaH – This is that Devadatta. Here there is an identity statement implied – This devadatta = that devadatta. This devadatta is right here and right now with attributes distinctly different from that devadatta whom we met many years ago and at different place. The BMI of this devadatta are quite different from the BMI of that devadatta, when he was looking very young and cute. Hence identity of this and that devadattas is not obvious since the attributes of this devadatta and that devadatta are distinctly different. But when the teacher says this is that devadatta, for the statement to be valid, I have to strip out all the contradictory attributes between this devadatta and that devadatta and only equate the essential individual who is different from his attributive BMIs. Therefore the identity is not at superficial BMI level but at substantive level of individual, who remains the same in spite of changing attributive BMIs. Discarding the superimposed attributes and equating the essentials that really count in the identity equation is bhaagatyaaga lakshaNa. Going back to Uddaalaka’s teaching in the Upanishad, he first goes into details of creation emphasizing the material cause for the creation is existence-consciousness. Existence alone was there before creation – sat eve idam agra asiit, which is one without a second – ekam eva advitiiyam. Then the teacher says – this existence before creation visualized the whole creation or essentially had a grandeur plan – tat aikshata. First, visualization implies the existence is a conscious entity, since conscious entity alone can visualize. Also it emphasizes that creation is not a random process by whims and fancies of the creator. Hence even the Lord has to plan how to create. Hence Upanishad says – he visualized. In Tai. Up. a similar statement is made – there it says he contemplated – sa tapo2tapyata| sa tapastaptvaa - to indicate that the creation is not just a random phenomenon but well thought out planned creation following the blue prints provided by the previous karmas performed by jiivas, in the past creation. Hence creation-sustenance-dissolution is cyclic process without a beginning and end. Thus creation was there in potential form (as in blue prints) before it got manifested into grosser forms. The grosser sequence of creation is emphasized in the Upanishads in terms of how first five subtle elements formed and from which, by process of panchiikaraNa involving five fold division and recombination, grosser forms are produced. Thus the whole universe manifested starting from one existence-consciousness into apparently many, just as one gold becoming many ornaments. Just as gold pervades all the ornaments, the material cause – sat-chit - pervades the whole creation consisting of both bhuuta and bhoutika, all living and non-living entities. After going through several details, Uddaalaka wraps up the teaching with the famous statement: aitadaatmya idagam sarvam tat satyam, sa aatmaa, tat tvam asi, Swetaketu. This statement is repeated nine times in the Upanishad emphasizing its importance, as Uddaalaka addresses each and every possible doubt that the student had. Before the tat tvam asi statement, there is equally important statement - aitadaatmya idagam sarvam tat satyam, sa aatma. It says in essence, the substantive of whole creation (idam sarvam) without any exception is satyam or sat– the existence reality only and that is the self, the conscious entity. That Sat-Chit was there before the creation, and it continue to exist as the very essence of all this entire universe of creation (idam sarvam). Therefore all idam sarvam, this entire universe is only a superimposition with divergent attributive names and forms on the substantive sat-chit, that is the self - And THAT YOUR ARE – tat tvam asi, Swetaketu. Hence THAT OR tat - stands for the essence of the whole creation, which was there before creation and which supports the whole creation and into which only the whole creation dissolves, just as the gold is the cause for all ornaments, sustain all the ornaments and into which all ornaments dissolve. Thus it is the material cause for the creation – that SAT – you are. Substantive the self does not and cannot undergo any change during the creation. Hence the apparent names and forms created are only mithyaa like ring and bangle. Mithyaa means they do not have independent existence as their existence depends on satya, which is the underlying substantive for all idam sarvam. Thus Upanishad essentially declares that the whole idam sarvam is mithyaa – neither real or unreal – and maayaa becomes the cause for creation for one becoming into apparently many and the substantive for the creation of idam sarvam as Uddaalaka points out is the satyam that you are. Thus - I am- is the cause, sustenance and annihilation of this whole universe of creation. Hence identity I = that involved bhaaga tyaaga lakshaNa where the all the contradictory qualifications of I and that are dropped out and only the essence that pervades this entire universe of creation which appears as saakshyam with naama and ruupa the underlying essence of which sat-chit only and that underlying sat-chit is the self that I am. Hence in essence the saakshyam is not separate from saakshii since the underlying substantive is one that is the self that I am – that is the turiiyam emphasized in Mandukya Upanishad by mantra 7 – naantaH prajnaH na bahirprajnaH, …In this mantra scriptures says turiiyam is prapancopashamam – the whole world (that include both waking and dream worlds) resole into it as it is the substantive for all. Hence Bhagavaan Ramana also says – ISha jiivayoH viShadhii bhidaa, satva bhaavato vastu kevalam - Only the costumes that Iswara and jiiva wearing are different and if you remove these costumes (using bhaaga tyaaga lakshaNa) the essential substantive of both is the same – that is the sat swaruupam- pure existence – in essence tat tvam asi – the substantive of jiiva-jagat-Iswara – the individual-the world and the creator of the world. Question: Sir, you say sat-chit is the essence of the whole creation - but the world is inert where is the chit in it? - this will be addressed in the next. ----------------- Hari Om! Sadananda From srirudra at vsnl.com Wed Dec 2 05:39:59 2009 From: srirudra at vsnl.com (sriram) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 17:09:59 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari -35 References: Message-ID: <000501ca736b$162a8260$6400a8c0@km> Dear Sri Anbusivam I think it should read Bahyanthara Vyapinaha instead of what is written in both Samskrutam and English.R.Krishnamoorthy. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anbu sivam2" To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" ; Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 2:43 AM Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari -35 > Sivaanandalahari -35योगक्षेम--धुरंधरस्य सकलः-श्रेयः-प्रदोध्योगिनो > दृष्टादृष्ट-मतोपदेषकृतिनो ब्राह्यान्तर-व्यापिनः। > सर्वज्ञस्य दयाकरस्य भवतः किं वेदितव्यं मया > शंभो त्वं परमान्तरंग इति मे चित्ते स्मराम्यन्वहम्॥३५॥ > > > > yogakShema--dhuraMdharasya sakalaH-shreyaH-pradodhyogino > dR^iuShTAdRRiShTa-matopadeShakR^itino brAhyAntara-vyApinaH | > sarvaj~nasya dayAkarasya bhavataH kiM veditavyaM mayA > shaMbho tvaM paramAntaraMga iti me chitte smarAmyanvaham..35.. > > > > What can I express to you who shoulders the responsibility of acquisition > and preservation, who is engaged in giving all good thing, who is Guru ( > Teacher) to teach the way to attain the desired from the known world and > unknown others, who is inside and outside and all pervading, who knows > everything and who is merciful ? Oh! Shambo , every day I think in my mind > that you are close to me and doer of good to me. 35 > > *Commentary > > *"AnanyaaschinthayanthO maam yE janaa: paryupaasathE | > ThEshaam nithyaabhiyukthaanaam yogakshEmam vahaamyaham || > > is the pradhigna of the Lord given in the Geetha. Hey! MahaprabhO! You are > adept in giving superior sreyas to bhaktha janas. You teach people their > own > way to obtain the sukham of this world and of the beyond. 'ya: sarvagna: > sarvavitha' says the sruthi and you are pervading the ins and outs of > everything. You come to know of everything by being in the heart of all > praaNis. Moreover in this sloka, AachaaryaaL uses the word > 'dhayaakarasya'. > It is explained as 'karOtheethi kara: dhayaayaa: kara: dhayaakara:'. It > can > be said that you are the source of 'dhayaa'. This dhayaa has manifested as > aalaahala paanam, thripura samhaaram, mrithyunjaya leela and > GangavadharaNam > besides being sarvagna. > > Hey! KaruNaanidhE! You are of such great mahima. As you are capable of > knowing the manObhaavam of sakhala praaNis that include me, what is there > for me to tell you? You are my eternal saviour. I am keeping you in my > heart > as my Paramaanandharangan. This itself is giving me limitless sreyas. > > வேண்டத்தக்க தறிவோய்நீ வேண்ட முழுதுந் தருவோய்நீ > வேண்டும் அயன் மாற்கரியோநீ வேண்டி என்னைப் பணி கொண்டாய் > வேண்டி நீயா தருள்செய்தாய் யானும் அதுவே வேண்டினல்லால் > வேண்டும் பரிசு ஒன்று உண்டென்னில் அதுவும் உன்தன் விருப்பன்றே. > (திருவாசகம்) > _______________________________________________ > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Wed Dec 2 13:34:59 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 14:34:59 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari -35 In-Reply-To: <000501ca736b$162a8260$6400a8c0@km> References: <000501ca736b$162a8260$6400a8c0@km> Message-ID: Dear Sri Krishnamoorthy, Yes, I noticed that too. Since the slokas and the transliteration were cut and paste from Sri Lakshminarayanan and I did not know to correct the Samskrit font I left the English transliteration also left uncorrected. Please ignore the typos that you may come across. By the way, there are three important words of this sloka (35). They are: Sarvagnasya dhayaakarasya Paramaanandharanga "ya: saravgna: sarvavith" is the sruthi. Accordingly he dwells in the heart of all the praaNis and thus keeps knowing everything (He is the saakshi of the saakshi). Also the swaarasyam of the word 'dhayaakarasya' should be understood as follows: His dhayaa cannot be subject to any pariNaamam in the pravrthi such as 'karOtheethi kara: dhayaayaa: kara: dhayaakara:' but as the source of dhayaa itself. So AachaaryaaL knowing Shiva as 'sarvagnya' and 'dhayaakara' he pleads with Him: "Hey! KaruNaanidhE! You are of such great mahima. As you are capable of knowing the manObhaavam of sakhala praaNis that include me, what is there for me to tell you? You are my eternal saviour. I am keeping you in my heart as my *Paramaanandharangan*. The essence of the sloka is that one should not consider the gaining of alpa vasthu as yoga but take the paripaalanam of laptha vasthu as the utmost kshEmam. Regards, Anbu On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 6:39 AM, sriram wrote: > Dear Sri Anbusivam > I think it should read Bahyanthara Vyapinaha instead of what is written in > both > Samskrutam and English.R.Krishnamoorthy. > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anbu sivam2" > To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" > ; > Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 2:43 AM > Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari -35 > > > Sivaanandalahari -35योगक्षेम--धुरंधरस्य सकलः-श्रेयः-प्रदोध्योगिनो >> >> दृष्टादृष्ट-मतोपदेषकृतिनो ब्राह्यान्तर-व्यापिनः। >> सर्वज्ञस्य दयाकरस्य भवतः किं वेदितव्यं मया >> शंभो त्वं परमान्तरंग इति मे चित्ते स्मराम्यन्वहम्॥३५॥ >> >> >> >> yogakShema--dhuraMdharasya sakalaH-shreyaH-pradodhyogino >> dR^iuShTAdRRiShTa-matopadeShakR^itino brAhyAntara-vyApinaH | >> sarvaj~nasya dayAkarasya bhavataH kiM veditavyaM mayA >> shaMbho tvaM paramAntaraMga iti me chitte smarAmyanvaham..35.. >> >> >> >> What can I express to you who shoulders the responsibility of acquisition >> and preservation, who is engaged in giving all good thing, who is Guru ( >> Teacher) to teach the way to attain the desired from the known world and >> unknown others, who is inside and outside and all pervading, who knows >> everything and who is merciful ? Oh! Shambo , every day I think in my mind >> that you are close to me and doer of good to me. 35 >> >> *Commentary >> >> *"AnanyaaschinthayanthO maam yE janaa: paryupaasathE | >> ThEshaam nithyaabhiyukthaanaam yogakshEmam vahaamyaham || >> >> is the pradhigna of the Lord given in the Geetha. Hey! MahaprabhO! You are >> adept in giving superior sreyas to bhaktha janas. You teach people their >> own >> way to obtain the sukham of this world and of the beyond. 'ya: sarvagna: >> sarvavitha' says the sruthi and you are pervading the ins and outs of >> everything. You come to know of everything by being in the heart of all >> praaNis. Moreover in this sloka, AachaaryaaL uses the word >> 'dhayaakarasya'. >> It is explained as 'karOtheethi kara: dhayaayaa: kara: dhayaakara:'. It >> can >> be said that you are the source of 'dhayaa'. This dhayaa has manifested as >> aalaahala paanam, thripura samhaaram, mrithyunjaya leela and >> GangavadharaNam >> besides being sarvagna. >> >> Hey! KaruNaanidhE! You are of such great mahima. As you are capable of >> knowing the manObhaavam of sakhala praaNis that include me, what is there >> for me to tell you? You are my eternal saviour. I am keeping you in my >> heart >> as my Paramaanandharangan. This itself is giving me limitless sreyas. >> >> வேண்டத்தக்க தறிவோய்நீ வேண்ட முழுதுந் தருவோய்நீ >> வேண்டும் அயன் மாற்கரியோநீ வேண்டி என்னைப் பணி கொண்டாய் >> வேண்டி நீயா தருள்செய்தாய் யானும் அதுவே வேண்டினல்லால் >> வேண்டும் பரிசு ஒன்று உண்டென்னில் அதுவும் உன்தன் விருப்பன்றே. >> (திருவாசகம்) >> _______________________________________________ >> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ >> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita >> >> To unsubscribe or change your options: >> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l >> >> For assistance, contact: >> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Wed Dec 2 15:20:04 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 16:20:04 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari -36 Message-ID: Sivaanandalahari -36भक्तो भक्तिगुणवृते मुदमृतापूर्णे प्रसन्‍ने मन: कुंभे सांब तवांघ्रिपल्लवयुगं संस्थाप्य संवित्फलम् । सत्वं मन्त्र-मुदीरय-न्‍निजशरीरागार-शुद्धिं वहन् पुण्याहं प्रकटीकरोमि रुचिरं कल्याण-मापादयन् ॥ ३६ ॥ Bakto BaktiguNavRRute mudamRutApUrNe prasan^ne mana: kuMBe sAMba tavAMghripallavayugaM saMsthApya saMvitphalam | satvaM mantra-mudIraya-n^nijaSarIrAgAra-SuddhiM vahan puNyAhaM prakaTIkaromi ruchiraM kalyANa-mApAdayan || 36 || Oh God who is with Goddess Parvati, I am your devotee, bound by the thread of Bhakti, with the vessel of my mind full of water of happiness and brightness, with your two holy feet as the Mango leaves on the vessel, with the coconut of GyAna (the ultimate truth) placed over the leaves, meditating on the Panchakshari (five letter) mantra which grows the Satva Guna and thus I do the Punyahavachanam (purification) with a view to cleansing the house of my mind and yearning for all the good. *Commentary *This sloka does the alankaaram by kalpitham of Paramasivadhyaanam as a puNyaavaachaka karma. hE Saamba = One who is with Ambika; nijasareeraagaarasuddhim = keeping clean of the abode that is his body; vahan = the maker; ruchiram = long lasting; kayaaNam = mOksham or mangaLam; aapaadhayan = one who would bring about; bhakthan = devotee i.e. me; bhakthiguNaavrthE = being tied with the thread of the bhakthi guNa; aanandhamruthaapoorNE = being filled with the waters of aanandha; prasannE = being present; mana: kumbE = the pot called manas; thava = your; angeengrapallavayugam = the two soft feet; samvithphalam = the gnaana represented as coconut; samsthaapya = keep; sathvam = that which is saathwik; manthram = panchaakshari manthram; udheerayan = I who is saying punyaaham = the karma called punyaaham; prakatee karOmi = I declare in this world. Aum He! SambO! As your bhaktha I wish to clean my body of impurities; I wish to get sukham to my frittering mind and I wish to prepare myself to enjoy mokshasukham so I am doing this karma called 'punyaaham' with due deligence. That is, Hey! Sarveswara! I have made my nirmala manas as a pot which I have filled with the water that is Aananda. The mango leaves that is half submerged in the water are your lotus feet along with the coconut called gnaanam sitting on it. I have tied it with the thread called bhakthi. I am doing this karma called 'punyaaham' chanting the panchaakshari manthra 'Aum Nama: Sivaaya'. Hey! PrabhO! I have no doubt that by doing this karma I will get nithyamoksham. சிவ சிவ என்கிலர் தீவினையாளர் சிவ சிவ என்றிடத் தீவினைமாளும் சிவ சிவ என்றிடத் தேவருமாவர் சிவ சிவ என்னச் சிவகதி தானே. (திருமந்திரம்) Aum Nama: Sivaaya. Raja yoga is considered mukyam in this sloka. From nareshpc at gmail.com Thu Dec 3 09:33:33 2009 From: nareshpc at gmail.com (Naresh Cuntoor) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 10:33:33 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari -35 In-Reply-To: References: <000501ca736b$162a8260$6400a8c0@km> Message-ID: Anbu ji, Thanks for the series Not to nitpick, but among the three important words that you pointed out ... > Sarvagnasya dhayaakarasya Paramaanandharanga > > > His dhayaa cannot be subject to any pariNaamam in the pravrthi such as > 'karOtheethi kara: dhayaayaa: kara: dhayaakara:'  but as the source of > dhayaa itself. Let us hope there is no 'dhaya' going on.. No straws to suck on here :) > as my *Paramaanandharangan*. While it is true that we may be 'andhenaiva nIyamAnAH yathAndhAH ...', in the present shloka there are no blind men. No andha, but 'anta'. PS: I take your point about typos. But I pointed these out because I have heard many people mispronouncing these letters. Naresh vaak.wordpress.com From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Thu Dec 3 12:05:11 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 13:05:11 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari -35 In-Reply-To: References: <000501ca736b$162a8260$6400a8c0@km> Message-ID: You are perfectly right. It should be paramaanantharanga. Sorry for the error. Sometimes the Tamilian (with its disadvantageous phonetics) in me seem to assert itself by sheer inertia! Thaamasa gunam :( I will try to be careful. By the way I like your blog! Regards, On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Naresh Cuntoor wrote: > Anbu ji, > > Thanks for the series > > Not to nitpick, but among the three important words that you pointed out > ... > > > Sarvagnasya dhayaakarasya Paramaanandharanga > > > > > > His dhayaa cannot be subject to any pariNaamam in the pravrthi such as > > 'karOtheethi kara: dhayaayaa: kara: dhayaakara:' but as the source of > > dhayaa itself. > > Let us hope there is no 'dhaya' going on.. No straws to suck on here :) > > > as my *Paramaanandharangan*. > > While it is true that we may be 'andhenaiva nIyamAnAH yathAndhAH ...', > in the present shloka there are no blind men. No andha, but 'anta'. > > PS: I take your point about typos. But I pointed these out because I > have heard many people mispronouncing these letters. > > > Naresh > vaak.wordpress.com > _______________________________________________ > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Thu Dec 3 15:34:51 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 16:34:51 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari -37 Message-ID: Sivaanandalahari -37आम्नायांबुधि-मादरेण सुमन-स्संघा-स्समुध्यन्मनो मन्थानं दृढभक्ति-रज्जु-सहितं कृत्वा मथित्वा तत: । सोमं कल्पतरुं सुपर्व-सुरभिं चिन्तामणिं धीमतां नित्यानन्द-सुधां निरन्तर-रमा-सौभाग्य-मातन्वते ॥ ३७ ॥ AamnAyAMbudhi-mAdhareNa sumana-ssaMghA-ssamudhyanmano manthAnaM dRuDhaBakti-rajju-sahitaM kRutvA mathitvA tata: | somaM kalpataruM suparva-suraBiM chintAmaNiM dhImatAM nityAnanda-sudhAM nirantara-ramA-sauBAgya-mAtanvate || 37 || Those good hearted people who churn the ocean of Vedas with the rope of firm devotion, with the stirrer of an attentive mind with full faith get from it ,the Lord associated with goddess Uma, grantor of boons like kalpataru (tree that satisfies one’s desires), who is like Kamadhenu ( the cow that grants one’s desires) and Chintamani (costly gem which makes one rich), who is ultimate happiness to the knowledgeable and who gives everlasting wealth. *Commentary* sumana Sanghaa = the gathering of the vidhwaans or devaas; samudhyan = having efforts; mana: = of the mind (of mEru parvatham); dhrudabhakthirajjusahitham = toughened rope called bhakthi (tied with the strongest sarpa or snake); manthaanam = the churning stick; kruthvaa = having done; aamnaayaambudhim = the ocean that is the Veda (the milky ocean); aadharENa = with support; mathithvaa = churned; surabhim = equal to kaamadhEnu (with kaamadhEnu); chinthaamaNim = equal to chinthaamaNi (with chinthaamaNi) dheemathaam = to those who are intelligent (to the Devas); nithyaanandhasudhaam = of the form of amrutha swaroopa (with the amrutha that brings nithyaanandha); nirantharam = permanent; ramaasowbhaagyam = of Shiva who has the pragnya of mOksha Lakshmi (having the soundharyam of Lakshmi); aathanvathE = they beget. In the previous stanza Raja Yoga was emphasized. In this stanza AachaaryaaL underlines the Bhakthi Yoga. Hey! ParamEswara! Just as devas used mount Meru as the rod and the great snake Vasuki as the rope to churn the milky ocean and got wonderful things such as Kalpaga Vruksham, KaamadhEnu, Chinthaamani, Chandran, Mahaalakshmi and above all Amrutham, in the same way, vidwaans churn the vEdha samudhram with their nirmala manas as the rod and great bhakthi as the rope to obtain you O! Paramasiva! As the vidwaans do this churning they obtain you with Uma as your inseparable consort and also find that you are also the equivalent of Kalpaga Vruksham, KaamadhEnu, Chinthaamani, Chandran, Mahaalakshmi and Amrutham! In comparison to devas, vidwaans’ reward is effortless! “SarvE vEdhaa: yathpadhamaamananthi”, says the sruthi. Only through the four vedhas called Rig, Yajus, Saama and AtharvaNa, is it possible to know the real swaroopam of Paramasiva. Also it is not possible to know Him without bhakthi. Bhagavath PaadhaaL says, “mOkshasaadhana saamagrayaam bhathirEva gareeyasi”. Bhakthi is a matchless tonic to obtain Parameswara. Therefore it can easily be said that bhakthi is the fifth purushaartham. “ya sarvE dhEvaa: namanthi mumukshava: brahaavaadhinascha ithi”, says the sruthi. That is, all praanis such as mumukshus, kaamis, mukthaas do their namaskaarams to Paramasiva. It is thus clear that in order to have layam in Paramasiva, bhakthi is the only means. More clearly, the means to mOksha *is* gnana and the means to gnana is bhakthi. In this stanza the importance of bhakthi yoga and the easiness of it were taught by invoking the charithra called ksheeraabdhimathanam. Mumukshus with superior bhakthi, prema and sraddha, together with Ekaagra chinthana and vedhaadhyaana devoid of vacillations of the mind and firmness of the resolve win sarvaabheeshta siddhi and acquire the wishes such as all the wealth equivalent to kalpagavriksham and kaamadhEnu and in the end reach UmaamahEswaran. swaswaroopaanusandhaanam bhakthirithyabhidheeyathE Bhakthi is nothing but the anusandhaanam of akhandaakaaravriddhi that one's own aathmaswaroopa is non-different from Paramasiva. Whoever sings this stanza in sivasannidhaanam and do a namaskaaram he is bound to get his layam in Paramasiva. SivOham From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Fri Dec 4 16:50:52 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 17:50:52 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari -38 Message-ID: Sivaanandalahari -38प्राक्पुण्याचल-मार्गदर्शित: - सुधामूर्ति: प्रसन्‍नश्शिव: सोमस्सद्गुण-सेवितो मृगधर: पूर्णस्तमो-मोचक: । चेत: पुष्कत-लक्षितो भवति चेदानन्दपाथो-निधि: प्रागल्भ्येन विजृंभते सुमनसां वृत्तितदा जायते ॥ ३८ prAkpuNyAchala-mArgadarSita: - sudhAmUrti: prasan^naSSiva: somassadguNa-sevito mRugadhara: pUrNastamo-mochaka: | cheta: puShkata-lakShito Bavati chedAnandapAtho-nidhi: prAgalByena vijRuMBate sumanasAM vRuttitadA jAyate || 38 There is double meaning for the Sloka which will fit for the moon as well as for Shiva. If moon, who is seen in the east in the holy mountain, who is personification of the nectar, who is doer of good, surrounded by good cluster of Stars, who has the form of a deer, who is complete with the arts and remover of darkness is seen in the sky of the mind then ocean of happiness will rise royally and flowers would blossom. Shiva who is seen through the mountain of Punya ( good deeds) , personification of nectar, who is happy, doer of good, residence for good attributes, holds the deer in the hand, who is complete, who is remover of darkness and who is with Goddess Uma, is seen in the space of mind then the ocean of happiness will rise royally and will be the livelihood for the good people. *Commentary * praakpunyaachalamaargadharsitha sudhaamoorthi: = through one's accumulated punyas of the size of a mountain that one is able to worship Parameswara; (also) from the udhayagiri in the east that one sees the amruthaswaroopi chandra; prasanna: = who is pleasantly existing; siva: = sivaa who brings about mangalam; sadgaNasevitha: = the midst of satpurushaas (in the midst of stars); mrugadhara; = who holds a deer; poorNa; = poorNaswaroopan who is complete with sixteen kalas; thamOmOchaka: = one who drives out the thaamasic darkness; sOma: = Parameswara who is with Uma; (also Chandra); chEtha: pushkaralakshitha: = one who is seen in the aakaasa called manas; bhavathi cheth = if he happens (difficult to translate into English but to be understood); thadhaa = at that time; aanandhapaathOnidhi: = the sea of aanandha; praagalbyEna = with gaambeeram (much); vijrumbathE = it raises (just as the milk does when heated); sumanasaam = to those of good mind; vrutthi: = a kind of change in the mind; jaayathE = takes place. Chandra who rises from the east at the mountain, who is an amruthaswaroopi, who is surrounded by the crowd of stars, who is mrugadharan, who is of poorNakalas, who drives away darkness,is the one who brings swells of happiness to the ocean. O!Chandra! your rising from the hilltop brings SivOdhayam in the hearts of bhakthaas. “prannanthum sthOthum vaa katham akrutha punya: prabhavathi” says AachaaryaaL. How can a person either worship or do namaskaaram to Parameswara without ever having done a mountain of sukrutham? In fact people who have not done tons of sukrutham would never even think of Parameswara. So only from this mountain of punya arises SivOdhayam. When He arises from this mound of punya He appears as amrutha swaroopan, prasannan, a lusturous mangalan; He appears surrounded by sath purushaas and sath gaNaas, holding the Vedas in the form of a deer in his hand. Moreover, as the Vedas proclaim: “a poorNamadha: poorNamidham poorNaath poorNamudhacchyathe | poorNasya poornamaadhaaya poorNamEvaa vasishyathe ||” He is poornaswaroopi, He is the sarvavyaapi, He is all and He is the source of all. At the same time: “sakalai: kaamai: sakalaabi: sakthimiccha sampanna ithi poorna:”, so in the matter of fulfilling the one and all the desires of the praaNis SarvEswara remains the motive power. That is why in this sloka of Sivaanandalahari AachaaryaaL specially describes Siva as “PoorNa:”. He destroys the raakshasa called moola agnaanam. When He shines in the mind of bhakthaas as UmamahEswaran with his poorNakalaas, the bhakthaas' mind turn into a sea of aanandha, swelling and roaring! During the day time the sea does not have so much of tides and roaring but when it sees the poorNa chandran it goes into great ecstasy with its high tides and simha garjana in making its tremendous sound. In the same way when sivOdhayam takes place in the hearts of the bhakthas their dwaitha buddhi is completely eradicated and they thus get their manOvritthi to enjoy sivaanubhavam. vritthisthadhaa jaayathe - says AachaaryaaL. The true meaning of this is that one can enjoy Sivaanubhavam only by the mountain of sukritham performed in crores of janma. The pramaaNam for this is contained in the saasthra: bahoonaam janmanaamanthE sivabhakthi: prajaayathE. Whoever says this sloka and do namaskaram to Paramasiva would indeed gain adhvaitha gnana. This is certain. Aum Namasivaaya. From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Sat Dec 5 15:02:02 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 16:02:02 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari -39 Message-ID: Sivaanandalahari -39धर्मो मे चतुरंघ्रिक-स्सुचरित: पापं विनाशं गतं काम-क्रोध-मदादयो विगलिता: काला: सुखाविष्कृता:। ज्ञानानन्द-महौषधि: सुफलिता कैवल्यनाथे सदा मान्ये मानसपुण्डरीक-नगरे राजावतंसे स्थिते ॥ ३९ ॥ dharmo me chaturaMghrika-ssucharita: pApaM vinASaM gataM kAma-krodha-madAdayo vigalitA: kAlA: sukhAviShkRutA:| j~jAnAnanda-mahauShadhi: suphalitA kaivalyanAthe sadA mAnye mAnasapuNDarIka-nagare rAjAvataMse sthite || 39 || Since Lord Paramashiva who is worshipped by all, who is best among the kings, and the only king of kings was seated in the lotus like city of mind, the four legged Dharma is well observed. Sins have been destroyed; Desire, anger and ego have fled. All seasons exhibit happiness; The plant of knowledge gives very good yield. * Commentary *maanyE = worshipful; raajavathamsE = Parameswaran who is Chandrasekhara (superior king); sadhaa = always; mE = my; maanasapundareekanagarE = in the city of my hrudhayakamalam; kaivalyanaathE = as the giver of mOkshaanandha (the only lord); sthithE = staying there; chathurangrika = having four feet; dharma: = dharma; sucharitha: = has been done with sukham; paapam = the sin; vinaasam = destruction; gatha; = attained; kaamakrOdhamadhaadhaya: = kaamam krOdham and madham; vigalithaa: = left me; kaalaa: = the times; sukhaavishkruthaa: = manifesting sukham; gnaanaanandamahoushadhi: = the herbs such as gnaanam, sukham; supalitha = nicely maturing. வேயுறு தோளி பங்கன் விடமுண்டகண்டன் மிக நல்ல வீணை தடவி மாசறு திங்கள் கங்கை முடிமேல் உளமேபுகுந்த அதனால் ஞாயிறு திங்கள் செவ்வாய் புதன் வியாழன் வெள்ளி சனி பாம்பிரண்டு முடனே ஆசறு நல்லநல்ல அவை நல்லநல்ல அடியார் அவர்க்கு மிகவே. (சம்பந்தர் தேவாரம்) AachaaryaaL compares Hridayakamalam to a city and Parameswara to a king and taking into account the saying “yathaa raajaa thathaa prajaa:” (as is the ruler, so is the subject), suggests that all praaNis should follow Parameswara. Let us interject Raama Raajyam in this explanation. When pujyasri Raama as the personification of dharma was doing his raajya paripaalanam, people enjoyed the sukham of his dhaarmic rule. Paapas were uprooted and destroyed. So were the kaamakrodha maathsaryaadhis. Rain poured down on earth at regular intervals. The gnaanakalai was blossoming. All prajaas observed their swadharmas and never transgressed into others’ dharma. They thus enjoyed superior sreyas. Therefore, O! Parameswara! in the same way a prajaa enjoys the immense sukham under a dharmic rule, I am enjoying the MOkshabhaagyam of your Grace when you rule my hridayakamalam. Let me explain: As the saasthra says, “thapa: sowcham dhayaa sathyamithi paadhaa: prakeerthithaa:” thapas, aachaaram, dhayai and sathyam are the four feet of dharma and dharma is standing on its feet. All kinds of papas and bad thoughts that caused them have been destroyed root and stem. The six inner enemies that are kaamam, krOdham, lObham, mOham, madham and maathsaryam being the worst raakshasaas, have all run away without a trace. Even the seasons such as Vasantham and HEmantham have been giving me sukham. I am able to inquire into and understand the great text on Jeeva-Brahma Aikya Saakshaathkaaram. I have become qualified to obtain the great srEyas. Thus, O! Parameswara! when you are the ruler of the lotus of my heart where is the complaint from me of any deficiency? I am enjoying immense aanandha in my mind! அடி முடியும் நடுவுமற்ற பரவெளி மேற் கொண்டால் அத்துவித ஆனந்த சித்தமுண்டாம் நமது குடி முழுதும் பிழைக்குமொரு குறையுமில்லை யெடுத்த கோலமெல்லாம் நன்றாகுங் குறைவு னிறை வறவே. (தாயுமானவர்) Aum Namasivaaya! From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Sun Dec 6 03:59:29 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 04:59:29 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari - 40 Message-ID: Sivaanandalahari - 40 धीयन्त्रेण वचोघटेन कविता-कुल्योपकुल्याक्रमै- रानीतैश्‍च सदाशिवस्य चरितांभोराशि-दिव्यामृतै: । हृत्केदार-युताश्‍च भक्तिकलमा:साफल्य-मातन्वते दुर्भिक्षान्मम सेवकस्य भगवान् विश्वेश भीति: कुत: ॥ ४० ॥ dhIyantreNa vachoghaTena kavitA-kulyopakulyAkramai- rAnItaiS^cha sadASivasya charitAMbhorASi-divyAmRutai: | hRutkedAra-yutAS^cha BaktikalamA:sAphalya-mAtanvate durBikShAnmama sevakasya BagavAn viSveSa BIti: kuta: || 40 || Very useful is the crop of Bhakti, grown in the land of the heart, irrigated by the water of DevAmrutam ( nectar ) of history of Sadashiva, brought through the canals and sub canals of poems, with the pots of words coming from the machinery of Brain. How will there be any fear of drought in the mind of your servant? *Commentary *hE bhagavan = Hey! Bhagavan who is of six sat gunas or thathwas; hE viswesa = Hey! Easwara of the entire world; dheeyanthrENa = with the mechanism called buddhi; vachOgadEna = with the pot called the words; kavithaakulyOpakulyaakramai: = from the big and small water channels called kavithvam; aneetha: that which have been brought; sadhaasivasya = of ParamEswara; charithaambOraasidhivyaamrthai: = of the great waters of the oceans called history; hruthkEdharayuthaa: of the agricultural fields called manas; bhakthikalamaa: = the laden greenery called bhakthi; saapalyam = prayOjanam; aathanvathE = they reach; dhurbhikshaath = from the famine; sEvakasya = of your servant; mama = to me; bheethi; = bhayam; kutha; = meaning it does not exist. AachaaryaaL describes the manas as a crop yielding field and teaches us raaja yoga. The saasthraa says: “uthpaththim cha vinaasa cha bhoothaanaam agathim gathim | vEththividyaam avidhyaam cha savaachyO bhagavaanithi || Only Parameswara knows the six thathvas called (1) the origin, (2) sthithi and (3) layam of the jagat, (4) the going and coming of the praanNis in the lOkaandaram, their gathi and agathi, (5) what is avidhya the root cause of bantham and (6) what is vidya that causes the release. This is how the word ‘*Bhagavan*” used in this sloka has to be understood. Also in this sloka there is a secret behind the word ‘*Sadhaasivasya*’. It indicates that Paraasakthi cannot be separated from Parameswara. Devi’s swaroopam is ‘Sadhaa’ and ‘Sivan’ is Easwara thathwam. The akhanda thathwam of Siva and Shakthi together is called Sadhaasiva Thathwam’. The history of Parvathi and ParameswaraaL is the ocean of amrutham from which rivulets of poetry flows. Hey! ViswEswara! Using the wheel called ‘bhuddhi’ a pot of speech (vaak) is made. This pot is immersed in the poetic rivulets that are big and small and the waters of kathaamrutham is drawn. This water is then used to irrigate the field called the mind that grows the vegetation called bhakthi. When done this way the bhakthi grows luscious crop that drives away the fear of drought. Because of this I who is your servant am devoid of all of penury. Where would such fear arise at all! The swaarasyam of the sentence: "dhurbhikshanmama sEvakasya bhagavanviswEsa bheethi: kutha:" is as follows: I.e. Hey! ParamEswara! If the agricultural field is without water then it becomes drought stricken and because of that the entire country would be immersed in famine that causes the great fear among the prajaas of their very existence. In the same manner if in the field called manas those crops called bhakthi that are growing there is not watered by your kathaamrutham then they would surely find their destruction. This would cause my mind to be useless to me and my janma would become wasted. I would then be devoid of sivaanandham. Hey! Parameswara! When the divyaamrutham of your charitha is poured in the field of my manas the crop called bhakthi keeps growing in fantastic lush. Because of this I become qualified to experience sivaanandham! When this bhaagyam happens to me what will ever be dearth to me? There is no reason for me to be afraid at all! Raja yoga is mukhyam in this sloka. So the rahasyam of it is that in order for the crops have to grow in the field they have to be luscious so as to yield the crop. So in prakrtham the field called the mind can be luscious only if it is fed with the divyajalam of sadhaasiva charithram so it is not let to wander into vishayaadhis that drag the janma into endless cycle. Thus keeping the manas in the layam of sivakathaamruthaabhdhi is called Raja Yoga. It is thus emphasized that there is nothing unachievable to the raja yogis Anyone who chants this sloka and do namaskaram to Shiva will have their mind finding layam in sivakathaamrutham and achieve janma saabhalyam. This is certain. This is certain. Aum Namasivaaya! * * From jaldhar at braincells.com Mon Dec 7 02:44:35 2009 From: jaldhar at braincells.com (Jaldhar H. Vyas) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 03:44:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Advaita-l] New members Message-ID: Angira Das I am interested in researching the advaitic tradition from the philosophical point-of-view, mainly in comparison with Western philosophy. Thank you for hospitality. Nagarajan Am 63. Male. Live with Wife at Chennai now. Interested in Music, Spirituality. Actively associated with Art of Living. Sriram Nagaraj Sri Gurubhyo Namaha! I am a graduate student in electrical engineering. I come from a Smartha family and we are greatly devoted to the Acharyas of Sri Sringeri Sarada Peetam and Sri Kamakoti Peetam. I have always from a young age been drawn to discussion of our Sampradaya and Advaita Vedanta. Shantih Shatih Shantihi Keshav Thukaram Interested in Shankara's philosophy -- Jaldhar H. Vyas From jaldhar at braincells.com Mon Dec 7 05:15:55 2009 From: jaldhar at braincells.com (Jaldhar H. Vyas) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 06:15:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Advaita-l] New member introduction: Shakthi Prashanth Message-ID: I am Shakthi Prashanth from Bangalore, working as an Engineer. I am very much interested in knowing about ancient indian philosophy including Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagavatha, etc. Also I wanted to know what is the contribution of Adi Shankaracharya to Indian Philosophy. I am very interested in knowing about "Advaita" philosophy. I donot know anything about Advaita. But I have gone thru bit spirtual aspects. I will be really greatful to you if you give me an opportunity for knowing about this. I agree to plocies as long as it is a platform for me to learn new things on Vedanta. Thanks and Regards, Shakthi Prashanth From michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk Mon Dec 7 05:56:56 2009 From: michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk (Michael Shepherd) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 11:56:56 -0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] New member introduction: Shakthi Prashanth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jaldhar Do you offer any 'standard' recommendations to those who ask to know about Advaita Vedanta -- either in terms of first texts to read, or reliable books, or internet resources ? Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of Jaldhar H. Vyas Sent: 07 December 2009 11:16 To: Advaita-L Subject: [Advaita-l] New member introduction: Shakthi Prashanth I am Shakthi Prashanth from Bangalore, working as an Engineer. I am very much interested in knowing about ancient indian philosophy including Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagavatha, etc. Also I wanted to know what is the contribution of Adi Shankaracharya to Indian Philosophy. I am very interested in knowing about "Advaita" philosophy. I donot know anything about Advaita. But I have gone thru bit spirtual aspects. I will be really greatful to you if you give me an opportunity for knowing about this. I agree to plocies as long as it is a platform for me to learn new things on Vedanta. Thanks and Regards, Shakthi Prashanth _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Mon Dec 7 12:36:28 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 13:36:28 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari - 41 Message-ID: Sivaanandalahari - 41 पापोत्पात-विमोचनाय रुचिरैश्‍वर्याय मृत्युंजय स्तोत्र-ध्यान-नति-प्रदक्षिण-सपर्यालोकनाकर्णने । जिह्वा-चित्त-शिरोङ्‌घ्रि-हस्त-नयन-श्रोत्रैरहं प्रार्थितो मामाज्ञापय तन्‍निरूपय मुहु-र्मामेव मा मेऽवच: ॥ ४१ ॥ pApotpAta-vimochanAya ruchiraiS^varyAya mRutyuMjaya stotra-dhyAna-nati-pradakShiNa-saparyAlokanAkarNane | jihvA-chitta-Siro~g^^ghri-hasta-nayana-SrotrairahaM prArthito mAmAj~jApaya tan^nirUpaya muhu-rmAmeva mA me&vacha: || 41 || Oh Mritunjaya, who won over the lord of death Yama, Please order me to pray by means of Stotras ( poems in praise of you ), meditation, Namaskaram ( bowing to you), Pradakshinam ( go round oneself in clockwise direction), Puja ( worship), Darsanam (Seeing) and Sravanam (hearing the name or stories of God ) with the help of tongue, mind, head, legs, hands, eyes and ears so as to be relieved of my sins and to become independent. In these aspects please do ensure it frequently. Let me not spend anytime without using the tongue for you. Let my tongue and all the Indriyas (six senses) be in your holy service. *Commentary *hE mruthyunjaya = Hey! Mruthyunjaya! i.e. one who has won over yama; paapOthpaapavimOchnaaya = to remove the afflictions of sins; ruchiraiswaryaaya = to attain the superior aiswarya; sthOthra dhyaana nathipradhakshiNa saparyaalOkanaakarNanE = in the matter of performing sthuthi, dhyaanam, namaskaaram, pradhakshiNam, pooja, dharshanam, sravaNam.; jihvaachitthasirOngrihasthanayanasrOthrai: = with tongue, mind, head, feet, hands, eyes, ears; aham = I; praarthitha: = worship; maam = me; aagyaapaya = order me; thath = for that reason; maam = to me; muhu; = often; niroopaya = prove it; mE = to me; avacha: = if there is no gnaanam; maa Eva = do not do at all. Oh! Mrutunjaya! You won over the lord of death Yama. If only you decide to have kaarunyam on me that very moment my janmaa will attain its saabhalyam. When are you going to show me that enormous karuNai on me? Hey! ParamEswara! In order to remove my paapams done in my many poorva janmas lock, stock and barrel, in order to attain the superior aiswarya called mOkshasaamraajyam, in order to praise your mahimaas, in order to do dhyaanam of your apraahrtha mangala vigraham, in order to do pradhakshiNam of all the Sivakshethrams of enormous mahimas, in order to do poojanam of your holy feet that gives mahaa mangalam, in order to do dharsanam of your moorthy of the greatest mahima, in order to speak of your history that gives divyaamritham, I have been entreated by my tongue, my mind, my head, my feet, my hands, my eyes and my ears. But I remain asakthan to fulfil their very pious requests. It is only you who can shower karuNa on me so I am able to fulfil these requests. In reality, according to "praNanthum sthOthum vaa katham akruthapunya: prabhavathi" i.e. having not done smaraNam in the many thousands of the past janmas, having not accumulated the mountain like puNya in those past lives how can the praaNis be qualified to do namaskaaram or do sthuthi with their vaak? Therefore, as said in soothasamhitha, sivaprasaadhEna vinaa na buddhi: sivaprasaadEna vinaa na yukthi: | sivaprasaadhEna vinaa na siddhi: sivaprasaadhEna vinaa na mukthi: || it is clear that the root cause for all sorts of srEyas that has mOkshaparyantham is Sivaprasaadham only. Hey! PrabhO! even though the indhriyaas have been praying to me to get them into your layam I am, as asakthan, unable to fulfil their requests. Because in my poorva janmas I have only done a mountain of paapas and not even a bit of puNya. The saasthras declare loudly that by puNya alone you can be attained. On the other hand I remain the worst sinner. And I remain without a wee bit of gnaanam. Please, Please ParmEswara! please grant me gnaanOdhayam! Hey! ParamEswara! according to the pradhigna, sarvadharmaanparithyajya maamEkam saraNam vraja | aham thvaa sarvapaapEbhyO mOkshayishyaami maa sucha: || please give me your aruL by which all my paapas of many kinds are completely removed and I become able to experience the mOksha saamraajya aiswaryam. So far I have not done any puNya karma at all. It is enough, surely enough to have wasted my janma. No more wasting of this precious janma. Hey! Paramaanandhaswaroopa! Hey! Mruthyunjaya! Hey! KaruNaajalathE! please relieve me from this trouble. The saaraamsam of this slOka is that only those who have done enormous punyaas in innumerable janmas can enjoy sivaanubhavam. This is certain. Aum Namasivaaya! From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Tue Dec 8 05:03:44 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 06:03:44 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari - 42 Message-ID: Sivaanandalahari - 42गंभीर्यं परिखापदं घनधृति: प्राकार‌उद्यद्गुण- स्तोमश्‍चाप्तबलं घनेन्द्रियचयो द्वाराणि देहे स्थित: । विध्या वस्तु-समृद्धिरित्यखिल-सामग्री-समेते सदा दुर्गातिप्रिय-देव मामक-मनो-दुर्गे निवासं कुरु ॥ ४२ ॥ gaMBIryaM parikhApadaM ghanadhRuti: prAkAra^^udyadguNa- stomaS^chAptabalaM ghanendriyachayo dvArANi dehe sthita: | vidhyA vastu-samRuddhirityakhila-sAmagrI-samete sadA durgAtipriya-deva mAmaka-mano-durge nivAsaM kuru || 42 || Oh God who is fond of living in inaccessible fort, Please grant me the mercy of staying in the fort of my mind with all necessary attributes, which has thick courage as the wall, with lots of predominant good qualities as the friendly Army, with the strong senses as the gates and true knowledge as the abundant essential commodities. *Commentary* hE durgaathipriya = one who loves to live in a mountain that is not easily accessible (also one who has priyam to Durgambika); hE dEva = swaprakaasaswaroopane; parikhaapadham = marked by the moat in front; gaambeeryam = depth, remote; ganadhruthi: = of unrelenting boldness; prakaara: ramparts; udhyadhguNasthOma: = of those group of qualities; aapthabalam = of conforming army; dhEhE = in the body; sthitha: = residing; ganEndriyachaya: = of the corwding organs; dwaaraaNi = the openings, the doors; vidhyaa = of vidhya; vasthu samruddhi: = of many objects; ithi = in this way; akhilasaamagreesamEthE = composed of many things; maamakamanOdhurgE = of the fort of my mind; sadhaa = always; nivaasam kuru = do live. Hey! ParamEswara! You are capable of doing anything at any time. O! Dweller of a place that this hard for anyone to access! Why are you always residing in the mountain? Is it your preference to live in a terrible place? Hey! Durgaambika prEmi! Do you know there is a more remote place than mahaa kailaasa parvatham? You can permanently stay there overflowing your sivaanandham along with paraasakthi. Are you wondering what is that wonderous place? It is my mind that is the strongest of the forts! It is surrounded by deep moats all around. You never have to worry that this fort will ever get destroyed. Because it has been built by surpassing boldness on my part. And I have put on guard a strong army to guard it from invaders. You have to know that this remarkable army is made up of saadhu gunas. It has the openings that are of the indriyas. It is filled with Brahma Vidhya to know you. Hey! Swayamprakaasi! With paraasakthi as your consort you can live here permanently. The saaraamsam of this sloka is that one should do dhyaanam of Paramasiva in his hridhayaakaasam. The antharangasaadhanam for that is manOnnigraham only. Vidwaans say that this manOnigraham is really the Raja Yoga. Whoever says this slOka and do namaskaram to Paramasiva, in his heart Paramasiva will live permanently. This is certain! Aum Namasivaaya! From shakthi.prashanth at ymail.com Tue Dec 8 06:24:33 2009 From: shakthi.prashanth at ymail.com (Shakthi Prashanth) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 17:54:33 +0530 (IST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Posting a new message Message-ID: <797374.91554.qm@web95106.mail.in2.yahoo.com> Hi, Here's my question. What is the Etymological meaning of Aham Brahmasmi? I know that it pretends to say that I am God. But I want to know its etymological interpretation. Regards, Shakthi The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. http://in.yahoo.com/ From jaldhar at braincells.com Tue Dec 8 06:42:22 2009 From: jaldhar at braincells.com (Jaldhar H. Vyas) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 07:42:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Aham brahmasmi In-Reply-To: <797374.91554.qm@web95106.mail.in2.yahoo.com> References: <797374.91554.qm@web95106.mail.in2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: [was Re: [Advaita-l] Posting a new message. Please use more descriptive subject lines to help people searching the archives.] On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Shakthi Prashanth wrote: > What is the Etymological meaning of Aham Brahmasmi? I know that it > pretends to say that I am God. But I want to know its etymological > interpretation. I am Brahman On hearing this, the sadhaka must begin pondering what is meant by "I" and "Brahman" -- Jaldhar H. Vyas From michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk Tue Dec 8 07:11:17 2009 From: michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk (Michael Shepherd) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 13:11:17 -0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] Aham brahmasmi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: It's best to take this statement -- which means literally 'I am Brahman, myself' -- as they do in the Shankara maths, along with the other mahavakya..So if it is taken as 'This Atman is the Brahman' then, as Jaldhar says, we have the capacity to use the full glory of our own being, as consciousness and witness, to unite the individual 'I' with the universal 'Brahman' -- the very essence of Advaita. And we could add that it bestows the encouragement to seek this, not only through shastra and guru and satsanga, but personally in our own purusha, through our own prajna, intuitive intellect.. regards, Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of Jaldhar H. Vyas Sent: 08 December 2009 12:42 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: [Advaita-l] Aham brahmasmi [was Re: [Advaita-l] Posting a new message. Please use more descriptive subject lines to help people searching the archives.] On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Shakthi Prashanth wrote: > What is the Etymological meaning of Aham Brahmasmi? I know that it > pretends to say that I am God. But I want to know its etymological > interpretation. I am Brahman On hearing this, the sadhaka must begin pondering what is meant by "I" and "Brahman" -- Jaldhar H. Vyas _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From sivasenani at yahoo.com Tue Dec 8 08:00:54 2009 From: sivasenani at yahoo.com (sivasenani at yahoo.com) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 14:00:54 +0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] Aham brahmasmi Message-ID: <504575754-1260281170-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-857718920-@bda226.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> Etymologically aham meaning self is as basic as it gets; to my knowledge you cannot go beyond the simple statement 'aham means self'. Brahman is from the root bri, to expand; Brahman is that which has expanded. Epistemologically, Veda is the pramana and to many that is sufficient. Aham Brahmasmi being a part of Veda is true on its own account without any need for further substantiation. For those who want to do thought experiments the avasthatraya prakriya establishes that the Self is Brahman. Pl refer to the Mandukya Upanishad and the Karikas thereof for the details of the thought experiment. Exegetically, the Brahma Sutras in the very first chapter or book establish that sixteen words are used in the Vedas to mean Brahman. Regards Senani ------Original Message------ From: Jaldhar H. Vyas Sender: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta ReplyTo: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Sent: 8 Dec 2009 6:12 PM Subject: [Advaita-l] Aham brahmasmi [was Re: [Advaita-l] Posting a new message. Please use more descriptive subject lines to help people searching the archives.] On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Shakthi Prashanth wrote: > What is the Etymological meaning of Aham Brahmasmi? I know that it > pretends to say that I am God. But I want to know its etymological > interpretation. I am Brahman On hearing this, the sadhaka must begin pondering what is meant by "I" and "Brahman" -- Jaldhar H. Vyas _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel From jaldhar at braincells.com Tue Dec 8 08:15:33 2009 From: jaldhar at braincells.com (Jaldhar H. Vyas) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 09:15:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Aham brahmasmi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Michael Shepherd wrote: > It's best to take this statement -- which means literally 'I am Brahman, > myself' It is not as idiomatic in English but adding "myself" is more literal. It is a reflexive verb. The sentence is not just saying "I am Brahman" but also "Brahman is I" -- Jaldhar H. Vyas From sivasenani at yahoo.com Tue Dec 8 08:54:44 2009 From: sivasenani at yahoo.com (sivasenani at yahoo.com) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 14:54:44 +0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] Aham brahmasmi Message-ID: <185062649-1260284400-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1451573597-@bda226.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> 'Myself' is an extraneous term, not found in the mahavakya. Asmi is exactly the equivalent of 'am' in 'I am Brahman' and 'is' in 'Brahman is I'. ------Original Message------ From: Jaldhar H. Vyas Sender: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta ReplyTo: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Sent: 8 Dec 2009 7:45 PM Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham brahmasmi On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Michael Shepherd wrote: > It's best to take this statement -- which means literally 'I am Brahman, > myself' It is not as idiomatic in English but adding "myself" is more literal. It is a reflexive verb. The sentence is not just saying "I am Brahman" but also "Brahman is I" -- Jaldhar H. Vyas _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel From michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk Tue Dec 8 09:12:11 2009 From: michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk (Michael Shepherd) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 15:12:11 -0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] Posting a new message In-Reply-To: <797374.91554.qm@web95106.mail.in2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Some people find 'etymology' illuminates; others, that it gets in their way.. but for what it's worth, and though some pundits may disagree, commentators particularly on the Chandogya Upanishad say that 'Brahman', (which expands and fills that which may be filled), is slow to emerge as a concept in the Veda, but is seen as under the power of Agni : that the fire in the heart of the devotee, the fire in the ritual, the fire in the sacrifice, the fire in the speech, the fire in the priests of the agnihotra, all join to expand that Brahman to become understood as what it already is, aham brahmasmi.. That may help you, or not ! Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of Shakthi Prashanth Sent: 08 December 2009 12:25 To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org Subject: [Advaita-l] Posting a new message Hi, Here's my question. What is the Etymological meaning of Aham Brahmasmi? I know that it pretends to say that I am God. But I want to know its etymological interpretation. Regards, Shakthi The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. http://in.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk Tue Dec 8 09:32:16 2009 From: michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk (Michael Shepherd) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 15:32:16 -0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] Aham brahmasmi In-Reply-To: <185062649-1260284400-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1451573597-@bda226.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> Message-ID: Well, technically it's a pronominal suffix, like 'atman-' can be a pronominal prefix. It's there in Vedic. It can be used in two ways : as in 'The king cut himself while shaving' or 'The king himself joined in the battle'. One is directing one's actions to oneself; the other is emphatic. But I think we get the point : if you think of yourself first, you're Brahman; if you think of Brahman first -- that's you ! Incidentally 'asmi' is still found in Romanian in this form.. Romanians alleged to be migrating Indian gipsies in origin... Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of sivasenani at yahoo.com Sent: 08 December 2009 14:55 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham brahmasmi 'Myself' is an extraneous term, not found in the mahavakya. Asmi is exactly the equivalent of 'am' in 'I am Brahman' and 'is' in 'Brahman is I'. ------Original Message------ From: Jaldhar H. Vyas Sender: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta ReplyTo: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Sent: 8 Dec 2009 7:45 PM Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham brahmasmi On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Michael Shepherd wrote: > It's best to take this statement -- which means literally 'I am Brahman, > myself' It is not as idiomatic in English but adding "myself" is more literal. It is a reflexive verb. The sentence is not just saying "I am Brahman" but also "Brahman is I" -- Jaldhar H. Vyas _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org Sent from BlackBerry0 3 on Airtel _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk Tue Dec 8 09:32:16 2009 From: michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk (Michael Shepherd) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 15:32:16 -0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] Posting a new message In-Reply-To: Message-ID: oops ! This should be under Shakhti's heading 'aham brahmasmi'.. -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of Michael Shepherd Sent: 08 December 2009 15:12 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Posting a new message Some people find 'etymology' illuminates; others, that it gets in their way.. but for what it's worth, and though some pundits may disagree, commentators particularly on the Chandogya Upanishad say that 'Brahman', (which expands and fills that which may be filled), is slow to emerge as a concept in the Veda, but is seen as under the power of Agni : that the fire in the heart of the devotee, the fire in the ritual, the fire in the sacrifice, the fire in the speech, the fire in the priests of the agnihotra, all join to expand that Brahman to become understood as what it already is, aham brahmasmi.. That may help you, or not ! Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of Shakthi Prashanth Sent: 08 December 2009 12:25 To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org Subject: [Advaita-l] Posting a new message Hi, Here's my question. What is the Etymological meaning of Aham Brahmasmi? I know that it pretends to say that I am God. But I want to know its etymological interpretation. Regards, Shakthi The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. http://in.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From shakthi.prashanth at ymail.com Tue Dec 8 23:04:04 2009 From: shakthi.prashanth at ymail.com (Shakthi Prashanth) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:34:04 +0530 (IST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Fw: RE: Query [continued] Message-ID: <843026.39194.qm@web95104.mail.in2.yahoo.com> Hi All, Thank you so much for such a great response from all of you. But I have also heard an interpretation like this: "Aham Brahmasmi" ham - means reject-able            [in Sanskrit.] Aham - means Non-reject-able   [in Sanskrit.] Brahma - Greatest                    [in Sanskrit.] So, it comes to a conclusion that, The one which is Non-reject-able  is the Greatest. But that is not Me. Because, Narayanopanishat says that, Padmakosha prateekasham hrudayachapyatho mukham Tasyaanthe suhiram sookhmam tasmin sarvam pratishtitam That means, There is just-born lotus flower being held inverted [pointing to heart], and there is pin point space in it which is omnipotent. My question if I am Brahman, then who is controlling my birth, death, this world, life, and infinite no. of activities that are happening? And suppose we assume that I am Brahman, then By etymology I am Greatest. So am I controlling everything? Please answer this. I am very thirst to know about it. Shakthi The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. http://in.yahoo.com/ From bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com Tue Dec 8 23:14:05 2009 From: bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com (Bhaskar YR) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:44:05 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Fw: RE: Query [continued] In-Reply-To: <843026.39194.qm@web95104.mail.in2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: question if I am Brahman, then who is controlling my birth, death, this world, life, and infinite no. of activities that are happening? And suppose we assume that I am Brahman, then By etymology I am Greatest. So am I controlling everything? praNAms Hare Krishna I think you are asking same 'age old' questions to advaitins :-)) Before posing any question to the forum, my sincere advice is to atleast read the archieved mails with appropriate words in the search engine . To your above question, in short, if you are realized that you are brahman, then you would come to know that you have no birth, death & there is no world apart from YOU...Problem arises only and only if you are under the spell of ignorance that you are mere tiny body with a prANa in this vast universe :-)) Kindly note, as per advaita 'you are brahman' is not mere assumption, it is the ultimate truth, that which we are all struggling to realize :-)) Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar From shakthi.prashanth at ymail.com Tue Dec 8 23:21:33 2009 From: shakthi.prashanth at ymail.com (Shakthi Prashanth) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:51:33 +0530 (IST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Fw: RE: Query [continued] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <698792.27011.qm@web95114.mail.in2.yahoo.com> Thank you Bhaskar for ur answer. I need a clarification. If I am saying that I am brahman, you also say the same. But how many will say like this? And more over does this universe contains only Brahmans? Is Brahman a living entity or non-living? If it is living entity, then he/she/it may realize at some point of time what is the truth? But according to ur statement, there is no world apart from you. So how those non-living entities  realise the truth, as they are also Brahman. Shakthi --- On Wed, 9/12/09, Bhaskar YR wrote: From: Bhaskar YR Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Fw: RE: Query [continued] To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" Date: Wednesday, 9 December, 2009, 5:14 AM question if I am Brahman, then who is controlling my birth, death, this world, life, and infinite no. of activities that are happening? And suppose we assume that I am Brahman, then By etymology I am Greatest. So am I controlling everything? praNAms Hare Krishna I think you are asking same  'age old' questions to advaitins :-))  Before posing any question to the forum, my sincere advice is to atleast read the archieved mails with appropriate words in the search engine . To your above question, in short, if you are realized that you are brahman, then you would come to know that you have no birth, death & there is no world apart from YOU...Problem arises only and only if you are under the spell of ignorance that you are mere tiny body with a prANa in this vast universe :-))  Kindly note, as per advaita 'you are brahman' is not mere assumption, it is the ultimate truth, that which we are all struggling to realize :-)) Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. http://in.yahoo.com/ From suresh.marur at gmail.com Tue Dec 8 23:23:01 2009 From: suresh.marur at gmail.com (Suresh Marur) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:53:01 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Fw: RE: Query [continued] In-Reply-To: <843026.39194.qm@web95104.mail.in2.yahoo.com> References: <843026.39194.qm@web95104.mail.in2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Question: "question if I am Brahman, then who is controlling my birth, death, this world, life, and infinite no. of activities that are happening? And suppose we assume that I am Brahman, then By etymology I am Greatest. So am I controlling everything?" My attempt for an answer: The question is flawed from a Vedantic perspective. When the Shruti states, "Aham Brahma Asmi", it is stating that the Aham which is "Sat Chit Ananda", the core of your being is non-different from Brahman (that tat). We in our ignorance super impose on the real "I" our mind, body, intellect (BMI) and then ask the question -- does that mean that I (in this context the ego) control everything"? The whole process of Vedanta is to remove these superimpositions that is the nature of Maya. Any understanding that does not conform to the Shruti must come from our own ignorance, implying further sadhana and purification of the mind. This comes from Shraddha and if we were to reject Vedanta because it does not fit "my understanding", then the search ends there for the individual. The key is to refine our understanding so that ALL the Brahma vakyas make consistent sense to us. Hence, we ought to be able to reconcile all the statements, "Tat Tvam Asi", "Pragyanam Brahma", "Brahman Satyam, Jagat Mithya, Brahmo Jeevaiva na parah" and "Aham Brahman Asmi". All contemplation will lead us back to one of these Brahmaa vakyas... Shri Sadananda has been writing wonderful articles in this mailist list (titled "Perspectives") which are incredibly concise and is a great benefit to any sadhaka who is committed to the Vedantic teaching. So starting another thread to me seems redundant. We are better off critiquing his commentaries and evaluate and debate our own understanding in that context. Hope this helps. Hari Om. - Suresh On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Shakthi Prashanth < shakthi.prashanth at ymail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > Thank you so much for such a great response from all of you. > > But I have also heard an interpretation like this: > > "Aham Brahmasmi" > ham - means reject-able [in Sanskrit.] > Aham - means Non-reject-able [in Sanskrit.] > Brahma - Greatest [in Sanskrit.] > > So, it comes to a conclusion that, > The one which is Non-reject-able is the Greatest. > > But that is not Me. Because, Narayanopanishat says > that, > Padmakosha prateekasham hrudayachapyatho mukham > Tasyaanthe suhiram sookhmam tasmin sarvam pratishtitam > > That means, > There is just-born lotus flower being held inverted [pointing to heart], > and there is pin point space in it which is omnipotent. > > My > question if I am Brahman, then who is controlling my birth, death, this > world, life, and infinite no. of activities that are happening? > And suppose we assume that I am Brahman, then By etymology I am > Greatest. So am I controlling everything? > > > Please answer this. I am very thirst to know about it. > > Shakthi > > > > > The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. > http://in.yahoo.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com Wed Dec 9 00:04:19 2009 From: bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com (Bhaskar YR) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:34:19 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Fw: RE: Query [continued] In-Reply-To: <698792.27011.qm@web95114.mail.in2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: praNAms Hare Krishna If I am saying that I am brahman, you also say the same. > Let us say we are brahman, what exactly is the problem here when we are saying we are THAT same brahman :-)) But how many will say like this? > The question of 'many' does not arise once you realize you are one & WHOLE :-)) And more over does this universe contains only Brahmans? > No plural here please :-) brahman is ONE without second :-)) Is Brahman a living entity or non-living? > shruti says brahman is sat chit & Ananda & this svarUpa of brahman is NOT restricted to ONLY living entities:-)) Hence shruti says : sarvaM khalvidam brahma, brahmAdi sthamba paryantaM etc. have you not read in nArAyaNa sUkta : vishvaM nArAyaNam devam aksharaM paramaM padaM etc. If it is living entity, then he/she/it may realize at some point of time what is the truth? > brahman is the truth, it does not have to realize what is truth, it is truth itself :-)) But according to ur statement, there is no world apart from you. > Not according to me, it is according to shruti / sacred scriptures. He is sarvavyApi. So how those non-living entities realise the truth, as they are also Brahman. > For the time being, let us keep aside the fate of non-living beings, let us first get rid of our own problem/ignorance..is it not?? > Sorry for my blunt replies...you can wait for more meaningful & authentic answers from other prabhuji-s of this list. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar From jaldhar at braincells.com Wed Dec 9 00:15:28 2009 From: jaldhar at braincells.com (Jaldhar H. Vyas) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 01:15:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Fw: RE: Query [continued] In-Reply-To: <698792.27011.qm@web95114.mail.in2.yahoo.com> References: <698792.27011.qm@web95114.mail.in2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, Shakthi Prashanth wrote: > So how those non-living entities  realise the truth, as they are also Brahman. > Why would they need to? Realization of truth is only necessary for that which thinks it is false. A stone or river doesn't think anything. As it has been said here before Advaita doesn't mean "one" it means "not-two" -- Jaldhar H. Vyas From shakthi.prashanth at ymail.com Wed Dec 9 00:21:08 2009 From: shakthi.prashanth at ymail.com (Shakthi Prashanth) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:51:08 +0530 (IST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Fw: RE: Query [continued] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <628213.80808.qm@web95113.mail.in2.yahoo.com> I asked this question bcoz, If the world is not apart from me, then Brahman is complete only when everything in this universe knowns what & who is Brahman. That is the actuall One-ness, right? Shakthi --- On Wed, 9/12/09, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: From: Jaldhar H. Vyas Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Fw: RE: Query [continued] To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" Date: Wednesday, 9 December, 2009, 6:15 AM On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, Shakthi Prashanth wrote: > So how those non-living entities  realise the truth, as they are also Brahman. > Why would they need to?  Realization of truth is only necessary for that which thinks it is false.  A stone or river doesn't think anything. As it has been said here before Advaita doesn't mean "one" it means "not-two" -- Jaldhar H. Vyas -----Inline Attachment Follows----- _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. http://in.yahoo.com/ From shakthi.prashanth at ymail.com Wed Dec 9 00:22:14 2009 From: shakthi.prashanth at ymail.com (Shakthi Prashanth) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:52:14 +0530 (IST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Fw: RE: Query [continued] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <886193.21189.qm@web95116.mail.in2.yahoo.com> Sorry Bhaskar, I am not convinced with your answer. --- On Wed, 9/12/09, Bhaskar YR wrote: From: Bhaskar YR Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Fw: RE: Query [continued] To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" Date: Wednesday, 9 December, 2009, 6:04 AM praNAms Hare Krishna If I am saying that I am brahman, you also say the same. >  Let us say we are brahman, what exactly is the problem here when we are saying we are THAT same brahman :-)) But how many will say like this? >  The question of 'many' does not arise once you realize you are one & WHOLE :-)) And more over does this universe contains only Brahmans? >  No plural here please :-)  brahman is ONE without second :-)) Is Brahman a living entity or non-living? >  shruti says brahman is sat chit & Ananda & this svarUpa of brahman is NOT restricted to ONLY living entities:-)) Hence shruti says : sarvaM khalvidam brahma, brahmAdi sthamba paryantaM etc.  have you not read in nArAyaNa sUkta : vishvaM nArAyaNam devam aksharaM paramaM padaM etc. If it is living entity, then he/she/it may realize at some point of time what is the truth? >  brahman is the truth, it does not have to realize what is truth, it is truth itself :-)) But according to ur statement, there is no world apart from you. >  Not according to me, it is according to shruti / sacred scriptures. He is sarvavyApi. So how those non-living entities  realise the truth, as they are also Brahman. >  For the time being, let us keep aside the fate of non-living beings, let us first get rid of our own problem/ignorance..is it not?? >  Sorry for my blunt replies...you can wait for more meaningful & authentic answers from other prabhuji-s of this list. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. http://in.yahoo.com/ From bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com Wed Dec 9 00:25:23 2009 From: bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com (Bhaskar YR) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:55:23 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Fw: RE: Query [continued] In-Reply-To: <886193.21189.qm@web95116.mail.in2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Sorry Bhaskar, I am not convinced with your answer. praNAms Hare Krishna Sorry for wasting your time...As I told you, you can wait for more convincing answers from the learned prabhuji-s of this group. Till then.. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar From jaldhar at braincells.com Wed Dec 9 00:37:28 2009 From: jaldhar at braincells.com (Jaldhar H. Vyas) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 01:37:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Aham brahmasmi In-Reply-To: <185062649-1260284400-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1451573597-@bda226.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> References: <185062649-1260284400-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1451573597-@bda226.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> Message-ID: On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, sivasenani at yahoo.com wrote: > 'Myself' is an extraneous term, not found in the mahavakya. Asmi is > exactly the equivalent of 'am' in 'I am Brahman' and 'is' in 'Brahman is > I'. > You could just as grammatically say aham brahmam (or brahmo'ham) and get the meaning "I am Brahman". The translation of the particular construction in Sanskrit is helped by the addtional word "myself" because English has largely lost it. But in e.g. French you could say "Je me suis Brahman" to get an accurate translation. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas From jaldhar at braincells.com Wed Dec 9 00:42:02 2009 From: jaldhar at braincells.com (Jaldhar H. Vyas) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 01:42:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Fw: RE: Query [continued] In-Reply-To: <628213.80808.qm@web95113.mail.in2.yahoo.com> References: <628213.80808.qm@web95113.mail.in2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, Shakthi Prashanth wrote: > I asked this question bcoz, If the world is not apart from me, then > Brahman is complete only when everything in this universe knowns what & > who is Brahman. That is the actuall One-ness, right? > The world _is_ one and complete. It is your ahamkara (ego) which interprets the data of your senses as evidence of multiplicity. When that ahamkara is surpressed the evidence of incompleteness is also surpressed. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas From michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk Wed Dec 9 04:59:24 2009 From: michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk (Michael Shepherd) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:59:24 -0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] Fw: RE: Query [continued] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Shakhti -- Since the prabhujis are all telling you that You are yourself Brahman, it looks as if only you can answer your own questions *!* So how to go about that ? How about a dose of Ramana Maharshi ? Just ask yourself 'WHO is this I, who is not convinced by Bhaskarji's answer ?!' And stay with that question until... Best of luck with that ;) Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of Bhaskar YR Sent: 09 December 2009 06:25 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Fw: RE: Query [continued] Sorry Bhaskar, I am not convinced with your answer. praNAms Hare Krishna Sorry for wasting your time...As I told you, you can wait for more convincing answers from the learned prabhuji-s of this group. Till then.. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com Wed Dec 9 06:55:53 2009 From: kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com (kuntimaddi sadananda) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 04:55:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Advaita-l] New member introduction: Shakthi Prashanth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <963337.77800.qm@web56001.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Shaktiji - PraNams First no body is going to convince you unless you are ready to be convinced by shruti, yukti and anubhava. Just as a background one person went to Ramana Maharshi and started this question with an introduction - Bhagavaan, this question has been bothering me, I have asked so many mahaatmaas and no one is able to convince me. That is why I came here to get an answer from you .. With that introduction, he was about to start the question. Bhagavaan immediately stopped him and said there is no need to ask the question as I will not be convincing you. He essentially sent him away. When asked about it by other disciples, Bhagavaan just said, he loves his question and he is not ready to give up. I am not trying to put you in that castigatory but I do not think you have give enough thought to Shree Bhaskar's answer to your question. Now just look at your question carefully if you can see the contradiction in the statements. Brahman means infiniteness or limitless. If I say I am Brahman - it means I understand that there is nothing other than me. If there is then I am not Brahman or not understood that I am Brahman. If I understand that I am Brahman not as thought but as a fact - all questions, questioner and answers etc will cease. That is called paaramaarthika satyam. Going your own analysis Brahman is also non-negatable since there is no one else to negate Brahman, by definition. Now you have provided the meaning of aham as non-negatable entity. Which means you are not the body, mind and intellect - the three equipments you have and which you can negate as you go through waking, dream and deep sleep states. This analysis also comes from the analysis of the avasthaatrayam from Mandukya Upanishad -mantra 7. Logically you cannot negate yourself since you have to be there even to negate. Scripture says prajnaanam Brahma - meaning consciousness is Brahman - It is expressed in converse form which is mathematically precise - implying it is necessary and sufficient - similar to H2O is water and water is H2O. - This is called swaruupa lakshaNa. Implication is if there is a conscious entity that must be Brahman by the scriptural definition. For conviction of the scriptural statement one needs shraddha. For you to be non-negatable entity - you have to be conscious entity since unconscious entity cannot negate anything. Hence from your analysis, you cannot but be Brahman since you are non negatable and Brahman is non negatable (being infinite) and you are conscious entity and Brahman is pure consciousness itself and for Brahman to be Brahman there should not be anything other than Brahman, the limitless. Hence by shear logic one should get convinced the scriptural statement - tat tvam asi. The conviction does not come unless the mind is prepared. Hence insistence on sadhana chatuShTaya and approach of an appropriate or sampradaaya Vedatic teacher. In order to understand - the meaning of the instructions that Brahman in your heart etc one has to understand the symbolic language used to uplift the mind of the seeker to see beyond its limitations. I have written introduction to Vedanta you can get from the website - www.adviataforum.org under discourses or go directly to Dennis Waite’s website www.advaita.org.uk where he has edited some of these essays. You can also look into the 11 essays I recently posted in this list with the title – A Perspective. My best wishes in pursuit of the answers to your questions. I am sending separately to you too since for some reason my posts do not seem to appear in the distribution at large. My apologies if you end up with two copies. Hari Om! Sadananda --------------------- Shakthi Prashanth shakthi.prashanth at ymail.com Tue Dec 8 23:04:04 CST 2009 Hi All, Thank you so much for such a great response from all of you. But I have also heard an interpretation like this: "Aham Brahmasmi" ham - means reject-able [in Sanskrit.] Aham - means Non-reject-able [in Sanskrit.] Brahma - Greatest [in Sanskrit.] So, it comes to a conclusion that, The one which is Non-reject-able is the Greatest. But that is not Me. Because, Narayanopanishat says that, Padmakosha prateekasham hrudayachapyatho mukham Tasyaanthe suhiram sookhmam tasmin sarvam pratishtitam That means, There is just-born lotus flower being held inverted [pointing to heart], and there is pin point space in it which is omnipotent. My question if I am Brahman, then who is controlling my birth, death, this world, life, and infinite no. of activities that are happening? And suppose we assume that I am Brahman, then By etymology I am Greatest. So am I controlling everything? Please answer this. I am very thirst to know about it. Shakthi From srirudra at vsnl.com Wed Dec 9 03:23:27 2009 From: srirudra at vsnl.com (sriram) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 14:53:27 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmasmi Message-ID: <000001ca78d9$ce5f2a20$6400a8c0@km> Dear Sri Shakthi Prashanth The sruthi vakyam you have presented simply says you are the one without a second.That is every conceivable thing by your Indhriyas and Intellect is Brahman and Brahman alone.It is our ignorance that we see differently by giving names,figures and places.First of all we have doubt whether there is a one called Brahman.The sruthi is the pramana like a mother telling the child this is your father.Sruthi says athatha Brahma Jingyasah.That is let us contemplate on Brahman.One will contemplate on something that should be there.Sruthi says It is there and let us analyse /find out.I am unable to give the correct import of Jingyasam.So after logical reasoning and supported by the sruthi vakyas one is led to the conclusion that this Jagath is just mithya and Brahman alone is sathyam and Brahman is adhvidiyam.That is it is the only Truth and all other things we experince are asath.To understand this profound Truth is not that easy.By just saying that I am King I cannot be a King.You will now know what is it that goes with a King.So also the sruthi asserts that All are Brahman only and you and i included.But the qualities of Brahman are also given in the sruthi.In essence Brahman is not an object of perception yet could be known.By sincerity and shraddha and by sruthi`s guidance you can yourself understand what is meant by Aham Brahmasmi.This is not a simple sentence to interpret it by tracing it etymologically.It is to be contemplated again and again till one is satified that it is only so.Some subjective experiences can not be verbally described.When one says I am happy and another also says I am happy there can be no comparison of these two happinesses.R.Krishnamoorthy From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Wed Dec 9 09:56:51 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:56:51 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari - 43 Message-ID: Sivaanandalahari - 43मा गच्छ त्व-मितस्ततो गिरिश भि मय्येव वासं कुरु स्वामिन्‍नादिकिरात मामकमन: कान्तार- सीमन्तरे । वर्तन्ते बहुशो मृगा मदजुषो मात्सर्य-मोहादय- स्तान् हत्वा मृगया-विनोद-रुचितालाभं च संप्राप्यसि ॥ ४२ ॥ mA gachCha tva-mitastato giriSa Bi mayyeva vAsaM kuru svAmin^nAdikirAta mAmakamana: kAntAra- sImantare | vartante bahuSo mRugA madajuSho mAtsarya-mohAdaya- stAn hatvA mRugayA-vinoda-ruchitAlABaM cha saMprApsyasi || 43 || Oh Girisa ( who resides in the mountain ) don’t go here and there. Oh God stay in me. Oh Primeval hunter, enjoy the game of hunting by killing the animals like Jealousy, delusion etc which live in the forest of my mind. *Commentary *hE swaamin = Hey! SarvEswara!; he aadhikiraatha = Hey! original hunter!; he girisa = one who lives in mahaa kailaasa parvatham; thvam = you; ithasthatha; = here and there; maa gaccha = do not have to go (hunting); bhO! = Hey! ParamEswara!; mayyEva vaasam kuru = you can live with me alone; mamakamana: kaanthaaraseemaantharE = in the midst of the dense forest of my mind that is impenetrable by others; madhajusha: = having termerity; maathsaryamOhaadhaya: = having jealousy, mOham etc.; mrugaa: = animals; bahusa: = many kinds; varthanthE = roams around; thaan = those; hathwaa = kill; murgayaavinOdharuchithaalaabha = have the benefit of the sport of hunting; sampraapsyasi = (you) attain. Aum Namasthe asthu dhanvanE | vanaanaam pathayE nama: Mrugayubya: swanibhyas cha vO namO nama: Nama: kaatyaaya cha || (Sri Rudhram) Hey! Parameswara! You are roaming the forests to hunt but in vain because the animals are sensing your arrival and are hiding from you! O! KailaasapathE! Without knowing this secret you are getting tired of chasing these elusive animals. I know of a forest where you will never fail to find an animal. Hey! SarvEswara! You don't have to wonder where is such a forest. That forest is none other than my mind which is impregnable because it is dense with sankalpas. And no ordinary hunter can live in this forest of mine because the animals there are so cruel that it is not easy to hunt and kill them. These animals are kaamam, krOdham, lObham, mOham, madham and maathsaryam and they are no ordinary animals. These animals have the fiendish character of greed, anger etc. I have never been able to destroy them. It is impossible for me to live with these animals. You alone are capable of killing these wretched beings becuase you are Aadhikiraadhan! This body is made up of five elements and therefore is anaathma. However, knowing this anaathma as Aathma is called avidya. Because of avidya one gets attached. MOksham is nothing but avidyaa-naasam. Only Kailaasavaasi Parameswara is capable of destroying this avidya. Parameswara who destroys this beginningless avidya is called Aadhikiraatha. Sri Rudhram in its third anuvaaka describes this Aadhikiraatha as the dhyaanamurthy. In this slOka also vidhwaans say manOnigraham is the message. So long as the mind remains a cave then alone paramEswara as simham will live there. The mind that has the tendency to wander in vishayaadhis have to be kept in the position of the guhai and know this to be raaja yoga! Whoever says this slOka and do namaskaram to Paramasiva will never be afflicted with bhayam. This is certain. Aum Namasivaaya! From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Wed Dec 9 18:27:36 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 19:27:36 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] New member introduction: Shakthi Prashanth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Shankthi Prashanth, When we say 'knowledge' it is that which has comes to our understanding that was not there before. It is like knowing there is a pot. Either there was no pot there before (so you have no knowledge of the pot) or that you did not know that there was a pot there before (because you have not seen it). These understanding happen in time and space. That understanding was also caused because cause and effect signify coming into being of something that was not there before. In short, all objective understanding belongs to the triad called space, time and causality. But when we say 'I' it does not conform to the idea of knowledge that has occurred to us in the triad. 'I' is known to us independent of time, space and cause. This 'I' is known without any aid whatsoever and therefore this 'I' is beyond cause. Therefore 'I' of such knowledge is *independent* of time, space and cause. This self-awareness denoted by the 'I' is differentiated from the common (objective) knowledge (that is dependent on time,space and cause) by denoting it as '*gnana*'. Thus gnaana is * different* from knowledge though we tend to use it interchangeably. The 'gnana' of 'I' is beyond time, space and cause and is natural. Why is this natural? Because this gnana does not need the help of any aid to know because there is no time or space or cause involved. (All aids exist in time, space and causality). That which is in time and space is negatable. That which is beyond time, space and cause is not negatable. Why? Because in order to negate you need time, space and cause! Only when you forget yourself as in the story of the tenth man you need someone else to tell you. That someone else is the Guru. You cannot claim to be part of the time and space and yet claim you are beyond time and space. Once you are told who you are by the Guru then the time, space and causality vanishes instantaneously like the mist before the sun. *If you say "I know who I am but the space, time and cause have not vanished for me", that is exactly where you have got into difficuty as to who you are!* *This is because you have simply reckoned that you are the body*. This misplaced reckoning is called avidya. Avidya is knowing something as different from what it really is. We Vedantins call this person afflicted with avidya as the forgetful or lost man. In real terms knowing oneself is not at all complicated. You would agree with me when you know! You may come across lots of people delighting themselves in exotic complications. But then it is part of this world! On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 6:15 AM, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: > I am Shakthi Prashanth from Bangalore, working as an Engineer. > I am very much interested in knowing about ancient indian philosophy > including Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagavatha, etc. Also I wanted to know what is > the contribution of Adi Shankaracharya to Indian Philosophy. I am very > interested in knowing about "Advaita" philosophy. I donot know anything > about Advaita. But I have gone thru bit spirtual aspects. > > I will be really greatful to you if you give me an opportunity for knowing > about this. I agree to plocies as long as it is a platform for me to learn > new things on Vedanta. > > Thanks and Regards, > Shakthi Prashanth > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Wed Dec 9 18:28:40 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 19:28:40 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] New member introduction: Shakthi Prashanth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sorry I might have mispronounced your name. Forgive the typo. On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Anbu sivam2 wrote: > Dear Shankthi Prashanth, > > When we say 'knowledge' it is that which has comes to our understanding > that was not there before. It is like knowing there is a pot. Either there > was no pot there before (so you have no knowledge of the pot) or that you > did not know that there was a pot there before (because you have not seen > it). These understanding happen in time and space. That understanding was > also caused because cause and effect signify coming into being of something > that was not there before. In short, all objective understanding belongs to > the triad called space, time and causality. > > But when we say 'I' it does not conform to the idea of knowledge that has > occurred to us in the triad. 'I' is known to us independent of time, space > and cause. This 'I' is known without any aid whatsoever and therefore this > 'I' is beyond cause. Therefore 'I' of such knowledge is *independent* of > time, space and cause. This self-awareness denoted by the 'I' is > differentiated from the common (objective) knowledge (that is dependent on > time,space and cause) by denoting it as '*gnana*'. Thus gnaana is * > different* from knowledge though we tend to use it interchangeably. > > The 'gnana' of 'I' is beyond time, space and cause and is natural. Why is > this natural? Because this gnana does not need the help of any aid to know > because there is no time or space or cause involved. (All aids exist in > time, space and causality). > > That which is in time and space is negatable. That which is beyond time, > space and cause is not negatable. Why? Because in order to negate you need > time, space and cause! > > Only when you forget yourself as in the story of the tenth man you need > someone else to tell you. That someone else is the Guru. > > You cannot claim to be part of the time and space and yet claim you are > beyond time and space. Once you are told who you are by the Guru then the > time, space and causality vanishes instantaneously like the mist before the > sun. > > *If you say "I know who I am but the space, time and cause have not > vanished for me", that is exactly where you have got into difficuty as to > who you are!* > > *This is because you have simply reckoned that you are the body*. This > misplaced reckoning is called avidya. Avidya is knowing something as > different from what it really is. We Vedantins call this person afflicted > with avidya as the forgetful or lost man. > > In real terms knowing oneself is not at all complicated. You would agree > with me when you know! You may come across lots of people delighting > themselves in exotic complications. But then it is part of this world! > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 6:15 AM, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: > >> I am Shakthi Prashanth from Bangalore, working as an Engineer. >> I am very much interested in knowing about ancient indian philosophy >> including Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagavatha, etc. Also I wanted to know what >> is >> the contribution of Adi Shankaracharya to Indian Philosophy. I am very >> interested in knowing about "Advaita" philosophy. I donot know anything >> about Advaita. But I have gone thru bit spirtual aspects. >> >> I will be really greatful to you if you give me an opportunity for knowing >> about this. I agree to plocies as long as it is a platform for me to learn >> new things on Vedanta. >> >> Thanks and Regards, >> Shakthi Prashanth >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ >> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita >> >> To unsubscribe or change your options: >> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l >> >> For assistance, contact: >> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org >> > > From shakthi.prashanth at ymail.com Wed Dec 9 21:35:53 2009 From: shakthi.prashanth at ymail.com (Shakthi Prashanth) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:05:53 +0530 (IST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmasmi In-Reply-To: <000001ca78d9$ce5f2a20$6400a8c0@km> Message-ID: <803245.53198.qm@web95107.mail.in2.yahoo.com> Thanks Sriram. Who created this entire universe? (Jagath). In encyclopedia they have written that "It is an accidental creation. No body created it literally." By definition Accident is not "something which happens without any reason." It is "something which happens with a reason that we do not know!" So, if that is the case, this universe has not evolved on itself. Someone has created it. And if Brahman is the only entity that exists, then he has created it. Why do Brahman create Mithya Jagath first of all? Is he magician? What is basic reason/principle behind in creating so called Mithya Jagath. If Brahman is great, then whatever he creates must also be Great. If a scientist creates a computer, then we respect for his creation. The respect what you give to computer , the scientist deserves it. So, why do we call this Jagath (universe) as Mithya????? Shakthi --- On Wed, 9/12/09, sriram wrote: From: sriram Subject: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmasmi To: "advaita" Date: Wednesday, 9 December, 2009, 9:23 AM Dear Sri Shakthi Prashanth The sruthi vakyam you have presented simply says you are the one without a second.That is every conceivable thing by your Indhriyas and Intellect is Brahman and Brahman alone.It is our ignorance that we see differently by giving names,figures and places.First of all we have doubt whether there is a one called Brahman.The sruthi is the pramana like a mother telling the child this is your father.Sruthi says athatha Brahma Jingyasah.That is let us contemplate on Brahman.One will contemplate on something that should be there.Sruthi says It is there and let us analyse /find out.I am unable to give the correct import of Jingyasam.So after logical reasoning and supported by the sruthi vakyas one is led to the conclusion that this Jagath is just mithya and Brahman alone is sathyam and Brahman is adhvidiyam.That is it  is the only Truth and all other things we experince are asath.To understand this profound Truth is not that easy.By just saying that I am King I cannot be a King.You wi ll now know what is it that goes with a King.So also the sruthi asserts that All are Brahman only and you and i included.But the qualities of Brahman are also given in the sruthi.In essence Brahman is not an object of perception yet could be known.By sincerity and shraddha and by sruthi`s guidance you can yourself understand what is meant by Aham Brahmasmi.This is not a simple sentence to interpret it by tracing it etymologically.It is to be contemplated again and again till one is satified that it is only so.Some subjective experiences can not be verbally described.When one says I am happy and another also says I am happy there can be no comparison of these two happinesses.R.Krishnamoorthy _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. http://in.yahoo.com/ From suresh.marur at gmail.com Wed Dec 9 22:30:48 2009 From: suresh.marur at gmail.com (Suresh Marur) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:00:48 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmasmi In-Reply-To: <803245.53198.qm@web95107.mail.in2.yahoo.com> References: <000001ca78d9$ce5f2a20$6400a8c0@km> <803245.53198.qm@web95107.mail.in2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Shakthi, I had the same question in my early days and could not resolve this. The problem is with the general interpretation of the word Mithya. In many indian languages, this is interpreted as "false" or "lie". But when Vedanta says that the world is false, it does not mean that it does not exist. It only says that it does not have independent existence other than Brahman. It is a superimposition on Brahman that is the sat(existence), chit (awareness), ananda (bliss). The right word in English I used to reconcile Mithya is the word "apparent". If we interpret Mithya as "apparent" things seem to fall in place (at least to our "intelligent" minds). Then it becomes clear that the world appears as real but is not always the case. It disappears when we are dreaming and are in deep sleep. It is only pure consciousness that exists in all three states and can stand on own without depending on anything else. The key is to understand the context of the words used in Vedanta and not use our existing interpretations. It is no different than science. When in physics, we hear the word "rest" we intuitively interpret it as something that does not move. This colloquially is correct but fails for more advanced concepts. An object could be moving and still be at "rest" with relation to something else. The entire foundation of relativity rests on this understanding. Which is why we cannot use common place understanding of words to interpet the statements in the Shruti (or Science for that matter). Unfortunately, words are the only means to express ideas and Shruti/Science also has to do so. Shruti is therefore called the "Shabda Pramana"). The key is to however have shradda in the shruti/science and reject all our notions that do not fall in line with the shruti and refine our understanding until things reconcile. Otherwise, we are a permanent skeptic/agnostic that remains on the sidelines. The shraddha aspects does exist in science also but is not so key because we can experimentally verify it. I can see the same things you can see and we can agree. With Vedanta however, we are dealing with things that is beyond the mind and intellect and cannot be objectified. This is because the subject (body/mind/intellect) and object are subsumed in the Jagat and cannot therefore "understand" Brahman. This is where shraddha becomes the corner stone to the contemplation process. Does this help? Pranams. - Suresh On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Shakthi Prashanth < shakthi.prashanth at ymail.com> wrote: > Thanks Sriram. > > Who created this entire universe? (Jagath). > In encyclopedia they have written that > "It is an accidental creation. No body created it literally." > > By definition Accident is not "something which happens without any reason." > It is "something which happens with a reason that we do not know!" > > So, if that is the case, this universe has not evolved on itself. Someone > has created it. And if Brahman is the only entity that exists, then he has > created it. > > Why do Brahman create Mithya Jagath first of all? Is he magician? > What is basic reason/principle behind in creating so called Mithya Jagath. > If Brahman is great, then whatever he creates must also be Great. > > If a scientist creates a computer, then we respect for his creation. The > respect what you give to computer , the scientist deserves it. > > So, why do we call this Jagath (universe) as Mithya????? > > Shakthi > > --- On Wed, 9/12/09, sriram wrote: > > From: sriram > Subject: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmasmi > To: "advaita" > Date: Wednesday, 9 December, 2009, 9:23 AM > > Dear Sri Shakthi Prashanth > The sruthi vakyam you have presented simply says you are the one without a > second.That is every conceivable thing by your Indhriyas and Intellect is > Brahman and Brahman alone.It is our ignorance that we see differently by > giving names,figures and places.First of all we have doubt whether there is > a one called Brahman.The sruthi is the pramana like a mother telling the > child this is your father.Sruthi says athatha Brahma Jingyasah.That is let > us contemplate on Brahman.One will contemplate on something that should be > there.Sruthi says It is there and let us analyse /find out.I am unable to > give the correct import of Jingyasam.So after logical reasoning and > supported by the sruthi vakyas one is led to the conclusion that this Jagath > is just mithya and Brahman alone is sathyam and Brahman is adhvidiyam.That > is it is the only Truth and all other things we experince are asath.To > understand this profound Truth is not that easy.By just saying that I am > King I > cannot be a King.You wi > ll now know what is it that goes with a King.So also the sruthi asserts > that All are Brahman only and you and i included.But the qualities of > Brahman are also given in the sruthi.In essence Brahman is not an object of > perception yet could be known.By sincerity and shraddha and by sruthi`s > guidance you can yourself understand what is meant by Aham Brahmasmi.This is > not a simple sentence to interpret it by tracing it etymologically.It is to > be contemplated again and again till one is satified that it is only so.Some > subjective experiences can not be verbally described.When one says I am > happy and another also says I am happy there can be no comparison of these > two happinesses.R.Krishnamoorthy > _______________________________________________ > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > > > > The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. > http://in.yahoo.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From r_sthanu at yahoo.com Thu Dec 10 01:42:27 2009 From: r_sthanu at yahoo.com (sthanunathan Ramakrishnan) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 23:42:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <697077.23898.qm@web30203.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Shakthi, I have one problem with your interpretation. I do not know if "ham" means rejectable. But assuming it is, the statement should be "Aham Brahma Asthi" (to get the meaning you intend, that is the "Non Rejectable is the greatest") and not "Aham Brahma Asmi", because "Asmi" is in the first person and "Asthi" would be in the third person. Folks, Please correct me if Iam wrong. Iam just taking my baby steps in learning sanskrit. regards Sthanu > But I have also heard an interpretation like this: > > "Aham Brahmasmi" > ham - means reject-able ? ? ? ? ?? [in Sanskrit.] > Aham - means Non-reject-able?? [in Sanskrit.] > Brahma - Greatest??????????????????? [in Sanskrit.] > > So, it comes to a conclusion that, > The one which is Non-reject-able? is the Greatest. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:34:04 +0530 (IST) > From: Shakthi Prashanth > Subject: [Advaita-l] Fw: RE: Query [continued] > To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org > Message-ID: <843026.39194.qm at web95104.mail.in2.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > Hi All, > > Thank you so much for such a great response from all of > you. > > But I have also heard an interpretation like this: > > "Aham Brahmasmi" > ham - means reject-able ? ? ? ? ?? [in Sanskrit.] > Aham - means Non-reject-able?? [in Sanskrit.] > Brahma - Greatest??????????????????? [in Sanskrit.] > > So, it comes to a conclusion that, > The one which is Non-reject-able? is the Greatest. > From raghavkumar00 at gmail.com Thu Dec 10 03:11:57 2009 From: raghavkumar00 at gmail.com (Raghav Kumar) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:41:57 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi In-Reply-To: <697077.23898.qm@web30203.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <697077.23898.qm@web30203.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: well sir, first take the sentence brahma asmi that is a mahavakya complete and accurate in itself. the verb 'asmi' implies the first person singular anyway even without 'aham' now therefore aham can be taken as an adjective qualifying brahma since both the words aham and brahma are neuter singular nouns. therefore it aham-brahma asmi isgrammaticaly ok. athough the interpretation itself is something novel. i have never come across it. On 12/10/09, sthanunathan Ramakrishnan wrote: > > Dear Shakthi, > > I have one problem with your interpretation. I do not know if > "ham" means rejectable. But assuming it is, the statement should be > "Aham Brahma Asthi" (to get the meaning you intend, that is the "Non > Rejectable is the greatest") and not "Aham Brahma Asmi", because "Asmi" is > in the first person and "Asthi" would be in the third person. > > Folks, Please correct me if Iam wrong. Iam just taking my baby steps in > learning sanskrit. > > regards > Sthanu > > > But I have also heard an interpretation like this: > > > > "Aham Brahmasmi" > > ham - means reject-able ? ? ? ? ?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Aham - means Non-reject-able?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Brahma - Greatest??????????????????? [in Sanskrit.] > > > > So, it comes to a conclusion that, > > The one which is Non-reject-able? is the Greatest. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:34:04 +0530 (IST) > > From: Shakthi Prashanth > > Subject: [Advaita-l] Fw: RE: Query [continued] > > To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org > > Message-ID: <843026.39194.qm at web95104.mail.in2.yahoo.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > > > Hi All, > > > > Thank you so much for such a great response from all of > > you. > > > > But I have also heard an interpretation like this: > > > > "Aham Brahmasmi" > > ham - means reject-able ? ? ? ? ?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Aham - means Non-reject-able?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Brahma - Greatest??????????????????? [in Sanskrit.] > > > > So, it comes to a conclusion that, > > The one which is Non-reject-able? is the Greatest. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From gs_ananth at ti.com Thu Dec 10 05:18:38 2009 From: gs_ananth at ti.com (Somayaji, Ananth) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:48:38 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi In-Reply-To: References: <697077.23898.qm@web30203.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I see another issue with this : Assuming that aham is an adjective qualification to Brahman, it brings about the existence of another Brahman albeit Ham-Brahman. It would bring about duality inside Mahavakya. Thoughts ? The other things to consider is that in none of the other Mahavakyas we have any adjective to the Brahman : Tatvamasi, Pragyanam Brahma etc. Can some one correct me if I am wrong ? -Ananth -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org] On Behalf Of Raghav Kumar Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 02:42 PM To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi well sir, first take the sentence brahma asmi that is a mahavakya complete and accurate in itself. the verb 'asmi' implies the first person singular anyway even without 'aham' now therefore aham can be taken as an adjective qualifying brahma since both the words aham and brahma are neuter singular nouns. therefore it aham-brahma asmi isgrammaticaly ok. athough the interpretation itself is something novel. i have never come across it. On 12/10/09, sthanunathan Ramakrishnan wrote: > > Dear Shakthi, > > I have one problem with your interpretation. I do not know if > "ham" means rejectable. But assuming it is, the statement should be > "Aham Brahma Asthi" (to get the meaning you intend, that is the "Non > Rejectable is the greatest") and not "Aham Brahma Asmi", because "Asmi" is > in the first person and "Asthi" would be in the third person. > > Folks, Please correct me if Iam wrong. Iam just taking my baby steps in > learning sanskrit. > > regards > Sthanu > > > But I have also heard an interpretation like this: > > > > "Aham Brahmasmi" > > ham - means reject-able ? ? ? ? ?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Aham - means Non-reject-able?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Brahma - Greatest??????????????????? [in Sanskrit.] > > > > So, it comes to a conclusion that, > > The one which is Non-reject-able? is the Greatest. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:34:04 +0530 (IST) > > From: Shakthi Prashanth > > Subject: [Advaita-l] Fw: RE: Query [continued] > > To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org > > Message-ID: <843026.39194.qm at web95104.mail.in2.yahoo.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > > > Hi All, > > > > Thank you so much for such a great response from all of > > you. > > > > But I have also heard an interpretation like this: > > > > "Aham Brahmasmi" > > ham - means reject-able ? ? ? ? ?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Aham - means Non-reject-able?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Brahma - Greatest??????????????????? [in Sanskrit.] > > > > So, it comes to a conclusion that, > > The one which is Non-reject-able? is the Greatest. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk Thu Dec 10 06:37:30 2009 From: michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk (Michael Shepherd) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:37:30 -0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Anant Since you ask :) Aham brahmasmi means literally (in that unsatisfactory 'Sanglish' or 'Engskrit' language of translation !) 'I-awareness('am-ness') am Brahman myself'. Aham is a pronoun and verb joined as 'I am'. The 'pronominal suffix 'asmi' can carry either of two meanings : ' as in 'The king cut himself while shaving'; or in 'The king himself joined the battle'. The first meaning is 'reflexive' -- an action done to oneself; the second, also labelled 'reflexive' (and less discussed in Vedic and Sanskrit grammar) is used more as an 'intensive' like 'Indeed true'. Why, you reasonably ask, add the 'asmi' ? Perhaps 'Aham Brahman' might be taken out of context to suggest that Brahman is asserting His existence ! So this is a reminder that I myself, you yourself, he himself, she herself, is indeed that Brahman -- not two other guys *!* (It's extended in the vakya 'ayam atmaBrahma, sarva nu bhu') The four 'mahavakya' are indeed four aspects, four views from different positions, of the essential concept of Advaita Vedanta. The fact that they are displayed on the four compass sides of the inner courtyard of a math indicates that they are considered worthy to be contemplated individually and together ! You could say that of the four mahavakya, one is addressed to the first person; another to the second person; another is 'impersonal'; and the fourth doesn't address the person at all, but is simply a statement about consciousness itself being universal as Brahman.. Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of Somayaji, Ananth Sent: 10 December 2009 11:19 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi I see another issue with this : Assuming that aham is an adjective qualification to Brahman, it brings about the existence of another Brahman albeit Ham-Brahman. It would bring about duality inside Mahavakya. Thoughts ? The other things to consider is that in none of the other Mahavakyas we have any adjective to the Brahman : Tatvamasi, Pragyanam Brahma etc. Can some one correct me if I am wrong ? -Ananth -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org] On Behalf Of Raghav Kumar Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 02:42 PM To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi well sir, first take the sentence brahma asmi that is a mahavakya complete and accurate in itself. the verb 'asmi' implies the first person singular anyway even without 'aham' now therefore aham can be taken as an adjective qualifying brahma since both the words aham and brahma are neuter singular nouns. therefore it aham-brahma asmi isgrammaticaly ok. athough the interpretation itself is something novel. i have never come across it. On 12/10/09, sthanunathan Ramakrishnan wrote: > > Dear Shakthi, > > I have one problem with your interpretation. I do not know if > "ham" means rejectable. But assuming it is, the statement should be > "Aham Brahma Asthi" (to get the meaning you intend, that is the "Non > Rejectable is the greatest") and not "Aham Brahma Asmi", because "Asmi" is > in the first person and "Asthi" would be in the third person. > > Folks, Please correct me if Iam wrong. Iam just taking my baby steps in > learning sanskrit. > > regards > Sthanu > > > But I have also heard an interpretation like this: > > > > "Aham Brahmasmi" > > ham - means reject-able ? ? ? ? ?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Aham - means Non-reject-able?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Brahma - Greatest??????????????????? [in Sanskrit.] > > > > So, it comes to a conclusion that, > > The one which is Non-reject-able? is the Greatest. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:34:04 +0530 (IST) > > From: Shakthi Prashanth > > Subject: [Advaita-l] Fw: RE: Query [continued] > > To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org > > Message-ID: <843026.39194.qm at web95104.mail.in2.yahoo.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > > > Hi All, > > > > Thank you so much for such a great response from all of > > you. > > > > But I have also heard an interpretation like this: > > > > "Aham Brahmasmi" > > ham - means reject-able ? ? ? ? ?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Aham - means Non-reject-able?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Brahma - Greatest??????????????????? [in Sanskrit.] > > > > So, it comes to a conclusion that, > > The one which is Non-reject-able? is the Greatest. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From sivasenani at yahoo.com Thu Dec 10 07:03:21 2009 From: sivasenani at yahoo.com (sivasenani at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:03:21 +0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1117056840-1260450520-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1362600522-@bda226.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> Dear Sri Michael and Sri Jaladhar I meant to look up a few references after reading your statement that asmi is a pronominal suffix but could not. I know it is too basic for either of you but would it be possible to supply an authority to back up this view? My own understanding is that 'aham brahma' is exactly the same as 'aham brahmaasmi' or 'brahmaasmi'. The way I remember to have learnt, forms of 'as' and 'bhu' have to be often supplied by the reader. They are 'adhyaahritas'. For instance in 'prajnaanam brahma' or 'ayam aatmaa brahma' an 'asti' is implicit (or in satyam jnaanam anantam brahma); or to take a counter example, the 'asi' in tattvamasi does not reflect back on the subject nor does it intensify. If one were to take examples involving the uttama purusha only, dhanyo'ham is exactly the same as dhanyo'smi. If emphasis is required 'vai' (in the older language) and 'eva' in the more recent period) do the job ('ahameva maam juhomi svaahaa' a mantra taught in Sri Vidya is an example). Sometimes aatma is repeated as in the Gita teaching about the Self itself uplifting the Self. In the example given by Sri Michael, the being in third person (prathama purusha) asmi has no place either as a verb or a pronominal suffix. If we were to make the King to convey that sense, he would in most places in Sanskrit literature use 'aatmaanam' Best regards Senani Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel -----Original Message----- From: "Michael Shepherd" Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:37:30 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi Anant Since you ask :) Aham brahmasmi means literally (in that unsatisfactory 'Sanglish' or 'Engskrit' language of translation !) 'I-awareness('am-ness') am Brahman myself'. Aham is a pronoun and verb joined as 'I am'. The 'pronominal suffix 'asmi' can carry either of two meanings : ' as in 'The king cut himself while shaving'; or in 'The king himself joined the battle'. The first meaning is 'reflexive' -- an action done to oneself; the second, also labelled 'reflexive' (and less discussed in Vedic and Sanskrit grammar) is used more as an 'intensive' like 'Indeed true'. Why, you reasonably ask, add the 'asmi' ? Perhaps 'Aham Brahman' might be taken out of context to suggest that Brahman is asserting His existence ! So this is a reminder that I myself, you yourself, he himself, she herself, is indeed that Brahman -- not two other guys *!* (It's extended in the vakya 'ayam atmaBrahma, sarva nu bhu') The four 'mahavakya' are indeed four aspects, four views from different positions, of the essential concept of Advaita Vedanta. The fact that they are displayed on the four compass sides of the inner courtyard of a math indicates that they are considered worthy to be contemplated individually and together ! You could say that of the four mahavakya, one is addressed to the first person; another to the second person; another is 'impersonal'; and the fourth doesn't address the person at all, but is simply a statement about consciousness itself being universal as Brahman.. Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of Somayaji, Ananth Sent: 10 December 2009 11:19 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi I see another issue with this : Assuming that aham is an adjective qualification to Brahman, it brings about the existence of another Brahman albeit Ham-Brahman. It would bring about duality inside Mahavakya. Thoughts ? The other things to consider is that in none of the other Mahavakyas we have any adjective to the Brahman : Tatvamasi, Pragyanam Brahma etc. Can some one correct me if I am wrong ? -Ananth -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org] On Behalf Of Raghav Kumar Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 02:42 PM To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi well sir, first take the sentence brahma asmi that is a mahavakya complete and accurate in itself. the verb 'asmi' implies the first person singular anyway even without 'aham' now therefore aham can be taken as an adjective qualifying brahma since both the words aham and brahma are neuter singular nouns. therefore it aham-brahma asmi isgrammaticaly ok. athough the interpretation itself is something novel. i have never come across it. On 12/10/09, sthanunathan Ramakrishnan wrote: > > Dear Shakthi, > > I have one problem with your interpretation. I do not know if > "ham" means rejectable. But assuming it is, the statement should be > "Aham Brahma Asthi" (to get the meaning you intend, that is the "Non > Rejectable is the greatest") and not "Aham Brahma Asmi", because "Asmi" is > in the first person and "Asthi" would be in the third person. > > Folks, Please correct me if Iam wrong. Iam just taking my baby steps in > learning sanskrit. > > regards > Sthanu > > > But I have also heard an interpretation like this: > > > > "Aham Brahmasmi" > > ham - means reject-able ? ? ? ? ?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Aham - means Non-reject-able?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Brahma - Greatest??????????????????? [in Sanskrit.] > > > > So, it comes to a conclusion that, > > The one which is Non-reject-able? is the Greatest. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:34:04 +0530 (IST) > > From: Shakthi Prashanth > > Subject: [Advaita-l] Fw: RE: Query [continued] > > To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org > > Message-ID: <843026.39194.qm at web95104.mail.in2.yahoo.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > > > Hi All, > > > > Thank you so much for such a great response from all of > > you. > > > > But I have also heard an interpretation like this: > > > > "Aham Brahmasmi" > > ham - means reject-able ? ? ? ? ?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Aham - means Non-reject-able?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Brahma - Greatest??????????????????? [in Sanskrit.] > > > > So, it comes to a conclusion that, > > The one which is Non-reject-able? is the Greatest. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk Thu Dec 10 08:18:14 2009 From: michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk (Michael Shepherd) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:18:14 -0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi In-Reply-To: <1117056840-1260450520-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1362600522-@bda226.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> Message-ID: Dear Sri Senani Let me say at once : Sanskrit and Vedic grammar before it are the oldest, most subtle, and most universal grammar in the world; and thus, Sanskrit explanations of Sanskrit grammar will be far more advanced than anything that English-speaking grammarians have inherited from earlier simplifications by earlier generations, fossilized in book form ! And grammar itself is transcendental, so beyond any human interpretation, living purely in its causes and effects ! So take everything I say with a large pinch of organic sea-salt... However, John Grimes, of the 'Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy', is an acknowledge scholar, studying, teaching and moving between the US and India now for many years; so I tend to favour his 'thumbnail' definitions as a broad consensus. 'Atman-' like swa, is normally given as another form of reflexive along with -asmi. So I bow to the pundits in all this-- if they agree among themselves :) Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of sivasenani at yahoo.com Sent: 10 December 2009 13:03 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi Dear Sri Michael and Sri Jaladhar I meant to look up a few references after reading your statement that asmi is a pronominal suffix but could not. I know it is too basic for either of you but would it be possible to supply an authority to back up this view? My own understanding is that 'aham brahma' is exactly the same as 'aham brahmaasmi' or 'brahmaasmi'. The way I remember to have learnt, forms of 'as' and 'bhu' have to be often supplied by the reader. They are 'adhyaahritas'. For instance in 'prajnaanam brahma' or 'ayam aatmaa brahma' an 'asti' is implicit (or in satyam jnaanam anantam brahma); or to take a counter example, the 'asi' in tattvamasi does not reflect back on the subject nor does it intensify. If one were to take examples involving the uttama purusha only, dhanyo'ham is exactly the same as dhanyo'smi. If emphasis is required 'vai' (in the older language) and 'eva' in the more recent period) do the job ('ahameva maam juhomi svaahaa' a mantra taught in Sri Vidya is an example). Sometimes aatma is repeated as in the Gita teaching about the Self itself uplifting the Self. In the example given by Sri Michael, the being in third person (prathama purusha) asmi has no place either as a verb or a pronominal suffix. If we were to make the King to convey that sense, he would in most places in Sanskrit literature use 'aatmaanam' Best regards Senani Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel -----Original Message----- From: "Michael Shepherd" Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:37:30 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi Anant Since you ask :) Aham brahmasmi means literally (in that unsatisfactory 'Sanglish' or 'Engskrit' language of translation !) 'I-awareness('am-ness') am Brahman myself'. Aham is a pronoun and verb joined as 'I am'. The 'pronominal suffix 'asmi' can carry either of two meanings : ' as in 'The king cut himself while shaving'; or in 'The king himself joined the battle'. The first meaning is 'reflexive' -- an action done to oneself; the second, also labelled 'reflexive' (and less discussed in Vedic and Sanskrit grammar) is used more as an 'intensive' like 'Indeed true'. Why, you reasonably ask, add the 'asmi' ? Perhaps 'Aham Brahman' might be taken out of context to suggest that Brahman is asserting His existence ! So this is a reminder that I myself, you yourself, he himself, she herself, is indeed that Brahman -- not two other guys *!* (It's extended in the vakya 'ayam atmaBrahma, sarva nu bhu') The four 'mahavakya' are indeed four aspects, four views from different positions, of the essential concept of Advaita Vedanta. The fact that they are displayed on the four compass sides of the inner courtyard of a math indicates that they are considered worthy to be contemplated individually and together ! You could say that of the four mahavakya, one is addressed to the first person; another to the second person; another is 'impersonal'; and the fourth doesn't address the person at all, but is simply a statement about consciousness itself being universal as Brahman.. Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of Somayaji, Ananth Sent: 10 December 2009 11:19 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi I see another issue with this : Assuming that aham is an adjective qualification to Brahman, it brings about the existence of another Brahman albeit Ham-Brahman. It would bring about duality inside Mahavakya. Thoughts ? The other things to consider is that in none of the other Mahavakyas we have any adjective to the Brahman : Tatvamasi, Pragyanam Brahma etc. Can some one correct me if I am wrong ? -Ananth -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org] On Behalf Of Raghav Kumar Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 02:42 PM To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi well sir, first take the sentence brahma asmi that is a mahavakya complete and accurate in itself. the verb 'asmi' implies the first person singular anyway even without 'aham' now therefore aham can be taken as an adjective qualifying brahma since both the words aham and brahma are neuter singular nouns. therefore it aham-brahma asmi isgrammaticaly ok. athough the interpretation itself is something novel. i have never come across it. On 12/10/09, sthanunathan Ramakrishnan wrote: > > Dear Shakthi, > > I have one problem with your interpretation. I do not know if > "ham" means rejectable. But assuming it is, the statement should be > "Aham Brahma Asthi" (to get the meaning you intend, that is the "Non > Rejectable is the greatest") and not "Aham Brahma Asmi", because "Asmi" is > in the first person and "Asthi" would be in the third person. > > Folks, Please correct me if Iam wrong. Iam just taking my baby steps in > learning sanskrit. > > regards > Sthanu > > > But I have also heard an interpretation like this: > > > > "Aham Brahmasmi" > > ham - means reject-able ? ? ? ? ?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Aham - means Non-reject-able?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Brahma - Greatest??????????????????? [in Sanskrit.] > > > > So, it comes to a conclusion that, > > The one which is Non-reject-able? is the Greatest. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:34:04 +0530 (IST) > > From: Shakthi Prashanth > > Subject: [Advaita-l] Fw: RE: Query [continued] > > To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org > > Message-ID: <843026.39194.qm at web95104.mail.in2.yahoo.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > > > Hi All, > > > > Thank you so much for such a great response from all of > > you. > > > > But I have also heard an interpretation like this: > > > > "Aham Brahmasmi" > > ham - means reject-able ? ? ? ? ?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Aham - means Non-reject-able?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Brahma - Greatest??????????????????? [in Sanskrit.] > > > > So, it comes to a conclusion that, > > The one which is Non-reject-able? is the Greatest. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Thu Dec 10 08:22:30 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 09:22:30 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari - 44 Message-ID: Sivaanandalahari - 44 करलग्नमृग: करीन्द्र-भंगो घनशार्दूल-विखण्डनोऽस्त-जन्तु: । गिरिशो विशादाकृतिश्‍च चेत: कुहरे पंचमुखोस्ति मे कुतो भी: ॥ ४४ ॥ karalagnamRuga: karIndra-BaMgo ghanaSArdUla-vikhaNDano&sta-jantu: | giriSo viSAdAkRutiS^cha cheta: kuhare paMchamuKosti me kuto BI: || 44 || This Verse has two meanings with one of them relating to a Lion and the other relating Lord Shiva. The two are as under: Lion: In the den of my mind is a Lion, which holds a deer in the hand, wins over the king of elephants, kills the ferocious tiger, annihilates other animals, which also resides in hills and has a white body. Ho will fear come to me ? Shiva: In the den of my mind is Lord Parameswara, with five faces, white body, who resides in the Mountains, who is in all beings, who has killed cruel Vyagrasura, and Gajasura and holds the deer in his hand. How will bear come to me ? *Commentary *karalagramruga: = the one who is holding the deer in his hands; kareendrabhanga: = one who has gajaasura (as his garment); ghanasaardhoolavikandana: one who has destoyed or destroys the wicked tiger called vyaagraasura; asthajanthu: = one who has those beasts that were destroyed or one who destroys the beasts; girisa: one who is in the mountain or that which is in the mountain; visadhaakruthischa = one who has the white body or that which is white; panchamukha: = ParamEswara who has five faces or indicating the lion; mE = my; chetha: kuharE = in the cave of my mind; asthi: = He resides or it stays; atha: therefore; bhee: the fear; kutha: where is it? (meaning it does not exist). AachaaryaaL continues to employ slEdai (double meaning) in his poetry. Thaathparyam:- Saakshaath ParamEswaran remains nibidaanandaswaroopi holding the four Vedas that are the rig, yajus, saama and atharvaNa. At the same time he destroys the mahaa asuras such as gajaasura and vyagraasura and brings maNgalam to the fourteen lOkas. Also during praLayam he destroys the amoeba to Hiranyagabha and remain Eki (One) nibidaanandaswaroopi. The saasthra says: "Siva: sarvaaNi bhoothaani sivadhanyath na kinchana" Siva remains the root cause and support of the entire universe by being 'sarvavyaapi'. To speak the truth there is no dwaitha prapancham apart from the Paramasiva who is Satchitaananda. From this we do realize that everying has come out of Paramasiva, everything is protected by Paramasiva and everying ultimately finds its layam in Paramasiva and therefore clearly only Paramasiva is the sathya vasthu. Hey! Girisa of this remarkable mahima! Living with Ambika in mahaakailash, and adorned with the purest viboothi you teach the entire world that it is being burnt down in gnaanaagni into ashes. When this glorious ParamEswara lives in the cave of my mind as His simhaasanam where will be any fear for me? In what way can the most terrible samsaara saagaram threaten me. Or even the frightful yama who takes away people's lives for that matter. As long as my mind remains the cave, that is, it remains antharmukham, so long will ParamEswara live in there. Again knowing that the mind that is bent on running after the vishayas must be deflected to remain inwards to form into a cave fit for the lion of ParamEswara to reside and this effort is known as Raja Yoga. ஆராலும் என்னை அமட்ட வொண்ணாதினிச் சீரார் பிரான் வந்தென் சிந்தை புகுந்தனன் சீராடி யங்கே திரிவதல்லால் இனி யார்பாடுஞ் சாரா அறிவறிந்தேனே. (திருமந்திரம்) “பால்நினைந் தூட்டுந் தாயினுஞ் சாலப் பரிந்துநீ பாவியே னுடைய ஊனினை உருக்கி உள்ளொளி பெருக்கி உலப்பிலா ஆனந்த மாய தேனினைச் சொரிந்து புறம்புறந் திரிந்த செல்வமே சிவபெரு மானே யானுனைத் தொடர்ந்து சிக்கெனப் பிடித்தேன் எங்கெழுந் தருளுவ தினியே.”(from Pidiththa Paththu) Aum Namasivaya From kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com Thu Dec 10 08:57:45 2009 From: kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com (kuntimaddi sadananda) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 06:57:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Great opportunity to listen to the scholars Message-ID: <999210.87597.qm@web56002.mail.re3.yahoo.com> I received the following information from Chinmaya International Foundation. An eight day residential workshop on PHILOSOPHY OF ONENESS: BRIDGING EAST AND WEST – 24 DEC-31ST DECEMBER. 2009. ON LINE REGISTRATION INFO: The workshop fee is only $100/- for US and Rs 1500/- for Indian residents. The medium of instruction will be English. Knowledge of Sanskrit is not a prerequisite. Course material will be provided at the venue. You can bring your reference books. Vegetarian food and comfortable accommodation will be provided. Program will begin at 24th Dec 09 and end on 31st Dec 2009. Participants to arrive at 23rd Dec and return on 1st jan 2010 – what a way to start the new year. Information about the reaching the venue see – http://chinfo.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article &id=99 This workshop aims at acquainting the student with the fundamentals of Advaita Vedanta and the complexities of their nuances. It intends also to compare and contrast of Western Philosophies like Parmenides, Spinoza and Bradley. These will be discussed through a study of the following topics: 1. Idealism: East and West – Prof. R. Balasubramanian, former chairman, India Council of Philosophical Reseach, New Delhi. 2. Vishaya Pariccheda in Vedanta Paribhasha of Dharmaraja – by Dr. Goda Venkateswara Sastri, Traditional Scholar, Chennia, and 3. Advaita Makaranda by Prof. Godabarisha Mishra, Member Secretary, Indian Council of Philosophical Research, New Delhi. Just for information: Dr. Goda Venkateswara Sastri is well know scholar in Chennai and gives talks here on various texts including Bhagavad Gita, Advaita Siddhi of Madhusudana Saraswati, etc. and is currently teaching these in Tamil, although he can give lectures in Telugu and English. I just met him past Monday to request him to teach me Advaita Siddhi, since I have no knowledge of Tamil (do not ask me how I am managing in Chennai). He graciously agreed to teach me. Vedantaparibhasha text is what we are doing in the knowledge series. Our friend Michael is our recognized expert on it and and our dear Shree S.N. Sastriji has written brief commentary on the text. This is a text on Epistemology and one cannot learn by reading the text. Advaita Makaranda is a profound text by Shree Lakshmidhara Kavi – I took this text for one of the Memorial Day camp in Chinmya Mission. CDs may be available there. Paramarthanandaji also took the text here in Chennai and his CDs are also available. But nothing like listening to the text directly from a teacher as it gets unfolded. CIF had organized before a 14day workshop on Tarkasangraha of Annambhatta, a premier text on Navya Nyaaya by Prof. V.N. Jha, who is well known authority on Nyaaya. DVDs are available and I just got them and listened to all of them (there are 22 of them) each 1 and half hours. I was almost glued to the chair since the teaching was superb. One can see the difference between learning your own and learning from a teacher. If are in India and can make use of the workshop, that is the best way to make new beginning for the new year. For on line registration info see www.chinfo.org Hari Om! Sadananda From michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk Thu Dec 10 09:28:27 2009 From: michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk (Michael Shepherd) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:28:27 -0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Sri Senani A light-hearted addendum : Languages divide... but the frustrations of Sanglish and Engskrit have their passing delights... Take MacDonell struggling with the shades of the verb 'as' : Tattvamasi may be translated as-- in you, That (Absolute) is, exists, happens, takes place, dwells, is found in, is for, belongs to, accrues to, has, possesses, is present in, is peculiar to, is ready for, is equal to, is capable of, is sufficient for, occurs to... I enjoyed reading that.. Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of Michael Shepherd Sent: 10 December 2009 14:18 To: sivasenani at yahoo.com; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi Dear Sri Senani Let me say at once : Sanskrit and Vedic grammar before it are the oldest, most subtle, and most universal grammar in the world; and thus, Sanskrit explanations of Sanskrit grammar will be far more advanced than anything that English-speaking grammarians have inherited from earlier simplifications by earlier generations, fossilized in book form ! And grammar itself is transcendental, so beyond any human interpretation, living purely in its causes and effects ! So take everything I say with a large pinch of organic sea-salt... However, John Grimes, of the 'Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy', is an acknowledge scholar, studying, teaching and moving between the US and India now for many years; so I tend to favour his 'thumbnail' definitions as a broad consensus. 'Atman-' like swa, is normally given as another form of reflexive along with -asmi. So I bow to the pundits in all this-- if they agree among themselves :) Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of sivasenani at yahoo.com Sent: 10 December 2009 13:03 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi Dear Sri Michael and Sri Jaladhar I meant to look up a few references after reading your statement that asmi is a pronominal suffix but could not. I know it is too basic for either of you but would it be possible to supply an authority to back up this view? My own understanding is that 'aham brahma' is exactly the same as 'aham brahmaasmi' or 'brahmaasmi'. The way I remember to have learnt, forms of 'as' and 'bhu' have to be often supplied by the reader. They are 'adhyaahritas'. For instance in 'prajnaanam brahma' or 'ayam aatmaa brahma' an 'asti' is implicit (or in satyam jnaanam anantam brahma); or to take a counter example, the 'asi' in tattvamasi does not reflect back on the subject nor does it intensify. If one were to take examples involving the uttama purusha only, dhanyo'ham is exactly the same as dhanyo'smi. If emphasis is required 'vai' (in the older language) and 'eva' in the more recent period) do the job ('ahameva maam juhomi svaahaa' a mantra taught in Sri Vidya is an example). Sometimes aatma is repeated as in the Gita teaching about the Self itself uplifting the Self. In the example given by Sri Michael, the being in third person (prathama purusha) asmi has no place either as a verb or a pronominal suffix. If we were to make the King to convey that sense, he would in most places in Sanskrit literature use 'aatmaanam' Best regards Senani Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel -----Original Message----- From: "Michael Shepherd" Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:37:30 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi Anant Since you ask :) Aham brahmasmi means literally (in that unsatisfactory 'Sanglish' or 'Engskrit' language of translation !) 'I-awareness('am-ness') am Brahman myself'. Aham is a pronoun and verb joined as 'I am'. The 'pronominal suffix 'asmi' can carry either of two meanings : ' as in 'The king cut himself while shaving'; or in 'The king himself joined the battle'. The first meaning is 'reflexive' -- an action done to oneself; the second, also labelled 'reflexive' (and less discussed in Vedic and Sanskrit grammar) is used more as an 'intensive' like 'Indeed true'. Why, you reasonably ask, add the 'asmi' ? Perhaps 'Aham Brahman' might be taken out of context to suggest that Brahman is asserting His existence ! So this is a reminder that I myself, you yourself, he himself, she herself, is indeed that Brahman -- not two other guys *!* (It's extended in the vakya 'ayam atmaBrahma, sarva nu bhu') The four 'mahavakya' are indeed four aspects, four views from different positions, of the essential concept of Advaita Vedanta. The fact that they are displayed on the four compass sides of the inner courtyard of a math indicates that they are considered worthy to be contemplated individually and together ! You could say that of the four mahavakya, one is addressed to the first person; another to the second person; another is 'impersonal'; and the fourth doesn't address the person at all, but is simply a statement about consciousness itself being universal as Brahman.. Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of Somayaji, Ananth Sent: 10 December 2009 11:19 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi I see another issue with this : Assuming that aham is an adjective qualification to Brahman, it brings about the existence of another Brahman albeit Ham-Brahman. It would bring about duality inside Mahavakya. Thoughts ? The other things to consider is that in none of the other Mahavakyas we have any adjective to the Brahman : Tatvamasi, Pragyanam Brahma etc. Can some one correct me if I am wrong ? -Ananth -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org] On Behalf Of Raghav Kumar Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 02:42 PM To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi well sir, first take the sentence brahma asmi that is a mahavakya complete and accurate in itself. the verb 'asmi' implies the first person singular anyway even without 'aham' now therefore aham can be taken as an adjective qualifying brahma since both the words aham and brahma are neuter singular nouns. therefore it aham-brahma asmi isgrammaticaly ok. athough the interpretation itself is something novel. i have never come across it. On 12/10/09, sthanunathan Ramakrishnan wrote: > > Dear Shakthi, > > I have one problem with your interpretation. I do not know if > "ham" means rejectable. But assuming it is, the statement should be > "Aham Brahma Asthi" (to get the meaning you intend, that is the "Non > Rejectable is the greatest") and not "Aham Brahma Asmi", because "Asmi" is > in the first person and "Asthi" would be in the third person. > > Folks, Please correct me if Iam wrong. Iam just taking my baby steps in > learning sanskrit. > > regards > Sthanu > > > But I have also heard an interpretation like this: > > > > "Aham Brahmasmi" > > ham - means reject-able ? ? ? ? ?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Aham - means Non-reject-able?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Brahma - Greatest??????????????????? [in Sanskrit.] > > > > So, it comes to a conclusion that, > > The one which is Non-reject-able? is the Greatest. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:34:04 +0530 (IST) > > From: Shakthi Prashanth > > Subject: [Advaita-l] Fw: RE: Query [continued] > > To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org > > Message-ID: <843026.39194.qm at web95104.mail.in2.yahoo.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > > > Hi All, > > > > Thank you so much for such a great response from all of > > you. > > > > But I have also heard an interpretation like this: > > > > "Aham Brahmasmi" > > ham - means reject-able ? ? ? ? ?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Aham - means Non-reject-able?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Brahma - Greatest??????????????????? [in Sanskrit.] > > > > So, it comes to a conclusion that, > > The one which is Non-reject-able? is the Greatest. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From bhatpraveen at gmail.com Thu Dec 10 10:54:44 2009 From: bhatpraveen at gmail.com (Praveen R. Bhat) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:24:44 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Fw: RE: Query [continued] In-Reply-To: <698792.27011.qm@web95114.mail.in2.yahoo.com> References: <698792.27011.qm@web95114.mail.in2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hari Om, Shakthi ji, On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Shakthi Prashanth < shakthi.prashanth at ymail.com> wrote: > > If I am saying that I am brahman, you also say the same. But how many will > say like this? > Here's an analogy which you may have come across: water in the ocean could be seen as made up of water droplets. Each droplet seen separately is still water. How many such droplets are water? Well, you'd say all, won't you? > And more over does this universe contains only Brahmans? > We are all human, adding up everyone will still be human, not humans. Wrong example, but I hope it drives the point. > Is Brahman a living entity or non-living? > If it is living entity, then he/she/it may realize at some point of time > what is the truth? > A sentient being realizes something with the tools at one's disposal. These are mind, intellect, etc, superimposed on one's own being. That is, all of these tools superimposed on brahman would aid one to separate out real from the unreal. Being satyam-jnAnam-anantam, sat-chitta-Ananda, brahman has nothing to do with these tools and is ever realised. Time is a concept superimposed on brahman again! > But according to ur statement, there is no world apart from you. > There is no person separate from you either in the pAramArthika sense, but in vyavahAra, until the dawn of knowledge, the world appears separate from you just as multiple jivAs do. > So how those non-living entities realise the truth, as they are also > Brahman. > > IMHO, we're jumping guns. The whole approach of random questions add to confusion. Unless you've already done so, I suggest that you go stepwise through one of the traditional teachings or series of articles that have come up on this mailing list or website. Else, I'm afraid the Atman, ego, mind, intellect, vyavahAra versus pAramarthika views and other such things may get mixed up. Of course, its just my opinion and you're a better judge of your own methodology. gurorarpaNamastu, Praveen R. Bhat Fran Lebowitz - "Ask your child what he wants for dinner only if he's buying." From sivasenani at yahoo.com Thu Dec 10 11:05:38 2009 From: sivasenani at yahoo.com (sivasenani at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 17:05:38 +0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1439700877-1260465073-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1358423523-@bda226.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> Sir If I may be permitted to speculate on exegetical gymnastics, it might be in no small measure due to the post-advaitic schools trying to read a different meaning into what the Vedas say very clearly. Sometime back Sri Shakthi was posting one such attempt saying aham means not ham and such non-sense! I find the effects of VisishTaadvaita acharyas clearly in Thibaut, for instance. In sum, it might be less a Sanskrit - English issue (it might interest you that Sanskrit has no synonyms - every seemingly equivalent word gives a different sense: a vriksha is one which is cut and a bhuruha is something which grows on earth, though both refer to a tree - and this nuance in general seems to be fairly well captured by Westerners, mostly by Germans based on what elders who know German as well say) and more a pre-conceived notion, in this case implanted due to unfortunate influences, about what the Vedas say. A scholar with an open mind, somebody like you I dare say, relates quite well across linguistic boundaries. Best regards Senani Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel -----Original Message----- From: "Michael Shepherd" Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:28:27 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi Dear Sri Senani A light-hearted addendum : Languages divide... but the frustrations of Sanglish and Engskrit have their passing delights... Take MacDonell struggling with the shades of the verb 'as' : Tattvamasi may be translated as-- in you, That (Absolute) is, exists, happens, takes place, dwells, is found in, is for, belongs to, accrues to, has, possesses, is present in, is peculiar to, is ready for, is equal to, is capable of, is sufficient for, occurs to... I enjoyed reading that.. Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of Michael Shepherd Sent: 10 December 2009 14:18 To: sivasenani at yahoo.com; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi Dear Sri Senani Let me say at once : Sanskrit and Vedic grammar before it are the oldest, most subtle, and most universal grammar in the world; and thus, Sanskrit explanations of Sanskrit grammar will be far more advanced than anything that English-speaking grammarians have inherited from earlier simplifications by earlier generations, fossilized in book form ! And grammar itself is transcendental, so beyond any human interpretation, living purely in its causes and effects ! So take everything I say with a large pinch of organic sea-salt... However, John Grimes, of the 'Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy', is an acknowledge scholar, studying, teaching and moving between the US and India now for many years; so I tend to favour his 'thumbnail' definitions as a broad consensus. 'Atman-' like swa, is normally given as another form of reflexive along with -asmi. So I bow to the pundits in all this-- if they agree among themselves :) Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of sivasenani at yahoo.com Sent: 10 December 2009 13:03 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi Dear Sri Michael and Sri Jaladhar I meant to look up a few references after reading your statement that asmi is a pronominal suffix but could not. I know it is too basic for either of you but would it be possible to supply an authority to back up this view? My own understanding is that 'aham brahma' is exactly the same as 'aham brahmaasmi' or 'brahmaasmi'. The way I remember to have learnt, forms of 'as' and 'bhu' have to be often supplied by the reader. They are 'adhyaahritas'. For instance in 'prajnaanam brahma' or 'ayam aatmaa brahma' an 'asti' is implicit (or in satyam jnaanam anantam brahma); or to take a counter example, the 'asi' in tattvamasi does not reflect back on the subject nor does it intensify. If one were to take examples involving the uttama purusha only, dhanyo'ham is exactly the same as dhanyo'smi. If emphasis is required 'vai' (in the older language) and 'eva' in the more recent period) do the job ('ahameva maam juhomi svaahaa' a mantra taught in Sri Vidya is an example). Sometimes aatma is repeated as in the Gita teaching about the Self itself uplifting the Self. In the example given by Sri Michael, the being in third person (prathama purusha) asmi has no place either as a verb or a pronominal suffix. If we were to make the King to convey that sense, he would in most places in Sanskrit literature use 'aatmaanam' Best regards Senani Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel -----Original Message----- From: "Michael Shepherd" Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:37:30 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi Anant Since you ask :) Aham brahmasmi means literally (in that unsatisfactory 'Sanglish' or 'Engskrit' language of translation !) 'I-awareness('am-ness') am Brahman myself'. Aham is a pronoun and verb joined as 'I am'. The 'pronominal suffix 'asmi' can carry either of two meanings : ' as in 'The king cut himself while shaving'; or in 'The king himself joined the battle'. The first meaning is 'reflexive' -- an action done to oneself; the second, also labelled 'reflexive' (and less discussed in Vedic and Sanskrit grammar) is used more as an 'intensive' like 'Indeed true'. Why, you reasonably ask, add the 'asmi' ? Perhaps 'Aham Brahman' might be taken out of context to suggest that Brahman is asserting His existence ! So this is a reminder that I myself, you yourself, he himself, she herself, is indeed that Brahman -- not two other guys *!* (It's extended in the vakya 'ayam atmaBrahma, sarva nu bhu') The four 'mahavakya' are indeed four aspects, four views from different positions, of the essential concept of Advaita Vedanta. The fact that they are displayed on the four compass sides of the inner courtyard of a math indicates that they are considered worthy to be contemplated individually and together ! You could say that of the four mahavakya, one is addressed to the first person; another to the second person; another is 'impersonal'; and the fourth doesn't address the person at all, but is simply a statement about consciousness itself being universal as Brahman.. Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of Somayaji, Ananth Sent: 10 December 2009 11:19 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi I see another issue with this : Assuming that aham is an adjective qualification to Brahman, it brings about the existence of another Brahman albeit Ham-Brahman. It would bring about duality inside Mahavakya. Thoughts ? The other things to consider is that in none of the other Mahavakyas we have any adjective to the Brahman : Tatvamasi, Pragyanam Brahma etc. Can some one correct me if I am wrong ? -Ananth -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org] On Behalf Of Raghav Kumar Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 02:42 PM To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi well sir, first take the sentence brahma asmi that is a mahavakya complete and accurate in itself. the verb 'asmi' implies the first person singular anyway even without 'aham' now therefore aham can be taken as an adjective qualifying brahma since both the words aham and brahma are neuter singular nouns. therefore it aham-brahma asmi isgrammaticaly ok. athough the interpretation itself is something novel. i have never come across it. On 12/10/09, sthanunathan Ramakrishnan wrote: > > Dear Shakthi, > > I have one problem with your interpretation. I do not know if > "ham" means rejectable. But assuming it is, the statement should be > "Aham Brahma Asthi" (to get the meaning you intend, that is the "Non > Rejectable is the greatest") and not "Aham Brahma Asmi", because "Asmi" is > in the first person and "Asthi" would be in the third person. > > Folks, Please correct me if Iam wrong. Iam just taking my baby steps in > learning sanskrit. > > regards > Sthanu > > > But I have also heard an interpretation like this: > > > > "Aham Brahmasmi" > > ham - means reject-able ? ? ? ? ?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Aham - means Non-reject-able?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Brahma - Greatest??????????????????? [in Sanskrit.] > > > > So, it comes to a conclusion that, > > The one which is Non-reject-able? is the Greatest. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:34:04 +0530 (IST) > > From: Shakthi Prashanth > > Subject: [Advaita-l] Fw: RE: Query [continued] > > To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org > > Message-ID: <843026.39194.qm at web95104.mail.in2.yahoo.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > > > Hi All, > > > > Thank you so much for such a great response from all of > > you. > > > > But I have also heard an interpretation like this: > > > > "Aham Brahmasmi" > > ham - means reject-able ? ? ? ? ?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Aham - means Non-reject-able?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Brahma - Greatest??????????????????? [in Sanskrit.] > > > > So, it comes to a conclusion that, > > The one which is Non-reject-able? is the Greatest. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From sjayana at yahoo.com Thu Dec 10 14:42:45 2009 From: sjayana at yahoo.com (S Jayanarayanan) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:42:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi In-Reply-To: <697077.23898.qm@web30203.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <386607.95299.qm@web50803.mail.re2.yahoo.com> --- On Thu, 12/10/09, sthanunathan Ramakrishnan wrote: > Dear Shakthi, > > I have one > problem with your interpretation. I do not know if "ham" > means rejectable. But assuming it is, the statement should > be > "Aham Brahma Asthi" (to get the meaning you intend, that is > the "Non Rejectable is the greatest") and not "Aham Brahma > Asmi", because "Asmi" is in the first person and "Asthi" > would be in the third person. > You are of course correct, but if I'm not mistaken, Shakthi is regurgitating (without clear understanding) the dvaitin interpretation of the Mahavakya, where even the straightforward term "asmi" is split up into strange and unrecognizable components: http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.vaishnava/msg/08b489dfc9ef1273?hl=en&dmode=source ----- i) 'aham brahmaasmi' Now, the word 'aham' in "aham brahmaasmi" does not mean "I" -- it means "aheyam" -- that which cannot be avoided, that which is not to be given up. The word 'asmi' does not mean "I am" but is a compound of "as" meaning existence, and "mi" meaning knowable. ... Thus, "aham brahma asmi" means: "That Brahman which cannot be avoided ..." ----- > Folks, Please correct me if Iam wrong. > Iam just taking my baby steps in learning sanskrit. > > regards > Sthanu > > > But I have also heard an interpretation like this: > > > > "Aham Brahmasmi" > > ham - means reject-able ? ? ? ? ?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Aham - means Non-reject-able?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Brahma - Greatest??????????????????? [in Sanskrit.] > > > > So, it comes to a conclusion that, > > The one which is Non-reject-able? is the Greatest. > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:34:04 +0530 (IST) > > From: Shakthi Prashanth > > Subject: [Advaita-l] Fw: RE: Query [continued] > > To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org > > Message-ID: <843026.39194.qm at web95104.mail.in2.yahoo.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > > > Hi All, > > > > Thank you so much for such a great response from all > of > > you. > > > > But I have also heard an interpretation like this: > > > > "Aham Brahmasmi" > > ham - means reject-able ? ? ? ? ?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Aham - means Non-reject-able?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Brahma - Greatest??????????????????? [in Sanskrit.] > > > > So, it comes to a conclusion that, > > The one which is Non-reject-able? is the Greatest. > > From nareshpc at gmail.com Thu Dec 10 18:36:17 2009 From: nareshpc at gmail.com (Naresh Cuntoor) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:36:17 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi In-Reply-To: <386607.95299.qm@web50803.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <697077.23898.qm@web30203.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <386607.95299.qm@web50803.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > i) 'aham brahmaasmi' > > Now, the word 'aham' in "aham brahmaasmi" does not mean "I" -- it > means "aheyam" -- that which cannot be avoided, that which is not to > be given up. The word 'asmi' does not mean "I am" but is a compound of > "as" meaning existence, and "mi" meaning knowable. > > ... > > Thus, "aham brahma asmi" means: "That Brahman which cannot be avoided > ..." I wonder if this is a widely-held view within the dvaitic schools. Or if it is someone's overzealous interpretation. If it is the former, "palm, meet head!". If it is the latter, such creative interpretations are unnecessary and 'ham' or heyam (to borrow his words!). Naresh From shakthi.prashanth at ymail.com Thu Dec 10 23:15:43 2009 From: shakthi.prashanth at ymail.com (Shakthi Prashanth) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:45:43 +0530 (IST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi In-Reply-To: <1439700877-1260465073-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1358423523-@bda226.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <144609.98161.qm@web95111.mail.in2.yahoo.com> Thanks Sivasenani, for ur expressing your feeling. I want to make a note here. We are here to understand mostly the following aspects (I feel). What this life is all about? Who Am I? Why am I here? How did I come here? Why am I like this? What is the meaning of Birth, Death? Where do I go after Death? Where was I before Birth? Who is controlling the entire universe? Why do the planet in which we are, has life? If there is no significance of Me after my death, probably there is no meaning for philosophy. Am I right? Suppose that I born in Shankaracharya's followers family. So, I will leatn and follow  Advaita philosophy. Do you know WHY?   " I am in this group. " If I born in the next incarnation as a son of Ramanujacharya's follower, then I will follow and preach Vishishtadvaita philosophy. Do you know WHY? I am *now* in this group.   And, in my third incarnation, I may be a son of Madhvacharya's follower, So I follow Dvaita philosophy. WHY???? Now I am in *this* group. So If we look at ourself as a whole in all three incarnations, it is a studpidity. The reason behind preaching philosophy is the Selfishness, not the truth. So, If I have to know truth, no matter wherever I born, my learning is consistent and constant. I am not follower any particular philosophy, rather I am follower of ULTIMATE TRUTH, no matter whichever it is. I have expressed what I felt. Please forgive me if I am wrong. Warm Regards, Shakthi ["Blackle.com - Saving energy one search at a time"] --- On Thu, 10/12/09, sivasenani at yahoo.com wrote: From: sivasenani at yahoo.com Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi To: "Michael Shepherd" , advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org Date: Thursday, 10 December, 2009, 5:05 PM Sir If I may be permitted to speculate on exegetical gymnastics, it might be in no small measure due to the post-advaitic schools trying to read a different meaning into what the Vedas say very clearly. Sometime back Sri Shakthi was posting one such attempt saying aham means not ham and such non-sense! I find the effects of VisishTaadvaita acharyas clearly in Thibaut, for instance. In sum, it might be less a Sanskrit - English issue (it might interest you that Sanskrit has no synonyms - every seemingly equivalent word gives a different sense: a vriksha is one which is cut and a bhuruha is something which grows on earth, though both refer to a tree - and this nuance in general seems to be fairly well captured by Westerners, mostly by Germans based on what elders who know German as well say) and more a pre-conceived notion, in this case implanted due to unfortunate influences, about what the Vedas say. A scholar with an open mind, somebody like you I dare say, relates quite well across linguistic boundaries. Best regards Senani  Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel -----Original Message----- From: "Michael Shepherd" Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:28:27 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi Dear Sri Senani A light-hearted addendum : Languages divide... but the frustrations of Sanglish and Engskrit have their passing delights... Take MacDonell struggling with the shades of the verb 'as' : Tattvamasi may be translated as-- in you, That (Absolute) is, exists, happens, takes place, dwells, is found in, is for, belongs to, accrues to, has, possesses, is present in, is peculiar to, is ready for, is equal to, is capable of, is sufficient for, occurs to... I enjoyed reading that.. Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of Michael Shepherd Sent: 10 December 2009 14:18 To: sivasenani at yahoo.com; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi Dear Sri Senani Let me say at once : Sanskrit and Vedic grammar before it are the oldest, most subtle, and most universal grammar in the world; and thus, Sanskrit explanations of Sanskrit grammar will be far more advanced than anything that English-speaking grammarians have inherited from earlier simplifications by earlier generations, fossilized in book form ! And grammar itself is transcendental, so beyond any human interpretation, living purely in its causes and effects ! So take everything I say with a large pinch of organic sea-salt... However, John Grimes, of the 'Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy', is an acknowledge scholar, studying, teaching and moving between the US and India now for many years; so I tend to favour his 'thumbnail' definitions as a broad consensus. 'Atman-' like swa, is normally given as another form of reflexive along with -asmi. So I bow to the pundits in all this-- if they agree among themselves :) Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of sivasenani at yahoo.com Sent: 10 December 2009 13:03 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi Dear Sri Michael and Sri Jaladhar I meant to look up a few references after reading your statement that asmi is a pronominal suffix but could not. I know it is too basic for either of you but would it be possible to supply an authority to back up this view? My own understanding is that 'aham brahma' is exactly the same as 'aham brahmaasmi' or 'brahmaasmi'. The way I remember to have learnt, forms of 'as' and 'bhu' have to be often supplied by the reader. They are 'adhyaahritas'. For instance in 'prajnaanam brahma' or 'ayam aatmaa brahma' an 'asti' is implicit (or in satyam jnaanam anantam brahma); or to take a counter example, the 'asi' in tattvamasi does not reflect back on the subject nor does it intensify. If one were to take examples involving the uttama purusha only, dhanyo'ham is exactly the same as dhanyo'smi. If emphasis is required 'vai' (in the older language) and 'eva' in the more recent period) do the job ('ahameva maam juhomi svaahaa' a mantra taught in Sri Vidya is an example). Sometimes aatma is repeated as in the Gita teaching about the Self itself uplifting the Self. In the example given by Sri Michael, the being in third person (prathama purusha) asmi has no place either as a verb or a pronominal suffix. If we were to make the King to convey that sense, he would in most places in Sanskrit literature use 'aatmaanam' Best regards Senani Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel -----Original Message----- From: "Michael Shepherd" Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:37:30 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi Anant Since you ask :) Aham brahmasmi means literally (in that unsatisfactory 'Sanglish' or 'Engskrit' language of translation !) 'I-awareness('am-ness') am Brahman myself'. Aham is a pronoun and verb joined as 'I am'. The 'pronominal suffix 'asmi' can carry either of two meanings : ' as in 'The king cut himself while shaving'; or in 'The king himself joined the battle'.. The first meaning is 'reflexive' -- an action done to oneself; the second, also labelled 'reflexive' (and less discussed in Vedic and Sanskrit grammar) is used more as an 'intensive' like 'Indeed true'. Why, you reasonably ask, add the 'asmi' ? Perhaps 'Aham Brahman' might be taken out of context to suggest that Brahman is asserting His existence ! So this is a reminder that I myself, you yourself, he himself, she herself, is indeed that Brahman -- not two other guys *!* (It's extended in the vakya 'ayam atmaBrahma, sarva nu bhu') The four 'mahavakya' are indeed four aspects, four views from different positions, of the essential concept of Advaita Vedanta. The fact that they are displayed on the four compass sides of the inner courtyard of a math indicates that they are considered worthy to be contemplated individually and together ! You could say that of the four mahavakya, one is addressed to the first person; another to the second person; another is 'impersonal'; and the fourth doesn't address the person at all, but is simply a statement about consciousness itself being universal as Brahman.. Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of Somayaji, Ananth Sent: 10 December 2009 11:19 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi I see another issue with this : Assuming that aham is an adjective qualification to Brahman, it brings about the existence of another Brahman albeit Ham-Brahman. It would bring about duality inside Mahavakya. Thoughts ? The other things to consider is that in none of the other Mahavakyas we have any adjective to the Brahman : Tatvamasi, Pragyanam Brahma etc. Can some one correct me if I am wrong ? -Ananth -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org] On Behalf Of Raghav Kumar Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 02:42 PM To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi well sir, first take the sentence brahma asmi that is  a mahavakya complete and accurate in itself. the verb 'asmi' implies  the first person singular anyway even without 'aham' now therefore aham can be taken as an adjective qualifying brahma since both the words aham and brahma are  neuter singular nouns. therefore  it aham-brahma asmi isgrammaticaly ok. athough the interpretation itself is something novel. i have never come across it. On 12/10/09, sthanunathan Ramakrishnan wrote: > > Dear Shakthi, > >            I have one problem with your interpretation. I do not know if > "ham" means rejectable. But assuming it is, the statement should be > "Aham Brahma Asthi" (to get the meaning you intend, that is the "Non > Rejectable is the greatest") and not "Aham Brahma Asmi", because "Asmi" is > in the first person and "Asthi" would be in the third person. > >   Folks, Please correct me if Iam wrong. Iam just taking my baby steps in > learning sanskrit. > > regards > Sthanu > > > But I have also heard an interpretation like this: > > > > "Aham Brahmasmi" > > ham - means reject-able ? ? ? ? ?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Aham - means Non-reject-able?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Brahma - Greatest??????????????????? [in Sanskrit.] > > > > So, it comes to a conclusion that, > > The one which is Non-reject-able? is the Greatest. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:34:04 +0530 (IST) > > From: Shakthi Prashanth > > Subject: [Advaita-l] Fw: RE: Query [continued] > > To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org > > Message-ID: <843026.39194.qm at web95104.mail.in2.yahoo.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > > > Hi All, > > > > Thank you so much for such a great response from all of > > you. > > > > But I have also heard an interpretation like this: > > > > "Aham Brahmasmi" > > ham - means reject-able ? ? ? ? ?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Aham - means Non-reject-able?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Brahma - Greatest??????????????????? [in Sanskrit.] > > > > So, it comes to a conclusion that, > > The one which is Non-reject-able? is the Greatest. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. http://in.yahoo.com/ From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Fri Dec 11 03:22:34 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 04:22:34 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari - 45 Message-ID: Sivaanandalahari - 45छन्दश्‍शाखि-शिखान्वितै-र्द्विजवरै-रसंसेविते शाश्‍वते सौख्यापादिनि खेदभेदिनि सुधासारै: फलै-र्दीपिते । चेत: पक्षिशिखामणे त्यज वृथा-संचार-मन्यै-रलं नित्यं शंकर-पादपध्म-युगली-नीडे विहारं कुरु ॥ ४५ ॥ ChandaS^SAkhi-SikhAnvitai-rdvijavarai-rasaMsevite SAS^vate saukhyApAdini khedabhedini sudhAsArai: phalai-rdIpite | cheta: pakShiSikhAmaNe tyaja vRuthA-saMchAra-manyai-ralaM nityaM SaMkara-pAdapadhma-yugalI-nIDe vihAraM kuru || 45 || Oh bird of greatest mind, play without interruption in the nest of the two lotus feet of Paramashiva, situated in the tree with the Sakas, (a part of Vedas ) as the branches, with Upanishads as the top and bearing Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha as the fruits, which destroy grief, taste like the nectre, are eternal and much sought after by the birds of great Brahmanas. * Commentary* hE chEtha: pakshisikhaamaNe = HEy! mind that is conceived as the great bird; chandha: saakhisikaanvitha: = the trees of the Veda that has the upanishads as the branches; dwijavarai: = by the braahmanasrEshtaas (by the superior birds); samsEvithE = greatly respected; saasvathE = permanent; sowkyaapaadhini = that which produced sukham; khEdhabhEdhini = that which removes difficulties; sudhaasaarai: = equal to the great flood of amritha; phalai: = such fruits as dharma; dheepithE = that which is shining; sankarapaadhapadhmayugaleeneedE = in the cage of of the two holy feet of ParamEswara which gives mOksha sukham; nithyam = All the time; vihaaram = play; kuru = do; vruthaa = wasteful; sanchaaram = roaming; thyaja = totally give up; anyai: = seeking out for alien objects; alam = enough. Thaathparyam:- In accordance with the maxim "yOgasthu sitthavrutthi nirOdha:", making the mind that seeks out and roams for ordinary objective pleasures to attain its layam in ParamEswara's lotus feet is the meaning of the Yoga sabhdha. Hey! The mind which I see as the superior bird! You are roaming everywhere in aimless fashion. Where can you get nithyasukham? You are seeking the impermenant and immediate benefits. Have you ever thought of what is nithyasukham and what is anithyasukham? You are wasting your time without getting into the rahasyam of these important subjects. Hey! Bird that is the mind! If you keep doing this you cannot attain mOkshasukham. Enough that you have wasted your life. Atleast try hereafter to attain mOkshasukham. Let me tell you of a place. Go and play there. That place alone gives you nithyaanandhasukham. I will tell you on the mahima of that place. Listen to me patiently. Hey! The mind which I see as the superior bird! The trees of the Veda that has the upanishads as the branches alone know that place. In those trees brahmaNOtthamas live hopping between branches worshipping that place. Moreover that which is worshipped has no destruction in the kaalathrayaas. At the same time it is removing the thaapathrayams and eliminates the hunger caused by the samsaara by giving endless tasty fruits sudhaamritham for you to eat. You can go to this remarkable place and play there as you please! Hey! The mind which I see as the superior bird! You do not have to worry as to where this joyous place is! That place of the greatest mahima is none but the ever auspicious and unfathomable giver of sukham and know it as the cage of the lotus feet of ParamEswara. So you remain in that cage and play there and do not fly away to needless places! I assure you that you will enjoy the pleasures there that you have never known in life. You do not have to have even a wee bit of doubt on this. This is truly the permanent abode that you always have been seeking. "Sudhaa dhaaraasaarai: charana yugaLaanthar vigaLithai: prapancham sinchanthi..." (Soundharyalahari) "Drenching the whole manifested multiplicity (the prapancha, here meaning the 72000 nadis of the jeeva) with the nectar flowing from thy feet..." Anyone who recites this sloka and do namaskaaram to ParamEswara will definitely have their mind find layam in the lotus feet of Shiva in due course. Nama: paarvathee pathayE Hara Hara Mahaadeva! From sgadkari2001 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 11 05:48:49 2009 From: sgadkari2001 at yahoo.com (Shrinivas Gadkari) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 03:48:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi Message-ID: <28417.794.qm@web33205.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Namaste,   On can also possibly interpret aham brahma asmi as: aham(kAra) is brahma.   So we have: 1. prajnA is brahma (Rgveda) 2. ahamkAra is brahma (yajurveda) 4. this body (AtmA interpreted as body) is brahma (atharvaveda) 3. One would expect a statement saying : manaH (mind) is brahma. But what we have instead is "tat tvam asi" in sAma veda.   Regards, Shrinivas From baludavey at gmail.com Fri Dec 11 07:42:50 2009 From: baludavey at gmail.com (balu davey) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:12:50 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Aham brahmasmi In-Reply-To: References: <797374.91554.qm@web95106.mail.in2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <175d78b60912110542o72fce311se414b47abe3793df@mail.gmail.com> It means ' I am (that) Infinite' . 2009/12/8 Jaldhar H. Vyas : > [was Re: [Advaita-l] Posting a new message. Please use more descriptive > subject lines to help people searching the archives.] > > On Tue, 8 Dec 2009, Shakthi Prashanth wrote: > >> What is the Etymological meaning of Aham Brahmasmi? I know that it >> pretends to say that I am God. But I want to know its etymological >> interpretation. > > I am Brahman > > On hearing this, the sadhaka must begin pondering what is meant by "I" and > "Brahman" > > -- > Jaldhar H. Vyas > _______________________________________________ > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > -- baludavey From kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com Fri Dec 11 09:23:16 2009 From: kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com (kuntimaddi sadananda) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:23:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Become a perfect Disciple - That is wisdom Message-ID: <799449.28604.qm@web56002.mail.re3.yahoo.com> PraNAms to all. As I was looking into a magazine - FROZEN THOUGHTS -Vol. 6, page 54, Nov. 20006 that was lying down I found an article that caught my eye. Author is not specified. Here is the article with the subject title. The message is clear and pertinent. --------- A seeker was in search of a Master. Because of his HR background (I do not know what that HR means), he had prepared a checklist to evaluate someone before accepting him as his Master. After twenty years of searching, he finally found one who qualified on all the points in the checklist. - I have selected you as my Master- The Master replied. You may have found a perfect Master, but this Master is searching for a perfect disciple. If you can be with me for the next 24 hours without asking questions, I will take you as my disciple- The seeker consented. Pointing to a bucket and rope that was lying close by, the Master asked the seeker to pick them up and follow him to the well. As the seeker was picking up the bucket, he noticed that it has no bottom. - What to do with a bucket that has no bottom - he wanted to ask the Master, but he remembered that he was not supposed to  ask any questions for 24 hours. He felt very silly carrying a bottomless bucket, but could not help it.  To add to his woes, the Master asked him to tie the rope to the bucket and draw water from the well. Unable to control himself, the seeker burst out , - Master, this bucket has no bottom! Why are you asking me to do something as silly as this? The Master said, - See, you could not hold your tongue. When you, a seeker, know that this is silly, won't I also know that this is silly? I asked you to take this test just for you to know that you have an interfering intelligence. Even on something that both of us are able to see, like this bottomless bucket, you are not able to trust me! How then will you trust me when I take you through the spiritual journey, which I have seen but you have not yet? Ask questions to the Master, but do not question the Master. With this doubting intelligence, you are not ready for a spiritual journey. Your intelligence will keep interfering with the intelligence that is guiding you-. The Master concluded - Instead of searching for a perfect Master, first make yourself a perfect disciple. A perfect disciple is one for whom surrender is a possibility. You donot have to searchfor any Master, for when you are ready, your teacher will appear.-. ------- A profound truth indeed. My teacher, Swami Chinmayanandaji used to tell - a flower does not have to go in search of a bee. Bee shall come when the flower is ready as it opens up with all its beauty and glory. No teacher will come and say I am your teacher. Student will discover his teacher as he opens up. I discovered my teacher only this way. I am sure every one has the same experience. Hari Om! Sadananda From srirudra at vsnl.com Fri Dec 11 05:49:28 2009 From: srirudra at vsnl.com (sriram) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:19:28 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmasmi References: <803245.53198.qm@web95107.mail.in2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003501ca7a7a$516b3660$6400a8c0@km> Dear Sri Shakthi Prashanth If one looks at the outside world one can not but notice intelligence.What is intelligence?If you follow this thread you will come to a conclusion that there should be some super intelligent being who is behind all this phenomenon.The totality of all coceivable intelligence can be the intelligence of the Brahman.Then you ask why this creation?Advaitha says there is no creation as such but whatever is felt/observed/experienced is all Brahman only. But we are seeing Its presence differently because of our ignorance.Mithya denotes that all this which we are experiencing is everchanging.It is like a dream.Who created a dream and why a dream etc are still under analysis.Lastly it cannot be taught like a physical science.You have to think,analyse and get hold of a Guru who will appear before you if you are sincere in your pursuit of this Truth.You try sincerely and I assure you you will get all the answers.The difficulty is sanskrit words have very deep meaning and the other equivalents either in English/Tamil may not give the correct import.But a shraddhavan and a seeker of truth for Truth`s sake will get all his answers from Advaitha. R.Krishnamoorthy. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shakthi Prashanth" To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 9:05 AM Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmasmi Thanks Sriram. Who created this entire universe? (Jagath). In encyclopedia they have written that "It is an accidental creation. No body created it literally." By definition Accident is not "something which happens without any reason." It is "something which happens with a reason that we do not know!" So, if that is the case, this universe has not evolved on itself. Someone has created it. And if Brahman is the only entity that exists, then he has created it. Why do Brahman create Mithya Jagath first of all? Is he magician? What is basic reason/principle behind in creating so called Mithya Jagath. If Brahman is great, then whatever he creates must also be Great. If a scientist creates a computer, then we respect for his creation. The respect what you give to computer , the scientist deserves it. So, why do we call this Jagath (universe) as Mithya????? Shakthi --- On Wed, 9/12/09, sriram wrote: From: sriram Subject: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmasmi To: "advaita" Date: Wednesday, 9 December, 2009, 9:23 AM Dear Sri Shakthi Prashanth The sruthi vakyam you have presented simply says you are the one without a second.That is every conceivable thing by your Indhriyas and Intellect is Brahman and Brahman alone.It is our ignorance that we see differently by giving names,figures and places.First of all we have doubt whether there is a one called Brahman.The sruthi is the pramana like a mother telling the child this is your father.Sruthi says athatha Brahma Jingyasah.That is let us contemplate on Brahman.One will contemplate on something that should be there.Sruthi says It is there and let us analyse /find out.I am unable to give the correct import of Jingyasam.So after logical reasoning and supported by the sruthi vakyas one is led to the conclusion that this Jagath is just mithya and Brahman alone is sathyam and Brahman is adhvidiyam.That is it is the only Truth and all other things we experince are asath.To understand this profound Truth is not that easy.By just saying that I am King I cannot be a King.You wi ll now know what is it that goes with a King.So also the sruthi asserts that All are Brahman only and you and i included.But the qualities of Brahman are also given in the sruthi.In essence Brahman is not an object of perception yet could be known.By sincerity and shraddha and by sruthi`s guidance you can yourself understand what is meant by Aham Brahmasmi.This is not a simple sentence to interpret it by tracing it etymologically.It is to be contemplated again and again till one is satified that it is only so.Some subjective experiences can not be verbally described.When one says I am happy and another also says I am happy there can be no comparison of these two happinesses.R.Krishnamoorthy _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. http://in.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From srirudra at vsnl.com Fri Dec 11 10:04:20 2009 From: srirudra at vsnl.com (sriram) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:34:20 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi References: <144609.98161.qm@web95111.mail.in2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003601ca7a7b$997a0fc0$6400a8c0@km> Dear Shakthi Prashanth Your idea of philosophy is flawed.Philosophy is the mother of all sciences.It is to the credit of philosophers that our thinking process is fine tuned and errors are eliminated.To denounce preaching of philosophy as selfishness is a wrong .In fact philosophy is after truth only.And as to your belief system that there may not be anything after death I have to say that then all this enquiry is waste of time.There is Athman and eventhough the body dies it dies not is the belief of all who are called asthikas.So you can adopt an reductio ad absurdum method to know whether there is Athman or not.Then start your journey for Truth.If you are a doubter then it is meaningless to pursue any thought process leading to know Brahman.R.Krishnamoorthy. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shakthi Prashanth" To: ; "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 10:45 AM Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi Thanks Sivasenani, for ur expressing your feeling. I want to make a note here. We are here to understand mostly the following aspects (I feel). What this life is all about? Who Am I? Why am I here? How did I come here? Why am I like this? What is the meaning of Birth, Death? Where do I go after Death? Where was I before Birth? Who is controlling the entire universe? Why do the planet in which we are, has life? If there is no significance of Me after my death, probably there is no meaning for philosophy. Am I right? Suppose that I born in Shankaracharya's followers family. So, I will leatn and follow Advaita philosophy. Do you know WHY? " I am in this group. " If I born in the next incarnation as a son of Ramanujacharya's follower, then I will follow and preach Vishishtadvaita philosophy. Do you know WHY? I am *now* in this group. And, in my third incarnation, I may be a son of Madhvacharya's follower, So I follow Dvaita philosophy. WHY???? Now I am in *this* group. So If we look at ourself as a whole in all three incarnations, it is a studpidity. The reason behind preaching philosophy is the Selfishness, not the truth. So, If I have to know truth, no matter wherever I born, my learning is consistent and constant. I am not follower any particular philosophy, rather I am follower of ULTIMATE TRUTH, no matter whichever it is. I have expressed what I felt. Please forgive me if I am wrong. Warm Regards, Shakthi ["Blackle.com - Saving energy one search at a time"] --- On Thu, 10/12/09, sivasenani at yahoo.com wrote: From: sivasenani at yahoo.com Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi To: "Michael Shepherd" , advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org Date: Thursday, 10 December, 2009, 5:05 PM Sir If I may be permitted to speculate on exegetical gymnastics, it might be in no small measure due to the post-advaitic schools trying to read a different meaning into what the Vedas say very clearly. Sometime back Sri Shakthi was posting one such attempt saying aham means not ham and such non-sense! I find the effects of VisishTaadvaita acharyas clearly in Thibaut, for instance. In sum, it might be less a Sanskrit - English issue (it might interest you that Sanskrit has no synonyms - every seemingly equivalent word gives a different sense: a vriksha is one which is cut and a bhuruha is something which grows on earth, though both refer to a tree - and this nuance in general seems to be fairly well captured by Westerners, mostly by Germans based on what elders who know German as well say) and more a pre-conceived notion, in this case implanted due to unfortunate influences, about what the Vedas say. A scholar with an open mind, somebody like you I dare say, relates quite well across linguistic boundaries. Best regards Senani Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel -----Original Message----- From: "Michael Shepherd" Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:28:27 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi Dear Sri Senani A light-hearted addendum : Languages divide... but the frustrations of Sanglish and Engskrit have their passing delights... Take MacDonell struggling with the shades of the verb 'as' : Tattvamasi may be translated as-- in you, That (Absolute) is, exists, happens, takes place, dwells, is found in, is for, belongs to, accrues to, has, possesses, is present in, is peculiar to, is ready for, is equal to, is capable of, is sufficient for, occurs to... I enjoyed reading that.. Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of Michael Shepherd Sent: 10 December 2009 14:18 To: sivasenani at yahoo.com; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi Dear Sri Senani Let me say at once : Sanskrit and Vedic grammar before it are the oldest, most subtle, and most universal grammar in the world; and thus, Sanskrit explanations of Sanskrit grammar will be far more advanced than anything that English-speaking grammarians have inherited from earlier simplifications by earlier generations, fossilized in book form ! And grammar itself is transcendental, so beyond any human interpretation, living purely in its causes and effects ! So take everything I say with a large pinch of organic sea-salt... However, John Grimes, of the 'Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy', is an acknowledge scholar, studying, teaching and moving between the US and India now for many years; so I tend to favour his 'thumbnail' definitions as a broad consensus. 'Atman-' like swa, is normally given as another form of reflexive along with -asmi. So I bow to the pundits in all this-- if they agree among themselves :) Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of sivasenani at yahoo.com Sent: 10 December 2009 13:03 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi Dear Sri Michael and Sri Jaladhar I meant to look up a few references after reading your statement that asmi is a pronominal suffix but could not. I know it is too basic for either of you but would it be possible to supply an authority to back up this view? My own understanding is that 'aham brahma' is exactly the same as 'aham brahmaasmi' or 'brahmaasmi'. The way I remember to have learnt, forms of 'as' and 'bhu' have to be often supplied by the reader. They are 'adhyaahritas'. For instance in 'prajnaanam brahma' or 'ayam aatmaa brahma' an 'asti' is implicit (or in satyam jnaanam anantam brahma); or to take a counter example, the 'asi' in tattvamasi does not reflect back on the subject nor does it intensify. If one were to take examples involving the uttama purusha only, dhanyo'ham is exactly the same as dhanyo'smi. If emphasis is required 'vai' (in the older language) and 'eva' in the more recent period) do the job ('ahameva maam juhomi svaahaa' a mantra taught in Sri Vidya is an example). Sometimes aatma is repeated as in the Gita teaching about the Self itself uplifting the Self. In the example given by Sri Michael, the being in third person (prathama purusha) asmi has no place either as a verb or a pronominal suffix. If we were to make the King to convey that sense, he would in most places in Sanskrit literature use 'aatmaanam' Best regards Senani Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel -----Original Message----- From: "Michael Shepherd" Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:37:30 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi Anant Since you ask :) Aham brahmasmi means literally (in that unsatisfactory 'Sanglish' or 'Engskrit' language of translation !) 'I-awareness('am-ness') am Brahman myself'. Aham is a pronoun and verb joined as 'I am'. The 'pronominal suffix 'asmi' can carry either of two meanings : ' as in 'The king cut himself while shaving'; or in 'The king himself joined the battle'.. The first meaning is 'reflexive' -- an action done to oneself; the second, also labelled 'reflexive' (and less discussed in Vedic and Sanskrit grammar) is used more as an 'intensive' like 'Indeed true'. Why, you reasonably ask, add the 'asmi' ? Perhaps 'Aham Brahman' might be taken out of context to suggest that Brahman is asserting His existence ! So this is a reminder that I myself, you yourself, he himself, she herself, is indeed that Brahman -- not two other guys *!* (It's extended in the vakya 'ayam atmaBrahma, sarva nu bhu') The four 'mahavakya' are indeed four aspects, four views from different positions, of the essential concept of Advaita Vedanta. The fact that they are displayed on the four compass sides of the inner courtyard of a math indicates that they are considered worthy to be contemplated individually and together ! You could say that of the four mahavakya, one is addressed to the first person; another to the second person; another is 'impersonal'; and the fourth doesn't address the person at all, but is simply a statement about consciousness itself being universal as Brahman.. Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of Somayaji, Ananth Sent: 10 December 2009 11:19 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi I see another issue with this : Assuming that aham is an adjective qualification to Brahman, it brings about the existence of another Brahman albeit Ham-Brahman. It would bring about duality inside Mahavakya. Thoughts ? The other things to consider is that in none of the other Mahavakyas we have any adjective to the Brahman : Tatvamasi, Pragyanam Brahma etc. Can some one correct me if I am wrong ? -Ananth -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org] On Behalf Of Raghav Kumar Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 02:42 PM To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi well sir, first take the sentence brahma asmi that is a mahavakya complete and accurate in itself. the verb 'asmi' implies the first person singular anyway even without 'aham' now therefore aham can be taken as an adjective qualifying brahma since both the words aham and brahma are neuter singular nouns. therefore it aham-brahma asmi isgrammaticaly ok. athough the interpretation itself is something novel. i have never come across it. On 12/10/09, sthanunathan Ramakrishnan wrote: > > Dear Shakthi, > > I have one problem with your interpretation. I do not know if > "ham" means rejectable. But assuming it is, the statement should be > "Aham Brahma Asthi" (to get the meaning you intend, that is the "Non > Rejectable is the greatest") and not "Aham Brahma Asmi", because "Asmi" is > in the first person and "Asthi" would be in the third person. > > Folks, Please correct me if Iam wrong. Iam just taking my baby steps in > learning sanskrit. > > regards > Sthanu > > > But I have also heard an interpretation like this: > > > > "Aham Brahmasmi" > > ham - means reject-able ? ? ? ? ?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Aham - means Non-reject-able?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Brahma - Greatest??????????????????? [in Sanskrit.] > > > > So, it comes to a conclusion that, > > The one which is Non-reject-able? is the Greatest. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:34:04 +0530 (IST) > > From: Shakthi Prashanth > > Subject: [Advaita-l] Fw: RE: Query [continued] > > To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org > > Message-ID: <843026.39194.qm at web95104.mail.in2.yahoo.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > > > Hi All, > > > > Thank you so much for such a great response from all of > > you. > > > > But I have also heard an interpretation like this: > > > > "Aham Brahmasmi" > > ham - means reject-able ? ? ? ? ?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Aham - means Non-reject-able?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Brahma - Greatest??????????????????? [in Sanskrit.] > > > > So, it comes to a conclusion that, > > The one which is Non-reject-able? is the Greatest. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. http://in.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From svidyasankar at hotmail.com Fri Dec 11 18:11:04 2009 From: svidyasankar at hotmail.com (Vidyasankar Sundaresan) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:11:04 -0800 Subject: [Advaita-l] Fw: RE: Query [continued] In-Reply-To: <843026.39194.qm@web95104.mail.in2.yahoo.com> References: <843026.39194.qm@web95104.mail.in2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Sri Shakthi Prashanth, Firstly, at some point, you have to choose between etymology (however you interpret that) and philosophy. The veda itself tells us that brahman is ultimately that from which words turn back, along with the mind, unable to truly grasp it - yato vAco nivartante aprApya manasA saha. So, at the outset, if you want to play games with etymological interpretations of Sruti vAkya-s that describe the nature of brahman, it is a futile effort. Secondly, this sort of splitting meaningful words into component syllables and giving novel interpretations to each of them is neither philosophy, nor is it etymology, strictly speaking. It is not as if the sound a- at the beginning of every word is a prefix indicating negation. Take for example, the words agni and akAra - is the leading a- sound a prefix? The word aham, meaning I, is similar - it is not a + ham, no matter who it is that may tell you so. Thirdly, the word asmi is the present tense, first person, singular verb form. It means (I) am; not (he) is. In Sanskrit, he/she is, would be asti, not asmi. (As an aside, the word "asi" in tat tvam asi is present tense, second person singular.) Fourthly, if you use translations, your understanding of any Sanskrit text, at best, can only be as good as the translation. If you are truly interested in understanding, please make an attempt to learn the language before jumping to etymology. For example, in your quotation from the nArAyaNopanishat, can you point to me the original verse which means, "there is pin point space in it which is omnipotent"? Or is this supposed to be a translation of the line, tasmin sarvam pratishThitam? If so, please look up the dictionary meaning of the word pratishThA. How does this relate to omnipotence? Then, ponder upon this - that in which everything (sarvam) is pratishThita, is itself inside the lotus of the heart. So, is the lotus of the heart established inside that which is inside the lotus of the heart? How wonderfully circular!!! Clearly, don't you see the need to go beyond the merely literal, when you see such a wonderfully poetic description of some of the highest philosophical concepts? Which brings me back in a circle, to the very first point I made in this response - etymology is not philosophy! It is good that you are questioning and it is good that you realize that the truth is not something dependent on your current birth. However, within the current birth, please extend your questioning also to those sources from which you have made your quotations so far! With best wishes, Vidyasankar _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222986/direct/01/ From muralidhar.maddala at gmail.com Fri Dec 11 20:33:29 2009 From: muralidhar.maddala at gmail.com (Muralidhar Maddala) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:33:29 +0800 Subject: [Advaita-l] Become a perfect Disciple - That is wisdom In-Reply-To: <799449.28604.qm@web56002.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <799449.28604.qm@web56002.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Sadananda ji, Namasthe, This message is indeed very profound and puts an end to a lot of unrest. The next question is about how to "be" that perfect disciple - is self effort the only answer? Murali On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:23 PM, kuntimaddi sadananda < kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com> wrote: > PraNAms to all. As I was looking into a magazine - FROZEN THOUGHTS -Vol. 6, > page 54, Nov. 20006 that was lying down I found an article that caught my > eye. Author is not specified. Here is the article with the subject title. > The message is clear and pertinent. > > --------- > A seeker was in search of a Master. Because of his HR background (I do not > know what that HR means), he had prepared a checklist to evaluate someone > before accepting him as his Master. After twenty years of searching, he > finally found one who qualified on all the points in the checklist. - I have > selected you as my Master- > > The Master replied. You may have found a perfect Master, but this Master is > searching for a perfect disciple. If you can be with me for the next 24 > hours without asking questions, I will take you as my disciple- The seeker > consented. > > Pointing to a bucket and rope that was lying close by, the Master asked the > seeker to pick them up and follow him to the well. As the seeker was picking > up the bucket, he noticed that it has no bottom. - What to do with a bucket > that has no bottom - he wanted to ask the Master, but he remembered that he > was not supposed to ask any questions for 24 hours. He felt very silly > carrying a bottomless bucket, but could not help it. To add to his woes, > the Master asked him to tie the rope to the bucket and draw water from the > well. Unable to control himself, the seeker burst out , - Master, this > bucket has no bottom! Why are you asking me to do something as silly as > this? > > The Master said, - See, you could not hold your tongue. When you, a seeker, > know that this is silly, won't I also know that this is silly? I asked you > to take this test just for you to know that you have an interfering > intelligence. Even on something that both of us are able to see, like this > bottomless bucket, you are not able to trust me! How then will you trust me > when I take you through the spiritual journey, which I have seen but you > have not yet? Ask questions to the Master, but do not question the Master. > With this doubting intelligence, you are not ready for a spiritual journey. > Your intelligence will keep interfering with the intelligence that is > guiding you-. > > The Master concluded - Instead of searching for a perfect Master, first > make yourself a perfect disciple. A perfect disciple is one for whom > surrender is a possibility. You donot have to searchfor any Master, for when > you are ready, your teacher will appear.-. > > ------- > A profound truth indeed. > > My teacher, Swami Chinmayanandaji used to tell - a flower does not have to > go in search of a bee. Bee shall come when the flower is ready as it opens > up with all its beauty and glory. > No teacher will come and say I am your teacher. Student will discover his > teacher as he opens up. > > I discovered my teacher only this way. I am sure every one has the same > experience. > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > -- M From srikanta at nie.ac.in Thu Dec 10 23:05:48 2009 From: srikanta at nie.ac.in (srikanta at nie.ac.in) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:05:48 -0000 (GMT) Subject: [Advaita-l] Discussion on "Aham Brahmasmi" Message-ID: <20413.58.68.57.18.1260507948.squirrel@mail.nie.ac.in> With reference to the above discussion,the Mahavakya will not be clear until one comprehends the real meaning of "Aham" and "Brahma".There is clarity if one follows the discussion on this Mahavakya by Sri.Sureshwaracharya in his "Naishkarmyasiddhi".He gives a beautiful illustration of an burning iron piece.He says that even though we see the fire burning on the iron piece,we refer it as 'iron is burning".Similarly,the syntactic apposition(Samanyadhikarana) in the Mahavakya will be clear only if we know the inner meaning of the two words and their implication. Srikanta. From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Sat Dec 12 09:13:00 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:13:00 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari - 46 Message-ID: Sivaanandalahari - 46 आकीर्णे नखराजिकान्ति-विभवै-रुध्यत्सुधा-वैभवै- राधौतेपि च पद्मराग-ललिते हंसव्रजै-राश्रिते । नित्यं भक्ति-वधूगणैश्‍व रहसि स्वेछा-विहारं कुरु स्थित्वा मानस-राजहंस गिरिजानाथांघ्रि-सौधान्तरे ॥ ४६ ॥ AkIrNe naKarAjikAnti-viBavai-rudhyatsudhA-vaiBavai- rAdhautepi cha padmarAga-lalite haMsavrajai-rASrite | nityaM Bakti-vadhUgaNaiS^va rahasi sveChA-vihAraM kuru sthitvA mAnasa-rAjahaMsa girijAnAthAMghri-saudhAntare || 46 || Oh the great swan of mind, live secretly in peace with the brides of Bhakti, in the mansion of the lotus feet of Parvatipati ( Parvati’s husband, Lord Shiva) which is full of lustre emanating from the nails, seemingly whitened by the rays of nectar , looking beautiful and red with the studded gems, surrounded by swans of ascetics. *Commentary *hE maanasaraajahamsa = Hey! Mind that is like the princely swan!; nakharaajikaanthavibhavai: = the shine coming off the group of the nails (of ParamEswara's feet); aakeerNE = pervaded; udhyathsudhaavaibhavai: = of the raising moon's nectar like white rays that spread out; aadhowthE = made white all around; api cha = more over; padhmaraagalalithE = made of the padmaraaga stone that is as red as the lotus flower; hamsavrajE = of the group of swans (sanyaasis); aasrithE = that which is worshipped by; girijaanaathaangrimowdhaantharE = in the dais of the holy feet of ParamEswara who is the husband of Parvathi; rahasi = secretly; sthithvaa = remaining; bhakthivadhoogaNaischa = in the company of the ladies called bhakthi; swEcchchaavihaaram = play of your own liking; kuru = do. AachaaryaaL continues to address the mind in this sloka. Thaathparyam:- Hey! Mind that is like the princely swan! Please listen patiently. Samsaara sarpadhashtaanaam janthoonaam avivekinaam | Chandrasekhara paadhaabja smaraNam paramoushadham || For the avivEki who is bitten by the snake of samsaara and is caught in the cycle of birth and death, there is only one medicine to neutralize this poison and that is the constant smaraNa of Chandrasekhara's paadhaabjam. (My aneka koti saashtaanga namaskaarams to ParamaachaaryaaL Sri Chandrasekharenra Saraswathi). Therefore you have to do smaraNam of ParamEswara's padhaabjam constantly. The shine of those feet get increased by those brilliant nails that remain close to one another. Moreover because of the raising moon's nectar like white rays that spread out these feet look pure white. Also adorned with the red padhmaraaga stones they bring aanandha to the eyes. And these holy feet are worshipped by the paramahamsas who are aware of the thathwas of mahaathanthras. You should secretly get to these exalted feet with those divine ladies called bhakthi and play to your heart's content. Only by adorning on these softest lotus feet can you be enjoying the supreme aanandha. Hey! Mind that is like the princely swan! *Bhakthi is known in two ways as saamaanya bhakthi and as visesha bhakthi. Knowing Parameswara's vaibhavam and mahima and to have the layam of the mind in Parameswara is saamaanya bhakthi. But in visesha bhakthi a person's mind has attained akhandaakaara vritthi's gnaanam that led him to know the non-difference of his own aathma with Siva with the realization of 'SivOham' (I am Siva). This is also known as 'aham sa:' or 'hamsa'. This secret is outed by AachaaryaaL in this sloka by saying 'rahasi svecchavihaaram kuru'. * Hey! Mind that is like the princely swan! Only those who do anusandhaanam in this manner will in the course of time will be able to know Paramasiva as his prathyagaathma and enjoy Sivaanandham. These is no doubt at all about this. This endless aanandha of the greatest mahima can occur only to those who remain in their ekaantham and antharmukham. It can never happen otherwise. SivOham, SivOham. From kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com Sat Dec 12 09:54:38 2009 From: kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com (kuntimaddi sadananda) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 07:54:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Advaita-l] A Perspective - 12 Message-ID: <719243.88296.qm@web56008.mail.re3.yahoo.com> tat tvam asi – III tat tvam asi or you are that, is an instructional statement by a teacher to the student. From the point of the student the statement translates to - I am that. The subject ‘I’ has to be understood from the point of the individual and the predicate ‘that’ has to be understood from the point of the whole universe. Thus we have two essential entities in the universe, the subject I and the object ‘this’, which appears to be distinctly different from the subject. Equation then involves the identity of the subject and the object which, in principle, cannot be equated, since our understanding is subject can never be an object and object can never be a subject. Most importantly, the subject is a conscious entity and the object is unconscious or inert entity. The identity equation at a superficial level involves equating the diagonally opposite entities. Since this is the scriptural statement pointing out the truth, there must be deeper meaning than just equating the two superficial incompatible entities. It is important to recognize that -that, tat- refers directly to the universe which is perceptible and not to the creator, Iswara, who is imperceptible. Hence advaita does not say- I am God-, as some philosophies interpret advaita. Since – that- is a pronoun, the context that pronoun is used has to be understood to extract the intended identity in the statement. By implication, of course, it includes the creator of ‘that’ since creator and created are inseparable as discussed in the prelog that establishes the identity relation, by the statement – bahushyaam, prajayeya – let Me become many and He became many. Become is obviously is different from create. Gold becomes ornaments, while goldsmith creates ornaments, and thank God, goldsmith never becomes an ornament. In the case of Universe, both the material cause and the intelligent cause are one and the same. Therefore in the statement – I am that – as the Upanishad originally intended, the identity is directly with the universe and indirectly with Iswara also. Hence the repeated instruction by teacher to the student is – aitadaatmya idam sarvam, tat satyam, sa aatmaa, tat tvam asi - where the order of the statements are very important. The essence or substantive of the entire perceptible universe – idam sarvam – is that existence principle – tat satyam. Once establishing, or more correctly the teacher reminding, that the essence or substantive of the universe is nothing but the SAT, or the existence principle that he stated in the beginning of his discourse, as the existence alone was there before creation, the teacher then reminds that the existence principle is the same as the consciousness or as - that self – sa aatma. Thus –tat- involves a two-level understanding. The first level of understanding is to look at the whole universe from the point of the material cause which is nothing but SAT, the existence principle. The second level of understanding is to look at the whole universe from the point of intelligent cause, sa aatma – the consciousness, the self. Thus –tat- involves both jagat and Iswara together represented as one –that. Once having the total understanding involved in the meaning of – tat or that – as abhinna nimitta upaadaana kaaraNa, the inseparable intelligent and material cause of the universe, which can be objectified as that, the teacher points out the identity relation – tat tvam asi or you are that or I am that. Thus the whole objective universe which is different from the subject I, is included in – that. Thus the identity relation establishes identity of the subject and the object or oneness of jiiva, jagat and Iswara or the division-less-ness, since the declaration at the very beginning of the Upanishad involves – existence alone was there in the beginning which is ekam, eva, advitiiyam – one, alone, without a second. Shankara states that the three words – one, alone and without a second – are used to negate all possible types of observed or assumed divisions – jiiva-jagat-Iswara or sajaati-vijaati-swagata bhedaas – differences within the species, differences between different species and any internal divisions of any kind. This echoes in the Kaivalya Upanishad statement – mayyeva sakalam jaatam, mayi sarvam pratiShTitam, mayi sarvam layam yaanti – tat brahmaasmyamadvayam – The whole universe is born from me, sustained by me and goes back into me, the non-dual Brahman that I am. Thus the identity relation of tat tvam asi involves clear understanding of substantive of both the subject and the object, or understanding of the substantive of the jiiva-jagat-Iswara, the indivisible existence-consciousness that I am. For seeing the oneness of the subject and the object which appear to be diagonally opposite to one another, it requires a subtle mind (suukshma buddhi) that integrates in contrast to a sharp mind (tiiShNa buddhi) that divides. It is the mind that synthesizes than the mind that analyzes or differentiates. The habitual mind that is extrovert and trained to look at the differences in the objective world has to be retrained to look within the subject-object division to see the oneness that pervades the two. This is called viveka – or discriminative intellect that discriminates the substantive oneness from the superlative duality. Shankara defines the viveka as nitya anitya vastu viveka – a discriminative faculty that differentiates that which is permanent for the superficial impermanent. This is accomplished by bhaaga tyaaga lakshaNa that we discussed in the previous post taking the classical example of – this is that Devadatta, soyam devadattaH. To see the oneness of Devadatta in that Devadatta from memory who had attributes of BMI distinctly different from this Devadatta, we need to discard the attributive knowledge of this and that Devadatta and focus our attention to see the oneness of the individual that pervades this and that Devadatta. If we are attached to the attributes and pay more attention to them ignoring the individual that is being referred to by the attributes we will never be able to see the oneness, since attributes are distinctly different and do not equate. This requires a dispassionate mind to reject that which is superficial attributive objective knowledge and focus itself to that which is substantial. This is called vairagya or dispassion. This methodology of bhaaga tyaaga lakshaNa has to be applied to both tvam padaartha and tat padaartha individually and then together to arrive at the identity relation that is stated in the tat-tvam-asi statement. Application to tvam: tvam, from the student’s point refers to – I am, the subject that everyone is familiar and tat or that is an object different from the subject. The identity is therefore involves realization of oneness of the subject I and the object – that. The fallacy of the whole human problem lies, in fact, in this very identification of the subject, I, with the object, this, as I am this. Every bio data is centered on this aspect only, as I am this, this and this. When I say I am the body or the mind or the intellect (BMI), I am, in fact, identifying the subject I with the local object, such as this body, mind and intellect, which are the objects of my knowledge. Hence the advice of the scripture is to negate this identification as I am not this – neti, neti, and to recognize myself as objectless awareness. On the other hand, the instruction of mahaavaakya is I am that where that stands for the whole objective world. The identity emphasized by mahaavaakya, therefore, is the subject I is identically equal to the object, that. Is there a contradiction in the teaching? On one side the scripture says I am not this and the other side it says I am that. These contradictions are only at a relative reference. When I say - I am this – that identification is actually ahankaara or ego where the subject I is identified with object this, this being the BMI. Since BMI is so close to me, even though they are objects like the rest of the objects in the world, the relationship with BMI is different in three ways from the rest of the world. 1. Intimacy – Although they are instruments for experiencing the world outside, they are so intimately associated with - I am- to the degree that I mistake myself as BMI and operate with that notion from birth to death. Even after death, the MI will get separated with the gross body, but my association with MI will remain life after life or field after field. 2. Sentiency – In the very presence of existence-consciousness that I am, the intellect, and the mind and the body get enlivened that they behave like sensuous entities. Biological, physiological, psychological and intellectual operations are possible in the very presence of the sat-chit ananda swaruupa of the self; although self itself has nothing to do with those operations. 3. Superimposed problems: When I identify myself starting from mind or intellect as I am this – ahankaara or ego arises as agent for all transactions with the world using BMI. Thus ego is nothing but notion that I am this where this keep shifting from Intellect to mind to body. This identification that I am this is so complete that it is very difficult to drop this identification. Because in this identification as an ego, there is an inclusion and exclusion involved. I am this (ahankaara or ego) – involves an exclusion of - I am not that, and also - this is mine (mamakaara, notion of mine)- involves an exclusion of - that is not mine. The survival of Ego rests in the very exclusion of what I am not and what is not mine. This forms the basis for samsaara. All pravRitti are only trying gain all that I like, which is currently not mine and nivRitti is trying to get rid of all that I do not like, which is currently mine. My likes and dislikes keep changing. What I liked at one time and obtained it with considerable effort, now I want to get rid of it, since I do not like it any more or it does not meet any more my expectations. On the other hand, in the tat-tvam-asi statement, the identification is not with the local this but with the global this – idam sarvam, that includes everything in the creation, the entire universe of objects without any exclusion involved. Idam sarvam involves the infinite universe in front of me as puurnam idam. It includes even the BMI that I am currently negating as not this, by the neti-neti meditation. Hence Krishna says in Gita VII 4-5– ahankaara or ego is also part of my eight fold lower (apara) nature, while my higher (para) nature is that which supports or is substantive for all this lower nature. Bhagatyaaga lakshaNa application, therefore, requires first the disassociation of myself with this local identification. This, that I currently identify, is being limited, and in this very identification with the limited I am superimposing the limitations of the BMI on myself. Hence I suffer the consequences of that superimposed limitations. Thus the continuously changing attributes of the local BMI are mistaken as my changing attributes. To recognize my true nature or tvam padaartham, which is attributeless pure existence-consciousness, I have to dissociate myself with the identification from the attributive local BMI. This dissociation is a pre-requisite before I can identify with the essence of the global objective world. In short, this dissociation of my identification with the local BMI is the essence of sanyaasa or renunciation. This renunciation is essential before I can identify with the global objective world. This requirement is mistaken for the external renunciation which is neither necessary nor sufficient but yet helpful in dropping the notions of I am this. Once I have renounced the identification with the local BMI, I am ready for the identification with the global objective world, which is called yoga. Thus sanyaasa-yoga is involved in understanding the mahaavaakya, tat-tvam-asi. In the previous posts, we have addressed that -I am- is pure saakshii, the witnessing consciousness that I am. This we will arrive in the process of dissociation of myself with the local BMI that I intensely identify with. Identifying with the mind, I am taking the role of a knower or pramaataa. A question was raised pertaining to changing mind and therefore a changing pramaataa. Without falling into the trap of kshanika vijnaana vaada, we need to examine the jnaana prakriya or process of how the knowledge takes place and is stored. Pure consciousness is all pervading and self-luminous. The inert mind reflects the light of consciousness. That is the general background reflection called chidaabhaasa. As the thoughts rise in the mind, they get illumined by the reflected light from the mind. It is like moon is shining because of the sun and in the bright full moon objects can be seen by the reflected light of the moon. Moon itself does not have any light of its own. It is only the reflected light of the sun which illumines the object. Indirectly it is the sunlight only. In fact even in a bright day, we are able to see things inside the house, not directly by the light of the sun, but by the reflected light from the sun outside. In the same way the mind reflects the light of consciousness which is all pervading and in that reflected light the thoughts that arise get further reflected. Reflection of the light of consciousness is knowledge. Now we ask, who is the pramaataa or knower? A simple answer is I, identifying with the mind, take the role of pramaataa, when objects are known via pramaaNa. This identification with the mind is the ahankaara or ego. As the mental moods change the ahankaara also changes. The knowledge as soon as it arises is stored in the memory. I, identifying with the mind, (essentially ahankaara or ego) can recollect the stored knowledge from the memory. When I am doing my Ph.D. the current knowledge as it happens, is known by me, the current ahankaara. When I recollect the past knowledge stored in my memory, the ahankaara or pramaataa was different, hence the remembered knowledge belongs to past or remembered ahankaara. Thus we have now as though two ahankaaras – the present one who knows the present knowledge and the past one who knew the past knowledge. Now when I claim I was the one who studied from first grade to yesterdays Masters, I am the same one who is now doing Ph.D. we are essentially equating the past ahankaara with the present ahankaara. Both have different attributes. Yet the equation is done without any problem because there is one common factor, I am, which was at that time with a particular attributive mind or ahankaara and now with different attributive mind or ahankaara. In this identification of myself with the common I, I am dropping all the divergent attributes and only equating the essential I that was present at that time and present now. This common I is called pratyabhigna. In arriving at the common I, I am essentially using the bhaaga tyaaga lakshaNa as in the case of the example – this is that devadatta. This is what Krishna refers to in the 2nd chapter – dehino2sminyathaa dehe koumaaram youvanam jaraa| tathaa dehaantarapraaptiH, dheerasthatra na muhyati|| - I am the same one with child BMI, then the youth BMI, now with mature BMI – and Krishna extends this further to life after life- every time with a chidaabhaasa, with a subtle body reflecting the consciousness that I am. Now when make a statement identifying myself with the pratyabhigna or saakshii chaitanya, as I was the one who went through grade 1 to Masters and now doing Ph.D. equating the past ahankaara with the present ahankaara by dropping all the attributives of each ahankaara equating only the essence or substantive, I am identifying myself with the saakshii. Who is doing that? Again, it is ahankaara only that is making about his pramaataa status in the past and in the present too. This is because saakshii is pure saakshii or witnessing consciousness, ever present and it witnesses even these claims that I am making now as .. when I was child I did this, and when I was a youth I did this, and now when I am mature I am doing this, etc. In claiming that I am a saakshii also it is re-cognition of oneness of I am that is involved by its very presence, but appearing as though with pervasive operation by attributive ahankaara(s). We have to be clear in this since ahankaara operates at different levels of understanding. Even in jnaani, there is ahankaara that has to operate but his ahankaara is like snake whose fangs have been removed. We become paanaga bhuushaNa where ego becomes an ornamental snake to decorate around the neck but dare not even hiss without our permission– chidaananda ruupaH sivoham sivoham. Who makes those claims? It is ahankaara only by identifying temporarily for the purposes of transactions with the objective mind. Thus cognized ahankaara is the present one, remembered ahankaara is the past one and but re-cognition of oneness of ahankaara in the past and the present and ever present is the saakshii that I am. Self re-cognition or self realization involves recognition that I am ever present as saakshii in all transactions without myself involved where transactions are done with identification with BMI. Without transactions no knowledge can take place as we discussed before, but the self-knowledge involves recognition of the existent consciousness as saakshii – that is the meaning of tvam – arrived at by bhaagatyaaga lakshaNa. One who recognizes is not saakhii but ahankaara only but the one whose fangs have been removed by purification process or sadhana chatuShTayam. Hari Om! Sadananda From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Sun Dec 13 06:37:56 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 07:37:56 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari - 47 Message-ID: *Sivaanandalahari - 47* शंभुध्यान-वसन्त-संगिनि हृदारामेऽघजीर्णच्छदा: स्रस्ता भक्‍तिलताच्छटा विलसिता: पुण्यप्रवाल-श्रिता: । दीप्यन्ते गुणकोरका जपवच: पुष्पाणि सद्वासना ज्ञानानन्द-सुधा-मरन्द-लहरी संवित्फलाभ्युन्‍नति: ॥ ४७ ॥ SaMBudhyAna-vasanta-saMgini hRudArAme&ghajIrNacChadA: srastA Bak^tilatAcChaTA vilasitA: puNyapravAla-SritA: | dIpyante guNakorakA japavacha: puShpANi sadvAsanA j~jAnAnanda-sudhA-maranda-laharI saMvitphalAByun^nati: || 47 || During the spring season, in the garden of the heart, the old leaves of sin fall off, cluster of the creepers of Bhakti ( devotion) shine beautifully, leaves of Punya ( good actions) sprout, the buds of virtues, the flowers of meditation and utterance of mantras, the fragrance of goodness, the flood of honey like ambrosia of the joy of knowledge and the fruit of experience of knowledge glow. * Commentary* sambudhyaanavasanthasangini = sambhudhyaanam known as vasantha ruthu; hrudhaaraamE = the garden known as the mind; srasthaa = that have fallen or been shed; agajeerNacchadhaa; = the dried up leaves known as paapa; vilaasithaa: = and those that are shining; puNyapravaalasrithaa: = and those shoots known as puNya; bhakthilathaacchataa: = those creepers called bhakthi; guNakOrakaa: = the buds called guna; japavacha: pushpaaNi = the flowers known as the words of japa; sadhvaasanaa: =the karmas known as the sweet smell; gnaanaanandasudhaamaraandhalahari = the flood of the nectar known as gnaanam, aanandham, amritham; samvithphalaabyunnathi: = the fruits known as brahmagnaanam; deepyanthE = are shining. In this slOka the mind is compared to a garden if only Sambhu's dhyaanam is kept in there. How will the garden be with the dhyaanam of Sambu? It will be like the one in vasantha ruthu where you see the dried up leaves of paapa, the shining leaves and new shooting leaves called punYa, the creepers called bhakthi, the flower buds called guNa, the flowers themselves called japa, the sweet smell called the karmas, the flood of makarantham called gnaanam, aanandam and amritham and finally the fruit called the brahmagnaanam. (I am reminded of Thyagaraja Bhagavathar's old song "வசந்த ருது மனமோஹனமே!) According to the saasthra 'bahoonaam janmanaamanthE sivabhakthi: prajaayathE' sambhudhyaanam takes place only when one has done puNyas in innumerable births. Not at all with one or two janmas. Because of such mountain of punyas the vasantha ruthu called sambhudhyaanam takes place in the praaNi's garden called the mind. when that happens, the paapas accruing from the fault of non-performance of nithya karmas and those gathered by the performance of nishiddha karmas are uprooted and destroyed. Because of this the praaNi's become prone to doing those punya karmas that are of shining nature. Moreover they become disposed to bhakthi maarga. They become possesed of such guNas as speaking the truth, doing dharma, conforming to aachaaram, performing karmas sanctioned by the sruthi etc. Moreover they do mahaamanthra japam and chant loudly of manthra's swaroopam in their slOkas. And in the end they enjoy sivaanandham that lets out the pravaaham of the rasas such as gnaanam, aanandham and amrutham. The root cause of all these is only sambhudhyaanam. Also let us enjoy the swaarasyam of the varNana of showing the mind as the garden and the bhakthi as the creeper. By showing the mind as the garden we reckon that the garden is one but the creepers there are many. So it is clear that there are many creepers and each of them expands exponentially. Wen the vasantha ruthu called sambhudhyaanam takes place in the mind there is an explosion of the creepers called bhakthi. Sometimes these sambhudhyaanaparas would be serving mahaans; sometimes they may be drinking sivaamrutham; sometimes they may be visiting the kshethras to have dharsanam of mangala vigrahas; sometimes they be doing sivaarchanas and sometimes they may be doing saashtaanga namaskaaram in lingamoorthy's sannidhi. These are the many ways of the bhakthi they may resort to. In the end they have their layam in Paramasiva. Anyone who says this sloka and do namaskaaram in Sivasannidhi will find their mind attaining its layam in Siva. Aum Namasivaya. From shakthi.prashanth at ymail.com Mon Dec 14 04:30:31 2009 From: shakthi.prashanth at ymail.com (Shakthi Prashanth) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:00:31 +0530 (IST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Rigvedic text Message-ID: <302740.51755.qm@web95116.mail.in2.yahoo.com> Can anybody tell me what is the meaning of this Rigvedic text. NISHUSEEDA GANAPATHE GANESHU TWAAM AAHU; RVI PRATHAMAM KAVEENAM NA RUTHE TWAT KRIYATHE KINCHAARE MAHA MARKAM MAGHAVAN CHITRA MARCHA Regards, Shakthi ["Blackle.com - Saving energy one search at a time"] The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. http://in.yahoo.com/ From sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com Mon Dec 14 06:31:42 2009 From: sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com (Sunil Bhattacharjya) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 04:31:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <762140.4321.qm@web32703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Michael,   With the help of a friend I could read the papers presented in the above Conference. The gist is as follows.   Western scholars suggested the year 788 CE. Max Muller did that from his AIT Chronology. Dr. Fergusson supported that in his book "History Ofg India". Prof. Webb suggested tyhe 8th century CR in his "History of Indian Literature" C.P.Tiele in "Outlibes of History of religions"  and Barth in "Indian Antiquary (Vol. XIII) referred to an inscription from Cambodia to suggest the same based on guesswork. Some Indian scholars supported the 788 CE date thinking that Dignaga and Dharmakirti were living in the 6th and the 7th century CE and they saw that  there are slokas in the Sutrabhashya which are the same as given  in the works of Dignaga and Dharmakirti. . The scholars  were wrong in their dates of Dignaga and Dharmakirti.   There citations of  many proofs such as the Tamrasasana of Sudhanva to arrive at the date of 509 BCE.   It is interesting to note that the Dwaraka peeth said that their first pontiff was Brahmaswarupacharya and that the first Pontiff at sringeri was Hastamalaka. Incidentally Hastamalaka hailed from Gokarna which is not very far from Sringeri. So it appears that Sureshwaracharya was kept free for the Kanchi Kamakoti peeth.   I wish the Sringeri peeth should come out with a scholarly paper in support of their date of Adi Sankaracharya. Alberuni's mention of the works of Bhaskaracharyta seems to suggest the exoistencve of one earlier Saka kala.   Regards,   Sunil           --- On Thu, 12/10/09, Michael Shepherd wrote: From: Michael Shepherd Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi To: sivasenani at yahoo.com, "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" Date: Thursday, December 10, 2009, 6:18 AM Dear Sri Senani Let me say at once : Sanskrit and Vedic grammar before it are the oldest, most subtle, and most universal grammar in the world; and thus, Sanskrit explanations of Sanskrit grammar will be far more advanced than anything that English-speaking grammarians have inherited from earlier simplifications by earlier generations, fossilized in book form ! And grammar itself is transcendental, so beyond any human interpretation, living purely in its causes and effects ! So take everything I say with a large pinch of organic sea-salt... However, John Grimes, of the 'Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy', is an acknowledge scholar, studying, teaching and moving between the US and India now for many years; so I tend to favour his 'thumbnail' definitions as a broad consensus. 'Atman-' like swa, is normally given as another form of reflexive along with -asmi. So I bow to the pundits in all this-- if they agree among themselves :) Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of sivasenani at yahoo.com Sent: 10 December 2009 13:03 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi Dear Sri Michael and Sri Jaladhar I meant to look up a few references after reading your statement that asmi is a pronominal suffix but could not. I know it is too basic for either of you but would it be possible to supply an authority to back up this view? My own understanding is that 'aham brahma' is exactly the same as 'aham brahmaasmi' or 'brahmaasmi'. The way I remember to have learnt, forms of 'as' and 'bhu' have to be often supplied by the reader. They are 'adhyaahritas'. For instance in 'prajnaanam brahma' or 'ayam aatmaa brahma' an 'asti' is implicit (or in satyam jnaanam anantam brahma); or to take a counter example, the 'asi' in tattvamasi does not reflect back on the subject nor does it intensify. If one were to take examples involving the uttama purusha only, dhanyo'ham is exactly the same as dhanyo'smi. If emphasis is required 'vai' (in the older language) and 'eva' in the more recent period) do the job ('ahameva maam juhomi svaahaa' a mantra taught in Sri Vidya is an example). Sometimes aatma is repeated as in the Gita teaching about the Self itself uplifting the Self. In the example given by Sri Michael, the being in third person (prathama purusha) asmi has no place either as a verb or a pronominal suffix. If we were to make the King to convey that sense, he would in most places in Sanskrit literature use 'aatmaanam' Best regards Senani Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel -----Original Message----- From: "Michael Shepherd" Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:37:30 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi Anant Since you ask :) Aham brahmasmi means literally (in that unsatisfactory 'Sanglish' or 'Engskrit' language of translation !) 'I-awareness('am-ness') am Brahman myself'. Aham is a pronoun and verb joined as 'I am'. The 'pronominal suffix 'asmi' can carry either of two meanings : ' as in 'The king cut himself while shaving'; or in 'The king himself joined the battle'. The first meaning is 'reflexive' -- an action done to oneself; the second, also labelled 'reflexive' (and less discussed in Vedic and Sanskrit grammar) is used more as an 'intensive' like 'Indeed true'. Why, you reasonably ask, add the 'asmi' ? Perhaps 'Aham Brahman' might be taken out of context to suggest that Brahman is asserting His existence ! So this is a reminder that I myself, you yourself, he himself, she herself, is indeed that Brahman -- not two other guys *!* (It's extended in the vakya 'ayam atmaBrahma, sarva nu bhu') The four 'mahavakya' are indeed four aspects, four views from different positions, of the essential concept of Advaita Vedanta. The fact that they are displayed on the four compass sides of the inner courtyard of a math indicates that they are considered worthy to be contemplated individually and together ! You could say that of the four mahavakya, one is addressed to the first person; another to the second person; another is 'impersonal'; and the fourth doesn't address the person at all, but is simply a statement about consciousness itself being universal as Brahman.. Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of Somayaji, Ananth Sent: 10 December 2009 11:19 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi I see another issue with this : Assuming that aham is an adjective qualification to Brahman, it brings about the existence of another Brahman albeit Ham-Brahman. It would bring about duality inside Mahavakya. Thoughts ? The other things to consider is that in none of the other Mahavakyas we have any adjective to the Brahman : Tatvamasi, Pragyanam Brahma etc. Can some one correct me if I am wrong ? -Ananth -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org] On Behalf Of Raghav Kumar Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 02:42 PM To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi well sir, first take the sentence brahma asmi that is  a mahavakya complete and accurate in itself. the verb 'asmi' implies  the first person singular anyway even without 'aham' now therefore aham can be taken as an adjective qualifying brahma since both the words aham and brahma are  neuter singular nouns. therefore  it aham-brahma asmi isgrammaticaly ok. athough the interpretation itself is something novel. i have never come across it. On 12/10/09, sthanunathan Ramakrishnan wrote: > > Dear Shakthi, > >            I have one problem with your interpretation. I do not know if > "ham" means rejectable. But assuming it is, the statement should be > "Aham Brahma Asthi" (to get the meaning you intend, that is the "Non > Rejectable is the greatest") and not "Aham Brahma Asmi", because "Asmi" is > in the first person and "Asthi" would be in the third person. > >   Folks, Please correct me if Iam wrong. Iam just taking my baby steps in > learning sanskrit. > > regards > Sthanu > > > But I have also heard an interpretation like this: > > > > "Aham Brahmasmi" > > ham - means reject-able ? ? ? ? ?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Aham - means Non-reject-able?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Brahma - Greatest??????????????????? [in Sanskrit.] > > > > So, it comes to a conclusion that, > > The one which is Non-reject-able? is the Greatest. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:34:04 +0530 (IST) > > From: Shakthi Prashanth > > Subject: [Advaita-l] Fw: RE: Query [continued] > > To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org > > Message-ID: <843026.39194.qm at web95104.mail.in2.yahoo.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > > > Hi All, > > > > Thank you so much for such a great response from all of > > you. > > > > But I have also heard an interpretation like this: > > > > "Aham Brahmasmi" > > ham - means reject-able ? ? ? ? ?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Aham - means Non-reject-able?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Brahma - Greatest??????????????????? [in Sanskrit.] > > > > So, it comes to a conclusion that, > > The one which is Non-reject-able? is the Greatest. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk Mon Dec 14 07:02:33 2009 From: michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk (Michael Shepherd) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:02:33 -0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 In-Reply-To: <762140.4321.qm@web32703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Sunil, Thank you for that summary. It seems more of a discussion than a conclusion ! As I understand it, there is an interdependent question of dating, involving Adi Shankara's indication of Gaudapada of the Karika as his'grand-guru' and teacher of his teacher Govinda. There is some belief that Gaudapada could be dated by his references to Buddhist teachings. And does 'grand-guru' mean three succeeding generations, or a 'gurudom' across a longer period than a lifetime ? Some read Adi Shankara as having met Gaudapada in person. I believe Swami Dayananda may have clearer views on this, judging from his disciple Michael Comans' well-argued book on 'The Method of Early Advaita Vedanta'. And no doubt Professor Sharma of Delhi University has come to his own conclusions ? Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of Sunil Bhattacharjya Sent: 14 December 2009 12:32 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October,2002 Dear Michael,   With the help of a friend I could read the papers presented in the above Conference. The gist is as follows.   Western scholars suggested the year 788 CE. Max Muller did that from his AIT Chronology. Dr. Fergusson supported that in his book "History Ofg India". Prof. Webb suggested tyhe 8th century CR in his "History of Indian Literature" C.P.Tiele in "Outlibes of History of religions"  and Barth in "Indian Antiquary (Vol. XIII) referred to an inscription from Cambodia to suggest the same based on guesswork. Some Indian scholars supported the 788 CE date thinking that Dignaga and Dharmakirti were living in the 6th and the 7th century CE and they saw that  there are slokas in the Sutrabhashya which are the same as given  in the works of Dignaga and Dharmakirti. . The scholars  were wrong in their dates of Dignaga and Dharmakirti.   There citations of  many proofs such as the Tamrasasana of Sudhanva to arrive at the date of 509 BCE.   It is interesting to note that the Dwaraka peeth said that their first pontiff was Brahmaswarupacharya and that the first Pontiff at sringeri was Hastamalaka. Incidentally Hastamalaka hailed from Gokarna which is not very far from Sringeri. So it appears that Sureshwaracharya was kept free for the Kanchi Kamakoti peeth.   I wish the Sringeri peeth should come out with a scholarly paper in support of their date of Adi Sankaracharya. Alberuni's mention of the works of Bhaskaracharyta seems to suggest the exoistencve of one earlier Saka kala.   Regards,   Sunil           --- On Thu, 12/10/09, Michael Shepherd wrote: From: Michael Shepherd Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi To: sivasenani at yahoo.com, "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" Date: Thursday, December 10, 2009, 6:18 AM Dear Sri Senani Let me say at once : Sanskrit and Vedic grammar before it are the oldest, most subtle, and most universal grammar in the world; and thus, Sanskrit explanations of Sanskrit grammar will be far more advanced than anything that English-speaking grammarians have inherited from earlier simplifications by earlier generations, fossilized in book form ! And grammar itself is transcendental, so beyond any human interpretation, living purely in its causes and effects ! So take everything I say with a large pinch of organic sea-salt... However, John Grimes, of the 'Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy', is an acknowledge scholar, studying, teaching and moving between the US and India now for many years; so I tend to favour his 'thumbnail' definitions as a broad consensus. 'Atman-' like swa, is normally given as another form of reflexive along with -asmi. So I bow to the pundits in all this-- if they agree among themselves :) Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of sivasenani at yahoo.com Sent: 10 December 2009 13:03 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi Dear Sri Michael and Sri Jaladhar I meant to look up a few references after reading your statement that asmi is a pronominal suffix but could not. I know it is too basic for either of you but would it be possible to supply an authority to back up this view? My own understanding is that 'aham brahma' is exactly the same as 'aham brahmaasmi' or 'brahmaasmi'. The way I remember to have learnt, forms of 'as' and 'bhu' have to be often supplied by the reader. They are 'adhyaahritas'. For instance in 'prajnaanam brahma' or 'ayam aatmaa brahma' an 'asti' is implicit (or in satyam jnaanam anantam brahma); or to take a counter example, the 'asi' in tattvamasi does not reflect back on the subject nor does it intensify. If one were to take examples involving the uttama purusha only, dhanyo'ham is exactly the same as dhanyo'smi. If emphasis is required 'vai' (in the older language) and 'eva' in the more recent period) do the job ('ahameva maam juhomi svaahaa' a mantra taught in Sri Vidya is an example). Sometimes aatma is repeated as in the Gita teaching about the Self itself uplifting the Self. In the example given by Sri Michael, the being in third person (prathama purusha) asmi has no place either as a verb or a pronominal suffix. If we were to make the King to convey that sense, he would in most places in Sanskrit literature use 'aatmaanam' Best regards Senani Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel -----Original Message----- From: "Michael Shepherd" Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:37:30 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi Anant Since you ask :) Aham brahmasmi means literally (in that unsatisfactory 'Sanglish' or 'Engskrit' language of translation !) 'I-awareness('am-ness') am Brahman myself'. Aham is a pronoun and verb joined as 'I am'. The 'pronominal suffix 'asmi' can carry either of two meanings : ' as in 'The king cut himself while shaving'; or in 'The king himself joined the battle'. The first meaning is 'reflexive' -- an action done to oneself; the second, also labelled 'reflexive' (and less discussed in Vedic and Sanskrit grammar) is used more as an 'intensive' like 'Indeed true'. Why, you reasonably ask, add the 'asmi' ? Perhaps 'Aham Brahman' might be taken out of context to suggest that Brahman is asserting His existence ! So this is a reminder that I myself, you yourself, he himself, she herself, is indeed that Brahman -- not two other guys *!* (It's extended in the vakya 'ayam atmaBrahma, sarva nu bhu') The four 'mahavakya' are indeed four aspects, four views from different positions, of the essential concept of Advaita Vedanta. The fact that they are displayed on the four compass sides of the inner courtyard of a math indicates that they are considered worthy to be contemplated individually and together ! You could say that of the four mahavakya, one is addressed to the first person; another to the second person; another is 'impersonal'; and the fourth doesn't address the person at all, but is simply a statement about consciousness itself being universal as Brahman.. Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of Somayaji, Ananth Sent: 10 December 2009 11:19 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi I see another issue with this : Assuming that aham is an adjective qualification to Brahman, it brings about the existence of another Brahman albeit Ham-Brahman. It would bring about duality inside Mahavakya. Thoughts ? The other things to consider is that in none of the other Mahavakyas we have any adjective to the Brahman : Tatvamasi, Pragyanam Brahma etc. Can some one correct me if I am wrong ? -Ananth -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org] On Behalf Of Raghav Kumar Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 02:42 PM To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi well sir, first take the sentence brahma asmi that is  a mahavakya complete and accurate in itself. the verb 'asmi' implies  the first person singular anyway even without 'aham' now therefore aham can be taken as an adjective qualifying brahma since both the words aham and brahma are  neuter singular nouns. therefore  it aham-brahma asmi isgrammaticaly ok. athough the interpretation itself is something novel. i have never come across it. On 12/10/09, sthanunathan Ramakrishnan wrote: > > Dear Shakthi, > >            I have one problem with your interpretation. I do not know if > "ham" means rejectable. But assuming it is, the statement should be > "Aham Brahma Asthi" (to get the meaning you intend, that is the "Non > Rejectable is the greatest") and not "Aham Brahma Asmi", because "Asmi" is > in the first person and "Asthi" would be in the third person. > >   Folks, Please correct me if Iam wrong. Iam just taking my baby steps in > learning sanskrit. > > regards > Sthanu > > > But I have also heard an interpretation like this: > > > > "Aham Brahmasmi" > > ham - means reject-able ? ? ? ? ?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Aham - means Non-reject-able?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Brahma - Greatest??????????????????? [in Sanskrit.] > > > > So, it comes to a conclusion that, > > The one which is Non-reject-able? is the Greatest. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:34:04 +0530 (IST) > > From: Shakthi Prashanth > > Subject: [Advaita-l] Fw: RE: Query [continued] > > To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org > > Message-ID: <843026.39194.qm at web95104.mail.in2.yahoo.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > > > Hi All, > > > > Thank you so much for such a great response from all of > > you. > > > > But I have also heard an interpretation like this: > > > > "Aham Brahmasmi" > > ham - means reject-able ? ? ? ? ?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Aham - means Non-reject-able?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Brahma - Greatest??????????????????? [in Sanskrit.] > > > > So, it comes to a conclusion that, > > The one which is Non-reject-able? is the Greatest. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Mon Dec 14 08:00:17 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:00:17 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari - 48 Message-ID: नित्यानन्द-रसालयं सुरमुनि -स्वान्तांबु-जाताश्रयं *Sivaanandalahari - 48* स्वच्छं सद्‌द्विज-सेवितं कलुषहृत्-सद्वासनाविष्कृतम् । शंभुध्यान-सरोवरं व्रज मनो हंसावतंस-स्थिरं किं क्षुद्राश्रय-पल्वल-भ्रमण-संजात-श्रमं प्राप्स्यसि ॥ ४८ ॥ nityAnanda-rasAlayaM suramuni -svAntAMbu-jAtASrayaM svacChaM sad^^dvija-sevitaM kaluShahRut-sadvAsanAviShkRutam | SaMbhudhyAna-sarovaraM vraja mano haMsAvataMsa-sthiraM kiM kShudrASraya-palvala-bhramaNa-saMjAta-SramaM prApsyasi || 48 || Attain permanently the lake of meditation on Shiva, which is full of water of eternal happiness, which is residence of the lotus of Devas and Rishis, thronged by the birds of Sadhus, which washes the dirt of sins and brings out the fragrance of good actions ( PuNya). Oh the swan of mind why are you undergoing the trouble in the small tank of mundane services? *Commentary *hE manOhamsaavathamsa = O! Mind that is the superior Annapakshi! nithyaanandharasaalayam = the abode of the nithyaanandha sivaanandha jalam; suramuniswaanthaambujaathaasrayam = the abode of the flowers that are the minds of the devas and the munis; swaccham = of nirmalam; sadwijasEvitham = of being worshipped by the great swans of the Brahmanas; kalushahruth = of being the remover of the dirt called paapas; sthiram = of being permanent; sambhudhyaanasarOvaram = of being the lake of sambudhyaanam; vraja = reach; kshudhraasrayapalvalabramaNasanjaathasramam = of the trouble of remaining in the meagerly useful puddle kim = why?; praapsyasi = attain. Hey! Mind that is like the princely swan! Without knowing what is the real thathwam you are roaming in unknown places. ( I am reminded of Kannadasan's "இருக்கும் இடம் விட்டு இல்லாத இடம் தேடி எங்கெங்கோ அலைகின்றாள் ஞானப்பெண்ணே!). Don't do that anymore. Let bygones be bygones. I am going to tell me some very important thathwas. Please listen to me with ekaagra chittha. Hey! Mind that is like the princely swan! I want you to get to this remarkable lake that is of endless sivaanandhajalam, that is of the abode of the mind-lotus of devas and muniswaraas, that lonely place which is pure light, that is swaprakaasa chithEkarasam, that is being worshipped by the swans who are the Brahmana srEshtaas desiring brahmagnaanam, that which has the capacity to remove even the worst paapas that do not have any praayaschittham, that which has no destruction but remains permanent in all the three kaalas called the past, the present and the future. Why do you have to rot in the dirty puddle serving the undeserving masters? Please ponder. The saasthras shouts at you for your attention with the words: "aabrahmabuvanaallOkaa: punaraavarthinOrjuna |" It drums to you the fact that all lOkas from BrahmalOka on meet with their destruction during the praLaya. Don't you know this? When those worlds are to be destroyed why are you worshipping those devathaas having domain over those lOkas? Atleast hereafter stop worshipping useless Gods. You should reach that lake (please note that AachaaryaaL calls it a lake and not a lOka to show that the praLayam cannot destroy the lake but can only merge into it!) that is Sambhu's Sivaanandhajalam who remains as the only devaasura poojyan and who can be known only through the vedas. The essence of this sloka is: Without frittering their minds into many objects and without dedicating to the many anya-devathaas whose ends are time bound, all praaNis should seriously indulge in the ekaagra dhyaana of Parameswara who is possessed of endless mahima. Then only can they enjoy the supreme MOkshaanandam. O! My mind! You soar like a swan! Please understand that there is nothing superior to Karunaamoorthy Parameswara. Only His paadhaabhja smaranam will give the limitless Aanandha. Kinowing this you should not surrender to the inferior devathaas. na yat vaca: citrapadam harE: yasa: jagat pavitram pragrueetha karhichith tat vaayasam theertthamusanthi maanasaa na yatra hamsaa niramanti usikshayaa: --Bhaagavatham (1.5.10) A puddle of water is akin to the abode of anya devathas. A puddle is a place where the crows (the small minded) visit but the swans (realized ones) go to the huge lake of Parameswara. Aum SambhO Mahaadeva! From svidyasankar at hotmail.com Mon Dec 14 09:07:26 2009 From: svidyasankar at hotmail.com (Vidyasankar Sundaresan) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 07:07:26 -0800 Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 In-Reply-To: <762140.4321.qm@web32703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: , <762140.4321.qm@web32703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Sri Bhattacharya, To your latest post, I can only say, here we go again! Let me be very, very emphatically clear about one thing. The Sringeri Peetham and people affiliated to it have published numerous very detailed, highly scholarly books, articles, journals, over the last two centuries. In particular, I am reminded on an article by a professor from Vikram University, Ujjain, about this very topic, in one of the Sringeri publications. Very comprehensive, very impartial and very well-written. If someone wants to do scholarly research, one of the first things to get out of the way is to do a literature search. There are so many resources available nowadays - general Google searches, Library of Congress catalog searches, many different university library searches etc. Before asking the Sringeri Peetham to publish scholarly articles and thereby implying that they are not doing so, please check the record. You will find a lot more scholarship and a lot less unnecessary controversy and tilting-at-windmills from Sringeri than from anywhere else. Let me also be very, very emphatically clear about another thing. For scholarly research in historical issues, a key necessity is to check the veracity and credibility of so-called sources. Mere vociferousness and volume of publication does not amount to anything. No matter what is claimed to be the record of this or that institution, a researcher needs to double-check with the said institutions about them. The views of the Dwaraka Sharadapeetham authorities about the other institutions, in particular the Kanchi Matha, are a matter of public record. These too can be easily checked. What, may I ask, is the source of this need to associate Suresvara with Kanchipuram, when there has been such a steadfast refusal by all the other original institutions to accept the Kanchi version of events? Let me ask a few pertinent questions here. 1. Is the date of Adi Sankaracharya dependent upon dates based on AIT? 2. What about Chinese and Tibetan sources? Buddhist Chinese pilgrims came to India and recorded many historical details. Did they also have an imperialist Western agenda, centuries before any Europeans came to rule India? 3. Has anyone seen the original copper-plate from the so-called king sudhanvA from 509 BC? What script was is recorded in and who deciphered it? After all, the evolution of the modern Nagari script from Brahmi is well-known. Unless you or the authors of these articles in conference proceedings are willing to address these issues head on, there is merely repetition of assumptions stated as if they were conclusions and not a critical scholarly discussion of any issue. Vidyasankar _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/ From michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk Mon Dec 14 10:03:04 2009 From: michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk (Michael Shepherd) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:03:04 -0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Sri Vidyasankar, You can blame me for this... I asked what conclusion that supposedly scholarly conference had come to... Regards, Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of Vidyasankar Sundaresan Sent: 14 December 2009 15:07 To: Advaita List Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 Dear Sri Bhattacharya, To your latest post, I can only say, here we go again! Let me be very, very emphatically clear about one thing. The Sringeri Peetham and people affiliated to it have published numerous very detailed, highly scholarly books, articles, journals, over the last two centuries. In particular, I am reminded on an article by a professor from Vikram University, Ujjain, about this very topic, in one of the Sringeri publications. Very comprehensive, very impartial and very well-written. If someone wants to do scholarly research, one of the first things to get out of the way is to do a literature search. There are so many resources available nowadays - general Google searches, Library of Congress catalog searches, many different university library searches etc. Before asking the Sringeri Peetham to publish scholarly articles and thereby implying that they are not doing so, please check the record. You will find a lot more scholarship and a lot less unnecessary controversy and tilting-at-windmills from Sringeri than from anywhere else. Let me also be very, very emphatically clear about another thing. For scholarly research in historical issues, a key necessity is to check the veracity and credibility of so-called sources. Mere vociferousness and volume of publication does not amount to anything. No matter what is claimed to be the record of this or that institution, a researcher needs to double-check with the said institutions about them. The views of the Dwaraka Sharadapeetham authorities about the other institutions, in particular the Kanchi Matha, are a matter of public record. These too can be easily checked. What, may I ask, is the source of this need to associate Suresvara with Kanchipuram, when there has been such a steadfast refusal by all the other original institutions to accept the Kanchi version of events? Let me ask a few pertinent questions here. 1. Is the date of Adi Sankaracharya dependent upon dates based on AIT? 2. What about Chinese and Tibetan sources? Buddhist Chinese pilgrims came to India and recorded many historical details. Did they also have an imperialist Western agenda, centuries before any Europeans came to rule India? 3. Has anyone seen the original copper-plate from the so-called king sudhanvA from 509 BC? What script was is recorded in and who deciphered it? After all, the evolution of the modern Nagari script from Brahmi is well-known. Unless you or the authors of these articles in conference proceedings are willing to address these issues head on, there is merely repetition of assumptions stated as if they were conclusions and not a critical scholarly discussion of any issue. Vidyasankar _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com Mon Dec 14 11:29:53 2009 From: sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com (Sunil Bhattacharjya) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:29:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 Message-ID: <746536.13490.qm@web32708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Dr. Vidyasankarji,   1) Everybody seems to agree that Adi Sankaracharya was born on the 14th year of the reign of Vikramaditya. The problem automatically arises in ascertaining who was this Vikramaitya. One paper presented in the conference refers to a minor rock inscription of Ashoka, where Vikramaitya has been mentioned, proving thereby that there was one , who lived before 4th century BCE. Why then the scholars have to lean towards the Chalukyan Vikramaitya? 2) One paper mentions about Alberuni's record on Bhaskaracharya, showing that Bhaskaracharya was referring to another Vikrama Samvat, which was in existence before the Vikrama Samvat of 57 BCE. One will naturally like to know why the Sringeri paath ignored this earlier Vikrama samvat. 3) Did the Sringeri authorities try to ascertain for themselves if the Sudhanva inscription is not reliable? If not done so far it may be better if they do so sooner than later.   4) The Conference papers are very exhaustive and some of the papers are in Hindi. I felt that any conference without the participation of the Sringeri math seems to be incomplete. It is only for this that I wished that there should a face to face confrontation to sort out the issue once for all.   5) Lastly would you like to let us know as to why the Sringeri authorities were earlier sticking to the date of  BCE for Adi Sankaracharya and dropped that later on.   6) Hiuen Tsing and the Chinese travelleres did not mention Dignaga an Dharmakirti and that does not nece3ssarily make Dignaga and Dharmakirti posterior to to Hiuen Tsang at all and I hope you will agree to this.   .   Regards,   Sunil K. Bhattacharjya   --- On Mon, 12/14/09, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote: From: Vidyasankar Sundaresan Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 To: "Advaita List" Date: Monday, December 14, 2009, 7:07 AM Dear Sri Bhattacharya, To your latest post, I can only say, here we go again! Let me be very, very emphatically clear about one thing. The Sringeri Peetham and people affiliated to it have published numerous very detailed, highly scholarly books, articles, journals, over the last two centuries. In particular, I am reminded on an article by a professor from Vikram University, Ujjain, about this very topic, in one of the Sringeri publications. Very comprehensive, very impartial and very well-written. If someone wants to do scholarly research, one of the first things to get out of the way is to do a literature search. There are so many resources available nowadays - general Google searches, Library of Congress catalog searches, many different university library searches etc. Before asking the Sringeri Peetham to publish scholarly articles and thereby implying that they are not doing so, please check the record. You will find a lot more scholarship and a lot less unnecessary controversy and tilting-at-windmills from Sringeri than from anywhere else. Let me also be very, very emphatically clear about another thing. For scholarly research in historical issues, a key necessity is to check the veracity and credibility of so-called sources. Mere vociferousness and volume of publication does not amount to anything. No matter what is claimed to be the record of this or that institution, a researcher needs to double-check with the said institutions about them. The views of the Dwaraka Sharadapeetham authorities about the other institutions, in particular the Kanchi Matha, are a matter of public record. These too can be easily checked. What, may I ask, is the source of this need to associate Suresvara with Kanchipuram, when there has been such a steadfast refusal by all the other original institutions to accept the Kanchi version of events? Let me ask a few pertinent questions here. 1. Is the date of Adi Sankaracharya dependent upon dates based on AIT? 2. What about Chinese and Tibetan sources? Buddhist Chinese pilgrims came to India and recorded many historical details. Did they also have an imperialist Western agenda, centuries before any Europeans came to rule India? 3. Has anyone seen the original copper-plate from the so-called king sudhanvA from 509 BC? What script was is recorded in and who deciphered it? After all, the evolution of the modern Nagari script from Brahmi is well-known. Unless you or the authors of these articles in conference proceedings are willing to address these issues head on, there is merely repetition of assumptions stated as if they were conclusions and not a critical scholarly discussion of any issue. Vidyasankar                           _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com Mon Dec 14 11:40:18 2009 From: sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com (Sunil Bhattacharjya) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:40:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 Message-ID: <361508.34769.qm@web32708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Michael,   Yes there was a chinese translation of Gauapada karika several centuries before 788 CE. As Gauapada was hardly a century or two before Adi Sankaracharya one paper seem to suggest that the date of 8th century CE for Adi Sankaracharya may not be reasonable.   Regards,   Sunil --- On Mon, 12/14/09, Michael Shepherd wrote: From: Michael Shepherd Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" Date: Monday, December 14, 2009, 5:02 AM Dear Sunil, Thank you for that summary. It seems more of a discussion than a conclusion ! As I understand it, there is an interdependent question of dating, involving Adi Shankara's indication of Gaudapada of the Karika as his'grand-guru' and teacher of his teacher Govinda. There is some belief that Gaudapada could be dated by his references to Buddhist teachings. And does 'grand-guru' mean three succeeding generations, or a 'gurudom' across a longer period than a lifetime ? Some read Adi Shankara as having met Gaudapada in person. I believe Swami Dayananda may have clearer views on this, judging from his disciple Michael Comans' well-argued book on 'The Method of Early Advaita Vedanta'. And no doubt Professor Sharma of Delhi University has come to his own conclusions ? Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of Sunil Bhattacharjya Sent: 14 December 2009 12:32 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October,2002 Dear Michael,   With the help of a friend I could read the papers presented in the above Conference. The gist is as follows.   Western scholars suggested the year 788 CE. Max Muller did that from his AIT Chronology. Dr. Fergusson supported that in his book "History Ofg India". Prof. Webb suggested tyhe 8th century CR in his "History of Indian Literature" C.P.Tiele in "Outlibes of History of religions"  and Barth in "Indian Antiquary (Vol. XIII) referred to an inscription from Cambodia to suggest the same based on guesswork. Some Indian scholars supported the 788 CE date thinking that Dignaga and Dharmakirti were living in the 6th and the 7th century CE and they saw that  there are slokas in the Sutrabhashya which are the same as given  in the works of Dignaga and Dharmakirti. . The scholars  were wrong in their dates of Dignaga and Dharmakirti.   There citations of  many proofs such as the Tamrasasana of Sudhanva to arrive at the date of 509 BCE.   It is interesting to note that the Dwaraka peeth said that their first pontiff was Brahmaswarupacharya and that the first Pontiff at sringeri was Hastamalaka. Incidentally Hastamalaka hailed from Gokarna which is not very far from Sringeri. So it appears that Sureshwaracharya was kept free for the Kanchi Kamakoti peeth.   I wish the Sringeri peeth should come out with a scholarly paper in support of their date of Adi Sankaracharya. Alberuni's mention of the works of Bhaskaracharyta seems to suggest the exoistencve of one earlier Saka kala.   Regards,   Sunil           --- On Thu, 12/10/09, Michael Shepherd wrote: From: Michael Shepherd Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi To: sivasenani at yahoo.com, "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" Date: Thursday, December 10, 2009, 6:18 AM Dear Sri Senani Let me say at once : Sanskrit and Vedic grammar before it are the oldest, most subtle, and most universal grammar in the world; and thus, Sanskrit explanations of Sanskrit grammar will be far more advanced than anything that English-speaking grammarians have inherited from earlier simplifications by earlier generations, fossilized in book form ! And grammar itself is transcendental, so beyond any human interpretation, living purely in its causes and effects ! So take everything I say with a large pinch of organic sea-salt... However, John Grimes, of the 'Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy', is an acknowledge scholar, studying, teaching and moving between the US and India now for many years; so I tend to favour his 'thumbnail' definitions as a broad consensus. 'Atman-' like swa, is normally given as another form of reflexive along with -asmi. So I bow to the pundits in all this-- if they agree among themselves :) Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of sivasenani at yahoo.com Sent: 10 December 2009 13:03 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi Dear Sri Michael and Sri Jaladhar I meant to look up a few references after reading your statement that asmi is a pronominal suffix but could not. I know it is too basic for either of you but would it be possible to supply an authority to back up this view? My own understanding is that 'aham brahma' is exactly the same as 'aham brahmaasmi' or 'brahmaasmi'. The way I remember to have learnt, forms of 'as' and 'bhu' have to be often supplied by the reader. They are 'adhyaahritas'. For instance in 'prajnaanam brahma' or 'ayam aatmaa brahma' an 'asti' is implicit (or in satyam jnaanam anantam brahma); or to take a counter example, the 'asi' in tattvamasi does not reflect back on the subject nor does it intensify. If one were to take examples involving the uttama purusha only, dhanyo'ham is exactly the same as dhanyo'smi. If emphasis is required 'vai' (in the older language) and 'eva' in the more recent period) do the job ('ahameva maam juhomi svaahaa' a mantra taught in Sri Vidya is an example). Sometimes aatma is repeated as in the Gita teaching about the Self itself uplifting the Self. In the example given by Sri Michael, the being in third person (prathama purusha) asmi has no place either as a verb or a pronominal suffix. If we were to make the King to convey that sense, he would in most places in Sanskrit literature use 'aatmaanam' Best regards Senani Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel -----Original Message----- From: "Michael Shepherd" Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:37:30 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi Anant Since you ask :) Aham brahmasmi means literally (in that unsatisfactory 'Sanglish' or 'Engskrit' language of translation !) 'I-awareness('am-ness') am Brahman myself'. Aham is a pronoun and verb joined as 'I am'. The 'pronominal suffix 'asmi' can carry either of two meanings : ' as in 'The king cut himself while shaving'; or in 'The king himself joined the battle'. The first meaning is 'reflexive' -- an action done to oneself; the second, also labelled 'reflexive' (and less discussed in Vedic and Sanskrit grammar) is used more as an 'intensive' like 'Indeed true'. Why, you reasonably ask, add the 'asmi' ? Perhaps 'Aham Brahman' might be taken out of context to suggest that Brahman is asserting His existence ! So this is a reminder that I myself, you yourself, he himself, she herself, is indeed that Brahman -- not two other guys *!* (It's extended in the vakya 'ayam atmaBrahma, sarva nu bhu') The four 'mahavakya' are indeed four aspects, four views from different positions, of the essential concept of Advaita Vedanta. The fact that they are displayed on the four compass sides of the inner courtyard of a math indicates that they are considered worthy to be contemplated individually and together ! You could say that of the four mahavakya, one is addressed to the first person; another to the second person; another is 'impersonal'; and the fourth doesn't address the person at all, but is simply a statement about consciousness itself being universal as Brahman.. Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of Somayaji, Ananth Sent: 10 December 2009 11:19 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi I see another issue with this : Assuming that aham is an adjective qualification to Brahman, it brings about the existence of another Brahman albeit Ham-Brahman. It would bring about duality inside Mahavakya. Thoughts ? The other things to consider is that in none of the other Mahavakyas we have any adjective to the Brahman : Tatvamasi, Pragyanam Brahma etc. Can some one correct me if I am wrong ? -Ananth -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org] On Behalf Of Raghav Kumar Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 02:42 PM To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi well sir, first take the sentence brahma asmi that is  a mahavakya complete and accurate in itself. the verb 'asmi' implies  the first person singular anyway even without 'aham' now therefore aham can be taken as an adjective qualifying brahma since both the words aham and brahma are  neuter singular nouns. therefore  it aham-brahma asmi isgrammaticaly ok. athough the interpretation itself is something novel. i have never come across it. On 12/10/09, sthanunathan Ramakrishnan wrote: > > Dear Shakthi, > >            I have one problem with your interpretation. I do not know if > "ham" means rejectable. But assuming it is, the statement should be > "Aham Brahma Asthi" (to get the meaning you intend, that is the "Non > Rejectable is the greatest") and not "Aham Brahma Asmi", because "Asmi" is > in the first person and "Asthi" would be in the third person. > >   Folks, Please correct me if Iam wrong. Iam just taking my baby steps in > learning sanskrit. > > regards > Sthanu > > > But I have also heard an interpretation like this: > > > > "Aham Brahmasmi" > > ham - means reject-able ? ? ? ? ?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Aham - means Non-reject-able?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Brahma - Greatest??????????????????? [in Sanskrit.] > > > > So, it comes to a conclusion that, > > The one which is Non-reject-able? is the Greatest. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:34:04 +0530 (IST) > > From: Shakthi Prashanth > > Subject: [Advaita-l] Fw: RE: Query [continued] > > To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org > > Message-ID: <843026.39194.qm at web95104.mail.in2.yahoo.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > > > Hi All, > > > > Thank you so much for such a great response from all of > > you. > > > > But I have also heard an interpretation like this: > > > > "Aham Brahmasmi" > > ham - means reject-able ? ? ? ? ?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Aham - means Non-reject-able?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Brahma - Greatest??????????????????? [in Sanskrit.] > > > > So, it comes to a conclusion that, > > The one which is Non-reject-able? is the Greatest. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From svidyasankar at hotmail.com Mon Dec 14 13:32:54 2009 From: svidyasankar at hotmail.com (Vidyasankar Sundaresan) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:32:54 -0800 Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 In-Reply-To: <746536.13490.qm@web32708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <746536.13490.qm@web32708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Sri Bhattacharjya, > 1) > Everybody seems to agree that Adi Sankaracharya was born on the 14th year of the reign of Vikramaditya. The problem automatically arises in ascertaining who was this Vikramaitya. One paper presented in the conference refers to a minor rock inscription of Ashoka, where Vikramaitya has been mentioned, proving thereby that there was one , who lived before 4th century BCE. Why then the scholars have to lean towards the Chalukyan Vikramaitya? > Surely, this minor Asokan rock-inscription vikramAditya has to be different from the famous vikramAditya from whom the vikrama samvat originates? Not everybody agrees to the 14th year of Vikramaditya date. This detail is found originally only in Sringeri records and a Tamil text called Kongu-desa Rajakkal, an account of the kings who ruled the Coimbatore region. Assigning the vikramAditya of this statement to the vikrama era results in a date in the 1st century BCE, not 509 BCE. This then caused scholars who studied the Sringeri list to assign close to 800 years for Suresvara. Given that Sringeri is geographically located in a region that was ruled by Chalukyas, and given that there were more than a few significant kings called Vikramaditya among the Chalukyas, who also often ruled over the Tamil speaking Coimbatore region, please tell me, why not lean towards that dynasty to make historical sense of the record? Especially note that the original statement is not about 14 vikrama samvat, but 14th year of the reign of Vikramaditya. I am sure you will be aware of the nuance here that can make a big difference to historical conclusions. >2) > One paper mentions about Alberuni's record on Bhaskaracharya, showing that Bhaskaracharya was referring to another Vikrama Samvat, which was in existence before the Vikrama Samvat of 57 BCE. One will naturally like to know why the Sringeri paath ignored this earlier Vikrama samvat. > This other vikrama samvat is an academic footnote, not one that is popularly followed in the country. Why should anyone who is merely giving dates as generally accepted pull out some arcane detail and peg their records on it? > 3) > Did the Sringeri authorities try to ascertain for themselves if the Sudhanva inscription is not reliable? If not done so far it may be better if they do so sooner than later. > No, the questions to be asked are the opposite - Who has seen this inscription? Where is it today? Without physical access to it, how can anyone gauge its reliability? The name sudhanvA as a king is found in the digivijaya texts, but Sringeri sources have never claimed to have any copper-plate inscription from him in their possession. The onus lies only on those who claim to have it, to produce it and get my earlier questions answered. Thousands of history and language scholars around the world would be interested in studying the original inscription, if it does exist. > 4) > The Conference papers are very exhaustive and some of the papers are in Hindi. I felt that any conference without the participation of the Sringeri math seems to be incomplete. It is only for this that I wished that there should a face to face confrontation to sort out the issue once for all. > That is because the issue of Sankara's date has indeed been sorted out once and for all, to the satisfaction of any right-minded scholar who is willing to look past the inter-maTha relationships and politics. It is being resurrected nowadays because of the emotive appeal of certain movements and the completely imaginary idea that a BCE date gives more authority to somebody than a more recent date. Most of the time, conferences such as these are organized to push certain very specific agendas, in order to "prove by assertion" and to "prove by repetition". They are not meant to engage in or present any meaningful scholarly research. Over the last twenty years, I am aware of at least three or four such "conferences" where the Sringeri Matha has never even been informed, let alone being invited to participate. This is because the Sringeri record is widely known and its non-affiliation with contemporary political movements is also widely known, and those who organize these "conferences" think they can marginalize any institution that does not concur with their political agendas. But I can safely say that these kinds of conferences, the people involved with them and their supposed "conclusions" will come and go, as per the prevailing political winds, but the Sringeri Matha and its tradition will continue for centuries as it has done for many centuries before today. And of the people who come and go, guess who they will turn to, when they need philosophical and monastic leadership whenever the need arises? The Sringeri Matha, again as has happened numerous times in the last few centuries! > 5) > Lastly would you like to let us know as to why the Sringeri authorities were earlier sticking to the date of BCE for Adi Sankaracharya and dropped that later on. > Please read Swami Tapasyananda's translation of the Madhaviya Sankaravijaya, where the translator quotes the letter sent by the Sringeri administration about this. Please note that Swami Tapasyananda belonged to the Ramakrishna Math. The Sringeri account has always been clear and this book is easily available to anyone who is interested in this topic. There is nothing anybody can add to that. > 6) > Hiuen Tsing and the Chinese travelleres did not mention Dignaga an Dharmakirti and that does not nece3ssarily make Dignaga and Dharmakirti posterior to to Hiuen Tsang at all and I hope you will agree to this. > Maybe, maybe not. A Buddhist pilgrim from China not mentioning Dharmakirti or Dignaga is like a historian of India not mentioning Nehru or Jinnah. However, the Chinese travelers do mention the names of others whom they met in their travels and also give numerous other details. These can be easily correlated with other details to draw an extensive network of relative chronology, with a few definite dates for some historical people. Regards, Vidyasankar _________________________________________________________________ Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222985/direct/01/ From michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk Mon Dec 14 13:33:37 2009 From: michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk (Michael Shepherd) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:33:37 -0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya inOctober, 2002 In-Reply-To: <361508.34769.qm@web32708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Sunil, I didn't know about the Chinese translation of the Karika -- often noted to have Buddhist terms and Buddhist sympathies, as if there was to Gaudapada's mind not so much to make issue about, between Hinduism and Buddhism at the time he wrote.. which reminds me of an 'unscholarly' but interesting question : when might there have been a 'divine necessity' for Adi Shankara's birth ? Some scholars say that he was writing at just the 'right' time to bring order to spiritual confusion and laxity in India.. and 'date' him by that. But since other scholars say that the Advaita schools had been in steady existence from centuries before Adi Shankara, was he so much the pioneer of Advaita, as the spokesman for a well-established school of great antiquity ? Interesting questions -- if ultimately, mere shadows of maya... Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of Sunil Bhattacharjya Sent: 14 December 2009 17:40 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya inOctober, 2002 Dear Michael,   Yes there was a chinese translation of Gauapada karika several centuries before 788 CE. As Gauapada was hardly a century or two before Adi Sankaracharya one paper seem to suggest that the date of 8th century CE for Adi Sankaracharya may not be reasonable.   Regards,   Sunil --- On Mon, 12/14/09, Michael Shepherd wrote: From: Michael Shepherd Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" Date: Monday, December 14, 2009, 5:02 AM Dear Sunil, Thank you for that summary. It seems more of a discussion than a conclusion ! As I understand it, there is an interdependent question of dating, involving Adi Shankara's indication of Gaudapada of the Karika as his'grand-guru' and teacher of his teacher Govinda. There is some belief that Gaudapada could be dated by his references to Buddhist teachings. And does 'grand-guru' mean three succeeding generations, or a 'gurudom' across a longer period than a lifetime ? Some read Adi Shankara as having met Gaudapada in person. I believe Swami Dayananda may have clearer views on this, judging from his disciple Michael Comans' well-argued book on 'The Method of Early Advaita Vedanta'. And no doubt Professor Sharma of Delhi University has come to his own conclusions ? Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of Sunil Bhattacharjya Sent: 14 December 2009 12:32 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October,2002 Dear Michael,   With the help of a friend I could read the papers presented in the above Conference. The gist is as follows.   Western scholars suggested the year 788 CE. Max Muller did that from his AIT Chronology. Dr. Fergusson supported that in his book "History Ofg India". Prof. Webb suggested tyhe 8th century CR in his "History of Indian Literature" C.P.Tiele in "Outlibes of History of religions"  and Barth in "Indian Antiquary (Vol. XIII) referred to an inscription from Cambodia to suggest the same based on guesswork. Some Indian scholars supported the 788 CE date thinking that Dignaga and Dharmakirti were living in the 6th and the 7th century CE and they saw that  there are slokas in the Sutrabhashya which are the same as given  in the works of Dignaga and Dharmakirti. . The scholars  were wrong in their dates of Dignaga and Dharmakirti.   There citations of  many proofs such as the Tamrasasana of Sudhanva to arrive at the date of 509 BCE.   It is interesting to note that the Dwaraka peeth said that their first pontiff was Brahmaswarupacharya and that the first Pontiff at sringeri was Hastamalaka. Incidentally Hastamalaka hailed from Gokarna which is not very far from Sringeri. So it appears that Sureshwaracharya was kept free for the Kanchi Kamakoti peeth.   I wish the Sringeri peeth should come out with a scholarly paper in support of their date of Adi Sankaracharya. Alberuni's mention of the works of Bhaskaracharyta seems to suggest the exoistencve of one earlier Saka kala.   Regards,   Sunil           --- On Thu, 12/10/09, Michael Shepherd wrote: From: Michael Shepherd Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi To: sivasenani at yahoo.com, "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" Date: Thursday, December 10, 2009, 6:18 AM Dear Sri Senani Let me say at once : Sanskrit and Vedic grammar before it are the oldest, most subtle, and most universal grammar in the world; and thus, Sanskrit explanations of Sanskrit grammar will be far more advanced than anything that English-speaking grammarians have inherited from earlier simplifications by earlier generations, fossilized in book form ! And grammar itself is transcendental, so beyond any human interpretation, living purely in its causes and effects ! So take everything I say with a large pinch of organic sea-salt... However, John Grimes, of the 'Concise Dictionary of Indian Philosophy', is an acknowledge scholar, studying, teaching and moving between the US and India now for many years; so I tend to favour his 'thumbnail' definitions as a broad consensus. 'Atman-' like swa, is normally given as another form of reflexive along with -asmi. So I bow to the pundits in all this-- if they agree among themselves :) Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of sivasenani at yahoo.com Sent: 10 December 2009 13:03 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi Dear Sri Michael and Sri Jaladhar I meant to look up a few references after reading your statement that asmi is a pronominal suffix but could not. I know it is too basic for either of you but would it be possible to supply an authority to back up this view? My own understanding is that 'aham brahma' is exactly the same as 'aham brahmaasmi' or 'brahmaasmi'. The way I remember to have learnt, forms of 'as' and 'bhu' have to be often supplied by the reader. They are 'adhyaahritas'. For instance in 'prajnaanam brahma' or 'ayam aatmaa brahma' an 'asti' is implicit (or in satyam jnaanam anantam brahma); or to take a counter example, the 'asi' in tattvamasi does not reflect back on the subject nor does it intensify. If one were to take examples involving the uttama purusha only, dhanyo'ham is exactly the same as dhanyo'smi. If emphasis is required 'vai' (in the older language) and 'eva' in the more recent period) do the job ('ahameva maam juhomi svaahaa' a mantra taught in Sri Vidya is an example). Sometimes aatma is repeated as in the Gita teaching about the Self itself uplifting the Self. In the example given by Sri Michael, the being in third person (prathama purusha) asmi has no place either as a verb or a pronominal suffix. If we were to make the King to convey that sense, he would in most places in Sanskrit literature use 'aatmaanam' Best regards Senani Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel -----Original Message----- From: "Michael Shepherd" Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:37:30 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi Anant Since you ask :) Aham brahmasmi means literally (in that unsatisfactory 'Sanglish' or 'Engskrit' language of translation !) 'I-awareness('am-ness') am Brahman myself'. Aham is a pronoun and verb joined as 'I am'. The 'pronominal suffix 'asmi' can carry either of two meanings : ' as in 'The king cut himself while shaving'; or in 'The king himself joined the battle'. The first meaning is 'reflexive' -- an action done to oneself; the second, also labelled 'reflexive' (and less discussed in Vedic and Sanskrit grammar) is used more as an 'intensive' like 'Indeed true'. Why, you reasonably ask, add the 'asmi' ? Perhaps 'Aham Brahman' might be taken out of context to suggest that Brahman is asserting His existence ! So this is a reminder that I myself, you yourself, he himself, she herself, is indeed that Brahman -- not two other guys *!* (It's extended in the vakya 'ayam atmaBrahma, sarva nu bhu') The four 'mahavakya' are indeed four aspects, four views from different positions, of the essential concept of Advaita Vedanta. The fact that they are displayed on the four compass sides of the inner courtyard of a math indicates that they are considered worthy to be contemplated individually and together ! You could say that of the four mahavakya, one is addressed to the first person; another to the second person; another is 'impersonal'; and the fourth doesn't address the person at all, but is simply a statement about consciousness itself being universal as Brahman.. Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of Somayaji, Ananth Sent: 10 December 2009 11:19 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi I see another issue with this : Assuming that aham is an adjective qualification to Brahman, it brings about the existence of another Brahman albeit Ham-Brahman. It would bring about duality inside Mahavakya. Thoughts ? The other things to consider is that in none of the other Mahavakyas we have any adjective to the Brahman : Tatvamasi, Pragyanam Brahma etc. Can some one correct me if I am wrong ? -Ananth -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org] On Behalf Of Raghav Kumar Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 02:42 PM To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi well sir, first take the sentence brahma asmi that is  a mahavakya complete and accurate in itself. the verb 'asmi' implies  the first person singular anyway even without 'aham' now therefore aham can be taken as an adjective qualifying brahma since both the words aham and brahma are  neuter singular nouns. therefore  it aham-brahma asmi isgrammaticaly ok. athough the interpretation itself is something novel. i have never come across it. On 12/10/09, sthanunathan Ramakrishnan wrote: > > Dear Shakthi, > >            I have one problem with your interpretation. I do not know if > "ham" means rejectable. But assuming it is, the statement should be > "Aham Brahma Asthi" (to get the meaning you intend, that is the "Non > Rejectable is the greatest") and not "Aham Brahma Asmi", because "Asmi" is > in the first person and "Asthi" would be in the third person. > >   Folks, Please correct me if Iam wrong. Iam just taking my baby steps in > learning sanskrit. > > regards > Sthanu > > > But I have also heard an interpretation like this: > > > > "Aham Brahmasmi" > > ham - means reject-able ? ? ? ? ?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Aham - means Non-reject-able?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Brahma - Greatest??????????????????? [in Sanskrit.] > > > > So, it comes to a conclusion that, > > The one which is Non-reject-able? is the Greatest. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:34:04 +0530 (IST) > > From: Shakthi Prashanth > > Subject: [Advaita-l] Fw: RE: Query [continued] > > To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org > > Message-ID: <843026.39194.qm at web95104.mail.in2.yahoo.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > > > Hi All, > > > > Thank you so much for such a great response from all of > > you. > > > > But I have also heard an interpretation like this: > > > > "Aham Brahmasmi" > > ham - means reject-able ? ? ? ? ?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Aham - means Non-reject-able?? [in Sanskrit.] > > Brahma - Greatest??????????????????? [in Sanskrit.] > > > > So, it comes to a conclusion that, > > The one which is Non-reject-able? is the Greatest. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com Mon Dec 14 20:26:24 2009 From: kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com (kuntimaddi sadananda) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:26:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Advaita-l] A perspective - 13 Message-ID: <615045.2260.qm@web56005.mail.re3.yahoo.com> tat tvam asi –IV In the last post we have applied bhaaga tyaaga lakshaNa to ahankaara that involves I am = this, where - this - is predominately identified with the Mind. Mind by itself is inert. Being subtle and, as though, in close proximity with consciousness, it reflects the light of consciousness and becomes sentient. This reflected consciousness is called chidaabhaasa. This reflected light from the mind, as though, illumines the thoughts that arise in the mind, when the mind comes in contact with objects of knowledge via pramANa or means of knowledge. Thus, inert mind takes the role of a pramaataa or knower of the thoughts. Actually, it is I that enlivens the mind, and this enlivened mind takes the role of pramaataa. This is the same as saying the little –i- the ego or ahankaara, which is same as chidaabhaasa taking the role of pramaataa. Since mind keeps changing its attributes, we can say the attributive ahankaara also changes. This is reflected in the changes in our Bio-data, which is based on the changes of ahankaara or changes in - who am I. The present cognized ahankaara is the pramaataa or knower of subsequent cognitions in the mind, and what is being known by the process of jnaana prakriya or knowing process is subsequently stored in the memory. It is true that when I recollect or remember the past knowledge, I am identifying, as though, with the past ahankaara. Thus, we have past ahankaara or remembered ahankaara and the present ahankaara or cognized ahankaara. Now when I say, I am the same -I- with the remembered ahankaara which has different attributes and the same –I- with the present cognized ahankaara with new attributes, I am essentially discarding the attributive contents of the two pramaatas but only identifying or equating the one pervasive consciousness that I am. I am- is the enlivening factor and is present continuously in the past and in the present, but without any attributes of its own. The re-cognition of the ever existent and attributeless consciousness is the recognition of myself as I am. This is technically called pratyabhijna or saakshii or witnessing consciousness. The tricky part here is even the re-cognition of the saakshii is done not by saakshii, but by ahankaara only. The saakshii witnesses even this recognition process. We still call this as jnaanam, and one who has this understanding as jnaani, because this knowledge destroys the previous notions in the ahankaara that I am only a limited ahankaara with identifications with the changing BMIs. It is like looking at different images of mine is in different mirrors and re-cognizing in spite of differences in the apparent images I am the original I, realizing that images only look different due to differences in mirrors. Thus, clear understanding by the ahankaara in jnaani is that I am the unchanging ever illuming or ever present consciousness that I am, beyond this changing BMIs. Ahankaara is nothing but chidaabhaasa or reflected consciousness. Reflecting medium is required for reflection. Saakshii or witnessing consciousness cannot re-cognize itself, or put it correctly, need not have to re-cognize itself or realize itself. It is the all pervading consciousness ever present, one without a second; and therefore re-cognition has no meaning from the saakshii’s point. In fact, the saakshii role was, as though, assigned to –I am– only to explain the duality of perceiver and perceived or pramaataa and prameya. Thus with reference to saakshyam, I become a saakshii; otherwise I am pure all pervading consciousness that I am, one without a second. We will note later that when I recognize that I am saakshyam too in the understanding of the true meaning of –tat tvam asi – statement, then the relative roles of sakhii-sakshayam (binary format) or triangular format or triad or tripuTi involving pramaataa-prameya-pramANa – will remain only as relative, as long as the formatting upaadhis remain. However, in spite of these relative roles, understanding will be -I am pure sat-chit-ananda swaruupam and– all are in Me, but I am not in them. To be clear, this understanding takes place in the reflected consciousness or chidaabhaasa only or ahankaara only since saakshii by itself is even beyond any reflections too. Without the reflecting medium the re-cognition of myself or realization of myself or self-realization does not takes place. To put it succinctively, ahankaara has to recognize that I am the all pervading consciousness and not the limited ahankaara that I used to think that I am, while still enclosed within the upaadhis of BMI. This is what is referred to as upahita chaitanya. The pot-space analogy is used to explain this, as discussed before, where the pot-space, while remaining within the walls of the pot, recognizes that I am indeed the all pervading space, in spite of the apparent limitations, and even the pot-walls are in me, but I am not in the pot. Even the apparent pot walls also will be recognized as Me only, without breaking the pot-walls, when I understand the full implication of the tat tvam asi statement. Thus to say that jnaani does not have ahankaara is true only from the point of what we ajnaaniis understand what ahankaara means; but he -does utilize- the BMI equipments that involve chidaabhaasa or ahankaara to transact with the world, with clear understanding he is not limited by the limitations of the BMI as he is indeed all pervading consciousness that is one without a second. (Note: I am enclosing dash marks for those which should be put in within quotes since some formats are incompatible with yahoo-mails). The BMI will continue to have their problems as destined even for a jnaani. However, for jnaani there is no confusion in terms of the understanding level and the transactional level, just as a scientist understands that all materials are the same as they are made up of the same particles – electrons, protons and neutrons. Yet, he has no problem to transact differently with garbage vs. food or KCl (potassium chloride) vs. KCN (potassium cyanide). {There is a dvaitin who is teaching the scriptures including Brahmasuutras in Washington area, yet posts in the advaita discussion groups asking that if you believe in advaita, that says that everything is the same, why don’t you drink poison rather than milk. He says, then, we will know dvaita is more correct than advaita. The amusing part is he has written six or seven articles on adhyaasa criticizing Shankara’s adhyaasa bhaaShya and posted on the internet.} We found it is useless to make him understand that advaita includes dvaita as the very name implies, where dvaita is accepted at transactional level and is negated only from the absolute point since it is pure advaita, one without a second – advaitam, chaturtham manyante, sa aatma, sa vijneyaH – says Mandukya – the self that I am is advaitam, one without a second and that truth has to be realized by inquiry within. Thus using bhaaga tyaaga lakshaNa one understand that - I am - in the - I am that - statement stands for saakshii swaruupam. This makes us understand the subject in the mahaavaakya statement. Up to this understanding we do not really need scriptures and one can enquire using bhaaga tyaaga lakshaNa or tarka or logic to recognize I am the knowing principle or conscious entity and not the known objects which are inert. Thus everyone can realize that they are the witnessing consciousness(es) that are different from witnessed objects. This is where –who am I – enquiry can also lead to. This is direct and immediate and where all direct paths end up with. That leaves multiple consciousness(es), each is eternal, (some even say they are finite, yet all pervading, sarva gataH) different from prakRiti, the world of matter. Some subscribe to Iswara as creator and some are not. The Nyaaya, Vaisheshika, Sankhya, Yoga, puurva miimaamsa, dvaita, all come up to this point and claim that aatmaas are many and different from jagat and Iswara. VishiShTaadviata goes one step further and says that they are indeed many souls (each of atomic size, anupramaana), yet they are part of one all pervading paramaatma who is indweller (antaryaamin) of all. Souls and the inert universe are connected to him like organs of His body (organic relationship). They are dependent on Him while He is independent of them – sheSha-sheShii bhaava. Many souls remain even moksha, although finite, but yet can enjoy infinite happiness that Iswara enjoys, while, of course, serving Him. Thus even in moksha for all of them – there are jiiva-jiiva, jiiva-jagat, jagat-Iswara and jiiva-Iswara bhinnatvam or differences exist, while the scriptures say any speck of difference of any kind causes fear and samsaara – udaramantaram kurute atha tasya bhayam bhavati – says Tai. Up. None is afraid in deep sleep state since none of above differences exists. Hence scripture says that advaita alone is the fundamental truth, as one can experience in deep sleep state where all the problems are resolved, as there is no duality whatsoever, Mandukya Up. Therefore, only in advaita oneness of jiiva-jagat and Iswara is re-cognized through mahaavaakya statement of the scriptures. For this, Scripture alone becomes a soul source of pramANa – this cannot be established by logic – naiShaa tarkena matiraapaneya – says Katha. A teacher who has realized this truth can teach that but ultimately he has to rely for his reference only Sastra pramaaNa. Hence Shankara defines shraddhaa (loosely translated as faith) as shaastrasya guruvaakyasa satyabudhyaavadhaaraNaa – scriptural statements as explained by the teacher are indeed true – that conviction is shraddhaa. That is needed for self-realization, since there is no other way of knowing this oneness that is substantive of the jiiva-jagat and Iswara. Understanding the tat tvam asi statement: We have extensively analyzed the tvam padaartha or an entity when we say- I am – which is saakshii or witnessing consciousness in the proximity of which the mind gets enlivened and operate as an agent in all the transactions of the world – just the same way the Governments operate though their agents, starting from President, etc. Without the acting agents we can not identify what the government or where the government is. We have also discussed what the meaning of tat or that is. First it refers to the entire universe of objects, and second by means of scriptures it refers to Iswara, the creator, sustainer and destroyer of this universe. We will now analyze how ‘that’ pronoun includes both the existence and the consciousness aspects, which are the material and instrumental causes. That – refers to an object that we can point out, normally that which is outside the body. We say the object is, i.e. the object exists even without specifying any other attributes of the object that distinguishes that object from the rest of the objects in the universe. How can we say that the object is? For one thing, we are able to perceive it or know it by some means. Here is an important philosophical question –Is it that the object is, therefore we are able to perceive it, or we are able to perceive it, therefore the object is? Obviously it is the former, otherwise how can we perceive if it is not there. The later is said to be Vijnaana vaadin’s position (it is one of four Buddhistic philosophies that is criticized in Brahmasuutras II-28-32). Since we do not create the object and then perceive it, the object must exist for us to perceive – the object is part of Iswara sRiShTi. We will revise this statement little bit later, when we try to understand who that Iswara is. For the time being, let us assume that the object exists before we see it. We question now whether the existence of the object, specified by the word –it is-, is a part or a property of the object? To put it differently, where exactly the existence of the object is located in the object? If we look at the object which is on the table, the existence is outside the object too, since we say table is, and the existence should be there in the space surrounding the object and the table, as we say - space is. Obviously existence is there everywhere, in the object, in the table, in the space surrounding the two. Since space is everywhere or infinite and that infinite space is if we say, then existence must also infinite. There is no boundary for space and also no boundary for existence. (Before I proceed further, I must acknowledge Swami Paramarthanandaji for providing in a capsule form the essence of existence which can also be applied to consciousness). He presents this capsule as: 1. Existence principle is not a part, a product or a property of any object.. 2. Existence principle is an independent entity and lends existence to the object. 3. Existence principle is not limited by the boundaries of the object. 4. Existence principle survives ever after the end or demise of the object. 5. The surviving existence is imperceptible. Thus without the principle of existence the experience of the existence of any object is not possible. Bhagavaan Ramana says this in the first line of invocation sloka in Sat DarShanam as – sat pratyahaaH kinnu vihaaya santam – Without the principle of existence permeating the objects, there cannot be experience of any object. Without the gold there cannot be any experience of gold products such as ring, bangle or necklace, without the clay there is no experience of clay products and similarly without the existence there is no experience of any existent world of objects. Hence scripture says existence is a fundamental material cause for the universe. Ch. Up. 6th Chapter sat vidya. How can one know the existence? Pure existence is imperceptible just as empty space is imperceptible. Space itself exists because of existence. Nay, even I cannot exist without the principle of existence. In deep sleep state I alone am there, as existence without any perceptible objects including space and time etc. Thus even the infinite space comes and goes but the existence that I am there even in deep sleep state. If we are not going to exist in deep sleep state, then none of us would like to go to sleep. In fact every one of us looks forward for a good sleep where we can comfortably exist without any problems of the day. Some take sleeping pills and others drugs to get into this nirvikalpa state. Thus as the material cause of the universe, existence exists independent of any products but lends its existence to all objects in the universe. Thus the existence principle permeates both the subject I am as well as object that, where the pronoun –that- representing the entire universe of objects which exists. That existence principle that lends existence to myself the subject and the entire world of objects is an independent entity that survives even if the subject and object are removed. Just as gold permeates all its products and unaffected by the transformation of the products so is the existence that permeates both the subject and the object. Just as the ring, bangle, bracelet are just attributes superimposed on the gold as in ringly gold, bangly gold, etc, every object in the universe is nothing but attributes of the objects superimposed on the existence itself, which itself is division-less. Thus we can say ringly-golden existence, red-potty-clay existence, small-nailcuttery-irony existence, etc. It sounds horrible, since we are not able to perceive the existence other than existence that permeates in the form attributive products. We cannot transact with existence other than we should be existent to transact with the existent products. Krishna says this existence principle is eternal and it has no beginning or an end – naasato vidyate bhavo naabhaavo vidyate sataH – the which does not exist cannot come into existence and that which exists cannot cease to exist; thus law of conservation applied to the fundamental material cause of the universe – the principle of existence. Now looking from the point of existence which permeates or forms the substantive for jiiva-jagat and Iswara – the teacher Uddalaka says to his student – Swetaketu – aitadaatmya idam sarvam, tat satyam, sa aatma; tat tvam asi, Swetaketu. The entire universe is permeated by that existence principle and that you are. Thus the identity of I am with the existence principle that permeates the entire world of objects without any exception, idam sarvam. Hence I am is that existent conscious principle, that I am, and is in fact the substantive for all the universe of objects, says the scripture. In the –I am – the –I- stands for the conscious principle and the –am- stands for the existence principle. In Sanskrit the aham includes both principles as one. Thus from the point of existence itself which forms substantive material cause for the subject and the object, is indivisible and hence scriptures in the form of mahaavaakya says you are that or I am that. This existence principle is nothing but Brahman defined as satyam, jnaanam, anantam where the satyam stands for the principle of existence which is substantive for both the subject and the object – for both saakshii and saakshyam. It is one without a second since if there is a second that should exist, and therefore the existence should permeate the so-called second; leaving the second no more the second from the point of existence.. Thus I am that establishes the oneness that permeates both the - I am and that, the substantive for both the subject and the predicate. That is essence of tat tvam asi, from the point of existence principle. We next address from the point of principle of consciousness. Hari Om! Sadananda From srikanta at nie.ac.in Tue Dec 15 02:53:04 2009 From: srikanta at nie.ac.in (srikanta at nie.ac.in) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:53:04 -0000 (GMT) Subject: [Advaita-l] On the date of Adi Shankaracharya Message-ID: <38578.58.68.57.18.1260867184.squirrel@mail.nie.ac.in> with reference to the above,many karikas of Acharya Gaudapada is quoted in the Buddhist Texts,especially by Santarakshita.These have been quoted by them to their rival schools. N.Srikanta. From srikanta at nie.ac.in Tue Dec 15 02:53:41 2009 From: srikanta at nie.ac.in (srikanta at nie.ac.in) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:53:41 -0000 (GMT) Subject: [Advaita-l] On the date of Adi Shankaracharya Message-ID: <20512.58.68.57.18.1260867221.squirrel@mail.nie.ac.in> with reference to the above,many karikas of Acharya Gaudapada is quoted in the Buddhist Texts,especially by Santarakshita.These have been quoted by them to their rival schools. N.Srikanta. From michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk Tue Dec 15 04:45:24 2009 From: michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk (Michael Shepherd) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:45:24 -0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] On the date of Adi Shankaracharya In-Reply-To: <38578.58.68.57.18.1260867184.squirrel@mail.nie.ac.in> Message-ID: Sri Srikanta, I find that very interesting. It is not normally mentioned in commentaries that affirm Gaudapada as the effective founder, in his Mandukya Karika, of Advaita Vedanta concepts as passed down to us -- with Adi Shankara's own reservations. Do the Buddhist texts reveal anything more about Gaudapada which is relevant to Hinduism ? Regards, Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of srikanta at nie.ac.in Sent: 15 December 2009 08:53 To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org Subject: [Advaita-l] On the date of Adi Shankaracharya with reference to the above,many karikas of Acharya Gaudapada is quoted in the Buddhist Texts,especially by Santarakshita.These have been quoted by them to their rival schools. N.Srikanta. _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Tue Dec 15 09:15:20 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:15:20 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari - 49 Message-ID: *Sivaanandalahari - 49 *आनन्दामृत-पूरिता हरपदांभोजालवालोध्यता स्थैर्योपघ्न-मुपेत्य भक्तिलतिका शाखोपशाखान्विता । उच्छै-र्मानस-कायमान-पटली-माक्रम्य निष्कल्मषा नित्याभीष्ट-फलप्रदा भवतु मे सत्कर्म-संवर्धिता ॥ ४९ ॥ AnandAmRuta-pUritA harapadAMbhojAlavAlodhyatA sthairyopaghna-mupetya bhaktilatikA SAkhopaSAkhAnvitA | uchChai-rmAnasa-kAyamAna-paTalI-mAkramya niShkalmaShA nityAbhIShTa-phalapradA bhavatu me satkarma-saMvardhitA || 49 || Let the creeper of bhakti, which is watered by the bliss of nectar, growing at the lotus feet of Shiva, clinging firmly on to the branches of firm determination, giving out branches and sub branches spreading over the shed of mind and growing with out any blemish with the good deeds, give me the fruit of Mukti or salvation dear to my mind. *Commentary *aanandhaamruthapoorithaa = filled with the delightful amrutha jalam; harapadhaambhOjaalavaalOdhyathaa = shooting from the lotuses of the feet of ParamEswara; sthairyOpagnam = the staff that is permanent; upEdhya = holding to it; saakOpasaakaanvidhaa = having big and small branches; ucchairmaanasakaayamaanapataleem = the superior lattice of the mind; aakramya = occupying; nishkalmasha = devoid of dhOsham; sathkarmasamvardhithaa = growing rapidly due to past puNyas; bhakthilathika = the creeper called bhakthi; mE = to me; nithyaabheeshtapalapradhaa = that which is permanent and that gives the abheeshta mOksham; bhavathu = may it happen. In this stanza AachaaryaaL describes sivabhakthi as a creeper. It should be known that the root and base of this creeper called Sivabhakthi is saakshaath Lord of mahaakailash Sri Saambhasiva's paadhaabjam only. This root is soaked in the Sivaanandhajalam and so it remains so luscious! This creeper growing in the sivaanandhajalam slowly creeps up holding on to the kombu (pragnya) that there is no greater god than ParamEswara. At this time this creeper called sivabhakthi spreads on to the many branches, each one of which do different thing such as listening to the divya charithram of ParamEswara, singing ecstatic songs on the names of Paramasiva, meditating on the beginningless leelamangalam of ParamEswara, bowing to Him in aathmaprEma and so on. This way it spreads far and wide. Moreover, as said in sootha samhitha, sivaprasaadhEna vinaa na siddhi: sivaprasaadhEna vinaana mukthi: with firm conviction that for all sorts of srEyas it is important to have the prasaadham of ParamEswara this sivabhakthi creeper is spreading on the lattice called the mind. In this, because of poorva puNya, the creeper is devoid of all the dhOshas such as being diseased, dwarfed etc. So BhagavathpaadhaaL prays that this creeper should yield nithya abeeshta mOksha palan. Now let us understand the thathwam behind describing the mind as the lattice on which the bhakthi as the creeper is spreading. AachaaryaaL says: "ucchairmaanasakaayamaanapataleem". >From this we understand that the creeper (bhakthi) is one but the lattice (mind) is many! This is to denote the changing nature of the mind. Howsoever many the mind appears by its changing nature, it still has to be of superior guNa otherwise bhakthi may not spread on it. Also, the creeper being one in the end yields nithya abeeshta mOkshapalan as given in the Veda as 'ayamaathmaa brahma', 'pragyaanam brahma', 'thattwamasi', and 'aham brahmaasmi'. Besides, in sruthi, smrithi and ithihaasa-puraaNas proclaim that the mind as sarvotthama that has understood the essence of scriptures lie in saakshaath mahaamahimasaalini Sri Saambasiva only. That is why the lattice (mind) is described as most superior. Thus the import of this slOka is that this bhakthi (creeper) has to grow into jeeva-brahma aikyam in order to qualify itself as yielding endless aanandha. Whosoever sings this stanza and do namaskaaram will surely enjoy Paramasiva as his own aathmaswaroopam. Aum Nama Sivaaya. From shakthi.prashanth at ymail.com Wed Dec 16 01:33:52 2009 From: shakthi.prashanth at ymail.com (Shakthi Prashanth) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:03:52 +0530 (IST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Rigvedic text Message-ID: <127625.58089.qm@web95108.mail.in2.yahoo.com> Can anybody tell me what is the meaning of this Rigvedic text. [2] NISHUSEEDA GANAPATHE GANESHU TWAAM AAHU; RVI PRATHAMAM KAVEENAM NA RUTHE TWAT KRIYATHE KINCHAARE MAHA MARKAM MAGHAVAN CHITRA MARCHA Regards, Shakthi ["Blackle.com - Saving energy one search at a time"] The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. http://in.yahoo.com/ From makwanakb at googlemail.com Wed Dec 16 04:36:25 2009 From: makwanakb at googlemail.com (makwanakb at googlemail.com) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:36:25 +0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] Rigvedic text Message-ID: <447171820-1260959771-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-184232008-@bda098.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> Jai Siya Ram If you know what the reference for the verse is you could go to www.sacred-texts.com for a translation of the rig veda. Hope that helps. Krunal ------Original Message------ From: Shakthi Prashanth Sender: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta ReplyTo: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: [Advaita-l] Rigvedic text Sent: 16 Dec 2009 07:33 Can anybody tell me what is the meaning of this Rigvedic text. [2] NISHUSEEDA GANAPATHE GANESHU TWAAM AAHU; RVI PRATHAMAM KAVEENAM NA RUTHE TWAT KRIYATHE KINCHAARE MAHA MARKAM MAGHAVAN CHITRA MARCHA Regards, Shakthi ["Blackle.com - Saving energy one search at a time"] The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. http://in.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Wed Dec 16 05:09:36 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 06:09:36 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari - 50 Message-ID: *Sivaanandalahari - 50 (1) *सन्ध्यारंभ-विजृंभितं श्रुतिशिरस्थानान्त-राधिष्ठितं सप्रेम-भ्रमराभिराम-मसकृत् सद्वासना-शोभितम् । भोगीन्द्राभरणं समस्त-सुमन:-पूज्यं गुणाविष्कृतं सेवे श्रीगिरि-मल्लिकार्जुन-महालिंगं शिवालिंगितम् ॥ ५० ॥ sandhyAraMbha-vijRuMbhitaM SrutiSirasthAnAnta-rAdhiShThitaM saprema-bhramarAbhirAma-masakRut sadvAsanA-Sobhitam | bhogIndrAbharaNaM samasta-sumana:-pUjyaM guNAviShkRutaM seve SrIgiri-mallikArjuna-mahAliMgaM SivAliMgitam || 50 || This sloka has two meanings one pertaining to Jasmine flower and the other Lord Shiva. First Jasmine Flower: I seek the flower of Lord Mallikarjuna Mahalingam at Srigiri, which blossoms in the evening, worn in the ear and the head, frequented by desirous bees, the flower always has good fragrance, which decorates the pleasure loving , considered the best of all the flowers, which shines due to its beauty and fragrance and which is embraced by Goddess Parvati. Now the Lord Shiva: I pray to Lord Mallikarjuna Mahalingam at Srigiri, who enjoys dancing in the early evening, established in Upanishads which are at the top of all Vedas, who is handsome due to association with loving bhramarabhi Ambhika, Lord who is always surrounded by the devoted saints, Lord, who has best snakes as the ornaments, worshipped by all Devas, who is popular due to his beneficial actions and who is embraced by Goddess Parashakti. *Commentary **sandhyaarambhavijrumbhitham *= being the one who shines by his dance in the sandhyaakaala (that which flowers in the sandhyaakaalam); *sruthisira:sthaanaantharaadhishtitham* = being the one who is established in the midst of the upanishads that are the heads the Veda (that which is adorned in the ears and on the head); *saprEmaprabharaamiraamam* = being the one whose beauty is enlarged because of his appearance with pramaraambhikai (made beauteous being mated by those lovely bees); *asakruthsathvaasanaa sObhitham* = being the one shining in the company of saadhu janas in their bhaavana to Him (always giving the splendid smell); *bhOgeendraabharaNam* = being the one who has sarpas as his aabharaNa (adorning those who enjoy kaama bhOgha); *samasthasumana: poojyam* = being the one is praised by all the devas (being praised by all the flowers as their star!); *guNaavishkritham* = being the who brings about the sathguNa (that which is famous for its unsurpassed fragrance); *sivaalingitham* = being the one who is hugged by Paarvathi (that has mangaLam); *srigirimallikaarjunamahaalingam* = to the one named Mallikaarjunan residing in Sriparvatham; *sEvE* = I serve; *srigiri* = in the beautiful mountain; *mallikaarjunalingam* = that marudha tree that is shining; *sEvE *= I prostrate. Thus bhagavathpaadhaaL by the the previous slOkas sang that one should by all means reach mahaakailaasaadhipathi Sri ParamEswara. He sang that attaining by bhakthi the paadhaaravindham of Him is the only Raaja yoga. In this slOka AachaaryaaL sings in endless prema and by the swelling of sivanandham in his hrudhayaakaasam does abhishEkam of Mallikaarjuna Mahaalingam. sandheeyathE anyaa ayam jeeva: *In this one should understand that Sandhya as the devathaa that takes the jeeva to Parabhramham to be merged as one without any difference.* *Also the sabhdam 'sandhyai' is to be assimilated in the mind as meaning that one's aathmaswaroopam is non-different as in 'sivOham'.* (continued) From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Wed Dec 16 06:54:30 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 07:54:30 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari - 50 Message-ID: *Sivaanandalahari - 50 (2) *Parameswara loves to dance in the evening. Because in the evening the kshoothradevathaas have enormous powers by which they compel praaNis to do paapa karma. In order to do dwamsam of these kshoothra devathaas and the agnyaana raakshasaas and to protect all the lOkas ParamEswara performs this evening dance. This thaandavam is therefore called 'anugraha thaandavam'. Let us now understand the mahima and the rahasya of this natana. lOkaanaahooya sarvaan damarukaninadhai: ghOrasamsaaramagnaan thathwaabheerthi dhayaalu praNathabhayaharam kunchitham savyapaadham | udhruthyEdham vimukthErayanamithi karaaddharsayan prathyayaartham bibhraddharhin sabhaayaam kalayathi natanam ya sa paayaath natEsa: || Calling sakala praaNis who are immersed (nirmagnar) in samsaarasaagaram by the sound of his damaru ParamEswara is giving them abhayam. The main reason for this is that he is parama dhayaaLu. Moreover, with a view to giving enless MOksha to sakala praaNis who have surrendered to Him he lifts his left leg and says as follows: "Hey people! Hey asuras! Hey Devas! Please do listen to me little patiently. Do not be wondering that MOksha is anywhere else. I am calling you now only to give you MOksha. The Nithyaanandha mOkshasukham is at the tip of my left leg. That which leg which even Mahaavishnu has failed to find by taking varaahaswaroopam, that leg is there for you now to attain Nithyaanandha mOkshasukham!" In order to prove that mOkshaayadhanam is in the tip of the left leg, he is holding the agni as saakshi in his left hand. He does this in order to do anugraha thaandavam in the presence of all the devas and the asuras. And in this he is doing dwamsam of kshoothra devathas and agnyaana raakshasas with his right leg. To show that ParamEswara is fond of lOkarakshaNam by this dance is highlited by AachaaryaaL in his saying * 'sandhyaarambhavijrumbhitham*'. Also ParamEswara remains established in the upanishads that remain as the peak of the Vedas. Because of Bramaraambhika's association he is possessed of adhisoundaryam. In his association the saadhu janas shine in their sathwa guNa. By wearing the snakes as his aabharaNa he is cheering (aahlaadhanam) the praaNis. He remains Easa for all the vidhyas and therefore is being worshipped by Narayana and other devathas. Above all he is tightly hugged by Brahmaraambhika in her parama prEma. sarvalingamayeem bhoomi: saravalingamayam jagath | lingamayaani theerthaani sarvam lingE pradhishtitham || yathkinchith dhrusyathE dhrusyam varNyathE smaryathE cha yath | thathsarvam sivaroopam hi naanyadhastheethi kimchana || paathaalE chaapi varthanthE swargE chaapi thathaa bhuvi | sarvathra poojyathE sambuhu: samdevaasuramaanushai: || anugraahya lOkaanaam lingaani cha mahEswara: | (contd.) From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Thu Dec 17 04:58:37 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 05:58:37 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari - 50 Message-ID: *Sivaanandalahari - 50 (3) *(continued from 50 (2)) All the bhoomis come to light as lingaswaroopam also the entire jagat has bhaasitham in lingaswaroopam. Punya theerthaas are of lingaswaroopam. And everything is based on lingaswaroopam only. There are crores and crores of lingas in paathaaLa and and DevalOka. ParamEswara is praised in sakala lOkas. The mahima of sivalinga is described in the kOti rudhra samhithai of Siva PuraaNa. Let us now know of the mahima of the dwaadhasa linga among the jyothir lingas. sowraashtrE sOmanatham cha srisailE mallikaarjunam | ujjayinyaam mahaakaalarmOnkaarE paramEsawaram || kEdhaaram himabathprashtE daakinyaam bheemasankaram | vaaraaNasyaam cha viswEsam thrayambaka gOthameethate || vaidhyanaatham chithaabhoomou naagEsam dhaarukaavanE | sEthubandhE cha raamEsam ghusmEsam cha sivaalayE || dhwaathasaithaani naamaani praatharutthaaya: patEth | sarvapaapavinirmuktha: sarvasiddhi phalam labEth || yam yam kaamamapEkshyaiva patishyanthi narOtthamaa: | praapsyamthi kaamam tham tha hi parathrEha muneeswaraa: || yE vishkaamathayaa thaani patishyanthi subhaasayaa: | thEshaam cha jananeegharbhE vaasO naiva bhavishyathi || jyOthishaam chaiba lingaanaambrahmaadhimiralE dwijaa: | visEshatha: phalam vakthum sakyathE na paraisthathaa || Eka cha poojitham yEna shaNmaasam thannirantharam | thasya dhu:kham na jaayEth maathrukukshisamudhbhavam | heenayOnou yadhaa jaathO jyOthirlingam cha pasyathi | thasya janma bhavEthathra vimalE sathkulE puna: || sathkulE janma sampraapya dhanaatayO vEdhapaaragha: | subhakarma thadhaakruthvaa bhukthir yaathyanapaayineem || mlEcchO vaapyanthyajO vaapi shantO vaapi muneeswaraa: | dwijO bhoothwaa bhavEnmukthasthasmaatthadharsanam charEth || That is sOmanaadhEswaralingam, mallikkaarjunalingam, mahaakaalEswaralingam, OnkaarEswaralingam, kEdhaarEswaralingam, bheemEswaralingam, visvEswaralingam, thryambakEswaralingam, vaidhyanaathEswaralingam, naagEswaralingam, raamEswaralingam, gusmEswaralingam are the twelve jyothirlingas that are the most important ones among the millions of lingas. Whosoever thinks of the jyothirlinga will be rid of all his paapas, he becomes vimukthan and he attains sarvaabheeshtan. Because of dwaathasalingasmaraNam one becomes the beneficiary of aihika aamushmika sukham. One who remains nishkaama would never enter maathru kukshi. The mahimaa of these dwaadhasa lingas cannot be described even by hari, brahma and other devaas. If one worships a jyothirlinga for six months his bhaagyaadhisayam would be indescribable. The saasthras say that even if one is born of thaamasa guNa, when he worships a dwaadhasalinga he will attain a satkula in the next janma. Then he becomes a vedhavith and reaches the lotus feet of Paramasiva. The same saasthras say that even if one is born as a mlEccha or a chandaala or a shandana (eunuch), worship of the dwaadasalingam will bring him a birth as a Brahmana and enable him to attain mukthi. Thus it becomes clear that sivalinga dharsanam is most important for all praaNis. (contd.) From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Thu Dec 17 05:53:34 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 06:53:34 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari - 50 Message-ID: *Sivaanandalahari - 50 (4) *(continued from 50 (3)) As Bhagavathpaadhaal says: praatharlinga mumaapathE: aharaha: sandharshaNaath swargatham madhyaahnE hayamEvathulyaphalavam saayanthanE mOkshatham | bhaanOrasthamayE pradhOsha samayE panchaakshararaadhanam thathkaalathrayathulyam ishtaphaladham sadhyOnavadhyam nruNaam || if anyone has dharsanam of Sivalingam in the morning he attains swargalOka, when he has dharsanam during noon time he will attain brahmalOka and if he has the dharshanam of sivalingam in the evening he will attain mOksham. By doing sivapanchaaksharee dhyaanam and having dharsanam of sivalingam during the sooryaasthamana time known as pradhOsham he will attain the benefit of all the three kaala dharshanam. KaaLIdaasa in his megadhootham describes the mahima of sivalinga dharsanam as follows: apyanyasminjaladhara mahaakaalamaasaadhya kaalE sthaathavya thE nayanavishayam yaavadhathyEthibhaanu: | kurvansandhyaabalipatahathaam soolina: slaadhyaneeyaam aamandhraaNaam phalamavikalam lapsyasE gharjithaanaam || "Hey! MeghamE! if you happen to reach Ujjayini the abode of mahaakaalEswaram before sooryaasthamanam, wait there till the sun sets. My kaaryam (of having to deliver my message of love to my kaamini) is not important. When the sandhyaakaala akhanda pooja of mahaakaaleswaram is taking place just make a small roaring garjana and it will bring sabalam to your janma. This is most important!" In this stanza of Sivaanandalahari Sri bhagavatpaadhaaL suggests that among the dwaadhasalingas Sri Mallikaarjunalingam is the most important one! Therefore anyone who keeps Mallikaarjuna Mahaalingam in his hrudhaya pundareekam and says this slOka and do a namaskaaram in siva sannidhi will attain sakala srEyas. This is the truth. This is the truth. Aum Namasivaaya. From michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk Fri Dec 18 06:59:41 2009 From: michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk (Michael Shepherd) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:59:41 -0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] atman and saakshin Message-ID: Students can be unclear about the relationship between atman as the 'detached' aspect of Brahman yet actor in all things,, and saakshin as the self's perfect witness of all, to be recognised and stayed with when it acts in conjunction with antahkarana. Can anyone point me to shastra discussion ot atman in relation to saakshin ? It is such a practical aspect of Advaita. There are individual references throughout the Vedanta, but I wondered if there were a key exposition. Michael From kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com Fri Dec 18 07:30:39 2009 From: kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com (kuntimaddi sadananda) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:30:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Advaita-l] atman and saakshin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <914579.49741.qm@web56001.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Michael PraNAms There is an extensive discussion of Saakshii by Sureswaraacharya in Maiskarmya siddhi - by Lakshidhara kavi in adaitamakaranda. I have discussed in the the A perspective seriies 12-14. Hari Om! Sadananda --- On Fri, 12/18/09, Michael Shepherd wrote: > From: Michael Shepherd > Subject: [Advaita-l] atman and saakshin > To: "advaita vedanta" > Date: Friday, December 18, 2009, 7:59 AM > Students can be unclear about the > relationship between atman as the > 'detached' aspect of Brahman yet actor in all things,, and > saakshin as the > self's perfect witness of all, to be recognised and stayed > with when it acts > in conjunction with antahkarana. > > Can anyone point me to shastra discussion ot atman in > relation to saakshin ? > It is such a practical aspect of Advaita. There are > individual references > throughout the Vedanta, but I wondered if there were a key > exposition. > > Michael > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Fri Dec 18 17:21:31 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:21:31 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari - 51 Message-ID: Sivaanandalahari - 51 (1) भृंगीच्छा-नटनोत्कट: करिमदग्राही स्पुरन्माधवा- ह्लादो नादयुतो महासितवपु: पंचेषुणा चादृत: । सत्पक्ष-स्सुमनो-वनेषु स पुन: साक्षान्मदीये मनो राजीवे भ्रमराधिपो विहरतां श्रीशैलवासी विभु: ॥ ५१ ॥ bhRuMgIchChA-naTanotkaTa: karimadagrAhI spuranmAdhavA- hlAdo nAdayuto mahAsitavapu: paMcheShuNA chAdRuta: | satpakSha-ssumano-vaneShu sa puna: sAkShAnmadIye mano rAjIve bhramarAdhipo viharatAM SrISailavAsI vibhu: || 51 || This has two meanings , one relating to a male bee and another the Lord Shiva. Let the chief male bee play in the lotus of my mind, the bee which loves to act in a manner to please the female bee, which drinks the oozing rut from the elephants, bee which is happy during the shining spring season, which sings with its black body, which was supported by Cupid, which is deeply interested in the flower gardens, which resides in the beautiful mountain, and which can fly anywhere. Let the Lord Shiva who is fond of dancing to the tune of Bringhi Rishi, Lord who is the spouse of Bhramarambika, Lord who tamed the elephant king Gajasura, Lord who was pleased with Vishnu in the form of Mohini, who is associated with holy sound, who is with a very white body, who aimed his weapons at cupid, and who is very fond of protecting the Devas and who is residing in the temple of mount Kailas and all pervading Lord Shiva play in the lotus of my mind. *Commentary **bhrungeecchaanatanOthkata: *one who is desirous of dancing to the tune of Bringi Muni or one that which is out to satisfy the female bee; *karimadhagraahee* = one who does dwamsam of Gajaasura; *spuran* = shining; *maadhavaahlaadha:* = one who is intimate with Mahaavishnu or who likes vasantha ruthu; *naadhayutha:* = One who is with the sound of Omkaara or that which has reenkaara naadham; *mahaasivavapu:* = one who has the body of pure light or that which has the black body; *panchEshuNa* = by manmathaa; *cha aadhrutha:* = held attentive by or supported by; *sumanOvanEshu* = in protecting the dEvas or in the garden of sweet flowers; *sathpaksha:* = who is being partial or having wings; *puna:* = moreover; *saakshaath* = one who is in front of or that which is before our eyes; *sreesailavaasi = *One who lives in Srisailam*; vibhu:* = sarva vyaapi or that which roams everywhere; *sa:* = that; *bhramaraadhipa* = husband of Bhramaraambika or that bee called ParamEswara; *madheeyathE*= my; *manOraajeevE* = in the flower of the mind or just in the flower; *viharathaam* = may he play. (contd.) From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Sat Dec 19 07:42:22 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 08:42:22 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari - 51 Message-ID: Sivaanandalahari - 51 (2)*contd. from 51 (1)* In accordance with one of Sri NatEsa sahasranaamam 'bringeenaatyapramaanagya:' ParamEswaraaL shows extreme eagerness to satisfy the desire of saakshaath Bringi Maharshi to witness His thaandavam. And the thaathparyam of this dance is for the enabling of the abhedham. Bhagavan is an expert in this dance. Moreover He fought with Gajaasura and did dwamsam of his garvam and gave to all the worlds abhayam from the marauders. Also he shows priyam to Mahavishnu, because according to harivamsa, maayaa vidhyaa cha harE: prOktha thasyaa: easO yathO bhavaan | thasmaath maadhavanaamaasi dhavasvaammeethi sabhdhitha: || The swamy for the mOkshasaadhana vidhyaa is only Mahaavishnu who should be known by the name 'Maadhava:'. So with this Maadhava who remains brilliant with Brahmavidhya, bhagavaan ParamEswara remains his aapatha snEhithan. The opinion of ParamEswara was "I have given upadhEsam of paasupadhaasthram to Arjuna. The paramakaashtai, the ultimate objective of this asthram remains in brahmavidhyaa only. Even though Arjuna was holding this enormously important asthra of brahmavidhya in his hand, afflicted by sohamOham he, out of sheer ignorance, threw it down on the battlefield. (How sad!) Taking advantage of this and realizing that Arjuna is now an instrument Maadhava tom tommed to the whole world on the importance of Brahmavidya. Is not Maadhava the greatest prabhu and rakshaka to have given this wealth of Bhagavath Geetha out to the whole world as his prasaadham?" Thus ParamEswara has indescribable priyam to Maadhava. In order to reiterate this ParamEswaraaaL in the roopam of bhagavathpaadhaaL with his poorNakala says while doing the bhaashyam of bhagavath geetha: samsaarabeejabhoothow sOkamOhow | thayOscha sarvakarmasanyaasapoorvakaadhaathmagyaanaath naanyathO nivrutthirithi thadhupadhidhikshu: sarvalOkaanugrahaartham arjunam nimittheekruthya aaha bhagavaan vaasudhEva: -- "asOchyaan" ithyaadhi || That is why in this slOka it is said "*spuranmaadhavaahlaadha:*" Moreover ParamEswara remains outing the sound of the praNava of great mahima wearing the ash all over his body manifesting his gnyaanajyothi. And he also remains udhyukthan (zealous) in his protection of the Devas, bhakthaas and saadhu janas. The pramaaNam for this is the Geethaa vaakyam "parithraaNaaya saadhoonaam vinaasaaya cha dhushkrithaam". *This great One of mahaamahima, whom I see in front with my fleshy eyes, who even though sarvavyaapi and the lord of mahaakailaas, resides happily in the mountain of Srisailam, may he play in the lotus of my heart!* In this sloka the slEdai describes his as the male bee playing with the female bee (Brahmaraambika). Whoever says this sloka and do namaskaaram to a Sivalingam they are bound to be filled with the limitless play of ecstacy in their hearts. Aum Namasivaaya. From michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk Sun Dec 20 05:17:03 2009 From: michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk (Michael Shepherd) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 11:17:03 -0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] FW: atman and saakshin Message-ID: Forwarded for the benefit of readers : > Sada -- Pranams > > Thank you for answering so fully. I hope that the 'silent > others' on this > website are as appreciative as I for having it all spelt > out so clearly. I > shall study this further. > > Best regards, > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: kuntimaddi sadananda [mailto:kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com] > Sent: 19 December 2009 16:08 > To: Michael Shepherd > Subject: RE: [Advaita-l] atman and saakshin > > > > Michael - PraNAms > > I will try to provide the answers to the best of my > knowledge. It is my > obligation to my teacher. > > --- On Sat, 12/19/09, Michael Shepherd > wrote: > > > Thank you for being patient with me.. there is > inevitably > > confusion with > > terms, simply because they are terms.. I wanted to be > clear > > about the > > relationship of saakshi to atman and aham and > > ayamatmaBrahma. > > Saakshii - atman - aham are all same but depending on the > context they are > used. > Saakshii in advaita is pure witnessing consciousness. Atman > is all pervading > sat chit ananda swaruupa and translated as self - the self > that I am - when > I refer to myself the core of my personality - I say I am - > and in Sanskrit > aham. This aham or the self that I am - is existent and > conscious entity, > the subject in my transactions. We have some feeling who > that I am is. But > what I think I am, scriptures says is not true. I take > myself, aham as > something other than myself as myself - as this Body as > aham or this mind as > aham and this intellect as aham - thus aham or I am keep > shifting depending > on the context. But none of them really are aham since I am > conscious entity > conscious of body, mind and intellect. Then who am I, the > aham - that is the > inquiry Ramana emphasizes. I am not this - since this is an > object and I am > a subject and I am conscious of any this. Thus I negate > what I am not to > arrive at what I am. Mandukya says I am waker, dreamer and > deep > sleeper when I am in that state or avastha - but my true > nature is none of > them I am different from all of them yet permeates all of > them. This is > scripture says people call as fourth but it is not fourth > but that permeates > all the three but different from all the three. In that > process by process > of negation I can arrive at I am pure Saakshii - a > witnessing consciousness > which can witness the waking state, dream state and deep > sleeps state. Hence > with reference to the witnessed I am given a designation as > witnessing > consciousness who is conscious of the waking state, dream > state and deep > sleep state, but I am none of them - just witness but in my > presence only > the matter seems to become very dynamic - like  in the > presence of sun life > on earth becomes dynamic but sun has nothing to do the > activities on earth. > That is Saakshii - the self shining eternal > existent-consciousness - aham - > aatma. This is the meaning of tvam padartham in the tat > tvam asi. > > I am analyzing the tat padartham in the series- for that we > need to go > scriptures that says Brahman himself became many - hence > that which is so > called object or witnessed entity is now being analyzed and > scriptures says > that is nothing but existence-consciousness alone. I am > the > existence-consciousness and scriptures says even the > witnessed entities are > also fundamentally existence-consciousness since Brahman is > both material > and instrumental cause for the universe. He himself became > many - says the > scriptures. > > Hence I need to understand how the so called inert that I > call as THAT can > be existent-consciousness. When I understand that then -I > am that- or tat > tvam asi - statement comes to life since we are now > equating Saakshii that I > am and saakshyam - that is to see oneness as the > substantive of both. In > that understanding Saakshii role drops out since saakshyam > is also I am and > I understand that I am both the subject and the object. > Hence there is > nothing separate from I am. That is the understanding of > aham brahmaasmi. > That understanding comes in spite of any apparent duality > or plurality - In > that understanding jiiva that I am - the jagat that is and > Iswara the > creator of the jagat - all realized as one substantive > Brahman but playing > the role of three. > This is what I am analyzing in the tat tvam asi series. > > With this understanding you can look at your questions. > > ----------- > > > > As you will have realised, my approach to Advaita > Vedanta > > has been through > > practical experience rather than the shastra -- though > I > > have been well > > guided in experience. So while the mahavakya remain > 'to be > > further > > experienced' , > > Just for clarification. We experience all the time advaita > and any > experience is time-bound. Hence it is not the experience we > are looking for > but understanding who am I, what is the world and why am I > here. Those are > fundamental practical problems. Hence Spirituality is down > to earth > fundamental. Any other knowledge is only for purpose of > transactions but the > knowledge that counts and that solves fundamental human > suffering is this. > -------------- > > the practical question arose : when actions > > are carried out > > with full attention, nishkarma (?), consciousness > feels to > > be fully > > available within individual limits; when that > detached > > observation goes, > > there is a loss, or rather dispersal, of energy. > > Michael - I can act with full attention with kaama too. > Nishkaama is actions > that are purely obligatory actions - like taking bath. I > have to take bath > daily to keep myself clean. It is obligation to this body > and of course to > the other around too. Kaama is like I want to eat pizza in > stead of some > thing else. That is not obligatory action that body needs > pizza. what it > needs some USDA requirements to keep it healthy. Hence > desire prompted that > I want this or that - like rat race is kaama prompted for > thinking that > those will bring me security, happiness etc. > > Consciousness is fully available when I perform my actions > in the present > without BMI dissipating into regrets of the past, > excitement in the present > or anxiety about the future. The energy dissipation occurs > only when the BMI > is not available in the filed of action - hence Krishna > statement - karmani > eva adhikaaraste. I have written a series on karma - if you > are interested I > can send them to you- Dennis has incorporated them as part > of Introduction > to Vedanta series. A man of successful does act very > efficiently and even > the pickpocket does the action very efficiently with full > attention in the > present. When I am worried about my past performance and > not confident > enough, I am bringing past into the present. In the > excitement of the > present I do not pay attention to the details and my energy > gets unnecessary > dissipated due to skipping the appropriate steps that I > need to take to > succeed. If my mind is worried about what is going to > happen if I do not > do a good job, it is not available in the present while > one is doing a job. > These are the three avenues of dissipation of energies. > When you are deeply > involved in the action you will forget the rest of the > world. You are one > with the action. Then there is no dissipation of energy. I > can do maximum > that my BMI is capable of. In all these process I am > identifying myself that > I am is this BMI and there is ego involved as kartaa. > ----------- > > Advaita > > Vedanta tends to > > talk of the lawful ideal rather than the occasional > failure > > ! > > Michael - not true. I am scientist too and to the core > advaitin. Please read > Swami Chinmayananda's book - The manual of self-unfoldment > - very practical > application. Failures are only means of gaining the > knowledge of how to > perform better. Advaita teaches how to live in the present. > That is where > the action is and that is where the life is. Past has gone > and future never > comes. One can act only in the present. and one can enjoy > in the present and > one can only live in the present. > Please study the introduction to Vedanta series in Dennis > Waite website. > Most of these are answered. > > ---------- > > So you've > > answered the question, in that saakshi is infinite. > And > > thus to be taken as > > synonymous with atman ? And aham ? Just another aspect > of > > the same infinite > > ? But to be perceived by the jiva ? > > Michale - Jiiva is a notion. I am is a conscious entity and > when I take > myself I am this - the notion of jiiva starts. First do not > worry about the > infinite nature of atma or Saakshii etc. In meditation keep > shifting your > self to the consciousness that you are who is conscious of > everything - all > objects - Reject all objectification to arrive at who you > are that is > Saakshii. You are not the matter and yet in your presence > the matter is > becoming so dynamic. just stand apart and admire as > Saakshii - witness the > functioning of the body, and if you can slowly the mind and > intellect - > standing apart and see. Seen in others - they are just > body, mind and > intellect but they think they are separate human beings. > Feel that presence > of consciousness in them different from their BMI and you > will find you are > Saakshii of both you BMI and the other persons BMI. > Physically they are also > nothing but just matter but enlivened by the mere presence > of consciousness. > As > you look around feel that life in every one including > human beings, animals > and plants - you see they are Bodies and minds but they are > conscious too - > be conscious of the presence of that consciousness which is > not doing any > things as in you but by that mere presence the matter is > becoming so > dynamic. > > By shifting your attention whenever you can and more and > more you become > very conscious of yourself but that self is also conscious > of the other BMI > and the presence of that enlivening factor. Michael that is > the meditation. > > Then you need to have some understanding the nature of the > world too - for > that only the study of scripture becomes important. Do not > worry about your > background. You are exposed to more Vedanta than many of > Indians who are > born here and do not have any knowledge. Take the help of > whatever you can > and study. There are many CDs available - of say > Paramarthananda. He is very > methodical - some teacher who is very methodical helps. > > ----------- > > The mind -- ever up to > > its tricks of > > ahamkara -- had made a distinction between atman as > > 'theoretical' and > > saakshi as 'practical'. > > Michael - there is nothing theoretical here. You are a > conscious being - > that is not theory. You are not matter BMI - that is not a > theory - you are > a subject and not an object - that is not a theory. > But what is impractical is taking the object as subject > and live in that > confused state - unfortunately that is being considered as > practical. > > Saakshii is consciousness pure and divine but one I know > and I can still > play the game of life but more efficiently than before > since it is JUST A > GAME - and win or loose it is fun since I am a Saakshii > that never gets > affected by the play. That is true practical. See great > mahatmas - they did > not sit around but with knowledge they shook the world and > generations to > come are getting benefit out of their compassion. Michael > that is practical. > I strongly advise you to read the book - the manual of > self- unfoldment of > swami chinmyanandaji. > > > I hope that makes sense. > > I suppose behind that is the question -- where does > > consciousness 'go' when > > it's dispersed ?! To feed the untruth, I guess ! > > Michael - you can see the question itself is invalid since > consciousness and > existence are infinite - where can they go! They can go > where they are not? > > Untruth is only misunderstanding. For correct understanding > only we need to > study or listen to those who know. That is how any > knowledge takes place. > > > Feel free to ask - If I know I will answer. I wrote but my > fingers have the > mind of their own - their spelling is could be different. > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > > > > > > > > > From kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com Mon Dec 21 04:42:30 2009 From: kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com (kuntimaddi sadananda) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 02:42:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Advaita-l] A Perspective -14 Message-ID: <482358.35683.qm@web56006.mail.re3.yahoo.com> tat tvam asi – V We have so far established using scriptures, logic and experience, in that order, that - I am -, designating for the pure saakshii, is not different from saakshyam as emphasized by the statement – tat tvam asi or you are that. The scriptural statement starts with the declaration that –existence- alone was there before the creation, and it was one without a second. Scriptures continue to say that the existence continues to exist as such, since that which exists can never stop existing. If existence disappears, then in its place non-existence must come into existence, which is a contradiction in terms, since we cannot say non-existence exists. By the statement that it was one, alone, without a second, that existence was without any qualifications or without the three possible distinctions i.e. sajaati, vijaati and swagata bhedaas. Then what happened to that existence after creation? It continues to exist, now apparently in varieties of names and forms or with varieties of attributes. Being infinite, it does not or cannot undergo any mutation of any kind. How can it become many without any mutation? Scripture itself provides three examples – just as gold becoming varieties of ornaments while remaining as gold, as clay becoming pots while remaining as clay, as iron becoming iron tools while remaining as iron. In all these examples gold, clay and iron are material causes for their products, and the materials remain while varieties of products appear to form. It is called vivarta or transformation-less transformation. From gold point there are no bangles, bracelets and rings. What is there is only Gold, alone, without a second. Gold before it appeared as rings and bangles, gold while appearing as rings and bangles and gold even if they change into other forms. It remains as gold while names and forms keep changing. What is satyam or immutable is gold. What is mithyaa is that which is there temporarily as entity for transactions. Forms are not conserved; only material is conserved. By providing these examples, scriptures declare that existence remained as such, forming the material or substantive cause for the universe. Hence creation is nothing but existence itself in varieties of names and forms, starting from space. From existence point, there is no creation or the world. What we see is only the names and forms but not the substantive existence as it is imperceptible. Thus scriptures declare that existence permeates the whole universe as the substantive while appearing as divergent plurality. Plurality distinguishes itself by the varieties of objects with divergent attributes, while the undifferentiable and imperceptible existence providing the substantives for the varieties. Every object is location-wise, time-wise, and attribute-wise (desha-kaala-vastu paricchinnam) distinctively different from the other. Without the existence principle pervading all these objects of plurality in the creation, they cannot exist independently. Hence any object exists implies that existence pervades as a substantive of the object, lending existence to the object so that one can perceive the object. In deep sleep, no object is perceived. Hence scripture says – na kancana kaamam kaamayate| – ManDukya. There is expressed as no desire for any object, because no seer-seen distinction exists in deep sleep states. Yet the existence principle exists as we say there is a deep sleep state that is different from waking and dream state. In that state I exist as the very subject, who is awake in deep sleep state as saakshii, now witnessing the absence of all objects of knowledge including space and time. Hence, the ego which exists with an identification -I am this - is not there, since –this-, which is nothing but a thought of BMI, is not there. I am –exists without any –this, this- qualifications, and that unqualified - I am – is, therefore, imperceptible. In fact, scriptures say I am that existence principle that exists, and lends existence to all the objects that I perceive that is distinct from me, based on their attributive content. Hence, in the identity equation - I am that – the identity refers to I am that existence principle that pervades all this universe of plurality – idam sarvam and that which is eternal and undifferentiable, and hence imperceptible, making scripture as the only pramANa for this realization or recognition. Whatever I perceive or known, is therefore an object with attributes, which is essentially existence itself with attributes of the object, just as gold itself appearing as attributive ring or bangle, etc. While other philosophers say that I see therefore the object is true, advaitin will say I see therefore it is not true since it gets negated, also not non-true since I am seeing, but mithyaa. Shankara says – drisyatvaat, it is mithyaa. Analysis of the deep sleep state is very subtle. It is a state of nirvikalpa, where mind exists in dormant state without any thoughts. However, I am there in the deep sleep state – I, the existence-consciousness existing without illumining anything. After getting up from sleep a waker says, I slept very well, and I was not aware of either myself or any other entity in deep sleep state. Just as in the pitch dark room, no object is perceived and we do not even know if any object exists or not, so is in the deep sleep, where there is a blanket of ignorance covering the mind. It is not ignorance of something (like chemistry, physics, etc) but ignorance of everything, called muula avidya. Mind, as we discussed before, acts as intermediary between saakshii, i.e. myself, and the objects that become known. The mind first gets illumined by the light of consciousness of saakshii, and the reflected light from the mind further illumines the object-thoughts. In the waking state, not only I know what I know, I also know what I do not know. That is, even the ignorance of x, y, or z, I know. Mind, as though, illumines the absence of knowledge or ignorance too. Since mind is not there in the deep-sleep state, not only I do not have the knowledge of any object, unlike in the waking state, I am not conscious of my ignorance too. After getting up from sleep, I say that I slept very well, and that I am not conscious of myself as well as not conscious of anything else. This declaration is by the mind or ahankaara, which was dormant at that time. Hence from the point of the mind, the statement, at a first glance, appears to be a statement of inference. However, once awake, mind can re-cognize its absence at that time in that state (like missing 18.5min gap in the Nixon tapes), and also re-cognize or recollect the absence of everything or absence of pramaataa-prameya duality since there is gap in the memory with no cognition of any kind. There is, however, an advaitic experience, where all problems appear to be resolved and therefore it was peaceful, confirming the scriptural declaration that duality is the cause of fear, dvitiiyadvai bhayam bhavati, Br. Up. That means, I never have to work for an advaitic experience, since nature provides that abundantly everyday. However, I have no knowledge of myself at that time. Yet, I was there enjoying the absence of everything. That enjoyment due to advaita in deep-sleep state is not an inference but real experience that everyone longs for. Thus, in the deep-sleep state that I was there is not an inference but experience of happiness due to absence of duality. Since there is no jnaana prakriya or process of acquiring knowledge for which mind is required, I have no knowledge of myself, since I am also not conscious of myself. Hence scriptures say saakshii alone was there along with ignorance in the deep sleep state. Not only I do not know myself I also do not know that I have ignorance. Both are not revealed. Even though ignorance is there, it is not revealed during that state, since revealing instrument, the mind, is not there. Now the question is, why is the self-effulgent saakshii that is present even in deep sleep state is not revealed? Interesting thing is even to reveal the self-effulgent saakshii we need the mind. We discussed this before using the light analogy. If there is light spread out all over in space, we can never know the existence of the light unless there is an object to reflect the light. By the reflection of the light by the object we can know two things: the existence of the object and the existence of the light that illumines the object. Object does not bring the light since it is, by itself, inert or jadam. The self-luminous saakshii is always there shining but it needs the BMI to reveal itself. We have a peculiar relation between saakshii or existence-consciousness and the BMI. Saakshii is needed to know the presence of the BMI. Only in the light of consciousness the BMI is revealed. On the other hand BMI is needed to recognize the presence of saakshii too. Shankara discusses this aspect elaborately in his bhaaShya on Prasnopanishad. Sureshwara discusses this in his Naishkarmasiddhi in II-106 and III-57. Essentially the mind makes the all pervading consciousness to manifest in terms of names and forms. When the mind is not there as in deep-sleep state, neither I know myself nor I know the presence of any object including ignorance that I have. Then, how does a jnaani sleep? He sleeps as a jnaani, where, as saakshii swaruupa he is awake but there is no illumination of the objects nor the recognition of saakshii since his mind is not there. Essentially we can say that the mind of the jnaani sleeps, just as in ajnaani. His jnaani status is not revealed since mind is absent, just as for ajnaani his ajnaani status is not revealed. Both enjoy the advaitic experience. For jnaani he enjoys there also, while ajnaani enjoys there only. Before we proceed further we need to ask another question – If I am pure existence principle and the substantive of the whole universe, which has no sajaati, vijaati and swagata bhedas, then where do these attributes of world of objects come from? Let us apply this question to our friend, gold. When gold alone was there before creation of all the ornaments, where did these varieties of attributive names and forms such as ring, bangle and necklace, etc., come from? Goldsmith obviously is going to make them according to the desires of the people who want those specific attributive forms of gold. The same logic we can apply here. The pure existence principle decided to become many depending on the subtle desires of those that want to experience the world of objects. This is called karma, left in subtle form from the previous cycle of creation, says Krishna in Ch.8. The samaShTi or totality of all vaasanaas of all beings that are ready to express in terms of desires to experience the world of plurality formed the basis for the creation. Hence the scripture says – sa kaamayata – bahusyaam –prajaayeya- sa tato2tapyata-sa tapastaptvaa-(Tai.Up.), etc indicating that before the creation is manifested into varieties of names and forms, the creator visualized or planned or contemplated taking into consideration all the blue-prints required for creation to meet all the specifications of all beings that are there now in subtle forms. Thus according to scriptures, creation is not a random phenomenon or accidental processes or at the whims and fancies of the creator, but well-thought out or contemplated or well designed following the well laid out rules and regulations. Hence it is a creation and not a chaotic random process. Thus the cycle of creation, sustenance and dissolution is a beginning-less cycle. The one who transforms the subtle forms into grosser forms is Iswara, the creator, similar to our goldsmith. He needs the subtle form of karma in the form of vaasanaas which are avyaktam or unmanifested forms to help in the creation. This is called maayaa. Iswara thus is equipped with maayaa shakti to create the world of plurality. Where is that Iswara? Scriptures answers – He himself became many. prajaayeya – bahushyaam – Let Me become many and He became many. Implying that existence principle which was there before the creation, he himself became many. That means it is not only the material cause but intelligent and instrumental cause too, since He is equipped with all the tools needed to become many. Hence VishNusahasranaamaavali says – he is karNam, kaaraNam, kartaa.. He is the instrumental, material and intelligent cause for the universe. Thus the existence that was there before creation is a conscious-existence, since creation can only be done by a conscious entity and not by inert entity. Existence and consciousness are not two but one and the same – Hence – I am – include both sat and chit that I am – and I am that, the whole world of plurality too – the saakshyam that I witness. Hence I am a saakshii that we understood from tvam padaartham and using the scriptural statement -tat tvam asi- the tat – that is saakshyam is also the existence-consciousness that I am. Thus both saakshii and saakshyam, the witnessing consciousness and the witnessed consciousness – both I am. Since there are only two – saakshii and saakshyam, I am the total – aham brahmaasmi follows the teaching, when I realize that truth in the statement - tat tvam asi. However, saakshyam is inert and how can the conscious-existence entity, Brahman, become inert? This aspect will be addressed next. Hari Om! Sadananda From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Tue Dec 22 04:48:46 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 05:48:46 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari - 52 Message-ID: Sivaanandalahari - 52कारुण्यामृत-वर्षिणं घनविपद्-ग्रीष्मच्छिदा-कर्मठं विध्यासस्य-फलोदयाय सुमन-स्संसेव्य-मिच्छाकृतिम् । नृतयद्भक्त-मयूर-मद्रिनिलयं चंचज्जटा-मण्डलं शंभो वांछति नीलकन्धर सदा त्वां मे मनश्‍चातक: ॥ ५२ ॥ kAruNyAmRuta-varShiNaM ghanavipad-grIShmachChidA-karmaThaM vidhyAsasya-phalodayAya sumana-ssaMsevya-michChAkRutim | nRutayadbhakta-mayUra-madrinilayaM chaMchajjaTA-maNDalaM SaMbho vAMChati nIlakandhara sadA tvAM me manaS^chAtaka: || 52 || This verse has two meanings, one pertaining to the cloud and the other to Lord Shiva. Oh Dark cloud, which showers out of mercy, the nectar like rain, which is engaged in reducing the troubles of severe summer, which is prayed for by good minded farmers, which takes any form it likes, which rains to augment the crop in the field, which has dancing peacock of (farmers) devotees, which is stopped in the mountains, has clusters of lightening and is the personification of good, the chataka bird of my mind is eagerly awaiting you. Oh Shambu with the blue neck, who showers the nectar of mercy, who is focussed in removing the excruciating pain like that of severe summer, of the desires of mind, who yields best results of the plant of knowledge, who is worshipped by good minded people, who takes any desired form , who has the peacocks of dancing joyous devotees, resident of the mountain, who has waving matted hair, who is the personification of good, the chataka bird of my mind is eagerly awaiting you. *Commentary **he sambhO *= Hey! SambhO who gives mangalam; *neelakandhara* = who has a blue neck; (also neela = blue, ka = water, dhara = holder; the blue clouds that hold water); *mE* = my; *manschaathaka* = the chaathaka pakshi which is the mind; *kaarunyaamrithavarshaNam* = who showers amrutham by His kaaruNyam (by its kindness showering the water); *ghanavipadhgreeshmacchadhaakar**matam* = one who is an expert in removing big troubles; *vidhyaasasyaphalOdhayaaya* = to raise the vegetation called Vidhya; *sumana: samsEvyam* = worshipped by the dEvas and saadhu janas (praised by the peasants); *icchaakrithim* = who takes any form at will; *nruthyadhbhakthamayooram* = one who is in the company of the dancing devotees (that which has the dancing peacocks); *adhrinilayam* = One who is living in the mountain; *sanjanjadaamandalam* = who is having the moving jadaa (or that which is having the moving cluster of lightning); *thwaam* = (to) you; *sadhaa* = always; *vaanchathi* = desires. Hey! ParamEswara! In order for the vegetation to grow and yield and be praised by the saadhu janas and the peasants, that which takes different forms as it desires, that which has the dancing peacocks, that which lives in the mountains, that which removes droughts, that which showers the rain due to its kindness, that cloud is sought for a long time by the saadhaka pakshi. In the same way hey! Sambho! the saadhaka pakshi that is my mind is desiring you. Because, O! ParamEswara! you do dhwamsam of the thaapathrayaas called aadhyaathmikam, aadhibowthikam and aadhidaiwikam and do save the praaNis. In accordance with the sruthi 'easaana: sarvavidhyaanaam' you are the lord of all the vidhyaas. You are being worshipped by all the devas and saadhu janas who are desirous of getting those vidhyas. You are delighting the minds of the bhakthas by taking the forms that they are pleased with. So they are dancing in your presence in their ecstacy. The sruthis say that the vedas remain in parvatha roopam. You live there with Uma. You are jadaa makuta dhaariNi. You remain in such sarvOthkrushta vaibhavam. The saadhaka pakshi of my mind seeks you! The swaarasyam of describing the mind as saadhaka pakshi is as follows: The saadhaka pakshi is believed to have its mouth on its head! Therefore this bird cannot eat food of its own effort. And its food is only the rain drops. So there is no way its hunger can be satisfied without the rain. Because of this for over four or five months in a year this bird would have no food and being famished it would remain in one place longing for the rain. It keeps praying for the rain. Hey! ParamEswara! I am telling you of my mental status. It is like the saadhaka pakshi longing for you. The hunger and thirst of it can be quenched only by your karunaamrutha pravaaham. Aren't you KaruNaamoorthy? Therefore Hey! Neelakantaa! You saved the worlds from destruction by drinking the poison of halahala. In the same way you should save this saadhaka pakshi of my mind by glancing with your karuNaamrutham. So begs our AachaaryaaL. Aum Namasivaaya. From sivanr8010 at bsnl.in Wed Dec 23 18:27:30 2009 From: sivanr8010 at bsnl.in (SIVAKUMAR) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:27:30 -0800 Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 Message-ID: <381890873.1261614450128.JavaMail.root@bgl-svr-fep-01.bsnl.net.in> > SIVAKUMAR > Dear Sri Vidyasankar Sundaresan > > > > Ref:In particular, I am reminded on an article by a professor from Vikram University, Ujjain, about this very topic, in one of the Sringeri publications. Very comprehensive, very impartial and very well-written > > > Would you please provide the details? > > >SIVAKUMAR > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Wed Dec 23 19:31:47 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 20:31:47 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Kaanchi peetam's Guruparampara Message-ID: http://srikanchimutt.org/guru-parampara.html From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Wed Dec 23 20:09:38 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:09:38 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari - 53 Message-ID: Sivaanandalahari - 53आकाशेन शिखी समस्तफणिनां नेत्रा कलापी नता- ऽनुग्राहि-प्रणवोपदेश-निनदै:केकीति यो गीयते । श्यामां शैलसमुद्भवां घनरुचिं दृष्ट्वा नटन्तं मुद्रा वेदान्तोपवने विहार-रसिकं तं नीलकण्ठं भजे ॥ ५३ ॥ AkASena SikhI samastaphaNinAM netrA kalApI natA- &nugrAhi-praNavopadeSa-ninadai:kekIti yo gIyate | SyAmAM SailasamudbhavAM ghanaruchiM dRuShTvA naTantaM mudrA vedAntopavane vihAra-rasikaM taM nIlakaNThaM bhaje || 53 || I worship Lord, blue necked peacock like Shiva, who has the sky as the crest, who wears the king of serpents, Adhisesha, as the necklace, who initiates, as the peacock making sounds of Ke-Ki, the mantra Om to those who bow to him in salutation, who, on seeing Parvati attractive like clouds dances with joy and who loves to play in the garden of Vedanta. *Commentary **ya*: = that Paramasiva (that peacock); aakaasEna = because of aakaasa; sikhee = locks of hair; samasthapaNinaam = all the naagas nEthra = aadhisesha who is the naayaka of them; kalaapi = who has the ornaments (who has the feathers); nathaanugraahipraNavOpadhEsaninadhai: = by the praNavadhwani doing anugraham to those who think of; kEkee = that which makes the sound kEkaa; ithi = thus; geeyathE = one who is praised or sung; sailasamudhbhavaam = that of parvatha raaja's daughter or that which happens in the mountain; ghanaruchim = one who has the complexion of mEgha; syaamaam = of parvathi; drushtvaa = looking at; mudhaa = by the bliss of; natantham = one who dances; vEdhanthOpavanE = in the garden of vedantha; vihaararasikam = one who is intent on the play; tham = that; neelakantam = one who has the blue throat; bhajE = I do worship. That peacock that has the bun or lock of hair on the head that has the train of quill and that makes the noise kEkaa that which goes into delirious bliss at the sight of the the cloud (colored Parvathi) that originates in the mountain and starts its ecstatic dance in the garden that blue necked one is the object of my veneration. In this slEdai one cannot escape notice that BhagavatpaadhaaL actually is praising Parameswara. "prapanchOpasamam saantham sivamadhvaitham chadhurtham manyathE" "Eka Eva rudhrO na dwitheeyaaya thasthE" "viswam bhootham bhuvanam chithram bhahudhaa jaatham jaayamaanam cha yath | sarvO hyEsha rudhra: " "sarvO vai rudhra:" These are the words of sruthi that declare that there is nothing apart from Paramasiva. He who remains sarvavyaapi, who has no beginning or end can only be described as aakaasa as his head in saguNa roopam. Accordingly aachaaryaaL describes him aakaasEna sikhee. He is wearing aadhisEshan as his aabharaNam. He has the praNavadhwani as his blessing for his devotees who fall at his feet. Moreover he goes into ecstacy at the very sight of Parvathi and begins his dance of bliss. And he does so at the end of the mountain range called the upanishads. To him AachaaryaaL pays his tribute. NeelakaNtaaya Namaha From sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com Wed Dec 23 20:42:59 2009 From: sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com (Sunil Bhattacharjya) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:42:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 In-Reply-To: <381890873.1261614450128.JavaMail.root@bgl-svr-fep-01.bsnl.net.in> Message-ID: <557862.5394.qm@web113306.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> It will be still better if  Vidyasankarji is able to post the article to this forum. --- On Wed, 12/23/09, SIVAKUMAR wrote: From: SIVAKUMAR Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" Date: Wednesday, December 23, 2009, 4:27 PM > SIVAKUMAR  > Dear Sri Vidyasankar Sundaresan > >  > > Ref:In particular, I am reminded on an article by a professor from Vikram University, Ujjain, about this very topic, in one of the Sringeri publications. Very comprehensive, very impartial and very well-written > >  > Would you please provide the details? >  > >SIVAKUMAR > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Wed Dec 23 21:50:35 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:50:35 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 In-Reply-To: <557862.5394.qm@web113306.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <381890873.1261614450128.JavaMail.root@bgl-svr-fep-01.bsnl.net.in> <557862.5394.qm@web113306.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Check this out: http://www.hvk.org/articles/0103/314.html On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya < sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> wrote: > It will be still better if Vidyasankarji is able to post the article to > this forum. > > --- On Wed, 12/23/09, SIVAKUMAR wrote: > > From: SIVAKUMAR > Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in > October, 2002 > To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" < > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> > Date: Wednesday, December 23, 2009, 4:27 PM > > > SIVAKUMAR > > Dear Sri Vidyasankar Sundaresan > > > > > > > Ref:In particular, I am reminded on an article by a professor from Vikram > University, Ujjain, about this very topic, in one of the Sringeri > publications. Very comprehensive, very impartial and very well-written > > > > > > Would you please provide the details? > > > > > >SIVAKUMAR > > > > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > > > For assistance, contact: > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > _______________________________________________ > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Thu Dec 24 04:18:58 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 05:18:58 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari - 54 Message-ID: Sivaanandalahari - 54सन्ध्याघर्म-दिनात्ययो हरिकराघात-प्रभूतानक- ध्वानो वारिदगर्जितं दिविषदां दृष्टिच्छटा च्ंचला । भक्‍तानां परितोष-बाष्प-वितिति-र्वृष्टि-र्मयूरी शिवा यस्मिन्नुज्‍जवल-तान्डवं विजयते तं नीलकण्ठं भजे ॥ ५४ ॥ sandhyAgharma-dinAtyayo harikarAghAta-prabhUtAnaka- dhvAno vAridagarjitaM diviShadAM dRuShTichChaTA chMchalA | bhak^tAnAM paritoSha-bAShpa-vititi-rvRuShTi-rmayUrI SivA yasminnuj^javala-tAnDavaM vijayate taM nIlakaNThaM bhaje || 54 || I pray to Lord Shiva, who has blue neck like that of a peacock, Lord in whom excels the shining dance, done at the dusk which looks like the rainy season at the end of summer, when the drum beats made with the hands of VishNu is like the thunder from the clouds, when the looks of Devas is like the lightening, the tears of joy from the devotees is like rain and in presence of Parvati as the peahen. *Commentary *Sandhya = evening; kharmadhinaathyaya: = either the end of summer or beginning of the year; harikaraakhaathaprabhoothaanakadhvaana: = that mridhanga naadham coming out of the hands of Mahaavishnu; vaaridhagarjitham = the roaring of the clouds; dhivishadhaam = of the dEvas; drushticchataa = the flocking of the eyes; chanchalaa = lightning; bhakthaanaam = of the bhakthaas; parithOshabaashpavithathi: = the gushing of the tears of joy; vrushti: = rain; sivaa = paarvathi; mayoori = or the peacock; yasmin = to that ParamEswara; ujvalathaandavam = radiant dance; vijayathE = happens; tham = that peacock; neelakantam = the blue necked ParamEswara; bhajE = I worship. அண்டங்கள் ஏழினுக் கப்புறத் தப்பான் உண்டென்ற சத்தி சதாசிவத் துச்சிமேற் கண்டங் கரியான் கருணை திருவுருக் கொண்டங் குமைகாணக் கூத்துகந் தானே. (திருமந்திரம்) To the peacock of ParamEswara evening time is the beginning of the year. In the same way the sounds emanating from the beating of the drums by the hands of Mahaavishnu is the thundering of the clouds. Besides the crores of the eyes of the dEvas witnessing remains the lightning. And to this peacock the the gushing of the tears of joy of the bhakthaas happen to be the shower. And the peahen of Parvathi is the driving spirit to the dance of ecstacy! With all the above vaibhavas and sarvOthkrishtas or excellences the dance of Siva of the blue neck described as ujvalathaandavam is the one that adore and worship. Because of kaaLakoota visham that He swallowed and held in the throat by Paarvathi's intervention, Siva has turned out to be the blue necked Neelakantan just like a peacock. Also the dance of the peacock is beautiful to watch just like the thaandavam of Siva. And both of them dance in ecstacy at the sight of their mates! Aum Sri Neelakantaaya Namaha. From sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com Thu Dec 24 11:13:27 2009 From: sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com (Sunil Bhattacharjya) Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:13:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <721372.51132.qm@web113307.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> We saw that report in the newspaper long ago. One cannot leave out the opinion of the Sringeri Math in this controversy. Hence there  is the need to read the paper by the Vikram university professor, which  Dr. Vidyasankarji was referring to. Hope he will oblige us. --- On Wed, 12/23/09, Anbu sivam2 wrote: From: Anbu sivam2 Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" Date: Wednesday, December 23, 2009, 7:50 PM Check this out: http://www.hvk.org/articles/0103/314.html On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Sunil Bhattacharjya < sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> wrote: > It will be still better if  Vidyasankarji is able to post the article to > this forum. > > --- On Wed, 12/23/09, SIVAKUMAR wrote: > > From: SIVAKUMAR > Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in > October, 2002 > To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" < > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> > Date: Wednesday, December 23, 2009, 4:27 PM > > > SIVAKUMAR  > > Dear Sri Vidyasankar Sundaresan > > > > > > > Ref:In particular, I am reminded on an article by a professor from Vikram > University, Ujjain, about this very topic, in one of the Sringeri > publications. Very comprehensive, very impartial and very well-written > > > > > > Would you please provide the details? > > > > > >SIVAKUMAR > > > > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > > > For assistance, contact: > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > _______________________________________________ > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From gpenn at cs.toronto.edu Thu Dec 24 12:35:58 2009 From: gpenn at cs.toronto.edu (Gerald Penn) Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 13:35:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Check this out: > > http://www.hvk.org/articles/0103/314.html I don't get it. This says: > Putting an end to controversy, sankaracharyas across the country today > unanimously accepted April 3, 509 BC as Adi Sankaras exact date of > birth. and then it says: > Sankaracharyas of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham, Dwarka Jyotirmath, Badrinath > Govardhanpeeth and Puri unanimously accepted the date and said there was > no need for debate on the subject. What about Sringeri? What kind of unanimity is that? I still don't know the title or venue of the original 2002 conference that gave rise to this thread - looked through the advaita-l archives but couldn't find it. Is that conference the same as the one mentioned in this (Jan, 2003) article? Thanks, Gerald Penn From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Thu Dec 24 13:22:27 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 14:22:27 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I suppose PeriavaaL from Sringeri did not attend the conference. There is no reason to believe he was not invited. On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Gerald Penn wrote: > > Check this out: >> >> http://www.hvk.org/articles/0103/314.html >> > > I don't get it. This says: > > Putting an end to controversy, sankaracharyas across the country today >> unanimously accepted April 3, 509 BC as Adi Sankaras exact date of >> birth. >> > > and then it says: > > Sankaracharyas of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham, Dwarka Jyotirmath, Badrinath >> Govardhanpeeth and Puri unanimously accepted the date and said there was no >> need for debate on the subject. >> > > What about Sringeri? What kind of unanimity is that? > > I still don't know the title or venue of the original 2002 conference > that gave rise to this thread - looked through the advaita-l archives but > couldn't find it. Is that conference the same as the one mentioned in > this (Jan, 2003) article? > > Thanks, > Gerald Penn > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk Thu Dec 24 13:35:11 2009 From: michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk (Michael Shepherd) Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 19:35:11 -0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya inOctober, 2002 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: That would put Adi Shankara well before the revised dates for the Buddha (c. 400 BC or later). Interesting...perhaps even before some of the Upanishads he commented on ? Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of Gerald Penn Sent: 24 December 2009 18:36 To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya inOctober, 2002 > Check this out: > > http://www.hvk.org/articles/0103/314.html I don't get it. This says: > Putting an end to controversy, sankaracharyas across the country today > unanimously accepted April 3, 509 BC as Adi Sankaras exact date of > birth. and then it says: > Sankaracharyas of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham, Dwarka Jyotirmath, Badrinath > Govardhanpeeth and Puri unanimously accepted the date and said there was > no need for debate on the subject. What about Sringeri? What kind of unanimity is that? I still don't know the title or venue of the original 2002 conference that gave rise to this thread - looked through the advaita-l archives but couldn't find it. Is that conference the same as the one mentioned in this (Jan, 2003) article? Thanks, Gerald Penn _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk Thu Dec 24 13:45:23 2009 From: michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk (Michael Shepherd) Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 19:45:23 -0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya inOctober, 2002 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: There's no record they actually met. Perhaps they did it by videoconferencing or by internet ? Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of Anbu sivam2 Sent: 24 December 2009 19:22 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya inOctober, 2002 I suppose PeriavaaL from Sringeri did not attend the conference. There is no reason to believe he was not invited. On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Gerald Penn wrote: > > Check this out: >> >> http://www.hvk.org/articles/0103/314.html >> > > I don't get it. This says: > > Putting an end to controversy, sankaracharyas across the country today >> unanimously accepted April 3, 509 BC as Adi Sankaras exact date of >> birth. >> > > and then it says: > > Sankaracharyas of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham, Dwarka Jyotirmath, Badrinath >> Govardhanpeeth and Puri unanimously accepted the date and said there was no >> need for debate on the subject. >> > > What about Sringeri? What kind of unanimity is that? > > I still don't know the title or venue of the original 2002 conference > that gave rise to this thread - looked through the advaita-l archives but > couldn't find it. Is that conference the same as the one mentioned in > this (Jan, 2003) article? > > Thanks, > Gerald Penn > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk Thu Dec 24 13:55:35 2009 From: michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk (Michael Shepherd) Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 19:55:35 -0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya inOctober, 2002 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I think you'll find a scholarly article by Dominic Wuyastyk on the internet somewhere.. Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of Gerald Penn Sent: 24 December 2009 18:36 To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya inOctober, 2002 > Check this out: > > http://www.hvk.org/articles/0103/314.html I don't get it. This says: > Putting an end to controversy, sankaracharyas across the country today > unanimously accepted April 3, 509 BC as Adi Sankaras exact date of > birth. and then it says: > Sankaracharyas of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham, Dwarka Jyotirmath, Badrinath > Govardhanpeeth and Puri unanimously accepted the date and said there was > no need for debate on the subject. What about Sringeri? What kind of unanimity is that? I still don't know the title or venue of the original 2002 conference that gave rise to this thread - looked through the advaita-l archives but couldn't find it. Is that conference the same as the one mentioned in this (Jan, 2003) article? Thanks, Gerald Penn _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk Thu Dec 24 15:15:50 2009 From: michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk (Michael Shepherd) Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 21:15:50 -0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya inOctober, 2002 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I suggest that it is time to face a few home truths. An oral tradition needs a method of investigation far, far more stringent than that of historians who deal in mere dates -- a method more stringent than FBI or CIA... which when exercised will take us further to the heart of the teachings that we seek to understand, than any yet.. and beyond any worldly jostlings for status between maths... and by the way, we have no certainty that Adi Shankara actually did 'found' four maths.. all is oral say-so. And claiming that a math has the written record of its heads since the foundation -- what style of writing is that written in, at the start in 500 BC ? We have to ask questions such as 'What difference to our interpretation of the shastra does it make if so-and-so lived before such-and-such ?' (If none, forget the enquiry.) Suppose Shankara lived before Buddha -- what significance for our understanding of both teachers would that make ? Sada has pointed out, too, that willy-nilly, we all live all the time in Advaita -- whose truths must then go back even further than the Upanishads which Adi Shankara commented, or the BrahmaSutras, to the RgVeda itself, to the creation of mind... Some scholars such as Professor Sharma have done their best to align the teachings with known dates, such as Shankara quoting a Chinese Buddhist 7th century writer, or being a contemporary of a known 8th century Chinese... but even this does not add to the statement of one Shankaracharya, that Shankara was merely reviving an ancient tradition of Advaita... So the discussion of birthdates and the mayaika 'authority of time' should give way to far more stringent, strenuously applied and ultimately illuminating questions of truth itself as expressed by the great acharyas. It has been the curse of Western scholarship to chase after 'Who said this first ?' as if Truth itself would appreciate the answer.. If Shankara's teaching or Buddha's teaching somehow affects the meaning of the other's teaching -- then that might be worth knowing. Anyone who says 'This puts the matter beyond controversy...' of an oral tradition, is up to no good...especially since controversy was the life-blood of the Shankaran renaissance... Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of Gerald Penn Sent: 24 December 2009 18:36 To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya inOctober, 2002 > Check this out: > > http://www.hvk.org/articles/0103/314.html I don't get it. This says: > Putting an end to controversy, sankaracharyas across the country today > unanimously accepted April 3, 509 BC as Adi Sankaras exact date of > birth. and then it says: > Sankaracharyas of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham, Dwarka Jyotirmath, Badrinath > Govardhanpeeth and Puri unanimously accepted the date and said there was > no need for debate on the subject. What about Sringeri? What kind of unanimity is that? I still don't know the title or venue of the original 2002 conference that gave rise to this thread - looked through the advaita-l archives but couldn't find it. Is that conference the same as the one mentioned in this (Jan, 2003) article? Thanks, Gerald Penn _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From dvnsarma at gmail.com Thu Dec 24 18:32:09 2009 From: dvnsarma at gmail.com (D.V.N. Sarma) Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 06:02:09 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya inOctober, 2002 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <776ad6cd0912241632u38c13735xaf7289593c702c22@mail.gmail.com> If Sankara is earlier to Buddha how can Sankara's paramaguru Gaudapada talk about Buddha{naitad Buddhena bhashitam). regards, Sarma. From sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com Thu Dec 24 21:22:51 2009 From: sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com (Sunil Bhattacharjya) Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 19:22:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya inOctober, 2002 In-Reply-To: <776ad6cd0912241632u38c13735xaf7289593c702c22@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <569070.715.qm@web113317.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Lord Buddha was born in 1887 BCE --- On Thu, 12/24/09, D.V.N. Sarma wrote: From: D.V.N. Sarma Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya inOctober, 2002 To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" Date: Thursday, December 24, 2009, 4:32 PM If Sankara is earlier to Buddha how can Sankara's paramaguru Gaudapada talk about Buddha{naitad Buddhena bhashitam). regards, Sarma. _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From rkmurthy at gmail.com Fri Dec 25 00:23:30 2009 From: rkmurthy at gmail.com (Ramesh Krishnamurthy) Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 11:53:30 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya inOctober, 2002 In-Reply-To: <776ad6cd0912241632u38c13735xaf7289593c702c22@mail.gmail.com> References: <776ad6cd0912241632u38c13735xaf7289593c702c22@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3df698e50912242223m4b0ffbecm1c275a6e3be7f645@mail.gmail.com> Nobody suggests that Sankaracharya was prior to the Buddha. Those who suggest a 500 BCE date for Sankaracharya also push back the Buddha's date to ~1800 BCE. My personal opinion is that this stand is historically untenable. That Sankaracharya lived sometime between 600-800 CE and the Buddha between 600-400 BCE is the most likely scenario. 2009/12/25 D.V.N. Sarma : > If Sankara is earlier to Buddha how can Sankara's paramaguru Gaudapada > talk about Buddha{naitad Buddhena bhashitam). > > regards, > Sarma. From satisharigela at yahoo.com Fri Dec 25 01:08:22 2009 From: satisharigela at yahoo.com (Satish Arigela) Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:08:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya inOctober, 2002 In-Reply-To: <569070.715.qm@web113317.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <812499.88244.qm@web53507.mail.re2.yahoo.com> shrIH   >Lord Buddha was born in 1887 BCE   As kids we were often warned about lying.. that to cover up one lie.. you will need to invent more lies.   Some people might have aged but they still havent learnt this simple kindergarten lesson, it would seem...   To all those sensible people...good luck in convincing the mUrkha janAH.   To that other learned member: No amount of schloarly research or material will convince them.. they already made up their mind. Those minds that are open/impartial will pause to think after some hints..if they dont ..we would be wasting time on them..         From sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com Fri Dec 25 10:25:26 2009 From: sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com (Sunil Bhattacharjya) Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 08:25:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya inOctober, 2002 In-Reply-To: <3df698e50912242223m4b0ffbecm1c275a6e3be7f645@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <171567.85269.qm@web113301.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Dear Shri Rameshji, You said as follows: My personal opinion is that this stand is historically untenable. That Sankaracharya  lived sometime between 600-800 CE and the Buddha between 600-400 BCE is the most likely scenario. What is the basis for your assertion? What do you think about the opinion of the Sringeri Math till the early twentieth century that Adi Sankaracharya was born in 44 BCE? What do you think about King  Sudhanva's copper inscription, which according to the Dwarka Math settles that date of adi sankaracharya inscription? Sincerely, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Thu, 12/24/09, Ramesh Krishnamurthy wrote: From: Ramesh Krishnamurthy Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya inOctober, 2002 To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" Date: Thursday, December 24, 2009, 10:23 PM Nobody suggests that Sankaracharya was prior to the Buddha. Those who suggest a 500 BCE date for Sankaracharya also push back the Buddha's date to ~1800 BCE. My personal opinion is that this stand is historically untenable. That Sankaracharya  lived sometime between 600-800 CE and the Buddha between 600-400 BCE is the most likely scenario. 2009/12/25 D.V.N. Sarma : > If Sankara is earlier to Buddha how can Sankara's paramaguru Gaudapada > talk about Buddha{naitad Buddhena bhashitam). > > regards, > Sarma. _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com Fri Dec 25 10:30:16 2009 From: sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com (Sunil Bhattacharjya) Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 08:30:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya inOctober, 2002 In-Reply-To: <812499.88244.qm@web53507.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <252652.73180.qm@web113316.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Do you think the Mathadhipatiis of the Sringeri Math lied when that Math said earlier that Adi Sankaracharya was born in 44 BCE? So beware of casting aspersions on scholars without adequate knowledge. What according to you is the correct date of Adi Sankaracharya and what evidences do you adduce to prove that? --- On Thu, 12/24/09, Satish Arigela wrote: From: Satish Arigela Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya inOctober, 2002 To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" Date: Thursday, December 24, 2009, 11:08 PM shrIH   >Lord Buddha was born in 1887 BCE   As kids we were often warned about lying.. that to cover up one lie.. you will need to invent more lies.   Some people might have aged but they still havent learnt this simple kindergarten lesson, it would seem...   To all those sensible people...good luck in convincing the mUrkha janAH.   To that other learned member: No amount of schloarly research or material will convince them.. they already made up their mind. Those minds that are open/impartial will pause to think after some hints..if they dont ..we would be wasting time on them..               _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Fri Dec 25 10:54:06 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 11:54:06 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari - 55 Message-ID: Sivaanandalahari - 55 (1) आध्यायामित-तेजसे श्रृतिपदै-र्बेध्याय साध्याय ते विध्यानन्दमयात्मने त्रिजगत-स्संरक्षणोध्योगिने । ध्येयायाखिल-योगिभि-स्सुरगणै-र्गेयाय मायाविने सम्यक्‌ताण्डव-संभ्रमाय जटिने सेयं नतिश्शंभवे ॥ ५५ ॥ AdhyAyAmita-tejase SrRutipadai-rbedhyAya sAdhyAya te vidhyAnandamayAtmane trijagata-ssaMrakShaNodhyogine | dhyeyAyAkhila-yogibhi-ssuragaNai-rgeyAya mAyAvine samyak^^tANDava-saMbhramAya jaTine seyaM natiSSaMbhave || 55 || I prostrate before you, Lord Shambu, considering that you were there before the Vedas, you are lustrous beyond limits, known by the words of Vedas, capable of being invoked in the idols, are in the form of knowledge and bliss, keenly motivated in protecting the three worlds, meditated upon by all yogis or saints, sung and praised by the associates of Devas, you control the Maya or illusion, deeply interested in the dance of Tandava, has matted hair and is the personification of all that is good. *Commentary **aadhyaaya** *= one who is before the creation;* **amithathEjasE* = of immesureable thEjaswaroopam; *sruthipathai:* = by the vEdhavaakyaas; *vEdhyaaya* = who could be known; *saadhyaaya *= who could be established in his mangalaroopam to be the protector of the bhakthas; *vidhyaanandhamayaathmanE* = one who has gnaanaswaroopam; *thrijagatha:* = of the three lOkas; *samrakshaNOdhyOginE* = one who is zealous in protecting; *akhilayOgibhi:* = by all the yOgis; *dhyEyaaya *= one who is worshipped; *suragaNai:* = by the devas; *gEyaa:* one who is sung in worship; *maayaavinE* = one who is the controller of the maaya; *samyakthaandavasambramaaya* = one who likes to perform a good dance; *jatinE* = one who jatai of hair; *sambhavE* = one who brings about auspiciousness; *thE* = to you; *saa* = that; *iyam* = this; *nathi:* = namaskaaram; (*bhavathu* = let it be) * *கண்முதற் புலன்களந்தக் கரணங்கள் விளங்குமெத்தாற் றண்மதி யருக்கனங்கி தாரகை விளங்கு மெத்தால் விண்முதற் பூதமியாவும் விளங்கு மெத்தாலந்த உண்மையாம் சிவப்ரகாச ஒளியது வாழிவாழி. (தாயுமானவர்) தேவாசுரர் நரர் சித்தர் வித்தியாதரர் மூவர்கள் ஆதியின் முப்பத்து மூவர்கள் தாபதர் சத்தர் சமயஞ் சராசரம் யாவையும் ஆடிடும் எம்மிறை யாடவே. (திருமந்திரம்) Hey! ParamEswara! How can I describe your swaroopa mahimai? the sruthis, sadhEva sowmya idham agrE aaseeth | ekamEvaadhvitheeyam brahma, and ahamEvaasa mEvaagrE naanyathyathsadhasathparam | paschaadhaham yadhEthascha yOvasishyaham || say of only you as the one who is before jagathsrishti. From this it is clear that everything has been created from you, protected by you and ultimately they all find layam in you. That you remain prior to everything. thasya bhaasaa sarvamidham vibhaathi You are excelling all the jyOthis as the limitless luminence. Of such great eminence of you can be known only through the sabhdam of rig vEdha, yajur vEdha, saama vEdha and atharvaNa vEdha. (continued in 55 (2) ) From abhayambika at gmail.com Fri Dec 25 11:02:50 2009 From: abhayambika at gmail.com (Ravisankar Mayavaram) Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 11:02:50 -0600 Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya inOctober, 2002 In-Reply-To: <252652.73180.qm@web113316.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <812499.88244.qm@web53507.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <252652.73180.qm@web113316.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: This is a sensitive topic. Post by Satish Arigela goes overboard. As a moderator, I request Satish avoid posting such messages. I do not know how many times this topic will be repeated on the list. Knowing well that there will no resolution for this on the list, I would request members to tread this topic with compassion and if possible altogether avoid it. Even though there may not be a public resolution for this issue unless the seers of Sringeri and Kanchi come together on an agreement -- individuals can resolve this one way or other for themselves. That way your peace of mind will not be lost and you can pursue the more important issue of how to overcome avidya. To help this in this regard, ask yourself these questions - these may help: Is it necessary to get a resolution on Sankara's date for being a smarta, prepare yourself to study vedanta, and attain mukti ? Or is this issue (date of Sankara) affect the quality of work contributed by post-Sankaran advaitins? Do you yourself know your family line clearly for 5+ generations before you? I will benefit of doubt to our aachaarya-s as their focus was more on vedaanta and not on chronological accuracy. My suggestion is resolve this for yourself and do not get agitated over it. More importantly, when this topic comes back again and again - learn well to locate the delete button even with eyes closed :-) With best wishes, Ravi On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Sunil Bhattacharjya < sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> wrote: > Do you think the Mathadhipatiis of the Sringeri Math lied when that Math > said earlier that Adi Sankaracharya was born in 44 BCE? So beware of casting > aspersions on scholars without adequate knowledge. What according to you is > the correct date of Adi Sankaracharya and what evidences do you adduce to > prove that? > > --- On Thu, 12/24/09, Satish Arigela wrote: > > From: Satish Arigela > Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya > inOctober, 2002 > To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" < > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> > Date: Thursday, December 24, 2009, 11:08 PM > > shrIH > > >Lord Buddha was born in 1887 BCE > > As kids we were often warned about lying.. that to cover up one lie.. you > will need to invent more lies. > > Some people might have aged but they still havent learnt this simple > kindergarten lesson, it would seem... > > To all those sensible people...good luck in convincing the mUrkha janAH. > > To that other learned member: No amount of schloarly research or material > will convince them.. they already made up their mind. Those minds that are > open/impartial will pause to think after some hints..if they dont ..we would > be wasting time on them.. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > -- Ravi From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Fri Dec 25 13:22:35 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 14:22:35 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari - 55 Message-ID: Sivaanandalahari - 55 (2) continued from 55 (1) sarvEvEdhaa: yathpadhamamananthi. Hey! ParamEswara! All the vEdas deliberate only of you. Even though you are vEdha vEdhya you take apraahrtha mangala swaroopam in order to protect the bhakthas and by giving them the darsanam you give janama sabalam to them. Even though you take the form of saguNa moorthy your nija swaroopam is 'vignyaanam aanandham brahma', 'aanandhO brahmEthi vyajaanEth' says the sruthi. This is your swaroopa lakshaNam. You are active in in lOkarakshakam by your leelas such as aalaahalapaanam, thripurasamhaaram etc. Those gnaanis who come from the nirvikalpa samaadhi after rejecting sarva jagath as false, who remain without any thought keeping your unbeaten manthra vigraham in their heart, to those gnaanis alone you are the object of adoration. You of the supreme mahimaa is adored by the gnaanis. KaaLidaasa describes that you are the easiest to know by the bhakthas because of your protection to the dEvas and saadhu janas as follows: vEdhaanthEshu yamaahurEkapurusham vyaapya sthitham rOdhasee yasminneeswara ithyananyavishaya: sabhdhO yathaarthaakshara: | antharyascha mumukshurbhiniyabhithapraaNaadhibhirbhrugyathE sa sthaaNu: sthirabhakthiyOgasulabHo ni:srEyasaayaasthuva: || Moreover, you are keeping as your subordinate that all powerful maaya that deludes the paamara janas making the false jagath as real and that which is real as unreal. You remain the object of the singing of praise by all the dEvas. You are seated there with the powerful jatai ready to burst out with your ecstatic dance. Let this namaskaaram be unto you of sarva vaibhavam, says AachaaryaaL. Sidhaanandha roopa: SivOham SivOham From srirudra at vsnl.com Sat Dec 26 00:19:20 2009 From: srirudra at vsnl.com (sriram) Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 11:49:20 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that date of Adi Sankara etc Message-ID: <4B35AAE8.2090104@vsnl.com> Dear Members It is an accepted fact of history that it was AdiSankara who propped up the sayings of Vedhas and Upanishads which were relegated to the background by the emergence of Jainism and Budhdhism which condemned the animal sacrifices in the yagas as were practised by the followers of Hindu dharma by probably incorrect interpretations of the Karmakanda directions.It fell on the slender shoulders of Sri Adi Shankara to clear the smear campaign by the Jains and Buddhists and rejuvenate the Sanathana Dharma.So if this is correct then it follows that Adi Sankara was after Buddha and Mahavira or at most a late contemporary to them.If Buddha was in 1887BCE etc then it is not wrong to assume that Adi Sankara was born in 44BCE.Finally this forum is to discuss the Advaitic teachings of Sri Sankara.It will be to the benefit of all of us if such controversies are avoided in this forum.We should know the truth no doubt but in that case we may lose the focus.R.Krishnamoorthy From srikanta at nie.ac.in Sat Dec 26 01:18:22 2009 From: srikanta at nie.ac.in (srikanta at nie.ac.in) Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 07:18:22 -0000 (GMT) Subject: [Advaita-l] On the question of the date of Shankaracharya Message-ID: <37498.58.68.57.18.1261811902.squirrel@mail.nie.ac.in> This is with reference to the Email of Sri. Michel Shepherd that Shankara quoting Chinese Buddhist statement of 7 th century doesnot add to the question of Shankara reviving the ancient Adwaitic tradition. I would like to make this matter clear.That Shankara revived ancient Adwaitic tradition is beyond doubt.Nor does he rely upon the logic of other schools to revive the ancient Adwaitic tradition.It has already been revived from time to time by the Sruthi and smrti pramanas.What Shankara did was to clear the confusion in the minds of the people,notably the traditionalists by his piercing logic about Adwaita.This has been done by his ParamaGuru Acharya Gaudapada also in his Mandukyopanishad Karikas.The stand point of logic is that it must clear all the questions regarding a siddhanta to make it clear by answering all the objections against it.For this Shankara in his Brahmasutra Bhashya and Upanishad bhashyas has brought the various schools to show that these objections are untenable.Only in the modern days we have different shades such as Neoadwatism which is propagated by some neo-gurus in India and abroad. N.Srikanta. From srikanta at nie.ac.in Sat Dec 26 01:19:29 2009 From: srikanta at nie.ac.in (srikanta at nie.ac.in) Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 07:19:29 -0000 (GMT) Subject: [Advaita-l] On the question of the date of Shankaracharya Message-ID: <4697.58.68.57.18.1261811969.squirrel@mail.nie.ac.in> This is with reference to the Email of Sri. Michel Shepherd that Shankara quoting Chinese Buddhist statement of 7 th century doesnot add to the question of Shankara reviving the ancient Adwaitic tradition. I would like to make this matter clear.That Shankara revived ancient Adwaitic tradition is beyond doubt.Nor does he rely upon the logic of other schools to revive the ancient Adwaitic tradition.It has already been revived from time to time by the Sruthi and smrti pramanas.What Shankara did was to clear the confusion in the minds of the people,notably the traditionalists by his piercing logic about Adwaita.This has been done by his ParamaGuru Acharya Gaudapada also in his Mandukyopanishad Karikas.The stand point of logic is that it must clear all the questions regarding a siddhanta to make it clear by answering all the objections against it.For this Shankara in his Brahmasutra Bhashya and Upanishad bhashyas has brought the various schools to show that these objections are untenable.Only in the modern days we have different shades such as Neoadwatism which is propagated by some neo-gurus in India and abroad. N.Srikanta. From srikanta at nie.ac.in Sat Dec 26 01:19:35 2009 From: srikanta at nie.ac.in (srikanta at nie.ac.in) Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 07:19:35 -0000 (GMT) Subject: [Advaita-l] On the question of the date of Shankaracharya Message-ID: <44557.58.68.57.18.1261811975.squirrel@mail.nie.ac.in> This is with reference to the Email of Sri. Michel Shepherd that Shankara quoting Chinese Buddhist statement of 7 th century doesnot add to the question of Shankara reviving the ancient Adwaitic tradition. I would like to make this matter clear.That Shankara revived ancient Adwaitic tradition is beyond doubt.Nor does he rely upon the logic of other schools to revive the ancient Adwaitic tradition.It has already been revived from time to time by the Sruthi and smrti pramanas.What Shankara did was to clear the confusion in the minds of the people,notably the traditionalists by his piercing logic about Adwaita.This has been done by his ParamaGuru Acharya Gaudapada also in his Mandukyopanishad Karikas.The stand point of logic is that it must clear all the questions regarding a siddhanta to make it clear by answering all the objections against it.For this Shankara in his Brahmasutra Bhashya and Upanishad bhashyas has brought the various schools to show that these objections are untenable.Only in the modern days we have different shades such as Neoadwatism which is propagated by some neo-gurus in India and abroad. N.Srikanta. From jaldhar at braincells.com Sat Dec 26 12:35:48 2009 From: jaldhar at braincells.com (Jaldhar H. Vyas) Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:35:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Advaita-l] New members Message-ID: Varadaraja Sharma Radhe Krishna We belong to Dakshinamnaya Sharada peetham. That of my wife's family belong to kanchi. our entire family regularly visits Sringeri to get darshan of Acharyal. We regularly recite Bhagavatham. Currently I am working in Kishtwar at Jammu & Kashmir. I read the postings on advaita from the archives. I wish to learn from the contributions of learned scholars. Namaskarams. Radhe Krishna Raghu I am close follower of Paramananda Bharathi P. Dhruv I have recently come across the teachings of Vedant, through the writings of Adi Shankaracharyaji's writings (Tattva Bodhah and Vivekchoodamani) and Vidyaranyaji's Panchadasi. I know this is my calling and am very interested in learning and applying these teachings to day to day life. In terms of the worldly identification, I am an engineer by profession, located in USA. I am a seeker of the "Real Knowledge". Sathyanarayan Pavamana I am follower of shri shankaracharya -- Jaldhar H. Vyas From svidyasankar at hotmail.com Sat Dec 26 17:56:55 2009 From: svidyasankar at hotmail.com (Vidyasankar Sundaresan) Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 15:56:55 -0800 Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: > > http://www.hvk.org/articles/0103/314.html > > I don't get it. This says: > > > Putting an end to controversy, sankaracharyas across the country today > > unanimously accepted April 3, 509 BC as Adi Sankaras exact date of > > birth. > > and then it says: > > > Sankaracharyas of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham, Dwarka Jyotirmath, Badrinath > > Govardhanpeeth and Puri unanimously accepted the date and said there was > > no need for debate on the subject. > > What about Sringeri? What kind of unanimity is that? This thread has taken a life that I didn't expect! For the record, there is no indication that any of the said Sankaracharyas even attended this conference. The most they may have done would have been to send a letter of benediction or a reiteration of their matha's official stances and lineages. And of course, the omission of Sringeri is glaringly obvious, but that is nothing new to someone who has been watching the way these issues pan out in India nowadays. After all, one can generate unanimity by suppressing all facts and opinions to the contrary. So, the link to the news item about this supposedly scholarly conference precisely proves my point about the political motivation behind the entire exercise. Dr. Shrikant Jichkar, quoted in the news item, was one of the thousands of Indian politicians with moderate successes in India's electoral politics. On the one hand, he was well-read enough, with diverse interests and university degrees, but on the other, he was primarily a politician, interested more in power play than in anything else. As I said in my earlier post on this topic, in the world of political expediency, what is right and true does not matter and those who want to prove by assertion and by repetition think they can safely marginalize those who do not wish to be vocal about publicizing themselves. That's about it. The reason I could not be more specific about the article on the so-called Sudhanva grant, written by a professor from the university at Ujjain, is that I do not have physical access to it at the moment. It appeared in one of the commemorative publications from Sringeri, sometime in the 1970's or the 1980's. When I visit India early next year, I may be able to hunt it down and share it with the list, if readers are interested. Before signing off and requesting an end to this thread from everybody, let me just address some of Sunil Bhattacharjya's questions about the Sringeri reecord and about the supposed "Western inspired controversy" about Sankaracharya's date. In the older publications from Sringeri that mentioned 44 BC, the writers took the Vikramaditya of the Sringeri record to be the king of the Vikrama era. This lead to them assigning 800 years to Suresvara. In later times, when it seemed more reasonable to give up this assumption, based on a lot of evidence and historical research, the Sringeri publications have adopted the 8th century date. Throughout all this, they have always stuck to what their internal record says and their lineage. The only thing that changed is the correspondence to the dates reported according to the modern common calendar. Why is this so hard to understand? After all, for thousands of years prior to British rule, no one in India ever used the Western calendar. In any case, even if someone wants to harp on the date of 44 BC given in older Sringeri publications, how does it strengthen a case for 509 BC?!! And before talking of whether someone lied then or someone is lying now, why not pick up a copy of Swami Tapasyananda's translation of the Madhaviya Sankaravijaya and read the official letter from the Sringeri authorities clarifying their position? As for the so-called controversy created by Western scholars, really, this is one issue where all the controversy has been created not by Western scholars but by Indians whole-scale. The real truth and what people like to believe can be very different things, but one's personal belief does not change the truth. The Kollam era in Kerala, traditionally linked to the times of Adi Sankaracharya, was not created by Western scholars. The Sringeri record was not created by Western scholars. And as hard as it may be to accept, there is no other traditional institution whose records stand up to independent historical scrutiny the way Sringeri records do and there is no other traditional institution that has made its records available to scholars for independent study, the way the Sringeri Matha has. I have given numerous references to publications both from Sringeri and by independent writers in the past on this list, so to pretend otherwise is just disingenuous. Regards, Vidyasankar _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222986/direct/01/ From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Sat Dec 26 20:15:40 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 21:15:40 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Obviously Vidyasankaraji has not (didn't want to) read Sri Ravisankar Mayavaram's post! Hindus do believe in Chiramjeevis atleast six in number and people having lived for milleniums such as Parasurama and Jaambhavaan. There is a tradition that puts Gaudapadha to have lived for a thousand years Sureswara for several hundred years. Even recently ask the devotees of Swami Gnanananda Giri and they will say he lived for multiple centuries. But secular investigators are different species. To them Hinduism is a myth! On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan < svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > http://www.hvk.org/articles/0103/314.html > > > > I don't get it. This says: > > > > > Putting an end to controversy, sankaracharyas across the country today > > > unanimously accepted April 3, 509 BC as Adi Sankaras exact date of > > > birth. > > > > and then it says: > > > > > Sankaracharyas of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham, Dwarka Jyotirmath, Badrinath > > > Govardhanpeeth and Puri unanimously accepted the date and said there > was > > > no need for debate on the subject. > > > > What about Sringeri? What kind of unanimity is that? > > > This thread has taken a life that I didn't expect! For the record, there is > no indication that any of the said Sankaracharyas even attended this > conference. The most they may have done would have been to send a letter of > benediction or a reiteration of their matha's official stances and lineages. > And of course, the omission of Sringeri is glaringly obvious, but that is > nothing new to someone who has been watching the way these issues pan out in > India nowadays. After all, one can generate unanimity by suppressing all > facts and opinions to the contrary. > > > > So, the link to the news item about this supposedly scholarly conference > precisely proves my point about the political motivation behind the entire > exercise. Dr. Shrikant Jichkar, quoted in the news item, was one of the > thousands of Indian politicians with moderate successes in India's electoral > politics. On the one hand, he was well-read enough, with diverse interests > and university degrees, but on the other, he was primarily a politician, > interested more in power play than in anything else. As I said in my earlier > post on this topic, in the world of political expediency, what is right and > true does not matter and those who want to prove by assertion and by > repetition think they can safely marginalize those who do not wish to be > vocal about publicizing themselves. > > > > That's about it. The reason I could not be more specific about the article > on the so-called Sudhanva grant, written by a professor from the university > at Ujjain, is that I do not have physical access to it at the moment. It > appeared in one of the commemorative publications from Sringeri, sometime in > the 1970's or the 1980's. When I visit India early next year, I may be able > to hunt it down and share it with the list, if readers are interested. > > > > Before signing off and requesting an end to this thread from everybody, let > me just address some of Sunil Bhattacharjya's questions about the Sringeri > reecord and about the supposed "Western inspired controversy" about > Sankaracharya's date. In the older publications from Sringeri that mentioned > 44 BC, the writers took the Vikramaditya of the Sringeri record to be the > king of the Vikrama era. This lead to them assigning 800 years to Suresvara. > In later times, when it seemed more reasonable to give up this assumption, > based on a lot of evidence and historical research, the Sringeri > publications have adopted the 8th century date. Throughout all this, they > have always stuck to what their internal record says and their lineage. The > only thing that changed is the correspondence to the dates reported > according to the modern common calendar. Why is this so hard to understand? > After all, for thousands of years prior to British rule, no one in India > ever used the Western calendar. In a > ny case, even if someone wants to harp on the date of 44 BC given in older > Sringeri publications, how does it strengthen a case for 509 BC?!! And > before talking of whether someone lied then or someone is lying now, why not > pick up a copy of Swami Tapasyananda's translation of the Madhaviya > Sankaravijaya and read the official letter from the Sringeri authorities > clarifying their position? > > > > As for the so-called controversy created by Western scholars, really, this > is one issue where all the controversy has been created not by Western > scholars but by Indians whole-scale. The real truth and what people like to > believe can be very different things, but one's personal belief does not > change the truth. The Kollam era in Kerala, traditionally linked to the > times of Adi Sankaracharya, was not created by Western scholars. The > Sringeri record was not created by Western scholars. And as hard as it may > be to accept, there is no other traditional institution whose records stand > up to independent historical scrutiny the way Sringeri records do and there > is no other traditional institution that has made its records available to > scholars for independent study, the way the Sringeri Matha has. I have given > numerous references to publications both from Sringeri and by independent > writers in the past on this list, so to pretend otherwise is just > disingenuous. > > > > Regards, > > Vidyasankar > > _________________________________________________________________ > Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. > http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222986/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Sat Dec 26 23:19:17 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 00:19:17 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari - 56 Message-ID: Sivaanandalahari - 56नित्याय त्रिगुणात्मने पुरजिते कात्यायनी-श्रेयसे सत्यायादिकुटुंबिने मुनिमन: प्रत्यक्ष-चिन्मूर्तये । मायासृष्ट-जगत्त्रयाय सकलाम्नायन्त-संचारिणे सायं तान्डव-संभ्रमाय जटिने सेयं नातिश्शंभवे ॥ ५६ ॥ nityAya triguNAtmane purajite kAtyAyanI-Sreyase satyAyAdikuTuMbine munimana: pratyakSha-chinmUrtaye | mAyAsRuShTa-jagattrayAya sakalAmnAyanta-saMchAriNe sAyaM tAnDava-saMbhramAya jaTine seyaM nAtiSSaMbhave || 56 || NamaskArams or salutations to Lord Sambhu, who is eternal, who has the three Gunas or qualities as his body, who has won over the three cities, who is the fame of Katyayani, who is embodiment of truth, who is the first to have a family, who appears I the minds of the sages as personification knowledge, who defeats the three worlds by Maya, who dances at the end of all the Vedas, who is fond of dancing in the evening and who has matted hair. * Commentary **nithyaaya* = who is nithya swaroopan; *thriguNaathmanE* = who has the sareeram made up of the three guNas viz. sathwa, raja and thama; *purajithE* = one who destroys the sthoola, sookshma and kaaraNa sareeras; *kaathyaayaneesrEyasE* = one who is the phala swaroopan of paarvathi's thapas; *sathyaaya* = sathya swaroopan; *aadhikudumbinE* = the original kudumbi (family man); *munimana: prathyaksha chinmoorthayE* = who is the gnaanaswaroopan of the manas of the muni janas; *maayaasrushtajagathrayaaya* = one who has the three worlds created by the maaya; *sakalaamnaayaanthasanchaariNE* = who travels on the peaks of the upanishads of all the vedas; *saayam* = in the evening; *thaaNdavasambhramaaya* = one is who likes to dance; *jatinE* = who has matted locks; *sambhavE* = to Sambhu; *iyam* = this; *nathi:* = namaskaaram; (*bhavathu* = may it be). na thvE vaaham jaathu naasam na thvam ne mE janaadhipaa: | na rchaiva na bhavishyaama: sarvE vayamatha: param || says the saasthra. Accordingly there was no time when sarvEswara was not and there will be no time when he will not be, what then can we say of the present! Thus the vasthu that can have no destruction in the kaalathrayam called the past, the present and the future is called Nithya vasthu. Vasthu means poruL. So that paramporuL is none other than ParamEswara! That Parameswara with sathwa guna remains as Vishnu swaroopan, with rajO guna remains as Brahma swaroopan and with thamO guna as rudhra swaroopan and keeps doing srishti, sthithi and layam. Also he does dhwamsam of the three sareeras called sthula, sookshma and kaaraNa sareeras. Moreover in respect of the praaNis who are governed by the sabhdham called 'I' (aham, naan) he teaches them aathma thathwa. Moreover he remains the phala swaroopi of Parvathi's thapas. Besides he, cutting across the three kaalas remains the void (thrikaala paricchedha soonyan). At the same time he shines as the sathya swaroopan and rakshaanukooli of sakala praaNis in the chathurdasa lOkas. Thus with Parvathi he remains the maatha and pithaa of all the lOkas. And indeed he is the brilliant gnaanaswaroopi in the minds of those munijanas in their samaadhi. And he keeps the three lOkas created by the maaya as his body. This mahEswara of the mahaa mahima roams on the sikharam of the upanishads of the Vedas. Added to that he who did garvabhangam of the Ganga, he who created the all powerful veerabhadra to destroy the yagna of dhaksaprajaadhipathi shows his gaambeeryam with his jataa. As if these are not enough, he is fond of dancing in the evening to do anugraham to the bakthas. To such a mangalaswaroopi Sambu let my namaskaarams be. Sambo MahaadEva! From rishyasrunga at rediffmail.com Sun Dec 27 08:04:46 2009 From: rishyasrunga at rediffmail.com (Varadaraja Sharma) Date: 27 Dec 2009 14:04:46 -0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] =?utf-8?q?_Conference_on_that_Date_of_Adi_Sankarachar?= =?utf-8?q?ya_in_October=2C_2002?= Message-ID: <20091227140446.62103.qmail@f6mail-144-198.rediffmail.com> Radhe KrishnaShriman anbusivam,Hindus do believe in Chiramjeevis atleast six in number i think it should be sevenAshwattama balir vyaso hanumancha vibheeshanahakrupaha parashuramascha saptaite chirajeevinaharegardsRadhe Krishna From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Sun Dec 27 09:59:48 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:59:48 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 In-Reply-To: <20091227140446.62103.qmail@f6mail-144-198.rediffmail.com> References: <20091227140446.62103.qmail@f6mail-144-198.rediffmail.com> Message-ID: Sharmaji, Long time no hear! Glad we can meet in this blog! Namaskaram, Anbu On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Varadaraja Sharma < rishyasrunga at rediffmail.com> wrote: > Radhe KrishnaShriman anbusivam,Hindus do believe in Chiramjeevis atleast > six in number i think it should be sevenAshwattama balir vyaso hanumancha > vibheeshanahakrupaha parashuramascha saptaite chirajeevinaharegardsRadhe > Krishna > _______________________________________________ > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com Sun Dec 27 11:11:30 2009 From: sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com (Sunil Bhattacharjya) Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 09:11:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <762721.52963.qm@web113318.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> The members may find it interesting to note that one Muslim scholar authored a paper to suggest that Adi Sankaracharya was influenced by Islamic scholars, who were present in Kerala in the 8th century CE.  I personally look forward to reading the paper by the Vikram University professor, which was referred to by Vidyasankarji, when that becomes available. I would also like to know on what basis the Sringeri authorities do not give importance to Sudhanva's inscription. --- On Sat, 12/26/09, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote: From: Vidyasankar Sundaresan Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 To: "Advaita List" Date: Saturday, December 26, 2009, 3:56 PM > > http://www.hvk.org/articles/0103/314.html > > I don't get it. This says: > > > Putting an end to controversy, sankaracharyas across the country today > > unanimously accepted April 3, 509 BC as Adi Sankaras exact date of > > birth. > > and then it says: > > > Sankaracharyas of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham, Dwarka Jyotirmath, Badrinath > > Govardhanpeeth and Puri unanimously accepted the date and said there was > > no need for debate on the subject. > > What about Sringeri? What kind of unanimity is that? This thread has taken a life that I didn't expect! For the record, there is no indication that any of the said Sankaracharyas even attended this conference. The most they may have done would have been to send a letter of benediction or a reiteration of their matha's official stances and lineages. And of course, the omission of Sringeri is glaringly obvious, but that is nothing new to someone who has been watching the way these issues pan out in India nowadays. After all, one can generate unanimity by suppressing all facts and opinions to the contrary. So, the link to the news item about this supposedly scholarly conference precisely proves my point about the political motivation behind the entire exercise. Dr. Shrikant Jichkar, quoted in the news item, was one of the thousands of Indian politicians with moderate successes in India's electoral politics. On the one hand, he was well-read enough, with diverse interests and university degrees, but on the other, he was primarily a politician, interested more in power play than in anything else. As I said in my earlier post on this topic, in the world of political expediency, what is right and true does not matter and those who want to prove by assertion and by repetition think they can safely marginalize those who do not wish to be vocal about publicizing themselves. That's about it. The reason I could not be more specific about the article on the so-called Sudhanva grant, written by a professor from the university at Ujjain, is that I do not have physical access to it at the moment. It appeared in one of the commemorative publications from Sringeri, sometime in the 1970's or the 1980's. When I visit India early next year, I may be able to hunt it down and share it with the list, if readers are interested. Before signing off and requesting an end to this thread from everybody, let me just address some of Sunil Bhattacharjya's questions about the Sringeri reecord and about the supposed "Western inspired controversy" about Sankaracharya's date. In the older publications from Sringeri that mentioned 44 BC, the writers took the Vikramaditya of the Sringeri record to be the king of the Vikrama era. This lead to them assigning 800 years to Suresvara. In later times, when it seemed more reasonable to give up this assumption, based on a lot of evidence and historical research, the Sringeri publications have adopted the 8th century date. Throughout all this, they have always stuck to what their internal record says and their lineage. The only thing that changed is the correspondence to the dates reported according to the modern common calendar. Why is this so hard to understand? After all, for thousands of years prior to British rule, no one in India ever used the Western calendar. In a ny case, even if someone wants to harp on the date of 44 BC given in older Sringeri publications, how does it strengthen a case for 509 BC?!! And before talking of whether someone lied then or someone is lying now, why not pick up a copy of Swami Tapasyananda's translation of the Madhaviya Sankaravijaya and read the official letter from the Sringeri authorities clarifying their position? As for the so-called controversy created by Western scholars, really, this is one issue where all the controversy has been created not by Western scholars but by Indians whole-scale. The real truth and what people like to believe can be very different things, but one's personal belief does not change the truth. The Kollam era in Kerala, traditionally linked to the times of Adi Sankaracharya, was not created by Western scholars. The Sringeri record was not created by Western scholars. And as hard as it may be to accept, there is no other traditional institution whose records stand up to independent historical scrutiny the way Sringeri records do and there is no other traditional institution that has made its records available to scholars for independent study, the way the Sringeri Matha has. I have given numerous references to publications both from Sringeri and by independent writers in the past on this list, so to pretend otherwise is just disingenuous. Regards, Vidyasankar                           _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222986/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Sun Dec 27 18:26:25 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:26:25 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari - 57 Message-ID: Sivaanandalahari - 57नित्यम् स्वोदरपोषनाय सकलानुद्दिश्य वित्ताशया, व्यर्थम् पर्यटनम् करोमि भवत: सेवाम् न जाने विभो, मज्जन्मान्तरपुन्यपाकबलतस्त्वम् शर्व सर्वान्तर स्तिष्टस्येव हि तेन वा पशुपते ते रक्षनीयोऽस्म्यहम्. ५७ nityam svodarapoShanAya sakalAnuddishya vittASayA, vyartham paryaTanam karomi bhavata: sevAm na jAne vibho, majjanmAntarapunyapAkabalatastvam Sarva sarvAntara stiShTasyeva hi tena vA paSupate te rakShanIyo&smyaham. 57 Always For filling my stomach and desirous of becoming rich Many I have contacted and have traveled without aim, But knew not service to you, Oh all pervading one. Oh, Lord of all beings, Oh . Lord who wipes away sin of his devotees, Because of the good that I did in my previous birth, Knew I, that you are within all beings, And so I become fit to be saved by you. As bhagavatpadAl asks "praNantuM stotuM vA katham-akRtapuNyaH prabhavati " How is it possible for someone who has not accrued any merits to praise or prostrate to you? *Commentary *nithyam = always; swOdharapoorNaaya = in order to take care of his stomach; vitthaasayaa = by the greed for money; sakalaan = everyone; uddhisya = about; vyartham = waste; pparyatanam = wandering; karOmi = I do; hE vibhO = Hey! Sarvavyaapi; bhavatha: = of you the poojya; sEvaam = sevice; na jaanE = I do not know; hE pasupathE = Hey! PasupathE! hE sarva = one who removes the paapa of the bhakthas or one who destroys during mahaapraLaya all the praaNis from Brahma to amoeba; hi = for whatever reason; thwam = you; majjanmaantharapushyapaakabalatha: = cooked up by my janmaanthara puNyas; sarvaanthara: = as sarvaanthararoopi; thishtasyEva = being; thEna vaa = atleast by that; thE = to you; aham = I; rakshaNeeeya: = qualified to be protected; asmi = become. Hey! ParamEswara! There is no doubt that you are the upaasya devatha i.e. the God of our meditation. To such a great Lord I have done no service at all. In order to protect my family and to protect myself spurred my the greed for money, I wasted my time in search of rich people's abode. Other than that I have never spent even a fraction of time to place even a bilva leaf at your lotus feet. Hey! Sarvavyaapi! Hey! ParamEswara! I have never known you as the poojyan of great mahima. As long as there was an iota of strength I have spent it in search of money. I have done yeoman service to rich people. But, Hey! ParamEswara! "Snaathvaa prathyooshakaalE snapavidhividhow naahrutham gaangathOyam poojaartham vaa kadhaachidhbahutharaghahanaakhandabilveethalaani | naaneethaa padhmamaalaa sarasi vikasithaa gandhapushpai sthvadhartham kshanthavyO mEparaadha: siva siva siva bhO: sri mahaadEva sambho || (Sivaaparaadhakshamaapana sthOthram) I have never brought the Ganga jalam for your abhishEkam, after taking bath in the morning. I have not gone to the woods to get even one bhilvadhaLam for your pooja. I have never made a garland of lotus flowers for you nor have I brought flowers for your archana. For my own health and for the health of my family I have brought a lot of milk but never once used it to do abhishEkam to your jyothirlingam. Yet, siva Siva Siva bhO: sri MahaadEva Sambho! I You are a sakthan capable of removing the paapa of your bhakthas. I beg of you to save me! Besides, Hey! SambhO! I become entitled to be saved by you either because of my poorva puNya or because you happened to reside as the antharyaami of my body. Moreover, Hey! SarvEswara! it does not matter if I have done puNya or not. It is your duty to save me because you alone is showering the amrutham by your kaaruNyam. If you give up on me who would I surrender to? You happen to be the resort for sarvalOkam to surrender, please save, please, please save me cries AachaaryaaL. The saaraamsam of this sloka is that there is that no sEva is greater than SivasEva. Only by that can one attain MOkshasukham is the siddhaantham. BhagavatpaadhaaL sang this sloka of Sivaaparaadhakshamaapana sthOthram for those who wasted their life without SivasEva. There are 11 slokas in that sthOthram. Reading them alone will liberate one from the cycle of birth and death. siva siva siva bhO: sri mahaadEva sambho. From svidyasankar at hotmail.com Mon Dec 28 08:57:14 2009 From: svidyasankar at hotmail.com (Vidyasankar Sundaresan) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 06:57:14 -0800 Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 In-Reply-To: References: , , , Message-ID: Anbu Sivam wrote: > > Obviously Vidyasankaraji has not (didn't want to) read Sri Ravisankar > Mayavaram's post! > Thanks for speculating about what I did or didn't do, but I did read my co-moderator's post. However, I just don't see how anything that I said went against what he wrote, nor how your views about Chiranjeevis fit in this context. If sureSvara is a Chiranjeevi, that tradition is not recorded anywhere in the Sankaravijaya texts. In fact, there is a well-recorded tradition that sureSvara was reborn as vAcaspati miSra, in order to complete the mission of writing a sub-commentary on the brahmasUtra bhAshya. It is easy to create myths and it is easy to see contradictions between different myths or even different versions of the same myth. It is not necessary that anybody who disagrees with a specific myth is a "secular" investigator. Give me the legends and myths in old texts, whether in Sanskrit or Tamil or Marathi or Bengali. Spare me the modern myths created within the last two hundred years, some of which are nothing more than knee-jerk reactions to British rule and the presence of European Christianity in India. Sunil Bhattacharjya wrote: >I would also like to know on what basis the Sringeri authorities do not give importance to Sudhanva's inscription. Simple. As per all reports, Sringeri Matha has no such inscription in its possession, nor do they have any tradition that such an inscription ever existed. There are so many variant traditions pertaining to Sankara bhagavatpAda in the whole country. Why should one of the most important lineages with arguably the most authentic tradition accept anything other than their own handed-down tradition? It is perfectly well-known within Hinduism, that different traditions and minor variations on the same traditions can co-exist, without leading to controversy. Different Puranas give different details of the same legends pertaining to the same people. That is not a problem at all. What IS a problem, is the modern tendency to artificially fit an imaginary consensus on such variants, based on the current flavor of politics, and in the process, attempt to denigrate and marginalize anybody and everybody who doesn't subscribe to this unnecessary tendency. What I see in these attempts to "prove" that Sankara lived in 509 BC, to assert that the later date was a controversial one created by Western scholars to devalue Indian antiquity and to assert that anybody who accepts a later date is a fool taken in by Western chicanery is precisely that - an attempt to denigrate and marginalize the Sringeri lineage, one of the most important ones in Sankarn tradition, merely because they have seen no need to do anything other than stick to their own tradition. If this is massively inconvenient for the purposes of some people, so be it. Thus it is, that although in 1993, the Sankaracharyas met in person and themselves acknowledged that they have different views on the life and times of Sankara bhagavatpAda*, about ten years later, others organize "conferences" and issue press releases claiming "unanimity". There is another term for this process in modern parlance. It is called "manufacturing consent". If I succeed in locating the article by the Ujjain professor when I go to India in 2010, I will post more details. Other than that, I have said all I that want to on this subject. Happy new secular year wishes, Vidyasankar * vayaM matabhedinaH (we are of differing views) - Sanskrit statement issued in Sringeri in 1993, personally signed by the heads of Sringeri, Puri, Dwaraka, Badrinath and Kanchipuram Mathas. This statement is publicly available, as it was issued within a few months after the Ayodhya fiasco in 1992, and Hindu and Muslim religious leaders were actively trying to resolve that controversy. _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/ From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Mon Dec 28 10:35:28 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:35:28 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sir, All I was implying was: "Why is it so important for you to anchor to a date and call Mahaswami in a fashion that hurt the feeling of the devotees? At the end of BrihadhaaranyakOpanishad there is a huge list of lineage given. Has any Hindu tried to fix a date of any of them? Obviously that is not our importance. You fix a date and question KamakOti Peetam and they give an answer giving their lineage. Is this topic of any importance to saadhakas? Only the secularists will be interested in the dates to show the importance of whiteman, blackman, Aryan Dravidan etc crap. My plea to fellow members is not to get caught in the ego trips but just respect the Gurus and their lineage *irrespective of the Peetam* for any disrespect will retard them deep down in the cycle of birth and death. My huge respect for you, Vidyasankarji is yet undiminished. This is my last post on this topic. My humble apologies to Ravisankarji. On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan < svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote: > > Anbu Sivam wrote: > > > > > Obviously Vidyasankaraji has not (didn't want to) read Sri Ravisankar > > Mayavaram's post! > > > > > Thanks for speculating about what I did or didn't do, but I did read my > co-moderator's post. > > However, I just don't see how anything that I said went against what he > wrote, nor how your > > views about Chiranjeevis fit in this context. If sureSvara is a > Chiranjeevi, that tradition is not > > recorded anywhere in the Sankaravijaya texts. In fact, there is a > well-recorded tradition that > > sureSvara was reborn as vAcaspati miSra, in order to complete the mission > of writing a > > sub-commentary on the brahmasUtra bhAshya. > > > > It is easy to create myths and it is easy to see contradictions between > different myths or > > even different versions of the same myth. It is not necessary that anybody > who disagrees > > with a specific myth is a "secular" investigator. Give me the legends and > myths in old texts, > > whether in Sanskrit or Tamil or Marathi or Bengali. Spare me the modern > myths created within > > the last two hundred years, some of which are nothing more than knee-jerk > reactions to > > British rule and the presence of European Christianity in India. > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya wrote: > > > > >I would also like to know on what basis the Sringeri authorities do not > give importance to Sudhanva's inscription. > > > > Simple. As per all reports, Sringeri Matha has no such inscription in its > possession, nor do they > > have any tradition that such an inscription ever existed. There are so many > variant traditions > > pertaining to Sankara bhagavatpAda in the whole country. Why should one of > the most > > important lineages with arguably the most authentic tradition accept > anything other than their > > own handed-down tradition? > > > > It is perfectly well-known within Hinduism, that different traditions and > minor variations on the > > same traditions can co-exist, without leading to controversy. Different > Puranas give different > > details of the same legends pertaining to the same people. That is not a > problem at all. What > > IS a problem, is the modern tendency to artificially fit an imaginary > consensus on such variants, > > based on the current flavor of politics, and in the process, attempt to > denigrate and marginalize > > anybody and everybody who doesn't subscribe to this unnecessary tendency. > What I see in > > these attempts to "prove" that Sankara lived in 509 BC, to assert that the > later date was a > > controversial one created by Western scholars to devalue Indian antiquity > and to assert that > > anybody who accepts a later date is a fool taken in by Western chicanery is > precisely that - > > an attempt to denigrate and marginalize the Sringeri lineage, one of the > most important ones in > > Sankarn tradition, merely because they have seen no need to do anything > other than stick to > > their own tradition. If this is massively inconvenient for the purposes of > some people, so be it. > > Thus it is, that although in 1993, the Sankaracharyas met in person and > themselves acknowledged > > that they have different views on the life and times of Sankara > bhagavatpAda*, about ten years > > later, others organize "conferences" and issue press releases claiming > "unanimity". There is > > another term for this process in modern parlance. It is called > "manufacturing consent". > > > > If I succeed in locating the article by the Ujjain professor when I go to > India in 2010, I will post > > more details. Other than that, I have said all I that want to on this > subject. > > > > Happy new secular year wishes, > > Vidyasankar > > > > * vayaM matabhedinaH (we are of differing views) - Sanskrit statement > issued in Sringeri in 1993, > > personally signed by the heads of Sringeri, Puri, Dwaraka, Badrinath and > Kanchipuram Mathas. This > > statement is publicly available, as it was issued within a few months after > the Ayodhya fiasco in > > 1992, and Hindu and Muslim religious leaders were actively trying to > resolve that controversy. > > _________________________________________________________________ > Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. > http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From svidyasankar at hotmail.com Mon Dec 28 14:48:53 2009 From: svidyasankar at hotmail.com (Vidyasankar Sundaresan) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:48:53 -0800 Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 In-Reply-To: References: , , , , , Message-ID: > All I was implying was: "Why is it so important for you to anchor to a date > and call Mahaswami in a fashion that hurt the feeling of the devotees? At I would request you to show me a single posting from me in the current thread where I have said anything to hurt feelings of devotees. The only person I have even mentioned by name is Shrikant Jichkar, a dead Indian politician. I have only generally described some of the political compulsions in keeping this debate alive, as opposed to valid and honest, traditional/scholarly disagreements about it. Regards, Vidyasankar _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222986/direct/01/ From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Mon Dec 28 20:30:34 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 21:30:34 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari - 58 Message-ID: Sivaanandalahari - 58एको वारिजबान्दव: क्षितिनभो व्याप्तम् तमोमण्डलम् भित्वा लोचनगोचरोऽपि भवति त्वम् कोटिसूर्यप्रभ: वेद्य: किन्न भवस्यहो घनतरम् कीद्रुग्भवेन्मत्तम, स्तत्सर्व व्यपनीय मे पशुपते साक्षात प्रसन्नो भव ॥ ५८ ॥ eko vArijabAndava: kShitinabho vyAptam tamomaNDalam BitvA locanagocaro&pi bhavati tvam koTisUryaprabha: vedya: kinna bhavasyaho ghanataram kIdrugbhavenmattama, statsarva vyapanIya me paSupate sAkShAta prasanno bhava || 58 || The sun , the friend of the lotus, Tearing the darkness pervading in sky and earth. Becomes visible to the eye, But you having the luster of billions of suns, Are not known to me. Alas! the darkness of ignorance, Surrounding me must be very dense! Oh , Lord of all beings, Remove all that darkness, And become really visible to me. *Commentary **hE pasupathE* = Hey! ParamEswara! *Eka:* = as one; *vaarijabaandhava:* = soorya bhagavan; *kshithinabhOvyaaptham* = that which is pervading boomi and aakaasa; *thamOmandalam* = the area of darkness; *bhithwaa* = remove; *lOchanaghOcharOpi* = the object of the eyes; *bhavathi* = becomes; *kOtisooryaprabha:* = equal to the brilliance of a crore sooryas; *thwam* = you; *vEdhya:* = capable of being known; *kim* = why; *na bhavasi* = do not become; *ahO* = surpirse! *mathama:* = the darkness of my agnaanam; *keedhrugh* = by which; *bhavEth* = become; *thath* = therefore; *sarvam* = all (agnaanam); *vyapaneeya* = remove; *mE* = to me; *saakshaath* = as prathyaksham; *prasanna:* = become prasannam; *bhava* = happen. சித்தமறியாதபடி சித்ததில் நின்றிலகு திவ்ய தேஜோமயத்தை.. (தாயுமானவர்) Hey! ParamEswara! You are GyaanajyOthi. Soorya Bhagavan, even though he is one, he is able to remove the darkness that pervades all of bhoolOka to aakaasa and yet is available to the reach of the eyes (lOchanaghOcharam). You on the other hand are equal to a crore sooryas with unequalled resplendence yet seems incapable of removing the darkness of my moola agnyaanam and also elude the reach of my eyes. Why are you in my case being so out of reach? I have no idea of the depth and intensity of the darkness of my agnyaanam. நெஞ்சக்கனகல் says AruNagirinaathar emphasising its horrible opaqueness. In truth vidwaans say that this biggest darkness called agnyaanam is the maayai. Hey! ParamEswara! This maayai called agnyaanam is deceiving the praaNis from knowing (hiding your shine of) your nijaswaroopam. Sruthi says "aanandham brahmEthi vyajaanaath'. What this maayai is doing is that she is hiding the brahmaanandham which is the nijaswaroopam of the aathma and prevents it from shining. In truth sath, chith and aanandham are the the nijaswaroopam of the aathma. That vasthu that has no destruction in all three kaalas is to be knows as 'Sath'. The consciousness is known as 'chith'. And the swaswaroopaanandam should be known as sukham. This lady Maaya in respect of the praaNIs does not hide the 'sath' amsam and 'chith' amsam but only hides only the aanandhaamsam. That is why the praaNis go through untold sufferings. Everyone never doubts: 'do I exist?' or 'do I not exist?' Everyone has the definite conviction in saying "I exist" and thus Maayai does not hide the sath swaroopaamsam. In the same way in respect of knowledge a person is sure of it when he says "I know" (*I know*that I know) or "I do not know" ( *I know* that I do not know) and thus Maayai does not hide the chith swaroopaamsam. But lo and behold! Everyone invariably, without even having the doubt whether he is sukhaswaroopi or a dhukkaswaroopi, he has the conviction that he is dhukkaswaroopi! Thus it is very very clear that no one has the swaanubhavam that he is sukhaswaroopi. From this the definite conclusion is that the maayai hides only the aathma's aanandhaamsam. Therefore all the praaNis are endlessly roaming in search of sukham in the dwaitha prapancha dhukka saagaram created by maayai. Therefore, hey! ParamEswara! you are not available to me because I do not have the gnyaanam that aathmaa is ever aanandhaswaroopi. Suppose if someone were to object to the complaint and ask: "Why don't you of your own accord remove the darkness of agnyaanam", the answer of bhagavathpaadhaaL was by the insightful exclamation "pasupathE". That is, PrabhO! Aren't you pasu-paasa vimOchakan? Only those who are not aware that the aathmaswaroopam is aanandhamayam are known as 'pasu'. I am merely in the status of pasu only. thEshaamEvaanukampaartham ahamagnyaanajam thama: | naasaayaamyaathmabhaavasthO gnyaana dheepEna bhaasvathaa || with this resolve, in respect of me you should remove the darkness of my agnyaanam root and stem and with your gnyaanOpadEsam to me you should do sabalam of my janma. Therefore it is for you alone to remove my agnyaanam. PasupathE! Could You not reveal Yourself to me so the thirst of my eyes are quenched? Could you not be prasannan in the lotus of my heart? Anyone who recites this sloka and do namaskaaram in sivasannidhi will definitely have the prathyaksha dharisanam of ParamEswara. Aum Namasivaaya! From ggkaushik at gmail.com Tue Dec 29 07:37:16 2009 From: ggkaushik at gmail.com (ganesh kaushik) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:07:16 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya Message-ID: <8f522a270912290537l5db2b8d0y5add10c17bc9be53@mail.gmail.com> Hi All, Should we have to discuss about the date of acharyaal so elaborately? When he didnt want to mention his age? I have been a member of this group for about 2-3 months now. I used to get one or two mails everyday mostly Mr.Anbu Sivam2's posts about Sivaanandalahari. But now when there is post looming about a topic, which "Doesnt has a common consensus amongst our gurus", everyone chips in. Even if we get the MWP Ujjain professor's paper or artcle and it gives us a glaring evidence, would this reduce or increase our guru bhakthi? Definitely NO. I am sorry to say these posts remind me of the "Advaita Vs Dwaita" loops what i found in the archives. Possibly the best thing we can do is to use these efforts to share something "what u know and i dont". Thanks, GK On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 11:30 PM, < advaita-l-request at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote: > Send Advaita-l mailing list submissions to > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > advaita-l-request at lists.advaita-vedanta.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > advaita-l-owner at lists.advaita-vedanta.org > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 06:57:14 -0800 > From: Vidyasankar Sundaresan > Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya > in October, 2002 > To: Advaita List > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > Anbu Sivam wrote: > > > > > Obviously Vidyasankaraji has not (didn't want to) read Sri Ravisankar > > Mayavaram's post! > > > > > Thanks for speculating about what I did or didn't do, but I did read my > co-moderator's post. > > However, I just don't see how anything that I said went against what he > wrote, nor how your > > views about Chiranjeevis fit in this context. If sureSvara is a > Chiranjeevi, that tradition is not > > recorded anywhere in the Sankaravijaya texts. In fact, there is a > well-recorded tradition that > > sureSvara was reborn as vAcaspati miSra, in order to complete the mission > of writing a > > sub-commentary on the brahmasUtra bhAshya. > > > > It is easy to create myths and it is easy to see contradictions between > different myths or > > even different versions of the same myth. It is not necessary that anybody > who disagrees > > with a specific myth is a "secular" investigator. Give me the legends and > myths in old texts, > > whether in Sanskrit or Tamil or Marathi or Bengali. Spare me the modern > myths created within > > the last two hundred years, some of which are nothing more than knee-jerk > reactions to > > British rule and the presence of European Christianity in India. > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya wrote: > > > > >I would also like to know on what basis the Sringeri authorities do not > give importance to Sudhanva's inscription. > > > > Simple. As per all reports, Sringeri Matha has no such inscription in its > possession, nor do they > > have any tradition that such an inscription ever existed. There are so many > variant traditions > > pertaining to Sankara bhagavatpAda in the whole country. Why should one of > the most > > important lineages with arguably the most authentic tradition accept > anything other than their > > own handed-down tradition? > > > > It is perfectly well-known within Hinduism, that different traditions and > minor variations on the > > same traditions can co-exist, without leading to controversy. Different > Puranas give different > > details of the same legends pertaining to the same people. That is not a > problem at all. What > > IS a problem, is the modern tendency to artificially fit an imaginary > consensus on such variants, > > based on the current flavor of politics, and in the process, attempt to > denigrate and marginalize > > anybody and everybody who doesn't subscribe to this unnecessary tendency. > What I see in > > these attempts to "prove" that Sankara lived in 509 BC, to assert that the > later date was a > > controversial one created by Western scholars to devalue Indian antiquity > and to assert that > > anybody who accepts a later date is a fool taken in by Western chicanery is > precisely that - > > an attempt to denigrate and marginalize the Sringeri lineage, one of the > most important ones in > > Sankarn tradition, merely because they have seen no need to do anything > other than stick to > > their own tradition. If this is massively inconvenient for the purposes of > some people, so be it. > > Thus it is, that although in 1993, the Sankaracharyas met in person and > themselves acknowledged > > that they have different views on the life and times of Sankara > bhagavatpAda*, about ten years > > later, others organize "conferences" and issue press releases claiming > "unanimity". There is > > another term for this process in modern parlance. It is called > "manufacturing consent". > > > > If I succeed in locating the article by the Ujjain professor when I go to > India in 2010, I will post > > more details. Other than that, I have said all I that want to on this > subject. > > > > Happy new secular year wishes, > > Vidyasankar > > > > * vayaM matabhedinaH (we are of differing views) - Sanskrit statement > issued in Sringeri in 1993, > > personally signed by the heads of Sringeri, Puri, Dwaraka, Badrinath and > Kanchipuram Mathas. This > > statement is publicly available, as it was issued within a few months after > the Ayodhya fiasco in > > 1992, and Hindu and Muslim religious leaders were actively trying to > resolve that controversy. > > _________________________________________________________________ > Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. > http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/ > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:35:28 -0500 > From: Anbu sivam2 > Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya > in October, 2002 > To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta > > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Sir, > > All I was implying was: "Why is it so important for you to anchor to a > date > and call Mahaswami in a fashion that hurt the feeling of the devotees? At > the end of BrihadhaaranyakOpanishad there is a huge list of lineage given. > Has any Hindu tried to fix a date of any of them? Obviously that is not > our > importance. You fix a date and question KamakOti Peetam and they give an > answer giving their lineage. Is this topic of any importance to > saadhakas? > > Only the secularists will be interested in the dates to show the importance > of whiteman, blackman, Aryan Dravidan etc crap. My plea to fellow members > is not to get caught in the ego trips but just respect the Gurus and their > lineage *irrespective of the Peetam* for any disrespect will retard them > deep down in the cycle of birth and death. > > My huge respect for you, Vidyasankarji is yet undiminished. > > This is my last post on this topic. My humble apologies to Ravisankarji. > > On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan < > svidyasankar at hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Anbu Sivam wrote: > > > > > > > > Obviously Vidyasankaraji has not (didn't want to) read Sri Ravisankar > > > Mayavaram's post! > > > > > > > > > Thanks for speculating about what I did or didn't do, but I did read my > > co-moderator's post. > > > > However, I just don't see how anything that I said went against what he > > wrote, nor how your > > > > views about Chiranjeevis fit in this context. If sureSvara is a > > Chiranjeevi, that tradition is not > > > > recorded anywhere in the Sankaravijaya texts. In fact, there is a > > well-recorded tradition that > > > > sureSvara was reborn as vAcaspati miSra, in order to complete the mission > > of writing a > > > > sub-commentary on the brahmasUtra bhAshya. > > > > > > > > It is easy to create myths and it is easy to see contradictions between > > different myths or > > > > even different versions of the same myth. It is not necessary that > anybody > > who disagrees > > > > with a specific myth is a "secular" investigator. Give me the legends and > > myths in old texts, > > > > whether in Sanskrit or Tamil or Marathi or Bengali. Spare me the modern > > myths created within > > > > the last two hundred years, some of which are nothing more than knee-jerk > > reactions to > > > > British rule and the presence of European Christianity in India. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sunil Bhattacharjya wrote: > > > > > > > > >I would also like to know on what basis the Sringeri authorities do not > > give importance to Sudhanva's inscription. > > > > > > > > Simple. As per all reports, Sringeri Matha has no such inscription in its > > possession, nor do they > > > > have any tradition that such an inscription ever existed. There are so > many > > variant traditions > > > > pertaining to Sankara bhagavatpAda in the whole country. Why should one > of > > the most > > > > important lineages with arguably the most authentic tradition accept > > anything other than their > > > > own handed-down tradition? > > > > > > > > It is perfectly well-known within Hinduism, that different traditions and > > minor variations on the > > > > same traditions can co-exist, without leading to controversy. Different > > Puranas give different > > > > details of the same legends pertaining to the same people. That is not a > > problem at all. What > > > > IS a problem, is the modern tendency to artificially fit an imaginary > > consensus on such variants, > > > > based on the current flavor of politics, and in the process, attempt to > > denigrate and marginalize > > > > anybody and everybody who doesn't subscribe to this unnecessary tendency. > > What I see in > > > > these attempts to "prove" that Sankara lived in 509 BC, to assert that > the > > later date was a > > > > controversial one created by Western scholars to devalue Indian antiquity > > and to assert that > > > > anybody who accepts a later date is a fool taken in by Western chicanery > is > > precisely that - > > > > an attempt to denigrate and marginalize the Sringeri lineage, one of the > > most important ones in > > > > Sankarn tradition, merely because they have seen no need to do anything > > other than stick to > > > > their own tradition. If this is massively inconvenient for the purposes > of > > some people, so be it. > > > > Thus it is, that although in 1993, the Sankaracharyas met in person and > > themselves acknowledged > > > > that they have different views on the life and times of Sankara > > bhagavatpAda*, about ten years > > > > later, others organize "conferences" and issue press releases claiming > > "unanimity". There is > > > > another term for this process in modern parlance. It is called > > "manufacturing consent". > > > > > > > > If I succeed in locating the article by the Ujjain professor when I go to > > India in 2010, I will post > > > > more details. Other than that, I have said all I that want to on this > > subject. > > > > > > > > Happy new secular year wishes, > > > > Vidyasankar > > > > > > > > * vayaM matabhedinaH (we are of differing views) - Sanskrit statement > > issued in Sringeri in 1993, > > > > personally signed by the heads of Sringeri, Puri, Dwaraka, Badrinath and > > Kanchipuram Mathas. This > > > > statement is publicly available, as it was issued within a few months > after > > the Ayodhya fiasco in > > > > 1992, and Hindu and Muslim religious leaders were actively trying to > > resolve that controversy. > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. > > http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/ > > _______________________________________________ > > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > > > For assistance, contact: > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > > > End of Advaita-l Digest, Vol 65, Issue 27 > ***************************************** > From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Tue Dec 29 10:02:53 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:02:53 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari - 59 Message-ID: Sivaanandalahari - 59 (1) हम्स: पद्मवनम् समिच्छति यथा नीलाम्बुदम् चातक: कोक: कोकनदप्रियम् प्रतिदिनम् चन्द्रम् चकोरस्तथा चेतो वान्छति मामकम् पशुपते चिन्मार्गमृग्यम् विभो, गौरीनाथ भवत्पदाब्जयुगलम् कैवल्यसौख्यप्रदम् ॥ ५९ ॥ hamsa: padmavanam samicCati yathA nIlAmbudam cAtaka: koka: kokanadapriyam pratidinam candram cakorastathA ceto vAnCati mAmakam paSupate cinmArgamRugyam vibho gourInAtha bhavatpadAbjayugalam kaivalyasoukhyapradam || 59 || Oh Lord of all beings, Oh Consort of Goddess Gowri, Oh all pervading one, Just like the swan desires the cluster of lotus flowers, Just like the Chataka bird intensely longs for the blue dark cloud, Just like the Chakravaka bird longs for Sun, the Lord of lotus flowers, And just like the Chakora bird longs for the moon every day, My mind longs for thine pair of lotus like feet, Which can be searched only by path of knowledge, And which bestows the bliss of emancipation. *Commentary **hE pasupathE* = Hey! ParamEswara! *hE vibhO* = who is all pervading; *hE gowrinaatha* = Hey! PaarvathipathayE! *hamsa:* = the swan; *padmavanam* = the crowd of lotuses; *chaathaka:* = chaathaka pakshi; *neelaambhutham* = thick black water laden cloud; *kOka:* = chakravaaka pakshi; *kOkanadhapriyam* = soorya the lord of lotuses; *chakOra:* = chakOra pakshi; *chandram* = chandra; *prathidhinam* = daily; *yathaa* = how; *samicchathi* = liking; *thathaa* = that way; *maamakam* = my; *chEtha:* = mind; *chinmaarghamrugyam* = that can be found in the upanishads; *kaivalyasowkyapradham* = that which gives mOkshasukham; *bhavathpadhaabjayughalam *= your two paadhaabja saranaas; *vaanchathi* = fondly seeks. சருகுசல பட்சணிக ளொருகோடி யல்லால் சகோரபட் சிகள்போலவே தவளநில வொழுகமிர்த தாரையுண் டழியாத தன்மைய ரனந்தகோடி இருவினைக ளற்றிரவு பகலென்ப தறியாத ஏகாந்த மோனஞான இன்பநிட் டையர்கோடி மணிமந்த்ர சித்திநிலை எய்தினர்கள் கோடிசூழக் குருமணி யிழைத்திட்ட சிங்கா தனத்தின்மிசை கொலுவீற் றிருக்கும்நின்னை கும்பிட் டனந்தமுறை தெண்டனிட் டென்மனக் குறையெலாந் தீரும்வண்ணம் மதுமல ரெடுத்துனிரு தாளையர்ச் கிக்கவெனை வாவென் றழைப்பதெந்நாள் மந்த்ரகுரு வேயோக தந்த்ரகுரு வேமூலன் மரபில்வரு மெளன குருவே. (continued in 59 (2) ) From kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com Tue Dec 29 10:13:35 2009 From: kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com (kuntimaddi sadananda) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 08:13:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Advaita-l] A Perspective - 15 Message-ID: <237029.14248.qm@web56006.mail.re3.yahoo.com> tat tvam asi – VI Here is the perspective based on the scriptural understanding. We have to be clear about the nature of the self and the nature of the world and the nature of the self-realization without any confusion in the terms and the approach. Two major problems arise by not having the correct understanding; one common error is getting confused between paaramaarthika and vyaavahaarika (i.e. essentially put one leg there and one leg here), and the second more pervasive error is habitual mental objectification of the self in the very realization process. The root cause of the problem stems predominately by not having the teaching from a teacher, who himself trained from a proper teacher – essentially a teacher that has sampradaaya or traditional teaching to back him-up. The reason for traditional teaching is obvious since every possible pit fall has been worked out and every conceivable doubt has been raised and answered methodically. Possible objections (puurvapaksha) and how to address those correctly (siddhaanta) are provided traditionally not for intellectual arguments but for establishing clarity in understanding. That is why scripture itself insists in having a proper teacher. In the same token we need to understand clearly that this list serve is not a meant for learning or replacement of a teacher, but the list serve can provide a very good means for discussion for the clarification of the concepts – that is for mananam – provided it is used effectively. The discussion is not a debate but a means for clarification only.. We cannot decide the truth by debate, but only recognize by knowledge and conviction. The following topic keeps coming – Is scriptural study necessary or is ‘who am I’ inquiry not sufficient for self-realization?.. The answer depends clearly on what is involved in the –who am I – inquiry. Major problem lies in not understanding the full implication of Bhagavaan Ramana’s teachings. For those who are deeply interested – the video of the teaching of the SAT DARSHANAM text of Bhagavaan is available in www.advaitaforum.org, where the first two introductory slokas provide the depth of his teaching. Here is the problem. If the – who am I – inquiry leads only in understanding the saakshii chaitanyam or Witnessing Consciousness aspect of I am, then the inquiry is incomplete and does not lead to realization of the SELF. In separating the subject I from object this, we end up dvaita or duality with I am which is not this, and this is which is not I am. In addition we will have multiple jiivas with each jiiva realizing who he is. The self realization should include the recognition of the mithyaatma aspect of the world or unreality of the world with clear understanding that the self that I am pervades the world of objects too, then only that inquiry of who am I – leads to SELF realization. How does the -who am I, leads to the understanding that I am the substantive of the world too. For that only Vedas provide the ultimate pramANa or means of knowledge since the direct perceptual knowledge confirms only the duality while the logic rests on perception for validation. Self realization does not involve dismissing the world but sublimating the world by understanding its substantive is the self that I am. That is what mithyaa aspect of the world means. Hence Krishna clearly states – sarva bhuutastam aatmaanam sarva bhuutanica aatmani – one who realizes that I am the self in all and also recognizes that all (starting from creator to the blade of grass, says Shankara) in myself – He alone realizes. Hence Krishna declares: – maya tatam idam sarvam jagat avyakta muurtinaa| masthaani sarva bhuutaani na ca aham teshu avasthitaH| -9:4 na ca masthaani bhuutaani psyam me yogam aiswaram| bhutabRinna ca bhuutastho mamaatmaa bhuutabhaavanaH| 9:5 I pervade this entire universe in an unmanifested form as the very existence-consciousness itself. All being are in Me, but I am not involved in their individual sufferings. In reality there is no beings in Me since I am pure undifferentiated existence-consciousness yet appearing as many – look at my glory Arjuna. Without the principle of existence nothing can exist – Any existence of any being or object is only attributive name and form which is only superimposition on the existence principle – Existence principle is never affected by the changing attributive beings or objects. It is similar to gold being unaffected by the changing names and forms. Essentially who am I inquiry should involve understanding of three things. 1. Who is that I am or tvam pada vichaara – inquiry into the subject, I am, by rejecting subject is different from the object using neti neti – not this, not this. 2) what is the nature of tat or that – that -standing for the entire universe – essentially understanding that - I am - is the substantive or essence of the whole world of objects – aitat aatmyam idam sarvam and 3) finally understanding or equating oneness of the subject and the object as one as stated by –asi- statement in the tat tvam asi. This is stated as the fundamental advaitic principle – 1. brahma satyam, Brahman alone is real 2) jagat mithyaa, the world is just apparent names and forms with Brahman as substantive and 3) jiivaH brahma eva na aparaH, I am none other than Brahman. This essence of advaita has to be clearly understood using scripture as a basis. Exhaustive analysis of the scriptural statements is provided by aachaaryaas in terms of bhaashyaas and prakaraNa books; hence the need for the study. Hence scripture itself advises two things – one is to approach a teacher to gain the knowledge of the truth and second is shravana, mananam and nidhidhyaasana, that is study of the scriptures for a prolonged length of time until one has clear understanding (shravana), discussion of the contents until no more doubts exist in the mind of the seeker, mananam and finally contemplation on the truth expounded by the scriptures, nidhidhyaasana. This is well established and well trodden path and aside from this there are no other direct paths or short cuts for this. Any other claims to the contrary cannot be verified as there are no other pramANa for verification too. In this context, all other requirements including karma anushTaanam or performing karmas or as well as their parityaaga or giving up karma, etc are only aids in preparing the mind so that the above understanding can takes place. What is required is a mind that is conducive for the knowledge and that is stated by Shankara as possessing the saadhana chatuShTaya sampatti – the four fold qualifications involving Veveka, vairaagya, Shat sampatti and mumukshutvam – Discriminative intellect, Dispassion, Disciple and Desire for liberation – the four Ds. Preparation of the mind is essential. It is easy to say I am the subject and not the object, in the who am I, enquiry. The logic is very simple. However this logic can be easily applied to a car or a dog or any external object that I perceive. I see the dog, the seer I is therefore different from the seen, and hence I am not the dog. The application of the logic is easy when it comes to all objects in the world. Nobody in the world mistakes that I am the dog that I see, even though some people get so emotionally attached to their pets that they suffer intensely when something happens to the objects that they love. This was Arjuna’s problem and this is everybody’s problem – when –mine- includes my own close relatives that I love. However, when in applying the logic of - I am not this - to the body, mind and intellect (BMI), the objects that I am so intimately associated with as -I am this-, it becomes monumentally difficult to separate I am from this is, even though it is logically clear that I cannot be -this. What makes it so difficult is our attachments and aversions, first to the external body, next to the emotional mind and finally to the intellectual accomplishments and convictions. I am = this- is the essence of ego, where the I-ness associated with this BMI is the ego or ahankaara, and a notion that this is mine is mamakaara. Ego forms the basis for all our transactions in the world.. One has to use the BMI for transacting with the world. In fact, the ego is involved in a subtle way even in self-realization. Atma or all pervading existence-consciousness does not have to realize and this BMI which is inert cannot realize. Hence realization as we discuss below occurs in a way with the identification with BMI only. The problem comes only when I do not know myself and hence take myself only as this BMI in an absolute sense, even though I know this is inert and I am a conscious entity. There will not be any problem if I know who I am and deliberately take this BMI as I am for the purpose of transactions – then I am jiivan muktaH, liberated while still operating within BMI. The intellect, mind and the body in that order – as though – borrow the light of consciousness that I am and act as sentient entities operating in this world. Hence the essence of the human problem rests in intense identification with the mind and intellect and through them with the senses, and physiological functions, and then with the gross body. In this operation of I am this, there are two components I am and this is, and the ego involves identification of I am this. Realization of my true nature involves intellectual discrimination or disassociation of I am from this, using the very ego. I have to recognize my true identity in the - I am this – as I am pure I am without this. This switch in identification of my real nature or self-realization process requires in a way the same ego or the mind in recognizing that I am not this and my true nature is pure consciousness because of which I am conscious of the ego, mind and intellect and the rest of the word through them. Hence when Vedanta says ego gets surrendered or annihilated or when Ramana says that mind gets destroyed (maanasantu kim maarganekRite naiva maanasam...) – all that means is that the notional mind gets destroyed. Notions are due to ignorance and they can get destroyed only by knowledge. Knowledge takes place in the mind only. For knowledge to take place a means of knowledge or pramANa is required. For this non-objectifyable entity (aloukikam), only Vedas form the required means of knowledge. The separation of I am from I am this (ego) using this very ego is indeed requires a very subtle intellect that does not objectify the subject yet recognize the subject in the very inquirer or inquiry. Lack of appropriate pramaaNa or means of knowledge is one of the reasons why in the deep sleep state even though saakshii is there, there is no jnaana prakriya or process that helps in gaining the knowledge. For existence, which is all pervading, no medium is required for its manifestation. For ignorance also no medium is required. However for knowledge to take place a medium is required that involves a pramaaNa, prameya and pramaataa, the triad. This can be the knowledge of the self or any objective knowledge including the knowledge of the ignorance. In the case of the knowledge of the self, the object of the knowledge, prameya, itself is the knower, pramaataa, and the veda pramaaNa acts in this case as a mirror or darshaNam for a seer, pramaataa, to see himself in and through the prameya. Hence as we discussed before it is like seeing the image of oneself, and using that image recognize the original self that is getting reflected as the image in the mirror of the mind. Otherwise I cannot see myself without the mirror. Similarly I need the mind to see my reflection and by seeing the reflection I recognize or realize my true nature. I am currently misapprehending myself that I am the mind. With the Vedantic teaching, I recognize my true nature using the same mind by seeing the light of illumination that is getting reflected in the mind and from that reflected light of consciousness realize that I am original the light of consciousness whose light is illumining the mind. The sequence can be visualized in this way. When a thought rises in the mind, I am conscious of the thought because the wave of the thought is illumined by the reflected light of consciousness from the mind. That is what constitutes the knowledge of the thought. Hence first thing we need to know is every thought has two components; the contents of the thought which is related to the attributes of the object (idam vRitti) and reflected light of consciousness that illumining the thought because of which the contents of the thoughts become known. Currently we get carried away by the contents of the thought and do not recognize the light of illumination because of which the thought is known. The same thing happens when we see an object outside. The external light falls on the object and that light gets reflected and reaches eyes. An image is projected on the retina which the optical nervous system carries to the brain. This electrical signal has to be converted into thought. Lord has provided a programming language that converts the signal to vRitti in the mind (similar to the computer processer converting input data into a machine language that it can understand). We do not understand this programming language. Thus what is projected is attributes of the object as measured by senses that provided an input signal that forms image in the mind. This image with attributive content is called vRitti. As the vRitti forms, it reflects the light of consciousness by which I become conscious of the thought or vRitti. Becoming conscious of the thought is the same as gaining the knowledge of the thought. That means I know the thought whose contents are nothing but the sense input arising from the vision of the object. The object out there is now imaged as the thought in the mind. We are conscious of the thought only because it is illumined by the reflected light of consciousness that I am. Normally we get carried away with the sense input forgetting it is the reflected light image from the object. We rarely pay attention to the light that helps in the seeing process. Similarly, we rarely pay attention to the light of consciousness that is illumining the thought and get carried away with the contents of the thought. Without thought forming in the mind there is no reflection. Hence self-realization is not elimination of thoughts and make the mind empty which itself is a struggle, but pay attention to the light of consciousness that is illumining (because of which we are knowing the presence and the contents of the thoughts) rather than get carried away with the thought contents. Hence Kenopanishad says – it is not that what the eyes can see, but because of which the eyes have the capacity to see, it is not that what ears can hear, but that because of which the ears have the capacity to hear, it is not that which mind can think of, but that because of which the mind has the capacity to think of, is Brahman not this that one worships. Hence Veda as pramaaNa is directing the mind to shift the attention from the contents of the thoughts to that which makes the thoughts known – that light of consciousness that is getting reflected by the sequence of thought waves – say know that alone is Brahman not any objectified concept that you worship. Paying attention to the light of consciousness that is getting reflected in every thought, particularly in the very fundamental thought as I am this (notion of ego) is difficult only because I get carried away with the contents of the thoughts and do not pay attention to the reflected light of consciousness because of which that very thought is getting revealed. The most common problem of a Vedantic student is looking for self-realization as an event in time. In the very longing for Brahman, the mind is conceptualizing Brahman as an object to be known. Self is self-revealing all the time. There is no time I am not conscious of the thoughts that arise in mind, as mind cannot stop thinking unless one goes to deep-sleep state. Thoughts occur in sequence and are interconnected in terms of contents. When I pay attention to the contents, I forget the fact that the thought is an object that I am conscious of. I jump from one thought to the other since they occur in rapid sequence each somehow connected to the other. Like a monkey jumping from one branch to the other and one tree to the other, I jump from one thought to the other without any time to stand apart and look at how a thought is getting revealed. For me to know each thought that rises in my mind, existence-consciousness that I am has to provide the existence as well as illumination for the thought so that I am conscious of the existence of the thought and its contents. For me to pay attention away from the thought contents without getting carried away by it involves complete detachment and vigilant observation. JK says just observe you mind or thoughts, without providing a means to achieve it. It is difficult to get detached from the thoughts to be an observer of the thoughts since these thoughts are centered on my likes and dislikes. Detachment from the thoughts require attaching my mind to something that remains constant without changing and examining the thoughts that arise as an impartial observer or a saakshii without getting carried away with the thoughts. Vedanta says that can done only if I can surrender my likes and dislikes at the alter of my devotion that is stable, noble and ever inspiring for the mind to hold on to it. That is the bhakti that saints and sages talk about. That surrender of all my likes and dislikes or raaga dveShaas at the alter of my devotion is what is called as sharaNaagati or prapatti. Krishna says that is not easy either but with constant practice and detachment one can achieve it- abhyaasenatu kounteya vairaagyena ca gRihnate. Since thoughts that are entertained are also about the nature of the reality it becomes easier to get detached from attachments other than to the truth which is never changing and eternal. Karma yoga also helps in purifying and neutralizing the intensity of these likes and dislikes. As the intensity of the likes and dislikes are neutralized, I can detach myself from the flow of the thoughts and be a silent observer of the thoughts.. Becoming a saakshii, I can witness how the light of consciousness illumines all the thoughts. Since thoughts are nothing but images of the world of objects, I begin to recognize that I lend the support to all the thoughts and indirectly to the world of objects, since independent of me their existence and awareness cannot be established. This surrender of the ego is beautifully expressed by Bhagavaan Ramana in the very invocation sloka of Sat Darshanam – mRityunjayam mRityibhiaashritaanaam, aham matirmRityumupaiti puuvam …– He says the one who is afraid of death approaches Lord MRityanjaya who is a conquer of the death (Lord Shiva) for protection. Lord instead of protecting his devotee from the fear of death, Bhagavaan Raman says that He destroys the devotee. It may sound unreasonable on the part of the Lord to destroy those who come to Him for protection. What Lord destroys is devotee-deity duality by destroying the ego (aham matiH – the notion of I-ness) because of ones identification with his BMIs. The death or change occurs only for the finite and not for the infinite. Hence He destroys their notions of separateness from Him. Recognition that I am the pure light of consciousness that eternally exists is liberation or moksha or freedom from all limitations. It is not something to gain or somewhere to go or something to be given – it is recognition that I am nitya mukta swaruupaH – I am the eternal being one without a second ever liberated since there was never a bondage for me. When I did not have clear understanding of my true nature, I mistook myself to be finite and localized BMI. Since my true nature is infiniteness, I could not accept this superimposed finiteness of mine and therefore continuously tried to work to gain infiniteness by adding or subtracting finite entities to my BMI. Now I recognize that I was never finite but existence-consciousness that is infiniteness – satyam jnaanam and anantam I am. It is not that I became infinite; I recognize that I was ever infinite. Hari Om! Sadananda From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Tue Dec 29 16:18:16 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:18:16 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari - 59 Message-ID: Sivaanandalahari - 59 (2)Hey! GowripathE! Just as the Hamsa pakshi likes to live in the padmavanam to be in the midst of the lotus flowers, just as the chaathaka pakshi that has the mouth on its head thus being unable to eat on its own and is waiting for the nectar like rain drops to come from the sky and thus yearns for the water laden dark clouds, just as the chakravaaka pakshi that attains inexplicable aanandha at the arrival of the sun in the morning remains in unbearable dhukkam all night craving for the sunrise and just as the sakOra pakshi whose food is the ray of the moon and thirsts for the moon to come out - my heart hankers for your paadhaabjam that gives mOkshasukham. Hey! PasupathE! How can I describe the mahima of your lotus feet? As the sruthi says: Ethasyaivaanandhasya anyaani bhoothaani maathraa mupajeevanthi | your paadhaabhjam gives mOkshasukham that is superior to all other aanandha. Those paadhaabhjam can be found only on the peaks of the vedas called upanishads. Not by any other way. Hey! GowripathE! My mind is fervently seeking all the time your two paadhaabjam that can be searched only in the upanishads because they give mOksha saamraajya sukham. Hey! ParamEswara! I have already told you of my state of mind by many examples. By your superior kindness please do the aruL of giving me the limitless aanandha. Hey! ParamporuLE! Hey! Sarvavyaapi! Is there any kaaryam that you cannot do? All abilities reside only in you. The swabhaavam to protect the dheena janas and saadhu janas reside only in you. Are you not the phaladhaathaa of all my karmas? Does not the Brahmasoothra "phalamatha: upapatthE:" point to only you as the karma phala dhaatha? Because you are karma phala dhaatha you are called pasu paasa vimOchakan. Therefore Hey! PasupathE! Hey! VibhO! You have to protect me with your enormous kaaruNyam. In this sloka, BhagavathpaadhaaL underlines the forbidance of separating Siva and Shakthi by his exclamation 'Gowrinaatha!'. Gowrinaathaa namO namO! From sjayana at yahoo.com Tue Dec 29 19:16:25 2009 From: sjayana at yahoo.com (S Jayanarayanan) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:16:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 Message-ID: <301163.55861.qm@web50801.mail.re2.yahoo.com> --- On Mon, 12/28/09, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote: [..] > Simple. As per all reports, Sringeri Matha has no such > inscription in its possession, nor do they have any tradition > that such an inscription ever existed. > There are so many variant traditions > pertaining to Sankara bhagavatpAda in the whole country. > Why should one of the most ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > important lineages with arguably the most authentic ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > tradition accept anything other than their ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > own handed-down tradition? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > The last statement is extremely significant. The Sringeri Math is the greatest institution of traditional Dharma in India, if not the world. Here are the chief reasons why: 1) Purity: The Sringeri Math has maintained moral purity that is truly exceptional, remaining above all scandals of any sort. 2) Lineage: The unbroken lineage of Gurus can be traced directly to Adi Sankara. 3) Historicity: The Sringeri Math is mentioned in indisputably historical sources such as the Madhaviya Sankara Digvijayam. To even "defend" the Sringeri Math borders on egotism! It is telling that other Maths such as those at Kanchi and Holenarsipur do not pass the above criteria. Regards, Kartik From bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com Tue Dec 29 22:46:27 2009 From: bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com (Bhaskar YR) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:16:27 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 In-Reply-To: <301163.55861.qm@web50801.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: It is telling that other Maths such as those at Kanchi and Holenarsipur do not pass the above criteria. praNAms Hare Krishna Is it really necessary to question the integrity & credibility of Kanchi & Holenarsipur traditions at this point of time!! when the topic is entirely different altogether !!?? I request the moderators to assess the sensibility of the above assertion. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar From dvnsarma at gmail.com Tue Dec 29 23:21:07 2009 From: dvnsarma at gmail.com (D.V.N. Sarma) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:51:07 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 In-Reply-To: References: <301163.55861.qm@web50801.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <776ad6cd0912292121w584517dcta68aeacf7d868ef@mail.gmail.com> This issue appears to be ever smoldering similar to the legedary Ravana's funeral pyre. regards, Sarma. From sjayana at yahoo.com Wed Dec 30 00:17:44 2009 From: sjayana at yahoo.com (S Jayanarayanan) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:17:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <823180.81753.qm@web50804.mail.re2.yahoo.com> --- On Tue, 12/29/09, Bhaskar YR wrote: > It is telling that other Maths such > as those at Kanchi and Holenarsipur do > not pass the above criteria. > > praNAms > Hare Krishna > > Is it really necessary to question the integrity & > credibility of  Kanchi > & Holenarsipur traditions at this point of time!! No one questioned the integrity or credibility of any Maths, certainly not me. Vidyasankar mentioned that the Sringeri Math was "arguably the most authentic tradition". I gave my opinion of the criteria that can be used to decide on the title of "most authentic tradition", and why the Sringeri Math had a strong case for the title compared to the other Maths. In other words, since the "most authentic tradition" can be held by other Maths such as Kanchi and Holenarsipur, I pointed out that the Sringeri Math was the best choice for the title. It is just that out of the three Maths that may compete for the title - Sringeri, Kanchi, Holenarsipur - the first one is most likely to hold the title of "most authentic tradition" (according to the criteria that I outlined). I believe I kept myself completely within the discussion of the thread. > when > the topic is > entirely different altogether !!??  I request the > moderators to assess the > sensibility of the above assertion. > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > bhaskar > _______________________________________________ > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org > From sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com Wed Dec 30 01:06:30 2009 From: sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com (Sunil Bhattacharjya) Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 23:06:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 In-Reply-To: <301163.55861.qm@web50801.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <415652.79604.qm@web113313.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Dear friends, The following statement can be contested even by one with respect to the Sringeri math.; /// 2) Lineage: The unbroken lineage of Gurus can be traced directly to Adi Sankara./// The Sringeri Math maintained that Adi Sankara was born on the 13th year of the reign of Vikramaditya. At one time the Sringeri math said that Adi Sankara was born in 44 BCE, which is 13 years after the start of the Vikrama samvat in 57 BCE. Then they gave an incredible span of 700 years to Sureshwaracharya. So many questions crop up from this.  These are as follows and all these must be addressed by the Sringeri math to settle the issue. 1) Was 57 BCE the start of reign of any Vikramaditya? 2) Did Sureshwaracharya really lived for 700 years or the did the Math not try to fill the gap by calling all the Mathadhipatis till about 656 CE as Sureshwaracharya to tide over these difficulties? 3) Did Vidyasankara Swami really vanish from the Lambika Yoga posture and  was he really the mathadhipati for more than one hundred years? This is particularly important as Vidyasankara Swami has been claimed to be the mathadhipati by the Kudali Sringeri math also. Further that time coincided with the attack by Malik Kafur. Both the Kudali Sringeri and the Sringeri math have monuments dedicated to Vidyasankara swami It can very well be that Vidyasankara Swami had left his  math and disappeared during the attack and either the Kudali Sringeri or the Sringeri mayth had been established by a splinter group following the disappearance of Vidyasankara Swami. In that turmoil the Sringeri math lost all the past records if at all it had the past records dating back to 44 BCE. 4) The Sarada Bhujangam stotra appears to favour the Kudali sringeri math as the original math. 5) Further why has the Sringeri math not studied the copper inscription of King Sudhanva?: 6) Vidyasankarji had spoken highly spoken about the Google search engine. I have been unable to trace even the name of the Vikram university professor in the Google search. If that unknown professor from the Vikram university did write a valuable article then why is it that the article cannot be obtained from the scholars of the Sringeri math through email? I think the Sringeri math should come out with proper replies to quell the doubts of the devotees. Regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya   --- On Tue, 12/29/09, S Jayanarayanan wrote: From: S Jayanarayanan Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org Date: Tuesday, December 29, 2009, 5:16 PM --- On Mon, 12/28/09, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote: [..] > Simple. As per all reports, Sringeri Matha has no such > inscription in its possession, nor do they have any tradition > that such an inscription ever existed. > There are so many variant traditions > pertaining to Sankara bhagavatpAda in the whole country. > Why should one of the most ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > important lineages with arguably the most authentic ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > tradition accept anything other than their ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > own handed-down tradition? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > The last statement is extremely significant. The Sringeri Math is the greatest institution of traditional Dharma in India, if not the world. Here are the chief reasons why: 1) Purity: The Sringeri Math has maintained moral purity that is truly exceptional, remaining above all scandals of any sort. 2) Lineage: The unbroken lineage of Gurus can be traced directly to Adi Sankara. 3) Historicity: The Sringeri Math is mentioned in indisputably historical sources such as the Madhaviya Sankara Digvijayam. To even "defend" the Sringeri Math borders on egotism! It is telling that other Maths such as those at Kanchi and Holenarsipur do not pass the above criteria. Regards, Kartik       _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com Wed Dec 30 02:17:53 2009 From: bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com (Bhaskar YR) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 13:47:53 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 In-Reply-To: <823180.81753.qm@web50804.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Vidyasankar mentioned that the Sringeri Math was "arguably the most authentic tradition". praNAms Hare Krishna AFAIK, Sri vidya prabhuji did not drag-in other traditions in saying so..nor he made any attempt to 'compare' these three traditions when the context of discussion is 'shankara's birth date' & NOT the internal disputes of these traditions. Anyway, this is for the record that Holenarsipur adhyAtma prakAsha kAryAlaya (note this kAryAlaya does not have suffix such as 'mutt' or 'Ashrama'), where most of the activities take place, does not claim that it has its own tradition!! It only claims that it follows only 'shankara's advaita saMpradAya' and I think this 'shankara saMpradAya' is a 'common claim' of all the four mutts & as well as kanchi mutt...So in that sense, it is unfair to ascribe a separate existence of a saMpradAya & label it as 'Holenarsipur saMpradAya or Mattur saMpradAya'. With regard to shankara's birth date, Sri SSS does not categorically conclude anything!! In his Kannada book 'shankara bhagavatpAda vruttAnta sAra sarvasva' he discusses the various birth dates of shankara in various biographies ( including sudhanva's inscription) and finally left this controversial issue 'as it is' without making any concluding remarks & fixing the birth date of shankara. So, IMO, in this discussion on shankara's birth date, it is unfair to drag Holenarsipur name in the name of saMpradAya & comparison of traditions is uncalled. And finally, with regard to superiority of Shrungeri tradition & justifications provided for the same can be questioned by the other mutts like Sri Sunil prabhuji just did!! So, belittling the other saMpradAya-s out of context is not necessary when praising & upholding one's own saMpradAya. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar From venkat_advaita at yahoo.com Wed Dec 30 07:06:34 2009 From: venkat_advaita at yahoo.com (Venkata Subramanian) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:36:34 +0530 (IST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 In-Reply-To: <301163.55861.qm@web50801.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <240155.14393.qm@web94708.mail.in2.yahoo.com> Karthik,   I have never come across anywhere that the Holenarsipur organisation ever claims any unbroken lineage of Bhagavan Sri Shankaracharya.   So, I feel it is irrelevant to drag them into this topic for no reason.  Of course I am not the official spokesperson for them; but nevertheless; that Swamiji to my knowledge never made any such a claim. Thanks & Regards, Venkat. Sadgurubhyo Namah. --- On Wed, 30/12/09, S Jayanarayanan wrote: From: S Jayanarayanan Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org Date: Wednesday, 30 December, 2009, 6:46 AM --- On Mon, 12/28/09, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote: [..] > Simple. As per all reports, Sringeri Matha has no such > inscription in its possession, nor do they have any tradition > that such an inscription ever existed. > There are so many variant traditions > pertaining to Sankara bhagavatpAda in the whole country. > Why should one of the most ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > important lineages with arguably the most authentic ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > tradition accept anything other than their ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > own handed-down tradition? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > The last statement is extremely significant. The Sringeri Math is the greatest institution of traditional Dharma in India, if not the world. Here are the chief reasons why: 1) Purity: The Sringeri Math has maintained moral purity that is truly exceptional, remaining above all scandals of any sort. 2) Lineage: The unbroken lineage of Gurus can be traced directly to Adi Sankara. 3) Historicity: The Sringeri Math is mentioned in indisputably historical sources such as the Madhaviya Sankara Digvijayam. To even "defend" the Sringeri Math borders on egotism! It is telling that other Maths such as those at Kanchi and Holenarsipur do not pass the above criteria. Regards, Kartik       _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. http://in.yahoo.com/ From padmanabhan_ananth at hotmail.com Wed Dec 30 10:27:20 2009 From: padmanabhan_ananth at hotmail.com (Ananth Padmanabhan) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 16:27:20 +0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that date of Adi Sankara etc In-Reply-To: <4B35AAE8.2090104@vsnl.com> References: <4B35AAE8.2090104@vsnl.com> Message-ID: Brahmaiva sarvadhA nAnyath sathyam sathyam nijam padham| AtmAkAram idham dvaitham mithyavE na parah pumAn|| sachidhananda mAthrOham sarvam kEvalamavyayam| brahmA vishnuscha rudrascha Eswarascha sadAsivaha|| (Ribu Gita) Advaita in the form of Sri Adhi Sankaracharia has no dvaitham and time and space has no existence. The potent content of his teachings is more to contemplate rather than HIS time of birth and death. They are just points of discussion,dispute and meat for historical research either way or any way as 'bahirmuka vaadham'. Do we want more inner paralysis by analysis of Sri Shankara's birth time and mukthi time in history?. It may add more referential knowledge wealth, be it right or wrong and has no other sathyam. Namaskaram Padmanabhan 'namAmi bhagavathpAtham shankaram lOka shankaram' > Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 11:49:20 +0530 > From: srirudra at vsnl.com > To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org > Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that date of Adi Sankara etc > > Dear Members > It is an accepted fact of history that it was AdiSankara who propped up > the sayings of Vedhas and Upanishads which were relegated to the > background by the emergence of Jainism and Budhdhism which condemned the > animal sacrifices in the yagas as were practised by the followers of > Hindu dharma by probably incorrect interpretations of the Karmakanda > directions.It fell on the slender shoulders of Sri Adi Shankara to clear > the smear campaign by the Jains and Buddhists and rejuvenate the > Sanathana Dharma.So if this is correct then it follows that Adi Sankara > was after Buddha and Mahavira or at most a late contemporary to them.If > Buddha was in 1887BCE etc then it is not wrong to assume that Adi > Sankara was born in 44BCE.Finally this forum is to discuss the Advaitic > teachings of Sri Sankara.It will be to the benefit of all of us if such > controversies are avoided in this forum.We should know the truth no > doubt but in that case we may lose the focus.R.Krishnamoorthy > _______________________________________________ > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live: Make it easier for your friends to see what you’re up to on Facebook. http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9691816 From svidyasankar at hotmail.com Wed Dec 30 11:05:47 2009 From: svidyasankar at hotmail.com (Vidyasankar Sundaresan) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:05:47 -0800 Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 In-Reply-To: <415652.79604.qm@web113313.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <301163.55861.qm@web50801.mail.re2.yahoo.com>, <415652.79604.qm@web113313.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Mr. Bhattacharjya, Really, you are insulting my intelligence and patience with your questions. Please decide whether you are interested in a. the date of Sankaracharya, b. casting aspersions on the Sringeri lineage c. upholding the traditions of any other lineage(s) d. upholding the faulty claims of the contested Kudali lineage e. any of the combinations of the above. Once you have decided what it is you want to do, please let us know. It seems to me you belong squarely to the faction which is interested in throwing as much mud as possible at the Sringeri record, in the hope that something sticks. I firmly decline to engage in this thread with you after this post. As I mentioned earlier, this thread is moving in unexpected and unnecessary directions and I don't intend to contribute to it much further. Every single one of your questions has been dealt with at length, numerous times in the past on this list, including in this very thread. In my previous post, I used the word "arguably" with respect to the authenticity of the Sringeri tradition, merely because I allow that others can have differing opinions about it and I defend their right to hold their opinions, no matter how different they may be from my opinions and no matter how wrong these opinions may be. I can only exercise my right to share what I know of the matter and sometimes I choose not to, because it is often a futile exercise. A few other points: One, you can figure out for yourself about the origins of the Vikrama Samvat in India. Two, you can go back to one of my previous posts on this very thread about the Sringeri stand on dates. Three, have some respect for the tradition. Do not assume that scholars at Sringeri (or anybody else, for that matter) have nothing better to do than to keep responding to your pesky emails. I am unaware which scholars you have tried contacting at Sringeri. I, as you well know, am not an official spokesman of the Sringeri Matha, no matter what some on this list may think. Four, please learn how to search on the internet. An article written by anybody, no matter how famous or unknown, is not necessarily accessible through Google, especially as I already told you that it appeared as part of a souvenir, with many other articles alongside it. The souvenirs themselves, will show up in searches, and you can figure out how to look within them. Do not expect answers to be handed to you on a platter. Doing literature searches takes time and patience. Did you try finding and reading Swami Tapasyananda's translation of the Madhaviya Sankaravijayam, which quotes a letter from the Sringeri administration about this very topic? If you have, don't you see that many of your questions are meaningless? If you have not, why don't you first follow up on this and then ask your impertinent questions? Did you also take the trouble to read the book, A History of Sringeri, by Prof. A. K. Shastri of Karnataka University, Dharwad? I have mentioned this book several times in previous threads of discussion initiated by you on this list. Surely, you can find that book via Google or some other easily accessible search. In fact, the top result on Google for this book is a library in Australia. If you have not managed to find and read that book, may I ask what are you waiting for? Is it your intention merely to ask questions on this list and not give any answers yourself? If you are interested in doing research, please equip yourself with the necessary materials and methodology to do a thorough and impartial job of it. Five, develop the necessary patience. I already told you that I will try and dig up the said article when I go to India next and post details. If you cannot wait and if this is such a pressing matter to you, you are welcome to make a trip to my brother's house in Mumbai right now and search for it yourself. I can give you the address, if you are willing to drop everything and make the trip. Have a good new year, Vidyasankar _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/ From svidyasankar at hotmail.com Wed Dec 30 11:12:41 2009 From: svidyasankar at hotmail.com (Vidyasankar Sundaresan) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:12:41 -0800 Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 In-Reply-To: <415652.79604.qm@web113313.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <301163.55861.qm@web50801.mail.re2.yahoo.com>, <415652.79604.qm@web113313.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I received a private email from a scholar who is not on this list, with some links that may be of interest to some readers on this thread. The pages to which these links will take you contain an English rendering of a benedictory talk in Kannada by Swami Sri Abhinava Vidyatirtha, the previous Acharya of Sringeri, given in 1988. Please take the time to read these and get the views of the Sringeri Acharya directly, about the date of Adi Sankaracharya. http://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/greatness-of-shankaras-life-and-teachings-1/ http://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2009/08/11/greatness-of-shankaras-life-and-teachings-part-ii/ http://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2009/08/12/greatness-of-shankaras-life-and-teachings-part-iii/ http://adbhutam.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/greatness-of-shankaras-life-and-teachings-part-iv-concluded/ With best regards, Vidyasankar _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/ From sathiish at hotmail.com Wed Dec 30 01:00:18 2009 From: sathiish at hotmail.com (Sathish Shanmugasundaram) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:30:18 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Peforming Pournami Tithi Pooja for my father. Message-ID: Dear Sir, We are Hindus from South India. My father died during pournami Tithi. So for the past six months when ever pournami tithi comes I pray keeping my father's photo after which, keep part of the food placed before him to crows and only after that we will have lunch. Unfortunately, My father's brother passed away 2 days back.Today the 3rd day fun My doubt is can I continue doing the pooja on Pournami Tithi or not? I would like to mention that we stay in a separate house and my father's brother stayed in a separate house for more than 45 years and continue to do so. Please let me know at the earliest as pournami dithi falls in a couple of days. Thanks. Regards,Sathiish _________________________________________________________________ Windows 7: Find the right PC for you. Learn more. http://windows.microsoft.com/shop From jaldhar at braincells.com Wed Dec 30 13:10:12 2009 From: jaldhar at braincells.com (Jaldhar H. Vyas) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:10:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Advaita-l] New members Message-ID: Hari Sarma Advaita vedanta and its importance in understanding aspects of sanathana dharma. Yajvan Namasté and hello, My interests are simple and straight forward. The combination of knowledge and experience that nurtures kaivalya ( some wish to call mokṣa). Knowledge is the greatest purifier say the wise... learning grooms expansiveness. Done correctly it should dampen or at least put in perspective the role of the ego (ahaṅkāra, some prefer ahaṃkāra). To this advaita-vedanta is a great purifier. May only good come from the posts I read, and good (sattva) come from the posts I offer. May we all be guided by the wise (jñātā). praṇām Srikanta Prasad Discuss Advaita philosophy. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas From jaldhar at braincells.com Wed Dec 30 13:25:43 2009 From: jaldhar at braincells.com (Jaldhar H. Vyas) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:25:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi In-Reply-To: <1117056840-1260450520-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1362600522-@bda226.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> References: <1117056840-1260450520-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1362600522-@bda226.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> Message-ID: Sorry for the late reply. I have a large backlog of emails to attend to. On Thu, 10 Dec 2009, sivasenani at yahoo.com wrote: > Dear Sri Michael and Sri Jaladhar > > I meant to look up a few references after reading your statement that > asmi is a pronominal suffix but could not. > > I know it is too basic for either of you but would it be possible to > supply an authority to back up this view? My own understanding is that > 'aham brahma' is exactly the same as 'aham brahmaasmi' or 'brahmaasmi'. > I did not mean to imply that asmi is a pronomial suffix. It is a verb as you say. It is in modern English (and Middle English too I think) that the pronoun is used to convey this meaning because English has lost the Indo-European case system (Old English or Anglo-Saxon had it though.) The difference between brahmasmi, aham brahma and brahmo'ham is stylistic. In Vedic, the first form is preferred to convey a reflexive sense. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas From jaldhar at braincells.com Wed Dec 30 13:46:22 2009 From: jaldhar at braincells.com (Jaldhar H. Vyas) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:46:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Peforming Pournami Tithi Pooja for my father. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 30 Dec 2009, Sathish Shanmugasundaram wrote: > > Dear Sir, > We are Hindus from South India. My father died during pournami Tithi. So > for the past six months when ever pournami tithi comes I pray keeping my > father's photo after which, keep part of the food placed before him to > crows and only after that we will have lunch. Unfortunately, My father's > brother passed away 2 days back.Today the 3rd day fun My doubt is can I > continue doing the pooja on Pournami Tithi or not? I would like to > mention that we stay in a separate house and my father's brother stayed > in a separate house for more than 45 years and continue to do so. Please > let me know at the earliest as pournami dithi falls in a couple of days. > Thanks. > Regards,Sathiish > First of all my condolences for your loss. May krpa nidhi Parameshvara comfort you at this trying time. Secondly I should mention that I am Gujarati. Although the dictates of shruti and smrti are the same for both of us, shistachara may be different. If so, I request South Indian list members to make any necessary corrections. (If you do so, please cc Satishji directly as he is not a member of the list.) Having said that, yes during mrtaka (the period after the death of a close relative) we must suspend all auspicious activities. However there are some exceptions. For example nitya karma such as sandhyavandana must be continued. Or if you have undertaken a vrata and it is already in progress, it is not suspended because of mrtaka-sutaka. Also this prohibition applies to devakarya (puja to Gods) not pitrakarya (puja to ancestors) as you are observing. So my opinion is it is the right thing to continue as you are doing. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas From michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk Wed Dec 30 14:51:58 2009 From: michael at shepherd87.fsnet.co.uk (Michael Shepherd) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:51:58 -0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I don't want to be pedantic about this. English 'grammar' has always eluded its own rules. And the verb 'to be' is such a special case : 'I AM writing'; ~I HAVE written' -- how far can we parse these 'auxiliary verbs' ? 'Aham' --is that a noun, 'I-awareness'; or a pronoun and verb ? I took -asmi to be a reflexive and an intensive as you say. Aham brahmasmi is often translated 'I myself am Brahman'.. or sometimes 'This I is Brahman'. And am I right in saying that the presence of a verb in Vedic/Sanskrit is not obligatory as it is in English ? 'Me Tarzan; you Jane' is not good English grammar... but in a way more truthful than 'I am Tarzan'... So I wouldn't case to lay down any statement on this. It's awesome to me to think that grammar itself is more ancient than any human institution. Professor Renouf was it, who believed that all the Vedic vocabulary arose from ritual..or you could say from the dance of Shiva. I find that a wonderful thought too. But I digress. Michael -----Original Message----- From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org [mailto:advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org]On Behalf Of Jaldhar H. Vyas Sent: 30 December 2009 19:26 To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Aham Brahmaasmi Sorry for the late reply. I have a large backlog of emails to attend to. On Thu, 10 Dec 2009, sivasenani at yahoo.com wrote: > Dear Sri Michael and Sri Jaladhar > > I meant to look up a few references after reading your statement that > asmi is a pronominal suffix but could not. > > I know it is too basic for either of you but would it be possible to > supply an authority to back up this view? My own understanding is that > 'aham brahma' is exactly the same as 'aham brahmaasmi' or 'brahmaasmi'. > I did not mean to imply that asmi is a pronomial suffix. It is a verb as you say. It is in modern English (and Middle English too I think) that the pronoun is used to convey this meaning because English has lost the Indo-European case system (Old English or Anglo-Saxon had it though.) The difference between brahmasmi, aham brahma and brahmo'ham is stylistic. In Vedic, the first form is preferred to convey a reflexive sense. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Wed Dec 30 17:25:38 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:25:38 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari - 60 Message-ID: Sivaanandalahari -60रोधस्तोयह्त: श्रमेन पथिकस्छायाम्, तरोर्वृष्टितो भीत: स्वस्थगृहम् गृहथमतिथिर्दीन: प्रभुम् धार्मिकम् दीपम् सन्तमसाकुलश्च शिखिनम् शीतावृतस्त्वम् तथा चेत: सर्वभयापहम् व्रज सुखम् शम्भो: पदाम्भोरुहम् ॥ ६० ॥ rodhastoyahRta: Sramena pathikasCAyAm, tarorvRuShTito bhIta: svasthagRuham gRuhathamatithirdIna: prabhum dhArmikam dIpam santamasaakulaScha shikhinam SItAvRutastvam tathA ceta: sarvabhayApaham vraja sukham Sambho: padAmbhoruham || 60 || Just like the man dragged by flood longs for the bank, Just like the tired traveler longs for the tree shade, Just like the one who is afraid of rain longs for a pleasant home, Just like the traveling guest longs for the sight of hospitable householder, Just like the poor longs for the charitable rich, Just like the one terrified by darkness longs for the light, And just like one suffering from biting cold longs for the open fire, Oh my mind, you long for the lotus feet of Shambhu. Which removes all fears and phobias and gives pleasure. *Commentary **hE chEtha:* = Hey! Mind! *thOyahrutha:* = a man pulled by the swift current; *rOdha:* = the bank of the river; *pathika:* = vazhippOkkan; traveller; *sramENa* = by tiredness; *tharO:* = of a tree; *schaayaam* = shade; *vrushtitha:* = rain; *bheetha:* = afraid of; *swasthagruham* = own house; *athithi:* = the guest; *gruhastham* = samsaari; householder; *dheena:* = the poor man; *prabhum* = rich giver; *santhamasaa* = by the darkness; *aakula* = troubled; *dheepam* = light; *seethaavrutha:* = who is suffering from cold; *chikinam cha* = fire; *yathaa *= that way he surrenders; *thatthaa* = that way; *thwam* = you; *sarvanhayaapaham* = removing all fears; *sukham* = that is of nithya sukhaswaroopam; *sambO:* = Sambu the cause of that Sukham; *padhaambhOruham* = lotus like feet; *vraja* = reach. தனக்குவமை இல்லாதான் தாள் சேர்ந்தார்க்கல்லால் மனக்கவலை மாற்றல் அரிது. (திருக்குறள்) O! Mind! A man being drawn away by the swift currents of a surging river finds the bank and gets over his fear of drowing. A man walking on a hot dessert for a very long time finds an oasis and shade of a tree to escape from thirst and scorching sun. A hungry man finds a dhaarmic grihasthaa who follows: sandhyaa snaanam japO hOmO dEvathaanaam cha poojanam | aadhithyam vaichvadhEvam cha shatkarmaaNi dhinE dhinE || and gets a great meal to satisfy his hungy stomach. A man of poverty reaching a prabhu who is the 'dheenaan dhaanEna Raaghava: |' and gets over his wants. A man lost in terrible darkness finds light to overcome his fears. A man shivering in cold weather finds heat to get over his fear of being fronzen. Therefore O! Mind! You should find the feet of Shiva and surrender there to get over the endless death you suffer in samsaara. Do not indulge in the kutharkam such as "Haribrahmaathi devathaas are there and I can reach them to remove my fear. What logic is there that I can overcome fear only at the feet of ParamEswara." You do not know what these holy feet of mahaakailaasaadhipathi Sambhu can do. O! Mind! Let me tell the paadha mahimaa of Sambhu. Listen to me patiently. O! Mind! Agni has the only sakthi to generate heat. It does not have the sakthi to give the coolness of the moon. Likewise the Brahmaathi devathaas have the ability only remove your fear. However they will test you in so many ways to see if you have deep bhakthi for them. On the other hand Sambhu's feet not only removes your troubles but also gives paramasukham. That is, O! Mind! chathrubhayam, maraNabhayam, bhavabhayam and so many other bhayams are removed by Sambhu's feet. Not only that, these holy feet create in you the puNyas needed for mOkshasukham and they can immerse you in the endless ocean of Aanandha! Thus Sambhu's feet hold the two sakthis called sarvasankata nivardhanam and sarvasukha pravardhanam. O! Mind! When MaarkandEya who was afflicted by the fear of death hugged the Sivallingam and cried "Hey! ChandrasEkhara!Hey! ChandrasEkhara! Save me! Save me!", ParamEswara not only released him from mruthyubhayam but made the saasthra "jaathasthu hi dhruvO mruthyu: druvam janma mruthasya cha |" ineffective. This sasthra says that everyone who is born should die but in the case of MarkandEya, Siva made him Chiranjeevi! Is not this mrithyunjaya leela alone is enough to prove his two sakthis - sarvasankata nivardhanam and sarvasukha pravardhanam? Therefore O! Mind! atleast hereafter reach Sambhu's paadhaabjam and get your janma saabalyam. Bhagavathpaadhaal describes only this mahimaa of Sambhu's paadhaabjam in this sloka as: 'sarvabhayaapaham vraja sukham SambhO: padhaambhOruham'. The saaraamsam of this sloka is that Sambhu's paadhakamalam rings bukthi and mukthi. SambO Siva SambO! From jaldhar at braincells.com Wed Dec 30 17:40:18 2009 From: jaldhar at braincells.com (Jaldhar H. Vyas) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:40:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 In-Reply-To: <301163.55861.qm@web50801.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <301163.55861.qm@web50801.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 29 Dec 2009, S Jayanarayanan wrote: > > The last statement is extremely significant. The Sringeri Math is the > greatest institution of traditional Dharma in India, if not the world. > Kartik, do not make this conversation degenerate into a "my guru is better than your guru" contest. That is not helpful to anyone. The contributions of Kanchi and Holenarsipur to Advaita Vedanta are so vast their views demand attention even from those who find the Shringeri tradition self-sufficient. At the same time I would remind readers that we follow these acharyas for their knowledge of dharma and moksha not for their historical opinions. It is not an offense if we disagree with one or more of them on the historical details and by trying to understand the historical sequence of our cultures development we are not impeding our progress in dharma and moksha in any way. (The corollary of this is don't obsess about historical questions either. It won't make you a better Advaitin.) -- Jaldhar H. Vyas From bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com Wed Dec 30 21:53:16 2009 From: bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com (Bhaskar YR) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:23:16 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Peforming Pournami Tithi Pooja for my father. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: We are Hindus from South India. My father died during pournami Tithi. So for the past six months when ever pournami tithi comes I pray keeping my father's photo after which, keep part of the food placed before him to crows and only after that we will have lunch. Unfortunately, My father's brother passed away 2 days back.Today the 3rd day fun My doubt is can I continue doing the pooja on Pournami Tithi or not? I would like to mention that we stay in a separate house and my father's brother stayed in a separate house for more than 45 years and continue to do so. praNAms Hare Krishna If your deceased uncle is own brother of your father, then you will have to observe sagOtra mrutAshoucha (sUtaka) for ten days. On the tenth day after giving dharmOdaka to your uncle, you have to do the puNyAha at your home and continue to do your nitya devatArchana etc. after changing the yajnOpaveeta. It seems you are following pourNami tithi pooja without doing shAstrOkta shOdasha shrAddha ( 16 vaidhika shrAddha that needs to be observed during the first year of father's death till vArshika) and I assume that what you are observing on this tithi is not strictly as per panchAnga tithi nirNaya for your father's shrAddha. If it is true, then as a sentimental observation you can continue your practice on this tithi. Kindly also note that even saNdhyAvanda also to be done as a nitya vidhi till the stage of 'arghya pradhAna' without doing gAyatri japAdi digdevata namaskAra during this ten days sUtaka period. This is what I too observing now since my uncle (my late father's own younger brother) too died on vaikunta ekAdashi day. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Wed Dec 30 21:59:25 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:59:25 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari -61 Message-ID: Sivaanandalahari -61 (1) अन्कोलम् निजबीजसन्ततिरयस्कान्तोपलम् सूचिका साध्वि नैजविभुम् लता क्षितिरुहम् सिन्धु: सरिद्वल्लभम् प्राप्नोतीह यथा तथा पशुपते: पादारविन्दद्वयम् चेतोवृत्तिरुपेत्य तिष्ठति सदा सा भक्तिरित्युच्यते ॥ ६१ ॥ ankolam nijabIjasantatirayaskAntopalam sUchikA sAdhvi naijavibhum latA kShitiruham sindhu: saridvallabham prApnotIha yathA tathA paSupate: pAdAravindadvayam cetovRuttirupetya tiShThati sadA saa bhaktirityuchyate || 61 || Like the real seed progeny reaches for the mother ankola tree, Like the iron needle reaches for the load stone. Like the chaste woman reaches for her lord, Like the tender creeper reaches for near by trees, Like the river reaches for the sea, If the spirit of the mind, Reaches for the lotus feet of Pasupathi, And stays there always, Then that state is called devotion. *Commentary * ‘Ya sarvEdEvaa: namanthi mumukshava: Brahmavaadhinascha ithi’ says the Sruthi. It says that Everyone from jeevanmuktha to ordinary praaNi do namaskaaram to ParamEswara indicating the importance of Bhakthi. Moreover, Naradha Bhakthi Soothram says: ‘thrisathyasya bhakthirEva ghareeyasee bhakthirEva ghareeyasee’ underscoring the importance of bhakthi. In this sloka BhagavathpaadhaaL amplifies the siddhaantha of bhakthi, its greatness and its swaroopa lakshaNam. The seeds of angOla tree when they ripen fall on the ground and without human intervention they race towards the tree. Likewise the needle is attracted to the magnet by nature. A pathivrathaa gets behind her bharthaa. A creeper seeks the nearby tree and hugs its way up. The river inexorably reaches the ocean. In the same way if the mind without frittering itself surrenders at the lotus feet of Pasupathi bringing peace and quiet to itself, that would be the utmost Bhakthi. That bhakthi should be beyond measure. This is the thaathparyam of the naaradha soothra: 'anirvachaneeyam prEmasvaroopam'. That is everyone has this anirvachaneeya prEma only with his own aathmaa. Actually it is the case with sakala praaNis. Even if he is a fool he will have utmost prEma only with his own aathmaa. What we know from this is that only Aathmaa alone is the substance entirely of Aanandha. A person would not place his prEma on a vasthu that is different from aathmaa. People give up everything when there is haani to the aathma. (continued in 61 (2) ) From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Thu Dec 31 03:45:47 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 04:45:47 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] Sivaanandalahari -61 Message-ID: Sivaanandalahari -61 (2) *"aathmaa paramaanandhasvaroopa: paramaprEmaaspadhathvaath" This anumaanapramaaNa vaakyam does the siddhaantham that aathmaa alone is the aaspadha vasthu (abode) of the superior prEma. Placing this superior prEma of the aathmaa at all time in the paadhaaravindham of Parameswara is called Bhakthi. AathmaprEma should be surrendered to ParamEswara. MOksham is nothing but placing one's aathmaprEma with ParamEswara. One cannot place his aathmaprEma with ParamEswara as long as he thinks that ParamEswara is a different vasthu than oneself. Until this dhruda pragnai is reached the bhakthi that a person has is merely a ‘saamaanya’ bhakthi. That bhakthi cannot be considered a purushaartha.* Because I say that aathmaprEma should be placed on ParamEswara it should not be understood that ParamEswara is anya vasthu. Why do I say so? Because, everyone has prEma only on his self. That prEma of the self (aathmaprEma) is not placed on anya vasthu in which case it will be anyaprEma which is caused by the pragnya that such and such is an anya vasthu. The idea of considering ParamEswara as anya vasthu should completely leave one's mind, then only will he be able to place his aathmaprEma on ParamEswara. The main reason for this is only the mind, is it not? * “Mana: paramkaaraNamaamananthi samsaarachakram parivarthayEdhyath” says the saasthra. The mind is the stumbling block between oneself and Parameswara. That is why the mind has to be parted first to Parameswara. In fact Parameswara steals this mind from a ripe bhaktha! (உள்ளம் கவர் கள்வன்!) Why not part it willingly?* In order that manOnaasam to take place one has to do navavidha bhakthi. These different bhakthis are highlighted by BhagavathpaadhaaL by examples. Even though AngOla seeds that reach the tree there you see the bhEdham of the seed and the tree. In the same way is the magnet and the needle has the bhEdhagnyaanam. Even though the Pathivrathaa is conscious of her bhartha the bhEdham between them is evident. Even when the creeper is seen together with the tree the bhEdham between them is discernible. *This bhEda gnaanam is called MAAYAI.* All the aanandham that we enjoy with bhEdhagnyaanam should be known as nachvara aanandham (perishable happiness). Even though in reality aathmaa is aanandhamayam maayai hides this and makes aathmaa appear as devoid of aanandha. That is why sakala praaNis consider themselves as dhukkaswaroopis. Because they consider themselves as dhukkaswaroopis they keep seeking aanandha. And aanandhaa they seek is seen with ParamEswara. *Now, let’s tread back a little. We were saying that the root cause of our misery is our mind. Why so? Because the mind has no ability to function in a world where there is no two. Mind knows only by differentiation for which it needs the second one. In fact the more the merrier for it! So its first conclusion for its own survival is that Parameswara is different from oneself. The train of events that follows is that the one, the jeeva, is miserable and Parameswara is blissful. We say that as long as there are two, the misery will always have to be with the jeeva, otherwise there won’t be any argument because if the jeeva is blissful there won’t be any need for Parameswara! So the dwaithins spread their siddhaantha that this Aathma is miserable and at no time would it ever be blissful. They say that the Aathma is different from Parameswara and that Aananda is obtained only from Parameswara etc.* (continued in 61 (3) ) From venkat_advaita at yahoo.com Thu Dec 31 03:59:40 2009 From: venkat_advaita at yahoo.com (Venkata Subramanian) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:29:40 +0530 (IST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <267858.97950.qm@web94704.mail.in2.yahoo.com> --- On Thu, 31/12/09, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote: At the same time I would remind readers that we follow these acharyas for their knowledge of dharma and moksha not for their historical opinions. It is not an offense if we disagree with one or more of them on the historical details and by trying to understand the historical sequence of our cultures development we are not impeding our progress in dharma and moksha in any way.  (The corollary of this is don't obsess about historical questions either.  It won't make you a better Advaitin.) Sensible.  But one point here is that, well historical detail may not be that signficant, it is nevertheless a point.  That the Sringeri tradition is certainly very old and an authentic lineage of Bhagavan Bhashyakara - this historical fact induces one (at an sub-conscious mind level) to consider the Sringeri Jagadguru to be the final authority - both in the matter of Dharma and Darshana.  In fact the honour of the title "Jagadguru" is in a way tied up to this historic aspect of being the authentic lineage as well.   Otherwise Jaldhar, we have had very many scholars across India - like Mahamahopadhyaya Sri Shivakumara Shastri of Varanasi who have been revered akin to an Amnaya Matha Shankaracharya, sans his standing as a Grihasta. The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. http://in.yahoo.com/ From srirudra at vsnl.com Thu Dec 31 05:32:39 2009 From: srirudra at vsnl.com (sriram) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 17:02:39 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Peforming Pournami Tithi Pooja for my father. References: Message-ID: <001901ca8a0c$f67f9f00$6400a8c0@km> Dear Sathish Shanmugasundaram It is better to get advice from your Purohit in this matter of things.As you have to observe masikam and sotha kumbam every month till your father`s annual srardham as the kartha and in the absence of information as to who has to perform your uncle`s karyam in my opinion -I am a Southindian smartha Brahmin-you can carry on with whatever you have chosen to do to remember your dear father on the monthly thithi..R.Krishnamoorthy. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sathish Shanmugasundaram" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 12:30 PM Subject: [Advaita-l] Peforming Pournami Tithi Pooja for my father. > > Dear Sir, > We are Hindus from South India. My father died during pournami Tithi. So > for the past six months when ever pournami tithi comes I pray keeping my > father's photo after which, keep part of the food placed before him to > crows and only after that we will have lunch. Unfortunately, My father's > brother passed away 2 days back.Today the 3rd day fun My doubt is can I > continue doing the pooja on Pournami Tithi or not? I would like to mention > that we stay in a separate house and my father's brother stayed in a > separate house for more than 45 years and continue to do so. > Please let me know at the earliest as pournami dithi falls in a couple of > days. > Thanks. > Regards,Sathiish > _________________________________________________________________ > Windows 7: Find the right PC for you. Learn more. > http://windows.microsoft.com/shop > _______________________________________________ > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From anbesivam2 at gmail.com Thu Dec 31 07:54:14 2009 From: anbesivam2 at gmail.com (Anbu sivam2) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:54:14 -0500 Subject: [Advaita-l] ThamasOmaa Jyothirgamaya! Message-ID: Time and Space are the most horrible maaya that is held aloft only by one's ego. This is samsaara. If time is an illusion why investigate it? Discussing and fighting on vyavahaarika level obviates the purpose of this list. This nuisance of siding with one Guru (most likely without his knowledge) and his peetam to taunt another is a terrible deviation. If you are convinced that it is maayaa kalpitha desa-kaalam then you will, like me, feel very sad that this discussion goes on interminably despite the plea of the moderators. My humble wish is that it is given up promptly. With folded hands, Anbu From sivasenani at yahoo.com Thu Dec 31 08:15:18 2009 From: sivasenani at yahoo.com (sivasenani at yahoo.com) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 14:15:18 +0000 Subject: [Advaita-l] ThamasOmaa Jyothirgamaya! Message-ID: <88307459-1262268934-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1561131522-@bda113.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> Noble conclusion but wrong logic. If we are capable of operating at paaramaatika level, there is no need for this list, for posts etc. We need to indeed investigate events in space and time. We cannot and should not invoke maaya so flippantly. All saampraadaayavids know that there is no greater sin than yati dooshana and if one is incapable of not respecting one's own sampradaaya without denouncing others, at what stage of sadhana is that sadhaka? As I said, wrong reasoning but the conclusion that disrespect not be shown to peethams is very right for the far simpler reason of basic civility. Senani Disclaimer: Members of my family are not followers of either Sringeri peeTham or Kanchi peeTham. ------Original Message------ From: Anbu sivam2 Sender: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta ReplyTo: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta Sent: 31 Dec 2009 7:24 PM Subject: [Advaita-l] ThamasOmaa Jyothirgamaya! Time and Space are the most horrible maaya that is held aloft only by one's ego. This is samsaara. If time is an illusion why investigate it? Discussing and fighting on vyavahaarika level obviates the purpose of this list. This nuisance of siding with one Guru (most likely without his knowledge) and his peetam to taunt another is a terrible deviation. If you are convinced that it is maayaa kalpitha desa-kaalam then you will, like me, feel very sad that this discussion goes on interminably despite the plea of the moderators. My humble wish is that it is given up promptly. With folded hands, Anbu _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel From sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com Thu Dec 31 09:34:23 2009 From: sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com (Sunil Bhattacharjya) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 07:34:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that date of Adi Sankara etc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <438938.70906.qm@web113304.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Truth both Vyavaharika and Paramarthika deserve respect.  --- On Wed, 12/30/09, Ananth Padmanabhan wrote: From: Ananth Padmanabhan Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Conference on that date of Adi Sankara etc To: "advaitha Vedaanta" Date: Wednesday, December 30, 2009, 8:27 AM Brahmaiva sarvadhA nAnyath sathyam sathyam nijam padham| AtmAkAram idham dvaitham mithyavE na parah pumAn|| sachidhananda mAthrOham sarvam kEvalamavyayam| brahmA vishnuscha rudrascha Eswarascha sadAsivaha|| (Ribu Gita) Advaita in the form of Sri Adhi Sankaracharia has no dvaitham and time and space has no existence. The potent content of his teachings is more to contemplate rather than HIS time of birth and death. They are just points of discussion,dispute and meat for historical research either way or any way as 'bahirmuka vaadham'. Do we want more inner paralysis by analysis of Sri Shankara's birth time and mukthi time in history?. It may add more referential knowledge wealth, be it right or wrong and has no other sathyam. Namaskaram Padmanabhan 'namAmi bhagavathpAtham shankaram lOka shankaram' > Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 11:49:20 +0530 > From: srirudra at vsnl.com > To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org > Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that date of Adi Sankara etc > > Dear Members > It is an accepted fact of history that it was AdiSankara who propped up > the sayings of Vedhas and Upanishads which were relegated to the > background by the emergence of Jainism and Budhdhism which condemned the > animal sacrifices in the yagas as were practised by the followers of > Hindu dharma by probably incorrect interpretations of the Karmakanda > directions.It fell on the slender shoulders of Sri Adi Shankara to clear > the smear campaign by the Jains and Buddhists and rejuvenate the > Sanathana Dharma.So if this is correct then it follows that Adi Sankara > was after Buddha and Mahavira or at most a late contemporary to them.If > Buddha was in 1887BCE etc then it is not wrong to assume that Adi > Sankara was born in 44BCE.Finally this forum is to discuss the Advaitic > teachings of Sri Sankara.It will be to the benefit of all of us if such > controversies are avoided in this forum.We should know the truth no > doubt but in that case we may lose the focus.R.Krishnamoorthy > _______________________________________________ > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita > > To unsubscribe or change your options: > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l > > For assistance, contact: > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org                           _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live: Make it easier for your friends to see what you’re up to on Facebook. http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9691816 _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com Thu Dec 31 10:27:09 2009 From: sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com (Sunil Bhattacharjya) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:27:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <824669.61781.qm@web113305.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Dear Vidyasankarji, At the outset I wish you and all the members of the Advaita forum a happy new year. I am interested in knowing the true date of Adi Sankaracharya. I have the highest respect for the Sringeri math and I visited that math and I have not visited the Dwarka and the Puri math uptill now. Hope that will convince you about the regards I have for the Sringeri math.  I did visit the Kudali Sringeri math also and I was lucky to have the darshan of mother Sarada there at the confluence of Tunga and Bhadra.  I also have respect for the Sankaracharyas of the Dwarka and the Puri maths. The Sankaracharyas of all the maths are holy persons and I respect them all. But my science training does not allow me to relish the different dates upheld by the different maths. I wish all the important people of all the maths established by Adi Sankara meet together to sort out the differences to arrive at a common date. If however we cannot agree to a common date can we not amicably agree to disagree? I came to Mumbai on December 7 last. If you send me the address an the telephone number of your brother I would be able to contact him for the book by Shastri so that I can have look at that. As regards the Sankara Vijaya you referred to are you sure it was written by Vidyaranya Swami himself an not by his namesake and do you think the great Tantric Abhinabhagupta, referred to in that, was from Kamarupa and not from Kashmir? I was in touch with Gowrisankarji of the Sringeri math a few times in the past and there was another person with whom I had some correspondence but I do not recall his name now. Hope mother Sarada will guide us in this endeavour to satisfy ourselves regarding the date of Adi Sankaracharya. Looking forward to hearing from you and with regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Wed, 12/30/09, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote: From: Vidyasankar Sundaresan Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 To: "Advaita List" Date: Wednesday, December 30, 2009, 9:05 AM Dear Mr. Bhattacharjya, Really, you are insulting my intelligence and patience with your questions. Please decide whether you are interested in a. the date of Sankaracharya, b. casting aspersions on the Sringeri lineage c. upholding the traditions of any other lineage(s) d. upholding the faulty claims of the contested Kudali lineage e. any of the combinations of the above. Once you have decided what it is you want to do, please let us know. It seems to me you belong squarely to the faction which is interested in throwing as much mud as possible at the Sringeri record, in the hope that something sticks. I firmly decline to engage in this thread with you after this post. As I mentioned earlier, this thread is moving in unexpected and unnecessary directions and I don't intend to contribute to it much further. Every single one of your questions has been dealt with at length, numerous times in the past on this list, including in this very thread. In my previous post, I used the word "arguably" with respect to the authenticity of the Sringeri tradition, merely because I allow that others can have differing opinions about it and I defend their right to hold their opinions, no matter how different they may be from my opinions and no matter how wrong these opinions may be. I can only exercise my right to share what I know of the matter and sometimes I choose not to, because it is often a futile exercise. A few other points: One, you can figure out for yourself about the origins of the Vikrama Samvat in India. Two, you can go back to one of my previous posts on this very thread about the Sringeri stand on dates. Three, have some respect for the tradition. Do not assume that scholars at Sringeri (or anybody else, for that matter) have nothing better to do than to keep responding to your pesky emails. I am unaware which scholars you have tried contacting at Sringeri. I, as you well know, am not an official spokesman of the Sringeri Matha, no matter what some on this list may think. Four, please learn how to search on the internet. An article written by anybody, no matter how famous or unknown, is not necessarily accessible through Google, especially as I already told you that it appeared as part of a souvenir, with many other articles alongside it. The souvenirs themselves, will show up in searches, and you can figure out how to look within them. Do not expect answers to be handed to you on a platter. Doing literature searches takes time and patience. Did you try finding and reading Swami Tapasyananda's translation of the Madhaviya Sankaravijayam, which quotes a letter from the Sringeri administration about this very topic? If you have, don't you see that many of your questions are meaningless? If you have not, why don't you first follow up on this and then ask your impertinent questions? Did you also take the trouble to read the book, A History of Sringeri, by Prof. A. K. Shastri of Karnataka University, Dharwad? I have mentioned this book several times in previous threads of discussion initiated by you on this list. Surely, you can find that book via Google or some other easily accessible search. In fact, the top result on Google for this book is a library in Australia. If you have not managed to find and read that book, may I ask what are you waiting for? Is it your intention merely to ask questions on this list and not give any answers yourself? If you are interested in doing research, please equip yourself with the necessary materials and methodology to do a thorough and impartial job of it. Five, develop the necessary patience. I already told you that I will try and dig up the said article when I go to India next and post details. If you cannot wait and if this is such a pressing matter to you, you are welcome to make a trip to my brother's house in Mumbai right now and search for it yourself. I can give you the address, if you are willing to drop everything and make the trip. Have a good new year, Vidyasankar                           _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org From sjayana at yahoo.com Thu Dec 31 15:17:40 2009 From: sjayana at yahoo.com (S Jayanarayanan) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:17:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 Message-ID: <138196.30078.qm@web50803.mail.re2.yahoo.com> --- On Thu, 12/31/09, Venkata Subramanian wrote: [..] > But one point here is that, well historical > detail may not be that signficant, it is nevertheless a > point.  That the Sringeri tradition is certainly very old > and an authentic lineage of Bhagavan Bhashyakara - this > historical fact induces one (at an sub-conscious mind > level) to consider the Sringeri Jagadguru to be the final > authority - both in the matter of Dharma and Darshana.  In > fact the honour of the title "Jagadguru" is in a way tied > up to this historic aspect of being the authentic lineage as > well.  Well said!! That is the most intellectually and refreshingly honest thing I've heard in a long time! Wish you a very, very happy new year :) Not only the above point about historicity and lineage, but the purity of the place makes the Sringeri Math a great center of Dharma and Yoga. Besides, one of the Puri Sankaracharyas was a disciple of a Sringeri Acharya, and the present Dwaraka (also Jyotir) Math Sankaracharya, Swami Swarupananda, was coronated by a Sringeri Acharya. Many of the Ramakrishna Mission monks have held the Sringeri Math to be pre-eminent in teaching Advaita Vedanta. If there is one tradition that deserves to be called "The Most Authentic Tradition", it is the Sringeri Math. > Otherwise Jaldhar, we have had very many scholars > across India - like Mahamahopadhyaya Sri Shivakumara Shastri > of Varanasi who have been revered akin to an Amnaya Matha > Shankaracharya, sans his standing as a Grihasta. > > Regards, Kartik From srirudra at vsnl.com Thu Dec 31 20:12:58 2009 From: srirudra at vsnl.com (sriram) Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 07:42:58 +0530 Subject: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi SankaracharyainOctober, 2002 References: <824669.61781.qm@web113305.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <000001ca8aa9$4909b700$6400a8c0@km> Dear Members Iam at a loss to understand why this debate whether Sringeri Mutt is the most relliable one in deciding the date of birth/period of life of the great Acharya.This type of ping pong discussions crop up in this forum from time to time.All mutts are great in their own way.It is akin to fight that my God/religion is the best and others are trash.Let us not waste time in these non important matters is my opinion.R.Krishnamoorthy. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sunil Bhattacharjya" To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 9:57 PM Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi SankaracharyainOctober, 2002 Dear Vidyasankarji, At the outset I wish you and all the members of the Advaita forum a happy new year. I am interested in knowing the true date of Adi Sankaracharya. I have the highest respect for the Sringeri math and I visited that math and I have not visited the Dwarka and the Puri math uptill now. Hope that will convince you about the regards I have for the Sringeri math. I did visit the Kudali Sringeri math also and I was lucky to have the darshan of mother Sarada there at the confluence of Tunga and Bhadra. I also have respect for the Sankaracharyas of the Dwarka and the Puri maths. The Sankaracharyas of all the maths are holy persons and I respect them all. But my science training does not allow me to relish the different dates upheld by the different maths. I wish all the important people of all the maths established by Adi Sankara meet together to sort out the differences to arrive at a common date. If however we cannot agree to a common date can we not amicably agree to disagree? I came to Mumbai on December 7 last. If you send me the address an the telephone number of your brother I would be able to contact him for the book by Shastri so that I can have look at that. As regards the Sankara Vijaya you referred to are you sure it was written by Vidyaranya Swami himself an not by his namesake and do you think the great Tantric Abhinabhagupta, referred to in that, was from Kamarupa and not from Kashmir? I was in touch with Gowrisankarji of the Sringeri math a few times in the past and there was another person with whom I had some correspondence but I do not recall his name now. Hope mother Sarada will guide us in this endeavour to satisfy ourselves regarding the date of Adi Sankaracharya. Looking forward to hearing from you and with regards, Sunil K. Bhattacharjya --- On Wed, 12/30/09, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote: From: Vidyasankar Sundaresan Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Conference on that Date of Adi Sankaracharya in October, 2002 To: "Advaita List" Date: Wednesday, December 30, 2009, 9:05 AM Dear Mr. Bhattacharjya, Really, you are insulting my intelligence and patience with your questions. Please decide whether you are interested in a. the date of Sankaracharya, b. casting aspersions on the Sringeri lineage c. upholding the traditions of any other lineage(s) d. upholding the faulty claims of the contested Kudali lineage e. any of the combinations of the above. Once you have decided what it is you want to do, please let us know. It seems to me you belong squarely to the faction which is interested in throwing as much mud as possible at the Sringeri record, in the hope that something sticks. I firmly decline to engage in this thread with you after this post. As I mentioned earlier, this thread is moving in unexpected and unnecessary directions and I don't intend to contribute to it much further. Every single one of your questions has been dealt with at length, numerous times in the past on this list, including in this very thread. In my previous post, I used the word "arguably" with respect to the authenticity of the Sringeri tradition, merely because I allow that others can have differing opinions about it and I defend their right to hold their opinions, no matter how different they may be from my opinions and no matter how wrong these opinions may be. I can only exercise my right to share what I know of the matter and sometimes I choose not to, because it is often a futile exercise. A few other points: One, you can figure out for yourself about the origins of the Vikrama Samvat in India. Two, you can go back to one of my previous posts on this very thread about the Sringeri stand on dates. Three, have some respect for the tradition. Do not assume that scholars at Sringeri (or anybody else, for that matter) have nothing better to do than to keep responding to your pesky emails. I am unaware which scholars you have tried contacting at Sringeri. I, as you well know, am not an official spokesman of the Sringeri Matha, no matter what some on this list may think. Four, please learn how to search on the internet. An article written by anybody, no matter how famous or unknown, is not necessarily accessible through Google, especially as I already told you that it appeared as part of a souvenir, with many other articles alongside it. The souvenirs themselves, will show up in searches, and you can figure out how to look within them. Do not expect answers to be handed to you on a platter. Doing literature searches takes time and patience. Did you try finding and reading Swami Tapasyananda's translation of the Madhaviya Sankaravijayam, which quotes a letter from the Sringeri administration about this very topic? If you have, don't you see that many of your questions are meaningless? If you have not, why don't you first follow up on this and then ask your impertinent questions? Did you also take the trouble to read the book, A History of Sringeri, by Prof. A. K. Shastri of Karnataka University, Dharwad? I have mentioned this book several times in previous threads of discussion initiated by you on this list. Surely, you can find that book via Google or some other easily accessible search. In fact, the top result on Google for this book is a library in Australia. If you have not managed to find and read that book, may I ask what are you waiting for? Is it your intention merely to ask questions on this list and not give any answers yourself? If you are interested in doing research, please equip yourself with the necessary materials and methodology to do a thorough and impartial job of it. Five, develop the necessary patience. I already told you that I will try and dig up the said article when I go to India next and post details. If you cannot wait and if this is such a pressing matter to you, you are welcome to make a trip to my brother's house in Mumbai right now and search for it yourself. I can give you the address, if you are willing to drop everything and make the trip. Have a good new year, Vidyasankar _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org _______________________________________________ Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/ http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita To unsubscribe or change your options: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l For assistance, contact: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org