[Advaita-l] A matter for Adjudication

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:

> praNAms Sri Subbu prabhuji
> Hare Krishna
>
>
> Subbu prabhuji :
>
> This opinion is wrong.  Many, most people who have a fairly good knowledge
> of the tradition and ways of SSS are quite aware that he has spared
> Sureshwaracharya from the blacklisting of post Shankara Advaita Acharyas.
>
> bhaskar :
>
>
> Yes, Sri SSS has his views against vyAkhyAnakAra-s but mind you it was not
> the intention of Sri SSS to blacklist the popular names in tradition to gain
> recognition...IMO, it is high time for you to abstain from making personal
> comments on Sri SSS without any base.
>

I do not need more proof than what I quoted yesterday: the appeal by SSS's
disciple Swami to teach the Acharya's Bhashya without resorting to the
vyAkhyAna-s.  There is no doubt about who has influenced him to do so.  I
have not said that SSS aired his views against the post Shankara advaitins
in order to gain recognition; this is not at all factual.  His slogan: 'Go
back to Shankara' and the like are enough tell tale evidences of his
attitude towards the commentaries.  That influence on his followers is also
not something that can be covered up.

>
> Sri Subbu prabhuji :
>
> Could you kindly clarify what you mean by the term:  *sArvatrika
> pUrNAnubhava *?  And how you contrast it from
> *vaiyuktikAnubhava*(individual/personal experiences like asamprajnAtha or
> nirvikalpa samAdhi)
>
> bhaskar :
>
> See, if you eat masAla dOsa & chutney at vidyArthi bhavan in the early
> morning without bringing it to the notice of anybody & 'enjoyed' that dOsa
> chutney...that enjoyment even if you announce in public the description of
> that enjoyment is mere your personal anubhava..If you experience samAdhi
> at one particular point of time in your innermost recesses of your heart
> that is 'your' anubhava, restricted to your own explanation of that
> anubhava.  Though we cannot deny the credibility of these peculiar
> experiences of individulas, these unique experiences cannot be a pramANa
> for the brahma jignAsa...After all it is your personal experience, no one
> can prove whether it is true or false..it is purusha tantrAdhArita,
> kAlaparimita, vaiyuktika (unique) anubhava..Hence, you cannot comeout of
> some mystic experience and say, see I had been there in nirvikalpasamAdhi
> from early morning 4 to 6, based on my experience I will say brahman is
> ONE without second, so you have to accept the advaita which is
> ultimate..If you do that, immediately, a dualist would comeforward and say
> : "see, I have the darshana of bhagavAn krishna today in brAhmi mahUrta,
> during a course of discussion, he said, these mAyAvAdins making mess of my
> sandesha in geeta, you tell all ajnAni-s in the world that I am the
> supreme godhead and these puny jeeva-s should not think tattvamasi, let
> them  do archana, upAsana to reach by abode vaikunta I'll take care of
> their yOgakshema, this is the ultimate saNdesha...Which one is parama
> pramANa to realize the ultimate truth here?? Of course, as you know, both
> of them based on the vaiyuktikAnubhava of respective individuals who are
> preaching two different siddhAnta-s...it is only shraddha in one
> individual you are saying other person's interpretation wrong or
> interpreting his siddhAnta differently to match your book (as you did in
> purandaradAsa devara nAma:-))..is it not??


I do not see any copyright for Purandaradasa songs.  They have been in
public domain for centuries.  In fact it is only non-advaitins that have
made many of those songs internationally popular by singing them in various
fora.  The Upanishads that are One have been commented by various Acharyas
to 'match their books' and not to please anyone else.  There is nothing
wrong in my viewing Purandara Dasa's songs to suit my tastes.

I still do not see what you are driving at by the two types of anubhava.
For me, and for everyone, Brahmaanubhava is svaanubhavaika vedyam.  It is
not that you get the experience and I also get liberated;  it is each and
every individual's vaiyaktika prayatna and sadhana and siddhi.  There is no
sArvatrika here.  I shall give you a short account of a Divine Leela of Lord
Shiva, in the Tamil Desha, to illustrate what I understand by your term
'saarvatrika anubhava':

A Tamil King had ordered that every citizen should participate in a
collective damming work; with each person allotted a certain length of the
dam to work.  An old lady who could not do this was worried how she can meet
the order of the King.  Lord Shiva mercifully decided to help her and came
to her as a young able-bodied man.  He undertook to do her portion of the
work.  But He idled away without doing the work.  When the King was reported
that only one portion of the job remained undone, this Man was identified as
the errant one.  The King decided to punish Him with lashes.  When the first
lash was dealt on Him, everyone, including the King experienced the lash on
their backs and winced in pain.  This is a demonstration of sArvatrika
anubhava.  No such thing is possible in Vedanta.  It is always individual;
one for himself.

An advaitin will claim Advaitic experience after his individual anubhava and
a dvaitin will claim a dvaitic experience after his individual anubhava.
Both will assert that they have followed the shAstra.  There is no way that
there will be an agreement just because you want to float a concept of
'sArvatrika anubhava'.

Also, all advaita Jnanis will have the undifferentiated Brahma anubhava.  It
is only if this is admitted you can account for: shrotriyam brahmaniShTham.
Only because there is no difference in their anubhava can Bhagavan assure
Arjuna: उपदेक्ष्यन्ति ते ज्ञानं ज्ञानिनः तत्त्वदर्शिनः.  It is the same
tattva darshana that is had by every one who exerts individually and has the
experience in his 'own' meditation.  And this is what I suppose you are
saying below.  Even there, each vaiyaktika anubhava, if it has been done on
the proper lines, will result in the pUrNAnubhava only.  Without this one is
not an aparoksha jnAni.  Even if only the tvam padaartha has been realized,
it is only a-pUrNa anubhava.  And once the PUrNaanubhava is there, one
cannot distinguish one Jnani from another on the basis of the pUrNatva of
the anubhava.


> And now what is purNAnubhava??
> anubhava which is neither indriyAnubhava or vedanAnubhava and which is
> universal to one and all like agnirushNa....
>

No one will admit 'indriyanubhava' of senses of taste, form,etc. as Vedantic
anubhava.  And for 'vedana anubhava', the Acharya's words are there: 'sva
hRdaya pratyayam brahma vedanam'.  This is perfectly valid. Your
explanation, therefore, amounts to nothing; it does not clarify anything.
It only confounds the matter.  In any case, you have written a fine
commentary above on this Kenopanishad bhashya of our Acharya:

// The Kenopanishad II.i. 1 and 2 mantras speak of this.
Shankara describes the transformation the student/sadhaka undergoes
between the first mantra and the second one,  dramatically: evam
AchAryoktaH shiShyaH yEkAnte upaviShTaH samAhitaH san, yathOktam
AchAryeNa AgamArthato vichaarya, tarkatashcha nirdhArya,
*SVAANUBHAVAM* KRUTVAA, AchAryasakAsham upagamya uvAcha : manye aham atha
idAnIm viditam Brahma iti. (After having been told so by the Teacher, the
disciple sat in solitude with his mind concentrated,
deliberated, made It a matter of* personal experienc*e* *and
approached the teacher (in the class) and said: `Now I think Brahman
is known'.) //

We  can talk about this sArvatrika anubhava later..but first do note that
> your individual experience (no matter how sublime & divine it would be)
> cannot hold water in brahma jignAsa..
>

You can very well see from my explanation above that your classification is
wrong and only sva-anubhava gamya jnAna alone is valid in Vedanta - brahma
jijnAsaa.

>
> Sri Subbu prabhuji:
>
> Quite ironically,  SSS while translating the word
> स्वहृदयप्रत्ययं
> ब्रह्मवेदनं देहधारणम् .. of the Bhashya for BSB 4.1.15
> says: ತನ್ನ ಹೃದಯಕ್ಕೆ *
> ಮಾತ್ರ* (ತಿಳಿಯಬರುವ,,) [known ONLY to oneself..].  Is this the
>  *sArvatrika
> pUrNAnubhava or the **vaiyuktikAnubhava*?
>
> bhaskar :
>
> It is the anubhava that jnAni realizes that is sArvatrika & pUrNa to one
> and all (sarvAtmabhAva) & that is reason why it is also called
> samyakjnAna...and mind you, shankara does not say here this 'sva-hrudaya
> pratyayaM is the result of some individual's unique experience at some
> particular point of time..


I have already explained it; it is definitely one, not 'some', individual's
unique experience, at a particular point of time, that alone matters in
Vedanta sadhana.  The word 'unique' is not that each jnani has a different
'kind' of experience; in that respect alone all  Jnanis have the experience
of the One and the same Aupanishada Brahman.  If this is what you are
driving at, then we do not differ at all.



> .No need to mention here that you are quoting above bhAshya vAkya out of
> context to prove that vaiyuktikAnubhava is pramANa for brahma jignAsa...
>
> There is every need for me to reiterate, in view of your misunderstanding
what I said, that I have quoted SSS in the most perfect context. There is no
better context to highlight SSS's 'maatra' comment.  The context we are
discussing is: individual/sArvatrika anubhava.


> Sri Subbu prabhuji:
>
> Please also be informed that whether it is the sAkshAtkAra had by vichAra
> or samAdhi, the experience is always of the nature of 'sarvoham' 'pUrnoham',
> etc. and never otherwise.
>
> bhaskar :
>
> you have gone wrong again, shankara says both in sushupti & samAdhi the
> jeeva experiences the same 'experience' whereas sarvOham or pUrNoham is NOT
> avasthA vishesha jnAna....
>

For you samAdhi is un-Vedantic.  So, why include samAdhi in your
discussion?  i have not said sarvOham or pUrNoham is avasthA vishesha
jnAna....What I have said is it is realized that way in the akhandAkAra
vRtti and then that becomes his natural anubhava.


>
> Sri Subbu prabhuji:
>
> So, your distinguishing these two types is devoid of any purpose or
> meaning.
>
> bhaskar :
>
> My distinguising these two anubhava-s are very much in line with shankara
> bhAshya, if you dont see any purpose in it that is only due to your limited
> understanding of shankara siddhAnta prabhuji, I cannot help it :-))
>

I would be thankful to you if you can present to me the Shankara bhashya
quotes in support of your classification.  I am sure I have re-presented
your classification in tune with reasoning.

>
> Sri Subbu prabhuji :
>
> It is only in the case of non-advaitic sAkShAtkAra, like for example of
> the Patanjali's system, the anubhava is of the type of an individualized
> soul.
>
> bhaskar :
>
> what is that non-advaitic sAkshAtkAra in patanjali's system??  please be
> more specific...
>

In the Patanjali system, what we in Advaita call: the tvam padArtha, is
itself the ultimate.  For them the Brahma-jivAtma aikya sAkshAtkAra is not
there.  It is just prakRti-puruSha viveka.  He realizes he is different from
prakRti.  That is puruShArtha for them.

>
> Sri Subbu prabhuji :
>
> This is because that sAdhaka has trained in the shAstra that admits nAnA
> jeeva-s.
>

Let me clarify: I should have used the term: nAnA-Atma instead of
nAnA-jeeva.  In Patanjali system there is Atma-nAnAtva unlike in vedanta
where there is Only One Brahman-Atman.  See the Acharya's Gita bhashya:
2.12. देहभेदानुवृत्त्या बहुवचनं, न आत्मभेदाभिप्रायेण.

So, in view of this clarification, your notes on AdhikArika puruSha are not
in the right context.  I am sorry for not being specific in my terminology;
I took it for granted that in Advaitic circles this meaning is easily
recognized even when the term nAnaa-jeeva is used.

bhaskar :
>
> contextually shankara also accepts nAnA jeeva vAda & says adhikAri
> purusha-s
>
> Best regards,
subrahmanian.v