[Advaita-l] Re: Vivekachudamani vs Bhashyas

Vidyasankar Sundaresan svidyasankar at hotmail.com
Sun Aug 17 13:56:46 CDT 2003

>"A BrahmaGYAnI who has attained to his state by infirm qualifications
>and past merits (pUrva-puNya) ought to practise samAdhi for elimination
>of vAsanas", Vide HH Chandrashekhara Bharati's commentary on VC verse
>267 (268 in his numbering).
>If there is any doubt that the author of the VC is recommending
>vAsanAkshaya for a BrahmaGYAnI, HH's commentary removes it.

One, Swami Candrasekhara Bharati writes in the 20th century, using 
terminology accumulated over the centuries, which Sankaracarya himself may 
not have used. Two, the vAsanAkshaya through practice of samAdhi is 
recommended for one type of person who has obtained jnAna. Such a person is 
called brahmajnAnI as a term of praise (the technical Sanskrit word used 
would be upacAra) and is quite different from the brahmanjnAnI that 
Sankaracarya typically has in mind in the commentaries.

>So the JMV says essentially that:
>"Perfect BrahmaGYAna eventually leads to mukti".

Without getting into details of JMV, I would point out that what 
Sankaracarya says about maintaining a steady remembrance of Atma-vijnAna in 
bRhad-bhAshya 1.4.7 is the process of perfecting brahmajnAna. It follows 
without saying that even he does have room for perfecting jnAna over time.

Also note Sankaracarya's comments in the maitreyI brAhmaNa, where he 
explains why yAjnavalkya, who was undoubtedly a jnAnI, had to retire to the 
forest, leaving aside his household with two wives.

>But terms like "shAstra-vAsana" (attachment to scripture) are to be
>found only in the JMV and VC (not in Shankara-BhAshhyas), which is
>definitely revealing. Note also HH's commentary on the above VC verse
>is close to the JMV in its purport (as HH takes a BrahmaGYAnI to
>practise vAsanAkshaya).

It is one thing to discuss authorship issues by looking at language and 
terminology usage. All that this requires is a study of language as used by 
the various texts. It is quite another to look for doctrinal variations 
between commentaries on the prasthAna trayI and independent texts. It is in 
the second venture that I think one has to be careful before saying, "this 
and this much only is what Sankaracarya teaches, the rest is not his 
doctrine, therefore such-and-such book is not by him."


STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list