[Advaita-l] Advaita-l Digest, Vol 62, Issue 10

kman krismanian at gmail.com
Thu Jun 12 09:11:14 CDT 2008

> Message: 10
> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:14:16 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Ananta Bhagwat <ananta14 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [Advaita-l] Fw:  moxa-sAdhanA
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
>        <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Message-ID: <12704.5572.qm at web57505.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Thanks Sri Ananta for a breath of fresh air. I whole heartedly agree with
> what you say. I was actually shocked by

Sri Jaladhar's message on this subject being one of the founders of this
group, if I am not mistaken.

Sri Ananta please keep posting your thoughts and perspectives, Your erudite
and insightful mails raise the awareness
and keep me in the path of Sankara.


Hari Om

> ----- Forwarded Message ----
> From: Jaldhar H. Vyas
> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 5:06:55 AM
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] moxa-sAdhanA
> <In several of your messages I've seen you assume that by shastras we mean
> written books and then you contrast them with traditions or history.
> Actually its almost completely the other way around. ...>
> Well, this is also my position; tradition (oral transmission and
> observance) first and then came SAstra. But is it the position of those who
> demand rigid interpretation of SAstra? Recall your own stand. When you
> interpret shruti or smRti rigidly you interpret words and not the traditions
> because shruti and smRti are culminations of very many traditions which are
> shrouded in antiquity.
> <Despite not being written in a fixed form we find that different classes
> amongst those that are called Hindus have very fixed, consistent ideas of
> how one is supposed to act.  This is their dharma.>
> Very debatable; which classes you are talking about? Perhaps this may be
> true to some extent of priestly (Brahmin) class, not otherwise. From times
> of yore each caste has showcased its own tradition. There are hundreds of
> casts.
> <Then it is not a pramana i.e an objective measure.  Anyone can invoke
> "conscience" for whatever reason and there is no rational measure by which
> you can determine if it is valid or not.  Any discussion of this
> "conscience" will end up as a shouting match because it only one persons
> word against another.>
> Conscience has a subjective element no doubt; but it can always try to
> connect to universal conscience projected by gItA. Also,  see below.
> <Hmm if you know who Turing is you most probably know who Goedel is.>
> Hmm, very good example indeed! The famous incompleteness theorem of Godel
> says, in any mathematical system no set of axioms can capture all the
> procedures whereby mathematical truths are ascertained. This is true for all
> logical systems. This is where conscience comes into picture. I referred to
> the term non-computational to show that there can not be any exclusive
> criteria (like birth, cast, class etc) whereby this conscience is formed or
> raised. A Valya Koli can become sage Valmki when his conscience is raised. A
> vikarNa can stand up against all the assembly of seniors and vidvAn-s to
> protest disrobing of draupadI. That is what I call as conscience. It can
> (but need not always) comes from SAstra.
> <Who defines "injury" and "innocence"?  In the case of the himsaka yajnas
> it is believed that the sacrificial pashu goes to  heaven.  Since a goat
> cannot read the Ramayana or fast on ekadashi, this is in fact the only way
> it can go to heaven.  What kind of selfish wicked person would deny them
> that?  (In other words it is a matter of perspective.)>
> ajA putra balI dadhyat devO durbala ghAtakaH! Here our perspectives differ.
> <No it is not clear at all.  I deny your very premise and if you intend to
> assert it, you need to back it up with some facts.
> The devil is as they say in the details.  If you don't want to back up
> your arguments, drop them we can't take them seriously.>
> There is very little motivation for me to take this bet; but still you can
> refer to section V and VII of manusmRti and incantations of Atharva Veda as
> example. Referhttp://www.sacred-texts.com/hin and go Atharva Veda English
> translation. You will also find manusmRiti and some other smRti-s there. If
> you know Sanskrit you can see all 18 smRti-s and upasmRitis onhttp://
> is1.mum.edu/vedicreserve and you will understand the futility of this
> whole exercise. My lack of motivation is not due to lack of data but because
> of the very fact that some of this material is also used by the vested
> interests to malign Hinduism as also by some to validate their black-magic
> activities. I do not want to join or support any of these groups.
> <The contradiction is this.  You say that Arjuna causing the deaths of over
> one million people including his teachers, elders, and other family
> members for the sake of artha (a kingdom) is dharma but a somayaji killing
> one goat for the sake of artha (heaven) is not>
> Not a correct example. In second world war more people died. But do you
> suggest that the world should have succumbed to Hitler's ambitions and
> tolerated Jews' massacre?. Can it be used to justify the killing of even one
> innocent person? The war for Dharma (for just cause) is different; there the
> participants and their non-fighting supporters too are aware that they can
> die. You can not justify killing of an innocent by giving this example. Then
> why not sanction murders etc. Why not nara-balI (human sacrifice) also? Some
> may even justify all that but it is not acceptable to conscience of very
> many people including mine.
> > We assume that shruti, smRti, purANa give a unified clear message all
> > through which is universal and all-time.
> <Yes indeed we do.  Actually with  one qualification: there are two unified
> clear messages.  One is how to pursue dharma, artha, and kama for limited
> rewards in a finite world.  The other is how to pursue moksha which is
> eternal and infinite.>
> We are talking about details and they differ considerably as to how to
> pursue these two courses. If every thing was crystal clear then why debates
> continued for centuries even amongst SAstrI-s? The hows are to be detailed
> out, other wise they are meaning less. The devil is as they say in the
> details :). If you say follow 18.66 of gItA then SAstra-s are not required
> at all. (Though I do not rule out that possibility in specific cases).
> <As others have pointed out, modern sensibilities permit the slaughter of
> animals on a vast scale.  Even if you restrict the picture to religious
> rituals, animals sacrifices are going on all over India this very day.
> True most of these are tantrokta rather than vedokta but even the latter
> are
> not unknown. (And what about halal or kosher sacrifices?  Those are
> practiced by modern people whose consciences are apparently untroubled)
> So by "modern  sensibilities" it seems you mean "my sensibilities"  Which
> is ok except you said conscience is more than the "whims and fancies of an
> individual.">
> When I say modern sensibilities I say modern ethical view. Modern people do
> lot many things which are not compatible with this ethical view. Animal
> rightist who are concerned with the plight of animals are growing in number.
> I have explained their concerns elsewhere. That animal sacrifices are going
> all over India (and its implicit universality in Indian context) is an
> exaggerated view. But suppose for the sake of arguments these things are
> really happening then these are not compatible with the spirit of gItA.
> It may interest you to see the discourse of Sw Chandrashekharendra Bharati,
> a modern SAstri and a videha mukta of Kanchi Kamakoti who explains that
> though animal sacrifice is sanctioned by dharma, satya (truth) and ahiMsA
> (non-violence) is much better course of action as per SAstra only. See the
> link
> http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap23.htm ,
> <It was the same in my family including the early 20th century.  So where
> are you getting the idea that is is not in tune with the manusmrti?>
> Have you read manusmRti? Some where above, I have given site link and
> section numbers for your perusal.
> <I think you will find the number  of families that treated women badly
> then
> are not that different than the number that treat them badly now.>
> Here I agree; we have to find a mean between excessive materialism and
> blind adherence to scriptures.
> <Therefore get up and seek fame.  Defeat the enemy and enjoy the prosperous
> kingdom.  (11:33a)>
> This is for motivating Arjuna, elsewhere gItA not only decry vedavAdarata
> (2.42-44) but clearly says that those who cook only for them selves without
> giving the remnants of yajna to good people eat sin (3.13). In this context
> the five yajna-s (deva, brahma, pitR, nR, and bhUta) involve feeding the
> hungry as also feeding the lower animals. If the householder has
> inadvertently killed 'life' by use of pestle, grindstone, oven etc. these
> yajna-s free him from the sin. (SAstra can be as ennobling as that; but one
> has to have pravRtti to imbibe this nobleness).
> <Unlike the life-denying Shramanic movements before it, Advaita Vedanta
> does not consider rituals to be inferior because there is something wrong
> in pursuing worldly pleasure or power.  These are also given by Bhagavan
> and we are only the instruments.  Even when done  for selfish ends, such
> things can lead to public good.  Perhaps a modern parallel can be how
> capitalist countries are more prosperous than socialist ones even though
> capitalism is selfish and socialism is not.>
> I don't think it is Sankara bhahavtpAda view. He separates jnAna-mArga from
> karma-mArga and puts later on the lower step. moxa is possible by only
> jnAna-mArga. Further, in vyavahAra if every body seeks selfish motives
> disregarding societal interest there will be friction and anarchy. Frankly,
> the examples of capitalist or socialist systems to draw parallel is not
> relevant. It all depends on who is implementing the system. If a socialist
> system succeeds in Scandinavian countries, the same system may fail (or
> rather not acceptable) in US. And a monarchy is successful in Saudi Arabia
> the same may not work in UK. Again these things are temporary and no
> permanent conclusion can be drawn from them.
> Any religious doctrine can be viewed from the angle of (1) philosophy
> (ontology, epistemology, and ethics) (2) theology (mysticism and dogma) and
> (3) sociology (history, sociology, humanities). I believe many of the todays
> controversial doctrinaire issues can be understood better from the third
> angle if not from first two. I can discuss them some time later. Enough for
> the time being :)
> Ananta
> ------------------------------
> Message: 11
> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:26:42 +0530
> From: Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com>
> Subject: [Advaita-l] The word *samAdhi* in shankara bhAshya
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
>        <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Message-ID:
>        <
> OFEB2F063F.EDD0C414-ON65257465.00391FD8-65257465.00419DDE at in.abb.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> praNAms
> Hare Krishna
> Here I'd like to draw the attention of prabhuji's of this list to the word
> *samAdhi* & its contextual usage by Sankara bhagavatpAda in his bhAshya.
> (a) In gIta 2-44 Sankara uses the word samAdhi..Here according to Sankara
> samAdhi means buddhi or antaHkaraNa.  Here Sankara says that the conviction
> or a resolute nature of the intellect is called samAdhi.  Hence samAdhi
> here means buddhi.
> (b) In gIta 2-53, here the word samAdhi means the *self*...The mind or the
> intellect completely immersed when one see the true nature of the self by
> discrimination..The point here tobe noted that it is not a mind still state
> of nirvikalpa samAdhi, it is the realization of jnAni through
> discrimination  that he is advitIya (secondless)...If it is PY's
> asamprajnAtha samAdhi of sthitha prajna then there is no meaning for the
> next verse..where Arjuna asks krishna, stithaprajnasya kA bhAshA??
> kimAsIta, kim vrajeta etc. ..Ofcourse, it is a fact that the person who is
> experiencing NS, cannot speak, cannot walk etc. :-)) Hence here samAdhi is
> Atman..it cannot be equated or interpreted in such a manner to bring-in
> PY's asaMprajnAtha samAdhi.  Accordingly, the word *samAdhishTa* in the
> 2-54 means one who is already established *naturally* in his true nature as
> the self.
> (c) In mAndukya kArika 3-37, the word samAdhi has been used & interpreted
> by Sankara in two different ways...And neither of these interpretations
> even remotely comparable to that of PY's AS or later vEdAntins' NS.
> (d) In sUtra (2-3-39) samAdhyabhAvAccha (samAdhi +abhAvAt +cha), shankara
> talks elaborately on direct means to AtmajnAna i.e. sravaNa, manana &
> nidhidhyAsana...Here also samAdhi does not mean *samAdhi* as popularly
> known in YS but it is only *samAdhAna*..The context here in this sUtra
> makes it clear that samAdhi cannot be interpreted as PY's AS or NS.
> In the all above references shankara does talk about samAdhi, yoga etc.
> but strictly according to the true tradition of vedAnta and nowhere he
> hints that it is PY.  Hence in bhAshya-s there is absolutely no mention
> whatsoever of chakra-s like mulAdhAra, svAdhishTAna, maNipura etc. nor
> kamala-s (like sahasra dala padma etc.) nor kundalini & its coiled power &
> its journey through sushumnA etc.  Ofcourse, in some places where there are
> some peculiar types of upAsana-s mentioned (like OmkAra, aghaMgraha etc.)
> sometimes nAdi-s like ida, pingaLa and sushumna are mentioned & accpeted by
> shankara as per vedic utterances.  But when it comes to self-knowledge
> (Atma vijnAna) there is no mention of these words like chakra-s, nAdi-s,
> kamala-s etc.
> With all these observation, I would like to submit that there is no valid
> reason for us to accept that PY or rAja yOga or haTha yOga or kundalini
> yOga has a place in shankara siddhAnta pratipAdana.
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar
> PS :  I have taken the samAdhi word reference from my parama guruji's
> Kannada work * Shankara vEdAnta pAribhAshika shabda kosha*...If I left out
> any other valid references where there is room for interpretation of this
> word  in favour of PY, kindly let me know.
> ------------------------------
> Message: 12
> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:50:04 +0530
> From: Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com>
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Qualifications to Recite Vedas - A doubt
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
>        <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Message-ID:
>        <
> OF3DC1F582.EB03ABFD-ON65257465.0041C691-65257465.0043C195 at in.abb.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> You can find many people all over the world, including women, who
> chant the veda even with going through upanayanam etc. Are they
> violating dharma shastra? It is certainly not our job to worry about
> it.
> praNAms
> Hare Krishna
> Then who else should worry about it kindly tell me...whether you accept it
> or not, our tradition does not allow stree (women) & sUdra (non-dvija) to
> learn/recite vEda mantra-s..this is the practice you can see even today in
> orthodox vedic institutions like shankara mutt, vyAsarAja mutt  etc.  But
> this does not anyway mean that these people are not eligible for
> mOksha..For them smruti & purAna texts are there which themselves suffice
> for attaining the ultimate.  Sankara also does talk about this vedAdhikAra
> in apashUdrAdhikaraNa, in vEdAnta sUtra.
> However, I myself met one Mrs. Renuka at Mysore, Karnataka who is even
> today  teaching rudram, chamakaM & other vEda maNtra-s to around 200
> students. When I asked her about this vedAdhikAra she has given her own
> justification :-))
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!!
> bhaskar
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> 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 62, Issue 10
> *****************************************

Balu (Kman)

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list