[Advaita-l] The Glory of Sannyasa
v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Tue Oct 24 06:57:08 EDT 2017
I think the proposition by Sri Sujal ji is not inadmissible in the Vedānta.
We have mantradraṣṭā-s, those who have had the vision of the mantra, or
those who have got the sākṣātkāra of the mantras and are therefore known as
Rishis. In fact there is an etymological expression: Rishirdarshane: One is
called a Rishi because he is adept in darshana or has had the darshana. In
the BGB 10.26 Shankara comments:
ऋषित्वं प्राप्ताः मन्त्रदर्शित्वात्ते Those who are deva-s and because
of having the mantra darshana, they are called Devarshi-s. This is stated
in the context of Nārada being specified as a Vibhūti of Brahman. So,
there can be non-deva rshis too.
//The best known and best preserved of these recensions is the *Taittirīya
saṃhitā*. Some attribute it to Tittiri, a pupil of Yaksa
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaksha> and mentioned by Panini
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yajurveda#cite_note-dowson-26> The text is
associated with the *Taittiriya* school of the Yajurveda, and attributed to
the pupils of sage Tittiri (literally, partridge
At the end of the Shvetashvatatopanishad appears his name as '....one who
narrated/taught to very advanced sages./sannyasins. In the commentary
stated to be that of Shankaracharya, it is said:
This rishi who had obtained the vidya from his guru, told this to these
sannyasins. So, from this account it can be said that the name
Shvetashavatara does not refer to the mantra-draṣṭā but to someone who
authoritatively taught the vidya he had received to others.
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Bhaskar YR via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> praNAms Sri Sujal prabhuji
> Hare Krishna
> Yes, Katha upanishad is collection of sayings of katha rishi. I heard it
> in a discourse by Swami Tadrupanand ji in Gujarati. I quoted him from my
> memory. Swamiji has not cited any reference for this claim. Please correct
> it if I am wrong.
> Ø Traditionally we have a strong belief that vedAnta aka Upanishads
> (veda-s) are apaurusheya and it is not man made. Katha shruti is part and
> parcel of this apaurusheya veda-s.
> There is one more upaniṣad in the name of rishi - svataśvatara upaniṣad
> Ø Same as above. Nobody from the tradition would agree that
> Upanishads are based on collection of some individual thoughts. If these
> are vaiyuktika (individual) abhipraaya then it cannot be considered as
> pramANa in brahma jignAsa.
> So either they are their own teachings or they are characters used to
> explain eternal teachings. I would also like to have opinion of your and
> other members.
> Ø For that matter in most of the Upanishads characters used to advocate
> eternal teachings. Bhrugu-vaaruNi in taitereeya, janaka-yajnavalkya in
> bruhadaaraNyaka, bhrugu-vaaruNi in taitereeya, shvetaketu- in chAndOgya
> etc. It does not mean these Upanishads have written after these dialogues
> have taken place at some point of time. Atleast this is what saMpradAya
> has to say about apaurusheyatvaM of veda-s.
> Ø Anyway, you can wait for more authentic answer from other prabhuji-s.
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list