Guest guest Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 > > > Some Devi sahasranamas include the name of Buddha. Ex: Bala Tripura > Sundari Sahasranama has something which says "bauddha darshana > rUpA...". The matter of including Buddha in the list of 10 is a > matter of choice and not against puranas. Bauddha mantras can be seen > in some Srividya texts. The problem with buddha and buddhism, it has been dismissed as incorrect by all the three major schools of the vedAnta. Besides it is a nAstika school. In that sense, you can say his teachings are misleading and erroneous. This is to some extent an subjective matter (for raamanuja dismisses Sankara as wrong, even though AV is an aastikaa school, and dvaitins criticize Sankara as hidden buddhist). Also by the term buddha, what buddha is being talked about? Personally, I have great respect for gautama buddha. That does not matter here. > > > > > d) Support > > ----------- > > > > Do you have anything to support this text from a puraaNa or shruti > or > > smriti? What is the basis for comparing dhuumavati with vAmana? Why > is > > nR^isimha in muulaadhaara? If at all considering his rudra nature, > he should > > be in aaj~naa? Can you give me a support for these comparisons from > shruti, > > smriti or puraaNa? Without such a support, I think it is only fair > to > > question the authenticity. > > > Does Shruti or Smriti talk about chakras in the first place to > consider support? Do they talk about Dasha maha Vidyas? How can we > compare with Shruti or Smriti when it is not concerned about > DashaMahavidyas or Chakras? Lalita sahasranaama which comes in a puuraaNa describes about chakra-s in detail. I am not an expert in shruti, so I cannot cite an example from there. But an example from puraaNa should be fine. And sahasranaama does tell how to meditate on svAdhishhTaana. You will find the names of dhuumaavati etc in bahvRchopanishad. Personally, I have to learn more about the ten vidya-s. Hence, I reserve my opinion. But I want to see whether they have a good support in any major work. > > > > > Now I even doubt the authorship of shriividyaarNava, for it is > known from > > other works of Swami VidyaaraNya that he rarely gets into tantra > and that > > too vaamachaara. > > This sounds similar to indologists questioning the authorship of > Saundaryalahari. They use similar arguments. > Where there is smoke, there are good chances that there is fire. Why do you think Saundaryalahari is by Sankara? Have you seen the verse 99? It will be very hard to imagine, Sankara whose first hymn was kanakadhaara stavam and who is a great devotee of naaraayaNa, say such a thing even under the guise of poetic license. When one's mother bestows someone good things, we do not say that he sports with Her much to the enmity of her husband. mahalaxmi and sarasvati are non different from (which is said so few verses earlier). If one enjoys laxmi kaaTaxam, it is mahalaxmi's grace (who is loka maata). I dont think Sankara will ever say that blessed Sadhaka sports with Her much to enmity of vishhNu. I donot think this particular verse (at least this verse alone) was composed by Sankara. Personally, I would like make sense and understand every verse there in in the light of major works of Sankara. This verse 99 caused an outrage in bhakti-list few years ago. I can understand their feelings quite well. Again we quote verse 100 at the end of every signature, not just because it is by Sankara, but by the sheer value of its fantastic meaning and underlying humility. If you ask me if Saundarlyalahari is by Sankara? My answer is I do not know. In the past, I was refusing to accept that I do not know and was living in denial. I am willing to consider that even trishatii bhaashhya (which is my favorite work) attribution is questionable and look at it by its own merrit (I was once very upset when one of my dvaitin friends told me that it is not by Sankara. Not any more. Whether it is by Sankara or not, it is GREAT work and it is pretty much in line with traditional advaita-vedAnta) It is best to see what is being said it and evaluate by its merrit. This Sri Valluvar says in Tamil as "epporuL yaar yaar vaay kETpinum appporuL meypporuL kaanbathaRivu" - whatsoever from whomsoever you hear, it is wise to understand and evaluate its true purport. Ravi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.