Fwd: Shrouta Shaiva Siddhanta

[Guest guest]

>From Shri Harshaji.

--\

----------

SrimahAtripurasundari Chandramoulishwarebhyo namaH.

 

The Upanishat darshana is known as `Vedanta'. Vedantins have been

recognized in the scriptures as `Aupanishadas'. The Jiva, the world

and Ishwara, an analysis of these three concepts is the basis of all

Darshanas. Every Darshana, including Bauddha, Jaina, Charvaka and

Sankhya, try to explain the relation between the three in their own

ways. However, excluding Vedanta, every other Darshana is Dwaitavidi

or dualistic. Even the Buddhists and Jains describe Advaitins as

Vedantins in their works. The scholarly work `vyAsa tAtparya nirNaya'

proves beyond doubt that it is Advaita that is taught by the

Brahmasutras. The Upanishads and Brahmasutras were interpreted in

various ways before the advent of Srimadacharya and continue to be

interpreted in various ways. Hence, to choose amongst the various

interpretations, it becomes very important to know the Sampradaya or

lineage of the teachers of the various lineages. Hence Srimadacharya

says in Gita Bhashya: "asampradAyavit sarvashAstravidapi

mUrkhavadevopekShaNIyaH', one who does not know his Sampradaya or does

not belong to a recognized lineage of teachers, has to be ignored like

a fool. The Advaita lineage starts with Sri Narayana as the first

guru, followed by Brahmajnas like Hiranyagarbha, Vasistha, Shakti,

Parashara, Vyasa, Shuka and Gaudapadacharya. It may be noted that Sri

Vedavyasa, who organized the Vedas and gifted the humanity with

various scriptures, does not feature in the other Avaidika Shaiva,

Shakta and Vaishnava lineages, which actually interpret one of the

vyAsa praNIta shAstra as the basis for their school of thought.

Scriptures which have originated to teach the essence of the Sruti,

like the Vishnu Purana, Bhagavata, SkAnda, Shiva Purana, Bhagavadgita,

Smritis, Agamas like the Pancharatra and Vaikhanasa etc., advocate

Kevaladvaita in essence and not any other path. This has been

explained beyond doubt in the work, vyAsatAtparya nirNaya of Sri

Dikshita. Various Darshanas like the Shaiva, Shakta and Vaishnava,

differing from the Vaidika Advaita darshana are actually steps

gradually leading a person without Chittashuddhi, in course of time,

towards the Vaidika Advaita darshana. This has been confirmed in the

Yajna Vaibhava Khanda of Suta Samhita: sopAnakramato devo

vedamArgasyakAraNam. vedamArgasthito devaH sAkshAnmuktestu kAraNam.

tatrApi karmamArgastho jnAnashraddhAprado haraH. jnAnamArgasthitaH

shambhurjnAnadwAreNa mokShadaH.

 

The Sruti and Smrti declare in unison that the truth is one,

`ekamevadwitIyaM', without a second. The world of names and forms in

which we live is the "reality" that we, covered by illusion,

understand. Living in such circumstances, understanding Advaita is not

a very easy task. From a child to an elderly person, every Jiva

believes that the world of names and forms s true and lives in

duality. Everything grasped through the Indriyas appears steeped in

duality. Because of the difficulty in understanding the scriptures

which advocate the truth of Advaita, which cannot be grasped with the

mind and the other Indriyas, incorrect interpretations of the Shastras

took place at various points in time and space. Every such time, an

incarnation like Sri Vyasa or Sri Shankara appeared to clarify and

uphold the truth of Vedanta. The Advaita darshana taught by

Srimadacharya is not his own interpretation of the Shastras. The light

of Vedanta darshana taught by Srimadacharya was known to great sages

before him but had become dim by the time of his advent. The works

that Acharya quotes in his works include: the Vedas with Samhitas and

Brahmanas, Upanishads, Vedangas, Shaddarshanas, Shrauta Sutras, Dharma

sutras, Grhya Sutras, Smrtis, ancient works like Upavarsha, Itihasas

like Ramayana and Mahabharata, Puranas like Vishnu Purana, Agamas like

Pancharatragama etc. Every Tarka or analysis carried out to establish

the truth of one's own philosophy should be based on Sruti pramANa

(shrutyanukUla tarka). There can be no greater pramANa while

discussing spiritual issues (AdhyAtmika viShaya) which are not visible

within the realms of sensory perception i.e. which are apratyakSha.

The supreme truth cannot be known by the two means: pratyakSha or

anumAna. Any darshana which bases itself against the Sruti pramANa is

`heya' according to Vishnu Purana and Smrtis of Shankha and Likhita.

Thus, even Sankhya and Vaisheshikas have been dismissed as `Shushka

Tarkikas', as their vAda does not derive support from the Sruti.

An Advaitin has no problems with any of the other darshanas like the

Sankhya, Vaisheshika, PAncharAtra, pAshupata etc. But he never ceases

to recognize that these darshanas do not advocate the truth

completely. When the Shaivas declare Shiva as the parama purusha or

the vaishnavas declare Vishnu as the Supreme Being, an Advaitin says

`Astu' as both of them are partial truths (Amshita satyas). There are

various kinds of spiritual aspirants most of who may be categorized as

MandAdhikaris or MadhyamAdhikaris. Due to their state of existence and

lack of qualification, they do not recognize or follow the truth of

Advaita darshana instantly. This becomes evident from the saying in

Avadhuta Gita: IshwarAnugrahAdeva puMsAmadvaitavAsanA. To bring a

gradual elevation for these kinds of Sadhakas, Kapila, Kanada and

others have devised philosophies like Sankhya, Vaisheshika, Pashupata,

Shakta etc which gradually lead the Sadhaka towards acquiring the

Chitta Shuddhi required to grasp the supreme truth. Though

Srimadacharya completely accepts this fact, why has he disproved these

darshanas? Various scriptures like the Shiva Purana etc teach paths

like Shaiva and Shakta darshanas, which are meant for Mandadhikaris

and Madhyamadhikaris. To clarify to an Uttamadhikari that these

darshanas are no more relevant to him, Srimadacharya has disproved the

various Avaidika darshanas which do not reflect the absolute truth.

Thus, it is erroneous to claim that the path of Advaita cannot lead an

aspirant towards the complete perception of the Brahma Vastu. On the

contrary, as Advaita Darshana is Vedanta darshana, it is the only

complete path to know the absolute truth. Every other path serves as a

step to reach this darshana and only preaches Amshika Satya.

 

Let us examine the debate between Srimadacharya and Nilakantha, the

foremost Shaiva scholar in those times.

 

Nilakantha: You accept the pramANa of the vAkya: tatvamasi, that

(Brahman) is you, taught by the Upanishads. As the Jivatman and the

Ishwara have different qualities (Guna Dharma), they cannot be

accepted as one. The Jiva is characterized by qualities like

Alpajnatva, Alpashaktitva etc., whereas the Ishwara shows qualities

like Sarvajnatva, Sarvashaktitva etc. Can the night and the day ever

become one? The sun and the reflection of the sun in a mirror, are

both same, though both have the different attributes. But holding

this, you cannot claim Abheda between Jivatman and Paramatman as the

reflected image is not true. This has been confirmed by

VyomashivAchArya. You also claim, "The qualities of MauDhya and

Sarvajnatva respectively in the Jiva and Ishwara are due to Maya. If

the veil of Maya is removed, the attributes are lost and the actual

Chaitanya Swarupa becomes radiant". But this is completely false! The

qualities of Maudhya and Sarvajnatva are actually present in Jiva and

Ishwara. This can be proved by various instances. The horse has the

quality of a horse (Ashwatva) and a cow, Gotva. If these two differing

qualities are removed, both remain simply as a Pashu with the common

qualities of an animal, and then, both can be called `one'. But one

clearly sees with his own senses, i.e. through pratyakSha pramANa that

this is not true. Cow and a horse are not one and the same! Similarly,

when the Jiva knows by experience its limited existence, how is that

you claim that the Jiva is Ishwara, neglecting the pratyakSha pramANa?

 

Srimadacharya: (The following illustration is not by the Acharya in

this context, but I am writing it here to elaborate on Acharya's

answer): I see a man called `Harsha' in Kashi in some Samvatsara. He

is dressed as a Sannyasi. I again see Harsha in Rameshwaram in another

Samvatsara, dressed as a prince. But the second time, I still

recognize Harsha as the same person who I saw in Kashi with different

attributes. This recognition is termed as `pratyabhijnA'. Thus, in the

absence of this knowledge, I recognize the same Harsha as two

different persons, because of differences in time, space and

appearance. If these untrue attributes (upAdhis) are done away with, I

recognize the truth that there is only one Harsha. Thus if Upadhis

like Maudhya and Sarvajnatva are done away with, the true, non-dual

chaitanya becomes evident.

I see a rope and assume it to be a snake. This snake is neither

existent (as the truth is the rope) nor non-existent (as I see the

existence of the snake in my thought). Hence, it may be called

Anirvachaniya and is only a false creation of the mind. Similarly,

like the rope is the cause of existence for the untrue snake, the

Brahman is the cause for the world or Jagat. Hence, we understand by

Sruti pramANa that the Brahma, which appears as the Jiva and the

Brahman, is untouched by either Maudhya or Sarvajnatva. Just because a

crystal reflects the red color of a hibiscus placed next to it, its

quality of colorlessness does not cease. The same crystal appears blue

when placed next to an Indranila gem. The Sruti declares that a

dualistic person, i.e. a person with Dwaita Drishti, has a great fear

or Bhaya. Had Dwaita, preached by the Pashupata Darshana you follow,

been true, the Sruti would not have predicted inauspiciousness for

such a person. The incorrect notion that the moon is a small object is

dispelled the astronomical sciences. Similarly, the wrong notion that

`I am not Shiva' is dispelled by the analysis of Sruti Vakyas like

Tatvamasi. What is the greater pramaNa that the Sruti, which can

contradict this truth declared in the Sruti?

 

Nilakantha: Sages like Kanada and Kapila have described the nature of

Jiva, who is different from the Brahman. Why should I accept your

theory rejecting these great sages?

 

Srimadacharya: (We have already dealt with the reason as to why these

darshanas came into existence and continue to exist despite of the

Amshika Satya that they preach) The Smrti and Puranas cannot be

accepted as pramANa when they contradict the Sruti. This has been

accepted universally. The works of Kapila, Kanada etc have the status

of Smrti. However, Sruti needs no further pramANa as Sruti is the only

pramANa to know the real nature of Brahman. Even the Smrti places

itself on the basis of the pramANa of the Sruti. Thus, Smrti vakya can

never be quoted as a proof greater than the Sruti (virodhe

tvanapekShaM syAdasati hyanumAnaM – Jaimini Sutra).

 

Nilakantha: If the words of these sages (Kapila etc.) is logical and

makes sense, why shouldn't one accept them as pramANas like the Sruti?

As every person experiences different states of grief and bliss, the

Jiva who experiences these in them should be different. If the atman

was one, a beggar should have also enjoyed the bliss enjoyed by a

prince. Also, Moksha is to destroy grief completely in such a way that

it never returns. You also claim that the AntaHkarana is the Kartr

(Bhoktr) and not the Jiva. But how is that the Jada Vastu like the

Antahkarana the Kartr? Can objects like a brick or a stone ever

experience grief and bliss?

 

Srimadacharya: It is to be understood that the grief and bliss are

enjoyed by the antahkarana and not by the atman. This can hence never

lead to the conclusion that there are many jivas. On the other hand,

this only proves that the Antahkaranas are many. The Sruti pramANa

here is: kAmaH saMkalpo vichikitsA shraddhAshraddhA

dhR^itiradhR^itirhr^IrdhIrbhIrityetat sarvaM mana eva, Brihadaranyaka

Sruti. Though the body, consisting of the gross and the subtle bodies,

is Jada, its association with Chaitanya, which is the Atman, makes it

the Kartr. (When electricity flows in a machine, it begins to exhibit

life-like qualities and moves). You claim Moksha to be complete

freedom from grief. But this state also lacks the bliss. This state

that you are referring to, is like that of a stony mountain. That is

not Moksha as Moksha is to experience the Brahmananda, which lacks

even the minutest trace of any kind of grief (Anando brahmaNo vidwAn

na bibheti kutashchana – Taittariya Brahmana).

 

Thus, with irrefutable Sruti pramana, Srimadacharya defeated

Nilakantha and upheld the truth of Vedanta darshana.

 

bhava shaMkara deshika me sharaNam.

--\

----------------

 

 

 

 

Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

 

 

[Guest guest]

With Hridaya Purvaka pranamas to Shankara and Nilakantha.

 

Dear Shri Harshaji,

 

Namaste. Thanks for bringing out the truth. Its a relief to know the

truth through an authoritative source like you. Even if I spend

considerable time I may not fully understand the contents of the

debate between Nilakantha and Shankara that's posted here.

 

I must admit that realizing the origins of aaradhyas and their

history overwhelmed me and clouded my judgment.

 

It would be nice to have a reference for this debate so we can

forward it to the srouta sidhanta web site. Obviously the people,

who compiled the contents, are biased and are hiding the truth. It

would be nice if they realize that a whole pot of milk gets spoiled

with just one drop of dirt. All the one billion condensed vedic

verses that srouta saiva sidhanta has to offer, detailing everything

including the consecratory rites, became doubtful because of a few

misinterpretations of the truth by the compiler.

 

 

Even though your comments are very clear and straightforward I can

not comprehend some of your comments. Please excuse me for reviewing

them.

> Hence Srimadacharya says in Gita Bhashya: "asampradAyavit

sarvashAstravidapi

>mUrkhavadevopekShaNIyaH', one who does not know his Sampradaya or

does

>not belong to a recognized lineage of teachers, has to be ignored

like

>a fool.

 

I am sorry I don't understand what you are implying here. But If you

are referring to me I agree that I am NOT qualified to even mention

vendata let alone talking about it. I apologize if you think that I

made attempts to speak about vedanta or explain Upanishads. I have

not read (let alone grasping it) any of the liturature on srouta

saive sidhanta so I am in no position to advocate the same. Like I

mentioned in previous e-mails I only gave light to a source to

obatain some of the literature on srouta saiva sidhanta.

>An Advaitin has no problems with any of the other darshanas like the

>Sankhya, Vaisheshika, PAncharAtra, pAshupata etc. But he never

ceases

>to recognize that these darshanas do not advocate the truth

>completely.

 

I am sorry I don't understand this one either. Are you implying that

an

Advaiti undermines the importance of dvaitha worship for attaining

absolute truth?

 

I don't know any thing about sankhya,vaisheshika,PAncharAtra but I

know a little bit about pAshupata. This is explained in Siva Purana,

Vayaviyasamhita, Chapter 32. Of the one billion Vedic verses

contained in Srouta saiva sidhanta, there is a section about

pashupata vrata and gnana. Based on what I gathered from Siva

Puranam,I dare to say that it appears that pashu-pata vrata

definitely leads to the absolute truth.

 

Its mentioned that four great sages like Ruru, DadhIca, Agastya and

the renowned Upamanyu are all Pashupatas and exponents of these

samhitas. Siva Puranam explains this vrata in great detail but I

will try to explain the gist of it. The vrata consists of Japa,idol

worhip, Homa and ghora siva yoga. Pati (Siva) then releases pashu

(Atman) from the pasha and Pashu obtains "perfect wisdom" and only

pati remains.

 

>Thus, it is erroneous to claim that the path of Advaita cannot lead

an

>aspirant towards the complete perception of the Brahma Vastu.

 

I totally agree with you. But I am even more confused about the

comment that I mentioned above. I dare to say reading one or two

scriptures its clear that when a person in dvaitha avastha does

service that leads to bhakthi, which then leads to dhyana and with

Dhyanam one reaches samadhi (advaitha avastha).

 

 

Speaking of this its a perfect opportunity to review slokam 61 from

Sivananda Lahari by adi shankara.

This one inparticular comes to my mind cause It speaks of Sankara's

greatness in expressing the entire dvaita-vishistadvata-advaitam in

simple terms in one slokam. I think this one slokam alone shows his

mastery over sankrit, bhakthi tattvam and vedanta gnanam.

 

a.nkolam nijabiijasantatiH ayaskaantOpalam suuchikaa,

saathvii naijavibhum, lataa kshitiruham, sindhussaridhvallabham,

praapnotIha yadhaatadhaa pashupateH paadaravinda dvayam

cheto vrittirupetya tiShTati sadaa saa bhakthirityucyate.

 

 

Here's the meaning and its depth that I got from scholars like you,

 

Just as it's own series of seeds reaches the Ankola tree, the needle

the magnet, the chaste woman her own lord, the creeper the tree and

the river the ocean, like wise, (when) the state of the mind having

approached the two lotus feet of pashupati, stays there always, that

state is devotion.

 

In this one slokam Sankara explained the journey from sadhana

avastha to sidda avastha.

Shankara explains how a devotee goes

through "sameepya", "saalokya", "saroopya" and finally "sayujya".

Just as seeds come close to ankola tree a devotee realizes that he

needs to take refuge in god.

Just as a needle draws itself close to a magnet a devotee draws

himself close to god believing that he is different from god

(dvaitha avastha).Just as chaste woman keeps her mind focused on her

husband a devotee always thinks of god and Just as a creeper always

depends on a tree. In this avastha devotee believes that he cannot

survive without god (vishistadvaitha avastha).

Finally just as a river merges itself with ocean and thereby losing

its identity, a devotee attains mukthi and realizes that he is one

with god. (advaitha avastha).

 

Though he reached the advaitha avastha Sankara always propagated

bhakthi and never undermined its importance.

 

sarvam sri sanakara bhagavatpada paadaravindarpaNamastu.

 

Shankar

 

[My comments: Shri Shankar-ji, Shri Harsha-ji is referring to the Pashupata's

per se and his comments are not directed at you. So please do not take them

personally.

 

I am curious to know the source of debate too. Nilakantha Aradhya and Shankara

Bhagavatpada lived at different times and had centuries of time gap between them

as I understand. As for sampradaya, Shaiva-s claim Shiva as the first teacher

and they have a lineage too and many popular Rishi-s form part of that lineage.

Followers of Ramanuja also have Veda Vyasa as a teacher in their sampradaya too.

So... -- Satish.]

[Guest guest]

, "shankar_mallampalli"

<shankar.mallampalli@g...> wrote:

>

> With Hridaya Purvaka pranamas to Shankara and Nilakantha.

>

 

 

 

 

After I saw this thread I thought of thinking out loud. This post is

intended for beginners who have not gone through a systematic study

of any darshanam.

>From Vedic times different Acharyas have had different views on the

nature of ultimate reality. In general we can divide these schools

in to two, astika and nastika darshanams. An astika darshanam is

one that accepts Veda as a pramaNa and a nastika is one that

doesn't.

 

Vedanta is one among the astika darshanams that was founded by Vyasa

Acharya. In Vedanta darshanam itself different Acharyas have

different opinion as to what Vyasa's original intension was, as a

result we have advaita, visiShTAdavaita, dvaita, bedha bedha,

shuddha advaita and other branches of Vedanta darshanam.

 

The problem comes when a serious seeker wants to find out which one

of these is actually correct and can lead to liberation.

 

Every one the darshana kartaa and other prominent Acharyas of these

darshanams have written books upon books to prove theirs and

disprove another's.

 

Let us discuss some methods with which one can not prove or disprove

a darshanam.

 

 

.. Every darshana karta (founder) is claimed as an avatara of a

divine personality. Shakara - Dakshinamurthy (shiva), Ramanuja -

sesha avatara. Ananda tiirtha - Mukhya praNan (Vayu), Chaitanya -

Krishna, Gyaneshvar - Vishnu, Shri Kantha - Shiva and so on. There

is no way to determine who is correct based on this. You cannot

accept one and reject another based on the founder's personality.

These Acharyas have had such a magnetic personality that if we have

lived in their era, there is a very great chance that we would have

followed that Acharya and not the other. Maha periyva of Kanchi is

very good example, his personality attracted people of wide variety.

 

.. Invariably in the biography of these Acharyas, we see an episode

where Vyasa himself comes and acknowledges that their darshanam

alone represents his original intension. Let us not discredit these

claims, but if Vyasa has to acknowledge one, he automatically has to

reject another.

 

.. All biographies of these Acharyas present lengthy debates that

conclude that he completely defeated the others and established his.

Not just Shankara vijayams, but even other Acharya charitrams like

Chaitanya charitra and others have very long and mind boggling

debates. The flaw in this is, most of these biographies were written

several centuries later and such a dialog in it is nothing but that

of the author's.

 

.. If you get in to the works of these Acharyas with an unbiased

attitude, you will find that each one of them is a giant. The amount

of works by any one Acharya could be the subject for a life long

study. Even to analyze the salient portions of their works like the

adhyaasa bhashyam of Shankara or the maha pUrva paksham of Ramanuja,

we need prior knowledge of several shastras.

 

.. Every Acharya has interpreted the scriptural terms in a different

way. For example the word 'satyam' in dvaita vedanta refers to

existence of an entity in a specific state, but an entity is

called 'satyam' only if it exists in all the three states in Advaita

vedanta.

 

.. If one Acharya writes a book analyzing all darshanams and proving

that only one of them is right, in no time we have another Acharya

disproving it with yet another book.

 

.. Yet another problem that makes understanding even one darshanam

difficult is the reinterpretation of some of the later Acharyas.

Advaita Vedanta is s classical example.

 

 

This list could go long, but my intent is to show that it is not

easy to prove or disprove a darshanam. Every Acharya deserves

respect and reverence for their contribution. They all makes us

better understand our scriptures. A life time study is not enough to

understand the works of even one Acharya.

 

One thing that might be of interest in this topic is the goal of

these darshanams. (Swami Paramarthananda mentioned this some time

ago.)

 

The goal or definition of moksha is different from one darshanam to

another. If a person is not interested in that goal, obviously that

darshanam is of no value for him. This might be one way to choose

what we want to study and follow.

 

namaste,

Aravind