Understanding Shankara

[Guest guest]

>"Max Harris" <max_harris

>

>Astavakra I read quite recently; Yoga Vaashistha I have not read,

>nor the Vivekachudamani. I have read selections from his the

>Vedanta Sutras, with his commentaries, and the Crest Jewel.

 

 

The Crest Jewel and the Vivekachudamani are one and the same work. "Crest

Jewel of Discrimination" is an attempt at rendering "Vivekachudamani" into

English.

 

W

[Guest guest]

>"Max Harris" <max_harris

>

>I am beginning to wonder if there is a definitive understanding

>of Shankara, or if the matters he was dealing with cannot be

>expressed in language with the kind of precision which doesn't

>give rise to multiple legitimate interpretations, or if the

>language acquired ambiguity over time, thereby enabling the

>development of multiple interpretations or understandings.

 

Yes, language is a big part of the problem - not only confusions in

translation (Sankrit to English), but language itself. But another part of

the problem is that Shankara's teachings are not all at the same "level",

and without guidance or inspired insight it's very tough to know, for any

given statement, which level it's issuing from (or addressing). I've been

told that this is also true of the Upanishads, Bhagavad-Gita, etc. I think

this "confusion of levels" is responsible for most of the disagreements

about what Shankara actually taught.

>It was suggested on this list that traditional preservation

>of Shakara's teachings is more reliable than critical scholarship.

>This might be true, but my preference is to utilize critical

>scholarship along with traditional articulations. My experience

>with the ultimate unreliability of conservative traditions in

>Western religions leads me to place a high value on critical

>scholarship.

 

I agree with this completely, FWIW.

 

W

[Guest guest]

Zo:

>> . . . My guru Sri Brahamanda recommended Shankaracarya's ATMABODHA,

>> "Knowledge of Self", to beginners; he called it "a complete Bible of

>> mysticism in which nothing is left out!"

 

Nitin:

>Just for academic interest, although Shankara was undoubtedly the foremost

exponent of Advaita, he may not be said to be its founder, as his guru's guru

Gaudapada taught an even more absolute form of Advaita. To Shankara, however,

may perhaps be attributed the concept of maya, which he probably introduced to

make Advaita more intelligible to the lay-man.

[Max: You must be referring to Shankara's theory of maya,

rather than the idea itself, which I think is more ancient.]

 

Gaudapada taught that nothing but the One exists. Shankara added that

maya makes it appear as if things exist.

[i first learned about Shankara through Radhakrishnan, who would

probably say Shankara said that maya makes it appear as if the

world exists 'independently of Brahman', but didn't deny that the

world has some type of 'dependent existence'. I have learned even

from this list that Shakara's maya theory is understood differently

by different persons.]

>I agree with you as regards Atmabodha, and would also add Vivekachudamani to

the list. But a couple of lesser known texts which give the highest Advaita are

the Ashtaavakra Gita and the (not easily available) Yoga Vaashishtha.

 

Lilia:

>> I agree with you as regards Atmabodha, and would also add

>Vivekachudamani to the list. But a couple of lesser known texts

>which give the highest Advaita are the Ashtaavakra Gita and

>the (not easily available) Yoga Vaashishtha.

 

My thanks to all about the recommendations, especially for reminding

me about the AtmaBodha. I read this several years ago, and it

impressed me so much I remember copying it line by line into a

notebook, and adding comments relating the ideas to other views

I was studying at that time. I will have to review this.

 

Astavakra I read quite recently; Yoga Vaashistha I have not read,

nor the Vivekachudamani. I have read selections from his the

Vedanta Sutras, with his commentaries, and the Crest Jewel.

 

But reading Shankara is one thing, understanding him is another.

I first encountered Shankara over 25 years ago as an undergraduate

philosophy student, and the text used was the Radhakrishnan/Moore

Intro to Indian Philosophy. They presented Shankara as understood

by Radhakrishnan, which I now understand is somewhat different

from some of the understandings present on this list.

 

I am beginning to wonder if there is a definitive understanding

of Shankara, or if the matters he was dealing with cannot be

expressed in language with the kind of precision which doesn't

give rise to multiple legitimate interpretations, or if the

language acquired ambiguity over time, thereby enabling the

development of multiple interpretations or understandings.

 

It was suggested on this list that traditional preservation

of Shakara's teachings is more reliable than critical scholarship.

This might be true, but my preference is to utilize critical

scholarship along with traditional articulations. My experience

with the ultimate unreliability of conservative traditions in

Western religions leads me to place a high value on critical

scholarship.

 

But in the end we move beyond scholarship of any sort

to direct experience.

 

Namaste to all.

 

-- Max

 

 

 

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

DAILY NEWS @ http://www.PhilosophyNews.com

FREE EMAIL @ http://www.Philosophers.net

[Guest guest]

I do not consider Sri Adi Shankara as the originator of the advaita system. He

re-established it . Any system based on truth is timeless. Like it was pointed

out , the Upanishads, Yoga Vashista etc which were written atleast 2000 years

prior to Adi Shankara point to advaitic knowldege.

The Bhagavad Gita also is worshipped as

"Advaitaam Amrutha Varshinim Bhagavathim AshtadashaDhyayinim"

" The divine mother of 18 chapters bestowing the nectar of Advaita".

 

Sincerely,

Anand

 

 

 

A FREE web-based e-mail service brought to you by the PC World Technology

Network.

Get your FREE account today at http://www.myworldmail.com