Are the Upanishads the only means to the knowledge of Atman?

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Gummuluru Murthy,

When you state that according to Shankara ' there is no other

source of knowledge for revealing the Non-dual Atman other than the

Upanishads' you have accurately portrayed Shankaras' position. However

when you put forth the view that " ultimately for Atmavidya, Upanishads

cannot be treated as requisite either. It is Mannana, Nidhidhyasana

which leads to Atmavidya, not the Upanishads." it appears as though you

have gone against Shankaras position and adopted a viewpoint similar to

that of an Ancient school of Vedantins which held that Brahman is

subservient to an injunction of meditation.(Dhyana Niyoga Vadins) These

thinkers insisted upon meditiation as the primary teaching of the

Upanishads,and that no indepentant entity (Atman) in itself could be the

subject matter of the Upanishadic teaching, as it would serve no

purpose. Shankara portrays this school of Vedantins in his Sutra Bhashya

1-1-4,as follows; "If it were only a statemaent about a thing, which

formed no part of an injunction or duty,it would be altogether

ineffective, inasmuch a there would be nothing to be taken up or

rejected by the seeker of truth, very much like the statements such as

'the earth consists of seven islands','There goes the king' " Hence this

school maintained that mere Sravana or study and interpretation of the

Vedantic Texts would be of no avail,and that is why after enjoining

Sravana (listening), the Sruti enjoins Mannana and

Nididhyasanana(reflection and meditation). So this school concluded that

the Upanishads are a means of right knowledge of Brahman only insofar as

Brahman is the object on an injuction of meditation.

 

Shankara's tradition is is of course opposed to this view, for it is a

sustained effort to show how all Upanishadic texts purport to reveal

the Non-dual Atman, and that this Knowledge is not available to any

other means of knoweldge( pramana) other than the Upanishads.

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2001, sophia & ira schepetin wrote:

> Dear Sri Gummuluru Murthy,

> When you state that according to Shankara ' there is no other

> source of knowledge for revealing the Non-dual Atman other than the

> Upanishads' you have accurately portrayed Shankaras' position. However

> when you put forth the view that " ultimately for Atmavidya, Upanishads

> cannot be treated as requisite either. It is Mannana, Nidhidhyasana

> which leads to Atmavidya, not the Upanishads." it appears as though you

> have gone against Shankaras position and adopted a viewpoint similar to

> that of an Ancient school of Vedantins which held that Brahman is

> subservient to an injunction of meditation.(Dhyana Niyoga Vadins) These

> thinkers insisted upon meditiation as the primary teaching of the

> Upanishads,and that no indepentant entity (Atman) in itself could be the

> subject matter of the Upanishadic teaching, as it would serve no

> purpose. Shankara portrays this school of Vedantins in his Sutra Bhashya

> 1-1-4,as follows; "If it were only a statemaent about a thing, which

> formed no part of an injunction or duty,it would be altogether

> ineffective, inasmuch a there would be nothing to be taken up or

> rejected by the seeker of truth, very much like the statements such as

> 'the earth consists of seven islands','There goes the king' " Hence this

> school maintained that mere Sravana or study and interpretation of the

> Vedantic Texts would be of no avail,and that is why after enjoining

> Sravana (listening), the Sruti enjoins Mannana and

> Nididhyasanana(reflection and meditation). So this school concluded that

> the Upanishads are a means of right knowledge of Brahman only insofar as

> Brahman is the object on an injuction of meditation.

>

> Shankara's tradition is is of course opposed to this view, for it is a

> sustained effort to show how all Upanishadic texts purport to reveal

> the Non-dual Atman, and that this Knowledge is not available to any

> other means of knoweldge( pramana) other than the Upanishads.

>

 

namaste shri Sophia and ira Schepetin,

 

My apologies for the late response as I was busy with the University

matters.

 

Thanks for a very thought-provoking comment. Let me respond to this

from my very limited knowledge. I quoted your mail in full to keep

the continuity of thought and also would like to quote reference to

my earlier post to which your post is a response.

 

advaitin/message/11299

 

I think the earlier references are necessary to keep the continuity

of thought as my late response might have disrupted that continuity.

 

Yes, shri shankara says clearly that upanishads are the only source

for the revelation of the non-dual Atman.

 

Now, coming to the other expression in my previous post

".. ultimately for Atmavidya, Upanishads cannot be treated as

requisite either. It is manana, nidhidhyasana which leads to

Atmavidya, not the Upanishads..." You say in this I have gone against

shri shankara's position and adopted a viewpoint similar to that of

an Ancient school of Vedantins which held that Brahman is subservient

to an injunction of meditation (Dhyana Niyoga Vadins).

 

I am not aware of this school of thought (dhyAna niyoga vAdins).

But, my view of upanishads is not what you say is their view, for

the following reasons.

 

1. I do not believe that brahman is subservient to an injunction

of meditation. Meditation is an action (although mental) and

Atma vidyA is not a product or output of action. This was stated

by shri shankara many times (VivekacUDAmaNi, upadeshasahasrI).

Thus, Brahman (or knowledge of brahman) cannot be subservient

to meditation.

 

2. nidhidhyAsana is not really dhyAnam. Meditation is not the

correct english translation, either. I would leave it to learned

members to suggest the proper word for nidhidhyAsana.

 

3. shri shankara says in VivekacUDAmaNi that a guru can only

point the direction in which the disciple has to "go" . The

sAdhaka, the disciple has to do the hard job for AtmavidyA.

The guru is not going to do it. It is the sAdhaka who has to

do the realization. Thus, it is appropriately called AtmavidyA.

A guru's teaching is nothing but the upanishads. And in that way,

I made the statement quoted above in my previous post.

 

4. Further, I was also alluding to the fact that just studying

the upanishads without the purity of heart will not lead to

Self-realization, but only to intellectual knowledge.

 

5. Further, if the dhyAna niyoga vAdins are correct in their

interpretation of upanishads (their interpretation stated by you),

then it will invalidate kaTha up. 1.ii.23 (This Self cannot be

attained by instruction, nor by intellectual power, nor even

through much hearing. He (the Self) is to be attained only by

the one whom the (Self) chooses. To such a one, the Self reveals

his (Its) own nature.

 

Thus, the Self (AtmavidyA) cannot be an object or an injunction

of meditation.. It is to evolve from inside us, by Itself on its

own choosing.

 

Thus, my understanding of upanishads, which I gleaned from the

study of the bhAShyA-s, I hope, is consistent with shri shankara's

teachings.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Gummuluru Murthy,

Thank you for your well thought out reply. I am very happy to see that

you end your

response with the hope that your understanding of the Upanishads is in

accordance with Sri

Shankaracharyas' Bhashyas. Because it is in the light of those Bhashyas that I

would like to

make a few observations with regard to the five points which you put forth. I

hope this will be

of interest to the other members of the group in as much as this site is

primarily dedicated to

the study and discussion of 'SHANKARA'S' Advaita Vedanta.

You begin your reply by acknowledging that Shankaras possession

is that ' the

only means (pramana) for the knowledge of Atman is the Upanishads'.You then seem

to suggest

that this is not in conflict with your assertion that ultimately "It is Mannana

and

Nidhidhyasana which leads to Atmavidya, not the Upanishads." and that the 5

points that you

mention somehow reconciles this apparent conflict. That this is not the case can

be understood

by an examination of these 5 points themselves.

 

1) Your agree that the knowledge of Brahman is not subservient to any

injunction of

meditation and that meditation is an action, and like every other action, it is

dependent on

an agent (kartru tantra) and that the result of that action can never be the

Knowledge of

Brahman This view is in perfect harmony with Sri Shankaras commentaries. (It

should be noted

that in taking this view Shankara was also refuting two other interpreters of

the Upanishads

who both held that by merely understanding the teaching of the Upandishads the

final Knowledge

of Brahman would not be attained and therefore put forth the doctrines that a)

Actions alone

could produce the knowledge of Brahman (Karmavadins) as well as b) those who

held that only a

combination of Actions (Karmas) and Knowledge (KarmaJnanasamuchyavadins) could

alone produce

the desired result.).

 

2) When you say that Nidhidhyasana is not really meditation (dhyana-

which you

correctly identify above as a action and therefore dependent on an agent), you

have correctly

stated Shankaras view. However you leave unexplained what exactly Nidhidhyasana

is if it not an

action to be performed. According to Sankara Sravana (listening to the

Upanishadic teaching)

Manana( reflecting on the Upanishadic teaching) and Nidhidhyasana (contemplating

on the

Upanishadic teaching) are the three direct means to the Knowledge of Brahman.

They are not

actions that are dependent on an agent (kartru tantra) but they are dependent on

the thing to

be known (vastu tantra).Shankara repeatedly makes clear this distinction between

Meditations

(which are Kartru tantra Sadhanas-ie: actions dependent on an agent) and

Sravana, Manana and

Nidhidhyasana,( which are Vastu Tantra Sadhanas- Sadhanas that are dependent on

the thing to be

known) throughout his Bhasyas. One example is as follows:" While Dhyana

(meditation)...is

mental, yet it can be done, not done or done in some other way; for it depends

on the will of

the person: But Knowledge is born out of some means of knowledge (pramana) and

objectifies the

thing just as it is; hence, knowledge cannot be done, not done, or done in some

other way. For

it is solely dependent on its object and NOT on any injunction or the will of a

person

Shankara clearly states in his Sutra Bhasya (SB 4-1-2-) that for the fully

qualified student

Sravana itself is sufficient for the knowledge of Brahman, for those not fully

qualified, and

who can not therefore attain the knowledge of Brahman merely from listening to

the Upanishadic

teaching, then mannana and nidhidhyasana is recommended for that same pupose.

It is not the

case-- as you seem to imply by stating "it is Nidhidhyasana which leads to

Atmavidya,not the

Upanishads."-- that you first get the knowledge of Brahman from listening

(sravana) to the

Upanishads and then after gaining that knowledge you then have to do mannana and

nidhidhysana

-(as though after the Knowledge of Brahman there could be any agent left to do

any further

sadhanas) . But rather, just like Sravana, Manana and Nidhidhyasana are for the

purpose of

attaining the Knowledge of Brahman that is only taught in the Upanishads. To

quote Shankara:

"Again, as for the contention that because Manana and Nidhidhyasana is seen to

be enjoined

subsequent to Sravana, Brahman must therefore be subservient to an injunction,

we reply 'NO'.

For Manana and Nidhidhyasana are also for the purpose of of attaining

Knowledge.To explain : If

Brahman already known (by means of sravana) were to be used for some other

purpose (such as

the subsequent undertaking of Manana and Nidhidhyasana ) , then, perhaps it

might be

considered to be subservient to an injunction. But it is not so, for, Manana and

Nidhidhyasana

are also intended for the Knowledge of Brahman, just like Sravana." (Sutra

Bhashya 1-1-4).

(The biggest fallacy that can be made is to identify this Nidhidhyasana with

the Kartru

sadhana of attaining the Nirvikalpa Samadhi state of the Yoga Sutras, a mistake

that almost all

modern Vedantins have made and which many posters on this thread wrongly take to

be a correct

interpretation of Shankaras Vedanta! But that's a subject for future

discussions).

 

3) You quote Vivekachudamani to show that even according to Shankara,

the Guru can

only point the way, and that it is upto the student to "go". I assume that by

providing this

quote you are implying that the Guru can only tell the student what to do and

that then the

student, has to 'do' it. There are just two short points I would like to raise

with regards to

this issue. First, I think that in any serious discussion of Shankaras'

teachings, it is better

to draw upon Shankara's Universally accepted works IE: the Prastana

TrayaBhashya, rather than

to the many hundreds of Prakarana Grantas ( independent works) that have been

falsely ascribed

to Shankara, and which more often than not contain doctrines diametrically

opposed to the

viewpoint of Sri Shankara as expounded in his commentaries on the Upanishads,

the Gita and the

Brahma Sutras. Because Vivekachudamani contains the teachings that 1) the direct

experience of

Brahman cannot be had without the attainment of Nirvikalpa Smadhi,2)that the

Knowledge of

Brahman must be repeated after its arising so as to make it strong, 3) that the

knowledge

arising out of the understanding of the Vedantic sentences is only indirect, and

4) that the

meanings of the words Avidya (Ignorance) and Maya (illusion) are identical,

(all of which are

teachings directly opposed to the Bhashya) we can be confident that the author

of the

Vivekachudamani was not the same author who wrote the commentaries on the

PrastanaTraya.

Secondly, while it is absolutely true that the Guru can only point out the way

(by teaching

the Upanishadic texts which reveal Brahmans' true nature) and that for the

teaching to be

fruitful it must culminate in the direct experience of the student ,we must not

interpret this

to imply that after hearing the teaching, the student then has something to do,

for Shakara

clearly states " That texts regarding Brahman are self-complete by teaching the

nature of a

thing, and do not urge one to engage himself in any action ,has been established

after a long

discussion on the Samanvaya-Sutra."(Sutra Bhashya 3-2-21) and again "Texts like

"He is to be

seen, to be heard, to be reflected upon, to be contemplated on' in the context

of the Knowledge

of Brahman, are solely meant for directing the seekers mind towards reality, and

are not

predominantly ment to enjoin the Knowledge of Brahman as though it were

something that had to

be done." (Sutra Bhashya 3-2-21)

 

4)Your fourth point is absolutely correct and in accordance with

Shankaras

teachings. Only the 'pure of heart' or, in other words, only the qualified

student can get the

direct experience of Brahman from the Upanishadic teaching.

But let us not conclude from this that if the student is not qualified to get

the direct

experience of Brahman merely from listening to the Upanishads alone(sravana),

that he somehow

could still get that direct experience of Brahman by the practice of

Nidhidhyasana. Only the

qualified student can reap the fruit of the Upanishadic teaching by means of

Sravana , Manana

or Nidhidhyasana. And a corollary of this is that without the Upanishadic

teaching there is no

such thing as Sravana, Manana or Nidhidhyasana!

 

 

5) Ofcourse the 'Dhyananiyogavadins' were wrong. But when you

quote the Katha

Upanishad 1-2-23, and conclude from this verse that 'Atmavidya has to evolve

from inside us,

by itself, of its ( the Self's) own choosing'. this can be interpreted to mean

that

independently of the Upanishadic teaching, the knowledge of Brahman can arise if

the Self

chooses you. That this is not the meaning of the Mantra can be seen by the

context in which it

appears as well as Shakaras commentary on it. Shankara clearly describes this

verse as meaning

what he has already said in Katha Bhashaya 1-2-20 that "only to the 'desireless

man', one

whose mind has been withdrawn from all outer objects, seen or unseen, to him

alone, the Self,

whose means of knowledge are Sravana, Manana, Nidhidhyasana, he see that Glory

of the Self,

ie: he directly realizes the Self as ' I Am He' and thereby becomes free of

sorrow." and again

on Katha Bhashaya 1-2-23. "" The meaning is that to a desireless man who seeks

the Self alone,

(the Self as revealed in the Upanishads) that Self becomes know of its own

accord" And thus it

does not mean that Independent of the Upanishads if the' Self chooses' you, you

will then get

the Knowledge of the Self.. Shankaras summary of the next Mantra, Katha Bhasaya

1-2-24 makes

this point even stronger. "But for the man who has desisted from bad conduct, as

also free from

the lure of the sense, whose mind has become concentrated, and is also free

from anxiety about

the results of concentration, AND HAS A GURU, he can attain the aforesaid Self

through

Knowledge. this is the Idea."

 

 

In summary, according to Shankaras interpretation of the Scriptures, the

Upanishadic teaching

itelf is the Only Means of Knowledge (Antya Pramana) for Brahman, and the

Sravana, Manana, and

Nidhidhasana are the three direct ways by which one can get the direct

immediate experience of

the Non Dual Brahman. All other disciplines such as desirelessness, humility ,

non-violence,

speaking truth, etc.(see Gita 13-7-11) ae for the purpose of getting the

qualifications so as

be able to persue the direct means to the Knowledge of the Self I await the

comments off all

who are interested in this subject matter.

 

Hari Om

 

 

 

> Dear Sri Gummuluru Murthy,

> > When you state that according to Shankara ' there is no other

> > source of knowledge for revealing the Non-dual Atman other than the

> > Upanishads' you have accurately portrayed Shankaras' position. However

> > when you put forth the view that " ultimately for Atmavidya, Upanishads

> > cannot be treated as requisite either. It is Mannana, Nidhidhyasana

> > which leads to Atmavidya, not the Upanishads." it appears as though you

> > have gone against Shankaras position and adopted a viewpoint similar to

> > that of an Ancient school of Vedantins which held that Brahman is

> > subservient to an injunction of meditation.(Dhyana Niyoga Vadins) These

> > thinkers insisted upon meditiation as the primary teaching of the

> > Upanishads,and that no indepentant entity (Atman) in itself could be the

> > subject matter of the Upanishadic teaching, as it would serve no

> > purpose. Shankara portrays this school of Vedantins in his Sutra Bhashya

> > 1-1-4,as follows; "If it were only a statemaent about a thing, which

> > formed no part of an injunction or duty,it would be altogether

> > ineffective, inasmuch a there would be nothing to be taken up or

> > rejected by the seeker of truth, very much like the statements such as

> > 'the earth consists of seven islands','There goes the king' " Hence this

> > school maintained that mere Sravana or study and interpretation of the

> > Vedantic Texts would be of no avail,and that is why after enjoining

> > Sravana (listening), the Sruti enjoins Mannana and

> > Nididhyasanana(reflection and meditation). So this school concluded that

> > the Upanishads are a means of right knowledge of Brahman only insofar as

> > Brahman is the object on an injuction of meditation.

> >

> > Shankara's tradition is is of course opposed to this view, for it is a

> > sustained effort to show how all Upanishadic texts purport to reveal

> > the Non-dual Atman, and that this Knowledge is not available to any

> > other means of knoweldge( pramana) other than the Upanishads.

> >

>

> namaste shri Sophia and ira Schepetin,

>

> My apologies for the late response as I was busy with the University

> matters.

>

> Thanks for a very thought-provoking comment. Let me respond to this

> from my very limited knowledge. I quoted your mail in full to keep

> the continuity of thought and also would like to quote reference to

> my earlier post to which your post is a response.

>

> advaitin/message/11299

>

> I think the earlier references are necessary to keep the continuity

> of thought as my late response might have disrupted that continuity.

>

> Yes, shri shankara says clearly that upanishads are the only source

> for the revelation of the non-dual Atman.

>

> Now, coming to the other expression in my previous post

> ".. ultimately for Atmavidya, Upanishads cannot be treated as

> requisite either. It is manana, nidhidhyasana which leads to

> Atmavidya, not the Upanishads..." You say in this I have gone against

> shri shankara's position and adopted a viewpoint similar to that of

> an Ancient school of Vedantins which held that Brahman is subservient

> to an injunction of meditation (Dhyana Niyoga Vadins).

>

> I am not aware of this school of thought (dhyAna niyoga vAdins).

> But, my view of upanishads is not what you say is their view, for

> the following reasons.

>

> 1. I do not believe that brahman is subservient to an injunction

> of meditation. Meditation is an action (although mental) and

> Atma vidyA is not a product or output of action. This was stated

> by shri shankara many times (VivekacUDAmaNi, upadeshasahasrI).

> Thus, Brahman (or knowledge of brahman) cannot be subservient

> to meditation.

>

> 2. nidhidhyAsana is not really dhyAnam. Meditation is not the

> correct english translation, either. I would leave it to learned

> members to suggest the proper word for nidhidhyAsana.

>

> 3. shri shankara says in VivekacUDAmaNi that a guru can only

> point the direction in which the disciple has to "go" . The

> sAdhaka, the disciple has to do the hard job for AtmavidyA.

> The guru is not going to do it. It is the sAdhaka who has to

> do the realization. Thus, it is appropriately called AtmavidyA.

> A guru's teaching is nothing but the upanishads. And in that way,

> I made the statement quoted above in my previous post.

>

> 4. Further, I was also alluding to the fact that just studying

> the upanishads without the purity of heart will not lead to

> Self-realization, but only to intellectual knowledge.

>

> 5. Further, if the dhyAna niyoga vAdins are correct in their

> interpretation of upanishads (their interpretation stated by you),

> then it will invalidate kaTha up. 1.ii.23 (This Self cannot be

> attained by instruction, nor by intellectual power, nor even

> through much hearing. He (the Self) is to be attained only by

> the one whom the (Self) chooses. To such a one, the Self reveals

> his (Its) own nature.

>

> Thus, the Self (AtmavidyA) cannot be an object or an injunction

> of meditation.. It is to evolve from inside us, by Itself on its

> own choosing.

>

> Thus, my understanding of upanishads, which I gleaned from the

> study of the bhAShyA-s, I hope, is consistent with shri shankara's

> teachings.

>

>

> Regards

> Gummuluru Murthy

> ------

>

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

> To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

> Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

[Guest guest]

Sophia and Ira Schepetin

 

I must say I am immensely enjoying this discussion. I wish I have lot more

free time now, to discussion the issues you have addressed. In my notes on

brahmasuutra -in connection to the fourth suutra I did discuss some of

shankara's views related to dhanna - particularly the mananam and

nidhidhyaasana. In response to vrittikaara's puurvapaksha, shankara

discusses the role of ShravaNa, mananana and nidhidhyaasana. ShravaNa is

definitely not a purusha tantra but vastu tantra. mananam and

nidhidhyaasana, as I understand, are purusha tantra since they involve

mental activity. Hence knowledge, which is not purusha tantra comes from

Shravana only. Mananam is to remove the obstacles - invoving sanshaya - or

doubts about the reality - and nidhidhyasana involves removal of the

immurities of the mind due to hibitual thinking or vasana-s that block the

dawing of the knowledge. - nidhidhyaasitavyaH - tavyaH as vidhi dhaatu has

been interpreted as the purusha tantra - that one has to do. This is for

those seekers who do not have all the prerequisites since shravana has not

done its job. I gave the example of replacing the dead bulb. when bulb is

replaced and if the line is alread live, it glows instantaly once one makes

a contact. But if the life is switched off, replacing the blub (shravana is

not a waste), even though the blub is not glowing. all one has to do now

is turn the swith and turn-up the dimmer (that is the mind and intellect) so

that full current flows and light up the bulb that is already connected.

One does not need to reconnect the bulb.

 

Your comments on VivekachuuDamani are well taken.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

>

 

 

_______________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Sadanandaji,

Shankara has devoted his entire Bhasya on the

Samamvayaadhikaranam(1-1-4) to ward

off all sorts of efforts to connect Brahma-Jijnasa with any type of Vidhi or

Niyoga

(injunction). He states repeatedly:

 

"No reason can be adduced to suppose that such a Brahman or its

knowledge, can be

connected with ANY SORT OF ACTION" (Sutra BH.1-1-4)

 

" That texts regarding Brahman are self-complete by teaching the nature

of a thing, and

do not urge one to engage in any action, has been established.." (Sutra 3-2-23)

 

 

"Therefore we conclude that since Brahman cannot be possibly known

through the Shastra

as subservient to an injunction of meditation, Brahman is only independently

known through the

Shastra, the valid means of its knowledge, inasmuch as the Vedanta texts purport

to teach it

exclusively. And it is on this supposition alone that the Sutra "Then therefore

the inquiry

into Brahman" dealing with it, can be justified " (i.e.: If the texts such as

'to be seen' ,

'to be reflected upon', 'to be contemplated upon' were true injunctions then

then there would

have be no need for Badyaranas' Brahma Sutras, because we already had Jamanis'

Sutras that has

dealt with all Vedic injunctions, -purusha tantra sadhanas. And thus Manana

and Nidhidhyasana

are NOT Purusha Tantra).

 

"As for the contention that Manana and Nidhidhyasana are

enjoined...we reply "No".

For Manana and Nidhiyasana are also ( just like Sravava) intended for Direct

Experience."

(SBh. 1-1-4) If Manana and Nidhidhyasana were Purusha Tantra Sadhanas, ('an

action dependent

on the will of a person') Shankara could never claim that they lead to Direct

Experience.

 

And finally, when you state that because the word Nidhidhyasitavya has the

suffix 'tavya

('to be done') this shows that Nidhidhyasana is a Purusha Tantra Sadhana, you

,in all fairness,

should see that the same suffix is applied to Drastavya( to be seen), and

srotavya (to be

heard about), and that they should also be considered Purusha Tantra, but you

have yourself

admitted that this is not the case with regard to Sravana. This very same

subject, of

determining exactly what is the true intention of the Scripture when it makes

use of suffixes

like 'Tavya"( to be done) in connection with words like 'Nidhidhyitavya', has

been clearly

dealt with by Shankara:

 

"As for the 'idea of fire' with regard to the well known fire,

it is not

dependent on an injunction, NOR IS IT DEPENDENT ON A PERSONS WILL (PURUSA

TANTRA). Forms of

verbs ending in 'lin'( Grammatical forms ending in the potential mood-meaning

one should 'do'

something such as ,'should be seen', ' should be contemplated on') become blunt

like a keen

edged razor applied to a stone. For, the object, ( Brahman ) can neither be

shunned nor taken

up."

 

the purvapakshin objects:

"For what purpose then are passages like "Atman alone, my

dear, should be

seen, should be heard about, should be reflected upon, should be contemplated

upon." if they

are not true injunctions but only 'seeming injunctions'."

 

Shankara replies:

"We answer- 'For the purpose of turning one's back on the

objects of of

natural proclivity.. and causing him to set up a continuous stream of thought

towards the inner

Self ".(so that it can be known as it is, and not to undertake any action).

 

In summary: According to Sri Shankaracharya, Sravana, Manana, and

Nidhidhysana

are all Vastu tantra Sadhanas. For the 'Uttama Adhikari' (The most Qualified

student) Sravana

is quite sufficient for the Knowledge of Brahman. For those others unable to

understand the

meaning of such Upanishadic sentences as 'That Thou Art' , by merely hearing

them once, then

the repetition of Sravana, as well as Manana and Nidhidhyasana should be

undertaken. And

more specifically, Nidhidhyasana is the Vastru Tantra Sadhana ( also know by

other names such

as Dhyana Yoga in Gita 6th chapter, Mano Nigraha Yoga in Gaudapadas' Karikas

and Adhyatma Yoga

in the Katha Upanishad) which is a special kind on concentrated contemplation

upon Atman which

culminates in the Direct Experience of the Universal Self. It has nothing to do

with the

creative Imagination of Kartru Tantra Sadhanas ordinarily known by the names of

Upasana,

Bhavana, Cintina etc. NOR to the Patanjala Yoga intended for the suppression of

the

modifications of the mind as a prelude to attaining the state of Nirvikalpa

Samadhi!

 

Hari Om

 

Kuntimaddi Sadananda wrote:

> Sophia and Ira Schepetin

>

> I must say I am immensely enjoying this discussion. I wish I have lot more

> free time now, to discussion the issues you have addressed. In my notes on

> brahmasuutra -in connection to the fourth suutra I did discuss some of

> shankara's views related to dhanna - particularly the mananam and

> nidhidhyaasana. In response to vrittikaara's puurvapaksha, shankara

> discusses the role of ShravaNa, mananana and nidhidhyaasana. ShravaNa is

> definitely not a purusha tantra but vastu tantra. mananam and

> nidhidhyaasana, as I understand, are purusha tantra since they involve

> mental activity. Hence knowledge, which is not purusha tantra comes from

> Shravana only. Mananam is to remove the obstacles - invoving sanshaya - or

> doubts about the reality - and nidhidhyasana involves removal of the

> immurities of the mind due to hibitual thinking or vasana-s that block the

> dawing of the knowledge. - nidhidhyaasitavyaH - tavyaH as vidhi dhaatu has

> been interpreted as the purusha tantra - that one has to do. This is for

> those seekers who do not have all the prerequisites since shravana has not

> done its job. I gave the example of replacing the dead bulb. when bulb is

> replaced and if the line is alread live, it glows instantaly once one makes

> a contact. But if the life is switched off, replacing the blub (shravana is

> not a waste), even though the blub is not glowing. all one has to do now

> is turn the swith and turn-up the dimmer (that is the mind and intellect) so

> that full current flows and light up the bulb that is already connected.

> One does not need to reconnect the bulb.

>

> Your comments on VivekachuuDamani are well taken.

>

> Hari OM!

> Sadananda

> >

>

> _______________

> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

>

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

> To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

> Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

[Guest guest]

>Dear Sri Sadanandaji,

> Shankara has devoted his entire Bhasya on the

>Samamvayaadhikaranam(1-1-4) to ward

>off all sorts of efforts to connect Brahma-Jijnasa with any type of

>Vidhi or Niyoga

>(injunction). He states repeatedly:

 

Greetings. Yes - this is essentially what I have discussed in my

notes - the notes are available in the archives of advaitin list. I

request you to go over and see what I said is any different from what

you mentioned. I would like to know.

Hari OM!

Sadananda

--

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623