Vivekachoodamani verses 1 & 2

[Guest guest]

Guru Brahma Gurur Vishnu Guru Devo maheshwara

Guru Shakshat Parabrahma Tasmai Sri Guruve Namah

 

Vivekachoodamani

 

1.Sarva- vedantha -siddantha-gocaram tam agocaram

govindam paramanandam sadgurum pranto'smyham

 

 

I tender my obeisance to my sadguru,govinda,the embodiment of supreme bliss,who

is beyond thought and speecg and who is the goal of all vedantic truths

(It is to be noted that Sri Bhagavadpada combines in this sloka his obeisance

both to his own immediate guru,Sri Govinda bhagavadpada and to supreme God Sri

Govinda HimselfHe identifies his guru with the supreme god)

 

 

2.Jantunam narajanma durlabham atah pumstvam tato viprata

tasmad vaidika-dharmamargaparata vidvattvam asmat param

atmanatmavivecanam svanubhavo brahmatmana sasmsthitih

mukitrno satakotijanmasu krtaih punyairvina labhyate

 

To those who take birth, birth as a human being is difficult to get;more

difficult than it is birth as a male;and more than it is birth as a

brahmana.Because it is so,steadfastness in pursuing the path of dharma

prescribed in the Vedas(must be got by present effort).After that( after

securing requisite learning), discrminination betwenn self and non self(must be

made) and also perfect experience. Liberation which is premanent being as

Brahman cannot be obtained without meritorious deeds done in hundreds of crores

of births.

 

to be continued..

 

Jayatu jayatu nityam chandrachudoh gurunah..

 

Chandrasekaramashraye mam kim karishayathi vai yamah...

 

Kamesh

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste all!

 

Birth as a male (pumstvam) is considered an "advantage" here. Could

this be Sankara's thought - the same Sankara who at the end

of "Thathwabodha" declared that for a realized person there is no

more any gender and no difference between a palace and the hut of an

untouchable downtrodden? (These may not be the exact words.). There

are many similar thoughts in Sankara's works which point to the fact

that the sage was many centuries ahead of his contemporaries.

 

This raises the following three possibilities:

 

*Sankara wanted to convey some meaning other than literal. In that

case, I would like our knowledgeable members to come up with the

defence. (I am sure the libbers are not going to like him any way.)

 

*The translation is wrong, which seems improbable.

 

*"Vivekachoodamani", was not penned by Sankara.

 

Some learned members had expressed the third thought in our

discussion on adhyasa and I had requested an enquiry into it. Any

comments, please?

 

Swami Chinmayanandaji had defended Sankara's use of the word "Sthree"

in a seemingly ambiguous manner in Dakshinamoorthy Sthothram.

 

Pranams to all advaitins.

 

Madathil Nair

____________________

 

advaitin, "Kamesh" <kamesh@c...> wrote:

>

>

> 2.Jantunam narajanma durlabham atah pumstvam tato viprata

> tasmad vaidika-dharmamargaparata vidvattvam asmat param

> atmanatmavivecanam svanubhavo brahmatmana sasmsthitih

> mukitrno satakotijanmasu krtaih punyairvina labhyate

>

> To those who take birth, birth as a human being is difficult to

get;more difficult than it is birth as a male;and more than it is

birth as a brahmana.Because it is so,steadfastness in pursuing the

path of dharma prescribed in the Vedas(must be got by present

effort).After that( after securing requisite learning),

discrminination betwenn self and non self(must be made) and also

perfect experience. Liberation which is premanent being as Brahman

cannot be obtained without meritorious deeds done in hundreds of

crores of births.

>

> ]

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

> the same Sankara who at the end

> of "Thathwabodha" declared that for a realized person there is no

> more any gender and no difference between a palace and the hut of

> an

> untouchable downtrodden? (These may not be the exact words.).

>

I agree with the 'essense' of what you said above although I am not

familiar with the actual words or the transalation.

> There are many similar thoughts in Sankara's works which point to

> the fact

> that the sage was many centuries ahead of his contemporaries.

 

However your statement above (which by the way is typical of western

interpretation of Sankara) leads one to believe that Sankara was

ahead of His time and came up with some new theory of 'sameness'

or 'equalness' and was ahead. This is not true at all.

 

Sankara is not postulating anything new but merely stating His own

experience from the standpoint of a Jnani. In the fifth chapter of

the Gita, Lord Krishna speaking about the experience of a JivanMukti

or Jnani, says:

 

vidyaavinayasaMpanne braahmaNe gavi hastini .

shuni chaiva shvapaake cha paNDitaaH samadarshinaH .. 5\.18..

 

The learned ones see the same (Brahman) in a Brahmin endued with

learning and humility, in a cow, in an elephant, and even in a dog

as well as in eater of dog's meat.

 

Again, Lord Krishna is also not stating anything new but narrating

from the standpoint of a Jnani and re-stating the Upanishadic

truths.

 

and Jnanis existed since the very beginning of human race and every

single one of them would have had the same experience echoed by Lord

Krishna and Sankara.

 

regards

Sundar Rajan

[Guest guest]

Namaste

>

> 2.Jantunam narajanma durlabham atah pumstvam tato viprata

> tasmad vaidika-dharmamargaparata vidvattvam asmat param

> atmanatmavivecanam svanubhavo brahmatmana sasmsthitih

> mukitrno satakotijanmasu krtaih punyairvina labhyate

>

> This raises the following three possibilities:

>

> *Sankara wanted to convey some meaning other than literal. In that

> case, I would like our knowledgeable members to come up with the

> defence. (I am sure the libbers are not going to like him any

way.)

>

Sankara never seems to have had any trouble expressing Himself

clearly. This is obvious even to someone who does a cursory reading

of His works. So it is unlikely He wanted to convey some hidden

meaning in this sloka.

> *The translation is wrong, which seems improbable.

>

I agree. it is improbable.

> *"Vivekachoodamani", was not penned by Sankara.

 

Even granting, for argument's sake, that Vivekachoodamani", was not

penned by Sankara, He has expressed the very same opinion in other

works. An example from Sarva Vedanta Siddhanta SaraSangrah:

>>

796. The twice-born who has pleased God by performing with faith and

devotion all the rituals enjoined by the Vedas who by the grace of

God has earned merit in his previous birth, and as a result of it

has now become fit and has been endowed with the requisite means to

attain liberation, such as discrimination, renunciation and

dispassion, it is such a person who becomes fit to comprehend what

the Vedanta teaches Such is the opinion of the good and wise.

>>

 

regards

Sundar Rajan

[Guest guest]

Dear Sir,

 

Thank-you for this. It has served to restore my confidence in the

broadmindedness and openness

of the Indian thinkers or  the njanies. We must recall that all the great

njanies in India were

great scholars who mastered the different schools of thought and having done

that  ventured to

say something their own and always referring to their inner spiritual

experiences. The

tradition of Parishads and Paddi Manrams were there throughout to foster such a

way of life for

the njanies. Familiarity with different schools of thoughts  and even

intellectual combats

among the different  njanies was the way of life that Hinduism fostered and

because of which

there were different philosophical treatises written continuously.  There could

not have been 

a Sankara if not for a Nagarjuna, a Ramanuja if not Sankara, a Meykandar if not

for both of 

these and many others. In Manimekali we see  the heroine LISTENING to the

different schools of

thought before rejecting them . In the 13th cent we have AruNandi dealing with

almost all

Indian schools of thought in a critical vein before he begins to expound the

TRUTH in the way

he understood. The same trend is seen in the SangkaRpa NirakaraNam of  Umapathy

Diksitar  

written a century later. And in Sarva Darsana CaGrakam of Swami ViddhyaraNya (

15th cent?) we

see something similar.  In the works of the Vedanti wrote profusely in Tamil,

the 16th

Tattvurayar  we also see his mastery of the different schools of Indian thoughts

in his

Tattuvamirtam and Amirtasaaram which also show the impact of Siddhas who have

written

extensively on metaphysical matters .Let us keep this spirit alive even though

we may be

particularly fond of a tradition or Guru or a scripture. The TRUTH stands beyond

all and each

one of us have  to discover it afresh using here the ancients as great help with

without given

up  our own autonomy.

 

Loga

 

avsundarrajan wrote:

> Namaste.

> > the same Sankara who at the end

> > of "Thathwabodha" declared that for a realized person there is no

> > more any gender  and no difference between a palace and the hut of

> > an

> > untouchable downtrodden? (These may not be the exact words.).

> >

> I agree with the 'essense' of what you said above although I am not

> familiar with the actual words or  the transalation.

>

> > There  are many similar thoughts in Sankara's works which point to

> > the fact

> > that the sage was many centuries ahead of his contemporaries.

>

> However your statement above (which by the way is typical of western

> interpretation of Sankara) leads one to believe that Sankara was

> ahead of His time and came up with some new theory of 'sameness'

> or 'equalness' and was ahead. This is not true at all.

>

> Sankara is not postulating anything new but merely stating His own

> experience from the standpoint of a Jnani. In the fifth chapter of

> the Gita, Lord Krishna speaking about the experience of a JivanMukti

> or Jnani, says:

>

> vidyaavinayasaMpanne braahmaNe gavi hastini .

> shuni chaiva shvapaake cha paNDitaaH samadarshinaH .. 5\.18..

>

> The learned ones see the same (Brahman) in a Brahmin endued with

> learning and humility, in a cow, in an elephant, and even in a dog

> as well as in eater of dog's meat.

>

> Again, Lord Krishna is also not stating anything new but narrating

> from the standpoint of a Jnani and re-stating the Upanishadic

> truths.

>

> and Jnanis existed since the very beginning of human race and every

> single one of them would have had the same experience echoed by Lord

> Krishna and Sankara.

>

> regards

> Sundar Rajan

>  

>  

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

You are superimposing your "assumptions" on my statement. That too

unjustifiably. I did not say Sankara postulated anything new.

 

I would like to belong to the East where I rightly belong, or, for

that matter, would like to say "Swadesho Bhuvanathrayam" like a jnani.

 

I can appreciate the jnani's point of view and what Lord Krishna said

in the BG.

 

The central point of my mail is the word "pumstvam", which, in my

humble opinion, a jnani like Sankara could not have used in the very

literal sense. I just wanted to know how our learned members would

interpret it. I am afraid that question and the authorship of

Vivekachoodamani have not unfortunately received your attention.

 

Regards.

 

Madathil Nair

______________________________

 

advaitin, "avsundarrajan" <avsundarrajan> wrote:

>

> However your statement above (which by the way is typical of

western

> interpretation of Sankara) leads one to believe that Sankara was

> ahead of His time and came up with some new theory of 'sameness'

> or 'equalness' and was ahead. This is not true at all.

>

> Sankara is not postulating anything new but merely stating His own

> experience from the standpoint of a Jnani. In the fifth chapter of

> the Gita, Lord Krishna speaking about the experience of a

JivanMukti

> or Jnani, says:

>

> vidyaavinayasaMpanne braahmaNe gavi hastini .

> shuni chaiva shvapaake cha paNDitaaH samadarshinaH .. 5\.18..

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

The verse quoted by you does not refer to "male superiority". It

only says that the "twice-born" (dwija) has an advantage. If the

true meaning of dwija (the reborn or realized one) is considered,

this verse should be fully acceptable to all.

 

Regards.

 

Madathil Nair

______________________

 

advaitin, "avsundarrajan" <avsundarrajan> wrote:

>

> Even granting, for argument's sake, that Vivekachoodamani", was not

> penned by Sankara, He has expressed the very same opinion in other

> works. An example from Sarva Vedanta Siddhanta SaraSangrah:

>

> >>

> 796. The twice-born who has pleased God by performing with faith

and

> devotion all the rituals enjoined by the Vedas who by the grace of

> God has earned merit in his previous birth, and as a result of it

> has now become fit and has been endowed with the requisite means to

> attain liberation, such as discrimination, renunciation and

> dispassion, it is such a person who becomes fit to comprehend what

> the Vedanta teaches Such is the opinion of the good and wise.

> >>

>

> regards

> Sundar Rajan

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Sri Nairji

>

> The central point of my mail is the word "pumstvam", which, in my

> humble opinion, a jnani like Sankara could not have used in the

very

> literal sense. I just wanted to know how our learned members

would

> interpret it.

 

Thanks for directing my attention to your central point. The

question of "pumstvam" is a sensitive subject, isn't it? I did look

at some older postings. Looks like some discussion on this subject

had already taken place before:

http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m10533.html

 

You rightly observed

>

Birth as a male (pumstvam) is considered an "advantage" here."

>

It made me look once more at the sloka and here is the first line

once again:

>> jantUnAm narajanma durlabham atah pumstvam tato vipratA

and the translation:

>>Of all births, that as a human being is rare to obtain. rarer

>>still is to be born as a male; rarer than that is to be born a

>>BrAhmana.

 

In fact Sri Sankara not only says that birth as a male is an

advantage but also points out that being born as a brahmana

(viprata) is an advantage. ( I am not a Sanskrit Scholar - but

aren't dwija and viprata terms that represent a brahmana?. maybe i

am mistaken).

 

I also have read that Sri Chinmaya provides a innovative and

different translation of this sloka and interprets "pumstvam" to

represent "manly" qualities and not literally a "man".

 

Well, as mentioned in my previous post, Sri Sankara never had

difficulty in coming up with the correct words, so why would he do

it here? Puzzling, isn't it?

 

It is also mystifying when you read Gita (6.29 etc) wherein Lord

Krishna uses the term

>> "sarvatra samadarsanah", samesighted with regard to everything

 

to describe a Jnani and yet a great BrahmaJnani like Sankara is

saying "pumstvam"!

 

It does look puzzling and even outrageous, doesn't it?

 

or Does it really? Let us think for a moment here..

 

Is it at all possible that we may be confusing the "Vyavahirika"

viewpoint with "Atma Jnana" viewpoint?

 

This is a controversial subject but I am going to quote from a book

about a great BrahmaJnani of our own times - Sri Ramana Maharishi.

There are very few in this forum or elsewhere who would argue that

Sri Ramana Maharishi was a true Jnani and a BrahmaNishta

(established in Brahman).

 

Here is an excerpt from the book "A Sadhu's Reminiscences of Ramana

Maharisihi" by A.W.Chadwick (pages 34-35):

>>

Not only did Ramana Maharishi allow the caste system (practice of

Brahmins eating on one side of the dining room and the non-brahmins

eating on the other side) but He insisted on it.

 

Brahmins would come to the Ashram, say that with Bhagavan all were

equal and sit down on the non-brahmin side of the screen. But

Bhagavan would object.

 

"Do you eat with non-brahmins in your own home?" he would ask.

"No, but with Bhagavan it is different", they would answer.

 

"So you want to use Bhagavan as an excuse for breaking your caste

rules?" Bhagavan would ask. "If you do not observe caste outside,

there is no objection to your doing the same here. But you are not

going to use as an excuse for doing something which you consider at

home to be wrong.

>>

 

This passage is not directly related to your central point. But I

posted it here merely to show that a great BrahmaJnani

enjoying "sarvatra samadarsanah" still observes of all things, caste

system practices!

 

So, Is it possible at all that Sankara singles out "pumstvam"

and "viprata" similar to Sri Ramana, a great BrahmaJnani observed

the caste system in the vyavahirika world?

 

 

regards

Sundar Rajan

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Thanks again for your prolific thoughts.

 

I don't have any idea about the roots of the word "vipra". Probably,

it also has some latent meaning like dwija indicating a realised one.

 

Bhagwan Ramana was educative in his reported insistence and his

actions are, therefore, quite explainable. But, I have heard (repeat

heard) that Sri Ramakrishna used to keep women of loose morals away

from his satsangh. That is a little difficult for me to understand.

 

I don't think we can afford to frequently switch between vyavaharika

and paramarthika 'modes' in interpreting our scriptures, because we

would then be questioning the capacity of our renowned sages to

express themselves properly and directly.

 

The only alternative open to us, therefore, is to accept what is

beyond doubt, ignore the 'ambiguous' and move with the times, i.e. to

imbibe the real spirit and essence of Sankara's teachings and keep

intractable terms like "pumstwam" untouched and away from our reach.

 

Regards.

 

Madathil Nair

 

______________

 

advaitin, "avsundarrajan" <avsundarrajan> wrote:

> >

> In fact Sri Sankara not only says that birth as a male is an

> advantage but also points out that being born as a brahmana

> (viprata) is an advantage. ( I am not a Sanskrit Scholar - but

> aren't dwija and viprata terms that represent a brahmana?. maybe i

> am mistaken).

>

> >

> > Is it at all possible that we may be confusing the "Vyavahirika"

> viewpoint with "Atma Jnana" viewpoint?

>

> This is a controversial subject but I am going to quote from a book

> about a great BrahmaJnani of our own times - Sri Ramana Maharishi.

> There are very few in this forum or elsewhere who would argue that

> Sri Ramana Maharishi was a true Jnani and a BrahmaNishta

> (established in Brahman).

>

> Here is an excerpt from the book "A Sadhu's Reminiscences of Ramana

> Maharisihi" by A.W.Chadwick (pages 34-35):

>

> >>

> Not only did Ramana Maharishi allow the caste system (practice of

> Brahmins eating on one side of the dining room and the non-brahmins

> eating on the other side) but He insisted on it.

>

> Brahmins would come to the Ashram, say that with Bhagavan all were

> equal and sit down on the non-brahmin side of the screen. But

> Bhagavan would object.

>

> "Do you eat with non-brahmins in your own home?" he would ask.

> "No, but with Bhagavan it is different", they would answer.

>

> "So you want to use Bhagavan as an excuse for breaking your caste

> rules?" Bhagavan would ask. "If you do not observe caste outside,

> there is no objection to your doing the same here. But you are not

> going to use as an excuse for doing something which you consider at

> home to be wrong.

> >>

>

> This passage is not directly related to your central point. But I

> posted it here merely to show that a great BrahmaJnani

> enjoying "sarvatra samadarsanah" still observes of all things,

caste

> system practices!

>

> So, Is it possible at all that Sankara singles out "pumstvam"

> and "viprata" similar to Sri Ramana, a great BrahmaJnani observed

> the caste system in the vyavahirika world?

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sundarji,

 

I find your argument not satisfactory. So why did Shankara say that a male

birth was an advantage? The answer is simple and I don't find the need to

quote Ramana Maharishi or any other Acharya to arrive at the answer. It is

because during the times of Shankara, women were allowed to ONLY tend the

households (there could have been exceptions) and only males took the

yagnopavita, therefore entitled to study the Vedas. So definitely a male

birth was indeed fortunate for having access to the Vedas which confer

mukti.

 

So what about the Brahmanas entitled to study moksha shastra? Shankara does

mention the same point in the Upadesha Sahasri and also in the Brahma Sutra

Bhashya(?), which are considered authentic texts by Shankara. But can we

take the line so seriously like many orthodox interpreters? What I feel is

that we have to be conscious of the time at which Shankara composed this

text. At that time the culture and society could have been very different

from what we are seeing today. Perhaps we can consider the brahmanas of that

time to be very similar to the philosopher caste of the Greeks. Therefore,

what Shankara could be saying is that only a person who is well versed in

the Vedas (including the Vedangas or upavedas) should undertake this pursuit

of moksha. Why was it so? Traditionally what was known to be secular

knowledge included many skills such as arts, science, logic etc....

sometimes also known as aparavidya. But these vidyas, although subordinate

to paravidya or Brahmavidya, are nevertheless necessary to understand what

is being said in the Upanishads or the Vedantic shastras. So naturally a

Brahmana who studies the Vedas properly with aid of the Vedangas and other

auxiliary scriptures is entitled or rather qualified to pursue the study of

Vedanta. Especially at the time of Shankara the caste system could have been

the social order of his times. Therefore, we have to interpret this

statement (i.e. the reference to the word Brahmana) made by Shankara and

many other Acharyas as a guna or quality and NOT as jati. The word

'brahmana' can also refer to pandityam or scholarship. And most importantly

it could also mean someone who has performed the Karmas of the Karma Kanda

in the spirit of Karma Yoga. Therefore thru inference we can say that

Shankara emphasizes adhikaratvam by mentioning the word Brahmana in the

verse from Vivekachudamani.

 

Fortunately most of what the Vedic tradition calls aparavidya can be learnt

from the modern day universities or the present education system. But we

have to confess that we do need the help of the shastras to apply the

knowledge gained in those institutions in the attitude of Karma Yoga in our

life.

 

With regards to your justification using the words of Ramana Maharishi, I

can only say that he chose to follow existing traditions in the land where

caste still matters. This only shows that Ramana Maharishi was indeed very

sensitive to the prevailing social norms of Tamil Nadu during his times.

 

If we still stand unconvinced, then we can always rely on the shruti which

gives the thunderous and IDEAL definition of a brahmana. Here is a quote

from the Vajrasuchika Upanishad (of the Sama Veda):

 

"He (a brahmana) who, after having all his desires fulfilled as a result of

perceiving (realizing) directly, as an amalaka fruit in one's hand the

Atman, That is One without a second, bereft of clan and the constituents of

Prakriti , and actionless, free of all defects like the six infirmities and

the six states of existence/transformations, of the nature of Immutable

Reality, of Consciousness, Blissful and Infinite/Eternal, an Independent

Entity, devoid of determinations, but the support of infinite

determinations, present in all living and non-living beings as the immanent

Soul, pervades the interior and envelopes the exterior of everything as

ether, possesses the attribute of perfect and complete Bliss, incomparable,

known only through one's own experience and is inferred only indirectly --

Becomes free of the defects of desire, attachment and the like, becomes

endowed with the qualities like tranquility etc., becomes free of behaviors

like jealousy, greed, expectations, delusion etc., and leads a life in which

the mind is not tainted pretensions, ego and the like. He alone, who

possesses the aforementioned characteristics, is a Brahmin- such is (indeed)

the import of Sruti, Smriti, Itihasa and the Puranas. There is no other way

of attaining Brahminhood."

 

Satyam Vada, Dharmam Chara

Kathi

>

> avsundarrajan [sMTP:avsundarrajan]

> Monday, April 15, 2002 2:07 PM

> advaitin

> Re: Vivekachoodamani verses 1 & 2

>

> Namaste, Sri Nairji

> >

> > The central point of my mail is the word "pumstvam", which, in my

> > humble opinion, a jnani like Sankara could not have used in the

> very

> > literal sense. I just wanted to know how our learned members

> would

> > interpret it.

>

> Thanks for directing my attention to your central point. The

> question of "pumstvam" is a sensitive subject, isn't it? I did look

> at some older postings. Looks like some discussion on this subject

> had already taken place before:

> http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m10533.html

>

> You rightly observed

> >

> Birth as a male (pumstvam) is considered an "advantage" here."

> >

> It made me look once more at the sloka and here is the first line

> once again:

> >> jantUnAm narajanma durlabham atah pumstvam tato vipratA

> and the translation:

>

> >>Of all births, that as a human being is rare to obtain. rarer

> >>still is to be born as a male; rarer than that is to be born a

> >>BrAhmana.

>

> In fact Sri Sankara not only says that birth as a male is an

> advantage but also points out that being born as a brahmana

> (viprata) is an advantage. ( I am not a Sanskrit Scholar - but

> aren't dwija and viprata terms that represent a brahmana?. maybe i

> am mistaken).

>

> I also have read that Sri Chinmaya provides a innovative and

> different translation of this sloka and interprets "pumstvam" to

> represent "manly" qualities and not literally a "man".

>

> Well, as mentioned in my previous post, Sri Sankara never had

> difficulty in coming up with the correct words, so why would he do

> it here? Puzzling, isn't it?

>

> It is also mystifying when you read Gita (6.29 etc) wherein Lord

> Krishna uses the term

>

> >> "sarvatra samadarsanah", samesighted with regard to everything

>

> to describe a Jnani and yet a great BrahmaJnani like Sankara is

> saying "pumstvam"!

>

> It does look puzzling and even outrageous, doesn't it?

>

> or Does it really? Let us think for a moment here..

>

> Is it at all possible that we may be confusing the "Vyavahirika"

> viewpoint with "Atma Jnana" viewpoint?

>

> This is a controversial subject but I am going to quote from a book

> about a great BrahmaJnani of our own times - Sri Ramana Maharishi.

> There are very few in this forum or elsewhere who would argue that

> Sri Ramana Maharishi was a true Jnani and a BrahmaNishta

> (established in Brahman).

>

> Here is an excerpt from the book "A Sadhu's Reminiscences of Ramana

> Maharisihi" by A.W.Chadwick (pages 34-35):

>

> >>

> Not only did Ramana Maharishi allow the caste system (practice of

> Brahmins eating on one side of the dining room and the non-brahmins

> eating on the other side) but He insisted on it.

>

> Brahmins would come to the Ashram, say that with Bhagavan all were

> equal and sit down on the non-brahmin side of the screen. But

> Bhagavan would object.

>

> "Do you eat with non-brahmins in your own home?" he would ask.

> "No, but with Bhagavan it is different", they would answer.

>

> "So you want to use Bhagavan as an excuse for breaking your caste

> rules?" Bhagavan would ask. "If you do not observe caste outside,

> there is no objection to your doing the same here. But you are not

> going to use as an excuse for doing something which you consider at

> home to be wrong.

> >>

>

> This passage is not directly related to your central point. But I

> posted it here merely to show that a great BrahmaJnani

> enjoying "sarvatra samadarsanah" still observes of all things, caste

> system practices!

>

> So, Is it possible at all that Sankara singles out "pumstvam"

> and "viprata" similar to Sri Ramana, a great BrahmaJnani observed

> the caste system in the vyavahirika world?

>

>

> regards

> Sundar Rajan

>

>

>

> 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]

Namaste Kathirasanji,

 

Thanks for coming in with a fresh breeze of thoughts.

 

Your scenario sounds palusible and sensible although I must admit

that I am not still fully convinced. Your explanations, no doubt,

have contributed immensely to understanding the circumstances Sankara

worked amidst.

 

Regards.

 

Madathil Nair

 

__________________

 

advaitin, K Kathirasan NCS <kkathir@n...> wrote:

 

So why did Shankara say that a male

> birth was an advantage? The answer is simple and I don't find the

need to

> quote Ramana Maharishi or any other Acharya to arrive at the

answer. It is

> because during the times of Shankara, women were allowed to ONLY

tend the

> households (there could have been exceptions) and only males took

the

> yagnopavita, therefore entitled to study the Vedas. So definitely a

male

> birth was indeed fortunate for having access to the Vedas which

confer

> mukti.

>

> So what about the Brahmanas entitled to study moksha shastra?

Shankara does

> mention the same point in the Upadesha Sahasri and also in the

Brahma Sutra

> Bhashya(?), which are considered authentic texts by Shankara. But

can we

> take the line so seriously like many orthodox interpreters? What I

feel is

> that we have to be conscious of the time at which Shankara composed

this

> text. At that time the culture and society could have been very

different

> from what we are seeing today. Perhaps we can consider the

brahmanas of that

> time to be very similar to the philosopher caste of the Greeks.

Therefore,

> what Shankara could be saying is that only a person who is well

versed in

> the Vedas (including the Vedangas or upavedas) should undertake

this pursuit

> of moksha.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, K Kathirasan NCS <kkathir@n...> wrote:

> Namaste Kathirasanji,

>

> I find your argument not satisfactory.

>

You are welcome to your opinions. I raised some possibilities and

the quote from Ramana is very relevant to illustrate the vyavaharika

behaviour of Jnanis.

> If we still stand unconvinced, then we can always rely on the

shruti which

> gives the thunderous and IDEAL definition of a brahmana. Here is a

quote

> from the Vajrasuchika Upanishad (of the Sama Veda):

>

> "He (a brahmana) who, after having all his desires fulfilled as a

result of

> perceiving (realizing) directly, as an amalaka fruit in one's hand

the

> Atman

 

The ideal definition you posted above is very impressive and in fact

it basically describes a Jnani. But the problem with the definitions

you posted and the one Shri Nair used for 'dwija' (indicating a

realised one) is this:

 

A person fitting the above descriptions has NO NEED for any

scriptural study at all!. Why? because he is already realized. So

Sankara or even the sruti cannot entitle him to any type of study.

 

As Vivekachudmani says:

 

aviGYaate pare tattve shaastraadhiitistu nishhphalaa .

viGYaate.api pare tattve shaastraadhiitistu nishhphalaa .. 59..

Scriptures are useless once the highest truth is known.

 

As Sri Harsha points out Self-Realization alone makes us See that

our nature It Self Is Mukti. The door to Mukti is Sadhana and

Spiritual Sadhana such as Bhakti, meditation etc are open to one and

all. Everyone is qualified to practice Sadhana.

 

What we are having here is an academic discussion about

certain "advantages" somebody might possess to undertake Vedantic

studies in the orthodox way. Vedantic studies is one means but NOT

the sole means to Self-Realization.

 

regards

Sundar Rajan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sundarji

 

Thanks for the reply. I am very curious to know more about the following

points mentioned in your reply. Here they are:

 

1. What are the 'advantages' somebody might possess to undertake Vedantic

studies in an orthodox way?

 

2. You claim that Vedantic studies is NOT the sole means to Self-knowledge.

But tradition says that Knowledge gained thru shruti pramana alone confers

mukti.

 

Please explain. Thanks and regards.

>

> avsundarrajan [sMTP:avsundarrajan]

> Tuesday, April 16, 2002 9:59 AM

> advaitin

> Re: Vivekachoodamani verses 1 & 2

>

> advaitin, K Kathirasan NCS <kkathir@n...> wrote:

> > Namaste Kathirasanji,

> >

> > I find your argument not satisfactory.

> >

> You are welcome to your opinions. I raised some possibilities and

> the quote from Ramana is very relevant to illustrate the vyavaharika

> behaviour of Jnanis.

>

> > If we still stand unconvinced, then we can always rely on the

> shruti which

> > gives the thunderous and IDEAL definition of a brahmana. Here is a

> quote

> > from the Vajrasuchika Upanishad (of the Sama Veda):

> >

> > "He (a brahmana) who, after having all his desires fulfilled as a

> result of

> > perceiving (realizing) directly, as an amalaka fruit in one's hand

> the

> > Atman

>

> The ideal definition you posted above is very impressive and in fact

> it basically describes a Jnani. But the problem with the definitions

> you posted and the one Shri Nair used for 'dwija' (indicating a

> realised one) is this:

>

> A person fitting the above descriptions has NO NEED for any

> scriptural study at all!. Why? because he is already realized. So

> Sankara or even the sruti cannot entitle him to any type of study.

>

> As Vivekachudmani says:

>

> aviGYaate pare tattve shaastraadhiitistu nishhphalaa .

> viGYaate.api pare tattve shaastraadhiitistu nishhphalaa .. 59..

> Scriptures are useless once the highest truth is known.

>

> As Sri Harsha points out Self-Realization alone makes us See that

> our nature It Self Is Mukti. The door to Mukti is Sadhana and

> Spiritual Sadhana such as Bhakti, meditation etc are open to one and

> all. Everyone is qualified to practice Sadhana.

>

> What we are having here is an academic discussion about

> certain "advantages" somebody might possess to undertake Vedantic

> studies in the orthodox way. Vedantic studies is one means but NOT

> the sole means to Self-Realization.

>

> regards

> Sundar Rajan

>

>

>

>

> 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]

Namaste Shri Kathirasanji,

> I am very curious to know more about the following

> points mentioned in your reply. Here they are:

>

> 1. What are the 'advantages' somebody might possess to undertake

Vedantic

> studies in an orthodox way?

>

I was referring to the original message posted by Shri Nairji that

started all this discussion

>> Birth as a male (pumstvam) is considered an "advantage" here.

>> Could this be Sankara's thought ..

> 2. You claim that Vedantic studies is NOT the sole means to Self-

knowledge.

> But tradition says that Knowledge gained thru shruti pramana alone

confers

> mukti.

 

It is true that the Shruti Mahavakyas alone confers Mukti. But it

does not mean that a spiritual seeker has to necessarily study

Vivekachudmani or any of Sankara's works or Upanishads in a

systematic way to become Self-realized. Jnanam may dawn by the

words of a Self-realized Jnani (Guru).

 

I know this is going to raise some eyebrows here and there are

schools of thought that say that a systematic study of the

Upanishads is the ONLY way.

 

All I am saying is that following the instructions from a Realized

Guru and practicing the Sadhana that is prescribed by Him is the

means. How else can you explain, for example, Shri Nisargadatta?

>>

My Guru ordered me to attend to the sense 'I am' and to give

attention to nothing else. I just obeyed. I did not follow any

particular course of breathing, or meditation, or study of

scriptures. Whatever happened, I would turn away my attention from

it and remain with the sense 'I am'. It may look too simple, even

crude. My only reason for doing it was that my Guru told me so. Yet

it worked!

Within three years, Maruti realized himself and took the new name

Nisargadatta.

>>

 

No doubt the Upanishadic truth only liberated Shri Nisargadatta. If

you trace back the origin of the instructions that Shri Nisargadatta

received - yes it is the Sruti, conveyed by His Guru. But Shri

Nisargadatta himself did not study the Upanishads.

 

================== Mountain Path ================================

 

There was a young man studying Sanskrit and sacred lore at

Chidambaram. After finishing his course of studies there he went to

Sringeri to hear Vedanta explained by the famous HH Narasimha

Bharati

Swami[1879-1912, 33rd Pontiff of Sringeri]. The Swami condescended

to

teach him though he had just then intended to stop teaching and

retire into solitude for meditation. Once, at the end of the day's

lesson, the Swami remarked, "We study scriptures and commentaries on

them. They no doubt clarify one's understanding and help one

spiritually; but they are only secondary.The main thing is one's

spiritual ripeness. One who is already spiritually evolved need not

go through the scriptures and commentaries on them. Such a one gets

illuminated in a flash without these aids.The Bala Yogi of

Tiruvannamalai is an instance here." The student had heard of the

Brahmana Swami (Sri Bhagvan as he was then known) while at

Chidambaram, but had thought it was all a hoax. And so he was

stunned

to hear such profound appreciation of Bhagvan from the lips of his

venerable master and resolved to go and have darshan of Bhagvan

before long.

 

================== Mountain Path ================================

 

regards

Sundar Rajan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sundarji

 

Thanks for the quick reply. Yes I agree that Guru vakya too can liberate a

person. The guru's vakyas can also be considered shastra as long as it is in

keeping with the tradition & method of teaching. Shankara defines Shraddha

to be faith in the Guru's words and the Upanishad declarations.

 

One more question. Is there a Guru shishya tradition after Ramana Maharishi

and Nisargadatta Maharaj where Self-knowledge is unfolded in a systematic

manner? Thanks.

 

 

>

> avsundarrajan [sMTP:avsundarrajan]

> Tuesday, April 16, 2002 11:44 AM

> advaitin

> Re: Vivekachoodamani verses 1 & 2

>

> Namaste Shri Kathirasanji,

> > I am very curious to know more about the following

> > points mentioned in your reply. Here they are:

> >

> > 1. What are the 'advantages' somebody might possess to undertake

> Vedantic

> > studies in an orthodox way?

> >

> I was referring to the original message posted by Shri Nairji that

> started all this discussion

> >> Birth as a male (pumstvam) is considered an "advantage" here.

> >> Could this be Sankara's thought ..

>

> > 2. You claim that Vedantic studies is NOT the sole means to Self-

> knowledge.

> > But tradition says that Knowledge gained thru shruti pramana alone

> confers

> > mukti.

>

> It is true that the Shruti Mahavakyas alone confers Mukti. But it

> does not mean that a spiritual seeker has to necessarily study

> Vivekachudmani or any of Sankara's works or Upanishads in a

> systematic way to become Self-realized. Jnanam may dawn by the

> words of a Self-realized Jnani (Guru).

>

> I know this is going to raise some eyebrows here and there are

> schools of thought that say that a systematic study of the

> Upanishads is the ONLY way.

>

> All I am saying is that following the instructions from a Realized

> Guru and practicing the Sadhana that is prescribed by Him is the

> means. How else can you explain, for example, Shri Nisargadatta?

>

> >>

> My Guru ordered me to attend to the sense 'I am' and to give

> attention to nothing else. I just obeyed. I did not follow any

> particular course of breathing, or meditation, or study of

> scriptures. Whatever happened, I would turn away my attention from

> it and remain with the sense 'I am'. It may look too simple, even

> crude. My only reason for doing it was that my Guru told me so. Yet

> it worked!

> Within three years, Maruti realized himself and took the new name

> Nisargadatta.

> >>

>

> No doubt the Upanishadic truth only liberated Shri Nisargadatta. If

> you trace back the origin of the instructions that Shri Nisargadatta

> received - yes it is the Sruti, conveyed by His Guru. But Shri

> Nisargadatta himself did not study the Upanishads.

>

> ================== Mountain Path ================================

>

> There was a young man studying Sanskrit and sacred lore at

> Chidambaram. After finishing his course of studies there he went to

> Sringeri to hear Vedanta explained by the famous HH Narasimha

> Bharati

> Swami[1879-1912, 33rd Pontiff of Sringeri]. The Swami condescended

> to

> teach him though he had just then intended to stop teaching and

> retire into solitude for meditation. Once, at the end of the day's

> lesson, the Swami remarked, "We study scriptures and commentaries on

> them. They no doubt clarify one's understanding and help one

> spiritually; but they are only secondary.The main thing is one's

> spiritual ripeness. One who is already spiritually evolved need not

> go through the scriptures and commentaries on them. Such a one gets

> illuminated in a flash without these aids.The Bala Yogi of

> Tiruvannamalai is an instance here." The student had heard of the

> Brahmana Swami (Sri Bhagvan as he was then known) while at

> Chidambaram, but had thought it was all a hoax. And so he was

> stunned

> to hear such profound appreciation of Bhagvan from the lips of his

> venerable master and resolved to go and have darshan of Bhagvan

> before long.

>

> ================== Mountain Path ================================

>

> regards

> Sundar Rajan

>

>

>

>

>

> 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]

IF YOU HAVE COMPLETE FATH IN YOUR GURU AND HAVE NO DOUBT IN THE

UNDERSTANDING OF SELF HE POINTS AT THEN YOU QUICKLY ATTAIN SELF REALIZATION,

THE CATCH IS THE GURU MUST BE A SADGURU AND HIMSELF AS ATTAINED THE ABSOLUTE

REALIZATION OF FINAL REALITY OTHERWISE HE CAN NOT POINT AT WHAT HE HAS NOT

REALIZED HIMSELF.....OM SHANTI.....JAYA

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.344 / Virus Database: 191 - Release 2/04/2002

[Guest guest]

NISARGADATTA MAHARAJ'S MASTER WAS SIDDHAREMESHWAR MAHARAJ, RANJIT

MAHARAJ[was a disciple of SIDDHARESHWAR MAHARAJ] WAS THE MASTER AFTER

NISARGADATTA WAS GONE, IN NOV 2000 RANJIT MAHARAJ LEFT HIS BODY...YOU CAN

LEARN MORE OF RANJIT MAHARAJ AT www.sadguru.com

 

jaya

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.344 / Virus Database: 191 - Release 2/04/2002

[Guest guest]

> Yes I agree that Guru vakya too can liberate a

> person. The guru's vakyas can also be considered shastra as long as

> it is in

> keeping with the tradition & method of teaching. Shankara defines

Shraddha

> to be faith in the Guru's words and the Upanishad declarations.

 

Namaste Kathirasanji,

 

You have hit the nail on the head. In this regard there is an

interesting quote from a book called "Edifying Parables"

 

A person may peruse the Upanishads, which expound the Truth and

reflect deeply on the import of the scriptures. But this much is

insufficient for him to get direct realization of the

Supreme and hence liberation. The grace and instructions of a Guru

are vital for the dawn of enlightenment. It is said in the Chandogya

Upanishad, "Knowledge acquired from the

Guru is what definitely becomes most beneficial"

 

(Parables culled from the Speeches of Jagadguru Sri Abhinava

Vidyatheertha Mahaswamigal, Sringeri Acharyal

http://www.jagadgurus.org)

 

regards

Sundar Rajan