Guest guest Posted April 12, 2002 Report Share Posted April 12, 2002 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2002 Report Share Posted April 14, 2002 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. > > ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2002 Report Share Posted April 14, 2002 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2002 Report Share Posted April 14, 2002 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2002 Report Share Posted April 14, 2002 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 > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2002 Report Share Posted April 14, 2002 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.. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2002 Report Share Posted April 14, 2002 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2002 Report Share Posted April 15, 2002 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2002 Report Share Posted April 15, 2002 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? > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2002 Report Share Posted April 15, 2002 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 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2002 Report Share Posted April 15, 2002 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2002 Report Share Posted April 15, 2002 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2002 Report Share Posted April 15, 2002 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 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2002 Report Share Posted April 15, 2002 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2002 Report Share Posted April 15, 2002 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 > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2002 Report Share Posted April 16, 2002 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 16, 2002 Report Share Posted April 16, 2002 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2002 Report Share Posted April 19, 2002 > 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.