Comments by RN on Paramacharya's Discourses on Soundaryalahari(DPDS-12)

[Guest guest]

> I have not been able to read all the previous renderings yet but would like to

> make some comments.

>

> A Digest of Paramacharya’s Discourses on Soundaryalahari - 12

>

> I was saying that our Acharya , had included ideas from the

> non-advaita schools also. These ideas as well as those of

> advaita had their origin long before their chief proponents

> propagated them formally as a siddhanta. So Soundarya lahari

> being a work of bhakti leaning a little on the side of the

> Shakta schools, has these ideas also in it. It talks about the

> ‘spandanam’ of brahma-Shakti and praises, in superlative terms,

> the Shakti that caused it. But there is no such idea of

> ‘spandanam’ in the advaita shAstra of Adi Sankara.

>

> The Brahman of advaita is motionless, and changeless. This

> immutable Brahman was, according to advaita, neither moved from

> outside nor perturbed from the inside. The multiple

> presentations that resulted through the Creation process was

> just due to mAyA, which, with the base (adhAra) of Brahman,

> somehow initiated it. It is only an appearance according to

> advaita and that is why mAyA is criticised and recommended to be

> negated. Our Atman is nothing but that very nirguNa Brahman. If

> we do not know it, it is because mAyA has done its work of

> hiding the Reality from us.

>

> But it is that very same mAyA that the Soundaryalahari now has

> taken to the skies and praised as Shakti, as a power greater

> than even the Triad of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. Though it does

> not use the word ‘mAyA’ here, it uses the word ‘Shakti’ and

> from the very fact that Shakti is the root cause for creation of

> the universe, it is clear it must be the same as the mAyA of

> advaita.

>

> Maya = Shakti for him/her who has received the Grace. The power that hides

> Reality from jiva displays the maya. The power that reveals Reality makes the

> world of maya (the delusion) disappear.

>

> In advaita the nirguNa Brahman is unrelated to the saguNa

> Brahman which produces and monitors the whole universe by mAyA

> Shakti. For, nirguNa Brahman just is; it can never be related to

> or predicated with anything. The miraculous way in which mAyA

> exhibits that Brahman, as Brahman with name and form and all the

> associated multiplicity, is analogous to the way we see in a

> dimly lit twilight the appearance of a snake in a rope. Clearly

> there is no relationship between the appearing snake and the

> rope which is the support for the appearance.

>

> The term Œunrelated¹ is debatable. The spandanam is caused by Shakti says the

> Paramacharya in the beginning. Out of this spandanam ultimately rises the

> abhasa (projection / appearance of creation).

>

> Jnana-Shakti is vidya as opposed to the avidya of (the jiva caught up in)

> maya.

>

> However, the Shaktam that the Acharya projects to us has a mAyA

> Shakti which is not unrelated to Brahman. There is no

> brahma-Shakti talked about in advaita. Here in ShAktam, it is

> brahma-Shakti that is important. That is the ambaal. One of her

> aspects is the magic wand of mAyA. Not only that. She is Herself

> the jnAna-Shakti (the power of cognitive self-recognition) which

> is diametrically opposite to mAyA; and further it is the icchA

> Shakti (the power of wilful self-emanation) and kriyA Shakti

> (the power of creative act) also. She stands inseparable from

> the Shivam which is the nirguNa Brahman of ShAktam which,

> however, is a shade different from the nirguNa Brahman of

> advaita. The identity of Shiva and Shakti is important here.

> Identity means total oneness. It is this Shivam that is made to

> be the object of spandanam, and then coupled with Him She does

> the creation and all further processes. Since She is the

> ‘Energy’ or ‘Power’ of Shivam, it is clear that any action She

> undertakes cannot but have a relationship with that Shivam.

>

> It is a misunderstanding of the author that this Shivam (a shade different

> from the nirguna Brahman of Advaita) is the object of Spandana. There is no

> seperation in object-subject here.

>

> It is also not correct to say of the author that Shakti does the creation and

> all further processes. Maya is issued forth out of kriya-Shakti and the entire

> creation ­ from purusha, prakriti, buddhi, ahamkara, manas etc all the way to

> the element earth is a by-product or creation of maya and thus not of Shakti.

>

> The nirguna Brahman of Shaktam is related to saguna Brahman because how can

> there be not-two when they are not related? The snake may be an aberration in

> the mind of the jiva in ingorance, but how did this avidya come about? The

> Brahman of advaita is motionless, and changeless. The nirguna Brahman of

> Shaktam is not only motionless and changeless but also full. It is full of

> potential.

>

> The Saundaryalahari is a great jewel and it shows the genius of Adi Shankar

> because he is able to take another non-dual perspective and this time it is

> the non-dual perspective of Shaktam which is considered by some to be

> para-Advaita.

>

> Just like jiva is none other than Brahman taking a different perspective on

> Himself.

>

> When Shakti, the ambaal, grants moksha to the jIva, the jIva

> attains the changeless nirguNa state, say the Shakta works like

> the ShrI-vidyA. Even then that nirguNa state has also the

> Shakti in it!. It is said that Shakti itself revels in

> enjoyment of bliss in its own creation of the universe of

> duality. But it is not even right to say that the play of

> creation is for enjoyment. Because if you accept this, it

> would mean that when there is no creation, Shakti is without

> that bliss! So instead of saying that She indulges in Creation

> for enjoyment of bliss, we should rather say that it is the very

> Bliss that is part of Her that exhibits itself as the creation.

>

> The bliss is Self-referral and this Self-referral bliss is Spanda which is a

> divine throb or ­ as the great sage Abhinavaguptacharya explains: It is a

> movement that is not a movement.

>

> Let me now explain the subtle difference between the mAyA of

> advaita and the different Shaktis of the Shaiva and ShAkta

> schools. Starting from the Shivam-Brahman, they talk of 36

> principles. The first five are called pure ‘mAyA’ and the latter

> 31 belong to the category of impure ‘mAyA.

>

> This is also very incorrectly stated. The first five are not called pure maya

> but the pure order being Shiva tattva, Shakti tattva, Iccha-tattva,

> Jnana-tattva and Kriya-tattva. There is no sense of duality here, no

> appearance and no delusion. There is merely a divine stir in consciousness.

> This is recognised (validated) by great yogi¹s at the depth of their own

> consciousness.

>

> Shivam is the first. Next there come three different shaktis,

> namely, cit-shakti, jnAna-shakti, vidyA-shakti. These correspond

> to three different dimensions of cit. When it pertains to the

> non-dual shiva-shakti, it is cit. When it pertains to the

> seed-knowledge of duality for the purpose of creation it is

> called jnAna. In the next stage it is aware both of its non-dual

> state and its potential for the sprouting out into multiplicity,

> and then it is called (pure) vidyA. After these three, come the

> next, now the fifth in order, namely the kriyA shakti which is

> the executing part. Only thereafter, starting from the sixth

> principle, it is mAyA and all its evolutes.

>

> All this importance given to Shakti in the Shaiva and Shakta

> schools is avoided in advaita, with all the evoluted appearances

> from Brahman being branded as the effect of mAyA and we being

> asked to discredit them.

>

> It is not the tasc of jiva to discredit them (¹Neti Neti¹) but it is a matter

> of absorption.

>

> But even in the way the Shaiva and Shakta schools go, the

> question can be asked; Somehow or other, it is the hierarchy of

> these Shaktis that bind us to this samsAra. Why then praise that

> Shakti and worship it with hymns like Soundaryalahari?

>

> It is not the hierarchy of the Shaktis that bind us to the maya but the malas

> (powers of maya).

>

> The praise of Shakti ­ as I said before ­ is a sign of the depth of heart and

> greatness of intellect of Adi Shankar. Shankar is a name of Shiva. A devout

> devotee of Shiva of course pays tribute to the great Mother Goddess. This is

> still done at the centres of the Shankaracharyas today.

>

> This is the key question. The answer is, mAyA Shakti even in the

> Shakta schools does not end there. It is also the jnAna Shakti

> as we saw above. And the bottomline of it all is that this same

> Shakti as jnAna Shakti graces us with Knowledge and

> Enlightenment in the end. And in the meantime She shows Infinite

> Love towards us in order to take us back into her fold. That is

> the greatest anugraha that She does for us. And that is why we

> worship Her and pray to Her for Release.

>

> Beautifully spoken.

>

> (To be continued).

> PraNAms to all advaitins and Devotees of Mother Goddess.

> profvk

>

> Very nice of you to grace us with these eye-openers.

>

> ONS,

>

> Ralph.

>

>

> =====

> Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Ralph Nataraj <108@p...> wrote:

> > I have not been able to read all the previous renderings yet but

would like to

> > make some comments.

 

 

Namaste, Ralph, I am not commenting on your comments. Because first

of all I want to point out an editorial matter. In your posting you

have not only reproduced the entire post of mine, but further, both

your comments as well as the original on which you are basing your

comments, have the same marginal symbols '>>'. This is not confusing

to me since I know what I posted. But any third party reader who

reads your post will not be able to sift what was Paramacharya's

statement and what is your comment. The separation of the two has to

be clearly shown before it becomes intelligible to a reader other

than you and me. May I suggest that you repost your comments? Also

may I suggest that you may please avoid repetition of the entire

post of mine, so that cyberspace is saved? Please repeat only the

minimum portion or extract from the source for purposes of making

your comments.

Thank you.

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

Important note by VK. In the earlier posting by Ralphji of his

comments, there was a transmission error which made it

impossible to separate his comments from the Paramacharya's

statements as presented by me. So I am repeating Ralph's

comments below, under the paragraph headings 'Comment' or

'Comment contd.'. The Paramacharya's statements as presented by

me are given below under quotes " ... ".

 

This is just so that readers may understand the comments

correctly and react if they want. In the meantime I am studying

the comments of Ralph and also checking the Tamil original, so

that I know I have not made any errors in transcription or

translation. But I would like help from members like

Sadanandaji, and others on the content of Ralph's comments.

V. Krishnamurthy

 

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

 

Comment by Ralph. I have not been able to read all the previous

renderings yet but would like to make some comments.

 

"I was saying that our Acharya , had included ideas from the

non-advaita schools also. These ideas as well as those of

advaita had their origin long before their chief proponents

propagated them formally as a siddhanta. So Soundarya lahari

being a work of bhakti leaning a little on the side of the

Shakta schools, has these ideas also in it. It talks about the

‘spandanam’ of brahma-Shakti and praises, in superlative terms,

the Shakti that caused it. But there is no such idea of

‘spandanam’ in the advaita shAstra of Adi Sankara.

 

"The Brahman of advaita is motionless, and changeless. This

immutable Brahman was, according to advaita, neither moved from

outside nor perturbed from the inside. The multiple

presentations that resulted through the Creation process was

just due to mAyA, which, with the base (adhAra) of Brahman,

somehow initiated it. It is only an appearance according to

advaita and that is why mAyA is criticised and recommended to be

negated. Our Atman is nothing but that very nirguNa Brahman. If

we do not know it, it is because mAyA has done its work of

hiding the Reality from us.

 

"But it is that very same mAyA that the Soundaryalahari now has

taken to the skies and praised as Shakti, as a power greater

than even the Triad of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. Though it does

not use the word ‘mAyA’ here, it uses the word ‘Shakti’ and

from the very fact that Shakti is the root cause for creation of

the universe, it is clear it must be the same as the mAyA of

advaita".

 

Comment: Maya = Shakti for him/her who has received the Grace.

The power that hides Reality from jiva displays the maya. The

power that reveals Reality makes the world of maya (the

delusion) disappear.

 

"In advaita the nirguNa Brahman is unrelated to the saguNa

Brahman which produces and monitors the whole universe by mAyA

Shakti. For, nirguNa Brahman just is; it can never be related to

or predicated with anything. The miraculous way in which mAyA

exhibits that Brahman, as Brahman with name and form and all the

associated multiplicity, is analogous to the way we see in a

dimly lit twilight the appearance of a snake in a rope. Clearly

there is no relationship between the appearing snake and the

rope which is the support for the appearance".

 

Comment:The term ‘unrelated’ is debatable. The spandanam is

caused by Shakti says the Paramacharya in the beginning. Out of

this spandanam ultimately rises the abhasa (projection /

appearance of creation).

Comment contd. Jnana-Shakti is vidya as opposed to the avidya of

(the jiva caught up in) maya.

 

"However, the Shaktam that the Acharya projects to us has a mAyA

Shakti which is not unrelated to Brahman. There is no

brahma-Shakti talked about in advaita. Here in ShAktam, it is

brahma-Shakti that is important. That is the ambaal. One of her

aspects is the magic wand of mAyA. Not only that. She is Herself

the jnAna-Shakti (the power of cognitive self-recognition) which

is diametrically opposite to mAyA; and further it is the icchA

Shakti (the power of wilful self-emanation) and kriyA Shakti

(the power of creative act) also. She stands inseparable from

the Shivam which is the nirguNa Brahman of ShAktam which,

however, is a shade different from the nirguNa Brahman of

advaita. The identity of Shiva and Shakti is important here.

Identity means total oneness. It is this Shivam that is made to

be the object of spandanam, and then coupled with Him She does

the creation and all further processes. Since She is the

‘Energy’ or ‘Power’ of Shivam, it is clear that any action She

undertakes cannot but have a relationship with that Shivam".

 

Comment.It is a misunderstanding of the author that this Shivam

(a shade different from the nirguna Brahman of Advaita) is the

object of Spandana. There is no seperation in object-subject

here.

 

Comment contd.It is also not correct to say of the author that

Shakti does the creation and all further processes. Maya is

issued forth out of kriya-Shakti and the entire creation – from

purusha, prakriti, buddhi, ahamkara, manas etc all the way to

the element earth is a by-product or creation of maya and thus

not of Shakti.

 

Comment contd.The nirguna Brahman of Shaktam is related to

saguna Brahman because how can there be not-two when they are

not related? The snake may be an aberration in the mind of the

jiva in ingorance, but how did this avidya come about? The

Brahman of advaita is motionless, and changeless. The nirguna

Brahman of Shaktam is not only motionless and changeless but

also full. It is full of potential.

 

Comment contd.The Saundaryalahari is a great jewel and it shows

the genius of Adi Shankar because he is able to take another

non-dual perspective and this time it is the non-dual

perspective of Shaktam which is considered by some to be

para-Advaita.

 

Comment contd.Just like jiva is none other than Brahman taking a

different perspective on Himself.

 

"When Shakti, the ambaal, grants moksha to the jIva, the jIva

attains the changeless nirguNa state, say the Shakta works like

the ShrI-vidyA. Even then that nirguNa state has also the

Shakti in it!. It is said that Shakti itself revels in

enjoyment of bliss in its own creation of the universe of

duality. But it is not even right to say that the play of

creation is for enjoyment. Because if you accept this, it

would mean that when there is no creation, Shakti is without

that bliss! So instead of saying that She indulges in Creation

for enjoyment of bliss, we should rather say that it is the very

Bliss that is part of Her that exhibits itself as the creation".

 

 

Comment.The bliss is Self-referral and this Self-referral bliss

is Spanda which is a divine throb or – as the great sage

Abhinavaguptacharya explains: It is a movement that is not a

movement.

 

"Let me now explain the subtle difference between the mAyA of

advaita and the different Shaktis of the Shaiva and ShAkta

schools. Starting from the Shivam-Brahman, they talk of 36

principles. The first five are called pure ‘mAyA’ and the latter

31 belong to the category of impure ‘mAyA".

 

Comment.This is also very incorrectly stated. The first five are

not called pure maya but the pure order being Shiva tattva,

Shakti tattva, Iccha-tattva, Jnana-tattva and Kriya-tattva.

There is no sense of duality here, no appearance and no

delusion. There is merely a divine stir in consciousness. This

is recognised (validated) by great yogi’s at the depth of their

own consciousness.

 

"Shivam is the first. Next there come three different shaktis,

namely, cit-shakti, jnAna-shakti, vidyA-shakti. These correspond

to three different dimensions of cit. When it pertains to the

non-dual shiva-shakti, it is cit. When it pertains to the

seed-knowledge of duality for the purpose of creation it is

called jnAna. In the next stage it is aware both of its non-dual

state and its potential for the sprouting out into multiplicity,

and then it is called (pure) vidyA. After these three, come the

next, now the fifth in order, namely the kriyA shakti which is

the executing part. Only thereafter, starting from the sixth

principle, it is mAyA and all its evolutes.

 

"All this importance given to Shakti in the Shaiva and Shakta

schools is avoided in advaita, with all the evoluted appearances

from Brahman being branded as the effect of mAyA and we being

asked to discredit them".

 

Comment.It is not the tasc of jiva to discredit them (’Neti

Neti’) but it is a matter of absorption.

 

"But even in the way the Shaiva and Shakta schools go, the

question can be asked; Somehow or other, it is the hierarchy of

these Shaktis that bind us to this samsAra. Why then praise that

Shakti and worship it with hymns like Soundaryalahari?"

 

Comment. It is not the hierarchy of the Shaktis that bind us to

the maya but the malas (powers of maya).

 

Comment.The praise of Shakti – as I said before – is a sign of

the depth of heart and greatness of intellect of Adi Shankar.

Shankar is a name of Shiva. A devout devotee of Shiva of course

pays tribute to the great Mother Goddess. This is still done at

the centres of the Shankaracharyas today.

 

"This is the key question. The answer is, mAyA Shakti even in

the Shakta schools does not end there. It is also the jnAna

Shakti as we saw above. And the bottomline of it all is that

this same Shakti as jnAna Shakti graces us with Knowledge and

Enlightenment in the end. And in the meantime She shows Infinite

Love towards us in order to take us back into her fold. That is

the greatest anugraha that She does for us. And that is why we

worship Her and pray to Her for Release".

 

Comment. Beautifully spoken

Very nice of you to grace us with these eye-openers.

 

ONS,

Ralph.

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

 

I shall come back to Ralph's comments after I have cleared my

own understanding of both the original and the Ralph-comments.

 

PranAms to all advaitins

profvk

 

 

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste

I have considered two important comments by Ralph 0n DPDS-12,

because they involve not an opinion but a presentation of fact.

So I went back to the original Tamil version, which is

certainly more elaborate than my 'Digest' in English. I submit

the following explanations. In what follows, matter under " ..."

is the Paramacharya's. And comments by Ralph are noted as

comments.

> "However, the Shaktam that the Acharya projects to us has a

mAyA

> Shakti which is not unrelated to Brahman. There is no

> brahma-Shakti talked about in advaita. Here in ShAktam, it is

> brahma-Shakti that is important. That is the ambaal. One of

her

> aspects is the magic wand of mAyA. Not only that. She is

Herself

> the jnAna-Shakti (the power of cognitive self-recognition)

which

> is diametrically opposite to mAyA; and further it is the icchA

> Shakti (the power of wilful self-emanation) and kriyA Shakti

> (the power of creative act) also. She stands inseparable from

> the Shivam which is the nirguNa Brahman of ShAktam which,

> however, is a shade different from the nirguNa Brahman of

> advaita. The identity of Shiva and Shakti is important here.

> Identity means total oneness. It is this Shivam that is made

to

> be the object of spandanam, and then coupled with Him She does

> the creation and all further processes. Since She is the

> ‘Energy’ or ‘Power’ of Shivam, it is clear that any action She

> undertakes cannot but have a relationship with that Shivam".

>

> Comment.It is a misunderstanding of the author that this

Shivam

> (a shade different from the nirguna Brahman of Advaita) is the

> object of Spandana. There is no seperation in object-subject

> here.

Reply by VK to the above comment :

Ralph's objection to the phrase 'object of spandanam' is well

taken. I notice now that the Paramacharya does not use that

phrase or the corresponding Tamil equivalent.Actually there is a

whole page of matter there (p.745 in the original) which I

condensed too much .. Here is an almost verbatim translation of

the relevant full page:

" The identity of Shiva-shakti is important here. Identity does

not mean just a union. It is identity in the sense there is only

one. Being one and only one is what is called ‘Aikyam’ or

identity. In Lalita Sahasranama, after calling Her Shivaa, the

next name is Shiva-Shaktyaikya-rUpiNI. This Shiva is only a

close fit to the brahman of advaita. So, unionizing with Him,

and relating with Him, ‘moving’ Him, She has done as a couple,

all the Creation of the Universe and the monitoring of it.

Whenever there is a Shakti , there must be a locus standi

(Ashrayam, Base)for it. The concept of, say, a Shakti of ten

pounds of weight does not arise unless there is something to

which the weight can be related or referenced. A fragrance or a

colour is certainly an abstract Shakti, but it has to have an

Ashrayam for it to exist as a fragrance or a colour. Thus for

every shakti there is an Ashrayam. The Shakti that is the origin

for all the known Shaktis has itself an Ashrayam and that is the

Shivam-brahman.It is the Shakti of that brahman. So it cannot be

separated from its Ashrayam. You cannot separate the whiteness

from milk, or the taste of milk from milk. So by the expansion

of Shakti whatever happens there is Shivam also in that

expansion. In all actions of Shakti Shivam has to be present.”

 

VK: So it can be seen that the ‘object-subject’ problem that

Ralph refers to does not arise in the way the Paramacharya puts

it.

 

 

 

> "Let me now explain the subtle difference between the mAyA of

> advaita and the different Shaktis of the Shaiva and ShAkta

> schools. Starting from the Shivam-Brahman, they talk of 36

> principles. The first five are called pure ‘mAyA’ and the

latter

> 31 belong to the category of impure ‘mAyA".

>

> Comment.This is also very incorrectly stated. The first five

are

> not called pure maya but the pure order being Shiva tattva,

> Shakti tattva, Iccha-tattva, Jnana-tattva and Kriya-tattva.

> There is no sense of duality here, no appearance and no

> delusion. There is merely a divine stir in consciousness. This

> is recognised (validated) by great yogi’s at the depth of

their

> own consciousness.

>

VK. The Paramacharya actually says (on p.747 of the Original

Tamil Book, from which page the above quote of Paramacharya

appears in DPDS -12), that “The first five are called pure MayA

(Shuddha MayA) in the philosophy of Shaiva-siddhanta of

Tamilnadu” . I should have mentioned this link to

Shaiva-Siddhanta, in the above quoted paragraph of Paramacharya

in DPDS – 12.

 

I have no comments on the other comments of Ralph.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

 

 

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site.