Guest guest Posted August 27, 2003 Report Share Posted August 27, 2003 > 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. > > RALPH: Thanx for the thorough work! > >> > 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. > > 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. > > RALPH: Thanx for this important edition! > >> > Comment.This is also very incorrectly stated. The first five are >> > not called pure maya but the pure order. > > 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. > RALPH: The Paramacharya should have named this Shudda Vidya (the pure category) or Shuddha Tattvas. The use of the word maya here is totally inappropriate as maya comes into play from the 6th tattva onwards only! The problem with the translation from the highly esteemed Prof. V. Krishnamurti is that he introduces a comment on the Saundaryalahari which is originally written by Adi Shankar out of the non-dual philosophy of Saktism but the comments stemming from the Paramacharya are derived from Saiva Siddhanta which is not a non-dual philosophy. That is impossible. Why would an Advaitin be satisfied with looking at a precious gem through glasses that are stainted while it is also possible to look directly without distortion? Kind regards, Ralph. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2003 Report Share Posted August 27, 2003 advaitin, Ralph Nataraj <108@p...> wrote: > > Namaste! > The problem with the translation from the highly esteemed Prof. V. > Krishnamurti is that he introduces a comment on the Saundaryalahari which is > originally written by Adi Shankar out of the non-dual philosophy of Saktism > but the comments stemming from the Paramacharya are derived from Saiva > Siddhanta which is not a non-dual philosophy. That is impossible. > > Why would an Advaitin be satisfied with looking at a precious gem through > glasses that are stainted while it is also possible to look directly without > distortion? > > Kind regards, > > Ralph. > Namaste, Ralphji, I suggest that you read the 'Digest' from the beginning to be able to appreciate why the Paramacharya talks about non-advaita philosophies and in what context. I remember your comments started with saying that you have not read the earlier portions. praNAms to all advaitins profvk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2003 Report Share Posted August 29, 2003 Namaste all. I have been following the learned debate between Prof. V. Krishnamurthyji and Shri Ralph Natrajji It looks like Shri Ralphji is at a totally different frequency and his intentions are purely academic. An advaitin approaches Soundarya Lahari on the unshakable premise that Sankara was an advaitin to the very core and he could not have talked about anything other than advaita in all his works. >From this point of view, to consider the question if Sankara propounded anything other than advaita in Soundarya Lahari or even a different kind of advaita becomes totally irrelevant. Shri Ralphji is keen on discerning differences between advaita and Soundarya Lahari. Hence, the academics of finding fault with the translation, the actual intent of spandanam etc. Such efforts, from the advaitin's point of view is worth perhaps only a doctorate and, hence, can be relegated to the bookshelves after the achievement of the academic reward. Spandanam notwithstanding, which can perhaps find a parallel in the adhyAsa of vedAnta, Saundarya Lahari is full of advaita and an advaitin should, therefore, necessarily interpret it from the point of view of his advaitic vision shaped by the scriptures and in line with the scriptures. This, no dounbt, is the endeavour undertaken by the ParamAcharyA and Prof. Krishnamurthyji. I have here a classic example for the present confusion in Verse 36, the latter part of which reads: ……yamAradhyan bhaktiA raviSaSisucInAmavishayE nirAlOkE-alOkE nivasati hi bhAlokabhuvane. This is somewhat translated as follows in the Malayalam interpretation that I am reading: "….He who worships Him (that Param Shambhu) with absolute devotion verily lives in the brilliant non-world (uninhabited) world beyond the influence of the the sun, moon and fire and beyond the power of normal seeing (objectification)." Language fails here if we are not assisted by our advaitic vision. What then to say about the translation from Sanskrit to Malayalam to English? The verse looks like a bundle of contradictions! A brilliant world which is a non-world that cannot be seen! Bring in advaita here – the puzzle is solved. Saundarya Lahari and, for that matter SivAnanda Lahari or any works by Sankara down to the hymns like AnnapUrna StOtram, cannot be interpreted without advaita – the forte of Sankara. The ultimate bhAlOkabhuvanam is not a world of brilliance. It is the Self of advaita – the self-shining One without a second where the worlds influenced by entities like sun, moon and fire cannot tread. It is, therefore, alokA, not inhabited by duality and multiplicity. Language, however fine, is a mesh that cannot filter the essence of advaita. The ultimate residue that we are looking for more often than not escapes the mesh if we don't have a discerning vision. The discerning vision is advaita as proclaimed by the scriptures. If approached with that vision, Saundarya Lahari becomes a treasure trove of great advaitic import and one who reads it then enjoys the lahari in every moment of his life – in a piece of a rainbow, in the solitary raindrop of a summer afternoon, in the chirp of a bird in the distant woods and what not! While advaita takes us deep into ourselves, Saundarya Lahari makes us see Her beauty in everything that we see with our eyes open! PraNAms. Madathil Nair ______ advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk> wrote: > advaitin, Ralph Nataraj <108@p...> wrote: > > > Namaste! > > The problem with the translation from the highly esteemed Prof. V. > > Krishnamurti is that he introduces a comment on the > Saundaryalahari which is > > originally written by Adi Shankar out of the non-dual philosophy > of Saktism > > but the comments stemming from the Paramacharya are derived from > Saiva > > Siddhanta which is not a non-dual philosophy. That is impossible. > > > > Why would an Advaitin be satisfied with looking at a precious gem > through > > glasses that are stainted while it is also possible to look > directly without > > distortion? > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Ralph. > > > > Namaste, Ralphji, I suggest that you read the 'Digest' from the > beginning to be able to appreciate why the Paramacharya talks about > non-advaita philosophies and in what context. I remember your > comments started with saying that you have not read the earlier > portions. > > praNAms to all advaitins > profvk 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.