Why a commentary?

[Guest guest]

Stig Lundgren wrote:

And also if one is gaining knowledge after manana and nididhyasana (and not

just shravana), that knowledge is still a direct knowledge from shruti. If

a disciple is reading shruti or listening to a guru teaching the shruti,

then all the necessary information comes from that reading or listening. But

most likely, the disciple has to ponder and meditate upon the meaning of what

he has read or listened to. When the meaning is finally completely grasped,

the ignorance (avidya) is eradicated and hence perfect knowledge of the

Absolute rises. But it is still a matter of direct knowledge from the shruti,

even though manana and nididhyasana is needed.

 

Hello All,

 

Looking over Stigji's discourse on sravana it seems to me to be circular.

Sruti itself is the preparation for sravana but as sravana is the hearing

of sruti and the direct understanding of it, we are to understand that sruti

and its study is the best preparation for the immediate understanding of

sruti without having to reflect and meditate on it.....?

 

With that consideration in mind I was encouraged to find that the issue is

by no means a settled one amongst the followers of Sankara. Swami

Satprakashananda details the difference of opinion between Vacaspati Misra

and the Vivarna school (Methods of Knowledge 258-262). The former it

seems was following the line taken by Mandana Misra, a direct disciple of

Sri Sankaracarya. "In their view sravana is the stepping stone to manana

and nididhyasana. The mediate knowledge gained through sravana is confirmed

through manana and turned in immediate knowledge through nididhyasana." In

Upadesa Sahasri XVIII:15,16 Sankara says: "No one is seen freed from

sorrows simply by comprehending the meaning of the sentence (Thou art That).

If, however, a person is ever seen to be freed from sorrows on the mere

hearing of the sentence, it is to be inferred that he must have gone through

the repeated practice of the triple method in previous lives."

 

The core meaning of Sanatana Dharma is surely based on the unavoidable

nature of self-knowledge and self-identity which does not require to be

established by scripture or reason. It is consciousness that is 'firm as

an anvil'. Inquiry into this knowledge is the special province of advaita

but it could be asserted that the encounter with the depths of self-identity

is the fundamental spring of all religion which is thereafter elaborated

according to cultural patterns.

 

The great revelation to Moses out of the burning bush - I am that I am - is

a type of this (Exodus 3).

 

Best Wishes, Michael.

[Guest guest]

Namaste all,

 

Sir Michael (I think the title Sir would be apt, since you have done

the mountainous task of quoting here. I am weak at quotations! I am

not good at debating anyway.) The quotation is a perfect

representation from the Upadesha Sahasri.

 

<<<<With that consideration in mind I was encouraged to find that

the issue is by no means a settled one amongst the followers of

Sankara. Swami Satprakashananda details the difference of opinion

between Vacaspati Misra and the Vivarna school (Methods of Knowledge

258-262). The former it seems was following the line taken by

Mandana Misra, a direct disciple of Sri Sankaracarya. "In their

view sravana is the stepping stone to manana and nididhyasana. The

mediate knowledge gained through sravana is confirmed through manana

and turned in immediate knowledge through nididhyasana." In Upadesa

Sahasri XVIII:15,16 Sankara says: "No one is seen freed from sorrows

simply by comprehending the meaning of the sentence (Thou art That).

If, however, a person is ever seen to be freed from sorrows on the

mere hearing of the sentence, it is to be inferred that he must have

gone through the repeated practice of the triple method in previous

lives."

 

The core meaning of Sanatana Dharma is surely based on the

unavoidable nature of self-knowledge and self-identity which does

not require to be established by scripture or reason. It is

consciousness that is 'firm as an anvil'. Inquiry into this knowledge

is the special province of advaita but it could be asserted that the

encounter with the depths of self-identity is the fundamental spring

of all religion which is thereafter elaborated according to

cultural patterns. >>>>

 

Again let me quote the Kathopanishad here:

 

1-II-23. The Self cannot be attained by the study of the Vedas, not by

intelligence nor by much hearing. Only by him, who meditates seeking

the Truth, can It be attained. To him the Self reveals Its own nature.

 

1-II-24. None who has not refrained from bad conduct, whose senses

are not under restraint, whose mind is not collected or who does not

preserve a tranquil mind, can attain this Self through knowledge.

 

The above two verses from the first chapter of the kaThopanishad go

to say that which I have been trying to say ever since. The second

verse reiterates it more firmly saying that even if some form of

knowledge is obtained, the prerequisites are necessary.

 

In fact I was about to quote this yesterday, but I didn't bother to

debate. I felt, that if I know something and I am sure of it, and if

upon trying to convince, the other is not ready to listen, it is no

longer my business. I must try to gain insight and try to be

enlightened first. But when Sri Michael pointed out Upadesha Sahasri,

I felt that here I must add force to the point. But I think among

many of us, there is more faith in the sancity and the eternality of

the Shruthi than the fact that if so many Rishis say that we should

realize, then we must do something about it.

 

Again finally, trying to seal the point, I shall quote H H Sharada

Peetham who gave a lecture once when he came to Delhi (I was a young

boy then) He had somehow vowed that he would lecture only in Hindi,

the language of the commons (The ones familiar with Hindi would

notice that he used to be more accurate in pronunciation and used to

use the Sanskrit convention more often, which is not so true in

Hindi):

 

"shruti mein shraddhA atyAvashya hai. parantu, kevala shravaNa se

sampUrNa jnAna prapta nahIn hoga. shruti ke vAkya ko samajhnA

mahatvapUrNa hai, aur uspar AcharaN karnA to usse bhi Avashyak hai.

koi bhi vyakti, chAhe kitnA hi kyon na sattvavAn ho, kevala shravaNa

se hi mukti ko prapta nahIn ho saktA.

 

woh kaise? yadi kisI ne sharkra kabhI nahIn khAyA ho, to wah yeh tab

tak nahIn jAn sakta, ki uskA swAd kaisA hotA hai, jab tak wah use

nahIn khAtA....." - Obviously the last sentence was formed by

translating from Sanskrit to Hindi, hence the apparent misformation

of the sentence.

 

I shall translate it here:

 

One must have faith (sharddhA) in the shruti. But, complete knowledge

cannot be obtained just shravaNa. It is important to understand the

statement of the shruti, and to live up to it (practice it) is even

more important than it. No person, no matter how spiritually sound he

may be (sattvavAn, is also detached, and does not harbour cheap

interests), cannot acheive mukti through just shravaNa.

 

How is that? If some one has never eaten sugar, then he cannot

comprehend its taste till that time, as he does not eat it......

 

I hope this matter is made clear now.

 

Next let us refer to the fact that I had mentioned yoga and

pAtAnjali's yogasUtras when I talked of trying to acheive tranquility

of the mind. In my opinion yoga has been grossly misunderstood by the

ones opposing this view. yoga Asanas are just a small aspect of it,

and not much stress is laid on it by pAtAnjali than was laid on it

subsequently. The Bhagavad Gita procalaims: 'samatvam yoga uchyate' -

equanimity is yoga.

 

pAtAnjali in the second Sutra of his first chapter says:

 

yogah chitta vrtti nirodhah

 

"Yoga happens when there is stilling (in the sense of continual and

vigilant watchfulness) of the movement of thought - without which

there is no movement."

 

The above is a translation of sandarbha (precommentary) from vyAsa's

yoga bhAShya.

 

Hence yoga is not reduced to karma, it is building the faculty of

pure awareness, which is necessary for prajnA to arise. If prajnA is

all within us and the Self is the one to choose to reveal itself

(kaThopanishad), then it would be necessary for us to be able to

remain aware of this truth, without loss of concentration. This

concentration thus developed through yoga is called samAdhi and it

needs to be developed. It is the step of antahkaraNa shuddhi, for if

chitta vrtti nirodha takes place, then antahkaraNa automatically

comes under control.

 

Finally, Sri Stig assumed that all that could be said about shravaNa

was already said. Let me summarize what I had in my mind:

 

sravaNa can truly come only from within. The Upanishad can at best

only indicate the truth already within. Tranquility of the mind is a

prerequisite. ***The revelation that the self makes of itself to the

seeker, is the true sravaNa and is the only way to realize the truth.

Such knowledge, which is always revealed, pratyaksha, it is not for

the one with an uncollected mind.*** The truth is not revealed until

you meditate seeking the Truth, discarding all that which is not the

truth as neti, neti.

 

If anyone would like to elaborate on that, he is most welcome to do

so.

 

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

[Guest guest]

Namaste Michaelji,

 

I don't find Stigji's discourse circular. Any Advaitin would know that

Shruti in the context of Moksha refers specifically to the Upanishads. There

is a famous saying which goes, 'vedaanto naamo upanishad pramaanam'.

 

You are right to say that there has been different views with regards to

shravana, manana & nididhyasana among Post-shankaran vedantins. This subject

is well analysed by Roodurman in his book: Bhamati and Vivarana schools of

Advaita Vedanta. In fact the author right infers that both the Bhamati and

Vivarana schools deviated from the core teachings of Shankara.

 

Your quote from Upadesha Sahasri does not say in any way that the Shruti

does not have the capacity to reveal self-knowledge directly. The subject

and purport of the verse is to show the importance of qualification or

adhikara. In no certain terms does it say that Shruti is confers indirect

knowledge.

 

Michaelji wrote "The core meaning of Sanatana Dharma is surely based on the

unavoidable nature of self-knowledge and self-identity which does not

require to be established by scripture or reason. It is consciousness that

is 'firm as

an anvil'. Inquiry into this knowledge is the special province of advaita

 

but it could be asserted that the encounter with the depths of

self-identity

is the fundamental spring of all religion which is thereafter elaborated

according to cultural patterns. "

 

The above is definitely not Vedanta. Self-knowledge can only be established

through Shruti. However, 'the firm as anvil' Conciousness is

self-established. I think you are confusing one with the other.

Consciousness does not need anything. But it is the deluded mind that needs

Self-knowledge.

 

 

ombhurbhuva [ombhurbhuva]

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 6:55 PM

advaitin

Why a commentary?

 

 

Stig Lundgren wrote:

And also if one is gaining knowledge after manana and nididhyasana (and not

just shravana), that knowledge is still a direct knowledge from shruti. If

 

a disciple is reading shruti or listening to a guru teaching the shruti,

then all the necessary information comes from that reading or listening.

But

most likely, the disciple has to ponder and meditate upon the meaning of

what

he has read or listened to. When the meaning is finally completely

grasped,

the ignorance (avidya) is eradicated and hence perfect knowledge of the

Absolute rises. But it is still a matter of direct knowledge from the

shruti,

even though manana and nididhyasana is needed.

 

Hello All,

 

Looking over Stigji's discourse on sravana it seems to me to be circular.

Sruti itself is the preparation for sravana but as sravana is the hearing

of sruti and the direct understanding of it, we are to understand that

sruti

and its study is the best preparation for the immediate understanding of

sruti without having to reflect and meditate on it.....?

 

With that consideration in mind I was encouraged to find that the issue is

by no means a settled one amongst the followers of Sankara. Swami

Satprakashananda details the difference of opinion between Vacaspati Misra

and the Vivarna school (Methods of Knowledge 258-262). The former it

seems was following the line taken by Mandana Misra, a direct disciple of

Sri Sankaracarya. "In their view sravana is the stepping stone to manana

and nididhyasana. The mediate knowledge gained through sravana is

confirmed

through manana and turned in immediate knowledge through nididhyasana." In

Upadesa Sahasri XVIII:15,16 Sankara says: "No one is seen freed from

sorrows simply by comprehending the meaning of the sentence (Thou art

That).

If, however, a person is ever seen to be freed from sorrows on the mere

hearing of the sentence, it is to be inferred that he must have gone

through

the repeated practice of the triple method in previous lives."

 

The core meaning of Sanatana Dharma is surely based on the unavoidable

nature of self-knowledge and self-identity which does not require to be

established by scripture or reason. It is consciousness that is 'firm as

an anvil'. Inquiry into this knowledge is the special province of advaita

 

but it could be asserted that the encounter with the depths of

self-identity

is the fundamental spring of all religion which is thereafter elaborated

according to cultural patterns.

 

The great revelation to Moses out of the burning bush - I am that I am - is

a type of this (Exodus 3).

 

Best Wishes, Michael.

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

Links

[Guest guest]

Dear Michaelji,

 

>

> Looking over Stigji's discourse on sravana it seems to me to

be circular.

> Sruti itself is the preparation for sravana but as sravana is

the hearing

> of sruti and the direct understanding of it, we are to

understand that sruti

> and its study is the best preparation for the immediate

understanding of

> sruti without having to reflect and meditate on it.....?

 

 

 

In order to do manana and nididhyasana (roughly translated as

pondering and meditation), we first of all have to get something

to ponder and meditate upon. What is that 'something', and how to

get it into our minds, so to speak? That 'something' is shruti,

and we get it into our minds by listening to a guru teaching it.

If the preparation is sufficient, this mere listening is enough

to eradicate the ignorance, and immediate and perfect knowledge

rises. If the preparation is not sufficient, then what to do?

Well according to the traditional advaitic standpoint as thaught

by Adi Shankara, one has to do manana and also (most likely, I

would say) nididhyasana before eradicating the ignorance and

hence attaining immediate and perfect knowledge.

 

To answer your question: I do not hold the view that "Sruti

itself is the preparation for sravana". Shravana is the very

hearing of shruti. I don´t know why you have interpretated this

to mean that shruti is the "preparation" for

shravana. The preparation necessary for hearing (shravana) and

grasping the Upanishads (the shruti in question here) has to do

with the inner qualities of the aspirant, such as calmness,

forbearance, desire for moksha etc.

 

The traditional view on this matter is outlined in, for instance,

Swami Sadananda Yogindra Saraswati´s classic from the 15th

century, Vedantasara. According to this book [§§ 18-25], one

should be in possesion of 1: shama (curbing of the mind from all

objects except from hearing shastras), 2: dama (restraining of

the external organs from all objects but the shastras), 3:

uparati (cessation of the external organs from the pursuits of

objects other than the shastaras), 4: titikshA (endurance of heat

and cold, and similar pairs of opposites), 5: samAdhAna (constant

concentration of the mind on the study of shastras), 6: shraddhA

(faith in the truths of Vedanta as taught by the guru), 7:

mumukshutwa (yearning for spiritual freedom, moksha).

 

Regarding the study of the Upanishads and Vedanta, we also get

the following information from Shankara´s Upadesha Sahasri [16.

72]: "This teaching must only be given to one desirous of

liberation who has calmed his mind and conquered his senses,

whose psychological defects have been obliterated and who

fulfills the duties of his station as laid down, who is virtuous

and ever loyal to his teacher."

 

So, these are the preparations for shruti (Upanishads). This is

what traditional advaita teachers hold as necessary inner

qualities for the student expecting to have any success in the

study of Vedanta. Without this qualities, the mind is not

properly prepared and hence attached to objects obstructing the

chances of spiritual progress. Moreover, karmic circumstances

from earlier lives do also play an important role. One who has

studied the shastras in previous lives do have an advantage

compared to those unfamiliar with the shastras in earlier lives.

 

Of course, very few people really are in possession of these

qualities, and that explains why people can do Vedantic studies

without making any significant inner progress. The way out,

however, is not to start studying New Age-books instead or hoping

for enlightment by attending a weekend-course in crystal healing,

reincarnation-theraphy or the like. One can not escape from the

very facts laid down in the shastras. Instead, one should make an

effort trying to cultivate the qualites as outlined in

Vedantasara or Upadesha Sahasri.

 

 

>

> With that consideration in mind I was encouraged to find that

the issue is

> by no means a settled one amongst the followers of Sankara.

Swami

> Satprakashananda details the difference of opinion between

Vacaspati Misra

> and the Vivarna school (Methods of Knowledge 258-262).

 

 

 

I am afraid I don´t have Swami Satprakashananda´s book, nor have

I read it. However, the school following Vacaspati Mishra is

called the Bhamati school, and the Vivarana school has its roots

in the Panchapadika, a work ascribed to Shankara´s disciple

Padmapada. (Vivarana and Bhamati are titles on two

books [subcommentaries] on Shankara´s Brahma Sutra Bhashya).

 

 

 

The former it

> seems was following the line taken by Mandana Misra, a direct

disciple of

> Sri Sankaracarya.

 

 

 

Mandana Mishra was a senior contemporary of Adi Shankara, and not

one of his disciples. Mandana Mishra was obviously following

another advaita sampradaya than Shankara and Gaudapada. In

Shankara´s days there where several different traditions who all

where advaitic in nature. Shankara has refuted them all in his

bhashyas, let alone the tradition from Gaudapada -- the tradition

Shankara followed himself. Mandana Mishra belonged to one of

those other advaitic traditions, and the kind of standpoints

significant for Mandana Mishra has been emphatically refuted by

Sankara as well as by his disciple Sureshvara.

 

A sidenote: According to one tradition, Mandana Mishra was in

fact identical with Shankara´s disciple Sureshvara. It has been

claimed that Mandana Mishra, after he had been defeated in a

debate with Shankara, took up sannyasa, was renamned Sureshvara

and became Shankara´s disciple. However, in any case he was never

a disciple of Shankara during his days as Mandana Mishra.

Moreover, the standpoints of Sureshvara are very much

contradictory to the standpoints propagated by Mandana Mishra. So

it is not correct to refer to Mandana Mishra in support of the

claim that Shankara could be interpretated in different ways. It

is very obvious that Shankara and Sureshvara did not approve of

Mandana Mishras kind of Advaita philosophy.

 

 

 

"In their view sravana is the stepping stone to manana

> and nididhyasana. The mediate knowledge gained through

sravana is confirmed

> through manana and turned in immediate knowledge through

nididhyasana."

 

 

 

Yes. This standpoint is usually refered to as prasankhyAna vAda,

and is propagated by the Bhamati school. Hence it is clear that

the Bhamati interpretation is not in line with Shankara on this

point. The prasankhyana vadins claim that knowledge of the Self

cannot rise merely by hearing (shravana) the relevant texts.

Moreover, they argure that pondering and reasoning (manana) over

the texts can only result in abstract knowledge. Therefore,

repeated affirmation is needed in order to gain concrete and

direct experience.

 

The prasankhyana vada as found in Mandana Mishra´s teachings is

duly criticised by Shankara and Sureshvara. For instance, if

knowledge did not arise from the hearing and reasoning, because

of unability to grasp the very meaning of the shruti, then how

can repeated affirmation be any solution? If the meaning of the

shastras is misconcieved and wrongly grasped, then why would

knowledge rise from the repetition of those misconceptions?

Something that is wrong will not turn correct just by repeating

the fault over and over again. Repeated affirmation of wrong

knowledge will not produce right knowledge. This is why

Sureshvara writes:

 

"Prasankhyana is repetition. How can that enhance knowledge?

Nothing new is added to the object to be known by repeated

application to the means of knowledge." (Sureshvara, Samb.

Vartika, 818)

 

And Shankara writes:

 

"Suppose on objects that text and reasoning would yield only

general (abstract) knowledge, not particular (concrete)

knowledge... And concrete experience is needed to put an end to

metaphysical ignorance (which is itself evident in concrete

experience). So repetition is needed to gain that. But this is

wrong. For if hearing a text and reasoning over it do not give

rise to concrete experience the first time, it is impossible that

they should do so merely through being repeated." (Shankara, Bh.

Su. Bh. 4.1.2.)

 

One should keep in mind here that Shankara is not in any way

alien to the fact that nididhyasana can give rise to immediate

and direct knowledge. On the contrary, he says that immediate

knowledge rises through shravana (possible only for the very most

extraordinary qualified aspirants) or manana (possible for

slightly less qualified aspirants) or nididhyasana (for even less

qualified aspirants, although still very qualifed ones). What he

says is that it is the very understanding of the shruti that

makes one liberated, and therefore direct knowledge is possible

also through shravana only, or through shravana plus manana.

 

 

 

 

In

> Upadesa Sahasri XVIII:15,16 Sankara says: "No one is seen

freed from

> sorrows simply by comprehending the meaning of the sentence

(Thou art That).

> If, however, a person is ever seen to be freed from sorrows on

the mere

> hearing of the sentence, it is to be inferred that he must

have gone through

> the repeated practice of the triple method in previous lives."

>

 

 

 

Michaelji, your quotation here is completely misleading, but I am

sure this is just an undeliberate mistake of yours. Actually,

this quote expose the opponent´s view, not Shankara´s. This is

not Shankara´s own standpoint. In the verses 9 up to 18 Shankara

is exposing the view of the prasankhyana vadins, just in order to

thereafter refute these views (including the one in verses 15-16

quoted by you here above). For instance, verse 9 includes the

expression "prasamcakshAm". Moreover, A. J. Alston writes in his

edition of this work, the Upadesha Sahasri: "The view which

Shankara here expounds up to verse 18 and later refutes is known

as the doctrine of the prasankhyAna."

 

 

Warmest regards

Stig Lundgren