Why a commentary?

[Guest guest]

Namaste Stigji,

 

When people disagree about fundamentals which are apparently simple and

straightforward it will often be found that words are being used in slightly

different senses or understood within a different context. Take 'hearing'

for instance. Normally from a psychological point of view we understand what

we hear because we are native speakers, we are within auditory range, the

words are familiar and the context in which they are uttered is known to us.

 

When the matter being presented to us takes the form of a learned lecture on

quantum mechanics then the background to understanding is more complex.

There will be issues which we encountered before and which despite our

pondering still remain obscure. The grasping of difficult concepts almost

requires an overthrowing of previously held notions. Understanding is a slow

and faltering process and insight eludes us.

 

Can this be extended analogically to the pilgrim's progress of the ordinary

seeker. Obviously yes, we start from where we are and work with what we

have.

 

"And the scriptures, which are operative before the dawning of the real

knowledge of the Self cannot transgress the limits of their dependance on

people groping in ignorance."(B.S.B. Preamble)

 

However it has to be remembered that our end point in this is beyond the

pairs of opposites and beyond the rational. What is this 'hearing' of the

shruti that brings liberation? ((At this point everything should go into

quotes to show that there is a change of context)) Hearing in this context

is evidently not the normal psychlogical process because we cannot bring our

normal understanding to something that lies beyond understanding. 'Hearing'

then is an analogical extension of hearing, it is in effect realisation.

Then we really hear shruti.

 

This 'meta-hearing' is where the confusion enters. Ordinary reflection,

meditation and hearing lead to this 'meta-hearing'.

 

Vedanta Paribhasa of Adhvarindra has this to say on the subject. ((Dasgupta

in a Foreward regards it as a vivarna work with a realist epistemology))

"Similarly, hearing, reflection and meditation also are means to knowledge,

since in the section relating to Maitreyi , for the purpose of realisation -

introduced in the passage, "The Self indeed, my dear (Maitreyi) should be

realised" (Br.II.iv.5; IV,v.6) - hearing, reflection and meditation are

enjoined as means to that in the words, "Is to heard of, reflected on and

meditated upon"(ibid). Hearing is a mental activity leading to the

conviction that the Vedantic texts inculcate only Brahman, the One without a

second. Reflection is a mental operation producing ratiocinative knowledge

that leads to the refutation of any possible contradiction from other sources

of knowledge regarding the meaning established by scriptural testimony.

Meditation is a mental operation helping to fix the mind on the Self by

withdrawing it from objects, when it is drawn towards them by latent evil

impressions that have no beginning.

Of these, meditation is the direct cause of the realisation of Brahman, for

we have Sruti texts like, "Following the yoga of meditation, they visualised

that power, which is identical with the Supreme Being, and is hidden by its

own ingredients (gunas)" Sv.I.3 Reflection is a cause of meditation,

because it is not possible for a person who has not reflected to meditate on

the meaning of what has been heard of, for he lacks a conviction about it.

And hearing is a cause of reflection, because in the absence of hearing, the

intention of a passage cannot be ascertained, and consequently no verbal

comprehension can take place, with the result that there cannot be reflection

leading to a certitude about the reasonableness or otherwise of the meaning

of what has been heard of. Some teachers have said that all the three are

causes of the origination of knowledge. ((from The Aim of Vedanta,

Chap.VIII.Pub.Advaita Ashrama))

In Vedanta-sara of Sadananda Chap.V: 181. "Till such realization of the

Consciousness which is one's own Self, it is necessary to practice

hearing,reflection, meditation, and absorption(samadhi)"

 

You mentioned that U.S.XVIII.15,16 is part of an objection which is

subsequently refuted by Shankara. True, sort of. I used it directly from

Satprakashananda Swami's work where that wasn't mentioned. Naughty, mea

culpa. If I had checked I probably would not have used it, however in a sort

of way it reinforces my idea of meta-level. Wriggling a little let me

explain.

U.S. 15,16: No one is seen freed from the distress of this transmigratory

existence simply by understanding the meaning of the sentence(that thou art)

….etc.

18: Therefore, practicing self-control etc. and renouncing everything

incompatible with this end and the means to it, one should practice the said

repetition (that thou art) in order directly to know the Self.

U.S.19: (Reply). This is not so; for the Upanishats end with 'Not this, not

this' (and deal with nothing else). Results to be achieved by means of

actions are heard of in the previous part of the Vedas but not liberation

which has an eternal existence (and is not achievable by means of any action)

What Shankara is here refuting is the idea that any action will bring

liberation. He is not denying the idea that sravana is not sufficent or

that repetition is efficacious.

In fact he states in B.S.B.IV.i.2 that repetition can be efficacious. You

have conflated parts from an objection and an opponent section, as shown in

my Sw.Gambhirananda trans. Further down he states:

"To this we (Vedantins) say: Repetition will be unnecessary for one who can

realise the Self as Brahman after hearing "That thou art" only once. But for

one who cannot do so, repetion is a necessity. Thus it is noticed in the

Chandogya Upanisad that Uddalaka teaches his son, "That thou art, O

Svetaketu" (Ch.VI.viii.7), and then being requested by his son again and

again, "O revered sir, explain to me again" (ibid) he removes the respective

causes of this (Svetaketu's)misconceptions, and teaches that very fact

repeatedly."

 

He also says - "It is a matter of experience that though the meaning may be

vaguely apprehended from a sentence uttered only once, people understand it

fully after removing progressively the false ideas standing in the way,

through a process of sustained consideration."

I don't find anywhere in that section an insistence on sravana alone as the

prime liberating factor. However he does say "Those of sharp intellect on

the other hand who have no obstruction like ignorance, doubt, and confusion,

with regard to the object to be known can realize the meaning of "That thou

art" even from the first utterance, so that a repetition in their case is

certainly useless. For the knowledge of the Self emerging once for all is

able to remove ignorance, and no progressive development is admitted

here."(ibid.)

 

Best Wishes, Michael

 

Stig Lungren wrote:

 

"Stig Lundgren" <slu@b...>

Wed Apr 21, 2004 2:30 am

Re: Why a commentary?

 

 

 

 

 

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."

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Michael and Sri Stig,

 

I think you have raised a very important point over here, and I

understand why there is any dispute over the matter:

 

<<<<What is this 'hearing' of the

> shruti that brings liberation? ((At this point everything should

go into

> quotes to show that there is a change of context)) Hearing in this

context

> is evidently not the normal psychlogical process because we cannot

bring our

> normal understanding to something that lies beyond

understanding. 'Hearing'

> then is an analogical extension of hearing, it is in effect

realisation.

> Then we really hear shruti.>>>>

 

The hearing that is being referred to here, is the revelation made by

the Self of its nature.

 

Nevertheless, I note that Sri Stig is slightly changing his position

here. He maintained earlier that the need for manana and

nidhidhyAsana is nil and that if one is not able to grasp the

knowledge of the shruti in one go, then repetition is necessary. But

now he says otherwise, by quoting Sri Shankara:

 

"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."

 

Therefore, it is being agreed that nidhidhyAsana is necessary for the

ones with lesser preparation. It is also being agreed that it is not

impossible to realize the absolute truth through nidhidhyAsana. The

meaning of the word pramANa used as 'evidence' was contested saying

that if it were the case, then it would mean that the truth of the

Upanishads is known through another means also and that this was an

incorrect view. However now, it is being agreed that nidhidhyAsana

can lead to realization as well. Through nidhidhyAsana, one would

have the pramANa of pratyaksha.

 

Now, assume a person with no preparation at all. You agree that he

needs nidhidhyAsana. Now let's say, after lots of this nidhidhyAsana,

he dies. Then, since he is still not enlightened, he is born again,

under more fortunate circumstances and resorts to the study of

shruti. Poop, he is enlightened! It is surely very possible. But then

is all his spiritual progress only through shravaNa? He could have

realized the same truth, by continuing his nidhidhyAsana, had he not

died.

 

If it is agreed, then there is something common between his previous

birth and our present birth. We are at his original stage. That is

why there is so much stress that I laid on nidhidhyAsana, which I

called practice.

>From what appears from Sri Stig's argument, for the preparation to

understand the shruti, one needs shravaNa. And that is not possible

until you are prepared for it. What is this? Then where do we start?

 

If shravaNa can do everything, then there would be no mention

whatsoever about manana and nidhidhyAsana in Sri Shankara's works.

Also, the Bhagawad Gita, talks a lot about meditation,

(nidhidhyAsana) and detachment, and other things, but talks so less

about shravaNa. If shravaNa is all important for spiritual

upliftment, then why is there so less reference to it?

 

Again according to the restrictions on the reading of shruti, which

is not allowed for shUdras, a shUdra, for no fault of his, who would

desire liberation, can do nothing other than shravaNa, but cannot do

shravaNa either. Thus if shravaNa is so important that it alone

prepares, and it is the only means to realization as well, then not

allowing shUdras to read it amounts to denying liberation to them.

However, the dharmashastras are not so biased. The rules have been

laid out with a purpose. Clearly, then shravaNa is not the only means

to realization. Shruti is evidence, in the sense that enlightened

people documented their knowledge to do good to the world.

 

Again my point is not that shravaNa is useless. Please note that I

took efforts to show the importance of shravaNa too. However, when I

called for a post detailing the importance of shravaNa, I was looking

for a person who would show the real importance of shravaNa and the

meaning of true shravaNa:

 

The knowledge of the self is revealed by the self to the one who

meditates on it. This revelation is the true shravaNa. Given this

revelation, one is enlightened in the same way as the swami came to

know he was the tenth man. It is not jut hearing of the vedas or

Upanishads.

 

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

[Guest guest]

Dear Michelji, Balaji, Vishalji and others who have posted

questions regarding my mails lately: I am sorry for not being

able to reply faster to your questions and viewpoints. All the

postings on this thread are very lengthy (especially those of

mine, I´m afraid), and it takes me some time to prepare my

postings before sending them to the list. Please be patient with

me. I´ll do my best to come back to you as soon as possible. I do

have some lack of time right now.

 

But for now, let´s examine the following message from our dear

Michaelji! I have taken the liberty not to comment upon parts of

the long introduction here, in order to concentrate at the very

core of the problem discussed. This doesn´t mean that I find your

introduction meaningless or anything, not at all. But I feel I

have to catch up with all the messages I still have to respond

to...

 

 

> Vedanta Paribhasa of Adhvarindra has this to say on the

subject. ((Dasgupta

> in a Foreward regards it as a vivarna work with a realist

epistemology))

--------

> Of these, meditation is the direct cause of the realisation of

Brahman,

 

 

This is interesting and a bit odd. Because this standpoint is

usually a feature of the other subtradition, the Bhamati-school.

Vivarana puts the main importance on shravana. Note: Personally I

do not advocate any of these two sub-traditions. They do both

deviate from the original teachings of Adi Shankara, as rightly

pointed out by shri Kathiji a couple of days ago in this thread.

 

 

> of what has been heard of. Some teachers have said that all

the three are

> causes of the origination of knowledge. ((from The Aim of

Vedanta,

> Chap.VIII.Pub.Advaita Ashrama))

 

 

 

I agree that knowledge can rise from any of these three

(shravana, manana and nididhyasana). I have never challenged that

view either, for that matter. What I have challenged (and still

do) is the view that shravana only can NOT give rise to direct

knowledge of Brahman. Because it can, according to Shankara.

 

 

>

> You mentioned that U.S.XVIII.15,16 is part of an objection

which is

> subsequently refuted by Shankara. True, sort of.

 

 

 

"True, sort of"? How can it be just "sort of" true? You where

making this quotation in order to present the standpoint of

Shankara, thereby trying to add strenght to your own

interpretation (I assume). And then it appeared that the quote

actually presented the purvapaksha view, that is, the standpoint

of Shankara´s opponent. Shankara is refuting and defeating this

standpoint. As a matter of fact, by refering to this quote you

unintentionally presented yourself as supporting a standpoint

alien too and contradicting Shankara´s own view on the matter.

 

 

 

I used it directly from

> Satprakashananda Swami's work where that wasn't mentioned.

Naughty, mea

> culpa. If I had checked I probably would not have used it,

however in a sort

> of way it reinforces my idea of meta-level. Wriggling a little

let me

> explain.

> U.S. 15,16: No one is seen freed from the distress of this

transmigratory

> existence simply by understanding the meaning of the

sentence(that thou art)

> ….etc.

> 18: Therefore, practicing self-control etc. and renouncing

everything

> incompatible with this end and the means to it, one should

practice the said

> repetition (that thou art) in order directly to know the Self.

 

 

 

Yes, this is the purvapaksha view (opponent´s view).

 

 

> U.S.19: (Reply). This is not so; for the Upanishats end with

'Not this, not

> this' (and deal with nothing else). Results to be achieved by

means of

> actions are heard of in the previous part of the Vedas but not

liberation

> which has an eternal existence (and is not achievable by means

of any action)

> What Shankara is here refuting is the idea that any action will

bring

> liberation.

 

 

 

That is correct. I fully agree.

 

 

 

He is not denying the idea that sravana is not sufficent or

> that repetition is efficacious.

 

 

 

He is denying that in other parts of Upadesha Sahasri. And in his

bhashyas too, for that matter.

 

 

> In fact he states in B.S.B.IV.i.2 that repetition can be

efficacious.

 

 

 

Yes. But I have never questioned that either, which would be

evident from my earlier posts on this thread, I hope.

 

 

 

You

> have conflated parts from an objection and an opponent section,

as shown in

> my Sw.Gambhirananda trans. Further down he states:

> "To this we (Vedantins) say: Repetition will be unnecessary

for one who can

> realise the Self as Brahman after hearing "That thou art" only

once. But for

> one who cannot do so, repetion is a necessity. Thus it is

noticed in the

> Chandogya Upanisad that Uddalaka teaches his son, "That thou

art, O

> Svetaketu" (Ch.VI.viii.7), and then being requested by his son

again and

> again, "O revered sir, explain to me again" (ibid) he removes

the respective

> causes of this (Svetaketu's)misconceptions, and teaches that

very fact

> repeatedly."

>

 

 

 

Yes, and as you can see, the first part of this quote completely

defeats the interpretation that shravana only can never be

sufficient for perfect knowledge of the Absolute. Shravana is

sufficient for the first rank of aspirants, but repetition is

necessary for the other students of lesser spiritual purity, so

to speak. This is what I have been trying to say in several

postings prior to this one.

 

 

> He also says - "It is a matter of experience that though the

meaning may be

> vaguely apprehended from a sentence uttered only once, people

understand it

> fully after removing progressively the false ideas standing in

the way,

> through a process of sustained consideration."

> I don't find anywhere in that section an insistence on sravana

alone as the

> prime liberating factor.

 

 

Neither do I, and neither have I ever said that shravana is the

"prime liberating factor." When I entered the discussion on this

thread some two weeks ago or so, the following standpoint was

challenged: Is it possible to attain perfect knowledge through

shravana? I tried to the best of my ability to show that Shankara

actually advocates such a view: According to Shankara it is

possible (for the higest rank of aspirants) to actually attain

perfect knowledge through shravana only, and in extreme cases,

already after hearing shruti once.

 

When Balaji asked me about the importance of shravana, I tried to

say this: It is through shravana that the aspirant gets the

necessary information, so to speak, about the standpoint of the

shastras. And this in the same way that you get the necessary

information about a newspaper by reading it. Reasoning and

meditating over the news is not possible without first reading

about them.

 

 

 

However he does say "Those of sharp intellect on

> the other hand who have no obstruction like ignorance, doubt,

and confusion,

> with regard to the object to be known can realize the meaning

of "That thou

> art" even from the first utterance, so that a repetition in

their case is

> certainly useless. For the knowledge of the Self emerging once

for all is

> able to remove ignorance, and no progressive development is

admitted

> here."(ibid.)

 

 

 

Yes, and again this shows clearly that Shankara advocates the

view that perfect and immediate knowledge of the Self is possible

through shravana.

 

 

 

Warmest regards

Stig Lundgren

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Stig,

 

I think the issue is over now. I had agreed that it is possible for

one to be liberated from shravaNa alone, provided one is ready for

it. However, that may not work for all, since not all are ready for

shravaNa. Hence the importance of nidhidhyAsana and meditation.

 

Also, that preparation fof shravaNa needs to come from some manana

and nidhidhyAsana. IMHO, this preparation cannot come from shravaNa,

if it were so simple, then the Bhagawad Gita would have said so and

shrutis would not be meant only for the ones with adhikara - or right

preparation.

 

But lastly, let me point out that when Sri Shankara said that

shravaNa is responsible for the rise of knowledge just like being the

tenth man, he was talking in a different context. The revelation made

by the self about its nature to the seeker has been called either

shravaNa or darshana. Here, the self takes the role of the guru and

hence there is no external guru. The hearing of the Upanishad vAkya

is but external and therefore it need not be just Upanishad vAkya. It

may be the vAkya or some other equivalent text too. And what has led

to realization is not this external hearing but the revelation made

by the self.

 

This is my humble opinion. I donot see any point in discussing this

futility. It is clear that to me nidhidhyAsana is indispensible. So I

must try it. IMHO everyone over here is also at the same stage, some

are surely ahead of me (but never after me), they may do what they

want to.

 

Therefore, it being agreed on both sides that everything like

shravaNa, manana and nidhidhyAsana all have their own importance, I

don't see any point in further discussion. Let's come back to the

month's topic as the moderators are urging us to do so.

 

-Balaji

[Guest guest]

Dear Balaji,

 

 

> Namaste Sri Stig,

>

> I think the issue is over now.

 

 

That´s fine. I will not argue anymore with you on this point.

However, I think it has been nice and interesting to discuss

these things with you. You are very obviously interested in the

tenets and crucial points of Vedanta, and you surely are

motivated by good intentions.

 

By the way, a week back or so I noticed that you have some plans

to visit Stockholm later this year for a conference on

mathematics. Since I am living in the very centre of Stockholm, I

think it would be very nice to meet you here. Please feel free to

contact me if you like. Two years ago I had the great pleasure to

meet our Shri Sadananda here, when he visited the Royal Institute

of Technology for a ten-day conference. Every evening, me and

Shri Sadananda had long and interesting discussions. I also

invited him to the local Tamil temple here (which i frequently

visit), where he held a brilliant and much appriciated lecture on

"The Logic of Spirituality".

 

Anyway, I would just like to make some final remarks to your two

last postings adressed to me, since I have not been able to send

you any answer until now. Please don´t feel forced to post any

reply. I don´t want to drag you into all these arguments once

again. I just want to clarify some points where I think that I

have been somewhat misinterpretated (unintentionally, no doubt).

I will do some cut and pasting here in order to get everything

into one single posting.

 

 

 

> 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.

>

 

 

The meaning here is that the Self reveals only to him who seeks

knowledge of the self. It will not reveal to those who only tries

to learn as much as possible from the Vedas, nor to those only

hearing or only reasoning without the right intention of knowing

 

the Self. One must have the goal of attaining the Self, otherwise

it doesn´t matter how much one learns, hear or speculates. The

intention to really attain the true Self must be there, only

study, hearing or reason will not be sufficient. This is the gist

of Shankara´s bhashya, as I understand it. (Shankara, Ka. Up. Bh.

1.2.23.)

 

So the meaning here is not that gaining perfect and immediate

knowledge from shruti is impossible or anything. The intention is

merely to point out that the aspirant has to be in possesion of

the appropriate attitude and ambitions.

 

The very same passage (as in Katha Upanishad 1.2.23) is to be

found also in Mundaka Upanishad 3.2.3. In his Mundaka bhasya,

Shankara gives a somewhat other (but in no way contradicting)

explanation: Atman is by its very nature always attained, but is

"enveloped in ignorance". When knowledge dawns, then the Self

becomes revealed just as pots etc. in a dark place gets revealed

on the comming of light. Shankara: "Hence the purport is that the

means for the attainment of the Self consists in praying for this

consummation to the exclusion of everything else."

 

I know that you have not questioned this, Balaji. Nor do I think

there are any differences between our standpoints here.

 

 

> 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.

>

 

 

Balaji, I have not overlooked the need for prerequisities. On the

contrary, I have pointed this out over and over again. I have

also (in one of my postings adressing Michaelji) listed the

spiritual qualities desirable before even entering the study of

Vedanta. This according to the vedantic classic Vedantasara,

written in the 15th century by Sadananda Yogindra Saraswati.

 

 

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.

 

 

Of course we shall strive for realization. In fact, this is what

everything is about! But realization (at least according to

Shankara and classical advaita) comes from the grasping of the

shrutis by the help of shravana, manana and nididhyasana (not

necessarily by the help of all three of them). However, shravana

is necessary in the sense that it is through shravana (listening

and study) that the shruti enters our mind, so to speak. If we

don´t know what the shruti says, then how are we supposed to be

capable of manana and nididhyasana? Manana and nididhyasana are

by definition reasoning and meditation on the meaning of the

shruti texts heard through shravana.

 

 

I am very, very much tempted to comment upon that interesting

quotation from H.H. Swami Bharati Tirtha Swamigal! However, since

that would call for an overview of the alternations and

transformations of the Advaita Vedanta-tradition since the days

of Shankara and Sureshvara, I think it would be to comprehensive

and somewhat out-of-bounds from the thread discussed here.

 

 

 

> 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

 

 

 

I am very aware that yoga is so much more than just asanas. In

fact, it is pretty hard to say what activities are to be regarded

as "yoga", since it is such a multifaceted and complex phenomena.

Adhyatma yoga (mentioned in the Katha Upanishad) plays an

important part in the Vedanta of Adi Shankara. I would strongly

recommend a book by Trevor Legget called "The Chapter of the

Self". As far as I remember, this book was written with the

blessings of the former Sringeri Shankaracharya, H.H. Abhinava

Vidyatirtha Swamigal. The kind of yoga accepted by Shankara is

dealt with in this book.

 

 

> 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.

 

 

 

I don´t see any benefit in re-defining the concept "shravana"

like you have done here. Shravana already has a definite meaning

in the Vedanta of Shankara, and it is not about hearing something

from within. You are absolutely right in saying that the

upanishads can only reveal what is there already. But the problem

for the human being is to realize this very fact. Due to innate

ignorance, the human being is superimposing a world of duality

upon what is in truth Brahman. In order to eradicate this

misconception, the discipline of Vedanta is undertaken. And

within Vedanta, shravana means studying or listening to the

vedantic thruts (such as "Tat tvam asi") expounded by a qualified

guru.

 

 

 

The

> meaning of the word pramANa used as 'evidence' was contested

saying

> that if it were the case, then it would mean that the truth of

the

> Upanishads is known through another means also and that this

was an

> incorrect view. However now, it is being agreed that

nidhidhyAsana

> can lead to realization as well.

 

 

There´s no question of any changed standpoints from my side. Yes,

of course nididhyasana can lead to realization. But -- and this

is the important thing to have in mind here -- not without

shruti! Nididhyasana is absolutely not to be considered an

alternative to shruti. It is a means to grasp the upanishadic

statements, not any pramana which can replace the Upanishads.

Attaining moksha is all about grasping the shruti and thereby

erradicate ignorance. Hence, also nididhyasana is something

undertaken in order to grasp the meaning of the Upanishads.

Nididhyasana is meditiation upon the truths proclaimed in the

Upanishads.

 

 

 

 

I had agreed that it is possible for

> one to be liberated from shravaNa alone, provided one is ready

for

> it. However, that may not work for all, since not all are ready

for

> shravaNa. Hence the importance of nidhidhyAsana and meditation.

>

 

 

Yes. I agree.

 

 

> Also, that preparation fof shravaNa needs to come from some

manana

> and nidhidhyAsana. IMHO, this preparation cannot come from

shravaNa,

 

 

Let´s imagine that you need your favourite book, which is placed

on a shelf right under the ceiling. Then you bring your ladder,

which has three steps. If you are a very tall person (qualified

for reaching things placed on highly located shelfs!) you might

reach your book just by climbing up the first step. If not, then

you have to enter the second step. And if that is not enough,

well then you have to enter the third and final step too. You can

not enter the second step if you not have entered the first step

prior to that, neither can you enter the third step without

having first entered the first and second steps. Here, the ladder

is the Upanishads, the first step on this ladder is shravana, the

second manana and the third nididhyasana. The three steps are all

dependent on the ladder, and in the same way are shravana, manana

and nididhyasana dependent on the content of the Upanishads.

 

You can not prepare and qualify yourself for shravana by the help

of manana and nididhyasana, simply because shravana is the first

step of the process. Of course, you can go back to shravana again

after first going through shravana -> manana -> nididhyasana, and

then you are likely more qualified to understand shravana.

Shravana is the first step in the process of understanding the

Upanishads, and thereby also in the study of Vedanta. In fact,

Balaji, you have undergone some shravana already at that very

moment when you first picked up a book and read some upanishadic

statements! Or when you for the first time listened to someone

reciting these upanishadic statements. And naturally, you can not

reasoning or meditate upon these statements without first hearing

or reading them. It is that simple! But just like me (and

99.9999999999...%) of the human population, you did not grasp the

full meaning of these statements. So you had to proceed by

pondering (manana) upon the message of the upanishadic

statements, because before starting to meditate upon them

(nididhyasana), you have to figure out their meaning -- just

repeating a misconception will never lead to right knowledge.

 

 

> From what appears from Sri Stig's argument, for the preparation

to

> understand the shruti, one needs shravaNa. And that is not

possible

> until you are prepared for it. What is this? Then where do we

start?

>

 

 

In one sence you are prepared for shravana as soon as you can

listen (as a small baby!) or as soon as you have learnt to read.

But having the necessary preparations for actually grasping the

meaning of the Upanishads by mere shravana is something entirely

different, of course! If you are approaching a traditional guru

within the Advaita tradition and he agrees on accepting you as

his disciple, then apparently he thinks that you have the

qualifications necessary for entering the studies of the

Upanishads, bhashyas, prakharana granthas etc.etc. The inner

qualities listed in Sadananda Yogindra´s Vedantasara are of

course desireable, and if you are in posession of them all, then

you are likely to be a rather successful student! And such

qualities can be cultivated by karma yoga, as outlined by Adi

Shankara in his Bhagavad Gita Bhashya.

 

However, I would suggest you to put these adhikari-questions

forward to your guru, H. H. Bharathi Tirtha Swamigal. I am sure

he can help you find out how and when to enter your Vedantic

studies.

 

 

Whishing you all the best!

 

Warmest regards

Stig Lundgren