Why aCommentary?

[Guest guest]

Namaste All,

 

The Sruti Says:

 

“Atma va arey Drushtavy, Srotavya, Manthavya, Nididhyasavya”

 

This itself shows, just hearing is not enough. Manana and Nididhyasana must

follow for proper assimilation of That Knowledge. However. Manana takes place

along with sravana to some extent.

 

It is like eating food. While eating food though one “enjoys” the taste, unless

the digestion takes place, the assimilation of the food will not take place and

the system will not be benefited. If the digestive system is not okay, not only

total digestion will not take place, but also the half digested food will come

out through all possible channels. So till assimilation takes place one is not

going to be benefited by eating food, and not only that half assimilation/half

digestion will land him into trouble. Similar is the case with Self Knowledge.

 

Hearing of Sruti vakya itself is very pleasant/enjoyable experience, and once

the assimilation takes place, through manana and nididhyasana, of what is heard,

the seeker will get the benefit of the hearing. If the digestive system is okay,

then only the food gets digested and assimilated. Similarly, if the mind, where

the hearing takes place, is okay, then only the digestion can take place

followed by the assimilation. To be short . . . .“Apnoti Param” happens only

after assimilation of That Knowledge.

 

Though Commentaries serve the purpose of some sort of Manana for the seeker that

may not help in total assimilation.

 

This is my understanding.

 

Hari Om and warm regards

 

Mani

 

 

 

 

Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Maniji,

 

 

 

Maniji wrote:

****************************************************

The Sruti Says:

 

"Atma va arey Drushtavy, Srotavya, Manthavya, Nididhyasavya"

 

This itself shows, just hearing is not enough. Manana and

Nididhyasana must follow for proper assimilation of That

Knowledge. However. Manana takes place along with sravana to some

extent.

*****************************************************

 

 

 

The quote is from Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2.4.5. Thanks for

bringing this up, because at first glance, Shankara´s bhashya on

the shruti quotation above, seems to give support to the

conclusion you have made here. Shankara´s bhashya reads as

follows:

 

"Therefore the Self is to be seen, to be made an object of

direct vision. First it has been heard -- heard from the Teacher

and from the Vedic texts as interpretated by the Teacher. Then it

has to be reflected on rationally. Then it has to be meditated

on. For this is how the Self comes to be seen. It comes to be

seen by those who apply themselves to hearing, reflection and

meditation. True realization of the Absolute as the sole reality

only dawns when the three disciplines of hearing, reflection and

meditation are fused into one. It does not (normally) dawn

otherwise, for instance on the basis of mere hearing." (Shankara,

Brih. Up. Bh. 2.4.5., here quoted from the translation made by

A.J. Alston in "Shankara on Enlightenment" p.84).

 

However, in several other passages in his works, Shankara

propagates a standpoint seemingly in contradiction with the

passage here. In an earlier posting in reply to Shri Balaji

(message 21947), I presented some quotes where Shankara claims

that absolute knowledge of the Absolute is possible from the very

hearing of the shruti text, yes even from hearing it once! (That

is, given that the aspirant do have the nessary spiritual

qualifications and preparations). I will present some of those

quotes again for convenience:

 

"Here you might object that no concrete experience like the

concrete satisfaction that follows eating arises from the mere

hearing of a sentence. And to analyze a sentence in the hope of

getting a concrete experience is like trying to make milk-pudding

out of cow-dung. To this we reply that it is true that all

sentences about the not-self yield abstract knowledge only. But

it is not so with sentences about the inmost Self, for there are

exceptions, as in the case of the one who realized he was the

tenth. One should accept that the Self is its own means of

knowledge, which means it is directly knowable to itself. On our

view, when the ego is dissolved, experience of one´s own Self is

realized." (Shankara, Upadesha Sahasri, 18.201-203)

 

"Meanwhile, those gifted persons who are not afflicted by any

ignorance, doubt or erroneous knowledge to obstruct the

comprehensions of the meaning of the words can have direct

knowledge of the meaning of the sentence when it is heard only

once. For them, repetition would quite evidently be superfluous.

For once the Self is known, this knowledge suppresses nescience.

[...] But in the case of the person in whom this immediate

experience does not arise at once, we admit that repetition is

necessary in order to aquire that immediate experience. But even

here, one should not become involved in any departure from the

true meaning of the text 'That thou art' through false ideas

about what is implied by 'repetition'. One does not marry off

one´s daughter with the idea of killing the bridegroom."

(Shankara, Bh. Su. Bh. 4.1.1-2.)

 

So what do we have here? A contradiction between authorative and

genuine works by Adi Shankara? I believe the solution is to be

found in the last quotation given here above. For the very, very

major part of the aspirants -- even those of high merits and good

inner qualities -- not only shravana, but also manana and

nididhyasana are needed. But for some extraordinary aspirants,

those extreme cases, only hearing is needed. Yes, for some rare

people, even hearing shruti once gives rise to direct knowledge

of the Absolute! The Brih. Up. Bh.-quote apparently is referring

to the first category of aspirants, that is, those who need the

process of repetition in order to gain perfect knowledge.

 

The argument that the mere hearing of shruti can give rise to

direct knowledge, is prevalent also in Upadesha Sahasri. In this

work, Shankara is able to present his own teachings without

having to comment upon prasthana traya. Naturally, this gave him

all desirable opportunity to express his true meaning on the

nature of such things as moksha and knowledge of the Absolute.

Hence, we can most probably conclude that the quotation given

here above from Upadesha Sahasri, really is representing his true

conviction. Of course, this doesn´t mean that his bhashyas do

contain views he didn´t in fact endorse or anything! But the very

nature of bhashyas is to comment upon an already existing text,

and therefore the choise of words and expressions in the bhashya

is depending on the words and expressions in the original text.

This might explain why the passage from Brih. Up. Bh. 2.4.5.

contains expressions seemingly (at a first glance) in

contradition with other quotations.

 

By the way, in Upadesha Sahasri there is also this comprehensive

refutation of the prasankhyAna vada -- a standpoint that includes

the very viewpoint that you have yourself stated as your own

interpretation, namely that perfect knowledge through shravana is

impossible. This is refuted by Shankara, and this also gives

strenght to the conclusion that his bhashya on Brih. Up. 2.4.5.

must be interpretated in the light of other -- and numerous --

passages in his bhashyas and in Upadesha Sahasri.

 

Let me conclude this by presenting the standpoint and

understanding of Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati, who had payed

much attention to the interpretation of Shankara regarding

shravana, manana and nididhyasana. His undispensible book "The

Vision of Atman" is actually dedicated to the examination of

these three concepts and their relationship to each other. On

page 53 Satchidanandendra Swamiji summarize Shankara´s standpoint

as follows:

 

"(1) The intuition of the identity of Brahman and Atman is quite

possible for those who have a correct notion of what the terms of

the proposition 'That thou art' actually mean. They stand in no

need of anything more than a first hearing of the teaching.

 

(2) The repetition of both Shravana and Manana is necessary for

those who have not comprehended the meaning of these terms.

 

(3) The only obstacle to the correct understanding of the meaning

of the terms is ignorance, doubt or misconception of the meaning

of these terms.

 

(4) There is nothing more to be done for the acqusition of

intuition or freedom from Samsara for those who have understood

the meaning of the proposition."

 

 

 

Maniji wrote:

*****************************************************

It is like eating food. While eating food though one "enjoys" the

taste, unless the digestion takes place, the assimilation of the

food will not take place and the system will not be benefited. If

the digestive system is not okay, not only total digestion will

not take place, but also the half digested food will come out

through all possible channels. So till assimilation takes place

one is not going to be benefited by eating food, and not only

that half assimilation/half digestion will land him into trouble.

Similar is the case with Self Knowledge.

Hearing of Sruti vakya itself is very pleasant/enjoyable

experience, and once the assimilation takes place, through manana

and nididhyasana, of what is heard, the seeker will get the

benefit of the hearing. If the digestive system is okay, then

only the food gets digested and assimilated. Similarly, if the

mind, where the hearing takes place, is okay, then only the

digestion can take place followed by the assimilation. To be

short . . . ."Apnoti Param" happens only after assimilation of

That Knowledge.

Though Commentaries serve the purpose of some sort of Manana for

the seeker that may not help in total assimilation.

*************************************************'

 

 

 

I´m afraid, this is not according to the standpoint of Adi

Shankara. See the quote from Upadesha Sahasri, 18.201-203

presented here above. There is a fundamental difference between

knowledge of the Self, and knowledge of something external to

your own true nature, such as food. I refer to my reply to Shri

Balaji (message 21887) and to Shri Mohanji (message 22029).

 

 

Warmest regards

Stig Lundgren

[Guest guest]

Namaste Stigji.

 

I have been following this thread with great interest. With you now

quoting Sw. Satchitanandendra Saraswaji, I cannot any more resist the

temptation to jump in.

 

Kindly, therefore, clarify:

 

(a) Is the 'correct notion' in # 1 of your quote below of Swamiji

just an intellectual, academic appreciation or final Enlightenment?

 

(b) If it is the former, then isn't continuous contemplation, as

stressed by Maniji, still required for that academic appreciation to

really sink in and consume the aspirant?

 

© # 4 of the quote seems to answer my (b) above in the negative.

Here Swamiji seems to suggest that the acquisition of intuition

itself is freedom from samsAra. One may have that intuition off and

on. To be free from the shackles of samsAra, doesn't one need to

have it uninterruptedly like the stitaprajna of SrImad Bhagawad GItA?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_________________________________

 

 

 

advaitin, "Stig Lundgren" <slu@b...> wrote:

 

Let me conclude this by presenting the standpoint and

> understanding of Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswati, who had payed

> much attention to the interpretation of Shankara regarding

> shravana, manana and nididhyasana. His undispensible book "The

> Vision of Atman" is actually dedicated to the examination of

> these three concepts and their relationship to each other. On

> page 53 Satchidanandendra Swamiji summarize Shankara´s standpoint

> as follows:

>

> "(1) The intuition of the identity of Brahman and Atman is quite

> possible for those who have a correct notion of what the terms of

> the proposition 'That thou art' actually mean. They stand in no

> need of anything more than a first hearing of the teaching.

>

> (2) The repetition of both Shravana and Manana is necessary for

> those who have not comprehended the meaning of these terms.

>

> (3) The only obstacle to the correct understanding of the meaning

> of the terms is ignorance, doubt or misconception of the meaning

> of these terms.

>

> (4) There is nothing more to be done for the acqusition of

> intuition or freedom from Samsara for those who have understood

> the meaning of the proposition."

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Madathilji,

 

 

I am happy to know that you are following this thread with great

interest, as I was a bit afraid that most members where by now

completely fed up (well, maybe they are!) with my postings on the

subject of shravana and immediate knowledge through shastras. I

will try my best to comment upon your questions. So here we go...

 

 

You wrote:

**********************************************

(a) Is the 'correct notion' in # 1 of your quote below of

Swamiji

just an intellectual, academic appreciation or final

Enlightenment?

**********************************************

 

 

My answer: It is about final Enligthtenment. When the core

teachings (such as "Tat tvam asi") of the Upanishads are

completely and fully grasped, eradication of ignorance and direct

knowledge is the result.

 

 

 

You wrote:

**************************************

(b) If it is the former, then isn't continuous contemplation, as

stressed by Maniji, still required for that academic appreciation

to

really sink in and consume the aspirant?

**************************************'

 

 

My answer: But it is not about "academic appreciation".

 

 

 

You wrote:

*************************************************

© # 4 of the quote seems to answer my (b) above in the

negative.

*************************************************

 

 

My answer: Yes.

 

 

 

You wrote:

*************************************************

Here Swamiji seems to suggest that the acquisition of intuition

itself is freedom from samsAra. One may have that intuition off

and

on. To be free from the shackles of samsAra, doesn't one need to

have it uninterruptedly like the stitaprajna of SrImad Bhagawad

GItA?

**************************************************

 

 

My answer: But "intutition" in this context shall not be

interpretated as something temporarily, that is, like samadhi or

deep sleep for instance. Perfect knowledge of vakyas such as

"That thou art" eradicates ignorance and thereby gives rise to

the intuition of Brahman. This intuition is the means of final

liberation. It is the very realization that comes the very moment

avidya is eradicated through the study of the shruti. It is not a

separate pramana existing as an alternative to shruti or

anything.

 

 

Warmest regards

Stig Lundgren

 

 

 

> page 53 Satchidanandendra Swamiji summarize Shankara´s

standpoint

> as follows:

>

> "(1) The intuition of the identity of Brahman and Atman is

quite

> possible for those who have a correct notion of what the terms

of

> the proposition 'That thou art' actually mean. They stand in no

> need of anything more than a first hearing of the teaching.

>

> (2) The repetition of both Shravana and Manana is necessary for

> those who have not comprehended the meaning of these terms.

>

> (3) The only obstacle to the correct understanding of the

meaning

> of the terms is ignorance, doubt or misconception of the

meaning

> of these terms.

>

> (4) There is nothing more to be done for the acqusition of

> intuition or freedom from Samsara for those who have understood

> the meaning of the proposition."

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Stigji.

 

Thanks a lot for the clarification. Swamiji's point of view is very

clear to me now. Although I came to know of him only lately through

Atmachaitanyaji's and Savitriji's posts of last year here, his

approach to vEdanta has impressed and influenced me much since then.

 

Kindly see my post 22427 addressed to Bhaskarji about pUrNamadah. Do

you think you can help us there? Incidentally, Bhaskarji also holds

Swamiji in high esteem. We talked about him last June when we met in

Bangalore. Bhaskarji was then kind enough to present me with one of

Swamiji's works. We both would, therefore, appreciate listening to

you about how you understand pUrNamadah against Swamiji's teaching of

prastAnatraya.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair