Guest guest Posted December 3, 2004 Report Share Posted December 3, 2004 praNAms Hare Krishna The world is non-dualistic inspite of dualistic nature of it. If the absolute truth is completely non-dualistic like *completely void* then duality what we are perceiving in day to day life is unreal like the water in the deserted mirage & thus karma kAnda in vEda which is propagating all types of injuctions is useless. The elaborated description of creation, sustenance & dissolution in scriptures would be vain. As is the case with practical injuction enshrined in scriptures i.e. to hear about it (shrvaNa), to ponder over it (manana) & subject it to sustained meditation (nidhidhyAsana) to realise paramArtha jnAna (ultimate knowledge). So, it is a wise decision to think that shruti *pUrNamadaM* saying That is infinite or in other words non-dualistic *cause* the supreme reality & *pUrNamidaM* This is also infinite or in other words non-dualistic *effect* the supreme reality (in the form of world). The *effect* or the world is infinite coz. even when produced it is non-different from its material cause & at the time of cosmic dissolution it will again remain infinite as the cause. Thus cause & effect should both be seen as ever infinite in past, present & future. It is this one infinite that is taught as undergoing distinction as cause & effect. In the same way, the Absolute is both dualistic & non-dualistic. The sea consisting of water, waves, ripples, bubble, foam etc. & since all these *arise* from the *water* are just as much the *nature* of the sea as the water is. It may be true that these things come & go but they are perfectly real for all that. And all this world of duality is equally real too comparable to the water & waves in the above illustration. The absolute in its supreme form is comparable to the water & the sea. Dear prabhuji-s, sounds like very popular & *close to the heart* advaita theory!!! Yes, most of the learned prabhuji-s say like that in this forum. But unfortunately, this is not based on shankara's advaita vEdAnta. The above theory has been refuted by bAdarAyaNa in vEdAnta sUtra, shankara himself in bruhadAraNyaka bhAshya & sUtra bhAshya & sureshwarAchArya in bruhad vArthika & naishkarmya siddhi. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2004 Report Share Posted December 3, 2004 dear Prabuji! You state in your message "Dear prabhuji-s, sounds like very popular & *close to the heart* advaita theory!!! Yes, most of the learned prabhuji-s say like that in this forum." Yes, Prabhu-ji! Shriman Nair-ji's exposition on 'Purnamidam' , Chitta's discussion of "Real and Unnreal" and Dennis waite and ego- dust-jis ( to name a few) views are close to my heart only because they appeal to my Heart than the dry intellct. When i read their posts , i do not wonder whether These are based on sri Shankara's OR Gaudapada'S PHILOSOPHY ETC . If their contents make sense and my spirits lift up and they bring a smile to my lips and a joy to my heart and if i feel blissful , i think that really does more for ADWAITHA than all intellectual gymnastics! would you not agree, Prabhu-ji? just my feelings! i may be way out of line! smiles! love and regards advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote: > praNAms > Hare Krishna > > The world is non-dualistic inspite of dualistic nature of it. If the > absolute truth is completely non-dualistic like *completely void* then > duality what we are perceiving in day to day life is unreal like the water > in the deserted mirage & thus karma kAnda in vEda which is propagating all > types of injuctions is useless. The elaborated description of creation, > sustenance & dissolution in scriptures would be vain. As is the case with > practical injuction enshrined in scriptures i.e. to hear about it > (shrvaNa), to ponder over it (manana) & subject it to sustained meditation > (nidhidhyAsana) to realise paramArtha jnAna (ultimate knowledge). > > So, it is a wise decision to think that shruti *pUrNamadaM* saying That is > infinite or in other words non-dualistic *cause* the supreme reality & > *pUrNamidaM* This is also infinite or in other words non-dualistic *effect* > the supreme reality (in the form of world). The *effect* or the world is > infinite coz. even when produced it is non-different from its material > cause & at the time of cosmic dissolution it will again remain infinite as > the cause. Thus cause & effect should both be seen as ever infinite in > past, present & future. It is this one infinite that is taught as > undergoing distinction as cause & effect. > > In the same way, the Absolute is both dualistic & non-dualistic. The sea > consisting of water, waves, ripples, bubble, foam etc. & since all these > *arise* from the *water* are just as much the *nature* of the sea as the > water is. It may be true that these things come & go but they are > perfectly real for all that. And all this world of duality is equally real > too comparable to the water & waves in the above illustration. The > absolute in its supreme form is comparable to the water & the sea. > > Dear prabhuji-s, sounds like very popular & *close to the heart* advaita > theory!!! Yes, most of the learned prabhuji-s say like that in this forum. > But unfortunately, this is not based on shankara's advaita vEdAnta. The > above theory has been refuted by bAdarAyaNa in vEdAnta sUtra, shankara > himself in bruhadAraNyaka bhAshya & sUtra bhAshya & sureshwarAchArya in > bruhad vArthika & naishkarmya siddhi. > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 3, 2004 Report Share Posted December 3, 2004 Hi Bhaskar-ji, I often feel that you have most of us at a disadvantage when it comes to quoting scriptural sources (certainly you have me at a disadvantage!). You say: <<And all this world of duality is equally real too comparable to the water & waves in the above illustration. The absolute in its supreme form is comparable to the water & the sea. Dear prabhuji-s, sounds like very popular & *close to the heart* advaita theory!!! Yes, most of the learned prabhuji-s say like that in this forum. But unfortunately, this is not based on shankara's advaita vEdAnta.>> As I say, I do not wish to embark upon a discussion in which quotations are banded back and forth because I will not be able to keep it up! But, to say that Shankara did not say anything that could endorse this is surely wrong. I seem to recall that Chittaranjan-ji argued this successfully some time ago. However, it does so happen that I recently read the following in Swami Satprakashananda's 'Methods of Knowledge': "It is true that, according to Advaita Vedanta, Brahman alone is real and the world is unreal. But the unreality of the world does not mean, as is often misunderstood, that the world is a mere shadow without substance, a pure illusion, or a void. The world as it appears to us is unreal because it has no absolute existence; but in its essential nature, as Brahman, the world is absolutely real, for it is Brahman that appears in this form, without undergoing any change whatsoever. So says Shankara, 'Brahman, the Cause, does not lack existence at any of the three periods of time, neither does the world, its effect. Since there is only one Existence pure and simple, the effect is non-different from the cause.' (This is referred to B.S II.1.16 commentary - DW) All effects with different names and forms are real only as Pure Existence but unreal in themselves. Just as a clay pot has no existence apart from clay so the manifold has no existence apart from Brahman, its cause. In itself it is a conglomeration of names and forms. It should not be regarded as a self-subsistent entity. As identical in essence with Brahman it is real. (This is referred to Ch.U. VI.2.1,2 commentary - DW)" And none of this is to bring up the notorious B.S. II.2.28 commentary! So did Shankara say such things or didn't he? Best wishes, Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 Hi Bhaskar-ji, praNAm Sri Dennis Waite prabhuji Hare Krishna DW prabhuji: I often feel that you have most of us at a disadvantage when it comes to quoting scriptural sources (certainly you have me at a disadvantage!). bhaskar : I am really surprised to hear this!! Shastra-s are the antya pramANa (ultimate valid means of knowledge) which is in line with anubhava to do brahma jignAsa. So, it is indeed our good fortune that seers of vedic lore have compassionately given us this divine knowledge through scriptures. Hence, I'd like to onceagain emphasize on the indispensable validity of the scriptural sources with commentaries from our AchAraya bhagavadpAda in resolving the problems in tattva/brahma jignAsa. DW prabhuji: You say: <<And all this world of duality is equally real too comparable to the water & waves in the above illustration. The absolute in its supreme form is comparable to the water & the sea. Dear prabhuji-s, sounds like very popular & *close to the heart* advaita theory!!! Yes, most of the learned prabhuji-s say like that in this forum. But unfortunately, this is not based on shankara's advaita vEdAnta.>> As I say, I do not wish to embark upon a discussion in which quotations are banded back and forth because I will not be able to keep it up! But, to say that Shankara did not say anything that could endorse this is surely wrong. bhaskar : prabhuji, for your kind information *the theory* which I've drafted in my mail has been refuted by shankara in his bhAshya on khila kAnda of bruhadAraNyaka. Seeing the *parts* & yet treating it as a *whole* is not advaita stand...if you need any further details on this kindly refer shankara bhAshya on 5-1-1 of bruhadAraNyka & ArambhaNadhikaraNam (2-1-14?? not sure) in sUtra bhAshya. If I am wrongly interpreting shankara, kindly bring it to my notice with appropriate reference from shankara bhAshya. I'd be ever ready to correct my stand. DW prabhuji: I seem to recall that Chittaranjan-ji argued this successfully some time ago. However, it does so happen that I recently read the following in Swami Satprakashananda's 'Methods of Knowledge': "It is true that, according to Advaita Vedanta, Brahman alone is real and the world is unreal. But the unreality of the world does not mean, as is often misunderstood, that the world is a mere shadow without substance, a pure illusion, or a void. The world as it appears to us is unreal because it has no absolute existence; but in its essential nature, as Brahman, the world is absolutely real, for it is Brahman that appears in this form, without undergoing any change whatsoever. So says Shankara, 'Brahman, the Cause, does not lack existence at any of the three periods of time, neither does the world, its effect. Since there is only one Existence pure and simple, the effect is non-different from the cause.' (This is referred to B.S II.1.16 commentary - DW) All effects with different names and forms are real only as Pure Existence but unreal in themselves. Just as a clay pot has no existence apart from clay so the manifold has no existence apart from Brahman, its cause. In itself it is a conglomeration of names and forms. It should not be regarded as a self-subsistent entity. As identical in essence with Brahman it is real. (This is referred to Ch.U. VI.2.1,2 commentary - DW)" bhaskar : Thanks for the quotes from shankara bhAshya...as you can see this is in refutation of sAnkhya philosophers pradhAna kAraNatva & it_is_not_a_general guideline to shuddhA advaita prakriya followers... shankara makes his point clear in 4th adhyAya of the sUtra why both cause & effect both are avidyAkruta & it is only meant for those who believe in the origination of jagat from pradhAna kAraNatva. The primordial fact (mukhyArtha) here is to propagate the *essence* of both cause & effect & not the propagation of cause & effect per se. DW prabhuji: And none of this is to bring up the notorious B.S. II.2.28 commentary! So did Shankara say such things or didn't he? bhaskar : I dont know why 2-2-28 is a notorious commentary when the context is very clear!! My parama guruji Sri Satichidaanandendra Saraswati in his sanskrit book *mAndUkya rahasya vivrutti* deals with this *notorious commentary* elaborately....if god wills, we will take it up for further discussion some other day. Best wishes, Dennis Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 dear Prabuji! praNAm mAtAji Hare Krishna You state in your message "Dear prabhuji-s, sounds like very popular & *close to the heart* advaita theory!!! Yes, most of the learned prabhuji-s say like that in this forum." Adi mAtAji : Yes, Prabhu-ji! Shriman Nair-ji's exposition on 'Purnamidam' , Chitta's discussion of "Real and Unnreal" and Dennis waite and ego- dust-jis ( to name a few) views are close to my heart only because they appeal to my Heart than the dry intellct. When i read their posts , i do not wonder whether These are based on sri Shankara's OR Gaudapada'S PHILOSOPHY ETC . bhaskar : then it is purely *emotional* attachment to *what one says* rather than what has *actually* been said in our AchArya's works..is it not mAtAji?? nirguNatva of parabrahman is not a dry intellectual theory, this is what purported by shruti-s & upholded by advaita's traditional teachers. For emotionally driven souls we do have somany deva-devata-s to do the worship...Hence there is a provision for saguNa brahman & upAsana in advaita. Adi mAtAji : If their contents make sense and my spirits lift up and they bring a smile to my lips and a joy to my heart and if i feel blissful , i think that really does more for ADWAITHA than all intellectual gymnastics! would you not agree, Prabhu-ji? If their contents make sense and my spirits lift up and they bring a smile to my lips and a joy to my heart and if i feel blissful , i think that really does more for ADWAITHA than all intellectual gymnastics! would you not agree, Prabhu-ji? bhaskar : mAtAji, when my 10 months old son calls me *papa* with a twinkle in his eyes it gives me soothing effect to my heart & brings me affectionate smile on my face. But my *dry intellect* intervene & says this relationship is purely temporary & this son who is melting his father's heart with all his sweet voice & sublime look has only empirical relation to father who is identifying himself with his body & mind as a father & it is valid as long as this *father* is there in this bag of flesh & bones!! For that matter, I'd like to see this *world* as a permanent reality & would love to enjoy these relations forever ...but *dry intellect* profusely pouring all realities of unreality of this relationship!! what to do sometimes undigestable hard reality scores over the emotions & sentiments !! Adi mAtAji : just my feelings! i may be way out of line! smiles! love and regards bhaskar : praNAms mAtAji onceagain, I can understand the intensity of mAtru vAtsalya though I lost it at my young age.. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 6, 2004 Report Share Posted December 6, 2004 Dear Bhaskar Prabhuji, I liked this post of yours. It is nice to see the gentler side of our Prabhuji. No dryness at all. :-) When AdiMa says that Nairji's or Dennisji's or my views are close to her heart, it is probably due to her being a Tantric Advaitin which resonates more with our views. In Tantra, there is a little more colour and emotion - it is sometimes called the 'weaving of the magic carpet'. But that is one part of the story. The other part is that I have seen AdiMa admiring you (in my email communications with her) for your deep sense of ananya guru bhakti and Vaishnava humility. Today AdiMa is not in this list.... she has quit the group.... and that is why I am taking the liberty of writing these words. I am sure that if she were still in the group, she would have poured all her motherly love over you for this mail of yours. Ah, well... Lastly, I'm sure that you don't believe Advaita is dry intellect. Its pleasures are not of the mind, that's all. It is the enduring bliss of Self. Warm regards, Chittaranjan advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote: > Adi mAtAji : > > Yes, Prabhu-ji! Shriman Nair-ji's exposition on 'Purnamidam' , > Chitta's discussion of "Real and Unnreal" and Dennis waite and ego- > dust-jis ( to name a few) views are close to my heart only because > they appeal to my Heart than the dry intellct. When i read their > posts , i do not wonder whether These are based on sri Shankara's > OR Gaudapada'S PHILOSOPHY ETC. If their contents make sense and my > spirits lift up and they bring a smile to my lips and a joy to my > heart and if i feel blissful , i think that really does more for > ADWAITHA than all intellectual gymnastics! would you not agree, > Prabhu-ji? > bhaskar : > > mAtAji, when my 10 months old son calls me *papa* with a > twinkle in his eyes it gives me soothing effect to my heart > & brings me affectionate smile on my face. But my *dry intellect* > intervene & says this relationship is purely temporary & this > son who is melting his father's heart with all his sweet voice > & sublime look has only empirical relation to father who is > identifying himself with his body & mind as a father & it is > valid as long as this *father* is there in this bag of flesh > & bones!! For that matter, I'd like to see this *world* as > a permanent reality & would love to enjoy these relations > forever ...but *dry intellect* profusely pouring all > realities of unreality of this relationship!! what to do > sometimes undigestable hard reality scores over the emotions > & sentiments !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 Dear Bhaskar Prabhuji, praNAm Sri Chittaranjan prabhuji Hare Krishna Since AdimAtAji instructed me to reply this mail, I shall try to say few words. CN prabhuji : I liked this post of yours. It is nice to see the gentler side of our Prabhuji. No dryness at all. :-) bhaskar : yes, my *dry intellect* getting wet by affectionate nector (vAtsalya dhAra) profusely oozing out from Adi mAtAji's noble heart. CN prabhuji: When AdiMa says that Nairji's or Dennisji's or my views are close to her heart, it is probably due to her being a Tantric Advaitin which resonates more with our views. In Tantra, there is a little more colour and emotion - it is sometimes called the 'weaving of the magic carpet'. But that is one part of the story. bhaskar : Thanks for sharing the information. I did not know that advaita has something to do in tAntric sAdhana. All these days I was thinking tantra sAdhana is karma pradhAna & purusha tantra & advaita is jnAna pradhAna & vastu tantra. CN prabhuji: The other part is that I have seen AdiMa admiring you (in my email communications with her) for your deep sense of ananya guru bhakti and Vaishnava humility. bhaskar : prabhuji, it is guru kAruNya prasAdaM CN prabhuji: Today AdiMa is not in this list.... she has quit the group.... and that is why I am taking the liberty of writing these words. bhaskar : Thanks a lot for your kind words prabhuji... CN prabhuji: I am sure that if she were still in the group, she would have poured all her motherly love over you for this mail of yours. Ah, well... bhaskar : Yes, she has already poured all her affection on me through her direct mail to me. My humble prostrations to divine mAtAji. CN prabhuji: Lastly, I'm sure that you don't believe Advaita is dry intellect. Its pleasures are not of the mind, that's all. It is the enduring bliss of Self. bhaskar : Yes, advaita is not for mere intellectual understanding nor it is a dry philosophy...the advaita tattva (the pUrNa svarUpa) is beyond the reach of manO vAk..& it is *AS IS* always!!! Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 8, 2004 Report Share Posted December 8, 2004 Dear Bhaskar Prabhuji, advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote: > bhaskar prabhuji: > > Thanks for sharing the information. I did not know that advaita > has something to do in tAntric sAdhana. All these days I was > thinking tantra sAdhana is karma pradhAna & purusha tantra & > advaita is jnAna pradhAna & vastu tantra. CN: Jnyanadeva's 'Amrutanubhava' is a work of Advaita Tantra in the line of Gorakanatha and Matsyendranatha. There is Advaita also in Kashmir Shaivism. This is often refered to as Non-Dual Kashmir Shaivism. It has its roots in Siva Sutra (revealed by Lord Shiva to Vasuguptanatha) and Utpaladeva's 'Ishvara Pratyabhijna Karika'. Its greatest exponent is Abhinavagupta, who is regarded by the tradition as an incarnation of Dakshinamurthy. One of the three paths in the Advaita Tantra of Kashmir Shaivism is 'sambhavopaya' which corresponds to the jnyana marga of Advaita Vedanta. The other two paths are called 'shaktopaya' and 'anavopaya'. There is sometimes mention of a fourth path which is completely asparsa and is called 'anupaya' - its path is to 'sit while sitting' and 'eat while eating' (as you find in some schools of Zen Buddhism). In Advaita Tantra, there are 36 tattvas as compared to the 24 tattvas of Advaita Vedanta (and Samkhya). What are these additional 12 tattvas? First, there are these two additional tattvas: i) Maya - the illusion of individuality. (Maya is used to refer to the illusory power that befuddles the mind. In the higher state of realisation, maya is transformed into Shakti). ii) Purusha - in Shaivism, purusha is not a realised soul. He is Consciousness that is circumscribed by the body. The realised soul is Shiva. Then there are 5 tattvas which are the limitations engendered by maya. These are the five coverings which entangle and bind the purusha. They are: i) Niyati tattva - which creates the limitation that purusha is limited by space ii) Kaala tattva - which creates the limitation that purusha is limited by time iii) Raaga tattva - which creates the limitation that purusha is not full and hence generates attachment iv) Vidya tattva - which creates the limitation that purusha knows 'only this much' that is limited v) Kala tattva - which creates the limitation that purusha has 'some particular' artistic or creative talent So far we have 31 tattvas. Then there are the final five Shuddha tattvas. These are: i) Shuddha vidya tattva - this is purusha realising his own nature. It results in the realisation that 'I am Siva, this universe is unreal'. ii) Ishvara tattva - this is the realisation that 'this universe is not an illusion, it is my own expansion'. iii) Sadashiva tattva - this is the realisation that 'I am this whole universe'. iv) Sakti tattva - it is the realisation of 'Pure I'. v) Parama Shiva tattva - this is the final Being which does not come in the cycle of tattvas. It is everywhere, it is nowhere. It is the non-dual Indescribable. In the 'Manasallosa' of Suresvaracharya on the 'Dakshinamurthy Stotra' of Shankaracharya, you will find mention of these 36 tattvas. Advaita Tantra is Advaita through another path. Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2004 Report Share Posted December 13, 2004 In the 'Manasallosa' of Suresvaracharya on the 'Dakshinamurthy Stotra' of Shankaracharya, you will find mention of these 36 tattvas. Advaita Tantra is Advaita through another path. praNAm Sri Chittaranjan prabhuji Hare Krishna Thanks a lot for sharing this information with me...its more or less sounds like mAhEshwara mata to me which as you know shankara taken for refutation in sUtra bhAshya. As regards to mAnasOllAsa, I think we have very good reasons to argue that it is not from the pen of vArtikakAra (the author of brahadAraNyaka, taitirIya vArtika & naishkarmya siddhi). These 36 guNa-s, special emphasization on yOga practices & siddhi-s & elaborated glorification of shiva shakti etc. prompts us to think that this work is from an eminent shaiva pundit. After reading your mail it appears that this may be a work of kashmir shaivism...what's your opinion prabhuji?? Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2004 Report Share Posted December 13, 2004 Dear Bhaskarji, advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote: > As regards to mAnasOllAsa, I think we have very good > reasons to argue that it is not from the pen of > vArtikakAra (the author of brahadAraNyaka, taitirIya > vArtika & naishkarmya siddhi). These 36 guNa-s, > special emphasization on yOga practices & siddhi-s > & elaborated glorification of shiva shakti etc. prompts > us to think that this work is from an eminent shaiva pundit. > After reading your mail it appears that this may be a > work of kashmir shaivism...what's your opinion prabhuji?? The way I understand Shankara Advaita, all these works - Manasollasa, Vivekachudamani, and even Soundaryalahari - fits into its scheme beautifully. According to Advaita Vedanta, the world cannot be said to be either real or unreal. Kashmir Shaivism lays more emphasis on saying it is real than on saying it is unreal whereas Advaita Vedanta lays more emphasis on saying it is unreal than on saying it is real. It all lies in what is chosen to be 'said' of something that cannot be said to be either real or unreal. Of course, the phrase 'cannot be said' points only to an epistemological inadequacy and not to its ontological nature. Even in Kashmir Shaivism, the world is 'unreal' in a manner of conception - the 'Ishvara Pratyabhijna Karika' even uses some vijnanavada-type arguments to indicate the pure voidness of things in themselves. But Utpaladeva says that this voidness is only in the conception of the object devoid of its 'soul' as it were. Kashmir Shaivism is purva paksha for Advaita Vedanta just as Advaita Vedanta is purva paksha for Kashmir Shaivism. Suresvaracharya states in the Manasollasa that all these different doctrines (including doctrines such as Samkhya and Nyaya-Vaiseshika, etc) are always there in Reality and that they manifest themselves in the scheme of creation. I was merely pointing out that there is Advaita also in the Tantric tradition. I am currently reading Abhinavagupta's 'Gitartha Sangraha' and comparing it with Shankara's Gita bhashya. There are some differences, but they are both definitely Advaita (non-dualism). Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2004 Report Share Posted December 13, 2004 praNAm CN prabhuji Hare Krishna CN prabhuji: The way I understand Shankara Advaita, all these works - Manasollasa, Vivekachudamani, and even Soundaryalahari - fits into its scheme beautifully. bhaskar : Very interesting indeed!! vivEkachudAmaNi with no ambiguous terms says that *nirvikalpa samAdhi* is the ONLY means to attain ultimate reality & propagates vidEha mukti....so it is also shankara's advaita vEdAnta right prabhuji...we've had discussions as regards to philosophy of vivEkachUdAmaNi Vs shankara prasthAna traya bhAshya in advaita-L list..Kindly let me know whether you are interested to look at it in more detail... And mAnasOllAsa too, may not be the work of surEshwarAchArya author of vArtika-s & naishkarmya siddhi...Prof. SKR cites some valid reasons for this in his book ?? (forgot the name..) If you are interested we will take it up in detail by comparing vArtika & mAnasOllAsa commentary on dakShiNAmurthy stOtra... CN prabhuji: Suresvaracharya states in the Manasollasa that all these different doctrines (including doctrines such as Samkhya and Nyaya-Vaiseshika, etc) are always there in Reality and that they manifest themselves in the scheme of creation. I was merely pointing out that there is Advaita also in the Tantric tradition. bhaskar : yes I agree, there was no eternal duality school at shankara's time...the schools which you have mentioned above along with bhEdAbhEda of ashmarAthya & bhatruprapaNcha, jnAna-karma samucchaya vAdins too propagating absolute non-duality at the *end*...But inspite of that shankara taken these schools for refutation in sUtra bhAshya..why?? shankara himself answers this question at various places of his bhAshya...As you know, he also says *whatever theories of other schools of thought have not been refuted by us is acceptable to us* In what sense?? again, shankara clarifies this too in sUtra bhAshya. If nyAya-vaishEshika siddhAnta too eternally real in reality shankara would have not spilled much ink in refuting these schools ...is it not prabhuji?? He would have simply said * all are real enternally* donot bother about differences..coz. differences are also *real* eternally in reality. CN prabhuji: I am currently reading Abhinavagupta's 'Gitartha Sangraha' and comparing it with Shankara's Gita bhashya. There are some differences, but they are both definitely Advaita (non-dualism). bhaskar : May be it is advaita, but dont know whether it is shankara advaita...as one can find his siddhAnta in prasthAna trayi bhAshya as I am not familiar with gItArtha saNgraha....BTW, how many versions of advaita you say in line with shankara siddhAnta prabhuji?? Kindly clarify prabhuji. Warm regards, Chittaranjan Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2004 Report Share Posted December 13, 2004 Dear Bhaskarji, advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote: > CN prabhuji: > The way I understand Shankara Advaita, all these works - > Manasollasa, Vivekachudamani, and even Soundaryalahari - > fits into its scheme beautifully. > Bhaskar Prabhuji: > > Very interesting indeed!! CN: Do I detect sarcasm? :-) ______________ Bhaskar Prabhuji: > vivEkachudAmaNi with no ambiguous terms says that > *nirvikalpa samAdhi* is the ONLY means to attain > ultimate reality CN: I agree that nirvikalpa samadhi is the only means to attain ultimate reality. One can't attain ultimate reality without getting to the Heart of things through 'neti, neti'. _______________ Bhaskar Prabhuji: > ....so it is also shankara's advaita vEdAnta right > prabhuji...we've had discussions as regards to philosophy > of vivEkachUdAmaNi Vs shankara prasthAna traya bhAshya in > advaita-L list..Kindly let me know whether you are interested > to look at it in more detail... CN: No, Prabhuji, I'm not interested in Shankara vs Shankara! _______________ Bhaskar Prabhuji: > And mAnasOllAsa too, may not be the work of surEshwarAchArya > author of vArtika-s & naishkarmya siddhi...Prof. SKR cites > some valid reasons for this in his book ?? CN: When I don't see a discord between these works of Sri Shankaracharya, why should I be interested in Prof. SKR's 'reasons' for justifying some discord that he 'perceives'? _______________ > CN prabhuji: > > Suresvaracharya states in the Manasollasa that all these > different doctrines (including doctrines such as Samkhya > and Nyaya-Vaiseshika, etc) are always there in Reality > and that they manifest themselves in the scheme of creation. > I was merely pointing out that there is Advaita also in the > Tantric tradition. > > bhaskar : > > yes I agree, there was no eternal duality school at > shankara's time... CN: And now, Prabhuji? _____________ Bhaskar Prabhuji: > the schools which you have mentioned above along with > bhEdAbhEda of ashmarAthya & bhatruprapaNcha, jnAna-karma > samucchaya vAdins too propagating absolute non-duality at > the *end*... CN: Bhedabheda can never be absolute non-duality. If it were, there wouldn't be the term 'bheda' in it. _______________ Bhaskar Prabhuji: > But inspite of that shankara taken these schools for > refutation in sUtra bhAshya..why?? shankara himself > answers this question at various places of his bhAshya... > As you know, he also says *whatever theories of other > schools of thought have not been refuted by us is acceptable > to us* In what sense?? again, shankara clarifies this too > in sUtra bhAshya. If nyAya-vaishEshika siddhAnta too > eternally real in reality shankara would have not spilled > much ink in refuting these schools..is it not prabhuji?? CN: What is this? As far as I know Nyaya-Vaisesika is asadkaryavada. _______________ Bhaskar Prabhuji: > He would have simply said * all are real enternally* CN: He said it. _______________ Bhaskar Prabhuji: > donot bother about differences..coz. differences are > also *real* eternally in reality. CN: You mean, he would have said Advaita is duality? :-) _____________ > CN prabhuji: > I am currently reading Abhinavagupta's 'Gitartha Sangraha' > and comparing it with Shankara's Gita bhashya. There are some > differences, but they are both definitely Advaita (non-dualism). > > bhaskar : > > May be it is advaita, but dont know whether it is shankara > advaita...as one can find his siddhAnta in prasthAna trayi > bhAshya as I am not familiar with gItArtha saNgraha.... CN: Advaita Tantra is Advaita, but it is not Shankara Advaita. ______________ Bhaskar Prabhuji: > BTW, how many versions of advaita you say in line with > shankara siddhAnta prabhuji?? Kindly clarify prabhuji. CN: None. Many 'versions' mean 'many differences' and difference is not sameness. _______________ Bhaskar Prabhuji, you asked a question about non-duality in Tantra and I was only trying to point out that there is indeed non-duality in some schools of Tantra. That is all. May peace prevail now. Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 13, 2004 Report Share Posted December 13, 2004 Namaste, advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik> wrote: Please read "When I don't see a discord between these works of Sri Shankaracharya, why should I be interested in Prof. SKR's 'reasons' for justifying some discord that he 'perceives'?" as "When I don't see a discord between this work of Sri Suresvaracharya and the Advaita Vedanta of Sri Shankaracharya, why should I be interested in Prof. SKR's 'reasons' for justifying some discord that he 'perceives'?" Regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2004 Report Share Posted December 20, 2004 Dear Bhaskarji, praNAm Sri Chittaranjan prabhuji Hare Krishna > CN prabhuji: > The way I understand Shankara Advaita, all these works - > Manasollasa, Vivekachudamani, and even Soundaryalahari - > fits into its scheme beautifully. > Bhaskar Prabhuji: > > Very interesting indeed!! CN: Do I detect sarcasm? :-) bhaskar : No prabhuji, it was not a sarcastic comment...I was really wondered coz. of seeing the culmination of different siddhAnta-s & labelling it as *shankara's advaita* CN prabhuji: Bhaskar Prabhuji: > vivEkachudAmaNi with no ambiguous terms says that > *nirvikalpa samAdhi* is the ONLY means to attain > ultimate reality CN prabhuji: I agree that nirvikalpa samadhi is the only means to attain ultimate reality. One can't attain ultimate reality without getting to the Heart of things through 'neti, neti'. bhaskar : prabhuji pls. note vivEkachUdAmaNi is not talking about *getting into the heart of things* it is talking about *asaMprajnathA samAdhi* which is propagated by pataNjali's dvaita yOga shAstra...prabhuji, do you know which verse of the vivEkachudAmaNi I am talking about?? it is not about BG's stithaprajna it is about *nirvikalpa samAdhi* attained through *chitta vrutti nirOdha* By the way you have not commented about vivEkachudAmaNi's special emphasization on vidEha mukti as against shankara's sadyO mukti or jIvan mukti...do you still think it is (vidEha mukti) also shankara's advaita prabhuji?? _______________ Bhaskar Prabhuji: > ....so it is also shankara's advaita vEdAnta right > prabhuji...we've had discussions as regards to philosophy > of vivEkachUdAmaNi Vs shankara prasthAna traya bhAshya in > advaita-L list..Kindly let me know whether you are interested > to look at it in more detail... CN prabhuji: No, Prabhuji, I'm not interested in Shankara vs Shankara! bhaskar : its not about shankara Vs shankara prabhuji, its about shuddha shankara siddhAnta as enshrined in his prasthAna traya bhAshya Vs other siddhAnta-s comfortably floating in the name of shankara. _______________ Bhaskar Prabhuji: > And mAnasOllAsa too, may not be the work of surEshwarAchArya > author of vArtika-s & naishkarmya siddhi...Prof. SKR cites > some valid reasons for this in his book ?? CN prabhuji: When I don't see a discord between these works of Sri Shankaracharya, why should I be interested in Prof. SKR's 'reasons' for justifying some discord that he 'perceives'? bhaskar : Its not mere his own baseless *perception* prabhuji..he has every valid reason to show how shuddha shankara siddhAnta getting diluted in these prakaraNa grantha-s...My parama guruji also discussed this issue in length..if one is *open* without any sentimental relation to shankara & his works will come to know that prakaraNa grantha-s are not submitting the shankara siddhAnta *as it is* to shankara saMpradAya followers. _______________ > CN prabhuji: > > Suresvaracharya states in the Manasollasa that all these > different doctrines (including doctrines such as Samkhya > and Nyaya-Vaiseshika, etc) are always there in Reality > and that they manifest themselves in the scheme of creation. > I was merely pointing out that there is Advaita also in the > Tantric tradition. > > bhaskar : > > yes I agree, there was no eternal duality school at > shankara's time... CN prabhuji: And now, Prabhuji? bhaskar : Still you are asking this question prabhuji?? even after exchangeing innumerable mails with our dvaita bandhu-s prabhuji:-)) _____________ Bhaskar Prabhuji: > the schools which you have mentioned above along with > bhEdAbhEda of ashmarAthya & bhatruprapaNcha, jnAna-karma > samucchaya vAdins too propagating absolute non-duality at > the *end*... CN prabhuji: Bhedabheda can never be absolute non-duality. If it were, there wouldn't be the term 'bheda' in it. bhaskar : how about *bhEda* is real & eternal in *abhEda*?? I think this is what I've been hearing as advaita in this list. _______________ Bhaskar Prabhuji: > But inspite of that shankara taken these schools for > refutation in sUtra bhAshya..why?? shankara himself > answers this question at various places of his bhAshya... > As you know, he also says *whatever theories of other > schools of thought have not been refuted by us is acceptable > to us* In what sense?? again, shankara clarifies this too > in sUtra bhAshya. If nyAya-vaishEshika siddhAnta too > eternally real in reality shankara would have not spilled > much ink in refuting these schools..is it not prabhuji?? CN prabhuji: What is this? As far as I know Nyaya-Vaisesika is asadkaryavada. bhaskar : Kindly clarify what is the difference between advaita's mAya satkArya vAda with that of sAnkhya's pradhAna satkArya vAda & vaiSeShika's asatkAryavAda??..Kindly also clarify what prompts you to think these schools fit the frame of shankara's advaita reality?? I was just curious about your following observation : //quote// (including doctrines such as Samkhya and Nyaya-Vaiseshika, etc) are always there in Reality and that they manifest themselves in the scheme of creation. //unquote// _______________ Bhaskar Prabhuji: > He would have simply said * all are real enternally* CN prabhuji: He said it. bhaskar : No...he said parabraman is the secondless reality.. _______________ Bhaskar Prabhuji: > donot bother about differences..coz. differences are > also *real* eternally in reality. CN prabhuji: You mean, he would have said Advaita is duality? :-) bhaskar : I dont know whether shankara said it or not...but what I am seeing here is that *the duality* is also real in *non-duality*. _____________ > CN prabhuji: > I am currently reading Abhinavagupta's 'Gitartha Sangraha' > and comparing it with Shankara's Gita bhashya. There are some > differences, but they are both definitely Advaita (non-dualism). > > bhaskar : > > May be it is advaita, but dont know whether it is shankara > advaita...as one can find his siddhAnta in prasthAna trayi > bhAshya as I am not familiar with gItArtha saNgraha.... CN prabhuji: Advaita Tantra is Advaita, but it is not Shankara Advaita. bhaskar : Oh!! thanks!! I am much relieved now :-)) ______________ Bhaskar Prabhuji: > BTW, how many versions of advaita you say in line with > shankara siddhAnta prabhuji?? Kindly clarify prabhuji. CN prabhuji: None. Many 'versions' mean 'many differences' and difference is not sameness. bhaskar : More agreements...:-)) good to see _______________ CN prabhuji: Bhaskar Prabhuji, you asked a question about non-duality in Tantra and I was only trying to point out that there is indeed non-duality in some schools of Tantra. That is all. May peace prevail now. bhaskar : Thanks a lot for your clarification about *other* non dual schools & I wholeheartedly appreciate your indepth knowledge in it....but whenever I ask any doubt about non-duality, kindly think that I am asking those doubts keeping shankara's non duality school in mind...I am more particular about learning shankara siddhAnta & not so particular about other mushrooming non duality schools in the name of shankara. Warm regards, Chittaranjan Humble praNAms onceagain Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji, You said that you didn't know there was Advaita in Tantra, and I ventured to clarify that there was the doctrine of Advaita-Tantra in Kashmir Shaivism. I didn't know that that simple remark would lead to so much of debate on diverse topics. Each of these topics that has cropped up here - such as authorship of Vivekachudamani, the question of bheda and abheda, the nature of jivan-mukti and videha-mukti, etc - would need a detailed and focussed discussion in its own right. It would be doing injustice to these topics to invoke them in the middle of some other discussion and treat them in such a trivial manner. It is best to leave them alone now. Warm regards, Chittaranjan advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote: > praNAm Sri Chittaranjan prabhuji > Hare Krishna > > bhaskar : > > No prabhuji, it was not a sarcastic comment...I was really > wondered coz. of seeing the culmination of different > siddhAnta-s & labelling it as *shankara's advaita* > > CN prabhuji: > > No, Prabhuji, I'm not interested in Shankara vs Shankara! > > bhaskar : > > its not about shankara Vs shankara prabhuji, its about > shuddha shankara siddhAnta as enshrined in his prasthAna > traya bhAshya Vs other siddhAnta-s comfortably floating > in the name of shankara. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 praNAm CN prabhuji Hare Krishna Yes I do agree with you, we've been taking drastic deviations from month's main topic...As you said all these issues need a detailed & indepth analysis with an objective outlook. Let us take these issues when the time/subject feasible for the same. Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar 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.