Acharya's teachings and Versions

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji and all

I am not sure if this subject should be discussed in the list. Since I

feel the need to seek many views let me go ahead and ask anyways.

As I write this, you will no doubt be aware that I am hardly well read

in Acharya Shankara's literature.

I genuinely intend this to be question of principle and request you

not to identify with it at a personal level.

Like the comment in an earlier post below, I often discern an anger at

or contempt for several followers/ schools who/ that have presented

Acharya's teachings according to their interpretation and understanding.

To my mind, every one of them is a labour of love- some may appaeal to

Sridhar and some to Bhaskar Prabhuji and some to some others. I have

seen in other lists endless sarcasms about different versions of one

acharya's teachings.

But then, is it not logical that one river flows as different streams

with time? Some of the streams in their course may even seem like

clashing into each other. Ultimately, after following and

understanding each of their perspectives we have to apply our own

intellect and come to independent understanding, aided no doubt by a

good Guru.Where is the need to say only the water flowing by my ashram

is true ganges water and none other can be?

Bhagwan Sri Krishna taught gita to Arjuna. How many thousands of

people have commented on it. Should one of them take up the cudgels

and say that others are not true followers of Bhagwan Sri Krishna?

In the same question you could substitute KRishna with Shankara

Bhagwatpada or any other great saint.

 

With learning our mind must expand and accomodate more and more

seemingly contradicting views rather than become intolerant or

contemptuous of other views or schools.Otherwise, we could be doing a

dis-service to our Sadhana?

 

Many namaskarams to all

Sridhar

 

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

>

> know this very example has been given in a prakaraNa grantha called

> prabhOdha sudhAkara another grantha floating in the name of

> shankarachArya!!!!

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sridharji and all

 

Thank you Sridharji for writing the right thing at the right time. I

was also worried in the same way as you are. Well, here are my

supplementary remarks. Some of these are culled from my writings in

my books. Maybe this is already in the advaitin archives. But it is

worth repetition.

 

This is actually about the CRISIS OF INTELLECT. It is this

intellect that falls into the temptation to adjudicate

intellectually among the different schools of vedanta and also among

the different presentations of advaita vedanta. In the larger

context it is this crisis of intellect that expresses itself in

favour of one religion against another. In this larger context we

all have no reservations and we profess agreement that all Faiths

(religions) are true – in the spirit of the Master, Ramakrishna.

And we quote very often the Gita shloka: *yo yo yAm yAm tanuM

bhaktaH *. But when it comes nearer home regarding the schools of

Vedanta, we tend to slip into what verges on the dogmatic.

 

Another familiar way in which the crisis of intellect expresses

itself is in an orthodox setting. It is that of an obstinate pursuit

of a ritual or what one holds to be a dharmic principle. Since

external exhibitions or expressions of dharma change from age to age

a dogmatic purusit of such an exposition beyond the times for which

it was valid leads us into a situation where the primary dharma of

compassion and non-violence is jeopardized. The classic response of

Vyasa when asked to summarize the limitless scriptures that he had

produced was

*paropakAraH puNyAya pApAya para-pIDanaM *

meaning, `Merit is the one which helps others and demerit is the one

which hurts others'.

 

I particularly am in tune with the following para of Sridhar-ji's

post:

Quote:

But then, is it not logical that one river flows as different

streams with time? Some of the streams in their course may even seem

like clashing into each other. Ultimately, after following and

understanding each of their perspectives we have to apply our own

intellect and come to independent understanding, aided no doubt by a

good Guru.Where is the need to say only the water flowing by my

ashram is true ganges water and none other can be? Unquote.

 

It is as if there exists an infinite dimensional Reality of which

each individual perception has only an one-dimensional (or finite-

dimensional) projection before it, and perhaps each in a different

dimensional axis. This different axis stipulates the set of

hypotheses based on which that perception works. Scientific

perception itself is one such axis, where the hypothesis is sense-

perception and `scientific' experimentation and reasoning. Each

religious philosophy, whether inside of Hinduism or not, is probably

one such projected finite-dimensional perception. You are free to

choose that one which is appropriate to your taste, evolution,

training and tradition. However, tradition contributes a major

factor in your choice, because centuries of thinking make history

and centuries of history make tradition.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

Dear professor Krishnamurthyji

pranams,

 

 

First of all, the reason for criticising the ascribed authorship of some

books are not to say that those books are worthless, or to claim that if

they where not penned by Adi Shankara, then they are not worth reading. But

it is another thing to claim that "Shankara says this or that", "Shankara

has written" or "The standpoint of Shankara is" while referring to books

professing thoughts contradicting those propagated by Shankara in books

certainly written by him. There are a lot of writings ascribed to Adi

Shankara containing standpoints who are obviously contradicting what he says

in his Brahma Sutra Bhashya, his ten bhashyas on the Upanishads, his

Gita-bhashya or Upadesha Sahasri. And then I really mean CONTRADICTING, not

merely completing or adding some viewpoints who are not there in his

bhashyas. It is of course perfectly legitimate to assume that Shankara might

have described his outlook in a simpler way, or that he might have used some

ways of explanation not to be found in his scholarly bhashyas. But is a

different thing to ascribe to Shankara works that - one one hand -

contradicts what he says in his bhashyas, and - on the other hand - contain

views that became prevalent among many advaitins at a later stage of

history. Isn´t it more reasonable to ascribe such works to those later

advaitins, who we know for certain held such views?

 

Personally, I can´t see the point in overlooking what is there right in

front of us. We all agree (I believe) that within the tradition of Advaita

Vedanta there have been a lot of different standpoints propagated by

different acharyas at different points of time. So, why still claim that all

those standpoints are fully in line with the views of Adi Shankara?

 

There where many vedantins active in Shankara´s own time and prior to him,

which can be seen from his bhashyas. Some of them held standpoints

corresponding to views propagated by later advaitins. Those standpoints are

outright refuted by Shankara, so apparently he did not himself think that

they where faithful to his own standpoints. So why should we cling to the

belief that all advaitins do at heart say the same thing as Shankara did?

Why should we ignore obvious discrepances, and even ignore what Shankara

himself says? Well, THAT is really the "crisis of intellect" in my opinion.

 

There is no question of saying that books authored by later vedantins are

worthless. But it is less fortunate to say that those books are all in line

with what Shankara says.

 

>>>

In this larger context we

all have no reservations and we profess agreement that all Faiths

(religions) are true - in the spirit of the Master, Ramakrishna.

>>>>>>

 

 

However, I´m afraid this is view is significant for the neo-vedantic

outlook, and also for some traditional vedantins during the last 100 years

or so. But this standpoint of Sri Ramakrishna is certainly alien to Adi

Shankara, for example. Why would Shankara have spent so much time and effort

on the critisism and refutation of other faiths, such as buddhism, if he

held the view "that all Faiths (religions) are true"? Moreover, It is

absolutely perfectly obvious that Shankara took a highly critical stand

against other branches of vedantic interpretaions, including those very

close to his own standpoint! This is quite clear in his Brihadaranyaka

Bhashya or the Brahma Sutra Bhashya, for instance. And Sureshvara, in his

vartika on Shankara´s Brih. Bh, also refutates different vedantic

interpretations prevalent in his time. So there´s no question of the view

that "all roads lead to the same goal" in Shankara´s and Sureshvara´s case

:-)

 

Just a remark: Many modern hindus or neo-vedantins do hold the view that all

religions are true, and that all religions can get you liberated. However,

I´m afraid this not at all the attitude of those other religions! For

instance, christians (catholic, lutheran, orthodox or whatever) don´t say

that hinduism is just as good as christianity, or that hinduism would lead

you to salvation. So, the view that christianity and hinduism lead to the

same goal is in fact a hindu outlook on christianity. This is certainly not

the outlook of the christians themselves. Christians don´t think that

hinduism and christianity lead to the same goal. So, if all religions are

true, then what to do when those religions condemns other faiths, such as

hinduism? Is that true too?

 

Warmest regards

Stig Lundgren