Re:In fact and also Request for volunteers

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

 

Pranams to all.

This has reference to the letter of Sri Ram Chandran on 3rd April, 2006

wherein it has been written :

"Moderators are aware that a good understanding of Buddhism can

certainly enhance our understanding of Shankara'S advaita philosophy."

 

Is there a Shankara's advaita philosiphy or is it simply Advaita

Philosophy?

 

Advaitic teaching is based on Tri Basic View of Life where as Buddhism is

based on mono- basic or partial view of life. When the standpoints are entirely

different, I cannot understand how a good understanding of Buddhism can enhance

our understanding of Advaita Philosophy? A study and understanding of Sri

Shankara's commentary to Sutras 2-2-18 to 2-2-27 will reveal the limitations and

inconsistencies prevailing in the doctrines of Buddhism. The two glaring

differnces are:

a) Buddhism advocates AnAtmavada;

b) Buddhism does not talk about the Eternal Changeless

Principle Which is Everyone' true nature.

How can one accept that that an understanding of Buddhism can certainly

enhance one' understanding of Sri Shankara's advaita philosophy?

 

One thing we should always bear one point in our mind : THERE MAY BE

SHABDA SAMANYA ; BUT ARTHASAMANYA WILL NOT BE THERE. We should now understand

Why Sr. Gaudapada and Sri Shankara were called as Prachaunnabaudhas.

If any member is intrested in knowing the differences between Advaita

and Buddhism I request them to study the following two books:

a) Mandukya rahasya vivrittihi; please read the

introduction which is in English and running to nearly 80 pages.

b) Suddha Shankara Prakriya Bhaskara (parts I, II, III)

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

 

 

 

Jiyo cricket on India cricket

Messenger Mobile Stay in touch with your buddies all the time.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Sreenivasan:

 

Thanks for raising this important observation. Let me clarify what have

stated with some examples. For example, we can enhance our

understanding 'Dharma' by avoiding 'adharma' which implies that we

should recognize what is dharma and what is adharma! Our discriminating

intelect needs to recognize what is noble? and what is evil? to help us

to follow the noble and avoid the evil. There are always two-sides to

an argument and those who know both sides very well can only make the

correct the decision.

 

Buddhism and advaita may look alike but they are distinct philosophies

and to correctly figure out their differences, we do need to understand

both sides.

 

I hope this clarifies what I have stated in my contention.

 

Harih om!

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, sreenivasa murthy <narayana145

wrote:

>

> H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

>

>>

> Advaitic teaching is based on Tri Basic View of Life where as

Buddhism is based on mono- basic or partial view of life. When the

standpoints are entirely different, I cannot understand how a good

understanding of Buddhism can enhance our understanding of Advaita

Philosophy? A study and understanding of Sri Shankara's commentary to

Sutras 2-2-18 to 2-2-27 will reveal the limitations and inconsistencies

prevailing in the doctrines of Buddhism. The two glaring differnces are:

[Guest guest]

advaitin, sreenivasa murthy <narayana145

wrote:

>

> H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

> If any member is intrested in knowing the differences between

Advaita and Buddhism I request them to study the following two books:

> a) Mandukya rahasya vivrittihi; please read

the introduction which is in English and running to nearly 80 pages.

> b) Suddha Shankara Prakriya Bhaskara (parts I,

II, III)

>

> Namaste Srinivas ji,

Are the above two books available in Bangalore? Pl. give details.

 

Regards,

subbu

[Guest guest]

advaitin, sreenivasa murthy <narayana145

wrote:

>

> H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

>

> Pranams to all.

>

> How can one accept that that an understanding of Buddhism can

certainly enhance one' understanding of Sri Shankara's advaita

philosophy?

>

> One thing we should always bear one point in our mind :

THERE MAY BE SHABDA SAMANYA ; BUT ARTHASAMANYA WILL NOT BE THERE.

We should now understand Why Sr. Gaudapada and Sri Shankara were

called as Prachaunnabaudhas.

 

Pranams Srinivas ji,

You have voiced my thoughts on this issue. As this is an important

matter for Advaita Vedanta, it would be quite relevant for this List

to permit a systematic presentation of the differences between

Buddhism and Advaita as formulated by the various scholars of the

Advaita parampara. Will you, Srinivas ji, pl. take it up and

present it for the benefit of all of us? It could be in several

instalments.

 

Regards,

subbu

[Guest guest]

Dear Sir,

 

Your inputs are very valuable, especially the books that you have recommended. I

shall try to procure a copy of them and read them.

 

There are a few things I would like to highlight here:

 

You wrote:

> Is there a Shankara's advaita philosiphy or is it simply Advaita Philosophy?

 

Response:

 

I am not the right person to comment on this actually, but then there are some

differing schools of Advaita, although they are mostly concurrent. To note,

Sankara taught kevala advaita and Ajati vada. Bhamati and Vivarana schools for

example advocate the srishti-drishti vada and another school advocates

drishti-srishti vada as well. Then we have schools starting with Nisargadutta

Mhj., Madhusudana Saraswati, J Krishnamurty etc. They all differ slightly, but I

shall not argue with you on this. It is up to you to see a difference. It is

like the difference between Buddhist schools. Typically these differences don't

bother me and I revere all these teachers and the Hindu/Buddhist texts equally,

but since you raised the matter, I thought I might just point it out to you.

 

You wrote:

 

Advaitic teaching is based on Tri Basic View of Life .... A study and

understanding of Sri Shankara's commentary to Sutras 2-2-18 to 2-2-27 will

reveal the limitations and inconsistencies prevailing in the doctrines of

Buddhism:

a) Buddhism advocates AnAtmavada;

b) Buddhism does not talk about the Eternal Changeless Principle which is

Everyone's true nature.

 

Response:

Although I agree that Sankara's standpoint is different from Buddhism, I would

not agree that Buddhism is flawed due to the above - mentioned reasons. I would

request you to read more about Buddhism before you say that or if you need

inputs, feel free write to me directly so that we donot disturb members on the

group regarding this matter.

 

In brief, I shall highlight for the benefit of members here, that may be

interested. I am doing so only because clearly there is misinformation about

Buddhism and many others may be misinformed. I shall only present the facts and

also show the difference between Advaita and Buddhism, but I donot think that

either is superior or inferior to the other.

 

1. There is nothing called Anatmavada. The term anatmavada indicates that the

Anatta is a doctrine. But Anatta is not a doctrine. It is a technique for

enlightenment. It is the method of realizing what is NOT the self to understand

the real nature of the self. It is a misconception to think that Buddhism

advocates 'No-self'. I quote from the Canon:

 

"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self —

were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those priests

& contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an

eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if

there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be

conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of

annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I

— being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to

answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of

knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?" - SN XLIV.X

 

According to the Buddha, both the statements, 'There is a self' and 'there is no

self', will lead one away from enlightenment. This is because the nature of the

self is not known by questioning if it exists or not, but by trying to know what

is NOT the self and eliminating it. This is explained several times in the

Suttas.

 

In Buddhist practice, the five aggregates (body, feelings, perceptions,

formations and consciousness) are to be realized as 'Not self' (Anatma) This

means it is unskillful to think that these are the self. Since we are currently

under the influence of ignoarnce (avijja), we think (due to a subconscious

clinging to the aggregates) that we are one or more of the above aggregates. As

one progresses in the path, he realizes that these are not self. This is where

the not-self strategy is useful. It is like the neti-neti approach of the

Upanishads.

 

In the Samasupassana Sutta (SN XXII.XLVII), it is explained as to how a person

is deluded into thinking that the five aggregates are the self and that this

incorrect cognition of the self is the root of sorrow. There are many other

Suttas that describe this. I shall not quote them for brevity.

 

Buddhism does not aver a self. It does not deny it either. In the Maha-nidana

Sutta (DN XV), the Buddha discusses several concepts of self, including finite

and infinite and explains that all these senses of self is based on an obsession

in the mind that has to be abandoned. He however maintains that, saying that a

self exists or does not exist is not conducive to enlightenment. Nowehere in the

Pali Canon does he categorically state or imply that there is no self.

 

2. Several times in the Pali Canon, the Buddha refers to Nibbana using the terms

(transalted to English): 'Deathless', 'Truth', 'Wisdom', 'Unibinding', 'Bliss',

'Intransient', 'Changeless', 'Defileless', 'Unconditioned', 'The beyond'.

'Foremost', 'Peace' 'Freedom'. I shall highlight a few passages from the Pali

Canon for your benefit. I shall try to keep the post brief by not highlighting

all the above words and all their occurances, which itself will amount to a 1000

page volume.

 

"Venerable Ananda, just as if a man seeking a single opening onto treasure were

all at once to come upon eleven openings onto treasure, in the same way I —

seeking a single doorway to the Deathless — have all at once come to hear of

eleven doorways to the Deathless. And just as if a man whose house had eleven

doors could take himself to safety by means of any one of those doors, in the

same way I can take myself to safety by means of any one of these eleven doors

to the Deathless. Venerable sir, when sectarians search for a teacher's fee for

their teachers, why shouldn't I pay homage to Ven. Ananda?" - MN LII

 

 

There's no fire like passion,

no loss like anger,

no pain like the aggregates,

no ease other than peace.

 

Hunger: the foremost illness.

Fabrications: the foremost pain.

For one knowing this truth

as it actually is,

Unbinding

is the foremost ease.

 

Freedom from illness: the foremost good fortune.

Contentment: the foremost wealth.

Trust: the foremost kinship.

Unbinding: the foremost ease. -Dhp XV 202-204

 

There is a Sutta that describes Nibbana as perfect bliss, beyond which there is

nothing at all, called Nibbana Sutta:

 

"Furthermore, there is the case where a monk, with the complete

transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception,

enters & remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. And,

having seen [that] with discernment, his mental fermentations are

completely ended. So by this line of reasoning it may be known how

Unbinding is pleasant." - AN IX.XXXIV

 

Sa~n~na Sutta:

 

"The perception of the unattractive (similarly for death, loathsomeness,

distaste for every world, inconstancy, stress in what is inconstant and not-self

in what is stressful), when developed & pursued, is

of great fruit, of great benefit. It gains a footing in the Deathless,

has the Deathless as its final end" - AN VII.XLVI

 

I thank the members for being very patient with me.

 

-Bhikku Yogi

 

 

 

 

Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+

countries) for 2¢/min or less.

 

 

[Guest guest]

> Namaste Srinivas ji,

Are the above two books available in Bangalore? Pl. give details.

 

Regards,

subbu

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

Both books have been written by my parama guruji Sri Satchidaanandendra

Saraswati Swamiji & available at AdhyAtma prakAsha kAryalaya Branch,

Thyagaraja Nagar, Bangalore...you can also enquire at Vedanta Book House,

Chamrajpet....

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Note from the list moderator: Please do not include the entire message of the

previous poster with your message. This unnecessarily makes the message

lengthyer and messy. Cooperation from all members are appreciated. Please take

an extra minute to include what is necessary.

 

Dear All,

 

It is so nice to read the discussions on Advaita and the one now about

Buddhism and Shankara

 

Any discussion cannot be assummed to be of no use - in advance - as even from

so called useless discussions some views are coming out which help us to know

how we think and why we think in right or not so right or even wrong ways when

one has the inclination to read that, think over that and when some time it

appears in our mind like a miracle - oh this is what we are to understand !!

 

for a KG student like me this is a very great experience and i wish to

express my thanks to one all who are participating in these YAJNA or YAGA....

 

thanks once again

 

pairam

 

Yogendra Bhikku <bhikkuyogi wrote:

Dear Sir,

 

Your inputs are very valuable, especially the books that you have recommended. I

shall try to procure a copy of them and read them.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

>

> > Namaste Srinivas ji,

> Are the above two books available in Bangalore? Pl. give details.

>

> Regards,

> subbu

>

> praNAms

> Hare Krishna

>

> Both books have been written by my parama guruji Sri

Satchidaanandendra

> Saraswati Swamiji & available at AdhyAtma prakAsha kAryalaya

Branch,

> Thyagaraja Nagar, Bangalore...you can also enquire at Vedanta Book

House,

> Chamrajpet....

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

>

Thanks Bhaskarji. From the second title i guessed it must be a

Karyalaya publication. It has come true !

 

Regards,

subbu

[Guest guest]

Yogendra Bhikku <bhikkuyogi wrote:

 

You wrote:

> Is there a Shankara's advaita philosiphy or is it simply Advaita Philosophy?

 

Response:

 

I am not the right person to comment on this actually, but then there are some

differing schools of Advaita, although they are mostly concurrent. To note,

Sankara taught kevala advaita and Ajati vada. Bhamati and Vivarana schools for

example advocate the srishti-drishti vada and another school advocates

drishti-srishti vada as well. Then we have schools starting with Nisargadutta

Mhj., Madhusudana Saraswati, J Krishnamurty etc. Dear yogendra

bikkuji,

J.Krishnamurthy's thoughts,

although he is averse to compare his teachings with any existing world view, is

in accord with the teachings of the Buddhas, but for K's sweeping denunciation

of gurudom. Especially, K's talks on reincarnation are very similar to the

thoughts of the Buddha that there is no entity moving from here to there, but

only the constructions of memories, the conformations. I shall write on this in

detail later. K does not to the atman theory of Sankara.

Yours respectfully,

Sankarraman

 

 

 

Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using

Messenger with Voice.

 

 

[Guest guest]

On 06/04/06, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran wrote:

>

> Especially, K's talks on reincarnation are very similar to the thoughts of

> the Buddha that there is no entity moving from here to there, but only the

> constructions of memories, the conformations. I shall write on this in

> detail later. K does not to the atman theory of Sankara.

> Yours respectfully,

> Sankarraman

>

 

Namaste Sankarraman-ji,

 

 

I have zero familiarity with Jiddu Krishnamurti 's ideas. Anyway, what I

wanted to know is - what is the "atman theory of Sankara"? All concepts of

karma, punarjanma, etc apply only at the vyavaharika level. So what is

there for K to disagree with?

 

Ramesh

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy wrote: On 06/04/06, Ganesan

Sankarraman <shnkaran wrote:

>

> Especially, K's talks on reincarnation are very similar to the thoughts of

> the Buddha that there is no entity moving from here to there, but only the

> constructions of memories, the conformations. I shall write on this in

> detail later. K does not to the atman theory of Sankara.

> Yours respectfully,

> Sankarraman

>

 

Namaste Sankarraman-ji,

 

 

I have zero familiarity with Jiddu Krishnamurti 's ideas. Anyway, what I

wanted to know is - what is the "atman theory of Sankara"? All concepts of

karma, punarjanma, etc apply only at the vyavaharika level. So what is

there for K to disagree with?

 

Ramesh

 

 

No doubt, at the level of Vyavaharika only, the enitre flux of life exists, the

transcendental position being the unreality of all phenomena, and the soul

reality of the atman. This, no man with a modicum of religious urge can gainsay.

But each teacher has his uniqueness. Jiddu Krishnamurthy equates- this is only

my medicore understanding of Krishnamurthy, any conclusion about that which is

as this or that being mind-born and conceptual- the ultimate truth as one of the

absence of a being in the flux of becoming as against Samkara's positive

affirmation. I don't mean to keep J.K at a high pedestal and rever him as being

superior to anybody, which is unspiritual, dogamtic- a detour from the search

for truth. Krishnamurty is averse to any ontology. I don't feel qualified to

make any statement about his teachings beyond what has been said above. I am at

home with both Krishnamurthy and Samkara. It would be better to read

Krishnamurthy than hear from somebody who has read him,

as that would be only a distortion. Many persons may not accept many of the

statements of Krishnamurthy. That is not necessary. Whatever suits us to

transcend the limitation of the mind, we have to pursue. Ultimately, the natural

state of one's being devoid of thoughts, not in an empirical sense, but in a

psychological sense of knowing that there is no seperate individual, and that

everything is only Life, rather its myraid manifestations- as Krishnamurthy says

in a very early talk that Life in its pristine purity has no limitation and that

which is manifest is only limited- alone counts. Krishnamurthy very much

stresses the position of the void as different from the affirmation of a poitive

being by the advaitins. But it is only a matter of language, the semantics.

Sankarraman

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Visit your group "advaitin" on the web.

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Sankarraman:

 

May I request you to explain in your own words or provide the exact

quotation from JK regarding your observation - "Jiddu Krishnamurthy

equates- this is only my medicore understanding of Krishnamurthy, any

conclusion about that which is as this or that being mind-born and

conceptual- the ultimate truth as one of the absence of a being in

the flux of becoming as against Samkara's positive affirmation."

 

Before I express my opinion, let me also state - though I have read

several of JK's books and attended several Satsanghs on his

philosophical works, I do not want to claim that my understanding of

JK is complete. I admire JK for his valuable contribution especially

for opening the closed minds with dogmatic beliefs and force

them 'think' instead of just 'believe.'

 

To me JK's observation as stated by you appears quite paradoxical!

Isn't it true that any statement from anyone including JK (there can

be no exception!) is mind-born? Does it mean that every assertion

made by every sage and saint is irrelevant to ultimate truth? Please

note that Vedantic philosophy is not dogmatic and as for as I can

see, I do not find that the observations of the Upanishadic sages do

not contradict the summary observation of JK by the famous

statement, "Truth is a pathless land."

 

Let me stop here and wait for insights and observations from other

learned members of the list.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Harih Om!

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran

wrote:

>

>

>

>

> No doubt, at the level of Vyavaharika only, the enitre flux of

life exists, the transcendental position being the unreality of all

phenomena, and the soul reality of the atman. This, no man with a

modicum of religious urge can gainsay. But each teacher has his

uniqueness. Jiddu Krishnamurthy equates- this is only my medicore

understanding of Krishnamurthy, any conclusion about that which is as

this or that being mind-born and conceptual- the ultimate truth as

one of the absence of a being in the flux of becoming as against

Samkara's positive affirmation. I don't mean to keep J.K at a high

pedestal and rever him as being superior to anybody, which is

unspiritual, dogamtic- a detour from the search for truth.

Krishnamurty is averse to any ontology. I don't feel qualified to

make any statement about his teachings beyond what has been said

above. I am at home with both Krishnamurthy and Samkara. It would be

better to read Krishnamurthy than hear from somebody who has read him,

> as that would be only a distortion. Many persons may not accept

many of the statements of Krishnamurthy. That is not necessary.

Whatever suits us to transcend the limitation of the mind, we have to

pursue. Ultimately, the natural state of one's being devoid of

thoughts, not in an empirical sense, but in a psychological sense of

knowing that there is no seperate individual, and that everything is

only Life, rather its myraid manifestations- as Krishnamurthy says in

a very early talk that Life in its pristine purity has no limitation

and that which is manifest is only limited- alone counts.

Krishnamurthy very much stresses the position of the void as

different from the affirmation of a poitive being by the advaitins.

But it is only a matter of language, the semantics.

> Sankarraman

>

>

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of

nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at:

http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

> To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

> Messages Archived at:

advaitin/messages

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Visit your group "advaitin" on the web.

>

>

> advaitin

>

> Terms of

Service.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low

rates.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <ramvchandran wrote:

>

> Namaste Sri Sankarraman:

>

> May I request you to explain in your own words or provide the exact

> quotation from JK regarding your observation - "Jiddu Krishnamurthy

> equates- this is only my medicore understanding of Krishnamurthy, any

> conclusion about that which is as this or that being mind-born and

> conceptual- the ultimate truth as one of the absence of a being in

> the flux of becoming as against Samkara's positive affirmation."

>

> > Dear Sri Ramachandran,

Apropos your message no 30813, may I crave your

indulgence if my reply is found to lack clarity or take an escapist

stance, as the position of Krishnamurthy pointed out by you as being

paradoxical, is rather subtle, baffling, as any liberating knowledge

should be for that matter, logical way of thinking having its

limitations, one having to take a sudden leap into the no-mind by

realizing that the mind, rather thought is limited and fragmented, and

any approach towards truth by mind based on intellectual conclusions

is bound to be vitiated by the limitations of thought. You very well

know all these things, and may not need the resort to Krishnamurthy's

teachings for understanding this. What is Krishnamurthy's observation

is only the conclusion about truth, and not truth per se, which we do

not know. You want me to quote from Krishnamurthy to substantiate this

position. The entire message of Krishnamurthy, the burden of his song,

being this, what can I quote, which will be only by way of protecting

some intellectual conclusion? It is like this: The Self, though the

indubitable reality, any thought about it as an object of experience

is only a conclusion. This can be the meaning of Krishnamurthy's above

averment quoted by me, which is contained in each and every line of

his writings, his talks. Krishnamurthy's position is that the thought

process, the old brain, which is full of conclusions, should not pop

in in knowing whether there is anything beyond thought, and that the

entire mechanism of thought should collapse, remaining with the

position, " I do not know," which is not a state waiting for an

answer, an intellectual craving for knowing the unknown, but a state

of mind in which there is no knowledge, no psychological memories, as

the self ( the little self) as an observer, different from the

observed, controlling the observed, trying to be other than the, 'What

is,' is not there, having been found to be an unmitigated illusion.

with kind regards,

Sankarraman

[Guest guest]

On 07/04/06, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran wrote:

>

> No doubt, at the level of Vyavaharika only, the enitre flux of life exists,

> the transcendental position being the unreality of all phenomena, and the

> soul reality of the atman. This, no man with a modicum of religious urge can

> gainsay. But each teacher has his uniqueness. Jiddu Krishnamurthy equates-

> this is only my medicore understanding of Krishnamurthy, any conclusion

> about that which is as this or that being mind-born and conceptual- the

> ultimate truth as one of the absence of a being in the flux of becoming as

> against Samkara's positive affirmation. I don't mean to keep J.K at a high

> pedestal and rever him as being superior to anybody, which is unspiritual,

> dogamtic- a detour from the search for truth. Krishnamurty is averse to any

> ontology.

 

So what does J-K have to say about the method of adhyAropa apavAda?

And what does Ramana Maharshi have to say about it?

Personally, I think Advaita Vedanta is primarily a "teaching

methodology" rather than a "description of reality". At the end, even

"sat-chit-ananda" or "satyam-jnanam-anantam" are adhyaropa-s, are

they not?

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Ramesh Krishnamurthy" <rkmurthy

wrote:

> Personally, I think Advaita Vedanta is primarily a "teaching

> methodology" rather than a "description of reality". At the end, even

> "sat-chit-ananda" or "satyam-jnanam-anantam" are adhyaropa-s, are

> they not?

>

Namaste Ramesh ji,

 

It is not my intention to intervene in your 'dialogue' with Sri

Sankarraman ji. I just could not resist telling myself, and that

aloud, 'What a Total Teacher Adi Shankara is!'. He taught the Alpha

of Vedanta and also the Omega of it. He had in mind the Mumukshus of

all capacities and temperaments. Look at the Upadesha Panchakam:

It starts, 'Vedo nityam adhiyataam tad uditam karma svanushthiyatam

Tena Ishasya vidhiyatam apachitiH kaamye matis tyajyataam'...

 

He starts from the basic sadhana: Study the scriptures, perform with

devotion the duties prescribed therein. Give up attachment to sense

objects....

 

And also look at what He says in His Dasha-shloki:

 

Na Shaastaa na Shaastram na shishyo na shikshaa na cha tvam na cha

aham na cha ayam prapanchaH |

Svarupa-avabodho Vikalpa-asahishnu tadeko avasishtas ShivaH kevalo

Aham ||

 

The Realisation of the Absolute Reality does not stand the divisions

consisting of - the Teacher, the Teaching (Noun), the Disciple, the

Teaching (verb), you, i, or the entire world. Know yourself as Shiva,

the Auspicious, Bliss, the Absolute Reality that alone remains over

after negating the above divisions.

 

The Great Acharya stresses the Omega even as He emphasises the Alpha

for without the first the last cant be reached. If He had not said the

first and said only the last, He would not have been a Complete

Teacher. He took into consideration even those who do not come up to

the stage of 'seekers of the Truth'. He gave to the world His

enchanting Stotra literature so that people could purify themselves

and rise to the level of seekers of the Truth. And all this He does

keeping the Glorious Vedic tradition in view. I have often wondered

whether the Acharya is an embodied incarnation of the Vedas

Themselves. For it is the Method of the Vedas that is mirrorred in the

teachings of Acharya Shankara. Apt is the verse:

 

Shruti-smrti-puraanaanaam aalayam Karunaalayam |

Namaami Bhagavatpaada-Shankaram Loka-shankaram ||

 

I bow in obeisance to Bhagavatpada Shankara who is the abode of the

Sruti, the Smriti and the Puranas. He is an ocean of compassion for

He is the benefactor of the whole World.

 

Thank you Ramesh ji for triggering this thought in me. This is not

intended for discussion.

 

Warm Regards,

subbu

[Guest guest]

Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy wrote:

>

>

>

 

So what does J-K have to say about the method of adhyAropa apavAda?

And what does Ramana Maharshi have to say about it?

Personally, I think Advaita Vedanta is primarily a "teaching

methodology" rather than a "description of reality". At the end, even

"sat-chit-ananda" or "satyam-jnanam-anantam" are adhyaropa-s, are

they not?

 

 

I don't understand the implication of the query raised above as regards

the position of Bhaghavan Ramana Maharishi. Bhaghavan Ramana teaches us only the

technique of, ' Self-enquiry,' and does not elaborate on the side of

epistemology. J.K does not use the language of apavada and adhyaropa, though he

denounces thought at the psychological level, making one think that one is

different from the others at the psychological level, as an illusion created by

the mind to perpetuate the individuality; so any amount of thought is a process

implicating the individual in its prison. Further, as regards the doubt raised

by you in regard to "sat-chit-ananda" or "satyam-jnanam-anantam" constituting

adhyaropa-s, they constitute only descriptions, the descriptions being

different from the described.

What Mr srinuvasa murthy aptly said elsewhere on this subject: "our goal of

enquiry is to know the true nature of the enquirer, not an enquiry into the

vAchyartha of the words of scriptures or the various teachers belonging to

different traditions or no tradition at all. The first one makes one Atmavit,

the second one makes one a Mantravit. We should become Atmavit and not a

Mantravit." requires deep meditation. That itself seems to be a mahavakya.

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.