Correction - check the numbering (Vivekachudamani)

[Guest guest]

achintya, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram> wrote:

>

>

> It would be a good idea to actually quote Vivekachudamani to

discuss

> what Sankara said in Vivekachudamani. These verses (VC 47, VC 190 &

> VC 202) mentioned and commented by Krishna Susarla is not to be

> found in Vivekachudamani by Sri Chandrasekara Bharthi of Srngeri

> Sankara mutt.

 

Please see http://www.srisharada.com/vivekachudamani.htm which has a

PDF file of the version commented on by Sri Chandrasekhara Bharati.

This website appears to have been put up by some followers of him.

 

In his version, verse 47 which says that the jIvAtma is actually

ParamAtma but bound due to

ignorance "aj~naanayogaatparamaatmanastava...." is listed as verse

49. The verse is otherwise the same. Please see Sri Chandrasekhara

Bharati's commentary on it:

 

"You are the ParamAtman in reality. BY connection with the

beginningless avidyA, anAtmabhandhah:

bondage by non- atman; you identify your Atman with your gross,

subtle and causal bodies. From

that arises samsAra which is of the form of superimposition of

qualities of sukha, duhkha etc., on

the Atman. The fire of the knowledge of their separateness burns away

the roots of bonds of the

body produced by ajnAna and the resulting samsAra with its birth, old

age and death, and destroys

it completely."

 

The above makes it clear what Sri SankarAchArya's view is, and what

Sri Chandrasekhara BhAratI's view is: you, the jIvAtma, is actually

ParamAtma.

 

Verse 190 in the version I quoted, which describes the oneness of

Atman and Brahman, is listed as verse 192 in Sri Chandrasekhara's

version. Again, take a look at his commentary:

 

"mrsAtmanah: of buddhi which is of the nature of mithyA.By wrong

identification with buddhi which

is of the nature of mithyA by virtue of adhyAsa and not by its real

nature, though by itself it is of

the nature of all ( Vide the shrutis: idam sarvam yadayamAtmA

(MuNd.); sarvam kalvidam brahma

(ChAnd), it seems to diminution. Clay is the material of all mud

pots. There is no mud pot apart

from clay. Yet, they are seen (spoken of) as if different by virtue

of association with buddhi as `I',

`he', `this', `you' etc., though, being the material cause of all,

there is nothing different from it."

 

Verse 202 in the version I quoted is listed as the last half of verse

203 and the first half of verse 204. Again, Sri Chandrasekhara pretty

explicitly emphasizes the difference between Atman and Brahman.

 

So in the end, the verses are still there in vivekachUDAmaNi of shrI

shankarAchArya, they say what they say, and they are not compatible

with achintya bedha abedha view of shrI chaitanya. In your haste to

try and prove me wrong, you did not bother to look forward and

backwards a few verses to rule out a difference in the numbering

scheme.

 

Krishna Susarla has picked up some unscholarly work

> and decorated it with his own scholarly purport.

 

I picked up vivekachUDAmaNi of shrI shankarAchArya. I have also read

it. Have you? Given that your accusation is false, I am tempted to

believe that you have not.

 

As for my "own scholarly purport," I have merely pointed out what

shrI shankarAchArya has written and how it differs. If it bothers you

so much that shrI shankarAchArya has endorsed Advaita, then why blame

me? He has written what he has written. No point in blaming me for

it.

 

> If the gosvamis have quoted Sankara direcly (meaning Sankara's own

> words) and shown the fallacy in it. Why dont you just post that

> instead of composing new works ?

 

If an Advaitin says "A=B," and a Vaishnava VedAntin says "statement

A=B is false," by associative property of logic we can conclude that

Vaishnava VedAntin disagrees with Advaitin. This is common sense. The

real issue is whether statement "A=B" was said by the Advaitin, and

whether vaiShNavas in question disagree with the statement. I have

already given explicit proofs in both cases. Quibbling over different

numbering schemes of verses will not help you.