Guest guest Posted April 28, 2006 Report Share Posted April 28, 2006 H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy Pranams to you all. The title of the subject may be rephrased as "Atman appearing as Anatman" since this is the Truth. This subject has been dealt in detail by Sri Gaudapada, the paramaguru of Sri Shankara, in the vaitathya prakarana of Mandukya Karikas. , the Shloka numbers being from 16 to 30. Sri Shankara's commentary to those shlokas, clarifies all the questions and doubts pertaining to the above subject. Shloka 30 reads as follows: EtairEShO apRthakBAvaiH pruthagEvEti kalpitaH | EvaM yO vEda tattvEna kalpayEtsO aviSaMkitaH || The Atman, though non-separate from all these, appears, as it were separate. One who knows this truly conveys the meaning of the Vedas without hesitation. It has been my personal experience that if one approaches Sri Shankara through his Bhashyas all the doubts and questions that may crop up will be uprooted from his mind and an understanding which is avivAdaH and aviruddhaH will be firmly established in our hearts. With warm and respectful regards, Sreenivasa murthy. Jiyo cricket on India cricket Messenger Mobile Stay in touch with your buddies all the time. Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2006 Report Share Posted April 28, 2006 Namaste, all There is no Anatman. It is Atman only that appears to appear as Anatman. It is just like Gold (Atman) appearing as a Ring or Chain etc. (Anatman). One cannot physically separate Anatman from Atman, though in Knowledge one can appreciate the apparent difference between the TWO(?). Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma Warm Regards sreenivasa murthy <narayana145 (AT) (DOT) co.in> wrote: H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy Pranams to you all. The title of the subject may be rephrased as "Atman appearing as Anatman" since this is the Truth. This subject has been dealt in detail by Sri Gaudapada, the paramaguru of Sri Shankara, in the vaitathya prakarana of Mandukya Karikas. , the Shloka numbers being from 16 to 30. Sri Shankara's commentary to those shlokas, clarifies all the questions and doubts pertaining to the above subject. Shloka 30 reads as follows: EtairEShO apRthakBAvaiH pruthagEvEti kalpitaH | EvaM yO vEda tattvEna kalpayEtsO aviSaMkitaH || The Atman, though non-separate from all these, appears, as it were separate. One who knows this truly conveys the meaning of the Vedas without hesitation. It has been my personal experience that if one approaches Sri Shankara through his Bhashyas all the doubts and questions that may crop up will be uprooted from his mind and an understanding which is avivAdaH and aviruddhaH will be firmly established in our hearts. With warm and respectful regards, Sreenivasa murthy. Jiyo cricket on India cricket Messenger Mobile Stay in touch with your buddies all the time. Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2006 Report Share Posted April 28, 2006 Buddhism adopts different positions on Atman. Some Buddhist texts do not deny Atman, but Atman is denied explicitly in some later Buddhist texts. My understanding is that the position of Buddhism on Atman is not consistent. In nikaya texts for instance, the Atman is called as the light and refuge. Even the nirvana sutra in mahayana buddhism embraces Atman. The Atman also makes a backdoor entry into Buddhism in the form of Tathagatagarbha. Regards Lakshminarayana > I believe our budhist monk will reply to this, but my understanding is > that there is no contradiction in the statement "the Buddha denied the > existence of a permanent transmigratory soul (atman)". > > If you note that there is an association between permanent and > transmigratory, and that the association has been denied, there still > exists the possibility of an immutable self beyond changing and moving > realms. > > The problem is not with the Buddha's statement, but with the one who > has called a "permanent transmigratory soul" the atman. This > altogether is an empty statement, since what is understood to > transmigrate is the subtle body, and not what could be understood as > soul, which is deemed to be permanent (obviously permanent means > motionless as well, since motion is within spacetime framework etc, > you got the picture). > > It seems you are wrongly interpreting one wrong interpretation and > referring to the subject the first interpreter failed to clarify :- ) > > My warmest regards... > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2006 Report Share Posted April 30, 2006 > > advaitin, Yogendra Bhikku <bhikkuyogi@> > wrote: .. > > > > The term atman is used in the Pali Canon as a sense of 'ego > consciousness' an 'I', consisting of a 'my' etc. The terms Atmaja > (literally one [male] born of me) and AtmajA (literally one [female] > born of me) is indicative of this meaning for the word Atman, that > developed during the Buddha's time. One may note that these terms > are always used as "putram" or "putri" in the early Vedic period and > only in the later Upanishads [probably being composed at the time of > the Buddha], do we find a reference to these terms. Namaste Bhikku Maharaj, May i request you to clarify the above opinion of yours? Regarding the usage of the words 'AtmajaH', son, and its feminine form 'AtmajA', a search in the Valmiki Ramayanam and the Mahabharatham yielded a whopping close to 500 instances in each of these epics. I do not know if these epics predate Buddha. In the Raghuvamsam and Kumarasambhavam of Kalidasa, these words are used. Again, i am not sure of Kalidasa's date. In the Upanishads and other scriptures, the word Atma is used in a variety of senses. In the Kathopanishad mantras 'AtmAnam rathinam viddhi' )I.iii.3), the word Atma is commented upon as samsArin. And in 'Atmendriyamanoyuktam bhoktetyAhurmanIshiNaH' (I.iii.4), AtmA is sharIram, gross body. In the Bhagavadgita there are several usages of the word Atman where the meaning 'antaHkaraNam' mind, is given by the Bhashyam. Eg. Ch. vi. 6,7,8 verses. Thus, there are instances in the ancient Indian scriptures where Atma means differently, the ego, mind and body. I have not made a search of the other major Upanishads, the texts of Rigveda, etc. for the presence of the word Atmaja/A. Could it be said that these above mentioned scriptural texts were 'composed' after the Buddha's time? I liked your post giving a lot of clarifications. Pranams, subbu Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2006 Report Share Posted May 2, 2006 Dear Sri Subrahmanian, Thankyou for notifying me about the large number of instances of the word Atmajah in the Ramayana and the Mahabharata? The fact that you pointed out that the word 'Atma' is used in various senses even in the Upanishads is really not known to me. I had presumed that the primary meaning of word was what the Vedantists posit as an unending, unchanging, unwavering, constant, truth, perfect bliss and perfect wisdom. I did not know of other meanings in the Upanishads. In the Pali Canon, the word Attan in my [although limited] understanding is only in one sense - 'ego consciousness'. I aver this more firmly because all Buddhists teachers all over the world [to my knowledge] use it in that sense only. I have heard of a text by the name of Yogavasishtha Maharamayana, written by a sage Vasishtha [in the Pali Canon we find reference to him as Vasettha - this text should therefore predate Buddhism]. I have heard that the text has a philosophy which is predominantly Advaita Vedanta mixed with Buddhism.. I understand that usually Vedantists donot consider these texts as 'valid scripture'. Yet I have heard that this text is extolled by sages like Bh. Ramana, Sir Ramakrishna and several of the Sringeri pontiffs. In this text - which is said to predate Buddhism by atleast 200 years, the word 'Atman' is used in three different senses! Your point that the Upanishads also use the word in several senses atleast indicates that the word does have several meanings in different contexts. I wonder if my statement that the other meanings of the word Atman are not as ancient as the Upanishads and probably originated at the time of the Buddha is valid. It is clear that it could have developed before Gotama the Buddha, but surely the sense of the word Atman as used in the Pali Canon is not the same as the primary meaning as used in the Upanishadic Canon and also the word surely does seem to have several meanings. It is a small wonder that this is the case especially since Ancient India was a very diverse land with people from various diverse cultures mixing a lot. Neither Ramayana nor the Mahabharata have references to Buddhism. It is very likely that they predate Buddhism by about 200 years, but perhaps not more, especially due to the fact that the style of Sanskrit in these texts appears to be a peculiar alloy of Vedic Sanskrit and Classical Panini Sanskrit.. This arguement though used very often for most ancient Indian texts, is not entirely valid. Tennyson is an example of a modern English poet writing in archaic English. However, I am just making a guess since usually teachings are for the benefit of the people and not for a display of command over an antedevulian language. Hence I expect that the teachings of Upanishads etc. would be in languages prevelent and widely used in those times and not written specifically in an archaic manner to confuse the people. Kalidasa was surely after Buddhism was well established in India. His dates are disputed, but are surely between 3rd Century CE and 5th Century CE. He is usually associated with the reigns of Chandragupta Vikramaditya and his successor Kumaragupta [4th Century CE]. Surely his works are after Buddhism. In fact, he wrote social dramas and they were popular only after the first main social drama of India written by a Jain - Mricchakatikam. The meanings of the word Atma as sharIram, etc. in the Kathopanishad is somewhat news to me, although I remember having been confused with that Upanishad long time back. I had decided that when I am not understanding it, I'd rather give it time and work on it later. This meaning was particularly prevelant in Magadha, especially due to the influence of the Charvakas. The Pali Canon uses the word Attan as 'ego consciousness' and one of the components of this ego is said to be form 'rupa' or body [sharIram]. I wonder if this Upanishad was composed at a time when Buddhism was already well established or when Buddhism was just beginning to take ground. However it is known to be a later Upanishad [beleived to be close to 700-600BCE], the oldest Upanishads dating to close to 1200-1000BCE. Although I am not an expert at history, I am only taking reference to the known and documented history of ancient India. I am aware that most Indians donot beleive it, but I think it is really not about dates, but a relative understanding of timelines that I would rather think about. -Bhikku Yogi How low will we go? Check out Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates. Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2006 Report Share Posted May 2, 2006 Namaste Shri Bhikku Maharaj, Even now the prefix Atma is used in different senses other than the Absolute. Thus, AtmahatyA is suicide in several Indian languages including Sanskrit! Surely, the term doesn't connote the destruction of the imperishability called Advaitic Brahman! You wrote: QUOTE Although I am not an expert at history, I am only taking reference to the known and documented history of ancient India. UNQUOTE That is the problem here. We, the Advaitins, take it that the upanishads are apouruSeya (not authored). ApoureSeya knowledge can't have a date. Perhaps, that is the meaning of the word sanAtana. This may sound ludicrous to most. But it is the safest route to go due to the fact that Indian history, and, for that matter, all that relating to the orient have been deliberately misinterpreted and misdated. Needless to say, your dispassionate forays into Advaita from a Buddhist platform have covered common ground beween ShrI Buddha and ShrI Shankara. Thank you very much for the same. We expect more of such healthy reconciliation. PraNAms. Madathil Nair __________________ advaitin, Yogendra Bhikku <bhikkuyogi> wrote: > > Dear Sri Subrahmanian, > > Thankyou for notifying me about the large number of instances of the word Atmajah in the Ramayana and the Mahabharata? ............. Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 2, 2006 Report Share Posted May 2, 2006 friends. i have studied both advaita and buddhism. for lack of time i will put it simply: shakyamuni tathagata (or gautama buddha if you prefer) in the original scriptures denies anything that can be perceived is the self. he doesn't however speak about nirguna brahman of advaita, since it is beyond descriptions. my personal opinion after years of study and practice is that buddhism and advaita are 2 sides of the same coin, or let's say two approaches towards a state beyond everything that can be described. buddhist approach is more realistic: anything that cannot be described is better left undescribed not to create a false concept in the mind, for to go beyond all conceptuality into the Unborn, the Nirvana, all concepts have to be ultimately transcended. advaita uses more idealism, - the satchidananda brahman concept, the concept of non-duality (hence the term - advaita), but even these are only pointers, not the Truth is itself as we have the statement of the avadhuta gita: "Some seek nonduality, others duality. They do not know the Truth, which is the same at all times and everywhere, which is devoid of both duality and nonduality." so, my humble advice would be to forget all ideas of oneself, the world, god etc until only the Truth remains... namaste _/\_ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2006 Report Share Posted May 3, 2006 Yogendra Bhikku <bhikkuyogi > wrote: I May I step in, and say a few words, regarding the authorship, date, of the work Yogavasishta, and the views held by great saints in regard to the merit of this work, pointed out by Bhikku Yogi. Bhaghavan Ramana extolled this work very much stressing the need for studying this text for attaining moksha. This is a moksha sastra according to Bhaghavan Ramana. He delighted in explaining the implication of the truth behind the stories narrated in Yogavasishta. Another great text that Ramana held in high esteem is Ribu Gita translated into Tamil by one Bikshu Sastry alias Ulaganada Swamigal.. The original is traceable to Siva Rahasya in Sanskrit. The translation surpasses the original in its beauty, in its conveying the message of Advaita.. There is no intellectual logic in this text. It hits straight at the truth. So is the case with Yogavasishta. Even the Sringer Pontiffs have recognized the high merit of this work, no less a person than Vidyaranya, a pontiff of Sringer Peetam having given excerpts from this text in his works Pancadasi and Jivanmukti Viveka. Sri Ramakrishna, however, dissuaded householders from reading this text. He did not encourage even the serious sadhaks to study this work. This is attributable to his excessive leanings on the path of bakthi relegating jnana to the background, stating even that in Kaliyuga one cannot pursue the path of jnana, which conclusion is very much against the daring pronouncements of the Upnishadhs in regard to the Self transcending the spheres of time, space and causality. Sri Ramakrishna did not look with favour even the work Vichara Sagaram, of the great jnani Nichchaldas, calling it dry jnana, whereas Bhaghavan has brought out the contents of this work in a very simplified form. All Tamil Vedantins have high regard for the work Yogavasishta and Vicharasagaram, these works having been translated into Tamil by great scholars like the late Vadivelu Chettiyar. I was told that my grandfather whom I have not seen was a great admirer of Vadivelu Chettiyar, and one Thethiyur Subramaniya Sastrigal, the great Tamil and Sanskrit Vedantins. I have also heard it said that Paramachrya of Kanchi Peetam had given a discourse on Yogavasishta exclusively to Sanyasins, and desired the verbatim transcription not to be published on grounds that this work is meant only for the consumption of the sanyansins, and not for lay individuals, even though they be bachelors. Mr Subramanium might be aware of this position as he seems to be a close devotee of the revered Acharya. Unfortunately, on account of the views of Ramakrishna on Yogavasishta, no translation of the work has been made by any of the scholar monks of the Order, whereas there are translations galore of the Upanishads, and the Brahmasutra. Yogavasishta is a simple, and profound, work containing the teachings of the highest nature. The author is not concerned with any systematization, and articulates the ebullient flow of ideas coming from self-realization. A close scrutiny of this work would reveal that this mostly talks about dhristi-shristi vada, bordering on solipsism. Further, the author of yogavasishta is familar with the concepts of alayavijnana of buddhism, certain passages of this work being in support of vijnanavada. The author seems to be tolerant of various prevailing views, though his position is one of shristi-dhristi vada and ajada vada. The unknown author is not concerned about the superiority of this work, being concerned only with the idea that one should realize the Self. Regarding the date of this work, professor B.L.Aytreya, an authority on this work, ascribes the period of composition of this work to the second century A.D. Professor Das Gupta dates this to the period of Nagarjuna or Gaudapada. According to professor Aytreya this work has not been commented upon by Sankara on account of its not deriving traditional authority. David Godman, an authority on the works of Ramana, dates this to the period of 14th century A.D., which seems to be not correct. We can rely only upon the words of scholars like Aytreya and Dasgupta, who glean from the style of the language the correct position in regard to the date of the work. Yogavasishta does not give a higher reality to the waking state unlike the Upanishads, and equates it with dream-states in toto. yours ever in Bhaghavan Sankarraman Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less. Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2006 Report Share Posted May 3, 2006 Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair > wrote: Namaste Shri Bhikku Maharaj, Even now the prefix Atma is used in different senses other than the Absolute. Thus, AtmahatyA is suicide in several Indian languages including Sanskrit! Surely, the term doesn't connote the destruction of the imperishability called Advaitic Brahman! From Sankarraman Bhaghavan Ramana says that the present state of labouring under the delusion that the self has not been realized, or that one should realize the self, as if there were two selves, one to realize the other, is really Atamhatya, which is suicide. This word has been adopted in Tamil, and is commonly used by people to refer to suicide.. People refer to cases of suicide as atmahati, saying that atmahati is a heinous sin, to use an unscientific and crude terminology. I have heard it said that Jain Sastras do not speak badly of suicide, if someone resorts to it out of great anguish of not having realised, which some existential philosophers talk about in the present state where there is no god. with warm regards, Sankarraman New Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big. Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2006 Report Share Posted May 3, 2006 Note to the moderators: I know that this is on a subject that the group feels is very close to their heart. I am not at all critical of Vedanta, but nevertheless this question is quite pertinent. If the moderators remember this echoes the question raised a while back on the validity of our assumption that the Upanishad is apouruSheya. Besides this question is not about Buddhism, but about apouruSheyatva which is held as very important to understand Vedanta. Dear Sri Madathil, You wrote: "We, the Advaitins, take it that the upanishads are apouruSeya (not authored). ApoureSeya knowledge can't have a date." Sometime back, somebody on the group, I forget who it was, in response to my question, wrote saying that the notion of apouruSheya is only used in the context of debates and not otherwise. Your point here indicates that apouruSheyatva is accepted as an absolute position and not only in the context of debates. I wonder if in ancient times these texts were considered apouruSheya even for debates? For example the Br. Upanishad describes a debate of Gragi with Yajnavalkya, but to my understanding, such assumptions of apouruSheyatva of Upanishad was not made. In fact, I wonder if any reference was made to any of the Upanishads. In my [limited] understanding of Indian history, the notion of apouruSheya was a creation of the bhatta school of mImAmsa. The prabhAkara school of mImAmsa did not accept this theory. Please correct me if I am wrong. uttara mImAmsa, beginning with, SrI Sankara accepts this theory perhaps mainly due to it's relevance to debates. In the context of apouruSheya, how do we reconcile the fact that the upaniShads themselves talk of Rshis and their teachings. In other words, they were created after humans and Rishis were created. To say that they were permanent and that these Rishis got intuitive knowledge of these Upanishads is surprisingly contrary, especially since a Rishi cannot know about himself and his teaching from something that predated him. An example is the dialogue between Yajnavalkya and Maitreyi. Surely this dialogue took place before it's recording - at best at the same time as it was recorded. Then how do we call this teaching of Yajnavalkya as apouruSheya? Even if it were to be accepted that the Rshis relayed their knowledge of Brahman [and it's spanda] in the form of their teachings or upaniShads, how did they know Brahman without access to this Sabda, which is so essential to enlightenment? If the Sabda were revealed only to these Rshis, what seperated them from others that such a partial revelation took place that did not involve us or even so many of their contemporaries? Even if we were to accept this theory, how are we to be certain that the Rshi is relaying the message of Brahman [or the spanda of Brahman] accurately? In fact we are entirely at the mercy of the Rshi to relay this information correctly, otherwise according to Vedanta, we can never get enlightened since there is no scripture as a source of SravaNa, and without Sruti, there is no revelation of the Self of the upaniShads. To aver apouruSheyatva, we might have to say that these Rishis were not individuals (men, women, devas, animals all included) or that the Upanishads were not the teachings of these Rishis. To say that the Upanishads were apouruSheya gives the impression that they landed from heaven, although I am aware that that is not the case. It is taken as the spanda of Brahman. But on what basis do we know this? Do we have a pramANa for this assumption? I am aware that mImAmsa takes abhAva (absence of proof to the contrary) as a pramANa. But this is not very logical. On what basis do we take abhAva as pramANa? To make statements like 'spanda of Brahman' etc., just on the basis of abhAva seems a little far-fetched. Wouldn't it be just appropriate to say that the author of the upaniShads is unknown, rather than saying that there is no author for the Upanishads. If abhAva were to be accepted as valid, then one would have to say that there is no Brahman, since none of the laypeople would say that he knows Brahman. Thus on the basis of the absence of proof of the experience of Brahman, we can say that there is no Brahman. One may argue that there is no proof of absence of Brahman. But most of us who donot beleive in ghosts, will then have to accept that ghosts exist. Since there is no proof of the absence of ghosts, we would have to accept ghosts!!! Let us not forget that more ancient schools than mImAmsa, namely sAmkhya, nyAya and vaiSeSika rejected the idea of apouruSheya and did not accept it even at the time of kumarila bhatta. (I am not aware of their status at the time of Sankara.) They also did not accept abhAva as a pramANa. Please correct me if I am wrong. If such an idea were truly required for understanding Vedanta, the very Rishis that 'revealed' the Upanishads would/should have made it clear. To say that this was a necessary condition to understand Vedanta, implies that those that lived before the bhatta school of mImAmsa, did not understand Vedanta correctly. [This is not like the arguement that those before Christ would not be delivered, which in itself is faulty as any Christian would point out that those before Christ are exempt from this rule.] But an exemption is not possible in this case since it is the understanding of the Upanishads on the part of the Rishis and people and not their deliverance (salvation) that is jeopardized. Also to say that apouruSheya was coined or invented or posited due to a deliberate misrepresentation of history, would not be appropriate since the idea of recording history was alien to India at the time of kumarila bhatta. In my opinion, the notion of apouruSheya is needed only in case one were to assume scripture as pramANa and to accept it as pramANa one would need a basis. I however wonder if we need to create two pramANas [abhAva and Sruti] even for simply understanding of Vedanta. Even for the purpose of debates, this is not possible unless the opponent accepts this as pramANa too. But if the opponent were a nyAya philosopher or a sAmkhya philosopher or even a buddhist, it would leave no common ground of understanding for the purpose of debates. If however, one were to say that it is needed only for understanding the Sruti appropriately, then how did the ones before this idea evolved understand the Sruti? In fact, SrI veda vyAsa who compiled the araNyakas and wrote them down as Upanishad would then have to be classified as one who did not understand the Sruti [since he did not advocate apouruSheyatva] [and so would, yAjnvalkya, Buddha etc] or as a person who forgot to mention to the people that this idea of apouruSheya was necessary. [please refer Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin Homepage at:[url="http://www.advaitin.net/"]http://www.advaitin.net/ To Post a message send an email to : advaitin Messages Archived at: Terms of Service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2006 Report Share Posted May 3, 2006 Namaste Bhikku Maharaj. I hope to close this issue with the following simple clarification: 1. If you respect the Upanishads, that is more than enough. 2. I recalled the apouruSeyatwa of the Upanishads (VedAs) simply because we were getting nowhere with the business of dating them. You are right one need not accept the Upanishads as apouruSeya in order to understand them. 3. I, therefore, consider the several intelligent questions that you have raised in your post unnecessary. All of them are very valid questions. But, since they have nothing to do with the message of the Upanishads, let us not embark on an avoidable lengthy debate on them. 4. Besides, I am not scholarly enough to answer them and I don't find any need to get into the labour of undertaking such a task. 5. If any other scholar is keen to take up your questions, I would request him/her not to do so, because that would be counter- productive to the List objective of understanding the Upanishads. I very much appreciate your interest in the Upanishads. PraNAms. Madathil Nair ________________ advaitin, Yogendra Bhikku <bhikkuyogi> wrote: >> > This does not mean that I donot respect the upaniShads. I have a great deal of respect for them. In fact I beleive that to understand the truth of the upaniShads, one does not require to beleive in the notion of apouruSheyatva. In all the interactions that I have with fellow Bhikkus and laypeople, I always shows the upaniShads in a very positive light. But I have never felt the need to accept apouruSheyatva or to aver it or to make others accept it. Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 3, 2006 Report Share Posted May 3, 2006 advaitin, Yogendra Bhikku <bhikkuyogi> wrote: > > Note to the moderators: I know that this is on a subject that the group feels is very close to their heart. I am not at all critical of Vedanta, but nevertheless this question is quite pertinent. If the moderators remember this echoes the question raised a while back on the validity of our assumption that the Upanishad is apouruSheya. Besides this question is not about Buddhism, but about apouruSheyatva which is held as very important to understand Vedanta. > > Dear Sri Madathil, > > You wrote: > "We, the Advaitins, take it that the upanishads are apouruSeya (not authored). ApoureSeya knowledge can't have a date." Namaste Bhikku Maharaj, In deference to Sri Madathil Nair ji's from a response, i am not getting into a lengthy reply to your questions. His request to desist from replying is well taken. However, as i knew where your original mention of 'upanishads having been composed' was leading to, I persisted in that discussion. I appreciate your zeal in getting to the root of things in order to know them thoroughly. I wish i had that rare quality. Just with a view to keep the length of this post painfully long, i have deleted almost the entire post of yours; its presence might have added to the ease in comparing the replies contained herein as against your specific questions. Some of your questions are left unanswered. However, the major ones that matter to this discussion have been addressed. The attempt here is solely aimed at informing those who are not aware of the position of the Vedanta and of Acharya Shankara on the topic. I shall briefly place the Vedantic (and Acharya Shankara's) position on the Apaurusheyatva of the Vedas (vedas and the Vedanta, the Upanishads). The 'brevity' is only in respect of my effort in this; lengthy quotes of portions from various sources are placed hereunder: The chapter 'Vedas' contained in the book 'Exalting Elucidations' which is a collection of dialogues between the Jagadguru Sri Abhinava Vidyateertha Svamigal and a disciple, is excerpted hereunder in parts: Disciple: If the Vedas came from the Supreme, how are different rishis associated with various mantras? Rishis are the authors of the mantras, is it not? Acharyal: Rishis are not the authors of the mantras with which their names are associated. Sages acquired the realisation of the essence of the mantras from God and made them known in the world. They did not produce the mantras on their own. Brahma taught the entire vedas simultaneous with His creation of man. Being a manifestation of the Lord, Veda Vyasa subsequently took the diminished capacity of the people of the kaliyuga into consideration and codified the vedas. D: We find many stories in the vedas. Are they accounts of historical events? A: No. The stories do not relate to actual worldly incidents. The vedas, which are like the breath of the Supreme Being, have no beginning. As such, they are not the records of the historical events of any age. The Brihadaranyaka upanishad, for instance, contains a discussion between sage Yajnavalkya and king Janaka. This is not the retelling of a dialogue between two individuals who lived in some specific period. An event similar to that narrated could have occurred at some time but it cannot be said that this is what has been cited in the upanishad. The stories in the vedas are meant only as illustration. D: Long ago, through the process of evolution, man gradually came into being. In the early stages, his brain was much less developed than the human brain is now. He led a primitive existence. In due course, his brain improved to the present level. Thereafter, the Lord could have taught him the Veda. Is there any flaw in conceiving thus? If we have it this way, the findings of palaeontologists are not contradicted and, at the same time, it is admitted that the veda was revealed by Isvara. What does Acharyal have to say about this? A: This is faulty. Simultaneous with His creation of man, the Lord should have taught him the Veda. In the Bhagavadgita, Sri Krishna says: At the outset, having created mankind along with yajnas, the Creator said...(III.10) Yajnas have the vedas for their basis. For a yajna to be performed, the veda is needed. Thus, the Lord's words imply that Iswara taught the veda when He created the world. If we do not accept this view, we cannot give logical replies to many queries. If a primitive man predated the veda, he could not have known what is dharma and what is adharma. Since, the norms of righteousness and unrighteousness were not revealed to him by God, did God simply treat his actions as virtuous and reward him or just treat them as sinful and punish him? If his actions fetched him the rewards of righteousness, we are forced to conclude, 'Before the veda came into being, good fruits were obtained for whatever one did but after veda came to light, one also reaps unpleasant fruits for one's actions'. Is this fair? Further, can one accept the conclusion that before the veda came to light, one did not have to go to hell at all as one always secured good results, whereas after the revelation of Veda, the possibility of going to hell arose? If the view that all actions led to bad consequences were accepted, then also the implication is queer. Therefore, when the Lord created the world, He should have revealed the veda. That is to say, He should have, at the outset itself, made known what is dharma and what is adharma. Thus, it is improper to hold that the veda came to light only much after the appearance of man. (End of quote) A portion quoted from the Book 'Sridakshinamurtistotram' Vol.I p.462): Veda and Veda- vaak: The Veda is Ananta, Nitya, Svatahpramaana, Consciousness Itself. The term Veda is used in connection with a body of utterances, a form of speech which is unique and determined in respect of the pronunciation of the syllables as also the order of succession, thus immutable in form, not composed by any human agency and, as such, without any concomitant defect such as lack of clarity or inability to convey any meaning whatsoever. It is to be regarded to be present in a nascent state even in deluge, manifesting again along with the objects which are the meanings of what it conveys in the spirit of the Sruti, 'Dhaataa yathaapurvam-akalpayat', just as the world arises in the dream state or the waking state from the deep sleep state. It is to be regarded as Chidvivarta in which the Samvit, the Consciousness, is prominent. Even Iswara has not the independence to alter even a syllable in it. With its innumerable branches, Anantaa vai VedaaH, it reveals all aspects of the universe and is at the root of all knowledge, all shastras which are inextricably intertwined. It produces the knowledge pertaining to all purusharthas. It teaches the disciples the procedure in regard to all obligatory, occasioned and optional rites belonging to the four varnas and the four ashramas, from impregnation to cremation, all acts to be performed from the hours of dawn to those of the evening, as also the truth about Brahman. Free from any imperfection that speech can be tainted with, it is svatahpramana, its own testimony. (end of quote) We have in the sampradaya the veda-purva, the purva-mimamsa, consisting of the study of the karma-kanda of the Vedas and the veda- anta, the uttara-mimamsa, consisting of the study of the Upanishads. While the first three purusharthas namely dharma, artha and kaama can be obtained by resorting to the veda-purva, the final purushartha, Moksha, is obtainable only by resorting to the Veda- anta, the Upanishads. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says: Tam tu Aupanishadam Purusham prcchaami', 'I ask of that Purusha who is knowable from the Upanishads'. About this Purusha, the Kathopanishad says: 'Purushaan-na param kinchit, saa kaashthaa, saa paraa gatiH', 'There is nothing greater (beyond) the Purusha, this is the ultimate, the absolute attainment'. There is no vedic portion beyond the Upanishads that could teach a purushartha beyond Moksha. The veda speaks about the 'aadi' and the 'anta' of the veda in this sense. The Taittiriya Aranyaka of which the Mahanarayanopanishat is an integral part says in the famous portion: Na karmanaa na prajayaa dhanena…., Yo veda-aadau swaraH proktaH, veda-ante cha pratishthitaH … Here the Saayana bhashyam is: Vedaanaam, 'agnimiile purohitam', 'Ishe tvorje tva' intyaadiinaam aadiH = upakramaH, tasmin upakrame yaH svaraH yo varnaH pranavarupo asti, sa cha svaraH pranavo vedaante cha = upanishadi omityetadaksharamidam sarvam ityaadikaayaam pratishthitaH = pratipaaditaH,… The meaning is: The sound, pranava, Om that is uttered at the commencement of the Vedas, that same is established in the Veda- anta, that is, in the Upanishad, as Om,, this one syllable is all this…. The above bhashyam gives the meaning of Upanishad to the word 'Vedanta' occurring in the Taiittiriya Aranyaka. This specifying of the beginning and end-portions of the Veda does not conflict with the existence of the infinite branches, shaakhaas, of the Vedas. The culmination of the quest for knowledge is found in the Upanishads. For example, the Upanishads teach of that knowledge by knowing which all else is known. The Gita says about this knowledge: Yaj jnaatvaa neha bhuyo'nyat jnaatavyam avashishyate' 'After knowing Which there will remain nothing else that requires to be known'. Veda is Brahmavidya, it isUpanishad, it is Mahavakya itself. It is thus called for the reason that it is the Vedavaak that generates the Akhandaakaaravritti, the mental mode that has Brahman for its object, in the aspirant and destroys avidya. Quote from Brahmasutra bhashya 1.1.3 (Sourced from Sankaracharya.org.) 3. (The omniscience of Brahman follows) from its being the source of Scripture. p. 20 Brahman is the source, i.e. the cause of the great body of Scripture, consisting of the Rig-veda and other branches, which is supported by various disciplines (such as grammar, nyâya, purâna, &c.); which lamp-like illuminates all things; which is itself all- knowing as it were. For the origin of a body of Scripture possessing the quality of omniscience cannot be sought elsewhere but in omniscience itself. It is generally understood that the man from whom some special body of doctrine referring to one province of knowledge only originates, as, for instance, grammar from Pânini possesses a more extensive knowledge than his work, comprehensive though it be; what idea, then, shall we have to form of the supreme omniscience and omnipotence of that great Being, which in sport as it were, easily as a man sends forth his breath, has produced the vast mass of holy texts known as the Rig-veda, &c., the mine of all knowledge, consisting of manifold branches, the cause of the distinction of all the different classes and conditions of gods, animals, and men! See what Scripture says about him, 'The Rig-veda, &c., have been breathed forth from that great Being' (Bri. Up. II, 4, 10). Or else we may interpret the Sûtra to mean that Scripture consisting of the Rig-veda, &c., as described above, is the source or cause, i.e. the means of right knowledge through which we understand the nature of Brahman. So that the sense would be: through Scripture only as a means of knowledge Brahman is known to be the cause of the origin, &c., of the world. The special scriptural passage meant has been quoted under the preceding Sûtra 'from which these beings are born,' &c.--But as the preceding Sûtra already has pointed out a text showing that Scripture is the source of Brahman, of what use then is the present Sûtra?--The words of the preceding Sûtra, we reply, did not clearly indicate the scriptural passage, and room was thus left for the suspicion that the origin, &c., of the world were adduced merely as determining an inference (independent of Scripture). To obviate this suspicion the Sûtra under discussion has been propounded. The Brihadaranyakopanishad 2.4.10 quoted above is in full, As from a fire kindled with wet faggot, diverse kinds of smoke (sparks, etc.) issue, even so my dear, the Rg veda, the Yajurveda, /samaveda, Atharvaangirasa, itihaasa, purana, vidyaas, Upanishads, slokas, sutras, anuvyaakhyaanas, and vyaakhyaanaas are the breath of this Infinite Reality. Indeed, they are the breath of the Supreme Self. The bhashya on the above mantra: Already existing and immutable, Vedas are manifested like a man's breath without any thought or effort on his part. Hence they are an authority as regards their meaning, independently of any other means of knowledge. Therefore, those who aspire after well-being must accept the verdict of the Vedas on knowledge or on rites, as it is… Since the Veds issue without any effort like a man's breath, they are an authority; they are not like other compositions (books). The Ratnaprabha, a standard gloss on the Sutrabhashya quoted above says: Where the sentences are framed at one's will subsequent to the knowledge of the objects with the meanings of the words thereof, there it is man-made, paurusheya. Veda, on the other hand, is not purusheya for, Isvara, far from doing so, manifests simultaneously the words of Veda and the meanings thereof both of which are in direct immediate relation to Him – this relation being identity by superimposition. Just as the teachers conversant with the order of the words in Veda transmit them to the disciples, so does Isvara because of His peculiar power of Maya, by recollecting the very order in which He had propagated them at the beginning of the previous cycle. (end of quote) Another quote from the Book on Sridakshinamurtistotram Vol.I (p.464) This sets at rest all wild guesses and fantastic theories pertaining to the Veda viz., that it is gibberish, that it is the composition of primitive unenlightened men, concoction on the part of vested interests etc., as it is sought to be made out. As has been pointed out, the relation between a word and its meaning being beginningless, it cannot be maintained that Veda represents a later stage in the evolution of language, coming after the stage when the meanings of the words were fixed by convention by an assembly of people. The idea is ridiculous as it can never be conceived as to how a set of people, all dumb – since no language was prevalent at all – meeting in a parliament, could decide on issues concerning speech. Hence the futility of all attempts at fixing a date for the so-called origination of the Vedas. Nor can the Vedas be regarded as originating from an enlightened individual, an all-knowing one such as the Buddha, as it would be impossible to know as to wherefrom that individual acquired that knowledge and as to how it can be established that he alone is the all-knowing. The Sutrabhashya 2.1.1.1 says: Nor can it be assumed that some persons are able to perceiove super- sensuous matters without Sruti as there exists no other means for such perception. Nor again can it be said that such perception can be assumed in the case of Kapila and others who possess super- natural powers etc., and consequently, unobstructed powe rof cognition, for, the possession of supernatural powers itself depends on the performance of religious duty, and religious duty is known only by the vedic injunctions. Hence the sense of Vedic injunctions existing even prior to anybody's 'perfection' cannot be overridden on the authority of somebody's words who attains 'perfection' subsequently. Besides, even if it be fancied that we have to rely on the 'perfected' men, still, in the face of the fact that 'perfected' men are many, in a case of conflict among their smritis there is no other means of arriving at a final decision than an appeal to Sruti. (end of bhashya) Nor can it be maintained that it has ever been an unbroken succession of human teachers handing down the same Veda whose authorship has ever remained unknown, as it is against the teachings of the very Sruti which this school regards as the most important pramana. The realization of Brahman-Atman is attained through Brahmavidya, the plenary experience, which alone is the means for it, and not any worldly means like perception, inference, etc. For this reason this Brahmavidya is to be understood as the meaning of the word Veda. The derivations such as the following, point to this: Alaukikam purushArthOpAyam vetti anena iti vedashabdanirvachanam ( As the means to the transcendental Supreme attainment is known through this (Veda), it is called the Veda.) PratyaksheNAnumityA vA yastUpAyo na budhyate | Enam vidanti vedena tasmAd vedasya vedatA || (meaning already covered in the above para) (end of quote from the book) This is the position of the Vedanta and Acharya Shankara on the question under discussion. Pranams, subbu Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service. 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.