Guest guest Posted August 30, 2006 Report Share Posted August 30, 2006 Michael Comans, a well renowned Advaitic scholar, and author of a doctoral thesis on Adviata moda and many other vedanta books has this to write about the authorship of the Vivekachoodamani(VC). This may already be well-known to many of the esteemed and learned members in this forum but for the benefit of others I am reproducing his exact words The VC is popularly but most probably erroneously considered to be a work of Adi Sankara There are a number of reasons why this is not a genuine work of Adi Sankara. In the ascending order of importance these are as follows a. The style of the verses is highly poetic in contrast to the vigorous but not especially graceful style of the verses in the Upadesasahasri, a work universally accepted as the composition of Adi Sankara. b. The fact that there are very few commentaries on the VC and no old commentaries by well known Advaita authors would tend to indicate that the VC not the composition of Adi Shankara and is in fact not a very old work c. Some aspects of the teaching of the VC are foreign to other works of Sankara or are contradictory to them. The series of verse extolling the importance of yogic-type nirvikalpa samadhi (vv 341-342, 353-357, 360-363) sit at variance with the minimal importance Sankara gives to samadhi in his other works. The statements belittling the importance of hearing the Upanishads (vv 364) would contradict his teachigs in his commentary on the Brahmasutras 4.1.2 and thee whole theme of the lenghty eighteenth chapter of the Upadesasahsri. Thus the VC for all its undoubted merit as a manual explaining vedanta is not likely a composition of Adi Sankara but a composition of a much later Sankaracharya likely conected to the Sringeri pitham. Abhinava Nrsimha Bhaarati who adorned the pitham from 1599-1622 founded a branch of the matha in Sivaganga and placed his disciple Sankara Bharati who took sannyasa in 1615 and was himself an eminent scholar in charge of the matha. The concluding verse of the VC contains the verse "esa sankarabharati vijayate" is generally understood to mean that the "voice of Sankara is victorious" but could also be referring to the name of the author. In the opening line of his brief introduction to his wonderful book "Vivekacudamani - talks on 108 selected verses(1997) His Holiness Swami Dayananda-ji says "VC is a popular book of Vedanta, traditionally attributed to Sankara. Even though the modern scholars have difficulty in accepting the authorship of Sankara for this book, in the teaching tradition of Sankara the book is used as a text for initial study. I dont think we lose anything even if the authorship is attributed to any other Sankaracharya of one of the various Sankara mathas" His Holiness then subsequently steers clear of that entire controversial section of the VC referred to above (vv341-363) - the 108 most important and relevant verses were selected for his commentary for the purpose of this book(actually based on his talks) by Pujya Swami Paramarthananda-ji. I hope this clarifies some confusions that may have arisen in some peoples minds. Shri Gurubhyo namah Shyam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2006 Report Share Posted August 30, 2006 Hari OM! Dear Advaitins VIVEKACHUDAMNI IS ADISHANKARACHARYA'S WORK, do not make controversies in this great list. even if it is written by any other Sankaracharya the knowldege comes from the Jagadguru that is about it. The source is Adi shankara only. What do you want to prove Sharkara is not poetic? like the Shankaracharya after? already Chirstian missionaries are making havocs to convert poeple, why cant we learn Vivekachudamani instead of making controversies of authorship, why do we want to eat the peel of Banana instead of the fruit itself? With Love & OM! Krishna Prasad On 8/30/06, shyam_md <shyam_md > wrote: > > Michael Comans, a well renowned Advaitic scholar, and author of a > doctoral thesis on Adviata moda and many other vedanta books has this > to write about the authorship of the Vivekachoodamani(VC). This may > already be well-known to many of the esteemed and learned members in > this forum but for the benefit of others I am reproducing his exact words > > The VC is popularly but most probably erroneously considered to be a > work of Adi Sankara > There are a number of reasons why this is not a genuine work of Adi > Sankara. In the ascending order of importance these are as follows Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2006 Report Share Posted August 30, 2006 Namaste: The issue on the authorship of Vivekachudamani is not new to this list and instead of focusing our attention on the authorship let us concentrate on the message . This statement from Swami Dayananda Saraswati summarizes why the message is more relevant than the authrorship: "Even though the modern scholars have difficulty in accepting the authorship of Sankara for this book, in the teaching tradition of Sankara the book is used as a text for initial study. I don´t think we lose anything even if the authorship is attributed to any other Sankaracarya of one of the various Sankara-mathas." (Swami Dayananda, Vivekacudamani: Talks on 108 selected verses, p.1.) Now let me pose the question – Who is the author of Gita? Some will answer that it is Vedavyasa and most will agree that it is Lord Krishna. No research is necessary to investigate the authorship and authenticity of Gita. What is important is the message of Gita. Similarly it is irrelevant whether Mahabharat and Ramayana represent historical events or not. I am of the opinion, that let us not waste our time in discussing matters that is unimportant for our spiritual progress and focus on messages from Vivekachudamani, Gita, Ramayana and Mahabharat. Warmest regards, Ram Chandran Note: Those who want to further explore, please go to the archives and search for `Vivekachudamani' and you can read over 300 postings dealing with that subject. Also please note that Michael Comans is a student of Swami Dayananda Saraswati! advaitin, "shyam_md" <shyam_md wrote: > > Michael Comans, a well renowned Advaitic scholar, and author of a > doctoral thesis on Adviata moda and many other vedanta books has this > to write about the authorship of the Vivekachoodamani(VC). This may > already be well-known to many of the esteemed and learned members in > this forum but for the benefit of others I am reproducing his exact words Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2006 Report Share Posted August 30, 2006 Pranams Ramchandran-ji, I could not agree with you more. The focus should only be on the teachings of advaita, not on authorships, year someone was born, place of birth or events, and other irrelevant historical details. That was the reason I included His Holiness Swami Dayananda-ji's very pointed message as well, which highlights the importance of this work as an important, nay indispensable part of traditional advaitic teaching. The only reason I brought this up was there have been recently repeated references to a very tiny portion of this book which, not me, but many advaitic experts feel is both controversial and at variance with what Bhagwaan Adi Sankara has taught and written in most of his well-acknowledged books. It is useful to bear in mind these facts as we study Vedanta under the Sankara parampara, and instead of getting caught up in specific sections of a given book or work, try to understand the entire teaching as a whole, and to the best of our ability. I was certain that this is not new knowledge to most people in this forum and that is exactly what I stated in my post as well. It was not my aim to rake up any "new controversy" - my humble and sincere apologies if such an impression has been conveyed my me in the process. Pranams to all advaitins. Shyam --- Ram Chandran <ramvchandran > wrote: > Namaste: > > The issue on the authorship of Vivekachudamani is > not new to this > list and instead of focusing our attention on the > authorship let us > concentrate on the message . This statement from > Swami Dayananda > Saraswati summarizes why the message is more > relevant than the > authrorship: "Even though the modern scholars have > difficulty in > accepting the authorship of Sankara for this book, > in the teaching > tradition of Sankara the book is used as a text for > initial study. I > don´t think we lose anything even if the authorship > is attributed to > any other Sankaracarya of one of the various > Sankara-mathas." (Swami > Dayananda, Vivekacudamani: Talks on 108 selected > verses, p.1.) Now > let me pose the question – Who is the author of > Gita? Some will > answer that it is Vedavyasa and most will agree that > it is Lord > Krishna. No research is necessary to investigate > the authorship and > authenticity of Gita. What is important is the > message of Gita. > Similarly it is irrelevant whether Mahabharat and > Ramayana represent > historical events or not. > > I am of the opinion, that let us not waste our time > in discussing > matters that is unimportant for our spiritual > progress and focus on > messages from Vivekachudamani, Gita, Ramayana and > Mahabharat. > > Warmest regards, > > Ram Chandran > > Note: Those who want to further explore, please go > to the archives > and search for `Vivekachudamani' and you can read > over 300 postings > dealing with that subject. Also please note that > Michael Comans is a > student of Swami Dayananda Saraswati! > > > advaitin, "shyam_md" > <shyam_md wrote: > > > > Michael Comans, a well renowned Advaitic scholar, > and author of a > > doctoral thesis on Adviata moda and many other > vedanta books has > this > > to write about the authorship of the > Vivekachoodamani(VC). This may > > already be well-known to many of the esteemed and > learned members in > > this forum but for the benefit of others I am > reproducing his exact > words > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2006 Report Share Posted August 30, 2006 Namaste dear Sri Shyam: In earlier discussions on the 'authorship of Vivekachudamani' there were some heated discussions and I just want to avoid a repetiion of a smilar kind. This is a delicate (sometimes even emotional)issue and I just want to warn the members not to engage in the authorship issue. The authorship issue is quite important when we read a book or writings where we have doubts on the message. But for well-known works such as Gita, Vivekachudamani, etc., authorship is of less importance. There is a famous Sanskrit saying - 'Rishi moolam, Nadi moolam....' (I don't remember the complete quotation) with the following interpretation: The purity of water is determined by how it tastes rather than where it came from; the greatness of a Rishi is also determined by his/her scholarship/behavior etc., and not necessarily by his/her birth origin. Warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, Shyam <shyam_md wrote: > > Pranams Ramchandran-ji, > > I could not agree with you more. > > > The only reason I brought this up was there have been > recently repeated references to a very tiny portion of > this book which, not me, but many advaitic experts > feel is both controversial and at variance with what > Bhagwaan Adi Sankara has taught and written in most of > his well-acknowledged books. It is useful to bear in > mind these facts as we study Vedanta under the Sankara > parampara, and instead of getting caught up in > specific sections of a given book or work, try to > understand the entire teaching as a whole, and to the > best of our ability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2006 Report Share Posted August 30, 2006 advaitin, Shyam <shyam_md wrote: > > Pranams Ramchandran-ji, > > I could not agree with you more. > > The focus should only be on the teachings of advaita, > not on authorships, year someone was born, place of > birth or events, and other irrelevant historical > details. Srigurubhyo NamaH Namaste Sri Shyam ji, It is good to see what you have said about concentrating on the message of Advaita. I have a question. Is advaita to be handled as a vague shastra? The more we dwell into the bhashya of the Acharya and his works we cannot but appreciate the exactitude that it abounds in. It is not the Acharya's invention or introduction to the Vedanta Shastra. It is the very essence of the Upanishads. The Upanishads teach a clear spritual path with true, verifiable landmarks and a specific goal. One reason why the upanishads and the Gita have insisted on a personal Guru for an adhyatma sadhaka is to have a one- to-one rapport where the sadhaka is able to report his progress, his state, his difficulties in advancing and a Self-Realized Guru who can guide him, monitor his progress and take him to the goal. In all the Upanishads we see the teachers have been Jnanis and the disciples, sometimes their sons, approaching them with devotion and securing guidance and attaining the goal. The Uddalaka-Shvetaketu, Yama- Nachiketas, Yajnavalkya-Janaka, just to name a few, are all perfect examples of the Jnani Guru and sishya who attains the experiential knowledge. These upanishads themselves testify to this. As we recently saw, the Acharya even in the start of the Brahmasutra bhashya says that Brahma jnanam culminates in anubhava, experience. We saw some more places where the Acharya stresses the anubhava aspect. He does not use this loosely. Where the progess is on, he does not say it is the ultimate anubhava. In the Gita, for example, we have clear, explicit mention of time, 'yadaa' 'tadaa'. The verse 52 and 53 are classic examples. The latter is as follows: Shrutivipratipanna te yadaa sthaasyati nischalaa samaadhau achalaa buddhiH tadaa yogam avaapsyasi When thy mind, perplexed by what thou hast heard, shall stand firm and steady in the Self, then wilt thou attain Yoga. The Acharya writes: yadaa= yasmin kaale sthaasyati=sthiriibhuutaa bhavishyati nishchalaa=vikshepachalana-varjitaa satii samaadhau....tadaa=tasmin kaale yogam avaapsyasi, viveka=prajnaam samaadhim praapsyasi. (kindly see a good translation for English rendering)Kindly note also that this is not some vague time. It is the specific time when he is intensely focusing on the ATman that this takes place. Immediately upon hearing this, Arjuna asks about the sthitaprajna lakshana. The Acharya introduces this verse: ...labdha-samaadhi- prajnasya lakshana.... I showed this one among several instances just to show that sadhana is not some vague proposition. For a sadhaka it is a question of life and death. In the shastra for mumukshutvam various expressions are given. One such is: Somehow or the other i shall strive to attain realization in this life itself. Another is: A man whose hair has caught fire would rush to a water source to extinguish the fire. The 'sattvOdreka' of a sadhaka has been depicted by Sri Narasimha Bharati SwaminaH of Sringeri in this manner: mokshe tvaraa na sahate...Such an advanced adhikaari does not brook delay in attaining moksha. If no specific path and a specific goal are there, the Upanishads will have no end in the teaching. In all the examples we saw above, then and there itself the goal is attained. Quite characteristically, in all those cases the adhikaari was an uttama- adhikari. In the absence of a person who has attained the Goal, what indeed is the meaning of the upanishadic teaching of 'shrotriya brahmanishtha'? The Vivekachudamani Guru assures to the disciple who has come to take refuge: Do not be afraid, i shall show you that path by which those Sages have crossed this samsara.. In the absence of such definite, identifiable cases, how can this assurance be given? The Acharya says in the Bhashya, 'Shuko muktaH, Vamadevo MuktaH'.. I have come across a Jnani, Sri Venkatasubba Rao, a house-holder who was initiated and blessed by a Jnani, Para Brahma. Sri Rao has recorded his acquaintance, the teaching received and the place where the 'shakti-paata' blessing took place in Sringeri and the date and time of the experience he had. I have a copy of his experiences typewritten by himself and which was given to me by his daughter living in Chickmagalur since he is no more in body: (quote) I came in contact with him at Sringeri during 1956 and our late Holiness Sri Sri Jagadguru Abhinava Vidyateertha Mahaswamigal confirmed that he was a Raja Yogi and a practical Vedantin. He was in a Sadhu or Avadhuta form. He was blessed by Sri Sri Chandrashekhara Bharati Mahaswamigal as was disclosed by Sri Abhinava Vidyateertha Mahaswamigal. Parabrahma initiated me at Harihareshwara Temple, Sringeri with Pranava sometime in 1956. On 15.8.1956 I had Shakti-paata deeksha at the residence of late Sri Ebrahim at a Muslim locality in Sringeri Town at 8.30 PM. I was brought back to present state on 16.8.1956 at 8.30 AM. He said, 'You have no doubts, weak people carry religion, be bold, tell your friends also'. (Unquote)( I am reminded of Sage Yajnavalkya saying to Janaka: Abhayam vai Janaka praaptosi. O janaka, thou hast attained the Fearless. Sri Abhinava Vidyateertha Mahaswamigal, much earlier to this had taught him just the first verse of Sridakshinamurtistotram upon Sri Rao's request for formal Vedantic classes. The Acharyal had told him, 'this one verse is enough for you' and suspended the class for him thereafter. He has told me personally on one of my interactions with him that he did not have the intellect for the Acharya's bhashyams. He relied on some prakarana granthas for mananam. Acharyal has tolk about this person to others: He has finished everything in the earlier lives and has come just for the finality. A strange thing that still puzzles me is: Acharyal Himself a Jivanmukta could have initiated this person. But He chose to direct him to Parabrahma, a Punjabi. Maybe a person's JnanaGuru is predestined. It is news for many that vedanta saakshatkara is an anubhava and that it is a definite event. That is the reason i brought this up to the notice of the List so that such of those who might not know about this could become aware of this. AT one time it was news to me as well, unbelievable. But the Grace of the Guru made this acceptance possible without any difficulty. In my humble opinion this is an act of grace no doubt. A record of such events, historical, is indeed an assurance that the Vedanta sadhana has a definite, verifiable culmination. It is in very rare cases that it is maintained or recorded at all. The Mandukya Bhshya that Sri Sundar Rajan ji just quoted is enough evidence for this 'event' nature of the culmination of the sadhana. What more we want? We may not have faith in the Acharyals of this or that peetham. But Bhagavatpaadaa's words have no higher authority to dismiss. AT the end of the bhashyam for the second chapter Gita, the Acharya writes: The foregoing state, to renounce all and to dwell in Brahman, is the Divine state, the state of Brahman. It pertains to and has its being in Brahman. On reaching this state, one is no longer deluded. Remaining in this state even at the last period of life, one attains Moksha, the felicity of Brahman. And it needs no saying that he who renounces while yet a brahmachari and dwells in Brahman throughout life attains the felicity of Brahnam, the Brahma Nirvana.(unquote) Just earlier he writes: such a man of steady knowledge, that man who knows Brahman, attains peace, nirvana, the end of all the misery of samsara. In short, he becomes the very Brahman. With humble pranams to you, subbu Om Tat Sat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2006 Report Share Posted August 30, 2006 advaitin, "subrahmanian_v" <subrahmanian_v wrote: mokshe tvaraa na sahate...Such an advanced adhikaari does not brook delay in attaining moksha. Namaste, In the above, the word 'tvaraa' has to be replaced by and read as 'vilambam'. Instead of using a word to convey 'delay'i used the opposite, in a 'hurry' to go to bed. The error is regretted. With humble pranams, subbu Om Tat Sat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 Michael Comans, a well renowned Advaitic scholar, and author of a doctoral thesis on Adviata moda and many other vedanta books has this to write about the authorship of the Vivekachoodamani(VC). praNAms Hare Krishna Michael Comans, a direct desciple of Swamy Dayananda Saraswati, Arsha Vidya Gurukulam has also written a scholarly article on role of nirvikalpa samAdhi in advaita realization & clearly proved in that article that NS experience is NOT indispensable for advaitic realization....sometime back Sri Sundar rajan (or Sri Kathirasan prabhuji) had forwarded that link...but right now I dont have that linK...Sri Sundar prabhuji, may I trouble you once again?? Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 Namaste Bhaskarji, You can find the full article here: http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/comans.htm On 8/31/06, bhaskar.yr (AT) in (DOT) abb.com <bhaskar.yr (AT) in (DOT) abb.com> wrote: > > Michael Comans, a well renowned Advaitic scholar, and author of a > doctoral thesis on Adviata moda and many other vedanta books has this > to write about the authorship of the Vivekachoodamani(VC). > > praNAms > Hare Krishna > > Michael Comans, a direct desciple of Swamy Dayananda Saraswati, Arsha Vidya > Gurukulam has also written a scholarly article on role of nirvikalpa > samAdhi in advaita realization & clearly proved in that article that NS > experience is NOT indispensable for advaitic realization....sometime back > Sri Sundar rajan (or Sri Kathirasan prabhuji) had forwarded that link...but > right now I dont have that linK...Sri Sundar prabhuji, may I trouble you > once again?? > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > bhaskar > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 31, 2006 Report Share Posted August 31, 2006 Namaste dear all, advaitin/message/32880 On 8/31/06, bhaskar.yr <bhaskar.yr wrote: > > Michael Comans, a well renowned Advaitic scholar, > and author of a > doctoral thesis on Adviata moda and many other > vedanta books has this > to write about the authorship of the Vivekachoodamani(VC). The author of this article quoted various references as per the following strategy:- A) Set of references (A) which convey that NS cannot be the cause of liberation. B) Set of references (B) which convey that, "By the Nirvikalpaka Samadhi the truth of Brahman is clearly and definitely realized, but not otherwise". C) Refuting (B), it was stated that the references used in (B) were not possibly authored by Sankara thereby refuting NS. In the beginning of the article, other than quoting symptoms such as, "The hair on the head and body stood erect; The half-closed eyes became fixed", the author does not convey anything worthwhile to describe Samadhi and rightfully conveys that 'they tell us nothing' ending the paragraph with a '?', thus showing an utter lack of understanding as to what is more relevant in describing Samadhi. It is only further down the line that the author quotes from Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, "In samadhi we have a sense of immediate contact with ultimate reality.." In my opinion, this is certainly more important than hair standing erect and must be mentioned first. In contrast, we may recall how nicely the brahma-sutras start... Although the article is a good complilation of references for (A) and (B), one has to carefully read such articles where an author discredits something thru unimporatant aspects such as 'hair', etc. The author states, 'The first point to be noted is that the word samadhi does not occur in the ten major Upanisads upon which Sankara has commented'. The author himself admitted that NS was known as Asamprajnatasamadhi in earlier times. Asamprajnatasamadhi would be known by a different name in the upanishads. Besides, in Upanishad times, people did not find a need to explicitly state what is obvious to all in those days and implicitly contained in all mantras neverthless. For eg., in the mahavakya, "tat vam asi", 'tat' itself may contain reference to samadhi, which the author, dwelling on externals, could not show for the existence of such a possibility thru diving deep into the upanishads. At best, the author quotes references about Samadhi from upanishads as, "concentrated, collected, brought together, or composed." The author yet again conveyed only external symptoms in the name of samadhi. The list goes on... i am stopping here...with the wonderful mantra, 'om poornamadah poornamidam...' Kind regards, Raghava ________ India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new http://in.answers./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2006 Report Share Posted September 1, 2006 I, for one, would like to thank Shyam-ji for pointing out the Vivekachudamani authorship issue. I certainly agree with Ram-ji that this should not be a topic for the list but in this case it is clearly very relevant when the views of Shankara (which after all are essentially the subject of these discussion) seem to be in question. I was certainly of the opinion that nirvikalpa samAdhi was not a sine qua non for realization so that I found the quotes from VC somewhat strange. Members may also recall I raised a question on the VC statement regarding the attitude to shruti a few months back. If someone then had reminded me of the authorship issue, I would have been much less confused! I agree entirely that VC is a superb introduction to Advaita (and I second the view that Swami Dayananda's 'Talks on 108 verses' is excellent) but I feel that one should be aware of the queries over these two issues so as not to give too much credence to them when considering the teaching of Shankara. Accordingly I am very grateful for the extract from the Coman's article. Best wishes, Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2006 Report Share Posted September 1, 2006 Namaste all This issue of the authorship of Vivekachudamani about which so much is written on the web puzzles me about the ego of man in the following sense. We quote a lot of modern poets and writers. We enjoy recognising the great permanent truths of mankind in their writings. We revel in the excitement of exchanging their writings, quotes, etc. among ourselves. And at the same time when somebody quotes Vivekachudamani, instead of dwelling on the subject of the quote, a question is raised; "Did Shankara write it? Can you tell me from the Prasthana-traya?" What a partiality! Where hast thou gone?! Oh Rig Vedic Quote! "A no bhadrAH kratavo yantu vishvataH" Let noble thoughts come to us from every side! PraNAms to all advaitins. profvk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2006 Report Share Posted September 1, 2006 Namaste, Two jivanmukta-s within the lifetimes of many of us wrote on Vivekachudamani: http://www.srisharada.com/vivekachudamani.htm Sri Sri Chandrasekhara Bharati Mahaswamigal ( the 34th pontiff) of the Sri Sharada Peetam wrote a sanskrit commentary on Vivekachudamani. You can read here the english translation of this great work, translated by Sri. P. Sanakaranarayanan. http://www.ramana-maharshi.org/m_path/2006/jan_2006/jan_2006_frameset.htm Sri Ramana Maharshi translated into Tamil Sankara's Dakshinamurti Stotra, Vivekachudamani and Atma Bodha and in talks with devotees elaborated on the subtle points of the tradition using Sankara's viewpoint as a reference. Sri Chandrasekhara Bharati's disciple and successor, Sw. Abhihnava Bharati Tirtha, also a jivanmukta, has written on Nirvikalpa Samadhi (ref. to Sri Subbuji's recent messages). If we counter these thoughts only by 'shAstrArtha-pANDityam' the loss would only be ours. Regards, Sunder advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk wrote: > > Namaste all > > This issue of the authorship of Vivekachudamani about which so much > is written on the web puzzles me about the ego of man in the > following sense. > > We quote a lot of modern poets and writers. We enjoy recognising the > great permanent truths of mankind in their writings. We revel in the > excitement of exchanging their writings, quotes, etc. among > ourselves. And at the same time when somebody quotes > Vivekachudamani, instead of dwelling on the subject of the quote, a > question is raised; "Did Shankara write it? Can you tell me from the > Prasthana-traya?" > > What a partiality! > Where hast thou gone?! Oh Rig Vedic Quote! > "A no bhadrAH kratavo yantu vishvataH" > Let noble thoughts come to us from every side! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2006 Report Share Posted September 1, 2006 advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh wrote: > > Namaste, > > Two jivanmukta-s within the lifetimes of many of us wrote on > Vivekachudamani: > > http://www.srisharada.com/vivekachudamani.htm > > Sri Sri Chandrasekhara Bharati Mahaswamigal ( the 34th pontiff) of the > Sri Sharada Peetam wrote a sanskrit commentary on Vivekachudamani. You > can read here the english translation of this great work, translated > by Sri. P. Sanakaranarayanan. > > http://www.ramana- maharshi.org/m_path/2006/jan_2006/jan_2006_frameset.htm > > Sri Ramana Maharshi translated into Tamil Sankara's Dakshinamurti > Stotra, Vivekachudamani and Atma Bodha and in talks with devotees > elaborated on the subtle points of the tradition using Sankara's > viewpoint as a reference. > > Sri Chandrasekhara Bharati's disciple and successor, Sw. Abhihnava > Bharati Tirtha, also a jivanmukta, has written on Nirvikalpa Samadhi > (ref. to Sri Subbuji's recent messages). > > If we counter these thoughts only by 'shAstrArtha-pANDityam' the > loss would only be ours. > > > Regards, > > Sunder Srigurubhyo NamaH Namaste, While not raking up the authorship controversy, i would like to say a few things on this matter. It is noteworthy that in the excellent commentary in Sanskrit written by the above Jagadguru, all the verses that the others feel unconfortable with and therefore 'censored' or chopped off from the original text, were happily commented upon. Only after the 516th verse onwards, i have reliably learnt, that the Acharya ceased to proceed with the commentary as he felt very indrawn on the message of these verses and said that these have to be experienced only inwardly and not to be written upon. I would like to draw the attention of members to the Bhagavad Gita 13th chapter verse: Dhyanena Atmani pashyanti kechit aatmaanam atmanaa, anye saankhyena yogena.... This verse, from the Lord, clearly says that these two paths are there for securing liberation, direct realization. We have seen from other texts like Yogavaasishtha that Shri Sunder Rajan ji, recently posted, that there are these two paths, based on the temperament of the sadhaka. Some are temperamentally prone to dhyana and some others naturally take to vichara. Yet, upon studying the various commentaries of the Gita verse cited above, it became clear that the path of Dhyana that the Lord first enumerated in the verse, is the one taken by uttama adhikaris and the vichara is by madhyama adhikaris. Even here, the commentators point out that the final realization is secured only by dhyana (at that moment). Without jumping to furious debate over this, let us see some reason behind this categorisation. I recently quoted from the Jivanmukti viveka about those who having practiced meditation from the beginning, to the stage of obtaining 'upaasya devataa saakshAtkara' and tread the path of Vedanta, the result is that their obtaining the Atman Realization and the establishment in Jivanmukti is simultaneous. For the others whom the revered author of the Jivanmukti viveka termed those who have not done the prior preparations and embark upon Vedanta, no doubt the realization is secured, by stint of enthusiasm and sincere application to shravana, etc., but the jivanmukti is not as easily secured. What is jivanmukti that is referred to here? It is the continuous feeling of supreme peace and joy of Atman being reflected in the mukta's mind. Due to prarabdha various things come to a person but these are likely to affect the mind even of a jnani, being 'drishta duHkha'. While a yogi-Jnanin will easily manage these problems, the other jnani will definitely have problems with these. The reason is this: While the former, due to his constant practice of withdrawing his mind from the external world, undertaken earlier and continued even after obtaining Jivanmukti, as a result of habit, the afflictions are easily withstood. The Panchadashi has the last five chapters as 'Ananda'. The 11 chapter gives a detailed account of how for a sadhaka of the dhyana type, the 'smriti', memory of the joy experienced during meditation is available always on tap. A friend who is a sadhaka of this type residing in Chennai, eventhough working in a very responsible position of having to manage a garment export unit with a lot of labourers, purchase of material, seeking orders, executing the orders, etc. reported that the supreme peace of the morning meditation lingers in him always. This is a real-life example. In the other type, since the mind is not given to withdraw from outside, eventhough not seeking the 'objectionable', still, being naturally exposed to the 'bahir-mukhataa', does not enjoy this peace. That is the reason why the Jivanmukti viveka, a whole book dedicated to the attainment of jivanmukti prescribes various means for the one who has problems to tackle them. There are Jnanis who have become so from either of these paths. For example, i had mentioned in this List earlier that Sri Chandrashekhara Bharati SwaminaH was of the vichara type which none other than his successor Acharya has said. Yet, i heard from a reliable source that the commentary of the Vivekachudamani on the verses dealing with Nirvikalpa Samadhi are immaculately written by the Acharya. The 'constant peace' question is accounted for in this manner. What takes away peace is 'bahirmukhata'. What gives that is 'antarmukhata', inward-turned nature. This Acharya was ever one such. I have heard that even with respect to the Mutt's material wealth, he was totally indifferent. When asked to come and view the exquisite array of ornaments of Sharadambal accumulated over the centuries as gifts from various Kings, the Acharya refused even to look at them. He remarked, 'there are designated officers for the purpose, let them take care'. I mentioned this just to show that, as the Jivanmukti viveka says, renunciation is the key to peace. We have also witnessed the Paramacharya of Kanchi who lived such a life of great renunciation. Now coming to a particular verse of the Vivekachudamani which says that Nirvikalpa Samadhi is the only means to securing realization, i would like to say this: The dhyana of nididhyasanam of Brihadaranyaka upanishad is of several degrees of intensity. Even with the last three limbs of Yoga, namely dharana, dhyana and samadhi, it is said that they are all only different degrees of absorption in meditation. Now, in Vedanta sadhana, this dhyana, at a particular level of intensity is capable of producing Atman Knowledge and liberating the person. But when such realization is had by even an increased intensity of dhyana, which perhaps could take the name of samadhi, nirvikalpa samadhi, etc., produces Atma jnana of a strength much more than what is obtained in the earlier level of intensity. The reason for my saying this is this: We have seen from the account of Sri Ramana Maharshi's life where although the realization was secured in the 'death experience' in Madurai, soon after coming to Arunachala, he went into, or rather was drawn into, severe deep samadhi extending several weeks or days in the paataala lingam, cellar shrine. The people who chanced to see him there had a tough time retrieving him from there. He had to be virtually 'pulled off' the floor to which his bottoms had stuck owing to puss, blood, etc. caused by insect bite. For a sage to have remained in that state unmindful of the physical pain caused, is something unimaginable. However, as he has himself said later, an account of which was posted here by Peter, i think, there is a need for stabilizing the secured realization for initially it will be somewhat weak. This we saw even in the case of Sri Abhinava Vidyateertha SwaminaH where he said that repeated resorting to NS results in stabilizing the realization and securing jivanmukti. Reverting to the Vivekachudamani verse in question, i think it has to be seen in this way. The emphasis 'only' is to signify that if, and only if, the realization is had through NS, the resultant jivanmukti is strong. If not, it will not be so. The Acharya writes in the commentary: the reason for this is said: Because, otherwise, the realization cannot be had with a mind given to movement. ' Now, every upanishad says that the realization occurs when the mind is kept without movement. There is a need for intense focusing of the mind on the Atman alone and in one such moment, the realization occurs. There is this vaakyam: drishyate tu agryayaa buddhyaa, suukshmayaa sookshma-darshibhiH'. The Atman is apprehended with a trained, sharpened buddhi. The Vivekachudamani verse says: atiiva suukshmam paramaartha tattvam, na sthoola buddhya pratipattum arhati. samaadhinaa atyanta suukshma vrittya jnaatvyam aaryaiH ati-shuddha buddhibhiH'. The Atman is extremely subtle and cannot be grasped by a gross intellect. By samadhi which is an extremely subtle modification of the mind, it has to be apprehended by those of pure mind. What is the problem here? How is this 'alien' to the Upanishad teaching for the need for an extremely subtle intellect? Does not the upanishad make the requirement of an extremely subtle intellect a sine qua non for realization? Why frown by the sight of the word nirvikalpa/samadhi which also does not mean anything different from the upanishadic specification? Again, the objection about 'belittling the scripture' in the verse 'shruteH shatagunam', i do not see any problem. It says NS is infinitely great even than nididhyasanam. What is wrong with this? In the background of what has been said in the foregoing paras, what is meant here is only another degree in the intensity of meditation, absorption. When the nididhyasanam, for argument's sake, produces realization, the NS produces establishment in Brahman Knoewledge and Jivanmukti. Where is the problem in this? I shall conclude with another real-life case, for the understanding of the scriptures is enhanced only and only by looking into real-life cases. A renowned Jnani who had attained sAkshAtkAram through the vichara marga was once 'advised' by Sri Abhinava Vidyateertha Swamigal to take up a mode of dhyana. It would surprise many. But these are some facts obtaining in real-life. Finally, the authorship problem is not intrinsic to those who have come or who are following a sampradaya. The Acharyas of traditional Mutts have held certain works as that of Adishankara. When a work like vivekachudamani is taken up for exposition by a teacher coming under the sampradaya, there is absolutely no question on its authorship arising in the student's mind. It is in our sampradaya and that is the end of it. There is no more questioning on this. What right do others who have no training in any such sampradaya have to comment on these things? Why do they interfere in these things? Did the Renowned Jivanmukta Acharya who wrote such a beautiful, instructive, sadhana-oriented commentary, do it for the sake of a doctorate? With the Pandityam he had he could have raised and answered any number of questions. But this is not an area for such gymnastics. Let others, please, keep off this sacred field. My humble pranams to all, subbu Om Tat Sat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2006 Report Share Posted September 1, 2006 Pranams Bhaskar-ji and Kathirasan-ji Many thanks for taking the trouble of providing that wonderful link. I had not had the pleasure of reading that exposition before, and was struck by its scholarship and lack of bias. It has certainly added a lot of value to the discussions that we are having. Humble pranams Hari OM Shyam --- K Kathirasan <brahmasatyam > wrote: > Namaste Bhaskarji, > > You can find the full article here: > http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/comans.htm > > On 8/31/06, bhaskar.yr (AT) in (DOT) abb.com > <bhaskar.yr (AT) in (DOT) abb.com> wrote: > > > > Michael Comans, a well renowned Advaitic scholar, > and author of a > > doctoral thesis on Adviata moda and many other > vedanta books has this > > to write about the authorship of the > Vivekachoodamani(VC). > > > > praNAms > > Hare Krishna > > > > Michael Comans, a direct desciple of Swamy > Dayananda Saraswati, Arsha Vidya > > Gurukulam has also written a scholarly article on > role of nirvikalpa > > samAdhi in advaita realization & clearly proved in > that article that NS > > experience is NOT indispensable for advaitic > realization....sometime back > > Sri Sundar rajan (or Sri Kathirasan prabhuji) had > forwarded that link...but > > right now I dont have that linK...Sri Sundar > prabhuji, may I trouble you > > once again?? > > > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > > bhaskar > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2006 Report Share Posted September 2, 2006 H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy Pranams to all. advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk wrote: >And at the same time when somebody quotes > Vivekachudamani, instead of dwelling on the subject of the quote, a > question is raised; "Did Shankara write it? Can you tell me from the > Prasthana-traya?" > > What a partiality! > Where hast thou gone?! Oh Rig Vedic Quote! > "A no bhadrAH kratavo yantu vishvataH" > Let noble thoughts come to us from every side! Dear Sri Krishnamurthy, Vivekachudamani is a great book, a very popular text, no doubt about it. The authorship is attributed to Sri Shankara.Sri Shankara has written commentaries to Prasthanatraya, and it has been taken to be authoratitive. The unique feature of the commentaries is that nowhere in them the reader will come across with anything which contradicts the thought positions which have been established as the genuine Adwaitic doctrine by Sri Shankara. So many ideas about the vedanta doctine and Sadhana which appear in Vivekachudamani do not confirm with the ones which have been stated in prasthanatraya commentaries. Then how can one accept such ideas of Vivekachudamani as the ones taught by Sri Sankara? So many Vedantins who devoted their life time for a study in depth of the commentaries have seen clearly of these anomalies and pointed out the same. So one who is familiar with the commentaries will question when something is passed on as the teaching of Sri Shankara, which is contrary to what has been stated in the commentaries.He will ask for the proof from the commentaries. The Mantra from Rigveda, quoted by you, is a marvellous one. It states "Let noble thoughts come to us from every side". Let those thoughts be CORRECT ONES , but not, WRONG AND FALSE ONES. That is what Sri Gaudapada and Sri Shankara have done. They have accepted the right ones from every darshana and they have refuted and rejected the wrong ones, however great may be the founders of those darshanas. We should also follow the same principle and should not accept blindly everything from texts which purport to teach Advaitha doctrine.Let us accept whatever is true and reject the incorrect ones. I have shared some of my thoughts. With warm and respectful regards Sreenivasa Murthy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2006 Report Share Posted September 3, 2006 advaitin, "subrahmanian_v" <subrahmanian_v wrote: "What is jivanmukti that is referred to here? It is the continuous feeling of supreme peace and joy of Atman being reflected in the mukta's mind. Due to prarabdha various things come to a person but these are likely to affect the mind even of a jnani, being 'drishta duHkha'. While a yogi-Jnanin will easily manage these problems, the other jnani will definitely have problems with these. The reason is this: While the former, due to his constant practice of withdrawing his mind from the external world, undertaken earlier and continued even after obtaining Jivanmukti, as a result of habit, the afflictions are easily withstood." Dear Subbu-ji, Pranams A jnani or jivanmukta is a Perfected Seer, A rare Man at the pinnacle of wisdom. A jnani is Brahman. Avidya is mithya. If a jnani has problems - and a "Yogi-jnani" has less problems than a "other jnani" (these are new terminologies for someone not as well-read like me) then where is moksha?? Mount Kailash will need to expend more effort to be still in the face of a slight breeze than a jnani in the face of these so-called afflictions you refer to, which belong to the realm of the vyavaharic world - the very world the jnani has long transcended by destruction (final and complete) of avidya. Where is the question of a jnani having to "manage problems"? The life of a jnani(there is only one jnani, just as there is only one nondual brahman in my humble opinion - no subtypes here!!) is a SPONTANEOUS abidance in peace and fullness. There is no question of any previous practice - all in the realm of avidya- that he had undertaken being of any benefit to him anymore - be it yoga or scriptural study. One more small note.. "This verse, from the Lord, clearly says that these two paths are there for securing liberation, direct realization. We have seen from other texts like Yogavaasishtha that Shri Sunder Rajan ji, recently posted, that there are these two paths, based on the temperament of the sadhaka. Some are temperamentally prone to dhyana and some others naturally take to vichara. Yet, upon studying the various commentaries of the Gita verse cited above, it became clear that the path of Dhyana that the Lord first enumerated in the verse, is the one taken by uttama adhikaris and the vichara is by madhyama adhikaris." Bhagwaan Krishna has himself indicated that there is nothing more sanctifying than Jnanam - a person as wonderfully scholarly as you would be the foremost to assert that the entire teacing of the Gita extolls jnanam - to read into this line that atmavichara is for madhyama adhikaris goes against the very spirit underlying the Gita. "tad viddhi pranipatena pariprasnena sevaya upadeksyanti te jnanam jnaninas tattva-darsinah yathaidhamsi samiddho 'gnir bhasmasat kurute 'rjuna jnanagnih sarva-karmani bhasmasat kurute tatha sraddhaval labhate jnanam tat-parah samyatendriyah jnanam labdhva param santim acirenadhigacchati" Again not being very wellread, it is news to me that this process of atmavichara for attaining jnanam is being interpreted by some to mean that it is considered suitable for people unqualified for dhyana?? Nowhere in his commentary in the Gita (or anywhere) does Shankara make this (mis)classification either directly or indirectly about yoga being more suitable for uttama adhikaris and atmavichara being more suitable for madhyama adhikaris. There is NEVER any atmavichara without dhyana - to think otherwise is childish. Anyone who believes in such a classification would do well to focus their attention on a different line, from the same 13th chapter which begins with the (most important) words "amanitvam, adambhitvam.." that define who a uttama adhikari really is. Humble pranams once again, Hari OM Shyam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2006 Report Share Posted September 3, 2006 advaitin, "shyam_md" <shyam_md wrote: > > Dear Subbu-ji, > > Pranams >just as there is only one > nondual brahman in my humble opinion - no subtypes here!!) is a > SPONTANEOUS abidance in peace and fullness. There is no question of > any previous practice - all in the realm of avidya- that he had > undertaken being of any benefit to him anymore - be it yoga or > scriptural study. > Dear Shyam ji, So did i think for long until i was 'introduced' to that wonderful book titled 'Jivanmukti-viveka' by Swami Vidyaranya. As it is impossible to give the whole of it on posts, i am just referring to the name. It is available in English in the Advaitin List resources. Still the original or the English translation by Adayar Library is very good. If possible pl. read it. A only one of its kind marvel. Many Many pranams, subbu Om Tat Sat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2006 Report Share Posted September 4, 2006 Subbu said: > Dear Shyam ji, > So did i think for long until i was 'introduced' to that wonderful > book titled 'Jivanmukti-viveka' by Swami Vidyaranya. As it is > impossible to give the whole of it on posts, i am just referring to > the name. It is available in English in the Advaitin List > resources. Still the original or the English translation by Adayar > Library is very good. If possible pl. read it. A only one of its > kind marvel. > > Many Many pranams, > subbu > Om Tat Sat I read only some articles on the net about the interesting work of Swami Vidyaranya. One can say, only the mind makes distinctions and divides stages and people ad infinitum, yet as a practitioner when the first stages of permanent joy have settled, as described by Patanjali and commented by Purohit swami: http://paroissien.free.fr/ref/purohitpatanjali.htm ... it means the whole world to who has left the realm of permanent worries and stress; we have known death so often that it has left a permanent stain on our soul, left us life-shy, this is why we are so reluctant to give up our precious comfort and worldly pleasures and dedicate ourselves to the death issue. Sri Ramana proposed different stages of jivanmukta and Buddha spoke of nirvana with residues and without residues. When Sri Ramana was in pain he was shouting so that people in the Ashram could not sleep, his immediate entourage explained it in the morning saying it was yoga exercises, but he himself said: "There is pain, but there is no suffering". His entourage had a stricter view of his realization, he should have felt nothing at all as other masters did when dying. Realization being, by implication, the only 'personal business' in this world, views about its outward expression are, by implication, second hand. Link: http://www.factbites.com/topics/Jivanmukta Thank you. Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2006 Report Share Posted September 4, 2006 And at the same time when somebody quotes Vivekachudamani, instead of dwelling on the subject of the quote, a question is raised; "Did Shankara write it? Can you tell me from the Prasthana-traya?" What a partiality! Where hast thou gone?! Oh Rig Vedic Quote! "A no bhadrAH kratavo yantu vishvataH" Let noble thoughts come to us from every side! Humble praNAms respected Professor prabhuji Hare Krishna I beg your goodself to differ from your above view point. When the question here is about *shankara siddhAnta nirNaya* & his stand on certain concepts, the referential documents/basic premise (pramANa grantha) is bhagavadpAda-s prasthAna trayi bhAshya ONLY & we cannot quote some prakaraNa grantha-s for which authorship is in question...Traditionally, whenever there is a conflict in determining the doctrinal issues within traditional circle, the first premise that traditionalists use is nyAya prasthAna (sUtra bhAshya) with appropriate support from shruti & smruti prasthAna. Hence, post shankara Acharyas from bhAmati & vivaraNa schools first written sub-commentaries (vyAkhyAna) on shankara's sUtra bhAshya to prove their point....I dont think, they have quoted from prakaraNa granthA-s (which are in shankara's name) to prove their siddhAnta.... Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2006 Report Share Posted September 4, 2006 Hello Eric, Can I have the source or web link from which the following incident is quoted? Regards ramasamy > When Sri Ramana was in pain he was shouting so that people in the > Ashram could not sleep, his immediate entourage explained it in the > morning saying it was yoga exercises, > > > Eric > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2006 Report Share Posted September 4, 2006 Namaste Eric, I'm not sure that Sri Ramana "proposed", as such, there were different stages of Jivanmukti. He did answer questions put to him based on the existing classifications. Here is an extract from "Talks". The passage that is most valuable, imho, is, "There is no difference in the samadhi state or the jnana of the jnanis. The classification is only from the standpoint of the observer." ---------------- "A question was asked regarding the position of one whose jnana is weak in the scheme of things. The doubt was if that manda Jnani had stopped short of kevala nirvikalpa. M.: Kevala nirvikalpa happens even in the tanumanasi stage (of attenuated mind). D.: The middling and superior jnanis are said to be jivanmuktas. Kevala nirvikalpa is in tanumanasa. Where does one whose jnana is weak fit in? M.: He comes in sattvapatti (realisation) - whereas the middling and the superior ones come in asamsakti and padarthabhavini respectively. This division as dull, middling, and superior is according to the momentum of prarabdha. If it is strong he is weak; if it is middling he is middling too; if prarabdha is weak he is superior; if it is very weak he is in turyaga. There is no difference in the samadhi state or the jnana of the jnanis. The classification is only from the standpoint of the observer. D.: Is tanumanasi the same as mumukshutva? M.: No. The six qualities, discrimination, dispassion and mumukshutva, etc., precede subhechcha. The first stage follows mumukshutva, then comes vicharana (search), then the tenuous mind. Direct perception is in sattvapatti (realisation). There is no need to discuss similar points. Jivanmukti and Videhamukti are differently described by different authorities; Videhamukti is sometimes said to occur even when the man is seen with a body. The fact is that mukti is another name for Aham ('I'). The Seven Jnana bhumikas (stages of knowledge) are: (1) Subhechcha (desire for enlightenment); (2) Vicharana (hearing and reflection); (3) Tanumanasi (tenuous mind); (4) Sattvapatti (Self-Realisation); (5) Asamsakti (non-attachment); (6) Padarthabhavani (absolute non-perception of objects); (7) Turyaga (beyond words). Those who have attained the last four Bhumikas are respectively called Brahmavit, Brahmavidvara, Brahmavidvarya and Brahmavidvarishtha." (Talks 256) ------------------------ On the subject of pain and Sri Ramana, you may be interested in the following - posted on http://acalayoga.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_acalayoga_archive.html QUOTE: Ramana Maharshi and pain: An excerpt from a new book - The Extraordinary Healing Power of Ordinary Things by Larry Dossey: "An example comes from the life of Sri Ramana Maharishi, perhaps the most beloved saint of modern India. Maharishi was afflicted with cancer at the end of his life, and he would cry out in pain at night. His screams often prevented those who had come to study at his ashram from sleeping. Some of his devotees, wanting to put the best possible face on things, insisted that their teacher was not really in pain, but was using "yogic control." On hearing this rationale, Maharishi objected. "There is pain," he explained, "but there is no suffering" - a reminder that pain and serenity can coexist, and are not required to annihilate each other." The above is interesting but one might ponder Mahadevan's version of events in "Bhagavan Ramana" [available as free PDF download from Ramana Maharshi web site <http://ramana-maharshi.org/> ]: "Towards the end of 1948 a small nodule appeared below the elbow of his left arm. As it grew in size, the doctor in charge of the Asrama dispensary cut it out. But in a month's time it reappeared. Surgeons from Madras were called, and they operated. The wound did not heal, and the tumour came again. On further examination it was diagnosed that the affection was a case of sarcoma. The doctors suggested amputating the arm above the affected part. Ramana replied with a smile : "There is no need for alarm. The body is itself a disease. Let it have its natural end. Why mutilate it? Simple dressing of the affected part will do." Two more operations had to be performed, but the tumour appeared again. Indigenous systems of medicine were tried; and homeopathy too. The disease did not yield itself to treatment. The sage was quite unconcerned, and was supremely indifferent to suffering. He sat as a spectator watching the disease waste the body. But his eyes shone as bright as ever; and his grace flowed towards all beings. Crowds came in large numbers. Ramana insisted that they should be allowed to have his darsana. Devotees profoundly wished that the sage should cure his body through an exercise of supernormal powers. Some of them imagined that they themselves had had the benefit of these powers which they attributed to Ramana. Ramana had compassion for those who grieved over the suffering, and he sought to comfort them by reminding them of the truth that Bhagavan was not the body : "They take this body for Bhagavan and attribute suffering to him. What a pity! They are despondent the Bhagavan is going to leave them and go away - where can he go, and how?" UNQOUTE Kind regards to all advaitins, Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2006 Report Share Posted September 4, 2006 --- subrahmanian_v <subrahmanian_v > wrote: > Dear Shyam ji, > So did i think for long until i was 'introduced' to > that wonderful > book titled 'Jivanmukti-viveka' by Swami Vidyaranya. Dear Subbu-ji Pranams. Many thanks - I have not read that book yet - perhaps on account of the fact that none of the contemporary acharyas such as Swami Chinmayananda-ji and others have written any books or lectured on it that I know of, I had perhaps erroneously not attached much importance to that work. Your word is enough to assure me about its utility and importance, and I have already located an online source where it is downloadable for my subsequent study! However, if indeed His Holiness Vidyaranya-ji talks about problems for a jnani, I would very humbly have serious reservations on that score. In all your reading have you come across Bhagwan Sankara saying a jnani has problems?? Bhagwan Krishna goes overboard in his descriptions of a jnani(jivanmukta) as being unaffected by the happenings to his body/mind. duhkhesv anudvigna-manah sukhesu vigata-sprhah vita-raga-bhaya-krodhah sthita-dhir munir ucyate yah sarvatranabhisnehas tat tat prapya subhasubham nabhinandati na dvesti tasya prajna pratisthita visaya vinivartante niraharasya dehinah rasa-varjam raso 'py asya param drstva nivartate prakasam ca pravrttim ca moham eva ca pandava na dvesti sampravrttani na nivrttani kanksati udasina-vad asino gunair yo na vicalyate guna vartanta ity evam yo 'vatisthati nengate sama-duhkha-sukhah sva-sthah sama-lostasma-kancanah tulya-priyapriyo dhiras tulya-nindatma-samstutih manapamanayos tulyas tulyo mitrari-paksayoh sarvarambha-parityagi gunatitah sa ucyate yatha sarva-gatam sauksmyad akasam nopalipyate sarvatravasthito dehe tathatma nopalipyate That it is a point of no return is also affirmed by Bhagwaan at many places. tad-buddhayas tad-atmanas tan-nisthas tat-parayanah gacchanty apunar-avrttim jnana-nirdhuta-kalmasah There is no denying that the previously unfructified prarabdha, like a arrow that has already been released, will continue to act on a jnanis body - and will subject him to experiences good and bad - pain and pleasure, happiness and sorrowful situations will present themselves. BUT when Bhagawan asserts that the jivanmukta is indifferent to these - he is not saying that he is indifferent to these situations WITH effort (howsoever minute) - in that case the jnani is not too different from a jiva. If a jnani also requires effort to remain equanimous, and some jnanis require less effort than others, then where is moksha or mukti (freedom)??. Freedom or moksha refers not just to freedom from rebirth which is simply an unimportant effect, but more importantly to freedom from self-mis-identity - freedom from kartrtvam and bhoktrtvam. A jnani with "problems" which he has to take "efforts to solve" means a jnani who has not understood his a-kartrtvam and his a-bhoktrtvam. This person is not a jnani - period, much less a jivanmukta. If we say a jnani has problems and some jnanis have less problems than others - then we open the door to three classes of people - ajnani of course with problems, jnani(jr.) with problems and jnani(sr.) without problems. In this case a jnani with problems will of course be envious of a jnani without problems, may regret not having the prarabdha of another jnani with less problems, will be worried about the next set of problems even if the current problem has been solved, etc - sounds very much like samsara to me. This is absurd. If these questions are answered with the assertion that the jnani is established in Brahman and hence does not have regrets, envy, worries, etc then it must equally be admitted that the jnani does not have these problems to begin with, much less have to rely on prior practices to overcome them! Will a jnani's body have sukha-dukha and afflictions from similair pairs of opposities - of course. But these are always at the level of the body-mind, not at the level of his self! A jnani has firm and abiding knowledge that he is Brahman. He is forever in (what you would call) the Supreme Bliss of Brahman. How can this status be challenged by situations he can clearly see are in the realm of avidya. Will a man long awake be tormented by his dream thirst from last night, and then will he need the dream water to quench that thirst??!! I think part of the problem is when we start regarding avidya as something real. If it is real and can rear its ugly head at anytime then yes - even a jnani could be in trouble at some point. Only when we regard avidya as real do we perhaps need a forced complete stoppage of the mind and its activity with some peace obtained in a state of nirvikalpa samadhi. When avidya itself is unreal, and this is crystalclearly ascertained to be so by a jnani, how can he be affected, and that too to the extent that he perceives a problem?? Practices like nirvikalpa samadhi, and that too to help the jnani tackle his "problems" AFTER the attainment of jnanam, are as meaningless as exorcism to drive away the ghost that seemingly reappers in the post!! A Jnani has vanquished ignorance. He knows He is the light of all lights, He is the very substratum of the Universe, He is ..Shiva! Hence, to ascribe subdivisions to a jnani (to my ignorant mind) seem as ridiculous as assigning subdivisions to Brahman! My humble pranams Shyam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2006 Report Share Posted September 4, 2006 advaitin, "Peter" <not_2 wrote: > > >> > ---------------- > "A question was asked regarding the position of one whose jnana is weak in > the scheme of things. The doubt was if that manda Jnani had stopped short of > kevala nirvikalpa. > > M.: Kevala nirvikalpa happens even in the tanumanasi stage (of attenuated > mind). > > D.: The middling and superior jnanis are said to be jivanmuktas. Kevala > nirvikalpa is in tanumanasa. Where does one whose jnana is weak fit in? > > M.: He comes in sattvapatti (realisation) - whereas the middling and the > superior ones come in asamsakti and padarthabhavini respectively. This > division as dull, middling, and superior is according to the momentum of > prarabdha. If it is strong he is weak; if it is middling he is middling too; > if prarabdha is weak he is superior; if it is very weak he is in turyaga. > There is no difference in the samadhi state or the jnana of the jnanis. The > classification is only from the standpoint of the observer. > > D.: Is tanumanasi the same as mumukshutva? > > M.: No. The six qualities, discrimination, dispassion and mumukshutva, etc., > precede subhechcha. The first stage follows mumukshutva, then comes > vicharana (search), then the tenuous mind. Direct perception is in > sattvapatti (realisation). There is no need to discuss similar points. > Jivanmukti and Videhamukti are differently described by different > authorities; Videhamukti is sometimes said to occur even when the man is > seen with a body. The fact is that mukti is another name for Aham ('I'). The > Seven Jnana bhumikas (stages of knowledge) are: > > (1) Subhechcha (desire for enlightenment); > (2) Vicharana (hearing and reflection); > (3) Tanumanasi (tenuous mind); > (4) Sattvapatti (Self-Realisation); > (5) Asamsakti (non-attachment); > (6) Padarthabhavani (absolute non-perception of objects); > (7) Turyaga (beyond words). > > Those who have attained the last four Bhumikas are respectively called > Brahmavit, Brahmavidvara, Brahmavidvarya and Brahmavidvarishtha." > (Talks 256) > ------------------------ > Namaste, Peter-ji and all Thanks for bringing to light this portion of Ramana's talks. These seven BhUmikas were being discussed in detail by my father in his YogAmRtam which I was translating on this list in 2005. I discovered that his source was the famous Mahopanishad. I am glad you have quoted Ramana's explanations of the same. Readers may want to go back to the following posts on this list in this connection for the explanations by the author of YogAmRtam:: YogAmRtam 10: advaitin/message/26323 YogAmRtam 11: advaitin/message/26364 YogAmRtam 12: advaitin/message/26403 YogAmRtam 13: advaitin/message/26432 and further messages Nos.26511, 26530 and 26541. PraNAms to all advaitins profvk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 advaitin, Shyam <shyam_md wrote: > Dear Subbu-ji > > Pranams. > > Many thanks - I have not read that book yet - perhaps > on account of the fact that none of the contemporary > acharyas such as Swami Chinmayananda-ji and others > have written any books or lectured on it that I know > of, I had perhaps erroneously not attached much > importance to that work. > > Your word is enough to assure me about its utility and > importance, and I have already located an online > source where it is downloadable for my subsequent > study! > > However, if indeed His Holiness Vidyaranya-ji talks > about problems for a jnani, I would very humbly have > serious reservations on that score. Namaste Dear Shyam ji, Thanks for your response. The mind is such a complex thing that it shares the same 'epithet' with Brahman, not available for description by words, anirvachaniya. Without taking away the 'thrill' out of your journey through the Jivanmukti viveka, let me state one case that Sri Vidyaranya takes up in that work: The scriptures can never be properly understood and appreciated unless case studies are taken up. Ground reality bears a number of lessons that supplements the true understanding of the Upanishadic teaching. The spiritual sadhana and its attainment is a very comprehensive one involving inputs both explicitly AND implicitly mentioned in the Upanishads. Just as Brahman cannot be accurately spoken of even by the Upanishads, so too the world = none other than the mind. Sage Yajnavalkya (of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad) decides to take up sannyasa and before actually embarking upon it, he divides the family property into two and gives one each to each of his wives. You know the story of Maitreyi asking him some penetrating questions on Atman and his replies. Now, Swami Vidyaranya sees that a Jnani that is Yajnavalkya feels a need for sannyasa. From the earlier episodes available in the Upanishads, Vidyaranya concludes that even though Yajnavalkya was undoubtedly a Jnani (for, otherwise the Upanishad that teaches his words on Atman would not be pramana), had engaged in vociferous fierce debates (a stern warning to me), at all occasions eyed the gold, cattle, etc. that came as prize-money in debates, cursed Shakalya to death, etc. He found no peace of mind and decided that unimpeded peace of mind is possible only when one withdraws from these worldly engagements, hence the decision to renounce, despite being a Jnani. I do not want to say more. All the sthitaprajna lakshanas of the Gita that you have quoted are, as we already saw several times, that of a 'perfected' stage. The very attaining of realization was said to be at the moment of the deep one-pointed concentration of the mind on the ATman. Subsequently, the Lord starts describing the traits of an established Jnani. In the course of this, he teaches the verses II.60,61. on the 'practice' that one has to undertake for firmness in prajnaa, enlightenment, obtained by the method we saw earlier. The Acharya introduces these verses: He who would acquire steadiness of right knowledge (prajnaa-sthairyam) should first bring the senses under control. For, if not controlled, they will do harm. In the verse the word 'vipashchitah' is extremely significant. It is not an ignorant man. It refers to a 'mind possessed of discriminative knowledge' as the Acharya puts it. What does this convey? Enlightenment is had at a particular moment of deep concentration. For it to become steady there are practices to be undertaken. Not that the person did not control his senses earlier during sadhana stage. He did. But now, after enlightenment, for the steadiness to take roots, this control is even more essential. It is such a one who has successfully undergone this 'course' that is spoken of as a sthira-prajna, whose traits the Lord spoke and you quoted elaborately. It is ONLY for such a person, those traits apply truly. For all others, those traits are a model to work for. I think i have said enough. Pl. also recall the two types of people who strive for knowledge that i quoted from the Jivanmukti viveka. That has a strong bearing on your question and this reply above. The whole of JV is about this mind-management (trouble-shooting) programme. Pranams and warm regards, subbu Om Tat Sat 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.