A study of a chapter of the book 'BhAmatI-samAlochanam'.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Sanjeev Murthy" <casmurthy

wrote:

 

mere discussion for curiosity will not fetch Atmajnaana- according

to Shankara.

> shruti, yukti, anubhava are the main pillers for knowing

vEdaanta. when Shankara is alive thro' bhaashyaa why strain thro'

cross roads ?

> sarvEjanaaha sadguru prasaada siddhirastu,

> sanjeeva murthy

 

 

ShrIgurubhyo namaH

 

Namaste Sri Sanjeeva Murthy ji,

 

First let me accord a warm welcome to you into this Satsang. It is

heartening to note that you have undergone shastraic studies

covering the Bhashyams of our revered Acharya.

 

What you have said above is perfectly agreeable to me. Mere

curiosity about the Bhashyam will be only a waste of our precious

life. True longing for the Truth alone will make the study of the

Bhashyam fruitful in the real sense. Otherwise, we will end up as

mere scholars, that too of the half-baked variety. Shri Srinivasa

Murthi ji's caution is quite in place.

 

About what you have observed about the 'straining thro corss-roads',

i have a point to make:

 

We have in the tradition the Brihadaranyaka upanishad Bhashya

Vartika and the Taittiriya Up. Bhashya Vartika, all consisting of

several thousands of verses composed by Sri Sureshwaracharya. Would

it be proper to conclude that Sri Sureshwaracharya did this mammoth

work because he thought that Acharya Shankara had ceased to be alive

through His immaculate Bhashyas? The Vartika is known to be a work

that elucidates the Bhashyam.

 

Again, Sri Sachidaanandendra Saraswati Swamiji has penned over 200

books, again an amazing feat for any individual to accomplish in a

lifetime. Where was the need for this mammoth work when Acharya

Shankara is alive through His Bhashyams? People could directly

approach the Bhashyam to know its contents.

 

If we approach the Bhashya through any of the above mentioned works,

would it amount to 'straining through cross roads'?

 

With humble pranams,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

your question is quite apt. yes the only student of Shankara i.e.Sureshwara has perfectly followed the Sampradaya of Adhyaropa apavaada in his works and also Sri Satchidanandendra Saraswati Swamiji has followed the same path of Goudapada ,Shankara and Sureshwara. The main stream is Saarvatrika ParipoorNaanubhava. Hoorna is Mumukshutva .

According to Sri S S Swamiji - Goudapaada, Shankara, Sureshwara is the Guru parampara. cross roads means- who have not analysed with Mumukshutva, Avasthaa traya( from particular avastha point of view), Paripoornaanubhava, Adhyaropaapavada Prakriya, Vastu tantra- kartru tantra, vyavahara drushTi- paramaarTha drishti, Adhyaasa as analysed by Goudapaada, Shankara, Sureshwara, Satchidanada.

If I really want to come out of Bandha , I should come out of bias, enquire with Sadguru with humbleness.

Thats all.

Shubhamastu,

sanjeeva murthy

-

subrahmanian_v

advaitin

Thursday, November 16, 2006 12:45 PM

Re: A study of a chapter of the book 'BhAmatI-samAlochanam'.

 

 

advaitin, "Sanjeev Murthy" <casmurthy

wrote:

 

mere discussion for curiosity will not fetch Atmajnaana- according

to Shankara.

> shruti, yukti, anubhava are the main pillers for knowing

vEdaanta. when Shankara is alive thro' bhaashyaa why strain thro'

cross roads ?

> sarvEjanaaha sadguru prasaada siddhirastu,

> sanjeeva murthy

 

ShrIgurubhyo namaH

 

Namaste Sri Sanjeeva Murthy ji,

 

First let me accord a warm welcome to you into this Satsang. It is

heartening to note that you have undergone shastraic studies

covering the Bhashyams of our revered Acharya.

 

What you have said above is perfectly agreeable to me. Mere

curiosity about the Bhashyam will be only a waste of our precious

life. True longing for the Truth alone will make the study of the

Bhashyam fruitful in the real sense. Otherwise, we will end up as

mere scholars, that too of the half-baked variety. Shri Srinivasa

Murthi ji's caution is quite in place.

 

About what you have observed about the 'straining thro corss-roads',

i have a point to make:

 

We have in the tradition the Brihadaranyaka upanishad Bhashya

Vartika and the Taittiriya Up. Bhashya Vartika, all consisting of

several thousands of verses composed by Sri Sureshwaracharya. Would

it be proper to conclude that Sri Sureshwaracharya did this mammoth

work because he thought that Acharya Shankara had ceased to be alive

through His immaculate Bhashyas? The Vartika is known to be a work

that elucidates the Bhashyam.

 

Again, Sri Sachidaanandendra Saraswati Swamiji has penned over 200

books, again an amazing feat for any individual to accomplish in a

lifetime. Where was the need for this mammoth work when Acharya

Shankara is alive through His Bhashyams? People could directly

approach the Bhashyam to know its contents.

 

If we approach the Bhashya through any of the above mentioned works,

would it amount to 'straining through cross roads'?

 

With humble pranams,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

Sri Sanjeeva Murthy observes

 

" mere discussion for curiosity will not fetch Atmajnaana- according

to Shankara."

 

Far be it for me to contradictShankara BHAGVADAPADA or any other

great saint .

 

But "curiosity' may kill a cat but not a sincere sadhaka undertaking

a spiritual journey -

 

Jignasa is the very TOUCHSTONE of every sadhana ! What is jignasa ?

The urge to enquire or to investigate ? how does a Sadhaka do this ?

By reading scriptural texts and by meditating on the great

scriptural Truths and by associating with sadhakas who are already

well versed in the path - it is 'education ' all the way across -

Self education ( swadayana ) or through satsangha ( group

education) ! One has to be a Jignasu first in order to be a

Mumukshu ! YES! THE SEED HAS TO BE SOWN FOR THE PLANT TO BEAR A

FRUIT OR A FLOWER! aS OUR BELOVED aNADAJI WOULD REPEAT TIME AND

AGAIN THE 'DESIRE FOR KNOWING THE TRUTH SHOULD EXIST BEFORE THE

TRUTH CAN BE KNOWN OR EXPERIENCED'" How can one 'know' something if

there is no desire or curiosity to know ? only a jignasu can

become a Mumukshu ! All great saints were jignasus to begin with

including great saints like Sri Ramana !

 

Yes! it is all about learning through 'individual' study of the

scriptures ot through collective study in a group satsangha ! WHEN

WE TALK OF SPIRITUAL INQUIRY , WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT LEARNING AT

A PHYSICAL LEVEL - IT IS THE DESIRE FOR KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH (

HIGER PHILOSOPHY) at an 'adyatmika' level not boutika or laukika

level ! How can one be a 'Siddha' without being a Sadhaka first ?

CAN THE 'KNOWN' BE KNOWN BY AN 'UNKNOWN' ?

 

in any case , As Nietzsche would say "There is a Linguistic danger

to spiritual freedom.-- Every word is a prejudice." This applies

to 'MOKSHA' and why ? Because real liberation is not just liberation

from births and deaths - it is also also liberation from

constricting and limiting thoughts!

 

Love and regards

[Guest guest]

advaitin, bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

>

> 5. The Kenopanishad II.i. 1 and 2 mantras speak of this.

> Shankara describes the transformation the student/sadhaka undergoes

> between the first mantra and the second one, dramatically: evam

> AchAryoktaH shiShyaH yEkAnte upaviShTaH samAhitaH san, yathOktam

> AchAryeNa AgamArthato vichaarya, tarkatashcha nirdhArya,

> SVAANUBHAVAM KRUTVAA, AchAryasakAsham upagamya uvAcha : manye aham

> atha idAnIm viditam Brahma iti. (After having been told so by the

> Teacher, the disciple sat in solitude with his mind concentrated,

> deliberated, made It a matter of personal experience and

> approached the teacher (in the class) and said: `Now I think

Brahman

> is known'.)

>

> praNAms Sri SubramaNian prabhuji

> Hare Krishna

> Kindly note here svAnubhavaM krutva does not anyway mean aspirant

has the

> time bound experience like nirvikalpa samAdhi in a solitude

place...After

> hearing the teachings of his teacher he went to a solitude place

did the

> vichAra through AgamArtha ( which has been explained earlier as

> tadviditAdathO aviditAdadi in the same upanishad) contemplated &

realzed

> through tarka..your above quote AgamArthato vichArya, tarkatashcha

> nirdhArya justifies this...so personal experience is not time bound

> experience of brahman, the spiritual practice explained above is

shravaNa,

> manana & nidhidhyAsana...The very next mantra in the upanishad

confirms

> this...Anyway, let us not go into the details of those things...I

shall

> stop here.

 

Namaste Bhasker ji,

 

Pl. note that no one has excluded the shravaNa, manana &

nidhidhyAsana from spiritual practice. I have not even remotely

suggested that. There is no aproksha sAkshAtkAra (Direct Liberating

experience of Brahman/Atman) without these preceding. In fact, what

you have said above 'contemplated & realzed through tarka.,,' gives

the impression that you have skipped the adhyAtma yoga part of

nididhyAsana explained on page 104 of the book 'Intuition of

Reality'. The Kenopanishad Bhashya depicting the 'svAnubhavam

kritvaa' implies this. We know this from the 'aagama' (scripture)

and 'tarka' (reflection, mananam) that have been explicitly

mentioned in this Bhashya and the last one, nididhyAsanam, has to be

seen as 'antargata', embedded, in the svaanubhava karaNam. A

detailed perusal of the chapters that i had recently quoted and

elucidated in the post 'Gita and Patanjali Yoga - A vedantic

perspective' will help you come to a firm conclusion of the sadhana

at the culminating stage. You may also look into the Bhashyam for

the Mandukya Kaarika in the III chapter: 32 and 37. The term NS in

Vedanta is not your or my invention. It is an inalienable part of

Vedanta. Hence both of us have no authority to exclude the term or

its practice from the Vedantic parlance. In case you are not

emotionally comfortable with the term 'nirvikalpa samadhi' and its

practice, you may conveniently substitute it with the term 'adhyAtma

yoga' and its practice as used/taught by Swamiji SSS in the above

mentioned book. As for me, there is absolutely no difference between

the two. They are only two names for the same entity.

 

A word about 'time bound experience':

 

It is evident from your use of the above expression that you use it

it in a derisive sense. But the truth is that that expression

factually denotes the ultimate experience of saakshAtkAra. Enough

evidence for it was provided earlier from the prasthAnatraya

bhashyam.

 

>

> By the way one small curious academic question while on the

subject, what

> exactly is the difference between bhAmati & vivaraNa

interpretation of

> shankara bhAshya...if there is nothing why there are two names??

I know

> you are the follower of bhAmati school, Sri SSS in his work vEdAnta

> prakriya pratyabhijna quotes some major differences between these

schools &

> show us how these two schools have gone against shankara's mUla

> bhAshya..if you are really interested to show us that bhAmati is

true to

> mUla shankara siddhAnta kindly show us where Sri SSS has gone

wrong while

> interpreting shankara bhAshya & comparing with that of vyAkhyAna-

s...

>

> praNAms onceagain

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

>

 

I would like to look at the BhAmati-VivaraNa distinctions in this

way: Instead of saying that the two differ in their interpretation

of the Shankara Bhashya, it would be proper, in my humble opinion,

to say that they two have their views pertaining to the Shastra as a

whole. Personally, i would not like to put the two into two water-

tight compartments. Actually, when reading any text on Vedanta,

when one is engrossed in the message that is being said there, one

is not conscious of whether it is Bhamati or Vivarana or the Bhashya

or Anandagiri or Madhusudani. This happens with the Upanishad

bhashyam also. While reading the Chandogya bhashya, it would not

remain consciously in mind that it is this upanishad that is being

studied. Because, the message of Advaita is what remains in the

foreground. You have asked: Why two names? Hanuman and Prahlada

are Great Bhaktas. Both are equally capable of inspiring,

influencing and inclucating bhakti in an aspirant. Is it meaningful

to ask 'why two names'? Obviously, the two are different

individuals. There are differences between them, if one wants to

enumerate these. But is it not better to concentrate on what lies

common and take that message? Again, take the case of the

Upanishads. There are a number of them. There are marked

differences between them. For example, the Taittiriya teaches the

creation of five elements and the Chandogya, three. This question

is discussed in the BSB too. Such differences are not unusual

between Upanishads. Yet, does the Taittiriya or the Chandogya, for

that reason, become any more or less Vedantic than the other? Their

Truth-teaching characteristic is never taken away by these

differences that are only peripheral. Would it be proper to

question: Why so many different Upanishads, why not give one name

only? This is how i would look at the Bhamati-Vivarana. So, to say

that i am a 'follower of the Bhamati' would not be correct in that

sense.

 

With pranams,

subbu

Om Tat Sat