Guest guest Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 Hi Satish, I am responding to two of your thoughts in a set of previous messages. I apologize if I have misquoted you - please correct me. 1. Why people say sahasranama when it is prohibited? A) Not many people read puurva or uttara B) Even some of them who read do understand what they read -- so most are unaware of the restriction, C) Some may think that those verses are artha vaada. Even you considered the verses about moxa in the uttara as artha vaada in one the recent messages. D) Once you are captivated by the beauty of sahasranaama - it is hard not to say it. Even though trishatii's uttara claims that is billion times more powerful than sahasranaama and not only that it is quite brief to say - not many people say. It is not as popular as sahasranaama. E) Even Sankaracharyas grant permission to people to say these texts without initiation. 2. Is trishatii bhaashya by Sankara? You are correct that many modern scholars and vaishNava-s doubt that. When I started the series in 1997/98 in advaita-l, some sent a personal mail saying it is not a work by Sankara. But you see, if you ask questions like this, there are many more. Some of the same people say that lalitopaphyaana is a later addition to brahmaaNDa puraaNa. Most digvijaya-s accept saundaryalahari as a work by aachaarya. If that is the case, why not trishatii bhaashhya - it is a vedantic interpretation and steers clears of tantra. On the other hand, some of the verses of saundarylahari do not sound like the verses that would have been written by the same person who wrote giita bhaashhya. Many among us do not have the skills/knowledge to determine if a particular work is by Sankara or not. So the simpler option is to go by guru parampara. But it is better to understand what is being said as much as possible. Again even for that most of have to rely on translations - which might color the original. 3. Regarding dress code, feminism, etc. I think rules should be fair to both genders. When women are expected to wear madisaar (a special religious way of wearing saree), then men should be made to wear pancha and also have shika. Why allow men with pant and any hair style? Even things like wearing a uttariiyam like a belt (like servant) is not acceptable to shaastra-s. shankara maThas should post the dress code and adhere to it. Many societies/clubs have that. That way rules will be applied to one and all the same way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 2008 Report Share Posted July 23, 2008 Respected Elders and Learned Brothers, I have a humble doubt please. When I am aware of my own mortality and impending end, day by day and shortening life span, when I am attracted by the beauty of Sahasranama / Trisathi, when I study through the meanings of selected namas from the above, deeply sinking into them and enjoying their beauty, thus utilising my available hours , will the Divine, please, permit my intrusion into the area of Sahasranama / Trisathi etc., AS I AM USING IT AS A MOKSHA SADHANAM, Hoping to dwell upon one of the namas in my mind when I shed my mortal coils, and not for any worldly activity/gain. The cognition of popularity or otherwise of specific texts are relegated to some other plane of activity. Regarding dress code, I humbly believe that various Spiritual Heads have not insisted on a 24 hour adherence due to the social climate prevailing a few years ago, when media reported physical harms inflicted on males with a specific dress code i.e. tufts, sacred threads, pancha etc. When a few groups of anti-social/religious believers started harassing adherents to dress codes and when the local authorities turned a blind eye to it and when the Spiritual Heads understood the crux of the matter, dress code had not been insisted upon steadfast, Given a good chance and dignity, the dress code will be followed by all. By the way, should anyone wait for a posting from the various Matas for following the dress code? Should we not follow it from a deep urge from within our innermost beings? If somebody could post on how much spiritual energy is lost by wearing cut and stitched apparel (whether innermost or outermost), there will be definite shift toward traditional dress codes. jag MSR <abhayambika Thursday, July 24, 2008 8:12:18 AM trishatii etc. Hi Satish, I am responding to two of your thoughts in a set of previous messages. I apologize if I have misquoted you - please correct me. 1. Why people say sahasranama when it is prohibited? A) Not many people read puurva or uttara B) Even some of them who read do understand what they read -- so most are unaware of the restriction, C) Some may think that those verses are artha vaada. Even you considered the verses about moxa in the uttara as artha vaada in one the recent messages. D) Once you are captivated by the beauty of sahasranaama - it is hard not to say it. Even though trishatii's uttara claims that is billion times more powerful than sahasranaama and not only that it is quite brief to say - not many people say. It is not as popular as sahasranaama. E) Even Sankaracharyas grant permission to people to say these texts without initiation. 2. Is trishatii bhaashya by Sankara? You are correct that many modern scholars and vaishNava-s doubt that. When I started the series in 1997/98 in advaita-l, some sent a personal mail saying it is not a work by Sankara. But you see, if you ask questions like this, there are many more. Some of the same people say that lalitopaphyaana is a later addition to brahmaaNDa puraaNa. Most digvijaya-s accept saundaryalahari as a work by aachaarya. If that is the case, why not trishatii bhaashhya - it is a vedantic interpretation and steers clears of tantra. On the other hand, some of the verses of saundarylahari do not sound like the verses that would have been written by the same person who wrote giita bhaashhya. Many among us do not have the skills/knowledge to determine if a particular work is by Sankara or not. So the simpler option is to go by guru parampara. But it is better to understand what is being said as much as possible. Again even for that most of have to rely on translations - which might color the original. 3. Regarding dress code, feminism, etc. I think rules should be fair to both genders. When women are expected to wear madisaar (a special religious way of wearing saree), then men should be made to wear pancha and also have shika. Why allow men with pant and any hair style? Even things like wearing a uttariiyam like a belt (like servant) is not acceptable to shaastra-s. shankara maThas should post the dress code and adhere to it. Many societies/clubs have that. That way rules will be applied to one and all the same way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2008 Report Share Posted July 24, 2008 Dear Ravi, , MSR <abhayambika wrote: > C) Some may think that those verses are artha vaada. Even you considered > the verses about moxa in the uttara as artha vaada in one the recent > messages. This brings the question as to how does one determine what is arthavAda and what is vidhi, niSheda. The verses about moxa I say they are arthavAda because we find similar statemnets about other mantra-s in tantra-s. So here is a contradiction when we come across statments which say only shrIvidyA brings moxa.If all are right then there is nothing special about shrIvidyA.This is why to resolve this apparaent contradiction it is concluded that the verses about moxa are arthavAda. On the other hand, when it comes to initiation, the shAstra is saying do not do this till x, y z etc. And other related tantra-s about the subject reiterate the same. Here there is no reason for us to doubt the statements of tantra shAstra. Because 1) There is no contradiction to what is being said. 2)We see that if teh same shAstra says a prayoga x drives away evil spirits or if a prayoga y causes peace or brings wealth, we see them happening. So we take these vidhi, niSheda statements of tantra as it is without questioning them. Call it an inductive faith if you will. > > D) Once you are captivated by the beauty of sahasranaama - it is hard > not to say it. I must agree to this. >Even though trishatii's uttara claims that is billion > times more powerful than sahasranaama and not only that it is quite > brief to say - not many people say. It is not as popular as sahasranaama. > I wonder why this is so. There is some inherent beauty in the sahasranAma it looks like which darws people towards it. I personally wish I am fortunate enough to have the required initiations to be able to chant LS but then...I have other things given to me which I am satisfied with.. > E) Even Sankaracharyas grant permission to people to say these texts > without initiation. Please do not take this as being disrespectful but they cant and should not be doing that without proper reasoning. > 2. Is trishatii bhaashya by Sankara? > > You are correct that many modern scholars and vaishNava-s doubt that. > When I started the series in 1997/98 in advaita-l, some sent a personal > mail saying it is not a work by Sankara. But you see, if you ask > questions like this, there are many more. If you remember me from a couple of years back I used to literally shout at people who said trishatI is not by Adi -Shankara ) > Some of the same people say > that lalitopaphyaana is a later addition to brahmaaNDa puraaNa. Ofcourse I now hold this view too like others. It is clearly a later addition to BP. > > Most digvijaya-s accept saundaryalahari as a work by aachaarya. If that > is the case, why not trishatii bhaashhya - it is a vedantic > interpretation and steers clears of tantra. There is one reference to teh bhuvaneshvarI kalpa and it souds like a tAntric work. Agaian it refers to Ananda bhairava for the name kapAlI, this is clearly tAntric(please see Rajita's latest posting) as we do not see the word Ananda bhairava in any vadidIka works. That a commentary on a tAntric stotra steers of clear of tantra is not a virtue but a severe handicap, espceially given that we are dealing with a tAntric work here. :-) >On the other hand, some of > the verses of saundarylahari do not sound like the verses that would > have been written by the same person who wrote giita bhaashhya. On this one, I am neutral. There is possibility he authored it or may he did not. If the reason to doubt that Shankara authored this is because the way a woman's beauty is described, I have nothing to say. If the mind is trained well it can probably do that and still retain a yati like mentality. These things are possible when through years of hard practice the mind is trained IMHO. But I am not guaranteeing anything, just saying there is a possibility. > So the simpler option is to go by > guru parampara. I have no issues with taht except that when there is new research and new evidence conclusively stating something different we should be willing to accept it. > > 3. Regarding dress code, feminism, etc. > > I think rules should be fair to both genders. When women are expected to > wear madisaar (a special religious way of wearing saree), then men > should be made to wear pancha and also have shika. Why allow men with > pant and any hair style? Even things like wearing a uttariiyam like a > belt (like servant) is not acceptable to shaastra-s. > > shankara maThas should post the dress code and adhere to it. Many > societies/clubs have that. That way rules will be applied to one and > all the same way. I am with you when you talk about same standards. My expression of anger againsts feminists does not have to do just with dress code. I t was trying at deeper implications of importing western feminism wholesale. But I will not get into that discussion here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2008 Report Share Posted July 24, 2008 Dear satish, There are many such controversies around sankara. The famous Dakshinamurthy stotra is one among them. Some scholars are of the view that probably it was the work of a saiva whose is a bit tilted towards kashmir saivism. Because of the use of the word " pratyabhijna " in the sloka " rahugrasta divakarendu..........yah pratyabhijnayate, tasmai srigurumurthaye namah idam sridakshinamurthaye " This term Pratyabhijna is found in trika siddhanta which indicates that " recognition of oneself to be parasiva " . Infact the famous work " manasollasa " by vartitakara has the tendency of parinamavada by mentioning 36 principles of creation. Infact, in samaya tradition only 25 principles are taken (this is also in conformity to the gayatri swarupa having 24 bijas with pranava as 25th). So, going by the above two facts, it can be refuted that Sankara and Sureswara were the authors of Dakshinamurthy Stotra and Manasollasa. If you go by this methodology, i think nothing would remain for sankara except sutrabhashya and prasthanatraya. We are ordinary mortals sans strong background of vyakarana, nirukta, vedanta, purva and uttara mimamsa. Judging the great personalities like sankara with our limited brains should be beyond our scope. With regards, sriram Satish <satisharigela wrote: Dear Ravi, , MSR <abhayambika wrote: > C) Some may think that those verses are artha vaada. Even you considered > the verses about moxa in the uttara as artha vaada in one the recent > messages. This brings the question as to how does one determine what is arthavAda and what is vidhi, niSheda. The verses about moxa I say they are arthavAda because we find similar statemnets about other mantra-s in tantra-s. So here is a contradiction when we come across statments which say only shrIvidyA brings moxa.If all are right then there is nothing special about shrIvidyA.This is why to resolve this apparaent contradiction it is concluded that the verses about moxa are arthavAda. On the other hand, when it comes to initiation, the shAstra is saying do not do this till x, y z etc. And other related tantra-s about the subject reiterate the same. Here there is no reason for us to doubt the statements of tantra shAstra. Because 1) There is no contradiction to what is being said. 2)We see that if teh same shAstra says a prayoga x drives away evil spirits or if a prayoga y causes peace or brings wealth, we see them happening. So we take these vidhi, niSheda statements of tantra as it is without questioning them. Call it an inductive faith if you will. > > D) Once you are captivated by the beauty of sahasranaama - it is hard > not to say it. I must agree to this. >Even though trishatii's uttara claims that is billion > times more powerful than sahasranaama and not only that it is quite > brief to say - not many people say. It is not as popular as sahasranaama. > I wonder why this is so. There is some inherent beauty in the sahasranAma it looks like which darws people towards it. I personally wish I am fortunate enough to have the required initiations to be able to chant LS but then...I have other things given to me which I am satisfied with.. > E) Even Sankaracharyas grant permission to people to say these texts > without initiation. Please do not take this as being disrespectful but they cant and should not be doing that without proper reasoning. > 2. Is trishatii bhaashya by Sankara? > > You are correct that many modern scholars and vaishNava-s doubt that. > When I started the series in 1997/98 in advaita-l, some sent a personal > mail saying it is not a work by Sankara. But you see, if you ask > questions like this, there are many more. If you remember me from a couple of years back I used to literally shout at people who said trishatI is not by Adi -Shankara ) > Some of the same people say > that lalitopaphyaana is a later addition to brahmaaNDa puraaNa. Ofcourse I now hold this view too like others. It is clearly a later addition to BP. > > Most digvijaya-s accept saundaryalahari as a work by aachaarya. If that > is the case, why not trishatii bhaashhya - it is a vedantic > interpretation and steers clears of tantra. There is one reference to teh bhuvaneshvarI kalpa and it souds like a tAntric work. Agaian it refers to Ananda bhairava for the name kapAlI, this is clearly tAntric(please see Rajita's latest posting) as we do not see the word Ananda bhairava in any vadidIka works. That a commentary on a tAntric stotra steers of clear of tantra is not a virtue but a severe handicap, espceially given that we are dealing with a tAntric work here. :-) >On the other hand, some of > the verses of saundarylahari do not sound like the verses that would > have been written by the same person who wrote giita bhaashhya. On this one, I am neutral. There is possibility he authored it or may he did not. If the reason to doubt that Shankara authored this is because the way a woman's beauty is described, I have nothing to say. If the mind is trained well it can probably do that and still retain a yati like mentality. These things are possible when through years of hard practice the mind is trained IMHO. But I am not guaranteeing anything, just saying there is a possibility. > So the simpler option is to go by > guru parampara. I have no issues with taht except that when there is new research and new evidence conclusively stating something different we should be willing to accept it. > > 3. Regarding dress code, feminism, etc. > > I think rules should be fair to both genders. When women are expected to > wear madisaar (a special religious way of wearing saree), then men > should be made to wear pancha and also have shika. Why allow men with > pant and any hair style? Even things like wearing a uttariiyam like a > belt (like servant) is not acceptable to shaastra-s. > > shankara maThas should post the dress code and adhere to it. Many > societies/clubs have that. That way rules will be applied to one and > all the same way. I am with you when you talk about same standards. My expression of anger againsts feminists does not have to do just with dress code. I t was trying at deeper implications of importing western feminism wholesale. But I will not get into that discussion here. Explore your hobbies and interests. Click here to begin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2008 Report Share Posted July 24, 2008 Dear Sriram, , venkata sriram <sriram_sapthasathi wrote: > > Dear satish, > > There are many such controversies around sankara. The famous Dakshinamurthy stotra is one among them. Some scholars are of the view that probably it was the work of a saiva whose is a bit tilted towards kashmir saivism. Because of the use of the word " pratyabhijna " in the sloka > " rahugrasta divakarendu..........yah pratyabhijnayate, tasmai srigurumurthaye namah idam sridakshinamurthaye " > > This term Pratyabhijna is found in trika siddhanta which indicates that " recognition of oneself to be parasiva " . I am not that knowledgable about trika but I dont think shiva is particularly worshipped as dakShiNAmUrti in trika. So it is highly unlikely that it is by someone with ppl of trika background. Additionally since there is sureshvara's commentary on this stotra who happens to be his immediate disciple, there is a high probability that it is by Shankara. As for 36 principles I had this doubt too but I think sureshvara mentions 36 elsewhere too? Additionally I learn from very learned people in Advaita-l that even in works related to prasthAna trayI, sureshavara differs on 1 or 2 matters with shankara. So this difference(like 24 to 36) is of little value to us it seems? Regards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 24, 2008 Report Share Posted July 24, 2008 , MSR <abhayambika wrote: > > 2. Is trishatii bhaashya by Sankara? > > Most digvijaya-s accept saundaryalahari as a work by aachaarya. If that > is the case, why not trishatii bhaashhya - it is a vedantic > interpretation and steers clears of tantra. 1)One thing which might make people doubtful is that in AchArya's prapa~nchasAra there is no mention of the 15 lettered pa~nchadashI which is central to trishatI, even in portions where tripurA is dicscussed. One could say it might be in vogue at that time but considered highly secret and hence not revealed. But this does not look so convincing. It is like coming up with vague reasons like children do..IMHO. 2)You seem to think that since it steers clear of tantra it might be AchArya's work. We see from the prapa~nchasAra tantra that AchArya is not against tantra at all. So how do we know prapa~nchasAra is AchArya's work? We assume so because it has padmapAda's(since he is his immediate disciple) commentary and later works do mention this as AchArya\s work and also refer to padmapAda's commentary. Since we are far removed in time we can only look at probabilities. We are not judging anyone here but trying to determine what is probable and how much and ofcourse we take the help of our traditions too to determine this. Regards 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.