Bhamati and Vivarana

[Guest guest]

Sub: Bhamati and Vivarana schools of Advaita Vedanta- A Critical Approach-

by P.S.Roodurmun, Head of the Department of Sanskrit, Indian Philosophy and

Hindu Theology at the Mahatma Gandhi Institute in Mauritius. Published by

Motilal Banarsidass.

 

This book is, on the whole, an excellent treatise, but I noticed the

following inaccuracies in chapter II- Historical Background of Advaita

Vedanta:

 

On page 30 it is said: In his " Naishkarmyasiddhi " Suresvara declares that

Emancipation. -----. He believes that the mere knowledge of the Jiva

–Brahman identity is not enough to remove ignorance, but added to it, " long

and continuous meditation on the same " is required, while performance of all

obligatory duties should continue. Cessation of action, believes Suresvara,

represents " transgression of one's duties " , and, therefore, results in the

accrual of sin, and hence in further bondage. In opposition to Sankara,

thus, Suresvara preaches the philosophy of 'knowledge-cum-action'

(jnAna-karma-samuccaya) as a means to salvation. (These statements are said

to be based on S.N.Dasgupta's History of Indian Philosophy.

 

Taking the question of jnAna-karma-samuccaya first, this is the theory of

the pUrva mImAmsakas, which Suresvara rejects outright. In Naishkarmyasiddhi

he first states the PrAbhAkara view as the pUrvapaksha in Slokas 14 t0 21 0f

chapter 1. He refutes this view in Slokas 22 onwards. Again in Sloka 54 of

the same chapter he says that action and knowledge cannot exist as the same

time as they are related as means and end. Reference may be made here to

the excellent English translation of Naishkarmyasiddhi with elaborate notes

by Dr. R. Balasubramanian, published by the Radhakrishnan Institute for

Advanced Study in Philosophy, University of Madras. So, far from opposing

Sankara, Suresvara totally agrees with him on the question of

jnAna-karma-samuccaya.

 

The statement in P.S.Roodurmun's book quoted above, namely,-- " He believes

that the mere knowledge of the Jiva –Brahman identity is not enough to

remove ignorance, but added to it, " long and continuous meditation on the

same " is required " , appears to imply the theory of prasankhyAna. This also

has been clearly rejected by Suresvara in Slokas 90 onwards of chapter 3 of

Naishkarmyasiddhi.

 

I would request those members of this group who are conversant with

Suresvara's works to see if what I have said above is correct or not. I also

hope this note will somehow come to the notice of Mr. Roodurmun either

directly or through some one else, so that he may consider this point.

 

S.N.Sastri

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

the mere knowledge of the Jiva –Brahman identity is not enough to

remove ignorance, but added to it, " long and continuous meditation on the

same " is required " , appears to imply the theory of prasankhyAna. This also

has been clearly rejected by Suresvara in Slokas 90 onwards of chapter 3 of

Naishkarmyasiddhi.

 

praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I think this prasaNkhyAna is prescribed for Atma jnAni, who has the mere

jnAna (not intellectual understanding but absolute jnAna) of the

jIva-brahman identity but not a jIvanmukta. There is a mention of these

two different categories in the advaita texts like jIvanmukti vivEka.

There are two different types of brahma jnAna one is sThitaM & another is

asThitaM...Perhaps, prasaNkhyAna is recommended for the asThitaM

brahmajnAni-s. (again for this there is a reference in jIvanmukti

vivEka)...They hold the bruhadAraNyaka 3-5-1 maNtra for the reference to

uphold this theory....No need to mention there is no support for these type

of statements in shankara-s prasthAnatrayi bhAshya, unless we read the

sentence *vijnAya prajnAm kurvIta* differently.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

No need to mention there is no support for these type of statements in

shankara-s prasthAnatrayi bhAshya, unless we read the sentence *vijnAya

prajnAm kurvIta* differently.

 

praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Kindly pardon me, I think I am not clear in the last sentence of my

previous mail...I was talking about shankara's commentary on bruhadAraNyaka

upanishad on 1-4-7 wherein he quotes *vijnAya prajnAM kurvIta* just to tell

us the fact that jnAni is bound by niyama vidhi-s ( restrictive injuctions)

but not by *apUrva vidhi-s*...Sankara here in this commentary says that

samyag jnAna (i.e. jIva-brahman identity jnAna) may have already arisen

*and* after the dawn of this knowledge a niyama vidhi comes into operation.

Here, at this stage, shankara emphasized the jnAni should have the constant

remembrance of Self-knowledge (Atma vijnAna smruti saMtati). But sureshvara

in his bruhad vArtika clearly says that this is mere *niyama vidhi*

and_not_ apUrvavidhi.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Helllo Dennis-ji :

 

i don't know if you have 'time' to read this before you submit your

book for publication , here is a book i thought might be of interest

to you ! i don't know if it available on line !

 

Bhamati and Vivarana Schools of Advaita Vedanta: A Critical Approach

 

by P.S. Roodurmun

Hardcover (Edition: 2002)

 

Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd.

 

here is a link you may want to check out!

 

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/brahma/An Analysis of the Brahma

Sutra by Swami Krishnananda...

 

hope this helps , dennis-ji

 

 

love and regards

[Guest guest]

This is with reference to a portion of Sri SN Sastri's post appended below.

 

The name of the text - naiShkarmyasiddhi - is itself a decent enough

indicator that Sureshvara rejects jnAna-karma-samuccaya! I wonder how

PS Roodurmun missed out on such an obvious indicator.

 

Ramesh

 

On 09/08/07, S.N. Sastri <sn.sastri wrote:

> Sub: Bhamati and Vivarana schools of Advaita Vedanta- A Critical Approach-

> by P.S.Roodurmun, Head of the Department of Sanskrit, Indian Philosophy and

> Hindu Theology at the Mahatma Gandhi Institute in Mauritius. Published by

> Motilal Banarsidass.

>

> This book is, on the whole, an excellent treatise, but I noticed the

> following inaccuracies in chapter II- Historical Background of Advaita

> Vedanta:

>

> On page 30 it is said: In his " Naishkarmyasiddhi " Suresvara declares that

> Emancipation. -----. He believes that the mere knowledge of the Jiva

> –Brahman identity is not enough to remove ignorance, but added to it, " long

> and continuous meditation on the same " is required, while performance of all

> obligatory duties should continue. Cessation of action, believes Suresvara,

> represents " transgression of one's duties " , and, therefore, results in the

> accrual of sin, and hence in further bondage. In opposition to Sankara,

> thus, Suresvara preaches the philosophy of 'knowledge-cum-action'

> (jnAna-karma-samuccaya) as a means to salvation. (These statements are said

> to be based on S.N.Dasgupta's History of Indian Philosophy.

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ramesh-ji and Sastri-ji.

 

Kindly bear with me if this post of mine is a product of ignorance.

 

I have read neither NaiSkarmyasiddhi nor the work of Shri Roodurmun

referred to by Sastri-ji. However, your exchange has given rise to

the following doubts:

 

If NiSkarma means the non-action of BG, then it connotes non-binding

actions and not a cessation of actions. Non-binding action does not

result in sin accural and further bondage. Besides, BG says clearly

that no living being can remain even for a second without performing

actions. There can therefore be non true cessation of actions. Am I

right?

 

In his elaborate bhASya to BG, Shankara has not rejected non-binding

actions. How can then we say that Shankara's views oppose

Sureshwara's?

 

Dr. Dasgupta is a scholar of an academic variety like Dr.

Radhakrishnan. SSS has countered him and effectively taken him to

task on several issues. Won't we therefore better read his

interpretation of non-action before accepting or rejecting statements

derived from his work 'History of Indian Philosophy', which, I

confess I haven't read?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

______________________

 

advaitin , " Ramesh Krishnamurthy "

<rkmurthy wrote:

>

> This is with reference to a portion of Sri SN Sastri's post

appended below.

>

> The name of the text - naiShkarmyasiddhi - is itself a decent enough

> indicator that Sureshvara rejects jnAna-karma-samuccaya! I wonder

how

> PS Roodurmun missed out on such an obvious indicator.

>

> Ramesh

>

> On 09/08/07, S.N. Sastri <sn.sastri wrote:

> > Sub: Bhamati and Vivarana schools of Advaita Vedanta- A Critical

Approach-

> > by P.S.Roodurmun, Head of the Department of Sanskrit, Indian

Philosophy and

> > Hindu Theology at the Mahatma Gandhi Institute in Mauritius.

Published by

> > Motilal Banarsidass.

........ Cessation of action, believes Suresvara,

> > represents " transgression of one's duties " , and, therefore,

results in the

> > accrual of sin, and hence in further bondage. In opposition to

Sankara,

> > thus, Suresvara preaches the philosophy of 'knowledge-cum-action'

> > (jnAna-karma-samuccaya) as a means to salvation. (These

statements are said

> > to be based on S.N.Dasgupta's History of Indian Philosophy.

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Madathil-ji,

 

I am sure Sastri-ji will be able to pitch in with a scholarly answer.

Here's my 2 cents.

 

>

> If NiSkarma means the non-action of BG, then it connotes non-binding

> actions and not a cessation of actions. Non-binding action does not

> result in sin accural and further bondage. Besides, BG says clearly

> that no living being can remain even for a second without performing

> actions. There can therefore be non true cessation of actions. Am I

> right?

 

In my understanding, you are absolutely right.

 

jIvanmukti is one of the hallmarks of advaita. It is reasonable to

state that a person cannot remain alive unless he performs some basic

actions - eating, breathing, etc. While breathing is involuntary,

eating requires the performance of more action - one has to arrange

for food!

 

Therefore, the very concept of jIvanmukti is not sustainable if mukti

were to mean a total cessation of all action. What does cease however,

is the sense of doership or agency.

 

This can be understood through an analogy with simple physics. In

order to move an object that is at rest, an external force needs to be

applied. The applied force produces a proportionate acceleration. A

moving object needs to overcome friction and air resistance, so the

object will keep moving only if the external force is continuously

applied.

 

karma is like force (a minor point, which does not affect the analogy,

is that while force produces acceleration, karma produces more karma).

karma is created only when there is a sense of agency. The jnAnI, who

has no sense of agency, is like a moving object on which no external

force is acting any more. The object continues to move as long as the

momentum generated by the initial force is sufficient to overcome

friction & air resistance.

 

The jnAnI's actions like eating & breathing are like friction and air

resistance. In enabling the object to move (the jnAnI to live), the

effect of the force applied earlier (prArabdha) runs out in overcoming

friction & air resistance (enabling eating, breathing, etc). When the

effect of the force (prArabdha) ends, the object stops (the jnAnI's

body dies).

 

The bottomline, in my understanding, is that once the sense of

doership is overcome, the fuel for life is provided by prArabdha

alone. It is like a bullet that has left the gun.

 

Frankly, Madathil-ji, I am sure you understand all this much better

than me. I just thought the analogy might be interesting.

 

Ramesh

[Guest guest]

In opposition to

> Sankara,

> > > thus, Suresvara preaches the philosophy of 'knowledge-cum-

action'

> > > (jnAna-karma-samuccaya) as a means to salvation. (These

> statements are said

> > > to be based on S.N.Dasgupta's History of Indian Philosophy.

> >

>

 

Namaste all

 

These days I have been busy with writing articles in and on

Mathematics for the Tamil Wikepedia. So I have not been following

this thread carefully.

 

But the words 'jnAna-karma-samuccaya' set the following train of

thought in my mind and I am writing the following without making or

quoting any references:

 

1. Sankara never supports 'jnAna-karma-samuccaya'. These words mean a

symbiotic union of jnAna and karma. I remember, particularly in his

bhashya to the 3rd ch. of the BG he uses the words 'jnAna-karma-

samuccaya' and says 'I never agree to that'.

 

2. The non-binding actions that Madathil-ji refers to must be

carefully understood. For Shankara the non-binding actions are not

actions in the real sense. Because the non-binding-ness comes from

the conviction that 'I-am-not-the doer or the enjoyer'. That is why

Madathilji rightly says Shankara recommends non-binding actions.

 

3. jnAnAdeva mokshaH. (Release is only by Knowledge) jnAnameva

mokshaH. (Knowledge itself is Release) These statements occur in

Shankara Bhashya often.

 

4. Also Knowledge and Action are two opposites according to Shankara.

 

I have not read Naishkarmya-siddhi. But I am sure these basic tenets

of Shankara could not have been negated by Sureshvaracharya.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk