The three states

[Guest guest]

I am writing this with reference to the recent posting by Br. Vinayaka

exhorting us to read the book of Swami Satchidanendra Sarasvati (SSS) and to

his statement in an earlier post where he said:

" Here readers should keep in mind that Sri Shankara has affirmed that

sushupti means distinctive knowledge(vishesha vijnAna) become non-

existent(dis-appearing alone); he has not at all opined or affirmed

that that is an avasthA(state) in which mUlAvidyA exists as the

present day vEdAntins assert. Here too shankara has stressed that in

sushupti there does not exist any vishesha(special feature,

attribute) whatsoever " .

 

After Sri Sankara there has been a long life of AchAryas who have written

commentaries on Sankara's works or independent works on advaita. To name

only a few, they are—padmapAda, sureSvara, vimuktAtman, sarvajnAtman,

maNDana miSra, vAchaspatimiSra, prakASAtman, chitsukha, amalAnanda,

vidyAraNya, appayya dIkshita, madhusUdana sarasvati. The latest of these,

madhusUdana sarasvati, lived in the 16th century, that means 500 years ago.

They cannot therefore be described as 'present day vedAntins'. Every one of

them was steeped in the advaitic tradition. During the period when these

AchArya lived every Brahmin used to study not only the vedas including the

upanishads and all the commentaries and sub-commentaries thereon in the

original sanskrit, but also the original works in Sanskrit in all the other

darSanas, as also the vedAngas such as vyAkarana, etc. Their scholarship was

thus much more intensive and extensive than that of even those who study in

the traditional way today, not to speak of people like us who depend on

translations. Every one of them was intensely devoted to Sankara. None of

them claimed originality for their writings. Every one of them said he was

only interpreting Sankara's words. There are vital differences of opinion on

many topics among these AchAryas themselves, though all of them were

interpreting only the same works of Sankara. This is because Sankara's works

gave scope for such different interpretations. This, far from being a

defect, is the great beauty of the bhAshya of Sankara. The very same

brahmasutras of vyAsa (bAdarAyaNa) have been interpreted in totally

different ways by the three great AchAryas. The sutras lend themselves to

such different interpretations. We who were born in advaita families follow

Sankara's interpretation, but we have no right to say that the other two

AchAryas are wrong. Their followers hold them in great respect and follow

their views. Similarly, though these great advaitic AchAryas have

interpreted Sankara in different ways we have neither the capacity nor the

right to decide which of them are right amd which are not. The great

advaitic scholar,appayya dIkshita, has collected these different views on as

many as 53 topics and presented them in a book entitled

'siddhAntaleSasangraha'. He has merely presented the different views without

attempting to make any judjment about their correctness or otherwise. This

shows that there is no such thing as '*one correct interpretation of

Sankara's words'*. All the AchAryas are agreed on the fundamental principles

of advaita, namely, brahman is the only reality, everything else is mithyA,

the jIva is none other than brahman . They differ only on the other matters

of detail. Sri sureSvara has said in a verse in his vArtika on the br.up.

bhAshya that all such interpretations are valid. He says:--

" All the different means by which people can attain knowledge of the self

should be understood to be valid. These means are unlimited in number " .

 

Sri SSS is the most recent in this long life of very learned AchAryas. So

his views are also entitled to respect, but they must be considered only as

one more interpretation of Sankara and not as the only correct

interpretation as some seem to think. His works are available in English

whereas the works of most of the earlier AchAryas, though equally valuable,

are not available in English. This seems to have contributed to a great

extent to the belief of some people that the interpretation of SSS is the

only correct one. His interpretation is certainly valuable, but so are the

works of the other great AchAryas whose names have been mentioned by me

earlier. I am writing this to put the whole matter in the proper

perspective.

I am preparing a summary of appayya dikshita's book siddhAntalesasangraha

which catalogues the different views on each topic. I shall post this for

the information of the members.

S.N.Sastri

I request interested members to go through the book carefully to see

what exactly Sri SSS says about agrahaNa.

Br. Vinayaka

 

Here readers should keep in mind that Sri Shankara has affirmed that

sushupti means distinctive knowledge(vishesha vijnAna) become non-

existent(dis-appearing alone); he has not at all opined or affirmed

that that is an avasthA(state) in which mUlAvidyA exists as the

present day vEdAntins assert. Here too shankara has stressed that in

sushupti there does not exist any vishesha(special feature,

attribute) whatsoever.

Br. Vinayaka

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

In a recent mail from advaitin list moderators with regard to posting guide

lines , following point has been stated :

 

// quote //

 

Guidelines related to members and postings:

1. Though the primary emphasis focuses on Advaita Vedanta of

Shankaracharya, members have full freedom to explore broader aspects of

non-dual philosophies, activities and news related to Institutions that

support Vedanta.

 

// unquote //

 

So, I think, quoting Sri SSS's interpretations on shankara's mUla bhAshya

is not at all out of the scope of this list. Prabhuji-s of this list may

kindly be noted that Sri SSS has dedicated almost 6 decades exclusively

for the study & propagation of shankara's advaita vEdAnta. But I do agree

most of the traditional followers of advaita schools donot agree with his

understanding/interpretation. But that does not mean that we can restrict

the members who want to share his view points based on SSS's interpretation

by citing mundane excuse that most of the members do not aware of his

works!! For that matter, how familiar are our prabhuji's with sufi poems,

tagore poems, lalla's poems etc. etc. which are profusely flowing in this

list?? Are we not allowing those lengthy downloaded mails to appear in our

mail boxes without uttering a word ?? And if we take the gIta discussion,

how many of us familiar with interpretations of Sri Chinmayananda, Swamy

Gambhirananda, swamy Dayananda saraswathi, mahAtma gandhi, vinObha bhave &

sometime saNta jnAnEshwar's jnAnEshwari ?? Are we not religiously reading

those interpretations by keeping in mind that they are one way or the

other the advocators of non dual philosophy of shankara?? With all due

respects to those noble souls, how sure are we that they are sticking to

shankara's mUla bhAshya?? are we parallely checking those interpretations

with shankara's Sanskrit mUla bhAshya?? or are we discussing gIta verses

first with shankara's Sankskrit mUla bhAshya & then *as* interpreted by

other well known advaita vEdAntins / neo vEdAntins?? I dont think we are

doing that ...Under these circumstances, how fair & appropriate it is to

restrict & ask someone to stop quoting Sri SSS...I am not able to

understand.

 

However, I'd like to submit that, to me, there are no two advaita

theories to differentiate one is shankara's & another is my parama guruji

SSS's...Unlike others, Sri SSS traces the support for his statements from

shankara's mUla bhAshya, that is more than enough for me to have shraddha

in my parama guruji's observations. ...Anyway, that is my convinction & I

am not forcing anybody to accept my opinion. I do believe that each &

every prabhuji/mAtAji has his/her own right to share his/her view points

*as long as* it is related to shankara's advaita & related topics.

 

Kindly pardon me if I said anything wrong here.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Let us have Shri Sastri-ji's post # 37783 canonized in our archives for

immediate reference whenever in future self-righteousness or guru-

righteousness predominates.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " S.N. Sastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

> I am writing this with reference to the recent posting by Br. Vinayaka

> exhorting us to read the book of Swami Satchidanendra Sarasvati (SSS)

and to

> his statement in an earlier post where he said:

> " Here readers should keep in mind that Sri Shankara has affirmed that

> sushupti means distinctive knowledge(vishesha vijnAna) become non-

> existent(dis-appearing alone); he has not at all opined or affirmed

> that that is an avasthA(state) in which mUlAvidyA exists as the

> present day vEdAntins assert. Here too shankara has stressed that in

> sushupti there does not exist any vishesha(special feature,

> attribute) whatsoever " .

 

Dear Shri Shastri-ji,

 

Please note that I was insisting to read the book to know **his

stand/prakriyA clearly**. That is all. I always say that these

informations are for the sake interested members only.

 

Each one of us can appreciate the different interpretations of various

AchAryAs of advaita sampradAya by comparing it with shruti,bhAshya,

yukti and anubhava. It is purely personal matter.

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Bhaskar-ji.

 

Your post 37785.

 

Kindly contribute the commentary (Your translation will do.) of Shri

SSS's commentary on Gita verses. I and, am sure, others too would

immensely love to read it. You are right. We need not restrict

ourselves to Swamis Chinmayanda, Dayananda et al. A couple of years or

so ago, Smt. Savitri Devraj used to provide occasional translations of

Shri SSS's comments during our Gita discussions. I had found them

extremely enlightening. Please rest assured we have great respect for

your Paramaguru.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Every one of them said he was only interpreting Sankara's words. There are

vital differences of opinion on many topics among these AchAryas

themselves, though all of them were interpreting only the same works of

Sankara. This is because Sankara's works

gave scope for such different interpretations. This, far from being a

defect, is the great beauty of the bhAshya of Sankara. The very same

brahmasutras of vyAsa (bAdarAyaNa) have been interpreted in totally

different ways by the three great AchAryas. The sutras lend themselves to

such different interpretations. We who were born in advaita families

follow

Sankara's interpretation, but we have no right to say that the other two

AchAryas are wrong. Their followers hold them in great respect and follow

their views. Similarly, though these great advaitic AchAryas have

interpreted Sankara in different ways we have neither the capacity nor the

right to decide which of them are right amd which are not.

 

 

Humble praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Your catholic approach is quite laudable & drivable from the high pedestal

of a jnAni who is in *all embracing mood*:-))...But our history of

philosophy reveals a different picture altogether....Our bhagavadpAda

himself treated sAnkhya, bouddha & pUrvamImAmsaka-s as his opponents &

vehemently refuted their view points, if he would have sticked to your

above stand, there would have been no pUrvapaxins in shankara's works..is

it not :-))...And, Sri rAmAnuja, not only propagated his vishishtAdvaita

philosophy, but while doing so treated advaita siddhAnta as his pUrva

paxa...and one of the main Acharaya-s in this srivaishNava sampradAya has

spent his valuable time in raising 100 objections on advaita siddhAnta :-))

and what to talk about Sri madhvAchArya here...you know how he & his

disciples treated advaita in their works...And, coming back to advaita

lineage, our Sri madhusUdana Saraswati who has given the fitting reply to

nyAya sudha in his advaita siddhi did not think that tattvavAda too is a

part & parcel of hindu philosophy...He not only upheld the doctrine of

non-dual philosophy but violently refuted the dualistic theory...is it

not?? And it is a age long issue that vivaraNa school followers attacked

bhAmati & vice versa by claiming that they are the ONLY true

representatives of shankara's advaita saMpradAya....If that is not the

case, why Sri AppayadIkshitaar has taken all the trouble to do the

reconciliatory work in siddhAnta lEsha saNgraha?? And why this work

further attracted sub-commentary in siddhAnta kalpavalli?? Prabhuji, you

know how sarvagnAtmamuni attacks other schools & other interpreters in his

sankshEpa shArIraka....And again, our great advaitin Sri appayya dIkshita,

after seeing the fanatic blasphemy of vaishNava-s, written a work which

shows the supremacy of shiva over vishNu!!?? what is the need for him to

show the supremacy of shiva over vishnu...when brahman is nirvikAri,

nirguNa & nirAkAra?? It is quite obvious that these great people have

acted according to the demands of situation....See, here these great

saints, sampradAya vidA-s, knowers of ultimate truth did not follow the

*all embracing path*...They time and again treated others who are not there

in their line of thinking as *opponents*...

 

Kindly dont think, I've written this just for some time pass argument's

sake, these are all the facts which are all well documented & one has to

accept it without any other alternative.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Kindly contribute the commentary (Your translation will do.) of Shri

SSS's commentary on Gita verses. I and, am sure, others too would

immensely love to read it.

 

praNAms Sri Madathil Nair prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Thanks for your invitation...but, I dont see there is any significant

difference between SSS's interpretation of gIta verses & other

saints/sages/swamijis' purports ...Hence I dont think there is a need for

any additional version of gIta's commentary...Anyway, if any

issue/interpretation/purport calls for clarification/sharing of thoughts

from my side...definitely I'd jump-in..You know, how garrulous I am when it

comes to vEdAnta & related topics :-))

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

When I read Shri Sastri-ji's post, I had no doubt he was one hundred

percent right. I am always for catholicism in thinking.

 

However, Shri Bhaskarji's rejoinder has placed me on the horns of a

dilemma. He has arrayed a lot of ammunition and I think he also is

right.

 

How do we do a samanwaya here? Won't a smanwaya compromise Shankara's

advaita? These are difficult questions indeed considering the fact that

samanwaya even between post-Shankara Shankarites has often been found

too difficult to achieve.

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair