Some References by Adi Shankara in his B.S.B

[Guest guest]

Namashkaar,

 

Recently, there was the question of Shri Adi Shankara referencing

Paingala Upanishad in his Brahma Sutra Bhashya. Even

Dr. Radhakrishnan's book had such a sentence in the introduction.

I could not find the reference though.

 

A search in the library brought me to the book " Vedanta Explained

(Sankara's (Shankaracharya's) Commentary on the Brahma-sutras "

by Prof. V.H Date, a student of Shri Ranade, wrote the book

(http://www.exoticindiaart.com/book/details/IDD849/).

 

At the end of second volume of his book, Prof. Date gives a listing

of the original verses of Sruti and Smriti, whose references have

been made by Adi Shankara his Brahma Sutra Bhashya and the

particular verse from Brahma Sutra where the reference has been

made from.

 

Here are the numbers of the specific verses from Upanishads,

and Bhagavad Gita. (I am leaving out the big ones like

Brihadaranyaka, Chandogya because of their sheer number.)

 

Aitareya Aranyaka: 2.1.6, 2.2.4-6, 2.4.2-4

 

Aitareya Upanishad: 1.1.1-2, 1.2,2-3, 1.3,11-13, 3.3

 

Bhagavad Gita: 2.24, 2.25, 3.17, 3.35, 3.42, 4.37, 5.17, 6.11,

6.45, 7.21-22, 8.6, 8.10, 8.23, 8.26, 10.4, 10.5, 13.12, 15.6,

15.7

 

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: ...

 

Chandogya Upanishad: ...

 

Isavashya Upanishad: 2 and 7

 

Jabalopanishad: 4.1, 5

 

Kathopanishad: 1.2.6, 1.2.7, 1.2.14, 1.2.15, 1.2.18, 1.3.1,

1.3.2, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 1.3.9, 1.3.10-11, 1.3.12, 1.3.13, 1.3.15,

2.1.1, 2.1.10, 2.1.11, 2.1.15, 2.2.8, 2.2.11, 2.3.2, 2.3.13, 2.3.16

 

Kausiki Upanishad: 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.7, 2.9-14, 3.2, 3.4, 3.6, 3.8,

4.18-19

 

Kenopanishad: 1.3

 

Manusmriti: 1.21, 2.87

 

Mundakopanishad: 1.1.3, 1.1.5, 1.1.6, 1.2.11, 2.1.1, 2.1.2,

2.1.3, 2.1.8, 2.1.10, 2.2.6, 2.2.8, 2.2.10, 2.2.11, 3.1.1., 3.1.2,

3.1.3, 3.1.8, 3.1.9, 3.2.6, 3.2.7, 3.2.8. 3.2.9, 3.2.10

 

Prashnopanishad: 2.3, 3.6, 3.9, 3.10, 4.9, 5.2, 6.5

 

Rig Veda: 2.12.2 10.129.2

 

Satapatha Brahmana: 1.3.1.26, 10,5.4.16

 

Shvetashvatara Upanishad: 1.11, 1.12, 2.10, 3.8, 3.9, 4.3, 4.19,

5.8-9, 6.9, 6.11, 6.19

 

Taittariya Upanishad: 1.11.2, 2.1, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9

 

Prof. Date's book also has cross reference (the particular verse

from B.S.B that refers to these particular references). Also please

let me know if anyone in interested in the references to

Brihadaranyaka and Chandogya too.

If members are interested I can post them.

 

Hari Om!

Ramakrishna

[Guest guest]

Shree Ramakrishna - PraNAms.

 

That is an intersting list. How about

(maha)naarayanopanishad and were there any references

to Bhagavatam and/or other puraaNas. It is interesting

that there is no reference to Kaivalya up. Is this

list all inclusive or some omited. I think there

should be some to Vishnu puranam, which is considered

as one of the oldest puranas. Ramanuja refers to in

addition to some of the above, mudgala Up. Subaala

Up., and Goutama dharma shaastra.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

--- uramakrsna <ramakrsn wrote:

 

> Namashkaar,

>

> Recently, there was the question of Shri Adi

> Shankara referencing

> Paingala Upanishad in his Brahma Sutra Bhashya. Even

[Guest guest]

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

As far as I know shankara quotes vishNu purANa only at couple of places in

gIta bhAshya. mahANArAyaNa up. forms the part of taitirIya AraNyaka...

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

PraNams Shri Sadanandaji,

 

Here is some history: sometime back, I ordered a copy of this

pair of books from interlibrary loan. I found the appendix useful

and noted it down for future noted it down. I ordered a new copy

recently. The appendix in this version seems to be different. It is

titled " Extracts from Upanishads and othe sources as found in

Shankara's commentary " . The references in this book are different.

 

 

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

> That is an intersting list. How about

> (maha)naarayanopanishad and were there any references

> to Bhagavatam and/or other puraaNas. It is interesting

> that there is no reference to Kaivalya up. Is this

> list all inclusive or some omited. I think there

> should be some to Vishnu puranam, which is considered

> as one of the oldest puranas. Ramanuja refers to in

 

They are the following:

 

Aitareya Aranyaka

Aitareya Brahmana

Bhagavad Gita

Brihadaranyaka

Chandogya Upanishad

Gaudapadakarika

Isavashya

Jabalopanishad

Jaimini-Upanishad (purva-mimamsa)

Katha Upanishad

Kausiki-brahmana Upanishad

Kena Upanishad

Mahabharatha - Santhi Parva

Vana Parva

Manu smriti

Mundaka Upanishad

Nyaya-Sutra

Prashna Upanishad

Rig Veda Samhita

Samkhya-karika

Satapatha brahmana

Svetasvatara Upanishad

Taittiriya Aranyaka

Taittiriya Brahmana

Taittiriya Samhita

Taittiriya Upanishad

Vaiseishika Sutras

Yoga Sutras

 

So yes, the references in this version of the book seem to be

different.

 

For example, In the list in the previous list, there were

only two references to RgVeda samhita, which seemed a little

odd to me, as I am a little familiar with it. Further one of them

was to a mantra from naasadiya-sukta and too an obvious one.

 

In this book, there are many references Rig Veda, some of them to

my favourite verses, like

 

rucho-akshare parame vyoman from Asya Vamiyam (1-164-39),

yagyena vaacha padaviya maayan from Gyana Suktam (10-71-3),

paadosya vishva bhutaani from Purusha Sukta 10-90,

hiranyagarbha samavartagre from Hiranyagarbha Suktam (10-121-1)

ko addha veda kuta ajaata from nasadiya Suktam (10-129-6)

etc. etc.

 

So, either the two copies have different appendixes or I am

missing something basic. Please let me verify and get back to you.

 

Hari Om!

Ramakrishna

[Guest guest]

advaitin , bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> praNAms

> Hare Krishna

>

> As far as I know shankara quotes vishNu purANa only at couple of

places in

> gIta bhAshya. mahANArAyaNa up. forms the part of taitirIya

AraNyaka...

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

>

 

Sri Bhaskarji, Sadaji, Ramakrishnaji, etc.

 

Can you comment on Shankara's comments on the Pancharatra system in

BSB? He gives some arguments in 2.2.42,43 that this school asserts

creation of soul, etc, and therefore is untenable on this account.

However Sri Ramanuja in his commentary says that such was never the

position of Pancharatra school, hence the school is acceptable to

Vedantins.

 

My reason for asking: this school is also referred to as the

Bhagavatha school. I am presuming they hold dear the Bhagavatha

Mahapurana (?), and I was under the impression that Advaitins also

accept this scripture. Can you clarify on these points? Thanks.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

Shree Putranm - PraNAms

 

Here is my simple answer.

 

If you follow the whole of second Ch. of Brahmasutra,

it concerns about the refutation of other schools of

thought that do not follow Vedic texts closely - at

least those parts that deviate.

 

After negating the Pasupataas, the lost one to negate

is pancaraatra system, particularly those parts that

deviate from the Vedic texts.

 

Hence Shankara follows methodically and interprets the

sutras to negate the Bhagavatas Pancaraatra system,

particularly Lord taking forms - vaasudeva to

sankarshaNa, to pradyumna to Aniruddha - These are the

forms that Lord Narayana takes according to

Pancaraatra system to bless the devotees in various

forms including idols in the temples.

 

Ramanuja's Bhakti system includes karma upaasana as

part of moksha - serving the Lord. Hence recognizing

the Lord in the form of Idol and doing the worship as

per the pancaraatra system is ingrained in the

Saadhana. Hence naturally, Ramanuja's interpretation

differs. Up to pasupataas, Ramanuja also agrees with

the spirit of the Second Chapter. But for the last

sutras of this section when it comes to 39-42

according to Ramanuja and 42-45 (as per Shankara) -

(numbering system is different) the first two sutras

are purvapaksha and the last one is confirmation that

endorses the Pancaraatra system, thus justifying

Bhagavata kaikarya karma and upaasana as part of

serving the Lord for moksha. Jnaana is recognition of

the servitude of the jiiva to Vaasudeva, as per

Ramanuja. Hence He interprets the sutras accordingly.

He justifies the Vasudeva giving birth to SankarShana

etc in the same as Brahman becoming tejas, aapaH and

pRithvii as per Ch. Up. 6th.

This may not have anything to do with Bhagavatam,

though.

 

First you have a model and then interpret B. Sutra to

suite your model - is the primary mode of operation of

many bhaashyas. I must say Ramanuja more closely

follows Shankara in his interpretation.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

--- putranm <putranm wrote:

 

>

> Can you comment on Shankara's comments on the

> Pancharatra system in

> BSB? He gives some arguments in 2.2.42,43 that this

> school asserts

> creation of soul, etc, and therefore is untenable on

> this account.

> However Sri Ramanuja in his commentary says that

> such was never the

> position of Pancharatra school, hence the school is

> acceptable to

> Vedantins.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> Hence Shankara follows methodically and interprets the

> sutras to negate the Bhagavatas Pancaraatra system,

> particularly Lord taking forms - vaasudeva to

> sankarshaNa, to pradyumna to Aniruddha - These are the

> forms that Lord Narayana takes according to

> Pancaraatra system to bless the devotees in various

> forms including idols in the temples.

>

 

Does not Advaita school accept that Ishvara will appear to the

Bhaktha in the manner He is sought? We accept the idea of Vishnu

incarnating as Rama, Krishna, etc. I am presuming that the form of

Vishnu as typically represented is among the ones prescribed by

Pancharaatra system, and we also think of Vishnu in such a form.

Barring the idea that Ishvara must be of such and such form, where is

the need to contradict the idea that the Lord takes particular forms

to bless the devotees?

 

Shankara's commentary to sutra 42 says that " the view that Vasudeva

is the Supreme Lord, to be worshipped ...is not against the Sruthi.

But the creation of the Jiva etc he [the Vedantin] rejects, as such

creation is impossible. Why? Because if the soul be created, it would

be subject to destruction, and so no Liberation can be predicated of

it. "

 

So the manner of taking form in the Pancharaatra is something

objectionable, since we don't say the Lord cannot incarnate etc.

 

> Ramanuja's Bhakti system includes karma upaasana as

> part of moksha - serving the Lord. Hence recognizing

> the Lord in the form of Idol and doing the worship as

> per the pancaraatra system is ingrained in the

> Saadhana.

 

Again we also worship using idols. If we seek Ishvara through/in

idol, does He not reveal Himself as such to the seeker? Perhaps the

Pancharaatra system says there is a very definite theory of how

Narayana corresponds through idols, whereas in Advaita it is entirely

determined by how the devotee approaches the Lord: if you seek Him as

consciousness, He reveals as such, and if you seek Him as stone and

wood, that He will reveal to you. But idol worship is part of all

traditions.

 

 

> serving the Lord for moksha. Jnaana is recognition of

> the servitude of the jiiva to Vaasudeva, as per

> Ramanuja. Hence He interprets the sutras accordingly.

> He justifies the Vasudeva giving birth to SankarShana

> etc in the same as Brahman becoming tejas, aapaH and

> pRithvii as per Ch. Up. 6th.

> This may not have anything to do with Bhagavatam,

> though.

 

Yes, if one rightly interprets the manner in which Narayana assumes

these forms, I don't think it is necessary to reject the idea in

itself. As in the other post, we are also saying Lord Shiva

incarnated as Shankara; why can we not accomodate for Aniruddha, etc?

All we need to do is properly interpret according to our base

philosophy.

 

>

> First you have a model and then interpret B. Sutra to

> suite your model - is the primary mode of operation of

> many bhaashyas.

 

This is true. I don't blame Shankara for his position but think Sri

Ramanuja's acceptance of the Pancharaatra system is essentially

admissible within the Advaita context. If anyone has second opinion

on this, please discuss.

 

Again my main concern (not addressed by Sadaji) is the position of

the Bhagavatha Mahapurana in Advaita. A flat rejection of

Pancharaatra means such of that scripture; I think it does talk of

Aniruddha, Pradyumna, etc. Can anyone knowledgable discuss its

position in Shankara sampradaya and its relationship to the

Bhagavatha school? It may not have been around or popular during

Shankara's time, yet seems along the same spirit as this Pancharaatra

or Bhagavatha school.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

Dear SrI Putranm,

 

I won't be able to answer all your questions, but can provide some

perspective on the matter.

 

The Pancharatra system is not exactly a darshana in its own right.

Rather, it is a set of Agamic/Tantric texts. Like most tantric canons,

the Pancharatra is a sadhana-shaastra, a ritualistic system based on

the mantra-shaastra. However, just as the Veda (which is also a set of

mantra-shaastra texts) has a philosophical portion (the Upanishads),

the Tantric texts also have philosophical portions. These

philosophical portions may show different leanings (nyaya-vaisheshika,

samkhya-yoga, various shades of advaita, etc) and are interpreted

differently by different scholars.

 

So if somebody claims to be a Pancharatrin, it need not imply any

specific philosophical position.

 

Shankara Bhagavatpada's criticism of the Pancharatra was probably

directed at whatever was the dominant interpretation of the

Pancharatra in his time. His criticism is not directed against

Vigraha-upasana or bhakti. Rather, he disagrees with the notion that

the Atman undergoes a real change in " becoming " the world. In other

words, the Pancharatra interpretation that Shankara disagrees with is

one that holds bheda to be real prior to mukti, but gets nullified

through mukti, so that mukti involves a real change.

 

It is interesting that Ramanuja's philosophy is not the same as the

version of Pancharatra that Shankara disagrees with. In Ramanuja's

system, bheda is retained even after mukti, though it is a part-whole

relationship.

 

A few more points that might interest you:

 

Literally, Pancharatra means " 5 nights " and it is an old system of

Vaishnava-leaning tantra-s, said to have been revealed by Vishnu

during a ritual that lasted 5 nights. The names of the original

recipients are mentioned differently in the different Pancharatric

texts. There are well over 200 texts that claim to be a part of the

Pancharatra canon. While the system as such is quite ancient (it is

mentioned even in the Mahabharata), the canon probably evolved over

time and some of the texts might be quite late.

 

The Pancharatra tantra-s were well-known in Kashmir in the

post-Shankaran period. One of its celebrated exponents was Vamanadatta

(author of the Samvit Prakasha) who probably lived during the 10th

century and was senior to the great Shaiva acharya Abhinavagupta. As

per my limited information, Vamanadatta's philosophy is essentially

advaitic, probably a Vaishnava oriented version of the Kashmiri Shaiva

tradition.

 

As far as the Bhagavata Purana is concerned, historically it is

considered to be a late text, probably post-Shankara. Essentially, the

Purana-s are meant to be sacred lore and philosophy is only one

element in them. From the perspective of Advaita-Vedanta, the

Bhagavata Purana is a smriti text that is to interpreted in accordance

with the sampradaya.

 

By the way, the occasional usage of the term " Bhagavata " to describe

the Pancharatrin-s does not indicate any allegiance to the Bhagavata

Purana. I have found the term Bhagavata being used generically to

refer to Vaishnava-s and not specifically to Pancharatrin-s. The

Pancharatrin-s are essentially followers of the Pancharatra tantra-s,

one of the two main groups of Vaishnava Agama-s (the other being the

Vaikhanasa Agama-s that form the basis for upasana at the Tirupati

temple).

 

Ramesh

 

On 06/12/2007, putranm <putranm wrote:

>

> Sri Bhaskarji, Sadaji, Ramakrishnaji, etc.

>

> Can you comment on Shankara's comments on the Pancharatra system in

> BSB? He gives some arguments in 2.2.42,43 that this school asserts

> creation of soul, etc, and therefore is untenable on this account.

> However Sri Ramanuja in his commentary says that such was never the

> position of Pancharatra school, hence the school is acceptable to

> Vedantins.

>

> My reason for asking: this school is also referred to as the

> Bhagavatha school. I am presuming they hold dear the Bhagavatha

> Mahapurana (?), and I was under the impression that Advaitins also

> accept this scripture. Can you clarify on these points? Thanks.

>

> thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

PraNams Shri Sadanandaji,

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

> That is an intersting list. How about

 

I verified in the books again. The first volume is a

translation till the end of paada 2.2. The second

volume begins from paada 2.3.

 

Here are the references to specific Sruti/Smriti,

in the appendixes at the end of the two volumes.

 

Aitareya Aranyaka

Aitareya Brahmana

Aitareya Upanishad

Bhagavad Gita

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

Chandogya Upanishad

Gaudapada Karika

Isavashya Upanishad

Jabalopanishad

Jaimini-Upanishad (purva-mimamsa)

Kathopanishad

Kausitaki Upanishad/Kausiki-brahmana Upanishad

Kenopanishad

Mahabharatha - Santhi Parva, Vana Parva

Manusmriti

Mundakopanishad

Nyaya-Sutra

Prashnopanishad

Rig Veda Samhita

Samkhya karika

Satapatha Brahmana

Shvetashvatara Upanishad

Taittariya Aranyaka

Taittiriya Brahmana

Taittiriya Samhita

Taittariya Upanishad

Vaiseishika Sutras

Yoga Sutras

 

==

 

> (maha)naarayanopanishad and were there any references

> to Bhagavatam and/or other puraaNas. It is interesting

> that there is no reference to Kaivalya up. Is this

> list all inclusive or some omited. I think there

> should be some to Vishnu puranam, which is considered

> as one of the oldest puranas. Ramanuja refers to in

> addition to some of the above, mudgala Up. Subaala

> Up., and Goutama dharma shaastra.

 

There are no references to any of the above in either of the

appendixes. The compilation at the end of first volume has

the title: " **Important** extracts from Upanishads and other

sources as found in Shankara's commentary " . So, I am guessing

that the probably some have been omitted.

 

We should note what Dr. Radhakrishnan writes in the

introduction to his " The Principal Upanishads " :

 

##The principal Upanishads are ten. Shankara commented on

##eleven: Isha, Kena, Katha, Prashna, Mundaka, Mandukya,

##Taittiriya, Aitareya, Chandogya, Brihadaranyaka and

##Svetashvatara. He also refers to Kausitaki, Jabala,

##Mahanarayana and Paingala Upanishads in his commenary

##on the Brahmasutra.

 

Hari Om!

Ramakrishna

[Guest guest]

Sri Rameshji, thanks for the detailed information. What you said on

the Bhagavatham smrithi, etc should have been obvious to me; I became

worried that Shankara should have taken particular pains to repudiate

that school. Again, as you clarified, he may be pinpointing a

particular viewpoint held onto by that school. Moreover the

Pancharaatra followers may be insisting on too literal interpretation

of the puraana and hence Shankara's interpretation of BS verses may

be appropriate anycase.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

PS I have said to Dennisji that I would write a definition of

anirvachaniya. It has proved to be much more difficult than

originally imagined, and I am not fully satisfied. Hope you and

others can correct; will post tomorrow.

 

advaitin , " Ramesh Krishnamurthy "

<rkmurthy wrote:

>

> Dear SrI Putranm,

>

> I won't be able to answer all your questions, but can provide some

> perspective on the matter.

>

> The Pancharatra system is not exactly a darshana in its own right.

> Rather, it is a set of Agamic/Tantric texts. Like most tantric

canons,

> the Pancharatra is a sadhana-shaastra, a ritualistic system based on

> the mantra-shaastra. However, just as the Veda (which is also a set

of

> mantra-shaastra texts) has a philosophical portion (the Upanishads),

> the Tantric texts also have philosophical portions. These

> philosophical portions may show different leanings (nyaya-

vaisheshika,

> samkhya-yoga, various shades of advaita, etc) and are interpreted

> differently by different scholars.

>

> So if somebody claims to be a Pancharatrin, it need not imply any

> specific philosophical position.

>

> Ramesh

>

> On 06/12/2007, putranm <putranm wrote:

> >

> > Sri Bhaskarji, Sadaji, Ramakrishnaji, etc.

> >

> > Can you comment on Shankara's comments on the Pancharatra system

in

> > BSB? He gives some arguments in 2.2.42,43 that this school

asserts

> > creation of soul, etc, and therefore is untenable on this

account.

> > However Sri Ramanuja in his commentary says that such was never

the

> > position of Pancharatra school, hence the school is acceptable to

> > Vedantins.

> >

> > My reason for asking: this school is also referred to as the

> > Bhagavatha school. I am presuming they hold dear the Bhagavatha

> > Mahapurana (?), and I was under the impression that Advaitins

also

> > accept this scripture. Can you clarify on these points? Thanks.

> >

> > thollmelukaalkizhu

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Ramakrishna Upadrasta "

<ramakrsn wrote:

>

 

>

> We should note what Dr. Radhakrishnan writes in the

> introduction to his " The Principal Upanishads " :

>

> ##The principal Upanishads are ten. Shankara commented on

> ##eleven: Isha, Kena, Katha, Prashna, Mundaka, Mandukya,

> ##Taittiriya, Aitareya, Chandogya, Brihadaranyaka and

> ##Svetashvatara. He also refers to Kausitaki, Jabala,

> ##Mahanarayana and Paingala Upanishads in his commenary

> ##on the Brahmasutra.

 

Namaste,

 

Shankara himself almost always mentions the word 'shruti'

only, and later writers have culled the actual references. In the

case of Paingala (2:10), the words adhyaaropa-apavaada make their

appearance, and hence presumably be accepted as referring to this

upanishad.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

--- putranm <putranm wrote:

 

> Does not Advaita school accept that Ishvara will

> appear to the

> Bhaktha in the manner He is sought?

 

Yes - but that appearance is only appearance. When the

Lord appears, he has to teach Vedanta that whatever

that appears is mithyaa and the satyam is

adhishhTaanam or substratum of that which appears.

Shankara says anything that is seen is mithyaa,

dRiShTatvaat- since there is seer-seen-seeing triad -

The substantive of all the three is sat - that

pervades all the three. Hence if Lord Vishnu comes and

blesses he has to teach to beyond the seen -

 

yat cakshusaa na pasyati yena chakshuumsi pasyati

tat eva brahma tvam viddhi na idam yadidam upaasate|

 

That which eyes cannot see, but because of which the

eyes have the capacity to see, know that alone is

Brahman not this that you worship!

 

> Shankara's commentary to sutra 42 says that " the

> view that Vasudeva

> is the Supreme Lord, to be worshipped ...is not

> against the Sruthi.

> But the creation of the Jiva etc he [the Vedantin]

> rejects, as such

> creation is impossible. Why? Because if the soul be

> created, it would

> be subject to destruction, and so no Liberation can

> be predicated of

> it. "

 

Yes - since any thing that has janma has to have

6-fold modification. 'jaatasyasi dRivo mRithuH' - that

which is born has to die. Hence what appears can only

mithyaa - Just as gold becoming many - it is not birth

but transformation less transformation. Even Ramanuja

does not accept the birth - he is says it is like

Brahman becoming agni etc as per Ch. Up.

 

 

> Again we also worship using idols. If we seek

> Ishvara through/in

> idol, does He not reveal Himself as such to the

> seeker?

 

As I quoted Kena sloka - in the beginning we need an

idol to tune the mind. then we have to see the Lord

everywhere not only in the idol

'antarbihischa tat sarvam vyaapya naaraayana sthitaH'

- he is inside and he is outside - then we see the

ideal behind the idol. That is what we worship. We can

worship with correct understanding - also 'yadyat

aaachariti shreShTaH tat tat eve itara janaaH'- those

who are wise still worship so that others who are not

wise do so - thus setting a right example.

 

 

> Advaita it is entirely

> determined by how the devotee approaches the Lord:

 

Advaita is an understanding that there is no dvaita.

It is a fact not a something to be determined by a

devotee.

 

He can approach the Lord with some notions that Lord

is out there. But when he closes his eyes, he has to

see him in his own heart and now when he opens his

eyes he should see him everywhere too, including the

idol not exclusively in idol. That is advaitic

understanding.

'Yo mam pasyati sarvatra sarvanca mayi pasyati '- who

sees Me everywhere and everything in Me - he alone

sees.

 

> if you seek Him as

> consciousness, He reveals as such,

 

Consciousness is not something you seek. It is not an

object but that because of which object is seen - It

is you. tat tvam asi. What is there to seek - what

need to be understood is that seeker himself is the

sought. That is knowledge.

 

 

and if you seek

> Him as stone and

> wood, that He will reveal to you. But idol worship

> is part of all

> traditions.

 

He is there in the Stone as the very existence.

Actually there is no place where he is not. Bhakti

should culminate into jnaanam.

 

 

> Yes, if one rightly interprets the manner in which

> Narayana assumes

> these forms, I don't think it is necessary to reject

> the idea in

> itself.

 

As Shree Ramakrishna correctly pointed out - what is

rejected is that which does not agree with Vedas. But

one can have saadhana with correct understanding.

 

As in the other post, we are also saying

> Lord Shiva

> incarnated as Shankara;

 

It is glory of the Indian tradition to identify your

teacher as Lord Incarnate.

 

The correct understanding not only Shankara, you are

one too. Who is not incarnate of the Lord!-

'bahushyaam prajaayeyeti' - Let me become many - and

he became many. So everyone is an incarnate. Hence a

sage screams in Vedas - 'SRinvantu vishve amRitasya

putraaH..' Listen you all, SONS OF IMMORTALITY!.

What a way to address - not like you sinners listen!

 

We are all incarnations of Lord Shiva (even though I

am vaishanavate!) - Shankara we glorify him as he

behaved as one - while we are deluded to think we are

not.

 

why can we not accommodate

> for Aniruddha, etc?

> All we need to do is properly interpret according to

> our base

> philosophy.

 

Sure, if that keeps your mind to contemplate on higher

- but do not get stuck there and go beyond the names

and forms. see names and forms as his vibhuuti.

 

 

 

> This is true. I don't blame Shankara for his

> position but think Sri

> Ramanuja's acceptance of the Pancharaatra system is

> essentially

> admissible within the Advaita context. If anyone has

> second opinion

> on this, please discuss.

 

I thought the question was what Br. Sutras says in

those mantras. Not whether we can accept Ramanuja's

inclusion of pancaraatra's into a system of

philosophy.

 

> Again my main concern (not addressed by Sadaji) is

> the position of

> the Bhagavatha Mahapurana in Advaita. A flat

> rejection of

> Pancharaatra means such of that scripture;

 

Again the concern is not to accept pancharaatra or not

- one can do as a part of upaasana - for purification

of the mind - Shankara has initiated Badiri Naraayana

puja bringing a Nambuudri Brahman from South. That

tradition is followed even today.

 

Br. Sutras are dealing with philosophical content.

 

Since I do not know much about pancaraatra nor I am

that much of a ritualist, much to the consternation of

my wife who is a staunch vishiShTaadvaitin, I am

contended to see the beauty of the Lord around me and

put namaskaaraas in my own way. I enjoy the beauty of

his expressions in the variety of flowers and trees as

I watch from my balcony, in the smiles of innocent

children, in the worries of the by standing mother, in

the hard labor of the servant maids in our complex, in

the arrogance of their employers, in the fruits and

vegetables that I eat. I am not sure whether they are

sankarshanas, pradyumnas or aniruddhas - but should I

be concerned that I am not properly doing the puja or

just enjoy His presence radiating everywhere.

 

position in Shankara sampradaya and its relationship

> to the

> Bhagavatha school?

 

I am not sure what is bhagavata school? In advaita -

all merge into one. Ultimate bhakti as Shankara

defines is

'sva svaruupaanusandhaanam bhaktirityabhidhiiyate' -

Contemplation on one's own nature is Bhakti.

 

Ramana says -

bedha bhaavaan sohamityasou, bhaavanaabhidaa paavanii

mataa|

 

Bhakti that involves He is in essence not different

from me, is superior to the notion that Lord is there

and is different from me.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Sri Sadaji, you sure gave me an ironing there ! I was definitely not

trying to undermine Advaita. I was mixing up Pancharaatra with the

Bhagavata puraana; the latter is a nice scripture. I agree with your

points on Bhakthi and Ishvara, however prefer to stress things

slightly differently. Here is how I presently understand these issues.

 

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> Yes - but that appearance is only appearance. When the

> Lord appears, he has to teach Vedanta that whatever

> that appears is mithyaa and the satyam is

> adhishhTaanam or substratum of that which appears.

>

> why can we not accommodate

> > for Aniruddha, etc?

> > All we need to do is properly interpret according to

> > our base

> > philosophy.

>

> Sure, if that keeps your mind to contemplate on higher

> - but do not get stuck there and go beyond the names

> and forms. see names and forms as his vibhuuti.

>

 

 

As I understand, it is Ishvara who reveals Himself as this world to

us (you also indicate this in how you see Him in flowers, etc). Our

seeking Him is part of the karma and our experience of the Lord is

the karma-phala. If I seek Him through name and form, then He reveals

as such in my mind's eye. I can call it imagination depending on how

I interpret the unreal line of demarcation.

 

If I seek to see Him as " alive " in the idol (or the world of matter),

then that seeking adds to the karma (of world+ego). At present it may

only be tuning the mind, but when the balance is tilted, that very

idol becomes the " image of consciousness " as in Sri Ramakrishna's

case.

 

For the sages who contemplated on Him as Lord Vishnu or Shiva, He

revealed the puraanic stories and to each devotee a corresponding

aspect was shown supreme. The advaitin need not hold them as

objective truths for one and all. The Lord reveals Himself according

to our karma, and this very fact hints that the particular appearance

is also mithya and the only satya lies beyond the unreal line

(determined by karma) that divides as i and Thou. So He teaches the

advaita satya always, even when He appears in a particular manner we

seek Him.

 

> The correct understanding not only Shankara, you are

> one too. Who is not incarnate of the Lord!-

> 'bahushyaam prajaayeyeti' - Let me become many - and

> he became many. So everyone is an incarnate.

 

As for incarnations, a swamiji said to me that in the great

personalities, we find (imagine?) the unusual fact that they did not

have to go through a process of mental cleaning, etc. Rather they

seem to us as pure and Self-realized from their very birth. And their

spiritual power is so tremendous that entire religious paths are

born. On account of such unique qualities, we categorize them as

incarnations: the Lord having assumed birth on His own decision, as

opposed to our situation which is due to karma, etc. Not that I

accept it, but it provides one way of thinking of incarnations in a

special manner.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

>

>

[Guest guest]

--- putranm <putranm wrote:

 

> Sri Sadaji, you sure gave me an ironing there !

 

Putramji - my praNAsm and my apologies too.

I am not trying to iron anything, only presenting my

understanding to the best I can regarding advaita.

 

> As I understand, it is Ishvara who reveals Himself

> as this world to

> us (you also indicate this in how you see Him in

> flowers, etc).

 

Iswara cannot but reveal himself all the time - He is

self revealing in all the expresions including in us.

tasya bhaasa sarvam idam vibhaati - everything shines

after him only. The question is, are our minds

prepared to see these revelations since we are getting

carried away with superficial naama and ruupa ignoring

the substratum that supports all the naama and ruupa?

 

 

>Our

> seeking Him is part of the karma and our experience

> of the Lord is

> the karma-phala. If I seek Him through name and

> form, then He reveals

> as such in my mind's eye. I can call it imagination

> depending on how

> I interpret the unreal line of demarcation.

 

Yes, every unREAL has real part burried in it.

 

> If I seek to see Him as " alive " in the idol (or the

> world of matter),

> then that seeking adds to the karma (of world+ego).

> At present it may

> only be tuning the mind, but when the balance is

> tilted, that very

> idol becomes the " image of consciousness " as in Sri

> Ramakrishna's

> case.

 

The image of consciousness is in the mind only

illumined by the consciousness that you are.

antar dRik dRisayorbhedam bahisca brahma sarga yoH|

avRiNosya paraashaktiH saa samsaarasya kaaraNam||

 

says dRik dRisya viveka. The difference between seer

and the seen in the mind and the difference between

Brahman and the creation is only due maaya shakti 'as

though covering' the vision of the truth - that is

the cause for samsaara. Hence seeing in and through

the idol and the world is the correct vision of the

Lord. For that Karma has to factify to jnaana.

 

> For the sages who contemplated on Him as Lord Vishnu

> or Shiva, He

> revealed the puraanic stories and to each devotee a

> corresponding

> aspect was shown supreme. The advaitin need not hold

> them as

> objective truths for one and all.

 

No. Advaita endores all the yogas as part of

purification to acquire the four fold qualifications.

Hence all are accepted including aaraadhana and puja

etc as means but the end in themselves. Ultimately as

Krishna declares the jnaani is the supreme bhakta.

 

> As for incarnations, a swamiji said to me that in

> the great

> personalities, we find (imagine?) the unusual fact

> that they did not

> have to go through a process of mental cleaning,

> etc.

 

Which means that they have done that in their past

lives.Remember Krishna's statement about yogabraShTas

- they will be born in a conducive environment and

take off rapidly in their next life.

 

>Rather they

> seem to us as pure and Self-realized from their very

> birth. And their

> spiritual power is so tremendous that entire

> religious paths are

> born. On account of such unique qualities, we

> categorize them as

> incarnations:

 

Yes - no problem here. We should respect them since

they guide humanity generations to come.

 

 

the Lord having assumed birth on His

> own decision, as

> opposed to our situation which is due to karma, etc.

> Not that I

> accept it, but it provides one way of thinking of

> incarnations in a

> special manner.

 

I do not think there is anything to reject. We should

respect all aachaaryaas. Only we should not expect

others to accept our understanding that they are

special incornations of the Lord. The teaching stands

on its own. For every student his guru is Lord

incornate - guru brahma guru vishnu ...

 

Well, since we seem to agree in essence in all, I

close my part of this discussion.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Sri Sadaji, I am not sure your definition of anirvachaniya would make

for good business; the forums will end in the silence that is Truth !

(just kidding).

 

Thanks for your second time clarifications. I want to hone in on a

point which I missed in your previous post as well. It is regarding

the word consciousness. They are very excellent and worth saving for

reference.

 

From Prev. post:

 

Me: > if you seek Him as

> consciousness, He reveals as such,

 

Yourself: Consciousness is not something you seek. It is not an

object but that because of which object is seen - It

is you. tat tvam asi. What is there to seek - what

need to be understood is that seeker himself is the

sought. That is knowledge.

 

End.

 

This is a subtle point. My usage was generic and careless. The

trouble is that the " seeker " begins with the awareness of duality.

The pure " consciousness " , the substratum, is only evident through its

superimposition in nama-rupa. Therefore the consciousness that one

seeks in the idol must maintain some aspect of distinction, due to

its being associated with the " idol separate from me " . It is more

like seeking a particular manifestation of consciousness through the

idol, that still allows the distinction between me and Ishvara.

 

The realization that this distinction of seeker and sought is due to

ignorance/ " maaya-shakthi " , and indeed there is only the Consciousness

that I am, that realization is indeed the jnaana/knowledge that our

karma-accumulating seeking should drive at. Thanks for these points

(including the one below on image...).

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> The image of consciousness is in the mind only

> illumined by the consciousness that you are.

> antar dRik dRisayorbhedam bahisca brahma sarga yoH|

> avRiNosya paraashaktiH saa samsaarasya kaaraNam||

>

> says dRik dRisya viveka. The difference between seer

> and the seen in the mind and the difference between

> Brahman and the creation is only due maaya shakti 'as

> though covering' the vision of the truth - that is

> the cause for samsaara. Hence seeing in and through

> the idol and the world is the correct vision of the

> Lord. For that Karma has to factify to jnaana.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

> For the sages who contemplated on Him as Lord Vishnu or Shiva, He

> revealed the puraanic stories and to each devotee a corresponding

> aspect was shown supreme. The Lord reveals Himself according

> to our karma [seeking]

 

As reference to above, from " Holy Scriptures " (RKM Mylapore

publications) on Ramacarita Manasa of Tulasidas. One feels in

Tulasiji's words the heartbeat of the Punyabhoomi and the Sanatana

Dharma.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

QUOTE:

 

.... As many people, so many Rama-kathas. Says Tulasidas: " The gracious

Lord met everybody in an appropriate manner [according to the sentiment

each cherished in his heart]. "

 

.... The sceptic was dumbfounded hearing Goswamiji's reply. He asked in

bewilderment, " Well, Tulasiji, then how many Ramayanas do you believe

in? "

 

Ramayana sata koti, 'A hundred crore of Ramayanas' was the quick reply.

But then Tulasi had a second thought. The devotees of Sri Rama might be

well over a hundred crore and those other devotees too would have their

own Rama-kathas. So Tulasidas hurriedly added, 'apaara, limitless'!

Said he:

 

" Infinite is Sri Hari and infinite are His stories; each saint sings

and hears them in divergent ways. The lovely sports of Ramachandra

cannot be sung even in crore of kalpas. In every cycle of creation the

Lord manifests Himself and enacts lovely sports of various kinds; and

the great sages have on each such occasion sung the story in most

sacred strains. Great sages have diversely sung the charming stories of

Sri Hari, relating as they do to different kalpas or cycles and they

have described wonderful anecdotes of diverse kinds, hearing which the

wise marvel not. There is no limit to the stories of Sri Rama in this

world. They are convinced in their heart that Sri Rama has bodied

himself forth in diverse ways and that the Ramayana, though a hundred

crore in number, is yet infinite. "

 

END QUOTE

 

Ekam Sat Vipra Bahudha Vadhanthi

[Guest guest]

Note from List Moderators: Members are reminded again not to include the entire

posting of the previous posters while sending their replies. Please follow how

it is done here and thanks again.

 

 

Namaste My Brothers:

 

Although my duties preclude me getting into long discourse, I am

certatinly enjoying reading the postings each morning.

 

Blessings and Bliss,

 

Mahamandaleshwar Paramahamsa Swarupananda Vishwa Guru Maharaj Swami-ji

 

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> Shree Putranm - PraNAms

>

> Here is my simple answer.

>

> If you follow the whole of second Ch. of Brahmasutra,

> it concerns about the refutation of other schools of

> thought that do not follow Vedic texts closely - at

> least those parts that deviate.

>