why ONLY shankara ???

[Guest guest]

Bhaskarji - PraNAms

 

With all due respects to your parama guruji - I do not

to why Shankara only. Let me give you my

rationale.

 

1. First, I to a philosophy than to an

individual. Shankara formulated and gave firm

foundation and clear exposition to the advaita

doctrine. Hence we adore him. He provided bhaashyas

to prataanatraya and also provided the several

prakaraNa granthas to easy assimilation to those who

are interested. When I say I to a philosophy

- I mean more as a means to understand the nature of

the reality, than even as a doctrine. I am not really

concerned about doctrins. I want to know the truth -

that is all.

 

2. Most of the puurvapakshas considered by Shankara

are those prevailing at that time.

 

3. Subsequent to Shankara, VishiShTaadvaita and dvaita

philosophies came in to prominence taking advaita as

their puurvapaksha.

 

4. Navya naaya was also developed to maturity during

post Shankara times.

 

5. Hence lot of criticism and counter criticism

developed during the post Shankara.

 

6. It is therefore important to study many other texts

by several aachaaryas done subsequently after

Shankara.

 

7. Later aachaaryas had to encounter several

criticisms on advaita from different directions and

they had to develop some of the concepts that were not

needed during Shankara times. Do not ask me to give

examples here - I am making a general statements.

Advaita Siddhi for example is in response to arguments

against advaita.

 

8. The study of the works of many of these aachaaryas

are important as manana granthas to make sure there

are no more doubts or possibility of doubts about the

nature of reality.

 

I salute all these great masters who contributed to

the out growth of the philosophy to a firmer

foundation. Hence 'asmad aachaarya paryantam vande

guruparamparam'. That tells us that guruparampara

would not have come without all these aachaaryas who

contributed to the knowledge.

 

I feel I am blessed because I am standing on a

platform build by all these great teachers. In my

simple mind, I may not be able to agree with this

argument or that argument but I have learned to give a

benefit of doubt to these great aachaaryas before I

accept, reject or push aside as that line of thinking

is not of importance for my understanding of the

nature of the reality. For example, Shakara takes up

the jnaana karama samuchhaya vaada as the major

puurvapaksha- to me that is not much relavent - But I

still enjoy the logical aruguments presented by

Shankara.

 

9. I see you are pressing about the same point about

the jnaanis - there can be gradations in jnaani but

not in jnaanam, as the commentary on the referenced

sloka indicates.

 

Firm abidance in that jnaanam is what we should aim

for without worrying about other trivialities.

 

Yes, I am mainly interested in the jnaanam since I

have no capacity to grade any jnaanis, anyway. In fact

I cannot even tell who is a jnaani and who is ajnaani.

 

 

Let us see Him every where and we will find that there

are no ajnaanis anywhere - jnaanis only with differt

degrees of jnaanam. I do not see any problem in

having varities of jnaaniis. We are able to see this

in this list serve itself.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--- Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

 

>

> praNAms

> Hare Krishna

>

> Few questions may arise in our mind when somebody

> says 'please stick to

> shankara's works for siddhAnta nirNaya (settlement

> of doctrinal

> issues)....., why we have to stick to ONLY

> shankara's works??

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> Bhaskarji - PraNAms

>

> With all due respects to your parama guruji - I do not

> to why Shankara only.

 

Good. In all history, was there only Shankara?

 

My first advaitic text of interest was " Crest Jewel of

Discrimination " (read *numerous* times).

 

My original 'plan' was a karmic fade-out. I wanted to exit the

hamster-wheel. I *REALLY* wanted to. So badly I could taste it on

my tongue. Death was welcome here back in '99 or so. I spent every

second of every minute of every day either meditating or

contemplating my *poof*ness.

 

Exit all spiritual lists in '03. Exit the rest shortly after. I

have nothing to add.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> Bhaskarji - PraNAms>

 

 

> Let us see Him every where and we will find that there

> are no ajnaanis anywhere - jnaanis only with different

> degrees of jnaanam. I do not see any problem in

> having varieties of jnaaniis. We are able to see this

> in this list serve itself.

 

Namaste,

 

We need to keep reminding ourselves:

 

ekaM sad viprA bahudhA vadanti | [RV 1.164.46]

 

 

GYaanayaGYena chaapyanye yajanto maamupaasate |

ekatvena pR^ithaktvena bahudhaa vishvatomukham.h || Gita 9:15

 

" Others, too, sacrificing by the Yajna of knowledge (i.e. seeing the

Self in all), worship Me - the All-formed, as One, as distinct, as

manifold. "

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Sunder Hattangadi " <sunderh

wrote:

>

> We need to keep reminding ourselves:

>

> ekaM sad viprA bahudhA vadanti | [RV 1.164.46]

>

>

> GYaanayaGYena chaapyanye yajanto maamupaasate |

> ekatvena pR^ithaktvena bahudhaa vishvatomukham.h || Gita 9:15

>

> " Others, too, sacrificing by the Yajna of knowledge (i.e. seeing

> the

> Self in all), worship Me - the All-formed, as One, as distinct, as

> manifold. "

 

FWIW, I see ultimately all paths (other than bhakti) converging on

these two:

 

(1) Flush the 'ego' into the open - Sri Ramana Maharshi, Self-

Enquiry, Rinzai Zen (to some extent).

 

(2) Allow the 'ego' die naturally - Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, " Just

Be " , Soto zen " just sitting. "

 

In my opinion, all paths fork eventually onto one of these two, aside

from bhakti (which looks like a mystery here, I don't know if it's

even a path really or if it exists at all!).

 

Peace...

[Guest guest]

Humble praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

Sri Sada prabhuji :

 

 

Hence lot of criticism and counter criticism

developed during the post Shankara.

 

6. It is therefore important to study many other texts

by several aachaaryas done subsequently after

Shankara.

 

 

bhaskar :

 

 

Yes, prabhuji, you are right in your observation that it is a mandatory

duty to have complete understanding of tarka pradhAna (logic based)

prakaraNa grantha-s like advaita siddhi, khandana khanda khAdya etc. etc.

to counter the arguments of dualists...But for any mumukshu who wants to

just persue his spiritual quest in jnAna mArga, the shankara siddhAnta as

enshrined in his prasthAna trayi is more than enough to clarify any doubt

in sAdhana mArga is it not prabhuji??

 

 

 

 

 

Sri Sada prabhuji:

 

 

The study of the works of many of these aachaaryas

are important as manana granthas to make sure there

are no more doubts or possibility of doubts about the

nature of reality.

 

 

bhaskar :

 

 

Though for manana, shrutyanugrahIta tarka is necessary, I dont think to do

manana we need the *tarka karkasha* grantha-s which has been specifically

meant for debates with dualists!! ...there is an ample room for doing

manana in shruti & shankara bhAshya themselves prabhuji...contemplation on

the methodology of presentation of paNchakOsha vivEka, avasthAtraya vivEka,

adhyArOpa apavAda etc. We can find plenty of *shruta tarka* in shankara

bhAshya itself is it not prabhuji??we can do comtemplation on that first to

know the nature of reality instead of preferring the dialectical grantha-s

for manana. Shankara while commenting on maNtavyaH in bruhadAraNyaka, did

not call for the study of pramANa tarka for brahma jignAsa...Anyway, this

is my understanding prabhuji.

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar