Bhamati vs. Vivarana

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " antharyami_in " <sathvatha wrote:

>

> Now as a supplement to what you have presented with, regarding

> Bhamati and Vivarana opinions, I would like to add few more points

> on the issue. Late.Dr Thangasami Sharma, former Professor of

 

 

praNAms Shri Devanathanji,

 

[subject edited. Original subject entirely due to my oversight.]

 

Thanks for your elucidation on this. It can be seen that

there are many common aspects to the two comparisons.

 

It will be great if there was a philosophical book that

objectively elucidates many of these fine points in

Shankara's and post-Shankara's philosophical thought.

Do members have any suggestions?

 

praNAms to all Advaitins,

Ramakrishna

[Guest guest]

praNAms Shri Sadaji and Shri Devanathanji,

 

Thanks for your responses. I have a couple of questions.

 

I already saw a difference in opinions between both of

you. Further, I am sure that there are philosophical

books which explain why one school interprets the

Shankara bhashya properly and so on. Where does

all this philosophical development lead to *in daily life*?

Can you and (other elders of the group) kindly explain

why would one post-shankara school be appealing to

a seeker with a strict emphasis on a *day-to-day

experience and practice*?

 

Also, I am interested in knowing, where do the

current prominent advaita schools (like Shankara

peethas, Ramakrishna Mission, Ramana Ashram,

Nisargadatta school etc. (I am sure I am missing

on many of these)) stand on the post-Shankaran

experiential-philosophy.

 

I want the members to kindly appreciate that that these

questions are based on a more mundane, experiential

qwest, rather than a purely intellectual qwest. The latter,

is obtained in philosophy journals. The former, can only

be obtained by a list serve like this.

 

 

praNAms to all Advaitins,

Ramakrishna

[Guest guest]

On 27/01/2008, Ramakrishna Upadrasta <ramakrsn wrote:

>

> Also, I am interested in knowing, where do the

> current prominent advaita schools (like Shankara

> peethas, Ramakrishna Mission, Ramana Ashram,

> Nisargadatta school etc. (I am sure I am missing

> on many of these)) stand on the post-Shankaran

> experiential-philosophy.

>

 

Bhamati and vivarana need not be seen as mutually exclusive. The same

teacher can use both depending on the situation. There aren't any

distinct lineages based on Bhamati and/or Vivarana.

 

In terms of " day-to-day practices " , there is a wide variance. I don't

think one can separate out a " purely intellectual quest " from

" day-to-day practices " in the context of advaita.Both go hand in hand.

 

In the Sankara mutts, daily practices tend to centre around various

mantra-based upasana-s and elements of Ashtanga Yoga. Simultaneously,

there is a study of Tarka, Mimamsa and of course Vedanta, all leading

to Atma-vichara.

 

For a study of the BSB, the Bhamati line is somewhat more popular as

Vacaspati Misra's commentary covers the full BSB, whereas the

Panchapadika does not. On an overall basis however, neither school is

favoured over the other

 

There is an old post in the archives by Prof John Grimes which has a

very interesting perspective on the matter. He says that the Bhamati

is the perspective of the seeker, whereas the Vivarana is the

perspective of the enlightened. This should give some insight on which

line is more useful from a practical perspective.

 

 

Ramesh

[Guest guest]

--- Ramakrishna Upadrasta <ramakrsn

wrote:

>

> I want the members to kindly appreciate that that

> these

> questions are based on a more mundane, experiential

> qwest, rather than a purely intellectual qwest. The

> latter,

> is obtained in philosophy journals. The former, can

> only

> be obtained by a list serve like this.

 

Ramakrishna - PraNAms.

 

First, there is an unwritten rule that you are not

supposed to ask very difficult questions.

 

Second, your questions are loaded. Since I am not a

scholar, I will present what I understand rather than

the scholastic positions of the two schools of

thought. Perhaps Devanathanji and Bhaskarji, who I

think is a very strong proponent of Vivarana School,

can discuss the issues. We will learn from them what

they discuss.

 

I have not seen any disagreements between I and

Devanathanji- may be more in terms of our

perspectives. I have been arguing it as more a

semantic problem; he considers it as little more than

that. I still have to respond to his latest post, if I

have anything else to say further.

 

I am been studying the VP and also the book 'Methods

of Knowledge' by Satprakashananda that Dennis has

recommended, also discussing on the side with Swami

Paramarthanandji.

 

Your questions touch on practical experience. This is

somewhat similar to Nairji question - This is all

mostly academic knowledge or practical knowledge? We

have seen some of the members who join and leave

saying that we are discussing all intellectual stuff

and they are leaving list since they want to sit and

meditate.

 

Shree Shyamji - pointed in the last post the jnaani

recognizes that he is Brahman, the book he is teaching

is Brahman, the student is Brahman, and the knowledge

that is being communicated is Brahman. There is

nothing other than Brahman.

 

I would like to add - the above statements are

factually true, whether you are jnaani or ajnaani.

Only difference is jnaani knows that it is true and

ajnaani does not see that, yet. Then what do we gain

by these 'so called' intellectual discussions - Only

to recognize that what we call intellectual is factual

knowledge. Until that sinks in, the discussion should

go on.

 

There was question related to grace of God by Rishiji

in this quest for knowledge. Shree Sastriji answered

beautifully bringing in chitta sudhhi. Today

Paramarthanandaji was discussing about chitta suddhi

-He illustrated the example of fellow who wearing a

thin gold chain in his neck, went to see his friend

who admired the chain. The friend took that chain to

examine and returned it back. The fellow put it back

mechanically on his neck but the chain being thin it

slided to the back of his neck. When the Fellow

returned home, he could not feel the presence of the

chain and so he ran back to his friend to see if his

friend still has that chain. The friend could see

clearly that the chain is there where it is suppose to

be. Hence he told the fellow, the chain you are

looking for you have it all the time. Now the question

that was posed is - was that running necessary to find

the chain? - Since the chain was with him all the

time, the running was not all really necessary to find

the chain, since it was never lost. But if he did not

run, he will be searching and worrying all the time

whether it is lost on the way or if it is with his

friend etc. But once his friend has pointed out that

the seeker of the chain is the possessor of the chain

all along, then the guy also recognized all that

running and anxiety for that chain was not necessary.

 

Hence the answer is ALL THAT RUNNING IS NECESSARY TO

REALISE THAT ALL THAT RUNNING WAS NOT NECESSARY.

 

The grace of God is necessary to recognize that grace

of God is ever present.

 

The search for Brahman is necessary to recognize that

there is no need to search for Brahman since it is

self-evident ever existent eternal presence that you

are.

 

All this intellectual discussions are necessary to

recognize that there is no need to discuss since it is

the ever present truth.

 

All the knowers of the truth essentially emphasize the

same - whether it is Ramana Maharshi or Nisarga datta

maharaj or any other great saint that we revere. Words

may be different, language they talk may be different

but fact cannot be different.

 

Now I have been studying VP but I could not go beyond

the first two pages related to pratyaksha pramaaNa-

the reason is I got stuck with wonder with the

statement -after listing the 6 pramaaNas - he says

among the six pratyaksha pramaaNas, the direct

perception, gives the direct and immediate (without

any medium - one does not have to think or deduce as

in inference, etc)knowledge. And the next statement,

where my intellect got stunned, is 'that direct and

immediate knowledge is nothing but PURE CONSCIOUSNESS

ALONE -pratyaksha pramaa ca atra caitanyam eva . I was

staring into the space - what it says in essence is

whatever directly and immediately perceptible world

of objects that I cannot but see as soon as I open my

eyes - that knowledge gained by perception which is

immediate and direct is nothing but Brahman which is

also immediate and direct- Oh what a statement of

fact. My heart cried. Tears were rolling from my eyes

without my knowledge, seeing the beauty and truth

underlying the statement. I do not want to worry about

bhaamati or vivarana - the truth is daring right in

front direct and immediate. I am getting stuck with

the statment and not able to turn the pages more. Is

this academic knowledge or practical knowledge?

 

Do not get me wrong. I have been teaching that Brahman

is ever where, one without a second and satyam jnaanam

and anantam brahma etc. Ramana Maharshi- since you

asked - says in Upadesa saara

dRisya vaaritam chittamaatmanaaH|

chitva darshanam tatva darshaNam||

It means in essence what ever I see (dRisyam) if I

remove that (strip out the names and forms) what

remains is nothing but the tatvam or the essential

nature of the truth - existence-consciousness.

 

What VP said is the same thing - what you see directly

trough perception - that knowledge is direct and

immediate and it is nothing but pure consciousness. I

am sure he is going to explain that elaborately later,

but truth is daring right in front of my eyes -

Whatever you see, hear, smell, touch, taste etc is

direct and immediate and Brahman is only direct and

immediate since there is nothing other than him. Oh my

God. What a beautiful truth.

 

Ramakrishnaji - you wanted discussion relating to our

experiences, hence all this writing. The problem is

we are, all the time, experiencing Brahman - in fact

there is never a time we are not experiencing it -

experience, experience and experiencing all Brahman

only - Now you can see beauty of Shyamji's statement.

There is nothing academic or practical here everything

is just factual. But to realize that ....

 

Remember running is necessary to know that running is

not necessary.

 

All saadhanas are necessary to realize that all

saadhanaas are not necessary.

 

Meditation is necessary to realize that meditation is

not necessary - why Brahman is direct and immediate.

 

God's grace is necessary to realize that God is grace

is abundantly available freely without even asking.

 

My humble PraNAms to Michael who insisted on the study

of VP, Dennis who brought to my attention the book of

Swami Satprakashanandaji and Devanathanji for bringing

to my attention KuuTasthadeepam chapter in Panchadasi

- and PraNAms to all my teachers to see this simple

fact - whatever I see directly and immediately is

noting but Brahman. Simple and straight fact.

 

 

Hari Om!

sadananda

[Guest guest]

List Moderators' Note: Welcome Swami Raghabananda to the list and we look

forward to your active participations with thoughtful comments and questions.

New and other members are once again reminded that while sending reply to a post

- please keep only the essential part of the previous poster as it is done here.

Thanks for your cooperation.

=================

 

Param Adaraniya Sadananda Guruji.

Pranams.

Thank you once again for beutifull satsangh. Your joy & experience of

Satchitananda has melt me(heart) down & I could sing much better this time;

Manobudhyahankar chittani naham .......Chidanandaroopah shivoham shivoham.

Many Pranams to you other revered Gurujis of this advaitin sight.

Thank you Sri Ram ji. I am ever greatfull to you.

Om ! Om ! Om1

Swami Raghabananda.

 

_____

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of kuntimaddi sadananda

Sunday, January 27, 2008 2:36 AM

advaitin

Re: Bhamati vs. Vivarana

 

First, there is an unwritten rule that you are not

supposed to ask very difficult questions.

 

Second, your questions are loaded. Since I am not a

scholar, I will present what I understand rather than

the scholastic positions of the two schools of

thought. Perhaps Devanathanji and Bhaskarji, who I

think is a very strong proponent of Vivarana School,

can discuss the issues. We will learn from them what

they discuss.

[Guest guest]

Hari Om,

Shri Ramakrishna ji,

 

It is good to know you recognize that Sadananda ji and I differ with

the tenets of Advaita Vedanta. Sadananda ji in his last post has

emotionally rendered his hrdaya pUrva anubhava of some simple facts

yet stunning facts that Vedanta teaches us. But let me make a point

that: However hard one might seclude one's intellectual position to

be different from two traditions, they will have no let out that

they finally will find themselves rooted in any one of these

domains - either Bhamati or Vivarana. In that sense most of the

beginners and some scholars generally seek refuge to Vivarana school

simply due to the fact that they are more exposed to it than the

other; admitting the fact that Bhamati is more a terse text that

appeals not for a common understanding.

 

More, discussions about Bhamati and Vivarana can never be

marginalized as mere intellectual exercise – prauda vadas; instead

they differ in crucial points of Vedanta praxis; as a blend of both

view and way of life. The `day to day experience' as you mentioned

it, is nothing but the pathology of empirical life which ought to be

reckoned and removed by gaining intellectual clarity of inherent

intelligence known as Vidya. What is the method of such

investigation? And desire for investigation? Reason for such desire?

Here starts the difference of opinion in the very beginning of

JignyasAdhikarana. `atha' Sabda Vicara. Bhamati tradition makes a

clear point that karmas – nitya and naimittika aids the sadhaka with

tranquil mind, which creates the jignyAsa – the desire to know the

Brahma Vidya for final emancipation. Elevated to the status of

AdhikAri, the mumuksu endeavors to investigate on the paroksa and

aparoksa jnana with which he establishes himself in the state of

Mukti.

 

Except for the four Mathas established by Bagavad pada himself, I do

not want to comment on others (RK, Ramana, Nisarga data etc); for I

do not recognize them as mainstream Sampradayins. The rich Parampara

of Advaita is sacred and divine as the perennial effulgence of great

acharya flows in its full vigour depending on the depth of channel

been dug into the field on mental cultivation – kshetra. Vacaspati

Misra constructs the channel with his adept (logical) skills –

Panditya in Vedanta Vicara as one can feel the Acaryas karuna is

made to rush into our heart like a ganga pravAha. Vacaspati draws

his influence from Acharya Mandana Misra's method and connects it

with Sankara's system with consistence and coherence. These are not

fancy words in praise for the system I claim to hail but simple

facts that fashions the faculties of intelligence to fathom the

unfathomable expressions of Reality.

 

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

Ramakrishna Upadrasta wrote:

> Also, I am interested in knowing, where do the

> current prominent advaita schools (like Shankara

> peethas, Ramakrishna Mission, Ramana Ashram,

> Nisargadatta school etc.

>

Dear Ramakrishna-ji:

 

I cannot speak of other saints and sages, but Sri Ramana did not start a

separate school of Advaita-Vedanta. The " Collected Works of Ramana

Maharshi " published by Sri Ramanasramam contains the writings and

translations of Bhagavan on a number of Advaitic texts and can be

enjoyed by anyone with an interest in Advaita.

 

Some of the greatest yogis of India and even a few Shankracharyas of the

time visited Bhagavan to have their doubts clarified on the scriptures.

 

Sri Ramana enjoyed telling stories of saints and discussing the advaitic

texts and explaining them to devotees. His general feeling was that

devotees will naturally be inclined towards different spiritual

practices and paths depending on their inclination and this includes

reading of scriptures and meditation. Sri Ramana advocated the method of

self-inquiry for the ripe seekers. He felt that once someone has grasped

the essential truth of the matter from the scriptures, one should

meditate on that truth.

 

Of course, we all have some shastra vasana (is that the right word?) and

so that is our karma that we are bound to enjoy. The truth of the

Upanishads is simple. When we make our minds less complicated and have

faith in the words of the Guru and meditate on the truth of our

Self-Nature, then Grace flows freely and Self is realized as one's own Self.

 

By the way, I took much delight in reading Shyam-ji post on explaining

Mithya and join Sastri-ji in congratulating him on his eloquence. Those

of us who lack the facility with these concepts appreciate the efforts

made by learned members like Sada-ji, Prof. Krishnamurthy-ji, Ramesh

Krishnamurthy-ji, Sunder-ji, Ram-ji, Dennis-ji, Frank-ji, Sastri-ji,

Shyam-ji, among so many others in educating us.

 

Namaste and love to all

Harsha

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

Ramanasramam's site has the following interesting article, "

Bhagavana dthe Tradition of Advaita, " and it explains why Sri Ramana

did not belong to any known advaita traditions of Upanisadic time

period. The article rightly concludes that his advaitic understanding

happened suddenly and did not undergo any detailed preparation!

Here are some highlights of the article:

 

" It was around 300BCE that Badarayana systemised the flashes of

Upanisadic genius and gave us the Brahma Sutras. From this point,

scholars have been able to vaguely trace the lineage of preceptors

who, each in their way, elaborated aspects of the teaching. There was

a living, continuous line of teachers who expounded the tenets of

Advaita.4

 

Does Sri Ramana Maharshi belong to this tradition? If so how — as it

appears he arrived suddenly at the summit of advaitic understanding

without any preparation or visible link to the advaitic tradition? If

he does not belong to any tradition, then on what authority did he

teach?

 

Bhagavan does not belong to any specific tradition. In the lineage of

authentic teachers which have been thrown up by the Sanatana Dharma

in the last several thousand years we see these individual

prominences — surges of exemplary understanding. There doesn't seem

to be any thread connecting them to those who went before or after.

Like Arunachala, they stand alone. They came, not merely to preserve

the recorded wisdom but to rejuvenate it free of the historical,

social and religious accretions that obscured the direct perception

of our being-ness. "

 

The following references are Sited in the article:

1. Bhamati and Vivarana Schools of Advaita Vedanta by P.S. Roodurmun,

p.10. Motilal Banarsidass, 2002.

 

2. See the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad, III.7.

 

3. Chandogya Upanisad, 6.2.1.

 

4. Pre-Sankara Advaita Philosophy by S.L. Pandey. Darshan Peeth,

Allahabad, 1974. Further, we should remember that metaphysical truths

are eternal and while they may change in external form according to

circumstance, the change has nothing to do with what is termed

evolution, as we know it today. The foundation is unaffected by time

and change as is the essential unity of being which is unaffected by

the multiplicity of the states of manifestation we experience.

 

5. The Collected Works of Sri Ramana Maharshi, p. 147, 2001.

 

The entire article is worth reading and is available at the

Ramanaswaram Website and the link is:

http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/traditionofadvita.html

 

 

advaitin , Harsha wrote:

>

> Ramakrishna Upadrasta wrote:

> > Also, I am interested in knowing, where do the

> > current prominent advaita schools (like Shankara

> > peethas, Ramakrishna Mission, Ramana Ashram,

> > Nisargadatta school etc.

> >

> Dear Ramakrishna-ji:

>

> I cannot speak of other saints and sages, but Sri Ramana did not

start a

> separate school of Advaita-Vedanta. The " Collected Works of Ramana

> Maharshi " published by Sri Ramanasramam contains the writings and

> translations of Bhagavan on a number of Advaitic texts and can be

> enjoyed by anyone with an interest in Advaita.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> Hence the answer is ALL THAT RUNNING IS NECESSARY TO

> REALISE THAT ALL THAT RUNNING WAS NOT NECESSARY.

>

> The grace of God is necessary to recognize that grace

> of God is ever present.

>

> The search for Brahman is necessary to recognize that

> there is no need to search for Brahman since it is

> self-evident ever existent eternal presence that you

> are.

>

> All this intellectual discussions are necessary to

> recognize that there is no need to discuss since it is

> the ever present truth.

>

>

> Meditation is necessary to realize that meditation is

> not necessary - why Brahman is direct and immediate.

>

> God's grace is necessary to realize that God is grace

> is abundantly available freely without even asking.

> Hari Om!

> sadananda

 

Sada-ji,

Very correct statements, beautifully put.

Another paradox, pointed out by Shri Shankara in his bhAshya on

kaThopanishad, 1.3.12 is that, though no one has taught us that we

are the body, we cling obstinately to such a conviction and all the

roarings of the upanishads to the contrary do not make us give it

up. He says, " Alas, how unfathomable, inscrutable, and variegated is

this mAyA, that every creature, though in reality identical with the

supreme Reality, and is taught so (by the upanishads), does not

realize (the truth in the form) `I am the supreme Self', while, even

without being told, he considers himself as the aggregate of the

body and the senses, and thinks, ` I am the son of so- and-so',

etc., though these (the body and senses) are objects of perception

like any external object such as pot " .

(In this passage Shri Shankara refers to the human being as

a `creature' to point out that in this respect the human being is

not different from other creatures.)

S.N.Sastri

 

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sada-ji.

 

If I am returning again with my woes, kindly pardon me.

 

Your reaction when you read VP, excerpted below, has made me write

this.

 

That everything we see around is Brahman is known to most of us

here. In fact, I had expressed this view in my pUrNamadaH pUrNamidaM

lead post of April 2004 and ran into rough weather with Shri

Bhaskarji.

 

What I wrote in 2004 was just a mere appreciaton (I am omitting the

adjective 'academic') of a vedantic fact. But, the *actual

factuality of the fact* was and is still very distant from me, the

appreciator.

 

A bothersome colleague of mine just visited me for a couple of

minutes. I don't like him and wanted him him to leave me. I was

actually praying for his departure. That guy is Brahman and this me,

the unabashed pUrNamadaH pretender, knew that very well as a vedantic

fact. Then why was my discomfort?

 

A smiling flower, the music in the chirp of a little bird, a fluffy

little kitten - all these nice things make me sing pUrNamadaH

pUrNamidaM. But, not unpleasant things like my colleague.

 

There is therefore a long way to go. That may be the " unncessary but

necessary " running about to locate the chain which has actually been

not lost. When the running about ceases and when I *see* myself in

my bothersome colleague, how that would be cannot be conjectured by

me now. That is the wave going oceanic as I said some time before.

When the wave is wave, it cannot understand what it is like being the

ocean. Repeating " I am not the wave, I am the ocean " trillions of

times is not going to solve the wave's problem. How can this I-wave

then talk as though I am already the ocean based on a mere

appreciation of a vedantic fact?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> Now I have been studying VP but I could not go beyond

> the first two pages related to pratyaksha pramaaNa-

> the reason is I got stuck with wonder with the

> statement -after listing the 6 pramaaNas - he says

> among the six pratyaksha pramaaNas, the direct

> perception, gives the direct and immediate (without

> any medium - one does not have to think or deduce as

> in inference, etc)knowledge. And the next statement,

> where my intellect got stunned, is 'that direct and

> immediate knowledge is nothing but PURE CONSCIOUSNESS

> ALONE -pratyaksha pramaa ca atra caitanyam eva . I was

> staring into the space - what it says in essence is

> whatever directly and immediately perceptible world

> of objects that I cannot but see as soon as I open my

> eyes - that knowledge gained by perception which is

> immediate and direct is nothing but Brahman which is

> also immediate and direct- Oh what a statement of

> fact. My heart cried. Tears were rolling from my eyes

> without my knowledge, seeing the beauty and truth

> underlying the statement. I do not want to worry about

> bhaamati or vivarana - the truth is daring right in

> front direct and immediate. I am getting stuck with

> the statment and not able to turn the pages more. Is

> this academic knowledge or practical knowledge?

[Guest guest]

praNAms Shri Sadaji,

 

I am really touched by your post as well as the one by

Shri Shyamji and the one by Shri Sastriji.

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

> Remember running is necessary to know that running is

> not necessary.

>

> All saadhanas are necessary to realize that all

> saadhanaas are not necessary.

>

> Meditation is necessary to realize that meditation is

> not necessary - why Brahman is direct and immediate.

>

> God's grace is necessary to realize that God is grace

> is abundantly available freely without even asking.

 

Just as running is necessary to know that running is

not necessary, and the discussions regarding realization

of Brahman are necessary to realize that such discussions

are not necessary, my asking the group was necessary

for me to realize that such asking was not necessary.

Your response was necessary to make me to realize

that such a post of mine was not necessary. So, my post

was necessary and not necessary at the same time!!!

 

Since there was some existence which could have been

attributed to my post at some time, it could not have

been non-existent, the way asat is (and always was).

My post has its own level of existence, and is hence a

facet of Brahman. This is because, as you and other elders

explained so clearly, my asking the group is Brahman,

you responding is Brahman, and that post resonating

with me is also Brahman.

 

Until the above realization dawns in the sadhakas and

settles down in the deepest corners of their hearts,

firmly, completely and permanently, the way it was

established for seers like Ramana Maharshi, questions

need to be asked and resolved using all the available

means of pramana in the framework of Maya.

 

As Shri Shyamji wonderfully pointed, Maya also

is Brahman. It is *not* asat, because Maya at least

seems to exist, and asat *never ever* was existent

and *ever will* be existent.

 

We (in this highly esteemed group) however,

should realize that the discussions regarding the

ever-existence of the existent are needed

for us (the sadhakas) to realize its (ever-)existence.

This however, should not lead us to justify endless

digressions on the non-existence of the

never-existent. This latter can never be proven

false or true, using any kind of pramana.

 

This is because, there never was a time (nor ever will

be one) when the ever-existent was not-present and

there never was a time (nor ever will be) when the

non-existent was present.

 

That day will surely come, because we are in the

end, dependent on Ishvara's grace to realize that the

presence of the ever-present. Because, every sadhaka,

can realize, with Ishvara's grace (as Shri Sastriji

beautifully pointed out), the ever-existence of the

ever-existent.

 

Given all these where does Bhamati and Vivarana stand?

The intense thirst for realization in the individual sadhakas,

guilded by their Gurus and able elders (like ones in this

group) will take everyone to their true destination.

This is Sat!

(Isvaranugraha-pumsaam-advaita-vaasana)

 

Sadaji (and other elders), here is a small brief

biographical digression: These discussions are

happening when I recently realized that whatever I was

doing for the past couple of years was necessary to realize

that whatever I was doing for the past couple of years was

not necessary! Thanks for Ishvara krupa and the grace of

elders, that made me realize such a thing and see it not as

a disappointment, but in the " right way " . After all, Vedanta

is the means in which we can get profound answers to the

difficult questions of mundane life.

 

praNAms to you (and other elders) for responding

in such a beautiful fashion, praNAms to to all the elders

of this group, who made such a communication possible,

praNAms to Shri Adi Shankara and all the seers who

realized the ever-existent nature of the ever-existent Self.

 

Hari Om!

Ramakrishna

[Guest guest]

--- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair

wrote:

> A bothersome colleague of mine just visited me for a

> couple of

> minutes. I don't like him and wanted him him to

> leave me. I was

> actually praying for his departure. That guy is

> Brahman and this me,

> the unabashed pUrNamadaH pretender, knew that very

> well as a vedantic

> fact. Then why was my discomfort?

>

 

Nairji - PraNAms

 

You know the answer. Here is my outlook.

 

Brahman is everywhere and everything does not mean

everything will be just like the way we want Brahman

to be.

 

Lord sends us sometimes a special messengers or He

himself comes to test our understanding. Remember the

ChanDaala that came on the way to Shankara.

 

Vedantin does not mean he should become a doormat for

everyone to step on. Jesus also said 'give Rome what

belongs to Rome -something to that effect.

 

I have my problem too. Here is what I learned to do -

that helps me a lot. It helps me to play the game of

life better, pleasant or unpleasant. When I pray

before I go to sleep, I particularly invoke the

presence of the Lord in all those forms that I have

encountered - particularly the irritant ones that I

have reacted- I prostrate in my own mind to all those

Lord forms - requesting the Lord to make me see His

presence particularly in those forms. This I found has

amazing effect, the mind becomes free from all

reactions leaving me with pleasant thought of Him only

as His Leela Vibhuuti.

 

I do pray first thing in the morning and last thing in

the night try to visualize the Lord in all the beings

starting from my own wife to everyone that I encounter

or encountered. During the day, I do forget and react

but the reaction seems to cool down fast and also I

become more patient in dealing with others'

shortcomings (from my point).

 

Prayer first thing in the morning and last thing in

the night definitely helps. If you have time in

between whenever you are waking or doing stray

thinking, I try to see the life pulsating in the

trees, in the people, passers by, and to see the drama

of life that is going one. I try to see that existence

in the things around.

 

The reaction I had when I read VP is something else.

It is not just the existence that I have been trying

to see in and through -not the SAT part - what baffled

me is the CHIT part in objects. The statement was -

The knowledge gained by perception of objects through

sense (pratyaksha pramaa) is direct and immediate and

that is the CONSCIOUSNESS ONLY since that the

statement made me to see the beauty in and around. It

is not an emotional reaction but to see the beauty of

the Lord in life form in all things and beings. It is

difficult to describe that feeling of amazement in

seeing things as underlying consciousness.

 

> A smiling flower, the music in the chirp of a little

> bird, a fluffy

> little kitten - all these nice things make me sing

> pUrNamadaH

> pUrNamidaM. But, not unpleasant things like my

> colleague.

 

Nairji - you are right. That is the reason why I make

special effort to pray to invoke the Lord in those

things too, at least in my bed room, when they are not

there to take my mind off-tangent.

 

>

> There is therefore a long way to go. That may be

> the " unncessary but

> necessary " running about to locate the chain which

> has actually been

> not lost.

 

No Nairji - the very conclusion that you have long way

to go will make it even longer way to go. Just start

today the prayers you will see the amazing effect. The

way becomes shorter than what you think. The reason is

you have the supporting understanding and the

emotional part of the mind need to get aligned. That

is nidhidhyaasana.

 

 

With all my prayers

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Harsha wrote:

>

> Ramakrishna Upadrasta wrote:

> > Also, I am interested in knowing, where do the

> > current prominent advaita schools (like Shankara

> > peethas, Ramakrishna Mission, Ramana Ashram,

> > Nisargadatta school etc.

> >

> Dear Ramakrishna-ji:

>

> I cannot speak of other saints and sages, but Sri Ramana did not

start a

> separate school of Advaita-Vedanta. The " Collected Works of Ramana

> Maharshi " published by Sri Ramanasramam contains the writings and

> translations of Bhagavan on a number of Advaitic texts and can be

> enjoyed by anyone with an interest in Advaita.

>

> Some of the greatest yogis of India and even a few Shankracharyas

of the

> time visited Bhagavan to have their doubts clarified on the

scriptures.

 

 

Namaste Harshaji,

 

Ramana as far as I can see taught at the level of the mind reflected

to him by the questioner.

Ultimately Ramana taught ajativada and para-advaita. Knowing that

realising the Self without any images or ishtadevatas resulted in

simultaneous realisation of Saguna and Nirguna levels. With all

appearances associated with Saguna dropping with the body........Hu.

[Guest guest]

Thank you for that prayer suggestion. When I pray at night I offer gratitude to

my God for all the wonderful things that I have received that day and it has

really helped me see all the good that my life has in it but to also see all the

good in those things, people, experiences that i may not see as good is quite a

wonderful practice in my view, I feel it will really help me see the beauty,

self, Brahman in all. Thank you very much.

 

John Miller

 

 

 

kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

advaitin

Monday, January 28, 2008 6:46:05 AM

Re: Bhamati vs. Vivarana

 

 

--- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair@ >

wrote:

> A bothersome colleague of mine just visited me for a

> couple of

> minutes. I don't like him and wanted him him to

> leave me. I was

> actually praying for his departure. That guy is

> Brahman and this me,

> the unabashed pUrNamadaH pretender, knew that very

> well as a vedantic

> fact. Then why was my discomfort?

>

 

Nairji - PraNAms

 

You know the answer. Here is my outlook.

 

Brahman is everywhere and everything does not mean

everything will be just like the way we want Brahman

to be.

 

Lord sends us sometimes a special messengers or He

himself comes to test our understanding. Remember the

ChanDaala that came on the way to Shankara.

 

Vedantin does not mean he should become a doormat for

everyone to step on. Jesus also said 'give Rome what

belongs to Rome -something to that effect.

 

I have my problem too. Here is what I learned to do -

that helps me a lot. It helps me to play the game of

life better, pleasant or unpleasant. When I pray

before I go to sleep, I particularly invoke the

presence of the Lord in all those forms that I have

encountered - particularly the irritant ones that I

have reacted- I prostrate in my own mind to all those

Lord forms - requesting the Lord to make me see His

presence particularly in those forms. This I found has

amazing effect, the mind becomes free from all

reactions leaving me with pleasant thought of Him only

as His Leela Vibhuuti.

 

I do pray first thing in the morning and last thing in

the night try to visualize the Lord in all the beings

starting from my own wife to everyone that I encounter

or encountered. During the day, I do forget and react

but the reaction seems to cool down fast and also I

become more patient in dealing with others'

shortcomings (from my point).

 

Prayer first thing in the morning and last thing in

the night definitely helps. If you have time in

between whenever you are waking or doing stray

thinking, I try to see the life pulsating in the

trees, in the people, passers by, and to see the drama

of life that is going one. I try to see that existence

in the things around.

 

The reaction I had when I read VP is something else.

It is not just the existence that I have been trying

to see in and through -not the SAT part - what baffled

me is the CHIT part in objects. The statement was -

The knowledge gained by perception of objects through

sense (pratyaksha pramaa) is direct and immediate and

that is the CONSCIOUSNESS ONLY since that the

statement made me to see the beauty in and around. It

is not an emotional reaction but to see the beauty of

the Lord in life form in all things and beings. It is

difficult to describe that feeling of amazement in

seeing things as underlying consciousness.

 

> A smiling flower, the music in the chirp of a little

> bird, a fluffy

> little kitten - all these nice things make me sing

> pUrNamadaH

> pUrNamidaM. But, not unpleasant things like my

> colleague.

 

Nairji - you are right. That is the reason why I make

special effort to pray to invoke the Lord in those

things too, at least in my bed room, when they are not

there to take my mind off-tangent.

 

>

> There is therefore a long way to go. That may be

> the " unncessary but

> necessary " running about to locate the chain which

> has actually been

> not lost.

 

No Nairji - the very conclusion that you have long way

to go will make it even longer way to go. Just start

today the prayers you will see the amazing effect. The

way becomes shorter than what you think. The reason is

you have the supporting understanding and the

emotional part of the mind need to get aligned. That

is nidhidhyaasana.

 

With all my prayers

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Be a better friend, newshound, and

know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- ymoharir <ymoharir wrote:

>

>

> Namaste Sada-Ji:

>

> Most of us know the story but can you please

> elaborate it from the

> practice of Advatic principles.

 

Manishapancakam provides an elaborate description of

the outpouring knowledge of Bhagavat paada Shankara -

when he met the Chendaala. The conventional story is

Lord Shankara came in the form of Chandaala. For some

reason, I do not like to accept that account - just I

cannot accept the account of Mandana Misra's wife

Bharati testing Shankara on the household knowledge.

 

Before I give the way my account of that story - I

want tell you story of Saint Francis of Assisi - For

those who would like to know - there is beautiful book

by Nikos Kazantzakis on 'Saint Francis of Assisi' -

original in Greek but translated into English. I was

reading that on the plane during one of my flight

trips to US. It is beautiful book to read.

 

The story is written as told by Francis friend Leo.

When Francis dreams of what Lord wants him to do next

day it frightens him - these are essentially the hangs

that he has to get rid off to see the truth as the

truth. He has an aversion to Lepers - the very sight

despises him. He dreams that he has to go and see a

leper and hug him and kiss him. The very thought

repelled him but he felt that is what Lord wanted him

to do. The next day when they were waking, they found

a leper slowly walking on the street. Francis rushed

to him, carried him and kissed him. Suddenly there is

bright light and the leper disappeared. His friend

was amazed. He asked Francis what happened. Francis

response was amazing.

He said - I just learned something - I just found out

that whenever we kiss and hug any leper he becomes a

Christ.

 

I think the same thing must have happened when

Shankara encountered the Chandaala. It is not that

Lord Shiva came down in Chandaala form. A chendaala

walking and it so happed that he was blocking the way

and his disciples must have asked him to move away.

Suddenly Shankara realized, whom we are asking to move

away. Shankara could see Lord Siva in the form of

Chandaala. The dialogue is to teach his disciples that

in every form it is only Lord himself. Remember

Maniisha pancakam is the composition of Shankara and

not by Chandaala.

 

Sarvam khalu idam braham - is the essential message -

and that vision of the Lord (saguna Brahman) in and

through all beings and things is the vision of

advaita. It is not easy, but need to be cultivated by

sadhana.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sada-ji.

 

Your message 39287.

 

Thank you immensely for your good words and advice.

 

Sada-ji, I do pray. As you know, my iStadevatA is the Devi, the

nAmapArAyaNaprItA. To me, She is the Consciousness of Advaita. I

pray so much to Her that I am a prayer myself, which includes Her

thousand names and three hundred names, saptashati (devI mAhatmya),

scores of other stotrAs, etc. The latest addition is the thrilling

abhirAmI antAdi (in Tamil) very kindly provided by none other than

our Cdr. Vaidyanathan-ji.

 

I do chant Her names/stotrAs even while engaged in deeds that have a

selfish tinge. Prayer is thus an almost incessant activity with me

these days.

 

With this almost continuous mental preoccupation with the Devi, a

conviction has grown in me that I, with my BMI, am something like a

bubble in an otherwise homogeneous solution of awareness and that the

bubble has to burst and completely lose its cellular individuality

before I can claim self-realization. At my present level, I feel

that such a dissolution of the BMI individuality is indeed possible.

 

Unfortunately, I notice that this conviction is not consonant with

the shastraic references quoted here. That is my predicament. It

has nothing to do with our understanding of pUrNamadaH pUrNamidaM,

mithyAtwa etc. I am in complete agreement with all that.

 

Any way, thanks once again, Sada-ji. Hope She will provide me the

answer.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Shree Ramesam - PraNAms

 

Thanks for your input. I have posted under Analysis

of the Mind - 4, a write-up based on Swami

Paramarthanandaji New Year talk on Anger.

 

Vedanta's concern is not the source of Anger, but what

it causes in terms of its effect on the

self-realization. Hence Krishna in Gita classifies

anger as aasura sampatti and no. 2 enemy after the

self-centered desire since anger is related to it as

Krishna himself shows in 2nd ch.

 

I suggest you look at the post on anger after that I

would be happy to discuss further since the essence of

your comments were addressed in that write-up.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

--- ramesam <ramesamvijaya wrote:

 

> advaitin ,

 

> Does not this question imply that:

> 1. There is an `I' who got angry, as if anger is an

> extraneous

> possession obtained unwantedly by that `I'?

> 2. There is a given dictum that `being angry' is

> despicable and

> should be avoided?

> 3. I assign to that `I' the dictum in #2. as the

> goal to be

> achieved?

> 4. Now I carry a memory of the incident triggering a

> series of

> reactions like guilt, desire to get rid off anger,

> effort to practice

> non-anger etc.?

> 5. There is a desire to create a different image of

> `I' than

> what it was?

>

[Guest guest]

Hari Om,

Shri Sadananda ji,

 

Before stepping into the main subject matter on highlighting the

significance of Bhamati Prasthana, I would like to add a brief note

on the history of this tradition so that all members involved in

this discussion are aware on what background we underline our

opinions in this regard.

 

Vacaspati Misra who hails from Mithila, is the author of the magnum

opus Bhamati – a commentary on Sankara's Brahma Sutra Bashya.

Vacaspati draws his inspiration and influence from Acharya Mandana

Misra, the author of the magnificient work - Brahma Siddhi.

Vacaspati's Misra's another work on Vedanta is Tattva samiksa, which

is a commentary on Brahma Siddhi. This work as I see it (also that

of Brahma Siddhi) has many tenets of that of the system of

SabdAdvaita, especially while treating the nature of Brahman

as `Sabda tattva' in line with Acharya Gaudapada who regards Brahman

equivalent to Om'kara. The Jivatma is referred to SabdAtman and the

ultimate reality is referred to as Sabda Brahman, both in Brahma

Siddhi and Tattva Samiksa. Vacaspati's direct guru was

TrilocanAcarya. Bhamati has attracted many sub commentaries, most

important and celebrated of which are Vedanta Kalpataru of

Amalananda (13th CE), which was further commented by Appayya Diksita

(15th CE) as Kalpataru Parimala. Kalpataru was later commented by a

later prolific Advaitin Lakshmi Nrsimha (17th CE) called Abhoga.

Apart from these literatures, Bhamati has many other commentaries

such as Bhamati Vilasa, Manjari, Bhamati Tilaka etc those I doubt

are not available in print hitherto.

 

With this background let me move on to elaborate on some polemics of

the tradition based on the 14 points I had mention in my post

#39262. I will present my humble opinion on these points considering

them one by one. In my presentation I will try to point out the

strength of Bhamati, which appeals me more than that of Vivarana. I

am making use of Bhamati, kalpataru (with parimala) along with

Brahma Siddhi and Samiksa for my references here.

 

Point 1: Karma is useful only for giving rise to `desire' to know

the Self. Karma cannot be regarded as indirect cause for the rise of

Knowledge itself, as Vivarana vadins claim.

 

In the JagnyAsadhikaranaof Brahma Sutra - `athAtho Brahma

Jignyasa', `desire to know Brahman' where the expression `desire to

know' is taken to be the subject of argument. The term desire means

existence of doubt and profit `jignyasasya ca sandeha prayojane

sucayati'. Prayojana as we all know is the Brahma Vidya where

Brahman is taken to be the Vidya Visaya – the content of highest

knowledge. The other conponent of desire, the doubt is regarded as

an action (karma) that endeavours to remove the viparyaya regarding

the highest goal. The very definition of Karma is `an action that is

meant to accomplish a particular goal'. Here what can be

accomplished is only Chitta suddhi and not Knowledge (or Brahman)

since it is ever accomplished. Jnana is sought only by scriptures as

sutra'kara says `sastra yonitvAt'. Karma fetches tranquil mind

alone. If it extended to be the cause of knowledge then there is the

danger of samuccaya vada coming to play, which Sureswara elaborately

condemns in Naishkarmya siddhi. Rise of knowledge itself is moksa

for Advaitins. If this knowledge becomes the product of karma, the

very rudiment of Advaita is ridiculed.

 

Further in SarvApekshAdhikarana, Vacaspati comments on Acharyas

stand that seemingly favours the Vivarana view on the place of Karma

in Knowledge process – Jnana Marga. Here in the Adhikarana Bhamati

clearly points out the definitions of Sravana Manana NidhidyAsana

with which Atma is seen `immediately'. So being the cause for both

paroksa and Aparoksa jnana, Vacaspati shows the incompatibility in

placing a role to karma in the three fold means for jnana utpatthi.

He makes a powerful remark here that says : `utpattau jnanasya karma

apeksa na vidyate' iti.

 

Continuing, Sruthi declares that `Tametam vedAnu vacanena Brahmana

Vividisanti yajnena dAnena tapasa nAsakena' meaning `scriptures

(karma portions) prescribe austerities, obligations, charity etc

that which aids the `desire to know' Brahman'. Here it is not said

that such karmas aids the `knowledge of Brahman' in direct or

indirect sense. Bhamati makes a beautiful cogent description on the

term `vividisanti' on grammatical lines to say that karma plays role

onlt until `jignyasa' and not `jnana'.

 

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

Shri Nairji writes :

 

( Sada-ji, I do pray. As you know, my iStadevatA is the Devi, the

nAmapArAyaNaprItA. To me, She is the Consciousness of Advaita. I

pray so much to Her that I am a prayer myself, which includes Her

thousand names and three hundred names, saptashati (devI mAhatmya),

scores of other stotrAs, etc. The latest addition is the thrilling

abhirAmI antAdi (in Tamil) very kindly provided by none other than

our Cdr. Vaidyanathan-ji.)

 

Many members on this list serve are aware of how Adi shankara

bhagvadapada composed the 'Manisha panchakam' wherein he salutes an

untouchable ( chandala - lord Shiva in disguise) as his Advaitic

Guru! in fact , shri sadaji also mentioned this in one of his posts

recently . but , today , it is my pleasure to you to narrate how adi

shanakara bhagvadapada came to compose the famous 'bhavaniashtakam' -

a sthotra dedicated to Devi Bhavani , a consort of Lord

Bhavanishankar ( lord shiva) !

 

here it is :

 

" One day in the very early hours while the darkness of night was

still lingering, Shankara accompanied by his disciples was

proceeding to the Manikarnika Ghat for the daily ablution at dawn in

the holy waters of Ganga. On the way, a pathetic sight attracted his

eyes. On the path leading to the river sat a young woman. She was

the very picture of grief. A dead body, evidently of her husband,

lay on the ground, its head resting on her lap. She was wailing

loudly and soliciting help from all present there for the proper

performance of the funeral rites of her departed husband. She had

been sitting with a corpse in such a way that the narrow path

leading to the Manikarnika Ghat was quite blocked. Shankara waited

for long, it was getting quite late for the bath, and there was no

other path leading to Manikarnika Ghat. He had, therefore, to ask

the sorrowing woman, " Mother, if you will remove the corpse to one

side of the pathway, we can move on to the river " . The woman seemed

to be so overwhelmed with grief that she could not pay attention to

Shankara's words. On being repeatedly requested by Shankara for the

removal of the lifeless body to one side of the pathway, the woman

responded telling him, " Why, Great Soul, why do you not yourself

ask the corpse to move aside ? " Hearing her words Shankara told her

in a voice choked with compassion, " Mother, you are besides

yourself with grief. Can a corpse ever move of its own accord! Has

it in itself the needed momentum for moving aside? " The woman then

fixed her gaze on Shankara and spoke, " Why, you best of ascetics,

you hold that it is the one and only one Brahman who is the sole

authority of the universe and Shakti is indifferent. Is this not so?

When Brahman is ever present everywhere, why should not the corpse

then move? " Hearing the woman's utterance which was pregnant with

wisdom, Shankara stood astounded and began to think over its import.

But where was the woman now? And where was the corpse? In a trice

everything had receded. What divine sport was this! Shankara's mind

was filled with an indescribable joy. Within and without, he

experienced the sportive play of the Great Enchantress, Mahamaya,

who is none but Adya Shakti or the Primal Energy. It was because of

her glance that earth and heaven throbbed. Bending on his knees,

Shankara began to sing in praise of the Goddess Mahatripurasundari,

the sole refuge of the universe.

" Oh Goddess Supreme ! Brahman, Vishnu, Maheshwara, Indra,

Chandra or Surya or any one for the matter of that have I never

known. I am taking refuge at thy feet. Thou art my sole shelter.

Thou my only heaven, Mother Bhavani! I have surrendered myself to

thee. In debate and in danger, in error and in alien lands, in water

and in fire, on hills, among foes and in forests, do thou protect me

every where and in all places. Thou art alone my sheet-anchor. Thou

alone my only refuse security- Bhavanyashtakam ! "

Shankara now realized that the Goddess Supreme, the dispenser of

boons to humanity, who is worshipped by the Lord of the Universe

Himself, had out of her divine and mysterious Grace, made him become

aware intensely of her magnanimous glory and grace. She was it, he

understood the Creator, the Preserver, and the Destroyer of this

phenomenal universe and it was She again that bestowed material

abundance and also the final salvation from conditioned existence.

It was by the inducement of Her glance of Divine Sport that the

Universe blossomed out. It was in her affection-filled bosom that

the Universe had its being, and it was she who bore in Her, being

the granary of the cosmic universe. All this Shankara realized with

clarity and fullness by a moment of Mother's divine Grace. His heart

felt strangely filled. He finished his bath at the Manikarnika Ghat

and came back to his residence with an enchanted mind. His mode of

thought and his pattern of behavior now underwent a revolutionary

change. He had already experienced that the individual Soul-Jiva and

the Infinite Soul Brahman were identical and non-different. He now

understood that the attributeless absolute Brahman was just a

witness, a mere spectator and no more. The authorship of the

universe was that of the Primordial Energy Adya Shakti. "

 

http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/shankarabio.htm

 

Adi shankara bhagvadapada composed the famous Bhavaniashtakam on the

manikarnika ghat just as he composed the manisha panchakam on the

same ghat ! !

 

The advaita acharya was a great worshipper of the Divine mother and

that is why this Tantric advaitin composed many hymns on devi -

Bhavaniashtakam, kanakadhara stotram , Tripurasundariashtakam,

Annapurnashtakam,Gangashtakam, LALITA PANCHRATNAM, GAURI DASAKAM ,

SOUNDARYA LAHARI etc etc etc ....

 

ADI SHANKARA BHAGVADAPADA WHO COMPOSED THE SAUNDARYA LAHARI

RECOGNIZES THE 'MAHIMA' OF DEVI IN THE FOLLOWING WAY :

 

 

Pradhipa-jvalabhir dhivasa-kara-neerajana-vidhih

Sudha-suthes chandropala-jala-lavair arghya-rachana;

Svakiyair ambhobhih salila-nidhi-sauhitya karanam

Tvadiyabhir vagbhis thava janani vacham stutir iyam.

 

Oh Goddess who is the source of all words,

This poem which is made of words,

That you only made,

Is like showing the camphor lamp to the Sun,

Is like offering as ablation to the moon,

The water got from the moon stone,

And is like offering water worship,

To the sea.

 

SALUTATIONS TO PARASHAKTHI !

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

Dear members,

 

To which group, Bhamati or Vivarana, did Sri Shankara and

Sri Sureshwara belong?

I request the learned members to enlighten me on this point and

help me. In this connection I would like to dramw the kind attention

of the members to the fact that in Sri Shankara's commentary to

Brahmasutra, sutras 1-4-19, 1-4-20, 1-4-21 and 1-4-22, view points

of three Advaithic Acharyas, Viz., Ashmarathya, ouDulomi and

kAShakRutsna have been examined in detail and Sri Shankara has

declared that the view of of Sri kAshakRutsna is the right one. Why

did Sri Shankara examined them in detail, and upheld the view of

kAShakRutsna alone and not the other two even though all the three

belonged to the Advaitic tradition?

With warm and respectful regards

Sreenivasa Murthy.

[Guest guest]

Murthy-ji,

Pranams.

You have asked to which group Sankara belonged--Bhamati or Vivarana. I shall

assume in your favour that you have asked this question to clarify a genuine

doubt and not with any other motive, such as ridiculing the discussion. Let

me answer that these two came after Sankara.

As regards your second question, the answer is available in the bhAshya

itself.

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

 

 

On 1/31/08, narayana145 <narayana145 wrote:

>

> H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

> Pranams to all.

>

> Dear members,

>

> To which group, Bhamati or Vivarana, did Sri Shankara and

> Sri Sureshwara belong?

> I request the learned members to enlighten me on this point and

> help me. In this connection I would like to dramw the kind attention

> of the members to the fact that in Sri Shankara's commentary to

> Brahmasutra, sutras 1-4-19, 1-4-20, 1-4-21 and 1-4-22, view points

> of three Advaithic Acharyas, Viz., Ashmarathya, ouDulomi and

> kAShakRutsna have been examined in detail and Sri Shankara has

> declared that the view of of Sri kAshakRutsna is the right one. Why

> did Sri Shankara examined them in detail, and upheld the view of

> kAShakRutsna alone and not the other two even though all the three

> belonged to the Advaitic tradition?

> With warm and respectful regards

> Sreenivasa Murthy.

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Devanathan,

In one of your posts you had given a list of the points of difference

between Bhamati and Vivarana,as given in Prof. Thangasami's book. THe

following is one of them:

B: the omniscience of Brahman is derived from the essential nature of

Brahman.

V: the omniscience of Brahman is derived from the modes of Avidya.

Does the book indicate the particular passages in Bhamati and Vivarana

on which this is based? If so, kindly let me have the details. Please

let me know also the title of the book.

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

--- snsastri <sn.sastri wrote:

 

> Dear Shri Devanathan,

> In one of your posts you had given a list of the

> points of difference

> between Bhamati and Vivarana,as given in Prof.

> Thangasami's book. THe

> following is one of them:

> B: the omniscience of Brahman is derived from the

> essential nature of

> Brahman.

> V: the omniscience of Brahman is derived from the

> modes of Avidya.

 

PraNAms to both Sastriji and Devanathanji.

 

Frankly, I did not understand both B and V statements

that sastriji brought to our attention. I hope

Devanathanji is going to explain to us what they mean

- particularly the statement- omniscience is derived

from avidya - You mean maaya as maaya shakti. I

assume we are talking about the saguNa Brahman. When

Brahman is one without a second I do not see the need

for omniscience for that Brahman. What is essential

nature of Brahman - are we referring to swaruupa

lakshaNam? I thought satyam-jnaanam-anantam is

swaruupa lakshaNa - where does omniscience come from

and where is the need for it in pure Brahman. If it

comes to Iswara, Brahman with maaaya is Iswara. I

thought avidya is only from jiiva's point. _ Just some

thoughts as I read the post by Sastriji.

Anyway I will wait for the details when they come. No

need to hurry to address these issues right now.

 

Devanathanji - can you also number your posts so that

we know which post we are referring to in the

discussions. It will also help to identify for Shree

Sunder if they can be uploaded into the storage files

in future for the benefit of the members at large.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

> Does the book indicate the particular passages in

> Bhamati and Vivarana

> on which this is based? If so, kindly let me have

> the details. Please

> let me know also the title of the book.

> Regards,

> S.N.Sastri

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Devanathan-ji,

 

Sashtang pranams..

- my heartfelt appreciation for taking the time and effort to educate all of us

on this subject, and for initiating this thread.

 

My question:

You say the vivarnavadins regard karma as an indirect cause of Moskha, the

Bhamati says karma is useful for attainment of chittashuddhi and then go on to

comment that " if Jnana is said to be the product of karma, the very rudiment of

Advaita is ridiculed "

 

The Bhamati position is very easy to understand - indeed chittashuddhi can be

attained only through karma(yoga), and without chittashuddhi Jnana is not

possible. My question is - when the Vivarna school talks about karma being the

indirect cause of moksha do they mean something other than this? What exactly is

their viewpoint in this regard - esp. considering that no student of advaita let

alone a school of advaita would ever to a theory that points to jnana

being " a by-product of karma " ? Why is it that the vivarna position is seemingly

" ridiculing the rudiment of Advaita " in your esteemed opinion?

 

the way i look at it

karma (karmayoga) --> chittashuddhi --> jnana --> moksha

in which case cannot karma(yoga) be " said-to-be " an indirect cause of moksha. In

the words of Bhagawan Krishna " asakto hy acaran karma param apnoti purusah "

Bhagawan Shankara himself, in his commentary to this shloka, clarifies

" ...through the purification of the mind - this is meaning. "

 

Perhaps you may be covering this in your next post in which case my apologies

for jumping the gun impetuously. :-)

 

[On another note, if I may be allowed a personal request, may I request

Sampath-ji, who is such a wonderful storehouse of knowledge, to please take some

time from his busy schedule and re-join us in an active manner? I for one have

always enjoyed each and every post from " the little Master " !]

 

Humble pranams once again

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

antharyami_in <sathvatha

advaitin

Tuesday, January 29, 2008 12:01:46 PM

Re: Bhamati vs. Vivarana

 

Hari Om,

Shri Sadananda ji,

 

 

Point 1: Karma is useful only for giving rise to `desire' to know

the Self. Karma cannot be regarded as indirect cause for the rise of

Knowledge itself, as Vivarana vadins claim.

 

If it extended to be the cause of knowledge then there is the

danger of samuccaya vada coming to play, which Sureswara elaborately

condemns in Naishkarmya siddhi. Rise of knowledge itself is moksa

for Advaitins. If this knowledge becomes the product of karma, the

very rudiment of Advaita is ridiculed.

 

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J

Recent Activity

6New Members

1New Files

Visit Your Group

Finance

It's Now Personal

Guides, news,

advice & more.

Y! Messenger

All together now

Host a free online

conference on IM.

Check out the

Y! Groups blog

Stay up to speed

on all things Groups!.

 

 

 

______________________________\

____

Looking for last minute shopping deals?

Find them fast with Search.

http://tools.search./newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hari Om,

Shri Sastri ji and Shri Sadananda ji,

Pranams,

 

Professor Thangasami Sarma's book does not mention any reference to

what he has given on `Omniscience of Brahman with reference to

Bhamati and Vivarana'. But I would like to hint some notable points

relevant to the issue here. My views are based on the discussions

found in Siddhanta lesa samgraha and Krsnalankara.

 

While commenting on the Sutra `Sastrayonitvat' Vacaspati makes a

brief note on describing the omniscience of Brahman and its nature.

Here Vacaspati advocates that Brahman omniscient by its `anantatva'

just as the nature of `Vac' of Rg Veda is and that the omniscience

cannot be sought from Avidya which is tucca jada – negligible and

inert (when compared to supreme Consciousness).There is interesting

arguments on evaluating the root `Brh' of Brahman to conclude the

state of Omniscience. Further Bhamati argues for the fact that: if

Avidya is said to be the derivative cause for Brahman's omniscience,

then by satkarya vada it may end up with an unwelcome position for

Avidya will also be Omniscient. `Satyam jnanam anandam Brahma' as

Taitiriya declares, where Sankara defines each of the terms

complimenting them with `anantatva' – nature of being infinite.

Hence Brahman by its essential nature itself is omniscient and is

not derived from Avidya.

 

I will elaborately deal with this point on the above lines when I

come to it. Thanks for your close observations.

 

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J