Bhamati vs. Vivarana - 3

[Guest guest]

Hari OM ~

Sravana Manana Nidhidyasana –

a) is a Vidhi – Vivarana View

b) not a Vidhi – Bhamati View.

 

`Atma Vare Drstavyah, srotavyah mantavyah nidhidyasitacyah' – Atman

is to be seen, to be heard, to be reflected and contemplated upon'

says Br.Up. According to Vivarana School, Self realization which is

the Ultimate prayojana, the goal is to be known only if it is a

Vidhi – injunction. Prakasatman emphasizes the injunctive

statement `see' `hear' etc and thus asserts that Sravana itself is

a Vidhi Vakya. He brings in a relation called anga-angi between

Sravana, Manana and Nidhidyasana and says that Sravana is the angi

while manana + nidhidyasana is the anga to the former.

 

Vidhi is of three main kinds.

1) Apurva vidhi – Special injunction

2) Niyama Vidhi – restricted injuntion

3) Parisamkhya Vidhi – exclusive injunction.

 

Apurva Vidhi enjoins an individual to a specific act for a

particular result. `Darsana Purna masabhyam svarga kamo yajeta' is a

apurva vidhi, where individual desirious of specific aim – svarga

performs a particular ritual darsa purna masa yaga. Here Sruti as

the only means prescribes this yaga assertively for an unknown goal –

aprapta. What is unknown is made known by Sruti which is Apurva

vidhi.

 

Niyama Vidhi on the other hand is that injuction which enjoins only

one means to get the desired result out of the several

alternatives. For instance for various yagnas, Mimamsakas prescribe

a ritual where rice cake is made by the grains removed from the

husk. There are many ways to remove rice from husk like grinding,

boiling wtc. But Sruti restricts it by a niyama that rice grain

ought to be threshed alone (Vrihinavahanti). Thus Niyama vidhi

restricts the alternatives.

 

Parisamkhya Vidhi or exclusive injunction is that injuntion which

discards on among two alternatives both of which are specific to the

context. Vivarana school admits the vedic precept ` Atma va are…' in

as much as the alternative means to self realization as restricted

means for liberation (among others manana, nidhidyasana). Vivarana

prasthana advocates Sravana to be the restricted means at the cost

of other particularly not giving scope for manana and nidhidyasana.

They further more furnishes niyama vidhi with what is called

the `vicara' vidhi. Prakasatman says, the Niyama here in self

realization may mean `adhyayana' of Sastra but mere adhyayana has no

capacity for self realization. The Adhyayana Niyama must be enjoined

by the `Vichara Vidhi' and only then Self realization is made

possible. With this, Prakasatman apparently contradicts his own

earlier stand that Sastra has the capacity to directly give Aparoksa

jnana that leads to Brahma Anubhuti. Now he says mere Sravana is not

enough but for vichara yogyata being enjoined.

 

Anticipating these problems Vacaspati Misra contends that there is

no Vidhi at all being enjoined to Sruti statements especially `Arma

va are ..'. Vacaspati Misra critically points out that they are mere

apppeatances of injunctive statements which in actuality does not

hold such a state. Vacaspati makes a consistant stand to say for

instance – the Vedic statement `Visnu is to be sacrificed to Upamsu'

appears like a vedic injuntion or a niyama vidhi but actually such a

vidhi – per se makes no sense; for Visnu is yagya adipathi

ultimately. So such instances goes to prove that not all injunction

that sounds to be a niyama directly mean so, as they have to be

taken in its implied sense. Upanishadic statements thus can give

indirect knowledge alone – paroksa alone, which upon reflection and

contemplation finally gives liberation. Vacaspati also raises a

pertinent problem in the Vivarana view in considering `Atma va are

…' as Niyama vidhi. Vacaspati argues that if niyama is accepted then

the Vedic injunction alone will gain prominence over the intended

message; for the dictum will be regarded primary and Brahman

knowledge becomes primary which is an unwelcome position to

Advaitins. More than all Vacaspati claims solid support from Bagavad

pada's commentary on Sutra Bashya (I.i.4) where he

says `KimarthAnitarhi vidhicchAyAsparhin vAkhyAni " ?

 

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

praNAms Devanathan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Would you please let me know the reference material you are using to

interpret vivaraNa & bhAmati school prabhuji??

 

And also, Could you please tell me how bhAmati interpret shravaNa, manana,

nidhidhyAsana & darshana prabhuji??

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

PS: I've not read the previous posts in this thread, if this is already

addressed somewhere kindly let me know.

[Guest guest]

Hari OM ~

Shri Bhaskar ji,

I am using the references mentioned as follows for the exegetical

notes on Bhamati and Vivarana.

 

1) Bhamati Catusutri - Adyar Library Publication - S.S.Suryanarayana

Sastri - TPH, 1992

 

2) Panca padika - savivarana - Kendriya Samskrita Vidyapeetha -

Thirupathi, 1985

 

3) Siddhanta Lesa Samgraha with Achyuthakrsnanda gloss - Edited By

Shri.N.Veezhinathan, Hyderabad, 1982 (out of print) and Chaukambha

Edition - Varanasi, 1992

 

4) Brahma Sutra Sankara Bashya, With Bhamati, Kalpataru and

Parimala, Krshnadasa Academy Publication, Varanasi

 

5) Vedanta Paribasa with Paribasa samgraha vyAkhya by Paditha Shri

Pancanana bhattacarya, Published by Samskrita Book Depot, Calcutta &

Varanasi year (?) (Out of print now)

 

6) Advaita Bibliography (Skt) By Maha upadhyaya Thangasamy Sharma,

Madras University Publication, 1980 (only few damaged copies

remaining)

 

I have dealt with Sravana Manana nidhidyasana in my previous post

(Ref: Bhamati Vs Vivarana/ series no: 2). Please do post your views

on it, as it ought to be more elaborately discussed than I did.

Thanks for your observations.

 

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

Pranams to all.

Shri Devanathan has given a succinct summary of the three vidhis

with examples. Those who would like to know more about the features

of each of these three vidhis and how they differ from one another,

may kindly visit the following website.

http://www.geocities.com/snsastri/vidhi.pdf

 

S.N.Sastri

 

 

In advaitin , " antharyami_in " <sathvatha wrote:

>

> Hari OM ~

> Sravana Manana Nidhidyasana –

> a) is a Vidhi – Vivarana View

> b) not a Vidhi – Bhamati View.

>

> `Atma Vare Drstavyah, srotavyah mantavyah nidhidyasitacyah' –

Atman

> is to be seen, to be heard, to be reflected and contemplated upon'

> says Br.Up. According to Vivarana School, Self realization which

is

> the Ultimate prayojana, the goal is to be known only if it is a

> Vidhi – injunction. Prakasatman emphasizes the injunctive

> statement `see' `hear' etc and thus asserts that Sravana itself

is

> a Vidhi Vakya. He brings in a relation called anga-angi between

> Sravana, Manana and Nidhidyasana and says that Sravana is the angi

> while manana + nidhidyasana is the anga to the former.

>

> Vidhi is of three main kinds.

> 1) Apurva vidhi – Special injunction

> 2) Niyama Vidhi – restricted injuntion

> 3) Parisamkhya Vidhi – exclusive injunction.

> With Narayana Smrthi,

> Devanathan.J

>

[Guest guest]

--- antharyami_in <sathvatha wrote:

>Vivarana school admits the vedic precept ` Atma va are…' in

> as much as the alternative means to self realization as restricted

> means for liberation (among others manana, nidhidyasana). Vivarana

> prasthana advocates Sravana to be the restricted means at the cost

> of other particularly not giving scope for manana and nidhidyasana.

 

Shree Devanathanji - PraNAms

 

I am not sure about the validity of the criticism of Vivarana School that it

advocates shravana to be restricted means at the cost of mananam and

nidhidhyaasana.

If I understand correctly restricted implies restricted among the alternatives.

If

A B C are there alternate paths, I can restrict that A alone will reach the goal

and

not B and C. But if A did not work, B if that did not work C has to follow -

then

they are restrictive A only supersedes B and C. In addition B and C follow A

only in

turn - they are in series and not parallel. One has to hear since they are

Shrutis -

which have to be heard from the teacher - Hence Shravana is compulsory.

 

If Shravana does the job for a prepared student (as you mentioned to proper

adhikAri) then there is no reason to go to the next two steps - mananam and

nidhidhyasanam.

 

Now question is what is mananam? -If it is defined as reflection until one is

doubt

free - samshaya nivRitti is the aim then after shravana one has to do mananam if

there are doubts. If the teaching is very clear and one can see the truth as one

sees the fruit in the palm - what is the need for mananam or reflection?

 

The same goes to the next step - nidhidhyAsana - One has to meditate on a

problem to

make sure one understands clearly the problem. If nidhidhyaasana involves

viparya

vinAsham or removing the habitual notions that one gets into in spite of the

learning that I am sat swarupam (like the cigarette smoker understand that

smoking

is bad but habitually he lights it knowing very well it is not good for him)then

that is required due to pressure of vaasanaas. If one is free from them then

Shravana does the job. I do not call this restrictive. In fact I would call the

other way as restrictive that everyone has to do all the three.

 

Question boils down to can one realize by shravana. If Vedanta as shruti is

pramANa

shravana should work - if it not it is not the problem of Vedanta but lack of

adhikAritvam for the student. For such students what is heard will sink in only

when

the mind is purified.

 

Now does Bhamati School claim that no one can realize by just shravanam?

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

 

> They further more furnishes niyama vidhi with what is called

> the `vicara' vidhi. Prakasatman says, the Niyama here in self

> realization may mean `adhyayana' of Sastra but mere adhyayana has no

> capacity for self realization. The Adhyayana Niyama must be enjoined

> by the `Vichara Vidhi' and only then Self realization is made

> possible. With this, Prakasatman apparently contradicts his own

> earlier stand that Sastra has the capacity to directly give Aparoksa

> jnana that leads to Brahma Anubhuti. Now he says mere Sravana is not

> enough but for vichara yogyata being enjoined.

>

> Anticipating these problems Vacaspati Misra contends that there is

> no Vidhi at all being enjoined to Sruti statements especially `Arma

> va are ..'. Vacaspati Misra critically points out that they are mere

> apppeatances of injunctive statements which in actuality does not

> hold such a state. Vacaspati makes a consistant stand to say for

> instance – the Vedic statement `Visnu is to be sacrificed to Upamsu'

> appears like a vedic injuntion or a niyama vidhi but actually such a

> vidhi – per se makes no sense; for Visnu is yagya adipathi

> ultimately. So such instances goes to prove that not all injunction

> that sounds to be a niyama directly mean so, as they have to be

> taken in its implied sense. Upanishadic statements thus can give

> indirect knowledge alone – paroksa alone, which upon reflection and

> contemplation finally gives liberation. Vacaspati also raises a

> pertinent problem in the Vivarana view in considering `Atma va are

> …' as Niyama vidhi. Vacaspati argues that if niyama is accepted then

> the Vedic injunction alone will gain prominence over the intended

> message; for the dictum will be regarded primary and Brahman

> knowledge becomes primary which is an unwelcome position to

> Advaitins. More than all Vacaspati claims solid support from Bagavad

> pada's commentary on Sutra Bashya (I.i.4) where he

> says `KimarthAnitarhi vidhicchAyAsparhin vAkhyAni " ?

>

> With Narayana Smrthi,

> Devanathan.J

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hari OM ~

Shri Sada ji,

There two main difficulties with the Vivarana Stand point which I

intend to portray. First is the logical difficultly. Consider the

two propositions proposed by Vivarana school.

 

1) Sravana is the angi and manana nidhidyasana as anga.

2) Sravana itself gives Aparoksa, which is Nirapeka.

 

From statement one, we ma derive the fact that there is no angi

without anga. Hence the former exists not without the latter, which

means that Sravana is dependent on the manana and nidhidyasana. But

the very second statement is immediate to contradict the first and

that both are illegitimate to qualify as propositions at all on the

first hand and that they are prone to the fallacy of mutual

contradictions; for Aparoksa is never made possible.

 

Further, there is another logical difficulty that the same `Sruthi'

or the Sabda pramana cannot give paroksa and aparoksa jnana to the

aspirant. If Sabda pramana has the `yogyata' to give Aparoksa jnana

it must have given the anubhuti as and when the `mumuksu' sits for

Sravana, for there is no necessity for him to gain paroksa jnana at

all. At any rate, having accepted the fact that Sabda gives Paroksa

jnana, eventually there needs the necessity to admit manana and

nidhidyasa on it, for the mumuksu to gain Aparoksa anubhuti, which

Vivarana is not prepared to accept. Further Vivarana school does not

clearly explain the axiological validity in ascribing `yogyata' to

render aproksa jnana by Sabda pramana, as the very definition of

pramana is imcompatible to this stand of Vivarana. `Mana-athitha-

meya-siddhih'. Intrument of valid knowledge is eventually followed

by the revealed object of that knowledge is the arbitrary fact on

which Advaita operates. Here the very functional ground that

Vivarana ridicules is that: Aparoksa jnana can never produce

something called `Brahma prama'; for the latter will become an

intermediate to the `direct knowledge' of Brahman, which alone is

the means for the Anubhuti. Anubhuti is nothing but akhanda kara

vrtti where there is no prama; hence sabda ceases to be a pramana to

Brahma anubhuti and here is where Vivarana seems to Self-contradict

causing an unwelcome position in Advaita.

 

Now let us turn to the practical difficulties that Vivarana faces.

What is the product of Sravana? Is it Paroksa? Or Aparoksa? If it is

Paroksa then what is that which makes it Paroksa and not Aparoksa,

for at any reason Sabda according to them has the potency for giving

Aparoksa jnana (that too having said the aspirant is `qualified').

Only as a sadhana catustaya sampanna, an aspirant is qualified to be

an adhikari where he proceeds to Sravana and Vedanta Vicara. And

only by doing Sravana an Adhikari gets Paroksa jnana and not by any

other means. Why is that the Adhikari getting the paroksa jnana

first and not Aparoksa ? What is the quality of paroksa jnana that

he acquires through Sravana (without manana and nidhidyasana? Is the

paroksa jnana NiscayAtmika ? if it is niscayAtmika why does the

aspirant aspire for Aproksa then ? There are series of problems that

Vivarana draws for itself, which makes it untenable.

 

Vacaspati Misra polemically makes an exegetical shift that I observe

from his stand in Tattva samiksa and Bhamati. In Tattva Samiksa,

Vacaspati justifies Mandana's opinion on Sabda Nityatva, for the

latter s to the concept of `Eternal Verbum' as Bhartrhari

does in his Vakyapadiya. Henceforth Mandana is bold enough to argue

Sabda Aparoksa vada (in the name of Sabda Purva yoga), which

Vacaspati celebrates in his Tattva samiksa. At the same time, taking

into account Sankara's stand on Sabda as `anitya' Vacaspati makes

a `sincere' hermeneutical shift in commenting to Sutra bashya where

he explains the reason why Sabda cannot give Aparoksa jnana but for

Paroksa alone. As far as my reading goes parallely with Brahma

Siddhi and Sutra Bhasya, I really feel the very commitment Vacaspati

expresses to Advaita Tradition.

 

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " antharyami_in " <sathvatha wrote:

>

> Hari OM ~

> Shri Sada ji,

> There two main difficulties with the Vivarana Stand point which I

> intend to portray. First is the logical difficultly. Consider the

> two propositions proposed by Vivarana school.

>

> 1) Sravana is the angi and manana nidhidyasana as anga.

> 2) Sravana itself gives Aparoksa, which is Nirapeka.

 

Sri Devanathanji, I read Sadaji mention that the sanskrit terminology should be

defined; I

hope you have done this in previous posts in the thread. New ones: please define

as you

go along, or post a separate definition-writeup so we can refer to it directly

rather than

read through all past posts searching for specific words (like paroksha,

aparoksha, etc).

 

Is the following close to Vivarna position that you are trying to find flaw with

?

 

The Vedas are shabda heard by sages, that map the vibrations/mantras governing

the

Order of Ishvara. The jiva is part of that Order, its moksha is also within

that, and

ultimately it is the right hearing of the mantra (encoded in Vedas) that shifts

the upadhis

of jiva, from ignorance to " jnana " . For the " right hearing " to take place, the

jiva must be

ready through manana and nidhidyasana.

 

So Vivarna ultimately makes jnana appear like a " consequence of mantric

hearing " , rather

than an end obtained by the intellectual cogitation of such hearing that

naturally leads

beyond the intellect. Correct, and is this where your objections are focussed

against?

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

Hari OM~

Shri Putramn ji,

" The Vedas are shabda heard by sages, that map the

vibrations/mantras governing

the

Order of Ishvara. "

_______________________

 

Brilliant! I am delighted by the way you have precisely framed the

entire Vivarana view in 'one' sentence. Good. 'Mapping' is again an

apt word there which is better than the term 'morphing' that i

usually use.

 

I must tell you, you have already touched the crux of my argument in

counter to Vivarana School and my job lies only to explain the

sanskrit terms that i have employed at many instances.

 

I will try to explain those terms in brief in a seperate post soon

so that you may refer it at your convenience. I always recommend

serious students of Advaita to really consider reading

some 'paribasa' particularly a small treatise known as 'Mana-mala'

of Achyutha krsnananda (Adyar Library TPH publication Tr'd by

Dr.Revathy, presently the Director, Univ of Madras), which will be

of great help to participate in areas that involve technical usage

of terms that becomes mandatory especially the issue that we have

taken now.

 

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

At the same time, taking

into account Sankara's stand on Sabda as `anitya' Vacaspati makes

a `sincere' hermeneutical shift in commenting to Sutra bashya where

he explains the reason why Sabda cannot give Aparoksa jnana but for

Paroksa alone.

 

 

praNAms Sri Devanathan prabhuji

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

Your/bhAmati's observation implies that there is something needs to be done

even after sucessful completion of shruti/shabda based shravaNa, manana &

nidhidhyAsana practices...is my observation correct prabhuji?? what is

that parOksha jnAna that is going to happen through shabdha?? what is the

nature of this parOksha jnAna?? kindly elaborate...Is it the injuction

(vidhi) of some spiritual practice (like dhyAna or jnAnAbhyAsa) even after

discerning the vAkyArtha jnAna bhAmati insisting here?? If yes, then how

can this observation be reconciled with surEshwara's vArtika & naishkarmya

siddhi, wherein surEshwara repeatedly emphasizes that shAstra is the

*antya* pramANa /means in brahma jignAsa?? shankara too in mundaka bhAshya

says (1-1-6) : at the very instant of our discerning or divining the

vAkyArtha the *whole* process gets completed & the aspirant would get the

ultimate paramAtma vidyA..(vAkyArtha jnAna samakAle yEva tu paryavastitO

bhavati)...Kindly clarify how this can be understood from the bhAmati

perspective.

 

 

Your observations on vivaraNa is really worth noting prabhuji...But I've

not seen anybody defending vivaraNa school of thought authoritatively as

you do with your school...I've made some observation which shows vivaraNa

school in a better light, I shall present it whenever my time permits ( not

that I am the follower of vivaraNa...but I've seen some contradictory

statements to your observation from the book called vivaraNa pramEya

saNgraha).

 

 

In the meanwhile if you really want to have a fruitful debate on this

issue, I request you to join Advaita-L list, wherein you can find some good

scholers who are hard core followers of paNchapAdika vivaraNa prasthAna.

Sri Ananda Hudli has posted some very interesting notes from vivaraNa

perspective in this list...It is really worth contemplating on that. Hope

you would join that group.

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Hari OM ~

Shri Bhaskar ji,

" Your/bhAmati's observation implies that there is something needs to

be done

even after sucessful completion of shruti/shabda based shravaNa,

manana &

nidhidhyAsana practices...

__________________

 

Vivarana holds that after Sravana itself the mumuksu gets the

paroksa and Aparoksa jnana and he immediately gets Anubhuti. They

add that Manana and nidhidyasana are mere auxillary `mental

activities', which does not serve any individual functional utility

apart from Sravana.

 

Bhamati on the other hand contends that Sravana gives only the

Paroksa jnana and not Aparoksa; for manana and nidhidyasana of the

paroksa jnana alone gives Aparoksa Anubhuti. Here Nidhidyasana is

regarded to be the primary functional aspect of mind as this alone

gives the final release.

 

This is the basic difference on which we will walk around to see how

both views are taken by the Purvacaryas in our sampradaya. Sureswara

in I.67 of Naiskarmya Siddhi, considers this issue in the light of

evaluating Brahmadatta and Mandana. Sureswaracarya on refuting the

Mandana's notion of `abhyasa' points out interestingly that `it is

only the distractions in the form of asambavana – doubt and viparita

bhavana - erroneous knowledge which are obstacles to origination of

immediate knowledge – Aparoksa must be removed by concentration of

mind. Concentration of mind, what Sureswara means here is Manana and

nidhidyasana. Sureswaracarya thus extends the paroksa jnana to the

stage of manana where asambava and viparita bhavana are removed to

refine the paroksa jnana and that it is transformed to Aparoksa

jnana – Anubhuti in nidhidyasana stage. As we see it, Sureswara

strongly differs from the Vivarana stand; for in their (latter's)

view manana and nidhhidyasana being auxillary, together performs

asambhana and viparita bhavana nAsa, as and when Sravana goes on.

Again TattvamasyAdi mahavAkyas is reserved exclusively for Aparoksa

Anubhuti. By this Vivarana vadins unknowingly prescribe the

adhikarin for a second sitting of Sravana exclusively for

TattvamasyAdi vAkyArthas.

 

In the Catusutri portion, Bhamati points out that Upanishadic

dictums like `Tattvamasi' etc gives only the mediate intuition, for

the immediate intuition can be realized unless the mind transits to

a state where it is really ready to give the akhandAkAra vrtti, that

ends with Avidya nivrtti (where the dravya aspect of same manas

evaporates) and establishes permanently into Brahman

itself. `Tattvamasi' produces no intuition unless it is associated

with the indubitable state of mind that which contemplates and makes

it to lodge Brahman it is as its content.

 

TasmAt mama mathe, `idam' jnanam of rajju – sarpa is akin to the

Paroksa jnana, which the adhikari gains through Sravana. And during

Manana, the aspirant gains Sarpa jnana. Finally during Nidhidyasana

he accomplishes Sarpa nivrtti – Avidya nivrtti which is nothing

but `Rajju jnana' that is nothing but Aparoksa Anubhuti.

Further your reference to Mundaka ought to be read with

Br.Up's `ManasaivAnudrstavyam' which Acharya copiously quotes and

elsewhere he even says `Acharyopadesa sama damAdi samskrtam jnanam

Manas eva karanam.. tadanyah sAhasamAtram' iti.

 

Tatra vAkyArta jnana eva moksa sadhanam iti naca vAcyam, parantu

Manasyeva karanam, tat dvArena vicArasya anantaram eva AtmanaH

anudrstavyam iti Acharya abhiprAya rUpeNa mama abhiprAyah.

 

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

--- antharyami_in <sathvatha wrote:

> This is the basic difference on which we will walk around to see how

> both views are taken by the Purvacaryas in our sampradaya. Sureswara

> in I.67 of Naiskarmya Siddhi, considers this issue in the light of

> evaluating Brahmadatta and Mandana. Sureswaracarya on refuting the

> Mandana's notion of `abhyasa' points out interestingly that `it is

> only the distractions in the form of asambavana – doubt and viparita

> bhavana - erroneous knowledge which are obstacles to origination of

> immediate knowledge – Aparoksa must be removed by concentration of

> mind. Concentration of mind, what Sureswara means here is Manana and

> nidhidyasana. Sureswaracarya thus extends the paroksa jnana to the

> stage of manana where asambava and viparita bhavana are removed to

> refine the paroksa jnana and that it is transformed to Aparoksa

> jnana – Anubhuti in nidhidyasana stage. As we see it, Sureswara

> strongly differs from the Vivarana stand; for in their (latter's)

> view manana and nidhhidyasana being auxillary, together performs

> asambhana and viparita bhavana nAsa, as and when Sravana goes on.

> Again TattvamasyAdi mahavAkyas is reserved exclusively for Aparoksa

> Anubhuti. By this Vivarana vadins unknowingly prescribe the

> adhikarin for a second sitting of Sravana exclusively for

> TattvamasyAdi vAkyArthas.

 

Devanthanji - PraNAms.

 

I am quite surprised that you feel that Sureswara endores Bhamati's position by

strongly differing with VivaraNa's position.

 

From my understanding He is a strong proponent that Shravana provides the

aparoksha

jnaanam than paroksha jnaanam -since consciousness is ever present. Tat tvam asi

-

con be recognized by the listener if there are requisite four-fold

qualifications

and understand the meaning of 'tvam' intended in the mahAvAkya.

 

The sloka you mentioned from Naiskarmya Siddhi 1-67, as you know, is

purvapaksha -

where the rest of the chapter he refutes the positions stated in the sloka. If

Shruti is pramANa and shravaNam is the means, if the thing to be known is right

there. The mananam and nidhidhyAsanam come into picture only if one does not

have

the four fold qualifications.

 

Immediacy of the knowledge through tat tvam asi is clearly established in the

III rd

chapter - see for example III-76 & 77.

 

Mananam is only for samshaya nivRitti - removing even traces of doubt about the

validity of the identity and nidhidhyaasana is removing the habitual

consideration

identification with anaatma due to impurities or pressure of vAsanas. Knowledge

that

is gained in shravaNa by listening to the qualified teacher and Shruti, that

which

is ever present is directly understood. Then only shruti can be pramANa. I do

not

think Sureshwara endorses Bhamati's position nor strongly distances himself from

Vivarana School.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> Devanthanji - PraNAms.

> I am quite surprised that you feel that Sureswara endores

Bhamati's position by

> strongly differing with VivaraNa's position.

>

> The sloka you mentioned from Naiskarmya Siddhi 1-67, as you know,

is purvapaksha -

> where the rest of the chapter he refutes the positions stated in

the sloka.

> I do not

> think Sureshwara endorses Bhamati's position nor strongly

distances himself from

> Vivarana School.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

 

Dear Sada-ji,

As you have rightly said, shloka I.67 of Naishkarmyasiddhi is the

purvapaksha. Dr. Balasubramanian has, in his excellent treatise on

this work, pointed out that this shloka contains the views of

Brahmadatta and Mandana. Their views are refuted by Sureshvara in

the subsequent shlokas. Bhamati is a follower of Mandana.

The view of Sureshvara has been brought out clearly by Dr.

Balasubramanian on page of l of his Introduction in the same book as

below:

Sureshvara criticises the prasankhyana theory according to which

meditation on the content of the principal texts of the upanishads

is required for getting the direct and immediate knowledge of

Brahman-Atman.

He further adds:--

It should not be thought that Sureshvara does not provide any place

for meditation in the scheme of spiritual discipline. He admits that

there is scope for meditation with regard to the hearing of the

texts (sravana). By meditation the hearing is perfected, and an

eligible person obtains straightaway Brahman knowledge, which is non-

sentential, non-relational, and immediate, from the sruti texts.

 

The fundamental difference between the Vivarana and Bhamati views is

that, while according to Vivarana the mahavakya itself produces

immediate knowledge and manana and nididhyasana are only to remove

asambhavana and viparitabhavana, according to Bhamati the mahavakya

can, like any other sentence, produce only indirect or mediate

knowledge, and manana, etc. are necessary to produce direct

knowledge. According to Vivarana, a sentence produces indirect

knowledge if the object spoken of is not immediate, and direct

knowledge if the object is immediate. There being nothing more

immediate than the Atma, the mahavakya produces direct (immediate)

knowledge.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

 

>

[Guest guest]

Hari OM~

Shri Sastri ji and Shri Sada ji,

 

It is very much true that Sureswaracarya is portraying the

Purvapaksin's view w.r.t Brahmadatta and Mandana in I.67. But

Sureswara clearly provides a distinct scope to Manana and

Nidhidyasana where he only condemns the prasamkhyayana concept of

Mandana. My mention on I.67/pg 67 (Prof R.B's book) was with

reference to the Sanskrit commentary of KlesApahArini, which the

author uses for presenting Sureswara's view in counter to

Brahmadatta and Mandana. Bhamati says that 'it is only the paroksa

jnana that scripture offers the adhikarin is transformed to Aparoksa

anubhuti in the nididyasana stage'. Both Paroksa and Aparoksa cannot

arise simultanously during Sravana itself and manana and

nidhidyasana as anga has no support from Sruti.

 

Sastri ji, I have already pointed out that Vacaspati attaches 'no

vidhi' to the Vedic statement 'Atma va are ...' as opposed to

Mandana's 'prasankhyayana' theory and PrakatArtakAra's theory

on 'Apurva vidhi'. All this goes to show that Bhamati is not blindly

following Mandana, as Vacaspati commits himself to Sankara's bhasya

alone. It is usual misconception that Vacaspati is branded as strict

follower of Mandana. Vacaspati offers seperate commentaries to

Mandana's Brahma Siddhi as Tattva Samiksa and that of Sankara's

Sutra Bhasya as Bhamati. Tattva samiksa has greatly influenced even

later writers of Advaita like Chitsuka, Sankhapani and others who

celebrate Vacaspati for his distinct commitment to both Mandana and

Sankara

 

Sada ji, we cannot say that Sureswara d to the view that

Scriptures offer Aparoksa jnana. Sureswara as always takes a

different stand for the reason that he advocates the theory

of 'Sabda acintya Sakti vada' as different from the 'Sabda Aparoksa

vada' of Vivarana. Let me show an instance from Br.Vartika/Verse 167

where he says " An 'uncommon' right knowledge 'I am Brahman' arises

immediately after hearing the passages like 'Tattvamasi' " . The

commentator Anandapurna comes to our rescue for the clear

understanding of Sureswara's view. Ananda purna highlight the

term 'uncommon' here to say that Sabda 'sometimes' have the Apurva

Sakti to provide instant knowledge of Brahman. When does the 'Apurva

Sakti gets stimulated ? Anandapurna says 'it depends on the

eligibility of the person for whom right knowledge results from

Manana and nidhidyasana alone'.

 

So Vacaspati is definitely not prescribing any Upasana on Mahavakyas

through Manana and Nidhidyasana. While negating Prasamkhyayana vidhi

Vacaspati rejects Mandana's claim that Manana and Nidhidyasana as

Upasana-anga as means to Moksa, which Sureswara ridicules in III.92.

So we must actually not evaluate Bhamati - Vivarana in the light of

Sureswara since he always holds a 'third' view. It is like

evaluating Avacceda and Vivarta vadas with reference to Abhasa vada,

which drives no conclusion at all and will only complicate the

issue.

 

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

Humble praNAms Sri Devanathan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

If you could permit me, I shall submit my thoughts on your observation.

 

Dev prabhuji:

 

 

Further your reference to Mundaka ought to be read with

Br.Up's `ManasaivAnudrstavyam' which Acharya copiously quotes and

elsewhere he even says `Acharyopadesa sama damAdi samskrtam jnanam

Manas eva karanam.. tadanyah sAhasamAtram' iti.

 

 

bhaskar :

 

 

Yes, shankara says in gIta bhAshya that shamadamAdi susaMskruta manaH Atma

darshane karaNAm...but I dont know why & how you are relating this AchArya

vachana to prove your point...Here pUrvapaxin's objection & vEdAntins

answer cannot be linked with the topic under discussion. The context is

entirely different & cannot be corelated with parOksha & aparOksha jnAna.

On the other hand, if we study the bhAshya vAkya (mundaka shruti

1-1-6..starts yathA vidhivishayE) which I've quoted earlier, it clearly

says that unlike vidhipara vAkya (even after the understanding of meaning

of vAkya-s, the karma-s (like agnihOtra etc.) to be performed) which calls

for gathering of many kAraka-s (instruments), the deliberation on the

vEdAnta vAkya which teaches the paramArtha jnAna gives the Atma jnAna

immediately without any time gap (vAkyArtha jnAna *samakAle*..emphasizes

this point)... & AchArya further clarifies that all other processe gets

completed & jignAsu becomes jnAni (paryavastitO bhavati)...if there is some

pending work with regard to this jnAnabhyAsa, shankara would have addressed

it here...is it not prabhuji?? Here it has been stated beyond any doubt

that after cognizing the meaning of the sentence (ofcourse by an able

student like nachikEta or shvEtakEtu :-) there does not remain anything do

be done...I think, even after hearing this clear assertion from

bhagavadpAda if we say shravaNa leads only to parOksha (in all

cases/instances) and nidhidhyAsana is a must vidhi to get aparOksha goes

against bhAshya siddhAnta.

 

 

Dev prabhuji:

 

Bhamati on the other hand contends that Sravana gives only the

Paroksa jnana and not Aparoksa; for manana and nidhidyasana of the

paroksa jnana alone gives Aparoksa Anubhuti.

 

bhaskar :

 

again, no need to mention this goes against shankara's opinion in mundaka

1-1-6. Kindly refer *kEvala shabda prakAshita arthajnAnamAtra nishTa

vyatiriktAbhAvAt...dont you think shvEtakEtu get the aparOkshAnubhUti after

hearing the vAkya jnAna from uddAlaka prabhuji?? we cannot say that the

tattvamasi vAkya given shvEtakEtu only parOksha jnAna !!?? In the gItA

bhAshya 18-50 shankara very clearly says tasmAt avidyAdhyArOpita

nirAkaraNamAtraM brahmaNi kartavyaM *na tu* brahmajnAnE yatnaH atyanta

prastiddhatvAt...shankara nowhere recommends that after knowing the real

nature of snake, we have to do nidhidhyAsana to know the *rope*...In

bruhadAraNyaka (1-4-10) shankara says if the first jnAna pertaining to the

subject matter of Atman has not removed avidyA, the last one too cannot do

so. For both of them the Atman is the subject matter...From this it is

evident that if shravaNa (first jnAna) does not lead an uttamaadhikAri to

aparOksha jnAna then even nidhidhyAsana (in the form of last jnAna) too

cannot give him Atma jnAna.

 

 

Dev prabhuji :

 

Here Nidhidyasana is regarded to be the primary functional aspect of mind

as this alone gives the final release.

 

bhaskar :

 

again kindly pardon me, I am not able to get it...during the process of

shravaNa & manana also the mind is the main instrument is it not?? how can

it gets *extra* importance during nidhidhyAsana?? I would like to see

bhAshya vAkya reference for the above statement of bhAmati.

 

Dev prabhuji :

 

Sureswaracarya on refuting the

Mandana's notion of `abhyasa' points out interestingly that `it is

only the distractions in the form of asambavana – doubt and viparita

bhavana - erroneous knowledge which are obstacles to origination of

immediate knowledge – Aparoksa must be removed by concentration of

mind.

 

bhaskar :

 

yes this is very much true, shankara in Isha bhAshya says that the person

who got the cognition that fire is hot and it illumines for him the false

knowledge to the effect (fire is cold or it does not illumine) can never

happen, further either saMshaya (doubt) about it or its non-comprehension

can never occur. So, it is clear from bhagavadpAda's statement that an

uttama adhikAri's all the three types of avidyA-s (agrahaNa, anythAgrahaNa

& saMshaya) will be removed forever once the *correct* cognition of fire

takes place...

 

Dev prabhuji :

 

TasmAt mama mathe, `idam' jnanam of rajju – sarpa is akin to the

Paroksa jnana, which the adhikari gains through Sravana. And during

Manana, the aspirant gains Sarpa jnana. Finally during Nidhidyasana

he accomplishes Sarpa nivrtti – Avidya nivrtti which is nothing

but `Rajju jnana' that is nothing but Aparoksa Anubhuti.

 

bhaskar :

 

I am afraid, IMHO, this is lOkAnubhava viruddha...nobody is going to forest

to realize the rope is snake even after seeing the rope in place of snake

in a bright day light...See again bruhadAraNyaka bhAshya (1-4-10) for

example. Shankara here explicitly says that When the jnAna with regard to

Atman accrues at the very moment instantaneously that ajnAna pertaining to

the Atman vanishes indeed....now tell me prabhuji, is there anything else

needs to be done after this realization?? is there something else needs to

be achieved after this jnAna?? shankara clearly says in 3-3-1 that apart

from ajnAna it is not possible to imagine any other hindrance existing for

mOksha....

 

Dev prabhuji :

 

Tatra vAkyArta jnana eva moksa sadhanam iti naca vAcyam, parantu

Manasyeva karanam, tat dvArena vicArasya anantaram eva AtmanaH

anudrstavyam iti Acharya abhiprAya rUpeNa mama abhiprAyah.

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji, let us refrain ourselves from Sanskrit discussion as most of the

members donot understand it...if you see my bhAshya quotes above, it is

very clear that vAkyArtha jnAna is indeed a valid & ultimate means to

mOskha sAdhana according to shankara....

 

Kindly correct me if I said anything wrong here.

 

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

--- antharyami_in <sathvatha wrote:

 

Devanthanji - PraNAms

 

From my understanding, I find there is a basic problem in the Bhamati school

position.

 

Question boils down to - can scriptures give aparoksha jnaanam or not.

 

Do I have to do something - after listening to scriptures to gain

self-knowledge?

 

If subject is the object of the knowledge or to be known, it is there directly

for one to see. paroksha implies that which is remote from the seer.

If it is remote from understanding when it is self-evident, the problem is not

the limitation of the scripture but the seer who cannot see because his vision

is clouded.

 

I can appreciate that the fact that for many chitta suddhi is not there and

mananam and nidhidyasanam is required to assimilate the knowledge.

 

If Vedanta is to be considered as pramaNa, then it has to reveal the knowledge

by removing the ignorance of the self.

 

If I have to do mananam and nidhidhyaasanam to gain the knowledge then three is

importance to these two than shruti itself.

 

It is like the interpretation of athAthO brahma jignaasa where doing karma can

help in acquiring the four fold qualifications but requiring one to do karma or

purva miimaamsa as Ramanuja interprets for the meaning 'Then' - as a

requirement, then we are approaching jnaana karma samucchaya vAda which

Shankara constantly denounces in all his bhAshyAs.

 

BhAmati's position everyone regardless of their chittasuddhi has to do mananam

and nidhidyAsanam for gaining self-knowledge does not seem to be tenable.

 

I do not get the impression that Sureswara differs from this position.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Sadananda prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Question boils down to - can scriptures give aparoksha jnaanam or not.

 

> This question has been clearly answered by bhagavadpAda himself in the

bruhadAraNyaka bhAshya 1-4-7. Here he tells us, vAkyajanitavijnAnamAtrAt

na abrahma anAtma vijnAnanivruttiH iti chEt....*na* tattvamasi, nEti nEti

AtmaivEdaM yEkamEvAdvitIyaM brahmaivEdamamrutaM.........ityAdi vAkyAnAM tat

viditvAt...when the *tenth* man realizes he is indeed that *tenth* man is

this parOksha or aparOksha jnAna?? shAstra vAkya can always give aparOksha

jnAna to an able aspirant like in the story of *tenth man*....upadEsha

sAhastri clearly tells this in poem section 18-169 : dashamastvamasItyEvaM

tattvamasyAdivAkyataH, svamAtmAnaM vijAnAti krutsnAtaHkarENEkshaNam...

 

> I humbly request Sri Sunder Hattangadi prabhuji or Sri Sastri prabhuji to

give the complete English translation of these verses (18-167 to 169), I

think these verses are very relevent in the present subject matter.

 

Do I have to do something - after listening to scriptures to gain

self-knowledge?

 

> In most of the cases yes. As you have mentioned below, manana &

nidhidhyAsana are very much necessary & mandatory for manda & madhyama

adhikAri-s like us...

But at the same time we cannot ignore the remote possibility of dawn of

aparOksha jnAna to the uttamAdhikAri like shvEtakEtu or nachikEta from mere

shAstra vAkya shravaNa.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> > I humbly request Sri Sunder Hattangadi prabhuji or Sri Sastri

prabhuji to

> give the complete English translation of these verses (18-167 to

169), I

> think these verses are very relevent in the present subject matter.

>

 

Namaste,

 

(I am not following this thread closely). There is some

discrepancy in the numbering of the verses between the encoded

version and Sw. Jagadananda's translation. Below are some verses that

may include those under discussion.

 

 

http://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_z_misc_shankara/US_itran_new.itx

 

##US-P18.166ab ## asparsho.api yathA sparshamacalashcalanAdi ca |

##US-P18.166cd ## avivekAt tathA duHkhaM mAnasaM cAtmanIkShate ||

##US-P18.167ab ## vivekAtmadhiyA duHkhaM nudyate calcaAdivat |

##US-P18.167cd ## avivekasvabhAvena namo gacChatyanicChataH ||

##US-P18.168ab ## tadAnudR^ishyate du;khaM naishcalye naiva tasya

tat |

##US-P18.168cd ## pratyagAtmani tasmAt tad du;khaM naivopapadyate ||

##US-P18.169ab ## tvaMsatortulyanIDataAn nIlAshvavadidaM bhavet |

##US-P18.169cd ## nirduHkhavAcinA yogAt tvaMshabdasya tadarthatA ||

##US-P18.170ab ## pratyagAtmAbhihAnena tacChabdasya yutestathA |

##US-P18.170cd ## dashamastvamasItyevaM vAkyaM syAt pratyafAtmani ||

##US-P18.171ab ## svArthasya hyaprahANena vishiShTArthasamarpakau |

##US-P18.171cd ## pratyagAtmAvagatyantau nAnyo.artho.arthAd

virodhyataH ||

##US-P18.172ab ## navabuddhyapahArAd dhi svAtmAnaM dashapUra1am |

##US-P18.172cd ## asashya~n j~nAtumevecChet svamAtmAnaM janastathA

||

##US-P18.173ab ## avidyAbaddhacakShuShTvAt kAmApahR^itadhIH sadA |

##US-P18.173cd ## viviktaM dR^ishimAtmAnaM nekShate dashamaM yathA

||

##US-P18.174ab ## dashamastvamasItyevaM tattvamasyAdivAkyataH |

##US-P18.174cd ## svamAtmAnaM vijAnAti kR^itsnAntaHkaraNekShaNam ||

##US-P18.175ab ## idaM pUrvamidaM pashcAt padaM vAdye bhavediti |

##US-P18.175cd ## niyamo naiva vede.asti padasAMgatyamarthataH ||

##US-P18.176ab ## vAkye hi shrUyamANAnAM padAnAmarthasaMsmR^itiH |

##US-P18.176cd ## anvayavyatirekAbhyAM tato vAkyArthabodhanam ||

##US-P18.177ab ## yadA nityeShu vAkyeShu padArthastu vivicyate |

##US-P18.177cd ## vAkyArthaj~nAnasaMkrAntyai tadA prashno na yujyate

||

##US-P18.178ab ## anvayavyatirekoktiH padArthasmaraNAya tu |

##US-P18.178cd ## smR^ityabhAve na vAkyArtho j~nAtuM shakyo hi

kenacit ||

##US-P18.179ab ## tattvamasyAdivAkyeShu tvaMpadArthAvivekataH |

##US-P18.179cd ## vyajyate naiva vAkyArtho nityamukto.ahamityataH ||

##US-P18.180ab ## anvayavyatirekoktistadvivekAya nAnyathA |

##US-P18.180cd ## tvaMpadArthaviveke hi pANAvarpitavilvavat ||

##US-P18.181ab ## vAkyArtho vyajyate caivaM kevalo.ahaMpadArthataH |

##US-P18.181cd ## duHkhItyetadapohena pratyagAtmavinishcayAt ||

##US-P18.182ab ## tatraivaM saMbhavatyarthe shrutahAnAshrutArthadhiH

|

##US-P18.182cd ## naivaM kalpayituM yuktA padavAkyArthakovidaiH ||

##US-P18.183ab ## pratyakShAdIni bAdheran kR^iShNalAdiShu pAkavat |

##US-P18.183cd ## akShajAdinibhairetaiH kathaM syAd vAkyabAdhanam ||

##US-P18.184ab ## duHkhyasmIti sati j~nAne nirduHkhIti na jAyate |

##US-P18.184cd ## pratyakShAdinibhatve.api vAkyAn na vyabhicArataH ||

 

 

http://www.celextel.org/adisankara/upadesasahasri.html?page=8

 

167. Just as due to indiscrimination touch and movement are felt to

be in the Self which is devoid of them, so, normal pain is also felt

to be in It (owing to the same reason).

 

168-169. The pain (due to the identification with the subtle body)

comes to an end when one has the discriminating knowledge (that one

is the Innermost Self) like the movement etc. (belonging to the gross

body) which are negated (when one knows that one is different from

it). Unhappiness is seen in the Self when the mind roams against

one's will on account of Ignorance. But it is not seen in it

when the mind is at rest. It is, therefore, not reasonable that

unhappiness is in

the innermost Self.

 

170. The saying 'Thou art That' implies an invisible reality, the

words 'Thou' and 'That' expressing the same reality indirectly like

(the words 'blue' and 'horse' in) the sentence 'it is a blue horse'.

 

171. The word 'Thou' comes to mean one free from pain on account of

its being used in the same predicment with the word 'That' which

means One eternally devoid of pain. Similarly, used in the same

connection with the word 'Thou', meaning the Innermost Self

(which is directly known), the word 'That' also comes to mean a thing

directly known.

 

172. The sentences, 'Thou art That' produces the immediate knowledge

of Self-Brahman like the saying, 'You are the tenth'.

 

173. Without giving up their own meanings the words 'thou' and 'That'

deliver (by implication) a special one resulting in the knowledge of

Self-Brahman. They do not express any other meaning contrary to it.

 

174-175. Just as misled by the number nine the tenth boy did not know

himself to be so and wanted to know who the tenth was, so, one does

not see one's Self, the Witness, though detached from the non-Self,

and self-evident, on account of one's eyes being covered by Ignorance

and intellect captivated by desires..

 

176. One knows one's own Self, the witness of the intellect and all

its modifications, from sentences such as, 'Thou art That' like the

boy who knew himself from the sentence, 'You are the tenth'.

 

177-178. The understanding of sentences is possible (on the knowledge

of the implied meanings of the words) by the method of agreement and

contrariety after it has been ascertained which words should be

placed first and which next.For the order of words in Vedic sentences

follows the meaning of the sentences. The rule about remembering the

meanings of words in accordance with their order in which sentences

are construed does not hold good in the Vedas.

 

179. The question is out of place when the meanings of words in

sentences having fixed meanings are made clear in order that the

meanings of sentences may be comprehended.

 

180. The method of agreement and contrariety is spoken of in order

that one may be acquainted with the (implied) meanings of words, for

no one can know the meaning of a sentence without knowing (the

meaning of the words in it).

 

181-183. The meaning of the sentences like 'Thou art That', i.e. one

is Brahman ever free, does not become manifest on account of the non-

discrimination of the (implied) meaning of the word 'Thou'. Therefore

it is the purpose of the discriminating the meaning of that

word and for no other purpose that the method of agreement and

contrariety has been described. For when the meaning of the

word 'thou' is discriminated) one becomes perfectly sure of the

nature of the Innermost Self by the negation of the ego connected

with unhappiness from the meaning of the word 'I' and then the

meaning of the sentence viz. one invisible Pure Consciousness becomes

manifest like an AEgle marmelos fruit placed on one's palm.

 

184. Those who are well-versed in the meanings of words and sentences

should not, therefore, assume a meaning which is not in accordance

with the Srutis and give up what is in them. For this explanation of

the sentence is thus possible.

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

According to Vivarana, a sentence produces indirect

knowledge if the object spoken of is not immediate, and direct

knowledge if the object is immediate. There being nothing more

immediate than the Atma, the mahavakya produces direct (immediate)

knowledge.

 

 

praNAms

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

Just in addition, even after attaining this direct (aparOksha) jnAna,

vivaraNa school claims that avidyA remains in a latent impression form

(i.e.saMskAra rUpa)...And vivaraNa further confirms that this avidyAlEsha

might be the cause for jnAni's vision of *duality* even after realization.

So, how this residue of avidyA can be erased completely?? vivaraNa

recommends the repeated practice of tattvajnAna...If jnAnAbhyAsa

continuously followed at the end of one fine day this avidyA in saMskAra

rUpa (avidyA lEsha) gets removed completely. Again, for the question, when

the duality does not appear for a jnAni?? vivaraNa provides an answer,

jnAni being associated with avidyAlEsha becomes jIvanmukta (liberated while

living in the physical body) and when the avidyA saMskAra is removed

without any trace, thereafter, the jnAni gives up his mortal coil (jnAni's

physical body) and he becomes vidEha mukta (completely liberated after

giving up the body) with that *duality* will be completely vanished!!!

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

176. One knows one's own Self, the witness of the intellect and all

its modifications, from sentences such as, 'Thou art That' like the

boy who knew himself from the sentence, 'You are the tenth'.

 

 

 

praNAms Sri Sunderhattangadi prabhuji

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

Thanks for providing the translations prabhuji...as always you very kindful

to me.

 

 

The above verse clearly shows that with the attainment of jnAna one gets

freed from ajnAna. As soon as ajnAna disappers the mOksha should

instantaneously accrue....coz., as sri sadananda prabhuji said, mOksha is

not a distant object to claim that it should happen/ be acquired

afresh...nor it is to be achieved or experienced afresh in a mysterious

state like samAdhi...It is in truth our own svarUpa only..which is

immediate & svayaM siddhA (self-evident)...Therefore, the theory of some

proponents of vidEha mukti or asamprajnAtha/nirivikalpa samAdhi who claims

that the ultimate mOksha experience should be completed in all respects

when the body goes or when we experience the state of *mind still/dead*

samAdhi at some place and at some point of time....plainly goes against the

shankara's sadyOmukti advaita siddhAnta.

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sunder-ji.

 

Yours 40066.

 

This discussion is too technical for me to understand. Hence, I am

also not closely following it.

 

However, the following translation made me sit up:

 

QUOTE

 

168-169. The pain (due to the identification with the subtle body)

comes to an end when one has the discriminating knowledge (that one

is the Innermost Self) like the movement etc. (belonging to the

gross body) which are negated (when one knows that one is different

from it). Unhappiness is seen in the Self when the mind roams

against one's will on account of Ignorance. But it is not seen in it

when the mind is at rest. It is, therefore, not reasonable that

unhappiness is in the innermost Self.

 

UNQUOTE

 

Why is identification with the subtle body blamed here in the

consideration of pain? Is it not identification with the gross

body? When I have pain on my neck, do I not say " My neck hurts " ? I

don't say " My subtle neck hurts " . So, how is the subtle body coming

into the picture here? Is it due to the involvement of the mind?

But, even in seeing movement etc. of the gross body, which is treated

as separate category from pain and pleasure in the above quote, the

mind is involved. Can someone please explain?

 

Besides, pain is pain consciousness like pleasure is pleasure-

consciousness. Both are consciousness and basically not any

different. If that consciousness is observed simply as consciousness

without reference to the part of the body where it is occurring, then

you are it at that moment. In other words, you are verily

Consciousness at that moment. Pain becomes pain and, therefore,

unwelcome, and pleasure becomes pleasure and, therefore, desirable

only with reference to the body, which we understand we are not due

to its being an object of awareness. So, happiness and unhappiness

are experienced due to our refusal to see that both are in fact made

of the same fabric - which is neither inner-most or outer-most but

existent everywhere in everything.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

--- Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

 

 

 

>

> Why is identification with the subtle body blamed here in the

> consideration of pain? Is it not identification with the gross

> body? When I have pain on my neck, do I not say " My neck hurts " ? I

> don't say " My subtle neck hurts " . So, how is the subtle body coming

> into the picture here? Is it due to the involvement of the mind?

> But, even in seeing movement etc. of the gross body, which is treated

> as separate category from pain and pleasure in the above quote, the

> mind is involved. Can someone please explain?

 

Nairji -

 

it is the mind that feels the pain of the mind, pain in the neck and pain in

the intellect too.

 

Once you are asleep, the mind withdraws from the identification from the body

and body problems are not perceived.

 

Some of it I have discussed as part of the knowledge and the means of knowledge

under 'Internal perceptions'.

 

Pain is one thing - but knowledge of the pain is something else! If somebody is

pain in the neck and If I donot know it (mind is not knowing) then that pain is

not perceived. Only when the perceptual process is complete where subtle body

has to come in - the pain in the neck is perceived.

 

Once the subtle body leaves, people ready to burn the body and others watching

that may be feeling that pain but not the subtle body that left! Otherwise it

is terrible to watch one's body getting burned.

 

Hari om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

> Besides, pain is pain consciousness like pleasure is pleasure-

> consciousness. Both are consciousness and basically not any

> different. If that consciousness is observed simply as consciousness

> without reference to the part of the body where it is occurring, then

> you are it at that moment. In other words, you are verily

> Consciousness at that moment. Pain becomes pain and, therefore,

> unwelcome, and pleasure becomes pleasure and, therefore, desirable

> only with reference to the body, which we understand we are not due

> to its being an object of awareness. So, happiness and unhappiness

> are experienced due to our refusal to see that both are in fact made

> of the same fabric - which is neither inner-most or outer-most but

> existent everywhere in everything.

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hari OM ~

Shri Bhaskar ji,

I am surprised by your contention that you find no relevance with

Acharya's gita bhasya vacana from the Second chapter that I quoted

earlier to the current issue. You don't have to probe into

the `tatparya' there, as Acharya clearly says `ManaH eva karanam'

(2.21 bhasya) which means Sastras are not. Ofcourse Sastras are the

storehouse of knowledge, but what sort of knowledge is that is the

issue here. Sanatsujata clearly says neither Rk nor Saman or Yajus

will give Brahma Saksatkara. Vedas are mere indicators (which give

paroksa jnana alone) just as the portion of tree is marked to

indicate the moon. Bagavad pada terms this indicator as `Paramarsa'

which emphasizes it to be the Paroksa jnana and not Aparoksa.

Sanatsuja in the Udyoga Parva makes repeated statements to affirm

that Vedas can never give immediate knowledge; for it is `Mounam' in

reaching Brahman, which is `Asabda'. Coming back to BG 2.21,

Anandagiri comments on Acharyas words where he says, `Vakyoktabuddhi

(mano)vrtti abhivyaktam savikalpavyavahAralambanam' – to mean : Mano

vrtti that results from the Tattvamasyadi vakyas are Savikalpaka,

which means they are Paroksa alone and not otherwise. They do not

have any potential capacity to produce the Aparoksa anubhuti by

themselves. The Manas which is the Karana must be trained to

contemplate on the Paroksa jnana which alone is transformed to

Aparoksa Anubhuti. So your first objection is answered here.

 

Next, with reference to Br. 1.4.10 Bashya. Jnana is Ajnana viruddha

and the former annihilates the latter at the very moment of its

utpatti. Yes. We don't differ at all. In which stage can this jnana

annihilate all dimensions of multitude ajnana is the question that

is left here. You have not pointed out this. Aparoksa jnana alone

can destroy the roots of ajnana for Acharya mentions this in all

this prasthana bashyas. And this Aparoksa jnana as we say is sought

by the aspirant only by nididhyasana and not by mere Sravana. And Br

3.3.1, actually favours our stand as Manas is the Avidya karya (due

to Sukla Sonitha samyoga) that causes Bandah. So Manas which is the

indriya must be tranquilized by manana while during

Nidhidyasana `Brahman presents itself in perfection by the akhanda

kara vrtti' – Sanatsujatiya – VakyagocaratvAt. Let me remind you

that Vivarana neither accepts Manas as indriya nor the fact that

Manas as the Karana for A.K.Vrtti.

 

Further towards your question on the special importance of

Nidhidhyasana: Yes. I would like to mention here again some

references from Sanatsujatiya Bashyam where acharya says `Tattvam

padarta Sodana – anantaram imam pramatradisaksinam paramAtmanam

pasyati' – Note here that acharya uses the term `sodana' which is

nothing but Manana-cum-Nidhidyasana. He does not mention `tattvam

padarta Sravana anantaram here. Sodana is a process which Sabara in

his Jaiminiya Bashya refers to contemplation alone. Sankaracarya

further adds to say that `JnanAdisu stitopi na kevalam Sravana-

mAtrena pasyAt, api tu Vedanta vicara purvena sravana-*adi* (manana,

nidhidyasana) purvakameva pasyati. Bagavad pada makes heavy stmt in

suppost of Bhamati here that with mere Sravana `Paramatma Darsanam'

is impossible; for acarya lays special significance to Nidhidyasana

whence Saksatkara Siddhi is accomplished with.

 

Also note a correction: you have mentioned " three types of avidya

(agrahana, anyathagrahana and Samsaya) " . Actually it is only two

types of Avidya vide, agrahana and anyathagrahana. Samsaya comes

under anyathagrahana itself. Acharya points out that `agrahana-

anyathagrahanAtmika Avidya'

 

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

Hari OM ~

Shri Sada ji,

Bhamati never says that it is the lack of chitta Suddhi due to which

the aspirant is prescribed with Manana and Nidhidyasana. That is a

wrong understanding. Only when he gains Chitta Suddhi with Thitiksa

and Shraddha devoid of Raga dvesa he becomes an Adhikarin to even

approach a guru for Vedanta Vicara; for a guru accepts the aspirant

only on testing his Chitta Suddhi. This is not the issue here. Even

with all Chitta Suddhi that the aspirant had gained, whether he can

get Aparoksa anubhuti from mere Sravana is the question that

remains. We say NO. Sravana Matra can give only Paroksa jnana,

whence he proceeds to Adhyatma Vicara by manana and Nidhidyasana to

accomplish the Akhanda kara vrtti. Vedas can give remote

understanding of the Brahman as its words do not reach them. This is

the very reason why Vedas resort to method of systematic

negation `neti neti'. As long as the samsayas regarding the Paroksa

jnana are treated with during manana there can be no scope for

further progress. Once these viparita bavanas are shunned off,

BrahmAkAra vrtti sets in to accomplish Brahma Siddhi.

 

Manana and Nidhidyasana as you understand is not karma para. Also

that there is no reason to say one is more important than the other.

Paroksa jnana is as important as the Aparoksa jnana for the former

is transformed to latter. Bhamati furthermore does not endorse the

view that the Aparoksa anubhuti includes defects like pramana-

premeya asambavanas. When you say Aproksa is immediate, it means in

its true sense that it should be free from defects, which is not the

case with Vivarana.once you ascribe pramana-prameya asambavana to

Aparoksa jnana it ceases to be Aparoksa at all. Hence Vivarana

suffers from the fallacy of mutual dependence.

 

With Narayana Smrthi,

Devanathan.J

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " antharyami_in " <sathvatha

wrote:

>

> Hari OM ~

> Shri Sada ji,

> Paroksa jnana is as important as the Aparoksa jnana for the

former

> is transformed to latter. Bhamati furthermore does not endorse the

> view that the Aparoksa anubhuti includes defects like pramana-

> premeya asambavanas. When you say Aproksa is immediate, it means

in

> its true sense that it should be free from defects, which is not

the

> case with Vivarana.once you ascribe pramana-prameya asambavana to

> Aparoksa jnana it ceases to be Aparoksa at all. Hence Vivarana

> suffers from the fallacy of mutual dependence.

>

> With Narayana Smrthi,

> Devanathan.J

Dear Shri Devanathan,

Your present note and your post No. 40085 deal with the point under

consideration beautifully. But I have a doubt.

You say that the vedas can give only parokshajnAna. Does this not

contradict the self-validity of the vedas according to which the

vedas do not depend on anything else, such as enquiry, for producing

knowledge. Samkshepasariarakam says this in I.18 as below:

In giving rise to the cognition of Brahman-Atman, inquiry serves

neither as the efficient cause like one's own veda, nor as ancillary

to the vedic text. For, in that case, absence of self-validity is

liable to occur to vedic text in giving rise to the knowledge of

Brahman which is identical with Atman. And that is not proper.

Vivarana takes the same view. So it cannot be considered as wrong.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

>

[Guest guest]

--- antharyami_in <sathvatha wrote:

> Bhamati never says that it is the lack of chitta Suddhi due to which

> the aspirant is prescribed with Manana and Nidhidyasana. That is a

> wrong understanding. Only when he gains Chitta Suddhi with Thitiksa

> and Shraddha devoid of Raga dvesa he becomes an Adhikarin to even

> approach a guru for Vedanta Vicara; for a guru accepts the aspirant

> only on testing his Chitta Suddhi. This is not the issue here.

 

Shree Devanathanji

 

I think that is the issue here. The question of what constitutes the chitta

suddhi.You mentioned once that saadhaka is differnt from adhikaari. We can have

gradation in adhikaaritvam.

 

We can define the chitta suddhi, when the scriptures which are shruti-s operate

as pramANa - where shruti-s have to be heard -obviously shravaNam involved -

the knowledge takes places as they are pramaa kaaraNam. Since the object is

right in front - shravaNam has to be aparoksham. That ‘that is not so’ will

only degrade shruti-s as pramANa. If knowledge does take firm roots then that

is a direct indication that Chitta Suddhi is not there. There Bhamati's chitta

suddhi then is not sufficient suddhi for pramaakaraNam. If you claim it is

then pramaa has to take place. Here we have catch 22 situation.

 

Now the question of mananam and nidhidhyaasaanam are not actions - itself is

questionable. Only pratyaksha vishaya for the effortless process involved - As

I open my eyes I cannot but see - if the mind is present.

Consciousness-existence that I am is immediate and direct since it is all

pervading. Hence I know myself all the time and all places. I do not have to

meditate that I am conscious and I am existent. Hence that which is conscious

and existent has to be direct and immediate if ‘that tvam asi’ has a meaning

provided ‘you and that’ are properly understood – that is bhagatyaaga lakshaNa

is applied properly, for which chitta suddhi is required.

 

Needless to say - I have problem in subscribing to Bhamati’s, arguments, giving

more importance to contemplation and meditation as the means compared to

shruti's statements. They are required if the tat tvam asi is not understood.

It will not be understood if chitta suddhi is not there - and that is the

definition for chitta suddhi. The seeker has chitta suddhi but aparoksha

jnaanam does not take place until he contemplates and meditates - I find the

statements are contradiction, if we define chitta suddhi properly.

 

Implication is mananam and nidhidhyaasanam is required if tat tvam asi

statements did not work and it would not work due to lack of chitta suddhi.

 

Anyway I understand Bhamati position. I just want to readers to make sure that

it is not necessarily the correct position of advaita - if chitta suddhi is

properly defined. That Bhamati’s position is more correct than vivarana’s

position is debatable. It may be suffice to state the position of the two

schools without making a judgment call. Or the best way I suggest is to present

the position of both schools and add ones personal comments underneath if one

wants to endorse one of them. But this requires an impartial position

presentation.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda