What is common in adwaita and SAktaadwaita?

[Guest guest]

- Krishnarao (lanka.krishnarao1)

Subject :- what is common in adwaita and SAktaadwaita?

 

priya mahASayAh,

 

One scholarly pITAdhipati has defined adwaita as " maru marIcikA nyAyam "

and SAktAdwaita as " mR^idGaTa nyAyam " . I don't know how far this illustration

is appropriate.

But he did not answer my above query

 

I still have the doubt how SrI SankarAcArya and his followers have chosen

to follow both the sampradAyAs simultaneously, because adwaita says there will

be no water at all in the mirage whereas in SAktaadwaita there is the mud and

also the pot.

 

I request all our members to clarify my doubt giving proper examples to

understand easily.

 

Thanking you all in advance,

Yours always in the service of the mother

krishnarao (SrIparasuKAnandanAtha)

[Guest guest]

Shree Krishnarao - praNAms

 

The gentleman by differentiating advaita, making dvaita out of advaita. Advaita

is non-duality without any difference of any kind.

 

I have never heard of SAktAdvaita.

 

As I see it, the distinction he is making is in the perceptual errors not in

advaita.

 

Pot and clay - example comes from scriptures - the cause-effect relationship -

Shree Sastriji just explained in terms of SamAnAdhikaraNa between adheya and

adhaara. The error is in taking the changing effect - pots to jugs etc- as

absolutely real while ignoring that which is absolutely real, the clay that does

not undergo any change in becoming pot or jug. Pot is only apparent and has

utility or vyavahaara in relation of clump of clay. The effects are

vyaavahaarika and cause is (relatively speaking in this example)

paaramaarthikam. In the marumariicika example, the perceptual error is not due

to cause-effect but due to laws of glancing angle-reflection which are based on

physical laws. Because of similarity in reflection, one mistakes as the water.

Here the error is taking something for the other; it is also an objective error

in comparison to snake/rope error. Hence when I learned that it is mirage

waters, even though I still see similar reflection

like shining water surface on the dry sand, I understand that there is no real

water there and it is purely the reflection.

 

Both examples are similar in terms of objectivity and therefore remain even

after knowing the truth of that perception or reality behind them. Pot still

remains after knowing it is nothing but clay - one can also say pot was never

there to start with since it is only clay in different forms - forms are mithyaa

while substantive is real. It all depends on how much you are in need of a pot

compare to clay!

 

In the case of snake/rope the error is subjective and therefore once one sees

the rope as rope, no more snake vision.

Thus we have vyaavahaarika and praatibhaasika errors.

 

In the same way with jnaanam or knowledge of the reality, the subjective errors,

praatibhaasika errors that involve samsaara, or subjective source of problems,

will disappear while the objective reality although apparent like pot, the truth

of that appearance is also understood.

 

Related to another question:

When we say jnaani sees the world as mithyaa – one has to understand even that

seeing is part of mithyaa too. In yogavaashiShTa there is an interesting

episode. After Rama learned that everything that is seen is mithyaa wanted to

question his teacher VashiShTa. Hence he send an elephant to chase him while he

was coming towards the palace and sees his teacher running away even though he

said everything that is seen is not real but mithyaa only. When he questions his

teacher why he ran away from mithyaa elephant, VashiShTa smiled and asked Rama

– did you see me running? Rama said – yes. His teacher said by the rule that

whatever seen is mithyaa – hence he should understand even the running away

from the mithyaa elephant is mithyaa too. A jnaani realizes that 'pasyan

ShRinvan .. .. … indriyaaH indriyaartheshu vartante' – He does not see but

he sees – from the paaramaarthika point there is nothing to see and all

transactions occur only at

vyaavahaarika level. He understands that prakRityeva ca karmaaNi .. All

actions are being done by prakRiti only. Hence mithyaa has to be correctly

understood as has been pointed out repeatedly by many contributors.

 

Hope this helps

 

Hari Om!

 

Sadananda

 

 

 

--- On Tue, 3/17/09, krishnarao <lanka.krishnarao1 wrote:

 

One scholarly pITAdhipati has defined adwaita as " maru marIcikA nyAyam " and

SAktAdwaita as " mR^idGaTa nyAyam " . I don't know how far this illustration is

appropriate.

But he did not answer my above query

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " krishnarao " <lanka.krishnarao1 wrote:

> I still have the doubt how SrI SankarAcArya

> and his followers have chosen to follow both the

> sampradAyAs simultaneously, because adwaita says there

> will be no water at all in the mirage whereas in

> SAktaadwaita there is the mud and also the pot.

>

> I request all our members to clarify my

> doubt giving proper examples to understand easily.

 

Namaste Shri Krishnarao-ji,

 

I am sure members more learned than me would respond,

but here is my answer. My understanding of Shakta Advaita

is limited to Devi Bhagavatham, Gita therein and some

translations and interpretations (in Telugu/English)

of LS commentaries by scholars.

 

I saw all the above texts as full of advaitic message.

Maybe, because I understand the Devi as the parA-prakRiti

(or Higher unmanifest) of Chapters 7/8 of Bhagavad Gita.

Further, the Devi Gita was clearly full of beautiful

passages directly from the upanishads.

 

I have been told by learned people that, because of

varNa-dharma and Ashrama-dharma limitations, the core

messages in the advaita have been recast in the other

advaitas, with an emphasis on upaasana, so that the

message can be understood by the proper-initiates

after enough practise.

 

Even in traditional advaita, most of the time, the

obstacle in true understanding, one that is without

any doubt, and one leads to most of the traffic

on mailing lists like this (!), is IMHO the jIva-Ishvara

bheda anyway! Hence, what better way to remove that

obstacle than by putting emphasis on upaasana?

 

I have not given any examples because, any example

comes with its limitation. All examples end with

the seeker knowing that he is the one is being

seeked.

 

praNAms to all advaitins

Ramakrishna

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Ramakrishna Upadrasta " <uramakrishna

wrote:

>

> advaitin , " krishnarao " <lanka.krishnarao1@> wrote:

> > I still have the doubt how SrI SankarAcArya

> > and his followers have chosen to follow both the

> > sampradAyAs simultaneously, because adwaita says there

> > will be no water at all in the mirage whereas in

> > SAktaadwaita there is the mud and also the pot.

> >

> > I request all our members to clarify my

> > doubt giving proper examples to understand easily.

 

Namaste,

 

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy-ji has explained this aspect through

translation of Kanchi Mahasvamigal's discourses on Soundarya- lahari (please

check in Advanced Search - Author - profvk; Message contents - soundaryalahari

shakti advaita - gives an index of 37 messages - DPDS #80, etc.).

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

> advaitin , " Ramakrishna Upadrasta " <uramakrishna@>

wrote:

> >

> > advaitin , " krishnarao " lanka.krishnarao1@> wrote:

>

> Prof. V. Krishnamurthy-ji has explained this aspect through

translation of Kanchi Mahasvamigal's discourses on Soundarya- lahari (please

check in Advanced Search - Author - profvk; Message contents - soundaryalahari

shakti advaita - gives an index of 37 messages - DPDS #80, etc.).

 

 

Namaste,

 

The complete series is also at Prof.VK-ji's website at:

 

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/gohitvip/DPDS.html

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Krishna Rao.

 

I had found your previous messages on Soundarya Lahari very scholarly and

informative. It is therefore with great interest that I read this one.

 

Of course, you are quoting another scholar here. Perhaps, he thought that

Advaita per se is subtler than the Advaita we find in Shakta literature. He is

therefore contrasting the two. The subtlety of the former is brought out

through the illusive mirage. In contrast, the latter is likened to the grosser

clay-clay pot analogy.

 

In essence, his argument seems to be that the advaita of the Shaktas is more in

the gross than that of pure Advaitins which is esoteric. While the Shaktas

remain firmly rooted on the earth (clay!) with their ritual-oriented quest,

Advaitins have the freedom to scale the esoteric, rarified heights of Vedanta in

total renunciation. In a manner of speaking, therefore, I think he is right

although I can't think of granting any gradations in Advaita, which is after all

ONE. That is because I am an Advaitin. I don't think the scholar you have

quoted either thought otherwise.

 

If we take the LalitA SahasranAma into consideration, there are umpteen number

of names for the Devi which are purely Advaitic on which we can write pages and

pages of Advaitc interpretations. bhaVanI, bhAvanAgamyA, nirAdhAra, niranjanA,

nirlepA, nityA, nirAkArA, nirguNA, niShkAmA, nityamuktA, nirvikArA etc. are some

examples to begin with, with which we can relate all our upanishadic and

post-upanishadic literature. There is therefore no wonder why Shankara and

other Advaitins could sail in two seemingly different boats. If we can identify

the Devi with the Consciousness of Advaita, the problem is over.

 

In fact, I would request you to kindly initiate a series here on Advaita in LS,

of that is permissible as per List policy. With your scholarly background on

Shakta literature, I am sure, you can do a wonderful job.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

advaitin , " krishnarao " <lanka.krishnarao1 wrote:

>

> - Krishnarao (lanka.krishnarao1)

> Subject :- what is common in adwaita and SAktaadwaita?

>

> priya mahASayAh,

>

> One scholarly pITAdhipati has defined adwaita as " maru marIcikA nyAyam "

and SAktAdwaita as " mR^idGaTa nyAyam " . I don't know how far this illustration

is appropriate.

> But he did not answer my above query

>

> I still have the doubt how SrI SankarAcArya and his followers have

chosen to follow both the sampradAyAs simultaneously, because adwaita says there

will be no water at all in the mirage whereas in SAktaadwaita there is the mud

and also the pot.

>

> I request all our members to clarify my doubt giving proper examples to

understand easily.

>

> Thanking you all in advance,

> Yours always in the service of the mother

> krishnarao (SrIparasuKAnandanAtha)

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Sunder Hattangadi " <sunderh >

> The complete series is also at Prof.VK-ji's website at:

>

> http://www.geocities.com/profvk/gohitvip/DPDS.html

 

 

Namaste Shri Sunder-ji,

 

Sincere thanks for posting this beautiful translation

from the great treasure trove.

 

My Pranams to Shri Prof. VK-ji and Kanchi Paramacharya

and all advaitins.

Ramakrishna

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " krishnarao " <lanka.krishnarao1 wrote:

>

> - Krishnarao (lanka.krishnarao1)

> Subject :- what is common in adwaita and SAktaadwaita?

>

> priya mahASayAh,

>

> One scholarly pITAdhipati has defined adwaita as " maru marIcikA nyAyam "

and SAktAdwaita as " mR^idGaTa nyAyam " .

> krishnarao (SrIparasuKAnandanAtha)

>

 

Hari Om Shri Krishnaraoji, Pranaams!

 

In the VS Apte Dictionary, under Appendix E, you will find the collection of

popular Sanskrit Maxims(nyAyAs). There you will find the following nyAyAs

listed:

 

mrgatrShNA(trShNikA) nyAya: The simile of mirage. It illustrates that the

existence of the universe is ill-founded like a mirage.

 

loShTaprastAra nyAya: The maxim of the expanse (or modification) of clods of

earth. It is used to illustrate the endless diversity or manifoldness of one

original form (i.e. prakrti-vikrti-bhAva), e.g. from mrttikA, a potter prepares

a pitcher, a tray and other varities of earthen vessels.

 

I feel the speaker referred by you might used the above maxims only.

 

Both are purely advaitic explanations only used by upaniShads and AcAryaji.

 

In Shri Guru Smriti,

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

[Guest guest]

From :- krishnarao (lanka.krishnarao1)

Subject :- : What is common in adwaita and SAktaadwaita?

" SrIgurussarvakAraNaBhUtA Saktih |

SrImahAgaNAdhipatayEnamah || "

 

priya mahASayAh,

 

I submitted a message asking all the members to clarify my doubt about

" What is common in adwaita and SAktaadwaita? " . Some of my friends have readily

responded with their profound knowledge upon the subject of non-duality, quoting

excerpts from authorities like SrIramana maharShi, yOgavAsiShTa and also some

adwaitic esoteric meanings for some names from `lalitA sahasranAmam. But my

question " Why jagadguru Sri Adi SankarAcArya and his followers are sailing in

these seemingly different boats which appear quite antagonistic with each other.

They did not in the same spirit adopted the viSiShtaadwaita or dwaita

philosophies also along with their `adwaita "

 

At that time it was really a doubt in my mind. But when I prayed it to my

gurudEv, he has transmitted some flashes of thought waves into my mind and I

myself could solve the problem and wish to share it with you all.

 

In fact, the `Suddha adwaita and the SAkta adwaita are not two different

philosophies at all.. They are the two sides of a coin. Just as Sakti is not a

different entity from Siva, this SAkta adwaita also is not different from Suddha

adwaita. If Siva is invisible of prakR^iti, the Sakti becomes the exhibitor of

that Siva in the form of prakR^iti . She is the " Sivaj~nAnapradAyini " .

 

Suddha adwaita is just a theory, which is not at all practicable for any

expert adwaitin. That is why almost all the R^iShis, sages and gn~anis have

adopted SAkta adwaita for their practice, though they speek Suddha adwaita,

because it is gupta vidya. SAkta adwaita is a gradual process to reform every

one to become a perfect " adwaitin " . This is " krama vidya " .

 

Really, both the theories appear contradictory with each other. Siva and Sakti

also appear to be incompatible. The ornaments and floral decorations differ

with each other. The flowers offered for Siva are not acceptable for Sakti.

Flowers liked by Sakti are prohibited for Siva. naivEdyAs also differ. If Siva

was angry with manmadha, Sakti becomes benevolent upon him. In spite of so many

differences they both are one.

 

AdiSankara knows perfectly well that every thing other than him is " middhya " ,

and he knows well that every thing is his own extension. He knows it well that

the concept of external godhood is absolutely fictitious and a creation by the

R^iShis and seers only. He perfectly knows that he himself is the real

`brahman'. He knows it well that there will be nobody else to give him the

`mOkSha', because there is no `bandha' at all. Even then he bowed before every

idol of innumerable gods and deities, and composed several stavas and stOtrAs

etc., for all of them..

 

As far as my knowledge goes, in SAkta adwaita, there are two " BhUmiklAs " . One

is " aham brahmAsmi " and the other is " SaraNAgati " , Both are essencial. We all

know that the government is " of the people, by the people and for the people " .

All the government officers are the servants of the people living upon the

salary paid from the tax amounts of the people, But when you approach a

tahasildar (or any other officer) with a petition, you will have to salute him

first and obediently explain him the injustice occurred to you and request him

to do the justice. But in spite of all your obedience, if the officer does not

hear you (for so many of his reasons like bribe etc.,), certainly you will have

to revolt upon him and say that you will exposé him before the higher officials

or the court of law and see him punished.

 

SrIrAma has politely prostrated before `sAgara', fasting for three days,

explaining about the abduction of his wife by rAvaNa, and requesting his help by

giving way to get back his wife. But when the `sAgara' did not give any

response, he has raised bow and arrow along with the conscious of " aham

brahmAsmi " , saying that he will desiccate the whole waters of the ocean and

proceed for lanka. Then only sAgara came up with folded hands and showed him

the way.. rAvaNa also knew this kind of " aham brahmAsmi " theory. With this

theory he commanded all the dEvatAs to remain servants for him and ultimately

met with consequences.

In adwaita, there is no scope for Bhakti, where as in Sakta adwaita, both

Bhakti and j~nAna are simultaneously prevailing.

 

" twayA hR^itwa vAmam vapor aparitR^iptEna manasA,

SarIrArdham SamBhOr aparamapi SankE hR^itam aBhUt |

Any wise guru will always warningly instruct his disciple to come down to the

heart region from sahasrAra, when ever any problem arises in his japam. So it is

evident that both the theories are essential for the successful sAdhana.

 

That is why the AcArya and his followers have adopted SAkta adwaita also along

with his adwaita philosophy saying " Sivah SaktyAyuktO yadi Bhavati Saktah

praBhavitum, na cEd Evam dEvo na Kalu kuSalah spanditumapi " . It is not SrI

Sankara and his followers are the first initiators of this combined path for

realization, but it has been observed from ancient times long since the

beginning of creation itself. The devotion should always be in three ways as

adwaita, dwaita and dwaitaadwaita. " antar bahisca tat sarvam vyApya nArAyaNah

sthitah " .

 

Thanking you all who have sent their views for my request for clarification,

which all become guidelines for my sAdhana.

 

Yours always in the service of the mother,

Krishnarao (SrIparasuKAnandanAtha)

 

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

advaitin , " krishnarao " <lanka.krishnarao1 wrote:

>

> - Krishnarao (lanka.krishnarao1)

> Subject :- what is common in adwaita and SAktaadwaita?

>

> priya mahASayAh,

>

> One scholarly pITAdhipati has defined adwaita as " maru marIcikA nyAyam "

and SAktAdwaita as " mR^idGaTa nyAyam " . I don't know how far this illustration

is appropriate.

> But he did not answer my above query

>

> I still have the doubt how SrI SankarAcArya and his followers have

chosen to follow both the sampradAyAs simultaneously, because adwaita says there

will be no water at all in the mirage whereas in SAktaadwaita there is the mud

and also the pot.

>

> I request all our members to clarify my doubt giving proper examples to

understand easily.

>

> Thanking you all in advance,

> Yours always in the service of the mother

> krishnarao (SrIparasuKAnandanAtha)

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " krishnarao " <lanka.krishnarao1 wrote:

> Suddha adwaita is just a theory, which is not at all practicable for any

expert adwaitin. That is why almost all the R^iShis, sages and gn~anis have

adopted SAkta adwaita for their practice, though they speek Suddha adwaita,

because it is gupta vidya. SAkta adwaita is a gradual process to reform every

one to become a perfect " adwaitin " . This is " krama vidya " .

> AdiSankara knows perfectly well that every thing other than him is

" middhya " , and he knows well that every thing is his own extension. He knows it

well that the concept of external godhood is absolutely fictitious and a

creation by the R^iShis and seers only. He perfectly knows that he himself is

the real `brahman'. He knows it well that there will be nobody else to give him

the `mOkSha', because there is no `bandha' at all. Even then he bowed before

every idol of innumerable gods and deities, and composed several stavas and

stOtrAs etc., for all of them..

> In adwaita, there is no scope for Bhakti, where as in Sakta adwaita, both

Bhakti and j~nAna are simultaneously prevailing.

> That is why the AcArya and his followers have adopted SAkta adwaita also

along with his adwaita philosophy saying " Sivah SaktyAyuktO yadi Bhavati Saktah

praBhavitum, na cEd Evam dEvo na Kalu kuSalah spanditumapi " . It is not SrI

Sankara and his followers are the first initiators of this combined path for

realization, but it has been observed from ancient times long since the

beginning of creation itself. The devotion should always be in three ways as

adwaita, dwaita and dwaitaadwaita. " antar bahisca tat sarvam vyApya nArAyaNah

sthitah " .

> Yours always in the service of the mother,

> Krishnarao (SrIparasuKAnandanAtha)

 

Dear Krishnarao-ji,

I do not know whether I have understood you correctly, but I got the impression

that your view is that for advaitic seekers worship of shakti is essential. I am

a Devi upAsaka and I have been performing nava AvaraNa pUja. I know other

advaitins also who are doing this. But it is not essential. pancAyatana pUja is

also an accepted form of worship. There are advaitins who worship Sri Rama or

Sri Krishna or other Gods.

 

It would not be correct to say that there is no scope for bhakti in advaita.

Advaitic experience is only the ultimate goal. Shri Shankara has pointed out the

need for bhakti in his bhAShya. As you know, bhakti marga is one of the paths

laid down in the Gita.

 

Of course all such worship has an element of tantra. Every pUja is a

combination of tantric and vedic ingredients. Tantra is sAdhana shAstra and it

is one of the means by which worship can be made.

 

The shrI chakra is the body of shiva and devi together (shivayor vapuH). So in

shrI chakra we worship both shiva and shakti together.

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

Dear Krishnarao-ji,

This is in continuation of my message # 44191.

 

The following extract from the Tantra-Tattva of Sri Siva Chandra Vidyaranya

Bhattacharya, translated into English by Sir John Woodroffe says that every one

who worships Gayatri Devi is a shAkta. So what you have said about every one

having to resort to shakti worship is quite correct. I had overlooked this point

earlier. The extract is---

 

" The twice-born are all shAktas, for they all worship Gayatri Devi, the Mother

of the Vedas. This means that whatever one may become afterwards, whether

shaiva, vaiShNava, saura, or gAnapatya, one is at base a shAkta " .

Regards,

S.N.Sastri