Guest guest Posted April 21, 2009 Report Share Posted April 21, 2009 Namaste In the Hindu tradition, there are of course two kinds of sacred text, called 'shruti' or 'heard' and 'smriti' or 'remembered'. As previously explained, the shruti texts are directly heard, from an immediate and impersonal authority. That direct hearing gives their sound a mantra power which needs no interpretation by our intellects. The smriti texts are less direct. By calling them 'smriti' or 'remembered', it is acknowledged that they are verbal forms, which have been received through personal acts of cultivated memory. Accordingly, they need interpreting, by the analytic questioning of our discerning intellects. The shrutis are taken to include four classes of Vedic texts, from the Samhitas to the Upanishads. The Samhitas are earlier texts, used largely for their mantra and ritual powers. The Upanishads are later texts, which go on to ask some deeply reflective questions. The smriti texts develop schools of thought and cultivated discipline. The schools build reasoned theories that explain the world. And these theories are used systematically, to guide a variety of practical and intellectual and emotional disciplines. For Advaita Vedanta in particular, there is a 'tripod' of three main texts: the Upanishads, the Brahma-sutras and the Bhagavad-gita. Thus, in our e-group which follows the Shankara tradition, we give a special emphasis to Shri Shankara's commentaries on this tripod of texts. This is our particular convention, on which we tend to agree, though of course we stay open to other traditions that may well have different conventions. In the spirit of such openness, I must tell you that I do see something of a problem here, with this emphasis on Shri Shankara's commentaries and on the maya theory that they develop. The problem is that these commentaries were meant for a scholastic age that was quite different from what the modern world is today. Advaita was then under attack from hostile schools of thought (from within and from outside the Hindu tradition). In the context of that time, Shri Shankara's commentaries were needed to defend against this hostility, in the course of scholastic debate. Accordingly, I'd say that Shri Shankara had two rather different roles. One role was specifically historic: as a scholastic debater, using the conventions of his time and place to institute the school of Advaita Vedanta that is associated with his name. The other role is not specifically historic. It is instead concerned with a love of knowing that is shared by philosophers in general, regardless of their differing times and places. In that role, Shri Shankara is a 'jnyani' or a 'sage', who shows how to ask clarifying questions that are aimed at plain truth. As I see it, Shri Shankara's commentaries and his maya theory are associated mainly with his historic role as a scholastic debater and an institution builder. This maya theory is indirect. Instead of directly questioning the world's illusion, the maya theory gets involved in an explanation of how the world appears. It's here explained how all the many appearances of world are founded upon 'ajnyana' or 'ignorance'. By thus explaining how appearances are based on ignorance, the maya theory undermines itself. It acknowledges that what it explains is not founded in true knowing. So, what's explained is illusory; and it really doesn't need to be explained, in the first place. Such an explanation, with its circular and self-frustrating logic, can't be true philosophy. This explanation is not rightly suited to direct enquiry. It is suited only for debate with those who are not ready to enquire directly. It's in this sense that the maya theory is the work of Shri Shankara in his scholastic role, as he engaged in commentaries and debates that were meant largely for the scholars and the students of his time. These commentaries and these debates are very much a part of Advaita history. But they belong to such a different time that their interpretation can be rather tricky today. What then of Shri Shankara in his more universal role, as a philosopher from whom we can still learn today? From what I understand, that role is more prominent in his prakarana works, like Atma-bodha and Viveka-cudamani. But in our e-group, I sadly note that there is relatively little discussion of such directly philosophical works in the Shankara tradition. Accordingly, we tend to emphasize Shri Shankara the scholastic debater, rather more than Shri Shankara the direct philosopher. And there is a corresponding emphasis upon a scholastic style of discussion, which works through quotation from the classic texts that are conventionally accepted in the Shri Shankara tradition of Advaita Vedanta. Of course it's up to us -- collectively and individually -- how far to quote scholastically, from classic texts that are thus accepted by historical convention. But we are quoting today in a globalizing world: where new media of communication have brought many differing traditions together, in modern intellectual discourse. And these differing traditions are culture-specific, in the conventional choice and interpretation of their classic texts. Thus problems arise, as these differing traditions come together, each with their particular conventions of quoting and interpreting their sacred and their classic texts. In order to resolve the differences, a certain delicacy is required. I find that delicacy well described in Bhartrihari's Vakyapadiya, from which some stanzas are appended at the end of this posting. In stanzas 1.1 and 1.4, Bhartrihari describes the impersonality of 'shabda-tattvam' or the 'essence of the word'. In stanzas 1.5, 1.8 and 1.9, he speaks of different ways in which an impersonal truth may be approached in varying traditions, with their differing ideas and explanations. In stanzas 1.11 and 1.17, he describes the analysis of speech as the best discipline for returning back to the subjective source from which all sacred speaking comes. In stanza 1.86, he describes the display of speech as an affected overlay, by different and changing expressions. And, in stanzas 1.137 and 1.40, he describes the logic of the texts as an essentially informal power which may be interpreted quite differently: by formal logic choosing some sacred text to be made authentic, and thus establishing a settled standpoint. Moreover, on the question of quoting and interpreting, I have some suggestions to make, which I will present in a third and last posting on this subject of sacred texts. Ananda _________ Some stanzas from Bhartrihari's Vakyapadiya =========================================== 1.1 --- an-Adi-nidhanaM brahma shabda-tattvaM yad akSharam . vivartate 'rtha-bhAvena prakriyA jagato yataH .. The changeless essence of the word is all there is. It has no start; nor does it stop or come to end. It manifests transformed: through aims and objects, as they come to be. From it proceeds the changing world. 1.4 --- ekasya sarva-bIjasya yasya ce 'yam anekadhA . bhoktRi-bhoktavya-rUpeNa bhoga-rUpeNa ca sthitiH .. It is what stays, remaining present through all forms of life's enjoyment -- through all difference of enjoyers and what's sought to be enjoyed. 1.5 --- prApty-upAyo 'nukArash ca tasya vedo maharShibhiH . eko 'py aneka-vartme 'va samAmnAtaH pRithak pRithak .. Reflecting it, the vedic texts are means by which it may be found. Though it is one, it is approached in many ways -- by those great seers from whom traditions are passed down, each one of them in its own way. 1.8 --- tasyA 'rtha-vAda-rUpANi nishritAH sva-vikalpa-jAH . ekatvinAM dvaitinAM ca pravAdA bahudhA matAH .. But that same truth has many forms of argument that lead to it, each argument depending on the way in which it is conceived. Thus, there are differing ideas -- of monists and of dualists, each putting their opinions forth. 1.9 --- satyA vishuddhis tatro 'ktA vidyai 'vai 'ka-padA-'gamA . yuktA praNava-rUpeNa sarva-vAdA 'virodhinA .. Where unmixed truth is spoken of, it is there knowledge in itself. The one-word mantra 'om' joins there, back into its own origin -- not contradicting any way in which its truth may be explained. 1.11 ---- AsannaM brahmaNas tasya tapasAm uttamaM tapaH . prathamaM chandasAm aNgam Ahur vyAkaraNaM budhAH .. For those who are intelligent, the foremost of the sciences and also the best discipline -- established in reality -- is the analysis of speech. 1.17 ---- atrA 'tIta viparyAsaH kevalAm anupashyati . chandasyash chandasAM yonim AtmA chando-mayIM tanum .. Here, that which is beyond all error sees the unmixed absolute. The self that's fit to speak the chants here sees the source from which they come. It sees that source for what it is -- as the true nature of the chants, in all their finer subtlety. 1.86 ---- bhedA-'nukAro jnyAnasya vAcash co 'paplavo dhruvaH . kramo-'pasRiSTa-rUpA vAg jnyAnaM jnyeya-vyapAshrayam .. The show of seeming differences, displayed in knowledge and in speech, is always just an overlay of affectation floating by. Thus, speech is overlaid by forms that are produced successively, affected by successive change. And knowledge then seems to depend on objects that are to be known. 1.137 ----- shabdAnAm eva sA shaktis tarko yaH puruShA-'shrayaH . shabdA-'nugato nyAyo 'nAgameShv a-nibandhanaH .. All arguments and inference depend upon intelligence. They're nothing but the power of words. Where formal logic blindly follows words expressed in outward speech, it's just a verbal mimicking that ties no concrete meaning down. It cannot record anything. Such logic is not found in texts of genuine authority. 1.140 ----- sarvo 'dRiShTa-phalAn arthAn AgamAt pratipadyate . viparItaM ca sarvatra shakyate vaktum Agame .. It's commonly acknowledged that unseen effects may be achieved by chanting from the sacred texts. But it is always possible to say conflicting things about what's in the texts and what they mean. From 1.140 vRitti (last sentence) tasmAd AgamaM kincit pramANI-kRitya vyavasthite tasmin yA kAcid upapattir ucyamAnA pratipattAv upodbalakatvaM labhate . Therefore, some sacred text is made authentic, and a settled standpoint is established. There, according to whatever reason may determine to be fit and proper, confirmation is obtained. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 Shree Ananda Wood - PraNams I must say I agree some parts of your post while disagreeing with others. Let me first state what I agree with. I do agree the essence of advaitic teaching can be grasped through prakaraNa granthaas - both by Shankara and other teachers like Vidyaaranya. Later teachers are also important because post Shankara period saw more criticism of advaita by other Vedic philosophers, particularly coming from vishiShTaadvaita. Noteworthy of them is Vedanta Deshika of VishiShTaadvaita with his ShatadhuuShanii and Narayana Thiirtha of Dvaita (This is not intended for an opportunity for Shree Srinivas to jump in since Dvaita is mentioned!) . Shankara takes major purrvapaksha from jnaana karma samucchaya vaadins. It is sufficient to understand Gita and some of the main prakaraNa granthaas along with Upanishad teaching without going into exhaustive objections and counter objections of Brahma suutras - other than the adhyaasa bhaashya. This is true provided one finds a teacher who can explain their essence properly and who has himself has unshakable knowledge about advaita. For a teacher to teach, it is important if he has studied these bhaashyaas so that he is in a position to reflect back and answer any doubts that arise in the students. I agree with the spirit of your comments. We have discussed Gita and many other prakaraNa granthaas on this list. The exhaustive commentary on DakshinNamuurthy sloka is stored in the folder. Prof. VK has discussed many other texts too. We have only one member who insists on Shankara bhaashya quotes for validation. We have no problem in that either as long as description in the prakaraNa granthaas are not dismissed as irrelevant. The focus is not on the texts per sec but on the essence of the teaching and self-consistency in the approach. That is the correct 'reflection-back', as I understand. The other day some one asked me after my class where we devote sometime to question-answers, 'Sadaji, do you, yourself have any doubts related to advaita Vedanta? I must say, I did have many doubts once but all got resolved by reflecting back on the knowledge gained by the study as well as listening to the teachings'. Hence reflecting back or mananam is very important to insure one has through understanding of the essence of the teaching without Iota of doubt but that comes from the discussions only. This list serve provides that service for those who can make use of it. (By the by someone has collected all the discussion I had in this and other list serves and I have edited it and is yet to be published in a book form if I can find a publisher). Now having said all that - I do not agree with your comments related to Shankara's discussions of maayaa as response to address scholarly debates. Here are my arguments: 1. Even in prakaraNa granthaas of Shankara where his pen is free and where he can concentrate on the essence of teachings - maayaa has been discussed exhaustively. In Atma bodha - Starting from sloka 7 on delusory notions that cause apparent plurality as reality is discussed with various examples - all the way in the entire text - as one appearing as many, although maaya word is not used. , 2. In the Viveka chuuDaamaNi - there are slokas describing maayaa. 3. In the DakshinNamuurthy slokas too there is reference to maayaa. Hence even in the prakaraNa granthaas there is discussion directly or indirectly of maayaa the cause for apparent plurality. 4. Maayaa is a force that cannot be seen but evident in the appearance of one into many - as in the projection of dream world - so also in the projection of the total world - thus integrating the micro and macro universes. Just as force is deduced by the change so is maayaa is deduced from appearance of one into many. That is how any forces is defined - and so is maayaa. Vidyaaranya in his Anubhuuti prakashika brings this out clearly in accounting Ch. Up 6th – Sat vidya. Obviously when one sees the universe only as apparent, the force that cause the apparent as apparent is also apparent. This follows not circular arguments but intrinsic to the system - it is real if the apparent is taken as real as in the dream creation. Hence there is nothing circular about maayaa. 5. The realization of the world as mithyaa comes from the realization of the apparent nature of the world and hence its origin to the apparent forces maayaa, which is real for those who consider that the world is real - hence in Gita - Krishna says it is difficult to cross this maayaa of mine unless one surrenders his ego. Hence my only objection to your post is maayaa is the wrong example for discussion why we need to reflect back more on prakaraNa granthaas than on Shankara bhaashyaas. I have no problem in the spirit of your presentation. Hari Om! Sadananda --- On Mon, 4/20/09, Ananda Wood <awood wrote: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 Namaste Shri Sadananda, Thank you for yet another helpful and informative reply. You are of course quite right to point out that the concept of maya occurs in both the commentaries and the prakarana works of Shri Shankara's tradition. And you thus say: << Hence my only objection to your post is maayaa is the wrong example for discussion why we need to reflect back more on prakaraNa granthaas than on Shankara bhaashyaas. >> Yes, 'maya' is a tricky concept whose use needs often to be better clarified. Let me try this a little here. As you say maya " is a force that cannot be seen but evident in the appearance of one into many " . It is thus one appearing trickily as many, in our pictures of the world. A naturally transcending one is here seen mistakenly, as an artificially deceiving many. Einstein put it rather beautifully, when he said: << Nature hides her secret because of her essential loftiness, but not by means of a deceiving trick. >> Thus, nature appears to be deceiving us; but the deception is not found in the one, which alone is truly natural. The deception is displayed in our imperfect pictures of a world. This world appears constructed artificially -- by the many seeming perceptions, thoughts and feelings of our many seeming personalities. The only way past the deception is to get back to the one. It is not nature that has tricked us, but our artificial picturing. And this artificial picturing includes all intellectual theories that have been constructed through scholarly debates. It is in such debates, associated with his commentaries, that Shankara used the concept of maya to explain the many seeming appearances of world. Through these debates and commentaries, he instituted an intellectual system that was suited to his times. The prakarana works have a different function. They are not meant for instituting intellectual systems that explain the world. They are instead meant for a more direct enquiry: from whatever messy pictures have been currently accepted, to that clear one beyond all messy manyness. Because of this different function, the prakarana works are quite different in their concept of maya. Here, maya is not treated as a necessary foundation, from which a many seeming world has come into appearance. Instead, the very existence of maya is thrown into question. The questioning shows that maya is a non-existent confusion, which makes no difference to the one. It is thus established that no many seeming world has truly come into appearance, quite contrary to what our minds and senses seem to say. In this way, there are two concepts of maya: one used for debating purposes to explain the pictured world, and the other used to reflect from pictured world to unpictured light of truth. With their emphasis upon debate, Shri Shankara's commentaries tend to emphasize the world-explaining concept of maya. And the prakarana works have an opposing tendency, to emphasize a questioning reflection back from world to truth. This is of course a very rough and ready distinction, which must not be too literally attached to particular texts. The same text can all too often be explained in either a world-explaining way, or in a reflective way that leaves the world behind. It depends of course on how the text is read. Your objection is quite valid for the problem it points out. I don't know if my attempt to clarify will make things better or worse, but thank you for raising the problematic question. Ananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 Ananda-ji, Are you not engaging in a " scholarly debate " with Sri Sadananda right now? Even the reflective questioning that you mention is essentially a scholarly debate, except that the debate takes place within the confines of an individual's mind, rather than between two individuals. But then, even the distinction between two individuals is mithyA ! In the process of reflective inquiry, he mind comes up with doubts/questions and then proceeds to resolve them. In some sense, the mind itself is raising the pUrvapakSha and then providing the siddhAnta. Your distinction between " scholarly debate " and " reflective inquiry " seems rather artificial to me. The only difference, so far as I can see, is that the former can sometimes lead to bickering and hard feelings, if not controlled properly. Ramesh 2009/4/25 Ananda Wood <awood: > > > Namaste Shri Sadananda, > > Thank you for yet another helpful and informative reply. You are of course > quite right to point out that the concept of maya occurs in both the > commentaries and the prakarana works of Shri Shankara's tradition. And you > thus say: > > << Hence my only objection to your post is maayaa is the wrong example for > discussion why we need to reflect back more on prakaraNa granthaas than on > Shankara bhaashyaas. >> > > Yes, 'maya' is a tricky concept whose use needs often to be better > clarified. Let me try this a little here. As you say maya " is a force that > cannot be seen but evident in the appearance of one into many " . It is thus > one appearing trickily as many, in our pictures of the world. > > A naturally transcending one is here seen mistakenly, as an artificially > deceiving many. Einstein put it rather beautifully, when he said: > > << Nature hides her secret because of her essential loftiness, but not by > means of a deceiving trick. >> > > Thus, nature appears to be deceiving us; but the deception is not found in > the one, which alone is truly natural. The deception is displayed in our > imperfect pictures of a world. This world appears constructed artificially > -- by the many seeming perceptions, thoughts and feelings of our many > seeming personalities. > > The only way past the deception is to get back to the one. It is not nature > that has tricked us, but our artificial picturing. And this artificial > picturing includes all intellectual theories that have been constructed > through scholarly debates. > > It is in such debates, associated with his commentaries, that Shankara used > the concept of maya to explain the many seeming appearances of world. > Through these debates and commentaries, he instituted an intellectual system > that was suited to his times. > > The prakarana works have a different function. They are not meant for > instituting intellectual systems that explain the world. They are instead > meant for a more direct enquiry: from whatever messy pictures have been > currently accepted, to that clear one beyond all messy manyness. > > Because of this different function, the prakarana works are quite different > in their concept of maya. Here, maya is not treated as a necessary > foundation, from which a many seeming world has come into appearance. > Instead, the very existence of maya is thrown into question. > > The questioning shows that maya is a non-existent confusion, which makes no > difference to the one. It is thus established that no many seeming world has > truly come into appearance, quite contrary to what our minds and senses seem > to say. > > In this way, there are two concepts of maya: one used for debating purposes > to explain the pictured world, and the other used to reflect from pictured > world to unpictured light of truth. > > With their emphasis upon debate, Shri Shankara's commentaries tend to > emphasize the world-explaining concept of maya. And the prakarana works have > an opposing tendency, to emphasize a questioning reflection back from world > to truth. > > This is of course a very rough and ready distinction, which must not be too > literally attached to particular texts. The same text can all too often be > explained in either a world-explaining way, or in a reflective way that > leaves the world behind. It depends of course on how the text is read. > > Your objection is quite valid for the problem it points out. I don't know if > my attempt to clarify will make things better or worse, but thank you for > raising the problematic question. > > Ananda > > -- santoá¹£aḥ paramo lÄbhaḥ satsaá¹…gaḥ paramÄ gatiḥ I vicÄraḥ paramaá¹ jñÄnaá¹ Å›amo hi paramaá¹ sukham II - Yoga VÄsiá¹£á¹ha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 Dear ramesh,  Good observation. My guru was a great scholar in advaita who studied prasthana traya in Kamakoti Pitha under *direct* guidance from Kanchi Mahaperiyaval.  When my gurunatha went to Arunachala, he met Shri Sivaprakasam Pillai, a direct disciple of Bhagavan. later on gurunatha met Yogi Ramasurat Kumar. My gurunatha had wonderful discussions on vedanta with Sivaprakasham Pillai. Later Sivaprakasham Pillai adviced my gurunatha and as a word of caution said that *STAY AWAY FROM SASTRA VASANA* which is *very dangerous* in the path of self-realisation.  This *ego* that *i have learnt so much*, *i have learnt brahmasutra/sankara bhashyas/adhyasa bhashya/advaita siddhi/siddhanta lesha sangraha/siddhanta bindu etc...* is a sastra vasana. One should stay away from these discussions that puffs up one's ego.  I think we are moving away from the path shown by Bhagavan Ramana Maharishi..  with regs, sriram --- On Sat, 25/4/09, Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy wrote: Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy Re: Re: Sacred texts - 2. Cultural conventions advaitin Saturday, 25 April, 2009, 11:39 AM Ananda-ji, Are you not engaging in a " scholarly debate " with Sri Sadananda right now? Even the reflective questioning that you mention is essentially a scholarly debate, except that the debate takes place within the confines of an individual's mind, rather than between two individuals. But then, even the distinction between two individuals is mithyA ! In the process of reflective inquiry, he mind comes up with doubts/questions and then proceeds to resolve them. In some sense, the mind itself is raising the pUrvapakSha and then providing the siddhAnta. Your distinction between " scholarly debate " and " reflective inquiry " seems rather artificial to me. The only difference, so far as I can see, is that the former can sometimes lead to bickering and hard feelings, if not controlled properly. Ramesh 2009/4/25 Ananda Wood <awood: > > > Namaste Shri Sadananda, > > Thank you for yet another helpful and informative reply. You are of course > quite right to point out that the concept of maya occurs in both the > commentaries and the prakarana works of Shri Shankara's tradition. And you > thus say: > > << Hence my only objection to your post is maayaa is the wrong example for > discussion why we need to reflect back more on prakaraNa granthaas than on > Shankara bhaashyaas. >> > > Yes, 'maya' is a tricky concept whose use needs often to be better > clarified. Let me try this a little here. As you say maya " is a force that > cannot be seen but evident in the appearance of one into many " . It is thus > one appearing trickily as many, in our pictures of the world. > > A naturally transcending one is here seen mistakenly, as an artificially > deceiving many. Einstein put it rather beautifully, when he said: > > << Nature hides her secret because of her essential loftiness, but not by > means of a deceiving trick. >> > > Thus, nature appears to be deceiving us; but the deception is not found in > the one, which alone is truly natural. The deception is displayed in our > imperfect pictures of a world. This world appears constructed artificially > -- by the many seeming perceptions, thoughts and feelings of our many > seeming personalities. > > The only way past the deception is to get back to the one. It is not nature > that has tricked us, but our artificial picturing. And this artificial > picturing includes all intellectual theories that have been constructed > through scholarly debates. > > It is in such debates, associated with his commentaries, that Shankara used > the concept of maya to explain the many seeming appearances of world. > Through these debates and commentaries, he instituted an intellectual system > that was suited to his times. > > The prakarana works have a different function. They are not meant for > instituting intellectual systems that explain the world. They are instead > meant for a more direct enquiry: from whatever messy pictures have been > currently accepted, to that clear one beyond all messy manyness. > > Because of this different function, the prakarana works are quite different > in their concept of maya. Here, maya is not treated as a necessary > foundation, from which a many seeming world has come into appearance. > Instead, the very existence of maya is thrown into question. > > The questioning shows that maya is a non-existent confusion, which makes no > difference to the one. It is thus established that no many seeming world has > truly come into appearance, quite contrary to what our minds and senses seem > to say. > > In this way, there are two concepts of maya: one used for debating purposes > to explain the pictured world, and the other used to reflect from pictured > world to unpictured light of truth. > > With their emphasis upon debate, Shri Shankara's commentaries tend to > emphasize the world-explaining concept of maya. And the prakarana works have > an opposing tendency, to emphasize a questioning reflection back from world > to truth. > > This is of course a very rough and ready distinction, which must not be too > literally attached to particular texts. The same text can all too often be > explained in either a world-explaining way, or in a reflective way that > leaves the world behind. It depends of course on how the text is read. > > Your objection is quite valid for the problem it points out. I don't know if > my attempt to clarify will make things better or worse, but thank you for > raising the problematic question. > > Ananda > > -- santoá¹£aḥ paramo lÄbhaḥ satsaá¹…gaḥ paramÄ gatiḥ I vicÄraḥ paramaá¹ jñÄnaá¹ Å›amo hi paramaá¹ sukham II - Yoga VÄsiá¹£á¹ha Explore your hobbies and interests. Go to http://in.promos./groups/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 Dear Ananda-ji, As Sada-ji has pointed out, words are used in Vedantic works in a technical sense. In Sanskrit most words have a number of meanings, sometimes very different from one another. The same word may be derived from two or more different verbal roots and may, consequently, have totally different meanings. One striking example is the word `kshaya' which appears in our daily prayers (in the sentence- yasya kShayAya jinvatha). The correct meaning of the word kShaya here is `abode' and the sentence means `Lead me to His (the supreme Being's) abode'. But the same word, derived from another verbal root, means `decay'. This meaning is clearly not applicable here. So we cannot go by etymology, but have to see in what sense it is used in the particular context. Another example is the word prAjnaH. The dictionary meaning is `a learned person'. But in Mandukya up. it is used to denote the jIva in the state of sleep. Elsewhere in the bhAShya the word prAjnaH is used in the sense of `paramAtmA'. Interestingly, neither of these two latter meanings is mentioned in Apte's Dictionary which is a standard dictionary. The reason is that these two are technical meanings and not derived by etymology. Similarly words such as vRitti, upAdhi, nivRitti and bAdha have many different meanings. But they are used in a particular sense in all Vedantic works and that sense alone has to be taken when we are dealing with a Vedantic text. Other meanings are not applicable. Thus etymology cannot be a guide for understanding the meaning of words in vedantic works. They have to be understood in the sense in which they have been used by the authors. This is the case with any science. The same word may mean different things in different branches of science. The term `mouse' has acquired a meaning which a person unfamiliar with computers would not know at all. With regard to the refutation of other views in Shri Shankara's bhAShya, there is a convention that has to be followed by all vedantins. It is that one's own view cannot be considered to be established fully unless all opposing views have been effectively refuted. It is because of this that Shankara and other vedantins take pains to refute opposing views, and not merely for the sake of opposing them. It is not only Shankara who has adopted this practice. In Panchadasi, which is a prakarana grantha, opposing views are stated and refuted. Without the concept of mAyA it cannot be explained how the one Reality appears as this multifarious world. mAyA is dealt with in the prakarana granthas also, as has been pointed out by Sada-ji. I do not say that Shankara's bhAShya alone should be relied on. On the contrary, I consider the works of all the post-Shankara advaitins to be as valid as those of Shankara's. This is not just my personal opinion. This is the view of all those who have studied Vedanta in the traditional way. There are differences of opinion on many points among these advaitins, but all the views are considered to be different prakriyas or methods of approach and to be equally acceptable. Best regards, S.N.Sastri advaitin , " Ananda Wood " <awood wrote: > > It is in such debates, associated with his commentaries, that Shankara used the concept of maya to explain the many seeming appearances of world. Through these debates and commentaries, he instituted an intellectual system that was suited to his times. > > The prakarana works have a different function. They are not meant for instituting intellectual systems that explain the world. They are instead meant for a more direct enquiry: from whatever messy pictures have been currently accepted, to that clear one beyond all messy manyness. > > Because of this different function, the prakarana works are quite different in their concept of maya. Here, maya is not treated as a necessary foundation, from which a many seeming world has come into appearance. Instead, the very existence of maya is thrown into question. > > The questioning shows that maya is a non-existent confusion, which makes no difference to the one. It is thus established that no many seeming world has truly come into appearance, quite contrary to what our minds and senses seem to say. > > In this way, there are two concepts of maya: one used for debating purposes to explain the pictured world, and the other used to reflect from pictured world to unpictured light of truth. > > With their emphasis upon debate, Shri Shankara's commentaries tend to emphasize the world-explaining concept of maya. And the prakarana works have an opposing tendency, to emphasize a questioning reflection back from world to truth. > > This is of course a very rough and ready distinction, which must not be too literally attached to particular texts. The same text can all too often be explained in either a world-explaining way, or in a reflective way that leaves the world behind. It depends of course on how the text is read. > > Ananda > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 --- On Sat, 4/25/09, venkata sriram <sriram_sapthasathi wrote:  This *ego* that *i have learnt so much*, *i have learnt brahmasutra/ sankara bhashyas/adhyasa bhashya/advaita siddhi/siddhanta lesha sangraha/siddhanta bindu etc...* is a sastra vasana. One should stay away from these discussions that puffs up one's ego.  I think we are moving away from the path shown by Bhagavan Ramana Maharishi..  ----------------- Shree Venkata Sriram - PraNAms First Thanks for pointing out the role of Shaastra as vaasanaas. In the Ch. 14 Gita - Krishna tells us that in the evolution one goes from taamasic (ajnaana - dominated) to raajasic (action dominated) to saatvik (knowledge dominated). That is the path of evolution – ultimately one has to transcend saatvik gunNa too to recognize that one is purusha and all guNas belong to the prakRiti only. That is the true inquiry of who am I as I am not this which has guNas or vaasanaas. Vasanaas of the prakRiti are not the problem – but ownership of the prakRiti’s guNas is the problem – That is what is required in the reflection back. Hence reflection back is not different from who am I inquiry. There is ego that comes in ever path - there is a story of bhakta who thinks he is the greatest bhakta. One who is humble can also have an ego that rises that I am very humble. Ego in Vedanta manifests in varieties of forms including the advent of Shaastra knowledge. Any iota of identification with prakRiti is the ego – Even a statement I or we have to follow Bhagavan Ramana is another manifestation of ego only – There is no one to follow is the ultimate truth – is that an egotistical statement or statement of fact – it depends on what frame of mind one says that. That I am surrendering to Bhagavaan Ramana – is it not another egotistical statement too. Ego manifests in varieties of ways not only in shaastra vaasanaas. Yes only way to get rid of ego is to inquire its very nature - that is the purpose of these discussions too, and not to get lost in the Shaastra for knowledge of Shaastra sake. The reflecting back or tat vijnaasasva is the very method advocated by Shaastraas themselves. Here with all due respects, there is no Ramana's teaching or Shankara's teaching - it is the teaching of the sanaatana dharma - and depending on the preparation of the mind or qualification of the mind, the path is prescribed as is evident from different yogas - karma, upaasana and jnaana. It is not the teachers but it is the teaching that is central - hence it is not individuals that form pramaaNa but the Shaastra itself as the main pramaaNa. The Shaastra have to be properly interpreted by a teacher who does not claim as authority but direct the disciples to the Shaastra as authority. That is the sanaatana Dharma. The teacher forms the vehicle for God for communication - hence Guru Brahma, Guru Vishnu, Gurudevo maheswaraH, guru saakshaat para brahma, tasmi shree gurave namaH| Yes the self-inquiry is razor-edge path - says Katha. It is easy to slip because of ego - but there are no other paths also other than inquiry. all other paths are preparatgory for this ultimate path. Hence chitta suddhi is prerequisite and those who have subtle intellect only can succeed. The rest are in the evolutionary ladder and sages are not born - they become sages as they reach the top - as Krishna declares - nothing of these studies go waste - they will be born in the next life in a conducive environment and progress rapidly. Bhagavana Ramana is one example. There is a Tyagaraaja song - endaro mahaanubhaavulu, andariiki vandanaalu -Including Tyagaraaja, annamaacharyas etc there are many many great souls - my prostrations to all of them – says the song. Ultimately as Shree Anandaji emphasizing one has to lift oneself by oneself - uddaret atmaanaa aatmaanam ... For that all the prerequisites - saadhana catuShTayam - the four-fold requirements are needed for proper inquiry. Bhagavaan Ramana's teaching also emphasizes that only -The first few slokas of the Upadesa saara is meant for preparing the mind - kaaya vak manah .. all the way to the 16th sloka - where inquiry starts with a big bang .. dRisyavaaritam chittamaatmanaaH, chitta darShaNam tatva darShaNam .. Yes it is going away from oneself - that transcends the ego and that should be our concern, not going away from individuals - Bhagavaan Ramana or Bhagavaan Shankara or Bhagavaan Ramanuja. That is also the emphasis of Anandaji's reflecting back to the truth involves. To me his reflecting back is nothing other than aatma vichaara only; he is only providing his version of it or his outlook of it. All the discussion is not meant for egotistical satisfaction but inquiry within but also as guidance to others who are also participating in the discussion with emphasis on the issues rather than personalities that include Shankara and Ramana. The discussion is intended for following the razor-edge path carefully without falling into the traps. Falling is also not problem, as long as one can get up and start waking again with renewed vigour, like a ball that bounces after a fall. That is also part of learning to walk towards the goal. Hari Om! Sadananda Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Namaste Shri Ramesh, Shri Sriram, Shri Sastri and Shri Sadananda, Thank you for your messages #44726, #44727, #44728 and #44729 of Sat Apr 25. Shri Ramesh asks: << Are you not engaging in a " scholarly debate " with Sri Sadananda right now? >> Yes indeed. In a discussion group like this we can do no more than to discuss the ideas of philosophical and spiritual enquiry. And as we discuss these ideas, we are comparing notes: sometimes agreeing and sometimes disagreeing with each other, as fellow sadhakas. This is only a theoretical discussion, in which we try to give a somewhat reasonable account of various ideas that are intended to be used in the actual practice of philosophy. That practice is to question all our doubtful beliefs, so as to ask for a clearer and a truer understanding. Shri Ramesh goes on to say: << Your distinction between " scholarly debate " and " reflective inquiry " seems rather artificial to me. The only difference, so far as I can see, is that the former can sometimes lead to bickering and hard feelings, if not controlled properly. >> Here, I must say that I see otherwise. For me, debate and enquiry have two quite different functions. Debate is primarily concerned with theory, and enquiry is the actual practice of a jnyana sadhaka who asks philosophical questions. Debate is what scholars or pandits do, as they construct and establish the differing world views of different schools of thought. This is a theoretical activity, in which each school sets out its own system of thought, in competition with other schools. Here, each school attacks the views of other schools, in order to establish a systematic view of world that represents the school to those who see it from outside. But this construction of world views is not the essence of philosophy. It cannot be more than a theoretical preliminary to the actual practice of philosophy, which is a reflective enquiry into direct experience. As each school describes the world, it is only setting out a view that is conducive to its particular kind of enquiry. The actual practice of enquiry starts when one is skeptical of one's own views, thus opening one's own beliefs to question and correction. That's what an Advaita student is shown how to do. And it is meant to be most definitely practical. When one attacks the views and the beliefs of others, then this is just a theoretical debate with no essential effect upon one's own understanding. But when one's questioning turns round reflectively upon one's own mistaken assumptions, then one's own understanding is at stake. And if such questioning is genuine, then it amounts to an investigating experiment, in which one looks to see what clearer understanding it may lead towards. The results of such a questioning are then inherently practical. For the new understanding then becomes inherently expressed -- in further feelings, thoughts, actions and perceptions that arise from it. It's through such questioning that we get educated, as we learn in practice, from the process of continuing experience. For, as this process actually takes place, it sometimes contradicts what we believe and thus leads on to questioning and clearer knowledge. That questioning is necessarily turned back. It necessarily reflects from outwardly apparent objects, towards a knowing subject at the inmost depth of the questioner's experience. That questioning is nothing more or less than what Shri Ramana Maharshi called 'atma vicara' or 'self enquiry'. If rightly pursued, it must lead far beyond any scholarly debate about ideas and theories (which have a tendency to puff up a scholar's ego, as Shri Sriram so kindly reminds us). Scholarly debate is necessarily concerned with instituted schools and their written (or formally remembered) documents. This is quite different from the reflective enquiry of atma vicara. For that enquiry, all written documents and instituted teaching must in the end be left behind, for an inward questioning that's taught by a living teacher. This view is described in the following piece of verse: Where written documents are read, a reader must interpret words and symbols that describe a world made up of objects and events. A cultural community of readers thus gets trained to use constructed forms of information organized externally by instituted schools of thought. Where spoken words are heard alive, a listener may there reflect to knowing that is found expressed. An individual student thus is led to a discovery of knowledge that a teacher shows. Of course this is only one view among many, and it would not be right to expect agreement on such differing views. Shri Sastri expresses a view of " those who have studied Vedanta in the traditional way " , and Shri Sadananda gives primacy to " Shaastra itself as the main pramaaNa " . I personally have not studied Advaita Vedanta in the traditional way, and I give primacy to what I have learned directly from my teacher Shri Atmananda. But I would suggest that these are personal and cultural differences where we can agree to differ in a relative way, with a degree of mutual respect. To help relate our different views, we can of course try to describe them and their differences, as clearly and respectfully as we can. But in the end, it's only by reflecting back, beneath all differences, that we can find a common ground where all debate is at an end and truth is finally agreed. That's how I would attempt to reconcile the " different prakriyas or methods of approach " that Shri Sastri speaks of, at the end of his posting. Ananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 hare krishna namaskarams. it is my true conviction that a person who has studied the gita through a teacher like swami paramarthananda or swami dayanada sararswathy's home study course would be able to grasp the rest of the upanishads and brahma sutra bashyas easily.this is my experience as long as one just needs to know that atma in jeeva and paramathma are one that is ever existant and all pervasive. certainly this doesnt qualify enough for to be a teacher or for vidwat sadas but enough for that freedom from samsara/cycle of birth and death. baskaran Cricket on your mind? Visit the ultimate cricket website. Enter http://beta.cricket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.