ajativada

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis

You appear to be fully behind the ajativada doctrine and you probably have

examined it more closely than I have so this question will be elementary.

 

Outside of his remarks on the Karikas of Gaudapada where does Shankara in

his personal or commentarial work espouse this doctrine in a complete and

unambiguous way?

 

If anyone else has specific chapter and verse on this issue I'd be glad to

hear from them.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Dear Michael,

 

 

 

I don't think that Shankara actually does address this topic in any detail

elsewhere. Possibly the last section of upadeSha sAhasrI might be deemed to

be about this but it is somewhat opaque. But I don't see that this is

necessarily a problem. It is traditional that the mANDUkya and kArikA-s is

not taught to students until they have covered the other major upaniShad-s.

The ideas expressed therein are really the final apavAda for all of the

preceding adhyAropa teaching. Whereas you can have lots of intermediate

stuff, even conflicting with each other since it is all withdrawn in the end

anyway, you can only have one 'final' message. Since Gaudapada and Shankara

have covered this elaborately in the kArikA-s, there would be no need to

deal with it elsewhere.

 

 

 

That's my reasoning anyway!

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of ombhurbhuva

Saturday, August 29, 2009 6:48 PM

advaitin

ajativada

 

 

 

 

Outside of his remarks on the Karikas of Gaudapada where does Shankara in

his personal or commentarial work espouse this doctrine in a complete and

unambiguous way?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

>

> Dear Dennis

> You appear to be fully behind the ajativada doctrine and you probably have

> examined it more closely than I have so this question will be elementary.

>

> Outside of his remarks on the Karikas of Gaudapada where does Shankara in

> his personal or commentarial work espouse this doctrine in a complete and

> unambiguous way?

>

> If anyone else has specific chapter and verse on this issue I'd be glad to

> hear from them.

>

> Best Wishes,

> Michael.

 

Dear Michael,

Namaste.

 

There are quite a few places where Shankara talks about the complete unreality

of creation and the status of vedic passages relating to creation. For example,

in his Brihadaranyaka Upanishad commentary for the mantra II.i.20 (quite an

elaborate one running to about 18 pages in small print!!) he says:

 

// We know that a spark is one with fire before it is separated. Therefore the

examples of gold, iron and sparks of fire are only meant to strengthen one's

idea of the oneness of the individual self and Brahman, and not to establish the

multiplicity caused by the origin etc. of the universe. //

 

You might look into the Gaudapada karika 3.15 and its commentary. The examples

in the Karika and the ones provided by Shankara here above are strikingly

similar. Also the purport of that karika and the para quoted above too are so

strikingly similar.

 

Continuing, Shankara says:

 

// For the Self has been ascertained to be homogeneous and unbroken

consciousness, like a lump of salt, and there is the statement, 'It should be

realised in one form only' (Br,up. 4.1.20). If the Sruti wanted to teach that

Brahman has diverse attributes such as the origin of the universe, like a

painted canvas, a tree, or an ocean, for instance, it would not conclude with

statements, describing It to be homogeneous like a lump of salt, without

interior or exterior, nor would it say, 'It should be realized in one form

only.' There is also the censure, 'He goes from death to death who sees

difference, as it were, in It.' etc. (4.4.19 and Katha Up. 4.10). Therefore the

mention in all Vedanta texts of the origin, continuity and dissolution of the

universe is only to strengthen our idea of Brahman being a homogeneous unity,

and not to make us believe in the origin etc . as an actuality. //

 

Now, the last sentence is the unambiguous expression of Shankara's view on

creation, independent of Gaudapada's ajAtivAda.

In fact, the entire discussion that follows the above, and the one that precedes

that, could be viewed as an excellent source material for knowing the Total

Purport of Vedanta so beautifully, convincingly, logically, scripturally and

above all experientially presented.

 

Concluding the above lengthy discussion, where one can just feel how Shankara

must have thoroughly enjoyed it, He reminds us once again:

 

// Therefore there is no other entity called the samsari (the relative self

bound) but the Supreme Brahman. //

 

One very special feature of this selected section of His commentary is that in

one place we get the essence of Advaita:

 

1. The created world is mithyA, the creation passages of Veda have a different

purport than to teach us that creation is real. This is the 'jagat mithyA' part

of Brahma Satyam. There is no such thing called the world.

 

2. The last sentence quoted above is the 'jeevo Brahmaiva na aparaH' part of

the Brahma Satyam. There is no such entity called the jiva, soul.

 

The above can be read in Swami Madhavananda's translation on pages: 211 and 220

respectively.

 

When I come across such passages from other commentaries of Shankara I shall

convey them to you.

 

Regards,

subbu

 

>