Guest guest Posted July 20, 2008 Report Share Posted July 20, 2008 Dear members, It is good news for all of us that Jagatguru of Dakshinaamnaaya Sringeri Sarada Pita Shri Bharati Tirtha Mahaswamigal is on the job of writing commentaries of some of the works which are given below: 1) Chandrikaakhya - a wonderful commentary on Lalitha Sahasranama by Shri Vaidyanatha Dikshitar 2) Brahmavidya Vilasa - A gloss on the commentary of Sankara on Panchadashakshari Mantra based on the Srividya Dipika of Agastya 3) Commentary on Siddhanta Bindu, Advaita Siddhi and Anandiya (advaita prakarana granthas) The manuscripts of Chandikaakhya and Brahmavidyavilasa are ready for DTP printing and hope it would be ready by the end of chaturmasya vrata of swamigal. Commentary of the third one's are also ready and DTP is also over in Delhi. Unfortunately the Main Server at Delhi crashed due to virus. The backup to some of the pages fortunately were taken. Hope to see them too after chaturmaasya vrata. With regards, sriram Connect with friends all over the world. Get India Messenger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 20, 2008 Report Share Posted July 20, 2008 namaste Sri Venkata Sriram, I am forwarding this to advaita-l. Is the vaidyanaatha diixita mentioned below same as the author of smrti muktaa phalam (aka vaidyanaatha diixitiiyam)? dhanyavaadaH Ravi venkata sriram wrote: > > Dear members, > > It is good news for all of us that Jagatguru of Dakshinaamnaaya > Sringeri Sarada Pita Shri Bharati Tirtha Mahaswamigal is on the job of > writing commentaries of some of the works which are given below: > > 1) Chandrikaakhya - a wonderful commentary on Lalitha Sahasranama by > Shri Vaidyanatha Dikshitar > 2) Brahmavidya Vilasa - A gloss on the commentary of Sankara on > Panchadashakshari Mantra based on the Srividya Dipika of Agastya > 3) Commentary on Siddhanta Bindu, Advaita Siddhi and Anandiya (advaita > prakarana granthas) > > The manuscripts of Chandikaakhya and Brahmavidyavilasa are ready for > DTP printing and hope it would be ready by the end of chaturmasya > vrata of swamigal. > > Commentary of the third one's are also ready and DTP is also over in > Delhi. Unfortunately the Main Server at Delhi crashed due to virus. > The backup to some of the pages fortunately were taken. Hope to see > them too after chaturmaasya vrata. > > With regards, > sriram > > > Connect with friends all over the world. Get India Messenger. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 Dear Sriram, Can you let us know the language in which the Acharya has written the commentary? It will also be helpful if you could let us know the mode of procuring these? Regards Thejasvi --- On Sun, 7/20/08, venkata sriram <sriram_sapthasathi wrote: venkata sriram <sriram_sapthasathi Works of Shri Bharati Tirtha Swamigal of Sringeri Sunday, July 20, 2008, 7:39 PM Dear members, It is good news for all of us that Jagatguru of Dakshinaamnaaya Sringeri Sarada Pita Shri Bharati Tirtha Mahaswamigal is on the job of writing commentaries of some of the works which are given below: 1) Chandrikaakhya - a wonderful commentary on Lalitha Sahasranama by Shri Vaidyanatha Dikshitar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 , venkata sriram <sriram_sapthasathi wrote: > 2) Brahmavidya Vilasa - A gloss on the commentary of Sankara on Panchadashakshari Mantra based on the Srividya Dipika of Agastya Not Adi shankara. It is probably some other later shankaracharya. Better to keep that in mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 I have no idea but it seems to be so. But i will clarify the same with Shri Bharati Tirtha Swamigal as i would be leaving for sringeri next month as His Holiness is observing chaturmaasya vrata. regs sriram MSR <abhayambika wrote: namaste Sri Venkata Sriram, I am forwarding this to advaita-l. Is the vaidyanaatha diixita mentioned below same as the author of smrti muktaa phalam (aka vaidyanaatha diixitiiyam)? dhanyavaadaH Ravi venkata sriram wrote: > > Dear members, > > It is good news for all of us that Jagatguru of Dakshinaamnaaya > Sringeri Sarada Pita Shri Bharati Tirtha Mahaswamigal is on the job of > writing commentaries of some of the works which are given below: > > 1) Chandrikaakhya - a wonderful commentary on Lalitha Sahasranama by > Shri Vaidyanatha Dikshitar > 2) Brahmavidya Vilasa - A gloss on the commentary of Sankara on > Panchadashakshari Mantra based on the Srividya Dipika of Agastya > 3) Commentary on Siddhanta Bindu, Advaita Siddhi and Anandiya (advaita > prakarana granthas) > > The manuscripts of Chandikaakhya and Brahmavidyavilasa are ready for > DTP printing and hope it would be ready by the end of chaturmasya > vrata of swamigal. > > Commentary of the third one's are also ready and DTP is also over in > Delhi. Unfortunately the Main Server at Delhi crashed due to virus. > The backup to some of the pages fortunately were taken. Hope to see > them too after chaturmaasya vrata. > > With regards, > sriram > > > Connect with friends all over the world. Get India Messenger. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 Whether sankara or abhinava sankara or vidyaranya or somebody else we are not bothered. The analysis and writing style of sankara is quite distinct. Since, it is there is sringeri parampara, we have to respect it. The manuscripts were very carefully preserved by HH Shri Satchidananda Sivabhinava Nrisimha Bharati Swamigal and were handed over to Shri Chandrasekhara Bharati Swamigal. And mind you these are NOT the words of Shri Tummalapalli Ramalingeswara Rao (Shri Advayananda Bharati). It is with some of the close circles of select few and respected by acharyas of sringeri. So, let us wait and see. Regds, sriram , " Satish " <satisharigela wrote: > > , venkata sriram <sriram_sapthasathi@> > wrote: > > > 2) Brahmavidya Vilasa - A gloss on the commentary of Sankara on > Panchadashakshari Mantra based on the Srividya Dipika of Agastya > > > Not Adi shankara. It is probably some other later shankaracharya. > Better to keep that in mind. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 , " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi wrote: > > Whether sankara or abhinava sankara or vidyaranya or somebody else we > are not bothered. From what you posted from this work the other day, the contents (atleast the one or two statements that you informed the list about) are not that great either. Just wishful interpretations. It is okay as long as it is done with the understanding that it presents a highly convoluted interpretation with mokSha seekers in mind. shrIvidya is not only about mokSha. mokSha is just one goal which probably became prominent later. To shrI Sangaranarayanan ji: sAdhaka-s actions and nature of devata-s are unrelated. It is not a bad thing to learn or perfrom prayoga-s. People should get over this attitude. Moksha can be achived without resorting to any mantra-s. This is very unusual and quite hard but not impossible. Strictly speaking one doesnt need mantra-s to get mokSha. >I do not think any one can use the >srividhya mantras for prayoga either for good or bad, because if >there are any >such application, then the concerned devatha cannot be considered as >God. I dont think above is true. Above borders somewhat on Christian and Islamic perspective of God. Definitely not the Hindu view. We need to get rid of such inaccurate and non-Hindu perceptions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 Among the 4 purusharthaas, where does srividya fit in? All 4 or Moksha?. Even if it is dharma, artha & kama, well these three pave the way for Moksha. If moksha is not the sole objective then what else? Why it is called Brahmavidya? (ref. LS " atmavidya mahavidya srividya kamasevitha). Well, Mantra is a tool which can be used in either ways by the upasakas. For example, the simple panchakshari mantra which is supposed to be the mantra raja among siva mantras is used both for siva sayujya as well as abhicharika prayoga. It is upto the choice of upasaka. But regarding Srividya, the higher mantras like shodasi, para, guhya, mahapaduka and nirvana, the sole objective is MOKSHA. These mantras are not used for one's selfish ends or prayogas. For prayogas, the anga devatas like varahi, ashwarudha, pratyangira are more than enough. The person with intense dispassion and detachment is given Shodashi for whom the sole objective in life is liberation. Well, if he takes sanyasa, then contemplation on hamsa tattva and pranavopasana is more than enough. If he is grihistha, then shodasi is the only way (provided he is a saktha). Well, for vaishnavas, it may be ashtakshari, rama taraka or any other mantra. But as far as he is shakta, shodasi and higher forms is the only refuge. regds, sriram , " Satish " <satisharigela wrote: > > , " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi@> > wrote: > > > > Whether sankara or abhinava sankara or vidyaranya or somebody else > we > > are not bothered. > > From what you posted from this work the other day, the contents > (atleast the one or two statements that you informed the list about) > are not that great either. Just wishful interpretations. > It is okay as long as it is done with the understanding that it > presents a highly convoluted interpretation with mokSha seekers in > mind. > > shrIvidya is not only about mokSha. mokSha is just one goal which > probably became prominent later. > > To shrI Sangaranarayanan ji: sAdhaka-s actions and nature of devata- s > are unrelated. It is not a bad thing to learn or perfrom prayoga-s. > People should get over this attitude. > > Moksha can be achived without resorting to any mantra-s. This is very > unusual and quite hard but not impossible. Strictly speaking one > doesnt need mantra-s to get mokSha. > > >I do not think any one can use the > >srividhya mantras for prayoga either for good or bad, because if > >there are any > >such application, then the concerned devatha cannot be considered as > >God. > > I dont think above is true. Above borders somewhat on Christian and > Islamic perspective of God. Definitely not the Hindu view. We need to > get rid of such inaccurate and non-Hindu perceptions. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 , " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi wrote: > > Among the 4 purusharthaas, where does srividya fit in? All 4 or > Moksha?. Even if it is dharma, artha & kama, well these three pave > the way for Moksha. If moksha is not the sole objective then what > else? Why it is called Brahmavidya? (ref. LS " atmavidya mahavidya > srividya kamasevitha). kAmasevitA.. Did kAma(as concept and not as a person) attain mokSha? If so there shouldnt be life on earth no? Just brought that up for fun.. That aside, it can accomplish all 4. For vedAntin-s this 4th one is more important. They should not be rubbing their preferences onto others. And they should not be tampering with shrIvidyA or its texts. > Well, Mantra is a tool which can be used in either ways by the > upasakas. For example, the simple panchakshari mantra which is > supposed to be the mantra raja among siva mantras is used both for > siva sayujya as well as abhicharika prayoga. It is upto the choice of > upasaka. Those taking to sinful ways and who act in ways undharmic will become pAtaka-s. Nothing else to say here. > > But regarding Srividya, the higher mantras like shodasi, para, guhya, > mahapaduka and nirvana, the sole objective is MOKSHA. These mantras > are not used for one's selfish ends or prayogas. Not really. I especially talk about ShoDhasI because to counter some particularly severe prayoga-s ShoDhasI is used along with saMpuTa of two famous mantra-s. > For prayogas, the > anga devatas like varahi, ashwarudha, pratyangira are more than > enough. Not completely true. > The person with intense dispassion and detachment is given Shodashi > for whom the sole objective in life is liberation. This is probably the opinion of some teacher. Not some universal truth. >. But as far as he is > shakta, shodasi and higher forms is the only refuge. If you mean only those shAkta mantra-s give mokSha for a shAkta sAdhaka that is not true either. Only the sAdhaka gives himself mokSha when he/she is duely qualified. No devata will come and give it. But they will help if that is what the sAdhaka seeks. This is in the language of shankara vedAnta. Regards satish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 2008/7/21 Satish <satisharigela: > > That aside, it can accomplish all 4. > For vedAntin-s this 4th one is more important. They should not be > rubbing their preferences onto others. And they should not be > tampering with shrIvidyA or its texts. > You seem to have something against the vedAntins :-) Who preserved SrIvidyA all these centuries? [satish: No comments for now on vedAntin-s. All these centuries shrIvidya was preserved by shAkta tAntrIka-s, some branches of shaiva-s, smArta-s(there are smArta families who dont follow shankara matha-s or advaita vedanta and who dont rant about vairAgya and mokSha 24/7 - I meant these kind of smArta-s) and also smArta-vedAntins(These are the shankara matha following ppl) And we should be thankful to all of these for preserving this.] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 The name " kamasevita " is never to be taken as manmatha. Kamasevita indicates the A-manaska yoga which is Kaadi vidya. And hence, to indicate the supremacy of this vidya, the anvaya of atmavidya and mahavidya has been considered. Kandarpa is like dagdha patala without sthula deha. Only to such person, srividya is initiated and only such person is FIT TO BE INITIATED. I am sorry if kama indicates passion or lust, you are wrong. And if you say that by worshipped the devi, the kandarpa regained his lost form, then this sort of explanation should not be taken here. This does not indicate the resurgence of kama (ref. kama pralaya and hence bhandasura vadha). As regards shodasi and mahashodasi shodasi prayoga, the upanishad says that it should not used for tantric prayogas as it is rajarajeswari (the great queen). For such prayogas, mantrini, dandini are more than enough. Shodasi is purely moksha vidya. As regards the initiation of srividya, the upasakas who are bent upon seeking material comforts for him bala and panchadasi recommended. But shodasi - STRICTLY NO. Please donot bring srividya to ordinary levels of upasana. sriram , " Satish " <satisharigela wrote: > > , " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi@> > wrote: > > > > Among the 4 purusharthaas, where does srividya fit in? All 4 or > > Moksha?. Even if it is dharma, artha & kama, well these three pave > > the way for Moksha. If moksha is not the sole objective then what > > else? Why it is called Brahmavidya? (ref. LS " atmavidya mahavidya > > srividya kamasevitha). > > kAmasevitA.. Did kAma(as concept and not as a person) attain > mokSha? If so there shouldnt be life on earth no? Just brought that > up for fun.. > > That aside, it can accomplish all 4. > For vedAntin-s this 4th one is more important. They should not be > rubbing their preferences onto others. And they should not be > tampering with shrIvidyA or its texts. > > > > Well, Mantra is a tool which can be used in either ways by the > > upasakas. For example, the simple panchakshari mantra which is > > supposed to be the mantra raja among siva mantras is used both for > > siva sayujya as well as abhicharika prayoga. It is upto the choice > of > > upasaka. > > > Those taking to sinful ways and who act in ways undharmic will become > pAtaka-s. Nothing else to say here. > > > > > > But regarding Srividya, the higher mantras like shodasi, para, > guhya, > > mahapaduka and nirvana, the sole objective is MOKSHA. These > mantras > > are not used for one's selfish ends or prayogas. > > Not really. I especially talk about ShoDhasI because to counter some > particularly severe prayoga-s ShoDhasI is used along with saMpuTa of > two famous mantra-s. > > > > For prayogas, the > > anga devatas like varahi, ashwarudha, pratyangira are more than > > enough. > > Not completely true. > > > > The person with intense dispassion and detachment is given Shodashi > > for whom the sole objective in life is liberation. > > This is probably the opinion of some teacher. Not some universal > truth. > > > >. But as far as he is > > shakta, shodasi and higher forms is the only refuge. > > If you mean only those shAkta mantra-s give mokSha for a shAkta > sAdhaka that is not true either. Only the sAdhaka gives himself > mokSha when he/she is duely qualified. No devata will come and give > it. But they will help if that is what the sAdhaka seeks. This is in > the language of shankara vedAnta. > > Regards > satish > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 21, 2008 Report Share Posted July 21, 2008 , " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi wrote: > > The name " kamasevita " is never to be taken as manmatha. Probably never is not the nest choice. See lalitopakhyAna. In some otehr place kAma is meant to be taken as shiva. So tehre will be multiple interpretations. As I said, I brought that up just for fun. > Kandarpa is like dagdha patala > without sthula deha. Only to such person, srividya is initiated and > only such person is FIT TO BE INITIATED. Empty statements IMO. > > I am sorry if kama indicates passion or lust, you are wrong. Meant desire in all its forms. > As regards shodasi and mahashodasi shodasi prayoga, the upanishad > says that it should not used for tantric prayogas as it is > rajarajeswari (the great queen). > For such prayogas, mantrini, > dandini are more than enough. Shodasi is purely moksha vidya. Such statements are made because of lack of information on these issues it seems to me. > As regards the initiation of srividya, the upasakas who are bent > upon seeking material comforts for him bala and panchadasi > recommended. But shodasi - STRICTLY NO. What about the existing prayoga-s on ShoDhasI then? As I said before, it is used sometimes because only that can counter some things. > > Please donot bring srividya to ordinary levels of upasana. Nobody is. Just pointing to various opinions that exist on this matter. I notice that I repeated a few things from earlier post. So on these comments I will stop here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2008 Report Share Posted July 22, 2008 Dear satish, Brahmanda purana says " yasya no paschimam janma yadi vaa sankarah svayam, tenaiva labhyate vidya srimadpanchadashakshari " " iti mantreshu bahudha vidyayaa mahimochyate - mokshaika hetu vidya saa srividya naatra samshayah " " na silpaadijnanayukte vidvatchabdhah prayuchyate - mokshaika hetu vidya saa srividyaiva na samshayah " These are the words of Hayagriva to Agastya. So, please donot add your own flavours to the sastra. Moreover, Shri Shivanandanatha in his commentary on Lakshmi Saubhagya Upanishad says that " srividya is ONLY FOR AAPTHAKAMAH " . Same is regarded by Shri Bhaskara and Lakshmidhara. I think your statements have some extra dose of mimamsa and kashmir trika siddhanta. As regards the word " kama " , it has several meanings like Kameswara, Kamakala and Manmatha. But the context should be taken which should be in consistent with Atmavidya. Shri Bhaskara suggests Amanaska yoga. Moreover, Kandarpa does not have sthula deha and bahiryaga is performed with sthula deha. So, kandarpa without sthula deha indicates the performance of antaryaga. Moreover, Kandarpa vidya indicates the anusandhana of Pratyak Brahma with Param Brahma through the process of " Neti - Neti " . (Refer Sankara Bhashya of Lalitha Trishati (Kandarpa vidya)). It is also known through Kamakala Akshara and hence Kamasevita. And as regards the prayogas, the Shodahi is not used for tuccha prayogas like abhicharika and kaamya. Please bear this in mind. I am sorry to say and it pains me to see that all sorts of nonsense is being propagated in the name of Shodashi and Mahashodasi. Even if you still stand by your point, then your and my ways are different. I am sorry. Yat bhavam tat bhavati. With regards, sriram , " Ramesh Krishnamurthy " <rkmurthy wrote: > > 2008/7/21 Satish <satisharigela: > > > > That aside, it can accomplish all 4. > > For vedAntin-s this 4th one is more important. They should not be > > rubbing their preferences onto others. And they should not be > > tampering with shrIvidyA or its texts. > > > > You seem to have something against the vedAntins :-) Who preserved > SrIvidyA all these centuries? > > [satish: No comments for now on vedAntin-s. > > All these centuries shrIvidya was preserved by shAkta tAntrIka-s, some branches of shaiva-s, smArta-s(there are smArta families who dont follow shankara matha-s or advaita vedanta and who dont rant about vairAgya and mokSha 24/7 - I meant these kind of smArta-s) and also smArta-vedAntins(These are the shankara matha following ppl) > And we should be thankful to all of these for preserving this.] > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2008 Report Share Posted July 22, 2008 shrIman shrIrAm, , " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi wrote: > > Dear satish, > > Brahmanda purana says " yasya no paschimam janma yadi vaa sankarah > svayam, tenaiva labhyate vidya srimadpanchadashakshari " > > " iti mantreshu bahudha vidyayaa mahimochyate - mokshaika hetu > vidya saa srividya naatra samshayah " > > " na silpaadijnanayukte vidvatchabdhah prayuchyate - mokshaika hetu > vidya saa srividyaiva na samshayah " > > These are the words of Hayagriva to Agastya. So, please donot add > your own flavours to the sastra. One will find such statements about many mantra-s. Like for example one can find similar statments for kAlI or tArA vidyA-s. > > Moreover, Shri Shivanandanatha in his commentary on Lakshmi Saubhagya > Upanishad says that " srividya is ONLY FOR AAPTHAKAMAH " . Same is > regarded by Shri Bhaskara and Lakshmidhara. > > I think your statements have some extra dose of mimamsa and kashmir > trika siddhanta. Even trika ppl or for that matter any parallel system is concerned about mokSha. They dont go about denying other puruShArtha-s or overemphasize vairAgya amd mokSha. > > As regards the word " kama " , it has several meanings like Kameswara, > Kamakala and Manmatha. But the context should be taken which should > be in consistent with Atmavidya. Shri Bhaskara suggests Amanaska > yoga. Moreover, Kandarpa does not have sthula deha and bahiryaga is > performed with sthula deha. So, kandarpa without sthula deha > indicates the performance of antaryaga. Moreover, Kandarpa vidya > indicates the anusandhana of Pratyak Brahma with Param Brahma through > the process of " Neti - Neti " . (Refer Sankara Bhashya of Lalitha > Trishati (Kandarpa vidya)). It is also known through Kamakala Akshara > and hence Kamasevita. That neti-neti is teh kind of thing I am talking about. I will laugh and leave it there. > And as regards the prayogas, the Shodahi is not used for tuccha > prayogas like abhicharika and kaamya. Please bear this in mind. I know of two teachers who are into shrIvidyA who belong to different traditions who do not know each other. Both of them told me about two different prayoga-s involving ShoDhasI for the purpose of a pratyabhichAra for two different conditions. Both of them are smArta brAhmaNa-s. One considers mokSha as the highest goal and another is more into sAnkhya/yoga or something similar. > > I am sorry to say and it pains me to see that all sorts of nonsense > is being propagated in the name of Shodashi and Mahashodasi. May be more research will help alleviate the pain? Best Regards, Satish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2008 Report Share Posted July 22, 2008 neti-neti are not my words but sankara's to his bhashya on the name " kandarpavidya " . Well i have no reply for your blunt answer if you challenge sankara. Maybe you donot fit into my shoes. I donot require any research and i am happy with what i have. Whoever may be the teachers, Samaya refutes them. Please bear this in mind. Satish <satisharigela wrote: shrIman shrIrAm, , " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi wrote: > > Dear satish, > > Brahmanda purana says " yasya no paschimam janma yadi vaa sankarah > svayam, tenaiva labhyate vidya srimadpanchadashakshari " > > " iti mantreshu bahudha vidyayaa mahimochyate - mokshaika hetu > vidya saa srividya naatra samshayah " > > " na silpaadijnanayukte vidvatchabdhah prayuchyate - mokshaika hetu > vidya saa srividyaiva na samshayah " > > These are the words of Hayagriva to Agastya. So, please donot add > your own flavours to the sastra. One will find such statements about many mantra-s. Like for example one can find similar statments for kAlI or tArA vidyA-s. > > Moreover, Shri Shivanandanatha in his commentary on Lakshmi Saubhagya > Upanishad says that " srividya is ONLY FOR AAPTHAKAMAH " . Same is > regarded by Shri Bhaskara and Lakshmidhara. > > I think your statements have some extra dose of mimamsa and kashmir > trika siddhanta. Even trika ppl or for that matter any parallel system is concerned about mokSha. They dont go about denying other puruShArtha-s or overemphasize vairAgya amd mokSha. > > As regards the word " kama " , it has several meanings like Kameswara, > Kamakala and Manmatha. But the context should be taken which should > be in consistent with Atmavidya. Shri Bhaskara suggests Amanaska > yoga. Moreover, Kandarpa does not have sthula deha and bahiryaga is > performed with sthula deha. So, kandarpa without sthula deha > indicates the performance of antaryaga. Moreover, Kandarpa vidya > indicates the anusandhana of Pratyak Brahma with Param Brahma through > the process of " Neti - Neti " . (Refer Sankara Bhashya of Lalitha > Trishati (Kandarpa vidya)). It is also known through Kamakala Akshara > and hence Kamasevita. That neti-neti is teh kind of thing I am talking about. I will laugh and leave it there. > And as regards the prayogas, the Shodahi is not used for tuccha > prayogas like abhicharika and kaamya. Please bear this in mind. I know of two teachers who are into shrIvidyA who belong to different traditions who do not know each other. Both of them told me about two different prayoga-s involving ShoDhasI for the purpose of a pratyabhichAra for two different conditions. Both of them are smArta brAhmaNa-s. One considers mokSha as the highest goal and another is more into sAnkhya/yoga or something similar. > > I am sorry to say and it pains me to see that all sorts of nonsense > is being propagated in the name of Shodashi and Mahashodasi. May be more research will help alleviate the pain? Best Regards, Satish Connect with friends all over the world. Get India Messenger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2008 Report Share Posted July 22, 2008 even after receiving shodashi, if they still think of prayogas, they are not fit to be called as teachers (IMHO) Satish <satisharigela wrote: shrIman shrIrAm, , " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi wrote: > > Dear satish, > > Brahmanda purana says " yasya no paschimam janma yadi vaa sankarah > svayam, tenaiva labhyate vidya srimadpanchadashakshari " > > " iti mantreshu bahudha vidyayaa mahimochyate - mokshaika hetu > vidya saa srividya naatra samshayah " > > " na silpaadijnanayukte vidvatchabdhah prayuchyate - mokshaika hetu > vidya saa srividyaiva na samshayah " > > These are the words of Hayagriva to Agastya. So, please donot add > your own flavours to the sastra. One will find such statements about many mantra-s. Like for example one can find similar statments for kAlI or tArA vidyA-s. > > Moreover, Shri Shivanandanatha in his commentary on Lakshmi Saubhagya > Upanishad says that " srividya is ONLY FOR AAPTHAKAMAH " . Same is > regarded by Shri Bhaskara and Lakshmidhara. > > I think your statements have some extra dose of mimamsa and kashmir > trika siddhanta. Even trika ppl or for that matter any parallel system is concerned about mokSha. They dont go about denying other puruShArtha-s or overemphasize vairAgya amd mokSha. > > As regards the word " kama " , it has several meanings like Kameswara, > Kamakala and Manmatha. But the context should be taken which should > be in consistent with Atmavidya. Shri Bhaskara suggests Amanaska > yoga. Moreover, Kandarpa does not have sthula deha and bahiryaga is > performed with sthula deha. So, kandarpa without sthula deha > indicates the performance of antaryaga. Moreover, Kandarpa vidya > indicates the anusandhana of Pratyak Brahma with Param Brahma through > the process of " Neti - Neti " . (Refer Sankara Bhashya of Lalitha > Trishati (Kandarpa vidya)). It is also known through Kamakala Akshara > and hence Kamasevita. That neti-neti is teh kind of thing I am talking about. I will laugh and leave it there. > And as regards the prayogas, the Shodahi is not used for tuccha > prayogas like abhicharika and kaamya. Please bear this in mind. I know of two teachers who are into shrIvidyA who belong to different traditions who do not know each other. Both of them told me about two different prayoga-s involving ShoDhasI for the purpose of a pratyabhichAra for two different conditions. Both of them are smArta brAhmaNa-s. One considers mokSha as the highest goal and another is more into sAnkhya/yoga or something similar. > > I am sorry to say and it pains me to see that all sorts of nonsense > is being propagated in the name of Shodashi and Mahashodasi. May be more research will help alleviate the pain? Best Regards, Satish Share files, take polls, and make new friends - all under one roof. Click here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 2008 Report Share Posted July 22, 2008 When you refer to prayogas, it is aabhicharika parayogas? and to further qualify is it that only aabhicharika prayogas using shodasi is not allowed? regards Vishwam venkata sriram <sriram_sapthasathi Tuesday, July 22, 2008 2:37:21 AM Re: Re: Works of Shri Bharati Tirtha Swamigal of Sringeri even after receiving shodashi, if they still think of prayogas, they are not fit to be called as teachers (IMHO) Satish <satisharigela@ > wrote: shrIman shrIrAm, @ .com, " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi wrote: > > Dear satish, > > Brahmanda purana says " yasya no paschimam janma yadi vaa sankarah > svayam, tenaiva labhyate vidya srimadpanchadashaks hari " > > " iti mantreshu bahudha vidyayaa mahimochyate - mokshaika hetu > vidya saa srividya naatra samshayah " > > " na silpaadijnanayukte vidvatchabdhah prayuchyate - mokshaika hetu > vidya saa srividyaiva na samshayah " > > These are the words of Hayagriva to Agastya. So, please donot add > your own flavours to the sastra. One will find such statements about many mantra-s. Like for example one can find similar statments for kAlI or tArA vidyA-s. > > Moreover, Shri Shivanandanatha in his commentary on Lakshmi Saubhagya > Upanishad says that " srividya is ONLY FOR AAPTHAKAMAH " . Same is > regarded by Shri Bhaskara and Lakshmidhara. > > I think your statements have some extra dose of mimamsa and kashmir > trika siddhanta. Even trika ppl or for that matter any parallel system is concerned about mokSha. They dont go about denying other puruShArtha- s or overemphasize vairAgya amd mokSha. > > As regards the word " kama " , it has several meanings like Kameswara, > Kamakala and Manmatha. But the context should be taken which should > be in consistent with Atmavidya. Shri Bhaskara suggests Amanaska > yoga. Moreover, Kandarpa does not have sthula deha and bahiryaga is > performed with sthula deha. So, kandarpa without sthula deha > indicates the performance of antaryaga. Moreover, Kandarpa vidya > indicates the anusandhana of Pratyak Brahma with Param Brahma through > the process of " Neti - Neti " . (Refer Sankara Bhashya of Lalitha > Trishati (Kandarpa vidya)). It is also known through Kamakala Akshara > and hence Kamasevita. That neti-neti is teh kind of thing I am talking about. I will laugh and leave it there. > And as regards the prayogas, the Shodahi is not used for tuccha > prayogas like abhicharika and kaamya. Please bear this in mind. I know of two teachers who are into shrIvidyA who belong to different traditions who do not know each other. Both of them told me about two different prayoga-s involving ShoDhasI for the purpose of a pratyabhichAra for two different conditions. Both of them are smArta brAhmaNa-s. One considers mokSha as the highest goal and another is more into sAnkhya/yoga or something similar. > > I am sorry to say and it pains me to see that all sorts of nonsense > is being propagated in the name of Shodashi and Mahashodasi. May be more research will help alleviate the pain? Best Regards, Satish ------------ --------- --------- --- Share files, take polls, and make new friends - all under one roof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2008 Report Share Posted July 29, 2008 What language(s) will these be available in? JAI AMMA! Surya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2008 Report Share Posted July 29, 2008 Shri Swamigal has written in Telugu. Regs, sriram , " Surya " <mahamuni wrote: > > What language(s) will these be available in? > > JAI AMMA! > > Surya > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2008 Report Share Posted July 29, 2008 Any plans for an English translation? That would be well received and fabulous! JAI AMMA! Surya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2008 Report Share Posted August 29, 2008 Dear ravi, Sometime back you asked me about the identity of the author of ChandrikAkhyA and Smrti MuktA phalam. Here are the words of Shri Bharati Tirtha Mahaswamigal of Sringeri Sarada Pitham. Shri Swamigal had confirmed that both the authors are entirely different. The author of ChandrikAkhyA is Shri Vaidyanatha Dikshitar who hails from Kasi whereas the author of Smrti MuktA Phala, who also holds the same name is from Tamil Nadu. And both are NOT SAME. Hope your doubt is cleared. AjnAnAm JAhnavI tIrtham vidyA tirtham vivekinAm sarveshAm sukhadam tirtham bhAratI tIrtham Asraye... With regards, Sriram , MSR <abhayambika wrote: > > namaste Sri Venkata Sriram, > > I am forwarding this to advaita-l. Is the vaidyanaatha diixita mentioned > below same as the author of smrti muktaa phalam (aka vaidyanaatha > diixitiiyam)? > > dhanyavaadaH > > Ravi > > > > venkata sriram wrote: > > > > Dear members, > > > > It is good news for all of us that Jagatguru of Dakshinaamnaaya > > Sringeri Sarada Pita Shri Bharati Tirtha Mahaswamigal is on the job of > > writing commentaries of some of the works which are given below: > > > > 1) Chandrikaakhya - a wonderful commentary on Lalitha Sahasranama by > > Shri Vaidyanatha Dikshitar > > 2) Brahmavidya Vilasa - A gloss on the commentary of Sankara on > > Panchadashakshari Mantra based on the Srividya Dipika of Agastya > > 3) Commentary on Siddhanta Bindu, Advaita Siddhi and Anandiya (advaita > > prakarana granthas) > > > > The manuscripts of Chandikaakhya and Brahmavidyavilasa are ready for > > DTP printing and hope it would be ready by the end of chaturmasya > > vrata of swamigal. > > > > Commentary of the third one's are also ready and DTP is also over in > > Delhi. Unfortunately the Main Server at Delhi crashed due to virus. > > The backup to some of the pages fortunately were taken. Hope to see > > them too after chaturmaasya vrata. > > > > With regards, > > sriram > > > > > > Connect with friends all over the world. Get India Messenger. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2008 Report Share Posted August 29, 2008 namaste Sriram, My sincere thanks to you and Sri svaamigaL for clarifying this doubt. I am aware of the fact that author of diixitiiyam hails from thanjaavur (even though some scholars tend to think he is from Andhra, which I think is not correct). We have complete diixitiiyam at vaidyanatha.ambaa.org - thus far I have found good need/use for the tithi nirNaya prkaraNam. An excellent abridged version with Tamil translation is available from India Heritage Trust of Chennai. With best wishes, Ravi , " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi wrote: > > Dear ravi, > > Sometime back you asked me about the identity of the author of > ChandrikAkhyA and Smrti MuktA phalam. Here are the words of Shri > Bharati Tirtha Mahaswamigal of Sringeri Sarada Pitham. > > Shri Swamigal had confirmed that both the authors are entirely > different. The author of ChandrikAkhyA is Shri Vaidyanatha Dikshitar > who hails from Kasi whereas the author of Smrti MuktA Phala, who also > holds the same name is from Tamil Nadu. And both are NOT SAME. > > Hope your doubt is cleared. > > AjnAnAm JAhnavI tIrtham vidyA tirtham vivekinAm > sarveshAm sukhadam tirtham bhAratI tIrtham Asraye... > > With regards, > Sriram > 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.