headers
Vidyasankar Sundaresan | 1 Feb 2007 02:53
Picon
Favicon

Re: RE: Advaita-l Digest, Vol 45, Issue 23


>Adopting any particular ashrama is by one's own choice.  The choice is
>within the confines of entitlement.  I do not disagree that there are
>traditions that allow sanyasa irrespective of varna and sex.  Such options
>are more political rather than religious.  The orthodox religious practices
>had their own reason.

This is not the case. The jAbAla Sruti, which Sankara invariably quotes in 
support of entering sannyAsa ASrama directly from brahmacarya, says, "yad 
ahar eva virajet tad ahar eva pravrajet" - one should set forth 
(pra-vrajet), i.e. renounce the world, the same day as one attains 
dispassion (vi-rajet). The same text goes on to add, "snAtako vA asnAtako 
vA" - whether one has gone through vedic study or not. It doesn't get much 
more orthodox or religious than that.

There is a variety of opinion in the dharmaSAstra texts, ranging from the 
arch conservative, restricting access only to brAhmaNa males who have 
undergone the various saMskAra-s (rites of passage, such as upanayana), to 
the very open, explicitly saying there are no restrictions. It is a myth 
that orthodoxy demands sannyAsa to be restricted to brAhmaNa men.

Within the constraints of the orthodoxy of the various SAnkara maTha-s, the 
AcAryas have approved of very traditional sannyAsa initiation for 
non-Brahmin men, women and even non-Indians. It has always been a question 
of adhikAra. Where the vairAgya is intense and unsullied, what does it 
matter what the physical bodily constraints are? That has always been the 
guiding principle.

Two fairly old institutions from southern India may be mentioned in this 
respect - the Koviloor Mathalayam, where the head is from the Tamil Chettiar
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Vidyasankar Sundaresan | 1 Feb 2007 02:55
Picon
Favicon

RE: Raman Maharshi (was Re: RES: New member introduction:Asad Mustafa Rizvi)


>I must say I disagree with calling RM a sphatika mani. It seems like
>saying that RM had no philosophical ideas of his own. The

Of course, that was not the intention of the comparison. Rather, the 
sphaTika maNi is an apt and close metaphor to brahman, which is why I used 
it in this context.

Regards,
Vidyasankar

_________________________________________________________________
Search for grocery stores. Find gratitude. Turn a simple search into 
something more. 
http://click4thecause.live.com/search/charity/default.aspx?source=hmemtagline_gratitude&FORM=WLMTAG
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Vidyasankar Sundaresan | 1 Feb 2007 03:11
Picon
Favicon

Re: BrahmaGYAna and jIvanmukti - 4 (Scriptural References)


>namo nArAyaNAya!
>
>dear shrI jayanArAyaNan,
>
>   if available, can you provide some details regarding haradatta?
>(like his time period, his philosophical inclinations etc.)

Nothing much is known about Haradatta, except as the author of commentaries 
on the dharmasUtras. He lived most probably in the south.

>
>On 1/31/07, S Jayanarayanan <sjayana_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
>>   Haradatta's commentary:
>>   "If salvation were obtained by Self-knowledge alone, then the
>>   GYAnI ought not to feel any bodily pain. This is not so.
>>   The GYAnI cannot tolerate hunger, acute pain/grief in the
>>   head/mind, even for a moment."
>
>its fine if one says that a j~nAni perceives pain. but isn't it
>incorrect to say that a j~nAni has NO control over hunger, pain etc.?

This would appear to be Haradatta's comment on the people he saw, in the 
society that he lived in. We should correlate this not with a GYAnI who is 
kRtakRtya, but with one who is called GYAni-mAtra in JMV. The "even for a 
moment" is obviously a slight exaggeration, done in order to drive home the 
point that rules apply to sannyAsin-s also.

One should also view these statements about "Self-knowledge alone" in the 
context that every human being already always knows his self, in some way.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
savithri devaraj | 1 Feb 2007 04:14
Picon
Favicon

Re: BrahmaGYAna and jIvanmukti - 4 (Scriptural References)


  This context makes sense in the thread than saying that a brahma jnani, by effort and giving up desires,
becomes a yogi as the original posting did. This doesn't seem intuitive at all - vairaagya is a
pre-requisite for jnana, one of the sadhana catushtaya sampattih, the others being shama adi shadka
sampattih, viveka and mumukshutva. 

One should also view these statements about "Self-knowledge alone" in the 
context that every human being already always knows his self, in some way. 
Every cognition, even the most mundane, begins with cognizing oneself. 
Nevertheless, there is also ignorance which stands in the way of one's truly 
knowing the real self. Therefore, merely becoming a sannyAsin is not enough, 
without developing the means towards stabilizing and becoming firmly 
entrenched in brahmavidyA.

Regards,
Vidyasankar

  S Jayanarayanan <sjayana@...> wrote:     
"Therefore, to this day, the BrahmaNa, the knower of Brahman,
having known all about scholarship or knowledge of the Self,
from the teacher and the shrutis, having fully mastered it,
should renounce desires..."

Again note that Sankara takes the word "BrahmaNa" (in the first
occurrence of the word itself) to be a Brahmavit, and says quite
explicitly that a Brahmavit should renounce desires.

Sankara continues in his commentary on the above:

BAlyaM cha pANDityaM cha nirvidya niHsheshhaM kR^itvAtha
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Siva Senani Nori | 1 Feb 2007 06:47
Picon
Favicon

Re: RE: Advaita-l Digest, Vol 45, Issue 23

BrahmaSri VidyASankar gAriki namassulu!

>There is a variety of opinion in the dharmaSAstra texts, ranging from the 
>arch conservative, restricting access only to brAhmaNa males who have 
>undergone the various saMskAra-s (rites of passage, such as upanayana), to 
>the very open, explicitly saying there are no restrictions. It is a myth 
>that orthodoxy demands sannyAsa to be restricted to brAhmaNa men

When it was first mentioned in the list a few days ago that sannyAsa is only for Brahmin men, and that in the
second chapter of Gita, Krishna points out that Arjuna is not eligible for sannyAsa, I first reread the
second and third chapters of Gita, but could not find the reference alluded to. Then I browsed Manu,
Apastamba, Gautama, BaudhAyana, and Vaasishtha dharmaSAstras but found that while they usually
included a chapter or a collection of sUtras on sannyAsa indicating the eligibility of Brahmin men, the
topic of sannyAsa was not touched upon in the chapters on kshatriyas and others (where available).
Commentators like Haradatta have indeed intrepreted silences as well, but I guess the force of an
explicit statement, such as the one stating that while all three dvijAs ought to learn the vedas only the
brAhmaNas have the right to teach vedas, is different from the intrepretation of silence.

Could you please give the reference to the opinion restricting sannyAsa only to brAhmaNa males? I seek to
know so that one understands the source of the tradition regarding sannyAsa better.

Regards
Senani

 
____________________________________________________________________________________
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time 
with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Shrisha Rao | 1 Feb 2007 08:20
Favicon

Re: shaDdarhana and other unorthodox schools

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:

> How about testing Western philosophers on the benchmarks reserved for 
> traditional Indian philosophers? It requires a great deal of self-confidence 
> to do that.

Good point.  There is a disconnect between the Western traditions of 
philosophy and logic, and the classical "six schools" approach of Indian 
philosophy [*].  The charge of poor scholarship, though probably accurate 
in respect of contemporary Indian scholarship, is however not unique to 
it, as other parts of the social sciences are also afflicted [**].

It is my considered though limited personal opinion that no Vedantin (or 
indeed even an adherent of one of the shhaD-darshana-s) needs to hang his 
head in shame because his tradition of study is inferior.

[*] See http://www.dvaita.net/pdf/papers/epistemology.pdf for a transcript 
of an interesting keynote.

[**] For example, note the "Fashionable Nonsense" book by Alan Sokal and 
Jean Bricmont, a debunking of "cognitive relativism" in academia.  I 
honestly think that a proper critical study could result in exactly such a 
thorough debunking of much of contemporary academic Indology.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
sriram | 2 Feb 2007 02:29

Re: Raman Maharshi (was Re: RES:Newmemberintroduction:AsadMustafa Rizvi)

Namaste Rameshji
Iam thankful for your time...
kindly refer to vivekachudamani verse 31, 32 for the clarification about the
essence of Jnana and Bhakti Margas and the difference between self enquiry
and enquiry into the nature of Atman and also verse 570 of vivekachudamani
about the repose of Adi Sankara that srutih does not permit
duality...Advaita is a State and to attain it there are verily numerous
paths...Bhakti, Jnana and other paths to that state of advaita!
know that kaivalya or oneness is the requisite to Brahman according to
Vedanta and that many have embarked upon the paths, many paths themselves
and many are the levels at each path before the attainment of the final
stage.
this is a forum for discussing advaita, or non duality. and therefore i
thought it correct to present to you that while the essence of all Sages and
their teachings may be the Truth that is One, we cannot quote them out of
context nor can we allude their teachings in an interchangeable manner. one
may take any liberty to make Ramana an Advaitin or Adi Sankara himself as
merely an Jnana Margi, and one need not join issue on this save this forum
which exaltedly seeks to explore the nuances of non-duality. Else there
would be not the slightest discomfort if the form were to be subsituted with
shadows.
Pranaams.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy@...>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
<advaita-l@...>
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 1:23 AM
Subject: Re: Raman Maharshi (was Re:
RES:[Advaita-l]Newmemberintroduction:AsadMustafa Rizvi)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
S Jayanarayanan | 2 Feb 2007 02:54
Picon
Favicon

Re: BrahmaGYAna and jIvanmukti - 5 (Other References)

I was wondering whether or not to write this, but anyway, here goes.

Suppose the distinction between steady and unsteady AtmaGYAna is not
advaitic, what would that imply? In the strength of the references
I've provided, it would mean that:

1) Apastamba, whose verse on Atma-vichAra is quoted by none other
than sureshvara, must be mistaken. Haradatta, the commentator
accepted by the tradition as authoritative on Apastamba, has to be
wrong.

2) The VivekachUDAmaNi as well as the commentary on it by
H.H. Chandrasekhara Bharati Mahaswamigal (H.H.), should be in error.

3) Ramana Maharshi didn't know what he was talking about.

4) Sankara for some strange reason must have spoken of effort to be
made after saMyag-GYAna in his commentary on BR^ihadaaraNyaka
upanishhad 1.4.7.

Last, but certainly not the least (arguably the most important
reference of all):

5) The BR^ihadaaraNyaka upanishhad 3.5.1, along with Sankara's
commentary on it, both of which speak of renunciation of desires
after AtmaGYAna, ought to be interpreted in a twisted manner because
the straightforward reading "just doesn't make sense".

Instead of the above mind-boggling possibilities, there is a simpler
explanation:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 49 comments |
headers
savithri devaraj | 2 Feb 2007 04:43
Picon
Favicon

Re: BrahmaGYAna and jIvanmukti - 5 (Other References)


--- S Jayanarayanan <sjayana@...> wrote:

> I was wondering whether or not to write this, but
> anyway, here goes.
> 

Well, then you shouldn't have!
Here we go again...
Where is the relationship between Satchidanandendra
Saraswathi Swamiji and this thread? Why not blame him
for the bad weather also then? 

Just for future information, Satchidanandendra Swamiji
didn't come up with sadhana catushtaya sampattih
pre-requisites for jnana marga. I thought people who
participated here know better than that.

There is a lot of confusion in advaita terminology,
and every writer can interpret terms to suit their own
point of view. I was stating my point of view, just as
you were stating yours and Vidyashankar was stating
his. And, I will continue to voice my dissent when I
see something incongrous and non-intuitive. 

One more thing - writing in all caps on the internet
is equivalent to yelling. So, I request all to mind
their e-etiquette. This list is to discuss advaita
vedanta and learn from each other. How can we do that
if we are constantly instigating and inflaming each
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 20 comments |
headers
Annapureddy Siddhartha Reddy | 2 Feb 2007 09:07
Picon

bhagavad.h gItA 2.11

praNAm.h All,
       I have a question on shaN^kara's interpretation of bhagavad.h gItA
2.11. Thanks in advance.

First, the verse 2.11 itself:
ashochyaananvashochastvaM praGYaavaadaa.nshcha bhaashhase
gataasuunagataasuu.nshcha naanushochanti paNDitaaH

Ananda tIrtha (madhva) interprets praGYAvAdAMshcha as praGYA avAdAMshcha,
i.e., Arjuna is speaking words not spoken by the wise. Interestingly, the
Kashmir version of the bhagavad.h gItA commented upon by abhinavagupta has
"praGYAvat na abhibhAShasE" which clearly suggests the same idea.

On the contrary, shaN^kara comments thus:
tvaM praGYAvAdAn.h praGYAvatAM budhdimatAM vAdAMshcha vachanAni cha
bhAShasE. tadEtat.h mauDyaM pANDityaM cha virudhdaM Atmani darshayasi
unmatta iva ityabhiprAyaH.

Thus, shaN^kara interprets praGYAvAdAMshcha as praGYA vAdAMshcha. To try to
make sense of what shaN^kara intends, we considered the following
possibilities:
-- shaN^kara intends that shrI kR^iShNa calls arjuna a paNDita only in a
mocking tone. But that does not seem to be the case, since shaN^kara sees
both mauDyaM and pANDityaM in arjuna. Indeed, only if shaN^kara sees both
these qualities simultaneously can he call arjuna "unmatta iva". Thus, this
is not what shaN^kara intends.

-- shaN^kara means only worldly wisdom when he uses praGYAvatAM, budhdimatAM
etc. But this also does not seem to be the case given that shaN^kara uses
the word "pANDityaM darshayasi" for arjuna, and in the same paragraph, he
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane