Vidyasankar Sundaresan | 1 Apr 01:31 2007
Picon

RE: to be and to have in Sanskrit


>Sri Guy's question clearly involves a grammatical question.  The grammer of
>one language cannot be interspersed into another language.  Sanskrit should
>not be judged from the point of view of another language.  A person
>conversant with Sanskrit would have no problem conveying his ideas in that
>language.
>

On the other hand, the deep grammar of a language reveals something 
intrinsic about thought processes of those who speak that language and 
therefore has implications for the philosophical systems that they create 
and subscribe to.

For example, the English language prefers direct constructions, "I am 
hungry", "I am thirsty", "I own a house" etc. The "I" is not only the 
doer/enjoyer (kartA/bhoktA), but also grammatically the subject of the 
sentence. In any Indian language that I can think of, the expressions 
involve the "I" in a more indirect way, e.g. mujhe bhUk lagI hai, mera ek 
ghar hai, enakku paSikkaradu, enakku/ennuDaiya oru vIDu irukku, and so on. 
The grammatical subject of the sentence is no longer the "I".

Regards,
Vidyasankar

_________________________________________________________________
The average US Credit Score is 675. The cost to see yours: $0 by Experian. 
http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=660600&bcd=EMAILFOOTERAVERAGE

Vidyasankar Sundaresan | 1 Apr 01:33 2007
Picon

New member introduction: Chandramouli Gunnala

C.Gunnala
Male, 63years age
Worked in a Commercial Organisation and retired.
Now : a seeker
Regularly attending discourses arranged by Ramakrishna Math, Hyderabad.

Attended a course conducted by the Divine Life Society, Rishikesh.

in the service of the Lord,
c.gunnala

_________________________________________________________________
i'm making a difference. Make every IM count for the cause of your choice. 
Join Now. 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0080000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=hmtagline

prem d p | 1 Apr 11:14 2007
Picon

Re: In reply to N. Srikanta as to anubhava and anubhUti

namaste...

  Dear N. Srikanta,

  I have not had the opportunity to read sri bhashyam yet. So could you kindly 

  elaborate a little on the criticism on 'Anubhuti by Vimuktatman' 

  ie. both the advaitic standpoint and the vishista advaitic.

  Thanks

  ...prem

 
  Thank you very much for your Email explaining the difference
> between 'Anubhava" and "Anubhuthi". "Anubhava" is a Universal experience
> that can be experienced by sense organs and also some times by the
> mind. How is "anubhuthi"experienced?Since it is an intuitive experience,or
> if it can be called an "Insight"what is the organ or the instrument which
> experiences "Anubhuthi". As I have read,i have read about for
> example,"Kandar Anubhuthi" in Tamil.Here it means "Grace of Kandan".since
> there is no other organ except the mind,how is this grace experienced?
> Does the mind experience"Anubhuthi"to the exclusion of all other wordly
> experiences?
> Incidentally,while I was studying Ramanujacharya's "Sri Bhashya",I have
> come across this term"Anubhuthi"in the "Purvapaksa"(The Adwaitic position)
> against which Ramanujacharya has directed his criticism. He seems to have
> criticised this view of "Anubhuthi" by Vimuktatman.
> Thanking You, Vandanani. N.Srikanta.
(Continue reading)

Picon

Re: RE: On the parakAyapraveSa legend about Sankara

Dear Amuthan,

I have been terribly busy the last few weeks. Some quick notes:

1. It seems that ubhayabhaaratii just accepts shankaras word regarding
the parakAyapravesha.

2. Note that for the author of the maadhaviiyam shankara is Lord Siva
himself. Also even before going to search for Sankara, Padmapaada
explicitly says that shankara, being a j~naani, would be completely
unattached to actions even in any other body. You should always
remember that shankara was accepted as an avataara by the author, when
reading the book in order to make sense of it.

3. If you look at the works of shankara, he clearly states that the
distiction of guru/disciple, etc are illusory. So why spend a lot of
time and effort writing bhaashyas? It requires effort, no? The point
is that it seems like it requires effort from the point of view of the
unenlightened, but shankara himself was not bound by any action. The
same goes here. Of course for bhaashya memorizing addicts, this is
actually good and it's ok. But any *perceived* action should be
measured by the same yardstick.

4. As I already mentioned, this is not an excuse for anyone to
anything he pleases. Is the same equanimity preserved when someone is
about to cut off his/her head?

Rama

On 3/28/07, Amuthan <aparyap@...> wrote:
(Continue reading)

Anbu sivam2 | 2 Apr 02:00 2007
Picon

Re: to be and to have in Sanskrit

Agreeing with Sri Vidyasankarji let me elaborate a bit for the benefit of
Sri Guy.  The Tamil sentence 'enakku paSikkaradu' when translated into
English word for word would be 'to me hunger happens' and if it were to be
grammatically translated into English it would be 'Hunger happens to me'.
Here the subject in English language is Hunger!

On 3/31/07, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar@...> wrote:
>
>
> >Sri Guy's question clearly involves a grammatical question.  The grammer
> of
> >one language cannot be interspersed into another language.  Sanskrit
> should
> >not be judged from the point of view of another language.  A person
> >conversant with Sanskrit would have no problem conveying his ideas in
> that
> >language.
> >
>
> On the other hand, the deep grammar of a language reveals something
> intrinsic about thought processes of those who speak that language and
> therefore has implications for the philosophical systems that they create
> and subscribe to.
>
> For example, the English language prefers direct constructions, "I am
> hungry", "I am thirsty", "I own a house" etc. The "I" is not only the
> doer/enjoyer (kartA/bhoktA), but also grammatically the subject of the
> sentence. In any Indian language that I can think of, the expressions
> involve the "I" in a more indirect way, e.g. mujhe bhUk lagI hai, mera ek
> ghar hai, enakku paSikkaradu, enakku/ennuDaiya oru vIDu irukku, and so on.
(Continue reading)

srikanta | 2 Apr 12:51 2007
Picon

Email of sri VarunSud,March 29, 2007 regarding persecution of Sankaracharya and his followers

Dear Sri VarunSud,Namaste.
Before going into the question,we have to see the time and context Sankara
lived.There were other schools of thought in Hinduism like Sankhya,Nyaya
,Vaisesika,Mimamsa,Adwaitha of different shades like the Bhedha-bhedha
etc.and it was Sankara who systematised Adwaitha(monisIt was through his
brilliant commentaries.In his Bhashyas itself we see these different views
by thinkers like Bhartruprapancha,Brahmanandi,Bhrtruhari
who were his predecessors and during Vyasa's time the author of
Brahmasutras,Badarayana,Jaimini,Audulomi,Karsyakrtna etc.who lived before
Shankara.The illustrious Kumarila Bhatta also lived before Shankara.It was
Acharya Gaudapada,the paramaguru of Shankara who wrote the Gaudapada
Karikas on the Mandukya Upanishad,that is still available to us.We can say
that Acharya Gaudapada was the first  systematic commentator on the
Mandukya Upanishad which brings about the quintessence of Adwaitha
vedantha.It was Adwaitha vedantha which was referred to by the
word"Vedantha".The Dwaitha,Vishistadwaitha systems came much later.Thus
Adwaitha vedantha has a long and ancient tradition.It was Shankara's
responsibility to put the concept of Adwaitha in its proper perspective
and pristine glory when many other views from within and without started
distorting the Adwaitha view.In all his commentaries we see that the
prakaranas or Bhashyas start with "Purvapaksas",which are raised either by
other schools(vaidika or non-vaidika) and by Shankara himself to clarify
various points and answer the doubts of the disciples.This method is the
foremost characteristic of Shankara Bhashyas,which is called
"Anvikshiki".Through this method Shankara strives to examine the position
of all schools like,Sankhya,mimamsa,Nyaya,Vaisesika,Bauddha ,jaina etc.
Now coming to your question whether Shankara has used harsh words against
his opponents,one can see the dialectics adopted by Shankara is not to
personally attack the thinkers of these schools but to critically examine
these views.Some of these I have listed below:
(Continue reading)

srikanta | 2 Apr 13:36 2007
Picon

Email of Sri Vidyashankar Sundaresan of March 31, 2007, on the Parakayapravesha legend of Shankara.

Namaste.
Sri Vidyashanker has started his email with two questions "How do we know
what we know",and "Are we so special that we know better than everybody
else".i hope all of us in this forum agree that there is no personal
element involved in this discussion and certainly not with the  superior
feeling of I know everything.The topic of the discussion was "Does the
Parakayapravesha story of Shankara casts badlight on the character of
Shankara as a Brahmajnani,a great teacher,who wrote in his famous
poem"Mohamudgara"(Bhajagovinda slokah),describes"Nabhisthanbhara
nabhidesham......etatmamsavashadi vikaram,manasavicintaya varam
varam"?again and again in his Bhashyas he describes the evils of
Samsara,to be eliminated only through "Brahmajnana"?As Sri Vidyashanker
and Sripraveen has stated there are also other stories like"Shankara
asking the untouchable to go aside from his path in Varanasi,the Kapalika
out to behead Shankara and rescued by Padmapada on whom the Lord Narasihma
came,the crmation of Aryambha,the mother of Shankara by Sannyasi Shankara
and many other stories.The author of Madhaviyashankara vijayam is the
first to write these stories.Coming to the cremation of Aryambha,the
mother of Shankara, who promises his mother that he would come to her on
her death bed, the Gurumars of the  Nambudri sect to which Shankara
belonged objected to the cremation of Aryambha by Sannyasi Shankara,upon
which it is written in the Shankara vijayam that he cut the body into
pieces(!) and cremated in the house, and this method was followed till a
few centuries ago.Then onwards, Shankara cursed the Gurumars.Upon this
curse,
the Gurumars still perform "Apradakshina"(counterclockwise
circumambulation) in all rituals and temples instead of the conventional
"Pradakhina".
Furthter,the episode of "parakayapravesha"has a "Tantrik" element in it.
There is no way of verifying the veracity of the story.But,it can be
(Continue reading)

NARAYANA MURTHY | 2 Apr 14:09 2007
Picon

SAsthrabhyAsam and SamAdishatguNasampath

Sri Amuthan MahaSaya

  praNAmah

  I had been on an unscheduled trip to Gaya and had darshan of GadAdara and AkSayavata.  very kind of you for
deliberating on "Sasthra vyAkhyAna kauSalam" and "SabdajAlam" verses as per the commentary of Sh
Chandrasekara Bharathi swaminah.

  Another verse #47 adding further clarity is :

  "vedAntArtha vichAreNa jAyate gnyAnamuthamam
  tenAtyantika samsAraduhkhanASo bhavatyanu"

  by getting involved in vednta vichAram, one gets gnyAnam and gnyAnath samsAraduhkhanASam.

  may be its a checklist given by Sankara to deplore where one is led by the vichara in those verses.

  warm regards

 				
---------------------------------
 Here’s a new way to find what you're looking for - Yahoo! Answers 
bhaskar.yr | 2 Apr 15:16 2007
Picon

Email of Sri Vidyashankar Sundaresan of March 31, 2007, on the Parakayapravesha legend of Shankara.

Nambudri sect to which Shankara belonged objected to the cremation of
Aryambha by Sannyasi Shankara,upon which it is written in the Shankara
vijayam that he cut the body into pieces(!) and cremated in the house, and
this method was followed till a
few centuries ago.

praNAms
Hare Krishna

In mAdhavIya there is a slight change in this episode...after raising
objections with regard to sanyAsa dharma, brahmaNa-s at kAladi refused to
give *fire* to shankara for his mother's cremation , shankara amputated the
right hand of his mother to get that fire (!!)and then cursed the brahmins
of Kaladi for not giving fire for cremation!! First of all I dont know in
which shAstra it is said by amputating some limbs from the dead body one
can get *fire*...and secondly, it is very hard to believe paramArtha jnAni
like shankara did that job!!  Thirdly, it is still a big puzzle that
shankara who had turned the direction of river, who had given *kanaka
dhAra* to a poor lady through his *maNtra shakti* opted for cutting his own
mother's limb just for the sake of fire!!

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar

prem d p | 2 Apr 20:23 2007
Picon

Re: RE: On the parakAyapraveSa legend about Sankara

namaste...

  dear sri vidyasankarji and all,

   
  i believe that with or without parakaya pravesa legend, glory of shankara

  remains ever effulgent and more importantly for us his Word remains the Way.

   
  The legend whether fact or fiction, nevertheless magically converts itself into a

  great test of our understanding of the eternal Truth pointed out by him...such is

  the nature of a 'Great Soul', like Brahmam, ever untainted and lending

  luminiscence to even Name & Form borne of avidya (fiction !).

   
  i would be very grateful, Vidyasankarji,  if you could throw a little bit of light

  on the process or mechanism of parakaya pravesa. Given that we have for our

  vehicle the sthula, sukshma, and karana sarira, what is it that enters the

  para-kaya? Also in the legend is it clear if the prana had left the body of the

  'dead' king? 

   
(Continue reading)


Gmane