[Advaita-l] Re: Vivekachudamani vs Bhashyas
svidyasankar at hotmail.com
Thu Aug 7 12:48:37 CDT 2003
>There are several verses in the VC that speak of nirvikalpa samadhi.
>This is what Bhaskar may have meant:
Oh, that explains it. I must also correct my earlier statement about the
occurrence of the term nirvikalpa in VC. It does occur in more than one
verse, in some places as a reference to samAdhi and in other places as
>I feel the RK Math verse numbers are incorrect, as some shlokas (such
>as #19) are assumed to have 3 lines (aren't all shlokas supposed to
>have 2 or 4 lines?), whereas all the shlokas in the other version have
>an even number of lines.
Sometimes verses in anuShTubh meter have three lines. There are quite a few
such instances in the mahAbhArata.
> > It is again clear prabhuji, sarvAtmana bandha vimuktihEtuH
>sarvAtmabhAvAnna parOsti kashchit! *drushyAgrahE* satyupapadyatEsau
>sarvAtmabhAvOsya sadAnishtaya ..verse 336 that author of VC saying that
>drushya - AgrahaNa in samadhi stithi can only lead us to sarvAtma bhAva, if
>we see the very next verse which starts drushyasyAgrahaNaM kaThaM nu
>ghatatE dEhAtmanA tishtatho etc. it is clear that author giving special
>emphasis on samAdhi stiti. This is further clarified by VC author in verse
>354 (kindly check for the no. in your book) upAdhibhEdAt svayamEva
>bhadhyatE chOpAdhyapOhE svayamEva kEvalaH! *tasmAdhupAdhirvilayAyA vidwAn
>vasEt sadAkalpa samAdhiniShtayA* ( kindly bear with my sanskrit
>trasliteration) Prabhuji, does it not the last sentence of the above verse
>(sadAkalpa samAdhiniShtayA) makes it clear author's spl. inclination
>towards samAdhi prabhuji?? author's shruti pratipAdya pre-requisites
>shAntO-dAntaH (Br. 4-4-23)etc. is only to attain nirvikalpa samAdhi only
>coz. this is the ultimate abode of brahma jnAni according to VC author.
Yes, that does seem to be the case, but compare numerous verses in
upadeSasAhasrI that talk of draShTA, dRSi and dRSya. Also, it is a given
that jnAna obtained through Sruti culminates in anubhava, is it not?
anubhavArUDhaM jnAnaphalam, says the bhAshyakAra. VC seems to be emphasizing
the anubhava part of the teaching. Yes, Sankara does not talk too much of
this aspect in the bhAshyas, but he does get into quite some detail in the
>Agreed. However, I would like to emphasize that such comparative textual
>studies should not be restricted by the sUtrabhAshya alone and have to take
>into account (and very seriously) what is said in the gItAbhAshya and
>upanishad commentaries too, particularly those on BU, TU and CU.
> > For that matter, there is some minor differences in sUtra bhAsHya &
>bruhadAraNyaka bhAshya of sri shankara when we do the comparative analysis.
>I wanted to discuss those points also with you prabhuji, if you could
>kindly permit me. But it is definitely not as severe as we find in PT
>bhAshyas & prakaraNa grantha-s such as VC & sarva vEdAnta sidhAnta sAra
Yes, there are some differences between upanishad commentaries and
brahmasUtra commentary. If one were to be rigorous in discussing authorship
issues, shouldn't one also ask whether the same author wrote all the
commentaries? There is no prima facie reason why only prakaraNa texts should
be subjected to this kind of analysis. No post-Sankaran author has quoted
praSnopanishad or kaThopanishad commentary, as far as I am aware. Indeed,
before analyzing prakaraNa texts, one should first examine all the prasthAna
trayI commentaries (and also upadeSasAhasrI) in order to get the widest
possible idea of the range of Sankara's thought and writing style. Instead,
almost all arguments of authorship to date have focused on brahmasUtra
commentary alone. That is something that needs to be corrected before making
judgements about the prakaraNa texts.
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list