ADVAITA-L Digest - 12 Nov 1996 to 13 Nov 1996

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

Anand Hudli wrote:

> > > combination of karma and jnaana. But the Achaarya does recognize that not
> > > everyone is fit for sannyaasa, citing Arjuna as an example, and points out
> > > that Krishna prescribes karma yoga (and bhakti) to such persons.
> >
> > Could you please provide some specific quotes from Shankara on this
> > subject?

[ ... ]

>    Not all persons are capable of fixing their mind on the infinite
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    Brahman, devoid of all transformations. This is because people are
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    of inferior, middling or superior intellect.

This is precisely the opinion of Ramana Maharshi also.

> > I hear this type of dangerous comment quite often, and find it hard to
> > believe that Shankara was really proposing it in quite such a way as
> > this.

[ ... ]

> > 1) Some Vaishnavas on the net say that Shankara was actually a
> > dvaitistic worshipper of Vishnu, based on a single bhakti tract that
> > he wrote, and that all the advaitistic writings were merely for the
> > less advanced people who couldn't understand devotion.
>
>    How would the Vaishnavas explain the above quotes and other such
>    writings of Shankara? While I see no reason why Shankara was not
>    a Vaishnava, I have problems in accepting that he was no real
>    advaitin. Even Gaudapaada, Shankara's paramaguru was a worshipper
>    of NaaraayaNa. To say that he was just that, ie. a worshipper of
>    NaaraayaNa (in a dvaitic sense), is a gross distortion.

to say the least :-). As far as I know such claims are made only by the
Gaudiyas on the net.

> > 2) A Buddhist on the net once argued that all the statements that
> > Ramana Maharshi had made that contained any Hindu content, including
> > references to Shankara, were made merely to be nice to all the Hindus
> > who came to see him, but in reality, he was really a Buddhist !  :-)
> >
>
>   Considering the fact that Shankara and other well known advaitins
>   have criticized Buddhism, it is not appropriate nor even rational to
>   speculate that they were really buddhists.

Considering the fact that RM has called the concept of Bodhisatvas ridiculous
(the same word "ridiculous" can be found in the talks), I would hardly see any
reason to call RM a buddhist.

Ramakrishnan.
--
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant (May faulty logic
undermine your entire philosophy)           -- strong Vulcan curse
                  http://yake.ecn.purdue.edu/~rbalasub/

>From  Wed Nov 13 21:53:29 1996
Message-Id: <WED.13.NOV.1996.215329.GMT.>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 21:53:29 GMT
Reply-To: kstuart at mail.telis.org
To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ken Stuart <kstuart at MAIL.TELIS.ORG>
Subject: Re: Advaita 1001
Comments: To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.A32.3.91.961113090058.229276A-100000 at appn.ci.in.ameritech.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Wed, 13 Nov 1996 10:42:01 -0500, Anand Hudli
<ahudli at APPN.CI.IN.AMERITECH.COM> wrote:

>                 Ken Stuart wrote:
>>
>> >   True.
>> >   In the giitaa bhaashhya, Shankara makes it clear that karma done
>> >  with renunciation of fruits thereof acts as a great purifier and leads
>> >  one to jnaana. However, he is quite emphatic in saying that it is jnaana
>> > alone, not a combination of karma and jnaana, that results in mokshha.
>> > He makes the same argument in the upadeshasaahasrii also, regarding the
>> > combination of karma and jnaana. But the Achaarya does recognize that not
>> > everyone is fit for sannyaasa, citing Arjuna as an example, and points out
>> > that Krishna prescribes karma yoga (and bhakti) to such persons.
>>
>> Could you please provide some specific quotes from Shankara on this
>> subject?
>
>
>  See for example,  Shankara's Giitaa bhaashhya 3.5:
>
>   ajnaananaameva hi karmayogaH, na jnaaninaaM| jnaaninaaM tu guNaiH
>   achaalyamaanaanaaM svataH chalanaabhaavaat.h karmayogaH na upapadyate|
>
>   Karma yoga is (prescribed) for the ignorant alone, not for the jnaani's.
>   Since the jnaani's, who are not affected by the guNas (sattva, rajas, and
>  tamas), do not act of their own accord, karma yoga is not suitable.
>
>   yastu anaatmajnaH choditaM karma naarabhate iti tat.h asat.h
>
>   If one, who is not a knower of the Self, does not perform the enjoined
>   duties, then it is wrong.
>
>
>   tasmaatsvaabhaavikyaiva avidyayaa yuktaaya raagaadidoshhavate
>   yathaabhimatapurushharthasaadhanaM karma upadishatyagre |
>    ( Commentary on Brihadaranyaka upanishad 5.1.1)
>
>   For one who is naturally associated with ignorance and has defects
>   of attachment and the like, karma (Vedic) is prescribed so that he
>   may achieve his personal purushhaarthas.
>
>
>   praagaatmajnaanaat pravR^ittyupapatteH
>   (Commentary on Br. Up. 4.5.15)
>
>   Before the dawn of Self-knowledge, actions or rites are appropriate.
>
>   na hi avikaare anante brahmaNi sarvaiH puMbhiH shakyaa buddhiH
>   sthaapayituM mandamadhyamottamabuddhitvaat puMsaamiti |
>   (Commentary on the Brahmasutra  3.2.33)
>
>   Not all persons are capable of fixing their mind on the infinite
>   Brahman, devoid of all transformations. This is because people are
>   of inferior, middling or superior intellect.
>
>   There are other quotes, but I will stop here for brevity's sake.

Okay, the question now arises what exactly Shankara is referring to by
"jnani" and "knower of the Self".

The followers of Ramakrishna use "knower of the Self" to mean
"self-realized".   And I've read messages in this mailing list that
use "jnani" to mean "self-realized".

If that is true, then one can make a strong case that Shankara is
saying "Unless you're already realized, you need to do karma yoga".


Namaskar,

Ken

kstuart at mail.telis.org
http://www.zynet.com/~castlerx/kstuart/KSphilosophy.html