Ancient Knowledge, New knowledge

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

Sorry for the rather late reply. I have been busy with work recently.

__________________

sadananda <sada at ANVIL.NRL.NAVY.MIL> wrote:

Subject: Re: Ancient Knowledge, New Knowledge

>The reason I am responding to this is that my recent request for references
>got burried in the oblivian.  I am looking for besides the mahavaakyaas any
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   It certainly did :-).

>other sciptural statements from the prastaanatraya - B.G., Brahma Sutra or
>Upanishads that catorically supports the adviatic theory!  Any help in
>this?

Let me try to offer something from the kR^ishhNa yajurveda, the taittiriiya
upanishhad.h. The third part is bhR^iguvalli and occurs as a dialogue between
varuNa and bhR^igu. The theme is that bhR^igu asks varuNa what brahman is and
he asks bhR^igu to learn it by tapas. First bhR^igu thinks annaM is brahman and
goes back to varuNa. varuNa does not refute it, but merely tells bhR^igu that
brahman.h is known by tapas. The sequence is repeated with praaNa, mana,
vijnaana. Finally bhR^igu arrives at the conclusion that brahman.h is aananda
and does not go back. After this we have some general instructions like "annam
na nindhyaat.h" etc. Finally bhR^igu says:

haa vuhaa vuhaa vu |
ahamannamahamannamahamannam.h |
ahamannaado.a hamannaado.a hamannaadaH |

the clincher:
ahamasmi prathamajaa R^itaa sya |
puurvaM devebhyo amR^itasyanaa bhaa i |
...

_____________


If you come to the minor upanishhads you have the shvetaashvatara, kaivalya etc
which have advaitic statements. The latter has statements explicitly supporting
advaita (ahaM shivaM shivo.ahamasmi etc).

The mahanaaraayaNa upanishhad (kR^ishhNa yajur veda ) also has many examples:
 - aghamarshhNa suuktaM (chanted while taking bath)  has  the sentence
   ahamasmi brahmaahamasmi.
 - various other mantras scattered all over (sarvo vai rudraH etc).

The suuryanamaskaaraprashnaH supports ajaati vaada:
  na puushhaa, na pashavaH, naadityaH samvatsara eva pratyaksheNa priyatamaM
  vidyaat.h, etadvai samvatsarasya priyatamaM ruupaM, etc

So I would certainly consider all these statements as supportive of advaita
only! Giving any other meaning is twisting the verses to suit the needs, given
the context in which they occur.

If you need the verse numbers etc I can look up and post them sometime later.

______________

Vidya wrote:


>>         Is that possible ? If one of the statements from the

>Why not? Every teacher in the vedanta traditions has recognized that there
>are different abheda and bheda Srutis. According to the advaita school,
>the abheda Srutis always occur in the context of moksha, whereas the bheda
>Srutis are intended for other purusharthas.
>
>There is no reason to suppose that all the Srutis support only this or
>that view. Especially when the various commentators of the Srutis
>themselves do not impose such restrictive criteria of consistency or
>completeness on them. The Srutis cannot be reduced to a formal axiomatic
>system.

Perhaps Sri Ramanuja may agree that the shruti as a whole is not an "axiomatic"
system, but Sri Madhva will, I think, disagree. I believe the dvatin contention
is that Vishnu alone is proclaimed as supreme, even in the karma khaaNDa. In
fact this absolutist position is carried out even with regard to the
mahaabhaarata (based on a quote from the skanda puraaNa), i.e., the claim
goes that vishhNu alone is praised as supreme in the MBh. This is inspite of
the fact that you have the shiva sahasranaamam + chapters on rudra mahaatmyam
and various shiva stutis all over the place, and Lord Krishna himself telling
that the names of shiva stand as the supreme truth! The claim is something like
"there are N meanings to each sentence in the veda/MBh and the 'proper' meaning
is dvaita+vishhNu is supreme alone".

Ofcourse, the advaitins recognize that there are bheda shrutis also. Eg.
gauDapaada says that "what can be established by reason and scripture alone is
correct". He independently arrives at the same conclusion (advaita) based on
both reasoning and the vedas. That is what makes this text most attractive to
me. gauDapaada says that the bheda shrutis are for people who are not ready for
advaita. Sorry, I forgot the verse numbers. I can dig it up if anyone is
interested.

______________

Kartik wrote:

>1) The SBSB begins with a preamble, and then proceeds onto commenting on
>the Brahma Sutras. The style is that of an (advaita) Vedantin either arguing
>with an opponent or resolving doubts [of a student of advaita Vedanta].
>The opponent is so well read and argues with such force and clarity that it
>becomes evident that the opponent too is none but Shankara himself!

The same position is adopted in the upadeshasaahasrii and the kaarikaa
bhaashhya also. For eg, in the latter, when talking about the jaagrat.h and
svapna states and their "similarities", shankara goes through many of the
objections which usually arise and in fact all the objections raised in the
list some time back by Suresh and Vidya are dealt with! The same method is used
in his tatitirriya upanishhad bhaashhya also.

>4) Shankara, being Self-realized, is above any personality. But the author of
>SBSB does have a personality which can at best be described as *orthodox*,
>for he scrupulously agrees word for word with the Brahma Sutras even in cases
>like animal-sacrifice and prohibition of the Shudra from knowledge of the
 Vedas.
>
>Shankara, in accordance with the Brahms Sutras, seems to firmly hold that a
>*born shudra* has no competence to study the Vedas. He gives argument after
>argument why this is so.

This is the same position adopted by ramaNa maharshii, though he himself
was quite famous for not observing any distinctions! See Devaraja Mudaliar's
reminiscences (published by Ramanashramam). He wasn't against non-brahmins
hearing the vedas though. I am not sure about ramaNa maharshii's views on
animal sacrifice. However, I would very much doubt if he would rule it out
altogether for everyone.

So shankara, in all probablilty, did not observe any such distinctions himself.

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