Notes on BSB I-i-4-1G

[Dennis Waite]

sadaashiva samaarambhaa.n sha~Nkaraachaarya
madhyamam.h |
asmadaachaarya paryantaa.n vande guruparamparaam.h ||

I prostrate to the lineage of teachers starting from Lord Shiva who is ever
auspicious and with Bhagavaan Shankara in the middle and all the way up to
my own teacher.

vaatsalya ruupa.n triguNairatiitaM
aananda saandram amalairnidhaanam.h .|
shrii chinmayaananda guro praNiitaM
sadaa bhaje.aha.n tava paada pa~Nkajam.h ||

Who is the very embodiment of motherly affection who is beyond the three
guNa-s, who is full with bliss, and who is the very source of purity who is
the best among the
teachers, Shree Chinmayaananda, to his lotus feet I (sadaa) always
prostrate.
---------------------------------------------------
 samanvaya adhyaaya - I
 spashhTa brahma li~Nga vaakya samanvaya paada - i
 samanvaya adhikaraNam.h .- 4
 suutra: tat tu samanvayaat.h .-1G

Notes on BSB I-i-4-1G
If we recall the puurvamiimaamsaka's definition of pramaaNam is - anadhigata
abaadhita saprayojana arthabodhakam pramaaNam - It should reveal something,
which is new, not negated by other pramaaNam-s and useful.
We have proved above that Vedanta is pramaaNa by their own definition since
it fulfils all the requirements. Now let us examine the karmakaanDa.
Does it fulfil all the above conditions? It reveals new things like puNyam,
paapam, swarga, etc, merits, demerits, heaven etc. It is also useful - since
dharma, artha and kaama purushhaartha are fulfilled. Two requirements are
met.
But does it fulfil abaadhita condition that is it should not be negated by
any other pramaaNa. Shankara says it does not fulfil that requirement since
karmakaanDa is negated by the j~naanakaanDam of the Veda-s. This is because
karmakaanDa reveals duality, which is the main theme of karmakaanDa.
j~naanakanDam says na iha naanaa asti ki~nchana -
there is no plurality at all. What you call as plurality is nothing but
Brahman

brahama eva idam amR^itam purastaat brahma pashchaat brahma dakshinataH cha
uttareNa, adhaH cha uurdhvam cha prasR^itam brahma eva idam vishvam idam
varishhTham - MunDaka Upa. 2-2-11

Brahma which is changeless is everywhere - in the front, in the back, in the
south, in the north, above, below - all over it is nothing but Brahman.
This entire magnificent universe is nothing but Brahman. What about the
duality - Vedanta says - yatra vaa anyadi vasyaat tatra anyaH anyat
pashyet - where there is a seeming duality then alone a person sees
plurality everywhere - yatra sarvam aatmaa eva abhuut tatra kena kam
pashyet - when a person can recognize the aatman where is the question of
duality? From these two statements it is clear that aj~naana kaale dvaitam,
j~naanakaale advaitam - only when one is ignorant one sees the plurality and
the seeming plurality disappears when one has the knowledge of Brahman.
Whatever one perceives when one is ignorant can be a pramaaNam or
apramaaNam - valid or invalid knowledge. The snake is there at the time of
ignorance and rope is there after gaining the knowledge - then that is valid
knowledge. Hence snake is invalid or mithya. Hence karmakaanDa reveals
invalid duality which is perceived at the time of ignorance. Therefore
karmakaanDa is apramaaNam. Furthermore there is an interesting statement -
anyaH asau anyaH aham iti saH na veda saH devaanam paashuH - the one who
says I am different from others he does not know, he is the most ignorant.
(Devanaam pashuH is a proverb indicating that he is the master in
stupidity.) Thus dvaitam or duality is invalid and karmakaanDa based on
dvaitam is also invalid. If at all it should get validity it has to be
hooked up to j~naanakaanDa. In what way will it be useful to j~naanakaanDa?
Shankara says j~naanakaanDa saadhanatvena karmakaanDasya praamaaNyam. It is
useful as a means to prepare the student to qualify for j~naanakaanDa. How
will it help as a means to come to j~naanakaanDa? saadhana chatushhTaya
sampatti pradhaanena - karmakaanDa is useful by giving four fold
qualifications required to prepare a student for Brahman inquiry - for
details Shankara says refer to the discussion related to the first suutra -
atha ataH brahma jij~naasa. karmakaanDa is not meant for dharma artha kaama
purushaartha, and vedantin does not consider that they are purushhaartha at
all since they are only exalted sa.nsaara. In fact, karmakaanDa and
upaasanaa are all ultimately meant for vairaagya siddhi. dharma, artha,
kaama is only a sugar coating for the medicines to give ultimately the
vairaagya required to turn one's attention to secure moksha. It is like a
chocolate laxative given to children to cleanse the system. After one gets
deeply entangled in sa.nsaara, a time will come in the evolution of a jiiva
when he feels like running away from these attachments - an indication that
the medicine is working!
Hence it is superficially dharma, artha, kaamaartham but in the final
analysis it is meant only for acquiring saadhana chatushhTayam eva.
After acquiring the saadhana chatushhTayam the person comes to Vedanta -
athaH (suutra 1) karmakaanDa dwaara vairaagya siddhi anantaram - through the
path of karmakanDa after acquiring detachment, inquiry into Brahman.
Is there a pramaaNam for this? - or is it just sour grapes of a
brahmachaarii sanyaasin bhaashhyakaara-s!?
pramaaNam 1: pariikshya lokaan karmachitaan brahmaNo ... Mund. Upa. 1-2-12
(the full mantra is explained with reference to suutra 1), having
experienced all the benefits of karma and after one examines the bottom
line, one should get vairaagyam or detachment. How come we see lot of people
not having that vairaagyam? - Well, all it means is that they will continue
taking the medicine until it works - that is the law of nature. Everyone is
seeking aanandam or happiness and it takes lot more for some to learn that
seeker and the sought are one and the same and any search is futile.

pramaaNam 2: tam etam vedaanuvachanena brahmaaNaa vividishhanti yaj~nena
daanena tapasaa anaashhakena (Bri. Up. ref? ). Here yaj~na refers to karma,
daana means charity and tapasaa refers to upaasana. The mantra says the
purpose of all these is ultimately for generating interest in Vedanta
(vividishaa) - jij~naasa. Interest in Vedanta is directly proportional to
vairaagyam towards sa.nsaara. Gita says - yoginaH karma kurvanti sa~Nga.n
tyaktvaa aatmasiddhaye. Yogis perform action renouncing the fruits of
actions in order to purify their minds.
Hence karamakaanDa is not useful by itself but only useful for facilitating
the development of saadhana chatushhTaya sampatti which is the
   requirement
for Vedanta vichaara. In Gita also this is stated as - sarvam karma akhilam
paartha j~naane parisamaapyate - [IV:33]
Thus Shankara makes it clear that karmakaaNDa is only useful when it gets
related to j~naankaaNDa. puurvapakshi-s got it completely ultasiida
(opposite) in claiming that it is the other way. Hence by their own
arguments if utility is the criteria, karamakaaNDa is useless directly and
only useful indirectly. Hence it is not a primary pramaaNa but only a
secondary one.

********
Notes on Brahmasuutra-s are now stored in a folder and can be accessed at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/advaitin/files/Notes+on+Brahmasuutra/
for personal study.

***Copyright Protection - These notes are copyright protected. ***
-- K. Sadananda
Code 6323
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington D.C. 20375
Voice (202)767-2117
Fax:(202)767-2623

Dennis posting on behalf of

>From "Ravisankar S. Mayavaram" <miinalochanii at y...>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 17:57:13 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Request
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Ravisankar S. Mayavaram" <miinalochanii at y...>


Soon we are going to complete 5 years. It is time to recollect and
re-emphasize our goals.

1) Let us all work together and make this forum more productive in
understanding advaita-vedAnta and smArta sampradAya from a
*traditional* standpoint.

2) Let us take up the works of bhagavan shrI shankara and discuss them
here in detail. We as a group should make available all his works
online and accessible to all.

3) Our WWW page is languishing on many sides. Unfortunately we do not
have resources/guidance and interest to build a collection of all
shankara's works and series that has been posted to the list. Just give
a comparison, with dedicated effort of shrI vishvarupaji, www.ambaa.org
has almost all the series posted on ambaa-L in the WWW page.

4) Please participate in important threads. Like Sadananda's
brahmasUtrabhAshhya and Anand Hudli's advaita siddhi. As eagerly as we
jump into topics like vegetarianism etc., should we not show interest
in main topics like brahmasUtra, etc.?

5) This list has not yet a seen a devoted and systematic discussion on
upanishad bhAShyA-s of shankara.

I URGE EVERYONE OF YOU TO TAKE ONE WORK BY OR ON SHANKARA AND POST AT
LEAST ONE PARAGRAPH A MONTH. EVEN IF YOU CANNOT TRANSLATE, POST THE
ORIGINAL IN SANSKRIT AS IT IS.

I hope shrI shankara will guide this list to become a valuable
resource. At this point, on behalf of my fellow list-administrators, I
thank all those who participate in advaita-L.


=====
ambaaL daasan

Ravi

sharaNAgata raxakI nivEyani sadA ninnu nammiti mInAxI

http://www.ambaa.org/ http://www.advaita-vedanta.org

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

>From Vivek Anand Ganesan <v_ganesan at Y...>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 19:15:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: ahmisA from Sri Krishna's Life
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Vivek Anand Ganesan <v_ganesan at Y...>


--- "ShrI S. V. Subrahmanian" <svsubrahmanian at Y...>
wrote:
> Rule 1 - CHOOSE ahmisa
> =======================
> himsA as a method to achieve an end should be abhored and
> never followed at all
> costs. When there is more than one way of achieving an
> end then the one that
> has least himsA should be chosen. But there are
> situations in life when one is
> led as it were to himsA. In such situations one should
> do the best possible to
> avoid leading/cornering oneself into such a situation.
> One should live and
> plan wisely as to avoid being caught in such
> circumstances. Laziness,
> convenience, complacence, lack of effort, fear of public
> opinion etc., should
> never be an excuse to choose himsA.
With due respects and hopefully without causing much
rancour
I would like to present a different view.
Arjuna had a choice in Kurukshetra. He could have chosen
not to fight and could have surrendered. He could have run
away. In fact, in the gItA, he cites several reasons for
not fighting and eventually decides to take the Great
Indian
Escape route - Sannyas.
 But, Bhagawan sees through this charade right away. I
have
always been struck by the very first words uttered by Him
in the gItA - "What nonsense is this?". He also chides
arjuna for being ignoble and worse, he goes to the extent
of
insinuating him to be an eunuch! So, it seems that He
chides, insults and intimidates Arjuna who does not want to
fight to do exactly that. Why? If He is committed to ahiMsA
then why would he compel arjuna to a fratricidal civil war?
 It seems to me that there are two operative principles
here. One is common dharma and the other is varNAshrama
dharma. While ahiMsA is an integral part of everyday
dharma,
it may/may not be part of varNAshrama dharma. Arjuna's duty
as a kshatriya requires him to fight, hence he **has** to
fight. Besides, this is not just any war but a holy war,
dharma yuddham! During the course of fighting the dharma
yuddham there may be loss of life, limb etc. This is part
of
war and should be seen as attendant side-effects of
upholding dharma and not as wilful injury or hiMsA.
>
> Let us look at Lord Krishna's life. He did not hesitate
> to flee from
> Jarasandha to a distant place (then) and created a new
> city for Yadavas. He
> did not fear blame or censure. He tried his best to
> avoid conflict (though
> some misinterpret it as a clever move).
He also cut off someone's head for insulting him ( I can't
remember his name right now! ) although he tolerated the
abuse for a while. He also slew kamsa. He needn't have and
could have "chosen" not to. But, he did. Why?

> When there is choice between himsA and ahimsA even if
> ahimsa leads to blame or
> sacrifice of one's postion, wealth, people, fame etc -
> CHOOSE ahimsA.
Except when dharma is at stake. My understanding is as
follows :

hiMsA = wilful injury
ahiMsA = abstinence from wilful injury by thought, word or
 deed
Self-defense and defense of dharma is not hiMsA because
they
are not done with a wilful and aggressive intent but out of
the necessity to preserve one's own life and honour.

>
> Rule 2: AVOID himsA
> ====================
> This seems like re-stating the first. The only
> difference is that we may be in
> situations when himsa might be thrust on us by
> circumstances with not much of
> an alternative. For eg., the situation of paNdavas after
> vanavasa and agnyAta
> vAsa. In such situations we should try our best to avoid
> himsa, to ensure that
> it is not mortally possible to avoid.
If self-defense and defense of dharma and honour are not
considered hiMsA, I would agree with the above statement
100%.


> Rule 3: svadharma and himsa
> =============================
> The svadharma of different people are different and
> theirs own differs based on
> the ashrama in which they are. I once asked a Swamiji
> the following question:
> "Would Krishna have prescribed war to Arjuna if Arjuna
> were a brAhmaNa". He
> replied that He may not have. A brahmaNa because of his
> strict adherence to
> Vedic rituals might be enjoined upon to bear himsa with
> titiksha (forbearance)
> and not retaliate. That is his svadharma. Whereas a
> Kshatriya might retaliate
> against injustice which is his svadharma. So following
> one's svadharma gets
> greater precedence over deciding whether to do himsA or
> ahimsA.
Absolutely. But, then again we have the instance of
parashurAma. He is very much an incarnation and he was
a brAhmaNa who slew the vain and arrogant kshatriyas.

> Similarly a kshatriya who is ruling might have his
> svadharma dictate that he
> ought to "kill to protect". But the very same kshatriya
> when he takes the
> fourth ashrama will have to give up himsA. So himsa done
> in as much as to
> perform one's svadharma must be permissible.
Yes but we also have ShrI MadhusUdhan Saraswati who was
supposed to have raised an army to defend Hindu temples
and monks. Again the operative principle here is defense
of dharma and honour which I believe is not hiMsA.

>
> Note, any true performance of svadharma has to be
> nishkAma karma - even the
> most basic ones as sandhyAvandanam.
Even fighting has to be done as nishkAma but a kshatriya
is **required** to fight against adharma. That is his duty.

 And, I present my take on the general understanding of
ahiMsA, as understood today. I think most Indians ( and
many non-indians ) tend to base their understanding by
the life and conduct of Gandhiji. Undoubtedly, Gandhiji
deserves the highest praise for his nationalistic
endeavours.

 But, I take issue with his interpretation of ahiMsA and
his criticism of those who veered from his interpretation.
I personally feel that his interpretation is not wholly
consistent with the Bhagavad gItA, although he claims so.
I believe it is overly influenced by his encounters with
Jainism in his native Gujarat and also the views of Tolstoy
and others.

 I also feel that prior to his entry in to Indian politics
( in 1917 or so ) and his consequent deification as the
"mahatma", he held some views which would not be too
"orthodox" by current standards. Here are some examples :
1. While in S. Africe in 1890s he supported the Anglo-Boer
 war and even volunteered to serve!
2. He organized an emergency corps during WWI in 1914-1915
 during his stay in London. Upon returning to India, he
 undertook recruitment in India. For his efforts, the
 British gave him the Kaiser-i-hind medal.
3. He openly stated many times that Indians were subjects
 of the British empire and hence should support the
 wars of the British.

 But, all this was before 1917 ( before he became a
"mahatma" ). Later on, he became a committed pacifist
and abhorred all wars.

 I don't think that we should base our notions of ahiMsA
entirely on Gandhiji's interpretation. Shivaji's guru,
Ramdas swami, openly preached armed resistance to Mughal
imperialism. Living in post-Gandhian days, we have no right
to judge him as hiMsAvAdi. ( Gandhiji criticized Guru
Gobind Singh ji, 10th guruji of the Sikhs and Shivaji
 as hiMsAvAdis in 1924 ).

 So, if we decline the Gandhian interpretation of ahiMsA
then the issue becomes clear.
1. Practice ahiMsA
2. If the dharma and honour are at stake then it is one's
 duty to defend it and it is not a violation of 1)
3. What constitutes dharma and its adherence should be
 understood from scriptures and the conduct of eminent
 persona.
4. Finally, act by your own conscience.

-Vivek.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

>From "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 23:45:15 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: ahmisA from Sri Krishna's Life
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>


On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Vivek Anand Ganesan wrote:

> With due respects and hopefully without causing much
> rancour
> I would like to present a different view.
> Arjuna had a choice in Kurukshetra. He could have chosen
> not to fight and could have surrendered. He could have run
> away. In fact, in the gItA, he cites several reasons for
> not fighting and eventually decides to take the Great
> Indian
> Escape route - Sannyas.
> But, Bhagawan sees through this charade right away. I
> have
> always been struck by the very first words uttered by Him
> in the gItA - "What nonsense is this?". He also chides
> arjuna for being ignoble and worse, he goes to the extent
> of
> insinuating him to be an eunuch! So, it seems that He
> chides, insults and intimidates Arjuna who does not want to
> fight to do exactly that. Why? If He is committed to ahiMsA
> then why would he compel arjuna to a fratricidal civil war?
> It seems to me that there are two operative principles
> here. One is common dharma and the other is varNAshrama
> dharma. While ahiMsA is an integral part of everyday
> dharma,
> it may/may not be part of varNAshrama dharma. Arjuna's duty
> as a kshatriya requires him to fight, hence he **has** to
> fight. Besides, this is not just any war but a holy war,
> dharma yuddham! During the course of fighting the dharma
> yuddham there may be loss of life, limb etc. This is part
> of
> war and should be seen as attendant side-effects of
> upholding dharma and not as wilful injury or hiMsA.

Also it should be noted Arjunas various arguments boil down to cowardice
plain and simple. As you say, sannyasa in that case would be escapism.

[...]

> And, I present my take on the general understanding of
> ahiMsA, as understood today. I think most Indians ( and
> many non-indians ) tend to base their understanding by
> the life and conduct of Gandhiji. Undoubtedly, Gandhiji
> deserves the highest praise for his nationalistic
> endeavours.
>
> But, I take issue with his interpretation of ahiMsA and
> his criticism of those who veered from his interpretation.
> I personally feel that his interpretation is not wholly
> consistent with the Bhagavad gItA, although he claims so.
> I believe it is overly influenced by his encounters with
> Jainism in his native Gujarat and also the views of Tolstoy
> and others.
>

Gandhiji explicitly said he was influenced by the 19th century Jain saint
Raichand (Rajachandra.) I feel attempts to place his philosophy in the
Gita was an after the fact rationalization after he encountered people
like Lokamanya Tilak etc. (the ancestors of todays "Hindu nationalism")
They were the first to make the Gita into a political document.

> I also feel that prior to his entry in to Indian politics
> ( in 1917 or so ) and his consequent deification as the
> "mahatma", he held some views which would not be too
> "orthodox" by current standards.

At first many eminent people shared that view. It was the Jalianwalabagh
massacre which opened the eyes of many to the brutality of colonial rule
and the need for independence.

But we are veering offtopic I think.


--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at b...

>From "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 23:47:58 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Import of ahiMsA according to our dharma
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>


On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Ashish Chandra wrote:

> First of all, let me thoroughly congratulate you on your erudition of our
> Shastras. Rarely will one find one like you - so young and yet so committed
> to the ideals of the Veda.
>
> I always had this nagging doubt about the word Sruti. As we understand it,
> and as Acharyas have explained it, the entire Veda (Samhita to the
> Upanishads) is Sruti. Sruti means that which is heard (passed on from the
> Rishi (seer) onwards). I used to think that the entire Veda (all four
> components of it) was a revelation.

It is and all astika schools accept this. The idea that Veda refers to
the samhitas only was invented in the 19th century by Western critical
scholars and only accepted by clueless people like the Arya Samajists. It
has zero support from our shastras.

> As you have put it, and it sounds
> logical as well, the Veda, as it is available to us today, has had
> additions made to it in the form of Brahamans, Aranyakas and Upanishads.
> These may very well be the teachings of the original Rishi but they are
> some sort of an appendix to the mantras of the Samhitas, are they not? In
> that case, only the mantras were seen by the Rishi.
>

Perhaps your stumbling block is you assume that revelation implies the
entire thing was revealed all in one go? I don't see why the process of
revelation couldn't have spanned several generations or why one portion
of it couldn't refer to another.

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at b...

>From "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 00:22:12 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: New member introduction: Somasundar
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>


Namaskaram,

I am Somasundar, 30 years, s/o Sri V Jayaraman. I am an Tamil Iyer.
I have not learnt Sanskrit. But can read Hindi and Sanskrit to some
extent. Am interested in knowing more about Advaita.

I am currently in Denver, USA.

Warm

>From "Bhadraiah Mallampalli" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Subject: Re: Import of ahiMsA according to our dharma
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 00:54:48 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Bhadraiah Mallampalli" <owner-advaita-l at L...>


>Siddhartha Krishna wrote..
>Half of the Brahmana is a ritualistic interpretation of the Vedas, and >the
>rest (which some call Upanishads), is nothing more than a spiritual
> >interpretation or (rather I would like to say, explanation) if the
> >Vedas, i.e. of the Mantras.

This idea of distinction between ritual and knowledge is questionable. If
you break down the ritual, it will just vanish and knowledge remains. The
upaniSats were revealed when the Rsi was in the most generous mood to help
us. But when revealing the brAhmaNAs the Rsi went on his/her own trip. The
beauty of advaita is that it is a perfect tool to dismantle the brAhmaNa to
create as many upaniSats as you like. What is advaita for by the way?

I also do not believe the chronology of revelation - hymns, brAhmaNas,
araNyakas, upaniSats and sUtras is correct. If upaniSats explain the hidden
meaning of words used in hymns and brAhmaNas, then the knowledge contained
in upaniSats must have been known to Rsis all the way from day one!
upaniSats were so common knowledge that nobody bothered to record them in
the beginning.

One may argue that the chronology may be proved by linguistic changes from
Rgveda to sUtras. This is out of scope for us, but well, the argument can be
accepted for one reason: As people started forgetting, they may have decided
to record the toughest parts (like saMhitas, then brAhmaNas) first and easy
parts (like upaniSats) later, which led to changes in language.

Best regards
Bhadraiah











_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

>From Swaminarayan T <tvswaminarayan at y...>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 00:07:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Request
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Swaminarayan T <tvswaminarayan at y...>


Coincidentally, my thought of posting a few key slokas
from Adi Shankra's laghu vakya vritti today may be
considered by the members as a response from my side
to Shri Ravi's earnest plea to members to ruminate and
discuss Shankara's works on Vedanta and derive better
understanding and become 'Active' in our effort to
become 'INACTIVE'.

Here are the slokas that I thought of sharing with our
fellow members:The text and translations are from the
publication by Swami Ananyannda of Advaita Ashrama in
Mayavati,Pithoragarh,Himalayas:

"Kshane kshane anyathaa bhutaa dhee vikalpaha chitirna
tu,
Muktaasu suutravat budhi vikalpeshu chitihi sthita."

The modifications of the intelect are changing from
moment to moment,never so the pure Conciousness though
She permeates through all those modifications like the
thread in a string of pearls.

"Muktaabhiravrutam suutram muktayormadhya eekshyate,
Tathaavrutaa vikalpaihi chit spashtaa madhye
vikalpayoho."

The thread covered over by the pearls in a string can
be seen inbetween two pearls.Similarly,the pure
Conciousness also,though hidden by the modifications
of the intellect,can be clearly perceived inbetween
any two modifictions.

"Nashte purvavikalpe tu yavadanyasya nodayah,
Nirvikalpakachaitanyam spashtam taavad vibhaasate."

The pure undifferentiated Conciousness shines forth
clearly by itself in the interval of two modifications
of the intellet,when the preceding one has died down
and nother is yet to appear.


Hari Om!

Swaminarayan.





--- "Ravisankar S. Mayavaram"
<miinalochanii at Y...> wrote:

> 1) Let us all work together and make this forum more
> productive in
> understanding advaita-vedAnta and smArta sampradAya
> from a
> *traditional* standpoint.
>
> 2) Let us take up the works of bhagavan shrI
> shankara and discuss them
> here in detail

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

>From Ashish Chandra <ramkisno at H...>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 09:07:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Import of ahiMsA according to our dharma
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Ashish Chandra <ramkisno at H...>


On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 23:47:58 -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas
<jaldhar at B...> wrote:

>On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Ashish Chandra wrote:
>
>> First of all, let me thoroughly congratulate you on your erudition of our
>> Shastras. Rarely will one find one like you - so young and yet so
committed
>> to the ideals of the Veda.
>>
>> I always had this nagging doubt about the word Sruti. As we understand
it,
>> and as Acharyas have explained it, the entire Veda (Samhita to the
>> Upanishads) is Sruti. Sruti means that which is heard (passed on from the
>> Rishi (seer) onwards). I used to think that the entire Veda (all four
>> components of it) was a revelation.
>
>It is and all astika schools accept this. The idea that Veda refers to
>the samhitas only was invented in the 19th century by Western critical
>scholars and only accepted by clueless people like the Arya Samajists. It
>has zero support from our shastras.
>

Actually, what I was talking about was the revelation pertaining only to
the Mantras of the Samhita as opposed to all components (i.e. Brahamans,
Aranyakas and Upanishads). That Sruti means all four is undisputed - at
least as far as the sampradaaya goes.

>> As you have put it, and it sounds
>> logical as well, the Veda, as it is available to us today, has had
>> additions made to it in the form of Brahamans, Aranyakas and Upanishads.
>> These may very well be the teachings of the original Rishi but they are
>> some sort of an appendix to the mantras of the Samhitas, are they not? In
>> that case, only the mantras were seen by the Rishi.
>>
>
>Perhaps your stumbling block is you assume that revelation implies the
>entire thing was revealed all in one go? I don't see why the process of
>revelation couldn't have spanned several generations or why one portion
>of it couldn't refer to another.
>

What I thought is, as I have already described, the revelation pertaining
to Mantras vs. say Upanishads. AgnimiDe Purohitam... (First mantra of the
Rg Veda samhita) is a revelation i.e. not a product of human mind in any
way. The teachings of Rishi Yajnavalkya to, say, Maitreyi, is HIS teaching
i.e. his experience of the Universal Absolute, but in finite words, a human
product. Then it is not a revelation as opposed to the Mantra of the
Samhita. Just as an example, in a previous, or the next even, kalpa, when
the Mantras are revealed again, the teachings of the Upanishads would not
be. Correct? There may be other Rishis as that point who will experience
the Mantra and teach its import. Then new Upanishads may arise. Correct?

This is what I meant when I said that I had doubts about what is revealed
and what is a product of human mind/speech. Of course, what I think may be
false, but I would like to know if it

>From Ashish Chandra <ramkisno at H...>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 14:46:44 -0500
Subject: GauDapAda and GauDa Desh (was Re: sanyAsins, jnAnIs and Sri gaudapAda)
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Ashish Chandra <ramkisno at H...>


I had written an email to Jaldhar about the confusion with the location of
Gauda Desh (in reference to ShrI GauDapAda).

> On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 00:09:32 -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas
> <jaldhar at B...> wrote:
>
> >
> >[3] Bengal. Gaudapada = "The Bengali master" Pada seems to have been
> >affixed sarcastically. Like in Gujarati we call a dwarf thinguji.
> >normally -ji is a suffix used to show respect but here it is used
> >sarcastically. Same with -pada.
> >
>
> Jaldhar,
>
> Just wanted to point out that Gauda desh is not Bengal. This is a very
> widely held misconception. I have some details about this which I can post
> if you want but, in brief, Gauda is the region of North Kosal i.e. the
> region of western UP and Haryana which lies in and around the Ganga and
> Yamuna Doab. Since you already have the Brahamanotpattimartand, you can
> look up to the origins of Gauda brahmins there - the story is also
> interesting. The Kosal region, as you know, was ruled by Suryavanshi kings
> of the Raghu line. Hastinapur falls in the Gauda region proper.
>
> In, I think, the 12-13th century AD, a brahmin was invited to perform a
> yajna in Vanga Desh (Bengal). He hailed from the region around KAnyakubja
> in UP. This region falls in and around Gauda Desh as well. This brahmin
was
> asked to settle in Vanga. His descendants too called themselves Gauda and
> hence the notion that Gauda is Bengal. You can read about Bengali
Brahmins'
> genealogy at http://members.tripod.com/~tanmoy/geneology.html
>
> Incidentally, I came across a book written about our jAti and read about
> the references to Gauda Brahmins from Brahmanotpattimartand in it. There
is
> ofcourse mention of the Gauda region in both the itihAsas as well.
>

Here is some more information on this topic.

This extract is from a book about our jAti - Tyagi BrahmaNa SamAj - Eka
AitihAsik SarvekshaNa (In Hindi - author BhAgeshvar PrasAd Tyagi).

Re: On the location of GauDa Desh, transalation is from Hindi

begin --

[...] Matsya PurANa (12,30) describes ShrAvastI as gauDa desha.
Bramavaivarta purANa (Kashi-KedAr MahAtmya 84-87) describes the whole
region north of the VindhyA mountains as gauDa desh. According to KalhaNa's
RAjatarangiNI (4,468), and according to the travelogues of Hsuan Tsaang,
till the 12th century AD, the region north of the VindhyAs was famously
known as the region of Pancha (five) GauDa. The subdivisions in these five
were as follows:

1. SArasvata - Sindh, Aghanistan, Kashmir, Punjab and some regions of
Haryana.

2. KAnyakubj - Regions around Kannauj (in Uttar Pradesh).

3. GauDa - The region of Uttar (North) Kosal

4. Utkala - Orissa and Bengal

5. Mithila - Regions of Bihar

According to the Charitra Kosh [Hindi] by Chaturvedi Dvarka Prasad Sharma
(Pg 14), "since time immemorial, Ayodhya was the capital of the kingdom of
Kosala, that was divided into two parts that was known as Uttar and
DakshiNa Kosal. Uttar Kosal was further subdivided into two parts, of which
one was known as Kosal and the other as GauDa. The region south of the
river RAptI was known as GauDa Desh."

Vanga Desh (Bengal) is also sometimes referred to as GauDa Desh and several
historians today consider Bengal as the origin of GauDa Brahmins. However,
the association is due to the fact that Brahmins from GauDa Desh went and
settled there. Bengal is not GauDa Desh. Cunningham [1] considers GauDa as
the pre-medieval name of Bengal and Dr. Chitrarekha Gupta, in her book, the
BrahamanAs of India supports his view [Pg 126-127].

According to Pandit JwAlA Prasad Mishra, in his book JAtI BhAskara [Pg 92],
the region whose northern boundary is marked by the Sangam (joining) of
rivers GanDakI and Ganga, the western and southern boundary by the river
SaryU, and north of which lie the HimAlaya, that region is known as GauDa
Desh. The region west of the river GanDakI is known as GauDa and Brahmins
settled there since Adi-KAla (way back in the past) are known as

>From Vidyasankar Sundaresan <vsundaresan at h...>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 22:05:58 -0500
Subject: Re: sanyAsins, jnAnIs and Sri gaudapAda
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Vidyasankar Sundaresan <vsundaresan at h...>


Sankaran Aniruddhan <aniruddhan at E...> wrote:

>3) How is it known that Sri gaudapAda is Sri Sam.kara's parama-guru? Is it
known only from the mAdhavIya-Sam.kara-digvijaya? Or is it known from the
guru-paramparA of the mathAs? Does Sri Sam.kara mention in the kArikA-bhASya
that Sri gaudapAda is his guru's guru? It seems to me that there is a big
time gap between Suka and gaudapAda, who are guru and shishya, if gaudapAda
is Sam.kara's guru's guru. I think Sri Ashish had asked a similar question
some time back and Sri Jaldhar had mentioned that the previous Kanchi
AchArya had said that gaudapAda was cursed to be brahma-rAkSasa for
thousands of years. Is this what the SringerI matha also says? I would also
be grateful if Sri Jaldhar could write about the details of how Sri
gaudapAda was cursed to become a brahma-rAkSasa.
>

Sankara salutes gauDapAda as a sampradAyavit, in the brahmasUtra commentary,
and also in the kArikAbhAshya. sureSvara also refers in the same breath, to
the respected teachers of gauDa and drAviDa, the former being a reference to
gauDapAda and the latter to Sankara himself.

The brahmarAkshasa story is from an 18th century poem called
patanjalicarita, written by rAmabhadra dIkshita. No such tradition about
gauDapAda is reported in any other source. There are some later commentaries
that give some other geographical locations for gauDapAda. See the page on
him at www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp.

Moreover, the patanjalicarita really concentrates only on patanjali and
bhartRhari, the leading lights of the grammar tradition. It is quite unclear
where Sankara and his guru and paramaguru fit into this equation. There is a
concept of Sabdabrahman in the vyAkaraNa of bhartRhari, but that does not
make it advaita vedAnta.

There is a story related about vidyAraNya, that he promised to give food to
a brahmarAkshasa, provided he desisted from eating human flesh. I suppose
all these legends have got mixed up here and there.

In my opinion, rAmabhadra dIkshita was simply indulging his poetic license,
so that his poem should not be taken as either historical or as embodying a
widely accepted tradition. We cannot, for example, go searching for
historical information about cArudatta and vasantasenA.

Regarding maTha paramparAs, there is one maTha at Kavalem in Goa, associated
with sArasvat and gauD-sArasvat communities in Goa, southern Maharashtra and
northern Karnataka. The heads of this maTha are called gauDAcAryas, and they
trace their paramparA through gauDapAda and govinda bhagavatpAda, but not
through

>From "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 00:19:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Import of ahiMsA according to our dharma
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>


On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Ashish Chandra wrote:

> What I thought is, as I have already described, the revelation pertaining
> to Mantras vs. say Upanishads. AgnimiDe Purohitam... (First mantra of the
> Rg Veda samhita) is a revelation i.e. not a product of human mind in any
> way. The teachings of Rishi Yajnavalkya to, say, Maitreyi, is HIS teaching
> i.e. his experience of the Universal Absolute, but in finite words, a human
> product. Then it is not a revelation as opposed to the Mantra of the
> Samhita. Just as an example, in a previous, or the next even, kalpa, when
> the Mantras are revealed again, the teachings of the Upanishads would not
> be. Correct? There may be other Rishis as that point who will experience
> the Mantra and teach its import. Then new Upanishads may arise. Correct?
>
> This is what I meant when I said that I had doubts about what is revealed
> and what is a product of human mind/speech. Of course, what I think may be
> false, but I would like to know if it is.
>
> thanks
> ashish
>

For instance the Shatapathabrahmana of the Shuklayajurveda (of which the
Brhadaranyakpanishad is a part) has at the end of every kanda a section
called vamshabrahmana which gives the lineage of teachers for that
particular section. (These usually cover around 60 generations.) They
all end ...and so and so from Prajapati, Prajapati from Brahman, Brahman
is self-created (svayambhu) salutations to Brahman.

So the Brahmanas were also considered apaurusheya and eternal.

It interesting in the vamshabrahmanas of the Brhadaranyakopanishad,
Yajnavalkya though an ancient teacher is not the originator for example in
VI.5.3, Yajnavalkya is supposed to have received the upanishad from
Uddalaka, he from Aruna [Uddalaka Aruni is a famous figure in the
upanishads] Aruna from Upaveshi, Upaveshi from Kushri, Kushri from
Vajashravasa, he from Jihvavana Badhayoga, he from Asita Varshagana, he
from Harita Kashyapa, he from Shilpa Kashyapa, he from Kashyap Naidhruva,
he from Vak [the goddess Sarasvati], she from Ambhini [the wife of Surya]
and she from Vivasvata [Surya] That's 14 generations.

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at b...

>From "Bhadraiah Mallampalli" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Subject: Re: Import of ahiMsA according to our dharma
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 13:26:12 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Bhadraiah Mallampalli" <owner-advaita-l at L...>


>Ashish Chandra wrote..
>Actually, what I was talking about was the revelation pertaining only to
>the Mantras of the Samhita as opposed to all components (i.e. Brahamans,
>Aranyakas and Upanishads). That Sruti means all four is undisputed - at
>least as far as the sampradaaya goes.

The implication seems to be that revelation is directly revealed by God, as
against testimony from others. This concept is not applicable to Shurti, as
I will explain below.

>What I thought is, as I have already described, the revelation >pertaining
>to Mantras vs. say Upanishads. AgnimiDe Purohitam... (First >mantra of the
>Rg Veda samhita) is a revelation i.e. not a product of >human mind in any
>way. The teachings of Rishi Yajnavalkya to, say, >Maitreyi, is HIS teaching
>i.e. his experience of the Universal >Absolute, but in finite words, a
>human product. Then it is not a >revelation as opposed to the Mantra of the
>Samhita.

Let us start from a different angle: From a nAstika point of view, it can be
argued that even Samhita is not a revelation! When Rgveda says "agnimiDe
purohitam", it can be argued that afterall agni is just an earthly fire and
purohita is a paid priest who conveys our prayers to God. We know that more
than the words, the intended meaning at mental place that is more important,
while we also accept that the words and the sound produced by the words as
divine in the physical plane.

Now the meaning of this mantra becomes more clear if we take the help of
brAhmaNa text. aitareya brAhmaNa i.1 starts with "viSNu is the highest of
all gods, agni is lowest. Between them are all the deities". Now what does
this mean? If agni is the lowest of all the gods such as viSNu, rudra,
indra, mitra, varuNa etc, how is it that agni is the one who conveys the
prayers of these gods, to the highest reality which is Existence?

It may be argued that most people who go to a temple simply ignore the
priest and pray to the God, but this may not not be right practice. I have
seen on many special occasions people do special pUjas and prostrate before
purohita, present sarees to purohita's wife and so on. Also please note,
yAjnavalkya says in bR.U - "remuneration to priests rests on the heart ..
(and the heart does not rest on anything else)", which means remuneration to
priest is one of the highest virtues to be followed, and prayer to the
purohita is fundamental to any devotion.

Now if agni is the lowest of the gods, why is it that the higher gods pray
to agni and ask him to convey their prayers to the highest reality? Is it
not a reversal of hierarchy? Yes it is. A reversal of hierarchy done in
ignorance is faulty, but a reversal suggested by Shruti is simply something
else! It means the hierarchy itself is an illusion. This is what Sankara
repeats many times. When there are conflicting views from Shruti, then it
must be understood that Shruti has no opinion on that matter (e.g.,
hierarchy of gods).

Now if we take the help of upaniSats and identify the locations of agni and
other gods at personal level (agni is speech, etc), then an inquiry into how
each of the gods, himself/herself higher than agni, uses agni as purohita..
that leads to a multitude of prANAyAmas.

As for yAjnavalkya's dialog with his wife, again the context setting is also
a part of the revelation of the truth he explains to his wife. in this
instance also we need to look into the intended meaning instead of the
context and words used, exactly what we did re: Rgveda. Ultimately the
intended meaning is what decides Shruti.

>Just as an example, in a previous, or the next even, kalpa, when the
> >Mantras are revealed again, the teachings of the Upanishads would not
> >be. Correct? There may be other Rishis as that point who will >experience
>the Mantra and teach its import. Then new Upanishads may >arise. Correct?

Change of kalpa shouldn't affect an eternal subject. The laws are pretty
much universal and applicable in any situation. I believe Sanskrit will be
reinvented, but any language might work as well. Isn't the chirping of birds
or barking of a dog fit to be a revelation? If speech is divine, any speech
must be so. Please refer to baka dAlbhya episode in Ch.U re: uthgItha as
seen by dogs. If we are lucky we may discover same hymns and upaniSats, hit
or miss, or may be some new ones, but the essence will be the same!

Best regards
Bhadraiah
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

>From "Ravisankar S. Mayavaram" <miinalochanii at y...>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: vishhNu sahasranAma (MS Subbulakshmi) Audio file
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Ravisankar S. Mayavaram" <miinalochanii at y...>


Audio rendering by MSS is available on this site. Size of the file is
28MB.

http://www.shirdisai.org/aarthis/index.html

Ravi


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

>From Sankaran Aniruddhan <owner-advaita-l at L...> Fri, 13 Apr 2001 16:25:35 -0500
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 16:25:35 -0500
Subject: Re: sanyAsins, jnAnIs and Sri gaudapAda
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Sankaran Aniruddhan <owner-advaita-l at L...>


Thanks to Sri Ashish, Sri Jaldhar and Sri Vidyasankar for clarifying

>From Ashish Chandra <ramkisno at H...>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 11:02:51 -0500
Subject: VishNu to Agni (was Re: Import of ahiMsA according to our dharma)
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Ashish Chandra <ramkisno at H...>


On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 13:26:12 -0400, Bhadraiah Mallampalli
<vaidix at H...> wrote:

>[...]
>
>Now the meaning of this mantra becomes more clear if we take the help of
>brAhmaNa text. aitareya brAhmaNa i.1 starts with "viSNu is the highest of
>all gods, agni is lowest. Between them are all the deities". Now what does
>this mean? If agni is the lowest of all the gods such as viSNu, rudra,
>indra, mitra, varuNa etc, how is it that agni is the one who conveys the
>prayers of these gods, to the highest reality which is Existence?
>
>[...]
>
>Now if agni is the lowest of the gods, why is it that the higher gods pray
>to agni and ask him to convey their prayers to the highest reality? Is it
>not a reversal of hierarchy? Yes it is. A reversal of hierarchy done in
>ignorance is faulty, but a reversal suggested by Shruti is simply something
>else! It means the hierarchy itself is an illusion. This is what Sankara
>repeats many times. When there are conflicting views from Shruti, then it
>must be understood that Shruti has no opinion on that matter (e.g.,
>hierarchy of gods).
>

Bhadraiahji,

Thanks for the explanation. As far as the higher gods praying to Agni to
convey the offerings of the Yajna to them is concerned, I always thought
that this is because of the fact that agnI reduces everything to its mUla
tattva i.e. panch mahAbhUtas. That is why oblations in the homa fires are
conveyed into agnI. As far as the hierarchy is concerned, I always took
that to be due to the fact that there is a defined role for everything in
this universe i.e. VishNu is the preserver and RudrA is the destroyer. One
can easily argue that RudrA can easily preserve the universe all by
Himself, and similarly, VishNu can destroy the universe all by himself. But
they don't because that is not their function. AgnI's function is to
deliver the oblations to the various gods, just as during shrAddha, we
offer the pinDa in the water and its conveyed to the Pitrs in the Pitrloka.
So I always thought that it is due to a defined function that is the cause
for agnI being the universal conveyer.

Of course, as you have stated, if Shri Shankara has commented on this as
being part of any confusion with regards to the Shruti, please let me know.
There are definitely subtle and gross aspects of each act we

>From "Bhadraiah Mallampalli" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Subject: Re: VishNu to Agni (was Re: Import of ahiMsA according to our dharma)
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 13:35:15 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Bhadraiah Mallampalli" <owner-advaita-l at L...>


Shri Ashish Chandra wrote..

>As far as the higher gods praying to Agni to convey the offerings of >the
>Yajna to them is concerned, I always thought that this is because >of the
>fact that agnI reduces everything to its mUla tattva i.e. panch
> >mahAbhUtas. That is why oblations in the homa fires are conveyed into
> >agnI.

Admittedly, the veda mantras being universal, have a meaning in every field
of inquiry. There is one meaning at personal level, one at cosmic level, one
as per purANas, one as per our daily rites and traditons and so on. All
meanings are equivalent, but we have to translate every time to avoid
confusion.

I forgot to mention, after stating "viSNu is the highest of all gods, agni
is lowest. Between them are all the deities",

aitareya continues in the same para:

"..All the deities are Agni; all the deities are Vishnu; Agni and Vishnu are
the two terminal forms of the sacrifice..."

So we can conclude, agni must be a form of viSNu and viSNu must be a form of
agni. This sounds more like computer language java. Basically it is a zero
sum game, as all deities are superimposition on that Existence.

>As far as the hierarchy is concerned, I always took that to be due to >the
>fact that there is a defined role for everything in this universe >i.e.
>VishNu is the preserver and RudrA is the destroyer. One can easily >argue
>that RudrA can easily preserve the universe all by Himself, and >similarly,
>VishNu can destroy the universe all by himself. But they >don't because
>that is not their function. AgnI's function is to deliver >the oblations to
>the various gods, just as during shrAddha, we offer >the pinDa in the water
>and its conveyed to the Pitrs in the Pitrloka. >So I always thought that it
>is due to a defined function that is the >cause for agnI being the
>universal conveyer.

True, but Shruti is also telling us to get rid of these definitions after
understanding them.

>Of course, as you have stated, if Shri Shankara has commented on this as
>being part of any confusion with regards to the Shruti, please let me
> >know. There are definitely subtle and gross aspects of each act we
> >perform.

Please refer to Sri Adi Sankara's commentary on chAndogya VI.2.3. where a
qustion was asked about conflicting stories of creation in Shruti, Sankara
answers that it was not Shruti's intention to define a sequence. There are
other places where he forcefully explains that conflicting statements must
be concluded as Shruti having "no opinion at all" (I owe you references.)

Best regards
Bhadraiah
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

>From "Bhadraiah Mallampalli" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Subject: Re: VishNu to Agni (was Re: Import of ahiMsA according to our dharma)
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 10:20:59 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Bhadraiah Mallampalli" <owner-advaita-l at L...>


Shri Ashish Chandra wrote..

>One can easily argue that RudrA can easily preserve the universe all by
> >Himself, and similarly, VishNu can destroy the universe all by himself.

If you read this carefully, aitareya says:

"..Agni and Vishnu are the two terminal forms of the sacrifice..."

This means agni alone is independently a form of yajna, and viSNu is
likewise a independently form of yajna. There are also other forms of yajna
between agni and viSNu. Every deity is capable of being a yajna, but they
also collaborate to create other complex forms. This is a general definition
of the subject at highest conceptual level.

The traditional advaita is a simplified form as simple as how crystal
dissolves after being placed in water. vaidic advaita has many twists and
turns. Hopefully one day we will be able to map these approaches to each
other.

Best regards
Bhadraiah
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

>From Ashish Chandra <ramkisno at H...>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 13:02:38 -0500
Subject: Re: VishNu to Agni (was Re: Import of ahiMsA according to our dharma)
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Ashish Chandra <ramkisno at H...>


On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 13:35:15 -0400, Bhadraiah Mallampalli
<vaidix at H...> wrote:

>
>I forgot to mention, after stating "viSNu is the highest of all gods, agni
>is lowest. Between them are all the deities",
>
>aitareya continues in the same para:
>
>"..All the deities are Agni; all the deities are Vishnu; Agni and Vishnu
are
>the two terminal forms of the sacrifice..."
>
>So we can conclude, agni must be a form of viSNu and viSNu must be a form
of
>agni. This sounds more like computer language java. Basically it is a zero
>sum game, as all deities are superimposition on that Existence.
>

Thanks for mentioning this. Indeed, there is only a supposed hierarchy. The
mantra is definitely being expounded by keeping the Supreme firmly in the
picture.


>
>True, but Shruti is also telling us to get rid of these definitions after
>understanding them.

Yes sir. To those who have gotten past the fixation with names and forms.
Wouldn't you say that?

>
>>Of course, as you have stated, if Shri Shankara has commented on this as
>>being part of any confusion with regards to the Shruti, please let me
>> >know. There are definitely subtle and gross aspects of each act we
>> >perform.
>
>Please refer to Sri Adi Sankara's commentary on chAndogya VI.2.3. where a
>qustion was asked about conflicting stories of creation in Shruti, Sankara
>answers that it was not Shruti's intention to define a sequence. There are
>other places where he forcefully explains that conflicting statements must
>be concluded as Shruti having "no opinion at all" (I owe you references.)
>

Thanks for the reference from chAndogya U. However, at this point I do not
consider myself qualified enough to read Acharya's bhashyas. I am so far
keeping myself to prakaraNa granthAs. So perhaps you could write a little
expose' on what Shankaracharya

>From "Bhadraiah Mallampalli" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Subject: Re: VishNu to Agni (was Re: Import of ahiMsA according to our dharma)
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 17:34:01 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Bhadraiah Mallampalli" <owner-advaita-l at L...>


Shri Ashish Chandra wrote..

>Thanks for mentioning this. Indeed, there is only a supposed hierarchy.
> >The mantra is definitely being expounded by keeping the Supreme firmly
> >in the picture.

>>True, but Shruti is also telling us to get rid of these definitions
>> >>after understanding them.

>Yes sir. To those who have gotten past the fixation with names and >forms.
>Wouldn't you say that?

We definitely know from authority of brAhmaNa that the hierarchy will go
away and there is an abheda (non-difference) between the deities. But we can
not deny the hierarchy yet without knowing the logic behind it. So the
hierarchy stays for now. There is some logic, but we will talk about it
later.

The general trend these days is, most scholars pick up Rgveda, and most
seekers pick up upaniSats, but brAHmaNas are left out on the premise they
are ritual. People say Adi Sankara "also" promoted bhakti mArga, or kanchi
math "also" promotes vedas, or Sankaran advaita is a "Hindu advaita" etc.
brAhmaNas work as a bridge, and explain that understanding agni, viSNu etc
is indispensable to understanding advaita (if people are really serious) and
dispels the myth "any one can invent non-duality".

>Thanks for the reference from chAndogya U. However, at this point I do >not
>consider myself qualified enough to read Acharya's bhashyas. I am >so far
>keeping myself to prakaraNa granthAs. So perhaps you could write >a little
>expose' on what Shankaracharya says.

That sends shivers for me. I haven't read any works other than some
bhAshyas. I hope to stay silent and get educated by reading archives.

Best regards
Bhadraiah
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

>From "Bhadraiah Mallampalli" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Subject: Re: VishNu to Agni (was Re: Import of ahiMsA according to our dharma)
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 01:13:36 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Bhadraiah Mallampalli" <owner-advaita-l at L...>


According to one context in a brAHmaNa, viSNu may be powerful and according
to another context vAyu may be powerful. As long as we live within a
context, the respective rules apply. When we move to another context, a
different hierarchy and a different set of rules apply.

How do we go from one context to another? Why is any movement noticed at
all? The answer is: the anti-dote for duality is in duality itself! (There
can be no cause for liberation, right?) As long as we continue to see
duality, yajna brings up one context after another (in the same way
consecration yajna is followed by introductory yajna and so on), to remind
us that, what we are seeing currently is not ultimate. The sequence of what
context is followed by what context is decided by "technical factors" of the
yajna. (The yajna is somewhat like the Buddhistic principle of
transitoriness, but not as clueless. There is high degree of structure,
clarity and decisiveness.)

But then according to Adi Sankara's commentary Ch U. VI.15.3, movement is
noticed when there is hankering for results based on time, space and
causation. (I will copy the dialogs of VI.2.3 and VI.15.3 later).

When we enjoy the changes that yajna brings up, we continue to live in
duality and continue to perform one yajna after another. But when we
understand that yajna brings up the change in context only to tell us that
what we are looking at is illusory, the whole thing will disappear.

There are several other solutions also. E.g., you can pick up one context
and dissolve it directly. We do not have all the proofs, but there is enough
evidence that brAhmaNas speak of nothing other than advaita.

Best regards
Bhadraiah
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

>From "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 13:07:20 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: The path of the soul from death to rebirth
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>


In the shastras, the path of the jiva is described in various places. The
brahmasutras reconcile these various accounts in III.1.

Of course the jiva (the embodied atma) doesn't really "go" anywhere. The
appearence of multiple births and deaths is all maya. But until the
dawning of jnana, a jiva accepts this as real.

After death, the material body decays but the atma remains embodied in the
sukshma sharira or subtle body. Based on its accumulated karma, it either
enjoys heaven or suffers in hell. In the Gita, the paths to heaven are
described as of two kinds the pitrayana or way of the ancestors and
devayana or way of the Gods. They are also described as the chandraloka
(world of the moon) and Suryaloka (world of the sun) respectively. Those
who perform karma as described in Shruti and Smrti for selfish reasons
achieve the chandraloka and become pitras. Those who do so only out of
duty achieve the suryaloka and become devas.

Neither heaven nor hell are permanent. After the effects of their good or
bad karma have run out, the jiva again "falls" to the Earth in the rain.
The rain makes rice and other plants grow and the jiva becomes attached to
them. The plants are eaten by animals and humans and are digested to form
the material of an embryo. The jiva enters the embryo and is eventually
born as some creature. Depending on its level of sentience, it may remain
in an animal state (and most humans are at the level of animals) for a
long time migrating through various such bodies until such time as it can
hear and contemplate upon the truths of Vedanta which break the cycle for
ever.


--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at b...

>From Ashish Chandra <ramkisno at H...>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 14:54:29 -0500
Subject: Re: The path of the soul from death to rebirth
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Ashish Chandra <ramkisno at H...>


On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 13:07:20 -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas
<jaldhar at B...> wrote:

>In the shastras, the path of the jiva is described in various places. The
>brahmasutras reconcile these various accounts in III.1.
>
>Of course the jiva (the embodied atma) doesn't really "go" anywhere. The
>appearence of multiple births and deaths is all maya. But until the
>dawning of jnana, a jiva accepts this as real.
>
>After death, the material body decays but the atma remains embodied in the
>sukshma sharira or subtle body. Based on its accumulated karma, it either
>enjoys heaven or suffers in hell. In the Gita, the paths to heaven are
>described as of two kinds the pitrayana or way of the ancestors and
>devayana or way of the Gods. They are also described as the chandraloka
>(world of the moon) and Suryaloka (world of the sun) respectively. Those
>who perform karma as described in Shruti and Smrti for selfish reasons
>achieve the chandraloka and become pitras. Those who do so only out of
>duty achieve the suryaloka and become devas.
>
Jaldhar,

There is also no return from Devayana i.e. the jIvAtmA proceeds toward
Brahmaloka once on this path. Devayana is the path of no return whereas the
Pitryana is the path of continual returns. I remember reading this in Swami
Sivananda's book "What Becomes Of The Soul After Death". The book is
available online http://www.dlshq.org/download/afterdeath.htm

>From sri pathy <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: 19 Apr 2001 02:33:51 GMT
Subject: Unsubscribe me
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: sri pathy <owner-advaita-l at L...>


Sir,
 As i can't find the way to unsubscribe please unsubscribe me.

---sri---

____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1

>From "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 01:37:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: The path of the soul from death to rebirth
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>


On Wed, 18 Apr 2001, Ashish Chandra wrote:

>
> There is also no return from Devayana i.e. the jIvAtmA proceeds toward
> Brahmaloka once on this path. Devayana is the path of no return whereas the
> Pitryana is the path of continual returns. I remember reading this in Swami
> Sivananda's book "What Becomes Of The Soul After Death". The book is
> available online http://www.dlshq.org/download/afterdeath.htm
>

Ah yes. Those who begin the serious study of Vedanta but do not
succeed (i.e. become jivanamuktas) in their lifetime, are reborn in
higher forms until they get it right. This is called kramamukti. The
specific passage I've been reading only talks about karma and how the
nishkama karmayogis go to the devayana. I didn't make the connection
between the two.

Brahmsutra 3.3.32 is also very interesting:

yAvadadhikAramavasthitirAdhikArikaNam

Those with a certain role [adhikara] retain a body to perform
that role.

An opponent mentions that there are instances of a jnani undergoing
rebirth so how can we say knowledge prevents rebirth. For instance the
Vedic Rshi Aparantamasa [or Dirghatamasa] Gautama was reborn as Krshna
Dvaipayana [i.e. Veda Vyasa] Maharshi Vasishtha the mind born son of
Brahma was reborn the son of Mitra-Varuna. etc.

This sutra answers that objection by saying such people have a certain
role to play in the preservation of the universe and the Vedas and they
take a body only to fulfill that role. For instance in the case of Veda
Vyasa, in every yuga-cycle the Vedas are divided into shakhas and taught
to pupils who in turn teach them and spread them. It is only for this
reason the Rshi took up the form of Krshna Dvaipayana, it is Brahman
communicating Brahman there are no samsaric motives at all. In a way it
is like a jivanmukta who still appears to perform some actions because of
the lingering effects of the last bit of prarabdha karma. These beings
olso have not quite "finished" their work so they take bodies despite
being jnanis until it is done.

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at b...

>From "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 01:50:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: VishNu to Agni (was Re: Import of ahiMsA according to our dharma)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>


On Sun, 15 Apr 2001, Bhadraiah Mallampalli wrote:

> That sends shivers for me. I haven't read any works other than some
> bhAshyas. I hope to stay silent and get educated by reading archives.
>

If you'll pardon me saying so, this isn't a very good way of going about
it. To silently listen while another expounds is our traditional
guru-shishya method but it is not well suited for this internet medium.
It would be better to post as Ashish suggested and bring up various ideas
for discussion. After all, that's how the archives got so big in the
first place! :-)

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at b...

>From "Bhadraiah Mallampalli" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Subject: Re: VishNu to Agni (was Re: Import of ahiMsA according to our dharma)
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 05:09:49 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Bhadraiah Mallampalli" <owner-advaita-l at L...>


>Ashish Chandra wrote..
>Thanks for the reference from chAndogya U. However, at this point I do >not
>consider myself qualified enough to read Acharya's bhashyas. I am >so far
>keeping myself to prakaraNa granthAs. So perhaps you could write >a little
>expose' on what Shankaracharya says.

Jaldharji,

I could not follow the question. What is the difference between bhashyas and
prakaraNa granthas? How do you classify Sankara's works? Isn't brahmasUtra
bhASya, a bhashya? I found that the upaniSat vyAkhyAnas (are they bhashyas?)
are easier to follow than BSB. Studying the application of the sUtras may be
easier than the sUtras (just a thought). Yes, I will copy Sankara's
commentary on the related topics within a week.

Regards
Bhadraiah


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

>From "K Anand" <carex at v...>
Subject: Sankara Jayanthi
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:19:43 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0026_01C0C8D3.656EF8C0"
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "K Anand" <carex at v...>


------=_NextPart_000_0026_01C0C8D3.656EF8C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear All

Can somebody give me full details of Sankara Jayanthi? His date , month and=
 nakshatra, thithi of birth?=20

Is Vaishaka different from Tamil month Vaikasi?

I read in a book that he was born during the second month of the year, but =
I think the 28th April falls in Chitra, the first month of the Year.=20

Can somebody clarify?
Thanks in advance.........

with regards,
Anand K

------=_NextPart_000_0026_01C0C8D3.656EF8C0
Content-Type: text/html;
 charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" http-equiv=3DContent-Type=
>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Dear All</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Can somebody give me full details of Sanka=
ra=20
Jayanthi? His date , month and nakshatra, thithi of birth? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Is Vaishaka different from Tamil month=20
Vaikasi?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I read in a book that he was born during t=
he second=20
month of the year, but I think the 28th April falls in Chitra, the first mo=
nth=20
of the Year. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Can somebody clarify?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Thanks in advance.........</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>with regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Anand

>From Ashish Chandra <ramkisno at H...>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:33:12 -0500
Subject: Re: VishNu to Agni (was Re: Import of ahiMsA according to our dharma)
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Ashish Chandra <ramkisno at H...>


On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 05:09:49 -0400, Bhadraiah Mallampalli
<vaidix at H...> wrote:

>
>I could not follow the question. What is the difference between bhashyas
and
>prakaraNa granthas? How do you classify Sankara's works? Isn't brahmasUtra
>bhASya, a bhashya? I found that the upaniSat vyAkhyAnas (are they
bhashyas?)
>are easier to follow than BSB. Studying the application of the sUtras may
be
>easier than the sUtras (just a thought). Yes, I will copy Sankara's
>commentary on the related topics within a week.
>

Bhadraiahji,

You can browse the complete works of Shankara at
http://sanskrit.gde.to/doc_z_misc_shankara/SCW.html

The prakaraNa granthas are those that are for beginners - it introduces a
seeker to the anatomy of the system, so to say. Works like Atmabodh,
Tattvabodh, AparokshAnubhUti etc are prakaraNa

>From "Bhadraiah Mallampalli" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Subject: Ch. U. VI. 2. 3
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:58:28 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Bhadraiah Mallampalli" <owner-advaita-l at L...>


The following is from Chandogya Upanishat with Sankara's commentary
translated by Swami Gambhirananda.. (might be available at ramakrishna.org)

Ch U. vi.2.3. That (Existence) saw, "I shall become many. I shall be born."
That created fire, That fire saw, "I shall become..", That created water.
Therefore, whenever and wherever a person suffers or sweats, that occurs
from fire indeed. Water comes out from heat.

Sankara's commentary:

>From this it follows that the cause of the world is not the pradhAna
imagined by the sAMkhyAs, for they accept pradhAna to be insentient. But
this Existence is conscious because of being the agent of visualization.

(Bhadraiah: This argument is ingenious! Astronomers have been working on
several complex mechanical models, but no one is working a "live" universe
model which can intelligently expand or contract. My speculation is: a live
universe does not necessarily have a real living galaxy which has huge arms
and other organs, which is senseless. The mathematics needed for modeling
living beings could also be used for astronomy.)

Sankara: How did that visualize? This is being answered: I shall become, I
shall be born excellently; like earth taking the shapes of pots etc, or
ropes etc. taking the shapes of snake etc, imagined by the intellect.

Objection: In that case whatever is perceived is unreal, like a rope
perceived in the shape of a snake etc.

Reply: No. Since it is Existence itself that is perceived otherwise through
the duality of different forms, therefore, there is no non-existence of
anything anywhere. That is what we say.

As the nyAya school, after assuming that a thing is different from
existence, says again that it has no existence before its birth and after
its destruction- it is not assumed by us in that way, at anytime or
anywhere, that any word or any thing denoted by the word can be there
differently from Existence. But all words and all things that are spoken of
with the idea of their being different from Existence, as Existence only,
just as in the world a rope itself is spoken of as snake, under the idea
that it is a snake.. But just as the word and idea of a snake cease for one
who has the discriminating knowledge about the rope, and as the words and
ideas of pot etc, cease for one who has the discriminating knowledge about
earth, similarly words and ideas with regard to all other transformation
cease for those people who have the discriminating knowledge about
Existence. This is so on the authority of Upanishadic texts as: "Failing to
reach which (Brahman, as conditioned by the mind), words along with the mind
turn back (Tai II.4); "Whenever an aspirant gets fearlessly established ..
in the inexpressible, and unsupporting Brahman.." (Tai. II 7.1). Having
visualized thus, That created fire.

Objection: Is it not that in another Upanishadic text, "from that Brahman,
which is self, was produced space" (Tai. II.1.1), it is stated that air came
out of space, and fire from that, as the third? How is it contradictorily
said (now) that fire came out of it first, and also that space came out that
itself?

Reply: There is no such fault, since it is logical to assume that after
creating space and air, that Existence created fire. Or it may be that the
order of creation is not what is intended to be spoken of here. The intended
meaning is that all this is the product of Existence, and therefore
Existence is one only, without a second. For there are examples of earth
etc. Or since the intention is to speak of the intermixture of three
elements, the text speaks of the creation of fire, water and food. Fire is
well known in the world as that which burns, ripens, illuminates and is red.

Regards
Bhadraiah
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

>From Sankaran Aniruddhan <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 20:20:44 -0500
Subject: Re: Ch. U. VI. 2. 3
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: Sankaran Aniruddhan <owner-advaita-l at L...>


>(Bhadraiah: This argument is ingenious! Astronomers have been working on
>several complex mechanical models, but no one is working a "live" universe
>model which can intelligently expand or contract. My speculation is: a live
>universe does not necessarily have a real living galaxy which has huge arms
>and other organs, which is senseless. The mathematics needed for modeling
>living beings could also be used for astronomy.)

I was wondering about this, and from the impression I have, this sounds like
the concept of Vishishtadvaita, where the whole universe is seen as an
expansion of brahman. The universe is like a body and all its constituents
are like cells of the body...just as cells and bodies cannot live without
the prana/self, the individual self/universe cannot be sustained without the
indwelling brahman. Is this correct?

As far as Advaita is concerned, isn't it that the whole universe can be
insentient, but its substratum has to be

>From "Bhadraiah Mallampalli" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Subject: Re: Ch. U. VI. 2. 3
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:47:40 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Bhadraiah Mallampalli" <owner-advaita-l at L...>


My speculations are not important, I write a 100 different things :-) By the
way I don't restrict my interpretation of Shruti to advaita, so it will be a
mixture. (All those who accept Shruti as pramANa have a right to interpret
according to their taste. So it is better to cater to all and take everyone
along.)

>Sankaran Aniruddhan wrote..
>As far as Advaita is concerned, isn't it that the whole universe can be
>insentient, but its substratum has to be Atman?

>Adi Sankara wrote..
>From this it follows that the cause of the world is not the pradhAna
> >imagined by the sAMkhyAs, for they accept pradhAna to be insentient. >But
>this Existence is conscious because of being the agent of >visualization.

So according to Sankara the universe is sentient (and one only, no stratum
or substratum). It is upto you to reconcile to this fact :-)

Best regards
Bhadraiah
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

>From "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 23:16:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Sankara Jayanthi
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>


On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, K Anand wrote:

> Dear All
>
> Can somebody give me full details of Sankara Jayanthi? His date ,
> month and nakshatra, thithi of birth?
>

Vaishakha Shukla 5 is the tithi. There is a lot of controversy about the
year. Publications of the Shringeri and Dwarka maths have given 788-820
AD, Kanchi places it several centuries earlier. There are more details on
the Advaita Vedanta Home Page. (http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/)

> Is Vaishaka different from Tamil month Vaikasi?
>

That I couldn't tell you.

> I read in a book that he was born during the second month of the year,
> but I think the 28th April falls in Chitra, the first month of the
> Year.
>

No it's Vaishakha Shukla 5 at least according to my calendar.

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at b...

>From "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 23:32:07 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Ch. U. VI. 2. 3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>


On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Sankaran Aniruddhan wrote:

> I was wondering about this, and from the impression I have, this sounds like
> the concept of Vishishtadvaita, where the whole universe is seen as an
> expansion of brahman. The universe is like a body and all its constituents
> are like cells of the body...just as cells and bodies cannot live without
> the prana/self, the individual self/universe cannot be sustained without the
> indwelling brahman. Is this correct?
>

This is the vyuha theory of the pancharatra agamas you're referring to
right? Where Vasudeva brings forth Sankarshana who brings forth Pradyumna
who brings forth Aniruddha? I don't know to much about the details of
this theory but it is refuted in the Brahmasutras. Let me see if I can
dig it up.

The problem with all the Vaishnava schools from the Advaita point of view
is that they will only ascribe Brahman-nature to part of the creation.
Whereas for Advaita Vedanta everything is all Brahman all the time.

> As far as Advaita is concerned, isn't it that the whole universe can be
> insentient, but its substratum has to be Atman?
>

But then it's not insentient is it? Or only on one level.

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at b...

>From "Bhadraiah Mallampalli" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Subject: Re: Ch. U. VI. 2. 3
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 06:02:24 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Bhadraiah Mallampalli" <owner-advaita-l at L...>


>>As far as Advaita is concerned, isn't it that the whole universe can >>be
>>insentient, but its substratum has to be Atman?

>But then it's not insentient is it? Or only on one level.

The two level model is only for our understanding, to take us from this
multi-level variegated world to two levels. Ultimately the two levels should
also collapse into one.

But as long as we see two levels we side with the sentient one, to be on the
safer side. Otherwise if we side with the insentient one, it will take you
all over the place because we have to keep creating new objects just to keep
that insentient one constant. Isn't it a fact in this world that to protect
one lie people tell a hundred more lies?

Best regards
Bhadraiah
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

>From "K. Sadananda" <sada at a...>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 07:01:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Ch. U. VI. 2. 3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "K. Sadananda" <sada at a...>


> >(Bhadraiah: This argument is ingenious! Astronomers have been working on
>>several complex mechanical models, but no one is working a "live" universe
>>model which can intelligently expand or contract. My speculation is: a live
>>universe does not necessarily have a real living galaxy which has huge arms
>>and other organs, which is senseless. The mathematics needed for modeling
>>living beings could also be used for astronomy.)
>
>I was wondering about this, and from the impression I have, this sounds like
>the concept of Vishishtadvaita, where the whole universe is seen as an
>expansion of brahman. The universe is like a body and all its constituents
>are like cells of the body...just as cells and bodies cannot live without
>the prana/self, the individual self/universe cannot be sustained without the
>indwelling brahman. Is this correct?
>
>As far as Advaita is concerned, isn't it that the whole universe can be
>insentient, but its substratum has to be Atman?
>
>thanks,
>Aniruddhan


Sir - actually it is the other way around - It actually implies that
creation starts from a conscious entity. The Ch.U. mantras are the
ones that are emphasized the dismissal of insentient cause for the
universe. Uddalaka's teaching, before these quoted mantras, starts
with - sadeva soumya idam agra asiit| eka meva advitiiyam| - Darling!
Existence alone was there before the creation and it is one without a
second. Hence it categorically dismisses anything other than the
Existence. In VishishhTaadvaita there are three that exist as
beginningless - paramaatma, jiiva and jagat - the last two are in a
subtle form before creation. But if we examine Ch.U. statement it
does not differentiate between different types of existences.
Further Ch. U. continues next as - tad aikshata| bahushhyaam| etc
that Shree Bhadraiah quoted in his post. It saw and it wanted to
become many - Since seeing implies that the Existent entity that was
there before the creation is a conscious entity since unconscious
matter or jadam cannot see. Hence what was there before was sat and
chit and being one without a second, it is unlimited or limitless or
anantam or ananda too. Hence what was there before the creation was
sentient entity alone which is sat chit and ananda.

Then how did the insentient entity, the world came into existence, -
creation is again explained in the same Upanishad using three
examples - vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naamadheyam - vaak means word or
thought - creation starts with a thought in the infinite
consciousness -Now we are taking about thinking process - concept of
intelligent cause or Iswara already began. The creative power of
Brahman (if we want to call it since now we discussing the creation
as if it is real) is called Iswara. And just as a creation of a gold
ring from the gold metal involves first a conceptualization of the
ring in the mind of the creator, the goldsmith. Then when gold
becomes a ring in the process of creation, gold remains as gold - it
is only a vikaara, here an apparent modification without gold not
changing its intrinsic nature. Since there is nothing other than sat
and chit to start with, the material cause and the intelligent cause
has to be one only.

In addition the Upanishad further says the conscious entity remains
as such yet becomes many - just as gold becoming many. That the
material cause for creation is not different from the efficient cause
of the universe. There is no insentient matter to start with.
Therefore we cannot end up with an insentient matter when we did not
have it in the beginning. If we are seeing it then it only means
what we conclude based on perception is not necessarily the real
story. The Ch.Up. statements are further reinforced by - Ti. Up. -
etova imaani bhuutaani jaayante etc that was discussed with reference
to B.Suutra 2 in the notes. It is also reconfirmed as - etasmaat
aatmaana aakaashhaH sambhuutaH, aakaashaat vaayuH .. etc that is from
aatma, which is a conscious entity, the space (which is jadam) is
born, from space the vaayu. How can conscious entity give rise to
unconscious entity. That is impossible. Ch. Up slokas that quoted
by shree Bhadraiah further indicate that in all these process,
conscious entity is still playing role since creation involves a
conscious entity. Since consciousness cannot become unconsciousness,
and there is nothing other than Existence-Consciousness, it only
means the matter that you see is not real. The problem is that
existence of matter cannot be proved without the presence of
consciousness. I see it therefore it is there, is the real aspect of
the perception of the universe. One cannot independently prove the
existence of the universe with out the consciousness needed to prove
its existence. These aspects will be further discussed with
reference to Brahmasuutra 5 after we finish the suutra 4 that we are
doing now - that is after my return from India trip.

But some of these aspects are elaborately discussed with reference to
B.S. 2. The notes are stored in the folder in the advaitin list.
They can also be tapped from the archives of advaitaL list too.

Hari Om!
Sadananda



--
K. Sadananda
Code 6323
Naval Research Laboratory
Washington D.C. 20375
Voice

>From "V.M.Sundaram" <venkataraman at p...>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:43:41 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Sankara Jayanthi
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "V.M.Sundaram" <venkataraman at p...>


"Jaldhar H. Vyas" wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, K Anand wrote:
>
> > Dear All
> >-----------------
> > Is Vaishaka different from Tamil month Vaikasi?
> >
>
> That I couldn't tell you.

-------------------------------

Yes. In Tamilnadu and Kerala months are Solar . The tamil month of Vaikasi

begins when the Sun enters the Vrishhabha Raashi. This year it begins on 15
May.

Maharashtra, Gujarat, Andhra, and Karnataka follow Lunar months. There the
month of
Vaishakha starts on 24 April in 2001 (when it is still Chittirai in TN).

28 April 2001 is shukla pancami , ardraa nakshatram, irrespective of the name
of the

>From "Ravisankar S. Mayavaram" <miinalochanii at y...>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 06:41:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Fwd: Notes on BSB I-i-4-1H
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="0-1764551043-987774082=:24679"
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Ravisankar S. Mayavaram" <miinalochanii at y...>


--0-1764551043-987774082=:24679
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline


Note: forwarded message attached.


=====
ambaaL daasan

Ravi

sharaNAgata raxakI nivEyani sadA ninnu nammiti mInAxI

http://www.ambaa.org/ http://www.advaita-vedanta.org

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
--0-1764551043-987774082=:24679
Content-Type: message/rfc822