Notes on BSB I-i-4-1F for forward to Advaita-L

[Dennis Waite]

Notes on BSB I-i-4-1F

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 .-1F

Notes on BSB I-i-4-1F

2. The next point of puurvapakshii '-s argument is that vedaanta j~naanam
being useless as such should be applied towards karma (according to bhaTTa
matam) or upaasanaa (according to praabhaakara matam).

The reason these matam -s insist on this application is because they cannot
totally reject part of the Veda-s as useless and part useful. They are
forced to make this
connection to make the so-called useless statement useful.

Shankara says there is nothing more ridiculous than these forced
connections.
It is impossible to apply or connect siddhabodhaka vedaanta vaakyam -s to
karma or upaasanaa. In the previous siddhaanta it is argued that the Vedanta
need not be connected since it give j~naanam which is useful to solve the
fundamental human problem whose root cause is ignorance. In this siddhaanta
it is argued that it cannot be connected with karma or upaasanaa even if one
wants to try to do that. The first reason Shankara says is the vedaanta
j~naanam eliminates duality, which is the very basis for karma and
upaasanaa.

tat kena kaM pashyet (there seer-seen distinctions gone) - na iha naanaa
asti
ki.nchana (there is no speck of plurality) - yasmin sarvaaNi bhuutaani
aatmaa eva abhuut ( where all the beings other than the self non-existent),
etc says Vedanta. upaasanaa also requires upaasya - upaasaka bheda , karma
requires kartR^i - karaNa aadi bheda and Vedanta knocks off all these
bheda -s involving subject-object dualities. After a knowledge of Advaita
how can Advaita j~naanam be applied in the field of dvaitam. It is
impossible.

2) In addition to being kartaa , the Vedanta knowledge involving Advaita
knocks off the notions of varNaashrama which is one of the criteria for
certain yaaga-s. For example a Brahmin alone is qualified for certain
yaaga-s - brahmaNaH bR^ihaspati savena yajeta , - the bR^ihaspati sava
yaagam can be performed by a Brahmin only.
raajaa raajasuuyane yajeta - Only the king can perform the raajasuuya yaaga.
Not only varNa status, one has to retain aashrama status for performing
yaga.
Without a wife one cannot perform certain yaaga-s that a house-holder has to
do.
What brahmachaari can do, a gR^ihastha cannot do. What gR^ihastha can do a
brahmachaari should not.

na varNaaH na varNaashrama aachaara dharmaaH
na me dhaaraNaa - dhyaana - yoga - aadayaH api |
anaatma - aashrayaa ahaM - mama - adhyaasa - haanaat
tat ekaH avashishhTaH shivaH kevalaH aham.h || 2 ||

Shankara - dashashlokii

Hence Vedanta negates kartR^itvam and varNaashrama status and having
negated that how can it be combined with karma and upaasanaa which require
kartR^itvam?

The third reason: Vedanta positively condemns karma and upaasanaa as bandha
hetu or cause for bondage. In MunDaka Upa. (1-2-7)

plavaa hi ete adR^iDhaa yaj~naruupaa
ashhTaadashoktam avaram yeshhu karma |
etat shreyaH ye abhinandanti muuDhaaH
jaraa mR^ityum te punaH eva apiyanti ||

Those people who hold on to karma hoping that it will take them across
the ocean of sa.nsaara , they are all muuDhaaH - most ignorant. They will go
to heaven and come back and again go through the cycle of sa.nsaara. Hence
after the vedaanta j~naanam the person loses the purushhaarthatva buddhi in
karma. Hence how can it be possible to connect vedaanta j~naanam to karma?
Similarly upaasanaa also -
na karmaNaa na prajayaa dhanena tyaagena eke
amR^itatvam aanashhuH - [Kaivalya up. 2]

karma cannot give moksha after saying that how can Veda say that therefore
perform karma?

vedaanta vij~naana sunischitaarthaaH sa.nnyaasa yogaat
yatayaH shuddhasatvaaH |

In Gita - sarva dharmaan parityajya maam ekam sharaNam
vraja | - Hence the third reason is that vedaanta j~naanam is contradictory
to karma
therefore it can never combine with karma. Hence Shankara declares in
Atmabodha
-
avirodhitayaa karma , avidyaa na nivartayet.h |
vidyaa avidyaam nihanti eva tejaH timira sa~Nghavat.h ||

karma is being opposite cannot remove ignorance. Only knowledge can remove
ignorance just as the light removes the darkness. Hence one cannot say that
siddhabodhaka vaakyam-s should be connected to kaaryabodhaka vaakyam-s.
In the karmakaanDa one may be able to connect to the kaaryabodhaka
vaakyam-s. There the knowledge is how and why one should perform the
rituals. But the Vedanta is dealing with a different problem and one cannot
force any connection to the siddhabodhaka vaakyam-s of Vedanta to karma or
upaasana.

The reason four: The fourth objection is related to the puurvamiimaa.nsaka
'-s
declaration that Brahman is not at all there. Shankara says it is not true.
To find out what is revealed by shaastra the puurvamiimaa.nsaka -s
themselves have come up with the procedure involving the shhaD - li~Nga or
six factors of determination. Their own criteria of shhaD - li~Nga or six
factors have been applied to Vedanta and it has been shown that Brahman is
revealed by the shaastram. upakramaadi shhaD - li~NgaiH tat brahma
shaastrasya vishhayaH
samanvayaat or nirnayaat |
When it has been clearly shown that Brahman is indeed revealed by Vedanta
how can one say that Brahman is non-existent, unless one is a naastika. In
that case you have to
reject swarga, heaven also, since you cannot establish that by pratyaksha or
anumaana etc and it is revealed only by Veda. Hence brahma asti, vedaanta
taatparya vishhayatvaat.

In addition puurvapakshii says that Brahman is not there, because it is
neither useful as an end or useful as a means, based on Vedantic statement
that it is neither saadhyam (goal) or sadhanam (means) - saadhya saadhana
vilakshaNam brahma. Sir, if Brahman is neither saadhanam or saadhyam and if
Vedanta says Brahman still exists, it is very clear that Brahman is the
saadhaka only i.e the one who is the seeker of saadhyam by saadhanam. If one
still claims that Brahman is non-existent he is
only denying himself or it is a self-denial, and by that very self-denial
one denies that very denial itself, or in other words one is proving
existence of oneself, thus by Vedanta teaching existence of
   Brahman - aham
brahma asmi is the essential teaching of Vedanta.
neti neti iti vachanena sarva saadhana
saadhya nishhedhena saadhana
saadhya vyatiriktam siddharuupam saadhakam - tat tvam
asi iti bodhayati |

The next argument is if aham is the Brahman and aham is ever revealed and I
do not need shaastra to reveal the self which is self-evident.
aham
aham iti baalyaadishhu api sarvaasu avasthaasu jaagrat
- swapna - sushhuptishhu
sarvadaa prasiddhatvaat sarvadaa prathamaanatvaat -
it is self-evident as I am I am from childhood on, in all our experiences in
waking, dream and deep sleep in all states and was the prathama purushha as
the first person singular existent entity. If shaastra is revealing that
then it is useless as a
pramaaNa since aham is self-evident fact.

For that Shankara answers aham or I am is known as saamaanya ruupeNa and not
as visheshha ruupeNa - as sat and chit but not as aananda - for that
Shankara says one has to read Ch. III where adhyaasa bhaashyam is
discussed. -

yadyapi aatma prasiddhaH , parantu adhyasta jiivaatma
ruupeNa eva
prasiddhaH na tu paramaatma ruupeNa . aha~Nkaara
ruupeNa prasiddhaH na tu saakshi
ruupeNa.
tvam pada vaachyaartha ruupeNa prasiddhaH na tu
lakshyaartha ruupeNa. -

Essentially, although self is self-evident, it is recognized only as a jiiva
or limited entity not as an all pervading entity, recognized as ego entity
but not as witnessing consciousness, recognized as conscious entities as I
and you but not as all pervading consciousness.

Hence shaastra has to reveal aatmaa as Brahman. Hence Vedanta is required as
pramaaNa. Hence brahma asti and that brahman is aham. This knowledge is
sufficient since it gives me the purushhaartha , the moksha . The knowledge
that
aham brahma asmi is useful since it negates my jiivatvam or abrahmatvam
status.
This argument is presented in simple Sanskrit as -

yathaa rajju sarpa
j~naanena rajju
adhyasta sarpa bhaavasya niv^ittiH bhavati , evam
aatmanaH brahmatva
j~naanena aatmani adhyastasya jiiva bhaavasya
nivR^ittiH bhavati | jiiva
bhaava nivR^ittiH eva moksha ruupa parama
purushaarthaH - katham
taadR^isha brahmaNaH nishhprayojanatvam swapne api
sha~Nkitum shakyate!

How can anyone doubt even in a dream that Brahman is useless when brahma
j~naanam gives the greatest purushhaartha called moksha itself. That is the
ultimate goal of human life itself. Hence brahman asti - aatmaruupeNa asti .
Vedanta is
required to give not saamanya j~naanam but visheshha j~naanam. Shankara
says for details refer to Ch. III- adhyaasa bhaashya.

One more argument against puurvamiimaa.nsaka. They argue: In Veda-s
karmakaanDa is of primary importance as swataH pramaaNa and Vedanta has
no independent validity but gets secondary importance as pramaaNa that too
only by hooking itself to karmakaanDa or upaasanaa. Shankara now provides an
offensive argument. Shankara says in fact it is the other way around. That
is karmakaanDam is apramaanam, j~naanakaanDam alone is pramaaNam. If
karmakaanDa gets validity it is only because of its association with
j~naanakaanDam. How is this proved?

You have to wait for the next post!
____________________________________________________________________________
________________

********
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

>From sarigela at T...
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 12:29:53 -0500
Reply-To: sarigela at t...
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: Disagreement with Parama Guru Kanchi's statement about animal scrifice in the Vedas
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: sarigela at T...


Quoting "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar at b...>:

>I know a man who is
> the descendant of agnihotris and in fact witnessed a
soma yajna during the
> 1960's. He confirmed that an actual animal was
used.

 A soma yaga was performed some 3 weeks back in

 Shri Kalahasti (Andhra), where a goat was sacrificed

 however it was smartas who performed the yaga.

 Also the Devi bhagavatha explicitly mentions that
killing with a sense of duty during yagas is no killing

 it cannot be called himsa at all.

 regards


>From "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Reply-To: "Siddhartha Krishna" <siddharthakrishna at v...>
Subject: Re: Re: Disagreement with Parama Guru Kanchi's statement about animal scrifice in the Vedas
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 23:14:14 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Siddhartha Krishna" <owner-advaita-l at L...>


Respected Jaldhar ji,
Thank you very much for the clarification
Thank you,
Siddhartha

> I take it to mean he is talking about those people who confuse soma with
> sura. He is saying they are taking the word "intoxicating" out of
> context.
 >From what I understand of the Mimamsaka approach, arthavada is not just
> stories (though they are the greatest part of it) but any vakya that
> does not a direct command (vidhi) or prohibition (niShedha) of a
> particular action. They are not meaningless or useless because they are
> connected to and provide some information about some action. One example
> is "Pushan has no teeth" Whether or not He does is not the point but
> to call attention to the rule that the offering to Pushan should be made
> with soft rice mixed with ghee.
>
> So the mention of Indra being "intoxicated" with Soma must reveal
> something about the role of Indra and/or Soma in some

>From "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 00:09:32 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: sanyAsins, jnAnIs and Sri gaudapAda
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 Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Sankaran Aniruddhan wrote:

> I have a few of questions regarding sanyAsins, jnAnIs and Sri
> gaudapAda. I would be grateful if members could clarify them for me.
>
> 1) Is there any dietary restriction for sanyAsins, like vegetarianism
> etc? or can they accept any food given as bhikshA? I remember reading
> somewhere that even though buddhism placed a lot of emphasis on
> ahimsa, buddhist monks were allowed to accept meat etc as bhikshA
> since it was not cooked specifically for them.
>

See the passage from the yogasutras I posted a couple of days ago. The
choice of eating meat or not is a matter of debate for the common man but
for anyone seriously practising sadhana ahimsa etc. is a mahavrata to be
practiced most rigorously.

Incidently this illustrates why sannyasa is so important in Advaita
Vedanta. One of the things Swami Hariharananda says is that Ahimsa should
be practiced even to the point of not defending yourself if attacked.
An individual in that situation (assuming getting himself killed is not
an option) could run away. An entire society couldn't. There are some
aspects of morality that can only be put into practice on an individual
level thus the need for the sannyasi who is free of the burdens of social
obligations.

> 2) I'd read in the list archives that bhakti is of three forms, karma
> mixed with bhakti, pure bhakti and bhakti mixed with jnAna. Is it
> possible for a jivanmukta to have pure jnAna? Isn't it natural for
> them to have jnAna mixed with bhakti?
>

At the highest levels jnana and bhakti amount to the same thing.

> 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?

Yes I believe in the introduction of the karikabhashya, he salutes
Gaudapadacharya as paramaguru.

 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?

Vidyashankara indicated that it doesn't.

> I would also be grateful if Sri Jaldhar
> could write about the details of how Sri gaudapAda was cursed to
> become a brahma-rAkSasa.
>

In 1932, Swami Chandrashekharendra Saraswati of Kanchi observed Chaturmasa
in Madras during which time he gave a series of discourses. These were
collected and translated by T.M.P Mahadevan in a book called "Adi Sankara:
His Life And Times" published by the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan.

His Holiness, indicates that this story comes from a kavya called
Patanjalivijaya by Ramabhadra Dikshita[1]. Patanjali was the avatar of
Adi Shesha. He wrote three important shastras: the Yogasutras, the
Ayurvedic work Charaka Samhita, and the Mahabhashya on the vyakarana
sutras of Panini. Together, they cover, mind, body, and speech. He
taught the Mahabhashya to 1,000 students in the hall of 1,000 pillars at
Chidambaram.[2] In order to teach them quickly, Patanjali took his
original form of the 1,000 headed Adishesha. However this caused a
problem as that body exuded a deadly poison. So he taught from behind a
screen and ordered that noone should move the screen and no one should
rise and leave until the lesson was over or they would become a
brahmarakshasa. One inquisitive student moved the
screen and as a result,
999 of the students were burned to ashes due to the poison. Only one
survived, the dullest of the lot a boy from Gaudadesha[3] who had wandered
outside. Patanjali returned to his normal form and finished teaching him
the Mahabhashya but for his disobedience he had to become a brahmarakshasa.
Patanjali did however relent a little and said Gaudapada would be released
from his curse when he taught what he had learned to a worthy pupil.

After that Gaudapada the brahmarakshasa lived in a fig tree on the banks
of the Narmada where he would waylay scholars passing from the North to
the South or the South to the North and ask them a question on Sanskrit
grammer. If they answered incorrectly he would eat them. This continued
for many years. One day he met a Brahman boy called Chandra Sharma. He
was from Kashmir and was on his way to Chidambaram because he heard that
grammar was taught there. Gaudapada asked his question but to his
surprise, Chandra Sharma gave the correct answer. Pleased, Gaudapada
proceeded to teach him the entire Mahabhashya non-stop over a course of
nine days.[4] Chandra Sharma, lacking proper writing implements, drew his own
blood and wrote it down on leaves from the fig tree.

Free from his curse, Gaudapada reflected on the sorrow caused by actions
and resolved to get mukti. He went to Badarikashram in the Himalayas
where he met Shukadevaji from whom he took sannyasa and mastered Advaita
Vedanta.

Chandra Sharma continued southwards for a while but was so exhausted he
fell into a deep sleep. during this time, a goat ate some of the bundle
of leaves on which the Mahabhashya was written on.[5] He ended up
marrying a Vaishya, Kshatriya, and Brahmana wife. After having a son by
each and enjoying much worldly success, he became desirous of moksha. He
too ended up at Badarikashram. There he met his old teacher and while the
first time he had learnt the key to all paravidya, this time he learnt the
key to aparavidya. He took sannyasa under the name Govinda and later
became the teacher of Shankaracharya.


Notes:

[1] He was the grand-nephew of the famous Kavi Nilakantha Dikshita thus
approximately c. 18th century.

[2] Murtis of Bhagawan Nataraja show the sages Vyaghrapada and Patanjali
on either side. Vyaghrapada has the body of a tiger and Patanjali the
body of a snake.

[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.

[4] The Mahabhashya has nine sections called ahnikas -- an untypical word
for a chapter. Ahnika = "a daily lesson"

[5] A section of the Mahabhashya we have today is missing. It is known as
ajabhakshita bhashya. ("The bhashya eaten by a goat")

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

>From "S. V. Subrahmanian" <owner-advaita-l at L...>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 12:11:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: ahmisA from Sri Krishna's Life
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "S. V. Subrahmanian" <owner-advaita-l at L...>


I am quoting a passage here from Sri Jaldharji's posting:

Incidently this illustrates why sannyasa is so important in Advaita
Vedanta. One of the things Swami Hariharananda says is that Ahimsa should
be practiced even to the point of not defending yourself if attacked.
An individual in that situation (assuming getting himself killed is not
an option) could run away. An entire society couldn't. There are some
aspects of morality that can only be put into practice on an individual
level thus the need for the sannyasi who is free of the burdens of social
obligations.

End of Quote.

There is always this doubt in the mind of aspirants as to what constitutes
ahimsa. I will try and collect my thoughts with some substantiation from
purANas. The following are rules I have framed for myself and am not
recommending as an injunction and am willing to consider arguments against
them.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Eg., Krishna's effort in brokering peace between paNdavas and kauravAs. He
tried his best to bring peace, even though the only way seemed to be war. Not
every situation will be like that in life. There could be situations where we
might really be successful in avoiding himsa.

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.

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.

Note, any true performance of svadharma has to be nishkAma karma - even the
most basic ones as sandhyAvandanam.

Rule 4: himsa and selfishness
==============================
A quick acid test to check to decide is also to see whether the act performed
is for one's own benefit or loka hita (welfare of the world). Krishna not only
taught Arjuna that his dharma was to fight the righteous war, but also ensured
that he corrected his vision in performing this war ie., as an act of dharma
and for the welfare of the world (nishkAma karma). He ensured that Arjuna was
not fighting anymore to get his kingdom back, but to re-instate dharma. That
really gave Arjuna the licence to fight the war against his own kinsmen, not
the selfish motive of winning his kingdom back. The latter attitude might have
led him to sin, if fought against his own elders.

Similarly if a Vedic rite is performed with the intent of loka-kalyANa, and
animal sacrifice is prescribed in it and the brahmaNa considers it his
svadharma to perform then no sin accrues from it. But if the performance of
yajna is for a selfish motive, it can accrue sin. It is more like the surgeon
performing an operation.

(By the way, it is funny that there are people who condemn animal sacrifice,
but wear silken clothes. The latter is much worse than the former for it is
more in number.)

Summary
========
1. Always choose the path of ahimsA, as long as it exists, however difficult
the path might be.

2. Put in one's best to avoid himsA, even if all pointers are against it.
That one has put in one's best to avoid himsA is a necessary precondition to
engaging in himsA.

3. Depending upon what one's svadharma (peformed nishkAma) is (as taught by
Sruti, Smriti and sampradAya), himsA in the performance of svadharma can be
accepted.

4. If forced to perform himsA, never perform it for a selfish motive.

I am submitting my thoughts. I will be happy to know of any mistakes in
thought.

Regards.
S. V. Subrahmanian.


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

>From "Ravisankar S. Mayavaram" <miinalochanii at y...>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 13:00:34 -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: "Ravisankar S. Mayavaram" <miinalochanii at y...>


SVS

Thanks for the beautiful collection of your thoughts. kR^ishhNa is not
as straightforward to understand and appreciate as Rama is. Often He
was fascinatingly clever, which makes His liila-s so delightful. You
mentioned that he tried to broker peace between pANDava-s and
kaurava-s. But it was His firm resolve that such a bogus peace should
never come into place, which would be only a very temporary solution.
He merely went through that motion to satisfy dharmaputra and loka
dharma. Destroying Duryodhana and party was essential for the welfare
of the world.

Coming back to Topic:

Following is a quote from parmAcharya.

"In all that you do, let love be the sole motive. Any deed
must be with reference to another. Action implies the acted
upon as much as the agent. Let action be out of love. I am
not here referring to Gandhian gospel of ahimsa. There may
be situations which demand violent action. Punishment, for
instance, may be necessary. Even wars may have to be waged.
But whatever be the nature of action, the agent must act out
of love. Passions such as desire and hatred, anger and
malice must be eschewed. If love becomes the guiding
principle of all deeds, then most of the ills of the world
will vanish."

Message to the west given by His Holiness Sri
Chandrasekarendra Saraswati Sankaracharya of Kanchi (Tamil
Nadu - India) in the year 1958.


=====
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 "Ravisankar S. Mayavaram" <miinalochanii at y...>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 13:01:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Fwd: Notes on BSB I-i-4-1G
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="0-1367303771-987019263=:19378"
Sender: owner-advaita-l at b...
From: "Ravisankar S. Mayavaram" <miinalochanii at y...>


--0-1367303771-987019263=:19378
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!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
--0-1367303771-987019263=:19378
Content-Type: message/rfc822