sAmAnAdhikaraNyam/intros and table

[Srikrishna Ghadiyaram]

On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 00:19:14 -0700, ken knight <hilken_98 at YAHOO.COM> wrote:

>> Namaste all,
>
>Sorry to take up space but this seemed to be the best
>option. I am posting the monograph of Dr Ganapathy
>with footnotes.  I have omitted some of his. I should
>have thought of this simple way of putting the
>footnotes to start with but I was too keen to get the
>text scanned and ITRANSed. If I miss the first impulse
>to do something then other matters soon move in to
>take precedence.  I picked up a couple of errors on
>the way through but I am sure that there are more but
>I am sure that you have enough for the moment. I will
>not post anymore of this unless requested.
>> Om sri ram
>>
>>
>> ken Knight
>>

In the article on samAnAdhikaranya while explaining sampad upAsthi and
pratika upAsthi, the following sentence appears:


(f) If we assume that the mahAvAkyas are upAsana
vAkyas (statements enjoining meditation) several
difficulties arise. Are we to meditate (i) on Brahman
as jIva or (ii) on jIva as Brahman? We cannot meditate
on Brahman as jIva for, in that case we will be
meditating on the highest or superior principle in
terms of the lower one. If we are asked to meditate on
jIva as Brahman, repetition of the mahAvAkya (8)  is
not necessary.

In upAtsana there is no place for argument or
dialectic. Only where there is the employment of
argument or dialectic repetition is necessary. Since
the mahAvAkyas has been repeated nine times to clarify
the doubts raised by Shvetaketu it cannot be a upAsana
vAkya, but it must be a tattva-vAkya.

An objection may be raised to this line of argument by
pointing out that the other mahAvAkyas have not been
repeated at all and that therefore they, at least,
must be upAsana vAkyas. But it must be remembered that
the other mahAvAkyas are not meant to clarify any
doubts on the part of the student; they are uttered in
the course of teaching and not in the course of a
dialogue.

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

Would someone comment on the first paragraph. Why is the author saying, "If
we are asked to meditate on
jIva as Brahman, repetition of the mahAvAkya (8)  is
not necessary."

Also in the beginning of the article itself the mahA vAkya, "

Also, in the foot notes while mentioning the four mahA vAkyas, it is
mentioned:

"1  The first mahAvAkya is a lakshaNavAkya
(definition); the second is an anusandhAna vAkya
(sentence of practice); the third is an upadeShavAkya
(sentence of instruction); while the last one is an
anubhavavakya (sentence of experience)."

i.e the mahA vAkyA, "aham brahmAsmi" is an anusandhAna vAkya. How is
anusandhAna different from "meditaion" ?

Om Namo Narayanaya !!

Srikrishna