sAmAnAdhikaraNyam/intros and table

[Srikrishna Ghadiyaram]

Hari Om !!

Continuing my previous question:

Referring to "tat tvam asi", the author says as
follows:

"it cannot be a
> upAsana
> vAkya, but it must be a tattva-vAkya."

Originally in the foot note it is referred as "upadEsa
vAkya", and now it is called as "tattva vAkya" How
these two types of sentences are similar or different
?

Om Namo Narayanaya !!

Srikrishna


--- Srikrishna Ghadiyaram
<srikrishna_ghadiyaram at YAHOO.COM> wrote:
> 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


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
>From ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG Tue Oct 29 12:31:33 2002
Message-Id: <TUE.29.OCT.2002.123133.0600.ADVAITAL at LISTS.ADVAITAVEDANTA.ORG>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:31:33 -0600
Reply-To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
From: Vaidya Sundaram <vaidya_sundaram at HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: role of rationalism
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Namaskaram.
 I cannot but help highlight yet another aspect of our Acharya's speech in
the recent posting from Weekly page from Hindu Dharma: Rational Way to Know
God.
Please note that HH mentions:
"It is indeed commendable to have faith in the Lord and in the sastras even
without carrying out any intellectual inquiry. But are we able to have such
complete faith that will take us across worldly existence? Instead of idling
away one's time, without making any intellectual effort to discover the
truth, would it not be better to keep thinking even if it be to arrive at
the conclusion that there is no God? A person who does so is superior to the
idler who has no intellectual concern whatsoever. perhaps the athesit, where
he to continue his inquiry, would develop sufficient intellectual clarity to
give up his atheism. But the idler has no means of advancing inwardly."

There have been some in our list (including myself!) in the past who have
defended the role of faith and faith alone when it was pointed out that even
the best of teachers need to be subjected to rational criticism. I only wish
to use our Acharya's words as a means of prodding all of us to not take
everything on mere faith but to question every thing. When doing so, one
must also observe that HH mentions " This means that Nyaya takes every care
to see that reasoning does not take a course that is captious (remember what
I told you about the Acarya's view that tarka should not become kutarka )
and that it leads to the discovery of truth."

And to add some words from a discourse by Sri Krishna Premi, even the great
Madhusudhana Saraswati, a great Krishna Bhakta, wrote a tratise on advaita
called the advaita siddhi. Sri Krishna Premi says that Sri Madhusudhana
Saraswati actually prepared his mind and intellect and churnned it
repeatedly with vigourous analysis to get the clear and crisp butter that is
perfect understanding and offered this butter to Krishna! So, why are we not
doing it too? Is it not a show of true devotion to actually take effort in
preparing the delicious dishes that Krishna really wants!!

May Shankara help us and lead our understanding forward in the spirit of
true enquiry and offering to Him.

bhava shankara desikame sharaNam
Vaidya.