[Advaita-l] Re: Vivekachudamani vs Bhashyas

[bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com]

The only VC verse which uses the word nirvikalpa is no. 239, which does not
talk of nirvikalpa samAdhi. Rather, that verse says that brahman, the para
tattva, the supreme principle, is nirvikalpaka, i.e. beyond mental
constructions. Sankara says this in many places in his primary bhAshya-s.

>  Humble praNAms Sri Vidya prabhuji
>  Hare Krishna

>  prabhuji, as Sri Karthik prabhuji pointed out, there is some discrepancy
in numbering system in different versions of the same text.  I should have
given the complete verse instead of giving mere verse no.  Anyway, Sri
Karthik prabhuji has gracefully provided the complete text of the verse
which I was talking about.  But again, verse no. is 339 only in my book not
342 :-)).  (Swamiji elsewhere says that he has taken the sanskrit version
of VC pulbished by Nirnayasagara press for his translation work). So,
naturally in my VC,  verse No.239 does not talk about nirvikalpa nor
nirvikalpa samAdhi. Verse No.239 is about shruti mahAvAkya samanvaya
*tattvamasi* (tat-tvam Ikya) ShrutyA tayOstattvamasIti samyagEkatvamEva
pratipAdyate muhuH..etc. etc.

As for verse 339, I am puzzled by your reference to nirvikalpa samAdhi
here.
This verse only talks of sarvAtma-bhAva and AtmanishThA. Again, there are
many places in the bhAshya-s where Sankara says that the fruit of
brahman-knowledge is sarvAtma-tva. Also, note the reference to the Sruti
that says "SAnta, dAnta" etc. in the same context (verse 341), and also
that
the author here says that the bhikShu is one who has already done SravaNa
(bhikshoH kRtaSravaNakarmaNaH). The phrase, samAdhiM vidadhAti in this
verse
may also be compared to sUtrabhAshya 2.3.39 - where Sankara says, "samAdhir
upadishTo vedAnteshu".

>  It is again clear prabhuji, sarvAtmana bandha vimuktihEtuH
sarvAtmabhAvAnna parOsti kashchit!  *drushyAgrahE* satyupapadyatEsau
sarvAtmabhAvOsya sadAnishtaya ..verse 336 that author of VC saying that
drushya - AgrahaNa in samadhi stithi can only lead us to sarvAtma bhAva, if
we see the very next verse which starts drushyasyAgrahaNaM kaThaM nu
ghatatE dEhAtmanA tishtatho etc. it is clear that author giving special
emphasis on samAdhi stiti.  This is further clarified by VC author in verse
354 (kindly check for the no. in your book) upAdhibhEdAt svayamEva
bhadhyatE chOpAdhyapOhE svayamEva kEvalaH! *tasmAdhupAdhirvilayAyA vidwAn
vasEt sadAkalpa samAdhiniShtayA* ( kindly bear with my sanskrit
trasliteration) Prabhuji, does it not the last sentence of the above verse
(sadAkalpa samAdhiniShtayA) makes it clear author's spl. inclination
towards samAdhi prabhuji??  author's shruti pratipAdya pre-requisites
shAntO-dAntaH (Br. 4-4-23)etc. is only to attain nirvikalpa samAdhi only
coz. this is the ultimate abode of brahma jnAni according to VC author.

As for the notion of nirvikalpa samAdhi itself, see gItAbhAshya 2.53 (in
the
context of sthitaprajna), where Sankara says that samAdhi is the Atman and
that it is vikalpa-varjitA. Note that the gItA verse itself only uses the
word acalA, i.e. still/unmoving. It is the bhAshyakAra who says that this
samAdhi is vikalpa-varjitA, i.e. devoid of mental constructions, i.e.
nirvikalpA.

>  prabhuji, Kindly give me sometime, I'll come back on this issue next
week.  (next three days holiday for me)

Agreed. However, I would like to emphasize that such comparative textual
studies should not be restricted by the sUtrabhAshya alone and have to take
into account (and very seriously) what is said in the gItAbhAshya and
upanishad commentaries too, particularly those on BU, TU and CU.

> For that matter, there is some minor differences in sUtra bhAsHya &
bruhadAraNyaka bhAshya of sri shankara when we do the comparative analysis.
I wanted to discuss those points also with you prabhuji, if you could
kindly permit me.  But it is definitely not as severe as we find in PT
bhAshyas & prakaraNa grantha-s such as VC & sarva vEdAnta sidhAnta sAra
saNgraha.

>  Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
>  your humble servant
>  bhaskar