[Advaita-l] Advaita-l Digest, Vol 62, Issue 10

[kman]

> Message: 10
> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:14:16 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Ananta Bhagwat <ananta14 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [Advaita-l] Fw:  moxa-sAdhanA
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
>        <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Message-ID: <12704.5572.qm at web57505.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Thanks Sri Ananta for a breath of fresh air. I whole heartedly agree with
> what you say. I was actually shocked by

Sri Jaladhar's message on this subject being one of the founders of this
group, if I am not mistaken.

Sri Ananta please keep posting your thoughts and perspectives, Your erudite
and insightful mails raise the awareness
and keep me in the path of Sankara.

Thanks

Hari Om
Kris

>
>
> ----- Forwarded Message ----
> From: Jaldhar H. Vyas
> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 5:06:55 AM
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] moxa-sAdhanA
>
> <In several of your messages I've seen you assume that by shastras we mean
> written books and then you contrast them with traditions or history.
> Actually its almost completely the other way around. ...>
>
> Well, this is also my position; tradition (oral transmission and
> observance) first and then came SAstra. But is it the position of those who
> demand rigid interpretation of SAstra? Recall your own stand. When you
> interpret shruti or smRti rigidly you interpret words and not the traditions
> because shruti and smRti are culminations of very many traditions which are
> shrouded in antiquity.
>
> <Despite not being written in a fixed form we find that different classes
> amongst those that are called Hindus have very fixed, consistent ideas of
> how one is supposed to act.  This is their dharma.>
>
> Very debatable; which classes you are talking about? Perhaps this may be
> true to some extent of priestly (Brahmin) class, not otherwise. From times
> of yore each caste has showcased its own tradition. There are hundreds of
> casts.
>
> <Then it is not a pramana i.e an objective measure.  Anyone can invoke
> "conscience" for whatever reason and there is no rational measure by which
> you can determine if it is valid or not.  Any discussion of this
> "conscience" will end up as a shouting match because it only one persons
> word against another.>
>
> Conscience has a subjective element no doubt; but it can always try to
> connect to universal conscience projected by gItA. Also,  see below.
>
> <Hmm if you know who Turing is you most probably know who Goedel is.>
>
> Hmm, very good example indeed! The famous incompleteness theorem of Godel
> says, in any mathematical system no set of axioms can capture all the
> procedures whereby mathematical truths are ascertained. This is true for all
> logical systems. This is where conscience comes into picture. I referred to
> the term non-computational to show that there can not be any exclusive
> criteria (like birth, cast, class etc) whereby this conscience is formed or
> raised. A Valya Koli can become sage Valmki when his conscience is raised. A
> vikarNa can stand up against all the assembly of seniors and vidvAn-s to
> protest disrobing of draupadI. That is what I call as conscience. It can
> (but need not always) comes from SAstra.
>
> <Who defines "injury" and "innocence"?  In the case of the himsaka yajnas
> it is believed that the sacrificial pashu goes to  heaven.  Since a goat
> cannot read the Ramayana or fast on ekadashi, this is in fact the only way
> it can go to heaven.  What kind of selfish wicked person would deny them
> that?  (In other words it is a matter of perspective.)>
>
> ajA putra balI dadhyat devO durbala ghAtakaH! Here our perspectives differ.
>
> <No it is not clear at all.  I deny your very premise and if you intend to
> assert it, you need to back it up with some facts.
> The devil is as they say in the details.  If you don't want to back up
> your arguments, drop them we can't take them seriously.>
>
> There is very little motivation for me to take this bet; but still you can
> refer to section V and VII of manusmRti and incantations of Atharva Veda as
> example. Referhttp://www.sacred-texts.com/hin and go Atharva Veda English
> translation. You will also find manusmRiti and some other smRti-s there. If
> you know Sanskrit you can see all 18 smRti-s and upasmRitis onhttp://
> is1.mum.edu/vedicreserve and you will understand the futility of this
> whole exercise. My lack of motivation is not due to lack of data but because
> of the very fact that some of this material is also used by the vested
> interests to malign Hinduism as also by some to validate their black-magic
> activities. I do not want to join or support any of these groups.
>
> <The contradiction is this.  You say that Arjuna causing the deaths of over
> one million people including his teachers, elders, and other family
> members for the sake of artha (a kingdom) is dharma but a somayaji killing
> one goat for the sake of artha (heaven) is not>
>
> Not a correct example. In second world war more people died. But do you
> suggest that the world should have succumbed to Hitler's ambitions and
> tolerated Jews' massacre?. Can it be used to justify the killing of even one
> innocent person? The war for Dharma (for just cause) is different; there the
> participants and their non-fighting supporters too are aware that they can
> die. You can not justify killing of an innocent by giving this example. Then
> why not sanction murders etc. Why not nara-balI (human sacrifice) also? Some
> may even justify all that but it is not acceptable to conscience of very
> many people including mine.
>
> > We assume that shruti, smRti, purANa give a unified clear message all
> > through which is universal and all-time.
>
> <Yes indeed we do.  Actually with  one qualification: there are two unified
> clear messages.  One is how to pursue dharma, artha, and kama for limited
> rewards in a finite world.  The other is how to pursue moksha which is
> eternal and infinite.>
>
> We are talking about details and they differ considerably as to how to
> pursue these two courses. If every thing was crystal clear then why debates
> continued for centuries even amongst SAstrI-s? The hows are to be detailed
> out, other wise they are meaning less. The devil is as they say in the
> details :). If you say follow 18.66 of gItA then SAstra-s are not required
> at all. (Though I do not rule out that possibility in specific cases).
>
> <As others have pointed out, modern sensibilities permit the slaughter of
> animals on a vast scale.  Even if you restrict the picture to religious
> rituals, animals sacrifices are going on all over India this very day.
> True most of these are tantrokta rather than vedokta but even the latter
> are
> not unknown. (And what about halal or kosher sacrifices?  Those are
> practiced by modern people whose consciences are apparently untroubled)
>
> So by "modern  sensibilities" it seems you mean "my sensibilities"  Which
> is ok except you said conscience is more than the "whims and fancies of an
> individual.">
>
> When I say modern sensibilities I say modern ethical view. Modern people do
> lot many things which are not compatible with this ethical view. Animal
> rightist who are concerned with the plight of animals are growing in number.
> I have explained their concerns elsewhere. That animal sacrifices are going
> all over India (and its implicit universality in Indian context) is an
> exaggerated view. But suppose for the sake of arguments these things are
> really happening then these are not compatible with the spirit of gItA.
>
> It may interest you to see the discourse of Sw Chandrashekharendra Bharati,
> a modern SAstri and a videha mukta of Kanchi Kamakoti who explains that
> though animal sacrifice is sanctioned by dharma, satya (truth) and ahiMsA
> (non-violence) is much better course of action as per SAstra only. See the
> link
> http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap23.htm ,
>
> <It was the same in my family including the early 20th century.  So where
> are you getting the idea that is is not in tune with the manusmrti?>
>
> Have you read manusmRti? Some where above, I have given site link and
> section numbers for your perusal.
>
> <I think you will find the number  of families that treated women badly
> then
> are not that different than the number that treat them badly now.>
>
> Here I agree; we have to find a mean between excessive materialism and
> blind adherence to scriptures.
>
> <Therefore get up and seek fame.  Defeat the enemy and enjoy the prosperous
> kingdom.  (11:33a)>
>
> This is for motivating Arjuna, elsewhere gItA not only decry vedavAdarata
> (2.42-44) but clearly says that those who cook only for them selves without
> giving the remnants of yajna to good people eat sin (3.13). In this context
> the five yajna-s (deva, brahma, pitR, nR, and bhUta) involve feeding the
> hungry as also feeding the lower animals. If the householder has
> inadvertently killed 'life' by use of pestle, grindstone, oven etc. these
> yajna-s free him from the sin. (SAstra can be as ennobling as that; but one
> has to have pravRtti to imbibe this nobleness).
>
> <Unlike the life-denying Shramanic movements before it, Advaita Vedanta
> does not consider rituals to be inferior because there is something wrong
> in pursuing worldly pleasure or power.  These are also given by Bhagavan
> and we are only the instruments.  Even when done  for selfish ends, such
> things can lead to public good.  Perhaps a modern parallel can be how
> capitalist countries are more prosperous than socialist ones even though
> capitalism is selfish and socialism is not.>
>
> I don't think it is Sankara bhahavtpAda view. He separates jnAna-mArga from
> karma-mArga and puts later on the lower step. moxa is possible by only
> jnAna-mArga. Further, in vyavahAra if every body seeks selfish motives
> disregarding societal interest there will be friction and anarchy. Frankly,
> the examples of capitalist or socialist systems to draw parallel is not
> relevant. It all depends on who is implementing the system. If a socialist
> system succeeds in Scandinavian countries, the same system may fail (or
> rather not acceptable) in US. And a monarchy is successful in Saudi Arabia
> the same may not work in UK. Again these things are temporary and no
> permanent conclusion can be drawn from them.
>
> Any religious doctrine can be viewed from the angle of (1) philosophy
> (ontology, epistemology, and ethics) (2) theology (mysticism and dogma) and
> (3) sociology (history, sociology, humanities). I believe many of the todays
> controversial doctrinaire issues can be understood better from the third
> angle if not from first two. I can discuss them some time later. Enough for
> the time being :)
>
> Ananta
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:26:42 +0530
> From: Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com>
> Subject: [Advaita-l] The word *samAdhi* in shankara bhAshya
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
>        <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Message-ID:
>        <
> OFEB2F063F.EDD0C414-ON65257465.00391FD8-65257465.00419DDE at in.abb.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
>
> praNAms
> Hare Krishna
>
> Here I'd like to draw the attention of prabhuji's of this list to the word
> *samAdhi* & its contextual usage by Sankara bhagavatpAda in his bhAshya.
>
> (a) In gIta 2-44 Sankara uses the word samAdhi..Here according to Sankara
> samAdhi means buddhi or antaHkaraNa.  Here Sankara says that the conviction
> or a resolute nature of the intellect is called samAdhi.  Hence samAdhi
> here means buddhi.
>
> (b) In gIta 2-53, here the word samAdhi means the *self*...The mind or the
> intellect completely immersed when one see the true nature of the self by
> discrimination..The point here tobe noted that it is not a mind still state
> of nirvikalpa samAdhi, it is the realization of jnAni through
> discrimination  that he is advitIya (secondless)...If it is PY's
> asamprajnAtha samAdhi of sthitha prajna then there is no meaning for the
> next verse..where Arjuna asks krishna, stithaprajnasya kA bhAshA??
> kimAsIta, kim vrajeta etc. ..Ofcourse, it is a fact that the person who is
> experiencing NS, cannot speak, cannot walk etc. :-)) Hence here samAdhi is
> Atman..it cannot be equated or interpreted in such a manner to bring-in
> PY's asaMprajnAtha samAdhi.  Accordingly, the word *samAdhishTa* in the
> 2-54 means one who is already established *naturally* in his true nature as
> the self.
>
> (c) In mAndukya kArika 3-37, the word samAdhi has been used & interpreted
> by Sankara in two different ways...And neither of these interpretations
> even remotely comparable to that of PY's AS or later vEdAntins' NS.
>
> (d) In sUtra (2-3-39) samAdhyabhAvAccha (samAdhi +abhAvAt +cha), shankara
> talks elaborately on direct means to AtmajnAna i.e. sravaNa, manana &
> nidhidhyAsana...Here also samAdhi does not mean *samAdhi* as popularly
> known in YS but it is only *samAdhAna*..The context here in this sUtra
> makes it clear that samAdhi cannot be interpreted as PY's AS or NS.
>
> In the all above references shankara does talk about samAdhi, yoga etc.
> but strictly according to the true tradition of vedAnta and nowhere he
> hints that it is PY.  Hence in bhAshya-s there is absolutely no mention
> whatsoever of chakra-s like mulAdhAra, svAdhishTAna, maNipura etc. nor
> kamala-s (like sahasra dala padma etc.) nor kundalini & its coiled power &
> its journey through sushumnA etc.  Ofcourse, in some places where there are
> some peculiar types of upAsana-s mentioned (like OmkAra, aghaMgraha etc.)
> sometimes nAdi-s like ida, pingaLa and sushumna are mentioned & accpeted by
> shankara as per vedic utterances.  But when it comes to self-knowledge
> (Atma vijnAna) there is no mention of these words like chakra-s, nAdi-s,
> kamala-s etc.
>
> With all these observation, I would like to submit that there is no valid
> reason for us to accept that PY or rAja yOga or haTha yOga or kundalini
> yOga has a place in shankara siddhAnta pratipAdana.
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar
>
> PS :  I have taken the samAdhi word reference from my parama guruji's
> Kannada work * Shankara vEdAnta pAribhAshika shabda kosha*...If I left out
> any other valid references where there is room for interpretation of this
> word  in favour of PY, kindly let me know.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:50:04 +0530
> From: Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com>
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Qualifications to Recite Vedas - A doubt
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
>        <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Message-ID:
>        <
> OF3DC1F582.EB03ABFD-ON65257465.0041C691-65257465.0043C195 at in.abb.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> You can find many people all over the world, including women, who
> chant the veda even with going through upanayanam etc. Are they
> violating dharma shastra? It is certainly not our job to worry about
> it.
>
> praNAms
> Hare Krishna
>
> Then who else should worry about it kindly tell me...whether you accept it
> or not, our tradition does not allow stree (women) & sUdra (non-dvija) to
> learn/recite vEda mantra-s..this is the practice you can see even today in
> orthodox vedic institutions like shankara mutt, vyAsarAja mutt  etc.  But
> this does not anyway mean that these people are not eligible for
> mOksha..For them smruti & purAna texts are there which themselves suffice
> for attaining the ultimate.  Sankara also does talk about this vedAdhikAra
> in apashUdrAdhikaraNa, in vEdAnta sUtra.
>
> However, I myself met one Mrs. Renuka at Mysore, Karnataka who is even
> today  teaching rudram, chamakaM & other vEda maNtra-s to around 200
> students. When I asked her about this vedAdhikAra she has given her own
> justification :-))
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!!
> bhaskar
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>
>
> End of Advaita-l Digest, Vol 62, Issue 10
> *****************************************
>



-- 
Balu (Kman)