[Advaita-l] Advaita-l Digest, Vol 95, Issue 20

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

 Dear Vidyasankar,
Thank you for having decided to spend some time to answer my query. I would
also be great full if any other members would like to throw some light on
this topic.
Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari


>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Sunil Bhattacharjya <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Sphota and Shabda Brahman
> Namaste,
>
> Sabda Brahman is not the Nirguna Brahman but is a link to the latter. In
> the practice of Yoga, (yoga means joining or linking),one has to
> concentrate on the Sabda-Brahman "Om", which is the vachaka of Brahman, as
> Patanjali says. As Lord Krishna says that sankhya and Yoga are one, let us
> look at it from the Sankhya angle.  Sabda is a Sukshma-bhoota and the
> Shukshma-bhootas are the first to appear in the scheme of creation.
> When one delves into Sabda one reaches Brahman. So Sabda and Brahman can
> be called inseparable, even if it may not satisfy the scholars looking for
> rigorous treatment. Any comments?
>
>
> Regards,
> Sunil KB
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar at hotmail.com>
> To: Advaita List <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 8:51 AM
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Sphota and Shabda Brahman
>
>
> Dear Ajit,
>
> I am a little hard pressed for time and a full discussion of sphoTavAda
> and why
> Sankara rejects it in the sUtrabhAshya would get to be very involved and
> deep.
> Here are a few links that should help you, at least initially.
>
> http://www.iep.utm.edu/bhartrihari/ - In-depth and very nicely written.
> http://ssubbanna.sulekha.com/blog/post/2008/01/who-was-upavarsa-2.htm - A
> broader overview of the pre-Sankaran theories of language and meaning,
> again
> very nicely written and informative.
>
> Perhaps later in the year, if I get some more time to delve deeper into
> this, I will
> take it up. In the meantime, I would encourage any other list members who
> may
> have an interest in this, to get a discussion going. There is a lot of
> philosophical
> acuity involved in understanding how language encodes and conveys meaning.
>
> Grammarians, pUrva mImAMsaka-s and vedAntin-s all have different things to
> say about this, with some areas of overlap, some areas of nuanced
> distinction
> and others of outright disagreement with one another. Ultimately, the goal
> of
> all these thinkers is to explicate how the veda conveys special truths to
> us -
> truths that are not otherwise amenable to perception, inference and other
> more regular ways of knowing that human beings depend upon.
>
> In my opinion, the relative chronology of bhartRhari and bAdarAyaNa is not
> very
> important for this. What is more important is the content of the
> vAkyapadIya and
> the brahmasUtra bhAshya.
>
> Regards,
> Vidyasankar
>
>
>