[Advaita-l] Meet on Advaita Vedanta

[Bhaskar YR]

praNAms Sri Subhanu prabhuji
Hare Krishna

Bhaskar:   knowledge can occur to the yOgya adhikAri not only from shruti 
but also from any texts

Response:  Shankara and Suresvara pretty emphatic on this I am afraid with 
regards their tradition., where srutivakyAdeva kaivalyam. Pls see BUBV 
1.4.857-867 and NS where the results of viveka and anumana yield only 
indirect knowledge 

>  I request Sri Subbu prabhuji to clarify his stand here ( I might have 
misread his stance earlier)..he said in one of his posts, shAstrAdhyayana 
(shravaNAdi sAdhana) is not mandatory for the 'yOgya' or atyuttama 
adhikAri of brahma vidyA as he can realize that 'ultimate' by reading some 
lines about 'ekatva' in a novel!! For that matter Sri ramaNa has not 
studied any shAstra before his self introspection about 'death' and 
realization of the secret of death at his uncle's house. 


Bhaskar :jnAna prApti through svAnubhava...Hence, there are statements 
like a 
paramArtha jnAni has to do sAdhana to maintain his jnAna (vijnAya prajnAm 
kurveeta etc.) 

Response: key principle: Suresvara is uncompromising in stating that only 
that jnana which destroys ignorance at that moment once and for all is 
worthy of the name jnana: sakrid jatam na ched hanti jnanam eva na tad 
bhavet. 

>  But fact remains among traditionalists ( I am sorry for using this word 
very often, as I donot know any other better way to address the opposing 
view points of some scholars, no offence / sarcasm meant in anyway) that 
though he is paramArtha jnAni, his upAdhi-s would continue to function in 
a normal way ( for this reference is br.up. bhAshya 1.4.7 : 
shareerArambhakasya karmaNO niyataphalatvAt 'samyakjnAnaprAptAvapi 
avashyambhAvinee pravruttirvAjmanaH kAyAnAM, labdhavrutteH karmaNO 
baleeyasvAt mukteshvAdipravruttivat ) and because of this normal function 
of these upAdhi-s, the paramArtha jnAni-s too would sometime have 
kAma-krOdha, 'digbhrAnta' 'dvichandra darshana' like vipareeta pratyaya 
etc.  So, what they have to do is, to remember this jnAna & keep its 
intensity intact they have to do the practices like dhyAna, samAdhi in the 
form of nidhidhyAsana till he sheds his mortal coil. Hence videha mukti is 
the real mukti in its real sense. 

I have given in much earlier posts Suresvara's clarification of BUB 1.4.7 
on vijnaya prajnam kurvita and the true context of comments re "steadying 
knowledge" which puts his views on jnana and jnana-nishtha in context. Pls 
see BUBV 1.4.921-940. You are probably also aware that Ramana Maharshi 
himself has stated in at least 3 of his talks found in the book of his 
dialogues that what we ascribe to a jnani's prarabdha from an empirical 
point of view is from the standpoint of an ignorant bystander. 

>  I am sorry to say that, Sri ramaNa maharshi's clarification with regard 
to jnAni's vyavahAra has not been accepted as valid since Sri ramaNa here 
talks which does not fall in line of 'traditional' teaching of advaita 
saMpradAya Acharya-s. 


Bhaskar: yOga of patanjaLi (ashtAnga yOga) has a significant role to 
play in advaita sAkshAtkAra  ( asamprajnAta samAdhi in patanjali yOga 
sUtra terminology) is the 
practical experience to realize that ekatva of advaita parabrahman. 

Response: We all know the references in BSB II.15 and BUB that discuss the 
value of yoga. However as stated above ultimate knowledge in Shankara's 
tradition is from Sruti alone. Please see BUBV 1.4.848-852 where the 
necessity of the injunction for chitta-vritti-nirodha is refuted. I will 
the make the obvious point to all that samadhi states can confirm the deep 
sleep experience but as long as the seeker keeps viewing themselves as 
coming in and out of such a state they are still within the clutches of 
avidya. 

>  I agree with this but as far as my knowledge goes, some renowned 
Acharaya-s of advaita tradition clarified that yOga samAdhi  or nirvikalpa 
samAdhi is what is needed to have the 'practical' experience of that 
'ekatva', the very potential source material for this stand is I believe 
'viveka chudAmaNi'.  Ofcourse, vara, vareeya, varishTa gradation among the 
jnAni-s based on the method they use to come back from this samAdhi state. 
 


Bhaskar: why should we restrict our studies to the works of ONLY 
vartikAkArA and his works?

Response: I carefully phrased my sentence to not mean this so I suggest 
you read it again. I have also studied Vivaranam, Bhamati, Ista Siddhi, 
Citsukha, Ratnaprabha and more. However to study SHANKARA's tradition an 
earnest student should kind of ground themselves in a study of the 
original Bhashyas no? 

> Yes, study of orginal bhAshya-s is indispensable to understand shankara 
saMpradAya, but (a big BUT) to understand the subtleties of shankara 
bhAshya and to know and determine the 'correct' interpretation of shankara 
siddhAnta we need to have the vyAkhyAnakAra-s works and because of this 
reason only even today in traditional advaita institution while doing 
bhAshya shAnti parallelly vyAkhyAna grantha-s like Ratnaprabha etc. have 
been taught!! Sri Subbu prabhuji, in one of his recent mails said that 
scholars like Sri Mani Dravida shAstri said that without vyAkhyAna support 
it is impossible to understand shankara's stand on some of the 
adhikaraNa-s in vedAnta sUtra-s!!  So, according to traditionalists to 
solve the complexity of original bhAshya-s, vyAkhyAnakAras' works would 
act as a digestive texts. 


It would be like reading a film review and judging the film based on that 
without seeing the original film. My comment about Suresvara has never 
been an ONLY but has always been an AND. 

>  But the argument is even sureshwara, the vArtikakAra has not gone 
against to shankara & more importantly vyAkhyAna-s..Do you agree with this 
prabhuji and say we have to study both vyAkhyAna AND vArtika to understand 
shankara's original bhAshya correctly !!?? 

It is a pity in my view that we have from his writings over 13000 verses 
of pure gems on advaita, yet beyond Naishkarmya Siddhi he is hardly read 
or studied. 

>  yes, you are right prabhuji, I hardly see the quotes from vArtika in 
these discussion..Do you think vArtika studies would make such a 
significant change in understanding shankara's advaita ??  If yes, in what 
way vArtika is better source of material to understand shankara siddhAnta 
and how the vyAkhyAna-s are  lacking this clarity when compared to 
vArtika?? 

As we say in German das ist echt Schade.

>  I dont know what it means :-)) 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar