[Advaita-l] Meet on Advaita Vedanta in Bangalore - May 7 to 8. 2013

[V Subrahmanian]

Namaste

While I am not responding to the objection/observation made by the revered
Swamiji here, I would like to say that during the meet a set of books
authored by Sri SSS  were given to at least two scholars while I was
watching.  One scholar, during the lunch recess, went through one of the
books, and told me later that the 'virodha/contradictions that the author
is pointing out are not so at all.'

I feel if there is a meet arranged just to discuss the various
'contradictions' with the Shankara bhAShyam in the writings of the bhAmati
or the panchapAdika or vivaraNa, it would be a very revealing exercise.
Maybe someone can take the initiative to do this.  It is also possible, it
is my guess, that the scholar will give a lecture just on this topic.  I
had myself written a post on some points from the book
'bhAmatIsamAlochanam' authored by a disciple of Sri Swamiji where I had
shown that the specific points the author had taken up for criticizing the
bhAmatI as contradicting/deviating from the bhAshyakAra are not so at all:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/advaitin/message/34006

regards
subrahmanian.v

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Namaste
>
> Sankara Vedanta Mimansa Bhashyam by Holenarsipur Swamiji SSS Page 20 and 21
> has analysed the Panchapadika Teeka of  the Mithyajnana Nimitta in Sankara
> Adhyasa Bhashya -
>
> Atra Shruta Hanih Ashruta Kalpana Ca Kriyate Teekakarena Iti Sphutam -
> The Teekakara Padmapada is doing Shruta Hani because he is disregarding the
> Bhashya and he is also doing Ashruta Kalpana. He is imagining different
> things not present in the Bhashya.
>
> Panchapadika -
>
> 'The compound word 'Mithyajnana' has to be resolved into Mithya Ca
> Tadajnanam Ca' False Ignorance. Here Mithya means Undefinable. and Ajnana
> means the inert potency of Avidya, in contrast to  consciousness. And the
> word Nimittaha means having that potency as its material cause.
>
> Now this interpretation is vitiated by the following defects -
>
> In the first place it ignores what is expressly stated in the Bhashya and
> inserts something never referred to in the Bhashya. For the Bhashya says
> that all human procedure is due to misconception, but the author of the
> Tika disregards this express statement and makes the original mean that the
> unreal appearance of egoity etc in the Atman is the effect of the material
> cause - a hypothetical potency of Avidya- which inheres in the essential
> nature of Atman and that this cause has to be assumed to be attached to
> Atman for the simple reason that otherwise we cannot account for the
> appearance of false phenomena. In the second place while the objection is
> that the mutual superimposition of the Self and the not Self is against all
> reason, the reply brings in something irrelevant to the context, for it
> says that we have all to assume that there is a hypothetical Avidya potency
> clinging to internal and external things.'
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:53 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > I am sorry that some of the jijnAsus who went to the venue today,
> Thursday,
> > were disappointed.  There was not enough time for me to convey the
> calling
> > off of the program on Thursday on the List as I was busy with other
> things
> > too.
> >
> > On the topics of avidyA persisting in suShupti there indeed was a
> > vociferous debate, as it could be expected.  At one occasion Vidwan Mani
> > Dravid SastriNaH (MDS) read out a brahmasutra bhashya portion for the
> sutra
> > 'sa eva tu karmAnusmRtiushabdavidhibhyaH' 3.2.9, the highlights of which
> > is:
> >
> > // Here, the question discussed is whether the one who has attained union
> > with the Sat during deep sleep rises from sleep or a different one.  The
> > objection is that there is no rule that the same jIva who went to sleep
> > emerges therefrom.  Just as when in a reservoir a drop of water is put it
> > becomes one with the water there.  When one takes out a drop of water
> from
> > there, it is impossible that it is the same drop which was put there.
> >
> > To this the siddhAntin says: it is the same jIva that comes out from
> > sleep.
> > After a fairly fine discussion on this, the objector's example is taken
> up
> > for settlement:  In the drop-water analogy it is quite alright that there
> > is no way of differentiating it is not possible to take out the 'same'
> > drop.  But in the case of the jiva, however, there is this*
> differentiating
> > factor called: karma and avidyA.  *//
> >
> > When this highlighted sentence of the bhAShyam which explicitly says that
> > there is avidyA that is the differentiating factor for the jIva, the
> party
> > that does not accept this made a protest saying that:
> >
> > 1. Sri SSS had given a footnote to that bhashya (as usual) to give it a
> > different interpretation.
> >
> > 2. The above bhAShya has to be seen as gauNa, the mukhya being the ones
> in
> > the Br.up. Bhashya which forms the basis for them to conclude that there
> is
> > no avidyA for the jiva in suShupti.
> >
> > In any case, the visiting scholars put their point in perspective whether
> > the hosts agreed to it or not.
> >
> > Another point that occupied a good deal of time and debating is the term
> > 'avidyA' in the bhashya: avidyAkalpite nAmarUpe.....in the context of
> > Ishwara's mAyA, shakti, etc.   The hosts' view was that Ishwara, shruti,
> > etc. is avidyA kalpita   When MDS presented the extremely significant
> point
> > that 'we know that Ishwara is the jagatkAraNam ONLY from the shruti
> pramANa
> > and that such knowledge is not an effect   of adhyAsa, the contending
> party
> > literally cited the portions from the adhyAsabhAShya : 'tametam
> > evamlakShaNamadhyAsam paNDitAH avidyeti manyante' and that the term
> avidyA
> > in the above sutra bhashya was indeed this adhyAsa of the jIva, and that
> > the adhyAsa bhashya itself says: all pramANa prameya vyavahAra including
> > the vidhi-pratiShedha shAstra and even mokSha shAstra operated in the
> realm
> > of avidyA,  MDS felt extremely sorry for them.
> >
> > On the sidelines I had a brief discussion with him where it could be
> > appreciated that: The above adhyAsa bhAShya vAkyam does not say that the
> > shruti, Ishwara, etc. are jIva adhyAsa kalpita.  What it says is only the
> > adhyAsakalpita kartRtva-bhoktRtva bhAva makes the jIva a candidate for
> > karma/mokSha.  And therefore the avidyAkalpite nAmarUpe...term means only
> > another term for mAyA, shakti, avyakta, etc.
> >
> > Both parties agreed to disagree, sticking to their guns.  The hosting
> > Swamiji said that he hoped to see agreement, aikamatyam, on the various
> > contentious issues  through such meets.
> >
> > When the topic of yoga abhyAsa like samAdhi for Advaita jnana in addition
> > to vedanta vichAra came up, I pointed out the 'gItAshAstrArtha vivekaH'
> > book where Sri SSS had admitted that the sixth chapter of the BG has a
> > great content of Patanjali yoga where he has enumerated the very sutras
> > from there, including samadhi but at the same time bringing out the
> > difference between yoga and vedanta in the content of the samadhi, one or
> > two from the hosting party made a note of it while some did not appear to
> > be knowing it.  When I stated this, then the hosts made the observation
> > that the practices like yama, niyama, etc. were not alien to vedanta and
> > that their utility is admitted.  Then the question of nididhyAsanam came
> up
> > and I brought out the bhashyam for the br.up.
> > 'shrotavyo....nididhyAsitavyaH' " sa nishchayena dhyAtavyaH' and the
> > dhyAnam itself being elaborated by Shankara in the Chandogya bhashya
> > beginning: vijAtiya pratyaya anantarita sajatIya pratyaya pravAhaH' which
> > MDS presented for everyone to hear.
> >
> > Then the question of 'vAkyArtha jnAnam from padArtha jnAnam' was taken up
> > for discussion.  What would give one brahmajnAnam is the correct
> knowledge
> > of the (tattvamasi, etc.) vAkyArtha which itself depends upon the correct
> > understanding of the words there: tat tvam and asi.  I put a question, in
> > English, to the scholars, one of whom, Sri GoDA Venkatesha SastriNaH, who
> > retired from Reserve Bank of India, 'All the senior scholars here can be
> > definitely said to be quite knowledgeable about the padArtha and the
> > vAkyaartha; they can even teach this (which ultimately is: tat and tvam
> > padas are essentially pure consciousness alone) to others too, and could
> it
> > be said that they have no brahma jnAnam or that their knowledge is
> paroksha
> > and not aparoksha?  To this the eminent scholar said: I am sorry to reply
> > Sir, that the question you have put is beyond the scope, maryAdA, of this
> > sadas as it touches the personal aspect of the scholars assembled here.
> > Jnanam is a matter of one's internal recognition, sva hRdaya pratyayaH (a
> > bhashya expression in BSB 4.1.15) and no one would say it out.  In any
> > case, the conclusion from the bhashya is that liberating jnAnam depends
> on
> > padArtha/vAkyArtha jnAnam.
> >
> > There were some twenty, men and women, in the audience who even put
> > questions and obtained answers.  The event was interesting to me in many
> > respects as I could get to hear a lot of Sanskrit and bhAShyas.  The
> entire
> > set of questions planned to be discussed could not be completed.  Since
> > some of the scholars had planned to leave on Wednesday itself, the
> > organizers felt there will not be much discussion on Thursday and hence
> the
> > abrupt decision to call it off.
> >
> > There were heated arguments, spiced with humor too.  Of course no need to
> > say that we were treated with very tasty upahAra, bhojanam and pAnIyam
> from
> > time to time.  The hosts were extremely hospitable.
> >
> > I am delighted to say that the Advaita vedanta pATha pravachana paddhati
> is
> > going on in various places.  In Chennai Sri goDA shastriNaH is conducting
> > line-by-line bhashya class with Tamil explanation three days a week and
> > some forty people attend regularly.  Here itself the Swamiji is
> conducting
> > some five hours of class every day and some fifteen people attend.  This
> is
> > just a sample.
> >
> > Swamini Svatmabodhananda (nee Smt. Lakshmi Muthuswamy) was present on
> both
> > days, though I did not recognize her as I had not seen her before.  I
> > learned about the identity after she wrote to me today.
> >
> > (I have not checked the above write up for errors)
> >
> > warm regards
> > subrahmanian.v
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Objection:
> >
> > On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > praNAms Sri Anand Hudli prabhuji
> > > Hare Krishna
> > >
> > > I went there with my son today morning hoping to listen to finer
> > > points in advaita, but was told the meeting ended yesterday because
> some
> > > of the scholars wanted to leave early.
> > >
> > > >  thanks for the information prabhuji..when I went there around 11 AM,
> > > nobody was there!!
> > >
> > >
> > > Apparently, a summary of the topics discussed was presented by Shri
> > > Advayananda Saraswati, after the sadas had ended.
> > >
> > > >  I think that must be an interesting summary.. Sri Subbu prabhuji may
> > > give us more details of it.  No need to mention here that Sri
> Advayananda
> > > Saraswati is from Mattur (purvAshrama Sri ChandramouLi Avadhani)
> younger
> > > brother of Sri Ashwatha Narayana Avadhani, a direct disciple of Sri
> SSS.
> > >
> > > I was told the topics discussed included suShupti, the role of Yoga in
> > > advaita in the context of shravaNa, manana, and nididhyAsana.
> > >
> > > >  Very very interesting topics indeed...suShupti and its treatment in
> > > shankara bhAshya is always quite interesting, especially when it comes
> to
> > > kAraNAvidya in bhAvarUpa.  And the role of yOga as well in jnAna mArga
> > > sAdhana prakriya.
> > >
> > > >  Infact I went today with a question about jnAni's kAma krOdha
> > > (vipareeta pratyaya)  due to prArabdha/avidyAlesha which I was planning
> > to
> > > ask if there is any leisure period or in  question & answer session :-)
> > > Anyway, I missed the opportunity.
> > >
> > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> > > bhaskar
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> > >
> > > For assistance, contact:
> > > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards
>
> -Venkatesh
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>