[Advaita-l] SATCHIDANANDENDRA WORKS-Orthodoxy?

[Kuntimaddi Sadananda]

Subbuji - PraNAms
Thanks for the clarification.
Referring to vadahalai and tengalai - I come from Vadahalai and my wife is Tengalai. 
The main difference is in terms of sharanagati itself. The first one follows the marjalanyaaya and the second one follows the markatakanyaaya. Or one is kitten philosophy and the other is baby monkey philosophy.
Kitten has surrounded herself to her mother. It is the responsibility of the mother to carry her kitten to a safe place. 
Hence once surrendered, it is the Lord's responsibility to take care of that Jeeva. They quote 'ananyaaH chitayantyomaam..' 


In the case of a baby monkey, the baby has to hold on to her mother - mother just jumps from one branch to the other. 
In the Tengalai position, one has to hold on to the feet of the Lord. If you leave it, you will fall down -they quote 'uddare aatmanaa atmaanam.. 
There are also differences in the role of Mahalakshmi. 
Swami Tejomayanandaji - says that one has to have one hand holding Lord's feet and another hand underneath His feet. This way, the Lord does not run away from you nor you can run away from the Lord. 
Hari Om!Sadananda 







 

    On Sunday, June 14, 2020, 11:01:24 AM GMT+5:30, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:  
 
 Dear Sada ji,  You are correct.  Here is an old post of mind which would be interesting to you, if you had not already seen it:
Recently I was listening to the well-known Vishishtadvaitin scholar and exponent
Sri VeLukkuDi Krishnan Swami's discourses on the TiruppAvai. He mentioned
something that was very new and interesting to me:

In the srivaishnava (vishishtadvaita) tradition there are two streams:
propounded by Vedanta Desika and Pillai LokAcharya. While the former advocates
sharaNAgati the latter disagrees with him that that is not the upAya but the
Lord Himself is the upAya to be sought for mokSha. These two streams have
gained very distinct positions in the srivaishnava tradition that they go by the
names 'vaDakalai' and 'tengalai' respectively and a considerable amount of
animosity too prevails between the two groups, expressing itself in somewhat
awkward ways even to this day.

The Swami presented the two 'schools' and appealed to the srivaishnavas in
general to give up animosity. He sought to reconcile the two this way: For both
these AchAryas, Ramanuja is the Master. They owe their highest loyalty to him.
While Vedanta Desika advocated sharaNAgati as upAya he was basing it on the
Vedanta ['yo brahmANam vidadhAt pUrvam....mumukShurvai sharaNam aham
prapadye' of the Upanishad]. Pillai LokAchArya while denouncing the sharaNAgati
as upAya argued that the Lord is Compassion personified and it is owing to His compassion that there can be moksha. 'sharaNAgati' would be a business approach for one will think: I have
done sharaNAgati and therefore I must get moksha'. But the Lord's chief guNa of
'compassion' does not get a place in such a situation. Therefore, one should
seek the Lord Himself and will get liberated out of His compassion. The
reconciliation is this way: Both the Acharyas are only highlighting one aspect
while they know for sure that the other aspect is also not to be lost sight of.
Unless asked for one cannot get moksha. And unless 'granted' one cannot get
mokSha. Thus both sharaNAgati and the Lord's compassion have their respective
roles in an aspirant getting moksha.

I remembered a parallel situation in Advaita. Dr. Mani Dravid SastriNaH, a
top-ranking scholar of Advaita, once presented a paper where an aspect of the BhAmati and the
VivaraNa schools were reconciled:

While one holds that the moksha-giving knowledge is generated through the
operation of the mind, the other holds that it is brought about by the
mahAvAkya. Now, it might appear that these are two exclusive positions. The
reconciliation lies in recognizing that it is impossible to the mind to generate
the vRtti unless it is trained by the mahavakya-anusandhAnam. The mahAvAkya by
itself, too, can't give knowledge unless it passes through the cultivated mind.
Thus both the positions have the requirement of the other too and when this is
kept in mind there will be no real difference between the two schools, in this
aspect.

This Advaitic scholar has worked out similar reconciliations of a few more aspects of these
two streams.

Regards,
subrahmanian.v
 
On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 8:26 AM Kuntimaddi Sadananda via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

Subbuji - PraNAms
The following statements got my attention:
Bhamati : 2. The mind is the instrument for realization.

Vivarana: 2. The mahavakya itself generates realization.
I am not sure if there is any conflict between the two statements.
'mana eva manushyaanaam kaaranam bandha moksha yoH'
Mahavakya vichara has to be done with the mind only -Hence there is vRitti vyaapti. 
There is no phala vyaapti - since it is aparoxam. 
The confusion is in the mind and realization also has to happen in the mind only - Mind activated by chidaabhaasa has the notion that 'I am = this' which is also ahankaara. 
With mahaavakya vichaara using the mind, it has to recognize the pure consciousness that I am, is not the mind but that which enlivens this mind as well as all other minds too. 
In addition,  even the Prakriti that includes the mind is only mithyaa, and 'I am' is substantive for the mind and the world too.  This understanding happens in a clear analysis (viveka) of the mahavakyas, by the mind. 
Not sure, How Sri Madhusudana discusses this. 
Shree Venkatraghavanji can shed light on this.
Hari Om!
Sadananda



    On Sunday, June 14, 2020, 08:08:56 AM GMT+5:30, Kuntimaddi Sadananda via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:  

 Subbuji - PraNAms
Thanks for the post.
I like some concepts of Bhamati and some concepts of vivarana schools. Need to think about it.
Hari Om!Sadananda 



    On Saturday, June 13, 2020, 04:37:19 PM GMT+5:30, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:  

 Copied from an old post of Sri Ravisankar Mayavaram:

1. Brief summary of
differences:http://ambaa.org/pdf/bhamati-vivarana-differences-brief.pdf

2. Points of Difference Between Bhamati and Vivarana,  Based on the Bhumika
of Polagam Sri Rama Sastri, as explained by Dr. Mani Dravid Sastrigal  and
translated by S.N.Sastri.

 http://ambaa.org/pdf/bhamati-vivarana-diff_mds_sns.pdf

 http://ambaa.org/pdf/bhamati_vivarana_diff_mds_sns_formatted.pdf


I received these documents a while ago from Late Sri Sundararaman mama, I
might have shared these with Advaita-L before.  Formatted version has no
new content, I did  that for my ease of reading.


Ravi


On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 3:57 PM Kuntimaddi Sadananda via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Bhaskarji - PraNAms
> Thanks, will be waiting for a more detailed explanation. Particularly how
> the explanations differ between the two schools.
> Hari Om!Sadananda
>
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
https://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:
https://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:
https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org