[Advaita-l] Gajendra moksham

[Kaushik Chevendra]

Your conclusion is quite splendid. Indeed the teaching of bagavatham is in
line with the teaching of our acharyas nay, the teaching of our acharya's
is in line with bagavatham.
Please refer to me as "kaushik", no need to add 'ji' as I am just 19 years
of age and you are older than me.
Namo narayanaya

On Mon, 9 Aug 2021, 20:43 Vinodh via Advaita-l, <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Trying to resend the message below with minor edits since it appeared to
> just go over the 50kB size limit for posting to the group.
>
> ----
> Thank you for the clarification, Subbu-ji. Indeed I was thinking of
> Shankara’s bhashyas when I had asked the question. Deeper still I was
> perhaps looking for whether Shankara quotes from Bhagavatham to support the
> Advaitic view in his works. The reason behind the curiosity is that there
> appears to be many instances of the Advaitic teaching in it and I find it
> very strange that (almost?) no reference was made to it by the Acharya.
>
> In Kaushik ji’s response, it seemed to me that the verses of Govindashtakam
> are very much supporting such an Advaitic view, e.g., “… who is free from
> duality…”, “… who is pure existence… “, “… who is supreme bliss…”, etc.
> This, together with Kaushik ji’s observation that Shankara’s description
> being consistent with Bhagavatham’s description, suggests that Shankara may
> have indirectly referred to the Bhagavatham to support the Advaitic
> teaching.
>
> However, as you indicate Subbuji, maybe one needs to look into the details
> of the similarity between the descriptions given by Shankara and those
> given by Bhagavatham and other Puranas to assess whether these references
> are really to Bhagavatham or to some other texts.
>
> A possible reason one could conjecture is that perhaps Acharya was
> primarily focussing on opposing the ritualists (those who believed that
> only work leads to results, which includes moksha) and the nihilists (those
> who believed that everything came out of nothing and that moksha is
> essentially becoming nothing or sunya). Perhaps, there was no need to
> oppose theists (those who believed only a God, who is separate from
> oneself, can grant moksha) at his time? Had there been such a (dualistic)
> theistic view to counter, perhaps Srimad Bhagavatham, in addition to the
> Gita, could have been an excellent text to cite from and show that the God
> of the theists is no-different from one’s own self (like what Sri
> Sreenivasa Murthy points out) and thereby resolve the differences in view?
>
> Just a wild thought. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. 🙏
>
> Regarding the quote by Gaudapadacharya, which is from the following verse
> of Bhagavatham (
> https://vedabase.io/en/library/sb/10/14/4/)
>
> *ŚB 10.14.4*
>
> श्रेय:सृतिं भक्तिमुदस्य ते विभो
> क्लिश्यन्ति ये केवलबोधलब्धये ।
> तेषामसौ क्लेशल एव शिष्यते
> नान्यद् यथा स्थूलतुषावघातिनाम् ॥ ४ ॥
>
> śreyaḥ-sṛtiṁ bhaktim udasya te vibho
> kliśyanti ye kevala-bodha-labdhaye
> teṣām asau kleśala eva śiṣyate
> nānyad yathā sthūla-tuṣāvaghātinām
>
> *Synonyms*
> śreyaḥ — of supreme benefit; sṛtim — the path; bhaktim — devotional
> service; udasya — rejecting; te — they; vibho — O almighty Lord; kliśyanti
> — struggle; ye — who; kevala — exclusive; bodha — of knowledge; labdhaye —
> for the achievement; teṣām — for them; asau — this; kleśalaḥ — botheration;
> eva — merely; śiṣyate — remains; na — nothing; anyat — other; yathā — just
> as; sthūla-tuṣa — empty husks; avaghātinām— for those who are beating.
>
> *Translation*
> My dear Lord, devotional service unto You is the best path for
> self-realization. If someone gives up that path and engages in the
> cultivation of speculative knowledge, he will simply undergo a troublesome
> process and will not achieve his desired result. As a person who beats an
> empty husk of wheat cannot get grain, one who simply speculates cannot
> achieve self-realization. His only gain is trouble.
>
> The above quote seems to suggest a path of devotion to moksha, which
> requires a dvaita-bhaava,   however, within the next two verses, the
> following is said, which very much resembles an advaitic view:
>
> *ŚB 10.14.6*
>
> तथापि भूमन्महिमागुणस्य ते
> विबोद्धुमर्हत्यमलान्तरात्मभि: ।
> अविक्रियात् स्वानुभवादरूपतो
> ह्यनन्यबोध्यात्मतया न चान्यथा ॥ ६ ॥
>
> tathāpi bhūman mahimāguṇasya te
> viboddhum arhaty amalāntar-ātmabhiḥ
> avikriyāt svānubhavād arūpato
> hy ananya-bodhyātmatayā na cānyathā
>
> *Synonyms*
> tathā api — nevertheless; bhūman — O limitless one; mahimā — the potency;
> aguṇasya — of Him who has no material qualities; te — of You; viboddhum —
> to understand; arhati — one is able; amala— spotless; antaḥ-ātmabhiḥ — with
> mind and senses; avikriyāt — not based on material differentiations;
> sva-anubhavāt— by perception of the Supreme Soul; arūpataḥ — without
> attachment to material forms; hi — indeed; ananya-bodhya-ātmatayā — as
> self-manifested, without the help of any other illuminating agent; na —
> not; ca — and; anyathā — otherwise.
>
> *Translation*
> *Nondevotees, however, cannot realize You in Your full personal
> feature. *Nevertheless,
> it may be possible for them to realize Your expansion as the impersonal
> Supreme by cultivating direct perception of the Self within the heart. But
> they can do this only by purifying their mind and senses of all conceptions
> of material distinctions and all attachment to material sense objects. Only
> in this way will Your impersonal feature manifest itself to them.
>
>
> Note that, as can be seen from the word-by-word meanings, the italicized
> text in the translation above seems to be an addition made by the
> translator and not contained within the original text itself.
>
> Taken together, these two verses are not saying anything other than the
> path propounded by Advaita Acharyas, that is, to have Ishwara bhakti,
> without which one is lead astray (like one beating empty husks), and to
> finally attain the limitless one (bhuman) by going beyond all
> differentiations (avikriyaat) and experiencing It (sva-anubhavaat) as the
> Self which is not known by anything else (ananya-bodhya-atmataya).
>
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 3:24 PM V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
> > I think Vinodh was referring to the Prasthana Traya Bhashyas of the
> > Acharya.  It is a fact that the Bhagavatam is not quoted there. The
> Vishnu
> > Sahasra Nama Bhashya was a candidate for quoting that Purana but there so
> > many other texts are there including Hari Vamsha, Vishnu Purana, Vishnu
> > Dharmottara, Mahabharata, etc. etc. but not the Bhagavatam.  The mention
> of
> > Krishna having killed a horse-asura named Keshi by Shankara in the
> Bh.Gita
> > Bhashya could be from some other purana as well.
> >
> > warm regards
> > subbu
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 10:17 AM Kaushik Chevendra via Advaita-l <
> > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Namaste sir.
> > > Its also interesting to note that that ramanujacharya also didnt quote
> > > bagavtham. It was shri madhvacharya who was the one to mention and
> write
> > a
> > > summary of it.
> > > The scholars quickly come to the conclusion that it must be a later day
> > > composition. We must not take their view seriously,as these type of
> > > statements arent in line with the tradition.The bagavtham is constantly
> > > quoted in other puranas. And the conclusion will be,they too are of
> later
> > > day composition. So the scholars view should be taken only if they
> agree
> > > with the tradition.Acharya quotes from some of the puranas and
> > > upanishads,and there are many which arent quoted in his works. And
> hence
> > > bagavtham here is of no exception.
> > > Prof B. N. Krishnamurti Sarma has something of interest to say on the
> > date
> > > of Bhagavata Purana, based on his research work on external evidence
> for
> > > the same, in his learned work on the subject in the Annals of the
> > > Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute of Poona Vol XIV, 1932-33. He
> > states
> > > that Gaudapada (7th century) in his commentary on Uttara Gita refers to
> > the
> > > Bhagavata Purana in the course of his commentary on II, 46 of the text,
> > > quoting the following hemistich: taduktam bhagavate: tesamasau klesa
> eva
> > > sisyate, nanyadyatha sthulatusavaghatinam. This line is to be
> identified
> > > with the second line of Bh X.14.4, which is as follows: tesamasau klesa
> > > evasisyate nanyadyatha sthulatusavaghatinam.
> > >
> > > Further though there is no direct reference of bagavtham,its believed
> > > acharya did quote it indirectly.
> > >
> > > Krishna's stealing the clothes of gopis of Vraja is also mentioned in
> > > Brahma-Vaivarta purana, but the description is different than what
> > > Shankaracarya describes. Shankaracharya's description is consistent
> with
> > > Bhagavatam's description.
> > >
> > > The corresponding verses from Govindastakam and the chapters from
> > > Bhagavatam
> > >
> > > मृत्स्नामत्सीहेति यशोदाताडनशैशव सन्त्रासं
> > > व्यदितवक्त्रालोकितलोकालोकचतुर्दशलोकालिम् । लोकत्रयपुरमूलस्तम्भं
> > > लोकालोकमनालोकं लोकेशं परमेशं प्रणमत गोविन्दं परमानन्दम् ॥ २॥
> > >
> > > mṛtsnāmatsīhēti yaśōdātāḍanaśaiśava-santrāsam
> > > vyāditavaktrālōkitalōkālōkacaturdaśalōkālim| lōkatrayapuramūlastambhaṃ
> > > lōkālōkamanālōkam lōkēśaṃ paramēśaṃ praṇamata gōvindaṃ
> paramānandam||2||
> > >
> > > Worship Govinda who is supreme bliss, who showed the fear of a child
> when
> > > beaten by Yashodá saying, ``You are eating earth''. and in whose opened
> > > mouth was seen the row of fourteen worlds, visible and invisible, who
> is
> > > the support of the three worlds (vis., Svarga, pruthvè, pátála), who is
> > in
> > > the form of the worlds, visible and invisible, who cannot be seen, who
> is
> > > the controller of the universe and who is the supreme Lord. (2)
> > >
> > > The corresponding bhagavatam chapter titled SB 10.8: Lord Kṛṣṇa Shows
> the
> > > Universal Form Within His Mouth <https://www.vedabase.com/en/sb/10/8>
> > >
> > > स्नानव्याकुलयोशिद्वस्त्रमुपादायागमुपारूढं व्यदित्सन्तिरथ दिग्वस्त्रा
> > > ह्युपुदातुमुपाकर्षन्तम् । निर्धूतद्वयशोकविमोहं बुद्धं बुद्धेरन्तस्थं
> > > सत्तामात्रशरीरं प्रणमत गोविन्दं परमानन्दम् ॥ ६॥
> > >
> > > snānavyākulayōṣidvastramupādāyāgamupārūḍham vyāditsantīratha digvastrā
> > > dātumupākarṣantaṃ tāḥ| nirdhūtadvayaśōkavimōhaṃ buddhaṃ
> buddhērantaḥstham
> > > sattāmātraśarīraṃ praṇamata gōvindaṃ paramānandam||6||
> > >
> > > Worship Govinda who is supreme bliss, who climbed up the tree carrying
> > the
> > > clothes of women busily engaged in their bath and who made them come
> > close
> > > to him for the purpose of giving the clothes to them who were naked and
> > who
> > > desired to get back their clothes, who is free from duality, grief and
> > > delusion, who is wise, who dwells in the intellect, and who is
> > > pure-existence. (6)
> > >
> > > The corresponding bhagavatam chapter titled SB 10.22: Kṛṣṇa Steals the
> > > Garments of the Unmarried Gopīs <https://www.vedabase.com/en/sb/10/22>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hope this clarifies.
> > >
> > > om namo narayanaya
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 at 08:49, Vinodh via Advaita-l <
> > > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Namaskaram,
> > > >
> > > > I very much enjoy the stories of Srimad Bhagavatham that show
> Ishwara’s
> > > > kaarunyam. And more so the many advaitic teachings contained in the
> > > stories
> > > > of Bhagavatham.
> > > >
> > > > However, it appears that Shankara Bhagavadpada never quoted anything
> > from
> > > > these stories in his works. I am curious to know if this is indeed
> true
> > > and
> > > > if yes, why.
> > > >
> > > > There was a similar question raised in the group about Yoga Vasishtam
> > > > earlier, for which one possible explanation was that the original
> text
> > > > (called “Mokshopaya”) had evolved quite a bit and is possibly lost in
> > its
> > > > original form, and that the text that is available to us now is dated
> > > after
> > > > Shankara’s time period. Therefore, Yoga Vasishtam was not quoted by
> > > > Shankara.
> > > >
> > > > Is there an explanation for why Srimad Bhagavatham is not referred to
> > by
> > > > Shankara in his works (if indeed  he has not quoted anything from
> it)?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts on this 🙏
> > > >
> > > > On Sun 8. Aug 2021 at 21:28, Kaushik Chevendra via Advaita-l <
> > > > advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In bagavatham, the gajendra moksham is well known. The following is
> > the
> > > > > last stanza of the story from Pothanas translation of bagavatham.
> > > > >
> > > > > "As soon as he heard cries of Gajendra for help ,Lord Sri Hari
> > started
> > > > > without a word,,with out taking his weapons.He did not waste time
> in
> > > > > getting ready , he didn't wait for his vahana Garuda,he didn't even
> > > > release
> > > > > the cloth of his wife which he was holding,in the midst of an
> > > > > argument....resulting in instantaneous response to rescue his
> devotee
> > > > from
> > > > > danger. The groups of heaven
> > > > > dwellers and celestial beings exclaimed," Look! Savior is coming,
> > > beside
> > > > > Him is his consort Devi Lakshmi, listen to the sound of conch, look
> > at
> > > > the
> > > > > disc in his hand, and His vahana
> > > > > Garuda flying, Praise the Lord!"!!
> > > > > Then the Sudarsana disc, released by the Lord, cut the head of
> > > crocodile.
> > > > > Then Sri Hari brought out Gajendra from the lake and with His touch
> > > > wounds
> > > > > of the elephant disappeared. He offered lotus with his trunk to his
> > > > saviour
> > > > > Sri Hari. The crocodile was relieved of his curse and got his
> > original
> > > > form
> > > > > as gandharva".
> > > > >
> > > > > The Lords daya is indeed endless.
> > > > > Om namo narayanaya.
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Archives: https://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: https://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: https://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: https://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: https://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
>