Posted by: adbhutam | February 17, 2017

PĀŚUPATA AND PĀNCHARĀTRA COMPOSED AS MOHAKA ŚĀSTRA-S

Pāśupata, Pāncharātra, etc. composed by Śiva and Viṣṇu as mohaka śāstra

In the Kūrmapurāṇa we have these verses where Lord Viṣṇu and Lord Śiva decide to compose certain doctrines to be followed by those who are outside the vedic fold:

Kūrmapurāṇa:

तस्माद्धि वेदबाह्यानां रक्षणार्थाय पापिनाम्

विमोहनाय शास्त्राणि करिष्यामो वृषध्वज  १११

[Viṣṇu says: Therefore for the protection/saving of those who are outside the vedic fold (due to adverse karma/sin/curse), to delude them we shall compose doctrines, O Śiva] [there is a reading करिष्याबो indicating dual number]

एवं संबोधितो रुद्रो  माधवेन मुरारिणा

चकार मोहशास्त्राणि केशवोऽपि शिवेरितः  ११२

[Told thus by Mādhava, Rudra composed deluding doctrines and Keśava too, asked by Rudra (composed such doctrines)]

कापालं नाकुलं वामं भैरवं पूर्वपश्चिमम्

पञ्चरात्रं पाशुपतं तथान्यानि सहस्रशः  ११३

[A few of the thousands of such doctrines the Two composed are: kāpāla, nākula, vāma, bhairava, pūrvapaśchima, pāncharātra, pāśupata..]

From this it can be concluded that the Pāncharātra was composed by Lord Viṣṇu with a view to ‘delude’ certain people.

In the Vāsiṣṭhalainga appear the following verses:

वासिष्ठलैङ्गम् –

मत्तन्त्राश्रयणेनैव मत्पूजा च कृता त्वया । तपसा प्रीतवानस्मि तव शाण्डिल्य मे प्रिय ।।

[Lord Viṣṇu addresses Śāṇḍilya: Only by adhering to My doctrine (Pāncharātra), you have performed My worship. My dear  Śāṇḍilya, I am pleased by your austerities.]

कुमार्गेणापि शाण्डिल्य मम पूजा त्वया कृता । अतः कालेन महता वेदमार्गं गमिष्यसि ॥

[Even by adhering to this inferior path (Pāncharātra), O Śāṇḍilya, you have performed My worship. As a result of this, over time, you will come to be included in the vedic fold.]

From the above it can be seen that the Pāncharātra has been composed by Lord Viṣṇu as a mohaka śāstra. It is not that he caused Rudra or some other person to compose it; he did it himself.

As to what is meant by ‘mohaka śāstra’ is explained here (in the Sri Rudra Bhāṣyam by Sri Abhinava Shankaracharya for the second anuvāka) where the word त्विषीमते occurs:

’विमोहनाय’ (of the Kūrmapurāṇa cited above) इत्यस्य चायमर्थ: –

अस्ति च पाशुपतपाञ्चरात्रादितन्त्रेषु वेदविरुद्धार्थप्रतिपादनम्; यथा – केवलनिमित्तेश्वरवादः, जीवोत्पत्त्यादिवर्णनम्, तद्विषये वेदनिन्दा चेति, तच्च सर्वमप्रमाणमेव, व्यवस्थापितं हि तदंशे तदप्रामाण्यं ब्रह्ममीमांसायाम्, तेषु च वेदनिन्दायाः तद्विरुद्धवर्णनस्य  च प्रयोजनम् – ये वैदिका एव सन्तः पापवशाद्वेदेष्वविश्वासं कुर्वन्ति, तान्विमोहयितुम्, तच्च विमोहनं तेषामनुग्रहायैव । ते हि वेदद्विषः तन्त्रेषु स्थितां वेदनिन्दामुपश्रुत्य बहुमन्यमाना वेदं विहाय तान्त्रिकमार्गमनुप्रविश्य तेन विधिना परमेश्वरमाराध्य तत्पुण्यक्षतवेदद्वेषदोषाः क्रमेण जन्मान्तरे वेदनिष्ठां प्रतिपद्य कृतकृत्या भवन्ति । अत एव वैदिकस्यैव सतः शाण्डिल्यस्य वेदनिष्ठां विहाय पाञ्चरात्रादिदीक्षाविधिना विष्णुमाराधितवतो निन्दापूर्वकं तं प्रति चिराय वेदमार्गं गमिष्यसीति भगवता वासुदेवेन वरो दत्त इति वासिष्ठलैङ्गे श्रूयते  – मत्तन्त्राश्रयणेनैव मत्पूजा च कृता त्वया । तपसा प्रीतवानस्मि तव शाण्डिल्य मे प्रिय ।। कुमार्गेणापि शाण्डिल्य! मम पूजा त्वया कृता । अतः कालेन महता वेदमार्गं गमिष्यसि ॥ इति । पापिष्ठविषये परमेश्वरस्य मोहकत्वं तद्विषये द्वेष इव तदनुग्रहपर्यवसितत्वान्न दोषमावहति । अत एव खलु बुद्धाद्यवतारेषु भगवतो नारायणस्य विमोहकत्वं बहुशः प्रख्यायते । न हि तत्तस्य दूषणं भवतीति । तदेत्सर्वमत्र ’विमोहनाय शास्त्राणि ’ इत्यनेनाभिप्रेतम् । एवमन्यान्यप्यस्मिन्विषये बहूनि वचनानि सन्ति, तानि सर्वाण्यप्यस्माभिः पाषण्डगजकेसरिण्युदाहृतानि, तत्रैव द्रष्टव्यानि ।

The meaning of the above is: The word ‘vimohanāya’ (‘with a view to delude’) of the Kūrmapurāṇa means this:  There is indeed in the doctrines such as the pāśupata and pāncharātra aspects that are opposed to the Veda such as – holding the Supreme cause as mere instrumental, delineation of concepts such as the origination of the jīva, also denouncing the veda etc. All these are undoubtedly without any basis (in the veda). In the Brahmasūtras these aspects  of these doctrines that are opposed to the veda has been well discussed (the reference is the BS 2.2 section where pāśupata, pāncharātra are discussed by Shankaracharya).   -The purpose of incorporating in these doctrines such aspects that are opposed to the veda  is: Those who are vaidikas alone, owing to sinful acts, give up their faith in the veda. These people have to be blessed by deluding them. They come to hear about the censure of the veda in those doctrines, give up the vedic fold and enter the tāntric path. They worship the Lord by the methods taught in those tantras (pāśupata, pāncharātra, etc.) and purified by such worship, with their sins annulled, in subsequent births come to the vedic fold and thereby attain liberation. Hence alone (it is seen in the case of) Śānḍilya who was a vaidika himself, gave up the vedic path and took up the Pāncharātra and by that method worshiped Viṣṇu, was given a boon by Lord Vāsudeva even though censuring him thus:

‘Only by adhering to My doctrine (Pāncharātra), you have performed My worship. My dear Śāṇḍilya, I am pleased by your austerities. Even by adhering to this inferior path (Pāncharātra), O Śāṇḍilya, you have performed My worship. As a result of this, over time, you will come to be included in the vedic fold.’

The deluding of those who have wronged, though appearing to be an expression of anger by the Lord, is not so as it (the deluding) is aimed at their ultimate emancipation alone. Hence alone the deluding act of Lord Narayana is well described in His avatāra-s of Buddha, etc. Never does such deluding amount to a blemish in the Lord. All this has been condensed in the words ‘ to delude them we shall compose doctrines’ in the Kūrmapurāṇa. In this vein there are several other scriptural references which are elaborately cited in the work ‘Pāṣaṇḍagajakesarī’ by the author (Sri Abhinava Shankaracharya).

From the above explanation of the author of the Sri Rudra Bhashyam we conclude:

  1. The Pāśupata and Pāncharātra are both doctrines composed for deluding those who are outside the vedic fold
  2. The two doctrines are composed by Lord Śiva and Lord Viṣṇu themselves
  3. The ‘deluding’ does not mean anything negative or detrimental to the audience for which those doctrines are composed
  4. On the other hand, they are intended to help them return to the vedic path and attain liberation thereby.
  5. The Bauddha, etc. doctrine is also composed by Lord Narayana alone with a view to ‘delude’.
  6. The method of the Pancharatra is termed as ‘kumārga’ by the Lord himself.
  7. It is not that Viṣṇu causes the composing of such ‘śāstra-s’ through someone else.
  8. Śiva and Viṣṇu ‘instruct’ and ‘obey’ each other in this ‘partnership’

In the above background it will be beneficial to recall Shankaracharya’s comments on the Pāncharātradhikarana of the Brahma sutras. Of especial significance and relevance to the above explanation is the Bhashyakara’s view on the censurability of the jīvotpatti  in the Pāncharatra. Also his statement of Śānḍilya’s act of deserting the vedic fold and taking up the pancharatra as ‘vedanindā’ (censure of the veda) is also corroborated by the above explanation and the cited  Vāsiṣṭhalainga verses. As a corollary of the above discussion is the non-maintainability of Sri Amalananda’s view in the Kalpataru about the reasons for considering the ‘jīvotpatti’ as  gauṇa.

Om Tat Sat

Posted by: adbhutam | February 15, 2017

ROPE-SNAKE ANALOGY IN UPANISHADS

 

Rope-Snake analogy in Upanishads

Here is a post that appeared in a forum for Advaita:

Here are the Upanishads in which the rope-snake example is used. Some of them are clearly in the context of the creation itself while others are in the context of mokShakAraka jnAna. Please note that all these Upanishads are considered authentic in the tradition since they occur in Muktika’s list of 108 Upanishads. And since Shrutis have ekavAkyatA as per siddhAnta, no Upanishad can be placed above the other to disqualify the same.

Most people seem to be unaware as to why Bhashyakara chose those 10 Upanishads only for commenting upon and not others. This is clearly seen in Muktikopanishad which lists Mandukya as enough for jnAnotpatti, but if not so, then those 10 Upanishads listed, which are commented upon by Bhagavatpadacharya, are to be studied for mokSha. Even then, if jnAna is lacking, then the other Upanishads are introduced in groups till the number reaches 108. However, Upanishad Brahmendra Yogin, who is considered to follow Bhashyakara’s interpretation, elaborating further, has commented on
all 108 Upanishads. Those interested further may kindly refer the same.

*Niralambopanishad*
अज्ञानमिति च रज्जौ सर्पभ्रान्तिरिवाद्वितीये सर्वानुस्यूते सर्वमये ब्रह्मणि
देवतिर्यङ्नरस्थावरस्त्रीपुरुषवर्णाश्रमबन्धमोक्षोपाधिनानात्मभेदकल्पितं
ज्ञानमज्ञानम् ॥ १४ ॥
And [as to what is] अज्ञान is [answered as follows]: अज्ञान is the
[delusory] knowledge, [that causes] superimposition of varieties of
non-selves based on the manifold adjuncts, gods, animals, immovable
(trees), women, men, varNas, stages of life, bondage and liberation, upon non-dual, all-pervasive, all-inclusive, ब्रह्म, like the delusion of snake in the rope.

*Yogakundalinyupanishad Translated by K. Narayanasvami Aiyar*
जायाभवविनिर्मुक्तिः कालरूपस्य विभ्रमः ।
इति तं स्वस्वरूपा हि मती रज्जुभुजङ्गवत् ॥ ७९॥
1.79: Like the conception of the snake in a rope, so the idea of the
release from life and Samsara is the delusion of time.

*Tejobindupanishad Translated by K. Narayanasvami Aiyar*
गगने नीलिमासत्ये जगत्सत्यं भविष्यति ।
शुक्तिकारजतं सत्यं भूषणं चेज्जगद्भवेत् ॥ ७६ ॥
रज्जुसर्पेण दष्टश्चेन्नरो भवतु संसृतिः ।
जातरूपेण बाणेन ज्वालाग्नौ नाशिते जगत् ॥ ७७ ॥
4/6.76-77 (continues till 98): When the blueness of the sky really exists in it, then the universe really is. When the silver in mother-of pearl can be used in making an ornament, when a man is bitten by (the conception of) a snake in a rope, when the flaming fire is quenched by means of a golden arrow, … then the world really is.

*Rudrahridayopanishad*
यः सर्वज्ञः सर्वविद्यो यस्य ज्ञानमयं तपः ।
तस्मादत्रान्नरूपेण जायते जगदावलिः ॥ ३३॥
सत्यवद्भाति तत्सर्वं रज्जुसर्पवदास्थितम् ।
तदेतदक्षरं सत्यं तद्विज्ञाय विमुच्यते ॥ ३४॥
33-35: From that all-knowing, omniscient Lord, whose being endowed with knowledge itself is the penance [=visualisation], the whole world is created in the form of food [that is consumed by all sense organs]. That entire [world] shines [=appears] as-if real, superimposed [on the Lord] just like a rope on a snake. That is this imperishable reality, knowing which, one is liberated.

*Nirvanopanishad Translated by Prof. A. A. Ramanathan*
अनित्यं जगद्यज्जनितं स्वप्नजगदभ्रगजादितुल्यम् ।
तथा देहादिसंघातं मोहगुणजालकलितं तद्रज्जुसर्पवत्कल्पितम् ।
28. The phenomenal world is impermanent as it is produced [from Brahman which alone is real]; it is similar to a world seen in a dream and an [illusory] elephant in the sky; similarly, the cluster of things such as the body is perceived by a network of a multitude of delusions and it is fancied to exist as a serpent in a rope.

*Nadabindupanishad Translated by K. Narayanasvami Aiyar*
अज्ञानं चेति वेदान्तैस्तस्मिन्नष्टे क्व विश्वता ।
यथा रज्जुं परित्यज्य सर्पं गृह्णाति वै भ्रमात् ॥ २६ ॥
26 (1/2) -27. As a person through illusion mistakes a rope for a serpent, so the fool not knowing the eternal truth sees the world [to be true]. When he knows it to be a piece of rope, the illusory idea of a serpent vanishes.

*Katharudropanishad Translated by Prof. A. A. Ramanathan*
ब्रह्मभूतात्मनस्तस्मादेतस्माच्च्ह्क्तिमिश्रितात् ।
अपञ्चीकृत आकाशसंभूतो रज्जुसर्पवत् ॥ १३॥
13/17. From this Self which is one with Brahman and which is possessed of Maya power arose the unmanifest Akasa like a rope-serpent.

*Atmabodhopanishad **Translated by Dr. A. G. Krishna Warrier*
विवेकयुक्तिबुद्ध्याहं जानाम्यात्मानमद्वयम् । तथापि बन्धमोक्षादिव्यवहारः
प्रतीयते ॥ ११॥
निवृत्तोऽपि प्रपञ्चो मे सत्यवद्भाति सर्वदा । सर्पादौ रज्जुसत्तेव
ब्रह्मसत्तैव केवलम् ॥ १२॥
प्रपञ्चाधाररूपेण वर्ततेऽतो जगन्न हि । यथेक्षुरससंव्याप्ता शर्करा वर्तते तथा
॥ १३॥
II-1-11-13. I know myself without a second, with discrimination. Even then bondage and liberation are experienced. The world has gone away that appears to be real like serpent upon rope; only Brahman exists as the basis of the world; therefore the world does not exist; like sugar pervaded by the taste of the sugarcane, I am pervaded by bliss. All the three worlds from Brahma to the smallest worm are imagined in me.

*Atmopanishad Translated by Dr. A. G. Krishna Warrier*
अमुष्य ब्रह्मभूतत्त्वाद्ब्रह्मणः कुत उद्भवः ।
मायाक्लृप्तौ बन्धमोक्षौ न स्तः स्वात्मनि वस्तुतः ॥ २६॥
यथा रज्जौ निष्क्रियायां सर्पाभासविनिर्गमौ ।
अवृतेः सदसत्त्वाभ्यां वक्तव्ये बन्धमोक्षणे ॥ २७॥
नावृत्तिर्ब्रह्मणः क्वाचिदन्याभावादनावृतम् ।
अस्तीति प्रत्ययो यश्च यश्च नास्तीति वस्तुनि ॥ २८॥
II-26-27(a). Because that Yogin has become Brahman, how can Brahman be reborn? Bondage and liberation, set up by Maya, are not real in themselves in relation to the Self, just as the appearance and disappearance of the snake are not in relation to the stirless rope.

*Annapurnopanishad*
रज्जुसर्पदर्शनेन कारणाद्भिन्नजगतः सत्यत्वभ्रमो निवृत्तः ॥ १.१६॥
1.10 The delusion of the reality of the world, as different from its cause,
is negated, by [way of example of negation of] the vision of the snake in the rope [as different from its cause].

*Annapurnopanishad Translated by Dr. A. G. Krishna Warrier*
अधिष्ठाने परे तत्त्वे कल्पिता रज्जुसर्पवत् ।
कल्पिताश्चर्यजालेषु नाभ्युदेति कुतूहलम् ॥४.१०॥
4.10. (The whole world) is superimposed on the supreme Reality, the Ground, as the snake is on the rope. No curiosity is aroused as regards these superimposed wonders.

ॐ तत् सत्।

gurupAdukAbhyAm
,
–Praveen R. Bhat

Posted by: adbhutam | February 15, 2017

MIRA BAI’S REPLY TO JAYATIRTHA

Mīra Bai’s reply to Jayatīrtha

 

In the following link, a remark by Sri Jayatirtha, the famous commentator of Madhvacharya, is cited:

http://dvaita.info/pipermail/dvaita-list_dvaita.info/2016-July/004446.html

//तथात्वे विषमपि पीयूषतया अवगतं तदर्थक्रियां कुर्यात्

This is said in a different context. His point is this – would poison, which is mistaken to be amrita, produce the effect as amrita?!

According to the non-realist, the knowledge of that poison produces the effect. Here, it is mistaken to be amruta. Will the effect produced be that of mistaken knowledge, or of the vastu (i.e. poison)?? The answer is obvious.//

 

A response to the above:

 

The above remark of Jayatirtha is obviously in reply to the Advaitin’s view of the topic: an erroneous object, which is present only as a knowledge, pratīti, produces a result/effect.

It would be beneficial to consider an instance from Saint Mīra Bai’s life as recorded in a book on her life:

The Story of Mira Bai:

http://www.dli.ernet.in/handle/2015/2527

Quote

On page 42:

The Rāṇa then tried another trick. This time he sent her  a cup of poison, saying it was nectar. Mīra after performing her prayers, raised it to her lips and quaffed the deadly liquid, which was really transformed to nectar.  She has described these incidents in her life in the following beautiful song:

Rana made a present of a basket of serpents.

Mira performed her ablutions and put her hands in it.

Lo! It was turned into an image of the Lord.

Rana sent a poisoned cup; having performed her prayers

Mira drank of it. It had changed into nectar.

Rana sent a bed of nails for Mira to sleep on.

Evening fell and Mira slept on it.

Lo! It had transformed into a bed of roses.

p.43

जहर्को प्यालो राणा भेज्यो,

अमरित दियो बणाय ।

न्हाय धोय जळ पीवण लागी,

अमर हो गई जाय ॥ २ ॥

Unquote

Here we have an instance of unsuspecting consumption of poison as nectar and the resultant non-action of the poison.

We have another instance recounted by the Jagadguru of Sringeri Sri Abhinava Vidyatirtha Swaminaḥ:

Excerpted from the book ‘Divine Discourses’ published by Sri Vidyatirtha Foundation, p.49:

//Some years ago a huge sabhā was organized well at Paramahamsi Gangā Ashram in Madhya Pradesh, by Swami Swaroopananda Saraswati, who is close to Me. Between 10,000 and 20,000 people attended. One speaker narrated the following story:

There was a Sadhu who was a great devotee of God. He never took food without first offering it to the Lord. One day the item he had kept for offering got contaminated by snake venom. Unaware of this, he offered it to God. Subsequently, he ate the food and went to sleep. He woke up in the morning quite healthy. However, he found that the image of God that he worshiped had fallen to the ground. What had happened was that when God ate the food, it became pure. So, the devotee was left unaffected. It was Lord’s idol that suffered the consequences.//

Here is an instance from the Mahabharata where Bhīma was poisoned by Duryodhana:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01129.htm

//Meanwhile the wicked Duryodhana had mixed a powerful poison with a quantity of food, with the object of making away with Bhima. That wicked youth who had nectar in his tongue and a razor in his heart, rose at length, and in a friendly way fed Bhima largely with that poisoned food, and thinking himself lucky in having compassed his end, was exceedingly glad at heart. Then the sons of Dhritarashtra and Pandu together became cheerfully engaged in sporting in the water. Their sport having been finished, they dressed themselves in white habiliments, and decked themselves with various ornaments. Fatigued with play, they felt inclined in the evening to rest in the pleasure house belonging to the garden. Having made the other youths take exercise in the waters, the powerful second Pandava was excessively fatigued. So that on rising from the water, he lay down on the ground. He was weary and under the influence of the poison. And the cool air served to spread the poison over all his frame, so that he lost his senses at once. Seeing this Duryodhana bound him with chords of shrubs, and threw him into the water. The insensible son of Pandu sank down till he reached the Naga kingdom. Nagas, furnished with fangs containing virulent venom, bit him by thousands. The vegetable poison, mingled in the blood of the son of the Wind god, was neutralised by the snake-poison. The serpents had bitten all over his frame, except his chest, the skin of which was so tough that their fangs could not penetrate it.

“On regaining consciousness, the son of Kunti burst his bands and began to press the snakes down under the ground. A remnant fled for life, and going to their king Vasuki, represented, ‘O king of snakes, a man drowned under the water, bound in chords of shrubs; probably he had drunk poison. For when he fell amongst us, he was insensible. But when we began to bite him, he regained his senses, and bursting his fetters, commenced laying at us.’’ //

In the above incident too the poison was imbibed with no knowledge of it but ultimately it did not take the intended effect. There could be reasons for this, like fortuitous circumstances, but the fact remains that poison taken without the knowledge thereof can result in its failure to act.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01130.htm

// ‘Then Bhima, endued with great strength and prowess, related to his brothers everything about the villainy of Duryodhana, and the lucky and unlucky incidents that had befallen him in the world of the Serpents. //

The Mahabharata continues to relate another instance where Bhima was poisoned:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01130.htm

“Some time after, Duryodhana again mixed in the food of Bhima a poison that was fresh, virulent, and very deadly. But Yuyutsu (Dhritarashtra’s son by a Vaisya wife), moved by his friendship for the Pandavas, informed them of this. Vrikodara, however, swallowed it without any hesitation, and digested it completely. And, though virulent the poison produced no effects on Bhima.//

In this instance even though the poison was consumed with full knowledge, yet it did not take effect. All this shows that bhrama or no bhrama, other conditions too are at play in determining the cause-effect phenomenon.

There is a hypothetical situation described in the Panchadaśī  (chapter 4: Dvaita viveka) by Swami Vidyāraṇya (a contemporary of Sri Jayatirtha):

दूरदेशं गते पुत्रे जीवत्येवात्र तत्पिता । विप्रलम्भकवाक्येन मृतं मत्वा प्ररोदिति ॥३३॥

मृतेऽपि तस्मिन्वार्तायामश्रुतायां न रोदिति । अतः सर्वस्य जीवस्य बन्धकृन्मानसं जगत् ॥३४॥

  1. A liar told a man whose son had gone to a far-off country that the boy was dead, although he was still alive. The father believed him and was aggrieved.
    35. If, on the other hand, his son had really died abroad but no news had reached him, he would have felt no grief. This shows that the real cause of a man’s bondage is his own mental world.

Actually the Advaitin has not claimed that every instance of a bhrama, error, gives rise to an effect. All that is said is that there is the sambhava, possibility, of an effect thereof.

Brahmasūtra bhāṣya 2.1.14:

…शङ्काविषादिनिमित्तमरणादिकार्योपलब्धेः, स्वप्नदर्शनावस्थस्य च सर्पदंशनोदकस्नानादिकार्यदर्शनात्

The words ‘upalabdheḥ’ and ‘darśanāt’ are the ones that make it clear that the Advaitin is not making a  claim of a rule. What he is, however, showing is that there is seen an exception to a rule.

[..since the effect such as death owing to a suspected poisoning is available. Also for a person upon waking from a dream the experience of the snakebite, bath, etc. had in the dream, is observed.]

The gloss ‘Bhāṣyaratnaprabhā’ explains:

अङ्गीकृत्यापि दृष्टान्तमाह – नैष दोष इति  सर्पेणादष्टस्यापि दष्टत्वभ्रान्तिकल्पितविषात्सत्यमरणमूर्च्छादिदर्शनादसत्यात्सत्यं न जायत इत्यनियम इत्यर्थः । दृष्टान्तान्तरमाह – स्वप्नेति  असत्यात्सर्पोदरादेः सत्यस्य दंशनस्नानादिज्ञानस्य कार्यस्य दर्शनाद्व्यभिचार इत्यर्थः ।

The examples provided in the bhāṣya are there to show that – there is no rule that an unreal (cause) does not produce a real (effect). The words ‘aniyamaḥ’ and ‘vyabhichāraḥ’ (in the above gloss) show that the bhāṣya does not make a claim that ‘every bhrama results in some effect’; on the contrary the bhāṣya is only showing the sambhāvanā, possibility of such a situation.

Real life does provide proof of such instances:

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/workers-panic-as-lizards-tail-is-found-in-breakfast/article8623198.ece

//Workers panicked after they heard that a colleague had found a lizard’s tail in his breakfast plate in a private industry in the Naubad industrial area here on Thursday.

As the news spread, around 30 workers vomited thinking that they too might have consumed “poison”.

“They were all admitted to hospital and discharged in a few hours. They are all healthy and fit and will soon return to work,” factory manager Rajesh Rao said.

A team of Health Department officers visited the unit and gave tips on handling such situations, District Health and Family Welfare Officer Baburao Hudgikar said.//

Suppose a man is in a car moving at a reasonably good speed on a ghāṭ section during an afternoon. On the sidelines, near a thick growth he sees a stationary snake which is actually only a visible root of a tree that is in that spot. Now, this bhrama that he had did not cause any trepidation in him since there is no way he is going to be in the range of the imagined snake.  That there was no bhrama nivṛtti is outside the incident; he would never come to realize that it was only a bhrama. The situation does not warrant any such nervousness.

We also come across instances where a man wanting to kill himself along with his family gives his family food or drink laced with pesticide or some other poison and also himself consumes it. The outcome of this suicide bid could be that not all people die; some survive. Of those who survive there could very well be those who consumed that food without suspecting poison. They have actually imbibed it innocently.  Cases as these also, apart from the Mira Bai instance, amount to vyabhichāra, exception, to the niyama suggested by Sri Jayatirtha.

Thus there is no rule that every bhrama brings about an effect, either positive or negative.

Hence there was no need for the remark by Sri Jayatirtha.

 

Om Tat Sat

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted by: adbhutam | February 11, 2017

THE PURPOSE OF THE ANALOGIES CLAY, ETC. BY ADVAITA ACHARYAS

The purpose of the analogies of clay, iron, etc.in the works of Advaita Acharyas

In the Bhashyas of Shankaracharya in some places we have the clarification for the purpose behind the shruti taking the analogies of clay, etc. 

Goudapada Karika: 3.47
न कश्चिज्जायते जीवः सम्भवोऽस्य न विद्यते । एतत्तदुत्तमं सत्यं यत्र किञ्चिन्न जायते ॥ ४८ ॥
सर्वोऽप्ययं मनोनिग्रहादिः मृल्लोहादिवत्सृष्टिरुपासना च उक्ता परमार्थस्वरूपप्रतिपत्त्युपायत्वेन, न परमार्थसत्येति । परमार्थसत्यं तु न कश्चिज्जायते जीवः कर्ता भोक्ता च नोत्पद्यते केनचिदपि प्रकारेण । अतः स्वभावतः अजस्य अस्य एकस्यात्मनः सम्भवः कारणं न विद्यते नास्ति । यस्मान्न विद्यतेऽस्य कारणम् , तस्मान्न कश्चिज्जायते जीव इत्येतत् । पूर्वेषूपायत्वेनोक्तानां सत्यानाम् एतत् उत्तमं सत्यं यस्मिन्सत्यस्वरूपे ब्रह्मणि अणुमात्रमपि किञ्चिन्न जायते इति ॥
The teaching of creation, etc. through the examples of clay. etc. is with a view to enable the realization of the pāramārthika svarupa of oneself and therefore the teaching of creation is not absolutely real. The absolute reality, however is: no jiva ever is born by any means. Therefore the truth of this Atman is that it is never born. Also, nothing is born in Brahman. This is an instance where the bhashya holds the clay, etc. examples as leading to the truth of no- creation. Since by the example it could be thought that Brahman is the substratum in which the world is created, the clarification comes to show that such is not the case, thereby implying that the analogies are vivarta-para.

ब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्यम् द्वितीयोऽध्यायःप्रथमः पादः सूत्रम् १४ – भाष्यम्

………; नानात्वांशेन तु कर्मकाण्डाश्रयौ लौकिकवैदिकव्यवहारौ सेत्स्यत इति ; एवं च मृदादिदृष्टान्ता अनुरूपा भविष्यन्तीति । नैवं स्यात् — ‘ मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्’ इति प्रकृतिमात्रस्य दृष्टान्ते सत्यत्वावधारणात् , वाचारम्भणशब्देन च विकारजातस्यानृतत्वाभिधानात् , दार्ष्टान्तिकेऽपि ‘ ऐतदात्म्यमिदं सर्वं तत्सत्यम्’ इति च परमकारणस्यैवैकस्य सत्यत्वावधारणात् , ‘ स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो’ इति च शारीरस्य ब्रह्मभावोपदेशात् ; स्वयं प्रसिद्धं ह्येतच्छारीरस्य ब्रह्मात्मत्वमुपदिश्यते, न यत्नान्तरप्रसाध्यम् ; अतश्चेदं शास्त्रीयं ब्रह्मात्मत्वमवगम्यमानं स्वाभाविकस्य शारीरात्मत्वस्य बाधकं सम्पद्यते, रज्ज्वादिबुद्धय इव सर्पादिबुद्धीनाम् ; बाधिते च शारीरात्मत्वे तदाश्रयः समस्तः स्वाभाविको व्यवहारो बाधितो भवति, यत्प्रसिद्धये नानात्वांशोऽपरो ब्रह्मणः कल्प्येत ; दर्शयति च — ‘ यत्र त्वस्य सर्वमात्मैवाभूत्तत्केन कं पश्येत्’ (बृ. उ. ४ । ५ । १५) इत्यादिना ब्रह्मात्मत्वदर्शिनं प्रति समस्तस्य क्रियाकारकफललक्षणस्य व्यवहारस्याभावम् ; न चायं व्यवहाराभावोऽवस्थाविशेषनिबद्धोऽभिधीयते इति युक्तं वक्तुम् , ‘ तत्त्वमसि’ इति ब्रह्मात्मभावस्यानवस्थाविशेषनिबन्धनत्वात् ; तस्करदृष्टान्तेन चानृताभिसन्धस्य बन्धनं सत्याभिसन्धस्य च मोक्षं दर्शयन् एकत्वमेवैकं पारमार्थिकं दर्शयति, मिथ्याज्ञानविजृम्भितं च नानात्वम् । 

In the above bhashya, it is stated that the analogies of clay, etc. are employed in order to bring about the knowledge of the true nature of the Self, through the method of jñāna nivartyatva, i.e. the false knowledge about oneself is annulled by the right knowledge of the Self.  The analogies of clay etc. are employed in the sense of satyatva and mithyātva. The idea of bādhitatva is with reference to vivarta alone and not pariṇāma as generally understood. The vivarta example given by Shankara here is the removal of the erroneous ideas of snake, etc. through the generation of the right knowledge of rope etc.

Shankara  also says that nānātva buddhi is due to mithyājnāna. It is the removal of this nānātva buddhi that is aimed at by the analogies of clay-clay products, etc. The mithyātva of the vikārajātam is taught and the satyatva of the kāraṇavastu asserted. The clubbing together the clay, etc. analogies with the idea of bādhya-bādhakatā through the rope-snake example and the characterizing the nānātvadarshana/buddhi as mithyājnāna by Shankara is especially noteworthy. In the common understanding of the clay-pot, etc. example as a modification, pariṇāma, the idea of rope-snake and bādhya-bādhakatā will be seen as a mismatch. Yet Shankara chooses to put across the shruti tātparya through these examples.   This norm is noticeable in all Advaitic works. Even in the Vanamālā, the Taittiriya bhashya abhiprāya has been stated clearly by bringing out the vivarta analogies.

The Bhashya Ratnaprabhā gloss BSB 2.1.14 says for the bhashya words annotating the vācārambhaṇa shruti: एवकारवाचारम्भणशब्दाभ्यां विकारसत्तानिषेधात्परिणामवादः श्रुतिबाह्य इत्यर्थः । [The shruti by the words ‘eva’ (‘as mrittikā alone’ and ‘vācārambhaṇa’ by negating the existence, sattā, of the vikāra, is teaching that the pariṇāmavāda is unacceptable to Veda. This is clearly because the parināmavādin does not accept the kārya to be mithyā.]  This clearly shows that the clay, etc. analogies are not pariṇāma para.

For the तस्करदृष्टान्तेन चानृताभिसन्धस्य बन्धनं words of the bhashya, the Ratnaprabha explains: श्रुतदृष्टान्तेन (the example is in the Chandogya tattvamasi instance) एकत्वं सत्यम्, नानात्वं मिथ्येत्याह .. Here is another instance of an Advaita Acharya holding nānātvam (vikāra) to be mithyā, contrary to the pariṇāmavāda idea.  It is not mere kāryakāraṇa ananyatvam  but the clear exposition of the mithyātvam of the kāryam and satyatvam of kāraṇam that are outside the ken of the pariṇāmavādin.
Sureshwaracharya too, in the Taittiriya Upanishad bhashya Vārtika admits the vivartaparatva of the Vācārambhaṇa shruti under the sectuion where the bhashya cites the vācā shruti:

कल्पितेन परिच्छेदो न ह्यकल्पितवस्तुनः ।

कल्पितश्चेह कालादिर्वाचारम्भणशास्त्रतः ॥ १३५ ॥
What is real, indeed, cannot be limited by what is illusory. Here, time, etc. are illusory as shown by scripture [which speaks of modifications] as ‘arsing from speech.’
This also proves, incidentally, that kāla, etc. are only effects, kāryam.
The idea of kalpitatvam is alien to the pariṇāmavādin. Anandagiri commenting on the above vārtikā says:
कार्येण कालादिना परिच्छिन्नस्य ब्रह्मणो न युक्तं मुख्यमानन्त्यमित्याशंक्य कल्पितत्वात्कालादेर्नैवमित्याह – कल्पितेनेति । कल्पितत्वमेव कालादेरसिद्धं मानाभावदित्याशंक्याह – कल्पितश्चेति । विकारस्य वाचारम्भणत्वेन मिथ्यात्वाद्विकारत्वाच्च कालादेरपि मिथ्यात्वसिद्धिरित्यर्थः ।
The above holds that vikāra, being mere speech, is mithyā. In the translation of Dr.R. Balasubrahmanyam, there is a statement, source not known: कारणत्वं सत्यत्वप्रयोजकम्, कार्यत्वं मिथ्यात्वप्रयोजकम् । Thus, Advaita Acharyas have held that kārya-kāraṇa taught by this shruti as denoting satya-mithyā concept. Surely, the parinamavadin does not accept this.
सकृत्प्रमितरूपाद्यद्रूपमन्यत्कदाचन ।
नैव प्रपद्यते सत्यं तस्मात्कार्यविलक्षणम् ॥ ५६ ॥
This is the verse that exactly paraphrases the bhashya abhipraya stated by Shankara as  ‘yadrūpeṇa yanniśchitam…’ 
That is real which never attains another form different from that in which it has been once known. Hence it is different from effect. 
The translation by R.Balasubrahmanyam cites the Chandogya shruti:..’says by way of illustration, that the clay alone is real and the modifications such as pot, and so on are unreal. Since Brahman is real, it is different from this which are produced (kārya vilakshanam).’  
Another verse from the vārtika:
नामरूपात्मकं कार्यमनात्मत्वात्स्वतो ह्यसत् ।
यत्सदेकं परं ब्रह्म ततो वै सदजायत ॥ ४१६ ॥
The world which is an effect composed of names and forms is in itself non-existent, asat, because it is not-self. It is from Brahman, Sat, that it is born…..
Here too R.Balasubrahmanyam cites the vācā shruti.  
So, Sureshwara, Anandagiri, etc. also hold that this shruti is vivartapara only.
Upadeśasāhasrī of Shankaracharya:
वाचारम्भणशास्त्राच्च विकाराणां ह्यभावता ।
मृत्योः स मृत्युमित्यादेर्मम मायेति च स्मृतेः ॥ ३५
The commentary says: न्यायतो द्वैतस्य मिथ्यात्वमुक्त्वा शास्त्रादपि तन्मिथ्यात्वं सिध्यतीत्याह.. वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयमिति वाक्यात्कार्यानृतत्वप्रतिपादकात्…विकारस्यासत्यत्वे...विकाराणामाकाशादीनां यतो मिथ्यात्वमवगम्यते तस्मादद्वितीयत्वमविरुद्धमित्यर्थः ।
Thus, in the Upadeshasahasri too Shankara is using this vācā shruti to establish the mithyātvam of dvaita, kārya, thereby admitting the vivartaparatvam of this shruti and the mrdādi analogies.
मात्रत्वात्सुषुप्तादिकं त्वसत् ।
सत्यो ज्ञश्चाहमित्येवं सत्यसन्धो विमुच्यते ॥ ६६
The commentary says: the avasthātraya is mithyā and the sāksī thereof is satya. 
Here, we find Shankaracharya revealing another dimension where the vācā shruti is applicable. The avasthatraya is only name and form. This has been elaborately explained in the Mandukya bhashya: abhidhāna-abhidheya…etc. 
In the work ‘Anubhūti prakāśa’ of Swami Vidyaranya there is a chapter dedicated to the discussion of the ‘Vācārambhaṇa’ shruti of the Chandogya Upanishad. This is available in the pdf on pages 331 onwards at this link with Hindi explanation. Those who do not need the explanation can read the verses:
The part related to the discussion of the three analogies of clay, etc. is covered from the first verse up to the 25th verse. It is a lucid explanation and worth perusing.
Om Tat Sat

 

Ramanuja 1000 – A ‘tribute’ from his ‘humble’ followers

A short article on the above topic is available here for download:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/nw59e9a94la4vso/Ramanuja_1000_K.pdf

Om Tat Sat

Posted by: adbhutam | January 25, 2017

SHANKARA CITES THE KAṬHARUDROPANIṢAD

Shankara cites the Kaṭharudropaniṣad
In the Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad 3.5.1 (kahola brāhmaṇam) bhāṣyam Shankara discusses the śruti-prāmāṇya for sannyāsa and while replying an objection says:
न, यज्ञोपवीतं वेदांश्च सर्वं तद्वर्जयेद्यतिः’ (क. रु. २) इति श्रुतेः । [From the Advaitaśāradā]  [Swami Madhvananda’s translation: Reply : No, for the Śruti says, ‘The monk should give up the holy thread, the study of the Vedas, and all such things’ (Ks. 4 ; Kr. 2).]
At the beginning of the book, Swami M gives the abbreviations:
Kr.  Katharudra Upaniṣad
Kś  Kathaśruti Upaniṣad
Olivelle in his book ‘Samnyāsa Upaniṣads: Hindu scriptures on Renunciation….’ says on p.8:
//Some of the later Upaniṣads appear to be expansions of older ones. Others, such as the Laghu-Samnyāsa and the Kuṇḍikā, as well as the Kaṭhaśruti and the Kaṭharudra (which occurs only in SR – Southern Recension), appear to be different recensions of the same text.//
The Kaṭharudra Upaniṣad, at the beginning itself details the Sannyāsa krama. The ‘Yatidharma sangraha’ on p.19 of the pdf (by Sri Viśveśvara Saraswati, Guru of Sri Madhusūdana Saraswati 15CE) cites from this Upaniṣad:


// यज्ञोपवीतं वेदांश्च सर्वं तद्वर्जयेद्यतिः // [This is the line cited by Shankara in the Br.Up.bhāṣyam stated above]

In the Panchadaśī 10.2 is this verse:

परमात्माऽद्वयानन्दपूर्णः पूर्वं स्वमायया ।
स्वयमेव जगद्भूत्वा प्राविशज्जीवरूपतः ॥ १ ॥

1. Before the projection of the world the Supreme Self, the secondless, all-bliss and ever complete, alone existed. Through His Maya He became the world and entered into it as the Jiva, the individual Self.

विष्ण्वाद्युत्तमदेहेषु प्रविष्टो देवताभवत् ।

मर्त्याद्यधमदेहेषु स्थितो भजति मर्त्यताम् ॥ २ ॥

2. Entering the superior bodies like that of Vishnu, He became the deities; and remaining in the inferior bodies like that of men He worships the deities.

From the above verses we come to know that it is Brahman with association of Māyā takes the bodies, forms, such as Viṣṇu. That shows that the forms such as Viṣṇu are products of Māyā.

That the bodies such as Viṣṇu are entities within creation is brought out by many Upaniṣads such as the Atharvaśirā/śikhā, etc. The Kaṭharudropaniṣad too says explicitly:

After stating the Supreme Creation is at the hands of Śiva:

तानि भूतानि सूक्ष्माणि पञ्चीकृत्येश्वरस्तदा ।
तेभ्य एव विसृष्टं तद्ब्रह्माण्डादि शिवेन ह ॥ १५॥

Upon effecting the panchīkaraṇam of the sūkṣma bhūta-s (subtle elements), Śiva created the world consisting of Brahmāṇḍa, etc. from those elements. (That is the reason perhaps the Upaniṣad got the name ‘kaṭharudra’)

The Upaniṣad continues:
While there is a popular expression ‘brahmādi-stambānta’ (starting from Brahmā up to the smallest creature) to denote the entire gamut of the jīva category, the KR uses a unique expression:

अस्यैवानन्दकोशेन स्तम्बान्ता विष्णुपूर्वकाः ।
भवन्ति सुखिनो नित्यं तारतम्यक्रमेण तु ॥ २९॥

[All (jīva-s) up to the tiniest creature, starting from Viṣṇu (instead of Brahmā) onward, always derive joy from this ānanda kośa on a relative scale depending on their status.] In the Taittiriya we have the ānanda tāratamya from the human up to Brahmā. The ānanda derived by these entities are finite and Brahman-Ānanda alone is infinite.

Om Tat Sat
Posted by: adbhutam | January 20, 2017

MOKṢA SVARŪPA AS PER VARIOUS SCHOOLS

Mokṣa svarūpa according to various schools

An article on the above topic is available here for download:

https://www.mediafire.com/?ugj1nqqeh75cb8y

Om Tat Sat

 

Posted by: adbhutam | January 16, 2017

MALICIOUS INTERPRETATION OF ATHARVAŚIRĀ UPANIŚAD

An instance of  malicious interpretation of the Atharvaśirā upaniṣad

A short article on the above topic is available here for download:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/l6som2xfpbcjj4t/Wrong_explanation_of_the_Atharvashir%C4%81F.pdf

Om Tat Sat

 

 

Posted by: adbhutam | January 11, 2017

DID SHANKARACHARYA DESTROY BHĀGAVATA DHARMAS?

 

Is there evidence of Shankaracharya having destroyed Bhāgavata dharma/s?
In the post referred to below, some alleged purāṇic references are provided to ‘prove’ that Shankaracharya is the same as the demon called ‘maṇimān born to a brāhmaṇa, destroying and criticizing ‘sat dharma’ / ‘bhāgavata dharmas’ and criticizing ‘sat śāstra-s’:
1. kUrmapurANe shrImuShNamAhAtmye paJNchame.adhyAye |

shrI sUta uvAcha --

purA bhAgIrathItIre niminA pR^iShTavAnmuniH |
naShTA bhAgavatA dharmAH sachChAstrANi kalau yuge ||
iti shrutaM mayA pUrvaM tIrthayAtrAprasaN^gataH |
kathaM naShTA bhaviShyanti punaH sthAsyanti vai katham.h ||
vada vidvanmahAbAho kashchoddhAraM kariShyati |

shrI vAmadeva uvAcha --

chatussahasre dvishate gate saugandhike vane |
nihatA bhImasenena dvAparAnte nR^ipottama |
saugandhikAkhye nihatA ye cha krodhavashAH khalAH |
rudreNa nihatA ye cha traipurAshcha kalau yuge |
chatussahasre.aShTashate maNimantAdayo.asurAH
janiShyanti brahmayonau daityAH saddharmadUShakAH |
mithyAvAdamasachChAstraM kariShyanti kalau yuge |
gopayiShyanti sachChAstraM sachChAstraparipanthinaH |
evaM dharmeShu naShTeShu shAstreShu cha kalau yuge |
devairvij~nApito viShNurvAyumAj~nApayiShyati |
Madhvas also quote purported Garuda purāṇic verses in the same vein as the above:
The complete text of the Garuda purANa is available here:
tena saṃkaranāmāsau bhaviṣyati khageśvara /
dharmānbhāgavatānsarvānvināśayati sarvathā // GarP_3,16.71 //
[Owing to this, sAnkarya karaNam, this person will be known as ‘samkara’, O GaruDa. He will destroy the complete bhAgavata dharma totally.]
On the basis of the above lines of the purāṇa, is there any evidence within Shānkara bhāṣyas or any other sources of the writings of other Acharyas that Shankara:
1. Destroyed Bhāgavata dharmas
2. Sat dharmas
3. Criticized sat śāstra-s.
Also, based on the following verses cited from Garuda purāṇa:
maṇimānnāma daityastu sankarākhyo bhaviṣyati /
sarveṣāṃ saṃkaraṃ yastu kariṣyati na saṃśayaḥ // GarP_3,16.70 //
[A demon named maNimAn will incarnate with the name ‘sankara’.  Undoubtedly he will bring about the samkara, admixture, of ‘all’.  The verse does not say what is meant by ‘all’.  It is reasonable to take, from the popular meaning of the word ‘sAnkaryam’ that castes will get mixed up and there will be varNavyavasthA.  So, this maNimAn will bring about such a situation.  How this happens is not stated in the puraNa.]
Are there evidences in the Shānkara bhāṣyas for Shankara having taught/supported admixture of castes?
BGB introduction:
अनुष्ठातॄणां कामोद्भवात् हीयमानविवेकविज्ञानहेतुकेन अधर्मेण अभिभूयमाने धर्मे, प्रवर्धमाने च अधर्मे, जगतः स्थितिं परिपिपालयिषुः स आदिकर्ता नारायणाख्यो विष्णुः भौमस्य ब्रह्मणो ब्राह्मणत्वस्य रक्षणार्थं देवक्यां वसुदेवादंशेन कृष्णः किल सम्बभूव । ब्राह्मणत्वस्य हि रक्षणे रक्षितः स्याद्वैदिको धर्मः, तदधीनत्वाद्वर्णाश्रमभेदानाम् ॥
Even if ‘sānkarya’ pejoratively means the core Advaitic doctrine of ‘One without any differences of any kind’, does it amount to ‘mixing up of everything?’ Is the Advaita tattva a result of ‘mixing up’ everything in creation to arrive at the ‘One’? Has Shankara taught anywhere that a mixing up is what is to be done to arrive at the One (and not negating the name-forms that are superimposed)?
Also, is there evidence anywhere that there indeed existed an individual by name ‘sankara’ (since the puranic verses and the Mani Manjari say that that person was named so/well known so) who matched the personality details of the well known entity called Shankaracharya?
One can take into consideration this statement, for example, of many, from Shankara’s BSB on the bhāgavata doctrine sūtra:
 
ब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्यम् । द्वितीयः अध्यायः । द्वितीयः पादः । उत्पत्त्यसम्भवाधिकरणम् । सूत्रम् ४२ – भाष्यम्
तत्र भागवता मन्यते — भगवानेवैको वासुदेवो निरञ्जनज्ञानस्वरूपः परमार्थतत्त्वम् ; स चतुर्धात्मानं प्रविभज्य प्रतिष्ठितः — वासुदेवव्यूहरूपेण, सङ्कर्षणव्यूहरूपेण, प्रद्युम्नव्यूहरूपेण, अनिरुद्धव्यूहरूपेण च ; वासुदेवो नाम परमात्मा उच्यते ; सङ्कर्षणो नाम जीवः ; प्रद्युम्नो नाम मनः ; अनिरुद्धो नाम अहंकारः ; तेषां वासुदेवः परा प्रकृतिः, इतरे सङ्कर्षणादयः कार्यम् ; तमित्थंभूतं परमेश्वरं भगवन्तमभिगमनोपादानेज्यास्वाध्याययोगैर्वर्षशतमिष्ट्वा क्षीणक्लेशो भगवन्तमेव प्रतिपद्यत इति । तत्र यत्तावदुच्यते — योऽसौ नारायणः परोऽव्यक्तात्प्रसिद्धः परमात्मा सर्वात्मा, स आत्मनात्मानमनेकधा व्यूह्यावस्थित इति — तन्न निराक्रियते, ‘स एकधा भवति त्रिधा भवति’ (छा. उ. ७-२६-२) इत्यादिश्रुतिभ्यः परमात्मनोऽनेकधाभावस्याधिगतत्वात् ; यदपि तस्य भगवतोऽभिगमनादिलक्षणमाराधनमजस्रमनन्यचित्ततयाभिप्रेयते, तदपि न प्रतिषिध्यते, श्रुतिस्मृत्योरीश्वरप्रणिधानस्य प्रसिद्धत्वात् ।
  • That Vāsudeva is to be attained by worshiping him by going to temple, contemplating on him continuously with one-pointed devotion, etc. is not refuted/objected to since worship of/ dedicating one’s everything to Ishwara is taught in the scriptures.
  • A noted Madhva scholar Dr.Anandatirtha Vysampayanacharya Nagasampige, Director, Purnaprajna Samshodhana Mandiram, a Bangalore-based premier Madhva research institution run under the patronage of Sri Vishvesha Tirtha SwamigaLu, the seer of the Pejawar Mutt (whose disciple is the author), writes in his popular Kannada book: ‘Mata traya sameekshaa’: //  ಮೂರು ದರ್ಶನಗಳಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಸಮಾನತೆಗಳು:  ಅದ್ವೈತ-ವಿಶಿಷ್ಟಾದ್ವೈತ ಹಾಗೂ ದ್ವೈತ ಸಿದ್ಧಾಂತಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಸ್ಥೂಲವಾಗಿ ಕೆಲವು ಸಮಾನತೆಗಳನ್ನು ನಾವು ಕಾಣಬಹುದಾಗಿದೆ:  ವಿಷ್ಣು ಪರದೇವತೆ ಎಂಬ ಸಂಗತಿ ಅಚಾರ್ಯತ್ರಯರಿಗೆ ಸಮ್ಮತವಾಗಿದೆ:[The similarities/sameness present in the three systems: In Advaita, Vishishtaadvaita and Dvaita, we can see an explicit similarity: – ]

    And has quoted appropriate passages from the works of the Three Acharyas.  In respect of Shankara, he quotes the following:

    ೧. नारायणः परोऽव्यक्तात् अण्डमव्यक्तसंभवम् ।

    अण्डस्यान्तस्त्विमे लोकाः सप्तद्वीपा च मेदिनी ॥ [Introduction by Shankara to His Gita Bhashya]

    Narayana is beyond the Avyakta; From the Avyakta the Mundane Egg is born; Within the Mundane Egg, verily, are these worlds and the Earth made up of the seven dvipa-s.

    The Madhva scholar goes on to list other ‘commonalities’ across the Three Acharyas:

    1. All the Acharyas agree that the Veda is apauruSheya and is the parama-pramANa. (he quotes appropriate passages from the works of the three Acharyas which substatiate this)

    2. That Bhakti alone is the means for liberation is admissible to all the three Acharyas.  In support of this he quotes Shankara’s statement from the Gitabhashya 18.65:

    एवं भगवतःसत्यप्रतिज्ञत्वं बुद्ध्वा भगवद्भक्तेः अवश्यम्भाविमोक्षपलमवधार्य भगवच्चरणैकपरायणो भवेदिति वाक्यार्थः ।

    //The idea conveyed by the passage is: Having thus understood that the Lord is true in His pormise, and knowing for certain that liberation is the unfailing result of devotion to the Lord, one should have dedication to God as his only supreme goal,//

    3. That karma is subsidiary to Jnana and is the cause for chitta-shuddhi is admissible to all the Three Acharyas. The Shankara-passage given for this is:

    ….अग्निहोत्रादिलक्षणं कर्म ब्रह्मचर्यादिलक्षणं च अनुग्राहकं भवति विद्योत्पत्तये. (Taittiriya Up.Bhashya 1.11)  [for the karmas such as Agnihotra, as also the practices of celibacy, etc., undertaken in the past lives, become helpful to the rise of knolwedge….]

  • Noted Madhva scholar Dr.Bannanje Govindacharya has in several public platforms stated that Shankaracharya upheld Vishnu sarvottamatva 
  • The Pejawar Swamiji, during an address at the PPSM Bangalore, after a 10 day Vivekachudamani workshop, which I attended, said: All the three Acharyas stressed the need for Bhagavad bhakti.
  • Shankara is admitted by even other schools to have authored the Vishnusahasra nāma bhāṣya. Many devotional works such as the Ranganathāṣṭakam, the Viṣṇu ṣaṭpadī, Nrsimha, Jagannātha ashtakam, etc. are admitted to be his by even vaiṣṇavas.
  • List given by Vedantadeshika as follows:   पिशाच – रन्तिदेव – गुप्त  – यादवप्रकाश –  शङ्कर – भास्कर –  नारायणार्य –  यज्ञस्वामि –  प्रभृतिभि:,  does not mention ‘Shankara’ as ‘sankara’.
  • The contemporaries of Shankara, Sureshwara and Padmapada do not seem to have known Shankara as ‘Sankara’. If that was his real name, it would be easily known to the followers too, along with his supposed ill-famed birth. On the other hand Sureshwara says in the Brihadaranyaka bhashya vartika that he belonged to Atrigotra. He also refers to his Guru as the one who bore the name of ‘Bhava’ and ‘Vedhāḥ’, both names known to be of Shiva.There is no name ‘sankara’ that is one of the epithets of Shiva. Padmapada, in his invocatory verse for Panchapadika compares / contrasts Shankaracharya and Shiva and not any Sankara.
  • We can also see that all the advaita Acharyas that followed Shankara, before and after Ramanuja and Madhva, have invoked the blessings of Viṣṇu  in one or the other form.
  • If it is true that Shankara had ‘destroyed bhāgavata dharma-s’, how could those who followed him have displayed devotion to Viṣṇu? Even Vāchaspati Misra, the author of Bhāmatī, has prayed to Veda Vyasa as the shaktyavatāra of ‘Bhagavan’ Viṣṇu.
  • If it is said ‘the writings of Shankara are not to be relied upon for the person Shankara was quite the opposite (demoniacal)’, then such a charge is open to other Acharyas like Ramanuja and Madhva as well.
  • Even a Madhva historian has said that ‘in Sringeri the temples to Shāradā and Janardana have been there since ancient times.’
  • It is also strange that the purported Garuda purana quote is completely silent about Ramanuja:
  • tadā bhūmau vāyudevo bhaviṣyati na saṃśayaḥ /
    yajñārthaiḥ sadṛśo yasya nāsti loke caturdaśe // GarP_3,16.72 //

    [Then in the world vAyudeva will undoubtedly take birth.  He will be unequalled by anyone in matters of yajnArtha (?) in all the fourteen worlds.]

  • Between the four hundred years (that is the meaning of ‘tadā’, ‘then’!!) that passed after Shankara and before Madhva, Ramanuja had come to do the same work Madhva did: of refuting Advaita darshana of Shankara. If Madhva is credited to have established ‘sat śāstra’ by refuting Shankara, there is no way one can deny that credit to Ramanuja too. And the Ramanuja school has thrived these 1000 years producing great quantum of Acharyas and works even as the Madhva school has. Yet, curiously enough the author of the Garuda purana takes no notice of Ramanuja and ignores him completely, who arrived two hundred years after Shankara and before Madhva.
It is quite understandable, and reasonable too, that the Madhvas value the listed purāṇic references for the primary reason that they are corroborated by the real events, names, etc. pertaining to the birth and life and activities/works of Madhva. Similarly, it would be reasonable to value those references the Madhvas think are pertaining to Shankaracharya, too are corroborated by the real events, names, what he did, for example ‘destruction of bhāgavata/sat dharmas and his criticizing sat śāstras’. The ‘śāstras’ Shankara is known to have refuted in the Brahmasutra bhashya are: mainly sānkhya, nyāya vaiśeṣika, chārvāka, purva mimāmasa, pāśupata, bauddha and jaina. Are these ‘sat śāstra-s’? The pāncharātra has been critiqued by him on certain doctrinal grounds, but not by denigrating Vāsudeva. It also doubtful as to whether the pāncharātra that he had referred to there is the same as what is popularly known.
In the above background one can assess the merit of the purāṇic verses pertaining to Shankaracharya cited in the post or elsewhere.
Om Tat Sat
Posted by: adbhutam | January 9, 2017

Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi

Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi

 

The legal definition of the above maxim is:

http://legaldictionary.lawin.org/suppressio-veri-suggestio-falsi/

Meaning of Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi

Suppression of the truth is equivalent to the suggestion of what is false. 23 Barb. (N. Y.) 521, 525.

The above maxim is demonstrated in the following ‘reply’ given by the blogger to an unsuspecting questioner:

http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/p/a-note-to-our-readers.html

The question:

AnonymousDecember 20, 2016 at 6:58 AM

Dear Swamy,

Srimathe Ramanujaya Namah,

Humble Pramanams to Devareers. Thank you very much for this marvelous blog. adiyen is slowly go through it and learning more.

Just one small question. How does one be both mayavadi in philosophy and at same time be Vaishnava in religious practise ? If we are worshipping Vasudeva as the Supreme meaning we are His Servants and owned by Him and our purpose is to serve Him. Then philosophically, how the parabrahmam, and the jiva be one and the same?

Can Devareers please briefly enlighten adiyen on this small doubt.

Thanking you,
Gautam

 

To this the ‘reply’ from the blogger is as follows:

My observations to this ‘reply’ are given in italics in between [ ]

AaryamaaDecember 21, 2016 at 7:18 AM

We have answered this earlier. Advaita posits the Self as the sole reality only in the pAramArthika sath. However, until such realization occurs, duality exists in the vyAvahArika sath. Within this lower level of reality, every being is distinct from each other and as such, there exists an Ishvara, sriman nArAyaNa, who resides in Sri Vaikunta, who is sarvAntaryAmin and has everyone as his vibhUtIs, who is to be resorted to for attaining the ultimate state.

 

[The above is not true. Advaita as taught by Shankara does not posit Nārāyaṇa as someone residing in Vaikunta. Nor is it true that everyone is his Vibhūti. There is no compulsion that one must resort to Narayana to attain the ultimate state. Shankara has on many occasions in the prasthānatraya bhāṣya taught that an aprokṣajñānin when worshiped can grant the jñāna that results in mokṣa. One instance is the Muṇḍakopaniṣat bhāṣya for the mantra 3.2.1:

 

स वेदैतत्परमं ब्रह्म धाम यत्र विश्वं निहितं भाति शुभ्रम् ।
उपासते पुरुषं ये ह्यकामास्ते शुक्रमेतदतिवर्तन्ति धीराः ॥ १ ॥

भाष्यम्

यस्मात् स वेद जानाति एतत् यथोक्तलक्षणं ब्रह्म परमं प्रकृष्टं धाम सर्वकामानामाश्रयमास्पदम्, यत्र यस्मिन्ब्रह्मणि धाम्नि विश्वं समस्तं जगत् निहितम् अर्पितम्, यच्च स्वेन ज्योतिषा भाति शुभ्रं शुद्धम्, तमप्येवंविधमात्मज्ञं पुरुषं ये हि अकामाः विभूतितृष्णावर्जिता मुमुक्षवः सन्तः उपासते परमिव देवम्, ते शुक्रं नृबीजं यदेतत्प्रसिद्धं शरीरोपादानकारणम् अतिवर्तन्ति अतिगच्छन्ति धीराः बुद्धिमन्तः, न पुनर्योनिं प्रसर्पन्ति । ‘न पुनः क्व रतिं करोति’ (?) इति श्रुतेः । अतस्तं पूजयेदित्यभिप्रायः ॥

He who knows Brahman that is the abode of the entire creation, that which shines by its own splendor, him, this jñānin, too, whoever worships/meditates upon, without the desire for worldly pleasures, as the Supreme Brahman, is freed from rebirth. Therefore one must worship the jñānin.

This idea is stressed in the final mantra of the Praśnopaniṣad too where the disciples of Sage Pippalāda, express their gratitude for having bestowed the liberating knowledge.

Also, the Kenopaniṣad bears proof for this fact. Indra did not worship Viṣṇu in that Upaniṣad episode but adored Umā and from her was bestowed the liberating knowledge. Shankara says: umā is verily brahmavidyā and since she is ever inseparably with the Omniscient Ishvara, she knows (the Truth). 

So, there is no compulsion that one must worship or resort to Nārāyaṇa alone for attaining the supreme knowledge/liberation. This fact has been suppressed by the blogger in this ‘reply’ thereby suggesting a false idea.]

As an analogy, bhakti towards Ishvara in advaita is like a dream. Until you wake up, it is real and thus whatever you do is taken as valid. I know saying it is like a dream is not entirely doing justice to advaita’s concepts of mithya (of which I frankly haven’t delved much into), but as a rough example, it will serve.

Thus, until advaitins attain the “perfect jnAna” by their philosophy, they are vaishnavas who serve vishNu with bhakti just like any other vishishtadvaitin or dvaitin. That vishishtadvaitins and dvaitins criticize them by saying they are inferior does not undermine their vaishnavatva in anyway.

 

[The above idea is also completely false. Advaitins do not consider themselves to be vaiṣṇava-s and are not compelled by Shankaracharya to serve Viṣṇu. Krishna himself says in the BG: tad viddhi…. Paripraśnena sevayā….’ [serve the Jñānin devoutly and he will bestow the knowledge to you]. Further, by the above reply the blogger is undermining the nature of Viṣṇu by making him no different from an ignorant man who is susceptible to partiality. If Advaitins also worship Viṣṇu with bhakti ‘just like any other vishishtadvaitin or dvaitin’, why would Viṣṇu make them ‘inferior’ to vishishtadvaitins and dvaitins? Has not the Lord said in the BG that he is the same with his devotees/beings? Also, the bhakti that the blogger claims that Advaitins are endowed with for Viṣṇnu, is not the ‘just like’ the vishishtadvaitins’ and dvaitins’ for the Advaitin never considers vaikunta as his ultimate abode in liberation. This fact is either unknown to the blogger or he is suppressing it from his gullible questioner and thus suggesting what is false regarding Advaita. Also, he has suppressed from the questioner the fact that Ramanuja has not accorded the ‘vaiṣṇava’ status to Shankara or advaitins. He carefully evades this information from his readers. Thus, the blogger is suggesting a weird ‘gradations among vaiṣṇavas’ theory that is completely inacceptable and illogical.]
Shankara identifies only vishNu as this Ishvara is seen by his commentary on the nAma “kathitaH” in the sahasranAma as follows:

vedAdibhir-ayameka eva paratvena kathita kathita iti kathitaH | sarvairvedaiH kathita iti vA kathitaH | “sarve vedA yatpadamAmananti”, “vedaishca sarvairahameva vedyaH”, “vede rAmAyaNe puNye bhArate bharatarSabhaH! adau madye tathA cAnte viSNuH sarvatra gIyate” iti shruti-smRtyAdi-vacanebhyaH |

Translation: He (Vishnu) is known as kathitaH since He alone is declared as supreme by the Veda and Vedic texts; or He who is described by all the Vedas. The following statements from the shruti (Vedas) and smRtis confirm this:

“All the Vedas describe His status.” (Kathopanishad 1.2.15),

“I alone am to be known from all the Vedas” (Bhagavad Gita 15.15),

“Vishnu is sung everywhere at the beginning, middle, and end of the Vedas, the holy rAmAyaNa and the mahAbhArata, O Best of the lineage of Bharata!” (Harivamsa, 3.132.95).

“He who has sound intellect as his charioteer and controlled mind as the bridle, reaches the end of the road, which is the highest place/state of vishNu (katOpanishad, 3.9).
[The above is another falsehood coming from the blogger to deceive the gullible questioner. Read the true purport of Shankara’s commentary on the word ‘kathitaḥ’ here:

 

http://www.mediafire.com/file/bnv2x1qgji3dd5u/Kathitah_F.pdf   ]
Note that Shankara even quotes the katOpanishad’s “paramaM padaM” with reference to vishNu as saguNa ishvara, identifying both sri vaikunta as an abode and the higher state of pAramArthika.

 

[The above is also false information. There is absolutely no reference to saguṇa Īśvara in that mantra for it is a teaching, adhyātma yoga, to attain the Nirguṇa Brahman. Also, Vaikunta is not the abode Shankara is teaching or even remotely suggesting there as the final destination of the Advaita sādhaka. In fact the word ‘padam’ is not a geographical place. Shankara has clarified what ‘padam’ means in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka bhāṣya, for example, as in several other places:

Br.up.4.4.23 bhashyam:

 

तस्मात् तस्यैव महिम्नः, स्यात् भवेत्, पदवित् पदस्य वेत्ता, पद्यते गम्यते ज्ञायत इति महिम्नः स्वरूपमेव पदम्, तस्य पदस्य वेदिता ।

 

For the word ‘pada-vit’ (knower of the padam) occurring in the above mantra, Shankara says: padam is padyate, gamyate, jñāyate and therefore the word ‘padam’ means verily the ‘svarūpam’ the true essence.  He who has known (jñāyate) this is called pada-vit.  [It should be noted that the Sanskrit root ‘pad’ has the meaning ‘gam’ which has also the meaning ‘know’.] Therefore, according to Shankara, the word ‘padam’ means the very svarupam of Brahman, known by the name ‘Viṣṇu/Vāsudeva’ in the Kaṭha 1.3.9 upaniṣad/bhāṣyam.  The word ‘padam’ and ‘sthānam’, therefore by no means ‘indicate’ any abode or krama mukti.  In fact it is laughable that the blogger is making such a silly suggestion in a completely sadyomukti prakaraṇa.  This is because he is ignorant about the difference between ‘upāsya brahman’ and ‘jñeya brahman’ and their fruits in Advaita.

 

As to a place (like vaikunta) shankara says in the Mundaka bhashya 3.2.6:   देशपरिच्छिन्ना हि गतिः संसारविषयैव, परिच्छिन्नसाधनसाध्यत्वात् । ब्रह्म तु समस्तत्वान्न देशपरिच्छेदेन गन्तव्यम् । यदि हि देशपरिच्छिन्नं ब्रह्म स्यात्, मूर्तद्रव्यवदाद्यन्तवदन्याश्रितं सावयवमनित्यं कृतकं च स्यात् । न त्वेवंविधं ब्रह्म भवितुमर्हति। अतस्तत्प्राप्तिश्च नैव देशपरिच्छिन्ना भवितुं युक्ता ॥ [going or travelling implies that the destination is limited by space and is clearly within samsāra since the means and the end (a place like vaikunta) are limited. On the other hand Brahman, being the all, is not to be attained as a limited place is attained. If Brahman were to be limited to a place, then like a formed object, it will have a beginning and end, dependent on something else, made of parts and therefore ephemeral and a product. Brahman cannot be of this kind. Therefore it is reasonable that ‘attaining Brahman’ is never attaining a limited place.]   

 

Mundaka 1.2.12:

अतः किं कृतेन कर्मणा आयासबहुलेनानर्थसाधनेन इत्येवं निर्विण्णोऽभयं शिवमकृतं नित्यं पदं यत्, तद्विज्ञानार्थं विशेषेणाधिगमार्थं स निर्विण्णो ब्राह्मणः गुरुमेव आचार्यं शमदमादिसम्पन्नम् अभिगच्छेत् । शास्त्रज्ञोऽपि स्वातन्त्र्येण ब्रह्मज्ञानान्वेषणं न कुर्यादित्येतद्गुरुमेवेत्यवधारणफलम् ।

Here Shankara uses the word ‘padam’ to indicate the Goal, Brahman.  And the aspirant wants to ‘know’ it and not ‘go’ to it.  Vijṇānārtham for which Shankara comments: by specifically, clearly, without doubt, realizing, adhigamanam.  And he adds: even if one is an expert in a discipline, he aught not to embark on brahma jnana anveṣaṇam, enquiry into the knowledge of Brahman, all by himself, without resorting to the Guru.  So, the padam is svarupam, Brahman, and it is to be known, and not to be reached physically by going. Thus, there is no reference to any vaikunta by Shankara even implicitly. It is only the desperate wishful thinking of the blogger in order to force Shankara to incorporate the vaiṣṇava-all-important vaikunṭha somewhere and somehow in the bhāṣyas. One can easily see through such stealthy attempts.]

 

The other important references from the VSN Bhāṣya itself that the blogger has deliberately suppressed from the gullible questioner are:

 

  • The reference by Shankara from the (tāmasa) Śivapurāṇam for the name ‘Rudra’ of the VSN: ‘śivaḥ paramakāraṇam’ – Śiva is the Supreme Cause.
  • The identification of the name ‘soma’ with Umāpati Śiva
  • The Hari-Hara abheda verses Shankara has cited from the Harivamśa, Bhavishyottara, etc. at the beginning of the VSN bhāṣya. One such verse makes all the names of Viṣṇu applicable to Śiva too and the upāsana of the former, that of the latter as well; and hence non-difference between the two.
  • More than anything the verse, unreferenced, Shankara has cited for Hari being subject to delusion (ignorance): स्वमायया स्वमात्मानं मोहयन्द्वैतमायया । गुणाहितं स्वमात्मानं लभते च स्वयं हरिः ॥

[By his own Māyā, deluding himself with the illusion of dvaita, Hari Himself comes to see himself endowed with guṇas.]

In the commentary of Shankaracharya to the Viṣṇu sahasranāma (VSN) the following verses are cited for explaining the verse पवित्राणां पवित्रं यो……

 

सर्पवद्रज्जुखण्दस्तु निशायां वेश्ममध्यगः ।

 

एको हि चन्द्रो द्वौ व्योम्नि तिमिराहतचक्षुषः ॥

 

[Just as a piece of rope appears as snake and just as the single moon appears as two to a diseased eye..]

 

आभाति परमात्मा च सर्वोपाधिषु संस्थितः ।

 

नित्योदितः स्वयंज्योतिः सर्वगः पुरुषः परः ॥

 

अहंकाराविवेकेन कर्ताहमिति मन्यते ।

 

[…so too the Paramātman appears in all the upādhis.  He is truly the ever-emergent, self-luminous, all-pervading, Puruṣa the Supreme, owing to the non-discrimination between the ego and the Self thinks himself to be the doer.]

Which ‘vaiṣṇava’ will tolerate the above?

 

The reference in the Kenopaniṣad bhāṣya to Umāpati as ‘sarvajña Īśvara’ with whom Umā is forever (just as in the above VSN ‘soma’)

 

The blogger knows very well that the above references are inimical to his pet theory. Hence alone, by suppressing crucial references such as the above, the blogger has given a completely falsified picture of Shankara and Advaita to the unsuspecting reader of his blog.  Here is what that poor questioner acknowledges after reading the false information the blogger has handed him:

 

// AnonymousDecember 22, 2016 at 7:47 AM

Thank Aaryamaa Swamy very much for the detailed reply. It was very enlightening. adiyen is slowly going through all blog pages and learning more. Thank you very much creating such a detailed and researched blog by grace of Azhwars and Purvacharyas. //

One can only pity those ‘readers’ who are unable to check things for themselves and have to settle for such lies not realizing that they have been taken for a ride.

Om Tat Sat

 

 

 

 

 

Older Posts »

Categories