|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Oct 22, 2020 22:39:14 GMT -6
An interesting article on the Chronology of Sankara's authentic works by Ivan Andrijanić from the University of Zagreb here. |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Nov 16, 2020 21:47:57 GMT -6
Verse 15
विरुद्धत्वादतः शक्यं कर्म कर्तुं न विद्यया।
सहैवं विदुषा तस्मात् कर्म हेयं मुमुक्षुणा।। १५ ।।
Because of the incompatibility [of knowledge with action] a man who knows thus, being possessed of knowledge, cannot perform action. For this reason action should be renounced by a seeker after final release.
[One observation that I must make. So far we have not seen Sankara use the word mAyA even once. I looked through the rest of the text and have not found it used anywhere. Assuming this text represents the essential parts of Sankara's philosophy which, as his only independent work (that is, not a commentary on some other work), indicates that mAyA was not really a part of his philosophy. He was therefore not a mAyAvAdI. Sankara uses the word avidyA and opposes it to vidyA. AvidyA is not the same as mAyA. Sri Jiva is more of a mAyAvAdI than Sankara. He discusses mAyA in his Tattva-sandarbha (paras. 32-33) and accepts its existence (largely because the Bhagavata does, one assumes). He even says that mAyA is a person, a female bhakta who is charged with deluding living beings whose work Bhagavan Sri Krsna cannot overstep because of her devotion to him. Strange isn't it that someone who does not believe in mAyA is labeled a mAyAvAdI while someone who does is not.]
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Dec 9, 2020 17:25:54 GMT -6
Verse 16
देहाद्यैरविशेषेण देहिनो ग्रहणं निजम्।
प्राणिनां तदविद्योत्थं तावत्कर्मविधिर्भवेत् ॥ १६॥
It is the innate assumption of people that the Atman is not distinct from the body and the like. This arises from ignorance. So long [as they have it], the Vedic injunction to perform actions would be valid. (16)
[One could argue the opposite, that it is the innate assumption of people that the self is separate from the body and such. Such a view has been almost universal until recently when science has suggested that the self and the body are actually the same. Which is ignorance? Is there any way CV can work without this notion of a separate self?]
|
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Dec 10, 2020 10:02:45 GMT -6
Verse 16 देहाद्यैरविशेषेण देहिनो ग्रहणं निजम्।
प्राणिनां तदविद्योत्थं तावत्कर्मविधिर्भवेत् ॥ १६॥
It is the innate assumption of people that the Atman is not distinct from the body and the like. This arises from ignorance. So long [as they have it], the Vedic injunction to perform actions would be valid. (16) [One could argue the opposite, that it is the innate assumption of people that the self is separate from the body and such. Such a view has been almost universal until recently when science has suggested that the self and the body are actually the same. Which is ignorance? Is there any way CV can work without this notion of a separate self?] I'm not sure I understand, what examples would you say there are of this counterargument? this “separateness” still seems to me like a learned abstraction, maybe it is its pervasiveness for so long in popular culture from religious and philosophical thought that makes it appear as something innate, however from childhood and throughout our lives if you do something to my body you’re doing something to “me”, in our everyday life our identities are still more commonly built around our bodily characteristics like our race or gender, and whatever is attached to that such as birthplace, family, community, etc. In society, everyone is more or less identified with and judged on those basis, and perhaps it is recently that some equalitarian ideas have become more widely accepted in the sociopolitical sphere to the point where we can overlook those things to a certain extent and focus on some abstract universal self in every individual. That this abstraction is supposed to have come from the empirical experience of the siddhas, and the fact that it is as universal as you say, could point to the possibility that there's some element of truth there which calls for it to be experienced as well, or at least explored. |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Dec 17, 2020 16:03:26 GMT -6
Verse 16 देहाद्यैरविशेषेण देहिनो ग्रहणं निजम्।
प्राणिनां तदविद्योत्थं तावत्कर्मविधिर्भवेत् ॥ १६॥
It is the innate assumption of people that the Atman is not distinct from the body and the like. This arises from ignorance. So long [as they have it], the Vedic injunction to perform actions would be valid. (16) [One could argue the opposite, that it is the innate assumption of people that the self is separate from the body and such. Such a view has been almost universal until recently when science has suggested that the self and the body are actually the same. Which is ignorance? Is there any way CV can work without this notion of a separate self?] I'm not sure I understand, what examples would you say there are of this counterargument? this “separateness” still seems to me like a learned abstraction, maybe it is its pervasiveness for so long in popular culture from religious and philosophical thought that makes it appear as something innate, however from childhood and throughout our lives if you do something to my body you’re doing something to “me”, in our everyday life our identities are still more commonly built around our bodily characteristics like our race or gender, and whatever is attached to that such as birthplace, family, community, etc. In society, everyone is more or less identified with and judged on those basis, and perhaps it is recently that some equalitarian ideas have become more widely accepted in the sociopolitical sphere to the point where we can overlook those things to a certain extent and focus on some abstract universal self in every individual. That this abstraction is supposed to have come from the empirical experience of the siddhas, and the fact that it is as universal as you say, could point to the possibility that there's some element of truth there which calls for it to be experienced as well, or at least explored. I am thinking evolutionarily here, Eduardo. How early it must have been in our species' existence when we noticed death and the way the body stops moving as if something invisible had departed from it. And then at night during sleep we have dreams involving those we know have died. Yet, there they are before us looking and acting as they always have. It is natural to conclude that there is something apart from the body that leaves it on death and continues to exist in some realm after death with occasional visits to sons. daughters, grandsons. grand-daughters, spouses, and other relations. From such early conclusions the notion of the spirit arises and continues to reign until the present when science, not being able to produce any evidence of the existence of such a thing, questions the belief. It seems to me that human beings have, through time, been more innately inclined to believe in spirits than have not. Is there any way that acintya-bhedAbheda might save us from being gored by the horns of this dilemma? Some way of looking at the world in a non-binary way that sees matter and spirit as fundamentally one in the same way that we and Krsna are fundamentally one (though different in terms of power). |
|
|
|
Post by JD33 on May 25, 2021 18:53:31 GMT -6
Nitai-Gaur, Radhey-Shyam; Hare Krsna, Hare Ram.
How about a class on this content....
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Aug 7, 2021 12:37:04 GMT -6
Verse 17
नेतिनेतीति देहादीनपोह्यात्मावशेषितः ।
अविशेषात्मबोधार्थं तेनाविद्या निवर्तिता ॥ १७॥
[The Sruti passage,] Not thus! Not so! (Brh. Up. 2.3.6.) excluding the body and the like, leaves Atman unexcluded so that[one]may know Atman free from distinction. Thereby nescience is removed. [Mayeda]
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Aug 11, 2021 11:18:03 GMT -6
This citation from the Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad in the Upadesa-sahasri verse I posted a few days ago is the locus classicus for the doctrine of the existence of a self apart from the body. What struck me when I was typing it up was how similar it was to a passage from an early Buddhist text called the Milinda Panha. There, in the Milinda Panha such a procedure (not this! not that!) is used to demonstrate the absence of anything like a self. The two passages should be compared. It is likely that the MP passage is based on or reflects that of the BAU, since the latter text is prior to the former by a couple of hundred years or so. The MP passage could be a Buddhist response to the BAU passage. This kind of textual dialog seems to characterize many of the early literary productions of pre-common era Buddhist and Hindu texts. I have often felt that the one of the purposes of the Bhagavad-gita was to respond to certain Buddhist teachings, especially when it comes to the role of renunciation and especially renunciation of caste status and duties, in spiritual life. Anyway, just some thoughts on this verse of Sankara's. In terms of its teaching, it supports the CV view of a self separate from the body, but its characterization of that self as avizeSa (without distinguishing traits) runs counter to the CV view.
|
|
|
|
Post by avadhutadas on Feb 3, 2022 19:02:05 GMT -6
Verse 15 विरुद्धत्वादतः शक्यं कर्म कर्तुं न विद्यया।
सहैवं विदुषा तस्मात् कर्म हेयं मुमुक्षुणा।। १५ ।।
Because of the incompatibility [of knowledge with action] a man who knows thus, being possessed of knowledge, cannot perform action. For this reason action should be renounced by a seeker after final release. [ Sri Jiva is more of a mAyAvAdI than Sankara. Now that is really interesting. From talking to some proponents of Adi Shankaras philosophy they claim that Gaudiyas (and specifically neo Gaudiyas as I’m sure these are the ones who like to debate the most) do not have even the slightest clue about what Shankaracharya taught. |
|
|
|
Post by kirtaniya on Feb 5, 2022 9:49:49 GMT -6
Hi, Nitai I don’t know if I’m following this correctly. He says that it is the sense of agency and possessiveness that perpetuates itself through action, specifically through the actions recommended by the Vedas, and that these carry the implication that the atman is subject to change by way of misidentification, right? so is he saying that the motivation to perform these prompted by that notion gets destroyed through Knowledge, or the motivation to perform action altogether gets destroyed? How can one attain knowledge without action + intention/motivation? and can action be completely without motivation or desire? Or, this knowledge being self-revealing implies there’s no personal agency behind attaining it, so “knowing” in this sense is not considered an action? Seems like attaining release or pleasing Bhagavan are still desires or motivations for acting, even while understanding these are not achievable through an independent agency. जय एद्वर्दो ! I think he is saying that the inclination or motivation to perform any action, not just Vedic rites, is destroyed by Knowledge. The example seems to support this: when one realizes that a place is a salt desert one immediately gives up the inclination of search for water there. Before one has Knowledge one may act to get it. But once one has it, action ceases and it appears that to Sankara knowing is not an action, it is the natural state of the self. The self, being consciousness, cannot not know. That is why the self or atman is often compared with the sun which lights up whatever it shines on and itself, but it is itself not an object of knowing, only a knower. Here is Mayeda's translation again: Knowledge destroys the factors of action as [it destroys] the notion that there is water in the salt desert. After accepting the true view, [how] would one decide to perform action?Destroying the factors of action means, I think, the causes of all action. If so, how then does a Knower survive? The answer is often put in terms of vasana, the suble traces left in the manas or buddhi of past actions. The appearance of Knowledge destroys all of the vasana that have not started to exert influence, but those vasana that have begun to bear fruit are not destroyed. They continue to cause action until they are exhausted and the body-mind ends, releasing the atman to full moksa. Before full release with the end of the body, the state is called jivan-mukti, liberation-while-living. One of my problems with Sankara's view has to do with the relationship of Knowledge to Ignorance. Ignorance is the root of action for Sankara, but Knowledge, Ignorance's counter-positive, destroys action. Knowledge is said to be incompatible with action. However, if Ignorance is compatible with action, its counter-positive, Knowledge, should be too, only with different kinds of action. Perhaps this is what Sri Jiva means when he says that the jiva is consciousness and conscious, that is, is directed to act according to its new knowledge. Nitai das ji! The problem here is the abstract idea of vidya and avidya. But we can look and see concretely, there is no such knowing thing that should survive or may not survive. Because it's pure convention. Think of it as just the ability to instantly release. No circumstances have any more power. So there is no more selective inclination. Destroyed manic, compulsive, conditioning. Whatever happens, it doesn't motivate. It becomes clear that any action is the result of a limitation of perception. Everything is possible without limitation. It means complete freedom. And full energy in any direction. Whatever attacks the mind cannot knock out the mind, cannot condition it. There is freedom - not just to react or not, but to see what is moving the situation, where the situation is moving, what will quench the thirst for change in the situation. The most efficient way is clearly visible and fully accessible. I find this view to be natural and practically useful. |
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 5, 2022 12:56:33 GMT -6
Verse 15 विरुद्धत्वादतः शक्यं कर्म कर्तुं न विद्यया।
सहैवं विदुषा तस्मात् कर्म हेयं मुमुक्षुणा।। १५ ।।
Because of the incompatibility [of knowledge with action] a man who knows thus, being possessed of knowledge, cannot perform action. For this reason action should be renounced by a seeker after final release. [ Sri Jiva is more of a mAyAvAdI than Sankara. Now that is really interesting. From talking to some proponents of Adi Shankaras philosophy they claim that Gaudiyas (and specifically neo Gaudiyas as I’m sure these are the ones who like to debate the most) do not have even the slightest clue about what Shankaracharya taught. As it turns out the modern "proponents" of Adi Sanakara's philosophy do not have any better understanding of what Adi Sankara taught either. It is only after learning what is really by him and what is not that one gets a good sense of what he himself believed and taught. Thanks to the careful research and insights of Paul Hacker, Hajime Nakamura, Mayeda and others we now know that 90% of the books in Sankaracarya's name are not by him, but by later Sankaracaryas whose ideas are not in agreement with his. Sankara was not a mayavadin as both Caitanyites and Advaitins claim. He was an avidya-vadin, if anything at all. He never uses the term maya in the works that are actually by him. Also, he does not distinguish between Brahman and Visnu, taking the later as lower and the former as higher. I really recommend reading Halbfass's collection of Hacker's essays called Philology and Confrontation. I may post some of it here. |
|
|
|
Post by avadhutadas on Feb 5, 2022 13:15:09 GMT -6
So this would be one of the frauds purported by CV, not just IGM. What other kinds of things are like this?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 5, 2022 16:48:37 GMT -6
So this would be one of the frauds purported by CV, not just IGM. What other kinds of things are like this? Yes. Another fraud perpetrated by CV is our connection to the Madhva tradition. Everyone, both IGM and CV, seems to have bought into this one, with a few notable exceptions. Our philosophy and that of the Madhvas has verry little in common and Madhavendra Puri was a member of the Sankara Dasanami system, not a member of the Madhava tradition. This should have been obvious from the beginning. The Madhvites all are Tirthas, not Puris. And there is nothing rasik about the Madhva tradition. They regard the Gopis as little more than prostitutes. Even the so-called parampara given in Baladeva's Prameya-ratnavali doesn't match those of the Madhva tradition itself (See BNK Sharma's discussion in his History of the Dvaita School of Vedanta and Its Literature, Appendix V. In his Philosophy of Sri Madhvacarya, p. 22, where he recognizes the influence of Madhva on the Caitanya tradition as coming primarily through Baladeva Vidyabhusana through his teacher Radhadamodara. This is a far cry from claiming Mahaprabhu himself to be a member of the Madhva tradition). In my view this was invented by Baladeva who had the onerous task of trying to defend our community's authenticity and keep the control and seva of our most beloved Thakur, Sri Govindaji, from falling into the hands of one of the other sampradayas for whom aisvarya was the rule, not madhurya. Baladeva was, of course, a member of the Madhva tradition before he was converted to CV by Radhadamodara Gosvami. Thus, he knew that tradition better than his new one, especially in terms of interpretation of the Vedanta-sutras. Our own tradition was rather hamstrung because of Sri Jiva's claiming the Bhagavata as our commentary on the Vedanta-sutras, the Bhagavata belonging to all the sampradayas, even nondualist ones. There are two possibilities for the actual roots of our tradition. The most likely is that it was founded outright by Sri Caitanya himself. We don't really need to look any further than that. No outside authentification needed. This view is held by Sri Jiva, Sri Radhamohan Gosvamin (18th-19th cent. a major acarya from the Advaita lineage), and a Gosvamin named Gaurakisora Gosvami (I believe, I don't have my copy of Haridas Das Baba's Gaudiya Vaisnava Sahitya to check). The other possibility is that we belong to the Sankara sampradaya itself, a branch of which developed a high respect for bhakti. To this branch Sri Radhamohan Gosvami says Sridharasvamin belonged (in his commentary on Sri Jiva's Tattva-sandarbha). Madhavendra Puri would also be in this bhakti-prizing, Krsna-loving sub-tradition of the Sankara parampara. So my posting of the works of Sri Sankaracarya is an effort to get to know the real thought of our possible ancient founding acarya, most of which is quite consonant with our philosophy (as Acintya-Bhed Abheda).  |
|
|
|
Post by avadhutadas on Feb 5, 2022 17:39:40 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Feb 5, 2022 18:23:46 GMT -6
No. I don't pay him [Advaita Das] any attention. Thanks for posting the link, though. I see we have reached the same conclusion in somewhat different ways.
That idea that there were only four "authentic" Vaisnava sampradayas is another fraud. That verse is nowhere found in the Padma Purana and even if it were, that does not grant it authenticity. The PP is notoriously porous, with verses and sections being added up into the 16th century. It is more like message board than an authentic purana. Some interesting stuff there, but nothing to take too seriously.
|
|
