Shankaracharyas' view on Dharmashastras

[Ashish Chandra]

>On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Ashish Chandra wrote:
>
> >
> > My question is, since the Jagadguru has himself pointed out to the
> > non-applicability of some Smritis, as mentioned in Vidya's post, what
> > exactly is a Smartha to follow ? What should be retained and what
>discarded
> > ? Is there any agreement on these things? Is there a better way of
>learning
> > about this (i.e. from a book or articles)?
> >

Can the members try and inform me the about the views of Shankaracharas on
this.

thanks
ashish

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

--
bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam

Archives : http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l.html
Help     : Email to listmaster at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Options  : To leave the list send a mail to
           listserv at lists.advaita-vedanta.org with
           SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L in the body.
>From ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG Sun Nov 14 20:28:35 1999
Message-Id: <SUN.14.NOV.1999.202835.0500.ADVAITAL at LISTS.ADVAITAVEDANTA.ORG>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 20:28:35 -0500
Reply-To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
From: Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <ramakris at EROLS.COM>
Subject: Re: saguNa and nirguNa are the same
Comments: To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
        <ADVAITA-L at braincells.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-user-defined"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I was waiting for the usual "dharmashAstra" debates to end so that
something meaningful could come out of this  discussion.

Ravi wrote:

<<This is my understanding.  Please do correct me.

What is known as saguNa-brahman in vyaavahaarika is realized by
j~naani
as nirguNa-brahman in paaramaarthika. In that sense, they are the
same.

In the paaramaarthika satyam there is only nirguNa brahman and that
state is beyond duality.>>

The GYAni will also see the most irritating car-driver on the
Washington DC beltway as brahman. So the GYAni's vision is not of much
use in this discussion. Further, the GYAni is not asking any questions
about saguNa/nirguNa distinctions. So, there is no point dragging
GYAni-s into the picture. The saguNa-nirguNa distinction is from the
point of view of the aGYAni-s only. This is made clear by sha.nkara in
his bhAshhya to the aitareya upanishhad, please see introduction to
the chapter 2. I may post this excerpt later.

My point is the following:

In the sUtra-bhAshhya I referred to before, sha.nkara makes it clear
that saying brahman is nirguNa is the same as the "neti-neti"
instruction found in the upanishhads. Here, the aspirant is pointed
out the error in superimposing qualities on the single brahman.
Whereas saguNa-upAsana *automatically* assumes that the sAdhaka is
ignorant and has already superimposed qualities on brahman, be it
Krishna, agni or indra. Surely, the veda-s talk about saguNa-upAsana,
but that is for sAdhaka-s of lower caliber, who are unable to grasp
the neti-neti teaching.

The only way "saguNa-upAsana" can be reconciled with GYAna is
indicated in the mAnasollAsa, verse 1.30:

IshvaraH guruH AtmA- iti mUrti-bheda-vibhAgine |
vyomavadyApta-dehAya daxiNAmUrtaye namaH ||

To him who manifests in the different forms of Ishvara, guru and
Atman,
To him who has a body like ether,
Salutations, to [that] Dakshinamuti.

The first half-verse points out that Dakshinamurti is manifested as
Ishvara, Guru and the self. In case any one doubts whether duality is
being asserted here, the second verse quickly  points out that the
difference is *imaginary*, by giving the analogy of ether.

It seems to me that this is the only way "saguNa-upAsana" can be
reconciled with GYAna. It is not really the upAsana understood in the
common sense. It is different! It is realizing that the differences in
guru, Ishvara and Atman are imaginary. Thus they say surrender to
Ishvara  is the same as GYAna. The surrender here is realizing "sarvam
vishhNu-mayam jagat" and differences are *imaginary*. It is not
thinking or imagining that ones own actions are "done by vishhNu" or
"I do not act, [substitute your favorite God] only acts".  That's only
a delusion on top of a delusion and can never be reconciled with
GYAna. If someone worships vishhNu thinking "he is one, and I am
another" that *cannot* be reconciled with GYAna. Remember what
sha.nkara says in his kenabhAshhya 1.5. na-idam upAsate - says the
kena verse very clearly. sha.nkaras bhAshhya for this is a must-read.

As far as I can see the prabodhasudhAkara's version of "nirguNa" is
vastly different from what the sUtra bhAshhya or the upanishhad
bhAshhya-s say. At the very minimum, it is extremely vague on this
point. This is very clear from the fact that it gives examples like
sporting with many gopis simultaneously as a proof of "nirguNa"! The
yogashAstras say very clearly that such powers can be attained by even
mere mortals, by the right practices. How can this ever prove
vishhNu's "nirguNAtvam"? Finally it finishes with the saguNa-upAsana
as commonly understood, i.e., worshiping vishhNu as an object (exactly
what the kena bhAshhya rejects!). Note that I am not saying that
prabodhasudhAkara absolutely cannot be reconciled with the sUtra
bhAshhya. But it seems to me that it is rather far-fetched that
sha.nkara wrote this. I am aware that it is in the Vani-Vilas edition,
but still I find it very hard to believe!

Any comments welcome.

Rama

--
bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam

Archives : http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l.html
Help     : Email to listmaster at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Options  : To leave the list send a mail to
           listserv at lists.advaita-vedanta.org with
           SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L in the body.