Prakarana Granthas of Adi Sankara

[swamy swarna]

Hari Om. I would like to respond to this part of the
mail.

"In the final alysis what Ken says is right.  But
> during the stage of sadhana and when one is trying
> grasp concepts clearly, contraditions from one text
> to
> the other will be unsettling to the intellect."

May be it is good for the intellect to get unsettled
so that it can shake off any dirt accumulating and get
a fresh perspective! If what someone says as Pramana
does not appeal to one's understanding at that point,
one doesn't really accept it, though one may pretend
to accept.

Suppose a small child is told that the earth is round
like a big ball. His 'limited' perception clearly
tells him that the earth which is visible to him is
'flat'. Only when he grows up and goes to a great
height, does he actually experience the roundness of
the earth. Better to be non-believing and questioning
in a state of real interest to learn the truth, than
to blindly accept something as the truth.

Truth has to be experienced. No amount of bookish
knowledge will help, at the most it may prepare the
intellect to see the truth from various perspectives
and integrate the different perspectives.

Swamy SV


--- kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada at YAHOO.COM>
wrote:
> --- Srikrishna Ghadiyaram <> >
> > > > I saw some posting in the Advaitin list that
> > > > 'Vivekachoodamani' is not
> > > > Sankara's composition and it is a 16 th
> century
> > > > text. I saw another post
> > > > claiming that 'Aparoksha Anubhuti' is also not
> a
> > > > Sankara composition.
>
> Jai Srikrishna,
>
> If you recall the topic of the discussion of the
> authenticity of vivekachuudamani came in the
> advaitin
> list when we were discussing about bhavaruupa aspect
> of aj~nnaaa. Shree Aatmaanandaji was ascertaining
> that
> the concpet of bhaavaruupa aj~naana came into
> picture
> during post shankara period - He has provided a
> chnological aspect.  As we see in Shree bhashya,
> Ramanuja extensively criticizes the bhaava ruupa
> aspect as part of his puurvapaksha.  I personally
> find
> there are several conceptual problems in that
> concept
> from logical grounds and Aatmaananda was right in
> pointing out the logical problems involved.  During
> the discussion when I bought in Vivekachuudaamani
> slokas - he also ascertained that there is a
> question
> about the authorship of text to shankara.
>
> In the past there were discussions in this list that
> some of the upanishads are not authentic.  Shree
> Jaldhar,  for example had raised questions that
> vajrasuuchi upanishad that discusses the
> varnaashrama
> in a different perspective and mentioned that it is
> not considered as authentic.  Hence a sadhak wants
> to
> know what is authentic and what is not when we take
> spriptures or a particular author as pramaana,
> particularly when the concpets are conflicting.
>
> Once Vidyashankar give a list of the texts  that are
> definitely attributed to Adi Shankara - I think his
> article may be in the archieves of the advaitaL list
> -
> May be Ravi or Jaldhar can halp to pull it out.  If
> not if Vidya finds time he can repost it for the
> benefit of the those who are interested.
> Aparokshanubuuti is attributed to Shankara but not
> dR^ikdR^isya viveka.
>
> In the final alysis what Ken says is right.  But
> during the stage of sadhana and when one is trying
> grasp concepts clearly, contraditions from one text
> to
> the other will be unsettling to the intellect.
>
> My 2c on this topic.
>
> Hari OM!
> Sadananda
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards®
> http://movies.yahoo.com/


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards®
http://movies.yahoo.com/