[Advaita-l] "dharma" in the alaatashaanti prakaraNa of the Maa.Kaa

[Guy Werlings]

sarbebhyo namaH |

To my yesterday's thanks to the answers sent to me by SrI Sreenivasa Murthy
and SrI Ramesh Krishnamurthy I now wish to express also my deepest thanks to
SrI Siva Senani Nori for his remarkable contribution. I must confess that in
all my translations I tend to be a "maniac" of etymology an always tend to
trace a word to its "root", which is often quite illuminating; and for us
Westerners, it is also quite attention-grabbing to see how a Sanskrit word
or root has reached us in our languages - e.g. Hari, root hR^i has reached
us in the Latin "cardia", French "coeur", English "heart", German "Herz",
and I can tell you this was very striking for my audience when I was
delivering lectures in Paris 35 years ago.
If I may be allowed to add a personal comment, it is highly comforting to
read in the list a contribution of the high quality of SrI Senani instead of
the by far too usual vain debates in which some members seem to forget the
teaching of the Maa. Kaa. 2.24: "vaada iti vaadavidaH - Disputers identify 
It
with disputation" - a statement that comes as a comment on (or answer to) 
the
two shloka-s:
anishchitaa yathaa rajjurandhakaare vikalpitaa 
|sarpadhaaraadibhirbhaavaistadvadaatmaa vikalpitaH || 17||nishchitaayaaM 
yathaa rajjvaaM vikalpo vinivartate |rajjureveti chaadvaitaM 
tadvadaatmavinishchayaH || 18||and after which starts a lonng list of false 
"identifications":praaNaadibhiranantaishcha bhaavairetairvikalpitaH 
|maayaishhaa tasya devasya yayaa sammohitaH svayam.h || 19||17. Just as in 
the dark a rope whose nature has not been fully ascertained is imagined to 
be various different things such as a snake, a line of water and so forth; 
in exactly the same way the Self is imagined in various different ways.18. 
When the rope is realized to be a rope, all illusions about it cease, and 
only the rope remains. Realization of the Self is just the same.19. It is 
imagined to be (identical with) Praana {the life force} or other eternal 
realities.This is the Maayaa of the Divine One, by which He Himself is 
deluded. Thus, based on 2.24I understand that "vaada is only an illusion" 
according to SrI GauDapAdAcArya.praNAm-sGuy 
W.> ------------------------------>> Message: 6> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 
03:31:59 -0700 (PDT)> From: Siva Senani Nori <sivasenani at yahoo.com>> 
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] "dharma" in the alaatashaanti prakaraNa of> the 
Maa.Kaa> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta> 
<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>> Message-ID: 
<485503.35262.qm at web54206.mail.re2.yahoo.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; 
charset=ascii>> Dear Sri Guy Werlings, praNAm.>> ----- Original 
Message ----> From: Guy Werlings werlings.guy at wanadoo.fr>>>> Now my question 
to he learned Sanskrit scholars of the A-List is: "how >> come may one 
equate>> "dharma" and "jIva", or derive one from the other. I have not found 
any >> trace of "dharma" having the>> possible meaning of "jIva".>> Without 
pretending to be a scholar in Sanskrit, I attempt to address the > issue 
raised by you, which far from being odd is valid (as per Yaska, > every 
meaning of every word can be, and so must be, explained > etymologically) 
and of high interest because it touches a topic not often > discussed.>> 
First, it is true that in the alAtaSAntiprakaraNa, the word dharma often - > 
but not always - refers to the self / Atman / jiva; second, it is also > 
true that the vyutpatti (etymology) has not been given by Sri > 
Sankaracharya; and finally, it is a contradiction of siddhAnta to make a > 
bahuvrihi compound of the word dharma - by saying that which has some > 
dharma - attribute - is dharmah, that is a jiva.>> This paradox resolves 
itself when we see that GuaDapAdAchArya is using > Buddhist terminology to 
disprove the thesis of the Buddhist nihilists; > since the usage is 
Buddhist, the vyutpatti contradicts the siddhanta of > advaita and so Sri 
Sankara ignores the vyutpatti and merely says "AtmAkhya > dharmah" (that 
dharma which is called Atma - gloss on 4-81).>> The above thesis needs proof 
of the following:> 1. The usage is same as the Buddhist usage - first show 
what the sense is, > and then show that it is the same as used by 
Buddhists.> 2. alAtaSAntiprakaraNa's object is to refute the Buddhist 
nihilists> 3. Circumstantial evidence in support - that other scholars 
studiously > avoid this sense of the word dharma while analysing the word 
because of > this complication.>> With the hope that the extended length of 
this post would be tolerated, > here is the proof:>> 1. In addition to the 
twelve kArikas quoted by Sri Guy Werlings, the word > dharma is used in 
twelve other kArikas as well (2-25, 3-1, 4-1, 4-6, 4-8, > 4-10, 4-21, 4-33, 
4-41, 4-46, 4-54, 4-97). Out of these twenty four > instances, in one 
instance (2-25) it means the vedic rites as used by the > purvamImAmsA 
school; out of the twenty three other occasions, in 17 it > means self / 
atman / jiva, in five (4-21, 4-33, 4-41, 4-54, 4-82) means > some kind of an 
element (with an elephant being cited as an example by Sri > Sankara in 
4-41), and in one kArika (4-99), it occurs twice meaning > "element" in the 
first half, and the self in the second half. The > explanations given by Sri 
Sankara include 'Atman', 'bAhyadharma' [as > opposed to cit] (4-54), 
'vishayAntaram' (4-99, 1st half), dvaitavastu > (4-82) and hastyAdIn (4-41). 
>From a holistic analysis of the fourth > prakarana it emerges that the word 
dharmah is intended to mean, a vastu, > padArtha or vishaya, or an element 
in general, and the Atman in > particular. Compare this with one of the 
Buddhist usages (p5, P. V. Kane, > History of Dharmasastra, Vol I, Part I): 
"Another meaning of dharma > peculiar to the Buddhist system is 'an element 
of existence', i.e. of > matter, mind and forces". Mahamopadhyaya P. V. Kane 
gave five references > in support of the above. This definition of "an 
element of existence" fits > the usage in the alAtaSAntiprakaraNa like a 
glove, so much so that Sri > GauDapAdAchAya uses dharma in the place of 
bhAva - precisely 'an element > of existence'. Karikas 4-6 and 3-20 are 
exactly identical except the > "bhava" in the advaita prakarana (the third 
one) is replaced by dharma is > 4-6 and Sri Sankara does not offer any 
remarks on 4-6 merely observing > that the karika has already been 
commentated on.>> 2. In the introduction to the fourth chapter, Sri Sankara 
says that the > siddhanta was established in the three previous chapters and 
now in this > fourth chapter the views of the dualists and the [Buddhist] 
nihilists are > refuted and indicates that, to that purpose, some material 
is repeated. > Indeed quite a few kArikas are repeated in the fourth 
chapter - and as we > have seen 3-20 has been reproduced after changing one 
word. Much of the > material in the chapter is a clear refutation of the 
nihilist view, and > 4-99 mentions Buddha explicitly "na etad Buddhena 
bhAshitam". From the > analysis of where the word is used, what is striking 
is that except in > 3-1, the usage of the word to mean ' an element of 
existence' or self is > restricted to the fourth chapter alone; and there 
earlier kArikas when > used are adapted to the specific terminology being 
used. Thus it is clear > that outside this particular prakaraNa dharma is 
not used in the sense of > self or an element of existence, and an attempt 
is made here to use the > word in that sense - in other words, use the 
Buddhist terminology itself > in refuting their theory.>> 3. The most 
puzzling aspect of Sri Guy Werlings question was that Dharma > is a much 
analysed word. The first example to illustrate the difficulty of > 
translation is 'dharma'; the sense it takes is a long list - and yet, this > 
sense of 'an element of existence' is not usually given. I first checked > 
MM Sri P. V. Kane's seminal History of Dharmasastra (in a long discussion, > 
a single line refers to this usage at the end). While he counts the number > 
of times the word occurs in the Rig Veda samhita (53), and mentions that > 
it occurs hundreds of times in the Brahmanas, Aranyakas and the > 
Upanishads, and even mentions the unusual usage (to mean 'apurva' as used > 
by the purva-mimamsakas in Br. U. 2-5-11), he ignores the two usages > 
mentioned by Sri Srinivasa Murthy on the list (KaTha Upanishad, 1-1-21 and > 
2-1-14) where "dharma" means jivas. In his commentary on kaTha 1-1-21, Sri > 
Sankara does not give the etymological derivation, but simply says > 
'dharmAkhya Atman', (the Atman called as dharma). Coming back to Sri Kane > 
it is not as if he focuses on the dharmasastra and ignores the > 
Upanishads - as a Mahamahopadhyaya and a learned scholar it hardly needs > 
mentioning that he has a thorough mastery of the Upanishads. Actually, he > 
quotes quite profusely from the Upanishads and SA~Nkara bhAshya throughout > 
his extra-ordinary work, but he is quiet on the two kaTha references. In > 
fact these two, along with the Br. U. 2-5-11 are the only instances in the > 
entier corpus of the vedas, where the word dharma takes a sense not > 
mentioned in the long list of meanings usually given. Swami Harshananda of > 
Sri Ramakrishna Math in his small booklet on Dharma mentions all three. > 
The long list of meanings in Monier Williams does not include the present > 
sense. I have heard or read at least ten other scholarly lectures / papers > 
concerning dharma, which I cannot immediately refer, but nowhere was this > 
sense highlighted. It is reminiscent of 'devAnAm piye' (the way king > 
Ashoka referred to himself in his edicts)  - anyone with a basic knowledge > 
of Sanskrit would think it means 'one dear to gods', however the correct > 
meaning as per traditional Sanskrit scholars is 'a fool' - such is the > 
treatment of Buddhist notions. To me, the absence of discussion on the > 
usage of dharma in the alAtaSAntiprakaraNa, shows that the traditional > 
scholars viewed it as the incorrect Buddhist usage, resorted to by Sri > 
gauDapAdAchArya so that the misled can be corrected, but that it did not > 
merit a discussion or explanation.>> budhajanavidheyah> Senani>>>> 
_____________________________________________________________________------------------------------>> 
Message: 7> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:38:35 +0200> From: "Guy Werlings" 
<werlings.guy at wanadoo.fr>> Subject: [Advaita-l] "dharma" in the 
alaatashaanti prakaraNa of the> Maa.Kaa> To: 
<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>> Message-ID: 
<000701c7add9$49fd8b50$0a01a8c0 at Guy>> Content-Type: text/plain; 
format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";> reply-type=original>> praNAms |>> I 
wish to thank hereby SrI Sreenivasa Murthy and SrI Ramesh Krishnamurthy> for 
their kind, prompt and very valuable answers to my query. I do> appreciate 
those clarifications.>> dhanhyavAdaH |>> and>> VandanAni |>> Guy W.-----  
Original Message ----- 
From: <advaita-l-request at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
To: <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 7:00 PM
Subject: Advaita-l Digest, Vol 50, Issue 13


> Send Advaita-l mailing list submissions to
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> advaita-l-request at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> advaita-l-owner at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Advaita-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Help request on gaNesha purANa (Dr. Yadu Moharir)
>   2. Re: Idealism (savithri devaraj)
>   3. Re: What were the other vedantic schools in Sankara'stime?
>      (savithri devaraj)
>   4. Re: Brief speech in Sanskrit (savithri devaraj)
>   5.  article by Coman (MC1 at aol.com)
>   6. Re: "dharma" in the alaatashaanti prakaraNa of the Maa.Kaa
>      (Siva Senani Nori)
>   7. "dharma" in the alaatashaanti prakaraNa of the Maa.Kaa
>      (Guy Werlings)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "Dr. Yadu Moharir" <ymoharir at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [Advaita-l] Help request on gaNesha purANa
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
> <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Message-ID: <463861.73607.qm at web32902.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Dear All:
>
> I am interested in cross checking some references in "gaNesha puraaNa"
> (published in secondary sources).
>
> Can some one help me in this by providing the original Sanskrit text !!
>
> Please contact me off-list.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Dr. Yadu
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who 
> knows.
> Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:35:19 -0700 (PDT)
> From: savithri devaraj <savithri_devaraj at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Idealism
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
> <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Message-ID: <64804.30366.qm at web34411.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Thanks Michael for your explanation, and the further
> private email exchange.
> Regards,
> Savithri
> --- michael reidy <michael_reidy at eircom.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Namaste Smt. Savithri,
>> You expressed a difficulty with the concept of
>> Idealism.  This might help.
>>
>> In the preamble to the B.S.B. there is an implicit
>> rejection of Idealism.
>> The basic question that he opens with is the puzzle
>> of knowledge.  It
>> ought to be impossible given the antithetical nature
>> of subject and
>> object; the one being conscious and the other inert.
>>  This is the basic
>> paradox, the out-there inert comes in some manner to
>> be in-here as
>> consciousness; a seeming impossibility that yet
>> occurs as our knowledge
>> testifies.  But how?
>>
>> At this point one can pause to consider the
>> implications of his statement
>> of the paradox.  It is only a problem if the inert
>> object is truly out
>> there in its reality as an existence that is
>> independent of our knowledge
>> of it.  If its reality is merely as an object in our
>> consciousness
>> (Idealism) then the paradox dissolves because there
>> is no out-there in
>> reality, the object exists as it shines in our
>> consciousness.  No
>> transference has occured.  This notion is
>> specifically rejected by Sankara
>> in B.S.B. II.ii.28.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>>
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>>
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Be a PS3 game guru.
> Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! 
> Games.
> http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 10:36:36 -0700 (PDT)
> From: savithri devaraj <savithri_devaraj at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] What were the other vedantic schools in
> Sankara'stime?
> To: Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar at hotmail.com>,
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> Cc: listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> Message-ID: <545518.83584.qm at web34408.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> --- Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidyasankar at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I apologize for having sent my most recent response
>> to Smt. Savithri Devaraj
>> (re: list moderation) to the whole list. In
>> hindsight, it would have perhaps
>> been better if I had kept it private.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Vidyasankar
>
>
> I agree. You might have also flouted some privacy law
> that restricts forwarding a private message to a
> public listserve without the originator's consent.
> Regards,
> Savithri
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
> http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 11:09:55 -0700 (PDT)
> From: savithri devaraj <savithri_devaraj at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Brief speech in Sanskrit
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
> <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Message-ID: <20070612180955.57031.qmail at web34406.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Namaste,
>
> In addition to the resources mentioned, it is good to
> watch and understand the movie "Adi Shankaracharya" by
> G.V.Iyer in Sanskrit without subtitles. There may be
> other Sanskrit movies too. This would be good to pick
> up conversational Sanskrit. Samskrita bhArati is doing
> a lot of good work these days. (I believe this movie
> is on Youtube also.)
>
> I believe that to understand Shankara's original
> bhAshyas correctly requires quite a rigorous and
> disciplined study under a competent teacher.
>
> Lack of standard terminology (overloaded use of words
> like jnAna, avidya, mAya, yoga,...), use of figurative
> speech, complexity of the topic, and the differing
> abilities of the seeker further compound the issue. At
> best, we might be able to come away with the lexical
> meaning, but the semantic interpretation might still
> be lost on us without a shrotriya brahmanishTa guru.
> I am not saying we shouldn't try, but we should be
> aware of the possible limitations.
>
> Regards,
> Savithri
>
> --- GOPALAKRISHNA Sankaran <SGopalak at covansys.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Also please let me know, how to prepare a Brief
>> speech in Sanskrit.
>> Say a brief on Sri Sankara.
>>
>> My approach is
>> First prepare in region language and convert into
>> Sanskrit.
>>
>> Please share your views.
>>
>> Jaya Jaya Sankara and Hara Hara Sankara.
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: advaita-l-bounces at lists.advaita-vedanta.org on
>> behalf of Jaldhar H. Vyas
>> Sent: Sat 6/9/2007 11:43 AM
>> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
>> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Learning Sanskrit
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, prem d p wrote:
>>
>> > namaste...
>> >
>> >  dear sri vidyasankarji and other list members,
>> >
>> >  i would like to request you to kindly suggest the
>> best way forward for
>> >  a self-study of sanskrit. the purpose is
>> primarily to be able to read
>> >  our scriptures in general and shankara in
>> particular, in original.
>> >
>> >  i have practically no knowledge of the language
>> but has a rather
>> >  good familiarity with the vocabulary from my
>> mother tongue and also
>> >  quite at home with devanagari.
>> >
>> >  i have recently actually embarked on this
>> self-study using the CBSE
>> >  sanskrit textbooks and guides starting from Class
>> V and working
>> >  my way slowly up. Is this the best way?
>> >
>>
>> That's certainly one way to do it.  However I think
>> it is better to pick
>> one work and translate it word by word with a
>> dictionary and grammar at
>> your side.  The Bhagavadgita or Hitopadesha are two
>> good choices as the
>> Sanskrit is fairly simple yet the subject matter is
>> interesting.  I think
>> this makes the inevitable memorization of vocabulary
>> and syntax more fun
>> and thus more likely to stick in the mind than the
>> random passages and
>> exercises found in the textbooks.
>>
>> --
>> Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>>
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>>
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>
>> Confidentiality Statement:
>>
>> This message is intended only for the individual or
>> entity to which it is addressed. It may contain
>> privileged, confidential information which is exempt
>> from disclosure under applicable laws. If you are
>> not the intended recipient, please note that you are
>> strictly prohibited from disseminating or
>> distributing this information (other than to the
>> intended recipient) or copying this information. If
>> you have received this communication in error,
>> please notify us immediately by return email.
>> -----------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>>
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>>
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Finding fabulous fares is fun.
> Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and 
> hotel bargains.
> http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:56:28 EDT
> From: MC1 at aol.com
> Subject: [Advaita-l]  article by Coman
> To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> Message-ID: <c3a.13f9220e.33a09abc at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> Anyone interested in investigating further the idea of Sankara as a yogin
> prior to Advaita may be well advised to consult Paul Hacker  (selected 
> English
> translations from the original German may be found in,  Philology and
> Confrontation, ed.: W. Halbfass). For those unfamiliar, Hacker is  a 
> seminal and
> insightful academic who has provided some  interesting analysis of 
> Sankara.
> Notwithstanding and possibly because of the  occasional critique, Hacker 
> is a good
> read for any serious student of  Advaita.
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:52:32 -0700
> From: "Vidyasankar  Sundaresan" <svidyasankar at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] article  by Coman
> To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> Message-ID:  <BAY101-F239CE9866A75793466B3E5DB190 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain;  format=flowed
>
>
>>I don't get it - aren't you and a significant  number of the members
>>of this list later/contemporary Advaitins?  At  best, Prof. Coman's
>>article reads as play-by-play coverage of a  non-existent dialectic 
>>between
>>Adi Sankaracarya and Christopher  Ishwerwood.  The unspecific use of the
>>term, "modern Advaitins,"  seems wholly unwarranted here.
>>   No scriptural support is  adduced in Coman's work for the claim
>>that samadhi is somehow an end in  its own right in yoga either.  I
>>certainly don't recall reading  anything to that effect in the Patanjali
>>Yogasutra or its traditional  commentaries (pace Christopher Isherwood, I
>>guess).  That the PYS  preaches a "necessity for total thought 
>>suppression"
>>(presumably a crude  translation of cittavrtti nirodha) is also  highly
>>questionable.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Gerald  Penn
>
> Dear Gerald,
>
> The article on Samadhi in Advaita Vedanta by  Michael Comans is primarily
> meant to address what is nowadays called  neo-Vedanta. Specifically, it
> addresses the emphasis that is laid on the  experience of brahman, 
> following
> the time of Swami Vivekananda. So, in a  sense you are right in bringing 
> in
> Christopher Isherwood's name here, as he  stands in the first generation 
> of
> translators of Indian thought in modern  America.
>
> There is one point that is well-taken in Comans's paper, and  that is the
> mistaken tendency to treat Vedanta as theory and Yoga as  practice. There 
> are
> numerous other points that we have covered in earlier  discussions on the
> list. One of my goals in the Yoga and Advaita Vedanta  series was to show 
> how
> an intimate connection exists between these two  schools even in Sankara's
> own  works.
>
> Regards,
> Vidyasankar
>
>
>
>
> ************************************** See what's free at 
> http://www.aol.com.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 03:31:59 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Siva Senani Nori <sivasenani at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] "dharma" in the alaatashaanti prakaraNa of
> the Maa.Kaa
> To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta
> <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Message-ID: <485503.35262.qm at web54206.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii
>
> Dear Sri Guy Werlings, praNAm.
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Guy Werlings werlings.guy at wanadoo.fr
>
>
>> Now my question to he learned Sanskrit scholars of the A-List is: "how 
>> come may one equate
>> "dharma" and "jIva", or derive one from the other. I have not found any 
>> trace of "dharma" having the
>> possible meaning of "jIva".
>
> Without pretending to be a scholar in Sanskrit, I attempt to address the 
> issue raised by you, which far from being odd is valid (as per Yaska, 
> every meaning of every word can be, and so must be, explained 
> etymologically) and of high interest because it touches a topic not often 
> discussed.
>
> First, it is true that in the alAtaSAntiprakaraNa, the word dharma often - 
> but not always - refers to the self / Atman / jiva; second, it is also 
> true that the vyutpatti (etymology) has not been given by Sri 
> Sankaracharya; and finally, it is a contradiction of siddhAnta to make a 
> bahuvrihi compound of the word dharma - by saying that which has some 
> dharma - attribute - is dharmah, that is a jiva.
>
> This paradox resolves itself when we see that GuaDapAdAchArya is using 
> Buddhist terminology to disprove the thesis of the Buddhist nihilists; 
> since the usage is Buddhist, the vyutpatti contradicts the siddhanta of 
> advaita and so Sri Sankara ignores the vyutpatti and merely says "AtmAkhya 
> dharmah" (that dharma which is called Atma - gloss on 4-81).
>
> The above thesis needs proof of the following:
> 1. The usage is same as the Buddhist usage - first show what the sense is, 
> and then show that it is the same as used by Buddhists.
> 2. alAtaSAntiprakaraNa's object is to refute the Buddhist nihilists
> 3. Circumstantial evidence in support - that other scholars studiously 
> avoid this sense of the word dharma while analysing the word because of 
> this complication.
>
> With the hope that the extended length of this post would be tolerated, 
> here is the proof:
>
> 1. In addition to the twelve kArikas quoted by Sri Guy Werlings, the word 
> dharma is used in twelve other kArikas as well (2-25, 3-1, 4-1, 4-6, 4-8, 
> 4-10, 4-21, 4-33, 4-41, 4-46, 4-54, 4-97). Out of these twenty four 
> instances, in one instance (2-25) it means the vedic rites as used by the 
> purvamImAmsA school; out of the twenty three other occasions, in 17 it 
> means self / atman / jiva, in five (4-21, 4-33, 4-41, 4-54, 4-82) means 
> some kind of an element (with an elephant being cited as an example by Sri 
> Sankara in 4-41), and in one kArika (4-99), it occurs twice meaning 
> "element" in the first half, and the self in the second half. The 
> explanations given by Sri Sankara include 'Atman', 'bAhyadharma' [as 
> opposed to cit] (4-54),  'vishayAntaram' (4-99, 1st half), dvaitavastu 
> (4-82) and hastyAdIn (4-41). From a holistic analysis of the fourth 
> prakarana it emerges that the word dharmah is intended to mean, a vastu, 
> padArtha or vishaya, or an element in general, and the Atman in
> particular. Compare this with one of the Buddhist usages (p5, P. V. Kane, 
> History of Dharmasastra, Vol I, Part I): "Another meaning of dharma 
> peculiar to the Buddhist system is 'an element of existence', i.e. of 
> matter, mind and forces". Mahamopadhyaya P. V. Kane gave five references 
> in support of the above. This definition of "an element of existence" fits 
> the usage in the alAtaSAntiprakaraNa like a glove, so much so that Sri 
> GauDapAdAchAya uses dharma in the place of bhAva - precisely 'an element 
> of existence'. Karikas 4-6 and 3-20 are exactly identical except the 
> "bhava" in the advaita prakarana (the third one) is replaced by dharma is 
> 4-6 and Sri Sankara does not offer any remarks on 4-6 merely observing 
> that the karika has already been commentated on.
>
> 2. In the introduction to the fourth chapter, Sri Sankara says that the 
> siddhanta was established in the three previous chapters and now in this 
> fourth chapter the views of the dualists and the [Buddhist] nihilists are 
> refuted and indicates that, to that purpose, some material is repeated. 
> Indeed quite a few kArikas are repeated in the fourth chapter - and as we 
> have seen 3-20 has been reproduced after changing one word. Much of the 
> material in the chapter is a clear refutation of the nihilist view, and 
> 4-99 mentions Buddha explicitly "na etad Buddhena bhAshitam". From the 
> analysis of where the word is used, what is striking is that except in 
> 3-1, the usage of the word to mean ' an element of existence' or self is 
> restricted to the fourth chapter alone; and there earlier kArikas when 
> used are adapted to the specific terminology being used. Thus it is clear 
> that outside this particular prakaraNa dharma is not used in the sense of 
> self or an element of existence, and an
> attempt is made here to use the word in that sense - in other words, use 
> the Buddhist terminology itself in refuting their theory.
>
> 3. The most puzzling aspect of Sri Guy Werlings question was that Dharma 
> is a much analysed word. The first example to illustrate the difficulty of 
> translation is 'dharma'; the sense it takes is a long list - and yet, this 
> sense of 'an element of existence' is not usually given. I first checked 
> MM Sri P. V. Kane's seminal History of Dharmasastra (in a long discussion, 
> a single line refers to this usage at the end). While he counts the number 
> of times the word occurs in the Rig Veda samhita (53), and mentions that 
> it occurs hundreds of times in the Brahmanas, Aranyakas and the 
> Upanishads, and even mentions the unusual usage (to mean 'apurva' as used 
> by the purva-mimamsakas in Br. U. 2-5-11), he ignores the two usages 
> mentioned by Sri Srinivasa Murthy on the list (KaTha Upanishad, 1-1-21 and 
> 2-1-14) where "dharma" means jivas. In his commentary on kaTha 1-1-21, Sri 
> Sankara does not give the etymological derivation, but simply says 
> 'dharmAkhya Atman', (the Atman called as
> dharma). Coming back to Sri Kane it is not as if he focuses on the 
> dharmasastra and ignores the Upanishads - as a Mahamahopadhyaya and a 
> learned scholar it hardly needs mentioning that he has a thorough mastery 
> of the Upanishads. Actually, he quotes quite profusely from the Upanishads 
> and SA~Nkara bhAshya throughout his extra-ordinary work, but he is quiet 
> on the two kaTha references. In fact these two, along with the Br. U. 
> 2-5-11 are the only instances in the entier corpus of the vedas, where the 
> word dharma takes a sense not mentioned in the long list of meanings 
> usually given. Swami Harshananda of Sri Ramakrishna Math in his small 
> booklet on Dharma mentions all three. The long list of meanings in Monier 
> Williams does not include the present sense. I have heard or read at least 
> ten other scholarly lectures / papers concerning dharma, which I cannot 
> immediately refer, but nowhere was this sense highlighted. It is 
> reminiscent of 'devAnAm piye' (the way king Ashoka
> referred to himself in his edicts)  - anyone with a basic knowledge of 
> Sanskrit would think it means 'one dear to gods', however the correct 
> meaning as per traditional Sanskrit scholars is 'a fool' - such is the 
> treatment of Buddhist notions. To me, the absence of discussion on the 
> usage of dharma in the alAtaSAntiprakaraNa, shows that the traditional 
> scholars viewed it as the incorrect Buddhist usage, resorted to by Sri 
> gauDapAdAchArya so that the misled can be corrected, but that it did not 
> merit a discussion or explanation.
>
> budhajanavidheyah
> Senani
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's
> Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when.
> http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:38:35 +0200
> From: "Guy Werlings" <werlings.guy at wanadoo.fr>
> Subject: [Advaita-l] "dharma" in the alaatashaanti prakaraNa of the
> Maa.Kaa
> To: <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Message-ID: <000701c7add9$49fd8b50$0a01a8c0 at Guy>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> praNAms |
>
> I wish to thank hereby SrI Sreenivasa Murthy and SrI Ramesh Krishnamurthy
> for their kind, prompt and very valuable answers to my query. I do
> appreciate those clarifications.
>
> dhanhyavAdaH |
>
> and
>
> VandanAni |
>
> Guy W.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>
>
> End of Advaita-l Digest, Vol 50, Issue 13
> *****************************************
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Orange vous informe que cet  e-mail a ete controle par l'anti-virus mail.
> Aucun virus connu a ce jour par nos services n'a ete detecte.
>
>
>