[Advaita-l] A matter for Adjudication

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote:

> praNAms
> Hare Krishna
>
> a) that Sri Sachidanandendra Saraswathi and his followers do not say that
> Jagadguru Sri Suresvaracharya have not properly understood what Sri
> Sankara said.
>
> > yes, this is one of those vipareeta grahaNa-s of saMpradAyavAdins :-))
>

This opinion is wrong.  Many, most people who have a fairly good knowledge
of the tradition
and ways of SSS are quite aware that he has spared Sureshwaracharya from the
blacklisting of post Shankara Advaita Acharyas.


>  (b) That Swamigal does not hold "Anubhava" to be the "kingpin"; this is a
> wrong quote about him.
>
> >  Ofcourse, Swamiji insisted the importance of sArvatrika pUrNAnubhava in
> the brahma jignAsa & argued why vaiyuktikAnubhava (individual/personal
> experiences like asamprajnAtha or nirvikalpa samAdhi) cannot be considered
> as one of the pramANa-s in brahma jignAsa....But point to be noted here is
> it is not at all at the cost of shruti as antya pramANa.
>

Could you kindly clarify what you mean by the term:  *sArvatrika
pUrNAnubhava *?  And how you contrast it from
*vaiyuktikAnubhava*(individual/personal experiences like asamprajnAtha
or nirvikalpa samAdhi)

Quite ironically,  SSS while translating the word स्वहृदयप्रत्ययं
ब्रह्मवेदनं देहधारणम् .. of the Bhashya for BSB 4.1.15 says: ತನ್ನ ಹೃದಯಕ್ಕೆ *
ಮಾತ್ರ* (ತಿಳಿಯಬರುವ,,) [known ONLY to oneself..].  Is this the  *sArvatrika
pUrNAnubhava or the **vaiyuktikAnubhava*?  While even the Bhashya has no
'maatra' suffix, SSS finds it  fit to add this to emphasize that the
experience of the Jnani is indeed individualized in the sense that his
experience is not available for others for verirfication or analysis.  Also
that his experience of BrahmabhAva  *and* the awareness of the body
continuing is personal for him.  This is the purport SSS wants to convey by
using the extra 'maatra'.

Please also be informed that whether it is the sAkshAtkAra had by vichAra or
samAdhi, the experience is always of the nature of 'sarvoham' 'pUrnoham',
etc. and never otherwise.  So, your distinguishing these two types is devoid
of any purpose or meaning.  It is only in the case of non-advaitic
sAkShAtkAra, like for example of the Patanjali's system, the anubhava is of
the type of an individualized soul.  This is because that sAdhaka has
trained in the shAstra that admits nAnA jeeva-s.  In their case there will
be no 'sarvAtmatva anubhava' that Shankaracharya points out in the Br.Up.
1/4/10 for the mantra '.  तस्माiत् तत्सर्वमभवत् [owing to the realization of
Its own Self, Brahman came to realize that It is the ALL.]

Om Tat Sat