[Advaita-l] Adwaita and God.

[srikanta]

From:   "Sunil Bhattacharjya" <sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com>
Date:   Wed, November 3, 2010 9:22 pm
To:   "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta"
<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Priority:   Normal
Options:   View Full Header |  View Printable Version




Dear Shrikantaji,

1)
I think you have not noticed that nobody said that Yoga is not different from
Vedanta. They are definitely at diferent levels. However it is my
understanding that
the OM in Yoga and OM in Vedanta are the same. Can you show any shastriya
reference
where these two OMs are different?
2)
In the  Yoga of Patanjali the Purusha gets freed from the clutches of
Prakrii by
meditating on OM (Ishvara) but it is not said that the dvaitahood
disappears. In
Vedanta it is
 shown that the Purusha and OM (Brahman) are not different and thus the
Dvaitahood
disappears (only from the Advaitic point of view). Sometimes the different
terminologies used in different darshanas  make people confused. For
example what
is  Tanmatra in Sankhya is not called by the same name in Vedanta and you
must be
aware of that. Such differences in terminologies confuse even the great
scholars
but not a scholar at the level of Adi Sankaracharya and he knew his
subject well.
Ishvara in Yoga and Brahman in Vedanta are the same and that is
irrespective of
whether Gaudapadacharya sees Ishvara and Brahman in Vedanta as the same or
not. The
Vedanta is the teaching at the ultimate level but one cannot wish away the
importance of Yoga. Lord had asked Arjuna to be a Yogi and had given several
definitions of Yoga and one should be careful in understanding the
contexts the
Lord was referring to.
3)
If you are convinced that Adi Sankaracharya's guru Govindapada was not an
incarnation of Patanjali it would be nice if you tell us the proof you
have from
Rambhadra Dixit to show that Gaudapadacharya was the disciple of
Patanjali. Just
assertions do not satisfy people. However  don't you think that people
would not
have linked Govindapada with Patanjali unless there were similarities in
their
views.
4)
May I request you kindly to read my mail carefully in case you desire to
talk about
the matter in that. Firstly kindly do not forget that the argument on
Shunya from
the etymological viewpoint came  in support of the statement that Lord
Buddha's
teaching at the highest level of Mahayana was not Nihilistic. I made it
very clear
about my understanding and mentioned that Nagarjuna,
 who lived five centuries after Lord Buddha, shouted from the rooftop
that Shunya is not non-existence. I am talking about the Mahayana
Buddhism. I told you what  Shunya etymologically is.. Kindly tell me what
according
to you is the etymology of Shunya if you think of it differently.
Etymologically
Shunya means expansion (and the consequent disappearance
 from a fixed form) and that I understand that this matches the definition of
Vishnu too. If you do not agree then let us agree to disagree.
5)
It is improper to bring in Hinayana into the discussions as I made it
clear earlier
by bringoing in the statements of Nagarjuna that we are discussing at the
Mahayana
level. May be you are not aware of the differences in  teachings at the
Hinayana and
Mahayana levels.
6)
Further did I anywhere say that the creation came from Shunya?
7)
You said about
 reference in Vedanta that Vishnu is not Shunya. Will you kindly cite the
reference?

Finally I assure you that  I am not questioning your scholarship and who
am I to do
that?

Regards,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya.

Dear Sunil Bhattacharji,

1)You have certainly not understood and carefully followed my
explanations.Certainly Vedanta and Yoga are different.We have Shankara's
testimony to that.Yoga is at the Dwaita level where as Adwaita talks about
the Vedanta,"the "Turiya" state which is "OM".This is explained in detail
in the Mandukya Upanishad and the Karikas.In his Mandukya Karikas,Acharya
Gaudapada says,"Asparshayogovai nama sarvasatva sukham hitah,Yoginah
bhibhyati asmath abhaye bhayadarshinah".The Yogis are afraid of the
Asparshayoga of Vedanta,but,in reality it is without any fear.No body need
to say that vedanta and yoga are different.Yoga involves "Kriya".No
"Kriya" is involved in Adwaita vedanta.It cannot be achieved by any
karma."OM" is pointed out or designated in Yoga.

2)The Ishwara in Yoga and the Ishwara in Vedanta are the same.But,in Yoga
the term"Ishwara"is used to mean the creator,or "OM'as you have
said..But,in Vedanta "Ishwara"occupies the third pada,named "Pajna",which
is the "Ma"kara in the Mandukya Upanishad.It occupies the third matra or
the third pada in the "AUM"kara.You have said "Ishwara"in Yoga and Brahman
in vedanta are the same whether Gaudapadacharya says or not.Have you
studied 'Mandukya Upanishad" and "Gaudapada Karikas"?.You also read
Ramabhadra Deekshitha's "Patanjali Charitha"which was published several
centuries before.It mentioned there that Gaudapada went to kashi to learn
Vyakarana Mahabhashya from Patanjali.It is said that patanjali commanded
that no disciple should leave in the middle,Otherwise,he would be cursed
to become a "Brahmarakshas"..A curtain was put as a partition,and
Patanjali also commanded that no one should peep behind the
curtain.Gaudapada,much against the wishes of his Guru left the place for
some time. Patanjali,answered all the doubts and questions put by the
disciples,at the same time!.But,a curious disciple wondered how can one
person answer all the questions at the same time.He lifted the curtain to
peep in.Lo!he saw a thousandhooded serent "AdiShesha",fuming fire from the
mouths.All the disciples were burnt.Patanjali was sad because he could not
teach the Mahabhashya to his disciples,and not even one disciple was left
for the future.At that time,Gaudapada who had left the place
returned.Patanjali became happy that atleast one disciple survived.He gave
all his knowledge to Gaudapada by "Anugraha"saying that he will know all
he knew.But,the curse had to be taken by Gaudapada to become a
"Brahmarakshas".But,the curse would disappear if he imparted this
knowledge to another disciple.Later,Chandrasharma,who later became his
disciple by the name,GovindaBhagawath Pada,removed the curse from his
Guru,Gaudapada.GovindaBhagawathpada wrote the "Mahabhashya"on the Peepul
leaves with his blood,as Gaudapada narrated..He,due to exhaustion slept on
the pyol of a house.A goat ate a portion of the leaves,and even to this
day this portion is not available in the "Mahabhashya".This portion is
called,"AjaBhakshitha"bhashya,which means the portion of the bhashya eaten
by a goat..All this is said in Patanjali charitha.
3)You have said terms in different systems confuse people.True.But,the
relevant sections in different systems must be studied carefully and
anslysed to come to a conclusion.
4)I have also studied Nagarjuna's
works,Viz:Mulamadhyamakakarika,Vaidalyaprakarana,Vigrahavyavartani,Chatussutika
to name a few.The pratityasamutpada propounded by Nagarjuna has ben called
Nihilism,or shunyavada by some.But,the "Shunya" follows the same argument
of the Vedanta.it says that,"Shunya"is "Chatushkoti vinirmukta",which is
free from the four pronged notions,"It is,it is not,It is both is and is
not,and It is not,not".Vedanta also defines Brahman in the same
fashion.But,the Brahman of vedanta says it is the Adhara or substratum for
the appearance of the world.Whereas,in Nagarjuna,s view the world has no
substratum.It is like the appearance of "Sashavishana"or rabbit's
horns,which is nonexistence.Gaudapada in the last or the IV th prakarana
called "Alatashanthi"prakarana,of his Karikas says that;
"Kramate buddhasya jnanam dharmeshu tapinah!
sarve dharmah tatha jnanam "Naitad Buddhena bhashitham"!!
Though Buddha(Gautama)might have denied the existence of the external
world(bahyakaranirakarana matram uktam)),he has not said this(that all
dharmas(selves) are Brahman or Atman in the absolute sense.I have studied
the the differences between Hinayana and Mahayana levels.I had to dwell
upon this,because you had brought Buddhism in the discussions.Then What 
is "shunya"?
3)Vishnu is not "Shunya".Please refer to VishnusahasranamaBhashya of Adi
Shankara.There eventhough the word "Shunya"appears,it means "sarvalakshana
shunyah",which is devoid of any lakshana or mark.

Sri.Sunil Bhattacharji,certainly this is not for showing my
scholarship.Who am I to show my scholarship?What i have drunk from that
huge ocean is a mere thimble.That ocean is so vast.As the tamil saying
goes,"katradu kaiyalavu,Kalladadu ulakalavu"(what is learnt is a mere
handful,What is not learnt is of the size of the world)..I have regards
for you,being also a student of Vedanta.These discussions are not for
fighting.
Regards,Bhava shankara desika me sharanam.            N.Srikanta.