[Advaita-l] Adwaita and God.

[srikanta]

Dear Sri Srikanta,

I again hesitate to contribute to this thread, but will clarify two points
and
then withdraw.

> Let me elaborate on that point.All Dwaita schools,and Yoga school is no
> exception start with the premise that there is a creator.Whether we call

Not necessarily. Strictly speaking, pUrva mImAMsA also does not recognize
non-dualism, and that system of thought has no room for a creator. Yoga
also, strictly speaking, is quite silent about an ISvara creating the
universe.

> it Purusha,or Ishwara with Purusha associated with prakrthi,they all end
> up with Dwaita drsti.Only the Adwaita or vedanta discriminates Ishwara
> from Brahman or Turiya.

sAMkhya and yoga actually begin with a nAnAtva-dRshTi (multiple purusha-s
and one prakRti who multiplies into multiple tattva-s). Again, to understand
pAtanjala yoga in its own right, one should not impose the notion of ISvara
as a creator upon that system. In sAMkhya and yoga, creation happens due
to purusha-prakRti saMyoga and therefore, in yoga, other purusha-s also
have a role in creating, not just ISvara, the special purusha. I hope that
the
distinction and its enormous implications are clear.

That said, let me turn to the various legends that have been cited in this
thread so far, both by you and Sri Sunil Bhattacharya. You wish to view the
legendary story that govindapAda was an incarnation of patanjali as not
having any great implication for the philosophies of yoga and advaita. Quite
correctly so, if I may say so. However, on this and other threads, I also see
you citing a bunch of other unverifiable legends that have no bearing at all
on philosophy or for that matter on plain historical fact. These include the
legends that gauDapAda used to be a brahmarAkshasa, or that someone
called Candrasarma copied down the vyAkaraNa bhAshya and lost part of
it to a goat, etc. Please note that the patanjalicarita of rAmabhadra
dIkshita
is a fanciful poem originating in the imagination of one scholar, who never
intended it as a historical record. Please also note that the original author
of this poem used the named Candragupta, not Candrasarma. The latter
emendation of the name is a modern innovation by those who wish to see
history in poetic fancy.

Also, the supposed reference to Appollonius of Tyana having met Gaudapada
has been discounted by none other TMP Mahadevan, who has doubted whether
the Gururatnamala was written by Sadasiva Brahmendra. Similarly, the story
that vidyAraNya and vedAnta deSika were classmates in Kanchipuram is quite
unsubstantiated. Neither do texts such as Vidyaranya Kalajnana, giving
legendary
biographies of Vidyaranya mention any such thing, nor do Srivaishnava
accounts
of the life of Vedanta Desika say so. You are no doubt aware of the political
implications of such myths pertaining to important personalities from
different
sampradAyas. It would be best to keep away from these and other related
complications on this list.

Best regards,
Vidyasankar


_____________________________________________
Dear Vidyashankarji,

I have to explain to your questions or clarify on certain points.In answer
to Sri.Sunil Bhattacharji's query on Yoga,I had to say that Yoga is Dwaita
drsti.I know that Yoga doesnot start with Ishwara,however I doesrecognise
Ishwara.It is not a nirishwaravada.Yoga mainly deals with cittavrtti
nirodha,as the first suta itself clarifies.However,the Kundalini shakthi
from the Muladhara after trasiting the 7 chakras reaches the Sahasrara,the
Yogin is enlightened,or reaches Samadhi.The word samadhi,is
samyak+diyate,he reaches a point of balance of the gunas and gets
samyagdrsti.
Sankhya darshana starts with the cause and effect approach and says that
effect is the cause in another form.Both sankhya and yoga believe in
Purusha and prakrithi.Purusha in conjoin with prakrithi becomes the
Ishwara.
While Sankhya is the theoretical limb(Samyak khyayate iti sankhyah)Yoga is
the practical aspect of it.
In the course of the discussions we have to depend on the views of the
other to elaborate some points.Inevitably we have to bring these
answers.It is not my intention to bring these aspects which are not
necessary.It is better if the discussion is concentrated on crucial points
and not digressed to other irrelevant points.

I know that stories or hearsay are not indubitable.The story on Gaudapada
being the disciple of Patanjali which is written by Ramabhadra Deekshita
has been told by the Paramacharya of Kanchi Mutt,His Holiness Sri Sri
Chandrashekharendra Saraswathiji himself in his Upadesha grantha.If you
accept what His Holiness said is authentic you can take it.Similar is the
case with Gaudapada had discussion with leaders of Nishaka clan,and
Appolonius of Tyana written in a slokah on Guruvamshakavya by
SrlSadhashiva Brahnendra quoted by His Holiness also.This story being
discounted by Late Prof Sri.T.M.P..Mahadevan is not true.He has simply
taken from Vidushekhara Bhattacharya's book,and copied it in his
book,"Gaudapada-A study in early Adwaita"which doesnot appear to be of
indepth analysis.Further,T.M.P.Mahadevan being a disciple of the
Paramacharya would not have discounted it.It requires many references
which is not available and possible.Simply discounting a story which might
have occurred has no value.

You have mentioned about Political implications.Pray,what are those
political implications in this intellectual discussions? .This is a forum
f
intellectual discussions and one must take it in the right spirit.It is
not for winning or losing.It may be right to say digression has no value
here.

Regards,                                                     N.Srikanta.