[Advaita-l] Shankara and Kriya Yoga

[Sunil Bhattacharjya]

Namaste,

It wil be very kind of you if you kindly tell us where did Adi Shankara claim himself that he was an incarnation of Lord Shiva.

Secondly why should anybody think that Govindapada could not have taught him Yoga (including the Kriyas) ? Govindapada must have had both the Jnana and the expertise in Yoga and must have given bothof these  to Adi Shankara.  That is because both Jnana and Yoga are required for realizing the Brahman. Not for nothing Govindapada has been called an incarnation of Patanjali.

Regards,
Sunil KB




________________________________
 From: Abhishek Madhyastha <abhishek046 at gmail.com>
To: rajaramvenk at gmail.com; A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2013 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Shankara and Kriya Yoga
 

Namaste,

In all this discussion about someone teaching Adi Shankaracharya about
Kriya aren't we forgetting a very important fact that Adi Shankara IS
LORD SHIVA? Doesn't this very fact count for a lot of exceptions? Is
it really necessary for someone to teach the Lord?
If Shankara as a mere boy could invoke goddess Lakshmi with his
prayers & without the help of a really advanced Guru, why is it that
he can not get Yoga siddhi if not from babaji? Can the fact that
Shankaracharya is the very incarnation of Parameshwara be taken so
very lightly?
Then again, we also know that Adi Shankara ascended the Sarvajna
peetha which requires him to be a Sarvajna & that he should be a
master of all 64 vidyas. Shall we go about searching if there's
another babaji who taught him these vidyas?
The fact that he is the incarnation of Lord Shiva simply makes him a
huge exception in many ways & he in no way can be treated in
comparison to any other sanyasin, no matter how great & advanced the
latter may be.

Secondly, don't you think we're taking the Guru Parampara of
Bhagavatpada for granted? His parampara certainly no ordinary one! I
think most of the list members will know the story of Gaudapadacharya
in his purvashrama being the disciple of Patanjali & how he was
Patanjali's favorite,etc. Patanjali was a master of yoga. That's not
the only point. Even the Guru parampara before Gaudapadacharya
contains the names of several stalwarts who are by no means ordinary
people.
When Gaudapadacharya can appear in front of Shankaracharya(the
incident where acharya shows the Mandukya Karika), why is it that the
Gurus preceding Gaudapadacharya too might have taught him? Shuka,
Vyasa, Parashara, Shakti,etc & even Lord Brahma & Lord Vishnu are of
this parampara.
Why is it that babaji is required to teach someone from such a
magnificent Parampara? Won't the Gurus of the entire parampara help
anyone coming down in this parampara? Isn't it this very unbroken
parampara that's the reason for Abhinava Vidyatirtha Mahaswamiji to
experience such extraordinary feats?! Would this have been possible if
not for the grace of Chandrashekhara Bharati Mahaswamiji?
When such is the case, what can we say about someone in this parampara
who is the incarnation of the Lord himself?

To simply make claims that babaji taught kriya yoga to Adi
Shankaracharya without substantial proof/record like Rajaramji has
pointed out, is quite silly & personally I feel its blasphemy towards
acharya & insult to the divine Guru Parampara!

Regards,
Abhishek Madhyastha

On 6/6/13, rajaramvenk at gmail.com <rajaramvenk at gmail.com> wrote:
> Shruti is not apaurusheya because its author has been forgotten. It is
> apaurusheya because it has always been known to be without author and
> opposing arguments have been refuted by mimamsakas and vedantins to this
> day. If there is no apaurusheya shruti, then how can one - for the first
> time - find out that there will be result for yajna in a future birth or
> there will no rebirth? These are unseen results and has to be learnt from
> another who should learn from yet another and so on.
>
> The source of knowledge about what constitutes shruti is sampradaya.
> Controversy has to be resolved through evaluation of supporting arguments.
> Even if we can't resolve, we can accept as shruti what is common to all. A
> statement - so called shruti or otherwise - should not contradict what is
> common shruti pramana to all.
>
> If I told you I taught Sankara logic, will you accept?  You will ask for
> evidence because you are not a gullible person. Basically, you will ask
> "When?". If I said 1200 years ago, you will say Sankara lived 2500 years ago
> or vice-versa. You will ask "What else I remember from that time period?"
> And verify the facts against what is known through historical studies. Have
> the followers of Babaji done such critical study?  On the contrary, we see
> sringeri acharya enquiring in to the truth of his own experience critically.
> If we don't do that we will be left with no option but to blindly accept any
> statement by any one as true and beyond question. We know that it is not the
> case and hence the need for discrimination between truth and delusion.
> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com>
> Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 14:26:44
> To: <rajaramvenk at gmail.com>
> Cc: A discussion group for Advaita
> Vedanta<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Shankara and Kriya Yoga
>
> praNAms Sri Rajaram prabhuji
> Hare Krishna
>
> Hare Krishna. It is amazing how a brilliant and learned scholar such as
> you should fail to differentiate between apaurusheya and paurusheya sabda
> pramana.
>
>>  At the outset a disclaimer note :  I am not a learned scholar nor a
> brilliant at any stretch of your favourable imagination on me..For that
> matter I am not even qualified to be called as a sincere student of
> advaita...My priorities with regard to advaita sAdhana always occupies the
> last bench. So, you can always take my words with a pinch of salt :-)) And
> when it comes to the demarkation line that you would like to draw  between
> apaurusheya and paurusheya shabda pramANa is still unclear to me.  By the
> way how would you certainly determine a certain statement in a book (
> think that  the title of which you donot know) is apaurusheya or otherwise
> !!??  I am still at puzzle.  Various tradition within trimatasta-s have
> varied opinion on what supposed to be the apaurusheya texts..I hope I dont
> have to bring-in the controversies that exists between dvaitins &
> advaitins with regard to Agama prakaraNa of mAndUkya.
>
> All pramanas including sabda can lead to incorrect conclusion due to wrong
> application as detailed out in tarkasangraha but without apaurusheya
> shruti laying the foundation there can be no eternal knowledge.
>
>> since I am a student of advaita vedAnta, I dont have any problem here to
> accept shAstra is the pramANa for eternal knowledge..But I dont think this
> stand would force me for unconditional acceptance of the apaurusheyatva of
> veda-s.  Like any other paurusheya pramANa grantha-s (i.e. smruti & nyAya
> prasthAna) shruti also a pramANa for which author/s are anonymous.
>
> BTW, Sringeri Periyava does not believe his own experience blindly. He
> validates it through other means. It is detailed out in the book.
>
>>  I dont want to debate on this issue on behalf of kriya yOga
> followers...But I am interested to know which shruti pramANa you would
> give to prove the fact that HH received the yOga instruction from shiva in
> dream!!??  If it is not possible but accepted as truth based on guru vAkya
> I dont know why kriya yOga followers should not do that same way and
> declare the bAbAji is the kriya yOga guru of shankarAchArya!!??
>
> Let us say the statements of Krishna, Sringeri Periyava and Babaji are
> equally unverfiable and only an object of sraddha. If Krishna's statement
> is determined as true, it serves the core purpose of directing the mind
> towards sarvajna nitya ishwara. If Sringeri Periyava's statement is
> determined to be true, it directs the mind towards sarvajna nitya ishwara
> again. If Babaji's statement is determined to be true, it directs the mind
> towards Babaji, who is at best a jAti smara jIva or a chiranjeevi.
>
>>  One could easily sense the subjective attachment to one particular
> personality or institution.  For that matter if bAbAji's statement is
> determined to be true, it does not directs the mind towards bAbAji, it
> directs the mind towards Ishwara / god only...through dhyAna & adhyAtmika
> jeevana one can bring god into life is the basic teaching of kriya yOgin-s
> I believe..
>
> One who has determined the value of discrimination between eternal and
> non-eternal will not give in to such a distraction.
>
>>  I agree with you...but sorry to say that my mind is still struggling to
> capture the knack of determination, hence there is lot of distraction.
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org