[Advaita-l] vyavahAre bhaTTanayaH

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste

In the Naishkarmya Siddhi Sri Sureshwara has given this beautiful sequence -

Nitya Naimittika Karma Anushthaanaat DharmotpattiH - From doing the
Nitya and Naimittika Karma there will be rise of Dharma

Dharmotpattehe Paapahaanihi - From rise of Dharma there will be loss of sin

Tatashchittashuddhihi - From that there will be purification of mind

Tataha Samsaarayaathaatmyavabodhaha - From that the knowledge of true
nature of Samsaara

Tato Vairaagyam - From that Vairagya

Tato Mumukshutvam - From that desire for Moksha

Tatastadupaaya Paryeshanam - From that search for the means for Moksha

Tatah Sarvakarma Tatsaadhana Sanyaasaha - From that giving up all
Karma and its Saadhana

Tato YOGABHYASAH - FROM THAT PRACTICE OF YOGA

Tatah Chittasya Pratyak Pravanataa - From that YOGABHYASA there will
be turning of mind to Atmaa

Tatah Tattvamasi Adi Vaakyaartha Parijnaanam - From that the knowledge
of Tattvamasi and other sentences. This is Atma Saakshaatkaara only.

Tato AvidyoChedaha - From that removing of Avidyaa

Tatasca Svaatmanyeva Avasthaanam - From that remaining in Atmaa only

Brahamaaiva San Brahmaapyeti - Being Brahman only before Jnana he
attains Brahman

Vimuktasca Vimucyate - Being liberated before Jnana  he becomes liberated



On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Siva Senani Nori <sivasenani at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Namaste
>
> Atha SabdaanuSaasanam is not particularly different from Atha ataH
> brahmajijñaasaa, because even Vedanta teaches Brahman, by using words,
> notwithstanding the fact that Brahman is beyond words. This is the reason
> both Saastras teach the Ultimate using the Adhyaaropa-apavaada method.
> Vyaakarana which is called as PadaSaastra holds that in Paramaartha level,
> only SphoTa is and that all the distinctions of varna, pada etc. are unreal.
>
> Is SphoTa = Sabdabrahman? Many say that SphoTa is madhyamAvAk and
> Sabdabrahman is ParAvAk. In terms of the "world" emanating from Brahman,
> Advaita's position is no different. After all Brahman is established as the
> Nimitta and Upaadaana kaaraNa of the world. The reality of the world, and
> therefore the reality of its creation, is also at the level of Vyavahaara.
> It is exactly the same position in Sabdaadvaita. By the way, even Advaita
> admits that the world has emanated from Sabda. (Ref. BSB 1.3.28).
>
> Sarvadarsanasangraha has been discussed at a significant level of detail and
> it was shown that Sphotavaada is effectively un-refuted therein. Since a
> refutation is not possible / desirable, maybe it was placed before Saamkhya?
>
> Some people hold that the vritti on Yogasutras is not written by
> Bhagavatpaada. By the way, the original Yogasutras are attributed to
> Patanjali whose Mahabhashyam is the basis for Sphotavaada. So does that mean
> that Sankaracarya agrees with Patanjali? I think we should look at the
> subject matter and not the names involved.
>
> Even after all the evidences if the dualistic Yoga is to be held nearer to
> Advaita, so be it. There would be a point in taking this forward only if new
> facts are cited.
>
> Regards
> N. Siva Senani
>
> ________________________________
> From: Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com>
> To: Siva Senani Nori <sivasenani at yahoo.com>; A discussion group for Advaita
> Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, 24 November 2015 9:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] vyavahAre bhaTTanayaH
>
> Namaste
>
> The highest teaching is silence. That is why they say about Guru
> Dakshina Murthy, 'Gurostu Maunam Vyakhanam Shishyastu Chinna
> Samshayaaha'. In this no words are needed. But Patanjali's commentary
> is starting  Atha Shabdaanushaasanam . It is about words. Secondly in
> Vedanta itself we have Yato Vaacho Nivartante Apraapya Manasaa Saha.
> Words or Mind cannot reach Brahman. In Sravana, Manana and
> Nididhyasana only Sravana is using words. Manana and Nididhyasana are
> done without words. If Grammarians are saying Shabda is Brahman it
> cannot be Nirguna Brahma of Vedanta but only Saguna Brahman.
>
> Bhartruhari has said in Brahma Kanda - Brahman is without beginning or
> end is the indestructible essence of speech. Which is developed in the
> form of things and whence springs the creation of the world.
> Reference in Sarva Darshana Samgraha.
>
> This Brahman is the Sphota of the Grammarians. But in Advaita Vedanta
> the Brahman is not even Creator of the World. The Whole Creation is an
> illusion only. There is no Creation. How can the Shabda Brahman the
> Cause of Creation be the  Brahman of Vedanta? It can be taken as
> Saguna Brahma only.
>
> In the Sarva Darshana Samgraha the Yoga Darshana is placed last before
> Vedanta. It is the closest neighbor of Vedanta in this text.
>
> Another point is Adi Sankara wrote one detailed Vrtti on Yoga Sutras
> but he did not write anything on Vyakarana or Sphota.
> You can find it on Amazon.
>
> http://www.amazon.in/gp/product/8120829891/ref=ox_sc_imb_mini_detail?ie=UTF8&psc=1∣=A3RWP0QS4LMKI0
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Siva Senani Nori via Advaita-l
> <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>> From: Venkatesh Murthy <vmurthy36 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I heard some people say Yoga System is close to Advaita but not Vyakarana.
>> Adi Sankara has said "Nahi Nahi Rakshati Dukrun Karane" in Bhaja Govindam
>> seeing a old man memorizing Panini Sutras like a fool. Adi Sankara has also
>> rejected Sphota Vada of Sanskrit Grammarians. Nirvikalpa Samadhi of Yoga is
>> close to Advaita Brahma Jnana.
>> ------------------------
>> Namaste
>> First about डुकृञ् करणे। The intention there is to promote Bhakti (amongst
>> those Adhikaaris, for whom Bhakti is the best path), but we would be
>> mistaken if we think that Bhagavatpada is against Vyakarana or Jnana in
>> general. The meaning of the injunction स्वाध्यायो अध्येतव्यः is that Veda,
>> along with all its angas including Vyakarana, should be studied.
>> Bhagavatpada himself reserves the highest praise for Panini. In the Bhashya
>> under 1.1.3 शास्त्रयोनित्वात् in order to portray Brahman as the source of
>> Sastra, he gives the example of Panini: Just like Panini is known to know
>> much more than Vyakarana, the author of a Sastra would know much more and
>> only Brahman can know much more than all the Sastra that emanated from It.
>> Here, if we ponder as to what is that Panini knew more than Ashtadhyayi, we
>> realize that it refers to Philosophy.
>> This brings to the question: is sphotavada not refuted by Acaryapada in
>> 1.3.28 (Devatadhikaranam)? At least one scholar, Prof. M. Srimannarayana
>> Murthy, believes that Sankaracarya is agreeable with both doctrines
>> (Sphotavada and Varnavada), but it is the later commentators like Vacaspati
>> Misra, who introduced a refutation of Sphota. Much as I would like that to
>> be true, from a careful study of the Devatadhikaranam, that view has to be
>> rejected. So, unless the text we currently have is corrupted, refutal of
>> Sphotavada by Adisankara cannot be denied. Those in the sampradaya say that,
>> in reality there is no element of the refutation which is essential to
>> uphold the tenets of Advaita, and that the refutation is done with a desire
>> to avoid confusion. If VaiyaakaraNas propose Sabdabrahman as the ultimate,
>> Alaankaarikas would propose Rasabrahman, and somebody else, Gandhabrahman,
>> Sparsabrahman etc. and the saadhaka might be confused. (Is the Naadabrahman
>> of Tyaagaraaya Swami different from Parabrahman, for instance?) If we
>> examine their argument that the refutation is not essential, we find that it
>> is indeed so. The only reason offered in the entire Devatadhikaranam, is
>> that there is gaurava in conceptualizing Sphota, whereas varNaanupuurvI is
>> sufficient to explain (how meaning is expressed). If Sphota is admitted, a
>> Vedantin has no baadhaa to any of his positions. There is no other
>> refutation anywhere else by Bhagavatpada. Among later Advaitins, Vimuktatman
>> does criticize Sphota in his Ishtasiddhi [1], but apart from that I could
>> not find refutation of Sphotavada at other places. (I request learned
>> members to let me know if they came across Sphotakhandana by Advaita
>> scholars before twentieth century anywhere else).For instance, in
>> Sarvadarsanasangraha, every preceding Darsana is criticized and refuted by
>> the next Darsana presented, but this is done very curiously with respect to
>> Sphota - Vyakarana's Vivartavaada stands refuted by the Parinamavada of
>> Sankhya. Now, ultimately Parinamavada does not stand and once it stands
>> refuted by Advaita (the last Darsana), it obtains that Sphotavada is not
>> effectively refuted in Sarvadarsanasangraha.
>> In comparison, there is disagreement with respect to the ultimate between
>> Yoga and Advaita. The ISvara of Yoga is an emasculated one, who does not
>> create, sustain or dissolve the world unto himself, who is a कश्चन
>> पुरुषविशेषः. In fact, Pradhaana remains the highest principle of Yoga as
>> well, that is why in Sarvadarsanasangraha refutation of Paata~njaladarSana
>> consists of refutation of pariNAmavAda and refutation of PradhAna. This of
>> course, follows the Brahmasutras and Saankarabhaashya. Under 2.1.3 (एतेन
>> योगः प्रत्युक्तः), PradhAna as the highest principle, and the fact that they
>> (Sankhya and Yoga) are dualist systems is cited as the reason for their
>> rejection.
>> In summary, those who say that "Yoga System is close to Advaita but not
>> Vyakarana", are not evaluating the available textual evidence appropriately.
>> Yoga is a dualist school, avaidika (not my words, but that of Vidyaranya
>> muni in his Vaiyaasikanyaayamaalaa), refuted clearly by the Sutrakara
>> himself, and differs from Advaita in most important aspects. On the other
>> hand, VyaakaraNa is an Advaitic school, is an anga of the Veda, not refuted
>> by the Sutrakara, and does not differ from Advaita in any manner. Even the
>> bhashyakara refutes Sphota not in the section (2nd Adhyaya) devoted to
>> Khandana, but elsewhere.
>> The only reason for the perceived closeness of Yoga is that Yoga is
>> definitely most useful in Saadhanaa. Its practical utility must not be
>> confused as doctrinal similarity. On the other hand, Sphotavada is so close
>> to Advaita, that it could plausibly be said that it differs no more from the
>> teachings of Sankaracarya than Bhamatiprasthana or Vivaranaprasthana do. If
>> we treat Sphotasiddhi+Brahmasiddhi-minus-jnanakarmasamuccaya (as
>> jnanakarmasamuccaya weakens Advaita and is incorporated by Mandana Misra to
>> accommodate Purvamimamsa) as a third prasthana within Advaita tradition,
>> this claim can be examined and found plausible.
>> RegardsN. Siva Senani
>> [1] Ishtasiddhi is an early prakaranagrantha, from which Ramanujacarya
>> took the summary of Advaita. This summary in Sribhashyam is called
>> Mahapurvapaksha and is sometimes cited as the best summary of Advaita! (by
>> those not familiar with Ishtasiddhi). The refutation of Sphotavada by
>> Vimuktatman follows the path of Jayanta Bhatta (of Nyayamanjari fame), which
>> deliberately understands the word Sabda differently. If the same
>> understanding is applied to 1.3.28, then the sentence of Bhashyakara - अतः
>> प्रभवात् । अत एव हि वैदिकात् शब्दात् देवादिकं जगत् प्रभवति। - would stand
>> negated. Let me demonstrate. One ridicule, opponents of Sphota (including
>> Vimuktatman, but Jayanta Bhatta is the one who has done it first, if not the
>> author of SivadRshTi) throw at VaiyaakaraNas is: since you do not
>> differentiate the Sabda "annam" and the corresponding external entity, i.e.
>> food which is eaten, when you are hungry, simply eat the Sabda "annam". In
>> 1.3.28, Sankaracarya is saying the world emanated from Sabda because Sabda
>> primarily denotes Jati, Jati is nitya, and the origination is of only the
>> individuals (that is cowness is always there, and it is only the individual
>> cows which are born). If origin of Vyaktis from the nitya Jatis is not
>> accepted, the words "अतः प्रभवात्" cannot be explained. It follows that the
>> Sabda and the external entity represented by it are not different and the
>> result is that either Acarya Vimuktatman's refutation is wrong, or he does
>> not agree with Sutrakara and Bhashyakara.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>
> --
> Regards
>
>
>
>
> -Venkatesh
>
>



-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh