About Pushpagiri Pitham

[sadasivamurty rani]

Dear Dr. Ganeshan ji

The information you have with you about the Shaiva Pithams and Pushpagiri peetham with strong support of inscription is great research value. Thanks for your valuable postings on this topic. 

But won't it be better to have a separate thread of mails on the issue of Pushpagiri Peetham instead of clubbing it with the event of the felicitation of Prof. K. Subrahmanyam garu? 

With warm regards,

 Dr. Rani Sadasiva Murty

[Nagaraj Paturi]

You said it Dr. Murtyji.

 

Regards,

 

Nagaraj

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Dear Dr. Ganesan,

I had thought of not responding to your observations about the Pushpagiri Pitham on the thread announcing the felicitations for Prof. Korada Subrahmanyam, but now that this new thread has been initiated, may I request you to provide references to a few scholarly papers/books that talk of these inscriptions? We can discuss the supposed kalamukha origins of an establishment at Sringeri later, but before we get into that, please enlighten us where you stand on the kriyAshakti - vidyAraNya connection, as also on the supposed Jaina background.

I find it curious that all those who would postulate any origin under the hot Indian sun for Advaita institutions, anything except the brAhmaNa saMnyAsa tradition itself, do not see that the mutual conflicts between Saiva origins and Jaina origins cannot be simply wished away. Especially, considering the documented long history of antagonism between these two groups in southern India.

Best regards,
Vidyasankar

[Nagaraj Paturi]

"As I had said in connection with an earlier thread in this same forum, Advaita VedAnta saMnyAsI-s are either ParivrAjaka-s or KuTIcaka-s or BahUdaka-s which fundamentally means that  a strict Advaita vedAnta monk is supposed not to stay at a particular place for more than a night or two".

 

- Which Advaita authority has said this?

 

In what way, 'KuTIcaka'-s or 'BahUdaka-s' is connected to "supposed not to stay at a particular place for more than a night or two"

 

"It is common knowledge that Advaita VedAnta does not prescribe temple construction/temple worship; nor such an act is part of its spiritual practices by any stretch of theory or imagination".

 

-Where does it proscribe it either?

 

"And, interestingly, which is again significant in this connection, we do not find any Saiva theme or motif or purANa stories depicted in the VishNu temples !!  Needless  to say who is more inclusive !!"

 

-Whose 'we are more inclusive' claim is being counter-argued by Dr. Ganeshanji here? Did any of those Vishnu temples people claim in this forum,  "we are more inclusive" ?

 

There are many other questions like that.

 

Regards,

 

Nagaraj

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Dr. T. Ganesan]

My reply is as below in italics:

On 10-07-2014 09:54, Nagaraj Paturi wrote:

"As I had said in connection with an earlier thread in this same forum, Advaita VedAnta saMnyAsI-s are either ParivrAjaka-s or KuTIcaka-s or BahUdaka-s which fundamentally means that  a strict Advaita vedAnta monk is supposed not to stay at a particular place for more than a night or two".

 

- Which Advaita authority has said this?

The text whose name I do not remember now, probably (Yatidharmaprabodha or Yatidharmaprakaashikaa) commences the saMnyAsa rites with " अथातः कापिलसंन्यासविधिं व्याख्यास्यामः ।" which is considered to be authoritative by the Advaita vedAnta tradition now, and which , I have  heard , is the basic text dealing with the rites of saMnyAsa that is followed, deals with these type of saMnySAI-s; also you may refer to the JIvanmuktiviveka of VidyAraNya for various types of saMnyAsI-s, such as vidvatsamNyAsa and vividishAsaMnyAsa, etc.
Also I will be thankful to know any other text of authority followed now by the SaMkara MaTha-s for these rites.

 

In what way, 'KuTIcaka'-s or 'BahUdaka-s' is connected to "supposed not to stay at a particular place for more than a night or two"

That is what  these terms mean. Even in bhikshA there is mAdhUkarIbhikshA--collecting alms from different houses just as bees collect honey from different flowers.
I put the question in turn, Which Advaita vedAnta text prescribes/says that the saMnyAsI can stay in a MaTha for so long as he wishes?

 

"It is common knowledge that Advaita VedAnta does not prescribe temple construction/temple worship; nor such an act is part of its spiritual practices by any stretch of theory or imagination".

 

-Where does it proscribe it either?

You are posing /repeating the question which I had put.  My point is the Advaita tradition does not prescribe temple construction/temple worship; nor such an act is part of its spiritual practices. When it does not prescribe temple construction/temple worship, the present case of some Advaita VedAnta MaTha-s managing temple(s) is not according to tradition/saMpradAya. Do you agree on this?

 

"And, interestingly, which is again significant in this connection, we do not find any Saiva theme or motif or purANa stories depicted in the VishNu temples !!  Needless  to say who is more inclusive !!"

 

-Whose 'we are more inclusive' claim is being counter-argued by Dr. Ganeshanji here? Did any of those Vishnu temples people claim in this forum,  "we are more inclusive" ?

The "we" here refers to the followers of Advaita vedAnta, who claim that "Only an advaita-vEdaanta mutt having equal regards for all the theistic sects of sanaatanadharma can have such an inclusive approach" as it had been expressed by Sri R. Ganesh in his mail.

 

There are many other questions like that.

Now that I have answered yous questions, you have not yet answered my earlier question put in my previous mail:  If scholars find any text belonging to the advaita vedAnta tradition that prescribes construction/management of a maTha or a temple which is inclusive, exhibiting equal regard for all gods of our sanAtanadharma, let them announce it and give the details for which the scholarly world will be thankful.

Regards

Ganesan

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

I don't know about the maTha and inscription, but I know a little about sannyAsa. So, I'll write about that here.

First of all there is no advaita-sannyAsa in this world. The sannyAsa which we take is vaidika-sannyAsa, if it is to be labeled. We label it as vaidika-sannyAsa to distinguish it from sannyAsa which follows Agama-s and tantra-s.

We maintain that sha~NkarachArya didn't commence or devised sannyAsa. sannyAsa as Ashrama is as old as other Ashrama-s and veda-s are.

You may call us advaitin because we support advaita-philosophy, and not because our sannyAsa is according to such tradition.

Till date, I've not heard the term 'kApila-sannyAsa' being used for us in any text. We are not sA~Nkhya-s at all.

The text which is being followed now for rites of sannyAsa in kailAsa-Ashrama and all related maTha-s (which includes RK Mission, shivAnanda Ashrama, etc., i.e. tradition of daNDatyAgI paramahaMsa-s) is rudradeva's sannyAsa-paddhati. It is mere collection of detailed rites which are scattered in veda-s and smR^iti-s.

I don't know what daNDin-s(eka-daNDin-s to be precise, as I can't see tridaNDin-s following advaita) follow. Though we accept that daNDa-sannyAsa exists(we ourselves shed daNDA after taking it!!!), we have doubts about origin of mudrA-s they put on daNDa-s and the use of such daNDa. vidyAraNya in jIvanmuktiviveka, while explaining paramahaMsopaniShad, explains the use of daNDa as 'go-sarpa-adyupadrava-parihAra', which is not accepted by present daNDin-s. They think that it is for alaukika-kArya, pUjana-tarpaNa, etc.

If we add nAgA-paraMparA(I already talked to two - daNDatyAgI paramahaMsa-s and daNDI paramahaMsa), then they are not totally different from daNDa-tyAgin-s. They have a few more steps before they get sannyAsa, which are not found in scriptures. They get the sannyAsa which includes daNDa-tyAga by similar sannyAsin-s.

BTW, nAgA-sannyAsI-s maintain that they have originated from either kapila, skanda, dattAtreya, etc. and not from sha~NkarAchArya or madhusUdana-sarasvatI. If you say that any of both person created their saMpradAya, you may get rebuked and hit.

Although, veda-s say that sannyAsI shouldn't stay more than 3 days in village and 5 days in city; it is allowed to stay for long times in tIrtha-xetra-s and forever in kAshI. I may need access to books to exactly put the shloka-s here. I'll do that when I get them near me.

And, while explaining upaniShad-s, shrI upaniShad-brahmendra supports it by saying that for sake of vedAntAdhyayana, a sannyAsI can stay with guru for long. There can be no serious study for ever moving man.

Therefore, it is good to conclude that 3-5 days rule is for those vidvAn-virakta-s or upAsaka-virakta-s who have no desire to study and are not interested in jana-saMsarga.

Those who stay for long nowadays, either do it for studies, or because they lack vairAgya.

You are correct when you said that sannyAsI can't create temple, just because he is supposed to be aparigrahI and jana-saMsarga-virata.

Those who make temples and maTha-s are not aparigrahI/virakta, can be easily deduced.

He is also not supposed to do bAhya-pUjana to maintain his aparigraha, ahiMsA, etc.

Those who do so are not aparigrahI and ahiMsaka, is to be accepted.

Now, the question of texts regarding creation of temple is left.

As I said that we are vaidika-s and don't think ourselves a separate tradition, so any text which follows veda-s and smR^iti-s and talks about temple construction, is good according to us.

We have no problem with it's validity.

But, I've doubt if there is any text.

I've seen Agama-s and tantra-s dealing with temple construction, though.

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
www.lalitaalaalitah.com

--

[Dr. T. Ganesan]

My dear frined,

1. The discussion in this thread started with the origins and practices of "traditionally accepted Advaita vedAnta MaTha-s", taking the example of the SRNgeri MaTha; then the question of the authoritative ritual text(s) followed in these "Traditional MaTha-s" which claim Samkara as their founder by their followers, thus taking our discussion to the ancient period. So naturally there is no discussion about any of these 19th-20th century MaTha-s mentioned by you (KailAsa Ashrama, , daNDatyAgI sampradAya, etc.) which stand altogether in a different footing and which, at the same time (I mean the founders and the followers) swear by Advaita VedAnta and Samkara.

1. You may call us advaitin because we support advaita-philosophy, and not because our sannyAsa is according to such tradition.

What is meant by this ? Who are these "we" ? the laymen or the saMnyAsI-s ? If the saMnyAsa is not according to such tradition, then what is the goal of saMnyAsa  in that tradition ?

    3. Till date, I've not heard the term 'kApila-sannyAsa' being used for us in any text. We are not sA~Nkhya-s at all.

That is not your fault any way.  But the term is an ancient one and as I have cited in my earlier mail, it means the VedAnta saMnyAsa. Probably because, jNAna is given more importance than karma in that tradition. To denote jNAna as sAMkhya is as old as the BhagavadgItA from which many passages can be cited from the 2nd, 5th, 10th adhyAya-s.

For example, the passage: sāṃkhyayogau pthagbālāḥ pravadanti na paṇḍitāḥ . where sAMkhya is related to jNAna and yoga, to karma.

kApila is not necessarily related to sage Kapila in this case, and just by telling kApila one does not become a follower of sAMkhyadarshana.

The following passage from BhagavadgItA 10: 26 proves it:
                aśvatthaḥ sarva-vṛkṣāṇāṃ devarṣīṇāṃ ca nāradaḥ |
             gandharvāṇāṃ citrarathaḥ siddhānāṃ kapilo muniḥ ||26||
By stating this does KRshNa become a adherent of sAMkhya nsystem ?


4. And, while explaining upaniShad-s, shrI upaniShad-brahmendra supports it by saying that for sake of vedAntAdhyayana, a sannyAsI can stay with guru for long. There can be no serious study for ever moving man.

On which authority does he say so ?


Ganesan

-- 
Dr.T.Ganesan
Senior Researcher in Saivasiddhanta
French Institute of Pondicherry
UMIFRE 21 CNRS-MAEE
11, St. Louis Street
P.B. 33  PONDICHERRY-605001
INDIA
Tel: +91 - 413 - 22 31 643
E mail: gan...@ifpindia.org
Web: www.ifpindia.org

[Dr. T. Ganesan]

I know that.
That is why in my very first mail I started my reply with the expression, "Though not connected with the topic on hand I just want to say that" .

You could have suggested for a separate thread then itself, but Murtyji, you have also replied to that mail and continued the discussion in the same thread.


Ganesan

--

[sadasivamurty rani]

Ganeshan Mahodaya!

I am sorry. I am misunderstood by you. I sincerely appreciate from my heart your efforts to bring out the sources of Pushpagiri and such Mathams.   When I saw your first mail on this subject I thought it was a passing comment on Pushpagiri Matham as its name was connected with the felicitation of Prof. Korada Subrahmanyam Garu. Hence there itself I gave my reply.

But after seeing your consequent mails on this subject I could understand the intensity of your pursuit.

I too have something to say in this connection. But if I continue there itself it will be a confusion to others. Hence I requested you to continue this in a separate thread.

By the by I am the great grand son of Srimat"Paramahamasa, " "Parivrajakacharya, " "Mantacharya, " "Daivajna Sarvabhauma, " Sarvatantra Tantra" "Jagadguru"  Bodhananda Maha Swami of Srimadabhinava Virupakshapeetha of Sri Vidyaranya tradition.

I have some sources to say about this tradition.

I shall share my views after further progress of this discussion to some extent by the other scholars as am at present busy with a few activities which are to be paid immediate attention of mine.

I always have high regard for you Ganeshan Ji!

With warm regards,  

Dr. Rani Sadasiva Murty

--

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

On 10-07-2014 15:00, Dr. T. Ganesan wrote:

My dear frined,

1. The discussion in this thread started with the origins and practices of "traditionally accepted Advaita vedAnta MaTha-s", taking the example of the SRNgeri MaTha;

I know that, but consider it that even they can't deny that they are vaidika-s. So, I took common things, sannyAsa, vaidikatva, etc. in consideration and replied.

1. then the question of the authoritative ritual text(s) followed in these "Traditional MaTha-s" which claim Samkara as their founder by their followers,

Correct. Even here they can't say that their rituals deviate from veda-s and smR^iti-s.

1. thus taking our discussion to the ancient period. So naturally there is no discussion about any of these 19th-20th century MaTha-s mentioned by you (KailAsa Ashrama, , daNDatyAgI sampradAya, etc.) which stand altogether in a different footing and which, at the same time (I mean the founders and the followers) swear by Advaita VedAnta and Samkara.

Actually, as paramahaMsa-s are vaidika-s and just follower of Philosophy of sha~Nkara-bhagavatpAda, similarly the eka-daNDi-paraMparA is anAdi, vaidikI and is just a stream which holds to advaitavAda.
Both are similar.
Both say that they have anAdi-paraMparA, are veda-prAmANyavAdI.
Remember that govidna-bhagavatpAda was himself a sannyAsI live in o~NkAreshvara on the banks of narmadA, where even now paramahaMsa-s are visible.

This is what is our (of sannyAsin-s of both streams) point of view.
What you are presenting is not accepted by us.
That's why I called there is not anything called advaita-sannyAsI.

1. You may call us advaitin because we support advaita-philosophy, and not because our sannyAsa is according to such tradition.

What is meant by this ?

It means that Philosophy or Philosopher doesn't devise sannyAsa, but veda-s.

Who are these "we" ?

Both traditions, daNDin-s and daNDa-tyAgin-s, of paramahaMsa-sannyAsa which follow veda-s for everything and accept Philosophy of advaita as correct explanation.

the laymen or the saMnyAsI-s ?

Even layman, who has faith in veda-s, accept this.
And that's why the difference is of vaidika-sannyAsI and agamika-sannyAsI and not of advaita-sannyAsI and shaiva-sannyAsI.

If the saMnyAsa is not according to such tradition, then what is the goal of saMnyAsa  in that tradition ?

The goal of sannyAsa, according to veda-s is moxa.
The means of achieving it is GYAna. Now, this GYAna comes from veda-s. veda-s are interpreted by various Philosophers. And, this is where a bunch of sannyAsI-s chose to stick to advaita-vAda which was later explained and supported by bhagavatpAda. Others are following what they think is correct.

    3. Till date, I've not heard the term 'kApila-sannyAsa' being used for us in any text. We are not sA~Nkhya-s at all.

That is not your fault any way.  But the term is an ancient one and as I have cited in my earlier mail, it means the VedAnta saMnyAsa. Probably because, jNAna is given more importance than karma in that tradition. To denote jNAna as sAMkhya is as old as the BhagavadgItA from which many passages can be cited from the 2nd, 5th, 10th adhyAya-s.

Actually our texts don't call us by this name.
So, the text which names us kApila, must be from a person who is either outsider or knows many traditions but had inclination towards them.
If you could show the text and the author explains why he called us kApila, we will think about it. Otherwise, this term appears alien.

For example, the passage: sāṃkhyayogau pthagbālāḥ pravadanti na paṇḍitāḥ . where sAMkhya is related to jNAna and yoga, to karma.

sA~Nkhya thing is OK when one calls us by this name keeping in mind explanations put by us.
Otherwise, it is also not acceptable.

kApila is not necessarily related to sage Kapila in this case, and just by telling kApila one does not become a follower of sAMkhyadarshana.

The following passage from BhagavadgItA 10: 26 proves it:
                aśvatthaḥ sarva-vṛkṣāṇāṃ devarṣīṇāṃ ca nāradaḥ |
             gandharvāṇāṃ citrarathaḥ siddhānāṃ kapilo muniḥ ||26||
By stating this does KRshNa become a adherent of sAMkhya nsystem ?

No, but he becomes siddha!!:)
BTW, kapila was not a sannyAsI. So, how could anyone relate him to sannyAsa ? Because sannyAsI-s follow his philosophy, isn't it? This is why I didn't accept this term for sannyAsI-s.

4. And, while explaining upaniShad-s, shrI upaniShad-brahmendra supports it by saying that for sake of vedAntAdhyayana, a sannyAsI can stay with guru for long. There can be no serious study for ever moving man.

On which authority does he say so ?

The purANa-vAkya-s which I can't present now.
I'll try to find exact place in purANa and commentary of upaniShad-brahmendra.

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Dear Dr. Ganesan,

 

It is interesting that you should cite the jIvanmuktiviveka of vidyAraNya now and ascribe the birth of the Sringeri maTha to vidyAraNya and not Sankara in an earlier post, while also holding that there is a fundamental incompatibility between the very existence of maTha-s and the ideal lives of parivrAjaka saMnyAsin-s in the advaita tradition. I'm afraid your idea of what a parivrAjaka should be is a fictional one, bearing no relation to social and historical actuality. The reason is as follows.

 

The vidyAraNya who wrote the jIvanmuktiviveka is the very same vidyAraNya who inherited a leadership position in the advaita tradition established at Sringeri. He is also traditionally credited with having founded maTha-s at Hampi, Pushpagiri etc. Even if you doubt whether it was the 14th century vidyAraNya who established these other maTha-s, you cannot deny the existence of an advaita maTha at Sringeri and its connection with the very same vidyAraNya and his predecessors, bhAratI tIrtha and vidyAtIrtha. There is too much inscriptional evidence from early vijayanagara history to substantiate this. However, if you were to look for even a single reference to a Sringeri pITham or a SaradA temple or a vidyASankara temple in texts like pancadaSI or jIvanmuktiviveka, you will find nothing. You will find hardly anything even in the commentaries and sub-commentaries to these texts. So there you have it - a great silence in the textual evidence about maTha-s from the same authors whom we know, from other independent historical sources, to have been intimately involved with the functioning of at least one maTha, if not many more.

 

Nor can you deny the prior existence of an advaita institution (let's not call it a maTha, if you so prefer) in Udupi, a century or so before vidyAraNya, and associated with the even more ancient temple complexes of Ananteshwara and Chandramaulishwara there. It was this advaita institution which got transformed into the tauLava ashTa maTha-s of dvaita tradition after the time of AnanatIrtha, aka madhvAcArya. So you see, an institution of one school can easily change into an institution of another school of thought, depending upon the charismatic leadership and work of specific people in history. You give due importance to and treat sensitively a variety of traditional accounts, most of which will not be found in written sources, inscriptional or otherwise, and many elements of which will contradict one another. Yet, unless you can see that such accounts nevertheless retain a huge amount of factual information, you will never see a comprehensive picture and you will never be able to see why there is nothing majorly problematic about parivrAjaka-s staying in maTha-s or advaita vedAntin-s being associated with temple construction, administration and ritual.

 

It is interesting to me that you ask for textual authority, when you know very well that the bulk of any Indian religious custom comes from SishTAcAra, which can change with historical circumstances. Each maTha in the advaita traditon has its own unique customs in addition to certain basic features that are common across them. Much of it simply reflects what is remembered by old-timers associated with each maTha and passed on to younger people, in an oral tradition context, even to date. You are perhaps following the contemporary news about the role of the Puri Sankaracharya in the Jagannatha temple and its Ratha Yatra. It stands to reason that none of the rituals, customs and traditions of the Puri Govardhana Sankaracharya Matha and its relationship to the Puri temple would apply to any of the other maTha-s in the advaita tradition.

 

If you would like to hold that as a daNDi/paramahaMsa saMnyAsin in the advaita tradition, the Puri Sankaracharya should have no role to play in the Jagannatha temple, you might as well hold that all advaita vedAntin-s should drop dead the instant they say that the AtmA has no deha.

 

As for the term kApila-saMnyAsa that you cite, I second Sri Lalitaalaalita's request for an exact textual reference. I do not recollect having seen this phrase in either viSveSvara sarasvatI's yatidharmaprakASa or vAsudevASrama's yatidharmanirNaya, which broadly describe what happens in the traditional saMnyAsa circles corresponding to advaita vedAnta. In any case, discussing the term kApila is quite peripheral to the broader issues you see with the very existence of maTha-s within the saMnyAsa tradition of advaita vedAnta. One could simply point to at least one place in the gItAbhAshya where Sankara himself equates sAMkhya to vedAnta - jnAtavyAH padArthAs saMkhyAyante yasmincchAstre tat sAMkhyaM vedAntaH.

 

Finally, I would urge you to also take seriously the distinction that Sri Lalitaalaalita draws between advaita vedAnta as a system of thought/interpretation and what he broadly calls vaidika saMnyAsa. There is an intimate connection between saMnyAsa and the ideal of the jnAnI in advaita thought, but advaita vedAntins will be the first to hold steadfastly to the fact that vaidika traditions of saMnyAsa, including the multiple bylanes leading to the big path of nivRtti dharma, was *not* invented by Sankara. It predates him.

 

I myself prefer to use the term brAhmaNa saMnyAsa, in order to include the vastly diverse traditions of renunciation followed by SrIvaishNava-s and mAdhva-s in the south and the various Saiva oriented daSanAmI akhADA-s in the north. I acknowledge that some features in each of these traditions may not be found in what academicians would consider vaidika sources today, but would like to point out that these multiple traditions still remain distinctively brAhmaNa in nature and that they preserve the centrality/superiority of vaidika traditions in their conceptions and practice of saMnyAsa.

 

With best regards,

Vidyasankar

[Nagaraj Paturi]

When I asked which authority says, I was particularly asking which Advaita Vedanta authority has the lines meaning

" a strict Advaita vedAnta monk is supposed not to stay at a particular place for more than a night or two".

 

KuTIcaka is the one who stays in a KuTI.

 

BahUdaka has no prescription of not to stay at a particular place for more than a night or two.

 

"You are posing /repeating the question which I had put. "

 

I did not repeat sir, I said "PRO-scribe" not "PRE-scribe" PRO-scribe means 'prohibit'

 

I asked,

 

'Where does it proscribe it either?' (Emphasis new)

 

It  means,

 

"In which Advaita authority did you find temple construction/temple worship is prohibited?"

 

In which way a Vishnu temple evidence counters the claim by Ganeshji? Did he say, Vishnu temples are more inclusive?

 

Which Shaivite tradition are you talking about? Tamila Saiva tradition, Virashaiva tradition or Shivadvaita tradition?

 

If you are looking for Vedanta books prescribing temple construction, then please enlighten me which śakti viśiṣṭādvaita vēdānta text prescribes

 

temple construction/temple worship.

 

Which Vedanta book of any tradition prescribes temple construction/temple worship as part of its Vedanta discussion?

 

Prescribing temple construction/temple worship is not an expected part of a Vedanta book.

 

 Its a methodological flaw to look for such prescriptions iin the books whose subject matter is not such prescriptions.

 

Advaita Vedanta practice is what Advaita Vedanta practitioners did, have been and are still doing. Textualism ignoring practice while studying spiritual traditions has been a serious lapse in many religious studies in general and indological religious studies in particular. Borrowing such flawed methodologies for the present discussions does not lead us to a right understanding.

 

 

(I may not be able to access my mails until Saturday, the 12th July 2014 evening. Request to understand the delay in my further response ) 

 

Warm regards,

 

Nagaraj

 

 

 

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Dr. T. Ganesan <gan...@ifpindia.org> wrote:

--

निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

On Thursday, July 10, 2014 11:04:41 AM UTC-4, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:

Dear Dr. Ganesan,

 

It is interesting that you should cite the jIvanmuktiviveka of vidyAraNya now and ascribe the birth of the Sringeri maTha to vidyAraNya and not Sankara in an earlier post, while also holding that there is a fundamental incompatibility between the very existence of maTha-s and the ideal lives of parivrAjaka saMnyAsin-s in the advaita tradition. I'm afraid your idea of what a parivrAjaka should be is a fictional one, bearing no relation to social and historical actuality. The reason is as follows.

 

The vidyAraNya who wrote the jIvanmuktiviveka is the very same vidyAraNya who inherited a leadership position in the advaita tradition established at Sringeri. He is also traditionally credited with having founded maTha-s at Hampi, Pushpagiri etc. Even if you doubt whether it was the 14th century vidyAraNya who established these other maTha-s, you cannot deny the existence of an advaita maTha at Sringeri and its connection with the very same vidyAraNya and his predecessors, bhAratI tIrtha and vidyAtIrtha. There is too much inscriptional evidence from early vijayanagara history to substantiate this. However, if you were to look for even a single reference to a Sringeri pITham or a SaradA temple or a vidyASankara temple in texts like pancadaSI or jIvanmuktiviveka, you will find nothing. You will find hardly anything even in the commentaries and sub-commentaries to these texts. So there you have it - a great silence in the textual evidence about maTha-s from the same authors whom we know, from other independent historical sources, to have been intimately involved with the functioning of at least one maTha, if not many more.

 

Nor can you deny the prior existence of an advaita institution (let's not call it a maTha, if you so prefer) in Udupi, a century or so before vidyAraNya, and associated with the even more ancient temple complexes of Ananteshwara and Chandramaulishwara there. It was this advaita institution which got transformed into the tauLava ashTa maTha-s of dvaita tradition after the time of AnanatIrtha, aka

 

Please read Ananda tIrtha, not AnanatIrtha.

 

madhvAcArya. So you see, an institution of one school can easily change into an institution of another school of thought, depending upon the charismatic leadership and work of specific people in history. You give due importance to and treat sensitively a variety of traditional accounts, most of which will not be found in written sources, inscriptional or otherwise, and many elements of which will contradict one

 

I meant to say, "You have to give due importance to ..."

 

In a nutshell, my point about the Pushpagiri Pitham is this. One should point to specific evidence that could indicate that a non-vedAnta Saiva institution got converted to an advaita vedAnta institution. Such evidence could take the form of inscriptional evidence or the life story of specific individual(s) who brought about such a conversion. Otherwise, it will only be a leap of logic, converting an assumption, "this is what must have happened," to a conclusion, "this is what indeed happened," without a clear path between them. Evidence for the existence of a Saiva order in the place at some point of time in the past is not sufficient to prove the theory that it got converted to an advaita institution that exists today in the same place.

 

This is especially so because the assumption is based on at least one false premise, namely that renunciation in advaita vedAnta thought is fundamentally at odds with the existence of institutions to house renunciates. If advaita thought is supposedly structured in such a way as to have prevented either Sankara or vidyAraNya from establishing institutions on their own, the same reasons should have also prevented their followers from taking over and converting institutions belonging to other traditions. Conversely, if one can point to mechanisms by which a transformation into an advaita institution from another tradition could happen, then the same or similar mechanisms should have allowed advaita vedAntins to establish their own maTha-s and ASrama-s too.

 

Best regards,

Vidyasankar

                   

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 4:16 PM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaa...@lalitaalaalitah.com> wrote:

And that's why the difference is of vaidika-sannyAsI and agamika-sannyAsI and not of advaita-sannyAsI and shaiva-sannyAsI.

​I've to say something here:

As far as I know about shrIvidyA tantra-s I've seen that they become avadhUta, etc. but I've not seen a ​vidhi there for sannyAsa.

Again, stories of such avadhUta-s tells that the took sannyAsa according to veda-s and practiced veda-vihita-dharm, and tAntrika-kriyA-kalApa, both.
So, I wish to say that there appears no sannyAsa in those tantra-s.

When they take sannyAsa and become avadhUta, there shrIvidyA mantra is merged in devI-praNava (because long will cause vixepa-AyAsa !! - seen in some tantra-s).
If anyone has proof for sannyAsa according to Agama-tantra-s, please present it here so that we could dissect it.

In this way, the base of question appears to be shattered.

[Dr. T. Ganesan]

Dear Vidyasankar,
According to the colophon of the SUtasaMhitAtAtparyadIpikA, its author MAdhava was the disciple of [kAshIvilAsa]Kriyasakti paNDita. Both of them belong to the kAlAmukha tradition as there are quite a few inscriptions about their activities in the VidyAshaMkara temple. MAdhava is MAdhavamantrI and he seems to have come from Kashmir. The two MAdhava-s are different as they belong to different gotra-s.
There is an excellent study on the spread of kAlAmukha tradition in the northern part of Karnataka based mainly on inscriptions (of which many are in Kannada) by the Australian scholar Lorenzen with the titile The Kapalika-s and the Kalamukha-s.

As far as I know there is no Jaina connection or background for any of these: the kAlAmukha or the Sringeri maTha.
On which authority/reference do you pose this question ?
 
Regarding references to research papers based on the inscriptions of ancient Saiva maTha-s I just remember one such by Dr. R.N. Mishra and about others I am not able to recollect right now as I read them many years ago; even there, studies about Saiva lineages such as the Golaki, Amardaka are more than on Pushpagiri. But Golaki, Amardaka, and Pushpagiri are generally mentioned together.
I will try to locate some of them in my collection of papers after some time and inform you.

My basic question is how the [advaita]vedAnta saMnyAsa tradition which in its origin was absolutely innocent of any maTha or organised monastery with retinues and elaborate worship, etc. and which insists its saMnyAsI-s (paramahaMsa, avadhUta, bahUdaka, .....) perform only praNavajapa and which stresses utmost on the vow of aparigraha, etc.  for them, and which has next to nothing to do with temple, and whose basic doctrine was everything is mithyA other than kevala Brahma, started  " gobbling up everything under the Indian hot sun" from the 13-14th century onwards.
If the Sringeri maTha as an advaita maTha existed from Sankara's time, why is there no reference or mention or any inscriptional evidence ?

On the contrary, we do find a large body of inscriptions related to the kAlAmukha Saiva AchArya-s in the area around Sringeri and in the Vidyasankara tempel itself.
How would you explain this anamoly ?



Yours
Ganesan

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Dr. Ganesan,

 

Thanks for inspiring to go through David N Lorenzen's book.

 

I shall revert back soon.

 

Regards,

 

Nagaraj

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dr. Ganesan,

 

Quotation marks for your

 

 " gobbling up everything under the Indian hot sun"

 

indicates that it is a citation/borrowing from some source. The reference information of the source would be more helpful.

 

Regards, 

 

Nagaraj

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Dr. T. Ganesan]

I used the same expression as used by Mr. Vidyasankar in his mail quoted below (of course, 'gobbling up' is my own).

Ganesan

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Even "everything" is your own. Does not suit an academic debate and an academic forum such as BVP.

 

Regards,

 

Nagaraj

 

 

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Nagaraj Paturi]

"My basic question is how the [advaita]vedAnta saMnyAsa tradition which in its origin was absolutely innocent of any maTha or organised monastery with retinues and elaborate worship, etc. and which insists its saMnyAsI-s (paramahaMsa, avadhUta, bahUdaka, .....) perform only praNavajapa and which stresses utmost on the vow of aparigraha, etc.  for them, and which has next to nothing to do with temple, and whose basic doctrine was everything is mithyA other than kevala Brahma,"

 

 

-What is the evidence for

1".which in its origin was absolutely innocent of any maTha or organised monastery with retinues and elaborate worship, etc"

2. and which insists its saMnyAsI-s (paramahaMsa, avadhUta, bahUdaka, .....) perform only praNavajapa

3. and which has next to nothing to do with temple

 

Regards,

 

Nagaraj

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Now lets move forward with the discussion by quoting original texts. Lets not pick up on little details as to a a word Thanks. Please further post if you have texts or you interpretations of texts primary and secondary.

Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari
न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचिन्नायं भूत्वा भविता वा न भूयः।
अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयं पुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

[Dr. T. Ganesan]

In what way it "does not suit an academic debate and an academic forum such as BVP" ?
What did you find so offensive and unsuitable in my expression ?


But you did not retort when Mr. Vidyasankar used the same expression before me ?
Mr. Nagaraj, you are not the moderator here and by any standard, I have not used any ashliila or anaucitya word here.
If you are interested in the discussion, please participate.

Ganesan

[Nagaraj Paturi]

I wanted to follow Ajitji's moderation. Not to continue the discussion on that.

 

Mine was not a  moderation.

 

I did not allege any aślīlatva.

 

 " gobbling up everything under the Indian hot sun"

 

is a sweeping generalization.

 

It is well within the norms of a debate/logic to point out ativyāpti as a dōṣa.

 

I only said that sweeping generalizations can not be debated.

 

Regards,

 

Nagaraj

 

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Dr. T. Ganesan]

To answer in a direct way:

-What is the evidence for
1".which in its origin was absolutely innocent of any maTha or organised monastery with retinues and elaborate worship, etc"

To answer this, I put the following questions back: Do we find any ancient maTha instituted and run by the saMnyAsi-s belonging to the VedAnta tradition long before Sankara ? If there is one, can you mention it or cite any early refrence (either textual or inscriptional, which are , in fact, the two major sources of history for any doctrine/personage/event) ?  As it is said in one of the early discussions in this thread by Srii lalitaalaalita, sha~NkarachArya didn't commence or devise sannyAsa and it is as old as other Ashrama-s and veda-s, any reference from the multitutde of Sankaravijayam is of no use. For we are discussing the existence or otherwise of such an organised maTha before Sankara. Then coming to the time of Sankara, where is the evidence, other than  Sankaravijayam, for the establishment of different maTha-s by Sankara ? Can any other textual or inscriptional eveidence be cited ?  If Sankara had travelled throughout the Bharatadesha and established four maTha-s in the four directions, how is  it the event of such a magnitude was never mentioned anywhere either in some texts or inscriptions from any part of the country?  But , on the contrary, I repeat as I have done earlier, there are many inscriptions, mostly in Sanskrit, that talk about the Saiva maTha-s such as the Golakii, Amardaka, etc. in the country of DakshhiNa Kosala (approximately the area of the present Chattisgarh, northern Odisha), in the country called Haihaya and others on the banks of Narmadaa, to cite a few that I remember and able to recollect now, even as early as the 6th century, much before Sankara. I could recollect one such inscription of the period of Sivagupta Balarjuna. There are still other inscriptions some of which are longer, that give the entire lineage of the Saiva Acharya-s, clearly giving the successors diikshaa names such as the Prabodhasiva, Dharmasiva, Hridayasiva, etc. Not only that, whenever these Saiva maTha-s establish their branches, the Acharya lineages of that maTha are clearly stated. The long Malkapuram inscription in Sanskrit of the Visvesvarasivacharya who was the head of the local branch of Golakii maTha is very well known and it is known as Visvesvaragolakii.

Further, as I had said in this regard long ago, there are clear procedures for the construction and therites of installation of maTha for Saiva Achrya-s and his disciples with details on the various rooms meant for different purposes called "maThapratishhThAvidhi" in some of the available Saiva Agama-s. But can you cite any such text in the vedAnta or any other tradition ??

2. and which insists its saMnyAsI-s (paramahaMsa, avadhUta, bahUdaka, .....) perform only praNavajapa

As I had stated in my earlier mails, the text that talks about the kaapilasaMnyaasa also prescribes the praNavajapa, and not only thta, the saMnyAsii can either utter nArAyaNasmRti or sadAshivasmRti. But unfortunately I am not all able to recollect the name of this old text which was shown to me by my esteemed scholar friend here who is now no more. By kApilasaMnyAsa is meant those saMnyAsii-s who wear the tawny brown cloth (kAshhAyavastra) after saMnyAsadiikshhaa as kapila means tawny brown and has nothing to do with sage Kapila as one of our friends raised the question earlier. KapilA is a term used for brown coloured cow and we find KapilApUjA as one of the obligatory daily rites of a Saiva Achaarya as mentioned in almost all Saiva Agama-s and the Saiva ritual paddhati texts.

3. and which has next to nothing to do with temple

Yes. I repeat the same question that I had put before: Which text dealing with saMnyAsa of the vedAnta type says or prescribes daily elaborate rites of worship for the saMnyAsii ?? Can you cite any one ?
In fact I ask the question: which text does prescribe such an elaborate worship as well as management of a temple ? Do you have an answer for this ?

If there is/are textual references as well as inscriptional evidences for the existence, construction and different form of elaborate worship and management of a temple in the vedAnta tradition, mention them.
Otherwise there is no point in putting the questions back to me. For, as I had said before, the situation with regard to Saiva tradition in this case is on firmer and solid grounds (with textual and large number of inscriptions) which the vedAnta tradition completely lacks. This is my point.

Ganesan

On 18-07-2014 11:45, Nagaraj Paturi wrote:

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Dear Dr. Ganesan,

 

I have indeed read David Lorenzen's book on the kApAlikas and kAlAmukhas. The work is not new to me.

 

Is there tangible inscriptional evidence for a maTha of the advaita vedAnta tradition at Sringeri from before vijayanagara times? I would be the second to unequivocally say that there isn't. And I would only be second because the first to say so has been the Sringeri maTha administration itself. Over the last two centuries, the Acharyas and adminstrators of the Sringeri maTha have always accepted that their documented history emerges in the 14th century, along with the rise of the vijayanagara empire, but they always hold that their traditional history takes them back to the time of Sankara. In the perspective of the Sringeri maTha administration, this is analogous to Indian history itself emerging in a documented form only a few centuries before Christ, even though the origins of vaidika civilization are undoubtedly much, much older. The only people who seem to have a problem with this situation are either those who have something against the Sringeri maTha in particular or against advaita vedAnta in general.

 

Let us leave aside the identity of a mAdhava with vidyAraNya for the purposes of this discussion, because the birth name of one individual is irrelevant here. That said, I would ask you to provide concrete references to back up your claim that there are inscriptional references to kAlAmukha AcAryas and institutions in the Vidyasankara temple itself. The oldest date for this temple can only be in the 14th century, around the time when the first two rulers of the vijayanagara empire lived. Architecturally, the Vidyasankara temple bears all signs of being later Hoysala and early Vijayanagara in nature. This is also the time in which bhAratI tIrtha and vidyAraNya lived. Now, it is beyond any question that these two were Sankaran advaita vedAntins, that they were the most prominent thought leaders of the associated saMnyAsa tradition at the time, as also heads of the maTha at Sringeri.

 

If it is true that there is evidence for kAlAmukhas in inscriptions at the Vidyasankara temple itself, then I would very much like to learn what exactly such evidence amounts to, as I have never heard of or seen it myself before your posts on this forum. If such inscriptions exist, it would be incredible evidence for the co-existence of Saiva kAlAmukhas and advaita vedAntin saMnyAsins at Sringeri, *after* the year 1347 CE. If such co-existence can be proved by inscriptional evidence from the Vidyasankara temple, at a time when the advaita vedAnta institution and its associated temples rapidly grew in size and its range of activity as a result of royal patronage, then there is nothing to preclude the co-existence of kAlAmukhas and advaita vedAntins at the same place at an earlier time either. 

 

I am very surprised that you are quite unaware of the documented presence of jainas in the region. There is a jaina basadi in Sringeri even today, with a quite old temple dedicated to the tIrthAnkara pArSvanAtha, which was renovated a few decades ago with financial assistance from the advaita vedAnta maTha administration. Inscriptional evidence for the presence of jainas in the region goes back at least to the 12th century. There are those who claim that the Sarada temple used to be a jaina temple dedicated to padmAvatI, albeit without much evidence for such an assertion (in my opinion). Another well-known place not far from Sringeri is dharmasthala, where the Siva temple was constructed and has always been administered by jaina management, with pUjA being conducted by vaishNava mAdhva priests. There is no doubt about the fact that there were always multiple faiths represented in the region, a lot more than the solely Saiva kAlAmukha presence that you would like to highlight. Today, you will find Muslims and Christians in quite significant numbers in and around Sringeri, with mosques and churches too. It is a free country after all. Local Muslims believe that there is a Sufi Pir buried in the side of the hillock where the old Malahanikareswara temple sits, in the heart of Sringeri town. You might want to read Leela Prasad's Poetics of Conduct (Columbia 2006) for more details. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if one day somebody claims that a Sufi dargah got converted to a saMnyAsin samAdhi temple that then became a big Siva temple in Sringeri. C'est la vie.

 

May I draw your attention to a little noticed seal published in the Epigraphica Carnatica by Lewis Rice? It dates from the 13th century, many decades before the times of vidyAraNya and vijayanagara. It is a seal of vidyASankara, found in the same Malanad region, with references to gauDapAda and salutations to dattAtreya, along with the symbol of a boar. Exact page details of publication in EC may be found in Antonio Rigopoulos's work, Dattatreya: The Immortal Guru, Yogin and Avatara (SUNY, 1998). Is there any inscriptional evidence for a maTha of the advaita vedAnta tradition, a century before harihara and bukkarAya or bhAratI tIrtha and vidyAraNya lived? No. However, please ask yourself why would a saMnyAsin named vidyASankara need an official seal incorporating a well known royal emblem of the Chalukyas (varAha), unless he was already part of an institution that needed to interact with society at large and with local rulers in particular?

 

Is there a traditional stance that an advaita maTha has been around at Sringeri since the times of Adi Sankara? Yes. Do we have pratyaksha evidence that an advaita maTha existed and functioned at Sringeri before the 14th century? No. Can we make an anumAna from this vidyASankara seal, or perhaps an arthApatti from the documented later history, that such an institution must have existed before the 14th century? We very well can. Otherwise, between kAlAmukhas, supposedly at the Vidyasankara temple, and jainas, supposedly at the Sarada temple, a few yards away, we can resort to nothing except magic to explain how Sringeri became such a celebrated center of advaita vedAnta in the 14th century. Other than the one seal mentioned above, older evidence has not been found. However, construing absence of evidence as evidence of absence is a logical fallacy that scholars often commit, knowingly or unknowingly, and I'm afraid a lot of research into the history of Indian religous institutions often falls prey to it. I could write a lot more, but instead let me just cite my paper on history and hagiography in the Sankaravijaya texts, published in the International Journal of Hindu Studies, 2000. It is far more probable that what the Sringeri maTha says about itself is correct, namely that a pre-existing small forest ASrama grew into a big maTha in the 14th century, because of patronage by the newly emergent royalty of Vijayanagara.

 

Your assumption that temples and/or maThas are fundamentally incompatible with samnyAsa and/or advaita vedAnta is not only not right, it is not even wrong. Sorry to be so blunt. Also, permit me to disagree sharply from your stance that there is an incompatibility between advaita vedAnta (or more generally, aupanishada) streams of philosophical reflection and Saiva traditions of worship. Indeed, the vIraSaivas of Karnataka recount a tradition that their revaNasiddha gave Adi Sankara a Sivalinga, which is now being worshipped in Sringeri. This tradition is even mentioned in the auto-commentary to the Sringeri maTha's own guruvaMSakAvya, written in the 16th century or so. Thankfully, the vIraSaivas do not claim that Sringeri was a vIraSaiva institution before it was an advaita vedAnta institution. Probably because a vIraSaiva institution associated with revaNasiddha continues to function and flourish on its own, at nearby Balehonnur in the Chikkamagalur district. This about wraps up all that I want to say with respect to factors outside of advaita vedAnta proper and its tradition of saMnyAsa.

 

Now, why all this discussion about Sringeri in the context of the Pushpagiri Pitham? It was because in one of your earliest mails on this topic, you sought to portray vidyAraNya, not Sankara, as the founder of a maTha at Sringeri and then proceeded, in the same sentence, to cast doubt on even that, saying that there are kAlAmukha inscriptions in the Vidyasankara temple. So let me reiterate, I would very much like to see that claim backed up with concrete details about such inscriptional evidence.

 

As far as the advaita vedAnta maTha at Pushpagiri is concerned, please let me take back my earlier statement that implied that it was established by vidyAraNya. As per documented historical records, the pushpagiri maTha was actually established as a branch of the Hampi virUpAksha pITha, some time in the 17th century. The Pushpagiri and Hampi maThas continue to have close institutional linkages to date. The Hampi virUpAksha maTha is said to have been established by Vidyaranya, but again, there are those in academic circles, who think that the Hampi maTha came into existence not in the 14th century, but only in the time of Krishnadevaraya. As per all available accounts, the Pushpagiri maTha was established even later than the battle of Talikota. The decline of the Saiva lineages in the Andhra country, of which you speak, had to have happened much before then. There can be no real relationship connecting the historical Saiva lineages of Amardaka, Golaki and Pushpagiri with the Pushpagiri Pitham that is a saMnyAsi maTha with affiliation to advaita vedAnta today.

 

As for paramahaMsa-s, their supposed sole reliance on praNava-japa and how that seems incompatible with temples and maTha-s in your eyes, I will comment on it at a later date. I am hard pressed for time today.

 

Best regards,

Vidyasankar

[Nagaraj Paturi]

 By śankara's time, temple construction and temple were well established. Even according to those who believe in a non-idol worshipping, non-temple worshipping pure Vedic beginnings, Vedic culture got merged into an idol-worshipping, temple-worshipping culture well before śankara's time Emergence of purāṇas, itihāsas, āgamic temples , temple-āgamas etc. is theorized to be simultaneous interconnected process which is well before śankara . That śankara was part of such a purāṇic / aitihāsic culture is evident from the fact that he included bhagavadgīta in the prasthānatraya of vēdānta and also from the fact that he wrote a bhāṣya to the thousand names of the purāṇic viṣṇu. Thus all the śankara's literature was written by him not in a pre-temple, pre-purāṇic, pre-āgamic Vedic culture but in a post-temple, post-purāṇic, post-āgamic Vedic culture, with śankara being very much part of that culture. He never wrote anything against idol-worship, temple-worship or purāṇic or āgamic culture. 

It is a highly romanticized imagination about śankara, based on his emphasis on nirguṇatva of bramha to view him as opposed to idol-worship , temple-worship etc. It is again another romanticized imagination about śankara that he opposed grihasthāśrama, or that he was opposed to karmamārga. He not only did not oppose karmamārga, but his bhāṣyas very clearly show that he was a great supporter of all the vihita karmas. By his time, vihita karmas were not limited to Yajna etc. but included temple-worship , idol-worship etc. He goes to the extent of concluding his brahmasūtra bhāṣya with the proclamation that it makes no difference whether you are a saguṇa śaraṇa or nirguṇa śaraṇa to be able to attain anāvr̥tti . A snapshot is being shared.

Regards,

Nagaraj              

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Does śankara prohibit samnyāsis from performing vihita karmas? Where to look for an answer to this question? It is the Gītā ,the path-integrator book . śankara's inclusion of this  path-integrator  book in the prasthānatraya itself is an indication of his tātparya (utmost interest) in path-integration. It is in the bhāṣya of the Gītā that he deals with the issue of samnyāsi vis-à-vis vihita karma. In  the bhāṣya on the third chapter, he says, a samnyāsi does not incur pratyavāya by not performing karmas. Hence he need not  perform vihita karmas. 'Need not' does not mean 'should not'. Gītākāra himself brings the question of why jnāni performs vihitakarmas just in the way a person for whom such karmas are ordained performs them. Gītākāra says, 'he does it for lōkasangraha' (for the lōka =common people to take inspiration from him). śankara explains the heat of the Gītākāra without disagreeing with him. Thus for śankara, a samnyāsi's performing of karmas such as dēvatārchana is at least for lōkasangraha if not out of his own choice of spiritual activities as there is no prohibition against this choice for a samnyyāsi. 

 

Regards,

 

Nagaraj

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Typo in my previous message: "the heat" heart, not heat.

 

Sorry,

 

Nagaraj 

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[Dr.BVK Sastry (G-Mail-pop)]

Namaste

 

This thread of discussion has many involved issues and lacking clarity on what is being presented. Probably, a basic clarity on  the literal  meaning of < maTha> , a Samskrutham word, which has suffered a  ‘ bad translation’  as ‘ organized monastery’  in  this discussion,  may  help in resolving the debated issue.  

 

Summary points made are as follows:

A)  <Shankara-aamnaaya-peetha / maTha> tradition  is derived as a renovation and re-invigoration  by Acharya Shankara  for ancient Veda-Guru-kula tradition.

B)   It is not an adhoc historic formation for which one has to look for inscription and other evidences tracing it to kaalaamukha et al.

C) The concept of ‘ Veda-Gurukula’ is as old as Vedas itself ! Enough references are there in upanishats to show how a Gurukula functions ( Cf. Prashnopanishat / Bruhadaranyaka /Chandogya /Taittiriya ..).

D) There is no reason to imagine absolute innocence of an <organized monastery model> which could not accommodate < elaborate worship> and locked to <Pranava japa?!) > only.

E) The concept of a modern <Temple> as an integral <money rollout> form of <  maTha> is a social transformation ; rather an aberration of the original concept of a < Devaalaya as an integral part of Guru-nilaya = House and School of a Guru tradition following Veda-abhyasa>.  

    This is also a pointer to the way ‘ twice-born-community, who are supposed to be the learners-practitioners – guardians and supporters of  Veda- Vedanga –Education traditions  ( Vedaadhyaayi Viprah)  have socially and spiritually down sized their own responsibility and commitments, using the soft-sops of ‘ Bhakti –Danam practices’  demonstrated  as ‘ charities to temple and tax-exempt offerings as  hefty donations  for social causes!  And potpourri of religion festivities to generate people-traffic-revenues ’.   

I hope this covers all the points  in the question raised by Nagaraj paturi reading < "My basic question is how the [advaita]vedAnta saMnyAsa tradition which in its origin was absolutely innocent of any maTha or organised monastery with retinues and elaborate worship, etc. and which insists its saMnyAsI-s (paramahaMsa, avadhUta, bahUdaka, .....) perform only praNavajapa and which stresses utmost on the vow of aparigraha, etc.  for them, and which has next to nothing to do with temple, and whose basic doctrine was everything is mithyA other than kevala Brahma,"  -What is the evidence for

1".which in its origin was absolutely innocent of any maTha or organised monastery with retinues and elaborate worship, etc"   2. and which insists its saMnyAsI-s (paramahaMsa, avadhUta, bahUdaka, .....) perform only praNavajapa   3. and which has next to nothing to do with temple     >

 

I Seek scholars opinion on this approach to resolve the issue debated.  

 

1.     The starting point is to  fix the anchor for the meaning of the word <maTha /   peeTha>  as it would have been prevalent in the language context of Acharya Shankara’s society.  

 

The  meaning of <maTha / peeTha> is   clearly firmed up around second  century  and is available in ‘Amara-Kosha’. The word < maTha> is found in <Amara-Kosha>.  It has a specific meaning  <Chaatraadi nilayah> =  A residential school / A place where Students /seekers of specific subject discipline are ‘residing / assemble for learning’.  

 

The saying is Acharya Shankara established  <aamnaaya-peethas> which we call now as <Shankara-maTha>. Aamnaaya –peeTha means a place where higher education and excellence of Vedas are taught. This designation seems to keep the institution unique and  clear from the <  social usage of the word as ‘Pilgrim Choultry’ = Hostel / a place of accommodation for pilgrims, which was  maintained under royal /state patronage, where ‘ food-shelter serving is the primary activity’ and not education of a specific shaastra.     

 

< Shankara –Aamnaaya-PeeTha / Shankara-maTha> as   a residential school,  necessitates that the head of such a school has to be the master of the discipline taught at that school. The subject taught at the school decides the qualification of the Head of the <maTha>. If the school is focused on <Shankara> teaching, then the school is <Shankara-Matha>. If the place is <Sringeri>, then it is <Sringeri –Shankara – maTha>.

 

The word  < aamnaaya –peetha>  means a place of higher education and institution of excellence  in Vedas.    <aamnaaya> is the word for  the entirety of Vedas .  < peetha> is  the word for ‘ institution of higher education.   

 

The word ‘<aadi - nilaya> can cover any other residents interested in the specific discipline taught at that school.  OR  <aadi> can also mean the <First-Founding, First place, Beginning institution, Primary institution> .Either way, the residential educational school nature of the institution is still retained.

 

2. Based on this,  the literal, technical meaning  of the word <  Shankara –maTha    / aamnaaya –peetha >  would to be < a place / First and foremost place where  Students /seekers of  vedic studies in the lineage and line of thought propounded by Acharya Shankara>   teachings are ‘residing / assembled for learning’ . 

 

The leader of such an establishment is a < Shankara-maTha-aadhipati> =  Resident – Professor and Warden of  Veda- shaastra-study- school as per Shankara’s teaching’ .

 

3.     The best qualified person for this post would be a Practicing- Scholar of Adviata tradition and with an executive ability to lead an education institution in a given social set up.

 

        So the ‘ Peetha-aadhipatya’ (Executive leadership of the Shankara- maTha,  brings in two issues for consideration:  One based on Qualification ( = saamarthya -yogyataa) acquired through education and practice of tapas-anaushThana  and  Second – the social Varna-Ashrama  < birth –parentage –samksara –ashrama dharma adoption to Sannyasa>. In the public eye, Shankara-matha thus is headed by a < Sannyasi > of a < specific lineage and social order> !

 

        This does not change in any way the basic nature and duty of Shankara-matha /Aamnaaya-peetha. In this sense,  <Shankara-maTha> is precisely the re-invigorated model of  a ‘Veda-Gurukula’ adopted for a ‘Vedanta –Shaastra –Guru-Kula’. Vedaanta being a highly specialized subject with a pre-qualification of  ‘post Gruhastha /vanaprastha’ ashrama, the head of such a school has to be necessarily  a ‘ saffron wearer with entry in to ‘Sannyasa’ . It does not matter what sub-flavor of sannyasa one has taken !  

 

        In this sense, the <historic  model of Kaalaamukhas / Jaina /Bauddha > Gurus,   Sangha model approach / The current < maTha-Swamy ji / Saffron wearing leaderships /  the ‘ semi-saffron wearing’ seva-vrati issues at several institutions /  fancy self-declared title-holding paramahamsas and Nithya Brahmanandas … / Sarswati’s, Yogi’s, Babas and Giri’s ….   ( on global operations in institution brand building  effort)    do not  map or match to the original conceptualization of what a Shankara-maTha as a Aamnaaya-Peetha is supposed to be doing.

 

       The neo /new transformed role play of < aamnaaya-peeTham>  has become one of  < ‘Community –Religious-Sectarian identity leadership in the name of specific Gurus’>. This is just an observation of socio-religion dynamics .  The ‘ forest-academy- limited / local indian bramhinical community ’  blinkers still operate in many places , limiting the ways to address the global challenge of what a <Shankara-Aamnaaya-Peetha / Shankara-Matha> should do and delive beyond < a Temple worship, as a place for community for faith-worship /samskara /ritual practice/ socialization and get together’ ?? 

 

   There is a need for deliberating the impact of  shift in < Aamnaaya-peethas>   from seeking /providing guidance on  <Paramaartha>  through <aamnaaya>  to a new paradigm of < Socio-religious community leadership =  Congregational institutional brand model > to install and guide a <  Specific flavors of Dharmic faith – belief practice>  as a continuum of medieval traditions  serving as a bridge and  continuity of  ancient Indian wisdom in the Smriti’s /Dharma-Shaastras.

 

3.   Now comes the tricky point. How Should the < Peethadhipathi> of such a <Shankara-maTha>  function and guide the society? How does one compare the <Peethadhipathi> of  a <Shankara-maTha>  with  < Peethadhipathi> of another Sampradaya, which are mainly flavors of < Vedic Practice>  and make a historical  research proposition?  Kaalamukhas as much depend upon Veda albeit a different way of understanding and practicing the tradition.  Jaina and Bauddha < Sanga-Adhyaksha> can not be used as a comparison for the < Veda related PeeThadhpati> due to prima facie incompatible expectations !

 

Coming back to the main issue again, <  What should be the personal life style of such a PeeThadhipati - leader?  What primary role should < PeeThadhipati>  play:   A Master-Scholar – Professor–Practitioner  of the Aamnaaya- (Vyasa) Acharya-Sampradaya?   A counselor on (Manu)  Dharma-Shaastra?  A Chief executive of an educational institution for Vedas ? A social reformer ? Or  just be a person demonstrating a life of  Sannyasa-Sadhana as a living community member of current society? Should this person be a <Saadhaka –Sannyasi of Paramahamsa order, with absolutely no need to get involved in the socio-religious dynamics> ? Or play a  community / nation building role ? ( Loka-Sangraha  or  Aatmodhaara/  upaasanaa or Upadesha? ) What does the history of all the three Acharyas demonstrate to us ?

 

       In other words, what is the difference between a <peetha-adhipati> -  <maTha-adhipati> - < Sannyasi  of several orders and flavors > -    <   A post gruhastha-ashrama person  entering the terrain of  Vanaprashta and donning  the role of a ‘Sannyasi and sadhaka’ for personal progress > ? Where and why does  such a person need the support of  a < Dharmadhikari for a maTha – establishment ? > ? How has  modern  Indian government meddled with the <aamnaaya-peeTha/ maTha> system to usurp power over the wealth of the < peetham/maTham> in the name of religion endowments acts? ? The interface  and interaction of  <Khaadi –Khaaki > :: Two different kinds of clothe vying to impact the societal welfare and power-balances is a very dynamic challenge.  

 

     On handling this sensitive  point, the life of many < Shankara-matha –peeThadhipati’s> provides guidance. Some have focused on social relevance from their post; some have delegated the authority to  < socially efficient Dharmadhikari’s>. Every option has its fall outs!  

 

Summing up, the <Shankara-maTha>  is having its conceptual roots and model as < Aamnaaya-Peetha> is the revival of  < Veda-Gurukula> of Upanishads as  :: < Institutions of Excellence for Higher education and Practice of Veda –Dharma>  in a specific flavor as guided by Acharya Shankara.

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

---

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 3986/7879 - Release Date: 07/18/14

[Nagaraj Paturi]

I hope this covers all the points  in the question raised by Nagaraj paturi reading < "My basic question is how the [advaita]vedAnta saMnyAsa tradition which in its origin was absolutely innocent of any maTha or organised monastery with retinues and elaborate worship, etc. and which insists its saMnyAsI-s (paramahaMsa, avadhUta, bahUdaka, .....) perform only praNavajapa and which stresses utmost on the vow of aparigraha, etc.  for them, and which has next to nothing to do with temple, and whose basic doctrine was everything is mithyA other than kevala Brahma,"  -What is the evidence for

1".which in its origin was absolutely innocent of any maTha or organised monastery with retinues and elaborate worship, etc"   2. and which insists its saMnyAsI-s (paramahaMsa, avadhUta, bahUdaka, .....) perform only praNavajapa   3. and which has next to nothing to do with temple     >

 

 

?????????

 

Nagaraj

 

 

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

You are too much extending everything.

sAmpradAyika-s don't accept this thing. sha~Nkara's vAkyA-s should be understood in accordance with vidhi-s of sannyAsa. You should also consider his other sentences about sannyAsa while talking about it.

There are many types of sannyAsa described in gItA, which has created illusion about their meaning for you. Don't force on it when you are confronting others in debate. It will just reveal your ignorance of bhAShya and saMpradAya and give others chance to blame us.

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
www.lalitaalaalitah.com

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Sri Lalitaalaalitah,

 

Could you clarify who this 'you' is ?

 

Regards,

 

Nagaraj

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

==========Mod Note=======

A healthy debate is welome

As I have pointed out in my earlier note lets not pick on words which would simply invite retorts. If all have expressed their views lets close this thread. I am still keeping the thread open but no more one sentnce retorts Thanks

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Sri Lalitaalaalitah ,

 

Your time of posting gave me clarity.

 

It reached me lately. Hence was my sincere question without any intention of retort.

 

Now I understand that 'you' was me. It was a response to my 9:54am message.

 

Thanks for your understanding.

 

Regret inconvenience caused if any.

 

 

Regards,

 

Nagaraj

 

 

[Bvk sastry]

Namaste Nagaraj Paturi

1. I do not understand the < ????> mark response on your post. What is your point of objection? 

2. I believe i have responded clearly to your basic question reading <  the [advaita]vedAnta saMnyAsa tradition which in its origin was absolutely innocent of any maTha or organised monastery with retinues and elaborate worship, etc.  >.

Sannyasa tradition comes from its vedic roots. Advaita flavor of Sannyasa tradition comes under the wraps of Yoga- sampradayas. 

Regarding organized monastery part, The clarity rests in the understanding of the meaning of the word < maTha> as given in Amarakosha, the prevalent sanskrit dictionary of language usage- period.

Your charge on advaita sannyasa tradition for absolute innocence of  temple worship of elaborate worship and ritual traditions  is not substantiated. The social institutional part of a maThadhipati and personal sadhana part of a Sannyasi should not be mixed up.

Regards

Bvk Sastry

Sent from my iPhone

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Namaste Dr BVK Sastry.

 

.

 

The "charge on advaita sannyasa tradition for absolute innocence of  temple worship of elaborate worship and ritual traditions" was not mine. "absolute innocence of  temple worship of elaborate worship and ritual traditions" was a quote from Dr. Ganesan.

 

Your previous message was reflecting that misunderstanding. My " ????" was my surprise at that misunderstanding.

 

You were in fact responding to Dr.  Ganesan . But you said that you were responding to me because you were under this misunderstanding. Hence the expression of surprise.

 

No more misunderstandings or surprises now.

 

Regards,

 

Nagaraj

 

 

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:51 AM, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaa...@gmail.com> wrote:

And, while explaining upaniShad-s, shrI upaniShad-brahmendra supports it by saying that for sake of vedAntAdhyayana, a sannyAsI can stay with guru for long. There can be no serious study for ever moving man.

Therefore, it is good to conclude that 3-5 days rule is for those vidvAn-virakta-s or upAsaka-virakta-s who have no desire to study and are not interested in jana-saMsarga.

​कुण्डिकोपनिषद्व्याख्याने उपनिषद्ब्रह्मेन्द्राः -

यदि श्रवणध्यानानधिकारी तदा 'अष्टौ मांस्येकाकी यतिश्चरेत्' - इतिश्रुत्यनुरोधेन अनिकेतश्चरेत् ।

यदि श्रवणाद्यधिकारी तदा अबाधकसत्सेवितपुण्यस्थले वसन् संशयादिपञ्चदोषशान्त्यन्तं सर्व्ववेदान्तश्रवणमननं निदिध्यासनं च कुर्व्वन् तत्फलीभूतार्थं सर्व्वापह्नवसिद्धं ब्रह्म निष्प्रतियोगिकस्वमात्रं दध्यात् =ध्यायेत् ।​

इति ।

अत्रैवमुक्तौ बीजं यात्रादौ सत्यां वेदान्तश्रवणाद्सम्भव एव । श्रवणादिश्रुत्यन्यथानुपपत्तिरेव एतद्विकल्पप्रयोजिका इत्यर्थः ।
किञ्च यदि श्रवणादिना तत्त्वनिश्चयो जातः तदा नैतस्य यतेः एकत्रावस्थाने प्रयोजनम् ।

इतोऽपि पुण्यदेशेऽवस्थानपूर्व्वकश्रवणादिकालेऽपि परिग्रहादिकं सन्न्यासविरुद्धं नानुष्ठेयम् ।

[V Subrahmanian]

Here are some quotations from Shankara's prasthānatraya bhāṣya-s where the mention of bhakti, pratimā, temple, worship, etc. are present:

ब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्यम् । तृतीयः अध्यायः । द्वितीयः पादः । प्रकृतैतावत्त्वाधिकरणम् । सूत्रम् २४ - भाष्यम्

अपि च एनमात्मानं निरस्तसमस्तप्रपञ्चमव्यक्तं संराधनकाले पश्यन्ति योगिनः ; संराधनं च भक्तिध्यानप्रणिधानाद्यनुष्ठानम् । कथं पुनरवगम्यते — संराधनकाले पश्यन्तीति ?

The above Brahmasutra bhashya quote says that the knowledge of the Supreme (Nirguna brahman as per Advaita) is had during the course of bhakti, dhyana, praṇidhāna, etc.  It also says that the 'yogi' gets this realization.  There is no mention here that the 'yogi' is a sannyāsin or not.  There is no indication that the sannyāsin is not included here either. 
 
Continues the bhashyam on the 'prasiddhi' of praṇidhāna, etc.
 
प्रत्यक्षानुमानाभ्याम्, श्रुतिस्मृतिभ्यामित्यर्थः । तथा हि श्रुतिः — ‘पराञ्चि खानि व्यातृणत्स्वयंभूस्तस्मात्पराङ् पश्यति नान्तरात्मन् । कश्चिद्धीरः प्रत्यगात्मानमैक्षदावृत्तचक्षुरमृतत्वमिच्छन्’ (क. उ. २-१-१) इति, ‘ज्ञानप्रसादेन विशुद्धसत्त्वस्ततस्तु तं पश्यते निष्कलं ध्यायमानः’ (मु. उ. ३-१-८) इति चैवमाद्या । स्मृतिरपि — ‘यं विनिद्रा जितश्वासाः सन्तुष्टाः संयतेन्द्रियाः । ज्योतिः पश्यन्ति युञ्जानास्तस्मै योगात्मने नमः’ ‘योगिनस्तं प्रपश्यन्ति भगवन्तं सनातनम्’ इति चैवमाद्या ॥ २४ ॥

In the BSB  ब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्यम् । द्वितीयः अध्यायः । द्वितीयः पादः । उत्पत्त्यसम्भवाधिकरणम् । सूत्रम् ४२ -

Here is a topic of the bhāgavata school:

यदपि तस्य भगवतोऽभिगमनादिलक्षणमाराधनमजस्रमनन्यचित्ततयाभिप्रेयते, तदपि न प्रतिषिध्यते, श्रुतिस्मृत्योरीश्वरप्रणिधानस्य प्रसिद्धत्वात् । (ahbigamanam is understood as going to the temple).  Shankara accepts that these practices are not prohibited and only help one in realization of the Supreme. 

The अभिगमन...is explained as 'going to temple...'

बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । प्रथमोऽध्यायः । चतुर्थं ब्राह्मणम् । मन्त्रः १० - भाष्यम्

उपास्ते स्तुतिनमस्कारयागबल्युपहारप्रणिधानध्यानादिना उप आस्ते

बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । द्वितीयोऽध्यायः । प्रथमं ब्राह्मणम् । मन्त्रः २० - भाष्यम्

तस्मात्पुष्पोदकाञ्जलिस्तुतिनमस्कारबल्युपहारस्वाध्यायध्यानयोगादिभिः आरिराधयिषेत ; आराधनेन विदित्वा सर्वेशितृ ब्रह्म भवति ; न पुनरसंसारि ब्रह्म संसार्यात्मत्वेन चिन्तयेत् —

ब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्यम् । प्रथमः अध्यायः । प्रथमः पादः । आनन्दमयाधिकरणम् । सूत्रम् १२ - भाष्यम्

मूषानिषिक्तद्रुतताम्रादिप्रतिमावत्ततोऽन्तरं

ब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्यम् । तृतीयः अध्यायः । तृतीयः पादः । व्याप्त्यधिकरणम् । सूत्रम् ९ - भाष्यम्

यथा नाम्नि ब्रह्मबुद्धावध्यस्यमानायामपि अनुवर्तत एव नामबुद्धिः, न ब्रह्मबुद्ध्या निवर्तते — यथा वा प्रतिमादिषु विष्ण्वादिबुद्ध्यध्यासः — एवमिहापि अक्षरे उद्गीथबुद्धिरध्यस्येत, उद्गीथे वा अक्षरबुद्धिरिति ।


ब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्यम् । चतुर्थः अध्यायः । प्रथमः पादः । आत्मत्वोपासनाधिकरणम् । सूत्रम् ३ - भाष्यम्

प्रतिमादिष्विव विष्ण्वादिदर्शनम्

ब्रह्मसूत्रभाष्यम् । चतुर्थः अध्यायः । प्रथमः पादः । आत्मत्वोपासनाधिकरणम् । सूत्रम् ३ - भाष्यम्

प्रतीकदर्शनमिदं विष्णुप्रतिमान्यायेन भविष्यतीति,

श्रीमद्भगवद्गीताभाष्यम् । पञ्चमोऽध्यायः । श्लोक १५ - भाष्यम्

किमर्थं तर्हि भक्तैः पूजादिलक्षणं यागदानहोमादिकं च सुकृतं प्रयुज्यते इत्याह

श्रीमद्भगवद्गीताभाष्यम् । सप्तदशोऽध्यायः । श्लोक १ - भाष्यम्

देवादिपूजाविधिपरं किंचित् शास्त्रं पश्यन्त एव तत् उत्सृज्य अश्रद्दधानतया तद्विहितायां देवादिपूजायां श्रद्धया अन्विताः प्रवर्तन्ते इति

श्रीमद्भगवद्गीताभाष्यम् । पञ्चमोऽध्यायः । श्लोक १९ - भाष्यम्

पूजाविषयत्वेन विशेषणात् । दृश्यते हि ब्रह्मवित् षडङ्गवित् चतुर्वेदवित् इति पूजादानादौ गुणविशेषसम्बन्धः कारणम्


श्रीमद्भगवद्गीताभाष्यम् । सप्तदशोऽध्यायः । श्लोक १८ - भाष्यम्

पूजा पादप्रक्षालनार्चनाशयितृत्वादिः

मुण्डकोपनिषद्भाष्यम् । तृतीयं मुण्डकम् । प्रथमः खण्डः । मन्त्रः १० - भाष्यम्

विशुद्धान्तःकरणं ह्यर्चयेत्पूजयेत्पादप्रक्षालनशुश्रूषानमस्कारादिभिः

I cited these only to show that there is no prohibition in the Advaita system for visiting temples, engaging in bhakti, etc. with respect to sannyasin.  Also, the system is not a 'closed' one in the sense that 'there is no room for growth, inclusion of practices that are not prohibited in the veda, etc.'  'yadyadācarati shreṣṭaḥ....'  is the norm and a sannyasin engaging in puja is not unusual.  

The need to cite/say the above arises because of a thinking in some quarters that the advaitic sannyāsin is one who has nothing to do with saguṇa bhakti.
 

Regarding authority for parivrājaka sannyāsa, the Jivanmukti viveka, in its very first chapter called 'pramāṇa prakaraṇaṁ' cites quite a few passages both from the shruti and smṛti, the Bṛhadāraṇyaka upaniṣad being a very important one. 

regards

subrahmanian.v

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 10:39 AM, Dr. T. Ganesan <gan...@ifpindia.org> wrote:

My reply is as below in italics:

On 10-07-2014 09:54, Nagaraj Paturi wrote:

"As I had said in connection with an earlier thread in this same forum, Advaita VedAnta saMnyAsI-s are either ParivrAjaka-s or KuTIcaka-s or BahUdaka-s which fundamentally means that  a strict Advaita vedAnta monk is supposed not to stay at a particular place for more than a night or two".

 

- Which Advaita authority has said this?

The text whose name I do not remember now, probably (Yatidharmaprabodha or Yatidharmaprakaashikaa) commences the saMnyAsa rites with " अथातः कापिलसंन्यासविधिं व्याख्यास्यामः ।" which is considered to be authoritative by the Advaita vedAnta tradition now, and which , I have  heard , is the basic text dealing with the rites of saMnyAsa that is followed, deals with these type of saMnySAI-s; also you may refer to the JIvanmuktiviveka of VidyAraNya for various types of saMnyAsI-s, such as vidvatsamNyAsa and vividishAsaMnyAsa, etc.
Also I will be thankful to know any other text of authority followed now by the SaMkara MaTha-s for these rites.

 

In what way, 'KuTIcaka'-s or 'BahUdaka-s' is connected to "supposed not to stay at a particular place for more than a night or two"

That is what  these terms mean. Even in bhikshA there is mAdhUkarIbhikshA--collecting alms from different houses just as bees collect honey from different flowers.
I put the question in turn, Which Advaita vedAnta text prescribes/says that the saMnyAsI can stay in a MaTha for so long as he wishes?

 

"It is common knowledge that Advaita VedAnta does not prescribe temple construction/temple worship; nor such an act is part of its spiritual practices by any stretch of theory or imagination".

 

-Where does it proscribe it either?

You are posing /repeating the question which I had put.  My point is the Advaita tradition does not prescribe temple construction/temple worship; nor such an act is part of its spiritual practices. When it does not prescribe temple construction/temple worship, the present case of some Advaita VedAnta MaTha-s managing temple(s) is not according to tradition/saMpradAya. Do you agree on this?

 

"And, interestingly, which is again significant in this connection, we do not find any Saiva theme or motif or purANa stories depicted in the VishNu temples !!  Needless  to say who is more inclusive !!"

 

-Whose 'we are more inclusive' claim is being counter-argued by Dr. Ganeshanji here? Did any of those Vishnu temples people claim in this forum,  "we are more inclusive" ?

The "we" here refers to the followers of Advaita vedAnta, who claim that "Only an advaita-vEdaanta mutt having equal regards for all the theistic sects of sanaatanadharma can have such an inclusive approach" as it had been expressed by Sri R. Ganesh in his mail.

 

There are many other questions like that.

Now that I have answered yous questions, you have not yet answered my earlier question put in my previous mail:  If scholars find any text belonging to the advaita vedAnta tradition that prescribes construction/management of a maTha or a temple which is inclusive, exhibiting equal regard for all gods of our sanAtanadharma, let them announce it and give the details for which the scholarly world will be thankful.

Regards

Ganesan

 

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidya...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Dr. Ganesan,

I had thought of not responding to your observations about the Pushpagiri Pitham on the thread announcing the felicitations for Prof. Korada Subrahmanyam, but now that this new thread has been initiated, may I request you to provide references to a few scholarly papers/books that talk of these inscriptions? We can discuss the supposed kalamukha origins of an establishment at Sringeri later, but before we get into that, please enlighten us where you stand on the kriyAshakti - vidyAraNya connection, as also on the supposed Jaina background.

I find it curious that all those who would postulate any origin under the hot Indian sun for Advaita institutions, anything except the brAhmaNa saMnyAsa tradition itself, do not see that the mutual conflicts between Saiva origins and Jaina origins cannot be simply wished away. Especially, considering the documented long history of antagonism between these two groups in southern India.

Best regards,
Vidyasankar

[Dr. T. Ganesan]

In none of the passages of Samkara's commentary cited below, we find any direct prescription/injunction that the saMnyAsI- should perform pratimArAdhana, temple worship and manage temples, as it is well known to all of us that some of the SaMkara maTha-s now fully control some temples in different parts of the country. These passages just say that the yogI can practise dhyAna, worship, etc. but not as a vidhi or as a daily obligatory rite which again is seen in all the SaMkara maTha-s now.
The same is the case with some passages cited from the compilation Paramahamsa dharma Nirnaya.

That is the main reason why any textual or inscriptional record for the existence of such an institutionalised maTha with temple(s) attached under the Advaita vedAnta tradition and much less by any other vedAnta school, from the earliest period upto 12-13th century, in any part of our country, is conspicuous by its absence. 
But the enormity of such records available in the case of PAshupata as well as the Saiva maTha-s such as Golaki, Amardaka, etc. in almost all parts of the country from the 4-5th century onwards give us an entirely different picture of the religious situation (maTha and temple management) that prevailed in those times, which I had already briefly stated earlier.

So my question still stands: Traditional Advaita vedAnta saMnyAsa as it was practised in SaMkara's period and still before and the modern practise with elaborate pratimApUjA (including the tAntrika SrIcakrapUjA), management of temples under the name and control of the modern day Samkara maTha-s in our country.
 The simple answer would be that the ancient practise of paramahamsa and parivrAjaka, kuTIcaka, bahUdakaetc. of the vedAnta system has been much modified in the course of these centuries with a lot of accretions and additions that were considered to be very much contrary to the fundamental principle and aim of this type of saMnyAsa tradition, due to various causes such as changed socio-political conditions, religious condition and propaganda (for which very late texts like the Samkaravijayam-s that vie with one another in presenting  conflicting facts, have been utilised), etc.


Ganesan

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Dear Dr. Ganesan,

 

With all due respect, may I suggest a refresher on pUrva mImAMsA, especially as it impinges upon uttara mImAMsA, i.e. vedAnta? The vidhi - pratishedha SAstra is very nuanced. For example, the statement "panca pancanAkhA bhakshyAH" is absolutely *not* an injunction to eat five different five-nailed animals, but an injunction *not* to eat any other animals. Whether one eats the five five-nailed animals or does not eat them is left to individual choice. In contrast, "tasyaitad vratam ... ... na kUrmasyASnIyAt" is a direct prohibition against eating tortoise meat, not for everybody, but only for one who has undertaken a particular vrata. One really needs to understand how vidhi-s and pratishedha-s are structured, how they operate and how they are interpreted as social, cultural and political circumstances evolve.

 

In advaita vedAnta, for the jnAnI, no vidhi-s and no pratishedha-s are binding. He who knows brahman has gone completely beyond all rules. Whether he lives alone in a forest or manages a temple in a bustiling tIrtha, whether he wanders naked or whether he wears a crown and sits on a throne, none of these matter. For the jijnAsu who becomes a saMnyAsin, there are rules and regulations. None of these really prohibit saguNopAsana of various forms and none of these enjoin *only* praNava-japa. Indeed, from an advanced advaita vedAntic perspective, mere japa is meant for manda-madhyama buddhi-s. The uttamAdhikArin's meditation on the praNava is not japa. In any case, please take a look at the various texts described as saMnyAsa upanishads. Patrick Olivelle has a convenient English translation published by the Oxford University Press in 1998. Or you could go to the Adyar Library's editions of these texts with the commentaries of the celebrated upanishad brahmayogin. You will see that many of these texts list temples as one of the allowed places where saMnyAsin-s may reside. This is the very thing that you presume saMnyAsin-s should have avoided. Given the vast diverstiy of temples and their origins, it stands to reason that advaita vedAntin saMnyAsin-s may have resided in temples operated by Saiva siddhAntin-s or pASupata-s or in temples managed by bhAgavata-s or pAncarAtrin-s or even in temples managed by tAntrika-s.

 

Have the customs and practices of saMnyAsin-s in the advaita vedAnta tradition changed and diverged over time? Yes, absolutely. There is no quarrel with that statement. However, are these changes alien to or contradictory of the principles of advaita vedAnta or of old conceptions of saMnyAsa? Absolutely not, as far as the traditional maTha-s with centuries of history behind them are concerned.

 

What happens today is debatable, but that is a topic of an entirely different discussion, is it not?

 

Best regards,

Vidyasankar

 

ps. I would still very much like a concrete reference or two to studies of inscriptional evidence of kAlAmukha-s in the 14th century vidyASankara temple.

[Dr. T. Ganesan]

Dear Vidyasankar,
No need to waste your time to bring in pUrvamImAMsA principles here !
After reading this it becomes clear you have not at all understood my point.
As I had said in my earlier post "these passages just say that the yogI can practise dhyAna, worship, etc. but not as a vidhi or as a daily obligatory rite"

You will do well to read my question with due attention which I repeat again in italics:

So my question still stands: Traditional Advaita vedAnta saMnyAsa as it was practised in SaMkara's period and still before and the modern practise with elaborate pratimApUjA (including the tAntrika SrIcakrapUjA), management of temples under the name and control of the modern day Samkara maTha-s in our country.

At one breath you say for the jnAnI, no vidhi-s and no pratishedha-s are binding.  But at the same time we observe elaborate pratimApUjA and and the tAntrika SrIcakrapUjA meticulously performed by the saMnyAsI-s of the many Samkara maTha-s .
I am not all talking about whether the saMnyAsI temporarily resides in a temple or not. My point is under which shAstra he is allowed to manage the affairs of such temple(s) now, or from the 15-16th century.
 My very question which I repeat again is how is this anamoly to be explained ?  You are just repeating the situation we find now but fail to answer the question in your replies.

There is no point in invoking UpaniShadbrahmendra YogI's commentaries here who is obviously a late 18-19th century commentator whose basic purpose of commenting so many upaniShad-s is entirely different, or for that matter, even VidyAraNya. For, in all likelihood, the practise and basic idea of a vedAnta/Sankara maTha has been very much changed since then, that is from the 15-16th century onwards for which VidyAraNya might have been a beginner.
Again, to repeat what I had said in my earlier post which you seem to have missed, the traditional Advaita vedAnta saMnyAsa as it was practised in SaMkara's period and still before was completely different from the modern one that we all see now.
In accepting that we should also accept that most of these changes are alien to and contradictory to the principles of advaita vedAnta and of old conceptions of saMnyAsa.

To put it in a nut shell: The saMnyAsa that was practised before Sankara and during the period from Sankara upto 14th century was very much different in most respects from the present situation in Sankara maTha-s for which sea-change there seems to be no ancient scriptural authority.

Ganesan

[Savitri]

Dr. Rani S Murthyji

nammonnamah

as a grand son of great vidyaranya tradition, kindly inform us about Pushpagiri PEETHAM

dr. savitri malladi

Sent from my iPad

On 10-Jul-2014, at 4:02 pm, 'sadasivamurty rani' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Ganeshan Mahodaya!

I am sorry. I am misunderstood by you. I sincerely appreciate from my heart your efforts to bring out the sources of Pushpagiri and such Mathams.   When I saw your first mail on this subject I thought it was a passing comment on Pushpagiri Matham as its name was connected with the felicitation of Prof. Korada Subrahmanyam Garu. Hence there itself I gave my reply.

But after seeing your consequent mails on this subject I could understand the intensity of your pursuit.

I too have something to say in this connection. But if I continue there itself it will be a confusion to others. Hence I requested you to continue this in a separate thread.

By the by I am the great grand son of Srimat"Paramahamasa, " "Parivrajakacharya, " "Mantacharya, " "Daivajna Sarvabhauma, " Sarvatantra Tantra" "Jagadguru"  Bodhananda Maha Swami of Srimadabhinava Virupakshapeetha of Sri Vidyaranya tradition.

I have some sources to say about this tradition.

I shall share my views after further progress of this discussion to some extent by the other scholars as am at present busy with a few activities which are to be paid immediate attention of mine.

I always have high regard for you Ganeshan Ji!

With warm regards,  

Dr. Rani Sadasiva Murty

On Thursday, 10 July 2014 3:37 PM, Dr. T. Ganesan <gan...@ifpindia.org> wrote:

I know that.
That is why in my very first mail I started my reply with the expression, "Though not connected with the topic on hand I just want to say that" .

You could have suggested for a separate thread then itself, but Murtyji, you have also replied to that mail and continued the discussion in the same thread.


Ganesan

On 09-07-2014 20:02, 'sadasivamurty rani' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् wrote:

Dear Dr. Ganeshan ji

The information you have with you about the Shaiva Pithams and Pushpagiri peetham with strong support of inscription is great research value. Thanks for your valuable postings on this topic. 

But won't it be better to have a separate thread of mails on the issue of Pushpagiri Peetham instead of clubbing it with the event of the felicitation of Prof. K. Subrahmanyam garu? 

With warm regards,

 Dr. Rani Sadasiva Murty

--

--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

On Thursday, July 24, 2014 1:32:09 AM UTC-4, Ganesan wrote:

Dear Vidyasankar,
No need to waste your time to bring in pUrvamImAMsA principles here !

 

You, sir, were the one who brought in pUrvamImAMsA, by first talking of vidhi-s. I just made it clear to you that you quite misunderstand the entire thing.

 

If you do not wish to waste time, please do not tread into unknown territory without the necessary maps to help you navigate. You keep piling up random speculation on top of unwarranted assumptions and try to present it all as if it were a well-reasoned conclusion. Others have given you various references, which I daresay you will brush aside, for they don't confirm your prejudice.

 

Enough said,

Vidyasankar 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

1.Which pre-S'ankara vaidika book prescribes writing bhāṣyas as a vidhi to a samnyāsī? Which pre-ś'ankara book prescribes engaging in polemics as a vidhi for a samnyāsī?  Which pre-S'ankara vaidika book prescribes reviving uttara-mīmāmsā studies as a vidhi to a smnyāsī? 

2.. Do śaivas of Pāśupata, Kāpālika,  Kālāmukha, Vīraśaiva and other such strands belong to the same single tradition of śaiva? If no, is it justified to quote Pāśupata documents while talking about present day śaiva maṭhas and temples? If yes, are the actions that lead to the emergence of Kālāmukha , Vīraśaiva and other ‘trends’ in śaiva  prescribed in Pāśupata texts? 

 

Regards,

 

Nagaraj

 

 

 

 

--

निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste Ganeshanji,

You said

Quote

To put it in a nut shell: The saMnyAsa that was practised before Sankara and during the period from Sankara upto 14th century was very much different in most respects from the present situation in Sankara maTha-s for which sea-change there seems to be no ancient scriptural authority.

Unquote

Will you like to elaborate on this giving some examples also, if possible.

Regards,

Sunil KB