Kundalini is not mentioned in any ancient sanskrit Texts !!!! ???

[Sampath Kumar]

Dear scholars

About Kundalini there is nothing mentioned in any ancient texts

including  Patanjali.

Charaka- Sushruta and Vagbhata also not mentioned.

even they mentioned mahat-mūla prakruti-ahamkāra-buddhi-saptottara marmaśataṁ[107]-aṅgapratyaṅga-sira-snāyu-pēśa-sandhi-dhamani-dhātu, etc ......etc.....

 i think -It is later yogic concept developed in around 4 or 5th century

any remarks and details are invited for the sake of the knowledge.

Sampath Kumar Medavarapu Ahmedabad 09998344758     ​

 

​             

​

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Sampath Kumar <sampath...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear scholars

About Kundalini there is nothing mentioned in any ancient texts

including  Patanjali.

Charaka- Sushruta and Vagbhata also not mentioned.

even they mentioned mahat-mūla prakruti-ahamkāra-buddhi-saptottara marmaśataṁ[107]-aṅgapratyaṅga-sira-snāyu-pēśa-sandhi-dhamani-dhātu, etc ......etc.....

 i think -It is later yogic concept developed in around 4 or 5th century

any remarks and details are invited for the sake of the knowledge.

In the shrIlalitAsahasranAma which is part of the mArkanDeya purANam of Veda Vyasa the term 'kunDalinI' occurs.

तडिल्लता समरुचिः षट्चक्रोपरि संस्थिता । महासक्तिः, कुण्डलिनी बिसतन्तु तनीयसी ॥ ४० ॥

 People of tradition consider this work as that of Vyasa and therefore do not fix its period in a certain century.  Also there is YogakunDalinI upanishad which is part of the 108 upanishads which too tradition considers apauruSheya.

regards
subrahmanian.v

Sampath Kumar Medavarapu Ahmedabad 09998344758     ​

 

​             

​

--
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/groups/opt_out.

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Dear Scholars,

Can you please inform when the term Kundalini was first used.  Many of the minor Upanishads are recent texts.Was Kundalini a part or early yoga texts or was it imported from Tantrik texts. If it was imported from Tantric texts is Kundalini a part of Patanjali yoga tradition. Is Hatha yoga a part of Patanjali yoga tradition? Was Kundalini used in early Hatha Yoga Texts. Thanks

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

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 4:11 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Sampath Kumar <sampath...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear scholars

About Kundalini there is nothing mentioned in any ancient texts

including  Patanjali.

Charaka- Sushruta and Vagbhata also not mentioned.

even they mentioned mahat-mūla prakruti-ahamkāra-buddhi-saptottara marmaśataṁ[107]-aṅgapratyaṅga-sira-snāyu-pēśa-sandhi-dhamani-dhātu, etc ......etc.....

 i think -It is later yogic concept developed in around 4 or 5th century

any remarks and details are invited for the sake of the knowledge.

In the shrIlalitAsahasranAma which is part of the mArkanDeya purANam of Veda Vyasa the term 'kunDalinI' occurs.

तडिल्लता समरुचिः षट्चक्रोपरि संस्थिता । महासक्तिः, कुण्डलिनी बिसतन्तु तनीयसी ॥ ४० ॥

 People of tradition consider this work as that of Vyasa and therefore do not fix its period in a certain century.  Also there is YogakunDalinI upanishad which is part of the 108 upanishads which too tradition considers apauruSheya.

regards
subrahmanian.v

​

 

​             

​

--

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/groups/opt_out.

[Sampath]

Dear scholars

Hatha yoga prdipika  was written in 1500 AD

Remaining two texts

Siva samhita

Gheranda samhita also later works

Sent from my iPhone

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

My question was when "Kundalini" as a concept we have it in use today,  first evolve. Was it a part of Patanjali Yoga tradition or was the concept borrowed from Tantrik texts or by Hatha yoga practitioners from their texts. Can Kundalini be traced to any old upanishad texts?

When I meant Hatha Yoga I do not mean Hatha yoga Pradipika. I meant Hatha yoga as a practice.

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

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

As far as I know, kuNDalinI is a subtle form of devI and it is common to tAntra-s where worship of devI is seen in form of kuNDalinI.

There is a concept that chit-shakti resides in mUlAdhAra-chakra otherwise known as kula-chakra and shiva resides in sahasrAra-chakra otherwise called akula-chakra. No doubt, this chakra-concept is also original to tantra-works. chakra-s are abode of specific devatA-s and devatA-s are worshiped at those places to get specific results. The union of shiva and shakti is the ultimate stage according to tantra, and is otherwise called shiva-shakti-sAmarasyam. This sAmarasya of shiva and shakti is meditated upon. They meditate that devI, i.e. kuNDalinI rises to sahasrAra and unites with shiva. This type of meditation is a worship itself and has various results. Ultimately it stabilizes the mind of sAdhaka on the sAmarasyam. Similar to yogI-s, where samAdhI is means and stabilization is called moxa and hence is goal; tantra-s say that stabilization in that state is a goal itself. Apart from that there are worldly results also.

tantra-s don't mention mUla-bandha-s, etc. to rise kuNDalinI, as is popular today. They talk about meditation only and regard this as worship which has many results. While yogI-s say that kuNDalinI is something sleeping, not essentially goddess but just a serpent, and we have to force her to come out of sleep by using prANAyAma and bandha-s, then it will go to sahasrAra and will reside there, this will give siddhi-s.

So, there is a big difference between both concepts. As far as I can see, there is no proof that kuNDalinI concept is original to yoga. They have just taken it from tantra-s without recognizing it's other parts. And with the grace of new yoga movements starting from rAmakR^iShNa paramahaMsa and vivekAnanda and our lust to get siddhis-s, we are bound to think that it is something related to yoga.

Bengal has tantra-paramparA. And if somehow the tAntrika concept was mingled with yoga by them, it is not something unexpected.

Another thing I can say that, other parts of tantra were not accepted by yogi-s just because they felt embarrassment while talking about sAmarasya and pa~ncha-makAra.

 

श्रीमल्ललितालालितः
lalitAlAlitaH

[Nivedita Rout]

Certainly the word "ku.n.dalinii", the psychic energy was not used by the ancient seers. But the psychic energy was recognised by the seers of the Upani.sads and expressed its feature and nature in symbolic language. Please see Chandogya, 8.6.3, B.rhadaara.nyaka, 2.1.19, Pra"sna, 3.12. 

[VKG]

Pranam.

Shatchakra Nirupanam (an ancient text), edited or published by John Woodroffe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_John_Woodroffe has some relevance.

As rightly said, Lalita Sahasranama and similar Puranas mention the serpent power.

Whereas Yoga Sutra Darshanam (of Patanjali) has more mind control concepts, rather than physical.

In the Ashta Angas, First set of Four Yama, Niyama, Aasana, Praanaayaama are predominantly physical, to attain mind control.

Later Four Pratyaahaara, Dhyaana, Dhaarana and Samaadhi are purely mental activities; where Patanjali's emphasis lies.

Rest all can be assumed, as needed.

Praanaayaama's importance is espoused thru Shat Chakras. Moreover, the Kundalini is meta physical; to be proved thru human anatomy. The concept can be appreciated, to practise Praanaayaama, to instill the mind.

Subham.

VKG

[Ashok Aklujkar]

For those who wish to reconstruct history, it is important to determine where a particular term first occurs and what the age of the text(s) in which it seems to occur first is/could be. However, it should always be borne in mind that such a determination only establishes the lower limit ('cannot be later than' kind of limit) of a concept or thing and that absence of mention does not mean absence of a concept or thing. X can exist under some other name, or could have been conveyed by a phrase, clause, sentence or passage or could have been a part of the ancient world in some context that was not discussed in surviving texts. Indiscriminate use of absence has caused much harm in reconstructing the history of India. Noticing absence enables us to ask potentially useful questions (and, therefore, absences should be noted), but generally not to provide definite answers.

I do not mean to say that the participants in the present discussion have depended on absence without proper consideration. I only wish to sound a note of caution if the query was made with the intention of drawing historical inferences.

ashok aklujkar

[V Subrahmanian]

I think more than historicity  it is important to consider whether shiShTa-s are practicing the particular system.  In the LalitAsahasranAma (LS) itself we get the name: शिष्टेष्टा शिष्टपूजिता.  The practice of kundalini without discordance with the aupaniShada sAdhana has been seen to be in vogue in traditional circles, as for example, in the Sringeri paramparA.  There and in many other institutions and countless households the practice of LS involved worship is quite popular.

In the English book titled 'Yoga, Enlightenment and Perfection' which details the spiritual practices and attainment / culmination of the previous Jagadguru Sri Abhinava Vidyatirtha Swaminah has a chapter on HaTha yoga and another on 'Exposure to Kundalini yoga'.  These two chapters cite verses extensively from texts such as:

Yogatattva upanishad, Yoga kundalini upanishad, HaThayogapradIpikA, Kalicharana's commentary on the ShaTcharanirUpaNa which cites from the yAmala texts too, the Rg.Veda 1.164.45 (for parA-pashyantI-madhyamA-vaikharI (चत्वारि वाक्परिमिता पदानि....), the YogachUDAmani upanishad, the brahmavidyA upanishad, etc.

The Acharya-s concerned have accepted these texts as authorities that conform to and guide and confirm these yogic practices. 

regards

subrahmanian.v 

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Historicity of a given text or word is equally important. A  useful discussion might be to fix the word Kudalinis lower and upper limit and find out the historicity of the traditions and cults involved and how many cult and Tantric practices outside the system of Advaita and  Patanjali Yoga have come into the system. Was it due to Tantric Influence and how old and when such an influence did take place within reasonable assumptions.

Traditions have its place and role. The question raised here was not about Yogic practices or popular practices followed Sringeri or any other Mutt.It is not enough if one says a particular religious organization and their Paramapara is the bar to measure historicity of given word and its usages .Many modern texts are given the title upanishads they may not be old texts . We have even Allah Upanishad for instance.

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

[Hnbhat B.R.]

This is the Vikipedia article refers to the first usage in Sharadatilaka Tantra:

Use kuṇḍalī as a name of Durga or of a Shakti appears as a technical term in Tantrism and Shaktism as early as c. the 11th century, in the Śaradatilaka.[10] It is adopted as kuṇḍalniī as a technical term into Hatha yoga in the 15th century and becomes widely used in the Yoga Upanishads by the 16th century. Eknath Easwaran has paraphrased the term as "the coiled power," a force which ordinarily rests at the base of the spine, described as being "coiled there like a serpent".[11] The phrase serpent power was coined by John Woodroffe, who published his translation of two 16th-century treatises on Laya Yoga (Kundalini Yoga) in 1919 under this title.

André Padoux, Vāc: The Concept of the Word in Selected Hindu Tantras, SUNY Press, 1990, 124-136.

(Reference from The article in vikipedia).

The reference to Tantrasara found in Shabdakalpadruma:

"ध्यायेत् कुण्डलिनीं सूक्ष्मां मूलाधारनिवासिनीम्।

तामिष्टदेवतारूपां सार्द्धत्रिवलायान्विताम्॥

कोटिसौसामिनीभासां स्वयम्भूलिङ्गवेष्टिनीम्।

तामुत्थाप्य महादेवीं प्राणमन्त्र्ोण साधकः॥

उद्यद्दिनकरोद्योतां यावच्छ्वासं दृढासनः।

अशेषाशुभशान्तर्थं समाहितमनाश्चिरम्।

तत्प्रभापटलव्याप्तं शरीरमपि चिन्तयेत्॥" इति तन्त्रसारः॥

This is the link to the article on the word in Vikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kundalini_energy#cite_note-10

​

[Dr. T. Ganesan]

Ku.n.dalinii in the Saivasiddhanta system is of different connotation.
It is the pure material power of Siva through which he creates the pure worlds (which are those attained and lived by pure beings such as Isvara, Suddhavidya, etc.);
This is the passage from the Pau.skaraagama of the Saivasiddhanta system:
       

                        सा च कुण्डलिनी शम्भोः शक्तिः

                              शुद्धा जडात्मिका

In fact the Pau.skaraagama has a separate chapter on Ku.n.dlinii.

Further, Ku.n.dalinii is the material cause of pure sound and the cause of Vaak, which evolves into Paraa, Pa"syantii, etc.
The Ratnatraya[pariik.saa] of Srika.n.tha (circa 10th century)

                शब्दतत्त्वमघोषा वाग् ब्रह्म कुण्डलिनी ध्रुवम् ||

                विद्या शक्तिः परा नादो महामायेति देशिकैः |

 uses Ku.n.dalinii as synonymous with supreme sound, unsounded speech (agho.saa vaak), Mahaamaayaa, etc. (Again, Maayaa and Mahaamaayaa are different in the Saivasiddhaanta)

Thus Ku.n.dalinii is definitely an ancient concept widely used only in the Tantra-s and Agama-s. Its usage in Ha.thayoga and in the modern texts is a later development. Raising the Ku.n.dalinii from the Muulaadhaara and making it join in the Sahasraara, which point is very much discussed in the Ha.thayoga, is totally absent in the Saivasiddhanta (and also in the Pratyabhij~naa system)

What I want to stress is that it has got different connotations in different Tantric systems and that as many would think, it is not a pure Ha.thayoga concept though, in  modern times, it has been made known through Ha.thayoga.


Ganesan

On 17-10-2013 13:10, Hnbhat B.R. wrote:

This is the Vikipedia article refers to the first usage in Sharadatilaka Tantra:

Use kuṇḍalī as a name of Durga or of a Shakti appears as a technical term in Tantrism and Shaktism as early as c. the 11th century, in the Śaradatilaka.[10] It is adopted as kuṇḍalniī as a technical term into Hatha yoga in the 15th century and becomes widely used in the Yoga Upanishads by the 16th century. Eknath Easwaran has paraphrased the term as "the coiled power," a force which ordinarily rests at the base of the spine, described as being "coiled there like a serpent".[11] The phrase serpent power was coined by John Woodroffe, who published his translation of two 16th-century treatises on Laya Yoga (Kundalini Yoga) in 1919 under this title.

André Padoux, Vāc: The Concept of the Word in Selected Hindu Tantras, SUNY Press, 1990, 124-136.

-- 

[Dr. T. Ganesan]

For arguing on the basis of history and for historicity, references to the practices of the Samkara Matha-s will not be of any value.

The daily ritual of Sricakra puja as practised by Sringeri or Kamakoti Matha can not strictly be Vedantic and much less Advaitic of Samkara's school.
Srividya texts such as the Nityaa.so.da'sikaar.nava, Yoginiih.rdaya and the Sricakra worship can be historically later than the 11- 12th century.
These rituals of the Samkara Matha-s are definitely much later. For, only the japa of Pra.navamantra is prescribed for the Kaapilasa.mnyaasi to which type all the sa.mnyaasi-s of the Samkara Matha are said to belong.

Sriividyaa is definitely a TANTRIC tradition in its origin not withstanding the arguments of the great Bhaskararaya with his efforts to make it a Vedic one.
And, it is he who has commented on the Lalitaasahasranaamaastotra and we hear no commentary before him.
Regarding Lalitaasahasranaamaa, as pointed out by Sri Sampatkumar, it does not at all seem to be very old; Its affinity to Samkara's Advaita system is evident from one of the names: मिथ्याजगदधिष्ठाना. In the Nityaa.so.da'sikaar.nava and other basic texts of the tradition the concept of 'jaganmithyaatva' so much stressed by Samkara and his followers, is absent.

Ganesan

On 17-10-2013 11:48, V Subrahmanian wrote:

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Dr. T. Ganesan <gan...@ifpindia.org> wrote:

These rituals of the Samkara Matha-s are definitely much later. For, only the japa of Pra.navamantra is prescribed for the Kaapilasa.mnyaasi to which type all the sa.mnyaasi-s of the Samkara Matha are said to belong.

​I agree with whatever you said ​about upAsanA, mantra and AchAra of shrauta-sannyAsI-s.

But, what is the meaning of kApila-sannyAsI ?

Does it simply mean those who take sannyAsa according to shruti and smR^iti-s or it is a type of sannyAsa prescribed by tantra-Agama-s ?

I'm asking this because the mudrA-s on daNDa of sannyAsI-s appear unrelated to shruti and smR^iti. It is expected that they have been brought from Agama-s. What are your views regarding this ?

I'll be obliged if you share your views here or privately, anyway.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear friends,

There has been dispute about the dates of Adi Sankara. Most of the evidences show that Adi Sankara was born in the 6th century BCE and his paramguru Gaudapadacharya was born still earlier. Gaudapadacharya had written on Sri Vidya (the Samatachara Tantra) as well as written a commenatry on the Uttara Gita, which treats the subject of Kundalini. Therefore it is not proper to emphasise that the concept of Kundalini is of recent origin.

Secondly, the definition of Kundalini also differs from scholar to scholar. Some scholars trace the origin of the word to Kunda (or pit or cavity or secret place of residence), where the brain nestles in a coiled shape. According to these scholars, the Shakti which manifests in the Kunda (कुण्ड) as the Devi (Durga or Lalita or Saraswati), is the Kundalini (कुण्डलिनी).and at that stage  the person is enlightened. Normally, of course, the Shakti lies dormant in the Mooladhara chakra, at the base of the spine and has to be forced to rise to the top of the spine by the various ways including specific pranayamas.

Regards,

Sunil KB

[V Subrahmanian]

The method of the kundalini yoga is not any different from the Upanishadic one.  There is the prakRti tattva made of three gunas and pancha bhuta-s.  The jiva, out of ignorance, identifies with the body-mind complex made of the five elements.  The strongest of these identifications is with the gross body.  The base instincts are the ones that occupy man at this stage of ignorance.  The pancha kosha viveka method of the Vedanta is what is laid out in the kundalini with much correspondence with the chakras, the base being the mUlAdhAra,, he prithvI tattva, the grossest of the five.  Then the aspirant is led to the higher chakras which correspond to the earlier elements: water, agni, vAyu and AkAsha, there being greater subtlety and purity comparatively, ascending.  This is the same as the pancha kosha viveka where anna maya, prana maya, mano maya, etc. are subtler, purer and less binding.  The culmination is in transcending the five koshas, the chakra-s and establishing in the highest, innermost, Atma tattva, the name given to it in the LalitasahasranAma is: panchakoshAntara-sthitA, sahasrArAmbujArUDha,  brahmAtmaikyasvarUpiNI, nistariguNyA, pratyagrUpA, parAkAshA, etc.

Thus the kundalini is the power, the Atmashakti of the Upanishads, that is retrieved from the clutches of the panchabhUta-s and accorded its native glory. Only that the names and method differ; the content is the same.  Those who have practiced the upanishadic sadhana and the kundalini say that the one with the vedantic enlightenment has had the kundalini culmination too although he might not identify it the same way.

regards

subrahmanian.v

[Sampath Kumar]

Dear friends

My intention is 

yogic concept [Kundalini] had developed in around 4 or 5th century

Sampath Kumar Medavarapu Ahmedabad 09998344758     ​

 

​             

​

[sunil bhattacharjya]

What is the basis of this assertion ?

[Sampath Kumar]

before that no textual evidence

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

===========Note====

It would be useful to members if you can make detailed reply for your theory answering in few words will create more doubts than they being resolved.

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

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

==============Note again========

Kundalini is not the exclusive domain of Adavaita alone. We have received such posts which were denied.

If members have views on Historicity of the word Kundalini please post. Always keep the focus of the thread in my mind. As I and Sampat have remarked this thread is about Historicity of the word Kundalini.

Posts about the comparative use about the word in different Philosophical thoughts are welcome.

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]

What are those evidences that show the date of Adi Samkara as 6th century BCE ?? Will be grateful to know a few of them.

When Samkara's date itself is under dispute as you have rightly acknowledged, on what basis is it held that Gaudapaada, the paramaguru of Adi samkara has written the Sri Vidya texts? In fact this is an age -old dispute for which there is no clinching evidence, either textual or historical, till date.



Ganesan

[sunil bhattacharjya]

1)
The Dwaraka peeth and the Puri peeth has the Guru-parampara lists going upto 2,500 years ago. The Shringeri peeth, on the other hand, in fact, gave out different guru paramapra lists at different times, which conflict with each other. At one time the guru-parampara was shown as starting from 44 BCE and later on as starting from the 8th century.
2)

Secondly,, you (Dr. T. Ganesan) asked as to on what basis is it held that Gaudapaada, the paramaguru of Adi Shankara, had written the Sri Vidya texts? In that context please see what is given in the book "A companion to Tantra" by S.C.Banerji. For your ready reference I quote that as follows:

Quote
Besides the well-known Gaudapada-karika and a few other philosophical works, he was the author of the Tantric work, Srividya-ratna-sutra or Gaudapada-sutra, also called sakti-mimansa,
Unquote

3)

Thirdly you (Dr.T.G.) also wrote that date of Shankara is an age -old dispute for which there is no clinching evidence, either textual or historical, till date.

In reply I have to say that though the Shankaracharya's date looked like a contentious issue to many in the recent past and many scholars discussed this in great details I have no doubt that Adi Shankara lived in the 6th century BCE and that is due to the guru-parampara lists of the two Shankara peeths vouching for it. Historically too there are evidences that  Dharmakirti, a senior contemporary of Adi Shankaracharya, lived around 6th century BCE and this is in line with the date of Lord Buddha, who  lived in the 19th century BCE The evidences for latter comes from the Rajatarangini, Dr. Narahari Achar's dating of Lord Buddha and my research on the Dotted Records, a paper on which was presented in the WAVES conference a few years ago..

However if you want a detailed discussions on the date of Adi Shankara afresh, you can open a new thread on it shooting out the questions you may have. The moderatorji will not have any objection to opening a new thread on it.

[rniyengar]

If you say that there is no reference to "Kundalini" in the currently available printed texts the manuscripts of which are dated prior to 4-5th Cent., perhaps it is acceptable as a verifiable fact. But this in no way can be an evidence for the argument that it originated after the above date. I give an example to underline my argument. The first reference to 'salt' appears (to the best of my knowledge) in the S'atapatha Braahman.a, which every one agrees is later than the R.gveda. But there are no reference to Uus.aa or Lavan.a in RV. Corrections requested if I am wrong.

RNI

[ramchander deekonda]

parishade namaH,

I am not an expert.  Still, I want to inform scholars that Shri G Seshendra Sarma in his acclaimed research work titled rAmAyaNarahasyAlu has proved that the entire sundarakANDa of vAlmeeki rAmAyaNam is nothing but a symbolic glorification of kunDalini. Being the earliest secular work produced after the vedic literature, it is asserted that rAmAyaNam is closest to  Rgveda.  From this it can be safely concluded that the science of kunDalini must have been in currency during the vedic period.  Scholars may please some light on this aspect too.  

Sincerely

Ramachander Deekonda

09966354106

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

I just realized that this thread is the origin of the other thread on Sankara's date. And I see some speculation on this thread as well, regarding the Vedic/Vedantic/Agamic/Tantric origin of the word Kundalini and Sricakra ritual practices. Yet I see nothing about some highly relevant textual sources that need to be highlighted here.

 

Sankara's bhAshya on gItA 8.10 - prayANakAle manasAcalena ... - प्रयाणकाले मरणकाले मनसा अचलेन चलनवर्जितेन भक्त्या युक्तः भजनं भक्तिः तया युक्तः योगबलेन चैव योगस्य बलं योगबलं समाधिजसंस्कारप्रचयजनितचित्तस्थैर्यलक्षणं योगबलं तेन च युक्तः इत्यर्थः, पूर्वं हृदयपुण्डरीके वशीकृत्य चित्तं ततः ऊर्ध्वगामिन्या नाड्या भूमिजयक्रमेण भ्रुवोः मध्ये प्राणम् आवेश्य स्थापयित्वा सम्यक् अप्रमत्तः सन्, सः एवं विद्वान् योगी 'कविं पुराणम्' इत्यादिलक्षणं तं परं परतरं पुरुषम् उपैति प्रतिपद्यते दिव्यं द्योतनात्मकम्।।पुनरपि वक्ष्यमाणेन उपायेन प्रतिपित्सितस्य ब्रह्मणो वेदविद्वदनादिविशेषणविशेष्यस्य अभिधानं करोति भगवान्

 

Note the reference to an UrdhvagAminI nADI in the bhAshya, which is not specifically mentioned in the gItA itself. Clearly, Sankara is referring to a specific meditative practice that scholars would more readily describe as "tAntric/yogic" than as "upanishadic/vedAntic". So, scholars like Sri Ganesan, please re-evaluate what you mean by these terms and re-examine your conclusions about the rituals and practices .

 

On the other hand, note that kuNDalinI is not a word explicitly used in the bhAshya. Neither are the words sushumnA or cakra mentioned. Compare with madhusUdana sarasvatI - ऊर्ध्वगामिन्या सुषुम्नया ना़ड्या गुरूपदिष्टमार्गेण भूमिजयक्रमेण भ्रुवोर्मध्ये आज्ञाचक्रे प्राणमावेश्य .

 

However, also read brahmasUtrabhAshya and kaThopanishadbhAshya where Sankara does use the word sushumnA in the context of the nADI-s. In the taittirIyopanishadbhAshya, he simply describes this upward rising nADI as "yogaSAstreshu prasiddhA" (under the passage beginning sa ya esho'ntar hRdaya AkASaH | tasminn ayaM purusho manomayaH | ...).

 

The upanishadic meditation here is very obviously the same as or a precursor to what Agamic/tAntric texts describe under khecarI mudrA or lambika yoga. Again, scholars, please re-evaluate what you mean by upanishadic/vedAntic as against yogic/Agamic/tAntric. And indeed, pray, what are the yogaSAstra texts that Sankara had in mind when he commented on the taittirIya? If I were to proffer a particular candidate as a likely source for Sankara, would it be a text that contemporary scholars would like to call simply call "upanishadic" or "vedAntic" or even just "yogic" in preference to "tAntric" or "Agamic"? Or would scholars even be comfortable giving such a text a date between the 4th and 7th centuries CE? Yet, there had to have been pre-Sankaran texts that talked more extensively of nADI-s and sushumnA (and perhaps iDA and pingaLA and hastijihvA and other names as well) and Sankara thought it perfectly okay to cite them in his own vedAnta commentaries.

 

Moving on to a non-bhAshya text: verse 4.13 in mAnasollAsa, the commentary on the dakshiNAmUrti stotra, mentions the word kuNDalinI rising from the mUlAdhAra in the context of the nADI-s of the antaHkaraNa. Now, yes, the attributon of the dakshiNAmUrti stotra to Sankara and the mAnasollAsa to sureSvara have beed doubted by some scholars, but I have already pointed out numerous times that the reasons given to doubt these texts are highly circular arguments. They begin by presuming that any reference to nADI-s and meditative practices based on them are of non-Vedantic origin, because Sankara could not possibly have talked of them at all, and then they go on to conclude that these non-bhAshya texts cannot be authentic. Such arguments conveniently ignore the profuse references to nADI-s in the sUtra bhAshya and key upanishad bhAshyas, thereby applying an inconsistent double standard to bhAshya texts and non-bhAshya texts that are traditionally ascribed to Sankara.

 

All in all, I would request scholars like Sri Ganesan to ask themselves the following questions. Are these practices and meditative techniques originally from aupanishada/saMnyAsI/yogI paramparA-s (not necessarily described in much detail in the vedAnta commentaries) that found their way to tantra/Agama texts? Or are these features of non-upanishadic meditative practices that found their way into vedAntic saMnyAsa traditions? Furthermore, if the direction of influence is from a tAntrika/Agamika and therefore non-upanishadic milieu to a vedAntic saMnyAsin tradition, did such an influence necessarily happen only in post-Sankaran times? If yes, when? And how would that help explain the bhAshya references that undoubtedly date back to Sankara? So, can we re-evaluate the contemporary scholarly consensus views of texts, traditions and their histories by taking a more comprehensive view of all the available data?

 

Best regards,

Vidyasankar

 

ps. Regarding daNDa-s carried by saMnyAsins, please do not ignore the voluminous dharmaSAstra texts. There is a ton of information in them as well.

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Vidyasankar Sundaresan <svidya...@gmail.com> wrote:

ps. Regarding daNDa-s carried by saMnyAsins, please do not ignore the voluminous dharmaSAstra texts. There is a ton of information in them as well.

​Any specific text apart from vishveshvara-smR^itiH ?

I want to find prescription of specific qualities of daNDa.​

[Dr.BVK Sastry (Gmail)]

Namaste

 

On ShankaraBhashya  and non-mention of Kundalini issue :  Long and involved thread with some critical issues needing clarity.  

 

1.      Three specific reasons to look at this thread carefully :  (a)  discussion is drifting towards issues of yoga-practice, details of which are not intended for ‘ academic curiosity’  (yoga Sutra 1-49)   (b) There is a mix up of  Yoga-technicalities ( as noted in Patanjali Yoga Sutra), Vedanta ( of one school :Advaita), Tantra (unspecified out of several tantra works and modalities)  and Srividya practice ( preference seems to be for the Vedanta integrated model as used in Sringeri, and in relation to the tradition aligned to  Sri Bhaskara raya makhin, Hyderabad). (c )  Sidleining the wide  time gaps of the order of centuries between Patanjali –Acharya Shankara (as generally understood); where in thee is all  plausible reasons to believe the  confluence of Tantra practices getting mixed with Yoga-Vedanta practices. Bhojas commentary on Yoga sutra is an example of this confluence of thoughts .    There seems to be plurality of understanding and divergence in constructing the technicalities of core  traditional practices  and technical terms of the practice, especially Kundalini.

 

The yoga sutra 1-36 (vishokaa vaa jyotishmatee ) and 3-32 ( moordha jyotishi  siddha darshanam )  need to be looked at as practice guidance and experience  check points  rather than narrative of yoga journey sign posts to simply cross without any  validation.   In Kundalini process, the ‘ laya’ of the  mantra-varnas’ is provided as a technique for this from moola aadhara to sahasrara (also called as Vak-Yoga paddhati / Kashyapa paddhati) .

 

 From this  perspective, Kundalini is a yoga practice, which is described in different shastra sampradayas with different technical terminologies. The artificial historic timing – and antecedent positioning of one shastra in relation to another shastra may not  be the intention of traditional schools.  There is a critical need to understand the ‘paribhashaa’ = technical Samskrutham of each discipline beyond the social format of  ‘Sanskrit’ and use of  ‘ translation’.  Shaastra is a ‘Darshana = visioning process and practice –guidance ’ ; It is NOT an intellectual argumentative philosophy.     

 

Here is a humble effort to share my thoughts.

 

2.  The passage of Shankara Bhashya quoted may have to be looked at in relation to what is said in Yoga Sutra – references mentioned side by side below. What had happened to the practice and understanding of  Yoga-Sutras as ‘Vedanta darshana Sadhana’ from (i)  Bhagavad-Gita to Patanjali and then from (ii)  Patanjali to Acharya Shankara  needs to be studied carefully. There are gas of several centuries!  There are many new practices that have come up as Tantra, Agama.  There are several interpretations, pushing the  ‘practice to the background’ and  prioritizing the  ‘ debate’ !

 

Here is a connecting link from Acahrya Shnakara  bhashya segments to the Yoga Sutras.   

 

	Acahrya Bhashya	Patanjali Yoga sutra

समाधिजसंस्कारप्रचयजनितचित्तस्थैर्यलक्षणं योगबलं

Samadhi  (4-1  )  to      Kaivalya (4-33 ) is an advanced yoga journey, to which phase this segment of Bhashya seems to be a  pointer. ( See Yoga sutra 1-45 )   Prayana kaala for a yogi is the time for going beyond the ‘ shareera aavarana, in a conscious way, as described in yoga, for a punaraavrutti rahita shaaswata sthiti’ ( call it Brahma loka or Sayujya or parama-dhama depending upon preference of school).  The last phase of shareera-avarana to be crossed over the  ‘smriti’ / Avidyaa bonding  (Yoga Sutra : 1-24;    ; 3-49; 3-50; 3-54 ;4-30; )   Confusing Yoga guidance related to the segment of  Kaivalya and Samadhi needs to be closely watched in many translations. The journey is not like the journey on a flat earth where one can see the difference between the distance covered and distance to be covered from the starting point to an end goal.

हृदयपुण्डरीके वशीकृत्य चित्तं

Yoga Sutra 4-25 to 4-33 Yoga Sutra 3-32  and 3-34.

ततः ऊर्ध्वगामिन्या नाड्या

Yoga-Sutra 3-29 to 3-34 (The identification of Yoga-nADi’s is a tricky topic, just as it is with the identification of the Chakras !)

भूमिजयक्रमेण

Yoga-Sutra 3-6.  When current yoga teams do not even cross the second chapter guidance on yoganga related  and are stuck with breath –practice as the pranayama (?) , what to and whom to speak about pratyhara and advanced  issues ?   The guidance for  ‘ bhoomi-jaya’ and  ‘Viniyoga of Yoga’ comes in third chapter ! If one is not at the stage of  ‘Samyama’ then what is the guidance for  ‘bhoomi-jaya-krama’ the sequence and guidance to move beyond for referential ground and application do ?

पुनरपि वक्ष्यमाणेन उपायेन

Yoga Sutra -4-15 . By this time and phase of Yoga practice , the scenario for intellectual deliberation is finished; What is left over  is personal journey through sAdhana. Advaita is a pursuit after the clarity of Purusha-Prakruti Darshana as a dwandva.   Why will a question to pursue, prove, enter to to a dia-logical debate come at that point ? Who is asking the question ?Who is getting the answer /darshana? How ? Where is the instrument – chitta  –the container and reminiscent of  vasana shareera /chitta –karmaashaya to do any thing as sAdhana  ? How  - Who guides ?   these are  beyond the pale of public forum deliberations.

 

प्रयाणकाले मरणकाले मनसा अचलेन चलनवर्जितेन भक्त्या युक्तः भजनं भक्तिः तया युक्तः योगबलेन चैव योगस्य बलं योगबलं समाधिजसंस्कारप्रचयजनितचित्तस्थैर्यलक्षणं योगबलं तेन च युक्तः इत्यर्थः, पूर्वं हृदयपुण्डरीके वशीकृत्य चित्तं ततः ऊर्ध्वगामिन्या नाड्या भूमिजयक्रमेण भ्रुवोः मध्ये प्राणम् आवेश्य स्थापयित्वा सम्यक् अप्रमत्तः सन्, सः एवं विद्वान् योगी 'कविं पुराणम्' इत्यादिलक्षणं तं परं परतरं पुरुषम् उपैति प्रतिपद्यते दिव्यं द्योतनात्मकम्।।पुनरपि वक्ष्यमाणेन उपायेन प्रतिपित्सितस्य ब्रह्मणो वेदविद्वदनादिविशेषणविशेष्यस्य अभिधानं करोति भगवान्

 

 

3.   The practices of Kundalini yoga / Sri Vidya esoteric / aagama /Vedanta do overlap. The  terminologies like ‘Kundalini’, Avarana, AdhishThana, upa-samkramana, are indicative of different paths, which push the ‘inward journey of laya : internalized abstraction and progress through the checkpoints of Samadhi – Kaivalya  and Beyond.  Each phase of journey needs different ‘ anushAsana – anushThana:: guidance and practice’.

 

In Advaita terminology, the journey beyond kaivalya is linked with  ‘ maha vakya- smriti linked anushAsana / upadesha ’.  While technicalities can vary across each shaastra  for debate in intellectual parlor ( with active intellect = Buddhi  guarding the aham-kAra),  the guidance for journey  to ‘ yo buddheh paratastu saH’ ( =Gita 3-42  ) is sidelined.

 

4.      This ‘ anushAsana’ for transcendence of ‘Buddhi ( the deeper technicality of Chitta, Bhaavanaa, Drik-Drushya  darshana viveka, Shiva-shakti samAyoga, Kundalini in Sahasrara and beyond (?),   Lokaantara, Kosha upasamkrana,   Tureeyaaateeta sthiti etc  )  is detailed in the technicality of  ‘Kundalini –Chakra Bheda addahti’.  If one intends to explore, more details can be seen in Arthur Avalon : The Serpent power – Appendix : the summary six or so slokas which,  explain Sookshma- Kundalini- swaroopa as ‘ Vaak-roopaa /Varna roopa..’  and how this needs to be transcended. 

 

         In terms of Yoga-Sutra itself, it is transcending the ‘ smriti’ ( the last of the chitta vrutti’s).

 

        In Tantra, it is going beyond the pancha bhoota tattva of Aakasha. In Vedanta ( cf:Taittiriya)   it is the phase of  ‘aakasha shareeram Brahma’  and beyond.

 

       It is also the sixth aspect of ‘Brahma jijnAsaa ‘ which Varuna teaches Bhrigu but not much detailing is available in the original text itself. (The original text instruction is : annam prAnah, Chakshuh shrotram, mano vacham iti.  The Vacham part of Bhrigu’s  tapas / vijijnAsaa  is not elaborated. The only clue that  is seen in the original text is  ‘  saama gaayan aaste’ – where Saama is the ‘Vak-darshana’. The word ‘annAda’ generally translated as ‘ one who consumes Food’   can also be explained as ‘ I am the nAda of ‘a’ kaara ( at-  nAdaH)’. This unified identity of speaker and the speech expression and process is the  ‘ key of a-vaachyataa ( what can not be articulated) – a-nirvachaneeyataa ( what can not be explained in any other way by any kind of description) for it is the transcending the split of speaker-speech and speaking process. The yato vacho nivaratate –phase.

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

--

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/groups/opt_out.

---

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4158 / Virus Database: 3615/6780 - Release Date: 10/25/13

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Can you please let us know how to get a copy of vishveshvara-smR^itiH? Any pdf available?

Regards,

Sunil KB

--

[Dr. T. Ganesan]

On 26-10-2013 00:59, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:

Now, yes, the attributon of the dakshiNAmUrti stotra to Sankara and the mAnasollAsa to sureSvara have beed doubted by some scholars, but I have already pointed out numerous times that the reasons given to doubt these texts are highly circular arguments. They begin by presuming that any reference to nADI-s and meditative practices based on them are of non-Vedantic origin, because Sankara could not possibly have talked of them at all, and then they go on to conclude that these non-bhAshya texts cannot be authentic. Such arguments conveniently ignore the profuse references to nADI-s in the sUtra bhAshya and key upanishad bhAshyas, thereby applying an inconsistent double standard to bhAshya texts and non-bhAshya texts that are traditionally ascribed to Sankara.

Leaving other points for the present, and without any circular arguments, let me put a few simple questions:

1. How and why did Samkara suddenly hit upon the idea of addressing DakShiNAmUrti form of Siva as GurumUrti, while in all his bhAShya-s--BSbh and those on the UpaniShads--his conscious eschewing of any reference to Saiva theme or idea or practice is so clearly evident ?  (while he clearly refers to some VaishNava themes and ideas). The KenopaniShad reference to the UmA-HaimavatI and the YakSha episode, which should have been so handy for Samkara, to which I had referred in my discussions sometime last year in the same group.
   
2.  If DakShiNAmUrti is considered to be the AcArya of Advaita Vedanta tradition since Samkara addresses Him as GurumUrti in each 4th pada of the said stotra, then, why in the present day the standard verse on GuruparamparA of Advaita, "नारायणं पद्मभुवं . . . . " never mentions DakShiNAmUrti, or any form of Siva at all ?  Probably is this a pointer to the difference between the AdiSamkara, the author of the Bsbh, and of bhAshya-s on some UpaniShads and the founder of the Samkara MaTha-s  ??
   
3. How does Samkara suddenly say in the DakShiNAmUrtyaShTaka " भूरम्भांस्यनलोऽनिलोऽम्बरमहर्नाथो हिमांशुः पुमान् इत्याभाति चराचरात्मकमिदं यस्यैव मूर्त्यष्टकम् ।  while nowhere in the BSbh or in any UpaniShadbhAShya he never mentions this very ancient idea of Siva's aShTamUrti, so often referred and discussed in many ancient PurANa-s, as there are many occasions in the UpaniShadic commentaries where one would very expect Samkara to do, which so strongly establishes the 'sarvaatmatva', sarvavyaapakatva of Brahma so directly, to which concept KAlidAsa, before Samkara, repeatedly refers in his works ? But on the contrary, as many of us know, Samkara firmly says that the universe is only mithyA and a false appearance on Brahma. Evidently, the aShTamUrtitva and jaganmithyAtva cannot go together.
   
4. Also the passage in the second verse of the DakShiNAmUrtistotra,  मायावीव विजृम्भयत्यपि महायोगीव यः स्वेच्छया is a clear indication of the Pratyabhij~nA concept and not of Advaita Vedanta one. Refer to the well known verse of the Isvarapratyabhij~nAkArikA, 1:5:7 of UtpalAcArya:

            `                    चिदात्मैव हि देवोऽन्तःस्थितमिच्छावशाद्बहिः ।
                           योगीव निरुपादानमर्थजातं प्रकाशयेत् ॥

               

Ganesan

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Dear Dr. Ganesan,

 

I address each of your points in order and raise three more of my own at the end.

 

1. Why should we speculate upon the how or why of something that happened centuries ago? For all you or I know, perhaps one fine day, Sankara had a vision or a dream and composed the stotra. Such things happen, do they not? Meanwhile, could I request you to take a fresh look at my response to you on the kenopanishad bhAshya passages from last year? To merely reiterate your stand that Sankara refers to vaishNava themes and ideas while trying to explain away how he does explain the presence of umA and the yaksha in the upanishat does not help matters at all. Just as he refers to the sAlagrAma stone in the brahmasUtra context of a pratIka for meditation on brahman, in the kenopanishat, he says umA = brahma-sahacAriNI, i.e. the yaksha there was brahman = Siva. It is amusing to me that scholars who want to project Sankara as some sort of vaishNava (as opposed to Saiva) don't see the simple fact that he really has neither a vaishNava nor a Saiva fixation. You are well aware that Sankara is quite critical of a number of pancarAtra texts and tenets as well.

 

2. You really cannot have it both ways on the issue of the guru-paramparA verse. For the moment, let me ignore your unwarranted dichotomy between Sankara, the author of bhAshyas and Sankara, the founder of maTha(s). I could say a lot about it, but the only comment I will make instead is that this is equivalent to assuming that every single professor who writes books and journal articles today is quite incapable of setting up a university department devoted to his field of study! I leave it to scholars here to judge how right or wrong such an assumption can be.

 

The various Sankara maTha-s may differ amongst themselves about historical details, but they have a quite uniform tradition when it comes to the study of the vedAnta texts and the ritual practice associated with such study. The verse नारायणं पद्मभुवं . . . . comes from the tradition of the maTha-s, not from any of the bhAshya-s. The recitation of the dakshiNAmUrti stotra at the beginning of bhAshyapATha also comes from the very same tradition of the Sankara maTha-s. You cannot assign the origin of the नारायणं पद्मभुवं verse to the supposed vaishNava orientation of the author of bhAshya-s and the dakshiNAmUrti stotra to the supposedly Saiva angle introduced by a different founder of maTha-s. Such an argument simultaneously credits the maTha traditions with self-contradictory qualities: the paramparA as it exists today is (a) credited with having maintained a reference to nArAyaNa in a guru paramparA verse that is not found in the bhAshya-s, but presumed to go back to their supposed vaishNava milieu and (b) thought of as bringing in a supposedly Saiva (and non-Sankaran) inspired stotra to dakshiNAmUrti as an introduction to studying the same bhAshya-s!

 

Meanwhile, you also seem to conveniently ignore another guru paramparA verse, again from the same maTha traditions - सदाशिव समारंभां ... What motivation could a supposedly Saiva founder of maTha-s, who presumably did not write the bhAshya-s, have had for retaining or even composing a verse with nArAyaNa at the head of the guru paramparA? For such questions to be asked and given the intellectual room to generate solutions, one needs to modulate one's supposed scholarly and academic skepticism about traditional accounts with a healthy skepticism about the methodology and objectivity of scholarly activity itself. Don't you think the need for scholarship to hold a mirror to itself is long overdue in studies of Indian traditions?

3. Come now, does the ashTamUrti concept necessitate a philosophical jagat-satyatva position? And does jagan-mithyAtva in advaita vedAnta have no room to accommodate ashTamUrti anywhere in its rather wide concept of vyavahAra and saguNa brahman? This is a very flimsy argument to make, really.

 

There might be more strength in a textual argument, for example, that demonstrated that nothing similar is found anywhere in all the ten upanishad bhAshyas nor the gItAbhAshya nor the sUtrabhAshya. I might take that more seriously. However, please do not ask me to dig up some reference to the five elements plus the sun and moon and purusha as a group of eight in the bhAshya-s. I have seen enough instances of arguments against the traditional attribution of prakaraNa grantha-s to Sankara, which claim that some particular detail is never found in the bhAshya-s. These were easily proved wrong when I went looking for evidence in the bhAshya-s, found them readily enough and reflected that I am neither a vedAnta paNDita in the traditional mold nor a professional academic in the business of writing books and articles on Indian philosphy and history.

 

One example is that of pancIkaraNa. We have been told, by reputed and erudite scholars, that the sUtrabhAshya never refers to pancIkaraNa, that Sruti refers only to trivRtkaraNa, not pancIkaraNa, and that therefore it is impossible that Sankara could have written a grantha called pancIkaraNa. I have shown, in a paper written more than a decade ago, that in the chAndogyopanishad bhAshya, Sankara does make a very specific reference to the process of pancIkaraNa, extending his explanation of trivRtkaraNa to cover pancIkaraNa, concluding that a samAna-nyAya applies to it as well. Please look up Philosophy East and West issues from the year 2002, to find that article. Suffice it to say, I am quite skeptical when I see arguments that claim that such and such a thing is not to the found in the bhAshya-s at all, when offered as a reason to doubt the authenticity of a text traditionally attributed to Sankara. Much more tightly woven and text-specific arguments need to be given for questions of authorship and I haven't seen much so far that is really convincing.

 

4. I would recommend looking at numerous places in BSBh where the non-event of the creation of the universe by brahman (in advaita) is compared to the illusory creations of a mAyAvI and to the creations of mahAyogI-s. And is it that much of a stretch to go from the upanishadic IkshaNa (tad aikshata) and kAma (so'kAmayata) to icchA?

 

Let me now draw your attention to other related questions.

 

a. The first verse has a line, paSyann Atmani mAyayA bahirivodbhUtaM yathA nidrayA. Does this comparison of the observed universe to things seen in nidrA fit better with the advaita vedAnta of Sankara or the pratyabhijnA SAstra of utpala and abhinavagupta?

 

b. I'm surprised that you didn't land on the 6th verse as part of your argument. Is it because this verse also fits in only with the vedAntic avasthA traya prakriyA (sanmAtraH ... ... prag asvApsam iti prabodhasamaye yaH pratyabhijnAyate) in spite of the explicit usage of a loaded word, pratyabhijnA, directly in this verse?

 

c. You must be aware that Sankara is a champion of direct recourse to saMnyAsa, bypassing the gRhastha stage. Before thinking of this as yet another feature only of the maTha tradition, please look at the gItAbhAshya 3.3, where Sankara descibes the paramahaMsa parivrAjaka as "brahmacaryASramAd eva kRta-saMnyAsa" and to later passages in the gItAbhAshya, where he says there is a samuccaya/vikalpa option for saMnyAsa. Whenever he makes these comments about saMnyAsa, the one Sruti text that he invariably cites in support is the jAbAlopanishad - "brahmacaryAd vA, gRhAd vA, vanAd vA ... yad ahareva virajet tad ahareva pravrajet." This is a lot more specific about the sequence or otherwise of the four ASrama-s than the bRhadAraNyaka sentence about vittaishaNa and putraishaNa that is also sometimes cited in the same context.

 

Now, what does this have to do with Saiva, vaishNava and Sankara's supposed avoidance of Saiva themes or texts? It is this. The jAbAlopanishad is one of those texts that modern scholarship will label as late, will it not? Of all the prior vedic, upanishadic, itihAsic, purANic or tAntric religious motifs and worship patterns that could have existed at the time of the jAbAlopanishat, this text recommends only the recitation of the SatarudrIya for the saMnyAsin. Not the vishNu sahasranAma, not the worship of vishNu in a sAlagrAma stone, not the bhAgavata/pAncarAtra practices of ijya-abhigamana etc (which Sankara says are acceptable to vedAntins). To date, pArAyaNa of and abhisheka using the rudra hymn is a central feature of the worship practice in all the Sankara maTha-s. Right there, in a text that Sankara regards as Sruti, the one text that he specifically cites in support of his emphasis on saMnyAsa directly from the student stage, lies a decidedly Saiva theme. A typical academic response to this evidence would be to ask whether the portion that talks of the SatarudrIya is original to the jAbAlopanishat and to wonder whether it was interpolated by later Saiva sectarians. Such arguments are merely wild attempts to clutch at straws, because the veda itself does have the rudra hymn in it. So, pardon me if all the available evidence, put together, confims my skepticism about the methodologies and conclusions of some of the past academic research that informs your opinions about these issues.

 

Best regards,

Vidyasankar

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear friends,

Not all that comes in the name of Shankaracharya are by Adi Shankaracharya. One can probably be more sure about the 16 bhashyas (including those on the Vishnusahasranama, the  11 Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, the Brahmasutra, the Lalita Trishati and Sanat sujatiya) and a few other texts like Prabodha Sudhakara and Vivekachudamani as well as a few other compositions such as   Mohamudgara being attributed to Adi Shanakaracharya. Scholars have reasons to doubt that the Saundaryalahari and the Dakshinamurti stotra and several other stotras might not have been Adi Shankaracharya's composition. For example the Devi aparadha kshamapana stotra tells us that the author was 85 years old and that  author could have been Vidyashankara tirtha, who lived more than one hundred years.

Regards,

Sunil KB

--

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Dear Bhattacharyaji,

 

Yes, I agree that a number of texts and stotra-s traditionally attributed to the name Sankaracharya could have been from the hands of later titular Sankaracharyas, not necessarily Sankara, the author of the sUtra bhAshya. The problem is that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to say which is which. My point is not that the traditional attributions should stand unquestioned. Rather I would like to emphasize that academic scholarship needs to be a lot more rigorous in the standards that it applies to evaluate authenticity and textual attribution. And contemporary scholars in academia need to review and readjust the conclusions reached by previous generations of scholars. Instead, what I see happening is the growth of a false consensus arising out of repetition and citation of the most prominent writers on a subject. Something that Paul Hacker offers as a tentative conclusion or that Sengaku Mayeda writes as a possible reconstruction becomes, through the act of citation and review, established as something that has been proved beyond doubt, no matter what legitimate evidence is presented to the contrary by others. 

 

Obviously, this can be generalized to apply to a whole variety of texts and traditions from India, not just the corpus arising from the advaita vedAnta sampradAya-s.

 

Please also note a couple of other points.

 

1. Most academic scholars will take issue with your lumping together the prasthAna trayI bhAshya-s with the bhAshya-s on vishNu sahasranAma, lalitA triSati and sanatsujAtIya, prakaraNa texts like prabodhasudhAkara and vivekacUDAmaNi as well as Slokas like the mohamudgara.

 

2. A traditional viewpoint, as well as academic sholarship, will also take issue with the enumeration of bhAshya-s on 11 Upanishat-s, although for different reasons. If you are including a commentary on the SvetASvatara, there is a traditional reason to say that Sankara did not write this one. If you are including a commentary on the nRsimha pUrvatApanI text among the 11, academic scholarship will be skeptical about it.

 

Best regards,

Vidyasankar

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Vidyashankaji,

Yes, the list can appear to be subjective and there can be questions.

The figure of 16 bhshyas of Adi Shankara came from Chitsukhacharya himself. There can be an issue over  the inclusion of the Svetasvatara upanishad as against the  Nrsimhapurvatapania. If these two are left out then the Shankarabhshya on the Sankhya-karika can take a place among the 16. I have my own doubt about the Shankara-bhashya on the Yogasutra.

Regards,

Sunil KB

--