Shankaracharya and Brahmasutra

[gobind medini]

// From Arun Tiru (arun prabhakaran)r: Day before yesterday G Sudhakaran, minister for public works, while inaugurating Sri Shankaracharya Sanskrit University's Shankara Birth ceremony at University's regional center at Thuravoor Alleppy, said that AdiShankara lacks greatness and popularity comparing to E M S Namboodirippad, the first communist chief minister of Kerala. Because of his support to 'chaturvarnya' he is irrelevant hence public keep off from his birth day celebrations. //

There is no question of comparing EMS with Shankara; such comparisons are odious! Communists never found anything worthwhile in Indian culture and history. They don't like Shankara, but did they like anybody else or anything else in the cultural tradition of Kerala? Say, Narayana Guru? The great Mathematics tradition of Kerala? Performing arts like Mohiniyattam, Thirayattam, Padayani etc.? Or Margam Kali the old dance of Christians?.. or Kerala's marital arts? They hate cultural nationalism even of liberal and moderate disposition. Their religious heads are all outside India. (Marxism was another dogmatic religion).

Shankara is identified by today's scholars as the commentator of Brahmasutra. He supported apashUdradhikaraNa (BS 1.3.34-38) and as such supported hierarchical chAturvarNya. His other aupaniShad commentaries do not contradict his BS commentary. To keep consistency with his BS-commentary, he misinterpreted jAbAla story of ChAndogya. I have many posts on this topic in the archives "science-religion-philosophy" group. See here. Also, see Adi Shankara on shUdra-s. (The references were checked by me).

In Maharashtra, many scholars disagreed with Shankara's axiology (including nationalist leaders and scholars like Lokamanya Tilak in his famous Gita-Rahasya and Dr. K. L. Daftari in his Aupanishad Soukhya).

To be fair to Shankara, he followed the framework of BS faithfully. Other AchArya-s did the same. BS framework provides not only apashUdradhikaraNa but also provides for the refutation of other Indian schools. I don't see any reason to refute these schools. They offer their own perspective and their refutation seems purposeless, today. So, instead of blaming BS framework, it is better to keep it aside except the preamble and the first four aphorisms (..a pa.nchapAdikA style). The full BS commentaries will be studied only in the academic circles while most of the references in the social circles will be confined to adhyAsa-bhAShya and first four sUtra-s. This is already happening.

There is no point in blaming Shankara for hierarchical and hereditary chAturvarNya; he did not create it, though he could have reformed it. All the machinery was there in the form of Upanishads, Gita, and Mahabharata. Vivekanada had asked the question as to why Shankara could not use this machinery to grant shUdra-s the right to study Vedas and Upanishads.

So, Shankara, the great theologian and the scholar, definitely deserves a university in his name. I am not sure however, if he can be the national icon which can connect with the socially deprived, or could be a model for social harmony (सामाजिक समरसता). This may happen only if we invent a new Shankara of maniSha pa.nchakam and devotional songs. The myth makers have already attempted to create this new Shankara but not forcefully enough to enter into the imagination of ordinary people. We Warkaris meanwhile have kept a respectful distance both from Shankara and from Brahmasutra.

g

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Sri Gobind Medini-ji,

My response in this post is limited to your following words:

"This may happen only if we invent a new Shankara of maniSha pa.nchakam and devotional songs. The myth makers have already attempted to create this new Shankara but not forcefully enough to enter into the imagination of ordinary people. "

Which S'ankara do you think,is in the imagination of ordinary people? The one who commented on the apashUdradhikaraNa(BS 1.3.34-38) ? Ordinary people? Do ordinary people know these details?

it is the S'ankara of devotional songs who is in the popular imagination. We need not invent such a S'ankara. No myth maker needs to try to create that S'ankara or forcefully enter him into the popular imagination. Who is in the popular imagination is the S'ankara of devtional songs only. 

The non-scholarly non-researching but book-reading type Indians know the S'ankara of hagiographies with all the funny stories like parakaayapraves'a to learn kaamas'aastra etc. 

Recently a Telugu movie was made with all such stuff and the most awkward thing in that movie for me was making Mandana Mishra into a comedian like humorous character. 

Such movies are effective in affecting the popular imagination. 

The scholarly S'ankara known through his commentaries and other rigorous works is the one known only to scholars and is beyond the popular imagination.  

--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS, Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth, Veliyanad, Kerala

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[gobind medini]

Dear Shri Paturi-ji, 

On Jun 6, 2017 12:09 AM, "Nagaraj Paturi" <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Sri Gobind Medini-ji,

My response in this post is limited to your following words:

"This may happen only if we invent a new Shankara of maniSha pa.nchakam and devotional songs. The myth makers have already attempted to create this new Shankara but not forcefully enough to enter into the imagination of ordinary people. "

Which S'ankara do you think,is in the imagination of ordinary people? The one who commented on the apashUdradhikaraNa(BS 1.3.34-38) ? Ordinary people? Do ordinary people know these details?

It is difficult to make a general statement; but I consider myself an ordinary Indian (Hindu) and I came to know about Shankara in following sequence: (a) As the great Guru of Hindus, (b) As Bhashyakara, (c) Manishpanchakam and devotional songs came much later.

 

it is the S'ankara of devotional songs who is in the popular imagination. We need not invent such a S'ankara. No myth maker needs to try to create that S'ankara or forcefully enter him into the popular imagination. Who is in the popular imagination is the S'ankara of devtional songs only. 

As I said earlier, the Shankara of devotional songs came into my imagination quite late. I do not know how many people know a particular Stotra in Sanskrit in the name of Shankara. At least I did not know it until I saw Stotraratnavali published by Gita Press, Gorakhpur. This happened after I have read all Shankara Bhashyas as translated and published by Ramakrishna Matha.

 

The non-scholarly non-researching but book-reading type Indians know the S'ankara of hagiographies with all the funny stories like parakaayapraves'a to learn kaamas'aastra etc. 

Yes. I have heard them too though I have not read the original hagiographies or their translations.

 

Recently a Telugu movie was made with all such stuff and the most awkward thing in that movie for me was making Mandana Mishra into a comedian like humorous character. 

Such movies are effective in affecting the popular imagination. 

Movies are quite a powerful medium to effect or affect the public imagination. (I have not seen any movie on Shankara, though I have heard about a movie on him in Sanskrit by G. V. Iyer). I hope, that movie does not caricature Mandana Mishra. That would devalue Shankara too!

 

The scholarly S'ankara known through his commentaries and other rigorous works is the one known only to scholars and is beyond the popular imagination.  

That is right. But let us face it.. both Shankara of hagiographies as well as Shankara of Manishapanchakam are created by myth-makers. We can project the latter Shankara on social platforms without claiming his historicity (that is without claiming Manishpanchakam as history). Is it a correct thing to do? Are we projecting the real Shankara in the public imagination? That is, should we create and propagate myths in first place?. In Vedanta it is acceptable in the name of Adhikari Bheda and Arundhati Nyaya. Such myths and theories are used only as a pedagogical tools. However, in general this approach needs to be taken with caution; otherwise the history and objective truth itself may become irrelevant one day.

g

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 8:33 AM, gobind medini <gome...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Shri Paturi-ji, 

That is right. But let us face it.. both Shankara of hagiographies as well as Shankara of Manishapanchakam are created by myth-makers. We can project the latter Shankara on social platforms without claiming his historicity (that is without claiming Manishpanchakam as history). Is it a correct thing to do? Are we projecting the real Shankara in the public imagination? That is, should we create and propagate myths in first place?. In Vedanta it is acceptable in the name of Adhikari Bheda and Arundhati Nyaya. Such myths and theories are used only as a pedagogical tools. However, in general this approach needs to be taken with caution; otherwise the history and objective truth itself may become irrelevant one day.

Dear Sri Gobind ji,

The followers of Shankara do not feel uncomfortable with the Manishapanchakam. There is nothing in the work that warrants that. It is quite popular in the scriptures to have someone as a Brahma jnani who is a non-brahmin or someone following a profession that is not regarded as 'clean',  and that he is revered as a teacher. The case of Dharma vyadha is just one.  Shankara himself, in the apashudradhikarana has said that there is no bar for a shudra to acquire self knowledge. In the ajatashatru brahmanam of the Brihadaranyaka there is the case of a brahmin, Balaki, getting instruction from a kshatriya jnani on atma tattva. 

Some decades ago a group of people from Karnataka went to Sringeri with the evil design of cornering the then Jagadguru Sri Chandrashekhara Bharati Swamiji with their misconceived notion of the manisha panchakam. They asked him: Shankaracharya said he would accept a chandala for  a guru. Would you do that?  The Swamiji without losing his cool replied: If we come across such a chandala who is a Brahma jnani, we would happily follow the method of our Great Acharya.  Needless to say the group of men were shown their place. 

vs    

g

 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Sri Gobind Medini-ji,

Your narration of the sequence in which you came to know of different aspects of Shankara, clearly show that yours is a sample of how intellectuals get introduced to Shankara. 

That is not the way 'ordinary people' come to know of Shankara. 

They know stotras like Mahishasura mardini stotra; like them for their aesthetic qualities; then they come to know that Shankara is the author of them. They do not even remotely know about the authorship debates among researchers about each of the stotra. 

Adavaita Vedanta ideas like Maayaa and Mithyaa form part of popular vocabulary. The understanding is usually not detailed, rigorous, or accurate. 

When they look at the pictures or sculptures of Shankara, they identify who he is; express reverence; remember some hagiographical narratives like crocodile holding his leg to make his mother agree to his sanyaasa sveekaara etc. 

------------------

When we say, learned in Advaita Vedanta , that does not mean they are modern educated. There are a huge number of rural spiritual practitioners who know minute details of Advaita Vedanta, practice-oriented details of it such as PancheekaraNa and so on, but without modern education. I know many of them hailing from the communities considered to be at lower ranks of social hierarchy too. I know many hailing from tanner-cobbler communities too with a high level of knowledge, spiritual experience and spiritual progress following Advaita Vedanta, some of them living an ascetic life , some others family life.

These can not be called 'ordinary people' 

---------------------

Naga Sadhus are of Shankara parampara only.

--------------------

   There are many  modern Shankarite monks hailing from 'non- Brahmin', 'non-dvija' communities. 

-----------------------------------

Reality of these things is so complex that eludes always any easy generalization.

Warm regards,

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 8:33 AM, gobind medini <gome...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Gobind Mediniji,

​

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:58 PM, gobind medini <gome...@gmail.com> wrote:

​​

Shankara is identified by today's scholars as the commentator of Brahmasutra. He supported apashUdradhikaraNa (BS 1.3.34-38) and as such supported hierarchical chAturvarNya. His other aupaniShad commentaries do not contradict his BS commentary. To keep consistency with his BS-commentary, he misinterpreted jAbAla story of ChAndogya.

​Interpreting differently doesn't have to mean misinterpretation.​

To be fair to Shankara, he followed the framework of BS faithfully. Other AchArya-s did the same. BS framework provides not only apashUdradhikaraNa but also provides for the refutation of other Indian schools. I don't see any reason to refute these schools. They offer their own perspective and their refutation seems purposeless, today.

​Quite a lot of ​the refutations are meant to resolve one's own confused thinking in manana. Ergo, there is a purpose. Most people do not even know what bits and pieces they have picked up from random philosophies growing up. When they come to Advaita Vedanta proper, they start drawing similarities with those and risk concluding wrongly. The structured study of Brahmasutra bhAShya beyond chAtussUtrI, even if many things may seem irrelevant, help resolve the misunderstandings gathered.

 

So, Shankara, the great theologian and the scholar, definitely deserves a university in his name. I am not sure however, if he can be the national icon which can connect with the socially deprived, or could be a model for social harmony (सामाजिक समरसता).

Bhagavatpadacharya is a national ​icon, but I'd be surprised if someone has to connect with socially deprived in all expected ways to be a national icon. 

 

This may happen only if we invent a new Shankara of maniSha pa.nchakam and devotional songs. The myth makers have already attempted to create this new Shankara but not forcefully enough to enter into the imagination of ordinary people.

If a new Shankaracharya is invented, wouldn't that be a myth? In another mail ahead you ask "should we create and propagate myths in first place?" We Vedantins respect and love the Shankaracharya as he is, with or without the existent stories that some call myths, some as facts. Why should new be added?

 

We Warkaris meanwhile have kept a respectful distance both from Shankara and from Brahmasutra.

​May I ask as to what this means? Does this mean that Varkaris belong to Shankarasampradaya and distanced themselves or were they only influenced by ​his works, in which case there is no real distancing themselves.

​

​

Kind rgds,

--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */

[gobind medini]

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatp...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Gobind Mediniji,

​

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:58 PM, gobind medini <gome...@gmail.com> wrote:

​​

Shankara is identified by today's scholars as the commentator of Brahmasutra. He supported apashUdradhikaraNa (BS 1.3.34-38) and as such supported hierarchical chAturvarNya. His other aupaniShad commentaries do not contradict his BS commentary. To keep consistency with his BS-commentary, he misinterpreted jAbAla story of ChAndogya.

​Interpreting differently doesn't have to mean misinterpretation.​

I assume, you have read the entire thread in science-religion-philosophy archives. If not, it is here. After reading that thread if you draw the conclusion that Shankara's interpretation is a mere interpretation, then I have no further arguments.

 

To be fair to Shankara, he followed the framework of BS faithfully. Other AchArya-s did the same. BS framework provides not only apashUdradhikaraNa but also provides for the refutation of other Indian schools. I don't see any reason to refute these schools. They offer their own perspective and their refutation seems purposeless, today.

​Quite a lot of ​the refutations are meant to resolve one's own confused thinking in manana. Ergo, there is a purpose. Most people do not even know what bits and pieces they have picked up from random philosophies growing up. When they come to Advaita Vedanta proper, they start drawing similarities with those and risk concluding wrongly. The structured study of Brahmasutra bhAShya beyond chAtussUtrI, even if many things may seem irrelevant, help resolve the misunderstandings gathered.

BS aphorisms were formulated or compiled in a bygone era as memory aids when writing was not in practice. The brevity of these aphorisms add to confusion rather than clarity. The very fact that there are half a dozen vedAnta schools which argued against each other on the basis of BS does not make a good case for clarity. One can study BS and various subsequent commentaries to track the evolution of a particular tradition. This whole exercise has academic value but I don't think it adds to the understanding of the shA.nkara vedAnta. Instead the most authentic shA.nkara vedAnta may be found in upadesha-sAhasrI where sha.nkara is not bound to BS framework.

 

 

So, Shankara, the great theologian and the scholar, definitely deserves a university in his name. I am not sure however, if he can be the national icon which can connect with the socially deprived, or could be a model for social harmony (सामाजिक समरसता).

Bhagavatpadacharya is a national ​icon, but I'd be surprised if someone has to connect with socially deprived in all expected ways to be a national icon. 

How can one become the national icon if he excludes a large section of people from studying Vedas and Upanishads - the very foundation of the theology which he was preaching? He used and authenticated the very same smRRiti-s which permanently slotted this large section to the lowest rung of servitude.

 

This may happen only if we invent a new Shankara of maniSha pa.nchakam and devotional songs. The myth makers have already attempted to create this new Shankara but not forcefully enough to enter into the imagination of ordinary people.

If a new Shankarachar  ya is invented, wouldn't that be a myth? In another mail ahead you ask "should we create and propagate myths in first place?" We Vedantins respect and love the Shankaracharya as he is, with or without the existent stories that some call myths, some as facts. Why should new be added?

You can of course love and respect Shankara. Ours is a free society, but lower caste people like us find no reason to love Shankara. We have our Gyanaba-Tukaram. We love them not because of their caste but because of their inclusive outlook. We don't see a trace of it in Shankara's commentaries.

 

 

We Warkaris meanwhile have kept a respectful distance both from Shankara and from Brahmasutra.

​May I ask as to what this means? Does this mean that Varkaris belong to Shankarasampradaya and distanced themselves or were they only influenced by ​his works, in which case there is no real distancing themselves.

​

​

Kind rgds,

--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */

--

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Gobindji,

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 6:12 PM, gobind medini <gome...@gmail.com> wrote:

​​

BS aphorisms were formulated or compiled in a bygone era as memory aids when writing was not in practice. The brevity of these aphorisms add to confusion rather than clarity.

​That goes with any sutra work, including Panini's. The anuvRttis and thereby, explanation are learnt only in tradition.​

The very fact that there are half a dozen vedAnta schools which argued against each other on the basis of BS does not make a good case for clarity.

​That is true about all Upanishads and Gita, as well. Despite these mantras and verses being elaborate, there are various schools, tangential to each other.

 

One can study BS and various subsequent commentaries to track the evolution of a particular tradition. This whole exercise has academic value but I don't think it adds to the understanding of the shA.nkara vedAnta.

​Oh, but it does, in sampradAya. Its not for no reason that it is called as a nyAyaprakaraNa.​

 

Instead the most authentic shA.nkara vedAnta may be found in upadesha-sAhasrI where sha.nkara is not bound to BS framework.

I agree, except for the instead part. One need not be exclusive of the other.

How can one become the national icon if he excludes a large section of people from studying Vedas and Upanishads - the very foundation of the theology which he was preaching? He used and authenticated the very same smRRiti-s which permanently slotted this large section to the lowest rung of servitude.

As you said, he was ​not the creator of the system but a follower. There are many a national icon who have included only a smaller or larger sections of society, be it by varNa, community, specialty or other.

 

You can of course love and respect Shankara. Ours is a free society, but lower caste people like us find no reason to love Shankara.

​Sure, a free society indeed.

We have our Gyanaba-Tukaram. We love them not because of their caste but because of their inclusive outlook. We don't see a trace of it in Shankara's commentaries.

The commentaries were on works which themselves ​were meant for particular classes. Why is Bhagavatpadacharya to blame for that! The perspectives differ. Sant. Tukaram could be said to not have a "trace of scholarship" since he did not write commentaries and therefore, Vedantins keep him away, but that would be comparing apples and oranges. Yet, Sant. Tukaram and Shankaracharya are both national icons. Not everyone needs to be all-inclusive to be national icons. Each system of study, including modern education, is based on adhikAribheda. The modern education can obviously consider qualifications of one life, while Vedanta of across lives based on karma theory. Still, Shankaracharya never denied mokSha to anyone, which is why he went beyond the prasthAnatraya and wrote prakaraNas, stotras and shlokas which themselves could lead one to mokSha. To conclude, his commentaries may not be all-inclusive but other works definitely were.

We Warkaris meanwhile have kept a respectful distance both from Shankara and from Brahmasutra.

​May I ask as to what this means? Does this mean that Varkaris belong to Shankarasampradaya and distanced themselves or were they only influenced by ​his works, in which case there is no real distancing themselves.

​I was hoping that someone would answer this question for my academic interest. 

​Thanks much

,

Kind rgds,

[gobind medini]

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatp...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Gobindji,

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 6:12 PM, gobind medini <gome...@gmail.com> wrote:

​​

BS aphorisms were formulated or compiled in a bygone era as memory aids when writing was not in practice. The brevity of these aphorisms add to confusion rather than clarity.

​That goes with any sutra work, including Panini's. The anuvRttis and thereby, explanation are learnt only in tradition.​

You have not understood my point; when you have a coherent treatise why go for convoluted sUtra-bhAShya? Just to show that one cannot learn without a tradition? There are good prakaraNa-grantha-s both in Sanskrit as well as in local language. Why not read and understand them without getting entangled in BS in the name of tradition?

 

The very fact that there are half a dozen vedAnta schools which argued against each other on the basis of BS does not make a good case for clarity.

​That is true about all Upanishads and Gita, as well. Despite these mantras and verses being elaborate, there are various schools, tangential to each other.

See my above comment. In fact read Upanishads and Gita yourself if you want to understand why Shankara had to use certain schemes like adhyAropa-apavAda, sattA-siddhAnta etc.

 

One can study BS and various subsequent commentaries to track the evolution of a particular tradition. This whole exercise has academic value but I don't think it adds to the understanding of the shA.nkara vedAnta.

​Oh, but it does, in sampradAya. Its not for no reason that it is called as a nyAyaprakaraNa.​

I don't understand the fixation about BS other than clinging to the tradition in the name of nyAyaprasthAna. Make Yogasutra as the nyAya prasthAna where nyAya is interpreted as moral way (as judgment), it will give some decent values instead giving you apashUdradhikaraNa.

Most of the times, saMpradAya is another excuse for effete and stale thinking!

 

 

Instead the most authentic shA.nkara vedAnta may be found in upadesha-sAhasrI where sha.nkara is not bound to BS framework.

I agree, except for the instead part. One need not be exclusive of the other.

See my above comment. Upadesha sAhasrI is not the only treatise. There are very many others, one can follow any of them.

 

How can one become the national icon if he excludes a large section of people from studying Vedas and Upanishads - the very foundation of the theology which he was preaching? He used and authenticated the very same smRRiti-s which permanently slotted this large section to the lowest rung of servitude.

As you said, he was ​not the creator of the system but a follower. There are many a national icon who have included only a smaller or larger sections of society, be it by varNa, community, specialty or other.

Yes, he was a follower.. follower leading his follower! Who is jagad-guru then? Buddha, Vivekananda, Gyaneshvar, Tukaram, Narayana-Guru, Kabir, Nanak ..all of them had a broader, inclusive vision. Yes, comparisons are odious but I can't help making them here.

 

 

You can of course love and respect Shankara. Ours is a free society, but lower caste people like us find no reason to love Shankara.

​Sure, a free society indeed.

We have our Gyanaba-Tukaram. We love them not because of their caste but because of their inclusive outlook. We don't see a trace of it in Shankara's commentaries.

The commentaries were on works which themselves ​were meant for particular classes. Why is Bhagavatpadacharya to blame for that! The perspectives differ. Sant. Tukaram could be said to not have a "trace of scholarship" since he did not write commentaries and therefore, Vedantins keep him away, but that would be comparing apples and oranges. Yet, Sant. Tukaram and Shankaracharya are both national icons. Not everyone needs to be all-inclusive to be national icons.

For being a national icon, one has to be inclusive. Scholarship is a lesser criterion!

 

Each system of study, including modern education, is based on adhikAribheda. The modern education can obviously consider qualifications of one life, while Vedanta of across lives based on karma theory. Still, Shankaracharya never denied mokSha to anyone, which is why he went beyond the prasthAnatraya and wrote prakaraNas, stotras and shlokas which themselves could lead one to mokSha. To conclude, his commentaries may not be all-inclusive but other works definitely were.

Hmm.

 

We Warkaris meanwhile have kept a respectful distance both from Shankara and from Brahmasutra.

​May I ask as to what this means? Does this mean that Varkaris belong to Shankarasampradaya and distanced themselves or were they only influenced by ​his works, in which case there is no real distancing themselves.

​I was hoping that someone would answer this question for my academic interest. 

​Thanks much

,

Warkaris as Bhagavatas follow the Bhagavata dharma based on Gyaneswari, Eknathi Bhagavat, and Gatha. Sometimes Dasbodh which is an Advaita Vedanta work (Gaudapada and Yogavasistha variety) is also included. Well known Marathi scholar Dr S. D. Pendse opines that Bhagavata philosophy (ontology, epistemology) is that of Advaita while axiology is different, it is Gyana-Karma Samuchaya which is not acceptable to Shankara. IMO, Tukaram is the distinguished mark of Bhagavata tradition. He is the protagonist of egalitarian liberation theology whose analog now can be seen in South America and Mexico (developed independently).

 

Kind rgds,

--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */

​

[V Subrahmanian]

​

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:58 PM, gobind medini <gome...@gmail.com> wrote:

​​

We Warkaris meanwhile have kept a respectful distance both from Shankara and from Brahmasutra.

If the Brahmasutras are faulted for the mere presence of the apashudradhikarana and Shankara is faulted for commenting on it, then there is no way the Bhagavadgita, the Upanishads, the Mahabharata and all other texts of sanatana dharma can qualify for acceptance by the socially deprived either. All these texts have in one or the other way mentioned the shudras. None of these works approved study of the veda-s and upanishads by them. 

About Buddhism, there is ample evidence that it is not without its own quota of caste, karma theory, etc:

An excerpt from an old post of mine in another group:

The entire thread can be read here:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/science-religion-philosophy/FTU9B9SzSoM/J6xf4qupCwAJ 

//With regard to the Buddhist belief in rebirth and existence of  and transmigrating to other worlds after death, I could see from the following links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism)

that there is little difference from the Vedic beliefs.  We also know that Science does not accept rebirth or existence other worlds where the jivas go to according to karma.  While Science does not consider these beliefs as rational, and since the Buddha denounced or rejected the Vedic beliefs of apaurusheya of Veda, caste system, etc. what rationale is there in the Buddhist beliefs of rebirth and lokāntara?

One can read here for 'Castes in Buddhism':

http://www.chakranews.com/castes-in-buddhism-is-caste-only-a-hindu-problem-part-4/3094

Only a brief excerpt:

//Weber states under the caption, “Buddha and the Dalits” in his monograph:

“The standpoint which caste a Buddha should belong to has not been revised in Buddhism up to the present day. It is dogmatised in the Lalitavistara in the following way: a Bodhisattva can by no means come from a lower or even mixed caste: “After all Bodhisattvas were not born in despised lineage, among pariahs, in families of pipe or cart makers, or mixed castes.”25

Instead, in perfect harmony with the Great Sermon, it was said that: “The Bodhisattvas appear only in two kinds of lineage, the one of the brahmanas and of the warriors (kshatriya).”26

In which of the two high castes they were born depended on the fact which of the two had the better reputation at that particular moment. “When the Brahmins are especially respected on earth, they were born in a lineage of Brahmins, when the warriors play a greater role, they appear in a noble family.”27//

regards

vs 

 

​

[gobind medini]

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 10:04 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

​

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:58 PM, gobind medini <gome...@gmail.com> wrote:

​​

We Warkaris meanwhile have kept a respectful distance both from Shankara and from Brahmasutra.

If the Brahmasutras are faulted for the mere presence of the apashudradhikarana and Shankara is faulted for commenting on it, then there is no way the Bhagavadgita, the Upanishads, the Mahabharata and all other texts of sanatana dharma can qualify for acceptance by the socially deprived either. All these texts have in one or the other way mentioned the shudras. None of these works approved study of the veda-s and upanishads by them. 

Gita, and Upanishads might have mentioned shUdra-s but they do not slot shUdra-s to the lowest rung of servitude nor do they deny shUdra-s the access to Vedas or other scriptures. Not only that, Gita offers many shlokas which teach "samatva"- the unity and parity seen by an equanimous mind in all life forms. As against that Shankara enthusiastically defends apashUdrAdhikaraNa which denies shUdra-s the access to Vedas, misinterprets aupaniShad passages to justify this prohibition, indirectly authenticates smRRiti-s which confine shUdra-s to servitude, and if I may say so, uses unsavory language in few of his comments (please, see the Sulekha link provided by me).

 

About Buddhism, there is ample evidence that it is not without its own quota of caste, karma theory, etc:

An excerpt from an old post of mine in another group:

The entire thread can be read here:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/science-religion-philosophy/FTU9B9SzSoM/J6xf4qupCwAJ 

//With regard to the Buddhist belief in rebirth and existence of  and transmigrating to other worlds after death, I could see from the following links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism)

that there is little difference from the Vedic beliefs.  We also know that Science does not accept rebirth or existence other worlds where the jivas go to according to karma.  While Science does not consider these beliefs as rational, and since the Buddha denounced or rejected the Vedic beliefs of apaurusheya of Veda, caste system, etc. what rationale is there in the Buddhist beliefs of rebirth and lokāntara?

One can read here for 'Castes in Buddhism':

http://www.chakranews.com/castes-in-buddhism-is-caste-only-a-hindu-problem-part-4/3094

Only a brief excerpt:

//Weber states under the caption, “Buddha and the Dalits” in his monograph:

“The standpoint which caste a Buddha should belong to has not been revised in Buddhism up to the present day. It is dogmatised in the Lalitavistara in the following way: a Bodhisattva can by no means come from a lower or even mixed caste: “After all Bodhisattvas were not born in despised lineage, among pariahs, in families of pipe or cart makers, or mixed castes.”25

Instead, in perfect harmony with the Great Sermon, it was said that: “The Bodhisattvas appear only in two kinds of lineage, the one of the brahmanas and of the warriors (kshatriya).”26

In which of the two high castes they were born depended on the fact which of the two had the better reputation at that particular moment. “When the Brahmins are especially respected on earth, they were born in a lineage of Brahmins, when the warriors play a greater role, they appear in a noble family.”27//

Early Buddhism was positivist, rationalist, and at the same time set "alleviation of sufferance" as the main goal of dhamma by preaching Arya-Satya and Dwadasha-Nidana. This is not to suggest that it remained without any blemish through its history. It competed with Vedic dharma as well as with other cults of popular Hinduism and in the process became the pale version of popular Hinduism.. recall Vajrayana and many other cults developed within it in Tibet and elsewhere. The point is, we cannot justify one bad with another bad.

 

regards

vs 

 

​

[Shrivathsa B]

   Wow, Gobind, you excel at drain inspection. For you, anyone, any book who doesn't meet your standards is to be rejected.

   Let us do the same exercise for Jnaneshwari which you seek to juxtapose with BS.

1. Propagation of superstition.

ते एकवांचूनि अघवा शास्त्री सिद्धान्त निर्माणधात्री । परी जळो ते मूळनक्षत्रे । Jnaneshwar suggesting that the learning of the one not oriented towards adhyAtmavidyaa is like the child born in mUlA nakShatra. The drift being that just as a mUlA nakShatra child brings bad to the family, the shaastea learning of a person not oriented towards adhyAtmavidyaa is dangerous. So, 1/27 part of the population branded as bad by Jnaneshwar? Secondly it can also be "interpreted" (Gobind's favourite word) as abuse of scholars.

2. Obscenity

In the context of avyabhicaariNii bhakti

रिगता वल्लभा पुढे । नाही आङ्गी जीवी साङ्कडे । तिये तियेकान्तेचेनी पाडे । एक सरला जो । example of a woman sleeping with her husband to show avyabhicaariNii bhakti.

नातरी जीवाचिये सेजे । गुरु कान्तु करूनी भुञ्जे । ऐसी प्रेमाचेनी भोजे । "He makes the guru his husband and makes love on the bed of jiivaatmaa."

If one were to look closely, every single work and person in this world can be called faulty. Let us ask you, why you seek crap? Are you perfect in all aspects? Does finding faults give you a high?

I am Jnaneshwar maharaj's bhakta but I had to cull out the above to get you out of your self righteousness. So, what next? You think the Warkaris will throw out Jnaneshwari? They have better brains and not affected by toxins unlike you.

Stop blowing hard. You are not the first to discover apashUdrAdhikaraNa. You also think your lack of traditional learning to be some chip on your shoulder.

About people the case is far worse. You can find many chinks in Vivekananda's personality. Too bad he wasn't of immaculate conception as you think your magnanimous self to be.

It is some great vyuShTi of their heinous sins that Jnaneshwar and Tukaram had to get you as their votary. Your approach is execrable to the extreme.

Shrivathsa.

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Gobindji,

​

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 8:20 PM, gobind medini <gome...@gmail.com> wrote:

BS aphorisms were formulated or compiled in a bygone era as memory aids when writing was not in practice. The brevity of these aphorisms add to confusion rather than clarity.

​That goes with any sutra work, including Panini's. The anuvRttis and thereby, explanation are learnt only in tradition.​

You have not understood my point; when you have a coherent treatise why go for convoluted sUtra-bhAShya?

And you, my response since that's not the point you made; please look above. ​In any case, the same argument holds with all works. Jnaneshvari's Marathi is convoluted and lost on many, still it is studied. The author himself gets lost in examples many times and tries to pull himself back to the topic by stating that his brother is saying: enough with examples! See? I could find faults too where they don't belong!

Just to show that one cannot learn without a tradition?

​Learn? Why not! Advaita Vedanta goal? Definitely not! You don't become a doctor by studying​ medical books by yourself.

There are good prakaraNa-grantha-s both in Sanskrit as well as in local language. Why not read and understand them without getting entangled in BS in the name of tradition?

Its clear that those who think they are entangled in Br. Su. have very biased views and selective reading, especially not having learnt in the teaching tradition. 

 

See my above comment. In fact read Upanishads and Gita yourself if you want to understand why Shankara had to use certain schemes like adhyAropa-apavAda, sattA-siddhAnta etc. 

​Ditto. adhyAropa-apavAda, sattA, etc, is a shruti scheme, not created by Bhagavatpadacharya! Upanishads use a creation story, koShaviveka, avasthAtrayaviveka, sharIraviveka and refute all those by explaining these schemes.

​

I don't understand the fixation about BS other than clinging to the tradition in the name of nyAyaprasthAna.

If you do not understand it, that is perfectly alright.​ I'm sure many outside Varkari tradition do not understand the same too.

 

Make Yogasutra as the nyAya prasthAna

That is also accepted in the orthodox AV tradition and Bhagavatpadacharya is said to be the author of Vivarana on VyasabhAShya.​

 

where nyAya is interpreted as moral way (as judgment), it will give some decent values

​Those who made it so may have made such "misinterpretation" of nyAya to meet their own needs, which is okay too, but pointing to others about things they do not understand is not. With morality as a bias, no text can become nyAya​ (tarka/ logic) prasthAna. The logic of understanding things as they are does not work with emotional biases, especially in jnAnamArga. Jnaneshvari itself interpreted with such biases will need a new vyutpatti for jnAna.

 

instead giving you apashUdradhikaraNa.

​apashUdradhikaraNa written not by Bhashyakara, but by Badarayana Veda Vyasa, is inside the value system, different from yours or mine in this era. I wonder if Bhagavatas keep Bhagavat Purana and its author also out of their following unless they consider authors of Bh. Pu. and Br. Su. as different.

Most of the times, saMpradAya is another excuse for effete and stale thinking!

​And self-learning is what leads to such self-righteousness.

​

 

See my above comment. Upadesha sAhasrI is not the only treatise. There are very many others, one can follow any of them. 

​And I repeat, one need not exclude the other.​ prakaraNas are meant for those who do not have adhikAra in prasthAnatraya, due to lack of learning or karma, in this life or across.

​​

Yes, he was a follower.. follower leading his follower! Who is jagad-guru then? 

Buddha, Vivekananda, Gyaneshvar, Tukaram, Narayana-Guru, Kabir, Nanak ..all of them had a broader, inclusive vision. Yes, comparisons are odious but I can't help making them here.

​If all leaders who are followers are not jagadgurus, then only Ishvara is jagadguru. Else jagadguru is a samAsa that can resolve in more ways than one that you see. For eg, one Sringeri "jagadguru" said it for Himself so: jagat guru yasya saH.

​ 

For being a national icon, one has to be inclusive. Scholarship is a lesser criterion!

I wonder whether any great scientist fits the bill either then.

​

 

We Warkaris meanwhile have kept a respectful distance both from Shankara and from Brahmasutra.

​May I ask as to what this means? Does this mean that Varkaris belong to Shankarasampradaya and distanced themselves or were they only influenced by ​his works, in which case there is no real distancing themselves.

​I was hoping that someone would answer this question for my academic interest. 

​Thanks much

,

Warkaris as Bhagavatas follow the Bhagavata dharma based on Gyaneswari, Eknathi Bhagavat, and Gatha. Sometimes Dasbodh which is an Advaita Vedanta work (Gaudapada and Yogavasistha variety) is also included.  independently).

​Thanks. In that case, Varkaris can't be keeping distance from someone whose tradition they never belonged to.

[gobind medini]

Respected Shrivathsa-ji,

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 1:37 AM, Shrivathsa B <shrivath...@gmail.com> wrote:

   Wow, Gobind, you excel at drain inspection.

Yes Sir! We are supposed to do that generation-after-generation without any respite.

 

For you, anyone, any book who doesn't meet your standards is to be rejected.

Sir, I have not rejected Shankara or any body for that matter, I am only expressing my discomfiture and fear towards a supposed national icon who endorses putting hot oil (or whatever) in our ears even if we accidentally hear a word from Vedas or Upanishads.

 

   Let us do the same exercise for Jnaneshwari which you seek to juxtapose with BS.

1. Propagation of superstition.

ते एकवांचूनि अघवा शास्त्री सिद्धान्त निर्माणधात्री । परी जळो ते मूळनक्षत्रे । Jnaneshwar suggesting that the learning of the one not oriented towards adhyAtmavidyaa is like the child born in mUlA nakShatra. The drift being that just as a mUlA nakShatra child brings bad to the family, the shaastea learning of a person not oriented towards adhyAtmavidyaa is dangerous. So, 1/27 part of the population branded as bad by Jnaneshwar? Secondly it can also be "interpreted" (Gobind's favourite word) as abuse of scholars.

Are you serious Sir, when you quote such passages out of context?

 

2. Obscenity

In the context of avyabhicaariNii bhakti

रिगता वल्लभा पुढे । नाही आङ्गी जीवी साङ्कडे । तिये तियेकान्तेचेनी पाडे । एक सरला जो । example of a woman sleeping with her husband to show avyabhicaariNii bhakti.

नातरी जीवाचिये सेजे । गुरु कान्तु करूनी भुञ्जे । ऐसी प्रेमाचेनी भोजे । "He makes the guru his husband and makes love on the bed of jiivaatmaa."

We have no problem with obscenity Sir, we are after all low class people. Some of us have also heard about so called ribald obscenities described in Vedas about Ashvamedha Yagya etc. We have no problem with that either. We take it as repressed sexuality expressed in a ritualistic manner.

 

If one were to look closely, every single work and person in this world can be called faulty. Let us ask you, why you seek crap? Are you perfect in all aspects? Does finding faults give you a high?

I am not at all perfect in all respect sir, and I am not seeking to be a national icon. Finding faults does not give me high at all. But I do that occasionally, not always.

 

I am Jnaneshwar maharaj's bhakta but I had to cull out the above to get you out of your self righteousness.

I don't think I am self-righteous excessively, but is self-righteousness bad?

 

So, what next? You think the Warkaris will throw out Jnaneshwari? They have better brains and not affected by toxins unlike you.

Warkaris like me love Gyanaba and Tukaram. We remember Pasayadana when we remember Gyaneshvara.

 

Stop blowing hard. You are not the first to discover apashUdrAdhikaraNa.

Of course not sir!

 

You also think your lack of traditional learning to be some chip on your shoulder.

No sir; in fact the lack of traditional learning allows me to look at the things impartially.

 

About people the case is far worse. You can find many chinks in Vivekananda's personality. Too bad he wasn't of immaculate conception as you think your magnanimous self to be.

Sir, Vivekananda was frank enough to apply course correction even in his own thinking. You can also show some passages from his speeches etc.which are not in sync with the fashionable secular thinking which is prevalent today. Yet his thinking and message is in conformance with our constitution and modern sensibilities.

[gobind medini]

Propagation of superstition.

ते एकवांचूनि अघवा शास्त्री सिद्धान्त निर्माणधात्री । परी जळो ते मूळनक्षत्रे । Jnaneshwar suggesting that the learning of the one not oriented towards adhyAtmavidyaa is like the child born in mUlA nakShatra. The drift being that just as a mUlA nakShatra child brings bad to the family, the shaastea learning of a person not oriented towards adhyAtmavidyaa is dangerous. So, 1/27 part of the population branded as bad by Jnaneshwar? Secondly it can also be "interpreted" (Gobind's favourite word) as abuse of scholars.

No body is talking here about forced learning without aptitude; what is the point of your argument? A 13th century Gyanadeva is giving an example from popular perception, he is not endorsing anything.

g

--

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 8:10 AM, gobind medini <gome...@gmail.com> wrote:

Propagation of superstition.

ते एकवांचूनि अघवा शास्त्री सिद्धान्त निर्माणधात्री । परी जळो ते मूळनक्षत्रे । Jnaneshwar suggesting that the learning of the one not oriented towards adhyAtmavidyaa is like the child born in mUlA nakShatra. The drift being that just as a mUlA nakShatra child brings bad to the family, the shaastea learning of a person not oriented towards adhyAtmavidyaa is dangerous. So, 1/27 part of the population branded as bad by Jnaneshwar? Secondly it can also be "interpreted" (Gobind's favourite word) as abuse of scholars.

No body is talking here about forced learning without aptitude; what is the point of your argument? A 13th century Gyanadeva is giving an example from popular perception, he is not endorsing anything.

In the same way Shankara was citing verses from smritis that were 'popular' in his era. If quoting an example is not endorsing, so quoting what is popular too is not. If you cannot fault one you can't the other too.

vs

g

[V Subrahmanian]

​

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 8:20 PM, gobind medini <gome...@gmail.com> wrote:

BS aphorisms were formulated or compiled in a bygone era as memory aids when writing was not in practice. The brevity of these aphorisms add to confusion rather than clarity.

It is fundamentally wrong to compare the BS with the other prasthana-s. BS has for its primary purpose the settling of doubts regarding the purport/meaning of particular vedanta vākyas. That is why there are adhikaranas: (as per both purva (veda vakyas) and uttara mimamsa):

http://sanskritdictionary.com/manoj%C5%AB/1017/4

 According to the Mīmāṁsakas a complete Adhikaraṇa consists of five members : विषय the subject or matter to be explained, विशय or संशय the doubt or question arising upon that matter, पूर्वपक्ष the first side or prima facie argument concerning it, उत्तर or उत्तरपक्ष or सिद्धान्त the answer or demonstrated conclusion, and संगति pertinency or relevancy, or (according to others निर्णय the final conclusion); विषयो विशयश्चैव पूर्वपक्षस्तथोत्तरम् । निर्णयश्चैति सिद्धान्तः शास्त्रे$धिकरणं स्मृतम् ॥  

Such is not the case with the BG and upanishads. There is no rule that the BS should cover the entire gamut of the upanishads and the BG. Only those particular points that need clarification, in the view of the sutrakara are complied in the sutras. A bhashyakara's role is clearly defined: to bring out the intent of the sutra/sutrakara. You and I are nobody to dictate terms to either the sutrakara or the bhashyakara as to what their job is and how they should go about it.  Shankara says in an upanishad bhashya: We are here to bring out the purport of the veda vakya and not to dictate what the veda should or should not say.    A follower of Shankara first appreciates that and then alone the learning process succeeds.  

vs

[V Subrahmanian]

The word 'complied' should read 'compiled'. 

vs

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 6:12 PM, gobind medini <gome...@gmail.com> wrote:

How can one become the national icon if he excludes a large section of people from studying Vedas and Upanishads - the very foundation of the theology which he was preaching? He used and authenticated the very same smRRiti-s which permanently slotted this large section to the lowest rung of servitude.

If Shankara is at fault, what about the BG itself:

कृषिगौरक्ष्यवाणिज्यं वैश्यकर्म स्वभावजम् । 

परिचर्यात्मकं कर्म शूद्रस्यापि स्वभावजम् ॥ ४४ ॥

श्रेयान्स्वधर्मो विगुणः 
परधर्मात्स्वनुष्ठितात् । 

स्वकर्मणा तमभ्यर्च्य 
सिद्धिं विन्दति मानवः ॥ ४६ ॥

सहजं कर्म कौन्तेय 
सदोषमपि न त्यजेत् । 

There is nothing that Shankara or other smritis have done that is not already done by the BG. So, there is absolutely no basis or justification in segregating the BS from the BG as far as this aspect is concerned. Shankara has only stuck to the BG and other smritis that are in tune with it. Also, the scripture does not see the 'servitude' a malaise; it rather sees it as a stepping stone to liberation itself!!  

In fact there are popular instances where the BG copies have been burnt wholesale in public places by the so-called oppressed for the sole reason that it contains the term 'chāturvarṇyam'. Such people have not seen any difference between the BG and the Manu smriti. So, it is wrong to fault Shankara or the BS for one's own misunderstanding/misinterpreting these texts.  

vs 

 

 

[Kalyan K]

Shri Gobindji

My sympathies are with you. Trying to challenge the prevailing hegemony is not easy.

Regards
Kalyan

[Nagaraj Paturi]

                                   ================== Moderator's note===================

I note with sadness that some of the respected members are resorting to unnecessary harshness towards the other member while trying to defend their position or countering the position of the other member. 

May it be remembered that BVP is a space where polite , decent exchanges alone are allowed. 

Strength of our argument should lie only in our logic and it should not be replaced by or supplemented with expressions that cast aspersions about the respondent. Doing so can give an impression of lack of strength in our argument. 

I admire the restraint shown by those members who are keeping their politeness in tact or not resorting to harshness even under provocations.

More inclusive approach is good for the nation and an antidote to nation-breaking forces.

An argument that a book or author is not enough inclusive can be answered by 1. inclusiveness in that author or book by seeking right interpretation or through other methods of reasoning 2. saying that his approach is limited by his times and his non-inclusive aspects are not essential foundations of his whole argument and so can be discarded without harm to his core central theses. 

But to try to justify or support non-inclusive approach is not the solution. 

If there are no further arguments to be made on healthy lines the thread can be closed. 

Members resorting to harsh expressions shall be brought under 'moderated' category.  

 

--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

[gobind medini]

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Praveen R. Bhat <bhatp...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Gobindji,

​

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 8:20 PM, gobind medini <gome...@gmail.com> wrote:

BS aphorisms were formulated or compiled in a bygone era as memory aids when writing was not in practice. The brevity of these aphorisms add to confusion rather than clarity.

​That goes with any sutra work, including Panini's. The anuvRttis and thereby, explanation are learnt only in tradition.​

You have not understood my point; when you have a coherent treatise why go for convoluted sUtra-bhAShya?

And you, my response since that's not the point you made; please look above. ​

That is the point I made, why to refer something which has no clarity. I find it convoluted.. and yes, even the structure of BS is convoluted.

 

In any case, the same argument holds with all works. Jnaneshvari's Marathi is convoluted and lost on many, still it is studied.

It is an independent coherent treaties with Gita as its basis. With little bit of explanation I understand it and can appreciate its poetic beauty. Marathi is my mother tongue and with little efforts I can understand the text. In fact, Pasayadana could be understood by me without efforts. I have already explained my reservations about BS: (1) It refutes other schools, (2) It prohibits lower classes from studying Vedas (and indirectly Sanskrit itself, think about it), (3) its pithiness and structure makes the understanding difficult; (4) As an exercise of standardization through memory aids, BS in itself has become redundant (though not the commentaries thereon); (5) Animal sacrifices are endorsed in BS (admittedly they are also there in Vedas).

However, if you want to celebrate and study BS then nobody is stopping you.

 

The author himself gets lost in examples many times and tries to pull himself back to the topic by stating that his brother is saying: enough with examples! See? I could find faults too where they don't belong!

I am laughing :-)

 

Just to show that one cannot learn without a tradition?

​Learn? Why not! Advaita Vedanta goal? Definitely not! You don't become a doctor by studying​ medical books by yourself.

Standard argument of Priests, Mullas, and Maulavis! Theosophy is not science and technology. Further, I am not suggesting that tradition is always wrong or to be rejected. Don't think in black and white. I have my own Warkari tradition and even there I use my faculty of discrimination.

 

There are good prakaraNa-grantha-s both in Sanskrit as well as in local language. Why not read and understand them without getting entangled in BS in the name of tradition?

Its clear that those who think they are entangled in Br. Su. have very biased views and selective reading, especially not having learnt in the teaching tradition. 

Again tradition :-) I have my tradition of self-learning. It allows me to look at the collective tradition with impartially and with fresh perspective.

 

 

See my above comment. In fact read Upanishads and Gita yourself if you want to understand why Shankara had to use certain schemes like adhyAropa-apavAda, sattA-siddhAnta etc. 

​Ditto. adhyAropa-apavAda, sattA, etc, is a shruti scheme, not created by Bhagavatpadacharya!

Where is adhyArope-apavAda in Shruti? Don't quote Paingala a solitary reference inserted most probably post-Shankara. And where is sattA-siddhAnta? Mundaka..may be. You are hell bent on denying any creativity to Shankara, then why is he required? He is a good follower of the tradition and nothing more. But by the way, where is this apashUdrAdhikaraNa in Vedas?...blame it on Badarayana or Vyasa (or whoever)!

 

Upanishads use a creation story, koShaviveka, avasthAtrayaviveka, sharIraviveka and refute all those by explaining these schemes.

​

I don't understand the fixation about BS other than clinging to the tradition in the name of nyAyaprasthAna.

If you do not understand it, that is perfectly alright.​ I'm sure many outside Varkari tradition do not understand the same too.

 

Make Yogasutra as the nyAya prasthAna

That is also accepted in the orthodox AV tradition and Bhagavatpadacharya is said to be the author of Vivarana on VyasabhAShya.​

I am aware of it. Even Vedantasara includes all the eight limbs of Yoga and Madhusudana includes it in entirety making it essential part of Self-realization process. Then why do you need BS? In fact Yama are against animal sacrifices and caste-class discrimination. You can take a break from Vedas here. Vedanta is an end of Vedas not only as conclusion but also as a literal end of Vedic practices (kAmya-karma).

 

 

where nyAya is interpreted as moral way (as judgment), it will give some decent values

​Those who made it so may have made such "misinterpretation" of nyAya to meet their own needs, which is okay too, but pointing to others about things they do not understand is not. With morality as a bias, no text can become nyAya​ (tarka/ logic) prasthAna.

Nyaya is a polysemic word with multiple meaning. Morality as a bias! It is not  bias, it a corrective factor. I am suggesting that Vedanta tradition has applied and assimilated Yoga as a moral corrective. Stick with it.

 

The logic of understanding things as they are does not work with emotional biases, especially in jnAnamArga. Jnaneshvari itself interpreted with such biases will need a new vyutpatti for jnAna.

Jnanamarga without moral basis is no Jnanamarga. Yoga provide that moral basis.

 

 

instead giving you apashUdradhikaraNa.

​apashUdradhikaraNa written not by Bhashyakara, but by Badarayana Veda Vyasa, is inside the value system, different from yours or mine in this era.

That is what I am saying. We should reconcile it with modern times (in India, with Indian constitution).

 

I wonder if Bhagavatas keep Bhagavat Purana and its author also out of their following unless they consider authors of Bh. Pu. and Br. Su. as different.

We take Vyasa as a compiler of scriptures and there could be number of Vyasas. Vyasa is not one person.

 

Most of the times, saMpradAya is another excuse for effete and stale thinking!

​And self-learning is what leads to such self-righteousness.

​

 

See my above comment. Upadesha sAhasrI is not the only treatise. There are very many others, one can follow any of them. 

​And I repeat, one need not exclude the other.​ prakaraNas are meant for those who do not have adhikAra in prasthAnatraya, due to lack of learning or karma, in this life or across.

We don't accept application of karma doctrine here and adhikAra in prasthAnatraya etc. That is the difference between modern Bhagavatas and traditional Vedicas. In fact we don't accept authority of smRRiti-s in this respect. I am repeatedly mentioning apashUdrAdhikaraNa to bring out this point. If I have an inclination to study Vedas, Upanishads or whatever, I should be able to apply myself without talking about my karma or birth etc.

 

​​

Yes, he was a follower.. follower leading his follower! Who is jagad-guru then? 

Buddha, Vivekananda, Gyaneshvar, Tukaram, Narayana-Guru, Kabir, Nanak ..all of them had a broader, inclusive vision. Yes, comparisons are odious but I can't help making them here.

​If all leaders who are followers are not jagadgurus, then only Ishvara is jagadguru. Else jagadguru is a samAsa that can resolve in more ways than one that you see. For eg, one Sringeri "jagadguru" said it for Himself so: jagat guru yasya saH.

Yes, Ishvara is (hypothetical) jagadguru. No body else. In our avadhUta (Dutta) tradition one can have multiple Gurus even animals and prostitute :-) There is no Jgadaguru and not certainly Shankara.

 

​ 

For being a national icon, one has to be inclusive. Scholarship is a lesser criterion!

I wonder whether any great scientist fits the bill either then.

Scientists can fit the bill. But a Nazi Scientist cannot.

 

​

 

We Warkaris meanwhile have kept a respectful distance both from Shankara and from Brahmasutra.

​May I ask as to what this means? Does this mean that Varkaris belong to Shankarasampradaya and distanced themselves or were they only influenced by ​his works, in which case there is no real distancing themselves.

​I was hoping that someone would answer this question for my academic interest. 

​Thanks much

,

Warkaris as Bhagavatas follow the Bhagavata dharma based on Gyaneswari, Eknathi Bhagavat, and Gatha. Sometimes Dasbodh which is an Advaita Vedanta work (Gaudapada and Yogavasistha variety) is also included.  independently).

​Thanks. In that case, Varkaris can't be keeping distance from someone whose tradition they never belonged to.

 

Kind rgds,

--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */

--

[gobind medini]

To quote something from popular imagination and to give reference of smRRiti injunction is quite different.

 

vs

g

[gobind medini]

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 8:52 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 6:12 PM, gobind medini <gome...@gmail.com> wrote:

How can one become the national icon if he excludes a large section of people from studying Vedas and Upanishads - the very foundation of the theology which he was preaching? He used and authenticated the very same smRRiti-s which permanently slotted this large section to the lowest rung of servitude.

If Shankara is at fault, what about the BG itself:

कृषिगौरक्ष्यवाणिज्यं वैश्यकर्म स्वभावजम् । 

परिचर्यात्मकं कर्म शूद्रस्यापि स्वभावजम् ॥ ४४ ॥

If a particular person is inclined towards services as his natural disposition let him do it. Why connect it with birth and Upanayana? Gita is not saying that. Sahaja = that which comes naturally, aptitudinal.

 

श्रेयान्स्वधर्मो विगुणः 
परधर्मात्स्वनुष्ठितात् ।

स्वकर्मणा तमभ्यर्च्य 
सिद्धिं विन्दति मानवः ॥ ४६ ॥

सहजं कर्म कौन्तेय 
सदोषमपि न त्यजेत् । 

There is nothing that Shankara or other smritis have done that is not already done by the BG. So, there is absolutely no basis or justification in segregating the BS from the BG as far as this aspect is concerned. Shankara has only stuck to the BG and other smritis that are in tune with it. Also, the scripture does not see the 'servitude' a malaise; it rather sees it as a stepping stone to liberation itself!!

I disagree. Gita is a syncteric text and is not a reformist text. Gita is giving here concession to those who are attuned to varNAshrama. However, this varNashrama is not necessarily connected to birth or hierarchy. Sahaja is something which comes naturally or aptitudinally. We don't have assume that it is connected with birth or hierarchy. A butcher's son need not be a butcher, he could be a poet if poetry comes to him naturally.

 

In fact there are popular instances where the BG copies have been burnt wholesale in public places by the so-called oppressed for the sole reason that it contains the term 'chāturvarṇyam'. Such people have not seen any difference between the BG and the Manu smriti. So, it is wrong to fault Shankara or the BS for one's own misunderstanding/misinterpreting these texts.

BG's copies have been burnt probably because some vested interests are using BG to perpetuate their class hegemony by improper interpretation. In any case, I oppose burning of Gita or any other scripture. Warkaris respect Gita, Upanishads, and Vedas; and modern Warkaris interpret them using their ability of discrimination (Viveka). They know how to reconcile scriptures with modern times. (As some body here has said, interpretation is my favorite word :-)

I am not blaming Shankara, I respect him as a theologians and a scholars. However, I will not accept him blindly. If he tells something or endorses something which is repugnant to my moral conscience, I will not accept it.

 

vs 

 

 

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Gobindji,

​

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 9:54 AM, gobind medini <gome...@gmail.com> wrote:

​

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 8:20 PM, gobind medini <gome...@gmail.com> wrote:

BS aphorisms were formulated or compiled in a bygone era as memory aids when writing was not in practice. The brevity of these aphorisms add to confusion rather than clarity.

​That goes with any sutra work, including Panini's. The anuvRttis and thereby, explanation are learnt only in tradition.​

You have not understood my point; when you have a coherent treatise why go for convoluted sUtra-bhAShya?

And you, my response since that's not the point you made; please look above. ​

That is the point I made, why to refer something which has no clarity.

... because... they are also sutras. You said sutras are memory aids used when there was no practice of writing​; that was one of your reasonings for Br. Su. adding to confusion than clarity. Let that be, I don't want to run around in circles.

 

I find it convoluted.. and yes, even the structure of BS is convoluted.

​I find medical books without a teacher convoluted too. :)

​

 

It is an independent coherent treaties with Gita as its basis. With little bit of explanation I understand it and can appreciate its poetic beauty. Marathi is my mother tongue and with little efforts I can understand the text. In fact, Pasayadana could be understood by me without efforts.

Great, others don't, even though Marathi is their mother tongue. So the argument holds.​

I have already explained my reservations about BS: (1) It refutes other schools,

​That is why it is a nyAyaprasthAna (tarka); it is the very first task of a tarka grantha!

​

(2) It prohibits lower classes from studying Vedas

​

​No, direct study is already prohibited in all ​dharma shastras, but study via prakaraNas, smritis and itihAsa is not prohibited, nor is mokSha denied. It just restates it. Now, I am afraid that most of those who object to something being prohibited, they think that the other classes enjoy it and we don't. The attitude is "I want to do it because the other does it and I am not allowed". Unfortunately, there is no other

​purpose

. The same goal attained by other, albeit, simpler means, are rejected by them! That is termed as a social injustice.

​

  

(and indirectly Sanskrit itself, think about it),

One can go on and apply this indirectness to everything under the sun! Sanskrit study is not denied for anyone please. Mere listening to Panini sutras themselves are said to be chittashuddhikAraka for all varNas.

(3) its pithiness and structure makes the understanding difficult;

The ​difficulty of ​understanding is no basis to reject anything, especially if there are many other who understand it.

(4) As an exercise of standardization through memory aids, BS in itself has become redundant (though not the commentaries thereon);

Same is true with Panini sutras. ​No one studies Br. Su. without commentaries.

 

(5) Animal sacrifices are endorsed in BS (admittedly they are also there in Vedas). 

However, if you want to celebrate and study BS then nobody is stopping you.

Yes, I do celebrate it and I am very well learning it in the sampradAya itself, thanks.​

 

​

And whoever said I am being stopped. 

​You are the one who said instead: "​M

ake Yogasutra as the nyAya prasthAna

​". ​

 

The author himself gets lost in examples many times and tries to pull himself back to the topic by stating that his brother is saying: enough with examples! See? I could find faults too where they don't belong!

I am laughing :-)

Thats the idea! Finding faults with ekadesha approach is laughable, be it with Jnaneshvari or Br. Su. :)

​​

Just to show that one cannot learn without a tradition?

​Learn? Why not! Advaita Vedanta goal? Definitely not! You don't become a doctor by studying​ medical books by yourself.

Standard argument of Priests, Mullas, and Maulavis!

Why not? After all, yours was a standard ​argument of apashUdradhikaraNa.

Theosophy is not science and technology.

​Nor is it social service.​

Further, I am not suggesting that tradition is always wrong or to be rejected. Don't think in black and white. I have my own Warkari tradition and even there I use my faculty of discrimination.

​Yes, but you do not seem to throw away the baby with the bath water with one idea you do not agrees with there, do you?

 

There are good prakaraNa-grantha-s both in Sanskrit as well as in local language. Why not read and understand them without getting entangled in BS in the name of tradition?

Its clear that those who think they are entangled in Br. Su. have very biased views and selective reading, especially not having learnt in the teaching tradition. 

Again tradition :-) I have my tradition of self-learning.

​If self-learning​ is a tradition, I am a doctor without patients. :)

It allows me to look at the collective tradition with impartially and with fresh perspective.

In my mind too, I am just as impartial as you are in your mind.​

See my above comment. In fact read Upanishads and Gita yourself if you want to understand why Shankara had to use certain schemes like adhyAropa-apavAda, sattA-siddhAnta etc. 

​Ditto. adhyAropa-apavAda, sattA, etc, is a shruti scheme, not created by Bhagavatpadacharya!

Where is adhyArope-apavAda in Shruti?

I've already answered earlier with the list 

​so: creation stories, 

koShaviveka, avasthAtrayaviveka, sharIraviveka.

Don't quote Paingala a solitary reference inserted most probably post-Shankara.

I was not planning to quote it, but since you are pre-decided, I could ask you not to quote apashUdradhikaraNa :)

And where is sattA-siddhAnta? Mundaka..may be.

All Upanishads, all AV commentaries.​

 

You are hell bent on denying any creativity to Shankara, then why is he required?

Bhashyakara was a sampradAyavit, not sampradAyakRt. He is required for people to understand the teaching of prasthAnatraya right and get mokSha. I don't carry my emotions to learning. For ex. when I studied sannyAsopaniShad, I didn't cry that I may not be eligible for particular type of sannyAsa if we strictly go by nail marks, etc! 

He is a good follower of the tradition and nothing more. But by the way, where is this apashUdrAdhikaraNa in Vedas? 

...blame it on Badarayana or Vyasa (or whoever)!

​Why not! If you can blame Bhashyakara, I am just passing the buck upwards. You can take it from there wherever you want to stop.

​

 

That is also accepted in the orthodox AV tradition and Bhagavatpadacharya is said to be the author of Vivarana on VyasabhAShya.​

I am aware of it. Even Vedantasara includes all the eight limbs of Yoga and Madhusudana includes it in entirety making it essential part of Self-realization process.

​The self-realization process starts wit​h chittashuddhi, but doesn't end there.

 

Then why do you need BS?

​Because it rejects that yoga can give mokSha.​

 

In fact Yama are against animal sacrifices

​

Because the goal of yoga is not svarga, but chittashuddhi and aid vAsanakShaya in AV and chittavRttinirodha and kaivalya in yoga.​ 

​

 

 

and caste-class discrimination.

I can be the most socially just person, but that doesn't give me mokSha.

 

​In any case, yama has nothing to do with caste-class discrimination, for or against. ahimsA cannot be interpreted as non-discrimination, that would be against satya. :)​

 

You can take a break from Vedas here. Vedanta is an end of Vedas not only as conclusion but also as a literal end of Vedic practices (kAmya-karma).

True, but one doesn't reach and end directly​, without the path that leads to it.

​​

Nyaya is a polysemic word with multiple meaning.

​Not in jnAnakANDa and prasthAnatraya.

 

Morality as a bias! It is not  bias, it a corrective factor. I am suggesting that Vedanta tradition has applied and assimilated Yoga as a moral corrective. Stick with it.

That suggestive measure is incorrect. Vedanta already has chittashuddhi as a basis to it, which includes yoga. ​So prAptasya prApti cannot be done.

​​

 

The logic of understanding things as they are does not work with emotional biases, especially in jnAnamArga. Jnaneshvari itself interpreted with such biases will need a new vyutpatti for jnAna.

Jnanamarga without moral basis is no Jnanamarga. Yoga provide that moral basis.

​Emotional biases don't account for morality.​

 

​mImAmsakas conclude that dharma is learnt from shAstras. What is moral in social conduct has no say on Veda dharma.

​

instead giving you apashUdradhikaraNa.

​apashUdradhikaraNa written not by Bhashyakara, but by Badarayana Veda Vyasa, is inside the value system, different from yours or mine in this era.

That is what I am saying. We should reconcile it with modern times (in India, with Indian constitution).

​To what end? The goal will be diluted along with it.​ Indian constitution has no say in matters of mokSha. It can socially be appealing, but would not suit the purpose of the Vedas. Of course, legally, the social conduct holds, but in a personal journey, Vedas override all social rules. If we go your way too, Vedas themselves say follow deSha, kAla, nIti, but not for mokSha.

 

We take Vyasa as a compiler of scriptures and there could be number of Vyasas. Vyasa is not one person.

​That's convenient, whatever helps. For many, Shankaracharya is also not one person, but not for me!

​​

​And I repeat, one need not exclude the other.​ prakaraNas are meant for those who do not have adhikAra in prasthAnatraya, due to lack of learning or karma, in this life or across.

We don't accept application of karma doctrine here and adhikAra in prasthAnatraya etc.

That is the difference between modern Bhagavatas and traditional Vedicas. In fact we don't accept authority of smRRiti-s in this respect.

​​Thats ardhajaratinyAya. If you want to follow that with Bhagavatam, the same can be done with Jnaneshvari and Br. Su. alike.​​

I am repeatedly mentioning apashUdrAdhikaraNa to bring out this point. If I have an inclination to study Vedas, Upanishads or whatever, I should be able to apply myself without talking about my karma or birth etc.

​You could, but to no fruitful end. I too would like to like to be Hercules, but my upbringing, my genes, my food habits, lifestyle, etc, do not allow. ​I'd like to help patients with some medicines that I think are perfect for them, but somehow I am not qualified. someone would like to say so: I'd like to get great marks for medical school, but I don't understand with the same even if taught more than my friend who is brilliant and gets it immediately. Sorry, they tell me. Its my brain which is this way; science and the medical colleges are against me. They don't tell me why I have such a brain. Vaidikas tell me its my karma. I don't believe that nonsense. I should be able to do it just like my friend. Boo hoo, they tell me.

​​

Yes, Ishvara is (hypothetical) jagadguru. No body else. In our avadhUta (Dutta) tradition one can have multiple Gurus even animals and prostitute :-)

​Real guru of hypothetical? :)​

 

There is no Jgadaguru and not certainly Shankara.

​Not ​

 

​even hypothetically? :) Then again, it is aprAptasya niShedhaH. If Varkaris never belonged to Shankarasampradaya, where is the question of keeping him aside?!

​

For being a national icon, one has to be inclusive. Scholarship is a lesser criterion!

I wonder whether any great scientist fits the bill either then.

Scientists can fit the bill. But a Nazi Scientist cannot.

Some non-Nazi scientists tell me only some people are qualified to understand their work. These people don't like it and call such scientists Nazis. 

​Thats laughable too. :)​

 

​​

I think we both have made our cases.

​​

gurupAdukAbhyAm,

[Nagaraj Paturi]

If both of you think the same, that you made your cases, the thread can be closed. 

--

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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Wednesday, 7 June 2017 13:37:18 UTC+8, Gobind Medini wrote:

Warkaris respect Gita, Upanishads, and Vedas; and modern Warkaris interpret them using their ability of discrimination (Viveka). They know how to reconcile scriptures with modern times. (As some body here has said, interpretation is my favorite word :-)

Is there a reliable third-party (non-Warkari) source to back the claim that Warkaris interpret scriptures using viveka and know how to reconcile scriptures with modern times. If not, then is not this claim self-aggrandizement?

 

[Venkata Sriram]

Namaste Mishraji,

It is similar to medieval vaishnava bhakti movement that connected the downtrodden, sanskrit-illiterate common folks.  One of their important objectives is to conduct pilgrimage to Pandaripura.  

As sanskrit was associated with scholars (paNDita-bhASa), an alternate path was conceived by Jnaneshwar Maharaj to connect common people.  Thus, He composed 'hari-pATha" which is in Marathi and is sung by all warakaris during their Pandari yatra.  In order to reach to the common masses, Jnaneshwar Maharaj composed all His works in Marathi, unlike in Sanskrit, even though, He was a great sanskrit scholar, great yogi and tarka shAstra paNDita. 

Interestingly, He was a great shAkta and was initiated into the secrets of kauLa path in the lineage of nAtha-sampradAya.  His work 'amritAnubhava' and 'jnAneshwari' speaks testimony to this fact.  His mastery & knowledge of kuNDalini vidya is unique if one studies His 'jnAnEshwari" especially the 6th chapter where He describes the typical upsurge of sarpa from mUlAdhAra. 

However, all said and done, He was a sampradAya-vAdin and showed great respect towards Sankara Bhagavatpada.  After getting inspired with 'saundaryalahari', He wrote 'amritAnubhava' (shAnkari vidyA - in the words of Jnaneshwar Maharaj) which is on similar lines and He was also a votary of Goddess Sapthashringi, near Vani village at Nasik. The samadhi of the preceptor of nAtha-sampradAya is here (Guru Matsyendranatha).  I have visited this place.

regs,

sriram

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Sri Sriram,

Having read aadaraNIya Sri Nityanand Misra-ji's posts for so many years you might be aware of his level of knowledge about all these issues. He himself is a great scholar of a Bhakti Vedanta tradition, as you know and he is aware of other Bhakti and Bhakti Vedanta traditions. 

His comment was specifically focused and was argumentatively formulated. 

In any case thanks for sharing your understanding of the tradition which I am sure can add value to interested members.

Regards,

--

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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

                                                           =========== Closing note=========

1. This thread was initiated by respectable Vidwan Sri Gobind Medini-ji focusing on the question f S'ankara's status as national icon vis-a-vis his inclusive or otherwise approach based on his bhaashya of apas'UdrAdhikaraNa of Brahmasutras.

2. Sri Gobind Medini-ji's posts are welcome addition to the group as he brings in things like Warikari tradition, one of the great Bhakti traditions of India. His aadhyaatmika abhinivEs'a and his amazing erudition, his nationalist spirit evoke a great respect in me. He is one of the younger members of the list coming from technology background but very much learned in various Indic knowledge traditions. 

3. We know all the younger participants in the thread how respectably learned they are. It gives great pleasure to see all these youngsters to be so erudite in the Indic knowledge traditions, Sanskrit, Shaastras etc. , their respect for the tradition, their abhinivEs'a for aadhyaatmika saadhana etc. 

4. Whether books and authors under discussion are inclusive or not , this forum is. 

5. National Icon status of S'ankara is not given or removed by us. It is already established. We are here only to study how he acquired it, due to which qualities, activities, contributions and situations. 

6. Irrespective of whether our ancestors were inclusive or not we must be.

7. It is through various traditions such as Warikari that the anti-inclusive tendencies in our society which always originate from the hegemonic and other personality disorders of individuals have been being balanced from time to time in our society. 

8. Thanks to all the scholars for their enlightening contributions. 

The thread is being closed.