shankara's motivation for brahma-sUtra-bhAShya

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

Corrections and additions welcome -

No one’s AchArya is above “comments”, including yours and mine. Why? Because they are men, and as with pauruSheya vAkya-s, it becomes important to know the qualities and circumstances of the person producing them.

Plainly, shankara was caught in a game involving buddhists and Astika-s - as in the case of such people (double agents, civilians in rebel areas), you can never be sure whose side he’s on. This is apparent from his philosophy.

It is clear from his own admission, that he was interested in foisting nirguNa-brahma-vivarta-vAda on to brahma-sUtra-s, rather than explaining it as it is. (Contrast अध्यासवादं प्रसाध्य - “यथा चायमर्थो वेदान्तानां तथा वयमस्यां शारीरकमीमांसायां प्रदर्शयिष्यामः” with R’s “तन्मतानुसारेण सूत्राक्षराणि व्याख्यास्यन्ते”). It’s a hopeless task, and the fraud is apparent by the second sUtra itself. It’s akin to dressing up a monkey like a man, and hoping no one will notice.

Why did he get this itch? He could have stopped at adhyAsya-bhAShya (the introductory part), which is a perfectly respectable, if flawed, philosophical piece. Some possibilities -

• He had attachment to vaidika-s, but was also attached to gauDapAda (who explicitly, comically, needed to clarify - “तथा ज्ञानं नैतद्बुद्धेन भाषितम् ॥ ४.९९ ॥” in his kArika extension). So, he had to convince himself, most of all, that his vivartavAda is vaidika.
• Another guess is that he was so into “अध्यास” that he just could not resist doing it on to BS and laughing at all those who fall for it.
• parakAla yati & varadAchArya thought that it was a subversive operation against buddhists (ie. he himself did not believe in what he was writing), but that seems very unlikely.

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 at 08:39, Damodara Dasa <damoda...@gmail.com> wrote:

parakAla yati & varadAchArya thought that it was a subversive operation against buddhists (ie. he himself did not believe in what he was writing), but that seems very unlikely.

May we know the source of this? Any works of parakAla yati or of varadAcArya that you may want to reference here for your readers?

गूढार्थसङ्ग्रह of the former may have it (not sure); but his opinion is well attested by his disciples. The latter - https://youtu.be/duVRhGpyoNQ?si=Je9zSWgyMEeOlsB2 

--

--
Vishvas /विश्वासः

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

The mAdhva text maNimanjarI guesses that he was on the bauddha side: अवैदिकं माध्यमिकं निरस्तं निरीक्ष्य तत्पक्षसुपक्षपाती ।  
  तमेव पक्षं प्रतिपादुकोऽसौ न्यरूरुपन्मार्गमिहानुरूपम्॥ १.५० ॥

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Apr 5, 2025 at 8:08 PM विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki) <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:

The mAdhva text maNimanjarI guesses that he was on the bauddha side: अवैदिकं माध्यमिकं निरस्तं निरीक्ष्य तत्पक्षसुपक्षपाती ।  
  तमेव पक्षं प्रतिपादुकोऽसौ न्यरूरुपन्मार्गमिहानुरूपम्॥ १.५० ॥

Noted Madhwa scholar, Dr.A.V.Nagasampige Acharya, in his Kannada book 'Mata traya sameekshaa', has devoted a few pages for discussing the topic: Is Advaita, Bauddha in disguise?' and concludes: Since the Buddhists took the Upanishadic Nirvishesha chaitanya, in a corrupted form,  to form their system, it is they who are pracchanna vaidikas. 

https://archive.org/details/MataTrayaSameeksha_-_A.V.Nagasampige/page/n19/mode/2up

Read pages 51 onwards. The author has also tabulated the common features across the three systems on the parameters of: Ishwara, Veda, Bhakti, Karma and Jnana.   

Sri Vijayendra Tirtha (contemporary of Sri Appayya Dikshitar) has written a book where he accepts Advaita as vaidika school.  

A few years ago, there was a seminar on Buddhism, organised jointly by the Maha Bodhi Society and the Karnataka Sanskrit University, at the Institute of World Culture, B.P. Wadia Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore. Speaking at the seminar, senior scholar Dr. D. Prahladachar (who is now the head of the Vyasraja Matha) observed: "Both Buddhists and Advaitins admit the mithyatva of the world. The Advaitins say the substraturm of the world, which is but a superimposition, is Brahman as propounded by Vedanta. Buddhists do not admit any eternal substratum."

Vedanta Desika, while making the oft repeated charge of pseudo Buddhist against Shankara, quite ironically, also says in his Gita commentary 'Shankara and others unanimously hold Bhagavan to be the sole refuge'.  The question arises: how can these two coexist in the same person? 

Thus what the Manimanjari, etc. classical texts have said, under whatever compulsion, is not seen by their own later thinkers in the same way.  Only those who have not known Advaita and Buddhism correctly will make such statements as 'bauddha pakshapaatin.' 

In fact, Sri Bhimacharya Jhalakikar, a Madhwa who lived in Maharashtra the author of the voluminous book 'Nyaya Kosha', under the term 'Dvaita vaada' says: All those schools such as the sankhya, nyaya, etc. who accept the the pancha bhedas (jiva-jiva, jiva-Ishwara, jiva-jaDa, Ishwara-jaDa and jaDa-jaDa) are Dvaita schools.  He includes the Madhwa system also along with these schools. It is to be noted that these schools have been refuted by Madhwa in his Brahma sutra bhashya.  

Dr.B.N.K.Sharma, a Madhwa author of many books in English, has written an essay to show how the Madhwa school has been influenced by the Jaina school. 

Dr. Das Gupta, in his History of Indian philosophy has said:   Vol.2, on p.192:

//The importance of VaisheShika was gradually increasing as it was gradually more and more adopted by Vaishnava realistic writers such as Madhva and and his followers and a refutation of the Vaisheshika would also imply a refutation of the dualistic writers who draw their chief support from Vaisheshika physics and metaphysics.// 

In this book, a Hindi translation of the sarva darshana sangraha, in the English introduction it is said:

https://archive.org/details/SarvaDarsanaSamgrahaofMadhvacharyaPart1/Sarva%20Darsana%20Samgraha%20of%20Madhvacharya%20Part%201%20%28Hindi%20Translation%29%20Umashankar%20Sharma%20Rishi%20Chowkambha%20Sanskrit%20Series/page/n19/mode/2up

page 9:

https://jainqq.org/booktext/Bharatiya_Chintan_ki_Parampara_me_Navin_Sambhavanae_Part_2/014014

आस्तिक भी दो प्रकार के हैं ( १ ) सगुण आत्मवादी ( २ ) निर्गुण आत्मवादी | ( १ ) सगुण आत्मवादी भी दो प्रकार के हैं - (क) तार्किक, (ख) श्रोत । तार्किक भी दो प्रकार के हैं- (१) प्रच्छन्न तार्किक, (२) स्पष्ट तार्किक । १- प्रच्छन्न तार्किक भी दो प्रकार के है- (१) प्रच्छन्नद्वैत (२) स्पष्टद्वैत, रामानुज दर्शन प्रच्छन्न द्वैत है तो माध्वदर्शन स्पष्ट द्वैत |

All schools are liable to criticism by one or the other school.  No school is beyond criticism even though each school thinks that it alone is beyond all flaws. Polagam Rama Sastry has listed some 50 items common to the four schools - three schools plus SrikanTha's Shiva Vishishtadvaita. 

In effect, these polemical discussions are of no more than mere academic interest. 

Om 

 

   

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "चेतो-देव-जीवादि-तत्त्व-विचारः" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cheto-deva-jiv...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cheto-deva-jivadi/CAFY6qgEJKH8F7PEfDHSN9YGQY5MDMRQYX52MQ3GZAcvunfg_HQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 at 20:07, विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki) <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:

The mAdhva text maNimanjarI guesses that he was on the bauddha side: अवैदिकं माध्यमिकं निरस्तं निरीक्ष्य तत्पक्षसुपक्षपाती ।  
  तमेव पक्षं प्रतिपादुकोऽसौ न्यरूरुपन्मार्गमिहानुरूपम्॥ १.५० ॥

Correction - 

The mAdhva text सुमध्व-विजय guesses that he was on the bauddha side:

> अवैदिकं माध्यमिकं निरस्तं निरीक्ष्य तत्पक्षसुपक्षपाती ।  
तमेव पक्षं प्रतिपादुकोऽसौ न्यरूरुपन्मार्गमिहानुरूपम्॥ १.५० ॥  

Similarly maNimanjarI -

> सूत्रैः प्रपञ्चयाञ्चक्रे मायावी सौगतं मतम् ।  
शून्यं ब्रह्मपदेनोक्त्वा तथाविद्येति संवृतिम् ॥ ४६ ॥

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 at 23:47, V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

Vedanta Desika, while making the oft repeated charge of pseudo Buddhist against Shankara, quite ironically, also says in his Gita commentary 'Shankara and others unanimously hold Bhagavan to be the sole refuge'.  The question arises: how can these two coexist in the same person? 

That would be easy - shankara admits vAsudeva and the Gods, just as the mAdhyamaka-s do with their deities - they just say that they too are mithyA. 

In any case, I agree that shAnkara system is vaidika, but also bauddha -  a chimera of the two.

 

Only those who have not known Advaita and Buddhism correctly will make such statements as 'bauddha pakshapaatin.' 

On the other hand, these people show very clear understanding of the nAstika schools (including mAdhyamika-s) - see for example vedAnta-deshika's tattva-muktA-kalApa and para-mata-bhanga. 

 

आस्तिक भी दो प्रकार के हैं ( १ ) सगुण आत्मवादी ( २ ) निर्गुण आत्मवादी | ( १ ) सगुण आत्मवादी भी दो प्रकार के हैं - (क) तार्किक, (ख) श्रोत । तार्किक भी दो प्रकार के हैं- (१) प्रच्छन्न तार्किक, (२) स्पष्ट तार्किक । १- प्रच्छन्न तार्किक भी दो प्रकार के है- (१) प्रच्छन्नद्वैत (२) स्पष्टद्वैत, रामानुज दर्शन प्रच्छन्न द्वैत है तो माध्वदर्शन स्पष्ट द्वैत |

Why would being a tArkika or a dvaitin be an insult for a vaidika? vedAnta-deshika's frequently used praise-shloka goes "कवितार्किकसिंहाय …", while another goes "कवितार्किककेसरिः". 

Neither is advaitin an insult by itself. These terms just describe their approach to the pramANa and prameya.
I suppose that among the shAnkara-s (whose philosophy has so many unanswerable logical holes), tArkika-s strike terror - so that just naming the opponents "tArkika" is a dignified way for them to accept their illogicality. (One may compare the use of "brahmavAdin" and "tIrthaka" from the view of the bauddha-s - who are not anti-logic.)

It is best to lay aside all these notions of pride and insult, and accept descriptive attributes if they fit the philosophy. So, an advaitin should say "we are buddhist-adjascent" and so on. 

 

All schools are liable to criticism by one or the other school.  No school is beyond criticism even though each school thinks that it alone is beyond all flaws.

Of course, yet some systems are far more risible. (It's like saying RaGa and NaMo are both politicians, liable to criticism by one another.)

 

In effect, these polemical discussions are of no more than mere academic interest. 

There are two dimensions to it - 

If the polemic is superficial, it's just for partisan fun.  

If it is insightful and deep, it's useful for those interested in clarity and the truth.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, Apr 6, 2025 at 6:40 AM विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki) <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 at 23:47, V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

Vedanta Desika, while making the oft repeated charge of pseudo Buddhist against Shankara, quite ironically, also says in his Gita commentary 'Shankara and others unanimously hold Bhagavan to be the sole refuge'.  The question arises: how can these two coexist in the same person? 

That would be easy - shankara admits vAsudeva and the Gods, just as the mAdhyamaka-s do with their deities - they just say that they too are mithyA. 

 But would anyone for the reason that Madhyamakas accept deities, take them as Aastika darshana? Why did not Desika acknowledge that with the Mādhyamakas?  

In any case, I agree that shAnkara system is vaidika, but also bauddha -  a chimera of the two.

This is no different than any shade of bhedābheda school that includes Ramanuja's.  

 

Only those who have not known Advaita and Buddhism correctly will make such statements as 'bauddha pakshapaatin.' 

On the other hand, these people show very clear understanding of the nAstika schools (including mAdhyamika-s) - see for example vedAnta-deshika's tattva-muktA-kalApa and para-mata-bhanga. 

Their understanding is questionable as seen by equating them with Advaita. 

 

आस्तिक भी दो प्रकार के हैं ( १ ) सगुण आत्मवादी ( २ ) निर्गुण आत्मवादी | ( १ ) सगुण आत्मवादी भी दो प्रकार के हैं - (क) तार्किक, (ख) श्रोत । तार्किक भी दो प्रकार के हैं- (१) प्रच्छन्न तार्किक, (२) स्पष्ट तार्किक । १- प्रच्छन्न तार्किक भी दो प्रकार के है- (१) प्रच्छन्नद्वैत (२) स्पष्टद्वैत, रामानुज दर्शन प्रच्छन्न द्वैत है तो माध्वदर्शन स्पष्ट द्वैत |

Why would being a tArkika or a dvaitin be an insult for a vaidika? vedAnta-deshika's frequently used praise-shloka goes "कवितार्किकसिंहाय …", while another goes "कवितार्किककेसरिः". 

But Vedanta Desika, as the very name suggests, would like to represent Vedanta darshana and not Nyaya-Vaisheshika. 'Dvaitin' would surely be an insult for a Vishishtadvaitin, who has chosen to call himself a shade of Advaita and not of Dvaita.   

Neither is advaitin an insult by itself. These terms just describe their approach to the pramANa and prameya.
I suppose that among the shAnkara-s (whose philosophy has so many unanswerable logical holes), tArkika-s strike terror - so that just naming the opponents "tArkika" is a dignified way for them to accept their illogicality. (One may compare the use of "brahmavAdin" and "tIrthaka" from the view of the bauddha-s - who are not anti-logic.)

Every school is capable of picking logical holes in any other school and thereby strike terror to that school, and has done it. You are yourself finding the name tArkika for a Vedantin abusive, after having accepted it. The tārkika has been rejected by Veda Vyasa along with many other schools.  

     

It is best to lay aside all these notions of pride and insult, and accept descriptive attributes if they fit the philosophy. So, an advaitin should say "we are buddhist-adjascent" and so on. 

On the same logic, the Vishishtadvaitin should say 'We are a cocktail of Sankhya, Charvaka, Vaishesika, Bhāskara and other shades of bhedābheda schools, etc.' 

 

In effect, these polemical discussions are of no more than mere academic interest. 

There are two dimensions to it - 

If the polemic is superficial, it's just for partisan fun.  

If it is insightful and deep, it's useful for those interested in clarity and the truth.

In all these centuries of polemics nothing new has come out. Only the old books are renewed.  And there is no history of any school changing its fundamental tenets as a result of any other's fault finding.  All schools carry on with their original doctrinal matters as they were made in the inception. For those who want clarity about their own school, it is best that criticism of other schools is carried out within their closed groups where only they are present. About other schools, anyway they have their own compositions to study and reject.    

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Sun, 6 Apr 2025 at 22:39, V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

In all these centuries of polemics nothing new has come out. Only the old books are renewed. 

I don't know enough about this to confirm or deny it. 

 

And there is no history of any school changing its fundamental tenets as a result of any other's fault finding. 

There is a history of schools being defeated and going extinct (which is anyway not my intention.)

 

For those who want clarity about their own school, it is best that criticism of other schools is carried out within their closed groups where only they are present.

That would only befit those who are afraid of the truth.
For those who welcome actual, well-reasoned flaws in their thinking and open to corrections, it becomes important that people holding on to opposing views are given an opportunity to respond intelligently. 

(In case of advaitins, sometimes that happens, many times you just get rage and bluster. You've been useful in providing useful counter-points once in a while, like umA haimavatI, reference to vIrarAghava on bhAgavatam etc...)

I suppose that among the shAnkara-s (whose philosophy has so many unanswerable logical holes), tArkika-s strike terror - so that just naming the opponents "tArkika" is a dignified way for them to accept their illogicality. (One may compare the use of "brahmavAdin" and "tIrthaka" from the view of the bauddha-s - who are not anti-logic.)

Every school is capable of picking logical holes in any other school and thereby strike terror to that school, and has done it.

Yes, like RaGa is capable of picking holes in NaMo. 

Incidentally - You said the same even in another thread when logical lacunae were being pointed out in shankarisms.  

I requested you to please send me these holes in VA (it would benefit me). Nothing came out of it.

That would be easy - shankara admits vAsudeva and the Gods, just as the mAdhyamaka-s do with their deities - they just say that they too are mithyA. 

 But would anyone for the reason that Madhyamakas accept deities, take them as Aastika darshana?

No, because they reject veda-s, itihAsa-s, purANa-s etc.. Glad you don't ask why we don't consider Islam or Christianity "Astika" :-D

 

Why did not Desika acknowledge that with the Mādhyamakas?  

It's not even a point of contention - just like how they shave their heads, give up upavIta etc..!

  

Their understanding is questionable as seen by equating them with Advaita. 

They don't equate it - they say it's clumsier and more illogical than the actual bauddha original. That's not hard to understand for one who's read atleast the gist of whatever is said about them.

 

But Vedanta Desika, as the very name suggests, would like to represent Vedanta darshana and not Nyaya-Vaisheshika.

This is a futile confusion. If you consider the name, you should also consider the celebrated shloka-s included in his works and recited daily - why leave one and take the other? That's a sign of dishonesty. 

काणादम् पाणिनीयं च  

सर्वशास्त्रोपकारकम् ॥

Why would a tArkika not be a vedAntin?

You are yourself finding the name tArkika for a Vedantin abusive, after having accepted it.  

No - that's false. I just said "shAnkara-s (whose philosophy has so many unanswerable logical holes), tArkika-s strike terror".
There are non-shAnkara vedAntins (those who don't commit obvious fraud when commenting on brahma-sUtras and gItA.)

 

The tārkika has been rejected by Veda Vyasa along with many other schools.  

You're confusing "tArkika" as one who follows some particular , where is it could just well mean someone who'se adept at logic; and applies them wherever appropriate.

 

'Dvaitin' would surely be an insult for a Vishishtadvaitin, who has chosen to call himself a shade of Advaita and not of Dvaita.   

That's weird. No vishiShTAdvaitin-s (which is itself a latter day term) don't have such inferiority complexes.

    

It is best to lay aside all these notions of pride and insult, and accept descriptive attributes if they fit the philosophy. So, an advaitin should say "we are buddhist-adjascent" and so on. 

On the same logic, the Vishishtadvaitin should say 'We are a cocktail of Sankhya, Charvaka, Vaishesika, Bhāskara and other shades of bhedābheda schools, etc.' 

Well, I said "accept descriptive attributes if they fit the philosophy." Not imaginary ones (chArvAka, vaisheShika) - that's just stupid.

sAnkhya-adjascent, bhAskara-adjascent etc.. would definitely be acceptable. You wouldn't find SV-s being upset by that.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 6:55 AM विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki) <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 6 Apr 2025 at 22:39, V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

And there is no history of any school changing its fundamental tenets as a result of any other's fault finding. 

There is a history of schools being defeated and going extinct (which is anyway not my intention.)

By 'any school' what I meant is the three prominent schools. 

  

Every school is capable of picking logical holes in any other school and thereby strike terror to that school, and has done it.

Yes, like RaGa is capable of picking holes in NaMo. 

That's how you can console yourself. 

Incidentally - You said the same even in another thread when logical lacunae were being pointed out in shankarisms.  

I requested you to please send me these holes in VA (it would benefit me). Nothing came out of it.

You can read books by Bellamkonda Ramaraya Kavi.  

No, because they reject veda-s, itihAsa-s, purANa-s etc.. Glad you don't ask why we don't consider Islam or Christianity "Astika" :-D

 परमतम् अप्रतिषिद्धम् अनुमतं भवति  

 

Why did not Desika acknowledge that with the Mādhyamakas?  

It's not even a point of contention - just like how they shave their heads, give up upavIta etc..!

Shaving head and giving up upaveeta is prevalent in Madhwas too.  

 

  

Their understanding is questionable as seen by equating them with Advaita. 

They don't equate it - they say it's clumsier and more illogical than the actual bauddha original. That's not hard to understand for one who's read atleast the gist of whatever is said about them.

All these are only childish. Do the Bauddhas accept theirs is clumsy and illogical? An opponent can say what he wants.   

 

काणादम् पाणिनीयं च  

सर्वशास्त्रोपकारकम् ॥

Why would a tArkika not be a vedAntin?

Tarka, Mimamsa, Vyakarana jnanam is different from the person representing that doctrine. पद-वाक्य-प्रमाण-ज्ञानम्   

You are yourself finding the name tArkika for a Vedantin abusive, after having accepted it.  

No - that's false. I just said "shAnkara-s (whose philosophy has so many unanswerable logical holes), tArkika-s strike terror".
There are non-shAnkara vedAntins (those who don't commit obvious fraud when commenting on brahma-sUtras and gItA.)

Your revelation is only laughable. अबद्धं पठित्वा कुचोद्यं करोति | That's what the opponents have done.    

   

On the same logic, the Vishishtadvaitin should say 'We are a cocktail of Sankhya, Charvaka, Vaishesika, Bhāskara and other shades of bhedābheda schools, etc.' 

Well, I said "accept descriptive attributes if they fit the philosophy." Not imaginary ones (chArvAka, vaisheShika) - that's just stupid.

sAnkhya-adjascent, bhAskara-adjascent etc.. would definitely be acceptable. You wouldn't find SV-s being upset by that.

Exactly that's what Vedanta Desika did: by attributing imaginary ones like Sankhya Saugata and Charvaka to Advaita! It's just stupid.  Are they descriptive? If yes, then all those like sankhya, Bhaskara, etc. will have to be descriptive to VA too. 

--

--

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 at 22:53, V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Apr 7, 2025 at 6:55 AM विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki) <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:

Incidentally - You said the same even in another thread when logical lacunae were being pointed out in shankarisms.  

I requested you to please send me these holes in VA (it would benefit me). Nothing came out of it.

You can read books by Bellamkonda Ramaraya Kavi.  

If you haven't read it and are unable to reproduce some of it here (as I do with shANkaran holes), how do I know that it's not mistaken itself?

Anyway, thanks for the pointer, will keep it in mind.

 परमतम् अप्रतिषिद्धम् अनुमतं भवति  ....

Shaving head and giving up upaveeta is prevalent in Madhwas too.  

 

You have a funny way of accepting that you have no response to a nullified objection - 

by saying things irrelevant to your argument :-P

 

They don't equate it - they say it's clumsier and more illogical than the actual bauddha original. That's not hard to understand for one who's read atleast the gist of whatever is said about them.

All these are only childish. Do the Bauddhas accept theirs is clumsy and illogical? An opponent can say what he wants.   

Same here - you claimed that VD is equating buaddha mata with advaita. That objection was clarified to be risibly wrong. You respond with some observation irrelevant to your statement. 

 

You are yourself finding the name tArkika for a Vedantin abusive, after having accepted it.  

No - that's false. I just said "shAnkara-s (whose philosophy has so many unanswerable logical holes), tArkika-s strike terror".
There are non-shAnkara vedAntins (those who don't commit obvious fraud when commenting on brahma-sUtras and gItA.)

Your revelation is only laughable. अबद्धं पठित्वा कुचोद्यं करोति | That's what the opponents have done.    

Again, the same thing. You claimed that I am "finding the name tArkika for a Vedantin abusive", and I pointed out that you're making stuff up. And your response is to say something entirely irrelevant. As such, foisting things which are unsaid on the original, you're being a good follower of shankara.

And also as nIlakaNTha dIxita says - 

न भेतव्यं न बोद्धव्यं न श्राव्यं वादिनो वचः ।  
झटिति प्रतिवक्तव्यं सभासु विजिगीषुभिः ॥ १ ॥

 

 

Exactly that's what Vedanta Desika did: by attributing imaginary ones like Sankhya Saugata and Charvaka to Advaita! It's just stupid.  Are they descriptive?

Now, please show me where he attributes similarity sAnkhya and chArvAka to advaita? If not, have the decency to accept your fraud and sincerely apologize.

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 at 06:45, विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki) <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

Exactly that's what Vedanta Desika did: by attributing imaginary ones like Sankhya Saugata and Charvaka to Advaita! It's just stupid.  Are they descriptive?

Now, please show me where he attributes similarity sAnkhya and chArvAka to advaita? If not, have the decency to accept your fraud and sincerely apologize.

Thinking about this further, orthodox shAnkaras think Ishvara is not parama-satya; and prominent modern shAnkaras (who conduct workshops and such too) say he's not even mityA but asat (entirely imaginary).

In that sense, shANkaran philosophy (unlike vaiShNava-s) does have a unique affinity to chArvAkism and nirIshvara sAnkhya, which similarly denies Ishvara. So, even "chArvAka-like"  and sAnkhya-like is descriptive, and not imaginary.

So, VD might have noticed it (but where?).

[लोकेश]

I once had a long argument in a Adi Shankara followers group regarding मुण्डकोपनिषद् मन्त्र 3.2.3

नाय॑म् आत्मा प्र॒वचने॑न लभ्यो न॒ मेध॑या न ब॒हुना॑ श्रुतेन।
यम् ए॑वैष वृणुते ते॒न लभ्यस् तस्यै॑ष आ॒त्मा विवृ॑णुते तनूं स्वाम्॥MunU.3.2.3॥

Clearly the meaning of second line यमेवैष वृणुते is --- whom (यम्) this Atman (एष) chooses (विवृणुते) for him/her (तस्य) this Atman (एष आत्मा) opens itself (विवृणुते तनूं स्वाम्). It aligns perfectly with the context set up by the first line of this mantra and previous ones.

To my surprise, this has been interpreted erroneously as follows by Shankara - 

यम् एव परमात्मानम् एव एषः विद्वान् वृणुते प्राप्तुम् इच्छति, तेन वरणेन एष पर आत्मा लभ्यः, न_अन्येन साधनान्तरेण।

I tried to reason with Adi Shankara's followers in the group that this particular interpretation by Acharya Shankara is incorrect, as can be noticed by any student of Sanskrit. The subject of यम् and तेन has to be the same and not different arbitrarily unless the author of the mantra is nuts. However, no one saw the merit in this argument of mine. That's what blind following does to people. They can't notice what's right in front of them.

Reminds me of a brilliant quote - “It's hard to win an argument with a smart person. It's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.”

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 at 11:47, लोकेश <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:

To my surprise, this has been interpreted erroneously as follows by Shankara - 

यम् एव परमात्मानम् एव एषः विद्वान् वृणुते प्राप्तुम् इच्छति, तेन वरणेन एष पर आत्मा लभ्यः, न_अन्येन साधनान्तरेण।

Very good point. But I've seen worse (language-wise) - https://groups.google.com/g/hindu-vidya/c/TQ1M9HVxf4g/m/Pou-KtmHAAAJ , which shrI subrahmanian also tried but failed to defend.

One can excuse language / interpretation errors, and even logical errors saying "his capacity is only that much, we all make mistakes",
but not dead-obvious outright fraud ( https://groups.google.com/g/hindu-vidya/c/TQ1M9HVxf4g/m/o3mcAIOsAAAJ ).  

I feel very sad how dishonest our people (even v1s) are!  

[लोकेश]

> But I've seen worse (language-wise) - https://groups.google.com/g/hindu-vidya/c/TQ1M9HVxf4g/m/Pou-KtmHAAAJ , which shrI subrahmanian also tried but failed to defend.

सत्यम्। एषः इति साक्षात् परमात्मानं द्योतयति इति सरलः साधुः अर्थपूर्णः अभिप्रायः भाति। किमर्थं एषः इति ज्ञानपदबोधकं भवितव्यम् इति न जानामि। पुनः परमात्मा अन्ततः साध्यः खलु न तु तस्य ज्ञानम्। अतः सः परमात्मैव अमृतस्य सेतुः स्यात् न तु तस्य ज्ञानम्। ज्ञातृजेयज्ञानकल्पना यत्र तत्र द्वैतं निहितं ननु। न तस्मिन् अमृतस्य अवकाशः भवति इति अद्वैतिन एव सिद्धान्तः। 

> v1s

v1s नाम किम्?

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 11:47 AM लोकेश <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:

I once had a long argument in a Adi Shankara followers group regarding मुण्डकोपनिषद् मन्त्र 3.2.3

नाय॑म् आत्मा प्र॒वचने॑न लभ्यो न॒ मेध॑या न ब॒हुना॑ श्रुतेन।
यम् ए॑वैष वृणुते ते॒न लभ्यस् तस्यै॑ष आ॒त्मा विवृ॑णुते तनूं स्वाम्॥MunU.3.2.3॥

Clearly the meaning of second line यमेवैष वृणुते is --- whom (यम्) this Atman (एष) chooses (विवृणुते) for him/her (तस्य) this Atman (एष आत्मा) opens itself (विवृणुते तनूं स्वाम्). It aligns perfectly with the context set up by the first line of this mantra and previous ones.

To my surprise, this has been interpreted erroneously as follows by Shankara - 

यम् एव परमात्मानम् एव एषः विद्वान् वृणुते प्राप्तुम् इच्छति, तेन वरणेन एष पर आत्मा लभ्यः, न_अन्येन साधनान्तरेण।

I tried to reason with Adi Shankara's followers in the group that this particular interpretation by Acharya Shankara is incorrect, as can be noticed by any student of Sanskrit. The subject of यम् and तेन has to be the same and not different arbitrarily unless the author of the mantra is nuts. However, no one saw the merit in this argument of mine. That's what blind following does to people. They can't notice what's right in front of them.

What is wrong with the Shankara interpretation? The first line wards off the means such as pravachanam, medhA and bahushruti (meanings explained by the bhashya). The question then arises: By what means can the Atman be realized? To this the answer in the second line is: varNam - seeking to attain. By that seeking, tena varaNena says the bhashyam. 

Unless someone has preconceived notions, he will not find fault in the Bhashyam.  So, the 'nuts' remark only applies to you. You are the blind one trying to impose your erroneous views on others.  

That you are patently wrong is exposed by the following Madhva Bhashya citations:  In all these places, it is the sādhaka who is the one devoted to Brahman (yam) and by him (tena) Brahman is realized. There is no such rule that you specify that is applicable everywhere.  The context here is the Paramatman/Brahman:

नायमात्मा प्रवचनेन लभ्यो न मेधया न बहुना श्रुतेन ।
यमेवैष वृणुते तेन लभ्यस्तस्यैष आत्मा विवृणुते तनूंस्वाम् ॥ २३ ॥ 

This Atman is not to be realized by......This Atman (yam) eSha sadhakaH ..tena labhyaH. tasya sadhakasya.      

Madhva: Bhagavata tatparya nirnaya: He who is devoted to Bhagavaan alone - yameva, by him (by such a devoted sadhaka) - tena: 

परोक्षज्ञानं न शोभते । अपरोक्षज्ञानं न भक्त्या विनोत्पद्यते ।

 

'यस्य देवे परा भक्तिः''

 

'यमेवैष वृणुते तेन लभ्यः'''यद्वासुदेवशरणा विदुरञ्जसैव''इत्यादेः ॥ १२ ॥  The Bhakti is conveyed by the word varaNa. This is the asAdhAraNam kAraNam without which the knowledge will not arise.  Madhva is citing the passage for that purpose. 

Again, same meaning: 

अम्बुवदधिकरणम्

नित्यसिद्धत्वात् सादृश्यस्य नित्यानन्दज्ञानादेर्न भक्तिज्ञानादिना प्रयोजनमित्यतो ब्रवीति-

ॐ अम्बुवदग्रहणात् तु न तथात्वम् ॐ ॥ 19-342 ॥

॥ इति अम्बुवदधिकरणम् ॥ 11 ॥

अम्बुवद् स्नेहेन । ग्रहणं ज्ञानम्। भक्तिं विना न तत्सादृश्यं सम्यगभिव्यज्यते ।

‘यमेवैष वृणुते तेन लभ्यस्तस्यैष आत्मा विवृणुते तनूं स्वाम्’ इति हि श्रुतिः।  The sneha, bhakti, is denoted by the term varaNa. 

‘महित्वबुद्धिर्भक्तिस्तु स्नेहपूर्वाऽभिधीयते ।तथैव व्यज्यते सम्यग्जीवरूपं सुखादिकम्’ इति पाद्मे ॥ 19 ॥

Brahmasutra bhashya Madhva:

‘तमेवं विद्वानमृत इह भवति । नान्यः पन्था अयनाय विद्यते’ ॥

 

‘प्रियो हि ज्ञानिनोऽत्यर्थमहं स च मम प्रियः’ ।

 

‘यमेवैष वृणुते तेन लभ्यः’ ।

 

‘आत्मावाऽरे द्रष्टव्यः श्रोतव्यो मन्तव्यो निधिध्यासितव्यः’

 

इत्यादिश्रुतिस्मृतिभ्यः ।

Brahmasutra bhashya, again:

शान्तो दान्त उपरतस्तितिक्षुः समाहितो भूत्वाऽऽत्मन्येवाऽत्मानं पश्येत्’।

 

“परीक्ष्य लोकान् कर्मचितान् ब्राह्मणो निर्वेदमायात् । नास्त्यकृतः कृतेन । तद्विज्ञानार्थं स गुरुमेवाभिगच्छेत् समित्पाणिः श्रोत्रियं ब्रह्मनिष्ठम् ।।”

 

"यमेवैष वृणुते तेन लभ्यस्तस्यैष आत्मा विवृणुते तनूं स्वाम् । ”

“ यस्य देवे परा भक्तिर्यथा देवे तथा गुरौ ।

 

तस्यैते कथिता ह्यर्थाः प्रकाशन्ते महात्मनः ॥”

 

इत्यादि श्रुतिभ्यश्च ॥

All these passages are focusing on the varaNam of Bhagavan by the sAdhaka. 

Gita bhashya Madhva 7.29,30:  Only those realize Brahman, who choose to know Him: 

त एव च विदुः । 'यमेवैष वृणुते'' इति श्रुतेः ॥ २९, ३० ॥ Only those who are devoted to Bhagavan alone realize Him. 

Anuvyakhyana: Same idea here too: He who is devoted to the Lord, ....

यमेवैष इति श्रुत्या तमेवेति च सादरम् ।

शास्त्रयोनित्वमस्यैव ज्ञायते वेदवादिभिः ॥19॥

य एनं विदुरमृता इत्युक्तस्तु समुद्रगः ।

तदेव ब्रह्म परममिति श्रुत्यावधारितः ॥20॥

 

Reminds me of a brilliant quote - “It's hard to win an argument with a smart person. It's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.”

The quote applies only to you eminently. 

vs 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "चेतो-देव-जीवादि-तत्त्व-विचारः" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cheto-deva-jiv...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cheto-deva-jivadi/c9056143-2d22-470c-9cd2-417146d9b086n%40googlegroups.com.

[लोकेश]

You have adressed everything except the main thing that matters. Kindly forget all the bhasyas and write the meaning of the second line with corresponding Sanskrit words in parenthesis as per your understanding. Then we can have a meaningful talk.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 2:15 PM लोकेश <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> But I've seen worse (language-wise) - https://groups.google.com/g/hindu-vidya/c/TQ1M9HVxf4g/m/Pou-KtmHAAAJ , which shrI subrahmanian also tried but failed to defend.

सत्यम्। एषः इति साक्षात् परमात्मानं द्योतयति इति सरलः साधुः अर्थपूर्णः अभिप्रायः भाति। किमर्थं एषः इति ज्ञानपदबोधकं भवितव्यम् इति न जानामि। पुनः परमात्मा अन्ततः साध्यः खलु न तु तस्य ज्ञानम्। अतः सः परमात्मैव अमृतस्य सेतुः स्यात् न तु तस्य ज्ञानम्। ज्ञातृजेयज्ञानकल्पना यत्र तत्र द्वैतं निहितं ननु। न तस्मिन् अमृतस्य अवकाशः भवति इति अद्वैतिन एव सिद्धान्तः। 

तत्र जानथ इति पदेन ज्ञानमुच्यते श्रुत्या | एष सेतुः इति उपायः उच्यते | ज्ञानोपायेन आत्मा प्राप्यते | अस्यामेवोपनिषदि ब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्मैव इत्युक्तम् | भाष्ये ज्ञानमेव मोक्षोपाय इत्यत्र श्रुतिरप्युदाहृता | 

 

  //यतः अमृतस्य एष सेतुः, एतदात्मज्ञानममृतस्यामृतत्वस्य मोक्षस्य प्राप्तये सेतुरिव सेतुः, संसारमहोदधेरुत्तरणहेतुत्वात् ; तथा च श्रुत्यन्तरम् — ‘तमेव विदित्वाति मृत्युमेति नान्यः पन्था विद्यतेऽयनाय’ (श्वे. उ. ३ । ८) इति ॥ // 

ज्ञानं उपायत्वेन कुत्र प्रतिषिध्यते ? 

//ज्ञातृजेयज्ञानकल्पना यत्र तत्र द्वैतं निहितं ननु। न तस्मिन् अमृतस्य अवकाशः भवति इति अद्वैतिन एव सिद्धान्तः। //

इदं भवतोऽद्वैतापरिज्ञानद्योतकम् | अद्वैते ब्रह्मज्ञानमपि वृत्त्याकार इति स्थितिः | इयं वृत्तिः अनेन साधकेन अनुभूयते | वृत्तिविषयस्तु ब्रह्म | अत एव अस्य ब्रह्माकारवृत्तिरित्यपि संज्ञा |  अत इयं वृत्तिः द्वैतावस्थायामेवोत्पद्यत इत्यङ्गीकृयते | तद्वृत्तिज्ञानं तु ज्ञात्रादिसर्वद्वैतं नाशयतीति अद्वैतिनां मतम् |

भवदीयः 

 

 

> v1s

v1s नाम किम्?

On Tuesday, April 8, 2025 at 1:12:42 PM UTC+5:30 Vishvas विश्वासः wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 at 11:47, लोकेश <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:

To my surprise, this has been interpreted erroneously as follows by Shankara - 

यम् एव परमात्मानम् एव एषः विद्वान् वृणुते प्राप्तुम् इच्छति, तेन वरणेन एष पर आत्मा लभ्यः, न_अन्येन साधनान्तरेण।

Very good point. But I've seen worse (language-wise) - https://groups.google.com/g/hindu-vidya/c/TQ1M9HVxf4g/m/Pou-KtmHAAAJ , which shrI subrahmanian also tried but failed to defend.

One can excuse language / interpretation errors, and even logical errors saying "his capacity is only that much, we all make mistakes",
but not dead-obvious outright fraud ( https://groups.google.com/g/hindu-vidya/c/TQ1M9HVxf4g/m/o3mcAIOsAAAJ ).  

I feel very sad how dishonest our people (even v1s) are!  

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "चेतो-देव-जीवादि-तत्त्व-विचारः" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cheto-deva-jiv...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cheto-deva-jivadi/98e00e39-1fea-45d8-9fc0-77963431f4a7n%40googlegroups.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 3:55 PM लोकेश <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:

You have adressed everything except the main thing that matters. Kindly forget all the bhasyas and write the meaning of the second line with corresponding Sanskrit words in parenthesis as per your understanding. Then we can have a meaningful talk.

You have already given the parenthetical words:

That - paramatman stated in the first line  यम् alone एव परमात्मानम् एव एषः  the informed aspirant विद्वान् वृणुते longs to attain प्राप्तुम् इच्छति, तेन by - due to - that intense seeking - वरणेन एष पर आत्मा लभ्यः is attained, न_अन्येन साधनान्तरेण। tasya - to such a one  eSha Atma - this Paramatman  svAm tanUm - its true nature  vivrNute - reveals. 

regards
 

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 at 15:41, V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

What is wrong with the Shankara interpretation? The first line wards off the means such as pravachanam, medhA and bahushruti (meanings explained by the bhashya). The question then arises: By what means can the Atman be realized? To this the answer in the second line is: varNam - seeking to attain. By that seeking, tena varaNena says the bhashyam. 

भोः सुब्रह्मण्यमहाशय, भवते यः कश्चिन् महानुभावस् संस्कृतम् अपाठयत्, तस्मै मम नमस्कारान् अर्पयतु। अस्माकं तु संस्कृतायाम् असंस्कृतायां वाऽपि भाषायाम् यत्-तत्-पदयोस् सम्बन्धः स्पष्टः। 

 

Madhva: Bhagavata tatparya nirnaya: He who is devoted to Bhagavaan alone - yameva, by him (by such a devoted sadhaka) - tena: 

परोक्षज्ञानं न शोभते । अपरोक्षज्ञानं न भक्त्या विनोत्पद्यते ।

 

'यस्य देवे परा भक्तिः''

 

'यमेवैष वृणुते तेन लभ्यः'''यद्वासुदेवशरणा विदुरञ्जसैव''इत्यादेः ॥ १२ ॥  The Bhakti is conveyed by the word varaNa. This is the asAdhAraNam kAraNam without which the knowledge will not arise.  Madhva is citing the passage for that purpose. 

राम राम - भवान् आदौ संस्कृतं सम्यक् शिक्षतु भोः, पठितुं वा जानातु। नैवम् उच्यते तत्र तथा। यथा तत्रैव प्रकाशिका स्पष्टीकरोति - "एषः परमात्मा यं भक्तत्वेन वृणुते तस्य स्वां तनुं विवृणुते ।" भगवता वरणार्थं भक्तिर् योग्यतां ददात्। 

हन्त, संस्कृतशिक्षणेनापि नालम् - आदौ सत्यम् एव वच्मी, ऋजुर् भवामीति प्रतिज्ञातुं प्रयतताम्। भवान् आस्तिकश्चेद् यं कमपि देवम् प्रार्थयेत्। 

 

‘यमेवैष वृणुते तेन लभ्यस्तस्यैष आत्मा विवृणुते तनूं स्वाम्’ इति हि श्रुतिः।  The sneha, bhakti, is denoted by the term varaNa. 

उपसर्गं खादितवान् वा? तस्य कोऽप्य् अर्थो नास्ति वा?

[लोकेश]

Thank you

> That - paramatman stated in the first line  यम् alone एव

The meaning of the word यम् is "to whom", not "that"

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 4:07 PM विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki) <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 at 15:41, V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

What is wrong with the Shankara interpretation? The first line wards off the means such as pravachanam, medhA and bahushruti (meanings explained by the bhashya). The question then arises: By what means can the Atman be realized? To this the answer in the second line is: varNam - seeking to attain. By that seeking, tena varaNena says the bhashyam. 

भोः सुब्रह्मण्यमहाशय, भवते यः कश्चिन् महानुभावस् संस्कृतम् अपाठयत्, तस्मै मम नमस्कारान् अर्पयतु। अस्माकं तु संस्कृतायाम् असंस्कृतायां वाऽपि भाषायाम् यत्-तत्-पदयोस् सम्बन्धः स्पष्टः। 

 

Madhva: Bhagavata tatparya nirnaya: He who is devoted to Bhagavaan alone - yameva, by him (by such a devoted sadhaka) - tena: 

परोक्षज्ञानं न शोभते । अपरोक्षज्ञानं न भक्त्या विनोत्पद्यते ।

 

'यस्य देवे परा भक्तिः''

 

'यमेवैष वृणुते तेन लभ्यः'''यद्वासुदेवशरणा विदुरञ्जसैव''इत्यादेः ॥ १२ ॥  The Bhakti is conveyed by the word varaNa. This is the asAdhAraNam kAraNam without which the knowledge will not arise.  Madhva is citing the passage for that purpose. 

राम राम - भवान् आदौ संस्कृतं सम्यक् शिक्षतु भोः, पठितुं वा जानातु। नैवम् उच्यते तत्र तथा। यथा तत्रैव प्रकाशिका स्पष्टीकरोति - "एषः परमात्मा यं भक्तत्वेन वृणुते तस्य स्वां तनुं विवृणुते ।" भगवता वरणार्थं भक्तिर् योग्यतां ददात्। 

भोः, इदं भवन्मतानुसारि व्याख्यानम् | तदेव अन्यैरपि स्वीकर्तव्यं इति को नियमः ?  

हन्त, संस्कृतशिक्षणेनापि नालम् - आदौ सत्यम् एव वच्मी, ऋजुर् भवामीति प्रतिज्ञातुं प्रयतताम्। भवान् आस्तिकश्चेद् यं कमपि देवम् प्रार्थयेत्। 

 

‘यमेवैष वृणुते तेन लभ्यस्तस्यैष आत्मा विवृणुते तनूं स्वाम्’ इति हि श्रुतिः।  The sneha, bhakti, is denoted by the term varaNa. 

उपसर्गं खादितवान् वा? तस्य कोऽप्य् अर्थो नास्ति वा?

किं सम्यक् न पठितं भवता ? मया प्रथमप्रकृतवृणुते इत्यस्य अर्थः दत्तः, न तु द्वितीयस्य विवृणुते इत्यस्य |     

[लोकेश]

> Here yam is the dviteeyaa for the masculine yaH for which the noun is masculine word bhaavaH.

How's this related to what I just said? You mistranslated यम् as "that" instead of "to whom". That is my point.

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 at 16:20, V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

परोक्षज्ञानं न शोभते । अपरोक्षज्ञानं न भक्त्या विनोत्पद्यते ।

 

'यस्य देवे परा भक्तिः''

 

'यमेवैष वृणुते तेन लभ्यः'''यद्वासुदेवशरणा विदुरञ्जसैव''इत्यादेः ॥ १२ ॥  The Bhakti is conveyed by the word varaNa. This is the asAdhAraNam kAraNam without which the knowledge will not arise.  Madhva is citing the passage for that purpose. 

राम राम - भवान् आदौ संस्कृतं सम्यक् शिक्षतु भोः, पठितुं वा जानातु। नैवम् उच्यते तत्र तथा। यथा तत्रैव प्रकाशिका स्पष्टीकरोति - "एषः परमात्मा यं भक्तत्वेन वृणुते तस्य स्वां तनुं विवृणुते ।" भगवता वरणार्थं भक्तिर् योग्यतां ददात्। 

भोः, इदं भवन्मतानुसारि व्याख्यानम् | तदेव अन्यैरपि स्वीकर्तव्यं इति को नियमः ?  

भोः श्रीमन्, प्रकाशिका नाम माध्व-व्याख्यानम् एव तात्पर्यनिर्णयस्य। वेदेशतीर्थपूज्यपादशिष्ययदुपतिविरचिता +इति प्रशस्तिः। 

किं सम्यक् न पठितं भवता ? मया प्रथमप्रकृतवृणुते इत्यस्य अर्थः दत्तः, न तु द्वितीयस्य विवृणुते इत्यस्य |     

साधु। तथापि, "sneha, bhakti, is denoted by the term varaNa." इति न खलु सिध्यति। अत एवोहः कृतः - "अनेनाज्ञातसंस्कृतेन किं चिन्त्यमानम्" इति। 

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 4:27 PM विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki) <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 at 16:20, V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

परोक्षज्ञानं न शोभते । अपरोक्षज्ञानं न भक्त्या विनोत्पद्यते ।

 

'यस्य देवे परा भक्तिः''

 

'यमेवैष वृणुते तेन लभ्यः'''यद्वासुदेवशरणा विदुरञ्जसैव''इत्यादेः ॥ १२ ॥  The Bhakti is conveyed by the word varaNa. This is the asAdhAraNam kAraNam without which the knowledge will not arise.  Madhva is citing the passage for that purpose. 

राम राम - भवान् आदौ संस्कृतं सम्यक् शिक्षतु भोः, पठितुं वा जानातु। नैवम् उच्यते तत्र तथा। यथा तत्रैव प्रकाशिका स्पष्टीकरोति - "एषः परमात्मा यं भक्तत्वेन वृणुते तस्य स्वां तनुं विवृणुते ।" भगवता वरणार्थं भक्तिर् योग्यतां ददात्। 

भोः, इदं भवन्मतानुसारि व्याख्यानम् | तदेव अन्यैरपि स्वीकर्तव्यं इति को नियमः ?  

भोः श्रीमन्, प्रकाशिका नाम माध्व-व्याख्यानम् एव तात्पर्यनिर्णयस्य। वेदेशतीर्थपूज्यपादशिष्ययदुपतिविरचिता +इति प्रशस्तिः। 

भवतु मूलमन्त्रस्य तथा व्याख्यानम् |   मयापि दृष्टो राघवेन्द्रतीर्थकृतोपनिषत्खण्डार्थः |  परं तु मध्वेन इदं वाक्यं मदुक्तार्थे एव तत्रोदाहृतम् | तत्रस्थान्यानि वाक्यानि पश्यतु | एकेन भाष्यकारेण भिन्नभिन्नतया एकस्यैव मन्त्रस्य व्याख्यानं दृश्यते भिन्नभिन्नस्थलेषु |     

किं सम्यक् न पठितं भवता ? मया प्रथमप्रकृतवृणुते इत्यस्य अर्थः दत्तः, न तु द्वितीयस्य विवृणुते इत्यस्य |     

साधु। तथापि, "sneha, bhakti, is denoted by the term varaNa." इति न खलु सिध्यति। अत एवोहः कृतः - "अनेनाज्ञातसंस्कृतेन किं चिन्त्यमानम्" इति। 

 

अत्र का समस्या? भक्ति/स्नेह इति भावः साधकस्य भगवद्विषयकवरणत्वेनोच्यते तत्र |  

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 4:23 PM लोकेश <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Here yam is the dviteeyaa for the masculine yaH for which the noun is masculine word bhaavaH.

How's this related to what I just said? You mistranslated यम् as "that" instead of "to whom". That is my point.

I have not mistranslated. I have given the meaning of yam as That as stated in the Bhashyam that fits the context. 'To whom' can also mean yasmai. yam uddhishya uktam - in this case also yam will mean 'to whom'. 

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 at 16:58, V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

भवतु मूलमन्त्रस्य तथा व्याख्यानम् |   

कुत्र? मुण्डकोपनिषदो मध्वभाष्ये ऽयं श्लोको न व्याख्यात एव - बालोऽप्य् अवगच्छतीति (शङ्कर-शाङ्करादीनां हन्त! किं वाच्यम्?) । अतो हि ब्रुवे - पठितुं शिक्षतु। 

 

मयापि दृष्टो राघवेन्द्रतीर्थकृतोपनिषत्खण्डार्थः |  परं तु मध्वेन इदं वाक्यं मदुक्तार्थे एव तत्रोदाहृतम् | तत्रस्थान्यानि वाक्यानि पश्यतु | 

> मेधा प्रज्ञाविशेषः । अयमात्मा भक्तिहीनप्रवचनादिना न लभ्यः न साक्षात्कर्तुं शक्यः,  

अपि तु यं भक्तमेष आत्मा वृणुते स्वीकरोति,  

यस्मै प्रसीदतीति यावत्,  

तेनैव प्रसादविषयेणैव लभ्यः ।  

तद्व्यनक्ति - तस्य स्वप्रसादविषयस्यैष प्रसन्नः आत्मा स्वां तनूं विवृणुते प्रकाशयतीति । तस्यैवापरोक्षविषयो भवतीत्यर्थः ।। ३ ।।

इति पङ्क्तीर् आलोकयतु।
प्रसादविषयो नाम स भक्तः, न काचित् क्रिया। तत्पुरुषसमासस्यायं विग्रहः - प्रसादस्य विषयः प्रसादविषयः। पुँलिङ्गशब्दः। 

अतो ब्रुवे - संस्कृतं शिक्षतु। 

राघवेन्द्रो मध्वश्च संस्कृतं जानीतः। शङ्करोऽप्य् अजानात्। किञ्च, तस्यायम् अभिप्रायः - "शाङ्करास् तादृशा मूर्खा भवन्ति, यन् मम स्पष्टतयाऽपि भाषामात्रज्ञानेनापि दुष्टानि व्याख्यानि स्वीकरिष्यन्ति" +इति। 

 

एकेन भाष्यकारेण भिन्नभिन्नतया एकस्यैव मन्त्रस्य व्याख्यानं दृश्यते भिन्नभिन्नस्थलेषु |     

अथवा भवत एव भाषाज्ञानकृता समस्या ..

[लोकेश]

> I have given the meaning of yam as That as stated in the Bhashyam that fits the context.

तर्हि तु भाष्यकारः एव मूढः साधितः भवता यः यम् इति पदस्य अनर्थं करोति।

यदि भाष्यकारः हिमस्य वर्णः कृष्णः इति वदिष्यति तर्हि किं कृष्णस्य अर्थं शुभ्रं करिष्यति?

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 8:26 PM लोकेश <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have given the meaning of yam as That as stated in the Bhashyam that fits the context.

तर्हि तु भाष्यकारः एव मूढः साधितः भवता यः यम् इति पदस्य अनर्थं करोति।

यं इति पदस्य 'तं परमात्मानं' इति खलु भाष्ये उक्तम् ? तत्र का समस्या? त्वया नावगतः तस्य पदस्यार्थः |  भाष्ये कमपि दोषमापादयितुं अशक्तः, वृथा चर्चामुद्भाव्य अनुवर्तयति भवान् |    

 

 

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

तत्र नास्ति समस्या। सा त्व् एवम् -

> यम् ए॑वैष वृणुते ते॒न लभ्यस् तस्यै॑ष आ॒त्मा विवृ॑णुते तनूं स्वाम्

यदि यच्-छब्दः परमात्मवाची, प्रथमस् तच्-छब्दो यदि क्रियावाची, द्वितीयस् तच्-छब्दो यदि साधकवाची,  
तर्हि, यत्-तदोस् सम्बन्धो नास्त्य् एव, तत्-तदोर् अपि सम्बन्धो नास्ति।  
भाषायां सङ्गतिर् इति काचिद् वर्तेत वाक्येषु। 

यदि कश्चन "whoever is chosen by him, by him he is obtained, for him this AtmA reveals himself" इति श्रुत्वा  

> Actually, the "whoever" refers to the "this Atma"; 
the first "him" refers to the sAdhaka,

the second "him" is actually an "it", referring to the "choice", 
but the third "him" refers to the sAdhaka (my magic!)  
so the final meaning is "that Atma who is chosen by the sAdhaka, by that choice he is obtained, for that sAdhaka this Atma reveals himself."  
and not the simple meaning apparent from the original wording itself.
(यमेव परमात्मानमेव एषः विद्वान् वृणुते प्राप्तुमिच्छति, तेन वरणेन एष पर आत्मा लभ्यः, नान्येन साधनान्तरेण, नित्यलब्धस्वभावत्वात् । कीदृशोऽसौ विदुष आत्मलाभ इति, उच्यते — तस्य एष आत्मा अविद्यासञ्छन्नां स्वां परां तनूं स्वात्मतत्त्वं स्वरूपं विवृणुते प्रकाशयति)

इति व्याख्याति,  
अमत्सरो यः कश्चिद् अपि "शाठ्यम् एवेदम्" इत्य् एव निश्चिनोति। 

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 at 08:05, विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki) <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 at 06:45, विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki) <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

Exactly that's what Vedanta Desika did: by attributing imaginary ones like Sankhya Saugata and Charvaka to Advaita! It's just stupid.  Are they descriptive?

Now, please show me where he attributes similarity sAnkhya and chArvAka to advaita? If not, have the decency to accept your fraud and sincerely apologize.

Still waiting for this :-)

 

Thinking about this further, orthodox shAnkaras think Ishvara is not parama-satya; and prominent modern shAnkaras (who conduct workshops and such too) say he's not even mityA but asat (entirely imaginary).

In that sense, shANkaran philosophy (unlike vaiShNava-s) does have a unique affinity to chArvAkism and nirIshvara sAnkhya, which similarly denies Ishvara. So, even "chArvAka-like"  and sAnkhya-like is descriptive, and not imaginary.

So, VD might have noticed it (but where?).

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 at 06:17, विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki) <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 at 23:04, V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 8:26 PM लोकेश <lokeshh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have given the meaning of yam as That as stated in the Bhashyam that fits the context.

तर्हि तु भाष्यकारः एव मूढः साधितः भवता यः यम् इति पदस्य अनर्थं करोति।

यं इति पदस्य 'तं परमात्मानं' इति खलु भाष्ये उक्तम् ? तत्र का समस्या? त्वया नावगतः तस्य पदस्यार्थः |  भाष्ये कमपि दोषमापादयितुं अशक्तः, वृथा चर्चामुद्भाव्य अनुवर्तयति भवान् |    

The asangati is more than what I described. So, here's another attempt - 

> नाय॑म् आत्मा प्र॒वचने॑न लभ्यो न॒ मेध॑या न ब॒हुना॑ श्रुतेन।  

> यम् ए॑वैष वृणुते ते॒न लभ्यस् तस्यै॑ष आ॒त्मा विवृ॑णुते तनूं स्वाम्

इत्यत्र यदि  
"अदः"-शब्द आत्म-वाची,
प्रथम "एतच्"-छब्दः साधक-वाची,

यच्-छब्दः परमात्मवाची,  
प्रथमस् तच्-छब्दो यदि क्रियावाची,  
द्वितीयस् तच्-छब्दो यदि साधकवाची,  

द्वितीय एतच्-छब्दो ऽप्य् आत्म-वाची,  

तर्हि,
यत्-तदोस् सम्बन्धो नास्त्य् एव,  

अद-एतदोः सम्बन्ध एकत्र नास्ति,  
एतद्-एतदोर् अपि सम्बन्धो नास्त्य् एव,  

तत्-तदोर् अपि सम्बन्धो नास्ति।  
भाषायां सङ्गतिर् इति काचिद् वर्तेत वाक्येषु।  
यदि कश्चन

> (नाय॑म् आत्मा प्र॒वचने॑न लभ्यो न॒ मेध॑या न ब॒हुना॑ श्रुतेन।  
> यम् ए॑वैष वृणुते ते॒न लभ्यस् तस्यै॑ष आ॒त्मा विवृ॑णुते तनूं स्वाम्॥)  
>
> this (male) AtmA can't be obtained by pravachana, medhas and bahu-shruti.  
> whomever (male) this (male) choses, by him he is obtained, for him this (male) AtmA reveals himself"

इति श्रुत्वा  

> (यमेव परमात्मानमेव एषः विद्वान् वृणुते प्राप्तुमिच्छति, तेन वरणेन एष पर आत्मा लभ्यः, नान्येन साधनान्तरेण, नित्यलब्धस्वभावत्वात् । कीदृशोऽसौ विदुष आत्मलाभ इति, उच्यते — तस्य एष आत्मा अविद्यासञ्छन्नां स्वां परां तनूं स्वात्मतत्त्वं स्वरूपं विवृणुते प्रकाशयति)  

> Actually,
> the first and third _this (male)_ refers to the AtmA,  but the second _this (male)_ refers to the sAdhaka (my magic!).  
> The "whomever" refers to the "this Atma";
the first "him" is actually an "it", referring to the "choice",  
but the second "him" refers to the sAdhaka (my magic!)  

so the final meaning is "that Atma who is chosen by the sAdhaka, by that choice he is obtained, for that sAdhaka this Atma reveals himself."  
and not the simple meaning apparent from the original wording itself.

[लोकेश]

> यं इति पदस्य 'तं परमात्मानं' इति खलु भाष्ये उक्तम् ? तत्र का समस्या?

सैव तु समस्या। उन्मत्तं विहाय कोऽपि यमिति पदस्य तमिति अर्थो न स्वीकरोति।

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

Someone brought to my attention furtherance of the same comical tradition by a certain initiate (not a convert, as claimed) into shAnkarAdvaita named bellamkoNDa rAmarAya (supposedly a "kavIndra", haygrIvopAsaka etc..). 

Given this:

नादत्ते कस्यचित्पापं न चैव सुकृतं विभु: |  
अज्ञानेनावृतं ज्ञानं तेन मुह्यन्ति जन्तव: || 15||

ज्ञानेन तु तदज्ञानं येषां नाशितमात्मन: |
तेषामादित्यवज्ज्ञानं प्रकाशयति तत्परम् || 16||

he comments -

यत्तु रामानुजः --  
तेषाम् इति विनष्टाज्ञानानां बहुत्वाभिधानाद् आत्म--स्व-रूप--बहुत्वम्  
आदित्य-दृष्टान्तेन च प्रभा-प्रभावतोर् इव ज्ञातृ-ज्ञानयोर् अवस्थानम्  
आत्मनो ज्ञानधर्मवत्त्वं च प्रतिपादितम् इति,  
तत् तुच्छम् —  
'तेन मुद्यन्ति जन्तव' इति पूर्वश्लोकोक्तं जन्तूनामिह तत्पदेन परामर्शात् ।  

teShAm referring to something other than yeShAm of the same shloka is bizarre (as anyone with any experience with any language - let alone sanskrit - can verify), but that's in keeping with shankara's prior "brilliance" in this regard .

Turns out "नाम बडे और दर्शन छोटे" :-(
Also, what kind of dishonesty/ Agraha makes people torture texts like this!

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

https://youtu.be/Yuk_MzYj6YQ?t=452 इति कस्यचन शाङ्कर-विदुष एव भाषणम्, केनचिद् अपरेण प्रेषितम् - 

"Criticism of rāmarāya for going against śaṅkarabhāṣya and brahmasūtra and for misrepresenting bhedābheda as viśiṣṭādvaita (6.30 and 19.50) "

[विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki)]

वीरराघवार्यस्य तुल्या कल्पना -

एवं देवता-निराकरणम् अपि  
मीमांसा-व्याख्यातॄणां स्व-प्रौढिम-प्रकटन-प्रागल्भ्याद् एव; अथवा शून्य-वादिनो बुद्धस्य चातुर्-विध्य-मतवत्  
गुड-जिह्विका-न्यायेन सेश्वराणाम् एव निरीश्वर-वादो नास्तिक-सङ्ग्रहाय ।

On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 at 06:50, विश्वासो वासुकिजः (Vishvas Vasuki) <vishvas...@gmail.com> wrote:

Corrections and additions welcome -

No one’s AchArya is above “comments”, including yours and mine. Why? Because they are men, and as with pauruSheya vAkya-s, it becomes important to know the qualities and circumstances of the person producing them.

Plainly, shankara was caught in a game involving buddhists and Astika-s - as in the case of such people (double agents, civilians in rebel areas), you can never be sure whose side he’s on. This is apparent from his philosophy.

It is clear from his own admission, that he was interested in foisting nirguNa-brahma-vivarta-vAda on to brahma-sUtra-s, rather than explaining it as it is. (Contrast अध्यासवादं प्रसाध्य - “यथा चायमर्थो वेदान्तानां तथा वयमस्यां शारीरकमीमांसायां प्रदर्शयिष्यामः” with R’s “तन्मतानुसारेण सूत्राक्षराणि व्याख्यास्यन्ते”). It’s a hopeless task, and the fraud is apparent by the second sUtra itself. It’s akin to dressing up a monkey like a man, and hoping no one will notice.

Why did he get this itch? He could have stopped at adhyAsya-bhAShya (the introductory part), which is a perfectly respectable, if flawed, philosophical piece. Some possibilities -

• He had attachment to vaidika-s, but was also attached to gauDapAda (who explicitly, comically, needed to clarify - “तथा ज्ञानं नैतद्बुद्धेन भाषितम् ॥ ४.९९ ॥” in his kArika extension). So, he had to convince himself, most of all, that his vivartavAda is vaidika.
• Another guess is that he was so into “अध्यास” that he just could not resist doing it on to BS and laughing at all those who fall for it.
• parakAla yati & varadAchArya thought that it was a subversive operation against buddhists (ie. he himself did not believe in what he was writing), but that seems very unlikely.