some foundation...

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


Have you noticed that many-a-post refers to the knowledge that is found within the bhāgavad gītā¹ ? Now why would that be? One can answer, it is a great book, it is the song (gītā) of the Lord (bhagavān). I would say that is absolutely correct. Yet, as always in sanātana dharma there is more.

It is considered one of the foundations of vedānta. As you know vedānta = veda + anta = end of the veda. This ‘end’ has significance as it means conclusion, final but also suggests there is nothing further; that no one need to go further then this for knowledge, it is final. I will offer some additional ideas in a future post on this notion, but for now let’s get back to the notion of ‘foundations’.

The foundation of vedānta is called prasthānatrayī . This word is prasthāna + trayī . Prasthāna is defined ‘the place of origin’, ‘starting point’ , ‘source’ – so many have termed this as foundation. And trayī = traya which simply means ‘3’ , but also means ‘summit’ or the highest point.
So, if we combine the meanings it suggests that prasthānatrayī is the 3 places of origin, the source, the highest point (traya) of vedānta. And what are these three ?

• The bhāgavad gītā , also called smṛti prasthāna within the framework we are speaking
• The upaniṣad-s , also called sruti-prasthāna
• The brahmasutra-s , also called nyāya-prasthāna

Note that smṛti is that which is remembered, sruti is that which is heard, and nyāya that which is reasoned.
So it is this prasthānatrayī that is considered core to vedānta. These scriptures are considered key for that author who wishes to profoundly comment & explain (bhāṣya) these works… some call them the checkmarks that are needed for any of the great bhāyaṣkāra-s ( or bhāyakārin-s) to comment on.

So that should be it… end of story ? Well, if you look at the term vedānta it can be prefixed by 3 different views of vedānta ( leave it to us humans to not be satisfied with one):

• adivaita vedānta
• viśiṣtādvaita vedānta
• dvaita vedānta

Who are the primary bhāyaṣkārin-s of these now-to-be-known schools of vedānta ?

• ādi śaṅkara for adivaita vedānta
• rāmānuja for viśiṣtādvaita vedānta
• madhvācārya for dvaita vedānta

Are there others ? Yes, but most if not all stand on the shoulders of these 3 bhāyaṣkārin-s.

Many ( but not all) of our conversations on HDF stem back to these books and points of view. They talk of the truth of reality from 3 different views. For some they see them as ‘camps’ or opposing views, for others they see the ‘camps’ as 3 different vantage points to view Reality and the definition of this Reality.

So , on HDF when a conversation arises many a thoughtful person will say, it all depends on how you look at it. This is not just a modern day deterrent to avoid being cornered into a position, but the actual vantage point of a learned person; three different views of the same subject matter.

There is more to add to this overall conversation and will ( and others are welcomed) to continue in future posts.


iti śivaṁ

words

• bhāgavad components
  • bhaj = to grant , bestow , furnish + ga
  • ga is rooted in √gai singing
  • bhaga = ‘dispenser’ ; gracious lord; good fortune , happiness , welfare , prosperity; love and affection
  • vad = to praise; also to speak , recite , rehearse; it also means
• Additional HDF post : http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=5093

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

When we are talking vedānta from post 1 above, it fits within a grouping called saḍ darśana or the the 6 schools of thought. The schools are generally divided as orthodox and unorthodox views: āstika or 'there is or exists' and nāstika or na+ astika , 'it is not so' .
The 6 schools of which vedānta (sometimes called uttarā mīmāṃsā) is one and is considered āstika. What does this mean ? The 6 accept the veda-s as the final authority. Here are the 6:

• śāṁkhya
• yoga
• vedānta
• mīmāṃsā
• nyāya
• vaiśeṣika

Now many think that this term āstika means ‘there exists’ a personal God (~creator~), and these schools accept this as fact. Yet as fore mentioned it suggests the veda-s are the final authority and does not involve the belief of a creator co-mingled within the term āstika. ( these items do not represent my beliefs, but are here for one's evaluation ).

But what of nāstika ? It suggests there are schools/views or darśana-s that do not think the veda-s are the final word. Who are they ?

• cārvāka-s
• bauddha-s
• jain-s

This brings us to a gross realization that comes-up on HDF quite often … What makes a hindu ? You will see lists, cautions, requirements, and various to-do’s regarding this matter. You will always see on these lists that the belief in God and the veda-s are paramont. With the information offered above it suggests otherwise.

Yet if one said I want to follow a particular school (saḍ darśana) of thought that is found within sanātana dharma, then one could list out the veda-s as the final word and the recognition of God as creator.

The point I am offering is sanātana dharma is so vast it can accommodate all walks of life. It can uplift and deliver many to Reality, to the truth at a minimum via intellectual understanding or to the direct personal experience of it.

Yet this discussion also suggests something that is less appealing. That many within the hindu belief system do not know the depth and breath of the system they participate in. As if on a ship taking them across the ocean and they never walked the ship from stem to stern. A valid argument to this point is, who cares about the compartments of the ship or its color as long as it gets you across the ocean¹ ? Yes, I cannot contest this. Yet one should also know when to hold a pregnant pause when someone from the back of the ship tells a person the boat is moved by propellers and not the wind as another person has suggested.

We will continue the discussion of some great influences in sanātana dharma in the upcoming posts.

iti śivaṁ

1. ocean & ship - the metaphor the wise use to suggest delivering an aspirant across (tara) the ocean of samsara ( birth after birth ) via the ship (tari) of knowledge and wisdom.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namaste


Often times the ṣaḍ-darśana-s ( 6 schools) are grouped into pairs; this paring suggest some commonality enough to say there are similarities, but not a perfect 1:1 fit. The term alliances may best fit the couplets. Here’s the groups:

• yoga & sāṁkhya
• mimāṁsā & vedānta
• nyāya & vaiśeṣika

What are the core ideas of each of these schools ? We can look at this later, but for a thorough review I recommend the book (a 2 volume set) , The Systems of Indian Philosophy, by Subodh Kapoor.

This book will help one distinguish the differences even within mimāṁsā (meaning investigation, enquiry). That is, pūrva (former , prior ) to that of uttara (later , following , subsequent) mimāṁsā. The two primary schools are prabhākara-ji’s view and kumārila-ji’s view. Yet the founder of this darśana was jaimini-ji.
This former and later view considers karmakāṇḍa (actions and rituals) section of the veda and jnānakāṇḍa ( knowledge of brahman ) of the veda¹.
Note that I have read the original works of jaimin-ji and am still confounded on what I read! Without the help of The Systems of Indian Philosophy, by Subodh Kapoor, I would not have a clue.

Due to our human condition we tend to take sides, and stick to that view as the best, most authoritative, etc. This happens
within the ṣaḍ-darśana-s ( 6 schools). One group thinking it is superior to another. Yet we are told that the 6 views work
in concert to deliver the interested party to a complete view of Reality. As one studies the 6, this sense begins to form; a more thorough view of knowledge and the philosophical views (prakaraṇa granthas¹) contained therein.

What of these mentioned in post 2 above ? The nāstika ? Schools/views or darśana-s that do not think the veda-s are the final word. Who are they again?

• lokāyata school- materialism , the system of atheistical philosophy founded by cāravāka.
• jaina school - jaina is from jina or 'victorious'. Victory over one's self.
• bauddha view , relating or belonging to buddha. Four types madhyamika-s, yogācāra-s, sauytāntika-s, and vaibhāṣika-s

Does the reader have any opinions on these 3 ? Are the valid , non-valid ? Today the nāstika is considered the atheist in many circles of conversation.

A question that has been raised on HDF in the past, are their other schools ? Yes.
It is suggested and discussed that that there are some 16 darśana-s of Indian philosophy. Mādhava-ji, we know as madhvācārya ( 14th century) calls out 16 in his work sarvadarśanasaṅgraha¹. Before him there was a work called sarvadarśanasiddhāntasaṅgraha¹ from the school of śaṃkara ( 10th centry) calling out about 13.
There is a post on HDF which lists out these schools. If I find it I will post the link back within this post.

... more to follow. Let's see if the HDF reader has any insights or rebuttals to the discussions above.


words

• sarvadarśanasaṅgraha = sarva+darśana+saṅ +graha ; sarva = all + darśana = view or ~ philosophy~ san = bestow , distribute, gain + graha = understanding or taking up. So this is taking up and offering the understanding of all the various schools or philosophies
• sarvadarśanasiddhāntasaṅgraha = same as above yet siddha is used to suggest the perfections, what is gained, or the objective of the various schools
• prakaraṇa = =treatment, discussion , explanation; treaty, book
  • grantha = stringing together; treatise , literary production
• The veda-s are typically broken into two broad categories:
  
  • karmakāṇḍa (actions and rituals)
  • jnānakāṇḍa ( knowledge)

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namaste

I wrote in post 1 above,

The foundation of vedānta is called prasthānatrayī . This word is prasthāna + trayī . Prasthāna is defined ‘the place of origin’, ‘starting point’ , ‘source’ – so many have termed this as foundation. And trayī = traya which simply means ‘3’ , but also means ‘summit’ or the highest point.
So, if we combine the meanings it suggests that prasthānatrayī is the 3 places of origin, the source, the highest point (traya) of vedānta. And what are these three ?
· The bhāgavad gītā , also called smṛti prasthāna within the framework we are speaking
· The upaniṣad-s , also called sruti-prasthāna
· The brahmasutra-s , also called nyāya-prasthāna
Note that smṛti is that which is remembered, sruti is that which is heard, and nyāya that which is reasoned. So it is this prasthānatrayī that is considered core to vedānta. These scriptures are considered key for that author who wishes to profoundly comment & explain (bhāṣya) these works… some call them the checkmarks that are needed for any of the great bhāyaṣkāra-s ( or bhāyakārin-s) to comment on.

Where do these books come from or reside ? There are some that do not know that the bhāgavad gītā is part of the mahābhārata. It is 700 verses. Some argue 701 , and some attest that it is 748 verses. Be that as it may, this is just a small slice of the mahābhārata which is composed of over 100,000 śloka-s ( which is about 200,000 verses in an English-epic measurement).

The mahābhārata is magnificent work by veda-vyāsa ¹. This book is sometimes called kārṣṇaveda or the veda of kṛṣṇa but not many call it by this name anymore.
The mahābhārata is considered an itihāsa¹ or history. Of this magnificent book many gravitate to the bhāgavad gītā and rightly so.
It is called the cream of the veda-s. Yet if one wishes to capture the full story of knowledge the mahābhārata is time well spent. Vyāsa-ji tells us that this way: ‘Whatever is here ( in the mahābhārata) is found elsewhere. But whatever is not here (in the mahābhārata) is nowhere else.’

We even find this book referenced as itihāsapurāṇaṃ pañcamaṃ vedānāṃ or the itihāsa as the 5th veda, called out in the chāndogya upaniṣad (7.1.2) by nārada-ji no less. So I rest my case on the import of this great work.

The other prasthānatrayī called out are the upaniṣad-s. One might ask how many are there ? What is best to read ? This HDF post can address these questions: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4617

And the last prasthānatrayī referred to is the brahmasūtra-s. It is written by bādarāyana ( some write is vādarāyaṇa) . There are plenty of views of who this author was ; many a vaiṣṇava believe him to be none other then veda vyāsa. Others think that veda vyāsa as a ‘compiler’ arranged the work of bādarāyana into the form of the brahmasūtra-s. To debate this here will detract the discussion and from my view it is not a sticking point ,as the knowledge contained therein is superb.
But what is that knowledge ? It is ~digesting~ the wisdom found within the upaniṣad-s. What is it about ? The 1st sutra tells us what the 4 chapters containing 555 sūtra-s and 222 topics (adhikaraṇa-s¹) will address: athāto brahma jijñāsā – now then, the inquiry into (or of) brahman.

Seems straight forward, yes ? Well now comes the 3 views¹:

• ādi śaṅkara from adivaita point of view
• rāmānuja from the viśiṣtādvaita point of view, and;
• madhvācārya from dvaita point of view.

So, one is ready to scurry off and read the brahmasūtra-s. But to do this without reading the applicable upaniṣad-s one is left outside the field of what is being discussed. Not to mention the subject matter within the brahmasūtra-sthat refers to the bhāgavad gītā.

iti śivaṁ

words

• a vyāsa is an arranger, compiler
  • veda vyāsa is known for compiling the veda-s ( giving the work to his students – he was manager)
  • His name is kṛṣṇa dvaipāyana ;
    • Kṛṣṇa= dark in complexion and Dvaipāyana suggests where vyāsa was born:
    • dvi is 2 ; pāya is water
    • dvipa is drinking twice and dvīpa an island , peninsula , sandbank.
    • Hence born on an island where two rivers join or meet.
• itihāsa is iti-ha-āsa or ‘so indeed it was ‘ ; tradition , history , traditional accounts of former events
• adhikaraṇa-s or topics; there is not agreement that there is a firm 222 topics.
  
  • Pending the school we have 192, 156 , or 222 topics called out.
  • even the total number of sutra-s come into question pending on how one counts them e.g. 555, 545, or 564
• the 3 views – there are others; I count 5 that include the 3 mentioned above; also the host of commentators on the original 3 commenters; I count 12 ācārya-s (guide, teacher, preceptor) commenting on ādi śaṅkara-s views on the brahmasūtra-s

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namaste

Regarding the brahmasūtra-s, I wrote

It is ~digesting~ the wisdom found within the upaniṣad-s. What is it about ? The 1st sutra tells us what the 4 chapters containing 555 sūtra-s and 222 topics (adhikaraṇa-s¹) will address: athāto brahma jijñāsā – now then, the inquiry into (or of) brahman.

The notion of digesting suggests the following. Within the upaniṣad-s there is no set form that was used. That is, a vast ocean of knowledge is discussed within and throughout the upaniṣad-s. To the casual observer one could think that the knowledge is disjointed and that various views regarding brahman was inconsistent or contradicts one another.

It is though bādarāyana-ji’s brahmasūtra-s that this inconsistency was to be reconciled. We can see this even in the chapter (adhyāya) titles :

1. samanvaya adhyāya – chapter on regular succession or order , connected sequence or consequence , conjunction , mutual or immediate connection
-- sama – the right measure, equitable ; Said another way the 1st chapter’s intent is to harmonize the views on brahman across the upanisad-s that are taken up¹.

2. aviodha adhyāya - non-opposition; harmony - addresses objections to vedānta philosophy i.e. opponents to vedānta.

3. sādhana adhyāya - the practice or means : describes the process by which ultimate emancipation is to be achieved.

4. phala adhyāya – the fruit ; what unfolds within this fullness being experienced; the fruit of liberation.

iti śivaṁ

words

• brahmasūtra-s also called vedānta sūtra-s, śārīrika mīmāṃsā
• How many upaniṣad-s are foundations to this work ? Pending who you ask the core (~primary~) 10 to 13 upaniṣad-s are in this mix.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namaste

Within trika or ( non-dual) kaśmir śaivism there is a principle of the Supreme called pratibimbavādaḥ¹ or in a very mundane sense, reflection.

Within the brahma sūtra-s 2.3.50 , which is the advaita ( non-dual) vedānta school in its orientation we find this:
abhyāsa eva ca ||50

• abhyāsa = reduplication ; repeated ~ reflection~.
• eva = indeed , truly , really ; so; as in evam , meaning in this way
• ca = and

This says ,
and (the individual soul is) indeed ~in this way~ really a reduplication (of paramātman or the Supreme).

By using the term ‘and’ in the sūtra it informs the reader that this is a continuation of the previous sūtra-s that are being commented on;
and that is the conversation of paramātman and the ~individual~ is being pursued.

Here’s the pickle. If we are taught within the advitīya ( without a 2nd) schools that all is the Supreme, that it is avibhāga – no distinction, no separation, how then do we reconcile this notion of ‘reflection’ ?

Let me offer some views in the next post for your consideration.

iti śivaṁ
words

• pratibimbavādaḥ = prati + bimba + vādaḥ
  • prati = towards , against , to , upon , in the direction; return
  • bimba = mirror
  • pratibimba = ‘the counterpart’ to which something is compared or the reflection of; the ‘return’ within the mirror.
  • vādaḥ = speaking about; discourse

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namaste

Here’s the pickle. If we are taught within the advitīya ( without a 2nd) schools that all is the Supreme, that it is avibhāga – no distinction, no separation, how then do we reconcile this notion of ‘reflection’ ?

The issues are the following.

• For a reflection to occur there needs to be 2, just like in a mirror. I have the object and the mirror to reflect the object.
• If the Supreme is non-dual , how can there be 2 ?
• If the Supreme is perfectly pure , without a blemish, stainless and anirvacanīya (unutterable, indescribable) what can be reflected?

Even a common example brings one pause… The example of the sun (the Supreme) and a water pot (human consciousness). The sun’s reflection is found in a water pot.
If the water pot jiggles the sun looks like it is quivering ( we experience different levels of consciousness). If I get a bigger pot, the sun’s reflection grows in size;
if I reduce the pot, the sun’s reflection shrinks. Correspondingly the increase or decrease in one’s awareness. Yet all the while the sun has done nothing different in the sky. The point offered here there is still the notion of 2, the sun and the water pot. How does one better explain the union and no difference? Let me offer this...

Within kaśmir śaivism the principle of pratibimbavādaḥ is the foundation. Because all is śiva there is no bhaj - to divide, no division. The notion of reflection works like this: consciousness is the form. Chapter 1.1 of the śiva sūtra-s says this:
caitanyamātmā || 1.1

That's it... simple, eh ? The śiva sūtra-s are just as brief and equal in gravity to those of the brahma-sūtra-s found in vedānta. This says ( and I rely on kṣemarāja-ji’s¹ commentary) that consciousness is the form; in fact the supreme independent state of God Consciousness is the form. But the form of what ? It is the form of everything; nothing can be outside of it, nothing.

So, here’s how this works. The mirror is none other then śiva. The reflection appears ON the mirror, not outside of it, from an outside object.
Because by definition nothing can be outside of śiva; Even by His name it infers this i.e. śiva – this term is rooted in śī - ‘in whom all things lie or reside’. So the reflection we’re talking about does not require two.

For our comprehension, it lies on the surface of the mirror that is śiva. It ~appears~ as a reflection, but is not so, because, aforementioned all this is śiva, Being, non-different or avibhāga ( no separation).

But why do we ~feel~ different ? This comes from the notion of āvaraṇa and vikṣepa – concealing and projecting (letting loose); It is His free will or svātantrya. Within kaśmir śaivism this is the ultimate quality of this level of Being. Perfect independence, and free will.

Now to the discerning HDF reader, some additional questions should arise in one's mind. If the mirror is showing a form, what of all the other tattva-s of smell, taste, touch, and the like ? Those are not reflections i.e. I cannot 'see' a smell, or 'see' hearing. How does that get reconciled by using the pratibimbavādaḥ (reflection) approach?

This is just one question as there are a few more that requires some thinking. I will address them if there's interest. Yet to read the overall approach one can read a few books: ( spelled below as they appear on the covers).

Shiva Sutras - The Supreme Awakening - by Swami Laksmanjoo
Kashmir Shaivism The Secret Supreme - by Swami Laksmanjoo

iti śivaṁ

words

• kṣemarāja-ji was the main śiṣya of abjinavagupata, the great kaśmirśaivite saint of the 10 century;
  • The śiva sūtra-s is a core document to kaśmir śaivism, as it was ‘revealed’ to vasugupta-ji.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namaste

And the last prasthānatrayī referred to is the brahmasūtra-s. But what is that knowledge ? It is ~digesting~ the wisdom found within the upaniṣad-s.

Why use the term digesting ?



iti śivaṁ

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namaste

Why use the term digesting ?

There is the practical example, and then there is a deeper offer for one's kind consideration.
Think about when you digest food. All different flavors are taken into the mouth. There is that enjoyment associated with each flavor. Yet when various food gets past one's palate, it now becomes the property of the stomach and associated organs to begin the digestion. The flavors and substances now become the ~food stuffs~ that are churned into various forms - nourishment, energy and waste product. Within the stomach's digestion the differences are not accented as they were when on the tongue. Now digestion occurs and the food is processed.

Like that, the brahmasūtra-s are taking all the ~flavors~ within the upaniṣad-s and extracting the 'nourishment' , some would say the differences, and presenting them for the reader in a manner that congruent and properly aligned.
But, what I say is somewhat incorrect. It is the consciousness of the author of the brahmasūtra-s (bādarāyana-ji) that is 'processing' this and this leads me to the next idea.

Within the śiva sūtra-s (mentioned several times in the above posts) we find the following:

jñānamannam || 2. 9

This can say two things pending one’s understanding:


View 1
It can say differentiated perception / knowledge is his food. ( In this case the subject 'his' is the yogī). How did I get differentiated perception / knowledge perception from this (jñāna) ? We would need to revisit chapter 1 and the 2nd sutra. I will not do this at this point , but if there is further interest I will pursue the logic for those with keen interest.

Here’s my point and my conjecture . Within bādarāyana-ji, a fully realized being, his consciousness is wholeness, pure and stainless awareness. By his very nature he is able to ~digest~ the apparent differences and bring clarity to the knowledge as needed to the massive way the truth is revealed within the upaniṣad-s.
In and of themselves the upaniṣad-s are the paradigm of truth that is offered to us; yet to blend this and process all the views is done by the one with stainless consciousness and it becomes bādarāyana-ji’s maṇa ( a level of grain i.e. food).


View 2
The term jñāna in the sutra can also be the knowledge of one’s real nature – Self. Hence in this view it now says the the yogī is nourished by his own Self. That is, he/she is content within his own nature and there is no craving for things outside of his own Being.


Hence just some ideas on the notion of ~digesting~.

iti śivaṁ

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

I thought that I would bring this up for one's kind consideration.
This has been hinted about and brought up on several occasions; not as dilemma or point of dispute, but as an observation of what must be, or what seems to be occurring. Let me explain.

This is about a fully realized person that may or may not wish to become the master ( guru) and choose to take on students. The students ask 'may we meditate with you ? ' . What then occurs ? There are two conversations here. One of the master and the other of the student. We will look at both.

The master
The master is always ready to uplift. So, upon the request of the student , his answer is a spontaneous yes. But what occurs for the master when meditating ?
We can take our answer from several sources, but the one I will use for my support is the śivasūtra-s. We look to chapter 1 and the 7th sUtra as it says:
jāgratsvapnasuṣuptabhede turyābhogasaṁbhava || 7

this says ( in general) that turīya remains in continuity (saṁbhava¹) within/while wake, dream, and sleep occurs ||7

We call this wake, dream and sleep differentiated consciousness. We call the turīya ( the 4th) undifferentiated consciousness. That is, this undifferentiated consciousness is his natural state. It is non-different then samādhi. So, when his eyes are open he is in that undifferentiated state of wholeness; when his eyes are closed he is in that undifferentiated state. There is saṁbhava or continuity at all times. So, if this is true, where then is this master meditating ? The fullness of Being ( for him) is experienced with eyes open or eyes closed.

So, from the student's point of view he is of the opinion the master is meditating along with him, and when the student and the teacher opens their eyes the student comes into differentiated awareness the master remains ever the same . Then one must ask who was meditating ? I see only one, the student. If one sees two then a better understanding of meditation is in order.

Now what occurs when the student is close to the master¹ who resides in turīya ( some call turīyatīta - beyond turīya ) ? Let's look at this in the next post.

iti śivaṁ

words

• saṁbhava - some use the word saṁvit which = saṁvid - to perceive; it also means 'to know together' , which applies nicely. That is wake-dream-sleep 'is known together' with turīya.
  being close to the master - this is also the term known as ' upaniṣad'
  • upa-ni- √sad which means come sit close to the truth. The 'master' is the embodiment of truth ;
  • ‘sad’ is to sit near or sit down; ‘sad’ also = ‘sat’ = Being, or really existence, or truth.