Soundarya Lahari - Shree Shankaraachaaryaa - Advaita

[smaranam]

We aren't comparing Advaita with any other philosophies here. So there are no different schools.

I understand you are not talking about other philosophies. The reason I mentioned the apples and oranges is because some students of Advaita think that Grade 5 of some other school(s) can be Grade 1 of Advaita, which is not the case. So it was just an FYI.

By the way I do not belong to any of the schools -- but have learned from several of them.

Jai Shri Ram

[anucarh]

We can argue Shree Shankaraachaaryaa is a great poet so he sang but why he praise or pray Nrusimha (a particular form)when he himself is a self realized who understand that Brahman is beyond form?

Namaste Anirudh ji,

Because he considered bhakti or devotion to the Lord to be a suitable path for the majority. Many of his present-day admirers are unaware that he emphasized that the Advaitin [1.] path of knowledge (jñāna marga or jñāna yoga), leading to Self-realization after the three general stages of Hearing, Thinking, and Constant Meditation, is actually for very few people in their current condition. This is especially clear in the first 32 verses of the Vivekacūḍāmaṇi, beginning well before the famous "four" prerequisites (sādhana catuṣṭaya) are even mentioned. He writes that the path of knowledge is only for those who have accumulated vast amounts of merit over many lifetimes, who are learned (in the scriptures), who are skilled in reasoning, etc. [2.] And his four prerequisites for the path of knowledge, found in in the Vivekacūḍāmaṇi (verses 17-30 in my copy, but the verse numbering in the Vivekacūḍāmaṇi varies slightly across translations), in his commentary on the Brahma Sūtras (1.1.1), and originally in the Aṣṭāvakra Saṁhitā, include, among other things, renouncing all pleasures of the senses (as part of vairāgya, renunciation) and patient endurance of suffering without any reaction or complaint (titikṣā, which is one of the six treasures of self-control). All of these criteria and more must be met to tread this path. (Additionally, there is a section in his Brahma Sūtra Bhāṣya that further seems to exclude vast numbers people from this path on a controversial basis, but some contend that this wasn't his actual view, pointing to another work attributed to him, and this section is probably best not discussed here.)

He only rejected "dualistic" bhakti as a path to liberation for those already on the direct path of knowledge. He had no problem with encouraging bhakti for everyone else, composing various hymns for the deities, composing poetry encouraging worship and "chanting the Lord's names," etc. Individuals who are opposed to bhakti as an indirect path to liberation tend to point to his declaration near the end of his Bhagavad Gītā Bhāṣya that knowledge alone leads to liberation. They've missed the many places in the same commentary in which he says that the indirect path of bhakti inevitably, eventually also leads to that very knowledge that brings liberation. Just look at his commentary on B.G. 18.65. Svāmī Gambhīrānanda of the Advaita Ashrama translates it thus: "The idea conveyed by the passage is: Having thus understood that the Lord is true in His promise, and knowing for certain that Liberation is the unfailing result of devotion to the Lord, one should have dedication to God as his only supreme goal." Renowned Indian Advaitin scholar Vidyavachaspati V. Panoli translates it in this way: "The drift is that having known the solemn oath of the Lord and having understood the inevitable result of devotion to be Moksha [i.e. liberation], one should only seek refuge in the Lord." Similarly, in his commentary on B.G. 18.56 he writes, "one to whom I am the refuge, to whom I, Vāsudeva the Lord, am the refuge, i.e. one who has totally surrendered himself to Me; even he, āpnoti, attains; the śāśvatam, eternal; avyayam, immutable; padam,State of Viṣṇu; mat-prasādāt, through My, i.e. God's, grace." (tr. Svāmī Gambhīrānanda). In case there is any doubt about which path is being discussed here, immediately before verse 56 he says, "That Yoga of Devotion to the Lord is now being praised in this concluding section" (ibid.), after explaining that the path of devotion also leads to the knowledge that liberates. Indian scholar Sudhakshina Rangaswami, in her book The Roots of Vedānta, summarizes Śaṅkara ji's writings on the bhakti path in this way, "The devotee who worships Īśvara reaches the world of Hiraṇyagarbha after death, and is finally liberated during the cosmic dissolution..." The person on the path of bhakti finally gets to the same place in the long run via an indirect route. Liberation is still by knowledge in the very end, but it is bhakti that takes one to that point.

I hope this helps.

praṇām




1. I realize that there are many Advaitas from the Śāktādvaita of Śrī Sumedhā Hāritāyana and the Parādvaita of Śrī Abhinavagupta to the modern neo-Advaita based on the teachings of Śrī Rāmana Mahāṛṣi. Within Vaiṣṇavism there is also the Śuddhādvaita (Pure Nondualism) Vedānta of Śrī Vallabhācārya, which is said to have been based on the teachings of of Śrī Viṣṇusvāmin. Here I'm speaking only of the Advaita of Śrī Ādi Śaṅkarācārya.


2. In Svāmī Turīyānanda's translation of the Vivekacūḍāmaṇi, some of these 32 key verses or ślokas look like this:

v. 2 "...As for discrimination between the Ātman and the non-Ātman, for direct perception of the Ātman itself, for continuous union with Brahman, and final liberation--these cannot be obtained except through the merits of a hundred billion well-lived lives."

v. 16 "A man should be intelligent and learned, with great powers of comprehension, and able to overcome doubts by the exercise of his reason. One who has these qualifications is fit for the knowledge of the Ātman."

v. 17 "He alone is qualified to seek Brahman who has discrimination, whose mind is turned away from all enjoyments, who possesses tranquility and the kindred virtues, and who feels a longing for liberation."

[Anirudh]

Namaste Anirudh ji,

Because he considered bhakti or devotion to the Lord to be a suitable path for the majority.

Thank you very much Anucarh ji. I can't emphasise the importance of this answer in my spiritual pursuit now. I will read the list of book(s) you have listed.

In the beginning was skeptical whether I am misusing my membership by raising random and irresponsible questions.

Thank you HDF community.

I am greatly indebted to your invaluable service. But for HDF wouldn't have found answers to many of my questions.

[Anirudh]

Namaste Yajvan ji

Thank you for sharing your views. I had thought about HIS intention to groom the seeker to Advaita but the (power) importance and the legends associated with those hymns makes me wonder why he preached a path contradictory (my view based on my limited knowledge) to Advaita concept.

We cant see a single Navrathri celeberation without the rendition of Mahishasura Mardini stotram composed by Shree Shankaraachaaryaa.


PS:

By humble conclusion is our Achaaryaas were visionaries. They have given vast immeasurable richness. We should use them to help us in uniting us than dividing ourselves.

I am yet identify the way Navrathri is celebrated in a orthodox Sri Vaishnava branch.

[Anirudh]

Namaste Smaranam ji

I understand you are not talking about other philosophies. The reason I mentioned the apples and oranges is because some students of Advaita think that Grade 5 of some other school(s) can be Grade 1 of Advaita, which is not the case. So it was just an FYI.

By the way I do not belong to any of the schools -- but have learned from several of them.

Jai Shri Ram

a)Well whatever it didn't address my question.

b)We are directly or indirectly and knowingly or un knowingly linked to a Sampradaya or a philosophy.

Around an year+ ago believed these philosophies do not impact a seeker's Saadhana but they do. They are the governing body that define the fence or boundaries.

We may wish to argue whether the practices need boundaries. Yes. But that's a different question .

However thanks for sharing your views

[Ekam]

Namaste Anirudhji

Namaste Ekam ji

If the ultimate reality is Brahman and Brahman is beyond name and forms then instead of focusing on Nirguna Brahman why should Shree Shankaraachaaryaa praise Saguna Brahman or Ishwara or a particular form of God(s) like Nrusimha or Parvati etc etc ?

Precisely because Nirguna Bragman is beyond name and forms that it can't be the most appropriate object of hymns of praise directly. Thus, it's normal that he choose to praise the forms He takes.

You could write a poem about the space of this room, but it would be more productive to write about the objects in the room.

Nirguna Brahman is atributeless, so the best stotram about it is Silence. Everything else would be not entirely correct. No word in our language can describe Nirguna Brahman, not thought in our minds can conceive it.

To me it sounds like...

I have a problem statement in maths..

I approach Grade 1 maths teacher. Teacher provides me a solution. Then I am told the solution given by Grade 1 teacher is not un real but illusory. It is not incorrect but the ultimate solution is available with Grade 5 teacher. So seek the help of Grade 5 teacher.

Likewise why should Shree Shankaraachaaryaa introduce Grade 1 teacher (Maya) when my goal is to seek Moksha which is available to me by identifying myself with Grade 5 teacher.

The solution given by Grade 1 teacher and the solution given by Grade 5 teacher can both lead to Moksha.

"Guru, Rama, Krishna, Kali etc. are all only Truth or Reality. They are names and forms to aid those who are not able to go directly to the truth, so that in time they may be softened up, so to speak, and ‘approach’ the Truth directly".

It doesn't mean that Bhakti is "ignorant" or "illusory", but just that it's not a direct path. And not everyone has to follow the same path or the same teacher. Some have a taste for the direct path, other from other kinds of paths. If they all lead to the same result you can't say that one is better than the other.

Each case is different. A person with strong devotional character that pursues the direct path of non-duality can take much more time to "get it" than if he had taken the devotional path (which is also non-dual). So for that person in particular the devotional path was "better".

And just a note:

"When it is said that the world is an illusion, it means that the world as it is normally conceived to be, is an illusion. The world is normally conceived to exist in its own right, separate from and independent of the Awareness or Consciousness that knows or experiences it. Nobody has ever experienced such a world, because it would be impossible to have an experience without Consciousness. Hence it is said to be an illusion".

Pranams

[Anirudh]

Namaste Ekam ji

Thank you very much for sharing those words. I would like to cross check with you whether I have understood your statements completely and clearly.

#1. Shree Shankaraachaaryaa didn't stop or rejected the duality route to reach the final destination or the last leg of purushartha. He himself believed and praised the attributes of Bhagwaan or Brahman.

#2. Shree Shankaraachaaryaa went a step ahead and said at the highest level, Brahman has no form and no attributes. This route also takes the Seeker to reach the final destination or the last leg of purushartha.

If #1 and #2 are true, for the time being I will not question on the necessities of the route #2. Because

a) We all come in different shapes and size and hence need different medium to reach the final leg.

b) The emphasise is on the act of reaching the final leg and not on the route to reach.

c) As the purpose of our (soul) to take human appearance is to reach the final leg, it is inappropriate or probably counter productive to divert of focus from reaching the final leg to other actions including efforts to validate the routes.

Thanks and Regards

Namaste Anirudhji



Precisely because Nirguna Bragman is beyond name and forms that it can't be the most appropriate object of hymns of praise directly. Thus, it's normal that he choose to praise the forms He takes.

You could write a poem about the space of this room, but it would be more productive to write about the objects in the room.

Nirguna Brahman is atributeless, so the best stotram about it is Silence. Everything else would be not entirely correct. No word in our language can describe Nirguna Brahman, not thought in our minds can conceive it.



The solution given by Grade 1 teacher and the solution given by Grade 5 teacher can both lead to Moksha.

"Guru, Rama, Krishna, Kali etc. are all only Truth or Reality. They are names and forms to aid those who are not able to go directly to the truth, so that in time they may be softened up, so to speak, and �approach� the Truth directly".

It doesn't mean that Bhakti is "ignorant" or "illusory", but just that it's not a direct path. And not everyone has to follow the same path or the same teacher. Some have a taste for the direct path, other from other kinds of paths. If they all lead to the same result you can't say that one is better than the other.

Each case is different. A person with strong devotional character that pursues the direct path of non-duality can take much more time to "get it" than if he had taken the devotional path (which is also non-dual). So for that person in particular the devotional path was "better".

And just a note:

"When it is said that the world is an illusion, it means that the world as it is normally conceived to be, is an illusion. The world is normally conceived to exist in its own right, separate from and independent of the Awareness or Consciousness that knows or experiences it. Nobody has ever experienced such a world, because it would be impossible to have an experience without Consciousness. Hence it is said to be an illusion".

Pranams

[smaranam]

a)Well whatever it didn't address my question.

I have given very clear explanations in both post 2 and post 8. Unfortunately you cannot not see it. Shankaracharya showed Grade1 because many people would be in Grade1 of his school.

"of his school" are very important words. Anyways, I do not want to continue this conversation.

[Amrut]

Namaste Anirudh ji,

Adi SankarAcArya ji was a jagad guru. He traveled all over India. He didnt debated with all the masses of India. Masses are not interested in technicalities or philosophies. They are attracted with the lofty personality of a saint.

He only established advaita as the highest level of truth and rejected other systems or approach's final destination and not the whole path. e.g. the final destination or position of jIva w.r.t. brahman which is different for different sampradAya-s.

Adi Sankara had verbal duels with scholars and he fought against philosophical difference between bauddha dharma. udayanAcArya, an adept in tarka (logic) established by logic that Isvara exists. kumArila bhaTTa, a pUrva mimAmsaka established the validity of veda-s and karma kANDa. Last rejection by bauddha-s was rejection of brahman as supreme, which Adi Sankara refuted and established brahman as the supreme.

But for masses, advaita is not suitable. It is only for very pure souls. Adi Sankara had only 4 disciples even though he roamed throughout India. He could have made thousands or even lakh-s.

Advaita is established on foundations of veda-s and so the first step is inner purification of karma kANDa. bhakti is also important. Sringeri AcArya-s emphasize great on bhakti. Advaita comes into picture only at a much later time. Infact Sringeri AcArya-s are trained in bhakti too. They too have divine vision of God.They will never say, surrender to me (as I am Brahman), but will always say surrender to sArdAmbA or Siva or kruShNa. They will not say, I did this work or I order this work. they say, ambA gave me order to do this work and by her grace this work was completed. When interacting with masses, one stays in dual plane only. Only when alone or in meditation, advaita bhAva is important. Else one cannot communicate with other.

smArta sampradAya was already practiced before Adi Sankara as it is evident in his gItA commentary on chapter 2, verse 10 (BG 2.10) where he has used the word 'smArta'.

In short Adi Sankara supported all paths

karma kANDa (mimAmsA, srauta, smArta)
upAsanA kANDa (Agama-s, temple worship, worshipping any form of God)
GYAna kANDa (meditation on nirguNa brahman)
yOga (Gloss yOga tArAvalI on pataljalI yOga sUtra)

But for final destination, Adi Sankara has established nirguNa brahman and the state of oneness as the supreme state of consciousness.

Adi Sankara has also written commentary on parts apastamba dharma smriti like pAtAla khaNDa. So he accepted dharma smriti-s too. He has also quoted many dharma smriti-s in his commentaries. Adi Sankara also established, repaired many temples and re-consecrated Sri jagannAtha bhagavAn (his idol) in the temple, which he got instruction from God in a dream and he established a matha - 'purI matha' there itself to take care of temple. So he supported Agama-s too, as they are needed for temple worship.

In polemical debates, it is the final destination, the final goal, that is debated and established Stay away from this.

Sringeri paramAcArya Sri abhinavavidyAtirtha mahAsvamI has said, all those who 'pretend' to be in advaita state, but are not are 'pseudo-advaitins'. Outwardly they may look calm, but from within there is storm of vAsanA-s.

It is like, seeing a snake, but saying that I see rope. karma leads to inner purification. Faith in God is established and is further strengthened by bhakti. These two make a strong base, without a strong base, (upon which advaita rests), practising advaita is like building castle in the air. In rare cases, the base was created in past life / lives, so such rare souls, yOga braSTa-s, can directly switch to advaita as soon as they start spiritual practice.

btw, have you read prabodha sudhAkara? It is a rare text which ends with bhakti and in which Adi Sankara greatly emphasizes kruShNa bhakti. He says Krishna is root of all incarnations and is the original para-brahman

OM

[hinduism♥krishna]

He says Krishna is root of all incarnations and is the original para-brahman

Just impossible! Adi shankara can't speak against Vishnu Purana , wherein krishna is mentioned as incarnation of vishnu. I think I'd read it, let me see how and where he says it. *Could you please give me verse no.?*