Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 135

Thread: Mandukya Upanishad

  1. #21
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
    Posts
    1,802
    Rep Power
    191

    Exclamation

    Sudarshan: “This thread is intended for a detailed examination of this Upanishad … No heated debates please, so that every one can contribute their own understanding of the Upanishad … The first twelve verses of the Upanishad and the 29 verses of Agama Prakarana [i.e. the Prathama Prakarana of Shri Gaudapada Karikas] may be used for the discussion.
    First you used the Vedanta (Brahma) Sutras, and then the Padma Purana, and then Shankaracarya’s Gita Bhashya, and then the Bhagavadgita itself, and then Shankaracarya’s Brahmasutra Bhashya, and then the Vishnu Purana and the Vishnu Sahasranamavali !

    And you have so far avoided the Mandukyopanishad and the Gaudapadakarika, and when I introduced the very first line of the actual Upanishad you deemed it irrelevant !

    You started this thread and set the ground rules, and ever since you have completely ignored the very basis of this discussion !

    If you cannot follow simple rules, why do you impose them on others ?

  2. #22
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
    Posts
    1,802
    Rep Power
    191

    Post Brahma Sutra

    Sudarshan: “Sage Vyasa composed a summary of the vedanta and called it Brahma sutras. Thus, all disputes are to be settled using Brahma sutras, instead of fighting it out with Upanishads, which are open to interpretations.”
    THE SUTRAS

    These systematic treatises were written in short aphorisms, called Sutras, meaning clues; and they were intended as memory aids to discussions on any topic which the student had already gone through with his Guru.

    The thought was very much condensed, because much was taken for granted; and consequently, the maximum of thought was compressed into these Sutras in as few words as possible.

    The desire for brevity was carried to such extremes that most of the Sutra literature is now unintelligible, and this is particularly true of the Vedanta Sutras, which has consequently given rise to different schools of interpretation.

    Swami Vireswarananda

  3. #23
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Age
    50
    Posts
    117
    Rep Power
    119
    Quote Originally Posted by Sudarshan
    Please give a good justification for such guesses. Are you trying to say that Acharya's work was just contrived? And he did not even beliieve in what he was establishing? Are you trying to say that Sri Ramanuja did not beleive in Vishnu sarvottama and yet he proved it in his works. Looks like a speculation. On what reasoning can you base such claims?

    Please dont write irrelevant stuff that nobody will beleive in. Please answer properly.
    Hi Sudarshan,


    Let us consider the fact there are zillions of religions in the world, and that there are atleast three well known philosophical positions in Vedanta- advaita, vishistadvaita, and dvaita.

    There are only four possibilities.

    1. All religions are man made and wrong - a position accepted by atheists.

    2. Some religions are right, some are wrong, and following a wrong system
    leads to disaster.

    3. Some religions are right, some are wrong, but following all religions ultimately lead to the truth.

    4. There is only one true system, and any other is a doorway to destruction.

    All people in the world will fall into one of these categories. Let me know which category you fall into, because without knowing your answer, with any argument I make, I will just make a fool of myself. If you are already "convinced" that any view that is against your views is irrelevant and wrong, then I dont want to waste my time in defending my logic. You are free to your hold your views.

    In short, I want to know if you are open to ideas or closed to any inputs.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Age
    50
    Posts
    117
    Rep Power
    119
    Quote Originally Posted by sarabhanga
    THE SUTRAS


    These systematic treatises were written in short aphorisms, called Sutras, meaning clues; and they were intended as memory aids to discussions on any topic which the student had already gone through with his Guru.

    The thought was very much condensed, because much was taken for granted; and consequently, the maximum of thought was compressed into these Sutras in as few words as possible.

    The desire for brevity was carried to such extremes that most of the Sutra literature is now unintelligible, and this is particularly true of the Vedanta Sutras, which has consequently given rise to different schools of interpretation.

    Swami Vireswarananda
    This is not a neutral view of the sutras. Any person versed in purva mimamsa would immediately know that advaitin commentary breaks rules of interpretation of sutras. Even an advatin like Dr.S.Radhakrishnan has conceded this, and for your info even an advatin stalwart( of advaitasiddhi fame) like Madhusudhana Saraswati has confessed to this fact.

    Advaita can at the best, interpret the sutras of Badarayana in favour of the lower Brahman or Isvara, and the concept of Nirvishesha Brahman has been denied here.

    The sutras are brief and concise, but they are to the point and honestly least ambiguos in most places. Madhavcharya's Bhasya in my opinion is the most perfect, if you take the exact words of the sutras. I am not a follower of his school though, and I do not think his view of the vedanta is accurate.( but no denying that he was faithful to the sutras, even better than Sri Ramanuja, and I can justify this). Madva is the only one who justifies his meaning of every sutras in his anuvyakyana. INfact, he is thorough and justifies why his interpretation is valid very rigorously. Ramanuja does not do this with precision and in Shankara's commentary we find blatant violation of rules of interpretation without any justification. ( more on the lines of - I interpret as it pleases and suits me)

    Most commentrators have rightly interpreted them , in accordance with the mimasa shastras. If you do not understand me, I would be too glad to point out some of these places where exactly these rules are broken. Simply following the words of fellow advatins wont help. You must take point of views from every source. I do so, and I have to confess that only Madhva Bhasya can be considered as the most accurate one going by rules of interpretation, grammer and intellectual honesty.(note that I am not a Madhva follower, but can you find a single flaw in his commentary?). Madhva is Madhva, there is no denying his intellectual prowess and commitment. ( And of course, I do not think dvaita is correct and has a Sankya bias).


    And also guys, please carry forward discussions into another thread. Let this be restricted to Mandukya. It is out of topic already.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
    Posts
    1,802
    Rep Power
    191

    Post

    Namaste Ram,

    The Swami’s view is completely neutral !

    mImAMsA is “profound thought or reflection or consideration, investigation, examination, discussion, or theory”; and particularly “examination of the Vedic text”.

    There are TWO schools of Mimamsa:

    1. Purva-Mimamsa or Karma-Mimamsa by Jamini, concerned chiefly with the correct interpretation of Vedic texts, and commonly called “the Mimamsa”; and

    2. Uttara-Mimamsa or Brahma-Mimamsa by Badarayana, concerned chiefly with the nature of Brahma, and commonly called “the Vedanta”.

    Since Vedanta does NOT depend on Purva-Mimamsa, it is not at all surprising that wise Vedantins have not concerned themselves with the foolishness of using Purva-Mimamsa in any analysis of Vedantic texts! And I completely agree that no Advaitin commentary of the Vedanta Sutras pays any attention to Purva-Mimamsa !

  6. #26
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Age
    50
    Posts
    117
    Rep Power
    119
    Quote Originally Posted by sarabhanga
    Since Vedanta does NOT depend on Purva-Mimamsa, it is not at all surprising that wise Vedantins have not concerned themselves with the foolishness of using Purva-Mimamsa in any analysis of Vedantic texts! And I completely agree that no Advaitin commentary of the Vedanta Sutras pays any attention to Purva-Mimamsa !
    Can you enumerate the rules of interpretation of scriptures in Uttara Mimamsa? And tell me how different it is from Purva Mimamsa? All such foundation come solely from Mimamsa and it is clearly explained in some of the Upanishads. In which text has the rules for the interpretation of Vedanta sutras mentioned? The answer is none has been mentioned, and naturally it means all rules are from the former mimamsa. You cannot make your own new rules.

    This is a joke. I hope you do know what you are saying. Advaita discards the rituals of purva mimamsa, but no Hindu school can discard any of Shankya, Nyaya or purva mimansa when coming to interpretation of scriptures. All schools heavily borrow from both Shankya, Nyaya and Purva Mimamsa, and without them there is absolutely no Uttara Mimamsa. Are you saying that Advaita does not need the Nyaya philsophy and the rich logical content it brings? The very basic learning and interpretation of Uttara Mimamsa pre supposes knowledge of purva mimasa and Nyaya. Advaita follows them wherver it is convenient for them, and chooses to discard wherever it is a problem. Advaita uses plenty of purva mimamsa logic in their granthas and wherever they want to they just dump it.

    Shankara's commentary overrides the views of Badarayana(openly) in certain contexts - that should show you where the commentary stands. Yours is not a NEUTRAL one, because you cannot make neutral decisions without knowledge of how others interpret the sutras.

    Shankara sees very few purva pakshas, and breaks conventions in the interpretations. Your explanation is indeed very funny. In some places, Shankara realizes that he has violated the convention and gives some (lame) explanations, and sometimes even bypasses that.

    A standard protocol folowed in any sutras is that the views of the purva pakshas are stated, and then siddhanta is stated. This is a such a common practice. Only in Shankara's commentary will you find that some times purva paksha is taken as siddhanta, or dismissed altogether. Occasionally, you will find Shankara using a long series of sutras(which are siddhantas) as a purva paksha. I hope you atleast understand what I am saying. Not to speak of the context switches between Niguna and Saguna Brahman in the Phala Adhyaya without any reasons.

    As I said earlier, Brahma Sutras, explained in advaita's term can at the best qualify as Isvara sutras. Brahma sutras carry no more info about the Nirguna.


    Unable to face such charges from others, some advaitins do offer excuses like Badarayana was not as knowledgeabe as Shankara in the samanvaya of Upanishads, and that list included Madhusudhana Sarasvati. That is a lot better than denouncing mimamsa rules which are the at the very core of shastras and even laid out very clearly in some of the Upanishads. Of course, you will not like this, but the truth is to be said - Vedanta sutras are not advaitic by any length of imagination. some Upanishads maybe, Mandukya maybe so, but VS is not. Just accept that, Badarayana was not an advaitin.

    I am not going answer further remarks on this topic because this answer is ridiculous. Anyway this is offtopic, so I stop here.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    mrityuloka
    Age
    52
    Posts
    3,729
    Rep Power
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by Ram
    Is Vishnu really the being who has four weapons?
    Yes.
    Is Shive really the being with a matted hair and having bhasma on his forehead?
    Yes.
    So let us say I want to meditate on Vishnu. What am I supposed to meditate on? A God with four hands, and blue skin color? Or, is it a God who looks like Shiva? So, all this is absolutely meaningless when it comes to meditation. The object of meditation is to know God, for which an initial object is assumed as a focus of concentration. Some symbol is chosen to start with. Honestly, I find it impossible to concentrate on such human like Gods with considerable details. It is much easier to concentrate on a single small point, located betwen the eye brows, or at the center of your heart. I concentarte on a single black imagined dot, and assume it is Vishnu. That is all is possible as long as you neither know Vishnu or Shiva. Shaivites would think that this small dot is Shiva. Any difference in approach?
    We could also concentrate on the symbol OM as it represents the supreme.

    All these differences between Gods are man made. Even if they are true, who am I, a mere mortal supposed to grade Gods? Isn;t the very thought apalling? Acharyas and sages are different, they had honest intentions to make these claims, but we should ask ourselves are we really competent to grade Shiva and Vishnu? Why so much arguing, hatred and violence based on different concepts of God? There is truly one God whom you can call by any name and any form -- until you are mature enough to realize God. It is possible that Vishnu is a higher God than Shiva or vice versa, but the why the hell do I care now?
    Isn't God man made also?

    Just kidding...

    satay
    Last edited by satay; 27 March 2006 at 10:32 AM.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Govinda Lokam
    Age
    45
    Posts
    738
    Rep Power
    356
    Quote Originally Posted by sarabhanga
    First you used the Vedanta (Brahma) Sutras, and then the Padma Purana, and then Shankaracarya’s Gita Bhashya, and then the Bhagavadgita itself, and then Shankaracarya’s Brahmasutra Bhashya, and then the Vishnu Purana and the Vishnu Sahasranamavali !

    And you have so far avoided the Mandukyopanishad and the Gaudapadakarika, and when I introduced the very first line of the actual Upanishad you deemed it irrelevant !

    You started this thread and set the ground rules, and ever since you have completely ignored the very basis of this discussion !

    If you cannot follow simple rules, why do you impose them on others ?
    Do you think Mandukya sublates all other scriptures? That is what advaitins seem to think so...

    Here, I have not brought in anything related to it - I am simply asking why Narayana is held to be Prajna and Shiva as Turiya( you mentioned that in this thread) when Sri Shankara himself never mentions anything. Nirguna Brahma is both ashabda and avachya and cannot be called Shiva(auspicious) - breaks the very definition of NB. So who is Shiva according to advaita, yeah the same Rudra or Umapati?

    Mind you, I have great regard for Shankara unlike some of the other Vaishnavites who call him devil or something like that. He is a great Vishnu bhakta though his interpretations are not anybody other than a Mayavadin would accept. Simply because many concepts of advaita have no scriptural basis. Nor any logical basis. Even by advaitin interpretations, the scriptural support is found in less than 1% of the scripture and the rest of the scripture is maya.(false truth)
    Guard your Dharma, Burn the Myth, Promote the Truth, Crush the superstition.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Govinda Lokam
    Age
    45
    Posts
    738
    Rep Power
    356
    Quote Originally Posted by Ram
    The sutras are brief and concise, but they are to the point and honestly least ambiguos in most places. Madhavcharya's Bhasya in my opinion is the most perfect, if you take the exact words of the sutras. I am not a follower of his school though, and I do not think his view of the vedanta is accurate.( but no denying that he was faithful to the sutras, even better than Sri Ramanuja, and I can justify this). Madva is the only one who justifies his meaning of every sutras in his anuvyakyana. INfact, he is thorough and justifies why his interpretation is valid very rigorously. Ramanuja does not do this with precision and in Shankara's commentary we find blatant violation of rules of interpretation without any justification. ( more on the lines of - I interpret as it pleases and suits me)
    Can you elaborate on why Madhva commentary is the best?
    Guard your Dharma, Burn the Myth, Promote the Truth, Crush the superstition.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Govinda Lokam
    Age
    45
    Posts
    738
    Rep Power
    356
    Quote Originally Posted by Ram
    Hi Sudarshan,


    Let us consider the fact there are zillions of religions in the world, and that there are atleast three well known philosophical positions in Vedanta- advaita, vishistadvaita, and dvaita.

    There are only four possibilities.

    1. All religions are man made and wrong - a position accepted by atheists.

    2. Some religions are right, some are wrong, and following a wrong system
    leads to disaster.

    3. Some religions are right, some are wrong, but following all religions ultimately lead to the truth.

    4. There is only one true system, and any other is a doorway to destruction.

    All people in the world will fall into one of these categories. Let me know which category you fall into, because without knowing your answer, with any argument I make, I will just make a fool of myself. If you are already "convinced" that any view that is against your views is irrelevant and wrong, then I dont want to waste my time in defending my logic. You are free to your hold your views.

    In short, I want to know if you are open to ideas or closed to any inputs.
    Well, I am not closed. I am a little sectarian as all Vaishnavas are, and for the matter even most advaitins are. People think that if you dont equate Shiva and Vishnu you are sectarian. What nonsense. Advaita equates Shiva and Vishnu using the Aham Brahmasmi type of logic, not that there is any concrete evidence for this. I am supposed to have my own views, right? All Hindus are dogmatic, whether it be advatin or Vaishnava, but the blame usually falls on the Vaishnava. An advaitin is free to beleive that the world is false ( no proof), that Brahman is Nirguna ( no proof nor understandable) but he is not dogmatic? When the Vaishnava uses the scripture for his beleifs, suddenly he is called bookish or sectarian? Measure everyone with the same yard stick, there are no big difference between any religeous person in the world. Each person would think his guru is infallible irrespective of his qualifications.

    I belong to the third category for sure. I do beleive that even mlecchas and even the worst criminals are saved someday by the karuna murthy. You cant expect everyone to accept all contradictory views and then claim to be secular. That is not sectarianism.

    You cannot be advaitin and VA at the same time, though VA and dvaitin are pretty close.( I think). What do you think?

    Anyway I am curious to hear your answer. I promise not to attack your views even if I disagree.
    Guard your Dharma, Burn the Myth, Promote the Truth, Crush the superstition.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Hi everyone! I have some questions.
    By Bethany in forum New to Sanatana Dharma
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 28 May 2012, 05:13 PM
  2. Which upanishads are Shruti?
    By wcrow in forum Upanishads & Aranyakas
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09 February 2010, 11:38 AM
  3. Looking at Mandukya Upanishad differently
    By devotee in forum Advaita
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04 July 2009, 12:58 AM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06 November 2007, 12:32 PM
  5. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 20 April 2006, 12:02 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •