-
This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
-
Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Brahma Sutras
- Thread starter sravna
- Start date
- Status
C RAVI
0
Shri Raghy,
Thank you very much for sharing this beautiful music/song. It's so mesmerizing!!
I strive to retain the same in me...To remain attached with all my senses while striving hard to grasp "who am I", "Where am going and for what", "When could I break myself through the mysteries and "When could I find myself without any identity and characteristics". These remains in my sub conscious mind and deep in my heart. But, determined to be my self and be complete in what I am and what I would share with humans am going to get associated with in my journey, living in a given span of this mundane life.
C RAVI
0
Shri Raghy,
In nutshell, in my post on.299, what I mean to convey is - "Understanding Brahman is not like some empirical studies and just can not be attained by reading Brahma Sutras as well that revolves around Brahman. Understanding Brahman emerges deep within oneself in due process that doesn't need any authentication/acceptance for the self and justification to be given to others.
As such, education standards of human's mundane life, just reading Brahma Sutras from the beginning till the end, believing or not believing in Brahman as a human with own perceptions & acceptances etc.etc. can not be the determining factors for any one to truly understand Brahman, ultimately.
The study of 1) How the existence of Brahman can be believed or disbelieved and 2) How Brahman can be understood, can not be formulated empirically to get into agreement, disagreement, arguments and confusions.
But, any one can attempt to get into the journey of understanding these by one's life experiences, meditations, intuitions, spirituality and grasping what our great sages have passed on to us.
It's a whole journey, phase by phase and the journey we choose to set in with our "I" alone can help us proceed towards gaining understanding, only to shed this "I" once for all.
Dear Ravi,
I learned my life in the hardest possible way. Hardest, because, I am thick headed. But I left myself free in this mundane world to understand everything. I succeeded. I am really sorry Ravi... to take you thorough the extremes I understood....
First bit.... The artist regrets he did not help someone in desperate situation.. that someone was drowning, the singer did not help him....
Phil Collins - In the air tonight (live) - YouTube
I showed this song to my wife..... she said this song is similar to 'unnal mudiyum thambi' movie song... 'manida sevai'...
Raaga Jukebox (audio only).
Point is, in the English song he regrets he could not help when he could... the same, Kamal regrets he could not help when he could.......
Slightly above the usual..........
I learned my life in the hardest possible way. Hardest, because, I am thick headed. But I left myself free in this mundane world to understand everything. I succeeded. I am really sorry Ravi... to take you thorough the extremes I understood....
First bit.... The artist regrets he did not help someone in desperate situation.. that someone was drowning, the singer did not help him....
Phil Collins - In the air tonight (live) - YouTube
I showed this song to my wife..... she said this song is similar to 'unnal mudiyum thambi' movie song... 'manida sevai'...
Raaga Jukebox (audio only).
Point is, in the English song he regrets he could not help when he could... the same, Kamal regrets he could not help when he could.......
Slightly above the usual..........
Dear Ravi,
I did not post the opposite extreme in my previous post.
Life is a mixture of everything. When I get attracted to something like this..... Aathma vidyalayame - Harischandra 1955 - YouTube
I am also attracted to this.... Santana ~ Black Magic Woman with sensational belly dancer - YouTube ( it's a belly dancer. Don't watch it if you don't want to).
That's life. Opposite extremes at times. Don't know about others, I am comfortable with extremes though...
I did not post the opposite extreme in my previous post.
Life is a mixture of everything. When I get attracted to something like this..... Aathma vidyalayame - Harischandra 1955 - YouTube
I am also attracted to this.... Santana ~ Black Magic Woman with sensational belly dancer - YouTube ( it's a belly dancer. Don't watch it if you don't want to).
That's life. Opposite extremes at times. Don't know about others, I am comfortable with extremes though...
Vaagmi
0
Please read the highlighted sentence. I thought we were debating and commenting. Yes. It requires a great personality to understand this simple sentence differently. Thanks
C RAVI
0
Shri Raghy,
Humans are subjected to different extremes in general. The sense of level of extremes depends on what we needed, what we could get and what we felt having at the time we didn't expect to have. It all depends on what we feel deep within our self in a given scenario.
Though I didn't experience anything disastrous so far (by God's grace), I had different extremes of jerks to my emotions and feelings and that's only because I had/have my wishes/desires.
It's a struggle between accepting and unable to accept. I am happy that I could keep myself intact no matter what I could accept and could not accept.
I don't know if I could be comfortable with extremes or not BUT am dead sure that such extremes would make me undergo lots of transformation.
I have seen live belly dancing many a times in Desert Camps, during desert safaris and official parties, here in Dubai.
OP
OP
sravna
Well-known member
Yes everyone finally understands brahman. Each birth provides you a unique set of circumstances and being illiterate in a birth also in some way contributes towards spiritual learning i.e., learning that contributes towards attaining liberation. So it is from your life experiences that you do your spiritual learning and if you are illiterate in a birth that means there is significance to it.
A person can know brahman without reading brahma sutra. But a guide may be needed.
Non belief in brahman I think is a temporary phase. Or may be you really believe in brahman without knowing it because believing in brahman is ultimately knowing that the "I" feeling should not be there.
OP
OP
sravna
Well-known member
tks
0
Not trying to be a learned member but I thought I will share my understanding.
1. Formal education in schools and colleges do not prepare one to learn about such topics. If explained anyone can be taught to believe in a concept .. Understanding is another matter altogether since it is a least understood entity in my view regardless of education levels. Having said this Sri Ramana Maharishi was not formally educated beyond high school but ended up as a scholar. While I great admire and have benefitted from his work it is a mystery how he really 'got it all' !
2. Brahma Sutra in my view is not suitable topic area to study for most people. It is dry all one can do is swallow those cryptic statements at best. In 1993 when I got interested in this topic area I was in Chennai. I ended up buying many books from Giri Traders and Ramakrishna Mutt bookstores. I had to mail them back and it was the first time I paid customs duty at USA to get all the books home. One of the first book that I ended up reading is the book referenced in the OP. I tried to swallow all I could , felt that I have understood and was very frustrated with the whole thing making no sense. After 15 years I was able to make better sense without need to believe and swallow.
If one wants to know basic accounting to manage their business or home they would need arithmetic, algebra and some abilities to use a calculator. Study of Abstract Algebra , and Theory of computation where proofs of a single lemma / theorem could take 10 pages is probably useless. Plus not everyone will enjoy Pure Mathematics (as opposed to applied mathematics though I liked both). A better ext is B. Gita where the applicability in daily life is high.
One does not have to read Brahma Sutra to understand the topic area. It is not a good book to start with as I understood in my experience.
3. Why do you want to know Brahman? Every religious text will ask you to understand something. If someone says that without accepting Jesus as my savior I am doomed to hell for eternity due to the original sin of Eve eating a fruit. I kind of understand but do not see any logic behind the claims.
Many of the Sutras are like that way and in that sense at a high level there is no difference between these assertions.
My answer is to not believe in anything and start with something more useful.
renuka
Well-known member
andha arabic kadaloram..ore azhagaik kandene
andhak kanni pengal..aadaivelukka kangal kandene
hammaa hammaa hamma hamma hammaa
hey hammaa hammaa hamma hamma hammaa
andhak kanni pengal..aadaivelukka kangal kandene
hammaa hammaa hamma hamma hammaa
hey hammaa hammaa hamma hamma hammaa
Vaagmi
0
1. Can an illiterate person understand about Brahman? If the answer is 'yes', how? if the answer is 'no', why not, please?
2. Can a person know 'Brahman' without reading Brahma Sutra?
3. Can a person who does not believe in Brahman , for example a person like me, know Brahman? If 'yes', how? if 'no', why not, please?
Kindly address all the three questions individually, please.
I am venturing to answer not because I am a learned person but because I have myself been an illiterate as far as Brahman is concerned some time in the past and had struggled to find answer to the same questions. And someone has spoken here about lemmas and that took me to my college days. So one question at a time in a lemma I am trying to answer.
1. Being literate is certainly an advantage. When I was trying to understand the bewildering order of things around me and the chaotic incidents that were happening without any apparent reason, literacy helped me. I was literate and I had the ability to read and understand what others far away (both in time and space) thought about this. They helped me in quickly ticking off the queries that rose in my mind. In the process I could a) avoid inventing the wheel again and b) also understand that the knowledge that I had acquired because of my being literate had also added a hell of a lot of unnecessary burden on me. So my being a literate person certainly helped me in crossing hurdles quickly in the process of understanding Brahman when I wanted to understand that concept and in jettisoning a lot of intellectual load which I had accumulated. After going through that painful process of “knowing” I have finally come to the conclusion that being just literate (without being very literate) is enough for one to seek Brahman. I am reminded of Andal’s “கறவைகள் பின் சென்று கானம் சேர்ந்துண்போம், அறிவொன்றுமில்லாத ஆய்க்குலத்து உன் தன்னை பிறவி பெருந்தனைப் புண்ணியம் யாம் உடையோம்” -திருப்பாவை-28. The highlighted words means “simple cowherds”. This is further explained as “வலங்கை இடங்கை அறியாத ஆயர்கள்” by Acharyas. (Meaning-When a cowherd goes to the market place to sell his cattle he usually identifies his cattle only two at a time, that which he holds by his சோத்துக்கை and the one that he holds by his மத்தக்கை. If he has to sell more than two heads of cattle at a time he gets confused. He finishes two of them first and again takes two more one by his சோத்துக்கை and the other by his மத்தக்கை and negotiates afresh. This is the level of illiteracy) People who were so illiterate and simple and innocent were able to enjoy Brahman. A mind which is not corrupted by too much of worldly knowledge is the best ground for the cultivation of bhakti, which is the fruit of knowledge about Brahman. While the intellectual in me was lost in the beauty of Alwar's வாடினேன் வாடி pasuram during the recent utsav in the temple the old Maami standing by my side was exclaiming "கிருஷ்ணா உன்னை இந்த ஸ்ரீபாதம் தாங்கிகள் இப்படிப்போட்டு ஆட்டு ஆட்டுன்னு ஆட்டராளே எனக்கு கஷ்ட்டமா இருக்கே". That made me think about this question of Raghy and I thought there is an answer there.
Now taking Raghy’s first question and the lemma above, we get this:
Being literate may help you in your search for knowledge about Brahman because you get the benefit what others in a similar search have found and the methods they followed. You may accept it or reject it depending on your own preferences. If you are illiterate and yet want to know Brahman you can still get him because your ignorance or clean slate of a mind is itself a positive factor in your search. But search you must. Without effort there is no result. The brahmasutra bhashyakara as well as the அறிவொன்றுமில்லாத ஆய்க்குலத்துப்பிறந்த cowherd have found Brahman each in their own way. So being literate is not a prerequisite for knowing Brahman. QED.
The next question will be in the next lemma.
2. Can a person know 'Brahman' without reading Brahma Sutra?
3. Can a person who does not believe in Brahman , for example a person like me, know Brahman? If 'yes', how? if 'no', why not, please?
Kindly address all the three questions individually, please.
I am venturing to answer not because I am a learned person but because I have myself been an illiterate as far as Brahman is concerned some time in the past and had struggled to find answer to the same questions. And someone has spoken here about lemmas and that took me to my college days. So one question at a time in a lemma I am trying to answer.
1. Being literate is certainly an advantage. When I was trying to understand the bewildering order of things around me and the chaotic incidents that were happening without any apparent reason, literacy helped me. I was literate and I had the ability to read and understand what others far away (both in time and space) thought about this. They helped me in quickly ticking off the queries that rose in my mind. In the process I could a) avoid inventing the wheel again and b) also understand that the knowledge that I had acquired because of my being literate had also added a hell of a lot of unnecessary burden on me. So my being a literate person certainly helped me in crossing hurdles quickly in the process of understanding Brahman when I wanted to understand that concept and in jettisoning a lot of intellectual load which I had accumulated. After going through that painful process of “knowing” I have finally come to the conclusion that being just literate (without being very literate) is enough for one to seek Brahman. I am reminded of Andal’s “கறவைகள் பின் சென்று கானம் சேர்ந்துண்போம், அறிவொன்றுமில்லாத ஆய்க்குலத்து உன் தன்னை பிறவி பெருந்தனைப் புண்ணியம் யாம் உடையோம்” -திருப்பாவை-28. The highlighted words means “simple cowherds”. This is further explained as “வலங்கை இடங்கை அறியாத ஆயர்கள்” by Acharyas. (Meaning-When a cowherd goes to the market place to sell his cattle he usually identifies his cattle only two at a time, that which he holds by his சோத்துக்கை and the one that he holds by his மத்தக்கை. If he has to sell more than two heads of cattle at a time he gets confused. He finishes two of them first and again takes two more one by his சோத்துக்கை and the other by his மத்தக்கை and negotiates afresh. This is the level of illiteracy) People who were so illiterate and simple and innocent were able to enjoy Brahman. A mind which is not corrupted by too much of worldly knowledge is the best ground for the cultivation of bhakti, which is the fruit of knowledge about Brahman. While the intellectual in me was lost in the beauty of Alwar's வாடினேன் வாடி pasuram during the recent utsav in the temple the old Maami standing by my side was exclaiming "கிருஷ்ணா உன்னை இந்த ஸ்ரீபாதம் தாங்கிகள் இப்படிப்போட்டு ஆட்டு ஆட்டுன்னு ஆட்டராளே எனக்கு கஷ்ட்டமா இருக்கே". That made me think about this question of Raghy and I thought there is an answer there.
Now taking Raghy’s first question and the lemma above, we get this:
Being literate may help you in your search for knowledge about Brahman because you get the benefit what others in a similar search have found and the methods they followed. You may accept it or reject it depending on your own preferences. If you are illiterate and yet want to know Brahman you can still get him because your ignorance or clean slate of a mind is itself a positive factor in your search. But search you must. Without effort there is no result. The brahmasutra bhashyakara as well as the அறிவொன்றுமில்லாத ஆய்க்குலத்துப்பிறந்த cowherd have found Brahman each in their own way. So being literate is not a prerequisite for knowing Brahman. QED.
The next question will be in the next lemma.
Last edited:
I came across a text about Brahma Sutra, which I submit it hereunder
for information please, perhaps you may all know.
for information please, perhaps you may all know.
PDFs of the Sanskrit texts (in Devanagari) of the Brahma Sutra and Sankara's commentary are available for download here, as zipped files. If required can be clicked to download it for reference.
Chap 1 Section1 Chap2 Section1 Chap3 Section1 Chap4 Section1
(440 KB) (252 KB) 396 KB 275 KB)
Chap1 Section2 Chap2 Section2 Chap3 Section2 Chap4 Section2
(356 KB) (368 KB) (380 KB) (182 KB)
Chap1 Section3 Chap2 Section3 Chap3 Section3 Chap4 Section3
(188 KB) (304 KB) (554 KB) (258 KB)
Chap1 Section4 Chap2 Section4 Chap3 Section4 Chap4 Section4
(198 KB) (131 KB) (147 KB) (112 KB)
(440 KB) (252 KB) 396 KB 275 KB)
Chap1 Section2 Chap2 Section2 Chap3 Section2 Chap4 Section2
(356 KB) (368 KB) (380 KB) (182 KB)
Chap1 Section3 Chap2 Section3 Chap3 Section3 Chap4 Section3
(188 KB) (304 KB) (554 KB) (258 KB)
Chap1 Section4 Chap2 Section4 Chap3 Section4 Chap4 Section4
(198 KB) (131 KB) (147 KB) (112 KB)
OP
OP
sravna
Well-known member
To make the discussions more organized and meaningful, I suggest that we divide the views in to three major ones, two being the theistic and the atheistic/scientific ones and the other being the layman's one. I suggest that proponents of each of these may argue for their respective views and debate among each other. My job is to present the sutra and give the interpretation of Sankara and my views.
The names that immediately come to my mind are Shri.Vaagmi for the vaishnavite perspective, Shri TKS for the advaitic perspective, Shri Sangom and Shri Nara for the atheistic perspective and Shri.Raghy for the pragmatic perspective.
Once a sutra is presented I suggest that only the experts present their views. There will be one more chance to rebut the objections and to clarify. Since there are only 2 posts that each can make on a sutra, it would make sense to make each post comprehensive and complete.
I request that only these people participate in this thread to avoid confusion that might be created if many people start presenting their views.
I would like to know what the people I have suggested above think about this way of debate?
The names that immediately come to my mind are Shri.Vaagmi for the vaishnavite perspective, Shri TKS for the advaitic perspective, Shri Sangom and Shri Nara for the atheistic perspective and Shri.Raghy for the pragmatic perspective.
Once a sutra is presented I suggest that only the experts present their views. There will be one more chance to rebut the objections and to clarify. Since there are only 2 posts that each can make on a sutra, it would make sense to make each post comprehensive and complete.
I request that only these people participate in this thread to avoid confusion that might be created if many people start presenting their views.
I would like to know what the people I have suggested above think about this way of debate?
sangom
0
First, let me tell you that I am not an atheist; I am what you may call an agnostic who does not believe in religions.
I have already said that I am taking leave of this thread. So leave me out of this attempt of yours. Anyway, I am reading the posts because that gives me an idea as to how different people look at brahman and the brahma sutras.
Vaagmi
0
Dear Sravna,
Thank you. But I am unable to accept the responsibility and the role that you are giving to me. I would need a certain amount of freedom and liberty to express my views on Brahmasutras from the Vaishnavite perspective which, I think may come in conflict with the view of majority of the members here. My brother who introduced me to this forum has warned me right in the beginning about this. So I will have to keep away from controversy carefully and post only views which are benign. So I will participate in the discussion but in a general way. Thanks.
Thank you. But I am unable to accept the responsibility and the role that you are giving to me. I would need a certain amount of freedom and liberty to express my views on Brahmasutras from the Vaishnavite perspective which, I think may come in conflict with the view of majority of the members here. My brother who introduced me to this forum has warned me right in the beginning about this. So I will have to keep away from controversy carefully and post only views which are benign. So I will participate in the discussion but in a general way. Thanks.
tks
0
Sri Sankara's work is synonymous with Advita's teaching. There is nothing new for anyone to add in my view.
I also think that people have to learn such a material properly and a forum like this could raise awareness of such topics. With my previously expressed views I am unable to fulfill the role you have assigned.
PS: Just a comment, Sri Sravana - you want to provide Sri Sankara's interpretation, requested for Sri Ramanuja's interpretation, and you want to provide your views along with those great acharya's interpretation (while requesting others to not provide their views ) .. dont you think that is kind of odd ..It is funny to say the least.. Dr Renu may be able to better express what I am trying to say
. I am not counting requests for atheist views since that is an oxymoron for such a topic.
I hope you are getting something out of reading that book and engaging with people here .. all the best..
renuka
Well-known member
Dear Sravna,
What is this yaar??
You are restricting participation in this thread...that too to avoid confusion.
As it is this thread is bordering "complicatedism" and I do not think anything else can actually add to the confusion!LOL
I feel let anyone participate for free range organic inputs.
I do participate from time to time when I see a Lucid Post which I can respond too.
I was reading the Brahma Sutra Bhasya yesterday and it is not an easy book to actually grasp at first attempt.
Each Sutra appears short.. just one line in Sanskrit but Sutras are famous for the Adhikara and Anuvritti effect... that is a Sutra might exert an effect or influence for the next few Sutras in the coming chapters and sometimes a Sutra might need to be read taking into account the residual influence of the previous Sutra.
If this effect is not understood each Sutra would not make any sense and hence we will only have meaningless debates.
Last edited:
OP
OP
sravna
Well-known member
tks
0
My initial post in this thread was about Spiritual romanticism (of Samsaris dabbling/babbling in the world of Vedanta).
I just want to explain by sharing a few details which made me make my comments.
I am not discouraging any discussions but adding to it by providing a few simple details.
The Brahma Sutras consist of cryptic statement that rarely make sense by reading the sutra and translating the words. Sometimes there is no verb, and sometimes there is only a verb without a subject. The sutras seemingly were coined to assert the subtle meanings of certain parts of the Upanishads.
They attempt to provide the funda-essence of the arguments on a topic. Maximum of ideas are condensed into these Sutras in as few words as possible so that it is easy to remember them.
The commentaries therefore shed light on the connection to Upansihads.
It is not possible to understand the Sutras without understanding the 12 classic Upansihads and perhaps some exposure to the 8 minor Upanishads apriori. Many scholars have told me this and I can attest to this with my minimal knowledge.
They are: 1. Isa, 2. Kena, 3. Katha, 4.Taitiriya, 5. Aitareya, 6. Prashna, 7. Mundaka, 8. Mandukya, 9. Chandogya, 10. Svetasvatara, 11. Brihad-aranyaka, 12. Maha-Narayana. Another 8, called minor Upanishadas, are: 1. Kaivalya, 2. Kaushitaki, 3. Atma, 4. Amritabindu, 5. Brahma, 6. Paramahamsa, 7. Sarva & 8. Aruni (Aruneyi).
Due to cryptic nature there are many schools of thoughts in interpreting these cryptic statements have evolved.
There are more than a dozen commentaries on the Brahma Sutras.To understand these commentaries one has to know the differences between schools of thoughts such as Advita, Vishitadvita, Dvita and works of Acharyas such as Sankara, Ramanuja, Vallabha. Madhva, Nimbarka etc.
Sankara's commentaries are the oldest available and they are not easy to understand. These later day saints have their own interpretations and they have their value.
Proper understanding of Advita in my view can help unify large part of these other interpretations (though I do not claim expertise in these other schools of thoughts though I have some idea and hence making this statement)
There are doctrines named as Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Sankhya, Mimamsa, Jaina, Shunyavada/Buddha, Charvaka, etc., which do not agree with teachings of Upanishads and actually are opposed to them.
In the Sutras of Chapter 2 these doctrines are systematically answered and refuted.
How can one understand the intricate points of these Sutras if one is not very familiar with all these doctrines.
If one is not familiar with these doctrines why care to refute them point by point ?
In other words prerequisite knowledge to have meaningful conversation about these Sutras require one to have understanding of some of the Upanishads. Understanding the Upansihads means understanding in the context of digesting the explanations of Bhashaykaras (commentaries).
If one wants to know what Sri Sankara said about Shunyavadi thoughts there are commentaries in a few places. In the commentary of Chandhogya Upanishad (chapter 6? - it has been a while) Sri Shankara systematically refutes certain schools of thoughts prevalent at his time. Such details are not repeated while providing commentaries for the Sutras themselves.
A quick way to kill spiritual romanticism or infatuation to such topics like Vedanta is to spend time on few of the Sutras without proper background and mastery .. I hope I am wrong.
I am reminded of a friend (American) who was very infatuated with a woman he was dating. Then one day he met her mother who it seems sported some facial hair. He thought his girl friend one day will become like her mother and instantly lost his ......
I just want to explain by sharing a few details which made me make my comments.
I am not discouraging any discussions but adding to it by providing a few simple details.
The Brahma Sutras consist of cryptic statement that rarely make sense by reading the sutra and translating the words. Sometimes there is no verb, and sometimes there is only a verb without a subject. The sutras seemingly were coined to assert the subtle meanings of certain parts of the Upanishads.
They attempt to provide the funda-essence of the arguments on a topic. Maximum of ideas are condensed into these Sutras in as few words as possible so that it is easy to remember them.
The commentaries therefore shed light on the connection to Upansihads.
It is not possible to understand the Sutras without understanding the 12 classic Upansihads and perhaps some exposure to the 8 minor Upanishads apriori. Many scholars have told me this and I can attest to this with my minimal knowledge.
They are: 1. Isa, 2. Kena, 3. Katha, 4.Taitiriya, 5. Aitareya, 6. Prashna, 7. Mundaka, 8. Mandukya, 9. Chandogya, 10. Svetasvatara, 11. Brihad-aranyaka, 12. Maha-Narayana. Another 8, called minor Upanishadas, are: 1. Kaivalya, 2. Kaushitaki, 3. Atma, 4. Amritabindu, 5. Brahma, 6. Paramahamsa, 7. Sarva & 8. Aruni (Aruneyi).
Due to cryptic nature there are many schools of thoughts in interpreting these cryptic statements have evolved.
There are more than a dozen commentaries on the Brahma Sutras.To understand these commentaries one has to know the differences between schools of thoughts such as Advita, Vishitadvita, Dvita and works of Acharyas such as Sankara, Ramanuja, Vallabha. Madhva, Nimbarka etc.
Sankara's commentaries are the oldest available and they are not easy to understand. These later day saints have their own interpretations and they have their value.
Proper understanding of Advita in my view can help unify large part of these other interpretations (though I do not claim expertise in these other schools of thoughts though I have some idea and hence making this statement)
There are doctrines named as Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Sankhya, Mimamsa, Jaina, Shunyavada/Buddha, Charvaka, etc., which do not agree with teachings of Upanishads and actually are opposed to them.
In the Sutras of Chapter 2 these doctrines are systematically answered and refuted.
How can one understand the intricate points of these Sutras if one is not very familiar with all these doctrines.
If one is not familiar with these doctrines why care to refute them point by point ?
In other words prerequisite knowledge to have meaningful conversation about these Sutras require one to have understanding of some of the Upanishads. Understanding the Upansihads means understanding in the context of digesting the explanations of Bhashaykaras (commentaries).
If one wants to know what Sri Sankara said about Shunyavadi thoughts there are commentaries in a few places. In the commentary of Chandhogya Upanishad (chapter 6? - it has been a while) Sri Shankara systematically refutes certain schools of thoughts prevalent at his time. Such details are not repeated while providing commentaries for the Sutras themselves.
A quick way to kill spiritual romanticism or infatuation to such topics like Vedanta is to spend time on few of the Sutras without proper background and mastery
.. I hope I am wrong.I am reminded of a friend (American) who was very infatuated with a woman he was dating. Then one day he met her mother who it seems sported some facial hair. He thought his girl friend one day will become like her mother and instantly lost his ......
Good introduction. Discussion in parts will not lead to any understanding. Mass exposure and free for all discussions has happened only in the twentieth century; good that more people have access, but bad because incomplete understanding or part understanding leads to corruption.
Last point about MIL is applicable to all; it is better to first see the girls's mother before deciding, to know what is in store after 30 odd years.
Last point about MIL is applicable to all; it is better to first see the girls's mother before deciding, to know what is in store after 30 odd years.
My initial post in this thread was about Spiritual romanticism (of Samsaris dabbling/babbling in the world of Vedanta).
I just want to explain by sharing a few details which made me make my comments.
I am not discouraging any discussions but adding to it by providing a few simple details.
The Brahma Sutras consist of cryptic statement that rarely make sense by reading the sutra and translating the words. Sometimes there is no verb, and sometimes there is only a verb without a subject. The sutras seemingly were coined to assert the subtle meanings of certain parts of the Upanishads.
They attempt to provide the funda-essence of the arguments on a topic. Maximum of ideas are condensed into these Sutras in as few words as possible so that it is easy to remember them.
The commentaries therefore shed light on the connection to Upansihads.
It is not possible to understand the Sutras without understanding the 12 classic Upansihads and perhaps some exposure to the 8 minor Upanishads apriori. Many scholars have told me this and I can attest to this with my minimal knowledge.
They are: 1. Isa, 2. Kena, 3. Katha, 4.Taitiriya, 5. Aitareya, 6. Prashna, 7. Mundaka, 8. Mandukya, 9. Chandogya, 10. Svetasvatara, 11. Brihad-aranyaka, 12. Maha-Narayana. Another 8, called minor Upanishadas, are: 1. Kaivalya, 2. Kaushitaki, 3. Atma, 4. Amritabindu, 5. Brahma, 6. Paramahamsa, 7. Sarva & 8. Aruni (Aruneyi).
Due to cryptic nature there are many schools of thoughts in interpreting these cryptic statements have evolved.
There are more than a dozen commentaries on the Brahma Sutras.To understand these commentaries one has to know the differences between schools of thoughts such as Advita, Vishitadvita, Dvita and works of Acharyas such as Sankara, Ramanuja, Vallabha. Madhva, Nimbarka etc.
Sankara's commentaries are the oldest available and they are not easy to understand. These later day saints have their own interpretations and they have their value.
Proper understanding of Advita in my view can help unify large part of these other interpretations (though I do not claim expertise in these other schools of thoughts though I have some idea and hence making this statement)
There are doctrines named as Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Sankhya, Mimamsa, Jaina, Shunyavada/Buddha, Charvaka, etc., which do not agree with teachings of Upanishads and actually are opposed to them.
In the Sutras of Chapter 2 these doctrines are systematically answered and refuted.
How can one understand the intricate points of these Sutras if one is not very familiar with all these doctrines.
If one is not familiar with these doctrines why care to refute them point by point ?
In other words prerequisite knowledge to have meaningful conversation about these Sutras require one to have understanding of some of the Upanishads. Understanding the Upansihads means understanding in the context of digesting the explanations of Bhashaykaras (commentaries).
If one wants to know what Sri Sankara said about Shunyavadi thoughts there are commentaries in a few places. In the commentary of Chandhogya Upanishad (chapter 6? - it has been a while) Sri Shankara systematically refutes certain schools of thoughts prevalent at his time. Such details are not repeated while providing commentaries for the Sutras themselves.
A quick way to kill spiritual romanticism or infatuation to such topics like Vedanta is to spend time on few of the Sutras without proper background and mastery
I am reminded of a friend (American) who was very infatuated with a woman he was dating. Then one day he met her mother who it seems sported some facial hair. He thought his girl friend one day will become like her mother and instantly lost his ......
renuka
Well-known member
Dear TKS ji,
This is what I had written in my reply to Sravna..where we have to understand the Adhikara and Anuvritti concept of Sutras.
We have to remember that the Sutra format was employed when written script had not coming into usage and people relied on memory and by oral transmission hence everything appeared cryptic and coded to lessen memory load.
So technically there is nothing subtle in the Sutras..it is just that we have to learn to decode the Sutras.
I had written this:
Initially when I read Brahma Sutra it was like Greek and Latin to me but now after learning about Adhikara and Anuvritti concept of Sutras from Panini's Grammar the Brahma Sutra understanding is much easier.
I would go one step further and say what confuses the whole Brahma Sutra is NOT the Sutra but the English Commentary that comes along with it.
Last edited:
Vaagmi
0
Dear Renuka,
I wonder whether we can be so sure about that. If Vedas could be reduced to written form the sutras which came much later could also have been written down and preserved just as vedas have been preserved by special methods like the Gana paatam etc., So I think it has nothing to do with non-availability of script or the problem of memory load. It has more to do with the substance that was conveyed through those aphorisms. When one uses so many words and sentences, the meaning(which is the substance/content) gets attenuated or encapsulated before it reaches the target. There comes some amount of distortion in the process. The aphorisms, being about the highest truth, can not afford this flaw. So they are given with minimum words with whatever grammar was available at that time that day as tks says. It is left to the target to make out the real meaning by contemplation.
This is more or less akin to the poetry which is considered a superior linguistic form (instrument) to convey an idea. Like when Andal said கற்றுக்கரவைக் கணங்கள்.....(திருப்பாவை-11). When people asked how can a கன்று (a calf) be called a கறவை(a cow)we get the answer from the context. In paramapatham the nitya suris are always young because they are in the presence of God and so do not close their eyes for even a second. So they are called “panchavimsathi vaarshika”. And Gokulam became the paramapatham because of Krishna’s presence there and all the cows and men in the Gokulam were always young. Moreover, because they were all touched by Krishna, the God, everyday, all the cows that had calves also remained calves without ageing. Veda says He is “uthAmruthathvasyEsaana:” This is possible only in poetry and not in the prose. And what a pleasure it is when we are able to follow the exact thought process of the originator of the idea.
So I think the choice of the form (aphorism) by the sutrakara is just deliberate and not due any time related deficiency of the medium called language. They wanted us to think and ruminate and contemplate.
I wonder whether we can be so sure about that. If Vedas could be reduced to written form the sutras which came much later could also have been written down and preserved just as vedas have been preserved by special methods like the Gana paatam etc., So I think it has nothing to do with non-availability of script or the problem of memory load. It has more to do with the substance that was conveyed through those aphorisms. When one uses so many words and sentences, the meaning(which is the substance/content) gets attenuated or encapsulated before it reaches the target. There comes some amount of distortion in the process. The aphorisms, being about the highest truth, can not afford this flaw. So they are given with minimum words with whatever grammar was available at that time that day as tks says. It is left to the target to make out the real meaning by contemplation.
This is more or less akin to the poetry which is considered a superior linguistic form (instrument) to convey an idea. Like when Andal said கற்றுக்கரவைக் கணங்கள்.....(திருப்பாவை-11). When people asked how can a கன்று (a calf) be called a கறவை(a cow)we get the answer from the context. In paramapatham the nitya suris are always young because they are in the presence of God and so do not close their eyes for even a second. So they are called “panchavimsathi vaarshika”. And Gokulam became the paramapatham because of Krishna’s presence there and all the cows and men in the Gokulam were always young. Moreover, because they were all touched by Krishna, the God, everyday, all the cows that had calves also remained calves without ageing. Veda says He is “uthAmruthathvasyEsaana:” This is possible only in poetry and not in the prose. And what a pleasure it is when we are able to follow the exact thought process of the originator of the idea.
So I think the choice of the form (aphorism) by the sutrakara is just deliberate and not due any time related deficiency of the medium called language. They wanted us to think and ruminate and contemplate.
- Status
Share this page
Share this page
Latest ads
-
For rent [Property for Rent] 1st Floor Independent House In AdambakkamIndependent House 1st Floor
- Bav2003 (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
- Expires
-
Wanted Need of a Brahmin lady cook in AdambakkamRequire a Brahmin female cook in 40s to 60 to cook for a family of 4 adults +2 kids in...
- LakshmiRajesh (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
-
Wanted Need Brahmin cook for homeBrahmin cook needed to make breakfast and lunch at home (Mylapore) for 4 people. Please text...
- ram1618 (+0 /0 /-0)
- Updated:
-
-