Friday, July 6, 2012

A man who describes Sankara's philosophy as negative (because of his Neti, Neti) does not know that this is applied only to the world of the Seen, the critic ignorantly believes that it is also applied to the Seer.




It is no use arguing Buddha is wrong or Sri Sankara is right, but where we are going wrong in our understanding the non-dual truth, propagated by the great sages of the past.  Some say, that without the sunyvada, Advaita philosophy could not have come into existence; Because Advaita starts from where sunyavada ends.  That is why they say it is extension of Buddhism.  If Advaita existed prior to Buddha, he would not have advocated sunyavada at all because Advaita is final and ultimate truth. 

Since the Buddhist and Vedic scriptures have been passed down by hearing. They were written down only relatively late. So one wouldn’t know whether to rely on the times they give. Also, a lot depends on the translation. Each 'Shloka' or sutta is open to many layers of interpretation.

As per the religious archeologists view: the date of Sankara may be taken most correctly as that of the 9th century. Some claims are made in India that he lived two thousand years ago, but there is absolutely no proof for this claim.  They do not go back farther than the 12th century A.D. and that all so-called evidences for Sankara having lived two centuries before Christ are either were conjectures or Pundit's fabrication.

Regarding the question of Sankara's death, one may dismiss the legend that he did not die, at the age of 32 but disappeared into a cave. This is another Pundit's story which is quite unfounded. He did really die in the Himalayas at that age.

As one go in to the annals of the history, one becomes aware of the fact that; the spiritual Advaita is mixed up with punditry.  Therefore there is a need to do his own research in order to know the true essence of Advaita of Sage  Sri,Sankara and Sage  Sri, Gudapada and emptiness of Buddha . 

 How it was possible for Sri, Sankara to have written so many books during such a short term of existence. The fact is that he wrote very few books. Those actually written by him were Commentaries on Brahma Sutras and the Upanishads and on the Gita. All other books ascribed to him were not written down by his own hand.

They are merely collections of notes recorded by his disciples from his sayings, talks and discussions. Fourthly Sri, Sankara's own Guru was named Sri, Govinda and he lived near Indore. When Sri,Sankara wrote his commentary on the Mandukya his guru was so pleased with it that he took his disciple  to the Himalayas to visit his own Sri, Guru who was named Sri, Goudapada. Only when the latter agreed that the commentary was perfect did Sri, Govinda release his disciple to start his own mission of teaching.

Sri, Sankara wrote his Mandukya commentary first, and then as this revealed that he thoroughly understood the subject, his gurus requested him to write the commentary on Badarayana's Brahma Sutras, which was a popular theological work universally studied throughout India. That is why his commentary is written from a lower dualistic point, for those who cannot rise higher, save that here and there Sri,  Sankara occasionally has strewn a few truly Advaitic sentences.

Sri,Sankara had only four fully trained disciples, although he advised some kings. His doctrines spread after his lifetime. His books were dictated to secretaries as he traveled. So few therefore were capable of understanding his philosophy.

Nearly all Bengal thinkers hold views of Maya which are entirely incorrect and untenable. They do not know Sri, Sankara's Upanishad Bashyas, but only the Brahma Sutra Bashya. Sri, Sankara wrote his Mandukya commentary on a beautifully situated island called Omkaresvar, border of Indore State, where Cauvery and Narbadha rivers meet. On this island there is also a tomb of Sri,Govinda, his guru.

Sankara varied his practical advice and doctrinal teaching according to the people he was amongst. He never told them to give their particular religion or beliefs or metaphysics completely; he only told them to give up the worst features of abuse: at the same time he showed just one step forward towards the truth.

In Brahma Sutras Sage Sri,  Sankara says that Brahman is the cause of the world, whereas in Mandukya he denies it. This is because he says that at the lower stage of understanding, the former teaching must be given, for people will get frightened as they cannot understand how the world can be without a cause, but to those in a higher stage, the truth of non-causality can be revealed.

Brahma Sutras, i.e. "Vedanta Sutras" by Badarayana, are intended for those of middling intellects, not for those who have the best brains: it is a semi-theological, semi-philosophical work; it starts with the assumption that Brahman exists.

The opening sentence is "All this is Brahman.” But nobody knows or has seen Brahman. If we say "All this is wood" and show a piece of wood, the words are understandable. Suppose you have never seen wood. Then what is the use of such a sentence? It becomes meaningless when the object indicated is seen by none. Hence the Brahma Sutra opening is equivalent to "All this is X". Both have no meaning so long as they are not understood, if we take them as the data to start from. It is for this reason that I say the book is intended for theological minds, because it begins with dogma although its reasoning is close. For it starts with something imagined.

A man who describes Sankara's philosophy as negative (because of his Neti, Neti) does not know that this is applied only to the world of the Seen, the critic ignorantly believes that it is also applied to the Seer. Vedanta never negates the seer, only the seen. Scriptural mastery is not wisdom.

As one goes deeper in the subject one becomes aware of the fact that the religion, scriptures and concept of god is nothing to do with spiritual  side of Advaita, the present religious based Advaitic knowledge and theories is meant for the mass, who hold the religion as high, not the truth, because religion is based on the form (ego or waking entity)and they view and judge and argue on the base of body (ego or waking entity) as self,  but spiritual Advaita is based on the formless [soul] and it negates everything other then the soul.

 Sage Ramana Maharishi  said:   All the conceptual divisions invented by teachers of philosophy by their excessive analysis. Where do all these concepts end? Why should confusion created and then explained away? Fortunate is the man who does not lose him self in the labyrinths of philosophy, but goes straight to the source from which they all arise.   It is better follow the direct path of Ramana, instead of going all around and coming to same point (soul or /Atman).