[Fegasderty]

Sankara: There is no justification to import a direction 'to contemplate' when neither the context nor the meaning admits of any such importation. Further, it is not correct to say that any relation to action is at all necessary to invest any statement in the Vedas with authority. It may be that in regard to the Poorva Kaanda which is primarily concerned with action, the statements therein can be made to relate to some action or other; there is absolutely no reason to import the same condition in the Uttara Kaanda also.

Mandana: In the sentence 'They attain stability who perform Ratri sacrifices', do we not import a command: 'Thou who want stability must perform Ratri sacrifices'? why not interpret similarly the sentence 'He who knows Brahman attains the highest' as importing a command: 'He who wants to attain the highest must know Brahman'?


Sankara: Knowledge can never be the object of a command. If it is, it can be but an action like contemplation. If liberation is the result of any contemplation or other similar action, it must share the fate of all results of action, that is, impermanency. Therefore, the importation of a command 'to contemplate', in addition to being unnecessary and unwarranted, vitally affects the glory of liberation. It is the essence of an action that it can be done rightly, done wrongly or left undone; whereas real knowledge cannot be the object of any such alternative treatment at the option of the knower; and it will be meaningless to command where there is no option to obey or disobey.

Mandana: Let us grant then that the Upanishads have authority though unrelated to action. But why need you understand the passages as teaching the identity of Brahman and the Self? They may as well be taken as teaching only similarity.

[Drugmachine]

Sankara: First of all, there is no express word signifying similarity. Secondly, what is the similarity that the Upanishads can teach us? If it is only the similarity in both being conscious entities, we know it already and we require no Vedas to teach us that. If it is in the qualities other than consciousness, then all the qualities including consciousness being the same in both Brahman and the Self, they must be only identical.

Mandana: Similairity in the qualities does not necessarily lead to the identity of the qualified. Though similar, Brahman may be superior to the Self.

Sankara: Why do we not now realize the similarity in the qualities?

Mandana: Because of avidya or nescience.

Sankara: What particular reason have you to exclude from the dominion of avidya the specific conception that Brahman is higher than the Self? Why not logically admit that even that conception is only due to avidya and that, therefore, Brahman and the Self are really one?

Mandana: It may be that consciousness is already a known item of similarity between Brahman and the Self. But the Saankhyas trace the universe to a primary unconscious cause. The Upanishads perhaps want to contradict such a possible theory and therefore teach us that that primary cause is like the Self, that is, conscious.

Sankara: There is no such word as 'like' in the context. Further, the conscious nature of the primary cause has been already made clear by the declaration "It thought" and the later sentence, if it does not carry us any further, will be simply redundant and therefore valueless.

Mandana: But your doctrine of One-ness is opposed to all direct experience and reasoning and quite irreconcilable with other pronouncements in the Upanishads themselves.

[Lt_Apple]

Shankara: Let us first analyse the nature of your direct experience. You say, you perceive that the Self is different from Brhaman. Difference is not a separate substance by itself so as to be the object of perception. It is only a quality and as such it cannot be an object of perception separate from the qualified. The qualified here, Atma the Self, is admittedly not an object of perception. HOW THEN CAN YOU SAY THAT YOU PERCEIVE THE DIFFERENCE?

Mandana: The Atma may not be an object of perception to the senses but the inner sense, the mind may perceive it.


Sankara: Assuming that the mind is an inner sense, it is necessary for all perception that the sense must come in contact with the object perceived. To make such contact possible, the object perceived must have dimensions. The self is either infinite or atomic; in either case, it has no dimensions and therefore cannot be an object of perception to any sense. Strictly speaking, your assumption that the mind is a sense, is by itself incorrect, for the function of the mind is simply to enliven the senses and act as a light to them.

Mandana: Don't ask me how I perceive the difference between the Self and Brahman. It may be that I am not able to explain it logically. But is it not a fact that somehow, it may be supersensually, I do perceive the difference?

[Paul Bunyan]

Sankara: Quite true. There is such a perception of difference. But that is between the nescient Self and the qualified God. It is because of this perception of difference that the Sruti becomes useful to us whenit declares a non-perceived truth that, if you remove the attributes which are responsible for the distinctness, the un-qualified Self and the un-qualified God are one. The superficial perception of difference must give way to the higher teaching of the Sruti, just like the initial perception of a snake giving way to the later teaching of a friend that it is but a rope.

Mandana: Perception may be, as you say, liable to error and therefore subject to correction. But reasoning is ever supreme and that is against you. Whatever is not all-knowing is not God. For example, a pot being not all knowing is not God. Therefore the Self, not being all-knowing , cannot be God.

Sankara: Your general proposition itself is not correct. You seek to deduct its correctness by reference to the illustration of a pot. But who told you that pot is not GOd?

Mandana: Why the distinction between a pot and God is certainly patently true and eternal as it is not destroyed even by the knowledge of the Self.

[S.T.D.]

Sankara: Certainly not. If you mean by the Self only the individual Self qualified by pain and pleasure, he stands on no higher footing than a pot; and no knowledge of such a Self can destroy the distinctness of a pot. If, however, one knows really the Self as unqualified by pain or pleasure, to him certainly even the pot disappears as such, for all are the Self. You cannot therefore say that pot is eternally distinct from God.

Mandana: Your statement cannot be correct, for the distinction between two objects can really disappear only when the distinction is due to the qualities or covering materials and not due to a distinction in the essence of the objects themselves. The distinction between a pot and God is in the essence of the objects themselves. The distinction between a pot and God is the essence of their nature and cannot therefore, disappear at all.

[MannoFr]

Sankara: As we already know from superficial perception and ordinary reasoning that the individual Self us not God, the Upanishad can have no authority if it proposes to teach us only the same thing. If the passage in question means therefore only what you say it does, you cannot urge that statement as of any authority against me. But in fact the sentence does not mean anything of that sort. It mentions only the distinction between the unbound Self and individualistic buddhi, as can be seen from its amplification in the Paingya Rahasya were buddhi 'with which dreams are seen' and the Self ' in the body' are distinguished. You cannot call the omnipresent God as the Self 'in the body'. It must therefore mean only the individual Self.

Mandana: But how can you say that the unconscious buddhi tastes the fruits of karma?

Sankara: Do we not say of rod of iron that it burns when we know that iron by itself cannot burn, but has acquired that quality only because it has come in contact with burning fire. So is the unconscious buddhi said to be a taster, simply because of its contact with the conscious Self.

[LottiFurmann]

Mandana: You cannot, however explain a similar passage where God and the Self are specifically compared to light and sahade.

Shankara: It mentions only the ordinarily perceived difference and does not lay down any new truth, which is a necessary ingredient to invest any statement with authority. The sentences teaching identity, on the other hand, teach us what we know not already and they alone are, therefore, of authority.

Mandana: Your statement seems a curious one. When a fact contained in a passage of the Vedas is supported by direct observation, certainly that passage must be of more authority than one which directly contradicts the evidence of perception.

Shankara: You seem to forget that we began with an admitted proposition that the Vedas can be of authority only when they teach us something which we do not or cannot know by any other means of knowledge. It naturally follows that the other methods of proof, perception and reasoning really weaken the authority of the Sruti, if they also lead to the same truth as is proclaimed by the Sruti.

[Lillie_Steins]

Mandana: Still i feel a difficulty. If what you say is true, how is it that Jaimini went wrong in his Sutras?

Sankara: Jaimini did not go wrong in his Sutras, for his object was solely to revive the faith in the efficacy of karma as a step towards right knowledge, and not to deny the truths of Vedanta.

Mandana: If, as you say, he approved of the existence of such a conscious Being which in fact is not different from our own Self, why did he ascribe to karma itself the capacity to fructify and thus deny the existence of God?

Sankara: He only showed that one need not postulate the existence of God simply for the purpose of distributing the fruits of karma. He did not deny the existence of God but only showed that it cannot be proved simply by inferential logic, just as Upanishads themselves proclaim that He cannot be known by anyone who does not know the Vedas.

[Ifroham4]

To remove finally all doubts from the mind of Mandana, Sankara then thought of Jaimini himself, and the latter appeared in person and confirmed the interpretation of Sankara saying: 'Am I not a direct disciple of Sri Veda Vyasa? When he has concluded fromt he Vedas that they teach us about the one conscious Being, how did you think it possible that iI who sat at his feet would preach any doctrine contrary to his?' He then introduced Sankara to Mandana as an incarnation of Siva Himself, assumed for the better propagation of a right knowledge of the truths of the Vedanta.


That marks the end of the debate.

[brraverishhh]

Sankarodaya
==============

Vidyadhiraja, a learned Brahmin lived in Kaipilli house at Kaladi in Kerala. The ancestral home of Vidyadhiraja was Sivapuram.

Sivapuram is a village about 3 miles southeast of Kumbakonam in Tamil Nadu. There is a Siva temple in this village. This was where Vishnu, in the form of white boar (Varaha) worshipped Siva. The name of the presiding deity the Siva Lingam is “Siva-guru-natha”.

Vidyadhiraja’s son was “Sivaguru”, named after the Lord of Sivapuram. Vidyadhiraja got Sivaguru married to Aryamba, who belonged to Melpazhur, twenty miles southeast of Ernakulam in Kerala. (Note: Melpazhur Mana, the birth house of Aryamba, now houses the International Centre for Spiritual Studies under the Chinmaya International Foundation).

Sivaguru, and his wife, Aryambal, spent their life in pooja and in giving alms to poor and in other good deeds. This childless couple went to Trichur and performed puja for 48 days to Lord Vadakkunathan (Lord Shiva) at Vrishabhachaleswara temple and prayed for a son.

Lord Shiva melted in their devotion and appeared in their dreams and told them "I am extremely happy with your devotion and you will get what you want. But tell me whether you want a number of dull children or a son who is extremely intelligent, who will live for a short period only." The couple replied the decision could not be theirs as the Lord knows what is good for them.

Lord Dakshinamurthy, pleased with the reply, was born to Aryambal in the Vasanta Ritu or the spring season at noon under the star "Thiruvathirai" (Arudhra). As the Lord had already promised that he will be born to do good to this world, the child was named Sankara.

[Fegasderty]

Infant prodigy

Every Avatar who has come down to earth as a Religious Teacher for the fulfillment of a divine mission has been born in a manner that is supernatural and mysterious.

The few Supermen who were born in historical times for the resuscitation of religion all made their advent in ways which were extraordinary. Rama, Krishna, Buddha, Christ are well-known illustrations. Sankara too was born partaking of the nature of Lord Shiva.

Sivaguru was delighted to find that the dream in which he had a boon from Shiva had indeed come true. He saw that his son was of a divine lineage and bore the marks of an incarnation.

The mark of wheel on the baby Sankara's head, the impress of the third eye on the forehead and the sign of the Trishul on the shoulders made wise men decide that he was an incarnation of Shiva.

Sankara was an infant prodigy. The superior genius and the extraordinary intelligence were clearly sprouting in him even when he was a child. This wonder of a child had even by his third year finished reading many books, and by only listening to the readings and chanting of the Vedas, the Vedanta, the Ramayana, the Mahabharata and the Puranas learnt them by heart. The most surprising thing about the boy was that he was a Sruthidhara (a person who can repeat in full, all that he hears just once). Whatever he read or heard got indelibly impressed in his memory.

Once Aryamba was shocked to find a large cobra coiled around the neck of Sankara. However, while she was watching, it turned to a garland.

Sivaguru was extremely happy to find his son endowed with super natural powers. He wanted to perform the boy's Upanayanam (initiation into bachelorhood) in his fifth year, and then to send him to the preceptor's house for study. But, Sivaguru died before he could have the Upanayanam done.

[brraverishhh]

Gurukulam

After the bereavement in the family, Aryamba moved to her father's house for some days. But she did not forget the last wish of her departed husband. As soon as Sankara reached his fifth year, she returned back to her own home and performed Sankara’s Upanayanam as per the Holy Scriptures. Thereafter, she sent Sankara to the Teacher’s (Guru) house to study (Gurukulam).

Sankara’s Guru was charmed by his devotion to learning. The correctness of Sankara’s pronounciation of words and the sharpness of his intellect fascinated everyone.

In a short span of two years, Sankara was proficient in the Upanishads, Puranas, Itihas and Vedas. He also mastered the various philosophical systems like Nyaya, Sankhya, Patanjala and Vaisesika. Indeed he was as well versed as Bruhaspati, the teacher of the Universe.

Once some pupils were arguing about the number of seeds inside a melon. Young Sankara said that the number of seeds inside that melon would correspond to the number of gods who created the universe. When the children cut open the melon, they found only one seed !

In accordance with the Gurukulam rules, Brahmachari Sankara used to go out for alms every day. One day he went to the house of a poor Brahmin for alms. That day they did not even have a handful of rice. The housewife, not knowing what to do, gave Sankara an Amla fruit (Indian Gooseberry). With tears, she told him of their very poor condition. The woman's terrible poverty deeply moved Sankara. Standing there, he composed and sang a hymn to goddess Mahalakshmi, the great mother who removes poverty and misery.

The hymn, consisting of eighteen verses, known as “Kanakadhaara Stotram” ( kanaka – gold; dhaaraa –shower ) moved Goddess Mahalakshmi. She appeared before him and said, "My dear child, the members of this poor family, in their past lives, did not perform any meritorious acts. How will I bestow on them, wealth and riches?" Sankara then replied to the Mother, " Dear Mother, this lady just now gave me an Amla fruit, when she had nothing else.That, by itself is a meritorious act. If you wish to favour me, please free this family from poverty."

Sankara’s request brought joy to the Goddess and she said, "I shall give this family lots of Amlas of gold." And, Lo and behold- golden amlas rained upon the house. Overwhelmed with joy, the lady and her husband told everyone that it was the Boy-Brahmachari Sankara's blessing that had helped them to so much wealth.

While even very intelligent students took at least twenty years to acquire mastery of all scriptures, Sankara was able to acquire that mastery in just two years with the blessings of his Guru.

Hence, Sankara was permitted to return home long before the expiry of the prescribed term at the Gurukulam.

[Ifroham4]

The full verses of Kanakadhaara Stotram can be viewed at http://www.kamakoti.org/shlokas/kshlok14.htm

[softy54534]

Shall we exchange notes and information about this great Philosopher....

Was one of the personalities who revived Hinduism...

Looking forward to his entire life history and all his philosophies on Advaitham...

[Lt_Apple]

Kanakadara strotram story:-

Once Adi sankara went for begging for food as he was a sanyasi.He went to house of an old woman.The woman was very poor and had nothing to offer.She had only small quantity of rice for herself which she gave to adi sankara.Pleased with this, he sang the kanakadhara stotram(kanaka-gold.dhara-rain)
After hearing this, Goddess Lakshmi is supposed to have rained gold coins on the old woman.

There is a story written by Grimm Brothers in 17xx, I don't know if it was early 18th or late 18th centurary going almost like the above.

A small orphan girl was walking through the jungle. First she met a starving man who begged for her bread. She gave him the bread. Then a boy asked her for her hat because he was feeling cold. She gave him her hat. Then a girl asked her for clothes and she gave her that. And finally she was presented with "Stern Thaler" = silver coins - The Stars above fell on her as "Thaler".

PS - Thaler or Taler was once a silver coin in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Some think that the Grimm Brothers wrote this story as they once had some old celtic coins. These coins were burial objects.

[HedgeYourBets]

Balaji anNe,

Great Topic

I always thought of starting this topic , aana neenga muntheetenga

Will post very soon

[MannoFr]

Kanakadara strotram story:-

Once Adi sankara went for begging for food as he was a sanyasi.He went to house of an old woman.The woman was very poor and had nothing to offer.She had only small quantity of rice for herself which she gave to adi sankara.Pleased with this, he sang the kanakadhara stotram(kanaka-gold.dhara-rain)
After hearing this, Goddess Lakshmi is supposed to have rained gold coins on the old woman.

[HedgeYourBets]

Adhi Sankara is sometimes also said to be an extension of Lord Shiva.his 32 years are supposed to be divided into a period of four 8 yrs in which he got extension of life by 8 years.he is supposed to have mastered sanskrit and vedas when he was 8 years old.

a crocodile caught his leg when he was bathing.only after his mother assured sankara that she would not stand on his way to becoming a sanyasi,did the crocodile release him.thus sankara became a sanyasi and travelled to n.india where he became disciple of gaudapada.

he defeated mandana mishra who was supposed to be a proponent of karma yoga way of reaching God.then,adhi sankara established 4 mutts in different parts of India.he is supposed to travelled length and breadth of India 4 times and this is known as sankara digvijayam.
supposed to have merged into shiva lingam at badrinath.
some others claim he died at kanchipuram.
he has composed a lot of slokas which have been rendered beatutifully by carnatic musicians.Also, lot of bhasyas on upanishads and bhagvat gita have been ascribed to him.

[LottiFurmann]

For more details on pot and clay read atma bodha sloka no 48.

Atma-Eva-Edam Jagat Sarvam
Atmano Annyat Na Vidyate
Mrdo Yad-Vad-Ghatadini
Svatmanam Sarva-Miksate

Now back to the debate

Sankara: There is absolutely no proof that a pot is in its essence different from God. If you eliminate its name and form which are everywhere the results of nescience, there is no reason to say that it retains any characteristic distinguishing it from God. It is this covering material, nescience of avidya, that gives rise to a perception of distinctness in a pot just as in other objects also. Remove this covering, and all are God. Your illustration therefore falling to the ground, your general proposition and its particular application to the Self go with it.

Mandana: But what do you say to the teaching of the Sruti itself that these are two birds sitting on the same tree, one tasting the fruits of karma and the other sitting quiet. Does it not mean that the individual Self and God are two distinct entities?

[LottiFurmann]

Adhi sankara birthplace is supposed to be Kaladi,Kerala.his parents did not have children for a long time.lord shiva appeared in dream and gave a choice.a bright boy with short life or lot of stupid sons with long life.the parents chose the former option.hence,adi sankara was born.his birthdate is supposed to be 788AD
he lived for 32 years and spread the Advaitha philosophy founded by guru Gaudapada? he defeated lot of buddist philosophers and re-established hinduism in India.Lot like gnanasampandhar of TN.