Male
Member Since Aug 9 2002
Comments received | Comments
posted
Comments posted by -sandilya.
On
Secularism as a Tool of Adharma
To RM Reddy: You misunderstood my post. I was not saying that the Sankaracharya should not be punished if found guilty. I was alluding to the manner in which he was arrested. He is just a suspect at this time and no one is saying that he killed anyone. The TN police seem to be rough in its technique of collecting evidence (Kathiravan, for example) and JJ gave 5 lk to Sankararaman's family just before they testified on the case. So we can not blindly believe what the govt. is saying either. The govt. has no right to trample upon someone's religious rights when an arrest is made and the accused is put in jail. They could have provided the simple things he was asking for even in the C-class jail in which he was put in. Since you are concerned for the law, I hope you will fight for arresting Laloo, Karunanidhi, Stalin, Taslimuddin, Bukhari, etc., as soon as possible.
On
Secularism as a Tool of Adharma
If the TN govt. thought that the Sankaracharya was a suspect, they could heve put him under house arrest without disturbing his religious duties. Indian constitution protects everyone's religious rights. In the case of the Sankaracharya his rights were trampled upon (if some people don't understand the daily religious activities of the Sankaracharya, they should go and learn before thinking that they are insignificant and petty). That no other person of his stature (including political goons, wealthy crooks, etc.) was treated in the fashion the Sankaracharya is treated is a different issue. By treating the Sankaracharya in the fashion that he was (arresting on Diwali, denying his religious rights, ignoring the sentiments of Hindus, etc.) exposes how TN politicians take Hindu votes for granted. Karunanidhi, Communists & other pseudo-secular politicians openly slighted the Sankaracharya's religious rights. Sonia Gandhi ginored the issue and Manmohan Singh waited for 15 days to make his tame remark. This clearly indicates how these politicians think. If Hindus think that, in future, their religious sentiments will be protected by these politicians, they are living in the la la land. The only power that Hindus have is their vote. All efforts should be geared towards bringing Hindus together, consolidating their votes and ensuring that they will not vote for those who are inclined to marginalize and destroy their religion. If Hindus continue to vote for anti-Hindu pseudo-secular elements, they will be shooting themselves in the foot. The Sankaracharyas of the matams can not do this on their own.
On
<b>'Adi Sankara'</b> - The Universal Preceptor
Many thanks for this article on Sankara and his enlightening works.
On
The trial of Adi Shankara
Sincere atheists thrive on bhakti. Sounds irrational??
When we look at bhakti, we usually think of theists, dvaitins, etc. Misguided advaitins and atheists feel superior to the rest thinking that bhakti is inferior to “thinking” and jnana. Let us examine what bhakti is! (a) A person believes that Krshna is his saviour and he submits himself to Krshna. (b) Another person couples his interests in something with his motivation and acts in this world with dedication. (c) A sincere fellow clings on to an ideal. (d) A Hindu thinks that his individual identity is based on false assumptions; he sheds his individualism, seeks the help of a guru to guide him (because he already renounced individualism and his objective is to find truth) and becomes devoted to the guru. (e) A follower of jnana yoga is devoted to the idea that intellectual analysis leads to a superior understanding of reality. (f) An atheist is devoted to the thinking that there is no tangible evidence for God. In all these examples, bhakti is involved. Bhakti is not the belief, it is the motivation, the dedication and the feeling that are required to ensure that one is spending quality effort for the belief. Let us look at the examples above. (a) Believing in Krishna is not bhakti, being dedicated to that belief is. (b) The particular interest a person has is not bhakti, his motivation to pursue that interest is. (c) The ideal that one has is not bhakti; his zeal and dedication to the ideal are. (d) The thinking that individual identity is based on false assumptions is not bhakti; the dedication to this thinking and being devoted to an external agency to fulfill this thinking are. (e) The devotion to Jnana yoga and the dedication to put the thinking into practice are bhakti. (f) The dedication of an atheist to negate God (because of lack of tangible evidence) is bhakti. When an American says with feeling that freedom and liberty are for everyone, he is expressing his bhakti in these ideals.
Let us, therefore, blame the path that one may choose if we disagree with it. But let us not blame a person’s dedication. Even in our work place, it is the dedicated that contribute to progress. There is no progress without bhakti. Advaitins and atheists who misunderstand the importance of bhakti contribute little to advaita and atheism!
On
The trial of Adi Shankara
Shankara & bhakti
Just imagine an advaitin knocking on the door to mukti. Logically, what is his state? The person already convinced himself that he is not a separate thing from Brahman. He discovered that individual self-identity and the associated activities & realities were illogically based. Now, what next? He cannot make a decision to open the door and walk to the other side (so to speak), because in his current condition that would be illogical (since such a thinking takes him back to individualism which he already denied). So how does he go to the other side? Logically, he cannot on his own make that decision at that stage!
The seeker (whose ahamkara has evaporated – the state of the guy, in our example, who is knocking on the door to mukti) waits in the state until he is taken to the other side. Shankara puts such a seeker again in the hands of Maaya. In one of his compositions, Shankara begs Maaya (bhakti!!!) to lift this particular hurdle. Maaya is responsible for the misunderstanding, to begin with. After all the analysis, it will be Maaya who can help in attaining mukti!
We have several metaphors illustrating this line of thinking. Here are a couple of familiar ones. Shiva stands in front of Annapoornaadevi with an empty begging bowl and she gives him alms! Kaali performs her apocalyptic dance with the severed head of Shiva in her hand!
On
The trial of Adi Shankara
"Shankaracharya also has preached Advaita all his life but in the later stages of his life he turned toward Bhakti."
Shankara's compositions on bhakti are far more numerous than on Vedanta bhaashya, etc. It is also not true that he gradually developed an interest in writing on bhakti. In fact, most of his bhakti compositions were done during his early years. You can, however, see his advaitic thinking in his bhakti compositions. And the bhakti that he alludes to is far more comprehensive than what we usually think of. It is unfortunate that people have a tendency to think that bhakti and advaita are mutually exclusive. Shankara never advocated such a thinking.
On
The trial of Adi Shankara
To Vimala,
The only advaitin is Brahman! Everyone, including the one “knocking on the door” to mukti or explaining advaita, dwells in the world of dvaita. Therefore, in a practical sense, it is more important that people know how to approach advaita. Most people are not ready for it and most don’t have the temperament suitable for it. Just as we have varnaashrama dharmas for different age groups, different samskaras for different purposes, etc., people should have the option to choose the most suitable tools (bhakti, karma, jnana, combinations of the three, etc.) for salvation. Hinduism is blessed with the resources for this purpose. Even in ancient times, the aranyakas, for example, were developed by people with different affiliations.
These days, more and more people, including professed atheists, people with vested interests and those with rudimentary knowledge, are interested in discussing and commenting upon Indian philosophy. Some write fiction and others argue for/against tradition. Indian philosophy opens up to a wider segment of society and some good will eventually come. In a way, this is progress. Therefore, if you read somewhere that Rama raped Mandodari, don’t be alarmed! You may well be reading fiction. :-)
Regards.
On
The trial of Adi Shankara
"sandilya:
“Intellectual advaitins” who sneer at others or build vasanas through actions and thoughts don’t know Brahman while an advaitin for whom “divinity” is all around (in our tradition, this, indeed, is bhakti) knows Brahman
Now now... is the tone of my article that bad that you have use the word "sneer"? Is your becoming so defensive a trait of someone who is comfortable with the certainity of the Divine?
M. Nam "
Re: "sneer": What makes you think I was referring to you? Is the glob stuck or what? :-)
I'll let Sameerpv validate the rest of your comments :-).
On
The trial of Adi Shankara
To Moornaamji,
“It seems the "Globs" saw the movie "Matrix"!
The globs see everything! I mean everything!
mere intellectualization of Brahman and playing games with Advaitic concepts are inadequate for mukti.
How do you know that.”
If “Globs” OBSERVE anything or everything, they operate outside the Advaitic mould with dwaitabhaava. Shankara-Gaudapada would argue that they dwell in the domain of Maaya. Observing and intellectualizing happen with “I”, giving it currency and function, as Vimalaji points out. When this happens, one is oblivious to Brahman. Bhakti (doesn’t mean that one is devoted only to a personal “God”, an “idol” or an historical figure) gives the seeker an opportunity to delegate his/her presumed powers to an assumed external agency so that the “I” is subdued. When bhaktibhaava incorporates the intellectual understanding of Brahman, there is a greater chance that the “I” is further subdued and avidya eradicated. In Gita, Vyasa invented the term “Buddhi Yoga” to introduce this important aspect to a seeker. In Chandogya, there was a laborious attempt to illustrate the same and Sankara advocated caution in introducing advaita to those who were not ready and prepared (for this, he was accused of being a bigot). Even in the puranas, you may see narrations of cases where kshanika bhakti brings about mukti but you don’t see any examples where intellectualizations alone bring mukti (Ajameela, incidentally, was described as well-versed in the Sastras and he intellectually understood Brahman). Bhakti, indeed, is essentially an exercise to subdue Rajo and Tamo gunas and, hence, it helps in minimizing vasanas (which is a prerequisite for seekers of brahmajnana). “Sarvam khalvidam Brahma” and “Sarvam Vishnumayam Jagat” are both needed for seekers of mukti - the former is advaitic, the latter a more practical expression, and both essentially meaning the same! “Intellectual advaitins” who sneer at others or build vasanas through actions and thoughts don’t know Brahman while an advaitin for whom “divinity” is all around (in our tradition, this, indeed, is bhakti) knows Brahman.
Regards.
Advertisement
© 1998-2008 Copyright Sulekha.com Connecting Indians Worldwide, All Rights Reserved.
God's Own Country?
Good for you! Enjoyed reading your article.
Block this user | Report AbuseReply