The problem here is in characterizing Shankara's views only in terms of his
commentary on the Brahma Sutras. It is well established that the Brahma Sutra-s
deal with bridging the variant perspectives found in the major Upanishads.
Shankara's Brahama Sutra commentary is concerned with demonstrating that gnosis
(jnana) or Brahma-vidya of the unconditional (nirguna) Brahman is both a direct
and indirect means for vedantic realization. However, if we want to discuss
Shankara then we need to take a wider perspective which is inclusive of his
commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads. Taken together, these
sources deal with action (karma), meditation (upasana) and direct knowing
(jnana).
And by the way, Shankara's wider view is the source for Maharishi's original
explanatory model of the three fields of life which preceded the formulation of
the Science of Creative Intelligence.
Shankara's commentary on the Bhagavad Gita is the oldest among the older
commentaries still existing today. Shankara was also the first to accept the
Bhagavad Gita, along with the Brahma Sutras and the Upanishads, as one of the
three foundations (prashtana traya) of Vedanta. His Bhagavad Gita commentary
discusses Yoga, as does the Gita itself. It has also been noted by some
scholars (particularly John Arapura) that Shankara does not superimpose upon
the 18 chapters of the Gita a division into three topical sections dealing with
karma, bhakti and jnana, respectively. Rather he discusses the two resolute
observances (nishta-s) 1. jnana-yoga for the knowers (sankhyanam) and 2.
karma-yoga for the yogin-s. These "nishta-s" are found in Gita 3.3 and are
often mis-translated into English as "paths". However, according to Shankara,
these resolute observances (nishta-s) are not two separate paths but rather two
stages on the single path to brahma-vidya.
I have not found anyone here on FFL who has read Adi-Shankara's commentary on
the Bhagavad Gita, even though Maharishi made a point about it in his Gita
commentary. Remember Maharishi's line about Shankara teaching not just
transcendental knowledge but also transcendental devotion?
What about his commentaries on the principal Upanishads? If you had this
teaching you would understand what it means that the purusha in the heart and
the purusha in the sun are one. You would recognize that the doorway leading
from the purusha in the heart to the purusha in the sun was the krsna-tara, the
black-star in the right eye. You would no longer think that Shankaras
teachings were just a bunch of abstractions for intellectuals who think too
much.
So what? Yah, so what.
ivan_galeb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
According to Shankara's commentary on Brahma sutras there is no
mention
of Yoga as such path. Shankara dropped off philosophy of Yoga system.
Both paths have basis in Brahmanic rituals but the later one is
characterized by transcending rituals (advaita Vedanta). In both paths
Unity is possible to reach; in first after total pralaya; in second
immediately.
> According to Marshy, the Purusha is totally separate
> from the gunas born of nature, prakriti. What is needed
> is not a metaphysics, but a PRACTICE, that can be used
> to isolate the Purusha from the prakriti: TM is that
> effortless technique.
Purusha (Atman) can be experienced as if isolated, but real nature of
Purusha (Atman) is Brahman, totality. There is no isolation in Brahman
state of consciousness. Yoga leads to turya and turyatit (kaivalya),
Vedanta leads to Unity of Atman and Brahman.
---------------------------------
Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story.
Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
