On Thu, 22 Nov 2001, sophia & ira schepetin wrote:

> Dear Sri Gummuluru Murthy,
> When you state that according to Shankara ' there is no other
> source of knowledge for revealing the Non-dual Atman other than the
> Upanishads' you have accurately portrayed Shankaras' position. However
> when you put forth the view that " ultimately for Atmavidya, Upanishads
> cannot be treated as requisite either. It is Mannana, Nidhidhyasana
> which leads to Atmavidya, not the Upanishads." it appears as though you
> have gone against Shankaras position and adopted a viewpoint similar to
> that of an Ancient school of Vedantins which held that Brahman is
> subservient to an injunction of meditation.(Dhyana Niyoga Vadins) These
> thinkers insisted upon meditiation as the primary teaching of the
> Upanishads,and that no indepentant entity (Atman) in itself could be the
> subject matter of the Upanishadic teaching, as it would serve no
> purpose. Shankara portrays this school of Vedantins in his Sutra Bhashya
> 1-1-4,as follows; "If it were only a statemaent about a thing, which
> formed no part of an injunction or duty,it would be altogether
> ineffective, inasmuch a there would be nothing to be taken up or
> rejected by the seeker of truth, very much like the statements such as
> 'the earth consists of seven islands','There goes the king' " Hence this
> school maintained that mere Sravana or study and interpretation of the
> Vedantic Texts would be of no avail,and that is why after enjoining
> Sravana (listening), the Sruti enjoins Mannana and
> Nididhyasanana(reflection and meditation). So this school concluded that
> the Upanishads are a means of right knowledge of Brahman only insofar as
> Brahman is the object on an injuction of meditation.
>
> Shankara's tradition is is of course opposed to this view, for it is a
> sustained effort to show how all Upanishadic texts purport to reveal
> the Non-dual Atman, and that this Knowledge is not available to any
> other means of knoweldge( pramana) other than the Upanishads.
>

namaste shri Sophia and ira Schepetin,

My apologies for the late response as I was busy with the University
matters.

Thanks for a very thought-provoking comment. Let me respond to this
from my very limited knowledge. I quoted your mail in full to keep
the continuity of thought and also would like to quote reference to
my earlier post to which your post is a response.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/advaitin/message/11299

I think the earlier references are necessary to keep the continuity
of thought as my late response might have disrupted that continuity.

Yes, shri shankara says clearly that upanishads are the only source
for the revelation of the non-dual Atman.

Now, coming to the other expression in my previous post
".. ultimately for Atmavidya, Upanishads cannot be treated as
requisite either. It is manana, nidhidhyasana which leads to
Atmavidya, not the Upanishads..." You say in this I have gone against
shri shankara's position and adopted a viewpoint similar to that of
an Ancient school of Vedantins which held that Brahman is subservient
to an injunction of meditation (Dhyana Niyoga Vadins).

I am not aware of this school of thought (dhyAna niyoga vAdins).
But, my view of upanishads is not what you say is their view, for
the following reasons.

1. I do not believe that brahman is subservient to an injunction
of meditation. Meditation is an action (although mental) and
Atma vidyA is not a product or output of action. This was stated
by shri shankara many times (VivekacUDAmaNi, upadeshasahasrI).
Thus, Brahman (or knowledge of brahman) cannot be subservient
to meditation.

2. nidhidhyAsana is not really dhyAnam. Meditation is not the
correct english translation, either. I would leave it to learned
members to suggest the proper word for nidhidhyAsana.

3. shri shankara says in VivekacUDAmaNi that a guru can only
point the direction in which the disciple has to "go" . The
sAdhaka, the disciple has to do the hard job for AtmavidyA.
The guru is not going to do it. It is the sAdhaka who has to
do the realization. Thus, it is appropriately called AtmavidyA.
A guru's teaching is nothing but the upanishads. And in that way,
I made the statement quoted above in my previous post.

4. Further, I was also alluding to the fact that just studying
the upanishads without the purity of heart will not lead to
Self-realization, but only to intellectual knowledge.

5. Further, if the dhyAna niyoga vAdins are correct in their
interpretation of upanishads (their interpretation stated by you),
then it will invalidate kaTha up. 1.ii.23 (This Self cannot be
attained by instruction, nor by intellectual power, nor even
through much hearing. He (the Self) is to be attained only by
the one whom the (Self) chooses. To such a one, the Self reveals
his (Its) own nature.

Thus, the Self (AtmavidyA) cannot be an object or an injunction
of meditation.. It is to evolve from inside us, by Itself on its
own choosing.

Thus, my understanding of upanishads, which I gleaned from the
study of the bhAShyA-s, I hope, is consistent with shri shankara's
teachings.


Regards
Gummuluru Murthy
------------------------------------------------------------------------