Saturday, July 12, 2025

Alston on Shankara toc

Shankara on Avidya (nescience)

Shankara on the Absolute as Lord

Shankara on the Unmoving Mover

Shankara on the Deeper Levels

Shankara on Cause, Effect, and the Absolute

Shankara on Vedic revelation

Shankara on Name and Form

Shankara on Adhyaropa and Apavada

Shankara on Defining the Absolute

Shankara on Satyam Jñānam Anantam Brahma

Shankara on Bliss

Shankara on Creation Texts

Shankara on Gaudapada's Acosmic Doctrines

On Shankara. Snippets on Shankara's Identity and True Works (plus Alston Info)

On Shankara: Gaudapada and Madhyamika Teaching



A. J. Alston Bibliography:

Shankara on the Absolute: Shankara Source Book Volume One Kindle Edition

Shankara on the Creation: Shankara Source Book Volume Two Kindle Edition

The Thousand Teachings of Shankara: Upadeshasahasri





On Shankara: Gaudapada and Madhyamika Teaching

The Teacher who best represented this tradition in the eyes of Śaṅkara was Gauḍapāda, author of four ‘Books’ of ‘Kārikās’ (mnemonic verses) on the short Māṇḍūkya Upanishad. Unlike the authors of the Brahma Sūtras, Gauḍapāda insists very strongly on the illusory or phenomenal character of the world, and claims that in this he is only following an earlier tradition for the interpretation of the upanishadic texts.

Three important principles used by Gauḍapāda and Śaṅkara for the interpretation of the upanishadic texts are, however, found in the earlier Mādhyamika teaching.

First, there is the principle that the transcendent is conveyed indirectly by attributing empirical characteristics to it that are subsequently denied.

Secondly there is the principle that ‘The enlightened ones (Buddhas) taught the spiritual truth through resort to two standpoints, that of the surface-truth (saṃvṛti-satya) and that of the final truth (paramārtha)’ and ‘One cannot teach the supreme truth except on the basis of the surface-truth’.

And thirdly the principle that, on the basis of the distinction between the two truths, the traditional texts may be divided into those, called nītārtha, which express the fundamental truth in terms of negations, and the rest, called neyārtha, which are not to be taken literally at their surface value but have to be interpreted as indirectly supporting the fundamental texts.

We may say, then, Gauḍapāda clearly considered that Buddhist dialectic, Buddhist methods of textual interpretation and Buddhist yoga were all powerful aids in attaining practical realization of the ancient upanishadic wisdom.

Why is it, then, that Gauḍapāda warmly acknowledges his debt to the Mahāyāna, while Śaṅkara is hostile to Buddhism in every aspect and explains most of Gauḍapāda’s references to Buddhism away? The answer to this question seems to lie in historical developments that occurred between the time of Gauḍapāda and Śaṅkara.

The mystical Inspiration that sustained the Mahāyāna Teachers of earlier centuries seems to have waned, and the leading Buddhist thinkers of the new period, speaking generally, tended to abandon the higher knowledge in their enthusiasm for the problems of logic and epistemology.

The typical Buddhist for Gauḍapāda was the author of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra or Nāgārjuna: the typical Buddhist for Śaṅkara was Dharmakīrti, and mutatis mutandis one might compare the transition from the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra to Dharmakīrti to the transition from St Bonaventura to Kant.

And one is still left wondering whether Śaṅkara had any opportunity for studying the earlier Mahāyāna texts in sufficient depth to enable him to realize the extent of Gauḍapāda’s borrowing. Did he have any access at all to the earlier texts from which Gauḍapāda was quoting? Or was he dependent for his statement of Buddhist positions on contemporary Buddhist sources, eked out by an astute use of scraps of earlier Buddhist doctrine retained in Brahminical oral tradition?

After all, his prime concern was the protection of upanishadic Advaita from the attacks of Buddhist and other opponents of the Veda of his own day, and not the restitution of ancient Buddhist texts in the manner of a modern philologist.

The truth, Śaṅkara goes on to say, is ‘intuitively savoured only by those exceedingly venerable monks of the Paramahaṃsa order who have given up all desires for anything external, who depend on nothing outside their own Self, who have risen above the whole system of caste and stages of life (āśrama) and who are solely preoccupied with the knowledge proclaimed in the Upanishads. And this truth… has been formulated in four chapters of verses by one (i.e. Gauḍapāda) who followed the true tradition. And even today it is only they who teach it and no one else’.


~Alston, Absolute, pp34-44






Friday, July 11, 2025

Paulie Walrus

Perception itself is the sign of maya. 

Bees see what birds do not.

I am not the walrus.


Thursday, July 10, 2025

Ananda 3

Whether waking or sleeping, the dreaming always feels real.

Consciousness-existence is effortless and intuitive.

The bliss of self-awarenes is that power of three.

In the Whites

The science says this universe is ninety-nine point nine percent space. The wisdom says the mind needs even less to make its world realistic.

The truth is nondoing. All doing is in your head. If nondoing is the nature of that absolute, effortlessness is the quality of its manifestation.

There were those moments in the Whites when I no longer climb a mountain but the mountain is climbing me.

Satcitananda is nameless. Mahavakyas leave us speechless. Life materializes in being. Attention to death is appearing in consciousness.


1.

Whether waking or sleeping, the dreaming always feels real.

Consciousness-existence is effortless and intuitive.

The bliss of self-awarenes is the nature of brahman.



Ancient Nondual Revelations

Metaphysical ignorance is not beyond belief. It is exactly belief.

Consciousness is believed to be a product of the mind’s brain. Do you think?

Consciousness cannot speak for itself. Our ancient nondual revelations do.

Consciousness-existence is obviously the ground and aham brahmasmi.


1. 

The science says this universe is ninety-nine point nine percent space. The wisdom says the mind needs even less to make its world realistic.

The truth is nondoing. All doing is in your head. If nondoing is the nature of that supreme absolute, effortlessness is the quality of its manifestation.

There were those moments in the Whites when I no longer climb a mountain but the mountain is climbing me.

Satcitananda is nameless. The mahavakyas leave us speechless. Life is appearing in being. Attention is appearing in consciousness.






Wednesday, July 9, 2025

On Shankara. Snippets on Shankara's Identity and True Works (plus Alston Info)

The idea that Śaṅkara was a Brahmin from the south who taught and wrote mainly in the north, who gathered many pupils about him, who won fame travelling about and engaging in debates and who was a devotee of Viṣṇu can be supported from the surviving writings of Śaṅkara himself and his early followers.

The picture drawn in the Śaṅkara Digvijaya of Śaṅkara travelling far and wide and gaining fame as a Teacher and debater can also be supported from the same sources.

That Śaṅkara was an incarnation of the deity Śiva receives no support from contemporary sources. On the contrary, a certain predilection for Viṣṇu has been detected in Śaṅkara’s own writings and in those of his immediate pupils and followers which militates against the possibility of any contemporary belief that he was an incarnation of Śiva. For instance, Śaṅkara himself identifies Hari and Nārāyaṇa (names of Viṣṇu) with the Absolute in his Brahma Sūtra commentary, but does not mention Śiva in this way.

But if his early followers did not regard him as an incarnation of the deity, they certainly regarded him as a Teacher of quite exceptional importance and magnitude.

Certain passages in his commentaries suggest that he had the capacity to write beautiful devotional poetry if he had wished, but in the verse part of the Upadeśa Sāhasrī, the only surviving verse work of certain authenticity, the beauty derives from the content rather than from the form throughout.

The groundwork for securing criteria for distinguishing between the authentic and inauthentic works has been done by Professor Hacker. The authenticity of the Commentaries (Bhāṣya) on the Brahma Sūtras and on the Bṛhadāraṇyaka, Chāndogya, Taittirīya, Īśa, Aitareya, Kaṭha, Praśna and Muṇḍaka Upanishads is not questioned by the vast majority of authorities.

Professor Hacker’s methods, has removed all reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of the commentaries on the Bhagavad Gītā and on the Māṇḍūkya Upanishad with Gauḍapāda’s Kārikās, as also of the two commentaries on the Kena Upanishad. It appears also that there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the commentary on the Adhyātma Paṭala of the Āpastamba Dharma Sūtra,

Excluded (and it is very important to exclude them if one wants clarity about what Śaṅkara actually said) are such popular favourites as Viveka Cūḍāmaṇi, Ātma Bodha, Svātmanirūpaṇa, Aparokṣānubhūti and Śata Ślokī, which belong to an altogether later age. It is also unsafe to use any of the devotional hymns attributed to Śaṅkara’s name as guides to his doctrine. For instance, the two of them with the best prima facie claims to authenticity are the Dakṣiṇā Mūrti Stotra with a commentary ascribed to Sureśvara and the Hymn to Hari with a commentary ascribed to Ānandagiri. Both works, however, have dubious features.

The present anthology is accordingly based on the Commentaries to the Brahma Sūtras, the Gītā, the Kārikās of Gauḍapāda and to the Adhyātma Paṭala of the Āpastamba Dharma Sūtra, and on the individual commentaries to the classical Upanishads.


~A. J. Alston, Absolute, pp55-62



Dennis Waite (from Back to the Truth):

A. J. Alston (died 2004) was the brilliant translator of “The Method of the Vedanta”* (see [below]). His ability to render the often abstruse philosophical arguments of Shankara into comprehensible and readable English is without parallel in my experience. Accordingly, this set of books – “A Shankara Source Book Vols. 1 – 6” - is invaluable to serious students of Advaita. I have only read one of these - Vol. 2 Shankara on the Creation (Ref. 335) - but am prepared unreservedly to recommend them all on the basis of this. Each book is divided into clear sections and sub-sections. Each topic is introduced and explained by the author, who then selects relevant passages from Shankara’s text which address the topics. It took Alston 37 years to complete this task and Advaitins everywhere can now reap the rewards.

* The Method of the Vedanta: A Critical Account of the Advaita Tradition by Swami Satchidanandendra, translated by A. J. Alston (Ref. 24). This is a huge book, requiring considerable commitment but, if you want to understand clearly what Shankara believed and how his message has been modified or even distorted by subsequent interpreters, then it is indispensable reading. Shankara’s essential method is presented as that of adhyAropa - apavAda, attribution and subsequent denial. His commentaries on the prasthAna traya are examined in detail. Then, following a brief look at pre-Shankara Advaita, there are chapters on each of the major teachers and schools that followed him, in which the same topics are re-examined and the differences outlined. Fortunately, the translation is by A. J. Alston - see below - so is always understandable.









Tuesday, July 8, 2025

On Intelligence, Intuition, and Intellect

Let’s talk about intelligence, intuition, and intellect.

Like consciousness-existence, intelligence is the nature of brahman.

Intellect is partly material. Intuition is partly light.


Monday, July 7, 2025

On the Seventh Day of a Seventh Month

Maya veils and projects. And maya reveals. Ego usurps.

Ego is the name of ignorance in the form of maya.

Feed your intellect. Listen to intuition. Aham Brahmasmi.




Advaita Talk

By playing your part, you worship its one. Saguna Braman is the one true god. Nirguna Brahman is the nondual one.

Advaita is beyond belief. Nonduality transcends all thought. Faith and its confirmation is the real thing.

The deepest you can go is consciousness-existence. Any thought is more shallow.

Mind-off is deep sleep. Mind-on is dreaming. Body-on is the waking dream.

Some say Gaudapada is Advaita cooked in Nargajuna. Some say they’re Shankara but they’re not.