Works of Shri Bharati Tirtha Swamigal of Sringeri

[Guest guest]

Dear members,

 

It is good news for all of us that Jagatguru of Dakshinaamnaaya Sringeri

Sarada Pita Shri Bharati Tirtha Mahaswamigal is on the job of writing

commentaries of some of the works which are given below:

 

1) Chandrikaakhya - a wonderful commentary on Lalitha Sahasranama by Shri

Vaidyanatha Dikshitar

2) Brahmavidya Vilasa - A gloss on the commentary of Sankara on

Panchadashakshari Mantra based on the Srividya Dipika of Agastya

3) Commentary on Siddhanta Bindu, Advaita Siddhi and Anandiya (advaita

prakarana granthas)

 

The manuscripts of Chandikaakhya and Brahmavidyavilasa are ready for DTP

printing and hope it would be ready by the end of chaturmasya vrata of swamigal.

 

Commentary of the third one's are also ready and DTP is also over in Delhi.

Unfortunately the Main Server at Delhi crashed due to virus. The backup to some

of the pages fortunately were taken. Hope to see them too after chaturmaasya

vrata.

 

With regards,

sriram

 

 

 

Connect with friends all over the world. Get India Messenger.

 

 

[Guest guest]

namaste Sri Venkata Sriram,

 

I am forwarding this to advaita-l. Is the vaidyanaatha diixita mentioned

below same as the author of smrti muktaa phalam (aka vaidyanaatha

diixitiiyam)?

 

dhanyavaadaH

 

Ravi

 

 

 

venkata sriram wrote:

>

> Dear members,

>

> It is good news for all of us that Jagatguru of Dakshinaamnaaya

> Sringeri Sarada Pita Shri Bharati Tirtha Mahaswamigal is on the job of

> writing commentaries of some of the works which are given below:

>

> 1) Chandrikaakhya - a wonderful commentary on Lalitha Sahasranama by

> Shri Vaidyanatha Dikshitar

> 2) Brahmavidya Vilasa - A gloss on the commentary of Sankara on

> Panchadashakshari Mantra based on the Srividya Dipika of Agastya

> 3) Commentary on Siddhanta Bindu, Advaita Siddhi and Anandiya (advaita

> prakarana granthas)

>

> The manuscripts of Chandikaakhya and Brahmavidyavilasa are ready for

> DTP printing and hope it would be ready by the end of chaturmasya

> vrata of swamigal.

>

> Commentary of the third one's are also ready and DTP is also over in

> Delhi. Unfortunately the Main Server at Delhi crashed due to virus.

> The backup to some of the pages fortunately were taken. Hope to see

> them too after chaturmaasya vrata.

>

> With regards,

> sriram

>

>

> Connect with friends all over the world. Get India Messenger.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sriram,

 

Can you let us know the language in which the Acharya has written the

commentary?

It will also be helpful if you could let us know the mode of procuring these?

 

Regards

Thejasvi

--- On Sun, 7/20/08, venkata sriram <sriram_sapthasathi wrote:

venkata sriram <sriram_sapthasathi

Works of Shri Bharati Tirtha Swamigal of Sringeri

 

Sunday, July 20, 2008, 7:39 PM

 

 

 

Dear members,

 

 

 

It is good news for all of us that Jagatguru of Dakshinaamnaaya Sringeri

Sarada Pita Shri Bharati Tirtha Mahaswamigal is on the job of writing

commentaries of some of the works which are given below:

 

 

 

1) Chandrikaakhya - a wonderful commentary on Lalitha Sahasranama by Shri

Vaidyanatha Dikshitar

[Guest guest]

, venkata sriram <sriram_sapthasathi

wrote:

 

> 2) Brahmavidya Vilasa - A gloss on the commentary of Sankara on

Panchadashakshari Mantra based on the Srividya Dipika of Agastya

 

 

Not Adi shankara. It is probably some other later shankaracharya.

Better to keep that in mind.

[Guest guest]

I have no idea but it seems to be so. But i will clarify the same with Shri

Bharati Tirtha Swamigal as i would be leaving for sringeri next month as His

Holiness is observing chaturmaasya vrata.

 

regs

sriram

 

MSR <abhayambika wrote:

namaste Sri Venkata Sriram,

 

I am forwarding this to advaita-l. Is the vaidyanaatha diixita mentioned

below same as the author of smrti muktaa phalam (aka vaidyanaatha

diixitiiyam)?

 

dhanyavaadaH

 

Ravi

 

venkata sriram wrote:

>

> Dear members,

>

> It is good news for all of us that Jagatguru of Dakshinaamnaaya

> Sringeri Sarada Pita Shri Bharati Tirtha Mahaswamigal is on the job of

> writing commentaries of some of the works which are given below:

>

> 1) Chandrikaakhya - a wonderful commentary on Lalitha Sahasranama by

> Shri Vaidyanatha Dikshitar

> 2) Brahmavidya Vilasa - A gloss on the commentary of Sankara on

> Panchadashakshari Mantra based on the Srividya Dipika of Agastya

> 3) Commentary on Siddhanta Bindu, Advaita Siddhi and Anandiya (advaita

> prakarana granthas)

>

> The manuscripts of Chandikaakhya and Brahmavidyavilasa are ready for

> DTP printing and hope it would be ready by the end of chaturmasya

> vrata of swamigal.

>

> Commentary of the third one's are also ready and DTP is also over in

> Delhi. Unfortunately the Main Server at Delhi crashed due to virus.

> The backup to some of the pages fortunately were taken. Hope to see

> them too after chaturmaasya vrata.

>

> With regards,

> sriram

>

>

> Connect with friends all over the world. Get India Messenger.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Whether sankara or abhinava sankara or vidyaranya or somebody else we

are not bothered. The analysis and writing style of sankara is quite

distinct. Since, it is there is sringeri parampara, we have to

respect it. The manuscripts were very carefully preserved by HH Shri

Satchidananda Sivabhinava Nrisimha Bharati Swamigal and were handed

over to Shri Chandrasekhara Bharati Swamigal. And mind you these are

NOT the words of Shri Tummalapalli Ramalingeswara Rao (Shri

Advayananda Bharati). It is with some of the close circles of select

few and respected by acharyas of sringeri. So, let us wait and see.

 

Regds,

sriram

 

, " Satish " <satisharigela wrote:

>

> , venkata sriram <sriram_sapthasathi@>

> wrote:

>

> > 2) Brahmavidya Vilasa - A gloss on the commentary of Sankara on

> Panchadashakshari Mantra based on the Srividya Dipika of Agastya

>

>

> Not Adi shankara. It is probably some other later shankaracharya.

> Better to keep that in mind.

>

[Guest guest]

, " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi

wrote:

>

> Whether sankara or abhinava sankara or vidyaranya or somebody else

we

> are not bothered.

 

From what you posted from this work the other day, the contents

(atleast the one or two statements that you informed the list about)

are not that great either. Just wishful interpretations.

It is okay as long as it is done with the understanding that it

presents a highly convoluted interpretation with mokSha seekers in

mind.

 

shrIvidya is not only about mokSha. mokSha is just one goal which

probably became prominent later.

 

To shrI Sangaranarayanan ji: sAdhaka-s actions and nature of devata-s

are unrelated. It is not a bad thing to learn or perfrom prayoga-s.

People should get over this attitude.

 

Moksha can be achived without resorting to any mantra-s. This is very

unusual and quite hard but not impossible. Strictly speaking one

doesnt need mantra-s to get mokSha.

 

>I do not think any one can use the

>srividhya mantras for prayoga either for good or bad, because if

>there are any

>such application, then the concerned devatha cannot be considered as

>God.

 

I dont think above is true. Above borders somewhat on Christian and

Islamic perspective of God. Definitely not the Hindu view. We need to

get rid of such inaccurate and non-Hindu perceptions.

[Guest guest]

Among the 4 purusharthaas, where does srividya fit in? All 4 or

Moksha?. Even if it is dharma, artha & kama, well these three pave

the way for Moksha. If moksha is not the sole objective then what

else? Why it is called Brahmavidya? (ref. LS " atmavidya mahavidya

srividya kamasevitha).

 

Well, Mantra is a tool which can be used in either ways by the

upasakas. For example, the simple panchakshari mantra which is

supposed to be the mantra raja among siva mantras is used both for

siva sayujya as well as abhicharika prayoga. It is upto the choice of

upasaka.

 

But regarding Srividya, the higher mantras like shodasi, para, guhya,

mahapaduka and nirvana, the sole objective is MOKSHA. These mantras

are not used for one's selfish ends or prayogas. For prayogas, the

anga devatas like varahi, ashwarudha, pratyangira are more than

enough.

 

The person with intense dispassion and detachment is given Shodashi

for whom the sole objective in life is liberation. Well, if he takes

sanyasa, then contemplation on hamsa tattva and pranavopasana is more

than enough. If he is grihistha, then shodasi is the only way

(provided he is a saktha). Well, for vaishnavas, it may be

ashtakshari, rama taraka or any other mantra. But as far as he is

shakta, shodasi and higher forms is the only refuge.

 

 

regds,

sriram

 

, " Satish " <satisharigela wrote:

>

> , " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Whether sankara or abhinava sankara or vidyaranya or somebody

else

> we

> > are not bothered.

>

> From what you posted from this work the other day, the contents

> (atleast the one or two statements that you informed the list

about)

> are not that great either. Just wishful interpretations.

> It is okay as long as it is done with the understanding that it

> presents a highly convoluted interpretation with mokSha seekers in

> mind.

>

> shrIvidya is not only about mokSha. mokSha is just one goal which

> probably became prominent later.

>

> To shrI Sangaranarayanan ji: sAdhaka-s actions and nature of devata-

s

> are unrelated. It is not a bad thing to learn or perfrom prayoga-s.

> People should get over this attitude.

>

> Moksha can be achived without resorting to any mantra-s. This is

very

> unusual and quite hard but not impossible. Strictly speaking one

> doesnt need mantra-s to get mokSha.

>

> >I do not think any one can use the

> >srividhya mantras for prayoga either for good or bad, because if

> >there are any

> >such application, then the concerned devatha cannot be considered

as

> >God.

>

> I dont think above is true. Above borders somewhat on Christian and

> Islamic perspective of God. Definitely not the Hindu view. We need

to

> get rid of such inaccurate and non-Hindu perceptions.

>

[Guest guest]

, " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi

wrote:

>

> Among the 4 purusharthaas, where does srividya fit in? All 4 or

> Moksha?. Even if it is dharma, artha & kama, well these three pave

> the way for Moksha. If moksha is not the sole objective then what

> else? Why it is called Brahmavidya? (ref. LS " atmavidya mahavidya

> srividya kamasevitha).

 

kAmasevitA.. Did kAma(as concept and not as a person) attain

mokSha? If so there shouldnt be life on earth no? Just brought that

up for fun..

 

That aside, it can accomplish all 4.

For vedAntin-s this 4th one is more important. They should not be

rubbing their preferences onto others. And they should not be

tampering with shrIvidyA or its texts.

 

 

> Well, Mantra is a tool which can be used in either ways by the

> upasakas. For example, the simple panchakshari mantra which is

> supposed to be the mantra raja among siva mantras is used both for

> siva sayujya as well as abhicharika prayoga. It is upto the choice

of

> upasaka.

 

 

Those taking to sinful ways and who act in ways undharmic will become

pAtaka-s. Nothing else to say here.

 

 

>

> But regarding Srividya, the higher mantras like shodasi, para,

guhya,

> mahapaduka and nirvana, the sole objective is MOKSHA. These

mantras

> are not used for one's selfish ends or prayogas.

 

Not really. I especially talk about ShoDhasI because to counter some

particularly severe prayoga-s ShoDhasI is used along with saMpuTa of

two famous mantra-s.

 

 

> For prayogas, the

> anga devatas like varahi, ashwarudha, pratyangira are more than

> enough.

 

Not completely true.

 

 

> The person with intense dispassion and detachment is given Shodashi

> for whom the sole objective in life is liberation.

 

This is probably the opinion of some teacher. Not some universal

truth.

 

 

>. But as far as he is

> shakta, shodasi and higher forms is the only refuge.

 

If you mean only those shAkta mantra-s give mokSha for a shAkta

sAdhaka that is not true either. Only the sAdhaka gives himself

mokSha when he/she is duely qualified. No devata will come and give

it. But they will help if that is what the sAdhaka seeks. This is in

the language of shankara vedAnta.

 

Regards

satish

[Guest guest]

2008/7/21 Satish <satisharigela:

>

> That aside, it can accomplish all 4.

> For vedAntin-s this 4th one is more important. They should not be

> rubbing their preferences onto others. And they should not be

> tampering with shrIvidyA or its texts.

>

 

You seem to have something against the vedAntins :-) Who preserved

SrIvidyA all these centuries?

 

[satish: No comments for now on vedAntin-s.

 

All these centuries shrIvidya was preserved by shAkta tAntrIka-s, some branches

of shaiva-s, smArta-s(there are smArta families who dont follow shankara matha-s

or advaita vedanta and who dont rant about vairAgya and mokSha 24/7 - I meant

these kind of smArta-s) and also smArta-vedAntins(These are the shankara matha

following ppl)

And we should be thankful to all of these for preserving this.]

[Guest guest]

The name " kamasevita " is never to be taken as manmatha. Kamasevita

indicates the A-manaska yoga which is Kaadi vidya. And hence, to

indicate the supremacy of this vidya, the anvaya of atmavidya and

mahavidya has been considered. Kandarpa is like dagdha patala

without sthula deha. Only to such person, srividya is initiated and

only such person is FIT TO BE INITIATED.

 

I am sorry if kama indicates passion or lust, you are wrong. And if

you say that by worshipped the devi, the kandarpa regained his lost

form, then this sort of explanation should not be taken here. This

does not indicate the resurgence of kama (ref. kama pralaya and

hence bhandasura vadha).

 

As regards shodasi and mahashodasi shodasi prayoga, the upanishad

says that it should not used for tantric prayogas as it is

rajarajeswari (the great queen). For such prayogas, mantrini,

dandini are more than enough. Shodasi is purely moksha vidya.

 

As regards the initiation of srividya, the upasakas who are bent

upon seeking material comforts for him bala and panchadasi

recommended. But shodasi - STRICTLY NO.

 

Please donot bring srividya to ordinary levels of upasana.

 

sriram

 

, " Satish " <satisharigela wrote:

>

> , " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi@>

> wrote:

> >

> > Among the 4 purusharthaas, where does srividya fit in? All 4 or

> > Moksha?. Even if it is dharma, artha & kama, well these three

pave

> > the way for Moksha. If moksha is not the sole objective then

what

> > else? Why it is called Brahmavidya? (ref. LS " atmavidya

mahavidya

> > srividya kamasevitha).

>

> kAmasevitA.. Did kAma(as concept and not as a person) attain

> mokSha? If so there shouldnt be life on earth no? Just brought

that

> up for fun..

>

> That aside, it can accomplish all 4.

> For vedAntin-s this 4th one is more important. They should not be

> rubbing their preferences onto others. And they should not be

> tampering with shrIvidyA or its texts.

>

>

> > Well, Mantra is a tool which can be used in either ways by the

> > upasakas. For example, the simple panchakshari mantra which is

> > supposed to be the mantra raja among siva mantras is used both

for

> > siva sayujya as well as abhicharika prayoga. It is upto the

choice

> of

> > upasaka.

>

>

> Those taking to sinful ways and who act in ways undharmic will

become

> pAtaka-s. Nothing else to say here.

>

>

> >

> > But regarding Srividya, the higher mantras like shodasi, para,

> guhya,

> > mahapaduka and nirvana, the sole objective is MOKSHA. These

> mantras

> > are not used for one's selfish ends or prayogas.

>

> Not really. I especially talk about ShoDhasI because to counter

some

> particularly severe prayoga-s ShoDhasI is used along with saMpuTa

of

> two famous mantra-s.

>

>

> > For prayogas, the

> > anga devatas like varahi, ashwarudha, pratyangira are more than

> > enough.

>

> Not completely true.

>

>

> > The person with intense dispassion and detachment is given

Shodashi

> > for whom the sole objective in life is liberation.

>

> This is probably the opinion of some teacher. Not some universal

> truth.

>

>

> >. But as far as he is

> > shakta, shodasi and higher forms is the only refuge.

>

> If you mean only those shAkta mantra-s give mokSha for a shAkta

> sAdhaka that is not true either. Only the sAdhaka gives himself

> mokSha when he/she is duely qualified. No devata will come and

give

> it. But they will help if that is what the sAdhaka seeks. This is

in

> the language of shankara vedAnta.

>

> Regards

> satish

>

[Guest guest]

, " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi

wrote:

>

> The name " kamasevita " is never to be taken as manmatha.

 

Probably never is not the nest choice. See lalitopakhyAna.

In some otehr place kAma is meant to be taken as shiva. So tehre

will be multiple interpretations. As I said, I brought that up just

for fun.

 

 

> Kandarpa is like dagdha patala

> without sthula deha. Only to such person, srividya is initiated

and

> only such person is FIT TO BE INITIATED.

 

Empty statements IMO.

 

>

> I am sorry if kama indicates passion or lust, you are wrong.

 

Meant desire in all its forms.

 

 

> As regards shodasi and mahashodasi shodasi prayoga, the upanishad

> says that it should not used for tantric prayogas as it is

> rajarajeswari (the great queen).

 

> For such prayogas, mantrini,

> dandini are more than enough. Shodasi is purely moksha vidya.

 

 

Such statements are made because of lack of information on these

issues it seems to me.

 

 

> As regards the initiation of srividya, the upasakas who are bent

> upon seeking material comforts for him bala and panchadasi

> recommended. But shodasi - STRICTLY NO.

 

What about the existing prayoga-s on ShoDhasI then?

As I said before, it is used sometimes because only that can counter

some things.

 

>

> Please donot bring srividya to ordinary levels of upasana.

 

Nobody is. Just pointing to various opinions that exist on this

matter.

 

I notice that I repeated a few things from earlier post. So on these

comments I will stop here.

[Guest guest]

Dear satish,

 

Brahmanda purana says " yasya no paschimam janma yadi vaa sankarah

svayam, tenaiva labhyate vidya srimadpanchadashakshari "

 

" iti mantreshu bahudha vidyayaa mahimochyate - mokshaika hetu

vidya saa srividya naatra samshayah "

 

" na silpaadijnanayukte vidvatchabdhah prayuchyate - mokshaika hetu

vidya saa srividyaiva na samshayah "

 

These are the words of Hayagriva to Agastya. So, please donot add

your own flavours to the sastra.

 

Moreover, Shri Shivanandanatha in his commentary on Lakshmi Saubhagya

Upanishad says that " srividya is ONLY FOR AAPTHAKAMAH " . Same is

regarded by Shri Bhaskara and Lakshmidhara.

 

I think your statements have some extra dose of mimamsa and kashmir

trika siddhanta.

 

As regards the word " kama " , it has several meanings like Kameswara,

Kamakala and Manmatha. But the context should be taken which should

be in consistent with Atmavidya. Shri Bhaskara suggests Amanaska

yoga. Moreover, Kandarpa does not have sthula deha and bahiryaga is

performed with sthula deha. So, kandarpa without sthula deha

indicates the performance of antaryaga. Moreover, Kandarpa vidya

indicates the anusandhana of Pratyak Brahma with Param Brahma through

the process of " Neti - Neti " . (Refer Sankara Bhashya of Lalitha

Trishati (Kandarpa vidya)). It is also known through Kamakala Akshara

and hence Kamasevita.

 

And as regards the prayogas, the Shodahi is not used for tuccha

prayogas like abhicharika and kaamya. Please bear this in mind.

 

I am sorry to say and it pains me to see that all sorts of nonsense

is being propagated in the name of Shodashi and Mahashodasi.

 

Even if you still stand by your point, then your and my ways are

different. I am sorry. Yat bhavam tat bhavati.

 

With regards,

sriram

 

 

, " Ramesh Krishnamurthy " <rkmurthy

wrote:

>

> 2008/7/21 Satish <satisharigela:

> >

> > That aside, it can accomplish all 4.

> > For vedAntin-s this 4th one is more important. They should not be

> > rubbing their preferences onto others. And they should not be

> > tampering with shrIvidyA or its texts.

> >

>

> You seem to have something against the vedAntins :-) Who preserved

> SrIvidyA all these centuries?

>

> [satish: No comments for now on vedAntin-s.

>

> All these centuries shrIvidya was preserved by shAkta tAntrIka-s,

some branches of shaiva-s, smArta-s(there are smArta families who

dont follow shankara matha-s or advaita vedanta and who dont rant

about vairAgya and mokSha 24/7 - I meant these kind of smArta-s) and

also smArta-vedAntins(These are the shankara matha following ppl)

> And we should be thankful to all of these for preserving this.]

>

[Guest guest]

shrIman shrIrAm,

 

, " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi

wrote:

>

> Dear satish,

>

> Brahmanda purana says " yasya no paschimam janma yadi vaa sankarah

> svayam, tenaiva labhyate vidya srimadpanchadashakshari "

>

> " iti mantreshu bahudha vidyayaa mahimochyate - mokshaika hetu

> vidya saa srividya naatra samshayah "

>

> " na silpaadijnanayukte vidvatchabdhah prayuchyate - mokshaika hetu

> vidya saa srividyaiva na samshayah "

>

> These are the words of Hayagriva to Agastya. So, please donot add

> your own flavours to the sastra.

 

One will find such statements about many mantra-s.

Like for example one can find similar statments for kAlI or tArA

vidyA-s.

 

 

 

>

> Moreover, Shri Shivanandanatha in his commentary on Lakshmi

Saubhagya

> Upanishad says that " srividya is ONLY FOR AAPTHAKAMAH " . Same is

> regarded by Shri Bhaskara and Lakshmidhara.

>

> I think your statements have some extra dose of mimamsa and kashmir

> trika siddhanta.

 

Even trika ppl or for that matter any parallel system is concerned

about mokSha. They dont go about denying other puruShArtha-s or

overemphasize vairAgya amd mokSha.

 

 

>

> As regards the word " kama " , it has several meanings like Kameswara,

> Kamakala and Manmatha. But the context should be taken which

should

> be in consistent with Atmavidya. Shri Bhaskara suggests Amanaska

> yoga. Moreover, Kandarpa does not have sthula deha and bahiryaga

is

> performed with sthula deha. So, kandarpa without sthula deha

> indicates the performance of antaryaga. Moreover, Kandarpa vidya

> indicates the anusandhana of Pratyak Brahma with Param Brahma

through

> the process of " Neti - Neti " . (Refer Sankara Bhashya of Lalitha

> Trishati (Kandarpa vidya)). It is also known through Kamakala

Akshara

> and hence Kamasevita.

 

That neti-neti is teh kind of thing I am talking about.

I will laugh and leave it there.

 

 

> And as regards the prayogas, the Shodahi is not used for tuccha

> prayogas like abhicharika and kaamya. Please bear this in mind.

 

 

I know of two teachers who are into shrIvidyA who belong to

different traditions who do not know each other. Both of them told me

about two different prayoga-s involving ShoDhasI for the purpose of a

pratyabhichAra for two different conditions. Both of them are smArta

brAhmaNa-s. One considers mokSha as the highest goal and another is

more into sAnkhya/yoga or something similar.

 

 

>

> I am sorry to say and it pains me to see that all sorts of nonsense

> is being propagated in the name of Shodashi and Mahashodasi.

 

May be more research will help alleviate the pain?

 

Best Regards,

Satish

[Guest guest]

neti-neti are not my words but sankara's to his bhashya on the name

" kandarpavidya " .

 

Well i have no reply for your blunt answer if you challenge sankara.

 

Maybe you donot fit into my shoes.

 

I donot require any research and i am happy with what i have.

 

Whoever may be the teachers, Samaya refutes them. Please bear this in mind.

 

Satish <satisharigela wrote:

shrIman shrIrAm,

 

, " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi

wrote:

>

> Dear satish,

>

> Brahmanda purana says " yasya no paschimam janma yadi vaa sankarah

> svayam, tenaiva labhyate vidya srimadpanchadashakshari "

>

> " iti mantreshu bahudha vidyayaa mahimochyate - mokshaika hetu

> vidya saa srividya naatra samshayah "

>

> " na silpaadijnanayukte vidvatchabdhah prayuchyate - mokshaika hetu

> vidya saa srividyaiva na samshayah "

>

> These are the words of Hayagriva to Agastya. So, please donot add

> your own flavours to the sastra.

 

One will find such statements about many mantra-s.

Like for example one can find similar statments for kAlI or tArA

vidyA-s.

 

>

> Moreover, Shri Shivanandanatha in his commentary on Lakshmi

Saubhagya

> Upanishad says that " srividya is ONLY FOR AAPTHAKAMAH " . Same is

> regarded by Shri Bhaskara and Lakshmidhara.

>

> I think your statements have some extra dose of mimamsa and kashmir

> trika siddhanta.

 

Even trika ppl or for that matter any parallel system is concerned

about mokSha. They dont go about denying other puruShArtha-s or

overemphasize vairAgya amd mokSha.

 

>

> As regards the word " kama " , it has several meanings like Kameswara,

> Kamakala and Manmatha. But the context should be taken which

should

> be in consistent with Atmavidya. Shri Bhaskara suggests Amanaska

> yoga. Moreover, Kandarpa does not have sthula deha and bahiryaga

is

> performed with sthula deha. So, kandarpa without sthula deha

> indicates the performance of antaryaga. Moreover, Kandarpa vidya

> indicates the anusandhana of Pratyak Brahma with Param Brahma

through

> the process of " Neti - Neti " . (Refer Sankara Bhashya of Lalitha

> Trishati (Kandarpa vidya)). It is also known through Kamakala

Akshara

> and hence Kamasevita.

 

That neti-neti is teh kind of thing I am talking about.

I will laugh and leave it there.

 

> And as regards the prayogas, the Shodahi is not used for tuccha

> prayogas like abhicharika and kaamya. Please bear this in mind.

 

I know of two teachers who are into shrIvidyA who belong to

different traditions who do not know each other. Both of them told me

about two different prayoga-s involving ShoDhasI for the purpose of a

pratyabhichAra for two different conditions. Both of them are smArta

brAhmaNa-s. One considers mokSha as the highest goal and another is

more into sAnkhya/yoga or something similar.

 

>

> I am sorry to say and it pains me to see that all sorts of nonsense

> is being propagated in the name of Shodashi and Mahashodasi.

 

May be more research will help alleviate the pain?

 

Best Regards,

Satish

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Connect with friends all over the world. Get India Messenger.

 

 

[Guest guest]

even after receiving shodashi, if they still think of prayogas, they are not fit

to be called as teachers (IMHO)

 

Satish <satisharigela wrote: shrIman shrIrAm,

 

, " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi

wrote:

>

> Dear satish,

>

> Brahmanda purana says " yasya no paschimam janma yadi vaa sankarah

> svayam, tenaiva labhyate vidya srimadpanchadashakshari "

>

> " iti mantreshu bahudha vidyayaa mahimochyate - mokshaika hetu

> vidya saa srividya naatra samshayah "

>

> " na silpaadijnanayukte vidvatchabdhah prayuchyate - mokshaika hetu

> vidya saa srividyaiva na samshayah "

>

> These are the words of Hayagriva to Agastya. So, please donot add

> your own flavours to the sastra.

 

One will find such statements about many mantra-s.

Like for example one can find similar statments for kAlI or tArA

vidyA-s.

 

>

> Moreover, Shri Shivanandanatha in his commentary on Lakshmi

Saubhagya

> Upanishad says that " srividya is ONLY FOR AAPTHAKAMAH " . Same is

> regarded by Shri Bhaskara and Lakshmidhara.

>

> I think your statements have some extra dose of mimamsa and kashmir

> trika siddhanta.

 

Even trika ppl or for that matter any parallel system is concerned

about mokSha. They dont go about denying other puruShArtha-s or

overemphasize vairAgya amd mokSha.

 

>

> As regards the word " kama " , it has several meanings like Kameswara,

> Kamakala and Manmatha. But the context should be taken which

should

> be in consistent with Atmavidya. Shri Bhaskara suggests Amanaska

> yoga. Moreover, Kandarpa does not have sthula deha and bahiryaga

is

> performed with sthula deha. So, kandarpa without sthula deha

> indicates the performance of antaryaga. Moreover, Kandarpa vidya

> indicates the anusandhana of Pratyak Brahma with Param Brahma

through

> the process of " Neti - Neti " . (Refer Sankara Bhashya of Lalitha

> Trishati (Kandarpa vidya)). It is also known through Kamakala

Akshara

> and hence Kamasevita.

 

That neti-neti is teh kind of thing I am talking about.

I will laugh and leave it there.

 

> And as regards the prayogas, the Shodahi is not used for tuccha

> prayogas like abhicharika and kaamya. Please bear this in mind.

 

I know of two teachers who are into shrIvidyA who belong to

different traditions who do not know each other. Both of them told me

about two different prayoga-s involving ShoDhasI for the purpose of a

pratyabhichAra for two different conditions. Both of them are smArta

brAhmaNa-s. One considers mokSha as the highest goal and another is

more into sAnkhya/yoga or something similar.

 

>

> I am sorry to say and it pains me to see that all sorts of nonsense

> is being propagated in the name of Shodashi and Mahashodasi.

 

May be more research will help alleviate the pain?

 

Best Regards,

Satish

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share files, take polls, and make new friends - all under one roof. Click

here.

 

 

[Guest guest]

When you refer to prayogas, it is aabhicharika parayogas? and to further qualify

is it that only aabhicharika prayogas using shodasi is not allowed?

 

regards

Vishwam

 

 

 

 

venkata sriram <sriram_sapthasathi

 

Tuesday, July 22, 2008 2:37:21 AM

Re: Re: Works of Shri Bharati Tirtha Swamigal of Sringeri

 

 

even after receiving shodashi, if they still think of prayogas, they are not fit

to be called as teachers (IMHO)

 

Satish <satisharigela@ > wrote: shrIman shrIrAm,

 

@ .com, " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi

wrote:

>

> Dear satish,

>

> Brahmanda purana says " yasya no paschimam janma yadi vaa sankarah

> svayam, tenaiva labhyate vidya srimadpanchadashaks hari "

>

> " iti mantreshu bahudha vidyayaa mahimochyate - mokshaika hetu

> vidya saa srividya naatra samshayah "

>

> " na silpaadijnanayukte vidvatchabdhah prayuchyate - mokshaika hetu

> vidya saa srividyaiva na samshayah "

>

> These are the words of Hayagriva to Agastya. So, please donot add

> your own flavours to the sastra.

 

One will find such statements about many mantra-s.

Like for example one can find similar statments for kAlI or tArA

vidyA-s.

 

>

> Moreover, Shri Shivanandanatha in his commentary on Lakshmi

Saubhagya

> Upanishad says that " srividya is ONLY FOR AAPTHAKAMAH " . Same is

> regarded by Shri Bhaskara and Lakshmidhara.

>

> I think your statements have some extra dose of mimamsa and kashmir

> trika siddhanta.

 

Even trika ppl or for that matter any parallel system is concerned

about mokSha. They dont go about denying other puruShArtha- s or

overemphasize vairAgya amd mokSha.

 

>

> As regards the word " kama " , it has several meanings like Kameswara,

> Kamakala and Manmatha. But the context should be taken which

should

> be in consistent with Atmavidya. Shri Bhaskara suggests Amanaska

> yoga. Moreover, Kandarpa does not have sthula deha and bahiryaga

is

> performed with sthula deha. So, kandarpa without sthula deha

> indicates the performance of antaryaga. Moreover, Kandarpa vidya

> indicates the anusandhana of Pratyak Brahma with Param Brahma

through

> the process of " Neti - Neti " . (Refer Sankara Bhashya of Lalitha

> Trishati (Kandarpa vidya)). It is also known through Kamakala

Akshara

> and hence Kamasevita.

 

That neti-neti is teh kind of thing I am talking about.

I will laugh and leave it there.

 

> And as regards the prayogas, the Shodahi is not used for tuccha

> prayogas like abhicharika and kaamya. Please bear this in mind.

 

I know of two teachers who are into shrIvidyA who belong to

different traditions who do not know each other. Both of them told me

about two different prayoga-s involving ShoDhasI for the purpose of a

pratyabhichAra for two different conditions. Both of them are smArta

brAhmaNa-s. One considers mokSha as the highest goal and another is

more into sAnkhya/yoga or something similar.

 

>

> I am sorry to say and it pains me to see that all sorts of nonsense

> is being propagated in the name of Shodashi and Mahashodasi.

 

May be more research will help alleviate the pain?

 

Best Regards,

Satish

 

------------ --------- --------- ---

Share files, take polls, and make new friends - all under one roof.

 

 

[Guest guest]

What language(s) will these be available in?

 

JAI AMMA!

 

Surya

 

 

[Guest guest]

Shri Swamigal has written in Telugu.

 

Regs,

sriram

 

, " Surya " <mahamuni wrote:

>

> What language(s) will these be available in?

>

> JAI AMMA!

>

> Surya

>

>

[Guest guest]

Any plans for an English translation? That would be well received and fabulous!

 

JAI AMMA!

 

Surya

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear ravi,

 

Sometime back you asked me about the identity of the author of

ChandrikAkhyA and Smrti MuktA phalam. Here are the words of Shri

Bharati Tirtha Mahaswamigal of Sringeri Sarada Pitham.

 

Shri Swamigal had confirmed that both the authors are entirely

different. The author of ChandrikAkhyA is Shri Vaidyanatha Dikshitar

who hails from Kasi whereas the author of Smrti MuktA Phala, who also

holds the same name is from Tamil Nadu. And both are NOT SAME.

 

Hope your doubt is cleared.

 

AjnAnAm JAhnavI tIrtham vidyA tirtham vivekinAm

sarveshAm sukhadam tirtham bhAratI tIrtham Asraye...

 

With regards,

Sriram

 

, MSR <abhayambika wrote:

>

> namaste Sri Venkata Sriram,

>

> I am forwarding this to advaita-l. Is the vaidyanaatha diixita

mentioned

> below same as the author of smrti muktaa phalam (aka vaidyanaatha

> diixitiiyam)?

>

> dhanyavaadaH

>

> Ravi

>

>

>

> venkata sriram wrote:

> >

> > Dear members,

> >

> > It is good news for all of us that Jagatguru of Dakshinaamnaaya

> > Sringeri Sarada Pita Shri Bharati Tirtha Mahaswamigal is on the

job of

> > writing commentaries of some of the works which are given below:

> >

> > 1) Chandrikaakhya - a wonderful commentary on Lalitha Sahasranama

by

> > Shri Vaidyanatha Dikshitar

> > 2) Brahmavidya Vilasa - A gloss on the commentary of Sankara on

> > Panchadashakshari Mantra based on the Srividya Dipika of Agastya

> > 3) Commentary on Siddhanta Bindu, Advaita Siddhi and Anandiya

(advaita

> > prakarana granthas)

> >

> > The manuscripts of Chandikaakhya and Brahmavidyavilasa are ready

for

> > DTP printing and hope it would be ready by the end of chaturmasya

> > vrata of swamigal.

> >

> > Commentary of the third one's are also ready and DTP is also over

in

> > Delhi. Unfortunately the Main Server at Delhi crashed due to

virus.

> > The backup to some of the pages fortunately were taken. Hope to

see

> > them too after chaturmaasya vrata.

> >

> > With regards,

> > sriram

> >

> >

> > Connect with friends all over the world. Get India

Messenger.

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

namaste Sriram,

 

My sincere thanks to you and Sri svaamigaL for clarifying this doubt.

I am aware of the fact that author of diixitiiyam hails from

thanjaavur (even though some scholars tend to think he is from Andhra,

which I think is not correct).

 

We have complete diixitiiyam at vaidyanatha.ambaa.org - thus far I

have found good need/use for the tithi nirNaya prkaraNam. An excellent

abridged version with Tamil translation is available from India

Heritage Trust of Chennai.

 

 

With best wishes,

Ravi

 

 

, " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi wrote:

>

> Dear ravi,

>

> Sometime back you asked me about the identity of the author of

> ChandrikAkhyA and Smrti MuktA phalam. Here are the words of Shri

> Bharati Tirtha Mahaswamigal of Sringeri Sarada Pitham.

>

> Shri Swamigal had confirmed that both the authors are entirely

> different. The author of ChandrikAkhyA is Shri Vaidyanatha Dikshitar

> who hails from Kasi whereas the author of Smrti MuktA Phala, who also

> holds the same name is from Tamil Nadu. And both are NOT SAME.

>

> Hope your doubt is cleared.

>

> AjnAnAm JAhnavI tIrtham vidyA tirtham vivekinAm

> sarveshAm sukhadam tirtham bhAratI tIrtham Asraye...

>

> With regards,

> Sriram

 

>