Errors & fraud

BS Fraud

वरदार्येण साधूच्यते -

“अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा” इति प्रथमसूत्रेण
सूत्रकारेण ब्रह्मजिज्ञासां प्रतिज्ञाय
“जन्माद्य् अस्य यतः” इति द्वितीयसूत्रण
तस्य जगज्-जन्मादि-कारणत्व-लक्षणेऽभिहिते सत्य् अपि
इदं लक्षणं न मुख्यस्य निर्विशेषस्य ब्रह्मणः
इत्यादिव्याख्यानं कथं स्वरसं भवेत्? 🤣

विश्वास-टिप्पनी

ये तु निर्विशेषवस्तु जिज्ञास्यमिति वदन्ति, तन्मते “ब्रह्म-जिज्ञासा”, “जन्माद्यस्य यतः” इत्यसङ्गतं स्यात्; निरतिशयबृहत् बृंहणं च ब्रह्मेति निर्वचनात्; तच्च ब्रह्म जगज्जन्मादिकारणमितिवचनाच्च।

इति रामानुजः श्रीभाष्ये।

vyAsa’s originals (Thibaut’s translation of S’s bhAShyam) to which S provides absurd commentary :

1. Then therefore the enquiry into Brahman.
2. (Brahman is that) from which the origin, &c. (i.e. the origin, subsistence, and dissolution) of this (world proceed).

Suppose I say -

“Now I will talk about Abhinanda. He writes good reports.”,

and someone says -

“Mr X in the first sentence refers to our friend, who is the main X;
but X of the second sentence is not about him - rather about the imaginary Mr X.”

Does that sound right?

Was going to say how my regard for shankara reached “record levels” upon noticing this, but then what to say about us v1s for whom this is the (numerically) preeminent darshana!?
But maybe it’s too much to expect much else considering “uttarAyaNa” and all.
Still points to a deep systemic failure. The most charitable guess is that the muzzie invasion is to blame for the “time-freeze” and major talent loss.

One can excuse language / interpretation errors, and even logical errors saying "

his capacity is only that much, we all make mistakes",

but not dead-obvious outright fraud.

Motivation is considered elsewhere.

Language errors

एष सेतुः

“तम् एवैकम् आत्मानं जानथ,
एष अमृतस्य सेतुः”

इति कथनाद् एष इति शब्दः परमात्मवाच्येव ।

अतः परमात्मन एव संसार-पार-प्रापकत्वं वैदिकमार्गे स्पष्टं विधीयते ।
अत्र

“एष”-इत्य्-अनेन पुंल्लिङ्गान्तेन
“जानथ” इति ज्ञा-धात्व्-अर्थ-भूतं ज्ञानम् एव गृह्यते

इति ज्ञान-मार्गिणां व्याख्यानम् ।
किन्तु कथं पुंल्लिङ्गान्तेन “एष” इति पदेन धातुच्छन्नं ज्ञानं ग्रहीतुं शक्यम् ?

• इति वरदार्यः

यम् ए॑वैष वृणुते ते॒न लभ्यः

मुण्डकोपनिषद् मन्त्र 3.2.3

नाय॑म् आत्मा प्र॒वचने॑न लभ्यो न॒ मेध॑या न ब॒हुना॑ श्रुतेन। यम् ए॑वैष वृणुते ते॒न लभ्यस् तस्यै॑ष आ॒त्मा विवृ॑णुते तनूं स्वाम्॥ MunU.3.2.3॥

Clearly the meaning of second line यमेवैष वृणुते is — whom (यम्) this Atman (एष) chooses (विवृणुते) for him/her (तस्य) this Atman (एष आत्मा) opens itself (विवृणुते तनूं स्वाम्). It aligns perfectly with the context set up by the first line of this mantra and previous ones.

This has been interpreted erroneously as follows by Shankara -

यम् एव परमात्मानम् एव एषः विद्वान् वृणुते प्राप्तुम् इच्छति, तेन वरणेन एष पर आत्मा लभ्यः, न_अन्येन साधनान्तरेण।

This particular interpretation by Acharya Shankara is incorrect, as can be noticed by any student of Sanskrit. The subject of यम् and तेन has to be the same and not different arbitrarily unless the author of the mantra is nuts.

नाय॑म् आत्मा प्र॒वचने॑न लभ्यो न॒ मेध॑या न ब॒हुना॑ श्रुतेन।
यम् ए॑वैष वृणुते ते॒न लभ्यस् तस्यै॑ष आ॒त्मा विवृ॑णुते तनूं स्वाम्

इत्यत्र यदि
“अदः”-शब्द आत्म-वाची, प्रथम “एतच्”-छब्दः साधक-वाची, यच्-छब्दः परमात्मवाची,
प्रथमस् तच्-छब्दो यदि क्रियावाची,
द्वितीयस् तच्-छब्दो यदि साधकवाची,
द्वितीय एतच्-छब्दो ऽप्य् आत्म-वाची,
तर्हि, यत्-तदोस् सम्बन्धो नास्त्य् एव,
अद-एतदोः सम्बन्ध एकत्र नास्ति,
एतद्-एतदोर् अपि सम्बन्धो नास्त्य् एव,
तत्-तदोर् अपि सम्बन्धो नास्ति।
भाषायां सङ्गतिर् इति काचिद् वर्तेत वाक्येषु।
यदि कश्चन

(नाय॑म् आत्मा प्र॒वचने॑न लभ्यो न॒ मेध॑या न ब॒हुना॑ श्रुतेन।
यम् ए॑वैष वृणुते ते॒न लभ्यस् तस्यै॑ष आ॒त्मा विवृ॑णुते तनूं स्वाम्॥)

this (male) AtmA can’t be obtained by pravachana, medhas and bahu-shruti.
whomever (male) this (male) choses, by him he is obtained, for him this (male) AtmA reveals himself"

इति श्रुत्वा

(यमेव परमात्मानमेव एषः विद्वान् वृणुते प्राप्तुमिच्छति, तेन वरणेन एष पर आत्मा लभ्यः, नान्येन साधनान्तरेण, नित्यलब्धस्वभावत्वात् । कीदृशोऽसौ विदुष आत्मलाभ इति, उच्यते — तस्य एष आत्मा अविद्यासञ्छन्नां स्वां परां तनूं स्वात्मतत्त्वं स्वरूपं विवृणुते प्रकाशयति)
Actually, the first and third this (male) refers to the AtmA, but the second this (male) refers to the sAdhaka (my magic!).
The “whomever” refers to the “this Atma”; the first “him” is actually an “it”, referring to the “choice”,
but the second “him” refers to the sAdhaka (my magic!)
so the final meaning is “that Atma who is chosen by the sAdhaka, by that choice he is obtained, for that sAdhaka this Atma reveals himself.”
and not the simple meaning apparent from the original wording itself.

इति व्याख्याति,
अमत्सरो यः कश्चिद् अपि “शाठ्यम् एवेदम्” इत्य् एव निश्चिनोति।

Logical errors

• If brahman is the only real, what is avidyA, which apparently is a co-eternal?

Argument experience

I tried to reason with Adi Shankara’s followers in the group that this particular interpretation by Acharya Shankara is incorrect, as can be noticed by any student of Sanskrit. … However, no one saw the merit in this argument of mine. That’s what blind following does to people. They can’t notice what’s right in front of them.

“It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person. It’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.”

• Lokesh sharma, TW