A prayer to beg forgiveness from the Goddess, by Adi Shankaracharya

1. Na mantram no yantram tadapi cha na jaane stuti maho
Na chaawaanam dhyaanam tapi cha na jaane stuti kataha
Na jaane mudraaste tadapi cha na jaane wilapanam
Param jaane maatastwa danusharanam klesha haranam

I don't know how to recite Your mantra, how to worship You with yantra,
Nor do I know how to welcome you or meditate upon you.
I don't know how to pray to you or how to do Your mudra.
Nor do I know how to open my heart to you and tell you of my suffering.
But this I know, Oh MA!
That to take refuge in you will destroy all my sorrow.

2. Widheragyaa nena dravina virahe naa lasatayaa
Vidheyaa shakya twaa tawa charana yoryaa chyuti rabhoot
Tadetat kshantavyam janani sakalo dhaa rini shiwe
Kuputro jaayetaa kwachidapi kumaataa na bhawati

Because of my ignorance, poverty and sloth,
I have not been able to worship Your feet.
But Oh Mother! gracious Deliverer of all,
All this should be forgiven,
For a bad son may sometimes be born,
But a bad mother, never...

3. Pritivyaam putraaste janani bahawa santi saralaah
Param tesham madhye virala tara loham tawa sutah
Madheeyo yam tyaagah samuchitamidam no tawa shiwe
Kuputro jaayeta kwachidapi kumaataa na bhawati

Oh MA! You have so many worthy sons on earth
But I am a worthless,
Yet it isn't right that You should abandon me
For a bad son may sometimes be born in this world
But a bad mother, never...
4. Jaggan maatar maata stawa charana sewa na rachitaa
Na waa datam dewi dravina mapi bhooya stawa mayaa
Tatapi twam sneham mayi niroopamam yatpra kurushe
Kuputro jaayeta kwachi dapi kumaataa na bhawati

Oh Ma! Mother of the World.
I have not worshipped Your feet
Nor have I given wealth to You
Yet the love and affection You bestow on me is without compare.
For a bad son may sometimes be born in this world,
But a bad mother, never...

5. Na mokshasya kanksha bhawa wibhawa waancha pichana me
Na wigyaanaa peksha shashi mukhi sukhechaa pi na poonah
Atastwaam sanyaache janani jananam yaatu mama wai
Mridaanee Rudraanee Shiwaa Shiwaa Bhawaanee ti japatah

I have no desire for liberation
Nor do I desire wealth or knowledge.
Oh Moon-Faced One! I don't even wish to be happy.
But I beg only this of You,
That my whole life may pass in the singing of these words:
Mridaani, Rudraani, Shivaa, Shivaa, Bhavaani. [Names of the Goddess]

http://www.krishnadas.com/notes.cfm?CID=onetrackheart&TID=one7

The guy was a useless philosopher but a good writer and poet. What this means is that his serious writings which are aimed at philosophers and intellectuals are trash ( since he attacks science oriented philosophies and even logic/reason in these writings). But his popular writings aimed at the masses, inclusive of his poetry, can be enjoyed even today for aesthetic pleasure.

Rashmun wrote:The guy was a useless philosopher but a good writer and poet. What this means is that his serious writings which are aimed at philosophers and intellectuals are trash ( since he attacks science oriented philosophies and even logic/reason in these writings). But his popular writings aimed at the masses, inclusive of his poetry, can be enjoyed even today for aesthetic pleasure.

A lot of philosophers and intellectuals don't think so. Not sure which kind you had spent time with.

smArtha wrote:

Rashmun wrote:The guy was a useless philosopher but a good writer and poet. What this means is that his serious writings which are aimed at philosophers and intellectuals are trash ( since he attacks science oriented philosophies and even logic/reason in these writings). But his popular writings aimed at the masses, inclusive of his poetry, can be enjoyed even today for aesthetic pleasure.

A lot of philosophers and intellectuals don't think so. Not sure which kind you had spent time with.

It is true that many philosophers and intellectuals have a high opinion of Sankara's philosophy. However I agree with the views of Stcherbatsky and others who hold a poor opinion of Sankara's philosophy. Here is an extract of Stcherbatsky's assessment of Adi Sankara's philosophical views:

http://creative.sulekha.com/advaita-and-disguised-budhism-adi-sankar-s-hatred-for-budhism_325397_blog

Rashmun wrote:

smArtha wrote:

Rashmun wrote:The guy was a useless philosopher but a good writer and poet. What this means is that his serious writings which are aimed at philosophers and intellectuals are trash ( since he attacks science oriented philosophies and even logic/reason in these writings). But his popular writings aimed at the masses, inclusive of his poetry, can be enjoyed even today for aesthetic pleasure.

A lot of philosophers and intellectuals don't think so. Not sure which kind you had spent time with.

It is true that many philosophers and intellectuals have a high opinion of Sankara's philosophy. However I agree with the views of Stcherbatsky and others who hold a poor opinion of Sankara's philosophy. Here is an extract of Stcherbatsky's assessment of Adi Sankara's philosophical views:

http://creative.sulekha.com/advaita-and-disguised-budhism-adi-sankar-s-hatred-for-budhism_325397_blog

Semitic religions exiled the Goddess and made the subjects ignorant and fanatical. If not for her reappearance in the form of rationalism, logic and science, followers of these faiths would still be living in the dark ages.

Fortunately for India, she has consistently been worshiped throughout ages. I remember you posting on Kali. Looks like you haven't understood the different aspects of Parvati.

To understand Sankara, you need to have an appreciation of universality of reality. If you are wrapped up in your individuality, most of the reality is shutout for you. The mother that Sankara alludes to is an agency that helps when individualism is negated but progress has to be made in comprehending universality.

You can be a Ravana and be infatuated by Parvati's beauty or a seeker who submits to a mother's ability to bring you into universality.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

smArtha wrote:

Rashmun wrote:The guy was a useless philosopher but a good writer and poet. What this means is that his serious writings which are aimed at philosophers and intellectuals are trash ( since he attacks science oriented philosophies and even logic/reason in these writings). But his popular writings aimed at the masses, inclusive of his poetry, can be enjoyed even today for aesthetic pleasure.

A lot of philosophers and intellectuals don't think so. Not sure which kind you had spent time with.

It is true that many philosophers and intellectuals have a high opinion of Sankara's philosophy. However I agree with the views of Stcherbatsky and others who hold a poor opinion of Sankara's philosophy. Here is an extract of Stcherbatsky's assessment of Adi Sankara's philosophical views:

http://creative.sulekha.com/advaita-and-disguised-budhism-adi-sankar-s-hatred-for-budhism_325397_blog

Semitic religions exiled the Goddess and made the subjects ignorant and fanatical. If not for her reappearance in the form of rationalism, logic and science, followers of these faiths would still be living in the dark ages.

Fortunately for India, she has consistently been worshiped throughout ages. I remember you posting on Kali. Looks like you haven't understood the different aspects of Parvati.

To understand Sankara, you need to have an appreciation of universality of reality. If you are wrapped up in your individuality, most of the reality is shutout for you. The mother that Sankara alludes to is an agency that helps when individualism is negated but progress has to be made in comprehending universality.

You can be a Ravana and be infatuated by Parvati's beauty or a seeker who submits to a mother's ability to bring you into universality.

Sadly the mother, whether in her form of Parvati or Kali, is only illusory according to Sankara. Her existence can be postulated at the purely provisional level of practical life, but at the higher ultimate level she is illusory just as everything except Brahman is illusory. The only reality at the higher ultimate level is Brahman ( God) which is defined in Advaita as pure consciousness devoid of any attributes. The individual soul in any living being is identified with Brahman. What this means is that there is no difference between the creator and created. Indeed there is no such thing as creation ( refer to the ajaatvaada doctrine of Sankara's teacher Gaudapada). Advaita therefore does not believe in traditional theism since here there is no God in the sense of being a creator and moral governor of the world.

In all this the puzzling thing is Vakavaka's hostility towards Muslims and to a lesser extent Christians. Since according to Advaita the souls within Muslims and Christians are also to be identified with Brahman. Vakavaka is not being a consistent Advaitin when he expresses hostility towards people of different religions.

Vakavaka will agree that Advaita is only one among many different Hindu philosophies and that the philosophy of Dvaita Vedanta which considers God to be the creator and moral governor of the world is similar ( at least with respect to the definition of God) to the Semitic religions he seemingly despises.

Rashmun wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

smArtha wrote:

Rashmun wrote:The guy was a useless philosopher but a good writer and poet. What this means is that his serious writings which are aimed at philosophers and intellectuals are trash ( since he attacks science oriented philosophies and even logic/reason in these writings). But his popular writings aimed at the masses, inclusive of his poetry, can be enjoyed even today for aesthetic pleasure.

A lot of philosophers and intellectuals don't think so. Not sure which kind you had spent time with.

It is true that many philosophers and intellectuals have a high opinion of Sankara's philosophy. However I agree with the views of Stcherbatsky and others who hold a poor opinion of Sankara's philosophy. Here is an extract of Stcherbatsky's assessment of Adi Sankara's philosophical views:

http://creative.sulekha.com/advaita-and-disguised-budhism-adi-sankar-s-hatred-for-budhism_325397_blog

Semitic religions exiled the Goddess and made the subjects ignorant and fanatical. If not for her reappearance in the form of rationalism, logic and science, followers of these faiths would still be living in the dark ages.

Fortunately for India, she has consistently been worshiped throughout ages. I remember you posting on Kali. Looks like you haven't understood the different aspects of Parvati.

To understand Sankara, you need to have an appreciation of universality of reality. If you are wrapped up in your individuality, most of the reality is shutout for you. The mother that Sankara alludes to is an agency that helps when individualism is negated but progress has to be made in comprehending universality.

You can be a Ravana and be infatuated by Parvati's beauty or a seeker who submits to a mother's ability to bring you into universality.

Sadly the mother, whether in her form of Parvati or Kali, is only illusory according to Sankara. Her existence can be postulated at the purely provisional level of practical life, but at the higher ultimate level she is illusory just as everything except Brahman is illusory. The only reality at the higher ultimate level is Brahman ( God) which is defined in Advaita as pure consciousness devoid of any attributes. The individual soul in any living being is identified with Brahman. What this means is that there is no difference between the creator and created. Indeed there is no such thing as creation ( refer to the ajaatvaada doctrine of Sankara's teacher Gaudapada). Advaita therefore does not believe in traditional theism since here there is no God in the sense of being a creator and moral governor of the world.

In all this the puzzling thing is Vakavaka's hostility towards Muslims and to a lesser extent Christians. Since according to Advaita the souls within Muslims and Christians are also to be identified with Brahman. Vakavaka is not being a consistent Advaitin when he expresses hostility towards people of different religions.

Vakavaka will agree that Advaita is only one among many different Hindu philosophies and that the philosophy of Dvaita Vedanta which considers God to be the creator and moral governor of the world is similar ( at least with respect to the definition of God) to the Semitic religions he seemingly despises.

You have no understanding of Advaita. That is your problem. You are still stuck in your misunderstanding of what Sankara's "maya" is all about.

Really sad!

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

smArtha wrote:

A lot of philosophers and intellectuals don't think so. Not sure which kind you had spent time with.

It is true that many philosophers and intellectuals have a high opinion of Sankara's philosophy. However I agree with the views of Stcherbatsky and others who hold a poor opinion of Sankara's philosophy. Here is an extract of Stcherbatsky's assessment of Adi Sankara's philosophical views:

http://creative.sulekha.com/advaita-and-disguised-budhism-adi-sankar-s-hatred-for-budhism_325397_blog

Semitic religions exiled the Goddess and made the subjects ignorant and fanatical. If not for her reappearance in the form of rationalism, logic and science, followers of these faiths would still be living in the dark ages.

Fortunately for India, she has consistently been worshiped throughout ages. I remember you posting on Kali. Looks like you haven't understood the different aspects of Parvati.

To understand Sankara, you need to have an appreciation of universality of reality. If you are wrapped up in your individuality, most of the reality is shutout for you. The mother that Sankara alludes to is an agency that helps when individualism is negated but progress has to be made in comprehending universality.

You can be a Ravana and be infatuated by Parvati's beauty or a seeker who submits to a mother's ability to bring you into universality.

Sadly the mother, whether in her form of Parvati or Kali, is only illusory according to Sankara. Her existence can be postulated at the purely provisional level of practical life, but at the higher ultimate level she is illusory just as everything except Brahman is illusory. The only reality at the higher ultimate level is Brahman ( God) which is defined in Advaita as pure consciousness devoid of any attributes. The individual soul in any living being is identified with Brahman. What this means is that there is no difference between the creator and created. Indeed there is no such thing as creation ( refer to the ajaatvaada doctrine of Sankara's teacher Gaudapada). Advaita therefore does not believe in traditional theism since here there is no God in the sense of being a creator and moral governor of the world.

In all this the puzzling thing is Vakavaka's hostility towards Muslims and to a lesser extent Christians. Since according to Advaita the souls within Muslims and Christians are also to be identified with Brahman. Vakavaka is not being a consistent Advaitin when he expresses hostility towards people of different religions.

Vakavaka will agree that Advaita is only one among many different Hindu philosophies and that the philosophy of Dvaita Vedanta which considers God to be the creator and moral governor of the world is similar ( at least with respect to the definition of God) to the Semitic religions he seemingly despises.

You have no understanding of Advaita. That is your problem. You are still stuck in your misunderstanding of what Sankara's "maya" is all about.

Really sad!

A comparative analysis of maya in Advaita vs maya in Dvaita:

http://creative.sulekha.com/dvaita-vs-advaita-the-question-of-maya_325291_blog

Most of the prayers, songs and stories circulating these days in the name Adi Sankara(charya) are later creations by others (including the disciples and devotees claiming to belong to his religio-philosophical organization). In other words, if something bears or is being sold in Sankara's name, there is a very good chance that Sankara probably had little to do with it.