Guest guest Posted February 19, 1999 Report Share Posted February 19, 1999 Namaste The information received from the learned members is truly impressive. >From the general agreement that we have seen so far would it be right to conclude that the teachings of say Sri Ramana Maharashi (the sayings that relate to his first hand experience of the self); should be called Vedas? Or are Vedas just a set of texts from the previous millennium? I would ask further is it not true that the language and examples given by a recent day Rishi ('seer') are perhaps better suited to portray spirituality ? pranams jay Vivekananda Centre Lodon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 1999 Report Share Posted February 19, 1999 > Namaste The information received from the learned members is truly >impressive. From the general agreement that we have seen so far would it >be right to conclude that the teachings of say Sri Ramana Maharashi (the >sayings that relate to his first hand experience of the self); should be >called Vedas? Or are Vedas just a set of texts from the previous >millennium? I would ask further is it not true that the language and >examples given by a recent day Rishi ('seer') are perhaps better suited >to portray spirituality ? pranams jay Vivekananda Centre Lodon ------------- Bhagavaan Ramana confirmed the scriptures. What was taught either by Bhagavaan Ramana, Vivekananda, Swami Chinmayananda, Ammanch, peace pilgrim, or even JK or any other modern seers is not different from what was taught in shaastraas. Shaastra provides the true pramaNa to be worshipped as eternal flow of knowledge. From the discussions before about the PramaaNa, it became clear to me, that we need an authentic scriptures that one can turn to and confirm, rather than individual experiences as the basis. Vedas as apourusheya stands for all knowledge, Upanishads as an entity provides the knowledge which otherwise will have no other means to know. "tat twam asi or Aham Brahmaasmi etc. are declarations that Vedas alone are dependable source. The experience of the seers conform that but cannot themselves provide a basis as pramaaNa. Please refer to the discussions earlier pertaining to the PramaaNa. May be Ram can provide a reference to the discussions if some people missed them. The language may be better suited to the current times but role of PramaaNa is more than that. Language provides the interpretation of the vedic declarations interms of individual experiences. That is why we study originals as well as writings of Bhagavaan Ramana or Swami Vivekananda etc. Indivudual experiences and explanations could be contradictory. That is why if one reads JK without proper preparations one can wonder and also get lost. Which happended to me. That is why vedanta insists on proper teacher - a teacher with sampradaaya - a traditional system of teaching - knows where are the pot holes to avoid. Once one learns the shaastraas one can relishe the teaching of Ramana or the teaching of Peace pilgrim or JK with equal relish, since it is the same truth expounded in different language or times. These are interpretations of the scriptures with their own indivudual experiences. PramaaNa is the very means of knowledge which cannot be obtained otherwise. One can have faith in the particular sage or teacher. But that becomes subjective. Final authority can only be Vedas or Upanishad part of the Vedas. Hari Om! Sadananda K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 1999 Report Share Posted February 19, 1999 Greetings: We should be more careful when we make conclusions using intellectual analysis and logical inferences. We should first, respect the traditions, conventions and beliefs and understand the reasoning. Then we can find ways to incorporate the teachings and experiences of saints and sages of recent times using appropriate modifications of definitions. " The entire corpus of the Veda (Sruti), Smriti or the secondary remembered texts and the virtuous acts of the knowers of the Veda, the actions of holy men and what produces contentment to oneself are all rooted in dharma" Manusmriti (Source: Paramarcharya's Book on Vedas). Hindu Scriptures are broadly classified into Sruti (heard and transmitted), Smriti (remembered and collated), Itihaasa (epics), Purana (stories and values) and Aagma (temple related rules for prayers, rituals and construction). Scriptures are distinguished according these rules and conventions. Vedas are called Sruti which literally means heard directly from the voice of God. This is similar to the "Ten Commandments" heard by Moses from the Lord. Itihassas (Ramayana and Mahabharata) and Puranas (Bhagavatam, etc.) are religious thoughts using stories. Smriti on the other hand represent the perception of a Rishi (sage and/or saint) based on knowledge and personal experience. Smritis include the Upanishads, Brahma Sutras and Gita. Some would argue that Upanishads and Gita are parts of Sruti but doesn't diminish their importance and value. By definition, Vedas (Srutis) are beyond comprehension where as Smritis are comprehensible and the perception of a Smriti depends on the level of understanding and spiritual maturity. This may explain why Shankara, Ramanuja and Madhwa interpreted differently the Upanishads, Brahma Sutras and Gita. In conclusion, the sayings and first hand experience of Ramana Maharishi and other saints and sages of this universe are quite valuable and sacred. I believe that it shouldn't really matter what what name should be attributed to their sayings. Names and forms have no meaning in knowing Brahman! Ram Chandran > Vivekananda Centre wrote: > > Namaste > > The information received from the learned members is truly impressive. > > From the general agreement that we have seen so far would it be right > to conclude that > the teachings of say Sri Ramana Maharashi (the sayings that relate to > his first hand experience of the self); should be called Vedas? Or are > Vedas just a set of texts from the previous millennium? I would ask > further is it not true that the language and examples given by a > recent day Rishi ('seer') are perhaps better suited to portray > spirituality ? > > pranams > jay > Vivekananda Centre Lodon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 20, 1999 Report Share Posted February 20, 1999 Greetings Jay: Thanks for the kind remarks about the list and the members deserve most of the credit. The questions that you have raised under items (2) and (3) have been answered by your own explanations in item (1)! No one disputes the greatness of Shri Ramana Maharishi (the title of Maharishi entitles his sayings as a UpaVeda). Let me give an analogy. The original Vedas are like the Constitution and the sayings of recent saints and sages are like the amended constitutional documents. The term "amended constitution" is just a point of reference to distinguish it from the original constitution. Both the constitution and the amended constitution serve equally well! With the change in time, we have new realities, but the old memory can never be erased! It is beyond me to explain why it is so! I hope that this clears your doubts. The works of Vyasa and Shankara (the greatest sages of India) are highly regarded and still they are not considered as Vedas! Vedas have no authorship, and when we introduce the authorship, we bring subjective personal judgements. As you have rightly pointed out in item (1) of posting, we should be more cautious in making our judgement. Also personal experience and documentation of personal experience are two different entitities. Any documentation of personal experience introduces human perception and takes us away from the divine experience! Ram Chandran Burke, VA > Vivekananda Centre wrote: >........... (1) Shruti as ancient scriptures - used as points of reference is a valid point. (otherwise any crack pot may claim to be the recent day sage) - hence our shashtras talk to Shruti, Yukti and Anubhuti as the three forms of verifications that should be used. (2) Yet we seem shy of taking on the teachings of recent day saints with the same validity as the ancient scriptures ---- we still seem to like to say as Sri Ramachandraji pointed out that it is nice valuable and sacred but shy away from calling them purest Shruti. (3) My points are as follows - keeping tradition is fine it keeps us on our guard - hence reference to the teachings of the ancient rishis is perfectly fine. But why do we say that the teachings of recent day saints of the calibre of Sri Ramana is in any way less valid -- is not 'shruti' enough!! The shrutis are apuruashaya - fine but these statements like 'Ahambrahmasmi' -- were experienced by a sage of ancient times who was just like Ramana -- was it not? So when Sri Raman makes assertions of Advaita he too is drawing from the same source - the same apurushaya source. Hence why can we not say that what he has said is the purest of Shrutis?... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.