Veda

[Guest guest]

Namaskar

 

This list is truly unique and impressive due to the sincere efforts of all to

further their understanding of the most fruitful subject - Vedanta. Many of the

list members seem inspired by the recent day sages of Vedanta like Ramana, etc.

This is indeed a sign of true love of the subject. The individuals are keen to

progress hence they wish to use the best instrument they can find "A sage

established in realisation who can perhaps lead us to realisation too!" The love

shown towards these sages also shows true devotion to the subject. We can talk

as much Advaita as we like - at the end of the day we need to relate to a person

who is established in Advaita. (The ancient scriptures called this guru-shishya

parampara). May the grace of our gurus descend on all.

 

Sorry for the digression but most of the messages are very touching!

 

Coming back to my quest: Why can we not call the teachings of a recent day sage

like 'Ramana' purest of Vedas?

 

The response from Sadanandji seems to suggest that statements like Ahambrahmasmi

etc which comes from the Shruti and are kind of benchmark of the ancient shrutis

hence we need them as point of reference. The response from Ramchandraji is a

good analysis of the scriptures in general and says the teachings and

experiences of someone like 'Sri Ramana are very valuable and sacred.'

 

(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?

 

Please realise that I am not trying to start a cult in the name of this or that

recent day sage - I am just trying to give greater emphasis to their teachings.

 

pranams

jay

Vivekananda Centre London

[Guest guest]

>jay Vivekananda Centre London wrote:

> We can talk as much Advaita as we like - at the end of the day we need

>to relate >to a person who is established in Advaita. (The ancient

>scriptures called this >guru-shishya parampara). May the grace of our

>gurus descend on all. Sorry for >the digression but most of the

>messages are very touching!

 

Jay - what you say is right. But in the gurushishya parampara, no guru

claims that the knowledge is his. As discussed in Kena, after teaching,

the guru says to the student - "this is what I have learned from my

teacher". Even Krishna before discussing, attributes to the source of

knowledge to the Rishiies - "RushibhiH bahudaa geetam". After realization

the sishya has two obligations -One to Guru and one to Shaastra. As

exemplified by the student in the VivekachuuDaamaNi

Respect for the teacher and respect for the shaastra remains.

> Coming back to my >quest: Why can we not call the teachings of a

recent day sage like 'Ramana' >purest of Vedas? The response from

Sadanandji seems to suggest that >statements like Ahambrahmasmi etc which

comes from the Shruti >and are kind of >benchmark of the ancient shrutis

hence we need them as point of >reference. The >response from

Ramchandraji is a good analysis of the scriptures >in general and >says

the teachings and experiences of someone like 'Sri Ramana >are very

>valuable and sacred.' (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 ---

-----------

 

I donot think so - we infact intensely study as well as teach in our

classes and study groups the prakaraNa Granthaas - Not only Shankara's

texts such as VivekachuuDaamani, aatma bhodha, bhajagovindam, Hymes to

Dakshanamuurty etc, we do discuss elaborately the texts - Lakshmi Dhara

kavii's "advaita makaranada", Bhavagaan Ramanas, "Upadesha Saara" and

"Satdarshan" etc. We also recommend individual study of " I am that" of

Nisargadatta Maharaj and "Complete works" by Swami Vivekananda.

 

Geeta, of course forms a basis as a yoga shaastra and valid at all times

since we can easily identify ourselves with Arjuna and the day to day

battles we have to fight than with the Hymaalayan bound students of the

Upanishads.

 

The fact remains that scriptures provide the pramana and the seers validate

the truth expounded in the scriptures and not the other way- Hence the

Study of the science, shaastra, becomes always important and confirmation

by the saints that we can relate to always gives the "faith" that one

needs, that Shrii Ramachandran discussed earlier.

 

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!!

 

I donot think so - shruti, actually implies shaastra - beyond individual

experiences per sec. It is a common base for everyone to establish the

frame of reference. Faith on the individual experience rests on the faith

on that individual. To the degree that these seers are recognized

universally to that degree their faith in their words is established.

For every disciple, his teacher is great. There is no problem if the

discussion is limited to the circle of his disciples. But when it comes to

discussion among students from different teachers, we need a reference that

both can accept - ultimately scriptures alone provide the correct reference

beyond individuals seers. Ultimately we can take only those words from any

teacher that is echoed by Sruti - Hence Brahma suutra's emphatic statement-

"shruti pramaanaat" - as the only means of establishing the truth.

> 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? Please >realise that I am not trying to start a cult in the

>name of this or that recent day >sage - I am just trying to give greater

>emphasis to their teachings. pranams jay >Vivekananda Centre London

 

Yes, Bhagavan Ramana does not say what I have gained is something new

either in his approach or in the goal. In fact VivekachuuDaamani was his

favorite prakraNa book. Thus, He confirmed the scriptures that "it is

indeed true, indeed true" .

His experience only establishes further faith in the scriptural

declaration. What he said is not purest Sruti what he said was

confirmation of the purest shruti's teaching, Shruti being the pramaana.

Not only him, even what JK talks about the nature of reality is not

different from what shruti says although he denounces the traditions as

another conditioning. Readers can get misguided by the superficial

statements if they do not understand what he really means. That is why

the need of an independent shruti as pramaana, and not the individual

experiences or teachings even though we use their teaching as the helping

tools, provided we have a faith in that particular teacher.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623