Guest guest Posted October 8, 1999 Report Share Posted October 8, 1999 The answer is obviously NO because (1) the first person who realized the SELF had no scriptures to read, and (2) we will never have a correct definition of a good scripture. Divine knowledge is available everywhere in nature and through the study of relationships between entities of the universe. Divine knowledge can be gathered through Faith, Hope and LOVE in every land and culture. Many sufis and great scientists/mathematicians (e.g. Newton, Einstein, Goedel, Ramanujan) have also experienced the ONE. Good scriptures can be a great help but never the only WAY. The Ultimate Reality is vaster than everything we know. Roshan L. Sharma <rsharma Roshan L. Sharma <rsharma 214-691-6790 <voice> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 1999 Report Share Posted October 10, 1999 Dear Friends, Roshan L. Sharma says ' Are scriptures the only road to self-realization? The answer is obviously NO because (1) the first person who realized the SELF had no scriptures to read, and (2) we will never have a correct definition of a good scripture. Divine knowledge is available everywhere in nature and through the study of relationships between entities of the universe. Divine knowledge can be gathered through Faith, Hope and LOVE in every land and culture. Many sufis and great scientists/mathematicians (e.g. Newton, Einstein, Goedel, Ramanujan) have also experienced the ONE. Good scriptures can be a great help but never the only WAY. The Ultimate Reality is vaster than everything we know.' I would like to say that the answer is YES. Scriptures are the only way to gain self-knowledge. Why? Because we accept that the basic problem being one of ignorance it can only be solved by knowledge. And knowledge never takes place without a valid means of knowledge. Without a valid means of knowledge there can never be any knowledge. Can we know any color without using our eyes? So if I say, to see color the only way is to use one's eye, is it correct or not? Similarly Scriptures are the only valid means of knowledge to know my true nature correctly. Now regarding the first person, in our tradition the first person to know is of course Isvara or God. The lord is the first Parent and also the First Guru. He or She being all-knowing this Self-knowledge also is included in the Lord's All-knowledge. So the first person does'nt need any scripture. In fact the Scriptures came from the Lord. Thats why we have the Sloka 'Sadasivasamaarambhaam Sankaraachaaryamadhyamaam asmadaarchaaryaparyantaam Vande Guruparamparaam. Which means, I salute the lineage of teachers Beginning with Shiva, (Linked by) Shankaracharya in the middle and extending upto my own teacher. Regarding the correct definition of Scripture, thats why we have Mimaamsaa or analyses of the Shastras to show that really they are a valid means of knowledge. I would recommend Shri. Roshan and others who think the same way to read the portion titled 'How do we look at the Vedas' in my Website http://members.xoom.com/JaishankarN Faith, hope and love cannot be considered as a means of knowledge. They are the qualifications for a person to use Scripture as a means of knowledge to gain Self-knowledge. Regarding other saints, Wherever this Vedic knowledge has been revealed it is to be considered a scripture. Regarding Scientists like Newton, they might have had an insight. But just an insight cannot be called a clear knowledge. We can only say they had a hunch. The Ultimate reality is indeed vaster than everything we know, but the ignorance of that reality can only go by gaining knowledge for which the only means of knowledge is the Scripture. I don't know whether Shri. Roshan has studied our scriptures properly. In case he has not studied I think it is similar to a case of rejecting a book even before opening the cover page. with love and prayers, Jaishankar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 1999 Report Share Posted October 10, 1999 jaishankar_n wrote: > > Roshan L. Sharma says ' > Are scriptures the only road to self-realization? > > > I would like to say that the answer is YES. Scriptures are the only way > to gain self-knowledge. Why? Because we accept that the basic problem being > one of ignorance it can only be solved by knowledge. And knowledge never > takes place without a valid means of knowledge. Without a valid means of > knowledge there can never be any knowledge. Can we know any color without > using our eyes? So if I say, to see color the only way is to use one's eye, > is it correct or not? Similarly Scriptures are the only valid means of > knowledge to know my true nature correctly. > jaishankar_n wrote: > > Roshan L. Sharma says ' > Are scriptures the only road to self-realization? > > > I would like to say that the answer is YES. Scriptures are the only way > to gain self-knowledge. Why? Because we accept that the basic problem being > one of ignorance it can only be solved by knowledge. And knowledge never > takes place without a valid means of knowledge. Without a valid means of > knowledge there can never be any knowledge. Can we know any color without > using our eyes? So if I say, to see color the only way is to use one's eye, > is it correct or not? Similarly Scriptures are the only valid means of > knowledge to know my true nature correctly. > hariH OM! i agree that knowledge is indispensable to eventual atmasakshat in moksha, but disagree in the particular sense that scriptural documents are needed to gain such knowledge. in my case, everything i learned was the result of the unique condition of being endowed with a certain sensitivity and attitude of inquiry, and bringing this to an act of living solitary for most of 7 years in the wilderness. after the knowledge was had, i then sought scriptural documentation from any and all sources that i could find that would corroborate what i discovered. the argument could be made that i had studied such scriptures in previous lives, having it thus stored in the subconscious. however, as true as this may be, doesn't nix the idea that such knowledge is yet obtainable through one's independent faculties of reason and insight. such knowledge is archetypal; existing in mahamahat and cidakasa; thus not specific to any time, race, or culture; thus not merely/exclusively accessible in phenomenal form. anyone with the right bhavana can realize it anywhere and anytime, with or without scriptural documentation. this jnana is already alive and well in the cave of the Heart. **** jaishankar_n wrote: > How does anybody know whether Ramana studied the scriptures or not?. In > fact what we hear is that he used to listen to Shankara Bhasyam read by > Jagadeeswara Shastrigal. He has also translated many works of Shankara and > the Bhagavad gita. So he has indeed studied the shastras. The other point > is how can anybody judge whether it was necessary for him or not? May be it > was necessary. So we can't make statements like this. according to the biographies, and even in the Maharshi's own recounting of his upbringing, he was only marginally exposed to the bible [taught to him in school], and through his own initiative, his reading about the 63 saivite saints in the classic, Periapuranam. as such, he actually never relied upon the vedic sastras insofar as their contributing toward his achieving mukthi at age 17. interestingly, a form of the atmavichara method mysteriously/automatically came to him upon his being inexplicably self-guided/ushered through a mock-death of his mortal coil, whereupon he discovered the truth of the substratum Self underlying his body-mind complex. he had no formal training in such sophisticated vichara marga, yet it was availed to him at the exact moment it was needed the most, affording him the paramount lesson of the immutable Self. this suggests a previous exposure, training, and expertise in the sastras and yogamargas in former lifetimes. his studying these in the present incarnation only took place *after* his awakening to the Self [at age 17], whereupon [as you alluded to] he was the scriptural student of Ganapati Muni; while simultaneously the Muni was his *spiritual* student. :-) namaste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 1999 Report Share Posted October 11, 1999 Dear Friends, f. maiello wrote : i agree that knowledge is indispensable to eventual atmasakshat in moksha, but disagree in the particular sense that scriptural documents are needed to gain such knowledge. in my case, everything i learned was the result of the unique condition of being endowed with a certain sensitivity and attitude of inquiry, and bringing this to an act of living solitary for most of 7 years in the wilderness. after the knowledge was had, i then sought scriptural documentation from any and all sources that i could find that would corroborate what i discovered. the argument could be made that i had studied such scriptures in previous lives, having it thus stored in the subconscious. however, as true as this may be, doesn't nix the idea that such knowledge is yet obtainable through one's independent faculties of reason and insight. such knowledge is archetypal; existing in mahamahat and cidakasa; thus not specific to any time, race, or culture; thus not merely/exclusively accessible in phenomenal form. anyone with the right bhavana can realize it anywhere and anytime, with or without scriptural documentation. this jnana is already alive and well in the cave of the Heart. I want to know what knowledge he gained in his solitary living? If he says that he gained the knowledge 'I am a Conscious being or Consciousness' then I agree that for that knowledge there is no need of any scriptures. The fact that I am a conscious being can be arrived at by anybody who does some enquiry into what is 'I' and what is 'This' (Drg-Drshya Viveka or Atma-Anatma Viveka). But one cannot not arrive at the fact that there is only one consciousness and that consciousness is the only truth and it is limitless without the Scripture or Vedanta. Vedanta is the only valid means of knowledge which can reveal the Self as Satyam (Existence not conditioned by time,space and causation), Jnanam (Knowledge or consciousness not conditioned by the Knower-Known divide ) and anantam (Limitless). If this fact is so obvious then so many Nyaya-Vishesika, Sankya-Yoga and Bouddha Philosophers would'nt have concluded differently. All of them either say there are many consciousnesses or there is no Consciousness at all(Shunyam). So when conflicting ideas are floating around how one can conclude which is correct. Thats why we need scripture (Vedanta). The fact that Shri. f. maiello required Scripture to corroborate his insight itself proves that without scriptural study one's knowledge cannot be free of doubt and vagueness. So in a sense he is contradicting himself. I dont want to continue discussing whether Ramana required Vedanta Study because I think Ramana being a highly respected person, we can accept him as a Jnani without going into such details. And Analysing such a person can also hurt many of his devotees. So it is better just do a Namaskara to him and accept him as a jnani. But what we are discussing is the rule and not the exception, is to be kept in mind. One should not present the exception as though it is the rule. Shri. mmsudan wrote { Saint Kabir has very beautifully said:- "Pothi Par Par Jag Mua Pandit Bana na Koye, Adhai Akhar Prem ka para to Pandit Hoi" People in the world have died learning books whole of there life but could not become learned. Those who have studied two and Half word of Love( Prem when written in Hindi is two and half word) and have become learned. The study of scripture alone is not enough. that's how Shankra starts his Bhaj Govindam. "Oh, Fool ! Oh, ignoramus ! Grammar rules (in fact all your secular learning) will not come to your rescue when death knocks to snatch you away. Instead of wasting away the precious span of your life in a futile manner, turn to and seek Govinda, who alone can save you from the jaws of life and death". Swamiji in his commentary on Katha Upanishad Mantra 2.23 says:- "Nayamatma pravacanena labhyo na medhaya no bahuna srutena: Yamaevaisa vrunute tena labhyah tasyaisa atma vivrnute tanum svam" This Atman cannot be attained by study of the scriptures, nor by sharp intellect, nor by much hearing: by him is It attained whom It chooses-- to him this Atman reveal its own(true) form. } I say all these quotations are out of context. Quoting them in the context of studying Vedanta shastra is highly misleading. What Shankara and other saints and the Upanishad Vakya mean is the Study of Karma Khanda which is also scripture but not jnana Khanda or Vedanta . Performing Karma with aim of attaining karmaPhala alone wont give Moksha. Shankara never says anywhere that study of vedanta wont give Moksha. On the contrary he repeats like a parrot that Vedanta Shravanam (Listening to Vedanta from a Guru), mananam (Clearing away of doubts using logic) and Nidhiddhyasanam (recollection of Vedanta Vakyas to get rid of habitual conditioning and not jsut meditation) are the only way to gain Moksha. Here one has to understand that Mananam and Nidhidhyasanam are not independent of Vedanta Shravanam and they are only a part of Shravanam and it alone can lead to the Knowledge of the Self. For a highly qualified student Shravanam alone is enough. Further Prof V.Krishnamurthy says "The humility needed is exemplified by the Sruti Herself (collectively standing for all the vedas). The Divine Mother is the Mother of the universe. Sruti falls at the feet of the Divine Mother and her head touches the divine feet. The dust of the divine feet is crimson in color since the feet of the Mother is always painted that way. The crimson dust sticks to the head of Lady Sruti exactly at the parting of the hair. Thus arises the name (from lalitA-sahasra-nAma): Sruti-sImanta-sindUrI-kRta-pAdAbja-dhUlikA meaning, the Divinity, the dust of whose lotus feet has crimson-colored the parting of the hair on the head of Sruti. The dust of the divine feet on the head of Sruti is an indication that even though Sruti may be of vast content and knowledge, Her knowledge of the Divine Mother is only a speck!" The last sentence 'Her knowledge of the Divine Mother is only a speck!' is the Professor's own opinion and it is wrong. In the meaning of 'Sruti-sImanta-sindUrI-kRta-pAdAbja-dhUlikA' this opinion does'nt occur. In fact I would like to remind Prof VK that in the same Lalitha Sahasranam after a few more namas, occurs a nama 'Sarva-Vedanta-SamVedya'. What it means is that the Divine Mother's Swarupa or the real nature is well known by the study of Vedanta Vakyas or Upanishads. So before jumping into conclusions one should first see what is said before and after (Purva-Apara) a particular statement. with love and prayers, Jaishankar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 11, 1999 Report Share Posted October 11, 1999 I may be jumping in the middle of discussions. I used to believe that scirpture are not necessory to establish that Brahman alone is there and I am that sat chit ananda. I had a very enlightening discussions with Swami Atmananda in this list serve. Shree swamiji convinced me the need of the scriptures. Perhaps Ram can provide referece to that for those who would like review the discussion related to Shruthi pamaNaat. Hari Om! Sadananda >jaishankar_n >advaitin >advaitin > Re: Are scriptures the only road to self-realization? >11 Oct 1999 13:13:58 -0000 > >Dear Friends, > >f. maiello wrote : > >i agree that knowledge is indispensable to eventual >atmasakshat in moksha, but disagree in the particular >sense that scriptural documents are needed to gain >such knowledge. > >in my case, everything i learned was the result of >the unique condition of being endowed with a certain >sensitivity and attitude of inquiry, and bringing this >to an act of living solitary for most of 7 years in the >wilderness. after the knowledge was had, i then sought >scriptural documentation from any and all sources that >i could find that would corroborate what i discovered. > >the argument could be made that i had studied such >scriptures in previous lives, having it thus stored >in the subconscious. however, as true as this may be, >doesn't nix the idea that such knowledge is yet obtainable >through one's independent faculties of reason and insight. >such knowledge is archetypal; existing in mahamahat and >cidakasa; thus not specific to any time, race, or culture; >thus not merely/exclusively accessible in phenomenal form. >anyone with the right bhavana can realize it anywhere and >anytime, with or without scriptural documentation. this >jnana is already alive and well in the cave of the Heart. > >I want to know what knowledge he gained in his solitary living? If he says >that he gained the knowledge 'I am a Conscious being or Consciousness' then >I agree that for that knowledge there is no need of any scriptures. The >fact that I am a conscious being can be arrived at by anybody who does some >enquiry into what is 'I' and what is 'This' (Drg-Drshya Viveka or >Atma-Anatma Viveka). But one cannot not arrive at the fact that there is >only one consciousness > and that consciousness is the only truth and it is limitless without the >Scripture or Vedanta. Vedanta is the only valid means of knowledge which >can reveal the Self as Satyam (Existence not conditioned by time,space and >causation), Jnanam (Knowledge or consciousness not conditioned > by the Knower-Known divide ) and anantam (Limitless). If this fact is so >obvious then so many Nyaya-Vishesika, Sankya-Yoga and Bouddha Philosophers >would'nt have concluded differently. All of them either say there are many >consciousnesses or there is no Consciousness at all(Shunyam). So when >conflicting ideas are floating around how one can conclude which is >correct. > Thats why we need scripture (Vedanta). The fact that Shri. f. maiello >required Scripture to corroborate his insight itself proves that without >scriptural study one's knowledge cannot be free of doubt and vagueness. So >in a sense he is contradicting himself. > > I dont want to continue discussing whether Ramana required Vedanta Study >because I think Ramana being a highly respected person, we can accept him >as a Jnani without going into such details. And Analysing such a person can >also hurt > many of his devotees. So it is better just do a Namaskara to him and >accept him > as a jnani. But what we are discussing is the rule and not the exception, >is to be kept in mind. One should not present the exception as though it is >the rule. > > Shri. mmsudan wrote > > { Saint Kabir has very beautifully said:- > > "Pothi Par Par Jag Mua Pandit Bana na Koye, Adhai Akhar Prem ka para to >Pandit Hoi" > > People in the world have died learning books whole of there life but >could not > become learned. Those who have studied two and Half word of Love( Prem >when > written in Hindi is two and half word) and have become learned. > > The study of scripture alone is not enough. that's how Shankra starts his >Bhaj Govindam. > > "Oh, Fool ! Oh, ignoramus ! Grammar rules (in fact all your secular >learning) > will not come to your rescue when death knocks to snatch you away. >Instead of > wasting away the precious span of your life in a futile > manner, turn to and seek Govinda, who alone can save you from the jaws of >life > and death". > > Swamiji in his commentary on Katha Upanishad Mantra 2.23 >says:- > >"Nayamatma pravacanena labhyo na medhaya no bahuna srutena: >Yamaevaisa vrunute tena labhyah tasyaisa atma vivrnute tanum svam" > >This Atman cannot be attained by study of the scriptures, nor by sharp >intellect, nor by much hearing: by him is It attained whom It chooses-- to >him >this Atman reveal its own(true) form. } > > I say all these quotations are out of context. Quoting them in the >context of studying Vedanta shastra is highly misleading. What Shankara and >other saints and the Upanishad Vakya mean is the Study of Karma Khanda >which is also scripture but not jnana Khanda or Vedanta . Performing Karma >with aim of attaining karmaPhala alone wont give Moksha. Shankara never >says anywhere that study of vedanta wont give Moksha. > On the contrary he repeats like a parrot that Vedanta Shravanam >(Listening to Vedanta from a Guru), mananam (Clearing away of doubts using >logic) and Nidhiddhyasanam (recollection of Vedanta Vakyas to get rid of >habitual conditioning and not jsut meditation) are the only way to gain >Moksha. > Here one has to understand that Mananam and Nidhidhyasanam are > not independent of Vedanta Shravanam and they are only a part of >Shravanam and it alone can lead to the Knowledge of the Self. For a highly >qualified student Shravanam alone is enough. > >Further > Prof V.Krishnamurthy says > >"The humility needed is exemplified by the Sruti Herself >(collectively standing for all the vedas). The Divine Mother is the Mother >of the universe. Sruti falls at the feet of the Divine Mother and her head >touches the divine feet. The dust of the divine feet is crimson in color >since the feet of the Mother is always painted that way. The crimson dust >sticks to the head of Lady Sruti exactly at the parting of the hair. Thus >arises the name (from lalitA-sahasra-nAma): >Sruti-sImanta-sindUrI-kRta-pAdAbja-dhUlikA >meaning, the Divinity, the dust of whose lotus feet has crimson-colored >the parting of the hair on the head of Sruti. The dust of the divine feet >on the head of Sruti is an indication that even though Sruti may be of >vast content and knowledge, Her knowledge of the Divine Mother is only a >speck!" > >The last sentence 'Her knowledge of the Divine Mother is only a speck!' is >the Professor's own opinion and it is wrong. In the meaning of >'Sruti-sImanta-sindUrI-kRta-pAdAbja-dhUlikA' this opinion does'nt occur. In >fact I would like to remind Prof VK that in the same Lalitha Sahasranam >after a few more namas, occurs a nama 'Sarva-Vedanta-SamVedya'. What it >means is that the Divine Mother's Swarupa or the real nature is well known >by the study of Vedanta Vakyas or Upanishads. So before jumping into >conclusions one should first see what is said before and after >(Purva-Apara) a particular statement. > >with love and prayers, > >Jaishankar. > > > > >------ >Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy >focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available >at: /viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin >Mirror Archive Site: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > ><< text3.html >> 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.