Guest guest Posted November 10, 1999 Report Share Posted November 10, 1999 <<Jainshankar: <<For knowledge of the self to take place clearly and without doubt study of the Vedas are necessary under a Guru who knows the sampradaya. Thats why Mundaka Upanishad clearly states that the one who knows the limitation of karma and seeks the limitless should approach a Guru who is Shrotriyam ( Well versed in the Scriptures and Sampradaya) and rahmaNishtam (committed to the Vision of the vedas). Dan: Thank you for your words about truth, Jainshankar. I find myself disagreeing with some of what you say. Essentially, the approach you advocate seems to view Truth as culturally bound and dependent on a certain system of linguistics and reasoning. Might there not be a Truth that transcends the limitations of culture, language, and formulae for reasoning? Might not such a Truth be undivided, whereas language, culture, and reasoning depend on the ways that divisions are formulated, maintained, and conveyed? >>J:If the Self can be the Guru then nobody will have a problem because it is available all the time to all. In fact the Seeker being the sought in this case, he/she requires an external agency to point out his/her real nature like the dependence on a mirror to see one's own eyes. D: If the Self Itself is Guru, then Light can arise here, now, and in fact, indeed, is arisen this moment in fullness! Whatever a Seeker needs, is in fact, this moment provided. The mirror is currently present and immediately at hand... >>J: Others might have had some insights but nowhere there is living teaching tradition with proper methodology to teach other than in the Vedic tradition. The truth is alive NOW, eternally but how many know it. The scripture or Vedanta are not Guides but a valid means of knowledge. D: Does your system invalidate the systems used by others? Does your insight invalidate the insights of others? If so, does this not place a boundary around your system keeping some in and others out? Is this not a duality in and of itself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 1999 Report Share Posted November 10, 1999 Dear Jaishankar, At 12:09 PM 11/11/99 IST, you wrote: >"Jaishankar Narayanan" <jaishankar_n > >Jai: >I am not saying that Truth is bound by any culture or language. What I am >saying is that among all the traditions and cultures in the world only one >culture and Religion is based on the vision of Advaita and only one teaching >tradition (Vedic tradition) is there which has a proper methodology of >teaching this truth. I am not belittling other traditions or invalidating >them. But this is the truth. I would like to know who your teacher is... in order to know this as truth, you would have to have studied and practiced in-depth, every single religion and belief system in the world, including the individual beliefs and practices of every person in the world as well. To do this would take perhaps 10,000 lifetimes. Please tell me who your teacher is, he must be the greatest Avatar that the world has ever known. If not, then it is just a belief you hold, not truth. >Further I would like to state that everything including Guru, Vedas and >their teaching are only in Dvaita. But like the dream tiger which makes you >wake upto another reality, the Vedic teaching makes you to wake upto the >reality of Advaita. Till then everything is only Dvaita. So you must be Realized and perceive only Advaita anywhere. Or again, it is only something that was told to you which you believe because somebody said it was truth. Hari OM, Tim ----- Visit "The Core" Website at http://coresite.cjb.net - Music, Poetry, Writings on Nondual Spiritual Topics. Tim's other pages are at http://core.vdirect.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 1999 Report Share Posted November 11, 1999 <<Jainshankar: <<For knowledge of the self to take place clearly and without doubt study of the Vedas are necessary under a Guru who knows the sampradaya. Thats why Mundaka Upanishad clearly states that the one who knows the limitation of karma and seeks the limitless should approach a Guru who is Shrotriyam ( Well versed in the Scriptures and Sampradaya) and BrahmaNishtam (committed to the Vision of the vedas). Dan: Thank you for your words about truth, Jainshankar. I find myself disagreeing with some of what you say. Essentially, the approach you advocate seems to view Truth as culturally bound and dependent on a certain system of linguistics and reasoning. Might there not be a Truth that transcends the limitations of culture, language, and formulae for reasoning? Might not such a Truth be undivided, whereas language, culture, and reasoning depend on the ways that divisions are formulated, maintained, and conveyed? Jai: I am not saying that Truth is bound by any culture or language. What I am saying is that among all the traditions and cultures in the world only one culture and Religion is based on the vision of Advaita and only one teaching tradition (Vedic tradition) is there which has a proper methodology of teaching this truth. I am not belittling other traditions or invalidating them. But this is the truth. >>J:If the Self can be the Guru then nobody will have a problem because it is available all the time to all. In fact the Seeker being the sought in this case, he/she requires an external agency to point out his/her real nature like the dependence on a mirror to see one's own eyes. D: If the Self Itself is Guru, then Light can arise here, now, and in fact, indeed, is arisen this moment in fullness! Whatever a Seeker needs, is in fact, this moment provided. The mirror is currently present and immediately at hand... Jai: What I would like to clarify is the absolute truth is not opposed to anything including the ignorance of the Self. In fact the ignorance w.r.t any object is itself revealed only by this absoulte reality or consciousness. So if it is to be taken as a Guru then there would be no problem and in fact no need for even this list. Every body will be born with self-knowledge. But that's not the case. The Self can be called as a Guru only from the standpoint that it alone reveals and gives existence to all the mental modifications and to also that mental modification which destroys the ignorance of the self. >>J: Others might have had some insights but nowhere there is living teaching tradition with proper methodology to teach other than in the Vedic tradition. The truth is alive NOW, eternally but how many know it. The scripture or Vedanta are not Guides but a valid means of knowledge. D: Does your system invalidate the systems used by others? Does your insight invalidate the insights of others? If so, does this not place a boundary around your system keeping some in and others out? Is this not a duality in and of itself? Jai: I don't validate or invalidate others. I am talking of the truth. If other traditions say the same things as the Vedic tradition then there is nothing to say. But if they claim something different like the ultimate is to go to Heaven and enjoy etc. then I have to disagree. Truth does'nt tolerate many opinions. Truth is one and it has to be enquired into. In the process we have to disagree with the illogical claims of others. Further I would like to state that everything including Guru, Vedas and their teaching are only in Dvaita. But like the dream tiger which makes you wake upto another reality, the Vedic teaching makes you to wake upto the reality of Advaita. Till then everything is only Dvaita. with love and prayers, Jaishankar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 1999 Report Share Posted November 11, 1999 Dear Tim you wrote: "I would like to know who your teacher is... in order to know this as truth, you would have to have studied and practiced in-depth, every single religion and belief system in the world, including the individual beliefs and practices of every person in the world as well. To do this would take perhaps 10,000 lifetimes. Please tell me who your teacher is, he must be the greatest Avatar that the world has ever known. If not, then it is just a belief you hold, not truth." For your information my teacher is Swami Dayananda Saraswathi of Arsha Vidya Gurukulam. As a student of Vedanta I have studied what other religions and belief systems claim and to see whether there is any truth in their claim, in order to make my knowledge of truth doubtless and clear. I dont think individual beliefs can be called a tradition and anyway i dont need to know all the beliefs of all the people to make the statement I made. Anything other then advaita is dvaita and if dvaita is not real then Advaita is the truth. If you can show me any other tradition teaching Advaita other than the Vedic tradition in a systematic way I will be glad to hear that. That only means that the lord has not revealed his knowledge only in India. But even though the lord might have revealed this knowledge to many people in many countries it has been preserved and systematically taught only in India so that people like you can be benefitted by this knowledge in this age of Internet, Cellphone and TV. you wrote "So you must be Realized and perceive only Advaita anywhere. Or again, it is only something that was told to you which you believe because somebody said it was truth." Due to the grace of the lord and my Guru I can now say that I know 'Who I am' in reality and my Guru has also given me the methodology (Sampradaya) to share this Vision to anybody who is interested to gain freedom (Moksha). For your information perceiving dvaita does not negate advaita. Advaita is inspite of the perception of dvaita. The example I gave of a dream tiger is not my own but it is given by Adi Shankara in his Bhagvadgita Bhashyam ( Chapter 2, Verse around 20th, I dont remember exactly) and I think it makes sense. with love and prayers, Jaishankar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 1999 Report Share Posted November 11, 1999 Jaishankar Narayanan wrote: > If you can show me any other tradition teaching Advaita other than > the Vedic tradition in a systematic way I will be glad to hear that. That > only means that the lord has not revealed his knowledge only in India. But > even though the lord might have revealed this knowledge to many people in > many countries it has been preserved and systematically taught only in > India ... hariH OM! from what i have discovered over 37 years of eclectic metaphysical investigation, is that virtually *all* the world religions have non-duality at their esoteric source, and a few have it even exoterically, such as taoism and toltec shamanism. even a cursory exposure to these latter two will bring an instant 'recognition-of-kinship' smile to the face of any unbiased student of advaitam. i personally favor advaita because it is more thorough in its approach and applied psychology, not because it is saying anything intrinsically unique over the other equally valid esoteric teachings. bear in mind that Ramana, Ramakrishna, and Sathya Sai Baba have all profusely endorsed the teachings of Jesus and Gautama Buddha, despite what the orthodox vedic tradition has held over the centuries. it should be further considered how orthodoxy in *any* movement is the product of separative prejudice, exclusivity, and alienation. not that it is wrong for those who may in fact hold orthodox views...it is right for *them*, in where they are on the path, as it is right for *anyone* to hold whatever views they may have in *any* station in life, simply because they're being prompted to learn lessons unique to their particular mental equipment in their unique place in the evolution of their soul. namaste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 1999 Report Share Posted November 11, 1999 just because einstein worked out e=mc2 it does not mean that that knowledge is the sole preserve of the jews,it belongs to all of humanity!!!so also the knowledge of advaita is the property of all of humanity,incidentally it was worked out thoroughly in india.but,there is one thing :suppose there is a university where einstein's thought is assidously cultivated and the best students of his thought are found there,won't it be respected?,it will be!!!so also india is worhty of respect and gets respect,nothing less and nothing more!!!--devendra. >"f. maiello" <egodust >advaitin >advaitin >Re: Re: Jainshankar/truth >Thu, 11 Nov 1999 10:32:28 -0500 > > >Jaishankar Narayanan wrote: > > If you can show me any other tradition teaching Advaita other than > > the Vedic tradition in a systematic way I will be glad to hear that. >That > > only means that the lord has not revealed his knowledge only in India. >But > > even though the lord might have revealed this knowledge to many people >in > > many countries it has been preserved and systematically taught only in > > India ... > >hariH OM! > >from what i have discovered over 37 years >of eclectic metaphysical investigation, is >that virtually *all* the world religions >have non-duality at their esoteric source, >and a few have it even exoterically, such >as taoism and toltec shamanism. even a >cursory exposure to these latter two will >bring an instant 'recognition-of-kinship' >smile to the face of any unbiased student >of advaitam. i personally favor advaita >because it is more thorough in its approach >and applied psychology, not because it is >saying anything intrinsically unique over >the other equally valid esoteric teachings. > >bear in mind that Ramana, Ramakrishna, and >Sathya Sai Baba have all profusely endorsed >the teachings of Jesus and Gautama Buddha, >despite what the orthodox vedic tradition >has held over the centuries. it should be >further considered how orthodoxy in *any* >movement is the product of separative >prejudice, exclusivity, and alienation. >not that it is wrong for those who may in >fact hold orthodox views...it is right for >*them*, in where they are on the path, as >it is right for *anyone* to hold whatever >views they may have in *any* station in >life, simply because they're being prompted >to learn lessons unique to their particular >mental equipment in their unique place in >the evolution of their soul. > >namaste > >------ >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...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 1999 Report Share Posted November 13, 1999 Dear friends "f. maiello" <egodust wrote " "from what i have discovered over 37 years of eclectic metaphysical investigation, is that virtually *all* the world religions have non-duality at their esoteric source, and a few have it even exoterically, such as taoism and toltec shamanism. even a cursory exposure to these latter two will bring an instant 'recognition-of-kinship' smile to the face of any unbiased student of advaitam. i personally favor advaita because it is more thorough in its approach and applied psychology, not because it is saying anything intrinsically unique over the other equally valid esoteric teachings. bear in mind that Ramana, Ramakrishna, and Sathya Sai Baba have all profusely endorsed the teachings of Jesus and Gautama Buddha, despite what the orthodox vedic tradition has held over the centuries." What I would like to out point here is Ramana, Ramakrishna etc. are from the Vedic tradition. Can you name anybody from the Christian tradition or buddhist tradition who has 'endorsed' advaita? The Genius of the Vedic tradition is that it validates all other traditions but the same cannot be said of others. From my interactions with Buddhists, christians etc. I find that they really think that what Buddha, Jesus etc. taught was not advaita. In fact when I talk about Buddhist or Christian tradition I really dont mean Buddha's or Christ's teachings as an Advaitin might look at it, but what the respective Buddists and Christians think that their messiah has taught. We can give the benefit of the doubt and accept Buddha and Christ as jnanis but that does'nt mean we can accept Buddhism and Christianity as it is. You wrote " it should be further considered how orthodoxy in *any* movement is the product of separative prejudice, exclusivity, and alienation." What you say might be true for other aggressive traditions like Christianity which even proselytize. But this is not true wrt the Vedic tradition. The Vedic tradition validates all forms of prayers and worship and even an Orthodox Vaidika does'nt mind keeping a photo of Jesus in his puja room. And Vaidikas dont believe in converting others also. We respect other's right to believe eventhough we may not accept his belief . So the Vedic tradition is different. I think the so called broad minded 'Modern Vedantins' are prejudiced against traditional view points. They have completely distorted traditional way of looking at the Vedas as a Valid means of knowledge (Pramana) and reduced them to a book of speculations and superstitions. This seemingly innocuous thing has done a lot of harm to the people in general. with love and prayers, Jaishankar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 1999 Report Share Posted November 13, 1999 Jaishankar Narayanan wrote: > > What I would like to out point here is Ramana, Ramakrishna etc. are > from the Vedic tradition. i must, in part, respectfully disagree. although they both were in alignment with the esoteric aspects of vedic wisdom, per se, it cannot be said they were strictly abiding by the vedic tradition, at least not in the orthodox sense of the term. Ramakrishna, when he put aside all forms of traditionally oriented vedic worship and ritual, including even temporarily desisting from doing puja to his beloved Kali, and adopted the rituals and forms of worship associated with the Christian, Buddhist, and Islamic traditions, an orthodox follower wouldn't say he was within the purview of vedic tradition. Sri Ramana was even moreso beyond the orthodox vedic tradition, and was frequently criticized by brahmins because of it. for example, he would pet animals, accept food from shudras, proclaim the intrinsic equality of men and women, and that in fact not only were women capable of becoming jnanis, but animals were also! > Can you name anybody from the Christian tradition > or buddhist tradition who has 'endorsed' advaita? The Genius of the Vedic > tradition is that it validates all other traditions but the same cannot be > said of others. From my interactions with Buddhists, christians etc. I find > that they really think that what Buddha, Jesus etc. taught was not advaita. > In fact when I talk about Buddhist or Christian tradition I really dont mean > Buddha's or Christ's teachings as an Advaitin might look at it, but what the > respective Buddists and Christians think that their messiah has taught. We > can give the benefit of the doubt and accept Buddha and Christ as jnanis but > that does'nt mean we can accept Buddhism and Christianity as it is. > i agree with *every word* here. > You wrote > " it should be > further considered how orthodoxy in *any* > movement is the product of separative > prejudice, exclusivity, and alienation." > > What you say might be true for other aggressive traditions like Christianity > which even proselytize. But this is not true wrt the Vedic tradition. The > Vedic tradition validates all forms of prayers and worship and even an > Orthodox Vaidika does'nt mind keeping a photo of Jesus in his puja room. And > Vaidikas dont believe in converting others also. We respect other's right to > believe eventhough we may not accept his belief . So the Vedic tradition is > different. i agree generally. from my perspective, the orthodox vaidakas are the most inclusive of any of the prevailing traditions. however, i'm sure you're aware that there are a number within the vedic tradition as well, who are also isolationistic, and sometimes even aggressively evangelical--at least in forums of philosophical debate. proof of this could be had in reviewing some of the postings in the Advaita-L List archive, which the core members of our Advaitin List had to depart, due to intolerance of our more eclectic ideas... making it in fact necessary for us to have formed this List, thanks to Ramji who undertook the task of doing so. namaste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 15, 1999 Report Share Posted November 15, 1999 Dear Friends Jaishankar Narayanan wrote: " What I would like to out point here is Ramana, Ramakrishna etc. are from the Vedic tradition." f. maiello" <egodust wrote " i must, in part, respectfully disagree. although they both were in alignment with the esoteric aspects of vedic wisdom, per se, it cannot be said they were strictly abiding by the vedic tradition, at least not in the orthodox sense of the term. Ramakrishna, when he put aside all forms of traditionally oriented vedic worship and ritual, including even temporarily desisting from doing puja to his beloved Kali, and adopted the rituals and forms of worship associated with the Christian, Buddhist, and Islamic traditions, an orthodox follower wouldn't say he was within the purview of vedic tradition. Sri Ramana was even moreso beyond the orthodox vedic tradition, and was frequently criticized by brahmins because of it. for example, he would pet animals, accept food from shudras, proclaim the intrinsic equality of men and women, and that in fact not only were women capable of becoming jnanis, but animals were also!" Jai: What I meant by saying they are from Vedic tradition is that they were born and brought up in this tradition. I accept that many of their views were not traditional. But thats not the point here. My point is that those who have come out of this vedic tradition alone have seen that 'truth' has been revealed in all traditions, although I would say not very sytematically. In this context I remember a story. My Guru Swami Dayananda Saraswathi was once having satsangh with his disciples when he asked them why they want to be hindus? or I think 'why they like hinduism?'. One student then gave a very interesting answer. He said beacuse 'It is the only religion which teaches 'you are not a Hindu finally'. I think this sums up this tradition. It is the only tradition which lets you grow out of all traditions. Reg. 'women capable of becoming jnanis' I think the tradition is not saying they cannot become. In fact in the Bhagavad Gita, Bhagavan clearly states that 'women, shudras etc. can become jnanis.' Jnana is common to all who are qualified to receive it. Reg. animals I think I have to disagree with Ramana if he had said so. Frank wrote " i agree generally. from my perspective, the orthodox vaidakas are the most inclusive of any of the prevailing traditions. however, i'm sure you're aware that there are a number within the vedic tradition as well, who are also isolationistic, and sometimes even aggressively evangelical--at least in forums of philosophical debate. proof of this could be had in reviewing some of the postings in the Advaita-L List archive, which the core members of our Advaitin List had to depart, due to intolerance of our more eclectic ideas... making it in fact necessary for us to have formed this List, thanks to Ramji who undertook the task of doing so." Jai : I agree there are individuals who are very attached to what they believe in and are aggressive. But I think they are a minority and not significant in number. As a tradition the Vedic tradition is inclusive but the inclusive is also made exclusive when it has to confront and faces threat from exclusive traditions. with love and prayers, Jaishankar Harihi Om. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 18, 1999 Report Share Posted November 18, 1999 are you saying that einstein dipped in to a pool of knowledge belonging to the Absolute. I'll take that as a yes and go on with my question. Is the amount of knowledge you grasp in direct relation with how in tune you are. was Einstein brilliant because he was closer to the Absolute then most? Is it an "evolution" thing meaning that as time goes on we get closer to the Absolute or was the primitive man as close to the Absolute as we are? Thanks, Anthony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 18, 1999 Report Share Posted November 18, 1999 On 11/18/99 at 8:45 PM Avj999 wrote: >Avj999 > > are you saying that einstein dipped in to a pool of knowledge belonging to >the Absolute. I'll take that as a yes and go on with my question. Is the >amount of knowledge you grasp in direct relation with how in tune you are. >was Einstein brilliant because he was closer to the Absolute then most? Is >it an "evolution" thing meaning that as time goes on we get closer to the >Absolute or was the primitive man as close to the Absolute as we are? > Thanks, > Anthony ------ "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honours the servant and has forgotten the gift." Albert Einstein ---- In principle everyone is closer than close to the Absolute. What differs is the amount of ignorance / attachment; In the case of Einstein it isn't difficult to assume he was thoroughly aware of the relative nature of everything perceived so what remains as a support? Only the Absolute without support. Not a matter of brilliance per se (it is rumored his wife actively participated) but a matter of taking the consequence of one's discoveries. So called primitives aren't less intelligent than the so called civilized but the primitives apparently had fewer desires so didn't start exploring technology. Circumstantial evidence that Kundalini has been known on all continents suggests that contentment was the main reason why primitives remained primitives; a rather astonishing story, a warning to the dangers of Western society, describing the arising of attachment and its dire consequences (like the loss of spontaneity and feeling "connected" to Spirit and nature) was written in the thirties by a chief from a tribe at one of the Polynesian islands who, speaking today, would probably have been labeled as "enlightened master". That was relating to Western society in the beginning of the thirties; has attachment since then decreased or increased? Regarding evolution, would it make a substantial difference if one knows ten descriptions for the Absolute or a hundred? Jan 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.