the disease and the symptom

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

How do we deal with ignorance (avidyA)?

 

We will have a chance to destroy ignorance if we know what

and where ignorance is. It is like the present-day war

against terrorism. The enemy cannot be pinpointed.

 

However, there are many outgrowths of ignorance which can be

tackled. Apart from the misery that we go through because of

avidyA, the one single evidence that we are engulfed in avidyA

is the presence of the ego. As long as we have avidyA, the ego

keeps raising its ugly head.

 

So, we may say avidyA is the disease and the raise of the ego

is the symptom of the disease. Tackling the ego is simply treating

the symptoms only while the disease remains untreated. If we treat

the disease, the symptom will not show up any more. In the long

run, we are better off eradicating the disease rather than looking

at the symptom.

 

The disease can be eradicated by Knowledge alone and not by

action. May be I am biased here, but the Knowledge of Atman,

brahmavidyA, is contained only in the upanishads.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

---

[Guest guest]

>

> The disease can be eradicated by Knowledge alone and not by

> action. May be I am biased here, but the Knowledge of Atman,

> brahmavidyA, is contained only in the upanishads.

 

But you go back to the world, have your living to make, your life to

lead. Personality, though from your standpoint an illusion, makes

life in the world more interesting, even entertaining.

 

"Such a one is a superman. He amuses himself with friends, with women

and with chariots."

Mart.

[Guest guest]

*Only* in the Upanishads? That's a very extreme statement. How many

other books must you read before you can establish that?

 

At 06:21 PM 11/15/01 +0000, big_mart_98 wrote:

> >

> > The disease can be eradicated by Knowledge alone and not by

> > action. May be I am biased here, but the Knowledge of Atman,

> > brahmavidyA, is contained only in the upanishads.

>

>But you go back to the world, have your living to make, your life to

>lead. Personality, though from your standpoint an illusion, makes

>life in the world more interesting, even entertaining.

>

>"Such a one is a superman. He amuses himself with friends, with women

>and with chariots."

> Mart.

[Guest guest]

> action. May be I am biased here, but the Knowledge of Atman,

> brahmavidyA, is contained only in the upanishads.

>

> Regards

> Gummuluru Murthy

 

Namaste Gummuluru-Ji,

 

I would put it as:

"The ONLY source of brahmavidya is shruti".

 

Then one has to face the question, what exactly is

shruti ? And this takes us back to the discussion

we had a while ago .....

 

Best regards and Best Wishes on the ocassion of

Diwali

 

Shrinivas

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

It does sound like an extreme statement! However, if we

consider just the 4 'mahaa-vaakya'-s ["great statements"], regarded as

the essence of the upanishads, what are their closest equivalents in

any other book available to humanity?

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

 

advaitin, Gregory Goode <goode@D...> wrote:

> *Only* in the Upanishads? That's a very extreme statement. How

many

> other books must you read before you can establish that?

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

What Sri Gummuluru pointed out in his posting needs to be understood

with the proper perspective. The concept of Brahman and also

'Brahma Vidya' are originally from the Upanishads and I believe that

all of us in this list have no disagreement on this assertion.

Elaborations, extensions and greater expositions have been followed in

later books. Gregji is quite right that such facts are available in

many modern books, websites and through other media. Our sages and

saints never claimed 'copyrights' for good reasons and many modern

'jnanis' even forget (knowingly or unknowingly) to mention on the

origin of those concepts.

 

We all agree that there is 'one and only' source for everything that

we know,learn and yet to learn - The Brahman. The names and forms of

Brahman include the 'Upanishads' and an infinite array of information

sources consisting of books, video, Internet, etc. Finally the

Self-realization is an experience beyond all concepts and consequently

it is beyond human conceptualization!

 

warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

> advaitin, Gregory Goode <goode@D...> wrote:

> > *Only* in the Upanishads? That's a very extreme statement. How

> many

> > other books must you read before you can establish that?

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Gummuluru Murthy wrote:

> [...]

>

> The disease can be eradicated by Knowledge alone and not by

> action. May be I am biased here, but the Knowledge of Atman,

> brahmavidyA, is contained only in the upanishads.

>

 

namaste.

 

The above portion of my post seems to have caused some concern.

The purpose of my original post is to separate the disease and

the symptom and my above statement is only a minor part of that

post. I was trying to show in that post that treatment of the

disease is more important than looking at a cure for the symptoms.

Somehow, that point seems to have been lost in the latter

statement quoted above.

 

Now, with regard to statement quoted above, that is not a wrong

statement. The only source of our Knowledge is the upanishads.

There might have been many bhAShyA-s, many prakaraNa granthA-s,

many modern-day interpretations or new books. But they all derive

their knowledge from the upanishads.

 

shri shankara says in His famous debate with ManDana Mishra that

the Knowledge contained in the upanishads is not there in any other

source. If it is there, and if that Knowledge can be derived from

that other source, then the upanishads will be considered redundant

which they are not, shri shankara says.

 

Ultimately for AtmavidyA, upanishads cannot be treated as requisite

either. It is manana, nidhidhyAsana which leads to AtmavidyA, not

the upanishads.

 

shri RamaNa, who has not studied the upanishads, says that He must

have in His previous lives gone through what the sages have visualized

and presented their visualization as upanishads.

 

Further, upanishads are not to be treated as textbooks in print, but

as sound recordings of the visualization of Atman. It is only because

of our present-day preoccupation with reading format of knowledge-

acquisition that we equate upanishads to books to be read. Upanishads

are teachings of AtmavidyA by a guru to the disciples in oral form.

If we accept that, there is no difficulty in saying the upanishads

as the ultimate Knowledge.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

--- sunderh wrote:

> Namaste,

>

> It does sound like an extreme statement!

> However, if we

> consider just the 4 'mahaa-vaakya'-s ["great

> statements"], regarded as

> the essence of the upanishads, what are their

> closest equivalents in

> any other book available to humanity?

 

Namaste Sunder,

 

I give talks on the Mahaavaakyas and St John's Gospel

to Christians and/or Interfaith groups and use the

following links which I note here for your interest:

 

Prajn~aanam Brahma Consciousness is Brahman

 

St John 1.2 The same was in the beginning with God.

 

Aham Brahmaasmi I am Brahman

St John 14.6 'I am the way, the truth and the life.

No man cometh to the Father except by me.'

 

 

Tattvamasi Thou art that

 

St John 1.9 That was the true light which lighteth

any man that cometh into the world.

 

 

Ayamaatmaa Brahma Brahman is the Self.

St John 10v30 I and my father are one.

14.30 'And that day ye shall know that I am in the

Father and the Father in me.'

 

Surely this is a magnificent anubhavavaakya

 

I have some thirty or so other refs. which we can then

discuss and place in the relevant Mahaavaakya.

 

I have done the same with Sufi poetry and the Koran

but these are the limits of my study.

I do not mean the above to oppose but to be a

contribution for reflection. I hope they are of some

use.

Om sri ram

Ken Knight

 

 

 

 

 

Find the one for you at Personals

http://personals.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ken,

 

Thank you very much, Ken. That was very helpful. It would

certainly enhance the discussions when you post the other references

and commentaries on them.

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

advaitin, ken knight <hilken_98@Y...> wrote:

> I give talks on the Mahaavaakyas and St John's Gospel

> to Christians and/or Interfaith groups and use the

> following links which I note here for your interest:

>

> Prajn~aanam Brahma Consciousness is Brahman

>

> St John 1.2 The same was in the beginning with God.

>

> Aham Brahmaasmi I am Brahman

> St John 14.6 'I am the way, the truth and the life.

> No man cometh to the Father except by me.'

>

>

> Tattvamasi Thou art that

>

> St John 1.9 That was the true light which lighteth

> any man that cometh into the world.

>

>

> Ayamaatmaa Brahma Brahman is the Self.

> St John 10v30 I and my father are one.

> 14.30 'And that day ye shall know that I am in the

> Father and the Father in me.'

>

> Surely this is a magnificent anubhavavaakya

>

> I have some thirty or so other refs. which we can then

> discuss and place in the relevant Mahaavaakya.

[Guest guest]

-

>

> I give talks on the Mahaavaakyas and St John's Gospel

> to Christians and/or Interfaith groups and use the

> following links which I note here for your interest:

>

> Ken Knight

>

 

I noticed the parallels when I first began to learn Greek. I

mentioned it to Christians but they seemed very resistant to the idea.

Do you find this? Also this really only applies to St John. We do

not really find Christianity in the Bible, but rather a melange of

ideas from which Christianity evolved. The evolution was the result

of specific decisions taken at specific times as to what was orthodox

and was was "heresy". In the strict etymological sense, orthodoxy was

also heresy: the victorious heresy.

Martin.

[Guest guest]

Hi big-mart,

This body is 6ft 6in...does that qualify for your

bigness?

>

> I noticed the parallels when I first began to learn

> Greek. I

> mentioned it to Christians but they seemed very

> resistant to the idea.

> Do you find this?

The first chapter of the Bhagavad Gita illustrates

what happens at a time of spiritual evolution...there

is a build up of opposing forces until ...sahaasa eva,

'immediately'...there is a moment of transformation in

which enlightenment may occur. I think that in the

UK..where I live...this is taking place with the

Orthodox/evangelical alignment opposing the free

thinkers. I see advaita and Vedantic philosophy in

general coming in to enlighten and deepen the

understanding of the evolving Church as it reconnects

with the real essence of its tradition and throws off

the constraints of centuries of burueacratic priestly

rule. Priests are always fine to start with but then

the priesthood becomes a career and tamas sets in.

Thank you for mentioning the Greek background to the

texts. It would be much better to use the Greek and

better still to have the Aramaic originals available.

This is the advantage we have with the Sanskrit of the

Vedas and the Classical Arabic of the Koran, we can

get closer to the essence of the words and the

etymological traces are not so clouded as they are

with the English. There is a village in Syria, up in

the mountains, called Malloula where Aramaic is still

spoken...I can recommend a visit there if you ever

travel that way; one hour bus ride from Damascus.

Through organisations such as the World Community for

Christian Meditation and the Sangha of Bede Griffiths

then the teaching of advaita is increasing in the

Christian Churches but there is some way to go yet.

Yes I do get opposition at times and am banned from my

local Church..it has an evangelical vicar...because I

once used the Koran to illustrate a point in a Study

group. However we need this rajasic opposition to

open the door to sattva

 

>Also this really only applies to

> St John.

 

How about 'I am that I am' as Jahweh was revealed to

Moses at the burning bush? How about the essential

teaching of the Old Testament...or Pentateuch...'Love

thy neighbour as thyself' which Jesus picked up on?

I think that once the eye has been opened by advaitin

philosophy then new insights...not

interpretation....is available.

 

These are great times to live in, so much happening,

we should not miss this opportunity to learn and

teach.

Thanks for your interest on this topic and I hope to

hear of tour insights using the advaitin philosophy.

However if the admin. people think this topic is away

from the central focus of this site contact me on

hilken_98

Om sri ram

ken Knight

 

 

 

 

 

Find the one for you at Personals

http://personals.

[Guest guest]

--- sunderh wrote:

> Namaste Ken,

>

> Thank you very much, Ken. That was very

> helpful. It would

> certainly enhance the discussions when you post the

> other references .

 

Namaste Sunder,

I am sorry but my last posting was ambiguous at the

end and the 'we' that I used regarding further

discussions really referred to groups that I have had

here in UK.

I am not sure if this is a valid topic for this site

so please contact me away from the site if it is not.

However to respond to your request I am listing some

references that you may find interesting and want to

take up. However please note as I have said to Martin

also...these are English translations on Greek texts

based upon an Aramaic oral tradition. We need to hear

the 'sphota' behind the words. I will not place the

refs. with any particular Mahaavaakya at the moment:

These are all from the Gospel of St. John:

8v58 Before Abraham was, I am.

9v5 As long as I am in the world I am the light of

the world.

1v4-5 In him was life, and the life was the light of

men. And the light shineth in darkness and the

darkness comprehendeth it not cf. purusha.

1v9 That was the true light that lighteth every man

that cometh into the world.

4v26 Jesus said, I that speak unto thee am. (

translations make this I am he)

6v48 I am the bread of life

6v56 He that eateth my fles and drinketh my blood,

dwelleth in me and I am him. ( do not get caught up

on Xtian ritualistic practice when understanding this

verse)

10v30 I and my Father are one.

10v38 That the Father is in me and I in him

12v46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever

believeth on me shall not abide in darkness

17v5 Ans nor O Father, glorify thou me with thine own

self, with the glory that I had before the world was.

5vs18-20 Therefore the Jews sought to kill

him.....but said also that God was his Father and

himself equal with God.

5v30 God's will not my will (ie. iccha)

14v3 I will come again and receive you unto myself,

that where I am, there ye may be also.

6v63. The words that I speak unto you, they are

spirit and they are life...( compare vedic verses on

Vaak)

Finally there are the sayings that are known as the 'I

am ' sayings that may be of interest:

6v35 I am the bread of life

8v12 I am the Light of the world

10v7 I am the door of the sheep

10v11 I am the Good Shepherd

11v25 I am the resurrection and the life

14v6 I am the way, the truth and the light

15v1 I am the true vine.

 

I hope that these are of use. There are many

anthologies which would collect quotes from other

traditions and there is one by Whittall N Perry 'A

treasury of Traditional Wisdom'. This was out of print

for many years but I found a copy when I was in

Varanasi a couple of years ago because it has been

re-published by an Indian company. You may like to

search this on the net.

I hope that this is of use

Om sri ram

Ken

 

 

 

 

Find the one for you at Personals

http://personals.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ken:

 

As a moderator of this list, I want to assure all the participants

that the on going discussions fully pertain to the list objectives. I

believe that these discussions have greater potential for bringing new

insights and help the westerners to understand and appreciate the

philosophical aspects of Hinduism. Ken, Brian, Frank, Greg, Colette

and other members with western background are true ambassadors of

advaita philosophy and the list is fortunate to have them.

 

To get the spiritual messages of any religion, we have to dig deep by

penetrating through the outer layers. These outer layers differ from

religion to religion just like us who appear different because of our

outer layers consists of our color, race, culture, language, etc. The

reference, `Naked Truth' brings the connection, why Nirvana become

necessary. All your statements are well taken with the same spirit.

 

Here is the supporting statement reinforcing its support from the

advaitin list homepage, (advaitin):

"This forum facilitates friendly and meaningful discussions with the

following goals: To understand the nature of Ultimate Reality. To

comprehend self-realization and transform that to actions that are

good for the society. To describe such realizations and actions using

simple but crisp language for easy understanding. To motivate

beginners in philosophy to study and appreciate the message of

Scriptures. To help members to develop an attitude to appreciate the

good in every human being with an open mind."

 

Once agin thanks for your good work in UK,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, ken knight <hilken_98@Y...> wrote:

> .......

> These are great times to live in, so much happening,

> we should not miss this opportunity to learn and

> teach.

> Thanks for your interest on this topic and I hope to

> hear of your insights using the advaitin philosophy.

> However if the admin. people think this topic is away

> from the central focus of this site contact me on

> hilken_98

> Om sri ram

> ken Knight

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Advaita is the essence of all traditions, and even in India

Swami Vivekananda, over a century ago, thundered against the 'tamasic'

interpretations, and even dared to say that the Western countries were

better prepared to practise Vedanta! But alas! It was not to be in the

20th century!

 

Ramana Maharshi's favorite reference was always to the YAHWEH

- I Am That I Am - in many of his dialogues, similar to his favorite

verse from the Gita [10:20] - aham aatmaa.

 

The Western interpretation of 'I Am' stagnated at the

historical, physical level, and needed the sparks of Shankara and his

followers to breathe supra-historical intuition into it.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

 

advaitin, ken knight <hilken_98@Y...> wrote:

I see advaita and Vedantic philosophy in

> general coming in to enlighten and deepen the

> understanding of the evolving Church as it reconnects

> with the real essence of its tradition and throws off

> the constraints of centuries of burueacratic priestly

> rule. Priests are always fine to start with but then

> the priesthood becomes a career and tamas sets in.

>

> Through organisations such as the World Community for

> Christian Meditation and the Sangha of Bede Griffiths

> then the teaching of advaita is increasing in the

> Christian Churches but there is some way to go yet.

> Yes I do get opposition at times and am banned from my

> local Church..it has an evangelical vicar...because I

> once used the Koran to illustrate a point in a Study

> group. However we need this rajasic opposition to

> open the door to sattva

>

>

>

> How about 'I am that I am' as Jahweh was revealed to

> Moses at the burning bush? How about the essential

> teaching of the Old Testament...or Pentateuch...'Love

> thy neighbour as thyself' which Jesus picked up on?

> I think that once the eye has been opened by advaitin

> philosophy then new insights...not

> interpretation....is available.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ken,

 

Thanks again!

 

Sw. Yukteshvara has referred to the following verses in his

book, Holy Science:

 

St. John's Gospel: Ch.1 - v. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 23,

29

3 - 3, 5

8 - 28

10 - 34

14 - 6, 11, 12

16 - 28

[He has 19 more to Revelations, and 1 each for Hebrews, Genesis,

Psalm, and I Corinthians].

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

 

advaitin, ken knight <hilken_98@Y...> wrote:

>

> These are all from the Gospel of St. John:

> 8v58 Before Abraham was, I am.

> 9v5 As long as I am in the world I am the light of

> the world.

> 1v4-5 In him was life, and the life was the light of

> men. And the light shineth in darkness and the

> darkness comprehendeth it not cf. purusha.

> 1v9 That was the true light that lighteth every man

> that cometh into the world.

> 4v26 Jesus said, I that speak unto thee am. (

> translations make this I am he)

> 6v48 I am the bread of life

> 6v56 He that eateth my fles and drinketh my blood,

> dwelleth in me and I am him. ( do not get caught up

> on Xtian ritualistic practice when understanding this

> verse)

> 10v30 I and my Father are one.

> 10v38 That the Father is in me and I in him

> 12v46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever

> believeth on me shall not abide in darkness

> 17v5 Ans nor O Father, glorify thou me with thine own

> self, with the glory that I had before the world was.

> 5vs18-20 Therefore the Jews sought to kill

> him.....but said also that God was his Father and

> himself equal with God.

> 5v30 God's will not my will (ie. iccha)

> 14v3 I will come again and receive you unto myself,

> that where I am, there ye may be also.

> 6v63. The words that I speak unto you, they are

> spirit and they are life...( compare vedic verses on

> Vaak)

> Finally there are the sayings that are known as the 'I

> am ' sayings that may be of interest:

> 6v35 I am the bread of life

> 8v12 I am the Light of the world

> 10v7 I am the door of the sheep

> 10v11 I am the Good Shepherd

> 11v25 I am the resurrection and the life

> 14v6 I am the way, the truth and the light

> 15v1 I am the true vine.

[Guest guest]

=====================================================================

If this is a duplicate, sorry. I got a reply that said

it bounced because of containing HTML. Resending in plain text.

=====================================================================

 

Namaste Ram and Ken,

 

This is a good point, Ram. Every religious tradition has its Perennial

Philosophy aspect, tending towards a non-dual, all-embracing Truth. But it

is not the true or original purpose of any tradition's teachings merely to

explicate the teachings from another tradition. True, many Westerners have

turned to Vedanta (not always Advaita Vedanta) and have gained a greater

appreciation of their own religion. I have even heard the swamis of the

New York City branches of the Ramakrishna Mission say to newcomers, "The

purpose of the Vedanta teachings is not to make you into a Hindu. Their

purpose for you is to allow you to better understand your own

religion." The swami is saying that the visitor, who might well be of

Christian or Jewish background, is free to study Vedanta with this purpose

in mind. But this is not the original purpose of Vedanta!!

 

OM!

 

--Greg

 

 

At 12:29 PM 11/19/01 +0000, Ram Chandran wrote:

>Namaste Ken:

>

>As a moderator of this list, I want to assure all the participants

>that the on going discussions fully pertain to the list objectives. I

>believe that these discussions have greater potential for bringing new

>insights and help the westerners to understand and appreciate the

>philosophical aspects of Hinduism. Ken, Brian, Frank, Greg, Colette

>and other members with western background are true ambassadors of

>advaita philosophy and the list is fortunate to have them.

>

>To get the spiritual messages of any religion, we have to dig deep by

>penetrating through the outer layers. These outer layers differ from

>religion to religion just like us who appear different because of our

>outer layers consists of our color, race, culture, language, etc. The

>reference, `Naked Truth' brings the connection, why Nirvana become

>necessary. All your statements are well taken with the same spirit.

>

>Here is the supporting statement reinforcing its support from the

>advaitin list homepage,

>(<advaitin):>advait\

in):

>

>"This forum facilitates friendly and meaningful discussions with the

>following goals: To understand the nature of Ultimate Reality. To

>comprehend self-realization and transform that to actions that are

>good for the society. To describe such realizations and actions using

>simple but crisp language for easy understanding. To motivate

>beginners in philosophy to study and appreciate the message of

>Scriptures. To help members to develop an attitude to appreciate the

>good in every human being with an open mind."

>

>Once agin thanks for your good work in UK,

>

>Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ken knight <hilken_98@Y...> wrote:

> Hi big-mart,

> This body is 6ft 6in...does that qualify for your

> bigness?

>

 

Hi, Ken,

Actually I am only five nine but of yeoman build. I only use

the tag because a friend gave it to me a long time ago. I was

thinking of the verse which begins "The wind bloweth where it listeth"

in the King James version. When I read it in the Greek it fair jumped

off the page. Incidentally, my Greek is still rudimentary, but, as I

see it, the old KJ has never been bettered.

Mart.

[Guest guest]

--- Gregory Goode <goode wrote:

> "The

> purpose of the Vedanta teachings is not to make you

> into a Hindu. Their

> purpose for you is to allow you to better understand

> your own

> religion." The swami is saying that the visitor,

> who might well be of

> Christian or Jewish background, is free to study

> Vedanta with this purpose

> in mind. But this is not the original purpose of

> Vedanta!!

 

Dear Greg, I think that this comment is a bit of a

side-alley from the original question posted that

began this thread.

However I would agree with these swamis because on the

pathless path there appear to be steps, 'padam, padam'

and there appear to be lamp-posts that shine light

upon the darkness in between them. Starting from the

point of attachment with the creation or duality it is

quite valid to 'deepen our understanding of our own

tradition with the study of another'. On Wednesday

morning I will be with a group of Indians who have

come to deepen their understanding of their various

family forms of 'Hinduism' by studying Christian

texts. They have now found their way back to their

original path. A friend of mine, Dr K Tripathi at the

BHU, was a youthful student of Western philosophy but

this only prepared the way for his re-engaging with

Bhartrihari of whom he is now a great teacher.

This is a practice of the removal of adhyasa born of

avidya. One immediate benefit of such practices is the

removal of the fear that exists between the proponents

of different religions. From fear comes hatred and the

killing of civilians in Afghanistan and US.

What then is the original purpose of Vedanta? To

remove ignorance for sure but then I would take the

first verse of the Vedanta Sutras to be the

answer..... you may wish to offer an alternative.

'Now therefore the enquiry into Brahman.'

The study of various scriptures is a sometimes

necessary pre-requisite for the 'Now -Atha.' This is,

of course, not a rule for everyone.

I would agree with your concern if it is intended to

prevent the superimposition of the language of one

tradition onto another. For example: Atman on Holy

Spirit; Vaak or Shabda-brahman on Logos. These words

are by their very nature name and form and therefore

differentiated. But what of the substratum of inner

sound behind them? Cannot a study of the two reflect

that which sublates them?

Just a few meandering thoughts.

Peace and happiness

ken

[Guest guest]

--- Ram Chandran <rchandran wrote:

>I

> believe that these discussions have greater

> potential for bringing new

> insights and help the westerners to understand and

> appreciate the

> philosophical aspects of Hinduism. Ken, Brian,

> Frank, Greg, Colette

> and other members with western background are true

> ambassadors of

> advaita philosophy and the list is fortunate to have

> them.

 

Namaste Ram,

Thank you for this encouragement. At times I feel very

nervous when putting up some comment but it is only by

you all knocking down the ignorance presented that I

can come out of the clouds of limiting foolishness.

So thank you again for the encouragement to keep on

going.

Can anyone help please?

I am trying to track down an English translation of

Mandana Misra's Sphota Siddhi that also has the

Sanskrit. I found out that a translation had been made

many years ago but cannot get hold of a copy. If

anyone has some advice please let me know,

Om Sri Ram

Ken

 

 

 

Find the one for you at Personals

http://personals.

[Guest guest]

Dear Ken,

 

I agree that think my comment might not hit directly on what you were

wanting to talk about. I don't have the message I was answering, but it

seemed like someone had said that the ability to shed light on Biblical

passages is what is good about Advaita Vedanta. If no one said this,

please forgive me!

 

Totally agree that cross-tradition study can reduce fear and give

appreciation of different backgrounds, religions, cultures, etc. As

witness THE JEW IN THE LOTUS by Benjamin Kaminetsky, who went to a

conference in India where an interchange was being given between Judaism

and Tibetan Buddhism with the Dalai Lama. Kaminetsky was so impressed by

what he learned about Buddhism, that not only did it allow him to respect

Buddhism a great deal, but it also gave him much more appreciation of his

own Judaism!

 

Om!

 

--Greg

 

 

At 12:31 PM 11/19/01 -0800, ken knight wrote:

 

>Dear Greg, I think that this comment is a bit of a

>side-alley from the original question posted that

>began this thread.

>However I would agree with these swamis because on the

>pathless path there appear to be steps, 'padam, padam'

>and there appear to be lamp-posts that shine light

>upon the darkness in between them. Starting from the

>point of attachment with the creation or duality it is

>quite valid to 'deepen our understanding of our own

>tradition with the study of another'. On Wednesday

>morning I will be with a group of Indians who have

>come to deepen their understanding of their various

>family forms of 'Hinduism' by studying Christian

>texts. They have now found their way back to their

>original path.

 

 

....

 

I would agree with your concern if it is intended to

>prevent the superimposition of the language of one

>tradition onto another. For example: Atman on Holy

>Spirit; Vaak or Shabda-brahman on Logos. These words

>are by their very nature name and form and therefore

>differentiated. But what of the substratum of inner

>sound behind them? Cannot a study of the two reflect

>that which sublates them?

>Just a few meandering thoughts.

>Peace and happiness

>ken

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

What Interfaith dialogue is likely to miss is to confront the

Vedantic challenge, beautifully expressed by Frank-ji in his book

'Freedom' [Ch. 2]:

 

"That you think there are obstacles to surmount, mysteries to solve,

or powers to obtain, are themselves the very obstacles blocking your

way to the reality of What Is.

That you doubt this and believe you're yet in need of something is,

in fact, a highly sophisticated mind-trick."

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

 

 

advaitin, Gregory Goode <goode@D...> wrote:

> Dear Ken,

>

> I would agree with your concern if it is intended to

> >prevent the superimposition of the language of one

> >tradition onto another.

> >Peace and happiness

> >ken

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends ,

The name Hindus gave to their relegion is Sanatana Dharma (Ever existing

Thought). This relegion , unlike most of the other relegions originating in

the middle east, has somehow incorporated philosophy and metaphysics as a

part of it. Inspite of that, the philoosphy part does not form the day to

day relegious life of an individual.The discussion and research for the

ultimate truth (which is the goalof this relegion) is left to any individual

who chooses to do it.To facilitate him in doing this , the common man of the

relegion is exhorted to take care of such researchers needs.The thinking

part of the relegion does not have any Gods or does not have any Gods nor

does any orthodox custom bound this group of people. They are so to say

universal thinkers.I am sure all the discussion under this heading is about

this thinking part.

There were great thinkers in both Christian and Islamic relegions. But

this thought process was , as I understand, bound by the relegion itself.

The enquiry is not for the ultimate truth but to the meaning of what has

been revealed by the prophets. Any body thinking beyond this dotted line

were classified as phiosophers and their discussion kept out of bounds from

the relegion. These esoteric lot again chose to think about material truths

and not spiritual ones like the oriental philosophers.

I would like to know whether you agree with this? Ramachander

 

Please visit http://English_stotras.tripod.com

 

-

Gregory Goode <goode

<advaitin>

Tuesday, November 20, 2001 4:03 AM

Re: Re: the disease and the symptom

 

> Dear Ken,

>

> I agree that think my comment might not hit directly on what you were

> wanting to talk about. I don't have the message I was answering, but it

> seemed like someone had said that the ability to shed light on Biblical

> passages is what is good about Advaita Vedanta. If no one said this,

> please forgive me!

>

> Totally agree that cross-tradition study can reduce fear and give

> appreciation of different backgrounds, religions, cultures, etc. As

> witness THE JEW IN THE LOTUS by Benjamin Kaminetsky, who went to a

> conference in India where an interchange was being given between Judaism

> and Tibetan Buddhism with the Dalai Lama. Kaminetsky was so impressed by

> what he learned about Buddhism, that not only did it allow him to respect

> Buddhism a great deal, but it also gave him much more appreciation of his

> own Judaism!

>

> Om!

>

> --Greg

>

>

> At 12:31 PM 11/19/01 -0800, ken knight wrote:

>

>

> >Dear Greg, I think that this comment is a bit of a

> >side-alley from the original question posted that

> >began this thread.

> >However I would agree with these swamis because on the

> >pathless path there appear to be steps, 'padam, padam'

> >and there appear to be lamp-posts that shine light

> >upon the darkness in between them. Starting from the

> >point of attachment with the creation or duality it is

> >quite valid to 'deepen our understanding of our own

> >tradition with the study of another'. On Wednesday

> >morning I will be with a group of Indians who have

> >come to deepen their understanding of their various

> >family forms of 'Hinduism' by studying Christian

> >texts. They have now found their way back to their

> >original path.

>

>

> ...

>

> I would agree with your concern if it is intended to

> >prevent the superimposition of the language of one

> >tradition onto another. For example: Atman on Holy

> >Spirit; Vaak or Shabda-brahman on Logos. These words

> >are by their very nature name and form and therefore

> >differentiated. But what of the substratum of inner

> >sound behind them? Cannot a study of the two reflect

> >that which sublates them?

> >Just a few meandering thoughts.

> >Peace and happiness

> >ken

>

>

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

Atman and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at:

http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

> To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

> Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Religion is defined by Swami Vivekananda as

Realization. He also defines it as the realization of

the divinity already within man. Further he

encourages, to obtain this realization by devotion,

psychic control, philosophical inquiry, selfless

action or combination of all these and be free.

If you accept this definition for religion, then the

doubt as to what system of thought encourages what

sort of practise will not arise.

 

Regarding the subject of this mail, the biggest

disease is our attachment to our false identity

(namely the ego). The biggest symptoms of that disease

is unending desires, no contentment, always

complaining, never ending doubts.

Religion as defined above is the best cure.

 

This is my limited understanding.

 

Hari Om,

 

Anand

 

 

 

 

--- "P.R.Ramachander" <prr wrote:

> Dear Friends ,

> The name Hindus gave to their relegion is

> Sanatana Dharma (Ever existing

> Thought). This relegion , unlike most of the other

> relegions originating in

> the middle east, has somehow incorporated philosophy

> and metaphysics as a

> part of it. Inspite of that, the philoosphy part

> does not form the day to

> day relegious life of an individual.The discussion

> and research for the

> ultimate truth (which is the goalof this relegion)

> is left to any individual

> who chooses to do it.To facilitate him in doing this

> , the common man of the

> relegion is exhorted to take care of such

> researchers needs.The thinking

> part of the relegion does not have any Gods or does

> not have any Gods nor

> does any orthodox custom bound this group of people.

> They are so to say

> universal thinkers.I am sure all the discussion

> under this heading is about

> this thinking part.

 

 

 

 

GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.

http://geocities./ps/info1

[Guest guest]

> There were great thinkers in both Christian and Islamic

relegions. But

> this thought process was , as I understand, bound by the relegion

itself.

> The enquiry is not for the ultimate truth but to the meaning of what

has

> been revealed by the prophets. Any body thinking beyond this dotted

line

> were classified as phiosophers and their discussion kept out of

bounds from

> the relegion. These esoteric lot again chose to think about material

truths

> and not spiritual ones like the oriental philosophers.

> I would like to know whether you agree with this? Ramachander

>

Yes, I do. Nice summary.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "P.R.Ramachander" <prr@b...> wrote:

Thinking of it...Well, you are correct with regards to Islam as a

religion. It is bound in a tight fixed frame. There is no such

flexibility allowed in it. Nobody should change it, or think beyond

those lines. I think many intellectuals tried to change the way it

looked, but historically it brought major splits in Islam. So that

the new religion (thinking) has nothing to do with Islam. For

example www.bahai.org is a religion which is split from Islam. And

ahmadiyas (another split in islam) are considered as Kafirs, I am

told while living in Saudi Arabia.

 

Major misunderstanding about Muslims come in to picture because we

think all are bound by the book. But they are not! I came across

such a nice people with such kindheartedness among Muslims. I

believe it is more to do with their human element of kindness,

compassion and love than to their religion. So I believe one should

not hate or look down Muslims just because they belong to that

religion. Taslmia Nasreen (author of the book Lajja) is a Muslim,

Salman Rashdie is a Muslim. Recently I read an article written by

Salman Rashdie on Militancy in Islam. He pleads that that aspect of

Islam should change. But who will change? when such thing is

warrented, the intellectuals are killed by the Fatwahs.

 

All religions should bring peace to the world. That is what we

require. We should not, in the name of religion, kill each other. We

should not, in the name of religion instigate hatred... Well, but

who will teach this point to the very same people who are looked upon

as religious authorities? It is about the Mullahs whom all these

faithful followers listen to... If at all any change can take place

with in Islam, then it is those Mullahs who should make it happen.

Actually, now United Nations is thinking serioulsly about this.

 

That reminds me the recent speech of Pakistan Chief General

Musharraf, while equating killings in Palastine with killings in

Kashmir and Kosovo, all nooks and corners of the world, explaining to

the world that those acts by the so-called Muslims are motivated not

by Islam as a religion but apolitical.....He openely proclaimed Islam

means peace, and Muslims say "Salam aa lEkuM" which means "Peace be

with you". I truely believe that Muslims are very nice humans, no

doubt about it. But then where is the militancy coming in to picture

in that religion?

 

Well! I think General Musharraf needs to speak to the Mullahs who

are living in Saudi Arabia or Afganistan or anywhere else! Let me

share with you my own experience with the word "salam aalEkum"

 

When I was living in Saudi Arabia, I used to greet my friends,

colleagues with the words "salam aa lEkum". Never I faced any

problem, they used to greet me back. But then I got a shocking

revelation under extreme circumstances. I went to a Hotel to drink a

cup of coffee. By the way, in Islam you are forbidden to use your

lefthand to drink or to eat anything. It is because I am not a

Muslim I am not bound by that rule. Then a Long bearded man

approached me (they are called as Muttavahs.. or religious police)

and told me that I am not supposed to drink with my lefthand. I told

him I am not a Muslim, usually my other encounters revealed me that

when I proclaim that I am not a Muslim they don't bother, they treat

me nicely and go away (which reveals that they are nice humans). But

this time it was a different story, this person who advised me got

infuriated! He demanded that I follow him, he took me to their

policing van in which I believe some higher authority "Mullah" was

sitting. The moment I saw him I have greeted him saying "salam A

lEkum". This Mullah did not greet me back but the other person who

was sitting next to him greeted me saying "aalEkum assalAM". But

then this Mullah looked at him very angrily and asked him to stop

saying that reply.

 

In Arabic this fellow who took me there explained about me to the

Mullah saying that I am an Indian kafir :-) To my surprise that

Mullah spoke to me in a very nice (heavily british accent) English.

They wanted to see my iquama. Again let me tell you that NonMuslims

have a Brown color passbook and Muslims will have a green color

passbook. Well, poor Taliban wanted to follow the same system of

identifying non-muslims but rocked by the world, but in Saudi Arabia

it has been a rule by the government that Nonmuslims should have a

different color passbook. They are supposed to give a lecture I

think so he gave me a lecture.

 

In a very nice English, he explained to me that Islam means

sumbission. Those who accept "No GOD is GOD but Allah, and Prophet

Muhammed is his true messenger". Those who accept this statement and

follow the Prophet faithfully are Muslims. Since Allah is the only

GOD who can offer peace to his believers, only Muslims among

themselves should say "Salam aa lEkum". But Muslims should not

say "Salam aa lEkum" to Non-Muslims. Which means theoritically that

Mullahs colleague is at wrong in saying that I can have peace! If at

all Kafirs (non-muslims) do not have peace, well it is their mistake,

they are not muslims (not submitted to the one god and one messenger

principle) so naturally they will not have peace. It is GOD who is

punishing them.... (and he refered a quronic statement... I dont want

to quote it but it is true)

 

While listening to Musharraf's interpretation of Salam Aa lEkum, I

thought of that British accented Mullah who was giving entirely a

different meaning (is that real meaning!) to that word. And I am

also not surprised that a Mullah living in UK has issued a Fathwah on

Musharraf for becoming a Non-Muslim.

> Von: P.R.Ramachander [prr]

> There were great thinkers in both Christian and Islamic

> relegions. But

> this thought process was , as I understand, bound by the

> relegion itself.

> The enquiry is not for the ultimate truth but to the meaning

> of what has

> been revealed by the prophets. Any body thinking beyond this

> dotted line

> were classified as phiosophers and their discussion kept out

> of bounds from

> the relegion. These esoteric lot again chose to think about

> material truths

> and not spiritual ones like the oriental philosophers.