Vedanta Shastra Pramana

[Guest guest]

Hari Om!

 

I have to admit that inspite of my best efforts, I had difficulty

keeping track of the various sub-threads of discussion going on under

the tile "My views on Nirvikalpa Samadhi and Advaita". Hence, for the

particular issues I wanted to raise, i am starting a new thread.

 

The gist of the standpoint expressed by Sri AtmaChaitanyaji, I have

understood as being:

 

1) Axiom: Vedanta Shastras are the pramana (means of knowledge) for

gaining Knowledge of the NonDual Self

 

2) Being a pramana, its validity rests in itself. Hence, it doesn't

need any other means of knowledge for further corroboration. This

rules out the need for Nirvikalpa Samadhi etc, which is being

discussed in the other thread.

 

3) By 1) and 2), It follows that it is sufficient to understand the

Shastras to realize the Self.

 

This standpoint, expressed above, is not new and it cannot be lightly

dismissed as being without substance. Although, I do not conform to

this view completeley myself, I am open to it as possibly being a

valid and self-consistent viewpoint. I must admit that I have been

influenced by Swami Dayananda Saraswati's discourses on the same subject.

I have some questions (possibly quite basic) regarding this viewpoint

in particular and they are as follows:

 

1) Agreed that it may indeed be possible to gain Self Knowledge by

truly understanding the import of the scriptures alone and not any

other practice. However, this requires a great deal of 'purity' or

quietitude of mind. Then alone the Knowledge is gained.How can we

assert that the Self Knowledge was gained by the means of the

scripture alone and not by the means of the pure mind? In a calm lake,

the bottom is clearly seen. In the same way, in a pure mind, the Self

is clearly reflected. In other words, could there not be an equally

valid view that the 'Pure Mind is the Pramana'?

 

2) For most of us, sadhana and understanding go hand in hand. The

understanding happens due to a quiet mind which in turn is the result

of sadhana. The sadhana deepens understanding which deepens the

sadhana which in turn helps the understanding which in turn deepens

the sadhana and so on.....How can we assert that the 'final blow' of

Self Knowledge was lent only by the Shastra and not by the years of

sadhana that went to create the pure mind capable of grasping Self

Knowledge?

 

As an aside, we must have heard of the Zen story where a Zen master

realized suddenly for seemingly no reason when he spilt some hot tea

over himself. For a pure mind, a random insignificant event could be

enough to 'trigger' Self Knowledge. The point I am trying to make is

that can the Shastra take sole credit for being the means of 'Self

Knowledge', particularly when the mind is already purified by years of

sadhana?

 

In other words, couldn't there be another equally valid view that

'Sadhana is the Pramana'?

 

If I have made some fundamental errors here, I humbly request

corrections and comments.

 

warmest regards,

--Satyan

[Guest guest]

Hari Om !!

 

Pramana does not mean .. "means of knowledge". It means .. "Proof or

Adherence, or Ultimate Say"

 

With the modified definition, it would convey that For the

declaration of existance of Brahman, Sruti is the only Pramana. Then

by various sadhanas we can also experience it.

 

We may try Reason (yukti), and Anubhava (experience) as evidence for

some declarations. When there is a controdiction, we resort to Sruti

and say based on the declaration of Sruti, we accept it or reject it.

 

If just Listening was sufficient why would Sankara go to such length

to explain "Sadhana Chatusthaya" ?

 

Also Sravana (Listening to Scriptures) itself is fulfilled by

support of Shad Lingas i.e Upakrama-Upasamhara (prologue-epilogue),

Abhyasa (repetition), Apurvata (speciality), Phala (result),

Arthavada (eulogy), Upapatti (logic)

 

After that Manana, Nididhyasana are prescribed anyway.

 

Meditation need not mean sitting at one place with closed eyes any

way. As long as mind sees only Brahman alone every where it is

Samadhi. Possibly for an aspirant endowed with all the

qualifications, the Sravana or declarations of Sruthi will be

sufficient to transport him to Samadhi.

 

I heard Swami Tejomayananda saying, "Samajdar ko ishara Kafi Hi" ..

for a smart person, pointer is enough.

 

Om Namo Narayanaya !!

 

Srikrishna

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "satyan_c" <satyan_c> wrote:

> Hari Om!

>

> I have to admit that inspite of my best efforts, I had difficulty

> keeping track of the various sub-threads of discussion going on

under

> the tile "My views on Nirvikalpa Samadhi and Advaita". Hence, for

the

> particular issues I wanted to raise, i am starting a new thread.

>

> The gist of the standpoint expressed by Sri AtmaChaitanyaji, I have

> understood as being:

>

> 1) Axiom: Vedanta Shastras are the pramana (means of knowledge) for

> gaining Knowledge of the NonDual Self

>

> 2) Being a pramana, its validity rests in itself. Hence, it doesn't

> need any other means of knowledge for further corroboration. This

> rules out the need for Nirvikalpa Samadhi etc, which is being

> discussed in the other thread.

>

> 3) By 1) and 2), It follows that it is sufficient to understand the

> Shastras to realize the Self.

>

> This standpoint, expressed above, is not new and it cannot be

lightly

> dismissed as being without substance. Although, I do not conform to

> this view completeley myself, I am open to it as possibly being a

> valid and self-consistent viewpoint. I must admit that I have been

> influenced by Swami Dayananda Saraswati's discourses on the same

subject.

> I have some questions (possibly quite basic) regarding this

viewpoint

> in particular and they are as follows:

>

> 1) Agreed that it may indeed be possible to gain Self Knowledge by

> truly understanding the import of the scriptures alone and not any

> other practice. However, this requires a great deal of 'purity' or

> quietitude of mind. Then alone the Knowledge is gained.How can we

> assert that the Self Knowledge was gained by the means of the

> scripture alone and not by the means of the pure mind? In a calm

lake,

> the bottom is clearly seen. In the same way, in a pure mind, the

Self

> is clearly reflected. In other words, could there not be an equally

> valid view that the 'Pure Mind is the Pramana'?

>

> 2) For most of us, sadhana and understanding go hand in hand. The

> understanding happens due to a quiet mind which in turn is the

result

> of sadhana. The sadhana deepens understanding which deepens the

> sadhana which in turn helps the understanding which in turn deepens

> the sadhana and so on.....How can we assert that the 'final blow' of

> Self Knowledge was lent only by the Shastra and not by the years of

> sadhana that went to create the pure mind capable of grasping Self

> Knowledge?

>

> As an aside, we must have heard of the Zen story where a Zen master

> realized suddenly for seemingly no reason when he spilt some hot tea

> over himself. For a pure mind, a random insignificant event could be

> enough to 'trigger' Self Knowledge. The point I am trying to make is

> that can the Shastra take sole credit for being the means of 'Self

> Knowledge', particularly when the mind is already purified by years

of

> sadhana?

>

> In other words, couldn't there be another equally valid view that

> 'Sadhana is the Pramana'?

>

> If I have made some fundamental errors here, I humbly request

> corrections and comments.

>

> warmest regards,

> --Satyan

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "srikrishna_ghadiyaram"

<srikrishna_ghadiyaram> wrote:

> Hari Om !!

>

> Pramana does not mean .. "means of knowledge". It means .. "Proof or

> Adherence, or Ultimate Say"

 

 

Hari Om Srikrishna,

 

Thanks for your response. If you look at the following articles,

Pramana seems to be used in the sense of 'means of knowledge' as

opposed to 'Proof or Ultimate Say':

 

Swami Atmananda's article on the Six Pramanas:

advaitin/message/10395

 

Swami Dayananda's 'Is Vedanta a School of Thought'

http://www.arshavidya.org/vision/v1n2.htm

You might also find the following article interesting

Are the Upanishads the only means to the knowledge of Atman?

advaitin/message/11362

 

and Sri Gurumulu Murthy's response:

advaitin/message/11482

 

warmest regards,

--Satyan

[Guest guest]

Dear Satyan,

 

When you say "Could there not be an equally valid view that the

'Pure Mind' is the pramana" or, "Sadhana and Understanding go hand

and hand. The Sadhana deepens the Understanding and the Understanding

deepens the Sadhana....", there seems to be a confusion as to what

exactly a Pramana is, as well as the relation that exists between

Sadnana and Understanding, I will try to very briefly outline the

nature of the Vedantic Pramana, the Understanding (Direct

Knowledge)that it produces, and the function of Sadhanas in relation

to these two.

 

VEDANTIC TEXTS PURPORT TO TEACH ATMAN ALONE AS AN ENTITY

 

(Vedantic texts are Jnapakam (they make something-that can't

be known by any other pramana-known)not Karakam (they don't prompt one

to engage in any activity or Sadhana.)

 

That is to say , they merely negate all that is not really Atman's

properties, and culminate in directly revealing the self-established

Atman. There would remain nothing more to be done,nor any agent left

to do it, after realizing the import of the texts.

 

(Various strange beliefs prevail among those that are not aware

of this open secret. Some imagine that the Vedantic texts yield only

'Indirect Knowledge' of Atman. And hence AFTER the Indirect Knowledge:

1)That Knowledge must be repeated to a) make it 'strong', b)convert

it into Direct Knowledge.(Prasankyana Vada) 2)One must merge the world

of multiplicity in Atman by means of meditation(Prapancha Vilaya

Vada),or, 3) meditate on the qualityless Brahman(Nirguna Brahman

Upasana Vada), or, 4)Practice Patanjali Yoga for the attainment of

Nirvikalpa (Chita Vriti Nirodha Vada,or, 5)the continued mental

repitition of the sylable OM is required(Pranava Abhyasa Vada).

 

BRIEF DELIBERATION ON MOKSHA SADHANAS

(ACCORDING TO SRI SHANKARA AND SURESWARA)

 

By the 'Direct Knowledge' of Atman that is born out of the

Vedantic Sentences ALONE, Moksha is attained. In addition, once that

'Direct Knowledge' is attained there does not at all remain anything

further to be done to attain Moksha. As Sureswaracharya puts it:

 

"By virtue of sentences such as TAT TVAM ASI (That Thou Art)

etc. Knowledge accures. Then one realizes that neither Ignorance nor

its effect(the Universe) ever existed in the past, is not existing

now, and will not be existing in the future also." (Sam. Vartica.183)

 

Since this Direct Knowledge -- that is produced only by the

Vedantic Sentences -- accrues only to qualified aspirants, both

Shankara(Sutra Bhasya 1-1-1) and Sureswara(Naishkarmya Siddhi

1-52)give the details as well as the steps by which one can become

endowed with the necessary qualifications for Vedantic Knowledge.

(i.e.: Vedantic Knowledge does not arise in every Tom, Dick and Harry

that happens to hear the Vedantic Sentence Tat Tvam Asi). Here follows

a rough outlne of the process:

 

1)Give up all desire promted actions (Kamya Karmas).

2)Give up all prohibited actions (Pratisheda Karmas).

3)By performing your daily responsiblities (Nitya karmas)

without longing after the fruits, and as worship to the Supreme, one

aquires merit(Punya)which in turn destroys sin (papa).

4)By virtue of the above, purification of the mind takes

place.( A PURE MIND IS NOT A PRAMANA, PURITY AND QUITUDE ARE THE

PRE-CONDITIONS FOR kNOWLEDGE BUT NOT ITS 'MEANS')

5)By virtue of a pure mind one is able to clearly see

exactly what is the nature of this Samsara.(TEMPORARY,AND FILLED WITH

DEFECTS)

6)Thereafter Dispassion (Vairagya)and an one pointed and

all consuming desire for Moksha arises.

7) From this he gives up all other activities (Sarva Karma

Sanyasa)and devotes himself exclusively to Hearing(Sravana),

Reflecting (Manana), and contemplating (Nidihhyasana), on the Vedantic

Sentences.

8) From these last three means, Hearing,Reflecting and

Contemplating(the Direct Means---Sakshat Sadhanas) the aspirant comes

to Know the meaning of the Sentences like 'Tat Tvam Asi' and thus

desroys his Ignorance, and gets established in his own True Self

alone.

There is then no more Sadhana needed OR POSSIBLE to 'deepen

ones Understanding' nor an Understanding needed OR POSSIBLE to 'deepen

ones Sadhana'.

THERE IS NO MORE SADHAKA!!!!!!NO MORE UNDERSTANDER

ONLY THE ATMAN

Hari Om

Atmachaitanya

 

 

-- In advaitin, "satyan_c" <satyan_c> wrote:

> Hari Om!

>

> I have to admit that inspite of my best efforts, I had difficulty

> keeping track of the various sub-threads of discussion going on

under

> the tile "My views on Nirvikalpa Samadhi and Advaita". Hence, for

the

> particular issues I wanted to raise, i am starting a new thread.

>

> The gist of the standpoint expressed by Sri AtmaChaitanyaji, I have

> understood as being:

>

> 1) Axiom: Vedanta Shastras are the pramana (means of knowledge) for

> gaining Knowledge of the NonDual Self

>

> 2) Being a pramana, its validity rests in itself. Hence, it doesn't

> need any other means of knowledge for further corroboration. This

> rules out the need for Nirvikalpa Samadhi etc, which is being

> discussed in the other thread.

>

> 3) By 1) and 2), It follows that it is sufficient to understand the

> Shastras to realize the Self.

>

> This standpoint, expressed above, is not new and it cannot be

lightly

> dismissed as being without substance. Although, I do not conform to

> this view completeley myself, I am open to it as possibly being a

> valid and self-consistent viewpoint. I must admit that I have been

> influenced by Swami Dayananda Saraswati's discourses on the same

subject.

> I have some questions (possibly quite basic) regarding this

viewpoint

> in particular and they are as follows:

>

> 1) Agreed that it may indeed be possible to gain Self Knowledge by

> truly understanding the import of the scriptures alone and not any

> other practice. However, this requires a great deal of 'purity' or

> quietitude of mind. Then alone the Knowledge is gained.How can we

> assert that the Self Knowledge was gained by the means of the

> scripture alone and not by the means of the pure mind? In a calm

lake,

> the bottom is clearly seen. In the same way, in a pure mind, the

Self

> is clearly reflected. In other words, could there not be an equally

> valid view that the 'Pure Mind is the Pramana'?

>

> 2) For most of us, sadhana and understanding go hand in hand. The

> understanding happens due to a quiet mind which in turn is the

result

> of sadhana. The sadhana deepens understanding which deepens the

> sadhana which in turn helps the understanding which in turn deepens

> the sadhana and so on.....How can we assert that the 'final blow' of

> Self Knowledge was lent only by the Shastra and not by the years of

> sadhana that went to create the pure mind capable of grasping Self

> Knowledge?

>

> As an aside, we must have heard of the Zen story where a Zen master

> realized suddenly for seemingly no reason when he spilt some hot tea

> over himself. For a pure mind, a random insignificant event could be

> enough to 'trigger' Self Knowledge. The point I am trying to make is

> that can the Shastra take sole credit for being the means of 'Self

> Knowledge', particularly when the mind is already purified by years

of

> sadhana?

>

> In other words, couldn't there be another equally valid view that

> 'Sadhana is the Pramana'?

>

> If I have made some fundamental errors here, I humbly request

> corrections and comments.

>

> warmest regards,

> --Satyan

[Guest guest]

Greetings,

 

I have a basic doubt. How did our Sages realised the "Tat Tvam Asi". From what

I understand , the Shastra what we say today is what the sages have uttered

when they were meditating on the self. I have always belived that the sages,

meditated upon the self, and ones they reached the samadhi state they were

reveled of all these great Mahavakyas. After coming to waking state they

started thinking about these Mahavakya's. So the process seems to be meditate

on the self, and ones we are in that Samadhi state, everything becomes crystal

clear and it is intutional flash that we experience at that time is what all

the Upanishads say. If we already know the upanishad teaching than it becomes

easy for someone to understand the experiences, otherwise he will still ponder

over those experinces when he comes back to Waking state since he cannot

understand those experinces because his knowledge about such experiences is

nill and that is why he comes out with his own version of explaining them.

 

Please clarify my doubt on this.

 

sarvam vasudevamayam jagath

Prashanth

 

--- atmachaitanya108 <stadri wrote:

>

>

> Dear Satyan,

>

> When you say "Could there not be an equally valid view that the

> 'Pure Mind' is the pramana" or, "Sadhana and Understanding go hand

> and hand. The Sadhana deepens the Understanding and the Understanding

> deepens the Sadhana....", there seems to be a confusion as to what

> exactly a Pramana is, as well as the relation that exists between

> Sadnana and Understanding, I will try to very briefly outline the

> nature of the Vedantic Pramana, the Understanding (Direct

> Knowledge)that it produces, and the function of Sadhanas in relation

> to these two.

>

> VEDANTIC TEXTS PURPORT TO TEACH ATMAN ALONE AS AN ENTITY

>

> (Vedantic texts are Jnapakam (they make something-that can't

> be known by any other pramana-known)not Karakam (they don't prompt one

> to engage in any activity or Sadhana.)

>

> That is to say , they merely negate all that is not really Atman's

> properties, and culminate in directly revealing the self-established

> Atman. There would remain nothing more to be done,nor any agent left

> to do it, after realizing the import of the texts.

>

> (Various strange beliefs prevail among those that are not aware

> of this open secret. Some imagine that the Vedantic texts yield only

> 'Indirect Knowledge' of Atman. And hence AFTER the Indirect Knowledge:

> 1)That Knowledge must be repeated to a) make it 'strong', b)convert

> it into Direct Knowledge.(Prasankyana Vada) 2)One must merge the world

> of multiplicity in Atman by means of meditation(Prapancha Vilaya

> Vada),or, 3) meditate on the qualityless Brahman(Nirguna Brahman

> Upasana Vada), or, 4)Practice Patanjali Yoga for the attainment of

> Nirvikalpa (Chita Vriti Nirodha Vada,or, 5)the continued mental

> repitition of the sylable OM is required(Pranava Abhyasa Vada).

>

> BRIEF DELIBERATION ON MOKSHA SADHANAS

> (ACCORDING TO SRI SHANKARA AND SURESWARA)

>

> By the 'Direct Knowledge' of Atman that is born out of the

> Vedantic Sentences ALONE, Moksha is attained. In addition, once that

> 'Direct Knowledge' is attained there does not at all remain anything

> further to be done to attain Moksha. As Sureswaracharya puts it:

>

> "By virtue of sentences such as TAT TVAM ASI (That Thou Art)

> etc. Knowledge accures. Then one realizes that neither Ignorance nor

> its effect(the Universe) ever existed in the past, is not existing

> now, and will not be existing in the future also." (Sam. Vartica.183)

>

> Since this Direct Knowledge -- that is produced only by the

> Vedantic Sentences -- accrues only to qualified aspirants, both

> Shankara(Sutra Bhasya 1-1-1) and Sureswara(Naishkarmya Siddhi

> 1-52)give the details as well as the steps by which one can become

> endowed with the necessary qualifications for Vedantic Knowledge.

> (i.e.: Vedantic Knowledge does not arise in every Tom, Dick and Harry

> that happens to hear the Vedantic Sentence Tat Tvam Asi). Here follows

> a rough outlne of the process:

>

> 1)Give up all desire promted actions (Kamya Karmas).

> 2)Give up all prohibited actions (Pratisheda Karmas).

> 3)By performing your daily responsiblities (Nitya karmas)

> without longing after the fruits, and as worship to the Supreme, one

> aquires merit(Punya)which in turn destroys sin (papa).

> 4)By virtue of the above, purification of the mind takes

> place.( A PURE MIND IS NOT A PRAMANA, PURITY AND QUITUDE ARE THE

> PRE-CONDITIONS FOR kNOWLEDGE BUT NOT ITS 'MEANS')

> 5)By virtue of a pure mind one is able to clearly see

> exactly what is the nature of this Samsara.(TEMPORARY,AND FILLED WITH

> DEFECTS)

> 6)Thereafter Dispassion (Vairagya)and an one pointed and

> all consuming desire for Moksha arises.

> 7) From this he gives up all other activities (Sarva Karma

> Sanyasa)and devotes himself exclusively to Hearing(Sravana),

> Reflecting (Manana), and contemplating (Nidihhyasana), on the Vedantic

> Sentences.

> 8) From these last three means, Hearing,Reflecting and

> Contemplating(the Direct Means---Sakshat Sadhanas) the aspirant comes

> to Know the meaning of the Sentences like 'Tat Tvam Asi' and thus

> desroys his Ignorance, and gets established in his own True Self

> alone.

> There is then no more Sadhana needed OR POSSIBLE to 'deepen

> ones Understanding' nor an Understanding needed OR POSSIBLE to 'deepen

> ones Sadhana'.

> THERE IS NO MORE SADHAKA!!!!!!NO MORE UNDERSTANDER

> ONLY THE ATMAN

> Hari Om

> Atmachaitanya

>

>

> -- In advaitin, "satyan_c" <satyan_c> wrote:

> > Hari Om!

> >

> > I have to admit that inspite of my best efforts, I had difficulty

> > keeping track of the various sub-threads of discussion going on

> under

> > the tile "My views on Nirvikalpa Samadhi and Advaita". Hence, for

> the

> > particular issues I wanted to raise, i am starting a new thread.

> >

> > The gist of the standpoint expressed by Sri AtmaChaitanyaji, I have

> > understood as being:

> >

> > 1) Axiom: Vedanta Shastras are the pramana (means of knowledge) for

> > gaining Knowledge of the NonDual Self

> >

> > 2) Being a pramana, its validity rests in itself. Hence, it doesn't

> > need any other means of knowledge for further corroboration. This

> > rules out the need for Nirvikalpa Samadhi etc, which is being

> > discussed in the other thread.

> >

> > 3) By 1) and 2), It follows that it is sufficient to understand the

> > Shastras to realize the Self.

> >

> > This standpoint, expressed above, is not new and it cannot be

> lightly

> > dismissed as being without substance. Although, I do not conform to

> > this view completeley myself, I am open to it as possibly being a

> > valid and self-consistent viewpoint. I must admit that I have been

> > influenced by Swami Dayananda Saraswati's discourses on the same

> subject.

> > I have some questions (possibly quite basic) regarding this

> viewpoint

> > in particular and they are as follows:

> >

> > 1) Agreed that it may indeed be possible to gain Self Knowledge by

> > truly understanding the import of the scriptures alone and not any

> > other practice. However, this requires a great deal of 'purity' or

> > quietitude of mind. Then alone the Knowledge is gained.How can we

> > assert that the Self Knowledge was gained by the means of the

> > scripture alone and not by the means of the pure mind? In a calm

> lake,

> > the bottom is clearly seen. In the same way, in a pure mind, the

> Self

> > is clearly reflected. In other words, could there not be an equally

> > valid view that the 'Pure Mind is the Pramana'?

> >

> > 2) For most of us, sadhana and understanding go hand in hand. The

> > understanding happens due to a quiet mind which in turn is the

> result

> > of sadhana. The sadhana deepens understanding which deepens the

> > sadhana which in turn helps the understanding which in turn deepens

> > the sadhana and so on.....How can we assert that the 'final blow' of

> > Self Knowledge was lent only by the Shastra and not by the years of

> > sadhana that went to create the pure mind capable of grasping Self

> > Knowledge?

> >

> > As an aside, we must have heard of the Zen story where a Zen master

> > realized suddenly for seemingly no reason when he spilt some hot tea

> > over himself. For a pure mind, a random insignificant event could be

> > enough to 'trigger' Self Knowledge. The point I am trying to make is

> > that can the Shastra take sole credit for being the means of 'Self

> > Knowledge', particularly when the mind is already purified by years

> of

> > sadhana?

> >

> > In other words, couldn't there be another equally valid view that

> > 'Sadhana is the Pramana'?

> >

> > If I have made some fundamental errors here, I humbly request

> > corrections and comments.

> >

> > warmest regards,

> > --Satyan

>

>

 

 

 

 

Send your FREE holiday greetings online!

http://greetings.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Prashanth Godrehal <gprasha> wrote:

>

> Greetings,

>

> I have a basic doubt. How did our Sages realised the "Tat Tvam

Asi". From what

> I understand , the Shastra what we say today is what the sages have

uttered

> when they were meditating on the self. I have always belived that

the sages,

> meditated upon the self, and ones they reached the samadhi state

they were

> reveled of all these great Mahavakyas. After coming to waking state

they

> started thinking about these Mahavakya's. So the process seems to

be meditate

> on the self, and ones we are in that Samadhi state, everything

becomes crystal

> clear and it is intutional flash that we experience at that time is

what all

> the Upanishads say. If we already know the upanishad teaching than

it becomes

> easy for someone to understand the experiences, otherwise he will

still ponder

> over those experinces when he comes back to Waking state since he

cannot

> understand those experinces because his knowledge about such

experiences is

> nill and that is why he comes out with his own version of

explaining them.

 

Oh very nice conclusion!

 

love,

 

Colette

 

>

> Please clarify my doubt on this.

>

> sarvam vasudevamayam jagath

> Prashanth

[Guest guest]

Namaste Atmachaitanya

 

I've been reading/studying all your posts with great interest. I must say

that your views are logical, experiential and assimilable to me. Please

send more such posts. I am benefitting alot from it. Thanks.

>

> atmachaitanya108 [sMTP:stadri]

> Sunday, December 30, 2001 4:52 PM

> advaitin

> Re: Vedanta Shastra Pramana

>

>

>

> Dear Satyan,

>

> When you say "Could there not be an equally valid view that the

> 'Pure Mind' is the pramana" or, "Sadhana and Understanding go hand

> and hand. The Sadhana deepens the Understanding and the Understanding

> deepens the Sadhana....", there seems to be a confusion as to what

> exactly a Pramana is, as well as the relation that exists between

> Sadnana and Understanding, I will try to very briefly outline the

> nature of the Vedantic Pramana, the Understanding (Direct

> Knowledge)that it produces, and the function of Sadhanas in relation

> to these two.

>

> VEDANTIC TEXTS PURPORT TO TEACH ATMAN ALONE AS AN ENTITY

>

> (Vedantic texts are Jnapakam (they make something-that can't

> be known by any other pramana-known)not Karakam (they don't prompt one

> to engage in any activity or Sadhana.)

>

> That is to say , they merely negate all that is not really Atman's

> properties, and culminate in directly revealing the self-established

> Atman. There would remain nothing more to be done,nor any agent left

> to do it, after realizing the import of the texts.

>

> (Various strange beliefs prevail among those that are not aware

> of this open secret. Some imagine that the Vedantic texts yield only

> 'Indirect Knowledge' of Atman. And hence AFTER the Indirect Knowledge:

> 1)That Knowledge must be repeated to a) make it 'strong', b)convert

> it into Direct Knowledge.(Prasankyana Vada) 2)One must merge the world

> of multiplicity in Atman by means of meditation(Prapancha Vilaya

> Vada),or, 3) meditate on the qualityless Brahman(Nirguna Brahman

> Upasana Vada), or, 4)Practice Patanjali Yoga for the attainment of

> Nirvikalpa (Chita Vriti Nirodha Vada,or, 5)the continued mental

> repitition of the sylable OM is required(Pranava Abhyasa Vada).

>

> BRIEF DELIBERATION ON MOKSHA SADHANAS

> (ACCORDING TO SRI SHANKARA AND SURESWARA)

>

> By the 'Direct Knowledge' of Atman that is born out of the

> Vedantic Sentences ALONE, Moksha is attained. In addition, once that

> 'Direct Knowledge' is attained there does not at all remain anything

> further to be done to attain Moksha. As Sureswaracharya puts it:

>

> "By virtue of sentences such as TAT TVAM ASI (That Thou Art)

> etc. Knowledge accures. Then one realizes that neither Ignorance nor

> its effect(the Universe) ever existed in the past, is not existing

> now, and will not be existing in the future also." (Sam. Vartica.183)

>

> Since this Direct Knowledge -- that is produced only by the

> Vedantic Sentences -- accrues only to qualified aspirants, both

> Shankara(Sutra Bhasya 1-1-1) and Sureswara(Naishkarmya Siddhi

> 1-52)give the details as well as the steps by which one can become

> endowed with the necessary qualifications for Vedantic Knowledge.

> (i.e.: Vedantic Knowledge does not arise in every Tom, Dick and Harry

> that happens to hear the Vedantic Sentence Tat Tvam Asi). Here follows

> a rough outlne of the process:

>

> 1)Give up all desire promted actions (Kamya Karmas).

> 2)Give up all prohibited actions (Pratisheda Karmas).

> 3)By performing your daily responsiblities (Nitya karmas)

> without longing after the fruits, and as worship to the Supreme, one

> aquires merit(Punya)which in turn destroys sin (papa).

> 4)By virtue of the above, purification of the mind takes

> place.( A PURE MIND IS NOT A PRAMANA, PURITY AND QUITUDE ARE THE

> PRE-CONDITIONS FOR kNOWLEDGE BUT NOT ITS 'MEANS')

> 5)By virtue of a pure mind one is able to clearly see

> exactly what is the nature of this Samsara.(TEMPORARY,AND FILLED WITH

> DEFECTS)

> 6)Thereafter Dispassion (Vairagya)and an one pointed and

> all consuming desire for Moksha arises.

> 7) From this he gives up all other activities (Sarva Karma

> Sanyasa)and devotes himself exclusively to Hearing(Sravana),

> Reflecting (Manana), and contemplating (Nidihhyasana), on the Vedantic

> Sentences.

> 8) From these last three means, Hearing,Reflecting and

> Contemplating(the Direct Means---Sakshat Sadhanas) the aspirant comes

> to Know the meaning of the Sentences like 'Tat Tvam Asi' and thus

> desroys his Ignorance, and gets established in his own True Self

> alone.

> There is then no more Sadhana needed OR POSSIBLE to 'deepen

> ones Understanding' nor an Understanding needed OR POSSIBLE to 'deepen

> ones Sadhana'.

> THERE IS NO MORE SADHAKA!!!!!!NO MORE UNDERSTANDER

> ONLY THE ATMAN

> Hari Om

> Atmachaitanya

>

>

> -- In advaitin, "satyan_c" <satyan_c> wrote:

> > Hari Om!

> >

> > I have to admit that inspite of my best efforts, I had difficulty

> > keeping track of the various sub-threads of discussion going on

> under

> > the tile "My views on Nirvikalpa Samadhi and Advaita". Hence, for

> the

> > particular issues I wanted to raise, i am starting a new thread.

> >

> > The gist of the standpoint expressed by Sri AtmaChaitanyaji, I have

> > understood as being:

> >

> > 1) Axiom: Vedanta Shastras are the pramana (means of knowledge) for

> > gaining Knowledge of the NonDual Self

> >

> > 2) Being a pramana, its validity rests in itself. Hence, it doesn't

> > need any other means of knowledge for further corroboration. This

> > rules out the need for Nirvikalpa Samadhi etc, which is being

> > discussed in the other thread.

> >

> > 3) By 1) and 2), It follows that it is sufficient to understand the

> > Shastras to realize the Self.

> >

> > This standpoint, expressed above, is not new and it cannot be

> lightly

> > dismissed as being without substance. Although, I do not conform to

> > this view completeley myself, I am open to it as possibly being a

> > valid and self-consistent viewpoint. I must admit that I have been

> > influenced by Swami Dayananda Saraswati's discourses on the same

> subject.

> > I have some questions (possibly quite basic) regarding this

> viewpoint

> > in particular and they are as follows:

> >

> > 1) Agreed that it may indeed be possible to gain Self Knowledge by

> > truly understanding the import of the scriptures alone and not any

> > other practice. However, this requires a great deal of 'purity' or

> > quietitude of mind. Then alone the Knowledge is gained.How can we

> > assert that the Self Knowledge was gained by the means of the

> > scripture alone and not by the means of the pure mind? In a calm

> lake,

> > the bottom is clearly seen. In the same way, in a pure mind, the

> Self

> > is clearly reflected. In other words, could there not be an equally

> > valid view that the 'Pure Mind is the Pramana'?

> >

> > 2) For most of us, sadhana and understanding go hand in hand. The

> > understanding happens due to a quiet mind which in turn is the

> result

> > of sadhana. The sadhana deepens understanding which deepens the

> > sadhana which in turn helps the understanding which in turn deepens

> > the sadhana and so on.....How can we assert that the 'final blow' of

> > Self Knowledge was lent only by the Shastra and not by the years of

> > sadhana that went to create the pure mind capable of grasping Self

> > Knowledge?

> >

> > As an aside, we must have heard of the Zen story where a Zen master

> > realized suddenly for seemingly no reason when he spilt some hot tea

> > over himself. For a pure mind, a random insignificant event could be

> > enough to 'trigger' Self Knowledge. The point I am trying to make is

> > that can the Shastra take sole credit for being the means of 'Self

> > Knowledge', particularly when the mind is already purified by years

> of

> > sadhana?

> >

> > In other words, couldn't there be another equally valid view that

> > 'Sadhana is the Pramana'?

> >

> > If I have made some fundamental errors here, I humbly request

> > corrections and comments.

> >

> > warmest regards,

> > --Satyan

>

>

>

> 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]

Sri Atmachaitanyaji,

 

Thanks for your detailed response. That does clarify a few things.

> "By virtue of sentences such as TAT TVAM ASI (That Thou Art)

> etc. Knowledge accures. Then one realizes that neither Ignorance nor

> its effect(the Universe) ever existed in the past, is not existing

> now, and will not be existing in the future also." (Sam.Vartica.183)

> 8) From these last three means, Hearing,Reflecting and

> Contemplating(the Direct Means---Sakshat Sadhanas) the aspirantcomes

> to Know the meaning of the Sentences like 'Tat Tvam Asi' and thus

> desroys his Ignorance, and gets established in his own True Self

> alone.

 

My understanding of the Nature of this Knowledge (obtained purely from

contemplation on the scripture and no other pramana) when a Sadhaka

attempts to understand the Mahavakya is:

 

(1) The scripture reveals clearly the Mithya nature of the 'Individual

Entity' that the Sadhaka had taken himself to be all (so called) his

(so called ) life.

 

(2) The Sadhaka hence realizes with (a degree of) certainity that 'I'

am not the 'person' I have erroneously taken myself to be all my life.

 

(3) Having negated his current identity, now with the help of the

Mahavakya, with Shraddha in it, The Sadhaka is 'convinced with (a

degree of) certainity in the Intellect that 'I must be Bramhan because

the scripture says so'

 

Here are a few questions:

 

A) Is this understanding of the 'Nature of Knowledge' correct or is it

way off from what it is as Sankara/Sureshwara expound.

 

B) How does 'a degree of' certainity in (2/3) above change to

'absolute' certainity without any further Sadhana. Is it purely by

'more' and 'more' contemplation on the Mahavakya?

 

C) Does this understanding of the Mahavakya take place as a 'Vritti'

in the intellect or does it also become 'Being Knowledge' immediately?

Apparently you are referring to 'Being Knowledge', as you denied the

need for any further understanding/seeking post the 'understanding' of

the Mahavakya.

 

D) What is the process by which the understanding goes from the Vritti

that 'I know I am not the Mithya Ego, Hence I could only be Bramhan

because the scripture says so' to the wordless Being of 'I am

undoubtedly Bramhan'.

 

If it is inconvenient to answer these questions one by one, I would

appreciate it if you and other learned members could simply elaborate

on the understanding of the Mahavakya in detail (with an eye on these

questions, i.e understanding in the intellect as a vritti vs Being

Knowledge etc) and hopefully my questions will be answered.

 

warmest regards,

--Satyan

[Guest guest]

Hari Om !!

 

We all appreciate that you enlisted your views more accurately this

time.

 

It is well understood by all that some preparatory steps, or tuneup

is required in our bosom to be able to realize our true nature.

 

At the time when I was in difficulty (probably right time), I heard

the words of a teacher that I am not the Ego center, and God is

within me. At this time I needed more understanding of what is being

talked about. I read some books, listened to some lectures. I felt

there was a prescription for happiness.

 

My quest brought me to enquire how can I reach that goal. Satsang,

and reading brought some clarity to what is the goal. All processes

said, Meditation is the only means, so I started on the journey. Ever

since I am making adjustments in the world without and within.

 

I understand that at the time of cessasion of the duality, I will

know that "I am That".

 

I have not read "Nishkarma Siddi" yet. But, to know what I am, I do

not need any external aids. That Knowledge is within me. I only need

to reach out, and shed what I am not.

 

What you referred in point # 8 is what I (most others too) call

Nirvikalpa Samadhi, whether you attribute a nomenclature to it or not.

(Drig Drishya Viveka defines so).

 

----

contemplating (Nidihhyasana), on the Vedantic

> > Sentences.

---

 

Here again my meditation is not on Vedantic Sentences. I chose a

method suitable for my temperamet which is also prescribed as other

types of medation.

 

I was wondering if you would say (Nididhyasa)

Contemplation/Meditation is not necessary.

 

I am convinced beyond doubt that ---

Sravana does not mean reading or listening to Upanishads or Vartikas

or Tikas from beginning to end. I would consider, an opportune moment

wherein a blind, struggling, worldly man looking for a solution to

the riddle of life and its problems,is told "Tat Tvam Asi" from some

source, is enough.

 

Beyond that one may spend his time reading more books or listening to

more lectures, depending on how much preparation one needs.

 

Whether it be Patanjali Yoga or Bhakti or Karma or some other means,

all of them bring the seeker to your point # 8, that single

pointedness. A specific path may be more appealing based on one's

temperament.

 

I along with all others appreciate your effort to convey us your

views which helps us consolidate our own thoughts.

 

Om Namo Narayanaya !!

 

Srikrishna

 

 

advaitin, K Kathirasan NCS <kkathir@n...> wrote:

> Namaste Atmachaitanya

>

> I've been reading/studying all your posts with great interest. I

must say

> that your views are logical, experiential and assimilable to me.

Please

> send more such posts. I am benefitting alot from it. Thanks.

>

> >

> > atmachaitanya108 [sMTP:stadri@a...]

> > Sunday, December 30, 2001 4:52 PM

> > advaitin

> > Re: Vedanta Shastra Pramana

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear Satyan,

> >

> > When you say "Could there not be an equally valid view that

the

> > 'Pure Mind' is the pramana" or, "Sadhana and Understanding go

hand

> > and hand. The Sadhana deepens the Understanding and the

Understanding

> > deepens the Sadhana....", there seems to be a confusion as to

what

> > exactly a Pramana is, as well as the relation that exists between

> > Sadnana and Understanding, I will try to very briefly outline the

> > nature of the Vedantic Pramana, the Understanding (Direct

> > Knowledge)that it produces, and the function of Sadhanas in

relation

> > to these two.

> >

> > VEDANTIC TEXTS PURPORT TO TEACH ATMAN ALONE AS AN ENTITY

> >

> > (Vedantic texts are Jnapakam (they make something-that

can't

> > be known by any other pramana-known)not Karakam (they don't

prompt one

> > to engage in any activity or Sadhana.)

> >

> > That is to say , they merely negate all that is not really

Atman's

> > properties, and culminate in directly revealing the self-

established

> > Atman. There would remain nothing more to be done,nor any agent

left

> > to do it, after realizing the import of the texts.

> >

> > (Various strange beliefs prevail among those that are not

aware

> > of this open secret. Some imagine that the Vedantic texts yield

only

> > 'Indirect Knowledge' of Atman. And hence AFTER the Indirect

Knowledge:

> > 1)That Knowledge must be repeated to a) make it 'strong', b)

convert

> > it into Direct Knowledge.(Prasankyana Vada) 2)One must merge the

world

> > of multiplicity in Atman by means of meditation(Prapancha Vilaya

> > Vada),or, 3) meditate on the qualityless Brahman(Nirguna Brahman

> > Upasana Vada), or, 4)Practice Patanjali Yoga for the attainment

of

> > Nirvikalpa (Chita Vriti Nirodha Vada,or, 5)the continued mental

> > repitition of the sylable OM is required(Pranava Abhyasa Vada).

> >

> > BRIEF DELIBERATION ON MOKSHA SADHANAS

> > (ACCORDING TO SRI SHANKARA AND SURESWARA)

> >

> > By the 'Direct Knowledge' of Atman that is born out of the

> > Vedantic Sentences ALONE, Moksha is attained. In addition, once

that

> > 'Direct Knowledge' is attained there does not at all remain

anything

> > further to be done to attain Moksha. As Sureswaracharya puts it:

> >

> > "By virtue of sentences such as TAT TVAM ASI (That Thou

Art)

> > etc. Knowledge accures. Then one realizes that neither Ignorance

nor

> > its effect(the Universe) ever existed in the past, is not

existing

> > now, and will not be existing in the future also." (Sam.

Vartica.183)

> >

> > Since this Direct Knowledge -- that is produced only by the

> > Vedantic Sentences -- accrues only to qualified aspirants, both

> > Shankara(Sutra Bhasya 1-1-1) and Sureswara(Naishkarmya Siddhi

> > 1-52)give the details as well as the steps by which one can

become

> > endowed with the necessary qualifications for Vedantic

Knowledge.

> > (i.e.: Vedantic Knowledge does not arise in every Tom, Dick and

Harry

> > that happens to hear the Vedantic Sentence Tat Tvam Asi). Here

follows

> > a rough outlne of the process:

> >

> > 1)Give up all desire promted actions (Kamya Karmas).

> > 2)Give up all prohibited actions (Pratisheda Karmas).

> > 3)By performing your daily responsiblities (Nitya

karmas)

> > without longing after the fruits, and as worship to the Supreme,

one

> > aquires merit(Punya)which in turn destroys sin (papa).

> > 4)By virtue of the above, purification of the mind

takes

> > place.( A PURE MIND IS NOT A PRAMANA, PURITY AND QUITUDE ARE THE

> > PRE-CONDITIONS FOR kNOWLEDGE BUT NOT ITS 'MEANS')

> > 5)By virtue of a pure mind one is able to clearly see

> > exactly what is the nature of this Samsara.(TEMPORARY,AND FILLED

WITH

> > DEFECTS)

> > 6)Thereafter Dispassion (Vairagya)and an one pointed

and

> > all consuming desire for Moksha arises.

> > 7) From this he gives up all other activities (Sarva

Karma

> > Sanyasa)and devotes himself exclusively to Hearing(Sravana),

> > Reflecting (Manana), and contemplating (Nidihhyasana), on the

Vedantic

> > Sentences.

> > 8) From these last three means, Hearing,Reflecting

and

> > Contemplating(the Direct Means---Sakshat Sadhanas) the aspirant

comes

> > to Know the meaning of the Sentences like 'Tat Tvam Asi' and thus

> > desroys his Ignorance, and gets established in his own True Self

> > alone.

> > There is then no more Sadhana needed OR POSSIBLE

to 'deepen

> > ones Understanding' nor an Understanding needed OR POSSIBLE

to 'deepen

> > ones Sadhana'.

> > THERE IS NO MORE SADHAKA!!!!!!NO MORE UNDERSTANDER

> > ONLY THE ATMAN

> > Hari Om

> > Atmachaitanya

> >

> >

> > -- In advaitin, "satyan_c" <satyan_c> wrote:

> > > Hari Om!

> > >

> > > I have to admit that inspite of my best efforts, I had

difficulty

> > > keeping track of the various sub-threads of discussion going on

> > under

> > > the tile "My views on Nirvikalpa Samadhi and Advaita". Hence,

for

> > the

> > > particular issues I wanted to raise, i am starting a new thread.

> > >

> > > The gist of the standpoint expressed by Sri AtmaChaitanyaji, I

have

> > > understood as being:

> > >

> > > 1) Axiom: Vedanta Shastras are the pramana (means of knowledge)

for

> > > gaining Knowledge of the NonDual Self

> > >

> > > 2) Being a pramana, its validity rests in itself. Hence, it

doesn't

> > > need any other means of knowledge for further corroboration.

This

> > > rules out the need for Nirvikalpa Samadhi etc, which is being

> > > discussed in the other thread.

> > >

> > > 3) By 1) and 2), It follows that it is sufficient to understand

the

> > > Shastras to realize the Self.

> > >

> > > This standpoint, expressed above, is not new and it cannot be

> > lightly

> > > dismissed as being without substance. Although, I do not

conform to

> > > this view completeley myself, I am open to it as possibly being

a

> > > valid and self-consistent viewpoint. I must admit that I have

been

> > > influenced by Swami Dayananda Saraswati's discourses on the

same

> > subject.

> > > I have some questions (possibly quite basic) regarding this

> > viewpoint

> > > in particular and they are as follows:

> > >

> > > 1) Agreed that it may indeed be possible to gain Self Knowledge

by

> > > truly understanding the import of the scriptures alone and not

any

> > > other practice. However, this requires a great deal of 'purity'

or

> > > quietitude of mind. Then alone the Knowledge is gained.How can

we

> > > assert that the Self Knowledge was gained by the means of the

> > > scripture alone and not by the means of the pure mind? In a

calm

> > lake,

> > > the bottom is clearly seen. In the same way, in a pure mind,

the

> > Self

> > > is clearly reflected. In other words, could there not be an

equally

> > > valid view that the 'Pure Mind is the Pramana'?

> > >

> > > 2) For most of us, sadhana and understanding go hand in hand.

The

> > > understanding happens due to a quiet mind which in turn is the

> > result

> > > of sadhana. The sadhana deepens understanding which deepens the

> > > sadhana which in turn helps the understanding which in turn

deepens

> > > the sadhana and so on.....How can we assert that the 'final

blow' of

> > > Self Knowledge was lent only by the Shastra and not by the

years of

> > > sadhana that went to create the pure mind capable of grasping

Self

> > > Knowledge?

> > >

> > > As an aside, we must have heard of the Zen story where a Zen

master

> > > realized suddenly for seemingly no reason when he spilt some

hot tea

> > > over himself. For a pure mind, a random insignificant event

could be

> > > enough to 'trigger' Self Knowledge. The point I am trying to

make is

> > > that can the Shastra take sole credit for being the means

of 'Self

> > > Knowledge', particularly when the mind is already purified by

years

> > of

> > > sadhana?

> > >

> > > In other words, couldn't there be another equally valid view

that

> > > 'Sadhana is the Pramana'?

> > >

> > > If I have made some fundamental errors here, I humbly request

> > > corrections and comments.

> > >

> > > warmest regards,

> > > --Satyan

> >

> >

> >

> > 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]

Dear Atmachaitanya

 

Let me summarise and read it back to you, as I am concerned that I have missed

something entirely, here.

 

You say, "Vedantic texts are Jnapakam (they make something-that can't be known

by any other pramana-known) not Karakam (they don't prompt one to engage in any

activity or Sadhana)."

 

But opening up one of my Upanishad books, I read (Kena Upanishad II):

 

1. If you think, "I know the Self", you know not.

All you can see is his external form.

Continue, therefore, your meditation.

 

????

 

Also your conjecture is that Patanjali's Union refers to several Atmans. Please

support your argument, quoting the relevant Sutra.

 

Why is Yoga not the Union of Atman and Brahman? Why, when the Nirodha of Chitta

Vritti has occurred does the duality of Maya not disappear?

 

And what does Seedless Samadhi (III.8 Tad api bahirangham nirbijasya) or Dharma

Megha Samadhi refer to?

 

Brian

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

dear brian

if yoga is not union of atma and paramatama,

then what is it ?

could u throw some light on it

with regards

n k bali

 

 

--- Brian Milnes <b.milnes wrote: >

Dear Atmachaitanya

>

> Let me summarise and read it back to you, as I am

> concerned that I have missed something entirely,

> here.

>

> You say, "Vedantic texts are Jnapakam (they make

> something-that can't be known by any other

> pramana-known) not Karakam (they don't prompt one to

> engage in any activity or Sadhana)."

>

> But opening up one of my Upanishad books, I read

> (Kena Upanishad II):

>

> 1. If you think, "I know the Self", you know not.

> All you can see is his external form.

> Continue, therefore, your meditation.

>

> ????

>

> Also your conjecture is that Patanjali's Union

> refers to several Atmans. Please support your

> argument, quoting the relevant Sutra.

>

> Why is Yoga not the Union of Atman and Brahman? Why,

> when the Nirodha of Chitta Vritti has occurred does

> the duality of Maya not disappear?

>

> And what does Seedless Samadhi (III.8 Tad api

> bahirangham nirbijasya) or Dharma Megha Samadhi

> refer to?

>

> Brian

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>

 

=====

 

with best wishes,

 

N.K.BALI

 

Visit my site on ' Bhagavad Gita ', a spiritual delight.You will love it.

http://in.geocities.com/gitabykrishna

 

 

 

______________________

Download Logos, Picture Messages & Ringtones for your mobile phone

Visit http://mobile..co.in

[Guest guest]

My understanding of the meaning of Yoga can be summarised by quoting Alistair

Shearer from his foreword to his subliminal translation of Patanjali's Sutras,

"Effortless Being":

 

"The word yoga, from the Sanskrit root YUJ: to join, means 'unity'. Panini...

tells us: 'That which unites is called yoga'. He proceeds to define the word in

three ways: 'union' samyoga, 'coherence' (sanyama), and the unification of the

individual mind with the universal Consciousness' (samadhi). Thus it is

synonymous with the original meaning of the word 'religion' - from the Latin

'religare', 'to bind back' - which means 're-unification'."

 

I think that the differentiation that we make between the Sad Darshana is based

on mundane thinking. To quote Shearer again, "But each system is merely a

different, yet equally valid perspective on a many sided reality. Each is a view

from a different level of consciousness. Any apparent contradictions only serve

to illustrate the limitations of one particular approach. Reality is too vast

and wondrous to be contained within the boundaries of any mind-made system

(maya)."

 

So, I don't believe that the joining of Atma (soul) with Paramatma (super-soul)

is the Yoga to which Patanjali refers, more he refers to the (re)union of Atman

with Brahman.

 

You may be interested in the view that various stages of consciousness exist on

the path to full Self Realisation. (Which is certainly what Patanjali alludes

to.) Maharshi Mahesh Yogi describes them in this way:

Transcendental Consciousness: "know that by which everything else is known" -

"go beyond the field of change and differencebe free from all dualities" BG

II.45

Cosmic Consciousness: permanent establishment of Self awareness - "as a lamp in

a windless place" BG VI.19

God Consciousness: awareness of the self-referral nature of consciousness "know

that I am the original seed of all existences. I am the intelligence of the

intelligent; the glory of the glorious am I" BG VII.10

Unity Consciousness: the continuum of experience, "Aham Brahmasmi", where all

differences are appreciated in terms of their common source - the Samhita.

"purnam adah, purnam idam". "He becomes non-existent, who knows that Brahman is

non-existent. Who knows that Brahman exists, is said to exist truly."--Taitt.

Up., II. 6.

 

A very similar perspective can be read on-line at

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/realis_0.html

 

Regards

 

Brian

|

| Narinder Bali [jaynkbali]

| Friday, 4 January 2002 10:58

| advaitin

| RE: Re: Vedanta Shastra Pramana

|

|

| dear brian

| if yoga is not union of atma and paramatama,

| then what is it ?

| could u throw some light on it

| with regards

| n k bali

|

|

| --- Brian Milnes <b.milnes wrote: >

| Dear Atmachaitanya

| >

| > Let me summarise and read it back to you, as I am

| > concerned that I have missed something entirely,

| > here.

| >

| > You say, "Vedantic texts are Jnapakam (they make

| > something-that can't be known by any other

| > pramana-known) not Karakam (they don't prompt one to

| > engage in any activity or Sadhana)."

| >

| > But opening up one of my Upanishad books, I read

| > (Kena Upanishad II):

| >

| > 1. If you think, "I know the Self", you know not.

| > All you can see is his external form.

| > Continue, therefore, your meditation.

| >

| > ????

| >

| > Also your conjecture is that Patanjali's Union

| > refers to several Atmans. Please support your

| > argument, quoting the relevant Sutra.

| >

| > Why is Yoga not the Union of Atman and Brahman? Why,

| > when the Nirodha of Chitta Vritti has occurred does

| > the duality of Maya not disappear?

| >

| > And what does Seedless Samadhi (III.8 Tad api

| > bahirangham nirbijasya) or Dharma Megha Samadhi

| > refer to?

| >

| > Brian

| >

| >

| > [Non-text portions of this message have been

| > removed]

| >

| >

|

| =====

|

| with best wishes,

|

| N.K.BALI

|

| Visit my site on ' Bhagavad Gita ', a spiritual

| delight.You will love it.

| http://in.geocities.com/gitabykrishna

|

|

|

| ___________

| ___________

| Download Logos, Picture Messages & Ringtones for your mobile phone

| Visit http://mobile..co.in

|

| ------------------------ Sponsor

| ---------------------~-->

| Tiny Wireless Camera under $80!

| Order Now! FREE VCR Commander!

| Click Here - Only 1 Day Left!

| http://us.click./WoOlbB/7.PDAA/ySSFAA/XUWolB/TM

| ----------------------------

| --------~->

|

| 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]

dear brian

namaskar

 

to quote u

 

"So, I don't believe that the joining of Atma (soul)

with Paramatma (super-soul) is the Yoga to which

Patanjali refers, more he refers to the (re)union of

Atman with Brahman"

 

I agree that paramatma (super soul is above Brahman),

but Atma and Atman i think are same

 

should we say yoga is joinng/(re)union of Atma and

Brahman

 

with regards

n k bali

 

 

 

 

-- Brian Milnes <b.milnes wrote: > My

understanding of the meaning of Yoga can be

> summarised by quoting Alistair Shearer from his

> foreword to his subliminal translation of

> Patanjali's Sutras, "Effortless Being":

>

> "The word yoga, from the Sanskrit root YUJ: to join,

> means 'unity'. Panini... tells us: 'That which

> unites is called yoga'. He proceeds to define the

> word in three ways: 'union' samyoga, 'coherence'

> (sanyama), and the unification of the individual

> mind with the universal Consciousness' (samadhi).

> Thus it is synonymous with the original meaning of

> the word 'religion' - from the Latin 'religare', 'to

> bind back' - which means 're-unification'."

>

> I think that the differentiation that we make

> between the Sad Darshana is based on mundane

> thinking. To quote Shearer again, "But each system

> is merely a different, yet equally valid perspective

> on a many sided reality. Each is a view from a

> different level of consciousness. Any apparent

> contradictions only serve to illustrate the

> limitations of one particular approach. Reality is

> too vast and wondrous to be contained within the

> boundaries of any mind-made system (maya)."

>

> So, I don't believe that the joining of Atma (soul)

> with Paramatma (super-soul) is the Yoga to which

> Patanjali refers, more he refers to the (re)union of

> Atman with Brahman.

>

> You may be interested in the view that various

> stages of consciousness exist on the path to full

> Self Realisation. (Which is certainly what Patanjali

> alludes to.) Maharshi Mahesh Yogi describes them in

> this way:

> Transcendental Consciousness: "know that by which

> everything else is known" - "go beyond the field of

> change and differencebe free from all dualities"

> BG II.45

> Cosmic Consciousness: permanent establishment of

> Self awareness - "as a lamp in a windless place" BG

> VI.19

> God Consciousness: awareness of the self-referral

> nature of consciousness "know that I am the original

> seed of all existences. I am the intelligence of the

> intelligent; the glory of the glorious am I" BG

> VII.10

> Unity Consciousness: the continuum of experience,

> "Aham Brahmasmi", where all differences are

> appreciated in terms of their common source - the

> Samhita. "purnam adah, purnam idam". "He becomes

> non-existent, who knows that Brahman is

> non-existent. Who knows that Brahman exists, is said

> to exist truly."--Taitt. Up., II. 6.

>

> A very similar perspective can be read on-line at

> http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/realis_0.html

>

> Regards

>

> Brian

> |

> | Narinder Bali [jaynkbali]

> | Friday, 4 January 2002 10:58

> | advaitin

> | RE: Re: Vedanta Shastra

> Pramana

> |

> |

> | dear brian

> | if yoga is not union of atma and paramatama,

> | then what is it ?

> | could u throw some light on it

> | with regards

> | n k bali

> |

> |

> | --- Brian Milnes <b.milnes wrote:

> >

> | Dear Atmachaitanya

> | >

> | > Let me summarise and read it back to you, as I

> am

> | > concerned that I have missed something

> entirely,

> | > here.

> | >

> | > You say, "Vedantic texts are Jnapakam (they

> make

> | > something-that can't be known by any other

> | > pramana-known) not Karakam (they don't prompt

> one to

> | > engage in any activity or Sadhana)."

> | >

> | > But opening up one of my Upanishad books, I

> read

> | > (Kena Upanishad II):

> | >

> | > 1. If you think, "I know the Self", you know

> not.

> | > All you can see is his external form.

> | > Continue, therefore, your meditation.

> | >

> | > ????

> | >

> | > Also your conjecture is that Patanjali's Union

> | > refers to several Atmans. Please support your

> | > argument, quoting the relevant Sutra.

> | >

> | > Why is Yoga not the Union of Atman and Brahman?

> Why,

> | > when the Nirodha of Chitta Vritti has occurred

> does

> | > the duality of Maya not disappear?

> | >

> | > And what does Seedless Samadhi (III.8 Tad api

> | > bahirangham nirbijasya) or Dharma Megha Samadhi

> | > refer to?

> | >

> | > Brian

> | >

> | >

> | > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> | > removed]

> | >

> | >

> |

> | =====

> |

> | with best wishes,

> |

> | N.K.BALI

> |

> | Visit my site on ' Bhagavad Gita ', a spiritual

>

> | delight.You will love it.

> | http://in.geocities.com/gitabykrishna

> |

> |

> |

> |

>

___________

> | ___________

> | Download Logos, Picture Messages & Ringtones for

> your mobile phone

> | Visit http://mobile..co.in

> |

> | ------------------------ Sponsor

> | ---------------------~-->

> | Tiny Wireless Camera under $80!

> | Order Now! FREE VCR Commander!

> | Click Here - Only 1 Day Left!

> |

>

http://us.click./WoOlbB/7.PDAA/ySSFAA/XUWolB/TM

> |

>

----------------------------

> | --------~->

> |

> | 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

> |

> |

> |

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>

 

=====

 

with best wishes,

 

N.K.BALI

 

Visit my site on ' Bhagavad Gita ', a spiritual delight.You will love it.

http://in.geocities.com/gitabykrishna

 

 

 

______________________

Looking for a job? Visit India Careers

Visit http://in.careers.

[Guest guest]

Dear Brian,

 

Let me attempt to clarify my possition somewhat by addressing your

4 questions.

 

1) To begin with, your quotation from the Kena Upan. is somewhat

mis-translated in that the sanksrit words 'mimasmsyam eva' means

"certainly to be deliberated on", or "certainly to be further

analyzed", It has nothing to due with asking the desciple to restrain

the vritis of his mind and attain Nirvikalpa Samadhi,or for him to

perform any activity whatsoever. The more accurate translation would

run like this:

 

"(teacher) "If you think it (Brahman ) is well known", then

you have certainly known only the very little form it has as the human

body and the very lettle form it has amongst the Gods. Therefore

Brahman is still to be deliberated on by you" (desciple) "I think It

(Brahman) is known." (kena 2-1) see 'Eight Upanishads translated by

Swami Gambirananda.

 

In the first section of the Kena Upanishad the question is asked,

"Willed by who does the directed mind go towards its object?" The

next eight verses states that it is Brahman that directs the mind, and

that Brahmaan is beyond the senses, and that it has to be known as

other than the 'known and the unknown'. And then goes on to say 'That

which is not known by the mind, but that by which the mind itself is

said to be known', Know that to be Brahman and not what people

meditate on as an object."

 

Section two begins with a test from the teacher to see if the

desciple has truly understood the traditional teaching of the

Upanishad, or, has he reified Brahman into a 'Known Object' whereby he

retains his own individual knowership. And the desciple replies that

he has understood the teaching corectly and has not made Brahman into

an object of meditation. Should you have any doubts about the

correctness of this interpretation I encourage you to take the time to

read Shakaras commentary on the sloka that you quoted as well as the

whole context.(It shouldn't take more than ten minutes) I am

confident that you will be convinced that there is no intention on the

part of the Upanishad for the desciple to preform any activity or

meditate on something, or attan Nirvikalpa Samadhi.

 

2) I can assure you that it is not 'my conjecture' that Patanjali

beleved in the reality of many Atmans, but rather, it is a recognized

fact by everyone who is even slighty familar with the different

schools of Indian thought. Please allow me to present a small

introduction to 'Indian Philosopy'101: There are six schools of Indian

Philosophy that are considered 'Orthodox'(Astikas) in that they

accepted the Veda as the Highest Authority,i.e.-Mimamsikas, Nyayikas,

Vaisheshikas, Samkhyas, Yogis,and Advaita Vedantins.( And three

schools that rejected the authority of the Vedas and were thus

considered Heterodox(Nastikas)i,e Buddhist, Jain and Materialist.)

Each of the Orthodox schools interpredted the Upanishads in there own

distinctive manner, but only the Vedantins rejected the 'Truth of

Duality' in every sense, and held that all that ever was, is, or will

be is the eternally changeless Non-Dual Brahman.All the other schools

upheld the 'truth of duality' in one way or another. Now the Dualistic

schools of Kapilas' Samkhya Darshana and Patanjalis'Yoga Darshana

basically share the same dualistic cosmology in which both agreed that

the Selfs(Purushas) were 'innumerable' in number, and each was

'real', and seperate from each other, as well as different from

Nature (Prakriti) which is also Real and Eternal. But unlike the

plurality of Purushas, Prakriti is Unitary and made up of three Gunas.

The only significant differnce between the Samkhyas and the

Yogins was that the Yogins felt the need to add one more 'real

principle into the mix:i.e, God, who is a Special Purusha, and who

they felt was need to explain the telology found in Nature.This

God(Isvara) is eternally different from all the other Purushas, in

that He was never under the influence Ignorance, while the other

Purushas have been caught in the net of Ignorance from beginingless

time.

The two most relevent Sutras with regard to this issue are as

follows:

 

" Although ceasing to exist in relation to Him whose purpose is

fufilled. the Knowable(Prikriti) is not desroyed, because it is

common to others." Sutra 2-23

Vyasa's commentary runs as follows:" Although having disappeared

(Prakriti) in relation to one Purusha, whose goal has been attained,

it is not really destroyed, because it is common to other Purushas.

(the Samkhya Sutra on this point is "Prakriti will always remain as it

is now. It's totall destruction is not possible")

Vacspati Mishras famous commentary on this Aphorism is as Follows:

'The plurality of Purusha and the Unitary nature of Prakriti

has been referred to in this Sutra. "Purusha is not Unitary like

Pradhana (Nature). The plurality of Puruhas is established from the

variety of individual selves, their birth and death,enjoyments of

pleasure and pain,liberation and bondage".... "Since no

spacio-temporal distinctions are applicable to the Seers, people argue

that it is not proper to imagine that one Seer is present here and

another Seer is at another place. But in reality the Sruti doesn't

mention the Oneness of the Seer, but only refers to the Oneness of the

Lord(Isvara)"

---------------

"Isvara is a special Purusha, unaffected by Afflictions,Deeds,Results

of Actions or the Latent Impressions thereof."Sutra 1-24

Vyasa introduces this Sutra with a question " Now, who is this

Isvara,who is different from the Purusha and Prakriti?" And explains

the Sutra as follows:

 

"Afllictions like Ignorance etc.good or bad deed, and the results

thereof as well as the impressions, though subsisting in the mind are

imputed to the Purusha. That is why Purusha is said to be experiencing

them.. The 'Special Purusha ,who, on account of his eternal

Liberation,is unaffected by the touch of enjoyment or suffering, is

called Isvara. There are many Purushas, and some have attained the

state of Liberation,cutting asunder the threefold bondage. However,

Isvara had no such bondage in the past nor will he have any in the

future. Liberated Purushas are known to have had a previous state of

bondage,but Isvars case is not like that."

 

To quote a modern, well know textbook: "According to Samkhya and

Yoga the 'life-monad called Purusha, is the living entity concealed

behind and within all the metemoprhoses of our life in bondage.The

number of the 'life monads(Purushas) in the Universe is supposed to be

infinate, and their 'proper nature'(svarupa) is regarded as totally

different from the lifeless 'matter' (Prakriti) in which they are

engulfed...Moreover,according to Samkhya-Yoga, Prakriti, composed of

the three gunas, is an absolutely indissoluble principle; so that the

world, together with its tangibble creatures, is understood to be

UTTERLY REAL. It is not a mere production of nescience(avidya), as it

is according to the orthodox Vedanta view. Besides, the Life-Monads

(Purushas) are real, They are separate entities distinct from matter,

and the are innumerable. This idea too is contray to the Vedanta

teaching." Philosophies of India by Heinrich

Zimmer,Pg.306

--

3)a: Yoga is'the Union of Atman and Brahman' according to Advaita

Vedanta (or more accurately, the 'oneness' of Atman and Brahman), But

as I have tried to explian this is not the view of Yoga Darshana.

 

3)b: When the'Nirodha of Chitta Vritti' has occured the

Prakriti(not Maya, for yoga Darshana Prikriti is not Maya, it is real)

'disappears ', but it is not destroyed, that is why it appears again

after the 'Vritis' return .

 

4) The 'Seedless Samadhi ' merely refers to that state which is free

from even 'concentration(Dharana), meditation(Dhyana), and Samadhi

with an object.. To quote Vyasa: "Those three practices which were

mentioned before as 'inner practices and in fact are external, as far

as 'Seedles Samadhi' is concerned. because Seedlessness is attained

when these three are also absent."sutra 3-8 Bhasya.

 

In my next post I will try to clarify the reasons people feel that

liberation must be the result of attaining some new state, and why

everyone thinks that by merely understanding the meaning of the

Upanishadic sentences, no direct experience of the Self could ever be

produced. I will approach this topic form a compltely different

standpoint, which I hope you, (and others who share your views), will

find more understandable.

 

Hari Om

Atmachaitanya

 

 

 

 

advaitin, Brian Milnes <b.milnes@b...> wrote:

> Dear Atmachaitanya

>

> Let me summarise and read it back to you, as I am concerned that I

have missed something entirely, here.

>

> You say, "Vedantic texts are Jnapakam (they make something-that

can't be known by any other pramana-known) not Karakam (they don't

prompt one to engage in any activity or Sadhana)."

>

> But opening up one of my Upanishad books, I read (Kena Upanishad

II):

>

> 1. If you think, "I know the Self", you know not.

> All you can see is his external form.

> Continue, therefore, your meditation.

>

> ????

>

> Also your conjecture is that Patanjali's Union refers to several

Atmans. Please support your argument, quoting the relevant Sutra.

>

> Why is Yoga not the Union of Atman and Brahman? Why, when the

Nirodha of Chitta Vritti has occurred does the duality of Maya not

disappear?

>

> And what does Seedless Samadhi (III.8 Tad api bahirangham

nirbijasya) or Dharma Megha Samadhi refer to?

>

> Brian

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Satyan,

 

Please excuse my tardy response: I will try to briefly

answer your questions,(without too much explaination, or scriptual and

commentarial quotations at this time).

 

A)This understanding of the 'Nature of Knowledge' (as you

presented it in your 3 part exposition) is "WAY OFF" from that which

is expounded by Sri Shankara and Sureswaracharya.

 

Part One is correct but incomplete. The Scripture not only

reveals the 'mithya nature' of the individual entity,but more

importantly it reveals the 'Oneness' of the 'individual entity'with

the Absolute Brahman,and that Brahman is Non-Dual(i.e.: That in Truth

there never was, is, or will be a second thing other than Brahman that

is a) different from it.b) the same as it, c)And within it there are

no distinctions).

 

Parts 2 and 3 are totally wrong. There is no question of

'degrees of certainty'.The most important point that must be

appreciated here is that the 'Knower of Brahman IS Brahman (BRAHMAVID

BRAHMA BHAVATI). fOR ONE WHO HAS UNDERSTOOD THE PURPORT OF THE

UPANISHADIC TEACHING, THERE IS NO MORE 'SADHAKA,the threefold

distinction of 'knower ,known and knowledge are gone for the Jnani

("But for him (the Jnani) when all has become the Self alone, then

what will he see and with what? What will he know and with

what?"Bridharanyaka Up.).This text clearly says that for the wise man

there is no more Duality. He has no convictions about the 'nature of

Reality', he has no degrees of certainy, he has no Sradha in the

Scriptures, there are no 'vrittis' that have to be converted into

'being knowledge' He is Brahman. In Vedanta 'Knowing means Being'. It

doesn't mean 'I am a knower, before I didn't know Brahman, now I know

Brahman', whereby the same Knowership remains, and now a new thing,

which was not known before , is now known by me. Vedantic Knowledge

means the complete absence of all Pramana,Prameya,Pramatru

Vyvahara(all empirical dealings of being a knower, using the 'means of

knowledge,and an object known).That is why it is called the ANTYAM

PRAMANAM (THE FINAL MEANS OF KNOWLEDGE). Because,( unlike the other

Pramans,whereby after they have revealed their objects,they continue

to exist, and the 'knower' remains), the Vedantic Pramana, upon

revealing its 'object', (Brahman),it ceases to be a Pramana,and the

'knower' also is gone.

 

B) Of course if you have understood what was said above, you can

certainly understand the impossibility of one who has understood the

'Mahavakyas' being able 'to do more and more contemplation of the

Mahavakyas, so as to change a "certain degree' of certainty into

'absolute certainty'.

 

c) The knowledge of Brahman has absolutely nothing to do with

any 'vrittis'.The whole discussion of "Vritti Vyapti and Phala Vyapti"

was introduced by Vedantic thinkers out side the Tradition of Shankara

and Sureswara. You will not find one hint of it in all their

writtings! (This is a point that Swami Dayananda is confussed about,

and should be ignored).

 

d)Therefore, there is no "process by which the understanding

goes from the 'Vriti' to the Wordless Being." Vriti Jnana (Conceptual

Knowledge), no matter how many times repeated,can never lead to the

Direct Knowledge of the Self.

 

Dear Satyan I realize that the question still remains "how then

can the mere understanding of a text bring about 'Direct Knowledge of

Brahman? But my purpose here is only to disabuse you of false notions

with regard to this subject and I will try explain more clearly how

in fact the Vedanta Teachings are the ONLY means to Know Brahman in

future posts.

 

Hari Om

Atmachaitanya

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "satyan_c" <satyan_c> wrote:

> Sri Atmachaitanyaji,

>

> Thanks for your detailed response. That does clarify a few things.

>

> > "By virtue of sentences such as TAT TVAM ASI (That Thou Art)

> > etc. Knowledge accures. Then one realizes that neither Ignorance

nor

> > its effect(the Universe) ever existed in the past, is not existing

> > now, and will not be existing in the future also."

(Sam.Vartica.183)

>

> > 8) From these last three means, Hearing,Reflecting and

> > Contemplating(the Direct Means---Sakshat Sadhanas) the

aspirantcomes

> > to Know the meaning of the Sentences like 'Tat Tvam Asi' and thus

> > desroys his Ignorance, and gets established in his own True Self

> > alone.

>

> My understanding of the Nature of this Knowledge (obtained purely

from

> contemplation on the scripture and no other pramana) when a Sadhaka

> attempts to understand the Mahavakya is:

>

> (1) The scripture reveals clearly the Mithya nature of the

'Individual

> Entity' that the Sadhaka had taken himself to be all (so called) his

> (so called ) life.

>

> (2) The Sadhaka hence realizes with (a degree of) certainity that

'I'

> am not the 'person' I have erroneously taken myself to be all my

life.

>

> (3) Having negated his current identity, now with the help of the

> Mahavakya, with Shraddha in it, The Sadhaka is 'convinced with (a

> degree of) certainity in the Intellect that 'I must be Bramhan

because

> the scripture says so'

>

> Here are a few questions:

>

> A) Is this understanding of the 'Nature of Knowledge' correct or is

it

> way off from what it is as Sankara/Sureshwara expound.

>

> B) How does 'a degree of' certainity in (2/3) above change to

> 'absolute' certainity without any further Sadhana. Is it purely by

> 'more' and 'more' contemplation on the Mahavakya?

>

> C) Does this understanding of the Mahavakya take place as a 'Vritti'

> in the intellect or does it also become 'Being Knowledge'

immediately?

> Apparently you are referring to 'Being Knowledge', as you denied the

> need for any further understanding/seeking post the 'understanding'

of

> the Mahavakya.

>

> D) What is the process by which the understanding goes from the

Vritti

> that 'I know I am not the Mithya Ego, Hence I could only be Bramhan

> because the scripture says so' to the wordless Being of 'I am

> undoubtedly Bramhan'.

>

> If it is inconvenient to answer these questions one by one, I would

> appreciate it if you and other learned members could simply

elaborate

> on the understanding of the Mahavakya in detail (with an eye on

these

> questions, i.e understanding in the intellect as a vritti vs Being

> Knowledge etc) and hopefully my questions will be answered.

>

> warmest regards,

> --Satyan

[Guest guest]

> I will try explain more clearly how

> in fact the Vedanta Teachings are the ONLY means to Know Brahman in

> future posts.

>

> Hari Om

> Atmachaitanya

 

If you can achieve this, then I, for one, will beat a path to your door.

 

(BTW, do you know anyone that claims to have achieved enlightenment by only

studying Vedanta?)

 

Regards

 

Brian

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi!

> (BTW, do you know anyone that claims to have achieved enlightenment by

only studying Vedanta?)

Well said.

I may add -- or by only repeating, lecturing, or by arguing?

-- Vis

-

"Brian Milnes" <b.milnes

<advaitin>

Sunday, January 06, 2002 1:21 PM

RE: Re: Vedanta Shastra Pramana

 

> > I will try explain more clearly how

> > in fact the Vedanta Teachings are the ONLY means to Know Brahman in

> > future posts.

> >

> > Hari Om

> > Atmachaitanya

>

> If you can achieve this, then I, for one, will beat a path to your door.

>

> (BTW, do you know anyone that claims to have achieved enlightenment by

only studying Vedanta?)

>

> Regards

>

> Brian

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Brian,

 

With regard to your question, "BTW, do you know anyone who claims to

have achieved enlightenment by only studying Vedanta?" My answer is

no. It is not merely the study of Vedanta that results in

enlightenment, but rather the understanding of the meaning of the

Vedantic sentences that results in Enlightenment. And yes, I know at

least three people who make this claim. Guadapada, Shankara and

Sureswara.

 

1) Guadapada- "This Self is seen by those Munis devoted to the

asertainment of the purort of the Vedas" Karika 2-35

2) Shankara "When by a most gracious teacher, who has himself

realized the Truth that is the meaning of the Upanishadic sentences,

he, the individual, is DIRECTLY AWAKENED THROUGH THE TEACHING: 'Thou

art not a bundle of causes and effects, but 'THOU ART THAT' Then the

individual realizes the bithless, Non Dual Turiya as his own Self,"

Karika Bhasya 1-16

 

3)Sureswara " OBjection by the Logicians: Ignorance is the

false knowledge ,attaching itself fast,that the body senses, mind and

intellect, which are not the Self , are the Self. From that arises the

association of the Self with manifold evils. When this Ignorance is

got rid of through rational discrimination itself,there is no matter

to be conveyed by the Scriptual proposition, 'That thou art'.

Therefore the glory of the proposition would lie merely in the

discrimination of the Self and the Non-Self. In refutation of this

objection the following is stated:

" This discriminative knowledge is apprehension of

difference; but in the Witness there is no difference. Apprehension of

difference is the effect of ignorance. The words of the Scripture set

it aside by focusing of the Self of the nature of Pure

Consciousness...After discarding all that is Non-Self on the ground

that it is subject to origin and cessation, the proposition 'That Thou

Art' destroys in the Self its darkness... Let the words be properly

taken and let their meanings be properly understood through rational

discrimination and usage in the world. Then the final import of the

proposition is rightly grasped...Now is pointed out that coming after

the discrimination between the Self and the Non-Self, THE PROPOSITION

ITSELF DESTROYS THE IGNORANCE AND BY THAT ESTABLISHES THE ASPIRANT

AFTER LIBERATION IN THE SUPREME KINGDOM OF SELF-SOVERIGNTY."

..."That the mind etc. is not the Self can be ascertained by reason

also. But they are not finally eliminated thereby.FOR EFFECTING THEIR

ELIMINATION THE ONLY RECOURSE IS TO THE VEDANTIC PROPOSITION."...One

who subsists on mere reason, does not only fail to achieve the disired

goal but also land in evil. This is brought out now:

"The Buddhists disregarded the Sruti in delustion and were

given to darkness as a consequence. They, being guided solely by

reasoning, landed in the Unreality of the Self!"...

 

"In fact there is no ground for such disregard. In all cases where

such a procedure is legitimate, the knowledge in question must be

simply re-affirming what is ascertained through another sourse of

knowledge, or it must be affirming what is contradicted by another

source of knowledge,or it must be indeterminate in itself, or it must

fail to convey any knowledge whatever. In the present case, none of

these reasons hold good. therefore it is said:

 

"On what grounds can the Sruti, which reveals the Real Self,

free from misery and inaccessible to any other sources of knowledge,

be judged as not being a source of valid Knowledge?" (Naiskarmasiddhi

3-6, 3-31 to 35)

*****************************

And yes, I will try to explain more clearly how in fact the

Vedantic Teachings are the ONLY means to know Brahman in future posts.

 

Hari Om

Atmachaitanya

 

 

 

> > I will try explain more clearly how

> > in fact the Vedanta Teachings are the ONLY means to Know Brahman

in

> > future posts.

> >

> > Hari Om

> > Atmachaitanya

>

> If you can achieve this, then I, for one, will beat a path to your

door.

>

> (BTW, do you know anyone that claims to have achieved enlightenment

by only studying Vedanta?)

>

> Regards

>

> Brian

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Atmachaitanya

 

Experiential knowledge is, in this as in everything, paramount to our

development and understanding. Will your description of a glass of ice cold

water quench the thirst of a dehydrated man?

 

" He who knows not the eternal syllable of the Veda, the highest point upon

which all the Gods repose, what business has he with the Veda? Only its knowers

sit here in peace and concord."

- Rig Veda I, 164, 39

 

The usefulness of Vedanta is that it is "needed to confirm the experience and

establish it fully".

 

Did Christ, or Buddha become enlightened through study of the Upanishads?

Guadapada was probably a Buddhist himself [A History of Indian Philosophy Volume

I, Chapter X, Surendranath Dasgupta]. (Try Christ - baptism accompanied by John

the Baptist, Buddha - under the Banyan tree.)

 

Let me quote extensively from the iskon web site

(http://www.iskcon.org/main/twohk/philo/roots/systems/vedanta.htm)

 

Shankara and Buddhism

--

Sometimes Shankara's advaita Vedanta commentary is presented in books about

Hinduism as if it is the original and only Vedanta philosophy. But a closer look

at the advaita doctrine shows it to be in opposition to many of the fundamental

tenets of the Vedanta-sutra. In his landmark work "The Brahmasutras and Their

Principal Commentaries" the eminent Indian scholar B.N.K. Sharma chronicles how

Shankara and his followers go so far as to "openly rebuff" Vyasadeva for his

wording of the original text of the Vedanta-sutra. The advaitists are not shy

about overturning the original sense of the text in order to push through their

own impersonal philosophy.

That Shankara's philosophy is more akin to Buddhism than Vedanta is widely

acknowledged. A Japanese Buddhist professor of Sanskrit, Hajime Nakamura, has

presented strong historical evidence that the ancient pre-Shankara Vedantists

were purusa-vadins (purusa = "person", vadin = "philosopher"). Purusavadins

understood the goal of Vedanta philosophy to be personal and termed God the

mahapurusa (Greatest Person). Bhavya, an Indian Buddhist author who lived

centuries before Shankara, wrote in the Madhyamika-hrdaya-karika that the

Vedantists of his time were adherents of the doctrine of bhedabheda

(simultaneous oneness and difference), which is personalistic. Another Indian

Buddhist writer, Bhartrhari, who lived at the same time as Shankara, stated that

although Shankara was a brahmana scholar of the Vedas, his impersonal teachings

resembled Buddhism. This is admitted by the followers of Shankara themselves.

Professor Dr. Rajmani Tigunait of the Himalayan Institute of Yoga is a

present-day exponent of advaita Vedanta; he writes that the ideas of the

Buddhist sunyavada (voidist) philosophers are "very close" to Shankara's.

Sunyavada is one of four important schools of Buddhism that developed in India

before Shankara's time. The word sunya (void) refers to the impersonal emptiness

that the Buddhists believe pervades all things. When one attains the

Buddha-consciousness, the forms of the world fade away like dreams and only

emptiness remains. In his Vedanta commentary, Shankara maintained the same idea

of ultimate emptiness, substituting the Upanisadic word brahman (the Absolute)

for sunya. Because Shankara argued that all names, forms, qualities, activities

and relationships are maya (illusion), even divine names and forms, his

philosophy is called mayavada (the doctrine of illusion).

 

But it is not that Shankara himself is utterly disrespected by the Vedantists of

other sampradayas. Shankara's purpose was to revive an interest in Vedanta

philosophy in an India that had largely rejected the Vedas in favor of Buddhism.

This task he accomplished brilliantly, albeit by artificially incorporating

Buddhist ideas into his commentary so as to make it acceptable to the

intellectuals of his time. It became the task of later Vedantists in other

sampradayas to rid Vedanta philosophy of the last vestiges of Buddhism. Though

they attacked the mayavadi conception as non-Vedic, they owed Shankara a debt

for having brought Vedanta to the forefront of Indian philosophical discussion.

 

Regards

 

Brian

 

PS. CAPITALISED text indicates shouting in "netiquette" terms, and isn't

necessary.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Brian,

 

You ask "Did Christ or the Buddha become enlightened through the

study of the Upanishads?",and my answer is no. They niether studied

the Upanishads nor were they enlightened!

 

The Upanishadic teaching that Reality is Non Dual in the following

threefold radical sense:

 

1) Other than that Non-Dual Reality, there is no other

Reality that is the same as it (Na Sajati Beda).

2) Other than that Non-Dual Reality, there is no other

Reality that is different from it (Na Vijati Beda).

3) Within that Non-Dual Reality, there are no

distinctions whatsoever(Na Svagati Beda)

 

is the unique teaching of the Upanishads, the Asadarana Dharma. This

was not taught by the Buddha,Christ,Mohammed,or any other

theologian,mystic,or logician.It is found only in the Upanishads.

 

Now as far as your claims, or rather the claims of so-called

'scholars' like Nakamura, Das Gupta, B.N.K.Sharma, as well as

'followers of Shankara' like Dr Rajmani Tigunait, as well as Swami

Baktivedantas', Iscon site,that:

 

1)Gaudapada was probably a Buddhist

2)Shankara was a hidden Buddhhist

3)Shankara was the founder of 'Impersonal Vedanta' and

before him Vedanta was 'Personalistic'

4)Shankaras concept of Reality was the 'same as' or 'very

close' to the Emptiness concept of the Buddhists

 

are very serious charges, and all those who claim to be Advaita

Vedantins, and all those who claim to be follow Shankaras Tradition,

shoud either provide a response to these charges or begin studying

Nargarjuna and Chandrakirti, for they are the true representatives of

Sunya Vada.

I await the rebuttle of these charges by the other learned

members of this site, dedicated to a Discussion of 'Shankaras

Advaita'. I might add that if these charges cant be refuted, then

maybe we should forget about studying Shankaras Vivekachudamani, and

join Brian at the Hare Rama,Hare Krishna web site,in as much as the

Dualistic Vaishnava Acaryas would then become the 'true

representatives' of the ancient Vedantic Tradition.

 

Hari Om

Atmachaitanya

 

P.S. Sorry for the 'shouting' I'll try to control myself in the

future.

 

 

advaitin, Brian Milnes <b.milnes@b...> wrote:

> Dear Atmachaitanya

>

> Experiential knowledge is, in this as in everything, paramount to

our development and understanding. Will your description of a glass of

ice cold water quench the thirst of a dehydrated man?

>

> " He who knows not the eternal syllable of the Veda, the highest

point upon which all the Gods repose, what business has he with the

Veda? Only its knowers sit here in peace and concord."

> - Rig Veda I, 164, 39

>

> The usefulness of Vedanta is that it is "needed to confirm the

experience and establish it fully".

>

> Did Christ, or Buddha become enlightened through study of the

Upanishads? Guadapada was probably a Buddhist himself [A History of

Indian Philosophy Volume I, Chapter X, Surendranath Dasgupta]. (Try

Christ - baptism accompanied by John the Baptist, Buddha - under the

Banyan tree.)

>

> Let me quote extensively from the iskon web site

(http://www.iskcon.org/main/twohk/philo/roots/systems/vedanta.htm)

>

> Shankara and Buddhism

>

----

----------

> Sometimes Shankara's advaita Vedanta commentary is presented in

books about Hinduism as if it is the original and only Vedanta

philosophy. But a closer look at the advaita doctrine shows it to be

in opposition to many of the fundamental tenets of the Vedanta-sutra.

In his landmark work "The Brahmasutras and Their Principal

Commentaries" the eminent Indian scholar B.N.K. Sharma chronicles how

Shankara and his followers go so far as to "openly rebuff" Vyasadeva

for his wording of the original text of the Vedanta-sutra. The

advaitists are not shy about overturning the original sense of the

text in order to push through their own impersonal philosophy.

> That Shankara's philosophy is more akin to Buddhism than Vedanta is

widely acknowledged. A Japanese Buddhist professor of Sanskrit, Hajime

Nakamura, has presented strong historical evidence that the ancient

pre-Shankara Vedantists were purusa-vadins (purusa = "person", vadin =

"philosopher"). Purusavadins understood the goal of Vedanta philosophy

to be personal and termed God the mahapurusa (Greatest Person).

Bhavya, an Indian Buddhist author who lived centuries before Shankara,

wrote in the Madhyamika-hrdaya-karika that the Vedantists of his time

were adherents of the doctrine of bhedabheda (simultaneous oneness and

difference), which is personalistic. Another Indian Buddhist writer,

Bhartrhari, who lived at the same time as Shankara, stated that

although Shankara was a brahmana scholar of the Vedas, his impersonal

teachings resembled Buddhism. This is admitted by the followers of

Shankara themselves. Professor Dr. Rajmani Tigunait of the Himalayan

Institute of Yoga is a present-day exponent of advaita Vedanta; he

writes that the ideas of the Buddhist sunyavada (voidist) philosophers

are "very close" to Shankara's. Sunyavada is one of four important

schools of Buddhism that developed in India before Shankara's time.

The word sunya (void) refers to the impersonal emptiness that the

Buddhists believe pervades all things. When one attains the

Buddha-consciousness, the forms of the world fade away like dreams and

only emptiness remains. In his Vedanta commentary, Shankara maintained

the same idea of ultimate emptiness, substituting the Upanisadic word

brahman (the Absolute) for sunya. Because Shankara argued that all

names, forms, qualities, activities and relationships are maya

(illusion), even divine names and forms, his philosophy is called

mayavada (the doctrine of illusion).

>

> But it is not that Shankara himself is utterly disrespected by the

Vedantists of other sampradayas. Shankara's purpose was to revive an

interest in Vedanta philosophy in an India that had largely rejected

the Vedas in favor of Buddhism. This task he accomplished brilliantly,

albeit by artificially incorporating Buddhist ideas into his

commentary so as to make it acceptable to the intellectuals of his

time. It became the task of later Vedantists in other sampradayas to

rid Vedanta philosophy of the last vestiges of Buddhism. Though they

attacked the mayavadi conception as non-Vedic, they owed Shankara a

debt for having brought Vedanta to the forefront of Indian

philosophical discussion.

>

> Regards

>

> Brian

>

> PS. CAPITALISED text indicates shouting in "netiquette" terms, and

isn't necessary.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Atmachaitanyaji,

 

First of all, let me thank you again for taking the time to respond.

You made several profound points and I see that even the 'knowership'

shouldn't remain. If the 'knowership' remains, then the Mahavakya has

not been understood! I am reminded of a quotation by Swami

Krishnananda here: "If That is everywhere, then you are nowhere!".

Indeed, we do acknowledge that Bramhan is all pervading. If that is

truly understood, then what room is there for me, a separate knower,

apart from Bramhan? I thank you again for bringing this point out so well.

 

I will look forward to your postings on how "understanding can bring

about direct knowledge".

 

I don't mean to stifle any discussion but regarding the speculations

recently made about Sankara, Gaudapada etc, I am not sure if we need

to bring down the level of our discussions in this newsgroup to

refuting such claims. I have heard similar issues raised before by the

same not so well informed groups in the past and I would just refer

the interested to study Swami Nikhilananda's (Ramakrishna Mission)

Preface to the commentary on the Mandukya Upanisad and Gaudapada's

Karikas. The Swami goes to great lengths to present the flaws in the

analysis of these esteemed scholars including Prof Dasgupta. He

concludes by saying: "The estimate of Gaudapada and his Karika as

given by Prof. Das Gupta in his History of Indian Philosophy, does not

indicate the high water-mark of unbiased judgement".

 

I hope that the moderators can compile a list of such rebuttals

already published and available so that the interested can simply

refer to them. In this manner, I am hoping that we can continue to

focus our energies on more constructive dialogues.

 

warmest regards,

--Satyan

 

advaitin, "atmachaitanya108" <stadri@a...> wrote:

>

> Dear Satyan,

>

> Please excuse my tardy response: I will try to briefly

> answer your questions,(without too much explaination, or scriptual and

> commentarial quotations at this time).

>

> A)This understanding of the 'Nature of Knowledge' (as you

> presented it in your 3 part exposition) is "WAY OFF" from that which

> is expounded by Sri Shankara and Sureswaracharya.

>

> Part One is correct but incomplete. The Scripture not only

> reveals the 'mithya nature' of the individual entity,but more

> importantly it reveals the 'Oneness' of the 'individual entity'with

> the Absolute Brahman,and that Brahman is Non-Dual(i.e.: That in Truth

> there never was, is, or will be a second thing other than Brahman that

> is a) different from it.b) the same as it, c)And within it there are

> no distinctions).

>

> Parts 2 and 3 are totally wrong. There is no question of

> 'degrees of certainty'.The most important point that must be

> appreciated here is that the 'Knower of Brahman IS Brahman (BRAHMAVID

> BRAHMA BHAVATI). fOR ONE WHO HAS UNDERSTOOD THE PURPORT OF THE

> UPANISHADIC TEACHING, THERE IS NO MORE 'SADHAKA,the threefold

> distinction of 'knower ,known and knowledge are gone for the Jnani

> ("But for him (the Jnani) when all has become the Self alone, then

> what will he see and with what? What will he know and with

> what?"Bridharanyaka Up.).This text clearly says that for the wise man

> there is no more Duality. He has no convictions about the 'nature of

> Reality', he has no degrees of certainy, he has no Sradha in the

> Scriptures, there are no 'vrittis' that have to be converted into

> 'being knowledge' He is Brahman. In Vedanta 'Knowing means Being'. It

> doesn't mean 'I am a knower, before I didn't know Brahman, now I know

> Brahman', whereby the same Knowership remains, and now a new thing,

> which was not known before , is now known by me. Vedantic Knowledge

> means the complete absence of all Pramana,Prameya,Pramatru

> Vyvahara(all empirical dealings of being a knower, using the 'means of

> knowledge,and an object known).That is why it is called the ANTYAM

> PRAMANAM (THE FINAL MEANS OF KNOWLEDGE). Because,( unlike the other

> Pramans,whereby after they have revealed their objects,they continue

> to exist, and the 'knower' remains), the Vedantic Pramana, upon

> revealing its 'object', (Brahman),it ceases to be a Pramana,and the

> 'knower' also is gone.

>

> B) Of course if you have understood what was said above, you can

> certainly understand the impossibility of one who has understood the

> 'Mahavakyas' being able 'to do more and more contemplation of the

> Mahavakyas, so as to change a "certain degree' of certainty into

> 'absolute certainty'.

>

> c) The knowledge of Brahman has absolutely nothing to do with

> any 'vrittis'.The whole discussion of "Vritti Vyapti and Phala Vyapti"

> was introduced by Vedantic thinkers out side the Tradition of Shankara

> and Sureswara. You will not find one hint of it in all their

> writtings! (This is a point that Swami Dayananda is confussed about,

> and should be ignored).

>

> d)Therefore, there is no "process by which the understanding

> goes from the 'Vriti' to the Wordless Being." Vriti Jnana (Conceptual

> Knowledge), no matter how many times repeated,can never lead to the

> Direct Knowledge of the Self.

>

> Dear Satyan I realize that the question still remains "how then

> can the mere understanding of a text bring about 'Direct Knowledge of

> Brahman? But my purpose here is only to disabuse you of false notions

> with regard to this subject and I will try explain more clearly how

> in fact the Vedanta Teachings are the ONLY means to Know Brahman in

> future posts.

>

> Hari Om

> Atmachaitanya

advaitin, "satyan_c" <satyan_c> wrote:

> > Sri Atmachaitanyaji,

> >

> > Thanks for your detailed response. That does clarify a few things.

> >

> > > "By virtue of sentences such as TAT TVAM ASI (That Thou Art)

> > > etc. Knowledge accures. Then one realizes that neither Ignorance

> nor

> > > its effect(the Universe) ever existed in the past, is not existing

> > > now, and will not be existing in the future also."

> (Sam.Vartica.183)

> >

> > > 8) From these last three means, Hearing,Reflecting and

> > > Contemplating(the Direct Means---Sakshat Sadhanas) the

> aspirantcomes

> > > to Know the meaning of the Sentences like 'Tat Tvam Asi' and thus

> > > desroys his Ignorance, and gets established in his own True Self

> > > alone.

> >

> > My understanding of the Nature of this Knowledge (obtained purely

> from

> > contemplation on the scripture and no other pramana) when a Sadhaka

> > attempts to understand the Mahavakya is:

> >

> > (1) The scripture reveals clearly the Mithya nature of the

> 'Individual

> > Entity' that the Sadhaka had taken himself to be all (so called) his

> > (so called ) life.

> >

> > (2) The Sadhaka hence realizes with (a degree of) certainity that

> 'I'

> > am not the 'person' I have erroneously taken myself to be all my

> life.

> >

> > (3) Having negated his current identity, now with the help of the

> > Mahavakya, with Shraddha in it, The Sadhaka is 'convinced with (a

> > degree of) certainity in the Intellect that 'I must be Bramhan

> because

> > the scripture says so'

> >

> > Here are a few questions:

> >

> > A) Is this understanding of the 'Nature of Knowledge' correct or is

> it

> > way off from what it is as Sankara/Sureshwara expound.

> >

> > B) How does 'a degree of' certainity in (2/3) above change to

> > 'absolute' certainity without any further Sadhana. Is it purely by

> > 'more' and 'more' contemplation on the Mahavakya?

> >

> > C) Does this understanding of the Mahavakya take place as a 'Vritti'

> > in the intellect or does it also become 'Being Knowledge'

> immediately?

> > Apparently you are referring to 'Being Knowledge', as you denied the

> > need for any further understanding/seeking post the 'understanding'

> of

> > the Mahavakya.

> >

> > D) What is the process by which the understanding goes from the

> Vritti

> > that 'I know I am not the Mithya Ego, Hence I could only be Bramhan

> > because the scripture says so' to the wordless Being of 'I am

> > undoubtedly Bramhan'.

> >

> > If it is inconvenient to answer these questions one by one, I would

> > appreciate it if you and other learned members could simply

> elaborate

> > on the understanding of the Mahavakya in detail (with an eye on

> these

> > questions, i.e understanding in the intellect as a vritti vs Being

> > Knowledge etc) and hopefully my questions will be answered.

> >

> > warmest regards,

> > --Satyan

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

I was following this discussion on vedAnta shAstrapramANa.

This discussion turned out to be meandering and touched on

many aspects. Like many other members, I also look forward

to shri Atmacaitanya-ji's promised essays on how study of

the upanishads lead to AtmajnAna.

 

As members of the past many years know and as can be seen

from the archives, I am one of those who revere the upanishads

the utmost, and have presented many articles on that topic.

So, naturally, I fully share shri Atmacaitanyaji's views

on upanishads and the vedA-s.

 

However, I differ from him on the way his support of the

upanishads is articulated. Firstly, in the recent post, he

said Christ and Buddha were not enlightened. That statement

is unnecessary, unwarranted and cannot be proven one way or

other. That statement is unnecessary because it would not

support his basic point that the upanishads are the pramANa.

On the other hand, such statement turns off people like

shri Brian or shri Ken who are making great attempts to

understand the Truth of advaita. They are making these

attempts in spite of the fact that they were brought up

in an environment where advaita is only a minor part of

the vocabulary in their formattive years. Such attempts

have to be appreciated and every effort has to be made to

explain what shri shankara's advaita is, to the best of

one's ability and understanding, rather than bludgeoning

them with statements like Christ is not enlightened,

Buddha is not enlightened, samAdhi is like deep-sleep, etc.

 

I look forward to shri Atmacaitanya-ji's elucidations on

the vedAnta as pramANa, but with the advice to keep the

inflammatory statements to a minimum.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

--------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Dear Brian:

 

After a careful reading of your posting, I find strong evidence that

you have serious doubts about Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy.

Also there are strong evidence that you have serious reservations to

Shankara's Advaita Philosophy. I am of the opinion that you attempt to

divert this forum to engage on intellectual debates on the usefulness

and validity of statements of Hindu Scriptures and Advaita Philosophy.

The list's position has been made clear to your when you join the list

and the list position has been repeated at the beginning of every

month. I recommend that you review the list policies and its scope

before posting materials in this list.

 

Let me once again remind you that posting any message on this list is

a `privilege' and is not a right. All such privileges come along with

responsibility which requires the messages to follow the scope of the

list. Some intellectual debates may become necessary for

clarification. But when the debates go beyond all safe boundary, they

need to be curtailed. May I request members who have faith in

Shankara's Advaita Philosophy to refrain debating issues that can't be

resolved intellectually. Also this forum is not meant to be for those

who have serious doubts on Shankara's Advaita Philosophy. I also

want to remind that the list will not hesitate to exercise its right

to moderate members whose postings continue to violate the scope of

the list and/or its policies.

 

Please go ahead and engage in any debate that you choose by directly

corresponding to those members who want to entertain endless debates

on contentious issues . Any answer to the question, "who is right

and who is wrong" depends on one's belief and spiritual maturity. I

have no intention to open up another debate on contentious religion

based issues which will never end!

I fully respect your position and your belief but they are quite

contradictory to the scope of this list.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, Brian Milnes <b.milnes@b...> wrote:

[Guest guest]

| Dear Brian:

|

| After a careful reading of your posting, I find strong evidence that

| you have serious doubts about Shankara's Advaita Vedanta

| Philosophy.

 

Not so. I accept quite freely that "All is Brahman". I am an initiate in the

Holy Tradition of which Shankara is a key persona.

 

I don't understand the way some people interpret it - especially if they say

such (to me) preposterous things as, "This is the only way", or that Christ or

Buddha weren't enlightened.

 

I have serious doubts about some propositions from, for example, Atmachaitanya

which apparently reject transcendental experience as valid or necessary in

expanding our awareness.

 

Sri Shankaracharya was revered as an unmatched master of philosophy and debate

who was able to win over the whole of the sub-continent to his view.

 

Is it too much to expect his strongest adherents to be able to express some of

these arguments? Is that not one of the purposes of this forum?

 

Brian

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- Brian Milnes <b.milnes wrote:

> Sri Shankaracharya was revered as an unmatched

> master of philosophy and debate who was able to win

> over the whole of the sub-continent to his view.

 

Hari Om,

I am not a Vedantic scholar in the same calibre as

Shri Atmachaitanya but I join the debate as a student.

 

It cannot be disputed that Adi Shankara lived and

preached more than 1,200 years ago. It cannot also be

guaranteed by anyone, that we have all his works in

undiluted form or an accurate record of what exactly

he said or wrote, as there are some works which are

disputed, though formally in his name.

 

But there are some conclusions beyond dispute, which I

summarize as far as I know:

 

1) Sankara was a child Prodigy and Genius who learnt

Vedas at an early age and became authority on it.

 

2) He reverted the mass of Indian population at that

time, posibly atleast 50 million at that time, back to

Vedantic ways after it was earlier won over by

Buddhism. For this he is remebered all over India. (In

this respect comparable to later day Mahatma Gandhi)

 

3) He advocated "Advaita- Non-Dual" philosophy as his

personal preferencial philosophy (like Gandhi did of

Non-Violence) but allowed in practice a number of

reformed vedic tradional practices including worship

of various deities and performance of yagnas and

installation of Yantras- all of which if strictly

interpreted, would be not exactly in conformance with,

"Advaitin- Non-duality" principles as understood by

most.

 

4) He was not only an extraordinary scholar beyond

compariosn, but also a mass communicator. Hence he

probably (my assumption) included in the revised

manuals of Hindu practices, a number of then current

and past practices of Hindus of those times, so as to

be not divisive but inclusive of most of the

population. Probably he realized that although pure

"Advaita" may be correct like Fundamental Research,

could be incomprehenisble to most of the population,

especially those illiterate souls who cannot read

texts of Vedanta for various reasons. So he was

compassionate to all souls irrespective of their

levels of scholarship in his approach.

 

5) Even with other scholars, he did not use physical

force or patronage of Kings but used intellectual

debate as a tool to win over. It must be conceded that

this method also reflects postively on, then followers

of Buddhism in the sense, that they were rational and

not fanatics.

 

6) So while it indeed may be true that only set of

manuals really exist of "Advaitin- Non-Dual"

philosphy, over a peiod of time various other routes

were devised for spiritual uplift of most of the

Hindus, by him and the whole body of Hindu seers,

saints and subsequent philosphers. It would be not

correct to say that everybody is wrong although it may

be correct that it is not 100% advaitin philosophy.

 

7) So I eagerly await the proposed approach mentioned

by Shri Atmachaitanya and try to understand it

sincerely without prejudice.

 

Pranams.

P.B.V.Rajan

 

 

 

 

 

 

Send FREE video emails in Mail!

http://promo./videomail/