Vedanta Shastra Pramana -- brian, atmachaitanya

[Guest guest]

hariH OM!

namaskaar to all.

 

i would like to address some points made by sri brianji and sri

atmachaitanyaji in this thread. i hope the length of this post will

prove worthwhile for the reader.

 

sankara was a jagatguru as well as a jivanmuktha. the popular idea

that he was a mayavadin could be tenable if we understand what *his

definition* of maya was in the first place; and not the popular

definition, which is merely defined as illusion. it was not merely

illusion or mithya to adisankara! he referred to its essential nature

being anirvachaniya (lit. 'unspeakable,' but more accurately meaning

'indefinable'), and later clarified it as thus being neither real

*nor* unreal! this is what is always overlooked, undervalued, or

miscontrued completely. why, i have no idea. i might conjecture that

it's because the masses aren't ready for the naked truth. (not that

the truth can ever be framed in words, but it *can* be effectively

pointed to!) if sankara's metaphysical-path method is thus

understood, light will or *has the potential* of being shed on what

the esoteric teachings really were of not only jesus but [even the

stupendously misunderstood] buddha as well!!

 

for example, let's try to assess a few things about buddha (and we

must incidentally bear in mind that sankara was refuting prevailing

'buddhism' as it was commonly misunderstood by the masses in india at

the time [which happens in virtually all the exoteric traditions that

grew out of the teachings of the religion's spiritual founders, and

the same in this case] *not* the teachings of buddha himself):

1) he was silent when asked about the existence of a soul, he never

declared it [or *any* spiritual manifestation] as unreal or a void,

per se. he was attempting to transmit the fact that the mind [with

its insistent dependency on logical-oriented philosophical

speculation] can't be used as a means to get to its source, which is

pure Consciousness (chittha) and pure Being (sathya). therefore, he

held up a flower in response to the philosophical question of What Is.

2) his dialogue to his father on his father's deathbed, telling him he

will soon join the vast Consciousness underlying the Universe, alludes

to an Absolute Reality/Existence, which automatically implicates

Consciousness.

3) who or what enters his reference to the concept of nirvana?

4) and even if nirvana gets defined as shunyata or absolute Void, then

who's the one witnessing this Void? (such ideas are yet only within

the Relative.)

 

ramana and ramakrishna both *lavishly* endorsed buddha and christ. so

did aurobindo, vivekananda, yogananda, nikhilananda, sathya sai baba,

and many other modern-day jnanis.

 

if i may say, from what i've seen, i believe sri atmachaitanyaji has a

clear grasp of the teachings, as well as being a very effective

teacher. however, such a one endowed thus has the potential to do

more harm than good if a meaningful part of his teaching is

misdirected...this, in terms of hindering the process associated with

purifying the mind [via the srutyuktyanubhava marga or path of

sravana, manana, nididhyasana, which incidentally is itself a

universal process]. promulgating divisory views on figures like

christ, buddha, and mohammed can cause aspirants to maintain their

habit of thinking in exclusive, competitive, and antagonistic ways,

rather than holistically, which thought format should be availed

through the initial sravana stage.

 

this misapprehension is the result of a failure to realize [that these

'ageless wisdom teachings' the hindus call vedas] are *universal* and

archetypal, and have been directly accessed by sentient beings

throughout *all times and cultures*. many List members are aware that

aldous huxley referred to the essence of metaphysics as being

foundationally non-dual and called it the "perennial philosophy."

 

i'm not predisposed to go into naming the specific parallels re the

teachings in/of esoteric buddhism, cabalism, hermeticism, masonry,

gnostic christism, nagualism, taoism, sufism, etc etc.. suffice to say

they all meet in the absolute center where ONE primal Existence

"pulsates" ...ONE primal Consciousness has Its Being: sat-chit-ananda.

(i personally favor vedanta because it covers all philosophical bases

as well as the [especially important] ranges of practical human

psychology.)

 

i'm only baffled by the continuation of the confusion that exists in

the minds of so many practitioners of metaphysics who by now should

have learned the most simple thing of all (which *simplicity* factor

is probably why it's so elusive: simplicity tends to be a dim star in

the night sky of the Mind, therefore goes typically unnoticed): is

that we are the Absolute Existence Itself, in all the forms it

manifests, from subjective thought to the idea of the "objective"

quasar across the Mind-field of the universe. It is all only the One

IAM. which is why the name of God was referred to by the early

hebrews as "I AM THAT I AM," and later proclaimed by jesus in the

statement "i and my Father are one." is this not the essence of

advaita?

 

vedavyasa, gaudapada/sankara, jesus, buddha, mahavira, lao tse..

although their ideas differed in many ways, all had *the most

important* similarity of approach or methodology underlying their

teachings: the transcending of one's dependence on the faculty of

*relative* Reason to apprehend the nature of the Absolute Reality.

this is likened to a cup attempting to hold an ocean.

 

OM shaanthi.

 

-frank

 

________________

 

atmachaitanya wrote:

> 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!

[Guest guest]

NamasteFrankji,

 

Amen! to this and That!

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

 

advaitin, "egodust" <egodust@d...> wrote:

> hariH OM!

> namaskaar to all.

>

> i would like to address some points made by sri brianji and sri

> atmachaitanyaji in this thread. i hope the length of this post

will

> prove worthwhile for the reader.

[Guest guest]

Dear Egodust,

 

I would like to address few of the points that you raised in your

last post:

 

1)First a minor point: I am glad that you think that Shankara was a

Jagat Guru and a Jivanmukta, because if that is so we should carefully

see exactly what his teachings are in his own words. Shankara has

never said that "Maya is neither real nor unreal",(If he did please

refer to the quote-you wont be able to find it anywhere in the whole

corpus of his Prastanatraya Bhashya- This is a false teaching that has

been propogated in the name of Shankara by the Post Shankara

Vedantins). Sharkaras actuall position is that Maya is 'Illusion'

'Appearance' 'False''Unreal'. Maya is that which seems to exist, but

which in truth, does not exist at all. Ma-not, Ya -which is = Maya is

'That which is not'. Of course, he does repeatedly use the phrase

"nama rupa Maya tatvaanyatvabyam avirvachaniya"-(The illusory names

and forms are indescribable as either the Truth or something other

than the Truth)and this means nothing more than saying that the

illusory, unreal snake is not describle as the rope, nor is it

describable as a second 'thing' different from the rope, This whole

Universe of Names and forms cant be described as the Reality nor can

it be described as a second 'thing' other than Reality. I have no idea

of what you want to imply by stating that," because the truth

that'maya is niether real nor unreal' is always overlooked, it must be

due to the fact that the masses aren't ready for the naked truth?" If

Maya wasn't unreal, it could never be sublated by knowledge! If the

snake was not 'unreal' it could never be sublated by the knowledge of

the rope.

 

2) There is no school of Buddhism 'exoteric' or 'esoteric' which

held the view that 'the Self is Brahman and Brahman is the Non-dual

Reality'. If I am wrong, then please name the Buddhist School or

Buddhist teacher who articulated such a view. You wont be able to.

Of course, as a Vedantin, you interprete the Buddhas silence, and his

holding up a flower, as teaching the truth of Vedanta, but no Buddhist

ever interpreted it in this way. When you ask the question,'Who or

what enters Nirvana? or 'Even if Nirvana gets defined a Shunyata or

Absolute Void, then who is the one WITNESSING the Void? These are the

questions that every Vedantin should ask a Buddhist. Questions that no

Buddhist can answer. They cant answer these questions because no

Buddhist ever recognized the existence of a Witness who is the true

Self of everyone.

In Shankaras Sutra Bhasya, relying on a Mantra from the

Brahadaranyaka(3-9-26), Shankara calls this Atman the 'Upanishada

Purusha' and says:

"Now this 'Purusha, who is known only from the

Upanishads,and who is not a transmigratory soul but Brahman itself,it

is not possible to assert that this Purusha does not exist, or that he

cannot be known. For in the passage''Now this is the Atman, described

as 'not this, not this'(Br 3-9-26) this Purusha is refered to by the

word Atman(the Self), and it is imposible to deny one's own Self,

because the very denier is himself the Atman" (SBh 1-1-4).

 

Now least it be supposed that this Upanishadic Atman is idendical

with the individual ego of living beings, Shankara brings foward an

objection and provides an answer clarifying the Upanishadic concept of

Atman:

 

"Objection:- Atman being the object of the notion 'I', it is

not reasonalble to say that it is only known from the Upanishads.

 

reply;- Not so, For we have refuted this position by saying

that this Atman is the Witness of the 'I' notion.(To Explain) Other

than the agent who is the object of the notion 'I' there is the

Witness thereof residing in all beings, the same in all, the one

unchanging eternal Purusha, the Self of each and every one, who is

NEVER know to any one from the Vidhikanda(Vedic portion enjoining

religious works) or from any speculative school."(SBh1-1-4).

 

Here, it is claimed that this 'WITNESSING ATMAN' is to be known,

and can only be known from the Upanishads and that there is no inkling

of this concept in any theological writing or speculative system.

While Shankara ( writing in the 8th century) was refering only to the

Karmakanda of the Vedas and the other Darshanas prevalent during his

times, it is nevertheless undeniably true of the entire body of

theological or speculative systems in the whole world to this day.

This self-evident concept of Atman as the eternal unchanging

Witnessing Principle in each of us, is known only through the

Upanishad and can never be traced to any other source.

No Buddhist ever recognized ,or even hinted at this veiw that the

Non-Dual Reality is the everpresent Wittness.(Nor did

Cabalism,Hermeticism,Masonary, Gnostic

Christism,Nagualism(?)Taoism,Sufism,etc.etc.)This is the unique

teaching of the Upanishads.(If I am wrong please quote the Buddisht

Scripture, or Buddhist writer(or any other tradition for that matter)

that accepts the existence of a Witness who is the only

Reality without a second).

 

3)When you state that my "misapprehention" is the result of failure

to realize that 'these 'ageless widom teachings' which the Hindus call

the Vedas, are *Universal* and archetypal, and have been accesed by

sentient beings throughout 'all times and cultrures', let me respond

by clarifying what I take to be the meaning of 'Universal'.

The 'Universality' of the Vedantic teachings can be

interpreted in two ways.

1) The Reality that Vedanta teaches is the same Reality that

has been taught by all the other Great Traditions and Teachers, and

is therefore Universal.

2)The Reality that Vedanta teaches is the Self of

everyone,and is therefore Universal. It applies to ALL regardless of

culture,race,sex,time or place.

 

My possition is that the first propossition is false and that the

second proposition is the correct interpretation of the Universal

nature of the Vedantic teachings. If you believe in the first view

than why is it that you dont agree with Ramanuja and Madva, both great

Saints representing very important Indian traditions which reject

Shankars claim that Reality is Non Dual. What about Patanjali. another

Great Dualiist. Did Lao Tze reject the reality of Yin and Yang? Yes,

Jesus, like many other great mystics, may have proclaimed that "I and

my Father are One" But he never stated that the 'Father' was the Only

Reality without a second. Brahmatmaikyatva('The Oneness of Atman and

Brahman) does not merely mean the identity of the Self and the

Absolute. It means that other than that Absolute Reality there never

was, is or will be a second thing other than it, and this is the

Unique teaching of Advaita Vedanta. It is a teaching that has been

rejected by all other traditions, including Buddhism,Christianity,

Kashmiri Shaaivism(Swami Muktananda), Vishnavism(Swami

Bhaktivedanta,)Christ, Mohamed, and anyone else you care to imagine.

 

4 If you feel that by my holding such a possition, (which is

admittitly opposed to the claims of Rammana, Ramakrishna, Aurobindo(

(who openly rejected Shankaras Advaita), Vivekaanda and

Nikhilanada(both desciples of Ramakrishna, the illiterate Bengali

Priest,who went into Nirvikalpa Samadhi and realized the what the

Buddha taught, and what Mohamed taught was the same as what Advaita

Vedanta teaches!)) Satya Sai Baba, Yogananda,and many other modern day

"jnanis"), I am "hindering the process of purifying the mind...by

promulgating divisory views", I can only respond that my only

intention in presenting this viewpoint,is not out of any hostility

towards these teachers or teachings, but only for the sake of the true

Mumukshus,( those desireous of Liberation) so that they dont become

diverted from the true teachings of Vedanta. If you dont agree with

me, then by all means, practice Patanjali Yoga, Sufism, Chritianity,

Buddhism or any other path that appeals to you, since,as Vivikanada

has repeatedly stated, they all lead to the same goal.

 

Hari Om

Atmachaitanya

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "egodust" <egodust@d...> wrote:

> hariH OM!

> namaskaar to all.

>

> i would like to address some points made by sri brianji and sri

> atmachaitanyaji in this thread. i hope the length of this post will

> prove worthwhile for the reader.

>

> sankara was a jagatguru as well as a jivanmuktha. the popular idea

> that he was a mayavadin could be tenable if we understand what *his

> definition* of maya was in the first place; and not the popular

> definition, which is merely defined as illusion. it was not merely

> illusion or mithya to adisankara! he referred to its essential

nature

> being anirvachaniya (lit. 'unspeakable,' but more accurately meaning

> 'indefinable'), and later clarified it as thus being neither real

> *nor* unreal! this is what is always overlooked, undervalued, or

> miscontrued completely. why, i have no idea. i might conjecture

that

> it's because the masses aren't ready for the naked truth. (not that

> the truth can ever be framed in words, but it *can* be effectively

> pointed to!) if sankara's metaphysical-path method is thus

> understood, light will or *has the potential* of being shed on what

> the esoteric teachings really were of not only jesus but [even the

> stupendously misunderstood] buddha as well!!

>

> for example, let's try to assess a few things about buddha (and we

> must incidentally bear in mind that sankara was refuting prevailing

> 'buddhism' as it was commonly misunderstood by the masses in india

at

> the time [which happens in virtually all the exoteric traditions

that

> grew out of the teachings of the religion's spiritual founders, and

> the same in this case] *not* the teachings of buddha himself):

> 1) he was silent when asked about the existence of a soul, he never

> declared it [or *any* spiritual manifestation] as unreal or a void,

> per se. he was attempting to transmit the fact that the mind [with

> its insistent dependency on logical-oriented philosophical

> speculation] can't be used as a means to get to its source, which is

> pure Consciousness (chittha) and pure Being (sathya). therefore, he

> held up a flower in response to the philosophical question of What

Is.

> 2) his dialogue to his father on his father's deathbed, telling him

he

> will soon join the vast Consciousness underlying the Universe,

alludes

> to an Absolute Reality/Existence, which automatically implicates

> Consciousness.

> 3) who or what enters his reference to the concept of nirvana?

> 4) and even if nirvana gets defined as shunyata or absolute Void,

then

> who's the one witnessing this Void? (such ideas are yet only within

> the Relative.)

>

> ramana and ramakrishna both *lavishly* endorsed buddha and christ.

so

> did aurobindo, vivekananda, yogananda, nikhilananda, sathya sai

baba,

> and many other modern-day jnanis.

>

> if i may say, from what i've seen, i believe sri atmachaitanyaji has

a

> clear grasp of the teachings, as well as being a very effective

> teacher. however, such a one endowed thus has the potential to do

> more harm than good if a meaningful part of his teaching is

> misdirected...this, in terms of hindering the process associated

with

> purifying the mind [via the srutyuktyanubhava marga or path of

> sravana, manana, nididhyasana, which incidentally is itself a

> universal process]. promulgating divisory views on figures like

> christ, buddha, and mohammed can cause aspirants to maintain their

> habit of thinking in exclusive, competitive, and antagonistic ways,

> rather than holistically, which thought format should be availed

> through the initial sravana stage.

>

> this misapprehension is the result of a failure to realize [that

these

> 'ageless wisdom teachings' the hindus call Vedas are *Universal*

and

> archetypal, and have been directly accessed by sentient beings

> throughout *all times and cultures*. many List members are aware

that

> aldous huxley referred to the essence of metaphysics as being

> foundationally non-dual and called it the "perennial philosophy."

>

> i'm not predisposed to go into naming the specific parallels re the

> teachings in/of esoteric buddhism, cabalism, hermeticism, masonry,

> gnostic christism, nagualism, taoism, sufism, etc etc.. suffice to

say

> they all meet in the absolute center where ONE primal Existence

> "pulsates" ...ONE primal Consciousness has Its Being:

sat-chit-ananda.

> (i personally favor vedanta because it covers all philosophical

bases

> as well as the [especially important] ranges of practical human

> psychology.)

>

> i'm only baffled by the continuation of the confusion that exists in

> the minds of so many practitioners of metaphysics who by now should

> have learned the most simple thing of all (which *simplicity* factor

> is probably why it's so elusive: simplicity tends to be a dim star

in

> the night sky of the Mind, therefore goes typically unnoticed): is

> that we are the Absolute Existence Itself, in all the forms it

> manifests, from subjective thought to the idea of the "objective"

> quasar across the Mind-field of the universe. It is all only the

One

> IAM. which is why the name of God was referred to by the early

> hebrews as "I AM THAT I AM," and later proclaimed by jesus in the

> statement "i and my Father are one." is this not the essence of

> advaita?

>

> vedavyasa, gaudapada/sankara, jesus, buddha, mahavira, lao tse..

> although their ideas differed in many ways, all had *the most

> important* similarity of approach or methodology underlying their

> teachings: the transcending of one's dependence on the faculty of

> *relative* Reason to apprehend the nature of the Absolute Reality.

> this is likened to a cup attempting to hold an ocean.

>

> OM shaanthi.

>

> -frank

>

> ________________

>

> atmachaitanya wrote:

> > 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!

[Guest guest]

--- atmachaitanya108 <stadri wrote:

> I would like to address few of the points that

> you raised in your

 

 

Namaste,

I have not been able to follow all of this thread so

please forgive the interruption to your discussion

with Brian but you posed, I trust, a sincere set of

questions and definitions of universality and the

uniqueness of Vedanta with its teachings on the

witness.

If you would really like to pursue the words of

various traditions such as you quote in 3 and 4 of

your posting...and by no means do I suggest that this

is necessary.....may I suggest that you find a copy of

'A Treasury of Traditional Wisdom ' by Whittall N

Perry...reprinted a couple of years ago in India and

available there. A few of the readings from page 775

onwards will delight you if you are sincerely seeking

liberation for all the mumukshas rather than their

being led astray.

And, of course, here is the paradox for us. If we

believe we are bound or unrealised how can such

ignorance be sublated....... kaivalya-para is an

interesting notion.

Re. your request on other traditions:

The Christian New Testament requires ....it is a

scripture written for all people to extract a relevant

meaning...a different approach to that of the

Upanishads but with an open-eye and ear it will reveal

its central teaching which I have no doubt is advaita.

 

There is a special moment in the trial of Christ which

is relevant to your posting on the Witness and you

will be aided by a Vedantic understanding to be

inspired by the image of the scene. For me it is a

Daksinamurthi moment...you will see what I mean maybe:

St John 18.37-38

'Pilate therefore said unto him, Art Thou a king then?

Jesus answered,Thou sayest that I am a king. To this

end was I born, and for this cause came I into the

world, that I should bear witness unto the truth.

Everyone that is of the truth heareth my voice.

Pliate answered unto him, What is truth?. And when he

had said this he went out unto the Jews and saith unto

them, I find in him no fault at all.'

 

Let your imagination work on this scene. Hear Christ's

words and the Pilate's question 'What is truth?' Does

Pilate turn away immediately or does he meet the

silent eyes of Christ in a moment of true teaching

because what more needs to be said after Christ's

first reply. A Dakshinamurthi moment is this for me,

at least.

It may be of use for you to know that Pilate then goes

to the Jews who wish the freedom of Barabbas as a

Passover gift to them rather than the freedom of

Christ. It may be of interest also to you that

Barabbas means the 'son of confusion'. Hence in this

moment the people can choose between truth..vidya...or

confusion...avidya. We have that choice each day also.

 

Now may I return to the problem of believing we are

not realised. All the following are from Seng-ts'an

who was a patriarch of the dhyana school of Buddhism

about a century before Adishankara..ie 600AD:

 

'One in All

All in One..

If only this is realized

No more worry about your not being perfect!'

 

'Do not try to drive pain away by pretending it is not

real;

Pain, if you seek serenity in Oneness, will vanish of

its own accord.'

 

'The Perfect Way is only difficult for those who pick

and choose;

Do not like, do not dislike; all will then be clear.

Make a hairbreadth difference, and heaven and earth

are set apart.'

 

'At the ultimate point, beyond which you can go no

further

You get to a point where there are no rules, no

standards,

To where thought can accept impartiality,

To where effect of action ceases,

Doubt is washed away, belief has no obstacle.'

 

'Look inward and in a flash you will conquer the

Apparent and the Void.'

 

'Infinity and Perfection do not admit of parts.'

 

'The very small is as the very large when boundaries

are forgotten;

The very large is as the very small when its outlines

are not seen.'

 

'Stop talking, stop thinking, and there is nothing you

will not understand.

Return to the Root and you will find the Meaning;

Pursue the Light, and you will lose its source...

There is no need to seek Truth; only stop having

views.'

 

'Though the two exist because of the One, do not cling

to the One.'

 

Once again, sorry for interupting your dialogue with

Brian but you did ask for some examples away from

Adishankara;

 

Om sri ram jai jai ram

ken Knight

 

 

 

Send FREE video emails in Mail!

http://promo./videomail/

[Guest guest]

Hi!

There is no end to the intellectual gymnastics of the mind and its collected

so-called knowledge from books, no matter how lofty the books are (the books

are not at fault, by the way). It is the seeming erudition that makes one

intellectually arrogant and abusive in language, even when refering to great

Saints and Gyanies -- other wise Ramakrishna would not be described as "the

illiterate Bengali Priest,who went into Nirvikalpa Samadhi ". Where are the

Moderators to moderate such a language? Vedantic knowledge is not a license

for such a language.

 

It is a shame to make Shankara's Advaita, which is so wonderful and

inclusive of anything

and everything, totally narrow and exclusive for a chosen few by erudite

Pundits, who sound more like grammarians and linguists than Teachers of

Truth!

 

When there is experience the words and discussions are not only inclusive,

but also valuable as tools for knowledge!!

-- Vis

-

"atmachaitanya108" <stadri

<advaitin>

Saturday, January 12, 2002 1:18 PM

Re: Vedanta Shastra Pramana -- brian, atmachaitanya

 

> Dear Egodust,

>

> I would like to address few of the points that you raised in your

> last post:

>

> 2)The Reality that Vedanta teaches is the Self of

> everyone,and is therefore Universal. It applies to ALL regardless of

> culture,race,sex,time or place.

>

> 4 If you feel that by my holding such a possition, (which is

> admittitly opposed to the claims of Rammana, Ramakrishna, Aurobindo(

> (who openly rejected Shankaras Advaita), Vivekaanda and

> Nikhilanada(both desciples of Ramakrishna, the illiterate Bengali

> Priest,who went into Nirvikalpa Samadhi and realized the what the

> Buddha taught, and what Mohamed taught was the same as what Advaita

> Vedanta teaches!)) Satya Sai Baba, Yogananda,and many other modern day

> "jnanis"), I am "hindering the process of purifying the mind...by

> promulgating divisory views", I can only respond that my only

> intention in presenting this viewpoint,is not out of any hostility

> towards these teachers or teachings, but only for the sake of the true

> Mumukshus,( those desireous of Liberation) so that they dont become

> diverted from the true teachings of Vedanta. If you dont agree with

> me, then by all means, practice Patanjali Yoga, Sufism, Chritianity,

> Buddhism or any other path that appeals to you, since,as Vivikanada

> has repeatedly stated, they all lead to the same goal.

>

> Hari Om

> Atmachaitanya

[Guest guest]

Dear R. Viswanathan,

 

You are absolutely correct. My remark was inapropriate,

uncalled for, and insensitive to the feeling of others. I sincerly

apologize, and it will not happen again.

 

Hari Om

Atmachaitanya

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "R. Viswanathan" <drvis@h...> wrote:

> Hi!

> There is no end to the intellectual gymnastics of the mind and its

collected

> so-called knowledge from books, no matter how lofty the books are

(the books

> are not at fault, by the way). It is the seeming erudition that

makes one

> intellectually arrogant and abusive in language, even when refering

to great

> Saints and Gyanies -- other wise Ramakrishna would not be described

as "the

> illiterate Bengali Priest,who went into Nirvikalpa Samadhi ". Where

are the

> Moderators to moderate such a language? Vedantic knowledge is not a

license

> for such a language.

>

> It is a shame to make Shankara's Advaita, which is so wonderful and

> inclusive of anything

> and everything, totally narrow and exclusive for a chosen few by

erudite

> Pundits, who sound more like grammarians and linguists than Teachers

of

> Truth!

>

> When there is experience the words and discussions are not only

inclusive,

> but also valuable as tools for knowledge!!

> -- Vis

> -

> "atmachaitanya108" <stadri@a...>

> <advaitin>

> Saturday, January 12, 2002 1:18 PM

> Re: Vedanta Shastra Pramana -- brian,

atmachaitanya

>

>

> > Dear Egodust,

> >

> > I would like to address few of the points that you raised in

your

> > last post:

> >

> > 2)The Reality that Vedanta teaches is the Self of

> > everyone,and is therefore Universal. It applies to ALL regardless

of

> > culture,race,sex,time or place.

> >

> > 4 If you feel that by my holding such a possition, (which is

> > admittitly opposed to the claims of Rammana, Ramakrishna,

Aurobindo(

> > (who openly rejected Shankaras Advaita), Vivekaanda and

> > Nikhilanada(both desciples of Ramakrishna, the illiterate Bengali

> > Priest,who went into Nirvikalpa Samadhi and realized the what the

> > Buddha taught, and what Mohamed taught was the same as what

Advaita

> > Vedanta teaches!)) Satya Sai Baba, Yogananda,and many other modern

day

> > "jnanis"), I am "hindering the process of purifying the mind...by

> > promulgating divisory views", I can only respond that my only

> > intention in presenting this viewpoint,is not out of any hostility

> > towards these teachers or teachings, but only for the sake of the

true

> > Mumukshus,( those desireous of Liberation) so that they dont

become

> > diverted from the true teachings of Vedanta. If you dont agree

with

> > me, then by all means, practice Patanjali Yoga, Sufism,

Chritianity,

> > Buddhism or any other path that appeals to you, since,as

Vivikanada

> > has repeatedly stated, they all lead to the same goal.

> >

> > Hari Om

> > Atmachaitanya

[Guest guest]

Namaste Atmachaitanya:

 

As one of the moderator of the list, let me thank you for

recognizing your insensitive remarks in several discussions during the

past several months. Several members have expressed their resentments

and one of the primary reason for their resentment is the fact that

they don't know who you are?

 

To some extent, we all don't know who we are? But we do have a social

identity - an identity of reference - for example, I (Ram Chandran)

work for the US Federal Government and an active member of Chinmaya

Mission. The list members would love to hear from you about some

background information such as - your affiliation with an ashram or

group, where you got your training, your real name, etc. If you

provide such background information about you (a small paragraph)which

will greatly enhance better understanding of your stand on Advaita

position.

 

Your postings truly indicate that you are a scholarly person with

advanced knowledge on the subject matter of advaita. People with

scholarly bacground and training can disagree on subject matters due

to subjective percpetions. Such disagreements can be expressed with

civility without affecting human dignity. This is the unwritten goal

of this list. All of us are trying to reach this goal and we do fail

many times. These temporary failures are warning signals for us to

correct our behavior to reach the ultimate success. It is a well known

fact that un-cut diamond are less valuable than a polished shining

well-cut diamond!

 

What I have provided above are just suggestions and please note that

it is not just targeted to you but to all of us as just a

reminder. Let us all sincerely take our posting responsibility

seriously, be compassionate to our fellow members and their feelings

and avoid using inappropriate languages.

 

Thanks again for your cooperation and understanding,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note to Sri Viswanathan: This list truly believe in free expression

from members and most of the time such moderation come directly from

members like you! Moderators also send private mails to offending

members when necessary! Moderation is a subtle exercise just like the

subtle messages of Gita. When a member violates list policies

repeatedly, they will be moderated and the worst offenders lose their

posting privileges.

 

advaitin, "atmachaitanya108" <stadri@a...> wrote:

> Dear R. Viswanathan,

>

> You are absolutely correct. My remark was inapropriate,

> uncalled for, and insensitive to the feeling of others. I sincerly

> apologize, and it will not happen again.

>

> Hari Om

> Atmachaitanya

>

>

> advaitin, "R. Viswanathan" <drvis@h...> wrote:

> > Hi!

> > There is no end to the intellectual gymnastics of the mind and its

> collected .........

> > intellectually arrogant and abusive in language, even when

> > refering to great Saints and Gyanies -- other wise Ramakrishna >

> would not be described as "the

> > illiterate Bengali Priest,who went into Nirvikalpa Samadhi ".

> > Where are the Moderators to moderate such a language?

> > Vedantic knowledge is not a license for such a language.

> > It is a shame to make Shankara's Advaita, which is so wonderful

> > and inclusive of anything and everything, totally narrow

> > and exclusive for a chosen few by rudite Pundits,

> > who sound more like grammarians and linguists than .....

[Guest guest]

hariH OM! sri atmachaitanya-

namaste.

 

you seem to have deep and clear grasp of many of the vedantic

teachings, but i would say that your weakest component is the very hub

in your entire wheel of understanding! and that is the core

atmabhavana, viz. the experiential ananda aspect in the foundation of

brahman [as] satchidananda.

 

the attempted approach through Reason, via the absorption of sastric

knowledge without sufficient corresponding bakthi, which implies and

in fact intrinsically co-exists with the buddhic-bhavana (that which

emerges through the intuitive-feeling aspect of the individual),

unfortunately will not take the sadhaka anywhere.

 

(note: it's vital that purushotama yoga--jnana, karma, and bhakti yoga

combined, which virtually everyone in the world is doing to some

degree or another...mostly of course unawares--has to be also coupled

with an open mind if one is to be capable of viveka, viz. recognizing

the "right indicators or pointers to the Real" within the

sastras/vedic wisdom as well as the lessons of Guru Life Itself.)

 

a failure to achieve the above can, for example, cause one to conclude

therefore that nirvikalpa samadhi isn't necessary. in this regard,

let's say a certain and contained area of thinking might indeed

logically conclude such. however, such condition isn't based on

holistic thinking [in the process of manana]. it's yet

selective/exclusive and ignoring the *most* fundamental aspect of

all!: the living bhavana in the hridayam.. the so-called

'Witness-experience' [that is ever] existing in the Heart of the I AM.

this is why the release of dependency on mind and its beliefs are so

stressed. nirvikalpa samadhi is thus our innate living experience;

only the ego-Mind is constantly talking us out of this our natural

state! remeber jnanka's words about the Mind [he] "will deal with,

therefore, summarily." (which, incidentally, was the main thrust of

the message behind buddha's silence in the face of metaphysical

speculation. the ajatavada doctrine of advaita represents the same

exact thing. missing this is to miss the whole boat. even if one

misses the boat by inches, the boat is still missed in its entirety!

a chain is as strong as its weakest link.)

 

criticising something we don't really understand does a great

injustice to ourselves. negating ramana, ramakrishna, jesus, buddha,

mohammed, etc, without duly investigating their teachings for oneself,

is absurd.

 

ideologies such as "the atman is one with the non-dual brahman" or

even "i and my father are one" .. *any* of the mahavakyas .. are, in

of themselves, AS IDEAS, only a small part of that which delivers the

jiva to the core of its chaitanya in the chidaskasa! neither ramana

or ramakrishna knew anything about these [or the upanishads!] prior to

their enlightenment. this is because that knowledge, which isn't

confined to scriptures, be they the upanishads or anything else, is

accessible in any of Life's moments, as long as the soul is ready to

see its own true nature, which is everpresent and everywhere, in

everyone and everything. thus the conclusion comes instantly that

"there is ONE Essence [that is] Being, It is who and what I truly am,

and is also all there is [in everything i see]." thus the upanishads

can become known without ever hearing or reading them.

 

i would strongly recommend [for *anyone* studying metaphysics] seeing

a videotape about sri ramana's life, where at one point the film

focuses on him with his eyes transfixed on the viewer, transmitting

his vijnana in silence. if one is sensitive and open enough, the

power of love perceived after only 10 seconds of this darshan is

unmistakeable and deeply, *indeterminably* transformative. one knows

then beyond any doubt that this man was indeed a jnani. at least read

a book about him entitled MAHA YOGA by lakshmana sharma, or--better

yet--TALKS WITH SRI RAMANA by munagala.

 

a note about sri ramakrishna paramahamsa. although illiterate (in the

sense of not being versed in reading or writing) and, like ramana,

unaware of the upanishads, was so inspired and "god-intoxicated"

through his personal communing with kali-ma, achieved Self-realization

through parabhakthi, which simultaneously delivered as in a dam break

all the insight required to *eloquently* expound in the form of a

[seemingly] miraculous prolific flow of parables and commentaries, the

sublest teachings of the upanishads!

 

incidentally, i would also like to mention that the implication behind

ken-ji's posting and implication behind what he referred to as "a

dakshinamurthi moment," has the power to transmit more than all the

scriptures in the world combined! referred to as mounadiksha (darshan

through silence), it was said that ramana's most effective teaching

came through this [what amounts to stillness of mind] in the early

years. he himself often quoted the old testament proverb, "be still

and know that I AM God." (keep still the mind--or ignore its doings,

and know that [thine own] I AM is brahman Itself.)

 

namaste,

frank

[Guest guest]

Dear Madhava,

Thanks for your suggestion. It reminded me of what my Mom used to say on

many special occasions -- "simply because the needle is made out of gold

does not mean it is ok to poke somebody's eyes with it".

Now I know the meaning of it.

-- Vis

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

-

"Madhava K. Turumella" <madhava

<advaitin>

Monday, January 14, 2002 3:53 AM

AW: Re: Vedanta Shastra Pramana -- brian, atmachaitanya

 

> Dear Visji,

>

> Hari Om! Please take it easy. All is in the eyes of the beholder.

Though

> I understand you, I would request you to ignore comments which are not

> suitable in such a way Gandharva Pushpadanda has seen it!

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

Please don't misunderstand me. This is just a thought that crossed

my mind. Forgive me if I am wrong in expressing it. If Bhagwan

Ramana were amidst us now communicating through the Net, how would he

have answered this mail (affiliation, training, real name etc.)?

Surely, Atmachaitanyaji has neither abused anyone nor hacked any

site. Why do we then chase him so incessantly?

 

Regards to everyone.

 

M.R. NAIR

> > > Namaste Atmachaitanya:

> > The list members would love to hear from you about

> > some

> > > background information such as - your affiliation

> > with an ashram or

> > > group, where you got your training, your real

> > name, etc. If you

> > > provide such background information about you (a

> > small

> > > paragraph)which

> > > will greatly enhance better understanding of your

> > stand on Advaita

> > > position.

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

> Great stuff seeking new owners in Auctions!

> http://auctions.

[Guest guest]

Namasthe!

 

This thought occurred to me. Forgive me if I am wrong in asking.

Had Bhagwan Ramana been amidst us exchanging E-mail, how would he

have responded to a message asking for info on affiliation, training,

real name etc. Do we have to really chase Shri Atmachaitanyaji

incessantly?

 

Regards to everyone.

 

(This message is repeat as the previous one failed to appear.)

 

M.R. NAIR

 

 

 

advaitin, "o. peshtin" <saddestragaishappyrajaok>

wrote:

> yes, i too proclaim from my throne a wish to

> hear from this sri atmachaitanya

> > >

> > > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----

> > > Von: ramvchandran [rchandran@c...]

> > > Gesendet: Monday, January 14, 2002 2:07 PM

> > > An: advaitin

> > > Betreff: Re: Vedanta Shastra Pramana --

> > brian,

> > > atmachaitanya

> > >

> > >

> > > Namaste Atmachaitanya:

> > The list members would love to hear from you about

> > some

> > > background information such as - your affiliation

> > with an ashram or

> > > group, where you got your training, your real

> > name, etc. If you

> > > provide such background information about you (a

> > small

> > > paragraph)which

> > > will greatly enhance better understanding of your

> > stand on Advaita

> > > position.

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

Thanks for your input and your point is well taken. The list doesn't

chase (also has no intention to chase) the members asking for their

identities. Please look back at the welcome letter and subsequent

mails. I and other moderators and majority of members believe that

such exchange of information can help to develop a friendlier and

family attitude. Those who provide the information have full freedom

to choose the amount of details that they want to share. It is a

well known fact there will be no regulations if there are no

violations. The list faced several occasions where a handful of newly

enrolled members tried to disrupt the list discussions. At that time

the moderators decided to enforce some guidelines to controll the

situation. The list implemented the regulation of requesting members

to send an informal voluntary introduction. The list moderators do

find this new policy quite effective in enforcing the list guidelines.

 

Honestly, there can be no meaningful answer to your hypothetical

question on Ramana being a member of this list. I personally value the

scholarly contributions of Shri atmachaitanyaji and quite thankful to

him for providing a detailed introduction.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin, "madathilnair" <madathilnair> wrote:

> Namasthe!

>

> This thought occurred to me. Forgive me if I am wrong in asking.

> Had Bhagwan Ramana been amidst us exchanging E-mail, how would he

> have responded to a message asking for info on affiliation,

training,

> real name etc. Do we have to really chase Shri Atmachaitanyaji

> incessantly?

>

> Regards to everyone.

>

> (This message is repeat as the previous one failed to appear.)

>

> M.R. NAIR

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

Thanks. Your clarification also well taken. Now, Atmachaitanyaji -

please come out and let us have the benefit of your kind guidance.

 

Regards to everyone.

 

M.R. NAIR

 

advaitin, "ramvchandran" <rchandran@c...> wrote:

> Namaste:

>

> Thanks for your input and your point is well taken. The list

doesn't

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

I thought Atmachaitanyaji introduced himself. I read something to

the effect that he was associated with Swami Dayananda Saraswathiji

etc.

 

My question about Bhagwan Ramana is indeed hypothetical. I was

compelled to ask the same because of your insistence on affiliation,

real name etc. Ramana indeeds had no affiliations and he was still

great! Can't we have a system of evaluating individuals by the

quality of their input as long as they are not creating troubles and

hacking sites?

 

I would like the moderators to recosider their rigidity in this

regard. I would personally find that helpful as I have no

affiliation or erudition worth the name but stil feel that I know

something about Advaita from personal experience. May be "a bloated

feeling on the head" as I described earlier. However, I hope I will

be understood.

 

Best of best regards to everyone.

 

M.R. NAIR

 

-- In advaitin, "ramvchandran" <rchandran@c...> wrote:

> Namaste:

>

> >

> Honestly, there can be no meaningful answer to your hypothetical

> question on Ramana being a member of this list. I personally value

the

> scholarly contributions of Shri atmachaitanyaji and quite thankful

to

> him for providing a detailed introduction.

>

> Warmest regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

>

>

> advaitin, "madathilnair" <madathilnair> wrote:

> > Namasthe!

> >

> > This thought occurred to me. Forgive me if I am wrong in

asking.

> > Had Bhagwan Ramana been amidst us exchanging E-mail, how would he

> > have responded to a message asking for info on affiliation,

> training,

> > real name etc. Do we have to really chase Shri Atmachaitanyaji

> > incessantly?

> >

> > Regards to everyone.

> >

> > (This message is repeat as the previous one failed to appear.)

> >

> > M.R. NAIR