To Atamachaitanyaji with love and reverence

[Guest guest]

The subject heading of this post should convey everything about the

attitude with which I am addressing this mail to you; so I don't

repeat it here. Sir, I have two questions and a request to make to

you:

 

Question 1 : Sir, you concluded your Introduction (#msg 11977) with a

statement that, 'I am merely a vedantic scholar, and make no claims

to any spiritual realisation of my own'. Yet, sir, you have been

arguing with great erudition backed by the authority of quotations

from shankara Bhashyas, that 'Sabda' or the scriptures are the

only 'Pramana' for the Self. I have come across not many in my life

who are as knowledgeable about the scriptures as you. And yet you say

you make no claims to self-realisation. If this statement is factual

and not out of humility, then we have a paradox here. How do we

resolve it?

 

Question 2 : Recently Gabriele quoted the following from Mundaka

Upanishad -

 

Not through discourse , not through intellect,

Not even through study of the scriptures

Can the Self be realized . The Self reveals

Himself to the one who longs for the Self.

Those who long for the Self with all their heart

Are chosen by the Self as his own.

 

Mundaka Upanishad , part 3,2.3.

 

I am aware that scriptural texts cannot be interpreted in isolation

and that that there are well laid rules (like what is said in the

begining, what in the end, what is most often repeated and

emphasised ... 6 such rules called, if I remember

right, 'shadlingas').In this light how would you interpret the above

scriptural passage?

 

Request 1 : Under the subject 'Shankara and his refutation of

Buddhism', Steven Fair has raised certain fundamental questions on

the Buddhist doctrine of 'anatta' or no-self which bother me too

quite a lot. The advaita I carry in my head is a jumble based on my

endless studies/ sravnas from assorted sources. And I still have to

read the original Shankara Bhashyas themselves. So the questions

which the Buddhists raise on anatta and their ability to

satisfactorily explain all Jiva-Jagat interactions (for them there is

no Ishwara) with their theories of Skandhas and Co-dependent

Origination, leaves me with this extremely uncomfortable question -

Can there be 2 independent explanations to 'reality' or 'truth'?

Intuitively my answer is 'no',but intellectually I draw a blank. So

please do reply to Steven as early as you can.

 

Many thanks in advance, sir and with Pranams,

 

Venkat