Shastra pramana - the sole route to Moksha?

[Guest guest]

We see in a number of posts a clear distinction between those who state that

Moksha can be attained exclusively by study of Vedanta, and those (of whom I am

one) who state that such study is an important part of sadhana, but is only of

value with "experience" of the absolute. (Classical vs. Modern Vedanta)

 

Atmachaitanya, a clearly learned scholar whose knowledge I respect and

appreciate, takes the former stance, and has offered to provide irrefutable

proof that this "Classical" view point is the only way to know Brahman:

"I will try explain more clearly how in fact the Vedanta Teachings are the ONLY

means to Know Brahman in future posts" (I am still awaiting to see such

irrefutability...)

 

Clarifying his position, he states: "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." He also points out that one

also needs a "qualified" Guru: "The final awakening to Truth can only occur

through the communication of the supreme Upanishadic texts by a qualified

teacher to a qualified pupil."

 

Strangely, then, Atmachaitanya also states "I am merely a Vedantic scholar and

make no claims to any 'Spiritual Realization'." So in 30 years of studying

Vedanta, the ONLY route to Moksha, what value have his studies been in this

regard?

 

By contrast, within a short time of having learnt TM in the mid-seventies, I had

the privilege of some "direct experience" of the absolute, leading me to a

understanding of the words of the Shastra because of such "experience". Since

then the continuity and regularity of my practice has been poor, but, there have

been moments of note. One that comes to mind was during an Ayur-Veda Panchakarma

treatment (in a TM centre, by a TM practitioner). At one point, the massage, the

masseur and myself became unseperable, indistinguishable. Having had that

"experience" means that I not only have intellectual understanding of the

teachings' reference to unity of 'knower, known and knowing', but I have

directly witnessed it.

 

So, putting aside the semantics of phrases such as "direct experience", which

can be misleading and, in this case refers to a lifting of the veil of Maya,

bypassing ego so that we realize our true nature. Can anyone address the

following questions:

 

1) Where does Krishna fit in to the Classical Advaita Vedanta view?

2) Who, in the litany of Saints, Avatars and others, in addition to Gaudapada,

Shankara and Sureswara, have claimed or are accepted to have achieved Moksha?

3) In reference to this, what was the source and vehicle for the four Vedas?

4) Was Vyasa (aka Badarayana) liberated?

5) Who teaches Shankara's true teaching, where is it available in the world? How

would we judge a teacher's qualification. (Or our own?)

 

One final and important point. I noted an objection to meditation as it is an

"action", and therefore must have some result. This is a common misunderstanding

of the process, and I would like to offer some elucidation.

 

Meditation is a process of sense refinement that leads to a withdrawal of the

senses, a quietening of the physiology (breathing, heart rate etc.) and to a

transcendence of the processes of the mind, revealing the true nature of Atman.

 

The initial object of meditation can be any of the five sense objects. If sound

or sight are used the terms Mantra and Yantra are given to the object. There are

many Bija mantras as well as AUM which are commonly used in sound meditation,

but the importance is the process, not the value of the mantra.

 

Here's the difficult bit. To be effective, meditation has to be effortless (then

it becomes actionless). It is a contradiction to try to be effortless. But we

still have to give the mind some impetus - by starting to repeat the mantra

(japa) we have to then let go, let the mind automate the "sounding" of the

mantra, which then (sometimes) leads to a dissolution of all thoughts, leaving

pure awareness alone.

 

This process could be described as:

 

Senses and Thoughts > Senses, Thoughts, and Mantra > less Senses, Thoughts and

Mantra > few Senses, less Thoughts, Mantra > no Senses, few Thoughts, Mantra >

no Senses, no Thoughts, just Mantra > nothing but Self awareness

 

In Ramana Maharshi's perspective, replace "Who am I?" with Mantra, and you have

the same fundamental process.

 

In his and Maharshi Mahesh Yogi's teaching, if other thoughts arise, let them

but then return to the Mantra (or the question "Who am I?").

 

It's that process that Patanjali describes. Through it's regular and repeated

practice over a long period of time, liberation will occur.

 

It's available to anyone, anywhere, no qualifications needed.

 

Best regards

 

Brian

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

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

> In Ramana Maharshi's perspective, replace "Who am I?" with Mantra,

and you have the same fundamental process.

>

> In his and Maharshi Mahesh Yogi's teaching, if other thoughts

arise, let them but then return to the Mantra (or the question "Who

am I?").

>

 

Namaste Brian,

 

In the first sentence above, I think you meant to say, 'In Ramana

Maharshi's perspective, replace Mantra with "who am I?"' and

inadvertently typed the other way around. Or did I not understand you.

 

two more observations:

 

- I thought Ramana did not want "who am I?" to be repeated as a

mantra. He only wanted the question to be asked once to get to the

souce of I.

 

- Also if thoughts intervened, he wanted us to get to the root of the

thoughts by asking "to who is this thought occuring?".

 

My own experience is( and I am not an expert in this matter) Ramana's

technique is fundamentally different from TM or the Mantra method you

describe. Besides your own comments on my observations, I would also

request Gabriele who is a list member and a Ramana devotee, to share

his views on this subject. Ofcourse other members can also join in

on this discussion. Regards,

 

Venkat

[Guest guest]

Venkat wrote:

| Namaste Brian,

|

| In the first sentence above, I think you meant to say, 'In Ramana

| Maharshi's perspective, replace Mantra with "who am I?"' and

| inadvertently typed the other way around. Or did I not

| understand you.

 

Ooops! (You're right, of course!)

 

| two more observations:

|

| - I thought Ramana did not want "who am I?" to be repeated as a

| mantra. He only wanted the question to be asked once to get to the

| source of I.

 

Yes and no. For yes, see this quote, from "Who am I?", where you can see that he

accepts repetition of a thought as a route to the Self:

 

"If one inquires whence the 'I'-thought in the body arises in the first

instance, it will be found that it is from hrdayam (literally 'I am the Heart),

or the Heart. That is the source and stay of the mind. Or again, even if one

merely continuously repeats to oneself inwardly 'I-I' with the entire mind fixed

thereon, that also leads one to the same source."

 

But more normally we associate his "technique" as described shortly after the

above quote:

 

"Since every other thought can occur only after the rise of the 'I'-thought and

since the mind is nothing but a bundle of thoughts, it is only through the

enquiry 'Who am I?' that the mind subsides. Moreover, the integral 'I'-thought,

implicit in such enquiry, having destroyed all other thoughts, gets itself

destroyed or consumed, just as the stick used for stirring the burning funeral

pyre gets consumed.

 

"Even when extraneous thoughts sprout up during such enquiry, do not seek to

complete the rising thought, but instead, deeply enquire within, 'To who has

this thought occurred?' No matter how many thoughts thus occur to you, if you

would with acute vigilance enquire immediately as and when each individual

thought arises to whom it has occurred, you would find it is to 'me'. If then

you enquire 'Who am I?' the mind gets introverted and the rising thought also

subsides. In this manner as you persevere more and more in the practice of

Self-enquiry, the mind acquires increasing strength and power to abide in its

Source."

 

So although you may see marked differences, I see striking similarities. The

important thing is that by these methods, we are able to transcend the processes

of mind, to reveal the source - the Self.

 

Many of the arguments that we see about Patanjali's sutras stems from those

translations that translate nirodha as "suppression" or "restraint" - thus

implying a wilful act. Whereas, what I hope to have shown is that nirodha has to

be passive (Ramana's "mind subsiding").

 

regards

 

Brian

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi's approach to Mantra

Sadhana can be understood by His reply to Sri

Vashishta Ganapati Muni, when the latter visited Him

at the Virupaksha Cave.

Bhagavan Ramana advised him thus,

"When a Mantra is repeated, if the source of the sound

of the Mantra is sought, the mind will be absorbed in

That. This is Tapas".

 

This is an extremely revealing description. He asks us

not only to concentrate on the Mantra, but also to

seek the inner mind from wherein the Mantra sound

originates. Even the sanskrit definition for Mantra is

 

Manah Thrayate Ithi Mantra.

That which transcends the mind is the Mantra.

Bhagavan Ramana describes how this is achieved in the

previous quote.

 

Regards,

Anand

 

 

--- svenkat52 <venkat52 wrote:

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

> wrote:

> > In Ramana Maharshi's perspective, replace "Who am

> I?" with Mantra,

> and you have the same fundamental process.

> >

> > In his and Maharshi Mahesh Yogi's teaching, if

> other thoughts

> arise, let them but then return to the Mantra (or

> the question "Who

> am I?").

> >

>

 

 

 

 

Send FREE video emails in Mail!

http://promo./videomail/

[Guest guest]

Hari Om !!

> Manah Thrayate Ithi Mantra.

> That which transcends the mind is the Mantra.

> Bhagavan Ramana describes how this is achieved in the

> previous quote.

>

 

I suppose the correct meaning of this sentence is :

 

'That, by mental-repetition/internalization (Manana) of which One

(Jiva) transcends (this samsara) is Mantra.

 

Om Namo Narayanaya !!

 

Srikrishna

[Guest guest]

Regarding the postulation relating to "Shastra pramana", I have the

following question:

 

#1: There would have been a time in history when the shastra's did

not exist, and were created at some point by mortal humans.

 

#1.1: If #1 is true, then the implication is that at that time when

the shastras did not exist, it would not have been possible to attain

moksha. Does that imply that the shastras could not have come into

being as a result?

 

#1.2: If #1 is not true, then the explanation that could be given is

that the Shastras were always there from the beginning of time, and,

at a certain time, were revealed by some god, or 'The God', to some

rishi or somebody, and that's how the 'parampara' started. If that is

the case, why were they revealed when they were revealed? Why were

they revealed to Hindus only, if that is what is being implied? Is it

not possible, that if the origin of the Shastras is divine, they

could have also been revealed to non-Hindu cultures?

 

I hope these are sensible points. Forgive me if they are frivolous.

 

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

> We see in a number of posts a clear distinction between those who

state that Moksha can be attained exclusively by study of Vedanta,

and those (of whom I am one) who state that such study is an

important part of sadhana, but is only of value with "experience" of

the absolute. (Classical vs. Modern Vedanta)

>

> Atmachaitanya, a clearly learned scholar whose knowledge I respect

and appreciate, takes the former stance, and has offered to provide

irrefutable proof that this "Classical" view point is the only way to

know Brahman:

> "I will try explain more clearly how in fact the Vedanta Teachings

are the ONLY means to Know Brahman in future posts" (I am still

awaiting to see such irrefutability...)

>

> Clarifying his position, he states: "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." He also points out that one also needs a "qualified"

Guru: "The final awakening to Truth can only occur through the

communication of the supreme Upanishadic texts by a qualified teacher

to a qualified pupil."

>

> Strangely, then, Atmachaitanya also states "I am merely a Vedantic

scholar and make no claims to any 'Spiritual Realization'." So in 30

years of studying Vedanta, the ONLY route to Moksha, what value have

his studies been in this regard?

>

> By contrast, within a short time of having learnt TM in the mid-

seventies, I had the privilege of some "direct experience" of the

absolute, leading me to a understanding of the words of the Shastra

because of such "experience". Since then the continuity and

regularity of my practice has been poor, but, there have been moments

of note. One that comes to mind was during an Ayur-Veda Panchakarma

treatment (in a TM centre, by a TM practitioner). At one point, the

massage, the masseur and myself became unseperable,

indistinguishable. Having had that "experience" means that I not only

have intellectual understanding of the teachings' reference to unity

of 'knower, known and knowing', but I have directly witnessed it.

>

> So, putting aside the semantics of phrases such as "direct

experience", which can be misleading and, in this case refers to a

lifting of the veil of Maya, bypassing ego so that we realize our

true nature. Can anyone address the following questions:

>

> 1) Where does Krishna fit in to the Classical Advaita Vedanta view?

> 2) Who, in the litany of Saints, Avatars and others, in addition to

Gaudapada, Shankara and Sureswara, have claimed or are accepted to

have achieved Moksha?

> 3) In reference to this, what was the source and vehicle for the

four Vedas?

> 4) Was Vyasa (aka Badarayana) liberated?

> 5) Who teaches Shankara's true teaching, where is it available in

the world? How would we judge a teacher's qualification. (Or our own?)

>

> One final and important point. I noted an objection to meditation

as it is an "action", and therefore must have some result. This is a

common misunderstanding of the process, and I would like to offer

some elucidation.

>

> Meditation is a process of sense refinement that leads to a

withdrawal of the senses, a quietening of the physiology (breathing,

heart rate etc.) and to a transcendence of the processes of the mind,

revealing the true nature of Atman.

>

> The initial object of meditation can be any of the five sense

objects. If sound or sight are used the terms Mantra and Yantra are

given to the object. There are many Bija mantras as well as AUM which

are commonly used in sound meditation, but the importance is the

process, not the value of the mantra.

>

> Here's the difficult bit. To be effective, meditation has to be

effortless (then it becomes actionless). It is a contradiction to try

to be effortless. But we still have to give the mind some impetus -

by starting to repeat the mantra (japa) we have to then let go, let

the mind automate the "sounding" of the mantra, which then

(sometimes) leads to a dissolution of all thoughts, leaving pure

awareness alone.

>

> This process could be described as:

>

> Senses and Thoughts > Senses, Thoughts, and Mantra > less Senses,

Thoughts and Mantra > few Senses, less Thoughts, Mantra > no Senses,

few Thoughts, Mantra > no Senses, no Thoughts, just Mantra > nothing

but Self awareness

>

> In Ramana Maharshi's perspective, replace "Who am I?" with Mantra,

and you have the same fundamental process.

>

> In his and Maharshi Mahesh Yogi's teaching, if other thoughts

arise, let them but then return to the Mantra (or the question "Who

am I?").

>

> It's that process that Patanjali describes. Through it's regular

and repeated practice over a long period of time, liberation will

occur.

>

> It's available to anyone, anywhere, no qualifications needed.

>

> Best regards

>

> Brian

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hari Om !!

 

My understanding is as follows:

 

There is Mind and the Self in us. The MIND which is Avidya or (Maya)

raises from the Self (without getting into debate as to whether

Avidya is part of it or has separate existance) and expresses as

Ahamkara (I-thought/Mine-thought/EGO synonymously used); the other

expressions being Budhi, Manas, Chitta.

 

When we enquire with Budhi for whom this Thought has occurred, the

only answer is the EGO, because Self does not undergo any

modifications, and it is the MIND which undergoes modifications and

expresses differently momemt-to-moment.

 

Ofcourse, MIND being matter has no illumination of its own. It is the

Self which imparts its illumination or "Knowingness" to EGO, where by

EGO comes to know it exists (in Budhi aspect).

 

An intense enquiry to identify this MIND (EGO) as an object means

that the JIVA is exercising his real reason of "Knowingness" . I as

an individual transcend the Manomaya Kosa i.e sublate the Adhyaropa

or superimposition.

 

Since the source of MIND is Self (Maya is not having a separate

existance from Self), an enquiry to find the Source should lead to

identifying the "JIVA or Self" to be the Knower.

 

Also, as EGO is only a Vritti and not the real I, but a modification

of the MIND caused because of the lack of DISCRIMINATION that Self

has no RELATION to any thing, which truly I AM, on knowing who really

I AM, EGO ceases to be the I, or rather disappears.

 

Om Namo Narayanaya !!

 

Srikrishna

 

> "Since every other thought can occur only after the rise of the 'I'-

thought and since the mind is nothing but a bundle of thoughts, it is

only through the enquiry 'Who am I?' that the mind subsides.

Moreover, the integral 'I'-thought, implicit in such enquiry, having

destroyed all other thoughts, gets itself destroyed or consumed, just

as the stick used for stirring the burning funeral pyre gets

consumed.

>

> "Even when extraneous thoughts sprout up during such enquiry, do

not seek to complete the rising thought, but instead, deeply enquire

within, 'To who has this thought occurred?' No matter how many

thoughts thus occur to you, if you would with acute vigilance enquire

immediately as and when each individual thought arises to whom it has

occurred, you would find it is to 'me'. If then you enquire 'Who am

I?' the mind gets introverted and the rising thought also subsides.

In this manner as you persevere more and more in the practice of Self-

enquiry, the mind acquires increasing strength and power to abide in

its Source."

>

[Guest guest]

Hari Om !!

 

Here is some very interesting information from 'Advaita Bodha

Deepika', Chapter 3: The means of Accomplishment, page # 35.

 

------

17. Disciple: Now that Samsar has fallen to the lot of the Self, how

can it be got rid of ?

Master: With complete stillness of mind, samsar will disappear

root and branch. Otherwise there will be no end to Samsar, even in

millions of aeons.

 

18. D: Can not the samsar be got rid of by means other than making

the mind still ?

M: Absolutely by no otehr means; neither the vedas not sastras,

nor austerities, not karmas, nor vows, nor gifts, nor recital of

scriptures of mystic formulae (mantras), nor worship, nor any thing

else, can undo the samsar. Only stillness of mind can accomplish the

end and nothing else.

 

19. D: The scriptures declare that only Knowledge can do it. How

then do you say that stillness of the mind puts an end to samsar ?

M: What is variously described as Knoledge, Liberation, etc. in

the scriptures, is but stillness of mind.

20 - 27. D: Has any one said so before ?

M: Sri Vasishta had said: When by practice the mind stands

still, all illusions of samsar disappear, root and branch. Just as

when the ocean of milk was churned for its nectar, it was all rough,

but became still and clear after the churn (namely, mount Mandara)

was taken out, so also the mind becomes still, the samsar falls to

eternal rest.

 

So, it is my impression that Sage Vasistha while teaching to Lord

Rama described the most clearly about Realisation. As we lean from

Yoga Vasishta that Lord Rama at age 16 went into 'SAMADHI' (I think

this word is used there, I will check once again) after his Guru

Vasishta's teaching and practicing meditation.

 

It may be interesting and enlightening to read Yoga Vasishta for

greater understanding and results, (and/or Mandukya with Karika).

 

 

Om Namo Narayanaya !!

 

Srikrishna