Guest guest Posted January 19, 2002 Report Share Posted January 19, 2002 Here is my understanding on the related topics – Why, where and when Shaastra is pramaaNa? >Brian Milnes b.milnes >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) Why and where shaastra as pramaaNa – Role of a qualified guru – Experience versus knowledge – and others questions Brian raised. Here is my understanding. Shaastra as pramaaNa comes only because we cannot establish that the existent ‘I’ is the same as brahman – the total ‘I’ if one wants to call it. We do not need any shaastra to establish ‘I’ exists and ‘I’ is consciousness. That is I am sat and I am chit. No one in the right mind is looking of oneself or consider oneself as unconscious entity. What everybody is longing for is ‘ananda’ aspect. But what shaastra tries to point out is that what we are longing for we are already. If we are already then it does not make any sense why we are longing for that we already have or are. – Hence Vedanta points out the cause if ‘ignorance’ – As a human being with highly grown intellect, we are able to know 2/3 of ourselves – that is sat and chit aspect and we need to recognize we are puurNam or complete or unlimited and limitless is the state free from all limitations and hence true absolute ‘ananda’ that we are longing for – which is same as Brahman – that is infiniteness – anatama eva anandaH - for that shaastra is the pramaaNa. It tires to pointout that the I that we think is not the complete nature of I but it is the same as Brahman – Hence Shankara declares – na yogena na saankhyena karamanna nona vidyayaa, brahmaastmaika bodhena mokshaH sidyati na ananyathaa|| neither by yoga, nor by saankhya ( or logical analysis) nor by action nor by studies one gains liberation or freedom from limitations – only by the knowledge of the identification of the oneself with the total self is the liberation. Notice even yoga is included in this. Now a word about experience versus knowledge. I think I wrote about this some time ago – any way here is the gist. Experience is not knowledge. We experience Brahman all the time – but mistake it as either the world or myself ( when I identify that this body is me or mind is me or intellect is me – etc.) Knowledge can contradict experience Knowledge can resolve contradictory experiences Knowledge cannot be contradicted. Knowledge of the absolute transcends the knowledge of the relative. Self-knowledge involves not only knowing that I am sat and chit but I am Brahman as well which become knowledge of the absolute that transcends all knowledge – Hence Krishna declares – sarva bhuutastam aatmaanam sarvabhuutani ca aatmani – one who sees one self in all and all in oneself. That is the nature of the self and that is the knowledge of the self – And that exactly what is pointed out by Shaastra. Experince of any body cannot itself become a pramaaNa because it becomes subjective and no one other than oneself can confirm that the experience is out of the knowledge of the total. Hence we cannot go by any sage – however great a sage may be as the authority unless his experience is supported by Shaastra – Hence shaastra becomes unquestionable authority or pramaaNa in these matters. Hence even KrishNa declares – R^ishibhiH bahudda giitam chadobhiH vividaiH pr^ithak – that what am revealing is not some thing new that I have invented but what the great R^ishes have sung in many ways in Veda-s(in upanishads). About meditation: Meditation is not an action. It is not a verb but it is a noun. What mind does is contemplation – and there is difference. One cannot do (underline do) meditation. What one does is contemplation with the mind – that is the enquiry. – Who am I is an enquiry not a japa mantra. Japa is – a single thought repeated again and again – part of the mind remains in the enquiry mood while part of the mind chants – what is what Bhagavaana Ramana as well as all other mahatmaas have emphasized – inquiry of the mind by the mind – dyaanena aatmanii pasyanti aatmaana aatmaanam – says Krishna – one sees oneself by oneself through oneself during dhyaana – dhyaana is contemplation at the thought or japa level (where kartaa is there) and meditation at the absolute level when kartaa realizes he is akartaa. Now some questions Brian raised: >. Can anyone address the following questions: Again from my understanding: > >1) Where does Krishna fit in to the Classical Advaita Vedanta view? Discussion of Avatara-s is provided by Shankara – One is borne not only due to ones vasana-s but due to samashhTi vasana-s – because other’s vasana-s crystallizes Brahman to descend into a form that they can identify and take the help of. –Krishna says – I am born to uplift the good and to punish the vicked and to establish the righteousness. That is called avataara – descending down from the highest state but with complete knowledge. That is what Krishna is or was. Jesus also says I came to fulfill the scriptures. >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? There are many many – read the autobiography of a yogi – by pramahamsa yogananda – We have Ramakrishna-s, yoganandas- Vivekananda-s, Ramathiirtha-s, Ramana maharshi-s, ammachi-s, various baba-s, Nisargadatta maharaj, etc, etc. examples are unlimited. It all boils down whom you are going to judge one is realized or not. Hence for that reason only we need an independent norm – that is why shaastra becomes unquestionable pramaaNa in these matters. Vedanta is the pramanaa only because it is where it is unequivally declared that the nature of the reality by four mahavaakya-s – Praj~naanam brahma, tat tvam asi, ayam aatma brahma and aham brahma asmi. >3) In reference to this, what was the source and vehicle for the four >Vedas? Veda-s are considered as apaurusheyam-s that is not authored by human – in fact this applies any knowledge – what the word Veda means – and Vedaanta – the ultimate knowledge has to be – it is revealed to the men of meditation and passed it by word of mouth and recorded and edited by vyaasa. Shaastra pramaaNa involves a inherent faith in the shaastra that what it says it true and correct – that faith is called shradda and is considered as a required qualification for Brahman inquiry. >4) Was Vyasa (aka Badarayana) liberated? Yes – now the ball is in your court to prove that he was not! >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?) You cannot judge anybody’s qualifications leave alone the teacher – this is more so in the aadhyaatma vidya. Hence it is declared – manushyatvam, mumukshatvam, mahaapurusha saagatyam – the birth as a human being, desire for liberation and the right type of teacher who can help all these three are very difficult to get and one gets only due to the grace of God – it is a graceful way of saying that one has to earn by ones samskaara. The rest is discussed in one form or the other. Hari Om! Sadananda > >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 > > > > _______________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 19, 2002 Report Share Posted January 19, 2002 advaitin, "Kuntimaddi Sadananda" <k_sadananda@h...> wrote: > > Shaastra as pramaaNa comes only because we cannot establish that the > existent `I' is the same as brahman – the total `I' if one wants to call it. > We do not need any shaastra to establish `I' exists and `I' is > consciousness. That is I am sat and I am chit. No one in the right mind is > looking of oneself or consider oneself as unconscious entity. What > everybody is longing for is `ananda' aspect. This observation is not correct or complete: I know that 'I' exist 'NOW'. The SAT aspect refers to ETERNAL nature. That is what this present 'I' can not comprehend. This 'I' thinks it will DIE and so it suffers. At the same time this 'I' feels it is conscious of only a few things or this 'I' is knowledgeable of only a few things. It is not Omniscient. This 'I' has joys and bliss. But they are conditioned by objects and it is not dpermanent. So, it will be more apt to say that we are interested in realizing our own Sat-Chit- Ananda swarupa, not mearly 'Ananda' aspect. >But what shaastra tries to > point out is that what we are longing for we are already. If we are already > then it does not make any sense why we are longing for that we already have > or are. – Hence Vedanta points out the cause if `ignorance' – As a human > being with highly grown intellect, we are able to know 2/3 of ourselves – > that is sat and chit aspect and we need to recognize we are puurNam or > complete or unlimited and limitless is the state free from all limitations > and hence true absolute `ananda' that we are longing for – which is same as > Brahman – that is infiniteness – anatama eva anandaH - for that shaastra is > the pramaaNa. Here again there is a mis-interpretation. There is nothing called knowing 2/3 of ourselves. Sat-Chit-Ananda are not three parts of Brahman. Brahman is 'Akhandaikarasa' i.e devoid of parts. So, SAT is CHIT. CHIT is ANANDA. ANANDA is CHIT. Just like fire is red, bright and hot. It is one and the same. So, if one knows that one is SAT, it means that one knows the same to be CHIT and ANANDA. There are books explaining this in detail. I learnt it from Laghu Vasudeva Mananam. >nor by action nor by studies one gains > liberation or freedom from limitations – only by the knowledge of the > identification of the oneself with the total self is the liberation. Notice > even yoga is included in this. > Now a word about experience versus knowledge. Here is a contradiction. Just in the previous paragraph it is said that > anatama eva anandaH - for that shaastra is > the pramaaNa. In this paragraph it is mentioned . >only by the knowledge of the > identification of the oneself with the total self is the >liberation. It is obvious that 'Aparoksha Anubhuthi' is the only means of 'Knowledge'. Sastra stands as a PramaNa, meaning that Sastra says authoritatively that ''Aparoksha Anubhuthi' is the only way of Realization of the identity of 'Jiva' and 'Brahman' >I think I wrote about this > some time ago – any way here is the gist. > > Experience is not knowledge. > We experience Brahman all the time – but mistake it as either the world or > myself ( when I identify that this body is me or mind is me or intellect is > me – etc.) > Knowledge can contradict experience > Knowledge can resolve contradictory experiences > Knowledge cannot be contradicted. > Knowledge of the absolute transcends the knowledge of the relative. > It is not correct to say that we experience 'Brahman' all the time. What we experience is the projection caused by 'Maya' or 'Avidya'. Brahman is Nirguna. This Jiva, Jagat, Isvara are superimpositions on the Brahman. So, we experience all these three. It is incorrect to say > Experience is not knowledge. But it is more accurate to say that what is experienced in all the three states is 'Knowledge Absolute'. Also, 'Knowledge' can not contradict Experience. If it does so, it is not 'Knowledge Absolute'. > Experince of any body cannot itself become a pramaaNa because it becomes > subjective and no one other than oneself can confirm that the experience is > out of the knowledge of the total. Hence we cannot go by any sage – however > great a sage may be as the authority unless his experience is supported by > Shaastra – Hence shaastra becomes unquestionable authority or pramaaNa in > these matters. I believe this is incorrect. If Sastra says some thing which is against 'Realisation', it need not be accepted. Ofcourse, we are not making statements without following the complete course of 'Realisation' suggested by Sastra. Yes, only by its time tested prescription Sastra becomes a Authority or PramaNa, when ever doubts arise. >Hence even KrishNa declares – R^ishibhiH bahudda giitam > chadobhiH vividaiH pr^ithak – that what am revealing is not some thing new > that I have invented but what the great R^ishes have sung in many ways in > Veda-s(in upanishads). > Here is a corretion offered, it says 'Rishis have sung in many ways'. Rishis have sung of their own experiences.(Aparoksha Anubhuthi) > Now some questions Brian raised: > > >. Can anyone address the following questions: > > Again from my understanding: > > > >1) Where does Krishna fit in to the Classical Advaita Vedanta view? > > Discussion of Avatara-s is provided by Shankara – One is borne not only due > to ones vasana-s but due to samashhTi vasana-s – because other's vasana-s > crystallizes Brahman to descend into a form that they can identify and take > the help of. –Krishna says – I am born to uplift the good and to punish the > vicked and to establish the righteousness. That is called avataara – > descending down from the highest state but with complete knowledge. That is > what Krishna is or was. Jesus also says I came to fulfill the scriptures. > >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? > There are many many – read the autobiography of a yogi – by pramahamsa > yogananda – We have Ramakrishna-s, yoganandas- Vivekananda-s, > Ramathiirtha-s, Ramana maharshi-s, ammachi-s, various baba-s, Nisargadatta > maharaj, etc, etc. examples are unlimited. It all boils down whom you are > going to judge one is realized or not. Hence for that reason only we need > an independent norm – that is why shaastra becomes unquestionable pramaaNa > in these matters. Vedanta is the pramanaa only because it is where it is > unequivally declared that the nature of the reality by four mahavaakya-s – > Praj~naanam brahma, tat tvam asi, ayam aatma brahma and aham brahma asmi. > > >3) In reference to this, what was the source and vehicle for the four > >Vedas? > > Veda-s are considered as apaurusheyam-s that is not authored by human – in > fact this applies any knowledge – what the word Veda means – and Vedaanta – > the ultimate knowledge has to be – it is revealed to the men of meditation > and passed it by word of mouth and recorded and edited by vyaasa. Shaastra > pramaaNa involves a inherent faith in the shaastra that what it says it true > and correct – that faith is called shradda and is considered as a required > qualification for Brahman inquiry. > This is called Apta Vakya or Sabda PramaNa, the word or a Apta (imprecise translation Well wisher, or Realised person, who will not mislead by selfish motive etc.) Vedas were not recored and edited by Vyasa. Vyasa means one who Classified. > >4) Was Vyasa (aka Badarayana) liberated? > > Yes – now the ball is in your court to prove that he was not! > It may be ignorant to think otherwise, without him we would have been in trouble without knowing how to get out of this misery of life. > >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?) > > You cannot judge anybody's qualifications leave alone the teacher – this is > more so in the aadhyaatma vidya. Hence it is declared – manushyatvam, > mumukshatvam, mahaapurusha saagatyam – the birth as a human being, desire > for liberation and the right type of teacher who can help all these three > are very difficult to get and one gets only due to the grace of God – it is > a graceful way of saying that one has to earn by ones samskaara. All the teachers of Sankara Sampradaya practice Sankara's teachings. But, all such Practitioners can not be teachers. Vivekachoodamani says 'Srotriyam Brahmanishta' alone can be a teacher i.e who has listened to Sastra from a Guru and who by himself sits in Brahman. Verse 33 & 34 say: "He who is well versed in the scriptures, sinless, unafflicted by desires, a full knower of the Supreme, who has retired into the Supreme, who is as calm as the fire that has burnt up his fuel, who is a boundless ocean of mercy that needs no cause for its expression and who is an intimate friend of those who have surrendered unto him. Worshipping tha tGuru with deep devotion, when he is pleased with your surrender, humility and service, approach him and ask him to explain what you must know. So, based on the following description it is not hard to identify a true Guru. The trouble is to mistake any Ocher robed Swami to be a Guru of 'THAT' imagination. I read some where that 'Sanyasi' does not mean one who 'Knows THAT'. Initially it is 'Sadhana Sanyasi'; and later it is 'Jnani Sanyasi'. We are not being Judgmental here, but following how to and whom to revere as a GURU based on Sankara's teachings. Ofcourse we will not insult others. But all of their actions will not be our inspiration of imitation. Om Namo Narayanaya !! Srikrishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2002 Report Share Posted January 20, 2002 >"srikrishna_ghadiyaram" <srikrishna_ghadiyaram >Om Namo Narayanaya !! > >Srikrishna > Jai Sreeman Naarayana and Thanks Srikrishna for your detailed response. I have presented my understanding. some of these aspects I have discussed in the notes on Adyaasa bhaasya (I think it is chapter III in the brahmasuutra file). If you find time I appreciate if you can look over sections that discusses on adyaasa in terms of satya anR^ita mithunniikaraNam part - what part is known what part is unknown etc. Hari Om! Sadananda _______________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.