RE: The Good News (and the bad news)

[Guest guest]

--- Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

> Hi Ken,

>

> No, it wasn't a criticism of your writing - you were

> quoting Sri Swami

> Atmaswarupananda.

 

Good Evening Dennis,

I think I need to replace my body's hard drive as this

reference has been wiped from my memory. I will have

to track back on the thread.

>Still, it seems to have triggered

> an interesting thread!

 

So many amazing people around on this site. All ideas

that have been relevant and meaningful in the past

suddenly become fallen idols in decaying halls of

worship. The regular challenge is to give up all past

conclusions and insights.

>

> Thanks for the Mulla Nasruddin story incidentally.

> especially thanks for the

> explanation!

 

That was a bit of a cheat really as it was in my mind

and I twisted it to fit the thread. I will be giving a

talk on non-dualism, in a couple of weeks time,

starting with the story of Nasruddin's mother-in-law

and it just seemed appropriate with another line for

interpretation. The best story to understand metanoia,

as a 180 degree turn, is that of the 'Prodigal Son.'

In fact the talk is a lead up to a later one on

Upadesha Sahasri and so will concentrate on the place

of language in spiritual experience and enquiry.

Some quotes which I will use I put below because they

are relevant to how we proceed with our discussions on

this site and how we are to use language in discussion

of non-duality. Also they are included to offer a

possible reply to those who question the validity of

the thread.

 

‘That is the Ocean of Oneness, wherein there is no

mate or consort. Its pearls and fish are none other

than its waves.

Oh Absurd! Absurd! That any should ascribe partners to

Him! Far be it from that Ocean and Its undefiled

waves.

There is no partnership and complication in the Ocean.

But what can I say to him who sees double? Nothing!

Nothing!

Since we are paired with double-seers, oh idolater, it

is necessary to talk as if we ascribe partners to Him.

That Oneness is on the other side of descriptions and

states. Nothing but duality enters speech’s playing

field.

So, either live in this duality, like the

double-seeing man, or sew up your mouth and be happily

silent!

Or, speak and be silent by turns---beat your drum like

the double-seer, and that’s all.

When you see a confidant, tell him the mystery of the

spirit, and when you see a rose, sing like a

nightingale.

But when you see a water-skin full of deception and

falsehood, shut your lips and make yourself a vat.

 

Finally in these words of advice about speech:

 

‘Concise and profitable speech is like a lit lamp that

kisses an unlit lamp and departs. That is enough for

it, for it has attained its goal. After all, a prophet

is not that outward form. His form is his steed.

A prophet is Love and affection, and that subsists for

ever.’

 

The author of those words is a poet well known to

members of this site so I will not repeat his name

again.

 

Peace and happiness (even in computer travails)

 

Ken Knight

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.

http://mailplus.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, ken knight <hilken_98@Y...> wrote:

>

> --- Dennis Waite <dwaite@a...> wrote:

> > Hi Ken,

> >

> > No, it wasn't a criticism of your writing - you were

> > quoting Sri Swami

> > Atmaswarupananda.

>

> Good Evening Dennis,

> I think I need to replace my body's hard drive as this

> reference has been wiped from my memory. I will have

> to track back on the thread.

>

Namaste,

 

Actually this thread started with Message #15744 by 'kvashishta'!

I don't think Ken-ji has another alias!

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 19:13:59 -0000, Tony O'Clery <aoclery

<aoclery wrote:

> It is interesting how you choose your sciences. Buddhism as a religion

> may or may not have reached Tibet until later, but where is Tibet. Jesus

> is supposed to have been in Leh, Kashmir. Gautama himself was from Nepal

> in the same mountain range!!Buddhism was in Afghanistan when Alexander

> arrived. I have no doubt that Gautama left disciples following his path,

> in the the Himalayan area........ONS...Tony.

 

Sri Tony,

 

I don't suppose Jesus to have been in Leh, Kashmir or the Himalayas at all,

and you mustn't expect me to do so. This is the very point that awaits

proof.

 

Everything, including the Srinagar tomb, rests on the Nicolas Notovitch

text, which Max Muller ably refuted in "The Alleged Sojourn of Christ in

India," The Nineteenth Century 36 (1894). Responding to Muller's objection

that the lamas denied the existence of such a work, Notovitch stated in his

1895 preface that he had compiled extracts which "are to be found scattered

through more than one book without any title." This in contrast to his

1894 preface, where he claimed the Convent of Himis contained "a few

copies of the manuscript in question."

 

Edgar Goodspeed and a host of others have likewise proven it to be a

forgery. One of the problems Goodspeed points out is Notovitch's literary

dependance on Matthew, Luke, Acts, and Romans, despite the fact that his

work claims to be written three or four years after the crucifixion and to

pre-date these New Testament books by two or three decades (Edgar J.

Goodspeed, Modern Apocrypha, Boston: Beacon Press, 1956, pg. 9). This was

a conservative estimate in the 1950s; modern scholarship would extend the

gap by almost a century.

 

Abhedananda's Bengali version is not credible either. Remember how

Notovitch said he stayed up nights at Himis compiling "all the fragments

concerning the life of Issa in chronological order and taking pains to

impress upon them the character of unity, in which they were absolutely

lacking."? Well, Abhedananda,during his visit to Himis, somehow produced

a Bengali version which is identical to the Notovitch text. Giving the

revered disciple of Bhagavan Sri Ramakrishna the benefit of the doubt, I

decline to speculate on how this came about.

 

And then in 1925 Nicolas Roerich comes along and presents his own version:

a conflation of the Notovitch forgery with the 16th chapter of the

channeled "Aquarian Gospel" by Levi.

 

To this hodge-podge we add the reveries of soothsayers and the intuitions

of sages, and we "suppose" it to be true. Tony-ji, these suppositions do

nothing to commend the cause of Sanatan Dharma to the thinking people of

the West. May theLord help us to find a better way.

 

Pranaams,

 

Shivaram

 

--

"0 my Naren, are you still not convinced? He who was Rama and Krishna is

now Ramakrishna - but not in your Vedantic sense!"

[Guest guest]

Faith:

"0 my Naren, are you still not convinced? He who was Rama and Krishna

is now Ramakrishna - but not in your Vedantic sense!"

 

 

advaitin, Shivaram Das <conte@i...> wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 19:13:59 -0000, Tony O'Clery <aoclery>

>

> To this hodge-podge we add the reveries of soothsayers and the

intuitions

> of sages, and we "suppose" it to be true. Tony-ji, these

suppositions do

> nothing to commend the cause of Sanatan Dharma to the thinking

people of

> the West. May theLord help us to find a better way.

>

> Pranaams,

>

> Shivaram

>

> --

> "0 my Naren, are you still not convinced? He who was Rama and

Krishna is

> now Ramakrishna - but not in your Vedantic sense!"

[Guest guest]

Respected Advaitin Moderators and List,

 

With appreciations to all for the opportunity to explore the issues

surrounding Jesus, Kashmir, and Tibet, I believe the time has come for me

to sign off of this aspect of the discussion, having given all that I have

on the question. I do hope to post a few remarks in reply to Sri

Kuntimaddi Sadananda's kind invitation which appears below.

 

I offer my sincere apologies to our respected members for any intemperate

remarks which may have offended. I'm thinking particularly of my negative

reference to the Bhavishya Purana; this is a complex scripture and deserves

better treatment than I gave it in my critical comment.

 

Pranaams,

 

Shivaram Das

 

 

On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 03:58:19 -0800 (PST), kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> --- Shivaram Das <conte wrote:

>

> Shree Sivaram Das

>

> Thanks for bringing a different perspective. Some segments of the

> sermon on the mount give the impression of adviatic teaching. I got the

> impression that christianity is more parallel to VishishhTaadvaitic

> theological concepts than adviatic concepts. I would welcome your

> analysis of the Christian teachings for the benefit of everyone.

 

 

--

"0 my Naren, are you still not convinced? He who was Rama and Krishna is

now Ramakrishna - but not in your Vedantic sense!"

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Shivaram:

 

I agree that the thread discussions was quite exhaustive and it is

time to move on to other topics more focusing on advaita. Sadaji's

suggestion is excellent and I suggest that you start with a new

thread title such as "sermon on the mount and adviatic teaching" or

other similar titles. Good thread title will help more members to

participate, read and focus.

 

As advaitins, let us keep an attitude of 'detachment' to prevent

emotional outbursts from imaginary insults.!

 

Special thanks to you for providing informative articles.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, Steve <conte@i...> wrote:

> Respected Advaitin Moderators and List,

> I believe the time has come for me

> to sign off of this aspect of the discussion, having given

> all that I have on the question. I do hope to post a few remarks

> in reply to Sri Kuntimaddi Sadananda's kind invitation which

appears below.

> kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada> wrote:

>

> > Thanks for bringing a different perspective. Some segments of the

> > sermon on the mount give the impression of adviatic teaching.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Ram Chandran <rchandran@c...>"

<rchandran@c...> wrote:

> selected group of children for nearly 12 years. We should be thankful

> to our ancestors for creating this ingenius 'oral tradition' to keep

> Vedas preserved from generations after generations. But lately, our

> scriptures also got translated into different languages by scholars

> of all background and they are subject to the same criticisms as

> other scriptures. It is quite ironic that the institutions that are

> established to protect the religion and its scriptures are mostly

> responsible for distortions!

>

> Coming back to the topic under discussion, Dennis statement

> that "modern Christians are not the only ones guilty of this sort of

> action (i.e. claiming that a scripture says x when in fact it said

> nothing of the sort in the original language)" is quite timely and

> appropriate. We should all keep in mind that listening is the

> greatest virtue that the Lord has provided to all of us and by

> listening more we can certainly avoid jumping into inappropriate and

> inconsiderate conclusions. Let us all make sure that we discuss on

> the subject matter and avoid finger-pointing or provoking our and

> others' emotions!

 

Mustn't it be the case that whenever any text is read it is immediately

interpreted by the reader. Primary in that interpretation will be the

ostensible meaning, language, grammer etc. and the meaning will also be

coloured by the understanding that the reader brings to it. This will be a

function of culture, context, contemporary needs etc. Thus though the Vedas

are regarded as authoritative there are 6 Darsanas on cosmology, identity and so

forth. Sankara regards Samkhya as an orthodox view but he still holds it to

internally incoherent and therefore he dismisses it though it is given some

authority by respected elders.

 

Nevertheless says Shankara many respected elders teach it as the truth and a

valid means to right knowledge. Its essential incoherence may trammel up the

mind of the seeker. They even quote the Upanisads to support their position.

However it will not be necessary to disagree with their interpretation for the

refutation of their teaching comes from an analysis of their stated doctrine.(My

summery of B.S.B.position)

 

Within Vedanta itself many points of view exist. Each has a chief professor

whose works have come to be canonical for their respective followers. They

carried on their disputes in the purest of Sanskrit.

 

Another thing that Sri Shivaram Das may have have some knowledge of is the

purported holding of a reincarnation/transmigration theory by the early

Christian church. Origen's name comes up in this regard. Henry Chadwick

writing on him in Britannia has it that he believed in the pre-existence of

souls but not in transmigration. Being ignorant of that whole area I would

still still dismiss the idea on Shankara's principle of internal incoherence.

It just does not gell with the Christian pre-mortem theory of identity.

 

Ciao and Blessings, Michael.

>

> Warmest regards,

>

> Ram Chandran