'jnAna' - pramANas and their dependencies and priorities

[Guest guest]

I request the moderators, to let me present a little bit of

info on pramANas and how they operate together. I think this is related to the

current topic of 'jnAna and bhakti' because without pramANas there is no jnAna

and without jnAna, bhakti is reduced to mooDa-bhakti.

 

Let us understand a little bit on how these pramANas operate together.

 

These are the pramANas - pratyakha (perception), anumAna ( Inference),

PourushEya Agama and ApourshEya Agama which is Veda.

 

Their dependencies:

 

Pratyaksha reveals objects independent of anumAna and Agama. apourushEya Agama

can reveal its object independent of pratyaksha and anumAna. anumAna reveals

its object, depending up on pratyaksha. pourushEya Agama reveals its object,

depending upon apurushEya Agama. Pratyaksha presents objects of the world.

But does not sublate apourushEya-Agama apourushEya-Agama presents objects which

is beyond the scope of pratyaksha. But does not sublate Pratyaksha. Agama

and Pratyaksha supplement each other.

 

Pratyaksha gives the point from which Agama can start. Agama brings the finite

world of Pratyaksha to completeness. Both together present the whole world with

all its aspects. Inference ( AnumAna ) that follows perception ( pratyaksha )

enriches the world of pratyaksha.

Ex : nobody has actually seen an electron, it is only inferred,

but still look at all the gadgets that makes up this electroic age !!

 

..AnumAna that follows Agama, enriches the world of Agama. PourushEya Agama also

has the same function, i.e.,following ApourushEya Agama, it enriches the Agama

..

What if it one pramANa does not follow the other? or what if one pramANa

contradicts other pramANa ?

 

That is where the priorities of pramANas comes into picture.

 

If pratyaksha and Veda seem to be in opposition, Veda must be interpreted

consistently with pratyaksha, by abandoning the interpretation with which it is

opposed to pratyaksha. If anumAna and pourushEya Agama go against pratyaksha,

then they are plain wrong. Pratyaksha has the unquestionable priority in rank.

If pratyaksha is sublated by another pratyaksha, then that which is sublated is

wrong. We have to interpret the whole of world of thought consistently with

pratyaksha experience.

 

Veda is swatah-pramANa:

Veda is swatah pramANa because it has nothing that contradicts it. Neither

pratyaksha, nor inference nor pourushEya pramANa can contradict Veda. Veda

never tells us anything that contradicts our daily experience.

 

Thus, you won't find statements such as 'sun does not raise nor set on this

earth' in the Veda. If you think you have come across, it is very likely that

you have overlooked a certain procedure in interpreting that Vedic statement

properly.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

praNAm jay prabhuji,

Hare krishna

 

Thanks a lot for your elaborated notes on pramANas. Unfortunately, I've

some doubts in accepting the shAstrAs are the valid means of pramANa to

realise brahman. Though vedas are described as apouruShEya & it is very

breath of parabrahman, how can shAstra explains the nature of parabrahman

to us... since the shrutis are nothing but composition of words from which

you can gain only objective knowledge like its guNas, group, its action &

its relationship with various other objects. But in this very upanishad

parabrahman described as not only attributeless but also says that it is

beyond the reach of mind & intellect & it is inexpressible by words (yatO

vAcho nivartante aprapya manasa saha).

 

You have quoted some verses from Kena upanishad, I'd like to quote the

following verse from the same upanishad : *That which speech cannot

express, but which itself expresses speech...that which the mind cannot

think of, but which itself , they say, thinks of the mind. Know that alone

to be brahman, not this which they meditate upon as an object* from this it

is evident that brahman is beyond the reach of our conditioned senses &

mind & these antah karaNas are capable of only know the objective things in

our ordinary day to day life. But whereas as Sri Sadananda prabhuji said,

brahman is of such a nature that it is self-luminous & it lights up the

objective of external world. If it is swatah sidda (self-evident) how can

even shruti/veda/ShAstra describe light of lights, mind of minds & which is

sAkshi chEta ( witnessing consciousness) & more importantly which is the

primordial force to even to know the vedas as such.... Kindly clarify my

doubt prabhuji.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

--- bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> praNAm jay prabhuji,

> Hare krishna

>

> Thanks a lot for your elaborated notes on pramANas. Unfortunately,

> I've

> some doubts in accepting the shAstrAs are the valid means of pramANa

> to

> realise brahman. Though vedas are described as apouruShEya & it is

> very

> breath of parabrahman, how can shAstra explains the nature of

> parabrahman

> to us... since the shrutis are nothing but composition of words from

> which

> you can gain only objective knowledge like its guNas, group, its

> action &

> its relationship with various other objects.

 

Shree Bhaskar - even though it consists of words - words as used by a

teacher in an appropriate context to the student can make the student

see the truth that is beyond the words. When the teacher says you are

the missing 10th man, tat tvam asi - those words do not bring the 10th

man - the 10th man is already there, yet the students are unable to see

the tenth man since their vision is only outwards- That is why it is

called immediate knowledge - aparoksha j`naana -as I have explained

before - in that sense the teacher's words are pramaaNa for the student

who has the faith in that teacher. In the kena that you have mentioned

the teacher also says using the words that the nature of Brahman can not

be grasped - Brahman is that which speech cannot reach - yet the teacher

is using speech to teach what is that reality - that because of which

the speech itself functions- and says it is not this that you worship is

Brahman - further says- this is how it is explained to us by our

preceptors- is it not? Can you see the samanvaya that Jay has been

mentioning all along. Hence the need for sampradaaya teacher who has

learned not only shaastra-s but also learned how to teach.

ach!

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

http://search.

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskar-jI,

>But in this very upanishad

>parabrahman described as not only attributeless but also says that it is

>beyond the reach of mind & intellect & it is inexpressible by words (yatO

>vAcho nivartante aprapya manasa saha).

 

Is Brahman inexpressible by words? or "is Brahman ashabda?"

 

"yad vAchA anabhyuditam", "yatO vAchO nivartante" seem to indicate that,

don't they?

 

Sri VedavyAsa has dealt with in the 5th adhikaraNa starting with the sootra

 

"Om IkshatEhe na ashabam Om" 1.1.5

 

Brahman is not inexpressible, because He can be known through Vedas ( Ikshata).

 

Sri VedavyAsa goes on further and says,

 

"Om GouNaschEnna Atma shabdAt Om" 1.1.6

Brahman is not prAkrita, because He is addressed as Atma

 

"Om tannishTasya mOxOpadEshAt Om " 1.1.7

"Om hEyatva avachanAccha Om"

"Om svApyayAt Om"

"Om gatisAmAnyAt Om"

"Om shrutatvAccha Om" 1.1.11

 

I suggest you study these sootras, in all their details, then you will find an

answer

why Brahman is not inexpressible with words, and why Vedas are indeed needed.

 

 

[Guest guest]

praNAm Sri Sadananda prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Thank you very much for your kind clarification. Whenever I receive your

replies to my doubts, my mind used to accept it without rising any further

questions / doubts. But unfortunately this time I am still not clear.

Hence kindly pardon me for stretching this further :

 

prabhuji you wrote :

 

even though it consists of words - words as used by a

teacher in an appropriate context to the student can make the student

see the truth that is beyond the words.

> That is what my point prabhuji.... how can a finite word can describe

the infinite reality. Guru can teach us the *likelihood of truth* which is

*beyond* the reach of words. So, exclusively / precisely he cannot point

out *this is brahman* as an objective reality through shruti vAkyas.

 

When the teacher says you are the missing 10th man, tat tvam asi - those

words do not bring the 10th man - the 10th man is already there, yet the

students are unable to see the tenth man since their vision is only

outwards- That is why it is called immediate knowledge - aparoksha j`naana

-as I have explained before - in that sense the teacher's words are

pramaaNa for the student who has the faith in that teacher.

> Again, kindly pardon me prabhuji, still I am not clear as to how a

teacher though he is jnAna nishta ( thanks Sri atmachaitanya prabhuji for

pointing out difference between jnAna nishta & jnAni) can reveal the

unlimited brahman AS IT IS through his limited adjuncts i.e. through his

words, mind & intellect when it is clearly mentioned it is beyond the reach

of words (yato vAcho...etc.) All that he can explain to his pupil as

regards to absolute brahman is through the teaching of neti neti..coz. he

cannot point out any external object as *iti brahman* since it is

subjective reality.. is it not prabhuji??

 

In the kena that you have mentioned the teacher also says using the words

that the nature of Brahman can not be grasped - Brahman is that which

speech cannot reach - yet the teacher is using speech to teach what is that

reality - that because of which the speech itself functions- and says it is

not this that you worship is

Brahman - further says- this is how it is explained to us by our

preceptors- is it not?

> but if we see this upanishad mantra carefully, it does not clearly

explain brahman per sec. It says that brahman is not this, not this ( or

*not like this* as Sri Madathil Nair Prabhuji says). Moreover, as you

mentioned elsewhere in your mail there is no pramANa required to establish

*one self* as the atman or brahman is our very self & it is no adventitious

thing for any one. I think shruti pramANa can help us to get rid of our

avidya & it removes the distinctions superimposed upon our Real Self by

avidya. I think shruti's scope ends there!!! Kindly correct me prabhuji,

if I am wrong in my understanding.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Shree Bhaaskar wrote:

 

.... how can a finite word can

> describe

> the infinite reality. Guru can teach us the *likelihood of truth*

> which is

> *beyond* the reach of words. So, exclusively / precisely he cannot

> point

> out *this is brahman* as an objective reality through shruti vAkyas.

 

You are right - Brahman cannot be pointed out since pointer and pointed

and pointing are within Brahman. But one does not realize that and one

is still searching for Brahman. The search cannot end until he finds

Brahman and He can never find it as long as he is searching since in

that very search he has decided that Brahman is separate from him.

Hence the teacher or shaastra hava a difficult job to do and should be

done very carefully. Any communication can only be done through the

words, but words themselves in direct meaning cannot point out Brahman

since it is not an object to be pointed out. That is why so called

Lakshna vaakyam 'tat tvam asi' cannot be understood using direct word

meaning - it will be a ridiculous statement. The implied meaning of the

words need to be understood not as a thought but as a fact. For that a

proper frame of mind is required for the student. The teacher should

have compassion to recognize the shortcoming of the words and the

student, yet do the teaching required. Kenopanishd is an excellent

example of how that teaching is accomplished.

 

> > Again, kindly pardon me prabhuji, still I am not clear as to how a

> teacher though he is jnAna nishta ( thanks Sri atmachaitanya prabhuji

> for

> pointing out difference between jnAna nishta & jnAni) can reveal the

> unlimited brahman AS IT IS through his limited adjuncts i.e. through

> his

> words, mind & intellect when it is clearly mentioned it is beyond the

> reach

> of words (yato vAcho...etc.) All that he can explain to his pupil as

> regards to absolute brahman is through the teaching of neti neti..coz.

> he

> cannot point out any external object as *iti brahman* since it is

> subjective reality.. is it not prabhuji??

 

Neti, neti is one way of teaching by discarding all 'iti-s'. Tat tvam

asi is also a teaching by the teacher to point out 'you are that'

-'That' is what a seeker is seeking - you can call 'that' as Iswara or

happiness or Brahman. This statement involves what is known as

'bhaagatyaaga lakshana' that is discarding those adjuncts that are

contradictory between tat and tvam and only retaining those that

essential thing that is common to both, and equating that commonality.

The classical example is 'soyam devadattaH"- He is that devadatta. The

statements that ‘he is devadatta’ or 'that is devadatta'- are different

- they only define who is devadatta. But when the teacher says 'he is

that devadatta' It is a different taching where the words more than what

they mean literally - a completely different meaning. This devadatta is

conditioned by this time and this place and with these upaadhi--s -

body, mind and intellect. That devadatta looked completely different

from this devadatta in the sense he belonged to remote space, time and

perhaps completely different body, mind and intellect. But when the

teacher is equating these two - there is really no two devadatta-s.

Devadatta is only one - In that equation, the student is expected to

discard all the inequalities (vidrodha-s) between this devadatta and

that devadatta and equate that essential aspect that constitutes in this

an that devadatta - This process is called bhagatyaaga lakshana. For

this teaching to take place the student should be seeing this devadatta

that is right in front of him and also have some knowledge of that

devadatta that the teacher is referring to. Then only the equation has

any meaning- is it not? For that teacher in his teaching should be aware

of what the student knows and does know. Using the student available

knowledge to communicate to him in such a way that the student gets

immediate understanding. If I know that devadatta enough and seeing this

devadatta and when the teacher says 'he is that devadatta' - the

knowledge is immediate- I may scream – Oh! Boy! what a wonder - He is

that devadaata! What a change! etc. It is not that I have to sit and do

japa and repeat 1000 times- 'he is that devadatta'- 'he is that

devadatta' - getting that mantram from a teacher etc. for me to realize

that truth of devadatta - nor any action in my part is needed for that

realization - Hence it is aproksha j~naanam - immediate knowledge takes

place provide 1) I have the right frame of mind (knowledge of this and

that devadatta) and also 2) complete faith in the teacher/scriptures

when he says this is that devadatta since the realization of that

equation is based on that faith. If he is not really that devadatta and

if the teacher says so - then it is the teacher's fault. Hence to get

clear picture of devadatta - the scripture provides many clues - neti

neti is one - satyam j~naana anantam Brahman is another - sarvam

khaliyidam Brahman - brahmaivedam amRitaH purastaat .. etc etc. For all

that scripture becomes pramaaNa. Knowing all about that devadatta, is by

itself not sufficient and knowing all about this devadatta is not

sufficient - ultimately we need that equation - he is that devadatta-

That forms the essence of teaching - the rest is preparatory - is it

not? The mahavaakya-s provide that essential teaching . Hence the need

of scriptures and sampradaaya teacher to unravel all these doubts

correctly and clearly.

 

 

>

> > but if we see this Upanishad mantra carefully, it does not clearly

> explain brahman per sec. It says that brahman is not this, not this (

> or

> *not like this* as Sri Madathil Nair Prabhuji says). Moreover, as you

> mentioned elsewhere in your mail there is no pramANa required to

> establish

> *one self* as the atman or brahman is our very self & it is no

> adventitious

> thing for any one. I think shruti pramANa can help us to get rid of

> our

> avidya & it removes the distinctions superimposed upon our Real Self

> by

> avidya. I think shruti's scope ends there!!! Kindly correct me

> prabhuji,

> if I am wrong in my understanding.

 

No. it is not the negative statements but clearly provides nature of

Brahman as the essence of your self too . Tat tvam asi - pragnanam

brahma - ayamaatma brahma and ahma brahma asmi - These statements do not

involve just neti neti - but positive realization of 'I am Brahman'.

Otherwise pure neti neti, as Jay correctly pointed out, results in

suunyavaada. I am not a suunyam, but 'I am the totality' should be the

realization.

 

"sarva bhuutastam aatmaanam sarva bhuutanica aatmani|'

or from Iswara point

'yo mam pasyati sarvatra sarvanca mayi pasyati|' - says Krishna.

All are in me I am in all of them - it is not just rejection of 'iti-s'

but essentially including all 'iti-s' too since Brahman cannot exclude

any iti - or anything.

 

 

Hari oM!

Sadananda

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

http://search.

[Guest guest]

Note from List Moderator:

Even though you claim that you want to learn, you didn't demonstrate 'sraddha'

and try to discredit advaita in the name of 'understanding advaita.' May I

request you to change your attitude and just listen first instead of

questioning. If you notice, in Gita, even Lord Krishna didn't open his mouth

until the 13th verse of Chapter 2. Our first lesson to learn is to listen!

=================================================

 

Dear SadAnanda and Bhaskar-jI,

 

I am sending this email to you as also to the group, because looks like there

is some email issue.

 

By your replies, I understand that scriptures are not that important for

getting 'advaita-jnAna' because it can only come from experience anubhava,

or realization and not by studying vEda.

 

If that is the case, which one of the six pramANas is anubhava?

 

It can't be pratyaksha - because pratyaksha can only reveal objects of the

world

and therefore is vyAvahArika.

 

It can't be anumAna because anumAna needs pratyaksha, and so is vyAvahArika

 

It can't be anupalabdhi, arthApatti or upamAna because they are all cases of

pratyaksha and anumAna and therefore vyAvahArika.

 

That leaves us with Agama. Agama is all in the form of 'sound' and

what is 'experiential' is ineffable. Therefore, anubhava is not Agama either.

 

Then, don't you think Advaita-vEdaanta should include a seventh pramANa called

"anubhava" and make it independent of all the six pramANas.

 

My simple question is, why no body has done it so far? Is there a historical

reason?

 

I am trying to understand advaita better.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- Jay Nelamangala <jay wrote:

> It can't be anupalabdhi, arthApatti or upamAna because they are all

> cases of

> pratyaksha and anumAna and therefore vyAvahArika.

>

> That leaves us with Agama. Agama is all in the form of 'sound' and

> what is 'experiential' is ineffable. Therefore, anubhava is not

> Agama either.

>

> Then, don't you think Advaita-vEdaanta should include a seventh

> pramANa called

> "anubhava" and make it independent of all the six pramANas.

>

> My simple question is, why no body has done it so far? Is there a

> historical reason?

>

> I am trying to understand advaita better.

 

 

Jay - This may be my last e-mail in response to your mails. As I stated

before and I will state again with due respects. Learning Vedanta is not

becoming proficient in scriptures - it is aadhyaatma vidya as you are

very much aware. Obviously you are misinterpreting what we wrote looking

though your green glasses of so-called understanding of scriptures.

 

You can accuse us we are wearing blue glasses and refuse to see

otherwise. That may be true but that is the scope of this list. I don’t

see that you are here to learn Advaita Vedanta but only demonstrating

your knowledge of scriptures. There is no point in understanding of all

those puraNa-s and giita If you really want to learn Advaita, just

concentrate on the simple and profound statements of the four

mahavaakyas - of the veda-s - the essence of advaita Vedanta is packed

in that - That is scriptural pramaaNa, and that is shabda pramaaNa - You

can explain all the rest of the Upanishads using these mahavaakya-s as

the truth - not the other way around - And of course you are not

interested in that, and still claim that you want to learn Advaita

Vedanta. These is no point in continuing any discussions with you since

it does not serve any purpose other than making lot of irrelevant noise.

 

 

Please note that I will not be responding to your mails since I do not

see its utility. I will let other moderators to decide whether to keep

you in the list or not.

 

As a last note, if you really wanted to know Advaita, we can meet

personally some time and discuss to your heart content. Best yet is I

will be giving "Upadesha Saara" text at Chinmya Mission Center,

Washington during the Memorial Weekend (Saturday and Sunday). Since you

are close by you can attend that and learn as much as you want. Upadesha

saara is the Upanishad saara by Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi.

 

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

http://search.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

>

> --- Jay Nelamangala <jay@r...> wrote:

> >

> > Then, don't you think Advaita-vEdaanta should include a seventh

> > pramANa called

> > "anubhava" and make it independent of all the six pramANas.

> >

> > My simple question is, why no body has done it so far? Is there

a

> > historical reason?

> >

> > I am trying to understand advaita better.

>

>

> Jay - This may be my last e-mail in response to your mails.

 

Namaste,

 

I share fully Sadagaru's exasperation!

 

dustarkAt suviramyatAm (refrain from vain debates,) says Sankara in

Sadhana Panchakam;

 

vAdo nAvalambyaH (do not resort to argument) says Narada in Bhakti

Sutra (# 74).

 

A classic example just occurred - "sadhana chatushtaya is a requisite

for brahma-jijnasa, where is it said that it so for aparokshanubhuti"?

 

This is like a graduate student asking a high school graduate to

submit proof of having learnt the alphabet in the proper sequence!

 

By the way, Jay's question on anubhava pramana has been

amply expounded by Prof. Ranade in his book: 'Vedanta, The

Culmination of Indian Thought', p. 36, 1st ed. 1970, Bharatiya Vidya

Bhavan - in the chapter on Problem of Logic. ".... undertake a

criticism of all these Pramanas in the light of the supreme Vedantic

criterion, viz. anubhava..........."

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

 

Sadanandaji said:

>There is no point in understanding of all those puraNa-s

>and giita If you really want to learn Advaita, just

>concentrate on the simple and profound statements of the

>four mahavaakyas - of the veda-s - the essence of advaita

>Vedanta is packed in that - That is scriptural pramaaNa,

>and that is shabda pramaaNa - You can explain all the rest

>of the Upanishads using these mahavaakya-s as the truth -

>not the other way around

 

 

This statement is most inspiring and reassuring to me! Sometimes I

feel like I am getting lost in the scriptural intricacies of our

discussion, and sometimes I feel bewildered by the vast spiritual

universe of Hinduism.

 

But if I am allowed to keep the four simple but profound Mahavakyas

as my 'pole star', then I feel safe and secure.

 

Also, these Mahavakyas are, in my opinion, fully consistent with

the essence of Mahayana Buddhism, of Christian nondual mystics such

as Meister Eckhart, and of all that seems like the core of true

'transcendent' spirituality, as I understand it.

 

Sadanandaji, your simple comment is one of the most useful messages I

have ever read on this site, or anywhere. It really brings things

into focus. Let us never lose site of the essence.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Dear Sunder,

>A classic example just occurred - "sadhana chatushtaya is a requisite

>for brahma-jijnasa, where is it said that it so for aparokshanubhuti"?

 

The reason for my question is to understand the relationship between the

three 1) sAdhana-chatushTaya 2) brahma-jignyAsA and 3 ) aparOksha-anubhooti

 

How is brahma-jignyAsA related to aparOksha-anubhooti?.

 

Is Brahma-jignyAsa a step in aprOksha-anubhooti or

can one get aparOksha-anubhooti without Brahma-jignyAsA?

 

Is nityA-nitya-vastu-vivEka, etc (sAdhana-chatuShTaya)

is a pre-req for aparOksha-anubhooti without Brahma-jignyAsA?

 

or nityA-nitya-vastu-vivEka etc is a must for both Brahma-jignyAsaa and

aparOksha-anubhooti?

>This is like a graduate student asking a high school graduate to

>submit proof of having learnt the alphabet in the proper sequence!

 

My questions may appear silly. But there are deeper philosophical

implications such as :

 

nityA-nitya-vastu-vivEka - one gets the knowledge of what is nitya, and why it

is nitya, what is anitya and why it became anitya, what is the correct

relationship between nitya and anitya etc etc - this is precisely what

brahma-jignyAsA as enquiry into Veda, teaches among other things. Or in other

words, one gets nityA-nitya-vastu-vivEka after brahma-jignyAsaa and not before.

The notion of 'nitya' comes from Veda and not from anitya-prapancha.

 

This being the case, making nityA-nitya-vastu-vivEka as a pre-requisite

for brahma-jignyAsA raises the question - how does one get that knowledge

before brahma-jignyAsA?.

 

 

If we say Brahma-jignyAsA is a step in aparOksha-anubhooti then the sequence

would be,

brahma-jignyAsA leading to nityA-nitya-vastu-vivEka etc which leads to

aparOksha-anubhooti.

 

If we say Brahma-jignyAsA is not a step in aparOksha-anubhooti, but only

sAdhana-chatuShTaya is, then some one still needs to answer how one gets

nityA-nitya-vivEka without brahma-jignyAsA ?.

 

I hope members of this group see the importance and implications of my

silly-looking questions. They are posed not to de-rail anyone, not to

prove a point, not for vain-debates, not to exhibit scriptural knowledge, etc.

 

They are posed for a better understanding of a philosophy that is sound.

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote:

>

> But if I am allowed to keep the four simple but profound Mahavakyas

> as my 'pole star', then I feel safe and secure.

 

Benjamini - that is why they are called Mahavaakyas - But also remember

they are supported by the rest of the statements of the upanishads too.

Hence once your pole stars are fixed one can us the rest of upanishadic

statement as a ladder to reach the stars- provided of course one does

not get side tracked by incorrect interpretations since they are mystic

and addressed to a contemplative seeker and not to a literary scholar.

It is not the word meaning but implied meaning - in that sense only

scriputure with finite words can communicate that which cannot be

communicated. That is why they become a means of knowledge - other wise

one falls into trap - who can argue how can finite words can reveal

infiniteness! That is one of the reason why role of a teacher becomes

very important to import true meaning of the scriptures.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

>

> Hari Om!

> Benjamin

>

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

http://search.

[Guest guest]

praNAm Jay prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

You wrote :

 

By your replies, I understand that scriptures are not that important for

getting 'advaita-jnAna' because it can only come from experience anubhava,

or realization and not by studying vEda.

 

> prabhuji, I think you've mistaken my question, I was trying to

understand what *exactly* scriptures are trying to convey us.. Pls. note

that there was not even an iota of doubt in my mind in accepting the vedas

as parama pramANa.

> prabhuji, ultimate knowledge is not anubhava or experience according to

advaita, since experience involves triputi i.e. pramAtru, pramEya &

pramANa. Advaita knowledge is beyond this triputi & it is vastu tantra to

be revealed on its own!! Hence it is not a knowledge of objective

experience, it is intuitive knowledge gained through shAstra yOnitva.

Anyway this is my understanding, kindly correct me if I am wrong.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Jay Nelamangala" <jay@r...> wrote:

>

 

Namaste,

 

> The reason for my question is to understand the relationship

between the three 1) sAdhana-chatushTaya 2) brahma-jignyAsA and 3 )

aparOksha-anubhooti

 

*******Sadhana-chatushtaya is a requisite for both (Message Index #s

17350, 17293). Brahma-jijnasa is not limited to study of

Brahmasutras.#######

 

>How is brahma-jignyAsA related to aparOksha-anubhooti?.

>Is Brahma-jignyAsa a step in aprOksha-anubhooti or

 

******* Yes #######

>can one get aparOksha-anubhooti without Brahma-jignyAsA?

 

******* No. #########

>But there are deeper philosophical implications such as :

 

*******You will get all the answers to the deepest philosophical

implications by studying and practising the precepts of the

BhagavadGita alone, even without studying all the scriptures in the

traditional (non-academic) manner. #########

 

[This will be my last response to your e-mails.]

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Note from List Moderators: Please do not speculate with your own perception of

advaita and also Gita. This list follows the advaita, Gita, Brahmasuutra and the

Upanishads as per the understanding and teachings of Sri Sankara. Why do you

continue to irritate the members of this list with your own preaching. If you

are really keen preaching your theory, please start your own list and those

members who are interested may join and listen. You are really taking advantage

of this list's liberal policy and such privileges may not be extended for ever

if a member continue to violate the list policies.

 

 

Namaste Sunder-jI,

>Is Brahma-jignyAsa a step in aprOksha-anubhooti or

******* Yes #######

 

Then, someone has to explain how nityA-nitya-vivEka can be obtained without

vEda-vichAra-jignyAsA.

>*******You will get all the answers to the deepest philosophical

>implications by studying and practising the precepts of the

>BhagavadGita alone, even without studying all the scriptures in the

>traditional (non-academic) manner. #########

 

If I were an advaitin, I would stick to my guns to 'mahAvAkya' statements alone

and just stay with them.

Why would I want to go to Geetha that was taught by the lower, saguNa-brahman ?

also, it is much harder to explain Geetha teachings in terms of 'mahAvAkyas'

as Geetha blatantly teaches dvaita

that SriKrishna is purushOttama and Arjuna is Not.

 

"uttmaha purushastu anyaha paramAtmA iti udAhritaha" - 15th chapter.

Whatever happened to advaita here?.

 

That is why, I keep saying that let us all study prasthAna-traya with proper

'samanvaya' and if it still leads to advaita, I will be the

first one to jump ship. Let us not reduce philosophy to a bunch of beliefs.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

praNAm Jay prabhuji,

Hare Krishna

 

You wrote :

If I were an advaitin, I would stick to my guns to 'mahAvAkya' statements

alone and just stay with them.

> Pls. see Sri Sadananda prabhuji's reply to Sri Benjamin Root prabhuji

wherein he mentions that all other prastana trayi statements should be

understood in line with mahAvAkya statements.

 

Why would I want to go to Geetha that was taught by the lower,

saguNa-brahman ?

> Because nirguNA brahman cannot speak :-))

 

also, it is much harder to explain Geetha teachings in terms of

'mahAvAkyas' as Geetha blatantly teaches dvaita that SriKrishna is

purushOttama and Arjuna is Not.

> But the same purushOttama krishna says he is pArtha among pandavas in

that same BG. We can also have a look at *ahamAtma gudAkEsha* verse in BG.

 

"uttmaha purushastu anyaha paramAtmA iti udAhritaha" - 15th chapter.

Whatever happened to advaita here?

> nothing prabhuji, advaita is not for intellectual understanding it is

for realisation.

 

That is why, I keep saying that let us all study prasthAna-traya with

proper 'samanvaya'

> prabhuji, *samanvaya* what you are trying to define here is in

accordance with your school of thought.You are referring the relevant

scriptural quotes to uphold your theory. But, as conveyed by moderators of

this list, this is not the right place to propogate your views since the

list is exclusively dedicated to discuss shankara's adv.ved. Perhaps, it

would be better to discuss these issues on general forums. Prabhuji kindly

pardon me if I hurt your feelings.

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Dear Sunder-Ji,

>Is Brahma-jignyAsa a step in aprOksha-anubhooti or

 

******* Yes #######

>can one get aparOksha-anubhooti without Brahma-jignyAsA?

 

******* No. #########

 

Not according to BhAmati.

 

According to bhAmati, the knowledge of Brahman itself is the result or prayOjana

of brahma-jignyAsA in the final sense, and according to vivaraNa

it is intermediate and the final result is mOksha.

 

Everyone keeps asking me about the school I belong to, I wonder what their

answers would be if someone asked them the same question.