j~nAna and bhakti

[Guest guest]

Dear Harsha,

 

SriKrishna did not say "there is no room for anything else" either.

 

Because you made an arbitrary statement,

"God is complete, there is no room for anything else"

 

Next time, just say what is in the Geetha, it will all be just fine.

 

Thanks.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear BhAskar-jI,

> Then prabhuji, we have to forcefully agree that dvaita dArshanikAs were

not realised souls from the advaita perspective!! or else they might

have misunderstood the *ultimate realisation* since they maintain

eternal separation/duality between jIvAtma & paramAtma even after

realisation.

 

What you are saying is absolutely correct from an advaita point of view.

But why should that divide us? We both are still students of the same vEda.

 

That is why Dvaitins insist on Brahma-jignyAsA as vEda-vichAra-jignyAsA,

as the only means for jnAna and bhakti, resulting in prasAda of Parabrahman

which leads to the *ultimate realization*.

 

A God that is outside of brahma-jignyAsA is no God to jignyAsA.

 

-

bhaskar.yr

advaitin

Thursday, May 08, 2003 6:13 AM

Re: Re: j~nAna and bhakti

 

 

 

praNAm Murthy prabhuji & all prabhus of this elite group

Hare Krishna

 

Thanks for your kind clarification. I need some more insights to this

topic :

 

Prabhuji you wrote :

 

Bhakti, although it has its more visible appearance in

dvaita, graduates itself and reaches its highest state

in advaita. Bhakti ranges from idol worship to svAtnma-

tattvAnusandhAnam. All is bhakti. svAtma-tattvAnusandhAnam

is, or leads to, jnAnam.

> Is there any difference in bhakti - upAsana - karma

yOga-svasvarUpAnusadhAna approaches. Are all these approaches

ultimately lead to jnAna. If all these paths' destination is one and

the same i.e. jnAna, then why this categorisation... is it coz. of

adhikAra bhEda kindly clarify.

> Further you wrote :

 

Ultimate realization cannot end up in duality. Anything

ending up in duality is not the ultimate realization.

> Then prabhuji, we have to forcefully agree that dvaita dArshanikAs were

not realised souls from the advaita perspective!! or else they might

have misunderstood the *ultimate realisation* since they maintain

eternal separation/duality between jIvAtma & paramAtma even after

realisation.

> Finally, a doubt arises whether a bhakta through devotion towards his

ishtadEvata, ultimately led to apara brahman or lower or saguNa

brahman with name, form & all auspicious qualities. Moreover, it leads

to another question whether there are two brahmans one from the dvaitic

perspective that is saguNa brahman (apara brahman) & another from

advaitic perspective i.e. nirguNa brahman ( para brahman) which is

without prAna, mind & eternally changeless (avikrutam-unmodified). How

can a bhakta can realise this changeless nirguna brahman when he spent

all his life on worshipping his ishtadEvatA's mangala rUpa & kalyANa

guNas.

> From the above it is clear that apart from svasvarUpAnusandhAnam all

other paths lead to apara brahman or saguNa brahman with names, forms

with attributes which is according to Sri Shankara is due to the

conditioning adjunct created by Avidya. & we can conclude that from the

avaita perspective, realisation of saguNa brahman is mere a stepping

stone towards ultimate realisation of nirguNa brahman & saguNOpAsana is

for the convenience of aspirants who cannot rise to the level of the

absolutely featureless pure brahman.

> pls. correct me prabhuji if I am wrong.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

 

 

Sponsor

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskar-jI,

>else they migh have misunderstood the *ultimate realisation*

> since they maintain eternal separation/duality between jIvAtma & paramAtma

even after

> realisation.

 

Given the fact that it is the same Parabrahman who made a dvaitin a dvaitin and

an advaitin an advaitin, and also the fact that it is the same Veda for both of

them, and also

the same parabrahman who is going to liberate either of them in the advaitic

form of

melting the soul with His soul, or in the dvaitic form of keeping it intact

seperately in Him

for ever. Why call it a misunderstanding?

 

This is my understanding of mukti or mOksha from a dvaitin's point of view.

 

Realization or mOksha is attaining Parabrahman or reaching Parabrahman's Abode.

These are two expressions of the same concept as there is no difference between

Parabrahman and His Abode. Both expressions are used in Geetha/upanishats -

"pootAha mad-bhAvam AgatAha" and "mAm eva Eshyasi",

"param jyOtirupasampadya svEna roopEna abhinishpadyatE" -- chAndOgya

"puNya pApE vidhooya niranjanaha paramam sAmyam upaiti divyam",

"yad gatvA na nivartantE tad dhAma paramam mama", "nirvairaha yah sa mAmEti

pAndava",

"yAnti brahma sanAtanam", etc etc.

>From the point of view of a Dvaitin, what should happen to that soul after

*ultimate realization*

is entirely upto the Creator who put that soul in bondage to beginwith. Just as

we have to

accept 'what is given' while in bondage, a body of a dog or of a human being, a

Dvaitin has no problem accepting what is given after *ultimate realization*.

 

Upanishats talk about sAyujya, sAroopya, sAlOkya and SAmeepya - 4 types of

*ultimate realization*.

That is why a dvaitin says there is gradation even in mOksha based on one's

sAdhana that he does while in bondage - jnAna-bhakti-karma.

 

For a dvaitin, having accepted the all-doership of Parabrahman, he has no

problem accepting that

for all advaitins God may melt their soul away and make it One with Him, and

for all dvaitins

He keeps them eternally seperate in a place and form that He chooses, just as He

has chosen to

keep that soul in this form of human body and in this place called earth, while

in bondage.

 

As SriKrishna says,

'bahoonAm janmanAm ante jnAnavAn mAm prapadyate' - mOksha happens after many

many births.

 

So moksha is not an everyday affair, but bandha definitely is.

 

Before attempting to explain what *ultimate realization* or mOksha properly, we

should ask

ourselves, have we explained bandha or samsAra properly?.

 

I would like to know how sAyujya, sAroopya, sAlOkya, sAmeepya is understood in

Advaita.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear sadAnanda,

>Just because he did not say in Brahmasuutra bhaashya do not

>conclude that he did not say that anywhere else.

>If you are really interested to learn Advaita - start with tatvabodha

>and aatmabodha.

 

That was my question. I wanted to know from one of you, from where

did you learn that sAdhana-chatuShTaya is a pre-req for aparOksha-jnAna?

>From what I have read so far, it is only a pre-req for brahma-jignyAsA.

 

Please don't ask me to read all of advaita works to find out that answer.

I would like to read only those works which contain an answer to my

question.

If you still think, tatva-bOdha and Atma-bOdha is the way to go, I will.

[Guest guest]

As I was skimming through for something else, the following old mail got

my attention. Since it is relevant to the topic of Bhakti and j~naana I

am taking the liberty to post it again even though it is a rerun. It was

a response to some question raised in the list. I donot know if Robin is

still a member of the list. I see I am consistent in misspelling

words-that is the order in disorder!

Hari OM!

Sadananda

------------------

>Dear Ones,

>

>I've met the following problem and I hope that whoever is a sincere

>God-seeker. (Of course all of you !!) can help me. I am naturally an

>intellectual type and also a meditator. Recently I was told that I

should

>develop more devotion towards the Divine in order to come closer to

God.

>Always have devotion to the Divine. Oke. But now you see the problem: I

>naturally begin to think of this how to solve it, how to become more

>devoted towards the Divine. But this is a contradiction. Bhakti is a

>tendency of the heart to have feelings of devotion towards the Divine.

It's

>not an intellectual affair which can be solved by the intellect. It's

the

>well-known heart vs head "problem". As you all know Shankara was also

a

>great mystic and poet and thus had also complete "heart-realization".

Now

>so: How can I develop more devotion?? The saying of it and thinking is

not

>the same as actually being devoted. So: Who can shed some light on this

>problem, I will be happy to hear from you!!

>

>Robin.

 

 

Dear Robin

 

You may be surprised - true devotion is not emotional - it is actually

intellectual. Since you say you are intellectual you are already a

devotee.

 

What does intellectual means? Intellect is one, which questions for

rational explanation. When the intellect cannot come up with a rational

 

explanation that is where true wonder starts. True devotion starts.

 

Look at the cosmos. Look at the order in the cosmos - from planetary

motion to galaxies and supergalaxies and the intellect cannot comprehend

any more the magnitude of the universe neither the universal laws and

the operation of these to minutest details - the very questioning

intellect goes blank in trying to comprehend that which is beyond the

comprehension. Any ordered system has low entropy and work has to be

expended to create such an order and to keep it in that order. It can

not be done by just random process since the laws governing the cosmic

system are universal. You can but admire that power which is source for

such incredible order in the unlimited ever expanding limitless universe

and your intellect cannot but bow down to that superior intelligence -

and that is true devotion.

 

Look at your own body - millions of cells - all precisely located, every

 

limb and every organ function in its own sphere and yet all perfectly

synchronized to a perfect order. We just dump something into our

stomach.

But what happens to the food as it goes into the stomach - the gastric

juices, the enzymes of the right type and right order have to act for

the

digestion to contine. The digestive system, the circulatory system, the

 

distribution system - the excretory system everything functions so

beautiful without our input. What an incredible machine the body is. We

cannot make an outside mechanical pump function without a problem for

more than two years - as one experiences with their cars etc. But look

at the marvelous pump made of mussels and tissues pumping day in and day

out whether we are awake or asleep. The process is beyond intellectual

comprehension. We donot know what life is - yet its manifestation makes

just organic matter to enliven to the degree that it is nothing short of

a miracle. If there is a creator or if there is a superior intelligence

in the universe, I do not need any further proof than what I see - a

human being, a mosquito, a small bug, an ant or single cell or even a

DNA who incredible information about the whole human being is stored in

an embryo and how it can multiply itself to produce such a complex

systems. My intellect goes blank - that is the devotion.

 

You see devotion is not emotional display of feelings but natural

emotional expressions that arise as a result of intellectual

appreciation. Intellect cannot but appreciate the incredible order and

beauty in the universal systems which religions call it as creation.

One cannot but admire looking at a tree, looking a flower, looking at a

simple leaf - His signature, His glory, His presence. That is the true

devotion. Recognizing His presence everywhere - from tinniest bug to

gigantic beings, love of a mother to a child, growth of baby to adult -

life is incredible - Watching the life itself is a greatest

entertainment one can have if one is sensitive.

 

Everyone is selfishly looking after oneself - a local disturbances in

the

total order - yet that is the part of the beauty - everyone is selfish

yet at the grandeur level that is all within the order. I get greatest

entertainment watching people, particularly sitting in the airports and

when I have nothing else to do. It is amazing how people run around

each concerned with himself and how people try to get what they want or

what one thinks he deserves - conflicting each other and complaining

about others. Everyone feels their problems are most severe - yet the

whole universe moves forward - in perfect harmony. Thousands of years

ago, people must have the same problems - how to raise their children

how to cope up with competition, how to make more at the expense of

others - Each one thinking their problems are the most severe - Some

crying for departed souls - some celebrating for the arrival of new ones

- some enjoying their good luck while others cursing for their bad luck

- yet everything is in order - Same thing thousands of years ago - same

thing now and same thing will be there thousands of years from now -

Everything is in order - some complain that is also part of the order -

some cause others to complain that is also part of the order - Just

stand back and enjoy the tamaashha or entertainment - you cannot but

marvelat His incredible play - just stand apart and enjoy - that is

devotion.

 

You see devotion is not necessarily sitting and praying some imaginary

forms or concepts - but admire the beauty of creation and joy of life.

That is devotion and that is mediation - you donot want to change the

system -you do not want things to be different from what they are - you

just stand apart and see the incredible play going on - that is

devotion. For this, one needs incredible intellectual observation - not

a sharp intellect that divides but subtle intellect that integrates - in

sanskrit it is suukshma (subtle) budhhi in contrast to tiikshNa buddhi

(sharp intellect).

In Kenopanishad - the true

devotion is defined beautifully: I will give only the English version:

"That which the mind cannot think, but because of which the mind has the

 

capacity to think that alone is Brahman not this that you worship"

"that which the speech cannot speak, but because of which one has the

capacity to speak - that alone is Brahman not this that you worship"

"that which the eyes cannot see, but because of which the eyes have the

capacity to see - that alone is Brahman not this that you worship"

"that which the ears cannot hear but because of which the ears have the

capacity to hear - that alone is Brahman not this that you worship"

 

Devotion to that is true meditation - that is where the intellectal

inquiry goes stand still at the altar of the Almighty - And that is true

 

surrenderance and true devotion.

 

Hence you have the right equipment to develop devotion. In fact you are

 

more blessed provide you direct your mind into right understanding of

the

nature of the truth - And that is what is being discussed as the inquiry

of Brahman in the Brahmasuutra bhaashhya.

 

Seeking of God is understanding of God - One understands when one

realizes that there is no more to understand and there is no more to

seek and that is true devotion and true surrenderance - where one is no

more there to understand or to seek - he has surrendered to HIM.

 

Ramana says in his introductory sloka for Sat Darshan - Oh! Lord I want

to think of you before I start this text - But how can I think of you

who is beyond all thoughts - all I can be is just 'be' without any

thoughts since in that very existence there is no more disctincion of I

and You.

 

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:

>

> >

> > I would like to know where Sri Shankara emphasizes sAdhana-

chatushTaya

> > for

> > aparOksha jnAna.

> >

> > I am trying to understand advaita better.

 

 

Just because he did not say in Brahmasuutra bhaashya do not

> conclude that he did not say that anywhere else.

 

 

Namaste,

 

Perhaps Sankara's commentary on the very first word of the

Brahmasutra Bhashya should suffice :

 

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_1/1-1-01.html

 

Athato Brahmajijnasa I.1.1 (1)

 

Now, therefore, the enquiry into Brahman.

 

Atha: now, then, afterwards; Atah: therefore; Brahmajijnasa: a desire

for the knowledge of Brahman (the enquiry into the real nature of

Brahman).

The word Atha is not used to introduce a new subject that is going to

be taken up. It is here to be taken as denoting immediate

consecution.

The enquiry of Brahman specially depends upon some antecedent

conditions. The enquirer should be endowed with certain spiritual

requisites or qualifications. Then only the enquiry is possible.

Atha i.e., after the attainment of certain preliminary qualifications

such as the four means of salvation viz., (1) Nitya-anitya-vastu-

viveka (discrimination between the eternal and the non-eternal); (2)

Ihamutrarthaphalabhogaviraga (indifference to the enjoyment in this

life or in heaven, and of the fruits of one's actions); (3)

Shatsampat (sixfold virtues viz., Sama - control of mind, Dama -

control of the external senses, Uparati - cessation from worldly

enjoyments or not thinking of objects of senses or discontinuance of

religious ceremonies, Titiksha - endurance of pleasure and pain, heat

and cold, Sraddha - faith in the words of the preceptor and of the

Upanishads and Samadhana - deep concentration); (4) Mumukshutva

(desire for liberation). ".......................

 

The complete Sanskrit text is at URL:

 

http://www.sankara.iitk.ac.in/bsutraindex.htm

 

[ I do not wish to cite any other references ! ]

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 8 May 2003 bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

>

> Is there any difference in bhakti - upAsana - karma

> yOga-svasvarUpAnusadhAna approaches. Are all these approaches

> ultimately lead to jnAna. If all these paths' destination is one and

> the same i.e. jnAna, then why this categorisation... is it coz. of

> adhikAra bhEda kindly clarify.

>

 

namaste.

 

As per my understanding, they are not really different approaches.

They could be taken as different stages on the "path of spirituality".

I am envisaging a model like this. At this moment in time,

different jIvA-s are at different stages in their spiritual

'journey' [There is really no journey, but in vyavahArika,

we feel that we are going from avidyA to jnAnam which may

take many many lives.]. Then it would be, some may be doing

temple worship, some may be doing meditation, some may be doing

tapas, some may be doing niShkAma karma, etc. I am reluctant

to use the word adhikAra-bheda because adhikAra (as I understand,

adhikAra means some are eligible to do certain things, some are not)

is something which some external factors put on the jIvA. I believe

the jIvA's position on the 'spiritual path' is known to the inner

conscience of the jIvA and the jIvA naturally takes up the position

that is his. Anyway, that is beside the point. If we accept that

different jIvA-s are at different stages in their spiritual journey,

then these various stages in bhakti can be understood.

 

> Further you wrote :

>

> > Ultimate realization cannot end up in duality. Anything

> > ending up in duality is not the ultimate realization.

 

>

> Then prabhuji, we have to forcefully agree that dvaita dArshanikAs

> were not realised souls from the advaita perspective!! or else they

> might have misunderstood the *ultimate realisation* since they

> maintain eternal separation/duality between jIvAtma & paramAtma

> even after realisation.

>

 

 

I did not say that. I am not competent to comment on someone

else's realization. I think what we should be concerned with

is our own state of understanding.

 

> Finally, a doubt arises whether a bhakta through devotion towards

> his

> ishtadEvata, ultimately led to apara brahman or lower or saguNa

> brahman with name, form & all auspicious qualities. Moreover, it leads

> to another question whether there are two brahmans one from the dvaitic

> perspective that is saguNa brahman (apara brahman) & another from

> advaitic perspective i.e. nirguNa brahman ( para brahman) which is

> without prAna, mind & eternally changeless (avikrutam-unmodified). How

> can a bhakta can realise this changeless nirguna brahman when he spent

> all his life on worshipping his ishtadEvatA's mangala rUpa & kalyANa

> guNas.

>

> From the above it is clear that apart from svasvarUpAnusandhAnam all

> other paths lead to apara brahman or saguNa brahman with names, forms

> with attributes which is according to Sri Shankara is due to the

> conditioning adjunct created by Avidya. & we can conclude that from the

> avaita perspective, realisation of saguNa brahman is mere a stepping

> stone towards ultimate realisation of nirguNa brahman & saguNOpAsana is

> for the convenience of aspirants who cannot rise to the level of the

> absolutely featureless pure brahman.

>

>

 

There is only brahman and only one brahman, the nirguNa brahman.

The personal God, the iShTadevata is not something outside the jIvA.

We see the ishTadevata right inside us. Hence I do not see the

logic of duality at all. We see the ishTadevata inside us, we see

the parabrahman in the cave of the heart and we see everything as

parabrahman.

 

The highest stage of bhakti is svasvarUpAnusandhAnam where the

ego is fully surrendered, like the rivers joining the ocean and

compltely loosing their identity and there is only ocean.

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

>

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

Dear Tony,

>As all this appearance didn't even happen at all there was nothing to

>remove........We are characters in an imaginary dream, as soon as we

>wake up the character and the dream disappear......They never

>happened........ONS...Tony.

 

You came to vEdAnta to find out that 'there is nothing to remove'?.

You need to atleast accept the fact that this knowledge of

'there is nothing to remove' was obscured before you came to vEdAnta.

So there was somthing to be removed after all.

 

Later on advaita thinkers, such as Sri vidyAraNya felt this

difficulty, and have put forward a theory called 'bhAva-roopa-ajnyAna'

accepting the fact that after all, ajnyAna is a positive entity

that needs to be removed.

 

What is bhAva-roopa-ajnyAna? Let us take the example of a jar.

 

The knowledge of the absence of a jar is relative to the knowledge

of the jar itself. It does not occur to one who does not know

the jar whose absence is to be known. But the knowledge of a jar

is not relative to any other entity. In the same manner, the

knowledge of non-knowledge is not relative to any other knowledge.

This means that it is the knowledge of a positive entity and this

entity is called 'bhAva-roopa-ajnyAna' In this term ajnAna stands

for non-knowledge, and bhAva-roopa stands for the fact that it is

positive.

 

I am aware of the fact that many advaitins such as

our own Sri SadAnanda do not accept 'bhAva-roopa-ajnyAna'.

 

It would be educational to know why they don't aceept it.

I am trying to understand advaita better.

 

 

[Guest guest]

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

>

> That was my question. I wanted to know from one of you, from

where

> did you learn that sAdhana-chatuShTaya is a pre-req for aparOksha-

jnAna?

> From what I have read so far, it is only a pre-req for brahma-

jignyAsA.

>

 

Namaste,

 

Aparokshanubhuti: (tr. Sw. Vimuktananda)

 

aparokshaanubhuutirvai prochyate mokshasiddhaye .

sadbhireva prayatnena viikshaNiiyaa muhurmuhuH .. 2..

 

"Herein is expounded (the means of attaining to) Aparokshanubhuti

(Self-realizatuion) for the acquisition of final liberation. Only the

pure in heart should constantly and with all effort meditate upon the

truth herein taught."

 

svavarNaashramadharmeNa tapasaa haritoshhaNaat.h .

saadhanaM prabhavetpu.nsaa.n vairaagyaadi chatushhTayam.h .. 3..

 

"The four preliminary qualifications (the means to the attainment of

knowledge), such as Vairagya (dispassion) and the like, are acquired

by men by propitiating Hari (the Lord), through austerities and the

perormance of duties pertaining to their social order and stage of

life."

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Jayji,

 

"From the point of view of a Dvaitin, what should happen to that soul after

*ultimate realization*

is entirely upto the Creator who put that soul in bondage to beginwith.

Just as we have to

accept 'what is given' while in bondage, a body of a dog or of a human

being, a Dvaitin has no problem accepting what is given after *ultimate

realization*."

 

Wont I go astray if I dont know the goal? How will I know that I've reached

my goal? Suppose reaching United States is my actual goal. If I start my

journey without knowing where to reach (US), how will I reach there? I'll

end up somewhere else..

You can very well say that God will let you know when you reach there. But

that kind of understanding is not what I expect in Vedanta.

 

Advaitins have their own explaination of Ultimate Realization. But wont I go

astray if I've the wrong concept of my goal? Suppose my actual goal is

reaching US. If I believe (or I'm made to believe) that I'll see Taj Mahal

in US, I'll end up in Agra thinking that I'm in US !

 

Oh God, where do I stand now?

 

Om

ranjeet

[Guest guest]

praNAm prabhuji,

Hare Krishna

 

Prabhuji you wrote :

I am aware of the fact that many advaitins such as

our own Sri SadAnanda do not accept 'bhAva-roopa-ajnyAna'.

> This concept of mulAvidya or bhAva rUpa avidya has been dealt with

comprehensively by Sri Atmachaitanya prabhuji & Sri Stig prabhuji in the

recent past. Pls. check the archives for the relevant discussions under the

subject heading *Whence AdhyAsa*

 

It would be educational to know why they don't aceept it.

> I'd like to quote Sri Sadananda prabhuji's reply to my query on the same

subject. Kindly go through it :

 

//quote//

But from my own understanding I have a problem in appreciating ignorance

as positive quantity. When I say I do not know chemistry - is that

ignorance a positive quantity or that I have just the absence of

knowledge of chemistry. This is an epistemological question. If you

ask me if I know chemistry - I can say I do not know chemistry. Now if

you ask me further 'how do you know that you don't know chemistry' - All

I can say I know that I do not know - This can apparently be interpreted

as I know that I 'have lack of knowledge of chemistry' or I know that I

'have ignorance ' of chemistry.

 

If ignorance is positive I will start interpreting my lack of knowledge

of chemistry in a differnt perspective as that -I have knowledge of

chemistry but that is covered by my 'ignorance of chemistry' - therefore

I say that I have no knowledge of chemistry. But that sounds funny. So

I have to bring in another concept that 'ignorance is beginning-less' to

circumvent answering that when did I stop not knowing chemistry if I

already have the knowledge of chemistry.

 

All these problems came (I think) because according to Indian tarka

shaastra or nyaaya's concept of theory of knowledge - learning involves

only unveiling - or removing the cover on that which is eternally

exists.

Since Brahman is all pervading and there is nothing other than Brahman,

one cannot create knowledge either. It has to be preexisting and

therefore leaning involves unveiling. But in all these analysis,

instruments for knowledge 'mind' is involved and it is difficult to

separate mind from the leaning process. But mind itself is an instrument

of jiiva who is ignorant. There are very delicate demarcation lines in

terms of mental process that occur in the 'knowing process' and whatever

theories that were developed were based on the understanding at that

time. If you are really interested to know more about these I suggest

reading "Theory of Knowledge in Advaita Vedanta' by Bina Gupta - it is

commentary on Classical work 'Vedanta Paribhaasha' by Dharmaraja

Advariindra - which addresses most of epistemological issues you have

riased.

 

//unquote//

 

I am trying to understand advaita better.

> prabhuji, I humbly request you to not to conclude your mails in a

sarcastic way like this. We now know better how you are trying to

understand advaita!!

[Guest guest]

Ranjeet-ji, please take this lightly.

 

With advaita, you are standing on solid ground. Advaita teaches you

that you are everywhereness. Everywhereness has no goal, no going,

and no place beyond itself to go. So, till you know that you are

everywhereness, your goal is to know that you are everywhereness

which involves no 'going' at all. Once that happens, everywhereness

will be `appreciated' as goallessness too.

 

Everywhereness being homogeneous, there cannot be heterogeneous

variety like Taj Mahal, Empire State Building, Eifel Tower, etc.

Advaita is, therefore, logically safe as you will never be waylaid

into dwaitic no man's lands.

 

Just a thought.

 

Madathil Nair

_________________________________

 

 

advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar_s"

<thefinalsearch> wrote to Jay-Ji:

 

Advaitins have their own explaination of Ultimate Realization. But

wont I go astray if I've the wrong concept of my goal? Suppose my

actual goal is reaching US. If I believe (or I'm made to believe)

that I'll see Taj Mahal in US, I'll end up in Agra thinking that I'm

in US !

 

Oh God, where do I stand now?

[Guest guest]

praNAm Jay prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Before attempting to explain what *ultimate realization* or mOksha

properly, we should ask ourselves, have we explained bandha or samsAra

properly?

> samsAra means cycle of birth & death ( punarapi jananam, punarapi

maraNam, punarapi janane jathare shayanam--- Source: bhaja govindam)

samsAram dukhAlayam, aShAShvatam... realisation is deliverance from this

cycle & realising our true nature i.e. birth/deathlessness.

 

I would like to know how sAyujya, sAroopya, sAlOkya, sAmeepya is understood

in Advaita.

> prabhuji, I know most of the members of this list are not entertaining

your thoughts/views since Advaita mailing list is not an appropriate place

to discuss / propogate doctrine of other schools of thought. Could I ask

what dvaita offer on avastAtraya (jAgrat, swapna & suShupti) & turIya....

Roughly, this krama mukti or stages in mukti can be explained as different

stages of jIva's mental purification before realising ultimate reality. By

the way prabhuji, where can I find the shruti pramANa for the krama

mukti... Kindly provide the reference. Thanks in advance.

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nairji,

 

"With advaita, you are standing on solid ground. Advaita teaches you

that you are everywhereness. Everywhereness has no goal, no going,

and no place beyond itself to go. So, till you know that you are

everywhereness, your goal is to know that you are everywhereness

which involves no 'going' at all. Once that happens, everywhereness

will be `appreciated' as goallessness too."

 

You really have a way with words...I enjoyed reading your reply...Maybe I should

have compared spiritual journey to something other than a "journey to US" !!

Then the subject of "going" wouldnt have come..

 

Om

ranjeet

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Ranjeet,

>Advaitins have their own explaination of Ultimate Realization. But wont I go

>astray if I've the wrong concept of my goal?

 

The goal is to know 'parabrahman' (jnEya) to reach Him (gamya) There is no

difference

between reaching Him and attaining mOksha. It is only a matter of expressions.

So your goal should be to know 'parabrahman' through vEda.

>You can very well say that God will let you know when you reach there. But

>that kind of understanding is not what I expect in Vedanta.

 

Before jumping to understand 'mOksha' we need to understand 'bondage' properly.

 

Both dvaitins and advaitins agree that there is births and re-births before

salvation.

But neither a dvaitin nor an advaitin has any clue as to what he/she was in

their previous birth.

 

That is because, that knowledge is not given to us. Look at Geetha, where

SriKrishna tells,

 

"bahooni mE vyateetAni janmAni tava cha Arjuna. tAnyaham vEda sarvANi na tvam

vEttha parantapa"

(Arjuna, Me and you have spent many births but only I know them all and you

don't know them)

 

Neither a dvaitn nor an advaitin make this earth either. So, while in

bondage,

this earth - with the 5 mahAbootas etc

was ready-made with the right amount of everything for you when we came to this

state of bondage.

God managed that show for you, did'nt He?. The same God will manage your show

when you

are in the state of *release*, including giving your knowledge about your state

that you are in.

>If I believe (or I'm made to believe) that I'll see Taj Mahal

>in US, I'll end up in Agra thinking that I'm in US !

>Oh God, where do I stand now?

 

As long as you believe, yes these confusions will be there. Hence, give up

all your

beliefs and start a fresh study of prasthAna-traya.

 

PS: I still have email problems, feel free to post it to group.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear bhasker prabhuji,

>By the way prabhuji, where can I find the shruti pramANa for the krama

>mukti... Kindly provide the reference. Thanks in advance

 

I am sorry, I don't know where it is coming from.

 

This is my understanding of the term 'krama-mukti' ( feel free to correct me if

I am wrong) :

 

by saguNOpAsana one gets liberated into saguNa-brahman and at the time of

praLaya - the liberated soul along with saguNa-brahman

get merged into NirguNa-brahman. That is what is meant by krama-mukti.

 

The school that I come from does not make any distinction between the principle

Parabrahman and His infinite richness or completeness of His attributes.

Richness or Completeness and the principle are identical and the distinction is

only in how we express them due to the

peculiarity of the conceptions. Every identical thing has what is called

'vishEsha'. This applies even to the NirguNa Brahman concept.

 

With Advaita, when we say 'Brahman is only one and that It is therefore

nirvishEsha', the three things in this expression namely,

Brahman, One and NirvishEsha must be taken to be identical. But this identical

thing is capable of being expressed differently as

Brahman, One and NirvishEsha. Without this expression, the identity of the

principle is not explained. So it is inevitable to hold that

it is the peculiarity of the conceptions themselves. If this is admitted,

then Brahman has those three vishEshas, and hence

ceases to be nirvishEsha.

 

Given all this, you are asking the wrong person to provide reference for

krama-mukti.

 

 

[Guest guest]

namaste.

 

from prashnottara maNiratnamAla by shri shankara

 

A disciple's question to shri shankara and shri shankara's

answer are given in the following verse

 

apAra saMsArasamudramadhye

nimajjato me sharaNam kimasti

guro kr^ipAlo kr^ipayA dadaitad

vishveshapAdAmbuja dIrghanaukA

 

O, most kind-hearted teacher, what is the solution for me

who is getting drowned in the ocean of saMsAra? How can

I be rescued? Please tell me. BhagavatpAda shri shankara

answers: The large ship called the lotus feet of Ishwara.

 

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

-

[Guest guest]

praNAm Jay prabhuji,

Hare Krishna,

 

 

Prabhuji you wrote :

 

I am sorry, I don't know where it is coming from.

> if the krama-mukti (sAyujya, sArUpya etc. etc.) is not vedOkta & outside

prasthAna traya, how dvaita dArShanikas hold this view of gradation in

mukti...

 

This is my understanding of the term 'krama-mukti' ( feel free to correct

me if I am wrong) :

 

by saguNOpAsana one gets liberated into saguNa-brahman and at the time of

praLaya - the liberated soul along with saguNa-brahman get merged into

NirguNa-brahman. That is what is meant by krama-mukti.

> I am afraid, as my limited knowledge goes, this explanation of

krama-mukti is not in line with understanding of Sri madhvAchArya's dvaita

siddanta.

 

The school that I come from does not make any distinction between the

principle Parabrahman and His infinite richness or completeness of His

attributes. Richness or Completeness and the principle are identical and

the distinction is only in how we express them due to the peculiarity of

the conceptions. Every identical thing has what is called 'vishEsha'.

This applies even to the NirguNa Brahman concept.

> prabhuji I donot know inspite of repeated requests from list members,

why you are deliberately avoiding naming your school!!

 

With Advaita, when we say 'Brahman is only one and that It is therefore

nirvishEsha', the three things in this expression namely, Brahman, One and

NirvishEsha must be taken to be identical. But this identical thing is

capable of being expressed differently as Brahman, One and NirvishEsha.

Without this expression, the identity of the principle is not explained.

So it is inevitable to hold that it is the peculiarity of the conceptions

themselves. If this is admitted, then Brahman has those three vishEshas,

and hence ceases to be nirvishEsha.

> prabhuji, IMO, Ekatva, nirvishEshatva are not vishEshaNas of parabrahman

it is not viShESha lakShaNa vAkYa it is svarUpa lakShaNa vAkya. For

example, when we say milk is white, whiteness is not viShEShaNa (attribute)

of milk it is milk's svarUpa lakShaNa. That is how we have to understand

implicit meaning of these sentences as Sri Shankara says all the Upanishads

purports are aiming to teach the knowledge of the Unity of Atman (

Atmaikatva vidyA pratipattaye).

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Bhaskar Prabhuji,

> prabhuji, IMO, Ekatva, nirvishEshatva are not vishEshaNas of parabrahman

>it is not viShESha lakShaNa vAkYa it is svarUpa lakShaNa vAkya. For

>example, when we say milk is white, whiteness is not viShEShaNa (attribute)

>of milk it is milk's svarUpa lakShaNa.

 

Correct. LakshanA means a meaning connected with mukhyArtha ( denotative

(rUdhi) and etymological (yOgika) meaning).

It is to be resorted to only when the primary meaning (mukhyArtha ) is not

admissible.

Ex: Devadatta lives in Ganga. Here the 'mukhya', denotative 'river' is the

meaning of the word Ganga,

but it is not possible for a man to live in a river.

Therefore, Devadatta lives on the bank 'connected' with the river Ganga - is the

inferred meaning.

 

GouNI is a variety of lakshaNa and is thus applicable only when mukhya meaning

is inadmissible.

In it, a gunA ( attribute) of the mukhya meaning is supposed to be the

implication desired.

Milk is white, Devadatta is a lion - fall into that category. 'whiteness'

is not seperable from milk, but whiteness itself is not

milk either, therefore, whiteness is a non-seperable attribute of milk.

Similarly the 'boldness' attribute of Devadatta is implied by

the word Lion because the primiary meaning that 'Devadatta, the man is a lion'

is inadmissible.

 

The Shrutis are authorities by themselves, and interpretation in the mukhya

vrtti (i.e, denotative and direct or primary meanings)

only will revel the true spirit of their texts and uphold their being

svatah-pramANa.

 

LakshanA-vrtti is indirect or secondary and derivative meanings are to be used

only when the mukhya-vritti fails to give any

admissable meaning. The meanings in LakshaNa or GouNi are inferential and

hence are not consistent with the

svatah-pramANa nature of the shrutis.

>So Ekatva, nirvishEshatva are not vishEshaNas of parabrahman

>it is not viShESha lakShaNa vAkYa it is svarUpa lakShaNa vAkya

 

So, before saying ekatva and nivishEshatva become lakshaNa vAkyas (svarUpa

lakshaNa or otherwise) we should also show why their primary meaning is

inadmissible.

 

That is why, shruti-vAkya such as ekO dEvaha ... kEvalO nirguNascha - each

word is capable of directly indicating paraBrahman, not in a secondary

lAkshaNika sense.

 

Then, look at 'tat tvam asi' in its proper context in chAndOgya

upanishat. The direct meaning 'that thou art' is quite famous.

 

ShvEtakEtu has become arrogant (upanishat uses the word 'stabdha' ) and comes

back home in that arrogant I-know-it-all state, after 12-years of Vedic

education. What should his father teach shvEtakEu ?

 

'ShvEtakEtu, why are you arrogant?, why do you think you know-it-all?

don't you know that you are already that all-knowing-Brahman'

 

OR

 

'ShvEtakEtu, why are you arrogant?, don't you know how little you are

in front of the all knowing Brahman'

 

I leave it to the readers to determine which one of these is inadmissible

in the context of that upanishat.

 

Harihi Om Tatsat.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskarji and Jayji

 

"I am sorry, I don't know where it is coming from.

> if the krama-mukti (sAyujya, sArUpya etc. etc.) is not vedOkta & outside

prasthAna traya, how dvaita dArShanikas hold this view of gradation in

mukti...

This is my understanding of the term 'krama-mukti' ( feel free to correct

me if I am wrong) :

by saguNOpAsana one gets liberated into saguNa-brahman and at the time of

praLaya - the liberated soul along with saguNa-brahman get merged into

NirguNa-brahman. That is what is meant by krama-mukti.

> I am afraid, as my limited knowledge goes, this explanation of

krama-mukti is not in line with understanding of Sri madhvAchArya's dvaita

siddanta."

 

Quoted from "An Analysis of the Brahmasutra" by Swami Krishnananda.

 

According to Vaishnava scriptures, there are four types of salvation known

as Salokya, Samipya, Sarupya, and Sayujya. This is purely a devotee's idea,

of closeness to God by degrees of nearness.

To live in the same domain as God is one kind of attainment. If God

is in heaven, you also are in heaven; you may not be very near God, you may

be far away, but you are in the same kingdom; where the king rules, that

country is your abode also; you may not be able to see the king but you are

happy that you are in the same land which is ruled by the king. This is

Salokya Mukti. This is also a great thing. After all, you are in the Land of

God though you may not see God.

Samipya means nearness to God; you are living just by the side of the

Ruler of the country; you will feel some elation -- the King's Palace is

just here and I am here. Though you have nothing to do with that Palace, you

will gain nothing by the nearness, but the mind will say 'I am so near the

Palace of the King; He is here only!' Thus, nearness to God also is a stage

in liberation. This is Samipya, closeness.

Still greater freedom is Sarupya, assuming the same form of God; you

become an ambassador of God. God has given you the powers which He wields.

The ambassador has practically all the powers of the kingdom which he

represents; he can speak for the whole country of which he is the

ambassador. The Vaishnava scriptures say Sarupya means not merely becoming

an ambassador, because the ambassador does not himself look like the king,

though he can be adored and invested with all the paraphernalia of the king

also, there is something more here. In Vaikuntha, Abode of Vishnu, Narayana,

they shine like Vishnu Himself. When you see the attendant of God, you

cannot know whether He is God Himself or is an attendant; he will shine like

God Himself, though he is not God. This is called Sarupya. The last one is

Sayujya, merging in God, the Highest attainment. All these come under what

is known as Saguna Attainment, meditation on God as adorned with all the

good qualities -- Kalyana guna sampanna; Ananta koti kalyana guna

sampanna -- all the blessed things are there in God. Here 'merging' is

something like merging, union of milk and water, though looking one, still

not one.

 

Om

ranjeet

[Guest guest]

Dear Ranjeet,

>as Salokya, Samipya, Sarupya, and Sayujya. This is purely a devotee's idea,

>of closeness to God by degrees of nearness.

 

Thanks for giving us details on those four terms.

 

 

It is not the emotional outburst of some devotee. It is coming straight from

SriVedavyAsa in BhAgavatha, and he is the author of two of the three in

prasthAna-traya which establish vEdAnta. As following Veda, and as understood

from principles laid out in Brahma-sootras,

Bhaagavatha also attains pramANa-padavi, just as any other pourushEya grantha

such as Geethaa or rAmAyaNa does.

 

 

pramANa is that which establishes knowledge. ( Ex: your eye is the pramANa for

your knowledge of color red)

So, study epiestomology properly and understand when, why and how a

'pourushEya-Agama-text' such as BhAagavatha becomes an Agama-pramANa, and

also when, why and how a pourushEya-Agama-text such as the translations that we

read, fail to be an Agama-pramANa. This process will help you identify the

portion in an Agama-text that helps generate knowledge and portion that does

not.

 

Upanishats tell us that it is mandatory that we do it as: "vidyAncha avidyAncha

yas tad vEdO ubhayagum saha"

It is not enough if you just acquire knowledge, you should also acquire the

ability to recognize and reject wrong knowledge

when you see it.

 

Upanishats go further and warn us that, if you are stuck with just the former,

and have not done the latter then you are in bigger trouble.

 

"andhatamah pravishanti yE avidyAm upAsate

tatO bhooya iva tamO yavoo vidyAyAgum rataaha"

 

This is why understanding what is pramAna and what is not becomes crucial for

ones spiritual progress.

 

Of course, some other book coming from outside of prasthAna-traya may say

something else, but would you rather listen

to upanishats and VedavyAsa or do you go with the author of that book is an

informed decision that you will have to make.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Jayji

 

"pramANa is that which establishes knowledge. ( Ex: your eye is the pramANa for

your knowledge of color red)

So, study epiestomology properly and understand when, why and how a

'pourushEya-Agama-text' such as BhAagavatha becomes an Agama-pramANa, and

also when, why and how a pourushEya-Agama-text such as the translations that we

read, fail to be an Agama-pramANa. This process will help you identify the

portion in an Agama-text that helps generate knowledge and portion that does

not."

 

I dont understand what you are impling here. Do you mean to say that a

'pourushEya-Agama-text' even after considered to be an 'Agama-pramaNa' will

contain portions which will not generate knowledge?? I can understand and accept

a *YES* or a *NO* ... but definitely not *partial-yes*, *partial-no* or any

percentages in Truth !

 

"Of course, some other book coming from outside of prasthAna-traya may say

something else, but would you rather listen

to upanishats and VedavyAsa or do you go with the author of that book is an

informed decision that you will have to make."

 

I know where you are heading...from black-list to dark-list !!

 

Om

ranjeet

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- Ranjeet Sankar_s <thefinalsearch wrote:

> Namaste Jayji

> I know where you are heading...from black-list to dark-list !!

>

> Om

> ranjeet

 

 

Ranjeetji, Here is how I look at it:

 

I ( I am sure many members of this list) discovered long ago that Jay

has set mind and his own understanding of what is pramaaNa and what are

valid to get his message across. He is not ready to accept anything

else.

 

It is absolutely useless to argue with him - since he is there to teach

us what is right interpretation of the prastaanatraya not to learn what

is Advaita Vedanta. He is giving us an example of where fanatical

approach to scriptures can lead us. I am sorry to say that, but that is

the image he is projecting.

 

Let us keep the record straight - in terms of the role of scriptures

even according to the scriptures and the role of pramaaNa - the role of

Vedanta and the roles of Geeta (Shruti) and Brahmasuutra (nyaaya) and

puraaNas.

 

It is declared in Upanishads that Veda-s themselves are not supreme when

it talks about what is para and apara vidya. That shows the integrity of

the Veda-s because they know people like Jay will always be there to

misinterpret Vedanta pramaaNa.

 

In the hierarchy of the scriptures we as Hindus give Vedanta the highest

place. Since they are addressed to us, the conscious entities, we are

the one who can validate or invalidate Veda-s too. Obviously conscious

entity has to come before even Veda-s too. Hence nature of the truth is

'aprameyam' - not an end of any means of knowledge- including Veda-s.

Hence it is called 'aparokshnaanubhuuti' - it is immediate and not

mediate knowledge. This is evident from the very classification of apara

and para vidya in the Upanishads.

 

Next in line is Shruti prasthaana - Bhagavat Geeta - it is yoga shaastra

and taught to a man of action - the army man -Arjuna - not in quiet

Himalayas where one can sit down and contemplate but in the midst of din

and roar of a battle field. The whole set up and the back ground, and

the purpose are very clear - Inevitability of action and how one should

act. The study of Bhagavad Geeta is very important for us who like

Arjuna cannot afford to sit in a quiet place and contemplate but wage

our wars both internal and external to survive lot of kourava-s.

 

Brahmasuutras - are logical analysis. Its purpose is to provide a

self-consistent explanation of apparently contradictory Upanishad

statements. As you study more and more it’s utility becomes less and

less. First there is no foolproof evidence that it is authored by Veda

vyaasa - that is only accepted belief. Because Krishna says 'I am Veda

vyaasa and suutra-s are written by Veda vyaasa and therefore we have

swallow whatever that is said in suutra-s as true' is an example of

fanaticism at its best. Suutra-s themselves are supposed to be nyaaya

prasthaana - that is supposed to provide logic as the basis - and it

cannot relay on illogical aruguments. Since the truth is beyond logic -

it provides logical analysis of Vedanta - what Jay calls Samanvaya.

But let us remind ourselves its role clearly - they are there to provide

consistency for those who see inconsistencies in the Vedanta. But if ten

different aachaaraya-s claim that the same suutra-s are consistent with

their philosophies, which themselves are mutually inconsistent the

suutra-s role as pramaaNa goes to zero. The study the suutra-s, as I

pointed in the introduction of my notes, is not needed unless ones wants

a clearer understanding of what is right about Advaita and what is wrong

about other interpretations. A clear exposition of the suutra-s would

reinforce ones understanding (or misunderstanding also). Study of other

bhaashya-s also help in examining what exactly their objections to

Advaita and where their misunderstanding lies. Study of Shataduushani of

Vedanta Deshika is clear example of that. Hence in spite of what Jay

says, the role of Brahmasuutra has to be understood clear. If you have

no inconsistency in your understanding Advaita Vedanta by studying

Upanishads, the need to study of Brahmasuutra is almost zero - since

their very purpose is to provide that consistency. Of course one can be

like frog in the well and be fanatical about ones understanding. What I

meant here is that one should be able to reaffirm ones understanding in

spite of many Jays trying to tear your understanding apart. That is

what is a firm abiding knowledge implies. That is the very purpose of

the suutra-s too.

 

Purana-s: They are 18 well-known purana-s - again attributed to Veda

Vyaasa - Which is again another belief. There is no reference to

Bhaagavatam in any of the Shankara's bhaashya-s. There is also belief

that it is also around 10-11th century literature that is post-Shankara

period. Among all purana-s, the Vishnu Purana-s is supposed to be the

oldest. Ramanuja extensively quotes that. But each purana is centered

on one or the other God as supreme and naturally glorifies that God in

comparison to others. Among them Bhaagavatam is acclaimed as the best

for inculcating Bhakti - particularly for Vaishnavaites. These purana-s

stand out as pramaaNa only in terms of the portions that are consistent

with Vedanta. (This is true for all scriptures of the world). Otherwise

they loose their validity as valid pramaaNa.

 

'Only the original Sanskrit is pramaaNa and the translations are not' is

another ridiculous and fanatical statement. Veda refers to knowledge not

language. Lord, if he is Lord, will understand any language like mother

understanding the prattling of a child. Sanskrit is only a tool and has

great flexibility - but that is also prone to misinterpretation as well

like for example 'a tat tvam asi' for 'tat tvam asi'.

 

My strong advise for all members including Jay is to ignore Jay's mails

in terms of his understanding of prasthaana traya and validity of his

understanding of 'pramaaNa'.

 

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 Ranjeet,

>I dont understand what you are impling here. Do you mean to say that a

>'pourushEya-Agama-text' even after considered to be an 'Agama-pramaNa' will

>contain portions which will not generate knowledge??

 

We are talking about correctness of that knowledge. I think I had touched upon

this in one of my earlier emails. I will repeat it here because it is very very

fundamental in understanding how 'jnAna' and 'Agama-pramANa' are

inter-related.

 

Parabrahman is defectless. When Veda is understood as revealing such a

defectless Parabrahman, then only our understanding of Veda also becomes

defectless, and such a knowledge generated by Veda as revealing only

the defectless parabrahman can be considered 'correct knowledge'. This is

how apourushEya Veda becomes svatah-pramANa in generating correct,

defectless knowledge. A pourushEya Agama, only when it follows such a

defectless Veda, also generates correct knowledge and therefore attains

the status of being an Agama-pramANa.

 

The mind behind pourushEya-Agama-texts such as 'geetha' and 'sootras' is

omniscience. Look at geetha, "vEdAntakrit vEdavit Eva chAham" - 15th chapter.

 

But, we can't say the samething about other authors, such as an english

translator. Does it mean everything they write produces wrong knowledge?.

No, not at all. Therefore, those portions which follow Veda generate

correct knowledge, and those portions which do not follow Veda generate

incorrect knowledge.

>I can understand and >accept a *YES* or a *NO* ... but definitely not

>*partial-yes*, *partial-no* or >any percentages in Truth !

 

As one progresses in Brahma-jignyAsA, the ability to distinguish between

what is presented as correct knowledge and what is presented as incorrect

knowledge by the same 'Agama-text' also progresses.

 

That is why, although the words remain the same, what is revealed by those

words may change, depending on the individual's capacity to do

Brahma-jignyAsA. This capacity or fittedness ( also called yOgyatA) comes

from vairAgya ( which is freedom from wrong knowledge) and Brahma-nishTatA

(which is bhakti in the object of what is revealed by Veda).

 

The knowledge generated by pratyaksha is 'definite' and clear. Vagueness

pervades the things presented by anumAna and Agama in general. Agama and

anumAna based on Agama present both things that are perceivable and things

that are not perceivable. But Agama as the Shruti has one speciality.

The Shruti is jignyAsA in its complete sense. For this reason, though, to

start with, it gives rise to knowledge in a vague manner, as jignyAsA

becomes more and more pronounced and comes to its perfection, the Shruti

character of Shruti becomes realized, and there is consequently the

pratyaksha knowledge of the truth expounded by Shruti. That is when

Vedic-text, 'aparA' becomes Vedic-pramANa parA.

 

The Truth of this observation can be appreciated only through an intensive

Brahma-mImAmsA.

> I know where you are heading...from black-list to dark-list !!

 

Everyone's future is in God's hands, so why waste time speculating on it?

So, let us use that time to start with first sootra, "Om athAthO

brahma-jignyAsA Om".

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

>

> --- Ranjeet Sankar_s <thefinalsearch> wrote:

> > Namaste Jayji

>

> > I know where you are heading...from black-list to dark-list !!

> >

> > Om

> > ranjeet

>

> My strong advise for all members including Jay is to ignore Jay's

mails

> in terms of his understanding of prasthaana traya and validity of

his

> understanding of 'pramaaNa'.

>

> Hari OM!

> Sadananda

 

 

Namaste,

 

It could not have been said better!!!

 

I still would like to thank him for exemplifying some words &

verses that could only be imagined -

 

prajnAvAdAH - specious words of wisdom (Gita 2:11)

 

shrutivipratipannA buddhiH - intellect distracted by scriptural

doctrines (Gita 2:53)

 

avajaananti maaM muuDhaa maanushhii.n tanumaashritam.h .

paraM bhaavamajaananto mama bhuutamaheshvaram.h .. (Gita 9 : 11)

 

'Fools , without an understanding of My higher nature as the Supreme

Lord of all the exists, disregard me manifest in the human body.'

 

avidyaayaamantare vartamaanaaH

svayaM dhiiraaH paNDitaMmanyamaanaaH .

dandramyamaaNaaH pariyanti muuDhaa

andhenaiva niiyamaanaa yathaandhaaH .. (Katha Upanishad I:2:5)

 

'Fools dwelling in darkness, wise in their own conceit, and puffed up

with vain knowledge, go round and round, staggering to and fro, like

blind men led by the blind."

 

As for the school that adheres to J.N.'s interpretation,

for my personal reference I had thought of calling it - J.N. school

of Prasthanatrayi-Parabrahma-Dvaita/Advaita-atIta-vidyA. It may

become a paramparA or sampradAya if we know who the previous teachers

were. One can be sure it is not from Dakshinamurty sampradaya!!

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder