Guest guest Posted June 3, 2003 Report Share Posted June 3, 2003 Hi All, Another appeal during this unusually slack time! I'm in the process of adding a new page to my website to give quotations on a variety of topics from recognised Sages, living and deceased. Please help by submitting your own favourites to add to the list. All submitters will be acknowledged at the end of the list unless otherwise requested. I would be particularly interested in receiving quotations on new topics or from Sages not currently listed. Quotations from the Scriptures (Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, Astavakra Gita etc.) also welcome. I would like to limit the numbers to a maximum of 4 - 5 quotations on each topic and for each Sage (so as not to appear to be showing favouritism and to avoid any copyright issues). Quotations should not be too long (see samples to date for order of magnitude) and Sages must be Advaitins or expressing views that do not contradict Advaita. The link is www.advaita.org.uk/quotations.htm Best wishes, Dennis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2003 Report Share Posted June 4, 2003 On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Dennis Waite wrote: > Hi All, > > Another appeal during this unusually slack time! I'm in the process of > adding a new page to my website to give quotations on a variety of topics > from recognised Sages, living and deceased. Please help by submitting your > own favourites to add to the list. All submitters will be acknowledged at > the end of the list unless otherwise requested. > > I would be particularly interested in receiving quotations on new topics or > from Sages not currently listed. Quotations from the Scriptures (Upanishads, > Bhagavad Gita, Astavakra Gita etc.) also welcome. > [...] > The link is www.advaita.org.uk/quotations.htm > > Best wishes, > > Dennis > namaste. Yes, it seems to be an unusually slack time on our List. I like to suggest the following quotes which are excellent for contemplation. 1. Moksha is not freedom for the individual. It is freedom from individuality. from: T.M.P. Mahadevan: TIME AND THE TIMELESS 2. It (brahman) is known to him to whom It is unknown; he does not know to whom It is known. It is unknown to those who know well, and known to those who do not know. from Kena upaniShad. 3. That (Atman) moves, That does not move; That is far off, That is very near; That is inside all this, and That is also outside all this. from IshAvAsya upanishad Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 4, 2003 Report Share Posted June 4, 2003 Namaste Sri Gummuluru Muthy, > > 2. It (brahman) is known to him to whom It is unknown; he does > not know to whom It is known. It is unknown to those who > know well, and known to those who do not know. > > from Kena upaniShad. > ----- I have quoted this line from a translation of Upanishads by Patrick Olivelle ( Oxford Press ) : 'I do not think - that I know it well ; But I know not - that I do not know . Who of us knows that, he does know that ; But he knows not , that he does not know . ' I would very much like to hear Sankara's commentary on this if you have it. My 2 cents... for whatever it's worth! : "'I do not think - that I know it well ; But I know not - that I do not know ." A person may have a certain knowledge of Brahman. But this knowledge, if not correct or full , is not complete. So a partial realisation can be misleading into wrong perception. Realisation should be absolute. Until then, he/ she is still unrealised. That is why it is written " But I know that - that I do not know ". "Who of us knows that , he does know that ; But he knows not , that he does not know " This I think is quite similiar to the first line, except it refers generally instead of the individual. It goes even further to say that anybody claiming to ' know ' Brahman does not really know. Because it is beyond the senses and mind and cannot be measured. I hope I am making sense. Best Regards, Om Tat sat Guruprasad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2003 Report Share Posted June 5, 2003 advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@a...> wrote: > Hi All, > > Another appeal during this unusually slack time! I'm in the process of > adding a new page to my website to give quotations on a variety of topics > from recognised Sages, living and deceased. Please help by submitting your > own favourites to add to the list. All submitters will be acknowledged at > the end of the list unless otherwise requested. > > I would be particularly interested in receiving quotations on new topics or > from Sages not currently listed. Namaste, For a grand survey of descriptions of the "Unitive Life" in the Western traditions, please visit: http://www.gnostic.org/underhill/mysticism1_0-the-7.html " In a last brief vision, a glimpse as overpowering to our common minds as Dante's final intuition of reality to his exalted and courageous soul, we see the triumphing spirit, sent out before us the best that earth can offer, stoop and strip herself of the insignia of wisdom and power. Achieving the highest, she takes the lowest place. Initiated into the atmosphere of Eternity, united with the Absolute, possessed at last of the fullness of Its life, the soul, self-naughted becomes as a little child: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." [Evelyn Underhill] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2003 Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 On Thu, 5 Jun 2003, v_vedanti wrote: > Namaste Sri Gummuluru Muthy, > > > > > 2. It (brahman) is known to him to whom It is unknown; he does > > not know to whom It is known. It is unknown to those who > > know well, and known to those who do not know. > > > > from Kena upaniShad. > > ----- > > I have quoted this line from a translation of Upanishads by Patrick > Olivelle ( Oxford Press ) : > > 'I do not think - that I know it well ; But I know not - that I > do not know . Who of us knows that, > he does know that ; But he knows not , that he does not know . ' > > I would very much like to hear Sankara's commentary on this if you > have it. > > My 2 cents... for whatever it's worth! : > > "'I do not think - that I know it well ; But I know not - that > I do not know ." > > A person may have a certain knowledge of Brahman. But this > knowledge, if not correct or full , is not complete. So a partial > realisation can be misleading into wrong perception. Realisation > should be absolute. Until then, he/ she is still unrealised. That > is why it is written " But I know that - that I do not know ". > > "Who of us knows that , he does know that ; But he knows not , that > he does not know " > > This I think is quite similiar to the first line, except it refers > generally instead of the individual. It goes even further to say > that anybody claiming to ' know ' Brahman does not really know. > Because it is beyond the senses and mind and cannot be measured. > > I hope I am making sense. > > Best Regards, > > Om Tat sat > Guruprasad > namaste. I think kena upanishad chapter 2, mantrA-s 2 to 4 form a substantive part of teaching in kena upanishad. That is not to say the other mantrA-s are not important, but a good understanding of these three mantrA-s go a long way to understanding the upanishads. I am quoting here swami Gambhirananda-ji's treatment of shri shankara's bhAShya on mantra-2. kena upanishad 2.2 nAham manye suvedeti no na vedeti veda ca yo nastad veda tad veda no na vedeti veda ca meaning: I do not think "I know (Brahman) well enough"; (i.e. I consider) "Not that I do not know; I know and I do not know as well." He among us who understands that utterance, "Not that I do not know; I know and I do not know as well", knows that (brahman). na aham manye suveda iti, I do not think. 'I know Brahman well enough.' Being told (by the teacher), 'Then Brahman is not certainly known by you', (the disciple) replies, 'no na veda iti, veda ca, not that I do not know Brahman; and I know, too.' From the use of the word ca, (and) in the expression veda ca, we are to understand , 'na veda ca, and I do not know, as well.' (Teacher): Is it not contradictory (to say), 'I do not think, "I know (Brahman) well enough,",' and 'Not that I do not know; I know and I do not know as well'? If you do not consider, 'I know well enough', then how can you consider, 'I know too'? Again if you consider, 'I do not know', then why do you not consider, 'I know well enough'? Leaving out of consideration doubt and false knowledge, it is a contradiction to say that the very same thing which is known by a man is not known well enough by him. Nor can a restrictive rule be laid down to the effect that Brahman is to be known as an object of doubt or false knowledge. For doubt and false knowledge are, indeed, everywhere known to be the causes of harm. Though the disciple was thus given a shaking by the teacher, he remained unmoved. Moreover, revealing his own firm conviction in the knowledge of Brahman, he boldly declared with the strength derived from the traditional knowledge as imparted by the teacher in the sentence, 'It is different from the known and is also above the unknown', as also from the strength derived from reasoning and (personal) realization. How (did he declare)? That is being said: 'Yah, anyone who; nah, among us, among my co-disciples; veda, knows in reality; tat, that, that sentence uttered (by me); he veda, knows; tat, that Brahman.' (Teacher): 'What again is your assertion?' To this he answers: 'No na veda iti veda ca, not that I do not know; I know and I do not know as well.' With a view to showing his concurrence with the idea of the teacher and counteracting the comprehension of people of dull intellect, the disciple repeated with conviction in another language, viz 'Not that I do not know; I know and I do not know as well', the very same thing which was presented in the sentence, 'It is different from the known and it is above the unknown'; and in doing so, he associated with this his own inference and realization. Thus the exclamation, 'He among us who underestands that utterance knows that (Brahman)', becomes justifiable. I will give swami Nikhilananda-ji's and swami Chinmayananda-ji's commentaries on this verse shortly. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2003 Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 namaste. kena upanishad 2.2 swami Nikhilananda's commentary The disciple said: I do not think I know It well, nor do I think I do not know It. He among us who knows the meaning of "Neither do I not know, nor do I know" - knows Brahman. It may appear that there is a contradiction in the disciple's statement. If a thing is unknown, then it cannot be said to be known. If, on the other hand, a thing is known, then certainly it cannot be said to be unknown. To describe a thing as both known and unknown is possible only for a person who is a victim of doubt or hallucination. Such a statement about Brahman is contradictory, because the Knowledge of Brahman removes all doubts, errors, and conflicts. Deeper reflection on this verse will, however, remove the apparent contradiction. Brahman is devoid of attributes and actions; therefore It cannot be known as a pot or a jar or any other external object can be known. Hence it is proper to say that one cannot know Brahman well. On the other hand, Brahman exists in all beings as their inmost Self. No one can deny the Self. Even a doubtor or negator of the Self thinks only in the light of the Self. Everyone is sure of his self but does not know its true nature. So it is not altogether unknown. Therefore one cannot say that one does not know Brahman at all. That is why it was not improper for a disciple to say: "Neither do I not know, nor do I know." Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.