Guest guest Posted December 26, 2003 Report Share Posted December 26, 2003 Namaste Sri Ramji, Thank you for your kind comments. Let me just say that it seems to me that everything I have expressed here is entirely in line with Nisargadatta and the Yoga Vasistha. Indeed, I feel that it was also in line with the Vivekachudamani, but those other works seem a bit more clear and explicit at times. This raises several issues of general importance to this list. (1) Perhaps I should have relied much more on quoting from those authorities rather than putting things in my own words. (This goes for all of us.) I wonder if I might not have been able to express the same ideas in a form more palatable to the readers, by following the great Indian tradition of appealing to respected authorities. (2) The question of *interpretation* still remains. That is why we sometimes use the comments of respected authorities like Ramana and Nisargadatta to clarify words in scriptures that may not be so clear. Shankara is of course the supreme authority for Advaita, but perhaps sometimes what he says needs more modern language and commentators, such as Ramana, Nisargadatta or even the Yoga Vasistha (which is surprisingly 'modern' in its language, at least as translated by Swami Venkatesananda). The Indian tradition also includes not only commentators on the scriptures, but also commentators on the commentators. After all, it is a difficult subject. (3) Finally, what if there seems to be conflicts and inconsistencies, either within scripture, or between different commentaries on the scriptures? Issues (2) and (3) are what this list is about. So even if we make every effort to stay within the pure Advaitic tradition, and quote only from respected authorities, there will still be plenty to talk about. My only regret is that I did not quote more from respected authorities. That was because when I first came to this list, I had not read that much. I had spent 10-20 years reading Buddhism but only a few months on Advaita. That has now changed, and I find plenty to agree with in the classic references mentioned above and little to disagree with. Still, there will be issues of understanding and interpretation. Hence the value of this list. I assure you that the problems will not go away, even if we all agree to follow only pure and traditional Advaita, with traditional terminology and quotations from respected sources only. Hari Om! Benjamin >All of us try to understand the 'mystism' (beyond one's >intellectual perspective) through our intellect. Consequently, >each of us try to use a framework that we are comfortable >with. No mathematician is disputing the brilliant >mathematician's graphical representation and presentation. >But his presentation will not change the general framework >used by all mathematicians and text books. Your understanding >and statement of 'idealism,' 'advaitic-idealism,' etc. may be >quite valid with appropriate caveats and assumptions. It >seems that you are quite comfortable with it and I don't see >any problem. But at the same time, the general understanding >of 'idealism' and advaita will remain the same as they are >generally understood by the large majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 26, 2003 Report Share Posted December 26, 2003 advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote: > > > > (1) Perhaps I should have relied much more on quoting from those > authorities rather than putting things in my own words. (This goes > for all of us.) I wonder if I might not have been able to express > the same ideas in a form more palatable to the readers, by following > the great Indian tradition of appealing to respected authorities. > > (2) The question of *interpretation* still remains. That is why we > sometimes use the comments of respected authorities like Ramana and > Nisargadatta to clarify words in scriptures that may not be so clear. >> > (3) Finally, what if there seems to be conflicts and inconsistencies, > either within scripture, or between different commentaries on the > scriptures? > > Issues (2) and (3) are what this list is about. So even if we make > every effort to stay within the pure Advaitic tradition, and quote > only from respected authorities, there will still be plenty to talk > about. > > My only regret is that I did not quote more from respected > authorities. Namaste, Benjamin-ji Please take this in a lighter vein. Since you are on the topic of 'quotations' now, I cannot but quote Bhagwan Ramana, -- a quote of his, which I am never tired of quoting; (perhaps I have done this on this list earlier): "I am telling you the snake is not there; but you are all spending your time on discussing whether the snake was a cobra or a rattlesnake!" PraNAms to all advaitins profvk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 26, 2003 Report Share Posted December 26, 2003 --- "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk wrote: > advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote: > Please take this in a lighter vein. > > Since you are on the topic of 'quotations' now, I cannot but quote > Bhagwan Ramana, -- a quote of his, which I am never tired of > quoting; (perhaps I have done this on this list earlier): > > "I am telling you the snake is not there; but you are all spending > your time on discussing whether the snake was a cobra or a > rattlesnake!" Prof. V.K. This is exactly the statement I made recently to dvaitins when they stated that my interpretations are wrong in terms of 'aham Brahmaasmi' or 'bramhavit brahma eva bhavati' -as I am not considering some endings here some endings there or some context before or some context after, etc. They seem to get worried about the adjectives or adendums to the snake whether it is poisonous or not while it is all the time rope. They seem to agree that to prove the existence of the world conscious entity is required but that does not prove world without conscious entity is indeterminate. Their point being the world was there 4 billions years ago even before any conscious entity know about it. Hence according to them I am very unscientific ( besides being non-vedantic). Benjamin, you are now zeroing on the essence of the need of scriptures as a valid pramaaNa or means of knowledge. The reason is very obvious. Whether Bhagavaan Ramana or Shree Nisarga datta Maharaj or even Shankara, Ramanuja or Madhva, their statements by themselves may be right. But unless vindicated by the scriptures, they cannot be taken as pramaaNa or valid means of knowledge. Even they have to quote the scripture to validate the statements. Hence a correct teacher is one who directs the disciples to the scriptural authority rather than his own. Of course as you rightly pointed out the scriptures cannot violate reason and also one has to recognize that words used are relevant to those days of yore and one has to appropriately interpret using consistency on logical grounds - but the logic. Only three accepted pramaaNa or valid means of knowledge are - Veda-s, Bhagavad Geeta and B. Suutra - in that order. The first one is considered as apourusheya or not authored by human being, and the second one is by Lord Krishna himself to arjuana the third one by Baadaraayana, and tradition equates him to Vyaasa, although it is very much doubtful. Since it is not an objective science to experiment easily, an accepted validating source is required. As you pointed out even these can be interpreted (or misinterpreted) and that is why we have many mata-s or religions each claiming theirs is right interpretation. It comes to finally ones ability to differentiate using his own intellect what is the most appealing to his intellect and proceed with that as his working hypothesis since all mata-s do converge in terms of Moksha as the ultimate goal of human life. 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. New Photos - easier uploading and sharing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 26, 2003 Report Share Posted December 26, 2003 - "Benjamin" <orion777ben " (2) The question of *interpretation* still remains. That is why we > sometimes use the comments of respected authorities like Ramana and > Nisargadatta to clarify words in scriptures that may not be so clear. > Shankara is of course the supreme authority for Advaita, but perhaps > sometimes what he says needs more modern language and commentators, > such as Ramana, Nisargadatta or even the Yoga Vasistha (which is > surprisingly 'modern' in its language, at least as translated by > Swami Venkatesananda). The Indian tradition also includes not only > commentators on the scriptures, but also commentators on the > commentators. After all, it is a difficult subject. " Shri Nisargadatta Maharaj and Shri Ramana Maharshi does not belong to the advaitic tradition or the Guru-parampara. So I doubt if their teachings should be considered as valid "in the advaitic context". No doubt they are stalwarts in the non-dual path. As Sadanandaji rightly said, a vedantin or advaitin will always point the student to the scripture. You can check SankarAchArya's "Upadesha sahasri" to see this. Well, there are some who doesnt want to waste (!!) their time reading sankara-bhAshyA-s. They are the ones who prefer *fast-food*. They do miss the taste of home-made food. It surely is worth the effort. Most of the topics discussed here have been penned down by SankarAchArya in his bhAshyAs. Topics ranging from ignorance, fruit of nitya-karma, Idealism, dream state, deep-sleep state etc to name a few. Personally I cant read more than 10 lines of Shri Nisargadatta's "I am that". That sort of baking will crack this vessel. Maybe my understanding is not that much subtle ! Hari Om Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 27, 2003 Report Share Posted December 27, 2003 Namaste Ranjeet, > > Shri Nisargadatta Maharaj and Shri Ramana Maharshi does not belong to the > advaitic tradition or the Guru-parampara. > So I doubt if their teachings should be considered as valid "in the advaitic > context". No doubt they are stalwarts in the non-dual path. As Sadanandaji > rightly said, a vedantin or advaitin will always point the student to the > scripture. You can check SankarAchArya's "Upadesha sahasri" to see this. > Will sages like Yajnavalkya, Ashtavakra and Uddalaka qualify as Advaitins? If we go by historic records, they lived much before Bhagavat Geeta and Brahmasutra were authored. What scriptures could they point to their students other than their own lives and teachings? Still if they qualify as Advaitins, why can't Ramana and Nisargadatta too who through their own lives and teachings showed the essence of Advaita. Pranaams, Raj. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 27, 2003 Report Share Posted December 27, 2003 - "rajkumarknair" <rajkumarknair > > Will sages like Yajnavalkya, Ashtavakra and Uddalaka qualify as > Advaitins? > If we go by historic records, they lived much before Bhagavat Geeta > and Brahmasutra were authored. What scriptures could they point to > their students other than their own lives and teachings? > > Still if they qualify as Advaitins, why can't Ramana and Nisargadatta > too who through their own lives and teachings showed the essence of > Advaita. ----------------- Namaste Rajkumarji, Please note that Shri Nisargadatta Maharaj was part of the NavNath Sampradaya, not advaitic tradition. Now coming to the guru-parampara followed in advaita, please check "parapara-sthotram". Narayana => Brahma => Vasishta => Shakti => Parashara => Vyasa => Shuka => Gaudapada => Govinda => SankarAchArya => Padmapada-Hastamalaka-Totraka-Sureshvara => and so on.. I agree that the teachings of Shri Ramana Maharshi and Shri Nisargadatta Maharaj is similar to Advaita. But that doesnt mean that their teaching can be quoted to prove an 'advaitic-point'. It will be like trying to fit a square rod into a circular hole. It might fit with some effort; but it is far from perfection. Only a quote from the sruthi or smriti will fit into it. Can we really qualify Yajnavalkya of B.U and Lord Krishna of Gita to be advaitins? Their same words are interpreted in different ways by different commentators ! The sruthi and smriti is the starting point of all schools of Vedanta. Now If we take the position that these teachings has to lean on some other sruthi, then the latter will need yet another sruthi to lean on and so on leading to an infite regress ! It will be like removing the backbone of the whole Vedanta philosophy !! Hari Om Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 27, 2003 Report Share Posted December 27, 2003 respected rajkumar ji, ranjeet ji, suppose we have had ramana maharishi or nisargadatta maharaj or shankara participating in this discussion,would these discussions have prolonged this long? NO. he/they wd have set at rest sll our doubts , and answered all our queries in a single, or just a few, sessions. and they wd also have put many of us on the sure path to realizing the STILL MIND. shankara, ramakrishna, ramana, atmanada, vivekanada---- all had their stirrings very early in their youth [or even childhood], and even before meeting their guru, they were already on the path. does it mean that they did NOT have gurus and that they do not belong to the guru parampara? ramana was born in a traditional brahmin family. by virtue of his birth he belonged to a particular gotra of a specific rishi, and by the family tradition he belonged to the guru parampara of shankara. if we are prepared to accept the concept of " punarapi jananam, punarapi maranam " of shankara, then it is very clear that they would have had their guru in their previous birth who had directed them inwards. atmanada similarly belonged to a family following certain traditions, and the traditional path was ingrained in him. he says too that yogananda visited him from kokalta and identified the further path to him. yogananda was the disciple of yukteswara giri who himself was a self realized soul who has identified the 6oo year old BABA from the himalayas as his guru. where then arises the question of being " gurulesssness?". yes, of course ramana and atmananda realized themselves apparently unaided. suppose i get into an express lift to go down from the 18th floor to the first floor. the lift begins the drop-down with a noiseless swish. i experience weightlessness for a moment. if i explain my experience of gravitation to my son back at home, do i necessarily quote newton? and if dont quote newton, does it mean that i dont know gravitation? also; when i am in search of a guru, i need not wait for my seeking to begin till i reach my guru. i begin with the methods i seem to "know". when i pray to MOTHER, SHE is my guru. when i pray to SIVA , he is my guru. when i pray to CHRIST, christ is my guru. when i pray to MOHAMMED, he is my guru. please note that guru parampara starts with NARAYANA ---vasishta----- it follows that SHIVA in the form of arunachaleshwara was ramana's guru. and we believe that shankara is an AVATAR of lord SHIVA. any more clarifications needed on the guruparampara of ramana? apologies for intruding among the giants and the stalverts. most respectfully yours, a.v.krshnan. --- rajkumarknair <rajkumarknair wrote: > Namaste Ranjeet, > > > > Shri Nisargadatta Maharaj and Shri Ramana Maharshi > does not belong > to the > > advaitic tradition or the Guru-parampara. > > So I doubt if their teachings should be considered > as valid "in the > advaitic > > context". No doubt they are stalwarts in the > non-dual path. As > Sadanandaji > > rightly said, a vedantin or advaitin will always > point the student > to the > > scripture. You can check SankarAchArya's "Upadesha > sahasri" to see > this. > > > > Will sages like Yajnavalkya, Ashtavakra and Uddalaka > qualify as > Advaitins? > If we go by historic records, they lived much before > Bhagavat Geeta > and Brahmasutra were authored. What scriptures could > they point to > their students other than their own lives and > teachings? > > Still if they qualify as Advaitins, why can't Ramana > and Nisargadatta > too who through their own lives and teachings showed > the essence of > Advaita. > > Pranaams, > Raj. > > ______________________ Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now http://uk.messenger./download/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 27, 2003 Report Share Posted December 27, 2003 Namaste Ranjeet, > Namaste Rajkumarji, > > Please note that Shri Nisargadatta Maharaj was part of the NavNath > Sampradaya, not advaitic tradition. > > Now coming to the guru-parampara followed in advaita, please check > "parapara-sthotram". > > Narayana => Brahma => Vasishta => Shakti => Parashara => Vyasa => Shuka => > Gaudapada => Govinda => SankarAchArya => > Padmapada-Hastamalaka-Totraka-Sureshvara => and so on.. > > I agree that the teachings of Shri Ramana Maharshi and Shri Nisargadatta > Maharaj is similar to Advaita. But that doesnt mean that their teaching can > be quoted to prove an 'advaitic-point'. It will be like trying to fit a > square rod into a circular hole. It might fit with some effort; but it is > far from perfection. Only a quote from the sruthi or smriti will fit into > it. > I also agree that sages like Shri. Ramana Maharshi, Shri. Nisargadatta Maharaj and Shri. Atmananda does not belong to the Traditional Advaitic Guru parampara. As I pointed out earlier, so does sages like Yajnavalkya, Uddalaka etc.( whose teachings form the core of the Shrutis!). That doesn't make them any less Advaitins. If one's concern is to prove the Advaitic point across in debates with Dvaitins and others, then the framework as provided by Shri. Sankaracharya will be a must. But if the concern is to have the direct advaitic experience for oneself, the faith in the teachings of any of these great sages would do. > Can we really qualify Yajnavalkya of B.U and Lord Krishna of Gita to be > advaitins? Their same words are interpreted in different ways by different > commentators ! > This is a very difficult issue : If Yajnavalkya was not an Advaitin, how can Shri. Sankaracharya's Advaitic commentary on his teachings be justified ? So Yajnavalkya has to be an Advaitin ( though non- sampradayic?). > The sruthi and smriti is the starting point of all schools of Vedanta. Now > If we take the position that these teachings has to lean on some other > sruthi, then the latter will need yet another sruthi to lean on and so on > leading to an infite regress ! It will be like removing the backbone of the > whole Vedanta philosophy !! > If one has faith in his Guru, that Guru's word itself forms the shruti-pramANa for him, whether the Guru is traditional or non- traditional. That is my humble opinion. > Hari Om Pranaam, Raj. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 Namaste Rajkumarji, - "rajkumarknair" <rajkumarknair > I also agree that sages like Shri. Ramana Maharshi, Shri. > Nisargadatta Maharaj and Shri. Atmananda does not belong to the > Traditional Advaitic Guru parampara. As I pointed out earlier, so > does sages like Yajnavalkya, Uddalaka etc.( whose teachings form the > core of the Shrutis!). That doesn't make them any less Advaitins. > > If one's concern is to prove the Advaitic point across in debates > with Dvaitins and others, then the framework as provided by Shri. > Sankaracharya will be a must. But if the concern is to have the > direct advaitic experience for oneself, the faith in the teachings of > any of these great sages would do. ---------- ------------- How do we have the "direct-advaitic-experience"? If you mean the state of samAdhi as 'direct-advaitic-experience' please read on.. Sage Patanjali wakes up (??) from Nirvikalpa-samadhi and talks about the plurality of the world. Buddhists(not all of them) after contemplation says that nothingness is the essence of everything. SankarAchArya says that Everything is the Self. All of them said something or the other from their own experience(??). Now suppose you went into the state of samAdhi. When you return from that state to the waking state, how will you know whether it was an 'advaitic' experience or not? If 'direct-advaitic-experience' does not mean state of samAdhi (Thank God !), then what is it? How is it termed 'advaitic'? The question is whether you are pursuing a 'non-dual' experience or an 'advaitic' experience. How do you differentiate between the two without referring to the teachings of SankarAchArya? --------- > > Can we really qualify Yajnavalkya of B.U and Lord Krishna of Gita > to be > > advaitins? Their same words are interpreted in different ways by > different > > commentators ! > > > > This is a very difficult issue : If Yajnavalkya was not an Advaitin, > how can Shri. Sankaracharya's Advaitic commentary on his teachings be > justified ? So Yajnavalkya has to be an Advaitin ( though non- > sampradayic?). ---------- Shri MadhvAchArya has also written a commentary on the same BU. So Yajnavalkya would also be a dvaitin as per your logic ! It is not wise to label the characters in the sruthi as advaitin, dvaitin etc. It is better to refrain from that. --------- > If one has faith in his Guru, that Guru's word itself forms the > shruti-pramANa for him, whether the Guru is traditional or non- > traditional. That is my humble opinion. ------ Well, sruthi never asks us to seek a traditional Guru. But it clearly gives us the qualities of a Guru whom we should seek. A student should approach only a Guru (a) who is well versed in the scriptures and (b) who is also absorbed in Brahman. (Refer: mundakOpanishad 1.2.12) The latter you cannot validate; the former you certainly can !! All the words coming forth from this Guru will definitely be sruthi-pramANa. Hari Om PS: Dear Rajkumarji, I dont have any grudge against these new age sages. Please note that this thread started because Benjaminji quoted works like "I am That" to drive home an advaitic point. My objection was only to that. We can jolly well quote from those when we are discussing JUST 'Non-dualism'. I have objection only when the "ME" in the subject line is replace by "advaita" !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 Namaste Ranjeetji, NM & RM may not have belonged to the Advaitic tradition. On the other hand, teachers who belong to the Advaitic tradition have also distorted the vision of Advaita by not keeping with the teachings of Shankara. We have 3 traditions in Advaita Vedanta, namely the Varttika, Bhamati & the vivarana, each differing in certain aspects. All of them belong to the same sampradaya. So there is no guarantee that by being in a proper sampradaya one can gain error-free Self Knowledge. One sishya may need to ponder over the Tat Tvam Asi mahavakya for years to realize the truth of the Self. And another may may realize it immediately at the point of teaching. So can we say that Tat Tvam Asi for the second shishya is fast food? It all boils down to one's adhikara or qualification. There are many souls who would find the teaching of RM & NM direct and sufficient. Maybe they need just that little to close the loop. But there are many like me who need years of study to gain clarity. However, I do agree with you that one who is trained in shastras and belonging to a proper sampradaya is definitely a better teacher for the masses (i emphasize). But that doesn't make him a good teacher either. The Upadesha Sahasri shows the best method to teach. Which is a single guru removing the doubts of a single student. But how many traditional teachers actually practise this? They teach hundreds of students assuming that all them have the same doubts. This is what I call 'junk food' ; emptying whatever they have into the ears of the students without assessing what the students need. best regards, K Kathirasan > > Ranjeet Sankar [sMTP:thefinalsearch] > Saturday, December 27, 2003 12:49 PM > advaitin > Re: Nisargadatta/Yoga Vasistha speak for me > > Shri Nisargadatta Maharaj and Shri Ramana Maharshi does not belong to the > advaitic tradition or the Guru-parampara. > So I doubt if their teachings should be considered as valid "in the > advaitic > context". No doubt they are stalwarts in the non-dual path. As Sadanandaji > rightly said, a vedantin or advaitin will always point the student to the > scripture. You can check SankarAchArya's "Upadesha sahasri" to see this. > > Well, there are some who doesnt want to waste (!!) their time reading > sankara-bhAshyA-s. They are the ones who prefer *fast-food*. They do miss > the taste of home-made food. It surely is worth the effort. > Most of the topics discussed here have been penned down by SankarAchArya > in > his bhAshyAs. Topics ranging from ignorance, fruit of nitya-karma, > Idealism, > dream state, deep-sleep state etc to name a few. Personally I cant read > more > than 10 lines of Shri Nisargadatta's "I am that". That sort of baking will > crack this vessel. Maybe my understanding is not that much subtle ! > > Hari Om > > > 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 > > > > Links > > > advaitin/ > > > advaitin > > Your > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 Namaste Kathirasanji, --------------- > NM & RM may not have belonged to the Advaitic tradition. On the other hand, > teachers who belong to the Advaitic tradition have also distorted the vision > of Advaita by not keeping with the teachings of Shankara. We have 3 > traditions in Advaita Vedanta, namely the Varttika, Bhamati & the vivarana, > each differing in certain aspects. All of them belong to the same > sampradaya. So there is no guarantee that by being in a proper sampradaya > one can gain error-free Self Knowledge. --------------- The members of Advaita-L has pointed out that these issues are dealt extensively by Swami Saccidanandendra Saraswati in his book titled "The Method of Vedanta". I am yet to grab a copy. Hari Om Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2003 Report Share Posted December 28, 2003 Namaste Ranjeetji, I have a copy of that book and studying it presently. It has changed many notions I had about Adi Shankara and the sampradaya we see today. best regards, K Kathirasan > > Ranjeet Sankar [sMTP:thefinalsearch] > Monday, December 29, 2003 1:32 PM > advaitin > Re: Nisargadatta/Yoga Vasistha speak for me > > Namaste Kathirasanji, > > --------------- > > > NM & RM may not have belonged to the Advaitic tradition. On the other > hand, > > teachers who belong to the Advaitic tradition have also distorted the > vision > > of Advaita by not keeping with the teachings of Shankara. We have 3 > > traditions in Advaita Vedanta, namely the Varttika, Bhamati & the > vivarana, > > each differing in certain aspects. All of them belong to the same > > sampradaya. So there is no guarantee that by being in a proper > sampradaya > > one can gain error-free Self Knowledge. > --------------- > > > The members of Advaita-L has pointed out that these issues are dealt > extensively by Swami Saccidanandendra Saraswati in his book titled "The > Method of Vedanta". I am yet to grab a copy. > > > Hari Om > > > 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 > > > > Links > > > advaitin/ > > > advaitin > > Your > > 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.