Ramana on the Mind

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Here is an excerpt on the mind from Ramana Maharshi's book 'Nan Yar'

or 'Who am I?', available at

 

http://www.hinduism.co.za/whoami.htm

 

"If the mind, which is the instrument of knowledge and is the basis

of all activity, subsides, the perception of the world as an

objective reality ceases. Unless the illusory perception of the

serpent in the rope ceases, the rope on which the illusion is formed

is not perceived as such. Even so, unless the illusory nature of the

perception of the world as an objective reality ceases, the vision of

the true nature of the Self, on which the illusion is formed, is not

obtained."

 

 

Notice that it is the *mind* which creates the ego sense and the

subject-object duality. It is the mind that is the culprit. This is

echoed at great length in many Advaitin scriptures, notably the Yoga

Vasistha.

 

Notice also that he does not say that, upon quieting the mind, the

perception of the world ceases. He chooses his words more carefully

than that. He says that the perception of the world ceases 'as an

objective reality', i.e. as something other than the seer. But the

'shapes and colors' are still present, of course, or he would simply

have said that the perception of the world ceases. Of course, this

does not occur, even for the jnani, unless he closes his eyes. It is

the *interpretation* which has changed, the interpretation of an

objective reality superimposed by the mind on the shapes and colors.

 

This is to be contrasted with those who, in recent discussions here,

seem to think that any kind of perception of shapes and colors must

be some kind of duality. To repeat, it is the perception of them as

an objective reality, as objects, as something distinct from the

seer, which is to be eliminated. It is the interpretation,

contributed by our deluding mind. Leave the poor shapes and colors

alone! They are innocent!

 

Please read the rest of Nan Yar. It is not long.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benjaminji,

 

 

advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote:

 

> To repeat, it is the perception of them as an objective reality,

> as objects, as something distinct from the seer, which is to be

> eliminated.

 

You are right when you say that the perception of objects as

something distinct from the seer is to be eliminated, but that

doesn't make objects not objects. Objective reality doesn't mean that

objects are existentially separate from the seer. An object is the

object of directedness of the mind and senses. The mind and senses

and the objects are all invoked from the seer and are existentially

inseparable from the seer.

 

> It is the interpretation, contributed by our deluding mind.

 

The delusion is not the object, but the notion of existential

independence of the object.

 

> Leave the poor shapes and colors alone! They are innocent!

 

So are objects. I think we should leave them alone too. In the logic

of Nyaya and Mimamsa, shapes and colours are objects

 

Regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

The mind and senses

and the objects are all invoked from the seer and are existentially

inseparable from the seer.

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

But it has to be noted advaita questioning the very existence of seer!! In

gItA bhAshya shankara clearly says that the final pramANa indeed removes

the very knowership (jnAtrutva) of Atman. If such is the state of final

emancipation, where is the question of seer-seen relationship!!

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

NAMASTE, Benjaminji, and all

 

 

 

Sri Benjaminji said

 

 

 

<<Notice also that he does not say that, upon quieting the mind, the

 

perception of the world ceases. He chooses his words more carefully

 

eyes. It is

 

<<the *interpretation* which has changed, the interpretation of an

 

objective reality superimposed by the mind on the shapes and colors.

 

<< Leave the poor shapes and colors

 

alone! They are innocent!>>>>

 

Well said. However, I may be permitted to put it as follows:

 

We subjectively project goodness and badness on the world of objects and then

run after either to hug the objects or run away from the objects, all with the

idea of “getting” happiness. It is the projecting of “qualities” on the objects

by the mind, that such and such thing is good for me or dear to me, or such and

such thing is bad for me, by the mind on the objects, which must cease.

However, such “ceasing” is very difficult to achieve by quietening the mind or

controlling mind etc. I think it is in this context that Adi Shankarachayra

said “Vishwam nija anthargatam”. All Objects have same qualities or of same

nature, of Asti, Bhati, Priyam, Nama and Roopa, (existence, capable of being

known, dear, name and shape/colour), but the mind projects additional qualities

based on earlier notions and vasanas, and run after the world of objects or run

away from the world of objects. So what must cease is this subjective reality,

which we project on objects. One sees or perceives the

world through his own drushty (eye) and add colors to it, based on the glassxes

he wear, i.e. his own notions, that is to say one creates his own world, which

is different from the world the other person creates through his eyes (drushti).

There is no problem by seeing the srushti as srushti; and not seeing it through

one’s drushti, as one’s drushti is always contaminated by his earlier notions

and vasanas, is the result of self kowledge. Quietening of the mind will not

help in this direction. What is required is to “educate” the mind and seeing

that the mind grows over and becomes indifferent to its projection of qualities

on the objects.

 

In this connection, I quote below a paragraph appearing in the teaching of Sri

Nisargadattaji on Ego; which also gives us some understanding with regard to the

play of the mind.

 

“When is there an ego? The ego is there when you have a reaction, when you

register and take delivery of whatever is being observed spontaneously. Only

when you cling to the observation, then there is an ego. For example, you see

some building material lying on the road. You think you know something about how

to use that material and you start figuring out various possibilities... that

way the thought process develops and ego starts. If you are nobody, you will not

bother about the building material... you will just observe it and go on your

way. Once it is out of sight it is out of mind. But, if instead, you receive

delivery and cogi­tate over it, then ego will start.”

 

If one is successful to educate the mind to grow over i.e. to be indifferent to

the qualities that the mind projects on the objects, then Ego will not raise its

head.

 

It is my understanding and whether I am right in the eye of others I do not

know. Perhaps my looking at the subject was through “my drushti” i.e. through my

eye!

 

Respectful regards ahd Hari Om

 

Mani

 

 

 

 

Benjamin <orion777ben wrote:

Namaste,

advaitin/

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskar Prabhiji,

 

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

> But it has to be noted advaita questioning the very existence

> of seer!! In gItA bhAshya shankara clearly says that the final

> pramANa indeed removes the very knowership (jnAtrutva) of Atman.

> If such is the state of final emancipation, where is the question

> of seer-seen relationship!!

 

 

I think one has to be careful and take the context into account when

interpreting such statements. The seeing of the seer is never in

question even in the absence of the seer-seen relationship because

the seeing of the seer can never be taken away. The seeing of the

seer is the seer's essential nature. The seeing of the seer does not

cease, but now there is no second entity for it to see.

 

Advaita does not question the existence of the seer, because the seer

is itself "sat" or "existence".

 

The tripudi of the knower, known and knowledge doesn't exist in that

state, and the knower, in so far as it seems to exists as a limited

entity in the trifurcation, is what is negated. It is a negation of

the limitedness to reveal the unlimited.

 

Pranams,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

praNAm prabhuji:

Hare Krishna

 

CN prabhuji:

 

I think one has to be careful and take the context into account when

interpreting such statements.

 

bhaskar:

 

Yes, the context is very clear in shankara's commentary prabhuji. Here

shankara talking about shAstra pramANya, clearly writes that pramAtrutva

(being a knower) is itself the figment of avidyA since it is sublated by

shAstra as the final pramANa. The vijnAna Atman (the intellectual

self..dont know exact english word) & paramAtman (the supreme self) are

different born out of avidyA. Here shankara clearly says, the supreme

brahman is entirely different from the embodied self which is fancied by

avidyA. So shankara talking about the seer in the gIta is about vijnAna

Atman who is doer & experiencer should not be anyway related with

parabrahman.

 

CN prabhuji:

 

The seeing of the seer is never in question even in the absence of the

seer-seen relationship because the seeing of the seer can never be taken

away. The seeing of the

seer is the seer's essential nature. The seeing of the seer does not cease,

but now there is no second entity for it to see.

 

bhaskar:

 

Hope we are not getting confused with vijnAnAtman with shruti pratipAdya

nirvishEsha sAkshi parabrahman.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji,

 

I feel that I am saying the same thing that you are, but somewhere

there seems to be a disconnect. What to do? Let me see if I can

clarify what I'm saying.

 

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

>

> bhaskar:

>

> Yes, the context is very clear in shankara's commentary

> prabhuji. Here shankara talking about shAstra pramANya,

> clearly writes that pramAtrutva (being a knower) is itself

> the figment of avidyA since it is sublated by shAstra as

> the final pramANa.

 

Yes, I understand that the knower as the embodied one, in which the

knowership is attributed to vijnana, is sublated in the final pramana.

 

> The vijnAna Atman (the intellectual self..dont know exact

> english word) & paramAtman (the supreme self) are different

> born out of avidyA.

 

The intellectual self is not the supreme Self because the

intellectual self is bound by avidya and is embodied in the

vijnanamayakosha.

 

> Here shankara clearly says, the supreme brahman is entirely

> different from the embodied self which is fancied by

> avidyA.

 

Yes, the Supreme Brahman is entirely different from the embodied self

as fancied through avidya, but the entire difference points to

difference and not to the essence. In other words, without the

difference superimposed by avidya what remains is the essential

nature of Atman that is pointed out by "That thou art".

 

> So shankara talking about the seer in the gIta is about vijnAna

> Atman who is doer & experiencer should not be anyway related with

> parabrahman.

 

Yes, the vijnana Atman - the Atman qualified by vijnana - is not the

Brahman as Brahman is beyond the five koshas.

 

> CN:

>

> The seeing of the seer is never in question even in the absence

> of the seer-seen relationship because the seeing of the seer can

> never be taken away. The seeing of the seer is the seer's

> essential nature. The seeing of the seer does not cease, but

> now there is no second entity for it to see.

>

> bhaskar:

>

> Hope we are not getting confused with vijnAnAtman with

> shruti pratipAdya nirvishEsha sAkshi parabrahman.

 

The vijnanatman is seen. That seer which sees it is Brahman and its

seeing never ceases.

 

But of course if you're asking whether I'm confused, the answer is in

the affirmative because I am within maya and am not able to conceive

the inconceivable. :-)

 

 

Pranams,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji,

 

I feel that I am saying the same thing that you are, but somewhere

there seems to be a disconnect. What to do? Let me see if I can

clarify what I'm saying.

 

 

praNAms C.Naik prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

Yes, I do agree that all most we are saying the same thing as far as

vyAvahArika satya is concerned. But, if you could permit me, I'd like to

highlight couple of main discrepancies which we've been facing while

narrating pAramArthika satya. Here it is :

 

Your understanding of absolute state from advaita perspective:

 

(a) You are saying in pAramArthika satya or from the transcedental view

point both parabrahman & world engraved in parabrahman are real. Hence,

cause & effect are eternally real in that state.

 

(b) Since you are upholding the reality of brahma rUpAtmaka jagat (like

statue engraved in a granite stone) you want to attribute jagatkAraNatva (

efficient cause) to saguNAtmaka parabrahman (parabrahman with attributes)

which is resulting & forced you to accept reality of both saguNa & nirguNa

brahman even after the dawn of absolute knowledge.

 

Kindly correct me if I mis-read your mails.

 

Now, I humbly submit my limited understanding of advaita :

 

(a) Since shankara's advaita vedAnta upholds the reality of EkamEvAdvitIya

nirguNa, nirviSESha brahman which is described as astUla, anaNu in

shruti-s, it is to be understood that it doesnot undergo any modification

nor has any material manifestation such as nAma rUpAtmaka jagat. So,

creation is mere superimposition (adyAropita) on parabrahman in vyavahArika

satya & it is not the primary intention of shruti-s to purport the eternal

reality of creation in parabrahman.

 

(b) Since, advaita's primary propagation is to establish nirguNa brahman,

saguNa brahman is broght in to facilitate the manda & madhyama adhikari-s

who are not able to reach the level of the absolutely featureless pure

brahman. So, saguNa brahman intended only for meditation. The same

absolute featureless parabrahman is regarded as nirguNa, nirvikAra, higher

(para) brahman & lower (apara) brahman with specific features such as

omniscient & omnipotent qualities just for the convenience of aspirants for

meditation in the sphere of avidyA. So, IMHO the ultimatum issued by

shankara to his followers is nirguNa, nirvishEshatva of parabrahman & not

to hold both realities of saguNatva & nirguNatva of brahman parallely even

in absolute state.

 

Finally prabhuji, we all know that what we are talking here is something

beyond the reach of our conditioned senses & intellect. But I think,

atleast, we can intellectually understand the *would be state* of

absoluteness through shAstra-s & Apta vAkya which is enshrined in our

beloved master shankara bhagavadpAda's commentary on prasthAna trayi.

 

I also humbly request the senior members of this forum to correct me if I

strayed anywhere from shankara's vEdAnta saMpradAya.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

 

"Finally prabhuji, we all know that what we are talking here is

something beyond the reach of our conditioned senses & intellect.

But I think, atleast, we can intellectually understand the *would be

state* of absoluteness through shAstra-s & Apta vAkya which is

enshrined in our beloved master shankara bhagavadpAda's commentary

on prasthAna trayi. I also humbly request the senior members of this

forum to correct me if I strayed anywhere from shankara's vEdAnta

saMpradAya."

 

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

Namaste: Bhaskar Prabhuji and all

 

I have to submit only one correction: The second sentence in the

above paragraph may be corrected as:

 

"But I think, at least, we can intellectually understand, that we

cannot intellectually understand the *would be state* of

absoluteness, through shAstras & Apta vAkya which is enshrined in

our beloved master shankara bhagavadpAda's commentary on prasthAna

trayi".

 

Authority is manifold:

 

1. 'buddheH paratastu saH' Gita

2. 'naishhA tarkena matir-ApaneyA': Kathopanishad

3. 'avijnAtaM vijAnatAM vijnAtam-avijAnatAM' : Kenopanishad

4.'yenedam sarvam vijAnAti tam kena vijAnIyAt .. vijnAtAram are kena

vijAnIyAt' BrihadaranyakaM. 4-5-15

5. 'nAyam-AtmA pravacanena labhyo na medhayA na bahunA shrutena ;

yamevaishha vRNute tena labhyaH tasyaishA AtmA vivRNute tanuM svAM' -

Mundakopanishad. 3-2-3.

6. 'As for the argument that Brahman being an existing thing, other

means of knowledge should apply to It, that too is a mere figment of

the brain. For the is Entity is not an object of perception. It

being de void of form, etc. And It is n ot subject to inference,

being devoid of all grounds of inference, etc. But like the

religious acts (producing virtue) this Entity is known from the

scriptures alone.' Shankara's Commentary on Br. Sutra 2-1-6.

7. 'athApi te deva-padAmbuja-dvaya-prasAda-leshAnugRhIta eva hi /

jAnAti tattvaM bhagavan-mahimno na cAnya eko'pi chiram vicinvan //'

Srimad Bhagavatam: 10-14-29. (This is BrahmA Himself speaking!)

 

And there should be many more such references.

 

praNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji,

 

Can't this discussion (which is on adhyasa really) wait for a more

suitable time Prabhuji? As I've expressed earlier - both on this list

as well as offline - I don't want to get involved in a discussion on

this topic at present, but it seems to me, Bhaskar Prabhuji, that you

are in a hurry to remove my delusions. :-) But it may not be all that

easy to remove my delusions if you look at it from this angle: Shruti

says that the entire universe is the superimposition of avidya on

Brahman. It says furthermore that the superimposition is to be

removed. Therefore, what remains after the superimposition is removed

should logically be only Nirguna Brahman. It's as simple at that. But

there is some kind of madness that tells me that after removing the

superimposition of the entire universe, the entire universe remains.

I feel that it is meaningless to talk of Nirguna Brahman and Saguna

Brahman as higher and lower Brahman. Now how will you cure my madness

Prabhuji?

 

 

 

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

>

> praNAms C.Naik prabhuji

> Hare Krishna

>

> But, if you could permit me, I'd like to highlight couple of

> main discrepancies which we've been facing while narrating

> pAramArthika satya.

 

Paramarthika sathya can't be narrated, no?

 

> (a) You are saying in pAramArthika satya or from the

> transcedental view point both parabrahman & world engraved

> in parabrahman are real. Hence, cause & effect are eternally

> real in that state.

 

But I'm NOT saying that the world is "engraved" in parabrahman. It

makes me wince to hear the word "engraved" in this context.

 

I'm saying that cause and effect are eternally real. I'm saying that

the effect is nothing but the cause. I'm saying that the creation of

the effect is false. I'm saying that the effect is not "engraved" in

Brahman. How to reconcile all this into One?

 

I'm saying that in Advaita, vishesha is not different than the jati.

I'm saying that in Advaita, words point to jati. Where does all this

come in? It makes the effect not different than the cause.

 

> (b) Since you are upholding the reality of brahma rUpAtmaka

> jagat (like statue engraved in a granite stone)

 

No, no, no - not engraved!

 

> you want to attribute jagatkAraNatva (efficient cause) to

> saguNAtmaka parabrahman (parabrahman with attributes)

> which is resulting & forced you to accept reality of both

> saguNa & nirguNa brahman even after the dawn of absolute

> knowledge.

 

 

1) I don't want to attribute anything to anything; I think we should

aim to get to the truth instead of attributing things to it.

 

2) How can the efficient cause be attributed to the sagunatmaka

parabhrahman which itself is the result of the efficient cause? :-)

 

3) Saguna and Nirguna Brahman are not "both". Absolute knowledge is

not a "dawning", it is what is always there. The knowledge that is

always there is realised. Nothing has happened when the "dawning"

takes place.

 

> Now, I humbly submit my limited understanding of advaita :

>

> (a) Since shankara's advaita vedAnta upholds the reality of

> EkamEvAdvitIya nirguNa, nirviSESha brahman which is described

> as astUla, anaNu in shruti-s, it is to be understood that it

> doesnot undergo any modification

 

Brahman, the substantive, is beyond attributes and is "described" as

astula and ananu. It is realised through Nirguna Brahman. Brahman is

to be understood as not undergoing any modification, and that is why

Nirguna and Saguna Brahman are same.

 

> nor has (it) any material manifestation such as nAma rUpAtmaka

> jagat.

 

If it didn't have any material manifestation, then you wouldn't be

seeing a material manifestation. This may come across as a trivial

statement, but it isn't.

 

> So, creation is mere superimposition (adyAropita) on

> parabrahman in vyavahArika satya & it is not the primary

> intention of shruti-s to purport the eternal reality of

> creation in parabrahman.

 

True. Creation cannot be the purport of vivartavada. Superimposition

cannot be the truth.

 

> (b) Since, advaita's primary propagation is to establish

> nirguNa brahman,

 

Advaita's primary position does not negate Saguna Brahman, it negates

superimposition.

 

> saguNa brahman is brought in to facilitate the manda &

> madhyama adhikari-s who are not able to reach the level

> of the absolutely featureless pure brahman.

 

When a sadhaka has not "reached" Brahman, eveything is a

superimposition. But if you say that saguna Brahman is only for a

manda adhikari, then I'm happy to be a manda adhikari. :-)

 

> So, saguNa brahman intended only for meditation. The same

> absolute featureless parabrahman is regarded as nirguNa,

> nirvikAra, higher (para) brahman & lower (apara) brahman

> with specific features such as omniscient & omnipotent qualities

> just for the convenience of aspirants for meditation in the

> sphere of avidyA.

 

1) Is the same king higher when he wears a crown and lower when he is

not wearing a crown?

 

2) From what you are saying Brahman is not omniscient and omnipotent,

but is a great deluder.

 

> So, IMHO the ultimatum issued by shankara to his followers

> is nirguNa, nirvishEshatva of parabrahman

 

Is truth a matter of ultimatums? :-) Enquiry, manana and surrender

are the means to understand Shruti, not ultimatums or being

followers. (Guru may be said to be the ultimate means, but one does

not merely follow the guru, one surrenders to the guru.

 

> & not to hold both realities of saguNatva & nirguNatva of

> brahman parallely even in absolute state.

 

There are no two realities, and hence there are no parallels in

Brahman.

 

> Finally prabhuji, we all know that what we are talking here

> is something beyond the reach of our conditioned senses &

> intellect. But I think, atleast, we can intellectually

> understand the *would be state* of absoluteness

 

How does one intellectually understand what is intellectually not

understandable? Would it not be better to say that the intellect must

intellectualise until it converges to the understanding that it must

surrender itself for Brahman to be understood?

 

> through shAstra-s & Apta vAkya which is enshrined in our

> beloved master shankara bhagavadpAda's commentary on

> prasthAna trayi.

 

Also manana, enquiry, and surrender, without which the study of

shastras and apta vakyas become like pushing a camel through the eye

of a needle. The camel must give up its body to go through the

needle. Then it must give up its camelhood to go through the needle

of Maya.

 

 

Bhaskar Prabhuji, I have one small problem with all this unreal

business. If I accept your statement that the entire universe is

unreal, then it logically leads me to the conclusion that the

unreality of the entire universe is also unreal. What does this

logically lead to?

 

I am very unwilling to simply apply the word "unreal" to the world.

Words must be used meaningfully, otherwise even what the shastras say

about the universe will not be understood meaningfully. You are

welcome to join the thread "Advaita and adhyasa" and explain to me

how the world is unreal. You only have to read message nos. 21445,

21448 and 21470 to pick up on the discussion regarding the unreal.

 

Pranams,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji,

 

Humble praNAms Naik prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

CN prabhuji:

 

Can't this discussion (which is on adhyasa really) wait for a more

suitable time Prabhuji? As I've expressed earlier - both on this list

as well as offline - I don't want to get involved in a discussion on

this topic at present,

 

bhaskar:

 

prabhuji, while asking for the postponement of the discussion, with the

same breath you are making some comments on the mails too...that is the

temptation here for me to drag it further prabhuji:-))

 

CN prabhuji:

 

but it seems to me, Bhaskar Prabhuji, that you are in a hurry to remove my

delusions. :-) But it may not be all that easy to remove my delusions if

you look at it from this angle:

 

bhaskar:

 

Frankly speaking prabhuji, I am more particular about getting rid of *my

delusions* in advaita prabhuji. Senior members of this list know my

background very well. I should not carry the delusions any long & making

comments from it no?? that is the sole reason I'd like to hasten the

discussion.

 

CN prabhuji:

 

Shruti says that the entire universe is the superimposition of avidya on

Brahman. It says furthermore that the superimposition is to be

removed. Therefore, what remains after the superimposition is removed

should logically be only Nirguna Brahman. It's as simple at that.

 

bhaskar:

 

You are absolutely right prabhuji...the causal potentiality or mAya what

we've been talking all these days is itself avidyAtmika (of the nature of

avidyA).

 

CN prabhuji:

 

But there is some kind of madness that tells me that after removing the

superimposition of the entire universe, the entire universe remains.

 

bhaskar:

 

as said above, mAyA described as the figment of avidyA in shankara's

commentaries prabhuji...do you want to hold it even after the removal of

superimposition ??

 

CN prabhuji:

 

I feel that it is meaningless to talk of Nirguna Brahman and Saguna

Brahman as higher and lower Brahman. Now how will you cure my madness

Prabhuji?

 

bhaskar:

 

prabhuji, kindly pardon me I am not running any asylum :-)) shruti itself

talks about para & apara brahman vide prashna Up. in the context of OmkAra

& shankara categorically (meaninglessly:-)) admits that in vyavahAra there

are two. Where brahman is taught by means of words like astUlam (not

gross), negating specific features such as nAma rUpa created by avidyA that

is the para brahman. Whereas, on the other hand that same brahman

qualified by certain attributes for the purpose of upAsana / dhyAna. When

the shruti talks about manOmayaH, prANa sharIrO, bhArUpaH etc. it is all

about apara brahman or saguNAtmaka brahman. Pls. see shankara's sUtra

bhAshya. Hope we are not discussing about individual opinions here

prabhuji. Being a sincere student of advaita, we are talking about shakara

pratipAdya advaita siddAnta..So, the ultimate source to draw our

conclusions on shrutyartha (purports of shruti-s) should be obviously his

commentaries only on prasthAna trayi is it not prabhuji??

 

Though I want to share lot of info. on rest of your mail, I shall stop here

prabhuji. Hope to continue the discussion when the topic comes for month

long discussion.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

PS : it is really something strange to see the unusual silence from the

senior advaitins in resolving these fundamental issues in shankara's

advaita. May I humbly ask the timely intervention pls.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji,

 

advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote:

> Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji,

>

> Humble praNAms Naik prabhuji

> Hare Krishna

>

> prabhuji, while asking for the postponement of the discussion,

> with the same breath you are making some comments on the mails

> too

 

You are right Prabhuji, it's my mistake.

 

Pranams,

Chittaranjan