Real and the Unreal - the series

[Guest guest]

namaste. The Group is discussing the Real and Unreal for one

month now.

 

I must regretfully say that I did not become any wiser on

this important topic as a result of the reading of this material.

This is not the difficulty with the chief discussant's efforts.

Shri Chittaranjan-ji has articulated *his* understanding in

excellent prose. However, the writing has become too voluminous.

The style of shri Chittaran-ji's writings, while very admirable,

requires full and concentrated attention to follow. I began to

feel throughout the month: would it not be more worthwhile for

me to utilize my time to study shri shankara's originals rather

than the writings on the List. There is also the lingering doubt

(through the month, the feeling raised from the level of lingering

doubt to a reasonable conclusion) that shri Chittaranjan's

understanding of shri shankara is not the same as the traditional

understanding of shri shankara.

 

I wonder if it would serve the purpose of the List and of the

many silent members if shri Chittaranjan-ji or someone who

followed the presentations closely to summarize the voluminous

writings of the past month into one or two paragraphs. I know

it would certainly help me in deciding whether I should go back

to the archives of this month to make another attempt to understand

these writings. In writing this, I am guided by the purpose of the

List which is to facilitate understanding of shri shankara easier.

A summary or conclusion of what was written during the past month

would be very helpful in that regard.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

------

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Murthy-ji and Respected Moderators,

 

Sir, I am aware that what I've written may not make for easy reading.

I have two more parts to go, but if the moderators and the members

feel that it would be better to close the topic now, that is okay

with me.

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...>

wrote:

>

>

> namaste. The Group is discussing the Real and Unreal for one

> month now.

>

> I must regretfully say that I did not become any wiser on

> this important topic as a result of the reading of this material.

> This is not the difficulty with the chief discussant's efforts.

> Shri Chittaranjan-ji has articulated *his* understanding in

> excellent prose. However, the writing has become too voluminous.

> The style of shri Chittaran-ji's writings, while very admirable,

> requires full and concentrated attention to follow. I began to

> feel throughout the month: would it not be more worthwhile for

> me to utilize my time to study shri shankara's originals rather

> than the writings on the List. There is also the lingering doubt

> (through the month, the feeling raised from the level of lingering

> doubt to a reasonable conclusion) that shri Chittaranjan's

> understanding of shri shankara is not the same as the traditional

> understanding of shri shankara.

>

> I wonder if it would serve the purpose of the List and of the

> many silent members if shri Chittaranjan-ji or someone who

> followed the presentations closely to summarize the voluminous

> writings of the past month into one or two paragraphs. I know

> it would certainly help me in deciding whether I should go back

> to the archives of this month to make another attempt to understand

> these writings. In writing this, I am guided by the purpose of the

> List which is to facilitate understanding of shri shankara easier.

> A summary or conclusion of what was written during the past month

> would be very helpful in that regard.

>

>

> Regards

> Gummuluru Murthy

> --

----

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjan-ji,

 

We would certainly like you to complete the series, and

judging from the seriousness of the questions raised and your

responses to them, the complete series would make sense. We shall

greatly appreciate your summing up of the series, and the major

similarities and differences with Shankara's writings.

 

After this, the members may continue the discussions on- or

off-list as convenient.

 

 

Regards,

 

Chief Moderator

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> Namaste Shri Murthy-ji and Respected Moderators,

>

> Sir, I am aware that what I've written may not make for easy reading.

> I have two more parts to go, but if the moderators and the members

> feel that it would be better to close the topic now, that is okay

> with me.

[Guest guest]

Namaste to respected Moderators,

 

I have now posted the eighth essay in the series which addresses the

topic of Formless Brahman. This part really sums up all that I have

to say, as far as my understanding of Advaita goes, on the topic of

the Real and Unreal. Since the Moderators feel that the questions

raised were of a serious nature, I think it is best to stop the

series here (the last essay being on the topic of Ishwara, which may

be left out without detriment to the main topic of the discussion). I

would like to thank the moderators once again for this opportunity

given to me to present my understanding of the topic and to learn

from the members of this list.

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

advaitin, "advaitins" <advaitins> wrote:

> Namaste Chittaranjan-ji,

>

> We would certainly like you to complete the series, and

> judging from the seriousness of the questions raised and

> your responses to them, the complete series would make sense.

> We shall greatly appreciate your summing up of the series,

> and the major similarities and differences with Shankara's

> writings.

>

> After this, the members may continue the discussions on- or

> off-list as convenient.

>

> Regards,

> Chief Moderator

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> Namaste Shri Murthy-ji and Respected Moderators,

>

> Sir, I am aware that what I've written may not make for easy reading.

> I have two more parts to go, but if the moderators and the members

> feel that it would be better to close the topic now, that is okay

> with me.

>

> With regards,

> Chittaranjan

>

 

namaste shri Chittaranjan-ji,

 

I do not mean at all that the series be stopped. My apologies

if I had given that impression.

 

Yet, I find that for some reason this discussion (presentation)

had become or appears to be more complicated than what it should

be. I cannot pinpoint why it is so. For my simpleton mind, the

following might have contributed in part or wholly to why I find

it difficult to follow the presentation.

 

(i) the reluctance on your part to include a middle order of

reality (unreality) which shri shankara calls mithya.

 

(ii) You prefer to call jagat real and also at the same time

call the substratum real (using the same terminology for both)

while shri shankara's terminology is understandable and makes

sense.

 

(iii) my lack of ekAgrata in reading these long essays. [This

may be because I am getting older but also because after reading

the first one or two essays, I get the sense of difference in

approach between your interpretations and shri shankara's

writings and frankly I found questioning myself should I be

spending time reading this material).

 

In sanatsujAtIyam bhAShya, shri shankara says that what the

mind and the intellect (claim to) understand is only the jaDa

part of jagat. The rahasya of the jagat is that which is real.

And then shri shankara asks how can the jaDa mind and intellect

can say it understands anything ?

 

I have brought up the example of a tree coming out of a seed

as an analogy of the relation of jagat and brahman. We are not

surprised at a tree (a representative of duality with its

branches, fruits, flowers and leaves etc) coming out of a

simple seed. Yet, there seem to be reluctance to accept the

world of duality as the form of non-dual brahman.

 

I thought any discussion of Real and Unreal should include at

least a reference to classic statements in BG 2.16, 9.4, 9.5 etc.

 

You have developed a very well-thoughtout theory of non-duality

and presented it as a series of 8 or 10 segments spread throughout

the month. Hence *you* know what the final point of your

presentation would be. Unfortunately, the readers do not know

what the conclusion in the final segment would be, after

reading the first two or three segments. Each time some body

made a point (on something which you brought up that seem to

be inconsistent with traditional understanding) during the

initial stages of discussion, it was suggested 'wait until a

later segment where it will be clarified'. Such a scenario

will not lead to knowledgeable discussions.

 

These are some of the things I find frustrating in this series.

The topic of sat, asat and mithya is at the core of shri

shankara's teachings and there is so much that a series on

Real and Unreal can contribute. Unfortunately, from my

perspective, that has not resulted. I am not blaming you,

Chittaranjan-ji for that. You have certainly worked hard at

this series, a thorough thought process went into this and

I congratulate you for your effort. Please continue the

series to the natural end.

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Murthygaru:

 

Thanks for raising some valid issues with respect to the postings of

Sir Chittaranjan. I want to join you and request Sri Chittaranjan to

continue his postings and especially the topic on Ishwara. Also he is

obligated to explain to you (and also to the silent majority). All of

us who use the privilege to post on this list are obligated to

present all supporting materials and evidence. I do understand that

we may not be always able to do that but we should try to answer all

the reasonable questions to the best of our knowledge. As followers

of the Vedic system of Truth Finding, we are left with no other

option.

 

I also wonder how "purification of mind" fit withing the framework of

Sri Chittaranjan. Everything will be indeed 'real' when the mind is

pure! Unfortunately, the mind is not pure (I am quite confident to

say that my mind is not pure!) and under these circumstances, the

world perceived by the impure mind can certainly can't be real! I am

wondering how the 'world' perceived by the impure mind can ever

be 'real.'

 

Sri Dayananda Saraswati in several of his works distinguishes between

Ishwara Sristi and Jiva Sristi. He convincingly establishes the fact

how 'jiva sristi' (our perception) is not real. In his framework,

Banana is Ishwara Sristi and 'bad banana' is our creation. All

attributes are our own creation and they are unreal and the 'real' is

necessarily without any attribute. I also want to know how these

things fit within the framework of Sri Chittaranjan.

 

In the goood old days when Shankara proposed his theology, he was

asked to prove how his thesis fit within established underlined Truth

of the Vedas. Sri Chittaranjan has everyright to deviate from Sankara

but at the same time he should prepare to defend with supportive

evidence.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "gmurthy_99" <gmurthy@m...> wrote:

>....

>

> These are some of the things I find frustrating in this series.

> The topic of sat, asat and mithya is at the core of shri

> shankara's teachings and there is so much that a series on

> Real and Unreal can contribute. Unfortunately, from my

> perspective, that has not resulted. I am not blaming you,

> Chittaranjan-ji for that. You have certainly worked hard at

> this series, a thorough thought process went into this and

> I congratulate you for your effort. Please continue the

> series to the natural end.

>

> Regards

> Gummuluru Murthy

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Murthy-ji,

> I do not mean at all that the series be stopped. My apologies

> if I had given that impression.

 

I am guilty of not making my presentations easy to understand, and I

see that this makes it deviate from the board policy. I accept the

verdict Sir.

 

But since there are other reasons that have been proferred to say

that my presentation deviates from Shankara Advaita and that it is

my 'own' theory, I may be offered the liberty of saying a few words

on the subject.

 

> Yet, I find that for some reason this discussion (presentation)

> had become or appears to be more complicated than what it should

> be.

 

Perhaps it is because the discussion brings into the vada all those

aspects found in Shankara bhashya such as substance-attributes,

samanya-vishesha, word and object, etc which are often ignored in

many discussions on Advaita. The study of Advaita Vedanta as a

philosophy needs to be undertaken on the platform of nyaya. I am

guided here by the traditional approach which has been explained by

the Paramaacharya, Shri Chandrashekarendra Saraswati, the

Shankaracharya of Kanchi Mutt. I was trying to take this approach,

but did not realise that it was not in line with the board policy.

There is of course the direct path as exemplified by Shri Ramana

Maharshi, which is more in the nature of instructions given to a

sadhaka to enquire and go directly to the Self. But if we are

speaking about a discussion on the Real and unreal as found in the

philsosophy of Advaita with the study that philosophy entails, then

vada is very much a part of it, and I'm afraid it can't be made

easier than the nature of the topic is.

 

> (i) the reluctance on your part to include a middle order of

> reality (unreality) which shri shankara calls mithya.

 

If there is a middle order of reality, then Advaita becomes false.

Are we sure we know what it is that Shankara means? If you read my

posts again, you will find that I have certainly not ignored 'the

middle order', but I am trying to understand the Advaitic meaning of

this 'mithya' so that the middle order may not leave aside any trace

of duality. I ask again: Do we know with such certainty what Shankara

means by Advaita that we are equipped to pass judgment on what is

Shankara Advaita is and what it is not?

 

> (ii) You prefer to call jagat real and also at the same time

> call the substratum real (using the same terminology for both)

> while shri shankara's terminology is understandable and makes

> sense.

 

What about that long quote from Shankara that I reproduced in Part

VII on the reality of the cause and effect. They were not my words,

but Shankara's. If Shankara's terminology is truly understood, then

does it leave over a jagat to be the object of negation? Or is the

negation something that leaves even the negated subsumed in Reality?

I am sorry, Murthy-ji, I see that the path of Advaita and the

conclusion of Advaita are being confused here.

 

> In sanatsujAtIyam bhAShya, shri shankara says that what the

> mind and the intellect (claim to) understand is only the jaDa

> part of jagat. The rahasya of the jagat is that which is real.

> And then shri shankara asks how can the jaDa mind and intellect

> can say it understands anything ?

 

The jada mind cannot understand, it is part of the understood. I am

not sure what is the point that is made here.

 

> I have brought up the example of a tree coming out of a seed

> as an analogy of the relation of jagat and brahman. We are not

> surprised at a tree (a representative of duality with its

> branches, fruits, flowers and leaves etc) coming out of a

> simple seed. Yet, there seem to be reluctance to accept the

> world of duality as the form of non-dual brahman.

 

Exactly, it is DUALITY, and not the world, that is what is not

accepted. The distinction is subtle, but it lies in the heart of

Advaita. How does the duality dissolve when you have something to be

negated? I find that this is resolved in the most wonderful manner in

Advaita if one considers vivartavada, the pre-existence of the cause

in the effect, alongwith the Advaita doctrine of word-meanings. After

all, when the the falsity of differentiation is said to be

originating in NAMES, one should try to understand what the nature of

NAMES are, and what their denotations mean. Isn't this part of

Advaita? Is it my 'own' philosophy, Sir?

 

> I thought any discussion of Real and Unreal should include at

> least a reference to classic statements in BG 2.16, 9.4, 9.5 etc.

 

I began my first essay with this very words: "Lord Krishna says

that 'the unreal never is, the real never is not'." which is taken

from BG 2.16. But to me, the 'middle order of reality' is a misfit in

the light of these words.

 

"By Me all this world is pervaded, My form unmanifested. All beings

dwell in Me; and I do not dwell in them." (BG.9.4)

 

This is what Shankara says in the commentary: "No being devoid of the

Self can ever become an object of experience. Wherefore they dwell in

Me i.e., they are self-existent (or have an individual existence)

through Me, the Self, (i.e., they are what they are in virtue of Me,

the Self, underlying them all.)"

 

I am reproducing these words from Part IV of my presentation which

may speak for itself:

 

"Knowing objects in truth is to know the depth of objects and not

their surface. It is the seeing into the heart of things, and the

heart of an object is its 'self'. Therefore is the suffix 'self'

attached to a thing to describe its true nature – for then we say

that it is it-self. Negation is the negation of a thing's surface

posturing as the thing it-Self. In other words, the truth of the

world is its soul, and the seemingly soulless world is a superficial

façade of its reality. It is this 'corpse' of the world, this death

as it were, that is what is negated! The SLEEP OF DEATH

characterises the three states of jagrat, swapna, and susupti,

whereas the Self is ETERNALLY AWAKE. The Self never sleeps because

its nature is Consciousness. And in that consciousness shines the

REAL LIVING WORLD!"

 

 

"Nor do those beings dwell in Me; behold My Divine Yoga! Sustaining

all the beings, but not dwelling in them, is My Self, the cause of

beings." (BG.9.5)

 

Sir, these words are explaining the unattached nature of the Lord.

The Lord in whom all these things dwell is unattached to these very

things, and hence they are said to not dwell in Him - from the point

of showing the unattached, eternal freedom of the Lord. Shankara

explains: "And yet these beings, from Brahman downwards, dwell not in

Me; behold My Divine working, the Divine Mystery, the real nature of

the Self. Accordingly, the shruti speaks of the unattached condition

of the Self, seeing that He is unconnected with any object: 'Devoid

of attachment, He is never attached'(Br.Up.3.9.26)." What is spoken

of is the transcendence of the Lord. What is the meaning of the

term 'transcendence'? I have written my undertanding of transcendence

in Part VIII: "Brahman being different from both name and form is Its

transcendence from them. The word 'transcend' does not mean a spatial

or temporal separation, but a distinction of the subsuming principle

from that which it subsumes." This, according to me, is how the

unattached nature of the Lord is to be understood, His actions in His

actionlessness.

> You have developed a very well-thoughtout theory of non-duality

> and presented it as a series of 8 or 10 segments spread throughout

> the month.

 

Please allow me to say here that I have developed no theory, but I am

only striving to understand Advaita, and it is this understanding

with whatever limitations it may have that I have presented here.

 

> Hence *you* know what the final point of your

> presentation would be. Unfortunately, the readers do not know

> what the conclusion in the final segment would be, after

> reading the first two or three segments. Each time some body

> made a point (on something which you brought up that seem to

> be inconsistent with traditional understanding) during the

> initial stages of discussion, it was suggested 'wait until a

> later segment where it will be clarified'. Such a scenario

> will not lead to knowledgeable discussions.

 

There is so much in the darshana of Advaita that is not discussed

because the Advaitic assertion of the nature of Brahman makes one

feel that all of it may be ignored. When I felt, during these

discussions, that the points raised were on this basis alone rather

than from any logical shortcoming in the argument, that is when I

asked that we may wait until we came to the topic of Nirguna Brahman.

I believe this has happened only twice or thrice. Of course, I once

referred Shri Sadanandaji to a later essay which dealt with the

nature of the 'object', but I don't think I avoided giving an

explanation at that time. I mention all this because your words give

the impression that I have been doing this habitually, which I don't

think I have.

 

> These are some of the things I find frustrating in this series.

> The topic of sat, asat and mithya is at the core of shri

> shankara's teachings and there is so much that a series on

> Real and Unreal can contribute.

 

Yes Sir, there is so much that can be said about the topics of sat,

asat and mithya than what derives merely from the dream analogy and

snake-rope analogy, and it has been my constant striving in this

series to address precisely this issue. It is unfortunate that we see

it differently.

 

> perspective, that has not resulted. I am not blaming you,

> Chittaranjan-ji for that. You have certainly worked hard at

> this series, a thorough thought process went into this and

> I congratulate you for your effort. Please continue the

> series to the natural end.

 

Thank you Sir. And lest I give the impression that I am contesting

the verdict of the moderators, let me clarify that I am not – I fully

see the justice behind the words that my presentation is not simple

enough to comply with the board policy. But as regards the other

points that you mention, I don't agree with them, and with

justification, I think.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Ram Chandranji,

 

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran@a...>

wrote:

> Also he is obligated to explain to you (and also to the

> silent majority). All of us who use the privilege to post

> on this list are obligated to present all supporting

> materials and evidence.

 

I do not understand what is being spoken of here...I have included

supporting material in my postings. I have replied to questions. What

am I guilty of? :-)

 

> I also wonder how "purification of mind" fit withing the

> framework of Sri Chittaranjan. Everything will be indeed

> 'real' when the mind is pure! Unfortunately, the mind is

> not pure (I am quite confident to say that my mind is

> not pure!) and under these circumstances, the world perceived

> by the impure mind can certainly can't be real! I am wondering

> how the 'world' perceived by the impure mind can ever be 'real.'

 

Purification of the mind makes the mind transparent to the Truth for

when the mind is pure it has nothing of its own to contribute

(superimpose) on the Truth. The world perceived through the impure

mind has impurity superimposed on it, but the truth of the world is

what it is in its innate nature. The truth is independent of the

intellect, says Adi Shankara. If the world perceived by the impure

mind can't be said to be real because of that impurity, then the

world can't be said to be unreal because of that same impurity in so

far as the impurity clouds whatever is said of it.

> Sri Dayananda Saraswati in several of his works distinguishes

> between Ishwara Sristi and Jiva Sristi.

 

Ishwara shristi is the universe created by Ishwara. Jiva 'shristi' is

the superimposition cast by avidya on what Ishwara creates.

> He convincingly establishes the fact how 'jiva sristi'

> (our perception) is not real.

 

Jiva sristi is unreal because there is no sristi here, only the

superimposition of avidya. The world is not jiva sristi, but what the

jiva's mind superimposes on the world is the unreal 'jiva sristi'.

Sristi is not perception, but the object perceived by perception.

> In his framework, Banana is Ishwara Sristi and 'bad banana'

> is our creation.

 

Bad banana is also Ishwara's creation. What we think about the banana

that is actually not in the banana is our (false) creation.

> All attributes are our own creation

 

Which tradition of Advaita does this come from? Attributes are

brought forth by the Lord's Maya, and no man or woman has the power

to create attributes. The jiva does not have vikshepa shakti.

> and they are unreal and the 'real' is necessarily without

> any attribute.

 

They are jada, and the jada is unreal without the Self which is its

Self, or reality. That does not mean that attributes are

uncondionally unreal.

> I also want to know how these things fit within the framework

> of Sri Chittaranjan.

 

Explained to the best of my understanding.

 

Is this an inquisition? :-)

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Dearest Chitta,

 

 

First and foremost , i do not want you to feel 'guilty' about

anything least of all about your presentation.Your presentation was

very scholarly and detailed.

 

To begin with, this was by no means an easy subject. and you were

brave enough to undertake this 'oceanic' subject and create a

roaring 'wave' in the minds of so many members.

 

sri Ramachandran-ji talks about 'silent' majority. when a majority of

people are silent , it can mean only three things ...

 

1) either they agree with all you said

 

2) or they were 'afraid' to speak up

 

3) or they did not know enough on the subject matter to contradict

your opinions.

 

i appreciated the fact that Sada-ji ,VK-ji and Bhaskat-ji

PARTICIPATED IN THE DISCUSSION WITH 'POSITIVE' FEEDBACKS. This is the

way it should be. In fact, but for Sada-ji, i would have never known

what Vandhyaa putra would have meant!!

 

i am Delighted Shri Ramachandran-ji brought up the subject of

'purirification of mind' is concerned, that is a Topic by itself.

 

Maybe our beloved Shri Ramachandran-ji can take up that as a topic

for discussion in November ...maybe on 'SADHANA CHATUSTYAM'....

 

AS BELOVED adi shankara says in verse 175 of Viveka Chudamani

 

"The mind is purified by Viveka (discrimination) and Vairagya

(detachmment) and becomes free for liberation. Therefore one longing

for liberation should acquire these two qualities. "

 

Maybe, we SHOULD ALL cultivate the twin qualities of Viveka and

vairagya-

 

1) how to seperate the 'milk from the water' like a swan

 

2) how to view everything dispassionately and not be colored by our

own conditioned thinking...

 

In this regard, i want to express my 'admiration' for Sunder-ji. He

is always ready to help when needed and always comes up with the

right responses. For example - his recent response to vk's question

on Rashana.

 

I have immense regard for all Swami-jis, be it Dayananda or

Krishnananda , or Sivananda.

 

chitta, while you were prsenting this series- i did my own little

homework. I started reading Swami Krishnananda and believe it or

not , your framework very much resembled swami Krishnanda'S. hE ALSO

DISCUSSES AT LENGTH THE VARIOUS WESTERN PHILOSOPHIES FROM DESCARTES

TO HEGEL BEFORE MOVING ON TO SHANKARA'S BHASYAS!!!

 

a far as 'Shristi' is concerned , there is only one person who is

capable of it! The LORD ALMIGHTY !!! Without Him, not even an atom

can move.

 

AND BANANA ? THIS IS AN EDIBLE OBJECT - SUBJECT TO DECAY. i am least

concerned about the Banana's attributes- if it becomes overripe, you

discard it! if it is under-ripe, you wait for it to ripen... it is as

simple as that!!

 

but what about our own 'intellect- and its attributes?

 

in chapter 4, verse 38 , Gita-acharya explains in SRIMAD BHAGWAT GITA

 

" Nothing indeed in this world purifies like wisdom. He who is

perfected by Yoga, finds it in time within himself by himself. "

 

 

well, there is only one ACHARYA ! THAT IS shankaracharya ... the rest

who try to explain adi shankara's bhasyas are at best mini-acharyas

only! smiles!!!

 

One final point to the moderators!

 

ANYTIME , THE MODERATORS ( nine of them here) feel that the

discussant was going off track or his presentation was not in

accordance with list policies, they issue you a gentle reminder

either privately or publicly and bring the dicussion back into

Focus. This should be done directly... not through some 'banyan and

seed' example.

 

One should not wait for the MILK to Boil over before turning the

stove off!

 

CHIITA, Did i not tell you to follow the K-I-S-S ( KEEP IT SIMPLE AND

STRAIGHT) principle right in the beginning?

 

 

btw, i never heard of middle 'reality' in Hinduism- i have heard of

middle path in Buddhism!

 

There is only 'one' reality -

 

It has nobeginning, no end and of course no middle!

 

Without beginning, middle or end, of infinite power,

of infinite arms, whose eyes are the moon and sun,

I see thee, whose face is flaming fire,

Burning this whole universe with Thy radiance. [bG xi.19]

 

Hari Aum Tat Sat!

 

PS - CHITTA, I KNOW YOU PUT YOUR HEART AND SOUL INTO THIS

PRESENTATION. i could feel the 'passion' and 'intensity' of your

approach!

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> Namaste Shri Murthy-ji,

> But since there are other reasons that have been proferred to say

> that my presentation deviates from Shankara Advaita and that it is

> my 'own' theory, I may be offered the liberty of saying a few

words

> on the subject.

 

Namaste.

 

I was out of contact with the internet for a week and when I opened

it back I was surprised to see this discussion on the 'series' and

Chittaranjan -ji being obligated to 'defend' his series. I, for one,

have been finding his presentation very forceful and systematic. In

fact next year I propose to present an English translation

(in 'digest' form) of the Paramacharya's lectures on 'advaita' as

found in one of the volumes of the Tamil 'Deivathin kural'.And

perhaps you will find that Chittaranjan-ji's English language is

more powerful than the language of translation that I may ever be

able to handle. I tend to particularly agree with Chittaranjan-ji on

the following points of his:

 

 

1.

> There is of course the direct path as exemplified by Shri Ramana

> Maharshi, which is more in the nature of instructions given to a

> sadhaka to enquire and go directly to the Self. But if we are

> speaking about a discussion on the Real and unreal as found in the

> philsosophy of Advaita with the study that philosophy entails,

then

> vada is very much a part of it, and I'm afraid it can't be made

> easier than the nature of the topic is.

 

2.

> If you read my

> posts again, you will find that I have certainly not ignored 'the

> middle order', but I am trying to understand the Advaitic meaning

of

> this 'mithya' so that the middle order may not leave aside any

trace

> of duality. >

If Shankara's terminology is truly understood, then

> does it leave over a jagat to be the object of negation? Or is the

> negation something that leaves even the negated subsumed in

Reality?

> I see that the path of Advaita and the

> conclusion of Advaita are being confused here.

 

3

> Exactly, it is DUALITY, and not the world, that is what is not

> accepted. The distinction is subtle, but it lies in the heart of

> Advaita. How does the duality dissolve when you have something to

be

> negated? I find that this is resolved in the most wonderful manner

in

> Advaita if one considers vivartavada, the pre-existence of the

cause

> in the effect, alongwith the Advaita doctrine of word-meanings.

After

> all, when the the falsity of differentiation is said to be

> originating in NAMES, one should try to understand what the nature

of

> NAMES are, and what their denotations mean. Isn't this part of

> Advaita? > This is what Shankara says in the commentary: "No being

devoid of the

> Self can ever become an object of experience. Wherefore they dwell

in

> Me i.e., they are self-existent (or have an individual existence)

> through Me, the Self, (i.e., they are what they are in virtue of

Me,

> the Self, underlying them all.)"

>

4.

> "Knowing objects in truth is to know the depth of objects and not

> their surface. It is the seeing into the heart of things, and the

> heart of an object is its 'self'. Therefore is the suffix 'self'

> attached to a thing to describe its true nature – for then we say

> that it is it-self. Negation is the negation of a thing's surface

> posturing as the thing it-Self. In other words, the truth of the

> world is its soul, and the seemingly soulless world is a

superficial

> façade of its reality. It is this 'corpse' of the world, this

death

> as it were, that is what is negated!

5.

> I have written my undertanding of transcendence

> in Part VIII: "Brahman being different from both name and form is

Its

> transcendence from them. The word 'transcend' does not mean a

spatial

> or temporal separation, but a distinction of the subsuming

principle

> from that which it subsumes." This, according to me, is how the

> unattached nature of the Lord is to be understood, His actions in

His

> actionlessness.

6.

> There is so much in the darshana of Advaita that is not discussed

> because the Advaitic assertion of the nature of Brahman makes one

> feel that all of it may be ignored. ,

> Chittaranjan

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Chittaranjanji:

 

First, let me congratulate you for taking up the discussions

seriously and also for providing scholarly and reasonable replies.

The questions that I have raised represent questions that come to

many silent listeners and your replies these questions hopefully will

motivate them to participate in the discussions.

 

Please continue and we all want to learn by raising and answering the

questions (sometime the same questions get repeated with alternate

twists!). The goal of this list is to help all of us to remove our

ignorance and you are certainly contributing to that effort.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> Namaste Shri Ram Chandranji,

>

> advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran@a...>

> wrote:

>

> > Also he is obligated to explain to you (and also to the

> > silent majority). All of us who use the privilege to post

> > on this list are obligated to present all supporting

> > materials and evidence.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Chittaranjanji:

 

Honestly, the board (other moderators please state if you disagree)

never dictates how members should present their view points. We all

know that advaita philosophy is complex and you are brave enough to

discuss the most complex aspects of the philsophy. We are thankful to

you for providing a discussion with more details than anyone before.

Consequently, it takes longer time for readers to digest and it is

understandable.

 

As you have rightly pointed out the most important question that is

being raised and challenged often is the question, "whether the world

is real?" I agree with you that "the world is real" and is

inseparable from the Brahman. At the same time, at the vyavaharika

level (relative reality) it is possible to classify 'reality' at

different levels. For those with the 'purest of mind' there is only

one reality and for others the 'apparant reality' varies at different

points of their life. Purity of the mind depends of the spiritual

maturity of the jiva and accordingly each one approaches a different

path of life. When I say all these, I believe in a certain framework

to justify my beliefs. Also my framework is not permanant until my

mind is completely purified.

 

The reason that I am bringing the above paragraph is to indicate that

it is very likely for all of us to keep our mind completely open and

read the messages without any built in bias. As I stated before, we

haven't reached that level of spiritual maturity and consequently we

seem to express disagreements more often than necessary. Even

Shankara has to spent lots of time to convince the scholars of his

time to accept his philsophy. This again is not a one-time deal and

later on other scholars came forward to dispute with his philosophy.

This is our Vedic Tradition of learning where we learn by expressing

our disagreements and this is the Vedic path to wisdom,

 

I hope that clarified my stand regarding your posts. Please continue

with your discussion and bring the facts as you believe in.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: This is an open forum and those who disagree with what I have

expressed here should feel free to express and expose my errors.

 

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

>

> Thank you Sir. And lest I give the impression that I am contesting

> the verdict of the moderators, let me clarify that I am not – I

fully

> see the justice behind the words that my presentation is not simple

> enough to comply with the board policy. But as regards the other

> points that you mention, I don't agree with them, and with

> justification, I think.

>

> Warm regards,

> Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namashkar Sri.Ramachandran-ji for issueing this clarification .

 

i know for a fact that Chitta was really excited about this whole

project and how he pursued this whole subject with Zeal, Enthusiasm

and boundless Energy. In the same way in which Nair-ji pursued

the 'poornamidam' project.

 

One thing was clear right from the beginning- Chitta gracefully

acknowledged the contributions of all members who took part in the

discussion and took the time to individually answer their questions !

He did all this in a spirit of humility but at the same time he did

not compromise what he believed to be 'real' or true!

 

But, definitely he made people think. He aroused the 'curiosity' and

i for one was so moved by these discussions that i have ordered

Goudaudapada's KArika and Adi Shankara's Brahma sutras through my

friend who is currently visiting India....

 

Ultimately, who is to say what is Real and what is unreal?

 

To a blind man, the color of the Lotus has no meaning.

 

He knows the Lotus by its fragrance.

 

Such is the state of Bhakta.

 

Once Once Lord Krishna appeared before Bhakta Surdas and told

him, "Surdas, if you are keen to see the world, I shall restore your

sight to you this very moment."

 

The great devotee that he was, Surdas replied, "Those who are endowed

with eyes are really blind when they do not gaze upon your

auspicious, beautiful form. Having ears, they are nevertheless deaf,

when they do not choose to listen to the music of your melodious

song. Having in their hands the power to attain the Divine they drown

themselves in the ocean of samsara(worldly life). Although you dwell

in their hearts, they are carried away by the transient attractions

of the world. Though they have large eyes, they are not able to see

you. Hence, I have no need for such hearts, such eyes or ears. Give

me the ears O Lord that will listen to your song, eyes that will see

your beautiful form and a heart in which you are only installed."

 

http://members.rediff.com/saivani/Surdas.htm - 4k - Cached

 

And Sri Ramachandran-ji, you correctly state ...

 

" Honestly, the board (other moderators please state if you disagree)

never dictates how members should present their view points."

 

YES! YES! one of the most beautiful feature of this holy satsangha.

There is a lot of give and take attitude and all members feel valued

and honored.

 

Yes! we must take our hats off to Chitta to have taken up the

challenge of this subject and discussing all the intricate details

and compexities involved, The strange thing is he never lost focus or

side-tracked. He was determined to see it through in spite of

computer glitches and 'hide and seek' !!!

 

and Sri Ramachandranji - you said it in one sentence

 

"keeping the mind open"

 

i will add one more ...

 

Open the 'HEART' !

 

the Narayana sukta says ...

 

"In the middle of the heart is a great fire (Mahan Agni) that carries

all light and looks to every side. It is the first eater and dwells

apportioning our food, the undecaying seer.

 

He gives heat to the entire body from the feet to the head.

In the middle of this fire is the subtle crest of a flame pointed

upwards, shining like a streak of lightning from a dark blue rain

cloud.

In the middle of the crest of this flame the Paramatman dwells. He is

Brahma (Creator), Shiva (Transformer), Vishnu (Preserver), Indra

(Ruler), OM and the supreme Lord."

 

http://www.vedanet.com/Agniself.htm - 19k - Cached

 

i would still like our Chitta to post on 'Ishwara' AS ORIGINALLY

PLANNED.

 

 

Aum Namo Narayana!

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Sri Chittaranjan-ji's essays are bound to shake quite a few

intellectual 'cob-webs', and we should thank him for the courage and

humility with which he has performed this yeoman's service.

 

Ram-ji has often used the simile of the pole-vault to describe

the nature of the leap from buddhi to medhA to prajnA, and the need to

abandon the pole at some point to avoid a crash!

 

Gita 3:26 gives a good pointer to performance of duty with

equanimity.

 

"26. Let no wise-man unsettle the minds of ignorant-people, who are

attached to action; he should engage them in all actions, himself

fulfilling them with devotion.

The chances are that when a man of equipoise and Self-discovery enters

the field of activity, he will be tempted to advise his generation on

pure ethics and abstract ideologies. The generation, misunderstanding

the words and emphasis of such a Master, might come to a wrong

conclusion that, to renounce activity was the direct path to Truth.

The teachers are warned against such a hasty guidance which might damp

the enthusiasm of the generation to act.

 

Life is dynamic. Nobody can sit idle. Even the idler contributes to

the general activity. In this ever-surging onward rush of life's full

impetuosity, if there be a foolish guide who would plunge himself in

the mid-stream and stand with upraised hands, howling to the

generation to halt, he would certainly be pulverized by the

ever-moving flood of life and its endless activities. Many a hasty

Master has made this mistake and has had to pay for it. Krishna is

declaring here only a Universal law for the guidance of the saints and

sages of India that they should not go against the spirit of the times

and be a mere revolt against life's own might and power.

 

In this stanza is given out the art of guiding mankind, which can be

used by every leader in all societies, be they social workers, or

political masters, or cultural teachers. A society, that is

functioning in a particular line of activity at any given period of

history, should not be, all of a sudden, arrested in its flow, says

Krishna, but the leader should fall in line with the generation, and

slowly and steadily guide it to act in the right-direction, by his own

example....................

 

Similarly, man should act and even if he be acting in the WRONG

DIRECTION, through action alone can he come to the RIGHT PATH of

diviner activities, and gain the fulfilment of his Perfection. No

'wise'-man should unsettle his generation's firm faith in action. He

must himself diligently perform the ordinary actions in a diviner and

better fashion, and he must make himself an example to the world, so

that the lesser folk may automatically imitate him and learn to follow

his unfailing footsteps........."

[sw. Chinmayananda's commentary]

 

How complex the topic is can be gleaned agian from Gita 9:19:

 

"....I AM IMMORTALITY AND ALSO DEATH --- If life, the Consciousness,

were not illumining experiences, it would become meaningless and

purposeless, and the Self, being the Spark of life, is the essential

stuff that gives a realistic experience of existence to the very

phenomenon of death. To realise the Self as the Immutable and the

Eternal, is

 

to reach the State of Immortality. Change is death, and therefore, the

phrase is to be understood as saying that "the Self is the illuminator

of change, Itself ever the Changeless."

 

I AM EXISTENCE AND NON-EXISTENCE --- To perceive and experience

'Existence' and 'Non-existence,' a positive illuminator of both is

necessary, and the illuminating Consciousness must be able to embrace

both Sat and Asat in its all-comprehending Knowledge. It is impossible

to know and gain an experience of the total Non-existence; wherever we

experience Non-existence, we experience it as "the Non-existence that

exists."

 

Apart from this highly subtle philosophical interpretation there is a

simpler significance for the phrase. Sat and Asat are terms used in

Vedanta to indicate the 'cause' and 'effect': the UNMANIFEST and the

MANIFEST. The Self being that Illuminating Factor --- without which we

can experience neither the unmanifest (THOUGHTS) nor the manifest

(OBJECTS) --- the Self Eternal is conceived of as the Essence in both

the manifest and the unmanifest. Without the mud, no pot is possible;

with mud all pots can exist; and therefore, the mud can claim: "I am

the pots of all sizes, shapes and colours."

 

This stanza can provide a lifetime inspiration to the meditators at

their seat of contemplation, while "barrelling their thoughts," before

shooting forth into the voiceless and Nameless................"

 

[sw. Chinmayananda]

 

This dialogue should prove a good preparation for the 'Place of

Practice in Vedanta', which Greg-ji will be taking up soon.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran@a...> wrote:

> Namaste Sri Chittaranjanji:

> Please continue

> with your discussion and bring the facts as you believe in.

>

>

> advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

> <chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran@a...> wrote:

> As you have rightly pointed out the most important question that is

> being raised and challenged often is the question, "whether the world

> is real?" I agree with you that "the world is real" and is

> inseparable from the Brahman.

 

Namaste Sri Ram,

 

I was just reading Radhakrishna's History of

Indian Philosphy and I think I know what this

view represents: the bhedabhedavada of

Bhaskara. He said that both Brahman and

world are real and are the same.

 

Now Bhaskara was a transitional figure

between Shankara and Ramanuja. So

is the purity of your Advaita slipping? :-)

 

I am just being provocative for the fun

of it. I am aware that you then went on

to qualify your statement with subtle

distinctions.

 

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste dear friend Sri Benjamin:

 

The impurity of mind is capable to create a slippary slope

consequently our understanding of Advaita will likely slip! It is not

the philosophy that is slipping, but our understanding is what

slipping!

 

Mahatma Gandhiji used to make the following observation. "At times I

used to think that Gita is inconsistent; but later after

contemplation, I always realize the fact, that my understanding of

Gita is responsible for my incorrect conclusion!"

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "Benjamin" <orion777ben> wrote:

>

> Now Bhaskara was a transitional figure

> between Shankara and Ramanuja. So

> is the purity of your Advaita slipping? :-)

>

> I am just being provocative for the fun

> of it. I am aware that you then went on

> to qualify your statement with subtle

> distinctions.

>

> Benjamin

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> Namaste Shri Murthy-ji,

>

> [...]

> I am guilty of not making my presentations easy to understand, and I

> see that this makes it deviate from the board policy. I accept the

> verdict Sir.

>

> [...]

 

namaste shri Chittaranjan-ji,

 

Thank you very much for your itemized response for my comments.

 

1. Firstly, let me clarify the scenario. You seem to be under

the impression that I am writing as a Moderator of the List.

It is not so. I was a moderator at one time, but am an ordinary

member now and am writing as an ordinary member interested in

understanding shri shankara's teachings.

 

2. Secondly, you have correctly pounced on my usage of the

words 'middle order of reality'. I have used it in my comment

of yesterday but that is because I could not think of any other

concise combination of words to explain mithya. Let us not

make that set of words a common usage in our discussion lest

it gives the impression that shri shankara has devised any

orders of reality.

 

3. As I said in my earlier post, I am guilty of not reading

your posts very thoroughly past the first two. I was simply

glancing at them to get an idea whether you say you are

expressing shri shankara's writings or saying anywhere this

is where your writing deviates from shri shankara. From what

you said in response to my comment of yesterday, may I

assume then that what you have written is what shri shankara

said?

 

4. Now regarding treating the world as real and my bringing

in reference to shri shankara's bhAShya on sanatsujAtIyam:

I cannot recall reading anywhere shri shankara said the world

is asat. He consistently argued the jagat is mithya. In

sanatsujAtIyam bhAShya, shri shankara says what the mind and

intellect perceive is the jaDa part of the jagat. The rahasya

of the jagat is the real (brahman) and that rahasya of the jagat

is not what is perceived by the mind and the intellect.

Thus I think this bhAShyam has a place in the present

discussion. When you say the world is real, (i) are you

referring to what we see and what we feel?, (ii) are you

simply interchanging the jagat and brahman quite freely?

Again, I am guilty of not reading all the segments carefully.

You might have already discussed them at some stage. If so,

I would appreciate a reference.

 

5. In one of your segments you have mentioned that taking

the world as unreal as an upAya to reach a higher truth.

That is new to me. Is that discussed by shri shankara anywhere?

Again, I would appreciate a reference.

 

Lots of material has already been presented in this series.

You have presented your arguments thoroughly and painstakingly

for which I congratulate you again. I admit it is unfair of me

to comment at the end of the month, that too without reading

fully all the material. What I am requesting for is a three

paragraph summary of the presented material which allows me

to judge the usefulness of going back to the archives to read

the material thoroughly or otherwise.

 

 

Regards

Gummuluru Murthy

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

[Guest guest]

Namaste dear AdiMa, Shri Professor VK-ji, Shri Ram Chandran-ji, Shri

Sunder-ji, Shri Murthy-ji,

 

I would like to thank all of you for your support and the motivation

to continue. I am deeply indebted to dear AdiMa for her unflinching

support and of course for those nice words she's written about me

almost with a mother's love. AdiMa has been a guide and companion to

me during the last one month when I was trying to cope with the

pressures of work and writing these messages for the list, and her

lively mails and natural exhuberance has kept my spirit going. Thank

you AdiMa.

 

Professor VK-ji, I am particularly grateful to you for your words.

They mean much to me. I recognise the depth of your wisdom, as also

your large heart. I recently read your delicious post about Radha on

the Sadhana Shakti list, and allow me to say that anyone who can

write those words must have Shri Krishna Himself in the heart.

 

Ram Chandran-ji, Sunder-ji, Murthy-ji, I must thank you all for

keeping the true spirit of the board alive.... for keeping us

discussants in check when required, and for providing the freedom to

take one's own approach in our common goal of understanding Shankara

Advaita.

 

Due to some sudden developments in the company for which I work, I

will have to be shuttling between Mumbai and Chennai for the next two

months. Due to this, I may not have the time to participate in the

list as often as I wish. I will post the last essay - the one on

Ishwara - later today (I would have liked to edit it a bit, but that

won't be possible now). I would therefore request the moderators to

continue with the next topic - the topic of the current month - from

tomorrow or whenever it is convenient for all. I will sum up the

series during one of my visits to Mumbai.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Murthy-ji,

 

 

advaitin, "gmurthy_99" <gmurthy@m...> wrote:

> 3. From what you said in response to my comment of yesterday,

> may I assume then that what you have written is what shri

> shankara said?

 

Sir, in trying to understand Advaita, one reads Shankara and then

enquires into the meaning of the Acharya's words. Sometimes the

meaning strikes when you read it, sometimes it comes later all of a

sudden, like scales being removed from over the eyes, but much of it

is still hidden. How can I say that I am using only what Shri

Shankara said? I am writing what I understand Shankara as having said

or meant.

 

> 4. Now regarding treating the world as real and my bringing

> in reference to shri shankara's bhAShya on sanatsujAtIyam:

> I cannot recall reading anywhere shri shankara said the world

> is asat. He consistently argued the jagat is mithya. In

> sanatsujAtIyam bhAShya, shri shankara says what the mind and

> intellect perceive is the jaDa part of the jagat. The rahasya

> of the jagat is the real (brahman) and that rahasya of the jagat

> is not what is perceived by the mind and the intellect.

 

Sir, if I have understood you correctly here, then I must say that

this is what I have tried to cover in Part VIII under 'Samanya and

Vishesa'. This world of jada is the world of particulars, and in its

fullness it is the universal which is its sameness with the

omniscience of Brahman. The mithya is not seeing its universality,

and seeing only the particular. The satya of universal is that which

subsumes the particular that is negated.... therefore nothing is left

after the negation because what is affirmed is the fullness, and what

was negated was the particularity which always was (is) in the

fullness itself. (I would also like to mention here that 'universals

and particulars' is the core of Plato's philosophy - a difficult

topic to understand, and one which has caused a thousand year war

of 'realism vs nominalism' in the West.) I have not read Shri

Shankara's BhAShya on SanatsujAtIyam, but from what you say about it,

it excites me, I would definitely like to read it - infact I can't

wait to read it!

 

> Thus I think this bhAShyam has a place in the present

> discussion. When you say the world is real, (i) are you

> referring to what we see and what we feel?, (ii) are you

> simply interchanging the jagat and brahman quite freely?

> I would appreciate a reference.

 

I am referring to the core of what we see in its fullness - and that

is Brahman. The mithya is the limitedness of the particular, and the

truth is the unlimitedness of the universal. I understand this as

avacchedavada - which is a word taken from the Advaita tradition.

Again, the reference is only what I have already quoted in Part VIII.

 

> 5. In one of your segments you have mentioned that taking

> the world as unreal as an upAya to reach a higher truth.

> That is new to me. Is that discussed by shri shankara anywhere?

> Again, I would appreciate a reference.

 

I don't know, but Shri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa used to speak of it.

Kashmir Shaivism - a form of Advaita derived from the Shiva Sutras -

speaks of it.

 

 

With regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

--- Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik wrote:

Chittaranjanji - I was out on my office duty for couple of days and I

see an e-mail from Aditi amma requesting me step in. Unfortunately I

have not followed the discussion after the last one we had. I thought

the topical discussions will continue till it is completed.

 

First, let me assure you that I am learning a lot from your mails,

although I do agree with your analysis, as I understand it right now.

It may also be a premature statement on my part, since I have not

thoroughly studied your posts after the fifth one. I have stored your

posts and intend to study them to see the logic of your analysis. I am

keenly interested in the epistemological and ontologial aspects that you

have discussed, since I am trying to learn myself some of the theories

of advaita Vedanta from that perspective and examine the Sataduushani of

Vedanta Desika more critically. Your persentation opens a different

approach than what I have known and I need to understand it throughly.

 

Please do forgive me if I have come out as strong. Moderators mostly

involve in the policy decisions and not as discussers. As discussers,

they are individuals who are bound by the policies of the list.

 

I do personally request you to continue your series to completion. If I

can request, at the end of the series please summarize your

understanding identifying the central issues involved and where central

misunderstanding lies, taking into consideration the obejctions and

questions that were raised in their essence. People like me may not

agree, but that is not an issue here, since that disagreement could be

result of lack of correct understanding on my part.

 

If I contributed to your premature termination of the series my

apologies. Please do continue the series to logical termination.

 

 

Pranaams

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

=====

What you have is destiny and what you do with what you have is self-effort.

Future destiny is post destiny modified by your present action. You are not only

the prisoner of your past but master of your future. - Swami Chinmayananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

 

> I would therefore request the moderators to

> continue with the next topic - the topic of the current month - from

> tomorrow or whenever it is convenient for all. I will sum up the

> series during one of my visits to Mumbai.

 

Namaste Greg-ji,

 

In view of the circumstances mentioned by Chittaranjan-ji, you

may want to send the intro. on the topic of 'Place of Practice in

Vedanta'.

 

Regards,

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Sadanandaji,

 

Thank you for your mail. Please don't misunderstand me..... I would

particularly like to clarify that my closing the series early is due

to my (partial) relocation to Chennai, and it has nothing to do with

you Sir. I really enjoyed our discussion. As regards the

disagreement, I think it is just as it should be considering that our

aim is truth...... and of course all differences in perspective is

ultimately part of Her Leela. I also want to say that I have learnt

much from your writings in the files section.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

 

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

> Chittaranjanji - I was out on my office duty for couple of

> days and I see an e-mail from Aditi amma requesting me step in.

> I do personally request you to continue your series to

> completion. If I can request, at the end of the series

> please summarize your understanding identifying the

> central issues involved and where central misunderstanding

> lies, taking into consideration the obejctions and questions

> that were raised in their essence. People like me may not

> agree, but that is not an issue here, since that disagreement

> could be result of lack of correct understanding on my part.

>

> If I contributed to your premature termination of the series my

> apologies. Please do continue the series to logical termination.

> Pranaams

> Hari OM!

> Sadananda