SW. DAYANANDA SARASWATIJI IN KUWAIT

[Guest guest]

Namaste Advaitins.

 

We were very fortunate to have Swami Dayananada Saraswathiji in our

midst the last few days.

 

His early morning talks (in all three) were on pUrNamadah when mithyA

received his astute attention. Swamiji said mithyA is really satyA.

He advised us to desist from talking about Reality as the substratum

of mithyA. Bursting into a cackle, he asked: "What substratum?" and

then literally roared: "There is no need to talk about any

substratum. MithyA implies satyA and one who discerns this Truth has

understood pUrNamidam correctly."

 

About understanding vs. experience, I submitted the following

question to him in writing:

 

QEUSTION:

 

"Swamiji, this refers to your stress on understanding in relation to

experience. Your interview to Andrew Cohen of "What Is

Enlightenment?" is an eye-opener in this context. However, a doubt

remains to be cleared which, it seems, Cohen was too unprepared to

express during the interview.

 

You very effectively employed the analogy of the wave and ocean to

drive home the point you were making. Now, when the wave discards

its feelings of isolation and goes really oceanic – is that an

understanding alone? Isn't there an experience going with it? Isn't

the understanding itself an experience? When I realize my total

freedom as Fullness and see myself in all creation from ants to

stars, is that an understanding alone? Or, is there a `totality of

experience' going with it? Or, is it a stage where understanding and

experience merge without distinctions in Awareness? Afterall, in the

vyAvahArika, understanding is understanding-awareness and experience

is experience-awareness and the very Truth of both is Awareness or

Consciousness, which I AM. Hence, this doubt, which is corroborated

by the words of Sankara like `ramantaM' found in `vedAntavAkyeshu

sadA ramantaM'.

 

SWAMIJI'S ANSWER:

 

"I am not against experience per se. I am against purusuing advaita

for experience as a goal as all experiences are limited. There

definitely is anubhUti in right understanding when the imagined

shackles go off and one realizes that he is verily fullness. I don't

deny that."

 

When I clarified that the question resulted from a recent discussion

in Advaitin, Swamiji laughed and said: "Any day, I like to go with

the understandingwallahs".

 

This, I hope, clarifies the two important questions that have vexed

our List in the recent past.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Advaitins.

 

praNAms Sri Madathil Nair prabhuji & prabhuji-s of this forum

Hare Krishna

 

As I was also one of the participants in the pUrNamadah discussion, I

thought I should write something on following Nair prabhuji's quotes of

swamiji of Arsha Vidya Gurukulam.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

His early morning talks (in all three) were on pUrNamadah when mithyA

received his astute attention. Swamiji said mithyA is really satyA.

He advised us to desist from talking about Reality as the substratum

of mithyA. Bursting into a cackle, he asked: "What substratum?" and

then literally roared: "There is no need to talk about any

substratum. MithyA implies satyA and one who discerns this Truth has

understood pUrNamidam correctly."

 

bhaskar :

 

I really failed to understand how can this sporadically uttered words of

swamiji could do any justice to our long winding discussion on pUrNamadaH

mantra based on shankara's commentary on it!! Further, it is also required

to know that in which context swamiji has made this comment to which

aspirant & his level of understanding etc. When I quoted ramaNa's comments

on three states, Sri frank prabhuji rightly asked me to *check the context*

& to which category of aspirant ramANa saying all this!! I think same

should be applicable here also before ascertaining swamiji's cackle about

*substratum* or adhishTAna.... I request Sri Nair prabhuji to give *full

details* of his discussion with swamiji about pUrNamadaH, so that we will

also be able to understanding why swamiji is laughing at *substratum*!! Let

us laugh together :-))

 

Further, it should be noted that there is no separate existence of mithyA

apart from satya...when you are seeing a *snake* the astitva of snake is

*entirely dependent* on the adhishTAna of *rope* Nowhere we are claiming

that mithyA has a separate existence parallel to satya...All this world of

duality is appearing in Atman alone due to misconception...So, this

vyavahArika satya of world is very much *real* only when it is

appearing...since this appearance has the kUtastha vastu as brahman &

nothing else..(like snake has the existence in rope in rope-snake analogy

!!) but this appearance is purely temporal & dEsha-kAla parichinna as this

is changing its appearance from one state to another...Hence, jnAni

realises that in his *true svarUpa* the world of duality or diversity never

at all existed & it is kEvala avidyA kalpita nAma rUpa upAdhi..with this,

the world that has to vanish or become extinct after the dawn of knowledge

does also never come into existence at all...

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskarji.

 

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

.....

> As I was also one of the participants in the pUrNamadah discussion,

I

> thought I should write something on following Nair prabhuji's

quotes of

> swamiji of Arsha Vidya Gurukulam.

 

...................>

> MN prabhuji:

>

> His early morning talks (in all three) were on pUrNamadah when

mithyA

> received his astute attention. Swamiji said mithyA is really satyA.

> He advised us to desist from talking about Reality as the substratum

> of mithyA. Bursting into a cackle, he asked: "What substratum?"

and

> then literally roared: "There is no need to talk about any

> substratum. MithyA implies satyA and one who discerns this Truth

has

> understood pUrNamidam correctly."

>

> bhaskar :

>

> I really failed to understand how can this sporadically uttered

words of

> swamiji could do any justice to our long winding discussion on

pUrNamadaH

> mantra based on shankara's commentary on it!! Further, it is also

required

> to know that in which context swamiji has made this comment to which

> aspirant & his level of understanding etc. When I quoted ramaNa's

comments

> on three states, Sri frank prabhuji rightly asked me to *check the

context*

> & to which category of aspirant ramANa saying all this!! I think

same

> should be applicable here also before ascertaining swamiji's cackle

about

> *substratum* or adhishTAna.... I request Sri Nair prabhuji to give

*full

> details* of his discussion with swamiji about pUrNamadaH, so that

we will

> also be able to understanding why swamiji is laughing at

*substratum*!! Let

> us laugh together :-))

 

 

[swamiji was talking to a large audience from different walks of

life. I don't know anything about their levels. He didn't ask me at

what level I was. Neither do I know my level nor am able to

appreciate the significance of levels in advaita. He mentioned these

examples: The chain is gold; the fabric is yarn; and pointed out

that we don't say the substratum of chain is gold or of fabric is

yarn because chain and fabric imply gold and yarn respectively.

That, to me, is a very satisfying explanation.]

 

___________________________

> Further, it should be noted that there is no separate existence of

mithyA

> apart from satya...when you are seeing a *snake* the astitva of

snake is

> *entirely dependent* on the adhishTAna of *rope* Nowhere we are

claiming

> that mithyA has a separate existence parallel to satya...All this

world of

> duality is appearing in Atman alone due to misconception...So, this

> vyavahArika satya of world is very much *real* only when it is

> appearing...since this appearance has the kUtastha vastu as brahman

&

> nothing else..(like snake has the existence in rope in rope-snake

analogy

> !!) but this appearance is purely temporal & dEsha-kAla parichinna

as this

> is changing its appearance from one state to another...Hence, jnAni

> realises that in his *true svarUpa* the world of duality or

diversity never

> at all existed & it is kEvala avidyA kalpita nAma rUpa upAdhi..with

this,

> the world that has to vanish or become extinct after the dawn of

knowledge

> does also never come into existence at all...

 

[i have heard all this before. I am afraid, you are putting words

into my mouth by bringing in terms like 'separate' and 'parallel'.

The word used by Swamiji is 'imply'. I was only quoting him. If you

have any further doubts, please get in touch with him at Arsha Vidya

Gurukulam.]

_________________

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri MN prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

MN prabhuji:

 

[swamiji was talking to a large audience from different walks of

life. I don't know anything about their levels. He didn't ask me at

what level I was. Neither do I know my level nor am able to

appreciate the significance of levels in advaita.

 

bhaskar :

 

I dont know whether you vouch for categorisation of aspirants or

not...shankara himself makes this distinction very clear among aspirants

depends upon their *level* of understanding..If that is not the case, you

please tell us in what context shankara talks about *maNda, madhyama &

uttama adhikAri-s*

 

MN prabhuji:

 

He mentioned these examples: The chain is gold; the fabric is yarn; and

pointed out

that we don't say the substratum of chain is gold or of fabric is

yarn because chain and fabric imply gold and yarn respectively.

That, to me, is a very satisfying explanation.]

 

bhaskar :

 

Since swamiji's above assertion are completely in line with your theory of

advaita..prabhuji, obviously it is very satisfying explanation for you.

But the fact remains that gold is chain but chain is not necessarily

gold...chain is upAdhi with limited adjuncts of nAma & rUpa..had you little

more inquisitive about swamiji's statement that chain = gold with a

different perspective, you would have definitely asked swamiji why

chAndOdya saying ONLY clay is real & its nAma & rUpa are only for names

sake (vachAraMbhaNam vikAro nAmadhEyaM *mruttikemEva satyaM*) when there is

absolutely no difference between pot & clay or chain & gold or yarn &

fabric...When our mind receives whatever pleases to its thinking

process...it stops questioning further is it not??

 

MN prabhuji:

 

[i have heard all this before. I am afraid, you are putting words

into my mouth by bringing in terms like 'separate' and 'parallel'.

The word used by Swamiji is 'imply'. I was only quoting him.

 

bhaskar :

 

Kindly pardon me if my mail gave you such an impression...

 

MN prabhuji:

 

If you have any further doubts, please get in touch with him at Arsha Vidya

Gurukulam.]

 

bhaskar :

 

Thanks for the suggestion prabhuji...definitely I'll do

it..if_it_is_in_line with shruti pratipAdita shankara siddhAnta.

_________________

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

Swami Dayanandaji is very sensitive to the english words he uses in

his teachings. Hence you wouldn't hear words like 'substratum',

'realization', 'eternal', 'immortal' 'Illusion' etc.... He prefers to

use simple words to communicate the vedantic wisdom. For all we know,

he would not equate the word 'adhistanam' with 'substratum'. He would

rather use the yarn-shirt, clay-pot upamanas to drive home the point

instead of translating the word. During my satsangh with him, he

specifically mentioned that Vedanta is best studied/taught in

sanskrit. But since he is teaching in English, he prefers not to use

words that would cause misintepretation. Words such as the ones

mentioned above can be easily misinterpreted when seen through its

conventional meanings. For example, Swamiji does not even consider

Vedanta a philosophy. A philosophy can be disputed, improved or even

agreed. To him Vedanta is a Pramana because the truth of Vedanta is

seen immediately when the pramata (seeker) and the prameya (Self) are

available. Therefore, we have to be very careful when we quote

teachers.

 

 

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:59:42 +0530, bhaskar.yr

<bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> praNAms Sri MN prabhuji

> Hare Krishna

>

> MN prabhuji:

>

> [swamiji was talking to a large audience from different walks of

> life. I don't know anything about their levels. He didn't ask me at

> what level I was. Neither do I know my level nor am able to

> appreciate the significance of levels in advaita.

>

> bhaskar :

>

> I dont know whether you vouch for categorisation of aspirants or

> not...shankara himself makes this distinction very clear among aspirants

> depends upon their *level* of understanding..If that is not the case, you

> please tell us in what context shankara talks about *maNda, madhyama &

> uttama adhikAri-s*

>

> MN prabhuji:

>

> He mentioned these examples: The chain is gold; the fabric is yarn; and

> pointed out

> that we don't say the substratum of chain is gold or of fabric is

> yarn because chain and fabric imply gold and yarn respectively.

> That, to me, is a very satisfying explanation.]

>

> bhaskar :

>

> Since swamiji's above assertion are completely in line with your theory of

> advaita..prabhuji, obviously it is very satisfying explanation for you.

> But the fact remains that gold is chain but chain is not necessarily

> gold...chain is upAdhi with limited adjuncts of nAma & rUpa..had you little

> more inquisitive about swamiji's statement that chain = gold with a

> different perspective, you would have definitely asked swamiji why

> chAndOdya saying ONLY clay is real & its nAma & rUpa are only for names

> sake (vachAraMbhaNam vikAro nAmadhEyaM *mruttikemEva satyaM*) when there is

> absolutely no difference between pot & clay or chain & gold or yarn &

> fabric...When our mind receives whatever pleases to its thinking

> process...it stops questioning further is it not??

>

> MN prabhuji:

>

> [i have heard all this before. I am afraid, you are putting words

> into my mouth by bringing in terms like 'separate' and 'parallel'.

> The word used by Swamiji is 'imply'. I was only quoting him.

>

> bhaskar :

>

> Kindly pardon me if my mail gave you such an impression...

>

> MN prabhuji:

>

> If you have any further doubts, please get in touch with him at Arsha Vidya

> Gurukulam.]

>

> bhaskar :

>

> Thanks for the suggestion prabhuji...definitely I'll do

> it..if_it_is_in_line with shruti pratipAdita shankara siddhAnta.

> _________________

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

>

>

> 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

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

For all we know, he would not equate the word 'adhistanam' with

'substratum'.

 

praNAm Kathirasan prabhuji

Hare Krishna

> Yes, most probably that would be the case ...I was bit surprised to see

Sri Nair prabhuji's statement about swamiji's *cackle* about the word

*substratum* The adhiSTAna or kUtasTha nityA or sarvabhutAntarAtma is the

ONLY really real (satyasya satya) chaitanya & ever existing ONE in all

these apparent & temporal realities...I was bit worried as to how swamiji

can *laugh* at this fundamental priciple of vEdOpadESha.

 

prabhuji further you wrote :

 

To him Vedanta is a Pramana because the truth of Vedanta is

seen immediately when the pramata (seeker) and the prameya (Self) are

available. Therefore, we have to be very careful when we quote

teachers.

> You are absolutely right prabhuji, we have to be very careful while

quoting the teachings of these noble personalities...otherwise it will give

us entirely different picture of what has been actually said in the

*context* of discourse.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

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

> I dont know whether you vouch for categorisation of aspirants or

> not...shankara himself makes this distinction very clear among

aspirants

> depends upon their *level* of understanding..If that is not the

case, you

> please tell us in what context shankara talks about *maNda,

madhyama &

> uttama adhikAri-s*....

.................

> Since swamiji's above assertion are completely in line with your

theory of

> advaita..prabhuji, obviously it is very satisfying explanation for

you.

> But the fact remains that gold is chain but chain is not necessarily

> gold...chain is upAdhi with limited adjuncts of nAma & rUpa..had

you little

> more inquisitive about swamiji's statement that chain = gold with a

> different perspective, you would have definitely asked swamiji why

> chAndOdya saying ONLY clay is real & its nAma & rUpa are only for

names

> sake (vachAraMbhaNam vikAro nAmadhEyaM *mruttikemEva satyaM*) when

there is

> absolutely no difference between pot & clay or chain & gold or yarn

&

> fabric...When our mind receives whatever pleases to its thinking

> process...it stops questioning further is it not??

 

 

Namaste Bhaskarji.

 

[i have seen that categorization of manda, madhyama and uttama. But,

if your argument of levels is right, Sankara should have written

manda bhAshya, madhyama bhAshya and uttama bhAshya for each of his

bhAshyAs. To my knowledge, he has not done so. Bhaskarji, we are

living in a world of several interpretations where even Sankara's

basic works like Tattwa Bodha have been explained differently by

acknowedged profound minds. I am just going by the ones acceptable

to me. I am sure you are also not different. Even if you are going

by your *own* unique understanding of Sanakara pratipAdita siddhAnta

in *original* Sanskarit, you still have to acknowledge that other

profound scholars at least at your level of scholarship, who have

perused the same source, have held views entirely different from

yours. Don't you realize that you yourself have travelled far from

your ISKCON days? There is, therefore, no need for your righteous

indignation about the statement made by Swamiji. All that he meant

was that the pot or chain is clay or gold through and through and,

therefore, non-different from their respective causes. It doesn't

require the hair-splitting of Sankara's own words or scriptural

statements, that too in Sanskrit, to understand the message Swamiji

wanted to convey. Accept or reject it is your choice. No one is

forcing it on you. If you read through Swamiji's brilliant

commentary on pUrNamadah in our files section, you will see that he

has quoted these very examples to explain his point of view.]

 

[i also noticed your enthusiastic endorsement of Shri Kathirasanji's

caution about quotig teachers. Well, all of us are doing that all

the time and I can't be made an exception.]

 

[The basic difference between us is that while I consider advaita to

encompass the seeing me and the seen as one single Fullness, you tend

to hold the view that the seen are to be rejected in their entirety

in search of a Fullness outside them. The subject of Advaita being

one without a second, I am very comfortable with an understanding

that doesn't demand of me to eliminate anything. Let me hold on to

it peacefully.]

 

[in conclusion, I am not going to give any further answers on this

topic. I am doing so not wearing the Moderator's hat as you alleged

in the AA discussion. I am just taking recourse to my privilege to

remain silent as an ordinary Member of this Forum and due to my sad

realization that all these endless arguments are not of any use at

least to me.]

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Bhaskarji.

 

Humble praNAms Sri Madathil Nair prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

MN prabhuji:

 

[i have seen that categorization of manda, madhyama and uttama. But,

if your argument of levels is right, Sankara should have written

manda bhAshya, madhyama bhAshya and uttama bhAshya for each of his

bhAshyAs. To my knowledge, he has not done so.

 

bhaskar :

 

Not necessarily prabhuji, as you might have noticed shankara in his

prasthAna trayi bhAshya (ofcourse in one & only available version :-)) has

made categorization of teaching for various types of spiritual

aspirants...KIndly refer shankara's commentary on tatirIya upanishad where

in you can find upAsana & jnAna pradhAna upadEsha vAkya-s depend upon

*level* of understanding of the spiritual aspirants...For manda & madhyama

adhikAri-s of vEda, shankara recommended pratIkOpAsana, praNavOpAsana,

sOpAdhika brahma upAsana with all auspicious attributes, ahaMgrahOpAsana

etc...But for a uttama adhikAri he says ONLY shravaNa is more than enough

to realise shrutivAkya janita paramArtha jnAna.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

Bhaskarji, we are living in a world of several interpretations where even

Sankara's

basic works like Tattwa Bodha have been explained differently by

acknowedged profound minds. I am just going by the ones acceptable

to me.

 

bhaskar :

 

No problem with it prabhuji, for that matter I am not trying to find out

who is wrong & who is right in representing true shankara philosophy

here....I am more particular about to know how far these profound minds

following shankara's prasthAna trayi bhAshya-s in understanding socalled

shankara's philosophy...That is the reason why I often insist shankara's

quotes whenever I come across *new* ideas in the name of

shankara...Atleast, as far as my knowledge goes, I tried my best to quote

shankara while submitting *my theory* of advaita. Kindly tell me if that is

not the case.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

I am sure you are also not different. Even if you are going

by your *own* unique understanding of Sanakara pratipAdita siddhAnta

in *original* Sanskarit, you still have to acknowledge that other

profound scholars at least at your level of scholarship, who have

perused the same source, have held views entirely different from

yours.

 

bhaskar :

 

Ofcourse I am not denying it..But the problem is to find out, out of somany

profound scholars who have refuted my theory of advaita, how many have

really studied shankara bhAshya under the able guidance of shrOtrIya

brahmanishTa guru in a traditional way & how many scholars simply referring

some translated version of shankara vEdanta & thinking that they are the

true representatives of shankara saMpradAya...

 

MN prabhuji:

 

Don't you realize that you yourself have travelled far from

your ISKCON days?

 

bhaskar :

 

Yes prabhuji, but I still think my journey is not completed yet...that is

the reason why I am open for discussion

 

MN prabhuji:

 

There is, therefore, no need for your righteous indignation about the

statement made by Swamiji. All that he meant was that the pot or chain is

clay or gold through and through and, therefore, non-different from their

respective causes.

 

bhaskar :

 

No one says that effect is different from cause if he is a follower of

advaita...shankara does say brahman is both upAdAna & nimitta kAraNa just

to refute the theory of saNkhya & vaiShEshika schools pradhAna & achEtana

kAraNa...Since you are not interested to listen all these..I donot want to

go into the details..but whenever you have time please study kArikA bhAshya

of shankara where shankara elaborately deals with *mAya satkArya vAda* &

also sUtra bhAshya on *AraMbhaNAdhikaraNa* wherein shankara with no

ambiguous terms says both kAraNa & kArya are adhyArOpita on nirviShEsha

brahman in vyAvahAra & does not anyway applicable in paramArtha.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

It doesn't require the hair-splitting of Sankara's own words or scriptural

statements, that too in Sanskrit, to understand the message Swamiji

wanted to convey.

 

bhaskar :

 

it is really strange to see shankara the greatest proponent of advaita

himself being sidelined here to understand *advaita philosophy*..No matter

whether Sri Swamiji or you or me..if we want to discuss anything about

advaita..shankara's prasthAna trayi bhAshya should be the basic

premise...otherwise, we will be simply talking in air without any base!!!

 

 

MN prabhuji:

 

Accept or reject it is your choice. No one is forcing it on you.

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji, I didnot say that :-)) Acceptance or rejection comes later..I am

still in the learning process...

 

MN prabhuji:

 

If you read through Swamiji's brilliant commentary on pUrNamadah in our

files section, you will see that he has quoted these very examples to

explain his point of view.]

 

bhaskar :

 

prabhuji, have you made any attempt to study shankara's commentary

available in khila kANda in bruhadAraNyaka on the same pUrNamadaH maNtra??

 

MN prabhuji:

 

[The basic difference between us is that while I consider advaita to

encompass the seeing me and the seen as one single Fullness, you tend

to hold the view that the seen are to be rejected in their entirety

in search of a Fullness outside them.

 

bhaskar :

 

Again wrong understanding of my stand!! where did I say *outside* of what

has been seen etc...where is the question of outside/inside in akhAnda

brahman?? I've been repeatedly saying *if you see brahman with vikAra* or

with duality it is avidyA..brahman cannot become multifarious world!! (see

refutation of *brahma pariNAma vAda & bhEdAbhEda theory in sUtra bhAshya)

If you are *seeing* this world as brahman then you should admit that

brahman has vikAra within himself ( anyway that is what I've been seeing

here in this list..in brahman world/vikAra/duality is eternal like in rope

the snake is eternal & on par with rope etc..) ...whereas I am saying if at

all you see duality it is due to avidyA...and after realisation you know

that *this* duality is not there whatsoever at any point of time..

 

MN prabhuji:

 

The subject of Advaita being one without a second, I am very comfortable

with an understanding that doesn't demand of me to eliminate anything. Let

me hold on to

it peacefully.]

 

bhaskar :

 

but your peaceful holding of fullness of world cannot withstand the acid

test of avasthAtraya vivEka is it not??!! by the way prabhuji, can you

please tell me whether you have spoken with swamiji about avasthAtraya??

You might have already noticed Sri Bhagavan ramaNa maharshi (quoted earlier

by me), Sri Atmananda (vide Sri Ananda Wood prabhuji's notes), maNdukya

kArika are all differing from your special affilisation to waking states

reality.

 

I humbly request other prabhuji's of this forum who are familiar with

swamiji's teaching to throw more light on teachings of swamiji on avasthA

traya prakriya which is the main theme of mAndukya upanishad & kArika.

 

MN prabhuji:

 

[in conclusion, I am not going to give any further answers on this

topic. I am doing so not wearing the Moderator's hat as you alleged

in the AA discussion. I am just taking recourse to my privilege to

remain silent as an ordinary Member of this Forum and due to my sad

realization that all these endless arguments are not of any use at

least to me.]

 

bhaskar :

 

You are welcome to take your stand prabhuji...Ofcourse you are the best

person to adjudge whether these discussions are futile or fruitful.. But I

do think the core purpose of this electronic media is to *discuss*

philosophy..It is one way brahma jignAsa through question & answers,

sharing of thoughts etc...

 

I do believe roaming around the mountain in one way scaling it!!! Krishna

says in gIta tadviddhi praNIpAtEna pari praShnEya sEvaya...As long as

facilities available this pari prashNa goes on and on in cyber net....

 

 

Prabhuji, since you have already closed the door for further discussion,

I'll refrain from responding your mails in future.

 

I sincerely apologise if I hurt your feelings & offended your goodself in

any way...

 

Humble praNAms onceagain

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar