Guest guest Posted January 23, 2005 Report Share Posted January 23, 2005 Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji and all praNAms Sri Sridhar prabhuji Hare Krishna I'd bluntly address some of the issues to avoid too much talkativeness!! Sridhar prabhuji: Like the comment in an earlier post below, I often discern an anger at or contempt for several followers/ schools who/ that have presented Acharya's teachings according to their interpretation and understanding. bhaskar : prabhuji my below observation is neither the result of anger nor with any motive of offending *several followers* of shankara saMpradAya...I was just making the point that the *example* quoted by Prof. VK prabhuji was in the prakaraNa grantha in the name of shankara...Without knowing these are *shankara's own words* some prabhuji's raised objections & said this is NOT an appropriate example to justify his claims!! Finally, Prof. VK prabhuji had to apologise for quoting this example...If you read the thread you will come to know the background of my comments. Sridhar prabhuji: Bhagwan Sri Krishna taught gita to Arjuna. How many thousands of people have commented on it. Should one of them take up the cudgels and say that others are not true followers of Bhagwan Sri Krishna? In the same question you could substitute KRishna with Shankara Bhagwatpada or any other great saint. bhaskar : You said you've not read shankara bhAshya on gIta...So, kindly do refer shankara's gIta bhAshya, particularly his introduction to gIta bhAshya wherein shankara says that prior to him *somany* commented on gIta without knowing the *core teachings* of it..Hence he is writing his commentary to convey the *true* teaching of this smruti text..shankara would have asked his followers to refer any other commentary which were prevalent at his time if all were *true followers* of Sri Krishna bhagavan's teaching!!! ....is it not?? praNAms onceagain bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2005 Report Share Posted January 24, 2005 In this larger context we all have no reservations and we profess agreement that all Faiths (religions) are true ? in the spirit of the Master, Ramakrishna. And we quote very often the Gita shloka: *yo yo yAm yAm tanuM bhaktaH *. But when it comes nearer home regarding the schools of Vedanta, we tend to slip into what verges on the dogmatic. Humble praNAms Sri Prof. VK prabhuji: prabhuji, no doubt, realisation of * truth* is a common purpose and all faiths (religions) are leading to *that* same goal??!! But what we are seeing today?? The fundamental problem in this direction is, do we really have universally/unanimously acceptable definition of *Truth* which we are all eager to realise through *All faiths*??IMHO the answer is big NO!! I think if the definition of *truth* is one & the same among aspirants & if they strive to realise what has been *commonly* accepted as truth...then I think what Sri rAmakrishna quoted above would comply!! But again, as most of us know how buddhists ascribe all to momentary consciousness & ultimate absolute voidness (vijnAna/khsNika/ShUnya)!! If we approach the *truth* through dualistic perspective, the aspirants in that school think that their realisation of *truth* ends in serving the auspicious form of their Ishta dEvata (beloved god) through attaining sArUpya, sAlOkya, sAyujya krama mukti....again there is a substantial quarrel among dualists themselves about the nAma, rUpa of their beloved Ishta dEvata-s & its dominance of one on another!!If we come to non-dualistic school of thought we give our own explanation what would be the truth is!! What shankara says as ultimate truth does not acceptable to rAmanuja, what shankara/rAmanuja say about truth is not acceptable to mAdhvAchArya..If the explanation of *destination/goal* itself carrying somuch different interpretations though based on common premise vEda-s, does this trick of common faith or All faith leading to same goal/destination work here prabhuji?? Hence, prabhuji, it would be futile exercise for us to find out whether there is any common denominator to scale the mountain ...when the *definition* of mountain itself is in question....catholic approach towards ultimate is good to hear & nice to read in the books...practically speaking everyone has his/her own unique way out to reach what he believes as *ultimate goal* Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2005 Report Share Posted January 24, 2005 As the recent discussion on Swami Dayananda Saraswati's statements - ring is gold and do not call it as ring and call it is as gold. Swamiji obviously talking from the point of goldsmith. Obviously his point is not to give importance to naama and ruupa but to the essence since we are all interested in the bottom line and not on the superficial aspects. He is emphasizing the 'apavaada' aspect of it. Should one emphasize the adhyaasa part? Yes, if one has questions of how can that be since I do not recognize the essence? No, if you are able to see the bottom line; why pay attention to unnecessary details on naama and ruupa. Rose by any name is Rose. It is not that Swamiji not aware of adyaasa but for a vedantin, for sadhak is is more important to see the substantive than superficials. Is it not what adhyaasa bhaashya all about to be able to see the real from apparent. praNAm Sri Sadananda prabhuji Hare Krishna my advance apologies if the below sounds sarcasm...Kindly note no offence is intended to anyone...absolutely no intention of pickings..its only a genuine query, But I think the term *essence* / *substance* / *substratum* etc is quite funny words to swamiji, we have read that he burst into cackle by hearing this word... For him there is no *upAdhi paricchinna jnAna*, no nAma/rUpa vikAra Hence no adhyAsa either as fabric=yarn, ring=gold...So there is absolutely no difference between substantive essence & superficials like nAma/rUpa. Kindly clarify how can anAtma vastu vivEka born out of avidyA can be explained taking adhyAsa bhAshya into consideration if we hold the view that avidyAkruta vikAra nAma/rUpa is equal to nirvikAri nirviShEsha brahman?? Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2005 Report Share Posted January 24, 2005 Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji and All Depite occasional disturbances, it is a pleasure reading your thoughts. I will try to present my view on why it is possible to seek unity in diversity and why me must. Again, I have to quote from my memory from a discourse of swami Tejomayananda of Chinmaya mission. He said, when people try to compare paths or religions, they always start with 'what is the difference between the two paths - say hinduism and Christianity?' . If only we start asking 'what is common between the two' our whole world view and vision will change. If I were to ask for differences everyone will write chapters and volumes. If I were to ask someone to present all that is common there may be a few diffidently muttered sentences! some more thoughts to share marked below your notes ----In advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote: > > In this larger context we > all have no reservations and we profess agreement that all Faiths > (religions) are true ? in the spirit of the Master, Ramakrishna. > And we quote very often the Gita shloka: *yo yo yAm yAm tanuM > bhaktaH *. But when it comes nearer home regarding the schools of > Vedanta, we tend to slip into what verges on the dogmatic. > > Humble praNAms Sri Prof. VK prabhuji: > > prabhuji, no doubt, realisation of * truth* is a common purpose and all > faiths (religions) are leading to *that* same goal??!! But what we are > seeing today?? The fundamental problem in this direction is, do we really > have universally/unanimously acceptable definition of *Truth* which we are > all eager to realise through *All faiths*??IMHO the answer is big NO!! I > think if the definition of *truth* is one & the same among aspirants & if > they strive to realise what has been *commonly* accepted as truth...then I > think what Sri rAmakrishna quoted above would comply!! But again, as most > of us know how buddhists ascribe all to momentary consciousness & ultimate > absolute voidness (vijnAna/khsNika/ShUnya)!! If we approach the *truth* > through dualistic perspective, the aspirants in that school think that > their realisation of *truth* ends in serving the auspicious form of their > Ishta > dEvata (beloved god) through attaining sArUpya, sAlOkya, sAyujya krama > mukti....again there is a substantial quarrel among dualists themselves > about the nAma, rUpa of their beloved Ishta dEvata-s & its dominance of one Sridhar -I can only think thus. Let vaishnava's seek to reach the lotus feet of lord vishnu, let Acharya shankara's followers with some contradicting versions seek to realize the state of being brahman, let some other schools seek absolute void - each will still reach the same Truth. Quest for Truth is what is common to all. Why Should one keep looking over the shoulder and keep lamenting about people who are walking in a different direction on a different road? To re-iterate, on the basis of one's evolution, vasana structure etc. one can be on a path or sadhana that best appeals to one's heart. finding faults and contradictions along the way only snares the intellect and ties it more firmly to the world of delusion? > on another!!If we come to non-dualistic school of thought we give our own > explanation what would be the truth is!! What shankara says as ultimate > truth does not acceptable to rAmanuja, what shankara/rAmanuja say about > truth is not acceptable to mAdhvAchArya..If the explanation of > *destination/goal* itself carrying somuch different interpretations though > based on common premise vEda-s, does this trick of common faith or All > faith leading to same goal/destination work here prabhuji?? Hence, > prabhuji, it would be futile exercise for us to find out whether there is > any common denominator to scale the mountain ...when the *definition* of > mountain itself is in > question....catholic approach towards ultimate is good to hear & nice to > read in the books...practically speaking everyone has his/her own unique > way out to reach what he believes as *ultimate goal* Here I beg to differ. there are saints who not just taught us to see unity but lived and showed how it is so - Shirdi Saibaba,Sri Ramakrishna PArahamsa, Kabir das, nagore andavar, mahatma gandhi - I am sure there are many more. However if it gives us 'more kick' to see differences and fightand quarrel and retain our individuality that is also his leela probably! > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > bhaskar Many namsakarams Sridhar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 24, 2005 Report Share Posted January 24, 2005 Namaste all. The following is known to all; I am just summarizing what is known to all. The mainline or the source conveys that the following are true:- A (eg. Karma-yoga) B C D E F Tradition#1 takes A,B Tradition#2 takes B,C,D Tradition#3 takes A,B,C,D,E,F Tradition#4 takes F so on. This is perfectly fine as we all know. The problem comes when someone from#2 says that 'E' is wrong. I will not get into why this happens. As SridharJi stated, it is wonderful that we have so many ideas and this diversity makes it all the more interesting. In any of the above traditions 1,2,3,4,5...it will be great to go into the depths of any of them. Instead, one's intellect, as Shree VKji suggested, goes into a crisis for knowledge and goes in search horizontally. Fr eg. Tradition#1 has only 2 things and to go horizontally, it has to get into workings of other traditions. The first thing it might do is to say that 'C', 'D' are wrong. #4 might think that this is great until #2 eventually exhasuts the list and comes to 'F'. About taking the help of Scriptures that is being discussed:- when all things are seen equal and when the rational mind takes precedance over bias, quoting of Scriptures will not be needed. In addition to sources of esoteric knowledge, Scriptures also play the dual role of a policeman. Fortunately, every religion and tradition has Scriptures. Love & Regards, Raghava ______________________ India Matrimony: Find your partner online. http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2005 Report Share Posted January 25, 2005 praNAms Sri Sridhar prabhuji Hare Krishna Kindly dont think I am too much argumentative...just few additional thoughts!!! Sridhar prabhuji I can only think thus. Let vaishnava's seek to reach the lotus feet of lord vishnu, let Acharya shankara's followers with some contradicting versions seek to realize the state of being brahman, let some other schools seek absolute void - each will still reach the same Truth. bhaskar : What would be an unambiguous definition of this *same truth* prabhuji?? it differs from path to path or religion to religion or within the same religion one darShana to another is it not?? We, as vaidiks (followers of vEda dharma) say, to determine the *nature of truth* ShAstra is the antya pramANa...But holding this antya pramANa as the common premise our AchArya traya-s interpreting the *same truth* differently...this is what in my opinion main hindrance to assert 'all roads lead to Rome'!!! coz. the very definition of Rome being interpreted differently by different pointers!! Sridhar prabhuji: Quest for Truth is what is common to all. bhaskar : Yes, I agree...the quest for truth, the titIkSha, the intensity to realize what is believed *as truth* is same in all sincere aspirants... Sridhar prabhuji: Why Should one keep looking over the shoulder and keep lamenting about people who are walking in a different direction on a different road? To re-iterate, on the basis of one's evolution, vasana structure etc. one can be on a path or sadhana that best appeals to one's heart. finding faults and contradictions along the way only snares the intellect and ties it more firmly to the world of delusion? bhaskar : Again I agree with this, fanatic approach towards truth is not acceptable .....but it does not anyway mean that being a vaidik, one should endorse *all avaidik* paths!! which are those avaidik paths?? shankara clarifies it in sUtra bhAshya. Sridhar prabhuji: Here I beg to differ. there are saints who not just taught us to see unity but lived and showed how it is so - Shirdi Saibaba,Sri Ramakrishna PArahamsa, Kabir das, nagore andavar, mahatma gandhi - I am sure there are many more. bhaskar : Kindly pardon me prabhuji, I am nowhere qualified enough to pass on any comment on those noble souls...but I can say from their biographies that their realisation of truth happened in the manner in which they approached the truth!! take for example SaNta Kabir Das, he did realised & been with constant association with his beloved lord rAma & for him rAma is the ultimate truth...nothing else but shaiva saints Shiv bhagavan occupies the place of rAma as ultimate truth..for Hare Krishna & dvaita dArshanika-s it is Hari, and Hari ONLY sarvOttama & other gods are demi gods!!!...Sri rAmakrishna paramahaMsa did realised kALi mAta as he approached *ultimate truth* with bAla bhAva..& had to cut divine form of his beloved mAta with the sword of knowledge to attain *nirvikalpa samAdhi*, & next when he pursued path of Christianity he had the darshan of Jesus the Christ!! After realising all this he said *truth* is ONE & the same in all faiths!! but what is that *common truth* that he perceived in all religions & all faiths?? Again we as vaidiks have to go back to shrutis, The christian followers of rAmakriShNa go back to Holy Bible to understand the *common truth* that paramahamsa talking, muslim followers of rAmakrishNa obviously refer what Holy Quran offers as ultimate truth!! digging this issue further gives more complications ..I shall stop here...what I am trying to say here is "The problem itself is not clear for us BUT we are simply saying *this is the correct solution* for this problem (??) Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2005 Report Share Posted January 25, 2005 Namaste Sridhar and All, thank you for your interesting message... many different path and ways to choose..... many different people trying to find out the "right one"... maybe there are as many path as there are people.... it become "dangerous" when one think that one path is better then another one.... even wars were caused because of this in the past....and still now....and maybe in the future.... this "differences" in possible ways and path....specially in an "advaita" Group .....should cause no emotions.....but could create happiness in enjoying the "many various faces"...of the one and only Brahman.... shouldn't it ?.... who teached the truth...when exactly....and where...and why?.... i believe that the truth is "teached" by our own Self....at every moment.... it's the mind who agree with it....or not.... the Self include whole of truth....whole of all "Systems"....whole of the scriptures......whole of the own Being....... and All Beings..... nobody and nothing is very far from truth.....but the mind can sometimes creates "worlds of differences".....means, distance to truth some Saints of the past didn't fear to reach "Nirvikalpa Samadhi"....because it's possible that the whole "body intellect mind system" find an end in this state....and "die".... some realised persons "survived" this state......maybe to teach us about the truth....... about the deep inner wish for truth one can have.....even when it's possible to leave the body....by this endless inner Love. wish you All to stay ....and continue to have some nice talk and teaching.....by the Self.... love and peace Marc advaitin, "asridhar19" <asridhar19> wrote: > > Namaste Bhaskar Prabhuji and All > Depite occasional disturbances, it is a pleasure reading your > thoughts. I will try to present my view on why it is possible to seek > unity in diversity and why me must. > Again, I have to quote from my memory from a discourse of swami > Tejomayananda of Chinmaya mission. He said, when people try to compare > paths or religions, they always start with 'what is the difference > between the two paths - say hinduism and Christianity?' . > If only we start asking 'what is common between the two' our whole > world view and vision will change. > > If I were to ask for differences everyone will write chapters and > volumes. If I were to ask someone to present all that is common there > may be a few diffidently muttered sentences! > > some more thoughts to share marked below your notes > > ----In advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote: > > > > In this larger context we > > > > all have no reservations and we profess agreement that all Faiths > > (religions) are true ? in the spirit of the Master, Ramakrishna. > > And we quote very often the Gita shloka: *yo yo yAm yAm tanuM > > bhaktaH *. But when it comes nearer home regarding the schools of > > Vedanta, we tend to slip into what verges on the dogmatic. > > > > Humble praNAms Sri Prof. VK prabhuji: > > > > prabhuji, no doubt, realisation of * truth* is a common purpose and all > > faiths (religions) are leading to *that* same goal??!! But what we are > > seeing today?? The fundamental problem in this direction is, do we > really > > have universally/unanimously acceptable definition of *Truth* which > we are > > all eager to realise through *All faiths*??IMHO the answer is big > NO!! I > > think if the definition of *truth* is one & the same among aspirants > & if > > they strive > to realise what has been *commonly* accepted as truth...then I > > think what Sri rAmakrishna quoted above would comply!! But again, as > most > > of us know how buddhists ascribe all to momentary consciousness & > ultimate > > absolute voidness (vijnAna/khsNika/ShUnya)!! If we approach the *truth* > > through dualistic perspective, the aspirants in that school think that > > their realisation of *truth* ends in serving the auspicious form of > their > > Ishta > > dEvata (beloved god) through attaining sArUpya, sAlOkya, sAyujya krama > > mukti....again there is a substantial quarrel among dualists themselves > > about the nAma, rUpa of their beloved Ishta dEvata-s & its dominance > of one > Sridhar -I can only think thus. Let vaishnava's seek to reach the > lotus feet of lord vishnu, let Acharya shankara's followers with some > contradicting versions seek to realize the state of being brahman, let > some other schools seek absolute void - each will still reach the > same Truth. Quest for Truth is what is common to all. > Why Should one keep looking over the shoulder and keep lamenting about > people who are walking in a different direction on a different road? > To re-iterate, on the basis of one's evolution, vasana structure etc. > one can be on a path or sadhana that best appeals to one's heart. > finding faults and contradictions along the way only snares the > intellect and ties it more firmly to the world of delusion? > > > on another!!If we come to non-dualistic school of thought we give > our own > > explanation what would be the truth is!! What shankara says as ultimate > > truth does not acceptable to rAmanuja, what shankara/rAmanuja say about > > truth is not acceptable to mAdhvAchArya..If the explanation of > > *destination/goal* itself carrying somuch different interpretations > though > > based on common premise vEda-s, does this trick of common faith or All > > faith leading to same goal/destination work here prabhuji?? Hence, > > prabhuji, it would be futile exercise for us to find out whether > there is > > any common denominator to scale the mountain ...when the *definition* of > > mountain itself is in > > question....catholic approach towards ultimate is good to hear & nice to > > read in the books...practically speaking everyone has his/her own unique > > way out to reach what he believes as *ultimate goal* > > Here I beg to differ. there are saints who not just taught us to see > unity but lived and showed how it is so - Shirdi Saibaba,Sri > Ramakrishna PArahamsa, Kabir das, nagore andavar, mahatma gandhi - I > am sure there are many more. > However if it gives us 'more kick' to see differences and fightand > quarrel and retain our individuality that is also his leela probably! > > > > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! > > bhaskar > Many namsakarams > Sridhar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2005 Report Share Posted January 25, 2005 Dear Sri Madathilji, You wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let us not therefore build prison cells, by quoting certain words from the sea of bhAshyAs, to confine and constrict the one and only egalitarian thought of the world that truly emancipates. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no question of building prison cells. But since pointing out differences between different interpretations of the shastras quite obvioulsy was important to Shankara, I can´t see why we should just overlook such differences. Is Shankara just talking nonsence when he says that this or that way of interpretation is wrong, because it will make it more difficult or even impossible to attain brahmajnana? You wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let us instead raise rainbows of understanding and make an earnest beginning by accepting the fact that others could also be right sometimes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, and I do believe that such an understanding would be possible only if we respect the views of others, regardless if we find them correct or faulty. True respect is to respect those who deviates from our own views. But trying to make an "all roads lead to the same goal"-philosophy out of Shankara´s advaita is something else. Such an attitude seems to imply that all people must share the same view or vision in order to live in harmony. In my own opinion, we should try to respect other peoples view, instead of twisting those views into being a part of our own philosphy and vice versa. As advaitins, we should respect and honour Vaishnavas, Shaivas, Christians, Buddhists, Moslems etc. etc. in spite of the fact that their philosophy and their way of liberation/salvation is different from our own. Warmest regards Stig Lundgren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2005 Report Share Posted January 25, 2005 Dear Sri Chittaranjanji, You wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it is not. Shankara Advaita encompasses all religions. It is the Ultimate Truth that subsumes all paths. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But to say that advaita encompasses all religions (by the way hardly an uncontroversial statment to those following other religions :-)) is one thing. To say that all religions lead to the same goal is another. As an advaitin I agree that other religions could be viewed as steps leading in the direction towards Advaita Vedanta alas not yet reaching it. However, we should keep in mind that most religions doesn´t even touch upon the very core of advaita, namely the discrimination between the self and not-self, and the erradication of ignorance. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That "all faiths are true" does not mean that all faiths are Advaita. But they are true as darshanas that show a certain vision of Reality. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If this is what you mean with "all faiths are true", then I fully agree with you. Yes, they show a part of reality. But this is not to say that they lead to the very same goal, for instance that Christian Protestantism in itself would lead to brahmajnana and liberation in life (jivanmukti). Moreover, no Christian would claim that either! You wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> While other faiths may not lead to the ultimate non-dual truth, Advaita Vedanta accepts them as leading upto a stage on the road to truth. They have their efficacy at certain stages in the evolution of the soul's 'ascent' to Truth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes! Beautiful said! Warmest regards Stig Lundgren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2005 Report Share Posted January 25, 2005 Namaste Shri Bhaskar and All advaitin, bhaskar.yr@i... wrote: > > praNAms Sri Sridhar prabhuji > Hare Krishna > > Kindly dont think I am too much argumentative...just few additional > thoughts!!! Sidhar 2 -Will try to be crisp with my thoughts that arise as i read yours snip > > bhaskar : > > What would be an unambiguous definition of this *same truth* prabhuji?? it > differs from path to path or religion to religion or within the same snip n continue > opinion main hindrance to assert 'all roads lead to Rome'!!! coz. the very > definition of Rome being interpreted differently by different pointers!! Sridhar 2 - *same Truth* is not defined even in advaita - there can only be indications that it is not Asat, not jada not dukha . Sri Ramakrishna's example is that one man drinks water and calls it 'jal' another calls it 'pani' , another calls it 'water' and so on. It will be naive for any one of them to maintain that my 'pani' is not his 'water'. This is the common truth I am trying to talk about. Snip > bhaskar : > > Again I agree with this, fanatic approach towards truth is not acceptable > ....but it does not anyway mean that being a vaidik, one should endorse > *all avaidik* paths!! which are those avaidik paths?? shankara clarifies > it in sUtra bhAshya. > Snip Sridhar 2 Need not endorse. Before we can pass judge 'other' we have to understand ourselves by progressing further in whatever path we have chosen. After we understand ourself well, yes we will get the commandment from the lord to comment on others if necessary. > Snip > what is that *common truth* that he perceived in all religions & all > faiths?? Again we as vaidiks have to go back to shrutis, The christian > followers of rAmakriShNa go back to Holy Bible to understand the *common > truth* that paramahamsa talking, muslim followers of rAmakrishNa obviously > refer what Holy Quran offers as ultimate truth!! digging this issue > further gives more complications .. Snip Sridhar 2- I will try and post a beautiful passage that addresses this in the next day or two Thanks Bhaskarji for indlging me just that bit more... Many Namaskarams to all Sridhar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2005 Report Share Posted January 25, 2005 Dear Sri Stig-ji, advaitin, "Stig Lundgren" <slu@b...> wrote: > > There is an interpretation of Shankara Advaita that sees no > > contradiction between Shankara's prasthana traya bhashyas and the > > other texts attributed to him, just as there is an interpretation > > that sees a contradiction between them. > > The argument, that amongst the texts attributed to Shankara > > some of them contradict others, is based on a certain > > interpretation of Shankara Advaita. > Actually, I would say this "certain interpretation" gets > support from Shankara himself. Actually, I would say that the contrary interpretation (the one which I see in the bhashyas) gets support from Shankara himself (even when the sources are restricted only to the prasthana traya bhashyas). You see, Stigji, these arguments are all circular - they are based on the assumption that the way each one of us understands the bashyas is the correct one. I respect your views, but I think that they are not correct, even as you think that my views are not correct. Well, that is the way it is. I just think that we shouldn't be insisting that a conclusion that is premised on a particular interpretation (which has not gained universal acceptance) is the right one. Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2005 Report Share Posted January 25, 2005 Sanjay Srivastava wrote: > > > "The tolerance and openness of Hinduism has been > historically unprecedented among the wider community of world > religions, universally acclaimed, and very well attested." > > I am not sure if anyone born as a Sudra will attest to the above. > Hinduism > though tolerant for outsiders was at the same time intensely > intolerant and > even cruel to some of its own members-- both in theory as well as in > practice. This riddle has always perplexed me and I would like to know > the > views of learned members of this forum on this. > Dear Sanjayji: I am not a scholar but think that Hinduism is a broad umbrella for many schools of thoughts. Others more knowledgeable can correct me but the common bond among Hindus (it seems to me) is that they believe in the authority of the Vedas and accept the Bhagavad Gita as a holy scripture. However, the interpretation of these scriptures differs. For example, Mahatma Gandhi's reading of the Gita and its meaning is different than that of the Hare Krishna Swamis. However both are Hindus. Also Gandhiji was against the caste system but many Hindus believe in it. But regardless, they are all considered Hindus. Perhaps someone else with more scholarship can comment on this this as well. Thanks. Love to all Harsha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2005 Report Share Posted January 25, 2005 sir, all religious faiths teach their followers some sort of devotion or bhakti. even in advaita by bhakti many great people have realised the self. so there is no difference in the other faiths which are not based on advaita. even adishankara stresses the importance of bhakti in his bhaja govindam and other works. In bhakti para bhakti or higher Bhakti is considered the noblest; in yoga para yoga is the best; untrammeled Bliss in the Self is the great height of Gnana or Knowledge. By Bhakti is meant the clinging to the Supreme One, giving up all attachments to the body, life and worldly objects. Shining as the inner light of consciousness in all beings and illuminating all the phenomenal universe, the Supreme Lord is its One Support and Power behind it. To stand clinging to Him, knowing Him and seeing Him as immanent in and fully pervading all beings, like ghee in milk, fire and heat in wood, oil in sesame is called Para Bhakti or higher Bhakti. Outer and external bhakti or devotion is evidenced in nine well-known forms such as hearing, singing and constant remembrance of Lord's names, forms and glories, service to all living beings seeing Him in all, image-worship, prostration, devotion as a servant, love as a friend and surrender to Him of one's all from his body to the soul. To those who have climbed to the height of Para Bhakti, the Supreme reveals Itself by Itself and this phase is known as Para Yoga or higher Yoga. cdr b vaidyanathan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2005 Report Share Posted January 25, 2005 Namaste Stigji. Thanks very much for your reply. I can agree to all that you said except the following highlighted in under portions excerpted from your post: _________________________ >Is Shankara just talking nonsence when he says that this > or that way of interpretation is wrong, because it will make it more > difficult or even impossible to attain brahmajnana? [No, Stigji, I can never even imagine accusing Sankara of talking nonsense. I don't have the capacity to interpret his interpretations on my own. However, I find that those who have the capacity - i.e. our teachers - have interpreted and continue to interpret them differently. Which version will I accept? To me, the intelligent way out of the situation is to go with the one that is most universal in its analysis. The reason for such an approach is that we are talking advaita - the knowledge that encompasses all. The interpretation that I accept shall not, therefore, be self-defeating with regard to its universality but, at the same time, should enable an effective advaitic samanwaya without leaving loose ends or without erecting dwaita. You can call this a rule of thumb based on my own sAdhana and reflection.] _____________________________ > > Yes, and I do believe that such an understanding would be possible only if > we respect the views of others, regardless if we find them correct or > faulty. True respect is to respect those who deviates from our own views. > But trying to make an "all roads lead to the same goal"-philosophy out of > Shankara´s advaita is something else. Such an attitude seems to imply that > all people must share the same view or vision in order to live in harmony.....>>>>> [it is not a case of "all roads lead to the same goal". I agree that that type of an explanation is utterly unrealistic and fanciful. "All roads shall necessarily end at the same goal" has more hope and truth in it. We can hold on to it without relinquishing or jeopardizing Sankara's thoughts. Besides, such a view permits respect and tolerance for others where it is not mandatory to share the same view or vision for harmonious existence. True Advaita cannot brook intolerance. Where is the question of intolerance (or even tolerance!) in an understanding that inexorably dissolves the individual in the one-without-a-second Universal?] _______________________ PraNAms. Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2005 Report Share Posted January 26, 2005 respected scholars, whether it is at home, or an office or a factory, or a nation or a people---there always exists categorisations and polarisations. it is a matter of extreme distress that casteism in hinduism degenerated , over a period of time, into unpardonable prejudices and even untouchability. however, the vedas , upanishads, and other scriptures have not accorded such practices any recognition. the "purusha sooktam" which is commonly quoted as favouring the categorisation, begins with " sahasra sheersha purusha --", describing the lord as the one with the head/face of every living being whether it be the high born, low born, the dog or pig or donkey or amoeba. this means that anybody who worships the lord worships all these creatures! most of the ancient rishies were not " high born".... vyaasa the foremost of the gurus was born of a fisherwoman, valmiki was a hunter, suta was a suta, the list can be endless.... amongst the 63 saivite saints, a predominant majority are not " brahmins". same is true of the 12 vaisnavite saints. the degeneration came into being over the last few hundred years, and is disppearing remarkably fast . except in pockets of rural interiors, discrimination is rare. ======================= now, let us look at what other faiths and peoples have done to take care of the ups and downs amongst their brethren.: the lords of the world, the supreme moralists of today, the europeans excommuniacated all their undesirables to the americas. they in turn mercilessly slaughtered every single native " indian" they could find, and today we find the few tribes who have survived the extermination are a " protected species". the lions and the tigers and the cola bears and the african elephants are more in number than these hapless beings.same is true of the " aborigines" of the newest continent , australia . the incessant wars between the " peoples of the book" are continuing into the present millennium, though in different forms. the attempt to exterminate the jews to purify the european blood , resulting in the holocast affecting 6 million jews is of too recent history for them to disown. the country forming our western neighbour will disintegrate into pieces in utter hate,if we take away india, more hate against whom keeps them united. it is the intolerant animosity between the different denominations amongst them that keeps the middle east in turmoil and backwardness. the inhuman intolerance and running wars and destructions occuring in ireland is only between two close brotherhoods of the "noble","purified", "race". ============================== all this is not to defend the degeneration that occurred in the hindu psyche over the last 400 to 500 years. hinduism is over 20,000 /30,000 years old, and this phase is already showing signs of disapperaing much sooner than later. if the hindu continues to accept the distorted judgements of the west against him, and does not react against the rampant conversions and proliferations effectively, he too will soon be " HOLOCASTED", beware!!!. ====================== with apologies for having strayed into the body of august scholors, a.v.krshnan. --- Harsha wrote: > Sanjay Srivastava wrote: > > > > > > > "The tolerance and openness of Hinduism has been > > historically unprecedented among the wider > community of world > > religions, universally acclaimed, and very well > attested." > > > > I am not sure if anyone born as a Sudra will > attest to the above. > > Hinduism > > though tolerant for outsiders was at the same time > intensely > > intolerant and > > even cruel to some of its own members-- both in > theory as well as in > > practice. This riddle has always perplexed me and > I would like to know > > the > > views of learned members of this forum on this. > > > Dear Sanjayji: > > I am not a scholar but think that Hinduism is a > broad umbrella for many > schools of thoughts. Others more knowledgeable can > correct me but the > common bond among Hindus (it seems to me) is that > they believe in the > authority of the Vedas and accept the Bhagavad Gita > as a holy scripture. > However, the interpretation of these scriptures > differs. For example, > Mahatma Gandhi's reading of the Gita and its meaning > is different than > that of the Hare Krishna Swamis. However both are > Hindus. Also Gandhiji > was against the caste system but many Hindus believe > in it. But > regardless, they are all considered Hindus. Perhaps > someone else with > more scholarship can comment on this this as well. > Thanks. > > Love to all > Harsha > > > _________ ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2005 Report Share Posted January 26, 2005 Namaste a.v.krshnan, thank you for your message.... i can understand your emotions about what happened in the past.... since endless times people fight each.... this give us the best chance to learn about....and try to "do it better".....with less ignorance and hate...... the criminal acts of some people can't be "understood" and accepted by a deep spiritual mind.........i hope so...... it's better to "understand" the truth.... thats why we are "here"...... the truth include many horrible stories of the past...yes......but also include endless positiv stories...... by a mind attached to the good ones.....the future could be better...... the future is just as good as we think about.... let's hope love and peace Marc advaitin, av krshnan <avkrshnan> wrote: > respected scholars, > whether it is at home, or an > office or a factory, or a nation or a people---there > always exists categorisations and polarisations. > it is a matter of extreme distress > that casteism in hinduism degenerated , over a period > of time, into unpardonable prejudices and even > untouchability. > however, the vedas , upanishads, > and other scriptures have not accorded such practices > any recognition. > the "purusha sooktam" which is > commonly quoted as favouring the categorisation, > begins with " sahasra sheersha purusha --", describing > the lord as the one with the head/face of every living > being whether it be the high born, low born, the dog > or pig or donkey or amoeba. this means that anybody > who worships the lord worships all these creatures! > most of the ancient rishies were > not " high born".... vyaasa the foremost of the > gurus was born of a fisherwoman, valmiki was a > hunter, suta was a suta, the list can be endless.... > amongst the 63 saivite saints, a > predominant majority are not " brahmins". same is > true of the 12 vaisnavite saints. > the degeneration came into being > over the last few hundred years, and is disppearing > remarkably fast . except in pockets of rural > interiors, discrimination is rare. > ======================= > now, let us look at what other faiths > and peoples have done to take care of the ups and > downs amongst their brethren.: > the lords of the world, the supreme > moralists of today, the europeans excommuniacated > all their undesirables to the americas. they in turn > mercilessly slaughtered every single native " indian" > they could find, and today we find the few tribes > who have survived the extermination are a " protected > species". > the lions and the tigers and the cola > bears and the african elephants are more in number > than these hapless beings.same is true of the > " aborigines" of the newest continent , australia . > the incessant wars between the " peoples > of the book" are continuing into the present > millennium, though in different forms. > the attempt to exterminate the jews to > purify the european blood , resulting in the holocast > affecting 6 million jews is of too recent history for > them to disown. > the country forming our western neighbour > will disintegrate into pieces in utter hate,if we > take away india, more hate against whom keeps them > united. > it is the intolerant animosity between > the different denominations amongst them that keeps > the middle east in turmoil and backwardness. > the inhuman intolerance and running wars > and destructions occuring in ireland is only between > two close brotherhoods of the "noble","purified", > "race". > ============================== > all this is not to defend the > degeneration that occurred in the hindu psyche over > the last 400 to 500 years. hinduism is over 20,000 > /30,000 years old, and this phase is already showing > signs of disapperaing much sooner than later. > if the hindu continues to accept the > distorted judgements of the west against him, and does > not react against the rampant conversions and > proliferations effectively, he too will soon be " > HOLOCASTED", beware!!!. > ====================== > with apologies for having strayed into > the body of august scholors, > a.v.krshnan. > --- Harsha wrote: > > Sanjay Srivastava wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > "The tolerance and openness of Hinduism has been > > > historically unprecedented among the wider > > community of world > > > religions, universally acclaimed, and very well > > attested." > > > > > > I am not sure if anyone born as a Sudra will > > attest to the above. > > > Hinduism > > > though tolerant for outsiders was at the same time > > intensely > > > intolerant and > > > even cruel to some of its own members-- both in > > theory as well as in > > > practice. This riddle has always perplexed me and > > I would like to know > > > the > > > views of learned members of this forum on this. > > > > > Dear Sanjayji: > > > > I am not a scholar but think that Hinduism is a > > broad umbrella for many > > schools of thoughts. Others more knowledgeable can > > correct me but the > > common bond among Hindus (it seems to me) is that > > they believe in the > > authority of the Vedas and accept the Bhagavad Gita > > as a holy scripture. > > However, the interpretation of these scriptures > > differs. For example, > > Mahatma Gandhi's reading of the Gita and its meaning > > is different than > > that of the Hare Krishna Swamis. However both are > > Hindus. Also Gandhiji > > was against the caste system but many Hindus believe > > in it. But > > regardless, they are all considered Hindus. Perhaps > > someone else with > > more scholarship can comment on this this as well. > > Thanks. > > > > Love to all > > Harsha > > > > > > > > > > > > _________ > ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.